Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
May 11, 2015
• City 00 Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, May 11, 2015 PICKERING Council Chambers • 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson Part "A" Pages Information Reports Subject: Information Report No. 03-15 1-16 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2015-02 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2015-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/15 1144317 Ontario Limited Plan 1051, RCP Lot 126, 40R-23692 Part 1 (1741 Fairport Road) Part"B" Planning & Development Reports 1. Director, City Development, Report PLN 02-15 17-103 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans City of Pickering Comments on the First Round of Consultation Recommendation 1. That Report PLN 02-15 of the Director, City Development, regarding comments on the first round of the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans be received; 2. That the comments in Report PLN 02-15 on the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans be endorsed, and that the Province be requested to: a) incorporate the recommendations provided through the Durham Region Greenbelt Plan Review study, in particular: • that the provincial plans allow for stand-alone agricultural supportive uses in prime agricultural areas (such as grain elevators or food processing operations); Accessible • For information related to accessibility requirements please contact PICKEItNG Linda Roberts Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: Iroberts @pickering.ca Cali a� *Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, May 11, 2015 i.F PICKERING. Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson • that the provincial plans provide opportunities for rural economic diversification in terms of cultural, educational, recreational and eco-tourism uses and value added agricultural uses which complement farming and the health of rural settlements; and • that the Province establish new, more effective separation distance policies to provide an appropriate buffer between new residential development and farmland to protect the viability of farm operations and avoid land use conflicts; b) provide direction for the planning of infrastructure beyond the 20- year land use planning horizon, by extending the population and employment forecasts to at least 2051, and adjusting the Places to Grow Concept and Forecasts accordingly, to allow for the timely and transparent planning of long term urban infrastructure; c) provide stronger policy direction on implementing affordable housing, in terms of type and tenure; d) provide the opportunity to redefine the Greenbelt and/or Oak Ridges Moraine boundaries to allow for minor expansions of hamlets, subject to the completion of a municipally led hamlet boundary review; e) identify provincially strategic employment lands within the Growth Plan, such as the Seaton Employment Lands, and actively facilitate the marketing, servicing and development of those lands in concert with other development contemplated by the Growth Plan; and f) allow for minor expansions for existing businesses in the rural area; 3. That the Province consider the implementation strategies, plan coordination measures, and financial tools and incentives as summarized in Appendix I; 4. That comments received at the Town Hall Meeting held by the City of Pickering on April 13, 2015 regarding the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans, as set out in Appendix I I be forwarded to the Province; • • and 5. Further, that a copy of Report PLN 02-15 and Pickering Council's resolution on the matter, be forwarded to the Region of Durham, other Durham Area Municipalities, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Food. o� Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, May 11, 2015 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson 2. Director, City Development & Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor, Report PLN 03-15 104-137 Bill 73— Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Proposed Changes to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act Recommendation 1. That Report PLN 03-15 of the Director, City Development and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor regarding Bill 73 - Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act be received; 2. That the comments with respect to changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997, contained in Report PLN 03-15 on Bill 73— Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act be endorsed, and that the Province be requested to: a. produce a Regulation pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997 which identifies all eligible services as, "prescribed services" so that all development charges can be calculated based upon the City's planned level of service over the ten-year period immediately following the preparation of its development charge background studies; and b. delete or substantially amend section 59.1 of Bill 73—Proposed Smart Growth for our Communities Act so as to enable the City to continue to negotiate agreements with developers for financial contributions over and above the development charges recoverable under the Development Charges Act, 1997; 3. That the comments with respect to changes to the Planning Act contained in Report PLN 03-15 on Bill 73— Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act be endorsed, and that the Province be requested to: a. extend the timeframe between official plan reviews to 10 years, regardless of whether a municipality is introducing a new official plan, or undertaking a comprehensive review through an amendment process; b. maintain the current approval process for official plan amendment applications, during the two-year period following the adoption of a new official plan; Cat/ co _= Planning & Development . Committee Agenda al MI' ,:.. — Monday, May 11, 2015 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson c. maintain the current approval process for zoning by-law amendment applications, during the two-year period following the adoption of a new comprehensive zoning by-law; d. maintain the current approval process for minor variance applications and not require applications for minor variances to be permitted only with council approval, during the two-year period following an owner-initiated site-specific rezoning; e. maintain the current criteria for Committee of Adjustment decisions; f. maintain the current alternative parkland dedication provisions for cash-in-lieu to be calculated at the value of one hectare of land for each 300 dwelling units proposed; g. not include provisions that would allow the Minister or upper tier municipality to force the adoption of a development permit system by a local municipality; and h. include provisions that would enable the closing of dormant planning applications; 4. That the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to include a City of Pickering representative on the Planning Working Group; and 5. Further, that a copy of Report PLN 03-15 and Pickering Council's resolution on the matter be forwarded to the Region of Durham, other Durham Area Municipalities, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. 3. Director, City Development, Report PLN 04-15 138-268 Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures Located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale Recommendation 1. That Report PLN 04-15 of the Director, City Development, regarding the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for the demolition of buildings located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale be received; 2. That Council, in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment object to the demolition of buildings located at Ca o� Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, May 11, 2015 PICKERIN Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road, 3440 Brock Road, and 2865 Sideline 16 which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act; 3. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to designate 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road under Part IV, of the Ontario Heritage Act and that Staff be authorized to prepare the appropriate materials and report back to Council at a future date; 4. That Council not object to the demolition of buildings located at 3185 Brock Road, 3540 Country Lane, 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7; 5. That Council request an extension of another 120 days to the commenting deadline to allow the City to expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessments for the buildings located at 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession, and to complete the Full Assessments already underway for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road; 6. That Council express its strong dismay at the Province for its disregard of significant heritage resources in Seaton through the lack of maintenance and occupancy of such resources, in contravention of the Provincial Policy Statement, and request the Province to restore and reuse these structures; 7. That, if the Province continues with proposed demolition of significant heritage resources, Council request the buildings be recorded in the form of photographs and/or measured drawings, the documentation of the buildings be provided to the City, and exterior or interior heritage features be made available for salvage to interested parties prior to any demolition; and 8. Further, that a.copy of this Report and Council's Resolution be forwarded to: the Premier of Ontario; Infrastructure Ontario; the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure; the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and the Whitevale and District Residents' Association. (II) Other Business (III) Adiournment ON 00 __ Information Report to Planning & Development Committee rzzn PI KERIN Report Number: 03-15 Date: May 11, 2015 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2015-02 Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP-2015-01 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/15 1144317 Ontario Limited Plan 1051, RCP Lot 126, 40R-23692 Part 1 (1741 Fairport Road) 1. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding applications for a Draft Plan of Subdivision, a Draft Plan of Condominium_and a Zoning By-law Amendment, submitted by 1144317 Ontario Limited, to permit the development of a common element condominium consisting of 9 lots for detached dwellings accessed from a private road. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested . stakeholders to understand the proposal. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the applications, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decisions on these applications are being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2. Property Location and Description • the subject lands are located on the east side of Fairport Road, immediately north of the Canadian National (CN) Railway corridor, in the Dunbarton Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment#1) • the subject lands are approximately 0.5 of a hectare with approximately 40.5 metres of frontage along Fairport Road and approximately 4.3 metres of frontage along Dunbarton Road • the subject lands are currently vacant and are heavily treed along the southerly portion of the property • surrounding land uses to the north, east and west include low density residential development consisting of two-storey detached dwellings; to the south, the subject lands are bounded by the CN Railway tracks and further south are two automobile dealerships 1 Information Report No. 03-15 Page 2 3. Previous Applications • in June 2005, Council enacted a site specific Zoning By-law to permit 9 lots for single detached dwellings, with a minimum lot frontage of 12.0 metres, fronting on a one-way private common element road • due to a change in ownership, the residential development was never pursed and in June 2007, Council enacted another site specific Zoning By-law to rezone the subject lands to a commercial zone category permitting uses such as business offices, financial institutions, personal service shops, professional offices and restaurants; subsequently a Site Plan Application was received in May 2008 to permit the development of a.1,500 square metre commercial plaza • the subject lands were recently acquired by the current owners, who have formally withdrawn the submitted Site Plan Application in order to purse a development similar to the previous residential proposal 4. Applicant's Proposal • the applicant's proposal is to develop a common element condominium consisting of 9 lots for detached dwellings, fronting onto an internal private road, with a minimum lot frontage of 12.0 metres (see Submitted Concept Plan and Submitted Elevation Plans, Attachments #2, #3, #4 & #5) • vehicular access will be provided through a 6.0 metre wide private road with a two-way access at Fairport Road and a one-way outbound access at Dunbarton Road • a 3.4 metre high berm is proposed along the southern portion of the subject lands for noise attenuation and as a crash wall barrier from the existing CN Railway tracks • a 1.5 metre wide internal private pedestrian walkway is proposed along the south side of the private road • the applicant has submitted a draft plan of subdivision application to create a single development block; this is a technical requirement to allow the applicant to create the privately-owned parcels and the parcels for the common elements of the development through a process called "lifting part lot control" (see Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment#6) • the applicant has also submitted a draft plan of condominium application to create tenure of the parcels in the development; common element features include, but are not limited to: the private road, berm, community mailboxes and meter room (see Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium, Attachment #7) • 5. Policy Framework 5.1 Pickering Official Plan • the subject lands are within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood and are designated "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas", which provides for housing and related uses 2 Information Report No. 03-15 Page 3 • this designation permits a maximum net residential density of 30 units per hectare; the proposed development provides a net residential density of 18.2 units per hectare • the Official Plan states that in establishing performance standards, regarding shall be had to protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhood by considering matters such as building height, yard setback, lot coverage, access to sunlight, and parking provisions • the proposal generally complies with the policies of the Official Plan; details of the applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan during the further processing of the applications 5.2 Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development and Design Guidelines • the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development and Design Guidelines establish a general design framework to ensure development occurs in a manner consistent with the existing character of the neighbourhood • the Guidelines permit detached dwellings and require a minimum lot frontage of 12.0 metres on new internal roads with the following development standards: • maintain building setbacks consistent with recent subdivision standards (front yard minimums of 4.5 metres; side yard minimums of 0.6/1.2 metres) • a maximum building height of 9.0 metres • minimize garage projections from the front wall of dwellings to ensure high quality streetscapes • the Guidelines also encourage the preservation and planting of trees, and to provide sidewalks on at least one side of the street • the applicant's proposal will be reviewed in detail to ensure compliance with the urban design requirements for the Dunbarton Neighbourhood 5.3 Zoning By-law 3036 • the subject lands are currently zoned "C-20" General Commercial, which , permits bakery, business office, commercial school, day nursery, dry cleaning depot, financial institution, fitness club, laundromat, personal service shop, professional office, restaurant—type A, retail store and veterinary clinic • the applicant proposes to rezone the subject lands back to a residential zone category to facilitate the proposal • proposed zone standards include minimum lot area of 280 square metres; minimum lot frontage of 12.0 metres; minimum front yard depth of 4.2 metres; minimum side yard width of 0.6/1.2 metres; minimum rear yard width of 7.0 metres; and maximum building height of 9.8 metres 6. Comments Received 6.1 Open House Meeting An Open House meeting was held on March 30, 2015 to allow the area residents to learn more about the proposal as well as review and comment on the plans 3 Page Information Report No. 03-15 Pa 9 that the applicant has submitted. Three area residents attended the meeting. The following is a summary of the key concerns identified with the area residents: 911 Dunbarton • the resident's lot abuts the rear yards of the three most Road easterly lots within the proposed development • amenity space is partially located within the side yard which immediately abuts the rear yards of the proposed single detached lots • the proposed rear yard setback of 7.0 is insufficient and would not provide adequate privacy given the number of windows along the rear wall of the proposed dwellings • request the removal of one or two lots, and a wood privacy fence along the mutual property line in order to mitigate any negative impacts 1748 Fairport Road • concerned that the proposal will add to the increased traffic along Fairport Road • the proposed dwelling flanking Fairport Road should be designed with the principal entrance facing Fairport Road, as opposed to the private internal road., in order to improve the streetscape along Fairport Road • request the City to consider a full three-way stop sign be implemented at the intersection of Dunbarton Road and Fairport Road . 6.2 Written Comments from the Public Owners of • no objection to the development proposal as shown on 920 & 940 Kingston the applicant's plan Road (Formula Ford • concerned that the future residents of this and Durham development may complain about any noise or Chrysler) . disturbances from the existing car dealership operations located at 920 and 940 Kingston Road, given,their close proximity • the proposed dwellings on the eastern portion of this development will be more directly exposed to any noises emanating from the car dealerships • suggest that a warning clause, similar to noise warning clauses required by the Ministry of the Environment, be incorporated into the City's agreements (site plan and/or condominium agreements) which identifies the existing car dealerships as a possible noise source 4 Information Report No. 03-15 Page 5 6.3 Agency Comments Region of Durham • the Regional Official Plan (ROP) designates the subject lands as "Living Areas", which shall be used predominately for housing purposes • the proposed development supports infill development within the urban area, consistent with the policies and direction of the ROP • staff have reviewed the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Envirovision Inc. and identified that there are no on-site or off-site sources of soil or groundwater contamination associated with • the property; however, the applicant is required to revise the submitted Phase 1 ESA report to bring it into conformity with Ministry of Environment standards; should the conclusion of the revised report change, a Phase Two ESA and a Record of Site Condition may be required • the Region recommends that as part of the building permit process, the City of Pickering obtain a letter from a qualified acoustical consultant confirming that all noise mitigation measures have been appropriately incorporated into the affected dwelling units • the subject lands are within an area of • archaeological potential; as such, a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment is required • sanitary sewer and municipal water supply is available to service the proposed lots • the Region has advised that the proposal complies with the policies of the Regional Official Plan and has provided its conditions of draft approval CN Railway • no objection to the development proposal • requests the following provisions be included as conditions of approval: -• confirmation that the noise/crash berm will be continuous and sufficiently high and rigid to prevent trespassing onto the rail right-of-way, in lieu of a fence • registration on title of CN Railway's environmental easement • registration on title of a CN Railway development agreement to ensure, among other things, that all mitigation measures will be maintained by the condominium corporation 5 Information Report No. 03-15 Page 6 Durham District School • no objection to the development proposal Board • approximately 5 elementary students could be generated by the proposed development are intended to be accommodated within existing school facilities Durham Catholic • no objection to the development proposal District School Board • students generated by the proposed development are intended to be accommodated within St Elizabeth Seton Catholic Elementary School and/or St. Mary Catholic Secondary School 6.4 City Departments Comments Engineering & Public • no objection to the proposal; Works • matters with respect to grading and drainage, tree preservation and protection, fencing details and requirements, stormwater management details and construction management requirements will be further reviewed through the Site Plan Approval • process • the applicant is required to enter into a subdivision agreement with the City of Pickering concerning the provision of works external to the site such as road widening, easements, installation of a storm sewer, sidewalk extensions along Fairport Road, as well as securities and insurance • on-site works prior to Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval will not be permitted, unless the City has issued a permit under the Fill and Topsoil Disturbance By-law • the applicant is required to obtain required approvals from CN Railway regarding the detailed design of the berm • the minimum width of private roads is 6.5 metres • the proposed one way access onto Dunbarton Road is not supportable as it does not function as a proper bi-directional driveway; recommend that a permanent turning circle be provided with a minimum turning radius of 12.0 metres to accommodate fire trucks and waste collections vehicles • all drainage is required to be accommodated on-site; based on preliminary review of the submitted plans, it appears that there is the potential for drainage from the berm to discharge onto the property to the east • (921 Dunbarton Road) 6 • Information Report No. 03-15 Page 7 • Fire Services • the proposed 3.2 metre wide pavement width for the outbound access onto Dunbarton Road is of insufficient width for fire service vehicles to utilize • the access onto Dunbarton Road be removed and the private internal road be designed as a cul-de-sac with a centre line radius of 12.0 metres 7. Planning & Design Section Comments The following'matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • ensuring that the proposal conforms with the policies of the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines • ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding lands with respect to building setbacks, building height and massing, garage projection, and architectural design • ensuring that adequate visitor parking is provided to support this development in order to minimize any potential impact on Dunbarton Road • ensuring that the proposed internal private road is of sufficient width to accommodate two-way traffic, visitor parking and turning movements for fire trucks and waste collection vehicles • reviewing comments received by area residents to ensure that their concerns have been appropriately addressed • ensuring a tree compensation plan and/or a financial contribution is provided to address the loss of existing mature trees and other significant vegetation • further issues may be identified following receipt and.review of comments from the circulated department, agencies and public • the City Development Department will conclude its position on these applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public 8. 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 Justification Report (which includes an Urban Design Brief and Sustainable Development Report), prepared by PMG Planning Consultants, and dated January 20, 2015 • Draft Zoning By-law Amendment, prepared by PMG Planning Consultants, and undated • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by GHD, and dated December 19, 2014 • Phase I. Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Envirovision Inc., and dated October 2014 • Environmental Noise Feasibility Study, prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd., and dated December 2, 2014 7 Information Report No. 03-15 Page 8 • Railway Vibration Analysis, prepared by Valcoustics Canada Ltd., and dated December 2, 2014 • Tree Inventory Report, prepared by The Tree Specialists, and dated October 27, 2014 • Surveyor's Real Property Boundary Survey, prepared by Tom A. Senkus, OLS., and dated January 21, 2015 • Topographic Survey prepared by Tom A. Senkus, OLS., and dated August 30, 2000 • Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by Tom A. Senkus, OLS., and undated • Draft Plan of Condominium, prepared by Tom A. Senkus, OLS., and undated • Draft Future Reference Plan, prepared by Tom A. Senkus, OLS., and undated • Site Plan, prepared by PMG Planning Consultants, and dated December 22, 2015 • Floor Plans, prepared by PMG Planning Consultants, and dated November 28, 2014 • Building Elevations, prepared by PMG Planning Consultants, and dated November 28, 2014 9. Procedural Information 9.1 General • 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 any 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 10. Owner/Applicant Information • the owner of the property is Sabastiano Mizzi of 1144317 Ontario Limited and is represented by Peter Swinton of PMG Planning Consultants 8 Information Report No. 03-15 Page 9 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Submitted Concept Plan 3. Submitted Elevation Plan — Model "A" Units 2, 4, 6, 8 4. Submitted Elevation Plan — Model "B" Units 3, 5, 7 5. Submitted Elevation Plan — Model "C" Units 1, 9 (Reversed) 6. Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 7. Submitted Draft Plan of Condominium Prepared By.: Approved/Endorsed B : Amy Emm, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Plann-r II Chief Planner Nil- h Surti, iCIP RPP ' Manager, Development Review & Urban Design AE:dp Date of Report:April 23, 2015 Copy: Director, City Development • • 9 Attachment# i to Information Renort# Q '5 1 c ` I �,J - T>- W _X z D Q � W I .F 1 I 2� [ rr . �� Q GOLDENRIDGE. 1,, BEN CRESCENT illikLINE P, ( _�", WELRUS STREET O"° t • �'' w m i,di I __ W J ',, _ _ - •iiiii •• M RUSHTON ROAD ' ,s'mi■-■101p Aim, F 1.11 4/11,0�r ■• rte- Q- c5 o i ;11034 m'Ill. ���� o*1 - •••�•••-•-•-• DUNBARTON s? ., 111111111 ion ror170,R ;\C) ---....,"fr lei* SHEPPARD AVENUE ' ST. PAUL'S 1 ON THE / AN ANGL/C �__./ CHURCH KINGSTON ROAD BAYFAIR BAPTIST CHURCH liiiiiEE� SHOR- COMMU r n C ��1 / ra witllhgojl 11- N\GN�N P 01/4„Ammimipleinigi • 1PS, vi '71.010//11111111111110A Location Map FILE No:SP-2015-02, CP-2015-01 &A 03/15 u� 1�-= _ _ APPLICANT: 1144317 Ontario Limited M M ,a r.4 I�i PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Plan 1051, RCP Lot 126,40R-23692,Part 1 City Development (1741 Fairport Road) DATE: Apr.21,2015 Department Data saga..: Teranet Enterprises Inc. d tte supplier.. All rights Reserved. Not a plan of survey. SCALE 1:5,000 PN-7 2073 MPAC and Its supplier.. All riights Rsservsd. Not a plan of Survey. 10 Attachment# a to Information Reoort#, Q '3 - , m f*"...z. N. N L. Q Q / W I-CU [ / g s CL //'iS ... RA'ard::1—Mr . I X18 . I / S '1 Fat, 'S€ r e I§ i I r --i • L 1 N co ni 1 / IW �1j\ L JJ > Q O / �� r--r---I / I I < N x CO /............__. L � 0 w y co / \I\ r_ , J 5 a / I I k Z r �(1 O Ct j �� 'ws zs o 0 1 O / ^ L I I E ZO r 2 I y < ; H Q 0 I- F tli e r--r---I 0 a g z o6 _ 0 e I° ___ 0 r ' E r Z - ---_____-_______ L W Q _ 1 J CO w 5 I 1 r--r--- Q N Z J w L---J > z a RS d m $ Q II a a L y 0 N r w I I w . I C r r (/) a I L I r =E n I R O. art— n O N Q — U ii t w \\ ,� ^ aaI I I R �d.r Q aui I a. /' RYA i L---li u = 0 V W W O Ed iri quo ZZ L o- l••..�.. «0F d0'a ,j `r jlilk c ab0ed 1:J0dedlbA .-C42 ic�i � Q d °o ' i o PI.L iL 11 Attachment# 3 to Information Retort# 0 3 - 15 to 0 N N a Q Iii Q 0 N� 0 0 I I I I 'r I I ■ 1 I _ f/ NN 1 �iiii iiii �_�1 C�, 1 ,■■ iiii i L 1,' N. z ®_ i CEO _ I= Q c0 l `::: Q I I - > CL EMU 1 I J :: ' W 0) 0 4 W - 1 i i i i— 2 M F- I® i U _ Q iiii [ O cc Z ii j ■uo j iiii I Di j Z '® Gl Q O —� �" h c�i ?_ W.• a LL° I , i i Q 06 0 o j n'I�I' gp, l 3 z i ! �� I i � � � � o -f I! i O .. LL I ! ' I�, Z ' N Z m i ` vZ I j Q a C �_ 0 i i > i= I I W p I J I j w O - V gw j j I W I I oC > O N yH I E O d N W t=-a LL W � O E W 0.. H o0 W I I I I- Z wz j j I H I I Z d Q �g i Z I I I ,�' V W H-� � J a �I N LL Q Ia • ! i � I' ii j I �'', 1.-JI ,.,0,� i9 ilk:TAAN , .r � a w(Jodi YLi ;� O a 11. >o 12 • Attachment# 4 to tnfoirn2tinr:PenOrt* Q 3 - 1 in . N 1 N Q Q ■ li Q o . as I 0 CL_;" I 1 •(0 MFE —I I I � t I 1 I i1® _ I EL_ - 1 I ❑m� I Q I 1 I 1_.'_ I Q I I� - I Q ' W ( ii ' J (- \ .! l6 W I w O I -I 1MIoMr� I I I O ' = 1 2 M I I �J 11�L., Q O – 1 -- I I I ELI' I , � � • raw [a■ • Z E E.�J L+ co- 1 Q i i W ti N 0 j — d I i i I Id'1 W I I M -1 0 F. CO LO U o .= M 9 I M O w I u'ICI' m ° CD O a cu O r' , I .� C7 I. f 1- ' 0 go of o Dll L , N • W 0 2a. c0 g 1 4 i i Z j I i U Q F- I .Q > a N a w p. w w 4 U W O N a� W Q d N 0 Fa aC W d H o0 ' F- Z co Z d Q cc oL i v 2 C) w °o I li ? J n. a> 'i ' ��, N W a a LLo 1 all Ilc74 y °a E a) I � � • file z.,0 0 0 li U 13 Attachment# to 1:rtforrrmatinn Penort# 0 3 I`� L. E; N N . Q Q W Q d cz �NO Ids O ifIA 1 ia .Q I 4 °U '11:1-.1 1::: E-I I u_ ,i_ > O ._ ......... 1 , i , _ p. _t ( en j d 4 ' Lj 4 i) L J W N 67 i i ♦ i 09 Cil L U. I 1:11 iii Z I I W li I 1 I z CC o cc I I I � I I O Y r J o D a_ o U i 1 r c= ,— 0 I i F. , I 7) O E C w ■■ ! i r- O o ■■ I td Z -m I I Z i D r I 0 Q O F- :iI ; I w i W 3W I .2 I I cc N�j i p I.1 I I I E Oo • I W ' I I— 15 CO Z wz W Z d Q cc o� u I r ( I I ... p o V W c,p • ::� L i i I w £ Z _j Cl- W :: W ' i i 0 W a 0 6o ■■� i I i rA J . ' Iii___ N Q d LL j J •ii i u......Il +r .a '�I C I}�43,A1 E +-, i' a. a) al :" o E li a i Vii o U •.'a 14 Attachment# ' to tnforni tine Pecort# o" - t,,5-_ 0. O- N f*".**Z N Q Q 4 w pp55 0. / i li 6 LF a3 I 6 7! as O Q IL- / I . -,.:7_ . O N ca CD J CC Z � r N Y r p L\/ Q O I\ �i O O _ C) i •' °t Z N w C 0 Z T C_ �> O J c W I .r i ■ '5 iii 0 0„ C i lhi c. s "- gyp z C U f' `> n U c a- cC N j cc a R a ° � V ZZ $ `,--� to a 2 i i N T W =� a J � W ' ' ;1 caJd0 yo l 0 tioti o cnaaa LL� \\ I —— a .d ..>IDOl8 .t -w, 'liil[tr� w +, E c .11h-� a ad0e] 1e=10deHbA • ��� � Q :a o ji. ' 15 Attachment# 7 to form.ti Rennrt# a ', - 1 • U, O N • N LI . Cl_ Q / W H CO e O CK• V 6 co b tp `ia I*" rC� 1 V / Q. h.. a r Q co j /r a N cD c', N a' / `\.1 _ _ Q \ Q 0 // z < a< < 3 CO m a a a ¢ N y- 0 MQ n --1 o 0/ I1 F a z Lo a ti Q z 0 o LU O ' 5 O 6 I Q R O Q ID F Q o E z otf O Ll ce —-- -—- L.L W O1 J (y w 5 • W _ ._ a L O Q �- N Z W > E a O g Cr _ _• _�°° � � v N r w az I ) r r 2 = O N— W WIC° I s 18vd1 g 0 N p F a o t__..—,-- ��s w 41avd, x^ — = 0 V - 0. 6 Z p I R .a. = w a O W iz l e k, /� mx a a 7 J a /c S'o {y J WI- b- o N LL a a LLo W0 ZZ __- ®��-� lsOL d'O'a ------ ,l Io�J i:A E ab0� l�JOd�JI'dA j o 0 14 a 16 e Report to Planning & Development Committee ICKERING Report Number: PLN 02-15 Date: May 11, 2015 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans City of Pickering Comments on the First Round of Consultation File: D-1000-019 Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 02-15 of the Director, City Development, regarding comments on the first round of the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans be received; 2. That the comments in Report PLN 02-15 on the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans be endorsed, and that the Province be requested to: a) incorporate the recommendations provided through the Durham Region Greenbelt Plan Review study, in particular: • that the provincial plans allow for stand-alone agricultural supportive uses in prime agricultural areas (such as grain elevators or food processing operations); • that the provincial plans provide opportunities for rural economic diversification in terms of cultural, educational, recreational and eco-tourism uses and value added agricultural uses which complement farming and the health of rural settlements; and • that the Province establish new, more effective separation distance policies to provide an appropriate buffer between new residential development and farmland to protect the viability of farm operations and avoid land use conflicts; b) provide direction for the planning of infrastructure beyond the 20-year land use planning horizon, by extending the population and employment forecasts to at least 2051, and adjusting the Places to Grow Concept and Forecasts accordingly, to allow for the timely and transparent planning of long term urban infrastructure; c) provide stronger policy direction on implementing affordable housing, in terms of type and tenure; d) provide the opportunity to redefine the Greenbelt and/or Oak Ridges Moraine boundaries to allow for minor expansions of hamlets, subject to the completion of a municipally led hamlet boundary review; 17 Report.PLN 02-15 Revised May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 2 e) identify provincially strategic employment lands within the Growth Plan, such as the Seaton Employment Lands, and actively facilitate the marketing, servicing and development of those lands in concert with other development contemplated by the Growth Plan; and f) allow for minor expansions for existing businesses in the rural area; .3. . That the Province consider the implementation strategies, plan coordination measures, and financial tools and incentives as summarized in Appendix I; 4. That comments received at the Town Hall Meeting held by the City.of Pickering • on April 13, 2015 regarding the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use • Plans, as set out in Appendix II be forwarded to the Province; and. 5. Further, that a copy of Report PLN 02-15 and Pickering Council's resolution on the matter, be forwarded to the Region of Durham, other Durham Area Municipalities, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry. . • Executive Summary: On February 27, 2015,'the Province began the first round of consultation on the Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; the Greenbelt Plan; the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; and the Niagara Escarpment Plan. To help guide the first round of consultations, the Province released a discussion paper entitled "Our Region, Our Community, Our Home". The purpose of this report is to provide formal comments to the Province on the coordinated review prior to the May 28, 2015 date. • • • Financial Implications: The recommendations of this report do not present any financial implications. 1. Background On February 27, 2015, the ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF), announced a Coordinated Review . of Ontario's Land Use Plans: the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe; Greenbelt Plan; Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan; and Niagara Escarpment Plan. These plans govern land use planning in Ontario, and provide the long-term planning framework and direction on how to manage growth, protect agricultural lands, preserve the natural environment and support economic development within Ontario's Greater Golden Horseshoe. The coordinated review includes two rounds of public consultation. During the first round, the.Province is seeking input on all matters associated with the four plans, to inform the Province's understanding of how the plans can better meet their individual and collective objectives. The 90 day public review and 18 • Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 • Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 3 commenting period ends in late May. All comments received prior to May 28 will be considered as part of the decision-making process by the Province. Details on the second round of consultation are not yet released, but it is anticipated that the focus will be on the specific amendments to the four Plans. To participate in the first round of the Provincial review, comments can be made by: • emailing the Province at landuseplanningreview(c�ontario.ca; • writing to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing at: Land Use Planning Review Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing Ontario Growth Secretariat 777 Bay Street Suite 425 (4th Floor) Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 • submitting comments through the Environmental Registry- EBR posting 012-3256 • participating at the Provincially-organized Regional Town Hall meetings Regional Town Hall meetings are being held across the Greater Golden Horseshoe, from late March to early May 2015. Regional Town Hall meetings were held in the Town of Ajax, on April 20th, and in Newcastle on May 4th. Since a Town Hall Meeting was not scheduled in Pickering, City staff coordinated a meeting on April 13th at Pickering City Hall. 2. Discussion Paper - Our Region, Our Community, Our Home To help guide the first round of consultations, the Province released a discussion paper entitled "Our Region, Our Community, Our Home". A copy of the discussion paper can be found at http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10759. This discussion paper provides background information on Ontario's planning framework including the four provincial plans, and asks a set of questions to focus the discussion on the following six goals: • Protecting agricultural land, water, and natural areas • Keeping people and goods moving and building cost-effective infrastructure • Fostering healthy, livable, and inclusive communities • Building communities that attract workers and create jobs • Addressing climate change and building resilient communities, and • Improving implementation and better aligning the plans 19 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 4 3. Expert Advisory Panel To support the coordinated review, the Province has appointed a panel of six advisors to develop recommendations on how to amend and improve the four provincial land use plans. The advisory panel members are: • David Crombie, former Federal Cabinet Minister and Mayor of Toronto (Chair) • Keith Currie, Vice President, Ontario Federation of Agriculture • Rae Horst, former Chief Administrative Officer, Credit Valley Conservation Authority • John MacKenzie, Commissioner of Planning, City of Vaughan • Leith Moore, Senior Vice President, Urban Fieldgate Homes, and • Debbie Zimmerman, Chief Executive Officer, Grape Growers of Ontario The advisory panel is expected to deliver a report to MMAH and MNRF by September 1, 2015. The Province has indicated that it anticipates the coordinated review will be finalized in the fall of 2015, with final recommendations on amendments to the Plans ready by early 2016. The Province's process and timeline are also intended to inform the review of The Big Move (Metrolinx's regional transportation plan). 4. The Provincial Land Use Plans The responsibility for long-term planning in Ontario is shared between the Province and municipalities. The Province sets ground rules and directions for planning through the Planning Act and the Provincial Policy Statement. Additional plans, such as the four under review, are created as needed to provide more detailed and geographically specific policies. The following discussion provides an overview of the four plans, and an outline of how the City has taken steps to conform to these plans. In recognition of the complex and interconnected nature of these four plans, the Province is seeking public input through a coordinated review of all four provincial land use plans. 4.1 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 and the accompanying Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) came into effect in November 2001. The ORMCP is an ecologically based plan that provides land use and resource management direction for the Oak Ridges Moraine. The vision for the Moraine is that of"a continuous band of green rolling hills that provides form and structure to south-central Ontario, while protecting the ecological and hydrological features and functions that support the health and well-being of the region's residents and ecosystems." The City amended its Official Plan to conform to the ORMCP, through Amendment 15, which was approved by the Province on August 30, 2007. 20 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 5 4.2 Greenbelt Plan The Greenbelt Act, 2005 and the accompanying Greenbelt Plan came into effect in December 2004. The Greenbelt Plan identifies where urbanization should not occur in order to provide permanent protection to the agricultural base and the ecological features and functions occurring on this landscape. The Act requires a review of the Greenbelt Plan to be carried out 10 years after the approval of the Plan (February 2005), in conjunction with the reviews of the ORMCP and Niagara Escarpment Plan, in order to determine whether comprehensive revisions are needed to these Plans. As part of the ongoing review of the City's Official Plan, the City undertook a Countryside and Environment Background Study in 2010. This Study provides the foundation for an official plan amendment that will implement the Greenbelt Plan, in addition to other Provincial legislative and policy changes, updated natural heritage systems mapping, watershed studies and Conservation Authority regulations. The Countryside and Environment Official Plan Amendment will be brought forward for Council consideration later this year. 4.3 Niagara Escarpment Plan In 1973, The Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act established a planning process to ensure that the area would be protected. From this emerged the Niagara Escarpment Plan, which serves as a framework of objectives and policies to strike a balance between development, preservation and the enjoyment of this important resource. Since the Niagara Escarpment does not extend into Pickering, the City has not made any related official plan amendments and will not be providing comments on the Niagara Escarpment Plan. 4.4 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe The Places to Grow Act, 2005 became law in June 2005, while the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (the Growth Plan) came into effect in June 2006. The Growth Plan is a framework for implementing the Province's vision for • building stronger, prosperous communities by better managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe region. Similar to the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan is due for a legislated review 10 years after its approval (June 2006), to determine if revisions are needed. The City initiated a Growth Strategy Program to implement the Provincial Growth Plan in 2010. The City's strategy was divided into two phases: the intensification of the City Centre; and the intensification of the South Pickering urban area outside of the City Centre. In March 2014, the Ontario Municipal Board approved Amendment 26 addressing future growth and development in the City Centre, and staff are now concentrating on moving forward with the South Pickering Intensification Study for lands beyond the City Centre. The latter study will 21 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 6 determine the appropriate locations for intensified development, establish guidelines that will ensure transitions to established neighbourhoods, and provide recommendations supporting a sustainable Pickering that promotes walkable neighbourhoods, accessible parks, public transit, and unique and distinctive communities. 5. Durham Region Greenbelt Plan Review In preparation for the legislated 2015 review of the provincial plans, the Region conducted the Durham Greenbelt Plan Review in 2014. The Review captured the perspectives of a broad range of stakeholders across the Region with respect to the Greenbelt Plan and ORMCP. The City actively participated on the project working group, attended the Public Consultation session in Pickering, participated in focus group sessions, and submitted comments on the review. The review identified eight general directions, representing a set of key issues that the Province should consider during the coordinated plans review; and, nineteen related recommendations, representing a range of potential solutions and approaches to addressing the issues raised (see Directions and Recommendations from the Durham Region Greenbelt Plan Review, 2014, Attachment#1).• 6. Community Engagement • 6.1 Pickering's Town Hall Meeting On April 13, 2015, the City hosted a Town Hall Meeting to solicit input from the public and community stakeholders on the coordinated provincial plan review. Twenty six members of the public attended and a summary of the comments received is contained in Appendix II. Some of the key messages offered at the Town Hall Meeting are provided below (not all messages are consistent): • maintain the Greenbelt/Oak Ridges Moraine and current boundaries of the Hamlet of Claremont • allow changes to the Greenbelt/Oak Ridges Moraine to enable the expansion of the Hamlet of Claremont • expand the Greenbelt around Greenwood • address flooding, drainage and other climate change and environmental impacts • support sustainable initiatives and programs • protect natural heritage features and functions • stop urban sprawl • strengthen the rural economy/agricultural industry • allow more uses on Greenbelt lands 22 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 7 6.2 Province's Town Hall Meeting in Ajax On April 20, 2015, the Province hosted a Town Hall Meeting in Ajax to solicit input from the public and community stakeholders on the coordinated provincial plan review. Approximately 140 members of the public attended. Some of the key messages offered at the meeting are provided below (and again, not all messages are consistent): • a tribunal should be established to address boundary disputes • in terms of Infrastructure provision, the impact assessment should not be limited to environmental features but should also address impacts on agricultural lands • a broad-brush approach to draw lines should be replaced by a more detailed scientific analysis of agricultural lands and environmental features • there needs to be a proper assessment of the economic output/yield of the lands within the Greenbelt • identify and service strategically located employment lands • buffer planning is needed to protect farm operations from urban development • terminology used in Plans should be consistent • no Pickering airport—airports are major contributors to air pollution • the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine should be protected at all costs against urban development, like the proposed plan of subdivision for over 70 homes at Claremont • farmers and rural communities should be allowed to grow, diversify in order to remain viable • strengthen Building Code in terms of climate change resilience • protect our water sources - lakes and Oak Ridges Moraine • greater control is needed over fill operations 7. Comments on the Six Theme Areas The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, the Greenbelt Plan, and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe detail the Province's interest in land use planning and provide direction for the development of the Official Plan policies. In large part, the provincial plans have set a clear course for: containing growth and creating complete communities, and protecting rural resources. Although each of the provincial plans were developed and approved independently, it is appropriate that a coordinated review of the plans is now being undertaken. Through this review, the Province will be able to establish consistency between the plans, and to ensure that the plans are aligned with the new Provincial Policy Statements approved in 2014. The following paragraphs contain staffs comments and recommendations on the six theme areas. Key recommendations are shown in bold and additional directions are summarized in Appendix Ito this report. 23 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 8 7.1 Protecting agricultural land, water, and natural areas Collectively, the provincial plans identify valuable agricultural lands, water resources and natural areas and systems, and protect them for the long term. The plans recognize that the agricultural lands, which feed communities in our region and beyond, are finite resources, and that rivers, lakes, woodlands, wetlands, and other water resources and natural areas provide irreplaceable ecological and hydrologic functions. However, development pressure continues on agricultural lands, water resources and natural areas, particularly near major urban settlements, and to address this matter it is recommended that: a) The Province consider the recommendations provided through the Durham Greenbelt Plan Review study, in particular: • that the provincial plans allow for stand-alone agricultural supportive uses in prime agricultural areas (e.g. grain elevators or food processing operations). • that the provincial plans provide opportunities for economic diversification in terms of cultural, educational, recreational and eco- tourism uses and value added agricultural uses which complement farming and the health of rural settlements. • that the Province establish new, more effective separation distance . policies to provide an appropriate buffer between new residential development and viable farmland to protect farm viability and avoid land use conflicts. b) The Province undertake an area-wide agricultural assessment in support of the food production role that the Greenbelt plays, to gain a better appreciation of the needs of future generations. Currently, environmental conditions are considered through watershed and other natural heritage studies and strategies, and the extension of urban boundaries and the designation of urban lands are examined through growth plan conformity exercises. However, there is no comparable agricultural assessment undertaken to assess how agricultural lands are best protected and promoted. The current focus of.Provincial efforts has been on restricting further fragmentation of rural properties. However, there has been little investigation into how the nature of farming operations are changing, and the policies that should be put in place to accommodate and grow this important industry. c) The Province provide for, and promote, improved management practices and new technologies that will lead to greater diversification of production, and maximize crop yields (e.g. the intensive use of greenhouses), while minimizing the environmental impact of such uses (e.g. surface water quality, stormwater runoff). While the plans have gone a long way to protect 24 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 9 environmental features, the primacy of agricultural lands and activity within the Greenbelt must be encouraged and supported equally as natural heritage features and systems. d) That the Province provide further tools and incentives aimed at enhancing the natural heritage system and environmental health, and advancing agricultural best practices in the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine (e.g. stewardship programs, conservation land tax incentive, ecological gift programs, long-term securement programs, etc). 7.2 Keeping people and goods moving, and building cost-effective infrastructure Growth needs to be supported by well-planned infrastructure, including transit, roads, sewers, water and other utilities. The plans seek to ensure that growth is initially focused in areas that already have infrastructure in place. However, major infrastructure projects are complex and can take decades to plan and build. Planning ahead by protecting lands and corridors, and examining the social and economic impacts of these future uses in advance needs to take place, and can go a long way towards ensuring such projects are delivered in a timely and cost-effective way. Accordingly, it is recommended that: a) The Province encourage, and provide direction for, the planning of infrastructure beyond the land use planning horizon, by extending the population and employment forecasts to at least 2051, and adjusting the Places to Grow concept and targets accordingly, to allow for the timely and transparent planning of long term urban infrastructure. This would allow for corridors to be protected for future use, would minimize potential retrofit situations, and would ensure the wise use of infrastructure, both now and in the future. Within a two tier municipal planning environment, this objective could be achieved by affording the upper tier the opportunity to plan to a longer term horizon (e.g. 2051 and beyond) to protect for future servicing needs, but restricting lower tier plans to a shorter land use planning horizon (e.g. 2041). This phased approach to planning would offer greater certainty to the agricultural community regarding the timing and expansion of development and infrastructure, if required, into whitebelt lands. b) The Province ensure that the reviews of the Growth Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan —the Big Move result in a consistent vision and direction for transportation planning. The Big Move is currently being reviewed by Metrolinx. Differences between the two plans with respect to matters such as Mobility Hubs and Transit Station Areas need to be reconciled. c) The Province move forward with the development of the Transportation Planning Policy Statement outlined in the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act, to clarify the role of the Big Move in relation to the Growth Plan, and to provide direction for the development of transportation master plans. This would help ensure that transportation infrastructure planning and land use planning are better coordinated. 25 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 10 d) The Province provide municipalities with new financial tools to enable the early implementation of transit and other alternative modes of transportation. This should include re-investigating the tools put forward by Metrolinx and the Toronto Board of Trade in 2013 (e.g. parking space levy, fuel tax, sales tax, payroll tax, vehicle kilometers travelled tax, highway tolls, development charges, land value capture, property tax, development charges, fare increases, etc). 7.3 Fostering healthy, livable, and inclusive communities The plans require that growth be accommodated through complete communities, meeting the daily needs of residents, and providing a convenient mix of jobs, services, community infrastructure, transportation options, a range of housing, and vibrant public spaces and streets. The plans recognize that complete communities can include different elements depending on their locations —from busy urban downtowns, to new developments, to towns or villages and smaller rural centres. However, there are some aspects of complete communities where the plans could provide more detailed direction or respond to emerging issues, and it is recommended that: a) The Province provide stronger policy direction on implementing affordable housing, in terms of type and tenure. Soaring house prices make housing less accessible to low income families. With rental housing in Durham representing less than 1% of new housing units built between 2000 and 2009, stronger provincial direction is required to provide affordable housing options. This may include measures that require affordable housing delivery within residential development proposals of a certain scale or size, and within certain strategic locations (such as within transit corridors or major transit stations). b) The Province provide the opportunity to redefine the boundaries of designations within the Greenbelt and/or Oak Ridges Moraine to allow for minor expansions of hamlets, subject to the completion of a municipally led hamlet boundary review. Currently, the provincial plans only provide for intensification, infill and minor rounding out (for example, the addition of 2-3 lots). The opportunity to consider additional growth in hamlets should be facilitated through a hamlet boundary review. The hamlet boundary review should only be initiated by the municipality (not a private landowner) and should include extensive public consultation to ensure that the interests of the municipality are addressed and the relevant objectives of the local, regional and provincial plans are met. • 26 • Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 11 Such a hamlet boundary review would address: • the merits and appropriate scale and form of development • the protection and enhancement of key natural heritage features and environmental functions • the impact on agricultural lands and agricultural operations • soft and hard servicing needs, constraints and solutions, and • the rationale for any changes to the hamlet boundary c) The Province provide direction for the protection of higher density residential lands that may not be absorbed within the current time horizon of the Growth Plan. Attaining densities at the levels required to meet the intensification targets in the Growth Plan, and to prevent jeopardizing such opportunities, may require stronger planning tools. This could include measures similar to those imposed on employment lands or restrictions on appeals. 7.4 Building communities that attract workers and create jobs Workers and their employers are increasingly drawn to high-quality, healthy communities that are walkable and offer interesting retail opportunities, cultural activities, green spaces, vibrant public spaces and streets, and transportation choices. The plans recognize that land use planning can facilitate regional and local economic development through the creation of places that are attractive to live, work and play. However, the projections for the growth plan for Durham continue to show that the ratio between residents and jobs will continue to widen, impacting opportunities for creating stronger live-work relationships and the development of complete communities. As such, it is recommended that: a) The Province identify provincially strategic employment lands, such as the Seaton Employment lands, and actively facilitate the marketing, servicing and development of those lands in concert with the Growth Plan. The Province should play a lead role in combating regional disparities in job growth by advancing development in strategic locations. For example, the Province should work collaboratively with the City to secure high-tech, knowledge based employment and prestige office uses within Seaton, as part of the first phase of development within the community. b) The Province examine incentives to attract and retain workers and businesses to achieve the growth plan targets and to foster the development of balanced communities. For example such incentives could include: investing in, or subsidizing, training programs that will ensure that municipalities have the resident labour force to attract new businesses in targeted sectors; eliminating or reducing tolls for trucks on Highway 407 making the highway a more attractive goods movement corridor and promoting further employment growth in the 905 Region. 27 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 12. 7.5 Addressing climate change and building resilient communities Climate change is one of the most significant challenges facing society. The Province has indicated that it is committed to mitigating climate change through reduced greenhouse gas emissions and increased resiliency of infrastructure. Land use planning has a major impact on the amount of greenhouse gas emissions produced. Where people live and how people move between their homes and work or school are significant contributors to Ontario's emissions, and as such it is recommended that: a) The Province coordinate the development of a provincial climate change plan with the ongoing review of the provincial land use plans, to improve awareness and understanding of limiting emissions and the role of adaptation and resiliency can play in addressing climate change. The Ministry of Environment and Climate Change initiated discussions with community stakeholders in March 2015 on the implementation of climate change initiatives. Many of the initiatives identified in the Province's discussion paper and at the consultation sessions focused on land use planning measures that should be included within the provincial land use plans. b) The Province provide direction for the implementation of adaptive measures, including changes to the Ontario Building Code. Adaptation refers to actions taken to respond to the impacts of climate change by taking advantage of opportunities or reducing the associated risks. Examples of adaptation actions include modifications of development to account for rises in water. levels, provision of heat refuges during heat waves, planting hardy native plants, and dealing with increases in erosion. 7.6 Improving implementation and better aligning the plans Decisions at every stage of the planning process, from official plan conformity to the approval of individual site plans, are considered part of the implementation process. To ease and facilitate the coordinated implementation of the plans, it is recommended that: a) The Province provide improved technical training to municipal and other pubic agency representatives, to ensure consistent implementation of the provincial land use plans. b) The Province provide education on best practices for agricultural practices and environmental stewardship to community stakeholders. c) The Province p rovide new financial tools and/or incentives to assist municipalities and other stakeholders in achieving the objectives of the plans. d) The Province develop a consistent framework and set of key performance indicators for monitoring the policy performance of all the provincial land use plans. 28 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 13 e) The Province develop further guidelines and best practices to assist the implementation of key elements of the.plan. 8. Conclusions and Recommendations The foundation of the provincial land use plans provides a strong framework for . land use planning in Ontario. However, further policy guidance and tools need to be provided to municipalities and other agencies to ensure compact growth and intensification of urban communities, and the continued protection of natural heritage and rural systems. The recommendations offered through this report provide a broad range of potential directions that the Province should investigate. Staff will continue to keep Council informed as the Province moves toward the second round of consultation on the review of the plans, and the development of amendments to each of the plans. Appendices Appendix I Detailed Recommendations for Financial, Coordination and Implementation of Provincial Plans, Appendix II Comments Received at the April 13, 2015, Pickering Town Hall Meeting Attachments 1. Directions and Recommendations from the Durham Region Greenbelt Plan Review, 2014 2. Written Comments received from the Public (B. Welsh) 3. Written Comments received from the Public (J. Alati) 4. Written Comments received from the Public (Concerned Residents of Claremont, Ontario) 5. Written Comments received from the Public (J. Laffier) 29 Report PLN 02-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Page 14 Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: eJ obs, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, ' PP rincipal Planner- Policy Chief Plann ,,e, vriN\ Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP Th mas Mel muk CIP, R Manager, Policy & Geomatics Director, City Development DJ:dp Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council CP/tei) Z7, ZoiS Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief.Administrative Officer • 30 Appendix Ito Report PLN 02-15 Additional Detailed Recommendations from the City of Pickering regarding the Province's Consultation of the 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans • 31 Additional Detailed Recommendations from the City of Pickering regarding the Province's Consultation on the 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans In addition to the key recommendations highlighted within Report PLN 02-15, it is recommended that the Province pursue the following matters with respect to the implementation of the provincial plans, the co-ordination between the provincial plans and other provincial initiatives, and the development of supporting financial tools and incentives to advance the Province's land use objectives: Protecting agricultural land, water, and natural areas 1. undertake an area-wide agricultural land assessment in support of the food production role that the Greenbelt plays to gain a better appreciation of the needs of future generations; 2. provide for, and promote, improved management practices and new technologies that will maximize production/crop yields while minimizing the environmental impact of such uses; 3. provide further tools and incentives aimed at enhancing the natural heritage system and environmental health, and advancing agricultural best practices in the Greenbelt and Oak Ridges Moraine; Keeping people and goods moving, and building cost-effective infrastructure 4. ensure that the reviews of the Growth Plan and the Regional Transportation Plan — the Big Move result in a consistent vision and direction for transportation planning; 5. move forward with the development of the Transportation Planning Policy Statement outlined in the Greater Toronto Transportation Authority Act; 6. provide municipalities with new financial tools to enable the early implementation of transit and other alternative modes of transportation; Fostering healthy, livable, and inclusive communities • 7. provide direction for the protection of higher density residential lands, that may not be absorbed within the time horizon of the Growth Plan; Building communities that attract workers and create jobs 8. examine incentives to attract and retain workers and businesses to achieve the growth plan targets and to foster the development of balanced communities; Addressing climate change and building resilient communities 9. coordinate the development of a provincial climate change plan with the ongoing review of the provincial land use plans, to improve awareness and understanding of limiting emissions and the role of adaptation and resiliency can play in addressing climate change; 32 10.provide direction for the implementation of adaptive measures, such as changes to the Ontario Building Code; Improving implementation and better aligning the plans 11.provide improved technical training and workshops to municipal staff to ensure that the objectives of the provincial land use plans are implemented in an effective and consistent manner; 12.provide education on best practices for agricultural practices and environmental stewardship to community stakeholders; 13.provide new financial tools and/or incentives to assist municipalities and other stakeholders in achieving the objectives of the plans; 14.develop a consistent framework and set of key performance indicators for monitoring the policy performance for the all of the provincial plans; and 15.develop tools, best practices and guidelines to support the implementation of the provincial plans. 33 Appendix II to Report PLN 02-15 Public Comments from Pickering Town Hall Meeting regarding the Province's Consultation on the 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans 34 Public Comments from Pickering Town Hall Meeting regarding the Province's Consultation on the 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans All waterways and watersheds should be protected in full, from source to output. Add Carruther's headwaters area to the Greenbelt. This will ultimately increase water quality, protect biodiversity and mitigate climate change impacts. Design ecological features like bio-swales, meadows and forests as green spaces with ecological value, to encourage livable, healthy communities; design communities for high walk scores and with access to food, recreation, housing and work. Put more focus on smaller, sustainable communities (rather than large dense cities like Toronto), with less reliance on transport and single occupancy vehicles, resulting in reduced carbon dioxide emissions. More specific studies needed to determine regionally specific climate mitigation techniques (for example, maximize existing ecological structures like Carruthers Marsh). Reduce need for commuting by increasing local business and job opportunities. Travelling to Toronto for work is detested, and a shorter commute to a local job opportunities is much rather preferred. Address increased flooding issues with contaminated runoff, due to climate change. Acquire flood prone lands for ecological services and to avoid flood damages. In terms of connectedness, nature corridors serve as ecological connections. They mitigate development impacts, limit habitat fragmentation, and create opportunity for trails/pathways. The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and the Greenbelt Plan should be combined/unified for better understanding. Provide more housing options for varying incomes. As a young adult, I see myself and peers willing to sacrifice space (yards) and house size to be part of a more sustainable community. Support long-term agricultural lands — Do not allow development by Geranium Homes on farmland in Claremont, as this is rare Class 1 agricultural with 50 continuous acres. In terms of creating more liveable and healthy communities, the development 70 homes in Claremont will reduce the attractiveness of the hamlet, and adding 20% of housing in Claremont is not a "rounding out" or minor adjustment but a devastation of its boundaries. In term of addressing climate change, leave rural areas rural. Develop city lands, not Claremont. To improve plan implementation, the protection of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) and the Greenbelt must be vigorously stood by and not given to developers. Page 1 of 5 35 Public Comments from Pickering Town Hall Meeting regarding the Province's Consultation on the 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans If boundaries are set then they should be kept. Don't allow development on protected land —we have Class 1 farmland. We should use the farmland — it saves the air if we can grow food on it. The provision of northbound transportation routes relieves the pressure on existing roads. Protect our green spaces at all cost. No more monster homes for a minority of the community. More tree planting needed. Do not remove trees at the expense of future generations. Urban sprawl increases obesity and pollution —stop urban sprawl. Important to engage schools to participate in sustainability programs and initiatives e.g. recycling and environmental programs. There needs to be a greater focus on and investment in renewable energy to reduce pollution and mitigate climate change impacts. Concerned about the flooding impacts the volume of stormwater runoff from farmland and the poorly designed conveyance system along Franklin Road in Claremont have on property values and the health and safety of residents. Supports the conclusions of a report dated May 2014, prepared by a Claremont Community Working Group to expand the hamlet boundaries (to restore it to its original limits along the Brock Road by-pass as per the 1988 Claremont Development Plan) in order to accommodate a proposed residential plan of subdivision that could potentially provide benefits to the community, such as: • solving the long standing drainage and flooding issues at no incremental cost to the tax payer; • better water management and environmental control; • resolving long time boundary issues including adjusting boundaries for houses whose septic systems encroach onto adjacent lands;. • Creating an additional 4.5 acre park which would connect new and older homes with safe and walkable streets and trials around water retention . ponds; and, • Increasing the hamlet population, which in turn could potentially benefit the economy and local businesses, service churches and clubs, recreational activities and facilities for the youth, creating a more viable student body and resources for the local public school and a stronger voice for the community. Note: For more information on this submission, (from B. Welsh) see Attachment#2 to Report PLN 02-15 Page 2 of 5 36 Public Comments from Pickering Town Hall Meeting regarding the Province's Consultation on the 2015 Coordinated Review . of Ontario's Land Use Plans Geranium Corporation is seeking the restoration of the historic settlement boundaries of the Hamlet of Claremont to allow development of Phases 1 and 2 of the subject lands, which would: • redress flooding and drainage problems in the hamlet and save the tax payers in Durham approximately $5 million; • be consistent with the historic intent of Claremont to develop the lands; • be in keeping with the Greenbelt Plan and ORMCP in that the proposal will direct growth to the right area, allowing limited growth of the hamlet. The development company's client engaged in a working group process with a Claremont Community working group to discuss ways to solve flooding and drainage problems in the hamlet, and the working group supports the inclusion of the lands into the hamlet boundary. Note: For more information on this submission, (from J. Alati) see Attachment#3 to Report PLN 02-15 Opposed to a development concept by Geranium Homes to develop 70+ homes in the hamlet of Claremont that would require a rural settlement boundary expansion either through an amendment to the ORMCP or as an outcome of the legislated review in 2015. A petition with 186 signatures of Claremont residents opposing the proposal was sent to the relevant Provincial Ministries. The Geranium Homes proposal does not represent "minor" rounding out; the community working group that was established does not represent the hamlet community; there is concern about the potential precedent-setting of an amendment to the ORM by expanding the boundary of Claremont, or other hamlets; concern about the impact development may have on wells, quality of drinking water and the environment; the flooding problems in Claremont do not impact all parts of Claremont. Note: For more information on this submission, (from "Concerned Residents of Claremont, Ontario") see Attachment#4 to Report PLN 02-15 Supports petition of 186 signatures opposing Geranium Homes development proposal at Claremont. Reiterates the importance of the ORM, in that it contains areas of high aquiver vulnerability and sources of drinking water, was established to prohibit urban development and to protect the rural integrity and agricultural lands. Opposes the Geranium Homes proposal. Is of the opinion that: • the stormwater problem in Claremont is something that must be addressed by the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering and it is not the responsibility of a developer; • the Community working group and its recommendations do not represent the Claremont community; • the development proposal would have negative impact on wells, aquifers and septic systems; and • the proposed subdivision for 70+ homes would change the character of the hamlet. Page 3 of 5 37 Public Comments from Pickering Town Hall Meeting regarding the Province's Consultation on the 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans The Provincial Plans should embrace and protect the diversity of landscapes e.g. green space, rural and farms lands, urban areas, and create proper linkages where appropriate. Bring Agriculture and industry together to strengthen the rural economy. Cap and trade opportunities, e.g. buying carbon credits from the agricultural industry, should be considered. Better linkages need to be established between agricultural lands and natural areas, and models should be developed on how farming can be supported/optimized; Safe north-south cycling linkages need to be established in Pickering to improve access to trails and nature. The Greenbelt boundaries should be expanded to include, all of Greenwood. More research and programming, of which the city may take advantage of, is needed to support the agricultural industry. Praises to the Provincial government for establishing the Greenbelt Plan; requests further expansion of the Greenbelt to protect farmland and the natural environment for future generations. The Plans should protect Pickering's unique urban and rural characteristics and the attributes of our natural environment and farming activities. • Concerned about the amount of trees that are being removed to make way for new plans of subdivision — it has a detrimental impact on water retention and increases flooding. Concerned that any further urban development at the Hamlet of Greenwood, south of Highway 7, would potentially contaminate groundwater, and interfere with groundwater levels and wells, and with the cold water function of the Duffins Creek and the warm water function of the Carruther's Creek downstream. Pointed out that the hamlet of Greenwood sits in part on a drumlin containing 3 aquifers that seep into the Duffins Creek. Concerned that any further urban development on the drumlin would have a detrimental impact on the water resources system and function of the Greenbelt. Request that the whole drumlin area be included in the Greenbelt to protect it from urbanization. Concerned that the Greenbelt Plan does not provide an efficient way to revise the Greenbelt boundaries—either to capture more land within it or to release small parts from it. _ Municipalities should be enabled to do small or minor adjustments to boundaries, subject to meeting certain strict requirements e.g. Smart Growth principles. Concerned about the impacts a growing population may have on the Greenbelt and our ability to raise animals and grow crops. Provincial Plans should look at ways to better,promote healthy and balanced lifestyles for residents. • Planning and development should be combined with mental health and well- being research, since mental health is a concern across Canada. Page 4 of 5 38 Public Comments from Pickering Town Hall Meeting regarding the Province's Consultation on the 2015 Coordinated Review of Ontario's Land Use Plans Municipalities should sustain farms and the environment and promote a healthy community by introducing steps such as: creating and mapping sports and nature trails; provide more opportunities for outdoor educational camps for children; promoting small business development in rural settlements to stimulate tourism and local economic development; and allow for the re-purposing of old farm houses and farms to be used for bed and breakfast establishments. Note: For more information on this submission, (from J. Laffier) see Attachment#5 to Report PLN 02-15 Allow more uses on greenbelt lands; the Greenbelt Plan has taken away the value of land in the rural areas. • Page5of5 39 ATTACHMENT# / TO REPORT# VLF 02-15 Revised Directions and Recommendations . • from the . Durham Greenbelt Plan Review, 2014 • Direction 1: Introduce.increased flexibility for municipalities and conservation authorities to interpret and apply the Plans' policies on a case-by-case basis at the site-level. . Recommendation 1: Provide municipalities and conservation authorities the latitude to interpret and apply. • natural heritage protection,policies in a way that upholds the intent of the policies, without unduly restricting low-impact activities or requiring overly burdensome technical studies.. Recommendation 2: • Further consider severance policies to simplify land acquisition for heritage preservation and trail creation, and to permit smaller farm parcels below the minimum of'100 acres in specific circumstances. Specific circumstances may include making land acquisition. • more viable for new farmers, facilitating appropriate agricultural-related uses such as grain elevators or food processing operations, and/or supporting near urban agricultural activities where smaller parcels may be more viable. Direction 2: Beyond protecting the agricultural land base, ensure that the Plans support agricultural viability. • Recommendation 3: Increase flexibility to allow municipalities to permit larger standalone agriculturally supportive uses in prime agricultural areas where these uses: can demonstrate strong demand and clear economic benefits, are located on lower quality or less viable • agricultural land, are compatible with and do not hinder surrounding agricultural • operations, and continue to comply with natural heritage policies. • Recommendation 4: . Allow municipalities and conservation authorities the flexibility to exempt or reduce the scope of extensive hydrological studies required by ORMCP major development policies for agricultural buildings larger than 500 square metres, so long as these buildings comply with other natural heritage protection policies. Recommendation 5: . Consider new, more effective separation distance policies to provide an appropriate. buffer between new residential development and viable farmland to protect farm viability and avoid land use conflicts. . • • 40 ATTACHMENT#_1__TO Revised REPORT# i PAN Direction 3: Ensure that the Plans support the viability of rural communities. Recommendation 6: • Allow municipalities greater flexibility to permit new or expanded cultural, recreational, and tourism uses, including country inns, restaurants, ski areas, golf courses.and other similar uses. Increased permissibility would need to consider the appropriate scale and • location of these uses, and ensure that they clearly advance Plan objectives and continue to comply with natural heritage and agricultural protection policies. Recommendation 7: Allow municipalities greater flexibility to plan for their long-term viability by permitting necessary servicing infrastructure and community facilities within the Protected 'Countryside of both Plans, provided no other options are available and this expansion • does not'conflict with natural heritage or agricultural protection policies. Direction 4: Provide additional resources and direction to ensure effective implementation of the Plans. • • Recommendation 8: Provide increased direction and support to municipalities and conservation authorities to assist with Plan implementation, possibly including improved technical papers, workshops, policy interpretation statements and/or more opportunities for specific • • communication directly between the Province, the Region, and area municipalities. Recommendation 9: - Prioritize the alignment of regional and area municipal plans and regulations to optimize implementation, including permitting agriculture-related, value-added and secondary • uses in municipal zoning by-laws (e.g. farm gate sales, food processing, farm-related home businesses and agri-tourism uses). • Recommendation 10: - Create a public information package that clearly delineates the hierarchy of different . • plans, the roles of levels of government and how to contact agencies that can provide assistance with navigation and interpretation. Recommendation 11: • - Consider piloting a range of tools that can further advance Plan objectives related to • enhancing natural heritage features/systems and trail creation, including tax credits or other forms of compensation for trail easements and the use of ecological best - practices. • • • • 41 • • • ENT# TO REPORT# Pi-13 oz15 Revised Recommendation 12: . Ensure that monitoring efforts anticipated by the Plans are pursued and that implementation progress is transparently shared with the public. • Direction 51 Ensure consistency and clarity between the two Plans, and between the Plans and other Provincial legislation. Recommendation 13: • • Review, clarify and align definitions, designations, policies, technical guidelines and . overarching policy objectives between the Greenbelt, ORMCP, and other related Provincial Policies. . Direction 6: Ensure that potentially impactful activities are effectively regulated. • • Recommendation 14: 5 . • ' Consider how to best balance Plan objectives related to infrastructure development and • protection of the agricultural land base and natural heritage systems, to minimize any impacts associated with infrastructure projects. Recommendation 15: Identify new ways to integrate the Plans with related Provincial and municipal policies to ensure timely remediation of aggregate operations and effective regulation of potentially impactful activities, including water takings, commercial fill and other significant site alterations. • Direction 7: Establish a process to consider limited refinements to the boundaries • of the Plans. S Recommendation 16: Provide municipalities and conservation authorities with the authority to allow qualified staff to confirm the presence, nature and extent of natural heritage.features, and identify a simple process to correct Plan designations and mapping accordingly. Recommendation 17: Where individual properties can clearly demonstrate that their inclusion within the Plans is inaccurate at the site-level, allow a review of these properties through a municipally- led process to consider minor boundary revisions. • • • • • 42 • ATTACHMENT# / TO • •REPORT# 0Z-15 Revised Recommendation 18: • Create a clearly defined process to allow municipalities to request minor revisions or rounding out of the Plan areas as part of each Plan review. These revisions should not .be permitted to result in a net loss of protected area; should clearly demonstrate that • they achieve efficient use of land that advances municipal and Plan objectives; should comply with natural heritage and agricultural protection policies; and should require Regional and area municipal council support. Direction 8: Ensure that the upcoming 2015 Provincial Review process proceeds in a fair, accountable and transparent manner.• Recommendation 19: • Clearly define and share the structure, scope, goals and objectives of the 2015 Provincial review well in advance of the review process, and ensure that the process meaningfully responds to the feedback received from Durham and other.Greenbelt stakeholders. V • • • • • 43 • ATTACHMENT#_Z TO REPORT 0 PL- ■f 02-15 • 1762 Joseph Street Claremont, ON April 13, 2015 The City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1 V 6K7 Dear Mayor and Members of Council: Re: - Pickering Town Hall Meeting, April 13, 2015 2015 Coordinated Review of Provincial Land Use Plans Thank you for the opportunity to make this submission. My name is Brian Welsh and I have resided at 1762 Joseph Street in Claremont since September 1999. I have spent most of my life living in Pickering having moved here from Scarborough in 1968 with my parents. My career in Ontario Hydro/OPG took me to the Bruce Nuclear Plant during the 1990s and on my return to the GTA we choose Claremont to settle in because of its unique character. A small hamlet, surrounded by farmland, but a short drive to amenities in neighboring towns and the City. I retired from OPG in 2008 as an Operations Director in the Inspection Division, but spent much of my career in Engineering and Technical Support roles to Procurement. I have been on the Executive Committee of the Claremont & District Community Association (CDCA) since 2012 and am currently the Acting President. I am here to speak to you once again about the flooding that regularly on Franklin Street in Claremont. Myself and many fellow residents have been concerned about flooding and inadequate draining in our area for many years and I have been personally involved in exploring ways to address this since my home was severely damaged by flooding in July 2000. My house has been flooded by runoff from the Ward farm (Cairo Holdings) a total of 8 times since I first purchased it in 1999. Homes to the south of me have also been severely damaged. The volume of runoff from this farmland is a safety concern and based on the test results from water samples of my dug well, it is also a serious health.concern. Neither the City of Pickering nor the Region of Durham have taken responsibility for a poorly designed conveyance system that has been confirmed to be inadequate to deal with the runoff and homes continue to be flooded on a regular basis. 44 • ATTACH MENT# 2 TO REPORT 1/ 1' 62-15 On learning of a proposed 27-lot development on a part of this property and a planned information meeting in November of 2012 by the developer, I attended the information meeting in Claremont where I expressed my concerns with the developer, Geranium Homes. Many residents of Claremont expressed the same concerns with flooding and many were shocked to see the photographs I presented that night. Enclosed are some of those photos. .Followings that meeting I made a delegation to the Executive Committee of this Council on the 5t of December 2012 as part of the Planning and Development portion of the • meeting. Once again I showed many photographs of severe flooding on my property, along Franklin Street and onto other resident's properties to the south. I had reviewed • the storm water management plan produced by the developer in support of their 27-lot application and found that it could not address the historic flooding problem, a concern shared by the 50 or so Claremont residents in attendance that night, including the President of the Claremont and District Community Association at the time. At the conclusion of my delegation Council asked me to work with the developer and city staff on a storm water management plan that would satisfy the residents' concerns with the flooding problem in Claremont which I agreed to do. Following the planning meeting I met with the Mayor, Councilor Pickles and the President of the CDCA, Mr. Jim Doyle, regarding the best way to approach the task. It was agreed that the CDCA would sponsor a Community Working Group and work with the developer to solicit input regarding all issues with the proposed development, including flooding and to report back to council with.a recommendation. The CDCA put out a call to all residents of Claremont to participate on the Working Group. Thirteen residents expressed an interest and all were invited to participate. The Working Group, chaired by Mr. Jim Doyle, held five working sessions over the period from December 2013 to May 2014. The Report of the Working Group was tabled in May, 2014. A copy of the full report is enclosed. Below are the conclusions of the Working Group. `The Community Working Group recognizes that the following approval processes must take place before any development can take place: • Firstly the Provincial Government must decide whether to amend the designation of the land under the ORMCP from ORM Countryside to ORM Rural Hamlet and if the village boundary on the East side should be restored to its previous position along the by-pass • Secondly the City of Pickering would have to change the City Official plan to show the new boundary. 45 I TTACHI,.■ENT# 2 TO r;EPOR i PLN} 02-15 • Finally, Geranium would have to submit a formal application under the City's Planning Regulations. All of these processes allow for extensive private and public input and consultation. The Community Working Group believes that should the development,proposed by Geranium, be allowed to proceed it will provide benefits to the community including: • A speedy solution to the long standing drainage and flooding issues at no incremental cost to the taxpayer; • • Better water management and environmental control; • Some long time boundary issues would be resolved including adjusting lot level boundaries for houses whose septic systems encroach onto the development and protection of existing boundary trees with the associated benefit for wildlife; • The creation of an additional 4.5 acre park which would connect the new and older homes in the community with safe and walkable streets and trails around the water retention ponds;and • An increase in population would be good for: o The economy of Local businesses o Service Clubs and churches o Recreational activities and facilities for our youth o More yiable student body and available resources for the local public school o A stronger voice for the community". It was the conclusion of the Working Group and I personally agree that adjusting the Hamlet boundary to its original location is the best and most cost effective way to solve the'identified problems; does it bring benefit to the developer? Yes, of course. Does it bring benefits to the community, and at no cost to the existing taxpayers? Yes. It is a win-win solution. I must state for the record that I am not a supporter of large scale development and urban sprawl on sensitive lands, however; I fully support logical, well thought out solutions to identifiable and quantifiable issues. I do not support downloading the costs of previous engineering failures on the parts of the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham on taxpayers as an assessment. As a resident and member of the Community Working Group tasked with exploring solutions to the flooding problems in Claremont, I endorse the Storm Water Management Plan prepared by the developer for the Phase I and II lands, which will 46 • ATTACHMENT# 2 TO REPORT f P?z.N Oz-I5 • solve the historic flooding problem in the community, and recommend to Council that the subject lands be returned to their original status within the Hamlet boundary in order to facilitate this solution. Furthermore, I recommend that Council take whatever actions are available to it to expedite a timely resolution, including asking the developer to implement the stormwater management strategy as soon as possible. Resp ctfully submitted, • t 61k_ W • Brian Welsh Encls. Copy: Catherine Rose, Chief Planner, City of Pickering • • • 47 Y - • t `y �r` :e ' TAChMElT TO REPOR i # -- •- 'r - m, xw' t' wF . l I l) II, f,7ali t1 t I s // ' II .. $ ,• • 'i 11 ..t ,s' •fill i , 'I r • s '-:11® a-= . \ , f :11:4'.•^. 1 i I, l� I 1 . i t t b y s . I f ' 1. ,1+ '`. ` * Ii 161' 11 , ; - I fit' pa4t r. lr '_; .1 1! h.,, -r t " -� l,- • r 'Si 4 t I rt' 1sI" � ti a s s, f, � q 't�t + u wt.,J 4 , a t o *r `' s j - 5::' 1 j y y ''+ })-. '4, ! -424' '' , t n a . bt 1..JI i 4I7 4-K' ; -4: 3' • r i vi k �, t. ` I ra K1 . ' S I *"' I•i 4 .l,'!I�I y i,1I�II i ;A ct ,.~• ' ' y, I . 1 1 l II 4;1./,Iul ,J iz f -Rfibts;-'Jt 1:U cP`- I1 I �; i1r` � • •- -1 ' I I I e ''`!v; ,-., • � 1 S Yl-: \J ,.1 -I•i,III!mi • • -� -r,; I d - 'tit,h:$^>L' � �ti- ar�'1• I III ,'•ii.'1,:)111,19! h • _‘7:411.,•t•;,k ' !t I� �` v - . . . -. . $q'. 1 • i' ,';,,11119 ''� 1 I -! .'�4' ��� 4�•Y uS a — i. I11 I o;;141'..''+vk41• r• ....4..-1.i.:;•=47',1-r).7, ,= �\ 'i I -'aIII �r , •i'�: _ (�..,, 1 I• Iii �� , �� g 't ill Gt t :�I� tt11 ;, ,• u Si '11 - II '1l 1,'F alp .-.".,-"-,14-,;'', :i, �4. _,z l "�.'It-r 1 i.1 t �.jK` 'il '1,a f--� 1 ' E — ' ' r' +14 U r� '., I '.11lu t :11 J al 2:::/.,.;;,.... ,a 1 p +1 �L • r • .n . 't I±ha,;�t } t-' 1, 1i''!!ill"{, 3 ',41, ..t I' ' 1 i?.. `f { , I„ �.., n-i x., 0 =. ��, I l e •� . �\e iq: ,. ^.• ■ r: ?Yj:.j;., .._4; 1,1" .t ^'ti ., *� k '� l:F= ..; -• a' X T _ I � .0 4 • fr ,� yA. ItCJ i t -i. I e is Tls j er ice ` ¢ tr• .~'1€ P j ;grc ,�S+S• '°fiF�S -._:k..,, � VT �•M �t `.: . ti '_ tt • - A '-t? J s I -- 1.440:;1-::.:k 1 S 1 r e,:5,-" 5: �.r. 17 era 4 . ry J {y��pg -v rqx rt J.1 I(:i±Jr�: i _ � �t i f 1�11r,{ }J,..,--^' 4_ _ - - � t uq�, � ;"• -1, r �tl'i !r t •`p1 �,•�� �'+�' Via{)� f.r`}�1<�� !I f' I � ,— •••..i.:- ,F.� 7..,�� �x•'- - t - I tl. •I i r 1 + F n It E it t''1 ��'7R� I,I,I x x• r 1, I y1, I,i, 7 �' .m ,;JY11 11 1 ' %,„Lill I .T"}ll1 r t Pik `'ai �` •7iJJ; -i� itti'1�'-7f'I;��,i1 — }111' iIf ' r} �S>, -• • j• p�!,1 • nl' llii. , 1••••,":*;,-',.: -1/1 1 ill .,•• . ,•-, ��qq S 1 •,, •i , 1111.i� r 1,.. - 4;t• as -• it 1 1Atc 1,I I 1 ,�� f Atyy • iiti,f,- S l''',--.''' _ E it - i- .III \,t tt 11,:1 1�l + I '7.. x y a • I• i – "� I v' – r — • I ,y • r �: !_ ...�.-...._ ,..:ate. .. _:R _ 1 a„. si .t REPORT#ti a �� ,k• 7 , , :v.:.4.'„---- ••'..4-4, .. , : , . ,,.. ,...,. _,,. ... k. -.7,--.7.,;.-4.:.___ CV 4 1 1 ... '*° Jr.., ix j. � 7 :, ''mot i S! -,-.sa t t \,. y ^;• LL \ k-�•r E t,r / —i 1 p �. . _ 1 „� � •t.. k¢ t t7 e_ Re" F - �G... `.r y1.1Jt...119,41'"-'117-41. ..t,(---,744.,;.::../..1.,:.:;:;-_,„-- '4k tt4� .. _-� 1g. '�pper~�•. t` '4. St 2 '+3,i " zi, - �tK t � ,:."'''''''.',1`.',,9'yY�}, �. •- , r ' l ;S:* "'Yom,'•," 9 i..4.. 3n _ i• _.. i t ;!-•.• .,c._ ' 1s_±3..� l 7R . t ` r t 'L ,tv: . r s i"''. 1.17 y" �s ;` 7 a�. i =._ .,Q: j " x 'i` i L �. r•, " � 4y 4' • 7 s.W i Tf° _ 5 �� e - $y_ ,y et y l`l � '-‘A a r Ai K �-���:::+++���A . it Alt. ..Y� " y�, H f ' ! `^s1 F'}J`^ # - x> -.. �. - 1, - 1-.-.'!.,-:,' t',"s. _ ; Wit'- -•—ri-,',.:-.,..--...-..-.r..--.-,---,—.....,.--.-;-',T';.-,:--f-:. S i ���sii... -f, V ,.:1 —a r 0 .._:, • • U- _-,x•;,>s,., � �a" F Cli.V.1% (..,b,,'.. .1.;t:''121:7--';''14:''''':- 4 ' ,,,,.,,,..., , ,.,..,,,,, -----‘\,.-...„..'-:-..'-- !` s ' �. 4t r}.C x :_s '-,,e,. ; _ . yi, y� .,4 stsr ;y,_ -.s4 .s cir . :�__,acE _. ��+ £� . .4,..10WW..1"7.!;.:;..S.:-•'•I --"'"---.-,r79*;'..•'74:Erigc•n7 1.7_'r-'',\----" ..4";;•"4-Z.7.•,. --.'-•_ __._ _ _------- -f,,,,•_.-_-.. .i 1 ,, ,......-.r..._!„....._?„...i.f...',....--.i.„... :.. ,•41s ,.: - .-t, ,...,-,...`,1;77"--. .:4„..-7-',".-:•-",-,- •-•.. - , :i I ---.;--•=4----4-i------;-7.....:•••-,•'="7--,--;,- -,-- •-'• - • r ''''' ' • ATTACHMENT.#4____TO :- L G2-15 , • „ . .. REPORT# 1''':;:';;''''.7-=-1. ,,.. . , 'f--.P.- . • . ., • . . , , . 2. ''-.',•-•--'-'-•-..-'1"-•--; '-/-4.----:---2- )‘ir-. . ..3 '•' -f' ' "...„---''',1,,,.:-.--=-4 .'./'''-*,- 14 . • ._,.-., ,••••••- ,,,....-;,-,.. ,.......__•--- .,-.....„-_--_ i I i....-7-,;,_:--,-,;•.,-.v,-I•iff i ---• ,1 i .•f...,-'., . ..1 •-,,-;..,'-1"------ ' tit,:- . • . • . . • -,.. ..,i•. ,_•-: , -.-- 3-1;-7:::::-,.11k1..:•/•;4 '•- --./•.! -i • . -•• .i.-, r'•_ •1• -.• • 11'-'■"...; - -•••-.,N . . . : -. • .;•-•• -,ir fi....; ;.' ''''• ---.` -.'••i."•-• ':- . •7 -Y --+-;"">4-:Ntl:::---e->r.'4ii\ -..b,.:`'.1--'-'=-V-.-,1••.-: i' - ' )l't. ,. . .".,....t..,-• • '. .-- • • •-; • "- . ..• ._.. .. .::..-• ... ,..• ..._ ,-...,!--->,-„,...,,4'" •.. '', •• :- .. T..';2■ :-l:,.4..-•-; ... :?,.::::':;_.,•-,.-•-:;.::'2::. -:77:.1Z•7","..•€.-7.74,--=.-1-Z"1-7-:.=.1-,.;,1:r.'.7-,t.j.-:-.• -/-.7./.--,;/,,,..i ili1li P1 t•i 1Vl *-7--A-,,.,."-'-::',:7--,•1,-.,',•::_,:.!-:-...'./'.- ",• „."'.-..- -„,•,-_:-,-:7..i t.".”'i'...4..-;.:-..".'.',,,,.t*-,4.-.-:1-'--;....■1-....t4.4 r.--y-'---N 2-.4.-,..k_„.:7_4..*'2_---,''..,,.7-,-.:-",4.-'.'--,r.N•-.•:,'..9.'.-.z".....'-1e';- -:•;"--.1.- , ,-,-1, 14,-;- ;•.:r,---:,•• : . . • -.-,•:-••4',•; ft.",i-1',' 1.1, • • . • - ..-:`-.1:.-.--"---:'..-i-""..., ----,..--f;:-31--.-:?-,'"---7,...%,;-..:7-74, 12:4,ii,4'.:,,=;,,f;.,..,_....;,-, '.,i.. i. .1 , t ir ,i'''''' • . . ,.‘ .1 • ii . ., '''''::::'::: :r;i:', ..:..r4.1+.'; :t":* 1:.!1'''''AI K''';'. ' * .''' ' ' . ..:'.';' ::i' ' ' ''7 ",:. ;',',..7. '..:,- .•?.F',:\.::.?,1 ,,::i. ....,t7: ...Z.. F7::•: 741.1.4 trE4N4'1..?,V- ' 1 ' ‘ .' ' '' . Ar •"P.- '"-7. •7',...•..NZ - - --'. - . '-'7---r---'''"41 .-'-7--'771-1 li:;--', IA--" . . - - -,,-:- . ..-.=. ,.:s•-• - 'C'-'' ....4,-- .- .• ... • ..:--..,!,-. f - ... , „..-.,...,-....ro . . , .... " _,-, _-,n,-.2,./...:i.-.-,...:..f.!•.,-,,,-- -zy.:7:4,7,:..-,_--•,-----..-=- -.7,•-•,_-41,..,zoi-.,.. ; ,•=1.•• - •. .--•:,.•-•,,-..,..,--t., ,r, 07,--1',-, :.,.4-xvi.:;;..,---:.---, ,-. ,,. ,-.-.--.!..-- ..---;-c-,...--,;,....:.--:77„1,,,),7...,•.7.:.:7-_-. -•,:.E- 7,--;_-••1-.-_-,-,-:.:..•.:-,..,,--',•.;-_-.4"-,1):1::;•.7-4..,.-),-4,'-: I •:- - ... -•.--,.,:‘,-,--• -,-;-=•-•,_,.,;-4,ar-----r-f•-z,,,,._z,-.-:,-p,„,..-- .-- • - . . .. . . - .•. -1:-:--,-,:-.-•,•--,..-.5..:-.:::::,::;:=:-..:7,,,- ;";c:..,-:-=;.:f-'":•.., -7'--- -.-'f4-:' 1'' - ";. , '..,.'..".f.-':.;;:i-;/71' i.'•--.5)11;-/01- -&-,.,:;-',. .,-,c,'",....--tt":''' ' ,,_.- .---=,---.-,7-:4.,:-.---`,----"--17>'------- ----,.--7------ •-.it,,- , .. , ' . ., _..., ' CI -5':, ,t/i•L•-• ' :4.'4i , • .."..' • . - -, ,:..,..,2•,---,,....,-. ,..7s.;.7.z.,.:-.•....7: -.-f..-„;.,:`•::•,-;••_:.- 1 i.-.1--',,., ., -,...--: • -- ,,-/,.. .,- , .1.;•--.•., 'N- • i . , - • i „f. ., , ,i, ,.,-,,,,-,.:7„..7,1.,..:-.;,',;_nr-i7•,:=_-,,.. -1,-,,,,I..17,,..:...t.,-"''',1,„,,,j,',:,'-i.-'S •-',-.',..,-; ", - -,-71,.1..,'2''1'1' ..-.'''''' 'i<-'44.3'');.-7,'.-' -'---1. 7.,,: ...sH, --•-1,..1.'-1 . . e".e:,. s.f .. , :,..."-‘...::,:_:,7-5,7--g....,5:ir,..,:;;;,Vj7-Lq.:'5...i.,Z;f,-±"c.:- ...;1:,,i - ; ' ..tr,''..1-'.:c;.-_•',,.:::-,,::-°;-,4';‘,'.... 47--,-=.4::'..5.71 ...'.--:'- '.••-•- -''''.;' •. • 0: , 7- 2- ;"7-"-- ;/"°3;.7-*:•.:'',-.A -•-i."4-7 ,':','"..75•'-,:.1-c -;-.1 1.-:, -...-;11 ,...-•:-..',.',-,_;',44... -7,-,-...-_,..,:-,,----:: .i-Z-,..-•--. • • ,•.•••• • • . - . •• — ," ,..16, .-- ••- 7.:,:l.:-.-',-,.:77-!..- -ti4-"... :,..:- .4X;I:AC,77 :77,-,4g7;_'tj.t.44,4 .•'•-•f --. .....'..-' '' '.', i.i:1: :-;:- '..,(1,',I• ..:4141---.!-,-7 -,,-.-..----izf. •...-- . . • . J..---'„.,:.- . , .1- '.-..',. !__.';'-:.---,..":.".J.7. -:.?-;:=.i?- -::- ----.- - `--,"--7.--",___,„,.-='-.."---,_••-tz.:ft., ,f-f, ‘.. ,,,.-. .._,..••;,..:-..,.,,,L--,- 4.,v --,,_- i, ,, „ . A. -v. . i - „_-,:.--...._.,7-2,..„....„......2-...,-,.:•-r-r_.--,F,_te.-4"". .7-,:;:',"-•=sa.---..."-",,-7.14 . .".- ' . it. 1:• - .... 4•4 , .--, s _ 15,-,f_...*;,.„-,f..4.:-..-..:;,,-":„--..7- ..r...„-,%,......,,,-..•,-,_.`;'.,=.-:-- /1"--'_ ...,..'-.- -.-.!, ;.--...--".- '-_-..,'..".'.-"i.,-2,'P 1-.. -- .;..... .,-.-„•=1 ,...".• . ,,: .:- • ' —r. - .....__: :____::--..;7-z-?tc,',:,',.:1 ,"-t:-.5-,:,..37-1,7:-:4;--;54.- -?.:5:;',.- _-_-.N. ,.4!-.,:.,---t;''''-'3,;-73 ,[-I rj- .:',•' '-...r'''.••.'.‘..51;.!'t4:4 ,•''.. V4-2---7.1-k:.} -0 „._ .,,k.,„.,.,,,1.,, r. •, .7'.'... • ,. .:.).: 1,1.,_.. ' .:'.,',,,,' ''''..4. . . ...:,,:y§-.....r.'s----.',:-_ ,:-,.:_4±;,:g--,-.,-:>...,:j:vg:, :; -..: 17..4.t.„:: ::„:7--,., ..•,*--,647.....7,...,,....i ,Arik .. . . 1 , •• • , ,. , :,..,..;1, _,...-:,•,_,T.. .1,,........„.,„. „._;,,,c.„—:--;•_,..,.:•.,.4....._,4:K !..r±A....., ;,..A.„ .,.._-... -1..■•:::,,,,r;„:,'.+,,,k•.,,i,L,,,,:it,'..,,,t),. ›.,,,,._._ : ... .. ,., .: . 1 - .1 .. . . :•:',., mi „ • 1',,, 1.7::=5:',"_.1,,Ili..;i---..:.:,,t-•-,',7:-.:47;÷`.7.7,-,.'_.7,. .1 -5''':;:t:,'..',;,--L--- ,-,-, .1115;1;,-;;;;ZIS1,;, .:;,;:::,.. 1-,';•■ .. rj;;;:,"At'..-:W:, 'i'd't: .„...Y5.--"",.. ;-!•, -,„..'75,,'' . -': .■..5. . -. , :It,. , -• • .. ;,.7.V,.:-,-;-,,!,,c,,,77,-,-,,,.&.:Li?,....,,:,:,;,.:•••,:i.,4:‘,:.5,.::::•,-..:,,,TaS•,, ,,_.,,-75,...,,,m-t"" ':•-• V.r,•.,4s;,5,-4::,`-',..., i.,'1 ,-',"- r,•3`,..,;:,_'1,71'5,,,,X f" '..-.,'.---7 ri=,.,-difilt,L...,,..-74', ,• ...,:,.:1.:(.,.;•,.,.• . •, . 1, ..;‘,.‘'‘... ., .-...-" .. f',.1:7,--,,H•J:'-..".-:,:'!--' ''',:7,-,---- '''',;;:i. ... .'"c--i---:-;„. .r:i,%",i,'",!. ,-'''-'4 . ':2-:_a'-I=4'.• . . . , • ,. .,•::•:,:•:•••'; .1-=:•.:7)>-':-4--L.:===:. "."-----,t -- - .T-_,"-.V -- 'IP-0 1''-'.!. ';-,F•.:';';'i ,. -d : . • ; . .• ,-",...,L4-:%-1,-,.•...1:---- -'•-;----".;-.."27. -•-t'i- el-•" ;,..,.. ..e-•,...V!`•••;."-1.'":.,--"A r • -- •' ' .-'11.,"•;11,4"."`"- ifq ,./•t-"' 1 . r .'-'• . . • . .. -.: .; I. , •••-": ' i..1.'•'-,'".7,--'•;-';'.)".7z•_•,.:-:•-_.:-_--..i',.::?-'.".:".7.',--.1-;;-_ -:---",5:7-,-_-'zr.--1 ../..,"4:!";_,,,,i4.,..it:1 -:',,, 'iii.'t,3eL,-ir"'4.' 4:-141:: '--..;■• - ' •;t- ' •....'. • - ...-.4,:-,:',...:•-•:"."-., •.:,-..--_y-..--..--,i7-,R,----/ ...--,--t..:•.,--,• • ••.,,,,.,-,,',••,,,,..11._.,_..__:,- - - .-- ..- . --•:2„:4.....1-- 1,4",-., Oki„-.!.-.7,...,.,-,4',-,..4.,--":_•-s_ .. •''''''',',,,i'f,-•.-. _." _ .....rt ,.. --. . -.4:-'4,-":: ::.,::.'":,-..•-,:-..,-,3..--•-".;;',4,,*;•••■: -."-:-7-•"-.••.' •••••---1. 'r-,=1.i•'4.4,,,,_%:?',V,.7--,:1.'•'• • ...>----- " 1,--g-.4'7'1 ---" -, ---4'.:-"!--i7-"1"-‘-■77" ' -----'"7-'4..."-,,'^,--,..;2;.*--■.,- --..--.F:-7•Z'..77.'fF-.^Z-L'3e- c . ' '.,:-...4V:iL..44,pg:1:-;;;;::':' -:'-'' ." 1 r': •• : • i i nt, , '_.-__•-;_------77.,.•;:-1.17::..a.-- ttr;ttlit:',I:4;tivii•77-.•'--.,?!.4;-••it44,11- ..,,,,Kiw.,...;._, ij , • .- '''Sli:''':._. '.,A.,:'6 't!1. ''• ;.',.,••;,7-Zt•it 116 .•,' ' '''t- ._;'`--- ', ';' l' jt 46- - ..1,2 ..---. "- — . - - -,•- '•-; -.WI!' • _• - - '.'''=.,E'.,,-.-:-•• ". ._,_-.4-#7 ;i.;,,, '_ .1•41;_-.':.-_-•,,,-..A.,L,-,_E.., -- -- , , .- - ;.i.;-••,.,.. • - .-..,-;f,..-,-.r. •I••A.,- tV^..k.'-..-"1"--00.?:-'•. : .• • • ••,.' '...._ - •• 'ii...,•2 0:- _ - APJI • _ . . --,--..• ,-, •,-..,'•„.:K.k.:-.:)1 _ -,•'7".e..-....-4.--'- • :.7f 77,:*".•;:'. ;. '''L',.:,_ . • ...... -- •-g...-I:,•-•-•'-‘'-'••••••-P- ""•''•'•")-,...-.4••4‘',,,,>-- -"`x---oo•-,-,,,::--- ,___.,• -7-,-- ,,,, • - ••••-•-...._,..,,.........,-,21-,;,,,•,--,..„„w-, f'-) .1, , .• • - • •re ill . • o ' • •-•'•• '•••-q "•-•:: --- "..i-TIF•1,,. •- '',.•:-.=,' -7-4v ' _? .Z.7.1 '4\.;•••• .i.,,, ,,...,1.1.,...1 :. f•A.14.-.-71 't 1,',:...11°':..,;17).•."' r 0 _ • -.‘4•OP • V., ' '• ••'.'' ;•:-.i.:41'"•1,•.'.....:1',1•`,.•(!-. .A\"...• + .' . ,4'17. •-:. ‘,A-•', .-t'_...r:•' ''''-1 ,'" •• . ..-, I i - ' - ...1.-.,.,-- ., ;:-.,,,,_,-, ISN.!1-.,-!..-.:,-,-,;-47.11"t.4.4.--°-•,---7: ...-..., .,. ._1 , , , -,..„-- ,.';3`—, . •e,-.. „..-t44,...'-' •-;'7,47- --;.''',,,. `.i'l,i•- '0'.i;t;-, q`,5•,,,,-.4 -,.,' . Alicio.V7:1-0-:.qt,11,-!,', ',--, .,„„4.,.AO.. •;.-".1,,;,,,,.-..'•;:•'.:••:A--e-:•;',.,:- .,4,--•, ,..t.. -• t• 1-•; -. ' tiif• . ..,::,----,-,•,------.-..- • -, ,... . ,A,,..,.,-J,,11,14-•,/,;•; ,':',-,...,;'.•4 xi,,,x,,x4 4 1-4_,.--t. ,i,...,,,:,,1,,,,,-,-...l:,-,,`4,,,,-0%,'_!,.?A• •-,,• .. ,.... .„. -.4.--..., . , .;,,:-..-:%-ri•p;,,,..1.4:7•:44:p'-,..,•,..Ark ,'-•:;3rile.45-. l 1.I.-Pri.-4')•r'•`•' --•'• ..°. • -).-.4 „&,...'. '•••_: _•:,--,-,-,q(1.,71/4gA.:=.-.;;;;Itl,•:,,---P/ii.!„ 1_,..'',r.::.11111101,t;,,,--.,.,:i.4 r:r.41!......•,-.. Ns.‘:,.!.,1,11-,4) *411,1_„,..••■*.'.L.7.- . J'-I . • •4..,r':'," . • / i - -.-.-..._ ,g,i,f1.4t4i51,1111,..1,;.it;:s r..;',..-r.','f:%!;:r.,A,P,X;,.7',.:;•••ki..-4..V12..-4 -•-'r:. ..,*". " 11:-.-'-'r- 1:- •. ' • - ,.Q1 ( --:';•114"..::'....:1.-''- -----".- _ ' fl•-•1`. ...5:"-'P...-43 -.--jt!•-:7.-4- -V•f`4.';'11■7''-/-'41%4410.:".'',.'.1i'-V"V11?;----',..--e-'--"..!'"X-W, 4;...--"`-;_' -i-f411,7 1"' ''''',•‘'..,, - 4, ,..,:-.. 7 0-'4,...;,,;.-.}.;7.;.:,:;,•-f-- Tz._.,..,,..„.,!..„....4,t,p,-,----.-14- --_=.-S...,,,..,=:-. ..-.--,:•.P..r.,,,ilte,.•-•, ....-,.••,z...:*;:.f,,Ari-•,:;.:•ik,•::-ci,..,:., •,--z:/:••-•..: ,•ttr•--•:,:-.-.14-•:--.7:-"::-.1z-1--oir ..--,...-6,,7-----.. i ..g.;••;.si,T,-,122'...,l)V1.1.,31,',..;;.:,%, --.: .,,,,,-..::2-7:----:-.-,..1,1t.-7.47.`,.. ..1)-'p i7.r.i..t.;•e;0•!,.,..,4!..,''.'.:::,i.i.,,,':.:/,' ''-'-'..1.*ti;■,`.51:.i.,)11,;'=:±1;,'..ti,...,:614,',.,..11,--,.1- .,,,!:4■■• .7,.:..",•:,,,..4.id;.::*,..s.,,7:!::.:=,.1. 1.t.'-;.":.,:.,'-t-,.... .....f..5 .z... 4.:•:"-",:-..:Pli,_!:VA-71:t.zp..1.;..t..1ri-,4:„:-'1.11:'....i ..v4.',',.'F''.3(,W-r,'•'-'''.....L.r;iir:-.' ,,C.ti 't., ,. k ''',',.'i L'' --,ar: .r.''..,11.i-r' •f= .\ . _ ,1 -2,.rr .:%,;:,17-7,4_,±. ..L:-:,---:_ll.-.--A•,:77,;-.c-1)4',',:if,,,t•-'-','', '-;::-.-..1.:- .:' '..'.1.,'-t -'7-"-?9,'';';')V1.111'-'7'4-4.:`':Vs .4 ' ' ,-,'•1.f.. .,.,,,..,..Lii,i,*,ri ,„"v:-.:*2•,-;„-3z-,,,,..,:,_:.:_-=...:,-.1,,,•-..,;_zt.,,,,,..77._•.-zi__ ...„__,.3.,:,,,,_.:::._,..„.. ,‘ :, ••••144•,rNi.1.1 .17.-,1•`,`.;.:. 1'•,.i":..3. ;..-!.4;,,..,e,,i.,.ri,•,,,,,,,,,,.._. 1•,i',1 ' k.-r 1 7:.7--"•-•-'4-7.---4347••=1"'":-= :e:;'•:.-/7ii•-••,•--n.-'•-•••-•: ---71'71--?----4--•=2-t•-'1,- .'''1- •;:k:\ "4,1#0;•'14••'".... ''-'•••■•:','-!'--:::!,,.4'.!:r...•-z•L sf:.i,f4:;:i:::(•-,.,',.-.-,,. ,,,,,,yi,,1•41,.0.7.'- s v 1 :. - \ , . •‘_-4...,;;•:-,--,17.,.:::,24,i-:t-,-,•••;--,--........2,.L-r.5t,. -_-.- - -:,.--„,-.---__:.,__•---.r.-•.••:,p.181),,,I•I•i-7.,,..,1:1Aii.,,11:.r.,,./...:,;.4.-1.y,,,,f,..;:zo.,t-i3,..-,,..A..„-,it....1. .1.1......iefTt: • •. ..1 .4.... ..,,,. 6, ..... - ,....Q.„,?::,?4,-„,-...:„.„,,,,__.,.... .,:i7,-.,..,,, ...,,,....:-.,._, --_-_-,,,.--Itr-,:-.,,1 ,A.,!;•;-!2",,-.!""•(2,11•!•,-)1rAti'i;:.::•::::Z•4‘•!Ailirli,tr 4", ■',11.,..4'.2:-+.F-.-owl,-""1-r.;vi via 11-;.... _1,--,.• -, !1 4. . • 1.,,.., 1: - k.----•2i-,,-..--- -:,r,:=-__.. ...:,..."-:'_:!,,,.._;=..4.1--:"---:..-:-..-,..:,,-.,.. ..----- 17.1.;:2-7,7-A-.,''",'. j " -'21.?,9"-.7'.;::-',,,i4.';,4'6...!t.,141--,,,,.:1 jr.y.akt-.... „fi'lj,'--' ..1.-;-4.. • ' ' . -r,, ,'. .-- ,II, i.:51-1,,,----:-.4..."- -•:----...._:-,A7rcL, '--:=:,--7-- ..-Cv-,--"'".*---..-r..----- '''',--,1'.:;.'•'.......?" •:•)'-'•;!,-171MP..g.-glurq?V-. il:',,,‘',,Ng ,,,h;:.'4,1.,:,“,.. ':r.;.., •, ' . ' .„ • i •'1T-'i,.A .1,t-,_■,.117,;:-.7_,-,1..,,,,-.-..-----,-:,:::--:__-,,-,,,,...:.-...,.---L'=--;-2,:=`--: . .0,01*efrirlt, * .t.--....:.‘,11,1,,,,.:v.,A , ,. ,.. igi ,, •, k• '•-"-'....---4:-.4,-} t.--•77 --.Z.-•---•':;'-‘-':".-'-'''''''7.----:"-1:- ,.....k...,S..--'''..\,,_- , !-,,,,S• .i.::,,.‘+,1 .,„-...11 Its,k,-„,h• 'W.*.'-.4.1 ,,, ,,1/2-•-'" ''' " I 1..,;-',r,f,t,.../_:,... ..-,,,,....,,,,,,--....--,..,:,-j.:-.,.-z:-..._'„,-,•,.:"•,:-..-_-.-:-,`,'::•."`-'="----- 7-;-:,-•-• - ,"••••?....t.,.•-..--', 1,4.• •-..h...-i'..,-.t...14. 41.! ,J0,4,2.- 11','-',1`.'.,',. l'j, •,4... • ,- ' . s . ' i■ .. ..,,.!..,,, . . , .,..7,1:,{rc.,..::,::z.-. .,,,,L...-......., .. ■-:,,,!:11..,,,-s...LL......-. -- :,..11iii,• .-r.,-& ti :........,..,..7.:,,._......-,-.-.77..-4.-„4...=,.1-1;-:.--,,,-...:-,.:::-...•---4,- --,-----,-Nt.-k,•4111'.01X:•,,,tici-i•VP-17"p' i.or.,,,,•\-wtit- ... 'a--P '.."-'--, ' . .. :Alf ',-,4r .4.,.,•.`, -.,e1\,1'.-- -'4,-•,-;:-7-7..--,--,-=---:::-.:-.--,---z--:,-,--,-.;,---:,,-_,,,=---f-7-:,..,.----zz,,,...7,-2- orri..--_,1...ir..,,,,,,,,-..6..,'.L.'..-. lo..1,.v,-,.3.)44--.,,,,,,,,-. --...,., • ! •4:se7-1-1.-<,i -...' ....;'-,-,"Zi-..--i_.----r",_-1;-2--•j,:r,.`-j-:,": :•_77.7"-c=1.,' ,'Z'.;.--:.;;L":-:=1..4.4•::--;• •1:11zi'•:iliV,.1.,',0,ii''41.41.‘e'*.ti oiii&..Z%ttle-';'- 1 V 4..;.,....,i,. .. 4,--,..--,-•• ii:-:'-.-,2-j','-•-'-'.•L..`::'i;'-''',. ----:-.::-.75.:- .1..-:,;--=',`±- ,r;=='-4 .1t1,4K,',.;;:,,V.r4 ;;Ovil.aql\itiv.,, '' ''‘V'iii-, •:=', ..c.4 . ---11-1 . ),, . ...i ,,..0....,,.,..... . , .? ,41,,,,r .1 . ii16,,. . „Is,..........„7„,f‘....,,,,_,1_...,-.,-,„:-._-:;-.,.-....,,_,,;-..,:_-_,. .m/,,,A;;:\:i,..i>-.1 4-s•,-= l'n .'i ii, il '-,4,.6,.,,,,..fii,... ...r , ... ., o ,:,...:. ,,•_ .1,0_,.•;,....,„,,,c______:_,...„_„:„...__ __,.:-•-,.._,-____.,__,_..,,.„L.,,,,_3„-___.4-....,-4.,..t. ,„,.,,,,,„.. . ,,,, ..c.,.,t ,t,\,,,,t .1:3 11 , :',.' s■"4,114,` • 1 ' 1 pi.:fr.-::::-,:.,it ,_ ' ,i,.'4, , •; 1 7.,/.s.:1.: . ' ,;:...- '. ,. •,::".1,,,Ly:-.,;-.;':'::1.77-4'v‘.-i7-----'''''''.--7''.-.1- :'-=. ..i.i....1.-1,\• lik'''.'...i.tr--,'''' "; i.'in% ,,,I,S\ ,..11 Val,( .z.”4,,■. ,}`..„• ,i 4,-....,4- ;:' `-,;'''''P--,12:7'' ' '-':-------..r.,..''''':-':'''''---:.--."'I'-t-3----;.:-•:'i'-7.,..5-.;:i:--;•----'--q---4- 11,',7!„.,7-\t.i..,V.,:il';'-'47.•■: kr..,,,I.1,-.1'. ihl„it)1A"1,:‘,C, ''1.„;?.%^‘•7_4,,"*"---;-1?-r*,'4" ••••:._ ''‘`,.,7-,..11,1.1_. ... , '"2..•_ •....,:i ... ••••:-.,..-.••*_,...)•_,,-.,- --.., .•_ .,---:::.,_.:.L...-•:,,-...:.-:f;.-;.,_.-,,,'_...,:,-?_._-,77,--..--2----,--,-._-,.--,_:,.'- .7-••-••-• '1..7.*-;''tr 1=''';',"-L''',,,..} ..13;.V.;. -l'i-alif i i 11.,1;2(4,"NAV•I'Vt.' ''''''X'-1-; ' :' . : , ... ^,, ..,_I.' _,C.r.:-,'4. ..,'''':''.,1:."::'!=. - '77 -'"-.-,' 7.I'El--'7'.2-.r..7-i".. :'''''...::-:::;.--=':11;i'%_ .-'14.',-;_:-;1.t'- '-?`,;'.-Y!,..1.)'11;'''._'-.'it'''.4.'P3‘I'N'',IiiiIP'k,■11',4'...-ail'f4011litia'..".A4tit'-'1 I \% 1 . . 1'--'1-'?../ '..'='''",•-',tie'-',.:i'.-.- '.. . --:. '■',';.'-_-;.;-.;:-"rft-;-;-.-z- `,---:=Z-7.±.-.4i-.-.-,''-`:.s---2--45-'-•.?::'&-:!-(,-(-.0(.,-:::" ''..-%4 ' c-"'-'44.‘":11--"rck'''''.4--V.','■:{';.41n.,-1:•44q kit-'1r4q-A-4.xt' ;-' , , _-:'.',...,:-:-.." . .. -...■--.-.. " , ./.,,:,„;,„..:-.,,-.,•..e.,4.,.6.?.{:-, • - " ,..;,,....7. -f="---"--7;,..‘,..'•,-;.',•::•!,..-;`,,, .'.-i47-.. ,i,,,:-',---"T.E.7.'"--Zi.. -.;,-,,'"--■-■-.. Lg.', - .,1,:::".::,,_-0,01',Y,_e I,'...-.VI:, ',`.0i-e..ic:e4;:,s,,,,,s,,til,..fl t prw.,Epr 4. !II, '`. % . '•. ;.*-t.-1„4,/,_,_...:,"--7,'_kt.4 '._..,,,11,t. „.. :-.1--:.:',--.-,-7,-,-;",:i..-*"..L.f.,71, .---.-,-,;:''';',6.-,TZ;•.------ ,i;!--S3--.. ..7•1,1,1 ‘i",f•;,..4‘,1,•:-'41..:-.'.;i'.-.1‘.31.:',..1,_..A',,,t111,,,,4■',-i••,,,,,..•A.,Z,4.1 j Alci,?r,:.,,,,k,.4„,,i,„),a , ,. ::,._ _...., y If;'-±,-..•,•r:::.i,;.1.,,"r• ,•",-,:,11-.4 Net,',..,..-._"--....-.:-7`.:;"-C•?...•.7--a7"•-•":"..-n:---,,,-,..`:,1"-:•:-.72:-.:.;4:,•„,..".2';'_,••'!•237,..._.74,:•,','2'',,c, ',I.■••,•.'";:i-:,-.1%,i,",-....-.--.-.:;.......i:P...!".0",-,f1;tall...!?.?•:•;-1",ci-V4-(1-71'..,..1-11r,_Ais.%••,-: •., t '•• - - 'i. .• --.. •-:'4•i'''1:-.1 fl- ••''.:•'7.•.'';`-A.I'i -.•; "--...,--7.72-.'..,--;•--7---7---77--;"•*---,.I::::`,...7:-,----"7-77"-;-..-..€•,.-i"-7..:''.%;;V0fr,_....1i1 i ir',".•:',N.:'i!'7-,,i'l,1,,"."..':i",.;';:.,;,.i1;.,iiiie..'' ,:4•-.-'io.-.7•_•:••*„.;;;:. ; ' , , •,.. .... ..: -... . .t... '-7:-' :•••tA .,i.,',•..:T....,.. ...=.2.-...:,• -:--,' -,....-"•.-.--tr••:"..-=.._•\‘,:.•.-. -L•••-•_'.;"..;;-,A..!."."-.;',--t=r:1- 1,,-;•"-,%"'• -•,i-A,".--.-'!i,:.,:if7',. ',...i•-,"+,.*).,k1,'•'1.41-',',I,.., `1...-','-'2,:,`--....j::;:•f"-f,..f"....,-,_r, 7 - .. . ,•• h - - .,,,,..__ ,t;:. -- • • :..,2,•-..-___ ,-, •.'...•,--'-‘----=7-%•- ,,,"="'r 41 •''5' ,•-.: l'$*I'Ll,‘,`-..'it.0411-\\•iik,-h'•- .•,'qt',■.,....1.,,,,-1,,-.....it.'-,f '. '•• ' •'.( - ..,.. -. .- . ..„- 1.4,./.1, . 4. 4toif,:,.7.9-1.::: -,...... '7:,._ ....,.:7:7,_...:-_,-...:'r".::-.:...,,.,7'..,..:7,-::3.±.. .I i....._,,,,,,, ' '"1...1,-1110 ,$."..,-,:ti",'.41%,,i-'..,, ',...;:: :.,4,,1/.....,,,,1;,1:..y.,:l 1 hil:' , . ' ..;... 1 . ,' ... ' .-'k".14. • ;.-..r'....- '- .--- --'''':!--...• '.1`r:...7,-"7.-.---=,-:77;.---;:-P.::....".,Vi- ., irt‘-MIti.,Sr.',.::-.'--,-,l'i..,,,e3.,„' ..- '.- • , I .7 4..r'. r .-•. '.•,,--...: --.-.Z.T.',..,--:-71'..:;','1,t,-,',;.*-1.. .1--7_,7;-j?...-::a'','". '-A' , .:AV14' l'-:!;:i..r.:;41 tfr"..tVff'.'" 4..1''.1'. 1''''';'' '-7'----- --- ... 1-,. ':J:■';',' -.! -1",- "-.,,,.a._---.- ". - --.-.--'1,---,.--.1:- .,--=.,..;=:". ....rs"-; '' 'rj:-..J.el_ -:.4.1.11- -.: ...,,-,-._,_.';= :..';‘7*-'`.ir.'.,•M,t,.:-.--:" , ii...11 , ..:7'.'..'..-.C.41t...4.' , 7=.■':. .:1'... .71i,',: \:.'.■-: ''t.:...ki...,.7 1/.''' 'l'4 •i,.', ''Itt;..‘,.'6'''4,:li'..': ......',..t:). 7:7 ,j 2'.. ,..:',A.'.,::,..'.j'.1,-:11Fi,'''''.' '1''..t":::''r? r;,'''*:".-L::7.7:;771:T.%4i,'14.1q. '11...k; t :; ,f.:4...r;.7 :„.•,.., -;:. i A.,O, _ •..12,44F,t..,,1::' '-.,,..1.c,'',"- L--- `i,••' ":' ',.,'.7,...",, ,.",.-';1.1...,,--:,'.'•-".:_::'.;;:::- --2-5--.2"-likl•,•''' ' :': 't.::'''t• ):'- '',-;:' '''.' ..' 's . ''i'.-1';''''';'-:;''''''.--2*e.--'(- ;". - ,--".".'‘,.--',;.•'-,,-•".-4„.".:.• 4 1.-..•-- • --;=;•/;' ' ----,:?::;-'.1•:s•-•;-••‘''Z.:.t-- ;?•-lr.r:.:-'i.7.:--,,-. ...37-ff...,,, J,,-__ , .: l l'; (4•,:Ate-tV.'.‘' :', - ...,,-. ztf,_:,1• ,.*-,:", _, 7. • - .•"i • •••••- ''1•_' -)T", ,.",-.:',",-1,-".z.... ,k...., -.-- ••-'-' -_,..,-,- __ ..-..., .,... ,_ ,_ ., -,■• , ,, - ,t .,- • ••,-,,,...-,,..• - •-•,-, 1-•1' - :..•..' ...; I ,r,.-1, '':,...p:„..4. .-'''.;. ..4-t,-,' , , L....,..__,._:_. •-„_•":".',4\11-'''-'17-:■:--‘-:''it',.,...-....--"',..,•-2'---Ti.''7_.---:•-•'15-i---t ---Z•1 ° '1 '-'A ili-•°;W ...k.:. ..-A t.--t-- .- ------.''.'-- —f 4, ; ,■ ', , .e.••., -• - ,-I sti , .•, •,,-. ,.,, -•...: -4-:,- .....ti.'4„.„,,It,-,-,;'-'.i.-t- ........-,:,=-,,,j",--7-7:-,..-.--,-,f,h.:::,:..-f-,r-;-.7:1,-..-s:,..,EL,::::::::,..;.:.-.T.;::-::?-- kti-.'---p•:- I 1, .,',1...,.., k.:: ---•'' * ' " ' ' ej • . ........ ..' I . .'r . VD.',..‘i.,,..r. 7- ,Ar,.,, i.., , _,.•. 1,....,.,,,...,.?,,,,f__,, • -,ri.:,r-%.r.--...7.,:;;.:.'k,„.Nr. .t:,-7...-:,-,-.7,-._.;.;2_,..„....,,,:,-.„2,-_,1.....-;,- -..„..„-,:-.7-,r-i-,-.,-,,,_- -..-411 -• • - .: --. 7 I •-•.'-• - ". . 111('..:•-:- '.... -cf '2",".,;•-1";:e.b".• ,' • y yy r y+�t r � 7 qi `trCy` g i fl ' • �' '�.'a ATTACHMENT — — .Y7•� '1'i� Airt2j i*76 4 .-:-..z.,:,-...., -,.,„, . . ( , '- `=,-.tS` .T- - �• I :, y Sd _ •t r +Cb a: 1 ;v r ^3ti . i 1 15f€: ,s 1 a....—' ...�— -- • - r y 1 I. 'j a�'^ _�V 1 'nV>j y. !. }y 7 } _ __ '— _—^ \\\\ i a - i1'.`' ;.1'i . ..,1t,,,.,:',..2.1 1,t I :7 }'r t -cat -1 ! _ p 1$ 11 � h 1 iS p ! • /�^ I \' Ir ii - ' '4j�74�Ewhf I7 ay t #C.Y _�t� �r a . � , ti C " ., ,,s,,, ] '.i -��'G- �5�.`. 3, 1 ,9 1 ],a1 _ � �':� _'!^' "� 'a ] S '''4,1•7;,::•_._ �' '.�-,ysi 1,1- r' �i� �� ,t�t�ff Iz'" _ s i T ,a s •.•• / - r ft W tk` y 3� k w` r r -' y 1 ,� �� { ___._ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _:„.. .______:•. ... " _ : . : . . crj,.- :' ---..,,,T - 0 . .. _ ; jt '' S 3 L'1 y' xr rssee' } `tc ,c- ]�• �'+- -I P. �+; i i q' 3 7 - � /1. '� ! 1 I C ill;I -'P ktr 5: 7e 4 ,*:;!� i 3} __ i.�l t- - iZ�t1 - 111 � aro , J . I 'i {,t , ' ti,`1• k a I •rl I ,, ?,..,',= 47316. 4.., s.Jd* .Oat 1 t c 11 f .1,:'-'4'.'•p 7 .044—+ r-�f ' 4 Ii F _ `.I �Fmn_,� 1} :.yI I > � •�s: + A "e� ,I 1 f,..,:.;'..; - 1 -,t 1-4f:-...4...-teft• t ,�� I� II ':r`� I+ :]r. .•'• }i ��rt�.,� d, .S ,N4,4,'4.-4. .,+Sjk I _' yam-!'• / J . -_....- J TTt�R ,. �..1! 1 P �7 .. _ ,�', y 1 3 ,!). t-� U• - _ ._ - + u, 741 +1 .. ,,"�a �i �1 i` I,�' I�,I i ,•� .• t{ +. �• • 3. 4�� rr� 1 \ }a 3 -E 7( _ ._ 'a' 11}t :;,70,1.1,,, ,.-f \ 4- - e '4 �k 1"• et -r�,.t.�°rx N i''�1���+• t <<i1•'7� �� ? p� i �.x+'E v�,ti7.: '▪r ,'+' •1 't• u.a.1t�' ` •''7 I},{.a it ,� i• a-< u• rs.c;^ r 1 .I.1-• 4.z. .ices r. ±, 0�` • r- r4".a,ri.�' ` n�t .L"r . - -...... - 1�� �;:�i i, � 'F�-t !,€:: a • w1 ;47.'::'-'t':...14-'4.4, r % , Er= �• 'iY -T� ,, ?( \ xr(f`t -_,,ate "4: • . L.f1"S';;;6.,; _ r ...vt� rip` - . -//• t \�:, . -4- C,, �i sE\-'•C 1 ,�. �' rte`: �:•'• \ � t 1 �i - `,I•t-1'*� 7 /��111(�.- 1st t �g,,� 17.• li'1`�.� 'Jt 14 ' 'l �_-T c s y�•Y i'1\' J •1111\„1` �, ' "dam i -P,I.' `4. yi. II 0{ i` _r _ •is Z i i_{ 4:161,15----'' .,'1 / 1�'r.� > ±jg c° i4T ` .'7y1. �`heat= y7s • 14::-.7..i—=:4 'i, 91 3�# -;•N‘, {'�D +::+r j �r.�a. 1 l+'s.t'� x 1.,,,,...--„,.:,-� ' . II ;•� r ° r �w is i F� ... `,,,, �yy 14 �3- ...,:•;'''.....2.1t: , jj'i t = M'R -b.-SL° ' ,-•:,3^ �'. ,,"�Ci r tf•A X1.7 -,;..;; {. P'y`5 • - ice. ,� ,k'^c td '”�'�`x""�3_. p •s�\C �`1• li -• f I a ".1; . ''i �'c ,-.? 1• y c d ;r �r� t..�iR. 3q:- fit k1 „r- E t �y 1.r. p K i y ` r x '; ' , , ; ATTACHMENT# TO • y, 1 1' '' F v t_.< • !,-..".4) -,-,,',,,.....-< r . i • ,t ' e• , rF ;f , rte`!' I ';I r` '3nT `phi. - '4 ,'' S y'..,. xt1 4 5 .. r �pjr�• '•'.._ ,Y� r......r._____. t rl''t;• t r 14 r4, tr I1/ r f���IRrt .� � J+ • i� 11 11 I rIV °i- j� i. •v sue: 4�o:iY I { 1 fa ! y. + ; S I'))I I I I•11r ti I } S' st' , - _ I'• ''s 4 �rf�.s Cc: Is 11_„.4 I,(, a I "F: i ° f!10-,- � L _ I 9 hC LJ�II� U11 ll � �"• :1'..-..,-•: t E+ V.;;.. ..-.:".' I , ' , '• I 0,�1 € g t t $' r r •< .�' ; . c' s `` rrl 2 i�.:' r .' tl Y�(a F• fl 1 , ,I _'. -"( v.d {2,l V�t t , Ix. s•'` m •� eT �, L CF , M1t1' �� 1 • I>I i"derC'.,.: � !_...„..„2-;_....,„... l I. 4 M :i F r F- a U t.,, 1 >,-140?.. _1 y l II, '-. `.. :r 1!...%--`t,l. # 1 °k;i, - `�i tli• •.,,,..' I' •• `•rip4� ys 'UN' �I.x� + '' i �1� :II I• 1 I I.1 1. r�� rYl it f,•.14 I t 0 'pit.el ' {IFilf�t • t. dr.f.i....7,,,...-.,. .) If �s�`4�t. I ''` r --':1:e ' I I� j p?".1 :`i� 1 to(( 111�t"txAS § f l , J�••.,,-,,,,,,;--,••..:{- , , ��' II 11 1 'A)}' A,-..,.::_7'i„,... _S` +"t{. I, 'F: .` . ,-11 :T111 J', • _ \ '•�1`: I II 1: • tl � +1(fflYU'i,- l' rt > '4....71' \ 5 ' '� r(1 . Ldp zi S_14 -`ttr f i(' .--r.,''.{i- 1 t,A1)if , I I 3 t .�1��1•�.. ?F s''':' 1 r.� �'-• --_�'� n I e' d I.; 2 :rA rtp ', s a ''A -•v .,, : J 1}Y. I. 41 f ` !4y "- x111 a li •/tr��fi i' rr r r :•• 'r r,f''. 4 •In fp_11111,j Ail „(f 1 7a 1t' g I C 1,,5�^' ,f Y i r '4` ` .' a- - . - . S i:_ '.:� L'� �� -..----4'' 1 ,,,ti ,yam,c 14114.1 , - Y_ kF are Y 1 r •r3 • �.. e f i,' �f1 LIT-imk- I1n Y,. -g ic1Y`V`- pII � � 1 "�. .•r . rat �� I; ! '41 ai )1 11� 1 i # �-:''''''`231'..,..7.1. Fd 'z , _ 1� 1 •loll s f ,y II, �it?'��I I,.! , _ > 2„,..,„.. 1' t II r,• 4 •• 1'r� •. I,' ;., i+.ff' , t >j i�X11 1��. `t I�,a•_.,' -', N ,1 ) i' -,13:•`• 1.n24 p. P- �s ''llam-' _�-�''"- g{ ,�`<1 I;t;"11 t3 E it 1, ,aItis , `-6°;1!r ', 4� �el"• ,t - ' ` ��I(S-• '��..-.�-r- .JY-. :as--2,•-t`-':° :ti 1f+ 1�Y :"If-''''' 4,1,1i-,(4- 1-;rvt' } {. ,�F�'r,+ 1 r [fit: ,'�e, 1z -'.i .1 �I.rr s'F r 9 1 4`t + " try 1, i 4:,,,t , I r' 1 t, m S'. • llr` '6 l - t� r '''0.'•1 �;:{ `pJ.. ,£`pt4'l'-- _ti I.1 F ;r ,t ..-yyyA L:lu F ;r it -r 1�' '`, 1a_' gl 11_ a d .r# [ fYT i(!a 1+ i rl q f1.!t I I }� I! -x I,' • f, �i .t•It l f, t -'i -1 1 I• 'll l� 1,,r11.4.-,..,........f.- �O f, [ 1: .',44 I II!!I{ t 4 ^` k 1 - ' �I'i • • 1_ j ", �F"• (4,llt/ Gk �d f �; I f•✓E I' �li��I -t.,-.. i '1"-4J�i . , l - ,:,I �.�"•'.�: '14, I.Ia(F. } -I'-.;z-•,'..:-..,-,,,t it I 11� ;4,,,,40 4 1 6 :..1 _•I r ,..,e),...-..t..,?, .• - -: ., 1. 1' t ri' , - 1••,1 I� 1 1 �, ,{ r 4 ' 0:4111:::z-.,::;-•'. ,I , -_ {', ci� fit, ) xt s , ;. ,ol.t-ers'{g.,i.!. " �rn ,.,-,.....:-.7' " '_'•sit ,. 1(II' :.l �!! II �Ii .i`i3 ', ' t -e.,e,. .}? _ :• '`� .•ti .;•• • ip• i I 11`r ,f y^I ' 'j Mt 'I. El I . j u�� t - + i�T' `I?:; ( 'r r S` < - .G - 1•: I I':F+�' "i i ., 1.i' e?r'Y,' .'-..L;'6'-- , ,1 '. "r°t.-'`' 1` ;F4t °x'.'- -i_r1 6 -;; •in r [ .. ',1.1'e' t.x, l 1 A it - 'ar I'. 1 f....,� :--. • _ !I (1 ), 'f _� ,1 I .r { 4. ”,.401)! 1., IIr 91 ,' � � ...- : I/ i/ ! .. f ".-T• :� _ ' I r' a .3 r. 'Wt 1 r• li:+y�t' >, iti�r I Er '• %.,', .••'.:.---,.=•: !;•-..;‘-i\-.‘It', ��"""'NNN°°°--- ; <1 :. II AI I 1+ r1 rf'.1, I 1 �tt i1. rr- I1 ., .,' :• ,rte I;f. { fi •i[ 1 N,'...,'41_ t ,1 -t s irt��: .4Tu - 4 ) !`. �� A� 1..•I •, j(q ' t 1)., •.`a , .egsr 1 1�i� I•r' I 1 I 1 ' 'li $•i','t• t 1r,, i 11µ,154'4' 1�%1` / 1 +S�•+j.r ) 5 • fl•rl a l( ,II•1 f s li..4 ! V r ”:-1„14Y1i... y, I _ . . 1t I'l ..1,(;),,' 1. '+ , 1 tt 4ni z ! L. ,<Z-. ,rte- t•;"'•:-,....•' _ 1 >j Y I. { .i',16.>In4• I t 0�� ,e,Ai 1'r =S- ,�I' r IF+�1•,:.• •^.,�:- ; `' i giJ‘.1.t(i „I a, s :!" �:1• I i' .fi,l,.4F'0111:,5 -r, n 3 1t ' _ 1 I ! , I� I 144t Itz T i`a,' Y c'Si '.I • '+ X< - 1 1�: �1'I I ti ' (}11���IS < },€I'-::;:!2:.fil `• �' - �' 4 rt 0-1-: :10 lA,i . •!.. .�k� iii 'I,r I e e1 , ' -. r rJ2 ' .+ • _ S y I ({' t(�: -` h s Ii � � I. !(',Yf'(f1 w1j I, r 4 i , • r i/' l4°. t 4 1 441, C rt.:11 • 111 I d ..1 /4 ryli� .,til i � -,:.t,/,�+ 141>�.1 r' iu0 I �'. ' •r(�I/' 1 d1'a t'i 1 G i r '{j ;11 �:14-11,,1- j Af- I •�`•• ;Till 4; -11 } i .i,r ti11 Ij)I �� .f`{ I 1 �i r tl 51 * E'•' /•. � f till S, r rl 1: 4� air, I 9 1 Z$11$I .i 1''' I.�1 I1I j�#1 ,-,..-'41 1:;',..- -%' 1 `• d '( ,Z .^ `f '��y sD • - 1'IM I I'. l i i ,,ir �8 Y 14-11 t l' + i1, ' :, 1 ;.0,:.9),;,,161., t.,•� �Y�+�s?��q*-•,0 1 fr',4 Q[j �;4 , ,i - `k}3-X'4 :1 it••.1111ti.. S. 4•_"f ( -.`•`K', S:fN' y am` 1'S .t - &', :11;k[:;:,. 2.111' I _ L"ir+ ' ',}, t�.49;' � <.r x�r+'�N6 j _ 1 #r• p � � � - Y: .. � _ Fr__',lr' r°���<`�,`�j9V•r�v/� ct .��r rs�.i(�I�r.(') y �I () i t!` `°r � _,�1 gt <rt1fi y ' � Ix' k ,I t ll #( t I' f n .! i>: it 1, r r =`. :I 14;' , r7 %/ ‘It • • -01 t I- •` ,, F ,.•�i1 c i )' ` ;tl. f7Kt'• .,„1. i�,ti�t >{ •.Gl,yf11 'j lVn }.- .;..TJ 111 I 1� '��, t.s , — �` Fit '• i i �. /s rp_'� J17f• .`,,rl.;� • 1,4_ . T.'y `'�' -+Y ��. �"v'�'.'1^C 6- 3 1 . -- . . - ' . • -.; : • ATTACHMENT# 2. V . s . - PLN.02-JO 15 REPORT# _ ...,._...„.F.,.-44-s-mg.y..i",••74-.*.^-,,•-t,-,4,-, • ...7,,--,-,_-..,k:=.`t-.- -":.".! :.,,,-,,,=1;f'-„,.7_,-•,.'';.-..,.---_,,-.,-.---:."..7,- .1-',..-in,-.:21,1„!AT .*-z .. .- -A . '-' `,1,-,-,,':-:-* tli•-•-,,--",,,,'-'1!:::4-i:17;:-:;1!--r,';77.,;'-';'_-.,:--rit.-.;':44-1-f`---T--;'', - --?--&..\"-'i:i7;5-As'-'1.:•• ` 1'* x•--:`:(---r•v-v-A 4.,-.:---,..7.----, 14,: ',..t.&=3-=1.-,r,'=:-"'Z':'*,x, '-"-',..:"-.,.---. .- -4.- ..2,n•,..',._-.;,-,..i.;;;.,--2,,, -.:,41.7.-.,z=-..=,-...,-....,..,:i....v,!,-,,,,,.:44'.-i',, ,• .... _ - e ` .-A , •','.',.„:. ...._.-_, C'-.I.,_.,.;:„... - ..f::::',. -LI.-'r.::;;-,--r.1,.:.'1,-=;-;;'-i'.-'._''.'.'" - •Ile.7:i.• --1.:-4,.•'I_ 'Cll.:7, ..,-=2-1.-,-• . :,-..,'''',..-71",;f4.-.-,,,„'„Iy?,-..-i-1.-ti."-,7:.-:-.1,4i,""1...3.:: ' •..,s7,1!'.„.1,.',;:. '':i:"4...:V. .:-`'..'11„;'''''t 4,t,••;a-'.. ',',::,.":1i."...:t."..c 4:-. : . ' - .v...,..,4,, ..:,,,,,,,...,. ,.. a,:• ,.-,,,:a-!-,,,,1/41,44..,,,,v,i,,,,w,„,-.,,,244.---,,,,,,,, ,,,,,-.....,_., ,-,-- .--'-'-'-g*, -:„.'''''...."'''''' ' a- - •''. ,-...4....e--#-.41_,n,v.;,, , ,, --:..,-,_::1_,, 2,.. , . '-7.:,;'''4,4ZU.-11- 1.-"I'=-'., la".g,tt--•. . ,,,- , ':'-,-, „,,,,L,2`.f.:f.,:_'.:-- ... :.-..t 4'. 4'. ?!::::,;.??.6: yi '1-'''' '''.. '-' ..* ' - 4....--; ..1‘. ,-,,.. ,--; 1 „,.... --, - --- .L.,- 4.--,-,--. .,_-.,..,-. ,,,_.-- --, .,--,-,,,,---- 7:-.;vki.-4'.-:-....: v,pit•-:4;4.X.:1;----'' *'i';''Z1,5-Av v:.-.2'vi.-••: : 1„,„„,„.&..s..1.•-•atry- *;‘,=-_7-1 ---.:',.03' ''.. '• '-'..,'."'' .''. ,.04,44*4.4..,;.„....,..,14.,..*; _ __.,..., 1,,,,. .. , . ,,.,,„45-f„.;'!.,..,!. it,,-,;,,,.:. ..,,,.W::: ,,ft-`,7.21,17„.f;i.,,,7,-V::,;;';,--.*.-• ', '' * -; -.- . i ''5-'7,C$ I.--:fl ' .".,-?..',--`7,,•Tt',4;'-iSeit,7:.4,g,-..Ift,VN'JI'LL.T,...';`,.!*: . .S....,'. ' .. . . - —1-- ...p. .. •LL- .-.:1'-- -i'''-f-',i•-..,--s-i '. ,-.- -.!--iNot-'..7.X1,-,.'-'_--`.„.--. .‘-f.,ititti.V.Z.Nvi-:,,,.;71,....: _ ''''';i4-:r''.4*';'''''4'''''''''; ' '•-• --;.,.''''ai.`"thr--',A1Ati:L:',-4*-,i. '".`i.,',.T".;-!, -":7'`,'4,..e-,,-:':=.-- 7.:'-...-:- :--;;_-'..-7.--,';.,-!-,-*--.t.-41.-:,-44,it,74-1, if;t-:..'e-,,,L.,----4,74----441••4-..N' -----••=-,,'-c13-,.--..••--•;?-1:•---'--'."-- ----- _.'-',---.;.:',-.1--li:TN-564•'--g,ti-it-",1-q-''f.- "•-,,f---`1,{3;4A--', . 'irr:.:tr.A11131- '-,':';''':---c.'''',;;T:.: -• .' ''''' -, ''''' '':-. '-':;-•:•:•7:!..,":3-5:4:-A- "W:- --''.,,:i..7•si;;:'!:--;,: - .. ., .-,,,-,-....,---,„ ;g„.;-.....-44..,.,,,,v1 ,,,-,x.1,'.',---,,- ..'q.,,... ■ 4'• • .4'.''r k • ‘ .._ '' -...-`'''- ....- .,.' ' . ''.:''''''..-':"-,-'''-',...2,•''„.' :.".„"!-'1.,,,,..a:1,..,_*,.. ,..,-''-'-' „'",:ti,-=....,,,i•”' " • , -.:-. `--7..,,'',...:',';■'1---,":"-..-';1..!...4;.--,-;v4,-,...-., -,4--'- —— . ;... .-- . • . .. .. ,-, ....I.-*.-- 1:-.-*v-.'.-r--..'.-f'k-7.-:-Aeivils.7.--;,-.:1-- ir Asko— . • v , ,.•,r--,,,,• ,"v''...!.!,i34,4.,,0'..,'.- ..__ k , -- . ,---• -,7,-..,--,...:_-`...-".‘%...,'-%4-:---.:'4. - .. .,, ._:,,,,i„:',•.,,,-..i„,_',.,..,..,,,,,,,.. :, .-- .._•,..,',.,,.„.„3. ,,,,,i,„:„,,,.-..„,,,,,.--_,,:-.4,,,i-i,„..:--fr.i4..'-_-',':7..-',„,..,1,-.,--oi„,-„,,,..=.7,_:,,-'.::,.,,,z,,,,.-,: _.-.,-- .• : _ . ;.•,,,.,.-„...... :.,... ,. . ., , . .. ...,,.-........:::,_:,,...-,--pe7,..,A,,,.:, , .. _ ,.,-;.---„,..,..:,, :„p„..„ —,•... ,.- ,,•, _:::::.....„:„.....„... t„... ,••••.. •, • , ., .:„..„,...„.„,..„.,,v,,,..,„ t ...... .. .., ., -''-1':::.4 ::-', i-.''■''' ''. . , ...',v.„.:.„',it,t-",,,Z7,-•ZiF - --'''L'- --- '-.--'-',.''-=--v::.-,''''• ..' ' -, -4 ,- .; -.....,:s.,,L,z4k4,g..,,,, ..-i-v: .„-,,,v,„.=--,‘, .,- - . .---A.''1' .'''' ' ' --.---.,'"v., ',:..,,,•!=_,74-E-1,-.1i1,:frig-127. ...,4_,.--„,-. -,,,,;6,...i., . t.:,-.- : .•- — ,7_„„;:-..; "..-7.. ,,,:...,;;;.-...1„--i,-7;,,Vgli.,''..- ''-7-',2.•4.,:k _ „..,. . . __„7,,...4-,4-:„....x,--7-y,..--;:.%.7".f„!,,,-.4-.,'-'.. .;‘,„7-.• "1-,t i.4" --.,..A.si".,: _ , . • ''"-...,- , -.,.... 7`... -..e, ••■ . . . v!.,' '•.,:;,..-'7,-,tkl:tt.4',-... : ' " .--,i;'"•:,..1" ,...''.' --7.,-4,,,,,:,---,,,-4, ---„...4:.,. .- . . . 7v:,;' -]--,•"'-`- -ff-7. ,-' -.• -. ----tr'ItZ-411;::-.,---;t'):'"''----.: • •--- .--- -.- tt.ti!e`:±-14:F,P*7-1,; -$Y-';`7::','-•-'•.-'7'-• - . •• " -,- - „... -, - -,- .• , . - -.:4•'."-='-' - ---,-. , • -•-:';4_-, • ,..'- ',,t.;.■ . .'.- .'-i.---, -„ . ._. „,_ , . :,_ . -4 ' -- ,:e.4-41.,. • . • • I ! ir� j y� s lug 3#�i Y = �'„i1-'I,1, .' ,4:-.44,`,:,'a° "1{ C - 9 ''•1 , , • 1 :[ I 1 t f dtdi kial�i F t , II t I • 1 fi c lIflil , � �, G r• � (il�1� t il�1 3 i 1I1f d k 7 ; f 1 r Y • , 1 :; t � ri,-- � 7�t'd F -z,J Cc 11 ,, 1 � t ill 0, i,„ -i j i,d1 :! t i it, a . � ' �~ sd�,r.r'vi Ir�� + t I � r ��: r 1 1�,�� � '`-1•€i ! f 11 1 .1 1 1 - Ey -.4 ¢r��t et it-if 3 a,' ° l 1'44.:,611.tt y !t t .: e,', ,! t �#I...I . E i is f,l'�4'- �� ell 1 a •— ��, .. , .:.,.., ,,_,,,,,t..,,_,. . „. fi ii: + i,.!1 i4,_i I :I',11. �`�'�� d '' . 1 MI 'j IP�!'' i t 4, 1}' , , Il�d�f I� •.1� x�� ��i t E•r � d Kr 41r `y� li c h I n f $I. .;I I � �'! p t 'Iill+altikl �, dr ' .4.1.. . I (II. 1 ' I ' t f ' : .• �1 ��ii3 �_. ,! X711 } I �ti4l jt�,d;� 4' t � 1 �I '+.. _ - i • �s _ Iii, I_e 1 ! t I. , y, i, }tr ' , .k 4 •Y 11 i �F" r 1 C�r fdp jl R-r -* ' 4 .•i , �to ,Ii "� { 04, � di 111,,1 t ' 1 0 1I 3' 4 '” 7 1 11'lid l-x e i� r 'e 1 , ` .Ii I :•' 1, /, l b r s •�� r' '�- fr�d `il r h ;i d..' i II +� ¢ y {� .`, s ,�t .`� S�"d 1 is 111 $ !! �5!� g 4,I 1 .y - '1p. S t I 1 i 'j( j4;• 1J4.iyr i.'° f �' 6 IF 1 '' ' 1 f.' '"i,.y h ,,kk 1 X � � �eL Y,+� ' -��; fI ; p� f(f7. .f o�P' +y-^ ..i IT,(41..1,-;.i.,;;-:-;,-::,,,,,4.1,,, 's'` '' - 1 ' �i 1, tt #� yam-. ��1F �,°�1' d i9; ' 1 i , , 7, 4F -1 4 -} • . tu6` ..e4,„ ,i � ';I J ! I� d� '., �ti .P1, .& :‘,...171.i,11:17,. I o-i ; S ::I y t if ui tl .T1. 4 i (f y L. .Y Y ! dd y1 - t '� •• i 1 S r '11 f d .F , t , ! i f,-46,,•4.',,,f_. 4r • :' - ';` ar '^ � . , [Ali 4, } : i. y11 t, ;) '.1 fi . fE 1 > 7 > l . '. ?il ' fie+ k i� ' il. { d 1 "f j' � "� s f x a s 1 dI I 4 . 4,11i11,i ,+ 1 a .. it -.- =1" t 1-is \-", 1■ b d SSS } TTY' i•e'� ` \')'. • ,K, g y1.'o1 f ry t'-:1,...A.3.1.,- • der . 7 E ,w,' ,i. ii .,, i t tc �x II- tai .3 g 4 y1r F - i ' f,' ;• f• - F g. t, - � .` • 4-— — — ✓_ it ,_ fi ATTACHMENT r t r J�LN U�—/te n REPORT#sn x- - •I _ - -4„ .• - � - 3- � �3 � g .rE� -Ag �a �� �, ��� � � $"C' # � � ' �{ � _ T 2 d� t t. '�; nn3 );--.1,... � � C � ' .2-',-;-r:' i' ' 'fg- i +�; iS 1 i 7 --R� y€ �t �" ' d s ,3 .; °� - - 7. S' _ t+.. l { 'K�ri '.!�. 1c Yys zj y �� � :t w-,.Y . t �1"...-. 7":: }ms_ : 1 .t a'rk i 1 �, .�t �'�-]- t R# 7 .a 7 C " y- ?' t ! . l ' fr T 4 , "^ 1� ,msi s � v"vt".- t,T+ P f ! � . „-" f- e r r - . i1 2 ta, x o . . S J s ' ;` � $ r , e i - s 3 ,t. . g- k - s• -v r - .: =-- '- '• - ''4-i'.;i- -;:!".37!, -.:t::-.4.4-7-‘-'''ir-41-e, -"54:tit,',:,2V.:;7";1-,:, -i:.:"4";'t,.S..:;„;-� 'i t !4' -Z, 2 - -� rte- r ry t � �3; 7.-.:'� '.�-} �" 1�F'F't 2i' 4 t;p { s _� �� �aF �, .�r 'ys tz� 4. r �"^s -. °1 w' e� ,s< ,4 ;Y- e err"` `' ff = ,€s - tax q - - i t "1_7' , -- ' ' ' - V aRU: -- -- = fi: - f Z 4 £a 3 z.. .. _ 4t EF te- _ - - - - . ` 1 ` a •- -`y, mss. ir I - : - .•- --)• -:---z...-,--_e.._-..___,_______ ATTACHMENT# 4.-- TO REPORT# . ..._.s.2..:1.. .._. ,.., _ ..,... — --- __--- ,.... -_-=--.---_-_-_ , .--- . . • . . ... ___ :',-.;....i. _ ...c.z.; „ok.,,,- • - -- - r . ., ,i--..----°- 71-- . _. . ''---7•:-,,-., - '. : 3r'.'''-':..-4 .,- :-. 4•L‘..ern 4.44441,.- le ■ • r - ' '!A "1-- - -.4ilf""•.1(-='f' s-As;t4.* 2- 77 ,.. . A il .. • •"" ' , ■ . 1 .'r n '.. ;Cvet-*"=- •'''. f r 4 ji.- 1. . ' 6 trl. ' - I.' ' 44°' 'f:` , ,''.':,'"'''''Li a , -'.- ■'.-.g ''L ''.1 1. ; ''', ---,=;,.rjr0 -• 4(-, ,...-:-,..-1,'-'"',','-'•.44.--1, ,.„,...,_. -I— 'r I '4'.,r4S '''',1. J 4 s *-* '4 e• 4, e I • , ,-4, ,-4-, -- - .. ,I.A 4 - ,,, -'`.,, ;1`' 1.1. : ' ij4- '‘,..•-:'6't '-' ' '..,' 144, - ..., • . - ,. .= -4.. . - ' .a.,•i e ,;,‘• - I iii z' , .. , .1 1 •'..'• i. ...... 4, ., 1,• ,..., .4' .1..-.i tA+ F.' • ..... ,.. , ,.: et- ; ; ' d 7 • ■'•:; ■ • , 4 ■ '44 4104e- r A-..-1.3:.1.. • iii_.' t' %N.,,;..• 1. ... . .r- ,,,-,.., _ :_ [_-_-:,-1_ r --:•,...6.,,,, r,'rl 'ri•• ' I „ ...-,.... ------,-T.4-4,-,„,,--- ,_.. _ -''k,)-. ' . ' 1 r ' - — -.44t, . t k: i - t r . 1 " • t,,-.- ,•=4 1114-...,-( ''''t gl -- , i4.1-•444 I ,,,L.- . ,,,,r - " . ., it1.4,v,, 1 `.` ifl •tli°°N.' ° ...- ., i b ' j fik;-4t4),,•••• .111 1 • .'-.CL:-" ‘ i. "'IA I rp".1.— M •,. /. t .... r: ., v ,_• '* " • 4 ' 14 '' '''-N P r. ■ :' r , '' , C 4' ' •4 I' • •i;- I f ' i la6. 1:1 --• it il) „:11 .41.:t :• ' Ill d• „, i ' ";” 1 i $..A,44., :-.. • . ,.. ,.•.02.4. A. .,. itt .. , ,. 1.25,1 V. -.: . .1 • -,.. "Eft .., •1 t._'--r,-.. rn 4r _ • ., - , ' '4 r:.•-• -.. - .,4, f.,- .•i If,1 .'WEL'. = '.kt 2--,.-•". .,,,4*.4 ' 4'.;1*" \.'1.4 - , . 7414 . ''• , !:;.1,..7A ts_ ,, '4.- . '-' [ . ''it:-4-' - .4 ..:1.,L: 4.-.,-1:,4.-,...:' .44, ,,, -Ji - ' 1 ' n'-rilt..1 : ';' ....- . , '.. )0 ,I.r...t3 'Ai-if, ,..g.li ,, 11„,,i." ., ,i?r., `..--- ..., - 1 • - - 4,r4vismi; ,....4k -,1. ,,ft-yi ",''''=14 0 Ili ■-'/':' - * ..t ‘r:i..`•114 r r*: oci, .,.4 i. . ,...,..._ 0,,, .,... ,-r„.4., ill,r,,,,..-: 4 t • {,ir., : 1 , ,•,.-. 41,,, , , ,,,...! . ,J.L:.L ,.. g:, . 11 ,,,),I i ii;',,) .„, ;eV ,ar'' ...4,1X.:, •rr ---I, I- ' .4" ,I 11,174•Fts; ' 0/ 1.;:. 0..,;;:',.1..1La.rrr?. 1, * 1-7.-----7=GiCil I 1-1,- 'Ei'., ' , - ; ' 7 T,0,.4.%.A; I,,, 2.-.; ;',". -; 'h.--4-17 ' '' ''., f . ■C L.i,E' ._I 1i'f ;--,_g rft -.`i;t)- ''.*4.i'• ' .7 --,;:i ' ''r.t:'' '.!` ly ``v ' 310 .,.';. ,,r,14,.. 0 $ i: 1., , . , 1 ______;:i k.'",-,0„,,,iiiiit'I-73„,:, __.r.L' -4,,,, ., , i It y, . :,...• . , ', . i:•. .:,. ■'14i 1:-,4,:i,:,i-- ; Iiit' ,tr'': , •',- : ,.. , ,, ,..,1,,I; ..i ,.. .,4e f`, 4_44.,4, :('''tr'.'. • , • -, , ,,. i. ,f .t. , : ' c1,. •.. , .• ;A? -0,,.4c ,tt ' 4 .. .--4,1 ' t4t-Y) ye I. .. . ...A1 ' 'II ...r ,.'.hillY1` . i ;', ;'('''•4%, , tik.: . .1 1 _1,-.,.,..!I • f % II t . - ..1..,kk , 11' t:'. ) '4..: zpA . ...„,,,.. ..... . , ...,... .,,,,..4 1-,t,..,, IL' 4-1,... r , rp,llie: '''''.-_:'':" ' , ' l'$!,•'-'''T.:' '''" *••••••!•,.-:„._ =,,'I('r f ' ■ „l• „ . , tivo . .,li.4.-.1...., ,, 4. i-...tr . 4 ,)I •1,,, I Or it 4, -, •.._ A:.,.. ..--1,1" 4••. ,,, -It" F , 9 i -,-.. 1 .-" -... . t- il 41, . '';'i i r' .;• , I .---0„ pf --440— ..ze _ _ . - ,,,,,u,, ; .* - - -_,I 4,.— ,..,,,t.--5.,. „.. ,,,e.,'A .*AlVi, .** 4 ' ..- . 'tl.h.i'.411 ---.-.w--_-.-- ----4-4.--_ . - , ' I.' Z ;,).11.‘ Lir ' ''. --- • • _r- „. _ e,, 1: '” ,il •..,---- :* ---1't ; - _. =,- _L ' -.7.,- II, .--,' *-•' It' ,--,--_--7" :.' rr ---._Z,. • .-''----'7 -7-,..--f,-- - '-i--- I1 'c.--i - - --',4------ -..-..}.-.' ' P '- t ;I r:,_ _,;.. _. ...r._...,, %:‘_"" -7---__ --7,,-- ,,-- —7,, -E- , 14 ,:c,,, 4 .-- %..-• • -..-... , ki - ... • Pi --ki, - i4.4 4- .:.tre %•,_._,_,..,---,.--- - ,_ 4.,__. — , 1=TTACtfMENT TO rEE'ORT I, ?c-N- .b2-I5 SON T•per tre* 19:0 '''1111010‘r,r4 DED • 1.S5 CLAREMONT COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP REPORT GROUP MEMBERS: Jim Doyle, John Hickman, Cheryl Ann Colvin, Steve Watts, Julia Watts, Brian Welsh, Craig Wilson, Dean Evans, Nina Ogaard, Scott Ginther, Rod Voss, Aleta Voss, Jess Couperthwaite, Toni Doyle, John Muller. • • • Issued: May 2014 CLAREMONT COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP REPORT CONTENTS: • 1. Summary of report 2. Brief History of Property Zoning and Development Proposals 3. Community Working Group Creation, Process and Results 4. Table of Identified Issues,Responses and Proposed Actions 5. Conclusions 57 A r cHM R PD ° . '%�.NI CYZ 1. SUMMARY OF REPORT: This report briefly details the history of the subject lands,their zoning and previous development • proposals. It also documents the process whereby a Community Working Group(CWG)of volunteer residents was established and the results of the discussions that took place. During these discussions the group identified all of the known issues and concerns associated with the proposed Geranium development.They also identified all the opportunities from a community perspective. Finally the report concludes that the CWG made an informed decision that the proposed development will provide benefits to the community. 2. BRIEF HISTORY OF PROPERTY ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS: The Claremont Development Plan was approved in 1988,and later updated up to Edition 5 prior to being incorporated into the City of Pickering Official Plan. In March 1990,Toko Investments Ltd. submitted Zoning By-law amendment(A 9/90)and Draft Plan of Subdivision (18T-90016)applications to the Region of Durham and City of Pickering to develop a 27 lot detached residential subdivision on approximately 10 hectares of land on the subject lands.The original application proposed a minimum lot area of 0.3 hectares and minimum lot frontage of 34 metres;two roads were proposed that would extend Franklin Street and provide access to future development in the north.An existing barn and home were located on two lots on the west side of the property;preservation and severance of this area was being considered at the time. It has been confirmed by planning staff that the files remain open and active at the City of Pickering.A public meeting was held and comments were received on the submission. • In 1990,Toko also filed an application to zone the remainder of the property for residential use.The remainder of the property was designated Residential—Phase II in the Claremont Development Plan (the planning document that preceded the Town's current Official Plan.)The zoning amendment application for the Phase II lands was withdrawn in 1994 as Toko was not prepared to complete the . studies required at the time.The application was deemed premature until the studies had been completed. In 2001 the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan were enacted,delineating the Settlement Area Boundary to exclude the Phase II lands on the subject property. In August 2012 Geranium Corporation submitted a revised application for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Bylaw Amendment to proceed with a modified plan.Through a voluntary public information session in November 2012 and later at a statutory public meeting held at the City in December 2012 concerns related,to flooding and other matters in the existing community were raised.Geranium Corporation and its consultant team have been exploring opportunities to address these matters through discussions with the community,as well as City and Regional staff. Meetings with the study team, Durham Region and City staff have been held throughout 2013 and 2014 to explore potential solutions. In September 2013 a Community Working Group was established,see 3 below. Currently slightly less than the 10 hectares(on which the 1990 applications, revised in 2012,continue)is within the Settlement Area designation in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and City of Pickering Official Plan.To realize the stormwater management solution and resolve outstanding 58 -TAr ir._VriT{` L property boundary issues of adjacent residents,together with other community design features proposed by the study team,an Amendment to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan,Durham Region and City of Pickering Official Plans is required to restore the former Hamlet boundary to include the Phase II lands of the subject property in the Settlement Area Boundary for an appropriate form of development. 3. COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP CREATION, PROCESS AND RESULTS: At the December 3,2012 meeting of the Pickering Planning and Development Committee seventeen residents,identified their issues and concerns relative to the proposal;the main issue being the history of drainage problems and flooding in the hamlet. During that meeting Council asked Brian Welsh if he would work with Geranium and city staff to identify all of the issues that would be associated with any development of the Ward farm.A subsequent meeting was held between David Ryan, Mayor of Pickering, David Pickles,Ward 3 Local Councillor and Jim Doyle and Brian Welsh from the Claremont and District Community Association(CDCA).At that meeting the Pickering officials asked the CDCA to work with Geranium on developing a process whereby all of the issues could be identified and explained including potential remedial actions.In the summer of 2013 meetings were held with staff from Geranium to develop a process to fully understand the important issues facing the community and how any development could impact or help solve these issues.The executive of the CDCA agreed to establish a Community Working Group(CWG)to help identify all of the issues. In early September 2013 a notice was sent by mail to all the homes and businesses within the Claremont Hamlet boundary asking residents to become a volunteer member of a Community Working Group.Through a series of workshops and working in concert with Geranium,the developer,they would identify all of the known issues and concerns relative to the proposed development. It was understood that this was a volunteer process with no legal status and was not part of any formal planning process. It was also understood that the CWG was not speaking on behalf of the whole community and that the whole community will have many other opportunities to voice their opinions should any proposal go forward for approval. In response to this request 20 people volunteered to join the group.The group represented a good geographic and demographic distribution.The first group meeting was held on December 13, 2013.At that meeting each member identified all of their known issues and these were documented in the notes from the meeting.Of the 20 people who originally volunteered 3 did not attend any of the meetings and 2 subsequently resigned from the group,so they have been removed from the group list.At the second meeting of the group on February 3,2014 Geranium'and their expert consultants provided responses to most of the issues and presented three options for the layout of the development and the group identified one of the options as being the best of those presented.At the third meeting of the group on March 3,2014,the group agreed to hold a public meeting so that all the Hamlet residents would see the development proposal and have an opportunity to identify any other issues and concerns that may have been missed by the Working Group.Approximately 170 residents attended this open meeting on March 19,2014 and 23 residents came forward and identified their concerns,also some other residents chose to submit written questions.Only two additional issues were brought forward at this open meeting by 59 < <ACI;PA I .# - 2- u_r e: 7E P=ORT{f FLN 04-1 5 the residents that spoke and the submitted questions;the issue of the impact on property taxes and car headlights negatively impacting adjacent residents. The CWG planned to meet again on April 23, 2014 and before that date the Community Working Group was informed that a group of residents had met and discussed their concerns about the development proposal and the process used by the Community Working Group. In response to this information an invitation was presented to this group to send two people to the next planned meeting of the CWG so that they could express and identify their issues/concerns.They chose to not send anyone. At the April 23,2014 meeting the CWG reviewed all of their work to date and decided that all of the issues had been identified and that a report on the process and the results should be prepared and presented to their Local Ward 3 Councillor David Pickles for further action,as originally requested.This report would complete the work of the CWG. 4. TABLE OF IDENTIFIED ISSUES, RESPONSES AND PROPOSED ACTIONS Below is a table of all of the issues identified by the CWG and other residents along with the responses and proposed actions from Geranium and their expert consultants.The detailed planning and engineering reports are included in the binder in the Claremont Public Library. ISSUES AND CONCERNS RESPONSE AND ACTIONS Planning Why are you proposing to remove. The land will stay within the ORM.Only the designation the land from the Oak Ridges under the ORM will change from ORM Countryside to Moraine?(ORM) ORM Rural Residential Why do you want to change the At public meeting for original draft plan application, village boundary? community requested we look at how to address existing issues in Town related to stormwater management (SWM). Expanding the hamlet boundary would include development lands and additional lots to finance cost of larger SWM facilities to divert 98%of existing flows away from existing community Number of Homes Development area grew from 27 to 70 to address Community request to deal with comprehensive SWM solution; • Additional population will support community amenities and clubs Will this open the door to new Pickering is tasked with responsibility of managing development beyond the . boundary,and growth of Claremont • . contemplated boundary expansion? Storrnwater Management Who will maintain the SWM City of Pickering will be responsible once ponds assumed facilities? Will these promote mosquitoes? Certain species of Mosquitos lay their eggs in standing water. Stormwater management ponds typically have enough movement on the water surface due to wind action that mosquitos prefer stagnant water sources in enclosed 60 ; TTACNi'•a=iti if 2 t:,O .yy containers or small trapped pools of water. How will the development improve 98%of existing stormwater volumes and drainage area ' the current flooding issues in which currently flow down Franklin Street,through Town? Claremont system(which is grossly undersized)to ultimate discharge point would be diverted to an oversized' system away from existing Claremont,thus decreasing flooding downstream Will lot level stormwater Yes,LID technologies will be implemented throughout the management techniques be used? development,and lot level controls will be employed Low Impact Development(LID) where/as appropriate technologies? Water Supply What impact will 70 new wells have In accordance with Ministry of Environment(MOE) on my water supply and quality? guidance,new developments must not result in negative water quantity interference with existing well supplies or cause unacceptable water quality degradation What will happen to my shallow New wells in the development are proposed to draw water dug well? from a deep,confined(the"target")aquifer,about 65 m below typical shallow dug wells. Use of the target aquifer is not expected to result in negative water quantity interference with shallow dug wells. What if there is a future impact to A groundwater monitoring program will be implemented my well? •by way of a sentry well network,which will monitor for potential impacts from the development. Proposed Septic Beds ' Will the addition of 70 new septic In accordance with MOE guidance,new developments systems increase groundwater must not result in unacceptable water quality degradation. contamination or impact my well? The proposed sewage disposal systems will be equipped with tertiary treatment,which means the effluent from the new beds will have less impact than the existing beds in the community. The lot sizes are also large and the overall impact of disposal systems will meet MOE guidelines that are protective of private water supplies. Traffic Increase in traffic flows along Old Traffic study confirms adequate capacity to accommodate Brock Road development related traffic including background growth; . character of road will be maintained Potential for access to Brock Road Feasibility subject to review of horizontal sight lines and approval by Durham Region Traffic calming measures along Assessing turning circle and all way stops as well as other Old Brock Road measures including textured features,lane re-directions within existing Right of Way(ROW); Speed bumps unlikely but to be discussed with City vis a vis emergency vehicles • 61 l P.F1 Ceti-a:Orr yip PE KM Vehicles headlights at entrances Buffering will be addressed as part of draft plan to ensure onto Old Brock Road headlights will not negatively impact adjacent residents Increased traffic on Lane Street Traffic study confirms minimal increase in traffic on Lane/Franklin due to addition of 8 additional homes; Character of road will be maintained Property Boundaries Septic Systems of Lane Street Septic systems which encroach onto the development lands will be preserved,and lot level boundaries adjusted to accommodate and ensure lots are legal Tree line abutting property limits Tree lines(hedgerows)will be preserved adjacent existing residences,and adjacent Brock Road. The tree lines will be enhanced where practical Pedestrian Connection from draft Trail in southeast corner of development lands will be plan to lands at Brock/Central discussed with adjacent residents,to address concerns associated with vandalism,increased traffic vs.community amenity and connection with existing Claremont. This trail could be moved to the other'side of the pond(closer to Brock Road)and lead to the Claremont Community Gateway. Development Potential of adjacent In accordance with Planning Act,the development of the properties within new boundary subject lands cannot limit future development potential of other lands within hamlet boundary. Access to these other lands must be confirmed and accommodated, notwithstanding property owner's intent. Property Taxes How will this affect existing Existing property taxes are related to existing individual resident's property taxes? property values and the municipally determined mill rate and should not increase as a result of the proposed Geranium development.If the new Geranium homes have higher market values they will be taxed at a rate that reflects those values.MPAC would not use"builder sales" transactions to calculate the current value assessment for the existing neighborhood for the next re-assessment cycle. However,when you eventually have re-sale transactions from the new homes,there is the possibility that the"re-sales"when considered along with other • property sales could have some influence that might increase or decrease the current value assessment for properties in the existing neighborhood.If higher value homes are introduced into the community the overall assessed value of properties across the community(in aggregate)would increase.This could afford the municipality an opportunity to reduce its mill rates and correspondingly there could be a reduction of taxes paid by existing community residences. The five factors that can influence a home's value are: 62 krfACHT,,ILIFf _TO P-iaPoA: PL OZ-i5 • Location • Lot Size. • Home Age • Home Size • Construction Quality According to MPAC,these five factors are reflected in 85% of the home's value. Pedestrian Connectivity Where will sidewalks be provided? Sidewalks will be provided throughout the proposed development in recognition of the community nature of • Claremont,and walkability needs Sidewalks lead to destinations within the site(i.e.parks, open space,SWM ponds etc.) and provide multiple pathways that link to other community amenity destinations(i.e.the commercial core). Design Principles Homes should be compatible with Homes,lot layout and landscaping elements will draw the character of the community upon character of existing Claremont,and tradition of organic growth Architectural elements will be inspired by the existing traditional built form found within the hamlet Park facility sized for community Park amenity was designed to connect proposed and use existing Claremont through a pedestrian network,with substantial size to accommodate soccer pitch and another open play area.(Sentence shortened) Trails in Woodlot to North Trails were removed due to prohibitions on site alteration in Natural Core area. Views to the woodlot from the street are maintained. Cash in Lieu of Parkland Alternatively could,instead of providing large park facility within development,provide cash-in-lieu to enhance existing park amenities within community Lot size Lot size will range from o.75-1.25acres in compliance with MOE reasonable use standards,and Region of Durham standards Preservation of existing heritage Existing home on Old Brock Road will be retained as is house on Old Brock Road Lighting in Park Would be incorporated into any park facility subject to Municipal approval Construction Mitigation Noise,dust A Construction Mitigation Plan will be required as part of the development approval process with the City of Pickering- Construction access to No construction access from Lane/Franklin; development Discussions and agreement needed from Durham Region about temporary access road from the bypass • 63 rt CH,'crr,T .{ Time frame for complete Subject to market response development 5. COMMUNITY WORKING GROUP CONCLUSIONS: The Community Working Group recognizes that the following approval processes must take place before any development can take place: Firstly the Provincial Government must decide whether to amend the designation of the land under the ORMCP from ORM Countryside to ORM Rural Hamlet and if the village boundary on the East side should be restored to its previous position along the by-pass Secondly the City of Pickering would have to change the City Official plan to show the new boundary. Finally, Geranium would have to submit a formal application under the City's Planning Regulations. All of these processes allow for extensive private and public input and consultation The Community Working Group believes that should the development, proposed by Geranium, be allowed to proceed it will provide benefits to the community including: • A speedy solution to the long standing drainage and flooding issues at no incremental cost to the taxpayer • Better water management and environmental control • Some long time boundary issues would be resolved including adjusting lot level boundaries for houses whose septic systems encroach onto the development and protection of existing boundary trees with the associated benefit for wildlife • The creation of an additional 4.5 acre park which would connect the new and older homes in the community with safe and walkable streets and trails around the water retention ponds • An increase in population would be good for: o The economy of Local businesses o Service Clubs and churches • o Recreational activities and facilities for our youth o More viable student body and available resources for the local public school o A stronger voice for the community • 64 ATTACHMENT# 3 TO REPORT# 62-/5 h(r=, Please refer to John M.Alati e-mail: johna @davieshowe.com direct line: 416.263.4509 1.7„ '° i File No. 702475 Davies Howe April 13, 2015 Partners • L L p By Hand Delivery City of Pickering Town Hall Meeting on Provincial Land Use Review Lawyers One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario The Fifth Floor L1V 6K7 99 Spadina Ave Toronto, Ontario M54` 3F8 Dear Sir/Madam: • T 416.977.7088 Re: Pickering Town Hall Meeting F 416.977.8931 2015 Coordinated Review of Provincial Plans davieshowe.com Restoring the Historic Settlement Area Boundary—Hamlet of Claremont We are counsel to Geranium Corporation, who has an ownership interest in a 38.25 hectare property located on the north side of Concession Road 9 (Central Street), between Old Brock Road and Brock Road, in the Hamlet of Claremont, City of Pickering (the "Subject Property"). The Subject Property is divided into two "phases". A portion of the Phase I lands is presently designated "Hamlet Residential" and located within the Settlement Area Boundary (the "Hamlet Boundary"). The Phase II lands were historically located within the Hamlet Boundary, but were excluded from same following the City's Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan conformity process. Our client is seeking an amendment to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Durham Region and City of Pickering Official Plans to include the Subject Property in the Hamlet Boundary. Doing so would allow for development of the majority (Phases I and II) of the Subject Property, which would redress flooding problems in the Hamlet of Claremont. Please find enclosed our client's submission to the 2015 coordinated review of provincial land use plans, prepared by Malone Given Parsons Ltd. The coordinated review is the appropriate process through which to consider settlement boundary expansions and minor "rounding outs" to the boundaries of hamlets. Our client's proposed plan is a modest rounding out and extension to the existing boundaries of the Hamlet of Claremont. 65 • ATTACHMENT#___,___3 T� . REPORT# P��TOZ-/S Page 2 A. Davies Restoring the Claremont Hamlet boundary and returning the Subject Property to H o w e the Hamlet would be consistent with the historic intent of Claremont to develop the Partners L L P lands. The lands that our client seeks to have returned to the Hamlet were originally included in the Hamlet Boundary, and were part of the Claremont Development Plan (the predecessor to the Town's current Official Plan) dating back to 1988. In 1990, the then-owner of the Subject Property filed rezoning and draft plan of subdivision applications for the Phase I lands and a rezoning application for the Phase II lands. The rezoning application for the Phase II lands was withdrawn in 1994, but the applications for the Phase I lands remains open. In March of 1997, the City of Pickering adopted a new Official Plan, which was approved by the Region of Durham the same year. Appeals to the Ontario I Municipal Board were resolved in 1998. The Claremont Development Plan was incorporated into the City's new Official Plan, but all Phase II lands were excluded from the Hamlet Boundary. There are sound and compelling reasons, both historic and practical, for restoring the previous boundaries of the Hamlet. In particular, doing so would solve an ongoing flooding issue in the Hamlet, which has caused significant property damage and plagued residents for many years. In 2012, our client initiated discussions with the City and Region to develop the Phase I lands. In the process, it learned that there are serious flooding problems plaguing parts of the Hamlet that could be solved by designating the Phase II lands as "Hamlet Residential" in order to permit development, which would include modern, state-of-the-art stormwater management facilities. In 2013, our client engaged in a lengthy working group process with residents of the Hamlet and their Community Working Group to discuss the potential development and ways to solve the infrastructure deficit that currently causes periodic flooding. The Claremont Community Working Group supports including these lands within the Hamlet Boundary, and has communicated that position to Pickering Council. The cost of building the necessary infrastructure to solve the flooding and drainage issues in the Hamlet is estimated to be approximately $5 Million: This cost has not been budgeted by either the Region or the City. 66 -------- . .. . .. ATTACHMENT# 3 TO REPORT# PP'-r 62-15 Page 3 F Davies Our client proposes to build an appropriately-scaled development that would be Howe complimentary to the historic character of the Hamlet of Claremont. This Partners P development would involve the necessary infrastructure work to remedy the long- standing flooding issue. The cost of this much-needed infrastructure would be provided by our client, at no cost to the City or Region, if and when our client receives development approval. Our client's development, including the proposed infrastructure works, can only proceed if the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the City and Regional Official Plans are amended to include the Subject Property in the Hamlet Boundary and designate the Phase II lands as "Hamlet Residential". Our client looks forward to continuing discussions with the City, Region and Province to resolve infrastructure issues in the Hamlet of Claremont. Yours truly, DAVIES HOWE PARTNERS LLP 4hnM. Alati VJMA:ak end. copy: Client 67 ATTACHMENT# 3 TO • REPORT# PziN1 0.2.-i f° Submission to City of Pickering Comments for the 2015 Coordinated . -Review of Provincial Land Use Plans 5113 Old Brock Road, Hamlet of • Claremont, City Pickering C , Cit Y J " ' � ice_ a , .y./��J + , { a ! 11�L , I 1 ! , - t' / - et ,i,`•t.` \ CI - • . ` LEGEND < ' •.;'� y Subject Property •� .� •: T la Phase I Lands _1= ,:e?: ' : !: i, ••••— Phase II Lands. w1 - --,"`r7. ; 4 j ^°^ •-- ■ ,#t N.1 = l L ! 1.I • i� , t .r ¢ ! •...j . :i_' 0=i 3=C• es�so Road.9 _ • �_ _ ,. :- tCentr-al,SiMr-_ ;4:sa .- - _ "" y Prepared By: WsAMALONE GIVEN • PARSONS LTD. . Prepared For. Geranium Corporation April 2015 68 • ATTACHMENT# 3 TO REPORT# CZ-45 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS 5113' OId Brock Road, Hamlet of Claremont, City of Pickering Prepared By Prepared For: Geranium Corporation (Prime"R"Management Inc.) 3190 Steeles Avenue East,Suite 300 Markham,Ontario iL3R 1G9 ll? Matthew Cory, Don'Given, MCIP,RPP,PLE,PMP MCIP,RPP,PLE Malone Given Parsons Ltd. 140 Renfrew Drive,Suite 201 Markham, Ontario L3R 6B3 April 2015 12-2110 • MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 69 ATTACHMENT# 3 TO REPORT# f-A 62-15 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING APRIL 13,2015 • COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS • • • MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. n 70 ATTACHMENT # 3 TO REPORT# r� dZ-15 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13, 2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION TO SUBJECT LANDS 4 1.1 Subject Lands 4 1.2 Current Land Use 6 2.0 HISTORY OF PLANNING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY 7 2.1 Applicable Planning Policy 7 2.2 Chronology of Planning of the Subject Lands 12 3.0 REQUIRED AMENDMENTS AND NEXT STEPS 18 3.1 Need for Amendments to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Durham Region Official Plan, City of Pickering Official Plan 18 4.0 PLANNING OPINION 20 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1-1:Location of Subject Lands within Overall Property 5 Figure 2-1 Subject Lands and Claremont Development Plan 8 Figure 2-2 Toko Investments Ltd.Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision(March 1990) 9 Figure 2-3 Subject Property and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan 10 Figure 2-4 Subject Lands and the City of Pickering Official Plan,Schedule I,Land Use Structure 11 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1:Legal Description of Subject Lands and Overall Property 4 MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 71 ATTACHMENT# 3 TO REPORT# PL/' 02.-L5 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING • COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS • • • MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. iv 72 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT DZ 45 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY A unique opportunity exists to restore and round out the hamlet boundary in Claremont to its original configuration in order to rectify a long standing flooding problem plaguing residents in the hamlet, by building modern stormwater management facilities as part of the development of those lands for a small amount of residential development that is in keeping with the character of the community. The development would round out the hamlet and address a serious flooding concern to the community. This submission provides the basis for an amendment to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Durham Region and City of Pickering Official Plans, to mitigate historic flooding problems in the Hamlet of Claremont through the careful development of the subject property, excluding and protecting any natural heritage features. • Background In March 1990, the previous owners, Toko Investments Ltd. submitted Zoning By-law amendment (A 9/90) and Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-90016 Y ( ) ( ) applications to the Region of Durham and City of Pickering to develop a 27-lot detached residential subdivision on approximately 10 hectares of land on the subject lands(the"Phase I lands"). The original application proposed a minimum lot area of 0.3 hectares and minimum lot frontage of 34 metres; two roads were proposed that would extend Franklin Street and provide access to future development in the north.An existing barn and home were located on two lots on the west side of the property; preservation and severance of this area was being considered at the time. It has been confirmed by planning staff that the files remain open and active at the City of Pickering. A public meeting was held and comments were received on the submission. As described later in this report, application was also made to rezone the remainder of the property in 1990. The remainder of the property was designated Residential — Phase II in the Claremont Development Plan (the planning document that preceded the Town's current Official Plan.) The zoning amendment application was later withdrawn as a result of comments received from the Province in 1994. The comments indicated required studies would have to be completed to confirm the Phase II lands in the Hamlet Boundary. In 2001 the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan were enacted delineating the Settlement Area Boundary to exclude the Phase II lands on the subject property. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 1 73 ATTACHMENT L_...11) REPORT# P-M OZ—i5 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME"R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13, 2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS In August 2012 Geranium Corporation submitted a revised Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Bylaw Amendment to proceed with a modified 27-lot plan for the Phase I lands. Through a voluntary public information session in November 2012.and later at a statutory public meeting held at the City in December 2012, significant concerns related to historic flooding in the existing community were raised. Geranium Corporation and their consultant team have been exploring opportunities to address this concern through the development process. Meetings with the study team, Durham Region and City staff have been held in 2013 and 2014 to explore potential solutions.A Community Working Group was convened in late 2013 to work directly with community members to understand their concerns and work towards a solution. Based on the collaborative efforts of all stakeholders the study team has proposed a solution that would reduce 98% of the 100 year peak flows and runoff volumes from the site to Franklin Street, thus addressing and rectifying the current drainage problem. The proposed solution can be achieved through the provision of stormwater management facilities on the larger subject property; to feasibly affect this solution will require the development of the inclusion of the entire landholdings (excluding the northern portion of the site designated Natural Core Area by the ORMCP) for development. There is no other practical way apparent to the study team to correct the flooding. Given that the subject lands were previously part of the Hamlet, and given the urgency to correct flooding issues to prevent further property damage and mitigate risk to human health and safety, we are of the opinion that the expansion is good planning and should be realized as soon as possible. Moreover,this solution would be at no-cost to the Region, City or its existing residents. Currently slightly less than the 10 hectares (on which the 1990 applications, revised in 2012, continue) is within the Settlement Area designation in the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and City of Pickering Official Plan.To realize the stormwater management solution proposed by the study team, the former Hamlet boundary must be restored. An amendment to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Durham Region and City of Pickering Official Plans is required to include the former Phase II lands(the majority of the subject property) in the Settlement Area Boundary for an appropriate form of development. Geranium homes as indicated that following such approvals they would be willing to expedite and enact the proposed solution in advance of final approval of a draft plan of subdivision. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 2 74 ATTACHMENT REPORT# GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS The remainder of this submission provides the detailed history of the subject property, basis for amendments to the ORCMP, and Durham Region and City Official Plans to include the majority of the subject lands in the Settlement Area Boundary,and next steps in the planning process. • MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 3 75 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT# PLN OZ-15 • Al (I 0 INTRODUCTION TO SUBJECT LANDS • Geranium Corporation (Prime "R" Management Inc.) is proposing to develop the majority of the subject property for appropriate low density residential dwellings,in large part to deliver a 98% reduction to existing flooding concerns on adjacent properties in the Hamlet. The purpose of this report is to examine the history of the consideration of development of the subject property as a whole and discuss the, need for amendments to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Durham Region/City of Pickering Official Plans to support the proposed development applications. 1.1 Subject Lands The subject lands are located on the north side of Concession Road 9 (Central Street), between Old Brock Road and Brock Road, in the Hamlet of Claremont, City of Pickering.Table 1.1 provides the legal description of both the area subject to ongoing development applications (Phase I Lands) and the overall property (which includes Phase II lands.)Figure 1.1 provides a context map of the Phase I and H lands shown within the overall property. Table 1-1:Legal Description of Subject Lands and Overall Property Owner Municipal Address Legal Description of Property Lot Area(ha) The Cairo N/A PART OF LOTS 17&18,CONCESSION 9,LOTS 47&48, 10.77 Group Inc. REGISTERED PLAN NO.12,TOWN OF PICKERING,REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM The Cairo 5113 Brock Road PCL 31-1 SEC 12;SECONDLY:PT LTS 17&18 CON 9,OF THE 38.25 Group Inc. GEOGRAPHIC TWP OF PICKERING<S 47&48 PL 12 PT 2, 40R14340;THIRDLY:LT 32 PL 12&PT LT 31 PL 12 PT 1, 40R14340 EXCEPT PT 1,40R15816;CITY OF PICKERING MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 4 76 V ATTACHMENT#. 3 TO • PE-?DR1 # < 0 is_ . . GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS Figure 1-1:Location of Subject Lands within Overall Property • I . tI a r,..•`_.r `` ___.-) • -,:.,..,**".......^. v 19 I �t r. ( Via' , t ``r . 'sue` t= t' �t _ • : ,r ,atyCen trai.St �1 L ; tan111 CEi..= Rb d9 ;a.• ac vy :.r . ... yam- `y r-kr • J• t- a — -- i :` LEGEND k�j - ^/;' — Subject Property j it •' 11 Phase!Lands 4. ...,m Phase II Lands Source:Google Maps(2012) The subject lands are adjacent to the existing Claremont community. The community is primarily composed of older single detached residential homes with . several local commercial uses at the intersection of Concession Road 9 (Central . Street)and Old Brock Road.Rural residential and other rural agricultural uses are • found to the west,east,north and south of the subject lands;a CNR rail corridor is located further to the north. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 5 • 77 To GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS 1.2 Current Land Use The subject lands are generally flat, sloping slightly down from the southwest to the southeast; an existing single-detached residential dwelling and barn are located on the western portion of the property fronting onto Old Brock Road. The remainder of the subject lands are currently being used for agricultural purposes. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 6 78 i .'o )E"ORT GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS 2 0 HISTORY OF PLANNING OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY This section of the report reviews the existing Provincial, Regional, and Municipal policies applicable to the.Subject Lands,and provides a chronology of planning and development consideration to date. 2.1 Applicable Planning Policy The Claremont Development Plan was approved in 1988, and later updated up to Edition 6 of the City of Pickering Official Plan. The subject lands were designated "Residential Phase I" and "Residential Phase IP" as shown in Figure 2-1. • MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 7 79 .r.....Criii'iii.E T 4 3 d 0 1_,0R7 .. J _ u.2.-)5 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS Figure 2-1 Subject Lands and Claremont Development Plan i' Hamlet of Claremont .:'''.-- - Imo- "' . DEVELOPMENT PLAN - _ ;1:.:': °-T L-- SCHEDULE •A ' �t; t .. d I I EdiWn No.8 _—_ • 1 i F �i. - -;. Y `' I ' .4 , 1 II ,„.%._ 70,...:, , -,n I ubject , y. / e _ u : 1 ,.,Lands %-�' - 1 „4- rt-. ! ' '- -. - --r ya - Sf �' ,; I - I J -_.. - 3 . ' - %fi �,p�Jj� _ 1 �� 1 111 1 c <". . ,. 1 f _ --- v , I :a ..z42..1 .4 '-- t 3 ' 1 ` ,�,t I 1 _ 1 _`jiu 2 i Concession Road 9- : /+ I.gPnd 4 _ r 4 / `s.4 rwra.wu•Photo a SFl -V - I : t6 a N.Honig atom 1 f moots d ,.t... �' ` ua -/a' I `l£t' Como*1M. ;:- 1:•=mss,."" ;. .r '- ;z i --�MM MYrM010k5OhoKhOo*4 Following the 1988 approval of the Claremont Development Plan, Toko Investments Ltd. submitted zoning by-law amendment(A 9/90) and draft plan of subdivision (18T-90016) applications to the Region of Durham and City of Pickering to develop a 27-lot residential subdivision on approximately 10 hectares of land in the northeast quadrant of the Hamlet of Claremont in March 1990. The original application proposed a minimum lot area of 0.3 hectares and minimum lot MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 8 80 r,,u-v,,,,,, ET#+. T o GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME"R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS frontage of 34 metres;two roads were proposed that would extend Franklin Street and provide access to future development in the north.An existing barn and home were located on two lots (13 & 14). Preservation and severance of this area was being considered at the time. . • In June 1990, Toko Investments Ltd. submitted zoning by-law amendment (A 17/90) to the City of Pickering to rezone the remaining lands as Village Residential (R5) from Rural Agricultural(R). Provincial, Regional and City staff determined that a Settlement Capacity Study was required. The application was closed in December 1994, after discussions with staff, and no draft plan of • subdivision application was filed for the remaining lands. The submitted draft plan of subdivision is shown in Figure 2-2. • Figure 2-2 Toko Investments Ltd.Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision(March 1990) 1 is' Z, ,":7:1,1:7,'1. "'i-.'''''l'ir.-1:"...:il'aall 7 iti4g-rd 4,1„,,, r\ksi. 2•,,,,,,,...ce c 1 4:::,1 1.:i..: OM '.-- 7'9 •)0.-- , f'1.1-. iii I �to i... i i f V' Y ✓ ` /- Remaining �:t� - : .; _L •, Lands?r1 ,4iik . /-:; r._ ° ;_ — _II' 187=90016 //4...--i,.� �I�? j ______..w _ = - A';9/90 � ` - \ --�f-•� jJ l._ A161'onal b!etnalim P..cutrd IbEv _ ` ��Y — . Seto.SI cf R+c Evx.,,:,5 Att.IieY r/1r \ t1I co • __��' -_. _— ;F: �1 , .1 Ai ��'.—.-r _ I^ 1 *54PVCTOIC•5 r.F.S...CAT ` ... aOuMIW In summary,applications for zoning by-law amendment(A 9/90)and draft plan of subdivision(18T-900016) were made by the previous owners, Toko Investments Ltd., in March 1990 for 27 detached residential lots on the southern part of the subject property. A zoning by-law amendment application (A 17/90) for the remaining lands was applied for in June 1990 and was subsequently closed in December 1994. However,the original draft plan and zoning by-law amendment applications on the southern portion (approximately 11 hectares) of the subject MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 9 81 , ATTACHMENT# .3 Tro GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015. SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS property remain active at the City of Pickering, which has been confirmed with City staff. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP), designates the subject property "Rural Settlement", "Countryside Area", with a small portion in the northeast designated "Natural Core Area". Although partially located in the Countryside Area designation, the active draft plan and rezoning applications submitted in 1990 for a portion of the Phase I lands predate the ORMCP and therefore are required to conform to the relevant transition provisions of the ORMCP.Figure 2-3 shows the subject lands within the context of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. ' Figure 2-3 Subject Property and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan i, 4,, Side � Yry y M 4 �t ��yMyy i _ } jS f * `Yil j 4 r k 4 ., � e f ,- } ,..Y: fa ' -,- ,4 3 '� - end .- i ' ' b -. � _ - }_ A i,a, Q Oak Ridges?tlorai,c(onsereatron Plan Area $ter r --o "rtmA �� rt2"m'wr.N.n.''''ram.'',.. S „,-_-- 1x•: Natural Com Arca z. Natural Lanka ge Area — . RuraF Srnlrmcnt (.mh,fl.yn.,fGo.„rradAr+i Scrtluncnr Area erpccTmr\1 unietpal Boundary ), loner-Tier Munieipal Boundan• >4V Road or iIThnar Fake MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 10 82 ATTACHMENT# - TO REPORT J _,.. L- 17Z-L5 _- GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME"R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS Region of Durham Official Plan Within the Region of Durham Official Plan (2013 Unofficial Consolidation), the j subject property is designated Oak Ridges Moraine Area. Applications for development and site alteration must conform to applicable policies within the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Natural heritage features, landform conservation(Category 2) and aquifer vulnerability areas have been identified on or adjacent to the subject property. City of Pickering Official Plan The City of Pickering Official Plan (Edition 6, February 2010) designates the majority of the subject property as "Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Areas". A small portion to the south is designated"Oak Ridges Moraine Rural Hamlets"and falls within the settlement boundaries of the Hamlet. The Official Plan also identifies significant woodlands on the edge of the subject property,high and low aquifer vulnerability as well as Category 2 landform conservation features. Figure 2-4 shows the subject property within the City of Pickering Official Plan, Schedule I Land Use Structure. Figure 2-4 Subject Lands and the City of Pickering Official Plan, Schedule I,Land Use Structure r71-("1 9�� t"�°Sru j ECIIMULEITO TUE I ING I6 �J OFFICIAL PLAN N i∎.,, f EomoNc dill ;. 4 � I_ ry , C r 1 _ r Gy J ____EIIEETI_UF} r `3--I l Isr Y'� I LAUD USE STRUCTURE n , I igd 1.74.1-3 rt ✓ 4� f..Q:5?tLE SS'IEU e 17 L=and a .II Zia go I .__ _T___1 :Y� 1 .3g R .,�` a.r,:L st�T�.•n,sn�i3 - Cruet- fF I d' `w -v J 2�£: wrIce5 n pa 69 E^a ^ --a CF i z .,,C i' �? —rte. / cr fa tp—a-6 Q, f ec�.z...ccccs,pu_ _a 1_,..... I lJ Y-.w 6CA'weGai MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 11 83 ATTACHMENT REPORT# �L OZ 15 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13, 2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS City of Pickering Zoning By-law - The City hof Pickering Zoning By-law zones the majority of the subject property `Oak Ridges Moraine Agricultural (ORM-A)'. A small portion abutting the existing(developed)Hamlet of Claremont(south of the Lane Street extension and west of the Franklin Street extension) is zoned `Oak Ridges Moraine Hamlet Residential Five (ORM-R5)', and a small portion on the southern edge of the lands is zoned`Oak Ridges Moraine Environmental Protection(ORM-EP)'. 2.2 Chronology of Planning of the Subject Lands The following chronology provides a brief history of land use planning activities in connection with the subject property since the original applications were filed in 1990. History Date 18T-90016/A 9/90 Remaining Lands 1988 The Claremont Development Plan is approved. Subject property is designated Residential Phase I and Residential Phase II. March 6, 1990 Draft Plan of Subdivision (18T-90016) Remaining lands were designated application received by Region of Residential - Phase II in the Claremont Durham. Development Plan, which represents areas where growth would require a Phase I subdivision included 27 lots Settlement Capacity Study with minimum lot areas of 0.75 ac (0.3ha). Lands were designated Residential - Phase I in the Claremont Development Plan. Zoning By-law Amendment (A 9/90) application to change Rural Agricultural (A) to Village Residential (R5) received by City of Pickering. March 16, 1990 Region's Notice of Receipt of N/A subdivision application provided to City. March 21, 1990 Subdivision application circulated by N/A MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 12 84 f?T1CF-Ifv1ENT - T REPORT GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R"MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS History Date 18T-90016/A 9/90 Remaining Lands Region to City for comment. April 19,1990 Public notice of Draft Plan of N/A Subdivision and rezoning (A 9/90) applications circulated by City. June 27,1990 'Hamlet of Claremont Development Plan Review', Public Meeting held by City. Regional Official Plan permitted the inclusion of the Phase II lands through a Settlement Capacity Study. N/A Zoning By-law Amendment (A 17/90) application'to change Rural Agricultural (A) to Village Residential (R5) received by City of Pickering. July 17, 1991 Notice of Public Information Meeting N/A for draft plan and rezoning issued by the City. August 6, 1991 Public Information Meeting for N/A applications held by City. Public Information report prepared including comments received from relevant agencies and the public. Agency and department comments were received from: • Regional Planning Department • Regional Health Department • Durham Board of Education • Durham Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board • Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • Ministry of Natural Resources • Ministry of Agriculture and Food • Ministry of Culture and Communication MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 13 85 ATTACHMENT -�_ REPORT# 54.-174-02-45 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING APRIL 13, 2015 COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS History Date 181-90016/A 9/90 Remaining Lands • Ontario Hydro • Bell Canada • Pickering Planning Department • Pickering Department of Community Services and Facilities. • Pickering Fire Department • Pickering Hydro Late 1992 City of Pickering begins work on new Official Plan to replace Pickering District Plan (originally prepared in the 1970's and ultimately approved in 1983). January 10, 1994 Letter from M.O.E. to City stating N/A objection to the application until Provincial Interests are addressed. (i.e. ORM,servicing) December N/A Letter from Toko Investments Ltd. to 15,1994 City regarding the closure of File A 17/90. Owners understood that a comprehensive settlement study was required, and due to the length of time and outstanding provincial issues, they agreed that the processing of the application was premature. January 30, 1996 Letter from Toko Investments Ltd. to N/A City (in response to Region's letters regarding inactivity of file) requesting that application remain open. Owners continued to monitor planning changes with respect to the Oak Ridges Moraine; the property was identified within the M.O.E.'s moraine boundary. Until the M.O.E. clarified certain development issues, the owner was - unable to respond to their requests. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 14 86 ATTACHMENT REPORT# GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13, 2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING. COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS History Date 18T-90016/A 9/90 Remaining Lands March 3, 1997 City of Pickering adopts new Official Residential Phase II lands are changed Plan. It is approved by the Region of to 'Agricultural' designation and are no September 1997 Durham in 1997;September 24, Edition p 1997; longer within the Hamlet of Claremont February 1998 1 is approved in February 1998 by the boundary, however they were OMB. identified as a Rural Study Area. The Claremont Development Plan is incorporated into the Pickering Official Plan. A portion of the former Phase I lands is designated Hamlet Residential, the remainder of the site including all of the former Phase II lands, is located outside the Hamlet of Claremont boundary. November 17, The Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act(2001)is enacted and subsequently the 2001 Oak Ridges Conservation Plan(April 2002)comes into effect. March 2006 The City of Pickering adopts Amendment 15 to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment A16/05 to Zoning By-law 3037 to bring the respective documents into conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. May 11, 2007 N/A Letter from City to Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) regarding City's agreement to list of modifications to the ORM conformity amendment; supports minor rounding out of hamlet boundary. June 28,2007 N/A Letter from MMAH to City regarding minor rounding out of hamlet boundary; MMAH does not agree that it is minor, does not believe that it meets the intent of ORMCP, and notes that the Regional Official Plan requires a settlement capacity study to be completed. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 15 87 i`iAchmENT# 3 TO ar_„ii!RT ;s L_ 01-15- GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13, 2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS History Date 18T-90016/A 9/90 Remaining Lands Geranium Involvement Commences - June — August A pre-submission meeting was held During the pre-submission consultation 2012 with City staff and commenting meeting, City staff identified flooding agencies, regarding the flooding issues issues in the existing community, in in the existing community and reports part related to runoff from the subject commissioned by the City to lands, as an ongoing issue of study. Our investigated flooding concerns were study team was requested to explore discussed, as well as the potential potential opportunities to help mitigate through the development process to these issues as part of the development explore solutions to improve drainage process. conditions for the existing community. Other items discussed included quality and quantity of groundwater, lot sizes and nitrate dilution, and the list of required updated background studies. Applications were submitted by Geranium (Prime "R" Management Inc.) to revise the existing Zoning By- law Amendment and redline Draft Plan of Subdivision applications. November. 28, Community Open House held where At this meeting multiple comments and 2012 residents expressed concerns regarding presentations were made by residents flooding issues in Claremont. denoting flooding issues in the community. December 3, Statutory Public Meeting held by the Flooding issues remain a prominent 2012 and 01 City on the applications, followed by concern. 2013 comments from the City. Q2 2013 — Q3 Geranium's study team explores potential for resolving flooding issues on nearby 2013 lands through solutions on the entirety of subject site. Preliminary engineering conclusions identify solution involving a comprehensive approach to development and stormwater management facilities on the remaining parts of the subject site. Geranium proposes a Community Advisory group including local Councillor and representatives of the community to discuss solutions. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 16 88 ATTACHMENT# i i REPORT I 7-rg---6 —/.5 GERANIUM GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME"R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 SUBMISSION TO CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS History Date 18T-90016/A 9/90 Remaining Lands Q4 2013 — Geranium meetings with Claremont Community Advisory group to present the February 2014 technical solution, and explore potential forms of development that may be appropriate for the entire site. Meetings result in a preferred development option to gain consensus in seeking an amendment to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The process to amend the ORMCP was discussed as one supported and led by the Community and City. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 17 89 ATTACHMENT#�.--� REPGAT 2-N—c2-15 3 . 0 • REQUIRED AMENDMENTS AND NEXT STEPS This section outlines the requirements for ORMCP and Official Plan Amendments, as well as the next steps in the planning process to continue with a comprehensive development proposal on the subject lands. 3.1 Need for Amendments to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan, Durham Region Official Plan, City of Pickering Official Plan Through late 2013, Geranium's municipal engineer (SCS consulting) examined potential solutions on the subject property to mitigate flooding concerns within the existing built up area of Claremont. These proposed solutions have been discussed with City and Regional engineering staff who see the potential benefits of the proposed solutions. There is the potential to reduce flows from the site by 98% and thereby mitigate flooding in the existing community by implementing stormwater management facilities on the Phase 2 lands as part of a larger development plan. • Following the conclusion that a technical solution to flooding concerns can be affected through development of the larger property,preliminary discussions were held with Regional and City Planning staff in late 2013. These discussions focused on the potential to amend the Settlement Area Boundary of Claremont to include the historically considered Residential Phase II lands of the subject property within the Hamlet boundary as formerly designated in the Claremont Development Plan. The general consensus of the planning meetings was that the Region and City staff would consider a request to amend the Durham Region Official Plan and City of Pickering Official Plan to expand the Hamlet boundary of Claremont to include the remainder of the subject property,provided that such an amendment: • includes an appropriate design solution to mitigate existing flooding in the existing area of Claremont, MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 18 90 ATTACHMEI T; _ 3__.- TO REPORT# GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS • • be contingent upon the completion of technical studies required by Policy 9B.2.8 of the Durham Regional Official Plan, where such studies would need to be completed to the satisfaction of the Region and City through a • peer review process. • be preceded by an amendment to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. It is Geranium's intention to continue with the Community Advisory process, and proceed concurrently with the technical studies required to support a Hamlet Boundary Amendment in the Durham Region and City of Pickering Official Plans,while concurrently completing the study work required to support approval of.a Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning Bylaw Amendment on the subject lands. Previously, the policies of the Regional Official Plan would have required completion of a Settlement Capacity Study prior to implementing the Residential Phase II lands in the Claremont Development Plan.The corresponding polices in the current Durham Regional Official Plan addressing Hamlet Boundary Adjustments are found in section 9B.2.8, and provide the requirements for consideration of an amendment to the Hamlet of Claremont, • MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 19 91 ATTACHMENT# _ 3 r. REPQfl ft.N Of_6__.__ 4 so 0 PLANNING OPINION This Section provides our planning.opinion' with regard to inclusion of the subject lands within.the Rural Settlement Area of Claremont, and discusses the requirement for an amendment to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. ';,. Our planning opinion is that the subject lands (except for the portion at the north end of the property designated Natural Core Area) can be developed in a manner that is consistent with the Durham Region Official Plan and City of Pickering Official Plan policies related to the expansion of Hamlets. In this regard we are of the opinion that: • Germaine to the most pressing community matter: development of the subject lands would result in the construction of stormwater management facilities that would divert 98% of the flows from the site that contribute to the flooding issues to appropriate controls, thereby greatly alleviating existing flooding issues experienced by adjacent residents. • Based on our initial discussions with the community, an appropriately scaled development based on private services, heritage inspired architecture, and provision of street and trails connecting community amenities in walking distance of new and existing residents can be complimentary to the historic character of Claremont and a welcome addition to the Hamlet. • The inclusion of the subject lands within the Hamlet Boundary would result in a logical settlement area boundary for this part of the Hamlet (Brock Road to the East, Existing Residential and Natural Heritage Features to the North) rather than the existing limit of the Hamlet which terminates in the middle of a farm field. • Locating growth on the subject lands is consistent with the historic intent to develop these lands (per the Claremont Development Plan) and would result in the expansion of this part of the hamlet through a comprehensive MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 20 92 3 !'2 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS plan for the property, rather than development of a strip of development along a portion of Franklin Street. It is our opinion that such a plan would result in good planning and is in the public interest, particular with regard to fulfilling the historic planning intent for development in the Hamlet, and by affecting the protection human health and safety by mitigating flooding issues. As noted in this submission, development of the majority of the subject lands would require an amendment to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan to • include them within the Rural Settlement Boundary for the Hamlet of Claremont. Such an amendment would logically precede the completion of the detailed studies listed in Error! Reference source not found. required to support the required Regional and City Official Plan Amendments. The section of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan dealing with Implementation addressed amendments to the Settlement Area Boundaries of the Plan,and states that: "Plan Review and Amendment (a) The Plan is a long-term strategic plan that shall be formally reviewed once every 10 years and, if appropriate, amended to: - include new, updated or corrected information; - improve the effectiveness and relevance of its policies; - reflect changed or new priorities of the Ontario government. • (b) The 10 year review cannot consider removing land from the Natural Core Areas and Natural Linkage Areas. (c)A 10 year review of the Plan shall consider: - the need to change or refine the boundaries of the Countryside Areas and Settlement Areas; - the continued effectiveness and relevance of the Plan's vision,purpose, objectives and policies; - the effectiveness of the Plan's policies in meeting the Plan's vision, purpose and objectives; - new, updated or corrected information; - new science, technologies, or practices that shall improve the Plan's effectiveness; - any other matter that the Ontario government deems appropriate. (d) Consideration of the need to change or refine the boundaries of Settlement Areas as part of a 10 year review requires a justification study prepared by the upper-tier or single-tier municipality that comprehensively demonstrates that: - there are not enough lands designated in the official plan to meet the municipality's short-term growth needs; MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 21 93 • `ti: r _✓ !fit FCR 2-r- z-i5 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS - opportunities for infilling, intensification and redevelopment to accommodate some or all of the anticipated growth in existing Settlement Areas in the municipality have been fully taken into account; - opportunities for Settlement Areas in other municipalities, or for urban areas outside the Oak Ridges Moraine, to accommodate some or all of the anticipated growth have been fully taken into account and do not adversely affect the ecological integrity of the Moraine;. - the new Settlement Area boundary would not expand into or adversely affect any Natural Core Areas or Natural Linkage Areas; - the area proposed to be added to Settlement Areas has been kept as small as possible, by permitting development at densities that promote efficient use of existing infrastructure and minimize land consumption; - water budgets and water conservation plans have been prepared in accordance with PART III(Section 24)of the Plan. (e) A 10 year review may also include an examination of the Plan's policies on mineral aggregate extraction in Natural Core Areas, recognizing that mineral aggregates are a non-renewable resource that are particularly desirable this close,to markets. The review may consider in particular whether to change the policies of this Plan to permit new mineral aggregate operations and wayside pits to be established and existing ones to expand in Natural Core Areas, where the ecological integrity of those Areas can be maintained or improved.For any such policy change to be considered, studies shall: - identibi specific areas such as agricultural area, young plantations, or early successional habitats where extraction could occur without long-term or permanent loss of ecological integrity; - demonstrate that where any natural self-sustaining vegetation needs to be removed for extraction, it shall be rehabilitated to natural self-sustaining vegetation of equal or greater ecological value; - demonstrate that any non-agricultural area extracted shall be rehabilitated to natural self-sustaining vegetation; - demonstrate that the connectivity of key natural heritage features and hydrological features shall be maintained, or improved or restored where possible, during and after extraction; - ident fy operational practices that will minimize possible negative impacts,such as: - phasing extraction to minimize the extent of soil exposed at any one time, - encouraging rapid extraction and rehabilitation, especially adjacent to key natural heritage features and - limiting activities on site to extraction and rehabilitation only and carrying out other activities such as processing,,washing and stockpiling on sites outside the Natural Core Areas; - demonstrate the successful performance of mineral aggregate operations and their rehabilitation in maintaining and improving ecological integrity in Natural Core Areas,Natural Linkage Areas and Countryside Areas since the Plan came into effect. • MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 22 94 ,.. lY.,; e, 3 iiLPO11 i a g-r , 02 15 GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS • (f) It is not intended that the Plan will be amended on a routine or regular basis. However,the Minister may consider amendments outside a 10 year review if: - the amendment would correct major or unforeseen circumstances, or would incorporate or reflect major new Ontario government legislation, regulations,policies, new information or standards; - deferral of the amendment to the next 10 year review would threaten the overall effectiveness or integrity of the Plan; -the amendment would improve the effectiveness and relevance of its policies." The ORMCP came into force and effect in 2001, which would have originally required a 10 year review of the Plan in 2011. However, the Greenbelt Act amended the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act in 2004 to align the reviews of the Greenbelt, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation and Niagara Escarpment Conservation Plans to occur every 10 years from the date the Greenbelt Plan came into effect—February 2005;the next 10 year review of the ORMCP will not likely commence until early/mid-2015. We believe it is reasonable to consider the flooding issues being experienced in the Hamlet of Claremont as an `unforeseen circumstance,' and most urgently one that has, and continues to cause property damage and pose a threat to human health and safety. The development of the subject lands can deliver a stormwater management solution to largely address these issues.Considering the lengthy time between adoption and review of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (13 years now)and recalling the historic planning intent that the subject lands be used for development, we believe that it is reasonable to consider the inclusion of the subject lands in the Rural Settlement Boundary as soon as possible.In this regard, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing could consider an Amendment to the Plan prior to the conclusion of the 2015 review given the urgent,unique, and unforeseen circumstances in Claremont. Such an amendment would be a stand- alone amendment to the ORMCP that would deal with the unforeseen and urgent flooding issues and ensure this pressing concern of the community is addressed in the only practical and most expeditious manner possible. • Failing a ministerial amendment, the provisions of the ORMCP anticipate the consideration of such amendments at the time of the 10 year review and we request that the Province receive this submission as a formal request to make such an amendment as part of this process. MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 23 95 ATTACHMENT {_ 3--- REPORT # 02_715......_ GERANIUM CORPORATION (PRIME "R" MANAGEMENT INC.) APRIL 13,2015 CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS FOR THE 2015 COORDINATED REVIEW OF PROVINCIAL LAND USE PLANS • • MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 96 ATTACHMENT REPORT# 19/--N 0Z-IS Attention:City of Pickering; April 8,2015 Mayor Dave Ryan • Councillor David Pickles Councillor Jennifer O'Connell Councillor Bill McLean Councillor Kevin Ashe Councillor Ian Cumming Councillor Rick Johnson Principal Planner Melissa Markham and Planning Department Re:Petition opposing a proposed residential development on protected Moraine land in Claremont, Ontario. Attached please find a petition signed by residents of the hamlet of Claremont(City of Pickering). It opposes a plan for a large residential subdivision on 90 acres of Class 1 farmland adjacent to the hamlet and is almost entirely designated as protected rural countryside under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.Just a few acres are within the hamlet boundary.The ORMCP allows for only 'minor rounding out'of hamlets.The proposed development would be a great deal more than that. In 2013-14,a self-appointed'working group'consisting of only 15 residents and numerous developer employees/consultants was created. Despite concerns from the community about this group's formation and process a report recommending the development was created by the group (titled The Claremont Community Working Group Report:Ward Farm Development). We believe the report will be used to support the developer's application, possibly during the current review of the Moraine Conservation Plan. We want you to be aware of the flawed process(documented in detail)that led to this report: there was no proper communication with the community,there was no transparency, no members were elected to represent the community,and no one was given the power to vote on our behalf on a precedent-setting issue,or to produce a report under our community association's logo,as if the membership had been party to the discussions,aware of the content,and in agreement with the recommendations—none of which was the case. Therefore,we, 186 residents,request that if this report,accompanies any application or is used in any manner to demonstrate hamlet support for the development it be deemed inadmissible and have no bearing on your deliberations. We believe if this report is used in such a manner,affecting the livelihood for all residents,there are major implications. We hope and trust that you,as our community representatives,will continue to place the preservation of prime farmland and the Moraine over a residential plan that could disastrously weaken the Moraine Conservation Plan and listen to the majority voices of your residents. Thank you for your attention to this matter, - Concerned residents of Claremont,Ontario 97 * ATTACHMENT# 7 TO • REPORT # i t-A Claremont Petition Form and Signatures,March,2015 • Preserving the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Hamlet of Claremont Principles for Petition Residents in Claremont have begun a petition to oppose development in Claremont that would impact the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan,the environment,including our water system,and the hamlet of Claremont.This petition was started in response to presentations.by a development company wishing to have amendments to the ORMCP in order to build 70+homes in Claremont and a report that was written by a self-appointed working group that supported and recommended this.development.The opposition of this development is based on the following principles and facts: 1) The importance and sustainability of the Oak Ridges Moraine(ORM)is paramount to southern Ontario,reaching far beyond the local area of Claremont:This'required and valuable ecosystem'is in need of protection and • is in danger from development.How valuable is the ORM? The Oak Ridges Moraine(ORM)is made,up of thick layers of sand and gravel deposited by glaciers over 12,000 years ago. These deep aquifers are fed by rain and snow and like a rain barrel,hold and slowly release.groundwater to downstream areas. Claremont and other communities on the moraine derive their drinking water directly from the moraine's aquifers. As well the ORM area that Claremont sits on Is the headwaters for the East Duffins Creek that flows south to.Lake Ontario: The moraine's aquifers are particularly vulnerable to potential contamination and as such the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP)has specifically prohibited new urban development in most areas across the moraine,including rural hamlets and villages. Urban development on this sensitive ecosystem has the potential to impact the quality and quantity of water that surrounds us and that we rely on in Claremont 2) The potential and critical precedent-setting action of an amendment to the ORMCP to expand the boundary of Claremont could trigger future development for many other small communities from Newcastle to Uxbridge • to Palgrave: In 2015 the ORMCP is mandated for a formal review by the provincial government Currently, the ORMCP envisions no new lot creation except for"minor infill and minor rounding out"in moraine villages and hamlets(aka Rural Settlements);any changes to this before the 2015 review would require an amendment to the plan. Another avenue for allowing Rural Settlement boundary expansions would be through policy changes made during the 2015 Review;likely this would be triggered by behind-closed door negotiations between industry and government. There are valid reasons for the current policy of no expansions to Rural Settlement boundaries;protection of quantity and quality of groundwater, maintenance of rural character of these villages and protection of agricultural land. 3) The process undertaken by the self-appointed working group titled 'Claremont Working Group'was inadequate and does not represent the . majority perspective: • 98 • . ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT # PLrI 01-15 • Claremont Petition Form and Signatures,March,2015 • The working group members were not appointed by the community, it was not • clear to the community that a final report would be written and used to support development in Claremont residents'concerns and oppositions through emails and the one hamlet meeting were-ignored,some working group • members resigned due to concerns about the process, and information was not shared openly and timely with the entire community throughout this process. • Based on these flaws a small group of residents(14)cannot speak for.all - residents and make a recommendation that has such impacts on a community and surrounding environment. Therefore,based on these principles and facts a large group of residents have signed a petition to oppose the development plans and the Claremont Working Groups final report supporting the development.Support for any future development in Claremont should be a • community decision where all residents have proper information and a voice.This petition will be sent to the City of Pickering,relevant Provincial Ministries,and other relevant parties to.protect the rural character of Claremont and the ecological and hydrological • health of the Oak Ridges Moraine. • • Thank you for your support and concern for this beautiful Hamlet. • • • • • • • • • 99 • T/CHMENT# . t . Claremont Petition Form and Signatures,March,2015 • • Preserving the Oak Ridges Moraine and the Hamlet of Claremont We,the following, reject a current report that supports the development of 70+homes in the Hamlet of Claremont, ON.that would require a rural settlement boundary expansion either through an amendment to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) or as an outcome of the legislated review in 2015.We are concerned about the potential impacts to our water systems and to social and environmental impacts on the future of our hamlet. We do not support large scale development in Claremont, nor support the written report titled'The Claremont Community Working Group Report: Ward Farm Development:May 2014'by the self-appointed'Claremont Working Group'and have signed this petition to oppose such initiatives. NAME: Please print name then sign below ADDRESS:Full address To date 186 residents have signed this petition. 0 A hard copy of signatures has been sent to the necessary Ministries such as the Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Further copies will be sent to necessary parties. • • • • . 100 ATTACHMENT# .5 T0. REPORT# ?LN ©Z-/5 City of Pickering,Best Use of the Land Proposal by Jennifer Laffier Please accept this proposal for review of the Greenbelt lands for your current review. The following are ideas and suggestions based on research,current trends, and personal views of what the City of Pickering can do to grow,be sustainable and honour the environment at the same time. The City of Pickering: A Place to live or visit for a balanced and healthy lifestyle As the nation grows and concerns about food, agriculture,the environment,mental health and physical health grow the City of Pickering can find a way to address this and become a national leader in promoting a healthy and balanced life for residents and visitors. This will make the City of Pickering unique and innovative: balancing growth and prosperity while keeping the environment and healthy lifestyles a focus. The City of Pickering can be a leader in combining planning and development with mental health and well-being research.Mental health is a concern across Canada; a healthy community can be more productive,happier,have less crime, use less health care resources and city amenities such as ambulance or police,have less conflict, and have healthier schools and children. The Province does not need another city with `rows of subdivisions'. The City of Pickering has a unique opportunity to put itself on the map and market itself like no.other! How can the City of Pickering do this? Honor the environment as an attraction and selling feature for visitors and locals. If the city of Pickering had a balance of urban areas,business and nature/open spaces it would attract; a) people wishing to live in an area with openness and close to nature,b)people in the city wishing to live in a more child friendly and mentally healthy environment, c)visitors from the city looking to get away for fresh air,enjoy the countryside, and small villages, d)visitors that are sports and nature lovers, e) schools looking for outdoor programs, f) researchers, g) academic students working on projects,and henceforth. The ideas in this proposal would create jobs,bring in revenue for the City of Pickering, attract national and international attention and recognition, sustain farms.and the environment, and promote a healthy community. This unique City would include the following 10 ideas: 1. Sports and nature trails—biking,hiking, snowmobile, snow-showing, etc. These trails can be marked and maps can be created for locals and visitors. Associations could be created that send part of membership fees to city of Pickering for the trails. We could market ourselves as a leader in trails like Uxbridge has done. These trails could be advertised nationally and internationally attracting visitors from all over. This would create jobs and revenue. 2. Outdoor education camps for children- outdoor education has become a key priority in education and promoted and supported by research related to child development and education. Outdoor education camps can be organized by the City and/or in partnership with schools,universities and child research centres. Such camps would attract tourists, 101 ATTACHMENT I 5 TO REPORT# ?GN ©Z-15 people to move her looking for unique opportunities for their children, and researchers. Money could be generated through memberships, fees, research funding. Jobs could be created; especially jobs for young youth(research shows there is a lack of jobs for our youth). Pickering could be a leader in these camps such as Thunder Bay has done recently. 3. Partner with Universities and colleges specializing in areas of agriculture,planning, engineering,business, and education to develop research projects and apply for major funding. This will bring in money to the City and give national and international recognition. For example,research projects could review the impact of outdoor education camps,trail use,the mental health of residents, impact on resident happiness,community development,planning, etc...The research projects would create job opportunities for local residents. 4. Education programs for kids related to farming- children could visit working farms, complete,co-op hours, internships;outdoor education camps. This would promote and sustain our local farmers. • 5. Small villages with quaint shops- cafes,markets, crafts, etc. would draw people from the city for tourism.Example-the city of Picton has rejuvenated itself with this approach. More and more people are looking for the small town experience and this could be.a major tourist attraction.North Pickering can focus on this. The land is used wisely and • sparsely while still bringing in revenue and visitors. 6. Farm to table restaurants-•a popular movement in the culinary world and urban cities according to several recent city reports and magazines. These restaurants could set up in the areas and use food from 100 miles grown on local farms. They would sustain local farms, create jobs,and bring people in to the City. 7. Natural parks for children and water parks- small parks focused on`natural design' would create jobs and bring in revenue while still honouring the environment. Research promotes natural parks more than structured parks (play theory). 8. Gardens-the creation of gardens could be a tourist attraction. People could come and visit the gardens,pay fees to enter. Contests could be created, attract national recognition, promotion in magazines, annual events. Sponsors could support the gardens. Jobs could be created and revenue brought in for the City. 9. Beds and breakfasts in old houses and farms-this would ensure the preservation of old farms and houses,honouring history. Bed and breakfasts are desirable to urbanites and would attract people from the city and tourists nationally and internationally. The unique setting of the B&B's would draw people. This would create jobs. B&B association memberships would bring in revenue for the City. 102 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO REPORT# i UZ-l5 10. Create research partnerships with Universities and Colleges to look at these initiatives and the impacts on child development,play,resident's health and happiness, the economy,use of health services, etc. The City of Pickering could capitalize on a partnership with the new Centre for Health and Community Centre by Durham College, Trent University and UOIT. Funding and grants could bring revenue,research money and jobs to the City of Pickering. Publications on the research could attract national and international attention for the City of Pickering. All of this equals to `Not your average City!' There is a unique opportunity here for the City of Pickering to market itself quite like no other city. I thank you for giving us the opportunity to share ideas for future uses of the land and the outcome of our communities. Sincerely, Jennifer Laffier Jenlaffier37 @gmail.com- • 298-928-3055 • 5279 Old Brock Rd. Claremont. ON. • 103 00 _ Report to === Planning & Development Committee PI KERING Report Number: PLN 03-15 Date: May 11, 2015 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Paul Bigioni Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Proposed Changes to the Planning Act and the Development Charges Act Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 03-15 of the Director, City Development and the Director, Corporate Services & City Solicitor regarding Bill 73 - Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act be received; 2. That the comments with respect to changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997, contained in Report PLN 03-15 on Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act be endorsed, and that the Province be requested to: a. produce a Regulation pursuant to the Development Charges Act, 1997 which identifies all eligible services as "prescribed services" so that all development charges can be calculated based upon the City's planned level of service over the ten-year period immediately following the preparation of its development charge background studies; and b. delete or substantially amend section 59.1 of Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for our Communities Act so as to enable the City to continue to negotiate agreements with developers for financial contributions over and above the development charges recoverable under the Development Charges Act, 1997; 3. That the comments with respect to changes to the Planning Act contained in Report PLN 03-15 on Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act be endorsed, and that the Province be requested to: a. extend the timeframe between official plan reviews to 10 years, regardless of whether a municipality is introducing a new official plan, or undertaking.a comprehensive review through an amendment process; b. maintain the current approval process for official plan amendment_ - applications, during the two-year period following the adoption of a new official plan; c. maintain the current approval process for zoning by-law amendment applications, during the two-year period following the adoption of a new comprehensive zoning by-law; 104 Report PLN 03-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Page 2 d. maintain the current approval process for minor variance applications and not require applications for minor variances to be permitted only with council approval, during the two-year period following an owner-initiated site-specific rezoning; • e. maintain the current criteria for Committee of Adjustment decisions; f. maintain the current alternative parkland dedication provisions for cash-in-lieu to be calculated at the value of one hectare of land for each 300 dwelling units proposed; g. not include provisions that would allow the Minister or upper tier municipality to force the adoption of a development permit system by a local municipality; and h. include provisions that would enable the closing of dormant planning applications; 4. That the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to include a City of Pickering representative on the Planning Working Group; and 5. Further, that a copy of Report PLN 03-15 and Pickering Council's resolution on the matter be forwarded to the Region of Durham, other Durham Area Municipalities, and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. . I Executive Summary: In March 2015, the Province announced proposed legislative amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act, 1990, through Bill 73 - Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. Bill 73 has been posted on Ontario's Environmental Registry and submissions on the proposed legislation are due no later than June 3, 2015. This report provides a response to the proposed changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act, 1990. Financial Implications: Not applicable p pp 1. Background 1.1 Previous Consultations From October 2013 to January 2014, the Province undertook consultations on the land use planning and appeal system, and the development charges system. The review included discussions with the development community and the municipal sector, in addition to consultation with the Regional Planning Commissioners of Ontario, the Regional Treasurers of Ontario, Environmental Defense, Sustainable Prosperity and the Greenbelt Council. 105 Report PLN 03-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Page 3 The consultations focused on: • how the Province's land use planning and appeal system can be improved; • the Development Charges Act; • parkland dedication; and • section 37 of the Planning Act, which enables a municipality to negotiate with a developer to provide community benefits, such as a community centre or affordable housing, in exchange for increased development density or building heights. In January 2014, the City provided comments to the Province on the review of the land use planning and appeal and development charges systems (see Pickering's Response to the Province on Its Review of the Planning Act and Development Charges Act, Attachment#1). 1.2 Proposed Legislation In response to comments received through their consultations, the Province announced proposed legislative amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act, through Bill 73 - Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. Bill 73 received first reading on March 5, 2015. The Province has indicated that if passed, Bill 73 is intended to: give residents more say in how their communities grow; set out clearer rules for land use planning; give municipalities more independence to make local decisions; and make it easier to resolve disputes. The Bill would also give municipalities more opportunities to fund growth-related infrastructure, like transit; make the development charges, section 37 density bonusing, and parkland dedication systems more predictable, transparent and accountable; and, support higher density development to create jobs and grow the economy. Bill 73 has been posted on the Ontario Environmental Registry for a 90 day comment period. Submissions on the proposed legislation are due no later than June 3, 2015. 2. Comments and Recommendations on the Changes to the Development Charges Act, 1997 2.1 Purpose of the Development Charges Act, 1997 The Development Charges Act, 1997, ("DCA") provides the authority and the rules for municipalities to levy a development charge. Development charges are a revenue tool designed to assist municipalities in paying for a portion of growth- related capital costs incurred to provide services to new residents and businesses. Development charges are charges imposed by municipalities on developers to pay for increased capital costs related to growth. These costs are typically passed on to consumers. Development charges do not pay for operating costs or the future repair and rehabilitation of ihfrastructure. The Act is designed to try to ensure that a municipality's existing taxpayers are not required to pay the capital cost of services and facilities required to serve new development. 106 Report PLN 03-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Page 4 2.2 Nature of the Proposed Changes 2.2.1 Historical Service Level Cap Bill 73 proposes to amend the DCA to allow the calculation of development charges based upon the "planned level of service" during the ten years immediately following the preparation of a development charge background study. The amendment could be very helpful to the City because it would permit development charges to be calculated based on future needs rather than the • prior 10 years' historical level of service. It must be noted, however, that this amendment will only apply to services which are prescribed by Regulation. The Regulation has not yet been drawn up, so it is not certain which services will be granted this favourable treatment. 2.2.2 Mandatory 10% Reduction The DCA currently contains a mandatory 10% reduction from the development charge calculation for most services. Bill 73 proposes to remove that deduction as it applies to transit services. This amendment is beneficial because it will allow for greater recovery of transit-related servicing costs. While staff regard this,amendment as good public policy, it does not directly impact the City, given that transit is a regional responsibility. 2.2.3 Voluntary Payments Bill 73 contains a provision stating that a municipality "shall not impose, directly or indirectly, a charge related to a development or a requirement to construct a service related to development, except as permitted by this Act or another Act." This amendment appears to prohibit any requirement for financial contributions over and above what can be imposed under the DCA. Although the language is not clear, it is very likely that this amendment would prohibit any future agreements with developers for payments over and above what can be charged under the DCA. Staff have grave concerns about the impact of this proposed amendment on the City. It is widely recognized that development does not pay for itself. If the amount of financial.contributions which the City can collect is limited strictly to development charges permitted under the DCA, then the City will be deprived of the ability to collect from developers the real infrastructure costs associated with their development proposals. Staff have sought input from Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. concerning this very important issue. Watson and Associates are a part of the Provincial working group which is reviewing Bill 73. The impact of Bill 73 on Seaton and on the City generally will be the subject of a future staff report to Council. 107 Report PLN 03-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Page 5. 2.2.4 Asset Management Plan Bill 73 requires that development charge background studies contain an asset management plan addressing the cost of those assets which are proposed to be funded under the development charges. This will require municipalities to account in greater detail for the capital costs it intends to pass on to developers through development charges. This is in keeping with the Province's broader focus on ensuring that municipalities plan for and invest in critical infrastructure. Fortunately, the City has already prepared an asset management plan for roads and bridges, and is in the course of preparing an asset management plan for its facilities. The City is therefore well-positioned to comply with this requirement should Bill 73 become law. 2.2.5 Area Specific Charges The DCA currently allows a municipality to apply development charges either to the entire municipality or only to a portion of it. Bill 73 would empower the Province to impose upon any municipality an obligation to use area specific development charges to pursue strategic land use planning objectives. This power would be exercised through Provincial Regulation. Those Regulations have not been written yet, so it is unclear what impact, if any, this amendment might have on the City. In any event, this amendment could limit the City's flexibility in financial planning, given that the choice between area specific and city-wide charges could be foisted on the City by the Province. 3. Comments and Recommendations on the Changes to the Planning Act 3.1 Purpose of the Planning Act The Planning Act sets out the ground rules for land use planning in Ontario. It defines the approach to planning and assigns or provides for roles and responsibilities for decision-makers and applicants. It also sets out consultation and public engagement requirements. It is the legislative basis for processes that are central to the exercise of land use planning (e.g. official plans, zoning by-laws, creation of new lots by consent, and plans of subdivision). In addition, the Act provides for other municipal planning tools including site plan control, community improvement plans, and a development permit system. 3.2 Nature of the Proposed Changes Bill 73 proposes a number of changes to the Planning Act that are intended to streamline the planning process and ensure greater opportunities for public input. Attachment#2 is a Table that provides an overview of the proposed changes to the Act, and staffs response to each of the changes. 108 Report PLN 03-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act . Page 6 Bill 73 addresses many of the comments that were made by the City in January 2014, including: • extending municipal official plan update cycles from 5 to 10 years, after the preparation of a new, comprehensive official plan • establishing more rigorous requirements for making an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board • removing the ability for an appellant to appeal the entirety of a new official plan • providing optional dispute resolution mechanisms • removing the ability to appeal official plans and official plan amendments that implement certain provincially approved matters (e.g. source water protection) Although these amendments are welcomed, there are some additional changes to the Bill that should be considered, dealing with: the timelines for official plan reviews that do not follow a new official plan; restrictions on the approval of official.plan amendment, zoning by-law amendment, and minor variance applications; additional prescribed criteria for Committee of Adjustment decisions; alternative parkland dedication requirements; provincial requirement to adopt a development permit system; and the closure of dormant planning applications. 3.2.1 Approval of Amendments Following a New Official Plan or Comprehensive Zoning By-law The Province is proposing that during the two-year period following the adoption of a new official plan or the comprehensive replacement of a municipality's zoning by-laws, no private applications to amend the official plan or zoning by-law would be permitted. Although the proposed changes would protect the integrity of a new official plan or comprehensive zoning by-law from potentially inappropriate official plan and zoning applications (such as applications to reduce minimum height or density requirements), it would also prevent consideration of development proposals that may meet or exceed the community's goals (such as applications that would increase employment opportunities). It is also unclear how this moratorium would impact the use of holding by-laws and interim control by-laws. For example, since holding by-laws are used to phase development, the moratorium would not only prevent new zoning applications, but may prevent new development from occurring for a period of two years. • In addition, applying such a moratorium may precipitate a large number of premature and unwarranted applications or Ontario Municipal Board appeals prior to the approval of the new official plan or comprehensive zoning by-law. As such, it is recommended that current approval processes be maintained and that the proposed changes be deleted from the draft legislation. 109 Report PLN 03-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Page 7 3.2.2 Timelines for Official Plan Reviews Although the Province is recommending the extension of a municipal official plan update from 5 to 10 years following the introduction of a new official plan, the Province is continuing to recommend that official plans that are not "new" be updated every 5 years. This is impractical and unnecessary, especially within a two-tier municipal planning environment, where such reviews must follow the updates of both the Provincial Land Use Plans and upper tier (regional) plans. A 10 year timeframe would be consistent with the Provincial Land Use Plan, reviews, and the proposed Provincial Policy Statement review timeframes. It is recommended that the timeframe for an official plan review, regardless of whether a municipality is introducing a new official plan, or undertaking a comprehensive review through the amendment process, be 10 years. 3.2.3 Approval of Minor Variance Applications Following a Recent Rezoning The Province is proposing that during the two-year period following an owner- initiated site-specific rezoning, applications for minor variances should only be permitted with Council approval. This change would make the minor variance process more onerous and time consuming. By their nature, variances are meant to be minor, and often result from unintended or unforeseen circumstances in the early stages of construction (for example, the pouring of foundation that is fractionally too close to a lot line). The Committee of Adjustment has been very effective in assessing and making decisions on such applications in a timely fashion. As such, it is recommended that the current approval process be maintained and that the proposed change be deleted from the draft legislation. 3.2.4 Additional Requirements for Committee of Adjustment Decisions The Planning Act currently indicates that a Committee of Adjustment can make decisions on minor variances to a zoning by-law if in its opinion the Committee considers the minor variance is desirable for the appropriate development or use of the land, building or structure, and if in the opinion of the Committee the general intent and purpose of the by-law and of the official plan are maintained. Bill 73 proposes that additional criteria be prescribed, however the proposed changes to the Act do not reference what those criteria may be. It is assumed that the prescribed criteria may be defined under a new regulation. However, such a regulation has not been released for review. The current test and committee framework have served the City well, and there does not appear any justification for prescribing further criteria. As such, it is recommended that the current framework and tests remain unchanged. 110 Report PLN 03-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Page 8 3.2.5 Alternative Parkland Dedication Requirements The Province is proposing that before a municipality adopts official plan policies allowing it to pass by-laws using the alternative parkland requirement provisions, the municipality complete a parks plan that examines the need for parkland in the municipality. In addition, the Province is proposing that the cash-in-lieu collected under the alternative requirement be changed from the value of one hectare of land for each 300 dwelling units proposed, to a new limit of one hectare per 500 dwelling units. While Bill 73 includes a provision that the preparation of a park plan is not required for official plan policies adopted before the effective date of the Bill, the Bill includes a further provision that for any by-law that was adopted with the rate of one hectare of land for each 300 dwelling units, such by-law will be considered to be amended with the new rate of one hectare per 500 dwelling units. The City's official plan contains parkland provisions in accordance with current alternative parkland requirements, and has adopted a corresponding by-law which reflects these requirements. To date, the City has not yet used the alternative parkland dedication provision. However, with further intensification and increased population densities in South Pickering will come the need for greater outdoor park space. Furthermore,the highest intensity developments will likely occur in locations where land values are highest, which makes it fair and reasonable for the developers of these sites to fund parkland requirements at a higher rate. As such, it is recommended that the current value of one hectare per 300 dwelling units be maintained for cash-in-lieu collected under the alternative parkland requirements. 3.2.6 Requirements for Development Permit System The Development Permit System is a relatively new planning tool which combines zoning, site plan and minor variance processes into one application and approval process. The Province has proposed that the Minister can make an order requiring a local municipality to adopt a development permit system, or authorizing upper tier municipalities to impose similar requirements on lower tier municipalities. The new provision does not provide any direction as to the conditions under which the Minister or approval authority may make such a decision. The clause raises concerns with respect to transparency, stakeholder consultation, and local autonomy. If the Minister feels that there is matter of provincial interest at stake, the Minister has the power to establish a planning development area under the Ontario Planning and Development Act and/or impose a Minister's Zoning Order, as has been past practice. It is recommended that the proposed change be deleted from the draft legislation. 111 Report PLN 03-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Page 9 3.2.7 Closing Dormant Files The Planning Act does not provide approval authorities with the clear authority to close dormant planning applications. There are a number of dormant planning applications in the City that date back as far as 1986. It is recommended that the Planning Act be amended to enable municipalities to close files that are inactive and to withdraw planning approvals that are dormant. 4.0 Working Groups To advance Bill 73, the Province has announced that it plans to assemble development charges and planning working groups to provide feedback and make recommendations on the legislation. The Province has indicated that from a planning perspective, they will be seeking input on such matters as the regulations for minor variances, strategic locations for establishing Development Permit Systems, and the more effective use of local appeal bodies. As previously noted, the City's consultant (Watson and Associates) is a member of the Development Charges Working Group. However, it is recommended that the City request that a Pickering representative be included in the Planning Working Group. 5.0 Conclusion For the most part, the proposed changes to the Planning Act provide improved clarity, transparency, and opportunities for stakeholder engagement and input. However, the Province is recommending certain changes to the Act that staff believes should remain in place. These practices and processes are well established, and have served the public, the development industry and municipalities well. To advance the implementation of the Act, steps need to be taken to update the regulations which support the current and proposed Planning Act provisions. Accordingly, it is recommended that a City representative be included in the proposed Planning Working Groups to advance the City's interests and the recommendations offered in this report. With respect to the proposed changes to the Development Charges Act, the Province is requested to prepare the Regulation prescribing the services for which the level of service may be calculated based upon the City's planned level of service over the 10-year period immediately following the preparation of the development charge background study (as opposed to the historical 10-year period). Furthermore, the Province is requested to delete or amend proposed section 59.1 of the Bill so as to enable the City to continue to negotiate financial contributions from developers above and beyond development charges. 112 Report PLN 03-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Bill 73 — Proposed Smart Growth for Our Communities Act Page 10 Attachments 1. Pickering's Response to the Province on Its Review of the Planning Act and Development Charges Act 2. Staff Response to Proposed Legislative Changes to the Planning Act Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: -7d,Zzerfd- Jeff Brooks, MCIP, RPP Thomas MelymtA, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics Dire • City Development Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Paul B g • • Chief Planner Direct,r, Col...rate Services & City .olici •r JB:Id Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council / ,/oeu../ ZaIS Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer • 113 �aT Pickering Civic Complex Cali O ?�l'c� c�i� ���r� .-��9� � �`: One The Esplanade REP C!-Si:'i.' PL+���'? Pickering,Ontario Canada risil L1V 6K7 PICKE RIN^ Direct Access 905.420.4660 LH 1 (v' cityotpickering.com OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Department 905.420.4648 • Facsimile 905.420.6064 cao @citypickering.on.ca January 9, 2014 Development Charge Consultation Ministry of.Municipal Affairs and Housing Municipal Finance Policy Branch 777 Bay Street, 13th Floor • Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 - and Land Use Planning and Appeal System Consultation Ministry of Municipal Affairs.and Housing Provincial Planning Policy Branch 777. Bay Street, 14th Floor Toronto, ON M5G 2E5 • Subject: Comments on Development Charges and the Land Use Planning and Appeal System in Ontario— Fall 2013 File: L-1100-048—Planning & Development Charges Acts—Review 2013 The City of Pickering appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Provincial Reviews of Development Charges and the Land Use Planning and Appeal System in Ontario. . 1.0 Development Charges in Ontario 1.1 Preamble Development Charges are one of the important city building tools that enable municipalities to create healthy, safe and complete communities for current and future - residents. Development charges are required to support growth in built-up and greenfield areas. In Ontario, development must conform to Provincial-interests, be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and also conform to the objectives of . • various Provincial Plans including the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. 114 . Comments on Development Charges and the January 9, 2014 Land Use Planning and Appeal System.in Ontario— Fall 2013 Page 2 of 6 Municipal decisions on planning applications must conform to a long list of Provincial interests which include (among others): adequate transportation, safe and healthy communities, adequate social, cultural and recreational facilities, protection of ecological systems, protection of the financial well-being of municipalities, sustainable development, public transit, and pedestrian orientation. Municipalities must be consistent with the vision and the policies for building strong communities contained'in the Provincial Policy Statement, which include long-term prosperity and social well-being, meeting the full range of current and future needs, optimizing public facilities and financial well-being over the long-term, creating strong and healthy communities and providing public service facilities that ensure long-term prosperity. Municipalities must conform to the Growth Plan which notes that decades of neglect have resulted in a current infrastructure deficit. Policies direct growth to built-up areas, promote transit supportive densities, efficient public transit,-community infrastructure to support growth and an integrated approach to waste management, among others. One of the guiding principles of the Growth Plan is to build compact, vibrant and complete communities and to optimize existing and new infrastructure to support growth. 1.2 Comment: Nowhere in the Ontario Planning Act, the Provincial Policy Statement, or the Provincial Growth Plan is there policy direction to municipalities that they need only to fulfill only 90% of their interests and objectives, deliver only 10 year old standards, or discount by 10% the provision of required "soft services" including,transit, parkland development, libraries, daycares and recreation facilities. Yet this is exactly what is mandated by the existing approach to Development Charges in Ontario. And this approach has direct and unfortunate impacts on municipalities. It shifts the burden of funding growth to existing residents and businesses (either immediately or through long-term debt instruments). As well, it could lead to lower service levels and a lower quality of life. It is unfair and inappropriate for development charges to be discounted by 10% for the soft services and to meet require the municipalities.only a 10 year historical service average cap. It is also unfair and inappropriate to deem certain required municipal • services as ineligible. The limitations on services eligible for Development Charges funding erodes the ability of the municipality to fulfill its responsibilities to both the Province and to its current and future citizens and businesses to provide for a full range of public services and create complete and healthy communities. 115 Al7W,TET,15 TO Comments on Development Charges and the. . . January. 9, 2014 Land Use Planning and Appeal System in Ontario — Fall 2013 Page 3 of 6 Changes made to the Development Charges Act in the 1990's by the Provincial Government of the day should be reversed in order to level the playing field and provide municipalities with a fairer means of meeting provincially mandated interests,objectives and requirements. Without change, it will be fiscally challenging for municipalities to provide safe, healthy, complete and sustainable communities with a fuller range of urban services. . The City of Pickering has reviewed and concurs with the findings of three recent analyses of the current Development Charges regime. These include the positions taken by the Region of Durham and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, as well as an analysis produced by Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. in response to the Provincial Review of the Development Charges Act. Specifically, the City of Pickering supports the recommendations and comments of the Region of Durham Report# 2013-J-35, prepared in response to the consultation for the Provincial Review of the Development Charges Act(DCA) and the City encourages the Province to act on those recommendations: The City is particularly supportive of the Region's position that the DCA should ensure that"growth pays for growth". The City of Pickering also concurs with the arguments and reasoning set out by the Association of Municipalities of Ontario_(AMO) in the "Report to the.PMFSDR Infrastructure Table—Development Charges Subgroup", dated August 9, 2007, initially produced following adoption of the Development Charges Act 1997 and still the position of AMO. In addition, the City concurs with the positions taken in the AMO news release entitled "Development Charges — Make Municipal Voice Heard". Of particular note is the estimate that the restrictions imposed in 1997 by the Development Charges Act shifted $550 million in growth related costs from developers to existing property taxpayers, which created a public transit investment gap of over $1 billion as noted in the 2008 Provincial Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review (and which has still not been acted on by the Province). In addition, the AMO news release noted that in 2013 the Ontario Environmental Commissioner called for reforms to the DCA in order to treat public transit equitably. The City of Pickering also agrees with the analysis and arguments contained in the Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. letter dated November 29, 2013 (see Attachment) respecting the Development Charges Review consultation. The City would like to draw particular attention to the estimate that the current Development Charges Act only allows for recovery of approximately 75% of the cost of growth due to the exemptions, reductions and limitations provided in the current Act. The City supports Watson's recommendations to remove from the current Development Charges Act the following exclusions: 116 • REK r„ Comments on Development Charges and the January 9, 2014 Land Use Planning and Appeal System in Ontario Fall 2013 . Page 4 of 6 • • municipal headquarters, cultural (including arts and heritage)facilities, museums, vehicles and equipment with average life of less than'seven years, and • computer equipment; and, • the mandatory 10% deduction and service level limitations, as set out in the City's recommendations. • . 1.3 Recommendations Respecting the Development Charges consultation, the City of Pickering recommends that, in order to support the principle that`growth should pay for growth' and to achieve the objectives of meeting Provincial interests; the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, the Province of Ontario amend the • Development Charges Act as follows: 1. Ten year historical level service cap - Remove the ten year-historical service cap so that forward-looking service level standards can be applied to capital costs. . 2. Ineligible Services - Remove the category of services ineligible for development charges including: acquisition of land for parks, municipal • administrative buildings, cultural (including arts and heritage) facilities, museum, entertainment and tourism facilities, municipal contributions for hospital services, and waste management services. • 3. 10% Discount Services= Remove the mandatory 10% reduction for soft services; including'recreation facilities, libraries, parkland development, transit, homes for the aged, ambulance service, social housing, childcare, emergency shelters and vehicles and.equipment. . 4. Treatment of Grants, Subsidies and Other Contributions -Allow grants, subsidies and other contributions to be treated as general revenues so municipalities can apply these additional resources. 2.0 Land Use Planning and Appeal System . 2.1 General Comment The City of Pickering has reviewed and generally concurs with the recommendations made in the Region of Durham Report# 2014-P-3, prepared in response to the consultation for the.Provincial Review of Ontario's Land Use Planning and Appeal System. The City of Pickering encourages the Province to act on those . recommendations. . 117 p>'b_i laYf ii Comments on Development Charges and the January 9, 2014 Land Use Planning and Appeal System in Ontario— Fall 2013 • Page 5 of 6 • The City is particularly supportive of the Region's positions that the Planning Act be amended to require municipalities to undertake comprehensive updates to official plans every ten years, from the current five, and that timelines for making decisions on complex official plan amendments be suspended until completion of peer review processes. 2.2 Comment Respecting Parkland Dedication The Planning Act permits municipalities to require dedication of 5% of residential development land to the municipality for parkland or by a cash-in-lieu payment equal to the value of the land. An alternative ratio of one hectare per 300 dwelling units can be required, which allows municipalities to obtain either land or cash-in-lieu to purchase land to satisfy parkland needs for larger numbers of occupants of higher'intensity residential developments. In addition, municipalities may also require 2%of industrial/commercial land to be given as parkland or a cash-in-lieu payment for its value. The City of Pickering's experience has been that these provisions are generally adequate to provide for local and community park needs but fall short in their adequacy to provide lands for major City-wide/regional facilities. Accordingly, the City recommends that the Development Charges Act be revised to include parkland as an eligible development charge item for those parkland needs not adequately provided by the provisions of the Planning Act. The Province's Consultation Document noted that concerns have been raised that the alternative parkland dedication rate acts as a barrier to intensification and makes it-more difficult to reach the intensification goals of the Provincial Policy Statement and as set out in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. We also understand that BILD may be requesting that the Province place a cap on the parkland dedication fees at 5 to 10 per cent of the value of the development site, or the site's land area, as was done in Toronto. Should this be the case, the City of Pickering is opposed to this request because with greater population density comes'a need for greater outdoor park space, especially at ground level. In addition, the sites most likely to accommodate the highest intensity development are likely to have the highest land values which makes it fair and reasonable for the developers of these sites to fund parkland requirements without the imposition of an artificial and arbitrary cap. 118 AMISET JO • Comments on Development Charges and the January 9, 2014 'Land Use Planning and Appeal System in Ontario — Fall 2013 • • Page6of6 • 2.3 Recommendations • • Respecting the Land Use Planning and Appeal System consultation, the City of Pickering recommends that the Province of Ontario: • 1. Revise the Planning Act to implement the recommendations contained in the Region of Durham Report# 2014 —P-3, particularly to require municipalities to undertake comprehensive updates to official plans every ten years, from the current.five, and to suspend 'timelines for making decisions on complex official plan amendments until completion of peer review processes, Where warranted; 2. Revise the Development Charges Act to include parkland as:an eligible development charge item for those parkland needs not adequately provided by • the provisions of the Planning Act, and, • 3. Maintain the current.alternative parkland provisions and not revise the Planning Act to cap or restrict alternative parkland dedication rates for high intensity development. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these two important topics Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office. Yours truly • • Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. • Chief Administrative Officer • • SG:jf - J:1DocumentstLawlL-1100 Legislation&RegulationslL-1100-047 Planning 8 Development Charges Ads-Review 20131Comments on Land Use Planning d Development Charges Consultation,January 9, 2014.doc Attachment • Copy: Association of Municipalities of Ontario • - Building Industry and Land Development Association • Region of Durham . • Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. • Mayor Ryan • Members of Council Directors • Division Head; Finance &Treasurer Chief Planner Principal Planner, Policy (S. Gaunt) • • • • . 119 dLC E • LR.ri t i2 FL t U ._ j'7 Watson Plaza Three 101-2000 Argentia Rd. Mississauga,Ontario Q A1�ssociates Canada L5N 1V9 C)• Phone: (905)272-3600 ECONOMISTS LTD. Fax.(905)272-3602 e-mail:jnfo(a watson-econ.ca . I November 29, 2013 • • • To our Development Charge Clients: • Re: Development Charges Review Consultation • As you are probably aware, on October 24, 2013,the Ministry of Municipal Affairs announced public • consultations on the Development Charges Act(DCA). The announcement indicated that "Ontario is reviewing its development charges system, which includes the Development Charges Act and related municipal measures that levy costs on development(i.e. section 37 and parkland dedication provisions of the Planning Act) to make sure it is predictable, transparent, cost-effective and responsive to the changing needs of communities." A discussion paper was released (copy attached)with the announcement as a focal point for issues to be , • discussed. Nineteen questions are posed. Comments are invited to be submitted by January 10, 2014. Since the announcement was made, a number of our clients have contacted us regarding our perspectives on the questions posed and have asked if we would be responding to this document. On behalf of our clients, we are responding in several ways: • We have had initial discussions with, and have offered our assistance to, MFOA and AMO as they develop their respective positions on the consultation document; • We have been retained by several clients to assist in developing their response to the policy . questions posed; • We will be attending some of the consultation meeting(s)set up by the Province; and • As a consulting firm which prepares a substantial number of the development charge by-laws in Ontario, we will be preparing our own individual submission to the Province. • In addition to the above,we are providing our clients with our initial perspectives on the 19 questions posed:, These comments are not exhaustive and are not as technically detailed as our final submission is expected to be; however, they do•provide our clients with an initial perspective. We hope that this will assist you in formulating and submitting your own response to the Province. Response to Questions Posed A. The Development Charges Process • 1. Does the development charge methodology support the right level of investment in growth-related infrastructure? It is unclear what the Province determines to be the"right level of investment." Based on fiscal impact studies undertaken in the past,we would estimate that the present Development Charges Act only allows • for recovery of about 75% of the cost of growth. This results from exemptions, reductions and limitations provided in the current Act, as follows: • H:\DCA-GEN\DCProvindalReview-ag.doa d Planning for growth 120 Arrit�?a—i r TO FicPlwi rc P' a 3 - Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. 2. • • Exempt Services—which includes parkland acquisition, municipal headquarters,tourism facilities, arts/culture facilities, museums, solid waste services(recycle, re-use, landfill), • hospitals, vehicles &equipment with average life of less than seven years, and computer equipment; • Mandatory Exemptions—industrial building expansions(may expand by 50%with no DC; may add up to two apartments for a single family home; may add one additional unit in medium & high density buildings) and upper/lower tier governments and school boards; • Mandatory 10% Deduction—for all services except water, wastewater, stormwater, services related to a highway(i.e. roads),fire and police; and • Service Level Limitations—cannot include amounts in excess of 10-year historic service calculation. Based on the above, the concept of"growth paying for growth"is not presently achieved under the current Act. Any further limitations or reductions provided by a change to the Act would shift a higher burden onto existing taxpayers. 2. Should the Development Charges Act, 1997 more clearly define how municipalities determine the growth-related capital costs recoverable from development charges? For example, should the Act explicitly define what is meant by benefit to existing development? The current Act has been in place since 1997. Interpretation of the Act has evolved since that time through the combined efforts of economists, engineers, planners,finance and other service specialists interpreting the existing requirements of the Act. This interpretation has been further tested and refined as a result of over 50 Ontario Municipal Board hearings arising directly from appeals to the enacted DC by-laws. Given the diversity of services provided by municipalities, the expanse of rules and regulations imposed . by statutes to carry out those services and the changing nature for the planning and development of communities,we feel that an attempt to prescribe how concepts such as"growth-related capital costs" and"existing benefit"will be determined may result in restrictive, narrowly defined directives. Ultimately, as with any statute or regulation, interpretation plays an important role in determining how the legislation is addressed. The municipal sector has had 14 years to define the present Act through its application. These interpretations, along with many others, have been tested by the OMB and now form the basis for the calculation of the charge. We are unclear as to what benefit would be further derived by adding prescriptive wording to the DCA. 0 3. Is there enough rigour around the methodology by which municipalities calculate the maximum allowable development charges? The present approach to calculating the"maximum allowable charge" is to look back at the level of service provided over the past 10 years and, based on quantity/quality measures, establish the average • level of service as the basis for calculating the maximum. This approach is used for all services except water,wastewater and stormwater which are guided by environmental legislation. Historically,the concept of measuring service levels pre-dates the present DCA and the former DCA, 1989 (i.e.the"lot levy"era). Prior to an Act being implemented,these measures generally only • considered the quantity aspects of the service. When the DCA, 1989 was introduced, the requirement for quality as well as quantity measures was also introduced; however, the prior Act provided that the • • • H:DCA-GEMDC Provincial Review-ag.doac 121 • $L Wk«sill. F -1 03 - i • Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. 3. • maximum allowable charge be based on the highest level achieved over the past 10 years vs. the . average level of service required under the present Act. We are unclear what further"rigour" is to be applied to this calculation other than to define what the quantity and quality measures entail. Quantity is defined presently by the number or size of the assets you have had over the last 10 years. Quality is the cost to replace the asset if you were to purchase or construct the asset today. These measures appear to be reasonably defined at present. B. Eligible Services 4. The Development Charges Act, 1997'prevents municipalities from collecting development charges for specific services, such as hospitals and tourism facilities. Is the current list of ineligible services appropriate? • In response to questions 4 and 5, it is important to understand why these provisions were implemented. In "Notes for Remarks by Municipal Affairs and Housing Minister Al Leach to the Standing Committee of the Legislature on Bill 98,the Development Charges Act, 1997," Mr. Leach states: "in November 1995, • this government began a fundamental review of the Development Charges Act. We wanted to be sure that we could reduce the cost of development. We wanted to reduce the cost of constructing new homes and apartment buildings." Further, he indicates, "we have proposed changes to the Act that would increase municipal accountability. We are proposing that in the future municipalities make a contribution, from general revenues, of 30 per cent of the cost of new facilities like libraries and community centres" (note that the 30%was subsequently reduced to 10%). From the municipal perspective of having a financial contribution from development to pay for the growth component of infrastructure costs, both the service exemption and the 10%deduction present limitations to the municipality in funding these assets and should be removed. If the Province's objectives are the same as in 1995, then these limitations, or further restrictions, may seem appropriate. 5. The Development Charges Act, 1997, allows municipalities to collect 100%of growth-related capital • • costs for specific services. All other eligible services are subject to a 10%discount. Should the list of services subject to a 10%discount be re-examined? See item 4. • 6. Amendments to the Development Charges Act, 1997 provided Toronto and York Region an exemption from the 10 year historical service level average and the 10%discount for growth-related capita!costs for the Toronto-York subway extension. Should the targeted amendments enacted for the Toronto-York Subway Extension be applied to all transit projects in Ontario or only high-order (e.g. subways, light rail) transit projects? Presently, transit is considered a"soft"service and is subject to the service level cap and 10%deduction, thus limiting the recovery of revenue to fund the service. Part of the provincial initiatives is to reduce reliance on roads and to increase the use of alternative modes of transportation, such as public transit. From a DC perspective, this initiative is reducing reliance on a 100% service(i.e. roads) and replacing it with a 90% service (i.e. transit). As well,the increase in the transit service is limited by the service level cap which further places a financial burden on municipalities. Collectively, the present DC regime provides limitations in achieving the provincial goals and, hence, should have similar funding available. It should also be noted that one of the recommendations for funding Metrolinx was to provide access to development charges. This new requirement would affect the charges(i.e. increase)for the GGH R'DCA-GEMDC Provincial Review-ag.docx • 122 . TO 4YL"i"C.!birit Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. 4. • municipalities and some of the"Outer Rim"municipalities. Concern is raised that if Metrolinx is granted access to DC funding while, at the same time the Province has a goal of not increasing the overall DCs, then this will require further reductions, deductions or limitations on municipal services, thus providing a further loss of revenue for municipalities. C. Reserve Funds • 7. Is the requirement to submit a detailed reserve fund statement sufficient to determine how municipalities are spending reserves and whether the funds are being spent on the projects for which they were collected? Section 43 of the Act, along with section 12 of the Regulations, requires the.Treasurer to annually provide Council with "a financial statement relating to development charge by-laws and reserve funds." This statement is to.include opening and closing balances, revenues collected, monies used to fund capital works, interest allocation, debt payments, loans between services and credits given. In addition, the statement also includes two schedules—one denoting outstanding credits granted and another detailing the projects on which the DC monies were transferred (note that all other revenue funding sources for the project are also to be included on this statement). The existing legislated reporting requirements are quite detailed and we would consider the level of reporting to be transparent and • informative. 8. Should the development charge reserve funds statements be more broadly available to the public, for example, requiring mandatory posting on a municipal website? • The present requirement is to provide this information to Council; hence, the information is available to the public. However, requiring that this information also be available on the municipality's website does not appear to be unreasonable. 9. Should the reporting requirements of the reserve funds be more prescriptive, if so, how? As detailed in question 7, we feel that the present reporting requirements are quite prescriptive. D. Section 37(Density Bonusing) and Parkland Dedication Questions 10. How can Section 37 and parkland dedication processes be made more transparent and accountable? . I In regard to parkland dedication,the Planning Act allows for municipalities to collect 5% parkland dedications forresidential development and 2%dedications for commercial/industrial developments (note that as an alternative to land dedications, a cash-in-lieu payment may be made). The Planning Act also allows for a dedication of land equal to one hectare per 300 units which may be used for higher 1. density developments. For the one hectare per 300 units to be imposed, it requires policies to be included within the municipality's Official Plan and also requires a municipal by-law. This present process appears to be open and transparent to the public and relates predominantly to the acquisition of land for park•purposes. As the acquisition of parkland has been removed from the DCA, the Planning Act provides the only basis for acquiring land. • Section 37 of the Planning Act allows for a municipality to receive"facilities, services or matters" as a contribution for the approval of additional height or density above that provided for in the zoning by-law. Similar to parkland, the Planning Act does require Official Plan policies and provisions to be made in the zoning by-law. However, the services which may be collected for, and the quantum of service, etc., are • FI:�DCA-GEMDC Provincial Review-ag.doac 123 AT • : T LGert,•?rETJS 1 • Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. 5. not defined. This section of the Planning Act may require some methodological underpinning and reporting requirements similar to that of the DCA. 11. How can these tools be used to support the goals and objectives of the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe? Section 37 authorizes a municipality with appropriate Official Plan provisions to pass zoning by-laws involving increases in height or density otherwise permitted by the zoning by-law, in return for the provision by the owner of community benefits(i.e. day care facility, provisions for affordable housing, public art, transit facilities such as bus shelters, etc.). The fundamental principle of the Provincial Growth Plan and 2005 Provincial Policy Statement(PPS) is to plan for growth and development in a way that supports economic prosperity, protects the environment and helps.communities achieve a high quality of life across the Province. Fundamental to this objective is the development of compact, vibrant and complete communities which optimize the use of existing infrastructure and support the efficient use of land and natural resources. Section 37 supports these goals and objectives by encouraging new . businesses as well as increased community services and amenities in areas which are targeted for urban intensification (i.e. Urban Growth Centres(UGC)and built-up areas). As part of.the Growth Plan and PPS, municipalities are required to plan for.a range and mix of housing, taking into account affordable housing needs.• Section 37 is a tool for implementing certain Official Plan • • Housing and Heritage Resource policies when there is an increase in height and/or density. The provision of affordable housing as a first priority community benefit on large development sites, site preservation of existing rental housing on intensification sites, the replacement of existing rental housing • to be demolished, and the conservation of heritage resources on development sites, are fundamental Official Plan policy requirements. Section 37 provides the tool to implement these policies. E. Voluntary Payments 12. What role do voluntary payments outside of the Development Charges Act, 1997 play in developing • complete communities? Voluntary payments have generally been used by higher growth municipalities to assist in funding the non-recoverable DC component of growth-related projects(e.g. 1.0%deductions, exempt services, amounts in excess of service level cap). Often the requirement for these contributions and the quantum of the contribution are determined as part of a detailed fiscal impact assessment. In many cases, the net impact of growth requires considerable funding from the existing taxpayers causing significant increases on taxes and, in some cases, the potential to exceed the provincially mandated debt capacity limits. In • •these instances,the municipality either seeks additional financial assistance from development or seeks to limit the growth at affordable levels(which may result in not being able to meet the Places to Grow. targets). . • 13. Should municipalities have to identify and report on voluntary payments received from developers? At present, these payments are voluntary and outside of the Development Charges Act; hence, we are unclear of the statutory basis for requiring reporting on these funds. The individual agreements which have been entered into may or may not stipulate their own reporting requirements between the municipality and individuals. However, many municipalities who do receive these payments report the use of these funds through their budgeting process. • H:1DCA-GEN\DC Provincial Review-agdodt 124 . .kit• Y Watson&Associates Economists Ltd. 6. , • • 14. Should voluntary payments be reported in the annual reserve fund statement, which municipalities are required to submit to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing? • No, as noted.in question 13, these payments are voluntary(i.e. received outside of the Development Charges Act) and thus would be similar to other dedications, donations and/or receipts made to the municipality by others. As well, in certain cases,the contributions are not monetary and may take the form of a land or an asset contribution. The collection of these funds or assets is reported as part of the Fl R's and Financial Statements. V • F. Growth and Housing Affordability Questions . 15. How can the impacts of development charges on housing affordability be mitigated in the future? There are not many approaches to"limiting the impacts of development charges on housing affordability." In some cases,the calculation of an area-specific charge•may assist; however,this would generally only apply to services such as water, wastewater and storm sewers. Further, as discussed in item 17, area rating of these charges may not necessarily result in a lower charge. • Alternatively, a DC reduction may be made to certain areas, either statutorily or by the municipality; however,this would then shift the cost burden from new growth to the existing taxpayer. The shift of these costs onto taxes and rates.can then impact the affordability for existing residents. Alternatively, senior levels of government may consider cost incentives to new home purchases to assist in achieving these goals. • Lastly, while a municipality may lower its development charge to assist in housing affordability, there is no way of ensuring that the house price will reduce by the exact same amount. 16. How can development charges better support economic growth and job creation in Ontario? It is recognized that the construction industry plays an important role in providing jobs and economic growth. However, the construction industry involves both residential development-related construction as well as infrastructure construction. While reducing the development charge may have a perceived benefit on new home affordability, shifting the burden onto taxes and rates may slow or reduce infrastructure construction. V V G. High Density Growth Objectives . . 17. How can.the Development Charges Act, 1997 better support enhanced intensification and densities to meet both local and provincial objectives? . The general approach to calculating the development charge (i.e.varying the charge by type of unit based on average person per unitoccupancies)does allow for a reduced charge for medium and high density units over lower density units. However,further DC reductions to support enhanced intensification, without shifting the burden of cost reductions onto the existing tax or rate payer, are limited. These limitations arise for several reasons: • • Area Rating of Water and Wastewater Services—the water mains and sewers within the defined intensification area are generally sized for less dense development. To accommodate the increased density within redevelopment areas, these mains would have to be replaced with H:IDCA-GEMDC Provincial Review-ag.dooc 125 T• O • P 0 i --��� 0 • Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. 7. larger mains. The cost of main replacement in built up areas is usually 2-1/2 to 3 times the cost of a main built within the Greenfield areas; • Water and Wastewater Treatment—this is based on MOE standards and engineering design. Generally the usage for high density units is the same in intensification areas as within Greenfield areas, hence limited differentiation. In regard to water storage, conversion from a low • density area to a large high density area may warrant additional storage requirements in order to meet fire flow requirements;-and • Storm Water Requirements—low density development usually has higher amounts of permeable • land area which slows down the flow of storm water off the property. Intensification can reduce the amount of permeable land,thus increasing the rate of storm water flow. This can result in the need for additional storm water facilities. 18. How prescriptive should the framework be in mandating tools like area-rating and marginal cost pricing? For the reasons cited above, we would not suggest prescriptive tools on area rates or marginal costing. 19. What is the best way to offset the development charge incentives related to densities? There are a number of services related to or impacted by the Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan. Refinements should be made to the DCA to broaden the opportunity to recover infrastructure costs to meet these objectives. This may include removing the 10%deduction, eliminating the service standard cap, etc. Summary At present, in regard to infrastructure, municipalities are being mandated to meet a number of provincial objectives including: • mandatory asset management plans under the"Provincial Municipal Infrastructure Strategy (2012)"for future capital grant approvals; • • pending asset management and sustainability plans for water, wastewater and stormwater under the Water Opportunities Act; and • potential accelerated replacement of water, wastewater, storm water(and potentially other assets) under the growth intensification requirements of Places to Grow. The development charge review discussed herein may provide the need for funding for growth-related assets should further reductions or limitations on revenue recovery be imposed. The review of development charges and the ability for municipalities to fund these expenditures outside of the DCA must be considered in light of all the other matters noted above. While it may be a concern of the development community and Province that the quantum of the DC provides pressure on the affordability . of housing,the level of taxes and water/wastewater rates which must be paid annually also directly affects the affordability of the home for both present and future residents and businesses. . Concluding Remarks • • • We would suggest that you consider the questions posed by the Province as they relate to your own municipality and provide a response to the Province by the January 10, 2014 deadline. These comments may relate to all of the questions or perhaps only the ones,most important to you. • H:1DCA-GEMDC Provincial Review-ag.dooc • 126 ,PL:i O - i5 I _ Watson &Associates Economists Ltd. 8. • Based on our discussion with the MFOA, they would be appreciative of receiving any staff reports and Council resolutions on the matter so they can consider all municipal perspectives on these issues. Yours very truly, WATSON&ASSOCIATES ECONOMISTS LTD. Andrew Grunda, M.B.A., CMA - Associate Director • • • • • • • • H:\DCA-GEMDC Provincial Review-ag.docx 127 ATTACHMENT#_ 2- TO REPORT 0 g..1J 03-15 C -a C o co J r C -ate cn. CO co H C E O O > ca N 2 V 4? O N To d fa a E Q N N L • N " .0 t) C ca Q Q a) �O Q.O 1 _ (a O C " .� E O N 0 a) C m O - (a L CO Via) E5ca) N (a N ca . a ' ' O .0 CO O V) CD C 24' a) • a) -a 0 = 'L = "O E >j 32 C 1 +a a) (n a) +, > ca Q- 0 . C - L C O L 4-, ^V O ca Q 4? CO' 0 1.i. — L >>•- L C� o cc (0n. o . C co 2o 0) cvi = 0 CU u) co Qa) c E .c U ai c ai -a 0- 2 c U d 2 o 0 0 a) 1:3) c � Ocnc +71 QUO Q D ca ca N CO - o cn a) O 0) U_)tu a 6 a) (a o -c _ may C f a) a) L •- +r 0 (a 2 (a co (a . 2 J ++ ca L >•, v C cn > -c a) a) — O 13 < O Y e O N `) Q urn ca •> ` ' 0 a) 0 a)_ COc0-, ca - t 0) - 0 = Via) Gc m E ° n. E C .c }, o o cn O ao) ° _ � ,mac Q, •_ (a >,0 (a a s- C Q o N L ch Q 'L Rf > ate-, i c C (a C E (B '(� (a E L , L a) �- a CO (a a a ocN cEo � _ca coc\ia? a... o >' o Q a) Co .L° Q'a •- .5" •".., o ca C t6 E .- a) 4-' -c ca E c a) ca N a) N ° 0 ca 0 E a) 4- L o � czoEc � Lcocu • • " cuoccn _o as 0= d •5 fa 'C (a co .o -a '5.7) E O _0 c .O cn ---� �/� a) m (6 Q_-•F, +, .( (a = a) C Q O D L a) CD Ce V _O a) ca O To L = ca L .-. -a a) •- 0) Ec) � cao0 _ ,.5 4- C/) cao 0) — :P aocE - cLav) aa)) >,... *a 03 o � � � Naoio ..G .- = E -2o � ° p •E Eo (� L L (V to N a) _ 4- >, to U .'a (6 O O O a) >,7:3 = •O �, O a) .5 O O C a) >' a) CO o ,-.5 ,- al C co E 03 = y O c) = O r N. 128 ATTACHMENT# 2- TO REPORT 0 f'L1\1O3-,5 •-§ a) o '5 c ) O, .n a) 0 /ca •� ..?"..,2 c .0 LL t6 a) C O li UE' °) ca c) ° C > CU ca _ CD N •, O Q V O O a) g w cn _ca) � O 0 0 a) c CUY - V = C co aj a) aj . 0) O C 0 0 o 0) c Q 0 o U L a) 0) C +� O >,.E a) N O C — a O cU O _C V .� cen. o "� E0 0 .° � � ° E ECU a C 4- •E � a oa) aN 2 u;—_-co co C - a) O c6 N C (� CO ,� as • CCU EZ' E o > O •U co -8)' o E .- vi— a) ° •- a) C > N > E c d = co •- O . O O -0 'i t 0 N 0 C a) _ g o.. _U 0 0 - W O • W to s a) '� a) a) O O Cc rnN E . - a) >> ° +-. ° . O a a) E C �' O O O ca a) R E C) 002 a) C ca a) c +' t v 4 ° vi C ca 0 -C a = E Qa) E I-- cEcnUi (.j 01-3 -0) o ai � � ,a) aiE ° a) c v-) ca0 ° •" 25a) Fi ' mE O •� > sn � LC 0) 0Ea) Boa) ° = F- . .E a) Q CO -0 < O C O..fl ca L Cl) C O cn C) >,O 0) ,O O . a) O N co u) 0 0 cB c J U) L (6 CZ 5 a) O N 0 a) J � 5 � .0-4E. E C — CU cn C E -0 ca C 'a Q -02 .v0CU E 00 .- = o - c -0 0cn ° N 0 cn 'E c rn O 0 Z' N > O al P o ,E C =O c O O c vi E _ C — n. o cn -c 0 c co 0 a) E Cn 'O O o E •c a) � - cca c`na •3 ca a 0) � o c -0 cu 0 ' ° � . O CO � = u) 0 a ° C C .E E o c E c >, E C , d aa �u cn —_ ,� 0 Ecca) E OLCUID 0_ C o d u� 'c°-i ° CQ 0 E Eto c�a c0i c) �� 0) 0 0aai ° c c•( � > CU a , — °- E0 >,.CU •-c a) cr- CD -- S = a) a) coL c ° oc . a E = 000 . CO E E ° ca _ c o a) O N cn co LO = O a= `� O_d o L _a o f6 a) c C C O 0- m L'•v `� -0 o '4 O) O O C o O a) c ca U) 0 N s L 0 0 C ; • N E �, L Q , a5 CU 0-M 0 E u) .•� c U 0 c C E cn a) 0 E O o 0 u) o O 0) = O co -a ° ca a) C L O a) C Q a) �+ cA — 0- m > 0 CO CU o E a) ° " co aCO L a) ,C o ^ a) ° "- � � c c � E 1- 0 co C O L °)R °' L Cl) 0- 5cna) 0) 0U) = � , C = a) ,—, " a) H o d0 •5 N C >, .V cm U ? OO •O M CU .5 O ca = 75 O "= Y O Q"= C O — a) co ° O a) 4 „.., a) � EE � XE ° L ° oo = o " Cl) c0 `. EcOn0 0 m U) c°io 0 0 > C.) .0 0_-C C _0 � Q •> c°) �cco 0..O - M -f' 11-) . 129 ric.i'(1(j$t ..LN ©3•-I3 -p cC _ U S a) . a) a) .o -Q � a) c cm al C O U O) (6 C = TS a) -0 -c ° a) a) c > L � U �c t N O c a) fE na) ;� 4' O .on c � NV a) 0 , 02 U «Q Q O CO UE •c ,, 013 Qa) 73 � 0(6 o C U ° C N ..00 " .a) 0 E O y.+ N (a ,C 'C C > N -.. N C C p p p U (a O Q Rf U p -p 0) y Q o •U Q. (A -O -C 'a a) O as 0 Q "0 C co a) N .N N (� C O p Q a) (n 0 C 0 S. a) a) (a Q. U 0 (A - N a) ca '`"-$ cc N L c O O C (a c6 .0 CI) U _ — a) z aka C (n C 46 c 12 Q O 5 C a) _ ` =•- Ea a) 3 ° E n _ .. En�i .0 'C o f O o .O Q- ca a) O)D c w c c c ° •t o > o •c � c ° o Q a) . 2 nso �' a°) E -C c -2 � QNOUE � '�", cB L (o .en— ° � L c AN a L U c Q' - .- U O a) U .0 -0 (6 W O a) O a) E L T C E2 C ,-- (a _ O O " O •C E O C (6 C '� V � OE E U _ Ucaa)) OEo)m .oai �aa� �•ca`)) `� � u QL- o = ° . Q.Ua � c s a) a) -a -0 -D U O c Q- L U ca O p -0 Q. O L rY (C4 (U6 +'C• E o Q O o U O. Q co U) N O C 4= co 0) O a) C (n U) .F., O m . � a) Qm _ Q_ ^_ � .J 4+ c N^ 4- Q 1 Acv � � t6 � -a V (6 L N co O ^Q > U Q.� a) Q Q. () _ co C E N O Q_ U Trs O 0. •C o C Q rz co 0 U) Q V •a0 U) M -N O C Co as+. a) C ca C i a) -0 .° U) L L O a) a � �� � � ^EN; Q- = cep c a) �' � Eai � opt .= � � o '� M ° � � U) 2 a •� �CO �- v0 � a) 3 Cr) +-, CU = O cB 0 ti `� aa)) N- U -a O c ca .� c O Q_ Q 0i � � � o �N- a) a? oa) Qu, (0 � LOti a) L U) co c - n a) O — N O O -- N N O O E c •U •(o U) Q c6 (n a) c C ° E C U co U U O .: . O .0 •U N N .0 O .� = Q C RE O = F C i� Q• (n Q CO Q N •i (A CO a) .c co a) `� C C p � 3c ° co � c � � = Ccaa)) a) � 5E `. ca Ts cm = O p -O , U a) _ _ O -p a) Q_ o j •(n ° as a) Ts •C a) U " p :,_, L O p 4 Q_ U as Q Q co co > m � cco O aa)) c..o as ,c..1. Kolb' -' asmc Q -a (n E �. co N- CO 130 • .,..i____ O_ ±� O O O O c D +. � N i.. L a) 45 O O "- N >, 2 -c .c �, E � U) OQ .-F., U O CO +� cN Q c -C O N CO E N a) O U 4- (06 .-E cn U >p E cp (U6 N N O V j O O O L E 'a ca a) .c U C Q t6 C O 73 _c O O to O a V O p as _C L •' (a � � U a) C) N O y'' >i (a 'c (a c Q Us pt -c O L •N O a) ca ca- N_ O . O+'' L O > U c O .— , .cu ti 4.0 _c — gasE .-a � NQ � U ocZ � U > � � a a O 0 co 6 a) . O a) c -c p N � N a Q -p Q a cO L a 4- c � C d c 0 a. 0 +' G 6 O O ca O -.O a) 0 .En E >' d n- U . co = c o n u) > 0 co w' c r O +C •> OL U c O p QU O U c ( O C a) O L m O ca c a Eo .� ) o � �t > -o � � .a ca 0 a•- ` U >U OE 3 O cu O O O-c c O O U p `) c E 0 (a O a) Q- Z = Q .,-. ca . = Esc < s- c) ca U to _ to co .= a) •U O ca O 4- c +, U c c t c 0 ca ca p 'd;ui a) O D O O d - O , •� O Q� E c O J V c0 .� - p O a) 00 4- ... > - 0 ,-O .0 p >O `(a O O•C cn c (a c i O y-+ d < -"= " -C > L = a0 O c ` a-c. (a O CO Q" U Q c cn .-. N a)La U . U c U ... O ca _c .0 N ca p Q O cn N = O -2 �W O N x— ^ 'C c ,- (, c '5 c N .� ,..�O •(a L- O Q c E c O c a) ) NON" a E � ca O O +-' O L c O a) -6 � L 03 O O (ato N >O • OI- '• O a) O4- U) Lim d ' E t� O Q ca.c • •C W M O = Op O ca cn o co ,o t �O N O N -2co....^� (a QU Q O c0 C.- c , O ;�N cD .19 Q -0 ° E O o c m k c cc m E a a) ti co is -0 (I) co ca >, o c > 0 ca�O C) co N -C C 's C � N Qc � U •m Q c � Ca ., o O Oc U . co CL c � c UcoT -c 0co �o � . , . ccD C) OrL � , >. a 4- o ,r)— • � O � Q (� (n c �' E o `.-0cno 0E — U to c ctS NO a) C fUU6 c = co N_O �. as , 1%.- c a) u) a I C N E a) _ .,_. Q- O O O 0 m O O fa O E i ".' *-• O O O 'a C C • UEc 2 "T O Q ^�^ > ca O a) O n Oo a) U i O N d c0 • O C O Q� ct r Qom--' 0.-0 O O N 4' - U `. '(n c E 'U ` . rn 0..7-6 O O ca O ` 0 (a L (a O co (NI .0 c - ca .0 ....d' dam' (a .0 1:)) Q_c O a) - O t O Q. .O 9 'D O O a) ,—(1) ti O N' . c E = Q+r -c a) V c _c Q = > 0 c o U U O a-- ,a r ..U) < 0 CO = ca ..0 >, O O - ca ca ca ca O 0 N— 131 ATTACHMF T L Z TO 1 REPORT# }LN Q3•-i5 `►- Co w- D O C "a O �-' C C O N Qi co N N c L N C to Q ■ to LO .c N O) 1 O O L O O 3 Q C C Q_C L O O U O >+ ° -0 O • O N E c - N O >+— T -0 N >, N ° 0 > C A Q o 1 E O •V c u) .0 c O C c O E �� N N Q "� N '-' U C Q d U N .�, Q 4. N op O N c a) a) Q O _c C ° O O C O p .c E N O Q C T- N o N > E L (I) Q CD 4--' ° .+, O U Q ?� N Q � = E � � Q Q cooE •� � ° � Lm—° ° ai _ oQ o 0) . >, ° cow E o Q � � �IS C C Q'L U N E N••C O Q'� L Q C 2?" X > = cc .O v- c o +. 1 Q E N U ' a. N o E E E •F+ U o cm c 'c O +. U.. QC () a) o -a _ ccaE ° u) .0c5 ° L t •L O - O . t +-. ++ ° CF) al ti .E QO � 0 = Qto "- Q — o O O . u'C O t •c L 0 N -C-CS o U E N O A • a• - EoEo `� a uQ) CO0 ° ° U - � °-w - � w -aE CZ E � � O (up' (a 0- > a) oC() � Q a) c c-Cj o -c to > c°)- c � o - Q0) ° o .o o � • _ L U Ca C ° •`ncQ � O 3ccoC .COCCa) ECCUEC � � ° � ° � ° .cocnQQ° EQC •LU � .L — L Co O N ° O N 0 0 0 0 0 a; C C C U ° Cv s�.c? ° o c o Q.c? (6.L O a) o U Q O Q E ' O U nh QcaU ° � U Q 0cc000_000c ._ _oEco No o Co u) cu o L L _Co r L > .125_ O O C L C CD O ° Q O .•� C O O U C p C C J o c >'°iN ,- o UU) U � O o —•V Q U O O O O C , Q U p CSI c L �' � EQ - � oca cU0 N >+ N __ '*r c o_._ ° Z c Q+,'' u) ti CO a) co (.1 �O Q U • 'E. >+ o C o Q p 0 t— O L N Q� O c O . �- O 0 ° 0 o 4- > °- c 4O O U CO_ ° Q N N o .CD O U a).� O .Q 0 o •d _0 > 0 .0 ° •U L N 4) C 4) L C C O > a • •,- O O 0 U 3 L u) N O O ,..0 CO ° Q L O > S -° 2 0 v) °. N 0 0 Q �•"= C OL O N O Q = L N N C j N ++ O Q :� O Q O co .� 0 U •• C d O . O O) C °. 0 O o > �+E E 0 Dl c C 0 O c U (0 •L U a) O U L Q C �- (B o N > O O O N O S. 0 0 Nt to ca ce U O o.•O $ N O N _c co o CO Q 0 0 U 'a Q Off_ v >+ C N O 0U U c cu to Uo >ti O N Q ( •L O .n ,co cn p _ O _c r -.--, c =Q. U r N _c _f6 -• 0 -0 NO C - ° O cn -0 O • 0.. CD •— O . C (2 C U C C O . L L ° L V � (n� I U N L .L ° � N "/ � ° L = = > _a >, - moo- = a) EE � •- '- o_ 0o. o3 -o < cnccOCC) 0c (() COM v) OEcO CV CO 132 /TTACHMViENT# 2- TO REPORT# PLN 03-15 1 c 4E' c o ca ca o O a-CU a) o CO ca - off ° � E ° ~-' 1 � a) o � ., 'c). 13 2 ° ca) ,_ � u°i •5 •(c-.) •� , c .5 ca ° 2 (aU ° O c .° N 0 U j " -a a) O O O w d a) ` 3 c = u) ° o N ca c O V CO 0 (a R5 a a) a._ a u)_c N Q c0o � �'coCDcFC c � cnE � � o N H1U o U U Oa a o 0 a c i"3 o U ca N u) O of .0 c c a) .c . E (a - E c cu Y o ' a) 03 2 0 E .ca c•� 7) c co 0 "5 .6 c`a a) o `o = ca E •(° -0 E a � 'oca-cN s- = a) cc II , ° � oE (Dcocca * ca a) c a) c ao ca a)a) o o .L a) ° a) D E a) a U ° o v o E ° •o c ca. a) • O4 UC cas o � 10 > +' •L a) u) ca c y d o ca E a.= N O ca _ = -a c .O c a) •_ _c a 4- L c ° o > 2 cI � o � as .c0ca) d 0 - 2 Q ° o o O . ''u) c _ca) •45 —o_ ST) ca E . 0) i=' Ua (n Q. •• ° ^ ° '> o ° � cnaa) = v � , QE � cao � .� c ° o �. � cnas ,_ t 0 O ° a U a) O ca c O _ N aj .u) 'U _c F- a) -4 t cca) c6 w ° = Eca)+- ca 2 0 5,-0 P. rn.� c m .c —° oa) Q rn� O > 6 >. 0 co ccOa. 0 c“...) .-.1 = ac 00< .c 0 � c � >,-) CL ca a) ° ° a) 2oc5 U _ a c a5 J +r o o a) CO c U p u) .>7 • in a c m • a) °,a c -0 'U O > o E V a ° a) c U ° a U < O a) a - a O O CO E � c om Q. c • 2 � ca O `0_ � I.L. •~ c a ` c W (a (a L a. ^' � a) � � a (a c E a -1-' •S a , .c a U a aa uc E �' ,1 �' a° - ca ca >+ Cl) d 3 O w a c a- Q Q c cn `° � co ca) cvnOC ° E .. • t o O v) c o O ca N `o to O ( U _D < c � o. U ,U) oo '> u) C a" N _a .0 > N I a)) co iii■ y CV fa 2 u) 0 'a a) (a > O N - N .Q 'U a) .- .I.r ca ++ Oa a c U -6 N U (a a) >.+., +, ..c Cl) O O u) -- a) ° c -c o ca a) - 4. U o 3 a) -4 •� N • c E co O L_ .j O " N co -- a) N F N •a .� a) 22 0 > t6 >. - a' a) Z 0_73 (a U N ° N .c N ° 2 .a 1 • 133 ATTACHMENT# 2- TO REPORT# f LN 63 15 c N >, a) N O N '`-' C _� c) a C >' t, O O -0 > , L 1/ 0 0 o M E as a) Y c > C (7) -- a.) (1103(/) 0 a) .22 2 CO +' (a CO (a O N N C , CD 0 (6U Q i0-• (a () a) = O O) -- 13 CO •D c 'T N a) O (n a) co A • O L N C Q.,.. L C� C ;� u) .- ca 0 .c o O o o -c O c L p a5 _ O L o fa C ' .}., C U V Q a) c 0 0 u to > -O a) t U 4- O O L as CD �� L o O U N 4, >, Q (a a) 5_ c a) N Q > 0 Q = c CC 0-_c _ � U .o0 "" E = a aic ,c > Ca off = �a313 � oas •= oCDcoiEa) M � c a L L L O C N a) W 20 y va U 4- C C Y oc (1' 13003 -0 -0 03 aLE -aCa — ) (/) 0 O L - O >+ O 0 '.7. O) V — co (a (n t N a Q-0 a C U 0 N � I- Y U •i 03Z a`) C /�� O L 0 a) (a ••-- 0) t"' E. a) (A () 0) Q 1-xi -0 = a) CD Q `u C .0 o-•_ C Q C c.) Y C • W C "0 C a) -c a) - 2 C a) o a) E Q a) o > o c .- Cli i_ (a o f a) c - o E :> .E ,c L Q (a -0 E Eo a) U ai > (6 a) (3)a .> Y 2 ." L ) 0 0 a) a) -C .- p 73 2 cu_ � o .Eaa) v) o (aom -t -1-, }� < 0. U) QQ0 L CO 4_ . O 'a > 4- L LM 0 R N z � -i-, � o .(, co as C > L a) a Q V O ON > � t C O Q > " U .c ca (D o = C) c a) a) a) L -0 c -C t o O)� a) c- N E. 0 Q 5 Q.o � Y .f.. O L +, .� Q •CEU) ai cv � aaa)) m � QZ o � co o i co (a .c .0 0-in .- O = — � L .^. a) 0 EL a nLc om -0 -0 >,c) r) r' •L- c .) o 000a) a) c. Lca) a) y- Oa) d (I) a) +� t .LY � E000 jcMCC4 � E (n CD ,- a) ca +O.• —O C E 0 5_ C O . O O (a cn o a) c (v CO _ N C Q L - o 0 a) O , (n L O O O O O O (� O .N L o C ...._ a) 0 C c.) _c .O -0 co a) a) = O 0 .0 c (/) CU Oo .. C 1-- CC. o s -0 N 0 ca m > E '� E 0 .E � ^ ca - E c o o a) (n a) = a) a N -0 ca o z • a as V N c d OO CO -0 AFF O r� � (a c S E c .- a) v o c (a (a (a > a) 'a O rl c o 0 0 0) C Q.Q -C Cl) O)4 j C C O V O C (a U (a 0 0 C O 4-:-,. a) o Y O O i Y C a) O 0-13 ) O CO O M E m �a � aE �a o aT, CO i E al CO ti r 134 I ATTACHMENT# 2. TO REPORT# kN 63 l• u) • > = a a) a) 3U :1--. -0 a) a) a) -p -y' E 0 Q _O -O L c c cu C P = -a O O U U .- c..) --+ = US O O > a) c ,_ U) L 3 O a) too � L CO = Q � a) �n -c a) YO0 � C 8....F., U a) Q E cu a) _ c6 O)_C 3 'a CO CO -0 L N a) N N > O •U) co C) v) >, • D L a) C C Q- N L C co V C a c ..0 Q a) .- ca a) _c c O o�O -- O_ ` O co U Q O a) 3 'c O �- Q"J C 'c Q"a a) .'-' ' a a Q� L Q. > CO O U) .0 LO (IS C C Q U) •> -O N U , 4- U N O Q ,1 w L a) Q O o .c C a v) A Q ca a) s- C a) co E- O c..)as 0 = 04 a 'a 4- .F. -sca Rs U Q _c cu . o 0" 0 E .c C U) _cu a) 4,, a)a) O '§ -a U O f6 •c c O U E ca U cu C 'O a) a CD .ca 3 U m L U O `) I a) -c U U a) U O C O U a) L 0 O c• 0• U0 -a c +' cui aim � � = ?'•- -C UI00 (D Y Q n 0 _0 O N a) as -0 -a O 3 ai — O .c a) =L.p v O � Q N co- "_ c a) •- Q E o c cam = a) ca E aa) U) U a sZU v) O C as U U � � F- Y U c a3 � a) +, Nom_ CO c a) a) cif 'a U) C .c a) cu •5 a) L O N U) a) f6 .5 > co c „v C 1— N O ±.. c .... cn I •� a C O C ^o -` a) a) c N Cr 2 cu a73 ccl �- +r -a c � U) L- c O Q] -, 0- Q U) L a) _, `) Na) c C a) ca .— LQca E ,c 0 Ems) N cv •c O 0.c c� U N c U) 0 O O U a) N•_ fa +r (lT (6 C >,-a 5 3Q. co > � N 7 „- _c O > = O Y .0 Y CD 0 Q.N (a t CO a) N C a gn OL co O a)cr 1 a a) c6 LO N a3 C (a c0 +> 5 U o E _a L _se co L.. Q U L 0 Z . O -a > y--• L Q a E Q. as N 0) C 2 al G) U '=„, J N o a3 NI- c4- 'a Q •2 O U C CU O N0)'c� O cu O L U O c a) e•-•••• E - a a Q- c a -- (/) O O L O C a) CL a al � E a) U U) pa CD s � c � c• . c �� � � = O E O U U C aN � � AIP a c d CO a U co O .0 O 0)•y.0 CO 'c 'c Q C (a U)13 U) a) -C N co 4- a) N c � U O U U c6 W. a) O L. Q L Q E L U U) �_ U N cu CL U E 7°a) a) O >+•U) � 5 °• E ca) > -a O -c C CO 0) 135 . ATTACHMENT# 2 TO REPORT / Pu'4 (53--/S - E o a) o te - a ) O. o N > a N 4= o 0) O t -- 'Q=oa) 0E VE � Q c°a ~ aa)) �' 92 ° a) a) a) a) L O E LO . • 0� O a) o 7 0- U 0 > aEt -0 CD U) -- _o 0_ o ° E O us 0 " 2 a) ° +, Q o I . ('� C •F+ L Q () ,_a) L Q Q � � �� Eo ° � •� � o � -.-4 N N +� U L Cl) C .u) c O N ca :~' 0 a.) ,,CI) cn -c ° _ o CZ ° v E o o _ ' > E = ai E " a >' E o2 .(7) a) >' O .c a) �. +r L- O CU - -0 >,1 o Q o c)c ccn C _c 'a U o c -a �*= � Cn � —° ° ° E ° - Cv ° a) 0 ° E ° " G) c aa)) coca = > 5 >' Q- a) ` '5 LE n ° � ° QJ .c '� L -2 a - oa-° _ o ° � aicn , (:) 00 0 ° o ° a•� °) �4= m> ° a 30Y +' � ° �, a) +� - oc ° .— coo ° -0 .NE a) cncaE cn cE Cl) d C a) co c .0 C O p ±, ca c c E a) O c ca O sZ U O a) E ._ O a c O O o. C O µ, O a) a) as - E L + C 0 - . +, :+_ >'4-, o o a) O a Q O U a) C c ctf c ° L > c. � co - c - Qca) E0" a5o >, Eo .a ° e - s = Eon ° -- oar E � 0LoU .0 o � -c ° va) cxaOaEO ° ° - C7N 'NYO � a) 0 cts }, I— co O 0 a) c as 0 >' Z .4 a o CO -0 i cyn •_ cUn =• c0 - N >' N L c � O U c O) N (a O) A N as c 0 E CO C +r O p E C CO Y O L a) 0 — ° r me aa) a) � c o ° c Co (a aas 3 CU co .a o ai � �a >' ° a) E EcoE m QLEoE 0 d a) O) O N p «) • c V 1- E O Q O L O E N C 4- , E O t Q- a) _U p O a) u°) c ts p a) as V to O L 0 c N > c co O -a U o. O a) O N t O c �,'C c •C ca L � 'LE +� ° .ca) c L 0)7 0 E ° 1 t .- v) Q ° - a i. O cn N () o ca 92 ° L U a) O - c� a) 'U 0 m oEaa)i -0oo) 0 >' as a) o ° c .c .° Q'co . c (13 .6 arc ,- oc m -E 03 M o a) C ° � 'E o ° E N E N 0 O +.• L a) (6 a) O N +- co E N -c •O E N = 4- E a) a) L C a) C0a) �o � cv ° a) o -0 NCOE0) cno oEEa) ° •L +. 0 coc ° pa) NEE +' C o � Ea) '- ' ++ ° Cnti'_ a) � a) th t0 'La°) - � NO � � C aO � � � aXi +, � ocnQL ° a (� '1 ° Q O• 'U N (Q 1-1:1 C .c (NI f6 "= �- f0 CO = Ce N a) t c 7 (E4 Ccs N p >' E c O N a) N '(n tB to N O 0 E O p o .L O t� p� O O Q- ' iz N rn • +., pti cC) cnU) 2O ' -a� ° ~ C (LS � EC3 � +. C � cnc3 U) a 0 c 0 -6 To .° >‘ o a) v°) = oin ° o-a a°) o 0. MM3 E- � a�) � a) a) - '° '° U L- ° �- •cn N L E - . a) . N - o O .- ;V L CO � c C C 5 > 'aE 'o .- •a -0 a) E a>i E ° > U) `n E -0 C coD a E EZ0 Cl a0_ Z = o 2 a.cA � 0Z cOV E o 0 CD N- N N N N 136 riAC �t�ME,`r 2 TO �;� :f',Lij��iii=f�f REPORT °• ON 03.45 . o Co E }, .c O a) a) A c a)• 73 = O 0 a) Q Ca > o • as To coaa) .. oaCo _c CZ t o E a) -c C c •-> 0) c o — u� Loc� � � � �)� sz cn 2 'O (O D D sz (1) Cz > .>,- o a) . • • C. _O ..c +r co a) Q (a u) Co Q o. � o � �uo ,- - - . ; a) o o � CO COCa4 -c 'ECoca) c < 0cI •E) .0 , oL- c a) .o a) co > = > • � � � oECn ) r26D C a a -04--.5Qo-c > � - � ` 'a a - ° -c a) aS� > � _c aa) cam . a) E cn Y > a) L � 0) O D c CD c o ° c � a) Otu o '6 u) -c) moo ° o � Y O a) C o) c O L U a) co — Co .� O 'Cno � � cCa u) a) N � d U -a 4_ a) c c BC Cn4- D 4) 0.. 0) CD a) -0 — a ca 'E •c O O O (a -STD •V co Cr) 7 c +' Q- c 0 ' aa) � a) C � c a) 0 .- ca (aN oE � _c—co CoCa «) _c a- `) a) ' OCa ~ E > = 0. U .N 0 2 a) Co. a) aj a) 4�> CoE0_ a) O co c .cA 0Ca2 co N 0 CD a) Y d Q E co. ut _� O L O L N Q O c Cl) E a_ a 2 c - C a) . Q' *-, ._ . c o N O a) L L Q. • • Co o w _c 5 Cs cc 0 co .� -c co :a Cu O >Q O a H ' g • 137 00 Report to - =-- _ Planning & Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 04-15 Date: May 11, 2015 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: -Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures Located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale Recommendations: 1. That Report PLN 04-15 of the Director, City Development, regarding the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for the demolition of buildings located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale be received; 2. That Council, in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment object to the demolition of buildings located at 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road, 3440 Brock Road, and 2865 Sideline 16 which is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, 3. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee to designate 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road under Part IV, of the Ontario Heritage Act; and that Staff be authorized to prepare the appropriate materials and report back to Council at a future date; 4. That Council not object to the demolition of buildings located at 3185 Brock Road, 3540 Country Lane, 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7; 5. That Council request an extension of another 120 days to the commenting deadline to allow the City to expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessments for the buildings located at 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession, and to complete the Full Assessments already underway for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road; 6. That Council express its strong dismay at the Province for its disregard of significant heritage resources in Seaton through the lack of maintenance and occupancy of such resources, in contravention of the Provincial Policy Statement, and request the Province to restore and reuse these structures; 7. That, if the Province continues with proposed demolition of significant heritage resources, Council request the buildings be recorded in the form of photographs and/or measured drawings, the documentation of the buildings be provided to the City, and exterior or interior heritage features be made available for salvage to interested parties prior to any demolition; and 138 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 2 8. Further, that a copy of this Report and Council's Resolution be forwarded to: the Premier of Ontario; Infrastructure Ontario; the Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure; the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; and the Whitevale and District Residents'Association. Executive Summary: Infrastructure Ontario (10) is undertaking a Class B Environmental Assessment for the demolition of buildings on 15 properties in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale. Based on Staffs preliminary review, 10 of the 15 properties required a heritage assessment to adequately evaluate the properties against the criteria of the Ontario Heritage Act to determine their cultural heritage value. The City retained a qualified heritage consultant, Christopher Borgal of Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. (GBCA) to undertake the heritage assessments. The Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC) reviewed and discussed the recommendations by the City's Heritage Consultant for 8 properties. The following is a summary of HPAC's recommendations to.Council: • Object to the demolition of 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road and designate these buildings under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act • Object to the demolition of 2865 Sideline 16 (Walter Percy House), which was recently designated under Part VI of the Ontario Heritage Act by Council on April 22, 2014 • Request the City's Heritage consultant to expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessment for the buildings located 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession To provide additional time for the heritage consultant to complete the full Heritage Assessments for the above-noted 4 properties and for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road, which are currently underway, an extension of another 120 days to the commenting deadline is required. Most of the properties are located in the Seaton Urban Area and are subject to the policies of the Central Pickering District Plan (CPDP) and the City's Official Plan Amendment 22. In addition, some of the properties are also located in the Hamlet of Whitevale and form part of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. These buildings are valuable resources to the City and the demolition of these buildings would be a significant loss of the City heritage resources. The City is concerned that the Province is allowing the buildings to fall into such a state of disrepair that there is little option but to demolish them. This "demolition by neglect" is unacceptable and contrary to the Provincial Policy Statement. The City strongly recommends Infrastructure Ontario restore these buildings so that they can be used for appropriate residential, commercial or community purposes serving the City. If the buildings cannot be protected in-situ, they should be relocated and integrated into another area of the Whitevale Hamlet or the Seaton Community. 139 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: • Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 3 Financial Implications: The cost to undertake the heritage assessments was funded through the Seaton Development Application Revenue reserve. 1. Background 1.1 Infrastructure Ontario intends to demolish buildings on 15 properties located in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale An environmental consultant, ECOH, has been retained by Infrastructure Ontario (10), to gather background information for the preparation of a Class B Environmental Assessment (EA) for the demolition of buildings on 15 properties in the Seaton Urban Area and the Hamlet of Whitevale (see Location Map, Attachment#1). The City was requested to provide information on the heritage status of these properties within 30 days of receipt of the notices, which were received in November 2014. Staff requested, and received, an extension to the commending deadline to the end of May 2015. Based on Staffs preliminary review, 10 of the 15 properties required a heritage assessment to adequately evaluate the properties against the criteria of the Ontario Heritage Act to determine their cultural heritage value. The City retained a qualified heritage consultant, Christopher Borgal of Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. (GBCA) to undertake the heritage assessments. 1.2 The City's Heritage Consultant has completed four Full Heritage Assessments and four Preliminary Assessments but two Full Assessments remain incomplete The four properties located at 825 Whitevale Road, 1130 Whitevale Road, 1450 Whitevale Road and 3440 Brock Road are identified as being "Heritage Lots" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plans. Since these properties have been identified as being a significant heritage resource, full Heritage Assessment reports were completed. The full Assessments include a historical review of the building and property, evaluation of the heritage features of the building, an evaluation against Ontario Regulation 9/06 of the Ontario Heritage Act, a draft statement of significance and a recommendation by the City's Heritage Consultant (see Building Heritage Assessments, Attachments #2, #3, #4 and #5). Preliminary Assessments for four properties located at 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1750 Fifth Concession were completed given that the City had minimal heritage information on these properties. The Preliminary Assessments include an assessment of the value of the heritage resource including intact heritage features and the current condition of the building. The reports also include a recommendation and determination whether 140 a full heritage assessment is warranted. Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the • Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 4 Two full Assessments are also underway for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road. The City's Heritage Consultant has indicated that further analysis is required, including an interior evaluation of the properties. Accordingly, these Reports are not yet complete. 2. HPAC Recommendations to Council At the April 15, 2015 Special Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Meeting, Christopher Borgal presented his recommendations to the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee (HPAC). The Committee reviewed and discussed the Consultant's recommendations for the eight properties for which Reports were completed, and provided the recommendations to Council (see Excerpts of April 15, 2015 Special Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Draft Meeting Minutes, Attachment#6). The Committee did not consider the two properties for which the Full Assessment reports were not yet completed. 2.1 HPAC recommends Council object to the demolition of four buildings The following tables summarize the current heritage status, recommendations of the City's heritage consultant GBCA and the HPAC, and Staff's analysis and recommendations for the properties located at 825, 1130 and 1450 Whitevale Road, and 3440 Brock Road. 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road Current • 825 Whitevale Road is located within the Whitevale Heritage Heritage Conservation District which is designated under Part V of the Status Ontario Heritage Act • Both properties are Listed on Municipal Heritage Register • Both properties are "Heritage Lots" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan GBCA Recommends Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Recommends Act by the City of Pickering (see Building Assessment Reports, Attachments #2 and #3) HPAC That Council object to the demolition of the houses located at Recommends 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road; and to Council That Council designate 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Analysis The Heritage Assessments establish that the buildings are interesting examples of their kind and type particularly due to the design and materials, and recommend that the buildings are significant built resources and should be photographed, recorded and preserved. 141 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the. Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 5 The HPAC concurred with GBCA's recommendations that the properties be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. In addition, given the location of the proprieties along Whitevale Road, there is an opportunity for the re-use of the structures in the future and the integration into the Seaton neighbourhood plans. Staff That Council object to the demolition of the houses located at Recommends 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road; and to Council That Council designate 825 Whitevale Road and 1130 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 1450 Whitevale Road • Current • Listed on Municipal Heritage Register Heritage • "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan Status GBCA Recommends the house should continue to be included on the Recommends Municipal Heritage Register (see Building Assessment Reports, Attachment#4) HPAC That Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 1450 Whitevale Road; and to Council That Council designate 1450 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Staff Analysis The Heritage Assessment prepared for 1450 Whitevale Road finds that the building is an interesting example of a modest farmhouse from the late 19th century and is only modestly • significant. The consultant does recommend that continuance of its current listing or designation of this building would be appropriate to retain this farmhouse. It is also recommended that the building should be photographed, recorded and preserved. The HPAC recommended that 1450 Whitvale Road be designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. In addition, there is an opportunity for the re-use of the structures in the future and the integration into the Seaton neighbourhood plan. 142 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 6 Staff That Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 1450 Whitevale Road; and to Council That Council designate 825 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. 3440 Brock Road Current • Listed on Municipal Heritage Register Heritage • "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan Status GBCA Does not recommend Designation under Part IV of the Ontario Recommends Heritage Act by the City of Pickering (see Building Assessment Report, Attachment#5) HPAC That Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 3440 Brock Road; and to Council That Infrastructure Ontario restore the building to its original . appearance and livability and find an appropriate use and tenant for the house. Staff Analysis The Heritage Assessment prepared for 3440 Brock Road finds that this house is of typical design and material for its period and that this building is not a significant heritage resource; however it was recommended that the building be restored and a good and appropriate use be found. For that reason, the HPAC recommends that Council object to the demolition of the building and recommends that Infrastructure Ontario restore the building to its original appearance and livability and find an appropriate use and tenant for this house. Staff That Council object to the demolition of the house located at Recommends 3440 Brock Road; and to Council That Infrastructure Ontario restore the building to its original appearance and livability and find an appropriate use and tenant • for the house. 143 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 7 2.2 Staff recommends Council Object to the demotion of 2865 Sidelinel6 A summary of the heritage status and recommendations for 2865 Sideline 16 are outlined in the chart below: 2865 Sideline 16 Current On April 22, 2014, Council designated 2865 Sideline 16 under Heritage Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act Status Staff Analysis The building located at 2865 Sideline 16 (Walter Percy House) was recently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by Council on April 22, 2014 and therefore it is recommended that Council object to the demolition. Staff That Council object to the demolition of 2865 Sideline 16 Recommends designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. to Council 2.3 Staff recommends Council not object to the demolition of 4 buildings 2.3.1 A summary of the heritage status and recommendations for 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7 are outlined in the chart below: 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7 Current No heritage status Heritage Status Staff Analysis Del Management Solutions, on behalf of Infrastructure Ontario notified the City in 2013 of its intent to demolish buildings located at 1710 Whitevale Road and 325 Hwy 7. The properties were not listed on the City's Municipal Heritage Register. The City retained Christopher Borgal of GBCA to prepare a heritage review of the properties to assess the heritage features and historic value of the buildings. GBCA found that these properties were of diminished heritage interest and it was not recommended that the properties be listed or designated. The HPAC on January 9, 2014 concurred with the recommendations. Staff That Council not object to the demolitions Recommends to Council 144 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 8 • 2.3.2 A summary of the heritage status and recommendations for 3185 Brock Road and 3540 Country Lane are outlined in the chart below: 3185 Brock Road and 3540 Country Lane Current No heritage status (20th Century buildings) Heritage Status Staff Analysis The properties are 20th century structures and have no heritage value. Therefore, staff recommend that Council not object to the demolition of these buildings Staff That Council not object to the demolitions Recommends to Council 2.4 The HPCA requested 4 Preliminary Assessments be upgraded to full Heritage Assessments 2.4.1 The following chart outlines the current heritage status and recommendations for 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession: 1050 Whitevale Road 3280 Sideline 16 3490 Brock Road 1740 Fifth Concession Current • 1050 Whitevale Road listed on Municipal Heritage Register Heritage • Other properties have no heritage status Status GBCA Does not recommend listing on the Municipal Heritage Register Recommends HPAC That Council request GBCA to prepare Full Heritage Recommends Assessments to Council Staff Analysis The Preliminary Assessments prepared for the buildings located at 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road and 1740 Fifth Concession were presented to the HPCA. GBCA's analysis of the buildings did not recommend listing any of the buildings on the Municipal Heritage Register and staff recommended that the Committee not object to the demolition. 145 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 9 HPAC requested further information be prepared by GBCA including an interior analysis of the buildings, site history and an analysis against the Ontario Heritage Act Regulations 9/06. Therefore, the HPCA requested a deferral to the comment deadline provide Council with a recommendation on the buildings following an upgrading of the Preliminary • Assessments to Full Assessment reports. Staff That Council request an extension of another 120 days to the Recommends commenting deadline to allow the City's Heritage Consultant to to Council expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessments . 2.4.2 Full Heritage Assessment being prepared for 498 Whitevale Road and 650 Whitevale Road The following chart outlines the current heritage status and recommendations for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road: 498 Whitevale Road and 650 Whitevale Road Current Located within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Heritage which is designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act Status GBCA Currently evaluating the properties including an interior Recommends evaluation and a full heritage assessment will be prepared Staff analysis The City's Heritage Consultant prepared preliminary assessments for 498 and 650 Whitevale Road and recommends further evaluation of these buildings including an interior evaluation to determine the date of construction, etc.. The scope of the report would be expanded to a full heritage assessment. Staff That Council request an extension of another 120 days to the Recommends commenting deadline to allow the City's Heritage Consultant to to Council expand the Preliminary Reports to Full Heritage Assessments 2.5 Another extension of 120 days is required to the commenting deadline to allow the City's heritage consultant to complete full Heritage Assessments An extension to the commenting deadline of another 120 days is needed to complete the full Heritage Assessments for: 1050 Whitevale Road, 3280 Sideline 16, 3490 Brock Road, 1740 Fifth Concession as requested by the Heritage Committee, and 498 and 650 Whitevale Road which are already 146 underway. Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 10 • This time is required to allow the heritage consultant to research the history of the properties, coordinate with Infrastructure Ontario to access the buildings and conduct interior evaluations of the buildings, and update the reports. Subsequently, the full Heritage Assessment reports will be presented to HPAC and the recommendations will be presented to Council at a future date. 2.6 Heritage Designation of Provincial Land Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act allows municipalities to designate properties, but is not enforceable on Provincially-owned lands. Accordingly, should Council pass a Designation By-law for any of all of these properties, the Province would not be obligated to comply with the By-law. However, if a property is sold, the private property owner would be obligated to comply with the Designation By-law. 3. Comments and objections received from Whitevale and District Residents' Association and area residents Correspondence was received from the Whitevale and District Residents' Association and a number of area residents (see Whitevale and District Residents' Association Comments and Area Residents' Comments, Attachment#7). The following is a summary of the key comments and concerns identified by the community: • the homes are valuable pieces-of Pickering and Ontario's history • demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort • the Central Pickering District Plan (CPDP) and the City's Official Plan provide for the protection of significant heritage resources • concerned not only about the immediate loss of these built heritage assets, but also about the potential for future losses of other Provincially-owned homes • several of the properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage protection under the Ontario Heritage Act • private landowners, other than the Government of Ontario, would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings • concerned if the houses are deemed to be derelict; it has not escaped residents' notice that the Government of Ontario'has been the landlord for over 40 years. 147 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 11 4. Conclusions The majority of the properties are located in the Seaton Urban Area, and are subject to the policies of the Central Pickering District Plan (CPDP) and the Pickering Official Plan (as amended by Amendment 22). Key objectives of these documents are to restore, rehabilitate, protect and conserve significant cultural heritage resources and integrate them into the new neighbourhoods. The demolition of buildings in Seaton, particularly those located on significant heritage properties identified as "Heritage Lots", is not in keeping with the vision of the Province and the City to integrate these resources into the new development. Moreover, heritage assessments undertaken by the City have concluded that a number of the properties should be preserved and there are opportunities for the re-use of the structures in the future. Some properties are also located in the Hamlet of Whitevale and form part of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and are protected under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. These buildings are considered to be valuable assets to the Whitevale Community and the City, and to demolish these buildings would be a significant loss of the City's heritage resources. Another property is already designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act, and should be renovated and used. It is strongly recommended that Infrastructure Ontario invest in the community by restoring the buildings so that they can be used either for a residential, commercial or community use the City. If buildings could not be protected in-situ, they should be considered for relocation and integration into another part of the Seaton Community. There is a great concern that if Infrastructure Ontario fails to take proactive restoration, maintenance and tenanting of the significant buildings, the fate of the structures will be "demolition by neglect" regardless of whether the Province officially resorts to demolition. This lack of action is unacceptable and contrary to the Province's own Policy Statement, section 2.0, Wise Use and Management of Resources, subsection 2.6, Cultural Heritage and Archaeology, which states "Significant built heritage resources ... shall be conserved." Finally, despite all efforts, if Infrastructure Ontario decides to demolish any of the buildings that are of heritage significance, it is recommended that the buildings be recorded in the form of photographs and/or measured drawings and the documentation of the buildings be provided to the City. Furthermore, prior to the demolition, exterior or interior heritage features should be made available for salvage, and that any interested heritage organizations, the City or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials. 148 Report PLN 04-15 May 11, 2015 Subject: Infrastructure Ontario: Class B Environmental Assessment for the Demolition of Structures in the Seaton Urban Area and Whitevale Page 12 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Building Assessment Report, 825 Whitevale Road 3. Building Assessment Report, 1130 Whitevale Road 4. Building Assessment Report, 1450 Whitevale Road 5. Building Assessment Report, 3440 Brock Road 6. Excerpts of April 15, 2015 Special Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee Draft Meeting Minutes 7. Whitevale and District Residents' Association Comments and Area Residents' Comments Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: r' Cristina Celebre, MCIP, RPP Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Senior Planner— Development Review Chief Planner & Heri :ge ,ei Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Thomas Melymuk, MCI a, ' ' Manager, Development Review & Director, City Development Urban Design CC:Id Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council (iP4,1)81e Afij 27 2045 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer 149 - C= LC9 r-1 ■_ MI a) a., SI . ‘N**44 a) -0 a) c Z = cue ,17 5, w tni 03 '- 12 1 I :4„:0! I 1 2 z zclw '75 ,(9) -(7, • T i El .4, . , E a) b- c a) 'D w rn < ca . 11.11g1 i-o-t.' -- -- : --3---- 75 L) & 1) 3 NI-12 0 I Ilk c% :5 .cts sai rci ‘;ti C:1 :Ef 8 1 c9 "' r til I. rifirtil .c 0 1-a_ ti 5 ..- ... ... = --F-. -5 E•P••■■11/2 ilk!r i:::§:460:ISMIAM11611 z 0 ca a_ s i NNW&111 IF( V-: 1 $1:1;:ilaartfe*:::5 MIIMIZIk Ui ._,... 0 1M 13 ••wiimENINIMIS M.N../ ' • g:::::::: Illii 0 E L-La Li 0 :1 0 IN a 1 i.,:a. e.-vreitiWAVVAI • i, OPP::II iif i .:4; ::::::•:•:"."mt...14400 to.k NE ii -41011.1 114•• • .0164.4g1,4 WM__Ail Ad 1 MN wir ball 4 . • . -bo■N a mr- ....e. co , irrp:mor NO 1•11 WA . In mini NJA., ,,1 ... :1 =111 2 N 112(3 IS 3 NV1 IL---•--•;r.-•--., -.,,. .. :"..• - -- k i hi-WI . rill imilA imaill 111 1.1 ,0;04 .MilLAWA1 -wet - TO 11 IIIM Millailli ilini 1 I 3CIIS 3N113CIS WNW• j4111 in \ 01. 111 •_ uupr_1111111A. er- b-., am— 111-..illit-11 1 1 iX a>) iI IIIt!l lN 11i30 IS l i i". LANKWCi"t.3i,lN 10 11 3iO4IS t■l'—hAW,.,4N,Z 4■•■,1,;:■•1,1 oiia-w1ki 1k\N1 1l1,mr o1 i I 4Inv1oji I1_1111.,I_1I 1 111t1.--4l1m1k1Ar i-b-i1 1sr 11N1.4i-e,1-1,I h-I ri,k mrL.N1 11.1I t 191, P 111111 . m„ r 0 Pr NM a':C-.c a8 8 i:Cc1 EO=D u),, .°3 . li%02 i,x i I la:4M '.• ..,0• v Sti■L IOW **.******X0 . .•:`4Vi 1 N / 0 z a al En 2 a ■t, .iir%'4 '• 0 0 :° xi%■ keisit p 0 . c NO: miirri 4 _ Ir- N . — —I-112:10N-- :- WOMEN PI..11-11.1111- IIIMIF11114MREWAIIIIIKSI No ovo- cs- O: .....--,. i '' 1 ffi, .°N 1 mi 1;...E.N....: ,,IIMVIII■ll Iburd ' ■L.iLt.,..4:,. N r ‘ N`'S glat4,41.v i 1111V .7 a '. •$4itlx- Vire' .w‘ .41 __N ,s, / N--w"--s- ir to, ..., b..\--N IS P _ Ns IllpFalk...,--1,' \\smiNI mad NI 3NMOIS 4. IA\ ... :*.S.:.... ,,q;,,N.,' 1 ()YOH •N Orrd 1 I. m is iT ■q%F SN■ ' 1 •r- = a. 2,.1' 0 114 13. 0 i i n 1 11■11.11 11111 ril III di%Tr 73 73 -o a) .2 73 c "0 -0 -a -0 CC CC CC as 03 m ,., N. X o 0 0 --1 o o a) e' .-- o 7,L., 4E. iipri4 , CD P. To' To To CC CC To o cp CC 4.) W 0 CD 76 CD > » -,•-• .., > 0 ,S _x .S .".,■ E t 4-%Win va my 0.a) no ye.- a - , .A maltril INibt '3 T c0000000cotoco > crj >, to co o to "MW 42117.1j. • CD NILO■Il ow . ...._ a cl a. ,- oi c6 4 tri co N- cc) a) -----,„ Attachment#2 to Report PLN 04-15 Building Assessment Report 825 Whitevale Road 151 , . .6 .0c0 , •I{tt, k i ' j D '...i t ' , rtt- .. - • 0_ i- ... Bpi - 'tagAssessment \ lie, .,% \ t4t t 77 - m . `i a. ;'fit • I , ! .. 44 1 ` ` . • }}R to• `l.. I 11 I1i . i } l.* r?"a..,..�-. ..�.- t4 c i .,1 1 1•k l' Goldsmith Borgal �� � � `i &Ccrnl�angLtd. 825 Whitevale Road, Architects Pickering, Ontario i 362 Davenport Rd. for .k Suite 100 Toronto.Ontario City of Pickering `� M5R 1K6.Canada ° 6 April 2015 ��= < 1'416 929 65561 _ ` F 1169294745 1 www.gbca.ca ; • i t 1 152 l Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Parameters Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd.Architects (GBCA) was requested in early 2015 to prepare an assessment of the property listed as 825 Whitevale Raod, Pickering, Ontario. A study has been deemed to be required to determine the heritage importance and condition of this structure and to its recommended disposition. The site was visited on 28 February 2015. This report is partly informed by a 2004 Report prepared by C. Bray and is augmented where additional information has been collected. 1.2 Assumptions General assumptions for the scope of our work included the following: • Investigations were limited to visual inspection.We did not conduct any destructive testing nor was the examination done in detail. • Conservation mitigation work that we may propose is intended to conform to the highest conservation standards and result in the retention of as much historic building material as possible. • Where we suggest that some of the building elements may be removed or significantly changed, we recommend that the general arrangement of the features be recorded and documented in a manner that documents the evolution of the overall structure. • We were not permitted to enter the building and thus some of the material related to dating of the structure may be open to conjecture as interior areas, including the basement and attic, could be visited to date original assemblies. However, some images of the interior from earlier reports were used in the current study. 2 153 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2. SITE BACKGROUND 2.1 History The subject site (red circle) is documented in the J.J. Beers & Co. Ontario County Atlas, Pickering Twp., of 1877 to the east of the hamlet of Whitevale seen in the image below (red arrow). The property is listed by the municipality as the "Thomas Stevenson House" and its development is stated to be c1855.Typically, only the residential structures are illustrated in the County Atlas—outbuildings were not generally indicated. m16 • i 5 v ' • 2. S k ; `s y - j ' , * i t ' L `` l 9 1 L .: t ac s I I, : 4 't E 3.;€ {' t R w t, L i ��i,.1 .. z 1 t. it i t IN ' 0 i t I i1 s }a • 1 ry k . . . .- a �.-_- -� ■ { .I i. i' 1, ' ;II' 1"I..i +t, ■ . I t 1 . Est o . . ' .1I*i4 s q ! h t s V 0. _ i R , t• t ° ac -'t k .4I ,� s F.°1. i 71 i L �t ' '4. 1 Ik } - 1. C Y 4 , s 4 7 S r 1 :j. " ;. 1 S' ' k . g -C i - ; {{ , k }} , A Y r_ 1, .i 3 II 1„r: ,, Al _ . I, _ ''.* 1,f..rik, .t.., ,- 1 . !-, , - ,;_i iri3'1,;`, 1, t. ..,, z(;•. , 71,i. ,- , 1, ,.,t,:, ---LI, 7 '1,-;— i 11 ` ~ . e '1 — v 4.,.• 4 5.—,'!� ar ' ' ' t. s . ..A i « i c 3 s ' � y t v . # 7• - , _ - _ x 24 I+. L� 6 �: II 1 g z. L ti = i i • n 3 154 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 t ,ft 4.4 Illustrated on this page is a copy of an 1867 map of Pickering and a detail. In both cases,Whitevale is circled in red and the subject site is located with a red arrow. _4 g , - 1867 1967 Lie IT t , pooh. A A tA k , , : Dr -Z ■ t 4 155 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.2 Location The building is located on the south side of.Whitevale Road (A)east of Whitevale(B) and south of Hwy 407 (C), in Pickering, Ontario(see oblique view looking NW- north is indicated). The site is illustrated in the upper image with the subject wood framed house (1) constructed c 1855. t tog 1 .i5'. f • f • F a r • • ice • .r r k- zu. x 3.166,44, 5 i56 Building Heritage Assessment - For the City of Pickering 825 White vale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.3 History In the original land dispositions after Pickering was surveyed, a considerable area was given over to Clergy Reserves of which this property, Lot 27 Concession IV, was one. By an Order in Council dated 6 August 1816, the property was leased to Levy Von Kleek who, along with Phillip Staats (the lessee of Lot 20 Concession IV in 1817) and others, were a part of an influx of Dutch Settlers to the area. Asa Matthews applied to purchase the property from the Crown in 1829 and this appears to have been subsequently subdivided. Seventy acres of the eastern half of the property was in the hands of Thomas Stephenson by 1853. A 1-1/2 storey frame dwelling was constructed on the lot between 1853 and 1860. In that year, on the Tremaine Map, the house is noted as "The Grange"which set it aside as something out of the ordinary. The property was in the ownership of the Stevenson family until the late nineteenth century at which time it was purchased by the Pughs whose original homestead was located directly across the sideline and who, by 1877, also owned land to the south of the Stephenson property. -;-/eiVW.. _10 4 f� T'C1 ( � it i • -4 F�it ,' 4 c' . _. 'i r"t..mot.' .. 4. T .� • Photograph 1-View of the subject house from Whitevale Road in winter. The porch visible to the right of the bushes is not an original feature. Chimneys are also missing from the house and its addition. 6 157 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1 General Comment The original house is what is now its western half. It was originally constructed perpendicular to the road in a manner that, apparently, was to take advantage of the sloping site.This allowed the south wall of the basement to exit at ground level. In this case, and common for Georgian Revival houses of this size and type, it was common to have the main kitchen located in the basement. With Stephenson's arrangement,the kitchen would have its own exterior exit to the south porch which would have treated.a very agreeable environment. Other commentators have suggested that a second floor was added to the original house c18751.We could not verify this as access to the interior was not granted. However, it is clear that the west wing was added at a date ranging form the late 1870's to the 1890's based on the evidence visible from the exterior. u Photograph 2-View of the subject house from the northeast. The porch visible to the right of the bushes is not an original feature. Chimneys are also missing from the house and its addition. 1 Bray et Al,2004. 7 158 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 • ..4 ' - ,ten-- • 11 Photograph 3(above)-View of the subject house from south. Note the imposing quality of the building when viewed from this side. PI? 14 Photograph 4(right)-View of the south and � � 'r west walls of the wing. � 8 159 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 j . ' I `S� -z T 9,,. e 4., 6 , 4(1 9.1,01,,,,. , , : . ' - - t t .,.r. s Photograph 5(above)-View from the northwest of the front wall of the new wing and west wall of the original house. Photograph 6(right)-detail of inside corner. Note the upper sash of the original building — '°' - is 6 paned. The upper sash of the window to L.—__r• the left of the door in the new wing is 2 sash pattern. Also note that the window in the _`°" :sa upper storey in the original wing is slightly larger than the window below.Aluminum ", door and storm windows,and the porch are all mid to late 20th century. 9 160 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 White vale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4. DETAILED EXAMINATION 4.1 Foundations The foundation is constructed of native fieldstone. The pointing and setting details of the newer wing are easily seen (refer to photograph below). In both instances, the stones are laid roughly fitted and bonded with lime- based mortar. Typically, the core of these walls is composed of smaller rocks between the larger face stones.Also typically, the inside face of the foundation in basements of this vintage are painted with lime-wash which both provided a better level of light and reduced the development of mould. 1;. (St, Photograph 7-View of the foundation corner of the original house(foreground)and foundation of late nineteenth century addition at rear. Note the difference in stone size and setting arrangement. Field stones were split in a variety of ways. In some cases, striking the stones with a chisel along a grain line, where present, could cause an immediate fracturing of the stone and a clean split. Plug and feather methods saw holes drilled at either end of a stone, then a round set of wedges installed and an iron plug hammered into the hollowed faces between the plugs. Early methods also included the use of the flat wedge process where a groove was chiseled along the grain line and then wedges hammered into the groove between shims of sheet iron. Later in the 19th century (c 1878 and later), the plug and feather method was amended with 10 161 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 holes drilled every six to eight inches along the proposed fracture line and smaller plugs and feathers used to split the stone. Stone foundation walls ended after the WW I with the higher availability of poured concrete which was easier with which to build. The basement under the main house would have provided an area for the storage of root vegetables and fruit during the winter months and, in this instance, was probably the location of the original kitchen. 4.2 Exterior Wall and Roof Framing We could not access the interior of the house and could not confirm the framing. It is probable that, given the age of the house, the original portion was framed with pegged timbers with wood studs set between to allow for nailing on of the exterior siding and interior lath and plaster.The later additions, given the dating, are most likely of cut studs and planks in a manner that is similar to modern construction. The addition would most likely use "balloon framing"where the studs extend from the sill plate to the • top of wall without the intervening second floor platform used today. 4.3 Roof The roof is of a medium pitch, approximately 1: 2 ratio, hipped over the original wing and gable-ended over the new. The soffits in the new wing are horizontal while the ones in the new wing follow the slope.There is minimal decorative moulding at the eaves. Wood planks would have been installed over the roof framing(rafters). These would be typically 1" thick rough sawn pine of 8" to 12" in width (this type of lumber was typically used to sheath roofs and was also commonly used to sheath the walls of barns - it is still called barnboard). They would be typically installed with a small gap between each plank to provide ventilation to the underside of the shingles. Shingles would be locally made of eastern cedar, typically approximately 16" long with a minimum of three layers at each shingle (roughly a 5-1/3" exposure resulting from the overlap). Shingles on the existing roof are asphalt and are not original. 4.4 Windows Windows on the original building are 6/6 format while those in the new wing are 2/2 -where not replaced with more modern units. It is interesting to note the change in size of the windows on the second floor over the original wing which is a clue to the vertical addition when seen from the exterior. 11 162 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Original shutters are found on the building, particularly the north elevation, or front, wall. They include cast iron hardware at the lower floor. They appear to be in good condition. 174- rr r f T Photograph 8-South windows on east wall. Note that the upper • r window is not aligned with the lower,which would be unusual if _ the house was originally , constructed as two storeys. Note also that the window trim of the lower,older,portion has a beaded inside edge while the upper trim is flat.The lower sill is also considerably more weathered than j - the upper. However,in this case, is --f` the lower window is a modern replacement while the upper is early. 12 163 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 • r 1 at 44 Photograph 9-original shutter pintle, i of cast iron,on the window edge of the / a{1e east window of the original building on the north wall. The corresponding shutter hardware would be called a - gudgeon. 4/. t Photograph 10-Operable shutter on north wall,upper floor,east window. Note the beaded meeting rail which suggests it certainly dates to the second floor addition but may be earlier.The louvres in this shutter probably were constructed to be operable. As there is no"keeper"to hold the shutter back,it has probably been fixed in place. p1 W ...1 gar 13 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 White vale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.5 Exterior doors Unusually, there are two early doors leading into the original wing. While it is possible that the door dates to the 187O's, it's design is more akin to the 185O's and is likely an original door. windows in the house have been replaced with modern doors dating to the 196O's and 198O's. They have minimal heritage value.The front door is framed with sidelights and a transom light(see Section 4.2 below) which remains, although damaged. Unlike houses of an earlier vintage, the front door and frame is placed flush with the exterior wall rather than being recessed into the stone from the outside. � r 'y^5 g r Photograph 11(at left)-The north main door. The �. - — detailing of the door and • j -surround and hood appear to s. be of 1850's vintage. - k -- r 14 165 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015• r ■,4 4 1 I Ii r-- I A Photograph 13-The east door. Sidelights and simple trim suggest an early date but the door itself is a four panel door which would suggest it is contemporary with the 1870's work. 15 166 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.6 Chimneys The only visible chimney is of 20th century vintage. Without access to the house, we could not determine the location of fireplaces which would have been apparent in the original wing and thus locate the original chimney locations. Although the original house would have been heated with fireplaces, by the time of the later additions the house would have been heated by stoves - round breachings in the interior walls would illustrate the location of the stoves and the chimney locations by that time.. 4.7 Porches Porches on the east and north walls are not original However, there is a porch roof over the entrance to the basement on the south elevations. Decorative trim under the porch, and the posts, suggest a date prior to the 1870's-the porch posts may be original, or imported from elsewhere as the roof is framed and sheathed with modern materials. \r - t` ` - y , .2' ' 4�_y i r l : i -' -4.--, a weir L :-..-.4...V.-:; 1' ."i • MEM a' A4* :' '� 'L� .c'Y. Ili a":_. ,g_ {., t� a Photograph 14-View under north porch. The posts and trim appear to be early but the roof is frames with modern studs. Note the unique brickwork at the right which is done in a style found throughout the area with tuckpointed joints-most certainly a repair.. 4.8 Interior Interior access was not granted by the Province for our inspection.Therefore we were unable to evaluate the interior for integrity nor to date the interiors by examining trim, fittings, and'attic and cellar framing. 16 167 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5. Heritage Evaluation 5.1 General Comments There is sufficient information to permit, at some time in the future, a restoration of the building to its original appearance. A good and appropriate use should be found for the house. 5.2 Evaluation We have analyzed the subject building in accordance with the matrix required by the Ontario Heritage Act(0. Reg. 9/06)to establish recommendations for its significance. In the tables below, our opinion is followed by an analysis for each of the points flagged in the tables. Design or Physical Value Our opinion i. Rare example of a style&type displaying a high degree of Yes craftsmanship ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit No iii. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievment No Rare example of a style &type displaying a high degree of craftsmanship— The original structure at 825 Whitevale is a representative example of an early Georgian-style house. This was created just after the Georgian period and hence, as it should not be classed as a "Georgian Revival". It has Provincial rather than local interest for its age and the increasing rarity of examples of this period and type.The additions to the house are unusual and display changing attitudes to the approach to the design of rural houses. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit—The building was constructed in a manner that exhibits a reasonable level of craftsmanship for its period while also telling a story of the need to work within a budget. Of particular note are the door surrounds and hoods visible at the exterior main doors. However, the building has only moderate artistic merit. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement-The building exhibits no specific technical achievements. 17 168 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Historic/Associative Value Our opinion i. Direct associations with a theme,event,belief,person,activity, Yes organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. Yields,or has the potential to yield,information that contributes to an Yes understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, Unknown builder,designer or theorist who is significant to a community Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community -The building is directly associated with the earliest settlement of this area. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture-This building contributes to the understanding of the culture connected with the development of the local community. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community—While the designer and builder are unknown, the execution of the building illustrates interesting and unusual features that are worthy of note and preservation. Contextual Value Our opinion i. Important in defining,maintaining,or supporting the character of an Yes area ii. Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its Yes surroundings iii. Landmark Yes Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area and Surroundings—The structure is one of several buildings that contribute to the character of Whitevale Road which, by any measure, is an early remaining settlement area in Ontario. Physically, functionally,visually or historically linked to its surroundings— The building is prominent when viewed from Whitevale Road and illustrates the pattern of settlement and early prosperity of its locale. It is located on the site in close correlation to that depicted on the 1877 atlas. Landmark— By virtue of its location on a knoll overlooking Whitevale Road, the building is a local landmark. 18 169 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5.2.1 Summary This house is an early and interesting example of its kind and type- particularly due to its design and modifications. Such a building is increasingly rare as development spreads across the region. While some of the key historical elements are missing-particularly the original chimneys- the house is essentially intact and capable of being retained and restored as an historical reference. While only one criterion of the provincial matrix for evaluation needs to be met to trigger the designation of a property, this building meets several.The Provincial Policy Statement requires that"Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." In respect to this structure, it is our opinion that the building is significant. and that it should be photographed, recorded and preserved. 5.3 Current heritage status The house is currently listed in the City of Pickering Heritage Inventory and Designated under Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act as a part of the Whitevale Seaton Heritage Conservation District.There are no associated outbuildings. It is also listed in the Official Plan Policy as a "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan (OPA Section #22). 5.4 Statement of Significance The following can be used as a Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for 825 Whitevale Road: The cultural heritage value of 825 Whitevale Road lies in its design, associative and contextual value.The building comprises an 1855 house which was subsequently added to in the 1870's and c1890's. 5.4.1 Design Value The building is a somewhat unusual but very complete example of mid- nineteenth century domestic architecture. It's designer is not known but is presumed to be a local building using pattern books as an inspiration. The house is of high-quality design and good quality materials. It features careful and fine details its exterior and interior.The informality of the additions documents a change in attitude to the design of the original house as the 19th century progressed. 5.4.2 Historic/Associative Value The house was not considered in previous evaluations to be of Provincial Significance as determined by criteria for Provincial Heritage status. However, it is our opinion that the Stevenson/Pugh property is of Local Significance for the following reasons: - the property has a long association with the development of the community dating to the Van Kleek leasehold prior to 1820. 19 170 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 - the original structure is early and additions are representative of later architectural approaches to design - the unusual position of the house on a hill-side creates a walk-in cellar kitchen and creates a three story house on its south side. The massing of the house allows it to be prominent when seen from Whitevale Road. 5.4.3 Character-defining Elements The building is very much unchanged from the time of its last addition in the late 19th to early 20th century. Character-defining elements are: - the overall massing of the structure and its height and prominence - the roof slopes - hipped over the older portion and gabled over the newer • - the Georgian proportions and style of the original house and its second storey addition - the rear entrance to the cellar and its associated veranda which is contemporary with the original house - the original clapboard siding and beaded corner boards and the shiplap siding on the addition - the original 6/6 windows on the original wing and the 2/2 windows on the addition - the main entrance with its hood and surround and the Italianate arch- panelled door - the secondary entrance on the east side, with its hood, trim and door 5.4.4 Contextual Value The subject house maintains and supports the rural heritage character of Whitevale Road. It represents some of the last remaining farm houses on the rural road running between Whitevale and Brock Road. 5.4.5 Interior The interior could not be evaluated due to lack of access at the time of this Draft but will be accessed in early April 2015. 5.5 Recommendations It is our opinion that the house should be Designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. Reference to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be made for any modifications or updates to the building. Such standards do not preclude changes to the building- rather the standards should guide 20 171 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 any work done to repurpose the building while retaining the memory of heritage features. Work should also be done to secure the site to ensure that water, vermin and vandals are kept out and the foundations do not heave. A use should be found for the property or a rental agreement reached to ensure its continued use and occupancy. This is the best means of preserving properties of historic value for the future.Where development takes place, incorporation of the building within a new community is one of the best means by which a dwelling of this type can be preserved -this means that the planning of a proposed subdivision should be done in such a manner that the lot containing the proposed house, as well as the profile of the land around, is carefully considered and incorporated within proposed future development. While the loss of heritage structures is regrettable, not every structure can be retained. In the case of the subject site, however, there are interesting and unique features in terms of its design, materials and particularly its early age and associations with the original settlers of Whitevale Road. Re- use of this structure for a future use is possible. Properly stabilized,the building could support municipal or park functions or provide, for example, a low cost rentable site for private schooling or an NGO. It can'also be used as a residence if incorporated into a residential development. Therefore, designation of the site would be appropriate to retain this excellent example from the mid-19th century. 21 172 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 825 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 6. Closure This report has been written by the Consultants (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd.Architects (GBCA)for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represent the Consultants' best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to the consultants at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. The Consultants deny any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of the Consultants and the client. The Consultants have prepared this report in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed with the Client. If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Golds, ith Borg. : o. Ltd.Architects Christopher Be ga OAA MRA AHP Principal • 22 173 Attachment#3 to Report PLN 04-15 Building Assessment Report 1130 Whitevale Road II 174 • Draft Report. Building Heritage Assessment doh JIB !,- P9o• *_1. • • -1,17 --+ L.— 4.4; j,i• at Goldsmith Borgal .1130 Whitevale Road Pickering, Ontario &Company Ltd. • Architects for 362 Davenport Rd. Suite 100 City of Pickering Toronto.Ontario M5R 1K6.Canada 6 April 2015 1 416 929 6556 F416 929 4745 www.gbca.ca 175 li Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Parameters Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd.Architects (GBCA) was requested in early 2015 to prepare an assessment of the property listed as 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. A study has been deemed to be required to determine the heritage importance and condition of this structure and this information will determine its recommended disposition. The site was visited on 28 February 2015. 1.2 Assumptions Assumptions for the work: • Investigations were limited to visual inspection.We did not conduct any destructive testing nor was the examination done in detail. • Conservation mitigation work that we may propose is intended to conform to the highest conservation standards and result in the retention of as much historic building material as possible. • Where we suggest that some of the building elements may be removed or significantly changed, we recommend that the general arrangement of the features be recorded and documented in a manner that documents the evolution of the overall structure. • We were not permitted to enter the building and thus some of the material related to dating of the structure may be open to conjecture as interior areas, including the basement and attic, could be visited to date original assemblies. However, some images of the interior from earlier reports were used in the current study. 2 176 . Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2. SITE BACKGROUND 2.1 Historical Mapping The subject site (red circle) is documented in the J.J. Beers & Co. Ontario County Atlas, Pickering Twp., of 1877 to the east of the hamlet of Whitevale seen in the image below (red arrow). The subject building is located on the property indicated as being owned by A&E Hastings. The property is listed by the municipality as the "Hastings property" and the house is said to have been constructed between 1835 and 1840.Typically, only the residential structures are illustrated in the County Atlas–outbuildings were not generally indicated. Note that a church appears to have been shown on the property at the southwest corner (although no visible remains exist and there is minimal local knowledge, if any, about it). a j f, ., ,i . ... 1 z. • 4 1. , e_ k -. ,.... -. .6: :( is- ) z - 1,, . ; fix. . . �'. a r c€ z1--1 ' i•Ad :.. .,mw-_ rs••_!1_,__*, ' r ' -4 r 1'. 1 . i • ` E .i F.. , i°1 .4 . • r O y, , ti 1 `I I 1 J' F .= ■ k" NT R t a � ' ! ? alp - I+L; _�■° ..4 t:i. —1. ; f ■ ;r, -ii: ) I f to 1- • : w \ ,.h. _ �, I 4 ire .G I r N..i 111 r... - ii .t t *.•E ,*t( 4 = 4 1 ». t z 1 t. l ) ,i k.N.,,,,,r,,,...., .1,.,,..,1{ A l 44 i \ . I� l 4. t 16 ,t,,,=,1 Jr,- ` �{ • \ � ■ Yr ay r_. 1 ``+ 4•�+ I i s. I C a C ■ 3+v' - f b 1 € a a x it! -;.:1 c << ti C f i y i . y o- }i ; a i a I ! 4 a ------1-;47,,, ■ — A k' t t 1 A z R t h , 1 I C 1 t 't S y -. 4 t. r ,e-4j ._„k tr` �;o # ~ '.,Y �iif= ."4 ^e' —yk – 1f Zit t 143'1 ^ '}. !S P.Y. _ ' { ■ ■ " ,• a .r ffTTT .f = I ► fL%`, �' ` i e, I 1 ; ; ; ..p Z s .. al }q z4 3 177 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 ''s' ' 411 14114, ' l'icilltitIM:4:1 1"•4 - MI;7 4 1 1. , I , .. .. ! . ,, ___ , • Illustrated on this page is a copy of an 1867 _ •, map of Pickering and a detail. In both ,, __________ cases,Whitevale is circled in red and the subject site is located with a red arrow. Note that in this plan the owner is indicated as"E , Hastings". . . - t I 4, - -____-__..., 1 - I 1. • 1867 t'eniennial Souvenir 1967 at t't S,',.1 ‘' CI' , . , .. a,■,.. 44- 4.:'. I .. . ,, a, 1 v■ •• ' - )-1, ,.. —„ I— -1 ..: '. "'' . 1 1- " . . .a. , F OM 1-('''` ,, -' ' : ., ...::' W.* •k4' N I'f. „,,., .., ,. 1 r — 0 L. ., . . —Or 1 'a ;-; , ,-_ "" ; Sellor ■ cct i- I '';J; —al , 4 178 1 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.2 Location The subject building is located on the north side of Whitevale Road (A)just east of of 24th Sideline (B) and south of Hwy 407 (C), in Pickering, Ontario. The site is illustrated in the upper image and includes: • the subject stone �4r: house (1) constructed • c1835-1840. • the main barn (2) - , now demolished (photodates to 2009). y . ..4^., 1 i J 179 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.3 History The original grantee of lot 24 Concession V(Whitevale Road)was Isabella Hill, who was an absentee landlord of an extensive area. It is reported that she sold off most of her property along the concession to Amos Griswold between 1828 and 1832. Nathaniel Hastings was registered as the owner of Lot 24 in 1833. Hastings is stated to be of United Empire Loyalist parentage and moved to Pickering around 1828 from York and settled on Lot 24 at that time, apparently prior to purchasing the property. The only house in the area listed in the 1851 census as of stone construction, it was occupied by the Hastings family for over a century. The son,John, constructed a small stone house on Lot 20 further to the east, which still stands, on property acquired and owner for a considerable period by Nathaniel'. That property also remained in the Hastings family well into the 20th Century. . ‘114Nlikt4 Ys 4.. alr i ,.,.mss.. « IV r '1 ... , _ Photograph 1-View from the north of the rear of the house. The wood additions are early,and likely date to just after the construction of the main house. 1 In the 1867 map,the site is indicated under the ownership of"F Hastings"which may have been a son. 6 180 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1 The House - General Comment The house is of 1-1/2 storeys and constructed of stone with brick voussoirs (window arches). There is a tail constructed of both stone(kitchen) and wood (summer kitchen) of varying periods which includes a verandah. A frame woodshed and English barn once occupied the site but these had been demolished as of the date of the current report. Although most early houses in this area were of frame construction, the more prosperous properties constructed stone houses as far back as the mid 1800's. The source of the prosperity may have, in the earlier buildings, been the result of the establishment of a farmstead by an already prosperous individual while the later sites were the result of a reasonably successful farming operations passed down to descendants. Although by the late 1800's, wealthy farmsteads were constructing much larger homes than earlier dates, particularly where they were required to house larger families and using the wealth created by prosperous farming operations, it is of interest that the subject property is, in itself, a large residence for its period. Creation of a stone house can be the result of a desire to express one's heritage, as is typical of Irish and Scottish settlers whose homes tended to be of stone when this material could be afforded. .J . _ Photograph 2-View from the south of the front of the house facing Whitevale. Note the proportions of the windows, the 3/4 sidelights by the front door,the brick voussoirs,the basement windows,the single chimney,the heavy corner stones(quoins)and the variable size of stones-all discussed in the text below. 7 181 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road,Pickering 6 April 2015 3.2 The House Of the remaining houses on Concession V, this property is of early construction, c. 1835 -1840. It is noted to be a fine late example of the Georgian style(also described as "Anglo-Palladian"). A five bay(two flanking windows on each side of a central door) home of this design is typically associated with the late 18th Century and early 19th Century. Stonework has been well-placed, despite its being of fieldstone, and is more in the English rather than Scottish tradition -bands of larger stones were sorted and placed among smaller stones for structural integrity-with quoins, or corner stones, carefully selected and squared.Window and door arches are of red pressed brick. While this material is easier to work than stone, the gauging(rubbing bricks'to shape them for the arch)of the bricks to conform to the arch requirements is somewhat crude(see photographs) and suggests that the mason was more used to forming arches of alternative materials although they are of a complex rowlock construction. �.-rte r H•' eY - (I i Y t � 7/rrf } rr 4 I� r+ ° Yet 9 � 1 ,�y : ��' �,�/ .�y-... �.V+" .e J y ,F^ (�� I 7T1, Photograph 3-Detail of the front stonework. The arrow points to an insert of"gauged"or hand-profiled brick that forms a wedge to create an arch over the window. The highly variable pattern of stone suggests that stones were carefully sorted but not cut(to reduce the cost of construction). The brick voussoirs and the quality of the stonework suggests a very competent artisan but a builder rather than designer who editorialized a Georgian facade possibly using a pattern book for inspiration but adjusting the execution to fit within the means of the owner. This is likely why the windows,typically larger and more grand on a facade of this type,are smaller with their spacing adjusted from what might be expected with grander houses of the type. Window panes in the upper and lower sash of each window would have likely been the size of the panes in the transom over the door which,with muntin bars added, would have meant that the original glazing would have been 6 over 6 design,typical for the period. However,as window panes came in standard sizes and were shipped in wood boxes overland from Lake Ontario(probably made in Montreal or the U.S.),the smaller overall size of the windows would have been less costly due to the smaller glass sizes.Bricks are hand pressed and could have been made locally from local clays. 8 182 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 i F Y .- =,ti ,,;.-,g... -4.,Aier ■tv,_,, ,- :".. .•••::: z ' 11" - ' ..\ , :\°:' ' .::: „ , r El _ -,,....0,..•„„,i_ ;... ... . . . ,..1.., . ; n. . ....4.,:l. 1 1 11 .. ,...._ ,, 1 4.,‘ , . . „14,,,,,,i , . , , .........ro,...„ . _ , ._ Photograph 4-General view of east elevation. The larger windows at the main floor are typical of the style. The stone tail comprises about 1/2 of the length of the tail with the nort h end of timber frame. ii may 11 .. `�..il 1 ,;, i il , rioiii.4,,,„_, , . 1 ,Fi , A r i 1 •� p + w /1 , '.1+%)...dp . , c.77-7 r' .= poi,f j"Nw• (tiii'u. ,. Photograph 5-Detail of the east stone wall of the tail. Note the variability of the stone. The stone base for the post is not original and probably replaced a rotted post bottom. 9 183 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 V ' ,, , -%..'.. ry ..y' � �'�4r.} ifs 8 � � .._,......_ .. 1 ri .M t- -' w. Photograph 6-View from the north of the rear of the house. As noted above,the wood additions are early,and likely date to just after the construction of the main house. ,1_,:,,,` it- , , 1 w �� , l - ° o Ij �.�� rtS, i, +.... �i 1 .va....rmam...... . -.2%.., 1 i.,;:_ . .„_.1 , :.„ _.. ......* 44. , , _ ., , rye , 40,,„9 .' ,v �'"'..: ..�1`,-,d. _ '` , Photograph 7-View of the west side of the tail.The heavy timber framing can be seen through the missing clapboards(arrow). This puts the date of this addition at between the original date of constrution to the mid-1850's. The shed to the left is clad in vertical boards which suggests a later date-possibly the 1860's to 70's. 10 184 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 %.,.. .61'kr s - 7 r 1 k.'‘4,;, '' - - _ 4 w., 4 U-..E.,t.0 gatimmoin, miimmin.,_ Photograph 8-View from the northwest showing the west side of the tail and the rear and west wall of the main house. Note the heavy quoin stones at the corners of both the main house and the stone tail. Also note the lower sill heights of windows in the tail which is set lower than the main floor. A central door on both sides of the stone tail was common for cross-ventilation of the kitchen area. Chimneys are deteriorated and are contructed of modern brick and have replaced the originals save for a missing chimney on the east end of the roof ridge(arrow). Field stone was readily available in southern Ontario as it is typically mixed with the native soils as a result of glacial deposition. During the winter, particularly in the early days of farming the area, the winter frost would push these rocks to the surface and would have to be regularly removed to permit ploughing and used for building materials, perimeter fences or simply disposed of. The material, scraped from rocky outcrops by glaciers during the ice age, is composed of a wide variety of rock and, typically, only the hardest, was used as building stones. This material includes gneiss, granite, and quartzite and typically sized for handling by one or two workers.As they were rolled and tumbled in the glaciers, they are typically rounded in profile. In high end houses, stone is feathered (split) into suitable sizes which is an expensive process. In this case, the stones are highly variable in size and were sorted prior to laying up. The result is a strong, but varied, pattern with the random size of the stones used to ensure good tight joints between stones. In many cases, stone buildings of this period were intended to be stuccoed which would have concealed the appearance of random stone sizes- in that case, the larger stones would have been picked to provide a key for the stucco, a process which is not evident here. 11 185 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 The house sits on a slight rise and would have originally had a good vista to Whitevale Road and the entrance to the property. Given that Hastings acquired the property in 1833, but occupied it from 1828, it is likely that the current house was preceded by an earlier, probably log, structure. The 1877 Atlas shows a residence closer to the road than the approximate location of the subject building and may be indicative that the 1877 records show the original log structure;which was likely closer to the road allowance than the subject building. Hastings must have commenced construction of the stone house soon after acquiring the property which indicates the success of his farm. A.Pf I 9'1 .rty.,a Ml -2160 Photograph 9-View of house in landscape. 12 186 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4. DETAILED EXAMINATION 4.1 Foundations The foundation is constructed of native fieldstone. The stones are laid roughly fitted and bonded with lime-based mortar. Typically, the core of these walls is composed of smaller rocks between the larger face stones. Also typically, the inside face of the foundation in the basement, if used, would have been painted with lime-wash to provide a better level of light and reduced the development of mould. The basement would have provided an area for the storage of root vegetables and fruit during the winter months. 4.2 Exterior Wall and Roof Framing As noted above, the walls of the main house are constructed of fieldstone with a thickness of from 1 to 2 feet.Within the interior face of the stone walls, thin horizontal wood battens are typically installed with a spacing of approximately 2 feet. To these nailers, square wood studs would have been installed onto which horizontal lath would have been installed which, in turn, would have carried the interior plaster. Timber framing for the ground floor, typically round barked or unbarked logs with their tops shaved flat, would have been set into the pockets in the stone walls to carry the main floorboards. A hewn wood "plate" would have been set onto the top of the stone walls which would support the roof rafters. At the time of construction, a house of this quality would have used either sawn or hewn rafters which would have tapered from the low end forming the eaves to the roof ridge. Roof rafters would extend over a knee wall at the north and south sides of the second floor and extend down to form the roof eaves. A collar tie would be installed to form the ceiling over the second floor and brace the rafters. It is highly likely that the rafter pairs would have been pegged and dowelled at the ridge. Further detailed investigation and record keeping is highly recommended. The tail of the house, forming the kitchen, would be of similar construction although only of one storey. Typically the kitchen floor would be placed lower than the main floor almost on grade unlike the main house which would be raised over a basement. 13 187 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 ci t, : i , .. , , , , ., , ck , , , , ■ ‘;‘ t l' , i i rl i ,i , ,,O;',1';v:.I.i-:11 :/:''? 'P Al'fi / ': ' ; " t. 11#14‘''Mhtk,* -' . :-.'..-;*- . 1ps •,. fit .' , .1 w a Photograph 10-View of east gable end of roof showing roof eaves returns(circle)which are typical for houses of this style and vintage. They are damaged and lack some of their profiled trim pieces. 4.3 Roof The roof is of a medium pitch, approximately 1: 3 ratio, includes moulded returned eaves at the east and west elevations (see photograph). A wood frieze below the eaves completes the Georgian aesthetic.Wood planks would have been installed over the roof framing(rafters). These would be typically 1"thick rough sawn pine of 8"to 12" in width (this type of lumber was typically used to sheath roofs and was also commonly used to sheath the walls of barns - it is still called barnboard). They would be installed with a small gap between each plank to provide ventilation to the underside of the shingles. Shingles would be locally made of eastern cedar, typically approximately 16" long with a minimum of three layers at each shingle (roughly a 5-1/3"exposure resulting from the overlap). Shingles on the existing roof are asphalt and are not original. 14 188 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.4 Windows Original windows in the house have been replaced with 2/2 windows of modern design and which have a pattern which does not match the original tradition for a house of this vintage. As noted above, these can be seen in the photographs and, based on the dating of the house, the original window pattern would most certainly have been double hung sash with each sash having six panes (known as a 6/6 pattern). Window panes were available in standard sizes and the window panes can be calculated using the standard pane size in combination with the probable dimensions of the muntins • (spacers between panes), stiles (vertical elements) and rails forming each sash. The sills were most likely constructed of wood and are generally still present, although clad with metal and could not be observed. 4.5 Exterior Doors The front door is surmounted by a rectangular transom with small window panes and 3/4 sidelights, which are unusual, on either side of a the door which has been replaced but was likely a 6 panel door. This simple and elegant configuration is typical of the Georgian style, although the sidelights typically extend the full height of the door frame.The original door would have had no exterior knob and was likely decorated with a thin "bead" running down its centre to suggest a pair of doors. 4.6 Chimneys A single chimney is located at the west end of the main roof ridge, although it has been reconstructed. A chimney would have also existed at the east end of the ridge with the two chimneys completing the elegance of the original Georgian composition. A third chimney is located at the rear, or north end, of the kitchen tail. The current chimneys are of modern brick (rug facade, probably about 50 years of age or newer) and of simple profile while the originals would have been constructed with a wider base, narrower shaft, and corbelled top to drip water away from the base. 4.7 Interior Interior access was not granted by the Province for our inspection. However, some information was available from the Carl Bray 2004 report on the house and interior images are used to illustrate the following discussion. • The interior of the house has a centre-hall plan with major rooms, typically four in number, accessible to the left and right when entering from the front door. The hall would have extended to a door on the north wall of the main wing into the kitchen which would have been set one to two steps lower than the main floor. The north end of the kitchen would have included a large hearth. Fireplaces would also be located on the north and south walls 15 189 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 of the main wing, in the parlour and dining room. Rooms to the north of the dining room and living room would have been narrow"slip" rooms. It is reported that the fireplace in the parlour is surrounded by scalloped mouldings at the pilasters which is appropriate for the assumed construction date. I • • Y X Photograph 11-Image from the Carl Bray report(2004)of a fireplace.The fine hand-run(rather than machine-made)moulding profiles,and the the general detailing of the hearth are characteristic of late 18th and.early 19th century trim as are the deep baseboards. Because of the thickness of the walls, paneled embrasures are created to extend from the interior trim to the window frames-these are typically installed at an angle. Until the advent of drywall construction, wood trim was installed around doors, windows, and bases after the installation of studding and lath but prior to plaster application -the plaster was "trued" up to match the location of the trim which is the opposite of current practice. 16 190 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 A main stair is located in the central hall. Its balustrade and newel are reputed to be the earliest example of the style associated with several other prestigious houses in the area. • I i/ti.Trr 11Ga Photograph 12-Photo at d' :�-r right from the Carl Bray r a (2004)report illustrates the banister and newel posts at r the top of the main stair. y. l' ` The design of the newels as f' well as the square pickets, w `�I_" which are moriced into the ' trimmer at their base,are -. typical of early 19th century stair details. ' ■ * ili i I il . ) , • I 17 191 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5. Heritage Impact 5.1 General Comments There is sufficient information to permit, at some time in the future, a restoration of the building to its original appearance. A good and appropriate use should be found for the house. 5.2 Historical We have analyzed the subject building in accordance with the matrix required by the Ontario Heritage Act(O.Reg. 9/06) to establish recommendations for its significance. In the tables below, our opinion is followed by an analysis for each of the points flagged in the tables. Design or Physical Value Our opinion i. Rare,unique,representative or early example of a style,type, Yes expression,material or contruction method ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit Yes iii. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement No Rare example of a style&type displaying a high degree of craftsmanship— The structure at 1130 Whitevale is a representative value of an early Georgian-style house. This was created just after the Georgian period and hence, as it should not be classed as a "Georgian Revival", it has Provincial rather than local interest for its age and the increasing rarity of examples of this period and type. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit—The building was constructed in a manner that exhibits a high level of craftsmanship while also telling a story of the need to work within a budget. This is exemplified in the building's proportions, the use of gauged brick voussoirs and the use of sorted rather than cut stone. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement-The building exhibits no specific technical achievements. 18 192 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Historical or Associative Value Our opinion i. Direct associations with a theme,event,belief,person,activity, Yes organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. Yields,or has the potential to yield,information that contributes to an Yes understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, Unknown builder,designer or theorist who is significant to a community Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community -The building is directly associated with the earliest settlement of this area and was in the consistent ownership of one family or their descendants for almost a century and a half. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture -This building contributes to the understanding of the culture connected with the development of the local community. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community—While the designer and builder are unknown, the execution of the building illustrates interesting and unusual features that are worthy of note and preservation. Contextual Value Our opinion i. Important in defining,maintaining,or supporting the character of an Yes area ii. Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its Yes surroundings iii. Landmark Yes Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area and Surroundings—The structure is one of several buildings that contribute to the character of Whitevale Road which, by any measure, is an early remaining settlement area in Ontario. Physically, functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings— The building is prominent when viewed from Whitevale Road and illustrates the pattern of settlement and early prosperity of its locale. Landmark—By virtue of its location on a knoll overlooking Whitevale Road, the building is a local landmark. 19 193 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5.3.1 Summary While only one criterion of the provincial matrix for evaluation needs to be met to trigger the designation of a property, this building meets several.The Provincial Policy Statement requires that"Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." In respect to this structure, it is our opinion that the building is significant and that it should be photographed, recorded and preserved.The house has been evaluated in previous heritage studies as being an Important Heritage Resource2. We concur with this statement. 5.4 Current heritage status The house is`currently listed in the City of Pickering Municipal Heritage Register and as a "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan.There are no remaining associated outbuildings. 5.4 Statement of Significance The following can be used as a Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for 1130 Whitevale Road: The cultural heritage value of 1130 Brock Road lies in its Anglo-Palladian (Georgian) design, and associations with the early settlers of Whitevale Road.The building is comprised of a structure and tail built from 1835-1840 and represents a fine late example of its type. 5.4.1 Design Value The house is one of the few five bay residences built at this early period of settlement of the area and includes its main door with unusual 3/4 sidelights flanked by two windows on each side, its stonework of variegated fieldstone of various sizes, its brick window and door voussoirs of complex rowlock design, its original tail composed of both stone and wood construction, and its roof gable treatment complete with "return"typical of the time and style of construction. 5.4.2 Historic/Associative Value The house is associated with the occupancy of the site by Nathaniel Hastings, of United Empire Loyalist Parentage, who purchased the property from Amos Griswold who acquired some of the extensive lands granted by the Crown to Isabella Hill, one of the original absentee landlords of the area. among the earliest of the Loyalist settlers in the area.The house was listed in the 1851 census as being the only one constructed of stone in the area at that time.The Hastings family occupied the site for over 100 years. 5.4.3 Character-defining Elements Should a statement of Significance be prepared for the house, we consider its character-defining elements to be: - the overall massing of the structure and its height and proportions 2 Seaton '04, Built Heritage Assessment,Bray et.Al. 20 194 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 - the "T" shaped floor plan with the kitchen tail characteristic of early farmhouses in the area - the five bay front, with central door and transom and 3/4 sidelights - the roof slopes and characteristic gable returns of the style - the skillfully executed stone work of varying sizes and variegated material and coloring. -the setting on a slight rise overlooking Whitevale Road 5.4.4 Contextual Value The subject house maintained and supported the rural heritage character of Whitevale Road. 5.4.5 Interior The interior could not be evaluated for this Draft Report due to lack of access but does appear, from other reports, to include a considerable amount of original trim and details characteristic of the early 19th Century.Access to review the interior will be conducted by mid-April 2015. 5.5 Mitigation The subject site exhibits interesting and unique features in terms of its design, stonework and particularly the its early age and associations with the original settlers of Whitevale Road. Re-use of this structure for a future use is possible. Properly stabilized, the building could support municipal or park functions or provide, for example, a low cost rentable site for private schooling or an NGO. It can also be used as a residence if incorporated into a residential development. Therefore, designation of the site would be appropriate to retain this excellent example of a Georgian stone farmhouse from the early-19th century. While the loss of heritage structures is regrettable, not every structure can be retained. Should it be determined that the building is not sufficiently valuable to retain or designate, it is our opinion that it is essential to mitigate the heritage impact of its loss to the City of Pickering. This could be done by recording the building by drawings in accordance with known documentation standards, photographs keyed to the drawings, and salvage of important structural components for display and interpretation in the community. 5.6 Recommendations This house is an early and interesting example of its kind and type- particularly due to its masonry work. Such a building is increasingly rare as development spreads across the region. While some of the key historical elements are missing- particularly the original windows, and chimneys, the 21 195 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 house is essentially intact and capable of being retained and restored as an historical reference. The house should be Designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. Reference to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be made for any modifications or updates to the building. Such standards do not preclude changes to the building- rather the standards should guide any work done to repurpose the building while retaining the memory of heritage features. Work should also be done to secure the site to ensure that water, vermin and vandals are kept out and the foundations do not heave. A use should be found for the property or a rental agreement reached to ensure its continued use and occupancy. This is the best means of preserving properties of historic value for the future. Incorporation of the building within a new community is one of the best means by which a dwelling of this type can be preserved-this means that the planning of a proposed subdivision should be done in such a manner that the lot containing the proposed house, as well as the profile of the land around, is carefully considered and incorporated within proposed future development. 22 196 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1130 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 7. Closure This report has been written by the Consultants (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd.Architects(GBCA) for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represent the Consultants' best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to the consultants at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. The Consultants deny any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of the Consultants and the client. The Consultants have prepared this report in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed with the Client. If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Golds ith Borg.. Co. Ltd.Architects Christoph: :•rgal OAA FRAIC CAHP President 23 197 Attachment#4 to Report PLN 04-15 Building Assessment Report 1450 Whitevale Road 198 :+ Draft Repçrt: ,.f . �� : 3 •111 to ti . ;. • a te.•- i �� ..tr.. ,•. • 4 11 wilding Heritage M 4 ' .... : ' , . .1 % ' . 44 P xji ti'1 ..4'..----- tt i r el>, y Assessment .4`7 4 )1":04..,t = ' .- ...„„irt ,� .• - r■ , .,4;+� •�f 4.t...,•.}..... i r* t. x y+3� �_ •a;�`40010-, sA• ' # ` ..'4 = '4 ':!d ` 111 iii!';4`` .t k•-: i +. ' , v i.•, . I at 1450 Whitevale Roa Pickering, Ontario • ter• for ,• 'a+m �� .: City of Pickering �, , x -;ti v , -�:.- . 6 April 2015 . i= v Goldsmith Borgal &Company Ltd. Architects 362 Davenport Rd. Suite 100 Toronto.Ontario N:SR 1KG.Canada T 416 929 6556 F 416 929 4745 ww-ww.gl ca.ca 199 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Parameters Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd. Architects (GBCA) was requested in early 2015 to prepare an assessment of the property listed as 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering, Ontario. A study has been deemed to be required to determine the heritage importance and condition of this structure and this information will determine its recommended disposition. The site was visited on 28 February 2015. 1.2 Assumptions Assumptions for the work: • Investigations were limited to visual inspection.We did not conduct any destructive testing nor was the examination done in detail. • Conservation mitigation work that we may propose is intended to conform to the highest conservation standards and result in the retention of as much historic building material as possible. • Where we suggest that some of the building elements may be removed or significantly changed, we recommend that the general arrangement of the features be recorded and documented in a manner that documents the evolution of the overall structure. • We were not permitted to enter the building and thus some of the material related to dating of the structure may be open to conjecture as not all interior areas, particularly the basement and attic, could be visited to date original assemblies. 2 200 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2. SITE BACKGROUND 2.1 Historical Mapping The subject site(red circle) is documented in the J.J. Beers & Co. Ontario County Atlas, Pickering Twp., 1877 to the east of the hamlet of Whitevale Y g P � seen in the image below (red arrow). The subject building is located on the property indicated as being owned by L&G Linton 1877. The property is listed by the municipality as the "AsherWillson/ Francis Linton property" and its development is stated to be between 1857 and 1861.Typically, only the residential structures are illustrated in the County Atlas—outbuildings were not generally indicated. ' '17= .: ' ' , :-.. 4.J1': :,. ....! ''. "-s- i'„ .. r . c ' x-41 • ' I _ t 1 w ■ t l ti ` fr - c _ i '• '— 'r3= - i` - • ■ I _ 3 201 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road,Pickering 6 April 2015 nxn 41 ■ Illustrated on this page is a copy of an 1867 map of Pickering and a detail. In both cases,Whitevale is circled in red and the subject site is located with a u t� red arrow. Note that in this plan the owner is indicated as"C. Phillips" which suggests that Linton did not have . the property for long or re-acquired it z 1867 ('cutcunii S ■uycuir 1967 ^! t•:..aen ,AWA r • •J I!! 4 b tl s # —'■ .. Sept! • _ 3# 4 202 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.2 Location The subject building is located on the north side of Whitevale Road (A)just west of Brock Road (B) and south of Hwy 407 (C), in Pickering, Ontario. The site is illustrated in the upper image and includes: • the subject small • wood framed house (1) constructed c 1861. � ..�-' ! 2 • the main barn (2) - ‘ now demolished. ` ` t. • garage/drive-shed ` �. (3) 4. T 4 - now demolished. `5 s , . . 4,. 1 • a 20th century r F,, , , �1/2* ' �! (possibly mid-1960's) portable school �� classroom (4) - now e demolished. —..r" ,•c r S C :- + t' sr- • a0 ., .1- ,: t. ..r ' I '..,. t \\\,.-k. I ' -;It' .—;-' '-- ' , \ 11h i 203 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road,Pickering 6 April 2015 2.3 History The original grantee of lot 21 on Concession V(Whitevale Road)was listed as King's College. It was purchased in 1848 by Asher Willson who was born in Connecticut in 1788 and who, with a friend Amos Griswold, married daughters of loyalist Casper Stotts in the Brockville area. Both families made their way to the Pickering area with Asher entering the records as a witness on two deeds in 1817 and who purchased a part of Lot 22 in 1832 from Griswold. Asher Willson was a founding member of the Christian Church in Brougham in 1824 and was the Church Moderator by 1828. He, with his family, eventually owned several properties along Concession V. However, he sided with Mackenzie in the 1837 rebellion and, with sons Joseph and William, was arrested in December of that year. By the Agricultural Census of 1851, only Asher's son Joseph was listed as farming lots 21 and 22. Asher, at the age of 65, conveyed part of lot 22 to his son in 1853 and only Asher was assessed for lot 21 that year. In the personal census of 1851,Asher is listed as a widower with an extended family including Joseph, his other children and their spouses, grandchildren and a "bonded girl" Hannah Major in a 1-1/2 storey house on one of the properties. Lot 21 was sold by Asher Willson in 1857 to Francis Linton. Linton is apparently recorded as having a log house in the 1861 census which could be a house on lot 21 or another dwelling-a Moses Linton was assessed 10 years previously for a log house. As noted in 2.1 above, the property by 1877 is listed as L&G Linton, which may be the sons of Francis. However, the 1867 map shows the property owned by a C. Philips thus suggesting the need for further research. k� ,, "�•."ter ill t 1 s � .* . • _° a 'der., Photograph 1 -House at 1450 Whitevale from the northwest showing the tail and side porch. The proportions of the tail suggest an earlier date of construction than the main house. 6 204 Building Heritage Assessment • For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 I I . i I 11 q _ • , 7 1 .. RI,_ ,i ,.• ,___ , __....F -" --------............„ .... _ ..--r------7-7 4� Photograph 2 above-Front elevation. The door is offset to the west which suggests that there is a central post in the front wall framing. Profiles of the front windows do not match earlier examples on the side walls. Photograph 3 below-the main house and the rear wing are probably the same vintage while the leanto porch likely infilled an original porch. in, Ati'L ' ' s , 1 ..t '' ,"--- ,. --- - p la r ' * g 1 r 4: 205 Building Herita:::,.,t5,essment For the City of Pickering ive 1450 Whitevale d,Pickering 6 April 2015 -fie,..40.4.-4- 4`;;;;':11.robvt,* tv ...N.seglit .7 /;r0;4-41sw--41*-' - . . i M a iix r'.t-'� �/ ;, V gib. - t r -,—:.-.�, - `?. �_: ,r;'-�V• _ `' s,..'.:\s., r:' _4 4 " ;� _ ,'Y _ ' +��`_ '-/'r,� 1,.''�''. —c .,,t't t y,-tlg d 'i.. 'mot; V,�� ..� .a,; t'. * e it a .dy�pa,„.. °? i!' ti 1 ,,$.4-4;,-,R •7 a 7 Yr ; z.� _ _ Via. 7, Photograph 4 above-View from the southeast of the east and south walls. Note that the tail is roughly centred on the building-typically porches were installed on both sides of the tail in this configuration. Photograph 5 below-View of west elevation. Y 0 4 MAI% l'alr b1/4 r, r _ , iri., .., ........„ f • , 1160.7.411160. w . 8 206 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1 General Comment The main house is of modest size and is a three bay(front door and flanking windows) front with one and a half storey kitchen wing or "tail" at the rear. The ridge of the main gable roof runs east/west while that on the tail runs north/south. While a detailed investigation of the house does not form a part of this current report due to lack of access to the interior, we have described the exterior features in the following portion of the report. As the house was probably constructed by the middle years of the 19th century, a considerable amount of wood would still have been available from land clearing operations for use as a building material.While some reports suggest that the house is log with sheathing, it is in fact of frame construction and clad in clapboard siding.The presence of a mill in the area to make the siding and framing materials, most likely in Whitevale, confirms a fairly developed local economy several years after initial settlement. Based on its construction and window patterns (2/2 window style)we suggest that a dating of c1870 to 1885 could normally be appropriate but the window sash currently there may be replacements for earlier 6/6 sash.While the tail of the house has proportions and features which suggest the earlier vintage, 1850's to 1860's, records suggest that at that time Linton had a log house which this is not.Therefore, the house may have been built by Linton at a later date-certainly after 1861. Given the settlement period of this area, this could therefore be the original house on the site. The 1877 Atlas indicates a residence in approximately the same location as the subject building is found. While the building may have been extant as early as that date, the details we observed could represent a building built at any time up to the turn of the twentieth century. Our historical research is included in the next section, and conclusions are drawn using this material as further evidence to date the structure. 9 207 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4. DETAILED EXAMINATION 4.1 Foundations • The foundation is constructed of native fieldstone but is essentially hidden on the west wall by the placement of the wood skirting at the base of the walls. More exposure can be seen on the east wall. It is probable that more was originally visible but, typically, ground levels rise by approximately 150mm per century with the . The stones are laid roughly fitted and bonded with lime-based mortar. Typically, the core of these walls is composed of smaller rocks between the larger face stones.Also typically, the inside face of the foundation in the basement, if used, would have been painted with lime-wash to provide a better level of light and reduced the development of mould.There were certainly basement windows and an outside access stair which indicates materials were stored in the basement during winter months. Stone foundation walls generally ceased to be used after the WW I with the higher availability of poured concrete which was easier with which to build. �.. ^...� Yom. �k v• Photograph 6-Base along west wall of main wing-ground level has reached the sheathing-it was originally likely 300 to 450mm below this point. 10 208 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Neta ' Photograph 7 above-Exterior cellar entrance.This suggests that the basement was used to store garden crops,such as potatoes,during the winter months. Photograph 8 below-Basement window under the south wall. Basements were not typically constructed under log houses. sir /0/ 11 209 Building Heritage Assessment ,For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.2 Exterior Wall and Roof Framing The walls are of frame construction. Given the probable date of the structure, it is likely that the side walls of the main house are of hewn timber construction pinned with wood trunnels (tree nails) and braces at the corners. Wood studs would have framed the end walls. This is evidenced by the thickness of the walls (thicker on the side walls). Evidence can also be seen of the end wall frame where the corner boards have warped away from the substrate as can be seen in the photo below. � , i i. It i i i,,. . Photograph 9-Corner board at the , SE corner has warped away from z. t t �1iq i the structure exposing a vertical n T 4 hand-hewn timber(arrow). This is �\ ;,'. likely the north timber of the east , wall frame. I l � i ' I , M ' ka,‘ , i. r s+ar�, 1 41,1" , 12 210 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 The studs would run between the sill plate and the upper framing members and, at the end walls, would carry through,from sill to roof slope with no interruption. The second floor would be framed in a north/south direction into the top plate of the front and rear walls with sawn timbers running the full width of the house. 4.3 Roof Roof rafters would extend over a knee wall at the north and south sides of the second floor and extend down to form the roof eaves. A collar tie would be installed to form the ceiling over the second floor and brace the rafters.The rafters would be, typically tapered with the thinner ends at the top next to the ridge. Rafters would be either butted together and nailed, butted together either side of a ridge board, or lapped and pegged -the latter being most probable given the age of the building. ssp, Photograph 10-View of the end wall of the tail. Note the small window into the upper room which had to be offset to avoid the chimney from the kitchen. The IMMINIOW chimey has been reconstructed. 111 4 ,„ • The tail of the house, forming the kitchen and, in this case unusually, the second floor rear bedroom, would be of similar construction. Typically the kitchen floor would be placed lower than the main floor with a similar condition of one or two steps being present at the entrance to the upper bedroom from the central hall. 13 211 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 The roof is a moderate pitch, roughly 1:2 ratio although the slope on the front wing is of lower slope than that of the addition. Wood planks would have been installed over the roof framing(rafters). These would be typically 1"thick rough sawn pine of 8"to 12" in width (this type of lumber was typically used to sheath roofs and was also commonly used to sheath the walls of barns- it is still called barnboard). They would be installed with a small gap between each plank to provide ventilation to the underside of the shingles. Shingles would be locally made of eastern cedar, typically approximately 16" long with a minimum of three layers at each shingle (roughly a 5-1/3"exposure resulting from the overlap). Shingles on the existing roof are asphalt and are not original. 4.4 Windows Early, possibly original, windows are found in the house although some l have been replaced with aluminum windows of a pattern which do not match the original tradition for a house of this vintage. These can be seen in the previous photographs. Based on a probable dating of the late 19th century, the original window pattern would most likely have been double hung sash with each sash having two panes (known as a 2/2 pattern). If it is determined that the house was constructed prior to 1870, it is more likely that the pattern would have been 6/6 -window panes were available in standard sizes and the window openings can be calculated using the standard pane size in combination with the probable dimensions of the muntins (spacers between panes), stiles (vertical elements)and rails forming each sash. M � ` w _ ... ' 1 i.#4, .... , ,. . 1 -, ,4 I �. 11 1 f 3. . . ..," ... , , ,T , , Photograph 11-Windows on west elevation-note the informality of the placement which was likely done to avoid framing. 14 212 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April2015 The sills were constructed of pine and are generally still present, although in only fair to poor condition. Sills inside the porch on the east side of the tail are in much better condition as they have been protected from the weather for as much as 50 years or more (there is an original exterior door and exterior windows on the west side inside of the porch. 4.5 Exterior Doors Original windows in the house have been replaced with modern doors dating to the 1960's save for the door leading from the kitchen into the side porch. 4.6 Chimneys Chimneys have been replaced with relatively modern chimneys. Originally, there would have been chimneys at the ridge line on either side of the main roof. The kitchen chimney at the rear of the tail is in the appropriate location of the three original locations, but has been reconstructed. 4.7 Interior The interior could not be accessed for the inspection and therefore we could not observe the main floor framin g in the basement or under the roof and therefore conclusively date the structure. Nor could we observe interior trim or doors which also aids in dating a structure. 15 213 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5. Heritage Evaluation 5.1 General Comments There is sufficient information to permit, at some time in the future, a restoration of the building to its original appearance. A good and appropriate use should be found for the house if demolition is not found to be necessary. 5.2 Evaluation We have analyzed the subject building in accordance with the matrix required by the Ontario Heritage Act(O.Reg. 09/06) to establish recommendations for its significance. In the tables below, our opinion is followed by an analysis for each of the points flagged in the tables. Design or Physical Value Our opinion i. Rare,unique,representative or early example of a style,type, No expression,material or construction method ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit No iii. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement No Rare example of a style, type, expression, material or contruction—The structure at 1450 Whitevale is a representative example of a mid-nineteenth century house which was constructed using a combination of pegged wood frames and studs. Craftsmanship in the house is typical and of good workmanlike quality for its period but is not exceptional. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit—The building was constructed in a manner that exhibits only an average level of craftsmanship when compared with others of the period. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement-The building exhibits no specific technical achievements. 16 214 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Historical or Associative Value ; Our opinion i. Direct associations with a theme,event,belief,person,activity, No organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. Yields,or has the potential to yield,information that contributes to an Yes understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, !No builder,designer or theorist who is significant to a community Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person, activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community -The property is associated with the earliest settlers of the area but the importance of the individuals is associated with other property along Concession V as this property was passed on to a son of Asher Willson.This building was constructed with modest means and aspirations. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture-This building contributes to the understanding of the culture connected with the development of the local community, but in an attenuated manner. Only in combination with other holdings along Whitevale Road does the site yield information regarding the culture of the area. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community-The designer and builder are unknown. Contextual Value Our opinion i. Important in defining,maintaining,or supporting the character of an Yes area ii. Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its No surroundings iii. Landmark No Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area and Surroundings—The structure is one of several buildings that contribute to the character of Whitevale Road which, by any measure, is an early remaining settlement area in Ontario. Physically,functionally, visually or historically linked to its surroundings— While historically linked to its surroundings, the building is not significant. Landmark—While located overlooking Whitevale Road, the building is not visibly a local landmark. 17 215 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5.2.1 Summary Only two criteria of the provincial matrix for evaluation that could trigger designation of the property are met by this structure.The Provincial Policy Statement requires that"Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." In respect to this structure, it is our opinion that the building is only modestly significant. However, it should be photographed, recorded and preserved.The house has been evaluated in previous heritage studies as being an Important Heritage Resource. We only partially concur with this statement. 5.3 Current heritage status The house is currently listed in the City of Pickering Heritage Inventory and as a "Heritage Lot" in the Seaton Neighbourhood Plan.There are no remaining associated outbuildings. 5.4 Statement of Significance The following can be used as a Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for 1450 Whitevale Road: Although of modest significance, the cultural heritage value of 1450 Whitevale Road lies in its simple design, and associations with the early settlers of Whitevale Road.The building is comprised of a structure and tail built from the 1860's to early 1870's and represents the farm house of a modest rural holding. 5.4.1 Design Value The house is a good example of a simple gable-roofed three bay front(front door flanked by main floor windows)with a rear tail with perpendicular proportions.The building is clad in wood clapboard and wood corner boards of early vintage.The structure appears to evoke the design of an earlier log structure that is reported to have been on the site as early as 1861. 5.4.2 Historic/Associative Value The house is associated with the occupancy of the site by Francis Linton who purchased the property from the Willson family, among the earliest of the Loyalist settlers in the area. 5.4.3 Character-defining Elements Should a statement of Significance be prepared for the house, we consider its character-defining elements to be: - the overall massing of the structure and its height and proportions - the"T"shaped floor plan with the kitchen tail characteristic of early farmhouses in the area - the surviving 2/2 window pattern of the side and rear elevations 18 216 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 - the roof slopes - the original clapboard siding together with beaded corner boards 5.4.4 Contextual Value The subject house maintained and supported the rural heritage character of Whitevale Road. 5.4.5 Interior The interior could not be evaluated due to lack of access 5.5 Mitigation The subject site, its relatively early date, and its construction make it of subject Y Y interest. Re-use of this structure for a future use is possible. Properly stabilized, the building could support municipal or park functions or provide, for example, a low cost rentable site for private schooling or an NGO.Therefore, continuance of its current listing or designation of the site would be appropriate to retain this interesting example of a modest frame farmhouse from the late 19th century. While the loss of heritage structures is regrettable, not every structure can be retained. Should it be determined that the building is not sufficiently valuable to retain or designate, it is our opinion that it is essential to mitigate the heritage impact of its loss to the City of Pickering. This could be done by recording the building by drawings in accordance with known documentation standards, photographs keyed to the drawings, and salvage of important structural components for display and interpretation in the community. 5.6 Recommendations The house should continue to be included on the list of heritage properties for the City of Pickering. Reference to the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada should be made for any modifications or updates to the building. This should not preclude changes to the building- rather the standards should guide any work done to repurpose the building while retaining the memory of heritage features. 19 217 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 1450 Whitevale Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 7. Closure This report has been written by the Consultants (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd.Architects(GBCA)for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represent the Consultants' best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to the consultants at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. The Consultants deny any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon,this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of the Consultants and the client. The Consultants have prepared this report in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed with the Client. If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Goldsmith Borgal &Co. Ltd.Architects Christopher Borgal OAA FRAIC CAHP Principal 20 218 Attachment#5 to Report PLN 04-15 Building Assessment Report 3440 Brock Road 219 • Draft Report: Building Heritage Ass t essmen < . ., ./jam ll`/// . . . e 1 ,./-',-, cio'` , . 400i, ' -*- ''''. ',?:'`.,itt 4.."' - , L.--i =\ o\,f,.r\�{ ? } . ., � rr. ,�� i,-, - - - ;,,,,,- 1 - -- --, 1--•-..\ , 4, .,-. i yi..-- 'i r l i v, ` itl ' • ,. d C..... 004` - - , - — ''''''°1---- ';'-'' — •-• ' '‘... ••• - ', ", ;... .14.** I r. — --.., ; ,,,,,,,,,,. ; r - oc '‘ I e A 4 1 } • t Wil ' } d :4 f { at Goldsmith ny Ltd. 3440 Brock Road, Pickerin Ontario &Company Ltd. Architects for 362 Davenport Rd. Suite 100 City of Pickering Toronto.Ontario MSR 1K6.Canada 6 April 201 1 416 929 6556 F 416 929 4745 V, vw.gbca.ca 220 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 General Parameters Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd.Architects (GBCA) was requested in early 2015 to prepare an assessment of the property listed as 3440 Brock Road, Pickering, Ontario. A study has been deemed to be required to determine the heritage importance and condition of this structure and this information will determine its recommended disposition. The site was visited on ** March 2015. 1.2 Assumptions Assumptions for the work: • Investigations were limited to visual inspection.We did not conduct any destructive testing nor was the examination done in detail. • Conservation mitigation work that we may propose is intended to conform to the highest conservation standards and result in the retention of as much historic building material as possible. • Where we suggest that some of the building elements may be removed or significantly changed, we recommend that the general arrangement of the features be recorded and documented in a manner that documents the evolution of the overall structure. • We were not permitted to enter the building and thus some of the material related to dating of the structure may be open to conjecture as interior areas, including the basement and attic, could be visited to date original assemblies. CBCA 2 221 I Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2. SITE BACKGROUND 2.1 Historical Mapping The subject site (red circle) is documented in the J.J. Beers & Co. Ontario County Atlas, Pickering Twp., of 1877 to the south of the hamlet of Brougham seen in the image below (red arrow). The subject building is located on the property indicated as being owned by R. Brignatt 1877. The property to the north, which appears to have been subdivided (now 2490 Brock) is shown as being in the hands of Mrs.T.C. Hubbard.This property is listed by the municipality as the "Thomas Hubbard House" and its construction is stated to be c1870 although it is probably 3490 Brock Road that was actually the Hubbard house.Typically, only the residential structures are illustrated in the County Atlas— outbuildings were not generally indicated.•L.-. ti ! `*• •i' ,art • t� t ,a- , •. . V. ' ',, 4 •j. - ''•4 G Wit!, L zl :f t t ` .- ♦ 5 ;' `6; ay ` 1 a ? j s 6� "{1 =. - ; 4. ��� ; kip, 44: 3r 1 \•,1 i 4 ` ti i. \�S' 1 •i _ 11` a, L /;, - C •` L I. . c - wi 4'.1 4 L-:. y GBCA 3 222 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 1Rt W67 1'Ictil lilrG t A. 7,, {. 1 n■7 �� ' i ,,it I 11 _ Illustrated on this page is a copy of an 1867 x map of Pickering and a detail. In both '= . cases, Brougham is circled and the subject site is located with a red arrow. During this _ _.if time the property is indicated as being in '' the possession of W. Bayles. i i ii . t/ F:. 1867 ('enlenni:il Souvenir' 1967 _ ilio .,.. . , , .. .„ ,. 1,, ,. ,. . ..,,_,,, , , , . ,. .. _ , .. ,.„ ,. ... , „ ., , . .., . .. ._ , , , , _ s : ....\,.. rs .. !. .. , . , ..., , , , , , :. „..,, ,,„ , , , ,„ , ..„, ,.,., . ,,„t, ,,,. ,, , , , I�c3 1 . Frh..1I Gmab 1 0 ..5 •' __ 1-1., t 4, ,:r:. .- 17 4 • "z , , 1- C' GBCA 4 223 I I Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.2 Location The subject building is located on the west side of Brock Road (A)just south of Hwy 407 (B) in Pickering, Ontario. The site is illustrated in the upper image and includes: ` • the subject frame house 3 • . (1) constructed 3 3 a c1835-1840. • the main barn (2) now demolished (photo dates to 2009). 4' 1 • Outbuildings and sheds (3) . �, r ° _ , ,1,\„, ..,.: .k, V ' ‘ I ,„N• 'ai;\* ,.t\- ..1° .t� a V.I.V. .IV,i61-0....k. , , ., _ ...:., ... . ..w - Al--- -.'' '. ,. ,,,„ % _r 10.1_ T ,_-- .,, .,,J -.-..-,...,4:-..-.*.,, -, ,.. , .;. : ‘' 4, . t . - . ' ktio, , •' 1 .. . `t L .■ a> x .may V*r• x . `' 4 ,> t. a� ;,1 * .. v GBC.:A 5 224 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 2.3 History An early, c1809, occupant of Lot 19 Concession V was Thomas Hubbard who arrived in PickeringTwp. immediately prior to the turn of the 19th century. Henry Smith owned the original Crown Grant of 1797 until 1821. Hubbard was recognized as a United Empire Loyalist. Thomas Hubbard had a major impact on the local community in his social, religious and political life. He was the first township clerk(1811), and donated land for the first area school which was constructed by the Hubbards and neighbours Matthews, Sharrards and Willsons. Hubbard's son served as a private in the 2nd Flank Company of the 3rd York Militia receiving a General Service Medal during the siege of Detroit in the War of 1812. It appears that, by 1867,W. Bayles owned lot 19, which is the subject property, but this was subdivided by 1877 to form four lots and also included a portion of the hamlet of Brougham to the north of the lot. The location of the subject house, on a mid-lot parcel, is indicated in the 1877 as in the ownership of R. Brignatt. Construction of a new home after an acquisition (1868 to 1877) is consistent with our dating.The property to the north, which appears to have been subdivided (now 3490 Brock) is shown as being in the hands of Mrs.T.C. Hubbard - perhaps the wife of Thomas or a descendant.We could not establish whether Bayles or Brignatt were descendants of Thos. Hubbard -further research is needed and if not this house has a lessened associative value.After 1920, the Bayles family owned the property and renovations as noted below from the 1920's and 30's are consistent with a change of ownership in that renovations after a purchase are frequently observed. <I" ' 3, •,."' 8 _:`-'1'..\,44\* om. i ,..` ••w'"•''l :.r-•.,. 4s'*1,L' ,�• s*• ' � „.. . Ai . m"...4 A. u* ' '- ' - i A e A 44, {.4 l' 'I �. * ,, 'r,4, 3 Wi ��� i j sere �� 7 . a ,,,,., -.....,, A ,, .. .4 I1 ,. , ,. Photograph 1 -View of the front of the house from the east GBCA 6 225 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 3. GENERAL DESCRIPTION 3.1 General Comment The house is of 1-1/2 storeys and constructed of wood frame on a stone foundation. There is a side wing constructed of wood frame.A porch with decorative bargeboard and columns fronts the original structure which appears to have been constructed in the 1870's. The side wing appears to have been constructed after the main house and mimics the brick house to the north found at 3490 Brock Road. A barn and several outbuildings remain behind the house to the west. Most early houses in this area were of frame construction due to the plentiful supply of old-growth forest. By the late 1800's, wealthy farmsteads were constructing larger homes than earlier dates, or adding on to existing structures particularly where they were required to house larger families. In this case, the subdivision of Lot 19 into smaller parcels yielded less arable land for the owner of the subject property which raises the issue of where funds come from. Rental of adjacent lands may be one alternative source of funds. It is interesting that there was construction on this house at i Imir R 11, . . . ,,....tostior air Photograph 2-Detail of romanesque arched gable window. The original window has been planked in to allow for the installation of a c1960's sliding window. • approximately the same time as the construction of 3490 Brock Road and that the appearance of both houses roughly corresponds with the subdivision of Lot 19. It is possible that the subdivision itself created some of the funds used to build or modify these houses. GBCA 7 226 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 k. e r vtP .. ------r---al' _• ... ., orry 1."`m' m..- M R 1 ill 1 , _ _ _ _ r Photograph 3-Detailed view of the original house from the east. Note the difference in siding between the north wing(shiplap)and the main house(clapboard). Photograph 4-South elevation. The siding on the tail appears to match that of the original house although the foundation has been re-worked.The central chimney and side door are not original but located in an appropriate location for a short summer kitchen. . ,,. - , . : _7-...... ". / = III ..i---- ____.% r, AL:,___________ ,..... ---- .., . _ ill - — nil - L 1 :: : -- _ GBCA 8 227 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 ALL ' -•-• _._ -tee e. -- - ". . row_ Photograph 5-Detail of the tail. The windows and doors appear to date to the 1920's to 1930's and likely replace earlier units.The foundation has been parged over the original stone. The lower portion of the chimney appears to date to renovations in the 1920's or 30's while the upper portion was repaired in the 1980's to 90's. Photograph 6-Rear elevation of the tail. The tail,as is probably the f main house,is framed with timbers ^� ,'"�+m►„��'�;•„��.�,,,�� rather than studs which are visible r"�•:�• '"" - ! behind the missing clapboard. This . places the date of the house at the 1r,' "` x; late 1860's to early 1870's.The concrete door stoop likely dates to 'r' .... the early 20th century renovations. GBCA 9 228 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 V; z. � >. _ , 47 4 4111%. _ �...• 'dr',I 420111111k., c. 4 $ a y F Photograph 7-North and west elevations of the tail. The siding on the tail appears narrower than that of the main house. Photograph 8-Partial rear wall of the house including the tail at right,the basement entry door, the back wall of the original house and the back wall of the addition. The windows in the addition may have been salvaged from the original north wall of the house. 7y 10 229 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 rriM±wr Y a:.;;;" _ a+�IFWY7• lXr.�s r• vi ,ea1104.10 • ..11*ti:.'s111. .t.YiIIi+MPi0.'• f i twl7rr•• a s r ,- AL r .y,,.,r i - tA 111,44c. •e° f.�.. • +r•Afro ip" # u^ >Aern"' Photograph 9-Detail of basement stair porch and door. Note that the siding of the porch is considerably narrower than that of the wall to which it abuts. Photograph 10-View of rear of addition ' and partial view of the north wall. t=" • 1 GBCA 11 230 • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 E W .ry... r II IV dal Photograph 11 -Lower portion of north wall of wing at junction with the back wall. Note that there are three types of siding. • Photograph 12-Detail of corner showing damaged foundation wall. 4`. v14441 Sall ee a B 12 231 NI I Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 g �. ''-rte }�i' <. te .. s ? a" �.A"r��Aht 1 t, a sr [1 I -, .• , .is, �_ r - _.-,—°'" , fi f, .-if � i �F� f, t M � •R� f#j A3-'--*'''';' j fl4iiimr i``° a i4 —s , ,, 1 t ' ; t V. Ilk J f T _ + t \'' T T' '4 t - .. t t xT' F t Photograph 13-Detail of northwest corner of wing. Note the shiplap at left and the rather poor condition of the clapboard at right. It is probable that during the construction of the addition,the clapboard was removed from the north wall of the original building and used to clad the rear wall of the addition-the gable walls are of similar size and roof pitch. GBCA 13 232 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 . i t 1 •i ; i +rt + -• .1 a r' :.s glatt‘t �t y 1y�ft_., „ )�t rfYi 3 4 r‘ 4 i {. a r r l� l•�r a t .:�t+ � + NSF V yt :,+'t'f`' - N ft.: x.r (41_ ■ t.3ari a ltgh r 'fit 1;V'3 '''L; ^AR • Photograph 14-Front elevation of the addition with its clapboard siding. Note the arched window hood over the window on the lower floor. The windows are paired 1/1 configuration and are more typical of the 1890's than the 1870's. GBCA 14 233 1 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 ._ , 4,1,-,-..-.,, :-) • .. . :: 4:-.,f'. 1rJt+ 1 , • : ,.....- - . ......- 4a ' ii if . 7 l 0 j4Y. I Photograph 15-Front porch. The fretwork and narrow turned columns suggest an 1870's date- the porch post on the right has been sawn in half to fit. Photograph 16-The front door which is a four panel door with finely run stops and appears to M` I be contemporary with the original building. - • GBCA 1_) 234 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 i �'.-.' 'p t Photograph 17 Door leading from the li- - porch into the newer addition. The upper door panels,which can be seen through ' the storm door,are considerably longer than the main front door. The door,and the siding around it are contemporary • )# with the addition. �,,, - `"" , t i `<t s Fu �. I Photograph 18 Chimney at the junction V of the roof ridges. The lower portion of - ' the chimney is constructed of red water- `• j struck brick typical of the 1980's. The "` upper portion has been extended or "" r repaired by red sanded-face brick of the , turn of the 21st century.Note the r- 1 1111-.', stainless cap and pipe required for a gas 1111. furnace. e..4. a i .441116.. . , f � �r� 1111 1 . .' 7 GBCA 16 235 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4. DETAILED EXAMINATION • 4.1 Foundations The foundation is constructed of native fieldstone. The stones are laid roughly fitted and bonded with lime-based mortar. Typically, the core of these walls is composed of smaller rocks between the larger face stones. Also typically, the inside face of the foundation in the basement, if used, would have been painted with lime-wash to provide a better level of light and reduced the development of mould. The basement would have provided an area for the storage of root vegetables and fruit during the winter months. Field stone was readily available in southern Ontario as it is typically mixed with the native soils as a result of glacial deposition. During the winter, particularly in the early days of farming the area, the winter frost would push these rocks to the surface and would have to be regularly removed to permit ploughing and used for building materials, perimeter fences or simply disposed of. The material, scraped from rocky outcrops by glaciers during the ice age, is composed of a wide variety of rock and,typically, only the hardest, was used as building stones. This material includes gneiss, granite, and quartzite and typically sized for handling by one or two workers.As they were rolled and tumbled in the glaciers, they are typically rounded in profile 4.2 Exterior Wall and Roof Framing We could not access the interior of the house and could not confirm the framing. It is probable that, given the age of the house, the original portion was framed with pegged timbers with wood studs set between to allow for nailing on of the exterior siding and interior lath and plaster.The later addition, given the dating, is most likely of mill-sawn studs and boards in a manner that is similar to modern construction. The addition would most likely use"balloon framing"where the studs extend from the sill plate to the top of wall without the intervening second floor platform used today. The tail of the house, forming the kitchen, would be of similar construction as the original house although only of one storey. Typically the kitchen floor would be placed lower than the main floor almost on grade unlike the main house which would be raised over a basement. 4.3 Roof The roof is of a fairly steep pitch, approximately 1: 1 ratio.Wood boards would have been installed over the roof framing(rafters). These would be typically 1"thick rough sawn pine of 8"to 12" in width (this type of lumber was typically used to sheath roofs and was also commonly used to sheath the walls of barns- it is still called barn board). They would be installed with a small gap between each board to provide ventilation to the GBCA 17 236 Building Heritage Assessment • For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 underside of the shingles. Shingles would be locally made of eastern cedar, typically approximately 16" long with a minimum of three layers at each shingle(roughly a 5-1/3" exposure resulting from the overlap). Shingles on the existing roof are asphalt and are not original. 4.4 Windows Original windows remain in the house are of 2 panes over 2 panes in the original house and the side and rear of the addition.This is consistent with a date of 1865 - 75. Windows on the front wall of the addition are paired 1/1 windows which suggest a dating from 1890 to 1910 which is consistent with the other details, such as the siding (well into the 20th century, 2/2 windows were being installed in houses in Canada). Windows in the rear tail are 3/1 pattern which is typical of the period from WWI to the 1940's, although the date can be narrowed to probably the 1920's to 1930's. The sills were constructed of wood and are generally still present, although in only fair to poor condition. Photograph 19-Small rather clumsy window added at the junction of the wings when the north wing was added-possibly for a washroom. GBCA 18 237 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 4.5 Exterior Doors Both front doors(not including the storm doors which appear to be early 20th century in vintage) date to the portion of the house in which they are located. The front door in the original house is a four panel door with heavy mouldings. The door from the front porch into the north wing has longer upper panels though it is probably also a four panel door. 4.6 Chimneys A single chimney is located at the centre of the ridge junction between the main house and the north wing. It is almost certainly 20th century based on the bricks and the upper portion was repaired after its original construction. It has been lined with a stainless steel liner presumably to accommodate a gas furnace. Another chimney is located at the midpoint of the tail and most likely, before repairs, dates to the early 20th century. 4.7 Front Porch A front porch is constructed on a concrete block and concrete platform of 20th century origin -probably prior to the 1970's when concrete blocks changed from imperial size to metric. Posts and fretwork support the edge of the roof which may be original to the house but modified to suit the arrangement of the addition.The porch roof appears to be early. 4.8 Interior Interior access was not granted by the Province for our inspection.Therefore we were unable to evaluate the interior for integrity nor to date the interiors by examining trim, fittings, and attic and cellar framing. • • GBCA 19 238 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5. Heritage Evaluation 5.1 General Comments There is sufficient information to permit, at some time in the future, a restoration of the building to its original appearance. Rather, a good and appropriate use should be found for the house if demolition is not found to be necessary. 5.2 Evaluation We have analyzed the subject building in accordance with the matrix required by the Ontario Heritage Act(O.Reg. 9/06)to establish recommendations for its significance. In the tables below, our opinion is followed by an analysis for each of the points flagged in the tables. Design or Physical Value Our opinion i. Rare,unique,representative or early example of a style,type, No . expression,material or contruction method ii. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit No iii. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement No Rare example of a style&type displaying a high degree of craftsmanship— The original house was a typical centre-gable structure, in wood, dating to the latter part of the 19th century. Save for the former presence of a round arch (Romanesque)window in the centre gable, and its wood construction, it is not a remarkable example of its time and period. The addition, to the north, appears to have been created in the late 19th to early 20th century period and is also unremarkable and appears to have been grafted on to the original structure. Displays a high degree of craftsmanship or artistic merit—The building was constructed in a manner no more nor less sophisticated than that used for a building of similar and typical use at a time contemporary with its construction. Displays a high degree of scientific or technical achievement-The building is an ordinary house for its time and place. GBCA 20 239 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Historic/Associative Value Our opinion i. Direct associations with a theme,event,belief,person,activity, No organization or institution that is significant to a community ii. Yields,or has the potential to yield,information that contributes to an No understanding of a community or culture iii. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect,artist, No builder,designer or theorist who is significant to a community Direct associations with a theme, event, belief, person,activity, organization or institution that is significant to a community-While earlier reports have identified an association of this house with a person important to the local community (Thos. Hubbard), the property listings in 1867 and 1877 do not appear to support this. We were unable to determine if the property owners of those years, and later, were descendants of Hubbard. It is our opinion that, although Lot 19 is associated with significant early settlers, the house itself is not directly connected. Yields, or has the potential to yield, information that contributes to an understanding of a community or culture-This house has some interesting details related to the north addition, but offers no other information related to the community or culture other than it was a small building constructed on a subdivision of Lot 19 sometime between 1867 and 1877. Demonstrates or reflects the work or ideas of an architect, artist, builder, designer or theorist who is significant to a community—The building was typical for its time and reflects no more than the common approach to buildings of this time and period. Pattern books were used for both the original house and the addition and these were readily available to any builder of the time. Contextual Value Our opinion i. Important in defining,maintaining,or supporting the character of an No area ii. Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its !No i - surroundings iii. Landmark i No Important in defining, maintaining or supporting the character of an area and Surroundings— Located at the intersection of Hwy 7 and Brock Road, the building has been divorced from its original context save for its function as an operating farm. GBCA 21 240 • • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 Physically,functionally,visually or historically linked to its surroundings— While historically linked to its surroundings, the structure was likely constructed after the subdivision of Lot 19.As the farmhouse for an operating farm, it is linked to its surroundings which will rapidly change with new development. Landmark—By virtue at the corner of a major intersection, it is a minor local landmark but is not sign ificant in the overall context of the Municipality or the Province. 5.2.1 Summary While some minor aspects of the building are worthy of commemoration and recording, it is our opinion that the property at 3440 Brock Road is not a significant heritage resource.The Provincial Policy Statement requires that "Significant built heritage resources and significant cultural heritage landscapes shall be conserved." In respect to this structure, it is our opinion that the building is not significant but that it should be photographed and recorded by dimensioned drawings if demolished. 5.3 Current heritage status The house is currently listed in the City of Pickering Heritage Inventory as the Thomas Hubbard House. Based on our assessment, it is highly possible that the house at 3490 Brock Road may have closer associations with Hubbard. 5.4 Statement of Significance The following can be used as a Draft Statement of Cultural Heritage Value for 3440 Brock Road: Although of modest significance, the cultural heritage value of 3440 Brock Road lies in its design, and possible associative and contextual value.The building is comprised of a c1870 house which was subsequently added to c1890. 5.4.1 Design Value The house is of typical design and materials for its period. Some features, such as the arched windows at the east(front) wall, are of interest and distinctive.The addition was done in the spirit of 3490 Brock Road to the north which also dates to the 1870's. 5.4.2 Historic/Associative Value The house was considered in previous evaluations to be a Heritage Resource(Bray et. al). However, as determined by our evaluation, criteria for such a conclusion are not met. GBCA 22 241 • • Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 5.4.3 Character-defining Elements The building is very much unchanged from the time of its last addition in the late 19th to early 20th century. Should a statement of Significance be prepared for the house, we consider its character-defining elements to be: - the overall massing of'the structure and its height and prominence - the"T" shaped floor plan which was modified to match 1870's examples - the centre gable of the original building with its arched window and surviving mouldings under the eaves - the roof slopes and sloped eaves - the decorative turned posts and fretwork decorating the front porch - the original clapboard siding together with the later siding of the north wing - the original 2/2 windows on the original wing and the paired 1/1 windows on the front wall of the addition which include an arched frame at the main floor 5.4.4 Contextual Value The subject house maintained and supported the rural heritage character of _ Brock Road.This has now been substantially lost by the road allowances which border the site placing the building outside of its original context. • 5.4.5 Interior The interior could not be evaluated due to lack of access 5.5 Recommendations The house at 3440 Brock Road should be recorded in detail, both interior and interior, in a manner which is outside of the scope of this current report. A set of measured and dimensioned drawings should be prepared with keyed photographs to document the structure for posterity. It is our opinion that the house should not be Designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act by the City of Pickering. GBCA 23 242 Building Heritage Assessment For the City of Pickering • 3440 Brock Road, Pickering 6 April 2015 6. Closure This report has been written by the Consultants (Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd.Architects (GBCA)for the benefit of the client to whom it is addressed. The information and data contained herein represent the Consultants' best professional judgment in light of the knowledge and information available to the consultants at the time of preparation. Except as required by law, this report and the information and data contained • herein are to be treated as confidential and may be used and relied upon only by the client, its officers and employees. The Consultants deny any liability whatsoever to other parties who may obtain access to this report for any injury, loss or damage suffered by such parties arising from their use of, or reliance upon, this report or any of its contents without the express written consent of the Consultants and the client. The Consultants have prepared this report in accordance with the Scope of Services agreed with the Client. If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please contact the undersigned. Yours sincerely Goldsmith Borgal & Co. Ltd.Architects • Christopher Borgal OAA FRAIC CAHP Principal GRCA 24 243 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT# 6N Oaf-IS °O A Excerpts of Minutes Heritage Pickering PICKERING Advisory Special Committee Meeting April 15, 2015 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Attendees: K. Borisko J. Calder J. Dempsey W. Jamadar • D. Joyce T. Reimer M. Sawchuck C. Sopher J. Van Huss C. Rose, Chief Planner Surti, Manager, Development Review & Urban Design C. Celebre, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage L. Roberts, Recording Secretary Also Present: Dan Hagan Theresa Gauthier • Chris Borgal`-Goldsmith Borgal & Company Ltd. Architects Rob Quig Whitevale&District Resident's Association Scott Finlayson, Whitevale & District Resident's Association `` i, Item/ Details &,Discussion:& Conclusion Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) tatus.` • f elude deadline as • t r appropriate) :4:0`:{:.. New Business —.Heritage'Consultant Reports Chris Borgal appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of the heritage assessment reports he prepared in response to the Class B Environmental Assessments for properties proposed for demolition in the Seaton lands and Whitevale. 4.1) 825 Whitevale Road C. Borgal provided an overview of the draft heritage assessment report for 825 Whitevale Road, noting the importance with this property as it is currently listed on the Heritage Register and is recommended for designation. A brief discussion period ensued with staff responding to questions raised regarding the heritage lot boundaries. 244 Page 1 ATTACHMENT,# % TO REPORT# Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion -~ Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as _ . appropriate) Moved by M. Sawchuck 1. That the Heritage Pickering.Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for demolition, Council object to the demolition of the house located at 825 Whitevale Road; and, 2. That Council designate 825 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Carried ' z 4.2) 1050 Whitevale Road C. Borgal provided an outline of the contents of the draft preliminary report for 1050 Whitevale Road. Comments were noted as follows; • Questioned whether a subdivision would be going in this location • Would be useful to view The interior d • Property stood out, could'have interesting history • Worth a further look • Well constructed • Could have social history • Should have a full report prepared Moved by C. Sopher That 1050 Whitevale Road be deferred in order to retain.C. Borgal to complete a full assessment report. Carried ` . • 4.3) 3280 16th Sideline C. Borgal provided an overview of the draft preliminary report for 3280 16th Sideline, with the following comments being noted: • Impressive landscape • Possibility of offering properties for sale • Still value in adding to register when properties are noted as having no significant heritage value • View the interior of the house 245 Page 2 ATTACHMENT REPORT# PIA 04%S Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items:l Ref# (summary of,discussion) " Status (include deadline as P y Moved by J. Van Huss 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class .B Environmental Assessment for demolition, Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3280 16th Sideline; 2. That Infrastructure Ontario record the building in the form of photographs and/or drawings and provide the documents of the building to the City; and, 3. That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations;the City or other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials. Motion Lost Further discussion ensued with respect to obtaining additional information on this property. It was noted that by doing nothing, it shows support of heritage properties that could potentially have some heritage,significance rather than voting to support demolition. Moved by J Calder That C. Borgal be retained-to complete a full assessment report on 3280 Sideline 16._ , Carried 4.4) 3490 Brock Road C. Borgal provided an overview on the preliminary assessment report for 3490 Brock Road. He indicated the historical • signification of the Hubbard family, but stated there seemed to be some confusion regarding ownership, whether it was related to the property at 3490 or 3440 Brock Road. Discussion ensued with comments as follows: • Unsure of the state of windows • Odd addition in rear • House in poor condition • Not desirable property due to proximity to 407 246 Page 3 ATTACHMENT TO REPORT# 11■ Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion. Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status • (include deadline as appropriate)- Moved by D. Joyce 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for demolition, Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 3490 Brock Road; • 2. That Infrastructure Ontario record the building in the form of photographs and/or drawings and provide the documents of the building to the City; and 3. That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features be salvaged and any interested heritage organizations, the City of other interested parties be able to coordinate the salvage of any materials. Motion Lost Moved by D. Joyce That C. Borgal be retained to complete a full assessment report on 3490 Brock Road. • Carried 4.5) 3440 Brock,Road Chris Borgal provided an overview of the draft heritage assessment report for 3440 Brock Road, noting the structure appears to be in fair condition., A brief discussion period ensued with questions raised regarding the contextual value of the structure as well as any potential impacts on the budget for preparing further full assessments. Moved by J. Calder 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Environmental Assessment for demolition, Council object to the demolition of the house located at 3440 Brock Road; and 2. That Infrastructure Ontario restore the building to its original appearance and livability and find an appropriate use and tenant for the house. 247 Carried Page 4 ATTACHMENT# D TO REPORT# 1 LN O4-15 Item/ Details & Discussion & Conclusion - Action;Items/ Ref# . (summary of,_discussion) . �a Status' r 4 include deadline'as PP Pat ) :a ro n e 4.5) 1130 Whitevale Road Chris Borgal provided an outline of the contents of the draft heritage assessment report for 1130 Whitevale Road. He noted that he would be visiting the location again. Moved by C. Sopher 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee.recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Enviornmental Assessment for demolition, Council object to the demolition of the house located at 1130 Whitevale Road; and 2. That Council designate 1130 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act. Carried 4.6) 1450 Whitevale Road - Chris Borgal outlined the contents of the draft heritage assessment report for 1450 Whitevale Road;-He noted the social history connected to this property should be preserved. He also noted large barns as well as a small stone-'house on the property as well. • Moved byK Borisko 1.: That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to`Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Enviornmental Assessment for demolition, Council object to the demolition of the house'located at 1450 Whitevale Road; and 2. That Council designate 1450 Whitevale Road under Part IV of the Ontario'Hentage Act. Carried 4.7) 1740 Fifth Concession Chris Borgal outlined the contents of the draft preliminary report for 1740 Fifth Concession. 248 Page 5 ATTACHMENT# (0 TO REPORT# PLN oLi-l5 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclus_ion m Action Ites / (summary of discussion) Status' (include deadline as ri PP Pat ) Moved by J. Dempsey 1. That the Pickering Heritage Advisory Committee recommend to Council that in response to the Infrastructure Ontario Class B Enviornmental Assessment for demolition, Council not object to the demolition of the house located at 1740 Fifth Concession; 2. That Infrastructure Ontario record the building in the form of photographs and/or drawings and provide the documents of the building to the City; and 3. That prior to demolition, exterior or interior heritage features . be salvaged and any interested heritage-organizations, the City of other interested parties be able tocoordinate the salvage of any materials. Motion Lost Moved by J. Dempsey • That C. Borgal be retained to complete a full assessment report on 1740 Fifth Concession. Carried f' t. ``C<:•``{ • • 249 Page 6 ATTACHMENT# 7 TO REPORT# March 29, 2015 Via E-mail to: internet.feedback.mtour @ontario.ca The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, Re: Built Heritage Threatened in Seaton I am writing you as a representative of the Whitevale and District Residents' Association regarding the fact that the City of Pickering received notice in November of 2014 that an environmental consultant has been retained by Infrastructure Ontario and is in the process of gathering background information for the preparation of a Class B Environmental Assessment for the demolition of 15 properties in the Seaton Urban Area (North Pickering). While the City of Pickering has been reviewing this initial list of properties, I understand additional properties continue to be added to the list for proposed demolition. After having reviewed the initial list of properties in question, we write to express our deep concern that the demolition of some of these properties are being contemplated; not only because of the potential for the immediate loss of these examples of built heritage in Ontario but also for 1) the implications to Heritage protections in Ontario and to 2) the respect being afforded by Infrastructure Ontario to the 2013 OMB rulings on the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 22 (PL 101016 et al) . Of the 15 properties under consideration for demolition, eight already have some form of heritage designation, be that a listing on the Municipal Heritage Register, ORC Heritage Register or designations under either Part IV or Part V of the Ontario Heritage Act. Four of these properties were also designated as "Heritage Lots" during the aforementioned 2013 OMB hearings. During the 2013 OMB hearings, Official Plan Amendment (OPA) 22 was accepted as an amendment to the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP). Among the many changes, OPA 22: • moved the eastern boundary of the Whitevale District Conservation District to the eastern village boundary, removing the school, cemetery and several 250 ATTACHMENT# Z TO REPORT# R-N O4-15 properties from the protection of the Ontario Heritage Act Part V Designation within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District; • reconfirmed the CPDP goal of, "Cultural Heritage: The integration of cultural heritage into the new community by drawing on the physical legacies of original aboriginal and European occupations."; • reconfirmed City Council's requirement that the Neighbourhood plans "incorporate significant built heritage resources into the lot pattern of the new and mixed use neighbourhood"; and • recognized Whitevale Road between Golf Course Road and Sideline 22 as a "Character Road" with significant "built heritage resources" adjacent to the road. One of the justifications provided in the 2013 OMB ruling for the restatement of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District eastern boundary is, "that cultural heritage was comprehensively considered it the development of the CPDP". While several studies have been performed in recent years, and it does appear that consideration for protection of heritage assets have been incorporated into the CPDP, the actions now being taken by Infrastructure Ontario suggest that when it comes to execution of the plan, cultural heritage assets are not being protected at all. Four of the properties along the "Character Road" stretch are on this list of 15 being considered for demolition and two of these are on designated "Heritage Lots". Two more of the 15 properties being considered for demolition outside the "Character Road" area are also on "Heritage Lots". Some of the 15 properties were listed in the Part V Whitevale Heritage Conservation District registration under the Ontario Planning Act and one (incredibly) is a beautiful, rare example of stonemason craftsmanship that was recently designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act on April 22, 2014. We are shocked that given all the discussions, negotiations, rulings and official designations under Ontario Law, these properties could even be considered for demolition. The CPDP claims to be concerned with preserving heritage assets, and the OMB ruling claimed that OPA 22 would provide the tools to continue to adequately protect our cultural heritage, however the fact that the demolition of these properties is now being considered suggest these Cultural Heritage Assets actually have no protection and that in spite of the language used in the OMB ruling on the matter and the CPDP, the protection of built heritage is not a priority. 251 ATTACHMENT# 7 70 REPORT , c.1 Q- We expect that this is largely a financial decision and understand of course that your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, which we respect. However,we believe there are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation to pursue. We believe demolition of built heritage assets should properties should only ever be considered as a last resort. During Phase Two of the hearing, the OMB heard evidence on maintenance and ownership of built heritage from the City of Pickering's heritage and planning experts. In our closing submission, a representative of the Whitevale and District Residents' Association requested the following: 1. A Recommendation from the Chair that the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham and the Province of Ontario enter into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") to sell the Built Heritage within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District and Seaton Urban Area to the original land owners or current tenants; and 2. A Recommendation from the Chair that the City of Pickering, Regional Municipality of Durham and the Province of Ontario enter into an MOU to ensure all Built Heritage resources remain occupied. During Phase Two of the hearing, the planning expert for the City of Pickering, Mr. Paul Lowes, was asked a series of questions during cross examination regarding the Built Heritage of the Seaton Urban Area Development. When asked specifically who he believed would be the best steward of heritage properties Mr. Lowes replied: "It would be appropriate for the person living in the property to own the property, subject to Dr. Bray's recommendations that if the property is transferred it should also be designated under the Ontario Heritage Act. I agree that having owners and occupiers being one and the same would be appropriate to preserve the Heritage Buildings" Minister Coteau, selling Built Heritage properties to the original land owner or current tenant was done for the lands west of the Whitevale Hamlet. The City of Pickering was involved in this process. The Central Pickering Development Plan states on page 12: Commencing in 1999, the Ontario Realty Corporation sold the agricultural lands located west of the Duffins Creek and within the Town of Pickering to the original land owners or tenant farmers. The sale was based on a Memorandum of Understanding signed by three levels of government-the Province, the Regional Municipality of Durham and the Town of Pickering- 252 ATTACHMENT#, _`0 REPORT# 4\10 -l5 _.. :.._.. that committed all parties to ensuring that the lands remained in agricultural use in perpetuity. The memorandum of Understanding was supported by conservation and agricultural easements being placed on the lands. Why is the Built Heritage east of Whitevale being treated differently than those to the west? Given these properties are currently owned by the Province,we believe the Province should take the lead and start the process of returning these lands to their original owners or current tenants as they have in the past. During Phase Two of the hearing the City of Pickering put into evidence the state of the Built Heritage in the Seaton Urban Area Development. in fact, the City of Pickering's own expert in cultural and heritage planning, Dr. Carl Bray, stated in his expert witness statement: Ideally the plan [updated Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Plan] would include a memorandum of understanding between the City and the Province regarding commitments by the latter to conserve Provincially- managed significant cultural heritage resources by designating them under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and ensuring that built heritage resources remain occupied and secure until the new neighbourhoods adjacent to them are built and occupied. [emphasis added] A conservation and preservation strategy is clearly required. Currently the state of Pickering's Built Heritage varies substantially. Consider the following four examples taken from the Seaton Built Heritage Assessment Prepared by Andre Scheinman, Heritage Preservation Consultant, in November 2004 for the North Pickering Land Exchange Team. The first two examples (reference A & B) are properties which are currently unoccupied and now being considered for demolition. The second two (reference C & D) are properties which are currently occupied but for which their futures are very uncertain should the first two be destroyed. A. Albright Farmstead - 1050 Whitevale Road The Farmstead at 1050 Whitevale Road was given to Aaron Albright from the Crown in 1852, originally set aside as part of the Clergy Reserve. The existing brick dwelling was built sometime after 1861, but likely from the physical/stylistic evidence within a decade of that date. 253 AT AC HMENT C;i_P RT - ?4.1 0j-)5 Substantial heritage fabric remains including window surroundings with paneled dada, door surrounds and baseboards. Unfortunately serious damage occurred due to roof leaks. The property is considered to be of Local Significance. When visited 10 years ago this building was tenanted and considered an 'A' category structure though the sidelights and transom of the main entrance had been 'bricked in' sometime previous to that. However, since that time the building has become derelict. The fine 6/6 wood sash and, more significantly, the pointed arch sash with bar tracery have been removed from the building and replaced with vinyl units which bear no resemblance to the original sash. Of greater concern is the longstanding neglect of a roof leak that has allowed the roof structure and portions of the interior to be sorely damaged, a condition that appears to be ongoing and has not been addressed. This building is certainly, at minimum, of Local Significance, and both the decision-maker with regards to window replacement and the neglect leading to its denigration are extremely unfortunate. ❖ See Attachment 1 for Photographs of the Albright Farmstead from Mr. Scheinman's Report B. Nathaniel Hastings House- 1130 Whitevale Road This lot was originally part of the extensive lands granted by the Crown to Isabella Hill. This house was built c. 1835-40 and is the only one within the area studies by Mr. Scheinman that was recorded in'the 1851 consensus as being of stone. The building is a fine example of the vernacular adaptation of Anglo-Palladian (Georgian) motifs and is one of the few five bay residents built this early in the area. The Nathaniel Hastings House is considered to be of high Regional Significance. The loss of original windows is unfortunate but otherwise much of the heritage fabric remains, including much of the interior. However, it is under threat and gradual attrition by neglect and low quality repairs/maintenance. Of particular 254 ATTACHMENT#_ €0 REPORT# ?4d D�1 l5 concern currently is the condition of the roof which appears about ready to fail and allow moisture to penetrate the historic interior ❖ See Attachment 2 for Photograph of the Nathaniel Hastings House from Mr. Scheinman's Report C. Former Schoolhouse— 3215 Sideline 28 The Former School (the "Whitevale Schoolhouse") is a Greek Revival School Building built in 1864-65. After being declared redundant, the building was saved from demolition by its being purchased, restored and renovated as a private home by the current occupant, Mr. Charles Neville, who bought the building in 1968 only to be expropriated in 1972. This rural school conforms closely to the prototype developed by J. G. Hodgins in his guidelines for school buildings in Upper Canada (1859) and still has many student names and dates incised into the relatively soft brick. • While the interior has been renovated for use as a private home, it has been done so with great respect for its former use preserving and revealing such items as original plaster cornice, chalkboards and coat rails. The fine heavy timber king-post roof structure remains unchanged. • This resource is considered to be of high Regional Significance for the following reasons: • It was the educational and social focus of the community over 100 years where the education of the youth or generations of Majorville (Whitevale) and region took place; • It is a key landmark on the eastern approach to Whitevale. The Whitevale School has been carefully preserved and maintained by Mr. Neville who purchased it just prior to expropriation. ❖ See Attachment 3 for Photographs of the Whitevale Schoolhouse from Mr. Scheinman's Report • D. William Turner House-3250 Sideline 28 255 ATTACHMENT L--7_ -- 0 FE.PORT# pAi' Del-1 William Turner arrived in Pickering form New Brunswick in 1841 and settled on this land. His descendants remained on the property until just after World War Two. Mr. Chris Kahn purchased the William Turner House in September 1973, his wife Allison moved in about four years later. Mr. Khan is a carpenter and handyman and has continued to occupy the William Turner House since its purchase nearly 40 years ago. A substantial amount of original detailing remains throughout the house including front door treatment,window and door castings, base and chair rail and wide pine flooring. Most impressive however is the wood paneled window embrasure and the heavy 2nd floor joists, finely planed and with beaded edges indicating clearly that they were always intended to be exposed. The William Turner House is considered Regionally Significant. Both interior and exterior remain quite intact including the early and now rare features. The site context also retains integrity except for the loss of barns. ❖ See Attachment 4 for Photographs of William Turner House from Mr. Scheinman's Report We agree with both City of Pickering experts and feel the best way to protect these cultural heritage resources from the same fate of neglect and denigration is to sell them back to the original or current owners who would be the best stewards of these significant properties. In the cases where sales to the original or current owners are not possible, sale of the properties into private hands under appropriate conditions of heritage preservation is the next best alternative. Other important heritage homes in the Whitevale area have been preserved through this method including the posting of a performance bond by purchasing party to assure proper restoration and quality of workmanship. We respectfully ask that you please intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other valuable pieces of Ontario's history are not lost in spite of the contrary actions and commitments that have already been made by all levels of government involved in this matter. 256 ATTACHMENT#�.--! `r^R REPORT'.)c Lr* of is Please feel free to contact representatives of the Whitevale and District Residents' Association at quig.robert @gmail.com or srfinlayson @hotmail.com to discuss the matter further. We are very interested in working with you to protect these heritage assets for future generations to enjoy. Sincerely, • Scott Finlayson Robert Qu'rg President, Whitevale and District Vice President, Whitevale and District Residents' Association Residents' Association Copy: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Attorney General of Ontario Joe Dickson, MPP Ajax-Pickering Heritage Pickering Mayor Ryan Members of Council Members, Ontario Municipal Board Members, Ontario Heritage Trust Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services Director, Office of Sustainability Chief Planning Officer 257 ATTACHMENT#__Z___TO RE-=ART 241•3 014-15 Attachment 1 Photographs of the Albright Farmstead from Mr. Scheinman's Report e .. 7< � • • •• . Fig. ''Lame aroc pct horn F .I: ricw.frani southeast • • • • • • 258 AYTACt-irV1ENT# 7 To REPOITI # PLA oLl-i5 Attachment 2 Photograph of the Nathaniel Hastings House from Mr. Scheinman's Report . _- . .. 1 ' '- ,.r. P,-,,---:-. .,4,W .1,T.:=,, 414. ty 4 --' ' ."-''' ,, ,.1!;.:,_ _,„_, xr .j. ,,. ' lk......,:,"'="Ty4A0. -aff.a.4 .....t 0,,.., :',:,• -:-,,Z;7':nt.t..4.,.._ . .A::,:77. .n.,;71.-• •,--,-..,;--.:v„Iii,, -..f,: or.;----w-''''''_--..,s1-:-..„.;-,,:?.-.4-- .---7.m: -:-.‘4 T.':--.:;771.-4.9 ."--...1.7,- -.i.,-';,-,-,1.,-w:.•,..-....r . IF'--,.. ..--- "' ,' 4,-. "'-.:.:_- r.t..',.-,..; -,7 A '''%-!. 4...- ,, '-,t..- ,:-.''',"2a-,- ' .:, ,'„..,.,-.,'..4-ifi •:. ....tr,- ,4,:,, -,'--0,45,-*--,:rla-C^55-!-V, 1 ;'''. ,.„_.,_,..;"_- _,,..77. i*. „L.,'`,,'.- .,-, '''' , ::,.1.1, - ,,'-p- ,,:-.• ,r,‘A'r 171*";ATIta '.,,/;,4f*. :1141.: 1;K.!1:1'''',cf 1.11'.L le.:',4"Pi,ra i-lt::'-'4;."..,' '1 Li y ' .,0.4iw------V:--- -- ,-j,-,- ---..-,,„„:-- ri;.:2,,,,....-:,' :4 .. '7 ' + 7- :410,-,1,:yr , -., ----...‘r. --n,'. -1 ,..t:-,,--4,....- - , ,-,,,.• ._ -,L,. , , ,,,,,--,-.7:-. - - , :-,---, . ,„ . , elyi_ , -.. ...- , ,,. '' e-t,. .'7,- -,, .11.- - -.'4 - '' - ,t--., . • . .. P ---14- .- .- 7 - ,/-•A-r-7-;-:' -...,-.— --,.,_-,- f:-'• .. , -. ,.-4,..--..-04.----TN ,.._„ . , ,, , _J.: ,-..:.2*,%.,..,e.. ,..,-;-.3•.•-!•.. '''..-.. -- .''. ' " - _ .. Fig.2:View form southeast Fig 1:Front elevation ' ,._. ..... • ■-17:4,:.:. .1".. : : ' . • .■ ',7 a ' . • • ': Z.--,qta'''.'"4",!:.1.:7_,,at.,4 . . -.■-:' -1:,,a, .:'" • ' " ' - -• 41:1' , . . •.., . 7,t E I s , . :.-., ' 4 11, e, _ . i_ , t r i o , _ ., ,: '-4.--,.-=.1* ' i ,4-_-,--7?%.•‘-::;,;':%-",:-;,;,77 . ,-. - .2.. - ir , oi _pig7-"-r ti-' -.-tx=7 ,..-..r.. --:-.1-1';M:-..;2;;;;.7.7.7;A:7 '' " '-":-";; '." ' ■ ;',.'''''' ' '''- 4`174.-i -`_,,,-„f-'3":, ir' _„-,—,-' ,..!'-',.?,=.2.2:7,-:',2-74',:.7:-"-TNAV" $i-=''.)7.----T* '..t-::- ':r.;.. •'-..:-".Its: . 1 A:7* . ,,,it,„ .:711,41,4,,.. -.--- -.,,..-- '::; ',::::: ...,';: -,,,;- -,L,'.,,,.:-;•1. IT i I „ !,..-1 Fig.3: Parlour fireplace surround i ': ',';',2' -ttk::::.,71;,.. .=.:'',:.+,. ...4 t. '. -,:: ;ft-., - •:. —--. ., -: = -'''-*'-,....V.").12:'0.■r4.i.',.*1 "---.41..: 'N .. 1 4, ' - ' z--r---r77-,.:777 ..,,, ...r.p. r-,., . &-•.,,,.. ,, : : - . ,.' : ,_ . ' ,, ----'''`,r=' - :"":" : .. ,- '4"..7 7:5:;■-'1,-,-.7:::Fi:: - 'W.1-7-, a .,..„, A ,,, I - i ,. . '.:-7.,-,m..."7.-- --,"'..r.",";:.• -.."-"-'71,- -".-,Z.-11,..,"--""---s4-:-'7, -- ..;--",,y- v.,"--"K'... ..":"'''' ":".:7' ';-..' :-'7 '5"; ' • ; =":"•.1;,=:72.' '''.".-''.' ,-":----7'="247/.71"=7:.'4 "-"=".7"":":".".::=,''.''''-="7=7-7 ' --7t-t'L:-."-- -•': :i'"'S'i-tX- -Z. -.': '-'"--;:i 1'4*'''' t -"-,6,::: ; - - _ d;1="...j.;,:-: :::.,,,....: .f..--7,. "-±-;,::2;:-4:`,,,.. 't•-,--1-`-.L1„,=?4',";'-'"-*:.:.. ' Ti iiii.." ,:i,i_ ,,_. ., It it I,11,,ioitottitt t1.7 it ' '1 Fig.4:Early 'kt7ob'newel tt. ' ..- . ot, ..-- ..-.4 '' 'a i ---- ' 'z. ----1,-m:: '-'• , -, ,,,, 'lte" .. ''' J_- — Fig.5:Ban?interior 259 ilE''U4? t (6 p4-15 _.. Attachment 3 Photographs of the Whitevale Schoolhouse from Mr. Scheinman's Report a ::1 -a - 4 :-. ` c., - ,L - PA-•Rr $, " r� + ,, h b L ni ga,tP t.. r'. .rte, Im `7 r, ,77 .F'r''1: Fer ercre.Note tiotestor,o cupola. 1 i .2: 7611.cr' a iort€rht.. 1 `sue , -, - , .. �}}.t,, .:1 =1 } + _.tom 4Y-raw ,,::',:5- ' �1 ., a s: _ = - Frg.4. Vestige ofplaster comir Fix3: 'x.:..-lined c.19.11;Jodi&plantings , -7 .. ; �, ."-mat,. = -` 0 t t U ry fit row, k _ Fig.5: Chalkboards remain in place, t� . - 260 Attachment 4 Photographs of William Turner House from Mr. Scheinman's Report .. • pJ .+ z " E ,r= Irl- ,4*.,,,, { • } ' —_,_.4. - :Y!. . s� h .r w ` -i,'4e ii vx: ,r.5 14 f-. t- 7s 4 s , ,1•' r `,. 4 , rC,� ' , y ' �v 3I{ d ,tt qd.,,+.f yT•• i aS�„ r;� ,:5-,44,14- - ,r, Kam.. '�'t�. ar .� Fig. 1: Front elevation and perennial beds Fig.2: ll'est elevation&later entrance to cellar - - ,,; .... - .1 :on S .. f-�# # ,t " 5 t ` • "�� %i t 0,4,;.:,,,,_1;;;14,•,,,,,_1;;;14,•,-5,, 1l ' O r re � E a o - F - _ t f.w I t - t ' S s y A u.., „.ilk, z, i Ii —'ct .4 �. ! Fig.3: Original `cellar' kitchen irenlar:e Fig,4:Detail of beams&floorboards finished with edge bead • 1 .,;;a h , „# 1 . __, , i -� 7 _=_ J "` r. k s r A 261 Fig 5:Typical interiorfeatwres ATTACHMENT '' • REPORT ?LN 0.15�� u.L. Celebre, Cristina From: Marion Thompson Sent: March-30-15 10:45 AM To: Cc: . Subject: Built Heritage Threatened in Pickering The Honourable Michael Coteau • Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, Re: :Built Heritage Threatened in Seaton • I write to you as a concerned citizen of Ontario and a long-time resident of Whitevale. I have become aware that Infrastructure Ontario has begun the assessment process to demolish 15 heritage properties in the Seaton Lands in North Pickering. Having reviewed the list of properties in question, I am writing to express my deep concern that demolition of some of these properties is being contemplated. I am concerned not only about their immediate loss,but also about the potential for future losses of other provincially-owned homes. In fact, several of the.properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Their heritage value has already been established and any other owner other than the government of Ontario would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings. And,if the houses are deemed to be derelict, it has not escaped our notice that the Ontario Government has been the landlord for over 40 years! While this is likely a financial decision and I understand, of course,that your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, I believe there are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation to pursue. Demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort. I respectfully ask that you please intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other;valuable pieces of Ontario's history are not lost in spite of the contrary actions and commitments that have already been made by all levels of government involved in this matter. 1 - 262 ATTACHMENT#.__7 R P URI.; w 04_-15 Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Marion Thompson 437 Churphwin St. Whitevale, ON LOH MO Copy: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Attorney General of Ontario Joe Dickson, MPP Ajax-Pickering Heritage Pickering Mayor Ryan Members of Council Members, Ontario Municipal Board Members, Ontario Heritage Trust Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services . Director, Office of Sustainability Chief Planning Officer • • • 2 263 • e r1ACKVE # 7 - T Celebre, Cristina From: jerry mihailoff - Sent: March-30-15 1:26 PM To: Cc: • Subject: " Demolition Derby • The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport • Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, • Re: Built Heritage Threatened in Seaton • I am writing you as a concerned citizen of Ontario regarding the fact that I have become aware that Infrastructure Ontario has begun the assessment process to demolish 15 heritage properties in the Seaton Lands in North Pickering. • After having reviewed the list of properties in question, I am writing you to express my deep concern that the demolition of some of these properties is being contemplated. I am concerned not only -about their immediate loss, but also the potential for future losses of other provincially owned homes. Several of the properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act. Their heritage value has already been established and any other owner other than the government of Ontario would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings. • • While this is likely financial decision and I understand of course that•your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, I believe there are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation to pursue. Demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort. I respectfully ask that you please intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other valuable pieces of Ontario's history, are not lost in spite of the contrary actions and commitments that have already been made by all levels of government involved in this matter. Seven years ago we purchased a heritage property in the hamlet of Whitevale. With careful renovations, we upgraded the living spaces and preserved the heritage attributes of the buildings. It 1 264 ATTACHMENT REPOR ;+ PLA,_ 04-15 has become a more than comfortable place to live. The preservation of many of these heritage buildings should become available to others with the same desire to appreciate the historic significance of the structures and become stewards of our Ontario history. The accelerated mindless housing sprawl on our best farmland in the Whitevale community, exemplifies the mercenary approach developers have adopted to destroy the most important resources we own.Surely you can save and restore a few monuments to display to future generations that we are not heartless. In this critical time of "Save our Land and Water"can_you not make these exceptions to do our part? Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, • Jerrold Mihailoff Beverly Moroz • • • • • •• • • • •• 2 265 ,;PCIR :f PLN o-/5 Celebre, Cristina From: johnjudy duffus Sent: April-09-15 4:41 PM To: ' Cc: Subject: Heritage Buildings on Concession Road 5, Whitevale, Ontario The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Culture, Tourism and Sport I am writing to you about the proposal to demolish many heritage houses, currently owned by the province,on Concession Five in Whitevale. I understand that the demolitions are to make way for the Seaton project. I also understand that despite a heritage designation the province may over rule the designation if it so chooses. Concession Five is a part of Pickering's heritage. The area in question runs between Brock Road in the East and the village of Whitevale in the West. It runs in a straight line and rises and falls with the landscape. Along the road are many examples of early farmsteads. In particular there are several one storey stone houses, one larger stone house, 615 Whitevale Road, and the original schoolhouse at 3215 Sideline 28. This is a Greek revival school'building constructed in 1864-65. It has been lovingly preserved by the current resident. Of interest is the exterior where graduating students have etched their names over the past one hundred years. #615 was built by a Mr Major who founded the community of Whitevale,which was at first named Majorville. This beautiful house is located on the crest of a hill opposite to Sideline 26. This house is an important part of the history of settlement around the mill on Duffms Creek,over a hundred years ago. As such it should be preserved and maintained for future generations and not demolished. Your intervention in this matter will be appreciated by all local residents and by those interested in the history of the area. In grateful anticipation • Judy Duffms 479 Churchwin Street Whitevale, Ontario • LOH 1MO • ijduffus @gmail.com • • 1 266 ri PDHT ) J 1 Cq /J Celebre, Cristina From: Brigitte Sopher _ _ Sent: April-13-15 10:34 PM To: Cc: Subject: • Heritage Properties Threatened in Seaton Via E-mail to: internet.feedback.mtour @ontario.ca The Honourable Michael Coteau Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport Hearst Block, 9th Floor 900 Bay Street Toronto, ON M7A 2E1 Dear Minister Coteau, Re: Heritage properties threatened to be demolished in Seaton I am writing you as a concerned citizen of Ontario and resident of the Heritage Hamlet of Whitevale. I have recently become aware that Infrastructure Ontario has begun the assessment process to demolish 15 heritage properties in the Seaton Lands in North Pickering. I know some of the properties in question(for instance the beautiful stone house "Nathaniel Hastings House" at 1130 Whitevale Road)and I have reviewed.the list of all the properties slated for demolition. I am writing you to express my deep concern about the impending loss of what is part of our region's heritage.Several of the properties being considered for demolition already have some form of heritage designation under the Ontario Heritage Act.Some have been labelled as being of"high regional significance".Some are simply beautiful wood or stone.structures from the 19th century,which represent various periods in our region's history.Their heritage value has already been established and any owner other than the government of Ontario would be obligated to maintain and protect these buildings.Once demolished they would represent an irreplaceable loss for our community and even for our province. This is likely a financial decision and I understand that your office has a responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario. However, your responsibility is not only to accommodate today's taxpayers, it is also to consider the preservation of our cultural assets for the benefit of future generations.There are alternatives to demolition that all involved parties have an obligation to pursue. Demolition of built heritage assets should only ever be considered as a last resort. Examples in neighbouring towns such as Markham have demonstrated that such buildings can be sold and lovingly restored by dedicated owners.They contribute to the pride we have in our roots, in the culture and history of our community. The fate of these buildings deserve careful consideration. I respectfully ask that you intervene in this process and help ensure that these and other valuable pieces of Ontario's history are not lost, in spite • 1 267 AT TO REPORT 4N 5 # C?�f-I of the contrary actions and commitments that have already been made by all levels of government involved in this matter. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. Sincerely, Brigitte Sopher • Copy: Hon. Kathleen Wynne, Premier of Ontario Hon. Madeleine Meilleur, Attorney General of Ontario Joe Dickson, MPP Ajax-Pickering Heritage Pickering Mayor Ryan • Members of Council Members, Ontario Municipal Board Members, Ontario Heritage Trust Chief Administrative Officer Director, Community Services Director, Office of Sustainability Chief Planning Officer • . i 2 268