|
|
 |
 |
|
| |
|
City of Toronto Council and Committees |
| |
|
All Council and Committee documents are available from the City of Toronto Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca.
|
| |
|
THE CITY OF TORONTO
Clerk’s Division
Minutes of the Planning and Transportation Committee
Meeting No. 6
Monday, November 29, 1999
The Planning and Transportation Committee met on Monday, November 29, 1999, in Committee Room 1, 2nd Floor, City Hall, Toronto, commencing at 9:30 a.m.
Members Present:
Councillor Joanne Flint, Chair
Councillor Pam McConnell, Vice-Chair
Councillor Maria Augimeri
Councillor Milton Berger
Councillor John Filion
Councillor Blake F. Kinahan
Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby
Councillor Howard Moscoe
Councillor Dick O’Brien
Councillor Joe Pantalone
Confirmation of Minutes.
On motion by Councillor Moscoe the Minutes of the meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee held on November 1, 1999, were confirmed.
6.1 New Practices for the Review of Development Applications
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report (June 25, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, which was deferred from its October 4, 1999 meeting, with the exception of Recommendation (1), which it adopted on October 4, 1999, together with the motions tabled by Councillor Moscoe, respecting New Practices for the Review of Development Applications.
The Committee also had before it the following communications/reports:
- (October 19, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, providing the Committee with the City Planning Division’s response to the recommendations from the Community Councils on the New Practices report and recommending that the Committee support the City Planning Division’s responses as set out in this report;
- (November 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, providing further information following meetings with the New Practices Sub-Committee and with representatives of CUPE Local 79 and recommending that the consolidated recommendations attached as Appendix ‘A’ be approved;
- (October 19, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding motions tabled by Councillor Moscoe at Planning and Transportation Committee’s October 4, 1999 meeting;
- (July 30, 1999) from Councillor John Filion forwarding suggested amendments to the Planning Process together with a brief rationale for each;
- (September 17, 1999) from the City Clerk, Scarborough Community Council;
- (September 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, Toronto Community Council;
- (September 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, York Community Council;
- (September 16, 1999) from the City Clerk, Etobicoke Community Council;
- (October 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, North York Community Council;
- (September 20, 1999) from the City Clerk, East York Community Council;
- (October 1, 1999) from Anne Dubas, President, Local 79;
- (October 4, 1999) from Peter Gabor, Chair, Planning and Development Committee, The Toronto Board of Trade;
- (October 29, 1999) from Neil H. Rodgers, Director of Policy, Urban Development Institute/Ontario Toronto Chapter;
- (October 29, 1999) from Anne Dubas, President, CUPE Local 79;
- (November 1, 1999) from Neil Rodgers, Director of Policy, Urban Development Institute;
- (November 1, 1999) from Chris Lloyd, Chair, Greater Toronto Home Builders’ Association; and
- (November 29, 1999) from Lois James.
Lois James appeared before the Planning and Transportation Committee in connection with the foregoing matter:
The Planning and Transportation Committee recommended to City Council for its meeting on December 14, 1999, that the report (November 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to amending the recommendations listed in Appendix A of the report,
On motion by Councillor Moscoe:
"by adding the following additional Recommendation (10(iv)):
‘(10 (iv)) that properties abutting railroad tracks not be exempted from site plan control’"; and
On motion by Councillor Lindsay Luby:
"by amending Recommendation (11 (ii) by adding at the end thereof, the words:
‘similar to the practice currently undertaken by the former City of Etobicoke, and subject to cost recovery;’ and
"by adding the following additional Recommendation (11(iii)):
‘(11(iii)) an enhanced notification area with input from the area Councillor(s)’";
so that these recommendations now read as follows:
"(1) Council endorse the following principles as the foundation for new practices in City Planning:
(i) delegation of authority to staff, as permitted by statute, to approve applications for site plan control approval, various classes of consents, draft condominium approval (except for conversion of rental housing) and authority to execute, amend and release site plan agreements on behalf of the City subject to:
(a) staff be required to notify the Ward Councillor(s) in writing, ten days prior to approving site plan control applications, to permit the Councillor the opportunity to request that a report be prepared for the approval of the Community Council; and
(b) prior to the execution of an amending site plan agreement, the Ward Councillor(s) is to be consulted;
(ii) a case management system which provides for a continuity of planning staff assignments from the beginning to the completion of any project and that the planner in charge of a project have available specific expertise that may be required, in particular urban planning design and landscape planning resources;
(iii) a one-window review and comment process which is streamlined to the essential agencies and which establishes time frames for responses, to be determined in consultation with the senior management of affected departments and agencies, boards and commissions;
(iv) use of preliminary reports, for applications to amend the official plan or zoning by-law, to identify issues, set up a community consultation process and to establish a target for delivery of a final recommendation report and statutory public meeting;
(v) provision for roundtable meetings between applicants and empowered staff from City departments to identify issues, technical studies needed and other relevant matters early in the review process;
(vi) use of plain language and common formats in reports to Council, notices to the public and agreements related to development approvals;
(vii) use of informal and formal dispute resolution throughout the approval process to avoid appeals and referrals to the Ontario Municipal Board; and
(viii) community meetings, held in conjunction with planning applications be chaired by the Ward Councillor(s) or, at the option of the Councillor(s), by Planning staff;
(2) the City Solicitor be directed to prepare by-laws for presentation to and approval by City Council as follows:
(i) to delegate authority to approve applications for site plan control approval to the Chief Planner or delegate(s), subject to a provision for the Ward Councillor(s) to request a "bump-up" to City Council for approval;
(ii) to establish areas of site plan control on a consistent basis across the City, establishing appropriate thresholds defining the intensity of development or redevelopment which would require the submission of an application for site plan approval as detailed in this report;
(iii) to delegate authority to grant draft condominium approvals except for applications involving the conversion of rental housing, and exemptions from draft approval as appropriate, to the Chief Planner or delegate(s);
(iv) to delegate approval authority for the creation of new lots by consent to the Committee of Adjustment as permitted under Section 54 of the Planning Act;
(v) to delegate approval authority for all consents, other than the creation of new lots, to the Secretary-Treasurer of the Committee of Adjustment or delegate(s) in accordance with Section 54(2) of the Planning Act;
(vi) to delegate authority to execute, amend and release agreements as required, to the Chief Planner or delegate(s), subject to a requirement to consult with the Ward Councillor(s) prior to amending such agreements;
(3) the City Solicitor be authorized and directed to prepare and present for Council approval, standard form agreements as required and authorized by the Planning Act and any other statutes, to replace standard form agreements currently in use;
(4) Council request the Province of Ontario to amend the Planning Act to delete the requirements for a public meeting in conjunction with plans of subdivision;
(5) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to report on the implications of expanding site plan inspection services, as currently provided in the former City of Scarborough, on a City-wide basis;
(6) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to bring forward any amendments to the Official Plans of the former municipalities required to implement the findings of this report;
(7) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to bring forward a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee recommending a new structure for the Committee(s) of Adjustment;
(8) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to bring forward a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee recommending new practices for harmonizing the Committee of Adjustment function;
- Appendix 2, Revised Process: Site Plan Approval, attached to the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be replaced by a revised Appendix 2 which reflects the change to the
bump-up provision which requires a 10-day notification letter prior to approval by staff;
(10) Appendix 3, Site Plan Approval Exemptions, attached to the report (June 25, 1999) from the Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be amended as follows:
(i) telecommunications equipment not be exempted from site plan control;
(ii) school portables not be exempted from site plan control;
(iii) commercial parking lot additions not be exempted from site plan control; and
(iv) properties abutting railroad tracks not be exempted from site plan control;
(11) the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be directed to report further on the following:
(i) studies related to a project over a certain threshold be commissioned by the City of Toronto at the expense of the applicant and that the Acting Commissioner be requested to report further on a suitable threshold; and
(ii) a strategy for notifying business and residential tenants of community meetings and public meetings and for cost recovery from applicants, similar to the current practice undertaken by the former City of Etobicoke, and subject to cost recovery; and
(iii) an enhanced notification area with input from the area Councillor(s);";
The Planning and Transportation Committee, also recommended to Council for its meeting on December 14, 1999, that:
(a) Appendix 2 titled "Revised Process: Site Plan Approval" of the report (November 26, 1999) be amended by deleting
from Box No. 6, the words "within two weeks of circulation", so as to read:
‘Ward Councillor or applicant requests approval "bumped-up"’;
(b) On motion by Councillor Pantalone:
"that the Ward Councillor(s) be notified of any application and pre-meetings that have been held, and that the applicant be requested to meet with the Councillor(s) prior to the application being filed";
(c) On motion by Councillor Moscoe:
(1) that the interior of industrial sub divisions be exempted from site plan control unless specifically designated; and
(2) that the North York Garment Districts and the Downsview Lands be specifically designated;
(d) On motion by Councillor Filion:
(1) the preliminary report be limited to an identification of the application and the facts associated with it, in addition to setting out a process for community consultation and timelines for delivery of the final report;
(2) wherever possible, site plans be developed concurrently with zoning applications;
(3) townhouses and those covered by severances be subject to site plan control; and
(4) Councillors be notified of, and invited to attend or send a representative, to all scheduled meetings between Planning staff and the applicant; and
(e) On motion by Councillor Flint:
"that the process for the review of development applications be governed by principles of fairness and
equality in all dealings with the applicant and affected parties"; and
On motion by Councillor Moscoe, the Planning and Transportation Committee supported the following motion:
"That the North York Garment Districts and the Downswiew Lands be specifically designated"; and
requested the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on this matter.
(Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services – December 2, 1999)
(Report No. 7, Clause 1)
6.2 Urban Planning and Development Services: Strategic Priorities for City-Wide Civic Improvements Projects
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report (November 15, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, describing the process of establishing priorities and the criteria used for civic improvement initiatives by Urban Planning and Development Services throughout the entire City of Toronto, outlining strategies for the implementation of such initiatives, and recommending that:
(1) Council support the continuing development of a well-designed system of public spaces in the City, including streetscapes, based on the adoption of the strategic priorities for Urban Planning and Development Services civic improvement projects outlined in this report;
(2) Council’s funding for civic improvement initiatives, as described in this report, continue to be included in the Urban Planning and Development Services capital budget; and
(3) this report be forwarded to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration.
The Planning and Transportation Committee recommended to the Policy and Finance Committee:
(1) On motion by Councillor Pantalone, that the report (November 15, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to the following amendments:
On motion by Councillor Lindsay Luby, that Recommendation (1) be amended by adding the words:
"and that a strategy for a multi-disciplinary approach to road reconstruction be submitted to Planning and Transportation Committee prior to the Spring construction so that all civic perspectives are represented"; and
On motion by Councillor Pantalone, that the following additional recommendation be adopted:
"that, wherever local streets are to be constructed, the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with local Councillor(s) investigate, and if deemed appropriate, initiate roadway narrowings and sidewalk widenings with tree plantings;"
so that the report’s recommendations now read:
"(1) Council support the continuing development of a well-designed system of public spaces in the City, including streetscapes, based on the adoption of the strategic priorities for Urban Planning and Development Services civic improvement projects outlined in this report and that a strategy for a multi-disciplinary approach to road reconstruction be submitted to Planning and Transportation prior to the Spring construction so that all civic perspectives are represented;
(2) Council’s funding for civic improvement initiatives, as described in this report, continue to be included in the Urban Planning and Development Services capital budget; and
- wherever local streets are to be constructed, the Commissioners of Urban Planning and Development Services and of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with local
Councillor(s) investigate, and, if deemed appropriate, initiate roadway narrowings and sidewalk widenings with tree plantings;
(4) this report be forwarded to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration."
On motion by Councillor Moscoe, recommended to Council that:
(1) the body of the report (November 15, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be amended by classifying Wilson Avenue from Avenue Road to Keele Street as a Reinvestment District; and
(2) there be a visual artist on the design team for all public projects to which the public has access;
On motion by Councillor McConnell, the Planning and Transportation Committee recommended to City council that whenever there are public works to be carried out in areas that are identified for civic improvements, that the Commissioners of Works and Emergency Services and Urban Planning and Development Services work together on the implementation of these improvements;
and in accordance with Recommendation (4) of the above-noted report, as amended, forwarded this matter and the Committee’s recommendations in this respect to Policy and Finance Committee for consideration.
The Committee also:
On motion by Councillor Moscoe, supported the following motion and referred it to the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services for consideration with the development of the new City of Toronto Official Plan:
"that the Percentage for Art Policy of the former City of Toronto be extended to the entire City, and that staff develop new criteria for this policy with a view to extending it into major residential projects.";
On motion by Councillor Pantalone, requested the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, in consultation with the Commissioner, Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism, to report directly to Council at its meeting on December 4, 1999, on:
(a) the concerns raised by Councillor O’Brien at Planning and Transportation Committee’s meeting on November 29, 1999;
(b) a clarification of the term "Revitalization";
(c) the circumstances and reasons for removing the trees on Steeles Avenue in the vicinity of York University, and for plans for replanting replacement trees; and
On motion by Councillor Moscoe:
"on how the major elements of the Metro Culture Plan as to how they pertain to public space can be brought forward with respect to civic improvements projects".
(Policy and Finance Committee; Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services; Commissioner, Economic Development, Culture and Tourism – December 2, 1999)
(Report No. 7, Clause 7(a))
- Standing Committee Service Levels/Standards Briefing – 2000-2004 Capital Budget
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report (November 17, 1999) from the City Clerk advising that the Budget Advisory Committee, having completed its preliminary review of the 2000-2004 Capital Budget, directed that:
(1) the 2000-2004 Capital Budget be forwarded to all Community Councils and relevant Standing Committees for consideration;
(2) the preliminary request of the Budget Advisory Committee be forwarded to the Community Councils and Standing Committees for information; and
- the Community Councils and Standing Committees be requested to forward their recommendations pertaining to the 2000-2004 Capital Budget to the Budget Advisory Committee prior to the commencement of the "wrap-up" meetings on December 9, 1999.
The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the following reports and communications:
- (November 22, 1999) from the West Toronto Junction Team, forwarding letters in support of funding for West Toronto Junction Streetscaping;
- (November 23, 1999) from Sandra Moffat, regarding Capital Funding for West Toronto Streetscaping, requesting support for capital funding for the replacement and improvement of Junction sidewalks and overhead wires;
- (November 23, 1999) from I.P. Komarnicky, Jamesbridge Associates Inc., regarding Capital Funding for West Toronto Streetscaping, requesting support for capital funding for the upgrading of the Junction area.;
- Carolyn Riemer, Dundas West Residents Association, regarding Capital Funding for West Toronto Streetscaping, requesting support for Capital Funding;
- (November 26, 1999) from Santa Cuda, Flamingo Banquet Hall Limited, supporting capital funding for streetscaping in the Junction;
- (November 26, 1999) from Tom Caray, President, West Toronto Junction Historical Society, supporting capital funding for streetscaping in the Junction;
- (November 25, 1999) from Larry Burak, Member, West Toronto Junction Team, supporting capital funding for streetscaping in the Junction;
- (November 29, 1999) from Henry Calderone, Project Director, West Toronto Junction Team, submitting material representing the Junction Gardens Business Improvement Area, the Malta Village Business Association, the Dundas West Residents Association, and the West Toronto Junction Historical Society (on file in the Office of the City Clerk);
- (Undated) from Lynn Verhoff, Dundas West Residents Association (DWRA), requesting 100% replacement of the sidewalks from Annette Street to Runnymede Road, the inclusion of decorative pavers in the sidewalks, and the undergrounding of all overhead wires, including those required for streetlights; and
- Material used by the Finance Department in an overhead presentation.
The following persons addressed the Committee in respect of the above matter:
- Henry Calderone, Project Director, West Toronto Junction Team;
- Paul Komarnicky, Junction Gardens BIA; and
- Lynn Verhoff, Dundas West Residents’ Association.
The Planning and Transportation Committee after having conducted a preliminary review of the 2000-2004 Capital Budget, recommended to the Budget Advisory Committee, the following:
(1) On motion by Councillor McConnell that the original submission of $6.1m for Civic Improvements be reinstated in the 2000-2004 Capital Budget;
(2) On motion by Councillor Lindsay Luby that the amount of $80,000, recommended by the Chief Administrative Officer, for streetscape improvements in the West Toronto Junction area be approved;
- that City officials be requested to coordinate each project with the work of other departments and agencies.
The Planning and Transportation Committee requested the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, to report to the Budget Advisory Committee on the Information Technology component costs included in the Budget.
The foregoing motion to reinstate the Civic Improvements Budget to $6.1 m carried on the following division of votes:
Yeas – Councillors Flint, Moscoe, Pantalone, McConnell, Kinahan, Augimeri, Berger, Filion - 8
Nays – Councillors O’Brien, Lindsay Luby – 2
(Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services; Budget Advisory Committee; cc: Chief Administrative Officer; Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer; Finance Department, Attention: John Di Lallo, Budget Services Division; Interested Persons – December 2, 1999)
(Report No. 7, Clause 7(b))
6.4 Terms of Reference for the Taxicab Advisory Committee
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report (November 12, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, reporting on the Terms of Reference, provision of resources, and the establishment of an elected Taxicab Advisory Committee, and recommending that:
(1) the attached Terms of Reference for the Taxicab Advisory Committee (TAC) be adopted, with the view they act as a guide for the group’s development within the context of the taxi industry’s capacity for self-management;
(2) the section in this report on the holding of an industry election to elect TAC members be received for information;
(3) Council direct that once industry elections have taken place, the newly elected TAC consult with representatives of the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division, the Board of Trade, the Hotel and Restaurant Association, the Province of Ontario, the Greater Toronto Services Board and the Greater Toronto Marketing Association regarding their participation and composition as ex-officio members of the TAC; and
(4) the appropriate City Officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
The following persons addressed the Committee in respect to this matter:
- Ian Allaby; and
- Lajos Racz.
On motion by Councillor Berger, the Planning and Transportation Committee recommended to City Council for its meeting on December 14, 1999, the adoption of the report (November 12, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services.
(Report No. 7, Clause 2)
6.5 Zoning Amendment Application – Humber River Regional Hospital, 200 Church Street – File R98-002/UDZ-98-05 (Ward 6 – North York Humber and Ward 27 – York Humber)
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report (November 4, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and
Development Services, recommending that the rezoning application for 200 Church Street be approved subject to the following conditions:
(1) the zoning be amended to a hospital zone in accordance with an implementing zoning by-law which generally complies with the draft by-law attached as Schedule "E";
(2) prior to the enactment of the zoning by-law, all requirements in accordance with the Municipal Act be met with respect to the closure and sale of the following portions of roads (all within the former municipality of the City of North York) to the Humber River Regional Hospital on terms and conditions to be determined by City Council:
(i) the southern 15.27 metres of Longview Drive; and
(ii) the closed portions on Woodward Drive on the east and west sides of the hospital;
(3) that an "H" holding designation be imposed on the proposed south addition (Phase 2). The lifting of the "H" by City Council would be subject to the following conditions being met:
(i) an updated traffic impact study be prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services that demonstrates that sufficient capacity is available to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the Phase 2 (south) expansion, and that the development would not result in an unacceptable level of arterial road service; and
(ii) a building permit has been issued for the west parking deck;
(4) the design principles outlined in Schedule "A" in the Final Report dated December 18, 1998 be considered in the review of a site plan ;
(5) the conditions of the Works and Emergency Services Department as set out in Schedules "G", "H1" and "I" in the Final Report dated December 18, 1998, and Appendix "D" in this report, be met;
(6) the conditions of the Public Health Department as set out in Schedules "K1" and "K2" in the Final Report dated December 18, 1998 be met;
(7) the conditions of the utilities as set out in Schedules "M1", "M2" and "M3" in the Final Report dated December 18, 1998 be met; and
(8) that the City Solicitor and Planning Staff do all things necessary to prepare and perfect the implementing zoning by-law;
The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the following reports and communications:
- (November 10, 1999) from the Director, Community Planning, North District, Urban Planning and Development, submitting 1998 and 1999 Meeting Minutes of the Advisory Committee Meetings, Community Meetings and Working Group Meetings;
- communications which were before the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its January 11, 1999 meeting as follows:
- (November 30, 1999) from Councillor Sgro, addressed to the President and C.E.O., Humber River Regional Hospital, requesting
the Humber River Regional Hospital to undertake a review of the programming/services that are planned for the Church Street Site.
- (December 24, 1998) from Sam Gildharry, objecting to the zoning By-law to permit additions to the south east existing hospital Church Street Site for a two storey parking garage;
- (Undated) from Florence Nightingale, advising that the hospital’s restructuring proposals are devaluating the nearby residential properties;
- (December 29, 1998) from J. M. Darvill, P. Eng, opposing the Application for a variety of reasons;
- (December 29, 1998) from Myrna and Jim Geldart, opposing the proposal to permit additions;
- (January 4, 1999) from the Manager, Development Services, North District, outlining details of municipal services in the area;
- (January 4, 1999) from Sam Gildharry, opposing the amendment of the Zoning By-law to permit additions;
- (Undated) from J. Doyle, objecting to the Zoning By-law because of increase of pollution and traffic;
- (Undated) from Jack and Carole Doyle, objecting to the Zoning By-law because of traffic congestion and disturbance of the quiet neighbourhood;
- (Undated) from E. Windsor, protesting the reconstruction and addition of a parking garage;
- (January 7, 1999) from Carley R. Sala, Weston Ratepayers and Residents Association, opposing the application for a variety of reasons;
- (January 11, 1999) from Councillor Sgro, outlining the issues identified by the community Working Committee on the impacts the proposed redevelopment will have on their neighbourhood;
- (November 15, 1999) from Sam Gildharry, opposing the amendment to the zoning by-law;
- (November 12, 1999) from Noreen Lloyd, objecting to the amendment of the Zoning By-law.
- (November 15, 1999) from Jay Doyle, objecting to the amendment of the Zoning By-law;
- (November 21, 1999) from C.R. Sala, objecting to the amendment of the Zoning By-law;
- (November 21, 1999) from C.R. Sala, Corresponding Secretary, Weston Ratepayers and Residents Association, advising that the Association passed a motion to oppose the Final Recommendation Report – Zoning Amendment Application for Humber River Regional Hospital, Church Street Site;
- (November 15, 1999) from E. Windsor, objecting to the Humber River Regional Hospital’s request to amend the By-law;
- (November 17, 1999) from C.M. Stickley, Secretary, York Federation of Ratepayers Associations Inc., advising that the York Federation of Ratepayers Association opposes any additions to the York Finch and Humber River Regional Sites;
- (November 19, 1999) from Myrna F. Geldart, commenting on the traffic problems in the area and raising several questions regarding the application;
- (Undated) from Carlos Da Silva, voicing his displeasure on the proposed expansion of Humber River Hospital Church Street Site;
- (November 21, 1999) from John and Betty Cullen and Residents, expressing their concerns about the proposed additions being planned;
- (November 25, 1999) from James M. Darvill, forwarding a communication from Kay Baker dated February 2, 1998 and addressed to The Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health, concerned about the quality of health care in the community and opposing the Zoning By-law Application for a number of reasons;
- (Undated) from Joan Tipple, expressing concerns about vehicular traffic, pollution, and parking in the community and opposing the Zoning By-law Application;
- (November 25, 1999) from James M. Darvill, photographs and communication opposing the Zoning By-law Application for a number of reasons;
- (Undated) from Florence Nightingale, expressing concerns about vehicular traffic and parking in the community and opposing the Zoning By-law Application;
- (November 21, 1999) from J. H. Thompson, suggesting the proposed changes be made to the Northwestern Site;
- (Undated) from Jacqueline Bradshaw, concerned about traffic congestion and parking;
- (November 29, 1999) from Dalius Butrimas, objecting to the proposed zoning amendment;
- (Undated) from Carlos Da-Silva; and
- Petition signed by 405 signees requesting that the proposed expansion of the Humber River Regional Hospital-Church Street site be halted until an investigation into the economic viability of the expansion and a community environmental and social impact study has been completed by an independent consultant, which was filed by Jim Darvill.
The following persons addressed the Committee in respect to this matter:
- Rueben Devlin, President, Humber River Regional Hospital advised that he was present to talk about the hospital’s rezoning application in order to
proceed with plans for the addition to the emergency department and trauma room;
- Barbara Collins, Vice-President, Planning and Support Services, Humber River Regional Hospital advised that the hospital was formed in 1997 as a result of a voluntary merger and the goals of the restructuring are to enhance amenities to the community and added that the aim was to provide the best possible health care and that one of the first construction programs was to create a larger emergency department;
- Frank Lewinberg, Principal/Partner, Urban Strategies Inc. explained that there would be an extension to the south side of the hospital; and a two storey parking structure;
- Tony Yates, Principal, BA Consulting Group advised that he was retained by the hospital to assist them in preparing their rezoning application and had also been involved in attending committee meetings;
- Dalius Butrimas objected to the rezoning application and expressed the residents’ concerns with traffic congestion and the proposed construction of a two-storey garage which does not fit with the character of this unique neighbourhood;
- Andrew Kaschuk provided a history of the neighbourhood and expressed objection to the potential increased traffic, noise pollution and potential reduction in safety for school children as well as potential devaluation of properties;
- Jim Darvill provided a map and history of the neighbourhood and filed a petition opposing the application and expressed his and the residents’ objection to the rezoning application;
- Professor Leon King objected to the rezoning application and cited traffic concerns in the neighbourhood;
- Michael McDonald requested that consideration be given to the residential character of the neighbourhood and that the matter be deferred or that the public be given sufficient protection from future expansion;
- Jacqueline Bradshaw expressed the residents’ concerns regarding traffic congestion, the inappropriateness of traffic calming measures and school children’s safety;
- Marguerite Darvill objected to the rezoning application and advised that the extent of the hospital expansion would have a major impact on the community and anticipated traffic chaos for some years;
- Mario Gentile requested deferral of the rezoning application based on the residents’ concerns and on insufficient information on funding of road improvements, and raised concerns over inadequate parking for hospital staff; and
- Helen N. Lepone requested that the natural landscape of the neighbourhood remain unchanged and emphasised the inappropriateness of building a two-tier garage.
On motion by Councillor Augimeri, the Planning and Transportation Committee, after considering the deputations and based on the findings of fact and recommendations contained in the report (November 4, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Service, recommended to City Council for its meeting on December 14, 1999, that the report (November 4, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to amending Recommendation (2) by deleting the words "prior to" and substituting in place thereof the word "following", so as to read:
"(2) following the enactment of the zoning by-law, all requirements in accordance with the Municipal Act be met with respect to the closure and sale of the following portions of roads (all within the former municipality of the City of North York) to the Humber River Regional Hospital on terms and conditions to be determined by City Council:
the southern 15.27 metres of Longview Drive; and
the closed portions on Woodward Drive on the east and west sides of the hospital;"
The Planning and Transportation Committee held a statutory public hearing on November 29, 1999 in accordance with Section 34 of The Planning Act and advised that appropriate notice of this meeting was given in accordance with The Planning Act and the regulations thereunder.
(Report No. 7, Clause 3)
6.6 Proposed Closure of Part of Longview Drive and Parts of Woodward Avenue (Ward 6 – North York Humber and Ward 27 – York Humber)
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report (October 25, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, reporting on the proposed closure of southerly 15.3 metres of Longview Drive, the stub-end of Woodward Avenue west of Uphill Avenue and the stub-end of Woodward Avenue east of Pine Street, more particularly described in the body of this report (the "Highways") and as shown in Appendices A and B, and, subject to City Council declaring the Highways to be surplus and approving the sale of the Highways, and recommending that:
(1) notice be given to the public of a proposed by-law to stop up and close the Highways, in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Act;
(2) funds for the cost of publishing public notices referred to in Recommendation (1) above be initially borne by Transportation Services but in the event that the Highways are sold, the advertising costs be recovered from the purchaser and credited back to Transportation Services;
(3) the Planning and Transportation Committee hold a public hearing concerning the proposed by-law, in accordance with the requirements of the Municipal Act;
(4) subject to compliance with the requirements of the Municipal Act, the Highways be stopped up and closed as public highways;
(5) easements be granted over the Highways or any portion thereof to the appropriate utility companies as may be necessary to permit the continued use and operation of the respective utility companies’ existing facilities within the Highways;
- in the event that the Highways are sold and any existing municipal services or utilities require adjustment, that the purchaser be required to pay the cost of adjusting, relocating or abandoning such services and/or utilities, with the costs to be determined by the Commissioner or Works and Emergency Services and the appropriate utility companies;
- the Hospital be required to enter into an agreement with the City, satisfactory in form and content to the City Solicitor, including the posting of appropriate security, wherein the Hospital agrees that within one (1) year of the closure and sale to it of the Highways, it shall either construct a turning circle at the south end of the open portion of Longview Drive, at its sole cost and expense, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of
Works and Emergency Services, or it shall apply for the closure and sale to it of the remaining portion of Longview Drive south of Pelmo Crescent and, if City Council approves such closure and sale, complete the sale transaction. In the event that City Council does not approve the closure and sale of the remaining portion of Longview Drive, the Hospital shall be required to construct the said turning circle; and
(8) the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give effect to the foregoing.
The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the communication (November 23, 1999) from the City advising that the North York Community Council at its meeting on November 9, 1999:
(1) deferred consideration of the report (October 18, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services to its next meeting scheduled for December 2, 1999 to allow deputations; and
(2) requested the Acting Commissioner of Corporate Services to:
(i) bring forward all relevant information regarding all offers submitted for the properties described as:
(a) southerly portion of Longview Drive;
(b) stub-end of Woodward Avenue, west of Uphill Avenue;
(c) stub-end of Woodward Avenue, east of Pine Street; and
(ii) provide information on why the property described as the southerly portion of Longview Drive has not been offered for sale to Mr. Darvill, the abutting property owner.
On motion by Councillor Kinahan, the Planning and Transportation Committee recommended to City Council for its meeting on December 14, 1999, the adoption of the report (October 25, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services:
(Report No. 7, Clause 4)
6.7 Greater Toronto Services Board – Transportation Workshop
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the communication (October 11, 1999) from Lynn Morrow, Executive Director, Greater Toronto Services Board, forwarding Clause 2 of Transportation Committee Report No. 5 GTSB which was adopted by the Greater Toronto
Services Board on October 1, 1999, advising that these proceedings are forwarded to GTSB municipalities and transit authorities for comment within 60 days and recommending that:
(1) the GTSB Transportation Workshop Proceedings be forwarded to the Board for information;
(2) the Transportation Planning Staff Team refine the transportation information developed at the Workshop and utilizing the other reports that are available report back to the Transportation Committee with a recommended GTA/Hamilton-Wentworth transportation vision framework as soon as possible;
(3) the Transportation Planning Staff Team consider the Workshop Proceedings in preparing a transportation plan for the GTA and Hamilton-Wentworth for consideration by the Transportation Committee, and all municipalities and transportation agencies be requested to provide their comments on the Workshop Proceedings within 60 days; and
(4) the appropriate officials take the necessary action to give effect hereto.
The Planning and Transportation Committee recommended to Council for its meeting on December 14, 1999, that, in response to the Greater Toronto Services Board’s (GTSB) request for comments from municipalities on a transportation plan for the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), that Council advise the GTSB that:
On motion by Councillor Moscoe:
(1) the City of Toronto states that it regards regional amalgamation of local transit services as a pre-requisite to regional integration of public transit;
(2) any transit plans for the GTA must recognize the relationship between land use planning and transit services; and
(3) any provincial infrastructure program must be heavily directed to support public transit;
On motion by Councillor Pantalone that the GTSB be requested to include in the capital costs, significant landscaping, especially tree plantings, along any new or improved transportation routes.
On motion by Councillor Pantalone, the Planning and Transportation Committee, referred the report (October 11, 1999) from the Executive
Director, Greater Toronto Services Board to the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services and to the Official Plan Reference Group for consideration of incorporating the transportation component therein into the City of Toronto’s new Official Plan;
On motion by Councillor Moscoe, the Planning and Transportation Committee requested representatives from the Toronto Transit Commission to give a presentation to the Planning and Transportation Committee, in early 2000, on seamless transit; and
On motion by Councillor O’Brien, the Planning and Transportation Committee requested the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services to report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on extending the subway in a westerly direction.
(Mr. Vince Rodo, Toronto Transit Commission, 1900 Yonge Street, Toronto; cc: Bill Buffett, Assistant General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission; Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services; Official Plan Reference Group: Attention: Councillor Pantalone; Paul Bedford, Chief Planner – December 2, 1999)
(Report No. 7, Clause 5)
6.8 Council of Toronto Watersheds
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report (November 12, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, commenting on two funding proposals related to watershed planning in the new Toronto. One involves the creation of a Council of Toronto Watersheds. The second involves the staging of a Forum of Grassroots Community-led Watershed Groups. This report was requested at the April 16, 1999 meeting of the City’s Budget Committee, and recommends that:
(1) the proposals for a Council of Toronto Watersheds and a Forum of Grassroots Community-led Watershed Groups be referred to the Environmental Task Force;
(2) the Environmental Task Force forward comments on the proposed Council of Toronto Watersheds and Forum of Grassroots Community-led Watershed Groups to the December 7, 1999 meeting of Policy and Finance, where the Committee is expected to consider a number of reports on environmental governance; and,
(3) the appropriate City Officials be authorised and directed to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
The Planning and Transportation Committee also had before it the following reports and communications:
- (November 12, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services, responding to a resolution in Report No. 5 of the Urban Environment and Development Committee, as adopted by Toronto City Council at its meeting on April 13, 14 & 15, 1999 requesting the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in consultation with The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, to report back to Committee with a list of present watershed initiatives in different areas of the City, and recommending that this report be received for information.
- the following communications which were before the Urban Environment and Development Committee at its March 31, 1999 meeting supporting the establishment of a Council of Toronto Watersheds:
- (March 26, 1999) from Charles Caccia, MP for Davenport, House of Commons;
- (March 29, 1999) from Patrick McNamara, Associate Registrar of the College of Physicians of Ontario;
- (March 31, 1999) from Charles and Pleasance Crawford; and
- (March 30, 1999) from Rodney L.K. Smith.
Dalton Shipway, Member of Watersheds United, addressed the Committee in respect to this matter.
On motion by Councillor Berger, the Planning and Transportation Committee:
(1) adopted the report (November 12, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services subject to deleting reference to the establishment of a Watershed Council and in so doing:
(a) referred the proposal for a Forum of Grassroots Community-led Watershed Groups to the Environmental Task Force; and
- requested the Environmental Task Force to forward comments on the proposed Forum of Grassroots Community-led Watershed Groups to the December 7, 1999 meeting of Policy and Finance, where that Committee is expected to consider a number of reports on environmental governance.; and
- received the report (November 12, 1999) from the Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services.
(Environmental Task Force; cc: Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services; Commissioner, Works and Emergency Services; Works Committee; Administrator, Policy and Finance Committee – December 1, 1999)
(Report No. 7, Clause 7(c))
6.9 A Unified Architecture and Urban Design Awards Program for Toronto 2000
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report (November 15, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, reporting on developing, for 2000, a unified Architecture and Urban Design Awards program for the City of Toronto to replace those that have existed in the former municipalities of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough and Toronto. The new combined competition will capture all the best elements of previous programs. Its objective is to promote the excellence in architecture and urban design and create a beautiful city, and recommending that:
(1) a unified Architecture and Urban Design Awards program be established for the City of Toronto;
(2) Urban Planning and Development Services staff be requested to develop in detail a program for the 2000 Architecture and Urban Design Awards;
(3) funds in the amount of $65,000 be prior authorized for scheduling purposes and be added to the Urban Planning and Development Services 2000 Operating Budget; and
(4) this report be forwarded to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration.
On motion by Councillor Augimeri, the Planning and Transportation Committee recommended the adoption of the report (November 15, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development
Services and in accordance with Recommendation (4) therein, forwards this report, and the Committee’s recommendation in this regard, to the Policy and Finance Committee for consideration.
(Policy and Finance Committee; cc: Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services; Finance Department, Attention: John Di Lallo, Budget Services Division – December 2, 1999)
(Report No. 7, Clause 7(d))
6.10 Delegation of Authority to Grant Minor Variances from Sign By-law
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the report (October 18, 1999) from the City Solicitor reporting on how Council’s authority to grant minor variances from the former City of Toronto Sign By-law could be delegated in routine situations and recommending this report be received for information.
On motion by Councillor Moscoe, the Planning and Transportation Committee received the report (October 18, 1999) from the City Solicitor.
(City Solicitor; cc: Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services – December 2, 1999)
(Report No. 7, Clause 7(e))
6.11 Preserving the Oak Ridges Moraine: City of Toronto Interests
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the joint report (November 26, 1999) from the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services, and the City Solicitor, identifying the steps the City of Toronto can take to advance the City’s interest in preserving the Oak Ridges Moraine as a natural resource, and making recommendations therein.
The Committee also had before it the report (November 25, 1999) from the City Solicitor, reporting, at the request of City Council at its meeting held on November 23, 24 and 25, 1999, to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the outcome of the first pre-hearing conference, and the second pre-hearing conference, if possible.
On motion by Councillor Moscoe, the Planning and Transportation Committee recommended to City Council for its meeting on December 14, 1999, the adoption of the joint report (November 26, 1999) from the
Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services and the City Solicitor subject to amending Recommendation (2) therein by adding the words:
"and support the establishment of a provincial plan as the best method of extending protection to the Moraine;"
so as to read:
"(2) the City of Toronto endorse the actions recommended in the joint report produced by the staff of the Regions of Peel, York and Durham entitled "The Oak Ridges Moraine: Towards a Long Term Strategy" (September, 1999), offer City staff assistance, request City staff participation in the process, and support the establishment of a provincial plan as the best method of extending protection to the Moraine".
On motion by Councillor Moscoe, the Planning and Transportation Committee received the report (November 25, 1999) from the City Solicitor.
(City Solicitor; cc: Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services – December 2, 1999)
(Report No. 7, Clause 6)
6.12 Commercial Parking as a Disincentive to Public Transit
The Planning and Transportation Committee gave consideration to the communication (November 23, 1999) from Councillor Moscoe, raising concerns respecting potentially developable land being used as commercial parking lots which, in turn, are a disincentive to public transit use, and recommending that the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services review the zoning and licensing of commercial parking lots in Toronto with a view to:
(1) removing the disincentive to develop these lands;
(2) encouraging the use of public transit; and
(3) limiting the creation of new commercial parking.
On motion by Councillor Moscoe, the Planning and Transportation Committee referred the report (November 22, 1999) from Councillor Moscoe to the Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development
Services with a request that he report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on the points raised therein.
(Acting Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services; cc: Councillor Moscoe – December 2, 1999)
(Report No. 7, Clause 7(f))
The Committee adjourned its meeting at 7:40 p.m.
Chair
|
| |
|
Please note that council and committee documents are provided electronically for information only and do not retain the exact structure of the original versions. For example, charts, images and tables may be difficult to read. As such, readers should verify information before acting on it. All council documents are available from the City Clerk's office. Please e-mail clerk@toronto.ca. |
|
