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

SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL

REPORT No. 12

1Stop Sign on Archwood Crescent at Dewey Drive, East Intersection Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

2No Standing Restriction on Metropolitan RoadWard 14 - Scarborough Wexford

3All-Way Stop - Eastpark Boulevard and Daphne RoadWard 15 - Scarborough City Centre

440 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit on Farmbrook Road, Nelson Street and Peking Road Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

5Twelve-Hour Parking Limit on Red River Crescent Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

6Permission to Extend Timeframe for1997/1998 Billboard Sign Permissions

7Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98026 Removal of a Holding Symbol (H) Mondeo Developments Inc., 740 Ellesmere Road Dorset Park Community, Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

8Draft Plan of Condominium Application C97031The Residences at Bamburgh Gate Inc. South-west Corner of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue Steeles Community, Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

9Request for Direction - Minor Variance Appeal SA178/98George and Katina Manakis, 21 Dobbin Road Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

10Joseph Furfari Investments Limited11159 Tapscott Road Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

11Acceptance of Service, Registered Plan 66M-2280Brumwell Street/Linderwood Drive North of Yulewood Gate Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek 16677

12Retaining Planner for Ontario Municipal Board Hearing2055-2069 Lawrence Avenue East Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford 16679

13Ontario Municipal Board Decision for Ontario Hydro Corridor, Graywood Lands, North of Highway 401 Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt 16680

14City-Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97021, 579 to 587 Kennedy Road Kennedy Park Community Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre 16686

15Official Plan Amendment Application P97024Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97062 Paul Viaros, 381-383 Birchmount Road Birchmount Park Employment District Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs 16691

16Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ980221234115 Ontario Limited, 2131 Lawrence Avenue East Wexford Employment District Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford 16695

17Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98020Green Desk Developments Inc., Claresholme Drive Highland Creek Community Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek 16703

18Official Plan Amendment Application SP98010Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98017699982 Ontario Ltd., 4730-4736 Sheppard Avenue East Marshalling Yard Employment District Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern 16707

19Official Plan Amendment Application SP1998016Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ1998033Zooview Development Ltd. & Zooview (East) Developments Ltd. North Side of Sheppard Avenue East, West of Hedge End Road

Rouge Community, Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

20Official Plan Amendment Application SP98015Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98027Shell Canada, 2650 Brimley Road Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

21Preliminary Evaluation Report

Official Plan Amendment Application SP1998019 Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ1998037 Monarch Construction Limited 5039 Finch Avenue and 2627 McCowan Road

Agincourt North Community

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

22Request for Fence By-law Exemption Ralph and Margaret Wright, 28 Sharbot Avenue Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

23Request for Fence By-law Exemption Joseph and Margaret Csizik, 4427 Lawrence Avenue East Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

24Naming of a Park to Commemorate Detective Constable William Hancox Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

25Request for Direction Minor Variance and Consent Appeal, 53 Minnacote Avenue, West Hill Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

26Request for Direction Street Lighting on Queensgrove Road Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

27Ontario Professional Planners Institute "Outstanding Planning Award"

28Other Items Considered by The Community Council

City of Toronto

REPORT No. 12

OF THE SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL

(from its meeting on December 1 and 9, 1998,

submitted by Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, Chair)

As Considered by

The Council of the City of Toronto

on December 16 and 17, 1998

1

Stop Sign on Archwood Crescent at Dewey Drive,

East Intersection Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To investigate the need to install a stop control on Archwood Crescent at Dewey Drive, east intersection.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

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

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

At the request of Councillor Kelly's office, on behalf of the Maryvale Community Association, staff investigated the need for an all-way stop control at the east intersection of Dewey Drive and Archwood Crescent.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Dewey Drive is a residential collector road while Archwood Crescent is a local residential roadway, located in the Maryvale Community to the southeast of the intersection of Ellesmere Road and Pharmacy Avenue. Archwood Crescent forms a "T" type intersection at its east intersection with Dewey Drive. An all-way stop control exists 114 metres to the east of this location where Archwood Crescent loops around to form a four way intersection at Dewey Drive.

Staff investigated this matter and applied our study results to the All-Way Stop Control Warrant, which revealed that the minimum requirements are far from being achieved. However, a stop sign northbound on Archwood Crescent at Dewey Drive would assist in defining the right-of-way at this type intersection and stopping motorists in advance of the sidewalk on Dewey Drive. The introduction of a stop control at this location will also provide area uniformity as the other streets intersecting Dewey Drive currently contain stop signs.

Conclusions:

Based on the results of staff investigations, a stop sign is recommended on Archwood Crescent at Dewey Drive, east intersection.

Contact Name:

Bruce Clayton

Supervisor, Traffic Investigations, Works and Emergency Services

Telephone: 396-7844 Fax: 396-5681

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

________

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2

IntersectionStop Street

Archwood Crescent andArchwood Crescent

Dewey Drive(East Intersection)

2

No Standing Restriction on Metropolitan Road

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To investigate the feasibility of replacing the No Parking Anytime restriction on both sides of Metropolitan Road with a No Standing Anytime restriction.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $800.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the standing restriction signs is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

A petition was submitted to Transportation Services representing 9 of the 12 businesses (75 percent) which have driveway access onto Metropolitan Road. This petition requested that the No Parking Anytime restriction be replaced with a No Standing Anytime restriction due to trucks standing on the street waiting for access to Zellers' warehouse. Two of the businesses not represented in this petition, 19 and 23 Metropolitan Road did not necessarily object to the proposal, they were simply not canvassed.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Metropolitan Road is an industrial road located immediately south of Highway 401, running east from Warden Avenue. A number of businesses exist on this street including Zellers' distribution centre located at the east limit of the road. Currently, although there is a No Parking Anytime restriction on both sides of the road, on numerous occasions we have observed trucks parked/stopped on both sides of the road. Some of these trucks are awaiting access to the Zellers' warehouse while others are parked unoccupied. With trucks parked on this street, it impedes access for other vehicles, especially large trucks, to the other businesses on the street.

When this issue was first brought to our attention in 1994, we did meet with Zellers' management to try to resolve this issue. Zellers' management did indicate that they would try to accommodate as much truck traffic on their own property as possible, and mentioned that as it was close to Christmas, we were observing the situation during a time of their heaviest demand.

We continued to receive complaints from other businesses in 1995 and again in 1997. On both occasions we did request police enforcement, however, we indicated that we were not willing to proceed with changing the existing signage without the support of the majority of businesses on the street. Recently, we again received a complaint from a business, however, this time we also received a petition with the support of the majority of other businesses on Metropolitan Road.

Conclusions:

Considering the support of the majority of business of the street, we can recommend that the No Parking Anytime restriction be replaced with a No Standing Anytime restriction. This will not only prevent trucks from waiting on the street for access to the Zellers' distribution centre, but will also increase the fine for those trucks in contravention of the restriction. We should emphasize that the current parking situation does have a significant impact on movements on this road for not only other businesses but also for other trucks destined to and from Zellers. We will continue to encourage Zellers to accommodate these trucks on their own property.

Contact Name:

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

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681

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

Appendix 1

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Rescinded

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

MetropolitanBothWardenEast Limit ofAnytime

RoadAvenueMetropolitan Road

________

Appendix 2

"No Standing"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

MetropolitanBothWardenEast Limit ofAnytime

RoadAvenueMetropolitan Road

3

All-Way Stop - Eastpark Boulevard and Daphne Road

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To investigate the need for all-way stop controls on Eastpark Boulevard.

Funding Sources:

The ($500.00 approximate) funds associated with the installation of the all-way stop signs is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the all-way stop control identified in Appendix 1 of this report be adopted; and

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

Background:

At the request of Councillor Duguid, on behalf of a resident living in the vicinity of Eastpark Boulevard, Transportation Services investigated concerns of speeding and traffic volumes on Eastpark Boulevard. Also requested was the installation of all-way stop controls on the roads that intersect Eastpark Boulevard. Of specific concern was a perceived increase in traffic due to the increased popularity of the redeveloped Cedarbrae Mall.

Discussion:

Eastpark Boulevard is a residential collector road located south of Lawrence Avenue and runs between Bellamy Road North and Markham Road. A 40 kilometre per hour speed limit is posted on this road. Cedarbrae Collegiate Institute is located at the intersection of Markham Road and Eastpark Boulevard and Cedarbrook Community Centre is located to the southwest of the school. Cedarbrae Mall, located to the north of Eastpark Boulevard, is currently being reconstructed and from what we understand will be completed in May 1999.

Speed Studies:

An automatic 24-hour speed study conducted on Wednesday, September 23, 1998 on Eastpark Boulevard east of Felicity Drive, east intersection, revealed that most motorists, 82 percent, travelled within a "tolerable speed range", 1 kilometre per hour to 50 kilometres per hour. However, cases of excessive speeding were recorded.

A brief summary of our study results is as follows:

We must highlight that this recorded 24-hour vehicle volume of 1,779 substantiates that Eastpark Boulevard, even with some short cut traffic, is still functioning well within the traffic parameters of a residential collector road, i.e., 1,500 to 3,500 vehicles per day.

All-Way Stop Control:

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

Traffic studies conducted on Thursday, October 22, 1998 on Eastpark Boulevard at Felicity Drive, at Felicity Drive/Orville Road and at Daphne Road produced the following results which illustrate that the Warrant's vehicle volume requirements are only satisfied for the intersection of Eastpark Boulevard and Daphne Road:

Note:Although the intersection of Eastpark Boulevard and Daphne Road is a four-way location, for the technical requirements of the Warrant, it is being considered as a three-way intersection since the south leg is a driveway (not a public roadway).

Besides the vehicle volume requirements, the AWSC Warrant stipulates twelve conditions where this type of control should not be used. Two of these conditions relate to this request. These two conditions are as follows:

(1)"Where any other traffic device controlling right-of-way is permanently in place within 250metres". This distance requirement specifically relates to the west intersection of Eastpark Boulevard and Felicity Drive. The stop sign on Eastpark Boulevard at Bellamy Road North is located only 45 metres west of this intersection.

(2)"As a means of deterring the movement of through traffic in a residential area". This condition relates to the resident's request for the installation of all-way stop controls on Eastpark Boulevard, i.e., to maintain Eastpark Boulevard as a residential street and not a short cut to the new mall.

In addition, for the two intersections of Eastpark Boulevard and Felicity Drive, the following outlines the main reasons why the installation of unwarranted all-way stop controls are not recommended:

(i)The stop sign is one of the most valuable and effective control devices available to the Traffic Engineering Profession, when used at the right location and under the right conditions.

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

With recorded vehicle volume splits for the highest hour recorded of 90/10 and 91/9 for the west and east intersections of Eastpark Boulevard and Felicity Drive respectively, we would anticipate a high level of stop sign disobedience if stop signs were installed on Eastpark Boulevard at these locations as motorists would rarely encounter traffic on Felicity Drive or Orville Road.

In addition, unwarranted stop signs often result in an increase in speeds by motorists to make up time for what they perceive as unnecessary delays.

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

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

The collision history at these three intersections reveals one reported collision over the past five years for which we have complete data, January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1996. This collision occurred in 1996 at the intersection of Eastpark Boulevard and Felicity Drive/Orville Road. Fortunately, in this incident, there were no injuries.

Individually each of the reasons for which we oppose unwarranted all-way stop controls is important. In combination, they should not be ignored.

Intersection Characteristics:

We should also mention that the surrounding layout of the two intersections of Eastpark Boulevard and Felicity Drive reveal that if all-way stop controls were installed at these locations, motorists would now be required to stop in the front of homes in the area of the intersections. We have, in the past, received requests from residents for the removal of stop signs in front of their homes. Some residents feel that these controls will not only spoil the appearance of their homes but they will also lose some privacy due to vehicles continually stopping in this area.

Conclusions:

In summary, our traffic studies reveal that an all-way stop is warranted at the intersection of EastparkBoulevard and Daphne Road. In addition, our speed study also reveals that some excessive speeding is occurring on Eastpark Boulevard. Therefore, we have requested selective police enforcement of the 40 kilometre per hour speed limit.

Contact Name:

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

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681

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

________

Appendix 1

"Compulsory Stops"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2

IntersectionStop Street

Eastpark BoulevardEastpark Boulevard

and Daphne Road

4

40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit on

Farmbrook Road, Nelson Street and Peking Road

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To address the need for a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit on Farmbrook Road, Nelson Street and Peking Road.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $1,200.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the speed limit signs is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget Account No. 20000-70200-72240.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

Transportation Services received a request from a resident of Peking Road, to investigate speeding and parking on this street. Staff investigated not only the speeds on Peking Road but also on Farmbrook Road and Nelson Street.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Farmbrook Road, Nelson Street and Peking Road are located between Bellamy Road and Markham Road, north of Eglinton Avenue. Cedarbrook Junior Public School is located at the intersection of Farmbrook Road and Nelson Street. A pedestrian crossover assists pedestrians crossing Nelson Street at this intersection. Appropriate School Area signs are posted in advance of this school.

40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit Warrant:

The justification for the introduction of a 40 kilometre per hour speed limit on a roadway in the former City of Scarborough is based on a technical warrant established by Road and Traffic Services, and adopted by the former Scarborough Council. The combination of Nelson Street and Peking Road as a continuous street reveals that the warrant requirements are achieved on these two roads. On Farmbrook Road, while the volume during our one day study does not quite meet the 1,000 vehicles per day requirement, we realize that it is close enough that traffic volume fluctuations may result in the volume exceeding 1,000 in any particular day.

Our speed study results are as follows:

Collision History:

A review of the collision history on Farmbrook Road, Nelson Street and Peking Road for the three year period from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1997 is illustrated in the following table.

No specific collision pattern was established.

Conclusions:

Considering the 40 kilometre speed limit warrant is achieved, and to emphasize this speed to motorists in the vicinity of Cedarbrook Public School, this speed limit is recommended on Farmbrook Road, Nelson Street and Peking Road.

Contact Name:

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

Telephone: 396-7844; Fax: 396-5681

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

________

Appendix 1

"40 Kilometre Per Hour Speed Limit"

Regulation to Be Enacted

Column 1Column 2

HighwayFromTo

Farmbrook RoadBellamy Road NorthPorchester Drive

Nelson StreetBellamy Road NorthPeking Road

Peking RoadBlakemanor BoulevardNelson Street

5

Twelve-Hour Parking Limit on Red River Crescent

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998 struck out and referred this Clause back to the Scarborough Community Council for further consideration.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends:

(1)that the recommendation contained in the following report be struck out; and

(2)that the twelve hour parking limit on Red River Crescent not be approved.

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

Purpose:

To investigate the feasibility of installing a twelve hour parking limit on one side of Red River Crescent.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The $1,500.00 (approximate) funds associated with the installation of the parking restriction signs is available in the Transportation Services 1998 Budget, Account No. 20000-70200-72260.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

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

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

Council Reference/Background/History:

A petition was submitted to the Clerk's Department representing 78 of the 103 homes (76 percent) on RedRiver Crescent, requesting a twelve hour parking limit on this street.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Red River Crescent is a local residential road located west of Meadowvale Road and south of Sheppard Avenue. Currently, there are no posted parking restrictions on this street, therefore, the unsigned three hour parking limit applies. Each of the homes on this street has sufficient room in the driveway and garage for at least two vehicles to park.

Although we often receive individual requests from residents for an extension of the three hour limit in the Malvern area of District 4, we have never received the support of the majority of homeowners. Typically, we find that the majority of residents object to the allowance of long duration parking on "their" street when off-street spaces are available. The only exception is on certain streets in the south-west end of Scarborough where parking is deficient or non-existent.

Although, in the past, we have only installed a twelve hour limit where off-street parking was deficient, we cannot ignore this request as it does represent over three quarters of the homes on the street. We have also not been contacted by any residents who are opposed to this restriction.

On streets with a twelve hour limit posted on one side of the street, we post a No Parking Anytime restriction on the opposite side. This attempts to allow for effective snow clearing, street sweeping and access for emergency services; however, if the on-street parking is constant, a decrease in our effectiveness to provide street services is inevitable. On Red River Crescent we are proposing a twelvehour limit on the east, south and west side, with a parking prohibition on the west, north and east side. Thirty-one (31) on-street spaces are available on the side proposed for the twelve hour limit with only twenty-six (26) on the other side. Therefore, this proposal provides for the maximum number of on-street spaces.

Conclusions:

Considering the support of the majority of residents of the street, we can recommend that a twelve hour parking limit be posted on one side of Red River Crescent with a No Parking Anytime restriction on the opposite side.

Contact Name:

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

Telephone: 396-7844 Fax: 396-5681

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

Appendix 1

"No Parking"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4

HighwaySideFromToTimes or Days

RedWest,Dean Park RoadDean Park RoadAnytime

RiverNorth and(West Intersection)(East Intersection)

CrescentEast

--------

"Parking for Restricted Periods"

Prohibition to be Enacted

Column 1Column 2Column 3Column 4Column5

Maximum

Period

HighwaySideFromToTimes or DaysPermitted

Red River East, Dean Park RoadDean Park Road Anytime12 Hours

CrescentSouth and(West (East

WestIntersection)Intersection)

6

Permission to Extend Timeframe for

1997/1998 Billboard Sign Permissions

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 19, 1998) from the Director and Deputy Chief Building Official:

Purpose:

To consider an extension to the time frame approved by Council to erect the four remaining billboard signs permissions which were granted to Pattison Outdoor on September 10, 1997.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council extend the December 31, 1998 deadline to March 31, 1999.

Comments:

City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998 approved an extension from September 10, 1998 to December31, 1998 for Pattison Outdoor to obtain the necessary permits and erect the four remaining billboard sign permissions from the 1997/1998 tender.

The applicants, Urban Outdoor Trans Ad, brought an interlocutory injunction in the Ontario Court General Division on October 26, 1998. Mr. Justice Juriansz ordered that nothing shall be done under Sections 1, 2, 3 and 11 of By-law No. 25110 of the Corporation of the City of Scarborough pending the disposition of the application returnable on December 17 and 18, 1998. As such, the City cannot issue the permits until after the application is heard.

It is recommended that an extension be accorded to Pattison Outdoor until March 31, 1998.

Contact name:

Jack Barron, Manager Sign Section

(416) 396-7224

(416) 396-4266 Fax Number

barron_j@city.scarborough.on.ca

7

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98026

Removal of a Holding Symbol (H)

Mondeo Developments Inc., 740 Ellesmere Road

Dorset Park Community, Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (October 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

Scarborough Council, in March 1996, created a new community known as "Mondeo". Phase I of the development, consisting of townhouses located on the east side of Mondeo Drive, has been completed. The Phase II lands, as shown on Figure 1, are presently zoned: Single-Family Residential (S), Street Townhouse Residential (ST), Residential/Employment (RE) and Neighbourhood Commercial (NC). All the zoning categories are subject to a Holding Provision (H).

The applicant is seeking to remove the Holding Provision(H) from the Zoning By-law as it applies to the Phase II lands. Planning staff are recommending that the Holding Provision (H) be removed from the lands zoned Single-Family Residential (S) and Street Townhouse Residential (ST), as shown hatched on Figure 1, because the requirement to have the Subdivision Agreement executed has been fulfilled. This will enable a portion of the second phase of the Mondeo community to be developed with 85 single-family and 22 semi-detached dwelling units. Removal of the (H) from the remainder of the lands will be dealt with at a later date, once all the relevant conditions have been satisfied.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(1)amend the Dorset Park Community Zoning By-law No. 9508, as amended, to remove the Holding Provision (H) from the existing Single-Family Residential (S) and Street Townhouse Residential (ST) zoning of the property on the north side of Ellesmere Road, east of Birchmount Road, to permit the development of 85 single-family and 22 semi-detached dwelling units; and

(2)authorize such unsubstantive, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law, as may be necessary, to give effect to this resolution.

Background:

The lands zoned in the second phase of the Mondeo community permit a variety of housing types: single and semi-detached dwellings, townhouses, and live/work units. A commercial component to service the future population growth of the immediate area is also permitted.

In order to ensure orderly development of the land, Scarborough Council adopted the zoning permissions subject to a Holding Provision (H) to ensure that certain conditions be satisfied prior to allowing the removal of the holding provision from any portion of the subject lands. These conditions include the requirement that the Subdivision Agreement be executed for all the lands subject to the current zoning categories. Additional conditions, applying only to the Residential/Employment (RE) and Neighbourhood Commercial (NC) zoning, require the necessary transportation improvements to be implemented to accommodate the development on this site and the satisfactory resolution of Site Plan Control applications.

Presently the zoning permits these lands to be developed for industrial uses: specifically, warehousing wholly within an enclosed building, and for two model homes, until such time as the (H) is removed from the Zoning By-law.

Scarborough Community Council on October 14, 1998 considered a Preliminary Evaluation Report and directed that Planning staff:

(a)convene a Public Meeting, targeted for the fourth quarter of 1998, to consider removal of the Holding Provision (H) to allow development of the single-family and semi-detached dwelling component of the Phase II lands of the Mondeo Community; and

(b)target a Public Meeting, for the first quarter of 1999, to consider removing the Holding Provision (H) to allow the development of the live/work and commercial components of the Phase II lands of the Mondeo Community.

With regard to item (a) above, the By-law allows for the removal of the (H) for the single-family and semi-detached dwellings once the Subdivision Agreement has been executed. Staff have been advised by the Law Department that the above-mentioned Subdivision Agreement has been executed. There are no other concerns with respect to this application.

The remaining lands subject to the Holding Provision (H), the live/work and neighbourhood commercial components, can be dealt with by City Council under a separate report once the conditions set out in the Zoning By-law are satisfied. In addition to the satisfactory execution of the Subdivision Agreement, the applicant is also required to implement any transportation improvements necessary to accommodate this development. As well, the removal of the (H) is subject to the review of Site Plan Control applications.

Conclusion:

The Holding Provision (H), as it applies to the lands zoned Single- Family Residential (S) and Street Townhouse Residential (ST), can now be removed because the Subdivision Agreement has been executed by the Law Department as stipulated in the Zoning By-law. The lifting of the (H) will allow a portion of the Phase II lands of the Mondeo project to be developed with 85 single-family and 22 semi-detached dwelling units, thereby providing additional dwelling units to the City's overall housing stock.

Contact Name:

Bill Kiru, MCIP, RPP

Planner, Community Planning Division

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone:(416) 396-7014

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

8

Draft Plan of Condominium Application C97031

The Residences at Bamburgh Gate Inc. South-west

Corner of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue

Steeles Community, Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 26, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

The application is requesting approval of a Draft Plan of Condominium for a 285 unit, 15 storey residential apartment building currently under construction on the southwest corner of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue. The commercial component of the proposal, totalling 1465 square metres (15,800 square feet), consists of 22 commercial units located on the ground floor of the apartment building and in a one-storey, free standing commercial building on the south side of McNicoll Avenue. A total of 397 parking spaces will be provided for the residential component including 58 surface visitor parking spaces. A total of 92 parking spaces will be provided for the commercial component consisting of 70 surface parking spaces reserved for the exclusive use of the commercial customers, and 22 underground spaces reserved for the commercial unit owners and tenants.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

Scarborough Community Council support the Draft Plan of Condominium C97031 by Elio Zoffranieri, on behalf of The Residences at Bamburgh Gate Inc., being Part of Lot 29, Concession 4, southwest corner of Kennedy Road and McNicoll Avenue, subject to the following conditions:

(1)plan as stamped "Recommended" this date (see Figure 1);

(2)the owner to sign the City's Standard Tax Agreement for payment of taxes and local improvement charges;

(3)the owner to be responsible for distributing the Scarborough "Condominium" brochures supplied by the Works and Emergency Services Department;

(4)the owner to make satisfactory arrangements with the Toronto Hydro-Electric Commission (Scarborough Office) and the Works and Emergency Services Department with regard to water and electrical servicing, their acceptable completion, including any agreements and/or easements that may be required;

(5)the owner to make satisfactory arrangements with Bell Canada regarding any easements or relocation of Bell facilities that may be required;

(6)the owner to complete all conditions of the Site Plan Control Agreement prior to registration, or enter into a financially secured development agreement with the City secured by a performance guarantee in a form and amount satisfactory to the City Solicitor, to guarantee completion of the site work if the owner choses to register the condominium prior to completion of the project; and

(7)prior to registration, the owner to submit the final Condominium Declaration and Description for the approval of the Director, Community Planning, East District, with respect to the following:

(a)all 70 commercial surface parking spaces shall be reserved for common use by customers to the commercial development only;

(b)all 22 underground commercial parking spaces shall be reserved for exclusive use by the commercial unit owners and/or tenants and their employees; and

(c)easements and rights-of-way to ensure mutual access between the proposed condominium and Metropolitan Toronto Condominium (MTC) Plan 1136 and the future condominium to the south (Phase III), for vehicular and pedestrian movements, visitor parking, servicing and maintenance, and recreational facilities.

Comments:

Site Statistics

Residential Units285

Commercial Units 22

Resident Parking339 spaces

Residential Visitor Parking 58 spaces*

Total Residential Parking397 spaces

Commercial Parking 92 spaces**

* 16 spaces on subject lands and 42 spaces on adjacent MTC Plan 1136.

** 70 surface customer spaces and 22 underground exclusive spaces.

The residential/commercial development has been constructed to date in accordance with the Site Plan Control Agreement registered in April, 1998 and represents the second phase of an overall Master plan as shown on Figure 2. Phase I has been completed and consists of 192 'casita' dwelling units (MTC Plan 1136). Phase III is also under construction and consists of a 12-storey, 131-unit residential apartment building. Mutual easements and rights-of-way between the three phases of development will be established for vehicular and pedestrian movements, visitor parking, servicing and maintenance, and recreational facilities.

All 70 surface commercial parking spaces will be reserved for the common use of customers to the commercial component of the project, and all 22 underground commercial parking spaces will be reserved for the exclusive use of the commercial unit owner and/or tenants and their employees. This will ensure the convenient surface parking is available for visitors to the commercial component and the underground commercial parking is utilized for the business operators. Visitor parking for the residential component consists of 58 parking spaces, 16 of which are on the Phase II lands and 42 of which are on the adjacent MTC Plan 1136. The resident parking is provided in two levels of underground parking with access from a driveway on McNicoll Avenue to the west.

All technical agencies circulated had no comments or their requirements have been incorporated into the recommendations. There are no concerns under the current High Density Residential provisions of the Official Plan raised by this application, and the development complies with the "Apartment Residential" (A) and "Office Uses" (OU) zoning requirements of the Steeles Community By-law as varied by the Committee of Adjustment.

Contact Name:

Joe Nanos

Acting Senior Planner

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7037

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

9

Request for Direction - Minor Variance Appeal SA178/98

George and Katina Manakis, 21 Dobbin Road

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 19, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council direct the City Solicitor to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the Committee's decision with respect to Minor Variance Application SA178/98.

Comments:

Re:Minor Variance Application SA178/98

George and Katina Manakis

21 Dobbin Road

Lot 157, Registered Plan 4490

Sullivan Community

Scarborough Wexford

Lawrence Zucker of Kagan Zucker Feldbloom Shastri, on behalf of George and Katina Manakis, has applied to the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto for a variance from the provisions of the Sullivan Community Zoning By-law No. 10717, as amended, to permit:

(1)the existing sunroom addition having a minimum south side yard building setback of 0.14metres (0.49 feet), whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum side yard building setback of 0.90 metres (3 feet); and

(2)the proposed extension of the sunroom having a minimum rear yard building setback of 8metres (26 feet), whereas the Zoning By-law requires a minimum rear yard building setback of 7.5 metres (25 feet) plus 50 percent of the lot depth great than 33.5 metres (110feet), or 9.1 metres (29.9 feet) in this case.

The owner has appealed the October 7, 1998 decision of the Committee of Adjustment which refused Part 1 of the requested variance, and deferred consideration of Part 2, until such time as the sunroom addition, which is in contravention of the By-law, is removed.

Similar variance applications, wherein the property owner requested a sunroom situated 0.14 metres (0.49 feet) from the side lot line, were submitted to and refused by the Committee of Adjustment in September 1990 (A230/90) and August 1991 (A162/91). In both cases, the property owner appealed the decisions to the Ontario Municipal Board, which were subsequently refused.

As a result of the refusal of the two previous variances and a desire to rectify this on-going situation, the applicant submitted a third variance application (A105/92) proposing a different "sunroom" which extended along the southerly side wall of the dwelling. In June 1992, the Committee heard and approved the variance application permitting 2.1 metres (6.8 feet) of the main wall of the existing sunroom to remain as constructed, having a side yard setback of 0.14 metres (0.46 feet). The granting of the variance was conditional upon the owner removing the existing sunroom within the required minimum setback of 0.9 metres (3 feet), except the portion of the sunroom which was subject to the application and the remaining sunroom complying with the Ontario Building Code. The variance was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by an abutting property owner. The appeal was subsequently withdrawn. The applicant has not fulfilled the conditions of the approval granted in June 1992.

Based on the history of the repeated requests to the Committee for the same minor variance permission, which have been refused both by the Committee and the Ontario Municipal Board, and that there have been no significant changes to the "sunroom" structure, staff recommend that the City Solicitor be directed to attend the hearing in support the Committee's decision.

Contact Name:

Bill Kiru, MCIP, RPP

Planner, Community Planning Division

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7014

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

10

Joseph Furfari Investments Limited

11159 Tapscott Road Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends that City Council adopt Recommendation(b) in the following report, viz:

"(b)that the agreement be finalized without the requirement for a further noise study."

The Scarborough Community Council reports having requested that the Director of Community Planning, East District, in consultation with the City Solicitor, report directly to City Council on December 16, 1998, on the reasons why the noise study is no longer a requirement.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (November 19, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To seek direction with respect to the proposed financially-secured agreement as the Owner is not prepared to sign the proposed agreement as previously reviewed by the Scarborough Community Council.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that direction be provided to the City Solicitor with respect to the final form of the agreement:

(a)that the noise study continue to be a requirement recognizing that the Owner will not sign such an agreement and the implications thereof;

or

(b)that the agreement be finalized without the requirement for a further noise study.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Scarborough Community Council, at its meeting held on October 14, 1998, considered the report of the Director of Community Planning, East District, with respect to the Site Plan Control Application for a small office in conjunction with an existing asphalt plant located on the above-noted property. One of the conditions of site plan approval required the Owner to enter into a financially-secured agreement to ensure the operation of the asphalt plant in an environmentally acceptable manner.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Scarborough Community Council, at its October 14, 1998 meeting had before it a draft agreement between the City and the Owner.

The framework of the agreement provides for the following:

(a)The asphalt plant is to be operated in an environmentally responsible manner and to comply with all applicable legislation and policies.

(b)Implementation of a noise and dust control plan which consists of various procedures and measures to control dust emissions and limit the production of noise including a procedure to deal with complaints. The noise and dust control plan is to be secured by a letter of credit which will be released after 2 years if continued compliance with the plan is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City.

(c)A noise study is to be prepared within 6 months of any approval by the Ontario Municipal Board of residential uses on the Morningside Heights lands in proximity to the plant. In the event that noise levels exceed MOE guidelines, the Owner would be required to install any necessary noise abatement measures. This obligation would be secured by a letter of credit to guarantee preparation of the study and installation of the noise abatement measures. The letter of credit would be released on completion of the installation of the noise measures, or on receipt of the noise study indicating compliance with MOE guidelines.

Although the Owner is prepared to sign an agreement with respect to the first two listed matters, he is not prepared to sign an agreement which includes a requirement to obtain a noise study as a noise study has been recently prepared which indicates that MOE noise levels are not exceeded. The Ward Councillors have indicated that they are not prepared to support the agreement without the requirement of a further noise study.

If the agreement is not signed, the Owner will not obtain Site Plan Control approval to construct a small office building. The plant will continue in operation without any site plan requirements for landscaping and berming to screen the asphalt plant, the conveyance of a 3.5 metre widening on Tapscott Road and a 6.0 metre maintenance easement for environmental protection.

Conclusions:

If the agreement is not signed, the asphalt plant will continue in operation although without an on-site office and without the landscaping and berming and conveyances to the City required pursuant to Site Plan Control Approval.

In the alternative, if so directed, the requirement for a noise study within 6 months of the approval by the Ontario Municipal Board of residential uses on the Morningside Heights lands would be deleted. The agreement would be signed and the Site Plan approved requiring the planting of landscaping and the installation of berming and the conveyances to the City.

Contact Name:

Anna Kinastowski, Director

Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

Tel: 392-0080

Fax: 392-0005

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (December 11, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

To provide background information to City Council in its consideration of Clause 10 of Report No.12 of The Scarborough Community Council, as directed by Scarborough Community Council with respect to staff's conclusion that an additional noise study by the owner of the Furfari hot mix asphalt plant is no longer required as part of the proposed financially-secured agreement with the owner.

Recommendations:

For the information of Council.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of December 9, 1998, Scarborough Community Council adopted a report from the City Solicitor recommending that an agreement with the owner be finalized without the requirement for a further noise study.

Scarborough Community Council also directed planning staff to prepare a brief report for City Council confirming verbal advice presented by staff regarding two recently-produced noise reports dealing with the Furfari hot mix asphalt plant. These reports provide the basis for staff's opinion that requirement of additional noise reports is not warranted.

This agreement, "to ensure the environmentally acceptable operation of the plant", is a condition of the site plan approval which Scarborough Council supported on June 10, 1997.

Discussion:

At staff's suggestion, the owner engaged an acoustical consultant to take field measurements of the noise levels of the plant operation. S.S. Wilson Associates determined that the Ministry of Environment guideline of 50 dba for residential uses was met at a point approximately 30 metres (100 feet) east of the CPR tracks (to the east of the Furfari plant).

These measurements were confirmed by a much more extensive study undertaken by Jade Acoustics Inc., a consultant working on behalf of the Morningside Heights landowners. The Jade report was entered as evidence at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing on Morningside Heights in late November 1998. The author of the report was cross-examined for a full day by the lawyer representing industrial operators within the Tapscott Employment District. An indication of the credibility of the report is the fact that an agreement between the parties was subsequently entered into by the industries and no further acoustical evidence was called.

One of the features of the Morningside Heights Land Use Plan, as proposed by the landowners, is a 56 metre (180 feet) wide "buffer" along the east side of the CPR track. This buffer would provide additional separation distance between industries west of the track and future residential uses to the east, as well as a location for any berms and/or barriers required for mitigation.

The Jade report contains the following recommendations:

(1)Construction of a sound barrier within the buffer reserve, along the CP Havelock Subdivision, to address the sound generated by activities of the Furfari and IPSCO plants. The specific height would be based on housing types and location of the sound barrier.

(2)Prior to draft plan approval, preparation of individual noise and/or vibration studies to address the CP Rail (noise and vibration), the industries (noise and vibration) and the roadways (noise) to ensure compliance with the MOE guidelines.

(3)By way of additional precaution, all houses within 600 metres of the industry should be provided with central air conditioning. Further, a warning clause notifying occupants of the proximity of the industrial lands should be included for all lots within 1000 metres of the industrially zoned lands.

The report concludes:

"Based on the acoustical analysis, it is feasible to mitigate the sound due to the road and rail sources. Sound exposures due to the industrial sources can be mitigated through a combination of setbacks and sound barriers. Warning/proximity clauses advising of potential interference due to noise would be required of perimeter lots adjacent to busy roads, the CP Rail and for the adjacent industries. Detailed requirements would be provided in noise and vibration reports prepared for submission of individual plans of subdivision."

The crusher, a transitory use on the Furfari site for several weeks a year, was not in operation when the Jade report was done. However the crusher operates within an area specified for broken asphalt and concrete and much of the noise is screened by the surrounding piles of these materials. The Ministry of Environment Certificate of Approval for the crusher most recently on the Furfari site requires it to operate 350 metres (1,150 feet) from "sensitive", ie. residential, uses. This distance separation is achieved.

Conclusion:

The Jade report's recommendations, which have been endorsed by the Morningside Heights landowners, remove the requirement for further noise mitigation from the Furfari operation. Any future mitigation measures will be determined by studies undertaken by the landowners at the draft plan approval stage. As long as the Furfari plant continues to be operated in accordance with its MOE Certificate of Approval and regulations, the cost of any such measures will be met by the Morningside landowners. (This may include mitigation on the Furfari site, should this prove to be the most cost-effective option, but that will be solely up to the landowners and the plant operator.)

Given these circumstances, a City requirement for an additional noise study to be undertaken by Furfari would be redundant and should be deleted from the agreement.

Contact Name:

David Beasley, Principal Planner

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7026

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: beasley@city.scarborough.on.ca)

11

Acceptance of Service, Registered Plan 66M-2280

Brumwell Street/Linderwood Drive

North of Yulewood Gate

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 30, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

Bramblewell Developments Limited entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the Corporation of the City of Scarborough to develop the lands located at the north end of Linderwood Drive between Brumwell Street and Adams Park. All departments have now completed the Development Acceptance Form for the above Plan of Subdivision. It is therefore recommended that the services can now be accepted by the City.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(l)the services installed for Registered Plan 66M-2280 be accepted and that the City formally assume the roads within this Plan of Subdivision;

(2)the Legal Services Department be authorized to release the performance guarantee with the exception of a cash deposit in the amount of $8,000.00 as set out in the attached report; and

(3) the City Clerk and Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer be authorized to sign any release or other documentation necessary to give effect to this acceptance.

Council Reference/Background/History:

All departments have completed the Development Acceptance Form for the Plan of Subdivision located at the north end of Linderwood Drive between Brumwell Street and Adams Park (formerly

Part of Lots 16 to 21 inclusive, Registered Plan 3460), now Plan 66M-2280, with the following proviso:

-$8,000.00 be retained as cash deposit to guarantee the retaining wall on Lots 18, 19 and 20.

Pursuant to Clause 14(d) of Schedule B to the Subdivision Agreement the Owner was to provide to the City Solicitor his Certification that the Noise Warning clauses set out in Clauses 14 (c) (i) and (ii) were contained in the offers of purchase and sale or rental agreements for the dwelling units. The Owners Solicitor certifies that the Noise Warning clauses were contained in the agreements of purchase and sale for all of the dwelling units referred to in Clause 14, save Lots 1, 12, 13 ,19 and20; however, the Subdivision Agreement was registered on title to the all of the dwelling units affected and therefore the purchasers had sufficient notice.

The services installed for this development could now be accepted.

Contact Name:

Anna Kinastowski, Director, Planning and Administrative Tribunal Law

(416) 392-0080; (416) 392-0005 Fax Number

12

Retaining Planner for Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

2055-2069 Lawrence Avenue East

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 3, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

Authority and funding are required to retain an independent planning consultant to present evidence at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing respecting this matter commencing January 7, 1999.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Professional fees of a planning consultant could be paid from a Contingency Account.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor retain an independent planning consultant to provide evidence at the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of refusal of an application for a zoning by-law amendment to allow a restaurant to be established at 2055-2069 Lawrence Avenue East; and

(2)the planning consultant's fees, not to exceed $15,000.00 for a two-day hearing, be paid from a Contingency Account.

Council Reference/Background/History:

At its meeting of June 25, 1996, Scarborough City Council considered a preliminary evaluation report and refused an application for a zoning by-law amendment to allow a restaurant to be established at 2055-2069 Lawrence Avenue East. The owners appealed the refusal in March 1998, and the Ontario Municipal Board has scheduled a hearing of the appeal for January 7 and 8, 1999.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

I have consulted with the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development, who advises it will be necessary to retain an independent planning consultant to present evidence supporting the refusal.

I am recommending authority be granted to do so, in order that evidence may be put to the Board.

At the time this report is being written, I have not contacted potential planning witnesses. If further information is available in time, I will be able to update Scarborough Community Council or City Council.

Contact Name:

John A. Paton, Legal Services

Tel: 392-7230

jpaton@toronto.ca

13

Ontario Municipal Board Decision for

Ontario Hydro Corridor, Graywood Lands,

North of Highway 401

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted the following recommendations:

"It is recommended that:

(1)the confidential report dated December 10, 1998, from the City Solicitor, entitled 'Ontario Hydro Corridor (Scarborough) - OMB Decision - Graywood Lands', embodying the following recommendations, be adopted, the balance of such report to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act:

'It is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to institute the following:

(a)an application to the Divisional Court for leave to appeal the Ontario Municipal Board decision respecting the Ontario Hydro corridor lands north of Highway 401; and

(b)a request to the Ontario Municipal Board to review its decision respecting the Ontario Hydro corridor lands north of Highway 401.';

(2)all resident associations and individuals who participated in the initial OMBHearing be notified by mail of Council's adoption of Recommendations Nos.(1)(a) and (b), above; and

(3)the appropriate City staff be instructed to attend any public meeting called by the local Councillors early in 1999, and all community participants in the first Hearing be invited.")

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the recommendations in the following report from the City Solicitor, that the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report directly to Council on December 16, 1998, on this matter.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (December 8, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

The purpose of this report is to inform the Community Council of the Ontario Municipal Board decision respecting the portion of the Ontario Hydro Corridor lands north of Highway 401.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

This report has no financial impact.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1)the City Solicitor report directly to Council on whether an appeal of the Ontario Municipal Board decision respecting the Ontario Hydro Corridor lands north of Highway 401 is advisable; and

(2)the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development report directly to Council on the decision and its implications.

Council Reference/Background/History:

On October 2, 1998, City Council adopted a series of resolutions respecting Scarborough Official Plan Amendment No. 1001 and Graywood's development applications based on recommendations from Scarborough Community Council. The Ontario Municipal Board hearing respecting those matters commenced October 5, 1998 and proceeded for thirteen days over three weeks.

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

The Board has now released its decision, copies of which have been forwarded to affected Councillors and the City Clerk.

The issues in contention between the City and Graywood included appropriate frontages and areas for lots for single detached and semi-detached houses, location of dedicated parkland, front yard setbacks and proposed commercial blocks fronting on the south side of Finch Avenue East and on the north and south sides of Sheppard Avenue East.

Graywood made certain concessions during the course of the hearing with respect to front yard setbacks and location of park lands, and these are reflected in the decision. However, with respect to lot frontages, Graywood was largely successful in achieving approval of thirty-six foot frontages for single detached house lots and twenty-five foot frontages for semi-detached house lots. The City had argued for fifty foot lots for singles and thirty foot frontages for semi-detached. However, the Board approved the smaller lots on the basis that they would not create undue adverse impact.

In the most northerly block, between Beverly Glen Boulevard and the east-west Ontario Hydro Corridor running south along McNicoll, the Board approved lots with forty foot frontages for single detached houses.

Conclusions:

The decision was released December 8, 1998, and there has been insufficient time to analyze it fully. It would be appropriate to request the City Solicitor to report further on the advisability of an appeal and for the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development to report on the planning implications of the decision.

Contact Name:

John A. Paton, Legal Services; Tel. No. 392-7230

jpaton@toronto.ca

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it during consideration of the foregoing Clause, a confidential report (December 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor wherein it is recommended that the City Solicitor be authorized to institute the following:

(a)an application to the Divisional Court for leave to appeal the Ontario Municipal Board decision respecting the Ontario Hydro Corridor lands north of Highway No. 401 and;

(b)a request to the Ontario Municipal Board to review its decision respecting the Ontario Hydro Corridor lands north of Highway No. 401.)

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (December 11, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

As directed under Clause No. 13 of Report No. 12 of The Scarborough Community Council on December 9, 1998, this report will advise Council as to the details of the recent Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding the former Ontario Hydro corridor lands north of Highway No. 401 in west Scarborough.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

For the information of Council.

Background:

Ontario Hydro appealed Official Plan Amendment No. 1001, enacted by the Council of the former City of Scarborough in September 1998, which added an Open Space designation to the Ontario Hydro designation on approximately 40 hectares (100 acres) of vacant former transmission corridor lands between McNicoll Avenue and Kennedy Road in west Scarborough. The subsequent purchasers of the lands also filed applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment and for Plan of Subdivision approval, which were also appealed due to Council's failure to render a decision on them within the requisite period of time. The appeals have been consolidated into the same hearing on Official Plan Amendment No. 1001 by the Ontario Municipal Board. The hearing process is being phased, dealing firstly with most of the lands north of Highway No. 401, south of the 401, and in regard to applications and appeals by the First Alliance Church at 3250 Finch Avenue East.

The latter two hearings will commence in February and May of 1999 respectively. The hearing on the applications and appeals for the lands north of the 401 by Graywood Investments Limited, however, commenced on October 5, 1998, and concluded on October 23, 1998, after 13 days. A decision on the Graywood applications has now been rendered by the Board.

Graywood had proposed in-fill development of the corridor consisting of 666 dwelling units (356single family and 310 semi-detached units) and three, approximately 0.3 hectare (0.8 acre), Neighbourhood Commercial blocks on the Sheppard Avenue and Finch Avenue frontages. The road allowances of new streets to serve the development were proposed at a reduced width of 18.5metres (60.7 feet). Graywood was also seeking reductions in the development standards generally applicable to the abutting neighbourhoods. These include reduced lot frontages of 11 metres (36feet) compared to the typical 15 metre (50 foot) single family lot in the area, and 7.6 or 8.25metre (25 to 27 foot) semi-detached parcels compared to the typical 9 metre (30 foot) lot in the area. Reductions in front, rear and sideyard building setback standards were also proposed, and 196 of the lots would only have a depth of 23.5 metres (77 feet).

Council on October 2, 1998, immediately prior to the commencement of the hearing on the Graywood appeals, took a position on the applications which included 15 metre (50 foot) single family lots north of Finch, a widening of the proposed pedestrian trail on the abutting Consumers Gas lands north of Finch, Medium Density Residential and Place of Worship uses on two of the three proposed commercial blocks, with Place of Worship only on a 1 hectare (2.5 acre) block on the south side of Sheppard, and other matters as discussed further below.

This report sets out the key results of the Board's decision. Scarborough Community Council has also directed the City Solicitor to report on this agenda regarding the merits of an appeal of the Board's decision.

Comments:

The Ontario Municipal Board has largely allowed the Graywood appeals and Official Plan Amendment No. 1001 is not approved. Graywood and the City are instructed to finalize the details of the subdivision in accordance with the decision, and to submit conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision approval and the amending Bills to the Board. The Order on the decision will then issue.

The crux of this hearing fundamentally turned on the question of the "compatibility" of the Graywood proposals with the abutting established neighbourhoods. The City and the residents associations attempted to argue that the array of reduced development standards requested by Graywood would, considered collectively, render the development incompatible and undesirable. The Board, however, has essentially accepted Graywood's argument that compatibility need only be determined by the presence or absence of "undue adverse impact" of the new development on abutting properties and neighbourhoods. The Board indicates the City's approach is too subjective, but does not elaborate on how undue adverse impact is to be measured. There are also a number of errors and inconsistencies in the decision. Staff understand these matters will be addressed in greater detail in the City Solicitor's report.

Most significantly, Graywood's reduced lot sizes have largely been approved, although single family parcels north of Finch must be a minimum of 12 metres (40 feet) in width. At the hearing, the North Bridlewood Residents Association was prepared to accept 12.8 metre (42 foot) lots, while Council supported 15.2 metre (50 foot) single family lots. Building coverages of 40 percent for singles and 45 percent for semi-detached units, compared to 33 percent in the abutting neighbourhoods and 50percent proposed by Graywood, are also approved. During the hearing, Graywood largely agreed to adhere to the 6 metre (20 foot) front yard and 7.5 metre (25 foot) rear yard setback standards for these neighbourhoods and these setbacks have been applied by the Board. Garages are allowed with a front setback of 5.7 metres (18.7 feet) from the streetline.

As desired by both Council and the North Bridlewood Association, the Board has approved only single family development for the most northerly block north of Beverly Glen Boulevard.

All of the proposed streets are approved at 18.5 metres (60.7 feet) as proposed by Graywood, although the new street between Collingsbrook Boulevard and Huntingwood Drive must be 20metres (66 feet). All cul-de-sac bulbs are to be off-set westerly to provide a better connection to the pathway trail on the Consumers Gas lands. A key concern with the Board's decision is that it is silent on the issue of the configuration of Street K at the northerly end of the Graywood lands. This is the only "side street" in the Graywood proposal which, as they have configured their plan, would result in 6 tiers of lots and creates the majority of their shallow 23.5 metre (77 foot) deep lots. The City attempted to advance a different road configuration which creates only 4 tiers of lots of more typical depth. Staff understand Graywood will be seeking the Board's clarification on this issue.

The Council and North Bridlewood position on parkland north of Finch was that it be located on the south side of Beverly Glen Boulevard, adjacent to Beverly Glen Junior Public School, which itself is adjacent to Beverly Glen Park, to maintain a school and park core for this neighbourhood. Staff had proposed a park further north within the new subdivision, largely to provide greater exposure and public safety for the future pedestrian/cycling trail at an awkward bend in the Consumers Gas corridor. The Board was sensitive to both positions and has approved three-quarters of the parkland, or 0.45 hectares (1.1 acres), on the south side of Beverly Glen with the remaining 0.15 hectares (0.4 acres) to be located as proposed by staff. Also, with respect to parkland, Graywood's plans proposed a number of park blocks behind new houses fronting various streets that cross the corridor. Staff were successful in getting the Board to delete those lots and move the park blocks out to the street for enhanced exposure and to retain a semblance of the former corridor for streetscape enhancement.

The Council, staff and North Bridlewood position for the remainder of the lands in the block south of Beverly Glen was that they are most suitable for development with Medium Density residential development, likely as a block development. Graywood was proposing semi-detached units. The Board decision allows either form. Graywood's Neighbourhood Commercial blocks are approved with a dual zoning for Place of Worship and prohibition on restaurants and gas stations. The Board considered Council's position that the block on the south side of Sheppard should be 1 hectare (2.5 acres) and designated solely for Place of Worship to accommodate the Wishing Well Baptist Church's interest in acquiring the land for the relocation of the church. The Board clearly indicates that it cannot zone lands solely to facilitate their acquisition by a third party, and notes the potential traffic impacts of extending the parcel southerly into the new neighbourhood.

In approving the commercial blocks, the Board accepted Graywood's argument that the onus is on the City to demonstrate the economic feasibility of the Medium Density Residential designation being advanced by the City, which may have significant implications on how this City conducts land use planning in future. The Board also found no planning rationale to locate such use on these major arterials having high transit accessibility, preferring small scale, car oriented commercial use instead.

Both Council and the North Bridlewood Association suggested a pedestrian walkway be included in the subdivision plan to link Glen Springs Drive with the new street on the Graywood lands. The Board has approved such a link, subject to the City making satisfactory arrangements with the abutting York Condominium Corporation No. 93. Staff have formally inquired with the condominium in this regard and have received an emphatic response that the condominium board is "vigorously opposed" to any public walkway link over its lands.

The Board also finds that Graywood is under no obligation to contribute to the achievement of a pedestrian/cycling trail on the abutting Consumers Gas lands.

Lastly, Council desired that the new road link for the block south of Sheppard be directed easterly out to Palmdale Drive instead of westerly to Highhill Drive which contains single family dwellings. The Board will approve either configuration, recognizing that the City will need to acquire a portion of the abutting Toronto Hydro Electric Commission (THEC) Palmdale Sub-station to complete the Palmdale link. If that is not possible, the road linking to Highhill must be a cul-de-sac as proposed by Graywood. Staff have contacted the THEC regarding the possibility of getting a road over the sub-station site and have been advised that the Commission objects to that proposal out of concern for public safety and security of the sub-station facility.

Contact Name:

Rod Hines, MCIP, RPP

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7020

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: hines@city.scarborough.on.ca)

(A copy of the Plans, appended to the foregoing report from the Director of Community Planning, East District, is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)

14

City-Initiated Zoning By-law Amendment

Application Z97021, 579 to 587 Kennedy Road

Kennedy Park Community

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on thefinding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated September25,1998, from the Director, Community Planning, East District, recommends that the report of the Director, Community Planning, East District, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December9, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (September 25, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of the City-initiated rezoning application Z97021, to amend the Kennedy Park Community Zoning By-law with respect to five properties on the east side of Kennedy Road, south of Corvette Avenue, presently zoned Highway Commercial and Single-family Residential, to provide for Multiple Family Residential zoning.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council amend the Kennedy Park Community Zoning By-law, as amended, with respect to 579 to 587 Kennedy Road, being Part of Lots 3, 4 and 5, Plan 3507, as follows:

(A)Zoning By-law Amendment

(1)Permitted Use: Multiple Family Residential;

(2)one suite (individual dwelling unit) per 199 m² (2,142 square feet) of lot area;

(3)minimum front yard setback 6 metres (20 feet);

(4)minimum side yard building setback:

for single-family dwellings 0.9 metres (3 feet) from side lot lines;

for semi-detached dwellings, 0.9 metres (3 feet) from side lot lines on one side only;

for a row of townhouses, 0.9 metres (3 feet) from end walls to side lot lines;

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

(6)maximum coverage: 50 percent of the area of the lot or parcel;

(7)each dwelling unit shall have an attached or detached garage; and

(B)authorize any unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Zoning By-law Amendment as may be required to give effect to this resolution.

Context:

The subject land is situated on the east side of Kennedy Road, south of Corvette Avenue and is bounded by one and two-storey single-family dwellings on the east and south, by Pine Hills Cemetery on the west and vacant, undeveloped land on the north. Each property has a residential building on it.

Site Statistics:

Site area:0.34 hectares (0.84 acres)

Frontage:81 metres (267 feet)

Proposed residential density:50 units per hectare (20 units per acre)

Number of dwelling units:up to 17 townhouses

Building coverage:50 percent

Background:

In January of 1997, the former City of Scarborough Council directed the Commissioner of Planning and Buildings to undertake a Zoning By-law amendment to rezone the two Highway Commercial zoned properties at 585 and 587 Kennedy Road, to bring them into conformity with the Official Plan.

On June 24, 1998, Scarborough Community Council deferred the scheduled statutory public meeting for the City-initiated Zoning By-law Amendment application, to provide for further consultation with abutting property owners to the south ( 579, 581 and 583 Kennedy Road), that had expressed interest to be included as part of this City-initiated rezoning. Over the summer months, planning staff met with the property owners and have now consolidated these properties in the rezoning which provides for Multiple Family Residential zoning.

Existing Zoning:

The land containing the properties at 585 and 587 Kennedy is zoned Highway Commercial and permits Day Nurseries, Places of Worship, Automobile Service Stations, Funeral Homes, Hotels and Motels, Libraries and Art Galleries, Limited Retail Shopping, Professional and Business Offices, and Recreational Uses. This land is under site plan control.

The three properties 579, 581 and 583 Kennedy Road, are presently zoned for Single-family dwellings and contain three single-family homes.

Official Plan:

All of the land is designated Medium Density Residential (RM) in the Official Plan. The Kennedy Park Community Secondary Plan provides for a maximum net residential density of 50 units per hectare (20 units per acre) in this area. It is intended that the Medium Density Residential designation will predominantly provide accommodation with at-grade access for families with young children, but it will also provide a choice of intermediate density low-rise accommodation for individuals and families without young children.

The Medium Density Residential designation provides for a variety of dwelling unit types including street townhouses, stacked townhouses, low-rise apartments and other such projects, to a maximum height of four-storeys. In addition, the Official Plan provides for single and semi-detached dwelling unit forms within this designation.

Comments:

(1)At this time, there are no development applications pending and we do not have any specific development proposal tailored to the site. The lot area of the five properties (if they were to be redeveloped together) is approximately 3400 m² (36,600 square feet). If we apply the Official Plan density of 50 units per hectare (20 units per acre) permitted in the Medium Density Residential designation, up to seventeen (17) residential units may be developed on this site. In addition to townhouses, single-family and semi-detached dwellings could also be provided on this site. This is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan to maintain low building heights and these uses are permitted in the Multiple-Family Residential Zone.

Presently, each of the existing properties has its own driveway on Kennedy Road. Potential redevelopment of the site with up to 17 residential units can be accommodated with direct access to Kennedy Road, provided that driveways are paired.

(2)The By-law presently restricts building coverage to 33 percent of the lot in residential areas, to ensure that sufficient space remains for vehicle parking and for private open space. However, to achieve reasonable medium density development on narrow properties that may result in this case, the building coverage should be increased to a maximum of 50 percent on this site. The 42 metres (137 feet) deep lots would adequately accommodate the residential units and provide for vehicle parking and sufficient rear yard for the enjoyment of the residents.

(3)The application was circulated to technical agencies and departments for their comments. There were no comments or objections raised to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment by the reporting agencies.

(4)The present property owners of 585 and 587 Kennedy Road have expressed concern about the potential loss of commercial value of the property, since they acquired land zoned Highway Commercial. The use of the properties on the day the amending by-law is passed, may continue as a legal non-conforming use, for as long as the use continues uninterrupted. When the existing use on these two parcels ceases to operate, then the non-conforming status will be lost.

Conclusions:

The proposed rezoning of this land to Multiple Family Residential will implement the policies of the Kennedy Park Community Secondary Plan and will provide for the removal of Highway Commercial zoning, while at the same time it will provide for the potential redevelopment of older housing stock to revitalize the area.

Contact Name:

Aristotle Christou, Senior Planner

(416) 396-5228; (416) 396-4265 Fax No.

christou@city.scarborough.on.ca

________

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of City Council, the following communication (November 27, 1998) from Mrs. Ruth Lunel, Toronto:

I was at a recent meeting of the Community and was surprised to learn that the City was rezoning property at the above address without any hearings being made public by notification.

This area is now Highway Commercial, but for years has had single family dwellings and, therefore, has fit into the community. On Kennedy Road, right from Eglinton Avenue, we have nothing but a bad mixture of lock up stores in small plazas which, I might add, are very unkept.

Apartments could be placed above these lock up stores preventing break-ins which adds to crime in our community. At the corner of Merrian Road was a landmark home which was demolished which gave us the two corners of Merrian Road with these lock up stores.

In our area, we now have five churches, one of which is a lock up store just behind the A & P plaza. Anglican Church, Catholic Church, Nazarene Church, one on Eppleworth as well as another church group up where the lumber yard used to be off Kennedy. All these places have day care as well as schools and apartments in this area.

To add more housing into this area where we have no sidewalks would place more children's lives at stake as Kennedy Road is now more of an area where we have more traffic re persons from all over and from the recent TTC passes allowing persons to park free at Kennedy and Eglinton as well as over at Warden station.

We do NOT need any more public housing in our area and this is what I am afraid would happen. When I was at the meeting previously, I was shocked to see the head of Metro Housing in the audience. He left when I said I wanted to speak on this proposal.

There was a proposal for a three storey seniors building in the same area and the home owners voted it down a few years ago due to blockage of sun from their gardens and possibility of garbage piling up.

I have owned my home here for over forty years and have been very active in my community (in fact in all of Scarborough).

Since joining Metro, Scarborough has gone down hill and now that we are into the Mega City, it is much worse re the following:

1.Cut off of TTC services.

2.Possibility of school closings in our area in the future.

3.Dumping of more public housing here in Scarborough (a perfect example is Kingston Road).

Lastly, our Councillors do NOT speak up on behalf of Scarborough down at the meetings at the Mega City Council and try very hard to pass things off here in our so-called Community meetings with little or no input from the electorate.

15

Official Plan Amendment Application P97024

Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97062

Paul Viaros, 381-383 Birchmount Road

Birchmount Park Employment District

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated October 14, 1998, from the Director, Community Planning, East District, recommends that the report of the Director, Community Planning, East District, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December9, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (October 14, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of Official Plan Amendment Application P97024 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application Z97062, to amend the Birchmount Park Employment District Secondary Plan and the Employment Districts Zoning By-law with respect to 381-383 Birchmount Road, to add an Industrial District Commercial designation and zoning, permitting retail stores and personal service shops to the existing General Industrial Uses designation and zoning on this site.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(A)Official Plan Amendment:

amend the Birchmount Park Employment District Secondary Plan with respect to the property located at the south-east corner of Birchmount Road and Raleigh Avenue, by adding an Industrial District Commercial designation to the General Industrial Uses with High Performance Standards designation and by adding the following Numbered Policy:

"South-East Corner of Birchmount Road

and Raleigh Avenue

The General Industrial Uses with High Performance Standards designation applies in addition to the Industrial District Commercial designation.";

(B)Zoning By-law Amendment:

amend the Employment Districts Zoning By-law Number 24982 (Birchmount Park Employment District), as amended, with respect to 381-383 Birchmount Road, being Part of Block A, Registered Plan 1204, as follows:

(1)Permitted Use:General Industrial Uses (MG)

Industrial District Commercial (MDC) (excluding vehicle repair garages and vehicle service stations);

(2)additional Permitted Uses: Retail stores;

Personal service shops;

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

(4)maximum gross floor area 0.40 times the area of the lot;

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

(C)authorize any unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment as may be required to give effect to this resolution.

Context:

The subject land is situated at the south-east corner of Birchmount Road and Raleigh Avenue and is surrounded by industrial uses on the west, a vehicle repair operation on the east, a service station and car lot on the north, and the CNR on the south. Raleigh Avenue contains a mix of industrial uses, including automobile service and garage uses.

Site Statistics:

Site area:0.15 hectares (0.37 acres);

Frontage:64.6 metres (212 feet) on Birchmount Road;

10.3 metres (33.7 feet) on Raleigh Avenue;

Gross floor area:375 square metres (4,036 square feet).

Background:

In July 1998, Council considered the Preliminary Evaluation Report and directed Planning staff to continue to process the applications in the normal manner and to schedule the public meeting for the fall of 1998.

In 1992, the applicant requested a minor variance (A261/92) to permit an auto sales operation toallow a small used car lot on part of this site, with a sales office occupying approximately 35squaremetres (376 square feet) of the building. The Committee of Adjustment granted the variance, but limited it for a period of three years. When the variance lapsed in 1995, a new variance application (A284/95) was submitted to the Committee of Adjustment to extend the permission for car sales for a further three year period. The Committee refused the application, indicating that the variance would not maintain the general intent and purpose of the Official Plan and Zoning By-law which provide for industrial uses. The Committee, however, indicated that this is a matter more appropriately dealt with by Council as an Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment.

The Committee's decision was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, and the Board dismissed the appeal. This prompted the applicant to submit the current Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment applications.

Existing Official Plan:

The Official Plan provides for General Industrial Uses with High Performance Standards.

Existing Zoning:

The site is zoned General Industrial Uses (MG) permitting day nurseries, educational and training facility uses, industrial uses, places of worship, recreational uses and offices, excluding medical and dental offices. The site is under site plan control.

Comments:

The proposed addition of Industrial District Commercial designation and zoning in conjunction with the existing General Industrial Uses with High Performance Standards designation and zoning on this site would provide for a variety of commercial facilities and services including retail stores, personal service shops, vehicle sales, vehicle repair and service, restaurants, banks, offices, places of worship, and day nurseries. Some of the proposed uses would be similar to the existing public garage and car lot on the north-east corner of Birchmount Road and Raleigh Avenue, the car lot operation on the west side of Birchmount Road south of Mack Avenue and the vehicle repair shops that exist on Raleigh Avenue. Therefore, the proposed land uses would be consistent with existing land uses in the area.

Staff propose to limit the auto-related uses on the site to vehicle sales and service uses, and to exclude vehicle repair garages and vehicle service stations which provide for body shops, paint shops and gasoline dispensing, activities that would not be appropriate and desirable in this location. This would be consistent with the former City of Scarborough initiative to restrict the noxious characteristics of vehicle related service uses to the interior of certain employment districts and away from major street frontages.

The applicant has requested that the existing industrial uses continue to be allowed on this site, and he wishes to continue to operate his heating and airconditioning business from this location. Council has in the past allowed for the continuation of industrial uses as a means of maintaining and enhancing the viability of employment generation in Employment Districts.

Although the Industrial District Commercial designation in the Official Plan provides for commercial facilities and services, the zoning by-law does not provide for retail stores and personal service shops. The proposed retail stores and personal service shops would provide opportunities to better utilize this prominent corner site and provide service, investment and employment opportunities in the area.

In order to allow for future commercial uses on this site, the more stringent parking requirement that applies to retail stores, offices and vehicle service garages (three spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor area) should be provided. For the existing 375 square metres (4,036 square feet) building, a total of 12 parking spaces would be required. The applicant has submitted a site plan indicating that 12 parking spaces can be provided on this property, which would satisfy the parking needs of the tenants.

The application was circulated to technical agencies and departments for their comments. There were no comments or objections raised to the proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments.

Conclusions:

The site has excellent road access and is near residential areas that would generate the demand for the services being proposed. The proposed amendments will expand the opportunity for the future development of the site by permitting more diversified employment opportunities. The proposed amendments are considered appropriate development for this area and will provide service to the surrounding industrial and residential occupants.

Contact Name:

Aristotle Christou, Senior Planner

(416) 396-5228

(416) 396-4265 Fax No.

christou@city.scarborough.on.ca

________

Mr. Paul Viaros, the owner, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and expressed support for the staff recommendations.

Councillor Altobello declared his interest in the foregoing matter in that his family owns property on Raleigh Avenue.

(Councillor Altobello, at the meeting of City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, declared his interest in the foregoing Clause, in that his family owns property on Raleigh Avenue.)

16

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98022

1234115 Ontario Limited, 2131 Lawrence Avenue East

Wexford Employment District

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated November16, 1998, from the Director, Community Planning, East District, recommends that the report of the Director, Community Planning, East District, be adopted, subject to imposing a cap of 5,000 square feet on Restaurant Uses.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December9, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (November 16, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the Employment Districts Zoning By-law (Wexford Employment District) for the property containing an existing commercial/office development on the southwest corner of Lawrence Avenue East and Underwriters Road, to permit restaurants and financial institutions in addition to currently permitted Community Commercial (CC) Uses. The amended zoning would enable the expansion of the existing Coffee Time Donut Shop into a 154square metre (1,650squarefoot) restaurant with seating, and recognize two existing financial institutions which have existed on this property since 1990. Amendments to development standards which limit the total gross floor area of retail stores and personal service shops on this property are also proposed to recognize the existing tenant mix and provide the owner with leasing flexibility.

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council amend the Employment Districts Zoning By-law Number24982, as amended (Wexford Employment District), with respect to 2131 Lawrence Avenue East, being Part of Block H, Registered Plan 4329, as follows:

(1)delete the Exception which prohibits Restaurants, Financial Institutions, and Drug Stores on the subject property;

(2)delete the Performance Standard which limits the total gross floor area of retail stores and personal service shops, excluding food stores, to 1,460 square metres (15,715 square feet);

(3)amend the Performance Standard which limits the total gross floor area of retail stores and personal service shops to read as follows:

"Gross floor area of all Retail Stores and Personal Service Shops shall not exceed 5,230 square metres (56,300 square feet)."; and

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

Background:

Site Statistics

UseGross Floor Area in Square MetresParking Required

Retail Stores and Personal 1704(18 343 square feet)51 spaces

Service Shops

Food Stores3339 (35 940 square feet)100 spaces

Restaurants*154(1650 square feet)17 spaces

Financial Institutions617(6642 square feet)19 spaces

Offices2885(31 055 square feet)87 spaces

Total8699(93638 square feet)274 spaces**

*Existing retail space proposed to be converted to restaurant.

**There are currently 286 parking spaces available on the property.

The subject lands contain a one storey commercial building and a three storey commercial/office building and are designated Community Commercial in the Official Plan. The current Community Commercial (CC) zoning permits day nurseries, offices, places of worship, personal service shops and retail stores. Surrounding uses include a variety of commercial uses including restaurants and financial institutions, along the north and south side of Lawrence Avenue East, and industrial uses to the south and east along Underwriters Road.

When this property was rezoned Community Commercial (CC) in 1988 an exception prohibiting restaurants and drug stores was applied to the property, and later in 1996 financial institutions were also prohibited under the Employment Districts Zoning By-law amalgamation. In 1988 the applicant agreed that restaurants and drug stores be specifically prohibited in response to concerns from area merchants. In 1993 a minor variance was granted permitting drug stores on this property. It appears that the two financial institutions on this property were considered offices or retail stores when they occupied the building in 1990, however they would no longer be permitted uses under the current zoning which specifically prohibits financial institutions.

Comments:

There are 286 parking spaces on the property and 274 parking spaces will be required for all the existing uses on the property including the expanded Coffee Time Restaurant. With a remaining surplus of 12 parking spaces available, it will be possible to convert an additional 150 square metres (1,615 square feet) of retail space into restaurant space. It is not necessary to implement a cap on restaurants for this property because restaurant space will be limited based on the availability of on-site parking which can accommodate a total of only 304 square metres (3,265 square feet) of restaurant space.

Introducing restaurants on this property will not have an adverse impact on the operation of the property or the surrounding area. Allowing financial institutions on the subject lands will be in character with other commercial/office developments in the City. Restaurants and financial institutions are not uncommon along Lawrence Avenue and are normally permitted under Community Commercial (CC) zoning. The proposal would implement the Community Commercial Official Plan designation by providing a wider range of commercial uses to serve the surrounding area.

When the subject property was rezoned in 1988, Limitations on the total amount of retail stores and personal service shop were applied in an effort to ensure a large food store and office space were built. The restrictions limited retail stores and personal service shops to a maximum of 0.54 times the total built gross floor area or 5,230 square metres (56,000 square feet), whichever is less, and limited retail stores and personal service shops, excluding food stores, to a maximum of 1,460 square metres (15,715 square feet). These restrictions have successfully served their purpose to establish a mixed-use project and provide employment opportunities because a food store and office space have been built on the subject lands.

The limitations should be simplified to provide the owner with leasing flexibility. Including food stores, there remains less than 5,230 square metres (56,300 square feet) of retail stores and personal service shops on the property. This limitation should be retained to ensure existing office space remains on this property. The limitation which excludes food stores should be deleted altogether to provide the owner with leasing flexibility should the food store relocate in the future.

Although drug stores are prohibited by an exception in the Zoning By-law, they are permitted by minor variance. The prohibition in the exception is therefore redundant and I am recommending it be deleted for clarity purposes.

Conclusions:

The proposal will enable the expansion of an existing Coffee Time Donuts business into currently vacant space and recognize two financial institutions on this property, all of which are serving the City by providing employment and assessment.

Contact Name:

Joe Nanos, Acting Senior Planner

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7037

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

________

Ms. Anna D'Alessandro, AVD Planning and Development Consulting Limited, the applicant, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and expressed support for the staff recommendations, including the proposed amendment.

17

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98020

Green Desk Developments Inc., Claresholme Drive

Highland Creek Community

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated November10, 1998, from the Director, Community Planning, East District, recommends that the report of the Director, Community Planning, East District, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December9, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (November 10, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

Fred Schaeffer, on behalf of Green Desk Developments Inc., has submitted an application to amend the Highland Creek Community Zoning By-law to reduce the minimum lot frontage and area for the lands shown on the adjacent map. The proposed amendment would reduce the minimum lot frontage from

15 metres (50 feet) to 12.7 metres (41.9 feet) and the minimum lot area from

696 square metres (7,500 square feet) to

372 square metres (4,004 square feet). Consent applications SB52/98, SB53/98 and SB54/98 have been submitted in support of the rezoning application.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council amend the Highland Creek Community Zoning By-law No.10827, as amended, with respect to the lands outlined on Figure 1, being Part of Lots 13 and14, Registered Plan 2129 and Block 23, Registered Plan 66M-2276 by deleting the existing performance standards applicable to these lands and replacing them with the following:

(A)Zoning By-law

(1)one single-family dwelling per parcel of land with a minimum of 12.7 metres frontage on a public street and a minimum area of 372 square metres;

(2)minimum building setback 6 metres from the street line;

(3)minimum side yard 900 mm from each side;

(4)minimum rear yard 7.5 metres;

(5)maximum total floor area per dwelling unit shall be 0.55 times the lot area;

(6)chimneys, pilasters, projecting columns, balconies, unenclosed porches and canopies shall not project into any required side yard of 1 metre or less;

(7)a garage (minimum inside dimensions of 2.7 metres by 5.7 metres) shall be erected with each dwelling unit; and

(B)Miscellaneous:

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

Background:

The proposal complies with the Low Density Residential designation of the Highland Creek Community Secondary Plan, which requires a minimum lot area of 370 m² (3,982 square feet). The property is zoned "Single-Family Residential" which permits single-family dwellings on lots having minimum 15 metre (50 feet) lot frontages and minimum 696 m² (7,500 square feet) lot areas.

The application was circulated to various review agencies, none of whom had any comments or concerns. Statutory Public Notice has been provided to all assessed persons within

120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property and to the local Community Association. To date no written responses have been received.

The lands subject of this application is a combination of rear yards of lots fronting on Euclid Avenue and a vacant remnant parcel, Block 23, from a registered plan of subdivision registered

May 12, 1994. The remnant parcel was included as a Block within the plan with the intent that it would eventually be developed in conjunction with abutting lands to the north. The lots to be created are to be developed as a continuation of the plan of subdivision. The development standards for lots within the existing subdivision will be extended to the parcels to be created.

The development of Block 23 in combination with the lands to the north would provide for the creation of four lots consistent in depth and area with existing lots, having frontage on ClaresholmeDrive and Hanna Terrace.

Approval of this application would allow for the development of 4 single family dwellings compatible with the pattern of development in the immediate area and the neighbourhood.

Part 5 is to be held for future development, once the additional lands to the north have been acquired to create a building lot similar to the lots proposed through this application. To ensure that the future development is not encumbered Part 5 is being excluded from the current rezoning application. In so doing it allows for the orderly development of these lands to occur and the existing character on Claresholme Drive to be maintained.

The recommendation in the Preliminary Evaluation Report adopted by Council at their meeting of October 30, 1998, was to convene a public meeting to consider this application targeted for the first quarter of 1999. However a re-evaluation of the application and discussions with the Ward Councillors determined there were no issues to prevent dealing with the proposed amendment at an earlier date.

Conclusions:

This application to amend the Zoning By-law to permit four lots to be created from the rear yard of existing lots in combination with Block 23 is consistent with the City's infill development objectives as shown on the Tertiary Plan for the Highland Creek Community. It is also an excellent opportunity to provide additional housing consistent with the existing single-family dwellings in the vicinity.

Contact Name:

Theo Lawrence

Scarborough Civic Centre

Tel.: (416) 396-7038 Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-mail: lawren_t@scarborough.on.ca

________

Mr. Fred Schaeffer, the applicant for Green Desk Developments Inc., appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and expressed support for the staff recommendations.

18

Official Plan Amendment Application SP98010

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98017

699982 Ontario Ltd., 4730-4736 Sheppard Avenue East

Marshalling Yard Employment District

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated November 16, 1998, from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommends that the report of the Director of Community Planning, East District, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December9, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (November 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the Marshalling Yard Employment District Secondary Plan and to amend the Employment Districts Zoning By-law (Marshalling Yard Employment District), for the lands located on the north side of Sheppard Avenue east of McCowan Road, as shown on the attached Figure, as follows:

(1) To amend the Zoning By-law by deleting the current "Industrial Commercial Zone (MC)" on the westerly portion of the subject lands (the watercourse lands) and replacing it with an "Open Spaces Zone (O)", as shown on Figure 3.

(2) To amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law by adding permission to construct restaurants on the remaining portion of the subject lands, in addition to the existing permitted uses. The owner also proposes to increase the existing density permission.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(A)Official Plan:

amend the Marshalling Yard Employment District Secondary Plan, with respect to the property located on the north side of Sheppard Avenue east of McCowan Road, known municipally as 4730 - 4736 Sheppard Avenue, being Part of Lot 22, Concession 3, by adding the following Numbered Policy:

"North Side of Sheppard Avenue east of McCowan Road

Restaurants are permitted within the Industrial Commercial designation.";

(B)Zoning By-law:

amend the Employment Districts Zoning By-law Number 24982 (Marshalling Yard Employment District), as amended, with respect to the lands located at 4730 - 4736 Sheppard Avenue, being Part of Lot 22, Concession 3, as follows:

Easterly Portion of the Subject lands:

(1)that "Restaurants" be added as a permitted use to the existing Exception applying to the easterly portion of the subject lands;

(2)the existing Performance Standards are to be deleted and replaced as follows:

(a)gross floor area of all buildings shall not exceed 0.5 times the area of the lot;

(b)gross floor area of all Restaurants shall not exceed 790 square metres (8,504square feet);

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

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

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

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

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

Westerly Portion of the Subject Lands:

(1)that the existing "Industrial Commercial Zone (MC)" which applies to westerly portion of the subject lands be deleted and replaced with an "Open Spaces Zone (O)", as shown on Figure 3; and

(C)Miscellaneous:

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

Background:

A Site Plan Control Application has been submitted in support of this application, indicating two construction phases:

Phase 1, as shown on Figure 2 includes the construction of a 261 square metre (2,810 square feet) restaurant and a 1 188 square metre (12,788 square feet) vehicle repair garage (Buildings A and C), in addition to the existing buildings which are comprised of 3 381 square metres (36,394 square feet) of gross floor area (Buildings B, E and F). A total of 220 parking spaces are proposed.

Phase 2, as shown on Figure 3 entails the demolition of 1 201 square metres (12,928 square feet) of gross floor area (Buildings E and F). These buildings are to be replaced with a 496 square metre (5,339 square feet) restaurant and a 1,524 square metre (16,405 square foot) vehicle repair garage. A total of 246 parking spaces are proposed.

Upon completion of both Phases, it is proposed that there will be a total of 757 square metres (8,149square feet) of gross floor area for restaurants and 4,892 square metres (52,659 square feet) of gross floor area for vehicle repair garages.

The lands are designated Industrial Commercial which permits commercial facilities having outdoor storage, industrial and warehousing uses with a small commercial component.

These lands are also subject to the Business District Policies of the Official Plan, which require that when considering zoning amendments to permit offices, sufficient road capacity, a reasonable level of public transit and compatibility with neighbouring uses are to be considered. Under these policies, the Office Uses designation applies, thus permitting Commercial Uses (Retail Sales and Services) as a secondary use to offices, as well as business services, social service uses and educational facilities. The Plan also establishes a maximum height of 12 metres (39 feet) for office buildings on lands designated for industrial uses. The proposed Restaurant is not permitted under the Business District policies of the Official Plan given that offices are not the primary use proposed for these lands.

The lands are zoned "Industrial Commercial (MC)" permitting a wide range of uses, however by way of exception, the property is restricted to the following uses: Marketplace Signs, Places of Worship, Vehicle Repair Garages, Vehicle Sales Operations and Vehicle Service Stations.

Comments:

Staff propose to delete the existing "Industrial Commercial Zone (MC)" and add an "Open Spaces Zone (O)" to the westerly portion of the subject lands. This would ensure that the watercourse lands are protected from future industrial development. The owner has also agreed to dedicate a 0.45hectare (1.1 acre) parcel of land to the City of Toronto, as shown on Figure 3. The owner would dedicated this land to the City of Toronto at the time the Site Plan Control application is approved.

The owner has submitted a Site Plan Control application which addresses the concerns identified in the Preliminary Evaluation Report. All garbage rooms are to be located within buildings, the proposed parking areas would be screened by buildings or with landscaping material and the proposed restaurant along Sheppard Avenue will help to provide a continuous edge along Sheppard Avenue which will visually enclose and define the public street space.

At the request of the Works and Emergency Services Division the owner has agreed to provide a monitoring report on parking demand versus supply after the completion of Phase 1 and before the construction of Phase 2. Upon completion of Phase 2 the owner will provide 245 parking spaces which is in excess of the minimum requirements of the Zoning By-law. An additional 80 secured parking spaces are to be provided at the rear of the site. This area will be used to store vehicles currently being repaired.

The owner has requested to increase the density permission on the site. The existing density permissions over the entire site permits a maximum gross floor area for all buildings of 0.4 times the area of the lot, including the watercourse lands which are to be dedicated to the City of Toronto. The owner now proposes a maximum density of 0.5 times the area of the lot. In essence, the owner has requested permission to remove the permitted density from the watercourse lands and place it on the easterly portion of the lands to be retained by the owner. It is appropriate that the density be increased, given that the majority of the surrounding sites currently have permission to construct buildings having a maximum density of 0.5 times the area of the lot and given that the owner has agreed to dedicate at no cost to the City of Toronto 0.45 hectares (1.1 acres) of land.

The owner has also agreed reduce the size of the Phase 2 restaurant, so that it would comply with the proposed cap of 465 square metres (5,000 square feet), requested by one of the Ward Councillors.

Conclusions:

The proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments are appropriate as they would provide the owner additional flexibility in leasing the premises, would provide for street scape improvements along Sheppard Avenue at this prominent location and would enhance both the City's employment and tax bases.

Contact Name:

Victor Gottwald, Acting Senior Planner

Phone: (416) 396-5004

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

________

Mr. Patrick Chan, Architect, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and expressed support for the staff recommendations.

________

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (December 8, 1998) from Dave Beaumont, President, C.D.Farquharson Community Association:

At our Association Executive meeting on December 1, 1998, we reviewed the above-noted application. We wish to register an objection to the proposal at this time as we had neither the time nor the opportunity to review it appropriately with the applicant.

There is a concentration of restaurants in our immediate community and we want to ensure that this particular proposal is in the best interests of our residential neighbourhood, which is in close proximity to the subject lands. Our Association principles govern the appropriateness of development based on the following criteria: 1) comprehensive 2)compatible 3) no density increase and 4) no more restaurant uses prior to relevant studies and sufficient consultation with our community.

We request, then, that the Community Council not approve this application unless all four of our community's conditions are met. We welcome a meeting with staff, the applicant and our ward councillors to address particular concerns we have about restaurants in an over-saturated market and related issues of parking, waste disposal, litter, and our larger concern of this setting a precedent for even more restaurants in the future. Our next Association Executive meeting is Tuesday, January 5, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. at the school, 1965 Brimley Road.

Thank you for your attention.

19

Official Plan Amendment Application SP1998016

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ1998033

Zooview Development Ltd. & Zooview (East) Developments Ltd.

North Side of Sheppard Avenue East, West of Hedge End Road

Rouge Community, Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated November 16, 1998, from the Director, Community Planning, East District, recommends that the report of the Director, Community Planning, East District, be adopted.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December9, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (November 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report presents recommendations to amend the Rouge Community Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law for the vacant site on the north side of Sheppard Avenue, west of Hedge End Road, as shown on the adjacent map. The amendments propose to change the Official Plan from Office Use to Medium Density Residential, and to rezone from Office Uses to Medium Family Residential, to permit the development of 27 townhouse units. The proposal provides for the extension of the private road pattern, the landscape treatment and the architectural design already established for the abutting townhouses presently under construction to the east, by Harmony Developments Ltd. The approval of the amendments will permit completion of the development of all lands at the north-west quadrant of Sheppard Avenue East and Meadowvale Road.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that City Council:

(A)Official Plan:

amend the Rouge Community Secondary Plan with respect to the property located on the north side of Sheppard Avenue East, west of Hedge End Road, being Block 5, Registered Plan M66-2308, by redesignating the land from Office Use to Medium Density Residential, and by deleting the following words "in the Office Use designation, restaurants uses shall be permitted as a secondary use" from existing Numbered Policy No. 18;

(B)Zoning By-law:

amend the Rouge Community Zoning By-law No. 15907, as amended, with respect to the property located on the north side of Sheppard Avenue East, west of Hedge End Road, being Block 5, Registered Plan M66-2308, by deleting the existing zoning and replacing it with the Multiple-Family Residential (MF) Zone, with the following development standards:

(1)maximum 27 dwelling units;

(2)minimum 3 metre (10 foot) building setback from the street line;

(3)minimum 4.1 metre (13 foot) building setback from the north property line;

(4)maximum height of buildings 13 metres (43 feet); and

(5)minimum 1.6 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be provided on the basis of 1.4 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors. Notwithstanding Clause VII, 1.4, Location of Parking, one parking space may be provided on Block2, R.P. 66M-2308 (abutting site to the east); and

(C)Miscellaneous:

authorize such unsubstantive technical, stylistic or format changes to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments as may be required to properly carry out the intent of this resolution; and

(D)direct the applicant to amend the existing Subdivision Agreement to provide for noise abatement measures with respect to the site (Block 5, R.P. 66M-2308) prior to issuance of building permits.

Background:

The 0.47 hectare (1.16 acre) site was created as a block on the Zooview subdivision approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in May, 1995. While the residential blocks within the subdivision are nearing completion, this parcel has remained vacant. The applicant has indicated that due to a relative isolation of the site from the main commercial areas, the property owner has been unable to generate enough interest to warrant the construction of a small office building at this location.

A low density residential neighbourhood has been developed south of Sheppard Avenue, with a service station at the south-west corner of Sheppard Avenue East and Meadowvale Road. The Ontario Hydro Corridor borders the site to the north. To the west, there is a commercial plaza which accommodates a Coffee Time restaurant, a Pizza Pizza outlet, a dry cleaning facility and a sales office marketing the Harmony townhouses.

A community information meeting took place on November 3, 1998, with notice mailed out to approximately 230 households, the Old Lansing Cut-Off Ratepayers' Association and Save the Rouge Valley System. In addition to Ward Councillors, the applicant and city staff, a representative of Save the Rouge Valley System attended the meeting. No concerns were identified regarding the proposal.

On November 12, 1998, Scarborough Community Council endorsed a Preliminary Evaluation report and directed the Community Planning to target Public Meeting on these applications for

December 9, 1998, provided that community consultation and technical review by public agencies have been addressed by the applicant.

Comments:

In support of the proposed amendments, the applicant has submitted a Site Plan Control application illustrating the new development (Figures 3, 4 and 5). The proposed units would be integrated with the adjacent townhouse project. Vehicular access to the site from the local road, Hedge End Street, would be accommodated via a private road, so no new direct access to Sheppard Avenue would be required. The site layout allows access by service and emergency vehicles. The proposed architectural design and landscaping provide for the extension of the same treatment used on the adjacent development under construction.

The applications were circulated to various agencies involved in the review process. With the exception of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department, none of the agencies objected to the proposal. The Economic Development, Culture and Tourism Department does not support the proposed redesignation from office uses to residential uses as it would decrease the amount of employment generating land. While recognizing that the site is not in a major employment area and the proposal complements the residential development to the east, the economic staff is concerned with a steady erosion of the employment land in favour of other uses.

With respect to the economic comments, the lands on the north side of Sheppard Avenue East, between Meadowvale Road and the hydro corridor were designated for industrial uses in 1967 as part of the new Rouge Industrial District Secondary Plan. Since that time, this area has been redesignated to "Zoo Related Commercial Uses" in 1976, to "General Mixed Use" in 1983, to "Commercial Mixed Use" in 1984, and to "Office Uses" in 1995, all with a view to secure employment uses. In 1983, the lands were moved from an industrial district to the Rouge Community. During all these years the site has remained vacant. This suggests it is not considered attractive or desirable for commercial and office uses. The surrounding residential community is well served by commercial, office and service facilities located in the commercial centres located at the corner of Morningside Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East, Meadowvale Road and Dean Park Road, Sheppard Avenue East and Durnford Road, Kingston Road and Rylander Boulevard, in addition to a modest neighbourhood shopping plaza abutting the site to the west.

The current proposal is the first serious attempt to develop this serviced property. The proposed use is consistent with the existing and approved development in the vicinity. The proposed townhouse construction would complete the development of lands along the north side of Sheppard Avenue East, between the hydro corridor and Meadowvale Avenue, thus providing a long term stability to the neighbourhood. The abutting Harmony project comprises 215 units, whereas the zoning by-law permits 233 units. Given the site organization of the project already under construction, it is unlikely that the residual 18 units permitted by zoning, but not provided for, could be accommodated in the Harmony complex. The proposed 27 units on the subject site would not have a negative impact on the local schools and community services. It would also support local convenience and service uses.

To address the noise concern related to the site's proximity to the Ontario Hydro transfer station and traffic on Sheppard Avenue, a noise report has been submitted by Valcoustics Canada Ltd. The proposed measures, similar to the controls required for the adjacent residential development, are satisfactory and will ensure that the new development accommodates adequate indoor and outdoor residential space in accordance with the Ministry of Environment's noise guidelines. To ensure that the measures are properly implemented, it is recommended that the existing subdivision agreement be amended to incorporate the noise abatement measures as specified in the Valcoustics report.

It is intended that this site be amalgamated with the abutting townhouses under construction on the north and west sides of Hedge End Road, to form one condominium corporation, so the entire area will function as one development. The proposed zoning by-law standards are similar to the provisions applicable to the abutting residential blocks. The parking rate of 1.6 parking space per unit requires the provision of 44 spaces. The proposal incorporates 43 parking spaces. More parking could be accommodated on the site, but the required space would take away from the central landscape court that would be a very attractive focal feature for these units. Since the abutting townhouse block has more parking spaces than required by the by-law, staff is in agreement with the applicant's suggestion that one additional parking space, as required by the proposed by-law, be provided on the adjacent block.

Conclusion:

The proposed amendments would permit the extension of the residential uses on this relatively small parcel of land. As this is the only vacant site at the north-west quadrant of Sheppard Avenue East and Meadowvale Road, the completion of the proposed townhouses would provide for a long term stability in this area. The proximity of the Toronto Zoo and the Rouge Valley lands further enhance this site as a desirable location for a ground-related, family oriented residential housing.

Contact Name:

Anna Czajkowski, MCIP, RPP

Senior Planner,

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7022

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

________

Ms. Connie Nichols, representing Zooview Developments Limited, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and expressed support for the staff recommendations.

20

Official Plan Amendment Application SP98015

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98027

Shell Canada, 2650 Brimley Road

Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the finding of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the report, dated December2, 1998, from the Director, Community Planning, East District, recommends:

(1)that the recommendation contained in the following report be struck out; and

(2)that the application by Shell Canada be refused on the grounds that it is incompatible with the surrounding neighbourhood.

Recorded Vote on the foregoing motion by Councillor Mahood:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Balkissoon, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Faubert, Mahood, Moeser, Shaw -9

Nays:Councillors Ashton, Kelly -2

The Scarborough Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on December9, 1998, in accordance with Section 17 and Section 34 of The Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (December 2, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

This report outlines the results of the Community Information Meeting held the evening of November24, 1998 regarding the proposal by Shell Canada Limited to amend the Agincourt North Community Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law for their property located on the northwest corner of Finch Avenue East and Brimley Road, to permit retail sales, convenience food sales (including the sale of donuts) and on-site food preparation in addition to permitted Highway Commercial Uses. The existing 'Quick-Lube' building is proposed to be demolished and replaced with a larger 162square metre (1,745 square foot) one-storey, 24-hour convenience store building with drive-thru facility. The Shell gas bar on the property will also be upgraded. Nine parking spaces are proposed to be provided on-site. No restaurant seating is proposed.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Scarborough Community Council defer consideration of the applications by Shell Canada Limited for their proposal at 2650 Brimley Road, to enable the applicant to undertake further consultations with local community representatives, Planning staff and the local Councillors regarding the issues raised at the community meeting. The Public Meeting for the applications will be rescheduled for the second Scarborough Community Council Meeting in 1999.

Background:

At its meeting on October 14, 1998, Scarborough Community Council considered my Preliminary Evaluation Report and directed that:

(a)Planning staff convene a Community Information Meeting in November, 1998;

(b)the applicant submit a Site Plan Control application and a Noise Study recommending measures which mitigate the noise generated by the drive-thru facility onto abutting residential properties;

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

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

Community Information Meeting:

A community information meeting was hosted by the Urban Planning and Development Services Department the evening of November 24, 1998. Over 60 residents were in attendance as well as Ward 17 Councillors Mahood and Shaw and Ward 18 Councillor Cho. The applicant presented the proposal and a number of concerns were raised by the residents including the following:

(a)noise impact on the surrounding residential area, especially with regards to the proposed drive-thru facility;

(b)on-site parking supply and traffic operations in the vicinity of the Shell property;

(c)community security issues and the proposed 24-hour operation; and

(d)no community desire for another convenience store in this area.

Shell representatives as well as the applicant's noise consultant were on hand to answer questions. A show of hands at the close of the meeting, revealed that a vast majority of the residents object to the proposal.

Site Plan Control Application and Noise Study:

The applicant has submitted a Site Plan Control application and the Noise Study, both of which are currently under review by City staff. Although the Noise Study consultant attended the community meeting to present his conclusions and answer questions, the Noise Study was only made available to residents on December 1, 1998.

Request to Remove the Drive-thru Facility:

To date, Shell Canada has not responded to the request by Scarborough Community Council to consider removing the drive-thru facility proposed in this application.

Toronto Police Service:

To date, the Toronto Police Service has not formally responded to the request by Scarborough Community Council to provide a report on any statistics that may be available to support or justify community concerns respecting crime in the area. Fred Schofield, a Community Policing Officer, was in attendance at the community meeting and will be in attendance at the Scarborough Community Council Meeting on December 9th to provide information and answer questions.

Comments:

Given the community concerns outlined in this report, Planning staff are of the opinion that further consultations should be undertaken by the applicant with local community representatives, City staff and the local Councillors in an effort to reach a consensus on this proposal. I am therefore recommending the applications be deferred until the second Scarborough Community Council Meeting in 1999.

Contact Name:

Joe Nanos, Acting Senior Planner

Telephone: (416) 396-7037; Facsimile: (416) 396-4265

nanos@city.scarborough.on.ca

The Scarborough Community Council, submits for the information of Council, the following communication (December 8, 1998) from Sharyn Vincent, Principal, Vincent Planning and Development Consultants:

Vincent Planning and Development Consultants are the agents for Shell Canada Products on the subject applications and are writing to request Council to adopt the staff recommendation to defer the consideration of the applications to allow time for further community consultation. The limited time between the community meeting and the public hearing made it difficult to hold further meetings to work towards resolution. We are, however, confident that further discussions will be productive, and therefore look forward to working with planning staff to bring the various interested parties together in the near future.

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

-Ms. Sharyn Vincent, Principal, Vincent Planning and Development Consultants, indicating her client's willingness to undertake further community consultation in order to alleviate residents' concerns respecting noise, and advising that the results of the noise study undertaken indicate that Shell can operate at this site in compliance with Ministry of the Environment guidelines;

-Mr. Ken Campbell, on behalf of Shell Canada, responding to concerns expressed at the community information meeting respecting security controls; advising of various initiatives undertaken nationally by Shell Canada in this regard, and emphasizing Shell's commitment to ensuring a safe and secure environment for its employees and its customers at this particular location;

-Mrs. Valerie Plunkett, President, Rosewood Taxpayers' Association, and area resident, requesting that Community Council deny this application on the grounds that it will take away business from the small retail plaza in the community, that the lighting from this site will intrude on the abutting residences, that it will create air pollution, and that security control measures may not be enforceable at this location;

-Mr. Ronald Green, Vice President, Rosewood Taxpayers' Association, requesting that Community Council deny this application on the grounds that it will not be of benefit to the community;

-Mrs. Frances van Dorsser, abutting resident, requesting that Community Council deny this application on the grounds that it will not be of benefit to the community;

-Mr. Bruce McLeod, area resident, requesting that Community Council deny this application on the grounds that, having undertaken to interview residents living behind this location, he discovered that many of them indicated they had not received notice of the Public Meeting, that some were unable to understand English, and further, that in his opinion, the application poses a significant threat to security and enjoyment of the area residents;

-Mr. Harold Beswick, Past President, Chartland Community Association, advising that the Community Association did not receive notice of the community information meeting in sufficient time to attend and voice an opinion, and therefore, speaking in support of the staff recommendation to defer this proposal for further community consultation;

-Constable Fred Schofield, responding to Community Council's request, emanating from its meeting held on October 14, 1998, that the Chief of Police provide a report on any statistics that may be available to support or justify community concerns respecting crime in this area, and tabling with the Community Council data respecting this location which indicate that twenty-two incidents of gasoline theft had taken place at this location in 1998. (A copy of these data are on file in the Office of the City Clerk)

21

Preliminary Evaluation Report

Official Plan Amendment Application SP1998019

Zoning By-Law Amendment Application SZ1998037

Monarch Construction Limited

5039 Finch Avenue and 2627 McCowan Road

Agincourt North Community

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends:

(1)that the recommendations contained in the following report be struck out; and

(2)that the application by Monarch Construction Limited be refused on the grounds of traffic impact, shadowing and incompatibility with the surrounding area.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having requested that the City Solicitor report directly to City Council on December 16, 1998, on the impact of Section 37 and the issue of incremental bonusing on this site.

Recorded Vote on the adoption of the foregoing motions:

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

Nays:Nil

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (December 3, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

To permit an increase in density from 470 to 616 residential dwelling units or by 146 dwelling units, and to reduce the indoor recreation floor space requirement from a minimum of 3 square metres (32.2 square feet) to 1.5 square metres (16 square feet) per dwelling unit, for the phased development at the southeast corner of Finch Avenue and McCowan Road as shown on the adjacent map and on

Figure 2.

Financial Implications:

None.

Recommendations:

That Scarborough Community Council:

(1)refuse the applications, in part, for a density which would result in a 19 storey building in Phase 4; but to continue to process the applications for 12 additional units, being the proposed freestanding townhouses in Phases 5a and 5b of the development;

(2)process the Zoning By-law Amendment application for a reduction in indoor recreation space to 1.5 square metres (16 square feet) per dwelling unit;

(3)direct staff to investigate an appropriate height limitation for the residential apartment building in Phase 4;

(4)hold a Community Information Meeting with an expanded area of notice beyond 120 metres (400 feet) from the subject property, as shown on Figure 5, and to the four area Community Associations; the date of the Community Information Meeting to be determined in consultation with the Ward Councillors; and

(5)advise the owner that support for final Site Plan Control approval for any changes to the approved Site Plan would be required.

Background:

The subject property, along with the property at the southwest corner of Finch Avenue and McCowan Road were redesignated and rezoned in November 1990 to facilitate similar developments on each corner. The proposed Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, at that time, sought to increase the overall permitted density from 618 to 1057 residential dwelling units and specifically from 327 to 598 residential units for the subject property. After numerous meetings and negotiations with the community, a total of 808 residential units were permitted, and specifically 470 residential units for the subject property.

The increase in density also resulted in a Section 37 Agreement pursuant to the Planning Act which secured $622,800 towards community improvements within the Agincourt North Community. The improvements included: a pedestrian crosswalk in front of Iroquois Public School, improvements to Iroquois and Chartwell Parks and for the construction of a new library or recreation centre. Payments were made in two installments; the first being a total of $303,300 paid in 1992, and the second for $319,600 paid in July 1998. The latter has not been spent to date. The Section 37 Agreement also required a restrictive covenant to be registered on title in favour of the City for the southerly portion of each corner adjacent to the existing residences. The restrictive covenant secured the land for passive landscaping purposes only. The restrictive covenant along with the Zoning

By-law's 60 metre (197 feet) setback from the proposed 12 storey apartment buildings fronting McCowan Road to the existing low density residences were intended to minimize potential impacts between the development and the residences to the south.

The earlier zoning amendment removed the specific Apartment and Multiple-Family Residential zoned areas on each corner and integrated the permitted uses and densities in order to achieve a comprehensive development scheme of interconnected buildings, with a gradation in building massing from Finch Avenue south and along Finch Avenue towards Exhequer Place and

Sandhurst Circle on the subject property. The integrated densities provided for 124 units per hectare (50 units per acre) for a development scheme that would not have been accommodated by the original zoning.

The 1990 Site Plan Control conceptual approval associated with the previous Amendment applications, included an 18 storey apartment building along Finch Avenue and a 12 storey apartment building along McCowan Road, both of which would be connected by a one storey recreation building at the street corner, and two storey townhouses attached to the apartment buildings fronting Finch Avenue and McCowan Road. Freestanding townhouses would also be provided at the eastern property limits along Finch Avenue and Sandhurst Circle on the subject property.

The southwest corner of the development is complete and consists of two condominium apartment buildings of 18 and 10 storeys, connected by a one storey recreation building. One and two storey townhouses also exist, with the two storey units being attached to the 18 storey building and the one storey units attached to the 10 storey building.

The first phase of development on the southeast corner is under construction for a 19 storey building with attached two storey townhouses and one storey recreation building. Prior to approval being given for a 19 storey building through the Site Plan Control process, community input at the request of Councillor Balkissoon was sought. Community concerns expressed included, among other matters: the shadow impact on Chartwell Park from the existing building(s) on the southwest corner of Finch Avenue and McCowan Road; density; increased traffic experienced since the southwest corner was built; the number of changes made by the owner since the 1990 approval and the number of changes that may still be forthcoming; a desire to obtain a commitment from the owner to build the proposed 12 storey building along McCowan Road at 12 storeys; and, that all phases of the development are governed by one site plan agreement.

Furthermore, support for the proposed one storey increase was sought from the Scarborough Community Council and Council. In May 1998, Council's support was given which entailed the approval of one overall site plan for Phases 3, 4 and 5a and 5b, subject to detailed building elevations and landscaping plans for Phases 4, 5a and 5b, being submitted for the approval of the Commissioner of Planning by way of an amending Site Plan Control Agreement. Phase 4 included a 12 storey building with attached one storey townhouses and Phase 5a included 22 freestanding townhouses. Phase 5b did not contain development. The site plan supported by Council is shown on Figure 2A. Council support was also conditional upon the Site Plan Control Agreement requiring three square metres (32.2 square feet) of recreation spacer per dwelling unit or 1,410 square metres (15,178square feet).

The subject property is designated Medium Density and High Density Residential which by Numbered Policy 2 allows a maximum density of 124 units per hectare (50 units per acre). Medium Density allows a variety of dwelling types including townhouses, low-rise apartments and other such projects to a maximum height of four storeys. Single and semi-detached dwellings are also permitted. High Density Residential allows townhouses and apartments.

The Zoning By-law permits a maximum of 470 units, of which a maximum of 34 units are to be in buildings of three storeys or less in height. Apartment buildings are restricted to a maximum height of 54 m (177 feet). Minimum building setbacks include: three metres (10 feet) from Sandhurst Circle and Exchequer Place; six metres (20 feet) from Finch Avenue and McCowan Road for buildings of three storeys or less and 14 metres (46 feet) for buildings more than three storeys;

50 metres (165 feet) for buildings of three storeys or less and 60 metres (197 feet) for buildings more than three storeys from a Two-Family Residential Zone or Street Townhouse Residential Zone; and three metres (10 feet) for buildings of three storeys or less abutting Sandhurst Circle. A minimum of 1.4 parking spaces per dwelling unit are required of which one space per unit is to be enclosed and a minimum of 0.2 spaces are to be surface visitor parking. A minimum of 3 square metres (32.2 square feet) of indoor recreation floor space is required.

The owner applied for a minor variance (SA206/98) in order to reduce the indoor recreation space requirement to 1.5 square metres (16 square feet) per dwelling unit. Committee of Adjustment, on September 23, 1998, granted a minor variance which was conditional upon providing a minimum indoor recreation space requirement of 2 square metres (21.5 square feet) of per dwelling unit for the subject property. The applicant had the opportunity to appeal the decision of Committee but did not do so. The recently approved variance provides the same indoor recreation floor space requirement for the southwest corner which was approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on February 17, 1997.

Comments:

Potential Concerns

The requested density of 161 units per hectare (65 units per acre) exceeds the High Density Residential density of 150 units per hectare (60 units per acre). While there are other examples of similar or greater densities as proposed within Scarborough, the increases have generally occurred in a comprehensive manner rather than occurring mid-stream within a development scheme. The present request for density increase comes at a time when three out of the five phases within an approved development scheme have been established. Scarborough Council in granting the original comprehensive approval for the project specifically considered and refused higher density for this project.

The development scheme for both the southwest and southeast corner of Finch Avenue and McCowan Road was to provide for similar, complementary, developments. The proposed density increase would be accommodated primarily within a 19 storey building with attached one storey townhouses fronting onto McCowan Road within Phase 4. This proposal is not in keeping with the overall development scheme of providing for a gradation of building massing from Finch Avenue toward the existing low density residential community to the south nor is it consistent with the established development on the southwest corner.

The proposed 19 storey building would also contain one storey attached townhouses similar to the 10 storey building across McCowan Road. The one storey townhouses however would not be proportionate or appropriate to the height of the building.

At the community meeting earlier this year dealing with the one storey increase in Phase 3, concern had been expressed with a reduced amount of sunlight in Chartwell Park. Shadow diagrams were submitted after the subject applications were made. To fully assess the shadow impact of the proposed 19 storey building, additional information on shadows at different daytimes and a comparison of the Phase 4 building at 12 storeys would be required.

The 22 proposed townhouses in Phases 5a and 5b do not conform with the existing Finch Avenue street yard setback requirement or to the building setback requirements from Two-Family Residential or Street Townhouse Residential Zones in the Zoning By-law. Also, for the proposed density 863 parking spaces would be required. The applicant has indicated a total 800 parking spaces, creating a shortfall of 63 parking spaces.

The Site Plan Control approval given earlier this year involved the Site Plan Control application being "bumped up" to Scarborough Community Council and Council. The approval which was given did not indicate any development on Phase 5b. Ten townhouse units are now proposed within this Phase and support from Scarborough Community Council and Council would be required.

A traffic study to support the density increase has very recently been submitted. Upon a cursory review, there do not appear to be any significant traffic issues. Staff would, however, require additional time to complete the review.

The 1990 density increase was approved, in part, because of improvements which would be made to the Agincourt North Community through implementing a Section 37 Agreement. As some of the improvements to the Community have been undertaken, it is uncertain as to what additional improvements could be afforded by another Section 37 Agreement for more density on a property which has already been bonused.

Monarch Construction had requested a reduction of indoor recreation space to 1.5 square metres (16square feet) for a density of 470 dwelling units. The owner had an opportunity to appeal Committee's approval of 2 square metres (21.5 square feet). The request for a further reduction in the recreation ratio now is based on the request for additional units with no corresponding increase in recreation amenity space.

Potential Benefits

The subject property is at the intersection of two major arterials well serviced by public transit. A shopping centre is in close proximity to the development as are other commercial facilities. The proposed density increase would also provide increased tax assessment to the City.

The additional townhouses within Phase 5 are in keeping with the overall development scheme in providing a gradation along Finch Avenue towards the low density residences.

Contact Name:

Sylvia Mullaste, Planner

Phone: (416) 396-5244; Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

The Scarborough Community Council submits, for the information of Council, the following communication (December 8, 1998) from Mark Tutton, Vice President, Land Development, Monarch Construction Limited:

We have had an opportunity to read staff's report of December 3, 1998 which recommends refusal of an application for "a density which would result in a 19 storey building in Phase 4". As there appears to be some uncertainty when this matter will be dealt with, we are taking this opportunity to file written submissions with you. We would also hope to be able to address our concerns at the scheduled meeting later this week.

We are very concerned with the direction staff have taken. Council should be aware that the land on which the building is proposed is currently zoned for a height of 54 metres which equates to the 19 storey building proposed. Although Monarch is prepared to work with the City in respect to site plan matters and design details of the building, it is firmly of the view that the existing 54 metre height limit is reasonable and appropriate for the site. We would also note a setback of 60 metres was determined in relation to the adjacent low density housing as was the requirement for berming and substantial landscaping.

As discussed in our application, the requested density derives in part from changed circumstances including now available access to at least one of the arterial roads and public policy considerations applicable to locations which benefits of the very high accessibility and the amount and range of services enjoyed by this one.

As stated earlier, we are hoping to be in a position to address the Community Council later this week. Our inquiries with the Scarborough Clerk's Office indicate that we are item number 38 on the supplementary agenda; however, it is uncertain when over the 2 day Council meeting this matter will be heard. We would be hopeful that the matter might be left until late in the meeting, possibly after 1:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 9th or any time on Thursday, December 10th.

--------

Mr. Roger Elliott, Counsel for Monarch Construction, appeared before the Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter and expressed Monarch's opposition to the staff recommendations.

Proposed Site Plan

Approved Site Plan

Elevation Plan

Elevation Plan - Townhouses

Figure 44

Notification Area - Figure 5

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, had before it, during consideration of the foregoing Clause, the following report (December 10, 1998) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

To advise Council on the impact of Section 37 of the Planning Act and the issue of incremental bonusing on this site.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

None.

Recommendation:

For information.

Background:

At its meeting held on December 9, 1998, Scarborough Community Council in dealing with the above-noted applications, requested that the City Solicitor report to Council on the impact of Section37 of the Planning Act and the issue of incremental bonusing on this site.

Comments:

The subject property was redesignated and rezoned in November, 1990 when the permitted density for the site was increased from 327 residential units to 470 residential units. In conjunction with the 1990 applications, an agreement pursuant to Section 37 was entered into providing for community benefits in the Agincourt North Community.

In reviewing the current application for an increase in density by 146 residential units, staff may recommend and Council may approve the use of Section 37 including the entering into of a further agreement for additional community benefits to be provided by the Owner.

If Council adopts the recommendations of the Director of Community Planning, East District, the application will be processed with respect to 12 additional units. In view of the existing Section 37 agreement, Planning staff may consider the use of Section 37. The limited increase in density will impact on the magnitude of community benefits.

Conclusions:

Notwithstanding potential concerns regarding Section 37 benefits where a property is zoned incrementally, a property owner is entitled to apply for further development approvals. Staff must process the applications in accordance with the Planning Act and the applications must be reviewed and considered in accordance with good planning principles which may in appropriate circumstances, include the use of Section 37 of the Planning Act.

Contact Name:

Anna Kinastowski, Director

Planning & Administrative Tribunal Law

Tel: 392-0080

Fax: 392-0005)

22

Request for Fence By-law Exemption

Ralph and Margaret Wright, 28 Sharbot Avenue

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 17, 1998) from the Director, Municipal Standards:

Purpose:

The applicants are seeking approval to allow an existing board on board fence varying in height from 1.98 metres (6.5 feet) to 1.9 metres (6.25 feet) to remain in their street yard abutting Sharbot Avenue. The fence is located along the south property line between No. 28 and No. 26 and is approximately 3.6 metres (12 feet) from the public sidewalk.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council approve the application to permit a board on board fence at a height of 1.98 metres (6.5 feet) extending into the street yard not closer than 6.09 metres (20feet) from the sidewalk on Sharbot Avenue.

Background/History:

Acting upon the receipt of a complaint, the subject property was inspected on September 4, 1998. The inspection revealed a fence constructed along the south property line dividing No. 26 and No.28 Sharbot Avenue. This board on board wood fence varying in height from 1.98 metres (6.5 feet) to 1.9 metres (6.25 feet) was found to extend into the street yard a distance of approximately 4.8 metres (16 feet) terminating approximately 3.6 metres (12 feet) from the sidewalk.

A notice of violation was issued on September 8, and a request for an exemption from the provisions of By-law 24945, as amended, was received. The applicants cite past disagreements with theabutting neighbour and a desire to limit contact between the parties.

On the face of it, the application is reasonable and under normal circumstances, a 1.98 metre (6.5feet) fence in the manner located on the applicant's property would not seem to present any sight line or safety issues. The area inspector, however, advises that the abutting property owner has a truck which, due to its length, would require a larger sight line than generally accepted. For this reason, he has suggested that the last 2.4 metres (8 feet) of the fence be reduced in height to 1.2metres (4 feet).

Justification:

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

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng, District Manager

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

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

________

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

-Mr. Ralph Wright, owner of the property, in support of the staff recommendation; and

-Mr. Robert Wood, neighbour, objecting to the staff recommendation.

23

Request for Fence By-law Exemption

Joseph and Margaret Csizik, 4427 Lawrence Avenue East

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (November 9, 1998) from the Director, Municipal Standards:

Purpose:

The applicants are seeking an exemption to the by-law to allow an existing board on board fence, varying in height from 1.8 metres (6 feet) to 1.98 metres (6.5 feet) extending into the street yard, to remain in its present location.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Nil.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Council approve the application to permit a board on board fence at a height varying in height from 1.8 metres (6 feet) to 1.98 metres (6.5 feet) to remain in the street yard a distance of 7.98 metres (26.2 feet).

Background/History:

Acting upon a complaint, an inspection of a fence was conducted at property municipally known as 4427 Lawrence Avenue East. The inspection was undertaken by the road allowance enforcement unit on July 21, 1998. Inspection revealed a fence approximately 1.8 metres (6 feet) in height constructed into the street yard and abutting at and running parallel to the sidewalk. A notice was issued to remove the fence from city property and this was subsequently done by the owner.

An additional complaint regarding the fence height was received by the Division in August. The subsequent inspection revealed a 1.2 metre (4 foot) board on board fence constructed along the front property line parallel to the sidewalk and a 1.8 metre (6 foot) to 1.98 metre (6.5 foot) board on board fence constructed in the street yard abutting the west side of the applicant's driveway. A notice was issued on September 11, 1998, directing that the fence be brought into conformity with By-law24945, as amended. In response, a request for a fence exemption was received on September 23. The owners indicate that the purpose of the fence is to provide privacy and security for the property.

The owners indicate that owing to the width of the driveway, it is possible to turn around in the driveway prior to exiting, thus eliminating the need for a sight line triangle. Inspection of the property indicates that a vehicle backing out of the driveway could have some difficulty seeing pedestrians walking along the sidewalk. It is noted that the fence is set back two or three feet from the sidewalk and not much of the fence would have to be lowered to accommodate an eight foot sight triangle. Such a sight line could be established if the 1.98 metre (6.5 foot) fence is allowed to project into the street yard a maximum distance of 7.98 metres (26.2 feet) from the front of the garage.

Justification:

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

Contact Name:

Bryan Byng, District Manager

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

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

24

Naming of a Park to Commemorate

Detective Constable William Hancox

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

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

Purpose:

To inform Scarborough Community Council of the progress of implementing City Council's agreement, in principle, to the naming of a park to honour the late Detective Constable William Hancox.

Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There is no City funding required.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Scarborough Community Council and City Council approve the naming of a park in East District, in Port Union Village Community, to honour the late Detective Constable William Hancox. The park location is at the south-east corner of Lawrence Avenue East and Bridgeport Drive, Municipal Address - 101 Bridgeport Drive, Property Description: Block 525, Plan66M-2292, Part of Lot 1, Concession D. Please refer to Appendix "A". The park sign will state:

Bill Hancox Park

Port Union Village Community

The sign will be in accordance with the design guidelines for signage. These guidelines are presently under review. The letters indicating "Bill Hancox Park" will be prominent and larger than the rest of the lettering on the sign.

Council Reference/Background/History:

Subsequent to the memorandum from Councillors Frank Faubert and Ron Moeser, Scarborough Highland Creek, Scarborough Community Council and City Council agreed, in principle, to the naming of a park in the Hancox Family's community to honour and commemorate the late Detective Constable William Hancox.

In accordance with approved criteria, the staff met with Mrs. Kim Hancox, stakeholders of this project and the community.

The consensus emerging from this consultation is that the park located at the south-east corner of Lawrence Avenue East and Bridgeport Drive, Municipal Address - 101 Bridgeport Drive, Property Description: Block 525, Plan 66M-2292, Part of Lot 1, Concession D, is the most appropriate for this purpose and that the name should be as follows:

Bill Hancox Park

Port Union Village Community

Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:

Mrs. Kim Hancox, Councillors Frank Faubert and Ron Moeser, Scarborough Highland Creek, members of the community, Mr. Joe Pileggi, President, Centennial Community and Recreation Association, Mr. Val Silva, President, Port Union Village Community Association, Mr.KenPearson, President, Seven Oaks Community Association, Detective Sergeant Brian Ward and staff met on October 19, 1998, arranged distribution of flyers advising local residents of the proposal, arranged consultation meeting at Port Union Community Centre on October 27 and arranged telephone line as an opportunity for local residents to record their comments.

Conclusions:

There is a general overwhelming support for naming of the park to commemorate and honour the late Detective Constable William Hancox.

Contact Name:

Tom Tusek, Parks and Recreation

Telephone: 396-7377; Facsimile: 396-5399

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

25

Request for Direction Minor Variance and

Consent Appeal, 53 Minnacote Avenue, West Hill

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report (December 4, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

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

Recommendation:

It is recommended that City Council direct the City Solicitor to attend the Ontario Municipal Board hearing in support of the Director of Community Planning, East District, decision and the Committee of Adjustment's decision with respect to Consent Application B59/97 and Minor Variance Application SA197/98 and SA198/98.

Comments:

Consent Application B59/97

Variance Application SA197/987 and SA198/98

Joanne Mizzi

53 Minnacote Avenue

Lot 91, Registered Plan 2441

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

Agincourt Design Service on behalf of Joanne Mizzi has applied to the Committee of Adjustment for the City of Toronto for a variance from the provisions of the West Hill Community Zoning By-law No. 10327, as amended, to permit two single-family dwellings to be erected on two separate parcels to be created, each having a minimum lot area of 470 square metres (5,059 square feet), whereas the Zoning By-law permits one single-family dwelling per parcel of land having a minimum lot area of 557 square metres (5,995 square feet).

In addition, Agincourt Design Service on behalf of Joanne Mizzi has submitted a Consent Application to divide the property into two separate parcels of land each having a lot frontage of approximately 15.24 metres (50 feet) and a lot area of approximately 470 square metres (5,059square feet).

The proposed lots do not conform to the Zoning By-laws minimum lot area requirement. The proposed lots are smaller than other lots in the area and would not be compatible with nor maintain the character of the surrounding neighbourhood.

Conclusion:

The City Solicitor should be directed to attend the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing in support of the Committee's decision regarding this variance.

Contact Name:

Victor Gottwald, Acting Senior Planner

Community Planning Division

Phone: (416) 396-5004

Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

26

Request for Direction Street Lighting on

Queensgrove Road Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends the adoption of Option A in the following report (November 4, 1998) from Councillor Brian Ashton:

Purpose:

To report to Scarborough Community Council on the results of a petition for street lighting on Queensgrove Road.

Financial Implications:

If approved, the type of construction, costs and timing will have to be determined.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that Scarborough Community Council approve one of the following options:

Option A:that street lighting on Queensgrove Road between Viewbank Road and Crescentwood Road not be approved;

Option B:that street lighting on Queensgrove Road between Viewbank Road and Crescentwood Road be approved; or

Option C:that this report and petition be referred to staff for evaluation and report thereon to Community Council.

Background:

My office is in receipt of a request for street lighting on Queensgrove Road between Viewbank Road and Crescentwood Road in the Warden Avenue/Kingston Road area of the Birchcliff Community.

Queensgrove Road is a residential road of single-family residences. This is one of the last remaining streets in Scarborough that has no street lighting.

The rationale for the installation of street lighting from a resident was based primarily on the issue of public safety, both pedestrian and automobile.

In accordance with previous policy of the former City of Scarborough, a petition was initiated in my office to determine the level of support for street lighting on Queensgrove Road. Each residence was provided with a petition permitting the opportunity to indicate their support or opposition. The principle of one vote per household was applied.

Out of 30 properties, including 24 Crescentwood Road that has driveway frontage on Queensgrove Road, 10 are in favour, 18 opposed, and 2 could not be contacted. Of the 10 in favour, 3 were conditional on underground wiring.

Conclusion:

A majority of households do not support the installation of street lighting on Queensgrove Road.

Contact Name:

Councillor Brian Ashton

Scarborough Bluffs

--------

The Scarborough Community Council received a communication from Mr. Kirk Ryann, Queensgrove Road resident, in support of street lighting on Queensgrove Road, a copy of which was provided to all Members of the Community Council, and a copy thereof is on file in the Office of the City Clerk.

27

Ontario Professional Planners Institute

"Outstanding Planning Award"

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)

The Scarborough Community Council recommends:

(1)that City Council give recognition to this prestigious Award to the City by the Ontario Professional Planners Institute; and

(2)that Mayor Lastman be requested to present the Award to the Urban Planning and Development Services staff responsible for the "Public Safety and Development Review Guidelines" at the City Council meeting to be held on December 16 and 17, 1998.

The Scarborough Community Council reports having requested that the Chairman convey Community Council's congratulations to Mr. Robert Stephens and Ms. Susan Filshie, Urban Planning and Development Services Department, and to former City of Scarborough Councillor David Soknacki.

The Scarborough Community Council submits the following report (November 24, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District:

Purpose:

To inform Community Council of a recent award to the City.

Recommendation:

That Scarborough Community Council receive this report for their information.

Background:

In August of this year, the former City of Scarborough's "Public Safety and Development Review Guidelines" won an Award of Merit from the central district of the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. The merit award automatically qualified the guidelines for entry into the Ontario Professional Planners Institute's province-wide awards program.

I am pleased to report that the guidelines have won one of only four "Outstanding Planning Awards" presented in the Province of Ontario for 1998. The award was presented to Susan Filshie and Robert Stephens on November 12, 1998 at a gala dinner at the Royal York Hotel, attended by more than 700 members of the development community. The guidelines were specifically cited for "Excellence in Communication".

The guidelines are now posted on the world wide web. As a result, inquiries have been received from planners in Maryland and Florida. We will now submit the guidelines to the next available national and international awards programs for their consideration.

Contact Name:

Robert Stephens, Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7027; Fax: (416) 396-4265

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

28

Other Items Considered by The Community Council

(City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)

(a)City Of Toronto 1999 - 2003 Capital Works Program

Preliminary Capital Financing Plan

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(1)received an overview presentation by the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer respecting the Corporate Capital Budget and the Preliminary Financing Plan, as recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer;

(2)reviewed the Capital Works Programs identified for the Scarborough Community Council in the supplementary information provided by the Chief Financial Officer, and presented by the individual Department Heads responsible; and

(3)recommended to the Budget Committee:

Arts, Culture and Heritage

Economic Development

Parks and Recreation

(a)that the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism be requested:

(i)to establish a working group, including Council representation, to ensure that the preliminary work on the Scarborough Arts Centre (Ward 15) is completed by the year 2000;

(ii)to report to the Budget Committee on methods of ensuring that the Morrish Store (Ward 16) comes into the ownership of the City;

(iii)to report to Budget Committee on the possible funding of the Kennedy Road Business Improvement Area (Ward 15) on a matching fund basis;

(iv)to report to Budget Committee on the possibility of phasing the Kidstown Water Play Park Expansion project in L'Amoreaux Park (Ward 17), together with a report on the financial implications of so doing;

(v)to report to Budget Committee as to the anticipated timeframe for submission of the list of Parks and Recreation facilities, prioritized as to repair and standardization; and

(b)that The Scarborough Community Council requests that City Council reaffirm its commitment to the Chinese Garden project (Ward18), approved in 1998 at a cost of $3.1 million gross and $0 net;

Facilities

(i)that The Scarborough Community Council confirms the commitment made by the former City of Scarborough Council to Barrier-free Access, as demonstrated by the allocation of $200,000.00 per year over the last five years to fund this program;

(ii)that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be requested to report to Budget Committee respecting the status of barrier-free access in City facilities;

(iii)that the allocation for the Scarborough Civic Centre carpet upgrade be restored to $775,000.00 (from the $50,000.00 recommended), funded from the Civic Centre Reserve Fund, and that the Commissioner of Corporate Services be directed to undertake carpet replacement around staff movements, where appropriate.

Transportation

That the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, be requested to report to Budget Committee on the allocation of the $10.3 million (resulting from the deferral of the Gardiner Expressway demolition), and prioritize the Transportation projects in the Capital Works Program.

________

Councillors Olivia Chow and David Shiner appeared before The Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.

(b)Bicycle Safety in Scarborough and the Cycling Ambassadors Program

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received a presentation introduced by Mr. Rod McPhail, Director of Transportation Planning, with respect to Bicycle Safety in Scarborough and the Cycling Ambassadors Program.

Ms. Barbara Wentworth, Bicycle Safety Co-ordinator, and Mr. Sean Wheldrake, Urban Planning and Development Services, briefed Community Council regarding the goals of the Cycling Ambassadors Program, and the aims of the Off Road, Awareness, Safety, Information, Stop (O.A.S.I.S.) Program which encourages mountain bikers and hikers to respect the environment, and the (Safety, Prevention, Awareness, Courtesy, Enforcement) S.P.A.C.E. Program which teaches all road users to respect each other's need for safe travel.

(c)Understanding Homelessness in Scarborough:

Towards Effective Strategies

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received a presentation from the Co-chairs of the Scarborough Homelessness Committee respecting the findings of the report entitled: "Understanding Homelessness in Scarborough: Towards Effective Strategies", and having directed:

(1)that this report be referred to The Mayor's Task Force on Homelessness with a notation as to the urgency and immediacy of this issue;

(2)that the Chair of the Scarborough Community Council write to the Scarborough district Members of Parliament and the Scarborough Members of the Provincial Legislature requesting:

(i)their commitment to fighting the homelessness problem within their Ridings;

(ii)that they pursue a Federal financial commitment to the provision of affordable housing and programming to assist homeless people;

(iii)that they request their Caucus, Cabinet and Prime Minister to make homelessness a national priority;

(iv)that they communicate to Scarborough Community Council the results of their advocacy efforts;

(3)that the Scarborough M.P.'s and the M.P.P.'s be invited to attend a meeting of Scarborough Community Council to report on the outcome of these initiatives;

(4)that the Director of Community Planning, East District, be requested to report to Community Council:

(a)within 90 days, on those portions of the aforementioned report relating to planning issues, and include in his report a copy of the last "Housing Monitor" issued by Urban Planning and Development Services Department, East District; and

(b)as soon as possible, on the status of the Motel Study currently underway.

Recorded Vote on the foregoing motions:

Yeas:Councillors Altobello, Ashton, Berardinetti, Cho, Duguid, Faubert, Kelly, Mahood, Moeser, Shaw -10

Nays:-0

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

-Ms. Jane Robson and Ms. Adair Heath, Co-Chairs of the Scarborough Homelessness Committee; and

-Canon Jack Roberts, St. Margaret's in the Pines Church.

(d)Presentation by the Director of Parks and Recreation, East District

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received a presentation by Mr.Gary Stoner, Director, Parks and Recreation, East District, advising the Chair and Members of the structure and key responsibility areas now in place for the Division, and assuring Community Council of the staff commitment to accountability and the provision of exceptional service. The Director introduced the following senior officials appointed to his staff:

Janet Ellis, Regional Manager (South)

Sharon Waddingham, Regional Manager (Central)

Lorrie O'Brien, Regional Manager (North)

Tom Tusek, Manager, Technical Services and Urban Forestry

Peter Lam, Manager of Administration

Susan Bartleman, Operations Support Coordinator

(e)Parking and Pedestrian Crossings in Front of St. Sylvester Catholic School and

Silver Springs Public School on Silver Springs Boulevard

Ward 17 - Scarborough Agincourt

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report, at the request of Councillor Shaw, to its meeting scheduled to be held on February 17, 1999, in order to ensure that the affected residents are notified of this proposal:

(November 25, 1998) from the Director of Transportation Services, District 4, recommending that:

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

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

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

(f)Preliminary Evaluation Report

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98034

Sherway Centre Limited, 55 Town Centre Court

Ward 15 - Scarborough City Centre

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(November 18, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council convene a Public Meeting to consider this application, targeted for the first quarter of 1999, subject to staff providing Notice of the said Public Meeting to all properties within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property.

(g)Preliminary Evaluation Report

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SZ98021

Arbroath Investments Inc., Maberley Crescent

Centennial Community

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having approved the following report:

(November 23, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending that Community Council convene a Public Meeting to consider this application, targeted for the first quarter of 1999, subject to staff providing Notice of the said Public Meeting to all properties within 120 metres (400 feet) of the subject property and the Centennial Community Association.

(h)Status of Site Plan Implementation

6515 Kingston Road

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 24, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, responding to Community Council's direction, given at its September 16, 1998 meeting, that the status of the Site Plan implementation for this location be reported to the December 9, 1998, meeting, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(i)New Applications Received - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 23, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the new applications received during the four-week period ending November 18, 1998, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(j)Site Plan Control Approvals - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 23, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the various Site Plan Control Approvals granted by the Director of Community Planning, East District, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(k)Ontario Municipal Board Hearings - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 23, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the status of current appeals before the Ontario Municipal Board and recommending that this report be received for information.

(l)Consent Applications - All Scarborough Wards

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 23, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, East District, advising Community Council of the various Consent Decisions granted by the Director of Community Planning, East District, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(m)Ontario Municipal Board Hearing

The Restoration Tabernacle

3543 Danforth Avenue

Ward 13 - Scarborough Bluffs

The Scarborough Community Council reports having received the following report:

(November 19, 1998) from the City Solicitor, advising Community Council of the outcome of an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing held on October 13, 1998, respecting the Restoration Tabernacle at 3543 Danforth Avenue, and recommending that this report be received for information.

(n)Request for Fence By-law Exemption

Bruce Cossar, Laurie Vogan, 34 Allangrove Crescent

Ward 14 - Scarborough Wexford

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report, at the request of Councillor Kelly, for consideration at its meeting to be held on January20, 1999, to permit further consultation between staff and the affected homeowners:

(November 17, 1998) from the Director of Municipal Standards, recommending that Council approve the application to permit the existing solid board fence at a height of 2.4 metres (8feet) along the rear property line, subject to verification that the fence is properly located upon the applicants' property line.

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

-Mr. David Hayes, objecting to the staff recommendation; and

-Mr. Andrew Wong, objecting to the staff recommendation.

(o)Proposal by The Toronto Police Service and

Local Service Groups to Create a

Scarborough Community Safety Coalition

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(1)deferred the following communication, at the request of The Toronto Police Service, for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on January 20, 1999; and

(2)directed that the Deputy Chief for the East District be requested to attend at that time:

(November 27, 1998) from Councillor Lorenzo Berardinetti, advising Community Council of local efforts by The Toronto Police Service and local service groups respecting community-based safety programs.

(p)261 Port Union Road

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report, at the request of Councillor Moeser, for consideration at its meeting to be held in September 1999, in order that staff can monitor the outstanding issues of concern at this location over the summer months:

(December 2, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, East District, responding to the Community Council's request, at its last meeting, that the Director report on the process necessary to amend the Zoning By-law at this location.

(q)Rouge Park - Draft Partnership Memorandum

Ward 16 - Scarborough Highland Creek

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

The Scarborough Community Council reports having deferred the following report, at the request of Councillor Mahood, for consideration at its meeting to be held on January 20, 1999, to permit Councillor Mahood the opportunity to confer with the Rouge Park Alliance on this matter:

(December 3, 1998 from the Director of Community Planning, East District, recommending:

(1)that City Council endorse the draft Rouge Park Partnership memorandum with the suggestion that the words 'local and regional municipalities' be replaced with the word 'municipalities'; and

(2)that the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services, Works and Emergency Services and Economic Development Culture and Tourism appoint staff to serve on the proposed Rouge Park Technical Committee for Land Use and Development.

(r)New Garbage Receptacles - OMG Advertising

The Scarborough Community Council reports having:

(a)received the following communication from Councillor Disero;

(b)received the advice of Mr. Ron Gordon, Director of Solid Waste Management Services, East District, that a report from the General Manager, Solid Waste Management Services, is before the Works and Utilities Committee for consideration in January, 1999, respecting this issue; and

(c)directed that the Works and Utilities Committee be advised that the Scarborough Community Council has concerns respecting the impact of these types of containers on its neighbourhoods and suggests to the Works and Utilities Committee that it not let one large contract for the City but, rather, come forward with recommended districts for the implementation of this proposal:

(December 3, 1998) from Councillor Betty Disero, requesting that Scarborough Community Council consider the issue of advertising on garbage receptacles as a pilot project in Scarborough and forward any comments thereon to the Works and Utilities Committee.

(s)Public Meeting regarding Former Scarborough Transportation Corridor Lands Study

The Scarborough Community Council, at the request of Councillor Ashton, reports having directed that the Public Meeting on the subject application with respect to the area west of Brimley Road be convened at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, February 17, 1999.

(t)Derelict Buildings North-east Corner of Brimley Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East

Ward 18 - Scarborough Malvern

The Scarborough Community Council, at the request of Councillor Balkissoon, reports having directed that the Chief Building Official, East District, report to Community Council at its next scheduled meeting, to be held on January 20, 1999, on the condition of the derelict buildings on the north-east corner of Brimley Avenue and Sheppard Avenue East with a view to issuing a demolition order.

Respectfully submitted,

LORENZO BERARDINETTI,

Chair

Toronto, December 1 and 9, 1998.

(Report No. 12 of The Scarborough Community Council, including additions thereto, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on December 16 and 17, 1998.)