HomeMy WebLinkAbout2149Spiral bound book, 28 x 22 cm., 232 pages, undated, A Plan For Seaton, Ontario Form
Collaborataive, John Van Nostrand Associates.
ONTARIO FORM COLLABORATIVE
JOHN VAN NOSTRAND ASSOCIATES
BAIRD/SAMPSON ARCHITECTS
MILUS BOLLEN BERGHE TOPPS WATCHORN
TOM ZIZYS
JOHN SEWELL
B-A CONSULTING GROUP
COSBURN PATTERSON WARDMAN LIMITED
BENNINGTON ADVISORS
CLUNY ASSOCIATES INC.
STAMM ECONOMIC RESEARCH
RESOURCE DATA/ANNE FO RT-MEN ARES
GARWOOD-JONES VAN NOSTRAND HANSON ARCHITECTS
WARREN SORENSON ASSOCIATES
JIM WARD ASSOCIATES
BLAIR KERRIGAN/GIYPHICS INC
Contents
1.0 Introduction
page 7 1.1 A Plan for Seaton
2.0 The Environment
page 27 2.1 Environmental Philosophy and Stewardship
2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5
Implementing the Environmental Philosophy
page 40
Restoring Degraded Landscapes
page 56
Heritage Conservation
page 62
Rural/Agricultural Plan
page 69
3.0 Population and Employment
page 79
3.1 Population
page 80
3.2 Employment
4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6
4.o The Public Realm
Transportation Strategy
page 110
Plan for Servicing Infrastructure
page 119
Communications and Information Technology
page 129
Open Space and Parkland
page 132
Community Services
page 147
Durham College
page 155
5.0 Built Form and Character Appendices
page 159 page 201
5.1 Metropolitan Form 1 Rnancial Viability and Marketability Analysis
page 160 2 Transportation
5.2 The Form of Seaton 3 Permitted Uses in Rural/Agricultural Zones
page 163 4 The IWA EE11 Site
5.3 Community Form
page 167
5.4 Form of Housing and Land Use
page 169
5.5 Commercial and Other Non-Residential Services
page 174
6.0 Evolution
page 181
7.0 Implementing Seaton
page 195
Introduction
1.1 A Plan for Seaton
Plan for Section
an urban community that changes and evolves... increasing agricultural production and
consolidating and enhancing regional and local eco-systems.
Seaton is planned to be an urban community supporting up to 90,000residents. It is based on a
combination of urban, rural and environmental initiatives which are designed to reinforce each
other. Seaton will be an urban community that changes and evolves, provides many different
layers of expression and meaning, and enhances many levels of diversity. By addressing head-
on the need to accommodate up to 90,000 residents, the Seaton plan illustrates that the
amount of land required to accommodate projected population growth in Durham can be
significantly reduced, while at the same time increasing agricultural production and
consolidating and enhancing regional and local eco-systems.
The plan attempts to capture the subtle interplay of physical, economic, social, and cultural
elements which are found in other successful existing urban communities. It is designed to be
sustainable in the long run.
Seaton's plan does not have a final form that can be achieved and then frozen at a particular
point in time. Its forms and processes are designed to change over time — just as those of
other successful communities do — and it exhibits an inter-reliance between its discreet parts,
such that the whole is always more than their sum.
The plan is based on an innovative recombination of certain proven attributes of the nineteenth
and twentieth century urban patterns within the GTA. For example, its neighbourhoods combine
the compact, flexible grid pattern of the nineteenth century with the strong relationship with
natural topography which has been an aspiration of the best planning traditions of the twentieth
century. Few of the constituent elements of the plan are experimental in themselves: they are
tried and true, and exhibit characteristics seen in existing communities which are widely
admired. While dense, the plan is also open; while urban, its also natural; while familiar, it is
also unfamiliar. Notwithstanding these characteristics, parts of it are at variance with current
practice since current practice works poorly.
The physical part of the plan begins with its existing features, both natural and man-made.
What will distinguish Seaton is that the physical plan conforms consistently with the land. The
existing road system is retained as one underlying framework, and is an important factor
influencing the location of new grid of roads introduced into the area. The existing rural man-
made landscape also shapes and contains further change.
The other underlying framework is the web of natural features. The most significant natural
features (the valleys and streams) are left largely undisturbed, and existing natural
connections are retained in urbanized areas through parks systems, trees, corridors of
vegetation, and areas for the natural filtering of water.
The interface of the urban, the rural, and the natural is in some cases clear — roadways are
used as the boundary for urban areas where they meet significant natural features, for
instance — and in other cases they are carefully integrated and knit together. One example
of integration is the intensive agricultural uses planned for urban edges, blurring what is
thought to be a usually firm and necessary distinction between farm and city, to the clear
advantage of both. Another is changing block size and location to suit the existing rural
landscape.
Most building forms are modest, relate directly to grade, and have a straight-forward
connection to public streets. Many buildings will serve different uses over time, and are
designed accordingly. They are sited so that additions and modifications are easy to
accomplish.
While residential building forms are modest in scale, the densities they embody are
significant enough to support...
"...While dense, the plan is also open; while urban its also natural; while familiar, its also
unfamiliar."
active community and street life, including corner stores and restaurants, and excellent local
public transit. Obviously, these densities will not be achieved across the site at one fell swoop.
The main arterial streets will be the focus of early building and there these densities will be
achieved, in clusters, almost immediately, but other areas will demonstrate a mix of densities
over time, as single family buildings are modified to accommodate more than one household,
or where new secondary structures are erected. Like other aspects of Seaton, its residential
neighbourhoods will evolve to meet changing needs.
The economic part of the plan assumes that at virtually each stage of the first 20-30 years of the
evolution of Seaton, the community is economically viable. This means that the creation of jobs
must run in tandem with the creation of housing. To ensure this occurs, careful attention must be
given to realistic ways of encouraging employment in Seaton and to the manner and place
where those jobs will occur. The plan assumes that many entrepreneurial businesses will
start in or close to the entrepreneur's home: zoning controls and physical forms must be
arranged to ensure this is possible. Employment development staff will be required to do
necessary background work to ensure employment objectives are met.
The diversity of employment will be necessary for a successful community. The plan includes
space and reasonable strategies for appropriate levels of services for the local population
(schools, medical services, local retailing, for example); entrepreneurial activity of various
kinds; post-secondary education; and higher order services. To accommodate these
different activities in buildings which are available at reasonable cost, the plan proposes
construction first to occur in mixed-use buildings on the major streets.
Another aspect of the economic plan is to minimize public costs for major services, and to
minimize the need for constructing services. The first objective can be met by building major
piped services on the main thoroughfares where intensive building will first occur, and
building out from there at a later date — into the less intensively developed parts of the
community. Estimates are that by closely
at virtually each
stage... the community
is economically viable.
aligning the physical plan with the existing landscape, servicing costs can be reduced by
about 5% from normal costs.
The second objective can be achieved by relying as much as possible on natural systems
(for such things as storm water) and by using community-based technologies (such as
community sanitation systems) for those areas where only a few people live (such as the
agricultural small holdings) or where development is only expected to occur in the medium
term. This approach also leaves open less costly opportunities for high-level servicing
alternatives to * full services' for areas which are primarily residential, if such prove feasible
in the next decades. Steps will be taken to ensure all buildings are constructed to use as little
energy as possible.
Most housing will be funded and built by the private sector. While public funding may be
needed to help house those with very low incomes, the plan assumes that the urban
community will generally be operating within the normal market system, and not under the
umbrella of government programs or economic initiatives.
The economic plan also includes a development strategy that settles (and limits) government
contributions at the outset, before development begins; establishes an independent
corporation to have carriage of the development; and provides appropriate controls which
will ensure that major elements of the physical, economic, social and cultural plans are met.
"... a majority of the housing will be owned by those who live in it..."
The social part of the plan is deliberately conventional. It assumes a majority of the housing
will be owned by those who live in it; but various other tenures — rental, non-profit housing,
non-profit co-ops, condominiums, supportive housing, for example — will be encouraged, as
will a limited amount of residential experimentation that all urban areas have experienced in
recent centuries. (Co-housing seems a promising experiment that some may wish to pursue.)
The plan encourages housing which will serve a similar range of incomes as is found at
present in Durham Region.
The plan assumes that many households will own cars, but that an automobile will not be
needed on a daily basis. The main north-south boulevard in the community
"...compact, walking distances to most major services..."
will be serviced by a commuter bus less than 15 minutes away from GO Transit stations both to
the north-west and to the south, reducing the need for auto use by those travelling outside the
area. Since Seaton is compact, walking distances to most major services are quite short, and
in any case densities are high enough to support a viable local transit service without massive
subsidy.
Streets will be lively. Main streets and avenues will be lined with buildings containing a mix of
uses, which will encourage considerable pedestrian activity and the friendly ambience it
engenders. A welcome feeling of personal safety may alleviate the need for extensive
professional policing of street activity, leaving police free to devote energy to the more serious
community concerns which are bound to arise.
The plan assumes a range of community services found in other urban areas, but attempts to
economize in the use of buildings in which they will be located, and suggests that emphasis
should be to secure direct community ownership and operating responsibility for many
programs and facilities. The idea of stewardship seems entirely appropriate to pursue in
Seaton. Some areas (such as allotment gardens) should be put under direct community control
and ownership; attempts should be made to follow the same course with unbuilt natural areas
such as ravines and green corridors. It may be found that direct community responsibility and
control for such features will prove more effective in their care and retention than 'public'
ownership.
The age and ethnic mix of Seaton will change over time. For instance in the first years of
development, it can be assumed that the population will generally be younger than in the
Greater Toronto Area as a whole, but the plan seeks to cater to a wide range of age groups
— including seniors at an early stage. The goal in the medium to long term is that Seaton
will have similar age and ethnic ranges as those found now in Pickering. Attracting different
language and cultural groups to locate businesses and residences in Seaton will be actively
encouraged.
The Seaton plan attempts to define objectives and opportunities from regional, community, and
neighbourhood perspectives.
Seaton's culture is planned to be one that is entirely at home in Southern Ontario. This cultural
outlook will be evident for example, in the retention of the rural landscape, in the use of building
types common to many Southern Ontario cities, and in the mix of different kinds of people in a
single community. At all stages of its evolution, Seaton is planned to works in a way that feels
right at any given stage, and that it fits comfortably in its specific location. The surprise of
Seaton will be that even 'though it will be innovative in many ways, it will nevertheless feel quite
familiar to its residents.
The Seaton plan attempts to define objectives and opportunities from regional, community, and
neighbourhood perspectives. It proposes to put in place the many layers of activities and
interests which must come together to create a successful urban community, and give direction
to the energy required to provide the necessary momentum, and to encourage its own
indigenous growth. This kind of a plan requires a number of different strategies which must be
co-ordinated over a long enough period that they can become virtually self-regulating and
become subject to direction from a democratically elected municipal government. The plan
suggests how that might be done.
As a result of growth that has occurred since it was first expropriated in 1972, Seaton is now
more central to the established focus and infrastructure of the GTA than many other growth
edges. Its time has come.
SEATON DOWNTOWN 1994
FARMING URFE COMMUNITY 1994
A SIDEROAD 1994
SEATON DOWNTOWN 2015
FARMING IN URFE COMMUNITY 2015
A SIDEROAD 2007
SEATON FROM THE AIR
2 The Environment
2.1 Environmental Stewardship
page 28
2.2 Implementing the Environmental Philosophy
page 40
2.3 Restoring Degraded Landscapes
page 56
2.4 Heritage Conservation
page 62
2.5 Rural/Agricultural Plan
The Environment
2.1 Environmental Stewardshp
Mutuality of interest and reward is a possibility that can reach into any city backyard, garden,
and park, but in any place under human dominance — which is, now, virtually everyplace—it is
a possibility that is both natural and cultural. If humans want wilderness to be possible, then they
have to make it possible. If balance is the ruling principle and a stable balance the goal, then,
for humans, attaining this goal requires a consciously chosen and deliberately made
partnership with nature."
Wendell Berry
Getting Along With Nature
Environmental Stewardship
Stewardship and Choice in Seaton
Nature in Seaton
Nature in Seaton is not only the practical or aesthetic consideration generally existing today in
our urban and regional parks. Full of sports fields and a grass-and-trees landscape, the urban
parks of the G.T.A.are part of a land use philosophy that separates nature from the urban and
tidies it up for easy maintenance. The aspiration in Seaton is to make the nature found in its
neighbourhoods and parks a biological and ethical reality. In Seaton, the natural environment
and the urban environment are, together, a complex ecosystem with many facets. The
community's residents, as the community building animals they are, will make their niche in that
broader ecosystem.
Stewardship of a community's natural environment is not only a technical problem, there to be
solved by the appropriate department or professional. Rather, it is an ethical and moral
challenge in a community trying to establish a relation to the environment it lives in, and is
addressed through collective choices. It is as much about how a resident takes ( or doesn't
take) out the garbage, as it is about saving old growth woodlots and improving water quality of
creek fisheries.
Scale and Bioregion
The broadest scale of stewardship, of course, is global. While some global aspects of
community life — such as the heavy carbon dioxide emissions characteristic of extensive
auto use — will actually have a direct impact in this area, generally the most useful scale of
consideration is the bioregion, in Seaton's case the Oak Ridges Bioregion. The bioregion is
defined by many circumstances and interactive processes considered together; tectonic,
climatic, chemical, behavioral and technological. Physiography, plant and animal
communities, and watershed systems are the most often used parameters. Stretching west-
east from the Niagara Escarpment to Rice Lake, and from Lake Ontario to the Oak Ridges
Moraine, the Oak Ridges Bioregion is a landscape of rolling tableland frequently cut by
creeks running south to the lake. Forests, now in a predominately cleared agricultural
landscape, tend to be
deciduous or a mix of deciduous and coniferous species. Seaton is set in one of these creeks
systems, the main environmental site parameters of its circa 3,000 hectare fixed in geological
time, its ecologies emerging from the ice age, and man's imposition felt most strongly in the
last 200 years.The challenge of stewardship is to create beneficial interaction between man,
plant and animal communities and geology.
The impact of town building and urban daily life on the water flowing through the surficial
geology of a ground water recharge system can easily compromise the fragile habitat of a
creek fishery. Conversely, wise use of that same set of circumstances can create a place
where one can walk from one's home to either an active town centre or a quiet, trout-filled
creek.The challenge of stewardship is to create a
It is easy to go on about compact urban form and intensified urban communities planned
carefully for the long term as the paradigm for the sustainable community. What is difficult is
not to rise to the temptation to propose a formula that will solve the stewardship relationship
between an urban place like Seaton, its inhabitants and the ecosystems of its setting. Instead it
would be wiser to use urban form as a means to clarify the stewardship relationship in an
ongoing fashion, as a type of human intervention that can absorb a variety of interpretations
as the needs and means of Seaton's residents and developers evolve. It is the meeting
ground between politics and ecology, between ongoing and evolving cultural and natural
histories.
Working Principles of Environmental Stewardship and Management
Five principles of environmental stewardship underscore the relationship between the
Seaton site, with its already complex natural and human histories, the eventual developers ,
and the ultimate residents . Each goal comes with an environmental principle attached
which explains in basic terms the source of the goal itself:
First: To encourage a careful, incremental and flexible development, use and occupation of the
site.
Second: To protect and enhance the site's natural and man-made landscapes in a sustainable
manner for future generations.
Third: To reduce and mitigate pollutants created by human activity and occupation.
Fourth: To manage the continual ecological renewal of the site and the bioregion beyond.
Fifth: To evolve a supportive partnership between the natural ecosystem, Seaton's developers
and its eventual residents.
The Stewardship Principles and Key Issue
First principle: To encourage a careful, incremental and flexible development, use and
occupation of the site.
Awareness of the ecological limits to growth and development is the most broadly focused
of the stewardship goals for Seaton. Its scale is initially that of the Oak Ridges Bioregion
and the place of that bioregion in the global ecosystem. Even at the neighbour¬hood level
the parameters of the bioregion ecosystem make their impact felt in the playing out of the
habits of daily life in Seaton. Of the bioregion ecosystem's characteristics, four are of
particular importance in the overall Seaton plan and in framing future smaller-scale
development strategies: creek system, the Lake Iroquois shoreline, habitats, and climate.
Creek systems link the Oak Ridges to Lake Ontario and establish the subsequent division
of the bioregion's landscape into north-south watersheds and sub-watersheds. Seaton is
bounded and subdivided by these systems. Interwoven between Seaton's neighbourhoods,
the creeks are a direct link between human settlement and natural ecosystems in Seaton,
and are the part of the Seaton environment most impacted by that development.
The Lake Iroquois shoreline is a major feature of physiographic transition in both the Oak
Ridges Bioregion and Seaton landscape. In Seaton this area is not only a zone of former
gravel pits and a present sanitary landfill, but also a major source of downstream ground
water recharge.
Creek and woodlot-based riparian and terrestrial habitats are the focus of the biological
health of the Oak Ridges Bioregion's natural ecosystems. Currently the shaded creeks of
Seaton are recovering cold water fisheries,
and the woodlots are being augmented by regenerating forest in several locations.
The seasonal climate of the region is one of extremes, though moderated by the effects of
Lake Ontario. Cold winters and hot, humid summers will have their impact on the energy
consumption of Seaton's inhabitants, as will choices by Seaton's developers and residents to
mitigate the climatic extremes.
Second principle: To protect and enhance the site's natural and man-made resources in a
sustainable manner.
Management of the cultural and natural resources of the site will occur at the community and at
the more local scale. The former is tied to policies about the sun, the flow of water, and to
human constructs such as the Ontario Hydro grid. The latter are tied to how local businesses,
homes and institutions manage their use of the site, where they will draw energy from, how they
will heat their water and the type of soil conservation procedures engaged in by farmers
Seaton's use of site resources will be a hybrid of existing approaches based on present large
scale utility infrastructures and alternative smaller scale technologies based on renewable
resources. The long term strategy of Seaton's resource management will be to wean both
large users and individuals off the big systems onto more local systems using renewable
resources. If supported initially in zoning by-laws, building codes, design guidelines and by
financing policies of lending agencies what will start as local choices should emerge as
broader strategy when demonstrations of practical and economic success are visible. At
present alternates to the large scale infrastructural approach are marginalized in law, policy
and conventional practice. Interaction between hard and soft resources will be the central
them of providing the site servicing needs of Seaton; its water, electrical power, heating and
transportation energy requirements.
Energy — The first and most important resource to be considered is energy. It is the
resource that today's practices of stewardship tend to waste and its waste produces
form the most extensive of our environmental pollutants.
The energy budget of the site will emerge from a dynamic and evolving balance of inputs from
the two broad sources. Like all other communities in Ontario, Seaton will initially be connected
to the large scale infrastructures of the energy providers of electrical power, and heating fuels
like natural gas. Ontario Hydro will come from Pickering to the south as well as the gas lines.
There is of course, the other broad energy source, a wealth of sun, wind and moving water on
the site itself that in todays conventional community would remain largely untapped. The
valuable aspect of these alternative energy sources is that they can be tapped at a range of
scales. The homeowner, the building manager, the local workplace and the large scale utility
all have equal access to the available energy. In each case there is appropriate technology to
match the scale. There is the opportunity in Seaton, with appropriate financial incentives, to be
the developer, laboratory community and eventual manufacture of new energy technologies.
This will be discussed further in Goal Five.
Sun Energy is the farthest reaching of the alternative energy sources for Seaton, being a
source of both heating and electrical power. In both these technologies can be managed
across the scale of the homeowner, the neighbourhood, the building manager of a workplace
or the municipality in conjunction with a utility. Each can trap the sun's heat for use, or use its
direct energy to generate electrical power. Passive solar architecture which relies on design
of the building form will be discussed as part of Principle Five.
At present the most developed solar energy technology is in the active heating of fluids
(usually water) in exposed solar panels. The fluids then are circulated with their heat through
buildings. Where water is heated domestically it can also be used as hot water for bathing
or laundry. Solar heating is the workhorse of alternate energy technologies and can be part
of a complex building system or it can be a simple domestic system hooked up to a hot
water storage tank or a home radiator. Increasingly common use at all levels of complexity
will improve the efficiency, cost and availability of solar heating systems. Use of such
systems will be incorporated into Seaton's building codes in a gradual, evolution of use: first
for hot water heating in larger buildings, then in homes, and eventually as part of more
sophisticated hydronic, radiator-based heating systems. The latter are common in European
urban communities where forced air or electrical heating is not the predominate norm.
Photo-voltaic panels which convert sunlight to electricity is an area of alternate energy
resources which, though available, is still not sufficiently advanced as a technology to
provide energy on a large scale. Due to the high cost of the panels, they are generally used
only in extreme circumstances of
isolation from a power grid such as on islands with no connection to a larger system. Costs will
be lowered only when broader demand allows for economies of scale and pushes product
development. A promising possibility for Seaton is in the development of less costly
amorphous layer panels These are much like coated glass curtain wall panels that have
electrical leads. If developed with an appropriate wall system they could form the basis for an
electricity-generating, commercial building cladding such a wall system would not alter the
architecture of buildings and might even be capable of being retrofitted. Wind power is
potentially one of the most flexible of small scale electrical power generation sources. It can be
used at all scales from the utility to the individual user and was used by farms in Seaton prior to
rural electrificatior Prevailing winds are from the north-west and design of guideline should not
preclude the opportunity to site an individual
home or building to take advantage of windmills. As well consideration should be given to
creating a hybrid power system in relation with Ontario Hydro to allow each local windmill to
easily feed into the larger grid. (It is not only technology that needs to be coordinated but even
more importantly, the willingness on the part of the large utility to accept the role of the smaller
generator.)
Water power has always been a feature of Seaton since it was settled by Europeans.
Whitevale is still a mill town, its origins in the damming of West Duffin Creek for water power
to mill local grain. The Oak Ridges Bioregion , before Ontario Hydro, was dotted with small
local electrical power mills along its creeks. Today Seaton's larger creeks could still
accommodate a network of small scale, efficient micro hydro generators. These should be
located and managed by the M.T.R.C.A. in conjunction with the municipality. The power
generated could be assigned to a specific source as part of the creeks recreational use.
Such use of creeks for water power would have to be balanced by an assessment of the
environmental impact on the stream, especially its effect on any present fishery.
An Energy Park— a large scale solar and wind power generation facility created on the site
of the almost full Metro landfill — is a unique large scale opportunity. Such a facility, in a park
environment, would have several roles; to provide a place for testing alternate energy
technologies; to make such testing a visible, high profile activity and to make a possible
connection to the energy sources inherent in solid waste management. There is already an
operating power station on the site using the methane released by the process of waste
decomposition. The landfill should be seen a an opportunity to create a public awareness in
Seaton and in visitors using the regional trail system described in the next sections.
Topsoil Health — The second major site resource to be used, maintained and protected is the
topsoil which underlies Seaton's predominately agricultural landscape. Wendell Berry states
that a healthy topsoil "has at once the ability to hold water and drain well. A healthy soil is made
by the life dying into it and by the life living in it, and to its double ability to drain and retain water
we are complexly indebted, for it not only gives us good crops but also erosion control as well
as both flood control and a constant water supply."
Two aspects of topsoil conservation and stewardship distinguish Seaton from most
contemporary urban development: continued farming of land, and intensive farming use. Both
necessitate good practice in topsoil conservation in Seaton.
During urbanization itself area grading of the site will be minimized so as not to have an impact
on the topsoil. This will minimize overall topsoil disturbance and erosion caused by
construction. What topsoil is moved by the processes of building will be conserved and reused
as part of the environmental restoration strategy for the former large gravel extraction areas
south-east of the Lake Iroquois shoreline. Following the development of urban areas topsoil
management will emphasize incentives such as on site and community composting, and
topsoil improvement at the level of individual residence and building landscaping and
gardens. What topsoil is moved in the process of individual site development will be reused
on site or added to the stock of community topsoil used for the environmental rehabilitation
initiatives.
The Terrestrial Habitats —
Seatons terrestrial natural habitats are composed of forests in the Lake Iroquois Shoreline,
woodlots and hedgerows in the fields of the agricultural areas, and the valleys of the creeks
and their tributaries. In conventional planning the terrestrial habitat is usually considered as a
natural area to be protected and limited in access to trails. It is seen as being outside of
urban areas, at best in an uneasy coexistence.
The main strategies in Seaton for enhancing the quality and role of a natural habitat in
developing urban areas are based on two main approaches. The first, is based on
bounding and defining the sites using highly visible urban elements. Roads and trails
separate the natural ecosystems of Seaton from the surrounding residences, workplaces
and civic buildings. Even parks are separated, though to a lesser degree, from the habitats
described above. Within each habitat, stewardship of the area would follow an approach of
detailed mapping, survey and analysis. Ongoing monitoring of the sites is also crucial for
baseline statistics. Any intervention to the habitat should only be done after there is a clear
idea of not only the
momentary status quo of a site but also of the dynamics of the site's ecology. Some principles
for such approaches are outlined later.
Not as defensive an approach as the first, a second avenue to stewardship of terrestrial habitat
expands on the existing in one key way. Habitat is best protected when it is extensive, varied
and joined to other habitats. The goal in Seaton is to use its gradual urban development to
simultaneously join Seaton's natural habitats together in an unbroken reforested network of
access and passage for animals and birds. Such interlinking is especially important between
creel* systems in order to expand the territory available to wildlife without having to create a
great deal of new natural habitat. Untreed creek tributary valleylands, highway greenbelts, and
corridors of abandoned extraction sites seem ideal candidates for environmental rehabilitation
into a network of green corridors.
The Riparian Habitats —
One additional feature of the creek valleyland or riparian, habitat is the quality, quantity and
seasonality of the water flowing through it. Key factors in determining those aspects are the
source of the creek's water, the nature of its banks, and the tree cover over the stream.
Stewardship, as in the terrestrial habitat, can affect these concerns either at the scale of the
individual habitat, or also at the scale of the network of habitat. Control of the quality of the
water moving from Seaton's urbanizing areas into its valleys necessitates the creation of a
system of intermediary storm water management ponds. Another very significant further
strategy is that of expanding the downstream recharge of the major creeks thereby
increasing their quality as a fish habitat downstream. This is a large scale project sited in
the abandoned extraction sites on the Lake Iroquois shoreline and as an intervention has
regional benefits.
Third principle: To reduce and mitigate pollutants created by human activity and and
occupation.
Managing the human impact on the site is the reverse side of the previous goal. Seaton's
use of its resources will inevitably generate waste products. "Reduce, reuse, recycle" is the
environmentalist ethic often stated. How it will be put into practice in Seaton, though, is
dependent on finding a balance between large scale municipal and regional waste disposal
infrastructures and local initiatives and practices. Part of this balance will be a need to shift
conventional practice and habits in a way that brings infrastructural technologies and daily life
into the ethic. Change is not difficult if it is reasonable and gradual, as demonstrated by
people's general willingness to sort solid waste in blue box programmes and the popularity
of municipal home composting initiatives. Seaton, though, can serve as an example in how
to absorb new habits into
daily life, but also in how those habits can form an interlocking set of strategies that effectively
reduce a community's impact on the environment.
The large scale infrastructures in the G.T.A. for social comfort and health are not necessarily an
anathema to an environmental ethic . Small is beautiful — but not necessary. For an urban
community of 90,000 people large scale urban utilities, servicing and transportation
infrastructure are a necessary fact of life. Effective public works are needed not only to
expedite urban needs but also to mitigate the impact of that urban life on the natural
environment. The needed small scale change in individual habits exist only on a solid
underpinning of environmentally oriented large scale technologies, and reconsidered
development and management practices.
The role that new local and individual habits oriented to reducing the impact of daily life on the
environment can play is considered as part of Goal Five. For the large scale of Seaton and its
region, areas of major environmental impact are outlined below. Each area is referred to the
appropriate section in this document for a more detailed discussion.
Air Pollution — The major contributor to air pollution in the G.T.A. and North America is the
heavy use of the automobile. Seaton, as a paradigm for how one could live a modern life
without heavy automobile use, should become exemplary as an alternative to problem.
Effective public transit at both a local and regional level must be made a priority early in the
development process in order to instill it first as a choice and eventually as a habit of
everyday life (an intermodal transportation strategy including automobiles, transit and
bicycles is discussed in the transportation section in the public realm chapter).
Storm Drainage and Water Quality — As already noted the ecological health of the creek
riparian habitat is a key element of Seaton's resources. Water quality is a key aspect
determining the health of those habitats. Storm drainage is one of the greatest continuous
impacts on the water quality of riparian creek habitats of the Oak Ridges Bioregion, and
Seaton as part of that bioregion. It combines two major sources of water borne pollutants.
One is the washing of pollutants such as heavy metals, hydrocarbons and winter salts from
the streets and parking lots of our urban communities by precipitation. Via storm sewers
these pollutants usually flow directly into streams. A second source of creek pollutants is the
agricultural runoff from the fields of pesticides and herbicides. Some of this type of runoff
also occurs from use of those compounds on lawns and parks in urbanized areas.
With vehicular traffic there is no way to eliminate those runoff
pollutants. Instead the storm drainage system for Seaton will be configured to encourage as
much direct on-site infiltration of precipitation as possible. Where runoff is collected in a sewer
system, storm water management ponds will be located to intercept those flows, remove the
pollutants from the water and return the water to the creek system .
Sanitary Sewage — Sanitary wastes are bacteriologically or chemically contaminated liquid or
semi-liquid wastes. The handling of sanitary wastes from Seaton is the clearest case where the
regional scale system is the most suitable in dealing with their treatment. Substantial capacity
exists in the York Durham Sanitary Trunk Sewer, because both sewer lines and treatment plant
have been planned with Seaton as part of the system . As smaller scale treatment technologies
improve these should also be considered, where desired because of flexibility, as local more
autonomous alternatives. It is expected that farms will continue to use septic systems or other
individual systems until new services are in place.
Solid Waste — Solid wastes are the part of the waste stream with the greatest opportunity for
implementation of reuse and recycling strategies at all scales. Initiatives can be part of a
direct municipal or regional service like waste stream sorting and collection. Municipal or
regional by-laws and regulations can be an incentive for individual recycling. Resident
initiative in activities in areas like composting, and new product development by local
businesses, will only expand as the benefits become evident and opportunities for reused
and recycled products increase.
Fourth principle: To manage the continual ecological renewal of the site and the bioregion
beyond
Ecological renewal of the site is the touchstone of a pro-active approach to environmental
stewardship. This goal moves beyond the defensive approach of mitigating the impact of
urban life on the Seaton site and seeks to rehabilitate stressed and damaged ecosystems.
A comprehensive strategy for this restoration is presented in the next section in this chapter
on the ecosystem. Included are proposals for specific projects of restoration and expansion
of the Seaton ecosystems. (The phasing of the process of ecological restoration and
expansion of key Seaton natural habitats is located in the community evolution section of the
evolution chapter).
The broad outline of the Seaton ecological renewal strategies deal with two key areas: water
and forests:
• Enhancement of water quality and quantity is integral to the expansion and enrichment of
the riparian creek habitat. Along with the general cleanup of storm water and direct runoff
discussed above, large scale groundwater recharge areas should be created on sites like the
former extraction sites on the Lake Iroquois shoreline.
Reforestation is an incremental process of consolidating, enriching and expanding Seaton's
natural terrestrial habitat. In the Seaton plan the north-south streams are green re-forested
corridors. Two broad community parks, one at the north of the Seaton site and the other in the
middle, join the West Duffin Creek and Urfe Creek valleys in a continuous natural habitat. At the
south end of the site there is an additional green corridor created by the rehabilitation of the
Lake Iroquois shoreline. This corridor has the opportunity to be developed into a more
extensive park corridor extending east-west in the region.
Fifth principle: To evolve a supportive partnership between the natural ecosystem, Seaton's
developers and its eventual residence
Developing a partnership between the natural environment, Seaton's developers, and its
residents is the goal which seeks to encapsulate the Seaton lifestyle in a way that is as
exemplary as the "Don Mills" lifestyle became for Canadians in the 195O's and early 1960s.
The vision of environmental sustainability inherent in the first four stewardship principles
described above is an evolving one. It will hopefully not be reducible to a simple attractive
formula. In 1790 the first vision of stewardship for Ontario was that of Dorchester and
Simcoe. Nature was to be pushed back by civilization. The 1950's version of stewardship
was technologically driven by vast infrastructures of transportation, land use zoning and
servicing, all of which had never before been as comprehensively organized. Nature was
cleaned up and manicured as grass and trees, and conceived as one more infrastructure to
be managed.
Seaton's vision of stewardship offers a new role for the natural environment, not as an enemy
or as a pale shadow. The natural ecosystems of Seaton instead are part of the partnership
with urban development in their own terms, as complex evolving organisms. Nature in
Seaton is the aspect of the plan which will adapt the forms and processes of the previous
two visions of stewardship into a new interpretation so that all three partners will benefit.
Implementing the
Environmental Philosophy
Cities are currently absorbing two thirds of the total population increase in the developing world.
At this rate, close to two billion people will populate the urban areas of developing countries by
the year 2000, with some 600 million of this number being added during the current decade
alone. Another 2 billion people are expected to be added to the urban population of the
developing countries between 2000 and 2025. Moreover, the majority of these new urban
residents will be living in large cities. Today, half of the urban population is located in some
360 cities of over half a million inhabitants each.
United Nations Centre for Human Settlements (Habitat), Nairobi, 1992
Population in the GTA is expected to increase from the present level of roughly 4 million to over
6 million inhabitants by the year 2021.
IBI, Greater Toronto Area Urban Structure Concepts Study, 1990
Introduction — Principles and Values
What do these trends suggest in the context of the Seaton planning process and how should
they influence our approach to implementing our environmental philosophy and stewardship
goals?
• Sustaining healthy ecosystems, while coincidentally coping with the relentless, inexorable
expansion of modern cities must be seen in a global context — as a global problem.
• Seaton must be viewed as a paradigm for other contemporary urbanization initiatives in
Canada. In the planning of Seaton, we must set the highest ethical and procedural standards
for ecosystem-based land use planning and must be prepared to promote these standards
nation-wide.
Our environmental planning process must be legible, incremental, and above all conservative
in approach and philosophy. The steps in this process must follow a four step methodology:
— Firstly, we must understand the Seaton ecosystem and must establish critical functional
ecosystem interrelationships and dependencies.
— Secondly, we must translate raw data into a conservative value system that creates an
integrated portrait of the ecosystem — one that can be mapped and presented as
development hierarchies.
— Thirdly, we must develop phasing guidelines that merge the development of Seaton with
the local and regional ecosystem so that these systems are not irrevocably harmed.
— Lastly, we must always remember that our knowledge of the ecosystem is limited, ever
expanding, and fluid. Hence, our goal of environmental integration can only be achieved if
we continuously evaluate our progress on the basis of critical indicators of ecosystem
health. When necessary, we must recognize our limitations and adjust our approach.
Understanding Section's Ecosystem — Synthesizing the Data Base
The site-specific ecosystem characteristics and bio-regional linkages of the Seaton community
are perhaps better documented and better understood than any other fringe development area
in the GTA. Only a few gaps exist within our knowledge base, and these are not critical to the
present stage of the planning process.
Bedrock Geology — Seaton is underlain by Upper Ordovician bedrock of Palaeozoic origin,
consisting of a thinly-bedded, brown, bituminous, micaceous, slightly calcareous shale known
as the Whitby Formation. Surface contours on the bedrock beneath the Seaton area are
thought to be relatively level, with no known buried valleys that might influence the movement of
deep aquifers or modify the shape of surface topography. No economic significance is
attached to the Whitby Formation in this region.
The slope of the bedrock surface is thought to grade uniformly from north to south across the
Seaton study area. Overburden depths also taper in thickness from north-south, with the
deepest deposits being roughly 85m near Brougham in the north east to a mere 15m at the
Highway No. 2 in the south. Bedrock outcrops in Seaton are limited to one known location
within the valley floor of the Ganatsekiagon Creek.
From an environmental planning perspective, bedrock resources of the Seaton area are
considered to have minimal influence on the character of the local ecosystem and its critical
functional interre¬lationships. Hence, this factor can be safely eliminated from detailed
constraint mapping and environmental zoning system for Seaton.
Surficial Geology
— The majority of the Seaton area, roughly the northern two thirds, lies within the South
Slope Till Plain, a physiographic feature that continues northward as far as the Oak Ridges
Moraine. Till in this area is reported as bouldery loam and clay that is occasionally fluted in a
southeast to northwest direction, reflecting the movement of glacial ice. Drumlin fields are
prominent features of the regional landscape, particularly to the east of Seaton, however,
none have been recorded within the study area.
Soils developed on the South Slope Till Plain are excellent for agricultural production.
Roughly half the till plain area of Seaton is rated as Class One, with no limitations on
production. The balance of the till plain is a combined Class One and Two, with only a minor
topographic limitation.
The South Slope Till Plain landscape terminates abruptly at the abandoned shoreline of
ancient Lake Iroquois. This feature crosses the southern third of the Seaton site in a
generally southwest to northeast direction, and is perhaps the most significant
topographic attribute of the area.
Raised beaches formed along the margins of post-glacial Lake Iroquois have left behind
significant deposits of stratified course sand and gravel. The abundance of these aggregate
resources has led to the development of several extraction pits — all of which are now inactive,
but still highly visible across the local landscape. The largest of these former pits is the now the
site of the Brock West Sanitary Landfill.
Lack of moisture and fertility, characteristic of these granular soils, discouraged early attempts
at farming, with the result that the area is presently covered by an extensive complex of mature
woodlots and regenerating forest growth. This cover complex forms an important habitat
resource and linkage corridor, providing an east-west dispersal and migration route for animal
species from West Duffin Creek easterly to the Duffin Creek main branch. If developed in a
coordinated fashion across neighbouring municipalities, this corridor has the added
potential to form a linkage as far west as the Rouge River and as far east as Trenton.
The most important feature of the Iroquois Shoreline, however, is the groundwater recharge
and discharge function provided by this vast configuration of granular material. In view of the
critical role of this function in maintaining stream base flows, cooling water temperatures,
and diluting nutrients and toxins, this area is considered a prime constraint to urbanization.
Aquifers
There are four aquifers found within the Seaton region, two in the upper overburden known
as the Greenwood and Upper Brougham, and two in the lower overburden known as the
Green River and Lower Brougham.
Upper Aquifers — Greenwood Aquifer consists of coarse sands with occasional gravel
zones. Water bearing materials are roughly 6m thick and produce well yields of 45.5L/
minute to 114 L/minute, well below volumes required to support the expected water demand
of a developed Seaton community. Upper Brougham Aquifer is composed mainly of fine to
medium sand and lies north and slightly above Greenwood Aquifer. Water bearing materials
are similar in thickness and yield to Greenwood.
Lower Aquifers — Green River Aquifer consists mainly of fine to medium sand. Water bearing
materials are thin, approximately 3m, and yields are low, in the range of 9 L/minute to 45.5L/
minute. The Lower Brougham Aquifer System also consists of fine to medium sand with a
thickness of roughly 3m. Well yields are higher the Green River, ranging from 45.5L/minute to 1
l4.5L/minute.
Groundwater — Recharge and Discharge Zones
Recharge areas are zones of granular material that encourage infiltration to the groundwater
system. In Seaton this condition is encountered extensively throughout the sand and gravel
deposits found south of the shoreline of post-glacial Lake Iroquois.
Discharge occurs in areas where the ground surface meets the top of the aquifer. In Seaton
this condition is encountered in each of the stream valleys of the West Duffin, Whitevale,
Ganatsekaigon, and Urfe Creeks. Discharge can manifest as either seepage from valley
walls and floodplains, or as upwellings in the base of the stream. Upwellings are crucially
important for the incubation and hatching of brook trout.
West Duffin Creek baseflow contribution from groundwater discharge of the Greenwood
Aquifer has been estimated at approximately 46% (measured at Green River). A significant
proportion, approximately 63%, of base flow in the Ganatsekaigon Creek is contributed by
discharge from the Greenwood Aquifer (measured at the confluence with Duffin Creek).
Base flow contribution in Urfe Creek is not well documented, but is estimated at roughly 55%,
supplied by a combination of both the Greenwood and Lower Brougham Aquifers. Whitevale
Creek is similarly not well documented, but is thought to be similar to Ganatsekaigon.
Stream Systems and Aquatic Habitat
Seaton lies entirely within the watershed of Duffin Creek. The area is principally drained to
the West Duffin Creek branch, either directly overland, or via three tributaries — Whitevale
Creek, Ganatsekaigon Creek and Urfe Creek. Only a small area in the extreme northeast of
the study area drains to the East Duffin Creek via the Brougham Creek tributary. This creek
has not been considered in the environmental planning process, as it is not affected by the
present Seaton development proposal. Each of these stream systems is briefly discussed
below;
West Duffin Creek
West Duffin Creek is a fourth order stream forming the west boundary of the Seaton
community. It is presently a robust, healthy river valley that provides good migratory
salmonid habitat.
Rainbow trout, brown trout and Pacific salmon presently migrate as far north as Whitevale
Dam. Downstream of Whitevale Dam, water quality is generally good, with an excellent in-
stream structure of pools, riffles, runs, gravel bars and bank undercuts providing attractive
habitat for adult salmonids and their offspring.
West Duffin Creek provides poor permanent coldwater habitat. There are no resident brook
trout and prospects for significant improvement are considered poor. This is due to the fact
that stream temperatures are high and riparian cover is sparse.
Good warmwater habitat for largemouth and smallmouth bass, and sunfish, is presently
provided at Whitevale Pond, however, the progressive congestion of this pond by siltation
and emergent aquatic vegetation is considered a limitation. The watershed has several
other small ponds, however, all are isolated from watercourses and are generally too small
to represent potential habitat resources.
Whitevale Creek
Whitevale Creek is a small tributary of West Duffin Creek. It has excellent water quality and
good in-stream structure. Migratory habitat for coldwater species, however, is limited by the
narrow width, shallow depth and relative scarcity of in-stream pools. For this reason, fish
species are limited to a small population of rainbow trout. Potential to upgrade this stream
to accommodate access by other salmonids is not considered practical.
Permanent coldwater habitat presently exists in Whitevale Creek, as evidenced by the small
resident population of brook trout. However, the small size of this stream limits the ultimate
productive capability for this species and prevents the introduction of other coldwater
species.
There are no ponds within Whitevale Creek or its watershed, hence the value of this sub-
watershed is marginal as a warmwater fisheries resource.
Ganatsekaigon Creek
Ganatsekaigon Creek is a tributary of West Duffin that drains the central portion of the study
area. It is a good sized system, with many deep pools and significant spawning substrates.
Migratory habitat is excellent for rainbow trout, much better than Whitevale Creek. The
system is too small, however, for brown trout and Pacific salmon.
Ganatsekaigon Creek provides the best permanent coldwater habitat in Seaton. It has a
large brook trout population, excellent water quality, cool stream temperatures, and
extensive riparian cover. Discharges, in the form of coldwater upwelling, occur frequently
along its length, particularly at the intersect with the Lake Iroquois Shoreline granular
deposits.
Warmwater habitat potential is absent within the stream and the watershed due to fact there
are no existing ponds.
Urfe Creek
Migratory fish habitat for rainbow trout is presently poor in the stream reaches above Urfe Pond.
This condition is attributed to the impediments presented by Urfe Pond, various stream
alterations at the mushroom farm, occasional beaver dams, etc. Below Urfe Pond, however,
spawning rainbow trout are present, but are not as abundant as Ganatsekaigon Creek — once
again attributable to poor water quality in this degraded system.
Permanent coldwater habitat is presently poor due to the disturbance associated with gravel
pits, the mushroom farm, land clearing and gaps in riparian cover along the system. Urfe Creek
has considerable rehabilitation potential, however, particularly south of Whitevale Road.
Although considerable effort would be required, this stream could ultimately rival the status of
Ganatsekaigon Creek.
Warmwater habitat is thought to exist within Urfe pond, however, has not been confirmed. By
taking this pond off-line, habitat for warmwater species could be improved within the pond,
and access to the upstream reaches of the stream for coldwater species could also be
created.
Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation
Forest Resources — Seaton lies within the Deciduous Forest Region. Although only a
comparatively small area of the site (approximately 15%) is wooded, the variety of forest
associations, diversity of age structure, distribution pattern, linkages, and abundance of old
field conditions, make this a highly significant component of the local ecosystem. Of
particular relevance is the dense pattern of forest cover found within all the tributary stream
valleys of Seaton, and also stretching across the abandoned lands of the Iroquois Shoreline.
Together, these two vast accumulations of forest cover form an almost continuous habitat
linkage from the lower Duffin Creek main branch across to West Duffin Creek and north to
the edge of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Forests in Seaton can be classified into two broad generic cover types — Valley and
Upland.
The relevant associations found within these categories are highlighted below:
Valley Associations
Cedar is the most common cover type association in Seaton. This complex is typically found
on wet and wet-mesic sites in the floodplain and seepage slopes of the Ganatsekaigon and
West Duffin Creek, where its common associates are Black Willow, Black Ash and Speckled
Alder.
In view of their considerable tolerance of a range of moisture regimes, Cedar woodlots are
also found on mesic to dry-mesic sites where common associates are Sugar Maple,
Hemlock, Aspen, and occasionally White Birch
Cedar-Maple associations occur on dryer, more upland sites than pure Cedar complexes.
Typically, either Cedar or Maple may be the dominant component, with each specie tending
to internally segregate into patches or clusters on the basis of site-specific moisture regime
preferences. One may also observe Beech, Yellow Birch, and White Ash interspersed within
this community type.
Cedar-Hemlock is the second most common woodland association in Seaton. These
complexes are found primarily within the valley the Ganatsekaigon Creek, and parts of the
West Duffin and Urfe Creeks. Cedar tends to predominate in the lower, wet and wet-mesic
environments at the stream edges, while Hemlock is generally located up-slope on slightly
drier ground. Common Cedar-Hemlock associates are Sugar Maple, White Ash, and White
Birch.
.
Upland Associations
Maple-Beech associations are considered to be the upland climax cover type of the
Deciduous Forest Region. In Seaton, these associations are typically found as relatively
small, isolated, mature bushlots on well-drained soils. While often picturesque, these
associations are typically lacking in diversity and offer significantly less wildlife benefit than
lowland communities.
Mixed-Deciduous is a catch-all category in which a variety of co-dominant deciduous
species typically mingle and intersperse across a range of moisture regimes and
topographic conditions. The great species diversity, and range of cover types common to
these associations makes them particularly beneficial to wildlife.
Mixed. Coniferous associations consist of a variety of co-dominant coniferous species, often
interspersed with a smaller constituency of deciduous trees. This association can be found
along Urfe Creek, the southern reaches of Ganatsekiagon Creek, and the eastern tributary of
the West Duffin Creek. Often, these associations are found in areas of high topographic relief
and complex localized surface drainage patterns where they associate with numerous other
deciduous species. The resulting diversity of cover, edge, shelter and food source make these
associations particularly valuable habitat resources.
Maple-Hemlock is relatively rare in Seaton and is typically found on dry upland sites and upper
slopes where it is associated with minor quantities of White Pine,
Beech and White Ash. There are only two Maple-Hemlock associations in Seaton, the largest
of which is found just north of Clarke's Hollow at the confluence of the West Duffin and
Whitevale Creeks. This woodlot is relatively mature and can be characterized in as an Old
Growth Forest. The smaller Maple-Hemlock complex is found just north of Whitevale Village.
Hedgerows — Seaton has a remarkable pattern of mature deciduous hedgerows,
particularly within the eastern half of the study area in the Ganatsekaigon sub-watershed.
Many of these have developed as majestic double rows along the edges of farm laneways.
Due to the fact that many of these lanes were never up-graded to concession road status,
very little disturbance has occurred along the edges of the hedgerows, leading to particularly
dense, healthy growth. In view of their health, visual quality and wildlife linkage attributes,
these hedgerows are considered a significant landscape heritage feature of the Seaton
landscape.
Many younger, and less majestic, hedgerows are also found throughout Seaton. Most are
located throughout the central part of the plan, and generally do not extend in great
abundance north of a line drawn roughly midway between Whitevale Road and Highway No.
7. While these hedgerows are not considered significant as heritage landscape resources,
they nevertheless provide important local wildlife habitat, creating significant cover and safe
travelways for animals moving between woodlots and valley systems.
Advanced Shrublands, Old Fields and Regenerating Forests
— Farm fields that have been abandoned, and are now regenerating to forest cover, are a
valuable attribute of the wildlife habitat complex of Seaton. These features are particularly
significant
for predators such as hawks and owls that tend to roost on the fringes of woodlots and hunt in
the open grasslands and shrub lands.
However, due to the ubiquitously high quality of farmland on the till plains of Seaton, these
habitats are relatively scarce throughout the northern part of the study area. Conversely, the
Iroquois Shoreline soils have historically discouraged agriculture, leading to an extensive
web of abandoned pasture, shrublands and youthful forest cover that is a valuable
component of the linkage corridor across the southern portion of the Seaton plan.
Translating Ecosystem Data into Landuse Planning Tools
Three factors were felt to be highly sensitive and substantively interrelated to one another
such that they should be considered critical land use determinants:
• Aquatic Resources
• Groundwater Recharge and Discharge
• Terrestrial Habitat and Vegetation
Each of these factors is discussed below:
Aquatic Resources — We have considered four aquatic habitat factors as critical in the
planning of Seaton, including:
• existing migratory fish habitat
• potential migratory fish habitat
• existing permanent coldwater fisheries.
• potential permanent coldwater fisheries
For purposes of mapping, our conception of the regulatory planning zone for aquatic
environments considers the streambed footprint — plus a zone of influence. We have
defined the zone of influence as the limit of the known top-of-bank plus a continuous 30m
buffer strip for all existing and potential coldwater fisheries. A 10m buffer beyond top-of-
bank has been applied to all warmwater habitat conditions.
The application of this methodology to the valley cross sections typically encountered in
Seaton, results in a highly conservative regulatory zone. By measuring setbacks from top-of-
bank, rather than stream edges, we have created buffer widths substantially greater than
those achieved by applying current MNR standards that require only a 30m setback from
coldwater streams and 10m from warmwater streams.
It should be noted that, for mapping convenience, we have used the top-of-bank as plotted in
the GIS database files provided for the competition. These limits are regarded as
inadequate for detailed planning purposes. We recommend the top-of-bank be field
surveyed and related to a "ground-truthed" topographic base map before finalization.
Groundwater Recharge and Discharge — We have considered three groundwater recharge
and discharge features as critical in the planning of Seaton, including:
• Post-glacial Lake Iroquois sand and gravel deposits
• Post-glacial Lake Iroquois sand and silt deposits
• Isolated Kame deposits of sand and gravel
These deposits provide vital recharge functions by retarding die rate of surface runoff and
infiltrating significant quantities of water to shallow local aquifers. These same deposits
discharge significant volumes of cool, clean base flow to all on-site streams.
This discharge function is a critical factor in providing coldwater fish habitat and is also
highly significant in mitigating the effects of urbanization on the Duffin Marsh at the outlet of
Duffin Creek at Lake Ontario.
We have determined the limits of critical groundwater recharge and discharge deposits on
the basis of mapping from the Markham-Newmarket Mineral Resources Sheet (Hewitt, 1996)
which appears to correlate with similar mapping in the GIS database files.
Terrestrial Habitats and Vegetation Resources — We have considered six terrestrial habitat
functions as critical in the planning of Seaton, including:
• All mature forests, regenerating cover and old field associations located within the Iroquois
Shoreline Ridge Corridor.
• All woodlots within, or contiguous with, major valley systems, regardless of age or
composition.
Three woodlots identified as mature and characterized as Old Growth Forests (Geomatics,
1991), specifically:
— Unit 41-5, east branch of Urfe Creek below Taunton.
— Unit 4F-2, at the headwaters of Ganatsekaigon Creek.
— Unit 3F-1, north of Clarke's Hollow on Whitevale Creek.
The entire complex of woodlots, riparian vegetation and wetlands known as Skunk Cabbage
Bog.
All tableland woodlots classified as High and Moderate Function (as interpreted from HBT
AGRA, 1994, Seaton Lands As A Natural Ecosystem).
Selected mature hedgerows with heritage landscape attributes (Ganatsekaigon Watershed).
• Several additional factors have been considered as influential, but non-critical factors, in the
context of environmental planning for Seaton. These factors, and the rationale for excluding
them from the constraint mapping process, are considered below:
Terrestrial Habitats and Vegetation — Tableland vegetation resources classified as having
Low Functional Value (HBT AGRA, 1994) have not been considered a development constraint
in the planning of Seaton. Typically, these resources include small, structurally simple, isolated
woodlots with few habitat attributes (ie. poor winter cover, no significant interior depth, poor
aquatic habitat relationships, etc.). Despite this rating, however, efforts have been made to
include many of these woodlots in the plan where important habitat linkages can be fostered
between higher-quality woodlots and valley systems. Particularly significant in this regard, is
the mid-block woodlot corridor linkage proposed between Taunton and Whitevale Roads.
Hedgerows have also been excluded as a constraint as a regrettable trade-off to the
efficient organization of urban structure in Seaton. Nevertheless, a number of strategic
hedgerows have been retained within the plan as habitat linkages and reminders of the
landscape heritage of the area. This has been achieved through the development and
application of special roadway design standards that permit retention of hedgerows within
enlarged and modified boulevards.
Landform Character — The landform and relief of the majority of Seaton is typical of the
region, with topography described as flat to very gently rolling. Slope gradients are generally
less than 10%, and many areas are well below 5%.
Landform character and diversity is relatively limited in the Seaton landscape. Visual interest
is largely confined to the valley systems, in particular, the steeply-eroded bluffs of the West
Duffin Creek at Clarke's Hollow. The gentle rolling ridge of ancient Lake Iroquois is considered
the only noteworthy natural heritage landscape feature.
In view of the lack of significance of this factor, we have chosen to exclude a detailed
analysis of landform character from the environmental constraint mapping process. The
exception to this rule, however, is the natural heritage landform of the Iroquois Shoreline. As
this feature is subtended within the recharge-discharge constraint factor, separate mapping
is not required.
Agricultural Capability — As noted in the earlier discussion of surficial geology, soils
developed on the South Slope Till Plain of north Seaton are excellent for agriculture with only
minor variances between classes due to the influence of topography. This
lack of qualitative distinctions among potential development sites, as determined by
agricultural capability, presents a planning dilemma. Clearly, if the notion of agricultural
productivity is viewed in a conventional manner, and particularly if it is considered as a "stand
alone" determinant of urban growth, then Seaton cannot be developed.
Therefore, we have excluded this factor from our constraint mapping process. This should not
be viewed as a trade-off, however, because agriculture will still have a prominent place in
Seaton. A new vision of farming, based on the principle of intensified food production geared
to urban markets, and capable of being integrated into the fabric of life in Seaton is proposed
as discussed below (see Rural/Agricultural Plan).
Synthesis of Ecosystem Factors
The three critical factors of aquatic habitat, recharge-discharge, terrestrial habitat and
vegetation, were initially mapped on an individual basis using the available GIS data base
mapping.
These factors were then "stacked" in a digital format with each factor, and its component
elements, portrayed in a different colour hue. These factor maps were then checked against
a composite aerial photograph of the site to verify general boundaries and classifications.
Critical factors were then treated in a cumulative fashion and digitally amalgamated so that
the density of colour revealed a simple graphic concentration of constraints that highlighted
the full array of known functional interrelationships and dependencies.
Factor concentrations were then individually reviewed, in the context of a full range of
options for: infrastructure, built form and densities, active recreation, passive recreation,
conservation, restoration and enhancement.
Finally, the boundaries of four Environmental Planning Zones were drawn and assigned
statutory development policies. The permitted uses in these zones have been based on our
evaluation of the ecosystem and its critical functional relationships. Permitted uses reflect a
conservative approach to the determination the limits of human intrusion and the appropriate
distinction of buildable and non-buildable areas. These policies are described as follows:
No development — These are tableland and valleyland components of the ecosystem that
are considered highly sensitive, for example: Skunk Cabbage Bog. Human intrusion is not
permitted in these areas other than for restorative, scientific or educational purposes, and
only under controlled and monitored conditions.
Restricted development — These are areas considered moderately sensitive, where no urban
uses are permitted with the exception of a comprehensive ecosystem rehabilitation and
enhancement program, critical infrastructure elements such as stormwater outfalls and
mandatory road crossings, and open space uses such as passive trails and interpretive
centres. All development in these areas will be subject to strict construction management
guidelines and will be sensitively integrated into the ecosystem.
Selective development — These are areas considered complimentary to the two previous
zones and necessary to achieve the community's ecosystem goals. These lands are
considered suitable for limited urban uses — typically open space, school and park activities.
All development in these areas will be subject to strict environmental enhancement goals and
standards leading to a net gain in habitat values and landscape character.
Full development — These are areas considered suitable for unrestricted urbanization,
subject only to routine environmental controls on the form of development.
Development Policies — Priorities for Growth and Stewardship Programs
The approach to Evolution illustrated on the accompanying graphic panels, and described
below, depicts an underlying theme of environmental integration and cautious urban
expansion, reflecting the following considerations of phasing and construction sequencing:
• Urban expansion in Seaton must be predicated on the principle of an orderly, sequential
and incremental build-out of specific sub-watersheds, rather than opportunistic
considerations of lowest front-end cost and highest market yield.
• Development should commence within the Whitevale and Ganatsekaigon Creek sub-
watershed prior to moving eastward into the Urfe Creek. This is required in order to allow
time for completion of the substantial stream rehabilitation program intended for this
watershed.
Particular emphasis must be placed on designing and implementing only the critical
infrastructure elements to prevent the common greenfield phenomenon of roads leading to
nowhere.
Roads illustrated as crossing river valleys on the conceptual plan of Seaton must be regarded
as provisional, subject to detailed traffic and environmental reviews prior to initiating
construction.
All development phases requiring the removal of significant forest cover must "pre-stress" the
affected areas at least two years prior to construction. Infill and restorative planting programs
must also begin at least two years prior to major servicing.
Topsoil is a finite, non renewable resource and its conservation is a major goal of the
stewardship program. Hence, the common practice of pre-stripping of vast tracts of land in
anticipation of development must be prevented. Each development phase must be subject to
a topsoil management plan that identifies specific salvage and restoration sites, both within
Seaton and beyond. Filling with topsoil simply to get rid of a excess material must not be
permitted.
Development phases should only proceed when monitoring results for the critical factors of
groundwater recharge-discharge and aquatic habitat performance indicate that all preceding
phases have met the stated objectives.
Monitoring and Adjusting
Monitoring of urban ecosystems is considered essential to achieve our environmental and
stewardship goals. Presently , environmental monitoring is delegated to numerous public
agencies with a variety of mandates and funding priorities. To our knowledge, few Ontario
municipalities presently undertake comprehensive environmental monitoring programs.
It is our conviction that a community-based approach to monitoring is essential. To be
effective, this program must be equipped with the means to communicate complex indicators
of day-to-day ecosystem health to residents of Seaton. Ideally, this would be achieved through
the local cable television network, community newspapers and service groups. Only in this
way will the program act as a catalyst to enhance public awareness of environmental
stresses and foster ethical conduct.
In the absence of a statutory and regulatory template for administering a municipal monitoring
system, we suggest that the program to be controlled by a division of the local administrative
authority and possibly delegated to Durham College. This would allow the system to be
established with a minimum of overhead by taking advantage of technical staff resources,
computers, and laboratory resources of the College.
The following specific habitat monitoring tasks are proposed for Seaton. Concentration is on
aquatic habitat functions, based on the conviction that abundant clean water and healthy
coldwater fish populations are the most effective and reasonable indicator of local ecosystem
health:
• Establish new permanent monitoring stations in the Urfe, Ganatsekaigon and Whitevale
Creeks to measure both quality and quantity. Establish each station as close as possible to the
tributary outlet. Maintain the existing quantity station in the West Duffin Creek and add quality
testing facilities..
Implement monitoring programs immediately, even before urbanization proceeds in Seaton.
This will establish necessary baseline data so that results can be properly measured against
seasonal variations and ultimately be used to regulate the phasing of urbanization.
Establish fish population monitoring programs within the West Duffin Creek and all three
tributary streams. In view of the goal of maintaining and improving coldwater fish habitat in
the Ganatsekaigon and Urfe Creeks, monitoring should concentrate on the presence of
brook trout as a minimum gauge of the success of the program. Loss, or serious decline in
any coldwater species should precipitate a restraint on development until conditions improve
or solutions are implemented.
Install groundwater wells to monitor flows, levels and water quality in the aquifers. These
should be coordinated with the urban plan for Seaton so that they can be left in place
throughout the entire life of the project without interference. In view of the critical functional
relationships between discharge of from the local aquifers and base flow in the
Ganatsekaigon and Urfe Creeks, priority should be given to wells in these watersheds.
Terrestrial habitat monitoring should also be implemented to measure inevitable changes in
the composition of animal constituents of the local ecosystem.
2.3
Restoring Degraded Landscapes
In order to create a healthy eco-system, the first and most critical stage of implementing the
environmental philosophy involves the restoration of degraded landscapes. Through a review
of the existing literature, site investigations and aerial photographic interpretation, this plan has
identified a legacy of environmental damage and degradation associated with human
settlement in Seaton. The following Rehabilitation Action Plan for Seaton is based on this
understanding.
Principles and Values
The principles and values underlying the Rehabilitation Action Plan are:
• Damaged landscapes will be rehabilitated as demonstration projects to promote the concept
of responsible urban development and express the positive benefits of applying
environmentally-sensitive planning techniques and strategies.
• Critical projects will be identified and treated as prerequisites to urbanization. Less critical
areas of concern will be remediated progressively throughout the life of the Seaton project.
. Areas requiring rehabilitation and restoration will be sheltered from urbanization wherever
possible by integrating these lands into the open space and parkland fabric of the
community.
. Implementation and on-going maintenance of the Rehabilitation Action Plan will reinforce
both the ethical values and practical day-to-day techniques of environmental stewardship.
This will be accomplished through a series of initiatives, including: on-site interpretive
programs, integration with local educational curriculum, and community volunteer activities.
Watershed-Specific Action Plans
Rehabilitation initiatives have been identified on a watershed-by-watershed basis and are
summarized as follows:
West Duffin and Whitevale Creek Watersheds
• Eroded bluffs within the West Duffin Creek valley, particularly in the area immediately north
and south of Taunton Road, will be stabilized. Bio-engineering approaches, rather than hard
engineering solutions, will be applied wherever possible.
• Whitevale Golf Course presently supplies irrigation water by pumping an estimated
250,000 gallons per day directly from West Duffin Creek. The lands occupied by the golf
course straddle both the West Duffin Creek and Whitevale Creek watersheds. However,
due to topographic
conditions, the majority of surface runoff from the golf course flows easterly toward the more
sensitive Whitevale Creek. In addition, low permeability soils in the West Duffin Creek
watershed suggest that little infiltration of either irrigation water or natural precipitation is
recycled back to base flow in West Duffin Creek. Although detailed hydrological studies are
required for confirmation, it is believed that the majority of shallow aquifer recharge is more
likely to contribute to base flow in Whitevale Creek. Assuming Whitevale Golf Course will
remain active until the later phases of the Seaton development program, state-of-the-art water
conservation and stormwater management practices should be used to eliminate direct
pumping from West Duffin Creek. As an alternative, the present system should be replaced by
oversized wet ponds located
within the golf course lands and surrounding development areas. These ponds will be supplied
by captured agricultural and urban runoff and will be sized to retain sufficient water volumes to
meet golf course irrigation needs. Besides providing a self-sustaining irrigation supply, this
system will be designed to provide other positive environmental benefits, such as example the
creation of significant wetland habitat, biological treatment of stormwater effluent, redirection
of runoff and shallow aquifer recharge back to its origin rather than into the more sensitive
and critical Whitevale Creek watershed. Golf course maintenance practices should also be
revised to significantly reduce use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides. Course design
modifications will further diminish irrigation and fertilizer demand by: reducing the width of
groomed fairways, creating natural, non manicured roughs, installing computer-monitored
irrigation systems, and other similar conservation measures.
The accumulation of localized garbage and construction debris found north of the Mill in
Whitevale will be cleaned-up and rehabilitated.
The abandoned gravel pit located on the east side of West Duffin Creek, north of Whitevale
Village, will be extensively rehabilitated and ultimately returned to productive agriculture.
Topsoil salvaged from the urbanizing core of Seaton, will be transported to the site and
liberally applied to restore fertility to the exposed till and gravel subsoils. Man-made
contours and embankments will be reshaped to emulate the topographic character of the
region. Existing poorly drained pockets created by past
quarrying activities will be eliminated. To prevent further siltation and erosion into the nearby
watercourses, the principle of sheet flow will be encouraged and point source discharges will
be avoided.
Disturbed vegetation evident beneath the recently constructed Taunton Road Bridge will be
reinforced by supplementary plantings and revegetation programs. Localized gully erosion at
the same location will be repaired and stabilized using bio-engineering methods.
A fishway and plunge pool will be installed at Whitevale Dam to cool base flow to increase the
upstream migratory range for salmonids, and generally enhance aquatic habitat opportunities.
Ganatsekiagon Creek Watershed
• The Surplus Refrigeration Site south of Taunton Road will be decommissioned and cleaned-
up. Contaminated soil materials exceeding MOEE criteria as specified in the Guidelines for the
Decommissioning and Clean-Up of Sites in Ontario will be cleaned "in-situ" wherever
possible. Materials tested and classified by MOEE Regulation 309 will be excavated and
disposed of in a suitable off-site containment facility.
• Topsoil will be salvaged from the urbanizing areas of Seaton and will be used to re-
establish deep, fertile, topsoil horizons on all disturbed sites within the watershed. Particular
priority will be given to the Surplus Refrigeration property, the abandoned landfill site north
of Taunton Road, and various non productive local sand and gravel pits.
Abandoned sand and gravel pits in the watershed will be regraded and contoured to
simulate topographic and physiographic landform character of the region. Forest
regeneration programs will be implemented and continuously managed to strengthen cover
linkages across the Iroquois Shoreline corridor.
Habitat diversity and visual interest will be fostered by maintaining the existing ponds and
shallow wet pockets found within the abandoned pits and quarries north of Taunton Road.
It is the intention of the Seaton plan to exploit the recharge and infiltration potential of the
granular soil belt lying across the southern limit of this watershed. This will be accomplished
by designing the stormwater management system so that significant minor and major flows
are directed to the area
immediately north of Taunton Road where they will be discharged to large infiltration basins
and artificial wetlands. Aquifer recharge will occur through the bottom and sides of these basins,
providing downstream benefits through enhanced base flow and improved quality of discharge
water.
Stream siltation and deposition caused by the abandoned railway embankment across
Ganatsekiagon Creek north of Taunton Road will be eliminated by removal of the
embankment and reconstruction of a natural stream embankment. These newly-constructed
stream embankments will be stabilized by fachines, willow mattings and similar bio-
engineering techniques.
The known source of porcelain and glass debris found within creek substrates just north of
Taunton Road will be excavated, sifted and removed.
To preserve the soil cap and geo-membrane over the Brock West Landfill Site, non chemical
forest management techniques will be applied to prevent the evolution of a mature forest
canopy over the landfill. Vegetation cover will be carefully managed to permanently maintain
an advanced old field/low shrub association that provides forage habitat for predatory bird
and mammal species.
Urfe Creek Watershed
• Stream temperatures in Urfe Creek will be lowered and migratory fish linkages will be
improved by removing the existing "on-line" irrigation pond and dam structure at the Seaton
Golf Course immediately east of Brock Road. This source of irrigation water will be replaced
by a managed stormwater retention system similar to that described for Whitevale Golf
Course. Similarly, the design character and maintenance standards at the golf course will be
changed to reduce water demand, promote infiltration, minimize fertilizer use, and eliminate
or significantly reduce the use of pesticides.
• The existing Asphalt and Concrete Recycling Site north of Taunton Road will be
decommissioned and cleaned-up in accordance with the Guidelines for the
Decommissioning and Clean-Up of Sites in Ontario (MOEE). Any materials classified by
MOEE Regulation 309 testing will be excavated and disposed of off-site in a suitable
treatment and containment facility. In view of the sensitivity of the underlying aquifer and
granular soils of the area, groundwater contamination will be routinely monitored at this
location.
The stream at Urfe Pond will be realigned to take this pond 'off-line,' thereby improving
upstream migratory salmonid linkages and cooling base flow.
Topsoil will be salvaged from the urbanizing areas of Seaton and will be used to re-establish a
deep, fertile, topsoil horizon within the Asphalt and Concrete Recycling Site and surrounding
gravel pits.
Grading and contouring of these derelict sites will recreate the natural landform character of
the area. In addition, regenerating forests will be managed to strengthen habitat linkages
across this segment of the Iroquois Shoreline.
The existing mushroom plant situated south of Whitevale Road will be the target of programs
to improve stream flow and water quality conditions in Urfe Creek. In the short term, these
initiatives will focus on changes in manure handling and water consumption procedures at the
plant. In the long term, it is intended that this area of the watershed will be urbanized,
requiring relocation of this facility to a more industrial land-use setting.
A major stream rehabilitation project will be implemented for the degraded and channelized
reaches of Urfe Creek found between Taunton Road and Whitevale Road. Natural stream
channel design techniques, combined with an aggressive program of riparian plantings, will
be used to reconstruct this segment of the creek. Reconstruction will be done in a way that
emulates the character of stable creek sections found to the north of Whitevale Road.
The existing alignments of Taunton Road and Brock Road, and the proposed new Seaton
Core Road, represent significant impediments to the free movement of animals across the
Rouge-Duffin Linkage Corridor. To overcome this problem, we propose a program to
construct wildlife bridges, dry culverts, and underpasses at the strategic locations illustrated
on the attached graphic panels.
Heritage Conservation
A conservation ethic informs the approach to the Seaton site from the very conception of the
scale and organization of land use, through engineering and service infrastructure planning, to
street planning and the handling of individual sites. The integrity of the cultural landscape is
acknowledged, and the integration of new elements into the existing historic condition forms
the basis of the approach. Realistic conservation and management strategies that extend
rather than interrupt Seaton's continuity with its past are embedded in the design, which
incorporates natural and cultural resources into the functioning community in an active,
practical, and meaningful way, without jeopardizing the integrity of any resource.
Recognizing that on-going stewardship of these natural and cultural resources is best managed
by a combination of local commitment and nonpartisan authority, binding development
requirements are proposed, along with means for community involvement in decisions
regarding the management of resources.
The well-being of communities has been proven to be dependent on the investment of social
capital through programmes that promote engagement, trust, and reciprocity, or what might be
thought of as proprietary management. It is important for citizens to value the natural and
cultural resources that preceded their tenure as having some meaning and relevance for them.
As part of the design concept, a network of neighbourhood-based, cultural resources
management advisory groups (CRMAGs) is recommended as part of the administrative
structure of the development, implementation and operation of Seaton.
The natural environment, which has such a strong presence in the rural landscape, will continue
to feature prominently in Seaton, determining much of the form of the community and offering
continual opportunities for recreation or passive enjoyment and appreciation. Seaton will be
contained by a strong edge
('The Seaton Circuit') to clearly define its boundaries. Natural features, such as the ravines,
watercourses, and the ANSI, are integrated into the urban area and enlarged by the
preservation of woodlots, protection of streams and hatcheries, and a system of linkages
throughout the new village. These links extend the Seaton trail in several possible loops
through and around the urban area; they define neighbourhoods and assert the historic
continuity of the cultural landscape. Programmed recreational activities are accommodated
in the 18 parks distributed across the village. Urban agriculture is possible on some of these
links, and individual allotment gardens will be available on greenways and in ravines. By
these means, some of the historic and traditional interactions with the landscape will
permeate the new Seaton community.
Cultural landscape: Historical Components
The historic landscape of European settlement determined the placement of the new Seaton
centre and of the new road allotments. As a fundamental principle, concession and side
roads maintain their present character or are enabled to reclaim their 19th century aspect,
and commercial development is directed to the parallel network of new roads. This allows
the historic road allowances and profiles to survive on roads essentially carrying local traffic.
Rather than allow increased density and road widening to diminish the character of tree-lined
concession roads, these concession roads, with their characteristic vegetation, fence lines,
and building groupings, will remain intact, and major new construction is proposed to occur
on the introduced avenues, main streets, and drives.
The drives run along the natural ridges, where the views can be maintained, and beside the
tops of ravine banks, keeping urban areas off the best agricultural land and most sensitive
natural areas. This approach incorporates existing roads and lanes into a hierarchy of regional
roads, commercial thoroughfares, neighbourhood streets and rural streetscapes that carry the
traffic that is most appropriate to each. Road profiles that feature drainage ditches instead of
curbs have an aesthetic element in addition to their environmental benefits, by helping to
extend the visual character of rural roads into the new neighbourhoods. This is one of the
several engineering components, many of them less visible, adapted to respond to the nature
of the environment.
Special character areas such as the historic villages of Whitevale, Green River, Cherrywood,
and Brougham are protected by the containment of new urban land use, and the deflection of
new development and road interchanges away from them. Smaller hamlets, crossroads, or
family precincts such as Clark's Hollow, Thomson's Corners, or Howell's Hollow, linger in
memory as standing structures, in the case of Howell's Hollow, or as street or building names,
or as parks.
To enable the reclamation of Brock Road and shield Brougham from the depredations of
further traffic, a new Brock Road will be created, leading to the interchange with future Highway
407, and only minimal access to and from the highway near Brougham is proposed. The
village may nevertheless require special provisions under provincial statute to protect it from
complete annihilation by development. At present, the constraints imposed by designation
as a heritage conservation district under the Ontario Heritage Act (1988) offer the most
protection. The rural character of Whitevale Road is spared commercial development, and
enhanced as a heritage link across the landscape, by a combination of planning, zoning,
and development guidelines. As Seaton evolves, these villages and roads may require
special attention from the CRMAG or an agency pledged to preserving the rural character of
the area, to ensure that future development pressures do not compromise their quality.
This design respects the existing concession grid, the survey patterns and subsequent
human intervention reflected in fields, tree lines and hedgerows, which are also incorporated
into new design. Conserving these landscape units has determined the size of the
development module. The optimum size for the block module has been based on the
concession dimension, which permits the natural incorporation of fields and farms into the
new urban grid. This module, coupled with the plaid pattern of historic and new roadways,
also integrates existing hedgerows, treelines, and woodlots into the new urban fabric.
Individual historic buildings and their associated landscapes are generally integrated into the
new urban pattern without loss of integrity or character (see Panel B, D, E). The main urban
core of the new Seaton urban community is situated well away from Whitevale Road and other
concentrations of significant historic resources. Rural or exurban land uses can continue along
Whitevale Road, Brock Road, and Highway 7, where the majority of built cultural resources
stand. Stringent limits to the urban area will ensure the continued viability of agricultural uses
on the perimeter of the village.
Several of the above-ground heritage resources are ruins. Many good precedents exist for the
interpretation of mill sites, which in themselves tend to be evocative and even dramatic sites.
The ruins of barn foundations, silos, or early domestic structures can be incorporated into new
construction as archaeological remnants, or shielded from development, as cemeteries are,
and consecrated as memorials to a past still richly evident through the fabric and surroundings
of Seaton. The incorporation of these remnants into the urban fabric in a meaningful way will
depend, in part, on dialogue with the existing community and within the new community. Since
the more significant ruins occur near the periphery of the urban area, it is anticipated that
Seaton community structures will be in place to debate the eventual condition of these
resources as a neighbourhood objective.
The maintenance, rehabilitation, or renovation/restoration of buildings identified as cultural
resources should be in accordance with established guidelines for the care and treatment of
historic structures, since it is in the interests of the larger community that their historic
character be conserved. Several guides and charters have been adopted by Canadian
agencies and organizations to direct conservation work. The Appleton Charter (Ottawa:
ICOMOS Canada [English-Speaking Committee], 1983) sets out principles for managing
the built environment. The Ontario Management Board Secretariat has adopted a Cultural
Heritage Process (1994) and Manual of Guidelines (1994) specifically for MBS business
practise. The Ontario Heritage Foundations 13-point Standards is a quite concise
statement that covers the chief principles in approaching architectural conservation, and
together with The Appleton Charter could form the basis for a community-based statement
of principles regarding the achievement of neighbourhood consensus for architectural
conservation work.
Below-ground archaeological sites are fragile and non-renewable resources which should
not be readily accessible to the public, nor should their locations be common knowledge.
These conditions, necessary for preserving their safety, conversely inhibit public
understanding and
appreciation of their value. It has been estimated that the known inventory of registered
archaeological sites may represent just a quarter of the total actually present; of the 20
registered sites, 15 have been evaluated as having demonstrable or potential significance.
(Hough, Stansbury, Woodland, Seaton Cultural Heritage Resources Assessment, p. 164.)
Responsibly addressing the archaeological record requires two main streams of action: the
protection of the existing known resources, and planning for the protection of as-yet unknown
resources.
The second item, planning for the protection of yet-to-be-found resources, can be initiated by
the development corporation or by subsequent landholders prior to development. The first
phase, that of identifying and evaluating known sites, has already been completed. The next
phase requires land survey and assessment well in advance of preparation for construction,
and preferably at the early detailed design stages, by licensed archaeologists under the aegis
of accepted principles (specifically, the Archaeological Assessment Technical Guidelines
developed by the Joint Committee on Archaeology, approved by MCTR). If the Town of
Pickering does not implement a coordinated master plan of archaeological survey, augmenting
the extensive work already carried out on lands in provincial and federal ownership, the
development corporation for Seaton will be responsible for ensuring that guidelines for the
survey, evaluation and protection of archaeological resources are met.
Protection of archaeological resources is best implemented at a community or regional level to
maintain the confidentiality of specific site locations where Native sites are concerned;
historic sites such as cemeteries and ruins are excellent candidates for limited visitation
and interpretation. Disturbance of known resources is best avoided, and preservation by
grass cover, natural regeneration, and hostile plantings is often the preferred long-term
strategy. In the absence of complete and precise information on archaeodevelopment,
except to have plans and principles in place.
• the extension of the Seaton Trail through greenways that define the public realm and divide
the community into neighbourhood precincts
• the integration of existing cultural resources into the new fabric
• high quality design sensitive to the traditional historic forms and materials
• strong urban edge to protect agricultural lands and ways of life
• careful placement of key public buildings to emphasize panoramic views and their
integration with nature
• protection of Whitevale village and road from new development
• engineering that respects the land forms, soil, and historic character:
• the deviation of traffic from Brock Road to New Brock Road to protect the historic road
and Brougham
. reclamation of the Lake Iroquois shoreline
. the location of recharge basins at environmentally sensible locations
. protection of streams and hatcheries
. the placement of key new roads along the ridges to avoid areas of high archaeological
potential and capitalize on panoramic views
. the relocation of a Highway 407 interchange to protect Brougham, Whitevale and Green
River
. road side ditches for environmental sustainability and continuation of the historic character
. creation of social means to foster community stewardship of cultural and natural resources
. provisions to ensure that guidelines for the survey, evaluation and protection of
archaeological resources are met.
The Rural/Agricultural Plan
he plan for Seaton places simultaneous emphasis on urban,
environmental and rural development in order to promote a programme of practical and action-
oriented stewardship in all three sectors. At the same time, the plan ensures the highest and
best uses in all three land-use areas throughout the development of the new urban community,
and after its completion. This section focuses on the plan for rural and agricultural development
within not only the Seaton planning area but also the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve.
The Rural/Agricultural Plan
The plan for Seaton places simultaneous emphasis on urban,
environmental and rural development in order on promote a programme of
practical and action -oriented stewardship in all three sectors. At the same
time, the plan ensures the highest and best uses in all three land -use areas
throughout the development of the new urban community, and after its
completion. This section focuses on the plan for rural and agricultural
development within not only the Seaton planning area but also the Duffin
Rouge Agricultural Preserve.
Rural/Agricultural Plan Objectives
The objectives of this approach are to:
• address current trends in rural and agricultural development throughout the GTA and establish
a working model for mixed land-use
• maximize appropriate forms of agricultural production within the Seaton planning area before,
during and following the development of the new urban community
• maximize appropriate forms of complementary agricultural production within the adjacent
Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve
• maximize rental incomes from rural/agricultural areas in order to ensure that the rural/
agricultural community is economically self-sustaining, and to promote rural home ownership,
. ensure that the plan for the evolving and permanent agricultural and rural community at Seaton
is considered within the context of agricultural production within the York/Durham Region and
the GTA
. establish a clear hierarchy of rural, agricultural, and urban land-use and maintain practical and
intelligible boundaries between rural and urban development
. ensure proper management of topsoil, rainfall, and other critical agricultural resources on
the site
. ensure that the evolution of the development of the site reinforces all of the above
Background
In January, 1974, the Hon. Robert Welch, then Minister of Housing, announced that Seaton
(referred to at that time "North Pickering") would serve as " a working model for encouraging
mixed [rural and urban ] land-use for many years to come." Significant efforts were made in
the "Recommended Plan (1975)" to propose a meaningful framework for simultaneous rural
and urban development within the overall 25,000-acre site; however, these strategies have
remained largely ignored over the ensuing 20 years. The Design Brief for Phase Three of the
Seaton Planning and Design Exercise has reasserted the necessity of ensuring that rural
and agricultural planning are considered in tandem with potential new urban development.
Moreover, with the release of the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs' "Preferred
Strategy for the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Reserve [May, 1994]," the need for rural and
agricultural planning has been
entrenched within the former North Pickering site as-a-whole.
Rural and agricultural development the in GTA in general and in North Pickering/Seaton, in
particular, has been characterized over the past 30-40 years by three fundamental trends, each
of which has been greatly influenced by adjacent urbanization:
Farm Consolidation —
characterized by the formation of larger holdings, generally in the range of 400-1000 acres,
operated by full-time farmers, and facilitated by the appropriation of lands located either
adjacent to, or near, their traditional 200-acre holdings on a leasehold basis, for purposes of
pursuing traditional livestock and/or cash crop operations or more contemporary types of
agri-business. Farm consolidation has often occurred as a result of two related urban trends
— one, involves the assembly of large acreages of existing rural lands by private
urban developers in anticipation of future urban development, who rent their land to adjacent
full-time farmers during the interim. The other trend is the purchase of larger former
agricultural holdings by urban residents who have little interest in full-time farming, but rent
the farm portions of their holdings to adjacent full-time farmers
Farm Intensification —
characterized by the severance of the traditional 200-acre units into smaller holdings,
generally in the range of 10-100 acres. These holdings are operated by part-time farmers,
for purposes of pursuing a growing range of more intensive, more specialized agricultural
businesses (such as market gardens, pick-your-own orchards, tree/plant nurseries,
speciality livestock/poultry operations, dog kennels) typically geared to the adjacency of
emerging new urban markets.
Rural Non-farm Residential
Expansion — characterized by various forms of ribbon development, rural estate
development, hobby farms, hamlet infilling and outfilling, and isolated rural subdivision for
purposes of accommodating a rapidly increasing rural non-farm population composed
predominantly of former urban residents.
These trends were very much in evidence at North Pickering in 1972, when the Province
made the decision to expropriate almost 17,000 acres of land for purposes of urban
development. At that time, for example, over 60% of the land being farmed within the larger,
full-time consolidated operations was leased (predominantly from speculators); almost 15%
of all agricultural lands were being farmed by part-time farmers holding under 69 acres; and
various forms of non-farm residential development occupied another estimated 10% of the
entire site. Notwithstanding, the North Pickering site still produced about 1.1 % of the total
declared value of agricultural production for Ontario as a whole.
While up to 85% of all acreage being farmed within the site was held within the consolidated
holdings larger than 100 acres, that were farmed on a full-time basis, the total value of the
agricultural product being grown on these larger acreages amounted to only 60% of the total
agricultural production for the site as a whole. The remaining 15% of farmland, operated as
smaller, part-time, intensive farms accounted for 40% of the total agricultural production. While
production amounted to $73 per acre on the larger farms, it amounted to $552 per acre on the
smaller farms.In spite of the fact that the smaller, intensive farms made a critical contribution to
overall agricultural production of the site, the Farm Lease Policy in effect in North Pickering
since 1974 has clearly emphasized farm consolidation at the expense of farm intensification —
smaller, more intensive, farms have been discouraged in favour of fewer larger farms held by
fewer farmers. As a result, while the land has ostensible remained in agricultural production,
production as a whole, and certainly per acre, has dropped significantly. Moreover, given that
the intensive farms served to establish a more direct economic link between the site and
adjacent emerging urban communities in Markham and Pickering, this link has been
further eroded. Above all, not only has this policy failed to address the three fundamental trends
in any systematic fashion, it has not ensured that the farmland that is available is used for highest
and best agricultural purposes.
As at North Pickering/Seaton, planners in the majority of the other townships located
throughout the York/Durham Region have tended to ignore the interrelationships that exist
between not only these three trends, but also that between rural development and
urbanization. Typically, one trend — usually either "farm consolidation" or "rural non-farm
residential expansion" — has been encouraged at the expense of the other two. In
practically all cases, "farm intensification" has been virtually ignored. The continued isolation
of these trends from each other, and from urbanization in general, has severely weakened their
potential to serve as the basis for the establishment of a more effective and more
meaningful relationship between rural and urban societies. Fortunately, this potential
continues to exist at Seaton, and forms the basis of the plan.
Strategic Approach
The following strategies will meet the principles and objectives identified above:
Model For Mixed Land-Use —
The plan for Seaton is based on the understanding that the maximum productive use of
existing agricultural land can only be restored to contemporary patterns of rural and urban
identity through the simultaneous accommodation of all three of the above-noted trends and
by providing the full spectrum of rural and urban residents with a complete range of practical
choices. The plan desig¬nates four major new rural land-use zones within Seaton, in addition
to those being proposed for the new urban community. These include:
Rural Agricultural, accommodating farm consolidation
Small Holdings, accommodating farm intensification
Hamlet, accommodating rural residential expansion
Urban Agricultural, accommodating ongoing agricultural activities within Seaton proper
Corresponding patterns of land division are proposed for each of these zones, derived
principally from the existing heritage pattern of concessions and farm lots that is being
retained and enhanced throughout the entire planning area. These zones are organized to
encourage stronger social and economic relationships between the existing hamlets and the
agricultural community that will continue to surround them, and between the rural community
at-large and the new urban community of Seaton.
Maximizing Production —
Based on an analysis of agricultural production within the GTA, it is clear that maximizing
production (in the actual and holistic senses) does not simply rest on ensuring that the
maximum amount of agricultural land remains undeveloped. As demonstrated throughout
Europe, land management and stewardship constitute equally, if not more important,
objectives. While recognizing that any plan for environmental and urban development at
Seaton is going to remove a certain proportion of land from agricultural production, the plan
seeks to ensure that the total value of production following urban development equals — or
preferably — exceeds that which existed before, without adverse environmental impacts.
This implies viewing agricultural production in much the same way that the plan views urban
employment — one which encourages a hierarchy of intensification and makes
accommodation for a full range of employment activities. From an agricultural point-of-view,
this means that urban gardening, part-time farming on smaller acreages, and full-time
farming on larger
acreages are all viewed as equally valuable agricultural activities.
The corollary to this approach is that the more intensively land is farmed, the greater the
product received from it. As already noted, the value of production per acre from small holdings
exceeds that from larger holdings by a factor of almost 7.5 times. Similarly, the value of
production from community gardens is thought to exceed that from small holdings by a similar
or even greater amount. The plan sets forth a strategy that increases overall agricultural
production, albeit on less land.
Economic Self-Reliance — An
important additional corollary is that just as agricultural production increases with intensification,
so the rental rates on agricultural land will increase. This land should continue to be leased. If
this increase in rent is pro-rated to the value of production, the province (and/or the
development agency) can anticipate a significant increase in rental income for agricultural
land over what it currently receives. As a result, urban development will not need to subsidize
the rural area.
Environmental Considerations —
Given the absence of any systematic provision of a range of agricultural land-use, and the
concurrent emphasis on farm consolidation, increasing agricultural production has relied to
date, almost exclu¬sively on improving technological efficiency and increasing the use of
fertilizers and pesticides. Both these initiatives have depleted topsoil resources and
generally have contributed to increased environmental degradation. Focusing on increasing
production through the provision of a framework which legitimizes a range of agricultural
intensification and, assuming that sounder environmental practices can be more effectively
applied at all levels, will reduce environmental degradation and promote a more sustainable,
and balanced agricultural environment.
Rural/Urban Boundaries —
Planning for a more elaborate, interrelated, range of rural and urban agricultural land-use
permits a clearer boundary to be defined between those uses which are explicitly urban and
those which are explicitly rural. Moreover, this can occur without the need for un¬productive
"buffer zones," which have little agricultural or urban value in contrast, the plan recognizes
that rural and urban life are inti¬mately related. Just as many rural residents rely on or
practice various urban activities, so too many urban residents rely on and practice a variety
of rural activities. Current and future residents will be able to exercise a much broader range
of rural and urban options than is presently possible anywhere else in the GTA. Moreover, by
aligning its primary infrastructure more closely with the existing landscape, the Seaton plan
allows for believ¬able, natural boundaries such as the Seaton Circuit, described elsewhere,
to be established and to gain public acceptance.
Proposed Land-use Zones
The Plan proposes a hierarchy of rural/agricultural land-uses as follows:
Rural Agricultural Zones
Definition: areas for full-time, larger acreage (i.e. in excess of 100 acres) agricultural
operations, and such other activities as are required to support these.
Location: within the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve only (See Panel F — The Region).
Land Division: based on the original heritage pattern of 200-acre farmlots which can be
consolidated to form 400, 600, 800 and 1,000 acre farm operations
Activities Encouraged:Full-time cash crop and/or livestock operations (see Appendix 3 —
"Agricultural Zone 1")
Land Tenure: farm residents should be permitted to own their principal farm residences
while leasing their farm holdings
Small Holdings Zones
Definition: areas for full- and/or part-time agricultural operations requiring less than 100
acres, and such other activities and land-uses as are required to support these.
Location: within selected parts of the Duffin Rouge Agricultural Preserve (i.e. adjacent to the
existing hamlets and along key regional roads), as well as all parts of the Seaton Planning
Area designated for long-term agricultural production (see Panel F — The Community)
Land Division: based on subdivision of the original heritage pattern of 200-acre farmlots to
from 10 to 100 acre units
Activities Encouraged: market gardens, pick-your-own vegetable and fruit operations,
greenhouse vegetable and flower operations, kennels, specialty livestock/poultry operations,
etc. (see Appendix 3 — "Agricultural Zone 2")
Land Tenure: small holders should be permitted to develop and own their own homes on
suitably-sized residential lots located directly adjacent to their small holding. In turn, the
holding would be rented to ensure that the operator will not be burdened by land costs, and the
income used to maintain community services and infrastructure. This approach is proposed
to encourage those residents with a serious interest in agricultural production and discourage
those residents who simply want to hold the land for future development, and thus would
prefer to own it outright.
Hamlet Zones
Definition: an appropriate area of land surrounding and including a designated hamlet (i.e.
Brougham, Green River, Whitevale, Cherrywood, Locust Hill, Cedar Grove etc.) suitable for
residential consolidation and/or expansion for rural farm or non-farm purposes
Land Division: based on existing lot size and services
Activities Encouraged: those now existing (see Appendix 3 — "Hamlet")
Land Tenure: all hamlet lands would remain in, or be returned to, private ownership
Urban Agricultural (Park Lot) Zones
Definition: areas within the potential Seaton urban envelope which are designated for
permanent agricultural activities to be undertaken by urban residents
Location: within the Seaton
Urban Area only (see Panel B )
Land Division: based on the neighbourhood pattern of land division (minimum size 250
square feet)
Activities Encouraged: allotment gardens, community gardens, community nurseries, garden
demonstration areas, etc
Land Tenure: leasehold
Infrastructure
Transportation: vehicle access would continue to be provided in all rural and agricultural
zones using the existing pattern of concession and sideroads. Where the road allowances
for these roads remain undeveloped, new roads would be opened within the existing 66 foot
rights-of-way.
A "Rural Circuit" is proposed linking the hamlets throughout the site with each other, and
with their surrounding agricultural areas and Seaton. This is intended to facilitate rural traffic
during the week and establish a slow-speed "Sunday Drive" for new urban residents and/or
visitors who may wish to visit farm markets or other hamlet attractions on their day off. It
would also make special accommodation for cyclists, walkers and horse-back riders who
may wish to visit either the rural community or the urban community. Open-air produce
markets located within Seaton would, similarly, be located along this circuit.
Water Supply: in the short term, water supply within in the rural and agricultural zones would
continue to be provided through existing private wells and/or bore holes. Groundwater studies
carried out in the mid-1970s suggested that adequate supplies exist within and around, most
hamlets. In the medium and long terms, consideration should be given to the design of
community water supply systems based on groundwater resources and rainfall. The design of
all community-based water supply systems should allow for tapping into municipal supplies for
all rural and agricultural areas within the Seaton Planning Area, if and when this is considered
to be desirable.
Sanitation: in the short term, sanitation within the rural and agricultural zones would continue to
be provided through existing septic systems. However, within the hamlets and the small
holdings consideration should be given to other, more appropriate, individual and/or
community-based sanitation systems such as composting toilets, small-bore sewers, and
community ponds designed to reduce the transmission of sanitary effluents beyond rural
boundaries. The design of community-based sanitation systems should allow for tapping into
long-term municipal water-borne systems for all rural and agricultural areas within the Seaton
planning area, if and when this is considered to be desirable.
Storm Water: similar measures to those proposed for the new urban community would be
utilized in rural areas including open ditches and storm water retention ponds.
Community Services
Existing churches, post offices, schools and other social facilities should be encouraged to
continue to serve rural residents. Obviously, many rural residents will also want to take
advantage of the new community services provided within the emerging urban community,
another reason to maintain the continuity of the existing rural road network.
Population
and
Employment
3.1 Population and Households
3.2 Employment
page 90
Population and Households
The development of Seaton will occur as part of the regional growth projected for Durham
Region within the Greater Toronto Area. It is expected that Seaton will develop over a 25 to 40
year horizon, beginning with an initial development in 2001 and reaching a planned size of
approximately 90,000 people by, perhaps, the year 2037.
Regional Projections
Over this time period, projections for the GTA and Durham are:
• the GTA is expected to grow from a population of 4.2 million in 1991 to 7.3 million in 2031,
which represents growth of 71%
• Durham Region is expected to account for 23% of the growth taking place in the GTA over the
1991 to 2031 period; Durham Region will grow from a 10% to a 15% share of the total GTA
population during that time period
• these growth projections will see Durham Region growing from 410,000 to 1,110,000 people
over the 1991 to 2031 period, representing a population increase on the order of 168%
• the population growth will be driven primarily by employment growth in the GTA and Durham
Region over the 1991 to 2031 period as discussed below
Seaton Projections
The new community at Seaton has no real precedent among contemporary Canadian
development prototypes. The nature of its approach, however, can rely on an analysis of
existing urban communities. As a result, projections of population profiles, household
types and other demographic indices cannot depend on the actual experience of one place,
but rather rely on a review of current community types, with adjustments related to the type of
urban form which is sought to be developed.
The approach used was to examine selected community environments, in order to identify
the benchmarks of what was plausible in terms of the demographic profile of Seaton. A
number of assumptions have been made regarding future trends to provide our predictions
regarding the profile of Seaton.
Two preliminary comments are in order. First, with respect to the categories of age profile of
a community, the range of possible proportions is actually quite narrow. Consider categories
such as infants and toddlers (0-4 years of age): the widest variation from samples would
project this population category as making up from 6.1% to 9.6% of these communities;
similarly, those aged 75 years and older would make up from 1.6% to 5.2% of the
community's population; more telling, the population category of 20-64 ranges from only
61% to 64.8%. The point is, what variation there is shows up more at the extreme ends of
the population curve, and the deviations are relatively small, although admittedly they do
have implications for household sizes and types.
Second, whatever demographic targets might be set for Seaton at its final build-out
population must be moving targets which will need to adjust to emerging demographic
trends and the preferences of the evolving community. Fortunately, these latter ones are
the numbers that will count, and
Table 3.1
Selected Age Groups for Certain Urban Communities, by Percentage: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census Data
Years of Age Pickering Census Sub-Division Durham Census Division Oshawa Census Division Toronto Census Division
0-4 9.6 8.7 7.8 6.1
5-14 17.0 15.3 13.5 10.5
15-19 7.0 6.8 6.8 5.8
20-34 25.2 26.0 27.6 28.5
35-64 36.5 35.0 34.3 36.3
65-74 3.2 5.1 6.3 7.6
75+ 1.6 3.0 3.8 5.2
Table 3.2
Selected Tenure and Housing Structure Type Characteristics of Private Dwellings for
Certain Urban Communities,
By Percentage: Statistics Canada, 1991 Census Data
Pickering Census Sub-Division Durham Census Division Oshawa Census
Division Toronto Census Division
Private dwellings: owned 83.8 74.8 62.8 48.1
Private dwellings: rented 16.2 25.2 37.2 51.9
single detached 73.7 69.1 53.8 33.3
semi-detached 7.7 7.2 11.3 10.0
row 9.1 6.5 8.4 5.1
apartment, detached duplex 1.8 2.0 2.9 2.5
apartment, 5 or more stories 6.1 8.0 13.1 35.8
apartment, under 5 stories 1.2 6.8 10.2 12.8
other .4 .5 .3 .5
the development process will have ample time to adjust to any such new trends and
preferences. What these observations indicate is that the need for hard estimates may be
less important in this area, both because the reason¬able range of estimates is relatively
narrow, and the likelihood of having to adjust projections in any instance is high.
The Models
Existing 1991 census data for adjacent communities to Seaton was examined under a
number of categories. (See Tables 3.1, 3.2 and 3.2)
very clear spectrum extending from a suburban environment to an urban environment, with
respect to the age profile, household composition, tenure and housing form is revealed by
the data. As planned, Seaton will have a more compact physical form, but will still likely have
some of the population characteristics of a suburb. The plan seeks to approach the urban
proportions of Table 3.2, and the suburban proportions of Tables 3.1 and 3.3, with some
adjustments which shall be noted. Another way of putting it: one can propose a vision of
Seaton, from a planning and design perspective. What, then, is a realistic profile of such a
community, if not compa¬rable urban environments?
These profiles have been chosen as targets to which the Seaton development should aim.
These targets are not arbitrary, in the sense of wanting to achieve some abstract design
goal. They reflect existing urban conditions, without having to match the very urban
environment found in Metropolitan Toronto.
Seaton, at a full build-out of 90,000, with the expectations of an urban form, would reflect the
population and housing profile shown in Table 3.4.
Accessory apartments consist of separate dwelling units either within, attached to, or on the
same lot (as a garden suite) as the main dwelling unit. The plan proposes that the accessory
units will be distributed among the singles, semi's and attached dwellings in the proportion
shown in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 on page 78.
Table 3.4
Seaton Housing Profile
Percentage total housing units by type owned rented
single detached 47.6 42.8 4.8
semi-detached 10.9 9.8 1.1
attached 15.1 12.5 2.6
apartment 15.1 1.5 13.6
accessory apartment 11.3 0.0 11.3
tenure total 100.0 66.6 33.4
Table 3.3
Distribution of Households by Size for Certain Urban Communities, By Percentage:
Statistics Canada,
1991 Census Data
Pickering Census Sub-Division Durham Census Division Oshawa Census Sub-
Division Toronto Census Division
1 person 7.5 14.3 19.7 27.4
2 persons 24.6 29.4 31.6 30.2
3 persons 21.8 19.8 19.5 16.6
4-5 persons 40.8 32.8 26.5 21.6
6+ persons 5.4 3.7 2.7 4.2
overage number of persons per household 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.6
Table 3.5
Distribution of Accessory Apartments at Seaton: Proportion of
Housing Types with Accessory Apartments
Percentage of housing type with accessory apartment Distribution of accessory
apartments by housing type
single detached 17.0 71.0
semi-detached 15.0 14.4
attached 11.0 14.6
Table 3.6 Distribution of Households by Size at Seaton
household size Percentage of Households Percentage of Population
1 person 21.0 7.6
2 persons 30.7 22.1
3 persons 18.0 19.4
4-5 persons 28.0 44.7
6+ persons 2.3 6.2
average number of persons per household 2.77 2.77
Distribution for housing types, household sizes and population is suggested in Table 3.7.
Some propositions which contributed to these figures are:
• Seaton will attract a relatively higher proportion of seniors (aged 65 and over) than
Pickering has to date, including residents of accessory apartments rented out to them by
their children (in-law suites and garden suites);
• seniors make up about 30% of one person households; 55-70% of one person households
rent
• suburbs are housing significant numbers of single parent families; of Pickering's private
households, 8.7% are headed by a single parent (for Oshawa, 11.4%, for Toronto, 9.1%);
80% of these are headed by women, the vast majority of whom (85-90%) have 1-2 children;
they have virtually the same housing space needs as two parent families;
Seaton can expect 2.0% of its households to be comprised of multiple families, the great
majority of whom own their residences
90% of single detached housing is owned
average space needs of households are as follows:
Rooms People
per unit per unit
1-3 1-2
4 2
5 2-3
6-7 3
8-9 3-4
10+ 4
Two major points about future
trends are:
• Ontario's average household
size will continue to fall; past
trend has been:
1961 3.7
1966 3.6
1971 3.4
1976 3.1
1981 2.8
1986 2.8
1991 2.7
Statistics Canada projections for the near future show an even more precipitous drop:
1996 2.68-2.63
2001 2.63-2.55
2006 2.58-2.49
2011 2.53-2.44
However, simple logic suggests this trend will flatten out — we will not reach the point where
we will all live alone. Seaton may have to adjust its number of households figure upward,
however, these units will also likely be smaller, on average.
• The aging of Canada's popula¬tion, and the consequent growing proportion of seniors as
part of the total population suggests to us that there will be both a greater demand for
housing stock which can cater to seniors, as well as a great need which will have to be met.
Consequently, the population projections in the Seaton Population Study, which forecast that
by 2031 seniors will make up 11% of Seaton's population at a time when the proportion of
seniors in Canada's population as a whole will be over 20%, seem suspect. With the right
product, appropriate services, the right marketing, and opportunities for seniors to live close
to their families, Seaton can attract a seniors' share of the community's population greater
than that which Pickering currently attracts (which is the benchmark by which the Seaton
Study appears to be guided.)
Consequently, the age distribu¬tion profiles shown in Table 3.8 are projected (in
comparison to existing communities and estimates from the Seaton Population Study).
Table 3.7
Housing Type Numbers, Household Sizes and Population
Distribution by Housing Type at Seaton
housing type number of units persons per household number of residents
single detached 15,036 3.32 49,886
semi-detached 3,454 3.12 10,779
attached 4,766 2.81 13,388
apartment 4,766 1.91 9,099
accessory apartment 3,593 1.24 4,447
Sub-Total 31,615 2.77 87,600
collective hsg 720 beds 1.0 720
rural/agricultural popn. 1680
Total 31,615 2.957 90,000
Table 3.8
1991 Population Proportions by Age, and Future Projections for Seaton, by Percentage
Age Durham Census Div. Oshawa. Census Sub-d'rv Ont. Toronto Seaton Study
1991 First Phase 2005 Seaton Study 2031 This Plan 2031
0-19 24.0 21.3 21.0 16.6 25.0 23.0 23.0 20.0
20-64 67.9 68.7 68.0 60.6 70.0 69.0 66.0 64.0
65+ 8.1 10.1 11.0 12.8 5.0 8.0 11.0 16.0
As mentioned earlier, by 2031, Canada's population will consist of over 20% of people aged
over 65 years of age. Their prevalence will be such that new communities will have to start
addressing their needs and desires. This plan proposes that Seaton can be planned to
address those demands. Seaton's proportion of seniors will be reaching 75% of Canada's
average, compared to the 50% projected by the Seaton population study.
This has consequences for the proportion of children and youth, and the number of facilities
serving their needs. Taking the 2031 figure suggesting people aged 0 to 19 will make up
20% of Seaton's population, each age level will have a near equal number of people, that is,
a fairly steady age curve. (Currently, the four age groups, 0-4, 5-9, 10-14 and 15-19, divide
into roughly equal proportions, namely 25.3%, 25.3%, 24.9%, 24.5%.) The number of
students and consequent school facilities would be as follows:
Number of students:
Jr. and Sr. kindergarten
and elementary school 9487
Senior high school 3795
(based on to grade 12 only)
Number of schools
Kindergarten and public schools
@ 500 pupils per school 18
Senior high school
@1200 students per school 3
These numbers may be somewhat lower than current expectations for a population of this
size, however, the Seaton plan calls for a smaller youth share of the total population. As well,
it is useful to be conservative with projections, as education may also be delivered through
communications networks, allowing more students to learn at home. As well, schools may
have year-round semesters, making better use of their facilities and graduating students
earlier.
Seniors — Similarly, the number of seniors aged 65 years and over will be 14,400. Even
with the emphasis on community-based care, 5% of these will require institutional care (this
is less that the current 8% rate of institutionalization, which is recognized as unnecessarily
high). As a result, Seaton will require six nursing home styled facilities.
New developments take some time before their age profiles match that of the general
population. There is a tendency for new developments, particularly in suburban locations, to
attract younger families seeking the space to raise their children at prices they can afford. At
the same time, these new developments tend not to attract older individuals, who prefer to
either stay in the homes they currently occupy, or limit their moves to locations well within
their geographic circle of family, friends and health and other service supports.
Seaton will be different, and will sustain a seniors' population
which will amount to at least 75 per cent of the seniors' proportion of the general population.
This is largely predicated on Seaton providing a range of features which are attractive to
seniors, but which are also features which tend to be lacking from other suburban developments.
Many of these characteristics simply reflect good planning, but these are especially the features
which have a bearing on how seniors evaluate a setting for their home.
These include:
Housing: A good range of housing will be available, appropriate to their needs, including many
smaller and affordable ground-related units and low-rise apartments, for those seeking to sell
their empty-nest home or otherwise reduce their space requirements. Younger families buying
homes in Seaton will be encouraged to invite their parents to live at Seaton; the availability of
accessory apartments provides an attractive option for some families seeking to keep or bring
the extended family together. As well, some seniors seeking to buy homes find accessory
apartments an attraction, because it ensures someone else is "in the house", in case of
emergency. A number of seniors adopt homesharing arrangements, whereby they rent space
in their homes at reduced rents, in return for some help around the home, or sometimes
simply companionship. Accessory apartments are an ideal arrangement for such a practice.
The attraction of accessory apartments and smaller units cannot be overestimated. Fully a
quarter of all individuals aged 65 years and older live alone, and over one-third of women
that age live alone. Housing opportunities which are linked to family housing or found in
small-scale multiple housing gives a greater feel of belonging to and security within a
neighbourhood or community.
Planning features: The urban community essence of Seaton will attract seniors because it
allows for more everyday errands to be performed on foot, because of the compact nature
of the community, and the siting of retail and service facilities along main roads and within a
central, downtown core. The higher densities also support public transportation sooner.
Together, these factors reduce the reliance on the auto, while promoting a range of
destinations which are easily accessible, unlike traditional suburbs.
Urban and natural amenities:
Seaton will offer a range of attractions and amenities which reflect the tastes of today's
senior. A downtown core of retail, main street shops and a college campus, with
educational and cultural opportunities, address the interests of seniors who wish to practice
an active retirement. Seniors by and large are not looking for idyllic, pastoral retreats. They
want to be close to places of interest and activity. At the same time, Seaton also offers
excellent environmental and recreational amenities, with its abundance of green space,
ravines, playing fields and views, to satisfy the physically active senior.
Barrier-free: Seaton would incorporate the latest design features to ensure the physical
environment was accessible and useable by everyone. For example, this includes not only
ramps and gentle inclines for walking, or power-assisted doors on buildings, but other features
such as levers rather than knobs on doors, push buttons rather than switches for appliances,
switches and electrical receptacles that are placed at mid-height, reducing reaching and
bending, and more seating for resting, both for indoor and outdoor public and semi-public
space. As well, Seaton's grid street pattern would produce intersections with sharper corners,
reducing the distance between corners for pedestrians. In any case, street light crossing times
would be made slightly slower, to allow for any pedestrian to get across in comfortable time.
Services: The early provision of services, and the emphasis on community-based services,
would give comfort to seniors moving to Seaton that the services would be in place to make it
more likely that they can age in place. The support of such services through the promotion of
volunteer activities, the availability of high school students to do home and yard maintenance
work through community service programs, and the presence of Durham College as an
anchor for various community services, such as Meals on Wheels and home-visiting
programs (complemented by the College's health services and gerontological programs), all
make the service environ¬ment that much richer and more comforting to seniors.
Facilities: The availability of certain services at Durham College, the provision of community
clinics within easy reach in the various neighbourhoods, the allowance for six nursing homes
and the siting of a general hospital in Seaton all provide a supportive higher-level service
infrastructure for seniors.
As well, a number of low-rise apartments will be offered as seniors' congregate housing or
Abbeyfield-style housing, where small separate living units are provided, together with
common areas for food preparation, dining and recreation. Certain personal and social
services are attended to by a live-in caretaker. These remain private dwellings, but there
are elements of cooperative or collective housing, with a minimum of service features
added. (These in-house services can be supplemented by other community-based
services.)
Technological aids: The technological features cited in the section on communications and
information technology infrastructure would be of particular appeal to seniors, especially
because of the safety and security items.
Overall, while seniors may be less inclined to move to newer communities, the significantly
increasing proportion of seniors will generate a far greater demand for environments which are
attractive and accommodating to seniors than has ever been seen before in Canada. Seaton
reflects a number of planning principles which are generally popular, but which will have special
appeal to seniors. Being one of the few such environments among newer developments,
Seaton should promote this asset as part of its marketing, to take advantage of the growing
number of seniors seeking housing and community settings reflecting their needs and tastes.
The number of seniors aged
65 years and over will be 14,400. Even with the emphasis on community-based care, 5% of
these will require institutional care (this is less than the current 8% rate of institutionalization,
which is recognized as unnecessarily high). As a result, Seaton will require six nursing home
styled facilities, with 120 beds each.
Employment
For Seaton to be a fully vibrant city, it must offer more than simply a place where people can
live. Cities encompass the full range of human activities —recreation, culture, services — but a
critical and defining feature of cities is that they offer opportunities for employment.
Traditional suburban development separates virtually all employment activity from the
residential neighbourhoods, resulting in these two functions being spatially and logically
disconnected. This plan proposes that residential communities can integrate opportunities for
employment-generating activities; Seaton has its own distinctive features which can attract
and support employment activities; certain economic development initiatives can enhance the
likelihood of employment being created.
This section reviews
• what can be assumed about employment generation,
• he general categories of types of employment,
• the nature of the traditional strategies used to generate employment,
• the elements of the approach in this plan, and
• the consequences for the types of employment activities envisaged in Seaton.
Opportunities for employment can be generated at Seaton, but no one can ensure that those
who live at Seaton will necessarily work here. It is unrealistic to assume that in families where
two adults work they will both find work in the same locale; it is also unrealistic to assume
that all economic functions can be supplied within Seaton's boundaries to match the skills of
those who live here. But if the presence of jobs can largely match the development of
housing at Seaton, then it is more likely that Seaton residents will take up the option to work
there, as well as Seaton workers choosing eventually to live here.
How then does one create the conditions for early and robust employment generation at
Seaton? The design challenge proposes that a Seaton of 90,000 population generate
45,000 jobs, or, one job for every two residents. This is the same ratio of jobs to residents
as exists in the Greater Toronto Area,
a largely well-developed urban community. To meet what is an ambitious target, though a
realistic one for an urban area, the plan calls for a combination of tradi¬tional and innovative
employment generation strategies which have implications for the design and management
of Seaton.
What can be assumed about employment at Seaton
The mix of jobs found in other small cities in Ontario offers a preliminary target of what the
job mix can be at Seaton; at the very least, this data shows what are realistic proportions for
each job category. It would be unusual for Seaton if it were not
Table 3.9
Employment Profiles of Selected Ontario Towns
Barrie Belleville Brantford Guelph Kingston Oshawa Peterborough
St.Catharines Sudbury Thunder Bay
Managerial/administrative 9.3% 11.0% 11.4% 12.3% 10.8% 11.9% 10.8% 10.6% 9.8% 11.2%
Teaching 4.1 4.5 3.4 6.4 7.3 4.3 5.5 3.9 5.6 4.6
Health care 4.1 4.5 4.9 5.3 7.3 4.6 5.8 5.1 5.5 6.3
Natural/social/religious/artistic 6.7 6.8 6.3 8.7 8.6 7.4 7.4 6.7 7.1 7.2
Clerical 18.3 16.2 16.8 16.7 16.9 18.8 17.8 16.8 19.4 18.0
Sales 10.8 8.7 9.5 8.9 8.2 9.1 10.3 8.6 9.0 7.7
Services 11.4 16.8 11.8 11.0 18.3 10.8 12.6 13.6 12.6 13.3
Primary 2.1 2.4 1.9 2.2 2.0 1.6 2.9 3.2 6.8 7.4
Processing 1.5 2.4 3.1 2.9 1.7 1.4 1.6 2.9 1.9 3.4
Manufacturing 9.6 8.7 12.9 11.3 4.9 13.1 8.8 11.6 6.9 6.9
Construction 6.8 5.4 4.6 4.6 5.6 5.4 7.5 5.9 6.4 6.5
Transport 6.7 6.4 3.3 6.3 4.4 7.0 3.5 4.5 4.0 4.5
Other 8.6 6.2 11.9 4.1 4.0 4.6 5.5 6.3 4.5 2.4
located within the GTA, but rather a separate urban community of 90,000, not to have an
employment population mix which resembles that of comparably-sized urban communities in
the rest of Ontario. Taking very broad job categories, and averaging the numbers for ten
large urban areas (CMAs) in Ontario [see Table 3.9], without isolating employment
distribution within the municipality, nor distinguishing between higher and lower order
functions in a particular sector, the following general proportions arise (with the projected
number of jobs this break¬down would produce for Seaton):
% jobs
Clerical 17 7,650
Services 13 5,850
Managerial/admin 11 4,950
Manufacturing 10 4,500
Sales 10 4,500
Construction 8 3,600
Socki I/religious/art 7 3,150
Health care 5 2,250
Teaching 5 2,250
Transport 5 2,250
Primary 3 1,350
Processing 3 1,350
Other 3 1,350
Total 100 45,000
This data allows some for some broad generalizations to be made about the relative size of
each of these categories.
Categories of employment
Several broader types of employment are a useful starting point for analysis. Different
strategies and different land use consequences flow from each type, and while they
represent significantly different types of work and workplace environments, are not mutually
exclusive, nor at odds with each other. These broader types of employment are:
Population-Serving Employment
— A certain proportion of jobs will exist at Seaton simply to serve the local functions which
one can anticipate in any conglomeration of people. These jobs, called population-serving
employment, include work found in public and secondary schools, day care, first order health
care, garbage collection, street-cleaning and other municipal services, small retailing, bank
branches, hairdressers, dry-cleaners, restaurants, and so forth. Since these services must
be provided locally, one can assume that many of these jobs can be filled by local residents.
These jobs will be provided without extraordinary encouragement or the use of development
strategies, since they are needed to support the local population. The 1993 Hemson/Coopers
& Lybrand "Outlook for Population and Employment and the GTA" study suggests these
kinds of jobs can be calculated on a job-to-resident ratio of about 1:5. Applying that ratio to
Seaton, this would result in 18,000 jobs.
Non-population Serving Employment — These jobs are not primarily reliant on serving the
immediate local population. It is useful to consider three sub-categories: (1) entrepreneurial
employment; (2) traditional structured basic employment; and higher order functions.
Entrepreneurial Employment —
This employment category includes mainly new jobs, created by individuals or companies (that
is, primarily the small business sector), offering a new good or service, or, more likely,
competing with existing goods or services providers. These entrepreneurs often begin by
serving people in their own geographic niche. To take on the risk of a new enterprise, these
entrepreneurs seek favourable financing terms, appropriate and low-cost accommodations,
and social and technological infrastructural supports. This category of employment is
characterized by generally small enterprises, with a fair amount of turnover (a consequence of
its dynamic nature). This category has been the locus for much job creation over the last ten
years. We include home office employment in this category.
Traditional Structured Basic Employment — Any urban region has a proportion of jobs not
tied to serving the immediate local population. It involves larger enterprises serving regional,
national and international markets. These include entrepreneurial employment initiatives
which have grown into significant players in their field. As a generalization, these represent
more traditional manufacturing, office, and to a certain extent, retail establishments.
Higher Order Functions —
These include services where a considerable expertise is involved — doctors, lawyers, and
other professionals; places of higher learning; research facilities; senior managers; head
office functions; some financial services.
What should also be included in this category are jobs which are higher order although not
particularly well-paying-people working in the arts (artisans, writers, painters, actors,
musicians, etc), people devoted to religious work, inventors, and so forth.
Employment described in locational terms
Each of these employment categories have or can exhibit tendencies with regard to their
location in the urban area.
Population-serving employment will tend to be distributed throughout the urban community,
although will likely congregate along main arterial roads and road intersections.
Entrepreneurial employment often starts in people's homes. With any significant increase in
activity it has tended to locate in the segregated employment lands available in traditional
suburbs, even where activities are small and/or non-noxious. Such uses can be easily
integrated within the residential areas.
Traditional structured basic employment tends not to spread evenly across an urban area,
but almost invariably is segregated from other uses. Locational decisions for these firms is
based on a mix of factors: transportation networks, workforce availability, buyer-supplier
relationships, sub-sectoral
nodes, high visibility locations, other amenities. Higher visibility, segregated locations are
proposed in the northern part of Seaton to take advantage of the 407 development, if and when
that arrives; as well, a portion of lands within the ring road has been set aside to accommodate
segregated employment uses.
Higher order services such as higher paying/professional functions tends to be clustered
downtown, or in specially designed areas such as research parks, having regard for the
proximity of similar businesses and the availability of higher-scale homes, to facilitate both
business and social networking. Location can also be influenced by neighbourhoods which
represent a chic address.
The lower paying artist and associated activities are found in all kinds of neighbourhoods, and
many have limited mobility. Interestingly, their presence sometimes contributes to a
neighbourhood acquiring the cachet which attracts higher order professionals.
Employment Projections
Introduction — This section provides the projections for employment at Seaton, both for
Phase I of the project (to 2007), and at the point of full build-out, estimated to be around
2037. From the projections of employment, estimates of employment space and land
demand have been calculated and are also presented. These estimates have been used in
the financial analysis section of the report to project potential revenues. Over the 36 year
projection period, it is expected that approximately 45,000 jobs will emerge at Seaton and
the surrounding lands.
Regional Projections of Employment and Seaton's Geographic Position — As witnessed by
the last thirty year period in the GTA and Durham Region, significant land use changes can
and do occur. These changes are reflected in not only high growth in various frontiers,but also
in revised spatial patterns for housing, industry, offices, institutions and recreation uses. The
projections for Seaton are premised on continued changes in patterns of land use and in the
application of revised urban standards for development. Given its geographic position, north
of the urbanized areas of the Town of Pickering, on the "growth frontier" of the eastern
sector of the Greater Toronto Area, Seaton cannot be viewed outside of the economic
expectations for the regional economy as a whole. The economic links are evident in
existing physical infrastructure (like roads and services) and in the socio-political
environment, reflected in, for example, municipal regulations and powers. Decisions made at
higher levels of government regarding a myriad of policy objectives can affect both the rate
of employment growth at Seaton and the type of growth. It is within the context of the
competitive economic reality which confronts Seaton, and the
external land use pressures created by the dynamic within the GTA, that Seaton's future formal
employment is reviewed.
Long-term economic growth in the GTA is expected to account for a net employment increase
of 1,680,000 people over the period 1991 to 2031. Total GTA employment will increase from
2,290,000 to 3,970,000. Of this growth, 280,000 jobs are expected to accrue to Durham
Region, with its total employment rising from 160,000 to 440,000. Seaton's projected
employment at 2037 of approximately 45,000 will form part of this employment increase,
accounting for 16% of the job growth expected in Durham Region.
Structured employment at Seaton will benefit from the completion of Highway 407. This will
provide a critical link to the business areas focused on the Highway 404 and Highway 407
corridors. Lands within these corridors would likely accommodate major industrial, regional
"big box" retail, and office campus users. The potential for development along the Highway
407 within Seaton is constrained by environmental considerations, in particular groundwater
recharge areas. This reduces the potential amount of marketable lands along this corridor
and limits potential land geometries in relation to the expressway.
As well, the development of a "Buttonville" sized airport on the federal lands to the north of
Highway 7 will benefit the northern part of Seaton, but is not nearly as critical to the
inducement of industrial and office employment as the development of Highway 407. Lands
in this vicinity will be less attractive to industry, due to their distance from the planned
expressway, but could function as lower order employment lands.
A central business district will support "core type" space users who require the
agglomeration economics associated with higher density urban cores. This area provides
relatively direct expressway access for sites centred around the intersection and along the
edges of the Main Streets and Avenues; locations which will benefits from Seaton transit
links to the GO service. Such a concentrated development will generate a multi-functional
centre, comprised of government administrative offices, commercial offices, regional retail,
cultural and institutional facilities.
The development of Durham College, a region-serving educational facility, with its emphasis
on direct employment training and retraining will benefit Seaton substantially. Not only will
Seaton become a supplier of these services to the rest of Durham and the GTA, but it will
also benefit by making the community attractive to many employers who require such
facilities.
The designation of lands as "industrial" or "high density office" will not, of itself, facilitate
such development if the lands do not have the attributes of accessibility, location, or
character to render them competitively attractive to the market for that use. The above
infrastructure
items and general land use policies are required for the successful development of Seaton's
economic base. The earlier the infrastructure is developed, the more likely it is that
employment growth can proceed at an accelerated rate.
Employment in Seaton will comprise three types of jobs: structured or basic employment,
non-structured or population serving employment, and entrepreneurial employment.
Table 3.10
Employment Land Demand at Seaton
Phase 1 (acres) Balance Total Project
Industrial 179.81 720.43 900.24
Office 4.40 31.66 36.05
Retail 16.00 69.50 85.50
Retail Service 4.53 22.47 27.00
Institutional 0.00 0.00 0.00
Accommodation 1.02 5.15 6.17
Other 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 205.76 849.20 1054.97
Seaton Employment Lands 69.50 370.50 440.00
Hwy 407 Lands 136.26 138.74 275.00
Excess Demand 0.00 339.97 339.97
Non-structured employment will emerge in response to population growth in the municipality
and will include jobs primarily in the retail trade, public administration, and services.
Structured employment will be comprised of those types of establishments that produce for,
or service, a market greater than Seaton, such as manufacturers of auto parts for the North
American auto parts market or a software design business serving the international market.
The infrastructure enhancements discussed above are especially critical for the growth of
this type of employment as Seaton will be in direct competition with employment land
offerings in other municipalities within both York and Durham Regions. In some cases, a
mixed employment situation can occur where a business may serve both an internal Seaton
market and export expertise or goods to an external GTA-wide market with a specialized
service, such as a forensic accounting advice.
A fundamental part of the Seaton economic development strategy, described in other
sections of this report, seeks to maximize embryonic growth of small businesses, especially,
though not exclusively, manufacturing industries. It is planned that by means of a permissive
land use regime and, in a few cases, specially identified areas within Seaton, home industry,
local industry and home office uses which begin as home as well as community-based small-
scale manufacturing and service industries serving the Seaton market, can evolve into
region-wide exporters of products and services. The stringent separation of uses in typical
suburban development areas and restrictions on various uses in residential areas limit
potential entrepreneurs in efficient home-based "tinkering", which in the past has been the
basis for the evolution of major industrial exporters. (The huge Hewlett-Packard company
grew out of the founders garage.) Seaton
will provide opportunities to permit such home and community-based economic growth, by
providing employment lands and permitting employment activities within the community
envelope, with a view to supporting new employment.
In terms of space and land demand, of the planned 45,000 employment base in Seaton, it is
expected that 23,400 will be non-structured employment (population serving and mixed) and
22,000 will be structured employment and entrepreneurial employment. The split is based on
observed trends in GTA edge cities. In general terms, however, structured and
entrepreneurial employment is expected to grow from 3,600 at the end of Phase I to 22,000
by 2031. Non-structured growth is expected to grow from 3,950 to 23,400 over the same
period. With the expectations for future employment opportunities being oriented towards
"knowledge-based" industries, it is expected that by 2037, approximately 8,100 of the
structured employment will be in "office" type space in a variety of built-forms, including core-
type offices in the central business district, office campuses and community business parks.
Structured industrial employment will account for 13,500 employees. A good portion of
these types of employees can be accommodated in space and land densities which are
somewhat higher than typical suburban developments in edge areas of the GTA.
Land and Space Requirements
The projected employment for Seaton will generate employment space. Total employment
space is expected to amount to on the order of 5.6 million square feet by 2007 with an
additional 24.7 million square feet accruing to the area over the balance of the projection
period, for a total employment space estimate of 30.4 million square feet. Table 3.10
outlines the space estimates by space type category for both Phase 1 and the
Table 3.11
Employment Space Demand at Seaton
Phase 1 (sq.ft.) Balance Total Project
Industrial 4,802,534 19,248,383 24,050,917
Office 446,583 3,353,881 3,800,464
Retail 234,388 1,426,612 1,661,000
Retail Service 113,238 562,057 675,295
Institutional 0 0 0
Accommodation 26,788 134,478 161,266
Other 0 0 0
Total 5,623,531 24,725,411 30,348,942
final buildout. Local institutional space and region serving institutional space (Durham
College) has not been included in this data. It also is premised on the assumption that
Seaton will be able to maximize the retail and retail service components of its economic
base. Table 3.11 provides an estimate of land demand for the projected employment space.
Overall Seaton will require 1,055 acres of employment lands to accommodate the space
quantum
outlined above based on densities which promote a compact urban form. Within the provincially
held lands, Seaton will be able to accommodate 715 acres of employment uses. Internal to the
urban envelope south of the proposed Highway 407 alignment, the urban area will provide 440
acres of employment lands, a portion of which are mixed use. Outside of the potential urban
area envelope, 275 acres of additional lands will be provided, having regard to environmental
constraints. The remaining 340 acres of employment lands required will be accommodated on
federally-owned lands to the north of the provincial lands and in direct proximity to the possible
airport facility.
Detailed tables with breakdowns for both structured employment and non-structured
employment, as well as the density assumptions for this analysis, are provided in Appendix 1.
Employment Generation: Traditional Approaches
In the past, the economy grew at such a rate that municipalities needed to do almost nothing
to attract the greater portion of jobs. If an office building or industrial plaza were built, it would
be occupied. But of course times have changed considerably.
For instance, the capacity for making things, for manufacturing, has declined considerably in
the last three decades in southern Ontario; manufacturing is key to a city's economic well-
being since it is the one function that adds significant value and thus wealth in greater
proportion than any other economic sector. Thirty years ago in Toronto, more than one in
every four 'of those employed worked in manufacturing: today, less than one in ten do so.
Municipalities have never had a very sophisticated strategy for attracting manufacturing or
office jobs represented by structured basic employment, perhaps
because such a strategy hadn't been needed. The primary concern was that there be a
ready supply of designated and serviced land, provided either by the private sector or,
particularly in the case of industrial land, by the municipality. As the manufacturing base has
declined in southern Ontario in recent decades, municipalities courted industries by trying to
look more attractive than competitor municipalities, but this strategy has been successful for
only a few municipalities, usually at the cost of the others. The same problems are now clear
in the office and retailing sectors.
Similarly, common wisdom about the creation of entrepreneurial jobs (such as in the
manufacturing sector) has largely been that it will only occur through exports or through
technological improvements, resulting in innovations and new products and services which
will be marketed globally. This wisdom says emphasis must be on research and
development, particularly in
computers, electrical components, medical supplies, and so forth, or on finding new export
markets.
These ideas are daunting for a municipality. One problem is simply finding the resources to
help firms willing to undertake research. Municipalities do not have the money to sink into job
creation in research and development, and their only tax tool — property taxes — isn't of much
significance to a growing company. Neither do they have the authority.
A second problem is knowing which firms to help: not all innovations will succeed, so
investment is very risky. In fact, most innovations don't succeed.
A third problem is trying to sort out what kind of space should be provided for these fledgling
businesses: traditional industrial space or something more like contemporary office space?
Older space doesn't seem to match the image of high-tech innovations. Contemporary office
space isn't really equipped for manufacturing.
In the face of these large questions most municipalities retreat and rely on initiatives from
senior governments, which often never seem to arrive as expected. Indeed, industrial and
office space often becomes more and more empty as the wait goes on.
In desperation at acres of vacant industrial space, some municipalities have found that
pressure mounts to convert industrially designated land to retail (especially large-scale) or to
residential. Conversion to retail often results in even fewer jobs in the retail sector since big
stores rarely employ as many people as small stores (for one thing, the senior managers
are usually located somewhere else.) Conversion to residential creates construction jobs,
but fails to address the need for manufacturing jobs. No one has figured out what to do
about empty office buildings, particularly after the initial enthusiasm for converting them to
residential uses proved economically unfeasible.
Entrepreneurial employment strategy for Seaton.
An entrepreneurial employment strategy for Seaton makes this part of a successful strategy
to create jobs might be found by looking at Toronto's past. How did Toronto's economy grow
so immense in the past 200 years?
The European settlers who first came to the Toronto area brought everything they needed
and could carry: food, clothing, furniture, tools. As quickly as they could, they began to grow
local food, then began making new clothing out of cloth which was imported, then making
furniture from local lumber.
The economy grew as the settlers made things themselves, rather than import them, and
then artisans began to make tools rather than buy them from Europe. That new wealth
allowed the community to import different goods and services, such as teachers, singers,
actors, artists, cattle, sewing machines. Then the
growing community trained and supported its own artists and teachers, and began to import
other goods such as perfumes and fine wines, and accounting and other financial services. It
finally established its own banks and insurance companies, and set up its own professional
schools.
Toronto has not been exceptional: it has grown in the same way as almost every other city —
by making locally goods that it used to import, by supplying locally services it used to import.
And it pursued import replacement for the best of economic reasons — locally made goods
and services are often less expensive (transportation costs are obviously lower), and better
fitted to meeting local needs. If they aren't, they won't replace imported goods and services,
and the community won't grow. Of course, as the city expands, it makes more sense to talk
of regionally-made goods and services.
Often, regionally made goods and services are of such a high quality that they are exported
to some other community. That export business also adds wealth to the regional economy,
but it exists because of an attempt first to meet regional needs.
There are various reasons why import replacement as a function has broken down: society's
attention is focused on creating successful exports for global markets; smaller companies
don't know about opportunities for meeting the needs of larger companies; larger
companies as a matter of policy get tied into long term contracts to buy from related
companies located somewhere else; some company's purchasing agents see personal
advantages of buying from afar (such as trips south during the winter); and so fortii. These
are certainly obstacles, but there's no reason why they can't be overcome.
To create entrepreneurial jobs, emphasis should be put on helping firms which want to
replace goods and services now imported into the area, and ensuring they are competitive
in cost and quality so that it makes economic sense for organizations and businesses to
prefer buying them rather than those which are brought into the region.
Some goods can never be replaced in the Toronto area — it does not have the climate to
grow oranges, for instance, but the Toronto urban area has a very diverse economy which is
remarkable in the range of goods and services it can produce and provide, and no one
should not be too quick in deciding to compete with imports on price or quality.
Of course, the merit of import replacement as a job creation strategy is that it does not
depend on developing new markets for new products: the markets already exist, and the
product is a known quantity. The only question is whether it can be manufactured and
supplied locally for less than the imported goods it will competing with.
Import replacement is key to an entrepreneurial employment
strategy for Seaton. Economic development staff will also need to assist in arranging
appropriate banking relations to help these new companies. This many not be easy —
Canadian banks have been notoriously obstinate when asked to loan money to new and small
enterprises. Staff will have to work with several banks to ensure they establish appropriate
offices in Seaton to provide service devoted to strengthening the local economy, much as the
South Side Bank in Chicago has done in that city. Accomplishing this may not be all that easy,
given the reluctance of Canadian banks to show interest in small and growing businesses in
recent decades, but it must occur if a local economy is to thrive. As was mentioned earlier, a
local credit union may be a viable alternative.
Durham College
Durham College can be an important employment-inducing catalyst in its own right. Durham
College can not only house various small business programs and courses for both
entrepreneurs and home office businesses, but it can also offer customized training programs
to medium and large-sized enterprises. Its particular program focus at the Seaton campus
(environmental studies, business, information technology, fine arts, early childhood education,
legal services) could serve as an attractive resource to businesses specializing in these fields,
providing a base of practical expertise as well as a supply of co-op student placements,
entry-level trained graduates, and continuing professional development possibilities.
Durham College would also anchor a number of important community-related functions;
community-accessible amenities associated with the campus (recreational and cultural
facilities); the promotion of a strong life-long learning culture (linkages with high schools and
employers, continuing education, literacy); community-based services using college facilities
and linked with programs such as seniors' care, home visiting, Meals on Wheels; making
use of co-op student services; training for individuals on income supports. These would be
linked with community services programs. These would allow Seaton to possess a level of
services and facilities of substantial breadth at a far earlier stage in its development, making
it attractive not only to prospective residents but prospective employers as well, drawn to a
mature and business-enhancing social and educational infrastructure.
Attractions for Traditional Structured Basic Employment
All these positive circumstances will make Seaton an attractive location for the more traditional
forms of employment termed earlier as traditional structured basic employment. The life-long
learning culture, the possibilities of customized training programs, the aesthetic appeal and
community spirit of the city will all be factors in its favour. In addition, other features will make it
a choice destination for certain manufacturing, office and retail employers. When 407 Highway
be developed, its existence on the northern edge of Seaton would provide convenient
transportation linkages as well as high profile locations for businesses seeking those
characteristics. The unique design and image of Seaton as an urban, pedestrian friendly
environment will also be a selling point, for those choosing its downtown core, or even others
locating along the employment strip to the north, for whom a lunchtime jaunt to centre core
restaurants would involve a trip of only several minutes. The prospect of a Buttonville-style
airport on the federal lands would similarly enhance the attraction of Seaton sites, north and
south of the 407 corridor.
Taking this approach, there are a number of concrete possibilities which appear practicable
as Seaton employment generators. An obvious opportunity for local entrepreneurial
possibilities is with products and services which are or will be used in Seaton. Construction
materials used in new buildings are obvious candidates — hardwood flooring, for instance,
much of which is imported. For flooring, economic development staff would try to identify
companies familiar with manufacturing wood products, and then determine their willingness
to consider opening a new (small) branch in Seaton. It might be possible in early days to
seek contracts with builders in Seaton for the supply of flooring from this company. The same
could be done for kitchen cabinets, and even for some furniture.
Additional construction products which might also be considered for local manufacture
include: aluminum window frames and other extrusions; garage doors; wooden doors;
concrete products, etc. Again, it might be considered appropriate to have contracts with
builders for supply in the early months or years to help these new operations (often parts of
already existing companies in related lines of work) to become well established.
Other products and services used locally are related to food, such as fresh pasta, breads
and cakes, and fresh produce. With the rising interest in pesticide-free food, there might be
interest in growing and processing organic foods of various kinds (organic pasta, for
instance), many of which are now imported rather than made locally. Southbrook
Farms in Richmond Hill has shown the financial success of a farm on the edge of the city, with
pick-your own produce, organic produce for restaurants, and wine production from Ontario
(and imported) grapes. Many food processing firms work from small premises (kitchens, in
fact) since they produce small quantities of specialty goods which command a high price —
and they often find a market outside of the immediate area.
A wide range of products, consumed in southern Ontario but made outside Canada, are worth
considering for local manufacture. For instance, most parts for bicycles are imported into
Ontario, including simple items like front and rear lights. There is restaurant equipment,
including items involving small motors, as well as cutlery, dishes, and cooking utensils. Few of
these products involve particularly sophisticated manufacturing equipment. There are
hospital supplies — indeed the list is almost endless.
These items represent opportunities for new manufacturing where the product already has a
market, the techniques for manufacturing are already known, and where the only question is
whether the item can be made and supplied for less then it is made and shipped here from
somewhere far away. Import replacement is a terrific opportunity for someone to start small,
develop a reliable product at a good price, and then determine how that product can be
improved.
It probably makes sense to have some focus on the product areas where import
replacement enterprises will be encouraged. What these will be depends mostly on the
interest of the economic development officers involved.
Products and Services Related to Seaton's Vision.
Seaton is a place which is trying to express new values about how communities might be
developed, and how they can work well. These ideas are receiving a great deal of attention
from a host of professions, and these services should be encouraged to establish their firms
here. The list is extensive: environmental analysts; planners; traffic engineers; sewage
engineers; architects; lawyers; social scientists. Further, there are firms now manufacturing
items which new communities like Seaton are interested in, including sewage systems,
energy storage and distribution systems, and so forth.
These kinds of firms should be encouraged to share in Seaton's success from the beginning,
and set up offices in Seaton. One should not try to downplay the notion that locating in
Seaton implies an embrace of some of these values. Indeed, the local chamber of
commerce may wish
to promote a Seaton's corporations'"statement of principles", which would reflect notions of
environmental sustainability, lifelong learning, community service and corporate citizenship.
Economic development office.
To elaborate on the economic development office: the emphasis is not on supplying land for
these new operations — it is on supplying the opportunities that others have missed because
their focus is on the far away rather than on what's in front of them.
Economic development will be a very important function for the success of employment
creation in Seaton. Several development officers should be hired as soon as a board of
directors is established, so a firm strategy can be designed and work can begin on attracting
entrepreneurs.
The municipal government would be charged with operating a one-stop office for all small
business relations with governments, from licensing to taxation, and from grants and loans to
zoning and occupational health and safety, covering the entire gamut of relevant regulations
and services for all levels of government (local, regional, provincial and federal). The purpose
would be to reduce the contacts businesses have to make to one office, and putting the
onus on that office to reconcile the various programs and requirements, and not burden
aspiring entrepreneurs with unnecessary paperwork and paperchasing. The economic
development office would be charged with identifying and assessing undertakings which
could be attempted in Seaton, as well as identifying entrepreneurs who might wish to take
advantage of this range of supports and the attractive amenities which Seaton would offer.
Durham College would provide entrepreneurial support courses and services, respecting
accounting, business planning and budgeting,marketing and the like. In effect, the entire
public sector infrastructure would be geared to empowering risk-takers.
Thus economic development staff must be familiar with gathering information on import
replacement opportunities; with contacting existing manufacturers and services to talk to
them about establishing small businesses on Seaton; with encouraging small entrepreneurs.
What Seaton won't need are staff whose entire focus is to attract large firms to relocate here,
or staff who expect to control a large advertising budget singing the glories of Seaton as a
company destination. The emphasis must be on those who expect to innovate from the
beginning, and on small companies growing into larger enterprises. This should not imply
that large businesses are not important for Seaton's retail mix, but rather that they can fend
for themselves; it is the smaller ones that will need conscious support.
Implications for Development Patterns
Most of the job creation opportunities proposed start from the premise that employment will
begin with small firms, which hopefully grow as they become established. The strategy does
not depend on Seaton being attractive to large companies looking for a new location —
although we believe it will be, and efforts will be made to attract and secure them. One should
not expect, however, that a surfeit of adult, fully-formed factories and/or clerically-based
companies will appear and ask for a site: the manufacturing and office uses which can be
attracted to Seaton will often be small and will need opportunities to grow slowly and to add
functions to existing tasks. This strategy's capacity to respond to this need, in addition to
accommodating traditional forms of employment sites, provides a balanced and future-
oriented approach.
As much informality as possible should surround employment uses. It should be assumed
that most factories and offices will start off small and grow to be larger, perhaps moving to
new quarters. To accommodate this kind of change, four different kinds of space will be
needed, supported by appropriate land use controls: in a residential unit; in a mixed-use
building; close to residential uses; on separate, segregated parcels. Each will be
considered in turn.
Jobs in residential units — More and more entrepreneurial jobs are being created right
within the home. In many municipalities, zoning actively discourages this mix of different
human functions, in the process making it very difficult for new enterprises to become
established. Zoning in Seaton should encourage people to establish enterprises in their
home, providing the functions of the enterprise are compatible with normal residential
arrangements.
This is not difficult to do — it happened for decades in Toronto before the full force of zoning
separating uses was felt at the end of the Second World War, and it continues in many
European cities.
Performance standards should be set to ensure that odour, noise, vibration and traffic are all
within tolerable limits. To ensure that residential uses are not entirely chased out of homes,
zoning could specify that non-residential uses may not take up more than half the space of a
residence. Providing they meet performance standards, any use should be permitted in a
residential unit.
Mixed-use buildings — Some buildings should be built on the assumption they will
accommodate different kinds of uses. Thus on main streets, buildings should be constructed
to encourage retail at grade, non-residential on the next floor or two, and residential space
above. These buildings can afford to be
more specialized, on the assumption that, for example, someone wants to rent space for a
stand-alone office or manufacturing enterprise. As a hedge against the market, non-residential
space should be designed to be able to accommodate either office or light-manufacturing.
Because of their versatility, and because of the need to ensure that employment opportunities
develop at the same time as housing, it probably makes sense that the first structures built in
Seaton be mixed use, probably on a main street.
Mixed-use areas — Some entrepreneurs operating out of their home will wish to expand into a
(small) space built to accommodate their activity. Office activity undergoing this expansion can
probably be best accommodated in mixed-use buildings, but manufacturing enterprises will
probably want their own structure. In these cases, a backyard garage or workshop might serve
as a useful venue, or a small building built specially for this activity. Zoning should permit small
factories within residential areas, subject to performance criteria preventing those which
exceed specified odour, noise, vibration and traffic standards. The traditional separation
of residential, commercial and industrial uses should not be perpetuated: uses should be
separated only according to the perceived effects and impacts.
Separate uses on separate parcels
— Some factories and offices will grow quite large. Opportunities should be provided for
larger factories of offices to locate within Seaton, but it should be recognized that these
opportunities may not be frequently called on in the early years. Land should be allocated to
accommodate these large users as they develop in ten, twenty or thirty years. This could be
done by reserving certain parcels (perhaps some along the potential Highway 407 corridor),
or by assuming that redevelopment will occur in more central locations.
Attracting higher order service jobs depends entirely on attracting higher order service
functions — research facilities, head offices, a university, a private club. There is some
reason to believe that the program focus at Durham College could play some role in this
regard.
Attracting residents who hold higher order service positions depends on image and
amenities. It is entirely possible to market a portion of the development as an Mn' place to
be living — and to attract the desired crowd. This approach would have to be supported by
reasonable bars and restaurants if these residents are to remain.
Serious questions remain about the feasibility and desirability of the above — but if
attracted, the marketing clout of such residents is enormous. The downside of this market is
that prices could get entirely out of line, as they have in Seaside in Florida. Seaton should
not hope for too much success.
A deliberate effort should also
be made to attract higher order jobs of the cultural/artistic/ religious sort. This could be done by
strong cultural support policies (including building performance and exhibition space), and by
providing supportive opportunities for religious institutions and activities (as by facilities for
retreats, religious study, and so forth.)
Conclusion
A new community requires new approaches to job creation, and as described above,
opportunities are readily available. The proposals set out here are hardly revolutionary, and
are neither abstract nor expensive. In fact, they hold considerable promise, whether they are
taken up in Seaton, or in other communities. Better still, the import replacement strategies do
not depend on Seaton 'outbidding' other communities, but instead ask that real wealth be
created by the age-old way in which cities have always grown — by freeing entrepreneurs from
the fetters which cities have foisted on them through land use controls, and recognizing that
small initiatives can do well in a market system if given a chance. Starting small seems like a
reasonable strategy for success.
The Public Realm
4.1 Transportation Strategy
page 110
4.2 Plan for Servicing Infrastructure
page 119
4.3 Communications and Information Technology
page 129
4.4 Open Space and Parkland
page 132
4.5 Community Services
page 147
4.6 Durham College
page 155
Transportation Strategy
A comprehensive and detailed transportation analysis replete with trip generation factors,
estimations of modal split by day of week/time of day/trip purpose, assignments to "the
system" or to an array of systems, etc. is clearly premature and indeed, would be impossible to
achieve at this stage of development of the community plan.
Many reports and memoranda prepared to date have called for Seaton to be an innovative,
heavily transit oriented community from the outset. In other words, this development is viewed
as representing a fresh, new 'urban paradigm.' Consequently, it would not be useful at this
stage to attempt to quantify the factors listed above. Rather, attempts to establish a framework
for transportation considerations, together with selected transportation planning guidelines,
which will lead to specific proposals only when the basic planning strategy has been more
precisely articulated.
Highway 407
After several decades of discussion, Highway 407 is under way. Construction is well advanced
on the western section between Highway 427 in the Pearson Airport precinct and Yonge Street,
where "relief" to Highways 401 and 409 and to several major east west arterial roads such as
Highway 7 and Steeles Avenue, is needed. Construction of Highway 407 will proceed quickly
under private sector initiative, and is scheduled to reach Highway 404 by 1996 and Highway
48 (Markham Road) by 1998. This truly ambitious schedule is confidently expected to be met,
largely by dint of the fact that Highway 407 will be a toll highway — Ontario's first, and as such
will begin to generate revenues as soon as useful sections are complete and open to traffic.
Therefore, speed (of construction) is of the essence.
At this time, no firm schedule has been set down for the opening of sections of 407 east of
Markham Road. In this regard, much will depend on the form, function and timing of major north-
south roads such as the 'Markham by pass' (a 'descendent' of the East Metro Freeway plan of
earlier days), as well as other North-South freeway links with Highway 401 in Durham Region;
the effects of the Highway 401 widening now under construction in Scarborough and Durham;
and the rate of development in various Durham municipalities, most notably Seaton.
In consequence of these imponderables, at his time it has been assumed that 407 will be in
place across the Town of Pickering as soon as the need for it can be justified; that is, as and
when travel demand in the Highway 7 corridor threatens to become heavy enough to exceed
capacity on an ongoing basis, and threaten the viability and "liveability" of the existing
hamlets of Green River, Brougham and Greenwood.
Typically, new transportation facilities have rarely been put in place anywhere in Ontario in
anticipation of travel demand, or as a planning 'tool' for the purpose of initiating or
accelerating growth in a given place or in a given corridor. In the absence of contrary
evidence in this case, a conservative assumption would be that Highway 407 is unlikely to
extend east of Highway 48 until well into the first decade of the 21st century — unless the
rate of development in Seaton is more rapid than in any other comparable locale, or
provincial planning policies ensure early implementation of this section. Almost certainly,
such a policy framework would have to include guaranteed compensation for any revenue
shortfall the toll road consortium might experience as a result of 'early completion.' As a
rough rule of thumb for rational highway network planning, it is generally unwise to create a
major new controlled access highway which ends by simply blending into an existing highway
— not that this has not
been done on occasion, or continues to be done in Ontario. Better, the new highway should
end by interchanging with another major highway oriented in the other cardinal direction; i.e.,
the initial section of Highway 407 would end at the proposed north-south Markham Bypass,
and the next section of 407 to the east would end at a new north-south freeway (or tollway) in
or near the Durham Region Road 23 corridor.
Travel Demand
This Plan indicates that the initial development phase of Seaton should be substantial in size
and varied in terms of land use mix, accommodating up to 15, or even 20, percent of the
ultimate projected population of Seaton and a commensurate number of employment
opportunities. One of the key reasons for such a proposal has to do with the early
establishment of 'the transit riding habit.' Clearly, very small, relatively isolated pockets of
development consisting of a few hundred dwelling units are virtually impossible to serve by
conventional public transit service without incurring the need for massive, ongoing operating
cost subsidies.
On the other hand, the Province of Ontario could adopt a policy of heavy subsidization of
transit operation in order to establish high frequency, reliable all day service in order to
avoid early (typically 100 percent)
dependence of new residents on the private automobile — a dependence which, once
established, is extremely difficult (if not essentially impossible) to reverse. This represents
yet another unknown in the Seaton planning equation, and will not be pursued further here. In
the case of current and near-term fiscal realities, it appears highly unlikely that any provincial
government, regardless of political stripe, would venture forth with such an initiative.
As noted at the outset, it would be relatively futile to attempt to estimate precise trip
generation factors and travel volumes on individual roads and transit services. According to
guidelines enunciated by the Province, Seaton is to relate (in terms of travel demand) more
to various locations within Durham Region than to locations to the west; i.e., Metropolitan
Toronto. The key here is that the Rouge Valley is to be vigorously protected from incursion
by man (especially
in the form of new east-west road crossings). In brief, there are to be no new road crossings of
the Rouge Valley in the foreseeable (long term) future south of the recently completed Steeles
Avenue-Taunton Road connection, a major four lane, controlled access arterial road. Early
proposals for a link between Finch Avenue East in Metro and Finch Avenue in Pickering, and
between Lawrence Avenue East in Metro and Bayly Street in Pickering have been summarily
dismissed by the Province, although the municipalities involved have not embraced these
policies warmly in all cases. The outfall of this restrictive planning policy vis-a-vis transportation
in the Seaton context is that, like it or not, Seaton — in comparison with other development
areas of this scope in the Greater Toronto Area — promises to be effectively separated from
Metropolitan Toronto in terms of ease of access by either road or public transit; and if
'separated' is too harsh a word, the situation will at least represent a purposeful restraint on
east-west travel. Consequently, regardless of how the situation is characterized, it now
appears unlikely that sufficient capacity will be in place to handle all likely east-west travel
demand between Durham Region and the rest of the Greater Toronto Area, even after
completion of Highway 407 to its ultimate 10+ lane cross section, Highway 401 to its ultimate
similar cross section, the upgrading of Lakeshore GO-Transit rail service, and new GO-Transit
rail service in either the Havelock or Belleville subdivisions of CP Rail which pass north and
south (respectively) of the Seaton Planning Area.
All of that having been said, it must be admitted that this pall of doom may never descend.
Already, there is clear evidence in major North American urban areas that the traditional
pattern of heavy weekday morning and afternoon peak travel demand is changing, and
moderating rather fundamentally, not just because of the drop in central area employment
which has occurred, and continues to occur, because of the recession. While the recession
has certainly exacerbated unemployment, more fundamental pressures are being brought to
bear.
Economic restructuring (a tiresome but very pervasive fact of life), the rise of telecommuting,
part time work, increasing work-at-home opportunities, and a veritable host of other
emerging indicators have all contributed to the decline in conventional peak travel demand
levels, and no 'return to normal' is likely to occur. Indeed, the 'normal' condition is now
virtually impossible to characterize or quantify, but all current indications point to the further
reduction in urban centre-oriented, temporally concentrated travel on a regular (daily) basis.
The Toronto Transit Commissions precipitous and continuing fall in ridership — most
notably in historically transit oriented central Toronto — is only one case in point.
Applying this conjecture to Seaton, it is not clear that current provincial efforts to create a green
barrier between Metropolitan Toronto and Durham Region will, in the final analysis, have a
dramatically retardant effect upon interregional travel. However, depending on the pace of
development of Seaton, such an effect could become evident. Suffice to say that during the
early phases of development at Seaton, the 'missing links' in the interregional transportation
network will have certain effects, which cannot be precisely forecast at this time. For instance,
the level of self containment within Durham Region is likely to be pushed to a higher level than
it might otherwise exhibit, were a higher degree of interregional network continuity available.
Travel Destinations and Travel Modes
According to current proposals by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Highway 407 in the
Seaton area will follow an east-west alignment between Highway 7 on the north and
Concession Road 5 (Whitevale Road) on the south. The centre line of 407 will be considerably
closer to Highway 7 than to Whitevale Road. Four interchanges are planned in the immediate
vicinity:
• Town of Markham/Town of Pickering Line (Durham Region Road 30)
• North Road (immediately north of the Village of Whitevale)
• 'Sideline 2' (which is proposed to become Brock Boulevard/ Broadway, the principal north-
south road of Seaton)
• Brock Road (Durham Region Road 1).
Currently available information is that each of these interchanges will afford full access
among all cardinal directions (i.e., all eight directional movements). However, the private
consortium which will build Highway 407, may — in collaboration with the MTO — decide to
either eliminate or defer one or more of these interchanges, or build partial interchanges
affording, say, only movements to/from the west, at one or more locations. Detailed design
decisions will not be made for several years, or at least until the pace and configuration of
development in Seaton and vicinity has become clear.
The proposed Brock Boulevard would pass through Seaton in a generally north-south
direction, and would become the development 'spine' for higher-density mixed commercial
and residential uses. It would connect directly with Brock Road by means of a gentle S-
curve, following an existing 'height of land (i.e. watershed divide).'
Consequently, the Brock Boulevard and Brock Road would function as the principal north-south
penetrator, linking Seaton with Highway 407, the proposed new Regional Airport (north of
Highway 7), proposed employment lands extending east-west between Highways 7 and 407,
and with the rest of Pickering, including other existing lakeshore communities, and Highways 2
and 401 to the south.
Within Seaton, Brock Boulevard would intersect with Taunton Road, the principal existing east-
west arterial road through the new community, and a series of other important east-west Main
Streets serving mixed commercial/employment corridors which would function as arterials or
collectors, depending upon their various lengths and the nature of development served. It
should be noted that the new east-west Main Streets within Seaton would not be upgraded
existing concession roads, but will follow new alignments laid out to respect topographic
features, wooded areas and heritage land uses. By so doing, problems relating to private
access point severance/relocation, and, more importantly, disturbance of the basic character
of existing hamlets such as Whitevale, would be largely avoided. Moreover, these roads could
be readily staged, with sections being implemented only when warranted to serve new land
uses. (Note: Although the existing Whitevale Road [Concession Road 5] is shown as
remaining in place, the intention is not to upgrade it to arterial standards, but rather, to
maintain its current local, land service characteristics to the extent possible. A familiar
example of such treatment is Centre Street which extends through the old Village of Thornhill
in York Region (City of Vaughan). This used to be part of Highway 7, and when Highway 7
was rerouted to the north several years ago, the section of old Highway 7 between Bathurst
and Yonge streets was left intact, but was not widened or otherwise improved as a traffic
artery. The section carries a local name (Centre Street) and is in fact and function a local
street, replete with rural shoulders, stop signs and a low speed limit.)
As indicated on Panel B, a continuous peripheral loop road — the Seaton Circuit — and
three other nominally north-south Avenues (serving mixed residential/ commercial corridors)
would complete the arterial and collector system. Like the Main Streets, the Avenues are
proposed to follow new alignments laid out with respect topographic features (like the Brock
Boulevard they generally follow watershed divides), wooded areas and the existing heritage
landscape.
All of the roads just mentioned should accommodate cross sections of at least four lanes, in
addition to bicycle lanes and in some cases (e.g. Brock Boulevard) additional bus lanes if
not separate bus roadways (see Panel D).
See also Appendix 2.
Transit Service: A Conceptual Framework
While some of the major roads are curvilinear in order to complement the existing topography,
the overall Community Plan shows that functionally, they would approximate a grid with cells
ranging in extent from 0.5 x 0.5 kilometres to 1.0 x 1.0 kilometres, with the smaller cells
arranged in an east-west band traversing the proposed community centre and containing the
higher densities. Such a pattern would be conducive to the development of an efficient, logically
phased bus-based public transit service. In this regard, it should be noted that, to the maximum
extent possible the report Transit — Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines (April, 1992,
Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Municipal Affairs) has been adhered to in terms of
bus route spacing, road design standards and transit operating characteristics. Two levels of
transit service are proposed:
Level 1 — Regional/Long Distance, would operate on major roads linking Seaton's Brock
Boulevard with primary origins and destinations outside of Seaton (e.g. existing Pickering GO-
Transit Station, potential future GO-Transit stations on the Belleville and/or Havelock Lines).
A basically L-shaped main route (see Panel A) is envisaged linking a possible GO-Transit rail
station on the Havelock Subdivision northwest of Seaton, extending along Highway 7 and
Brock Boulevard through Seaton, and along Brock Road to Highway 2, Highway 401 and the
Pickering GO-Transit rail station on the Lake Shore line. Extensions to such a route could
conceivably penetrate Metropolitan Toronto as far to the west as Scarborough Town Centre
(until such time as GO-Transit rail service on the Havelock Subdivision is in operation) or
even the Yonge Street corridor (and subway) in North York, along Highway 7 or Taunton-
Steeles.
Level 2 — Local Services, would serve Seaton's grid of major roads, which afford the
opportunity to establish either a grid of intersecting routes or routes having closed loop
configurations; the latter would minimize the need for users to transfer locally. When the
vehicles on these routes reach the Brock Boulevard, convenient and commodious transfer
platforms or stations should be established to enable riders to transfer between local and
regional services without having to negotiate changes in level.
The configuration of the Brock Boulevard proposed in the mixed-use centre of Seaton (a
central four lane roadway for through traffic, flanked by two lane, one way service roads
providing space for short term parking and local access) could be designed to
accommodate one or more transit transfer facilities off the main through roads.
If transit services are introduced at the outset of the development period (which may well
require inordinately heavy subsidization of operating costs), it would make it more likely that
the transit riding habit could be instilled at the outset. However, this does not mean that
automobile parking ratios can be reduced to the point at which private developers (residents,
customers, business owners and employees) would resist investing or working in the area.
This is perhaps the most difficult dilemma to be faced in developing a responsible plan for
Central Seaton. The plan seeks to establish a delicate balance of travel modes by allowing for
the provision of limited parking associated with mixed-use development along the Main
Streets and Avenues, as outlined below.
While it would be highly desirable to instill the transit habit from the outset, planners and
developers must always allow for the very real possibility that such a process may be found
unfeasible,
or if tried, will fail. Therefore, the other way around the modal split dilemma must be borne in
mind as a fallback. This is normally the way urban areas and related travel characteristics have
evolved: early phases of development occur with 'typical' parking supply ratios; the bulk of the
parking supply being provided on vacant lands, at grade level. Only that proportion of the
parking supply serving given land uses that will be required to serve those uses when the
community has reached development maturity would be accommodated in costly structures
such as garages. Thus, over the years, the vacant lands would be progressively
redeveloped and the surface parking supply would be replaced with a smaller supply of
parking in structures. Eventually, high speed, grade-separated or exclusive right-of-way
public transit would be provided, and the modal split would shift to match the reduced
parking supply. Clearly, this transition cannot occur overnight, at one fell swoop. Rather, to
the extent possible, transit services would be progressively upgraded (e.g. bus lanes, bus
roadways, express and local services, attractive, safe and comfortable transfer facilities,
etc.) until a high level of service is achieved.
Is it conceivable that the Level 1 service described earlier might be replaced by LRT or
Guided Bus ('O-Bahn') service at full buildout of Seaton? Could the transit corridor adjacent
to Highway 407 that is now being looked at accommodate such service? Could all of this
result in a modal split in the 20 to 30 percent range? There are no answers available at this
point, but if the line — haul service is progressively upgraded, stop frequency is limited,
transfer facilities are made optimally convenient, and regional fare scales and schedules
are properly integrated, this optimistic scenario may well be realisable.
Bicycle/Pedestrian Movement
Seaton's magnificent topography will afford ample opportunity to provide a comprehensive
network of walking and cycling paths. Speaking specifically of cycling, this is becoming a
popular, bona fide mode of transportation, in large and small communities alike. The plan for
Seaton will allow for the development of recreational cycle paths through ravines and other
natural corridors, but also well designed 'on-street' lanes which 'utilitarian' cyclists (i.e., those
who cycle to work and to retail destinations) insist upon. Seaton's major road cross sections
are designed to accommodate these modes safely and efficiently.
Summary and Concluding Observations
It is possible to develop Seaton with a combination of the best conventional and innovative
techniques. In terms of the transportation network, the fundamental operation of the urban
realm, regardless of its size, density or land use diversification, must be served by a basic
continuous network of roads which will accommodate transit vehicles (buses), and service and
emergency vehicles as well as private automobiles.
Servicing Infrastructure
The Seaton plan for Servicing infrastructure is based on the following principles:
-ensure that the Seaton Community has a minimal negative impact on its site and on other
adjacent communities in relation to waste generation, energy consumption, water quality and
air pollution;
-promote community sustainability by encouraging a progressive, evolutionary approach to the
installation of service infrastructure, one which allows for the initial development of community-
based systems and their subsequent, gradual absorption into evolving municipal networks,
where feasible;
-optimize the use of the Seaton site and its existing resources in providing servicing
infrastructure for Seaton. Such resources include solar energy, prevailing winds, hydro-power
and rainfall, in addition to the larger regional and metropolitan service infrastructures
-ensure servicing arrangements are compatible with environmental objectives
-Seaton will draw on existing local and regional service networks, but linking to these should
not preclude the need to explore alternative, and/or supplementary forms of servicing for the
home, workplace and/or other community facilities. Waste Control at the local level will also be
encouraged.
General Structure and Phasing
The water supply and sanitary sewage collection infrastructures to serve Seaton will come from
the south. The watercourses to which stormwater will outlet run generally in a north-south
direction. The largest and most desirable location for a major stormwater management/
recharge facility, the old gravel pits, are also in the south end of the site. In addition, the existing
community infrastructure, i.e. schools, libraries, shopping, etc. are to the south of the site.
Important from a servicing perspective, the grades of the Seaton site generally fall from north
to south. Clearly, the most cost effective approach to development and infrastructure phasing
would generally be from south to north. However, the orientation and configuration of the street
system in Seaton allow for great flexibility to move east or west from this general south-to-north
progression as required by the community development. This tendency will also be balanced by
the regional transportation opportunities offered by future Highway 407, as well as potential rail
and transit links.
Water Supply and Distribution
A secure high quality source of 7-9 million gallons per day of water is a critical element to the
creation of the Seaton Community. Fundamentally only two reasonable sources might be
considered for water supply of this magnitude, namely groundwater and Lake Ontario.
Groundwater supply potential appears to be high given the presence of various aquifers, of
local and regional significance, in the immediate vicinity of the Seaton site as identified by
various investigators. The development of a groundwater supply source would be expected
to yield high quality water requiring little in the way of treatment compared to a Lake Ontario
based system. In addition, the energy requirements for the transmission of water from a
groundwater supply would be significantly less than the energy requirements of the Lake
Ontario based system. A serious concern, however, exists with respect to the negative
impact that major groundwater withdrawals would have on the emerging streams in the area
and the resultant loss in fisheries habitat and phreatophytic vegetation that might result.
Several million dollars of hydrogeologic studies might be required to accurately characterize
the nature and extent of interference that might result from
the development of a groundwater source for water supply for Seaton.
Alternately, the Lake Ontario based Region of Durham regional water supply system has a
significant supply infrastructure existing and under development with the capability of satisfying
Seaton's water supply requirements. This system would provide a reliable, high quality supply
of water without incurring potentially the significant environ¬mental impacts associated with a
groundwater supply. This option has the added benefit of optimizing the use of existing
infrastructure and investment.
A direct response to Seaton's servicing principles would be the entrenchment of water
conservation principles into the design philoso¬phy for the Community. Canadians use an
excessive amount of water because municipally supplied water has been relatively
inexpensive and convenient. Little attention had been paid to the indirect environmental cost
of supplying the energy and treatment for this water delivered so inexpensively to the users.
With growing environmental awareness, water conservation practices and technologies
have advanced significantly in the past 15 years. It is recommended that the design for
Seaton require:
• the installation of water (and energy) conserving devices on all faucets, showers,toilets,
etc.
• limitations on lawn and gardening watering
• a rigorous water distribution system design and maintenance program to minimize water
loss from system leakage
Seaton's policies, bylaws and codes should encourage and provide incentives for: the use
of cisterns to capture of rainwater for non-potable water applications such as hot water
needs, laundry, and lawn and garden uses; the development and use of individual grey
water reuse systems, particularly for lawn and garden uses; and other innovative methods to
reduce water supply requirements and to reuse grey water for other applications.
The proposed plan for Seaton provides a road system which will provide a high degree of
interconnection within the water distribution system. This plan permits a grid pattern
distribution system not just the intermittent interconnection of areas to permit 'looping' to
occur. This plan therefore allows a more efficient and secure water distribution system with
a relative reduction in large diameter watermains. Due to the elevation difference from north
to south across the Seaton site, it is envisioned that two pressure zones will be required to
provide acceptable pressures within the system.
Conclusion
While it is recommended that the long-term water supply requirements for Seaton be
obtained from the Lake Ontario-based regional water supply system, in the short and
medium terms further studies should be carried out to determine the feasibility of
developing
community systems of water supply which could be designed to be either supplemented, or
replaced by, the regional water supply system as demand, and financial capacity increases.
Sanitary Sewers and Treatment
Various options exist for the treatment of sanitary wastes (which are defined as
bacteriologically or chemically contaminated liquid or semi solid wastes not acceptable as
grey water or refuse). These wastes are generally referred to as sanitary sewage. Options for
treatment range from regional collection and Lake Ontario based treatment/ discharge, Seaton-
only collection and treatment with discharge to the West and East Duffin Creeks, and on-site
(self contained) collection and treatment.
The York Durham Sanitary Trunk Sewer (YDSS) has been designed and constructed with
capacities that can accommodate the sanitary sewage that will generated by Seaton. A
subtrunk to connection Seaton to the YDSS has also been provided. Similarly, the Duffin
Creek Water Pollution Control Plan has been designed and constructed in modules with
capacity provided to accept the sanitary sewage from Seaton. A very large public investment
has already been made to provide for the sanitary sewage treatment requirements of
Seaton. This is also considered to be a highly reliable, energy efficient, environmentally
sound approach with discharge to a water body of high assimilative capacity.
The creation of a Seaton-only treatment facility with a discharge of effluent to the West or
East Duffin Creek is not considered viable. Notwithstanding the current Ministry of the
Environment & Energy policies prohibiting 'upstream' sewage treatment plants generally in
the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), it is unlikely that such a proposal would pass an
Environmental Assessment, considering the high quality fishery in the West and East Duffin
Creeks, the limited assimilative capacity of these Creeks, and the other various
environmental impacts on them. Public Health, climatic concerns, and land buffer
requirements, together with contaminated runoff to local streams has limited the
consideration of large scale spray irrigation as a wetland of effluent disposal in Southern
Ontario and is therefore not considered a viable option for Seaton.
Of limited current applicability, but potentially significant future significance are new
technologies related to onsite treatment/disposal of sanitary waste. These are not septic
tanks and tile beds, but closed loop type systems, such as incinerating toilets or black water
purification and reuse systems where minimal amounts of residual ash or waste is
generated which can be disposed of solid waste refuse. Although energy consumption is
generally high, secondary benefits result in terms of water conservation. These
systems have, however, not advanced beyond the pilot project/ demonstration project stage
for confident, economically viable, widespread use at a scale such as Seaton. These new
technologies should be encouraged in the zoning bylaws and building codes of Seaton and
should also be encouraged for consideration by individual home and workplace users.
The Seaton plan has been oriented and designed reflecting the topography of the site to
allow for a very efficient sanitary sewer system to be created. With the site generally sloping
from north to south, the collector sewers will run generally parallel to the grade. With the grid
pattern of streets, the minor sewers can be designed with few, if any easements which will
maximize land use. Area grading to create grade or sufficient cover over sanitary sewers
will also be at a minimum due to the optimum orientation of the street system with respect to
the natural grades.
Conclusion
In summary, the provision of sanitary sewage collection and treatment via the York Durham
Sewage System is considered to be the most desirable option at present for a community
the scale of Seaton. As alternative new smaller and/or community-based technologies
improve, these should be brought on line to augment and/or supplement the overall system.
Their use should be encouraged through financial incentives.
Stormwater Management
In the past, the approach to the management of stormwater in an urban development has
involved the creation of a storm sewer (minor) and overland flow (major) system. This type of
system has been designed for maximum convenience and efficiency of offsite removal. The
resultant local and downstream impacts can be problematic to environmental concerns. By
contrast, the goals of a stormwater management system that reduces or eliminates these
impacts are:
• to ensure that water resources within a watershed are available in sufficient quality and
quantity to provide optimal, continuous, and sustainable environmental, social and economic
benefits to existing and future residents of Ontario
• to maintain and enhance the integrity of aquatic, riparian and related terrestrial ecosystems
• to ensure that human life and property are not threatened by water or water-related
hazards.1
Proposed direct actions to achieve these goals in the Seaton plan are:
• maximize use of recharge/ infiltration opportunities
Integrating Water Management Objectives into Municipal Planning Documents, MOEE/MNR,
June 1993.
• minimize number of water course crossings
• maximize use of'Best Management Practices' (BMPs) and source control of runoff
• sensitive location of water quality and quantity facilities
• optimize road layout to facilitate efficient storm sewer design and to minimize area grading
requirements
• creation of community amenities rather than single objective facilities
• minimize maintenance costs, and
• maximize flexibility for phasing.
Recharge and Infiltration Opportunities
The background information on the Seaton site offers some limited geotechnical information. It
would appear that at least two, and perhaps more, significant opportunities exist to create
large scale, effective recharge facilities to help compensate for the natural recharge reductions
that would occur through the creation of the impervious ground surfaces created by urban
development One major opportu¬nity is a surficial granular deposit in the north central area of
the Plan. This area has been recommended as a multi-use open space area integrated with a
recharge area for major system flows, and perhaps some minor system recharge (if on
detailed examination, grades will permit this to occur).
The second and much larger opportunity for a developed recharge area exists within the
former granular extraction sites located in the south-east area of Seaton. Site grades
certainly permit large areas of both minor and major system flows to be directed to these
areas. The recharge would occur through the bottom and sides of these large ponds/lakes
which would enhance base flows in nearby streams; maximize temperatures of storm-water
discharges; maximize water quality of resultant discharges; create attractive permanent
water features/community amenity areas within a proposed regional park; and be very cost
effective.
Detailed geotechnical studies at more advanced stages of the development of Seaton
might identify other significant oppor¬tunities for large scale recharge of stormwater, the
Seaton plan should be adjusted accordingly. Seaton's development should be flexible
enough to recognize and adjust to tiiese opportunities.
In addition to taking full advantage of large-scale recharge opportunities, on-site infiltration of
rainwater should be required throughout the site. Several simple techniques are currently
available, including the discharge of roof leaders to grassed surfaces and the use of infiltration
galleries and rear yard tile bed systems to maximize infiltration. It is recognized, however, that
these techniques may be impracticable in areas of very low permeability soils or denser urban
development sites with a high proportion of impervious surfaces. For these reasons,
encouraging a minimal use of impervious surfaces will be entrenched within the bylaws and
codes governing building in Seaton.
Best Management Practices and Stormwater Management Ponds
The detailed review and incorporation of Best Management Practices (BMP's) is usually
undertaken at a more advanced stage of community design than this exercise, and
particularly when more extensive geotechnical information is available. The principle of
maximizing the use of BMP's, as outlined in Stormwater Management Practices Planning
and Design Manual (MOEE June 1994) and other publications are recommended for
inclusion of the Seaton plan policies. Onsite at-source BMP's are to be encouraged.
In the review of existing geotechnical information, there are large areas of relatively low
permeability soils which will result in the need for stormwater quality and quantity ponds to
meet the environmental objectives of the community. Since these stormwater ponds are land
consumptive, they has been identified and conceptually
located within the plan (see Panel B). A detailed stormwater manage¬ment study would be
required at a later stage of planning to accurately size and locate each facility.
The design objectives for these facilities are:
• to ensure that the objectives for water quality and quantity for the West Duffin Creek and
tributaries are met or exceeded. These objectives would be established through a more
detailed watershed or subwater-shed planning study.
• to respect the environmental integrity of the streams and valleys and to only locate
stormwater facilities therein where it can be demonstrated that the valley's environmental
health and diversity will be maintained or improved
• to maximize the attractiveness of the facility, whether natural or man-made, to create a
community amenity and where possible, to encourage other uses in and around this facility
• to ensure safety of the facility and minimize potential hazards.
• to minimize maintenance requirements.
The incorporation of servicing considerations into the configuration and orientation of the road
and street system will facilitate efficiency and flexibility in the design of the storm drainage
system. The extensive use of BMP and Stormwater ponds will assist greatly in minimizing the
impact of urban and agricultural run-off on the creek eco-systems. Both major and minor flows
can be routed cost effectively to outfall at the most environmentally desirable locations.
Efficiency of design in a multi-use setting should minimize costs, minimize land requirements
and will afford excellent flexibility for staging. Moreover, adopting a 2-year design for minor
system would save significant dollars in the cost of the storm sewer system.
Solid Waste Management
At the base of Seaton's solid waste management principles, reuse, reduction and recycling
should be incorporated into the philosophy, policies, land use bylaws and building codes of
Seaton. While not something that can be illustrated in the Seaton plan design concepts, the
following requirements will be brought forward at more detailed stages of the planning and
design process:
• creation of financial incentives and support for the composting of organic home and yard
wastes from all residences and workplaces (possibly in combination with human waste
through composting toilets)
• requirement to separate all waste generated at home or in the workplace at point of origin
• provisions in land use zoning bylaws to permit recycling, storage and reuse/remanu-
facturing operations (using diverted recyclable waste as raw materials) in broad areas of the
proposed employment areas;
• requirements at the site planning or building permit stage for the incorporation of sorting
and storage areas for recyclable materials. For example, the Model Community pilot project
in Unionville is demonstrating high levels of waste diversion, yet the largest limiting factor is
inconvenience of separation and storage
• convenience could be greatly increased through more innova¬tive kitchens and garage
design providing multiple compart¬ments for separated materials
• creation of a Seaton community composting facility for larger-scale organic and solid
waste collection
• consideration of a user pay system for above average generators of non recyclable solid
waste.
Solid Waste Collection
The roads within Seaton will be designed to accommodate the curb-side pickup of the
separated solid wastes. The proposed street network for Seaton provides for an efficient
collection operation to be developed. It is envisioned that in the early phases of Seaton, the
collection vehicles will direct haul to existing recycling, transfer and waste disposal facilities.
As Seaton grows, it is expected that it will be able to support a centralized facility within the
employment areas for sorting and distribution of recyclable materials, and a transfer facility for
trans shipment of any residual solid wastes via large transfer vehicles.
Ultimate Disposal
The form of disposal for any remaining residential solid waste from Seaton, other than that
being proposed by current provincial initiatives, are beyond the scope of this design
exercise and therefore no land requirements have been established.
Area Grading
Area grading involves two main operations, namely the stripping of topsoil and the cutting
and filling of subsoil to establish resul¬tant grades in response to various servicing design
requirements.
Topsoil Reuse
The need for area grading of topsoil is established in the services design to ensure
minimum cover over utilities and to provide continuous drainage routes for both surface and
piped drainage. Often area grading is required to make a plan work as opposed to
designing the plan to work with natural grades and thereby to minimize the volumes (cost)
and extent (potential environmental impacts) of area grading.
The proposed Seaton road configuration and orientation not only optimizes the design
depths of the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer systems, and facilitates overland flow
with multiple opportunities for outfall, but also, therefore, allows for minimum area grading
requirements and mini¬mum impact on topsoil health.
The construction of Seaton will generate a large surplus of top-soil beyond what can be
reused for open space, parkland, lawn and landscape purposes. As outlined in the
environmental management section, topsoil is a resource to be conserved and used wisely,
not to be buried or wasted. Opportunities for landscape restoration and enhancement such
as the gravel pits and landfill to the south should be considered for topsoil reuse.
Erosion and Sediment Control
With particular respect for the high quality fisheries in Seaton's creek systems, a high priority
must be given to erosion and sediment control during the construction of Seaton. While the
design of the Seaton plan has contributed greatly to the minimizing of area grading
requirements, and therefore the minimization of the potential for erosion and sediment
generation, it is essential that a program of preventative, control and mitigative measures be
undertaken. While each municipality, Conservation Authority and district office of the Ministry
of Natural Resources has their own particular emphasis, reference for techniques to be
employed should be made to the Guidelines for Erosion and Sediment Control for Urban
Construction Sites, May 1987 and Technical Guidelines Erosion and Sediment Control, MNR,
February 1989.
Servicing Standards
Much has been done in the recent years to create alternative develop¬ment standards which
are less land consumptive and offer improved livability while protecting/ respecting the
environment. These alternative development standards help facilitate more affordable housing
and compact urban form. The Seaton plan will place a high priority on the choices afforded by
the alternative development standards and will encourage their implementation where
appropriate. For a detailed outline of the servic¬ing standards being considered, reference
should be made to Making Choices —Alternative Development Standards Guideline, (Draft,
Ministry of Housing, Ministry of Municipal Affairs, May 1994), and Cornell-Municipal
Infrastructure Servicing Standards, (Marshall Macklin Monaghan, June 1994). A custom set
of standards should be developed to reflect the particular goals, objectives, and natural
landscape of Seaton.
Principles
-Seaton should seek to have installed, at the residential as well as employment level, the most
current forms of communications and information technologies;
-these should be provided on as broad a basis as possible, i.e. one should assume every
housing unit has access to a basic minimum of services;
-one should aim to simplify the network of systems as much as possible; the ideal situation
would be the use of one communications network, which can accommodate voice and data
transmissions, presumably by way of fibre optic cable; thus, housing units would require a
single hook-up for all services, as opposed to a cable television line, a phone line, and
sometimes other phone lines for Fax and modem transmissions.
-These technologies have a myriad of uses, and can benefit both residents and employers.
Among the areas where these technologies can enhance the attractiveness of Seaton as a
place to live and/or work:
Employment — The growing number of single parent and dual working parent households, the
increasing need to care for elderly parents, and the greater opportunities for part-time and
shared employment will lead to increasing social pressures for working at home. As well, the
ever-decreasing costs of the relevant technology, the savings to employers of reduced office
space and increased productivity of home workers, and the community benefits of reduced
commuting and a greater presence of adults in the neighbourhood during the day all suggest
a convergence of private and public reasons in support of home work and telecommuting. A
top-of-the-line communications and information technology system, carrying voice telephone,
FAX, computer modem, video conferencing and E-mail capabilities, will be attractive
feature for this segment of the workforce. Employers as well will appreciate the benefits of
an advanced telecommunications infrastructure. Some may even consider locating a main
office in Seaton, as a meeting place and headquarters for telecommuting employees. (The
plan envisages 2.5 per cent of households working full-time in a home office, and another
2.5 per cent telecommuting from home.)
Independence — Technology enhances the ability of a greater number of people to live
independently without immediate support. Homes wired with monitoring sensors or alarm
systems permit significantly disabled individuals or frail elderly to live by themselves with the
security of knowing that help can be summoned instantaneously or
even automatically, should the need arise. Technology can also permit such individuals to
perform everyday tasks on their own, with robotics-assisted appliances, remote control
opening of windows, blinds and doors, mechanically adjusted table, chair, counter and sink
heights, and the ability to communicate as they need. Technology is also now used to allow
activities such as kidney dialysis to be done at home, over night, with the function monitored
over the phone lines, and assistance dispatched should anything untoward take place. These
technologies also allow individuals to stay in touch in so many more ways, including video
phone, to compensate for reduced mobility.
Security — Home security systems can increase the sense of safety for residents, not only in
response to crime, but also in the event of emergencies. These systems can allow for more
sensitive monitoring capabilities.
Education — Information networks can provide an extraordinary access to information
resources such as libraries and databases, of the sort which the Internet currently offers. As
well, the capacity for distance education learning, through interactive video, raises the spectre
of children spending some of their schooling time at home, while adults can draw on an almost
inexhaustible range of materials and programs to meet their interests and needs, all at a
significantly lower cost.
Entertainment — A full capacity data capability will allow for video as well as voice
transmissions, making possible the rental of movies over the wires, and eventually virtual
reality entertainment.
Retail — A greater proportion of shopping may be done over such systems in the future, if
television home shopping networks are any guide.
Open Space and Parkland
Principles and Values
Land use planning designations of Open Space in Ontario have been traditionally based on
narrow concepts of flood susceptibility and erosion hazard. This definition is inadequate to
meet the challenge of protecting, restoring and promoting a healthy ecosystem in Seaton.
These broader challenges require a new designation, Environmental Reserve Lands. This
designation will apply to both valleyland and tableland natural resources in Seaton, and will be
founded on the principles of environmental zoning outlined in the Environmental section of this
report. The envelope of Environmental Reserve Lands will be a reflection of bio-physical
constraints, critical habitat functions and carrying capacity determined on a watershed basis.
To meet the challenge of building vital tableland ecosystem linkages and protecting the many
sensitive upland habitat features found throughout Seaton, the traditional role of Municipal
Parkland will also be widened and redefined. A new land use designation, Active Recreation
and Environmental Support Lands, will be employed. Active Recreation and Environmental
Support Lands will be located, designed and managed in a way that subordinates provision
of active recreation facilities to the goals of environmental protection, enhancement and
stewardship. The achievement of this objective will require a significant increase in the
provision of tableland park sites, well beyond typical suburban development standards.
To accomplish the challenge of creating compact urban form and livable civic environments,
the traditional planning conception of a park system based on spaces oriented almost
exclusively to athletic activities, must be replaced by a broader urban design vision of the
public realm. The result must be a seamless integration of public spaces and natural
environments that includes the necessary athletic and play facilities, together with a richly-
detailed fabric of ceremonial spaces, market places, formal squares, neighbourhood
meeting places, allotment gardens and promenades.
Structural Components of the Seaton Public Realm
The future urban structure of Seaton will be surrounded and interwoven with a network of
interconnected open space and parkland, illustrated on the accompanying graphic panels.
For purposes of description and mapping, these lands have been categorized as follows:
Environmental Reserve Lands
• Regional linkage corridors
• Tributary valley corridors
• Local environmental nodes
• Tableland linkages
Active Recreation and Environmental Support Lands
• Community parks
• District parks and community centres
• Major civic parks
• Allotment gardens, public squares, commons and gardens
Each category is discussed in turn.
Environmental Reserve Lands
Regional Ecosystem Linkage Corridors
The Seaton plan includes two vast, interconnected Environmental Reserves — the Iroquois
shoreline ridge and West Duffin Creek linkage corridors. These areas have been excluded
from urbanization and have been devoted almost exclusively to protecting, enhancing and
promoting bio-regional linkages and habitat corridors. These corridors are key elements of a
system intended to extend well beyond the immediate boundaries of the community connecting
the local ecosystem northward to the Oak Ridges Moraine, southward to Lake Ontario,
westward to Rouge River and eastward to the main branch of Duffin Creek.
Iroquois Shoreline Linkage
The Iroquois Shoreline linkage corridor along the southern fringe of the Seaton community
consists of a unique bio-physical complex of granular soils, rolling shoreline ridges and
regenerating forest cover corresponding to the ancient shoreline of glacial Lake Iroquois.
As noted in the Environmental section, this portion of the Iroquois shoreline is one of the last
remnants of a significant bio-regional natural feature — one with many of the positive
environmental attributes of the Oak Ridges Moraine to the north. Although telltale remnants
of the Iroquois shoreline are still evident across much of the GTA, this feature has been
largely obliterated by the intense pattern of urbaniza¬tion now extending in a continuous
band from Oakville to Scarborough.
Despite the fact that much of this corridor has conventional development potential, the plan
deliberately excludes it from urbanization. This will permit the preservation and enhancement
of the critical environmental functions preformed by this area, while protecting for future
generations one of the last remaining representatives of this aspect of our bio-regional
landscape heritage.
To achieve the goal of environmental protection and enhancement for the Iroquois shoreline
linkage corridor, a comprehensive restoration action plan is proposed. The key elements of
this plan are described in detail elsewhere in this report. They include:
• Restoration of worked-out gravel pits within the corridor, and a program of revegetation,
natural contouring and topsoil restoration.
• Completion of missing terrestrial habitat and cover linkages through a program of
managed revegetation within the existing patchwork of meadows, clearings and old field
associations.
- Preservation of habitat diversity and potential through retention of the many ponds and
shallow wet pockets now found within the abandoned quarry sites.
- Improvement of migratory fish habitat through measures such as reconstruction of Urfe Creek
in the vicinity of the Asphalt Recycling Plant to take the existing Urfe Pond 'off-line,' and
reduction of sediment loading in Ganatsekiagon Creek through bio-engineering stabilization
and restoration of riparian vegetation along the abandoned railway crossing north of Taunton
Road.
- Environmental clean-up of degraded sites within the corridor, including the Surplus
Refrigeration property, various known waste disposal sites, and the in-stream deposits of
waste porcelain and glass debris contaminating the substrates of Ganatsekiagon Creek.
- Management of the natural forest regeneration process on the Brock Road Landfill Site to
sustain a permanent old field/low shrub association that enhances forage opportunities for
various resident mammal and bird species.
The Iroquois Shoreline corridor will be a magnet for the future residents of Seaton and
pressure to exploit the area for a variety of recreational activities and facilities can be
anticipated. If these activities are not planned for and strictly controlled, serious stress will
be placed on fragile local ecosystems. Recreational uses must be accommodated, but on
the principle of environment first. Features of this low impact recreation plan include:
- Zones of permitted public access will be pre-determined based on ecosystem sensitivity
and carrying capacity. Conflicts with critical habitat resources will be strictly avoided through
the use of discreet physical barriers and statutory restrictions.
-The effects of human activity within the corridor will be continuously monitored and periods
of restricted access will be enforced whenever required to allow reconstruction and/or
natural regeneration of damaged natural features.
-Movement within the corridor will be limited to a network of trails. Active sports fields,
recreation buildings and the like will be strictly prohibited.
-Trails will be strategically aligned to provide interest and visual appeal without invading
critical habitat features. Trails will be planned wherever possible to follow the existing
pattern of internal roads, farm lanes and pathways, thus limiting wear and tear to areas that
have already been disturbed.
-Use of the trail will be restricted to low impact activities such as walking, hiking, cross-
country skiing and bicycle riding. Motorized vehicle access will be strictly prohibited.
• Interpretive nodes will be intro¬duced at selected locations along the trail network to explain
the environmental significance of specific natural features. Interpretive nodes will always be
developed in a way that demonstrates the techniques of low impact construction and
reinforces the principles and techniques of the environmental stewardship program being
developed through the local education system and volunteer initiatives.
Community infrastructure elements in the Iroquois shoreline corridor will be limited to the
existing pattern of municipal roads, die Pickering Works Yard and a new north-south arterial
road linking the core settlement area of Seaton southerly to Brock Road and Pickering centre.
This new arterial road will be constructed with numerous "dry culverts" to facilitate safe east-
west movement across the corridor by various mammal species.
Almost the entire length of the West Duffin Creek corridor lies within an area recognized by
MTRCA as an Environmentally Significant Area. Characterized as ESA No. 98, and described
in the literature as the Whitevale Corridor, this area has been recognized by many
researchers for its large size, continuity of forest cover, diversity of structure, aquatic and
terrestrial habitat functions, and potential role as a genetic dispersal corridor. Considered in
the context of the bio-region, this reach of West Duffin Creek is a vital linchpin connecting
the marshlands at the Lake Ontario outlet of Duffin Creek with the Oak Ridges Moraine.
Various researchers have characterized West Duffin Creek Valley as a relatively robust and
healthy ecosystem under current land use conditions. It is prized, along with the Rouge River
and parts of the Credit River, as a high-quality example of the valley systems characteristic
of this region.
West Duffin Creek Corridor
Despite its current healthy condition, the West Duffin Creek valley is highly sensitive to future
urbanization. While some protec¬tion from development is afforded by the application of
Ontario Regulation 158 and by the natural construction impediments posed by a river valley
environment, the sensitivity of this area, and its importance in the greater bio-regional
context, suggests a need for a conservative approach to the integration of this feature into
the Seaton plan.
To achieve the goal of environmental protection and enhancement for the West Duffin Creek
corridor, we have proposed a comprehensive restoration action plan is proposed in this
report, with the following key elements:
• Water quality and fish habitat potential will be enhanced by stabilization of eroded bluffs
within the West Duffin Creek valley.
-Habitat and migratory range for salmonids will be increased by constructing a fishway and
plunge pool at Whitevale Dam.
-Water conservation practices will be implemented at Whitevale Golf Course and the current
practice of pumping directly from West Duffin Creek will be replaced by a system of wet ponds
to be supplied by captured agricultural and/or urban runoff. Besides providing a self-sustaining
irrigation supply, this system will also provide supplementary environmental benefits by creating
wetland habitat, treating urban storm-water runoff by biological methods, and recharging
shallow local aquifers.
-Use of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides at Whitevale Golf Course will be substantially
reduced by introducing design and maintenance changes including: reduced fairway widths,
natural roughs, and installation of computer-monitored, moisture-sensitive irrigation systems.
- Terrestrial habitat linkages will be enhanced by a variety of measures such as rehabilitation
of the abandoned gravel pit on the east side of West Duffin Creek north of the Village of
Whitevale, restoration of disturbed vegetation cover beneath the recently constructed Taunton
Road Bridge, and infilling of other strategic gaps in the forest cover along the length of the
corridor.
Once Seaton develops, the West Duffin Creek Corridor is expected to become a
compelling focal point for outdoor recreation activities. While this valley is presently
considered to be in excellent condition, it is our view that it cannot withstand the impact of
upwards of 90,000 new residents.
Evidence of the ecological sensitivity of this corridor is clearly demonstrated along much of
the existing Seaton Hiking Trail where widespread understorey compaction and gully erosion
has already degraded the local ecosystem. The effect of this relatively minor and well
intentioned programmatic intrusion into the valley suggests that the integrity of this area will
be maintained only by implementing stringent controls on both the character and amount of
public access. A conservative, low impact, incremental approach to recre¬ational use in the
corridor is proposed, including:
• A 30 metre wide buffer zone and development setback will be applied to the entire length
of the West Duffin Creek Valley adjoining the Seaton land assembly.
• Permitted activities within the corridor will be limited to the existing Seaton Hiking Trail
system. Active sports fields, group picnic areas, service buildings, and similar high impact
uses often located in valleyland areas will be strictly prohibited.
-The existing Seaton Hiking Trail will be closed for a rest period of five years while a
comprehensive trail improvement and management plan is carried out.
-During this period, natural healing processes will be supplemented by site-specific
interventions to re-establish understorey layers, repair erosion scars and develop barriers to
sensitive habitats.
-To avoid expanding the area of disturbance, the existing trail alignment will be retained
wherever possible. Exceptions to this rule will be made for critical habitat features.
-Potential conflicts with critical habitats will be mitigated by natural screening and vegetative
buffers. Where these measures are insufficient, discreet physical barriers will be established.
-Proposed design measures will be supplemented by statutory provisions. These
regulations and by-laws will clearly designate the boundaries of sensitive ecosystems and
will equip public authorities with the legislative tools necessary to enforce restricted access
and, where necessary, obtain compensatory damages.
-Once the Seaton Hiking Trail is reopened, the on-going effects of human activity will be
continuously monitored. Periods of restricted access will be reintroduced whenever required
to allow reconstruction and/or natural regeneration of damaged natural features.
-Temporary seasonal access restrictions will be applied to avoid damage to ephemeral
vegetation and prevent compaction of forest humus layers during spring and fall rainy
periods.
-Use of the trail will be restricted to relatively low impact activities such as walking, hiking,
cross-country skiing and bicycle riding. Motorized vehicle access will be strictly prohibited.
- Interpretive nodes will be introduced at selected locations along the trail to illustrate the
significance of specific environmental features. Interpretive sites will be developed in a way
that actively demonstrates the techniques and philosophy of environmentally-sensitive
construction and reinforces the principles and values of the community stewardship
program.
In principle, no intrusion should be permitted into the West Duffin Creek corridor for
construction of community infrastructure. Exceptions such as stormwater discharge
structures, and the currently approved Highway 407 bridge crossing, will be carefully
planned and constructed.
Tributary valley corridors
The tributary stream and valley corridors of the Whitevale, Ganatsekiagon and Urfe Creeks are
presently in relatively good health. Like the much larger West Duffin Creek Valley to the west,
these minor systems contribute to a diverse and healthy ecosystem by providing vital habitat
for a variety of terrestrial and aquatic species, enhancing groundwater recharge, and serving
as corridors for the regional dispersal of wildlife and genetic material.
Also, like the West Duffin Creek, these local ecosystems are sensitive to urban development
and cannot be expected to withstand the anticipated wear and tear resulting from a resident
population of 90,000 persons. In view of this sensitivity, the valleys of the Whitevale,
Ganatsekiagon and Urfe Creeks must be integrated into the urban structure of Seaton with
great care.
Environmental integration must be based on the rehabilitation action plan outlined
elsewhere in this report.The key elements of this plan respecting the tributary valley
ecosystems are:
- Wherever significant gaps occur in the present pattern of valleyland vegetation, a program
of riparian plantings will be employed to re-establish vital cover linkages and help moderate
stream temperatures.
- Degraded stream beds will be carefully inventoried and progressively rehabilitated. The
immediate priority will be Urfe Creek, particularly within the severely-altered reaches
between Taunton Road and Whitevale Road. Secondary priority will be given to restoration
of a natural stream channel profile and cross section within Ganatsekiagon Creek north of
Taunton Road, where the free migration offish has been inhibited by shallow flow
characteristics, deadfalls and braided flow patterns.
- Existing instream pools will be deepened and structures will be introduced in selective
locations to enhance fish habitat, particularly in the lower reaches of Whitevale Creek.
Land use planning and recreation planning policies applicable to tributary valley corridors
include the following measures:
- Aquatic habitat values and productivity will be routinely monitored and managed as the key
indicator of ecosystem health and vitality in Seaton.
-All stream reaches exhibiting continuous year-round flow and/or possessing coldwater
fishery potential will be buffered by a 30m wide tableland development setback.
• Smaller 10m wide tableland buffers will be provided around all intermittent streams
and the more resilientwarm water fisheries.
-Setback zones will be publicly or community owned and will be dedicated exclusively to
ecosystem protection and enhancement activities. If not already in a forested condition, buffer
zones will be revegetated.
-Only land uses considered compatible with the environment of the buffer zones and their
associated stream systems (for example, stormwater quality facilities, infiltration basins and
public pathways) will be permitted. These activities will only be permitted on a limited basis
and will be subject to strict design and construction controls.
-Human access to valleylands will be confined to carefully designed and constructed pathways
leading to designated focal points and interpretive centres. In anticipation of heavy, year-
round use, and the need to reduce compaction from uncontrolled traffic, pathways will be
paved. Paving materials will be porous asphalt or similar materials that promote infiltration
rather than accelerate runoff.
-Access will not be permitted within areas identified as environmentally sensitive and
municipal by-laws will be enacted to codify and enforce the concept of restricted access.
Temporary seasonal access restrictions will be enforced to prevent damage to ephemeral
and succulent vegetation resources.
-Rather than industrial fencing, living barriers will be employed wherever required to control
access to unstable valley edges, erodible soils, special habitats, or similar natural features.
Barrier plantings will consist of dense clusters of thorn-bearing shrubs and small trees.
In principle, tributary valley systems will not be used for construction of community
infrastructure elements. When no practical alternatives are available, the following guidelines
will apply:
• The practice of locating stormwater detention ponds within valley corridors will be strictly
prohibited. If no alternative locations can be found on tableland, these facilities shall be
located in open valley meadows and shall be extensively naturalized with riparian and other
plantings.
• Stormwater outfalls will be sited to avoid destruction of existing forest cover or critical
habitats. If such conflicts cannot be avoided, damage will be minimized through measures
such as vertical drop shafts and tunnelling.
• Valley road crossings will be minimized by design. Where crossings are required, they will
be located to avoid critical natural features.
• Essential valley road crossings will be constructed as clear span bridges or will be equipped
with numerous "dry culverts" to maintain the integrity of linkage corridors and promote free
movement of animals.
Local environmental nodes
Four additional areas have been set aside specifically for the protection and enhancement of
features of special environmental interest. Characterized as Local environmental nodes, these
sites are generally enveloped within larger tributary valley corridors, but are distinguished by
the rarity of their representation in the bioregion and their sensitivity to development impact.
These areas include Skunk Cabbage bog; Urfe Creek Old Growth Forest; Ganatsekiagon
Creek Old Growth Forest; and West Duffin Creek Old Growth Forest.
Development programs will stress measures to protect these sites from human intrusion.
Limited and controlled public access will be allowed within old growth forest nodes, subject to
regulatory and management guidelines similar to those discussed previously for the West
Duffin Creek corridor. By contrast, much of the area known as Skunk Cabbage bog is
considered highly sensitive to human intrusion and will be subjected to much more severe
access control due to the presence of permanent wet to wet-mesic conditions within the
floodplain and lower slopes of this area. These conditions have been created by seepage
from adjacent stream embankments that has fostered the development of a provincially-
significant plant community. The combination of easily-compacted bottomland soils and
tender plant species requires that human access be restricted to the perimeter of this plant
community with viewpoints and carefully constructed boardwalks provided to encourage
benign interaction with the environment.
Tableland Linkages
A series of inter-connected tableland linkage parks will be provided through the heart of the
Seaton community. Strategically located roughly midway between Taunton Road and
Whitevale Road, these parks will be planned to reinforce the existing pattern of high-quality
woodlots in the area. In time, this feature will complement the Rouge-Duffin linkage corridor
by forming a secondary terrestrial habitat linkage spanning the watersheds of the Urfe,
Ganatsekiagon, Whitevale and West Duffin Creeks.
Development of this linkage will be subject to the following design guidelines and
management measures:
• An extensive program of reforestation will be implemented within the existing pattern of
meadows and old fields lying between the existing woodlots.
-To improve habitat values and promote a resilient ecosystem, reforestation plantings will be
configured wherever possible to create continuous cover corridors. All plantings will be diverse
in composition and all species will be native to the bio-region.
-A regimen of selective forest harvesting will be implemented within these linkage parks. This
program will be designed to maintain a permanent patchwork of small meadows and forest
clearings providing areas of safe cover and forage for a variety of small mammal and bird
species.
-Human activity within ecosystem linkage parks will be confined to a network of paved
pathways which will be routed through the more resilient areas of the local ecosystem.
-Linkage parks will generally be contiguous with neighbouring active parkland and elementary
school sites. The layout of sports facilities and open grass play areas within these adjoining
properties will be dispersed rather than clustered. This planning approach will deliberately
sacrifice park efficiency in order to foster development of a complex woodlot edge condition
conducive to habitat productivity.
-To further promote wildlife security, lighting will not be permitted for sports fields in
neighbouring active park spaces. Light spillage into nearby forest environments will be
minimized by controlling both the level and direction of lighting on all nearby streets and
surrounding buildings.
Where it will be necessary to interrupt the continuity of tableland linkages to construct the
north-south arterial road through the heart of Seaton, an alignment will be chosen that
minimizes forest clearing. Clear span bridges and dry culverts will be employed at this
crossing point to encourage free movement of various mammal species from
Ganatsekiagon Creek to Whitevale Creek.
Active Recreation and Environmental Support Lands
Community Parks
Fifteen community parks have been allocated within Seaton. These parks will serve the day-to-
day recreational needs of Seaton residents and will be oriented to population concentrations of
approximately 6000 persons. Service radii will be in the range of .40 to .80 km (5-10 minutes
walking time). Site selection will favour untreed tableland associated with elementary schools,
valleyland corridors and upland woodlots.
The community parks of Seaton will resemble conventional suburban parks in that they
contain traditional recreation facilities such as athletic fields, multi-purpose paved areas,
spray pads, playgrounds, etc. In every other respect, however, Seaton community parks will
be highly differentiated from conventional parkland by combining a new landscape aesthetic
with higher environmental goals. This will be accomplished by the following:
• Open grass lawns will be eliminated and replaced by meadows covered in diverse plant
communities of shrubs and native pasture grasses.
• All areas not required for active play and/or sports fields, will be progressively reforested
with a variety of native coniferous and deciduous tree species. Urban forest management
programs, modelled after European examples, will be practiced on these sites. Over time,
the resulting urban forest will be selectively harvested and renewed using environmentally-
sensitive woodlot management methods.
• Local area street drainage and internal park runoff will be captured and directed to shallow
wetlands within the park sites. These artificial wetlands will several broad environmental
purposes by filtering contaminants, settling-out silt and suspended solids, moderating peak
discharge to receiving streams, and partially infiltrating runoff back to shallow aquifer layers.
• Each community park site will be roughly 4.0 hectares, compared to approximately 2.5
hectares for conventional "neighbourhood" parks. This expanded size will be required to
provide the extra space needed to integrate park facilities with existing vegetation and
implement the intended stormwater management programs and water conservation
measures.
District Parks and Community Centre Sites
Four large District park and community centre sites of roughly 9.0 hectares each have been
designated within the plan. Each facility will serve a population of 20,000-25,000 persons,
and will be similar to those found in typical suburban district parks,
including illuminated athletic fields, community centres, arenas, libraries, meeting rooms,
seniors centres, access roads and parking lots, etc. The concept of environment first will guide
the design, construction, and on-going management of these parks. The following measures
are contemplated:
• Each site will be developed as a demonstration project, displaying state-of-the-art site design
principles and water conservation techniques. Conventional stormwater management systems
will be eliminated and runoff will be collected from all grassed areas, parking lots, roads, and
rooftops via a system of shallow, low-gradient swales. The bottom of these swales will contain
granular infiltration trenches which will further slow runoff velocities and promote in-situ
infiltration. All swales will discharge to a series of linear, on-site retention ponds which in turn
will discharge to infiltration galleries.
• Sports fields and grassed areas will be irrigated exclusively with retained and recycled site
runoff. Retention basins will be sized to accommodate on-site irrigation requirements and
any excess water supply will be --diverted to infiltration basins.
• All athletic fields will be constructed of porous topsoil mixtures overlying free-draining
granular layers. This construction technique will accelerate infiltration through the surface
topsoil layers, promoting resilient turf development and extending the playable life of
grassed areas. Granular sub-drainage layers will be connected to collection systems that
will either pump salvaged water back to the originating collection ponds, or directly recharge
local aquifers through a system of infiltration pits.
• All paved surfaces will be constructed of porous materials that will promote on-site
recharge of shallow aquifers.
-The area given over to grass and active park facilities will be balanced by lands dedicated
to reforestation and development of terrestrial habitat linkages.
-District parks will be developed to reinforce the community stewardship program by
demonstrating energy conservation devices such solar panels, wind-powered generators,
etc. These devices will be intended only to supplement conventional power sources and
cannot as yet be expected to meet the relatively high energy demands of public buildings
and/or exterior lighting systems.
Major Civic Parks
Two major civic parks will be created in Seaton, each with a distinctive landscape character
and community purpose.
Seaton Fairground
Seaton Fairground is a 45.0 hectare property to be developed within the industrial and
employment lands planned for the northern fringe of the community. This park is conceived as
a multi-use facility, creating a common ground for urban residents, local businesses and the
regional agricultural community.
The site will function much like a traditional rural fairground providing facilities for livestock
displays, produce exhibits, equestrian contests, and various competitive agricultural theme
events such as tractor pulls, ploughing matches, horse racing tracks, etc. A local agricultural
museum may also be provided within the grounds.
To meet the intense anticipated demand of future Seaton residents for competitive sports
facilities, the fairground will also contain clusters of large athletic fields, supported by the
necessary infrastructure of bleachers, lighting, press boxes, concession stands, parking lots,
etc. By providing these urban sports facilities within a fairground setting, it will be possible to
encourage year-round use, and to maximize the productivity of the land. This strategy will
also minimize potential conflicts between high-impact sports facilities and the surrounding
landscape of residential housing and natural habitat features.
The site will also provide a variety of multi-purpose public buildings. These structures will be
constructed on a rural theme, but will be designed to house small trade fairs, flea markets,
farmers markets, auctions, and similar events.
Seaton Energy Park
Seaton Energy Park is an environmental theme park to be created on the closed Brock
West Landfill site. Development of this park will serve to raise public awareness of energy
conservation methods.
The exposed, treeless, south-facing slopes of the landfill are ideally suited to demonstrate
and test experimental solar energy conversion devices. In addition, thermal interfaces
created by the elevated character of the site and its fortuitous position on the Iroquois
Shoreline, will provide complementary opportunities to harness the power of the wind by
developing a windmill farm on the upper crest of the landfill. Existing and future methane
recovery processes on the landfill site will add to the array of potential energy conservation
devices that can be demonstrated to the residents of Seaton and the GTA. Proximity of the
site to hydro corridors presents the possibility of integrating site-generated energy
into the regional power grid.
Electrical power generated on this site will be used to offset consumption in Seaton. In time,
it is also intended that Energy Park will become the locus of an alternative energy industry to
be located in Seaton.
Table 4.1
Open Space at Seaton
Parkland Type Hectares
Regional Ecosystem Linkage Corridors 115 ha.
Local Environmental Protection and Enhancement Nodes 47 ha.
Tributary Valley Corridors 823 ha.
Tableland Ecosystem Linkages 39 ha.
Allotment Gardens, Public Squares, Commons and Gardens 15 ha.
Community Parks 76 ha.
District Parks and Community Centres 40 ha.
Major Civic Parks 45 ha.
Total Park and Open Space Lands 1200 ha.
Allotment gardens, public squares, commons and gardens
Each community in Seaton will be provided with a variety of small, richly-detailed public
spaces. Structured activities at each of these locations will vary as dictated by the character
of the specific neighbourhood and may include: allotment gardens, public squares,
commons, and public gardens.
Public squares and gardens will generally be situated to achieve urban design objectives
such as enhancing focal view corridors, or interrupting the continuity of urban structure.
Allotment gardens will be introduced in areas where die density and form of housing would
otherwise limit opportunities for residents to develop private gardens. Commons will be
located at strategic intervals throughout the community to foster pedestrian linkages
between built-up areas and adjoining natural features.
Summary of Provision Standards and Ultimate Parkland Yield
Table 4.1 shows open space and park areas provided in the 3,595 hectare Seaton site. The
resulting yield of park and open space lands in Seaton will be approximately 13.3 ha. (33
acres) per 1000 population. The amount of tableland parkland devoted to recreational uses
is equivalent to Mississauga's. When incorporated with the open space parklands devoted
to ecosystems and environmentally-oriented pursuits, Seaton's parkland is approximately
three times that of Mississauga.
Community Services
The physical form of a place has a major influence on the social and community life of the
people who live and work there. It also influences their political life, and the decisions they
make about publicly run programs and services.
The physical form of Seaton has been planned to increase the opportunities for residents (and
those who work there but live elsewhere) to interact with each other. The form is compact and
dense, making walking one of the easiest ways to move around in the community for many trips.
Sidewalks are designed to be comfortable for pedestrians, and buildings of all kinds are
placed along or close to their edge, giving the walking area clear definition, and in cases
where awnings or other overhangs are provided, some protection from the elements. Buildings
are generally proposed at a modest scale, so walkers will not feel overwhelmed by large
structures, nor blown off their feet by the winds created by very tall buildings. Many streets
which are primarily residential will have small front gardens, another amenity for walkers. It is
expected that automobile parking will be permitted on most streets, so that the pedestrian
receives some protection from moving traffic on the street-side of the sidewalk. Street-lighting
should be designed to make walking at night attractive.
One social benefit of a pedestrian-based community is the extensive informal net of social
contacts established between pedestrians, a characteristic known to anyone in a city who
regularly walks a dog or visits a corner store on foot. Another is the sense of personal safety
that develops from the knowledge that there are people on the sidewalk for much of the time.
These experiences will undoubtedly find further expression in the political priorities of residents,
and will affect the kinds of services they see as most important.
The transit system proposed (see Section 4.1) fits in well with, and augments, an active street
life, and, as Toronto's transit service does so admirably, will emphasize the idea that people in
Seaton share a common life. Since there will be an active street life and public transit, taxis will
find a thriving business — yet one more reason why people will prefer not to drive their own
vehicles for trips within Seaton.
Thus Seaton's plan makes every attempt to create an urban community which in its physical
design and form emphasizes social interaction. The plan supports this approach by the
provision of appropriate buildings and spaces, by arrangements for community control and
management of specific areas, and by inexpensive programs which may be somewhat
unique to Seaton. The two principles on which these proposals are made are minimizing
costs, and strengthening informal community ties. Both points require some discussion.
It is recognized that funding for social programs and facilities will not be as readily available
during next few decades as it has been in the past. Governments simply don't have the
money to build the facilities, nor the money to run programs. But these limitations on money
need not put an end to either facilities or programs: other less expensive approaches can
be used to equally good effect, perhaps even to better effect. To take one simple example in
this plan: urban design such as that proposed for Seaton creates a much stronger feeling of
community cohesion, which in turn should reduce the need for public expenditures directed
toward the creation of a sense of community.
Informal community ties are crucial to good government, as Robert Putnam argues so strongly in Making Democracy Work. The more community organizations there are, the better able the community is to solve 'dilemmas of collective action' (as Putnam calls them). Civic engagement strengthens the economy and the state. Every attempt has been made in the Seaton plan to organize social affairs and facilities to permit these community groups to flourish and thrive.
The application of these two points will become clear as community and social facilities and programs are discussed.
Facilities
The community and social facilities proposed to be in place when the population of Seaton
approaches 90,000 are set out in the accompanying chart. Some facilities serve the whole
community (a central police station, a city hall, a hospital, a community collage, a main library,
an arts centre, a YMCA/YWCA), while many serve a neighbourhood or another portion of the
community. The extent of services provided is generally based on service needs already
expressed in the Greater Toronto Area, with appropriate modifications (such as the idea of
storefront police stations.)
In many cases, one facility serves several different functions — for instance the arts centre is in
the community college; libraries, community halls, and day cares are in buildings shared with
schools. It is recognized that some government agencies may have to amend policies to share
space rather than have their own separate facility, but sharing should be much more
economical, and it should encourage more community interaction. Further, sharing space is an
eminently sensible method of providing services as the community is growing. In the early
stages of the community, general purpose buildings should be constructed to serve a
number of different functions. These should be designed to permit easy additions as funds
become available and as community demand requires. This approach permits functions to
remain linked in the same space, or permits them to move to independent space.
Some shared service delivery is proposed. For instance, in the early stages fire and
ambulance service should be provided by one team of individuals from a substation. If this
proves felicitous (as many have suggested in existing communities) it should be continued;
if not, as the community grows separate facilities can be built. Some thought should be
given to combining, or at least linking, door-to-door mail delivery with other services such as
friendly visiting.
It also seems reasonable to take advantage of the community college as a major resource
to anchor a number of community services. Its facilities can provide office space and
support facilities for day programs for the elderly, preparation of Meals on Wheels, and so
on. Its educational programming can provide professional assistance as well as students for
co-op programs in the social services.
Facilities may seem heavy on the provision of meeting places, which will be available in
churches, libraries, community centres, and schools. This has been deliberately planned in
order to permit informal communities to meet and function. One of the advantages of older
parts of Canadian cities is the profusion of meeting space opportunities they provide
(compared, say, to suburban communities built in the last four decades.) This plan tries to
provide a profusion of spaces to allow for the creation of a vibrant civic culture in Seaton.
Table 4.2
Seaton Planning & Design Exercise — Phase Three
Community Services & Facilities —
Catchment No. Description Sq-Ft. Area Acres Total Area On Tableland Off
Tableland
Education
Elementary Schools Senior High School Community College 5,000 30,000 90,000
18 3
1 500 pupils/each 1600 pupils/each 1000 students 100,000 3.00 6.25 40.00
54.00 18.75 25.00 15.00
Child Care
Day Care/Nursery Development Centre 4,500 90,000 18 1 100-150 kids 30-50 pupils
with schools with schools
libraries Main Library Branch Libraries 90,000 10,000 1 9 175,000 volumes
25,000 volumes 50,000 7,500 2.50 2.50 with schools
Recreation/Culture
Community Parks 5,000 18
District Parks 22,500 4
Ovic Parks 45,000 2
YMCA/YWCA 90,000 1
Arts Centre 90,000 1
Community Centres 10,000 9
150 seats
approx 10 175.00
22.50 25.00 70.00
112.50 112.50
50,000 2.5 2.50
Durham College
7,500 with schools
Churches
Church Campus Churches
4 20
2-3 congregations
2.00 1.00
8.00 20.00
Health Services
Community Hospital 90,000 1
(-mm. Health Centres 15,000 5
Nursing Homes 15,000 6
Cemeteries
Public Services
Central Police Station 90,000 1
Storefront Police 22,500 4
Central Post Office 90,000 1
Fire Stations 45,000 2
Government Services 90,000 1
120 beds
15.00 15.00
12,000 1.00 5.00
36,000 2.50 15.00
25,000 2.50 2.50
storefront
2,000 1.00 1.00
1.00 2.00
50,000 shared in office
90.00
Total
371.25
Less Education 97.75
Less Parks 205.00
Total Remaining on Tablelands 68.50
287.50
Services and Programs
It is assumed that the same kinds of publicly provided services that are available to other
communities in the Greater Toronto Area will be available in Seaton: income support; long
term care; schooling; day care; and so forth. Facilities are provided for them, and
suggestions have already been made for the minimizing of costs. But as already noted,
formally provided services should be augmented by less formal programs, both those
generated directly by the community and those where volunteers become an integral part of
formal program delivery. This will involve a number of approaches:
• promoting opportunities for meeting, interacting, and working together
• promoting associations and co-operative undertakings
• providing circumstances which advance a sense of community responsibility
• encouraging various forms of linkages to occur within the community.
One method of helping these approaches is to ensure appropriate space is available (as
already suggested); another is to ensure appropriate skills are available in the community to
help create and maintain these links. This will best be done through partial financial support of
groups who can hire community workers to help member-driven enterprises such as a food-co-
op or a credit union, or perhaps to run a welcome-wagon program for new residents, or to help
with community associations, and self-help and hobby groups.
Another method is to create spaces or activities which are directly controlled by the
community — allotment gardens, other outdoor space, or community meeting spaces. A
third idea is to propose linkages between different activities — such as linking schools and
local businesses for job and training opportunities; or creating mentor programs.
A larger idea would be to place some of the significant natural features directly under
community control and management rather than under the auspices of a government. If this
were done, schools might find a role in both teaching about and caring for these natural
areas, at the same time engendering a sense of direct responsibility that often does not
come when governments are given control of these areas.
These kinds of approaches should be explored in Seaton. They require time and energy
from residents, but they fit well with the sentiments the physical form attempts to nurture. The
expense of trying them is small, the pay-off could be large.
Social Services Strategy
A place develops a sense of community not from the arrangement of bricks and asphalt, but
in how people relate to that place. That relatedness depends on how their various needs are
met, from recreational to cultural, and social to economic. A community begins to take on a
life when it can start to sustain jobs: employment activity gives sustenance to a place. Just as
important, however, are the development of social bonds and a sense of attachment.
New developments by definition lack the established networks of formal and informal
supports which provide services and assistance to residents in need of help, counselling,
companionship, and the other aids to everyday living. There are two elements to fulfilling this
need: the formal sector (community services) and the voluntary (community service) sector.
The formal sector. We propose the early provision of certain formal services through the
doubling-up of functions, as well as through the mixed use of facilities, to justify the local delivery
of these services at a population number below the traditional threshold level when these
services individually might normally be provided.
Many services usually take a longer period of time to establish themselves in new community
developments. Often, these are scheduled on the basis of critical masses of population making
the local provision of such services efficient. We would advocate planning for various services
to be housed in facilities which are initially shared, which may, at later stages of the development,
move to independent facilities.
As well, we anticipate shared service delivery (for example, by having fire and ambulance
services delivered by the same individuals, allowing for a small sub-station to be created at
Seaton, prior to when the population merited, separately, a full ambulance station and a full fire
station). Similarly, certain social and community services will be delivered by the same
personnel, while others will share the same facilities. Some of these functions will be aided
by the promotion of volunteer community service activities, discussed later in this piece.
Finally, Durham College can be a major resource in anchoring a number of community
services. Its facilities can provide office space and support activities for day programs for
the elderly, preparation of Meals on Wheels, the control centre for various home visiting
programs, and so on. In addition, its educational programming can provide professional
assistance as well as students who could be used in co-op programs to help in the delivery
of some of these services.
The volunteer sector. But formal services are only one part of the equation. Many of these
functions rely on substantial volunteer assistance, which is usually the product of a well-
developed network of neighbourhood and community organizations, which itself reflect a
sense of community attachment and identity. These are conditions which new developments
have difficulty generating in their early stages, but which in our view are the social
connections which contribute to a sense of place.
Each community must arrive at its own sense of itself and the extent to which people will feel
a willingness to invest of themselves in the community. Voluntarism cannot be mandated.
However, we do think there are conditions which can help promote such a possibility, and so
the following reflects either suggestions which residents may wish to take up, or conditions
which will be created which make the development of volunteer activities a more likely result.
In general terms, these involve a number of approaches:
• promoting opportunities for meeting, interacting and working together;
• promoting associations and co-operative undertakings;
• providing circumstances which raise the stakes which individuals feel they have in their
community, or which advance a sense of responsibility;
• encouraging various forms of linkages to occur within the community.
[An aside: our society generates substantial barriers to people wishing to fashion community-
related activities. Pressures of time and money thwart many of our best intentions; our
increasing reliance on the value of individualism and on market-driven solutions to problems
also mitigate against a sustained sense of community. Nevertheless, many excellent
community initiatives continue to thrive, so we needn't
despair too much. As well, we should caution against too great a belief, if any, in social
engineering. These suggestions require people to adopt them, not have them forced on
them.]
Meeting and Interacting
• creating a "welcome wagon" program, to welcome and assist new residents moving into
Seaton to orient themselves
• provide merchants' vouchers to newcomers, to familiarize them with local services through
the provision of special discounts
Associations and Co-ops
• facilitate the creation of new community associations by assisting in identifying common
interests, potential members, and providing initial support for organizing and publicizing
meetings
• keying on the possibilities of locally driven enterprises, such as a credit union, a food co-
op, a general store co-op
• identifying linkages between local entrepreneurs, including home office consultants and
resident manufacturers;
Providing a Stake in the Community — Promoting Responsibility
• creating indoor and outdoor common spaces, such as community centres or garden
allotments, whose management is directed by the local neighbourhood;
• these spaces to be managed through a neighbourhood council and annual neighbourhood
town hall meetings, which have a budget to administer, and who can require public
authorities to supply supervisory staff and expert advisors regarding conservation, safety
and other issues (i.e., local neighbourhoods can decide on choices between a local rink in
the winter or tennis courts in the summer);
-designating teachers' professional development days as days when school youth would
participate in community projects, from litterbug clean-up to environmental conservation and
restoration projects, supervised by municipal workers and community volunteers;
-establishing community service objectives for secondary school students, including visiting
programs for shut-ins, snow shovelling and garden work for seniors, and the like;
-make allowances for certain employment lands to be accessible, under set conditions, by
residents (e.g. meeting rooms, training facilities for continuing education, telephone for
volunteer phone solicitations, open spaces for picnics, parking lots for non-business hours)
Encouraging Linkages
• creating linkages between individual schools and businesses in Seaton, as well as between
schools and public organizations and service groups ("adopt-a-school"), to increase
students' awareness of the world of work and of community activities;
• promote mentor relationships between business people and community leaders on the one
hand, and students and youth on the other;
• propose a compact between Seaton businesses and Seaton schools: businesses agree to
offer co-op placements and give preference to Seaton schools' graduates in return for overall
school performance, in categories such as marks, attendance, level of school-related crime
and/or violence, community service undertaken by student body
• promote provision of surplus fresh produce from allotment gardens and local farms to local
residents, including monthly pre-paid baskets of staple products (to ensure people can
budget for healthy meals)
Community Service Stimulation
• creating a community service voucher program, where newcomers to a community are
entitled to a number of vouchers which give them certain free services (baby-sitting, meal
preparation); people can also earn vouchers by volunteering their time to such activities;
• making special efforts to mobilize the greater number of seniors attracted to Seaton, to
involve them in volunteer activities and mentorship programs with youth;
• allowing people to provide community service in lieu of a certain proportion of taxation —
this could include an auxiliary firefighting team.
Durham College:
Ajax-Pickering Campus at Seaton
The plan foresees a critical role at Seaton for Durham College, through the location of its Ajax-
Pickering campus within the community. Post-secondary institutions have become far more
than schools for high school graduates: they are partners in economic and employment strategy,
contributors to the social, recreational and cultural life of a community, and centres of life-long
learning for the entire population spectrum.
Proposed programs and services
The campus at Seaton will provide a number of programs and capabilities, including the
following:
• community college
programming, including:
— post-secondary diplomas in Business, Applied Arts and Industry and Technology
— specific departments such as: Fine Arts, Environmental Science, Information Technology,
Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Early Childhood Education, Gerontology and
Geriatric Services, Law and Security, Legal Administration, Hospitality and Food
Preparation (apprenticeship and certificate programs in building trades and construction
are already well-delivered in a new facility in Ajax)
— community adult programs: adult basic education, literary, English as a Second Language,
post-secondary preparation programs
-university programming:
Through the Durham University Centre, Durham College will manage programs delivered
through its facilities on behalf of York, Trent and Ryerson Polytechnic universities.
-employer-driven training:
Durham College will offer a wide range of generic and custom-designed training and
upgrading programs to local employers, primarily through their Management Centre,
Productivity Improvement Centre and Manufacturing and Automation Centre
-research and technology capabilities:
The campus at Seaton should be the location for an urban development centre for
sustainable development, to research and study applications of sustainable development
technology and practices, for the purposes of improving and disseminating such successes.
This centre should operate in partnership with local private sector entrepreneurs
• services and facilities:
The campus will, in partnership with the appropriate municipal body, provide facilities
available to both the student population and community residents, including ice arena,
swimming pool, main library, gymnasia/ squash courts, auditorium/ theatre, playing fields
(baseball, football, soccer, tennis, cricket), cafeteria/restaurant.
The campus will also be the centre for a number of community services, which may rely on
certain college facilities and benefit from the use of co-op programs associated with the
relevant certificate program. These services would include a child care centre;
seniors' day centre; home care and home-visiting program; Meals-on-Wheels; physiotherapy
clinic; small business "clinic"
There are a number of benefits which the presence of Durham College brings to Seaton,
including several which directly enhance the ability to meet the goals set out for the Seaton
community.
First, the College offers a centre of activity in the downtown area which is not dependent on the
presence of residents near-by. Indeed, the campus can be started before community residents
arrive, and the student population can supplement the critical core of population needed to
support various services and facilities. Second, it is an attractive amenity, with its own
indigenous services and facilities can be made available to community residents, until there
is sufficient local resident population to justify separate services and facilities. Certain of
these services, such as child care and services for the elderly, can be a very attractive
element to families with young children and to seniors. Third, it is a critical component of an
economic and employment strategy: a knowledge infrastructure and the capacity to support
continuous learning is an important consideration to employers looking for locations. As well,
individual entrepreneurs and small businesses can be assisted through counselling and
advisory services which could be lodged with the business program. Fourth, residents would
be attracted by the presence of such a school, for themselves, as life-long learning will be a
critical component to maintaining one's skills and competence as an employee. Their
children will be able to receive post-secondary education without having to move out of the
house.
Durham College will act as a strong bond to link Seaton with the rest of Durham Region, and
will strengthen Seatons orientation towards tiie approaches and policies of the region it is a
part of.
Location, Timing and Size
The Ajax-Pickering campus of Durham College should be located in the central core of
Seaton, as part of Phase I. It would be possible for the campus to be up and running even
before residents move into their first homes. If the campus actually is operational one year
before the residents begin arriving, the college's presence can be projected as shown in
Table 4.3. As many as 25% of the full-time students may require housing in and around the
campus.
Table 4.3
Durham College: Projected Enrollments
full-time enrolled students part-time enrolled students full-time staff space required
Year 3 1000 10,000 100 100,000
Year 10 2000 22,000 200 200,000
Built Form and Character
5.1 Metropolitan Form
page 160
5.2 The Form of Seaton
page 163
5.3 Community Form
page 167
5.4 Form of Housing and Other Land Uses
page 169
5.5 Commercial and Other Non-Residential Services
page 174
Metropolitan Form
The emerging Regional Plan for the next 30 years has been derived from the York and Durham
Regional Plans. It suggests that, west of Highway 404, urbanization will expand northwards up
to Richmond Hill and the Oak Ridges Moraine. In the east, the lakeshore urbanized corridor
will continue to consolidate and expand northwards towards future Highway 407, and
eastwards to Highways 35/115. Lands north of Highway 407 will be consolidated into a
continuous rural/agricultural belt. Lying at the conjunction of the two merging new urban
corridors, as well as between these and the rural/agricultural belt, Seaton will occupy a
strategic position within the evolving rural/urban structure. As a result of growth that has
occurred since it was expropriated in 1972, Seaton is now more central to the established
focus and infrastructure of the GTA than many other growth edges.
Description
The emerging York/Durham metropolitan structure will be formed by a combination of regional
watersheds and open space, transportation corridors, transit lines, and rural and urban
communities.
The bio-regional structure will be formed by a continuous network of open space constituting
the north-south watersheds and by a series of east-west natural and man-made corridors
including the Waterfront Trail, the Iroquois shoreline and the Oak Ridges Moraine. In turn, this
network will be further enhanced with the restoration of key lakeshore wetlands including
Frenchman's Bay, Thickson Woods, Second and Third Marshes, and Bowmanville Harbour.
The consolidation and expansion of the regional trails system, and the protection and
greening of key watersheds and their associated valleys including the Rouge River, West
and East
Duffin Creeks, and Oshawa and Bowmanville Creeks.
The man-made metropolitan structure will be formed by Highways 401, 404 and 407, the
Markham By-pass, Brock Boulevard, Highway 12, the Lakeshore, Belleville and/or Havelock
GO-Transit lines, and the existing and new regional water, sanitary and electrical networks.
In turn, these two structures will establish a framework for ongoing urban expansion as well
as rural consolidation and agricultural intensification. Broadly speaking, rural and urban land-
use will continue to evolve as they have since the Dundas Highway was first extended east to
Kingston — that is, in the form of corridors that are both separated by, and united within, the
metropolitan public realm. Consequently, emphasis needs to be placed on combining the
bio-regional and man-made structures wherever possible in ways that prove more effective
and more achievable than those embodied in the Parkway Belt, which was intended to fulfill
this role in the western half of the GTA.
Seaton within The Metropolitan Region
While Seaton will form only one of a series of nodes within the region, given its strategic
location, many of the elements which form the evolving metropolitan structure pass through
or around it. Consequently, the attitudes and approaches which are taken to the planning
and design of these elements will serve as models for the region as a whole. The Seaton
plan addresses these issues directly. While Seaton's streams and river valleys, particularly
the West and East Duffin valleys, are acknowledged as primary elements of its overall
structure, these are complemented by carefully aligned drives and public open space which
draw them into the local and metropolitan public
domains. Similarly, elements such as Highway 407, Seaton's storm drainage system, its public
transit, and even the Brock Road landfill site, all of these being types of urban elements which
have traditionally been ignored or overlooked as defining structures, and relegated instead to
the metropolitan 'back-door;' all these in the Seaton plan are acknowledged as important
approaches to, or places within, the town and its rural surroundings — and they are planned
and designed as such. This integrative approach is repeated at every scale in the plan, from
the lot to the community to the region. As a result, these elements will collectively form part of
the day-to-day life of all three realms and will contribute to defining what makes Seaton Seaton;
what makes Pickering Pickering; and what makes Durham Durham.
The Form of Seaton
The plan organizes Seaton in the first instance along a new Boulevard which stretches from
Brock Road in the south-east corner of the site, west and north, following the ridge of the
Central Area watershed up to the alignment of Highways 407 and 7. Called Brock Boulevard, it
is the organizer of phased development on the site; the route to the centre of Seaton; the
collector of its transit system; and its symbolic spine. Crossing it are Taunton Road, and a
series of Main Streets, one of which extends out to old Brock Road, and five of which extend
only from the westerly to the easterly arms of Seaton Drive, which follow the edges of the
watercourses of the West and East Duffin Creeks. The Main Streets intersect at regular
intervals with New Brock Road, and perform a wide variety of roles in Seaton. They
accommodate pedestrian scaled retail areas, as well as other mixed use zones for residential,
office, and institutional uses. They also support transit loops which feed the main transit route
on New Brock Boulevard. Also crossing Seaton from east to west, but not intersecting with it,
is the existing Whitevale Road.
The earliest — and eventually the central — communities of Seaton will be developed along
New Brock Boulevard, following the ridge which straddles the West Duffin and Ganatsekiagon
watersheds. Approximately midway between the existing alignment of Taunton Road and the
proposed alignment of Highway 407 is located the Main Street on which Seaton's main retail
centre, a number of community facilities, and the new campus for Durham College are situated.
The communities will develop outwards from New Brock Boulevard, along the Main Streets,
stretching in turn to the Drives along the edges of the watercourses of the Creeks which form
both the limits of development and the symbolic edges of the communities which will comprise
Seaton as a whole. To the west of the Majors community, beyond two branches of the West
Duffin Creek are located two additional communities, which will be developed later in the
overall evolution of Seaton. To the east are the sites of two further communities, Urfe and
Thompson's Corners, which it is anticipated can also be developed in later stages. Just above
the point at which Brock Boulevard veers off to the north-west of the existing alignment of Old
Brock Road, is the site of the community of Brock, occupying an area midway between the
centre of Seaton, and the existing built-up area of Pickering to the south.
Seaton's Symbolic Entrances
As the watercourses of the various branches of Duffin Creek mark the limits of the
communities of Seaton to the east and to the west, so do two major civic parks to the south
and to the north. Between the existing built-up area of Pickering, and the central part of
Seaton, is located Seaton Energy Park, on the site of the closed Brock West land-fill site. To
the north, between the upper limit of the proposed built-up area of Seaton, and the alignment
of Highway 407, is located Seaton Fairgrounds, a multi use civic recreational facility of 45
hectares. The strategic locations of both of these parks make passage past them into the
central areas of Seaton, a passage across a zone of green space, into the built-up centre of
Seaton beyond, just as the Creek valleys also do for residents or visitors approaching from
the east or the west on Taunton Road.
Brock Boulevard
Brock Boulevard introduces a new type into the current lexicon of street types in Ontario. It is
intended to subsume roles currently performed by a number of currently familiar street types,
including the major arterial; the HOV transit route; and the auto commercial strip. It
comprises four through-traffic lanes, two landscaped medians, and two local
traffic lanes in each direction. This articulated configuration will permit the various traffic, transit
and land-use activities all to be combined in a new type which will also serve to act as a
symbolic spine for Seaton as a whole.
The Main Streets
Five east-west Main Streets intersect with Brock Boulevard, and provide a different range and
scale of activities. Some of them provide pedestrian scaled retail activities; and many of them
also accommodate the loop transit routes which connect to the primary route on Brock
Boulevard. They are also the principal vehicular routes which bridge over the various north-
south watercourses, thus linking the outer communities of Seaton such as West Duffin, Urfe,
and Thompsons Corners, into the more central ones such as Majors, Ganatsekiagon and
Iroquois.
The Avenues
Five north-south avenues parallel Brock Boulevard, and connect the various communities of
Seaton to Taunton Road and to Highway 7. Like Brock Boulevard, the Avenues follow the
ridges between the watersheds which give definition to Seaton's various communities. At
the scale of Seaton as a whole, of course, the north-south Avenues play a less prominent
role than Brock Boulevard, but they do serve as corresponding, smaller scaled foci to the
communities they pass centrally through, and provide appropriate locations for higher
density residential such as town houses, stacked town houses and low rise apartments.
The Drives
Ringing Seaton as a whole in the first instance, and its constituent communities in the
second instance, is a series of Drives.
These follow the edges of the watercourse open spaces that give definition to those
communities, as well as provide local recreational areas for them. At the same time, of
course, the Drives also constitute the external face of Seaton to the protected environments
beyond the built-up urban area.
Whitevale Road
As a central component of the cultural landscape of the existing site, Whitevale Road will
maintain a special character within the overall image of Seaton. All major traffic activities
have been directed away from it, and provision has been made for the preservation of
virtually all its distinctive heritage features. It will not be upgraded for traffic purposes, and its
typical landscapes and buildings — even its existing cemetery — will be incorporated into
the fabric of Seaton as a whole, at an appropriate local scale.
Preserved North-South Sideroads
The off-setting of the new arterial road grid results in the retention of many of the site's existing
north-south sideroads, in addition to the central cultural landscape feature of Whitevale Road
itself. These sideroads, relieved of the burden of any major traffic function by the provision of
the north-south avenues which parallel them will thereby play a distinctive heritage role at the
community scale, parallel to that which Whitevale Road will play at the scale of Seaton as a
whole.
Downtown Seaton
At the intersection of Brock Boulevard and the Main Street which links to Old Brock Road, is
located downtown Seaton. Here, the grand scale of the Boulevard meets the more intimate
one of a pedestrian scaled shopping street. Bracketed between water courses at its east and
west ends, this street will terminate eventually in an auditorium at the east, and a high school at
the west. In the first instance, commencing on either side of New Brock Boulevard, street
related retail buildings will be erected by Durham College, which will occupy the upper floors.
As Seaton grows, the retail shopping street will also grow to the east and the west. In later
stages of growth, Durham College will extend to the south, and erect additional structures in a
more traditional 'campus' configuration. Just north of the intersecting Main Street, a Food Store
with its traditional street-facing parking will occur, and across from it, a landmark office building.
Both of these will come on stream as soon as the market for them exists.
North of this again, on both sides of Brock Boulevard, the full range of auto-related retail and
other employment uses will be accommodated. Just north of this, Whitevale Road, with its
distinctively preserved heritage character will pass through. East and west of downtown, two
preserved sideroads also occur.
Community Form
General Features
As noted earlier, each of Seatons typical constituent communities is focussed inward on an
avenue which forms its north-south circulation spine, and on the east west main street or streets
which connect it to Brock Boulevard. Outwardly, each typical community looks to one of the
drives which follow the edges of the watercourse open spaces which give those communities
their edge definition. Each typical community also incorporates one or more of the existing
north-south sideroads as a distinctive internal feature.
The plan does not make the focus of each typical constituent community absolutely internal.
Each one is provided with local community and recreational facilities, so as to provide a
degree of local focus. A typical community will include at least one elementary school, a library,
a local park, and one or more churches. This facilities are sometimes combined (as in the
cases of elementary schools and branch libraries) and sometimes dispersed (it has not, for
example been made a requirement that elementary schools and local parks are always adjacent).
The consistent siting principle is to use such elements to animate the form of the local
community as a whole.
Then, in its turn, each community is also linked in a variety of ways to the larger world — to
Seaton as a whole, as well as beyond it. Existing landscape and environmental features larger
than the local scale (such as woodlots, and distinctive hedgerows) have been employed to
create community parks linking one community to another, as well as to the major watercourse
open spaces which give Seaton as a whole its character. In a similar fashion, such facilities as
senior high schools and community health centres and have been located so as to form links
between the community and Seaton-wide scales. Such facilities as these, of course, are
always on transit routes.
New Local Streets
As noted in the preceding section on the Form of Seaton Itself, each of its typical
communities is organized around a north-south avenue, and also includes some preserved
sideroad, as well as a perimeter drive. Providing the typical grain of each community is a
tight grid of local streets. Running between the drives and the avenues, and roughly
perpendicular to the avenues, the local streets — which are primarily residential in character —
thus facilitate an incremental pattern of evolution of development. As each community itself
develops, the local streets can be extended east and west as required. In the meantime, this
east-west orientation of local residential streets will also facilitate the maintenance of small
agricultural holdings within the evolving fabric of Seaton, much as the typical pattern of park
lots did in Ontario towns in the nineteenth century.
Form of Housing and Other Land Uses
The general objective of the overall housing form has been to maximize densities within a
compact urban form,while retaining an emphasis on the use of predominantly ground-related
housing forms, suitable for freehold tenure. The widest possible range of types meeting these
criteria is illustrated. Small and medium lot single family detached houses, semi-detached and
row houses, duplexes, triplexes,and quadriplexes have all been included. The single family
types included have been configured so as to facilitate convertibility by the means of the
subsequent creation of granny flats and other forms of accessory units.
The Seaton plan also includes multiple town houses garden apartments, and forms of
housing mixed with other uses, including retail, community service facilities, and institutional
uses (such as Durham College). Diverse forms of mixing uses, side by side, as well as
vertical stacking have also been included.
On the sideroads which are retained within the plan, larger houses with rear lane service
access are proposed, so as to minimize interruption to existing tree rows on such sideroads.
In all cases where rear lanes are included in the plan, allowance has been made for garages
and workshops to be located there, so as to facilitate the establishment of small scale
entrepreneurial enterprises.
Other Mixed-Use Forms
The Seaton plan also indicates a significant degree of mixed use in addition to that including
housing. As noted above, elementary schools are combined with libraries, retail is combined
with Durham College, as are community institutional uses. As with the housing forms discussed
above, the forms of mix are
Table 5.1
Seaton Planning & Design Exercise — Phase Three
Population, Density and Land-Use on Tablelands
Community Gross Area Gross Area % Roads Allowance Net Area
Population Units Gross Density Net Density Net Area Persons Units
Park Areas Community
Hectares Acres Acres Acres Persons UPA UPA Acres Acres
2.47 0.275 2.77 2.00
West Duffin 125.30 309.49 11.40 85.11 224.38 9,987 3,605 11.65
16.07 224.38 9,987 3,605 19.97
Major 173.70 429.04 15.80 117.99 311.05 13,844 4,998
11.65 16.07 311.05 13,844 4,998 27.69
Ganatsekiagon 241.10 595.52 21.94 163.77 431.75 19,216
6,937 11.65 16.07 431.75 19,216 6,937 38.43
Iroquois 142.80 352.72 12.99 97.00 255.72 11,381 4,109
11.65 16.07 255.72 11,381 4,109 22.76
Urfe 160.10 395.45 14.57 108.75 286.70 12,760 4,607
11.65 16.07 286.70 12,760 4,607 25.52
Thompsons' Corners 148.00 365.56 13.47 100.53 265.03
11,796 4,258 11.65 16.07 265.03 11,796 4,258 23.59
Brock 108.10 267.01 9.84 73.43 193.58 8,616 3,110 11.65 16.07
193.58 8,616 3,110 17.23
Total 1099.10 2714.78 100.00 746.56 1968.21 87,600
31,625 11.65 16.07 1968.21 87,600 31,625 175.20
sometimes side by side, and sometimes one above the other. Only very occasional building
forms within the plan exceed 4 storeys. (An example is the landmark office building shown in
the downtown plan.)
Forms of Parking
Another aspect of the compact form of the plan for Seaton has to do with the characteristic
forms of parking provided. On typical residential streets, one car space per unit has been
provided, with a second on-lot space sometimes attainable. In higher density residential
forms on avenues, surface parking is typically provided in courts. Guest parking for such
housing forms will be on-street. On main streets, where retail activities occur, both on-street
and courtyard forms of parking occur, organized so as to maintain as continuous pedestrian
oriented retail frontage as possible (with courtyard parking behind, on the pattern of the
typical lots behind Yonge Street in Toronto, north of St. Clair).
District Education Areas Elementary Secondary Durham SOCFAC
Employment Net Res. Area Net Res. Density
Acres Pupils per HH Number Acres Pupils per HH Number Acres
Area Area Acres Acres UFA
0.30 540 3.00 0.12 1,200 6.25 0.15
0.00 1,082 2.00 6.01 433 0.36 2.25 0.00 7.81 33.66 154.68 23.31
0.00 1,499 2.78 8.33 600 0.50 3.12 25.00 10.82 46.66 189.43 26.38
15.00 2,081 3.85 11.56 832 0.69 4.34 0.00 15.02 64.76 282.64 24.54
0.00 1,233 2.28 6.85 493 0.41 2.57 0.00 8.90 38.36 176.28 23.31
10.00 1,382 2.56 7.68 553 0.46 2.88 0.00 9.98 43.00 187.64 24.55
0.00 1,278 2.37 7.10 511 0.43 2.66 0.00 9.23 39.75 182.70 23.31
0.00 933 1.73 5.18 373 0.31 1.94 0.00 6.74 29.04 133.44 23.31
25.00 9,487 18 54.00 3795 3 18.75 25.00 68.50 295.23 1306.53 24.20
On Brock Boulevard, both on-street parking (on the local lanes), and courtyard parking
behind retail and other buildings is proposed.
Finally, for such major parking generators as the Food Store, and Durham College, another
new form called orchard parking is proposed.
Table 5.2
Seaton Planning & Design Exercise
Projected Population/Housing Growth
Year Pop Growth Percent by Unit Types Persons per Unit by Type
Del. Semi. Attach. Apts. Ac/Apts. Del. Semi. Attach.
2001 1200 50 12 14 14 10 3.5 3.3 3
2002 2400 50 12 14 14 10 3.5 3.3 3
2003 2400 50 12 14 14 10 3.5 3.3 3
2004 2400 50 12 14 14 10 3.5 3.3 3
2005 2400 50 12 14 14 10 3.5 3.3 3
2006 2400 50 12 14 14 10 3.5 3.3 3
2007 2400 50 12 14 14 10 3.5 3.3 3
2008 2400 50 12 14 14 10 3.5 3.3 3
2009 2400 50 12 14 14 10 3.5 3.3 3
2010 2400 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.1 2.8
2011 2400 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.1 2.8
2012 2400 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.] 2.8
2013 2400 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.1 2.8
2014 2400 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.1 2.8
2015 2400 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.1 2.8
2016 2400 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.1 2.8
2017 2400 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.1 2.8
2022 12000 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.1 2.8
2027 12000 48 11 15 15 11 3.3 3.1 2.8
2032 12000 45 10 16 16 13 3.2 3 2.7
2037 12000 45 10 16 16 13 3.2 3 2.7
Total 87600
Avg. Pers per Unit Population by Unit Type Number of Units
Apts. Ac/Apts. Del. Semi. Attach. Apts. Ac/.Apts. Total Det. Semi. Attach. Apts. Ac/Apts. Total
2.1 1.4 3.00 700 158 168 118 56 1,200 200 48 56 56 40 400
2.1 1.4 3.00 1400 317 336 235 112 2,400 400 96 112 112 80 800
2.1 1.4 3.00 1400 317 336 235 112 2,400 400 96 112 112 80 800
2.1 1.4 3.00 1400 317 336 235 112 2,400 400 96 112 112 80 800
2.1 1.4 3.00 1400 317 336 235 112 2,400 400 96 112 112 80 800
2.1 1.4 3.00 1400 317 336 235 112 2,400 400 96 112 112 80 800
2.1 1.4 3.00 1400 317 336 235 112 2,400 400 96 112 112 80 800
2.1 1.4 3.00 1400 317 336 235 112 2,400 400 96 112 112 80 800
2.1 1.4 3.00 1400 317 336 235 112 2,400 400 96 112 112 80 800
1.9 1.2 2.76 1376 296 365 248 115 2,400 417 96 130 130 96 869
1.9 1.2 2.76 1376 296 365 248 115 2,400 417 96 130 130 96 869
1.9 1.2 2.76 1376 296 365 248 US 2,400 417 96 130 130 96 869
1.9 1.2 2.76 1376 296 365 248 115 ^400 417 96 130 130 96 869
1.9 1.2 2.76 1376 296 365 248 115 2,400 417 96 130 130 96 869
1.9 1.2 2.76 1376 296 365 248 115 2,400 417 96 130 130 96 869
1.9 1.2 2.76 1376 296 365 248 115 2,400 417 96 130 130 96 869
1.9 1.2 2.76 1376 296 365 248 115 2,400 417 96 130 130 96 869
1.9 1.2 2.76 6882 1482 1825 1238 573 12,000 2085 478 652 652 478 4345
1.9 1.2 2.76 6882 1482 1825 1238 573 12,000 2085 478 652 652 478 4345
1.8 1.2 2.62 6606 1376 1982 1321 716 12,000 2064 459 734 734 596 4587
1.8 1.2 2.62 6606 1376 1982 1321 716 12,000 2064 459 734 734 596 4587
49,886 10,779 13,388 9,099 4,448 87,600 15,036 3,454 4,766 4,766 3,593
31,615
Commercial and Other Non-Residential Services
This section outlines plans for non-residential uses in Seaton. It reviews proposals for
neighbourhood and community commercial services, automobile-related uses, and industrial
uses.
As explained elsewhere in this plan, residential and non-residential uses will often be mingled
in Seaton. Up to half the space in most homes can be used for non-residential uses, including
some industry. The distinct land use precincts found in many communities will not be found in
Seaton, although neighbourhoods in Seaton will differ considerably. This chapter describes the
distribution of commercial and other non-residential uses.
Two levels of commercial services will generally be available in Seaton — those serving the
community; and those serving the neighbourhood. Regional services — for example a tourist
industry as might be found at Elora, or high-end services available in only a few locations like
Hazelton Lanes in downtown Toronto — are not expected or planned for.
Community commercial services
Community commercial services will be an integral part of neighbourhoods. They will be
located not on primarily residential streets, but along main streets. Since a grid road system is
used, all homes will be within walking distance of them. These services will include corner
stores with a general array of goods; dry cleaners and laundries; laundromats; hair cutting
services; pharmacies; small restaurants and foods shops (like pizza parlours); repair stores;
hardware shops; banks; and similar services.
Community commercial services should be subject to two controls. To give some protection to
those who fear they might wake up to find they are next to a bustling retail business,
neighbourhood commercial activities which primarily sell goods (rather than service) should not
be permitted on north-south streets in primarily residential areas (except on corners.) This
restriction will still allow limited service businesses (hair-cutting, for instance) in residential
areas, subject of course to the general restriction of such activities to no more than half the
floor space.
Second, these uses should not be allowed to occupy more than a specified number of
square meters without a site specific rezoning. It is proposed this figure be 100 square
meters, to ensure that such services are indeed designed to meet neighbourhood rather
than community needs. Since some neighbourhood uses become so successful that they
attract a larger clientele, the rezoning process will permit expansion, subject to community
review and political approval. At that time it can be decided whether the service should
relocate to somewhere more appropriate for its expanding size.
Community commercial services which fit within these two controls need provide no parking
spaces — it is assumed that most customers will not drive, or those who do will find a
parking spot on the street.
Seaton commercial services
Seaton commercial services include retail, office, service and administrative uses. These
will generally be located on the main north-south street running through the centre of Seaton,
and along the main east-west street which crosses it. There will be no size restrictions on
the amount of space occupied, nor on uses involved.
Parking will be provided by the municipality, rather than by individual owners: this will remove
from the retailer and user concerns about raising funds to supply parking or make payments-
in-lieu, and allow him/her to concentrate on providing the service. It will also ensure that
general planning for automobile and pedestrian arrangements does not fall on individual
land-owners, but is lodged with the municipality which presumably will have a larger
overview of collective requirements.
The commercial centre of the community will be well-served by
transit, and one can assume that many who shop here will not be driving. Many businesses will
find it advantageous to offer home delivery service of items which can't easily be carried.
What about emerging retail trends — category killers and superstores — and their impact on
Seaton? Seaton should welcome these retailers, but only in main commercial areas. They
should not be permitted to establish in industrial areas — land may be cheap there, but these
uses create massive (and expansive) transportation demands — but should be expected to
compete with other shops on the main street, both for a rent they can afford, and for customers.
An inexpensive and speedy delivery system will respond to the large quantities shoppers are
expected to buy.
Automobile-related uses
It is reasonable to expect an array of facilities serving automobiles — gas stations, repair
shops, car washes, taxi headquarters, limousine stands, and so forth. Those requiring an
extensive open land area should locate in areas that are generally considered as industrial.
Those requiring only a small amount of open land — say no more than 300 square meters —
should be permitted wherever neighbourhood or community commercial services are
permitted. The distinction here is between open land and space in a building. If largely
contained within a building, these automobile uses cause no particular concern. Inside a
building they do not create noise, or avoid for pedestrian life, nor are they unsightly, and they
can be an excellent use for space which might otherwise not find a tenant.
Industrial uses
As noted at greater length in the chapter on employment, it should be expected that many
small industrial uses will begin in the home or in a garage. The Seaton plan assumes that
these industries will grow and provide a stable and thriving industrial base. Zoning in
residential areas will generally be based on performance standards in order to
accommodate small industrial uses which are compatible with residential uses.
While industries may begin at home, once they are successful they will move out into their
own space. Very small industries will move to an out-building on the residential lot, but more
substantial businesses will want much more space. Two kinds of space would seem
appropriate.
Light industry (including printing, film processing, assembly of products made in some other
location, etc.) can often take place in what is now known as 'office space.' It is expected that
the
mixed use buildings on main streets in Seaton will be designed to accommodate light
industrial uses. The key to a reasonable location for these uses is performance standards so
that others using the building are not bothered by noise, fumes, vibrations or shipping.
Many other industrial uses will have to be in buildings that are primarily available for industry.
Certain areas have been set aside within Seaton for this purpose. Given the changing nature
of industry there is often no reason for all firms to be located at grade; since many do not
require heavy machines, with good elevators they can be on the second or third floor. Industrial
buildings can be made multi-storey at a reasonable cost, and it should be assumed that in time,
many will be. Construction of single storey buildings should take place with a view to making
them multi-storey buildings in the future.
Fitting with the compact nature of Seaton, zoning should not require a great deal of open
space as is often the case now in industrial areas. Setbacks from the street in industrial
precincts should be minimized or be nonexistent. The key will be trying to ensure a
reasonable relationship between public streets, shipping and loading areas, automobile
traffic, and pedestrian usage. A sensitive design should be able include efficient and
pleasant land use planning for industrial areas.
It can also be expected that there will be some need for open storage areas in Seaton. This
should be located in the industrially designated areas. Retail uses should not be permitted
in industrial areas, except for small convenience stores, and of course reasonable restaurant
facilities. The prohibition against retail uses should extend to warehouse' retail facilities,
category killer stores, super stores and other large retail facilities which have attempted in
the past to pretend that they are industrial rather than retail uses.
Retail Space Demand and Service
In order to achieve its employment goals, to provide a high level of retail service from the
initial development stage, and to provide for a full range of retail facilities, efforts will be
made to maximize the amount of retail space and retail service space in Seaton. This
involves minimizing the expenditure outflow of retail dollars spent by Seaton s 90,000
residents and maximizing the expenditure inflow of retail dollars from residents of surrounding
communities.
Retail land uses are the most location-sensitive employment uses. While minor errors in the
location and access attributes for planned industrial or office-dominant land uses are not
usually problematic because of their "footloose" nature, the potential impact of such
mistakes on planned retail uses can be fatal. Given the evolving store-type environments,
and the growing
predominance of "big box" type formats, compact retail development as part of a revised
planning approach will prove to be one of the major challenges of this design exercise.
Retail uses are an important part of the urban fabric of Seaton. The planned 90,000 population
will create demand for 2.3 million square feet of retail and service space. In Phase I, the
approximate 15,000 population will support an estimated 350,000 square feet of retail and
retail service space. To retain as much supportable space as possible, various formats of
retail space have been planned. The estimates outlined in Table 5.3 below are aggressive
targets for retail development in Seaton.
The potential ultimate phase will include:
• Main Street related regional retail in the central business area estimated at 500,000 square
feet;
• arterial street-related district retail at 295,000 square feet;
• a number of major food-anchored retail nodes accounting for 380,000 square feet;
• retail conglomerate or "big box" type development at 340,000 square feet;
• streetfront convenience retail at 174,000 square feet; and
• retail service space for restaurants, fast food, personal services, etc. at various locations
estimated at 675,000 square feet.
The plan identifies general locations to loosely match the specific access, parking and land
geometry requirements for each type of retail environment. Where urban core area density
requirements create an challenging development scenario for large retailers, within the
context of a competitive market, it has been assumed that the combination of innovative
urban design and the conscious marketing of retail land at attractive prices will provide the
necessary enticements to achieve the desired built form. This has been reflected in the
financial analysis in Appendix 1, where more detailed information can be found.
If department store anchors cannot be drawn to core lands and an alternative Highway 407
interchange site is not available due to environmental constraints, it is likely that Seaton
residents will fulfill their regional shopping needs outside the community. Their expenditure
support for regional retail uses will flow to
Table 5.3
Employment-Based Land Demand: Retail Allocation
Project Phase 1 (sq. ft.) Balance Total
Retail 234,388 1,426,612 1,661,000
Retail Service 113,238 562,057 675,295
Total 347,626 1,988,669 2,336,295
facilities in other areas most likely the Pickering Town Centre regional mall, and the
Scarborough Town Centre super-regional mall.
With regard to retail conglomerate/"big box" supportable space, some outflow of consumer
expenditures from Seaton will occur. The main reasons for this are (1) Seaton's relatively
smaller population of 90,000, and (ii) its outboard geographic position in relation to urbanized
areas. These two factors will mean that locations in Seaton over the expected planning horizon
to 2031 will not provide the necessary thresholds for the development of certain types of large
big box retailers which are established or firmly proposed in areas to the south in Durham
Region. Seaton nevertheless can count on accommodating a number of smaller retail
conglomerate uses.
Evolution
Evolution, the ability to grow and change over time, is the single most significant characteristic
missing from the GTA's post-war suburbs. The plan for Seaton proposes simultaneous
development of a combination of rural/agricultural, environmental, and urban land-uses.
Planning for evolution is considered one of the most critical and challenging objectives. One of
the key lessons of the pre-1945 neighbourhoods lies in their ability to grow and change, to
adapt to new social and economic conditions, and to intensify to accommodate more people
over time. While the postwar suburbs have been consciously restricted from evolving as
effectively, they did attempt to establish new relationships with the natural environment, which
had been suppressed by the older pattern. The Seaton plan seeks to recombine the best
attributes of the 19th and early 20th century urban process with those of the post-war period.
Background
Until 1945, urbanization within the GTA was characterized by a repeated process of
'unplanned' subdivision and residential expansion. Initially, portions of outlying farms — in the
City of Toronto's case, the Park Lots lying between Queen and Bloor Streets — were
subdivided by individual landowners as rural residential estates and later as isolated
residential suburbs (e.g. Yorkville or Seaton Village), the form of which was largely determined
by the existing colonial grid pattern of concession roads and sideroads. Subsequently, these
isolated settlements, and pre-existing rural hamlets (e.g. Deer Park, Eglinton, Newtonbrook)
were annexed by the City, linked to municipal servicing and transportation systems, and
absorbed into the expanding urban community. Typically, this process resulted in gradual
densification and ongoing infill-growth within the expanding urban fabric.
In the 1940s and 1950s, however, planners sought to break away from this pattern, arguing
that it was haphazard and piecemeal and that, as a result, the integrity of the traditional
urban neighbourhood had been undermined by 'go-as-you-grow' capitalism. In its stead,
they offered a first generation of solutions including Thorncrest Village and Don Mills — 'fully-
planned' and 'self-contained' new communities that sought to reestablish the ideal
neighbourhood by distancing themselves from the existing city and establishing their own
employment base. These new communities also introduced a radical reorganization of
roads, pedestrian paths and housing areas which were ostensibly realigned with the natural
topography, focused on centrally-located schools and shopping centres, and surrounded by
industrial parks. Finally, once completed, they were further protected from all forms of ad-
hoc growth by the introduction of rigid zoning and building by-
laws and restrictive covenants designed to ensure that they would not change. So appealing
were these new ideals that Don Mills was soon adopted as the generic model for the rapid
expansion of North York and Scarborough that took place in the 1960s and s.
However, even as this first generation of expansion was drawing to a close, a number of the
fundamental principles on which they were based began to be called into question. By 1970, it
appeared difficult, if not impossible to completely isolate the development of these new
communities from the overall growth of the metropolitan city. By then, Don Mills was already
completely surrounded by expanding urbanization. Moreover, the sought-after live-work
relationship which was intended to reinforce their self-containment, had not materialized.
Finally, the isolation of each new suburban community from its neighbours had necessitated the
concurrent construction of an extensive network of expressways and arterial roads that
encouraged increased automobile usage at the expense of the tranquillity and pedestrian-
accessible open space on which these communities had originally been based.
Notwithstanding, provincial and municipal planning authorities of the s gave unanimous
support to a second generation of new communities — Erin Mills, Meadowvale, Bramalea,
Malvern, and, ultimately, North Pickering — that were once again described as being self-
contained, live-work communities, well separated from the piecemeal growth of Metropolitan
Toronto.
The pattern of urbanization resulting from the last two generations of urban planning is quite
simply, not sustainable. Even if it did work successfully — which it does not — over 60% of
the GTA's population cannot afford it. At the same time, the nineteenth century pattern which
preceeded it does not offer a complete antidote.
The plan for Seaton outlined herein offers another alternative — an urban community which
is successfully integrated with not only the landscape on which it sits, but also the rural and
agricultural community which surrounds it, and one which, at the same time, is capable of
evolving, as the demand arises, without freezing extensive areas of land in an unproductive
holding pattern. Further, the plan proposes an urban pattern which, like that of the nineteenth
century, can adapt to changing social and economic conditions, and gradually intensify over
time, within a stable and consistent public realm.
Approach to Evolution
While the plan illustrates how 90,000 persons can be accommodated on up to 1,900 acres of
tableland over a 35 year period, it is clear that achievement of this density within the aspired-to
time period is subject to popular and political will, and the impact of changing social and
economic conditions on the housing and employment markets. With this in mind, the plan
provides a framework (the Public Realm) which, while it permits and facilitates the ultimate
achievement of the population goal, also encourages a logical pattern of rural and urban
phasing with the assurance that each phase of Seaton's overall development can stand on its
own.
This is achieved by ensuring that all land remains in its highest-and-best use at all times. For
example, the new urban pattern of land division (the Private Realm) allows for, and encourages,
more intensive forms of agriculture to be practised on those lands which lie within the potential
future urban area but are not subject to urbanization in the short-term. This is facilitated by the
fact that the existing rural road structure is retained in place throughout the development. New
rural development can, therefore, be permitted on these roads in the immediate and short-
terms with the knowledge that this development can be successfully incorporated within the
expending urban fabric in the long-term. At the same time, continuity is maintained between
the emerging new urban communities and their rural surroundings.
This approach means that if, at any time, and for whatever reason, urban development is
halted or relaxed, at say 15,000 or 55,000 persons, Seaton will exist as a viable and
integrated whole. Moreover, the plan establishes clear limits — formed by the major valleys
and the Circuit Drive — for ultimate urban development and encourages rural consolidation
of permanent agricultural lands lying outside these limits — in the form of small holdings —
in the earliest stage of the overall development process.
The phasing of both rural consolidation and urban expansion is defined by the pattern of
existing natural watersheds. This ensures that the impact of the rural and urban development
on local ecosystems can be effectively managed in an incremental fashion. This approach is
facilitated by the fact that new rural and urban communities are in fact defined by these
watersheds.
The plan entrenches a complementary approach to urbanization at the community level. While
the form of the community public realm and local pattern of land division allow for the
achievement of ultimately compact densities, it is acknowledged that these may not be
achieved in the first instance, but rather may occur as a result of gradual intensification, not
unlike that which characterized the pre-1950 urbanization of Oshawa, Pickering and Toronto.
This would happen through an ongoing process of land severance (part-lotting) and the
redevelopment of housing and related work places as demands changed and tax bases
increased. Similarly, streets, avenues and main streets are designed to facilitate a
progressive approach to land servicing. They can also evolve in response to changing
demands and the availability of public funding.
Seaton can be seen in its entirety as an economic incubator — one which creates the kind of
setting that are likely to be required throughout the GTA if it is to escape its current economic
dependencies, and the sprawl that has accompanied them. The plan's emphasis on the
establishment of both linear and nodal patterns of mixed land-use further reinforce its
accommodation of an evolutionary process. It encourages a full array of housing and
employment opportunities in ways that not only allow for a full range of retail, commercial
and industrial activities but also facilitate the gradual, formal or informal, economic evolution
of these uses from the farm or home, to a local community employment area, to a Main
Street, to an employment campus (and vice versa).
In summary, the approach to the evolution in the plan is based on the following principles:
-First, Seaton is defined by a clear and continuous pattern of public space — the Public
Realm — which provides a consistent framework for the development and ongoing growth
of the adjacent urban and rural/agricultural communities. While the nature and form of the
Public Realm will itself evolve over time, it should be clearly defined, and set in place, from
the outset.
-Second, the Seaton Public Realm is formed by a combination of the key environmental
elements such as watercourses, woodlots, and hedgerows, and man-made elements such
as roads, parks, and waterworks. It also incorporates the heritage grid-pattern of public road
reserves that was originally laid out in 1891.
-Third, the Seaton Private Realm — defined predominantly by the pattern of private land
division — is designed to facilitate ongoing growth, change, and intensification. This may
happen slowly or rapidly, depending on changing economic and social conditions. Provincial,
regional and local municipal planning and development agencies will assume primary
responsibility for the design and maintenance of the Public Realm. Local residents, private
developers, and landowners should be given greater control over the design and development
of individual neighbourhoods, blocks, and building lots.
-Fourth, the plan encourages a combination of nodal and linear patterns of social, cultural and
commercial facilities so as to not only reinforce the use of public transit and make these
facilities accessible to pedestrians, but also encourage progressive economic development.
-Fifth, the phasing of both rural and urban development is defined by the existing form of its
watersheds and their associated watercourses and divides
-Sixth, permanent agricultural small holdings and interim park lots will be encouraged within the
planning area during Phase One
-Seventh, Phase One of urbanization is to be located in the west-central portion of the
planning area
-Eighth, zoning and building bylaws developed for Seaton will encourage and enable, rather
than restrict, an evolutionary urban process.
Panel F presents illustrations of the anticipated patterns of evolution for Seaton over roughly
a thirty year period (2007 to 2037) within York/Durham Region and the Seaton planning
area, as well as in a typical urban community.
Regional Evolution
Regional evolution is based on the following assumptions:
• Regarding the regional bio-system, a continuous green system will begin to be reinforced
by the consolidation of a continuous network of regional open space linking the evolving
Waterfront Trail (and the environmental upgrading of lakeshore wetlands such as Second
Marsh and Frenchman's Bay) with the Oak Ridges Moraine, along major valleys associated
with the Rouge River, Duffin Creeks, Bowmanville Creek, etc. The Plan assumes that this
network will be in place within the next 20 years.
Regarding transportation and transit, it is assumed that:
• Highway 407 will be completed to Highway 48 by 1998, extended to the Markham By-pass
by 2010, to Brock Boulevard by 2020, and on to Highway 35/115 by 2025
• Highway 7 — will be widened to four lanes by 2005 from the Ninth Line (Markham) to Brock
Boulevard
• Markham Bypass — will be in place to Highway 7 by 2005 and completed by 2015
• Brock Boulevard — will be opened as a two-lane road to Highway 7 by 2005, and fully
developed by 2020
• Transit — GO-Transit will be extended on either the Havelock (to Locust Hill) and/or Belleville
lines (to Oshawa) by 2015. Bus Service on Brock Boulevard from Phase 1 to Pickering GO-
Station by 2005, extended to Locust Hill/Cornell by 2010
• Seaton Regional Airport — first phase — will be in place by 2015
The Regional Plan also illustrates the fact that it will be possible to maintain a continuous
'second-tier' belt of agricultural land, west of the Rouge River, south of the Oak Ridges Moraine.
To consolidate this belt the federal airport lands not required for the proposed new Seaton
Airport should be returned to long-term agricultural use in order to reinforce the continuity of
this belt and link it with the Duffin Rouge agricultural reserve. Given the location of this
agricultural reserve south of the future Highway 407, and its proximity to the evolving urban area,
it seems likely that considerable emphasis will be placed on more intensive forms of
agriculture such as are suggested in the 'Small Holdings' zone described earlier in Section
2.5.
The anticipated regional urban pattern of evolution, derived largely from the York and
Durham Regional Plans, suggests that urbanization will expand northwards, west of
Highway 404, up to the Oak Ridges Moraine. In the East, the lakeshore urbanized corridor
south of future Highway 407, out to Highway 115/35 will continue to consolidate and expand
northwards to future Highway 407. Lying close to the centre of this emerging pattern of
regional urban infrastructure, as well as between it and the rural/ agricultural belt, Seaton will
occupy a strategic position within the evolving rural/urban structure.
Section's Evolution
Regarding Seaton's eco-system, it is simply not sufficient to 'preserve' natural areas. They will
need to be protected and, above all, enhanced in order to remain healthy and vibrant throughout
the development period. Work would proceed, at the outset of the Project, on the regulation,
surveying and 'greening' of Seaton's ecosystem. This system provides for the establishment of
a continuous network of natural open space defined principally by the existing north-south
watercourses and their associated valleys, supplemented by three major east-west 'greenbelts'
which link Seaton's eco-system with the regional bio-system. The Seaton plan assumes that
designation and enhancement of the watersheds, fisheries, forests, and wildlife areas will
commence well in advance of initial construction and that the eco-system as a whole will
continue to improve, and be improved, throughout the development process. Some initial
activities would include:
- Storm Water Run-off: creation and monitoring of computer-based storm run-off modelling on
a watershed-by-watershed basis; identification, design and implementation of stormwater
catchment ponds in urbanizing areas; surveying of watercourse set-backs; in agricultural
areas — encourage contour plowing and maintain grassed waterways; agricultural and
urban improvements to be phased on a watershed-by-watershed basis (once the watershed
has been enhanced);
- Fisheries: improvements to cold-water fish spawning areas, principally within the East
Duffin watershed, and identification of potentials for warm-water fish (i.e. bass and/or perch)
hatcheries, principally within the West Duffin watershed;
• Urban Forestry: detailed tree-by-tree surveying, numbering and mapping to identify
existing trees having good survival potential; selective pre-cutting within key woodlots to
allow remaining trees to 'harden under increased sunlight; replanting (particularly of
hardwoods) based on area/use and cover-type/age classes; fence off valuable tree stands
in areas of construction;
• Circuit Drive — will be surveyed and opened, initially as a trail.
Regarding transportation and transit:
• Existing concession and side roads will be retained and where necessary reopened,
including appropriate storm drainage improvements (e.g. grassing of ditches); Concession
5 heritage precinct will be identified and surveyed;
• Brock Boulevard — will be opened as a two-lane road to Highway 7 by 2002, and fully
developed by 2010; east-west Main Streets and north-south Avenues to be developed on a
watershed-by-watershed basis;
• Bus (and related Dial-A-Bus) Service will be put in place on Brock Boulevard by 2002;
expanded to full-service by 2007, and supplemented by secondary transit by 2010.
From a land-use point of view, detailed planning and development of the permanent agricultural
small holdings would commence at the outset of the project on both the east and west sides of
the planning area (see Panel F), along with the preparation of a Small Holdings Management
Programme. The existing Farm Lease Programme within the Seaton planning area (i.e.
east of the West Duffin Creek) will be revised to encourage interim small holdings, or what
might better be described as agricultural 'park lots,' on potential urban lands. As the layouts
of the park lots anticipate the future urban pattern of land division, all improvements
(including new rural small holdings residences) made at the outset of the Plan will be
absorbed into the eventual urban pattern, as or when it expands.
In 2001, urbanization will commence in Major Community (in and around the intersection of
the Brock Boulevard with the first Main Street south of Whitevale Road: see Panel E for
image of fully-developed Central Area) in 2001 and the first phase of development
(population 15,000) would be completed by 2005. Subsequent growth would proceed on a
watershed-by-watershed basis with initial growth being limited to Major, expanding
southwards to Ganatsekiagon, then eastwards to Urfe, and eventually to Thompsons'
Corners and West Duffin, depending on demand.
Urban development of Brock would also be encouraged during the short-term, in order to
consolidate growth within Pickering and lend further support to the transit system
Community Evolution
Panel F presents conceptual illustrations of the evolution of a typical community. These
illustrate its evolution from rural/agricultural (i.e. small holdings) to urban. In addition to those
initiatives already described above, protection and enhancement of the local community
environment will include:
• establishment of storm water retention ponds
• protection and enhancement of existing woodlots and hedgerows
• consolidation and protection of wildlife corridors
• local fisheries improvements
• consolidation and enhancement of neighbourhood parks
• designation of heritage areas, structures and archaeological sites.
Table 6.1
Seaton Planning & Design Exercise — Phase Three
Land-Use Schedule (Population 15,000)
Within Potential Urban Area
Hectares Acres Outside Potential Urban Area
Hectares Acres Total Planning Area Hectares Acres
Environmental Natur al/Valleylandsl 15 284 690 1,704 805 1,988
Parks 74 183 116 287 190 469
Golf Courses 96 237 96 237
Total 189 467 902 2,228 1,091 2,694
Rural/Agricultural
Hamlets 42 104 42 104
Small Holdings 1,166 2,880 1,166 2,880
Urban Agricultural 932 2,302 932 2,302
Total 932 2,302 1,208 2,984 2,140 5,286
Urban
Parks 11 28 11 28
Education 16 40 16 40
Social Facilities/Services 4 11 4 11
Residential 66 164 66 164
Mixed Res/Employ 10 25 10 25
Employment 20 49 20 49
Transportation 48 118 48 118
Total 176 435 176 435
Employment 28 69 28 69
Services
Transportation 90 222 90 222
Utilities 70 173 70 173
Landfill 72 178 72 178
Total 160 395 160 395
Total 1,297 3,204 2,298 5,676 3,595 8,880
Transportation/Transit
• Existing side roads to be retained and, where necessary, include appropriate storm drainage
improvements (e.g. grassing of ditches); Concession 5 heritage precinct to be identified and
surveyed; unopened road allowances to be opened to facilitate small holdings development
• consolidation and improvement of pedestrian paths and sidewalks
• introduction of local buses feeding to Brock Boulevard.
Agricultural Park Lots will be encouraged in those communities slated for eventual
urbanization. As shown on Panel F these would be based on the establishment of new rural
residences and associated workshops along existing side roads (all of which would later be
absorbed within the urban pattern) . The Park Lots will be defined by the eventual urban pattern
of land division. Urbanization within a typical community will begin along the major Avenues and
Main Streets and spread to adjacent residential blocks and out to the peripheries. Community
services will be developed as required on a progressive basis.
Table 6.2
Seaton Planning & Design Exercise — Phase Three
Land-Use Schedule (Population 55,000)
Within Potential Urban Area
Hectares Acres Outside Potential Urban Area
Hectares Acres Total Planning Area Hectares Acres
Environmental
Natural/Valleylands115 115 284 690 1,704 805 1,988
Porks 74 183 116 287 190 469
Golf Courses 96 237 96 237
Total 189 467 902 2,228 1,091 2,694
Rural/Agricultural
Hamlets 42 104 42 104
Small Holdings 1,138 2,811 1,138 2,811
Urban Agricultural 444 1,096 444 1,096
Total 444 1,096 1,180 2,915 1,624 4,011
Urban
Parks 43 106 43 106
Education 33 82 33 82
Social Facilities/Services 17 41 17 41
Residential 281 694 281 694
Mixed Res/Employ 35 87 35 87
Employment 72 179 72 179
Transportation 183 452 183 452
Total 664 1,641 664 1,641
Employment 56 138 56 138
Services
Transportation 90 222 90 222
Utilities 70 173 70 173
landfill 72 178 72 178
Total 160 395 160 395
Total 1,297 3,204 2,298 5,676 3,595 8,880
Table 6.3
Seafon Planning & Design Exercise — Phase Three
Land-Use Schedule (Population 90,000)
Within Potential Urban Area
Hectares Acres Outside Potential Hectares Urban Area Acres Total Planning Area Hectares Acres
Environmental Natural/Valleylands 115 284 690 1,704 805 1,988
Parks 74 183 116 287 190 469
Golf Courses 96 237 96 237
Total 189 467 902 2,228 1,091 2,694
Rural/Agricultural Hamlets 42 104 42 104
Small Holdings 1,083 2,675 1,083 2,675
Urban Agricultural 10 24 10 24
Total 10 24 1,125 2,779 1,135 2,803
Urban
Parks 81 200 81 200
Education 40 98 40 98
Social Facilities/Services 28 69 28 69
Residential 470 1,161 470 1,161
Mixed Res/Employ 59 145 59 145
Employment 119 295 119 295
Transportation 302 746 302 746
Total 1,098 2,713 1,098 2,713
Employment 111 274 HI 274
Services
Transportation 90 222 90 222
Utilities 70 173 70 173
Landfill 72 178 72 178
Total 160 395 160 395
Total 1,297 3,204 2,298 5,676 3,595 8,880
Implementing Seaton's Plan
Introduction
Most development plans are devised and implemented by the private sector, under the
guidance (and surveillance) of the municipal government. Developers have limited scope in
which they can manoeuvre: municipalities control all kinds of details, from the unit mix to the
stormwater covers; and financial backers ensure that innovation is kept to a minimum.
Municipalities, of course, claim they impose rules only out of political necessity, or to protect
the interests of the municipality. Bankers worry about sales and financial impacts.
The result of these controls is development that is relatively uniform within a particular locality,
and indeed within regions and the province. Those providing initiatives or approvals have
learned that new ways of doing things doesn't usually get results — better to stick to the tried
and true even if it is known to not be satisfactory in the long run.
Seaton proposes to challenge these approaches. It will ask that many aspects of the
development process be done in different ways. Accordingly, it must be recognized that a
traditional development process may frustrate Seaton's most important innovations. An
alternative model must be found that rewards innovation while ensuring financial
responsibility, goals that often do not sit well together.
Resolving the conflicts
Two conflicting objectives must be met in the development process:
• public policy objectives must be protected; and
• the project must have appropriate independence to actually be built.
It would not be wise for a governmental body to be the developer for Seaton. Large public
organizations like governments are loath to make tough development choices in a timely
way (it's the tough choices that give developers a bad name): instead governments have
honed the talent for decisions made incrementally over long periods of time through many
layers of approval and complicated processes. Some say governments are no longer
capable of making timely or effective decisions, let alone ones that are innovative. Thus
government, through a ministry or department, should not be the developer.
But at the same time, governments have a very real interest in what occurs here. They want
Seaton to be an innovation which can help shape the direction of future development in the way
that Don Mills set ground rules for the suburban style which has since become ubiquitous. Like
expectations of Seaton, Don Mills managed both to change ideas of land use, and change
ideas of how development happened.
If governments cannot be expected to act as successful developers, how can they ensure their
desired objectives will come to pass?
Clearly, governments can't afford to simply turn the development over to private developers,
either by selling the land or by hiring the developer as an independent agent. Something
must be put in place to ensure both independence from government and reliance on and
adherence to public policy.
There are several tools available which may help to bridge these objectives. One is the
present planning framework available in Ontario. This framework can, through Official Plans
and secondary plans, set out land use objectives and ensure that if these objectives are not
met, then objections may be lodged and a project which does not conform can be frustrated.
A second tool is an agreement between governments and the development agency requiring
certain objectives to be met throughout the development process. This agreement could
cover the non-land use matters in which the province is interested — such as job creation,
economic development, development standards.
Third, control can be exercised over land ownership. Historically, the crown gave patents
subject to various conditions, and titles were granted only if those conditions were met. This
arrangement ensured then public objectives — clearing the land and having it populated —
were met. It could again be a powerful tool to ensure public objectives are met — although
the complicating factor in the late 1990s is finding a way to provide appropriate financial
guarantees to bankers who are accustomed to encumbering title in return for advancing
money.
In exercising these tools, the challenges will be clarity and certainty of process in cases of
dispute. No one will be helped if uncertainty surrounds how and when these powers will be
exercised.
Accordingly, the terms of these three tools should be drafted by an independent body for
submission to the provincial government.
A judicious use of these three tools should ensure that both objectives are met — that the
public bodies have a reasonable opportunities to see their objectives met; and that the
project actually gets developed.
A few thoughts on money
Purchasing the site — The Province must decide how it wants to treat the Seaton site, which it
now owns. It can be seen as a capital resource to be sold for the highest price, it can be treated
as a social resource to be used for innovation, or it can be seen as trying to partially meet both
of those objectives.
The Government would have a hard time trying both to capture the highest possible price for
the site while also imposing stringent conditions about the kind of development: the highest
price will only be offered if no conditions are attached. Further, it will always be difficult to cost
the conditions in order to discount the price. If the province has development conditions, it will
not be possible to obtain the best price.
The most reasonable course of action is for the Province to continue its current approach: the
greatest value of the site lies in its ability to influence the future of urban land use in Southern
Ontario by hosting a model of the desired alternative. The exchange value should be
determined not by the best offer, but by the amount the province feels it must receive. This
amount should be set as early in the process as possible. From the point of view of
development options, the lower the price is, the more options will be possible.
Further, arrangements must be made about when the set value will be paid to the Province.
From a development standpoint, it would be best if the procedure used by E.P. Taylor in
Don Mills were followed: payment should occur on a set date following sale to a third party.
Thus if the 7000 acres were to be sold to the development company for $10,000 an acre,
payment should be made on the basis of $10,000 an acre within six months or a year of
sale by the development company to a builder. This will help ensure that the development
company will minimize front-end costs.
Containing provincial liabilities
— The provincial government should not be put in a position where it is a funder of last
resort. Within the bounds of whatever subsidies are agreed to at the beginning of the
exercise, the development should be assumed to be self-financing, and able to meet its own
cash-flow needs. Accordingly, once a project concept has been agreed to, some
independent body should prepare tentative budgets and phasing plans to ensure provincial officials that they will not be called on to inject more funds.
Development profit and risk —
At the same time, one of the really powerful incentives for successful development is
financial return. Should the body responsible for development be permitted to take a large
slice of this return, providing it is also willing to assume some of the risk? Attractive as this
might be to private companies wishing to have carriage of the project, this kind of a financial
relationship will mean that die board will have great difficulty maintaining and attracting those
with a public interest in the success of Seaton — and such individuals will play a crucial role
in making this experiment work.
A better arrangement is to contract with senior employees that they receive bonuses if the
results exceed certain financial or other targets; and to ensure that board members are
reasonably compensated for their time and effort, also by way of bonuses.
Mechanisms
A reasonable process which can be used to make these ideas effective is as follows:
1. The Province should consult widely about the membership of an independent board of
directors representing diverse interests.
2. The Province should appoint this board, consisting of no more than 15 members, and
provide funding for the board to exercise executive powers (including staff) for a two year
period.
3. The board should appoint a chief executive officer.
4. Within one year the board complete necessary studies and submit the following with
reasonable supporting material to the province for approval:
a) an official plan statement for the lands to be developed;
b) the elements of an agreement between the Province and the board concerning economic
development and other matters;
c) financial projections, including cash flow; and
d) arrangements about the transfer of the land.
5. The Province should consider these four documents and approve or modify them.
6. The province should confirm (or modify) the board of directors to proceed to implement
the project.
7. The development proceeds.
8. Five years after approval is given, the board should update the four reports originally
submitted, and submit them to the Province for approval to continue with the project.
Appendices
Appendix 1
Financial Viability and Marketability
Financial Viability
The financial viability of the Seaton Project is demonstrated in this section and the attached
detailed tables.
Table A
Seaton Total Revenue
[Phase 1 ($ Millions) Total Project ($ Millions)
Residential $217.5 $1,276.3
Non-Residential 51.1 270.30
Total $268.6 $1,546.5
Table B Seaton Phasing and Usage
Phase 1 Total Project
Residential (units) Accessory Apartments (units) 4680 520 28,022 3,593
Total (units) 5200 31,615
Non-Residential (acres) 188.39 862.50
Roads and Streets( Kilometers) 28.9 188.35
The indicated projected revenues from the development of Seaton are $1.5 billion on a
constant dollar basis over the development time frame. These figures are not adjusted for
either inflation or interest. The presentation includes information for the total project as well
as projected annual absorption and revenues for the initial phase of the project. Table A
below summarizes the Revenue while Table B summarizes the absorption. Detailed
information on the components and timing of subsequent phases is provided in the tables
beginning on page 206.
In completing these calculations, the unit values provided by the Seaton Advisory
Committee have been used, unless the product type was not one for which values were
assigned. In such cases, values were estimated based upon the relative values assigned for
similar product types by the Seaton Advisory Committee. Details of these other product
types are provided later in this section.
Values for many of the product types provided by the Seaton Advisory Committee in its
Design Brief (Appendix C) may not reflect applicable current market values for most of
these product types. In some cases this is because bench mark values may have moved
since they were established by the Committee, and in other cases, the values for retail,
commercial and industrial lands reflect the vigour and market attraction of the Seaton
community visioned in the plan.
Based on current market conditions, in the context of Seaton as a project in process, the
values for retail lands are projected as follows:
Less than 2 Acres $600,000/acre
Between 2-7 Acres $500,000/acre
Over 7 Acres $400,000/acre
Big Box Retail $400,000/acte
Similarly, industrial values now should be in the range of $175,000 per acre, again considering
the impact of the 407 Highway and the focus of Seaton on internal job creation.
The values of smaller residential units are also greater than the indicated values. These
changes are not as significant and should not impact the relative comparability of various
development proposals.
Although the non-residential components outlined above represent less than 20% of projected
revenues, they could skew relative viability, given the importance of retaining job creation within
Seaton. The analysis contained herein uses the suggested values (or values derived therefrom),
except for a re—mixing of values in the retail sector. If the values suggested above were used
the projected revenues would increase.
Compact, integrated development is to be encouraged. It may be necessary to lead
commercial users into accepting these forms by attractive land pricing. Therefore, in
translating some prices provided by the Seaton Advisory Committee to higher density uses,
the land price per acre has been maintained at the same level (this lowers cost per unit
development) or the price per unit of land has been increased by less than the proportionate
increase in density.
Hence, the following pricing adjustments are contained in this model.
Industrial
Industrial pricing has been maintained at $150,000 per acre. Increased densities of 75%
coverage are proposed for local industrial, and 55% for standard and prestige industrial. At
standard coverages of 30%, the price per GFA of industrial land would be approximately $ 1
1.50. The proposed densities produce per GFA prices of $3.83 for local industrial and
$5.22 for other forms. It is anticipated that these levels will encourage industry to adapt to
more compact forms. In the case of local industrial, it should encourage industry to seek
mixed use solutions closer to their customers and employees in the Seaton community.
Retail
The plan encourages the large retail concentrations to utilize more compact forms than
traditional for suburban space. The suggested values for destination retail suggested by the
Seaton Advisory Committee of $525,000 would produce per GFA costs of $48.00 based on
traditional coverage ratios in the range of 25%. To encourage more compact forms for
district retail and regional retail, we have maintained the price per acre while increasing
densities, as follows:
Type Coverage Per GFA Per Acre
Regional
Equivalent 1.15% $1048 $525'000
District 65% $18.54 $525,000
Centre
Offsetting this change, the values attributable to the Retail Conglomerate category have
been increased. This category includes either large stand-alone retail or clusters of such
retail. Our current estimate of market value for this product is approximately $30/GFA and
we have accordingly adjusted the value to $400,000/acre based on this estimate.
Other values conform to the suggested values although classifi¬cations are changed as
follows:
Classification SAC Equivalent Price
utilized
Steet Retail Other Retail $25/GFA
Retail Service Other retail $25/GFA
-Central (Street)
Retail Service Destination $525,000/acre
-Peripheral Retail
Office
More compact office development is proposed than the IX coverage utilized in the value
guidelines provided. However, to encourage these compact forms, the per GFA cost of
$1.15/sq.ft. is maintained, which results from the $50,000/acre price suggested. Hence, the
per acre costs of office space included in these projections are:
Type Coverage Per Acre
Urban Class A 7X $350,000
Office Campus 2X 100,000
Office Service 2X 100,000
The following values have been assigned to product types not covered in Schedule C. As
indicated, these values have been based on comparable product types.
Residential
Detached 20.5' $2,600/fronl foot
Detached 22' $2,500/front foot
Detached 28.5' $2,300/front foot
Detached 33' $2,100/front foot
Detached 44' $l,600/front foot
Semi—Detached 16.5' $2,800/front foot
Semi-Detached 20.5' $2,600/front foot
Semi-Detached 22.0' $2,500/front foot
Duplex $30,000/unit
Triplex $30,000/unit
Quadriplex $25,000/unit
In order to maintain affordability, accessory apartments are not priced, but the values are
assumed embedded in the underlying lot prices.
The price for accommodation (Hotel/Motel) is based on comparable retail space and high
density residential, which it would typically replace and is estimated at $500,00/Acre
(approximately $8-10,000 per room).
Values for institutional, school and 'other' uses are set based upon the average of the
competing residential, commercial or industrial uses they would replace as follows:
Institutional $250,000/A
Other $250,000/A
Schools $400,000/A
As schools will replace more residential than other uses, they have been set at a higher
value.
A special value of $100,000/Acre has been set for the Durham College, recognizing the
necessity of inducing a major upfront commitment to the core infrastructure of the Seaton
Community.
Seaton
Development Matrix Summary of Phasing by Use
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total Phase I Balance of Project Total Project
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
200
400
400
400
400
400
400
2,600
12,436
15,036
48
96
96
96
96
96
96
624
2,830
3,454
56
112
112
112
112
112
112
728
4,038
4,766
96
192
192
192
192
192
192
1,248
7,111
8,359
400
800
800
800
800
800
800
5,200
26,415
31,615
0.32
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.63
0.92
4.40
31.66
36.05
1.00
1.00
16.30
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.80
20.53
91.97
112.50
8.48 16.95 16.95 16.95 16.95 16.95 16.95 118.29 441.99 560.28
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 1.02 5.15 6.17
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.64 ¦; 28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 8.33 45.67 54.00
25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00
0.83 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 10.82 57.68 68.50
36.27 21.53 36.83 21.03 21.03 22.06 21.62 188.39 674.11 862.50
5.60 2.90 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.10 19.80 28.90
0.00 0.00 0.40 0.40 0.90 0.70 0.00 2.40 33.25 35.65
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.30 4.30 29.20 33.50
0.00 2.00 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.00 12.80 77.50 90.30
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.60
4.90
2.90
3.90
4.10
3.90
3.30
28.60
159.75
188.35
Residential Phasing (Units) Total Detached
Total Semi-Detached Total Attached Total Apartment
Total Residential
Non-Residential Phasing (Acres)
Total Office
Total Retail
Total Industrial
Accomodation
Institutional
Other
School
Durham
SOFAC
Total Non-Residential
Internal Servicing (Kilometers)
Arterial Roads Major Collectors Drives Streets Lanes
Total
Seaton
Development Matrix Residential Detail
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total Balance Total
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Phase 1 of Project Project
40 80 80 80 76 75 75 506 2,302 2,808
40 80 80 80 76 75 75 506 2,301 2,807
40 80 80 80 76 75 75 506 2,301 2,807
40 80 80 80 76 75 75 506 2,301 2,807
40 80 80 80 76 75 75 506 2,301 2,807
0 0 0 0 20 25 25 70 930 1,000
200 400 400 400 400 400 400 2,600 12,436 15,036
16 32 32 32 32 32 32 208 944 1,152
16 32 32 32 32 32 32 208 943 1,151
16 32 32 32 32 32 32 208 943 1,151
48 96 96 96 96 96 96 624 2,830 3,454
11 20 20 20 20 20 20 131 665 796
9 18 18 18 18 18 18 117 677 794
14 28 28 28 28 28 28 182 1,009 1,191
4 9 9 9 9 9 9 58 339 397
18 37 37 37 37 37 37 240 1,348 1,588
56 112 112 112 112 112 112 728 4,038 4,766
28 56 56 56 56 56 56 364 2,019 2,383
28 56 56 56 56 56 56 364 2,019 2,383
40 80 80 80 80 80 80 520 3,073 3,593
96 192 192 192 192 192 192 1,248 7,111 8,359
400 800 800 800 800 800 800 5,200 26,415 31,615
Units
Detached 20.5 Detached 22 Detached 25 Detached 28.5 Detached 33 Detached 44
Total Detached
Semi- Detached 15 Semi-Detached 20.5 Semi-Detached 22
Total Semi-Detached
Street Town 16.5 Street Town 20.5 Duplex Triplex Quadropex
Total Attached Low Rise Apartments Mid Rise Apartments Accessory Apartments Total
Apartment
Total Residential
Seaton
Development Matrix Non-Residential Detail
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total Balance Total Project
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Phase I of Project
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.29 2.74 3.03
0.08 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 1.02 9.58 10.60
0.24 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47 3.08 19.34 22.42
0.32 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.63 0.92 4.40 31.66 36.05
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 10.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.50 10.50
0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 25.00 35.00
0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 21.00 26.00
0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 3.00 4.00
0.50 0.50 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.84 9.16 11.00
0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.80 2.68 13.32 16.00
1.00 1.00 16.30 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.80 20.53 91.97 112.50
4.11 8.22 8.22 8.22 8.22 8.22 8.22 61.52 213.75 275.28
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.37 8.73 8.73 8.73 8.73 8.73 8.73 56.77 228.23 285.00
8.48 16.95 16.95 16.95 16.95 16.95 16.95 118.29 441.99 560.28
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 0.00 1.02 5.15 6.17
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.64 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 1.28 8.33 45.67 54.00
25.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 25.00 0.00 25.00
0.83 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 1.66 10.82 57.68 68.50
36.27 21.53 36.83 21.03 21.03 22.06 21.62 188.39 674.11 862.50
Office - Urban Class A Office - Office Campus Office - Local Service
Total Office
Regional Equivalent
District
Neighbourhood/Community
Retail Conglomerate (Big Box)
Street Retail
Retail Service - Central
Retail Service - Peripheral
Total Retail
Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial Local Industrial
Total Industrial
Accomodation
Institutional
Other
School
Durham
SOFAC
Total Non-Residential
Seaton
Development Matrix Revenues
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total Phase I Balance of Project Total Project
2,001 2,002 2,003 2,004 2,005 2,006 2,007
12,126,000 24,252,000 24,252,000 24,252,000 24,447,400 24,496,250 24,496,250 158,321,900
763,073,450
921,395,350
2,472,000
4,944,000
4,944,000
4,944,000
4,944,000
4,944,000
4,944,000 32,136,000
145,739,700
177,875,700
1,665,400
3,318,100
3,318,100
3,318,100
3,318,100
3,318,100
3,318,100 21,574,000
119,661,900
141,235,900
420,000
840,000
840,000
840,000
840.000
840,000
840,000
5,460,000
30,285,000
35,745,000
16,683,400 33,354,100 33,354,100 33,354,100 33,549,500 33,598,350 33^598,350 217,491,900 1,058,760,050 1,276,251,950
31,564 63,128 63,128 63,128 63,128 63,128 165,401 512,607 3,849,726 4,362,332
1,089,000 1,089,000 8,383,700 262,500 262,500 262,500 420,000 11,756,288 52,516,212 64,272,500
3,237,655 4,297,310 11,636,710 2,644,310 2,644,310 2,644,310 2,959,310 30,038,093 129,004,063 159,042,156
0 0 0 0 0 512,473 0 512,473 2,572,658 3,085,132
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
256,308 512,615 512,615 512,615 512,615 512,615 512,615 3,332,000 18,268,000 21,600,000
2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500,000 0 2,500,000
187,269 374,538 374,538 374,538 374,538 374,538 374,538 2,434,500 12,978,000 15,412,500
7,301,796 6,336,593 20,970,693 3,857,093 3,857,093 4,369,566 4,431,865 51,085,961 219,188,660 270,274,620
$23,985,196 $39,690,693 $54,324,793 $37,211,193 $37,406,593 $37,967,916 $38,030,215 $268,577,861 $1,277,948,710 $1,546,526,570
Residential
Total Detached Total Semi-Detached Total Attached Total Apartment
Total Residential Non-Residential
Total Office Total Retail
Total Industrial
Accomodation
Institutional
Other
School
Durham
SOFAC
Total Non-Residential
TOTAL REVENUE
Seaton
Development Matrix Detail Residential Revenues
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total Balance Total
2,001 2,002 2,003 2,004 2,005 2,006 2,007 Phase I of Project Project
2,132,000 4,264,000 4,264,000 4,264,000 4,050,800 3,997,500 3,997,500 26,969,800 122,696,600 149,666,400
2,200,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 4,400,000 4,180,000 4,125,000 4,125,000 27,830,000 126,555,000 154,385,000
2,400,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 4,800,000 4,560,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 30,360,000 138,060,000 168,420,000
2,622,000 5,244,000 5,244,000 5,244,000 4,981,800 4,916,250 4,916,250 33,168,300 150,830,550 183,998,850
2,772,000 5,544,000 5,544,000 5,544,000 5,266,800 5,197,500 5,197,500 35,065,800 159,459,300 194,525,100
0 0 0 0 1,408,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 4,928,000 65,472,000 70,400,000
12,126,000 24,252,000 24,252,000 24,252,000 24,447,400 24,496,250 24,496,250 158,321,900 763,073,450 921,395,350
739,200 1,478,400 1,478,400 1,478,400 1,478,400 1,478,400 1,478,400 9,609,600 43,612,800 53,222,400
852,800 1,705,600 1,705,600 1,705,600 1,705,600 1,705,600 1,705,600 11,086,400 50,261,900 61,348,300
880,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 1,760,000 11,440,000 51,865,000 63,305,000
__2,472,000 4,944,000 4,944,000 4,944,000 4,944,000 4,944,000 4,944,000 32,136,000 145,739,700 177,875,700
344,850 627,000 627,000 627,000 627,000 627,000 627,000 4,106,850 20,847,750 24,954,600
350,550 701,100 701,100 701,100 701,100 701,100 701,100 4,557,150 26,369,150 30,926,300
420,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 5,460,000 30,270,000 35,730,000
100,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 225,000 1,450,000 8,475,000 9,925,000
450,000 925,000 925,000 925,000 925,000 925,000 925,000 6,000,000 33,700,000 39,700,000
1,665,400 3,318,100 3,318,100 3,318,100 3,318,100 3,318,100 3,318,100 21,574,000 119,661,900 141,235,900
210,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 2,730,000 15,142,500 17,872,500
210,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 420,000 2,730,000 15,142,500 17,872,500
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
420,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 840,000 5,460,000 30,285,000 35,745,000
$16,663,400 $33,354,100 $33,354,100 $33,354,100 $33,549,500 $33,598,350 $33,598,350 $217,491,900 $1,058,760,050 $1,276,251,950
Detached 20.5 Detached 22 Detached 25 Detached 28.5 Detached 33 Detached 44
Total Detached
Semi- Detached 16.5 Semi-Detached 20.5 Semi-Detached 22
Total Semi-Detached
Street Town 16.5 Street Town 20.5 Duplex Triplex Quadropex
Total Attached Low Rise Apartments Mid Rise Apartments Accessory Apartments Total Apartment
Total Residential
Seaton
Development Matrix Detailed Non-Residential Revenues
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Total Balance Total
2,001 2,002 2,003 2,004 2,005 2,006 2,007 Phase I of Project Project
0 7,867 23,697 0 15,734 47,394 0 15,734 47,394 0 15,734 47,394 0 15,734 47,394 0 15,734 47,394 102,273 15,734 47,394 102,273 102,273 308,061 957,645 957,645 1,934,436 1,059,917 1,059,917 2,242,498
31,564 63,128 63,128 63,128 63,128 63,128 165,401 512,607 3,849,726 4,362,332
0 0 0 0 544,500 544,500 0 0 0 0 0 544,500 544,500 0 0 0 5,250,000 2,000,000 0 871,200 262,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 262,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 262,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 262,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 420,000 0 0 5,250,000 2,000,000 1,089,000 2,008,719 1,408,568 5,250,000 5,512,500 13,125,000 8,400,000 3,267,000 9,970,281 6,991,432 5,250,000 5,512,500 18,375,000 10,400,000 4,356,000 11,979,000 8,400,000
1,089,000 1,089,000 8,383,700 262,500 262,500 262,500 420,000 11,756,288 52,516,212 64,272,500
513,833 0 545,823 1,027,665 0 1,091,645 1,027,665 0 1,091,645 1,027,665 0 1,091,645 1,027,665 0 1,091,645 1,027,665 0 1,091,645 1,027,665 0 1,091,645 6,679,823 0 7,095,695 27,730,019 0 28,529,119 34,409,842 0 35,624,814
3,237,655 4,297,310 11,636,710 2,644,310 2,644,310 2,644,310 2,959,310 30,038,093 129,004,063 159,042,156
0 0 0 0 0 512,473 0 512,473 2,572,658 3,085,132
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
256,308 512,615 512,615 512,615 512,615 512,615 512,615 3,332,000 18,268,000 21,600,000
2,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,500,000 0 2,500,000
187,269 374,538 374,538 374,538 374,538 374,538 374,538 2,434,500 12,978,000 15,412,500
$7,301,796 $6,336,593 $20,970,693 $3,857,093 $3,857,093 $4,369,566 $4,431,865 $51,085,961 $219,188,660 $270,274,620
Office - Urban Class A Office - Office Campus Office - Local Service
Total Office
Regional Equivalent
District
Neighbourhood/Community
Retail Conglomerate (Big Box)
Street Retail
Retail Service - Central
Retail Service - Peripheral
Total Retail
Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial Local Industrial
Total Industrial
Accomodation
Institutional
Other
School
Durham
SOFAC
Total Non-Residential
Seaton
Development Matrix Unit Values
Residential Phasing
Detached 20.5 Detached 22 Detached 25 Detached 28.5 Detached 33 Detached 44
Semi- Detached 16.5 Semi-Detached 20.5 Semi-Detached 22
Street Town 16.5 Street Town 20.5 Duplex Triplex Quadropex
Low Rise Apartment Mid Rise Apartment Accessory Apartments
Size Unit Lot Price
Value
20.5 22.0 25.0 28.5 33.0 44.0 $2,600 $2,500 $2,400 $2,300 $2,100 $1,600 $53,300 $55,000 $60,000 $65,550 $69,300 $70,400
16.5 20.5 22.0 $2,800 $2,600 $2,500 $46,200 $53,300 $55,000
16.5 20.5 $1,900 $1,900 $31,350 $38,950 $30,000 $25,000 $25,000
Density
40 upa $7,500
70 upa $7,500
$0
Seaton
Development Matrix Unit Values
Persf Value Coverage
X Per Acre Values
$1.15 $1.15 $1.15 7 2 2 $350,000 $100,000 $100,000
$10.48 $18.54 $48.21 $30.61 $25.00 $25.00 $40.17 115% 65% 25% 30% 100% 100% 30% $525,000 $525,000 $525,000 $400,000 $1,089,000 $1,089,000 $525,000
$5.22 $5.22 $3.83 55.0% 55.0% 75.0% $125,000 $125,000 $125,000
$500,000
$250,000
$250,000
$400,000
$100,000
$225,000
Non-Residential Phasing (Acres)
Office
Office - Urban Class A Office - Office Campus Office - Local Service
Retail
Regional Equivalent
District
Neighbourhood/Community
Retail Conglomerate (Big Box)
Street Retail
Retail Service - Central
Retail Service - Peripheral
Industrial
Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial Local Industrial
Accomodation
Institutional
Other
School
Durham
SOFAC
Seaton
Development Matrix Allocation of Non-Residential Uses
Total Phase 1 Balance of Project Total Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
0.3 2.7 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3
1.0 9.6 10.6 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
3.1 19.3 22.4 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
4.4 31.7 36.1 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9
0.0 10.0 mo
0.0 10.5 10.5
10.0 25.0 35.0 10.0 0.0 0.0
5.0 21.0 26.0 5.0 0.0
1.0 3.0 4.0 0.5 0.5
1.8 9.2 11.0 0.5 0.5 0.8
2.7 13.3 16.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8
20.5 92.0 112.5 1.0 1.0 16.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8
61.5 213.8 275.3 4.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
56.8 228.2 285.0 4.4 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7
118.3 442.0 560.3 8.5 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0
1.0 5.1 6.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
8.3 45.7 54.0 0.6 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
25.0 0.0 25.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
10.8 57.7 68.5 0.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
188.4 674.1 862.5 36.3 21.5 36.8 21.0 21.0 22.1 21.6
Weighting 7.69% 15.38% 15.38% 15.38% 15.38% 15.38% 15.38%
Cummulative 7.69% 23.08% 38.46% 53.85% 69.23% 84.62% 100.00%
Non-Residential Phasing
Office - Urban Class A Office - Office Campus Office - Local Service
Total Office
Regional Equivalent
District
Neighbourhood/Community
Retail Conglomerate (Big Box)
Street Retail
Retail Service - Central
Retail Service - Peripheral
Total Retail
Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial Local Industrial
Total Industrial
Accomodation
Institutional
Other
School
Durham
SOFAC
Total Non- Residential
Seaton
Development Matrix Analysis of Employment Based Land Demand
Total Balance Total Land Demand (Acres)
Phase 1 of Project Project Density 1 Total Balance Total
Phase 1 of Project Project
4,802,534 19,248,383 24,050,917 179.8 720.4 900.2
446,583 3,353,881 3,800,464 4.4 31.7 36.1
234,388 1,426,612 1,661,000 16.0 69.5 85.5
113,238 562,057 675,295 4.5 22.5 27.0
0 0 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
26,788 134,478 161,266 0.6 1.0 5.1 6.2
0 0 0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0
5,623,531 24,725,411 30,348,942 207.4 1,055.0 1,904.2 1,055.0
3,863,700 15,454,800 19,318,500
222,750 2,085,750 2,308,500
0 (85,641) (85,641)
(15,988) (175,208) (191,196)
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
4,070,462 17,279,701 21,350,163
938,834 3,793,583 4,732,417
223,833 1,268,131 1,491,964
234,388 1,512,253 1,746,641
129,226 737,265 866,491
0 0 0
26,788 134,478 161,266
0 0 0
1,553,069 7,445,710 8,998,779
Employment Catagory Aggregate Employment Space
Industrial
Office
Retail
Retail Service
Institutional
Accomodation
Other
Total
Structured Employment Space
Industrial
Office
Retail
Retail Service
Institutional
Accomodation
Other
Total
Non-Structured Employment Space
Industrial
Office
Retail
Retail Service
Institutional
Accomodation
Other
Total
Seaton
Development Matrix Analysis of Employment Based Land Demand
Industrial Allocation
Structured Employment Space
% Allocation Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial Local Industrial
Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial Local Industrial
Non-Structured Employment Space
% Allocation Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial Local Industrial
Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial Local Industrial
Office Allocation
Structured Employment Space
% Allocation Core Class A Office Campus Local Service
Core Class A Office Campus Local Service
Non-Structured Employment Space
% Allocation Core Class A Office Campus Local Service
Core Class A Office Campus Local Service
Total Phase 1 Balance of Project Total Project
Land Demand (Acres')
Total Phase I Balance of Project Total Project
38.2% 38.2% 38.15% 38.15%
23.7% 23.70% Density Assumption
1,474,002 1,474,002 915,697 5,896,006 5,896,006 3,662,788 7,370,008 7,370,008 4,578,485 55.0% 55.0% 75.0% 61.5 61.5 28.0 246.1 307.6 246.1 307.6 112.1 140.1
3,863,700 15,454,800 19,318,500 151.1 604.3 755.4
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0% 100.0% Density Assumption^
0 0 938,834 0 0 3,793,583 0 0 4,732,417 55.0% 55.0% 75.0% 0.0 0.0 28.7 0.0 0.0 116.1 0.0 0.0 144.9
938,834 3,793,583 4,732,417 28.7 116.1 144.9
40.0% 40.0% 40.0% 40.0%
20.0% 20.0% Coverage Assumption
89,100 89,100 44,550 834,300 834,300 417,150 923,400 923,400 461,700 7.0 2.0 2.0 0.3 1.0 0.5 2.7 9.6 4.8 3.0 10.6 5.3
222,750 2,085,750 2,308,500 1.8 17.1 18.9
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
100.0% 100.0% I Coverage Assumption
0 0 223,833 0 0 1,268,131 0 0 1,491,964 7.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 14.6 0.0 0.0 17.1
223,833 1,268,131 1,491,964 2.6 14.6 17.1
Seaton
Development Matrix
Analysis of Employment Based Land Demand
Retail Allocation
Total Balance Total
Phase 1 of Project Project
234,388 1,426,612 1,661,000
113,238 562,057 675,295
347,626 1,988,669 2,336,295 Target Target Acres
Acres Acres Acres
Space |
Adjustment
0.0 10.0 10.0 115% 500,940 500,000 9.98 (0.02)
0.0 10.5 10.5 65% 297,297 294,000 10.38 (0.12)
10.0 25.0 35.0 25% 381,150 374,000 34.34 (0.66)
5.0 21.0 26.0 30% 339,768 343,000 26.25 0.25
1.0 3.0 4.0 100% 174,240 150,000 3.44 (0.56)
1.8 9.2 11.0 100% 479,160 475,507 10.92 (0.08)
2.7 13.3 16.0 30% 209,088 199,789 15.29 (0.71)
20.5 92.0 112.5 110.60 (1.90)
333,210 2,048,433.0 2,381,643
115,410 572,838.0 688,248
2,381,643
2,336,295
Allocation of Retail Demand
Aggregate Employment Space
Retail
Retail Service
Allocation of Space
Regional Equivalent
District
Neighbourhood/Community
Retail Conglomerate (Big Box)
Street Retail
Retail Service - Central
Retail Service - Peripheral
Total Density Utilized Retail Service Density
Seaton
Development Matrix Industrial Land Adjustment
Land Demand (Acres)
Total Balance Total Yeari Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Phase 1 of Project Project 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
61.52 61.52 246.10 246.10 307.62 307.62 4.73 4.73 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47 9.47
492.20
123.05
615.24 9.47 18.93 18.93 18.93 18.93 18.93 18.93
0.00 339.97 339.97
61.52 0.00 213.75 0.00 275.28 0.00 4.11 0.00 8.22 0.00 8.22 0.00 8.22 0.00 8.22 0.00 8.22 0.00 8.22 0.00
61.52 213.75 275.28 4.11 8.22 8.22 8.22 8.22 8.22 8.22
Industrial Land Demand Structured Employment
Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial
Total Prestige & Standard Excess Demand
Remaining to be Fullfilled within Project
Prestige Industrial Standard Industrial
Seaton
Development Matrix Housing Mix Allocation
Ratios Total Phase 1 Balance of Project Total Project Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% 20.0% Fixed
33.3% 33.3% 33.3%
16.7% 16.7% 25.0% 8.3% 33.3%
50.0% 50.0%
506 506 506 506 506 70
2,302 2,301 2,301 2,301 2,301 930
2,808 2,807 2,807 2,807 2,807 1,000
40 40 40 40 40 0
80 80 80 80 80 0
80 80 80 80 80 0
80 80 80 80 80 0
76 76 76 76 76 20
75 75 75 75 75 25
75 75 75 75 75 25
2,600
12,436 15,036
200
400
400
400
400
400
400
208 208 208
944 943 943
1,152 1,151 1,151
16 16 16
32 32 32
32 32 32
32 32 32
32 32 32
32 32 32
32 32 32
624
2,830
3,454
48
96
96
96
96
96
96
131 117 182 58 240
665 677
1,009 339
1,348
796 794
1,191 397
1,588
11 9
14 4
18
20 18 28 9 37
20 18 28 9 37
20 18 28 9 37
20 18 28 9 37
20 18 28 9 37
20 18 28 9 37
728
1,038
4,766
56
112
112
112
112
112
112
364 364
2,019 2,019
2,383 2,383
28 28
56 56
56 56
56 56
56 56
56 56
56 56
728 5,386 4,766 56 112 112 112 112 112 112
520 3,073 3,593 40 80 80 80 80 80 80
1,248 8,459 8,359 96 192 192 192 192 192 192
5,200 27,763 31,615 400 800 800 800 800 800 800
Detached 20.5 Detached 22 Detached 25 Detached 28.5 Detached 33 Detached 44
Semi-Detached 16.5 Semi-Detached 20.5 Semi-Detached 22
Total Semi-Detached
Street Town 16.5 Street Town 20.5 Duplex Triplex
Quadropex
Total Attached Low Rise Apartment Mid Rise Apartment Sub-Total Apartments Accessory Apartments Total Apartment
Total Residential
Seaton
Development Matrix
Detailed Residential Lot Land Requirements
Frontage
Depth
Area
Phase I
Total Project
20.5 22.0 25.0 28.5 33.0 44.0
16.5 20.5 22.0
16.5
20.5
8.3
5.5
18.9
Units Per Acre
50.0 70.0
105.0 2,152.5
98.0 2,156.0
88.5 2,212.5
75.5 2,151.8
75.5 2,491.5
100.0 4,400.0
105.0 1,732.5
105.0 2,152.5
98.0 2,156.0
88.5 1,460.0
81.7 1,675.0
88.5 730.1
88.5 486.8
88.5 1,670.0
871.2 622.3
ACRES
Units
Frontage j Total Area
Units
Frontage j Total Area
506 506 506 506 506 70
2,600
208 208 208
624
131 117 182 58 240
10,373 11,132 12,650 14,421 16,698 3,080
1,089,165 1,090,936 1,119,525 1,088,786 1,260,699 308,000
2,808 2,807 2,807 2,807 2,807 1,000
68,354
5,957,111
15,036
3,432 4,264 4,576
360,360 447,720 448,448
1,152 1,151 1,151
12,272
1,256,528
3,454
2,162 2,399 1,502 319 4,530
191,260 195,975 132,883 28,232 400,800
796 794
1,191 397
1,588
199.9 Adjustment for Inefficiencies
57,564 61,754 70,175 80,000 92,631 44,000
19,008 23,596 25,322
13,134
16,277
9,826
2,184
29,974
6,044,220 6,051,892 6,210,488 6,039,962 6,993,641 4,400,000
406,124 35,740,202
1,995,840 2,477,528 2,481,556
67,926 6,954,924
1,162,160
1,329,950
869,579
193,240
2,651,960
728 10, 911 949,149 4,766 71 ,394 6,206,889
364.0 364.0 317,117 226,512 2,383.0 2,383.0 2,076,070 1,482,907
728 543,629 4,766 3,558,976
4,680 91, ,537 8,706,417 28,022 545 ,443 52,460,991
8.5%
1,204.3 102.26
Detached 20.5 Detached 22 Detached 25 Detached 28.5 Detached 33 Detached 44
Semi- Detached 16.5 Semi-Detached 20.5 Semi-Detached 22
Street Town 16.5 Street Town 20.5 Duplex Triplex Quadropex
Low Rise Apartment Mid Rise Apartment
Seaton
Development Matrix Land Use
Acres
Total Project Balance of Project Total Phase I
2,714.78 2,285.98 429.04
746.56 628.64 117.99
1,968.22 1,657.34 311.05
1,306.53 1,117.10 189.43
68.50 57.68 10.82
25.00 0.00 25.00
54.00 45.67 8.33
18.75 15.63 3.12
175.20 147.51 27.69
25.00 25.00 0.00
1,672.98 1,408.59 264.39
295.24 248.75 46.66
144.76 121.75 22.84
440.00 370.50 69.50
Hectares
Total Project Balance of Project Total Phase I
1,099.10 925.50 173.70
302.25 254.51 47.77
796.85 670.99 125.93
528.96 452.27 76.69
27.73 23.35 4.38
10.12 0.00 10.12
21.86 18.49 3.37
7.59 6.33 1.26
70.93 59.72 11.21
10.12 10.12 0.00
677.32 570.28 107.04
119.53 100.71 18.89
58.61 49.29 9.25
178.14 150.00 28.14
Hectares/Acres 2.47
Total Area Roads Net Area
Total Residential
SOFAC
Durham
Elementary Education
Secondary Education
Community Parks
District Parks
Total Non-Employment
Available Employment Lands
Additional Mixed Use in Residential
Total Employment Lands
Seaton
Development Matrix Employment Lands Shortfall
Acres
Total Balance Total
Phase 1 of Project Project
179.81 720.43 900.24
4.40 31.66 36.05
16.00 69.50 85.50
4.53 22.47 27.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
1.02 5.15 6.17
0.00 0.00 0.00
205.76 849.20 1,054.97
69.50 370.50 440.00
136.26 478.70 614.97
136.26 138.74 275.00
0.00 339.97 339.97
Calculated Employment Lands
Industrial
Office
Retail
Retail Service
Institutional
Accomodation
Other
Total
Total Employment Lands
Shortfall
Hwy 407 Lands
Excess Demand
Appendix 2
Addendum to Transportation Strategy
Introduction
In order to provide some degree of numerical analysis to the Transportation Strategy, certain
assumptions provide the basis for a sensitivity analysis. Weekday, peak hour person - trip
generation is related to the number and capacity of roads within and external to Seaton
according to the community plan developed to date and illustrated on Panel B. In the
accompanying text, the network of roads, commuter rail service and two—level bus services
proposed have been briefly described.
The numbers that follow relate to the mature state Seaton.
Assumptions
Ultimate population: 90,000 est.
Ultimate employment opportunity total within Seaton (including Highway 7 industrial corridor) (Ratio assumed is 2.5 residents: 1 job.):
36,000 est.
Number of households: 25,000 est.
(Note: Allowance made for number of single occupant households larger than is typical today.)
Optimistic level of transit use and cycling for peak period work-related trips:
30%
Optimistic average auto occupancy:
1.4
(Note: Higher level of car pooling assumed than is typical today.)
Number of person—trips per household during a 2 to 3 hour afternoon peak period:
0.6 person-trip/household in peak direction
0.4 person—trip/household in non—peak direction.
(Note: Morning peak period factors would be roughly 15 percent lower, because afternoon peak period factors reflect social—recreational trips, shopping trips, etc. as well as the typical, and predominant, work-to-home trips.)
The weekday peak periods have been lengthening for several years, and may continue to
do so. Therefore, percentage of peak hour trips being made during the peak period:
40%. (Note: Peak hour factor = 0.4)
Overall person-trip generation of Seaton Community, utilizing the factors set out above:
Trips In
25,000 (households) x 0.6 trips in
= 15,000 peak direction (inbound) trips to residences during the PM peak period;
15,000x0.4 (peak hour factor)
=6,000 person-trips in
Trips Out
25,000 (households) x 0.4 trips out
= 10,000 non-peak direction (outbound) trips from residences during the PM peak period;
10,000x0.4 (peak hour factor)
=4,000 person-trips out
6,000 Inbound PM peak hour person-trips
x 0.3 (transit and other modal use)
= 1,800 transit/cycle/walk trips in the peak hour.
Remainder:
6,000-1,800 = 4,200 auto-person trips
* 1.4 (average auto occupancy)
= 3,000 auto trips in the peak hour.
4,000 Outbound PM peak hour person-trips would generate 1,200 transit/cycle/walk trips in
the peak hour.
Remainder:
4,000- 1,200 = 2,800 auto-person trip
+ 1.4
= 2,000 auto trips in the peak hour.
To the vehicle volumes developed above should be added approximately 15 percent to
account for service and emergency vehicles.
Total Seaton — generated motor vehicle trips in the PM peak hour:
5,000x1.15 = 5,750
If 50 percent self-containment (internal resident/employment opportunity relationship) can be achieved, at least half of the trips generated will extend outside of the Seaton site; a total of 2,875 (say 3,000) vehicle trips (both directions combined) will use the several road links proposed between Seaton and the outside world. These links will include, but will not necessarily be limited to:
• Brock Boulevard north and south of Seaton (2 links) including links to Highway 7 and Highway 407.
• North-South Avenues (3 links to north - Highway 7 (no direct connections with Highway 407)
• Taunton Road east and west of Seaton (2 links)
• One of the east-west Main Streets extending east to Brock Road.
Total: 8 basic links.
(Note: All of these lead to other major roads such as Highways 7 and 407, and Old Brock
Road. However, the eight basic links will have to accommodate virtually all Seaton - generated
vehicle trips at the community boundary. Panels B and D indicate that Whitevale Road will also
provide rural access on the east and on the west. However, this will remain a local road in
terms of function and cross section, as suggested in the accompanying text.)
An hourly volume of 3,000 vehicle trips normally requires at least six - preferably eight - traffic
lanes. The eight basic links referred to above would provide in excess of 30 traffic lanes if all
were to have four-lane cross sections. However, some of the collector links will function with
two basic lanes, with provision for future widening.
This overview suggests that the arterial road plan for Seaton will afford more than sufficient
capacity for even a conservatively estimated travel demand level. The potentially positive,
vehicle-flow reducing, impact of higher levels of telecommuting and work-at-home, and the
more pronounced peak vs. off-peak volume levelling referred to in the main text, have not
been accounted for here.
Also, the positive impact of initiatives such as 'private' shuttle buses operating between
selected central points in the community and major industrial office or institutional sites have
not been allowed for. While such initiatives will contribute materially to a general reduction of
motor vehicle travel, it has not been possible to quantify their impact. The transit objective
will make it possible for families to avoid having to acquire a second automobile.
Directional distribution
The pattern of peak hour travel would approximate the following:
• Within Seaton and immediate environs:
30%
• To/from Metropolitan Toronto and the west, via Highway 7, Highway 407 and Taunton Road:
35%
• To/from the rest of Durham and the east via Brock Road, Highway 7, Highway 407, and Taunton Road:
35% Total: 100%
This pattern of distribution relates well to the capacity distribution afforded by the major road
system and Level 1 transit service proposed in the plan, as well as to the levels of self-
containment typical of other large urban precincts in the outer regions of the Greater Toronto
Area.
Until such time as the plan is advanced into more detailed phases, it will not be possible to
confirm these estimates. Continuing monitoring will be essential as the community evolves.
Appendix 3
Permitted Uses in Rural/Agricultural Zones
+ = permitted; - = not permitted; * = permitted with qualifications
Permissable Uses in Agricultural and Rural Areas
Land Use Agricultural Agricultural Zone 1 Zone 2 Hamlet
1. Full-Time 1 :arming
Livestock: Dairy + * -
Beef + -
Swine + * -
Sheep + * -
Poultry + *
Horses (Breeding & Training) • * -
Mink, Fox * » -
Buffalo * * -
Crops: Grain + + -
Soybeans + + -
Flax + + -
Vegetables for Processing + + -
Greenhouse * + •
Orchards -
Land Use Agricultural Agricultural Zone 1 Zone 2 Hamlet
Market Gardening (Commercial) + + -
Flower Bulbs and/or Seeds (commercial) * + +
Tree Nursery * + -
Christmas Trees * + -
Sod Farming * + -
Fish Farming * + -
Mushrooms * + -
Maple Products * + -
Tobacco * + -
2. Part-Time Hobby Farming
Horses (Riding, Boarding, Stables) + *
Goats - + -
Kennels - + *
Birds - + *
Apiaries • + -
continued.
Land Use Agricultural Agricultural Hamlet
Zone 1 Zone 2
Rabbits +
Vegetables - +
Orchards +
Small Fruits +
Allotment Gardens +
Herbs, Special Crops +
3. Residential Scattered non-farm Estate
4. Institutional
Church * * +
Nursing Home/Home for the Aged * *
Veterinary Clinic + +
Cemetery * * +
Rehabilitation Centre or Farm +
5. Utilities and Services
Paved Road * * +
Community Water Supply System * * +
Sanitary Services -
Sidewalks +
Streetlights +
Land Use Agricultural Agricultural Zone 1 Zone 2 Hamlet
Drainage Ditches + *
Storm Sewers +
Shade Trees *
Cable TV +
Gas *
Telephone
6. Recreation
Open Space, Trails, Parks ?
Campgrounds: Tent & Trailer
Religious Camps
Day Camps
Community Centre
Arena/Pool/Skating, Sports Field
Public Fairgrounds
Auction Hall
Golf Course
Trout Pond
Land Use Agricultural Zone 1 Agricultural Zone 2 Hamlet
8. Light Industry
Small Factories (Woodworking, Metal Working, Ceramics, Boat-Bull Printing) ding,
* *
Home Industry and Crafts (Bricklayer, Small Contractor, Landscaping, Pool Construction,
Crop Sprayers/Pest-Control, Welldigger, Electrician, Carpenter, Insurance, Real Estate,
Cartage, Craft Centre)
Land Use Agricultural Agricultural Hamlet
Zone 1 Zone 2
7. Commercial
Drive-In Theatre ?
Driving Range/Mini Golf *
Go-Karts *
Bowling Alley - * *
Drive-In Restaurants - ? •
Gas Station/Garage * * •
Auto Body - *
Used or New Car Sales *
Boat & Trailer Sales/Storage - * *
Wholesale Merchandising *
Wholesale Food *
Antiques
Equipment Sales & Services + * *
Building Supplies * *
Garden Centre
Funeral Home
LCBO/Brewer's Retail
Motel/Hotel
Farmers Market
Appendix 4
The lWA EE11 Site
While the proposed IWA EE11 landfill site is clearly not well related with the concurrent
development of the new adjacent community, and is therefore undesirable in most respects,
the Seaton plan does make provision for its inclusion (see "Existing" Diagram, illustrating
the plan with the current dumpsite, and "Proposed" Diagram, illustrating the plan with the
proposed relocated dumpsite, following).
The plan can physically accommodate the proposed EE11 site, south of Taunton Road and
east of Brock Boulevard, without changes to the primary road structure. However, there are
a number of significant consequences:
1. Iroquois community as a whole would be eliminated from the plan;
2. Taunton Road would become the southern boundary of Seaton;
3. a required "buffer" zone of employment land uses (on average, approximately 200-300
metres deep) would be sited north of Taunton Road in Ganatsekiagon community;
4. while employment lands "lost" could largely be accommodated in the "buffer" zone, this
would result in a greater degree of segregation between residential and employment lands
generally in Seaton;
5. Seaton would lose residential land accommodating a population of approximately 14,000
persons;
6. the need to accommodate a substantial increase in truck traffic, along Brock Boulevard
and Taunton Road, would have adverse impacts on traffic flows around Seaton;
7. it will be difficult to promote Seaton as a community enjoying an enviable natural setting,
one reflecting sensitivity towards environmental values, when it resides in the shadow of a
dump; at the very least, from a marketing perspective, a development at Seaton would have
to overcome the stigma of the dump site; the truck activity on the road, and the intermittent
odour from the dump which may drift over the new community could form obvious
disincentives to prospective purchasers.