Loading...
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