HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 2
For information related to accessibility requirements please contact Linda Roberts
Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928
TTY: 905.420.1739
Email: lroberts@pickering.ca
Council Agenda
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Council Chambers
7:00 pm
Anything highlighted denotes an attachment or link. By clicking the
links on the agenda page, you can jump directly to that section of the
agenda. To manoeuver back to the agenda page use the Ctrl +
Home keys simultaneously, or use the “bookmark” icon to the left of
your screen to navigate from one report to the next.
2
Information Report No. 09-14 Page 2
south -across Kingston Road, the Brookdale Plaza, which consists of a
variety of commercial and retail uses, and business and
professional offices, and the Region of Durham Emergency
Medical Services Paramedic Station
west -large lot residential properties having frontage on the north side of
Kingston Road containing detached dwellings
3. Applicant's Proposal
• the applicant has requested to rezone the subject property to an appropriate
commercial zone in order to facilitate the development of a 710.0 square
metre two storey commercial building, fronting Kingston Road, with the
parking area located behind the proposed building (see Submitted Site Plan,
Attachment #2 and Conceptual Building Elevations, Attachment #3)
• the applicant is requesting that the following commercial uses be permitted on
the subject lands:
• business office
• professional office (including medical)
• drug store
• restaurant
• retail store
• a total of 35 parking spaces are illustrated on the applicant's plan, which
equals a parking rate of approximately 5.2 spaces per 1 00 square metres of
gross leasable floor area
• the applicant proposes a right-in access off of Kingston Road, and at the rear
of the property, a two-way east-west access connecting into an existing drive
aisle over the easterly abutting property (1154 Kingston Road), leading out to
Walnut Lane
• 1154 Kingston Road currently contains an access easement for ingress and
egress purposes, in favour of the subject property, to support the westerly
extension of the existing drive aisle from Walnut Lane
• the applicant has also submitted an application for Site Plan Approval (file
numberS 07/14), which is currently under review; Site Plan Approval cannot
be issued until the new Zoning By-law is in effect
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan
• the Regional Official Plan designates the subject property as "Urban System
-Living Area" with a "Regional Corridor" overlay
• "Regional Corridors" are to be planned and developed at higher densities and
achieving a mix of commercial, residential, employment and institutional uses
. while supporting higher order transit services and pedestrian oriented
development
• the applicant's proposal complies with the policies and provisions of the
Durham Regional Official Plan
Information Report No. 09-14 Page 3
4.2 Pickering Official Plan
• the subject property is designated as "Mixed Use Areas-Mixed Corridors"
within the Town Centre Neighbourhood
• the Mixed Corridor designation encourages the highest mix and intensity of
retail, community, cultural, recreational uses and activities and residential
devel,opment in the City at a density range of over 30 units up to and including
140 units per net hectare for residential proposals, and up to and including a
maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5 for commercial proposals
• the proposal provides for a commercial FSI of 0.37
• applicant's proposal complies with the policies and provisions of the Official
Plan
4.3 Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines-Town Centre West
• the Kingston Road Corridor Guidelines require new development to provide
the following:
• create a new residential and mixed use neighbourhood next to the
Downtown Core, offering a variety of experiences for living, working, and
shopping
• provide an appropriate transition between the Whites Road Corridor to the
west, the Liverpool Neighbourhood to the north and the Downtown Core to
the east
• encourage buildings to be located closer to Kingston Road in order to
create a main street ambiance along the corridor
• provide sidewalks on both sides of Kingston Road with direct and
convenient access to buildings fronting the street
• encourage continuous street tree planting close to the curb to create a
canopy over the pedestrian area
• protect for a future transiUHigh Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane
• the applicant's proposal for a two storey commercial building sited close to
Kingston Road is generally consistent with the urban design vision along the
Kingston Road Corridor
4.4 Zoning By-law 3036
• the property is currently zoned as "R3" -Third Density Residential Zone
within Zoning By-law 3036, as amended
• the existing zoning only permits a detached dwelling on a lot with a minimum
lot frontage of 18.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 550.0 square metres
• the applicant has requested to rezone the property to permit a variety of
commercial uses, as listed in Section 3 of this report, to facilitate the
development of a two-storey commercial building
3
4
Information Report No. 09-14 Page 4
5. Comments Received
5.1 Resident Comments
• staff have received phone inquires and written comments from surrounding
property owners
• the key concerns that have been expressed by area residents include the
following:
• ·. remove the proposed restaurant use due to potential animal infestation
and cooking odour concerns
• provide appropriate landscaping buffers between abutting property owners
and the proposed development
• provide a "pre-condition survey" to ensure the proposed development will
not negatively impact the foundation walls of the existing dwelling
immediately to the west (1134 Kingston Road)
5.2 Agency Comments
.• none received in response to the circulation to date
5.3 City Departments Comments
By-Law Enforcement
Services
• ensure sufficient number of parking spaces
are provided on-site to support the proposed
development
6. Planning & Design Section Comments
The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and
consideration:
• ensuring the proposed development and the requested commercial uses are
compatible with and sensitive to the existing surrounding uses, specifically
with the existing residential dwellings immediately to the west and north
• ensuring that the total number of parking spaces provided is sufficient to
accommodate the parking demands for the proposed mix of uses
• establishing a site specific restriction on the total gross floor area for certain
uses that have a higher parking requirement (such as medical office and
related uses, and restaurants)
• ensuring the proposed building and site layout provide appropriate setbacks
and buffers, and are consistent with the City's urban design objectives
• ensuring the location and design of the proposed right-in access from
Kingston Ro~d satisfies all technical requirements of the Region of Durham
• ensuring that the subject property provides appropriate easements for
vehicular and pedestrian ingress and egress purposes in favour of
1154 Kingston Road, and the westerly abutting properties municipally
addressed as 1122, 1128 and 1134 Kingston Road
• ensuring that any requirement of Durham Region Transit proposed Bus Rapid
Transit (BRT) can be accommodated
Information Report No. 09-14 Page 5
• ensuring a tree compensation plan and/or a financial contribution is provided
to compensate for the loss of existing mature trees and other significant
vegetation
• ensuring that the proposed development contains appropriate sustainable
development components
• the City Development Department will conclude its position on the
applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated
departments, agencies, Site Plan Committee and the public
7. Information Received
Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at
the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department:
• Planning Rationale Report (which
includes Sustainable Development,
Urban Design Brief and Draft Zoning)
• Elevation Plans and Architectural
Renderings
• Stormwater Management Report
11 Transportation Assessment
11 Site Plan
• Floor Plans
8. Procedurallnformation
8.1 General
11 Site Servicing and Grading Plan
(which includes a Construction
Management Plan)
• Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment
• Site Lighting Plan
• Landscape Plan
• Arborist Report
• written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City
Development Department
• oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting
• all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report
prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of
Council or a Committee of Council
• any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal
Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts
~my by-law for this proposal
· • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision
regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk
9. Owner/Applicant Information
• the owner of the subject property is Mr. Naseer Niazi and is represented by
TRIGA Corporation
5
Information Report No. 10-14
Parcel Band
Parcel C
2610, 2630 and
2650 Brock Road
3. Applicant's Proposal
Page 2
• to the south is a hydro corridor, and further south is
a residential development consisting of a mix of
traditional, stacked and back-to-back townhouse
dwellings
• to the east, across William Jackson Drive, is a
neighbourhood park, a mix of townhouse dwellings
and the Pickering Golf Club
• to the west, across Brock Road, are additional
lands subject to this application
• the subject property currently supports a sales
trailer
• located on the west side of Brock Road between
Zents Drive and Dersan Street
• Parcel B has an area of approximately
1.15 hectares with approximately 91 metres of
frontage along Brock Road
• Parcel C has an area of 0.93 of a hectare with
approximately 19 metres of frontage along
Brock Road
• to the north of the subject lands are large, older
residential lots containing detached dwellings on
lands designated as "Mixed Corridor" within the
City's Official Plan
• to the south is a hydro corridor and the Devi Mandir
Temple
• to the east, across Brock Road, are additional lands
subject to this application and stacked townhouses
• to the west, is a woodlot, which is designated as
"Natural Areas" within the City's Official Plan
• between Parcels B and C is a residential lot
containing a detached dwelling
• the properties are currently vacant
• the applicant is proposing to facilitate a common element condominium
development
• the draft plan of subdivision proposes the creation of 3 development
blocks, a reserve block and a north-south local street (see Draft Plan of
Subdivision, Attachment #2)
• the applicant's proposal within the three development Blocks are summarized
below (see Applicant's Submitted Concept Plan, Attachments #3 and #4)
11
1 2
Information Report No. 10-14
Parcel A
Parcel Band
Parcel C
Page 3
• to permit a residential development consisting of
15-3 storey live-work townhouse units fronting
Brock Road and 30 -3 storey townhouse units
fronting onto internal private roads
• two access roads are being proposed: one from
Brock Road; and one from William Jackson Drive
• 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit are proposed
plus an additional 47 parking spaces for visitors
• to permit a residential development for Parcel B
consisting of 12 -3 storey live-work townhouse
units fronting Brock Road and 50 -3 storey
townhouse units fronting onto internal private roads
• to permit a residential development for Parcel C
consisting of 49 -3 storey townhouse units fronting
onto internal private roads
• three access roads are being proposed: one from
Brock Road; and two from the proposed north-south
local road
• 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit are proposed
plus an additional 66 parking spaces for visitors
• a 20 metre wide local road is proposed along the
west side of Blocks B and C, forming part of a new
north-south road that will eventually connect from
Dersan Street to Zents Drive
• the development will be subject to site plan approval
4. Policy Framework
4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan
• the Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Areas";
lands in this designation shall be used predominately for housing purposes
and should be developed in a compact form through higher densities,
particularly along arterial roads such as Brock Road
• the Regional Official Plan also designates the subject lands as "Regional
Corridor"; lands in this designation are to develop as higher-density mixed
use areas, supporting higher order transit services and pedestrian oriented
development
• Brock Road is designated as a "Type A Arterial Road" and a "Transit Spine"
• "Type A Arterial Roads" are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at
moderate to high speeds, have some access restrictions and generally have
a right-of-way width ranging from 36 to 50 metres
• 'Transit Spines" are recognized corridors where higher levels of transit
service is to be encouraged
• the applicant's proposal appears to comply with the policies and provisions of
the Regional Official Plan
Information ReportNo.10-14 Page4
4.2 Pickering Official Plan
• the subject lands are within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood of the Official
Plan and are designated "Mixed Use Areas-Mixed Corridors".
• the "Mixed Corridor" designation is intended primarily for residential, retail,
community, cultural and recreational uses at a scale serving the community
• the designation provides for a range of commercial uses and residential
development at a density range of over 30 units up to and including 140 units
per net hectare and to a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 2.5
• the overall combined density for the three parcels is 50.6 units per net hectare
• the net residential density for each of the individual properties are as follows:
• Parcel A-45 units per net hectare
• Parcel B -54 units per net hectare
• Parcel C -53 units per net hectare
• local roads generally provide access to individual properties, to other local
roads and to collector roads; carry local traffic; and generally have a
right-of-way of up to 20 metres
4.2.1 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Policies
• the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood policies for lands designated Mixed Use
Areas-Mixed Corridor:
• require new development to provide a strong and identifiable urban image
by establishing buildings closer to the street, providing safe and
convenient pedestrian access, and require all buildings to be multi-storey
• require higher intensity multi-unit housing forms on lands adjacent to
Brock Road and restrict grade r,elated residential development to lands
adjacent to collector or local roads
• require residential lots with frontages of 6.0 metres or less to be accessed
from rear lanes
• require a fine-grain mix of housing types, forms and tenures on a variety of
lot frontages to prevent concentrations of lots with small frontages and
private driveways in order to create opportunities for improved streetscapes,
massing and on-street visitor parking
• require proponents of new development abutting or containing existing
naturalized open space features designated Natural Areas, to submit an
Edge Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City, in consultation with the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA)
• new development is required to demonstrate how the proposal is consistent
with the Duffin Heights Environmental Servicing Plan to the satisfaction of the
Region, the City and the TRCA
• as a condition of site plan approval, subdivision or any other development
approval, the landowners are required to become a party to the cost sharing
agreement for Duffin Heights or receive an acknowledgement from the
Trustee of the Duffin Heights Landowners Group Inc. that the benefitting
landowner has made satisfactory arrangements to pay its proportion of the
shared development cost 13
14
Information Report No. 10-14 Page 5
• the applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the
Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications
4.3 Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
• the intent of the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines is to
further the objectives of the Official Plan and to achieve the following design
objectives for the neighbourhood:
• an accessible pedestrian-oriented residential area, distinct in character
and harmonious with the larger neighbourhood
• a streetscape which is attractive, safe and encourages social interaction
within the neighbourhood
• a central focus to the neighbourhood which is safe, lively and attractive
a a diversity of uses to support neighbourhood and City functions; and
• a mix of housing types, forms, affordability and tenure, on a variety of lot
frontages
• the subject lands are delineated as Brock Road Streetscape on the Tertiary
Plan, which encourages higher density, mid-rise and mixed use buildings with
a high level of architectural quality
• all primary frontages of buildings shall front Brock Road and provide
pedestrian access directly to the sidewalk and multi-use trail along Brock
Road
• multiple pedestrian linkages shall be provided to commercial development,
including direct sidewalk connections at intersections and through mid-block
developments
• in addition to the pedestrian circulation that will take place on street
sidewalks, provision shall be made to provide multiple private pedestrian
connections from Brock Road through the mixed use blocks and their
locations should have regard to transit stops
• non-residential floors fa9ades are encouraged to be at least 33 percent
transparent on all the floors and must be at least 60 percent transparent on
the ground floor to encourage pedestrian interaction with retail and
commercial activities
• retail and commercial uses are encouraged to be provided on the ground
floors of building to bring animation to the streets and encourage pedestrian
activity
• medium density residential development may be located behind buildings that
front Brock Road; however, individual unit vehicle access from collector or
local roads for grade related townhouse development will not be permitted
• local roads are will have a 17.0 metre right-of-way, including a potential
parking lane on one side of the road and 1.5 metre sidewalks on both sides of
the road
• the applications will be assessed against the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines during the further processing of the applications
Information Report No. 10-14 Page 6
4.4 Zoning By-law 3037
e the subject lands are currently zoned "A"-Rural Agricultural Zone under
Restricted Area Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, which currently permits a
detached dwelling, home occupation, and various agricultural and related
uses
• an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to facilitate the development
of the subject lands for residential and commercial purposes
5. Comments Received
5.1 Resident Comments
Cathy Gerbis
2620 Brock Road North
(located between Parcels B
and C)
5.2 Agency Comments
Region of Durham
Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
Durham District School
Board, Durham Catholic
School Board, Canada
Post, Rogers, Veridian,
GO Transit, Enbridge
Pipelines Inc., Hydro One,
Bell
• concerned about the impact on wildlife in the
immediate area
• seeking clarification regarding the future local
road traversing her property
• questions related to traffic flow
• concerned about the potential impact the
proposed development could have on her lands
related to servicing, such as the existing water
flow and septic bed
• questions related to future designation of her
property
• the Region of Durham Planning Department
has advised that the proposal meets the density
targets and may be permitted by the policies of
the Regional Official Plan
• an Environmental Impact Statement needs to
be prepared as outlined in the Duffin Heights
Environmental Servicing Plan
• no objection to the applications
15
1 6
Information Report No. 10-14 Page 7
5.3 City Departments Comments
Engineering & Public Works • a detailed stormwater management report will
be required at the site plan approval stage
Heritage Pickering
• fencing will be required as per the noise
attenuation report
• Parcel B cannot proceed until such time as the
future north-south local road is completed to the
north limit of the development; a single
right in-right out entrance from Brock Road is
not supported
• a secondary access (temporary or permanent)
is required for Parcel C
• the location of the entrance to Parcel C is to be
relocated towards the centre of the
development due to the proximity to the
Devi Mandir Temple as there are grading
concerns
• the applicant is required to contribute to the
costs of the monitoring program for the existing
stormwater management pond and any other
additional facilities to be assumed by the City
which require an Environmental Compliance
Approval
• a tree inventory and preservation plan will
be required
• no comments
6. Planning & Design Section Comments
The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and
consideration:
• ensuring an appropriate mix of housing types on a variety of lot frontages are
provided within the proposed development
• ensuring an appropriate interface along Brock Road related to the design of
buildings and pedestrian connectivity from the future local road, including
access to the commercial units, transit and the multi-use trail along
Brock Road
• assessing the functionality and viability of the live-work townhouse units and
ensuring they are appropriately sized and configured to meet the policies·
within the Official Plan
• ensuring the inclusion of appropriate provisions in the implementing zoning
by-law to address the location and extent of build-to-zones and mix of
permitted uses
• ensuring appropriate setbacks, building heights and massing, and landscaped
areas are provided along Brock Road, the future north-south local road to the
west, internal private roads and the hydro corridor to ensure a pedestrian
friendly streetscape is created
Information Report No. 10-14 Page 8
• ensuring the appropriate timing for the construction of the future north-south
local road
• reviewing the layout and design of internal private roads to ensure sufficient
widths are provided to accommodate pedestrian pathways, utilities, and street
trees
• ensuring an open space area is provided within the development on the west
side of Brock Road for passive and active recreational activities
• ensuring appropriate private outdoor amenity space is provided for each
townhouse unit
• ensuring that sufficient parking is provided to accommodate residents, visitors
and support the commercial units
• ensuring the proposal is consistent with the City's urban design goals and
objectives in the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
• ensuring the owner enter into an Architectural Design Control process to
promote a high degree of streetscape design in order to create distinct and
appealing streetscapes through attention to building design and detailing
• ensuring the appropriate integration of Parcel A with the proposed residential
development to the north
• ensuring an appropriate interface between Parcels Band C, and the
intervening property
• ensuring the appropriate interface between Parcel C and the Devi Mandir
'Temple lands to the south related to concerns regarding access from the
future north-south local road and grading
• ensuring that the submitted Functional Servicing and Stormwater
Management Report is consistent with the Council endorsed Duffin Heights
Environmental Servicing Plan to the satisfaction of the Region, City and the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
• ensuring that the proposed development contains appropriate sustainable
development components
• ensuring that required technical submissions and reports meet City standards
• the City Development Department will conclude its position on the
applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated
department, agencies and public
7. Information Received
Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at
the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department:
• Archaeological Assessment
• Environmental Noise Assessment
• Environmental Site Assessment
• Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report
• Planning Rationale Report
• Sustainable Development Report
• Traffic Impact Study
17
-
~
111111111
DRIVE ~~~ ~Co
111~
E
11111111111
11111111111
li a b!
RIVE
I
I
Attachment# I to
Information R_eoort#, I o --If
[_@jl. ~ ~; ~ . 'I ~ . ~ ~ ,1111"~illu 1 ~ ' ~ m r!rmrrDl ~ ~
EARL GREY '<{
ZENTS DRIVE
0 <( SUBJECT J~ LANDS
CRETKS!D£
PARK
LIATRIS DRIVE bniiJ =~II w== li SUBJECT~ )r ~ KALMAR z -:-ffRK ~v -HillffiTIJ'lj c-f-LANDS 1-.._o~_n:: ~f-,6. ~<~.._<.-= 0 >-r==l==
0"' ~= zr---r---/ r ;gamE~=== z,_J--~ · ,_ tmmmr~ "' = I)_I==V ~ ~'"' ~·m = f--ITT ~8ffiB<c
) HINDU CULTURAL ~ ~E ~ 11 I Ill
CENTRE ~ BLVD ~ ;2 ~ MISTHOLLOW !I~ t=J II Ill I II II ~ ~ __, Rill IIIII IIIII
§ LIATRIS DRIV
WILLIAM 111111111 Ill Ill 11111 DERSAN STREET
"
L~ -~
::<: 0 0 n:: 1' m
"'
~ Location Map
FILE No: SP-2014-01, CP-2014-01 & A 01/14
APPLICANT: Lebovic Enterprises and 1320991 Ontario Limited.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 2610, 2630, 2650 and 2663 Brock Road J
City Development Pt Lt 4, 5, 7 & 8 Plan 585, Pt Lt 18 & 19 Con 3 I DATE: July 23, 2014
Dote Sources: I SCALE 1:5,000 IPN-15 g·Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its supplier-s. All rights Reserved. Not c plcn of survey. 2013 MPAC end its suppliers. All rights Reserved, Not c pion of Survey.
1 9
24
Report PLN 16-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 4/14 Page 2
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
. proposed development.
1. . Background
1.1 Property Location and Description
The subject property is located on the south side of Highway 7, east of
Audley Road, and the northerly portion of the property is within the Hamlet of
Kinsale (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The property has a total land area
of approximately 4.0 hectares and has a lot frontage of approximately 80.0 metres
along Highway 7.
The property currently supports a one-storey detached dwelling and a two-storey
commercial building, which accommodates the existing dog daycare and
boarding facility. A tributary of the Lynde Creek traverses through the southwest
portion of the subject property, approximately 300 metres south of the existing
buildings. Surrounding land uses include residential to the east and west, and
agricultural to the north arid south.
1.2 Applicant's temporary use zoning by-law has expired
In 2005, the applicant submitted a zoning by-law amendment application to
permit a dog daycare and boarding facility with associated retail use, on the
northern portion of the subject property, while retaining the existing residence.
During the review of this application, a number of issues relating to noise, the
structural integrity of existing buildings, and the need for site plan approval were
identified.
Accordingly, in 2007, City Council approved the use on a temporary basis, for a
period of three years, to allow the potential impacts of noise to be monitored.
Subsequently, in May 2010, the City granted Site Plan Approval to permit a new
two-storey building to accommodate the dog daycare and boarding facility and
associated parking. However, the temporary-use by-law expired on July 23,
2010 before the facility could become fully operational (see Submitted Plan,
Attachment #2).
In March 2011, City Council approved an extension to the temporary-use zoning
by-law for an additional three years in order to monitor the operation and fully
assess any potential impacts, including noise on surrounding properties. The
extension to the temporary use zoning by-law expired on March 24, 2014.
Report PLN 16-14
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 4/14
September 2, 2014
Page 3
1.3 Applicant's Proposal
The applicant is requesting that the northern portion of the subject property within
the boundaries of the Kinsale Hamlet be rezoned to permit a dog daycare and
boarding facility with associated retail use on a permanent basis. The owner will
continue to reside within the existing dwelling on the property. The current dog
daycare and boarding facility is a non-crating facility in which the dogs will be free
to play outdoors during the day within a fenced exercise area in the rear yard,
and all dogs will be boarded overnight within the existing two storey building.
The applicant also intends to maintain the existing zoning performance standards
previously established through the 2011 temporary-use zoning by-law
amendment, which are further discussed in Section 3.1 of this report.
2. Comments Received
2.1 At the June 2, 2014 Public Information Meeting and in written submission
No members of the public attended the June 2, 2014 Public Information Meeting
and no comments from the public have been received to date.
2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments
Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority
Region of Durham Planning
& Economic Development
Department
• no objection to the approval of the Zoning
By-law Amendment Application
• the southern portion of the subject property
contains an existing watercourse and flood
plain crossing
• the area intended for the facility is situated
outside of the above-noted environmental
features
• the proposal to permit a commercial use within
the hamlet portion of the subject property is
permitted by· the policies of the Region's
Official Plan
• no objection to the application
Region of Durham Health • no objection to the application
Department
Engineering & Public Works • no objection to the application
Animal Services • no complaints have been received
• the facility is currently in compliance with
Animal Service's Boarding Kennel License
25
26
Report PLN 16-14
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 4/14
September 2, 2014
Page 4
Municipal Law Enforcement
Services
• no resident or customer complaints have been
received
• the existing facility is currently licensed
3. Planning Analysis
3.1 Permitting the Dog Daycare and Boarding facility on a permanent basis is
appropriate
Staff support permitting a dog daycare and boarding facility on the northerly
portion of the property on a permanent basis. No concerns or objections have
been received from area residents. All previous issues relating to noise, the
structural integrity of the previous barn and the need for site plan approval were
addressed while the use operated under the temporary use zoning.
Staff recommend that the provisions in the 2011 temporary use zoning by-law be
implemented, which include:
• a maximum of 30 dogs at any one time within the dog daycare and boarding
facility
• the overnight boarding of dogs in a non-crating environment
• a rear yard outdoor exercise area for dogs, with a minimum set back of
10.0 metres from all property lines, and
• an ancillary retail store for the sale of dog products
3.2 Zoning By-law to be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment
The draft implementing zoning by-law provided as Appendix I to this report,
permits a dog daycare and boarding facility with associated retail use on a
permanent basis with site specific provisions as noted above in Section 3.1 of
this report. Furthermore, the implementing by-law also repeals the previous two
temporary-use zoning by-laws (By-law 6787/07 and By-law 7116/11).
Staff supports the rezoning application and recommends that the site specific
implementing by-law as outlined in Appendix I, be approved and forwarded to
Council for enactment
4.0 Applicant's Comments
The Owner is aware of the recommendations of this report.
Appendix
Appendix I Draft Implementing Zoning By-law
Draft Implementing
Zoning By-law
28
Appendix I to
Report Number PLN 16-14
Being a by-law to amend Restricted Area Zoning By-law 3037, as
amended by By-laws 2623/87, 3450/90 and 6696/06, to implement
the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, being
North Part of Lot 2, Concession 5, save and except Part 2, Plan
40R-25676 in the City of Pickering. (A 4/14)
Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
permit the establishment of a dog daycare and boarding facility with an ancillary retail
use on the lands, being North Part of Lot 2, Concession 5, save and except Part 2, Plan
40R-25676, in the City of Pickering;
And whereas an amendment to By-law 3037, as amended by By-laws 2623/87, 3450/90
and 6696/06, is therefore deemed necessary;
Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as
follows:
1. Area Restricted
The provision of this By-law shall apply to those lands in North Part of Lot 2,
Concession 5, save and except Part 2, Plan 40R-25676, in the City of Pickering.
2. Schedule I Amendment
Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is
hereby declared to be part of this By-law.
3. Text Amendment
Section 4, Definitions of By-law 2623/87, as amended, is hereby further amended
by renumbering and re-alphabetizing this subsection in order to incorporate the
new definition as following:
(1) "Dog Daycare and Boarding Facility"-shall mean a facility in which the
daytime care of dogs is provided and shall include the overnight boarding of
dogs in a group environment, but shall not include the breeding or sale of
dogs, or a veterinary clinic;
Subsection 5.(1) of By-law 2623/87, as amended, is hereby further amended by
adding thereto a new subsection after subsection (c) as follows:
(d) Exception ("CLR8-DD" Zone)
(i) Despite any provisions in this By-law to the contrary, in addition to
any other uses permitted under the "CLR8" zone, a dog daycare and
boarding facility shall be permitted on the lands designated
"CLR8-DD" (North Part of Lot 2, Concession 5, save and except
Part 2, Plan 40R-25676) on Schedule I attached hereto in
accordance with the following provisions:
29
I<TTACHMENT # I TO
RE:?ORi # :Pm llo-/4
"' /
f-
\. -
0 <(
0 00: ,-----
\ w KINSA1 E _j
<(
\ (f) z
~
\ '----
f -LJ I -1---Ll
-'""": HIGHWAY 7 -HIGHWAY 7 7'
I H
·--
---~ SUBJECT
PROPERTY
1\x
0 <{
0 ') 0::
>-w
__j
0
:::l <(
} 1' \
~
~ Location Map
FILE No:A 04/14
APPLICANT: C. Bollmann
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 3325 Highway7(N. Pt. Lt. 2, Con. 5)
City Development DATE: Apr. 7, 2014 Department iato Sources: SCALE 1 :5,000 rN-RUR Teranet Enterprises Inc:. end Its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Not c pion of survey. 2013 MPAC and its suppliers. All rlc:ihts Reserved. Not o plan of Survey.
32
Report PLN 17-14
Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. (A 5/14)
September 2, 2014
Page 2
To ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighbourhood, the zoning by-law will have
site specific provisions including, but not limited to, maximum building height, minimum
yard setbacks, minimum amount of outdoor amenity area, minimum number of parking
spaces, and minimum internal width of the garage. Furthermore, the amending by-law
will incorporate an (H) '" holding provision that will require the Owner to enter into a
Development Agreement with the City and submit an updated Phase 1 Environmental
Site Assessment to the Region's satisfaction.
The proposed residential development will be a positive redevelopment within this area
providing a high quality, well-designed built form that appropriately reflects the site's
location close to Frenchman's Bay. Accordingly, staff recommends that Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A 5/14 be approved, as outlined in Appendix I to Report
PLN 17-14, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning
By-law to Council for enactment.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
proposed development.
1. Background
1.1 Property Description
The subject property is located on the south side of Wharf Street, west of
Liverpool Road, and east of Frenchman's Bay within the Bay Ridges
Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The property has an area of
approximately 0.09 of a hectare with approximately 35.0 metres of frontage along
Wharf Street and a lot depth of 27.0 metres.
The property currently supports an existing detached dwelling, which is proposed
to be demolished. The surrounding land uses include detached dwellings
immediately to the west and to the north, a common element condominium
development consisting of 3-storey townhouses to the east, and the Port
Restaurant and a marina lift immediately to the south.
1.2 Applicant's Proposal
The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property to facilitate a
residential development consisting of four freehold 3-storey townhouses (see
Submitted Plan and Submitted Concept Building Elevation, Attachments #2 and #3).
The lot frontages will range between 7.0 metres for the internal units and
11.6 metres for the end units. The units will be approximately 12.0 metres in
height to accommodate an internal elevator and the rooftop stairwell enclosure.
Three of the four units will have a single car garage with a double car garage for
the most easterly unit.
35
36
Report PLN 17-14
Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. (A 5/14)
September 2, 2014
Page 3
Following the enactment of the Zoning By-law Amendment, the subject property
will be subdivided through the process of lifting Part Lot Control to create a total
of four new lots.
2. Comments Received
2.1 At the July 7, 2014 Public Information Meeting and in written submission
Approximately 9 residents attended the Public Meeting and 1 resident voiced
concern with respect to the proposed development. In addition staff have also
received 4 written comments from area residents. The concerns identified by the
residents are as follows:
• the overall height of the proposed building would block views to
Frenchman's Bay
" lack of visitor parking to support the proposed development
• impacts of grading and drainage on adjacent properties to the west
2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments
Region of Durham-
Planning Department
• the proposal complies with the Waterfront Places
designation policies of the Regional Official Plan
• sanitary and water services are available to the
subject lands
• the Region has reviewed the Environmental Noise
Assessment, prepared by YCA Engineering Ltd.,
·dated April17, 2014, and the Addendum Letter,
dated July 28, 2014, and are satisfied with the noise
mitigation measures; appropriate noise warning
clauses will be registered on title
• the Region has reviewed the Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment (ESA),
prepared by Terrapex Environmental Ltd., dated
March 26, 2014, and has requested that the Phase
I ESA be updated to reflect the current Ontario
Regulation standard; on August 12, 2014 an
updated ESA was submitted to the Region for their
review
• the Region has no objection to the application,
subject to an (H)-Holding Symbol which can be
lifted once the Region is satisfied with the updated
Phase 1 ESA
Toronto and Region • no objection to the proposal
Conservation Authority
Report PLN 17-14
Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. (A 5/14)
September 2, 2014
Page 4
Durham District School
Board and Durham
Catholic School Board
Canada Post
Engineering & Public
Works
3. Planning Analysis
• no objection to the proposal
• any pupils generated by the proposal can be
accommodated within existing school facilities
• no objection to the proposed application
• provision regarding the location of a new community
mailbox will be included in the Development
Agreement
• no objection to the proposed application
• the owner will be required to enter into a
Development Agreement with the City to address
such matters as, but not limited to, road restoration,
service connections, stormwater management, lot
grading and drainage, boulevard tree planning,
utilities and securities
3.1 The proposal is consistent with the policies of the Official Plan and the Bay
Ridges Neighbourhood
The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Open Space
System-Marina Area" within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. This designation
permits, amongst other uses: marina supportive uses; restaurants; limited retail
uses; and limited residential uses in conjunction with marinas and yacht clubs.
The Bay Ridges Neighbourhood policies recognize that the area generally
situated north of the Lake Ontario shoreline on either side of Liverpool Road up
to Commerce Street exhibits a unique mix of built and natural attributes and
establishes the area as the "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node". For lands south of
Wharf Street and 31.0 metres from the edge of Frenchman's Bay, residential
uses may be permitted up to a maximum density of 55.0 units per net hectare
provided that:
• a functional marina operation can be maintained on the remaining lands
• a publicly-accessible space to the water's edge of Frenchman's Bay is
provided; and
• other applicable policies of the Plan are complied with
The proposal to create a total of 4 lots for townhouse units resulting in a
residential density of approximately 44.0 units per net hectare. The proposed
development will not impact the operation of the existing marina travel lift
immediately to the south. The subject site does not have frontage along
Frenchman's Bay and will not preclude the City's ability to provide publicly
accessible space along the water's edge of Frenchman's Bay. The proposal is
consistent with the policies of the Official Plan and is appropriate and in keeping
with the established development along Wharf Street and Liverpool Road. 37
38
Report PLN 17-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. (A 5/14)
3.2 The architectural design and siting of the proposed development is
consistent with the urban design objectives of the Liverpool Road
Waterfront Node Development Guidelines
Page 5
The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines provide design
objectives for the Bay Ridges neighbourhood. The subject property is located
within the "Marina Mixed Use Area" and architectural design consideration for
new development should reflect the Great Lakes Nautical Village theme by
incorporating design details, such as balconies, decks, front porches, wider
doorways, street level access, awnings and window boxes.
The proposed building elevations have been reviewed by the City's Urban
Design Review Consultant and they have indicated that the proposed
development employs a high quality, modern/contemporary architectural design.
While the proposed building may not possess traditional nautical architectural
characteristics, in their opinion it provides many of the qualities desired for new
built form in this area such as decks and balconies on the main and second
floors, a larger rooftop terrace to take advantage of water views and ample
fenestration. Overall, the architectural design of the development will
complement the existing townhouse development to the east.
3.3 The proposed building height is compatible with the surrounding
neighbourhood
The proposed building height of 3 storeys is generally consistent with the building
height of the existing development to the east. The existing townhouses will
continue to have views to Frenchman's Bay through the Wharf Street right-of-way
and southwest over the rear yards of the proposed townhouses, the restaurant
building and further southwest. The direct westerly view is currently obstructed
by an existing hedgerow, an existing one storey home on the subject property, a
two storey home adjacent to the water, and significant vegetation associated with
that waterfront property. The proposed building height of 3 storeys will not
further obstruct views to Frenchman's Bay for the residents living in the
development to the east. Furthermore, staff are satisfied that the height of the
proposed building is compatible with the existing pattern of development along
Wharf Street.
3.4 Sufficient visitor parking is available to support the development
The City's zoning by-law requires that a minimum of 2 parking spaces are
provided per unit (1 within a garage and 1 on the driveway). The applicant has
exceeded this minimum by designing and situating the dwellings such that three
of the units can accommodate up to 3 vehicles (1 within a garage and 2 on the
driveway) while the fourth unit (the end unit with the double car garage) can
accommodate up to 6 vehicles (2 within the garage and 4 on the driveway).
Report PLN 17-14
Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. (A 5/14)
September 2, 2014
Page 6
In addition, the proposed units will have wider garages (3.7 metres, whereas
typical garages have a width of 3.0 metres) to allow for the storage of items in the
garage as well as vehicle parking. Furthermore, on-street parking is available for
visitors on Liverpool Road and on the north side of Wharf Street, east of
Liverpool Road. These locations are within a short walking distance "from the
subject property.
Staff are satisfied that there are sufficient opportunities for visitor parking for
these four townhouse units.
3.5 Proposed grading and drainage from the development wHI not impact
adjacent properties
In support of the development, the applicant has submitted a Functional
Servicing Report prepared Sabourin Kimble & Associates. The City's Engineering
& Public Works Department has advised that it is generally satisfied with this
report.
Detailed grading plans will be required as a condition of final approval. Although
under existing conditions a portion of the subject site currently drains toward the
existing residential lots to the west, the drainage from the redevelopment of the
site will be contained within swales on-site and redirected out to Wharf Street.
Therefore, grading and drainage resulting from the development will not impact
adjacent properties.
3.6 Appropriate noise measures have been provided to support the residential
development
A Noise Assessment Study prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, dated
April 17, 2014, has been submitted in support of the application. The study
examined noise levels generated by the roof top mechanical units and the delivery
area associated with the Port Restaurant, and the marine travel lift to the south.
Using the rear yard as the primary amenity area, the noise assessment
recommended a 2.8 metre high acoustical fence along the southerly property line.
Staff were concerned with the overall height of th~ proposed acoustical fence
and requested the applicant explore alternative measures to reduce the overall
height of the fence. To address this matter, the applicant has designated the roof
top terraces as the primary outdoor amenity areas. In an addendum letter dated
July 28, 2014, the noise consultant has advised that the roof top amenity area
sound levels are expected to meet Ministry of Environmental daytime noise
levels. This would allow the replacement of the proposed 2.8 metre high
acoustical fence along the south property line with a 1.8 metre high privacy
fence. Furthermore, all units will be provided with central air conditioning.
The Region has reviewed the Noise Assessment Report (April2014) and the
Noise Assessment Addendum (July 2014) and is satisfied with the conclusions.
Appropriate provisions will be included in the Development Agreement to ensure
noise warning clauses will be registered on title to the properties. 39
40
Report PLN 17-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Marshall Homes (Copperfield) Ltd. (A 5/14)
3.7 All Technical and Development matters will be addressed within the
Development Agreement
Page 7
To ensure appropriate development, the City, Region and agency requirements
will be imposed as conditions within the Development Agreement between the
City and owner. These conditions will address matters such as, but not limited to:
• drainage and grading
• site servicing
• noise attenuation and the registration of a noise warning clause on title
• cash-in-lieu of parkland
• landscape plan and boulevard tree planting
• requirements for a Construction Management Plan
• building design
• location of Community Mailboxes
• geotechnical report
4.0 Sustainability implications have been reviewed
The application was reviewed against the City's Draft Sustainable Development
Guidelines resulted in a score below the Level 1 standard. Given the small
scope of the application, there is limited opportunity to achieve Level 1.
There will be opportunities to improve this rating as additional sustainability
measures become available through the construction and building permit process
for each phase of development, including:
• use of permeable materials for paved areas
• use of native species in landscaped areas
• use of water and energy efficient appliances
• infiltration of runoffs from the rear yards and rear downspouts
• green upgrades for new home buyers
· 5.0 Zoning By-law to be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment
Staff support the rezoning application and recommend that the site specific
implementing by-law, containing the standards outlined in Appendix I, be brought
before Council for enactment.
The amending zoning by-law will incorporate an (H)-holding provision that will
require the Owner to satisfy certain conditions prior to the lifting of the (H). These
conditions will include entering into a Development Agreement with the City and
a confirmation from the Region of Durham Region that they are satisfied with the
submitted Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment.
A by-law requesting Council to lift Part Lot Control for the subject lands will be
submitted at a later date.
42
Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions
Appendix I to
Report PLN 17-14
for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/14
Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/14
Recommends lands to be rezone from "(H)03B Waterfront Recreational" to "(H)SA-22" to
permit 4 townhouse units in accordance with the following provisions:
1. "(H) SA -22" Single Attached site specific zoning
a) Lot Area (min.)-190 square metres
b) Lot Frontage (min.)-7.0 metres
c) Front Yard Depth (min.)-4.0 metres to the main wall of the dwelling and
6.0 metres to the garage
d) Side Yard Width (min.)-1.5 metres where no common wall
e) Rear Yard Depth (min.)-7.5 metres
f) Building Height (max.)-12.0 metres
g) Internal Garage Width (min.)-3.7 metres on lots with 10.0 metres or less of
lot frontage and 5.5 metres on lots greater than 11.0 metres of lot frontage
h) unenclosed porches not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above established
grade may encroach a maximum of 2.0 metres into the required minimum
front yard -
i) uncovered decks, platforms and steps may encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres
into the required rear yard
j) Required Parking (min.)-2 spaces per unit
k) Outdoor Private Amenity Area (min.)-25 square metres located on the roof
top terrance -
I) Pergolas or other structures located on the roof top terrance shall be within
the maximum building height requirement
2. The (H)-holding provision to be applied until the Owner satisfies the following
conditions:
a. the Owner has entered into a Development Agreement with the City;
b. the Owner has submitted a revised Phase I Environmental Site
Assessment Report to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham.
43
48
Report PLN 18-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication
and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol) Page 2
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
recommendations of this report. The City Development Department presently collects
an application fee of $2,750 for each Radio Communication and Broadcasting Antenna
System proposal.
Discussion:
1. A Draft Cell Tower Protocol was prepared for consultation
On December 2, 2013, the City's Planning & Development Committee
considered the recommendations of Report PLN 27-13 respecting a draft City of
Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems
(Cell Tower Protocol).
On December 9, 2013, Council passed resolution #152/13, which authorized staff
to: circulate the draft Protocol to the public, industry representatives and other
stakeholders for comments; and bring back a recommended Protocol for
Council's consideration.
2. Consultation took place during January 2014
City Development staff sent out mailings to all registered Resident Associations,
the Altona Forest Stewardship Committee, Industry Canada and
telecommunication providers requesting their comments on the draft Protocol. In
addition, two advertisements were placed in the Pickering News Advertiser-
Community Page, and a public notice was prepared and posted on the City's
·website and Facebook page. The public consultation process concluded on
January 31, 2014.
3. Numerous comments, suggestions and requests for clarification on the
draft Cell Tower Protocol were received
During the Planning & Development Committee's discussion of the draft Protocol
at the December 2, 2013 meeting, Committee members asked a number of
questions for staff to further review. Through the public consultation process, five
written submissions were received from the City's Heritage Committee, the
West Shore Community Association, the Altona Forest Stewardship Committee,
a resident (Vic Rudik) and a solicitor acting on behalf of Bell, Rogers Wireless
and Telus (Frank D'Agostino of Thompson Rogers Lawyers). In addition, a
meeting was held with Mr. D'Agostino.
A summary of these comments and staff's response are contained in
Table 1 -Comments Received on the City's Draft Protocol and Staff Response,
which is provided as Attachment #1. Recommended changes are itemized in the
Table 1, and are highlighted in Section 5 of this Report.
Report PLN 18-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication
and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol)
4. At the same time as the City was finalizing its Cell Tower Protocol,
Industry Canada's revised its default protocol
Page 3
On July 15, 2014, Industry Canada published a revised default Protocol (see
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, Client Procedures
Circular, CPC-2-0-03, Issue 5, Attachment #2). Some of the amendments were
completed to align with key elements of the template protocol prepared by the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Canadian Wireless
Telecommunications Association (CWTA).
The changes to Industry Canada's Protocol included:
• requiring proponents of tower structures under 15 metres in height that are
used for telecommunication carriers or broadcasting undertakings, or are
proposed by a by third party owner, to consult with the land use authority and
the public
• exempting non-tower structures, such as antennas on building, water towers,
lamp posts, etc.) from the requirement to consult with the land use authority
and the public
• clarifying who is subject to the protocol, such as telecommunication carriers,
businesses, governments, crown agencies, the public, and third party tower
owners
• updating the requirements for the consultation process to ensure public
notifications are not perceived as junk mail; and
• establishing a time limit for the construction of a tower or antenna system of
three years from the conclusion of the public consultation, after which a new
consultation process is required
5. Recommended Modifications to the Cell Tower Protocol
As a result of staff's review of the comments and submissions received, and
Industry Canada's new default Protocol, the following are the key changes to the
recommended City's Protocol:
• requiring proponents of tower structures under 15 metres in height that are
used for telecommunication carriers or broadcasting undertakings, or are
proposed by a by third party owner, to consult with the land use authority and
the public
• exempting non-tower structures, such as antennas on building, water towers,
lamp posts, etc.) from the requirement to consult with the land use authority
and the public ·
• clarifying that the City's process for expanded notification radius will be
through consultation with the Mayor and Ward Councillors
• clarifying the City's role and responsibility regarding the review of a proposed
telecommunication tower, and that in the event of a dispute between the City
and the applicant, Industry Canada makes the final decision
49
50
Report PLN 18-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication
and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol) Page 4
~~~ clarifying who is subject to the protocol, such as telecommunication carriers,
businesses, governments, crown agencies, the public, and third party tower
owners
• clarifying that tower height calculation cannot include an artificially raised
ground level
• clarifying that the notification radius is calculated from the tower base or
furthest point of support mechanisms (such as a guy wire)
• requiring notification to City's Heritage Advisory Committee, where a tower is
not only "on" heritage properties or within a heritage district, but also
"adjacent to" heritage properties or a heritage district
• simplifying minimum submission requirements for a preconsultation meeting
• deleting the definition of "Community Sensitive Uses"
• establishing a time limit for the construction of a tower or antenna system of
three years from the conclusion of the public consultation, after which a new
consultation process is required; and
• requiring network operators to remove redundant towers in a time frame
mutually agreed to by the operator and the City, not exceeding two years of
ceasing to be in operation
6. Following approval of a City Protocol, staff will make information available
through the Pickering's website
Approval of this protocol will enhance and clarify the public consultation process,
and provide specific location and design guidelines for antenna systems located
in the City while enabling the development of a high caliber wireless
telecommunication network to service Pickering. It is recommended that City
Council approve the recommended City of Pickering Radiocommunication and
Broadcasting Protocol (Cell Tower Protocol)-September 2014 provided as
Appendix I.
Subsequently, staff will create a page on the City's website allowing residents
and proponents to download a copy of the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The
webpage will provide additional information regarding the City's review process
and community engagement process. Links to Industry Canada and Health
Canada will also be provided on this page.
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting
Antenna Systems Protocol
(Cell Tower Protocol)
52
Appendix I to
Report PLN 18-14
Table of Contents Page(s)
1.0 Definitions ............................................ ; ............................................................... 4
2.0 lntroduction .......................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Purpose .............................................................................................................. 6
3.0 Jurisdiction and Roles ........................................................................................ 7
3.1 Federal Jurisdiction ............................................................................................ 7
3.2 Other Federal Legislation ................................................................................... 7
3.3 Role of the City of Pickering ............................................................................... 7
3.4 Designated Official for Processing Antenna System Proposals ......................... 8
4.0 Exclusions ............................................................................................................ 9
4.1 Excluded Structures ..................................... · ...................................................... 9
5.0 Siting on City Owned Properties ...................................................................... 10
6.0 Location and Design Guidelines .................... ; ................................................. 11
6.1 Co-location ........................................................................................................ 11
6.2 Preferred Locations .......................................................................................... 11
6.3 Discouraged Locations ..................................................................................... 11
6.4 Design .............................................................................................................. 12
6.5 Amateur Radio Operators in Residential Areas ................................................ 13
7.0 Preconsultation with Land Use Authority ........................................................ 14
7.1 Preconsultation Meeting ................................................................................... 14
7.2 Preconsultation Meeting Requirements ............................................................ 14
7.3 Preconsultation Summary ................................................................................ 14
7.4 Formal Submission Requirements .................................................................... 15
7.5 Determination of Complete or Incomplete Request.. ........................................ 16
8.0 Public Consultation ........................................................................................... 17
8.1 Public Consultation Requirements .................................................................... 17
8.2 Public Notification Requirements ...................................................................... 17
8.3 Public Notification Package Requirements ....................................................... 18
8.4 Closing Date for Written Public Comments ...................................................... 1 9
8.5 Public Notice Sign ............................................................................................ 19
8.6 Newspaper Notice ............................................................................................ 20
8.7 Public Information Session ............................................................................... 21
8.8 Responding to the Public .................................................................................. 22
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 2 of 25
54
9.0 Post Consultation .............................................................................................. 23
9.1 Consultation Summary Package ...................................................................... 23
9.2 City Comment on Proposal. .............................................................................. 23
9.3 Duration of Concurrence .................................................................................. 23
10.0 Timeframes ......................................................................................................... 24
10.1 Consultation Timeframes .................................................................................. 24
10.2 Supplementary Public Consultation .................................................................. 24
10.3 Redundant Antenna Systems
Appendix I
Process Flowchart .............................................................................................. 25
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 3 of 25
55
56
1.0 Definitions
Amateur radio operator: is someone who uses equipment at an amateur radio
station to engage in two-way personal communications with other amateur
operators on radio frequencies assigned to the amateur radio service.
Co-location: the placement of antennas and equipment operated by one or more
proponents on a telecommunication Antenna System operated by a different
proponent, thereby creating a shared facility.
Designated Community Association: area or neighbourhood-specific group
that is recognized by the Municipality.
Designated Municipal Officer (and his or her designate): the municipal staff
member(s) tasked with receiving, evaluating and processing submissions for
telecommunication Antenna Systems. The Designated Municipal Officer's name
and contact information is provided in the Antenna System Siting Flowchart
provided in this protocol.
Downtown Area: shall mean the lands designated as Downtown Core in the
City's Official Plan.
Elected Municipal Official: the political leader of the demarcated area of the
Municipality (e.g., Ward) in which the Antenna System is proposed.
Equipment Shelter: a structure used to house the required equipment for the
operation of an Antenna System.
Environmentally Sensitive Lands: shall mean any lands designated as
shoreline and stream corridor, wetlands, environmentally significant areas,
Rouge-Duffins wildlife corridor, Altona Forest, flood plain special policy areas and
areas of natural and scientific interest and significant woodlands as identified on
Schedule Ill in the City of Pickering Official Plan.
Heritage Properties/Heritage Conservation District: buildings and structures
(e.g., monuments) or areas/neighbourhoods listed or designated under the
authority of Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act.
Land Use Authority (LUA): for the purposes of this protocol Land Use Authority
shall mean the City of Pickering.
Municipal Departments: branches of municipal government that administer
public services and are operated by City staff.
Other Agencies: bodies (e.g., boards or commissions) that administer public
services but are not operated or staffed by the Municipality.
Proponent/Applicant: any company, organization or person who puts forward a
proposal to install or modify a telecommunication tower/antenna facility.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 4 of 25
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System ("Antenna
System"): an exterior transmitting device-or group of devices-used to receive
and/or to transmit radio-frequency (RF) signals, microwave signals, or other
federally-licensed communications energy transmitted from, or to be received by,
other antennas. Antenna Systems include the antenna, and may include a
supporting tower, mast or other supporting structure, and an equipment shelter.
This protocol most commonly refers to the following two types of Antenna
Systems:
1. Freestanding Antenna System: a structure (e.g., tower or mast) built from
the ground for the expressed purpose of hosting an Antenna System or
Antenna Systems;
2. Building/Structure-Mounted Antenna System: an Antenna System
mounted on an existing structure, which could include a building wall or
rooftop, a light standard, water tower, utility pole or other.
Residential Area: lands used or zoned to permit residential uses; including
mixed uses (i.e., commercial use at-grade with residential dwelling units above).
Tower Height: height is measured from the lowest ground level at the base,
including foundation, to the tallest point of the antenna system. Any attempt to
artificially rtyeduce the height (addition of soil, aggregate, etc) is unacceptable.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 5 of 25
57
58
2.0 Introduction
There is currently a significant growth in the use of wireless services for personal
communications including voice, data and video transmissions. As the City of
Pickering's population grows so will the demand for wireless service coverage for
personal and business uses.
Telecommunications and related facilities are regulated by the Federal
Government (specifically Industry Canada) uhder the Radiocommunications Act.
Proponents of wireless facilities are required to consult with local governments
and the public as part of the approval process for proposed antenna installations
prior to construction. Industry Canada encourages local governments to develop
their own protocols, for the consideration of antenna system installations,
because of their local knowledge and because local governments are very well
qualified to explain to proponents the particular amenities, sensitivities, planning
priorities and other relevant characteristics of their municipality. ,
This protocol applies to anyone (referred to in this document as the proponent) .
who is planning to install or modify an antenna system, regardless of the type of
installation. This includes telecommunication carriers, businesses, governments,
Crown agencies, and the public. Anyone who proposes uses or owns an antenna
system must follow these procedures. The requirements also apply to those who
install towers or antennC;l systems on behalf of others or for leasing purposes
("third party tower owners).
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this protocol is:
1. To outline a City of Pickering consultation process for the installation and
modification of cell towers and other antenna installations covered by this
protocol for telecommunications facilities.
2. To outline the City's site selection and design guidelines for cell towers and
other antenna installations in Pickering.
3. To enable the development of a high calibre wireless telecommunications
service in Pickering.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 6 of 25
3.0 Jurisdiction and Roles
3.1 Federal Jurisdiction
Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by Federal
Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and administered by
Industry Canada. Provincial legislation such as the Planning Act, including zoning
by-laws, does not apply to these facilities. Notwithstanding the federal
government's exclusive jurisdiction, Industry Canada's Radiocommunication and
Broadcasting Antenna Systems Client Procedures Circular (CPC-2-0-03), Issue 5
requires proponents address comments and concerns through the City of
Pickering public consultation process as outlined in this protocol. In the case of
a dispute between the proponent and the City of Pickering, a final decision will be
made by Industry Canada.
3.2 Other Federal Legislation
As a Federal undertaking, tower facilities must adhere to all applicable Federal
regulations and guidelines, including but not limited to:
• Industry Canada's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems
Client Procedures Circular (CPC-2-0-03)
• Industry Canada's Conditions of Licence for Mandatory Roaming and
Antenna Tower and Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements
(CPC-2-0-17)
• Health Canada's Safety Code 6-Limits of Human Exposure to
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3KHZ
to 300 GHZ
• National Building Code of Canada
• Canadian Environmental Assessment Act; and
• Transport Canada's painting and lighting requirements for aeronautical safety
3.3 Role of the City of Pickering
The role of the City of Pickering as the Land Use Authority (LUA) is to
communicate to proponents the planning priorities and other characteristics of
the municipality that are relevant to the antenna system proposal. In addition,
the City advises the proponent on the public consultation requirements outlined
in this protocol. A formal decision on a proposal shall be provided by City
Council.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 7 of 25
59
60
3.4 Designated Official for Processing Antenna System Proposals
For the purpose of this protocol, the designated official for the City of Pickering
having the authority to administer this protocol is the Director, City Development
Department ("Director") or designate. All correspondence and materials
submitted as part of this consultation process shall be directed to the attention of
the Director (or designate).
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 8 of 25
4.0 Exclusions
4.1 Excluded Structures
The following types of antenna system installations or modifications are excluded
by Industry Canada from the requirement to consult with the public and the
requirement to submit a formal antenna system proposal to the City of Pickering
for review:
a) New Antenna Systems: where the height is less than 15 metres above
ground level. This exclusion does not apply to antenna systems to be used
by broadcasting undertakings or telecommunications carriers;
b) Existing Towers: modifications may be made, or the tower may be replaced,
to facilitate sharing or the addition of antennas, provided that the total height
increase is no greater than 25% of the height of the initial antenna system
installation. No increase in height may occur within one year of completion
of the initial construction;
c) Non-Tower Structures: antennas on buildings, water towers, lamp posts,
etc. may be installed provided that the height of the structure is not
increased by more than 25%; and
d) Temporary Antenna Systems: used for special events or emergency
operations and must be removed three months after the start of the
emergency or special event.
e) No consultation is required prior to performing maintenance on an existing
antenna system.
Individual circumstances vary with each antenna system installation and
modification, and the exclusion criteria below should be applied in consideration
of local circumstances. Consequently, it may be prudent for the proponent to
consult even though the proposal meets an exclusion noted above. Therefore,
when applying the criteria for exclusion, proponents should consider such things
as:
• the antenna system's physical dimensions, including the antenna, niast, and
tower, compared to the local surroundings;
• the location of the proposed antenna system on the property and its proximity to
neighbouring residents;
• the likelihood of an area being a community-sensitive location; and
• Transport Canada's marking and lighting requirements for the proposed
structure
Proponents who are not certain if their proposals are excluded, or whether
consultation may still be prudent, are advised to contact the City Development
Department.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 9 of 25
61
62
5.0 Siting on City Owned Properties
Any request to install an antenna system on lands owned by the City shall be
made to the Director (or designate).
Proponents must still submit a formal request to the City of Pickering in
accordance with Section 7.0 of this Protocol and follow the public consultation
process in accordance with Section 8.0 of this Protocol, unless the proposal
meets the exclusion criteria under Section 4.0 of this protocol.
Notwithstanding the public consultation requirements outlined in Section 8.0 of
this Protocol, the Director (or designate) shall consult with the Mayor and Ward
Councillors and following the consultation may broaden the public circulation and
content of the notice.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 10 of 25
6.0 Location and Design Guidelines
The location and design guidelines outlined in this section are established to
encourage proponents to select sites that minimize the number of tower and
antenna facilities erected in the City and to ensure that selected sites minimize
visual impacts on the surrounding area.
6.1 Co-location
Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the
proponent must explore the following options:
a) Consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System
structure.
b) Consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but
not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards.
6.2 Preferred Locations
Where co-location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible,
proponents are encouraged to:
a) Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial, or non-
residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas,
listed and designated heritage buildings and sites, and sensitive institutional
uses, and that do not interfere with traffic flows.
b) Provide new towers with co-location capabilities.
c) On undeveloped sites, locate the structure and equipment shelter so as not
to preclude future development opportunities for the site.
d) Preserve as much existing vegetation as possible.
e) Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities, where technically
feasible, and acceptable to the City (see Section 5.0).
f) The placement of antenna systems and their equipment shelter, although
they are not subject to municipal zoning by-laws, the installation shall not
create a noncompliance of any City by-law.
6.3 Discouraged Locations
The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in the following
locations:
a) Residential areas except where located on high rise buildings or if needed
for emergency service or municipal operations.
b) On sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views and
vistas.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 11 of 25
63
64
c) Within Environmentally sensitive lands.
d) On, or immediately adjacent to, Heritage Properties or within Heritage
Conservation Districts.
e) Within the Downtown area unless on high rise buildings.
If no solution is available to meet service demands other than in a location
discouraged by the City, the proponent shall provide a detailed rationale for the
necessity of the proposed location in the Site Selection/Justification Report
submitted to the City.
6.4 Design
Where a new antenna system must be constructed, proponents shall use the
following design guidelines to ensure the facility is appropriately designed and
sited to minimize visual impacts on the surrounding area. ·
a) The design should accomodate for future co-location of additional carriers,
where appropriate.
b) Stealth techniques, such as flagpoles, clock towers, trees, light poles, etc.,
should be considered and used where appropriate and in harmony with the
context of the surrounding area.
c) Monopole towers with antennas shrouded or flush mounted are preferred,
particularly when the tower is proposed in or near residential areas.
d) Equipment shelters should be designed and landscaped in a manner that is
compatible and sensitive to the surrounding area.
e) Towers and antennas that are attached or adjacent to existing buildings,
including rooftop installations, should be screened and/or designed to
complement the architecture of the building with respect to form, materials
and colour.
f) Towers should have non-reflective surfaces and be painted with neutral
colours that blend with the surrounding landscape, unless Transport
Canada requires the use of other materials or colours (e.g., for aeronautical
safety purposes).
g) Towers should not be illuminated, unless required by Transport Canada.
h) Only signage directly related to an antenna system as required by Industry
Canada shall be permitted. No third party advertising or promotion of the
owner/operator is permitted on a tower facility, unless approved by the City.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 12 of 25
6.5 Amateur Radio Operators in Residential Areas
The following location and design guidelines apply to amateur radio operators
proposing the installation of new radiocommunication antenna systems in
residential neighbourhoods.
a) The antenna system should be located in the rear yards of properties.
Avoid locating these systems in front or flankage side yards, or on
environmentally sensitive lands, designated heritage sites and within a
designated heritage conservation district.
b) The height of the antenna system should not exceed 15.0 metres above
ground level and the width should not exceed 3.0 metres at any point.
c) No part of the antenna system should be located within 1.2 metres of any lot
line.
d) When located on a roof of a building or structure, the antenna system
should only be located on that part of the roof closest to the rear yard.
e) Non-reflective surfaces and neutral colours that blend with the surrounding
area should be used.
f) No part of the antenna system shall include or be used for graphics,
signage, flags or lighting.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 13 of 25
65
66
7.0 Preconsultation with Land Use Authority
7.1 Preconsultation Meeting
Proponents are required to have a preliminary consultation with the City
Development Department prior to submitting a formal request to install an
antenna system unless it is an excluded structure in section 4.1. This initial
contact will allow the proponent to meet with staff to discuss the proposal,
including the rationalization behind the site selection.
During this meeting, City staff will provide preliminary input and comments
regarding the proposal such as, but not limited to, land use compatibility,
potential impacts on high profile and sensitive areas, alternative sites, aesthetic
or landscaping preferences and other agencies to be consulted.
This meeting will also provide an opportunity for City staff to inform the proponent
of the formal consultation process outlined herein and to advise on the
notification process for this proposal.
7.2 Preconsultation Meeting Requirements
The following information must be provided to the City Development Department
to the attention of the Director (or designate) prior to scheduling a preconsultation
meeting:
a) Cover letter describing the rationale for the proposed location and other
potential sites.
b) Aerial photos of the potential sites for the antenna system.
c) Draft site plan or survey plan of the subject property showing the location of
the proposed antenna system in relation to the site and/or buildings on the
property.
d) Elevation drawings of the proposed antenna system, height and colour.
7.3 Preconsultation Summary
Following the preconsultation meeting, the Director (or designate) will provide the
proponent with a letter outlining the City's requirements and summarizing the
results of the preconsultation meeting. The summary letter will generally provide:
a) The City's formal submission requirements as set out in Section 7.4.
b) A list of plans and studies that may be required.
c) A list of municipal departments and agencies to be consulted.
d) An indication of the City's preferences regarding location and design
guidelines for the site(s) under discussion.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 14 of 25
e) Confirmation of the notification requirements for the proposal, following
consultation with the Mayor and Ward Councillors.
To expedite the review of the proposal, the proponent is encouraged to consult
with the applicable municipal departments and agencies, and obtain applicable
written comments/clearances before making a formal submission.
7.4 Formal Submission Requirements
When a proposed antenna system does not meet the exclusion criteria identified
in Section 4.1 of this protocol, the proponent must submit a formal antenna
system proposal to the City for review.
For the purpose of this review, the proponent must submit the following materials
to the City Development Department to the attention of the Director (or
designate):
a) A completed Radiocommunication/Broadcasting Antenna System
application form and applicable fees.
b) A Site Selection/Justification Report prepared by a qualified professional,
such as a land use planner or engineer. The report should identify all
antenna systems within the vicinity of the proposed location. It should also
include details with respect to the coverage and capacity of the existing
antenna systems in the surrounding area and provide detailed evidence as
to why co-location on an existing antenna system is not a viable alternative
to the construction of a new tower facility.
c) Two copies of photo simulations of the proposed tower and associated
facilities from four directions; north, south, east and west.
d) Ten copies of the full size site\survey plan showing the dimensions of the
subject lands, size and type of an-existing and proposed buildings\structures
on the subject property and abutting lands, parking, easements, natural and
artificial features on the subject and abutting lands (i.e., railways, parking
areas, watercourses, roads, woodlots etc.).
e) One reduced copy of the site survey plan (letter size).
f) Five copies of any required technical reports, background information and
other supporting materials.
g) A public notification package.
h) A copy of the draft newspaper notice and the proposed date on which it will
be published (no sooner than 14 days from the date of request being
submitted), if applicable.
i) A copy of the draft notice sign to be posted on the subject property, if
applicable.
j) Any other required information listed in the information package provided to
the proponent during or after the preconsultation meeting.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 15 of 25
67
68
7.5 Determination of Complete or Incomplete Request
The Director (or designate) will determine whether the required antenna system
documentation is deemed complete or incomplete within 5 working days of
receipt of the request.
If the required materials listed in Section 7.4 of this Protocol are not complete or
provided to the satisfaction of the Director (or designate), the request will be
deemed incomplete and the official commencement of the 120 day consultation
process will not commence. The Director (or designate) will notify the proponent
of the outstanding items to be addressed.
When the request is deemed complete by the Director (or designate), the 120 day
consultation process will officially commence, and the Director (or designate) will:
a) notify the proponent that the request has been deemed complete, and
request the proponent to initiate the required public consultation process.
b) notify the Mayor and Ward Councillors of the complete request.
c) circulate the proposal to the applicable municipal departments and agencies
for review and comment.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 16 of 25
8.0 Public Consultation
8.1 Public Consultation Requirements
Where a formal Antenna System Review Process is required (as set out in
Section 7.4 of this Protocol), the proponent must carry out public consultation in
accordance with this Protocol.
The proponent must not initiate public notification or consultation for an antenna
system proposal until a formal submission has been made to the LUA and written
confirmation from the Director (or designate) to proceed with public notification
and consultation has been provided.
The proponent shall be responsible for all costs associated with public
consultation.
8.2 Public Notification Requirements
The proponent is to distribute the public notification packages by mail to the
. following recipients:
a) All property owners and resident associations within a radius of the greater
of 150 metres or three times the tower height, measured from the tower
base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure within the urban
area and 500 metres for proposals located in the rural area. For the purpose
of this requirement, the outside perimeter begins at the furthest point of the
supporting mechanism, such as the outermost guy line, building edge, face
of the self supporting tower, etc.
b) The Mayor and applicable City and Regional Ward Councillors in which the
proposed antenna system is located.
c) Adjacent municipalities within 500 metres of the proposed tower facility.
Proponents are also required to mail a copy of the public notification
package to the Director (or designate).
d) For proposals on, or immediately adjacent to, Heritage Properties or
Heritage Conservation Districts, the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee
shall be provided a copy of the public notification package.
The City Development Department will provide the proponent with a mailing list
of all addresses of property owners and resident associations within the required
radius.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 17 of 25
69
70
The envelope for the public notification package should have the following
statement in bold:
"Important Notice Regarding Proposed Cell Tower in Your
Neighbourhood"
When a public information session is required, the proponent is to distribute the
public notification packages by regular mail at least 30 days prior to the date of
the public information session.
A recirculation of the public notification packages will be required if the proposed
antenna system has been relocated as a result of the initial public consultation
process.
8.3 Public Notification Package Requirements
The public notification package must include the following information:
a) A location map, including the address, clearly indicating the exact location of
the proposed antenna system in relation to the surrounding properties and
streets; including a letter size (8.5" x 11 ") copy of the site plan submitted
with the application.
b) A physical description of the proposed antenna system including the height,
dimensions, tower type/design, any antenna(s) that may be mounted on the
tower, colour and lighting.
c) An elevation plan of the proposed tower facility.
d) Colour simulated images of the proposed tower facility.
e) The proposed antenna system's purpose, the reasons why existing towers
or other infrastructure cannot be used, a list of other structures that were
considered unsuitable, and future sharing possibilities for the proposal.
f) An attestation that the general public will be protected in compliance with
Health Canada's Safety Code 6 including combined effects within the local
radio environment at all times.
g) Notice that general information relating to health concerns and Safety Code 6
is available on Health Canada's website (www.hc-sc.gc.ca).
h) The project's status under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act.
i) Transport Canada's aeronautical obstruction marking requirements
(whether painting, lighting, or both) if available; if not available, the
proponent's expectation of Transport Canada's requirements once they
become available.
j) An attestation that the installation will respect good engineering practices
including structural adequacy.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 18 of 25
k) Address, location (including a map) and timing of the public information
session, if applicable.
I) Information on how to submit written public comments to the Applicant and
the closing date for submission of written public comments.
m) Applicant's contact information.
n) Reference to the City of Pickering's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting
Antenna Systems Protocol and where it can be viewed (www.pickeri~g.ca).
o) The following sentences regarding jurisdiction:
"Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by
Federal Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and
administered by Industry Canada. Provincial legislation such as the
Planning Act, including zoning by-laws, does not apply to these facilities.
The City of Pickering is participating in land-use consultation pursuant to
Issue 5 of Industry Canada's CPC 2-0-03. In the case of a dispute between
the proponent and the City, a final decision will be made by Industry
Canada"
p) Notice that general information relating to antenna systems is available on
Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications
website (www.ic.gc.ca).
q) Municipal and Industry Canada contact information.
r) Closing date for submission of written public comments.
8.4 Closing Date for Written Public Comments
The closing date for submission of written public comments shall not be less
than:
a) 14 days after the public information session, where a public information
session is required; or
b) 30 days where a public information session is not required.
8.5 Public Notice Sign
Unless otherwise determined through preconsultation, the proponent shall erect
a sign on the property notifying the public of the proposal to establish an antenna
system on the subject property. The sign shall be erected on the property so that
it is clearly visible and legible from the street(s).
The sign shall be professionally prepared and its size shall be a minimum of
1.2 metres by 1.2 metres and located a minimum of 1.0 metre and a maximum of
1.8 metres from the ground. However, the size of the sign shall not exceed
2.4 metres in height by 1.2 metres in width unless otherwise specified through
preconsultation. The erection of the notice sign should be coordinated with the
distribution of the public notification packages.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 19 of 25
71
72
Photographs showing the sign posted and the date on which it was erected on
the subject property shall be submitted to the Director (or designate) within
ten days after the sign has been erected.
The sign shall remain on the subject property for the duration of the public
consultation process. The proponent shall be responsible for removing the sign
no later than 21 days after the completion of the consultation process.
Unless otherwise specified through preconsultation the notice sign shall contain
the following wording:
Public Notice -Cell Tower
[Name of Proponent] is proposing to locate a telecommunication tower/antenna facility,
being [#] metres ([#] feet) in height, on this property.
(If applicable) A public information session is scheduled on [date of meeting] from [start
time] to [end time] at [location of meeting].
Public comment is invited.
The closing date for submission of written comments is [applicable closing date].
For further information, contact [Applicant's name, phone number and e-mail address].
Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by Federal
Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and administered by Industry
Canada. Provincial legislation such as the Planning Act, including zoning by-laws, does
not apply to these facilities. The City of Pickering is participating in land-use
consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of Industry Canada's CPC 2-0-03. In the case of a
dispute between the proponent and the City, a final decision will be made by Industry
Canada
[Municipal and Industry Canada contact information]
8.6 Newspaper Notice
Where an antenna system is 30 metres or greater in height, the proponent shall
place a newspaper notice in the News Advertiser (i.e., the community's
newspaper).
The newspaper notice shall be a minimum size of 10 centimetres x 1 0 centimetres.
A copy of the actual newspaper notice appearing in the News Advertiser,
including the newspaper date, shall be forwarded to the Director (or designate)
within ten days of the newspaper notice being published.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 20 of 25
Where a public information session is required, the newspaper notice shall be
published at least 21 days before the date of the public information session for
two consecutive weeks.
The date on which the newspaper notice is published should be coordinated with
the distribution of the public notification packages.
Where a public information session is not required, the date on which the
newspaper notice is being published should be coordinated with the distribution
of the public notification packages.
The newspaper notice shall contain the following information:
a) Description of the proposed tower facility, including the height;
b) Address of the proposed tower facility;
c) Location map (key plan) of the proposed site;
d) Invitation for public comment and the closing date for submission of written
comments;
e) Invitation to the public information session, and location and time of the
session (if applicable);
f) Applicant's contact information;
g) Inclusion of the following:
"Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by
Federal Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and .
administered by Industry Canada. Provincial legislation such as the
Planning Act, including zoning by-laws, does not apply to these facilities.
The City of Pickering is participating in land-use consultation pursuant to
Issue 5 of Industry Canada's CPC 2-0-03. In the case of a dispute between
the proponent and the City, a final decision will be made by Industry
Canada."; and
h) Municipal and Industry Canada contact information.
8.7 Public Information Session
A public information session is required where the proposed antenna system is
located:
a) Within the greater of three times the tower height or 150 metres from a
residential area; and\or
b) If determined through preconsultation.
Where required, the proponent shall be responsible for convening a public
information session at the proponent's cost.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 21 of 25
73
74
The proponent, as the case may be, shall adhere to the following requirements
when organizing and convening a public information session:
a) The Public information session shall be open and accessible to all members
of the public and local stakeholders.
b) The Public information session shall occur on a weekday evening, no
sooner than 21 days and no later than 28 days, from the date that the public
notification packages are mailed and the sign posted.
c) The Duration of the public information session shall be a minimum of 2 hours.
d) Two display panels, at a minimum, containing a site plan drawing and colour
photographs of the subject property with superimposed images of the
proposed antenna system shall be displayed at the public information
session.
e) The proponent shall provide information regarding the tower proposal,
including the purpose of the tower, general information relating to Health
Canada's Safety Code 6 and a clear statement indicating that
telecommunication tower/antenna facilities are exclusively regulated by
Federal legislation under the Radiocommunication Act and administered by
Industry Canada; Provincial legislation such as the Planning Act, including
zoning by-laws, does not apply to these facilities. The City of Pickering is
participating in land-use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of Industry
Canada's CPC 2-0-03. In the case of a dispute between the proponent and
the City, a final decision will be made by Industry Canada.
f) Public notification packages including a public comment sheet shall be
made available for attendees.
g) Closing date for written public comments shall be clearly announced at the
public information session.
h) A record of all names, addresses, email addresses and phone numbers of
the attendees shall be retained, subject to applicable privacy laws in respect
of personal information.
8.8 Responding to the Public
The proponent is to address all applicable concerns, make all efforts to resolve,
them in a mutually acceptable manner and must keep a record of all associated
communications. If the public or Director (or designate) raises a question,
comment or concern relating to the tower facility, as a result of the public
consultation process, then the proponent is required to:
a) Respond to the party in writing within 14 days by acknowledging receipt of
the question, comment or concern and keep a record of the communication.
b) Address, in writing, all applicable concerns within 30 days of receipt or
explain why the question, comment or concern is not, in the view of the
proponent, applicable and clearly indicate that the party has 21 days from
the date of the correspondence to reply to the proponent's response.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 22 of 25
c) In the case where the party responds within 21 days, the proponent shall
address all applicable concerns within 21 days, either in writing, by
contacting the party by telephone or engaging the party in an informal
meeting.
9.0 Post Consultation
9.1 Consultation Summary Package
The proponent shall provide to the Director (or designate) a package
summarizing the results of the public consultation process which shall include the
following information:
a) Attendance list and contact information from the public information session
(if applicable).
b) All written public comments and/or concerns received regarding the
proposal.
c) The proponent's responses to the public comments and/or concerns,
outlining how the concerns were or will be addressed, or alternatively, by
clearly indicating why such concerns are not applicable.
d) Details of any modifications to the proposal, including revised plans and
drawings, if applicable.
A recirculation of the public notification packages will be required if the proposed
antenna system has been relocated as a result of the initial public consultation
process.
9.2 City Comment on Proposal
A formal City comment on the proposal shall be provided by City Council
following consideration of a report prepared by City D'evelopment staff. The
report will normally be considered at a meeting of the Planning & Development
Committee and subsequently at a City Council meeting.
The Report to Council will include a summary of the public consultation process
and a staff comment on land use compatibility. The report will include a
resolution from City Council requesting the Director, City Development (or
designate) to either issue a letter of:
a) Concurrence;
b) concurrence with conditions; or
c) non-concurrence.
9.3 Post-Consultation Construction Time Limit
The. construction of an antenna system must be completed within three years of
the conclusion of consultation. After three years, previous consultations will no
longer be valid.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 23 of 25
75
76
10.0 Timeframes
10.1 Consultation Timeframes
The consultation process and the decision from the City of Pickering should be
completed within 120 days from the date of a complete submission.
Appendix I of this Protocol contains a flow chart of the consultation processes.
10.2 Supplementary Public Consultation
. Where the consultation process has not been concluded and 270 days have
elapsed from the time of the public notification packages being sent, the
proponent may be required to carry out a supplementary public consultation
process, if requested by the Director (or designate).
10.3 Redundant Antenna Systems
The Director (or designate) may issue a request to a network operator to clarify
that a specific Antenna System is still required to support communication network
activity. The network operator will respond within 30 days of receiving the
request, and will provide any available information on the future status or planned
decommissioning of the Antenna System.
Where the network operator concurs that an Antenna System is redundant, the
network operator and the City of Pickering will mutually agree on a timeframe to
remove the system and all associated buildings and equipment from the site.
Removal will occur no later than 2 years from when the Antenna System was
deemed redundant.
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 24 of 25
Appendix I
-
0 12
Da ys
'--
City Development Department
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Flowchart
l Preconsultation Meeting 1
I ...
l Formal Submission 1
...
[ City reviews request for completeness l
J
-,1, ...
I Complete request Incomplete request l
.J. t
Proponent is notified by the City to proceed with Proponent submits
the distribution ofthe ptJblic notification required information
packages, erect the notice sign and, if applicable,
publish newspaper notice
+
r
If applicable, Proponent convenes public Note: Where the LUA* information session
.J.
consultation process
has not been concluded
[ Proponent responds to all questions, and 270 days have
comments and/or concerns by the public elapsed from the time of
.,!, the public notification
[ Proponent provides summary package to packages being sent,
the City the proponent may be
required to carry out a
"' supplementary public
[ Report to Council for decision consultation process, if
... requested by the
[ Concurrence with or without conditions
Director (or Designate)
~ ... ...
Director (or Designate) provides Non-concurrence
letter to proponent & Industry
Canada I
! ~ ~ 1
Proponent proceeds Proponent modifies Proponent advises Proponent
to Industry Canada for the proposal Industry Canada of decides to
final approval Impasse relocate proposal
... on different
Dispute resolution
property location
• LUA-Land use authority process
• Created: May 31, 2013
Updated: November 13,2013 Industry Canada
makes final decision
Draft Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol Page 25 of 25
77
78
ftJTA~~EWT# I -=TO
REPOHT1' ~·· . , PL ;J ;,g~;y
Table 1 -Comments Received on the City's Draft Protocol and Staff Response
Comments and questions from Committee members at the December 2, 2013
Planning & Development Committee Meeting and December 9, 2013 City Council
Meeting
Comment Response
1. Commented that the Section 4 of Industry Canada's Radiocommunication
draft protocol does not and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, Client Procedures
provide City Council with Circular, Issue 5 requires proponents to follow the local
final authority regarding municipality's land-use consultation process where one
notification requirements exists.
for proposed cell towers.
Recommended Changes N/A
2. In the past, proponents Should this happen, the final decision on the application
have approached would rest with Industry Canada. However, in practice,
Industry Canada to seek proponents are generally prepared to comply with the
exemption from the City requests so long as they are reasonable.
City's request to expand
notification radius.
Recommended Changes N/A
3. Questioned what would Section 4 of Industry Canada's Radiocommunication
happen if proponents and Broadcasting Antenna Systems, Client Procedures
decided not to follow the Circular, Issue 5 requires proponents to follow the local
City's Cell Tower municipality's land-use consultation process where one
Protocol. exists.
Recommended Changes N/A
September 2014 Page 1 of 22
AHA~B~T# I _TO
REPCiiil!~ L_LIJ I?-~ £r
Comment Response
4. Concerned that the The circulation radius in the recommended protocol is
proposed notification consistent with the City's circulation requirements for
requirements may still applications under the Planning Act. In addition, the
result in limited recommended protocol was revised to include language
notification for certain that the notification requirements and any request to
proposals. expand the notification radius will be made in
consultation with the Mayor and Ward Councillors and
discussed with the proponent during the preconsultation
process.
Recommended Changes Section 7.3 has been revised to include the
following in the preconsultation summary letter to
the proponent:
e) confirmation of the notification requirements for
the proposal, following consultation with the Mayor
and Ward Councillors.
5. Requested clarification in The recommended protocol has been revised to provide
order to determine what further clarity
"furthest point" of
proposed tower means.
Recommended Changes Section 8.2 (a} has been revised as follows:
For the purpose of this requirement, the outside
perimeter begins at the furthest point of the
supporting mechanism, such as the outermost guy
line, building edge, face of the self supporting
tower, etc.
6. Requested staff to All registered resident associations including the Altona
ensure all resident Forest Stewardship Committee were mailed copies of
associations are notified the draft protocol for comment.
to seek their comments,
and to ensure that the
Altona Forest
Stewardship Committee
is included.
Recommended Changes N/A
September 2014 Page 2 of 22
79
ATIAr1rMEWH I .· __ ro
REPOI'!Tti ; h /II LE:.-/ 5"
Comment Response
7. Questioned what types The City's protocol applies to anyone planning to install,
of antenna systems other erect or modify an antenna system, regardless of the
than cell towers are type (such as broadcasting towers and amateur radio
subject to the draft operators)
protocol.
Recommended Changes N/A
/
8. Requested that The protocol does not require the attendance of either
proponents' present the proponent and/or a qualified individual at Council
qualified individuals at meetings. These matters are best left to the judgement
City Council meetings and discretion of the various proponents.
when the proposal is However, Section 7.4'b) does require the submission of
I
being considered by a Site Justification/Selection Report prepared by a Council to ensure
I technical questions can "qualified professional such as a land use planner or
engineer" as part of the formal submission be addressed. requirements.
Recommended Changes No change recommended
9. Requested that the Sections 8.3, 8.5, and 8.6 require proponents to include
public notice give clear information in the notifications and signage that
direction to residents that telecommunication facilities are "exclusively regulated
the City is not the final by Federal legislation".
approval authority
respecting cell towers.
Recommended Changes No change required.
10. Questioned when City The Mayor and Ward Councillors will be consulted
Councillors would be during the preconsultation stage
made aware of an
application.
Recommended Changes Section 7.3 has been revised to clarify the
involvement of the Mayor and Ward Councillors
during the preconsultation stage.
September 2014 Page 3 of 22
80
82
AITil~OO~ I _TO
RIEI-1Difrr I' w f?LAI J [f-1 y
Comment Response
Pickering Westshore Community Association
(Includes comments from Cat Beattie and Andy McKinnon, residents within the West
Shore Community, and Andre Pilon on behalf of the West Shore Community
Association )
14. Expressed concern that
the Pickering Westshore
Community Association
was not circulated the
·draft
Radiocommunication
and Broadcasting
Protocol and other
resident associations
were not notified,
The City Development Department circulated the draft
protocol to all registered resident associations, as
provided by the Clerks department. At the time of
circulation, the Pickering Westshore Community
Association was not a registered association, but has
since been added to the list.
Recommended Changes N/A
15. Recommended that the Agreed.
City Protocol include
language that would
require the proponent to
re-circulate a proposal
should the location
change following the
initial public consultation.
Recommended Changes Sections 8.2 and 9.1 of the recommended protocol
have been amended with the following wording:
September 2014
A recirculation of the public notification packages
will be required if the proposed antenna system has
been relocated as a result of the initial public
consultation process.
Page 5 of 22
AHfo~~JiB\;lH / TO .
REP!:lffi"Ji .f/LN I t?i)L
Comment Response
16. Recommended that The circulation radius provided in the City's protocol is
circulation be a minimum appropriate. If a greater circulation is warranted, it will
of 6 times the height of be considered at the preconsultation stage, in
the tower or 500 metres consultation with the Ward Councillors and Mayor.
(cited Town of Ajax
policy) whichever is
greater in urban areas
and a 1 kilometre radius
in rural areas.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
17. Recommended that The protocol is intended to address the siting and
Pickering adopt a policy design preferences of the City. Health and safety
requesting Radio concerns related to cell towers are beyond the scope
Frequency emissions and intent of the City's protocol.
from towers be kept at
1 00 times less than what
Safety Code 6 currently
allows (cited City of
Toronto Policy).
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
18. Recommended that The protocol is intended to address the siting and
protocol include design preferences of the City. Health and safety
independent monitoring concerns related to cell towers are beyond the scope
of the Radio Frequency and intent of the City's protocol.
emissions of cell towers
on a regular basis to
ensure cumulative
emissions from multiple
sources are not
exceeding limits and
make this information
publically accessible.
Recommended Changes No change recommended
September 2014 Page 6 of 22
83
Comment
19. Recommended that
protocol include a policy
requirement that the City
and the proponent
execute an agreement
requiring the removal of
a tower that has been
decommissioned, left
abused orabandonedfur
2 or more years.
Taxpayers should not be
responsible for the tear
down and disposal of
towers.
Recommended Changes
20. Recommended that City
Protocol require
proponents to enter into
an agreement requiring
co-location.
Recommended Changes
September 2014
84
ATrfo<CM<ME~T #: I ,. __ TO
RE?OY'IT1i :··,-_L.4/V !liJL
Response
Policies on redundant antenna systems have been
added to the recommended protocol.
Section 10.3 has been added to the recommended
protocol as follows:
The Director (or designate) may issue a request to a
network operator to clarify that a specific Antenna
System is still required to support communication
network activity. The network operator will respond
within 30 days of receiving the request, and will
provide any available information on the future
status or planned decommissioning of the Antenna
System.
Where the network operator concurs that an
Antenna System is redundant, the network operator
and the City of Pickering will mutually agree on a
timeframe to remove the system and all associated
buildings and equipment from the site. Removal will
occur no later than 2 years from when the Antenna
System was deemed redundant.
Co-location opportunities are considered during the
review process but not "required." Co-location
opportunities are examined in the Site Justification
Report, but not always recommended. There may be
circumstances where co-location may not be desired
because of the impact on the neighbourhood or on
tower design.
No change recommended
Page 7 of 22
ATift.~~T# I TO
AE?fWIT tf . ~ f'L IV I ?"::LY
Comment Response
21. Recommended that The definition of "Community Sensitive Locations" has
Section 1.0 Definitions-been removed from the protocol. Decisions on cell
"Community Sensitive tower locations are best made through site-specific
Locations" be refined to discussions with residents and proponents based on the
clearly indicate policies of section 6.2 (Preferred Locations) and section
playgrounds, daycare 6.3 (Discouraged Locations), rather than by a generic
centres, schools, parks definition.
and church property.
Recommended Changes Definition of "Community Sensitive Locations"
deleted from the protocol.
22. Recommended that The protocol discourages towers within Environmentally
Section 1.0 Definitions -Sensitive Locations. The specific exclusion of parks and
"Environmentally open spaces is not supported as these areas would not
Sensitive Lands" include always be environmentally sensitive. In certain
parks and open spaces, instances locating a tower in a park or open space area
as towers located in the may be appropriate.
middle of parks ruin the Health and safety concerns related to cell towers are view may create possible beyond the scope and intent of the City's protocol. health and safety
concerns.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
23. Expressed concern with The purpose and objective of the recommended
the wording of Section protocol is to outline the City's .PUblic consultation
2.1 (3) the purpose of process, siting and design guidelines and enable the
protocol "to enable the development of a high calibre wireless
development of a high telecommunication service (for economic, emergency
calibre wireless service and telecommunication purposes). In
telecommunications considering cell tower locations, all three objectives
service in Pickering". must be weighed and considered.
The purpose and
objective should be to
minimize visual clutter,
keep Pickering beautiful,
protect health and safety
of citizens, protecting the
wildlife and natural
spaces and protecting
our heritage etc.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
September 2014 Page 8 of 22
85
ATIJ'~~ I =-TO
Rtrolfr(i ?Ltv ~'r
Comment Response
\
24. Requested that the The protocol has been amended to provide greater
statement in Section 3.1 clarity on the roles and responsibilities of Industry
which indicates the City Canada and the City of Pickering in the review of
of Pickering does not antenna systems.
have the authority to
stop construction of a
tower facility be deleted.
It was recommended that
the City protocol indicate
that the final decision
rests with Industry
Canada which requires
proponents to comply
with the local protocol.
Recommended Changes Sections 3.1, 8.3 o), 8.5 and 8.6 g) have been
amended with the following wording:
"Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are
regulated exclusively by Federal Legislation under
the Federal Radiocommunication Act and
administered by Industry Canada. Provincial
legislation such as the Planning Act, including
zoning by-laws, does not apply to these facilities.
The City of Pickering is participating in land-use
consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of Industry
Canada's CPC 2-0-03. In the case of a dispute
between the proponent and the City, a final decision
will be made by Industry Canada."
25. Recommended that Section 4.1 of the protocol is consistent with the
Section 4.1 (b) be exclusions and wording published by Industry Canada.
revised to require The request to require consultation for increases in
notification be provided tower height is not supported. It is important to note that
where an increase in the in the event a proposal increases the height of the
height of an existing existing tower beyond the exemption allowance then the
tower is proposed. proponent will be required to undertake a public
consultation process.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
September 2014 Page 9 of 22
86
Comment
26. Questioned whether
Section 5.0 permits City
and Regional Councillors
to broaden area of the
public notice as they see
fit or is it the Director's
decision. It was
recommended that the
wording be revised to
permit the Mayor, City
and Regional Councillors
. to extend the notification
area.
Recommended Changes
27. Recommended that
proponents be required
to provide proof
regarding co-location
opportunities by a
professional planner or
engineer.
Recommended Changes
28. Recommend changing
wording in 6.2 Preferred
Locations from
"proponents are
encouraged" to
"proponents will" to
strengthen the policy.
Recommended Changes
September 2014
AIT$&ll-M~i¢~, I __ :ro
RlEP[DHYti r , I?Lry .J.i:..:f.r
Response
Section 5.0 of the City's protocol requires the Director
(or alternate) to consult with the Mayor and Ward
Councillors on the notification requirements and
following this, to broaden the public circulation. This
process is appropriate.
No change recommended.
Section 7.4 b) of the City's protocol requires the Site
Selection/Justification Report to examine co-location
opportunities. This report must be prepared by a
qualified professional such as a land use planner or
engineer.
No change recommended.
The existing wording provides the City with the flexibility
needed to respond to site-specific circumstances and
neighbourhood input obtained through the review
process.
No change recommended.
Page 10 of 22
-87
p;rrt.~!a\IH 1 -__ ro
Rtrowrr~, tuv lH!T
Comment Response
29. Recommended that In some instances co-location may result in design
policy 6.2(b) be revised alterations to an existing tower that may create an
to secure co-location undesired outcome. Efforts to minimize the visual
through an agreement impact of the tower could be jeopardized with additional
with the proponent and antennas attached to it. Co-location should be
further recommended encouraged, but not made mandatory.
that all towers be
designed to
accommodate at
minimum 2 or more
additional carriers.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
30. Expressed concerns with Proponents are required to comply with the applicable
the wording of Section Building Code regulations.
6.2 (f) as it does not
address potential
conflicts with building
codes in the event an
alteration is required to a
building or roof.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
31 . It was suggested the City The City's application form stipulates the required fees,
protocol enhance the including review fees for the applicable conservation
submission requirements authority.
to require fees and The requirement for a tree inventory and preservation documentation for the plan will be discussed with proponents during the pre-applicable conservation consultation process. authority and a tree
inventory and
preservation plan.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
September 2014 Page 11 of 22
88
A'f!fo,C~?.1PENH 1 =TO
REFOI'ff1? c.kf11 if'iY
Comment Response
35. Suggested that the Agree.
wording in Section 6.4
. be changed to "shall use
the guidelines" instead of
"are encouraged to".
Recommended Changes Section 6.4 has been amended.
36. Suggested that the Co-location on towers is a principle objective of the City
wording in Section 6.4 protocol. However, a strict application of co-location
(a) be changed to may have undesirable visual impacts in certain
require proponents to instances. Certain tower designs (such as monopoles)
design their towers to can be negatively impacted with multiple antenna
allow for future systems. The recommended protocol has been
co-location. amended to require designs that accommodate co-
location, where appropriate.
Recommended Changes Section 6.4 a) has been amended as follows:
-The design should accommodate for future co-
location of additional carriers, where appropriate.
37. Suggested that the Colour selection of the tower will be determined through
wording in Section 6.4 (f) the review of the proposal and may be subject to the
be amended to indicate requirements of Transport Canada.
neutral colours should
blend with the "sky" and
surrounding landscape.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
38. Suggested that the Landscape requirements are reviewed by the City and
wording in Section 6.4 the selection of native species is a common practice.
(d) require landscape
materials achieve a
minimum 80% coverage
within two years of
installation and consists
of native plant species.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
September 2014 Page 13 of 22
90
ATIACMMOO~ i ~-TO
RIEPOHflt' CL/1/ !Rjy
Comment Response
39. Suggested that the Section 6.4 g) indicates that towers should not be
wording in Section 6.4 illuminated unless required by Transport Canada.
(g) respecting
illumination of the tower
be expanded to include
provisions restricting light
levels to the minimal
amount required,
non-intrusion of lighting
to surrounding properties
and that it be dark sky
friendly. If lighting is
required by Navigation
Canada the proponent
should be required to
provide proof.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
40. Recommended that The City is reluctant to require the addition of signage to
Section 6.4 (h) be a cell tower and/or tower site that could potentially
amended to require create an additional visual impact on a neighbourhood.
signage that indicates Information requests related to cell tower owners could
the owners name and be directed to Industry Canada.
contact information.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
41. Recommended that This section applies to amateur radio operators, and
Section 6.5 (a) and (c) permits a maximum tower height of 15 metres. Many
establish a setback residential properties could not accommodate a setback
equal to the height of the equal to the height of the tower.
tower.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
September 2014 Page 14 of 22
91
Ant.~~~~ I TO
RE?I:DV'!l'!?: .~fL
..
Comment Response
42. Questioned-whether a The City protocol requires the proponent to submit a
template has been Site Justification/Selection Report prepared by a
prepared for the Site qualified professional such as a land use planner or
Selection/Justification engineer, as part of the formal submission
Report and reiterated requirements. No template has been created. Section
that this report should be 7.4 of the protocol provides the City's formal submission
prepared by a qualified requirements.
professional. Also
recommended that the
report address all towers
within 500 metres of the
proposed location.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
43. Questioned whether The 120 day consultation process does not commence
incomplete requests as until a request is deemed complete. Incomplete
identified in Section 7.5 requests will not be circulated.
will slow down the
application.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
44. Recommended that Health and safety concerns related to cell towers are
Section 8.3 (f) be beyond the scope and intent of the City's protocol. The
amended to adoptthe City also does not have the expertise or resources to
same guidelines as the monitor such a policy.
City of Toronto Prudent
Avoidance Policy, which
requires towers to be
operated at a level 1 00
times less than allowed
in Safety Code 6.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
September 2014 Page 15 of 22
92
ATIA~~~U I ~TO
RlEPCDm"ri -/'j;f:! jJ[-(Y
Comment Response
45. Recommended that Staff will consult with the Mayor and Ward Councillors to
Section 8.7 (a) be determine if a public information session is warranted.
amended to require a The proponent will be advised of this request in the
public information pre-consultation summary.
session if the proposed
location is within a
distance of 6 times the
height of the proposed
tower to a residential
area.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
46. Recommended that Section 10.2 provides the Director with the discretion to
Section 1 0.2 be require supplementary consultation.
amended to require
supplementary public
consultation if 270 days
have past since the initial
public notification.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
47. Requested that towers There may be instances where the erection of a tower
be banned in church on a church property may be appropriate. The request
yards. to ban them on these properties is not supported and
each proposed will be reviewed on its individual merits.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
September 2014 Page 16 of 22
93
An~~IDI~fa'6H I -=TO
REPD~Tli .... _f7Livl., L[::/,'1
Comment Response
Altona Forest Stewardship Committee
51 . Recommended that the
wording of Section 6.3
c), Discouraged
Locations, be revised to
include wording to
discourage towers
"adjacent" to
Environmentally
sensitive lands (such as
the Altona Forest).
Recommended Changes
52. Requested clarification
that the Altona Forest
Stewardship Committee
is on the list of resident
associations to ensure
they would circulate
proposals in accordance
with Section 8.2 a).
Recommended Changes
September 2014
We are concerned with adding the word "adjacent" to
these lands as the area may be well suited to provide
visual screening of the proposed tower provided they do
not negatively impact the Environmentally Sensitive
lands. All proposals near Environmentally Sensitive
Lands will require in consultation with the applicable
Conservation Authority
No change recommended.
All resident associations will be circulated proposals in
accordance with Section 8.2. of the recommended
protocol. The Altona Forest Stewardship Committee
has been added to the list of registered resident
associations.
No change recommended.
Page 18 of22
95
.L\Hf.:.~v1'!fa~r~ I ~TO
~EPOWU' · CLI\./ J? .:f.t
Comment Response
55. Identified an issue with We acknowledge these requirements may conflict with
the draft protocol that each other. Each proposal will be reviewed on its own
promotes the use of merits.
unobtrusive towers
designs (i.e. monopoles)
while requiring
co-location at the same
time. It was suggested
the City adopt a policy
promoting co-location
towers away from
residential areas and
unobtrusive designs are
preferred near residential
areas.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
56. Expressed concern that The proposed notification requirements within the
the notification recommended protocol are consistent with the
requirements in the City circulation requirements for Planning Act applications in
protocol may encourage the City of Pickering. City Staff continually receive
carriers to pursue greater public concerns with lack of notice for installations
towers as there would be based on Industry Canada's requirements.
no benefit to a smaller
tower that would typically
have a reduced
notification.
Recommended Changes No change recommended.
57. Disagrees with Section 10.2 provides the Director with the discretion to
requirement for second require supplementary consultation. If sufficient time
round of public has passed since initial consultation, proponents can
notification if 270 days expect a request to conduct supplementary
have elapsed from initial consultation; however there may be situations where
public consultation. supplementary consultation may not be necessary.
Recommended it be
deleted.
Recommended Changes No change r~commended.
September 2014 Page 20 of 22
97
!-\Ur.;.~~BltT#.l _ TO
REPO[fJ? ' EAJ. It. -!_5f
Comment Response
58. Disagrees with the The protocol has been amended to provide greater
commentary in various clarity on the roles and responsibilities of Industry
sections of the protocol Canada and the City of Pickering in the review of
that describes the City's antenna systems.
role as a commenting
body only. The spectrum
licence issued by
Industry Canada requires
the carriers to obtain
concurrence from Ure
land use authority.
Industry Canada's
involvement only occurs
where a dispute exists
between proponent and
municipality.
Recommended Changes Sections 3.1, 8.3 o), 8.5 and 8.6 g) have been
amended with the following wording:
"Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are
regulated exclusively by Federal Legislation under
the Federal Radiocommunication Act and
administered by Industry Canada. Provincial
legislation such as the Planning Act, including
zoning by-laws, does not apply to these facilities.
The City of Pickering is participating in land-use
consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of Industry
Canada's CPC 2-0-03. In the case of a dispute
between the proponent and the City, a final decision
will be made by Industry Canada".
September 2014 Page 21 of 22
98
ATIP:.C~J~U / JO
9EPD!rtl~ P ' . t:J.!V / ~
Comment Response
59. Recommended that the We are concerned with what constitutes a change in
duration of concurrence circumstance. Delegating this interpretation to staff may
be extended where there not be appropriate.
has not been a change Industry Canada's default protocol has been amended in circumstance. to address post consultation time limits and we have Recommended that this amended the wording of the City protocol for decision be delegated to consistency. staff.
Recommended Changes Section 9.3 has been re-titled Post-Consultation
Construction Time Limit. It reads as follows:
The construction of an antenna system must be
completed within three years of the conclusion of
consultation. After three years, previous
consultations Vl(ill no longer be valid.
September 2014 Page 22 of 22
99
100
Industry lndustrie
Canada Canada
Spectrum Management and Telecommunications
Client Procedures Circular
Radiocommunication
Antenna Systems
Aussi disponible en franc;;ais-CPC-2-0-03
CPC-2-0-03
Issue 5
Released: June 26, 2014
Effective: July 15, 2014
nd Broadcasting
Canada
ATTACHMENT#. ,2 -_TO
REPORT I 8--N ;g-1 t-
Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Mandate ........................................ ; ...................................................................................... 3
1.2 Application .......................................................................................................................... 3
1.3 Process Overview ................................................................................................................ 3
2. Industry Canada Engagement ..................................................................................... · ................ 4
3. Use of Existing Infrastructure (Sharing) .................................................................................... 4
4. Land-use Authority and Public Consultation ............................................................................ 5
4.1 Land-use Authority Consultation ........................................................................................ 6
4.2 Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process .................................................... 7
4.3 Concluding Consultation .................................................................................................... 9
4.4 Post-Consultation .............................................................................................................. 11
5. Dispute Resolution Process ........................................................................................................ 11
6. Exclusions .................................................................................................................................... 11
7. General Requirements ................................................................................................................ 12
7.1 Radio Frequency Exposure Limits .................................................................................... 13
7.2 Radio Frequency Immunity .............................................................................................. 14
7.3 Proximity of Proposed Structure to Broadcasting Undertakings ...................................... 14
7.4 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act ........................................................................ 14
7.5 Aeronautical Safety ........................................................... '"'"" ........................ ~ ................. 15
Appendix 1-Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process -Public Notification
Package .............................................................................................. ~ ..................................................... 17
ii
102
ATIACHMEHT I. b2 -~ID
AEPORTI-1/LtV 1<?-;t/
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
1. Introduction
Radiocommunication and broadcasting services are important for all Canadians and are used daily by
the public, safety and security organizations, government, wireless service providers, broadcasters,
utilities and businesses. In order for radiocommunication and broadcasting services to work, antenna
systems including masts, towers, and other supporting structures are required. Antenna systems are
normally composed of an antenna and some type of supporting structure, often called an antenna tower.
Most antennas have their own integral mast so that they can be fastened directly to a building or a tower.
There is a certain measure of flexibility in the placement of antenna systems which is constrained to
some degree by: the need to achieve acceptable coverage for the service area; the availability of sites;
technical limitations; and safety. In exercising its mandate, Industry Canada believes that it is important
that antenna systems be deployed in a manner that considers the local surroundings.
1.1 Mandate
Section 5 of the Radiocommunication Act states that the Minister may, taking into account all matters
the Minister considers relevant for ensuring the orderly development and efficient operation of
radiocommunication in Canada, issue radio authorizations and approve each site on which radio
apparatus, including antenna systems, may be located. Further, the Minister may approve the erection of
all masts, towers and other antenna-supporting structures. Accordingly, proponents must follow the
process outlined in this document when installing or modifying an antenna system. Also, the installation
of an antenna system or the operation of a currently existing antenna system that is not in accordance
with this process may result in its alteration or removal and other sanctions against the operator in
accordance with the Radiocommunication Act.
1.2 Application
The requirements of this document apply to anyone (referred to in this document as the proponent) who
is planning to install or modify an antenna system, 1 regardless of the type. This includes
telecommunications carriers,2 businesses, governments, Crown agencies, operators ofbroadcasting
undertakings and the public (including for amateur radio operation and over-the-air TV reception).
Anyone who proposes, uses or owns an antenna system must follow these procedures. The requirements
also apply to those who install towers or antenna systems on behalf of others or for leasing purposes
("third party tower owners"). As well, parts of this process contain obligations that apply to existing
antenna system owners and operators.
1.3 Process Overview
This document outlines the process that must be followed by proponents seeking to install or modify
antenna systems. The broad elements ofthe process are as follows:
For the purposes of this document, an "antenna system" is normally composed of an antenna and some sort of supporting
structure, normally a tower. Most antennas have their own integral mast so that they can be fastened directly to a
building or a tower. Thus, where this document refers to an "antenna," the term includes the integral mast.
2 For the purpose of this document, a "telecommunications carrier" means a person who owns or operates a transmission
facility used by that person or another person to provide telecommunications services to the public for compensation.
3
103
104
ATTACHMENT I 2 JO
REPORT#' ', 8LU / ?-/,:f:
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
1. Investigating sharing or using existing infrastructure before proposing new antenna-supporting
structures.
2. Contacting the land-use authority (LUA) to determine local requirements regarding antenna systems.
3. Undertaking public notification and addressingrelevant concerns, whether by following local LUA
requirements or Industry Canada's default process, as is required and appropriate.
4. Satisfying Industry Canada's general and technical requirements.
5. Completing the construction.
It is Industry Canada's expectation that steps (2) to ( 4) will normally be completed within 120 days.
Some proposals may be excluded from certain elements of the process (see Section 6). It is Industry
Canada's expectation that all parties will carry out their roles and responsibilities in good faith and in a
manner that respects the spirit of this document. Ifthe requirements ofthis document are satisfied and
the proposal proceeds then, under step (5), construction ofthe antenna system must be completed within
three years of conclusion of consultation.
2. Industry Canada Engagement
There are a number of points in the processes outlined in this document where parties must contact
Industry Canada to proceed. Further, anyone with any question regarding the process may contact the
local Industry Canada office3 for guidance. Based on a query by an interested party, Industry Canada
may request parties to provide relevant records and/or may provide direction to one or more parties to
undertake certain actions to help move the process forward.
3. Use of Existing Infrastructure (Sharing)4
This section outlines the roles of proponents and owners/operators of existing antenna systems. In all
cases, parties should retain records (such as analyses, correspondence and engineering reports) relating
to this sectio11.
Before building a new antenna-supporting structure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first
explore the following options:
• consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary;
3
4
Please refer to Radiocommunication Information Circular RIC-66 for a list of addresses and telephone numbers for
Industry Canada's regional and district offices. RIC-66 is available via the Internet at: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-
gst.ns£'eng!h ~sfD6073 .html.
See also Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-17, Conditions of Licence for Mandato1y Roaming and Antenna Tower and
Site Sharing and to Prohibit Exclusive Site Arrangements. CPC-2-0-17 is available via the Internet at:
h11p :!/www. ic. £C. ca/eic/site/smt -zst.nsf/eng:/sf0908 I .h1ml.
4
ATI~TI. ;;L TO
REPOFITI P~ i?LJJ ,!'??-/~
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
• locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers
etc.
A proponent is not normally expected to build a new antenna-supporting structure where it is feasible to
locate an antenna on an existing structure, unless a new structure is preferred by the land-use authority.
Owners and operators of existing antenna systems are to respond to a request to share in a timely fashion
and to negotiate in good faith to facilitate sharing where feasible. It is anticipated that 30 days is
reasonable time for existing antenna system owners/operators to reply to a request by a proponent in
writing with either:
• a proposed set of reasonable terms to govern the sharing of the antenna system; or
• a detailed explanation of why sharing is not possible.
4. Land-use Authority and Public Consultation
Contacting the Land-use Authority
Proponents must always contact the applicable land-use authorities to determine the local consultation
requirements and to discuss local preferences regarding antenna system siting and/or design, unless their
proposal falls within the exclusion criteria outlined in Section 6. If the land-use authority has designated
an official to deal with antenna systems, then proponents are to engage the authority through that person.
If not, proponents must submit their plans directly to the council, elected local official or executive. The
120-day consultation period commences only once proponents have formally submitted, in writing, all
plans required by the land-use authority, and does not include preliminary discussions with land-use
authority representatives.
Proponents should note that there may be more than one land-use authority with an interest in the
proposaL Where no established agreement exists between such land-use authorities, proponents must, as
a minimum, contact the land-use authority(ies) and/or neighbouring land-use authorities located within a
radius of three times the tower height, measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter of the
supporting structure, whichever is greater. As well, in cases where proponents are aware that a potential
Aboriginal or treaty right or land claim may be affected by the proposed installation, 5 they must contact
Industry Canada in order to ensure that the requirements for consultation are met
Following the Land-use Authority Process
Proponents must follow the land-use consultation process for the siting of antenna systems, established
by the land-use authority, where one exists. In the event that a land-use authority's existing process has
no public consultation requirement, proponents must then fulfill the public consultation requirements
contained in Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process (see Section 4.2). Proponents are
not required to follQW this requirement if the LUA's established process explicitly excludes their type of
Proponents are encouraged to refer to local community and online resources (for example, the Aboriginal and Treaty
Rights Information System (ATRIS) (http://sidait-atris.aadnc-aandc.e:c.ca/atris online/home-accueil.aspx) as applicable.
5
105
ATTACHMEHU ;;2_ TO
REPORT# , /L 11.) lf?>/'f
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
• the designation of suitable contacts or responsible officials;
• proposal submission requirements;
• public consultation;
• documentation of the concurrence process; and
• the establishment of milestones to ensure consultation process completion within 120 days.
Where they have specific concerns regarding a proposed antenna system, land-use authorities are
expected to discuss reasonable alternatives and/or mitigation measures with proponents.
Under their processes, land-use authorities may exclude from consultation any antenna system
installation in addition to those identified by Industry Canada's own consultation exclusion criteria
(Section 6). For example, an authority may wish to exclude from consultation those installations located
within industrial areas removed from residential areas, low visual impact installations, or certain types of
structures located within residential areas such as personal antenna systems (e.g. used for over the air
and satellite television reception or amateur radio operation).
4.2 Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process
Proponents must follow Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process where the local land-use
authority does not have an established and documented public consultation process applicable to antenna
siting. Industry Canada's default process has three steps whereby the proponent:
1. provides written notification to the public, the land-use authority and Industry Canada of the
proposed antenna system installation or modification (i.e. public notification);
2. engages the public and the land-use authority in order to address relevant questions, comments and
concerns regarding the proposal (i.e. responding to the public); and
3. provides an opportunity to the public and the land-use authority to formally respond in writing to the
proponent regarding measures taken to address reasonable and relevant concerns (i.e. public reply
comment).
Public Notification
1. Proponents must ensure that the local public, the land-use authority and Industry Canada are notified
of the proposed antenna system. As a minimum, proponents must provide a notification package (see
Appendix 1) to the local public (including nearby residences, community gathering areas, public
institutions, schools, etc.), neighbouring land-use authorities, businesses, and property owners, etc.
Municipalities may also wish to refer to the protocol template developed in partnership between the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities (FCM) and the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association (CWTA). The
FCM/CWTA template can be found on the FCM's website www.fcm.ca.
7
107
108
ATI~EHTLil___~TO
REPORT#.· _£!4/ Li'-/lf
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
located within a radius of three times the tower height. 8 The radius is measured from the outside
perimeter of the supporting structure. For the purpose of this requirement, the outside perimeter
begins at the furthest point of the supporting mechanism, be it the outennost guy line, building edge,
face of the self-supporting tower, etc. Public notification of an upcoming consultation must be
clearly marked, making reference to the proposed antenna system, so that it is not misinterpreted as
junk mail. The notice must be sent by mail or be hand delivered. The face of the package must
clearly reference that the recipient is within the prescribed notification radius of the proposed
antenna system.
2. It is the proponent's responsibility to ensure that the notification provides at least 30 days for written
public comment.
3. In addition to the minimum notification distqnce noted above, in areas of seasonal residence, the
proponent, in consultation with the land-use authority, is responsible for determining the best
manner to notify such residents to ensure their engagement.
4. In addition to the public notification requirements noted above, proponents of an antenna system
proposed to be 30 metres or more in height must place a notice in a local community newspaper
circulating in the proposed area. 9 Height is measured from the lowest ground level at the base,
including the foundation, to the tallest point of the antenna system. Depending on the particular
installation, the tallest point may be an antenna, lightning rod, aviation obstruction lighting or some
other appurtenance. Any attempt to artificially reduce the height (addition of soil, aggregate, etc.)
will not be included in the calculation or measurement of the height of the antenna system.
Responding to the Public
Proponents are to address all reasonable and relevant concerns, make all reasonable efforts to resolve
them in a mutually acceptable manner and must keep a record of all associated communications. If the
local public or land-use authority raises a question, comment or concern relating to the antenna system
as a result of the public notification process, then the proponent is required to:
1. respond to the party in writing within 14 days acknowledging receipt of the question, comment or
concern and keep a record of the communication;
2. address in writing all reasonable and relevant concerns within 60 days of receipt or explain why the
question, comment or concern is not, in the view of the proponent, reasonable or relevant; and
3. in the written communication referred to in the preceding point, clearly indicate that the party has
21 days from the date of the correspondence to reply to the proponent's response. The proponent
must provide a copy of all public reply comments to the local Industry Canada office.
9
Proponents are advised that municipalities may set reasonable public notification distances appropriate for their
communities when establishing their own protocols.
The notice must be synchronized with the distribution of the public notification package. It must be legible and placed in
the public notice section of the newspaper. The notice must include: a description of the proposed installation; its
location and street address; proponent contact information and mailing address; and an invitation to provide public
comments to the proponent within 30 days of the notice. In areas without a local newspaper, other effective means of
public notification must be implemented. Proponents may contact the local Industry Canada office for guidance.
. 8
ATIACHMOOI ;2 -_..TO
REPOiffl: £1/l.J 1 e-!7;-
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
Responding to reasonable and relevant concerns may include contacting a party by telephone, engaging
in a community meeting or having an informal, personal discussion. Between steps 1 and 2 above, the
proponent is expected to engage the public in a manner it deems most appropriate. Therefore, the letter
at step 2 above may be a record of how the proponent and the other party addressed the concern at hand.
Public Reply Comments
As indicated in step 3 above, the proponent must clearly indicate that the party has 21 days from the date
of the correspondence to reply to the response. The proponent must also keep a record of all
correspondence/discussions that occurred within the 21-day public reply comment period. This includes
records of any agreements that may have been reached and/or any concerns that remain outstanding.
The factors that will determine whether a concern is reasonable or relevant according to this process will
vary but will generally be considered if they relate to the requirements ofthis document and to the
particular amenities or important characteristics of the area surrounding the proposed antenna system.
Examples of concerns that proponents are to address may include:
• Why is the use of an existing antenna system or structure not possible?
• Why is an alternate site not possible?
• What is the proponent doing to ensure that the antenna system is not accessible to the general public?
• How is the proponent trying to integrate the antenna into the local surroundings?
• What options are available to satisfy aeronautical obstruction marking requirements at this site?
• What are the steps the proponent took to ensure compliance with the general requirements of this
document including the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA), Safety Code 6, etc.?
Concerns that are not relevant include:
• disputes with members of the public relating to the proponent's service, but unrelated to antenna
installations;
• potential effects that a proposed antenna system will have on property values or municipal taxes;
• questions whether the Radiocommunication Act, this document, Safety Code 6, locally established
by-laws, other legislation, procedures or processes are valid or should be reformed in some manner.
4.3 Concluding Consultation
The proponent may only commence installation/modification of an antenna system after the consultation
process has been completed by the land-use authority, or Industry Canada confirms concurrence with the
consultation portion of this process, and after all other requirements under this process have been met.
Consultation responsibilities will normally be considered complete when the proponent has:
9
109
11 0
ATTACHMEHT I :2 -~10
REPORT#. "1/LJJ (;?~It;
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
1. concluded consultation requirements (Section 4.1) with the land-use authority;
2. carried out public consultation either through the process established by the land-use authority or
Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process where required; and
3. addressed all reasonable and relevant concerns.
Concluding Land-use Authority Consultation
Industry Canada expects that land-use consultation will be completed within 120 days from the
proponent's initial formal contact with the local land-use authority. Where unavoidable delays may be
encountered, the land-use authority is expected to indicate when the proponent can expect a response to
the proposaL If the authority is not responsive, the proponent may contact Industry Canada. Depending
on individual circumstances, Industry Canada may support additional time or consider the land-use
authority consultation process concluded.
Depending on the land-use authority's own process, conclusion of local consultation may include such
steps as obtaining final concurrence for the proposal via the relevant committee, a letter or report
acknowledging that the relevant municipal process or other requirements have been satisfied, or other
valid indication, such as the minutes of a town council meeting indicating LUA approval. Compliance
with informal city staff procedures, or grants of approval strictly related to zoning, construction, etc. will
not normally be sufficient.
Industry Canada recognizes that approvals for construction (e.g. building permits) are used by some
land-use authorities as evidence of consultation being concluded. Proponents should note that
Industry Canada does not consider the fact a permit was issued as confirmation of concurrence, as
different land-use authorities have different approaches. As such, Industry Canada will only consider
such approvals as valid when the proponent can demonstrate that the LUA's process was followed and
that the LUA's preferred method of concluding LUA consultation is through such an approvaL
Concluding Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process
Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process will be considered concluded when the
proponent has either:
• received no written questions, comments or concerns to the formal notification within the 30-day _
public comment period; or
• if written questions, comments or concerns were received, the proponent has addressed and resolved
all reasonable and relevant concerns and the public has not provided further comment within the
21-dayreply comment period.
In the case where the public responds within the 21-day reply comment period, the proponent has the
option of making further attempts to address the concern on its own, or can request Industry Canada
engagement. If a request for engagement is made at this stage, Industry Canada will review the relevant
material, request any further information it deems pertinent from any party and may then decide that:
10
ATI,~H ;;< ·~10
REPORTI .. fi;U ;f~/£_
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
• the proponent has met the consultation requirements of this process and that Industry Canada concurs
that installation or modification may proceed; or
• the parties should participate in further attempts to mitigate or resolve any outstanding concern.
4.4 Post-Consultation
Whether the proponent followed a land-use authority's consultation process or Industry Canada's default
public consultation process, construction of an antenna system must be completed within three years of
the conclusion of consultation. After three years, consultations will no longer be deemed valid except in
the case where a proponent secures the agreement of the relevant Land-Use Authority to an extension
for a specified time period in writing. A copy of the agreement must be provided to the local Industry
Canada office.
5. Dispute Resolution Process
The dispute resolution process is a formal process intended to bring about the timely resolution where
the parties have reached an impasse.
Upon receipt of a written request from a stakeholder other than the general public, asking for
Departmental intervention concerning a reasonable and relevant concern, the Department may request
that all involved parties provide and share all relevant information. The Department may also gather or
obtain other relevant information and request that parties provide any further submissions if applicable.
The Department will, based on the information provided, either:
• make a final decision on the issue(s) in question, and advise the parties of its decision; or
• suggest the parties enter into an alternate dispute resolution process in order to come to a final
decision. Should the parties be unable to reach a mutually agreeable solution, either party may request
that the Department make a final decision.
Upon resolution of the issue under dispute, the proponent is to continue with the process contained
within this document as required.
6. Exclusions
All proponents must satisfy the General Requirements outlined in Section 7 regardless of whether an
exclusion applies to their proposal. All proponents must also consult the land-use authority and the
public unless a proposal is specifically excluded. Individual circumstances vary with each antenna
system installation and modification, and the exclusion criteria below should be applied in consideration
of local circumstances. Consequently, it may be prudent for the proponent to consult even though the
proposal meets an exclusion noted below. Therefore, when applying the criteria for exclusion,
proponents should consider such things as:
" the antenna-system's physical dimensions, including the antenna, mast, and tower, compared to the
local surroundings;
11
111
11 2
ATIAWMENT #. ;;;( ·=-mTO
REPORT;g {2.1J !_f;:/f
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
.. the location of the proposed antenna system on the property and its proximity to neighbouring
residents;
" the likelihood of an area being a community-sensitive location; and
.. Transport Canada's marking and lighting requirements for the proposed structure.
The following proposals are excluded from land-use authority and public consultation requirements:
" New Antenna Systems: where the height is less than 15 metres above ground level. This exclusion
does not apply to antenna systems proposed by telecommunications carriers, broadcasting
undertakings or third party tower owners;
.. Existing Antenna Systems: where modifications are made, antennas added or the tower replaced10,
including to facilitate sharing, provided that the total cumulative height increase is no greater than
25% of the height ofthe initial antenna system installation11 • No increase in height may occur within
one year of completion of the initial construction. This exclusion does not apply to antenna systems
using purpose built antenna supporting structures with a height of less than 15 metres above ground
level operated by telecommunications carriers, broadcasting undertakings or third party tower owners;
.. Non-Tower Structures: antennas on buildings, water towers, lamp posts, etc. may be excluded from
consultation provided that the height above ground of the non-tower structure, exclusive of
appmienances, is not increased by more than 25%;12 and
.. Temporary Antenna Systems: used for special events or emergency operations and must be removed
within three months after the start of the emergency or special event.
No consultation is required prior to performing maintenance on an existing antenna system.
Proponents who are not certain if their proposals are excluded, or whether consultation may still be I prudent, are advised to contact the land-use authority and/or Industry Canada for guidance.
Height is measured from the lowest ground level at the base, including the foundation, to the tallest
point of the antenna system. Depending on the particular installation, the tallest point may be an
antenna, lightning rod, aviation obstruction lighting or some other appurtenance. Any attempt to
artificially reduce the height (addition of soil, aggregate, etc.) will not be included in the calculation or
measurement of the height of the antenna system.
7. General Requirements
In addition to roles and responsibilities for site sharing, land-use consultation and public consultation,
proponents must also fulfill other important obligations including: compliance with Health Canada's
10 The exclusion for the replacement of existing antenna systems applies to replacements that are similar to the original
design and location.
11 Initial antenna system installation refers to the system as it was first consulted on, or installed.
12 Telecommunication carriers, operators of broadcasting undertakings and third party tower owners may benefit from local
knowledge by contacting the land-use authority when planning an antenna system that meets this exclusion criteria.
12
ATT~.OOMEHW ;2 -~-iO
'~EPORT ~~VI? ~ 1):!: ....
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
Safety Code 6 guideline for the protection of the general public; compliance with radio frequency
immunity criteria; notification of nearby broadcasting stations; environmental considerations; and
Transport Canada/NA V CANADA aeronautical safety responsibilities.
7.1 Radio Frequency Exposure Limits
Health Canada has established safety guidelines for exposure to radio frequency fields, in its Safety
Code 6 publication, entitled: Limits of Human Exposure to Radio frequency Electromagnetic Fields in
the Frequency Range from 3kHz to 300 GHz.13 While the responsibility for developing Safety Code 6
rests with Health Canada, Industry Canada has adopted this guideline for the purpose of protecting the
general public. Current biomedical studies in Canada and other countries indicate that there is no
scientific or medical evidence that a person will experience adverse health effects from exposure to
radio frequency fields, provided that the installation complies with Safety Code 6.
It is the responsibility of proponents and operators of installations to ensure that all radiocommunication
and broadcasting installations comply with Safety Code 6 at all times, including the consideration of
combined effects of nearby installations within the local radio environment
Telecommunications common carriers and operators of broadcasting undertakings are to carry out an
exposure evaluation on all new installations and following any increases in radiated power. Either
measurement surveys or mathematical or numerical computations can be used for this evaluation. Where
the radio frequency emission of any installation, whether telecommunications carrier or broadcasting
operator, is greater than, or is equal to, 50%, of the Safety Code 6 limits for uncontrolled environments
at locations accessible to the general public (i.e. not solely available for access by workers), the
operator(s) of radio frequency emitters must notify Industry Canada and demonstrate compliance with
Safety Code 6. This determination of 50% of Safety Code 6 must be in consideration of the local radio
environment.
For all proponents following Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process, the proponent's
notification package must provide a written attestation that there will be compliance with Safety Code 6
for the protection ofthe general public, including consideration of nearby radiocommunication systems.
The notification package must also indicate any Safety Code 6 related signage and access control
mechanisms that may be used.
Compliance with Safety Code 6 is an ongoing obligation. At any time, antenna system operators may be
required, as directed by Industry Canada, to demonstrate compliance with Safety Code 6 by (i)
providing detailed calculations, and/or (ii) conducting site surveys and, where necessary, by
implementing corrective measures.14 At the request of Industry Canada, telecommunications carriers
and operators of broadcasting undertakings must provide detailed compliance information for individual
installations within five days ofthe request Proponents and operators of existing antenna systems must
retain copies of all information related to Safety Code 6 compliance such as analyses and measurements.
13 To obtain an electronic copy of Safety Code 6, contact: publications@hc-sc.gc.ca.
14 See Client Procedures Circular CPC-2-0-20, Radio Frequency (RF) Fields-Signs and Access Control.
13
1 1 3
11 4
ATTA~EHH ;2 ___ TO
REPORT lfi'tl/ !¢? -I 'zL
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems
7.2 Radio Frequency Immunity
CPC-2-0-03
All radiocommunication and broadcasting proponents and existing spectrum users are to ensure that
their installations are designed and operated in accordance with Industry Canada's immunity criteria as
outlined in EMCAB-215 in order to minimize the malfunctioning of electronic equipment in the local
surroundings. Broadcasting proponents and existing undertakings should refer to Broadcasting
Procedures and Rules-Part 1, General Rules (BPR~l) for additional information and requirements16 on
this matter.
Proponents are advised to consider the potential effect that their proposal may have on nearby electronic
equipment. In this way, they will be better prepared to respond to any questions that may arise during
the public and land-use consultation processes, or after the system has been installed.
Land-use authorities should be prepared to advise proponents and owners ofbroadcasting undertakings
of plans for the expansion or development of nearby residential and/or industrial areas. Such expansion
or development generally results in the introduction of more electronic equipment in the area and
therefore an increased potential for electronic equipment to malfunction. By keeping broadcasters aware
of planned developments and changes to adjacent land-use, they will be better able to work with the
community. Equally, land-use authorities have a responsibility to ensure that those moving into these
areas, whether prospective residents or industry, are aware of the potential for their electronic equipment
to malfunction when located in proximity to an existing broadcasting installation. For example, the LUA
could ensure that clear notification be provided to future prospective purchasers.
7.3 Proximity of Proposed Structure to Broadcasting Undertakings
Where the proposal would result in a structure that exceeds 30 metres above ground level, the proponent
is to notifY operators of AM, FM and TV undertakings within 2 kilometres, due to the potential impact
the physical structure may have on these broadcasting undertakings. Metallic structures close to an AM
directional antenna array may change the antenna pattern of the AM broadcasting undertaking. These
proposed structures can also reflect nearby FM and TV signals, c().using "ghosting" interference to
FM/TV receivers used by the general public.
7.4 Canadian Environmental Assessment Act
Industry Canada requires that the installation and modification of antenna systems be done in a manner
that complies with appropriate environmental legislation. This includes the Canadian Environmental
Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012), where the antenna system is incidental to a physical activity or
project designated under CEAA 2012, or is located on federal lands.
An antenna system may not proceed where it is incidental to a designated project (as described in the
Regulations Designating Physical Activities), or is otherwise expressly designated by the Minister of the
15 For more information see EMCAB-2, entitled: Criteria for Resolution of Immunity Complaints Involving Fundamental
Emissions of Radiocommunications Transmitters available at: http://www:ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.ns£'eng/sf01 OOS.html.
16 BPR-1 -Part 1: General Rule§ can be found on the Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website at:
http :II strate gis. i c.gc.cal epic/intemet/insm t-gst.ns£' en/ sf() 13 26e.html.
14
ATIA.CMMEHH 2 __ ro
REPORTI~-N./ y-;z=
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
Environment without satisfying certain requirements applicable to designated projects. Therefore, a
proponent of this type of project must contact Industry Canada for direction on how to proceed.
Any proposed antenna system on federal land may not proceed without a determination of
environmental effects by Industry Canada. In order to assist the Department in making such a
determination, proponents must submit a project description to Industry Canada, considering and
addressing those elements ofthe environment described in CEAA 2012, as well as any determination of
environmental effects that may have been made by the authority responsible for managing the federal
land. Industry Canada may also require further information before it can complete its assessment.
Industry Canada will inform the proponent of the results of its determination and may impose conditions
related to mitigating any adverse effects after making its determination and/or may need to refer the
matter to the Governor-in-Council under CEAA 2012.
In addition, notices under Industry Canada's default public consultation process require written
confirmation ofthe project's status under CEAA 2012 (e.g., whether it is incidental to a designated
project or, if not, whether it is on federal lands).
In addition to CEAA requirements, proponents are responsible to ensure that antenna systems are
installed and operated in a manner that respects the local environment and that complies with other
statutory requirements, such as those under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, the
Migratory Birds Convention Act, 1994, and the Species at Risk Act, as applicable.
For projects north of the 60th parallel, environmental assessment requirements may arise from federal
statutes other than the aforementioned Acts or from Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements. Industry
Canada requires that installation or modification of antennas or antenna supporting structures be done in
accordance with these requirements, as appropriate.
7.5 Aeronautical Safety
Proponents must ensure their proposals for any antenna system are first reviewed by Transport Canada
and NA V CANADA.
Transport Canada will perform an assessment of the proposal with respect to the potential hazard to air
navigation and will notify proponents of any painting and/or lighting requirements for the antenna
system. NAV CANADA will comment on whether the proposal has an impact on the provision of their
national air navigation system, facilities and other services located off-airport.
As required, the proponent must:
1. submit an Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance form to Transport Canada;
2. submit a Land-use Proposal Submission form to NA V CANADA;
3. include Transport Canada marking requirements in the public notification package;
4. install and maintain the antenna system in a manner that is not a hazard to aeronautical
safety; and
15
1 1 5
11 6
ATIAOOMENT#~~-TO
REPORT# r . flJ.JJ ;g-J C
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
· 5. retain all correspondence.
For those antenna systems subject to Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process, the
proponent will inform the community of any marking requirements. Where options are possible,
proponents are expected to work with the local community and Transport Canada to implement the best
and safest marking options. Proponents should be aware that Transport Canada does not advise
Industry Canada of marking requirements for proposed structures. Proponents are reminded that the
addition of, or modification to, obstruction markings may result in community concern and so any
change is to be done in consultation with the local public, land-use authority and/or Transport Canada,
as appropriate.
References and Details
Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance forms are available from any Transport Canada Aviation Group
Office. Both the Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance form (#26-0427) and a list of Transport Canada
Aviation Group regional offices are available on the Transport Canada website.17 Completed forms are
to be submitted directly to the nearest Transport Canada Aviation Group office. (Refer to Canadian
Aviation Regulations, Standard 621.19, Standards Obstruction Markings).
Land-use Proposal Submission forms are available from NAV CANADA 18 and completed forms are to
be sent to the appropriate NA V CANADA General Manager Airport Operations (GMAO) office, East or
West.
17 The Transport Canada website can be found at: http://www.tc.gc.ca.
18 Search keywords "Land-use Proposal" on the NA V CANADA website at: http://www.navcanada.ca.
16
ATTAWMEHT I. ;2 -~ 1"0
REPORT fll ~ " f'Liv' l.ff_-I '1-
Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems CPC-2-0-03
Appendix 1 -Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process -Public Notification
Package
The proponent must ensure that at least 30 days are provided for public comment Notification must
. provide all information on how to submit comments to the proponent in writing. Notices must be clearly
marked, making reference to the proposed antenna system, so that it is not misinterpreted as junk mail.
The notice must be sent by mail or be hand delivered. The face of the package must clearly indicate that
the recipient is within the prescribed notification radius ofthe proposed antenna system. The proponent
must also provide a copy of the notification package to the land-use authority and the local
Industry Canada office at the same time as the package is provided to the public.
Notification must include, but need not be limited to:
1) the proposed antenna system's purpose, the reasons why existing antenna systems or other
infrastructure cannot be used, a list of other structures that were considered unsuitable and future
sharing possibilities for the proposal;
2) the proposed location within the community, the geographic coordinates and the specific property
or rooftop;
3) an attestation 19 that the general public will be protected in compliance with Health Canada's
Safety Code 6 including combined effects within the local radio environment at all times;
4) identification of areas accessible to the general public and the access/demarcation measures to
control public access;
5) information on the environmental status of the project, including any requirements under the
Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012;
6) a description of the proposed antenna system including its height and dimensions, a description of
any antenna that may be mounted on the supporting structure and simulated images of the
proposal;
7) Transport Canada's aeronautical obstruction marking requirements (whether painting, lighting or
both) if available; if not available, the proponent's expectation ofTransport Canada's requirements
together with an undertaking to provide Transport Canada's requirements once they become
available;
8) an attestation that the installation will respect good engineering practices including structural
adequacy;
9) reference to any applicable local land-use requirements such as local processes, protocols, etc.;
19 Example: I, (name of individual or representative ofcompany) attest that the radio installation described in this
notification package will be installed and operated on an ongoing basis so as to comply with Health Canada's Safety
Code 6, as may be amended from time to time, for the protection of the general public, including any combined effects of
nearby installations within the local radio environment.
17
1 1 7
120
Report PLN 20-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. Page 2
5. That Region of Durham be requested to advance the timing for the urbanization of
Altona Road generally located between Stroud's Lane and Finch Avenue; and
6. Further, that staff be directed to design and determine the cost of installing sidewalks
along Altona Road from Finch Avenue to Sparrow Circle for consideration through
the 2015 Capital Budget process.
Executive Summary: The subject lands consist of four separate properties located in the
vicinity of Finch Avenue and Altona Road within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (see
Location Map, Attachment #1 ).
E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc., has submitted applications for a Zoning By-law
Amendment, Draft Plan of Subdivision and Draft Plan of Condominium to facilitate the
future development of the subject lands for residential uses. The four proposals
demonstrate appropriate infill development and are consistent with the goals and
objectives of the Official Plan and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development
Guidelines. The proposals demonstrate appropriate lot sizes and lot frontages, and are in
keeping with the character of the established neighbourhood. The recommended zoning
performance standards will ensure that the size, scale and height of the proposed
dwellings will be compatible with the existing neighbourhood.
Area residents have identified a number of concerns with respect to the four proposals
including compatibility of the new developments with the established neighbourhood, the
loss of existing mature vegetation, pedestrian safety and access, insufficient visitor
parking, managing construction activities and priyacy. The majority of these concerns
have been addressed by the applicant. The total number of lots within Parcel A has been
reduced which has increased the minimum lot frontage. In addition, on Parcels A and D
the front yard setbacks have also been increased allowing the opportunity for additional
landscaping.
The applicant is proposing a tree compensation plan to compensate for the loss of existing
mature trees. The architectural designs of the dwellings will help establish strong visual
relationship with the streets and will complement the existing established neighbourhood.
The variety of housing forms and tenures will provide for more options within this
neighbourhood. Sidewalks will be provided where possible and City staff are
recommending the installation of future sidewalks along Altona Road from Finch Avenue
to Sparrow Circle, which will allow for safe pedestrian connections to public streets and
transit facilities.
Accordingly, staff recommends that Council endorse Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 6/13, and Draft Plans of Subdivision SP-2013-03 and SP-2014-02 and the
related conditions of approval.
Financial Implications: None by approving the recommendations. Recommendation 6
includes identifying the cost for sidewalks along Altona Road from Finch Avenue to
Sparrow Circle. The cost will be identified and considered through the 2015 Capital
Budget process.
Report PLN 20-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. Page 3
1. Background
1.1 Property Description
The subject properties are located in the vicinity of Finch Avenue and Altona Road
within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1 ). The
four separate development areas are identified as Parcels A, B, C and D on
Attachment #1, and the detailed locations and property descriptions for each parcel
are outlined in Appendix V-Property Locations and Descriptions.
1.2 Applicant's Proposal
Applications for Draft Plans of Subdivision, Draft Plan of Condominium and an
implementing Zoning By-law Amendment have been submitted to facilitate future
residential development on the four parcels (see Applicant's Submitted Plans,
Attachments #2, #3, #4 and #5).
In response to comments from City Staff, Council and area residents, the applicant
has made a number of changes to the proposal to address the various concerns. A
detailed comparison of the statistical information and development details between
the original and the revised proposals are outlined in Appendix VI-Original and
Revised Proposal Comparison Chart.
The applicant's p.roposal for each parcel is summarized below.
Parcel A
Parcel 8
Parcel C
Parcel D
• to permit a residential subdivision development consisting of
12 lots for detached dwellings fronting Finch Avenue
• to permit a residential subdivision development consisting of
four blocks to permit 22 townhouse units fronting the extension
·of Shadow Place
• to facilitate a common element condominium development
consisting of 40 townhouse units accessed by a private road
including 10 visitor parking spaces and an outdoor amenity area
• to facilitate the future creation of 3 new lots through land
severance for detached dwellings fronting Finch Avenue
2. Comments Received
2.1 A Public Open House was held on November 19, 2013 and a Statutory Public
Information Meeting was held on December 2, 2013 to obtain feedback from area
residents with respect to the four proposals. Additionally, a Statutory Public
Information Meeting was held on May 5, 2014 to obtain comments from area
residents with respect to a draft plan of subdivision application for Parcel C.
A detailed list of concerns raised by area residents for all four parcels is outlined in
Appendix VII-Concerns Identified by Area Residents. Generally, the key concerns
include the compatibility of the new developments with the established
neighbourhoods, the loss of existing mature vegetation, insufficient visitor parking,
increased traffic, impacts from construction activities, and providing for safe
pedestrian movement.
1 21
122
Report PLN 20-14
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc.
September 2, 2014
Page 4
2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments
Toronto and Region
Conservation
Authority (TRCA)
Region of Durham
Durham Regional
Transit
li TRCA has advise that they have no objection and will
provide conditions of draft plan approval in the near
future
ill the Region of Durham Planning Department has
advised that the proposals conform with the Living
Area designation and policies of the Regional Official
Plan
o sanitary and water services are available to the
subject lands
1!1 the Stage 1 & 2 Archaeological Assessment reports
indicated that no archaeological resources were
identified on the subject lands; a clearance letter
from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport is
required
G provisions implementing the recommendations of the
Noise Feasibility Study are to be included in the
Subdivision Agreements and Condominium
Agreement
" additional comments for Parcel C include:
i) convey a 0.3 metre reserve adjacent to the
frontage of Block 1 along Altona Road to the
Region
ii) a Traffic Brief will be required at the Site Plan
Approval stage to determine the need for an
auxiliary lane at the proposed entrance to the
site and to ensure that the location of the
entrance is acceptable in relation to existing
entrances of other properties near the
development
iii) the turning radius and layout of the proposed
internal private lanes does not meet the Regional
waste and recycling collection services
requirements; therefore private waste collection
may be required
" the Region has no objection to the applications, and
has provided conditions of draft plan approval
o Durham Regional Transit requests that the City of
Pickering or the Developer install a sidewalk along
the west side of Altona Road to provide access from
Parcel C to the bus stop at Sparrow Circle and
Altona Road
Report PLN 20-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. Page 5
Hydro One Networks
Engineering & Public
Works
Durham District
School Board
Durham Catholic
District School Board
Fire Services
3. Planning Analysis
e a permanent 1.5 metre high fence must be installed
along the mutual property line
• Hydro One requires that a notice/warning clause to
each owner/lessee be provided due to the proximity
of this Development to facilities owned or operated
by Hydro One and may result in noise, vibration etc.
• Hydro One has no objection to the applications, and
has provided conditions of draft plan approval
e generally satisfied with the proposals at this time
o the subdivision and site plan agreements will address
matters such as, but not limited to, road construction,
easements, traffic management, landscaping,
construction management, grading, drainage and
stormwater management
• no objection to the applications
e elementary students will be accommodated within
existing school facilities
• no objection to the applications
• students generated from the developments will
attend either St. Monica Catholic School or
St. Elizabeth Seton
e no objection to the applications
@ details of emergency vehicle access will be finalized
through the site plan approval process for Parcel C
3.1 The transfer of residential density from Parcels A and D to Parcels B and C is
appropriate and supported by Staff
The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Urban Residential-
Low Density Areas". Lands within this designation are intended primarily for
housing at a net residential density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare.
The overall combined net residential density for Parcels A, B, C and D is 29.2 units
per net hectare, which falls within the permitted density range as provided in the
Official Plan. However, when net residential density is calculated for each individual
parcel, the net residential density for Parcels B and C exceeds the maximum
density requirement within the low density designation. The net residential density
for each of the individual parcels is as follows:
• Parcel A-18.5 units per net hectare
• Parcel B -39.3 units per net hectare
• Parcel C -38.1 units per net hectare
• Parcel D-7.9 units per net hectare
123
124
Report PLN 20-14 September 2, 20·14
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. Page 6
Through the protection of the environmental lands and buffers conveyed from
Infrastructure Ontario to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the
amount of developable land has been reduced (see Location Map, Attachment #1).
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Guidelines recognize that this neighbourhood has
small developable areas, and the transferring of residential units from one property
owner to another may be considered if the development proposal is able to fulfill the
objectives of the Development Guidelines.
The four individual proposals, although different from each other, are an appropriate
form of infill development that is compatible with the existing community. As further
discussed in Section 3.2 of this Report, the proposals achieve the objectives of the
Rouge Park Development Guidelines. The overall density falls within the permitted
density range. Accordingly, the transfer of residential units from Parcels A and D to
Parcels Band C is appropriate.
3.2 Urban Design objectives of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development
Guidelines have been addressed
3.3.
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines establishes goals to
ensure lands are developed in a cohesive, well-designed neighbourhood. The
proposals have been reviewed against both the neighbourhood policies and the
Development Guidelines.
The developments (Parcels A and D) fronting Finch Avenue establish a strong
visual and physical relationship to the street. The proposed building elevations
demonstrate good urban design characteristics and present an attractive frontage
along Finch Avenue. The siting of the buildings allows for additional landscaping
and useable outdoor space within the front yard.
The four proposals provide for a variety of housing types and tenures including
freehold detached and townhouse dwellings, and condominium townhouse units to
address a variety of housing needs. The dwellings are arranged on efficient street
patterns and the development within Parcel B allows for the completion of
Shadow Place. In addition, opportunities have been provided to secure potential
future trail system access locations through buffers that have been dedicated to
TRCA located adjacent to Parcels B and C.
The proposals are compatible with the established surrounding residential
neighbourhood and meet the urban design objectives of the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines.
A housekeeping amendment to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development
Guidelines is appropriate
The Rouge Park Neigbourhood Development Guideline Figure A-Tertiary Plan
illustrates future road connections from Finch Avenue to Shadow Place and from
Finch Avenue to Altona Road (see Appendix IV). The proposed road connections
shown on the plan are not feasible due to environmental constraints. A
housekeeping amendment is necessary to delete the road connections that can not
be achieved and to keep the Tertiary Plan current.
Report PLN 20-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. Page 7
In addition, the Tertiary Plan references a potential dwelling having heritage
significance located at 1973 Altona Road, which has been demolished. As a result
of these changes, staff is recommending that Figure A-Tertiary Plan within the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines be amended as shown on
Appendix IV.
3.4 Performance standards have been recommended to ensure compatibility with
surrounding neighbourhood
The intent of the zoning by-law is to implement specific performance standards
including minimum lot frontage, lot area, yard setbacks, lot coverage and
maximum building height to ensure that the proposals complement existing patterns
of development and facilitate dwelling designs that would maintain the character of
the existing residential neighbourhood. A summary of the recommended
performance standards for all four parcels is outlined in Appendix Ill-Recommended
Performance Standards for Zoning By-law A 6/13.
The proposed lot frontages within Parcels A and D range between 13.7 metres and
15.0 metres and the lot frontages within Parcels Band C range between 6.0 metres
and 8.9 metres. Existing lots consisting of detached dwelling along Finch Avenue,
Nature Heaven Crescent, Woodview Avenue and Maple View Court surrounding
Parcels A and D have a variety of lot frontages ranging from 9.0 metres to 40.0 metres
(see Existing Lot Frontage Map, Attachment #5 and #7). The existing lots along
Shadow Place consisting of semi-detached dwellings range between 7.0 metres
and 9.3 metres (see Lot Frontage Map, Attachment #6): The proposed lot frontages
are generally consistent and compatible with the existing surrounding lots.
The applicant proposes a maximum building height of 11.0 metres. Existing zoning
for the surrounding properties provides for a maximum building height restriction of
12.0 metres. The existing dwellings within the immediate vicinity have a height of
approximately 9.0 metres. The applicant has indicated that the proposed dwelling
will be designed to have a height of approximately 9.0 metres. However, the
applicant has requested a maximum building height restriction of 11.0 metres in
order to take into consideration proposed grading. City Development staff are
satisfied that restricting the maximum building height to 11.0 metres will result in
similar building heights as existing dwellings within the immediate area.
The applicant will also be maintaining similar building setbacks and lot coverage
standards as properties in the immediate neighbourhood. The proposed lotting
pattern and development standards will ensure an appropriate built form that is
compatible with the established residential neighbourhood.
3.5 The proposed lotting pattern, house siting, and grading will result in the
removal of the majority of existing trees
Residents expressed concerns with the loss of mature trees from the subject lands.
The City has a Tree Protection By-law (By-law Number 6108/03) that applies to
areas designated as shorelines and stream corridors, wetlands and other significant
environmental areas. The subject lands are not within the area regulated by the
City's Tree Protection By-law.
1 25
126
Report PLN 20-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. Page 8
The applicant has submitted a Tree Inventory and Preservation Plan, which
surveyed and evaluated trees on all four parcels. The majority of the existing trees
will be removed due to the proposed lotting pattern and house siting, and as a
result of on-site grading works in order to develop the lands for residential
purposes. As a result of the recent ice storm, many of the existing trees have been
damaged. Staff have requested that a revised tree inventory and preservation
report be submitted to allow City staff to review an updated report to determine an
appropriate tree compensation plan.
3.6 Sidewalks to be provided within Parcels A, Band· C, and sidewalks are
recommended to be installed along Altona Road from Finch Avenue to
Sparrow Circle in advance of the Region of Durham planned urbanization of
Altona Road
Residents expressed a concern with pedestrian safely and requested the
installation of sidewalks in this neighborhood. Sidewalks will be installed along the
south side of Finch Avenue from Woodview Avenue to the east limits of Parcel A.
Sidewalks are not proposed to be installed along the frontage of Parcel D at this
time. The existing sidewalks along Shadow Place will be extended further south
and incorporated in the Parcel B development. Parcel C provides for an internal
private pedestrian pathway system which will connect to a future municipal
sidewalk along Altona Road. Durham Regional Transit has also recommended that
sidewalks be installed along Altona Road to allow pedestrians to access the
existing bus stop located near Sparrow Circle and Altona Road which serves the
community.
At this time, Durham of Region has advised that the section of Altona Road north of
Stroud's Lane is not planned to be urbanized beyond the current four year forecast
and identified for reconstruction in the long range beyond the 2023 and 2031
timeframe. The timeframe is subject to change depending on the Region's budget
and priority.
Accordingly, staff recommends that sidewalks be installed along both side of
Altona Road from Finch Avenue to Sparrow Circle in advance of the Region's
planned urbanization of Altona Road to allow for pedestrian connections to public
stree.ts and transit facilities in view of the number of proposed residential
developments in the Finch Avenue and Altona Road area consider through the
budget process. In addition, it is recommended that the Region of Durham be
requested to advance the timing of urbanization for this section of Altona Road
north of Stroud's Lane.
3. 7 Sufficient visitor parking available to serve each proposed development
Residents expressed a concern with availability of visitor parking for the residential
developments within Parcels A, Band C. The proposed dwellings within Parcel A
will have double car garages and the overall length of the driveway between the
garage and the sidewalk will be designed to accommodate four vehicles on the
driveway, in addition to providing two cars within the garage. The lots within
Parcel B provide for one car in the garage and one on the driveway with additional
parking available on-street.
Report PLN 20-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc. Page 9
The development within Parcel C includes 1 0 visitor parking spaces in addition to a
minimum of two parking spaces per unit, one in the garage and one on the
driveway are· proposed. The residential units fronting Altona Road will have double
car garages and can accommodate a total of four parking spaces per unit (two
vehicles within the garage and two spaces on the driveway). Through the site plan
approval process, staff will further review the proposed parking layout
3.8 Construction activities are required to comply with an approved Construction
Management Plan
Residents expressed a concern with the construction activity and impacts on the
surrounding area. The applicant will be required to submit a construction
management plan which addresses the following: details of erosion and
sedimentation control during construction; parking of construction vehicles; storage
of construction and building materials; location of construction trailer; type and
timing of construction fencing; and mud and dust control on all roads within and
adjacent to the site: Signs will be posted at the entrance to Nature Haven indicating
no construction traffic allowed. The Region of Durham has advised that
construction access to Parcel B will be permitted from Altona Road.
The applicant has advised that construction activity for Parcels A, B and 0 may
begin as early as this fall and Parcel C may begin in the Spring of 2015.
3.9 Other matters identified by area residents have been addressed by the
applicant
Area residents also identified other concerns including increased traffic, and loss of
privacy.
Engineering & Public Works staff have indicated that the proposed development will
result in additional vehicles on the roads, but will not result in adverse traffic
impacts on the existing street networks and intersections.
Another concern identified by area residents was the loss of privacy due to the
removal of trees. Residents inquired whether the existing street trees located on the
north side of Finch Avenue adjacent to Nature Haven Crescent lots could be
replaced with larger trees for increased privacy. Staff have reviewed this matter
and do not recommend the replacement of these trees because they are in good
health. However, to address privacy concerns, the applicant has increased the
minimum front yard setback for the homes fronting Finch Avenue and has
increased the minimum lot frontages. The larger lot frontages and setbacks will
allow for additional tree planting and landscaping.
127
128
Report PLN 20-14
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc.
September 2, 2014
Page 10
3.10 Parcel C to be developed as a Common Element Condominium
Parcel C is proposed to be developed as a common element condominium which
refers to a development where each dwelling unit is individually owned (freehold
ownership), and where amenities or physical features are collectively owned and
maintained by the unit owners as tenants in common. In accordance with Council
Policy and Delegation By-law 7306/13, the Director, City Development has the
authority to grant draft plan approval for plans of condominium. Therefore, no
further approvals are required from City Council.
3.11 Sustainability implications have been reviewed
Staff's review of the application against the City's Draft Sustainability Development
Guidelines resulted in a score below the Level 1 standard.
The proposed development will utilize existing services and will develop the lands at
a higher density. The design integrates various environmental objectives and
protects wetlands and environmentally significant features that have been dedicated
to the TRCA. There will be opportunities to improve this rating as additional
sustainability measures become available through the site plan approval process for
Parcel C and future building permit processes including the use of permeable
materials for paved areas, use of native species in landscaped areas, and installing
energy and water efficient fixtures and appliances.
3.12 Technical matters to be addressed as conditions of subdivision, site plan
approval and a development agreement
To ensure appropriate development for Parcels A and B, City, Region and agency
requirements will be imposed as conditions of approval for the subdivision
application. These conditions will address matters such as, but not limited to,
on-site grading, landscaping, tree preservation, fencing, stormwater management
and construction management. The conditions of approval set out in Appendix I
and II to this Report, address these (and other) matters. It is recommended that
Council endorse these conditions.
Detail site design issues for Parcel C will be dealt with through the Site Plan
Approval process. A site plan application is yet to be submitted. These
requirements will address matters such as facade designs and upgrades,
pedestrian access, landscaping, visitor parking, and emergency vehicles access.
The proposed three lots within Parcel D will be created through the land severance
process with the Region of Durham Land Division Committee. As a condition of
approval, the applicant will be required to execute a development agreement with
the City.
Report PLN 20-14
Subject: E. Ovide Holdings (Altona) Inc.
September 2, 2014
Page 11
3.13 Zoning By~law to be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment
Staff supports the rezoning application and recommends that the site specific
implementing by-law, containing the standards outlined in Appendix Ill, be brought
before Council for enactment following approval of the draft plans of subdivision.
4. Applicant's Comments
The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report.
Append ice~
Appendix I Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of
Subdivision SP-2013-03
Appendix II Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of
Subdivision SP-2014-02
Appendix Ill Recommended Performance Standards for Zoning By-law
Amendment A 6/13
Appendix IV Rouge Park Neighbourhood Tertiary Plan
Appendix V Property Locations and Descriptions
Appendix VI Original and Revised Proposal Comparison Chart
Appendix VII Concerns Identified by Area Residents
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision Plan-Parcels A and 8
3. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision Plan-Parcel C
4. Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium Plan-Parcel C
5. Submitted Plan"""' Parcel D
6. Lot Frontage Map -Parcel A
7. Lot Frontage Map-Parcels 8 and C
8. Lot Frontage Map-Parcel D
129
Recommended Conditions of Approval
for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2013-03
Appendix I to
Report PLN 20-14
131
132
General Conditions
Recommended Conditions of Approval for
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2013-03
1. The Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the draft plan of
subdivision prepared by Malone Given Parsons Ltd., dated February 7, 2014, on
lands legally known as Part of Lot 2, Registered Plan 388, Part of Lots 33 and 34,
Concession 1, City of Pickering, for the creation of 12 lots for detached dwellings
and a block for a road widening; and four blocks for the creation of 22 townhouse
units, a roadway and a 0.3 metre reserve block.
Subdivision Agreement
2. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction
of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements,
financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the,
conditions outlined in this document.
Zoning
3. That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/13
becomes final and binding.
Street Names
4. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the Region and
the City.
Develo.pment Charges & Inspection Fee
5. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development
Charges Act.
6. That the Owner satisfies the City for contributions for development review and
inspection fees.
Phasing
7. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the
Owner submits a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the
City.
Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances
8. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost:
(i) Block 13 for road widening purposes
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2013-03) Page 2
Architectural Control
9. That the Owner, prior to the preparation of the subdivision agreement, engages a
control architect, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development, who will
prepare a siting and architectural design statement to the City's satisfaction,
approve all models offered for sale and certify that all building permit plans comply
with the City's approved statement. The siting and architectural design statement
will become a schedule to the subdivision agreement.
Stormwater
1 0. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting
stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the
subdivision, and any provision regarding easements.
11. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works for
contributions for stormwater management maintenance fees.
12. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works that all
stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures are
operating and will be maintained and in good repair during the construction
period.
13.. That the Owner completes an analysis of the receiving storm sewer system to
the City's satisfaction to determine the site's allowable release rate to ensure
conformity with the requirements of the City's Stormwater Management Design
Guidelines.
Grading
14. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the
submission and approval of a grading control plan.
15. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the
submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis.
16. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting
authorization from abutting landowners for all off site grading.
Fill & Topsoil
17. The City's Fill & Topsoil Disturbance By-law prohibits soil disturbance, removal or
importation to the site unless a permit has been issued. No on-site works prior to
draft plan approval is permitted. A Fill & Topsoil Disturbance Permit will be
required should grading works proceed prior to the subdivision agreement being
executed.
133
134
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2013-03) Page 3
Road Allowances
18. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the
construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers and boulevard designs which
would include the construction of sidewalks from Woodview Avenue to the.east
limits of Parcel A.
19. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the
construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers and boulevard designs and the
removal of the temporary turning circle on Shadow Place and the extension of
the existing sidewalk to Parcel B.
Construction/Installation of City Works & Services
20. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the
construction of roads, storm sewers, pedestrian walkways, sidewalks and
boulevard designs through a site servicing plan.
21. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all
services required by the City.
22. That the Owner satisfies the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for
the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas
and other similar services.
23. That the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary
maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the
responsibility of the Owner.
24. That the Owner submits a Pre-Condition Survey for abutting dwellings which
front Shadow Place (municipal addresses 244, 246, 248, 250, 252, 254, 256,
258, 260, 262 and 264 Shadow Place) to the satisfaction of the City. The
findings of the study and survey must be prepared by a qualified professional and
should be undertaken prior to the commencement of site works.
25. That the Owner agrees to provide a platform for a future 2.0 metre wide sidewalk
fronting Parcel B within the Altona Road frontage.
Easements
26. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost, any easements as required and
any reserves as required by the City.
27. That the Owner conveys any easement to any utility provider to facilitate the
installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the
utility provider.
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2013-03) Page 4
28. That the Owner arranges at no cost to the City any easements required on third
party lands for servicing, and such easements shall be in a location as
determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon request at
any time after draft approval.
29. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works with any
required easement for works, facilities or use rights that are required by the City.
Construction Management Plan
30. That the Owner makes arrangements with the City respecting a construction
management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things:
(i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases. of
construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these
controls as per the City's Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban
Construction;
(ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and
building materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring
that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency
vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public street;
(iii) assurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all
contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law;
(iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to
the site;
(v) type and timing of construction fencing and existing trees to be retained;
(vi) location of construction trailers; and
(vii) details of the temporary construction access.
Fencing
31. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the provision of temporary
fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior
to the commencement of any works.
Landscaping
32. That the Owner submits a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City.
33. That the Owner satisfies the Director, City Development with the submission ·of a
tree preservation plan which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural
features where appropriate, with specific attention to preservation in all public
open spaces prior to the approval of a preliminary grading plan.
135
136
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2013-03) Page 5
Tree Compensation
34. Prior to final approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof, the Owner shall
provide to the City a tree compensation plan or/and a financial contribution for
the purposes of off-site planting of native, self-sustaining vegetation. Such
planting shall be on publically-owned lands held by the City of Pickering.
Noise Attenuation
35. That the Owner satisfies the requirements of the Ministry of Environment
regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features to
the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering.
36. That the Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to implement noise control
measures and warning clauses as recommended in the noise report as approved
by the City of Pickering.
Engineering Plans
37. That the Owner ensures that the engineering plans are coordinated with the
streetscape/siting and architectural control statement, and further, that the
engineering plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street trees to
ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all objectives of the
streetscape/siting and architectural control guidelines can be achieved.
38. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission of appropriate
engineering drawings that detail, among other things: City services; roads; storm
sewers; sidewalks; lot grading; streetlights; fencing and tree planting; measures
to protect the existing trees to be retained; and financially-secure such works.
Parkland Dedication
39. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the payment of cash-in-lieu in
accordance with the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. ":
Canada Post
40. That the Owner, through the approval of the Utility Coordination Plan for the
location, enters into an agreement with Canada Post Corporation for the
provision of a Community Mailbox including technical specifications, notice
requirements and financial terms.
41. That the Owner agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary
Community Mailbox location, if required, to the satisfaction of the City.
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2013-03) Page 6
Model Homes
42. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable
for this draft plan. All model homes must satisfy all requirements of the siting and
architectural design statement.
Plan Revisions
43. That the Owner revises the draft plan, as necessary to the satisfaction of the
City, to accommodate any technical engineering issues which arise during the
review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include
revising the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots
to the City's satisfaction.
Other Approval Agencies
44. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham, the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority or any utility for the development of this plan
be obtained by the Owner, and upon request written confirmatiofl be provided to
the City as verification of these approvals.
Cost Recovery
45. That the Owner agrees to contribute their proportionate share of the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Study.
46. That the Owner agrees to contribute to shared service costs for stormwater
management purposes in general conformity with the Rouge Park Master
Environmental Servicing Plan.
137
Recommended Conditions of Approval
for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2014-02
138
Appendix II to
Report PLN 20-14
General Conditions
Recommended Conditions of Approval for
· Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2014-02
1. The Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the draft plan of
subdivision prepared by Malone Given Parsons Ltd., dated March 11, 2014,
identified as Part of Lot 32 and Part of the Road Allowance between Lots 32 & 33,
Concession 1, City of Pickering, which illustrates one residential block and a
0. 3 metre reserve block.
Subdivision Agreement
2. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction
of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements,
financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the
conditions outlined in this document.
Zoning
3. That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 6/13
becomes final and binding.
Street Names
4. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the Region and
the City.
Development Charges & Inspection Fee
5. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development
Charges Act.
6. That the Owner satisfies the City for contributions for development review and
inspection fees.
Phasing
7. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner
submits a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the City.
Stormwater
8. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting
stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the
subdivision, and any provision regarding easements.
9. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works for
contributions for stormwater management maintenance fees.
139
140
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-02) Page 2
10. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works that all
stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures are
operating and will be maintained and in good repair during the construction
period.
Grading
11. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the
submission and approval of a grading control plan.
12. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the
submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis.
13. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting
authorization from abutting landowners for all off site grading.
Fill & Topsoil
14. The City's Fill & Topsoil Disturbance By-law prohibits soil disturbance, removal or
importation to the site unless a permit has been issued. No on-site works prior to
draft plan approval is permitted. A Fill & Topsoil Disturbance Permit will be
required should grading works proceed prior to the subdivision agreement being
executed.
Construction/Installation of City Works & Services
15. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the
construction of roads, storm sewers, pedestrian walkways, sidewalks and
boulevard designs through a site servicing plan.
16. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all
services required by the City.
17. That the Owner satisfies the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for
the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas
and other similar services.
18. That the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary
maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the
responsibility of the Owner.
19. That the Owner agrees to provide a platform for a future 2.0 metre wide sidewalk
fronting Parcel C within the Altona Road frontage.
Easements
20. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost, any easements as required and
any reserves as required by the City.
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-02) Page 3
21. That the Owner conveys any easement to any utility provider to facilitate the
installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the
utility provider.
22. That the Owner arranges at no cost to the City any easements required on third
party li:mds for servicing, and such easements shall be in a location as
determined by the City and/or the Region and are to be granted upon request at
any time after draft approval.
23. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works with any
required easement for works, facilities or use rights that are required by the City.
Construction Management Plan
24. That the Owner makes arrangements with the City respecting a construction
management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things:
(i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of
construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these
controls as per the City's Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban
Construction;
(ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and
building materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring
that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency
vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public street;
(iii) · assurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all
contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law;
(iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to
the site;
(v) type and timing of construction fencing and existing trees to be retained;
(vi) location of construction trailers; and
(vii) details of the temporary construction access.
Fencing
25. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the provision of temporary
fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior
to the commencement of any works.
·Landscaping
26. That the Owner submits a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City.
27. That the Owner satisfies the Director, City Development with the submission of a
tree preservation plan which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural
features where appropriate, with specific attention to preservation in all public
open spaces prior to the approval of a preliminary grading plan.
1 41
142
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-02) Page 4
Tree Compensation
28. Prior to final approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof, the Owner shail
provide to the City a tree compensation plan and/or a financial contribution for
the purposes of off-site planting of native, self-sustaining vegetation. Such
planting shall be on publically-owned lands held by the City of Pickering.
Noise Attenuation
29. That the Owner satisfies the requirements of the Ministry of Environment
regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features to
the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering.
30. That the Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to implement noise control
measures and warning clauses as recommended in the noise report as approved
by the City of Pickering.
Engineering Plans
31. That the Owner ensures that the engineering plans are coordinated with the
streetscape/siting and architectural control statement, and further, that the
engineering plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street t~ees to
ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all objectives of the
streetscape/siting and architectural control guidelines can be achieved.
32. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting the submission of appropriate
engineering drawings that detail, among other things: city services; roads; storm
sewers; sidewalks; lot grading; streetlights; fencing and tree planting; measures
to protect the existing trees to be retained; and financially-secure such works.
Parkland Dedication
33. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the payment of cash-in-lieu in
accordance with the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act.
Canada Post
34. That the Owner, through the approval of the Utility Coordination Plan 'for the
location, enters into an agreement with Canada Post Corporation for the
provision of a Community Mailbox including technical specifications, notice
requirements and financial terms.
35. That the Owner agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary
Community Mailbox location, if required, to the satisfaction of the City.
Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-02) Page 5
Model Homes
36. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable
for this draft plan. All model homes must satisfy all requirements of the siting and
architectural design statement.
Plan Revisions
37. That the Owner revises the draft plan, as necessary to the satisfaction of the
City, to accommodate any technical engineering issues which arise during the
review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include
revising the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots
to the City's satisfaction.
Other Approval Agencies
'
38. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham, the Toronot
and Region Conservation Authority or any utility for the development of this plan
be obtained by the Owner, and upon request written confirmation be provided to
the City as verification of these approvals.
Cost Recovery
39. That the Owner agrees to contribute their share of the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Study.
40. That the Owner agrees to contribute to shared service costs for stormwater
management purposes in general conformity with the Rouge Park Master
Environmental Servicing Plan.
143
Recommended Performance Standards
for Zoning By-law Amendment A 6/13
144
Appendix Ill to
Report PLN 20·-14
Recommended Performance Standards for Zoning By-law Amendment A 6/13
Zoning Parcel A Parcel B Parcel C Parcel D
Provisions
Permitted Use Detached Multiple Dwelling-Multiple Dwelling-Detached
Dwellings Horizontal Units Horizontal Units Dwellings
Max. No. of lots/units 12 22 40 3
Lot Area (Min) 480 sq.m. 150 sq. m. 120 sq.m 480 sq.m.
Lot Frontage (Min) 13.0 m 6.0 m 6.0 m 14.0 m
Front Yard Depth (Min) 7.0 m 4.5 m 3.0 m from Altona 7.0 m
Road (Blocks 1 & 2)
4.5 m from private
street (Blocks 3 to 7)
Garage Setback (Min) 7.0 m 6.0 m 6.0 m 7.0 m
Interior Side Yard (Min) 1.2 m and 0.6 m 1.5 m when no 1.2 m when no 1.2 m and
(1.8 m between common wall common wall 0.6 m (1.8 m
dwelling units) between
dwelling units)
Flankage Side Yard N/A 2.7 m 2.7 m from Altona N/A
(Min) Road
Rear Yard Depth (Min) 7.0 m 7.0 m 7.0 m 7.0 m
6.0 m to the easterly
unit on Block 6
Lot Coverage (Max) 45% 50% N/A 38%
Building Height (Max) 11.0 m 11.0 m 11.0 m 11.0 m
Driveway Width (Max) 6.0 m 3.0 m 3.0 m (Blocks 3 to 7) 6.0 m
(6.0 m for west lot 6.0 m (Blocks 1 & 2)
of Block 15)
Garage Projection 2.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling
unit, except where a covered and uncovered porch extends a minimum of
1.8 metres from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit,
in which case no part of any attached private garage shall extend more
than 3.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the
dwelling unit
145
Recommended Performance Standards for Zoning By-law Amendment A 6/13
-Zoning Parcel A Parcel B Parcel C Parcel D
Provisions
Projections into Front, covered porches, covered porches, covered porches, covered
Flankage and Rear box windows, box windows, box windows, porches, box
Yards (Max) and steps and steps balcony support windows, and
permitted to permitted to walls and steps steps permitted
encroach a encroach a permitted to to encroach
maximum of 1.8 m maximum of 1.8 m encroach a a maximum of
maximum of 1.0 m 1.8 m
along Altona Road·
and 1.5 m along
private lane
Deck Projections 2.5 m
(covered and
uncovered) into Rear
Yard (Max)
r--
Parking (Min) 2 spaces per unit 2 spaces per unit 2 spaces per unit 2 spaces per
plus, 0.25 spaces unit
per unit for visitor
parking
Model Homes Model homes permitted, if required
Density Transfer The number of units transferred from the granting and receiving properties
Provisions
146
Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Tertiary Plan
Appendix IV to
Report PLN 20-14
. 14 7
Property Locations and Descriptions
Appendix V to
Report PLN 20-14
149
150
Property Locations and Descriptions
Parcel A
199, 207,215,
219 and 223
Finch Avenue
Parcel 8
1978 Altona Road
Parcel C
1973 and 1981
Altona Road
Parcel D
335 and 339
Finch Avenue
"' located on the south side of Finch Avenue, east of
Woodview Avenue
"' the properties have a combined area of approximately
0.65 of a hectare
"' to the north and to the west of the subject lands are low
density residential development consisting of detached
dwellings fronting onto Nature Haven Crescent, Finch
Avenue and Woodview Avenue
"' to the south and to the east in a natural heritage
system
"' the lands currently support a detached dwelling which
is proposed to be demolished
"' located on the west side of Altona Road immediately
south of Shadow Place
,., the property has an area of approximately 0.56 of a
hectare
"' immediately to the north is an established medium
density residential subdivision consisting of semi-
detached dwellings fronting onto Shadow Place
"' to the west are environmental lands and to the south is
a residential property containing a detached dwelling
"' the lands currently support a detached dwelling which · is proposed to be demolished
® located on the east side of Altona Road, south of
Finch Avenue
e the properties have a combined area of approximately
1.05 hectares
o frontage of approximately 123 metres along
Altona Road
,. abutting the lands to the south is a Hydro corridor and
to the east are environmental lands
• located on the south side of Finch Avenue, east of
Altona Road
• the properties have a combined area of approximately
0.37 of a hectare
• to the north, east and west of the lands are low density
residential development consisting of detached dwellings
fronting onto Mapleview Court and Finch Avenue and
to the south are environmental lands
Summary of Original and Revised Proposal
Appendix VI to
Report PLN 20-14
1 51
Summary of Original and Revised Proposal
Parcel A Original Proposal Revised Proposal
-
Number of Lots 13 detached ·lots 12 detached lots
Lot frontage (min) 12.8 metres fronting Finch 13.7 metres fronting Finch
Avenue Avenue
Front yard Depth 4.5 metres 7.0 metres
(min)
interior Side Yard 1.2 metres and 0.6 metres 1.2 metres and 0.6 metres
Depth (min) (1.8 metres between
dwelling units)
Rear Yard Depth 7.0 metres No change
Lot Coverage (max) 50 percent 45 percent
Building Height 12.0 metres 11.0 metres
Parcel B Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Number of Units 22 townhouse units 1\lo change
Lot frontage (min) 6.0 metre No change
Front yard Depth 2.0 metre 6 metres to the garage
(min) 4.5 metres to the house
Interior Side Yard Information not provided 1.5 metre when no common
Depth (min) wall
Rear Yard Depth Information not provided 7.0 metre
Lot Coverage (max) Information not provided . 50 percent
Building Height 12.0 ·metre 11.0 metres
152
Summary of Original and Revised Proposal
Parcel C Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Number of Units Conceptual plan proposing to create a single
40 townhouse units development block to
facilitate a common element
condominium consisting of a
total of 40 townhouse units
24 -2 storey townhouse
units fronting private street
I 16 -3 storey townhouse
units fronting Altona Road
Lot frontage (min) 6.0 metres No change
Front yard Depth 2.0-4.0 metres 3.0 metres for units fronting
(min) Altona Road
6.0 metres to garage for
units fronting private street
4.5 metres to house for units
fronting private street
Interior Side Yard Information not provided 1.2 metres
Depth (min)
Rear Yard Depth 7.0 metres 7.0 metres for units fronting
private street
4.5 metres for units fronting
Altona Road
6.0 metres to the garage for
units fronting Altona Road
Building Height 12.0 metres 11.0 metres
(max)
Parcel D Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Number of Lots to facilitate the future No change
creation of 3 new lots
through land severance for
detached dwellings )
Lot frontage (min) 15.0 metres fronting Finch 14.0 metres fronting Finch
Avenue Avenue
Front yard Depth 5.0 metres 7.0 metres
(min) 153
Summary of Original and Revised Proposal
Parcel D Original Proposal Revised Proposal
Interior Side Yard 1.2 metre and 0.6 metre No change
Depth (min)
Rear Yard Depth 7.5 metres No change
Lot Coverage 50 percent 38 percent
(max)
Building Height 12.0 metres 11.0 metres
154
Concerns Identified by
Area Residents
Appendix VII to
Report PLN 20-14
155
156
Concerns Identified by Area Residents
Key concerns summarized below for each proposal.
Parcel A
Parcel B
Parcel C
Parcel D
Ill concerned with increased density in the neighbourhood
e concerned with the compatibility of the size of the proposed
lots with the existing lots along Nature Haven Crescent
e concerned with the loss of privacy and loss of mature trees
Q requested screening of new lots with additional landscaping
and replacement of existing street trees along the north side
of Finch Avenue
II) concerned with the possible overflow parking on Nature
Haven Crescent
Ol> requested confirmation if two car garages are proposed
e concerned with traffic routes for construction access
~ requested the installation of sidewalks along Finch Avenue
e concerned with the compatibility of the size of the proposed
townhouse units with the existing semi-detached units along
Shadow Place
o concerned with the increased density in the neighbourhood
® concerned that the proposed lot frontages are not consistent
with the existing lot frontages along Shadow Place
"' concerned with the size of the lots and dwellings, and the
ability to support a two car garage
., concerned with the availability of on-street parking and visitor
parking
o requested construction access be provided from Altona Road
rather than Shadow Place
e concerned with the density of the proposed development
"' questioned the height and design of the townhouse units
o requested confirmation whether sidewalks will be provided
along Altona Road and internal to the development
1\) requested installation of sidewalks along Finch Avenue
II) requested extension of water and sewer to accommodate
other existing lots along Finch Avenue
170
Report PLN 21-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc. Page 2
3. Further, that Council direct staff to bring forward a report on the Phase 21ands at a
later date, recommending the rezoning of these lands from Urban Reserve to Major
Tourist Destination and Natural Heritage System as may be appropriate, once the
required environmental investigations are completed to the satisfaction of the City
and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Executive Summary: The subject lands are generally bounded by Highway 401 and
GO Rail to the north, Church Street South to the east, Bayly Street to the south and the
CN rail tracks to the west of Squires Beach Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1).
Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. and Pickering
Developments (Squires) Inc., known as Durham Live, have submitted an application to
amend the zoning by-law to permit a broad list of employment uses on the subject lands
in order to facilitate the future development of an integrated mixed use tourist
destination (see Submitted Property Plan, Attachment #2). While the proposed
application is for a major tourist destination development, a significant number of the
comments that have been received have focused on only one of the requested uses-
the gaming facilities/casino. It should be noted, however, that even if included as a
permitted use, the gaming facility/casino, can only be established on the subject
property with the approval of the Province of Ontario through the Ontario Lottery and
Gaming Corporation.
The proposal has been divided into two development phases because of environmental
considerations (see Submitted Phasing Plan, Attachment #3). The Phase 1 lands are
not subject to any significant environmental constraints and therefore are recommended
for rezoning at this time. However, for the Phase 2 lands, additional technical work on
the natural heritage system is required before the lands can be recommended for
rezoning. Accordingly, in the interim, the Phase 2 lands are recommended to be rezoned
·as Urban Reserve until the required environmental information is submitted and evaluated.
The subject property is appropriately located and of sufficient size to facilitate the
development of a major tourist destination that would be of significant benefit to the City
and the Region. Moreover, the proposed development readily allows for a broad and
unique range of employment uses that could not easily (if at all) be located elsewhere in
the City. However, because of the potential scale· and intensity of development that
may ultimately occur on the property, it is recommended that the implementing zoning
by-law include an (H)-holding symbol to ensure that a number of required technical
. matters are adequately addressed prior to development, and to ensure that necessary
regional and provincial road improvements are made as, and when required, to support
the scale and intensity of the development as it occurs over time.
The proposed major tourist destination is in accordance with Provincial policy,
implements the Official Plan, supports tourism and economic development in the City
and Region, includes land uses that are compatible with the surrounding land uses, and
represents good planning. The proposed development is an appropriate use of the
subject lands, and staff recommends that Council endorse Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 3/14, as set out in the recommendations of this report.
Report PLN 21-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc. Page 3
Financial Implications: The development of a major tourist destination on the subject
lands should provide significant positive financial and economic benefits to the City in
terms of jobs, tax assessment and other potential revenues to the City. According to the
applicant's submitted Economic Impact Assessment study, the full build out of the
project could create approximately 7,500 to 12,000 direct jobs and 4,000 to 5,200
indirect/induced jobs and generate annual municipal taxes of approximately $50 million.
There are no direct costs to the City that are anticipated as a result of the
recommendations of this Report.
1. Background
1.1 Property Description
The subject lands are generally bounded by Highway 401 and GO Rail to the
north, Church Street South to the east, Bayly Street to the south and the CN rail
tracks to the west of Squires Beach Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1).
Two municipal roads, Kellino Street and Squires Beach Road, bisect the subject
lands, resulting in three separate parcels. The lands have a combined area of
approximately 90.5 hectares.
The lands contain three minor tributaries of Duffins Creek, which flow from north
to south, as well as forested and wetland areas that comprise part of the Lower
Duffins Creek Wetland Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland (see Submitted
Property Plan, Attachment #2). Portions of the subject lands have recently been
used for agricultural purpose, while the remainder of the lands are vacant open
space. There are no buildings or other structures on the subject lands.
Surrounding uses include general industrial land uses, commercial uses
consisting of a vehicle sales establishment and the Pickering Markets and Trade
Centre, a property with trailers stored on it, a place of worship and a golf course.
1.2 Applicant's Proposal
The applicant has submitted an application to amend the zoning by-law to
establish a broad list of permitted employment uses on the subject lands in order
to facilitate the future development of an integrated mixed use tourist destination.
A preliminary conceptual master plan has been prepared for the entire site
demonstrating how various buildings and uses could be located and integrated
on the site (see Conceptual Master Plan, Attachment #4).
The concept plan illustrates a convention centre, performing arts centre,
amphitheatre, cinemas, restaurant plaza, casino and five-star hotel, waterpark
with hotel, office buildings, tourist centre/greenhouse, film studio, boutique hotel,
fitness centre and spa, and parking structures. The Conceptual Master Plan is
not intended to illustrate a specific site plan, but rather an illustration of how the
integrated development could occur. The Conceptual Master Plan is for the entire
land holdings, not just the Phase 1 lands.
1 71
172
Report PLN 21-14
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc.
September 2, 2014
Page4
The vision is to have the site develop over a 15 to 20 year timeframe, as a large,
integrated and planned tourist destination complex with a strong commitment to
architectural and urban design while integrating the development with the
surrounding environmental features. Specific uses and their precise locations
would be further refined in the future.
The applicant has indicated the project is not dependent on a casino, but that the
scale and mix of uses might differ without this use. The applicant intends to
proceed with the development if the Ontario Lottery .and Gaming Corporation
does not approve the casino use for this property.
1.3 The applicant has requested that the consideration of the application be phased
Generally, the eastern portion of the property is less constrained by
environmental features than the western portion of the lands. As some of the
environmental studies will require over a year to complete, the applicant has
requested that the proposal be reviewed in two stages. The first stage is the
Phase 1 lands, which is the subject of this report. The second stage will address
the appropriateness of the Phase 2 lands when the required studies have been
submitted.
2. Comments Received
2.1 Public comments from the April 7, 2014 Public Information Meeting and in
written submission
Approximately 100 residents attended the Public Information Meeting, and
14 people voiced opinions on the proposed application. Specifically, the
comments included the following: '
• the relationship between casinos and horse racing
• the viability of the project if a casino was not approved by the Province
• the social impacts of gaming facilities
• the development would result in major job creation for residents
• the development would result in adverse traffic impacts
• the casino use should not be considered prior to the results of the ballot
question
• concern about the impacts of a casino on local businesses
• the tourist and entertainment facilities would benefit the community
2.2 Written public submissions received
Staff have received a number of written submissions regarding the proposed
amendment. A general summary of these written submissions and a copy of the
correspondence are contained in Appendix II, Part A.
In addition, staff also received a number of email submissions in response to a
flyer "Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino" that was distributed by the
Regional Councillors of Wards 1 and 2 to residents of those wards. A summary
of these written submissions and a copy of the correspondence are contained in
Appendix II, Part B.
Report PLN 21-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc. Page 5
2.3 Town of Ajax submission received
The Council of the Town of Ajax has provided comments on the subject
application (see Attachment #5). Based on a staff report that was presented to
the June 2, 2014, Community Affairs and Planning Committee, Town of Ajax
Council on June 9, 2014 passed the following resolution:
That the City of Pickering be advised that the Town of Ajax considers
Pickering Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/14 to be premature.
Town of Ajax staff have provided comments on April14, 2014 and additional
comments dated August 7, 2014. These comments include, but are not limited to
questions on official plan conformity; need for additional technical information
related to traffic, servicing, environmental investigations, and the need for specific
development details (see Attachments #6A and #68).
2.4 City Departments & Agency Comments
Region of Durham e the subject lands are designated "Employment Areas"
in the Regional Official Plan
• Bayly Street is designated as a Type "A" Arterial Road,
Regional Corridor and a Transit Spine; Church Street
is designated a Type "B" Arterial Road; and,
Squ.ires Beach Road is designated a Type "C" Arterial
Road
" the Regional Official Plan identifies Key Natural
Heritage features and Key Hydrogeological Features
on the lands, Phase 2 portion
" the concept of the proposed development may be
permitted by the Regional Official Plan and can be
confirmed upon review of the implementing zoning
by-law
• the subject application conforms to the Provincial
Policy Statements and the Growth Plan provided the
implementing zoning by-law includes provisions to
address infrastructure and natural heritage
req u i rerne nts
" from a transportation infrastructure perspective, the
Region is satisfied that up to approximately 25 percent
of the proposed development could be accommodated
with minor enhancements to previously planned
Region road network improvements, after which
additional road improvements will be required and the
implementing zoning by-law should include provisions
to address road infrastructure improvements
173
174
Report PLN 21-14
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc.
September 2, 2014
Page 6
Toronto and
Region
Conservation
Authority
Ministry of
Transportation
City of Pickering
Engineering &
Public Works
• municipal water and sanitary sewage service capacity
is available to service the proposed development and
surrounding employment area
• additional technical matters, such as noise,
archaeological assessment, natural heritage and
environmental site assessment will need further review
through the site plan approval process prior to any
actual development
• a copy of the Region's comments is attached
(see Attachment #7)
• requests that any hazard lands and natural features
shall not be zoned with a designation that permits
development
• requests that the Phase 1 lands be zoned with an
(H)-holding symbol until further detailed information
respecting headwater drainage, water balance
analysis and functional servicing is provided
• a copy of the TRCA's comments is attached
(see Attachment #8)
• Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has advised that the
subject lands are within their permit control area
• future development of these lands will require the
Ministry's review ana approval, and a MTO Building
and Land Use Permit for any development, entrance,
change of entrance use, building or structure within
45 metres of the Highway 401 property line, or within
395 metres of the centre point of an intersection or
interchange with Highway 401
• a copy of the MTO's comments is attached
(see Attachment #9)
• standard development details will be required for
development including the need to enter into
appropriate development agreements
• from a traffic perspective, 25 percent of the
development can be accommodated with minor
improvements to the Regional road network
• a copy of the Engineering & Public Works comments is
attached (see Attachment #1 0)
No other agency that provided comments has objected to the application. Certain technical
issues and requirements related to the proposed use of the site will be addressed during
the implementation process, should this application be approved.
Report PLN 21-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc. Page 7
3. Planning Analysis
3.1 The proposal conforms to the Employment Areas designation and general
policies of the Pickering Official Plan
The City of Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Employment
Areas"-"Prestige Employment" and "Mixed Employment", and "Open Space
System-Natural Areas". The majority of the lands are designated "Prestige
Employment" while the "Mixed Employment" is located along the north side of
Bayly Street. The lands designated "Open Space System -Natural Areas" are
located in the southwest corner of the subject lands.
Employment Areas in Pickering are those areas having a significant
concentration of manufacturing, assembly, warehousing and/or related
employment opportunities and are classified according to their mix of uses,
operational characteristics, design, and performance requirements. Prestige
Employment permits a range of uses including: light manufacturing; offices;
limited retail sales as a minor component of an industrial operation; hotels; and
personal services. Community, cultural and recreational uses and other uses
with similar performa'nce characteristics that are more appropriately located in
employment areas are also permitted. Mixed Employment permits the same
uses as Prestige Employment while also permitting limited retailing of goods and
services serving the area.
The subject property is located within the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood of the
Official Plan. There are two Detailed Review Areas within the Neighbourhood,
one of which is located partially on the subject lands along Bayly Street. Detailed
Review Areas are areas that have been identified as priorities for the preparation
of detailed land use, transportation, design or other development guidelines. The
neighbourhood policies, as they relate to the subject lands, describe the
facilitation of vehicular movement including the extension of Squires Beach Road
over Highway 401 and ensuring that any proposed new road intersection with
Church Street South, north of Bayly Street is provided to the satisfaction of the
Region.
The Economic Development chapter of the Official Plan outlines the economic
goals of the City of Pickering. Section 5.1 of the Plan states that City Council
shall:
a) strengthen Pickering's economic health and self-sufficiency by encouraging
existing business and entrepreneurs within the City and by taking advantage
of positive opportunities that arise from the City's interdependency with
regional, national and global economies;
b) encourage Pickering as a major business and employment destination for
Durham Region and eastern Metropolitan Toronto; and
175
176
Report PLN 21-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc. Page 8
c) increase the number, diversity and quality of local jobs, to help balance the
residential to commercial/industrial tax assessment ratio, and reduce
out-commuting.
Based on the designation and policies of the Official Plan, the proposed
application complies with the Plan. The proposed rezoning application will
broaden the mix of employment uses that will provide additional employment
opportunities with a diversity of jobs, while encouraging tourism and improving
the economic base of the City.
3.2 The traffic impacts can be addressed with the implementation of traffic
infrastructure improvements as the Major Tourist Destination uses are
developed over time
An Urban Transportation Study was undertaken by the applicant's consultants.
The traffic analysis that was conducted, examined a variety of factors including
existing traffic, background traffic growth on regional roads, projected traffic
attributed to several specific developments in the vicinity of the subject lands,
and projected traffic from the Durham Live proposal.
The results of the signalized intersection analysis of this traffic scenario indicated
that as the development proceeds, a combination of Regional road network
improvements will be required, including modifications to signalized intersection
turn lane configurations, a Highway 401 underpass connection between Squires
Beach Road and Notion Road, and a partial interchange to and from the west on
Highway 401 at Church Street to ensure the overall study area road network will
be able to continue to operate under good to very busy (but still acceptable)
urban conditions.
The required road and intersection improvements would be to Brock Road,
Kingston Road, Bayly Street, Church Street, Westney Road, Pickering Parkway, ·
Notion Road, Squires Beach Road and Highway 401 (see Submitted
Recommended Public Street Improvement Plan, Attachment #11 ).
As the Durham Live project is anticipated to be developed in stages over a
number of years, the road infrastructure improvements will also need to be
staged to ensure they keep pace with the scale and intensity of the development.
The implementing zoning by-law is therefore proposed to include an (H)-holding
symbol that will limit the amount of development that can occur on the property
prior to road improvements. Before lifting the (H)-holding symbol, appropriate
agreements and technical studies will be required to the satisfaction of the City of
Pickering, the Region of Durham and the Province of Ontario, as necessary.
Report PLN 21-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc. Page 9
3.3 The buffer lands associated with the Natural Heritage System will require
further analysis to determine the extent of development that will be
permitted in the Phase 2 lands
The subject site contains lands that are designated as Provincially Significant
Wetlands located in the Phase 2 portion of the site. These lands, as well as the
wooded area designated Open Space Systems-Natural Areas, are proposed to
be zoned Natural Heritage System (NHS) in the future after a review of the
required studies. In the interim, all the lands in Phase 2 are recommended to be
zoned Urban Reserve, thereby removing the existing industrial zoning from these
lands to ensure protection of the wetlands.
The studies for the Phase 2 lands will assess the NHS to determine the extent of
the buffers that need to be established to protect the NHS features or its
ecological function. The assessment will also investigate if any activity other
than conservation purposes could be permitted within the buffers. All lands
within 120 metres of a Provincially Significant Wetland feature (which is the line
that divides the Phase 1 lands from the Phase 2 lands), are being investigated,
as required by the City's Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement.
The required studies will also consider additional lands associated with other
environmental features along with the extent of the buffer required to protect
these features.
3.4 The proposed Major Tourist Destination uses are compatible with the
surrounding land uses
Lands to the south and west, in Pickering, are designated Employment Areas in
the Pickering Official Plan, similar to the subject lands. A few surrounding
properties have established permitted uses on these lands that include a place of
religious assembly, a vehicle sales and service establishment, a restaurant and
the Pickering Markets. To the west of the CN Rail line is the GFL waste
management complex amongst other employment uses.
To ensure compatibility with the surrounding employment uses, certain of the
proposed tourist destination uses (such as commercial school, day care,
community centre and hotel) may need to be appropriately located within the
subject lands and/or appropriately mitigated through the site plan approval
process, as they may be considered sensitive land uses in an employment area.
Sensitive uses will have to have regard to noise and vibration from road and rail
traffic, and from noise, light, order and dust from industrial operations, such as
the GFL waste management complex.
Adjacent land uses to the east, in the Town of Ajax, include the Annandale Golf
and Curling Club, on the east side of Church Street, and employment uses on the
southeast corner of Church Street and Bayly Street. The proposed tourist
destination uses would also be compatible with the employment uses and the
golf course use in Ajax.
177
178
Report PLN 21-14
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc.
September 2, 2014
Page 10
3.5 Site servicing of the proposed Major Tourist Destination development will
not impact existing or future uses in the surrounding area
The Region of Durham has advised that municipal water and sanitary sewage
services capacity is available to service the proposed development and the
surrounding area.
A preliminary drainage plan has been prepared by the applicant's consultant that
demonstrates an appropriate level of stormwater control can be accommodated.
Detailed design requirements for water quality and quantity control, erosion
control and w~ter balance for natural features will be addressed during and
through the site plan approval process.
3.6 An Economic Impact Assessment of the Major Tourist Destination
development has been submitted
The applicant has submitted an Economic Impact Assessment for the proposed
development. The study is based on an integrated resort casino anchoring the
tourist destination development. This form of development is projected to
generate significant job creation, tax revenue for the municipality and visitor
spending in the community due to the significant increase in tourism visitors to
the area.
3.7 The Social impacts of the gaming facility are the responsibility of the
Provincial Government
A number of comments that were received relate to the social impacts of
gambling on society. This issue is under the mandate of the Province of Ontario
through the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG). OLG is a provincial
agency which operates and manages province-wide lotteries, casinos and slot
facilities at horse racing tracks in Ontario.
The legislative authority of OLG is set out in the Ontario Lottery and Gaming
Corporation Act, 1999. Classified as an Operational Enterprise Agency, OLG
has a single shareholder, the Government of Ontario, and reports through its
Board of Directors to the Minister of Finance. OLG has established a
Responsible Gambling Program that considers the social aspects of problem
gambling.
3.8 The development will incorporate strong urban design principles
Some of the key urban design principles that will be articulated either in the
zoning by-law and/or as urban d~sign performance standards or guidelines in the
required development agreement with the City will include:
e protecting the environmentally sensitive lands by providing an appropriate
buffer between the significant natural features and the developable lands,
while integrating passive recreational trails and walkways within the buffer
areas where appropriate
Report PLN 21-14
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc.
September 2, 2014
Page 11
• encouraging the creation of a walkable, pedestrian friendly environment
through the design of streets and blocks, the appropriate location of buildings
relative to the streets and blocks, and the use of wide walkways
• establishing prominent boulevards that include benches, street trees, other
landscaping, pedestrian-scale lighting, and public art
• establishing a strong commitment to design excellence with respect to
enhanced architecture and urban design while incorporating sustainable
design elements such as minimizing energy consumption, maximizing
stormwater infiltration, and incorporating green roofs
• designing public and private streets to accommodate multiple modes of
travel, anticipated traffic volumes, and on-street parking
• minimizing surface parking, where appropriate, and incorporating on-street
parking, time of use parking, and underground and structured parking
3.9 The Phase 2 lands are to be zoned Urban Reserve as an interim measure
until the required environmental investigations have been completed
This report recommends the use of an Urban Reserve zoning category on the
Phase 2 lands as an interim measure. This zoning would remain in place until
the required environmental investigations, and any other technical studies are
completed to the satisfaction of the City, the Region and the Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, and the precise boundary of the developable area of ·
Phase 2 can be determined. Once the required environmental investigations and
all other technical studies are completed, staff will bring forward a report for
Council's consideration for the rezoning of the Phase 2 lands for Major Tourist
Destination and Natural Heritage System zones, if appropriate and where
applicable, and in accordance with all completed investigations.
The Urban Reserve zoning category will restrict uses on the Phase 2 lands to
only existing legal uses and uses permitted by Natural Heritage Systems zone.
4.0 Sustainability implications have been reviewed
Staff's review of the application against the City's Draft Sustainable Development
Guidelines resulted in a score below the Level 1 standard. However, because
the project design is conceptual only at this time, (insufficient amount of detailed
design information available to be evaluated) there is limited opportunity to
achieve a Level 1 standard.
It is anticipated that with the receipt of more detailed design information the
project will achieve a Level 1 or higher standard. Significant opportunities exist
for the applicant to implement sustainable options through future site plan and
building permit processes.
179
180
Report .PLN 21-14 September 2, 2014
Subject: Durham Live-Pickering Developments Inc. Page 12
5.0 Appropriate development controls will be established through the required
agreements, the required site plan approval process, and the use of an
(H)-holding symbol in the zoning by-law
The requirements of the City, Region and other public agencies (such as TRCA)
involved in the development process will be protected and incorporated through
the required development agreements, as conditions of site plan approval and/or
through the use of (H)-holding symbols in the implementing zoning by-law.
These development agreement requirements include, but are not limited to,
building design and location, on-site grading, landscaping, tree preservation,
fencing, stormwater management, construction management and detail design.
Amongst other matters, the (H)-holding symbol will ensure that all required road
infrastructure is in place to accommodate traffic generated by the development
as it is constructed over time, including the required Regional road
improvements, a new Highway 401 underpass and a new Highway 401
interchange.
6.0 The implementing zoning by-law will include an appropriate (H)-holding
symbol to adequately address transportation infrastructure concerns
The implementing by-law will also establish an upset limit on the amount of
development that can occur prior to lifting the (H)-holding symbol related to
transportation infrastructure. The Region has advised that from a transportation
infrastructure perspective, it is satisfied that up to approximately 25 percent of the
proposed development could be accommodated with only minor enhancements
to the previously planned improvements to the Regional road network. Beyond
this amount of development, additional road improvements will be required to
accommodate the development, as outlined in this Report.
Ad raft zoning by-law amendment is not included with this Report as further
discussion is needed with the Region of Durham to establish appropriate
(H)-holding symbol terms ·and conditions that will appropriately reflect and '
accommodate the 25 percent development limit. The draft permitted uses for the
MTD zone (see Appendix I) as well as the definitions for new uses will also be
finalized. Discussions are on-going and it is anticipated that a draft zoning by-law
will be available for consideration at the September '15, 2014 Council meeting.
7.0 Applicant's Comments
The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report.
Appendices
Appendix I Proposed Major Tourist Destination Uses
Appendix II Written Public Comments
Proposed Major Tourist Destination Uses
182
Appendix I to
Report PLN 21-14
Proposed Major Tourist Destination Uses
Amphitheatre Financial Institution
Arena Gaming Establishment/Casino
Art Gallery Hotel or Motel
Convention or Conference Centre Library
Automobile Rental Establishment Medical Office
Bake Shop Museum
Banquet Facilities Nightclub/Bar
Botanical Gardens Office
Cafe I Restaurant I Tavern I Pub Outdoor Recreational Facility
Cinema Park
Commercial Fitness/Recreation Centre Performing Arts Centre/Theatre
Commercial Parking lot and Commercial Personal Service Establishment
Parking Lot Structure
Commercial School Place of Amusement
Commercial Tourist Establishments Private Club
Community Centre Professional Office
Community Gardens Spa
Convenience Store Stadium
Curling Rinks, Tennis Courts, Bowling Travel Agent
Alleys or similar recreational facilities
Day Care Centre Travel Information Centre
Dry-Cleaner's Distribution Centre Waterpark/Wave Pool
Emergency Service Facility Retail Ancillary to a Permitted Use
Film Studio
183
Written Public Comments
184
Appendix II to
Report PLN 21-14
Number
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Part A
Written Public Comments Received on
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/14
Commehter Comment
David McKay, HMBC • concerns with the application related to possible
Planning on behalf of imp ads on the operation of GFL operations of their
GFL Environmental Inc., facilities on Toy Avenue
located on Toy Avenue • not opposed in principle to the application. but
concern of land use compatibility and has requested
additional information related to noise, traffic, odour
and lightinq
Emilio Trotta Ill has an interest in the application and request to be
Ajax Downs kept informed of the application
50 Alexander Crossing
Ajax
Murray Chusid Ill advises that they concur with the issues and
on Behalf of Ajax Downs concerns expressed in Town of Ajax's Planning staff
letter
Robert Owen Ill opposed to the application for a casino
Pickering Pentecostal • gaming facilities would have a negative impact on
Church individuals and families
• traffic and noise concerns
• proposed uses not compatible next to the church
Len Hummel • not in favour of gaming facility/casino
Email-no address • gaming facilities would have a negative impact on
provided individuals and families
• the proposal has not been given adequate
opportunity for the community to discuss gaming
facilities
• traffic issues
• should not consider the application until after the
results of the ballot question on a casino in Pickering
Todd & Kim Smith • in support of the application
448 Rougemount Dr. .. will create jobs, cause infrastructure improvements,
Pickering provide first class entertainment, attract new
corporation and their tax revenue
Sue Quackenbush & • great concern with the project
Ken Devine • not supportive of land currently used for agriculture to
1210 Radom St. be loss to development
Pickering • if casino is approved there will be loss of horse racing
jobs from Ajax
Anne Ballyns • opposed to the application for a casino
1125 Meadowlane Cres.
PickerinQ
Wasay Khan Ill for the development to succeed they must build a
Email-no address Highway 401 exit ramps at Church street
provided
185
Number Commenter ,' ·.Comment ,• • ,.
10. Leonardo Veronesi • concern with the project, don't see the benefit of the
Email-no address proposal if jobs are lost and have negative impact on
provided society
11. Dolores Forster & • strong objection with the project
Karl Goebel • loss of horse racing and agricultural jobs in Durham
1774 Shadybrook Dr. Region
Pickering • traffic concerns
12. John Foster • opposed to a casino, concern with hardships on
Email-no address families through addiction to gambling
provided
13. Cheryl Bezanson • concern with the casino due to traffic concerns and
41 Willow Lane that there are schools on and close to Church Street
Ajax being a access route to the development
• concern with the social issues of gambling
14. Marryann Boyd • concerned with existing traffic and transit in the area
1210 Radom St. • before any development is permitted all infrastructure
Pickering has to be in place, and the developers should pay for
the infrastructure
186
188
o Processes utilized at this facility include consolidation by
mixing/bulking/blending in container or tanks, oil/water separation, wastewater
treatment, oil filter crushing, solidification, and soil treatment (ex-situ bioJogical
treatment of petroleum hydrocarbon and road salt impacted soils).
• A waste transfer facility is operated at 1048 Toy Avenue. This facility receives, processes,
and transfers solid, non-hazardous ICI, municipal waste, and construction/demolition
waste (maximum 600 tonnes per day).
• A vehicle service and repair facility is operated at 1034 Toy Avenue.
• Each of the above properties includes related administrative offices and parking areas for
vehicle fleets associated with the facilities.
• The GFL property at the southeast end of Quartz Street is currently vacant.
While GFL is not opposed in principle to the Durham Live proposal, GFL does have concerns
related to land use compatibility matters which result from the introduction of the proposal to
this employment area and the proposed expansion of uses permitted on the lands.
Specifically, noise, light and odour impacts from the existing GFL facilities need to be assessed,
and mitigation measures implemented by the proposal, ifrequired. Further, given the size and
scale of the proposed development, potential traffic safety and capacity issues need to be
reviewed, in consideration of the heavy truck traffic generated by the existing GFL facilities (as
well as other industrial operations in the area).
As noted in the City's staff report, preliminary technical studies have been prepared in support
of the Durham Live proposal, and the City of Pickering has agreed that the Applicant's zoning
by-law amendment application may be pursued in two separate phases. Regardless of the
phased approach structure and the Applicant's intention to prepare standcalone studies to
support the "Phase 2 lands" (but updated as part of a single application), it is evident that the
impacts associated with the existing GFL facilities (i.e. noise, odour, traffic, etc.) need to be
assessed and have not been identified in the preliminary technical studies that have been
prepared in support of "Phase 1" Durham Live proposal.
In particular, the "Environmental Noise Feasibility Study" prepared by Aercoustics Engineering
Limited and dated March 17, 2014 (the "Noise Study") and the "Durham Live Phase 1
Development Plan Urban Transportation Study" prepared by BA Group and dated March 20,
2014 (the ''Traffic Study") neglect to identify and/or assess the noise and traffic impacts from the
existing GFL waste transfer and processing facilities, which are adjacentto the western limits of
the proposed development. On this basis, we provide the following comments:
2
Noise Study:
• The existing GFL facilities are not identified as a surrounding land use with respect to the
Durham Live proposal. The GFL Lands are simply identified as low density commercial
lands to the west in the Noise Study. In reality, the lands to the west of the Durham Live
proposal are used for industrial uses.
• The report identifies that the ''principal existing envirqnmental noise sources are road traffic
on Highway 401, Church Street and Bayly Street and railway noise from the CN Rail and GO
Transit". The Noise Study does not identify or assess the noise generated by the GFL
waste transfer and processing facilities, it only assesses road traffic and railway noise as
noted above.
• While the report does recommend that "Hotels/motels, Schools, Offices, Restaurants, Indoor
Theatres should not be approved unless 0 detailed road & rail traffic noise analysis is
conducted and the required noise insulation features are considered by the architectural
consultant responsible for the building design", consideration should also be given to the
GFL facilities in any future studies (including noise) relative to the design and
implementation of the proposed development.
Traffic Study:
• The report does not identify the Bayly Street!foy Avenue intersection as a "key signalized
intersection to be assessed". Thus, the proposed development does not have an
understanding of the trip generation and distribution with respect to GFL's facilities on
Toy Avenue. "Local Roads" such as Toy Avenue were not included in this assessment.
• The report specifically addresses the potential development scenario within the "Phase
1" approval area (i.e. eastern portion of the Durham Live proposed development). While
the intention of this application is to prepare stand-alone studies for "Phase 2" of the
proposal (as noted in the Traffic Study), traffic impacts associated with the GFL facilities
should be included and assessed accordingly as part of "Phase 1 ", in order to have a
more detailed understanding of the overall traffic impacts beyond what has already
been assessed (i.e. traffic impacts on "Local Roads")."
• Notwithstanding issues of road capacity, the proposal to mix heavy industrial truck
movements with entertainment based recreational drivers is also a potential safety risk.
This aspect of traffic should also be examined to ensure compatibility.
In addition to the above, when considering the nature of the neighbouring GFL waste transfer
and processing facilities, it is recommended that studies relative to odour and photometric
impacts should also be prepared in support of the Durham Live proposal, in order to address
other potential impacts on the uses proposed from the GFL lands.
3
1
189
190
It is in the public interest that GFL's concerns are addressed prior to the adoption of any zoning
by-law amendment for the Durham Live Tourist Destination application. Accordingly, we
welcome a meeting with Durham Live representatives and City staff to discuss the above
referenced matters.
In addition, we are respectfully requesting that City staff provide MHBC all future
correspondence relating to proposed Durham Live Tourist Destination development, including
notification of future public meetings and any relevant reports.
Thank you.
Yours truly,
MHBC
Partner
cc: Patrick Dovigi, GFL Environmental Inc.
4
Damian Rodriguez, GFL Environmental Inc.
Barry Horosko, Brattys LLP
Caterina Facciolo, Brattys LLP
·---· ._, __ -.,.
FigtjJet
LocXtioN MAP ·.t:"i!J
fr;'~ Durham .. pve TC>LiristDestination La~ds
DATE: March 13, 2014 SCALE 1: 15,000
cN:\1436\1\\:2014\March\Report Figures\1436A-Report figures.dwg
1
Data Source: First Base Solutions Flown 2012
·co··_··--_.-~--·_._·· .. · __ .• ·. . --g
. .
. . .
1 91
P m, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Roberts, Linda
April-16-14 11 :48 AIVI
Rose, Catherine; Pym, Ross; Surti, Nilesh
Subject: FW: Pickering zoning by-law amendment application A03/13 1802& 1902 Bayly St and 2028
Kellino Rd Pickering Deveiopments [401]lnc etc
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: murray chusid [mailto:mc4873~icloud.com]
Sent: April-15-14 4:45 PM
To: Roberts) Linda
Subject: Pickering zoning by-law amendment application A03/13 1802&1902 Bayly St and 2028
Kellino Rd Pickering Developments [401] Inc etc
Thank you Ms Roberts for informing me that my e-mail sent yesterday at about 4:00 PM arrived
without any message. My apology of course The intended message was [and of course still is]
as follows: On behalf of the owners and principals of Ajax Downs) I appeared before the
Pickering Planning Committee on April 7th last and made oral submissions as permitted under
~he Ontario Planning Act with respect to the Statutory Public Hearing for the above noted
zoning amendment application. This e-mail is simply intended to confirm the above attendance
and submissions and to advise that my said clients wish ,to indicate their concurrence with
the issues and concerns exressed in the April 14th letter to your planning department by Mr
Gary Muller of the Town of Ajax with respect to the same matter. Kindly forward this e-mail
on to your planning department) and thank you again for bringing this e-mail error to my
attention. Murray Chusid BA LLB QC
193
Mayor Ryan, Councillors, Members of Planning & Development Cmte; members of the
Business community & fellow citizens
My name is Rob Owens and I am employed at Pickering Pentecostal Church so my comments
reflect the position of the leadership team at PPC. The following comments are in respect to
File Type & Number: Zoning Amendment Application: A 03/14.
This correspondence is to oppose the-application that would make provision for a casino in the
City of Pickering.
Pickering Pentecostal Church (PPC) is referred to in the reports made available as "surrounding
land uses include among others-a a place of worship located at the northeast corner of Bayly
Street & Squires Beach Road."
'ickering Pentecostal Church by nature of its property location will be directly impacted by the
development and building processes that will occur as a result of the by-law change that will
allow future development.
The proposal that has precipitated this by-law amendment is to broaden employment uses on
the subject lands, specifically to provide the flexibility to facilitate the future development of
an integrated mixed use tourist destination. The requested list includes a wide list of "tourist
destination uses." While the present zoning includes many of the requested uses, the by-law
amendment is to address a convention centre, hotel & casino.
There are several concerns that PPC leadership feels should be expressed grven the far-
reaching implications and effect of these destination uses.
1. From a social and ethical perspective, we believe the inclusion of a gaming establishment
would negatively impact individuals and ultimately families due to the nature of more
available gaming. Revenue from gaming do come at the expense of your citizens. Although
not able to be measured in dollars, a gaming experience gone way to bad can have a
profound effect on the lives of those involved. I reaHze that the broad economic revenue
can overwhelm the adverse effects on individuals or a select group of families but there are
times when people's lives should receive consideration above straight economics. These
chaHenges are recognized by governing bodies and my understanding is that a required
amount of square footage at a gaming facility is designated to "help or counsef" those who
194
desire assistance. Again, this support and help is probably not utilized to full potential
because for many, the guidance would have been provided "after the fact."
4
Traffic is a big concern! l
2. Given the construction that would need to occur for the completion of proposed plans, the
traffic on Squires Beach and/or Keiino would certainly be affected either by interruptions or
increase construction vehicles. ·Neither of these roads are in great shape as it is and the
increased traffic would deteriorate the roads significantly. Approximately 1300-1500
individuals use the 1920 Bayly Street building on a weekly basis and the construction would
affect this traffic flow. A consideration for the planning committee is the inclusion of an
entrance/exit from Bayly on the SouthEast side of 1920 Bayly. If .I look at Attachment# 3
drawings, this may have already been considered as there does seem to be an allocation
for this next to the proposed parking structure.
I believe the long-term traffic plan for Squires Beach is to link it with Notion Road on the nort
across the 401. This would provide a further link to the South Pickering commercial area and
bring increased traffic flow along our property.
There is reference to 401 ramps being added-what happens if these route expansions are not
approved?
3. The plans that have been presented are at a conceptual phase and the drawings presented
are for illustrative purposes. Right now, the plans display smaller structures on the West
side of Squires Beach across from the 1920 Bayly property. We do have a concern if those
plans change and other structures would be built than those presently proposed.
4. The "noise study" mentions concerns about noise emitted from the amphitheatre that
would affect the golf courses and infers that it would be best to "point the noise towards
the south and west which is basically right towards the 1920 Bayly property.
5. tf the project was to proceed, would there be consideration to having surrounding business
link in with the stormwater drainage system that is being proposed.
6. The information report states that one of the matters for the Planning & Design staff to
further review is: "to ensure that the proposed development is compatible with and
195
sensitive to the existing surrounding uses." If I view any of the attachments, the current
surrounding uses are few.
4
Would the P~anni-ng & Design committee consider these comments made in relation to the
surrounding uses?
Please indude Pickering Pentecostal Church in any future developments/meetings that would
occur relating to this project.
Thanks for your time in reviewing this correspondence and wouid welcome feedback from the
preceding comments.
Thank you,
Rob Owens
Administration
Pickering Pentecostal Church
1920 Bayly Street, Pickering, ON L1 W 3R6
905.428.6888 xtn 104
196
Mr Ross Pym
Principal Planner -Development Review
City of Pickering
DearMr Pim,
Len Hummel
hummelcl@sympatico.ca
416 283-1511 (h)
416 866-3320 (work)
April 20, 2014
5
I am writing reZoning Amendment Application-A 03/14, to amend the zoning by-law to permit a range
of tourist related employment uses that could indude a casino among other facilities.
1. Kindly note f am not in favour of a gaming facility (casino), for the following reasons:
a) From a social and ethical perspective, I believe the inclusion of a gaming establishment would
negatively impact individuals and ultimately families due to the nature of more available
gaming.
According to the website from the Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario-Centre for Addiction
and Mental Health (CAMH), there are several risk factors that can contribute to the
development of gambling problems. One such factor is that people are more at risk of
developing a gambling problem if they have easy access to their preferred form of gambling.
Having another casino in Southern Ontario would increase accessibility to those who are at risk
of developing a gambling problem.
Rates of suicide are higher for people who gamble excessively, and for their family members.
The CAMH website states:
"It is estimated that 3.2% of Canadian adults are affected by moderate to severe problem
gambling and this number is rising yearly with increased internet and slot machine gambling.
Gambling problems are responsible for a tremendous impact on individuals and families
affected. If
See the following link:
http://www .cam h.ca/ en/research/research areas/din ica I translational labs/translational-
-a d d ictio n-resea rch/P ages/Gam b lingAd diction Resea rch.aspx
By allowing another gaming establishment in Southern Ontario, the opportunities for even more
people to suffer from problem gambling will only increase.
b) The people of Pickering have not had a chance to adequately discuss whether or not to allow a
gaming establishment in Pickering. On Dec 10, 2012 council voted to allow Pickering to be a
willing host for a casino. Apparently the only notice given in advance of this vote was via the
City of Pickering website. I am not aware of anyone who was aware of this critical vote in
197
198
advance of it taking place. As the issue is so important to the community/ it is worthy of public 5
consultation.
c) Traffic could be an issue. During the construction phase/ regular traffic flow in the Bayly St & ·
Squires Beach Rd area could be hindered. Furthermore/ once construction is complete/ ongoing
traffic needs to be assessed. Those who attend PPC should not be affected by increased traffic
flow during construction and post construction.
2. Pickering City Council is presently considering including a question to the Electors for the 2014
Municipal Election along the lines of the following: /I Are you in favour of a gaming facility (casino) in the
City of Pickering as part of a Hotel Convention Centre/ Entertainment Complex in a non-residential
arear I support such a question (with amendment to wording as indicated below) being placed before
the Electors during the 2014 Municipal election. This will give the people of Pickering the opportunity to
weigh in on whether a casino should be allowed in the City of Pickering. Furthermore/ I highly
recommend that any decision re the Zoning Amendment Application-A 03/14 (to amend the zoning by-
law to permit a range of tourist related employment uses that could include a casino among other
facilities) should only be made after the 2014 Municipal election. If the baliot question reveals that the
people of Pickering are not in favour of a gaming facility (casino) in the City of Pickering as part of a
Hotel Convention Centre/ Entertainment Complex in a non-residential area/ then the Zoning
Amendment Application-A 03/14 should be deciined.
Furthermore/ the ballot question should be worded in such a way to clearly focus on whether a casino
should be allowed. The question should be ~tated along the lines of the following: ''Are you in favour
of a gaming facility (casino) in the City of Pickeringr Whether to have a Hotel Convention Centre and
Entertainment Complex do not appear to be controversial issues warranting a ballot question during the
2014 Municipal election. Most citizens of the City of Pickering would not likely have an issue with having
a Hotel Convention Centre and Entertainment Complex. However/ whether to have a gaming facility
(casino) is a much more controversial issue such that a ballot question is warranted. To include
whether to have a Hotel Convention Centre and Entertainment Complex in the question only clouds the
main issue, that is/ whether to have a gaming facility (casino) in the City of Pickering.
Please note I attend the Pickering Pentecostal Church (PPC), 1920 Bayley St Pickering. I am also a board
Member and active volunteer at PPC.
Thank you for your consideration/
Sincerely,
Len Hummel
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Shields, Debbie
AprH-22-14 6:11 PM
Pym, Ross
Roberts, Linda
FW: Durham Live Complex-Approval email
From: Todd Smith rmailto:smithtc2@rogers.coml
Sent: April-08-14 5:35PM
To: Shields, Debbie
Subject: Durham Live Complex -Approval email
6
Hi Debbie, we saw the full page publication in the Pickering Advertiser about the fact that some folks at Ajax
Downs are not in favour of it and want it cancelled. My wife and I could not make that Monday April 7
meeting but we want to put our vote in favour of this project.
It will create a lot more jobs that it will retract,
,twill cause the city's infrastructure to be upgraded,
It will help the fed's process with accelerating the Pickering International Airport,
It will provide a first class entertainment environment,
It will attract more corporations arid their tax revenue, and higher quality ones as wei!.
There are many more positive reasons ....
The folks are Ajax Downs can apply to work at our Casino. We like Ajax people .....
Please let Mayor Ryan and the City counsel know we are in favour of this and we think they are doing a great
job!
Sincerely,
Todd & Kim Smith
448 Rpugemount Drive
Pickering, Ontario
LlW 2B7
H-905.509.2746
1 199
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Shields, Debbie
April-23-14 5:00PM
Pym, Ross; Roberts, Linda
FW: Re "Durham Live" project
From: Sue Quackenbush [mailto:ppbutterflykisses@rogers.com]
Sent: April-21-14 2:52PM
To: Shields, Debbie
Subject: Re "Durham Live" project
Good Morning Debbie;
7
Please pass these, our concerns for the "Durham Live'! project on to the council and planning dept.
Speaking for the people that live in our area, South of the 401, driving Eastbound on most week
Jays, starting at 2:30 pm -3:00ish, the 401 is backed up and slow, and Bayly is the same, starting
West of Church St. This being the situation now, what will the condition be, should this new
complex be built? Also, anyone using the 401 to get to the new complex, would need to use either
the Brock Rd or Westney Rd interchanges, adding MORE vo.lume to these already busy
interchanges, leading to further congestion, especially during peak hours. We are limited to the
roads that take us either EastM/est or North, and Church St will be that much busier should this
complex be bui.it.
We are aware of the ever growing population, requiring more food to be grown, yet, decisions are
being made that the "Quality" land that grows the food is "being" zoned to put that land
under "concrete" and "asphalt". Where is the food (yours & ours} to come from??? A number of
Us are conscious of where are food comes from, and wish to "support" our local farmers. The
arable land, on this acreage is currently being used for agriculture, and we feel it should continue in
that usage. Not to further decrease our local growers.
Let the wetlands continue to be wetlands, as they are important for the eco-system.
According to the Provincial Gov't, we already have a casino in this designated area, We
congratulate Pickering on their awareness and diligence to create jobs. However, if the Ajax casino
dosed, that also closes the race track, and "many" more jobs would be lost. We sincerely ask, if
people are aware of the ramifications that would affect farmers and the businesses that are spun out
from the horse racing industry. Everyone from growing the hay, grain, straw, wood shavings, to
feeding and caring for the horses. Please consider the jockeys, trainers, stable hands, tack shops &
their suppliers, farriers, etc, the trickle down is huge. it's just like GM is to our area and what
everyone talks about with their shutdowns.
We hope and encourage our elected people and planners, who are custodians of our lands, future
generations will "Thank" us for preserving Food generating land. This is "not" a "New" concept.
Food over Landingsl!!l Food over quarries!!!! Food over an entertainment complex!!!
200 1
We have Great concerns on the Overall Effects of this Project.
Thank you for your acceptance of our thoughts.
Sue Quackenbush & Ken Devine
506-1210 Radom St.
Pickering, On
L 1W 2Z3
2
7
201
APR 0 8 2614
CLERK•s OFFICE
202
/I ;L:) fJ!~.acfcw(on -e._
Cre"S
Pym~ Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Bishop, ian
April-07-14 8:42AM
Pym, Ross
FW: Plan for casino
-----Original Message---~-
From: info@esolutionsgroup.ca [mailto:info@esolutionsgroup.ca] On Behalf Of
K wasay@hotmail.com
Sent: April~e6-14 5:15 PM
To: Planning Web Email
Subject: Plan for casino
9
A very important factor for this development is the the 2 only exits for Pickering, Brock and
Whites road. For this development to succeed with out stress, we would need to develop a plan
to build a 401.exit from westbound exiting off the highway at Church st. South of the 401. We
can put a light there and that would also serve as additional major City of Pickering exit,
with traffic being able to head North or South on Church st. This plan would not Interfere
VJith the rail way tracks. Also to help traffic get on to the 401 they can make entrances to
the 401 heading East and West. To save the city money, we can include this cost in the budget
for the casino development.
Thanks,
Wasay Khan
Origin: http://www.pickering.ca/en/cityhall/officialplan.asp? mid =8914
This email was sent to you by K wasay@hotmail.com through http://www.pickering.ca/.
1 203
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI
Roberts, Linda
AprH-07-14 8:34AM .
Rose, Catherine; Surtl, Niiesh; Pym, Ross
FW: Pickering Casino
From:·Leonardo Veronesi [mailto:leozeira@gmail.com]
Sent: ,A.prif-04-14 9:14 PM
To: Roberts, Linda
Subject: Pickering Casino -
1 0
I would like to raise my concerns around the proposal to have a Casino built in Pickering along with the
Entertainment complex. I don't see the benefits that such proposal would bring if jobs will be lost as a result of
this project as well the negative impact to the Durham Region and its society. Cities like Toronto, Vaughan and
Markham have refused this proposal already!
3 .. egards,
Leonardo V eronesi
426-356-3171
204 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
fyi
Roberts, Linda
April-07-14 8:35AM
Rose, Catherine; Surti, Nilesh; Pym, Ross
FW: Gambling casino in Pickering-public meeting-April 7, 2014
From: Dolores Forster [mailto:doloresfor@gmail.coml
Sent: April-04-14 12:56 PM
To: Roberts, Linda; Harker, Usa
. Subject: Fwd: Gambling casino in Pickering-public meeting-April 7, 2014
______ :.. ___ Forwarded message ----------
From: Dolores Forster <doloresfor(a>rgmail.com>
Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:52 PM
Subject: Gambling casino in Pickering-public meeting-April 7, 2014
To: dshields@pickering.ca
1 1
My husband and I are unable to be at the April 7 meeting, but as long time Pickering residents we wanted to
make known our strong objection to the building of a massive casino/entertainment complex here in Pickering.
Not only would it mean the loss of horse racing and countless agricultural jobs in Durham region
but would bring much more traffic into the area-something we definitely do not need! We realize it would
provide some added tax dollars .... but really at what cost?
Let's keep Pickering a good and safe place to live, raise families and enjoy the natural pleasures of the area.
We say NO to a Casino/Entertainment complex in Pickering!
Dolores Forster
Karl Goebel
1 77 4 Shady brook Drive
Pickering, Ontario
L1V3A5
1 205
· Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
FYI
Roberts, Linda
April-07-14 8:36AM
Rose, Catherine; Surti, Nilesh; Pym, Ross
FW: Casino
-----Original Message-----
From: Shields) Debbie
Sent: April-04-14 2:03 PM
To: Roberts) Linda
Subject: FW: Casino
From: fostermum3@gmail.com [fostermum3@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday) April 04) 2014 1:14 PM
To: Shields) Debbie
Subject: Casino
Hello Debbie)
I am writing this e-mail to voice my concerns about the possible future casino in
Pickering.
1 ~)
L
It has been mY observation that people I have known have destroyed their live~ and caused
many hardships for their families through their addiction to gambling. Also) casinos attract
those who prey on gamblers. For these reasons and others I do not support a casino in ·
Pickering.
Yours sincerely J
John Foster
206
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject
Cl:leryl Bezanson [cbezanson3@hotmail.com]
April-09-14 9:44PM
Pym, Ross
RE: Resort at Bayly & Church
13
Thank you for getting back to me. Unfortunately I missed the meeting ... only discovered info about It the
evening of the 7th. I would like my comments to be part of the public record.
Cheryl Bezanson
41 ~fiBows Lane
Ajax, Ontario
LlS 6E7
905-683-8231
I am concerned with allowing a casino/resort to be built at Bayly and Church street. The access routes to such
a structure would obviously include Church Street. There is an elementary school on Church Street and
another on Lincoln Avenue that runs off Church Street so there is a lot of foot traffic by children, as weB as
_;chool bus traffic. I think it would be unsafe to residents to increase traffic in this area.
I also don1t think we need another casino in the area. One is enough. Another would only encourage more
gambling and increase the risk for crime,addicition and other personal issue for people that will weigh on our
social system.
l hope this project does not move forward.
Thank you.
207 .
f2
about: blank
RECEIVED r 14
July 11, 2014
602-1210 Radom St
Pickering, ON
L1W 2Z3
Re; Downtown Intensification and Durham nuven
To Whom It May Concern; .
JUL 2 8 Z014
CITY OF PICKERING
CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
My name is Mary Ann Boyd, and I reside in Bayshore Towers on Radom St. I have been a
resident of Pickering for many years. Public transit is now my main means of getting around,
as 1 no longer drive because of health concerns. I also now require a walker to aid my
mobility. The transit system is making. It harder to get around, rather than easier. VVe
seniors who use the Community Bus fee! confined, because it limits our activities VJith it1s
limited schedule. Transfer stops are no longer user friendly/ especially for those of us v;ho
have mobility issues. The traffic congestion mid afternoon on city anp reglonai roads,
especially going East is past enjoyable. As a cancer survlvour, and V·Jishing to remain so, ! try
to keep all my appointments with my Dr1s at Lake ridge Cancer Centre in Oshawa. Each
. th h ( d . r _.. 'ri ;-; I --'-f ':) h !"'. appOintment, e w o e proce ure, mc.uumg 'Ni'.Ht.ng .. ,me can .a~t .or approx :::1, ours .. T t .
have an early afternoon appointment lfm able to get a r!de ov~r \Nith a volunteer driver, But
unable to get a return ride baci<, as drivers donft drive during that rush hour period, and the
volunteer offices dose around 4:30. A taxi costs $60 to come back, and after an
appointment I don't have the energy ft takes to make all the conections \Vith the buses. I
ll·ve on a ll"mt"ted· ·r·ncome and having r· o m~irP th;:;t-~v"""'"""""' o;•1-s ;3 -,"'pr+l;..::r· ~tr;:;in-nf' mv --~ -iYf~-...,_.,"-.t.. -'"V--rr.-.:>'C.; t u~ ~ ~i l..iso1i;,.,o OJ~·--·" "'="I'F F~if
budget. I feel if these 2 "new'' projects, should they be approved, they are not going to help
the traffic situation, Oniy make it worse. Not Everyone '.AJorks in downtown Toronto and
rides the GO train.
You may noticed that I haven't {untif now) even said anything about the existing problem
most, or alf of us living In the Bay Ridges area have, and that is the evacuation of the area,
should there be a deraHment or an emergency at the pov>~er plant.
How can a "senior" afford to Hve in the "City" centre, where they •NiH need to be, to have the
. th 0 ;: t ~ lfl • • ~ • ~ i" c. ... ~ t , .. 1 servrces ey nee naa m men-own neignooumooas; <Jrocerr stores; ur s; Denus1:s,
Pharmacy, Bank, Etc, within walking distance, because developers have been buying up all
the little plaza's to put up condo's, townhouses or offices, and City Council have been giving
them a rubber stamp of approval, really wfthout regard to the wishes of hov1 the people,
v th p r-f I H . •x 1,.-' 7 -· "Jl ' K~·H t 't .. , T". k <" Th" k ,es, e eop e .ee.. .asw !V!ar .... ers, ,-t!evens or fV!ac's MHK aon·~ cui !L nm , res . m ·
of how City Council feels when the ,Provincial Government does not listen to objections they
23/07 /2U14 9:05 PI\1
208
· Nurnbef
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
210
Part 8
Written Public Comments Received on
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/14
From "Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino" Flyer
' .. r · G<>mmenter ...........
< .. ·.·· .. ···••·•·· ..••.
.. ··· ··.· .·· ·· · C<>rriments ····. : > .·
. ·'' "'. . . . . . .. ...• . c2. _.:_:.·, 2·: :· .. : .. · ...
David Steele. • the consideration of the proposal is premature as
966 Timmins Garden several supporting studies still haven't been completed
Pickering· • a City report should be prepared on the Church Street
interchange and the Notion Road-Squires Beach Road
connection, that will include time frame to complete,
MTO approval and cost estimates to complete
including environmental assessment
• a City report should be prepared on the traffic
congestion in the area
• a City report should be prepared if the referendum
ballot question regarding a casino is null and void
• Pickering seek Provincial approval to build proposed
development and infrastructure prior to partial land use
zoning final approval
William Girling • in support of the application
159 Spruce Hill Rd.
Pickering
Richard Adams • supports the casino proposal and hopes that OLG and
427 Pineview Lane local jurisdictions could work together to increase the
Pickering revenue sharing with municipalities
Adam Macintosh • supports the proposal as the positive impacts will
1583 Edgecroft Dr. outweigh any issues
Pickering
Laurel Coish • supports the performing arts centre and park and
1563 Heathside Cres. opposed to casino as people gamble away their
Pickering money
Jeff Bowers • questions the need for any development at this time
Email-no address • does not see the need for a casino in Pickering
provided
Fazeed Ramjohn • concern with road infrastructure and police presence
838 Zator Ave. as existing roads are already congested and casinos
Pickering bring crime
B. Bullock • area roads are already congested and the
1507 Rawlings Dr. development would worsen the traffic congestion,
Pickering although see's the economic benefits
Janice Cook • concern with proposal
Email-no address
provided
Finhas Jhaaveri • objects to the proposal
1205 Charlotte Circle • casino's will attract the wrong kind of people and will
Pickering increase crime in the area
.
lf\Juino~r .. · .----. __ ·: '> colllm~l"lt~r-;~' __ ; 1_. ?·::}.:··••-·• .• {:;. •. .: •-t~j, GQr• ,._ •• ~f.L"' .-~ ' .. ..-J'.};:'li~:.?:}(~.t)~~;'·f:j,{!
11. Lynda Burke • proposal is an extraordinary endeavour for boosting
Email-no address Pickering's welfare for tourism
provided • there needs to be better traffic flow in the area
12. Bob Kramer • supports the business development (convention
Email-no address centre, office buildings, amphitheatre etc.) not in favour
provided of casino due to the drawbacks of gambling addiction
13. Brian Major • supports the project but opposed to casino as
Email-no address Pickering must continue to be family first city
provided
14. Angela Kirby • concern with proposal, issues such as lack of parking
925 Bayly St. and traffic
Pickering
15. Lisa Anne Gray • opposed to the casino as it is unnecessary for
561 Norfolk Sq. Pickering .
Pickering
16. Jeffrey Everingham • supports the proposal
1235 Radom St.
Pickering
17. Ray Kotchie • in favour with the proposal but concern with traffic
1369 Fordon Ave. problems
Pickering
18. Joe Yukich • opposed to casino use, other proposed uses would not
307 Fiddlers Crt. be offensive
Pickering
19. Andrei Zelenine • opposed to the casino, issues include increased crime,
318 Fiddlers Crt. gambiing addiction, prostitution and impact on social
Pickering services
20. Colleen Timmins • in favour of all proposal with the exception of the
982 Timmins Garden casino due to the negative impacts of casinos
Pickering • instead of a casino suggest green space for youths
and families and a visual art centre
21. Joyce Herzog • opposed to casino use but would support other uses if
Email-no address no casino
provided
22. Alex Parker • opposed to the casino, traffic concerns
855 Liverpol Rd.
Pickering
23. Jim Farinton • questions what portion of casino revues will be used to
Email-no address help lower residential taxes
provided
24. George Turner • opposed to the project, land should be used to entice
1780 Listowell Cres. manufacturing jobs -
Pickering • concerns related to: traffic; need for a convention
centre; cost to police the proposal; low paying jobs
25. Dawn McBride • supports the project, only negative concern is traffic
1835 Storrington St. congestion
Pickering
211
Number Commenter ,, .... · ... ·.' .. ; ': comments . :. . ·· ·: . .....
' : ""-
26. Bruce Cowan • supports the project with the exception of the ca~sino
1605 Rawlings Dr. use
Pickering • casino revenue does not solve municipal financial
problems
27. Irene Pantalone • supports the proposal, will bring jobs to the area
Email-no address • questions if any impact on property values
provided
28. Chris Daniell • a casino would not be in the best interest of Pickering
Email-no address residents, concerns with traffic, proposed location is
provided not suitable for this form of development
29. Gary Wicks • opposed to casino and project, wrong place for the
420 Brian Ct. project and traffic concerns
Pickering
30. Pi lalla • opposed to a casino, people wreck their lives there
Email-no address because they spend all their money
provided
31. Nancy Lyew • supports the proposal, will bring opportunities for jobs,
Email-no address increased revenue, modernization and sustainability
provided
32. Doug Gregory • no objection, does note loss of agricultural lands
861 Naroch Blvd.
Pickering
33. Jan vanTol • in support
1894 New St.
Pickering
34. Andrew Larter • objects to the proposal on the grounds of: scale and
1 006 Mountcastle location; impacts on the community and environment;
Pickering and, design and implementation
35. Robert Viola • opposed to the proposal, concerns related to traffic,
Email-no address impact on the Lake Ontario shore and not the kind of
provided uses/development Pickering needs
36. Alexf12 • opposed to casino
Email-no address or
name provided
37. Holly Foard • opposed to the proposal, project is short sighted and
Email-no address socio-economically disastrous chain of events
provided
38. David Caruana • questions why Pickering would accept a casino and try
1275 Maple Ridge Dr. to squeeze it in an already congested area
Pickering
39. Dianne Hadden • supports the casino and entertainment complex
648 Ann land St.
PickerinQ
40. Terry Nuspl • in favour of the proposal, could use the employment
Email-no address opportunities, hotels etc. of the proposal
provided
212
Number .. Commenter Comments
41. Jim Bowen & Jane • support the proposal
Cottrell
1891 Pinecreek Ct.
Pickering
42. Mary Mauceri • opposed to casino, would have a significant impact on
Email-no address the community and City
provided • a casino would have a negative influence on families
213
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Bill and Jennifer,
davidsteele [dj.steele@sympatico.ca]
June-08-14 10:52 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; Councillor Jennifer O'Connell
Response to your Flier
To.docx
Please read the attached document.
David
2i4 1
1
1
To: Councillor Ms. Jennifer O'Connell
Councillor IV;1r. Bill Mclean
Casino-Hotel Zoning Application
The City of Pickering referendum vote on the City of Pickering election ballot asks if you
support the development of a hotel, casino, arts center, water park, film studios, office space,
retail, convention center and infrastructure development to and from the proposed development
area. The developer is seeking a land zone change prior to the City of Pickering Municipal
election that will be held in Oct -2014. Once the l~md is re-zoned for the development of a hotel
and casino (first stage) the referendum vote will serve no purpose.
The proposed hotel and casino at the corner of Bayly and Church streets would include 2. 7-
million square feet. It is in my opinion that the zoning approval for the proposal is premature as
several supporting studies still haven't been completed.
1) Hwy. 401 partial proposed 401 interchange at Church Street, as well as a connection
between Notion and Squires Beach roads has not been estimated, no environmental
studies have been commissioned. The Ajax planner estimated cost is around
100,000,000.00 million dollars to build interconnection to the proposed development.
Recommendation # 1:
City of Pickering Planning Department complete a written report with time frame to complete
infrastructure with M.O.T. approval and cost estimate to complete including environmental
assessment.
2) The present first stage ofthe land zoning amendment is for a hotel and casino only.
Recommendation #2:
City of Pickering Planning Department complete a written report on traffic congestion in the
proposed development area and to include surrounding areas to Brock Road to the west,
Hardwood Road to the east, Hwy 2 to the north and Bayly street to the south. ·
3) As the question on the development is a referendum question on the election vote it is
important to the citizens of Pickering know if there vote cast counts.
Recommendation #3:
City of Pickering Clerk completes a written report if the referendum ballot is null and void prior
to the last council meeting before summer City of Pickering council break.
1
1
215
216
2
4) The City ofPickering was offered 1 million dollars a year from Town of Ajax O.L.G. slot
machine facility, what guarantee are we of receiving approval from the Ontario
·Government that the proposed development for Pickering will be approved by O.L.G.
Recommendation #4.
The City of Pickering seeks approval from the Province of Ontario to build the proposed
development and infrastructure to include the 401 interchange prior to partial land zoning final
approval. A conditional zoning agreement is approved by council and developer for the full
proposed development and infrastructure with time schedules for all development upon Province
of Ontario approval and support of the majority of the referendum vote.
Central Development Proposal
To intensify the central of City of Pickering could be good planning if the developments are of
high quality with good neibourhood planning to in.clude all recreational, educational, green
space, retail, restaurants and easily accusable by bike, no cars just public transportation.
Recommendation #5 ·
That all buildings and infrastructure be of the highest standard as not to repeat StJames Town
and other high rise building in Toronto that will require enormous retrofits in twenty years or
less. That all buildings·be built to LED gold or platinum standards.
David Steele
966 Timmins Garden
Pickering
2
1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello
Richard Adams [richard.adams@sympatico.ca]
June-02-14 5:42PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Proposed zoning changes and casino
I am a resident of Pickering and I support any changes that would bring a casino to Pickering.
I also believe that Toronto voted it down because Council wanted a bigger piece ofthe revenue from the
Province.
3
I would hope that all politicians from each OLG locationfjurisdiction could work together to equally raise the
revenue that the province "shares" with the local municipality.
I would appreciate any lists or social sites that I canjoin to further follow this topic.
Thank you very much.
Richard Adams
427 Pineview Lane
Pickering, Ontario, L1V7G9
218 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi
Adam Macintosh [Adam.Macintosh@websan.com]
June-11-14 10:49 AM
Pickles, David, Councillor
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
4
I am a resident of Pickering for almost 30 years. Over that time, I have seen the community grow in many ways. As
someone that commutes into Toronto daily for work, my biggest complaint for the City of Pickering has always been the
lack of quality jobs. After thoroughly reviewing the proposed Pickering downtown & casino project, I would like to
inform you that I whole-heartedly support this venture. I am aware of potential issues that may arise as a result, but
feel the positive impacts would greatly outweigh any issues.
I would like to lend my voice to you in any way needed to help get this project approved by Council.
Much thanks
Adam Macintosh
1583 Edgecroft Drive
Pickering, ON
LlX OB6
adam.macintosh@websan.com
1 219
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Farley [pri ncefarrey@sym patico. ca]
June-11-14 5:23PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Re: casino
My address is 1563 Heathside Cres. Pickering Ontario L1V 5V8
-----Original Message-----
From: Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Sent: June 11,. 2014 9:51
To: Farley
Cc: 0' Connell, Jennifer, Councill_or
Subject: Re: casino
Thank you for your e mail,could you supply us with your address and we will forward your
concerns to our planning department.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
From: Farley
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:24 AM
To: Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Subject: casino
5
Thanks for asking for input on the plans for the property near the go station. I love the
idea of a performing arts centre and the park but I am
totally against bringing a casino to Pickering. Encouraging people to
gamble away their hard earn money is not something I want to do. Leave it to other cities.
They generally do not bring in the money people expect and b·ring in an unsavoury element to
the city.
Laurel Coish CA
This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information
that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any
relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent
thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination,
distribution) copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or
destroy all copies of this message.
220 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jeff Bowers Oeffbowers@rogers.com]
June..:os-14 12:56 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Lynn Bowers (Work and Rogers Email); Larry Noonan (email); Rosemary Speirs
Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino ·
+Jennifer (I had wrong email address initially).
Warmest Regards,
Jeff Bowers
From: Jeff Bowers
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2014 12:45 PM I To: bmclean@pickering.ca; jennifer@jenniferconnell.ca
Cc: Lynn Bowers (Work and Rogers Email); Jeff Bowers (Rogers); Larry Noonan (email); Rosemary Speirs
Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino
Good Afternoon.
Thank you for literature you distributed on proposed changes to Pickering.
Let's start by turning the whole thing around. What's wrong with Pickering just the way it is? What problem
is all this development trying to solve? I can only assume profit oriented people and companies (the ones
driving) do see the up side. ·
I would argue what makes Pickerrng livable and pleasant and appealing is the fact that it isn't overly developed;
if all the things that are being discussed are implemented, in time Pickering will start to look more like Toronto
then the charm we have today. ·
Let's break it down.
Jobs: I can already hear the argument that all this will create jobs; jobs for who? I would see the bulk of the
employed coming from outside Pickering so how does this help us? Also I can see the bulk of the jobs being
low wage paying so how is that really helping anyone? How about getting sonie major corporations to set up
here instead or more high end industries that bring high paying jobs. ·
Taxes: I can also hear this already; add to the tax base; is there a problem with the tax base now? We all
seem to be managing as is so what is their to fix?
Traffic: Traffic is already beginning to become an issue in Pickering on certain routes; with this development
traffic jams will go to a whole new leveLAII this development does zero for no car needed ideas; where are
we with building huge boulevards with pedestration only, promenades and the like?
Environment: No matter how you slice it, more building, more light, more people, more traffic, more waste;
none of it fairs well for the natural world; from bird and animals to all that more human negative by-products
being produced.
1 221
6
Casino: This is always controversial. Why do we need one? For what? It a behaviour that isn't necessary and
can for some only lead to negative. Again the job argument is lame; the bulk of jobs at a casino will be low
paying.
So, in sul)lmary, while some development is inevitable, what's the rush? Why don't we just slowly and
organically grow with a well thought through process.
Thank you.
Warmest Regards,
Jeff Bowers
222
/
2
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Fazeed Ramjohn
838 Zator ave
Pickering Ont
l1W 1Y1
647 969 5740
Regard~
fazeed ramjohn [faz969@hotmail.com]
June-09-14 9:19PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
RE: Proposed Casino in Pickering
>From: bmclean@pickering.ca
>To: faz969@hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: Proposed Casino in Pickering
>Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:07:53 +0000
>
>Could you also supply your address and phone number also.
>
>Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on.the Rogers network.
> From: fazeed ramjohn
>Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 8:53PM
>To: Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
· > Cc: Dickerson; Doug, Councillor
> Subject: Proposed Casino in Pickering
>
>
>Hi Bill & Jennifer,
>
7
>I really appreciate you taking the time and using the city funds to communicate using a news letter in the
mail and asking the residents for feedback on the proposed changes and developments in our great city.ln my
opinion these are the types of expenses that are justifiable for tax payers dollars,l'm totally against and
consider the expending of alcohol by city councilors not a good use of taxpayer dollars and absolutely wrong
,unfortunately Mr Dickerson does not agree with me .
>With respect to the Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino expansion ,my greatest concern is the balance
of infrastructure for roads and police presence .Currently we only 2 interchanges for Pickering and only 2 lane
roads that are already congested and in need of repair .With casinos brings crime and to be perfectly honest I
do not agree with the government supporting casinos because it only destroys lives.
>I hope you table my concerns at the next council meeting.
>
>Regards
>
> Fazeed Ramjohn
>
>
1 223
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hello,
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
June-05-14 11 :42 AM
B BULLOCK
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Re: Development proposals
8
Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with us. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I
were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out the newsletter specifically to. seek
feedback because we were concemed residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not
taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I
appreciate your specific comments.
With your permission can I share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all
before this decisio1;1 is made and also ensure you are made .aware of when this proposal will be debated.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Jennifer O'Connell
Regionai·Councillor, Ward One
City of Pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
jennifer@jenniferocorinell.ca
www.pickering.ca
www.jenniferoconnell.ca
Please consider your environmental responsibility -think before you print!
On 2014-06-05, at 9:33AM, B BULLOCK wrote: . '
I am writing in regards to your notification flyer regarding the two developm~nt proposals which would
affect Hwy 2, Liverpool, and Bayly
These areas are already highly trafficked and congested at times and although I see the economic
benefits to thes~ proposals ·I do feel it would worsen the congestion within this area.
B. Bullock
1507 Rawlings Dr
Pickering. L 1V4Z9
224 1
From: jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca
Subject: Re: Thank you for your mail outre: Pickering Downtown and Casino
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 21:45:25 -0400
To: edgesskate@sympatico.ca
Perfect. I will check with Councillor Mclean and get back to you with some meeting date options.
Jennifer O'Connell
Regional Councillo.r, Ward One
City of Pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca
www.pickering.ca
www.jenniferoconnell.ca
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 3, 2014, at 9:37 PM, JANICE COOK <edgesskate@svmpatico.ca> wrote: .. \ '
Yes, that would be great. Let me know when you will both be available to meet with me.
Best regards,
Janice
From: jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca
Subject: Re: Thank you for your mail outre: Pickering Downtown and Casino
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 21:03:56 -0400
To: edgesskate@sympatico.ca
Hi Janice,
Thank you for your email. Yes I would be happy to discuss these items further with you. Would
you like me to invite Councillor Mclean as well? We have been collecting this feedback
together.
Thanks,
Jennifer
Jennifer O'Connell
2
9
225
226
Regional Councillor, Ward One
City of Pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca
www.pickering.ca
www.jenniferoconnell.ca
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 3, 2014, at 8:20PM, JANICE COOK <edgesskate@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Good Evening Jennifer:
Thank you for your pamphlet regarding the proposed Pickering Downtown and
Casino. I would like to arrange a meeting with you to discuss a few of my
concerns, as well as some suggestions for the proposed expansion of
"Downtown Pickering".
Please let me know when you are available to meet with me in the oear future.
Many thanks,
Janice Cook
Pickering Resident for the past 23 years.
905-420-8225
3
9
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:·
Subject:
Finhas Jhaveri [finhas@yahoo.com]
June-06-14 8:40PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Rashna Jhaveri
Casino in Pickering
Hello Bill and Jennifer,
1 D
I received the flyer in my mailbox proposing the building of a casino in Pickering. I do not
approve of this at all, as a casino will bring in the wrong kind of people and will increase
crime in the area. Pickering is a great family friendly area and I enjoy it being
residential. I don't want it to become a commercial hub.
I am very concerned and strongly object to this proposal. I hope you take my views into
consideration.
Thank you for your consideration.
Finhas Jhaveri
Resident of 1205 Charlotte Circle
1 227
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Lynda,
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
June-05-14 11:46 AM
Lynda Burke
Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino -2
1 1
Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with me. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I
were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out the newsletter specifically to seek
feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not
taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I
appreciate your specific coinments. The issue of traffic is certainly a cbncern that has been raised by residents
as well as Councillor McLean and myself during the Public Information session.
With your permission can I share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all
before this decisionis made? ·
Thank you once again for taking the time to comment.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Jennifer O'Connell
Regional Councillor, Ward One
City of Pickering · ··
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
jennifer@ jenniferoconnell.ca
www.pickering.ca
www.jenniferoconnell.ca
Please consider your environmental responsibility-think before you print!
On2014-06-05, at 10:31 AM, LyndaBurkewrote:
Dear Jennifer:
Here are my coinments.
The Pickering Downtown area looks very good and encouraging for Pickering residents. Also, the Durhain
Live proposal is an extraordinary endeavor for boosting Pickering's welfare for tourism. We have been in
228 1
Pickering for 29 years this end of June, and nothing has been more exciting than this proposal. i 1
However, we ~o need better traffic flow areas, especially in our area. Whites Road gets so congested with the
exit from the 401, though I do not know of a solution, that will be left to the experts.
Also, we enjoy the concerts at the waterfront. It is a show of community when we go there and meet with
friends.
I hope this is enough for your
On 03/06/2014 5:39PM, Councillor Jennifer O'Connell wrote:
Hi Lynda,
If you email me your comments and provide your address and phone number we can sl].are them
with staff to include as part if the st:1ff report for all of Council to consider.
Thank you once again,
Jennifer
Jennifer O'Connell
Regional Councillor, Ward One
City of Pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
j ennifer@j enniferoconnell.ca
www.pickering.ca
www. j enniferoconnell. ca
Sent from my iPhone
On Jun 3, 2014, at 4:20PM, Lynda Burke <lyndaburke@rogers.com> wrote:
Dear Jennifer, Lynda here again. I went to the site aild I did not notice anywhere ·
to vote or to give my compliments.
Can you assist me in this matter?
Lynda
2 229
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Bob,
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
June-04-14 9:28 PM
Bob Kramer
Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
1 2
Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with us. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I
were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out the newsletter specifically to seek
feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not
taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on th~ feedback we receive. And I
appreciate your specific comments.
With your permission I can share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all
before this decision is made.
Thank you once again for taking the time to comment.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Jennifer O'Connell
Regional Councillor, Ward One
City of Pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
fennifer@ jenniferoconnell.ca
www .pickering.ca
www.jenniferoconnell.ca
Please consider your environmental responsibility -think before you print!.
On 2014-06-04, at 7:32PM, Bob Kramer wrote:
Dear Ms. O'Connell,
I recently received a flyer detailing the proposed expansion of "downtown Pickering".
' Although I support the proposed business development (ie. Convention Centre, Office Buildings,
Amphitheatre, etc.), I am not in favourof the casino.
230 1
1 2
I do not feel the benefits (ie. jobs, tourism, etc.) outweigh the drawbacks of gambling addiction, etc.
Just as Toronto has rejected proposed casinos for the Toronto downtown, I hope you will see fit to vote
against any proposed casino for the Pickering downtown.
Sincerely,
Bob Kramer
2 231
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Brian Major [majorbrian@hotmail.com]
June-04-14 7:50 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Downtown Development
Councillors Mclean & O'Connell,
1 3
Today I received your information package on the proposed downtown development projects.
Having read through the package and the linked reports, I think this provides an exciting
opportunity for the city of Pickering to build for the future. There are several parts of the
report that I found very important -the commitment to green space, a walkable/bikeable
downtown and the importance of e~suring the proper mix of land uses. The areas identified can
certainly benefit from development as long as these commitments are respected. Having said
all that, I do think there needs to be caution with the type of facilities being planned.
First and foremost, I do not believe a casino should be part of the development project.
Pickering must continue to be a family first city -a casino does not fit with the city I
envision.
I look forward to hearing more about the projects are they develop.
Regards,
Brian Major
232 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Hi Angela,
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
June-04-14 10:10 PM
angelakirby@worldline.ca
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; ca@295.ca
Re: ·
1 4
Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with us. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I
were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out thenewsletter specifically to seek
feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not
taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I
appreciate your specific comments.
With your permission I can share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all
before this decision is made and also ensure you are made aware ofwhen this proposal will be debated. We
understand that staff may have a report for Council to consider at the Planning Committee meeting on July 7th,
therefore if you have additional comments prior to this meeting.please share them with us.
Thank you once again for taking the time to comment.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Jennifer O'Connell
Regional Councillor, Ward One
City of Pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
jennifer@ jenniferoconnell.ca
www.pickerinq.ca
www.jenniferoconnell.ca
Please consider your environmental responsibility-think before you print!
On 2014-06-04, at 9:42PM, angelakirby@worldline.ca wrote:
Have had a very quick scan ofthe proposals mentioned in your recent flyer
and find them truly scary. There is no space alloted or identified on any
ofthe figures you provided for parking, let alone expansion of Bayly
Street into a more major highway.
1 233
Had the recent sirens truly indicated a nuclear disaster, we could not
have got out! Whites is under construction, Liverpool had work in
progress, Brock was under construction, and such high density amendments
to the lands between Hwy 401 and Bayly Street appear to be supported by
our city staff? Incredible! I am truly concerned.
Unforti.mately, I leave early tomorrow morning and will not_be back in town
till the end of the month. I hope this will allow me time to read the full
reports and respond.
Thank you for your flyer.
Yours truly,
Angela M.Kirby
3..:925 Bayly Street
Pickering, ON Ll W 1L4
Canada
P: 905-839-5264
Jennifer O'Connell
Regional Councillor, Ward One
City of Pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
jennifer@ jenniferoconnell.ca
www.pickering.ca
www .jenniferocon nell.ca
Please consider your environmental responsibility-think before you print!
Jennifer O'Connell
Regional Councillor, Ward One
City of Pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
jennifer@ jenniferoconnell.ca
www.pickering.ca
www .jenniferocon nell.ca
Please consider your environmental responsibility-think before you print!
234 2
1 4
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Jennifer and Bill,
Lisa Anne Gray [graymomof2@sympatico.ca]
June-05-14 9:53AM
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor; Mclean, Bill, Councillor
opinion about Durham Live proposal
I received the flyer about proposed zoning changes in Pickering that you sent out.
1 s
I have to admit that I am not sure which of you is my regional counsellor so I am expressing my opinion to
both of you.
I feel that a casino is not needed and is unnecessary in the City of Pickering. If people feel the need to gamble
they can travel to Ajax or Port Perry. I feel a casino may generate money for the city but that money generally
will come from people who cant afford to be losing that money in the first place.
I oppose a casino!
Thank you,
Lisa Gray
561 Norfolk Square
Pickering, On
L1V3Y4
1 235
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
1235 Radom St. Apt. 3
905-903-1373
Jeff Everingham Ueff.everingham@live.ca]
June-04-14 7:11 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
RE: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
>From: bmclean@pickering.ca
>To: jeff.everingham@live.ca; jennifer@jenniferconnell.ca
>Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
>Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 23:08:39 +0000
>
1 6
>Thank you Jeff, could you send us your address and phone number so we can forward your comments to our
planning department.
>
>Thanks for your input
>
>Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> From: Jeff Everingham
>Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 6:36PM
>To: Mclean, Bill, Councillor; jennifer@jenniferconnell.ca
> Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
>
>
>Dear Bill & Jennifer,
>
>I received your notice in the mail regarding the proposals for Pickering's downtown and the casino. I wanted
to let you know that my family and I support both the proposals. These would be great additions to a city that
has stagnated for a decade.
>
> Reg.ards,
>
>Jeffrey Everingham
>
>
> __________________________________________________________ __
>
>This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged,
proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not
the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission,
dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of
this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message
in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message.
>~·----------------------~----------------------------------->
236 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
My name is: Ray Kotchie
Ray Kotchie [rkotChie@nexusisp.com]·
June-04-14 4:43PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino
Address: 1369 Fordon Avenue, Pickering, Ont. L1W 1K1
Phone: 905-420-5318
1 7
I had the pleasure of speaking with you earlier today. We discussed the proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino.
You asked me to put my thoughts and ideas in writing, and as we discussed I had some concerns about traffic in this
area, as we live close to Bayly Street and Krosno Blvd. It would seem a no brainer to put an entry and exit to the 401 at
Church Street, which would certainly alleviate some ofthe local traffic
from being bogged down during rush hour. In fact Bayly is getting quite busy now during rush hour.
We are certainly intrigued with the possibility of becoming more of an active community, and are in favour ofthis
proposal. But again, we are concerned with heavy traffic in this area.
Perhaps this could be discussed during a Council meeting and I would appreciate hearing from you on this proposal.
Thank you for your time.
Best Regards
Ray Kotchie
1 237
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:·
Subject:
307 Fiddlers Court
Pickering
Sent from my iPhone
Joe Yukich [joe.yukich7@gmail.com]
June-04-14 7:34PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Re: Pickering Casino
> On Jun 4) 2014) at 6:25 PMJ "Mclean) Bill) Councillor" <bmclean@pickering.ca> wrote:
>
1 8
>Thanks JoeJcould you give us your street address also so I can forward your-comments to our
planning department. That way it could be part of the report to council.
>
> Thank you for taking the time to contact us.
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> From: Joe Yukich
> Sent: Wednesday) June 4) 2014 6:01 PM
> To: Mclean) Bill) Councillor; jennifer@jenniferocconnell.ca
> Subject: Pickering Casino
>
>
> Bill and Jennifer
>
> My wife Janet and I are residents of Pickering and I am writing to say that we are opposed
to any casino development in the city of Pickering. Other development that's proposed would
not be offensive but a casino per se would be.
>
> In fact) a casino in Pickering might be the tipping point that would cause us to move from
the community.
>
> You can contact me at this email or by phone at 905-509-5070
>
> Thanks
>
> Joe Yukich
>
>
>
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information
that is privileged) proprietary) confidential) and/or exempt from disclosure under any
relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent
thereof) you are hereby notified that any review) retransmission) dissemination)
distribution) copying) conversion to hard copy) taking of action in reliance on or other use
of this communication is strictly prohibited~ If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this message in error) please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or
destroy all copies of this message.
>
>
238 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Andrei,
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
June-04-14 10:34 AM
Andrei Zelenine
Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown&Casino .
1 9
Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with us. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I
were not advocating or championing these developments. We put out the newsletter specifically to seek
feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not
taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I
appreciate your specific comments.
With your permission I can share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all
before this decision is made.
Thank you once again for taking the time to comment.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Jennifer O'Connell
Regional Councillor, Ward One
City ofPickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
· j ennifer@j enniferoconnell.ca
www.pickering.ca
www.jenniferocorinell.ca
Sent from my iPhone ·
On Jun 3, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Andrei Zelenine <ontexcompany@yahoo.com> wrote:
Hi Jennifer,
I am absolutely against this idea.
There are numerous issues to consider, including potential revenue for the city, compared to the
potential increase in crime, gambling addition, prostitution and its impact on social services.
Andrei Zelenine.
resident 318 Fiddlers Crt.,
Pickering, ON
1 239
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Mr. McLean
colleen982 [colleen982@hotmail.com]
June-03-14 9:51 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Downtown Pickering proposal
20
The proposal is very impressive. I am in favor of all the proposed development with the exception of the
casino. I understand that It would bring revenue to the city but I believe the negative impact ie gambling
problems outweighs the revenue gained. Our city is more than development and revenue, it is about families
and quality oflife. Families and lives can be ruined with excessive gambling.
Instead of a casino, I would suggest greater green spaces for youth, and families. I also suggest that a visual art
center be included perhaps as part of the performing arts center. A visual art center could also provide
programs for youth and the general population. Encouraging interest and support in the arts will do more to
improve the quality of life for everyone than a casino.
Sincerely,
Colleen Timmins, Pickering resident
Sent from Samsung tablet
240 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Bill,
Herzog & Whiteford [herzog@rogers.com]
June-04-14 9:48AM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Downtown & Casino
2 'l
Thank you for the information update on these two developments. Just a quick response before I get sidetracked with life.
The Downtown Intensification Program by the upgraded GO train station and pedestrian walkway makes sense and can
defmitely improve Pickering's downtown as long as it is done with sensitivity to the neighbourhood of Bay Ridges to the
South. I note that lower height le-yels are to Bayly with towers along the 401-this makes sense as does the green space.
The Durham Live project looks very ambitious and glitzy and I think the whole thing probably revolves around getting
the casino approved first. I don't want the performing art centre (which Pickering needs) to be based on an industry that
takes advantage of a certain segment of society and compounds misery for many. If hotels and convention centre can be .
built without the casino then fine, always keeping to planning principles and no overdevelopment.
Joyce Herzog
905-839-1498
1 241
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Alex Parker [alexanderparker@icloud.com]
June-04-14 3:04PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Re: proposed pickering down town &casino
2 2
hi Bill my address is 855 liverpool road Phone 905 706 3037 thanks for the quick reply
yours Alex Parker
Sent from my iPhone
>On jun 4) 2014) at 2:28 PMJ "Mclean) Bill) Councillor" <bmclean@pickering.ca> wrote:
>
> Thank you Alex for your e mail and your thoughts) as you can see by
> the flyer we are not promoting these applications but looking to
> inform our residents and get their feed back. Is it possible to get
> your phone and address so we can forward your thoughts to our planning
> department to be included in the comment section of the report
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> From: Alex Parker
> Sent: Wednesday) June 4) 2014 1:19 PM
> To: Mclean) Bill) Councillor
> Subject: proposed pickering down town &casino
>
>
> Hi ) I am very much against this idea . traffic on bayly street is bad
> enough . A casino is also a bad idea . why doesn't the city build
> these projects in north pickering so as not be a big inconvenience
>
> Yours Alex Parker
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------->
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information
that is privileged) proprietary) confidential) and/or exempt from disclosure under any
relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent
thereof) you 'are hereby notified that any review) retransmission) dissemination)
distribution) copying) conversion to hard copy) taking of action in reliance on or other use
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this messag~ in error) please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or
destroy all copies of this message.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
242 1
On2014-06-04, at 11:37 AM, JimFarintosh wrote:
Hello Jennifer,
Jim Farintosh here (West Shore resident), we have talked before. I left a message for you to call me, but no
need now.
'1-
A couple of points about the proposed zoning changes for the densified downtown area and the casino
proposal: ,
1) The downtown plan looks fine, but I question the traffic flow to access this area. At present anyone coming
from the west along the 401 will have to get off at Whites Road and crawl along Bayley, which will be grossly
undersized for that kind of volume. The reality is that the eastbound exit that used to be at Liverpool Road
would be best put back in service this incr~ased traffic. Presently the land is still available. The cost of this
road upgrade should be covered by the development(s) as much as possible.
2}'What portion ofthe casino revenues will stay in Pickering to help lower th~ already too high residential tax
base? We are already looking at some of the highesttaxes in the GlA There has to be some very compelling
financial reasons to support this plan, the social cost may be _considerable.
My views.
Regards,
Jim Farintosh
905-492-1836
2 243
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
joan turner [george.turner@sympatico.ca]
June-03-14 7:12PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Durham Live Proposal
I am against the proposal of the Durham Live Project.
I would rather see the land be putto use to entice manufacturing jobs into the Region instead of
entertainment.
2 4
I can see traffic congestion issues arising with this development along Bayly, Church and the 401. Will a new
on and off ramp be set up for this complex?
I would ask why another convention centre is being built-Is the Ajax Convention Centre fully utilized?
With the Casino who will be paying for the extra policing requirements?
These jobs appear to be on the lower end.of the pay scales and as such will not benefit greatly this
community.
Will the City of Pickering be offering any incentives or guarantees towards the construction costs.
George Turner
1780 Listowell Cres
Pickering, ON
LlV 2Y3
244 1
25
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dawn McBride [mouster77@hotmail.com]
June-03-14 7:42PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
Certainly, and thank you for the super fast reply.
1835 Storrington Street
Pickering, On
l1V 2X2
985-492-1414 home number day and night
Sent from my iPad
> On Jun 3, 2814, at 7:37 PM, "Mclean, Bill, Councillqr" <bmclean@pickering.ca> wrote:
>
> Thank you Dawn for your response, I would like to forward your response to our planning
department. If we can do this could you supply us with your address and phone number.
>
> Thanks again
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> From: Dawn McBride
> Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2814 7:32 PM
> To: Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
> Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
>
>
> Received your brochure in the mail today. The proposed complex will only add to the beauty
of our fair city. Sounds really exciting with such an interesting mixture of venues for all
ages.
>
> The only negative will be traffic congestion, but the whole planet has this problem anyway.
>
> Dawn McBride
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
>
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information
that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any
relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent
thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination,
distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or
destroy all copies of this message.
>
>
1 245
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Certainly.
Bruce Cowan [cowman@sympatico.ca]
June-03-14 3:58 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
RE: Pickering Downtown expansion
My address is: 1605 Rawlings Drive, Pickering, Ontario L 1V 586
My phone number is: 905-839-5969
Thank you Mr. Mclean, ·
Bruce
>From: bmclean@pickering.ca
>To: cowman@sympatico.ca
> CC: jennifer@jenniferoconnell.ca
>Subject: Re: Pickering Downtown expansion .
>Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 19:56:24 +0000
> " ,.
>Thank you very much Bruce for your thoughts, they are most important to us.
>
2 6
\ >The reason for this news letter was to bring awareness and to get our residents thoughts and concerns, we
appreciate you responding.
>
>
> Wo~,Jid you mind supplying your addre-ss and phone number so we can forward your response to our planing
department to add your comments to the applications?
>
>Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
>From: Bruce Cowan
>Sent: Tuesday,-June 3, 2014 3:46PM
>To: Mclean, Bill, Councillor
> Cc: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
>Subject: Pickering Downtown expansion
>
>
>Hello Ms. O'Connell and Mr. Mclean!
>As a long-time resident of Pickering, I have waited (in vain) and longed (with envy) for the 'move to the
future' that our fair, but very under-developed, city should make to catch up to our neighbours.
>
>When I drive from Pickering to Whitby to visit my daughter's family, I pass through the bustling, energetic
and economically muscular Towns of Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa. And I always wonder why Pickering seems to
be the 'ru.nt of the litter'. We should be the 'alpha', given our proximity to Toronto with the potential to easily
draw business a hop,-skip & jump across the Rouge River.
>
246 1
. . 2 6 >We talk of this kind of development but it never gets off the ground. I hear whispers of 'too many foreign
owners' of properties in Pickering (Federal, Provincial, other municipalities and private) who seem to be
content to stall the process. Are we not masters of our own domain? And, if we are our own masters, how
come Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa are miles ahead of us?
>
>Plans like this look good, but do we really have the political will and clout to pull it off? This i.s deja vu to me!
>
>As I once wrote to Roger Anderson during the turbulent run-up to the Energy-From-Waste proceedings:
"Leaders take us where we have not gone before. Stay the course; the future belongs to those who 'see it'".
>
>I could go on, but you know better than I of the real reasons for the 'whys'.
>
>On a constructive note, there is one issue that must be buried. Under no circumstances should a casino be
ailowed in Pickering. Toronto rejected one for all ofthe right reasons. Casinos are 'crack cocaine' for
municipalities that are blinded by potentiat initial financial gains (easy money) that addict them later-
keeping them from accountable and honest fiscal policy. The seeds ofcorruption grow all-too-well in such
fertile soil and we have had our (un)fair share of shady politicians before. Another 'Ford brother' is out there
waiting for such an opportunity.
>
> I would be very disappointed if our fair city went down that s.lippery slope.
'>
>Point:_ If casinos or lotteries (of any kind) were the answer, why haven't the Federal and Provincial lotteries
we've had for decades already solved all of our fiscal problems? The prosecution rests!
>
>I hope that the City is sincere in its intentions this time and fearless with its resolve to make it happen.
>Right now we are just 'catching up' with our Regional siblings.
>
>I'll be right here, as I've been for the past 27 years, waiting and watching.
>
>Best of luck to both of you.
>You are very fine people!
>
>Regards,
> Bruce S. Cowan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________ __
2 247
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Good morning BillJ
Irene Pantalone [irenepantalone42@rogers.com]
June-03-14 9:29AM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
2 7
Basically I'm for it as I feel it will bring jobs to the area. Before I give an unreserved
yesJ I would like your opinion on what this would do to property values.
Irene
Sent from my iPad
248
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
chris daniel! [chris.daniell@hotmail.com]
June-02-14 9:47 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
re: "proposed" casino
2 8
I'm a resident of Pickering. I became a resident of Pickering to escape the hustle/bustle of the Toronto area.
A casino would not, in my view, serve the interests of Pickering residents. A casino would only intensify traffic
and make life in Pickering just as unbearable as life is in Toronto. There's enough 'rift-raft' or 'spill over' from
Toronto as it is.
A casino and the associated traffic congestion will only push residents further away. I know I'll likely look into
moving to Uxbridge or Whitby. (I work east-end of Toronto and I'll do a longer commute if I have to)
If you're truly interested in improving the downtown core, you should consider working with what you have. I
see plenty of unexploited opportunities to draw Pickering residents to local businesses.
Look at the area where you're proposing a casino to begin with: poor condition/narrow roads with no on-
street parking. Then consider what side of the 401 you're planning to build a casino: there's nothing there to
attract businesses on this side of the 401. It's a commuter area with a number of small miscellaneous
businesses-there's no reason to go there. Commuters use the area, it's a hub -they come, they go. That
will not change.
Pickering is a commuter community. From the residents I know, we want nothing to do with Toronto. We
don't want Pickering to become more than what it is. We're actualiy quite content with what we see. We're
pleased to see improvements being made to help commuters. We live in the area because we work in
Toronto.
I'm actually a little disappointed to see Pickering Council debating such issues instead of working on
improvements to existing services.
Hopefully, Council can work towards finding a resolution that satisfies residents.
Chris Daniell
1 249
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Gary Wicks [wicks@ca.ibm.com]
June-02-14 7:49PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Opposition to the proposed Pickering Casino and additional facilities
Wrong place ...... wrong level of traffic infrastructure ..... which is very poor at best in this area with no off ramp on 401
Eastbound at Liverpool. .... also wrong for an established area. Just a money grab in an area that will not support it.
Period.
Regards, Gary Wicks
· 420 Brian Court,
Pickering, Ontario
L 1W#H4
250 1
2 9
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hello Folks,
Pilolla [pilolla@sympatico.ca]
June-02-14 10:26 PM
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor; Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Casino?
,) 0
I'd rather have an airport because it helps create revenue. Casinos relieve people of their
money. Do people wreck their lives because they spend all their money at the airport? The
idea sucks now please get down to some real councillor duties. Do we have enough cross-walks
in town? Any cell tower complaints to deal with?
You do want to be elected to office again?
1 251
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Yes. Here it is.
Nancy {nancy.lyew@gmail.com]
June-03-14 8:22AM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
618 Atwood Cred) Pickering l1w3w6
3 1
> On Jun 2) 2014) at 7:17 PM) "Mclean) Bill) Councillor" <bmclean@pickering.ca> wrote:
>
> Thank you Nancy) I really appreciate you responding to our information flyer. Your thoughts
are very important to us) would you mind sharing your address and can I forward your comments
to our planning department to be part of the commenting process?
>
> Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
> From: Nancy
> Sent: Monday) June 2) 2014 7:03· PM
> To: Mclean) Bill~ Councillor; .O'Connell) Jennifer) Councillor
> Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
>
>
> Dear Regional Council)
>
> I have been living in south Pickering for 23 years. I've enjoyed living here with the easy
GO train access to the city for work and often stayed downtown for the better restaurants)
shops and entertainment. This would mean I could enjoy the same quality in my own backyard.
> I think this is fantastic! It will bring great opportunities to the city of Pickering for
more jobs) increased revenue) modernization and sustainability in the Durham region.
>
> Best Regards)
> Nancy lyew
> c:416.819.7585
>
>
>
>
> This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information
that is privileged) proprietary) confidential) and/or exempt from disclosure under any
relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent
thereof) you are hereby notified that any review) retransmission) dissemination)
distribution) copying) conversion to hard copy) taking of action in reliance on or other use
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this message in error) please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or
destroy all copies of this message.
>
>
252 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Phineas J. Tirebiter [scopolomander@gmail.com]
June-02-14 5:05PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; Mayor Web Email; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor
Zoning changes
3 2
I received the mailing about "Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino" today. There are two parts to this.
As to the Durham Live Project, I have no big qualms. We'll be losing more agricultural land, but it shouldn't
interfere with our lives too badly. The other issue -the Pickering Downtown Intensification Program is another
thing entirely. I see in fine print "Transition to residential neighbourhood". That means high rise, doesn't it?
How many thousands are going to occupy this area? Have you tried driving our streets during rush hour? This
new development will make our roads even worse. And think of the chaos that would ensue ifthere ever was an
emergency at the nuclear plant.
Whoever saw this area as being Downtown Pickering anyway?? Kingston Road is downtown Pickering.
There's lots of open land on Kingston road, west of Liverpool and around Valley Farm. Why can't that be used
instead? Answer: our area is perceived as being low hanging fruit-easy prey by developers. rm not against
progress or development, but this is certainly not the place for it. I hope you will oppose these changes as
vigorously as possible.
Doug Gregory
861 Naroch Blvd.
Pickering, Ont.
1 253
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Jan van Tol Oanvantol@outlook.com]
June-03-14 12:01 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
·casino
33
I am all for the redevelopment of pickering downtown. ltis currently devoid of any character so anything
that improves it so there is a reason to visit it I am all for.
Jan
254 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Andrew larter [andrew-larter@hotmail.com]
June-11-14 10:41 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Comments on Pickering Downtown & Casino Proposals
PickeringDowntownCasinoRemarks.pdf
Hello Councillors Mclean and O'Connell,
I recently rece!ved a flyer in the mail detailing the City of Pickering's proposed Downtown Pickering
Intensification and Pickering Casino and Entertainment Complex projects.
The flyer stated that public comments and questions regarding these projects are welcome, and so I have
attached to this email a PDF file of my comments an~ thoughts on them.
Thank you in advance for your consideration of my remarks!
Andrew larter
Pickering Resident, Ward 2
255
256
Dear Councillors _McLean and O'Connell,
My name is Andrew Latter, and you may remember me from this past April's council meeting, in
which placing a referendum question regarding the Pickering casino proposal on the October 2014
ballot was discussed. During the public information session portion of that meeting, I spoke briefly to
council in support of placing the question on the ballot, and for that reason I highly appreciated
recently receiving a flyer from both of you detailing the proposed plans for Pickering downtown
intensification and for the casino project. Since public input on those plans was sought in the flyer, I
am also more than pleased to give you my opiriions.
Overview
I will do my best to keep these writings organized; however, they may become lengthy, so I will
provide here a quick overview of my strongest opinions regarding each proposal. I .am in support of
the downtown Pickering intensification, as I believe it will lead to a healthier city and a healthier
community to build a denser and more central downtown, although I do hold a few minor concerns
with the plans as they stand. I am also deeply opposed to the casino and entertainment complex
proposal, owing to a number of factors including but not limited to its design and implementation,
impacts on the environment and community, and scale. More detailed descriptions are given below.
Downtown Pickering Intensification
Having lived in Pickering as long as I have been alive, I have seen this city experience continuous
population growth and development. In more recent years I have become acutely aware of the many
problems posed by continuing urban sprawl in the 'Greater Toronto Area and southern Ontario; in
particular, the inadequacy of existing infrastructure to handle increasing numbers of residents, and the
environmental impacts of paving large tracts of high-quality fattpland in order to build new
subdivisions and plazas.
With this in mind, I feel it necessary to state that I am in general quite pleased with the plans found in
the flyer for the intensification-of a "downtown Pickering''. As it stands today, Pickering has built out
markedly less far to the north than neighbouring municipalities: the transition from suburban to rural
occurs mainly between Finch Avenue and Concession 3, whereas Ajax and Whitby have built (and
· continue to build) subdivisions as far north as beyond Taunton Road, I am aware, certainly, that this
situation will change with the impending Seaton community plan, a plan with which I do not agree,
yet I believe that out comparably compact city provides Pickering with a golden opportunity to
develop in a more sustainable manner.
Under the Places to Grow Act, Pickering has an obligation to accommodate a sizeable percentage of
the population growth that the GTA is projected to experience over the coming decades. The
Pickering downtown intensification plan, by redeveloping existing low-density industrial lots into a
dense mixed-use community~ represents the sustainable way to take in and manage that growth. The
proposal, as given in the flyer, demonstrates conformance to a number of prevailing principles of
good urban design, including a mix of densities, a mix of uses (both commercial and residential),
good transit access and walkability (something difficult to accomplish in out mainly automobile-
. focused community) owing to its neighbouring Pickering GO Station, and the inclusion of sizeable
greens pice in the form of Krosno Creek Park. I find these aspects of the plans to be forW-ard-
thinking and agreeable, for they will enable Pickering to undergo population growth while mitigating
the negative impacts on traffic and out environment that sprawling, low-density growth would ·
otherwise produce.
3 4
I have taken note of a few, more minor concerns with the downtown Pickering proposal, which IJeel
necessary to include here. Firstly, and most importantly, the location of the planned intensifkd
community is less than optimal. Although it will be situated next to the major transit hub that is the
GO Station, the lots are also cut off off from access from the north by Highway 401: its streets end
in cul-de-sacs at the highway. Excepting the GO Station pedestrian bridge, one would need to travel
along Bayly Street and then cross the 401 at the Liverpool or Brock Road bridges to head north from
this PiCkering downtown. These bridges are already congested during rush hour and busy most hours
of the day. Consequently, downtown Pickering has the potential to become difficult to access and
isolated. Examples across North America, including many in the former Metro Toronto, exist of why
it is crucial that high-density neighbourhoods be easy to access and well-integrated into a street
network. An isolated or secluded high-density neighbourhood, the so-tailed "tower in the park"
concept, is one which will fall into crime and urban decay. For downtown Pickering to become
successful, its design must recognize the inherent barrier to access posed by the 401, and make every
effor_t to ensure that the area is as integrated and accessible by diverse modes of transport, including
alternatives to driving.
Additionally, the possibility exists of a community backlash against the planned dense neighbourhood
by the public in general or the existing residential community to the south in particular. Once the
public becomes more aware of the downtown Pickering proposal, or even once construction begins,
the image of multi-storey buildings being constructed nearby may provoke efforts to halt the
development. Members of the public naturally become concerned over development, especially
unprecedented development such as that detailed in the proposal, when they feel as though they have
only become aware of it after it is a "done deal"· and they cannot ha~e a say in the process. Examples
of this effect can be found in both Pickering and the wider Durham Region: for one, the
condominium and townhouse development near the southwest corner of Liverpool and Bayly, which
displaced several local businesses, resulted iti a significant community uproar. Distributing these flyers
has. so far been a great way to make the public notified and interested in the downtown Pickering
plans; however, more must continue to be done to make this city and community aware. Possible
routes of action include advertisements in the News Advertiser or an information booth at the
Pickering Town Centre.
With this being said, I believe still that the downtown Pickering intensification project is a definite
step in the right direction. With careful management to avoid overloading infrastructure and with
sufficient public engagement, this development will be allowed to flourish, and Pickering can begin to
grow without needing to grow outwards. ·
Pickering Casino and Entertainment Complex
The other proposal regarding which I am writing to you is, I believe, of a remarkably different nature
than the downtown Pickering plan, in terms of design, impact, and scale. Whereas downtown
Pickering represents a new form of planning and a welcome experiment in urbanism, the Pickering
casino and ent~rtainment project serves as an example of flawed thinking and outdated urban design.
I primarily hold objections to the casino proposal on three grounds: scale and location, impaCts on
the community and environment, and design and implementation.
As I have touched on above, the Greater Toronto Area is in the midst of undergoing a serious shift
in its prevailing urban planning wisdom, in order to curb urban sprawl and prevent low-density
development from continuing to consume greenspace and farmland. The Pickering downtown
3 4
257
258
intensification proposal is an will be a welcome addition from this new shift in design-it will bring
residents and jobs to our city while avoiding the n~ed to build on previously undeveloped land. By
contrast, the Pickering casino and entertainment complex is proposed to be situated on likely the
largest remaining greenfield south of Finch Avenue in this city. The proposed casino site, on the
northwest comer of the Bayly/ Church intersection, is not only a presently undeveloped parcel of
land, but is also particularly isolated in the southeast corner. of the City of Pickering. The Bayly-
Church area is located at great distance from the proposed downtown PickeJ;ing and the central core
of the city, where modern urban planning dictates the majority of our growth and development
should be focused. Moreover, the site will be difficult to access by all modes of transportation: -
automobiles will need to travel so\].th from Highway 401 via Brock or Westney Roads and Bayly
Street, transit riders will face a, long bus ride along the 923 Bayly route from Pickering or Ajax GO
Stations, and walkability is practically nil. If constructed as planned, the casino complex would only
serve to draw development away from Pickering's core -completely counter to the logic behind the
downtown Pickering intensification proposal and the Places to Grow Act. The development of the
casino site would undermine the viability of both existing andplanned businesses and developments
in closer to the core of the city.
The choice of the Bayly-Church site for the proposed casino and entertainment complex also
highlights a lack of foresight with regards to the impacts that such a development would have on our
city and community. As was mentioned during the council meeting which I attended in this past
April, the pus,h for a casino complex in Pickering will have a profound effect on the makeup of qur
community. Examples can be found across the world of the manner in which a nearby casino
introduces crime and social degradation to a community-colloquially, Las Vegas is not known as
''sin city" for nothing. I personally am no puritan, yet I do not think it unreasonable to wish to avoid
Pickering gaining that sort of reputation, and I believe that this casino project is being seen through
rose-coloured' glasses. Both at the council meeting and when reading coverage of the issue, the idea
appears prevalent that' Pickering may reap the benefits of the jobs that would come with an
entertainment complex without the associated increases in crime. There is no reason why this would
be so. The City of Toronto not long ago declined th'e proposal to build a casino along its waterfront
for these very reasons, and this must serve as a sign of caution for our city if we are to embark on a
similar project.
Furthermore, the choice of location for the proposed casino and entertainment complex has the
potential for serious negative environmental effects. As stated before, the casino site sits on one of
the l~gest remaining tracts of greenspace in urban Pickering. Owing to its proximity to Duffins
Creek, it features both woodland and wetland, as well as some active farmland along Kellino Street.
·Whereas there exists a conservation area following the route of Duffins Creek south of Bayly in order
to protect the creek and its ecosystem from degradation, this particularly large parcel of pristinely
undeveloped land.in the midst of an othe.rwise developed area has been earmarked for massive
development in the form of the construction of an enormous entertainment complex. Although I am
not an expert in the ecosystem of the area, I do not believe that one must be an expert to notice the
potential environmental distress which could arise from paving over this greenspace for a casino,
waterpark, convention centre, hotels, etc. If designated an urban nature preserve or municipal park,
the Bayly-Church-Kellino area could serve this city well as a source of recreation, relaxation, and
balance with our surrounding environment as Pickering continues to develop. Instead, the proposal
to pave. it over for a casino has proceeded without concern for or public discussion and engagement
of its potential environmental impacts.
My final major concerns with the Pickering casino and entertainment complex proposal deal with
whati view as flaws in the design and implementation -process of the plans at hand; that is to say, the
way that the project has been carried out thus far. Having attended a debate ovefthe proposal at
council and having read about it in depth from a variety of sources, it seems to me that the project
has proceeded not on the basis of solid facts and figures, but rather on a series of assumptions and
presuppositions by the city. A number of questions arise as examples: is demand among the residents
of Pickering for a casino within the city's borders high-enough to warrant one and risk the negative
effects which may accompany it? Will there be enough business interest for a convention centre,
performing arts centre, amphitheatre, and film studios to be necessary, or will they sit largely empty?
Similarly, will the planned luxury hotels host many guests, or will they too remain empty? The
answers to these pertinent questions have seemed to be not under discussion with the public or not
available entirely. Before embarking on a project of this scale and with such a vast potencial to
reshape the makeup of the City of Pickering, a much more thorough analysis and business case for
the casino and entertainment complex must be produced and carefully considered.
Above all else, however, the fate of the casino complex proposal in Pickering rests upon a few
fundamental presumptions which have been made by the proponents of this project and which I
believe cannot be reasonably assumed. Firstly, as Councillor Dickerson noted during this past April's
council meeting, there can legally only exist a single gambling facility within each OLG-designated
gaming zone. Seeing as Pickering, Ajax, and Whitby lie within the same zone, the construction of a
Pickering casino would require the cessation of gambling operations at the existing Ajax Downs slots
facility. All discussion regarding a Pickering casino has as-to-yet made the assumption that Ajax -
Downs will indeed close down to make room for a gambling facility in this city; however, seeing as
this slots facility is a noted money-maker for the Town of Ajax and has been a centrepiece of new
development along Kingston Road East, its closure is highly unlikely.
Secondly, the wider Pickering entertainment complex proposal has been designed conditional upon
the two large-scale infrastructure projects in the area: a Highway 401 interchange at Church Street
and an underpass under the 401, the CNR Kingston Subdivision, and the GO Transit right-of-way
connecting Notion Road with Squires Beach Road. The prospect of the Ministry of Transportation
approving the return of a 401 interchange to Church Street (the original Church on-and-off-ramps
having been removed in 1986 with the opening of those atWestney Road) is very unlikely due to
tight space constraints in the area of the highway overpass as well as its close proximity to the Brock
and Westney Roads interchanges. Similarly, the costs of constructing an und~rpass from Notion to
Squires Beach, which would presumably be borne by the City of Pickering, would likely be
prohibitively high. In short, the entertainment complex project has. been proceeding based on
assumptions of the highly unlikely construction of necessary pieces of road infrastructure. Lacking
this infras·tructure, the construction of any part of the proposal on the Bayly-Church site will only -
exacerbate an already-difficult traffic and ti:ansit situation in the area.
In light of the many points made above, I urge both of you, as councillors, to seriously reconsider the
viability and necessity of the Pickering casino and entertainment complex proposal. It is at this
juncture in the growth and development of Pickering that we, as a city, may choose the manner in
which we choose to continue to develop. We may choosethe path of sustainability and well-planned
central urban growth, as is exemplified in the downtown Pickering proposal, or we may choose to
embark upon garish mega-projects of the scale of the-casino, attempting to attract prestige and
business to this city through their headline-grabbing construction.
.3 4
259
260
Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my remru;ks on these proposals. I look forward
to continued debate and discussion on these topics and also to further communication with
yourselves and othei members of council regarding matters important to this city. Pickering is my
home, and I take. great satisfaction in seeing it grow and prosper.
Thank you again,
Andrew Latter
3 4
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Robert Viola (violo_r@hotmail.com]
June-07-14 6:31 PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino
35
Thank you Bill and Jennifer for reaching out regarding the input for the proposed developments from us, the
Pickering residents and tax payers.
I know that I speak for a number of residents in the South Rosebank community when I say that this is not the
development that Pickering is in need of at the moment.
The Casino and proposed dwellings that would accompany it are not what we feel Pickering is about.
Pickering is a safe, nature loving and family oriented community.
We work hard to keep our community beautiful, especially the shores of lake Ontario. Having a huge complex
of that size will almost guarantee the pollution of our shores. (Just like Toronto, all you have to do is take a
trip to the Docks entertainment complex) And research will show that the owners of the Docks complex fully
assured everyone of it's cleanliness and sound proof facilities. We don't want be a part ofthis trickery.
There are also many residents (South Rosebank community) that live on the other side of Frenchman's Bay
who will suffer from all the noise that will flow across the bay.
Our main issues are transportation. The traffic during rush hour in Pickering is worse than downtown
Toronto. Kingston Road is an absolute NIGHTMARE.
I'd like to hear more about what's being done to currently solve the transportation problems we already have
before we start adding them.
In conclusion our community is a BIG "NO" in regards to this new project that is being proposed.
Thank you for your time,
Robert Violo
1 261
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Cathy
Rose, Catherine
June-12-14 11:12 AM
Jacobs, Dean; Pym, Ross
Surti, Nilesh; Brooks, Jeff
FW: Casino
-----Original Message-----
From: Ferreira) Laura On Behalf Of Planning Web Email
Sent: June-12-14 8:55 AM
To: Rose) Catherine
Subject: FW: Casino
-----Original Message-----
From: info@esolutionsgroup.ca [mailto:info@esolutionsgroup.ca] On Behalf Of
alexf12@sympatico.ca
Sent: June-11-14 4:32 PM
To: Planning Web Email
Subject: Casino
3 6
Hi) I live at 1725 Silverthorn square_-I am opposed to the Casino in our city. Please take
this into consideration in your planning.
Origin: http://www.pickering.ca/en/cityhall/downtownintensificationprogram.asp
This email was sent to you by alexf12@sympatico.ca through http://www.pickering.ca/.
262 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Rose, Catherine
June-11-14 5:22PM
Pym, Ross; Jacobs, Dean
Surti, Nilesh; Brooks, Jeff
Subject: FW: Downtown Intensification Program
Ditto
-----Original Message-----
From: Ferreira, Laura On Behalf Of Planning Web Email
Sent: June-11-14 3:42 PM
To: Rose, Catherine
Subject: FW: Downtown Intensification Program
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: info@esolutionsgroup.ca [mailto:info@esolutionsgroup.ca] On Behalf Of
hollyfoord@hotmail.com
Sent: June-11-14 2:46 PM
To: Planning Web Email
Subject: Downtown Intensification Program
As a 21 year old lifelong resident of Pickering by way of Dixie/Finch, it is my researched
opinion that building a casino and hotel/water park in Pickering's downtown core is a short-
sighted and socio-economically disastrous chain of events. Turning Pickering into a pale,
flaccid, second rate entertainment district will destroy the community and drive away
permanent residents who offer financial support and sustainability to the region. Please
consider this email a vehement rejection of the proposed intensification by someone who fits
exactly in the demographic this plan is trying and failing to attract.
Origin: http://www.pickering.ca/en/cityhall/downtownintensificationprogram.asp? mid =22050
This email was sent to you by hollyfoord@hotmail.com through http://www.pickering.ca/.
1 263
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
David Caruana [david_caruana@hotmail.com]
June-10-14 10:08 AM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino
3 8 '
Toronto, Vaughn and Markham all turned down the casino for very good reasons. Why would Pickering try to
squeeze all this development into an area that is already congested? Many residents would be suspicious of
the motives of local politicians who would give these developers any encouragement.
Sincerely,
David Caruana
264 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
DIANNE HADDEN uames.hadden@sympatico.ca]
June-09-14 11:57 AM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
RE: Pickering Project
648 Annland St. Pickering 905-831-9298
-~---Original Message-----
From: Mclean, Bill, Councillor [mailto:bmclean@pickering.ca]
Sent: June-08-14 1:12 PM
To: james.hadden@sympatico.ca
Cc: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Subject: Re: Pickering Project
~ 0 ~. ! ...J
Thank you Dianne, if you supply your address and phone number we will forward your comments
to our planning department.
Thank you again for your thoughts.
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network.
From: DIANNE HADDEN
Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:00 PM
To: Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Reply To: james.hadden@sympatico.ca
Subject: Pickering Project
I think the proposed casino and entertainment complex is a fabulous idea.
Go for it.
This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information
that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any
relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent
thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, ·
distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use
of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have
received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or
destroy all copies of this message.
1 265
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
tnuspl [tnuspl@rogers.com]
June-08-14 2:17PM
To: Mclean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
Subject: Pickering Downtown Intensification Program, Durham Live Proposal
I am fully in favour of both the Pickering Downtown intensification Program as well as the Durham Live
Project.
We need higher densities around to GO Train Station, Pickering Town Centre, the College and offices.
We certainly could use employment opportunities, a hotel etc., as proposed in Durham Live.
As an added bonus, none of these proposals would impact the airport lands or the agriculture preserve.
Nor would they need "from scratch" infrastructure.
Terry Nuspl 905 509 2272
Sent from my BlackBerry® PlayBook™
www.blackberry.com
266 1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Hi Bill,
Jim Bowen [jim@logicaltechsolutions.ca]
June-11-14 3:16PM
Mclean, Bill, Councillor
Proposed Pickering downtown & Casino
The new downtown & casino proposal looks great. We are all for it.
Jim Bowen & Jane Cottrell
1891 Pinecreek Ct.
Pickering, ON
L1V 3R4
1 267
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor
June-10-14 12:26 PM
Mary Mauceri
Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino
Hello Mrs. Mauceri,
Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with me. You are correct that Councillor McLean and I
were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out the newsletter specifically to see~
feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not
taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I
appreciate your specific comments. This matter is not being considered at the Region, it is a proposal that will
be debated at Pickering Council, most likely on July 7th.
With your permission can I share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all
before this decision is made? ·
Thank you once again for taking the time to comment.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Jennifer O'Connell
Regional Councillor, Ward One
City of Pickering
905.420.4660, ext. 4609
Fax. 905.492.5050
jennifer@ jenniferoconnell.ca
www.pickering.ca
www.jenniferoconnell.ca
Please .consider your environmental responsibility-think before you print!
On 2014-06-09, at 3:52PM, Mary Mauceri wrote:
Hello Ms. O'Connell,
I am writing to .share my comments on the recent information I received regarding the proposed Pickering
Downtown & Casino plans.
1
268
As you and :Mr. Bill McLean have asked the residents of Pickering to share our comments, I wanted to let youl, 2
know my thoughts on this matter.
These proposals will have a significant impact on our community and our city, I am therefore very concerned
about how negatively a Casino would influence our families and the Durham community as a whole.
Please note my strong desire to oppose the creation of another Casino in the Durham area when you are
discussing this project in the regional Councillor meetings.
Thank you,
Mrs. Mary Mauceri
2 269
(
ATIACHfv1Ei'JT # 5 TO ·
Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/1aE!'ORT # 1?_£/I.Jd J-If P a g e 13
The subject lands are currently vacant a1,1d contain three· separate tributaries of Duffins Creek.
The subject lands slope from east to west and are crossed by four drumlin-like features.
Portions of the suqject lands have been cultivated.
A Provincially Significant Wetland exists on the subject lands; associated with the Lower Duffins.
Creek W_etland Complex. A wooded natural feature. also exists adjacent to Church Street at the
north ·east corner of the subject lands, in proximity t9 Duffins Creek.
Area Context
The area around the subject lands is characterized by the following land uses (s~e Figure 2).
North: A truck and equipment sales establishment is at the north end of Squires Beach
Road (west side). CN Rail Lines abut the majority of the north side of the subject
lands. The· CN Rail Kingston subdivision accommodates freight and passenger rail
service. Further north is Highway 401. Further north are heavy industrial· uses
indi,Jding prpcessing and outdoor storage of aggregate. To the northwest is
commercial development in the City of Pickering.
To the north and east is Duffins Creek. A iow density reside.ntial community is to the
east of Chu.rch Street, north of Highway 401 in the Towri of Ajax. Further north on
Church Street is a rece~tly approved H~ritage Conservation District.·
South: The subject iands surround the Pickering Pentecostai Church site. Bayly ,Street, a
warehouse and logistics facility,· Pickering m'arkets, industrial and· other uses are to ·
the south. Further south is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and the Duffins
Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. ·
' East: Directly to the east is Church Street. Further east is Annandale. Golf Course and
Duffins Creek-in the Town of Ajax .
• j
West: Directly to the west is a railway spur line. Mixed industrial, autort)otive, waste disposal
and other uses are to the west of the railway spur. ·
~reposed Zoning By-law Amendment
The applicants propose to amend the current M1 and M2S zone categories and introduce a new
Tourist Destination (TD) zone to permit a proposed entertainment oriented development (see
Figure 2). Proposed uses include a casino, hotels, convention centre, performing arts centre,
amphitheatre, cinemas, restaurants, waterpark, recreation centre, fitness centre, offices, arena,
tavern/bar/pub, automobile rental establishment, automobile service station, banquet facilities,
commercial parking lot, place of amusement, personal service establishment, and various other
uses.
According to the documentation submitted, the site is proposed to be developed to a maximum
floor space index (FSI) of 3.0 applied across the gross developable area of the subject lands.
Within the City of Pickering Zoning By-law 2511, the subject lands are currently subject to the
requirements of the Storage and Light Manufacturing Zone ("M1"),' and Yard Storage and Heavy
Manufacturing Zone ("M2S"). The Mtzon·e category permits a range of uses including storage
and light manufacturing, business and professional offices, and railway and other uses. The
M2S zone permits limited commercial uses, yard storage, industrial and railway uses.
'277
s,-:····"c' '"Cjl'T # 5' TO hf [14 ht\•Jo...,\l'
Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/14riEPCiR' # ~ ~-iL9 e 1 9
DISCUSSION:
The following provides a review and commentary on various planning policies, as well· as
documents and studies filed iri support of the application.
Durham Regional Official Plan
The subject lands are within the 'Employment Areas' designation of the Durham Regional
Official Plan. Within this· designation, permitted uses may include manufacturing, assembly and
pro.cessing of goods, service· industries, 'research and-development facilities, warehousing,
offices and business parks, hotels, storage of goods and materials, freight transfer and
transporfation faciilties. · -· ·
Schedule B 1-d of the Durham Regional Official Plan designates Key Natural Heritage and
Hydrological Features_ on-the subject lands, including the Lower Duffins Creek Wetland
Complex and the wooded natural feature at-the north east corner of the subject lands. The
Durham Regional Official Plan indicates that an Environmental impact Study is required for ahy .
proposal for development or_ site alteration in proximity to natural heritage or hydrological _
features, natural hazards, or which may have niajor environmental imp·acts. Components of the
study may include an analysis of hydrogeological and geo-technical conditions, servicing
options, groundwater and surface water analysis and an examination of terrestrial, wildlife, and
aquatic species. -
Schedule C-2 ofthe Durham Regional Official Plan designates components of the road network.
Bayly Street is designated as .a Type 'A' arterial road. Church Street, north of Bayly Stree.t Is
designated as a Type-,-B' arterial road._ Squires Beach Road is designated as a Type 'C' arterial·
road.
Highway 401 interGhanges are designated at Brock Road (Pickering) and Westney Road (Ajax).
A future Highway 401 interchange 'is not designated at Church Street and Highway 401 within
the burham Regional Official Plan (see Figure.6). · ·
City of Pickering Official Plan
The· City of Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Employment Areas -
Prestige Employment", "Employment Areas-Mixed Employment" and "Open Space -~ystem
Natural Ar~as".
Table 8 of the City of Pickering· Official Plan indicates that permissible uses within the Prestige ·
Employment designation include light manufacturing,. assembly and processing of goqds, light
service industries, research-and development facilities, warehousing, equipment and vehicle
suppliers, automotive· and vehicle sales and repair, offices, corporate office business parks,
limited personal service uses serving the area, restaurants serving the area, retail sales as a
minor component of an industrial operation, hotels, financial institutions s~rvlng the area,
community, cultu.ral and recreational uses and other . uses with similar performance
characteristics that are more appropriately located in the employment area.
Table 8 also indicates that permissible uses within the Mixed Employment designation are all
uses within the Prestige Employment designation and limited retailing of goods and, services
serving the area. · · ·
Based on the foregoing policy criteria, staff are not clear how . the proposed broad mix of
proposed entertainment uses conforms to the provisions of the City of Pickering Official Plan.
283
. I
.!l.TTACHMErH # 5 TO
. . . , · . ror D[!'Y'f fj f'LAJ ;;{/-/~ Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/14 ru:, · n · ' . -~~~ ~"P~§ e 111
Schedule Ill -Resource Management of the City of Pickering Official Plan identifies a portion of
·the subject lands as "Wetlands" and other areas a Shorelines and Stream Corridors (May
Include Hazard Lands). The proposed Phase 1 approval area does not appear to account for a
Shoreline and Stream Corridor Area at the north east corner ofthe property, which should be
evaluated through a required Environmental Impact Study in advance of establishing the
principle of development.
A "New Road Connection (Proposed)" is illustrated on Map 14 (Neighbourhood 4: Brock
Industrial Area) which runs east-west between Squires Beach Road and Church Street, south of
Kellino Road (see Figure 7). This road connection does not appear within the Conceptual
Master ~I an for the subject lands, nor within any of the Block Plans filed with the application.
The subject lands are also within a "Detailed Review Area" that runs along the north and south
sides of Bayly Street, from west .of Church Street to west of Squires Beach Road. ·
Submitted Studies
· The following provides an overview ofthe studie$ submitted in support of the application and
commentary on these studies.. · ·
Urban Transportation Study
A report entitled "Durham Live Phase 1 Development Plan Urban Transportation Study" (the
UTS) prepared by. the BA Group dated March 20; 2014 was submitted in_ support of the
application. The UTS provides recommendations regarding roads, transit and other
improvements to support the proposed development. To assist in its review, the Town retained
the MMM Group to undertake an initial review of the UTS. ·
The UTS indicates that the Phase 1 development will be constructed. within a 5-year period, and
·will incorporate in the order of 250,000 m2 (2.69 million sq. ft.) of gros~ floor area {GFA). Th.is is
an overly optimistic time frame given the scope of approvals required, the scale of the proposed
development as well as the required transportation commitments in terms of approvals, funding
and/or construction from the provincial and Regional levels of government.
The UTS focuses on the trans.portation related aspects of the development of Phase 1 but does
not examine, nor does it make any assumptions about Phase .. 2. The transportation impacts
related to the full build out of the proposed development should be quantified through an
additional scenario ·with a long term time horizon. It is not possible to determine the. potential
impacts of Phase 2 on the Transportation System without this further study. The subsequent
expansion of the site would result in the generation of additional traffic, .but the report does not
quantify the impact of Phase 2 on the road network .
. The UTS is based on the assumption that a Church Street partial interchange with Highway
401, and a connection between Notion Road and Squires Beach Road via an underpass of'
Highway 401 will be in place; It does not include a scenario that exCludes either. Without these
roadwqy improvements, more of the trips gene,~ated by the proposed development would need
to be assigned to existing interchanges at Brock Road and Westney Road.
285
. . . . . . . ,L\TI/!,CHfv'lENT # 5 TO
·Subject: C1ty of P1ckenng Zonmg By-law Amendment Application A 3/14[ '<::l.' p~~l-:!.~i~~-!.~':" g e 113
Proposed Churc!J Street/Highway 401 Partial Interchange and Related Works
As noted earlier, the UTS includes a partial highway interchange at Highway 401 and Church
Street, serving traffic to and from the west (see Figure 8).
The UTS ·assumes that the works would be in place in order to manage the traffic· generated by
the proposed development. A number of concerns exist regarding the proposed introduction of a
new Highway 401 interchange at Church Street •. as follows:
i. The proposed interchange would not . conform to the prov1s1ons of the Durham
Regional Official Plan, the City of Pickering Official Plan or the Town of Ajax Official
I:'lan. An amendmenf to each of these planning documents would be required, and
subject to separate statutor)i processes, supported by the requisite technical studies
·.along with public and ·agency input. The intr:oductiori of an interch.ange at Church
Street and Highway 401 cannot be assumed.
ii. An interchange is not reflected in the Environmental Assessment work completed to
.. date for the Highway 401 widening east of Brock ·Road, which currently illustrates
two new bridge structures and express/collector transfer lanes: in the vicinity of
Church Street (see Figure 9).
iii. The proposed · interchange would cause a major shift in traffic patterns and the
potential for disruption to the local residential community, including the following:
. . ' . . ~ .
a. the closure of Mill Street (a local road) at Church Street Access from· Church
Street into this community would be forced to travel' north to Lincoln Street;
b. Shifts in commuter tra.ffic loads on Church Street, which is currently a two-lane
arterial road and a local active transportation route;
c. An expectation of truck traffic travelling from the industrial lands to the south and
elsewhere to access the n~w interchange and travelling up a grade separation at
slow ·spe~ds before reaching highway traffic;
d. Potential property impacts and private property acquisitions to accommodate
identified additional turning lanes; . · ..
e. The' introduction of four new traffic signals on Church Street, between Annandale
Golf Course and Mill Street; ' ·
f. Increased noise and other related impacts.
iv. The portion of Church Street north of Highway 401 to Kingston Road was transferred
to the Town of Ajax through a road rationalization prografTl with the Region of
Durham 1• The Town currently provides all summer and winter maintenance activities
on · Church Street from Highway 401 to Kingston· Road. Roads · under Town
jurisdiction are not intended to handle traffic from Highway 401.
v. If not already undertaken, a microsimulation would be necessary to determine if
queuing and spill back would be potential issues at the proposed inter.change.
1 On June 27, 2012 the Regional Municipality of Durh~m passed By-law 38-2012, to e'nable the transfer of th.e ·jurisdiction of roads
between the, Region and the. Town of Ajax as part of an ongoing road rationalization program. Chutch s'treet, generally from
f:lighway 401 to Kingston Road was transferred from the Region of Durham to the Town of Ajax on August 14, 2013.
287
. rT-·'·"i"'"'"IT h 5 Tr . . . .~, !r~l...P'1l1:rch 1 1r U .
Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/14r~EYOfH li ~--~---~-~9 e 118
The report also indicates the following:
"The propos&d site-specific Zoning By-law Amendment provided in E?ection 5.1 includes a list of
permitted uses, as well as a general standards table. Because there are no specific plans and
applications for specific uses on the subject site, we recommend that future development
applications for the site be required to apply for site specific exceptions with respect to
standards that will require more detailed information and review. These standards include:
maximum iof coverage, minimum and maximum building height and gross floor areas and
parking." · ·
Staffs comments on the PRR include the following:
i. ·The PRR does not identify the existence of an existing naturai feature at the north east
corner of the subject lands (a desig'nated Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Feature
within the Durham Regional Official Plan) although it is identified in the Functional
Servicing Report (see below). Proposed Phase 1 approval area includes this area, but
the required Environmental Impact Study needs to be completed before the principle of
development ·(an"d any required distance separ~tion,_ mitigatipn and/or remediation
requirements) can be determined.
ii. The New Road Connections (Proposed) as illustrated on Map 14 for the Brock Industrial
Neighbourhood Area of the City of Pickering Official Plan is not included in the
development concepts advanced thus far. Staff question whether the absence of this
·road would cause a conformity issue with the City of Pickering Official Plan.
. '
iii. The proposed definition of a "Tourist Destination Use" ·is vague and could encompass.
uses that may not otherwise be permissible in the Durham Regional Official Plan or the'
City of Pickering Official Plan (i.e. Major Retail or other uses). Staff question whether
the proposed definition in the draft zoning by-law could include othe·r uses not already
listed or proposed. ·
·iv. The·boundaries of all designated natural features need to be confirmed. The proposed
Phase 1 approval area appears to assume that there will be no impact on identified local
natural features if the development is beyond a 120 metre distance separation. This
Gonclusion is premature without having the requisite environmental studies completed,
reviewed and approved by all agencies. · ·
v. The proposal should confirm the form of development through a draft plan ofsubdivisiori,
which clearly identifies the proposed system of public roads and individual development
·sites. The proposed development concept appears to illustrate the closure of a portion of
Kellino Road, while other submitted plans do not. ·
vi. The proposed zoning by-law amendment would provide for 3.0 FSI across the entire
site. It is not clear -how this overall density would be distributed on individual
development sites, and whether certain sites would have higher densities. The ability to
evaluate individual site densities, building heights, massing, access and local traffic
distribution should be provided through a comprehensive planning process, including a
draft plan of subdivision.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment dated October 2011 prepared · by V.A. Wood
Associates Ltd. was filed in support of the application. Based on staff's review, the assessment
292
ATti~t:Hr\r?=·f~T# 5 -~-,--.·
Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By--law Amendment Application A 3/14 REP~R1 ·;,·~ ,. ' 'J!J:Ji~'?Z~~ ~ -~ e 119
was only completed for the portion of the lands south of Kellino Road, east of Squires Beach
Road.
The Durham Regional Official Plan indicates .that a Phase 1, and if necessary, a Phase 2
Environmental Site Assessment Report is required for any proposal for development or site
alteration on lands or adjacent lands that were previously used for industrial or noxious uses or
in proximity to areas where. soil contamination is known or suspected. Environmental Site
Assessment reports must be submitted in accordance with Regional requirements and
Provincial guidelines and laws. '
·Section· 15;9 of the City of Pickering Official Plan indicates that an Environmental Report is
required if the subject lands are within 500 metres of a known waste disposal site.
Based on staff's review, Certificates of Approval are in place for two waste disposal sites for
properties on Toy Avenue. One site permits the processing and transfer of solid, non-hazardous
commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal waste, and another for the receipt and
processing of contaminated soi12.
In addition, the. subject limds.are adjacent to a heavily used freight rail line. The lines connect to
the CN York subdivision which provides rail freight traffic through York Region, including the
. main CN lntermodal freight transfer facility at Macmillan Yard in Vaughar1. These freight rail
lin~s or neighbouring spur lines may have experienced spills or other events which should be
acknowledged and investigated through an updated Environmental Site Assessme·ne.
Natural Heritage Assessment. ·
. A Natural Heritage Assessment was completed by Beacon Environmental dated March, 2014 in
support of the application. The Durham Regional -Official Plan states that an Environmental
Impact Study is required for any proposal for development or site alteration in ·proximity to
natural heritage or hydrological features, natural hazards, or which may · have major
environmental impacts·~ Components of. the study may include an analysis of hydrogeological
arid geo-technical conditions, servicing options, groundwater and surface water analysis and an
examination-of terrestrial, wildlife, and aquatic species.
Section _2:3.43 ofthe Durham Regional Official Plan indicates that any proposal for developmen~
or site alteration in proximity to key natural heritage or hydrologic features shall be required to
include an Environmental Impact Study as part of a complete application, The ROP also
indicates that such a stuqy .shall apply to the area to be developed, or may be expanded to
include additional lands, as may be deemed necessary by the Regiqn, in consultation with the
respective area municipality, conservation authority and any other appropriate agency,
A portion of the subject lands on the west side of Church Street ls designated ~Key Natural
·Heritage and Hydrologic Features' within the Durham Regional Official Plan and 'Shorelines and
Strearn Corridors' within the Pickering Official Plan, requiring an Environmental Report for lands
within 50 metres cif the lands so designated. ·
·The .Natural Heritage Assessment indicates that "the top-of-bank along the tributary of Duffins
Creek off-site to the east ... defines the limit of both the va/leyfeature.and the extent. of existing
vegetation. This .feature will be staked in the field with TRCAstaff in the summer of.2014 and
will be subsequently surveyed'.
'z See Ministry of Environment Certificates of Approval A680301 and 5143-5ARHMH for more information. .
3 The section of the track between the Ajax and Pickering GO stations experienced two freight train derailment events including
March 1, 2001 and on March 30, 2010. See Report No. R1 OT0056 of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada regarding the
March 30, 2010 event for more information. · · 2 9 3
. . . . . ATIACHMENT # .5·. TO
Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/14 REPORT# J'!...LN£J.:/.§:J:.~~~~. e 120 ·
The report concludes that "the portion of.the subject lands within the Phase 1 approval area is
presently characterized by cultivated fields and is therefore unconstrained from .a natural
heritage perspective". However, th~ area at the northeast corner of the site is acknowledged as
. a Natural Heritage Feature on the Functional Servicing and Storm Water Management Report
(see Figure 1 0). It is premature to conclude that the Phase 1 approval area is unconstrained
without the completion and acceptance of the requisite stuqies.
The Study shm~ld also include an investi.gation of the potential post-development impacts on the
adjacent natural heritage ~ystem, including the potential impacts of noise, lighting, drainage and
buildings and activities on ecological conditions, wildlife activity and habitat.
I • • . . .
Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report .
A Functional Ser\ticing and Stormwater Management Report (FSSMR), dated March 2014
prepared by Sabourin Kimble Associates Ltd. Was also filed in support of the application. The
FSSMR identifies a steep wooded bank at the northeqst corner of the site as a Natural Heritage
Feature, depicted in a separate Block (Block 17). It also indicates that the limit will be further
refined during ~ field inventory and staking exercise to be carried out with the TRCA and an
appropriate buffer limit applied. As indicated earlier; staff are of the· view that this work should
form part of the required EIS .
. The FSSMR indicates the following:
"the conceptual master plan. was prepared for the entire site to demonstrate how
the variety of uses and internal road network could be located and integrated on
the site, as depicted on Figure 3 of the Planning Rationale Report by
planningAI/iance dated January 31, 2014, however it is not intended to be used
as a site plan oi a plan of subdivision and does not represent precise locations of
proposed uses; it is for Illustration purposes only. More· detaile~ plans and
designs would be prepared at future stages of the planning process, subsequent
to the zoning by-law amendment." · · .. :
The FSSMR also ·notes that the internal road netwqrk would consist of· a mix of municipal and
private roads, and depicts a roaa network concept for the proposed. Phase 1 approvar area for
illustration purposes,. but notes that this network is likely to change .as plans develop.
In staff's view, the zot:Jing by-law amendment application needs to be accompa.nied by a· draft
plan of subdivision application and supported with information that ~ncludes the following:
i. Intersection locations with adjacent arterial roads and whether these intersections .
achieve ·compliance with Regional standards for intersection spacing and design, in
addition to the loc~tion of access driveways from these roads;
. ii. The adequacy of the proposed storm drainage system including proposed storm outflow
· facilities, locations and any associated impacts. Storm sewer disdiarge to Duffins Creek
appears to be illustrated opposite the north east corner of the subject lands, which
appears to be either on Town of Ajax lands or on adjacent private property;
294
. . r7-l r,p·l-.n~r:~~~~lT ..f.( 5 l.U, . he .j-''1\.;.dli!l-.\,_: ilk . . . . . . . . . r~~PoFn ti .. 1\J ()1-/<f' ~--SubJect: C1ty of P!Ckenng Zomng By-law Amendment Application A 3/14 · -· -·-·--'"'l"""ti g e 122
iii. The 'adequacy of municipal services for the subject lands· and lands within the sanitary
catchment area in keeping with their zoned and designated planning permissions needs
to be confirmed." Section 8.4.2.10.of the o"urham Regional Official Plan includes policies
that allow for an office park with ancillary recreational and community uses, and a limited
amount of retail and personal service uses, at the northeast corner of Church Street and
·Bayly Street, in the Town of Ajax, with a gross floor area not exceeding a total of
950,000 sq. ft.-of floor space. · ·
. '
iv. The actual manner by which the proposed uses would be distributed on the lands, and
the interrelationship with such matters as building massing and the distribution of
densities.
·Other Comments
An Information Report was prepared for the City of Pickering Planning and Development
Committee (No. 04-1.4) that was made available at the public information meeting of April 7,
2014 .and is appended to this report {See Attachment 1). The report also indicates that
consideration is being given to the use of. one or more holding zone provisions in the
implementing zoning by-Jaw, to address the differences between the Phase 1 and the Ph;:tse 2
lands, and ensure that the following matters are addressed: . '
i. · · Resolving all matters with respect to traffic and access, noise, stormwater management,
and site servicing to the satisfaction of the City and the Region; ·
ii. . Entering into any development agreements required by the City and the Region;
.. .
iii. Preparing urban design guidelines to the satisfaction of the City which may provide
details regarding such matters as: street and block pattern; land use mix and distribution;
built form and architecture; massing and heights qf buildings; pedestrian connections;
· parking strategy; landscaping and open space connections; preservation of nc;1tural
features; view corridors; and phasing of the proposed development;
iv. ·. Obtaining all required approval~ and permits from external agencies including· MTO and
the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; ·
v. Reviewing the submitted Natural Heritage 'Assessment report to determine the site's
· · develop;;lble limits, establish minimum buffer requirements from the Provincially
· · Signifi~ant Wetlands and other natural features, and recommend mitigation measures to
minimize any negative impacts on the surrounding natural features;
vi. Reviewing the submitted Urban Transportation Study to ensure the existing
transportation network can accommodate the future .tra.ffic generated by this
development, and determine if there are any road improvements that may be required to
accommodate the proposal; ·
vii.. ·· Determining the appropriate performance standards to be included in the zoning by-Jaw
amendment with respect to building height, building setbacks, parking and landscaping;
viii.
296
The City Development Department will conclude' its position on th.e applications after it
has received and ass.essed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and
the public. · ·
3. The Urban Transportation Study indicates that the Phase 1 development will consist of
250,000 m2 (2.69 million sq. ft.) of gross floor space.
The report further indicates .that Church Street is a 4 lane urban section from Mill Street
to Kingston Road, under Regional jurisdiction. This section is a 2 lane arterial road with a
centre left turn lane under the jurisdiction of the Town of Ajax.
In addition, please provide additional information about the geometries, land
requirements, process and approval requirements, required timing and proposed funding
for identified infrastructure improvements highlighted in the report including:
a. The proposed new highway 401 access ramps to Church Street;
b. The proposed connection of Squires Beach Road to Notion Road over (or under)
Highway 401.
4. The Functional Servicing Report indicates that the internal road network on the subject
lands will consist of a mix of municipal and private roads. It is unclear whether a
separate draft plan of subdivision application will·be filed and processed to inform this
review.
In terms of sanitary servicing, it is unclear whether the proposed scale of development
will still enable existing permitted uses within Ajax to develop in accordance with zoned
permissions. Additional information and clarification on these points is appreciated.
We wish to reserve the right to provide additional comments on the filed studies once a detailed
review is complete. In addition, it is our understanding that the applicant will be filing additional
reports, including a market/economic study. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the study
at your earliest convenience.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly
hu ~-.i'~ri'V \." .
Gary Mu ,er, MCIP, RPP
Manage· of Planning
Town of Ajax
(905) 619-2529 ext. 3201
garv.muller@ajax.ca
Ontario's First ISO 9001 Quality Community 313
316
6. Signalization is proposed at the intersections of Notion Road at Pickering Parkway,
Notion Road at Kellino Street, Church Street at Kellino Street and Church Street at
Proposed Access. A corresponding traffic signal warrant analysis should be provided
based on the projected volumes.
7. The proposed Church Str.eet/401 interchange and the Notion Road/Squires Beach Road
underpass may not be approved. Contingency roadway improvement options should be
identified and operational results quantified that would service future traffic conditions.
8. Section 5.4.1 acknowledges that the Region of Durham has policies in place to minimize
any dual left turns. However, dual left turns are proposed at the following locations:
a. Eastbound dual left at Kingston/Brock;
b. Southbound dual left at Notion/Kellino;
·C. Eastbound dual left at Church/Kellino;
d. Southbound dual left at Church/Bayly;
e. Southbound dual left at Westney/Bayly.
Contingency improvements should be identified assuming the Region continues to
oppose dual left turn movements.
9. Phase 2 of the proposed development will require improvements to the transportation
network that are in addition those that are outlined in the report. The extent of
development within Phase 2 needs to be studied in order that its corresponding impacts
and any related mitigating measures can be understood.
10. It is noted that the crossing of the 401 connecting Notion Road and Squires Beach Road
is assumed as an underpass. There is a TRCA Special Policy Area immediately to the
north of the Highway, from west of Notion Road to Duffins Creek in recognition of the
existing floodplain. Staff question if the proposed underpass co'uld act as a floodway
during severe storm events. In turn, the length of the approaches should be clearly
understood and their potential implications on the external road network, future
intersection designs and property requirements.
11. The UTS identifies potential funding sources for proposed improvements to the Regional
and provincial road network, including federal and provincial infrastructure programs,
potential development charges for benefiting areas and direct private sector
contributions. The UTS should clarify the following:
a. The benefiting areas for the proposed improvements and whether financial
contributions from landowners and/or developers within Ajax is required or
sought for these improvements;
b. The proposed funding source for proposed changes to local roads within Ajax;
c. A cost estimate for the proposed works;
d. The process and timeframe for securing the requisite funds.
Page 3
318
infrastructure at the north limit of the subject site. It is difficult to determine if other
options are feasible since a detailed site plan is not provided.
2. The existing pond outlet is directed to the Duffins Creek Marsh wetland complex which is
an environmentally sensitive area. Additional treatment of runoff from the proposed
development should be included to demonstrate that there is no net increase in
phosphorus or other contaminant loadings. Additional on-site controls or whether there is
a need to retrofit the existing SWM facility should be addressed.
3. A storm outlet is proposed east of Church Street which appears to cross a portion of the
Duffins Creek Trail which was funded and constructed by the Town of Ajax. The impact
of this outlet has not been addressed. In addition, it will need to be demonstrated that
there will be no erosion or other adverse effects from runoff being redirected to this area.
4. The 1 00-year storm flow has been proposed to be captured and controlled to the 5-year ·
post development runoff rate. It is not clear where the major system flows will be
directed if these controls fail or whether the proposed internal roads have the capacity to
convey the uncontrolled 1 00-year flow or the Regional Storm flow. All major system
flows should be controlled internally and not be directed to Church Street or Bayly
Street. If the TRCA allows a release rate to the Duffins greater than the 5-year, then how
will the flow be conveyed? It is not clear who will be responsible for the maintenance of
the conveyance system or any portions thereof if it is within the Town of Ajax.
5. An FSSMR which addresses the entire study area needs to be provided, based on
appropriate buffers from the natural heritage features to inform a site plan and storm
water management strategy.
Please forward any responses to this letter, our previous letter and the report of Ajax Planning
Staff to the June 2, 2014 meeting of Ajax Community Affairs and Planning Committee to my
attention.
Gary M ler, MCIP, RPP
Manager of Planning
Town of Ajax
garv.muller@ajax.ca
(905) 619-2529 ext. 3201
Copies:
(Attachment)
Paul Allore, Director of Planning and Development Services
Brian Skinner, CAO
Council
Page 5
334
Limited personal service and retail uses may be permitted in Employment
Areas as a minor component of the aggregate gross floor area of the uses
in the Employment Area subject to appropriate provisions in an area
municipal official plan or zoning by-law. A single use shall not exceed
500m2.
.. ., ·~·-~ ~--~ -~-~ • ~ ~-~-~~--~ ~ -~ -~ -~ = ~ • -~ --~--~ --
Bayly Street (Regional Road 22) is designated as a Type "A" Arterial
Road, Regional Corridor and Transit Spine in the ROP. Church Street
(Regional Road 24) is designated as a Type "B" Arterial Road. Squires
Beach Road is designated as Type "C" Arterial Road. The Regional
Corridors designation in this area is an overlay to the underlying
Employment Areas designation and is intended to facilitate employment
uses that support higher order transit services and pedestrian oriented
development. Transit spines facilitate inter-regional and inter-municipal
services along arterial roads. . .
The ROP also identifies Key Natural Heritage features (woodlots and
wetlands) and Key Hydrogeological Features (Duffin Creek tributaries) on
the subject lands. ·
The primary tourist destination uses including hotels, casino, convention
centre, performing arts centre, and outdoor amphitheater would benefit
from locating near Highway 401 and being separated from residential
areas. These uses may be permitted in Employment Areas provided the
technical requirements for the development along arterial roads and
containing natural heritage features can be realized to the satisfaction of
the Region.
Other tourism uses proposed, including restaurants, retail and other
service uses, would be ancillary to the primary uses and are permitted in a
limited capacity. The implementing zoning by-law should include floor
space limitations for the amount of ancillary uses proposed to ensure that
personal service and retail uses remain a minor component of the overall
development.
Certain uses within the proposed TD zone may be deemed sensitive land
uses. Additional technical study to determine if there are any adverse
impacts from surrounding employment uses (noise, dust and/or odour)
should be undertaken when considering the locations of a commercial
school, community centre, community garden or day care centre on the
subject lands. Also, City staff are encouraged to consider the impact that
sensitive land uses may play in limiting future employment uses in the
area.
It is unclear what is meant by 'other tourist designation uses' in the
proponent's list of proposed uses. The proposed TD Zone category
should include a definitive list of permitted uses. 'Other tourist destination
uses' is too vague and should not be included in the by-law.
While, in concept, the proposed development may be permitted by the
ROP, we are unable to confirm at this time that the proposal conforms to
"------""--~~~~~_t,.,_h,_,e,_,R-'COE_untiLwe_bay_e_:bad_an_oppmtunity_to_[eview the_ implementing~
zoning by-law amendment.
Provincial Policies
Provincial Policy Statement
The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement indicates that long term economic
prosperity and social well-being is supported, in part, by promoting
opportunities for economic development, providing opportunities for
sustainable tourism development, and m"inimizing social impacts.
Regarding employment, the PPS indicates that Planning authorities
should promote economic development and competitiveness by providing
opportunities for a diverse economic base, including employment uses
which support a wide range of economic activities and ancillary uses.
Planning authorities should also ensure infrastructure is provided to
support current and projected needs.
Regarding natural heritage, the PPS indicates that natural features are to
be protected for the long term. The diversity and connectivity of natural
features in an area, and the long-term ecological function and biodiversity
of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where
possible, improved.
The proposed zoning by-law amendment would permit a suite of
employment and ancillary uses which promote economic development
through the development of tourism uses. A mixed-use development has
been conceptualized, but will require detailed technical review to ensure
the necessary infrastructure is available to adequately service the
proposed development and surrounding employment lands. The
requested phased approach to first approve an area of land beyond the
buffer distance of natural heritage features allows time to study natural
features and make recommendations for their protection arid/or
restoration. The implementing zoning by-law should include provisions to
address infrastructure and natural heritage requirements to be consistent
with the PPS.
335
5
Growth Plan
The Growth Plan contains policies for municipalities within the Greater
Golden Horseshoe to manage growth to the year 2031. The Growth Plan
establishes a built-up area boundary and indicates that growth should be
........ ··-·-· ~~~~dire_cl.e_d_to_b_uiU::.up_a[eas._TbeJ:>Iao.em.dsages.a.diverse.ecor:~omy .... , ~-----
supported in part by hospitality and tourism.
336
Similar to the PPS, the Growth Plan indicates that municipalities should
promote economic development and competitiveness by providing for a
mix of employment uses including industrial and commercial. The Plan
encourages employment uses which support a range of economic
activities and ancillary uses.
The proposed tourist destination development generally conforms to the
Growth Plan by facilitating groWth and economic devefopment within the
built-up area. The development would provide for a mix of uses to support
economic activities ..
Regional Services
Transportation
The Regional Works Department has completed a detailed technical
review of the Urban Transportation Study submitted by the applicant.
Based on the study's findings and recommendations, we are satisfied that
up to approximately 25% of the proposed development on the site could
be accommodated with relatively minor enhancements to previously
planned Regional road network improvements. At approximately 50%
build-out of the proposed development, construction of the Notion Road-
Squires Beach Road underpass of Highway 401 would be required, and at
approximately 75% build-out, a new partial interchange on Highway 401 at
Church Street would be required. Multiple additional Regional intersection
improvements would also be required in the latter two scenarios.
The feasibility and implementation mechanisms for the transportation
infrastructure improvements that are needed to support the proposed
development are unknown at this time. Further discussion is required to
ensure that the necessary improvements can be implemented prior to
build-out of the development to the levels noted above. The implementing
zoning by-law must include provisions to limit development to levels that
can be supported by the available transportation infrastructure.
We note that the subject lands are within the evacuation zone of the OPG
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. Transportation infrastructure may
also need improvement to accommodate the potential influx of tourist
6
destination patrons to the area. The proponent is encouraged to consider
site design and road access in the case of an emergency evacuation.
Bayly Street and Church Street are identified as part of the Primary
Cycling network in the Regional Cycling Plan. Cycling facilities should be
included in subsequent site designs.
Transit
The Durham Region Long Term Transit Strategy identifies Bayly Street as
an enhanced conventional transit corridor (1 0 minute frequency) to be
protected for future rapid transit. Subsequent detailed site design should
include transit-oriented design principles.
Municipal Water Supply and Sanitary Sewage . .
Municipal water and sanitary sewage service capacity is available to
service the proposed development and surrounding employment area.
Detailed engineering drawings will be required to for review and approval
as part of any future site plan application process.
Provincially Delegated Review Responsibilities
Noise
A noise report, prepared by Aercoustics Engineering Limited, dated May
29, 2014, provides an overview of all the potential noise impacts on the
proposed land uses. The report also provides an overview of stationary
noise sources from adjacent industrial and commercial uses that may
have an impact on the proposed development.
The report provides recommended noise mitigation measures and location
criteria for proposed land uses. The report concludes that the proposed
development is feasible and suggests that further study be undertaken
when considering the location of specific uses on the site. Section 8 of the
report outlines the requirements for further study.
The proponent should be encouraged to consider the impacts of building
location and orientation as it relates to noise attenuation during the
detailed design of the site. The City should ensure that the noise report
recommendations regarding additional study and siting requirements have
been implemented in any subsequent site development applications.
337
338
7
Cultural Heritage
A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Archaeological
Services indicates that there is the potential for archaeological deposits on
the subject property. The report recommends that a Stage 2
archaeological assessment be undertaken for all lands on the subject
property that are not defined wetland areas.
The City should ensure that a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment is
undertaken and submitted to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in
accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. No land disturbing activities
should take place on the subject property prior to the Ministry reviewing
the archaeological assessment reports and indicating that there are no
archaeological concerns.
Natural Heritage
The subject site contains a key natural heritage feature and a key
hydrological feature. A Natural Heritage Assessment, prepared by
Beacon Environmental indicates that the Phase 1 portion of the subject
lands is unconstrained from the natural heritage features and suggests
that Phase 1 lands would be suitable to be rezoned. The report indicates
that an additional heritage assessment including an environmental impact
study will be required for the remainder of the subject lands to determine
the extent of natural heritage features; assess the ecological functions and
recommend buffers/mitigation.
We note that the natural heritage features are within the Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regulation limit. A copy of any
additional natural heritage reports should be circulated to the Region and
TRCA for review and approval.
Environmental Protection
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared by V.A.
Woods Associates Limited, dated October 2011, was undertaken on one
of three properties that make up the subject site. An updated Phase One
'ESA report, prepared within the past 18 months, will be required. The
updated report must include all three subject properties. Should the report
conclude that a Phase Two ESA is required, a Record of Site Condition
(RSC) may be required depending on the finding of the Phase Two.ESA.
All ESA reports submitted in support of development applications in
Durham Region must be RSC compliant.
8
Summary
The proposed zoning by-law amendment would rezone the subject site to
allow a suite of tourist destination uses. Proposed hotel, casino and
entertainment uses would be permitted in the "Employment Areas"
designation provided the necessary transportation infrastructure can be
constructed and the future natural heritage evaluation is completed to the
satisfaction of the Region. Ancillary retail and service uses would be
permitted in a limited capacity. Certain sensitive land uses may be
permitted but should undergo siting analysis to minimize adverse impacts
from adjacent employment uses.
Lastly, subsequent site design that achieves the objectives of the
Regional Official Plan Corridori policies; and the above comments
regarding transportation, transit, cycling and emergency management will
be required. Building location and orientation shoufd be developed in
accordance with the recommendations of the noise study and natural
heritage assessment. Additional noise, archaeological and environmental
assessment studies will be required.
Please provide us with a copy of the by-law before it is passed so we can
confirm that Regional interests have properly been considered.
Please contact Dwayne Campbell, Project Planner in this Department
should you have any questions or require additional information regarding
this matter.
Yours truly,
Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP
Director of Current Planning
Copy: P. Castellan -Regional Works Department
D. Robertson-Regional Works Department
339
ATIACHMENT t, f TO
REPORT# J?LrJ;) }-/'(-
Mr. Ross Pym -2-July23, 2014
appropriate Open Space or Environmental classification with uses limited to long-term
conservation purposes.
Natural Heritage Assessment/Environmelital Report
2. · The proposed Phase I development area is within 120 metres of the Duffins Creek
significant valley to the east. The top of bank associated with the valley on the site has
been staked in the field with TRCA staff. A slope stability analysis has been undertaken
by a qualified professional and has been found to be satisfactory by TRCA staff. It is
proposed that an updated stand-alone Natural Heritage Assessment report will be
prepared as part of the application covering all"approval areas" following completion of
additional work in the Phase 2 area. We request that the updated Natural
Heritage/Environmental report be submitted before any development takes place on
any portion of the subject lands.
Feature-based Water Balance
3. Much of the area proposed to be developed in Phase 1 flows towards the natural areas
to the west. While the Stormwater Management Report indicates that a feature-based
water balance should be completed at Phase 2, the predevelopment drainage areas
indicate that this analysis will need to be understood during Phase 1. We request that
prior to development taking place within the Phase I area, a feature-based water
balance for the site be submitted by the applicant.
Hydrology and Stormwater Management
4. There are several areas within Phase I that require evaluation using the headwater
drainage feature guidelines. These include at least two features north of Kellino Street
and the southeast corner of the site at Bayly and Church Street.
5. Stormwater management for the site must be as per the Duffins Hydrology Study
(201 3) and the TRCA Stormwater Management Criteria (2012). In areas draining directly
to the Main Duffins Creek, no water quantity control is required (as per the Duffins
Hydrology Study), However, an assessment of the potentiai impaCts of the point
discharge on stream erosion will need to be investigated prior to development taking
place on the Phase 1 area.
6. There is no specific criteria currently in place for areas draining through the
employment lands south of the area, based on the Dutfins Hydrology Study. However,
given the presence of downstream landowners, quantity control is likely required, and
will need to be investigated further, in consultation with the City of Pickering prior to
development taking place on the Phase I area.
7. As per the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management report, erosion control will
be required, in the form of the retention of the first 25mm for a minimum .of 48 hours.
341
ATTACHMENT#_ /0 _TO
REPOHT # PLAJ f)-i-/f'
5. A Tree Preservation Plan that ensures protection ofthe Natural Heritage System, will be
required. Any canopy loss may be subject to compensation either in the form of off-site tree
planting or through financial compensation.
6. The owner shall, as a condition of the Site Plan Agreement:
a) to agree to, and implement, the requirements of the TRCA's conditions;
b) to design and implement on-site erosion and sediment control;
c) to maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control
measures in good repair during the construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the
City and TRCA;
d) to obtain all necessary permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended,
from the TRCA;
e) to convey Open Space Block(s) associated with the Natural Heritage System to TRCA
for a nominal sum; ·
7. The Owner shall, as a part of the Site Plan submission:
a) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting stormwater drainage and
management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions
regarding easements; ·
b) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works for contributions for stormwat~:n
management maintenance fees;
c) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works for the design and implementation of
stormwater management facilities and easements for outfalls and access to the outfalls;
d) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting ·submission and approval
of a grading and drainage plan; ·
e) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting the submission and
approval of a geotechnical soils analysis;
f) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting the authorization from
abutting land owners for all offsite grading;
g) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting the construction of roads
with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs;
h) satisfy the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the
City;
August 12, 2014 Page 2 of 6
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A3/14
Durham Live-Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. and
Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. 345