City of Toronto, City Council Legislative Documents



	Accessing City Hall
	Mayor
	Councillors
	Meeting Schedules

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.

Draft By-laws - Official Plan Amendment, Rezoning and

Draft Plan of Subdivision - 81 Turnberry Avenue and

101 Union Street (Davenport)

The Toronto Community Council recommends that:

(1) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (January 18, 2000) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council, substantially in the form of the Draft By-laws, to give effect thereto, in respect of the proposals to develop 81 Turnberry Avenue and 101 Union Street; and

(2) the reports dated January 4, 2000 and January 17, 2000 from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services be adopted.

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having requested the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services, in consultation with appropriate officials, to report directly to Council on:

(a) amending Recommendation No. 7(xxxvii) of the report (January 4, 2000) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to read:

"(xxxvii) The following warning clause be included in the Subdivision Agreement and in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease for each dwelling unit. Provisions must be included in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure the warning clause survives the release of the Owners' obligations under the subdivision agreement:

Warning: Lands in the immediate vicinity of this property are legally developed and operated for industrial uses, including scrap yards, asphalt plants, vehicle towing operations and automotive repair facilities. These industrial uses include indoor and outdoor operations and outdoor storage of goods and materials. The Purchasers and Lessees are advised that these industrial activities may, from time to time, emit noise, odour and dust in the course of their normal operations which may include 24-hour activities. Purchasers and Lessees are advised that, despite the inclusion of control features either within the residential development or at the industrial operations, noise, odour and/or dust effects may continue to be of concern, occasionally interfering with some activities of the dwelling occupants. The industrial operations will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such industrial facilities and/or operations, subject to applicable law."

(b) Adding a new Recommendation to the report (January 4, 2000) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services to read:

"The Owner be required, at its own expense, to undertake such minor road improvements as may be acceptable to the City, to address trucking movements on Turnberry Street and Old Weston Road, including the provision of a west-bound turn lane into the proposed residential development and modification of the vehicular stop controls."

The Toronto Community Council further reports, for the information of Council, that notice of the public meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act. The public meeting was held on January 18, 2000, and the following addressed the Toronto Community Council:

- Mr. Andrew Paton, Barrister and Solicitor; and

- Ms. Wendy Nott, Walker, Nott, Dragicevic.

The Toronto Community Council submits the following report (January 18, 2000) from the City Solicitor:

Purpose:

This report provides the necessary draft by-law amendments: (1) to amend the Official Plan to designate 81 Turnberry Avenue as Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A and Open Space and to permit residential development at a density of 1.22 times the area of the lot, (2) to amend the zoning by-law for 81 Turnberry to designate the Site as R2 Z1.0 and G with site specific restrictions to permit development of a proposed subdivision, (3) to amend the Official Plan to designate 101Union Street as Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A, (4) to amend the zoning by-law for 101 Union Street to designate the Site as R2 Z1.0 with site specific restrictions to permit development of a proposed subdivision.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

The enactment of the Draft By-laws has no financial implications or impact for the City. It requires no funding.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

(1) the Toronto Community Council hold a public meeting in respect of the Draft By-laws in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act; and

Following the public meeting and in the event the Toronto Community Council wishes to approve the Draft By-laws, it could recommend:

(2) the Draft By-laws attached to the report (January 18, 2000) of the City Solicitor be approved and that authority be granted to introduce the necessary Bills in Council, substantially in the form of the Draft By-laws, to give effect thereto, in respect of the proposals to develop 81 Turnberry Avenue and 101 Union Street.

Background:

Toronto Community Council at its meeting of January 18, 2000 will have before it the recommendations contained in the Final Report of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services (January 4, 2000) and the Commissioner's Supplementary Report (January 17, 2000) concerning the above-noted development proposals. These reports recommend by-laws to: (1) amend the Official Plan to designate 81 Turnberry Avenue as Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A and Open Space and to permit residential development at a density of 1.22 times the area of the lot, (2) amend the zoning by-law for 81 Turnberry to designate the Site as R2 Z1.0 and G with site specific restrictions to permit development of a proposed subdivision, (3) amend the Official Plan to designate 101Union Street as Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A, (4) amend the zoning by-law for 101 Union Street to designate the Site as R2 Z1.0 with site specific restrictions to permit development of a proposed subdivision.

Comments:

This report contains the necessary Draft By-laws, which, if enacted, will give effect to the Planning Reports.

Conclusions:

N/A

Contact:

Stephen Bradley, Solicitor

Telephone: (416) 392-7790

Fax: (416) 397-4420

E-mail: sbradley@toronto.ca

________

Attachment No. 1

DRAFT BY-LAW (1)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

As adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. - 2000

To adopt an amendment to the Official Plan in respect of

No. 81 Turnberry Avenue.

WHEREAS the Council of the City of Toronto has had referred to it a proposed Official Plan Amendment and a proposed Zoning By-law respecting No. 81 Turnberry Avenue.

AND WHEREAS the Council of the City of Toronto conducted a public meeting under Sections 17 and 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. c.P13 regarding the proposed Official Plan Amendment and proposed Zoning By-law;

AND WHEREAS the Council of the City of Toronto, at its meeting held on February __, 2000, determined to amend the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto;

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

1. The text and maps annexed hereto as Schedule "A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto.

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No. ___.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 2000.

_________

SCHEDULE "A"

1. Section 18 of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto is amended by adding Section 18.___ as follows:

"18.___ Lands known as 81 Turnberry Avenue

Notwithstanding the provisions of Subsection 9.6(b) of Section 19.39 Stockyards Industrial District, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lands shown on Map 18.____ and known in the year 1999 as 81 Turnberry Avenue to permit residential buildings or uses provided the residential gross floor area of the buildings or uses does not exceed 1.22 times the area of the lot. "

2. Map B of Section 19.39 entitled "Old Stockyards District Part II Plan" is amended by deleting the said Map and replacing it with the following Map.

(Map to be inserted to designate part of 81 Turnberry Avenue as Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A and the remainder of 81 Turnberry Avenue as Open Space)

_________

Attachment No. 2

DRAFT BY-LAW (2)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

As adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. - 2000

To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto with respect to the lands known as No. 81 Turnberry Avenue.

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

1. District Map No. 48K-311 contained in Appendix "A" of By-law No. 438-86, as amended, being "A By-law To regulate the use of land and the erection, use bulk, height, spacing of and other matters relating to buildings and structures and to prohibit certain uses of lands and the erection and use of certain buildings and structures in various areas of the City of Toronto", is further amended by redesignating to R2 Z1.0 the lands shown as R2 Z1.0 and outlined by heavy lines on Map 1, attached to and forming part of this by-law and by redesignating to G the lands shown as G and outlined by heavy lines on Map 1, attached to and forming part of this by-law.

2. Height and Minimum Lot Frontage Map No. 48K-311 contained in Appendix "B" of the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended, is further amended by redesignating to H 10.0 the lands shown as H 10.0 and outlined by heavy lines on Map 2 attached to and forming part of this by-law.

3. None of the provisions of Sections 6(3) Part I, 6(3) Part II 2, 6(3) Part II 3 A (II), 6(3) Part II 7 (ii) A, 6(3) Part III 1, 6(3) Part VII 1 of the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the site of the following uses, detached house, semi-detached house, residential care facility, bed and breakfast establishment, home/work or private home daycare, and uses accessory thereto, provided,

(a) no person shall erect or use a building or structure on a lot within the site having a residential gross floor area greater than 1.0 times the area of the said lot, with the following exceptions,

(i) lots 78 and 88 provided no person shall erect or use a building or structure on the said lots having a residential gross floor area greater than 1.17 times the area of the lot,

(ii) lots 79 to 86 and 89 to 94 provided no person shall erect or use a building or structure on the said lots having a residential gross floor area greater than 1.22 times the area of the lot, and

(iii) lots 87 provided no person shall erect or use a building or structure on the said lot having a residential gross floor area greater than 1.03 times the area of the lot,

(d) no part of any building or structure erected or used shall be closer to the front lot line than,

(i) 5.486 metres on any of lots 1 to 18,

(ii) 1.524 metres on any of lots 19 to 76 and 78 to 95,

(iii) 6.4 metres on lot 77,

(d) no part of any building or structure erected or used shall be closer to the side lot line than,

(i) 0.609 metres on any of lots 1 to 19,

(ii) 0.305 metres on any of lots 20 to 34, 48, 50 to 62 and 77,

(iii) 0.304 metres on any of lots 35, 36 and 49,

(iv) 0.433 metres on any of lots 37 to 47,

(v) 0.457 metres on any of lots 64 to 76 and 78 to 95,

(f) no part of any building or structure erected or used on a corner lot shall be closer to the flanking street than,

(i) 0.457 metres on lot 63,

(ii) 0.305 metres on lots 78 and 88,

(iii) 0.609 metres on lot 87,

(iv) 0.305 metres on lot 95,

(e) no part of any building or structure shall be erected or used,

(i) on lot 1 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 5.063 metres,

(ii) on lots 2 to 17 if the lot on which the building or structure is erected or used has a lot frontage less than 5.029 metres,

(iii) on lot 18 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 5.181 metres,

(iv) on lot 19 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 6.338 metres,

(v) on lots 20 to 33 if the lot on which the building or structure is erected or used has a lot frontage less than 5.182 metres,

(vi) on lot 34 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 5.334 metres,

(vii) on lot 35 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 5.791 metres,

(viii) on lot 36 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 3.897 metres,

(ix) on lots 37 to 47 if the lot on which the building or structure is erected or used has a lot frontage less than 5.310 metres,

(x) on lot 48 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 5.920 metres,

(xi) on lot 49 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 4.190 metres,

(xii) on lots 50 to 62 if the lot on which the building or structure is erected or used has a lot frontage less than 5.182 metres,

(xiii) on lots 63 to 76 if the lot on which the building or structure is erected or used has a lot frontage less than 5.334 metres,

(xiv) on lot 77 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 8.772 metres,

(xv) on lots 79 to 86 and 89 to 94 if the lot on which the building or structure is erected or used has a lot frontage less than 5.334 metres,

(xvi) on lot 87 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 12.781 metres,

(xvii) on lots 78 and 88 if the lot on which the building or structure is erected or used has a lot frontage less than 5.792 metres,

(xviii) on lot 95 if the lot has a lot frontage less than 3.294 metres,

(s) no part of any accessory building or structure, excluding a privately-owned outdoor swimming pool but including a private garage, shall be closer to a residential building than,

(i) 6.096 metres on lots 1 to 72,

(ii) 6.553 metres on lot 73,

(iii) 7.010 metres on lot 74,

(iv) 7.467 metres on lots 75 to 76,

(v) 3.048 metres on lot 77,

(vi) 2.439 metres on lots 78 to 95,

(g) no side wall, which does not contain any door, window or other opening and which is not facing a street, shall be located closer to a side lot line than,

(i) 0.457 metres on lots 1 to 18, 63 to 76, and 78 to 94,

(ii) 0.305 metres on lots 19 to 35 and 49 to 62,

(iii) 0.433 metres on lots 36 to 48,

(d) no part of any building or structure erected or used shall be closer to the rear lot line than,

(i) 12.497 metres on lots 1 to 77,

(ii) 8.840 metres on lots 78 to 95,

(c) no person shall erect or use a building or structure on a lot so that the lot has less landscaped open space than the following,

(i) 41% of the area of the lot on lots 1 to 18, 77, 87, and 95,

(ii) 31% of the area of the lot on lots 19 to 76,

(iii) 22% of the area of the lot on lots 78 to 86 and 88 to 94,

(d) no person shall erect or use a building or structure on a lot so that the side wall of the building or structure is closer than 0.914 metres to side wall of an adjacent building or structure, with the exception of the following,

(i) the separating distance shall be 0.610 metres on lots 20 to 35 and 50 to 61,

(ii) the separating distance shall be 0.866 metres on lots 37 to 48,

(c) each detached house and semi-detached house shall have a minimum of 1 parking space provided in a private garage located in the rear yard of the said detached house or semi-detached house.

4. None of the provisions of Sections 6(1) and the chart in paragraph (f) thereof of the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the site of the following uses for the purpose of selling the residential buildings listed in Section 3 hereof: a temporary sales showroom provided the floor area of the said temporary sales showroom does not exceed 175 square metres; a model home provided it complies with the provisions of this by-law.

5. For the purposes of this by-law:

(a) "site" mean those lands delineated by heavy lines on Map 3 attached to and forming part of this by-law,

(b) "lot" means any of Lots 1 to 95 inclusive as delineated on Map 3 attached to and forming part of this by-law,

(c) each other word or expression, which is italicised in this by-law, shall have the same meaning as each such word or expression as defined in the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 2000.

(Maps to be inserted)

_________

Attachment No. 3

DRAFT BY-LAW (3)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

As adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. - 2000

To adopt an amendment to the Official Plan in respect of

No. 101 Union Street.

WHEREAS the Council of the City of Toronto has had referred to it a proposed Official Plan Amendment and a proposed Zoning By-law respecting No. 101 Union Street.

AND WHEREAS the Council of the City of Toronto, at its meeting held on February __, 2000, determined to amend the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto;

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

1. The text and maps annexed hereto as Schedule "A" are hereby adopted as an amendment to the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto.

2. This is Official Plan Amendment No. ___.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 2000.

_________

SCHEDULE "A"

1. Map B of Section 19.39 entitled "Old Stockyards District Part II Plan" is amended by deleting the said Map and replacing it with the following Map.

(Map to be inserted to designate the rear portion of 101 Union Street as Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A)

_________

Attachment No. 4

DRAFT BY-LAW (4)

Authority: Toronto Community Council Report No. , Clause No. ,

As adopted by City of Toronto Council on

Enacted by Council:

CITY OF TORONTO

Bill No.

BY-LAW No. - 2000

To amend the General Zoning By-law No. 438-86 of the former City of Toronto with respect to the lands known as No. 81 Turnberry Avenue.

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

3. None of the provisions of Sections 6(3) Part II 2, 6(3) Part II 3 (i), 6(3) Part II 3 B and C, 6(3) Part II 7 (ii) A, 6(3) Part II 8 D, 6(3) Part VII 1 of the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the site of the following uses, detached house, semi-detached house, residential care facility, bed and breakfast establishment, home/work or private home daycare, and uses accessory thereto, provided,

(a) no part of any building or structure erected or used shall be closer to the front lot line than 2.0 metres with the exception of the projections permitted within set backs from front lot lines by Section 6(3) Part II 8 provided the restrictions set out therein are complied with,

(b) no part of any building or structure erected or used shall be closer to the side lot line than 0.45 metres,

(c) no uncovered platform or stairs shall project more than 2.0 metres from the main front wall of any residential building,

(d) no uncovered platform, excluding an uncovered platform that is landscaped open space, shall project more than 2.5 metres from the main rear wall of any residential building,

(e) no part of any accessory building or structure, excluding a privately-owned outdoor swimming pool but including a private garage, shall be closer to a residential building than 7.0 metres,

(f) no part of any private garage shall be closer to the rear lot line than 6.0 metres,

(g) each detached house and semi-detached house shall have a minimum of 1 parking space provided in a private garage located in the rear yard of the said detached house or semi-detached house,

(h) no person shall erect or use a building or structure on a lot so that the lot has less landscaped open space than 30 % of the area of the lot,

(i) no person shall erect or use a building or structure on a lot if the lot on which the building or structure is located has a lot frontage less than 5.080 metres.

10. None of the provisions of Sections 6(1) and the chart in paragraph (f) thereof of the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended, shall apply to prevent the erection and use on the site of the following for the purpose of selling the residential buildings listed in Section 3 hereof: a temporary sales showroom provided the floor area of the said temporary sales showroom does not exceed 175 square metres; a model home provided it complies with the provisions of this by-law.

11. For the purposes of this by-law:

(a) "site" mean those lands delineated by heavy lines on Map 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law,

(b) "lot" means any of Lots 1 to 25 inclusive as delineated on Map 1 attached to and forming part of this by-law,

(c) each other word or expression, which is italicised in this by-law, shall have the same meaning as each such word or expression as defined in the said By-law No. 438-86, as amended.

ENACTED AND PASSED this day of , A.D. 2000.

(Maps to be inserted)

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 4, 2000) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

To recommend approval of by-laws to permit construction of 7 detached dwellings and 88 semi-detached dwellings at 81 Turnberry Avenue and 1 detached dwelling and 24 semi-detached dwellings at 101 Union Street.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that:

81 Turnberry Avenue

1. The Official Plan for the former City of Toronto be amended to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

"18.__ Notwithstanding any provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lots shown on Map._, and known in the year 1999 as 81 Turnberry Avenue to permit the construction of 7 detached dwellings and 88 semi-detached dwellings".

2. The Official Plan, Part I, Map 1, Generalised Land Use, for the former City of Toronto, be amended by deleting the 'General Industrial Area' designation from the site known as 81 Turnberry Avenue and replacing it with 'Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A' and 'Open Space' designations.

3. Section 19.39 of the Official Plan be amended by deleting Map A and replacing it with the map attached to this report entitled "Official Plan Part II - Proposed".

4. Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

(a) amend Map 48K-311 contained in Appendix 'A' of By-law 438-86 by redesignating the lands highlighted on Map 1 from I3 to I1 and G;

(b) amend Map 48K-311 contained in Appendix 'B' of By-law 438-86 by establishing a 10.0 metre height limit on the lands highlighted on Map 1;

i) Front yard setback

Buildings 1-18 5.486 m

Buildings 19-76, 78-95 1.524 m

Building 77 6.4 m

ii) Side yard setback

Buildings 1-19 0.609 m

Buildings 20-34, 48, 50-62, 77 0.305 m

Buildings 35, 36 & 49 0.304 m

Buildings 37-47 0.433 m

Buildings 64-76, 78-95 0.457 m

iii) Setback from Flanking Street

Building 63 0.457 m north from proposed street

Buildings 78 & 88 0.305 m north from proposed street

Building 87 0.609 m south from proposed street

Building 95 0.305 m south from proposed street

iv) Lot Frontage

Building 1 5.063 m

Buildings 2-17 5.029 m

Building 18 5.181 m

Building 19 6.338 m

Buildings 20-33 5.182 m

Building 34 5.334 m

Building 35 5.791 m

Building 36 3.897 m

Buildings 37-47 5.310 m

Building 48 5.920 m

Building 49 4.190 m

Buildings 50-62 5.182 m

Buildings 63-76 5.334 m

Building 77 8.772 m

Buildings 79-86; 89-94 5.334 m

Building 87 12.781 m

Buildings 78 & 88 5.792 m

Building 95 3.294 m

v) Setback of garage from rear wall

Buildings 1-72 6.096 m

Building 73 6.553 m

Building 74 7.010 m

Buildings 75-76 7.467 m

Building 77 3.048 m

Buildings 78-95 2.439 m

vi) Side yard setback without windows except for dwellings with side wall facing a street

Buildings 1-18 0.457 m

Buildings 19-35, 49-62 0.305 m

Buildings 36-48 0.433 m

Buildings 63-76 0.457 m

Buildings 78 -94 0.457 m

vii) Rear yard setback

Buildings 1-77 12.497 m

Buildings 78-95 8.840 m

viii) Landscaped Open Space

Buildings 1-18 & 77, 87, 95 41%

Buildings 19-76 31%

Buildings 78-86 & 88-94 22%

ix) Distance between units

Distance between all units min. 0.914 metres except:

Buildings 20-35 & 50-61 0.610 m

Buildings 37-48 0.866 m

5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner be required to amend the Noise Impact Statement to reflect: any proposed phasing of noise attenuation; alternative, on-site noise attenuation measures in the event that agreements for at-source noise attenuation are not entered into; and the owner's financial obligations toward a long term maintenance programme for all noise attenuation, such measures to be secured in the Subdivision Agreement.

6. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner submit for review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, a phasing and implementation plan identifying the infrastructure (roads, lanes, services, etc.) which will be in place with each phase of the development, such plan to ensure that no dead end roads or lanes are created at any point in the phased construction.

7. City Council approve the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Rabideau & Czerwinski, Ontario Land Surveyors date stamped as received on December 23, 1999 and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services subject to the owner entering into a Subdivision Agreement in form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Commissioner of Urban Development Services requiring the following:

Parkland Dedication Lands

(i) The final location, configuration and development of the parkland to be conveyed to the City will be subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

(ii) The lands to be conveyed as parkland to the City are to be free and clear, above and below grade, of all easements, encumbrances and encroachments.

(iii) The shortfall in the statutory parkland dedication be made up in the form of a cash-in-lieu contribution based on the market value of the land. These monies to be used for the development and improvement of this new park and any remaining money to be used for improvements to the existing S.A.D.R.A linear park.

(iv) Prior to registration of the Draft Plan of Subdivision, the owner shall be responsible for an environmental assessment of the lands to be conveyed as parkland to the City and any associated costs or remediation works required as a result of that assessment. Such assessment or remediation shall ensure the parkland dedication lands will, at the time of conveyance, meet all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines respecting sites to be used for public park purposes, including City Council policies respecting soil remediation of sites to be acquired by the City, such opinion to be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant acceptable to the Medical Officer of Health.

(v) The conveyance of the parkland will occur prior to registration of the Draft Plan of Subdivision. The owner is to pay for the costs of such conveyance, including any Land Transfer Tax and the preparation and registration of all relevant documents.

(vi) Prior to the registration of the Draft Plan of Subdivision, the owner provide to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor all legal descriptions and applicable reference plans of survey for the parkland dedication lands.

(vii) The owner will be responsible for the base construction and installation of the park which includes the following: grading, sodding, positive drainage, electrical and water connections to the street line. Such work is to be completed prior to the first residential occupancy and shall be to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

(viii) Prior to registration of the Draft Plan of Subdivision, the owner will post a Letter of Credit as security for the installation of the base park improvements, equal to 120% of the value of the base park improvements.

(ix) Subject to the terms of the subdivision agreement, the site will be available to the owner for use as a construction staging area.

(x) The design and programming of the park will be determined through a community consultation process. Final design and programming of the park will be at the discretion of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

Roads, Lanes and Municipal Services

(xi) The owner provide space within the development for the construction of transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development.

(xii) The owner provide and maintain 0.3 metre vertical and 0.6 metre horizontal clearance from all Consumer Gas lines.

(xiii) The owner, prior to the issuance of a building permit, submit to Ontario Hydro Services Company for review and approval, a copy of the lot grading and drainage plan, showing existing and proposed grades. Drainage must be controlled and directed away from Ontario Hydro Services Company property.

(xiv) The owner provide temporary fencing along the edge of the right-of-way prior to the start of construction at the owner's expense.

(xv) The owner provide permanent fencing after construction is completed along Ontario Hydro Services Company owned land at the owner's expense.

(xvi) The owner obtain approval and/or easements for any work on the Ontario Hydro Services Company lands and such proposed work be carried out in accordance with the requirements and specifications of Ontario Hydro and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(xvii) The owner submit a post-occupancy traffic monitoring report, prepared by a qualified transportation consultant, for review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, identifying the traffic volumes generated by this development and the extent of infiltration of this traffic into the residential neighbourhood to the east of Old Weston Road, such study to be prepared and submitted 6 to 8 months after occupancy of the Subdivision.

(xviii) The owner provide a Letter of Credit in the amount of $2,000.00 prior to the issuance of a building permit, towards the supply and installation of additional traffic control measures to limit site-generated traffic infiltration through the residential neighbourhood east of Old Weston Road, the need for which shall be determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services based on the post-occupancy traffic monitoring referred to above.

(xix) The owner provide minimum road allowance widths as follows:

i. Roads "A", "B" and "C": 15 m

ii. Public lane "D": 6.34 m; and

iii. All other Public lanes: 5 m

(xx) The owner engage the services of a qualified Municipal Consulting Engineer satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the design and field supervision of all underground and surface municipal services and facilities.

(xxi) The owner prepare and submit for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services detailed design drawings in accordance with the City's design policies and specifications for all underground and surface municipal services and facilities including site grading plans, plan profiles, detail drawings, lighting and composite utility drawings (concurred with by all utilities), and a construction management plan. The owner shall construct all such services and facilities in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications.

(xxii) The owner agree to pay the required engineering fees for engineering and inspection costs of 3% of the cost of constructing the services and all other construction obligations for the Subdivision based upon:

- 1.5% at the time of first submission of engineering drawings,

- the balance of the 3% of the final costs of work prior to release for construction of services,

- in the event the owner revises the concurred engineering drawings, the owner agrees to pay an additional engineering fee of 1% of the estimated cost of components of the services being revised.

(xxiii) The owner provide, upon completion of the work, "as constructed" drawings of all underground and surface public works services and facilities, certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer that such services and facilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications.

(xxiv) The owner provide Letters of Credit in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for all municipal infrastructure or such lesser amount as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may approve, for the development (sewers, waterworks, streets, sidewalks, lanes, street lighting, street furniture, etc.), as determined by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the earlier of the issuance of a building permit or commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the development until completion of the work.

(xxv) The owner provide Letters of Credit in an amount equal to 25% of the value of completed municipal infrastructure as a maintenance guarantee for a minimum period of two years from the date of completion of the work as certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and acceptance by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(xxvi) The owner construct all utilities underground.

(xxvii) The owner submit suggestions for a suitable name for the new streets in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause 4 in Executive Committee Report No. 22, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of July 11, 1988.

(xxviii) The owner remonument the street limits and proposed lot/block corners after completion of construction.

(xxix) The owner submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a geotechnical report verifying that soil conditions within the proposed road allowances are acceptable for use for public highway purposes.

(xxx) The owner agree to defer the installation of the final coat of asphalt on the new street until the substantial completion of construction of buildings on the street, or at such earlier timing as may be required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, acting reasonably.

(xxxi) The owner is responsible for providing household refuse and recyclable materials collection including snow removal and ensuring that the roads are kept clear of dust, debris, building materials and any other items, as deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, until such time as the City, in its sole discretion, agrees to provide such services.

(xxxii) The owner submit a phasing and implementation plan, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, identifying the infrastructure (roads, lanes, services, etc.) which will be in place with each phase of the development.

(xxxiii) The owner be required to negotiate an agreement, prior to the issuance of a building permit, to secure financial contributions and/or construction of a pedestrian connection between the south limit of this site and Old Weston Road, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation).

(xxxiv) The owner be required to provide a one-time cash contribution of $1500 toward the installation of signage, bollards, splash guards or other measures, acceptable to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Environmental

(xxxv) The owner provide and maintain the at-source and on-site noise attenuation measures set out in the Noise Impact Statement as approved by the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (Municipal Standards), such measures to include, but not be limited to, the following:

(a) prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit Agreements between said owner and LaFarge Canada Inc. (or future businesses operating on that site) outlining the owner's responsibilities toward the at-source noise attenuation measure which is set out in the Noise Impact Statement as approved by the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (Municipal Standards);

(b) in the event that Agreements cannot be reached with Lafarge Canada Inc. set out above, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services alternative on-site noise attenuation strategies.

(xxxvi) The owner shall, prior to occupancy of any building, have a qualified Architect/Acoustical Consultant certify in writing to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (Municipal Standards), that each phase of the development has been designed and constructed and all noise and vibration attenuation measures required for each respective phase of the development have been implemented in accordance with the Noise Impact Statement approved by the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (Municipal Standards).

(xxxvii) The owner shall include a warning clause with wording satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (Municipal Standards) and the Medical Officer of Health in the Subdivision Agreement and in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease for each dwelling unit warning potential purchasers of potential noise, dust and odour impacts. Provisions must be included in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure that the warning clause survives the release of the Owner's obligations under the Subdivision Agreement.

(xxxviii) The following warning clause be included in the Subdivision Agreement and in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease for each dwelling unit. Provisions must be included in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure that the warning clause survives the release of the Owners' obligations under the Subdivision Agreement;

"Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNR will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way."

(xxxix) The owner conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the site and submit said report to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for review by the Medical Officer of Health.

(xl) The owner shall conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterises soil and groundwater conditions and proposes remediation options, to be submitted to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to issuance of a building permit.

(xli) The owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion, submit a report from the on site environmental consultant to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

(xlii) The owner ensure daily, or more frequently if required, wetting of all soft and hard surfaces, and any excavation face on the site with the addition of calcium chloride or any other recognised dust suppressant.

(xliii) The owner ensure daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25m from the property line.

(xliv) The owner ensure the designation of truck loading points to avoid trucks tracking potentially contaminated soil and demolition debris off site. Such loading points should be on a gravel base to minimise tracking of soil onto the sidewalk and street. If the loading point becomes contaminated, it should be cleaned or replaced.

(xlv) The owner ensure that all trucks and vans leaving the site be cleaned of all loose soil and dust from demolition debris including the washing of tires and sweeping or washing of exteriors and tailgates by a designated labourer. A daily log of each truck leaving the site should be kept by the applicant (developer) noting when each truck was cleaned and by whom.

(xlvi) The owner ensure the tarping of all trucks leaving the site which have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris.

(xlvii) The owner provide an air monitoring program, if necessary, as determined through consultation with staff at Environmental Health Services.

(xlviii) The owner ensure the supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified Environmental Consultant.

Other

(xlix) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner provide an affordable housing implementation plan which demonstrates how the proposed development provides 30% of all units as low-end-of-market housing to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

(l) The owner deposit the final plan of subdivision, in the appropriate Land Registry Office, such plan to be in metric units with all lot/block corners integrated with the Ontario Co-Ordinate System.

(li) The owner provide a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the City in DGN, DWG or DXF formats to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(lii) The owner apply to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for revised municipal numbering prior to obtaining a building permit, the application for which must be accompanied by a site plan showing the entrances to the proposed houses.

(liii) The owner be advised that the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff.

(liv) The owner be advised that as the services for proposed Road "A" will also be servicing the development at 101 Union Street, the developer is to co-ordinate the installation of the services on that portion of the street with the abutting developer.

(lv) The owner be advised of the need to receive separate approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Right of Way Management, District 1, (392-1803), for any proposed work to be carried out within the abutting public rights-of-way.

(lvi) The owner is advised that Ontario Hydro Services Company property is not to be used without express written permission of Ontario Hydro Services Company. The proponent will be responsible for restoration of any damage to the right-of-way resulting from construction of the subdivision.

(lvii) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner provide landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services detailing landscape and servicing measures along the north and west edge of the site.

101 Union

8. The Official Plan for the former City of Toronto be amended to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

"18.__ Notwithstanding any provisions of this Plan, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lots shown on Map._, and known in the year 1999 as 101 Union Street to permit the construction of 1 detached dwelling and 24 semi-detached dwellings".

9. The Official Plan for the former City of Toronto, Part I, Map 1, Generalised Land Use, be amended by deleting 'General Industrial Area' from the site known as 101 Union Street (rear portion - severed) and replacing it with 'Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A'.

10. Section 19.39 of the Official Plan for the former City of Toronto be amended by deleting Map A and replacing it with the map attached to this report entitled "Official Plan Part II - Proposed".

11. Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

(a) amend Map 48K-311 contained in Appendix 'A' of By-law 438-86 by redesignating the lands highlighted on Map 1 from I3 to I1;

(b) amend Map 48K-311 contained in Appendix 'B' of By-law 438-86 by establishing a 10.0 metre height limit on the lands highlighted on Map 1;

i) setback of the garage from the rear wall - 7.0 m;

ii) sideyard setback (with or without windows) - 0.45m;

iii) setback from front lot line - 2.0m (excludes projections for stairs, etc.);

iv) rear yard setback - 7.0 m from main rear wall to face of garage plus 6.0 m for garage;

v) landscaped open space per lot - 30%.

12. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner amend the Noise Impact Statement to reflect: any proposed phasing of noise attenuation; alternative, on-site noise attenuation measures in the event that agreements for at-source noise attenuation are not entered into; and the owner's financial obligations toward a long term maintenance programme for all noise attenuation, such measures to be secured in the Subdivision Agreement.

13. City Council approve the proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision prepared by Rabideau & Czerwinski, Ontario Land Surveyors date stamped as received December 22, 1998 and on file with the Commissioner of Urban Development Services subject to the owner entering into a Subdivision Agreement in form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and Commissioner of Urban Development Services requiring the following:

Parkland Dedication

(i) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner will be subject to a 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment under Chapter 165 of the former City of Toronto Municipal Code.

Roads, Lanes and Municipal Services

(ii) The owner provide space within the development for the construction of transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development.

(iii) The owner provide and maintain 0.3 metre vertical and 0.6 metre horizontal clearance from all Consumer Gas lines.

(iv) The owner, prior to final approval, must submit to Ontario Hydro Services Company for review and approval a copy of the lot grading and drainage plan, showing existing and proposed grades. Drainage must be controlled and directed away from Ontario Hydro Services Company property.

(v) The owner provide temporary fencing along the edge of the right-of-way prior to the start of construction at the owner's expense.

(vi) The owner provide permanent fencing after construction is completed along Ontario Hydro Services Company owned land at the owner's expense.

(vii) The owner agree that occupancy of the proposed dwelling units will not be permitted until such time as the proposed public street flanking the east limit of the site has been constructed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(viii) The owner provide and maintain a minimum desirable width of 3.5m for the garage doors serving Lots 1 through 23, and in any event a minimum width not less than 2.7m, and a minimum width of 2.6m for the garage doors serving Lots 24 and 25.

(ix) The owner provide and maintain a vehicle turnaround facility at the north terminus of the proposed public lane.

(x) The owner engage the services of a qualified Municipal Consulting Engineer satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the design and field supervision of all underground and surface municipal services and facilities.

(xi) The owner prepare and submit for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services detailed design drawings in accordance with the City's design policies and specifications for all underground and surface municipal services and facilities including site grading plans, plan profiles, detail drawings, lighting and composite utility drawings (concurred with by all utilities), and a construction management plan. The owner shall construct all such services and facilities in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications.

(xii) The owner agree to pay the required engineering fees for engineering and inspection costs of 3% of the cost of constructing the services and all other construction obligations for the Subdivision based upon:

- 1.5% at the time of first submission of engineering drawings;

- the balance of the 3% of the final costs of work prior to release for construction of services;

- in the event the owner revises the concurred engineering drawings, the owner agrees to pay an additional engineering fee of 1% of the estimated cost of components of the services being revised;

(xiii) The owner provide, upon completion of the work, "as constructed" drawings of all underground and surface municipal services and facilities, certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer that such services and facilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications.

(xiv) The owner provide Letters of Credit in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for all municipal infrastructure or such lesser amount as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may approve, for the development (sewers, waterworks, streets, sidewalks, lanes, street lighting, street furniture, etc.), as determined by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the earlier of issuance of a building permit or commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the development until completion of the work.

(xv) The owner provide Letters of Credit in an amount equal to 25% of the value of completed municipal infrastructure as a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years from the date of completion of the work as certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and acceptance by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

(xvi) The owner construct all utilities underground.

(xvii) The owner remonument the lane limits and proposed lot/block corners after completion of construction, if necessary.

(xviii) The owner submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services information verifying that soil conditions within the proposed lane allowance are acceptable for use for public highway purposes.

(xix) The owner is responsible for providing household refuse and recyclable materials collection including snow removal and ensuring that the roads are kept clear of dust, debris, building materials and any other items as deemed necessary by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, until such time as the City, in its sole discretion, agrees to provide such services.

Environmental

(xx) The owner provide and maintain the at-source and on-site noise attenuation measures set out in the Noise Impact Statement as approved by the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (Municipal Standards), such measures to include, but not be limited to, the following:

(xxi) The owner shall include a warning clause with wording satisfactory to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services (Municipal Standards) and the Medical Officer of Health in the Subdivision Agreement and in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease for each dwelling unit warning potential purchasers of potential noise, dust and odour impacts. Provisions must be included in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure that the warning clause survives the release of the Owners obligations under the Subdivision Agreement.

(xxii) The owner conduct a detailed historical review of the site to identify existing and past land uses which could result in negative environmental effects to the site and submit said report to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for review by the Medical Officer of Health.

(xxiii) The owner conduct a soil and groundwater testing program and produce a Soil and Groundwater Management Plan which characterises soil and groundwater conditions and proposes remediation options, to be submitted to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for review and approval by the Medical Officer of Health prior to issuance of a building permit.

(xxiv) The owner implement, under the supervision of an on site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion, submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

(xxv) The owner ensure the daily, or more frequently if required, wetting of all soft and hard surfaces and any excavation face on the site with the addition of calcium chloride, or any other recognised dust suppressant.

(xxvi) The owner ensure the daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25m from the property line.

(xxvii) The owner ensure the designation of truck loading points to avoid trucks tracking potentially contaminated soil and demolition debris off site. Such loading points should be on a gravel base to minimise tracking of soil onto the sidewalk and street. If the loading point becomes contaminated, it should be cleaned or replaced.

(xxviii) The owner ensure that all trucks and vans leaving the site be cleaned of all loose soil and dust from demolition debris, including the washing of tires and sweeping or washing of exteriors and tailgates by a designated labourer. A daily log of each truck leaving the site should be kept by the applicant (developer) noting when each truck was washed and by whom.

(xxix) The owner ensure the tarping of all trucks leaving the site which have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris.

(xxx) The owner provide an air monitoring program, if necessary, as determined through consultation with staff at Environmental Health Services.

(xxxi) The owner ensure the supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified Environmental Consultant.

(xxxii) The owner be advised that approval for an above grade permit will only be granted upon the Medical Officer of Health receiving the final verification report certifying that soil remaining on the site is in compliance with MOE residential land use criteria.

(xxxiii) The following warning clause be included in the Subdivision Agreement and in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease for each dwelling unit. Provisions must be included in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure that the warning clause survives the release of the Owners' obligations under the Subdivision Agreement:

Other

(xxxiv) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner provide an affordable housing implementation plan which demonstrates how the proposed development provides 30% of all units as low-end-of-market housing, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

(xxxv) The owner deposit the final plan of subdivision in the appropriate Land Registry Office, such plan to be in metric units with all lot/block corners integrated with the Ontario Co-Ordinate System.

(xxxvi) The owner provide to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the City in DGN, DWG or DXF formats.

(xxxvii) The owner apply to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for revised municipal numbering prior to obtaining a building permit, the application for which must be accompanied by a site plan showing the entrances to the proposed houses.

(xxxviii) The owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting public rights-of-way.

(xxxix) The owner be advised of the need/advisability of entering into a legally-binding arrangement with the owners of Premises No. 81 Turnberry Avenue, in order to ensure completion of Road "A" inclusive of servicing and connections, as identified on the Draft Plan of Subdivision for 81 Turnberry Avenue, to appropriate municipal standards, prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit for this project.

(xl) The owner is advised that Ontario Hydro Services Company property is not to be used without express written permission of Ontario Hydro Services Company. The owner will be responsible for restoration of any damage to the right-of-way resulting from construction of the subdivision.

(xli) Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the owner provide landscaping plans, to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Development Services detailing landscape and servicing measures along the east and south edge of the site.

Background:

Project Description:

The applications propose residential uses on two adjoining sites currently used for industrial purposes. The first application proposes the construction of 95 residential units, consisting of 7 detached and 88 semi-detached units, at 81 Turnberry Avenue. The second application proposes the construction of 25 residential units, consisting of 1 detached and 24 semi-detached units, at 101 Union Street. The applications also include a dedication of 1208 m2 of park space. The total site area is 31,870 m2, comprised of 27,095 m2 at 81 Turnberry Avenue and 4,775 m2 at 101 Union Street. Since the application at 101 Union Street requires road access across the site at 81 Turnberry Avenue, staff have reviewed the applications concurrently.

Comments:

Location:

81 Turnberry Avenue is located on the south side of Turnberry Avenue, west of Old Weston Road. The smaller site, 101 Union Street, adjoins this property to the west and is the eastern portion of a larger parcel which has frontage on the east side of Union Street, north of Townsley Street.

Site and Area Description:

81 Turnberry Avenue was the location of the former Coca-Cola Bottling Plant, which vacated the site on February 27, 1998. The property was subsequently sold on November 2, 1998 and the building demolished. It is adjacent to residential properties fronting onto Old Weston Road. To the south is an Ontario Hydro Services Company transmission line. The eastern end of this hydro right-of-way is used for the City's allotment gardens program while the western portion is currently licensed for a truck storage and holding area.

101 Union Street was created by severing it from a larger property that fronts onto Union Street. As a result, this property does not have road frontage. The applicants propose a new road, along the western edge of the property at 81 Turnberry Avenue, to provide access to these proposed units.

On the north side of Turnberry Avenue are two industrial properties. The westerly property is an operating City Works Yard. The easterly property at 80 Turnberry Avenue is a 1.5 ha industrial parcel that was a former City Works Yard. It was declared surplus property in 1995 and sold by the City in November 1999. The new owner has indicated he is interested in pursuing residential uses. The Official Plan and rezoning and subdivision for this property will be dealt with separately at the time of application.

To the west of the development sites are two industrial properties which are occupied by auto parts and repair shops, and a vacant industrial building on the severed portion of 101 Union Street.

The hydro right-of-way lands adjacent to Union Street are leased for storage of tractor trailers and trucks. South of the hydro right-of-way is Consolidated Bottle Co. Ltd., a plastic bottle manufacturing and distribution centre. On the west side of Union Street, north of the transmission line, are automobile related uses including an auto body shop, a towing company and auto scrap yards. South of the transmission line is LaFarge Canada Inc., an asphalt plant, a concrete plant and automobile related uses.

Official Plan and Zoning:

The two sites are located within the area of the Old Stockyards Part II Plan. Both sites are designated 'General Industrial Area' which permits a wide range of industrial uses. This designation does not permit residential uses.

The sites are zoned 'I3' which permits a range of industrial uses with an unlimited amount of non-residential gross floor area within setback and height restrictions. A permissive exception applies to these properties which allows the heavy industrial uses found in 'I4' zoning. This zoning does not permit residential uses.

Cityplan Requirement for an Area Study

Section 9.18 of the former City of Toronto Official Plan states that Council will not consider redesignation of industrially designated land to permit any non-industrial use in 'General Industrial Areas' without first having considered a study of the area undertaken for the purpose of recommending Part II Plan policies. This is also a requirement of the Old Stockyards Part II Plan. The required study is to have regard for the number and types of industrial firms and employees in the area that would be adversely affected; the impact on any surrounding industrial lands that would not be redesignated; the environmental condition of the lands and the need for soil decommissioning. At its meeting of September 14, 1999, Toronto Community Council authorised staff to undertake the planning study in order to evaluate whether residential uses are appropriate for these sites.

The study area generally comprised a 500 metre radius from the development sites. The approximate study area boundaries are Rogers Road to the north, Keele Street and the railway tracks to the west, the railway tracks to the east, and St. Clair Avenue West to the south.

Area Context

The picture which emerges from the census data is that this industrial pocket is adjacent to a stable residential neighbourhood with population and demographic characteristics which generally parallel those of the city except for the percentage of residents 65 years and older (approximately 10% vs 18% city-wide). In 1996, the population in the study area was 7,015.

The majority of dwellings are either detached (34.5 %) or semi-detached (34.7%). Rowhouses comprise a distant third at 4.5% of the total. This compares to city-wide percentages for single detached (31.6%); semi-detached (9.4%) and rowhouses (5.1%). There is a high degree of home ownership at 58% compared to the overall city average of 47%.

The average number of persons in private households is 3.0 which is higher than the city-wide average of 2.6 persons per household. The three largest groups by mother tongue (single response) are English, Portuguese and Italian.

Total employment declined significantly between 1989 and 1994, but has rebounded slightly since that time to approximately 1500 employees. The 1998 employment figure was fairly evenly split between four sectors: manufacturing and warehousing (369); retail (334); service (318) and office (433). There were also 114 institutional jobs. In the 1989 to 1994 period, manufacturing employment declined from 38% of the total to less than 24%. Office employment has risen to 433, which represents 27% of total employment. There are 208 establishments in the area of which 7 are manufacturing and warehousing. The majority of establishments employ 1-2 workers as compared to a city-wide average of 3-9 employees.

Introducing a 'Mixed Industrial/Residential Area' Official Plan Designation and a New I1 Zoning:

The Part II Plan for the Old Stockyards District acknowledges that this is an area in transition. While the Stockyards District continues to have a strong industrial component, it is becoming an area of mixed use. The development sites contained in this report are located on the boundary between an area of heavy industries to the west and south, and a stable residential area to the east. The size and configuration of these development sites makes them suitable for a range of uses, including both residential and industrial activities. On balance, I believe that residential uses are appropriate on these sites, provided that appropriate measures are undertaken to ensure compatibility between future residential uses and the existing industrial uses. In that regard, the Part II Plan provides criteria to assist in the evaluation of residential proposals including: buffering between uses; separation of business and residential traffic; the need for a plan of subdivision which reflects the established development pattern of the City's residential areas; and appropriate environmental standards related to noise, air quality and soil conditions.

In addition, there are several factors that support the re-designation of these lands to permit residential uses. The use of these lands for residential purposes provides an extension of the residential uses already existing east of the Turnberry site. Under Section 51 of the Planning Act, the applicants are providing a park which will service the needs of both the existing and newly emerging residential area as well as providing an opportunity to make improvements to the S.A.D.R.A. park. I am, therefore, recommending that the Part I and Part II Maps be amended to designate the area as 'Mixed Industrial/Residential Area A'. This designation acknowledges the changes the area is experiencing and continues to permit light industrial uses while allowing the introduction of residential uses through a rezoning to deal with site specific issues such as compatibility.

The lands are currently zoned 'I3' with an exception clause that permits I4 uses. These categories permit such uses as concrete batching and mixing yard, rubber products factory and manufacturing plants, activities that are generally incompatible with residential uses. Consequently, in conjunction with the Official Plan amendment to permit both industrial and residential uses, the area should be rezoned to I1, a lighter industrial category which still permits some of the industries that remain in the area but restricts new industries to those that would be more compatible with the emerging residential character of the area. Site specific standards are proposed to accommodate residential development.

Issues relevant to the conversion of these lands to residential are discussed in the following sections of the report.

Planning Issues

1. Impact on Industrial Operations:

This sub-district within the Old Stockyards planning area has had a heavy industrial character for an extended period of time. It is home to one of the largest scrap metal operations in the city, an asphalt plant, and two concrete batching and mixing yards. These uses are only permitted in 'I4', heavy industrial zones but are permitted in this 'I3' zone through a permissive section in the Zoning By-law. The auto towing compound, auto body shops, heavy equipment contractor yards and fish processing plant also have many heavy industrial characteristics. Consolidated Bottle, the largest employer in the area, is a major manufacturer and distributor of plastic bottles. These businesses appear to be stable and it is anticipated that their operations will continue into the foreseeable future. Given the restricted zoning standards which apply in many parts of the city, it might be difficult for some of these operations to find alternative locations within the city.

LaFarge Canada Inc. and Consolidated Bottle Company have both written and attended meetings to voice their concern about the proposed change in use. They are concerned that the conversion of these lands for residential uses will result in increased opportunities for complaints against and restrictions on their operations. LaFarge has provided detailed information about their operations (noise, truck movements, etc.) to ensure that the consultant studies address these concerns. The applicants have forwarded copies of the noise, air quality and transportation studies to LaFarge. City staff have reviewed these studies. Appropriate environmental conditions will be implemented through the Subdivision Agreements. Lafarge, in conjunction with six other area businesses, are retaining a specialist to conduct a peer review.

In order to maintain the industrial frontage on Union Street, the property at 101 Union Street was severed through the Committee of Adjustment on January 26, 1999. The site is currently occupied by a vacant industrial building which was formerly used as a truck terminal. The eastern portion of the building, containing a number of truck loading bays, will be demolished to permit residential development on the severed property. However, the main part of the building will be retained on the west portion of the property, and will have separate access to Union Street. Economic Development staff would prefer that the whole building be demolished, and that a new building be constructed in a configuration which provides better protection to the existing industries. The applicant prefers to retain the existing building, which could be expanded to meet the needs of prospective tenants, and provide additional screening and landscaped buffering on site.

In order to provide greater protection for the existing industries, I am recommending that a warning clause be included in the Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease advising of the nature of nearby operations and the potential for those operations to occasionally impact on residential activities. I am also recommending enhanced landscaping and the installation of a screen fence along the west boundary of the 81 Turnberry Avenue property.

2. Environmental Issues:

In light of the character of the neighbouring existing industrial uses, the following environmental issues were addressed:

Noise:

A Revised Noise Impact Assessment has been submitted to the City and found satisfactory. The Noise Impact Assessment recommends a number of at-source and on-site noise attenuation measures in order to bring noise levels to an acceptable level for future residents. Discussions are on-going between LaFarge and the owners related to these requirements. The owners have agreed to pay for the at-source attenuation measures and their ongoing maintenance. The Subdivision Agreement will require that agreements between the owner and LaFarge be entered into prior to the issuance of building permits in order to secure the owner's responsibilities for at-source noise attenuation. If an agreement cannot be reached, then the owners are responsible for ensuring that alternative mitigation measures are employed on the development sites which are required under the Ministry of the Environment Noise Assessment Criteria in Land Use Planning LU-131 Section 1.3.

Air Quality:

The Medical Officer of Health has reviewed an Air Quality Assessment prepared for the site. Staff at Environmental Health Services are of the opinion that the location of the subject site is such that odour impacts from nearby industries will be unavoidable. Although odours at times may be offensive to some future residents, the levels of contaminants discharged by industries in the area are not likely to cause an adverse effect on the site. The applicant will be required to provide adequate notification to prospective buyers advising that the area has a high potential to be impacted by offensive nuisance odours and dust from nearby industries.

Soil Remediation:

The applicants have submitted soil remediation studies which have been approved by the Medical Officer of Health.

3. Transportation:

While the volume of traffic generated by these proposals would be less than, or similar to, the level of activity generated by the previous industrial uses on this site, the introduction of residential traffic onto Turnberry Avenue will change the mix of traffic from strictly industrial (trucks and employees' cars) to residential and industrial. It is a policy of the Part II Plan to develop traffic plans designed to direct industrial/commercial traffic away from residential areas. In order to reduce the volume of site traffic that might otherwise mix with existing industrial traffic on Turnberry Avenue a number of options were studied.

One of the options proposed in the Part II Plan is a new public road from the northern end of Union Street to Keele Street to improve access and traffic circulation and to alleviate traffic congestion. In order to do this, land would need to be expropriated from active industrial operations. However, since then it has been determined that a connection between Keele Street and Union Street would not be required to accommodate future traffic volumes.

Consideration was also given to a second site access connecting to Old Weston Road via the Hydro corridor which the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism (Parks and Recreation) supported. The previous property owner had secured a right-of-way to provide emergency access to the site under a license agreement with Ontario Hydro which is no longer in effect. While provision of an additional access could reduce the volume of site-related traffic on Turnberry Avenue slightly (a reduction of approximately 25 vehicles in the peak hour), the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises that it is not a pre-requisite to accommodating traffic generated by this site. In addition, the site layout has been reconfigured to accommodate the dedication of land for a local park. The revised layout makes this second vehicular access point difficult to achieve. As an alternative, the applicant has agreed to provide enhanced pedestrian access through S.A.D.R.A. Park to Old Weston Road. This will enhance safety for the park and improve access to the existing transit service provided via the "Keele 41" bus and nearby "St. Clair 512" streetcar service.

In order to achieve buffering from the truck traffic on Turnberry Avenue, the applicant has agreed to create a further buffer between the anticipated residential and street activity by providing an additional setback of buildings fronting onto Turnberry Avenue. The increased separation will provide opportunities for additional landscaping (including a small wall and two rows of trees) and boulevard improvements. Also, in order to improve the pedestrian environment on Turnberry Avenue at the intersection of Old Weston Road, additional traffic measures including installation of signage, bollards, splash guards or other measures will be provided at the expense of the applicant.

4. Subdivision Pattern and Proposed Zoning:

The proposed lots and blocks of the Plan of Subdivision have been laid out with dimensions that are typical of the city's existing residential neighbourhoods with a new system of public roads and lanes. The lot patterns will ensure consistent frontage on the public streets and provide a suitable amount of front and rear yard open space.

The dwellings will all be provided with rear yard parking off a system of public lanes. The lane at the rear of the dwellings at 101 Union Street will provide a buffer between the proposed houses on the site and the adjacent industrially zoned lands which front onto Union Street. There is no access to Union Street from the residential subdivisions.

5. Community Facilities:

Library, Day Care Centres and Schools:

The public library which serves the residents of this area is the St. Clair/Silverthorn branch located at 1748 St. Clair Avenue West It is located on the north side of St. Clair Avenue West, in the first block east of Old Weston Road.

Staff of Toronto District School Board have advised that additional students can be accommodated at the General Mercer Junior School (JK-6).

The Toronto Catholic District School Board is concerned regarding the overcrowding and lack of permanent facilities at both the elementary and secondary schools in this area. St. Matthew Catholic School (JK-8) and Archbishop Romero Catholic Secondary School (9-OAC) are both oversubscribed by 10-15 children and 130 children respectively.

There is a Child Care Centre located within General Mercer School, and the Macaulay Child Development Centre of Metropolitan Toronto is located at 48 Regent Street.

Parks and Recreation Facilities:

The City does not own parkland in the study area. Parkland is provided through leased and shared-use space. S.A.D.R.A. Park, which is 1.17 ha in size, is located on land leased from Ontario Hydro. Shared-use space is provided in the General Mercer Public School playground, which is 1.19 ha in size. It provides limited shared-use recreational opportunities associated with its playground, wading pool and gym facilities. These two locations comprise the current total of 2.36 hectares of public parkland available in this area.

In order to meet the former City of Toronto Official Plan standards of 0.6 hectares per 1000 people, it would be necessary to provide a total of 4.22 hectares. This would require an additional 1.86 hectares of parkland for public use. The proposed subdivisions provide an opportunity to address this park space inadequacy.

The applicants propose a 1208m2 park located central to the development, with frontage on three new streets. Section 51.1 of the Planning Act authorises the City to require dedication of a maximum of 5% of the land for public park purposes as a condition of approving a Plan of Subdivision. The proposed conveyance of land on the 81 Turnberry Avenue site partially fulfills the statutory 5% parkland dedication. The required dedication for both development sites would be equivalent to approximately 1,600 m2. It is proposed that the shortfall in the statutory parkland dedication be secured as a cash-in-lieu contribution from both sites which will be used to provide the final landscaping of the park (i.e. furniture, playground equipment, etc.), and improvements to the existing S.A.D.R.A. Park along the south edge of the development sites. The exact design and programming for the park will need to be discussed through a community consultation process.

The land for the park will be conveyed to the City prior to the registration of the Plan of Subdivision. The owner is responsible for grading, sodding and providing water service to the park no later than two years following the issuance of the first building permit.

6. Municipal Services:

The Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services advises that water supply to the site will be adequate and that there is existing capacity in the sanitary trunk sewer to accommodate the flow generated by this development. Arrangements have been secured to ensure telephone, gas and hydro service to the development.

7. Low-End-of-Market Housing:

The applicant is required by Section 6.12(c) of the former City of Toronto Official Plan to provide approximately 30% of all units as low-end-of-market housing. "Low-end-of-market housing" is defined as small private market housing units suitable for households of various sizes and compositions. The price of these units would not be monitored or controlled but would be expected to be affordable for households up to the 6th percentile of income distribution for all households in the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area by virtue of their modest size relative to other market housing units. To implement this policy, the owner will be required to submit a low-end-of-market or affordable housing implementation plan. This plan must be submitted to the Commissioner of Urban Development Services for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase.

8. Public Consultation:

A Public Information Meeting to discuss the Preliminary Report was held on April 19, 1999. It was attended by the Ward Councillors and approximately 25 people. The issues raised were: the large amount of truck traffic on Turnberry Avenue; the possible infiltration of traffic into the residential area on the east side of Old Weston Road in the vicinity of General Mercer Public School; the necessity to ensure children's traffic safety; potential land use conflict between industrial uses and the proposed residential developments; lack of green space; amount of parking; design of the houses; freehold versus rental. A further public meeting was held on December 1, 1999, at General Mercer Public School with community organisations and the community at large to discuss their vision for the area. The residents who attended expressed general support for introducing residential uses on these sites.

In addition, a separate meeting was held on November 26, 1999, in co-operation with Economic Development staff, with the businesses on Union Street, Turnberry Avenue and Townsley Street and the applicants. Issues that were discussed included the compatibility of the existing industrial uses with the proposed residential development; possible impacts of noise, dust, and odour; the on-going dumping problem on Union Street, and the potential conflict of residential development with the high level of truck traffic that serves the existing industries.

Conclusions:

The introduction of residential development on these two sites will contribute in a positive way to the overall image and amenity of this area. The Official Plan Amendment, rezoning and Plan of Subdivision process have ensured that planning issues are addressed in order to provide some stability for the existing industrial operations and to ensure that the municipal services required to serve the development are secured and provided in a timely manner.

Contact:

Rhonda Petrella, West Section

Telephone: 392-0459

Fax: 392-1330

E-Mail: rpetrell@toronto.ca

_________

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	N	Application Number:	199001 499001
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	January 19, 1999
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:	December 15, 1999

Confirmed Municipal Address: 81 Turnberry Avenue.

Nearest Intersection:	On the north side of Turnberry Ave., between Union St. and Old Weston Rd.

Project Description:	To amend the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law to permit a residential development with 95 units comprising 7 detached and 88 semi-detached units.

Applicant:

G. Bettencourt Design Ltd.

1112 Dundas St. W.

532-2845

Agent:

G. Bettencourt Design Ltd.

1112 Dundas St. W.

532-2845

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	General Industrial	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	I3	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	18.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	27095.1 m²	Height:	Storeys:	2
Frontage:			Metres:	8.08
Depth:
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:	7483.6 m²	Parking Spaces:	193
Residential GFA:	14967.2 m²	Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:	14967.2 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Freehold	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
3 Bedroom:	95	Residential	14967.2 m²
Total Units:	95

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 0.55	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 0.55

Comments

In conjunction with Plan of Subdivision 55T-99201

Status:

Preliminary Report dated March 10, 1999 adopted by TCC on March 30, 1999. Application revised.

Data valid:

December 15, 1999

Section:

CP South District

Phone:

392-7333

_________

Application Data Sheet

Site Plan Approval:	Y	Application Number:	298010
Rezoning:	Y	Application Date:	December 22, 1998
O. P. A.:	Y	Date of Revision:

Confirmed Municipal Address: 101 Union Street.

Nearest Intersection:	On the east side of Union St., north of Townsley St.

Project Description:	To amend the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law to permit a residential development with 1 detached and 24 semi-detached units.

Applicant:

Andrew Paton

8 - 20 Budgell Terrace

761-1934

Agent:

Andrew Paton

8 - 20 Budgell Terrace

761-1934

Architect:

Planning Controls (For verification refer to Chief Building Official)

Official Plan Designation:	General Industrial.	Site Specific Provision:	No
Zoning District:	I3	Historical Status:	No
Height Limit (m):	23.0	Site Plan Control:	Yes

Project Information

Site Area:	4775.8 m²	Height:	Storeys:	2.5
Frontage:	132.7 m		Metres:	7.90
Depth:	35.98 m
			Indoor	Outdoor
Ground Floor:		Parking Spaces:		25
Residential GFA:	3438.0 m²	Loading Docks:
Non-Residential GFA:		(number, type)
Total GFA:	3438.0 m²

Dwelling Units		Floor Area Breakdown
Tenure:	Freehold	Land Use	Above Grade	Below Grade
Total Units:	25	Residential	3438.0 m²

Proposed Density
Residential Density: 0.72	Non-Residential Density:	Total Density: 0.72

Comments

In conjunction with Plan of Subdivision 55T98215.

Status:

Preliminary Report adopted by TCC on March 30, 1999.

Data valid:

December 15, 1999

Section:

CP South District

Phone:

392-7333

_________

Appendix A

Comments of Civic Officials

1. Canadian National (February 9, 1999) 81 Turnberry Ave.

We have reviewed your letter dated January 26, 1999 regarding the above noted application and request that the following comment be included in the Draft Conditions, to be cleared by CN:

1. The following warning clause shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement and inserted in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale of Lease for each dwelling unit. Provisions must be included in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure that the warning clause survives the release of the Owner's obligations under the Subdivision Agreement and remain on title.

2. The Owner is required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and to recommend abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits set by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian National Railway to the satisfaction of the Municipality, Canadian National Railway and the Ministry of Environment.

We would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft conditions prior to approval, and ultimately, we request receiving a copy of the Approved Draft Conditions.

Should the application be approved without incorporating the above requirements, we have no alternative but to request that this application be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, C.P.13.

Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (416) 217-6961.

2. Medical Officer of Health (December 3, 1999) 101 Union St.

Further to my letter of February 10, 1999, the proponent has provided the following information:

- "Report on the Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment for Lot 35, Concession 3 from the Bay Designated as Parts 1 & 2, Plan 66R-18416 Toronto, Ontario" (Candec Consultants Limited, Reference 98/0310/EC, September 6, 1999)

- "Report of the Preliminary Ambient Air Quality Assessment for the Proposed Residential Development of 81 Turnberry Drive & Parts 1 & 2 Plan 66R-18416 of Lot 35 Concession 3 from the Bay, Toronto, Ontario" (Candec Consultants Limited, Reference 98-0310/EC, September, 1999).

Staff at Environmental Health Services (EHS) have reviewed these documents and offer the following comments. There is a one storey vacant building on the property. The consultant has provided historical information on the site and the surrounding lands that indicate the current building was constructed between 1953 and 1963 and is presently used by a cartage company for warehousing purposes. The consultant has indicated that there may be an oil-water separator and as many as five underground storage tanks (UST's) located on the site. No specific information has been provided with respect to the suspected location of these UST's. The topography is flat and portions of the ground surface are covered with either asphalt, concrete, poorly maintained soft landscaping, or gravel. Adjacent land uses have included a former Coca-Cola plant, automobile engine repairs, used tire and tube storage (current) and a hydroelectric utility corridor. Interviews with the property manager revealed that two UST's containing diesel fuel located on the property immediately to the west of the subject site had leaked and no restoration work had been conducted on that property. The consultant has confirmed the presence of friable asbestos containing material (ACM) and PCB containing ballasts in the fluorescent light fixtures inside the building. Candec has recommended that these materials will have to be disposed of in accordance with the prevailing regulations.

Six boreholes and one ground water monitoring well were constructed on the site. Fill, ranging in depth from 2 metres in the north area to 5 metres in the south area, contains sand, gravel silt and clay materials and covers the uppermost stratum of the site. Groundwater, perched within the fill at depths between 2.5m and 4m below existing grade, is not under pressure and is of insufficient quantity to sample therefore, it will be of no consequence during excavation activities. Fourteen soil samples were analysed for comparison with the Ministry of Environment Guidelines for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario. The text of the consultant's report states that the concentrations of the parameters analysed for TPH comply with the guidelines. However, the soil testing analysis report from the lab indicates exceedances of sample #3, #4 and # 13. The consultant has indicated that the soil on site is classified as non-hazardous, non-registerable waste. The report advises that a plume of excessive hydrocarbon impact is in the north-west portion of the property and there is a possibility for a second plume of hydrocarbon contamination, to be located in an isolated pocket or under a portion of the building. The plume in the north-west corner of the site is estimated to occupy an area of 500 square metres and extend to a depth of 4.5 metres. Anecdotal evidence points to two diesel-containing UST's on the adjacent property, at 101 Union Street, leaking and the report assumed that the contamination plume is directly related to this occurrence. The report is not clear with respect to the extent or location of the suspected isolated pocket of contamination, nor does it indicate what portion of the building footprint may contain impacted soils.

The consultant has advised that cleanup work will have to be carried out in the north-west corner of the property and that any soil exuding a hydrocarbon odour will have to be removed for off-site disposal. Following cleanup of this area the consultant has recommended that a high-density polyethylene sheet should be placed along the excavation to prevent the re-entry of any contaminants onto the site. During excavation, an on-site soil scientist will classify the excavated soil by texture, colour, odour and hydrocarbon vapour measurements. This information will be used to determine final disposition of the excavated soil. The concrete rubble created during the demolition will be disposed at a lake infilling location unless it is contaminated with hydrocarbon. The consultant has indicated that any concrete displaying hydrocarbon contamination will be taken off-site for suitable disposal or washed and cleaned on-site. No specific information has been provided with respect to washing and cleaning procedures in the report. With respect to the excavated native soil, the intent is to reuse the natural soil on-site as fill material or at another redevelopment site subject to compliance with the MOE guidelines. After the entire earthwork is complete the consultant intends to conduct a verification sampling and testing program and produce a report of the results.

As a result of a telephone conversation with the consultant on November 12, 1999, Candec Consultants Limited have provided a document dated November 15, 1999, to clarify any apparent inconsistencies in the Phase 2 environmental site assessment for this property. In this document the consultant advises that the property to the north had previously been cleaned up for petroleum hydrocarbon contamination. The consultant states that hydrocarbon impact that was encountered on the subject property could have been as a result of spills on either the property to the west or the property to the north or perhaps both may have contributed. Impacted soil exceeding the residential and commercial criteria has been identified in the area of boreholes Nos. 1& 2. It is estimated to cover approximately 500square metres and extends to a depth of 3m to 4.5m. The impacted soil extends to the building and may have impacted the footings. The November 12 document advises that any impacted footings would be removed for off-site disposal rather than cleaned on-site. Since minimum groundwater was encountered during soil testing, the consultant advises that dewatering will not be necessary.

The preliminary ambient air quality assessment was conducted on the subject site and 81 Turnberry Avenue. A Quest Multilog 2000 Datalogger monitored parameters for oxygen, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and temperature. An MIE Personal Data Ram 1000 recorded particulate readings, and hydrocarbon readings were obtained using an RKI Eagle Hydrocarbon detector calibrated with hexane. The consultant has advised that the air at the site contains no contaminants that are likely to have any effect on the human health and the environment. The consultant also advises that they are of the opinion that there is no issue of concern in relation to the air quality at the property.

I would note that the area has a history of odour related issues related to the type of industries in the area and therefore odour mitigation may be an item of concern. This issue was raised during the telephone conversation with Bernard Moore on November 12, 1999, and he advised that he would revisit his air quality report with a view to include odours as a factor. Additional correspondence dated November 26, 1999 from Candec indicates that the issue of odours was revisited, and although no odours were detected on 4 separate occasions, the potential exists for new occupants to experience unpleasant odours. Candec also states that consideration should be given to executing an in depth investigation, however, it is unlikely that any measures will be implemented at the subdivision to mitigate them.

Recommendations:

1. That the owner shall implement, under the supervision of an on-site qualified environmental consultant, the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan as stipulated in the report approved by the Medical Officer of Health, and upon completion submit a report from the on-site environmental consultant, to the Medical Officer of Health, certifying that the remediation has been completed in accordance with the Soil and Groundwater Management Plan.

2. That the owner incorporate a disclosure document into the purchase agreements and register it on title, so that new occupants will be aware of potential nuisance odours and dust emissions from surrounding commercial operations.

3. That the owner implement the following Dust Control Plan approved by the Medical Officer of Health:

(i) The daily, or more frequently if required, wetting of all soft and hard surfaces and any excavation face on the site with the addition of calcium chloride, or any other recognised dust suppressant;

(ii) The daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25m from the property line;

(iii) The designation of truck loading points to avoid trucks tracking potentially contaminated soil and demolition debris off site. Such loading points should be on a gravel base to minimise tracking of soil onto the sidewalk and street. If the loading point becomes contaminated, it should be cleaned or replaced;

(iv) All trucks and vans leaving the site should be cleaned of all loose soil and dust from demolition debris, including the washing of tires and sweeping or washing of exteriors and tailgates by a designated labourer. A daily log of each truck leaving the site should be kept by the applicant (developer) noting when each truck was washed and by whom;

(v) Tarping all trucks leaving the site which have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris;

(vi) An air monitoring program, if necessary, as determined through consultation with staff at Healthy Environments;

(vii) Supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified Environmental Consultant.

Based on the information provided, I would indicate to you that we have no objection to the issuance of a below grade permit in order to carry out the necessary remediation. Approval for an above grade permit will only be granted upon the Medical Officer of Health receiving the final verification report certifying that soil remaining on the site is in compliance with MOE residential land use criteria. By copy of this letter, please inform the applicant in respect to this matter. If you have any questions contact me at 392-7685.

3. Medical Officer of Health (August 30, 1999) 81 Turnberry Ave.

Further to our letter dated February 25, 1999 our office has received a Phase III Environmental Site Assessment and Site Remediation (July 13, 1999) prepared by Rubicon Environmental Inc. Staff at Healthy Environments have reviewed this document and offer the following comments.

Comments:

The report states that previous environmental investigations by CRA in September 97 and June 98, and Jacques Whitford Environmental Inc. (JWEL) in August 98 were reviewed, which indicated that soil and groundwater on the site were free of hydrocarbons, but were impacted with heavy metals. The CRA Phase 1 ESA noted that the site operated as a warehouse, distribution and beverage bottling facility since 1953, and that it was registered with the MCCR for a 8000 gallon diesel and 8000 gallon gasoline USTs. These tanks were subsequently removed in 1994. There is currently no active USTs on the site. The CRA Phase 2 included a borehole drilling programme (8 boreholes) surrounding the UST locations, results of which indicated compliance with the Table B criteria for commercial/industrial land use for PAHs, pH and heavy metals, with the exception of some marginal exceedances of lead and zinc in the southwest corner of the site. Results along the western boundary indicated levels of lead above the guideline, however, the lateral and vertical extents were not defined.

The JWEL report consisted of 22 boreholes (8 of which were within the building footprint), 3 monitoring wells. Analysis of soils for BTEX/TPH indicated compliance with the Table B criteria, BTEX/VOC analysis of groundwater were also in compliance, dissolved metal concentrations were below the Table B criteria, petroleum staining was observed in MW1 (3.8m-5.2m), 5 of 27 soil samples had elevated levels of copper, zinc and lead. The impacted areas were confined to the fill materials outside the building in 3 areas, the central western section of the site, the southwestern corner of the site, and the northeast corner of the building. Ontario Regulation 347 analysis classified the native and fill soils as solid non-hazardous waste. Three soil samples exceeded the Schedule 4 criteria by 10x and would therefore be registered waste. Previous investigations by JWEL identified 3 areas of heavy metal contaminated soil. Test pits (TPA, TPB, TPC) were excavated in these areas. Test Pit A was located in the southwest corner of the property in the vicinity of MW2 where elevated levels of copper (441ppm), lead (1630ppm) and zinc (2170ppm) were observed at a depth of 1.1m below grade. Soil samples from this test pit were taken at 0.75m and 1.5m and submitted for analysis, results of which indicated levels above the Table B criteria. A total of 25 tonnes of impacted soil were removed from a 4mx4mx2.5m area with 5 verification samples being taken from the walls. Results have indicated compliance with the Table B criteria. Test Pit B also indicated elevated levels in MW1 (1.8m) of lead (1280ppm), BH10A (1.1m) for lead (1560ppm), and BH11A (1.1m) for lead (1060ppm) and zinc 2550ppm). A total of 1519.29 tonnes were removed from a 35mx20mx4m area. Test Pit C was located in the north eastern corner of the building near MW3. Elevated levels of lead (3180ppm) and zinc (1470ppm) were observed. Soil samples from this area at 1.0m and 3,0m below grade were submitted for lead, copper and zinc analysis, results of which indicated no exceedances. In total, 1544.29 tonnes were excavated and disposed of at the Lafarge/Brow landfill site in Dundas, Ontario.

The verification programme consisted of 53 test pit locations measuring 2mx2m3.5m. Representative samples were taken from one in three test pits and analysed for inorganic chemical parameters. Results have indicated compliance with the Table B criteria, with the exception of TP48 which indicated an elevated level of lead (730ppm). The consultant subsequently excavated 6 tonnes of soil from TP48 with a verification sample being taken at a depth of 3m. This sample recorded a lead concentration of 3ppm which is in compliance. The report goes on to state that during the removal of the footings in the north western area of the former building, 2 abandoned 9000L USTs were discovered. The area was excavated (3mx8mx3m) and revealed no evidence of soil staining or petroleum odours. Verification samples from a depth of 2.5m were submitted for BTEX/TPH analysis, results of which indicated concentrations below method detection limits. A concentration of 110ppm for heavy oils was observed, however, this is below the Table B criteria. On July 5, 1999 the 2250L UST was uncovered in the former office/service area. Soils surrounding the UST showed no visual evidence of staining, however, in order to verify this assumption, a verification sample was submitted for TPH (heavy oils) analysis, results of which were below method detection limits. On July 7, 1999 another 2250L UST was punctured in the former office area during the removal of the concrete footings. A polyethylene sheet was placed around the tank to prevent migration into surrounding soils. A total of 251L of waste oil were removed and disposed of off-site. Although no visual evidence of staining and no detectable vapour reading were observed, 1 sample from the excavation floor was submitted for TPH (heavy oils) analysis, results of which indicated levels below method detection limits.

The report goes on to state that during the removal of the footings, 2 single cylinder hoists were located north of the former UST. They were subsequently excavated followed by the installation of a polyethylene sheet to prevent hydraulic oil migration. Surrounding soils showed evidence of petroleum impairment. Approximately 3 tonnes of soil were excavated from each hoist with sample being retrieved from the base of each excavation. Test results from hoist 1 indicated TPH levels below method detection limits, while hoist 2 recorded a level of 31000ppm. The consultant considers this value erroneous due to the fact that there were no petroleum odours. To ensure that soils in this area were not impacted by hydrocarbons, an additional 10 tonnes were removed. Results of a verification sample were not available at the time of this report, however, the consultant expects the results to be in compliance with the guideline. A third hoist was also removed from an area northwest of the former UST. Slight staining was detected, and as a result 4 tonnes of soil were removed. A verification sample indicated levels below method detection limits.

Groundwater investigations established the water table at a depth of 4.75m at MW1 and at 4.01m at MW2. Results from preliminary testing indicated compliance with the guideline, with the exception of an elevated copper (52.1ppb) level at MW1. An additional sample was taken and analysed specifically for copper, results of which recorded a level of 9ppb.

Based on their field observations and the excavation/verification programme, the consultant concludes that the site appears to be restored from its impairment and is suitable for redevelopment for residential land use. They do however, recommend that an engineer be present during basement excavations to verify that no additional contamination exists on site.

Recommendations:

1. The daily, or more frequently if required wetting of all soft and hard surfaces, and any excavation on the site with the addition of calcium chloride or any other recognised dust suppressant;

2. The daily cleaning of the road pavement and sidewalks for the entire frontage of the property to a distance of 25m from the property line;

3. The designation of truck loading points to avoid trucks tracking potentially contaminated soil and demolition debris off site. Such loading points should be on a gravel base to minimise tracking of soil onto the sidewalk and street. If the loading point becomes contaminated, it should be cleaned or replaced;

4. All trucks and vans leaving the site should be cleaned of all loose soil and dust from demolition debris including the washing of tires and sweeping or washing of exteriors and tailgates by a designated labourer. A daily log of each truck leaving the site should be kept by the applicant (developer) noting when each truck was cleaned and by whom;

5. Tarping all trucks leaving the site which have been loaded with indigenous soil or demolition debris;

6. An air monitoring programme, if necessary, as determined through consultation with staff at Healthy Environments;

7. Supervision of all dust control measures by a qualified Environmental Consultant.

Therefore, I would indicate to you that I have no objection to the issuance of a building permit at this time. By copy of this letter I have advised the owner/applicant accordingly. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at 392-7685.

4. Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Parks and Recreation) (December 15, 1999)

81 Turnberry Avenue and 101 Union Street

File Nos. 199001, 298010, 499001

The applicant has submitted a draft plan of subdivision and amendments to the Official Plan and zoning by-law to permit the development of the site with a 8 detached dwelling units, 112 semi-detached dwelling units and an on-site parkland dedication.

There is one local park that currently serves the existing area and abuts the development site. It is the S.A.D.R.A. linear park, which has an area of 1.17 ha and is currently leased to the City from Ontario Hydro. General Mercer Public School, which is found to the north of the development site, also provides limited shared-use recreational opportunities. However, this site is not owned or operated by the City. The addition of new residents generated from this development will create an increased demand on the existing open space in the area. Thus, the provision on an on-site parkland dedication is desirable.

The amalgamation of the new City of Toronto will bring a new parkland dedication by-law. Although these comments are premised on former City of Toronto by-laws and Official Plan policies, if the application is approved subsequent to adoption of a new parkland dedication by-law for the new City of Toronto, the latter shall prevail.

On their revised plans dated December 15, 1999, the applicant has indicated an on-site parkland dedication of approximately 1,208 m2 (13,000 ft2) located central to the development, with frontage on three new streets. The proposed conveyance partially fulfills the statutory parkland dedication for this development. The City is entitled to a 5% statutory parkland dedication as a result of this proposed development. The full 5% parkland dedication for this development site would be equivalent to approximately 1,600 m2 (17,223 ft2).

Therefore, it is recommended that the shortfall in the statutory parkland dedication be made up in the form of a cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication payment. This payment is to be secured through the associated subdivision agreement and would represent the difference between the statutory parkland dedication requirement and the actual conveyance made being proposed by the applicant. The cash-in-lieu payment would be based on the market value of the land. This combination of parkland conveyance and cash-in-lieu contribution is acceptable to this department.

This cash payment is to be used for the development and improvement of this new park. If there is any money remaining after development of the new park it is recommended that it be used for improvements to the existing S.A.D.R.A. linear park. The landowner will not be entitled to any credits against the parkland development component of the development charges for the aforementioned cash contribution, as it is fulfilling their statutory parkland dedication requirement.

The following principles are to ensure the establishment of the conveyed parkland on this site and as such should be endorsed at this time, the final details to be set out in the associated subdivision agreement:

The final location, configuration and development of the parkland to be conveyed to the City will be subject to the approval of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The lands to be conveyed as parkland to the City are to be free and clear, above and below grade, of all easements, encumbrances and encroachments.

That, prior to registration of the draft plan of subdivision, the owner shall be responsible for an environmental assessment of the lands to be conveyed as parkland to the City and any associated costs or remediation works required as a result of that assessment. Such assessment or remediation shall ensure the parkland dedication lands will, at the time of conveyance, meet all applicable laws, regulations and guidelines respecting sites to be used for public park purposes. Including City Council policies respecting soil remediation of sites to be acquired by the City, such opinion to be prepared by a qualified environmental consultant acceptable to the Medical Officer of Health.

The conveyance of the parkland will occur prior to registration of the draft plan of subdivision. The owner is to pay for the costs of such conveyance, including any Land Transfer Tax and the preparation and registration of all relevant documents

That, prior to the registration of the draft plan of subdivision, the owner provide to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor all legal descriptions and applicable reference plans of survey for the parkland dedication lands

The owner will be responsible for the base construction and installation of the park which includes the following: grading, sodding, positive drainage, electrical and water connections to the street line. Such work is to be completed prior to issuance of building occupancy permits and shall be to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture & Tourism.

Prior to registration of the draft plan of subdivision, the owner will post a letter of credit as security for the installation of the base park improvements, equal to 120% of the value of the base park improvements.

Subject to the terms of the subdivision agreement, the site will be available to the owner for use as a construction staging area.

The design and programming of the park will be determined through a community consultation process. Final design and programming of the park will be at the discretion of the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

In view of the conveyance of parkland, that City Council will authorise and amendment to exempt the owner's Lands from Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 165, Article 1, Conveyance of Lands for Parks Purposes enacted pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act to exempt therefrom such development as is permitted and only to the extent permitted by the Zoning By-law Amendment. Should the owner apply for and receive permission to develop residential or commercial densities in excess of those presently permitted in the Zoning By-law Amendment, then the owner may, respecting those increased densities and as a condition of receiving such increased densities, be required to transfer further lands for parks purposes or pay monies in lieu thereof in accordance with the City's aforementioned Municipal Code provisions enacted pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act which are then applicable.

5. Economic Development, Culture & Tourism (Economic Development) (December 9, 1999) 81 Turnberry Ave. and 101 Union St.

Background

Staff in the Economic Development Division's Central Field Office has reviewed the Official Plan and Rezoning applications for 81 Turnberry Avenue and 101 Union Street and has the following comments. It should be noted that our staff has a decade of experience in dealing with issues related to the Union Street industrial district. The Central Field Office also worked with your Division to organise a meeting of area businesses to discuss the applications and attended this meeting on November 26, 1999 to hear the concerns of the business community.

The Community Planning Division's preliminary reports on both applications identifies issues related to the retention of industrial lands for employment purposes and the compatibility of the proposed residential uses with adjacent industrial uses. Our comments will focus mainly on these issues.

Retention of Employment Lands

With respect to the retention of employment lands, The Economic Development and Parks Committee adopted our November 17, 1999 report on Stimulating Investment in Employment Lands. The Committee is recommending the formation of a senior staff working group to comprehensively address the issue of maintaining a stable employment base and developing mechanisms for further encouraging employment generating investment. Our report notes that ensuring a sufficient long term supply of employment lands and that industrial space is available to allow existing businesses to expand and new businesses to start up is one of the important roles governments play in facilitating economic growth.

We are concerned that the subject applications not be seen, or used, as a precedent in support of further rezoning applications in the area or as a rationale for limiting the operations of the businesses in that area. The businesses in the Turnberry Avenue/Union Street area play an integral role in the City's economy by adding to the diversity of the employment base, contributing taxes toward the City's operations and providing businesses services which support a number of sectors of the City's economy. At a minimum, creating a precedent for further rezoning applications would result in the loss of jobs in the area and industrial/commercial tax revenues.

An argument that the subject lands are no longer viable for industrial or employment uses must not be used as a justification if these applications are approved. The fact is that these lands would very likely be reused for employment purposes if the existing zoning was maintained. We are confident that this would be the case given that: the industrial vacancy rate in the City is now below 5%, industrial construction activity has returned to pre-recession levels, investors are now beginning to build "spec" industrial buildings again, a recently constructed industrial multiple building in the Old Stockyards District, 40 Cawthra Avenue, is fully occupied. The Economic Development Division has also received business inquiries from companies that were interested in those lands. The pressure to convert these lands has nothing to do with the demand for industrial space but rather the fact that there is also a strong residential market and the subject lands were purchased at a higher price in anticipation of being able to rezone them for residential purposes.

Land Use Compatibility

If these applications are to be approved, issues of compatibility with the industries on Union Street, Turnberry Avenue and Townsley Street must be addressed. This sub-district within the Old Stockyards planning area has had a heavy industrial character for over a decade. It is home to one of the largest scrap metal operations in the City, an asphalt plant, and two concrete batching and mixing yards. All of these uses are only permitted in I4, heavy industrial zones. The auto towing compound, auto body shops, heavy equipment contractor yards and fish processing plant also have many heavy industrial characteristics. Consolidated Bottle, the largest employer in the area, is a major manufacturer and distributor. Unimpeded truck access to Consolidated Bottle's site is important to its continuing operation.

All of these businesses have been operating in the district during the last ten years and it is anticipated that their operations will continue into the foreseeable future. The heavy industrial nature of their operations generates a significant level of noise, dust, odour, and truck traffic. The main sources of noise are related to asphalt melting, concrete batching, auto crushing and auto body work. The main sources of dust are related to the open storage of sand and gravel related to concrete batching operations. The main sources of door are related to fish processing and auto body painting.

The nature of business traffic in the area is of particular concern. Essentially, the Turnberry/Old Weston Road intersection into the area is the only reliable access point into the district. The other access point, the Townsley/Old Weston Road intersection, is often un-passable due to rush hour conditions at St. Clair and Old Weston Road or because the street is blocked due to truck deliveries. This forces the majority of truck movements to use the Turnberry intersection. The intersection is narrow which forces large trucks to block the middle of the street in order to make wide turns. This necessary practice can create an unsafe situation for cars and pedestrians. The area is also subject to a constant flow of tow trucks travelling to the scrap yards and auto related uses. It is quite common for tow trucks to dart from lane to lane as they rush to make deliveries. This also raises safety concerns.

The district is also quite unsightly, often littered with abandoned cars, tires, discarded appliances and construction waste. This virtually unsolvable problem is not caused by area businesses. The general public uses the isolated streets for dumping grounds, actually creating problems for the local businesses, which legally use the boulevards for customer and staff parking. Every week the businesses are forced to clear up some waste at their own expense.

It is not anticipated that the heavy industrial character of the sub-district is likely to change substantially. As noted above, the businesses in the area are stable and have been in business for a number of years. In addition, it is nearly impossible for a scrap or concrete operation to find alternative sites within the City should they be forced to consider moving their operations. A common trend among all the former Metro municipalities was to restrict zoning to prohibit scrap yards, concrete batching and open storage.

The introduction of new residential units into the area will likely create additional land use conflicts with the established businesses. It will be crucial to ensure that the applicants realise that the industrial neighbours will have a negative effect, from time to time, on the proposed residential units and will diminish the ability of future residents to fully use and enjoy their properties. The onus should be placed on the developers to address issues of land use compatibility, undertake a through program of mitigation measures, and pay for any modifications that may be required to be made on industrial properties.

Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on our assessment of the area, the applications and comments received at the business meeting. The Economic Development Division is recommending that the applicants be required to undertake the mitigation measures necessary to address the issues noted above to the satisfaction of the businesses in the area. Serious consideration should also be given to making the following items a condition of approval:

That the primary street access to the residential subdivision be directly off of Old Weston Road and that Turnberry Avenue not be used for residential traffic.

That a new light industrial building be constructed along the 101 Union Street frontage to provide buffering between the uses.

That buffer walls and landscaping around the development and around affected industrial sites be required.

That the potential purchasers of the residential units be warned of the heavy industrial nature of the area, and its potential impact on the residential properties, prior to purchasing a unit.

That all residential units are built with central air conditioning and sound attenuation measures so that residents will not have open their windows during the summer months.

If you have any questions with respect to the above comments, please contact Mr. Kyle Benham, MCIP at 392-1004.

6. Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (February 23, 1999) 81 Turnberry Ave.

I am writing in response to the circulation of the official plan and zoning by-law amendment application for the above-noted property.

We have no objection to the proposed redevelopment of the subject site for a new residential community of single detached and semi-detached dwellings. Site-specific changes in land use are a local responsibility and the municipality should assess the suitability of the site for residential uses. The municipality should satisfy itself that the new residential uses will not have a negative impact on the viability and stability of any remaining industrial uses. In addition, issues such as the availability of community and social services, park land and other amenities should be reviewed. All potential land use conflicts (e.g. noise, odour, vibration) between the new residential uses and any remaining industrial uses should be assessed as well as all environmental concerns (e.g. soil contamination). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 585-6041.

7. Ontario Hydro (February 3, 1999)

Draft Plan of Subdivision, Green Banner Developments Ltd., 81 Turnberry Avenue, City of Toronto, File: 55T-099201

Ontario Hydro Services Company owns the property abutting this proposed subdivision, which contains a 115 kV transmission line. Please be advised that Ontario Hydro Services Company has no objection to this Plan of Subdivision, provided the following conditions are included in the draft plan of approval.

1. Prior to final approval, a copy of the lot grading and drainage plan, showing existing and proposed grades, must be submitted to Ontario Hydro Services Company for review and approval. Drainage must be controlled and directed away from Ontario Hydro Services Company property.

2. Temporary fencing must be installed along the edge of the right of way prior to the start of construction at the developer's expense.

3. Permanent fencing must be installed after construction is completed along Ontario Hydro Services Company owned land at the developer's expense.

4. Ontario Hydro Services Company property is not to be used without express written permission of Ontario Hydro Services Company. The proponent will be responsible for restoration of any damage to the right of way resulting from construction of the subdivision.

With respect to Condition #1, the developer should be aware that a review of the lot grading and drainage drawings generally takes two weeks to complete. In order to expedite the process and not delay the registration of the subdivision, the developer is encouraged to send two copies of the drawings to my attention immediately upon them being available.

I trust this is satisfactory. If you have any questions please call me at your convenience at (905) 948-6015.

8. Ontario Hydro (January 21, 1999)

Draft Plan of Subdivision, Montebello Developments Ltd., 101 Union Street, City of Toronto, File: 55T-98215

2. Temporary fencing must be installed along the edge of the right of way prior to the start of construction at the developer's expense.

3. Permanent fencing must be installed after construction is completed along Ontario Hydro Services Company owned land at the developer's expense.

I trust this is satisfactory. If you have any questions please call me at your convenience at (905) 948-6015.

9. Toronto Catholic District School Board (June 14, 1999) 101 Union St.

Further to your request for information, please be advised that the Toronto Catholic District School Board is concerned regarding the overcrowding and lack of permanent facilities at both the elementary and secondary schools in this service area.

St. Matthew Catholic School (JK-8) and Archbishop Romero Catholic Secondary School (9-OAC) are unable to accommodate additional students in either permanent or temporary facilities at this time.

I trust that you will find this information satisfactory.

10. Toronto Catholic District School Board (May 12, 1999) 81 Turnberry Ave.

Further to your request for comments, please be advised that the Toronto Catholic District School Board is concerned regarding the overcrowding and lack of permanent facilities at both the elementary and secondary schools in this service area.

St. Matthew Catholic School (JK-8) and Archbishop Romero Catholic Secondary School (9-OAC) are both oversubscribed at this time and cannot accommodate students residing in the above-noted development in either permanent or temporary facilities at this time.

Should you wish to discuss the Board's position concerning this matter, you may contact me at 222-8282, extension 2273.

11. Urban Development Services (Municipal Standards) (December 13, 1999) 81 Turnberry Ave. & 101 Union St.

I have reviewed the Noise Impact Statement dated April 12, 1999 prepared by R²tm Associates and amendment dated December 1, 1999 prepared by Aiolos Engineering Corporation, for the above noted Rezoning Application, and find it satisfactory.

As you are aware, the Noise Impact Statement is one of a number of reports required to process your application. At the time of preparation, final construction designs may not be completed. Therefore, on approval of your application and when construction plans are finalised, I require a letter from your architect or acoustical consultant which certifies that the building plans accompanying your building permit application are in conformity with the Noise Impact Statement, with particular reference to the impact of any mechanical equipment on neighbouring properties.

Please direct any inquiries to Mr. J. Prashad of the Noise Section.

12. Urban Development Services (Buildings) (February 23, 1999) 101 Union St.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:	Construct 12 Pairs Of Semi-Detached Houses And One Detached House, Create New Public Road And Lane And Create New Lots.
Zoning Designation:	I3	Map:	48K 311
Applicable By-law(s):	438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by:	Gabriel Bodor Architect, Inc.	Plans dated:	DEC. 8, 1998.
Residential GFA:	3438 m²

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

1.	The proposed uses, detached house and semi-detached houses, are not permitted. (Section 9(1)(f))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.	The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.
2.	The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.
3.	The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.
4.	The proposal requires the approval of Works and Emergency Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.
5.	All work within the City's road allowance will require a separate approval by Works and Emergency Services.

13. Urban Development Services (Buildings)/(February 17, 1999) 81 Turnberry Ave.

Our comments concerning this proposal are as follows:
Description:	Construct 6 Detached And 46 Pairs Of Semi-Detached House, Create New Public Streets And Lanes And New Lots.
Zoning Designation:	I3	Map:	48K 311
Applicable By-law(s):	438-86, as amended
Plans prepared by:	G. Bettencourt Designs Ltd. & Rabideau & Czrwinski O.L.S.	Plans dated:	January 12, 1999
Residential GFA:	14,986.25 m²

Zoning Review

The list below indicates where the proposal does not comply with the City's Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, unless otherwise referenced.

1.	The proposed uses, detached and semi-detached houses, are not permitted. (Section 9(1)(f))

Other Applicable Legislation and Required Approvals

1.	The proposal requires conveyance of land for parks purposes, or payment in lieu thereof pursuant to Section 42 of the Planning Act.
2.	The proposal DOES NOT require the approval of Heritage Toronto under the Ontario Heritage Act.
3.	The issuance of any permit by the Chief Building Official will be conditional upon the proposal's full compliance with all relevant provisions of the Ontario Building Code.
4.	The proposal requires the approval of Works and Emergency Services regarding ramp approval and curb cuts.
5.	All work within the City's road allowance will require a separate approval by Works and Emergency Services.

14. Works & Emergency Services (December 21, 1999) 81 Turnberry Ave.

This is in reference to the application by Greg Bettencourt Design Ltd., on behalf of Green Banner Developments Limited, for the Rezoning and approval of Draft Plan of Subdivision for a proposed 97-unit residential development (consisting of 5 single family units plus 92 semi-detached units) located on the south side of Turnberry Avenue, west of Old Weston Road, which has subsequently been revised to, among other things:

- Change the road/lane layout to accommodate a City park;

- Reduce the number of residential units from 97 to 95 (7 single units plus 88 semi-detached units); and

- Increase the setback of Units 1 to 18 from Turnberry Avenue.

Comments:

Survey and Mapping

The proposal is to sever the lands for this application into 95 lots and the construction of 95 houses and to create three new public roads and several lanes.

The applicant is required to provide suggestions for suitable names for the proposed public streets in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause 4 in Executive Committee Report No. 22, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council on July 11, 1988, as well as apply for revised municipal numbering prior to obtaining a building permit.

This site is subject to an easement as set out in Instrument No. CT 888094 for a combined sewer located adjacent to the south limit of the property.

Parking

Each dwelling unit has its own parking in parking garages off new public lanes at the rear of each house, for at least 1 parking space which satisfies the estimated parking demand and Zoning By-law requirement, and is acceptable.

The estimated peak visitor parking demand generated by the development for 24 spaces can be accommodated on the new 8.5 m wide streets. In addition, residents may utilise surplus parking within their garages to accommodate their visitors. Accordingly, parking for the project is expected to be self-contained, and should not result in overflow onto the adjoining street system in the abutting areas.

Road Layout

The proposed road/lane layout consists of 15 m road allowance widths for new Roads "A", "B" and "C", 5 m wide public lanes (Lanes "A", "B" and "C") providing access to the parking garages at the rear of the units, and a minimum allowance of 6.4 m for Lane "D" which connects Road "B" to Road "C". The plan also provides for turning bulbs and splays to facilitate turning movements by vehicles, which will be using the street/lane system. The proposed road and lane dimensions and configuration, from a transportation perspective, are acceptable. It is noted that the 6.4 m road allowance width for Lane 'D" is not sufficient to accommodate a sidewalk, and will be designed for use by vehicles only.

It is noted that Road "A" will also provide access to a proposed residential subdivision at Premises No. 101 Union Street, abutting the west limit of the site. This is acceptable. It will be necessary to ensure, as a condition of approval of the development application for the abutting site, that this road is constructed to the satisfaction of this Department, at no cost to the City, prior to the approval and/or occupancy of the abutting project.

The applicant's subsequent revised plans date stamped December 15, 1999, shows the cul-de-sac (Road "A") previously proposed, being redesigned as an "L-shaped" street connected to Road "C". In addition, a new 5 m wide public lane is proposed linking Road "A" to Road "C", and Lane "B", has been redesigned as an L-shaped lane with access from Road "C" and Lane "D". The revisions are generally satisfactory. It is noted that some improvements may be required to the geometrics of the road alignments and sidewalks, at the intersections of the lanes with the new streets. It would appear, however, that this can be accomplished within the proposed road allowances as part of the required detailed engineering drawings for these surface facilities.

The width of Lane "D" which has been shown on the plans as being 6.4 m, is also shown on several others, including the latest revised plans, as 6.34m wide. In order to avoid confusion and be consistent, the minimum road allowance for Public Lane "D" should be amended on all plans to specify 6.34 m as the minimum width. Further, the new Public Lane has not been named on the current plans. It will be necessary for the owner to submit an updated Draft Plan of Subdivision incorporating the updated road allowance design and configuration for review and approval.

From an engineering perspective, the bulb at the south end of Lane "C" is satisfactory in configuration; however the right of way allowance for the lane should be configured on the Draft M-Plan to square out on both the east and west sides of the bulb to the property limits. It is noted that the east boundaries of Lanes "A" and "C" are irregular in nature due to various existing encroachments of adjacent properties. From a site plan prepared by the Owner's Consultant these appear to include, garages on Lanes "A" and "C" and Lot "1", a retaining wall on Lane "A" and various fences throughout. The applicant is to make all arrangements with the adjacent landowners and provide for the necessary removals and/or relocations required to facilitate the construction of the lanes. In addition, the east curbline of the lane should be kept to a regular alignment and all surplus areas along the east boundary constructed with paved surfaces.

Lanes "A" and "C" adjacent to the east limit of the site are the minimum 5 m wide as set out in the Official Plan. This 5.0 metre width is to be a paved lane width and is not to be narrowed or encumbered by retaining walls, fences or grade adjustments.

The road allowance for Road "A" and Lane "C" abut the Ontario Hydro lands. Grades for these lanes are to be compatible with the adjacent Hydro lands or written approvals received from Ontario Hydro for placing fill on their property. As well, the south boulevard of Road "A" adjacent to the Ontario Hydro property is to be of a maintenance free material such as concrete, asphalt or concrete unit pavers as this area cannot be maintained by Works and Emergency Services.

The width of all combined curbs and sidewalks is to be a minimum width of 1.7 m. This will be addressed in the engineering design approval process.

Access/Traffic Impact The owner has submitted a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Read, Voorhees & Associates Limited, dated June, 1999, prepared in support of this proposal and in combination with the proposed residential subdivision at Premises No. 101 Union Road. If approved, the two plans of subdivision will contain a total of 120 dwelling units.

Access to the development will be from a new road connection to Turnberry Avenue. Turnberry Avenue is a two-lane collector road that connects to Old Weston Road, a four lane arterial road, as the west leg of a four-legged signalised intersection.

The Consultant has estimated that the two developments will generate a total of 62 two-way vehicle trips (13 inbound, 49 outbound) during the a.m. peak hour and 74 two-way vehicle trips (49 inbound, 25outbound) during the p.m. peak hour. The assessment does not take into account the traffic generated by the former occupants of the site, a Coca-Cola Bottling Plant (81 Turnberry) and a warehouse and distribution centre (101 Union). Although I am concerned with some of the assumptions used in the TIS, changes to these assumptions would not affect the conclusions of the study. Therefore, I concur with the Consultant's conclusion that the impacts of the traffic generated by these developments on the operation of the Turnberry Avenue/Old Weston Road intersection would be minimal and that the existing road network can adequately accommodate the forecasted traffic volumes.

The TIS also indicates that area residents have expressed concerns about the potential for traffic generated by these developments infiltrating into the residential neighbourhood on the east side of Old Weston Road as an alternative route to the arterial road network. The consultant has indicated that it is unlikely that many motorists will find this route attractive given their expected destinations and the fact that the arterial road network has reserve capacity. However, given the concerns expressed by the community, the applicant is required to submit a post-occupancy traffic monitoring report prepared by a qualified traffic Consultant, for review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in order to verify that the travel patterns associated with this development are as predicted in the TIS, or alternatively, recommending measures required to mitigate any significant traffic infiltration patterns, such as peak period through movement prohibitions at the Old Weston Road/Turnberry Avenue intersection. In order to provide for the implementation of any required mitigation measures, the owner is required to provide to the City, a letter of credit in the amount of $2,000 to be drawn upon by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, if required, for the purposes of installing

additional traffic control measures to limit measured site-generated traffic infiltration through residential neighbourhood to the east of Old Weston Road.

The post occupancy traffic monitoring study could be prepared in concert with the subdivision at Premises No. 101 Union Road, provided both subdivisions are constructed and occupied within the same time frame.

Phasing and Implementation

The applicant had advised staff that the project will be developed in 4 phases. The owner is required to submit, for review and approval, a phasing and implementation plan identifying the infrastructure (road, lanes, and services) which would be in place with each phase of the development.

In addition, as the services for proposed Road "A" will also be servicing the development at 101 Union Street, the developer is to co-ordinate the installation of the services on that portion of the street with the abutting developer.

Landscaping Drawings

The landscape drawings have not yet been updated to reflect the updated plan of subdivision. The 7.32 m wide pavement width shown on the landscape drawing should be increased to 8.5 m.

Refuse Collection

Solid Waste Management Services will provide garbage and recyclable materials collections services to these single family homes from set out points in front of each home at curbside once the streets and lanes are assumed by the City. At its sole discretion, the Department may elect to provide earlier pick up if:

- substantial occupancy has occurred;

- the roads within the Subdivision are connected to existing assumed roads with clear forward drive paths;

- all maintenance holes, and catchbasins are ramped with base course asphalt; and

- the roads are kept clear of dust, debris, building materials and any other items that would, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, impede the movement of City vehicles or equipment.

In the interim, the developer will be held responsible for providing garbage and recyclable materials collection.

Municipal Services

The applicant is to prepare and submit to the satisfaction and concurrence of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services detailed design drawings in accordance with the City's design policies and specifications for all underground and surface municipal services and facilities including site grading plans, plan profiles, detail drawings, lighting and composite utility drawings (concurred with by all utilities), and a construction management plan. The applicant is to construct all such services and facilities in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications. The applicant must also include any servicing that may be required in connection with the proposed park as required by the Parks and Recreation Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.

The existing sanitary sewer in the easement located on the south property limit is to be protected at all times from damage during construction. It is noted upon registration of the Draft Plan of Subdivision, the easement will be located within public right of ways. Lot 77 will be subject to the provisions of the easement or a revised easement document to be prepared by the Applicant.

The applicant is to provide and implement a stormwater management report for the development including provisions for storm quality management. It is the policy of City Council to require the infiltration of storm water runoff into the ground for all new buildings, whenever possible. Roof drains and pumped weepers are to be discharged to the surface. Storm connections to the City sewer system will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that infiltrating storm water into the ground is not feasible. Further information regarding storm drainage can be obtained by contacting the Engineering Section at 392-6787.

A geotechnical report from a qualified Environmental Consultant is to be submitted which addresses to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism:

- a description and analysis of the soils on site and its suitability for road construction;

- soil and groundwater quality analysis for the public rights of ways and parkland to be assumed by the City;

- the remediation of these lands to residential quality standards as set out by the M.O.E.;

- identifying areas of engineered fill required on site and any requirements for controlled fill;

Work Within the Public Right of Way

Separate approval for any proposed work within the public right of way (i.e. landscaping, service connections etc.), must also be received from this Department. For further information in this regard, please contact the Right of Way Management, District 1, at 392-1803.

Recommendations:

That the owner be required to:

1. Provide space within the development for the construction of transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

2. Obtain approval and/or easements for any work on the Ontario Hydro lands and that such proposed work be carried out in accordance with the requirements and specifications of Ontario Hydro and the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

3. Submit a post-occupancy traffic monitoring report, prepared by a qualified transportation consultant, for review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, identifying the traffic volumes generated by this development and the extent of infiltration of this traffic into the residential neighbourhood to the east of Old Weston Road, such study to be prepared and submitted 6 to 8 months after occupancy of the Subdivision;

4. Provide a Letter of Credit in the amount of $2,000.00 prior to the issuance of a building permit, towards the supply and installation of additional traffic control measures to limit site-generated traffic infiltration through the residential neighbourhood east of Old Weston Road, the need for which shall be determined by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services based on the post-occupancy traffic monitoring report referred to in Recommendation No. 1, above;

5. Update the Draft Plan of Subdivision and landscape drawings to reflect the road layout, including 8.5 m pavement widths for Roads "A", "B" and "C", illustrated in the revised plans stamp dated December 15, 1999, submitted in support of the Rezoning Application;

6. In conjunction with the construction of the proposed public streets and lanes:

(a) Provide minimum road allowance widths as follows:

i. Roads "A", "B" and "C": 15 m

ii. Public lane "D": 6.34 m; and

iii. All other Public lanes: 5 m

(d) In connection with the new public streets/lanes and the municipal services and facilities referred to in Recommendation No. 6(a) above:

i. Engage the services of a qualified Municipal Consulting Engineer satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the design and field supervision of all underground and surface municipal services and facilities;

ii. Prepare and submit for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services detailed design drawings in accordance with the City's design policies and specifications for all underground and surface municipal services and facilities including site grading plans, plan and profiles, details, composite utility plans, construction management plans and construct all such services and facilities in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

iii. Provide municipal services as may be required by the Parks and Recreation Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism to service the proposed public park.;

iv. The owner agrees to pay the required engineering fees for engineering and inspection costs of 3% of the cost of constructing the Services and all other construction obligations for the Subdivision based upon:

- 1.5% at the time of first submission of engineering drawings,

- the balance of the 3% of the final costs of work prior to release for construction of Services

- in the event the owner revises the concurred engineering drawings, the owner agrees to pay an additional engineering fee of 1% of the estimated cost of components of the Services being revised.

v. Provide, upon completion of the work, "as constructed" drawings of all underground and surface public works services and facilities, certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer that such services and facilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

vi. Provide letters of credit in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for all municipal infrastructure or such lesser amount as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may approve, for the development (sewers, waterworks, streets, sidewalks, lanes, street lighting, street furniture, etc.). As determined by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the earlier of issuance of a building permit or commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the development until completion of the work;

vii. Provide letters of credit in an amount equal to 25% of the value of completed municipal infrastructure as a maintenance guarantee for a minimum period of two-years from the date of completion of the work as certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and acceptance by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services; and

viii. Construct all utilities underground;

(i) Submit suggestions for a suitable name for the new streets in accordance with the guidelines set out in Clause 4 in Executive Committee Report No. 22, adopted by the former City of Toronto Council at its meeting of July 11, 1988;

(j) Remonument the street limits and proposed lot/block corners after completion of construction;

(k) Submit to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services dimensioned plans of the development for the purpose of preparing site specific exemption by-laws and such plans should be submitted at least 3 weeks prior to the introduction of a bill in Council;

(l) Submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services a geotechnical report verifying that soil conditions within the proposed road allowances are acceptable for use for public highway purposes;

(m) Agree to defer the installation of the final coat of asphalt on the new streets until the substantial completion of construction of buildings on the street, or at such earlier timing as may be required by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, acting reasonably;

(n) The developer is responsible for providing household refuse and recyclable materials collection including snow removal and ensuring that the roads are kept clear of dust, debris, building materials and any other items as deemed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, until such time as the City, in its sole discretion agrees to provides such services.

(o) Deposit the final plan of subdivision, in the appropriate Land Registry Office, such plan to be in metric units with all lot/block corners integrated with the Ontario Co-Ordinate System;

(p) Provide a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the City;

(q) Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to obtaining a building permit, the application for which must be accompanied by a site plan showing the entrances to the proposed houses;

18. Submit a phasing and implementation plan, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, identifying the infrastructure (roads, lanes, services, etc.) which will be in place with each phase of the development; and

19. That the owner be advised:

(a) That the storm water runoff originating from the site should be disposed of through infiltration into the ground and that storm connections to the City sewer system will only be permitted subject to the review and approval by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services and of an engineering report detailing that site or soil conditions are unsuitable, the soil is contaminated or that processes associated with the development on the site may contaminate the storm runoff;

(b) That as the services for proposed Road "A" will also be servicing the development at 101 Union Street, the developer is to coordinate the installation of the services on that portion of the street with the abutting developer.

(c) That the owner be advised of the need to receive separate approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, Right of Way Management, District 1 (392-1803), for any proposed work to be carried out within the abutting public rights-of-way.

15. Works & Emergency Services (December 21, 1999) 101 Union St.

This is in reference to the application by Andrew Paton, Q.C. on behalf of Montevallo Developments Limited, for the approval of a Draft Plan of Subdivision for a proposed 25-unit residential development (consisting of 1 single family unit plus 24 semi-detached units), plus an additional development block fronting on Union Street (proposed use not indicated) located on the east side of Union Street, south of Turnberry Avenue.

Parking

The proposed provision of 25 parking spaces in parking garages at the rear of each house accessed off a new public lane, satisfies the estimated parking demand and Zoning By-law requirement for 25 spaces for residents, and is acceptable. For information, 23 of the single car garages are "over-sized" with widths of about 5m, and the remaining 2 garages have widths of about 3.5m.

The dimensions of the garage doors have not been shown on the plans. In order to allow for convenient vehicular access into the parking garage from the 5.5m wide public lane, the garage doors in the "oversized garages" should desirably have a minimum width of 3.5m, but in any event, no less than 2.7m. It would appear that vehicles would have to back into the two 3.5m-wide garages and then use the turnaround at the north end of the lane, or perform a multiple-point turn in the lane system. The garage doors for these 2 garages should be as wide as practicable, but in no event less than 2.6m.

No provision has been made to satisfy the peak visitor parking demand generated by the development which is estimated to be for 7 spaces. In low-rise residential developments, this demand is typically accommodated on the abutting public street system. Alternatively, the owner could consider accommodating the demand in a surface parking area on abutting Development Block 27.

Road Layout

A new north-south public street extending southerly from Turnberry Avenue, identified as Road "A" is proposed to be constructed in conjunction with the development at Premises No. 81 Turnberry Avenue, which abuts the east limit of this site. A new 5.5m wide L-shaped dead-end public lane is proposed to serve the project which extends westerly Road "A" and then northerly along the rear of the proposed dwellings. The creation of new dead-end public lanes is discouraged because of, among other things, the difficulties which City maintenance vehicles would have in accessing and egressing the lane. Accordingly, the owner is required to amend the Draft plan of Subdivision to provide a turnaround area at the north terminus of the lane. In the event that the owner intends to connect the public lane to Union Street in connection with the development, the lane design should provide for this connection.

The east-west leg of the proposed public lane is located on the applicant's lands, which is subject to a sewer easement, in favour of the City, registered as Instrument No. CA64338. There is no objection, in principle, to the establishment of a public lane at this location within the easement. Of course, the lane design must accommodate the sewer easement, as well as any storm drains required for the lane.

It is noted that no new streets are proposed in connection with the subdivision. The current proposal assumes "Road A" will be completed prior to, or in conjunction with, this development, providing, among other things, municipal services and access to the parking provided for this subdivision. While this is acceptable, in principle, it will be necessary to ensure, as a condition of approval of this development application, that this road is constructed to the satisfaction of this Department, at no cost to the City, prior to or occupancy of the project. In the event that this road is not constructed to the City's satisfaction, the houses should not be occupied. Accordingly, it would be prudent of the owner to ensure that it has a legally binding arrangement with the owners of Premises No. 81 Turnberry Avenue, in order to ensure completion of Road "A" inclusive of servicing and connections, to appropriate municipal standards at the appropriate time.

Access/Traffic Impact

A Traffic Impact Study (TIS) prepared by Read, Voorhees & Associates Limited, dated June, 1999, was submitted in support of the proposed residential subdivision at Premises No. 81 Turnberry Avenue. The TIS included an assessment of the impacts of the traffic generated by the proposed development at Premises No. 81 Turnberry Avenue as well as this development. If approved, the two plans of subdivision will contain a total of 120 dwelling units.

The Consultant has estimated that the 2 developments will generate a total of 62 two-way vehicle trips (13 inbound, 49 outbound) during the a.m. peak hour and 74 two-way vehicle trips (49 inbound, 25 outbound) during the p.m. peak hour. It was indicated in the Departmental report on the application for Premises No. 81 Turnberry Avenue, in concurrence with the consultant's conclusion, that the impacts of the traffic generated by these developments on the operation of the Turnberry Avenue/Old Weston Road intersection would be minimal and that the existing road network and proposed road and lane facilities can adequately accommodate the forecasted traffic volumes.

It is noted that the applicant for Premises No. 81 Turnberry Avenue is to submit a post-occupancy traffic monitoring report prepared by a qualified traffic consultant, for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, in order to verify that the travel patterns associated with the two developments are as predicted in the TIS, or alternatively, recommending measures required to mitigate any significant traffic infiltration patterns, such as peak period through movement prohibitions at the Old Weston Road/Turnberry Avenue intersection.

Refuse Collection

The City will provide the project with regular curbside refuse and recyclable collection in accordance with the Municipal Code, Chapter 309, Solid Waste, provided that Road "A" is completed to the satisfaction of this Department.

Municipal Services

A geotechnical report from a qualified Environmental Consultant is to be submitted which addresses to the satisfaction of Works and Emergency Services:

- a description and analysis of the soils on site and its suitability for road construction;

- soil and groundwater quality analysis for the public rights of ways to be assumed by the City;

- the remediation of these lands to residential quality standards as set out by the M.O.E.;

- identifying areas of engineered fill required on site and any requirements for controlled fill;

Recommendations

As a result of the foregoing, it is recommended that:

The owner be required to:

1. Provide space within the development for the construction of transformer vaults, Hydro and Bell maintenance holes and sewer maintenance holes required in connection with the development;

2. Agree that occupancy of the proposed dwelling units will not be permitted until such time as the proposed public street flanking the east limit of the site has been constructed to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

3. Provide and maintain a minimum desirable width of 3.5m for the garage doors serving Lots 1 through 23, and in any event a minimum width not less than 2.7m, and a minimum width of 2.6m for the garage doors serving Lots 24 and 25;

4. Provide and maintain a vehicle turnaround facility at the north terminus of the proposed public lane;

5. In conjunction with the construction of the proposed public lane:

(a) Municipal Consulting Engineer satisfactory to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for the design and field supervision of all underground and surface municipal services and facilities;

(b) Prepare and submit for the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services detailed design drawings in accordance with the City's design policies and specifications for all underground and surface municipal services and facilities including site grading plans, plan and profiles, details, composite utility plans, construction management plans and construct all such services and facilities in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

(c) The owner agrees to pay the required engineering fees for engineering and inspection costs of 3% of the cost of constructing the Services and all other construction obligations for the Subdivision based upon:

- 1.5% at the time of first submission of engineering drawings,

- the balance of the 3% of the final costs of work prior to release for construction of Services

- in the event the owner revises the concurred engineering drawings, the owner agrees to pay an additional engineering fee of 1% of the estimated cost of components of the Services being revised.

(d) Provide, upon completion of the work, "as constructed" drawings of all underground and surface municipal services and facilities, certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer that such services and facilities have been constructed in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications;

(e) Provide letters of credit in the amount of 120% of the estimated cost for all municipal infrastructure or such lesser amount as the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services may approve, for the development (sewers, waterworks, streets, sidewalks, lanes, street lighting, street furniture, etc.). As determined by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, prior to the earlier of issuance of a building permit or commencement of construction of the infrastructure for the development until completion of the work;

(f) Provide letters of credit in an amount equal to 25% of the value of completed municipal infrastructure as a maintenance guarantee for a period of two years from the date of completion of the work as certified by the Municipal Consulting Engineer and acceptance by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services;

(g) Construct all utilities underground;

(h) Remonument the lane limits and proposed lot/block corners after completion of construction, if necessary;

(i) Submit to and have approved by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services information verifying that soil conditions within the proposed lane allowance is acceptable for use for public highway purposes;

(j) The developer is responsible for providing household refuse and recyclable materials collection including snow removal and ensuring that the roads are kept clear of dust, debris, building materials and any other items as deemed by the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services, until such time as the City, in its sole discretion, agrees to provide such services.

(k) Provide a digital copy of the final plan of subdivision to the City;

(l) Deposit the final plan of subdivision, in the appropriate Land Registry Office, such plan to be in metric units with all lot/block corners integrated with the Ontario Co-ordinate System;

(m) Apply for revised municipal numbering to the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services prior to obtaining a building permit, the application for which must be accompanied by a site plan showing the entrances to the proposed houses;

6. That the owner be advised of the need to receive the approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services for any work to be carried out within the abutting public rights-of-way;

7. That the owner be advised of the need/advisability of entering into a legally-binding arrangement with the owners of Premises No. 81 Turnberry Avenue, in order to ensure completion of Road "A" inclusive of servicing and connections, as identified on the Draft Plan of Subdivision for 81 Turnberry Avenue, to appropriate municipal standards, prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit for this project; and

Submit revised plans in respect of Recommendation Nos. 3 and 4 above for the review and approval of the Commissioner of Works and Emergency Services.

Insert Map 1 - Turnburry/Union

Insert Map 2

Insert Map 3

Insert Map 4

Insert Map 5

Insert Map 6

Insert Map 7

Insert Map 8

Insert Map 9

Insert Map 10

Insert Map 11

Insert Map 12

The Toronto Community Council also submits the following report (January 17, 2000) from the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services:

Purpose:

To make amendments to the recommendations of the Final Report on the above applications to change the recommended base zoning from I1 (light industrial) to R2 Z1.0 (residential); to clarify the proposed zoning permissions, and to make technical adjustments to the recommendations.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

There are no financial implications resulting from the adoption of this report.

Recommendations:

It is recommended that the following recommendations in the January 4, 2000 Final Report on Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications No. 199001 and 298010 and Plans of Subdivision Applications No. 499001 and 498041 to permit the construction of 7 Detached Dwellings and 88 Semi-Detached Dwellings at 81 Turnberry Avenue and 1 Detached Dwelling and 24 Semi-Detached Dwellings at 101 Union Street be amended as follows:

(1) Recommendation 1 be amended to read:

1. The Official Plan for the former City of Toronto be amended to add a new Section 18 provision substantially as set out below:

"18.__Notwithstanding Section 9.6(b) of the Official Plan Part II for the Old Stockyards District, Council may pass by-laws respecting the lots shown on Map._, and known in the year 1999 as 81 Turnberry Avenue to permit residential buildings or uses provided the total residential gross floor area of the buildings or uses does not exceed 1.22 times the area of the lot."

(2) Recommendation 2 be amended to read:

2. The Official Plan Part II for the Old Stockyards District be amended to redesignate the lands known municipally as 81 Turnberry Avenue from 'General Industrial Area' to 'Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A' and 'Open Space' designations.

(3) Recommendation 3 be amended to read:

3. Section 19.39 of the Official Plan be amended by deleting Map B and replacing it with the map attached to this report entitled "Official Plan Part II - Proposed".

(4) Recommendation 4 be amended to read:

4. Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

(a) amend Map 48K-311 contained in Appendix 'A' of By-law 438-86 as amended by redesignating the lands highlighted on the map attached to this report entitled "Official Plan Part II - Proposed" from I3 to R2 Z1.0 and G;

(b) amend Map 48K-311 contained in Appendix 'B' of By-law 438-86 as amended by establishing a 10.0 metre height limit on the lands highlighted on the map attached to this report entitled "Official Plan Part II - Proposed";

(c ) exempt the site from the following sections of Zoning By-law 438-86 as amended:

- 6(3)Part I (i) - density

- 6(3) Part II 2 - front yard setback

- 6(3)Part II 3 A (II) - side yard setback for corner lots

- 6(3)Part II 7(ii)A - setback of accessory building from adjacent dwelling; and;

- 6(3)Part VII(1) - minimum lot frontage

provided that:

(i) the site is used for and only for the following uses: detached house, semi-detached house, residential care facility, bed and breakfast establishment, home/work or private home daycare and uses accessory thereto:

(ii) the residential density does not exceed 1 times the lot area except for:

- Units 78 & 88 which can be up to 1.17 times the lot area;

- Units 79 to 86; 89 to 94 which can be up to 1.22 times the lot area;

- Unit 87 which can be up to 1.03 times the lot area;

(iii) a lot may be used for the erection of a temporary sales showroom used for the purposes of selling the residential dwellings provided the floor area does not exceed 175 square metres or a model home provided that the model home complies with the zoning requirements set out in the by-law; and

(iv) the development conforms with the development standards listed in Recommendation 4 (c) of the Final Report dated January 4, 2000 and not less than 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling unit in a private garage.

(5) Recommendation 8 be amended to read:

8. Not used.

(6) Recommendation 9 be amended to read:

9. The Official Plan Part II for the Old Stockyards District be amended to redesignate the lands known municipally as 101 Union Street (rear portion) from 'General Industrial Area' to 'Mixed Industrial-Residential Area A' designation.

(7) Recommendation 10 be amended to read:

10. Section 19.39 of the Official Plan be amended by deleting Map B and replacing it with the map attached to this report entitled "Official Plan Part II - Proposed".

(8) Recommendation 11 be amended to read:

11. Zoning By-law 438-86, as amended, be amended so as to:

- 6(3) Part II(2) - front yard setback

- 6(3)Part II(3) (i) - side wall setback

- 6(3)Part II (3) B and C - setback - detached, semi-detached, row house

- 6 Part II 8. D. - required setback of uncovered platforms

- 6(3)Part VII(1) - minimum lot frontage

provided that:

(ii) - the front yard setback for the lots shall be 2.0 metres (excludes projections for stairs, etc);

- the side yard setbacks, with or without openings, shall be 0.45 metres;

- the maximum permitted projection of an uncovered platform and stairs of a residential building from the main front wall shall be 2.0 metres. The maximum projection from the rear wall of an uncovered platform, excluding an uncovered platform that is landscaped open space, shall be 2.5 metres;

- the rear yard setback shall be 7.0 metres from the main rear wall to face of garage plus 6.0 meters for garage;

- landscaped open space per lot shall be 30%;

- the minimum lot frontage for the lots shall be 5.080 metres;

- not less than 1 parking space is provided for each dwelling unit in a private garage.

(9) Recommendation 13 be modified by deleting the phrase "prepared by Rabideau & Czerwinski" and replace with the following phrase "prepared by Holding & Jones Limited, Ontario Land Surveyors".

(10) Recommendation 13(xxxix) be amended to read:

The owner agree to enter into a legally-binding arrangement with the owners of Premises No. 81 Turnberry Avenue, in order to ensure completion of Road "A" inclusive of servicing and connections, as identified on the Draft Plan of Subdivision for 81 Turnberry Avenue, to appropriate municipal standards, prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit for this project and the owner acknowledge that there shall be no such occupancy until Road "A" has been substantially completed.

(11) That Council determine that no further notice be given of the proposed amendments to the by-laws as noted in the January 17, 2000 Supplementary Report of the Acting Commissioner of Urban Development Services.

Comments:

Change in Zoning from I1 to R2 Z1.0

The Final Report recommended that the sites be zoned I1 (Industrial) with site specific provisions to permit the proposed residential developments with the site specific standards. The I1 zoning would permit the site to be redeveloped for light industrial uses without rezoning in the event that the residential development did not proceed.

In reviewing the staff report, the City Solicitor has indicated that the "dual zoning" provision makes interpretation of the by-law more complex, and might inadvertently permit industrial uses within the residential development in the future. As well, this approach makes it much more problematic to ensure that the new residential community will be entitled to all the uses of the R2 zoning (i.e. home/work, private day nursery, etc.) enjoyed by the adjacent residential community to the east.

In addition, the applicants have recently expressed concerns that the underlying industrial zoning could create difficulties in marketing the residential project. They have requested that the site be zoned for residential uses.

For all of these reasons, staff agree that a residential zoning is appropriate. Rezoning the site to the R2 residential category would simplify the zoning regulations that apply to the site and be consistent with the zoning to the east.

The City Solicitor has advised that the recommendations should be amended to clearly define the proposed R2 uses to be permitted in conjunction with the lots to be created by these two plans of subdivision. The revised recommendations continue to permit the proposed 7 detached and 88 semi-detached dwellings for 81 Turnberry Avenue and 1 detached and 24 semi-detached dwellings for 101 Union Street. In addition, the revised recommendations would permit accessory uses normally permitted within the R2 zoning category.

Notice of Public Meeting

The published Notice of Public Meeting for the proposed bylaws stated that the proposed zoning by-laws would designate the sites as I1 with site specific provisions to allow the residential uses. The notice also detailed the exact number and type of housing units proposed.

Section 34(15)(17) of The Planning Act states that where a change is made in a proposed by-law after the holding of the public meeting, Council can determine whether any further notice is to be given in respect of the proposed by-law. The determination of Council as to the giving of further notice is final and not subject to review in any court irrespective of the extent of the change made in the proposed by-law.

Therefore, if Council is satisfied that the Notice adequately describes the proposed amendments, it has the authority to proceed without further notice. Staff believe that because the notice stated the exact number and type of proposed housing units, the public was given adequate information as to the proposed use.

Contact:

Rhonda Petrella, West Section

Telephone: 392-0459

Fax: 392-1330

E-Mail: rpetrell@toronto.ca

_________

The Toronto Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having also had before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (January 17, 2000) from Ms. Wendy Nott, Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited, which has been submitted to Members of Council under separate cover.

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.

City maps | Get involved | Toronto links