The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council amend the Official Plan substantially in accordance with the draft official plan amendment attached as Attachment 1 of the report (July 14, 2010) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft official plan amendment as may be required.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the Planning Act, RSO 1990.

This report brings forward an Official Plan Amendment to address instances where redevelopment proposals involving the reduction or elimination of existing commercial space in Mixed Use Areas may have a relatively large local impact, especially those for shopping centres upon which local residents have relied to meet their day-to-day convenience needs.

The proposed policy would require that these impacts be considered through the rezoning process, using criteria set out in the policy, with the possibility that some or all of the existing space be replaced or retained in the new development.

The proposed policy is a revision of an earlier proposal that was before Planning and Growth Committee in November 2009. Consultations on the revised proposal produced no comments.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that, in order to implement Council’s May 11 and 12, 2010 decision on item EX43.5:

1.         Council approve the by-law in Attachment 1 of the report (July 14, 2010) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, adopting a Community Improvement Plan to assist the redevelopment of multiple properties destroyed by fire in commercial Heritage Conservation Districts.

2.         Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft by-law as may be required before introducing the necessary bill to Council for enactment.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the Planning Act, RSO 1990.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council amend the Official Plan substantially in accordance with the draft Official Plan Amendment submitted as Attachment 4 of the report (Jully 28, 2010) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to provide for a new structure plan and associated revised text description of the transportation infrastructure for the Emery Village Secondary Plan Area.

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Official Plan Amendment as may be required.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the Planning Act, RSO 1990.

This City-initiated amendment is subject to the new provisions of the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

This report recommends an amendment to the Emery Village Secondary Plan in the Official Plan to provide for the revised infrastructure network identified in the Emery Village Transportation Master Plan (Master Plan) approved by City Council in August 2009.

The Official Plan Amendment will enable the City to protect, and/or require property dedications for the infrastructure noted in the Master Plan through the development review process.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council approve an amendment to Chapter 694, Signs, General, to adopt a Signage Master Plan for the property municipally known as 301 Front Street West, substantially in accordance with the administrative design features as set out in Appendix A to the report (August 4, 2010) from the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building..

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to prepare the necessary Bills for introduction in Council to implement the above recommendations, subject to such stylistic and technical changes to the draft bills as may be required.

3.         That PATH system signage proposed for the way-finding ground signs be secured under a separate Way-finding Agreement to the satisfaction of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

This report reviews and makes recommendations on a request by Alison Pritchard-Kuncic of Canada Lands Company, on behalf of Ripley’s Entertainment Inc., to amend Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, to implement a Signage Master Plan for development known as The Ripley’s Aquarium located on the property known municipally as 301 Front Street West and described on the map provided herein.  As part of the new sign regulations contained in Chapter 694, Signs, General, the City has introduced the ability for individuals to obtain site-specific amendments to implement a Signage Master Plan to set out specific regulations for the location, arrangement, type and design of signs at a specific location or area. 

Staff recommend approval of the requested amendment to Chapter 694 to introduce a Signage Master Plan for the property.  The proposal describes a comprehensive strategy consisting of way-finding, identification, branding and marketing signage to ensure the long-term viability of the proposed Aquarium development in support of  City Council’s direction realized at its most recent meeting on July 6, 7 & 8, 2010.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council approve an amendment to Chapter 694, Signs, General, to adopt a site specific amendment for the property municipally known as 279-283 Yonge Street, substantially in accordance with the administrative design features as set out in Appendix A to the report (August 4, 2010) from the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building.

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to prepare the necessary Bills for introduction in Council to implement the above recommendations, subject to such stylistic and technical changes to the draft bills as may be required.

3.         The applicant be advised that prior to the issuance of a sign permit, the applicant enter into an Encroachment Agreement with Right-of-Way Management, Transportation Services, for any proposed signs encroaching into the public right-of-way.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

This report reviews and makes recommendations on a request by David Monaghan of Kramer Design Associates, on behalf of Roch Capital Corporation, to amend Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code, to implement a site specific amendment for the property commonly known as the “Hard Rock Café” and municipally known as 279-283 Yonge Street.   

The application describes a proposal to erect a large format third party sign on the roof of the existing heritage designated building.  The proposed roof sign is intended to contain five sign faces, each of various dimensions and each utilizing various methods of sign copy display, along with an architectural lighting column.  The building itself is located at the south-easterly corner of Dundas Square and Yonge Street, immediately south of the public space known as Yonge-Dundas Square and located within the Dundas Square Special Sign District (DS-SSD).

Staff recommend approval of the application for a Sign By-law Amendment to introduce this site specific plan for the property municipally known as 279-283 Yonge Street.  The proposal is the subject of a concurrent report from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division with respect to the heritage issues related to this proposal.  The proposal is generally in keeping with the vision for the DS-SSD as described by Chapter 694, Signs, General.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council approve an amendment to Chapter 694, Signs, General, to establish the premises municipally known as 861 Avenue Road as a C-Commercial Sign District by replacing Sign District Map Ward 22: St. Paul's of Schedule A, Maps, with the map attached as Appendix A of the report (August 3, 2010) from the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building.

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to prepare the necessary Bills for introduction in Council to implement the above recommendations, subject to such stylistic and technical changes to the draft bills as may be required.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

This report reviews and makes recommendations on a request by Crista Dominick of CTM Design Services, on behalf of Suncor Energy, to obtain an amendment to Schedule A, Maps, to Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.  The recommendation is to amend Schedule A, Maps, to Chapter 694, Signs, General, by amending Sign District Map Ward 22: St. Paul's to designate the commercial property municipally known as 861 Avenue Road as a C-Commercial Sign District.
 
Staff recommend adopting the recommendations as the proposed amendment meets the intent and purpose of Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council approve an amendment to Chapter 694, Signs, General, to establish the premises municipally known as 30 Weston Road as a C-Commercial Sign District by replacing Sign District Map Ward 11: York South-Weston of Schedule A, Maps, with the map attached as Appendix A of the report (August 3, 2010) from the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building.

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to prepare the necessary Bills for introduction in Council to implement the above recommendation, subject to such stylistic and technical changes to the draft bills as may be required.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

This report reviews and makes recommendations on a request by Ryan Moore of MHBC Planning Consultants, on behalf of Riotrin Properties (Weston) Inc. to obtain an amendment to Schedule A, Maps, to Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.  The recommendation is to amend Schedule A, Maps, to Chapter 694, Signs, General, by amending Sign District Map Ward 11: York South-Weston to designate the property municipally known as 30 Weston Road as a C-Commercial Sign District.

Staff recommend adopting the recommendations as the proposed amendment meets the intent and purpose of Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council adopt the amendments to Chapter 363 of the Toronto Municipal Code in general accordance with the draft by-law attached as (Appendix A) to the report (July 30, 2010) from the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building, to implement necessary technical and administrative changes to requirements for a complete building permit application, in response to changes in the Building Code Act and 2006 Ontario Building Code coming into effect in January, 2011 to:

a.         introduce a new requirement to obtain a zoning certificate prior to submission of a complete building permit application;

b.         remove provisions related to the Preliminary Applicable Law (PAL) review; and

c.         amend the fee structure Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 363-6 and 10.1 to reflect these changes.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

This report proposes several Municipal Code amendments that are necessary due to changes to the Building Code Act introduced in the Good Government Act, 2009, scheduled to take effect on January 1, 2011. The report recommends Council approval of amendments and additions to Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 363 that would:

-           Introduce necessary technical and administrative amendments resulting from changes made in the Building Code Act and 2006 Ontario Building Code related to complete building permit applications.

-           Require applicants for building permits to obtain a Zoning Certificate prior to submitting a building permit application in order for them to be considered a ‘complete’ application and discontinue the current Pre-Application Applicable Law review program (PAL).

Overall the  proposed changes will improve service delivery for complete building permit applications by reducing unforeseen delays and expenses for applicants.   In order for these amendments to be in place by the legislated timeframe, it is important that Council consider this matter at its August 25, 26, 2010 meeting.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council refuse the rezoning application for 850-858 York Mills Road as the proposal does not conform to the Official Plan.

2.         Should the Zoning By-law Amendment application be appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board, City Council authorize the City Solicitor and City staff to appear before the Ontario Municipal Board in support of Council’s refusal.

This application was made on September 3, 2009 and is subject to the new provisions of the Planning Act and the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

This application proposes to rezone the lands at 850-858 York Mills Road to permit what is described as a 15 storey 438 unit all-suites hotel with accessory retail, service commercial, restaurant and professional/medical office uses.

The Preliminary Report dated October 22, 2009 raised concerns that the proposed development was a seniors care/residential facility which is not permitted in Employment Areas, and requested the applicant to provide additional information to clarify the proposed use.  The applicant has not provided the requested information.

This report recommends refusal of the application.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         Attachment 1 of the report dated August 5, 2010, as amended by the modifications set out in Attachment 1 of the supplementary report , entitled "Requested By-law Modifications", appended to the report dated August 16, 2010, from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division be amended as follows:

a.         deleting the provisions prohibiting paid visitor parking at residential properties;

b.         deleting the lands in the area of the Central Finch Secondary Plan;

c.         deleting the property known as 1066 Avenue Road;

d.         amending Section 150.80.20 as follows:

(6)        Stacking Aisle Location in

In a CR Zone, if a corner lot contains in one building a vehicle fuel station and a drive-through facility, the drive through facility stacking aisle may be located in a side yard between the building and one of the two streets, if:

(A)       the drive through facility stacking aisle is not located between the building and the other street; and

(B)       the drive through facility complies with all other applicable requirements of this By-law.

e.         amending the by-law such that the 30 metre set back requirement is to the ‘order box location’, rather than the start of the stacking aisle, so that Section 150.80.40 (1) be amended as follows:

The location of the drive through facility order box is to be a minimum of 30.0 metres from any lot in a Residential Zone category, Residential Apartment Zone category; Commercial Residential Zone category or Commercial Residential Employment Zone Category.

f.          adding the following section:

            "40.10.1.10(3)

For the purposes of the CR Zone, a medical office includes a medical clinic."

g.         amending the draft by-law as necessary to:

i.          recognize lots, characteristics of the development of such lots, buildings and structures, in the Employment Industrial Zone category, that are lawfully existing on the date of passage of the by-law, and do not comply with the regulatory standards of the by-law, as the applicable zoning by-law standard.

ii.         allow for expansions, alterations and additions to buildings and structures that fall into the category of lawfully existing buildings and structures in i) above.

h.         amending Section 60.30.20.100 paragraph 9 (a) from 300 metre limit to 500 metre limit.

i.          amending Regulation 150.45.20  to add the following:

(2)        Day Nursery – Permitted in a Detached House or Semi-Detached House in the R Zone

In addition to 150.45.20 (1), in the R zone, a day nursery may be located in a building originally constructed as a detached house or a semi-detached house if:

a.         the day nursery occupies the entire building; or

b.         the day nursery is together with a dwelling unit that is the principal residence of the day nursery operator.

j.          making clear that student housing is a permitted use in institutionally zoned land.

2.         City Council enact the proposed City-wide Zoning By-law substantially in the form attached as Attachment 1 of the report dated August 5, 2010, as amended by the modifications set out in Attachment 1 of the supplementary report, entitled "Requested By‑law Modifications", appended to the report dated August 16, 2010, from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and as further amended by Recommendation 1 above.

3.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft City-wide Zoning By-law as may be required.

4.         City Council determine that no further notice is to be given in respect of the proposed by-law.

5.         City Council instruct the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning to:

a.         examine the Neighbourhood policies within the Official Plan as part of the five-year review to ensure that the Official Plan contains policies to protect the character of a residential streetscape, particularly the size, location, and arrangement of garages and vehicle parking spaces on lots within a Neighbourhood, to ensure that the streetscape is protected and enhanced during the redevelopment of properties within Neighbourhoods.

b.         amend the draft by-law to ensure that performance standards relating to the size, location, and arrangement of garages and vehicle parking on lots within a Neighbourhood do not detract from the predominant character of the streetscape within Neighbourhoods.

6.         City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning to work jointly with the General Manager of Economic Development and Culture to examine Employment Areas policies in the review of the Official Plan with a view to planning for protecting preserving and promoting the development of employment lands.

7.         City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning to report back to the Planning and Growth Management Committee on:

a.         the recommended Official Plan modifications resulting from the Official Plan review of Employment Areas;

b.         the recommended changes required to Chapter 60 of the proposed zoning by-law to maintain compliance with the proposed Official Plan amendments and to address comments received from interested parties; and

c.         the recommended process that will be undertaken by City staff to ensure that owners of lands that are not included in the proposed zoning by-law (“holes” and all neighbouring land owners to such lands are consulted on any proposed zoning changes prior to staff recommending zoning by-laws changes.

8.         City Council direct the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning to modify the proposed zoning by-law to:

a.         include the following provision in Chapter 2, as found in the Scarborough Employment District Zoning By-law 24982, Clause III, paragraph 11:

“All minor variances in effect prior to the enactment of this By-law shall continue to apply and remain in force.”

b.         clarify language about the status of existing approvals attained through the Committee of Adjustment and site specific by-laws or rezoning.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee:

1.         held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the Planning Act, RSO 1990.

2.         referred the following motions to the Chief Planner and Executive Director of City Planning, for consideration and report directly to City Council on August 25, 2010:

Motion by Councillor Vaughan on behalf of Councillor Jenkins,

That the draft by-law be amended as follows:

a.         Revise Section 900.43.10 (3) Exception 3 of the Open Space Golf Course zone regarding Rosedale Golf Course by amending Clause C to read as follows:

(C)       an existing building may be replaced, expanded or altered if the replacement, expansion or alteration does not penetrate the three dimensional envelope of the existing building (as defined by the height, length and width of the existing building) in a location which would otherwise not be permitted by this By-law.

b.         Revise Section 900.43.10 (3) Exception 3 of the Open Space Golf Course zone regarding Rosedale Golf Course by adding the following clause:

So that the section would read as follows:

“OG (x3)

The lands subject to this exception shall comply with the following in regard to any replacement, addition, extension or alteration of any buildings or structures existing on the date of enactment of this by-law:

(a)        despite 90.40.20.100 (2), the total combined interior floor area of a take-out restaurant, retail store, personal service shop, or a service shop that lawfully existed on the date of the enactment of this By-law is the maximum total combined interior floor area permitted for those uses;

(b)        despite 90.40.20.100 (4), the distance between a lot in a Residential Zone category and an outdoor patio existing on the date of the enactment of this By-law is the minimum required distance between that lot and that existing outdoor patio;

(c)        an existing building may be replaced, expanded or altered if the replacement, expansion or alteration does not penetrate the three dimensional envelope of the existing building (as defined by the height, length and width of the existing building) in a location which would otherwise not be permitted by this By-law.

(d)       the minimum required number of parking spaces is the actual number of parking spaces on the date of the enactment of this By-law provided that if there is an increase in gross floor area additional parking be provided in accordance with this By-law.”

Motion by Councillor DiGiorgio

That the draft by-law be amended as follows:

1.         that a salvage yard be deleted as a permitted use in EH zones.

2.         that the Keele Street-Ingram Drive industrial employment zones  exclude EH zones.

3.         that the Employment Industrial zones delete the provision that a waste transfer station be permitted within 70 metres of a residential zone category.

4.         that the expansion of a permitted accessory use to a principal use that is not a permitted use, be subject to a Committee of Adjustment application or a rezoning on the basis of an expansion of a legal non conforming use.

5.         that fencing that abuts a public road not include a retaining wall for site plan screening purposes.

6.         that obnoxious industrial uses not be permitted as of right in industrial employment zones.

Motion by Councillor Filion on behalf of Councillor Jenkins

That the draft by-law be amended as follows:

Motion to provide certainty that the maximum number of units in an RD zone is 1.

1.         in an RD zone, the maximum designation for the unit parameter is “u1” and it be specifically identified in the residential zone string as “u1” and that the by-law be amended as required.

Motion to provide certainty that the x parameter is defined in the Regulations Applying to the Residential Zone Category

2.         section 10.5.1.10(2) be amended by the addition of the following point (F):

“(F) the letter ‘x’, with an associated numerical value, indicates the specific regulations for the lot or area in that zone found in Chapters 900 , 950 and 955.”

Motion to clarify the definition of secondary suites to be a single second suite.

3.         section 800.50(705) be amended so that it reads “Secondary Suite means one dwelling unit that is an ancillary second unit to a principal dwelling unit”.

4.         Add a definition for “Ancillary Unit” and make appropriate changes to section 150.10.20 by moving 150.10.20(3) as a condition for an ancillary unit.

Motion to clarify the status of properties removed from the Zoning By-law

5.         on the Zoning Map, where properties and/or areas are identified as “Not Part of this By-law”, those properties and areas remain subject to the provisions of the previously applicable zoning by-law(s) and that those by-laws be identified on the Zoning Map.

6.         staff be directed to make the appropriate changes in the Zoning by-law to ensure that the addition of a secondary suite within a basement or ancillary building is always included in the measure of gross floor area and subject to FSI limits.

Motion to Protect Privacy relating to balconies

7.         Section 10.20.40.50(1) be amended by adding point C:  “(C) no deck or balcony on the side or front of a house may protrude beyond the exterior of the wall.”

Motion to limit Platform Encroachment into the front yard

Section 10.5.40.60(3) (A) be amended by adding point (iv): “(iv) no part of any exterior stairs may extend beyond 2.5 meters from the front wall.”

Motion to clarify rear additions in Residential Zones controlled by FSI

9.         Section 10.20.40.40(2) be amended by adding the words “and the building with the rear addition complies with all regulations within the Zoning By-law.”

Motion to improve provisions with respect to window projections into Side Yards

10.       Staff be directed to amend Section 10.5.40.60(6) (B) with a provision reflecting the current window-to-window separation requirements in By-law 438-86.

Motion by Councillor Filion, on behalf of Councillor Jenkins

That the draft by-law be amended as follows:

The front yard setback of the properties listed below be properly identified in the new Zoning-By-law as RD(f21,a975)(x70) or whichever identification that translates as close as possible to the R2 zone in North York By-law 7625:

Gerald Street

East side - #s 63, 77, 81, 83, 85, 87 and 89 (formerly 47 Northdale)

West side - #s 76, 78, 88, 92

Northdale Road

North side - #s 58, 60, 62, 64, 66, 68, 70, 72, 74, 86 and 88

Truman Road

#s 32 and 55

Motion by Councillor Filion on behalf of Councillor Jenkins.

That the draft Zoning By-law be amended as follows:

1.         amend 10.10.40.50 (2) and 10.20.40.50.2 BY adding after the words “former City of Toronto zoning by-law” in each clause the following “438-86" so that ach  clause would read “former City of Toronto zoning by-law 438-86.”.

2.         Amend 10.10.40.40 (2) so that it reads:

If a lot in an R zone has a maximum floor space index of 0.6, and contains a detached house, a semi-detached house, a detached house or a duplex, erected before October 15, 1953, the detached house, semi-detached house or duplex may be enlarged to the rear of the building if:

(a)        the overall floor space index for the lot, including the addition, does not exceed a total of 0.69;

(b)        any prior addition is at least 5 years old; and

(c)        that no part of the addition is closer to the nearest side lot line than the shortest distance by which the side wall of the existing building is from the side lot line.

3.         Additions to the Rear of Certain Residential Buildings

If a lot in an RD zone has a maximum floor space index of 0.6 and is not subject to a maximum lot coverage requirement, and the lot contains a detached house erected before October 15, 1953, the detached house may be enlarged to the rear of the building if:

(a)        the overall floor space index for the lot, including the addition, does not exceed a total of 0.69;

(b)        all finished floor levels within the addition are no higher than the uppermost floor level in the existing building;

(c)        any prior addition is at least 5 years old; and

(d)       that no part of the addition is closer to the nearest side lot line than the shortest distance by which the side wall of the exiting building is from the side lot line.

Motion by Councillor Filion on behalf of Councillor Jenkins

That the draft Zoning By-law be amended as follows:

Secondary Suites

1.         Amend 800.50 (705)

Secondary Suite means a second dwelling unit that is ancillary to a principal dwelling unit.

2.         Add a new definition

Ancillary Unit means a dwelling unit that is ancillary to a principal dwelling unit.

3.         Amend 150.10.20 Use Regulations

(3)        Secondary Suite –Number permitted in an R Zone with a numerical value of 2 following the letter ‘u’ in the zone label, a residential building originally constructed as a detached house, semi-detached house may have a maximum of one secondary suite.

4.         Amend 150.10.40.40 Floor Area by deleting (2)

5.         With the necessary changes incorporate the conditions related to secondary suites for “ancillary unit” mutatis mutandis with the appropriate numbering changes:

150.10.1 change “secondary suite” to read “ancillary unit”.

150.10.1 apply (3) and (4) and change “secondary suite” to read “ancillary unit”.

150.10.40.1 change from “secondary suite” to read “ancillary unit” where applicable.

150.10.40.40 change from “secondary suite” to read “ancillary unit” where applicable.

3.         requested the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, to report directly to Council on how the Avenue Guidelines, New Zoning By-law and Parking Guidelines govern parking requirements on main streets and commercially zoned lands.

This “Final Report” on the City of Toronto’s new comprehensive Zoning By-law represents the concluding stage to an enormous and complex six-year planning project. The challenge has been to consolidate the City’s existing 43 zoning by-laws into a single zoning by-law with a common language and structure that applies to the whole City, while largely preserving the spirit and intent of the provisions of those by-laws that it supersedes. Most of the work on the new Zoning By-law, including the public consultation process, has been undertaken in-house by City staff. In some areas, where Council had approved changes to the existing zoning provisions, such as the development of new parking and loading standards, outside consultant advice was sought.

Throughout its term, the project has benefited from a wide range of public input and civic engagement. There have been countless meetings with residents, councillors, industrial landowners, development industry representatives, school boards and many other stakeholders. These meetings have given staff the opportunity to explain the proposed by-law at various stages of its development and to react to the public comments received. The City has invested over $6 million in the process of developing this by-law. It will regulate land use on almost 480,000 properties in the City of Toronto.

Most importantly, the new Zoning By-law is web-based. Residents and businesses will be able to access all the zoning information through a computer from the convenience of their homes or offices. It will enable a more efficient and effective City operation so that Planning, Building and Municipal, Licensing and Standards staff will have one by-law to work with rather than 43. Cities bring forward new comprehensive zoning by-laws very infrequently (the original former City of Toronto by-law was adopted in June 10, 1952). The City adopted its new Official Plan in 2002 (approved by the Ontario Municipal Board in 2006) and enacting the new comprehensive Zoning By-law is a necessary step to complete the consolidation of the City’s land use planning regime.  

The purpose of this report is twofold; to bring forward and recommend for adoption the latest draft of the proposed new comprehensive Zoning By-law, dated July 29, 2010, and further to explain the differences in the changes that have been made to the previous version of the draft Zoning By-law, dated May 27, 2010. The first draft of the new comprehensive Zoning By-law was released in May 2009. An Open House is scheduled for August 11, 2010, between 2:00 and 8:00 p.m.

This report contains several Attachments outlining in greater detail the changes made to the draft Zoning By-law since May 27, 2010. The Attachments also include a listing of properties that have been left out of the draft Zoning By-law because a site plan application has been submitted but is not yet approved.

This supplementary report requests that modifications be made to the draft Zoning By‑law. The modifications are appended to this report as Attachment 1 and are grouped into categories for ease of reference. The types of requested modifications include: corrections to the text of the general regulations, corrections that address consistency between the zoning map labels and the text references, corrections and changes to the Exceptions part of the Bylaw, proposed additions to Chapters 950, Prevailing Bylaws, and Chapter 955, Prevailing Bylaw Sections, recommended zoning changes and corrections to specific properties, properties that should be added to the Bylaw and, properties that should be removed from the Bylaw. The report recommends that Council determine that the proposed draft Zoning Bylaw, together with these modifications, be enacted without further notice.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council approve an amendment to Chapter 694, Signs, General, to adopt a site specific amendment for the property municipally known as 14 Strachan Avenue, substantially in accordance with the administrative design features as set out in Appendix A of the report (August 13, 2010) from the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building.

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to prepare the necessary Bills for introduction in Council to implement the above recommendations, subject to such stylistic and technical changes to the draft bills as may be required.

3.         City Council direct the builder to undertake to provide in any new Purchase and Sale Agreements for any residential units to be located on the lands known as 14 and 20 Strachan Avenue, 39 and 51 East Liberty Street and 19 Western Battery Road a written "Buyer Beware" notice to all the future buyers of the residential units stating that an illuminated third party ground sign of such size and height is located to the south of these buildings.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

This report reviews and makes recommendations on a request by Bill Dalton of IBI Group, on behalf of 863880 Ontario Limited c/o David Moscovitz, for a site specific amendment to Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code to permit for the erection of a ground sign on the premises municipally known as 14 Strachan Avenue, on the following conditions: the permit for the erection and display of the sign is non-renewable and shall expire on March 31, 2018, and that the existing roof sign located approximately 80 metres to the west on the same premises is removed.

The proposed amendment will result in the elimination of a large format third party roof sign from the Gardiner Corridor.  The proposal will also result in the eventual removal of a large format third party ground sign, furthering the objectives of Chapter 694, with respect to the protection of panoramic views of the City’s skyline, and will ensure that signage will reflect the increasingly residential nature of the area upon conclusion of the redevelopment of the area.

Staff recommend approval of the application for a Sign By-law amendment in general accordance with the specific permission previously contemplated by City staff and approved by City Council.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 441 Fees and Charges as set out in Attachment 1 of the report (July 28, 2010) from the General Manager of Transportation to add a fee for the issuance of a construction hoarding sign permit of $6.00 per linear metre.

2.         City Council approve the proposed amendment to Chapter 693 Article III temporary signs as set out in Attachment 1 of the report (July 28, 2010) from the General Manager of Transportation to add the following:

“693-27.1B(14) – construction hoarding sign shall not contain text in excess of 40^ of the overall area of the construction hoarding sign.”

3.         The proposed amendments in Attachment 1 of the report (July 28, 2010) from the General Manager of Transportation be effective January 4, 2011.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee, on June 16, 2010, referred the report (May 3, 2010) back to the General Manager, Transportation Services, for a further report to the Committee.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on June 16, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee of June 16, 2010 requested the General Manager, Transportation Services, in consultation with appropriate staff to report back to the Planning and Growth Management Committee on:

1.         An appeal mechanism that would allow local Community Councils to over-ride staff approval for hoarding advertising; and,

2.         A fee structure to ensure full cost recovery for inspection and processing costs associated with this policy.

This report recommends amendments to Chapter 693, Signs, of the Toronto Municipal Code implementing a harmonized, City-wide approach to regulate the display of first party signs on construction hoarding erected within the public right-of-way.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council amend Section 693-6(A) of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 694, Signs, General, by adding (9) to exclude certain non-illuminated signs on hospitals from the requirements to obtain a permit, substantially in accordance with the Administrative Design attached as Appendix A to the report (August 3, 2010) from the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building.

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor be authorized to prepare the necessary Bills for introduction in Council to implement the above recommendations, subject to such stylistic and technical changes to the draft bills as may be required.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee held a public meeting on August 19, 2010, and notice was given in accordance with the City of Toronto Act, 2006.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council adopt the Site Plan Control By-law substantially in accordance with the draft Site Plan Control By-law attached as Attachment 1 to the report (July 15, 2010) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning.

2.         City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Site Plan Control By-law as may be required.

3.         City Council request the Chief Building Official and Executive Director Toronto Building, in consultation with the Chief Planner, to report to Planning and Growth Management Committee, prior to consideration of the 2011 budget, on the administrative and financial implications of implementing the proposed site plan control by-law provisions related to matters of exterior design, sustainability of buildings and sustainable design elements in the public right-of-way adjacent to a development site.

Section 114 of the City of Toronto Act provides two additional Site Plan Control powers dealing with exterior design and sustainability of buildings, as well as sustainable design elements in the public right-of-way adjacent to a development site.  The Act requires provisions in the Official Plan and a Site Plan Control By-law to use these powers.

Official Plan Amendment No. 66 incorporated policies, unshaded text and sidebars into the Official Plan with respect to these additional Site Plan Control powers.  City Council directed the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to bring forward the required Site Plan Control By-law amendment once Official Plan Amendment No. 66 came into effect.  The Ontario Municipal Board approved Official Plan Amendment No. 66, as modified, in April 2010.

This report recommends a Site Plan Control By-law containing exterior design and sustainability provisions applicable to development subject to Site Plan Control.  A by-law must be enacted by City Council in order to use these additional Site Plan Control powers.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council approve the final Percent for Public Art Program Guidelines, attached to the report (July 27, 2010) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, for implementation by City Staff.

The Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning recommends that:

1.         City Council endorse this study approach, to be pursued as part of City Planning’s 2011 work plan, and 2011 Capital Budget submission.

2.         City Council refer the examination or review of density targets to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning for the Five-Year review of the Official Plan.

The purpose of this report is to seek direction from City Council on the Yonge-Eglinton Urban Design Study, as directed by City Council at its meeting on January 26 and 27, 2010.  The study will be prepared by City Planning Staff assisted by consultants and will involve public consultation, which will commence in 2011.  A staff working group is being established with representatives from Community Planning, Urban Design, Urban Forestry, Transportation Planning and Parks and Recreation. 

The study area will include all lands referred to as Area A in City of Toronto By-law 623-2010.  The area may expand following consultation with area residents and councillors.  The study will complement the work that has previously been done for the Yonge-Eglinton Focused Review Study completed in 2009 and endorsed by Council. 

The study will examine existing conditions and work with area residents to develop a vision for the Centre in accordance with the City of Toronto’s Official Plan. 

The study will include, but will not be limited to the following elements as directed by City Council:

-           Parks, Open Spaces and Natural Features
-           Street Network
-           Pedestrian & Bicycle Circulation
-           Transit Circulation
-           Vehicular Circulation
-           Built-Form
-           Character and Identity
-           Street Frontages and Character
-           Gateways and Landmark Features
-           Revitalization Areas

The study will be considered for the 2011 Capital Budget. The estimated cost of hiring consultants to assist with this work is $125,000.  City Planning does not have sufficient staff resources to do this work without consulting assistance.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council direct staff to report back to Toronto City Council with a completed Policies and Terms of Reference and for Designating HCDs in Toronto after scheduling community consultations for interested parties, and the public at large, to obtain their comments and feedback regarding the draft document.

2.         City Council request the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to give consideration in the final report to expanding the notification guidelines to include adjacent property owners, neighbouring resident groups and Local Business Improvement Associations.

The Toronto Preservation Board on July 29, 2010, considered the following:

1.         Report (July 16, 2010) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, respecting Draft Policies and Terms of Reference for Designating Heritage Conservation Districts in Toronto; and

2.         Communication (July 29, 2010) from Richard Longley, Harbord Village Heritage Conservation District.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.           City Council approve the alterations to the heritage property at 279-283 Yonge Street, substantially in accordance with Drawings W1.0-1, W2.0-2a, W2.00-3a, W2.0-4a and W2.0-6a dated June 11, 2010, W2.0-1 dated August 15, 2006, W2.0-2, W2.0-3 and W2.0-4 dated September 21, 2009, all prepared by Kramer Design Associates, date stamped received by Heritage Preservation Services June 6, 2010, and on file with the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services; and the Heritage Impact Assessment, “279–283 Yonge Street, Signage Proposal Review/Heritage Impact Assessment, January 27, 2008 revised October 5 2009, June 15 2010” (HIA), prepared by ERA Architects Inc., date stamped received by Heritage Preservation Services June 6, 2010 on file with the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services, subject to the following conditions:

a.         Prior to the issuance of a sign permit for roof-top signs on the heritage property located at 279-283 Yonge Street, including a permit for the demolition/removal of existing signs and erection of new signs, the owner shall provide the following to the satisfaction of the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services:

i.          sign permit construction drawings;

ii.         final signage plan, heritage interpretation plan and lighting plan for the exterior of the heritage building;

iii.        heritage conservation drawings and specifications for heritage conservation work to implement the conservation plan referenced in the Heritage Impact Assessment, to be prepared by a qualified heritage consultant;

iv.        Letter of Credit, in a form and an amount satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division, to secure all work included in the Heritage Impact Assessment.

b.         Prior to the release of the Letter of Credit, the owner shall provide the following to the satisfaction of the Manager, Heritage Preservation Services:

i.          a notice of substantial completion for the heritage conservation work, signed by the Heritage Consultant;

ii.         implementation of the heritage interpretation plan.

2.         Such approval be conditional on the necessary amendment to Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code being approved by City Council.

This report recommends that City Council approve the proposed alterations to the heritage property at 279-283 Yonge Street subject to the applicant satisfying certain conservation related conditions as well as obtaining a site-specific amendment to Chapter 694, Signs, General, of the City of Toronto Municipal Code.

The application describes a proposal to erect large format third party signs on the roof of the building. The proposed roof sign replaces an existing roof sign, and is intended to contain five sign faces, each of various dimensions and each utilizing various methods of sign copy display, along with an architectural light column.  The building itself is located at the south-easterly corner of Dundas Square and Yonge Street, framing the southern boundary of Yonge-Dundas Square.

While roof signs are generally prohibited under Chapter 694, Signs, General, and third party signs are prohibited on all heritage properties within the city, the subject property is located within the Yonge-Dundas Special Sign District, where Chapter 694 permits the erection and display of certain roof signs. In addition, City Council at its meeting of April 29, 30, 2009 approved the adoption, in principle, of portions of the Downtown Yonge Business Improvement Area (DYBIA)’s “Signage Vision for the Downtown Yonge Strip,” which included the guideline that third party signs were allowable on some heritage properties within the vision area so long as commitments were made to the long term conservation of the property.

This report recommends that City Council approve the application with conditions for heritage conservation work and heritage interpretation of the property.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council direct staff to continue discussions with Vaughan staff to ensure that the draft Vaughan Official Plan will provide certainty to the City of Toronto that development in the Steeles corridor and in the Yonge-Steeles Secondary Plan will not have an adverse impact on the City’s services and infrastructure.

2.         City Council direct staff to report further on the outcome of these discussions and recommendations for any further action the City may need to take.

The City of Vaughan has requested comments on a draft new Official Plan for the City.

The Plan provides for extensive development on the north side of Steeles Avenue and also in the Yonge corridor north of Steeles Avenue. This development is premised on extending the Spadina subway to Highway 7, extending the Yonge subway or providing other rapid transit on Yonge Street up to Highway 7 and providing higher order transit along Steeles Avenue. While the Spadina extension is fully committed, the Yonge extension has not yet received any funding commitment and is not high priority for the City and the TTC; and the higher order transit on Steeles is even less of a priority.

Until there is a commitment to funding transit improvements in the Yonge and Steeles Corridors, Toronto needs assurance that development in these corridors will not have an adverse impact on Toronto’s services and infrastructure. Staff have presented these concerns to Vaughan staff and had initial discussions towards their resolution. This report recommends that staff continue discussions with Vaughan staff to ensure that the new Vaughan Official Plan addresses these issues to Toronto’s satisfaction.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council endorse the concept of the establishment of a local appeal board for minor variances and consent applications, subject to Finance staff, in conjunction with the Chief Planner, providing detailed cost analysis of the fees associated with the fee structure and review options for cost recovery, with a report to the Planning and Growth Management Committee in the first quarter of 2011.

At its meeting of June 5, 2008, the Planning and Growth Management Committee directed the establishment of a Councillor-Staff Working Group to develop the structure for an appeal body or panel to hear appeals of Committee of Adjustment decisions on minor variance and consent applications and to report back to the PGM Committee.

Several Working Group meetings were held and an analysis of best practices conducted by City Planning in conjunction with other city staff, including staff from Legal Services, the City Manager’s Office and Facilities Management, in consideration of this matter.

The purpose of this report is to provide the PGM Committee with an overview of cost and staffing implications associated with establishing and operating a local appeal panel to hear appeals of Committee of Adjustment decisions that would be suitable for further examination and implementation by the incoming Council.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council approve awards for the 2010 Toronto Heritage Grant Program for the 12 heritage properties in the City of Toronto, as set out below, to assist in funding the scope of restoration work generally described in Attachment 1 of the report (July 12, 2010) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, in accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the Toronto Heritage Grant Program previously approved by City Council:

a.         76 Amelia Street, house, $7,250;

b.         1 Austin Terrace, museum, $15,250;

c.         114 Bedford Road, house, $10,000;

d.         21 Elm Avenue, house, $10,000;

e.         2 Gloucester Street, commercial building, $25,000;

f.          44 King Street West, institutional building, $27,500;

g.         6 Laurier Avenue, house, $2,500;

h.         100 McCaul Street, institutional, $25,000;

i.          56 Queen Street East, institutional, $30,000;

j.          32 Spruce Street, house, $5,000;

k.         7 Winchester Street, house, $10,000; and

l.          80 Winchester Street, institutional building, $42,500.

2.         The use of the grant awards outlined in Recommendation 1 of the report (July 12, 2010) from the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, be limited to only the proposed restoration work approved by the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, and that issuing of the grant award be subject to the grant recipient satisfying all conditions as set out in the Letter of Understanding between the City and the grant recipient.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee withdrew the item as the new Council establishes Advisory Bodies during its term.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council grant authority for the introduction of a Bill revising the list of appointed Inspectors under the Building Code Act, 1992.

The Planning and Growth Management Committee recommends that:

1.         City Council direct Heritage Preservation Services to undertake a comprehensive audit of all places of worship within the City of Toronto.

2.         City Council direct that this audit to be co-ordinated with the Ontario Heritage Trust Program, be based on a dialogue with the faith community.

3.         City Council request Faith Groups to identify all places of worship within their denomination and work with Heritage Preservation Services to determine which buildings merit designation and in what order of priority.

4.         City Council direct that once that list is established it can become a planning framework for both the City and the religious denominations themselves, that can better assist in the preservation of important heritage structures than the present system.