TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEES
AND OTHER COMMITTEES
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on October 1 and 2, 1998
ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
REPORT No. 9
1Introduction of Parking Prohibition - McCulloch Avenue
2Establishment of Exclusive Right Turn Lanes - Rathburn Road Various Locations
3Establishment of Designated Bicycle Lanes - Rathburn Road Between The East
Mall and Mimico Creek
4Parking Prohibition - Dalesford Road, West of Winslow Street
5Greensboro Drive - Road Improvements
6Major Encroachment Agreement - 2 Stanmills Road
7Fire Route Designation - 630 Evans Avenue
8Appeal to Zoning By-law No. 436-1998 - Zoning Code Review with Respect to
Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities - File No. Z-2001B
9Appeal to Zoning By-law No. 438-1998 and Official Plan Amendment No. 58-97 -
Waddington Development Corporation, 411 Kipling Avenue - File No. Z-2239
10Appeal to Zoning By-law No. 491-1998 - Toys "R" Us (Canada) Ltd.690 Evans
Avenue - File No. Z-2260
11Amendments to the Zoning Code - Sterling Recycling Limited,31 Goodmark Place
- File No. Z-2265
12Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions
13Amendment to the Zoning Code - Lavington Properties 5 Lavington Drive - File
No. Z-2250
14School Levy - 2276 Lake Shore Boulevard West
15Confidential Report Regarding a Legal Matter
16Validation Certificate Application - 4975 Dundas Street West and 52 Mabelle
Avenue
17Other Items Considered by the Community Council
City of Toronto
REPORT No. 9
OF THE ETOBICOKE COMMUNITY COUNCIL
(from its meeting on September 16 and 17, 1998,
submitted by Councillor Irene Jones, Acting Chair)
As Considered by
The Council of the City of Toronto
on October 1 and 2, 1998
1
Introduction of Parking Prohibition - McCulloch Avenue
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:
Purpose:
To propose the introduction of a parking prohibition on both sides of McCulloch Avenue from
Enterprise Road to Highway 409.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained
in the 1998 Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)parking be prohibited on both sides of McCulloch Avenue between Enterprise Road and
Highway 409; and
(2)the appropriate by-law (Attachment No. 1) be amended accordingly.
Background:
The Transportation Services Division is in receipt of correspondence from Mr. Paul Mantella
(Attachment No. 2) and from Mr. Jonathan Kielb (Attachment No. 3), requesting the
introduction of a parking prohibition on the west side of McCulloch Avenue between
Enterprise Road and Highway409.
A new distribution facility is currently being constructed on the north-west corner of
McCullochAvenue and Enterprise Road. This high volume/high traffic distribution centre has
been limited to one shipping/receiving area off McCulloch Avenue. Currently, long-term
parking is occurring on the west side of McCulloch Avenue, which will make it very difficult
for trucks to access the shipping/receiving facility of this new distribution centre. A map of
the area is AttachmentNo. 4.
Discussion:
McCulloch Avenue is a two-lane roadway; parking is prohibited on the east side of the
McCullochAvenue between Enterprise Road and Highway 409. Parking is permitted on the
west side of McCulloch Avenue between Enterprise Road and Highway 409 for a maximum
of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is zoned Industrial, Class 2. A staff review
has found that excessive long-term parking occurs on the west side of McCulloch Avenue
between Enterprise Road and Highway 409, which will make it extremely difficult for trucks
to access the shipping/receiving area of this new distribution facility. Periodic police
enforcement has had little effect in rendering a long-term solution to this problem.
Conclusions:
Based on the staff examination of this matter, Council's endorsement of the recommendations
contained herein would be appropriate. The introduction of this parking prohibition will
ensure that trucks using the shipping/receiving area of this new distribution facility will have
an adequate, unobstructed turning radius from McCulloch Avenue into this facility.
Contact Name:
Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator,
Transportation and Engineering Planning.
(416) 394-8419; Fax 394-8942.
(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of
September 16, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
2
Establishment of Exclusive Right Turn Lanes - Rathburn Road
Various Locations
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:
Purpose:
To propose the designation of the right turn lanes (buses excepted) installed along the newly
re-configured section of Rathburn Road.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the installation of the pavement markings and regulatory signage
are contained in the 1998 Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the southerly eastbound lane of Rathburn Road between The East Mall and a point
30.5metres west thereof be designated as an exclusive right turn lane (buses excepted);
(2)the southerly eastbound lane of Rathburn Road between Martin Grove Road and a point
20.5metres west thereof be designated as an exclusive right turn lane (buses excepted);
(3)the easterly northbound lane of Martin Grove Road between Rathburn Road and a point
30.5metres south thereof be designated as an exclusive right turn lane (buses excepted);
(4)the westerly southbound lane of Martin Grove Road between Rathburn Road and a point
30.5metres north thereof be designated as an exclusive right turn lane (buses excepted); and
(5)the attached by-laws (Attachment Nos. 1 & 2) receive Council approval.
Background:
The former Etobicoke Council, at its meeting held on October 6, 1997, approved the alteration
of the existing pavement markings on Rathburn Road between The East Mall and Mimico
Creek to provide a two-lane cross-section with bicycle lanes on both sides of the roadway.
The sanctioned plans for this re-configuration included designated right turn lanes at the
intersections of Rathburn Road and The East Mall, and Rathburn Road and Martin Grove
Road. A map of the area is (AttachmentNo.2).
Comments and Discussion:
The re-alignment of the pavement markings on Rathburn Road between The East Mall and
MimicoCreek was completed in July of 1998. At this time, improvements, including the
installation of right turn lanes, were made at the intersections of Rathburn Road and Martin
Grove Road and Rathburn Road and The East Mall. These improvements will avert any
anticipated problems in the intersections with merging traffic, as the traffic now narrows to
one lane on both Rathburn Road and Martin Grove Road.
Conclusions:
The introduction of these by-law amendments will improve the management of traffic flow in
intersections along the newly reconfigured Rathburn Road.
Contact Name:
Don Pardoe, Construction Traffic Co-Ordinator,
Transportation and Engineering Planning.
(416)394-8422; Fax: (416)394-8942.
(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of
September 16, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the Clerk.)
3
Establishment of Designated Bicycle Lanes - Rathburn Road
Between The East Mall and Mimico Creek
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:
Purpose:
To propose the designation of the bicycle lanes installed on the north and south sides of
RathburnRoad between The East Mall and Mimico Creek.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the installation of the pavement markings and regulatory signage
are contained in the 1998 Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)the bicycle lanes installed on Rathburn Road between The East Mall and a point 300.0
metres east of Martin Grove Road be constituted;
(2)a "No Stopping Anytime" prohibition be installed on both sides of Rathburn Road and a
point 300.0metres east of Martin Grove Road; and
(3)the attached by-laws (Attachment Nos. 1, 2, and 3) receive Council approval.
Background:
The former Etobicoke Council, at its meeting held on October 6, 1997, approved the alteration
of the existing pavement marking configurations on Rathburn Road between The East Mall
and MimicoCreek to provide a two-lane cross-section with designated bicycle lanes on both
sides of the roadway. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.
Comments and Discussion:
The re-alignment of the pavement markings on Rathburn Road between The East Mall and
MimicoCreek was completed in July of 1998, in accordance with plans developed by City
staff in consultation with the Executive of the Community of Rathburn-Grove Ratepayers.
Conclusions:
The by-laws included in this report will give effect to the designation of the installation of the
bicycle lanes and the stopping regulations associated with them.
Contact Name:
Don Pardoe, Construction Traffic Co-ordinator,
Transportation and Engineering Planning.
(416)394-8422; Fax:(416)394-8942.
(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of
September 16, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
4
Parking Prohibition - Dalesford Road, West of Winslow Street
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:
Purpose:
To propose a No Parking Anytime prohibition on Dalesford Road, from a point 42.0 metres
west of Winslow Street to a point 9.0 metres west thereof.
Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the installation of regulatory signs are contained in the
Transportation Service Division's Operating Budget.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)a No Parking Anytime prohibition be introduced on Dalesford Road, from a point 42.0
metres west of Winslow Street to a point 9.0 metres west thereof; and
(2)the attached by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.
Background:
The Parks and Recreation Department are currently proposing a parkette plan (Attachment
No. 2) for the new Winslow/Dalesford Parkette located on the north side of Dalesford Road,
west of Winslow Street. The Transportation and Engineering Planning Division has been
requested to review an on-street parking proposal from area residents and the Parks and
Recreation Department. A map of the area is AttachmentNo. 3.
Comments:
The side of the roadway that a park/parkette fronts onto is typically signed a No Parking
Anytime area. This prohibition addresses the issue of children running out from parked
vehicles into the travel portion of the roadway.
Concerns regarding on-street parking demand have been raised by the residents of the new
townhouse development on the south side of Dalesford Road opposite the parkette. A parking
prohibition on the north side, along the frontage of the parkette, would create a shortage of
on-street parking for visitors to the townhouse development. The driveways to the units of
these townhome complexes are relatively small in size and can only accommodate one
vehicle. Furthermore, a No Parking Anytime restriction exists on the south side of Dalesford
Road between Wesley Street and GrandAvenue. An amendment to this prohibition would not
be feasible given the proximity of the driveways to each other.
In order to allow parking on the north side of Dalesford Road, along the majority of the
frontage of the parkette, the Parks and Recreation Department are proposing a chain link fence
to be erected on the municipal road allowance in front of the parkette. The fence will provide a
physical barrier between the park and the roadway, preventing children from running onto the
roadway. However, parking will have to be prohibited on Dalesford Road in a 9 metre section
in front of the entrance to the parkette at its west limit. Parking prohibitions (corner
restrictions) exist on the north side of Dalesford Road, west of Winslow Street, and on the
west side of Winslow Street, north of DalesfordRoad in front of the east limit of the parkette.
Conclusions:
Although parking along a frontage of a park/parkette is typically prohibited, the proposed
chain link fence on the municipal road allowance in front of the Winslow/Dalesford Parkette
addresses the issue of children running from the parkette and onto the roadway. Therefore, a
parking prohibition on the north side of Dalesford is only required on the 9 metre section in
front of the park entrance at its west limit. This parking proposal addresses the concerns of the
area residents in terms of parking demand and pedestrian safety.
Contact Name:
Mark Hargot, Traffic Co-ordinator
Transportation and Engineering Planning.
(416)394-8453; Fax (416)394-8942
(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of
September 16, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
5
Greensboro Drive - Road Improvements
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning:
Purpose:
To respond to a request from Mr. Darius F. Maison of Soheil Mosun Ltd. for road
improvement on Greensboro Drive (Attachment No. 1).
Funding Sources:
Greensboro Drive will be tentatively scheduled for improvement in the 1999 Road
Resurfacing Program; funds to be included in the 1999 Capital Budget - Transportation
Services Division.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)this report be received;
(2)any immediate road and boulevard repairs be carried out by the Operations Division; and
(3)the necessary road and boulevard improvement for Greensboro Drive, as described in this
report, be included in the 1999 Road Resurfacing Program.
Background:
The Etobicoke Community Council received a letter dated July 6, 1998, from Soheil Mosun
Limited, in which the repaving of the road and the construction of curbs and a sidewalk along
the north side of the road were requested.
Discussion:
Greensboro Drive is a short local industrial road located immediately north of the Kipling
Avenue Bridge over Highway 401. The road is an approximately 400 m long cul-de-sac
(AttachmentNo.2). At present, there are no sidewalks along the road. Drainage ditches have
been used effectively on Greensboro Drive to direct stormwater to the nearby catchbasins.
An assessment of the structural characteristics of the road revealed that the overall pavement
structure of the road is still sound; deteriorations are mostly confined to the road shoulders
and the pavement surface of the road. The deteriorations found on the pavement surface are
caused by aging of the asphalt mix and the deteriorations found on the surface of the road
shoulders are caused by excessive parking along the edges of the road. A new layer of hot mix
asphalt will rejuvenate the road surface and extend the service life of the road by more then 15
years. The damaged areas on the road shoulders can be repaired by applying new layers of
stone clip sealing. New sodding can also be added to the ditches to improve the aesthetic
values of the road when the road is being resurfaced.
It is anticipated that the pedestrians on Greensboro Drive are mostly the employees of the area
industries who do not drive to work. A pedestrian utilization study will be carried out to
establish the need for a sidewalk on the north side of the road prior to proceeding with any
road work.
Conclusions:
The most cost-effective method to rejuvenate the surface condition of Greensboro Drive and
improve the aesthetic values of the road is to resurface the road. Staff has tentatively
scheduled the work to be carried out in 1999 under the 1999 Road Resurfacing Program. A
pedestrian utilization study will establish the need for a sidewalk on the north side of the road.
Contact Name:
Wai Yeung, M.Eng., P.Eng., Manager - Road Planning
Transportation and Engineering Planning
(416)394-8409; Fax: (416)394-8404.
(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of
September 16, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
6
Major Encroachment Agreement - 2 Stanmills Road
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:
Purpose:
To authorize the execution of a Major Encroachment Agreement for an existing chain link
fence and stone retaining wall at 2 Stanmills Road.
Financial Implications:
Major Encroachment Agreements involve a one-time $700.00 application fee and an annual
rental fee of $10.00 per square metre of public road allowance occupied or enclosed by the
encroaching item. In this case, policy requires an annual rental fee of $258.00 (i.e., $223.00
per year for the wall and $35.00 for the fence).
Recommendations:
It is recommended that:
(1)Etobicoke Community Council approve the application for a Major Encroachment
Agreement;
(2)the City Solicitor be instructed to prepare an appropriate Agreement; and
(3)the $258.00 annual rental fee normally associated with this encroachment be waived, but
the applicant be required to pay the one-time $700.00 application fee representing the City's
costs to administer the Agreement.
Background:
A new survey (Attachment No. 1), prepared for the sale of Ms. Trionfo's property which
closed on July10,1998, revealed the encroachments of a 4 foot high chain link fence and a 2.5
foot high stone retaining wall onto the Stanmills Road and Islington Avenue public road
allowances (AttachmentNo.2). On July9,1998, Ms. Trionfo submitted a written application
(AttachmentNo.3), via her solicitor, for a MajorEncroachment Agreement to allow the fence
and retaining wall to remain. A substantial monetary sum has been placed in trust by the
applicant to protect the purchaser pending Council's decision on this matter. Ms. Trionfo's
application also included a request that the annual rental fee be waived.
Comments:
The retaining wall corrects a slope in the grade surrounding the dwelling on site facilitating
yard maintenance. Although no confirming documentation has been located, it appears that
the retaining wall has been in place in excess of 30 years without complaint and predates the
current Road Allowance Encroachment Policy which was created in 1994. The chain link
fence also appears to predate existing policy and would, on its own, represent a Minor
Encroachment requiring no annual rental fee. Prior to the current policy, road allowance
encroachments required no annual rental fee.
The applicant will be required to comply with the terms set out in the Road Allowance
Encroachment Policy including insuring the City against liability claims for a minimum of
$2,000,000.00 and accepting responsibility to maintain the encroaching items. The life of the
Agreement is subject to the pleasure of Council and/or the Commissioner of Works and
Emergency Services and all encroaching items must be removed at the expense of the owner
with 30 days written notice from the City.
Conclusions:
The items have encroached onto public road allowance for an extensive period of time without
objection from the City, area residents and/or outside agencies. The retaining wall encourages
maintenance of private property and the surrounding public road allowance by the resident
and preserves area aesthetics at no cost to the City.
Contact Name:
D. Robertson, Budget/Road Allowance Coordinator,
Transportation Services Division.
(416)394-8360; Fax 394-8942.
(Copies of Attachment Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all
Members of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of
September 16, 1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
7
Fire Route Designation - 630 Evans Avenue
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the City Clerk:
Purpose:
To obtain Council approval for the enactment of the appropriate by-law to approve the final
designation of a fire route to enable by-law enforcement officers to tag illegally parked
vehicles within the designated fire route.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The property owner is required to pay the cost for the installation of the fire route signs, by the
Works Department, in addition to any signs that may require replacing, in the future.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)the final designation of Fire Routes under Chapter 134 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code
be approved at the following location:
630 Evans Avenue
(2)the appropriate by-law be enacted by City Council.
Background:
On April 8, 1975, "An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke" received Royal Assent. A
portion of the Act, Section 2, allows the Corporation to pass by-laws regulating and
designating fire routes. Each property requires the enactment of two by-laws: (1) to allow the
Works Department to install and maintain the required number of fire route signs on each
property, and (2) to allow appropriate officials to tag and/or remove vehicles illegally parked
within the designated fire route area.
In instances when changes have been made to a property, such as additions to existing
buildings, the construction of additional new buildings on the site or revisions to the parking
areas, it is necessary to amend the designating fire route by-law.
Comment:
It is appropriate for Etobicoke Community Council to authorize the enactment of this by-law.
Similar By-laws will be presented to Community Council on an ongoing basis. As all former
area municipalities have different procedures for processing fire routes, revisions to
Etobicoke's existing procedures may be amended in the future.
Conclusion:
In keeping with the Fire Department's regulations, it is appropriate to enact this by-law to
allow the By-law Enforcement Officers to tag vehicles that are illegally parked in fire route
zones.
Contact Name:
Teresa Robillard, Clerk's Department
Tel: (416) 394-8081
8
Appeal to Zoning By-law No. 436-1998 - Zoning Code Review
with
Respect to Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities - File No. Z-2001B
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the City Clerk:
Purpose:
To authorize the City Solicitor and staff to proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board for
approval of By-Law No. 436-1998, notwithstanding the appeal from Mr. Neil G. Davis,
DavisWebbSchulze&Moon, on behalf of U-Pak Disposals Limited. (see attachment)
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Cost associated with legal and staff time required to prepare and attend Ontario Municipal
Board hearing.
Recommendation:
That the City Solicitor and staff be authorized to proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board for
approval of By-Law No. 436-1998 to amend Chapters304, 320 and 350 of the Etobicoke
Zoning Code with respect to Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities.
Background:
A public meeting was held by the Etobicoke Community Council on June 24, 1998 to obtain
the views of all interested parties with respect to the amendment of the Etobicoke Zoning
Code as addressed in a Planning staff report dated May 6, 1998. At its meeting held on
July8,9and10,1998, Council adopted Clause 9 embodied in Report No. 7 of the Etobicoke
Community Council, thereby approving the amendments. Subsequently, Council passed
By-LawNo.436-1998 which confirmed this approval amending Chapters 304, 320 and 350 of
the Etobicoke Zoning Code, with respect to Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities.
Conclusion:
It is normal practice to authorize the City Solicitor and staff to proceed to the Ontario
Municipal Board for approval of a zoning by-law, and such authorization is hereby requested.
Contact Name:
Lorena Hargot, By-Law Clerk
Clerk's Department
Tel: (416) 394-8083
(Copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members
of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 16,
1998, and copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
9
Appeal to Zoning By-law No. 438-1998 and Official Plan
Amendment No. 58-97 - Waddington Development Corporation,
411 Kipling Avenue - File No. Z-2239
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the City Clerk:
Purpose:
To authorize the City Solicitor and staff to proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board for
approval of By-Law Nos. 438-1998 and 437-1998, notwithstanding the appeals from Mr. A.
Milliken Heisey, Kerzner, Papazian, MacDermid, on behalf of Canadian National Railway.
(see attachment)
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Cost associated with legal and staff time required to prepare and attend Ontario Municipal
Board hearing.
Recommendation:
That the City Solicitor and staff be authorized to proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board for
approval of By-Law No. 438-1998 to rezone the lands from Class 1 Industrial (I.C1) to
Second Density Residential (R2) specifically modified to permit a 17 unit townhouse and
semi-detached dwelling development on the east side of Kipling Avenue, south of New
Toronto Street with a portion fronting onto Seventeenth Street, and By-Law No. 437-1998 to
adopt Amendment No. 58-97 to the Official Plan of the Etobicoke Planning Area.
Background:
A public meeting under the Planning Act was held by the former City of Etobicoke on
September30,1997, to obtain the views of all interested parties with respect to this rezoning
application as addressed in a Planning staff report dated September 9, 1997. At its meeting
held on Monday, October 6, 1997, Etobicoke Council adopted Clause218 of the Seventeenth
Report of the Planning and Development Committee, 1997, thereby approving the application.
Subsequently, Toronto City Council passed By-LawNo.438-1998 which confirmed this
approval amending Chapters 304, 350 and 352 of the Etobicoke Zoning Code with respect to
the subject lands, and also passed By-LawNo.437-1998 to adopt Amendment No. 58-97 to the
Official Plan of the Etobicoke Planning Area in order to redesignate the subject lands.
Conclusion:
It is normal practice to authorize the City Solicitor and staff to proceed to the Ontario
Municipal Board for approval of a zoning by-law, and such authorization is hereby requested.
Contact Name:
Lorena Hargot, By-Law Clerk
Clerk's Department
Tel: (416) 394-8083
(Copy of Attachment No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members
of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 16,
1998, and copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
10
Appeal to Zoning By-law No. 491-1998 - Toys "R" Us (Canada)
Ltd.
690 Evans Avenue - File No. Z-2260
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the City Clerk:
Purpose:
To authorize the City Solicitor and staff to proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board for
approval of By-Law No. 491-1998, notwithstanding the appeals from Mr. Stephen J.
D'Agostino, Thomson Rogers, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of Sheridan Nurseries
Limited and Mr. Paul J. Peterson, McCarthy Tetrault, Barristers and Solicitors, on behalf of
The Canada Life Assurance Company.
(see attachments)
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
Cost associated with legal and staff time required to prepare and attend Ontario Municipal
Board hearing.
Recommendation:
That the City Solicitor and staff be authorized to proceed to the Ontario Municipal Board for
approval of By-Law No. 491-1998 to allow the full range of uses permitted by the
Commercial Limited (CL) zone in an expanded building on the lands located on the north side
of Evans Avenue, east of Sherway Gate.
Background:
A public meeting was held by the Etobicoke Community Council on May 6, 1998, to obtain
the views of all interested parties with respect to the amendment of the Etobicoke Zoning
Code as addressed in a Planning staff report dated April 1, 1998. At its meeting held on May
13 and 14, 1998, Council adopted Clause20 contained in Report No. 5 of the Etobicoke
Community Council, thereby approving the application. Subsequently, Toronto City Council
passed By-LawNo.491-1998 which confirmed this approval amending Chapters 320 and 324
of the Etobicoke Zoning Code with respect to the subject lands.
Conclusion:
It is normal practice to authorize the City Solicitor and staff to proceed to the Ontario
Municipal Board for approval of a zoning by-law, and such authorization is hereby requested.
Contact Name:
Lorena Hargot, By-Law Clerk
Clerk's Department
Tel: (416) 394-8083
(Copies of the Attachments referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members
of Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 16,
1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
11
Amendments to the Zoning Code - Sterling Recycling Limited,
31 Goodmark Place - File No. Z-2265
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council, based on the findings of fact, conclusions and
recommendations contained in the following report (July22,1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District, and for the reason that the
proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that:
(1)the application submitted by Sterling Recycling Limited regarding a zoning by-law
amendment for 31 Goodmark Place, be approved; and
(2)the following report from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke
District (July 22, 1998) with respect to the application be adopted:
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on
September16,1998 in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate
notice of this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations
thereunder:
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:
Purpose:
To consider a proposed amendment to the Industrial Class 2 (I.C2) provisions of the
Etobicoke Zoning Code to legalize the existing plastic recycling facility operating at 31
Goodmark Place.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
City funding is not required.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the application by Sterling Recycling Limited to amend the Industrial
Class2 provisions of the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit a recycling facility at 31 Goodmark
Place be approved subject to the holding of a Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested
parties and, if approved, the conditions outlined in this report be fulfilled.
Background:
Sterling Recycling leases a 0.93 ha (2.3 acre) site at 31 Goodmark Place (see Exhibit No. 1).
The site contains a 3 110 m2 (33,473 sq.ft.) industrial building operated as a plastic recycling
facility since fall of 1993.
In October 1993, the Etobicoke Works and Environment Committee received a report
concerning a certificate of approval for the applicant to operate a plastic recycling facility at
this site. It was noted at that time that Sterling Recycling was required to submit an
application for amendment to the Zoning Code to permit this use. Although, the certificate
was issued by the Ministry of Environment, the proponent did not file the required application
for by-law amendment.
Due to action by By-law Enforcement staff, the applicant has now submitted the required
application.
Proposal:
The applicant is seeking a rezoning from the existing Industrial Class 2 (I.C2) zoning to the
Industrial Class 3 (I.C3). The (I.C3) zone permits recycling facilities. No changes are
proposed to the existing facility or site layout. Sterling's operation consists of crushing plastic
containers, washing and removing impurities from the crushed material; and packing that
material for transport to local and U.S. manufacturers. Waste water is treated then discharged
into the City sanitary sewer system. Solid wastes (about 5%) are collected for disposal by a
contractor.
The following is a summary of relevant information.
Official PlanIndustrial
Zoning existingIndustrial Class 2 (I.C2)
proposedIndustrial Class 3 (I.C3)
Site Area0.93 ha(2.3 acres)
GFAindustrial(30,123 sq.ft.)( 90%)
office( 3,350 sq.ft.)( 10%)
total3 110 m2 (33,473 sq.ft.)(100%)
FSI0.33
Parking Required33 spaces
Parking Provided40 spaces
Comment:
Official Plan
The proposal conforms with the Industrial designation of the Official Plan.
Zoning
The site is zoned Industrial Class 2 (I.C2) which does not permit recycling facilities, therefore,
an amendment is required.
Agency/Department Circulation:
In response to the circulation of this application, no objections have been expressed.
The Fire Department notes that the facility requires an updated sprinkler system.
The Works Department indicates that there have been no complaints or violations reported at
this site. The operation is not considered to have potential environmental problems and there
has been no recorded traffic related difficulties in connection with this operation.
Other Considerations:
Although the applicant has requested a rezoning to an Industrial Class 3 (I.C3) zoning
category. Staff feel it would be more appropriate to retain the I.C2 zoning on this site and add
this specific recycling use as a permitted use.
Conclusions:
Staff conclude that this application presents no environmental problems or impacts on
adjacent lands, therefore, is acceptable for this site. The site conforms to the Supplementary
Regulations for Waste Disposal/Recycling Facilities contained in Section 320-24.3 of the
Zoning Code. Should this application be approved, the following conditions should apply.
Conditions to Approval:
1.Prior to the amending by-law being adopted, the applicant to meet the requirements of the
Fire Department.
2.The amending by-law shall reaffirm the I.C2 zoning of the site and add the Sterling
Recycling use as a permitted use.
Contact Name:
Ed Murphy, Planner - North District
Development and Design
Tel: (416) 394-8234,Fax: (416) 394-6063
(Copy of Exhibit No. 1, referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of
Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 16,
1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
12
Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Community Planning, West Office:
Purpose:
To advise Toronto Council of a number of Committee of Adjustment Decisions which have
been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board and to recommend whether legal and staff
representation is warranted.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
There will be financial costs associated with the appeal recommended for legal representation.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that:
(1)Legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeals regarding
ApplicationNo.A-91/98ET, 182 Humbervale Boulevard; Application No. A-197/98ET,
24Lorene Drive; Application No. A-192/98ET, 10 King George's Road;
ApplicationNos.B-38/98ET, A-276/98ET and A-277/98ET, 40 and 42 Elma Street;
Application No. A-224/98ET, 35 Loma Road; A-243/98, 30 Algie Avenue;
ApplicationNo.A-193/98ET, 64 King George's Road; Application No. A-126/98ET,
4222Dundas Street West; Application No. A-250/98ET, 12 Clay Court; and,
ApplicationNo.A-220/98ET, 44 Simpson Avenue.
(2)Legal and staff representation be provided for the appeal regarding
ApplicationNo.A-18/98ET, 380 The East Mall.
Comment:
The applications and appeals are summarized as follows:
(I)Address:182 Humbervale Boulevard (Lakeshore-Queensway)
Applicant:Spencer Barrett and Suzanne Barrett
Appellant:Gloria Kells (180 Humbervale Boulevard)
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The site is occupied by a two-storey and partial one-storey detached dwelling.
The applicant proposes to construct two, second-storey additions over the one-storey
components of the dwelling. The existing dwelling exhibits side yard setbacks of 1.08 m (3.5
ft.) and 0.91 m (3.0 ft.) with an aggregate side yard setback of 1.99 m (6.5 ft.) The Zoning
Code requires a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 m (5.0ft.) and an aggregate of 4.13 m (13.5
ft.). The proposed second floor additions would be built in line with the existing walls of the
dwelling and relief is requested to recognize the existing deficient side yard setbacks.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Granted.
Staff Recommendation:Legal representation is not recommended.
(ii)Address:24 Lorene Drive (Markland-Centennial)
Applicant:Roman M. And Lesia M. Zelyk
Appellant:Stephen and Judith Young (2 Hamlyn Crescent)
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The applicants propose to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a
two-storey, single detached dwelling with an attached two car garage. The requested variances
to By-law No. 1992-23 seek a gross floor area of 336.67 m2 (3,624 sq.ft.) with a
corresponding floor space index of 0.45. The variance exceeds the maximum floor area
permitted by 17.33 m2 (187 sq.ft.) and the FSI by 0.02. In addition, a dwelling depth of 20.42
m (67 ft.) is being sought, which exceeds the limit by 3.9 m (13 ft).
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Granted.
Staff Recommendation:Legal representation is not recommended.
(iii)Address:10 King George's Road (Kingsway-Humber)
Applicant:Martyn F. Boyce and Patricia J. Boyce
Appellant:Ron Rhodes
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The applicants propose to maintain and legalize converted attic space and seek a
variance to the provisions of By-law No. 1993-108 which allows a maximum gross floor area
of 289.5 m2 (3,117 sq.ft.). With the conversion of the attic space, the gross floor area would be
362.5m2 (3,902 sq.ft.), an increase of 73 m2 (786 sq.ft.).
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Granted.
Staff Recommendation:Legal representation is not recommended.
(iv)Address:40 and 42 Elma Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)
Applicant:988228 Ontario Limited
Appellant:988228 Ontario Limited
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The site has a frontage of 15.2 m (50.0 ft.). The applicant proposes to sever the
lot into two separate properties, each with a frontage of 7.62 m (25.0 ft.) and a lot area of
290.3 m2 (3,124.8 sq.ft.). The applicant would retain the existing dwelling on one lot and the
severed lot would be developed as a single detached dwelling with a shared driveway. The
Second Density Residential (R2) Mimico zone requires a minimum lot frontage of 10.5 m
(34.4 ft.) and a lot area of 325 m2 (3,498.3 sq.ft.). In addition, the applicant is requesting a
reduced side yard setback for the conveyed lot.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Staff Recommendation:The lot area and frontage figures of the proposed lots would be
similar to the lot standards exhibited by a number of properties in the immediate area. Legal
representation is not recommended.
(v)Address:35 Loma Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)
Applicant:Juvenal Mateus and Ilona Mateus
Appellant:Juvenal Mateus and Ilona Mateus
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The applicants propose to construct a 2.67 m high security gate across the side
driveway of a single detached dwelling. The height of proposed gate would exceed the 1.9 m
maximum required in the Zoning Code.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Staff Recommendation:Legal representation is not recommended.
(vi)Address:30 Algie Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)
Applicant:Winzen Corporation Limited
Appellant:Winzen Corporation Limited
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The site is occupied by an industrial building to which a side lean-to structure
was added without a building permit. The applicant proposes to legalize and maintain the
location of the lean-to structure which was built to the side lot line, while a minimum 3 m side
yard setback is required by the Zoning Code.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused.
Staff Recommendation:The immediate area contains a mix of small-scale industrial,
commercial and low density residential uses, some of which have limited yard setbacks. Legal
representation is not recommended.
(vii)Address:64 King George's Road (Kingsway-Humber)
Applicant:Philip Norman Stafford and Katheryn Collins
Appellants:Andrew and Anna Chorny (62 King Georges Road)
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The site is occupied by a two-storey and partial one storey detached dwelling
with an attached garage. The applicant proposes to construct a one-storey addition in line with
the east side wall of the two-storey portion of the dwelling. A second storey addition will be
constructed over the rear one-storey portion of the dwelling, including the attached two-car
garage. The existing dwelling has a depth of 23.41m (76.8 ft.). Following the construction of
the proposed additions, the depth of the dwelling will be 24.03 m (78.84 ft.) with a
corresponding gross floor area of 328.69m2 (3,538 sq.ft.). The Zoning Code provides for a
maximum dwelling depth of 16.5 m (54.13 ft.) and a maximum gross floor area of 304.62 m2
(3,279 sq.ft.).
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Granted.
Staff Recommendation:Legal representation is not recommended.
(viii)Address:4222 Dundas Street West (Kingsway-Humber)
Applicant:Beta Limited
Appellant:Paul McGregor (4214 Dundas Street West)
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The applicants propose to demolish an existing animal hospital building and to
develop the rear portion of the lands with a new one-storey and partial two-storey animal
hospital. Nine (9) parking spaces are proposed to be located at the front of the site. The
variances to By-law No. 4321 would allow: a coverage of 235 m2 (2,530 sq.ft.) which exceeds
the maximum coverage permitted by 10.5% (81.08m2/873 sq.ft.); a building height of 9.15 m
(30 ft.) rather than the maximum 7.62 m (25 ft.); and, recognize nine (9) parking spaces for
the intended use.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Granted.
Staff Recommendation:Legal representation is not recommended.
(ix)Address:12 Clay Court (Kingsway-Humber)
Applicant:Frank Giordano
Appellant:Frank Giordano
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The applicant proposes to legalize and maintain an existing driveway on a pie
shaped lot. The driveway has a width of 6.7 m (22 ft.) and a total area of 77.6 m2 (835 sq.ft.)
which represents 61.6% of the front yard. The Zoning Code does not permit driveways with a
width greater than 6.0 m (20 ft.) and an area which is greater than 40% of the front yard.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused
Staff Recommendation:Legal representation is not recommended.
(x)Address:44 Simpson Avenue (Lakeshore-Queensway)
Applicant:Peter Lisik
Appellant:Peter Lisik
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The applicant has partially constructed a detached single car garage with a side
storage area without a building permit. In order to complete the project, variances are required
to permit the accessory structures exhibiting a lot coverage of 16.9% and rear yard coverage of
35.5%. The Zoning Code limits coverage of accessory structures to 10% and 35%,
respectively.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Refused
Staff Recommendation:Legal representation is not recommended.
(xi)Address: 380 The East Mall
Applicant:Loblaws Properties Limited
Appellants:A & P Properties Limited and Richard A. Francis
Hearing Date:To be determined by the OMB
Application:The applicant proposes to develop two, one-storey commercial buildings. The
main commercial building will be constructed in the southwest portion of the site and will be
occupied by a Loblaws supermarket. The second commercial building will be constructed in
the north portion of the site and will be occupied by a variety of uses. Amendments to By-law
1997-90 were sought to eliminate commercial floor space and mezzanine floor area
limitations for the supermarket building.
Decision of Committee of Adjustment:Granted.
Staff Recommendation:The minor variances have been requested to permit a larger
supermarket and mezzanine area through the utilization of floor space that would have been
allocated to other neighbourhood commercial facilities located on the same property. The
applicant is not seeking to increase the maximum gross floor area of the buildings (8 850 m2
or 95,264 sq.ft.) permitted under By-law 1997-90. The applicant has provided an addendum to
the original Market Impact Study which concluded that the impacts of the larger supermarket
are acceptable. A peer review has been undertaken and supports such a conclusion. Given
Council's recent approval of this project and support of the By-law at the Ontario Municipal
Board, staff recommend that legal and staff representation be provided in support of the
Committee's decision.
Conclusion:
The subject appeals were reviewed by staff who are of the opinion that appeal item (xi)
involves substantive planning issues; therefore, legal and staff representation at the Ontario
Municipal Board is warranted for this appeal.
As items (i) (ii), (iii), (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) do not involve substantive planning
issues, legal and staff representation at the Ontario Municipal Board is not warranted for these
appeals.
Contact Name:
Richard Kendall, Principal Planner
Community Planning, West District
Tel: (416)394-8227, Fax:(416)394-6063
13
Amendment to the Zoning Code - Lavington Properties
5 Lavington Drive - File No. Z-2250
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council after considering the deputations, written
submissions filed and the report of the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke
District(May6,1998) and the supplementary report of the Director of Community
Planning, West District (September 16, 1998) and for the reason that the proposal is an
appropriate use of the lands, recommends that
(1)the application submitted by Lavington Properties, regarding a zoning by-law
amendment for 5 Lavington Drive, be approved as amended by the following:
(i)minimum square footage of the rental units to be 650 sq. ft.; and
(ii)as lease renewals occur for business units on the second floor, the tenants be
relocated to the ground floor;
(2)the following report (i) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke
District (May 6, 1998) with respect to the application be adopted; and
(3)the following supplementary report (ii) from the Director of Community Planning,
West District (September 16, 1998) be received for information:
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting on
May6,1998, in accordance with Section 34 of the Planning Act, and that appropriate notice of
this meeting was given in accordance with the Planning Act and the regulations thereunder; at
which time the Etobicoke Community Council:
(1)deferred consideration of the following report (May 6, 1998) to a future evening meeting
of the Etobicoke Community Council for a continuation of the statutory public meeting;
(2)requested that the Staff Inspector at No. 22 Division, Toronto Police Service, be invited to
attend at that time with respect to various issues raised by the area residents;
(3)requested the Property Use Division of the Urban Development Department to report on
complaints about the condition of the subject property; and
(4)requested a further report from the Urban Development Department on whether the
property presently complies with parking standards:
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 6, 1998) from the
Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District:
Purpose:
To consider a proposal to amend the Zoning Code to legalize 8 existing apartment units
located above the plaza at 5 Lavington Drive, and to permit four additional units in a 403 m2
(4,340sq.ft.) addition to the plaza, for a total of 12 apartment units.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the application by Lavington Properties be the subject of a Public
Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions outlined
in this report be fulfilled.
Background:
The subject property is located at the south west corner of Lavington Drive and Celestine
Drive and was developed as a neighbourhood plaza in 1958. The current owners, Lavington
Properties, acquired the site in 1988. During a review of building permit plans submitted for
Fire Code retrofits in 1997, it was determined that the second floor offices of the plaza had
been converted into residential apartment units. The applicants were advised that the Planned
Commercial Preferred (CPL) zoning of the property does not permit residential uses and that
the units should be legalized.
In August 1997, an application for rezoning was submitted to recognize the existing
apartments and permit an addition to the plaza to accommodate four additional units for a total
of 12 units.
Site Description and Surrounding Uses:
The site is approximately .38 ha (0.9 ac) in size with frontage on Lavington Drive and
Celestine Drive (Exhibit No. 1). The plaza is centrally located on the site with surface parking
available around the building; vehicular access is provided from both Celestine Drive and
Lavington Drive. There are no landscaped areas on site. Seven commercial units are located at
grade with two commercial units below grade. A partial second storey over the easterly half of
the plaza contains eight existing residential apartment units.
Surrounding lands on the north and east sides of Lavington Drive and Celestine Drive are
zoned Second Density Residential (R2) and have been developed with single detached
dwellings. MartinGrove Gardens Park, zoned Public Open Space (OS), is located immediately
to the west and EcoleElementaire Felix-Leclerc (formerly Martin Grove Gardens Junior
Public School), zoned Second Density Residential (R2), is immediately to the south.
Proposal:
Lavington Properties are requesting permission to amend the Planned Commercial Local
(CPL) provisions of the Zoning Code to legalize eight existing apartment units and permit the
construction of a 403 m2 (4,340 sq. ft.) addition to house four additional residential units for a
total of 12 rental units in connection with the existing plaza (Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3).
Exhibit No.1 is a map showing the location of the property. Exhibits Nos. 2 and 3 are
reductions of the site and elevation plans submitted by the applicant. A summary of site
statistics is as follows:
Official Plan:Neighbourhood Retail
Zoning:
ExistingPlanned Commercial Local (CPL)
ProposedPlanned Commercial Local (CPL), site specific
Site Area0.38 ha(0.94 ac)
Units12
Density66.6 uph26.6 upa (based residential portion of site area)
F.S.I.0.52
G.F.A.:
Commercial1 031 m211,097 sq. ft.
Residential 957 m210,300 sq. ft.
Total1 988 m221,397 sq. ft.
Coverage 957 m210,300 sq. ft. (25%)
Landscape Area 550 m2 5,925 sq. ft. (14%)
Paved Area2 313 m224,900 sq. ft. (61%)
Parking Required:commercial61 spaces (5.5 spaces per 93 m2)
residential12 spaces
total 73 spaces
Parking Provided:commercial37 spaces
residential12 spaces
total49 spaces
shortfall 24 spaces
The existing apartments are located above the grade related retail units in a partial second
storey over the easterly portion of the plaza. The applicants propose to introduce a second
storey addition over the single storey westerly portion of the plaza to accommodate the
additional four apartment units (Exhibit No. 3). The units would be a mix of one and two
bedrooms with an average unit size of 65.7m2 (708sq. ft.).
Comment:
Official Plan:
The site is designated Neighbourhood Retail in the Etobicoke Official Plan which permits
retail/service commercial uses and residential units above commercial developments within
the range of 35 to 75 units per hectare (14 to 30 units per acre) based on the proportion of the
site attributable to the residential use. Based on the required proportional calculations, the
proposal would exhibit a density of 66.6 uph (26.6 upa) which would be within the range
permitted by the Plan. Staff have evaluated the application based on the criteria for permitting
residential intensification in commercial designations, as contained in Section 4.3.16 of the
Plan, and are of the opinion that the proposal meets the criteria and an amendment to the
Official Plan is not required. Further, the proposal would conform to the policies of the Metro
Official Plan.
Zoning Code:
The site is zoned Planned Commercial Local (CPL) which does not permit residential uses
and requires parking to be provided at a ratio of 5.5 spaces for every 93 m2 (1,000 sq. ft.) of
commercial floor space. In the event of approval, staff recommend that a site specific by-law
be introduced to permit a maximum of 12 residential apartment units and a parking ratio of 3
spaces for every 93 m2 (1,000sq.ft.) of commercial floor area with development standards to
reflect the approved plans.
Land Use and Site Design Considerations:
The existing plaza is immediately flanked by a public school and parkland to the south and
west. The limited size of the proposal in combination with the separation distance between the
plaza and the single detached homes to the north and east on the opposite side of Lavington
Drive and CelestineDrive, would be sufficient to prevent any adverse impacts on the
surrounding neighbourhood. Further, the proposed second storey addition, containing four
units, would be located on the westerly portion of the plaza with the units oriented towards the
public park. It is anticipated that future residents would have access to social and recreational
facilities within the established residential community with little impact on the capacity of
local schools. The limited size of the proposal would not significantly impact on the operation
of the adjacent roadway system. As a result, the proposal would be compatible with
surrounding properties and would be an acceptable land use.
With respect to site design, the project would provide adequate space for parking, traffic
circulation and garbage/service areas. In response to comments made by staff and area
residents during a community meeting held on March 26, 1998, (for details see section on
Community Meeting) the applicant has reduced the area of asphalt around the building,
introduced a landscaped strip adjacent to the public boulevard and provided a garbage
enclosure.
Staff have visited the site and suggest that a number of further upgrades be made to property,
to include formal curbing of the driveway and parking areas, additional landscape material
and tree planting, the introduction of a low wall to screen the parking areas from surrounding
residential properties, the provision of additional refuse containers, and a review of safety and
security measures such as lighting. In the event of approval, staff suggest that revised plans be
submitted to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development Control and
that a financial guarantee be posted prior to the enactment of an amending by-law to ensure
compliance with the approved plans.
Agency/Department Circulation:
In response to the circulation of plan submitted in support of this application, no objections
have been expressed by the Fire Department, Toronto Hydro or the Health Department.
Comments from Parks and Recreation Services remain outstanding.
The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that the
applicants are required to provide environmental information to the City for peer review
(Exhibit No. 4).
The Transportation Planning Section of the Works Department has indicated that the parking
supply and vehicular site circulation is satisfactory (Exhibit No. 5). Transportation staff
recommend that the northerly access driveway onto Celestine Drive be closed and replaced
with landscaping. The applicant would be required to provide details of the refuse enclosure
and recycling to the Co-ordinator of Waste Management Programming.
In March, 1998, the applicants submitted a revised plan indicating the requested driveway
closure and an increase in the number of parking spaces from 44 to 49 spaces. Transportation
staff are satisfied with the revised parking supply and site layout (Exhibit No. 6). It is
recommended that the driveways be increased to 7.2 m (23.6ft.) in width and 12 parking
spaces be individually signed for the exclusive use of tenants between 6:00 p.m. and 9:00a.m.
Community Meeting:
On March 26, 1998, approximately eight people attended a community meeting to review the
proposal. The majority of persons in attendance did not object to the apartment units,
however, strong concerns were expressed regarding site conditions and on-going maintenance
of the property including the lack of trash cans on site, blowing and or loose garbage on-site,
poor grass cutting, boulevard parking, tire ruts in the boulevard and the lack of snow removal,
particularly on the City sidewalk.
To address these concerns, staff have recommended a number of upgrades to the property as
outlined earlier in this report.
Conclusions:
The form and density of the proposal would generally comply with the policies for the
residential intensification of commercial properties as contained in the Etobicoke Official
Plan. The limited scale and location of the proposal, immediately adjacent to a neighbourhood
park and public school, would have limited impact on the surrounding low density residential
community. No City-wide issues have been identified.
In order to improve site conditions and address certain issues with respect to site maintenance,
staff recommend that a number of modifications be made to the site including upgrades to
landscaping, paving, curbing, garbage enclosures, site lighting and refuse containers. In
addition, the applicants should be requested to post a financial guarantee prior to the
enactment of the amending by-law to ensure compliance with the approved plans.
In the event of approval, the following conditions should apply:
Conditions to Approval:
l.Fulfillent of the following conditions by the applicants prior to the enactment of an
amending by-law:
(i)Submission of plans and details outlining proposed garbage enclosure and refuse
containers, additional landscape material and tree planting, closure of the northerly driveway
access on Celestine Drive, formal curbing around driveways and parking areas, site lighting
and the provision of a low screen wall around parking areas to the satisfaction of the Staff
Advisory Committee on Development Control. The posting of an appropriate financial
guarantee will be required.
(ii)Submission of environmental information for peer review to the satisfaction of the Works
Department.
2.The amending by-law shall provide for the necessary amendments to the Planned
Commercial Local (CPL) zone to permit a maximum of 12 residential apartment units, a
parking ratio of 3 per 93 m2 (1,000 sq. ft.) of floor area and development standards to reflect
the approved plans.
Contact Name:
Jacquelyn Daley, Tel: (416)394-8229
Planner, Development and DesignFax: (416)394-6063
The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (September 16,
1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District:
Purpose:
To respond to a request from the Etobicoke Community Council for a further report to verify
whether or not the Property Use Section of the Urban Development Department has received
any complaints about the condition of the subject property; and, to address questions raised
during the public meeting regarding the ability of the plaza to comply with parking standards
and comments from the Toronto Police Department.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the following report be received for information.
Background:
On June 24, 1998, a public meeting was held to obtain the views of surrounding residents and
property owners regarding a rezoning application, submitted by Lavington Properties, to
permit 12 residential apartment units and a second floor addition in connection with the
existing commercial plaza located at 5 Lavington Drive (Exhibit No.1).
During the meeting area residents expressed strong concerns regarding the lack of property
maintenance, particularly with respect to loose garbage on-site, graffiti, snow removal,
boulevard parking, after-hours activity and lack of parking. Those residents in attendance
generally felt that the proposal to introduce residential units onto the site would only
aggravate these concerns. The Etobicoke Community Council requested staff to report on the
complaints received by the Property Use Division on the condition of the property and to
confirm if the plaza presently complies with parking standards. Staff were also requested to
contact the Toronto Police Department for comment on the application
Comment:
The applicant, Lavington Properties, purchased the plaza in 1988. Since that time, the
Property Use Division of the Urban Development Department has received one complaint. In
January, 1991, a complaint was received regarding the storage of an inoperative vehicle on
site. A Notice of Violation was sent to the applicant and the vehicle was removed within
seven days. No further complaints regarding site maintenance have been received.
With respect to parking, the property is zoned Planned Commercial Local (CPL) which
requires parking to be provided at the rate of 5.5 spaces per 93 m2 (1,000 sq.ft.) of commercial
floor area. Therefore, the amount of parking required for the existing commercial plaza, based
on 1 585 m2 (17,061 sq.ft.) of commercial floor space, is 94 parking spaces. The plaza is
currently striped to provide a total of 61 spaces, a shortfall of 33 spaces.
Transportation Planning staff are of the opinion that the parking ratio of 5.5 spaces per 93 m2
of commercial floor area is onerous for a facility of this size and suggest that a requirement of
3 spaces per 93 m2 would be more appropriate. The current proposal would result in a 403 m2
(4,340 sq.ft.) addition to the plaza residential purposes and the conversion of the existing
second floor commercial areas into residential units. As a result, the parking breakdown for
the proposal would be as follows:
Parking Requiredcommercial31 spaces (based on 3 spaces/93m2)
residential12 spaces
total43 spaces
Parking Proposedcommercial37 spaces
residential12 spaces
total49 spaces
surplus 6 spaces
Staff note that, although the plaza is currently providing 61 parking spaces, a number of these
spaces are substandard with respect to stall size and drive aisle access. The 49 parking spaces
proposed in connection with the proposed addition and residential uses would comply with
zoning code requirements.
The Toronto Police Department has verbally advised that they are aware of the existing
residential units in the plaza and have no concerns with the proposed expansion of the plaza
and additional residential units. A member of the Police Department will be in attendance at
the public meeting to answer any additional questions.
Conclusions:
That this report be received for information.
Contact Name:
Jacquelyn Daley, Tel: (416)394-8229
Planner, Development and DesignFax: (416)394-6063
(Copies of the Exhibits referred to in the foregoing report were forwarded to all Members of
Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 16,
1998, and copies thereof are on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
_____
The following person appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on behalf of the
applicant in connection with the foregoing:
-Mr. D. Cusimano, Architect.
The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in opposition to
the proposal, citing the generally run-down condition of the existing plaza, poor maintenance,
garbage, noise, etc.; the impact of extra traffic on Celestine Drive as a result of closing one
entrance to the site; the undesirable effect of introducing apartments and transient tenants into
a single family neighbourhood; the potential for increasing the existing loitering, undesirable
behaviour and apparent drug dealing that takes place, of concern to residents because of the
close proximity of schools; depreciation of property values, etc.;
-Mr. G. O'Brien;
-Mrs. M. Stephens;
-Mr. M. Chan;
-Mrs. G. Gallant;
- Mrs. J. Pollard; and
-Mr. F. Samek.
The following persons attended the continuation of the public meeting on September 16,
1998:
-Mr. G. O'Brier;
-Mrs. G. Gallant; and
-Representatives of the Toronto Police Department.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following
communication:
-(June 24, 1998) from Mrs. J. Samek, objecting to the proposal.
14
School Levy - 2276 Lake Shore Boulevard West
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 3, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson:
Purpose:
The purpose of this report is to provide further information relating to the clearance of the
requirement as stipulated by the City, regarding an agreement between the Toronto District
Board and the Developer.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
None.
Recommendations:
It is recommended that financial conditions to approval in plans of subdivision and site
control agreements should be cleared by written compliance rather than verbal advice.
Council Reference/Background/History:
Clause 16 in Report No. 6 of the Etobicoke Community Council, as adopted by the Council of
the City of Toronto at its meeting held on June 3, 4, and 5, 1998, directed that a report to the
Etobicoke Community Council be submitted as to the reasons why the contribution to the
School Board was not received as required under the Development Agreement for phase one
of the project. A report dated July 20, 1998, was provided to the Etobicoke Community
Council setting forth the history of the negotiations between the parties. The report indicated
that the condition relating to the agreement between the school board and the developer was
released by the City on receipt of verbal advice.
At its meeting held on Wednesday, July 22, 1998, the Etobicoke Community Council
requested a further report as to the exact nature of the release of the condition.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The development proposal was circulated in the usual course. One of the standard conditions
for approval was that the developer was required to resolve levies and financial contributions
toward the provision of school services, including the signing of any necessary agreements to
the satisfaction of the City of Etobicoke.
On March 17, 1997, Fabian Bianchi forwarded a memorandum to Paulo Stellato in which Mr.
Bianchi enclosed certain clearance letters relating to conditions imposed upon the developer.
Included in that package was a letter dated December 12, 1996, from the Board of Education
for the City of Etobicoke to the consultants, in which the Board of Education provides the
consultants with comments regarding the draft agreement, and an amended draft agreement
for execution.
In a note to file dated May 9, 1997, Paulo Stellato indicated that "T. Davidson advises that the
School Board issues (have) been resolved." Additionally, Mr. Stellato indicated that he "spoke
to S. Daoust and Mario Da Silva, who confirmed that the condition has been addressed
(ConditionNo. 14) and the draft plan can go forward. Said the Applicant's Consultant had
negotiated a settlement?"
By memorandum dated July 9, 1997, Paulo Stellato advised Metro Planning that the issue of
financial contributions for school services had been resolved, making reference to the letter
dated December12, 1996, from the Board of Education for the City of Etobicoke.
According to Sherryl Daoust, the Board provides a compliance letter, when compliance is
obtained. In speaking with Ms. Daoust, she confirmed that no compliance letter was issued.
Additionally, Ms.Daoust recalls that she did not give any verbal clearance to the City.
Mario Silva (referred to above as Mario Da Silva) recalls that he did not give any verbal
clearance to the City.
Conclusions:
Financial conditions to approval and plans of subdivision and site control agreements should
be cleared by way of written compliance letters, rather than verbal advice. The use of written
compliance letters not only eliminates ambiguity, but provides a permanent record for the file.
Contact Name:
John R. Hart, Solicitor
Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson
Tel: (416) 622-6601, Fax: (416) 622-4713
15
Confidential Report Regarding a Legal Matter
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the confidential report
dated September 3, 1998 from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson respecting the
settlement of a Committee of Adjustment matter, which was forwarded to Members of
Council under confidential cover.
(This report is to remain confidential in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Act.)
16
Validation Certificate Application - 4975 Dundas Street West and
52 Mabelle Avenue
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(September 3, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson:
Purpose:
This report is submitted for the purpose of requesting a validation certificate pursuant to the
Planning Act, to sever the properties municipally known as 4975 Dundas Street and 52
Mabelle Avenue because title to the properties was merged inadvertently through Articles of
Amalgamation.
Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
The cost of preparing this report and the subsequent certificate of validation will be borne by
the applicant. There are no other financial implications.
Recommendation:
We recommend that a certificate of validation in the form attached be issued in respect of the
properties at 4975 Dundas Street and 52 Mabelle Avenue.
Council Reference/Background/History:
In or about 1972, Analytical Investments Limited became the owner of 52 Mabelle Avenue.
In or about 1980, Jericho Investments Limited became the owner of 4975 Dundas Street.
The properties abut each other and therefore would be subject to the part lot provisions in the
Planning Act.
By Articles of Amalgamation dated June 1, 1994, Jericho Investments Limited,
AnalyticalInvestments Limited and seven other companies were amalgamated to form
FifthBrook Investments Inc. As a result of this amalgamation, FifthBrookInvestmentsInc.
became the registered owner of both the Mabelle property and the Dundas property.
On June 2, 1994, Fifth Brook Investments Inc. transferred the Dundas property to
1054879OntarioLimited and, on the same date, FifthBrookInvestmentsInc. transferred the
Mabelle property to 1054880OntarioLimited. The first transfer resulted in a breach of the
Planning Act, in that Fifth Brook Investments Inc. retained abutting lands (Mabelle) when it
conveyed the Dundas property.
Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The solicitors for the owner of the Dundas property have requested a validation certificate to
validate the transfer from Fifth Brook Investments Inc. to 1054879 Ontario Limited. Under
the Planning Act, Council is authorized to give severance consent by way of issuance of a
certificate of validation, which certificate would retroactively cure the title defect. However,
"the validation certificate does not affect the rights acquired by any person from a judgment or
order of any court given or made on or before the date on which the certificate is issued."
The amalgamation resulted in an inadvertent merger of title. We are informed by the solicitor
for 1054879 Ontario Limited that the amalgamation in this instance took place in order to
achieve a "butterfly reorganization". A "butterfly reorganization" enables parties who no
longer wish to work together to equitably distribute assets. All the assets which are jointly
held are amalgamated into one corporation, evaluated as a whole and then distributed to the
parties, enabling the parties to walk away and end the relationship. Apparently, the properties
at Dundas Street and MabelleAvenue were two such assets. Prior to the amalgamation, the
properties has been owned as separate properties and treated as such. As part of the
amalgamation, no consideration was given to the fact that the Mabelle and Dundas properties
were adjacent to each other.
Conclusions:
1.The properties at 4975 Dundas Street and 52 Mabelle Avenue were separately owned prior
to the amalgamation.
2.The amalgamation resulted in a merger of title with respect to the two properties.
3.The merger of title was inadvertent.
4.The issuance of a certificate of validation is appropriate in this matter.
Contact Name:
John R. Hart, Solicitor,
Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson
Tel: (416) 622-6601, Fax: (416) 622-4713
(Copy of the Attachment referred to in the foregoing report was forwarded to all Members of
Council with the agenda of the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of September 16,
1998, and a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
17
Other Items Considered by the Community Council
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)Road Surface - Islington Avenue Between Bloor Street and The Queensway.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)referred a request for the reconstruction of Islington Avenue, between Bloor Street
West and The Queensway, to be included in the 1999 Capital Budget, to the Budget
Committee; and
(2)received the following communications (i) and (ii):
(i)(July 28, 1998) from Mr. B. Melanson, regarding the deteriorating condition of Islington
Avenue, south of Bloor Street to The Queensway, and the need for immediate construction
work; and
(ii)(September 8, 1998) from the Director, Transportation Programming and Policy to Mr.
Melanson, advising of the Pavement Management System and the process by which priorities
are set.
_____
Mr. B. Melanson appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the
foregoing.
(b)Speed Limit Compliance on Urban Streets.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)referred the comments submitted in response to the following report from the
Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning, to the General Manager of
Transportation Services, with a request that he report to the Etobicoke Community
Council on the status of Etobicoke streets in relation to the design and posted speeds and
whether his department will be preparing a review or discussion paper in this regard;
and
(2)received the following report:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning,
responding to issues raised by a local resident with respect to the operating speed of a
roadway, and police enforcement of the posted speed limit.
_____
Ms. R. Swarbrick, Protect Established Neighbourhoods, appeared before the Etobicoke
Community Council in connection with the foregoing.
(c)Variance to the Etobicoke Sign By-law - Pattison Outdoor Signs, 935 The
Queensway.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)received the following report (i) and directed staff to issue the permit without further
report if, in their view, the application is deemed to be acceptable, subject to there being
no advertising on the back of the proposed sign; and
(2)referred the following report (ii) back to staff for further report clarifying the new
by-law requirements for areas abutting the F. G. Gardiner Expressway and Highway
27:
(i)(September 16, 1998) from the Deputy Chief Building Official reporting, as requesting,
with respect to the distance factor relating to an application for variance to the Etobicoke Sign
By-law to permit the installation of a third-party advertising roof sign on an industrial
building at 935 The Queensway.
(ii)(September 16, 1998) from the Deputy Chief Building Official recommending refusal of
the variance to the Sign By-law in that the application does not comply with the 400 m
prohibition zone from the Gardiner Expressway.
(d)Introduction of One-Hour Parking Restriction - Royal York Court.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following report for possible deputation at the next meeting:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning,
recommending that:
(1)parking be restricted to one hour on the north side of Royal York Court between Royal
York Road and the east limit of the road; and
(2)the appropriate by-laws be amended accordingly.
(e)Pedestrian Crossover Investigation - The East Mall, South of Yarn Road.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following report for possible deputation at the next meeting:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning,
recommending that a pedestrian crossover not be erected on The East Mall, south of
YarnRoad, in front of Cloverdale Mall.
(f)Signage for Legion Road North.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report and
directed staff to implement the previous recommendation contained in Clause 1 of
Report No. 6 of the Etobicoke Community Council, as adopted by the City of Toronto
Council at its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning,
recommending that:
(1)the newly created street from the Park Lawn Road/Gardiner Expressway ramp be named
"Legion Road North";
(2)three signs for "Legion Road North" be separately posted on the GardinerExpressway west
of the Park Lawn Road exit, along the ParkLawnRoad/Gardiner Expressway ramp east of
Grand Avenue, and at the LegionRoad North ramp exit;
(3)the two sign off the Gardiner Expressway include a tab that reads "No access to LakeShore
Boulevard West"; and
(4)street signs for Legion Road North be posted consistent with City standards
(g)Sidewalk Improvements - Royal York Road Between Hay and Simpson Avenues.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)requested the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, to advise all local
Councillors of proposed installations of info-bars or waste containers by the Olifas
Marketing Group Inc. so that the Councillors may have opportunity to exercise their
right to veto; and
(2)received the following report for information:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning, reporting
on the installation of info-bars on Royal York Road in association with sidewalk
reconstruction on the west side of Royal York Road.
(h)Noise Barriers - Mystic Pointe Development.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having
(1)requested the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, and the Director of
Community Planning, West District, to undertake a further review and report on the
need for a noise attenuation wall prior to site plan approval for the next phase of the
Mystic Pointe development; and
(2)received the following report:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning,
responding to a request for comment on the need for noise barriers in the vicinity of the
Mystic Pointe development, south of the Gardiner Expressway.
(i)Parking Occupancy Study - The Queensway from Royal York Road to Grand
Avenue.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following report to a
future public meeting in connection with a rezoning application pertaining to 7McIntosh
Avenue:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director, Transportation and Engineering Planning, reporting
on the results of a Parking Occupancy Study conducted along The Queensway between
RoyalYork Road and Grand Avenue.
(j)Etobicoke Sign By-law - Third Party Signs and Variance Notification Process.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, West
District, recommending that:
(1)Etobicoke Community Council not consider, at this time, any amendment to the Sign
By-law which would provide for an outright ban on third-party signs in the Etobicoke District;
and
(2)Etobicoke Community Council not amend the sign variance procedures respecting a
public notification process for sign variance applications.
(k)Proposed New Toronto Employment Area Secondary Plan.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred the following report
pending an Ontario Municipal Board decision regarding the Canadian-General Tower
Limited site:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, advising of
the implications of undertaking a Secondary Plan for the New Toronto Employment Area, and
recommending that Council reaffirm its previous decision to approve Official Plan
Amendment 53-97 and Zoning By-law 1997-217 which redesignated the Canadian
General-Tower site from Industrial to Medium Density Residential and permitted the
development of 154 residential units, light industrial uses and a local park.
(l)City of Toronto Re: 12 Kingsway Crescent - Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board by
Janet Hilson.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:
(August 6, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson advising of the decision and order
issued by the Ontario Municipal Board in connection with a minor variance appeal involving a
proposed residential development at 12 Kingsway Crescent.
(m)City of Toronto Re: Canadian-General Tower Limited, Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:
(August 6, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson concerning the conclusion of an
Ontario Municipal Board hearing involving a proposed residential development at
207NewToronto Street
(n)Amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code - Fieldgate Apartments,
2 Triburnham Place - File No. Z-2255.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed that a public meeting be
held to consider the following report:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District,
recommending that a public meeting be held to consider an amendment to the Zoning Code to
permit the development of 14, two-storey condominium townhouse units in conjunction with
an existing 10-storey rental apartment building municipally known as 2TriburnhamPlace and
an amendment to the Etobicoke Official Plan to correct a technical mapping error that
occurred during the drafting of maps associated with the review of Etobicoke's Official Plan.
(o)Preliminary Report - Amendment to the Zoning Code - Aplomb Properties Inc.,
2777Kipling Avenue.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing
preliminary comments on an application received on June 30, 1998, to amend the Etobicoke
Zoning Code and By-law No. 1808 to permit 16 additional apartment units within an existing
apartment building at 2777 Kipling Avenue.
(p)New Development Applications for Etobicoke District.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(September 16, 1998) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing a
list of development applications received since the last report was presented to the July2,1998,
meeting of the Etobicoke Community Council.
(q)Variances to the Etobicoke Sign By-law.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:
(July 29, 1998) from the Secretary, Sign Variance Advisory Committee, advising of the
decisions of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee with respect to applications for variance
at the following locations:
1.ICI Group of Companies, 1530 Albion Road;
2.Finchwood Village Shopping Centre, 25 Woodbine Downs Boulevard;
3.Red Lobster, 1790 The Queensway; and
4.Norstar, 6 Vansco Drive.
(r)Process for Disposal of City Property.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(August 18, 1998) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services providing all Community
Councils with information on the process for disposal of City Property, as requested by the
Budget Committee.
(s)Consultant's Study - Inventory of Cycling Trail Opportunities in Rail and Hydro
Corridors.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:
(July 15, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 5 contained in Report No. 8 of the
Urban Environment and Development Committee, as adopted by City Council on July8,9, and
10, 1998, regarding the development of cycling routes, for information and comment.
(t)Proposed Policy for Renaming of Parks.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(July 15, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 1 in Report No. 6 of the
Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, as adopted by City Council on
July8,9,and 10, 1998, regarding the policy for renaming of parks, for information.
(u)Guidelines for Determining City-Wide Interests in Planning Matters.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report for
information:
(August 10, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 2 contained in Report No.9 of
the Urban Environment and Development Committee, as adopted by City Council on July29,
30 and 31, 1998, regarding a protocol for dealing with planning matters of City-wide interest,
for information.
(v)Uniform Policy for Leashed and Unleashed Dogs in Parks.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following report to the
public meeting to be scheduled in October with respect to possible amendments to the
Animal Control By-law:
(August 28, 1998) from the City Clerk forwarding Clause No. 1 contained in Report No. 7 of
the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, as adopted by City Council on July
29, 30 and 31, 1998, regarding a uniform policy for leashed and unleashed dogs in City parks,
and requesting that Community Councils hear deputations in this regard at the October public
meetings on possible amendments to the Animal Control By-law.
(w)Etobicoke Community Care Access Centre Et Al.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:
(July 24, 1998) from the City Clerk advising that Etobicoke Community Council's
recommendations with respect to use of space at the Etobicoke Civic Centre, which were
before the Community Services Committee on July 20, 1998, have been referred to the
Commissioner of Corporate Services for report to the October meeting of the Committee, and
requesting comment from Etobicoke Community Council to that meeting.
(x)1999 Service Plan - Toronto Transit Commission.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)received a presentation by Mr. S. Haskill, Toronto Transit Commission, with respect
to the Commission's recommended services changes in the Etobicoke District;
(2)recommended to the Toronto Transit Commission that public meetings be held as
soon as possible with respect to the following changes:
(i)76 Royal York South;
(ii)73 Royal York - New service on LaRose Avenue and Richview Road; (iii)307
Eglinton West - Overnight service to Pearson Airport;
(iv)309 Finch West - Overnight service to Humberwood Loop; and
(v)319 Wilson - Overnight service on Martin Grove Road north of FinchAvenue; and
(3) received the following report:
(August 20, 1998) from the General Secretary, Toronto Transit Commission, forwarding the
Toronto Transit Commission recommended service changes with respect to the 1999 Service
Plan report, and requesting comments on the recommendations by October 28, 1998.
(y)Bicycle Lanes - Prince Edward Drive.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following
communication to the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, and the
PrinceEdward Drive Reconstruction working/focus group:
(July 30, 1998) from Mr. J. Lasiuk supporting the inclusion of bicycle lanes in the
PrinceEdward Drive reconstruction program.
(z)Etobicoke Award of Distinction.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following
communication:
(July 15, 1998) from the Honourable R. A. Grier in appreciation of her nomination for and
presentation of the Award of Distinction at the recent Etobicoke Civic Awards event.
(aa)City of Toronto Re: Harvey Sawh, 63-65 Winterton Drive Ontario Municipal Board
Hearing.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:
(August 31, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson concerning the completion of an
Ontario Municipal Board hearing involving 63-65 Winterton Drive.
(bb)City of Toronto Ward 2 - Park Lawn Cemetery, 2801 Bloor Street West/OMB
Proceedings.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following report:
(September 11, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, City Solicitors, providing an
update on proceedings before the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to a motion brought
by the owners of Park Lawn Cemetery requesting that an appeal filed by Ms.J. Gaudaur to
amend the Official Plan and Zoning Code from High Density Residential to Private Open
Space be dismissed without a full hearing.
(cc)Application for Leave to Appeal a Ministry of the Environment Directors Decision
Regarding Recycle Plus Ltd., 63 Medulla Avenue.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following
communications (i) and (ii):
(i)(September 10, 1998) from Mr. P. D. Petrie, of Willms & Shier, submitting a copy of an
application for third party leave to appeal a MOE Directors decision under section 38 of the
Environmental Bill of Rights, with respect to a Certificate of Approval for a waste disposal
site at 63 Medulla Avenue; and
(ii)(September 15, 1998) from Mr. P. D. Petrie, of Willms & Shier, confirming that an
application has been made to the Environmental Appeal Board and advising that Recycle Plus
is not currently approved by the MOE to operate.
(dd)Introduction of Waste Containers - Kingsway Business Improvement Area.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)requested the Director of Transportation Services, District 2, to obtain a plan
showing the location of all waste containers installed by Olifas Marketing Group Inc., to
examine each of the locations in consultation with the Waste Management division, and
to submit a report to the Community Council including a comment on whether the
agreement with OMG should be terminated; and
(2)received the following communication:
(September 10, 1998) from Ms. S. Bayzat, President, Kingsway BIA, regarding the
introduction and proliferation of waste containers into the Kingsway Business Improvement
Area by an advertising company, which contain advertising for business located outside of the
BIA area, and requesting removal as soon as possible.
(ee)Application for Amendments to the Official Plan and Etobicoke Zoning Code,
HomeDepot, Kipling Avenue at Bethridge Road - File No. Z-2272.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)directed that a public meeting be scheduled on October 14, 1998 with respect to an
application to amend the Industrial designation and the Industrial Class1(I.C1) zoning
of a vacant site at Kipling Avenue and Bethridge Road, to permit a retail warehouse
outlet in addition to the permitted industrial uses;and
(2)received the following communication:
(September 16, 1998) from MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited,
requesting the scheduling of a public meeting on October 14, 1998, in connection with the
aforementioned application.
(ff)Request for Tree Removal - 8 Alcan Avenue.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having directed the City Solicitor to proceed
in accordance with the recommendation contained in a confidential report dated
September 15, 1998, from Reble, Ritchie, Green & Ketcheson, forwarded to all Members
of Council under confidential cover.
(gg)Toronto's Bid for the 2008 Olympics.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having:
(1)received a presentation by Mr. David Crombie regarding Toronto's Bid for The 2008
Olympics;
(2)received the deputations and communications; and
(3)received the following report:
(September 1, 1998) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and
Tourism, recommending that:
(i)the Community Council receive the presentation Mr. David Crombie regarding Toronto's
bid for the 2008 Olympics; and
(ii)refer any Community Council recommendations on this issue to staff for a consolidated
report, with the recommendations from the other Community Councils, to Strategic Policies
and Priorities Committee on November 17, 1998 and City Council on November 25, 1998.
_____
The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with
the foregoing matter:
-Mr. A. Cole, Etobicoke Federation of Ratepayers & Residents Association;
-Mr. Wm. J. Lea, Etobicoke;
-Ms. M. Weldon, CNIB;
-Mr. B. Bryer, Citizens for the Retention of the East Gardiner Expressway;
-Mr. R. Driscoll and Mr. M. Wing, Co-Chairs, Pre-Olympic Marketing Committee;
-Mr. J. Roszell, President, Ontario Badminton Association;
-Mr. N. Hayman, Etobicoke;
-Mr. B. Melanson, Etobicoke;
-Mr. S. Bergson, Thornhill;
-Mr. L. Mercader, Mississauga;
-Mr. J. Smith, Etobicoke;
-Mr. B. Waschtschuk, Etobicoke;
-Mr. C. Rhijnsburger, Etobicoke;
-Ms. V. Obedkoff, St. James United Church, Etobicoke;
-Ms. H. Ostrovski, Ukrainian Canadian Congress, Ontario Branch;
-Mr. R. Lynn, Etobicoke;
-Mr. B. Robertson, Etobicoke;
-Mr. R. Naylor, Etobicoke; and
-Mrs. J. Keddy, Etobicoke.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having had before it the following
communication:
-(September 16, 1998) from Mr. M. Harrison, seeking assurance that the Olympic Bid will
not negatively impact on the environment, particularly the waterfront, that it protect the
existing environment, and act as a catalyst toward improving on existing conditions.
(City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998, had before it, during consideration of item (17ff),
headed "Request for Tree Removal - 8 Alcan Avenue", embodied in the foregoing Clause, a
confidential communication (September 15, 1998) from Reble, Ritchie, Green and Ketcheson,
Barristers and Solicitors, such communication to remain confidential in accordance with the
provisions of the Municipal Act.)
Respectfully submmitted,
IRENE JONES,
Acting Chair
Toronto, September 16 and 17, 1998
(Report No. 9 of The Etobicoke Community Council, including additions thereto, was
adopted, as amended, by City Council on October 1 and 2, 1998.)
