Source: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/1999/minutes/council/appa/cc990609/et7rpt.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-19 10:33:30
Document Index: 101577889

Matched Legal Cases: ['arts 1', 'art 1', 'arts 1', 'arts 1', 'arts 1', 'arts 1']

on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999
1	Traffic Concerns: Judson Street Between Islington Avenue and Royal York Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)	2	Pedestrian Crossing Concerns: Horner Avenue at Beta Street (Lakeshore-Queensway)	3	Introduction of Parking Prohibitions: Allenby Avenue (Rexdale-Thistletown)	4	Removal of Parking Prohibition: Royalavon Crescent
(Kingsway-Humber)	5	Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Brownridge Crescent (Rexdale-Thistletown)	6	On-Street Parking Permits: The Kingsway; Anglesey Boulevard; Bexhill Court (Kingsway-Humber)	7	Payment in Lieu of Parking: Dr. J. P. Bulger, 3034-3036 Bloor Street West (Kingsway-Humber)	8	Request for Endorsement of Event for Liquor Licensing Purposes	9	Fire Route Designation: 95 Melbert Road (Markland-Centennial)	10	Fire Routes - Various Locations	11	Municipal By-law Enforcement for the Etobicoke District 12	Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Adanac Realty Limited, North Side of Bell Manor Drive, north of Berry Road, west of Stephen Drive - File No. Z-2284 (Lakeshore-Queensway)	13	Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Queenscorp (33rd Avenue) Inc. 3531-3533 and 3535-3543 Lake Shore Boulevard West File No. Z-2288 (Lakeshore-Queensway)	14	Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code Andrei Verbitsky, 10 Fairfield Avenue File No. Z-2275 (Lakeshore-Queensway)	15	Proposal to Stop-Up, Close, and Sell Part of the Government Road Road Allowance (Kingsway-Humber)	16	Proposal to Stop-Up, Close, and Sell Part of the Lane West of Cordova Avenue between Parts 1 and 2, Plan 64R-7692 (Kingsway-Humber)	17	Proposal to Stop-Up, Close, and Sell Part of the Mill Road Road Allowance (Markland-Centennial)	18	Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board - Nazeer S. Bishay 22 Kingsview Boulevard - File No. Z-2252 (Kingsway-Humber)	19	Urban Planning and Development Services Department
Staff Resources	20	Other Items Considered by the Community Council	City of Toronto
(from its special meeting on May 11, 1999, and its meeting on May 26 and 27, 1999,
Traffic Concerns: Judson Street Between Islington Avenue
and Royal York Road (Lakeshore-Queensway)
(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of the following report
(May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2: The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having:
(i)	requested the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, to ask the Toronto Police Service
to enforce zero tolerance for speeding along the section of Judson Street from
Islington Avenue to Royal York Road; and further to request their support in sending out a
notice to residents in the area bounded by Islington Avenue and Royal York Road, south of
the Gardiner Expressway to the CN railway line, advising them of the zero tolerance
enforcement and requesting their observance of the speed limit; and
(ii)	referred the matter to the Forestry Division, Parks and Recreation Services, West District,
with a request that they examine the road condition to determine whether suitable tree
plantings can be made to provide a narrowing effect, as a long term solution. The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 26, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 2: Purpose:
To address the concerns of area residents with respect to the speed and volume of vehicular traffic
on Judson Street between Islington Avenue and Royal York Road.
The funds associated with the installation of a solid painted centreline are contained in the
Transportation Service Division's Operating Budget.
(1)	all-way stop controls not be installed at the intersection of Judson Street and Harold Street;
(2)	all-way stop controls not be installed at the intersection of Judson Street and
St. George Street;
(3)	The Toronto Police Service be requested to enforce the 50 km/h speed limit on Judson Street,
between Royal York Road and Islington Avenue; and
(4)	that a solid centreline replace the broken centreline on Judson Street between
Royal York Road and Islington Avenue.	Background:
The Transportation Services Division - District 2 received correspondence (Attachment No. 1) from
Councillor Blake Kinahan, Lakeshore-Queensway forwarding the concerns of Mr. David Cortellessa
and area residents with respect to vehicular speeds on Judson Street between Royal York Road and
Islington Avenue. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2.
To assess traffic conditions on Judson Street, the following information was obtained:
(1)	manual approach counts conducted at the intersection of Judson Street and St. George Street;
(2)	automatic approach counts conducted at the intersection of Judson Street and Harold Street; (3)	radar speed studies conducted on Judson Street near St. George Street;
(4)	review of the three year collision history; and
(5)	intersection description, including parking restrictions, sidewalks and land use.
The following warrants need to be met in order to justify the installation of all-way stop controls on
roads and streets considered to be neither arterial nor major collector streets:
-	(a)	total vehicle volume on all intersection approaches must exceed 350 for the highest
hour recorded; and
-	(b)	a volume split should not exceed 75/25 for a three-way control.
(1) Manual Turning Movement Count Intersection: Judson Street and St. George Street
Count Type: Manual	Date: Tuesday, March 23, 1999
E/B+W/B
E+W/S
(2) Automatic Approach Count Intersection: Judson Street and St. George Street
Count Type: Automatic	Date: Wednesday March 24, 1999
97/3 TOTAL
The following observations and analysis were derived from the traffic counts:
(a)	The balance of flow for the highest hour recorded is 98/2 at the intersection of Judson Street
and St. George Street and 97/3 for the intersection of Judson Street and Harold Street. These
splits exceeds the maximum allowable 75/25 volume split for three-way control.
(b)	The highest hourly volumes recorded at the intersections of Judson Street and
St. George Street; and, Judson Street and Harold Street, were 410 and 406 vehicles
respectively. These volumes satisfy the minimum vehicular volume requirement of
350 vehicles necessary to fully satisfy the volume warrant. However, both the volume split
and volume warrants must be satisfied to warrant the installation of all-way stop controls.
(3)	Radar Speed Studies
The results of the radar speed studies conducted on Judson Street near St. George Street on
March 26, 1999, between the hours of 7-8 a.m. and 4-6 p.m., indicate an 85th percentile speed of
60 km/h. This speed indicates that police enforcement on Judson Street between Royal York Road
and Islington Avenue is required.
(4)	Collision Review
A review of the collision history on Judson Street at the intersections of St. George Street and
Judson Street and Harold Street revealed that there have been no reportable collisions at these
(5) Road Description
Road Classification:	Judson Street, between Islington Avenue and Royal York Road, is
classified as an Etobicoke Collector roadway;
Harold Street and St. George Street are designated local roadways.
Parking Regulations: Judson Street, no parking anytime, Royal York Road and a point
97.5 metres west thereof;
Judson Street, no parking anytime, St. George Street, to the west limit
St. George Street, three hour maximum;
Harold Street, three hour maximum.
Lane Configuration: Pavement width of 9.7 m consisting of one lane in each direction. A
painted centreline is broken from O'Donnell Avenue to midblock
between Willowbrook Road and Ourland Ave.
Speed Limit: 50 km/h on Judson Street;
50 km/h on St. George Street;
50 km/h on Harold Street.
Sidewalks:	Judson Street, north side;
St. George Street, both sides;
Harold Street, both sides.
Land Use: north side, residential;
south side, industrial/commercial.
Traffic conditions at the intersections of Judson Street and Harold Street and, Judson Street and
St. George Street, do not warrant the installation of all-way stop controls. The results of the speed
studies indicate that a speeding problem is evident on Judson Street near St. George Street, and that
police enforcement is warranted. The collision review for the aforementioned intersections revealed
no reportable collisions.
Based on all of the foregoing, staff will be requesting Toronto Police Service for enforcement on
Judson Street. In order to assist in the directional flow of traffic, staff has also concluded that a solid
centreline on Judson Street between Royal York Road and Islington Avenue would be desirable, and
is therefore being recommended in this report. Contact Name:
Kevin Akins, Traffic Technologist, - Transportation Services - District 2
(416) 394-6046; Fax (416) 394-8942 (A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-2, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members
of Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a
copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
Mr. David Cortellessa appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the
Pedestrian Crossing Concerns: Horner Avenue at Beta Street
(May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2:
The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having requested
the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, to:
(i)	ensure that the existing 40 km/h signs on Horner Avenue are not obscured and the necessary
tree pruning is undertaken;
(ii)	install "seniors crossing" signs at an appropriate location on Horner Avenue;
(iii)	ask the Toronto Police Service for enforcement of of the speed limit; and
(iv)	to review the situation in one year's time and submit a report to Community Council.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 26, 1999) from the
Director, Transportation Services, District 2:
To evaluate the request of the members of the Franklin Horner Community Centre to have a
pedestrian crossover installed on Horner Avenue at Beta Street in conjunction with the reinstatement
of the 50 km/h speed limit on the section of Horner Avenue between Beta Street and Gamma Street.
The funds associated with the installation of the appropriate regulatory signs are allocated in the
Transportation Services Division's Operating Budget.
(1) a pedestrian crossover not be installed on Horner Avenue at Beta Street; and
(2) the existing 40 km/h speed limit on Horner Avenue along the frontage of the community
centre be retained. Background:
Correspondence/petition (Attachment No. 1) was forwarded from Councillor Irene Jones regarding
a request from the members of the Franklin Horner Community Centre to have a pedestrian
crossover installed on Horner Avenue at Beta Street and to have the current 40 km/h speed limit
increased to 50 km/h. A map of the area is Attachment No. 2. The Franklin Horner Community Centre, formerly an elementary school, is located on the north side
of Horner Avenue between Beta Street and Gamma Street.
Horner Avenue, in the area of the community centre, is a four lane collector roadway with an
average daily traffic volume of 12,000 vehicles.
To qualify the request for a pedestrian crossover an evaluation was completed for Horner Avenue
in the area of Beta Street based on pedestrian and vehicular volumes and pedestrian delay warrants.
To determine the pedestrian crossing demand, pedestrian classification counts were conducted on
Horner Avenue between Aldercrest Road and Gamma Street.
The volume warrant utilizes twelve-hour vehicle volumes and eight-hour pedestrian crossing
volumes as criteria for the evaluation. The studies revealed an average eight-hour volume of
82 pedestrians crossing Horner Avenue (without difficulty), in the vicinity of Beta Street. Based on
the existing twelve-hour vehicular volume of 9,075, a net eight-hour pedestrian volume of 260 would
be required to fully satisfy the warrant. Therefore, the recorded vehicular and pedestrian volumes
fail to satisfy the volume warrant by 68%.
In terms of the delay warrant, the percent compliance could not be determined since the minimum
eight-hour pedestrian volume of 200 required for the evaluation was not recorded. A pedestrian
volume of less than 200 does not normally require a pedestrian crossover.
The 40 km/h speed limit should be retained given that the request for the increase in the speed limit
was in conjunction with the installation of a pedestrian crossover. Conclusions:
The results of the pedestrian crossover evaluation revealed that the pedestrian volume and crossing
delay in the vicinity of the subject location are well below the minimum requirements for the
consideration of this traffic control device.
Given the request for the increase in the speed limit to 50 km/h was in conjunction with the
installation of a pedestrian crossover the 40 km/h speed limit should be retained.
copy of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.) --------
Mr. George Ropchan, Franklin Horner Community Centre, appeared before the Etobicoke
Community Council in connection with the foregoing matter.
Introduction of Parking Prohibitions: Allenby Avenue
(Rexdale-Thistletown)
(May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2: Purpose:
To propose the introduction of a "No Parking Anytime" prohibition for the south side of
Allenby Avenue between Islington Avenue and the east limit of the road.
The funds associated with the introduction of the appropriate regulatory signage are contained in the
(1)	parking be prohibited at all times on the south side of Allenby Avenue between Burrard Road
and Grierson Road; and
(2)	the associated by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval. Background:
In October, 1998, correspondence was received from Councillor Elizabeth Brown
(Attachment No. 2) on behalf of Mr. Massey, 49 Allenby Avenue, who had contacted
MPP John Hastings inquiring about the feasibility of a parking prohibition on Allenby Avenue.
In response to this request, staff polled the one hundred and twenty-nine (129) residents of
Allenby Avenue by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 3). There were
forty-six (46) respondents to the poll; twenty-eight (28) were in favour of prohibiting parking on one
side of Allenby Avenue and eighteen (18) were opposed to prohibiting parking on Allenby Avenue. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4. Discussion:
Allenby Avenue is a two-lane roadway, with sidewalks on both sides of the street. Parking is
currently prohibited on the south side of the street from Islington Avenue to Burrard Road; and from
Grierson Road to the east limit of the street. Parking is permitted on the north side of the street for
a maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential. The majority of the respondents favoured prohibiting parking on the north side of Allenby Avenue. However, for continuity purposes parking should be prohibited on the south side of Allenby Avenue.
Based on the staff examination of this matter and the favourable consensus of the affected residents, Council's endorsement of the recommendation contained herein would be appropriate.
Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator, Transportation Services Division - District 2
(416) 394-8419; Fax (416) 394-8942.
(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-4, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members
Removal of Parking Prohibition: Royalavon Crescent
To propose the removal of the "No Parking, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday" prohibition
from both sides of Royalavon Crescent from Tyre Avenue to Holloway Road. Funding Sources:
The funds associated with the removal of the current regulatory signage are contained in the
(1)	the current No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday on both sides of
Royalavon Crescent regulation be removed to allow on-street parking from Tyre Avenue to
Holloway Road; and
(2)	the associated by-law (Attachment No. 1) receive Council approval.
In November, 1998, Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby's forwarded a request (Attachment No. 2) to
the Transportation Services Division requesting that the "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday" prohibition on both sides of Royalavon Crescent be amended to allow for
short-erm on-street parking. In response to this request, staff polled the thirty-three (33) affected residents of Royalavon Crescent
between Tyre Avenue and Holloway Road by letter to obtain their views on this proposal
(Attachment No. 3). There were twenty-one (21) respondents to the poll: thirteen (13) were in
favour of the proposal and eight (8) were opposed. A map of the area is Attachment No. 4.
Royalavon Crescent is a two-lane roadway between Burnhamthorpe Road and Dundas Street West. A sidewalk exists on the west side of the street between Dundas Street West and Mattice Avenue. Parking is prohibited at all times on both sides of Royalavon Crescent between Dundas Street West
and Tyre Avenue; parking is prohibited on both sides of Royalavon Crescent between Tyre Avenue
and Holloway Road between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Throughout all
other sections on the street, parking is permitted for a maximum period of three hours. Land use in
the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential.
In 1980, the Traffic Section of the Engineering Department of the former Borough of Etobicoke,
received a request from the residents of Royalavon Crescent for the implementation of a daytime
parking restriction on Royalavon Crescent between Tyre Avenue and Holloway Road. This was the
result of several complaints from residents about vehicles being left on the street during the daytime
by students of Michael Power/St. Joseph's High School. At that time a total of thirty (30) letters
were delivered to the residents who reside on this section of Royalavon Crescent, proposing the
introduction of a "No Parking, 8:00 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday" prohibition. Twenty-five
(25) responses were received, of which, eighteen (18) were in favour of the proposal.
Karen Kirk, C.E.T., Parking Co-ordinator, Transportation Services Division - District 2.
Introduction of Parking Prohibition: Brownridge Crescent
To propose the introduction of a "No Parking, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday" prohibition
for the south, west and north sides of Brownridge Crescent..
(1)	parking be prohibited from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday to Friday, on the south, west and
north sides of Brownridge Crescent; and
In January, 1999, correspondence was received from Kamaljit Jawanda, 3 Brownridge Crescent
(Attachment No. 2) inquiring about the feasibility of prohibiting parking 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,
Monday to Friday, on both sides of Brownridge Crescent.
In response to this request, staff polled the thirty-two (32) affected residents of Brownridge Crescent
by letter to obtain their views on this proposal (Attachment No. 3). There were fourteen (14)
respondents to the poll: ten (10) were in favour of the proposal and four (4) were opposed. A map
of the area is Attachment No. 4.
Brownridge Crescent is a two-lane roadway, with a sidewalk on the north, east, and south sides of
the street. Parking is currently permitted on the south, west, and north sides of the street for a
maximum period of three hours. Land use in the immediate vicinity is predominantly residential. Council for the former City of Etobicoke, at its meeting held on September 6, 1994, approved
By-Law No. 1994-148 to prohibit parking on the north, east, and south sides of
Brownridge Crescent. This was the result of a concern expressed from staff of the Waste
Management Division regarding vehicles parking on both sides of the street in such a manner that
waste collection trucks were often obstructed and could not collect waste effectively. The
introduction of this parking restriction made waste collection much more efficient.
There are a number of factors that contribute to the high incidence of on-street parking in this area. Approximately ten years ago, daytime parking regulations were introduced on the residential street
on the west side of Highway 27, in the immediate area around Humber College, North Campus. Students of the college parked their vehicles on these street throughout the day to avoid paying
parking fees on campus. This problem has now moved to the residential streets on the east side of
Highway 27, compounding an ongoing parking problem in the area caused by patients and visitors
to Etobicoke General Hospital and the Medical Centre on Westmore Drive; drivers are attempting
to avoid parking fees at these medical facilities by parking on the streets. A staff review of this issue
clearly indicates that daytime parking on Brownridge Crescent is a problem. Enforcement by the
Toronto Police Service, Parking Enforcement Unit, has been ineffective.
On-Street Parking Permits: The Kingsway;
Anglesey Boulevard; Bexhill Court (Kingsway-Humber)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends the adoption of Recommendations (1), (2)
and (3) contained in the following report (May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation
Services, District 2: The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having deferred
consideration of Recommendation (4) to allow for consultation with affected residents.
To inform Etobicoke Community Council of the results of a public opinion survey regarding
on-street parking permits in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court area, and to
recommend that the Toronto Parking Authority install additional metered parking stalls on the east
side of The Kingsway, north of Anglesey Boulevard.
The funds associated with the installation and maintenance of metered parking is contained in the
operating budget of the Toronto Parking Authority.
(1)	on-street parking permits not be introduced on Anglesey Boulevard, The Kingsway, or
Bexhill Court;
(2)	the Toronto Parking Authority repair and/or replace the existing non-functioning parking
meters on Anglesey Boulevard, The Kingsway, and Bexhill Court;
(3)	the Toronto Parking Authority review the rate structure and permitted times for metered
parking in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court area; and
(4)	the Toronto Parking Authority install additional metered parking stalls on the east side of
The Kingsway, north of Anglesey Boulevard, and that Schedule C of Section 187(11) and
Schedule VIII of Chapter 240 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be amended accordingly, and
as described in the attached by-laws.
In October 1998, Councillor Gloria Lindsay Luby asked that staff investigate the possibility of
introducing additional metered parking stalls in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard area
(Attachment No. 1). In January 1999, Councillor Lindsay Luby wrote to us requesting that we
undertake ". . . the necessary studies to see if [on-street] permit parking could be a viable option to
this problem [the lack of on-street metered parking]" (Attachment No. 2).
Medium density rental apartment buildings dominate the area of The Kingsway,
Anglesey Boulevard, and Bexhill Court (Attachment No. 3). These apartment buildings were
constructed in the early 1950s, predating current Etobicoke Zoning Code parking standards. Our
survey of apartment owners in the area found that for a total of 714 occupied apartment units there
was a total of 404 on-site parking spaces, or 0.57 parking spaces per dwelling unit.
A.	Introduction of On-Street Parking Permits	In 1982, Council for the former City of Etobicoke proposed issuing overnight parking permits to
apartment residents in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court area; however, it was
rejected when survey results failed to find popular consensus for such a proposal.
In 1996, staff again surveyed area residents to obtain their opinion toward on-street parking permits.
While many residents who responded to the survey said that they were concerned with a lack of
visitor parking, there was no popular support for on-street parking permits, and staff did not pursue
In response to Councillor Lindsay Luby's request, staff sent survey questionnaires, by first class mail,
to the 843 residential apartment units in the area (Attachment No. 4). The questionnaires provided
information on the on-street parking permit program described in the Etobicoke Municipal Code,
and asked if residents were in favour of it. Of the 136 responses that we received, 68 percent
opposed on-street parking permits.
To examine the adequacy of visitor parking that area residents had previously identified as an issue,
staff conducted a parking occupancy study of all metered parking stalls in the study area. Visitor
parking demand is typically at its peak on Saturday evening, and the study was done Saturday,
February 27, 1999, between the hours of 7:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. The study showed that 209 of the
215 existing metered parking stalls were occupied. This is equivalent to an occupancy rate of
97 percent; however, license plate traces showed that nearly one-half of all vehicles parked at the
meters were registered to owners who did not reside in the study area.
B.	Introduction of Additional Metered Parking
Responding to concerns from area residents regarding a lack of on-site and on-street parking, the
City of Etobicoke introduced metered parking stalls on Anglesey Boulevard, Bexhill Court, and
The Kingsway in 1989. The meters allow parking for a maximum of nine hours between 8:00 p.m.
and 5:00 a.m., seven days a week, and at a cost of $0.50 per night. At all other times, the maximum
three hour parking limit applies.
At present, most of the parking meters are broken. We relaxed parking enforcement in the area to
avoid penalizing residents who have no other option but to park in the metered stalls.
The Toronto Parking Authority advises that they will replace the parking meters following the fall
1999 reconstruction of this section of Anglesey Boulevard.
In 1989, the City of Etobicoke maximized the on-street parking supply in the study area by
redesigning the parking stalls on the north side of Anglesey Boulevard from parallel to angle. In
connection with the reconstruction of Anglesey Boulevard that will be completed in the fall of 1999,
we will convert the parallel stalls on the south side of Anglesey Boulevard, between
Royal York Road and The Kingsway, to angle parking. This will increase the number of metered
parking stalls on the south side of Anglesey Boulevard from 29 to 50.
We would like to point out that from a traffic operations perspective, angled on-street parking stalls
can restrict sight lines for motorists when they back out of the stalls; however, in this area, the
median-divided traffic flow on Anglesey Boulevard, combined with low traffic volumes and reduced
parking stall turnover resulting from the residential character of the surrounding neighbourhood,
keeps this conflict to a minimum. A description of the number and location of metered parking stalls
in the area is described in the following table:
No. of Metered Stalls
Anglesey Blvd.
The Kingsway to
Bexhill Court (Both Sides)
To the west limit of the road.
The Kingsway (West Side)
Ashley Rd. to a point 400 m
The Kingsway (East Side)
27.5 m north of Ashley Rd. to a
point 540 m further north.
At the request of Councillor Lindsay Luby, we examined the possibility of installing additional
metered parking on the east side of The Kingsway, north of the existing limit of the metered parking
stalls, and adjacent the west side of Humber Valley Park. This will provide approximately
18 additional metered parking stalls, but requires that the existing daytime parking prohibition (from
8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.) extending across the frontage of Humber Valley Park, on the east side of
The Kingsway, from Hartfield Road to a point 134 m south, be removed (Attachment No. 5).
The introduction of on-street parking permits in The Kingsway/Anglesey Boulevard/Bexhill Court
would eliminate visitor use of most of the on-street parking stalls. In view of the substantial amount
of visitor parking that occurs during peak periods, Etobicoke's on-street parking permit program
does not appear to be a realistic parking strategy for this area.
Our parking surveys also show that visitor parking appears to generate a significant demand for the
existing supply of on-street metered parking stalls on The Kingsway, Anglesey Boulevard, and
Bexhill Court. This suggests that parking generated by residents may be overestimated. These
observations suggest that if we are to use the metered parking stalls to their maximum potential, the
study area requires a complete review of the parking meter rates and permitted times.
Converting the parallel parking stalls on the south side of Anglesey Boulevard to an angle pattern
will add 21 additional metered stalls. Approximately 18 metered parking stalls can be installed on
the east side of The Kingsway, north of the existing limit of the on-street parking meters, and across
the frontage of Humber Valley Park. In total, these revisions increase the area's supply of on-street
metered parking by 18 percent; from 215 stalls to 254.
Allan Smithies, Manager, Traffic Planning/R-O-W Management
Tel: (416)394-8412; Fax (416) 394-8942
(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-5, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members
Payment in Lieu of Parking: Dr. J. P. Bulger,
3034-3036 Bloor Street West (Kingsway-Humber)
The subject of this report is to seek Council's approval to exempt Dr. J. P. Bulger, DDS, of
3034-3036 Bloor Street West, from the Etobicoke Zoning Code requirement of nine additional
Council's approval of this application will provide the City with an $18,000 payment-in-lieu of
parking and a $200 application processing fee.
The applicant proposes to move his dental practice, currently at 3031 Bloor Street West, to a location
across the street at 3034-3036 Bloor Street West (Attachment No. 1). The site was previously used
by a flower shop and dental/business offices, with a second-storey residential apartment. The
applicant proposes to convert the entire 294.4 m2 of gross floor area into a dental office.
The Urban Planning and Development Services Department informed the applicant that the proposed
dental office requires nine additional vehicle parking stalls. The site cannot accommodate the nine
parking stalls, and the applicant requests an exemption from the parking provisions of the Etobicoke
Zoning Code, under the terms and conditions of Etobicoke's payment-in-lieu of parking policy
(Attachment No. 2).
Traffic Planning staff advised the applicant that we could not technically support a parking variance
at this location, and that the only reasonable recourse was through an application to Council
requesting consideration under the terms and conditions of Etobicoke's payment-in-lieu of parking
In a correspondence dated April 20, 1999, the President of the Kingsway Business Improvement
Area expressed his organization's support for the above-noted application (Attachment No. 3).
At its meeting of October 28, 29 and 30, 1998, City of Toronto Council received a report dated
September 10, 1998, from the Commissioners of the Works and Emergency Services Department
and Urban Planning and Development Services, entitled "Cash Payment-in-lieu of Parking Related
to Development Applications (all Wards)." The report provided Council with background
information and a summary of current payment-in-lieu of parking policies that exist in the former
municipalities, recommending that both departments be requested to report jointly, at the appropriate
time, with regard to consolidating payment-in-lieu of parking policies and practices. Council
directed that until such time as a joint report on a 'harmonized' payment-in-lieu of parking policy
is received, the Commissioners of both Departments are to ensure that: ". . . the current practises
outlined in the joint report dated September 10, 1998, . . . are being followed in the former Area
Municipalities." This application is made according to Council's directive. It is staff's opinion that the request for exemption to the provision of nine additional
vehicle parking stalls is acceptable. The nine stall parking shortfall will not have a significant impact
on parking conditions in the immediate area; therefore, staff is of the opinion that Council can grant
the requested exemption, subject to the usual conditions.
Council has the authority under Section 40 of the Planning Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario 1990,
Chapter 13, to require the payment of monies by an applicant where it is considered appropriate to
exempt a project from all, or part, of the Etobicoke Zoning Code parking requirements.
Should Council concur with the application of the policy at this location, we will require that the
applicant make a payment of $18,000 for the nine stall parking shortfall before issuance of a building
Mr. A. Smithies, Manager, Traffic Planning/Right-of-Way Management
Tel: (416) 394-8412; Fax (416) 394-8942
(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-3, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members
Request for Endorsement of Event
for Liquor Licensing Purposes
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that City Council, for liquor licensing
purposes, declare the following to be events of municipal and/or community significance and
advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario that it has no objection to their taking
(a) the Big Six Softball League Playoffs in Centennial Park, September 11 and 12, 1999;
(b)	the Kiwanis Club of the Kingsway Beer Garden in conjunction with the Canada Day
celebrations in Centennial Park, July 1, 1999 from 12:00 noon to 10:00 p.m.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of Council, having had before it the
following communications, copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk:
-	(April 13, 1999) from John Moffett, Commissioner, Big Six Softball League; and
-	(May 5, 1999) from Councillor Doug Holyday, on behalf of the Kiwanis Club of the
Fire Route Designation: 95 Melbert Road
(Markland-Centennial)
(May 11, 1999) from the City Clerk:
To obtain Council approval for the enactment of the appropriate by-law to approve the final
designation of a fire route at 95 Melbert Road in the Markland-Centennial area, to enable by-law
enforcement officers to tag illegally parked vehicles within the designated fire route.
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.
(1)	the final designation of Fire Routes under Chapter 134 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be
approved at the following location:
95 Melbert Road; and
(2)	the appropriate by-law be enacted by City Council.
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 and Emergency
Services 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.
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.
In keeping with Fire Department 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.
Vicki Tytaneck, Manager, Legislative Services
Tel: (416) 394-8080
Fire Routes - Various Locations
To obtain Council approval for the enactment of the appropriate by-law to allow the construction and
maintenance of a fire route at various locations.
The property owner is required to pay the cost for the installation of the fire route signs, by Works
and Emergency Services, in addition to any signs that may require replacing in the future.
(1)	Chapter 134-20 of the Etobicoke Municipal Code be amended by adding the following
locations to Schedule 'B', "Lands Upon Which Fire Routes Are to be Constructed and
10 Blackfriar Avenue; 41 Blackfriar Avenue; 25 Bridesburg Drive; 55 Bridesburg Drive;
2116 Kipling Avenue; 250-300 Manitoba Street; 24 Montgomery Road;
25 Queen's Plate Drive; 100 Vulcan Street; and 90 Woodbine Downs Boulevard; and
On April 8, 1975, "An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke" received Royal Assent. A portion
Each property requires the enactment of two by-laws; (1) to allow the Works and Emergency
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
In keeping with Toronto Fire Services regulations, it is appropriate to enact this by-law to provide
for the construction and maintenance of fire routes and to allow the By-Law Enforcement Officers
to tag vehicles that are illegally parked in fire route zones.
Municipal By-law Enforcement for the Etobicoke District (City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, adopted this Clause, without amendment.)
The Etobicoke Community Council recommends that:
(1) City Council request the Provincial government to take action to support higher
sentences for Building Code and municipal by-law offences, including providing
educational opportunities for the judiciary, and that the Province communicate the
concerns of municipalities regarding the minimal sentences being imposed by judges
and justices of the peace regarding these infractions; and
(2)	the Association of Municipalities of Ontario to be requested to support the foregoing
recommendation and to solicit the endorsement of its member municipalities.
the Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, and the District Manager, Municipal
Licensing and Standards, West District, to convene a workshop in the early Fall of 1999 with
representatives of ratepayer associations throughout the Etobicoke District to discuss what other
issues of concern need to be addressed.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following joint report (May 26, 1999) from the
Director of Building and Deputy Chief Building Official, and District Manager, Municipal
Licensing and Standards, West District:
This report responds to the November 12, 1998 request of Etobicoke Community Council for the
Deputy Chief Building Official and the Manager, Municipal Licensing and Standards, West District,
and the City Solicitor, for a joint report to the Community Council, to include recommendations for
a mechanism by which citizens can be heard, and various levels of fines for repeat and long-standing
It is recommended that this report be received for information. Council Reference/Background/History:
Mr. J. Hartman, President, Humber Valley Village Residents' Association, appeared as a deputant
before Etobicoke Community Council requesting a renewed commitment to ensuring full compliance
with Etobicoke District by-laws and the convening of a workshop for the development of
constructive recommendations for a new approach to enforcement. Comments and/or Discussion and/or Justification:
The Building Division of Urban Planning and Development Services Department is responsible for
the enforcement of the Ontario Building Code Regulations, the Sign By-law, the Construction Fence
By-law, the Swimming Pool Fence By-law, and the Group Home By-law, primarily where applicable
to new construction projects. Permit application review services and permit issuance followed by
inspection services define our primary role and function within the Department. The Department's
organizational vision includes elements which will offer customer centred service providing value
added services with clear, well defined processes that address community needs through
knowledgeable/professional staff.
As have other divisions within the Department, the Building Division has undergone a significant
downsizing of resources in order to meet the budgetary reductions imposed across the City. A new
management structure has been implemented to better deal with issues that previously may have been a concern, and the definition of our business plan is underway. The Humber Valley Village Residents' Association, through Mr. Jerry Hartman and
Mr. Ira Nishisato, have identified a concern respecting the lack of capacity on the part of the City to
pursue enforcement beyond everyday infractions, in cases of serious non-compliance. Management
staff of the Building Division met with Mr. Hartman and Mr. Nishisato to further discuss our
approach to handling the chronic Building Code violators and the apparent "fait accompli" attitude
towards enforcement.
The division has now concluded the management and senior position placements and is presently
undergoing a business process review. The outcome of this review and the establishment of realistic
service levels will be the final deployment of staff resources and the continued implementation of
In terms of providing a more effective and efficient inspection and enforcement service, standardized
forms and wording of Orders along with appropriate procedures for their use are being developed
to unify the former cities. A centralized court services unit has been developed for the Department.
Once implemented, this unit will improve the quality and effectiveness of legal action in a uniform
method across the City. As the unit would be seamless in terms of the district boundaries, it will be
familiar with chronic offenders and could advise the courts at the time of the hearing so that higher
fines could be aggressively pursued. Provincial Offence Ticketing (Part 1 Procedures) are also being
considered to provide for a more efficient enforcement service.
The Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of Urban Planning and Development Services is
responsible for the enforcement of a multitude of municipal by-laws. The majority of the complaints
we investigate are associated with the enforcement of zoning (land use) and property standards
regulations. Although Municipal Licensing and Standards enforcement staff do not enforce the
Building Code as it relates to new construction, inspection staff in both Building Services and
Municipal Licensing and Standards do, and will continue to work closely together in the best
interests of the citizens of Etobicoke.
Currently, the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division is in the process of restructuring by-law
enforcement services City-wide. Although the new structure is not yet complete, District Managers
have been appointed and, as far as day-to-day operations are concerned, we are striving to improve
service delivery to all our customers.
The concerns raised in the communication from the Humber Valley Village Residents' Association
have been reviewed by Municipal Licensing and Standards and we wish to assure the Association
that our staff will work hard to maintain the quality of life for our citizens by insuring that the City's
by-laws are complied with. With respect to repeat offenders, we agree with the Residents'
Association that a clear message must be sent to deter on-going and repeated offences. In that
regard, when Municipal Licensing and Standards receives a complaint it will be investigated and
upon confirmation of the offence, the responsible party will be directed to comply forthwith. If
compliance is not forthcoming, appropriate enforcement action will be taken, including the laying
of charges if necessary. Where a conviction is handed down, the conviction will be recorded and
should the offence be repeated, the Court (upon a subsequent conviction) will be advised of any
previous conviction(s). This, in turn, should reflect the severity of the penalty handed down. It
should be noted, however, that although the Prosecutor may make submissions to the Court
concerning penalty, the decision with respect to the fine imposed rests with the Court.
In conclusion, both the Building Division and the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division of
Urban Planning and Development Services are committed to ensuring compliance with the Ontario
Building Code and City by-laws. Staff have recently attended a town hall meeting of the Humber
Valley Residents' Association to address any concerns and to advise on the program changes and
current procedures. Both David Roberts, District Manager, and Bruce Ashton, Deputy Chief
Building Official, West District, would be happy to meet with other local Associations to address
any concerns they may have from time to time.
Bruce Ashton, P.Eng.	David Roberts
Director of Building and	District Manager
Deputy Chief Building Official	Municipal Licensing and Standards
West District	West District
Tel.: 394-8006; Fax:394-8209	Tel.: 394-2532; Fax: 394-2904
Application for Amendment to the Etobicoke Zoning Code
Adanac Realty Limited, North Side of Bell Manor Drive, north of
Berry Road, west of Stephen Drive - File No. Z-2284
The Etobicoke Community Council after considering the deputations, written submissions
filed and the report (May 12, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District,
and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that:
(1)	Condition 1(iii) of the following report (May 12, 1999) be amended by inserting the
words "to a limit of $4,000 for Parks and Recreation Services and the community, if
they so desire, to try", after the word "funding"so that Condition 1(iii) reads as follows:
1(iii)	The developer provide funding to a limit of $4,000 for Parks and Recreation
Services and the community, if they so desire, to try to re-establish a stand of
sassafras trees within the immediate neighbourhood, to the satisfaction of Parks
and Recreation Services; (2)	Condition 1(iv) be added as follows:
1(iv)	If legally possible, granting of an easement to provide for a public walkway
across the property to provide access to the abutting plaza;
(3)	Condition 3(iv) be amended by adding the words "if required upon review of previous
contributions", so that Condition 3(iv) reads as follows:
3(iv)	The developer to pay the prevailing development charges in effect at the time
of the issuance of building permits and any outstanding cash-in-lieu of parkland
contributions or dedications, if required upon review of previous contributions;
(4)	the application by Adanac Realty Limited to amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code from
Fifth Density Residential (R5) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to
permit the development of eight, freehold townhouse units on a vacant parcel of land,
located on the north side of Bell Manor Drive, north of Berry Road and west of
Stephen Drive, be approved; subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced report,
(5)	the following report (May 17, 1999) from the Director of Municipal Licensing and
Standards Division, regarding complains of litter and broken trees on the facant
property on the north side of Bell Manor Drive, north of Berry Road, be received: The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting 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 further reports, for the information of City Council, having
requested the City Solicitor to report back to Community Council on:
(i)	whether a public easement would exist across the property and the process for registering
same on title;
(ii)	the mechanism for obtaining an easement across the property to the north to connect to a
public walkway on the site; or whether a public easement would exist across the northern
property and the process for registering same on title.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (May 12, 1999) from the
Director of Community Planning, West District:
To consider a proposal to rezone the 1 504 m� (0.37 acre) vacant parcel of land, located on the north
side of Bell Manor Drive, north of Berry Road and west of Stephen Drive from Fifth Density
Residential (R5) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit the development of
eight, freehold townhouse units.
City funding is not required. There are no impacts on capital or operating budgets.
It is recommended that the application by Adanac Realty Limited be approved subject to a public
meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that the conditions to approval
outlined in this report be fulfilled. Background:
On January 19, 1999, Adanac Realty Limited submitted a rezoning application to permit the
development of eight, freehold townhouse units on the subject site. Etobicoke Community Council,
on February 17, 1999, received a Preliminary Report in connection with this proposal and requested
that the Director of Community Planning, West District, address issues with respect to whether the
subject property should be considered environmentally significant within the context of the
Etobicoke Official Plan due to the existence of sassafras trees on the property and to review the
potential for an easement across the property for the benefit of local residents for access to
Stonegate Plaza. These matters are discussed later in the report.
Site Description and Surrounding Uses:
This remnant 1 504 m� (0.37 acre) vacant parcel of land is located on the north side of
Bell Manor Drive, north of Berry Road and west of Stephen Drive (Exhibit No. 1). The site is
steeply sloped with the toe of the slope along Bell Manor Drive. The top of the slope abuts a paved
driveway associated with an existing apartment building which fronts onto Crown Hill Place. The
east and west sides of the parcel comprise built-up areas of asphalt pavements, including a partial
retaining wall at the east end of the site. The surrounding land uses are as follows: North:	Beyond the crest of the slope, lands are zoned Fifth Density Residential (R5) and are
occupied by low-rise apartment buildings which front onto a local street Crown Hill Place.
South:	Across Bell Manor Drive, an Etobicoke collector road, lands are zoned Fifth Density
Residential (R5) and occupied low-rise apartment buildings with at-grade parking areas
fronting onto Bell Manor Drive.
West:	Fronting onto Bell Manor Drive, lands are zoned Fifth Density Residential (R5) and are
occupied by low-rise apartment buildings with associated at-grade parking areas.
East:	Fronting onto Bell Manor Drive and Stephen Drive lands are zoned Planned Commercial
Local (CPL) and occupied by a neighbourhood retail plaza (Stonegate Plaza). Proposal:
Adanac Realty Limited has requested a rezoning of the subject lands from Fifth Density Residential
(R5) to Group Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) to permit the development of eight, freehold
townhouse units. Exhibit No.1 is a map showing the location of the property. Exhibit Nos. 2 and 3 are reductions of
the site plan and building elevations. A summary of the site statistics provided by the applicant is
Site Area:	1 504 m�	16, 189 ft�
Gross Floor Area:	1 156 m�	12, 448 ft�
Floor Space Index:	0.77
Density:	53 uph	21 upa	Height:	13 m	43 ft.	(three storeys)
Coverage:	493 m�	5, 310 ft� 33 %
Landscaped Area:	874 m�	9, 410 ft�	58 %
Paved Area:	137 m�	1, 475 ft�	9 %
Parking Required:	13 spaces (as per Zoning Code requirements of 1.6 spaces per unit)
Parking Provided:	16 spaces (including eight spaces on individual driveways) The proposal consists of eight grade-related townhouse units oriented towards Bell Manor Drive. The units would be typically three storeys high with a maximum roof height of 13 m (43 ft.). The
units would contain three bedrooms with an average unit size of 143 m� (1, 541 sq.ft.). The width
of the proposed units would be 5.2 m (17.3 ft.). The majority of units would have a 7.0 m (23 ft.)
rear yard and a frontyard setback of 5.5 m (18 ft.). In addition a 7.8 m (25.5 ft.) landscape buffer
would extend beyond the private rear yard amenity space of the individual units at the top of the
proposed retaining wall. A 1.8 m (6 ft.) wood screen fence will be installed along the north
property line which would limit the impact on privacy and views. Residential parking would be
provided with parking for two cars; one in a single car garage and one parked on the driveway.
Landscaping would be provided in individual rear and front yards and within the public boulevard.
The site is designated High Density Residential in the Official Plan, which generally permits multiple
unit housing of all types to be developed within the range of 70-185 uph (28-75 upa) to a maximum
floor space index (FSI) of 2.5. The proposed density of the project would be 53 uph (21 upa) with
a corresponding FSI of 0.77, which falls well below the density limits of the Plan. The site is zoned
Fifth Density Residential (R5) which permits among other uses apartment houses. The current
zoning could permit a 4-storey, 27 unit apartment building. However, given the site constraints, the
applicant has requested that the site be downzoned to permit a street related form of development. Proposals to amend the Zoning Code, for these purposes are subject to the criteria outlined in Section
4.2.19 of the Official Plan. Staff have evaluated the proposal within the context of these criteria
which have been appended as Exhibit No. 4.
Planning staff are generally satisfied that the proposal would meet the criteria for High and Medium
Density residential development as outlined in Section 4.2.19 of the Plan. The proposal would be
compatible with the adjacent low-rise apartment developments to the east, north and south and
would provide for a greater range of housing types in the area. There is sufficient capacity on the
adjacent roadways to support the development, and hard and soft services can be provided. The site
is located in an area with access to Berry Road and to Parklawn Road, both of which have been
identified as Etobicoke Arterial Roadways in the Etobicoke Official Plan. Public transit is available
on Stephen Drive and Park Lawn Road. Commercial shops and services are in close proximity at
Stonegate Plaza adjacent to the site. In addition, recreation facilities are available locally at
Bell Manor Park to the west of the site. Subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, staff recommend that the site be rezoned to Group
Area Fourth Density Residential (R4G) with development standards to reflect the approved project. Land Use and Site Design Considerations:
While the proposed residential development would be compatible with the neighbourhood to the
east, south and north, as proposed, it would place residential development in close proximity to the
retail plaza's (Stonegate Plaza) service driveway and refuse storage area, located to the west of the
proposal. Staff reviewed the land use compatibility of the proposal within this context and requested the
applicant to provide an adequate buffer and/or separation distance between the easterly boundary of
this proposed development, and the service area of the existing neighbourhood plaza use which it
abuts. Staff note that the subject lands and Stonegate Plaza property are under the same ownership. In response to staff's request, the applicant has proposed a buffer which includes a 3.0 to 3.5 m
(10 to 11 ft.) sideyard setback; intensified landscaping within the sideyard; and, a 1.8 m (6 ft.) high
wood screen fence. In addition to these provisions, the applicant will also provide an updated service
plan for the Plaza, which would detail the service requirements of the Plaza, including delivery,
refuse storage and removal. The adequacy of the proposed service plan, should be finalized to the
satisfaction of the Urban Planning and Development Services and Works and Emergency Services
Departments prior to Council's consideration of an amending by-law. The approved Servicing Plan
will be secured through an appropriate agreement(s).
If the separation and/or buffer between the two uses and the new Servicing Plan proposed by the
applicant is implemented, potential land use conflicts between the existing commercial use and
proposed residential development should be minimized.
Community Council Requests:
As noted above, on February 17, 1999, Etobicoke Community Council received a Preliminary Report
in connection with this proposal and requested that the Director of Community Planning, West
District, address issues with respect to whether the subject property should be considered
environmentally significant within the context of the Etobicoke Official Plan due to the existence
of sassafras trees on the property. This is a species of tree that is rare to the Toronto area. The
Director was also requested to review the potential for an easement across the property for the
benefit of local residents for access to Stonegate Plaza. These matters were also referred to the
Environmental Task Force for their review and comment. Planning Staff have reviewed the relevant policies of the Etobicoke Official Plan - Environmentally
Significant Areas Section 6.4 with respect to designating the subject site as environmentally
significant. The Official Plan has identified nine Environmentally Significant Areas within the
former City and are outlined on Map 6 of the Plan which include areas that provide a natural habitat
for rare indigenous species. Other areas may also be identified over time and incorporated into the
Plan if deemed appropriate with the assistance of agencies such as the Toronto Region Conservation
Authority or Parks and Recreation Services.
Parks and Recreation Services staff advise that although the site is home to a rare stand of sassafras
trees, the site's topography (steeply sloped), soil condition (sand and gravel) and tree condition
(pedestrian trampling of root structures for years) is such that preserving or relocating the trees
would not succeed. The applicant also submitted an Arborist Report, prepared by Dillon Consulting Limited, which
concluded that the presence of the sassafras on the site is of some significance. However, due to the
poor condition of the site and its relative isolation with no linkages to other natural areas, the
preservation of these trees would be of little value in their present location. The report recommends
that were possible, existing trees outside of the building envelope should be preserved and that other
species of trees, including the large oaks that exist on the property, be preserved as they are in
excellent condition. These preservation methods would be reviewed in more detail in conjunction
with an application for site plan control approval.
The applicant and Parks and Recreation staff have consulted a number of tree contractors who
concur that relocating the trees would not be successful. This matter has been reported on separately
by Parks and Recreation Services to Community Council on April 28, 1999. The Environmental
Task Force concurs with these recommendations. With respect to the request of Community Council to consider the provision of an easement across
the site for the benefit of local residents to access Stonegate Plaza, staff note that the property has
been used by local residents from Hill Heights Drive and Crown Hill Place to access the Plaza for
a number of years without the permission of the owner(s). Staff further note that there is an
intervening parcel of land located to the north of the subject site which separates the subject property
from those residents on Hill Heights Drive and Crown Hill Place. The owner of the intervening
property (5 and 6 Crown Hill Place) advised Community Council in a letter dated March 8, 1999,
that they are opposed to the provision of an easement on the subject site as it would further
encourage trespassing, littering, noise and vandalism on their property (Exhibit No. 5).
Staff note that the neighbourhood has an established public network of roads and sidewalks, and that
access to the Plaza for those residents on Hill Heights Drive and Crown Hill Place exists by way of
a Public Lane that connects Crown Hill Place to Riverwood Parkway and Stephen Drive. Agency Comments/Department Circulation:
In response to the circulation of plans submitted in support of this application, no objections have
been expressed by the Fire Department, Realty Services, Toronto Hydro and Canada Post.
The Transportation Planning Section of City Works Services recommends that the proposed paired
driveway width be reduced from 6.5 m in width to a smaller to a range between 5.5 m to 5.8 m in
width and that the driveway length be increased from 5.5 m to 6 m in accordance with Zoning Code
standards (Exhibit No. 6).
The Waste Management Division will provide curb-side waste and recycling collection for the
project. The Development Engineering Section of the Works Department has advised that there are existing
watermains, storm and sanitary sewers available on Bell Manor Drive. Storm water management
and grading (including proposed retaining wall) shall be to the satisfaction of the Works Department. (Exhibit No. 7). As noted above, Parks and Recreation staff have reported on the sassafras trees under separate cover. Parks staff have concluded that no preservation measures be taken for the sassafras trees. In
compensation for the loss, Parks and Recreation staff have recommended that an intensified planting
of shrubs and trees be provided above the proposed retaining wall, the existing asphalt boulevard be
rehabilitated to grass, and street trees be planted. On April 28, 1999, Community Council endorsed
the recommendations in the report and further moved that the developer provide funding to
re-establish a stand of sassafras trees within the immediate neighbourhood to the satisfaction of
Parks and Recreation Services and Works and Emergency Services. The subject proposal would also
be subject to a 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland dedication. The Toronto District School Board has advised that the students anticipated from the proposed
development cannot be accommodated at Park Lawn Junior-Middle School and Etobicoke
Collegiate, and the Board will be required to make alternative accommodation arrangements
(Exhibit No. 8). The Toronto District Catholic School Board have no objection to the application. They have however expressed their concern regarding overcrowding and the lack of permanent
facilities at Bishop Allen Catholic School. Junior grade students can be accommodated at
St. Mark Catholic School (Exhibit No. 9). Further Planning Approvals and Agreements:
As the lands are subject to Site Plan Control, the applicant would also be required to submit detailed
site plans for review and approval including a tree preservation and replanting plan. The applicant is requesting freehold tenure with the sale of individual lots to be facilitated through
the consent process and/or the lifting of part-lot control. No application to either the Committee of
Adjustment or the lifting of part-lot control has been received. Community Meeting:
A community meeting was held on March 31, 1999, at which time approximately six area residents
reviewed and commented on the proposed application. Residents expressed concerns regarding the
significance of the sassafras trees located on the site, existing commercial traffic and noise from the
servicing of Stonegate Plaza and the need for additional forms of affordable housing.
The concerns related to planning matters have been discussed in this report.
The subject application has been evaluated within the context High Density Residential provisions
of the Official Plan. Community Planning staff are of the opinion that the proposed development
is well below the density limits of the Official Plan and would comply with the criteria for
considering developments within High Density residential designations. In the event of approval,
it would be appropriate to incorporate development standards with respect to height, floor space
index and density into the amending by-law. The proposal would be compatible with the adjacent low-rise apartment developments to the east,
north and south and would provide for a greater range of housing types in the area. Notwithstanding
the project's general compliance with the Official Plan criteria, the rezoning could result in land use
compatibility concerns with respect to the servicing of the neighbourhood retail plaza to the east. A separation and/or buffer between the two uses, and the securing of a Servicing Plan for the
Stonegate Plaza should minimize potential land use conflicts between the existing commercial use
and proposed residential development. In is recommended that the application be approved, subject to fulfillment of the following
l.	Fulfillment of the following conditions by the applicant prior to the enactment of an
amending by-law:
(i)	Submission of plans and information to address the requirements of Traffic Planning
and Development Engineering Sections of the Works and Emergency Services
(ii)	Submission of a Service Plan for Stonegate Plaza, which shall address servicing
requirements for delivery and refuse storage to the satisfaction of Urban Planning and
Development Services and Works and Emergency Services including the signing of
any necessary agreements and the posting of a financial guarantee to ensure
compliance with the approved plan.
(iii)	The developer provide funding to re-establish a stand of sassafras trees within the
immediate neighbourhood to the satisfaction of Parks and Recreation Services.
2.	The amending by-law shall provide for the following:
(i)	Rezoning of the site from Residential Fifth Density (R5) to Group Area Fourth
Density Residential (R4G). The site specific by-law shall provide standards for units,
floor space index, height, setbacks, coverage, landscaped open space, fencing and
3.	Further detailed consideration of the proposal under Site Plan Control to include inter alia:
(i)	Signing of a Site Control Agreement and payment of the necessary fees associated
with the preparation, execution and registration of same.
(ii)	Submission of landscape plans detailing fencing, curbing, grading, retaining walls,
street trees, planting and tree preservation methods for trees (including abutting
properties), to the satisfaction of the Staff Advisory Committee on Development
Control and the posting of a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with the
(iii)	Provision of on-site services, including the provision of storm water management
facilities or cash-in-lieu payment, the signing of agreements, and the posting of
financial guarantees, if required, by Works and Emergency Services.
(iv)	The developer to pay the prevailing development charges in effect at the time of the
issuance of building permits and any outstanding cash-in-lieu of parkland
contributions or dedications.
(v)	A construction site management plan shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Staff
Advisory Committee on Development Control.
Paulo Stellato, MCIP, RPP	Tel: (416) 394-6004
Community Planning, West District	Fax: (416) 394-6063
(A copy of Attachments Nos. 1-9, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members
The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following report (May 17, 1999) from the
Director of Municipal Licensing and Standards:
Staff has been requested to report to the Etobicoke Community Council regarding complaints of
litter and broken trees on the subject property.
There are no financial implications for the City.
The property in question has been the subject of two previous reports. The report from the Director
of Community Planning, West District dated May 12, 1999, addresses the proposal to develop the
lands concerned with eight, freehold townhouse units. The second report dated April 7, 1999, is
from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism and it addresses the stand
of Sassafras trees on the property.
In the report from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism, it was noted
that the site is steeply sloped and is subject to heavy traffic from children playing. Consequently,
the potential for small trees to flourish has been diminished. Furthermore, the site is prone to an
accumulation of litter; both wind blown and from pedestrian traffic crossing the property. Currently, there are no complaints on file with Municipal Licensing and Standards with respect to
the condition of the property. The last complaint was in 1998 and it related to litter. Subsequently, our staff arranged to have the owner of the property clean up the site. An inspection
of the property on May 17, 1999, confirms that litter is again accumulating on the site and that the
potential for growth of small trees is in fact hampered by pedestrian traffic.
Municipal Licensing and Standards is prepared to insure that litter on the property is cleaned up
however, finding a permanent solution to the problem of litter is certainly preferable. With respect
to protecting tress on the property, should the site remain vacant, the property owner would have to
secure the site from access by pedestrians in order to prevent further damage to the trees. To the best
of our knowledge, there is no authority to require the site to be fenced off although, the property
owner might find that securing the property from public access may be preferable to constantly
having to clean up the site.
Should the proposal to develop the subject property with eight townhouse units be approved,
Municipal Licensing and Standards would support a buffer being provided (consisting of
landscaping and a 1.8m fence) between the plaza and the lands concerned. Furthermore, we support
a service/maintenance plan for the plaza being implemented. Both the buffer and service plan for
the plaza were addressed earlier in the report dated May 12, 1999, from the Director of Community
In the event the proposed development of the property is not approved, your Municipal Licensing
and Standards staff will meet with the property owner to discuss implementation of a pro-active
maintenance program for the property.
David Roberts, C.P.S.O.,
District Manager, West District,
Telephone: (416) 394-2532; Fax: (416) 394-2904
Mr. K. K. Dewaele, DD Consulting, appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council on behalf
of Adanac Realty Limited, with respect to the foregoing matter. Adanac Realty Limited
Queenscorp (33rd Avenue) Inc.
3531-3533 and 3535-3543 Lake Shore Boulevard West
File No. Z-2288 (Lakeshore-Queensway)
filed and the report (April 29, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District,
and for the reason that the proposal is an appropriate use of the lands, recommends that the
application by Queenscorp (33rd Avenue) Inc. to amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit
the development of a 4-storey, 46-unit "mainstreet" apartment building at 3531-3533 and
3535-3543 Lake Shore Boulevard West, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the
referenced report. The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting in accordance
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (April 29, 1999) from the
To consider an application to amend the Zoning Code to permit the development of a 4-storey,
46-unit "mainstreet" apartment building at 3531-3533 and 3535-3543 Lake Shore Boulevard West.
It is recommended that the application by Queenscorp (33rd Avenue) Inc. be approved subject to a
Public Meeting to obtain the views of interested parties and, if approved, that an amending by-law
be presented to Council for adoption.
The subject site is located in the former Village of Long Branch on the south side of
Lake Shore Boulevard West, immediately west of Thirty Third Street. Two commercial buildings
on the site were recently demolished.
The applicant proposes to construct a 46-unit, 4-storey "mainstreet" apartment building on the site.
The building would contain 24 1-bedroom and 22 2-bedroom apartments of approximately 71.6 m�
(771 sq.ft.) and 78.5 m� (845 sq.ft.) in size, respectively. The proposed apartment building would be located on the north portion of the site, along
Lake Shore Boulevard. The parking area would be located below and behind (south of) the building,
and would be accessed off Thirty Third Street. The landscaping would comprise of raised planters
at the front of the building along Lake Shore Boulevard, and low ground cover (e.g. shrubs, grass)
on the adjacent boulevard of Thirty Third Street. A 2.4 m (8 ft.) wide mutual driveway straddling
the west lot line of the site would be maintained.
A mix of 1 to 2-storey commercial, office and institutional buildings are situated along the south side
of Lake Shore Boulevard in the vicinity of the site. Lands on the north side of Lake Shore Boulevard
are mostly industrial, but include institutional and car-oriented retail uses. South of the site across
a 3.6 m (12 ft.) wide public lane is a low density residential neighbourhood of 1 to 2 storey
Exhibit No. 1 is a map showing the location of the subject property and surrounding zoning. Exhibit Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are reductions of the site plan and elevations, respectively. A summary of
the site data is listed below in Table 1.
The applicant has applied for site plan approval for the proposed apartment building, and intends to
apply later for plan of condominium.
2010.2 m�
21,638 sq.ft. Gross Floor Area
4 373.8 m�
47,080 sq.ft.
14.47 m�
1096.5 m�
11,803 sq.ft.
74 spaces (incl. 9 visitor)
@ 1.6 spaces/unit*
52 spaces (incl. 6 visitor)
* based on condominium standards appended to Etobicoke Official Plan
The site is designated Commercial-Residential Strip in the former Etobicoke Official Plan, which
permits a wide range of commercial uses, and certain residential uses such as apartment buildings
provided they do not interrupt the continuity of the commercial uses to a significant degree.
The Central/Western Lakeshore Area Secondary Plan indicates that development along
Lake Shore Boulevard should be predominantly street level commercial uses with apartments above. Urban design policies in the Secondary Plan support the location of buildings up to six storeys high
close to the street line of Lake Shore Boulevard.
Staff are satisfied that the proposed apartment building conforms to the Official Plan and does not
significantly interrupt the commercial continuity of Lake Shore Boulevard in Long Branch. The Long
Branch Mainstreet Pilot Project study (November, 1995) indicated that this commercial strip has
declined significantly since the 1970s, and the site is situated between two remaining nodes of
commercial activity in the vicinity of Thirtieth Street and Browns Line. As discussed later, the
building has been designed with a "mainstreet" form and its proposed zoning would permit the
ground floor apartments facing Lake Shore Boulevard to adopt a more commercial character
(e.g. live/work) as the Long Branch strip rejuvenates.
The subject site is zoned Commercial (C) (Long Branch) in the Etobicoke Zoning Code, which
permits a range of commercial uses, as well as apartment buildings and walk-up apartments above
stores. To permit the proposed apartment building, a site-specific by-law amendment is proposed
to exempt the building from development standards in the Zoning Code related to parking, building
setbacks, floor space index and landscaped open space. In addition, the by-law would permit the use
of the ground floor apartments facing Lake Shore Boulevard as live/work space as well as other uses
permitted in the Commercial zone.
Site Plan Issues:
The proposed apartment building would be located not more than 1.5 m (5 ft.) south of the street line
of Lake Shore Boulevard, with the second to fourth floors being set back slightly, to approximately
2.8 m (9.2 ft.) from the street line. Raised planter boxes are proposed at grade along the north wall
of the building within the setback area. The low planters would help to provide privacy from
passers-by for the north-facing ground floor apartments. The setback of the upper storeys is required
to provide adequate separation from a high voltage hydro line located within the right-of-way of
Lake Shore Boulevard, directly in front of the apartment building. The main lobby of the apartment building and the six north-facing ground floor apartments would
have entrances along Lake Shore Boulevard. The ground floor of the apartment building would be
approximately 5 to 7 steps above grade along Lake Shore Boulevard. The proposed height of the
ground floor level is of concern as it reduces the accessibility of the building from
Lake Shore Boulevard. The applicant is also proposing a 4 ft. high planter between the entrances
to the ground floor units. Reducing the height of the planters and the number of entrance steps
would improve the relationship of the building to the adjacent street. Planning staff will review
whether the number of steps can be reduced and a reduction in the height of the planters to a height
of approximately 2 feet as a condition to site plan approval. The existing 1.5 m (5 ft.) wide sidewalk and associated boulevard along Lake Shore Boulevard in
front of the site is unusually narrow for a pedestrian-oriented commercial strip. Currently, streetscape
upgrading is planned further west along the south side of Lake Shore Boulevard
(i.e. Twenty Third Street to Thirty First Street). As an interim measure, until the streetscape in front
of the site is upgraded as part of a comprehensive program, the applicant will be requested to
enhance the adjacent boulevard (e.g. upgraded street furniture, lighting, etc) as a condition of site
The sidewalk along Thirty Third Street will be widened from 1.2 (4 ft.) to 1.5 m (5 ft.) and the
boulevard will incorporate low landscaping. The existing parallel parking on the west side of
Thirty Third Street beside the site will be maintained and new street trees added. The parking located
behind the building will screened with fencing and/or landscaping. A detailed landscape plan will
be required as a condition of site plan approval.
Toronto Fire, Realty, Police and Health Services have expressed no concern with the proposal. The Economic Development Division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism advises that
employment generating uses are viable on the site and recommends a commercial component on the
ground floor of the building, and a site plan which is consistent with the commercial character along
an arterial road. As addressed earlier, the proposed zoning would provide for potential use of the
ground floor units for live/work and commercial purposes.
Toronto Hydro has indicated that it will accept a minimum setback of approximately 2.8 m (9.2 ft.)
from the from the upper floors of the building to the street line on Lake Shore Boulevard, provided
that the applicant pays for the relocation of hydro facilities. Confirmation of this setback in
consultation with Toronto Hydro will be included as a condition of site plan approval. The Technical Services Division of Works and Emergency Services advises that water, storm and
sanitary services are available. The applicant's soil/groundwater report has been accepted by City's
peer reviewers. As a condition of site plan approval, the Technical Services Division will require
a stormwater management report and lot grading plan for review, confirmation that the proposed
waste/recycling facilities are acceptable, and that the applicant enter into an agreement with the City,
and post adequate bonding, to ensure completion of the grading and other services.
The Transportation Services Division of Works and Emergency Services has advised that the
proposed parking supply is acceptable provided that apartments in the building are limited to 1 and
2-bedroom units. It also advises that the proposed loading and servicing are acceptable for a
"mainstreet" building.
The details of fencing, curbing and signage of the parking area, retention of the sidewalk on
Thirty Third Street at the access driveway, and reconstruction of the public lane behind the site are
to be to the satisfaction of Transportation Services. Transportation Services also recommends
elimination of the mutual right-of-way along the west lot line of the site, and that garage access,
lighting and security be to the satisfaction of Toronto Police Services. Transportation Services
advises that the Toronto Parking Authority may require the installation of parking meters adjacent
to the site along Thirty Third Street at the applicant's expense. All of these matters will be addressed
as conditions of site plan approval.
Transportation Services has requested a road widening along Lake Shore Boulevard of up to 0.82 m
(2.7 ft.) towards achieving the 36 m (118 ft.) right-of-way shown in the Official Plan. The road
widening will require that the front planters for the proposed building be located south of the existing
front walls of adjacent buildings which are developed to the current street line. Community Meeting:
On April 22, 1999, a community meeting was attended by approximately 35 area residents who
indicated general support for the application. As requested by residents, the applicant agreed to vary
the types of materials and detailing on different sections of the building face to reduce its massing. Residents also requested that a construction management plan be required by the City. Concern was
also expressed by some residents regarding the adequacy of parking for the apartment building.
The Long Branch commercial strip has declined for several years and needs new development and
other investment to begin its renewal. The proposed "mainstreet" apartment building conforms with
the relevant Official Plan policies as it would not significantly disrupt the continuity of commercial
use in the Long Branch strip. As well, the proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses and
could be accommodated from a design and transportation perspective.
1.	The amending by-law shall confirm the existing Commercial-1 (C) zoning of the site and
incorporate site-specific provisions addressing matters including parking, front, side and rear
setbacks, landscaped open space and floor space index. As well, the by-law would permit
use of the ground floor units facing Lake Shore Boulevard for live/work space as well as uses
currently permitted by the Commercial zoning.	2.	Further consideration of the proposal under Site Plan Control to include:
(ii)	Submission of a landscape plan detailing planting, lighting, curbing, fencing, grading
and street trees, and the posting of a financial guarantee to ensure compliance with
the approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division of Urban
(iii)	Submission of a stormwater management report, grading plan and construction
management plan to the satisfaction of the Technical Services Division of Works and
(iv)	Provision of on-site services, including storage of waste and recyclable materials, the
treatment and provision of stormwater management facilities (including payment of
stormwater quality cash-in-lieu, if required), and the posting of adequate bonding to
ensure completion of the grading and services, and compliance with the construction
management plan, to the satisfaction of the Technical Services Division of Works
(v)	Fencing along the south lot line and Thirty Third Street, curbing of the driveway and
parking area, maintenance of the sidewalk at the access driveway off
Thirty Third Street, signage of visitor parking, and reconstruction of the public lane
behind the site, to the satisfaction of the Transportation Services Division of Works
(vi)	Garage access, lighting and security to the satisfaction of Toronto Police Services and
the City Planning Division of Urban Planning and Development Services.
(vii)	If required by the Toronto Parking Authority, installation of parking meters for the
existing on-street tandem parking spaces adjacent to the site along
Thirty Third Street, at the applicant's expense.
(viii)	Resolution of whether the existing mutual right-of-way along the west lot line can be
eliminated in consultation with the abutting landowner, to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Division of Urban Planning and Development Services and the
Transportation Services Division of Works and Emergency Services.
(ix)	Payment of 5% cash-in-lieu of parkland to the satisfaction of the Policy and
Development division of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism.
(x)	Payment of applicable development charges in effect at the time of the issuance of
(xi)	Confirmation of the building setbacks from Lake Shore Boulevard and hydro
facilities in consultation with Toronto Hydro.
(xii)	Dedication of a road widening ranging from 0.57 m (1.9 ft.) to 0.82 m (2.7 ft.) along
the Lake Shore Boulevard frontage to the satisfaction of the Transportation Services
Division of Works and Emergency Services.
(xiii)	Enhancement of the boulevard along Lake Shore Boulevard with upgraded street
furniture, lighting, etc to the satisfaction of the City Planning Division of Urban
(xiv)	The grade of the ground floor of the apartment building and the height of associated
planters and steps on Lake Shore Boulevard to be lowered to the satisfaction of the
City Planning Division of Urban Planning and Development Services.
3.	Consideration of an application for plan of condominium to include restricting the apartment
building to 1 and 2-bedroom units, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor.
Jamie McEwan, Senior Planner Tel: (416) 394-8878
The following persons appeared before Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the
foregoing matter:
-	Mr. Mark Bozzo, Queenscorp (33rd Avenue) Inc., in support of the application; and
-	Mr. Richard Ciupa, expressing concern that the Long Branch Main Street Project is not being
adhered to and requesting that consideration be given to making the facade of the project
more "mainstreet". Exhibit No. 1
Andrei Verbitsky, 10 Fairfield Avenue
File No. Z-2275 (Lakeshore-Queensway)
filed and the report (April 20, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District,
(1)	the Condition to Approval No. 1 be amended by adding the following:
"submission of an accessibility plan showing barrier-free access to all floors within the
building." so that Condition No. 1 reads as follows:
1.	Prior to the enactment of an amending by-law:
(i)	Submission of an accessibility plan showing barrier-free access to all
floors within the building.
(ii)	Submission of a landscape plan which shows, among other matters,
barrier-free access to the dwelling, and the design and drainage of the
rear parking pad, to the satisfaction of Urban Planning and
Development Services and Works and Emergency Services.; and
(2) the application by Andrei Verbitsky to amend the Etobicoke Zoning Code to permit the
conversion of an existing duplex dwelling to a lodging house for seniors at
10 Fairfield Avenue, be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in the referenced
report, as amended. The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a statutory public meeting in accordance
referred the following communication (May 26, 1999) from Mrs. Margaret Ciupa to the Board of
Health for review and report to the Community and Neighbourhood Services Committee, and
requested that Mrs. Ciupa and any interested parties be invited to attend at that time.
The Etobicoke Community Council submits the following report (April 20, 1999) from the
To consider an application to amend the Zoning Code to permit the conversion of an existing duplex
dwelling to a lodging house for seniors at 10 Fairfield Avenue. Funding Sources, Financial Implications and Impact Statement:
It is recommended that the application by Andrei Verbitsky be approved, subject to a Public Meeting
to obtain the views of interested parties and, the fulfillment of the conditions outlined in this report.
The subject site is located on the north side of Fairfield Avenue between Twenty-Fourth and
Twenty-Sixth Streets in the former Village of Long Branch. The site is occupied by a 2-storey
duplex dwelling containing an illegal basement apartment, and a detached 2-car garage. The duplex
dwelling is currently being used illegally as a lodging house.
The front yard of the site is landscaped, except for the driveway. The rear yard contains additional
landscaping, as well as the detached garage and a 2-car parking pad.
The applicant proposes to convert the duplex to an 8-bedroom lodging house for up to 14 seniors.
The bedrooms and common rooms would be on the first and second floors. The kitchen, dining
room, office, laundry and staff room would be in the basement.
The exterior of the dwelling would not be altered. Existing landscaped areas on the property would
be maintained except that a new walkway would be added from the municipal sidewalk to the front
door of the dwelling and the rear yard parking pad would be expanded slightly.
the site data is listed in Table 1.
The surrounding lands are generally zoned Residential Multiple-1 (RM-1)(Long Branch) and
occupied by a mix of single detached, semi-detached and duplex dwellings. The property to the
south directly across Fairfield Avenue is zoned Residential Multiple Apartments (RMA) and
occupied by an 81-unit, 8-storey apartment building.
The applicant has applied to Toronto Health Services for a 'Type B' lodging house licence, which
would permit up to 1.5 hours of daily care for the occupants. The facility would not be
owner-occupied. A staff person would be on duty on a 24 hour basis.
578.1 m2
329.77 m2
Landscaped Area 203.1 m2
The site is designated Low Density Residential in the Official Plan, which permits a range of
grade-related housing including lodging houses. Where lands within this designation are not zoned
to permit lodging houses, the Plan provides that they may be permitted by site-specific by-law
amendment subject to criteria set out in the Plan (Section 4.2.20).
Based on a review of these Official Plan criteria (Exhibit No. 5), staff are satisfied that the site is
suitable for the proposed lodging house. It is located near Lake Shore Boulevard, an arterial road
with public transit, is sufficiently large to provide adequate landscaping and parking, and is
well-separated from existing lodging houses and similar facilities. As well, Health Services have
advised that the proposed facility can accommodate the proposed number of residents without
The subject property is zoned Residential Multiple-1 (RM-1)(Long Branch) in the Etobicoke Zoning
Code, which permits single and semi-detached, duplex, threeplex and fourplex dwellings, but not
lodging houses. Supplementary regulations for lodging houses (Section 330-33) in the Zoning Code restrict the use,
location and development standards for lodging houses. The proposed lodging house generally
complies with the supplementary regulations except that it is not owner-occupied, has over
10 residents (i.e. up to 14), and is slightly below the minimum side setback required due to the
existing location of the dwelling and detached garage. Therefore, in order to permit the conversion of the duplex to a lodging house, site-specific by-law
amendments will be required to permit the proposed "retirement home" lodging house in the
Residential Multiple zone, and exempt the facility from certain supplementary regulations for
Toronto Health Services, Toronto Realty Services, Toronto Fire Services, Toronto Hydro, Canada
Post and Economic Development, Culture and Tourism have expressed no concern with the
proposal. The Transportation Services Division of Works and Emergency Services has advised that
the proposed parking supply is acceptable, but requires more details regarding the design and
drainage of the rear parking pad.
A community meeting attended by approximately 16 area residents was held on March 1, 1999.
Residents were primarily concerned that the lodging house had opened illegally without seeking
municipal approvals. They requested that the lodging house use be restricted to a retirement home
for senior and elderly persons and have barrier-free access. They also suggested that the interior of
the building be adapted to provide barrier-free access but Health Services advised that the proposal
meets current standards in the lodging house by-law. As noted earlier, if the application is approved,
the by-law amendment would restrict the lodging house to a retirement home facility. Prior to the
passing of the by-law, a landscape plan detailing matters including barrier-free access to the dwelling
will be required. As requested by the ward Councillors, a chronology and copies of explanatory
letters from the applicant are attached to this report (Exhibit Nos. 6 and 7).
The proposed lodging house would be in conformity with the relevant Official Plan policies. The
proposal is compatible with surrounding land uses and could be accommodated from a design and
transportation perspective.
1.	Prior to the enactment of an amending by-law, submission of a landscape plan which shows,
among other matters, barrier-free access to the dwelling, and the design and drainage of the
rear parking pad, to the satisfaction of Urban Planning and Development Services and Works
2.	The amending by-law shall confirm the existing Residential Multiple-1 (RM-1) zoning of
the site and permit a lodging house subject to the following conditions:
(i)	The lodging house use shall be restricted to a retirement home facility for seniors and
(ii)	A maximum of 14 residents and one staff person shall be accommodated in the
(iii)	The lodging house is not required to be owner-occupied.
(iv)	The existing east side setback of the dwelling may be reduced from the 1.8 m
required to approximately 1.79 m. The existing west side setback of the detached
garage may be reduced from the 0.4 m required to approximately 0.3 m. The affected
setbacks of the eaves of the dwelling and garage may also be reduced to reflect their
(v)	No exterior alterations or additions to the dwelling shall be permitted to
accommodate the permitted use except as required to comply with other municipal
and provincial regulations.
Jamie McEwan, Senior Planner	Tel: (416) 394-8878
(A copy of Exhibits Nos. 1-7, referred to in the foregoing report, was forwarded to all Members of
Council with the agenda for the Etobicoke Community Council meeting of May 26, 1999, and a copy
of each is on file in the office of the City Clerk.)
The Etobicoke Community Council also submits the following communication (May 26, 1999)
from Mrs. Margaret Ciupa:
The process for this application has been abused prior to the application and contravenes many of
our existing by-laws. The Background information in the Planning Report indicates that this
dwelling is being used as an illegal lodging house. The City has allowed the applicants to continue
to operate an illegal lodging house business for the past ten months without any charges being laid
against the owners or operator. Does this place the City in any position of liability by the residents
of the home, e.g. a fire or injury?
We have all heard horror stories about the lodging houses in Toronto and other cities where
vulnerable people have lived and major problems have caused injury and death to occur because of
lack of regulations being in place and monitoring of same.
Etobicoke has by-laws in place to protect our neighbourhoods and to protect the residents who pay
their way in the lodging houses. The goal was to ensure that the residents, many of whom are
vulnerable and frail, would have the opportunity to live in a caring, safe environment in their older
years. The City of Etobicoke and the Etobicoke Board of Health have been leaders and away ahead of other
municipalities in Toronto and other cities in the province with their implementation of the by-laws
that affect the zoning, and licensing for standards of care and the surveillance of lodging houses Type
A and B. Something that I have been proud of for many years.
The Board of Health revised this by-law due to some major problems that had occurred in some of
the lodging houses that were operating in the City. It was tightened up to protect the residents and
the City Solicitor agreed that it had enough substance to be enforced and that it would stand up in
Court. The process for rezoning allows the neighbours to be informed of any changes of zoning that are to
occur in their area and the opportunity to speak to the proposed changes. Many questions were
answered at the community meeting that our Councillors had. This does still not make the process
that happened correct. Article II of the Lodging House By-law states that ..no person shall, within the City of Etobicoke,
carry on a lodging house or be an operator of a lodging house unless or until a license has been
obtained therefor from the Board of Health for the City of Etobicoke.
The Owners of this property and the Operator ignored the requirement and started to operate an
illegal lodging house - Type B, without the zoning or lodging house license in place. They have
continued to house residents while they were waiting for their application to be approved. The Fire
Department was not in the loop until February 1999, six months after the residents started to reside
there. As of March 1, 1999, eight residents were living there.
The Staff report indicates that barrier free access to the building will be required. Barrier Free
Access is very difficult in a three-level building with a split entrance. You come in at ground level
onto a landing and must go up to the main level or down to basement level from the front door. Is
this classified as accessible?
This applicant is knowledgeable about acquiring City approvals for zoning changes and the operator
of Mrs. Casey Homes is experienced and knowledgeable about lodging house regulations.
Therefore my recommendations re 10 Fairfield Avenue are:
-	that the applicant for 10 Fairfield be required to put in a chair lift so that all three floors and
the entrance are accessible. This would ensure that residents have access to the front door
and to the dining room that is in the basement;
-	that the applicant be required to pay the costs of two times the licensing fee for the lodging
house and twice the building permit fee and the costs of visits by the Health, Fire and Traffic
Departments for the time spend in processing this illegal operation; and further
-	that the Lodging House By-law be reviewed and revised in order that better standards for
zoning and licensing and charges be in place for the protection of the residents living in
lodging houses and for the neighbourhood;
-	that the Board of Health for the City of Toronto determine the best possible vehicle in order
to ensure that the care of the elderly in lodging houses is safe and will provide for the quality
of life they deserve;
-	that the Health Inspection and the Nursing Staff be allocated more time to ensure that
business operators of the lodging houses are meeting the requirements of the by-law;
-	that anyone found operating an illegal lodging house business be charged and that alternate
accommodation for the residents in an illegal lodging house Type B be found until the zoning
and licensing are in place;
-	that any expenses incurred by the City in dealing with an illegal lodging house be included
in the charges laid against the owner of the property.
In conclusion I do not want to infer that safety and good quality care will not be provided in this
lodging house if it is approved. I am sure that the City staff will monitor it sufficiently to ensure that
the by-law is enforced.
My concern is that our City by-laws are not being enforced and that this dwelling continued to
operate in violation of our existing by-laws without intervention by the City.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, also having had
before it during consideration of the foregoing matter, a communication (May 20, 1999) from
Mr. and Mrs. Andrei Verbitsky, submitting additional information with respect to their application
to amend the Zoning Code to permit the conversion of an existing duplex dwelling to a lodging
house for seniors.
The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection with the
-	Mr. Yuri Ihnatko, on behalf of Andrei Verbitsky; and
-	Mrs. Margaret Ciupa.
Andrei Verbitsky
Proposal to Stop-Up, Close, and Sell Part of the Government Road
Road Allowance (Kingsway-Humber)
(May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services: Purpose:
To authorize the stopping-up, closing, and offering for sale of part of the Government Road road
The City will realize revenue from the eventual sale of these lands.
(1)	the portion of the Government Road road allowance, shown hatched and cross-hatched on
the attached plan, be declared surplus to City requirements and stopped-up, closed, and
offered for sale to the abutting owner/s, subject to the reservation of any necessary easements
for municipal services or public utilities;
(2)	the appropriate City officials be authorized to give notice to the public of the intention to
stop-up, close, and sell the subject portion of road allowance; and
(3)	the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary action to give
The abutting owner at 43 Mill Cove has requested that the City take the steps necessary to sell part
of the adjacent unused road allowance so that it can be assembled with his property to allow for an
addition to be built onto the existing house. He is only interested in acquiring a triangular portion
of the unused road in order to effectively square off his irregular-shaped lot.
The subject property is part of the untravelled road allowance for Government Road. The abutting
owner to the south at 43 Mill Cove has been utilizing the land for several years as additional sideyard
without any formal agreement with the City.
The land to the north is owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. To the east of
the site is a very steep embankment leading down to the Humber River Valley. Due to the setback
required as a result of the steep embankment, the unused road allowance could not be developed as
an independent building lot.
A poll was taken to determine if there exists any municipal interest in retaining this property and no
interest was expressed in this parcel of land. Easements may be required to be reserved for existing
municipal services. Works staff have advised that the property may be encumbered by the
foundations of an abandoned sanitary sewer pumping house including an overflow sewer for which
they have no record of their removal.
The property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and sold to the
abutting owner/s. The balance of the land not required to square off the lot at 43 Mill Cove could
be offered to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to add to their holdings.
Francois (Frank) G. Bedard, Manager, Realty Services, Etobicoke-York Districts
Tel.: (416) 394-8096; Fax: (416) 394-8895
Thorndale Crescent
Proposal to Stop-Up, Close, and Sell Part of the Lane West of Cordova Avenue between Parts 1 and 2, Plan 64R-7692
To authorize the stopping-up, closing, and offering for sale of part of the lane west of
Cordova Avenue lying between Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 64R-7692.
(1)	the portion of lane to the west of Cordova Avenue lying between Parts 1 and 2 on
Plan 64R-7692, at the rear of 4879 to 4895 Dundas Street West, shown cross-hatched on the
attached plan, be declared surplus to City requirements and stopped-up, closed, and offered
for sale to the abutting owner/s, subject to the reservation of any necessary easements for
municipal services or public utilities;
stop-up, close, and sell the subject portion of lane; and
The subject property is in the former City of Etobicoke.
The abutting owner at 4879 to 4895 Dundas Street West has requested that the City take the steps
necessary to sell the portion of the lane lying between Parts 1 and 2 on Plan 64R-7692 so that it can
be assembled with his property which abuts to the north and south of the subject portion of the lane.
The subject property measures approximately 6.10 m (20 feet) x 53.58 m (175.79 feet) and according
to the Manager, Traffic Planning, it accommodates vehicular access exclusively to the properties at
4879 to 4895 Dundas Street West which are under common ownership. The land could be
assembled with the adjoining property to consolidate holdings.
interest was expressed in this parcel of land. The Manager, Traffic Planning, has advised that this
portion of the lane provides no vehicular access benefit to the area, and will not serve any long-term
strategic purpose from a traffic planning perspective.
abutting owner/s. Contact Name:
Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax No.: (416) 394-8895)
Proposal to Stop-Up, Close, and Sell Part of the Mill Road
Road Allowance (Markland-Centennial)
(May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services:
To authorize the stopping-up, closing, and offering for sale of part of the Mill Road road allowance.
(1)	the portion of the Mill Road road allowance, shown cross-hatched on the attached plan, be
declared surplus to City requirements and stopped-up, closed, and offered for sale to the
abutting owner, subject to the reservation of any necessary easements for municipal services
or public utilities;
The abutting owner at 339 Markland Drive has requested that the City take the steps necessary to sell
a 6.10 m (20 feet) wide by 36.58 m (120 feet) deep portion of the road immediately to the west so
that it can be assembled with his property to allow for an addition onto his house.
The subject property forms part of the Mill Road road allowance. In this location the road allowance
has a width of 26.21 m (86 feet). Transportation staff have confirmed that a standard width of
20.12 m (66 feet) would suffice in this location for any potential future transportation needs as
shown on the attached plan. There is a sewer pumping station located along the westerly portion of
the road allowance and storm and sanitary sewers run down the middle of the road such that it could
not feasibly be developed as a building lot. The road ostensibly leads to the Markland Woods Golf
Course, however, the road is not used for access by the golf course and there is a fence at the south
limit of the road.
The owner to the west, at 335 Markland Drive, is not interested in buying any part of the road.
interest was expressed in this parcel of land. There is a water main along the east side of the road
and an easement will be reserved for this purpose.
The subject property is not required for municipal purposes and should be declared surplus and sold
to the abutting owner.
Telephone: (416) 394-8096; Fax: (416) 394-8895
Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board - Nazeer S. Bishay
22 Kingsview Boulevard - File No. Z-2252
(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, amended this Clause by adding to the end of the
recommendation embodied in the report dated May 18, 1999, from the City Clerk, the words "or
take such settlement action as is expedient", so that such recommendation shall now read as
"It is recommended that the firm of Reble, Ritchie, Green and Ketcheson and appropriate
staff be authorized to attend an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on June 14, 1999, in
defense of the City's refusal of an application for a site specific amendment to the Second
Density Residential (R2) zoning to legalize a two-storey, single detached residential dwelling
at 22 Kingsview Boulevard or take such settlement action as is expedient.")
(May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk:
To seek authorization for legal and staff representation at an Ontario Municipal Board hearing with
respect to an appeal by Nazeer S. Bishay of City Council's refusal to deal with a site specific by-law.
It is recommended that the firm of Reble, Ritchie, Green and Ketcheson and appropriate staff be
authorized to attend an Ontario Municipal Board hearing on June 14, 1999, in defense of the City's
refusal of an application for a site specific amendment to the Second Density Residential (R2) zoning
to legalize a two-storey, single detached residential dwelling at 22 Kingsview Boulevard.
At its meeting held on June 3, 4 and 5, 1998, City Council adopted Clause No. 2 contained in Report
No. 6 of the Etobicoke Community Council, thereby refusing an application for a site specific
proposal to amend the Second Density Residential (R2) zoning to legalize a two-storey, single
detached residential dwelling with a rear yard setback of 22.24 m (73.0 ft), a coverage of
33.6 percent, and a building height of 10.27 m (33.7 ft), at 22 Kingsview Boulevard, in accordance
with a report (May 27, 1998) from the Commissioner of Urban Development, Etobicoke District.
Clause No. 2 further recommends:
(a)	resolution of outstanding issues as soon as possible; and
(b)	recovery of all costs incurred by the municipality, including staff and legal time, in
association with the resolution of these issues: As noted in the foregoing report, the property has a long and complex history involving numerous
applications before the City, hearings before the Ontario Municipal Board, and legal matters before
It is therefore recommended that legal and staff representation be made at the Ontario Municipal
Board to uphold the City's position.
Mrs. Molly Sutherland
(416) 394-8078 A motion to adopt the foregoing recommendation carried on the following recorded vote:
Yeas:	E. Brown, M. Giansante, D. Holyday, I. Jones, B. Kinahan, G. Lindsay Luby, D. O'Brien, -7
Nays:	B. Sinclair - 1	19
Urban Planning and Development Services Department
The Etobicoke Community Council reports for the information of City Council having
endorsed the recommendations of the Urban Environment and Development Committee
contained in the following transmittal letter (May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk:
The Urban Environment and Development Committee submitted the following
recommendations to City Council for consideration at its meeting on June 9, 1999 and, in
addition, forwarded its action in this respect and the report (May 11, 1999) from the
Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development to all Community Councils for information
and to the Budget Committee for consideration and report directly to Council for its meeting
on June 9, 1999.
The Committee recommended to Council for its meeting on June 9, 1999 the following:
(1)	that Recommendations (1), (2) and (3) of the report (May 11, 1999) from the
Commissioner, Urban Planning and Development Services be adopted subject to
amending Recommendation (1) by deleting the figure "7" and substituting the
figure "15" and amending the amounts accordingly, so as to read:
"(2)	City Council approve an additional amount of $369,000 to the 1999 salaries and
benefits budget of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department
in order to fund the hiring of 15 additional planners by the final four months
of the current fiscal year (thereby representing an annualized cost of
$1,107,000;"
(2)	that the past practices of hiring summer planning students be maintained and
At its meeting on May 17, 1999, the Urban Environment and Development Committee had before
it the report (May 11, 1999) from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Service
responding to Council's concern regarding the sufficiency of staff resources in the Urban Planning
and Development Services Department to deliver services within the time frames desired by both
City Council and the public and recommending that:
(1)	City Council approve an additional amount of $172,200 to the 1999 salaries and benefits
budget of the Urban Planning and Development Services Department in order to fund the
hiring of 7 additional planners by the final four months of the current fiscal year (thereby
representing an annualized cost of $516,600);
(2)	City Council approve an additional amount of $135,300 to the 1999 salaries and benefits
hiring of 6 additional zoning/plans examiners by the final four months of the current fiscal
year (thereby representing an annualized cost of $405,900); (3)	the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Development Services report to the Planning and
Transportation Committee in the fall of 1999 on the status and service impact of the
redeployment of enforcement staff and the re-allocation of administrative cost efficiencies
within the Municipal Licensing and Standards Division; and
(4)	this report and the actions of the Urban Environment and Development Committee be
forwarded to the Community Councils for information, and to the Budget Advisory
The Committee also had before it:
- report (May 14, 1999) from Councillor Frances Nunziata, expressing concern with respect
to depleted staff resources at York Civic Centre;
-	communication (May 13, 1999) from Patrick Bernes, President, DeBerardinis Building and
Development Ltd. expressing concern over the loss of experienced planning staff,
particularly in the former Cities of Etobicoke and North York, which has resulted in a delay
with general processing of planning and building matters within the amalgamated City of
The Committee's action is as noted.
(City Council on June 9, 10 and 11, 1999, received this Clause, for information.)
(a)	Election of Chair.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having held a special meeting on
May 11, 1999, for the purpose of electing a new Chair, and that
Councillor Mario Giansante was elected Chair of the Etobicoke Community Council
for a term of office comencing on June 14, 1999, the effective date of the new
(b)	Variances to the Etobicoke Sign By-law.
(1)	deferred Item (1) of the following report for deputation at the next meeting of
Etobicoke Community Council on June 23, 1999, at the request of the applicant; and
(2)	referred Item (3) thereof back to staff for further review in light of a current
rezoning application for the subject property:
(April 22, 1999) advising Etobicoke Community Council of the decisions of the Sign
Variance Advisory Committee at its meeting held on April 20, 1999, with respect to sign
variance applications at the following locations:
(1)	Urban Outdoor Trans Ad, 3 Queensway Lions Court (Lakeshore-Queensway);
(2)	Pizza Pizza, 130 Rexdale Boulevard (Rexdale-Thistletown);
(3)	Petro Canada Service Stations, 830 Burnhamthorpe Road (Markland-Centennial);
(4)	Investors Group, 295 The West Mall (Markland-Centennial); and
(5)	Home Depot, 1983 Kipling Avenue (Rexdale-Thistletown).
(c)	Variances to the Etobicoke Sign By-law.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred Item (1) of the following
report back to the Sign Variance Advisory Committee to allow for deputation by
neighbouring residents:
(May 12, 1999) from the City Clerk advising Etobicoke Community Council of the decisions
of the Sign Variance Advisory Committee at its meeting held on May 11, 1999, with respect
to sign variance applications at the following locations:
(1)	Thorncrest Plaza, 1500 Islington Avenue (Kingsway-Humber); and
(2)	30 Vice-Regent Boulevard (Rexdale-Thistletown).
(d)	Traffic Concerns - Cliveden Avenue - Supplementary Report (Lakeshore-Queensway).
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report:
(May 26, 1999) from the Director, Transportation Services, District 2, responding to the
concerns of area residents with respect to vehicles traveling the wrong way on the one-way
section of Cliveden Avenue between Bloor Street West and Meadowvale Drive; and
responding to the proposals put forward by the residents of the community as directed by the
Etobicoke Community Council and Toronto Council by adoption of Clause 6 of Report No. 3
of the Etobicoke Community Council, on March 2, 3 and 4, 1999; and recommending that:
(1)	District Transportation staff continue to assess the compliance of the one-way
designation on Cliveden Avenue and report back to the Etobicoke Community
Council within 6-8 months; and
(2)	the Toronto Police Service be requested to enforce the one-way regulation on an
(e)	Application for Amendments to the Etobicoke Official Plan and Zoning Code - Wittington Properties Limited, south side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent, north of
Dundas Street West and east of Burnhamthorpe Road - File No. Z-2283 (Kingsway-Humber).
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adjourned the Public Meeting held
pursuant to Sections 17 and 34 of the Planning Act, sine die, to allow the applicants to
come back with a proposal for stacked townhouses or a project that will allow them to
build to the permitted F.S.I. of 2.5 on the site.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports, for the information of City Council, having held
a statutory public meeting on May 26, 1999, in accordance with Section 17 and 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 further reports having had for consideration a report (May 6, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, regarding a site
specific proposal for an amendment to the Official Plan and Zoning Code with respect to an
assembly of four properties located on the south side of Burnhamthorpe Crescent, north of
Dundas Street West and east of Burnhamthorpe Road; namely, a redesignation of the lands
from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential and a rezoning from Second
Density Residential (R2) to Sixth Density Residential (R6) to permit the development of a
residential condominium project with two point block buildings of 10 and 12 storeys, joined
by a 4-storey connecting building and a total of 155 units.
The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council with respect to
the foregoing matter: - Ms. Bronwyn Krog, Senior Director, Planning and Development, Wittington
Properties Limited, together with Planning and Traffic Consultants, representing
Wittington Properties Limited;
- Mr. Bob Berry, Islington Residents and Ratepayers Association;
- Mr. Alan Shiels;
-	Mrs. Judith Shiels;
-	Mr. Sol Avalese;
- Ms. Valerie Gibson, also on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Watson and Mr. and Mrs. Peever;
- Mr. David Holman;
- Mr. David Lewis;
- Mr. Murray Koebel;
- Mr. Dan Gargaro;
- Mr. Charles McLeod;
- Mrs. Iris Petersen;
- Mr. Paul Summers, Islington United Church;
- Mrs. Lilian Senteleky;
- Mrs. Jean Berry;
-	Mr. Ron Collins;
-	Mr. John Middleton;
-	Mr. Fraser McAllan; -	Mr. Graham Mino;
-	Mr. John Pickering;
-	Ms. Michelle Portch;
-	Mr. James Agnew;
-	Mr. Brian Howell;
-	Mr. John Portch; and
-	Mr. John Peacock.
The Etobicoke Community Council also reports having had for consideration the following
communication in support of the proposal:
-	(May 21, 1999) from Mr. Paul Summers, Trustee, Islington United Church.
The Etobicoke Community Council further reports having had for consideration the
following communications in opposition to the proposal:
-	(May 7, 1999)	from Mr. Douglas Dodds; -	(May 12, 1999) from Mr. Bob Berry, Director, Islington Ratepayers and Residents
-	(May 10, 1999) from Ms. Claire Tettmar;
-	(May 7, 1999) from Mrs. Sylvia Giovanella, President, E.F.R.R.A.;	-	(May 10, 1999) from Ms. Louise Peacock;
-	(May 12, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. D. Russell-Hill;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Alan Shiels;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Ms. Susan MacIntyre;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Mr. Murray Koebel;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Ms. Shelley Stephens;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Mr. Gordon Valde:
-	(undated) from Mr. and Mrs. William J. Moffet;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Ms. Kim McAulay and Mr. Gerald Law;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Ms. Arabella Benson and Mr. Fraser McAllan;
-	(undated) from Mr. and Mrs. Bill Wilson;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Ms. Liliane Senteleky;
-	(May 14, 1999) from Ms. Janet Douglas;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. Bruce Kelly and Mr. and Mrs. B. Hartnell;
-	(May 13, 1999) from Ms. M. Enns;
-	(May 10, 1999) from Mrs. Mary Kellenkemper;
-	(May 12, 1999) from Mr. and Mrs. H. Mueller;
-	(May 19, 1999) from Mrs. Loveday Williams; and
-	(undated) a petition containing 483 signatures in opposition to the proposal.
(f)	Preliminary Evaluation Report - Amendments to the Etobicoke Zoning Code and Site
Plan Approval - Hullmark Developments Ltd., Humberline Drive, south of
Humberwood Boulevard - File No. Z-2295 (Rexdale-Thistletown).
(April 26, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing
preliminary comments on the processing of an application received on April 23, 1999, from
Hullmark Developments Ltd., to amend the Residential zoning of the property located on the
south-east corner of Humberline Drive, south of Humberwood Boulevard, to permit the
development of 63 condominium townhouses; and recommending that:
(1)	this report be received, and that the application continue to be circulated; and
(2)	upon completion of a Planning staff report, a public meeting to consider the
application be scheduled for a meeting of Community Council.
(g)	New Development Applications for West District (Etobicoke).
(May 26, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing a
summary of new development applications for the West District (Etobicoke) received since
(h)	Park Watch Trial Project: Ward 2 (Lakeshore-Queensway), Ward 4
(Markland-Centennial) and Ward 5 (Rexdale-Thistletown).
(May 13, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism,
responding to Etobicoke Community Council's request for a report on the "Park Watch" trial
project, and recommending that the request from Ms. Nancy Mueller, Chair, Community
Standards Sub-Committee, be referred back to the Crime S.C.O.P.E. Board for further review
(i)	Revised 1999-2000 Schedule of Meetings.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having received the following
(April 22, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding, for information, the revised 1999-2000
Schedule of Meetings of the City of Toronto Council, Community Councils and its
Committees, commencing on June 14, 1999, as adopted by City Council on April 12, 14 and
15, 1999, and drawing attention to the following amendment to the Clause:
"to provide that the Etobicoke Community Council will meet whenever
possible on a Wednesday to facilitate local media coverage, on the
understanding that the said Community Council will commence its meeting
on a Tuesday should two days be required to accommodate a public
(j)	Airport Matters.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following report back
to the Economic Development Committee for clarification:
(April 27, 1999) from the City Clerk, advising that, at its meeting on April 23, 1999, the
Economic Development Committee gave consideration to a communication
(February 26, 1999) from the Etobicoke Community Council forwarding recommendations
with respect to certain issues pertaining to Lester B. Pearson International Airport and the
Toronto City Centre Airport, and that the Economic Development Committee received the
recommendations of the Etobicoke Community Council.
(k)	Minutes of Etobicoke Boards and Committees.
(1)	requested the Chair of the Etobicoke Community Council to convene a meeting
of a sub-committee of the Community Council to review the activities of boards
and committees of the former City of Etobicoke and to report back to the
Community Council at its September meeting; and
(2)	received the following:
(a)	Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Municipal Arts Commission held on
Wednesday, February 24, 1999;
(b)	Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Safety Council held on Thursday,
April 8, 1999; and
(c)	Minutes of a meeting of the Etobicoke Historical Board/LACAC held on Wednesday,
(l)	A Harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for the City of Toronto:
A.	advised the Medical Officer of Health and the City Solicitor that:
(1) Etobicoke Community Council endorses recommendations (1), (4), (5) and (6)
contained in the report (March 26, 1999) from the Medical Officer of Health;
and further recommends that:
(2)	the six existing municipal by-laws respecting smoking in public places be
replaced with one ETS by-law from the following option (ii), as amended:
That public places be smoke-free, except for restaurants, bars, bowling centres,
casinos, billiard and bingo halls, which may have 25% of their space for
unenclosed smoking for a time limited period, such that:
(a)	Restaurants, casinos, bars, bowling centres, billiard and bingo halls
become smoke-free April 30, 2001, with the distinction between bars and
restaurants being that a bar is where alcohol is served and where
admittance is restricted to persons 19 years of age and older at all times;
(b) the smoke-free date be revisited if there is an acceptable initiative to
clear the air to an acceptable level;
(3)	the following options be selected regarding designated smoking rooms (DSRs)
(i)	DSRs up to 25% of space, and where permitted in the Tobacco Control
Act, 1994, (e.g. Homes for the Aged), including restaurants and bars;
(ii)	DSRs up to 50% of space for bowling centres, billiard and bingo halls.
(4)	the Medical Officer of Health provide a further report with respect to Woodbine
Race Track; and
B.	received the following communications (i) and (ii):
(i)	(April 6, 1999) from the Secretary, Board of Health, forwarding a report dated
March 26, 1999, from the Medical Officer of Health with respect to the community
input process for a harmonized Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) By-law for the
City of Toronto; for staff presentation and deputations on the policy options and
recommendations paper attached thereto, with recommendations from the
Community Councils to be referred to the Medical Officer of Health and the City
Solicitor for consideration and recommendations back to the Board of Health at its
meeting on June 28 and 29, 1999.
(ii)	(May 6, 1999) from the Secretary, Board of Health, forwarding a report
(April 28, 1999) from Councillor John Filion, Chair, Board of Health, recommending
(1)	the Ontario Restaurant Association provide to the Medical Officer of Health,
by May 31, 1999, specific details on the ventilation technology which they
believe to be an effective alternative to 100 percent smoke-free status for
hospitality establishments, along with independent scientific evidence
supporting the effectiveness of this technology; and
(2)	the Medical Officer of Health report to the Board of Health by June 28, 1999,
regarding the appropriateness of including a ventilation option in the
proposed ETS by-law; and reporting, for the information of the Community
Councils, that the Board of Health adopted the report dated April 28, 1999,
from the Chair, Board of Health; and further requested the Medical Officer
of Health to:
(a)	report back to the next meeting of the Board on whether the Ontario
Restaurant Association has responded; and
(b)	circulate the final consolidated report on the ETS By-law in sufficient
time to provide members of the Board the opportunity for review
prior to the Board meeting on June 28 and 29, 1999.
The Etobicoke Community Council had for consideration the following communications
with respect to the foregoing matter:
-	(May 19, 1999) from Miss E. Black, supporting the proposed by-law;
-	(May 25, 1999) from Ms. Judith Myrvold, Chair, Council for a Tobacco-Free
Toronto, forwarding a list of needs identified by the public with respect to the
smoke-free by-law for the City of Toronto, and supporting a smoke-free, progressive
world class city; and
-	(May 25, 1999) from Mr. Roger Marrelli, Bowlerama Limited, expressing concern
about the proposed restrictions being but on business and the potential for not being
able to meet the needs of all customers; The following persons appeared before the Etobicoke Community Council in connection
with the foregoing matter:
- Representing the Greater Toronto Hotel Association:
- Mr. Paul Martin, Wyndham Bristol Place Hotel;
- Ms. Leanne Waller, Raddison Suites Airport Hotel; and
- Ms. Jill McGoey, Valhalla Inn;
- Mr. Michael Perley, Director, Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco; - Michael Lindsey, representing the Boy Scouts, on behalf of the Canadian Cancer
Society;	- Mr. Wm. Barley, President, Etobicoke Unit, Canadian Cancer Society;
- Mr. John Stefanidis, Sizzling Jak's Restaurant;
- Mr. Bob Chapman, Kingsway Kiwanis;
- Mr. Dennis Hunter, Etobicoke Swim Club;
- Mr. Murray Rideout; Enerplace Inc.;
-	Ms. Teresa Bodzan, Oasis-on-the-Lake Restaurant;
-	Mr. Roger Marrelli, Bowlerama Limited;
-	Mr. Derek Brown;
-	Mr. Eduardo Riviezzi, Casa Barcelona;
-	Mr. Donald C. Kerr, Kingsway Kiwanis;
-	Ms. Louise Peacock;
-	Ms. Ann Louise Hall, Rose and Thorne Pub;
-	Ms. Sandi Lublin;
-	Mr. John Walmach;
-	Mr. Wayne Randall;
-	Mr. Bruce Davis; and
-	Ms. Kate Barclay, Squire and Firkin Pub.
(m)	Recommendation No. 69 of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force - Lakeshore Grounds (Former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital)
File No. 570.6.6 (Lakeshore-Queensway).
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having adopted the following report and
advised the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force that:
(1)	in recognition of the Ontario Municipal Board approval respecting the
Lakeshore Grounds (former Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital), Recommendation
No. 69 of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force Final Report to
introduce supportive housing for the mentally ill and persons with concurrent
disorders on the Lakeshore Grounds not be supported;
(2)	the continuation of existing mental health programmes and services on the
Lakeshore Grounds be supported; and
(3)	the City should continue to work with the Province to identify other locations
for supportive housing for people with serious mental illness and/or concurrent
disorders. (May 14, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, responding to
Recommendation No. 69 of the Mayor's Homelessness Action Task Force that recommends
the introduction of supportive housing for the mentally ill on the Lakeshore Grounds (former
Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital).
(n)	Hillmore Wood Products, 70 Fourteenth Street - File No. Z-2224
Status Report (Lakeshore-Queensway).
(1)	requested the Health Department and the Building Department of the Ministry
of the Environment, in view of the fact that air quality in the Lakeshore area of
the Etobicoke District is the worst in the City of Toronto, to inspect to the
premises at 70 Fourteenth Street and submit a status report to the Community
(2)	received the following report for information:
(May 11, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, providing an
update on the status of enforcement with respect to the Environmental Protection Act,
regarding Hillmore Wood Products, a small furniture manufacturing business located in the
Lakeshore area of the former Etobicoke district.
(o)	Status of Harmonization of Outdoor Pool Operations all Wards.
(1)	requested the Parks and Recreation Division of the Economic Development,
Culture and Tourism Department, to continue the opening of certain pools for
extended hours during the summer in the Etobicoke District in accordance with
past practices; and
(2)	received the following report for information: (May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Economic Development, Culture and Tourism,
providing an update and status report on the harmonization of outdoor pool operations in the
Parks and Recreation Division of the Economic Development, Culture and Tourism
(p)	Kingsway Sunnylea Residents' Association/KPRI - Request For Guidelines/Protocol
between Works and Emergency Services and Parks/Forestry Divisions for Road and
Sidewalk Reconstruction/Rehabilitation Projects.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having referred the following
communication to the District Directors, Works and Emergency Services and Parks
and Recreation Services, for review and report back to the Etobicoke Community
Council on the development of guidelines/protocol to avoid unnecessary loss of trees in
road reconstruction projects:
(May 17, 1999) from Ms. Mary L. Campbell, President, Kingsway Sunnylea Residents'
Association/KPRI, requesting that Community Council give specific direction to Works and
Emergency Services Department and the Parks and Recreation Division of the Economic
Development, Culture and Tourism Department to develop an official protocol document to
be adhered to in reconstruction/rehabilitation projects to avoid unnecessary loss of trees, to
be provided each time a contract is awarded to an outside contractor.
(q)	Further Report on Proposed Use of Funds Generated from Cash-in-lieu of Parkland
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having :
(1)	recommended to the Planning and Transportation Committee that when
potential parkland allocations between the Etobicoke and York Districts are
being considered, a joint meeting of the two Community Councils be held at the
appropriate time and in an appropriate venue; and
(2)	received the following communication:
(May 18, 1999) from the City Clerk, forwarding Clause No. 5 of Report No. 7 of The Urban
Environment and Development Committee, headed "Further Report on Proposed Use of
Funds Generated from Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland Dedication", which was struck out and
referred back to the Planning and Transportation Committee for further consideration at its
meeting to be held on June 14, 1999, for report thereon to Council for its meeting to be held
on July 6, 1999, and directing, in part, that a copy of the Clause be forwarded to the
Community Councils with a request that they submit their comments thereon to the Planning
and Transportation Committee for consideration at its meeting on June 14, 1999.
(r)	Proposal to Stop-up, Close, and Sell Part of the Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent, and
Steeles Avenue West Road Allowances (Rexdale-Thistletown).
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having deferred consideration of the
following report (i) until staff have concluded discussions with the Ministry of
Transportation, Ontario concerning property protection and access issues arising from
the "Transit Corridor Protection Study: Highway 407/Parkway Belt West Corridor
from Highway 403 to Markham Road", in accordance with the request contained in the
following report (ii):
(i)	(May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate Services, requesting
authorization of the stopping-up, closing and offering for sale of part of the
Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent and Steeles Avenue West road allowances; and
(1)	the portions of Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent, and Steeles Avenue West road
allowances be declared surplus to City requirements and stopped-up, closed
and offered for sale to the abutting owner/s, subject to the reservation of any
necessary easements for municipal services or public utilities;
(2)	the appropriate City officials be authorized to give notice to the public of the
intention to stop-up, close and sell the subject portions of road allowances;
(3)	the appropriate City officials be authorized and directed to take the necessary
action to give effect thereto;
(ii)	(May 25, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, requesting
that consideration of the report (May 17, 1999) from the Commissioner of Corporate
Services, to authorize the stopping-up, closing and offering for sale of part of the
Alcide Street, Codlin Crescent and Steeles Avenue West road allowances, be
deferred until staff have concluded discussions with the Ministry of Transportation,
Ontario concerning property protection and access issues arising from the "Transit
Corridor Protection Study: Highway 407/Parkway Belt West Corridor from Highway
403 to Markham Road".
(s) Appeal of Committee of Adjustment Decisions.
(May 20, 1999) from the Director of Community Planning, West District, advising of
Committee of Adjustment decisions which have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal
Board and recommending that legal and staff representation not be provided for the appeal
regarding Application No. A-72/99 ET, 31 Old Oak Road.
(t)	Co-ordination of Meetings Requiring the Presence of Members of Council.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested staff to ensure, when
arranging meetings that require the presence of Members of Council, that the meetings
be scheduled in consultation with the Ward Councillor and/or the Committee
Administrator to avoid scheduling conflicts. (u)	By-law Enforcement - Sale of Fireworks.
The Etobicoke Community Council reports having requested staff to ensure that
enforcement officials are available on weekends and evenings with respect to the sale
of fireworks in contravention of local by-laws. Respectfully submitted,
Toronto, May 11, 26 and 27, 1999
(Report No. 7 of The Etobicoke Community Council, was adopted, as amended, by City Council on
June 9, 10 and 11, 1999.)