Zoning Code Review - Supplementary Report No. 3

File No. Z-2001B

 The Etobicoke Community Council, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact, conclusions and recommendations contained in the following report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, recommends as follows:

 (1)that the draft by-law attached to the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District (May 6, 1998) regarding amendments to Chapters 304 and 320 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code, be approved; and

 (2)that the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development (May 6, 1998) be adopted:

 The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on June 24, 1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder:

 The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:

 Purpose:

 To clarify certain provisions of the Zoning Code pertaining to Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities.

 Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

 There are no financial implications.

 Recommendation:

 It is recommended that a public meeting be held to discuss the proposed amendments and in the event of approval, the by-law attached as Exhibit No. 1 be adopted.

 Comments:

 In December, 1996, the former Etobicoke Council enacted a series of by-laws to consolidate the definitions and industrial zoning provisions between the former Township and the three Lakeshore municipalities. In working with the Zoning Code, staff have identified an incorrect reference to Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities in the text of the Class Two Industrial (I.C2) provisions. Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities are only permitted in Class Three Industrial (I.C3) zones, with certain site specific exceptions, and on lands zoned Class Two Industrial (I.C2) in the former Town of New Toronto. However, the wording of Section 304-34 of the Zoning Code refers to both (I.C2) and (I.C3) zones.

 The Supplementary Regulations for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities, Section 320-24.3F of the Zoning Code, contains a reference to industrial provisions which were previously deleted. This reference should be corrected.

 The specific amendments as contained in the draft by-law attached as Exhibit No. 1, are discussed below.

 Sections 1 and 2 of the by-law clarify the reference to Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities as a permitted business use in the Class Two Industrial (I.C2) zone in the former Town of New Toronto.

 Sections 3 and 4 of the by-law serve to clarify the requirements for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities in Class Three Industrial (I.C3) zones, while section 5 of the by-law corrects a reference in the Supplementary Regulations section of the Zoning Code, to the former industrial provisions which no longer exist.

 Conclusion:

 The attached draft by-law is intended to implement the technical amendments discussed in this report and ensure that the requirements for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities are consistent with the decision of the Ontario Municipal Board to approve such uses.

 Contact Name:

 Richard Kendall, Principal Planner, Development and Design Division

Tel: (416)394-8227

_____

 Exhibit 1

 Draft By-law to amend Chapters 304 and 320 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code.

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

 1.That Section 304-34A of the Zoning Code is hereby amended by deleting the words "waste-recycling facilities, except such uses shall not be permitted on lands identified as I.C2 on the zoning maps referred to in Chapters 330 and 340 of the Zoning Code.".

 2.That Section 304-35A. of the Zoning Code is hereby amended by deleting the words "waste-recycling facilities; industrial" from in front of administrative offices.

 3.That Section 304-35 of the Zoning Code is hereby amended by adding the following subsection C.

 C.Waste disposal/recycling facilities:

 A.Separation Distances

 Waste disposal/recycling sites shall maintain a minimum separation distance of one hundred (100) metres from any lands zoned for Residential, Institutional, Open Space, Waterfront or Agricultural purposes.

 B.Location on certain roads:

 Waste disposal/recycling facilities shall not be permitted to abut the following roads:

 Martin Grove Road from Dixon Road to Berry Creek

Rexdale Boulevard from Highway No. 27 to Kipling Avenue

 C.Building type:

 When any building or structure is used or maintained for use as a waste disposal/recycling facility as defined in this chapter, no other use in addition thereto shall be permitted within the said building or structure. Said building or structure shall be fully enclosed.

 D.Outside storage:

 No outside storage, including storage in parked trucks or enclosed containers, shall be permitted.

 E.Fencing of yards:

 Yards abutting a street where trucks manoeuvre, weigh-in and load/unload and where waste and/or recycled materials are handled shall be enclosed by a two-and-four-tenths-metre-high solid metal, wood or masonry fence. If constructed of wood or metal, the fence is to be painted and maintained. The location of such fencing shall comply with subsections 304-36B, C(1) and (2), and D(1) of the Zoning Code.

 F.Permitted locations:

(1)Lands zoned Class Two Industrial (I.C2) as identified on the Zoning maps referred to in Chapter 350 of the Zoning Code.

(2)5 Brydon Drive

(3)67 Shorncliffe Road

(4)260 New Toronto Street

 4.That Sections 320-24.3 and 350-30.3 of the Zoning Code are hereby deleted.

_____

The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 17, 1998) from Mr. D. K. Horgan, Candevcon Limited:

 We represent U-Pak Disposals Limited who own two (2) properties located at 255 Carrier Drive and 15 Tidemore Avenue in Etobicoke. Both of these properties are zoned Class Two Industrial Zone (IC2) under the Etobicoke Zoning By-law.

 U-Pak Disposals (1989) Ltd., a company affiliated with U-Pak Disposals Limited, currently operates a waste disposal and recycling business at 255 Carrier Drive.

 U-Pak Disposals Limited purchased the property located at 15 Tidemore Avenue in 1997 for the purpose of developing the property for a waste disposal/recycling facility. In May 1998 Candevcon Limited, on behalf of U-Pak Disposals (1989) Ltd., endeavoured to submit a building permit application for a recycling facility at the 15 Tidemore Avenue property and the application was refused. This matter is now the subject of a legal proceeding by U-Pak Disposals Limited against the City of Toronto et al.

 On behalf of U-Pak Disposals Limited and U-Pak Disposals (1989) Ltd. we hereby object to the proposed amendment to the Zoning Code in so far as it affects the usage of the properties located at 255 Carrier Drive and 15 Tidemore Avenue, Etobicoke, for wast disposal and/or recycling facilities. In the event the Council adopts the amendment as proposed, we would require that site specific exemptions be given to the subject properties. We advise that we also intend to make oral representation at the Public Meeting scheduled for June 24, 1998.

 The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (June 18, 1998) from Mr. P. Douglas Petrie, of Willms & Shier, Barristers & Solicitors:

 This submission relates to the Notice of Public Meeting on the above matter scheduled for 2 p.m. on June 24.

 The Notice of Public Meeting and the Zoning Code Review - Supplementary Report No. 3 (with attached draft by-law) only came to our attention yesterday afternoon incidental to a conversation on another matter with one of the Councillors. My clients are upset that these or any proposed changes to the zoning by-law in relation to such a controversial and contested land use in this municipality could be deliberated by you without individual notice to potentially affected ratepayers and publication of the notice in one of the major newspapers.

 Background

 I am writing on behalf of my clients (see attached lists), two groups who have formed in opposition to the establishment of waste transfer/recycling facilities at 63 Medulla Avenue and 90 Shorncliffe Road. The facilities at these two locations have been established for some time and continue to operate in flagrant contravention of the zoning and contrary to the Environmental Protection Act. These uses of land are not in keeping with a desirable trend in development for the neighbourhood, and are causing significant local nuisance effects to their neighbours.

My clients, together with your staff and Councillors Jones and Kinahan, successfully opposed a minor variance to establish the 63 Medulla Avenue facility (Committee of Adjustment File No. A-31/98ET). My clients hope they can count on you again in the near future.

 There are rezoning applications for both of these locations (Z-2265 and Z-2253) currently being processed by your staff. My clients' submissions in opposition to those applications will be sent to you shortly.

 Applications for certificates of approval for both locations have been filed with the Ministry of the Environment (A 680283 and A 680288). You have been copied with my clients' submissions opposing those applications (dated January 21, 1998 and April 17, 1998).

 Zoning Code Review Re Waste Disposal recycling Facilities

 I have reviewed the Supplementary Report No. 3 with its draft by-law, and have spoken with the report's author, Richard Kendall, and with Molly Sutherland.

 From this, we understand, and rely on the representation, that the proposed changes are supposed to be technical (housekeeping) in nature and not intended to make substantive changes to the by-law.

 Sections 1 to 4 of the draft by-law are simply "messaging" what has always been the case, that the Supplementary Regulations prevail over the list of permitted uses for I.C2 and I.C3 to the extent of any conflict.

 So long as these or any other changes to the Zoning Code do not detract from current prohibitions of, and restrictions on, these types of facilities as found in 320-24.3, Supplementary Regulation for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities, my clients are not opposed to those changes.

 I note that the Staff Report states: "there are no financial implications". While this may be true of these technical amendments, this is far from the case with renegade waste operations, with which I am sure you already have a great deal of experience. When you receive my clients' submissions on the two rezonings referred to above, you will begin to appreciate not only the impact on the neighbours but the impact on this municipality in trying to enforce its by-laws and deal with environmental issues dumped in its lap by the Ministry of the Environment.

 _____

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

 -Mr. D. Gibson, representing the owners of 123 East Side Drive, seeking clarification of the intent of the by-law and the implications, if any, for his clients.

 -Mr. D. C. Kerr, seeking clarification with respect to the intent of the by-law, particularly as it might pertain to the outside storage of tires.

-Mr. D. Horgan, on behalf of U-Pak Disposals Limited, currently operating a waste disposal and recycling business in a Class Two Industrial Zone (I.C2), seeking confirmation of his client's status as a lawful non-conforming use.