North York Community Council
The full agenda, as filed
All 24 items in the clerk’s order. Each carries the city’s own words: the staff recommendation, what the body decided, and its status. Nothing below is written by us.
NY16.1adopted
Final Report - Rental Housing Conversion Application - 75 and 77 Garthdale Court
This application proposes to permit the conversion of an existing building containing a total of six residential dwelling units into two triplex buildings, all of which are currently tenanted. The property was constructed in the 1960's and is currently under a single legal ownership. The proposed conversion, subject to applications to the Committee of Adjustment for consent to sever the lot and minor variance, will result in two separate conveyable lots, with three rental units per lot, and would allow for each triplex building to potentially be sold separately. The proposed conversion is consistent with Official Plan policies as all the rental dwelling units have high-end rents. Separate applications have been submitted for severance and minor variance to the Committee of Adjustment. This report recommends approval of the Rental Housing Conversion application under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code for the consent to sever, which will result in reducing the number of rental dwelling units on each lot to less than six.
The North York Community Council recommends that: 1. City Council approve the application for a Rental Housing Conversion permit in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code to allow the severance of a rental housing property with more than six residential rental units into two lots, each containing three residential rental units, subject to the following condition: a. the owner applies for, and obtains, a Consent from the Committee of Adjustment or the Toronto Local Appeal Body, if applicable, to permit the severance of the lands into two lots and the separate conveyance of the lots at 75 and 77 Garthdale Court. 2. City Council authorize the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning to issue the approval of the Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion permit under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code after the following has occurred: a. the owner applies for, and obtains, a Consent to sever from the Committee of Adjustment or the Toronto Local Appeal Body, if applicable, to permit the severance of the lands into two lots and the separate conveyance of the lots at 75 and 77 Garthdale Court.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Planning Division recommends that: 1. City Council approve the application for a Rental Housing Conversion permit in accordance with Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code to allow the severance of a rental housing property with more than six residential rental units into two lots, each containing three residential rental units, subject to the following condition: a. the owner applies for, and obtains, a Consent from the Committee of Adjustment or the Toronto Local Appeal Body, if applicable, to permit the severance of the lands into two lots and the separate conveyance of the lots at 75 and 77 Garthdale Court. 2. City Council authorize the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning Division to issue the approval of the Rental Housing Demolition and Conversion permit under Chapter 667 of the Toronto Municipal Code after the following has occurred: a. the owner applies for, and obtains, a Consent to sever from the Committee of Adjustment or the Toronto Local Appeal Body, if applicable, to permit the severance of the lands into two lots and the separate conveyance of the lots at 75 and 77 Garthdale Court.
NY16.2adopted
Final Report - Part Lot Control Exemption Application - 103 Bayview Ridge
This application is requesting exemption from the Part Lot Control provisions of the Planning Act for a portion of the land municipally known as 103 Bayview Ridge. Part Lot Control Exemption is required to allow for the creation of three conveyable lots each containing a townhouse unit fronting on Bayview Avenue. The property at 103 Bayview Ridge was subject to previous applications together with 108 Bayview Ridge for a Common Elements Condominium and Part Lot Control Exemption. The Common Elements Condominium was registered in February 2019. The Part Lot Control Exemption By-law was enacted on November 9, 2017 (By-law 1211-2017), but lapsed in November 2019 before all of the townhouse lots had been conveyed. The purpose of this application is to facilitate the creation of the three remaining townhouse lots out of the total eleven lots that were supposed to be created prior to By-law 1211-2017 lapsing. This report reviews and recommends approval of the application for Part Lot Control exemption.
The North York Community Council recommends that: 1. City Council enact a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law with respect to the subject land at 103 Bayview Ridge as generally illustrated on Attachment 1 to the report (June 23, 2020) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North York District and to expire one year following enactment by City Council. 2. City Council require the owner to provide proof of payment of all current property taxes for the subject lands to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to the enactment of the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law. 3. City Council authorize and direct the City Solicitor to register the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law on title. 4. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Part Lot Control Exemption By-law as may be required.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Planning Division recommends that: 1. City Council enact a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law with respect to the subject land at 103 Bayview Ridge as generally illustrated on Attachment 1 of this report and to expire one year following enactment by City Council. 2. City Council require the owner to provide proof of payment of all current property taxes for the subject lands to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to the enactment of the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law. 3. City Council authorize and direct the City Solicitor to register the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law on title. 4. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Part Lot Control Exemption By-law as may be required.
NY16.3adopted
The application has been submitted to permit an exemption from part lot control for 155 townhouses on Blocks 1, 2, 3 and 6 within the Stanley Greene Block G District Plan at 27 - 137 Frederick Tisdale Drive, 18 - 120 William Duncan Road and 25 - 133 William Duncan Road, formerly known as 80 Carl Hall Road (the "Application"). The applicant submitted a concurrent application for approval of a draft plan of Common Elements Condominium (20 143006 NNY 06 CD) which is under review by the Chief Planner pursuant to the delegated approval under By-law 229-2000, which proposes to establish the vehicular and pedestrian accesses as common elements of the condominium. The requested exemption from the Part Lot Control provisions of the Planning Act is required to permit the creation of conveyable lots for the 155 residential townhouses currently under construction, which will become the Parcels of Tied Land ("POTLs") to the Common Elements Condominium. The proposed development is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2020), conforms with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2019) and conforms to the Official Plan. The lifting of Part Lot Control is appropriate for the orderly development of these lands. This report reviews and recommends approval of the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law. In addition, this report recommends that the owner of the lands be required to register a Section 118 Restriction under the Land Titles Act against the subject lands, described in Schedule "A" in attachment 5 to this report, whereby the owner agrees not to convey or mortgage any part of the lands without prior consent of the Chief Planner or his designate.
The North York Community Council recommends that: 1. City Council enact a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law with respect to the subject lands at 27 - 137 Frederick Tisdale Drive, 18 - 120 William Duncan Road and 25 - 133 William Duncan Road, formerly known as 80 Carl Hall Road, as generally illustrated on Attachment 3 to the report (June 22, 2020) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North York District, to be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and to expire two years following enactment by City Council. 2. Prior to the introduction of the Part Lot Control Exemption Bill, City Council require the owner to: a. provide proof of payment of all current property taxes for the subject lands to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to the enactment of the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law; and b. register, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, a Section 118 Restriction under the Land Titles Act agreeing not to transfer or charge any part of the subject lands described in Schedule A in Attachment 5 to the report (June 22, 2020) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, North York District, without the written consent of the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning or designate. 3. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to take the necessary steps to release the Section 118 Restriction from all or any portion of the lands in the City Solicitor's sole discretion after consulting with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning at such a time as confirmation is received that the Common Elements Condominium has been registered. 4. City Council authorize and direct the City Solicitor to register the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law on title. 5. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Part Lot Control Exemption By-law as may be required.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Planning Division recommends that: 1. City Council enact a Part Lot Control Exemption By-law with respect to the subject lands at 27 - 137 Frederick Tisdale Drive, 18 - 120 William Duncan Road and 25 - 133 William Duncan Road, formerly known as 80 Carl Hall Road, as generally illustrated on Attachment 3 to this report, to be prepared to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor and to expire two years following enactment by City Council. 2. Prior to the introduction of the Part Lot Control Exemption Bill, City Council require the owner to: a. provide proof of payment of all current property taxes for the subject lands to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, prior to the enactment of the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law; and b. register, to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor, a Section 118 Restriction under the Land Titles Act agreeing not to transfer or charge any part of the subject lands described in Schedule "A" in attachment 5 to this report, without the written consent of the Chief Planner or his/her designate. 3. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to take the necessary steps to release the Section 118 Restriction from all or any portion of the lands in the City Solicitor's sole discretion after consulting with the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning at such a time as confirmation is received that the Common Elements Condominium has been registered. 4. City Council authorize and direct the City Solicitor to register the Part Lot Control Exemption By-law on title. 5. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to make such stylistic and technical changes to the draft Part Lot Control Exemption By-law as may be required.
NY16.4adopted
This report recommends that City Council include the property at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East on the City of Toronto's Heritage Register, and state its intention to designate the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act, approve the alterations proposed for the heritage property in connection with a proposed development of the subject property and that Council grant authority to enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement for the subject property. The Former IBM (Canada) Headquarters building is located within Block 12 of the 60-acre master planned Crosstown community. Five buildings are proposed within Block 12, including three residential towers of 32, 39 and 34 storeys respectively, located behind the south facade of the IBM building. The new construction will incorporate approximately 50% of the total elevation of the IBM building as a base building.
The North York Community Council recommends that: 1. City Council include the property at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East on the City of Toronto's Heritage Register. 2. City Council state its intention to designate the portion of the property at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East, generally identified as Block 12 of the Draft Plan of Subdivision as approved by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in its decision/orders issued November 2, 2018, January 21, 2019, and July 10, 2019 in PL171369, under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance: 1150 Eglinton Avenue East (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment 4 to the report (March 13, 2020) from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 3. If there are no objections to the designations in accordance with Section 29(6) of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the Bill in City Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 4. If there are objections in accordance with Section 29(7) of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council direct the City Clerk to refer the designation to the Conservation Review Board. 5. If the designation is referred to the Conservation Review Board, City Council authorize the City Solicitor and appropriate staff to attend any hearing held by the Conservation Review Board in support of City Council's decision on the designation of the property. 6. City Council approve the alterations to the heritage property at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East, in accordance with Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to allow for the construction of a 60-acre master planned community known as Crosstown on the lands known municipally in the year 2020 as 844 Don Mills Road and 1150 Eglinton Avenue East, with such alterations substantially in accordance with plans and drawings dated March 12, 2020, prepared by Core Architects Inc. and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and the Heritage Impact Assessment dated February 13, 2018, and Status Update of Heritage Matters for 1150 Eglinton, dated November 12, 2019 both prepared by Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd. Architects, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, all subject to and in accordance with a Conservation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and subject to the following additional conditions: a. that prior to final Site Plan approval for the heritage property located at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East the owner shall: 1. enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the Block 12 Lands, substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings dated March 12, 2020, prepared by Core Architects Inc. and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated February 13, 2018 and the Status Update of Heritage Matters for 1150 Eglinton, dated November 12, 2019, both prepared by Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects, and in accordance with the Conservation Plan required in Recommendation 6.a.2 below to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, including registration of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor; 2. provide a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, that is consistent with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated February 13, 2018 and the Status Update of Heritage Matters for 1150 Eglinton, dated November 12, 2019, both prepared by Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 3. provide final site plan drawings substantially in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan required in Recommendation 6.a.2 above to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 4. provide a Heritage Lighting Plan that describes how the exterior of the heritage property will be sensitively illuminated to enhance its heritage character to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 5. provide a detailed landscape plan for the heritage property, satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; 6. provide an Interpretation Plan for the heritage property to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 7. submit a Signage Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; b. that prior to the issuance of any permit for all or any part of the heritage property including a heritage permit or a building permit, but excluding permits for repairs and maintenance and usual and minor works for the existing heritage building as are acceptable to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the owner shall: 1. provide building permit drawings for the subject phase, including notes and specifications for the conservation and protective measures keyed to the approved Conservation Plan required in Recommendation 6.a.2 above, including a description of materials and finishes, to be prepared by the project architect and a qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 2. provide a Letter of Credit, including provision for upwards indexing, in a form and amount and from a bank satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning to secure all work included in the approved Conservation Plan, Lighting Plan, Interpretation Plan and Landscape Plan; and c. that prior to the release of the Letter of Credit required in Recommendation 6.b.2 above, the owner shall: 1. provide a letter of substantial completion prepared and signed by a qualified heritage consultant confirming that the required conservation work and the required interpretive work has been completed in accordance with the Conservation Plan and Interpretation Plan and that an appropriate standard of conservation has been maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning; and 2. provide replacement Heritage Easement Agreement photographs to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 7. City Council authorize the entering into of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owner of the heritage property in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning. 8. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the necessary Bill in City Council authorizing the entering into of a Heritage Easement Agreement for the heritage property.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning recommends that: 1. City Council include the property at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East on the City of Toronto's Heritage Register. 2. City Council state its intention to designate the portion of the property at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East generally identified as Block 12 of the Draft Plan of Subdivision as approved by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal In its decision/orders issued November 2, 2018, January 21, 2019, and July 10, 2019 in PL171369) (the "Heritage Property") under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act in accordance with the Statement of Significance: 1150 Eglinton Avenue East (Reasons for Designation) attached as Attachment No. 4 to the report March 13, 2020 from the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning. 3. If there are no objections to the designations in accordance with Section 29(6) of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the bill in Council designating the property under Part IV, Section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. 4. If there are objections in accordance with Section 29(7) of the Ontario Heritage Act, City Council direct the City Clerk to refer the designation to the Conservation Review Board. 5. If the designation is referred to the Conservation Review Board, City Council authorize the City Solicitor and appropriate staff to attend any hearing held by the Conservation Review Board in support of Council's decision on the designation of the property. 6. City Council approve the alterations to the heritage property at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East, in accordance with Section 33 of the Ontario Heritage Act, to allow for the construction of a 60-acre master planned community known as Crosstown on the lands known municipally in the year 2020 as 844 Don Mills Road and 1150 Eglinton Avenue East, with such alterations substantially in accordance with plans and drawings dated March 12, 2020, prepared by Core Architects Inc. and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, Urban Design, City Planning (the "Plans"); and the Heritage Impact Assessment ("the HIA"), dated February 13, 2018, and Status Update of Heritage Matters for 1150 Eglinton, dated November 12, 2019 both prepared by Goldsmith Borgal and Company Ltd. Architects, and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, all subject to and in accordance with a Conservation Plan satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and subject to the following additional conditions: a. That prior to final Site Plan approval for the heritage property located at 1150 Eglinton Avenue East the owner shall: 1. Enter into a Heritage Easement Agreement with the City for the Block 12 Lands, substantially in accordance with the plans and drawings dated March 12, 2020 (the "Plans"), prepared by Core Architects Inc. and on file with the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated February 13, 2018 and the Status Update of Heritage Matters for 1150 Eglinton, dated November 12, 2019, both prepared by Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects, and in accordance with the Conservation Plan required in Recommendation 6.a.2 to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning including registration of such agreement to the satisfaction of the City Solicitor. 2. Provide a detailed Conservation Plan, prepared by a qualified heritage consultant, that is consistent with the conservation strategy set out in the Heritage Impact Assessment, dated February 13, 2018 and the Status Update of Heritage Matters for 1150 Eglinton, dated November 12, 2019, both prepared by Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects, (the "HIA"), to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 3. Provide final site plan drawings substantially in accordance with the approved Conservation Plan required in Recommendation 6.a.2 to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 4. Provide a Heritage Lighting Plan that describes how the exterior of the heritage property will be sensitively illuminated to enhance its heritage character to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager Heritage Planning. 5. Provide a detailed landscape plan for the heritage property, satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 6. Provide an Interpretation Plan for the heritage property, to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning and thereafter shall implement such Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 7. Submit a Signage Plan to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. b. That prior to the issuance of any permit for all or any part of the heritage property including a heritage permit or a building permit, but excluding permits for repairs and maintenance and usual and minor works for the existing heritage building as are acceptable to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning, the owner shall: 1. Provide building permit drawings for the subject phase, including notes and specifications for the conservation and protective measures keyed to the approved Conservation Plan required in Recommendation 6.a.2, including a description of materials and finishes, to be prepared by the project architect and a qualified heritage consultant to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 2. Provide a Letter of Credit, including provision for upwards indexing, in a form and amount and from a bank satisfactory to the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning to secure all work included in the approved Conservation Plan, Lighting Plan, Interpretation Plan and Landscape Plan. c. That prior to the release of the Letter of Credit required in Recommendation 6.b.2 above, City Planning Division, the owner shall: 1. Provide a letter of substantial completion prepared and signed by a qualified heritage consultant confirming that the required conservation work and the required interpretive work has been completed in accordance with the Conservation Plan and Interpretation Plan and that an appropriate standard of conservation has been maintained, all to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 2. Provide replacement Heritage Easement Agreement photographs to the satisfaction of the Senior Manager, Heritage Planning. 7. City Council authorize the entering into of a Heritage Easement Agreement under Section 37 of the Ontario Heritage Act with the owner of the heritage property in a form and content satisfactory to the City Solicitor and the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning. 8. City Council authorize the City Solicitor to introduce the necessary bill in Council authorizing the entering into of a Heritage Easement Agreement for the heritage property.
NY16.5referred
This report provides information and identifies a preliminary set of issues regarding the application located at 5800 Yonge Street. Staff are currently reviewing the application. It has been circulated to all appropriate agencies and City divisions for comment. Staff will proceed to schedule a community consultation meeting for the application with the Ward Councillor.
The North York Community Council referred Item NY16.5 back to the Director, Community Planning, North York District for further consideration.
Staff recommendation as filed
The City Planning Division recommends that: 1. Staff schedule a community consultation meeting for the application located at 5800 Yonge Street together with the Ward Councillor. 2. Notice for the community consultation meeting be given to landowners and residents within 120 metres of the application site, and to additional residents, institutions and owners to be determined in consultation with the Ward Councillor, with any additional mailing costs to be borne by the applicant.
NY16.6amended
Request for Fence Exemption - Rear Yard - 47 Codsell Avenue
This staff report is in regards to a matter for which the North York Community Council has delegated authority from City Council to make a final decision. The purpose of this report is to consider an application submitted by the owner(s) of 47 Codsell Ave for a site-specific Fence Exemption, pursuant to the Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447- Fences. The property owner(s) is seeking Council's permission to be exempt from Chapter 447 1.2 B (1) No fence described in the following Table shall, when measured at any point along its length from the average grade level measured perpendicular to and one metre away on either side of the fence, exceed the height set out in the Table for the fence. Item 4 No higher than 2.0 metres The subject property 47 Codsell Ave is located in Ward 6 - York Centre, on a residentially zoned property. GENERAL LOCATION SPECIFIC LOCATION EXISTING CONSTRUCTION & DEFICIENCY BY-LAW SECTION & REQUIREMENT Rear Yard Rear Yard Existing hedge line over 2.0 metres 1.2 B (1) No fence described in the following Table shall, when measured at any point along its length from the average grade level measured perpendicular to and one metre away on either side of the fence, exceed the height set out in the Table for the fence. Item 4 No higher than 2.0 metres
The North York Community Council: 1. Refused to grant the application for a Fence Exemption permit by the owner(s) of 47 Codsell Avenue, for failing to comply with the provisions of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447, Fences, and that a second un-appealable Notice of Violation be issued under the City of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447, Fences.
Staff recommendation as filed
Municipal Licensing & Standards recommends that the North York Community Council give consideration to the exemption application and decide to: 1. Refuse to grant the application for a Fence Exemption permit by the owner(s) of 47 Codsell Avenue, for failing to comply with the provisions of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447, Fences, and that a second un-appealable Notice of Violation be issued under the City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 447 Fences. OR 2. Grant the application for the Fence Exemption at 47 Codsell Avenue, without conditions. Direct and require that the installation be maintained in good repair without alteration. Direct and require that at such time as replacement of the fence is required that such installation will comply with Municipal Code Chapter 447, or its successor by-law.
NY16.7amended
Request for Fence Exemption - 16 Leacroft Crescent
This staff report concerns a matter for which the North York Community Council has delegated authority from City Council to make a final decision. The purpose of this report is to advise Council concerning an application by the owner(s) of 16 Leacroft Cres for a site-specific Fence Exemption, pursuant to Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447- Fences. The property owner(s) is seeking Council's permission to be exempt concerning a proposed rear yard fence which will not comply with restrictions contrary Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447, Section 1.2 of the bylaw as detailed below in the following chart: The subject property 16 Leacroft Cres is located in Ward 15, in a residential zone property. GENERAL LOCATION SPECIFIC LOCATION EXISTING FENCE CONSTRUCTION BY-LAW SECTION & REQUIREMENT* Rear Yard Rear Yard (West Side) Existing wood fence measuring 2.4 meters (8 Feet) in height and approx. 17.7 meters (57 feet) span along the property line. Section 447-1.2.(B)(3), Table 1 Fence not in a front yard and not within 2.4 metres of a lot line abutting a public highway. Maximum Height 2.0 metres
The North York Community Council: 1. Refused to grant the application for an exemption permit, by the owner(s) of 16 Leacroft Crescent, for a proposed wooden fence 2.4 meters in height and spanning approximately 17.4 meters for failing to comply with the provisions of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447, Fences.
Staff recommendation as filed
Municipal Licensing and Standards recommends that the North York Community Council give consideration to the exemption application and decide to: 1. Refuse to grant the application for an exemption permit, by the owner(s) of 16 Leacroft Crescent, for a proposed wooden fence 2.4 meters in height and spanning approximately 17.4 meters for failing to comply with the provisions of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447-Fences. OR 2. Grant the application for an exemption permit, submitted by the owner(s) of 16 Leacroft Crescent, for a proposed wooden fence with lattice measuring 2.4 meters in height and spanning approximately 17.4 meters in the rear yard without conditions. Direct and require that the installation be maintained in good repair without alteration. Direct and require that at such time as replacement of the fence is required that such installation will comply with Toronto Municipal, Chapter 447-Fences, or its successor by-law.
NY16.8amended
Request for Fence Exemption - 211 Wanless Avenue
This staff report concerns a matter for which the North York Community Council has delegated authority from City Council to make a final decision. The purpose of this report is to advise Council concerning an application by the owner(s) of 211 Wanless Ave for a site-specific Fence Exemption, pursuant to Section 447 of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447- Fences. The property owner(s) is seeking Council's permission to be exempt concerning a proposed rear yard fence which will not comply with restrictions contrary to Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter447 Section 447-1.2 of the bylaw as detailed below in the following chart: The subject property 211 Wanless Ave is located in Ward 15, in a residential zone property. GENERAL LOCATION SPECIFIC LOCATION PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION & DEFICIENCY BY-LAW SECTION & REQUIREMENT* Rear Yard Rear Yard (South Side) Proposed wood fence measuring 2.9 meters (9.5 Feet) in height and approx. 2.5 meters (8.2 feet) span along the property line. Section 447-1.2.(B)(3), Table 1 Fence not in a front yard and not within 2.4 metres of a lot line abutting a public highway. Maximum Height 2.0 metres
The North York Community Council: 1. Refused to grant the application for an exemption permit, by the owner(s) of 211 Wanless Avenue, for a proposed wooden fence 2.9 meters in height and spanning approximately 2.5 meters for failing to comply with the provisions of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447, Fences.
Staff recommendation as filed
Municipal Licensing & Standards recommends that the North York Community Council give consideration to the exemption application and decide to: 1. Refuse to grant the application for an exemption permit, by the owner(s) of 211 Wanless Avenue, for a proposed wooden fence 2.9 meters in height and spanning approximately 2.5 meters for failing to comply with the provisions of Toronto Municipal Code, Chapter 447-Fences. OR 2. Grant the application for an exemption permit, by the owner(s) of 211 Wanless Avenue, for a proposed wooden fence measuring 2.9 meters in height and spanning approximately 2.5 meters in the rear yard without conditions. Direct and require that the installation be maintained in good repair without alteration. Direct and require that at such time as replacement of the fence is required that such installation will comply with Municipal Code Chapter 447-Fences, or its successor by-law.
NY16.9deferred
Application to Remove a Private Tree - 34 Whittaker Crescent
This report requests that City Council deny the request for a permit to remove one privately owned tree located at 34 Whittaker Crescent. The application indicates the reasons for removal are to address concerns that the tree is overhanging the dwelling, property, and neighbouring driveway. The subject tree is a Norway spruce (Picea abies), measuring 51 cm in diameter. The Private Tree By-law does not support the removal of the tree as it is healthy and maintainable.
The North York Community Council deferred consideration of Item NY16.9 to the September 15, 2020 meeting of the North York Community Council.
Staff recommendation as filed
The General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation recommends that: 1. City Council deny the request for a permit to remove one privately-owned tree located at 34 Whittaker Crescent.
NY16.10referred
Application to Remove a Private Tree - 522 Woburn Avenue
This report requests that City Council deny a request for a permit to remove one privately owned tree located at 522 Woburn Avenue. The application indicates the reasons for removal are that the tree has a thinning canopy, an elevated root plate, and is growing too close to the fence. The subject tree is a Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens), measuring 32 cm in diameter. The Private Tree By-law does not support the removal of the tree as it is healthy and maintainable.
The North York Community Council referred Item NY16.10 back to the Director, Urban Forestry, Parks, Forestry and Recreation for further consideration.
Staff recommendation as filed
The General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation recommends that: 1. City Council deny the request for a permit to remove one privately-owned tree located at 522 Woburn Avenue.
NY16.11adopted
Application to Remove a City-Owned Tree - 108 Aspenwood Drive
This report requests that City Council deny the request for a permit to remove one City-owned tree located on the road allowance fronting 108 Aspenwood Drive. The owner is requesting permission to remove this tree in order to construct a proposed new driveway. The subject tree is a Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens), measuring 45 cm in diameter. The Tree By-law does not support the removal of this tree as it is healthy and maintainable.
The North York Community Council recommends that: 1. City Council deny the request for a permit to remove one City-owned tree located at 108 Aspenwood Drive.
Staff recommendation as filed
The General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation recommends that: 1. City Council deny the request for a permit to remove one City-owned tree located at 108 Aspenwood Drive.
NY16.12adopted
Application to Remove a Private Tree - 231 Castlefield Avenue
This report requests that City Council deny the request for a permit to remove one privately owned tree located at 231 Castlefield Avenue. The application indicates the reason for removal is to address concerns that the tree's fruit poses an unacceptable risk of serious allergic reaction to a child living at the property. The subject tree is a black walnut (Juglans nigra), measuring 50 cm in diameter. The Private Tree By-law does not support the removal of this tree as it is healthy and maintainable.
The North York Community Council recommends that: 1. City Council deny the request for a permit to remove one privately-owned tree located at 231 Castlefield Avenue.
Staff recommendation as filed
The General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation recommends that: 1. City Council deny the request for a permit to remove one privately-owned tree located at 231 Castlefield Avenue.
NY16.13forwarded without recommendation
Application to Remove a City-Owned Tree - 143 Plewes Road
This report requests that City Council deny the request for a permit to remove a City-owned tree located at 143 Plewes Road. The application indicates the reason for removal is accommodate a new driveway entrance within the City-owned right-of-way resulting from recent Committee of Adjustment approvals to construct a new detached dwelling with an attached garage. The subject tree is a Freeman maple (Acer x freemanii), measuring 21 cm in diameter. The Tree By-law does not support the removal of this tree as it is healthy and maintainable.
The North York Community Council submits the item to City Council without recommendation.
Staff recommendation as filed
The General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation recommends that: 1. City Council deny the request for a permit to remove a City-owned tree located at 143 Plewes Road.
NY16.14deferred
Application to Remove Two City-Owned Trees - 18 Raeburn Avenue
This report requests that City Council deny the request for a permit to remove two City-owned trees located at 18 Raeburn Avenue. The application indicates the reasons for removal are to meet the energy efficiency requirements for the certification of a proposed passive house. The subject trees are two Colorado blue spruces (Picea pungens), measuring 39 cm and 50 cm in diameter. The Tree By-law does not support the removal of these trees as they are healthy and maintainable.
The North York Community Council deferred consideration of Item NY16.14 to the September 15, 2020 meeting of the North York Community Council.
Staff recommendation as filed
The General Manager of Parks, Forestry and Recreation recommends that: 1. City Council deny the request for a permit to remove two City-owned trees located at 18 Raeburn Avenue.
NY16.15amended
Request to Demolish the Non-Residential Building at 911X Castlefield Drive
This staff report is about a matter which must be referred to City Council for consideration and decision. This property is located in the former City of York and in accordance with By-law No 3102-95 of the former City of York, this demolition permit application is submitted to City Council for consideration and decision to grant or grant with conditions, approval of the demolition permit application, including the requirement for the owner to enter into a beautification agreement prior to the issuance of the demolition permit.
The North York Community Council recommends that: 1. City Council approve the application to demolish the single-storey building at 911X Castlefield Drive, with the following conditions: a. the owner agreeing to a beautification plan that is satisfactory to the Chief Planner and Executive Director, City Planning, or designate, and includes provision for the site to be backfilled with clean fill and installation of base landscaping; b. the owner entering into a beautification agreement with the City that secures the beautification plan, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; c. the owner registering the beautification agreement on title to the property and providing proof of registration to the City Solicitor; d. that a construction fence be erected in advance of demolition and maintained until the site has been backfilled, in accordance with Chapter 363 of the Municipal Code, if deemed appropriate by the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building; e. that all debris and rubble be removed immediately after the demolition; and f. that the site be maintained in accordance with the beautification plan agreed upon and secured by agreement. 2. City Council request the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building to work with Hydro One on the feasibility of removing the railway tracks in front of 901 Roselawn Avenue.
Staff recommendation as filed
Toronto Building Division recommends that City Council give consideration to the demolition application for 911X Castlefield Drive and decide to: 1. Approve the application to demolish the single-storey building, with the following conditions: a. the owner agree to a beautification plan that is satisfactory to the Chief Planner, or their designate, and includes provision for the site to be backfilled with clean fill and installation of base landscaping; b. the owner entering into a beautification agreement with the City that secures the beautification plan, in a form satisfactory to the City Solicitor; c. the owner registering the beautification agreement on title to the property and providing proof of registration to the City Solicitor; d. that a construction fence be erected in advance of demolition and maintained until the site has been backfilled, in accordance with Chapter 363 of the Municipal Code, if deemed appropriate by the Chief Building Official; e. that all debris and rubble be removed immediately after the demolition; and, f. that the site be maintained in accordance with the beautification plan agreed upon and secured by agreement. OR 2. Approve the application to demolish the single-storey building, with the following conditions: a. that construction fences be erected in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 363, Article 7, if deemed appropriate by the Chief Building Official; b. that all debris and rubble be removed immediately after demolition; c. that sod be laid on the site and that the site be maintained free of garbage and weeds, in accordance with the Municipal Code Chapter 629-10, paragraph B and 629-11; and d. that any holes on the property are backfilled with clean fill. OR 3. Approve the application to demolish the single-storey building without any conditions.
NY16.16amended
Residential Demolition Application - 6 and 8 Croham Road
This staff report is about a matter for which Community Council has delegated authority from City Council to make a final decision. In accordance with Section 33 of the Planning Act and the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Ch. 363, Article 6 "Demolition Control", the application for the demolition of a residential building at 6 and 8 Croham Road are being referred to the North York Community Council to consider as a building permit has not been issued for a replacement building on each of the properties.. North York Community Council may impose conditions, if any, to be attached to the demolition permit.
The North York Community Council: 1. Approved the application to demolish the single-family dwellings at 6 and 8 Croham Road without any conditions.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Toronto Building Division recommends that the North York Community Council give consideration to the demolition application for 6 and 8 Croham Road and decide to: 1. Refuse the application to demolish the single-family dwellings because there is no permit to replace the buildings on the site. OR 2. Approve the application to demolish the single-family dwellings without any conditions. OR 3. Approve the application to demolish the single-family dwellings, with the following conditions: a. that a construction fence be erected in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 363, Article 7, if deemed appropriate by the Chief Building Official; b. that all debris and rubble be removed immediately after demolition; c. that sod be laid on the site and be maintained free of garbage and weeds, in accordance with the Municipal Code Chapter 623-5, and 629-10, paragraph B; and d. that any holes on the property are backfilled with clean fill.
NY16.17amended
Residential Demolition Application - 515 Glencairn Avenue
This staff report is about a matter for which Community Council has delegated authority from City Council to make a final decision. In accordance with Section 33 of the Planning Act and the former City of Toronto Municipal Code Ch. 363, Article 6 "Demolition Control", the application for the demolition of a residential building at 515 Glencairn Avenue is being referred to the North York Community Council to consider as a building permit has not been issued for a replacement building. North York Community Council may impose conditions, if any, to be attached to the demolition permit.
The North York Community Council: 1. Approved the application to demolish the single-family dwelling at 515 Glencairn Avenue, with the following conditions: a. that a construction fence be erected in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 363, Article 7, if deemed appropriate by the Chief Building Official and Executive Director, Toronto Building; b. that all debris and rubble be removed immediately after demolition; c. that sod be laid on the site and be maintained free of garbage and weeds, in accordance with the Municipal Code Chapter 623-5, and 629-10, paragraph B; and d. that any holes on the property are backfilled with clean fill.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Toronto Building Division recommends that the North York Community Council give consideration to the demolition application for 515 Glencairn Avenue and decide to: 1. Refuse the application to demolish the single-family dwelling because there is no permit to replace the buildings on the site. OR 2. Approve the application to demolish the single-family dwelling without any conditions. OR 3. Approve the application to demolish the single-family dwelling, with the following conditions: a. that a construction fence be erected in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Code, Chapter 363, Article 7, if deemed appropriate by the Chief Building Official; b. that all debris and rubble be removed immediately after demolition; c. that sod be laid on the site and be maintained free of garbage and weeds, in accordance with the Municipal Code Chapter 623-5, and 629-10, paragraph B; and d. that any holes on the property are backfilled with clean fill.
NY16.18adopted
226 Wilson Avenue - Bell Mobility Incorporated License Agreement Amendment for an Extension Option
The purpose of this report is to obtain authority to amend an existing Encroachment Agreement dated July 24, 2017 (the "Encroachment Agreement") between the City of Toronto (the "City") and Bell Mobility Incorporated (the "Licensee") by adding one renewal option of five years (the "Option") in favour of the Licensee. The Encroachment Agreement is for an encroachment on City-owned land and adjacent lands over which the City has an easement. The encroachment is required for the location of underground cables, and comprises a land area of 99 square meters, at the south-east corner of City-owned land at 226 Wilson Avenue, being a three meter wide strip centered on the cable location (the "Encroachment"), as outlined in Appendix C. The Encroachment Agreement, which commenced in August 2014, requires the encroachment fee for the period of August 2019 to August 2024 (the "Remainder Term") be determined by the City based on fair market value. In connection with negotiation of the encroachment fee for the Remainder Term, the Option was agreed to. Community Council has delegated authority to make a final decision with respect to encroachments.
The North York Community Council: 1. Granted authority to amend the Encroachment Agreement with Bell Mobility Incorporated, substantially on the terms and conditions outlined in Appendices A and B to the report (June 24, 2020) from the Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management, with such revisions to it, and such other terms and conditions acceptable to the Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management, or designate, from time to time, in consultation with the General Manager, Toronto Water, or designate, from time to time, and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management, recommends that: 1. North York Community Council grant authority to amend the Encroachment Agreement with Bell Mobility Incorporated, substantially on the terms and conditions outlined in Appendix A and Appendix B of this report, with such revisions to it, and such other terms and conditions acceptable to the Executive Director, Corporate Real Estate Management, or his or her designate, from time to time, in consultation with the General Manager of Toronto Water, or his or her designate, from time to time, and in a form acceptable to the City Solicitor.
NY16.19adopted
Designation of Fire Route and Amendment to Chapter 880 - Fire Routes - 65 Forest Manor Road
To obtain North York Community Council approval for the amendment of the Fire Route By-law to designate certain locations as fire routes within the meaning of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 880, as amended. Fire Services uses designated fire routes as a key mechanism in regulating fire prevention, including the prevention of spreading of fires and the delivery of fire protection services.
The North York Community Council: 1. Designated part or those parts of the private road or roads shown on the site plans filed with the Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services in respect of the municipal address set out below, as a fire route pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 880, Fire Routes: a. 65 Forest Manor Road. 2. Authorized the Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services and the City Solicitor to take the appropriate action to make a designated Fire Route.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services recommends that: 1. North York Community Council designate part or those parts of the private road or roads shown on the site plans filed with the Fire Chief in respect of the municipal address set out below, as a fire route pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 880 - Fire Routes: - 65 Forest Manor Road. 2. North York Community Council authorize the Fire Chief and City Solicitor to take the appropriate action to make a designated Fire Route.
NY16.20adopted
To obtain North York Community Council approval for the amendment of the Fire Route By-law to designate certain locations as fire routes within the meaning of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 880, as amended. Fire Services uses designated fire routes as a key mechanism in regulating fire prevention, including the prevention of spreading of fires and the delivery of fire protection services.
The North York Community Council: 1. Designated part or those parts of the private road or roads shown on the site plans filed with the Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services in respect of the municipal addresses set out below, as a fire route pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 880, Fire Routes: a. 181-187 Wynford Drive; b. 84 Tycos Drive; and c. 43 Thorncliffe Park Drive. 2. Authorized the Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services and the City Solicitor to take the appropriate action to make a designated Fire Route.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services recommends that: 1. North York Community Council designate part or those parts of the private road or roads shown on the site plans filed with the Fire Chief in respect of the municipal addresses set out below, as a fire route pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 880 - Fire Routes: - 181-187 Wynford Drive - 84 Tycos Drive - 43 Thorncliffe Park Drive 2. North York Community Council authorize the Fire Chief and City Solicitor to take the appropriate action to make a designated Fire Route.
NY16.21adopted
To obtain North York Community Council approval for the amendment of the Fire Route By-law to designate certain locations as fire routes within the meaning of City of Toronto Municipal Code Chapter 880, as amended. Fire Services uses designated fire routes as a key mechanism in regulating fire prevention, including the prevention of spreading of fires and the delivery of fire protection services.
The North York Community Council: 1. Designated part or those parts of the private road or roads shown on the site plans filed with the Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services in respect of the municipal addresses set out below, as a fire route pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 880, Fire Routes: a. 53 Thorncliffe Park Drive; b. 54 Thorncliffe Park Drive; c. 71 Thorncliffe Park Drive; d. 5740 Yonge Street; e. 671 Sheppard Avenue East; f. 6000 Yonge Street; g. 45 Overlea Boulevard; h. 34 Leith Hill Road; i.1-55 Inlet Mews; j. 5-48 Enclave Mews; k. 75 The Donway West; l. 1-46 Springside Way; and m. 2255 Sheppard Avenue East. 2. Authorized the Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services and the City Solicitor to take the appropriate action to make a designated Fire Route.
Staff recommendation as filed
The Fire Chief and General Manager, Toronto Fire Services recommends that: 1. North York Community Council designate part or those parts of the private road or roads shown on the site plans filed with the Fire Chief in respect of the municipal addresses set out below, as a fire route pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 880 - Fire Routes: - 53 Thorncliffe Park Drive - 54 Thorncliffe Park Drive - 71 Thorncliffe Park Drive - 5740 Yonge Street - 671 Sheppard Avenue East - 6000 Yonge Street - 45 Overlea Boulevard - 34 Leith Hill Road - 1-55 Inlet Mews - 5-48 Enclave Mews - 75 The Donway West - 1-46 Springside Way - 2255 Sheppard Avenue East 2. North York Community Council authorize the Fire Chief and City Solicitor to take the appropriate action to make a designated Fire Route.
NY16.22adopted
Brian Drive - Parking Amendment
Residents in the Brian Village neighbourhood have raised traffic safety concerns caused by delivery trucks stopping on the east side of Brian Drive, north of Sheppard Avenue, by the Shoppes of Brian Village. The delivery trucks obstruct northbound traffic and force vehicles behind to pass them dangerously using the southbound left-turn lane. The proposed stopping prohibition on Brian Drive will help to address this safety issue.
The North York Community Council: 1. Rescinded the existing parking prohibition in effect at all times on the east side of Brian Drive, between Sheppard Avenue East and Patrick Boulevard. 2. Prohibited stopping at all times on the east side of Brian Drive, between Sheppard Avenue East and Patrick Boulevard.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Carroll recommends that North York Community Council: 1. Rescind the existing parking prohibition in effect at all times on the east side of Brian Drive, between Sheppard Avenue East and Patrick Boulevard. 2. Prohibit stopping at all times on the east side of Brian Drive, between Sheppard Avenue East and Patrick Boulevard.
NY16.23adopted
The purpose of this motion is to request a re-opening of Item NY15.22 amended at North York Community Council Meeting 15. The reopening seeks to correct a wording error included as part of the previous recommendations where one of the streets up for traffic calming failed to be mentioned. The recommendation below seeks to add James Finlay Way to Part 1, as it was indented.
The North York Community Council: 1. Re-opened Item NY15.22, headed "Requested Traffic Calming - George Appleton Way and James Finlay Way" with respect to Part 1 only for further consideration. 2. Deleted Part 1 of the Decision of North York Community Council Item NY15.22 and adopted the following instead: 1. Waive the polling requirements and authorize the installation of speed humps on George Appleton Way, between Keele Street and James Finlay Way and on James Finlay Way, between Wilson Avenue and George Appleton Way.
Staff recommendation as filed
Councillor Pasternak recommends that North York Community Council: 1. Re-open Item NY15.22, headed "Requested Traffic Calming - George Appleton Way and James Finlay Way" with respect only to Part 1 of the North York Community Council's decision. 2. Delete Part 1 of the North York Community Council decision on Item NY15.22 and adopt the following instead: "1. Waive the polling requirements and authorize the installation of speed humps on George Appleton Way, between Keele Street and James Finlay Way and on James Finlay Way, between Wilson Avenue and George Appleton Way."
NY16.24adopted
Introduction and consideration of Bills for enactment of By-laws.
General Bill North York Community Council enacted By-law 552-2020. Confirmatory Bill North York Community Council passed a Confirmatory Bill as By-law 553-2020.