The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutNovember 12, 2001PICKERING AGENDA PLANNING COMMITTEE Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer NOVEMBER 12, 2001 Planning Committee Meeting Monday, November 12, 2001 7:30 P.M. Chair: Councillor Johnson ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of October 9, 2001 MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 38-01 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 08/01 E. WlLLIAMSON SOUTH PART OF LOT 32, CONCESSION 1 £EAST SIDE OF ALTONA ROAD NORTH OF SHEPPARD AVENUE)___ 1-16 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 37-01 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S-P 2000-04 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 02/01 SEAN MICHAEL GREENE PART OF LOT 3, PLAN 282 (ROCKWOOD DRIVE. NORTH OF HOGARTH STREET) 17-52 " 1 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD _~9-0 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS 53-95 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 40-01 DURHAM TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN PUBLIC CONSULTATION DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2001 CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS 96-183 ADJOURNMENT Planning Committee Meeting Monday, November 12, 2001 7:30 P.M. Chair: Councillor Johnson ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of October 9, 2001 (11) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 38-01 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 08/01 E. W1LLIAMSON SOUTH PART OF LOT 32, CONCESSION 1 (EAST SiDE OF ALTONA ROAD, NORTH OF SHEPPARD AVENUE) 1-16 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 37-01 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S-P 2000-04 ZON1NG BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 02/01 SEAN MICHAEL GREENE PART OF LOT 3, PLAN 282 (ROCKWOOD DRIVE, NORTH OF HOGARTH STREET) 17-52 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 39-01 FIVE-YEAR REVIEW OF THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT CITY OF PICKER1NG COMMENTS 53-95 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 40-01 DURHAM TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN PUBLIC CONSULTATION DRAFT - SEPTEMBER 2001 CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS 96-183 (HI) ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01, submitted by E. Williamson, on the lands being South Part of Lot 32, Concession 1, City of Picketing, to amend the zoning of the lands from "A" - Rural Agricultural to an appropriate zone category to recognize the existing dwelling and detached garage containing a second dwelling unit, and to permit the creation of 4 additional residential lots, fronting Altona Road, with minimum frontages of 15.0-metres, be .APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 38-01: and That the request made by E. Williamson, to permit the division of the subject lands, being South Part of Lot 32, Concession t, to create a total of 4 additional residential building lots through land severance rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED. OO2 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: October 30, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 38-01 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01 E. Williamson South Part of Lot 32, Concession 1 (East side of Altona Road, north of Sheppard Avenue) City of Pickering RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01, submitted by E. Williamson, on the lands being South Part of Lot 32, Concession 1, City of Pickering, to amend the zoning of the lands from "A" - Rural Agricultural to an appropriate zone category to recognize the existing dwelling and detached garage containing a second dwelling unit, and to permit the creation of 4 additional residential lots, fronting Altona Road, with minimum frontages of 15.0-metres, be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 38-01; and; That the request made by E. Williamson, to permit the division of the subject lands, being South Part of Lot 32, Concession 1, to create a total of 4 additional residential building lots through land severance rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01 submitted to the City of Pickering. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proPosed development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The subject property is located on the east side of Altona Road, north of Sheppard Avenue and currently supports a detached dwelling, a detached garage (containing a second dwelling unit), a frame building and a frame barn (see Attachment #1 - Location Map). The subject lands are currently zoned "A" - Agricultural, which requires a minimum lot frontage of 60.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectares for residential uses. Report to Council PD 38-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 2 003 The applicant has requested an amendment to the zoning by-law for the portion of the property fronting Altona Road, to permit the creation of 4 additional lots each with a minimum lot frontage of 15 metres and to recognize thc existing dwelling and detached garage containing a second dwelling unit (see Attactnnent =2 - Applicant's Submitted Plan). it is our understanding that the applicant intends to demolish tile frame buildina and frame barn structures and leave the existing dwelling and detached garage. The applicant has submitted Land Division applications LD 102/01 to 106/01 to the Region of Durham Land Division Committee which have been tabled pending the completion of this Zoning By-law Amendment Application and a decision from City Council respecting the request to develop the subject lands by the land division process as opposed to draft plan of subdivision. A condition of approval for thc land severance applications will be that the owner \ applicant enter into an appropriate agreement with the City to address matters t.uoically dealt with through a draft plan of subdivision. The proposed lots are compatible with existing lots in tile area. The valley lands and buffer areas associated with Petticoat Creek have been delineated and will be appropriately zoned to protect the valley. Accordingly, it is recommend that Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01 be approved subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 38-01 and that Council approve the applicant's request tbr exemption to develop by land severance as opposed to draft plan of subdivision. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information meeting was held on August 9, 2001, to discuss the applicant's proposal. Information Report No. 23-01, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues identified through circulation of the application, was prepared for the meeting. The text of the information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #4). At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff gave an explanation of the application. No residents appeared at tile Public Information Meeting. Minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment #5. 2.0 Additional Information Since the preparation of Information Report No. 23-01, the following agency comments have been received: Veridian Connections and tile Durham District School Board have advised that they have no objections to the application. The Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that they have no objections to the proposed amendment. Conditions respecting servicing, road widening, access and noise attenuation will be required through tile associated land severance process (see Attachment # 6). Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has advised that they have no objections to the proposed zoning amendment and proposed severances provided that the valleylands and buffer are recognized itl an appropriate zoning designation to prohibit the construction of structures, the placement of fill and the removal of vegetation. In addition, the TRCA has requested that the applicant be required to construct a c~hain link fence at the rear of the proposed lots and that this be a condition of approval (see Attachment #7). 0O4 Report to Council PD 38-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 3 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Appropriateness of the Application The applicant's proposed development is an isolated infill development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood. The surrounding neighbourhood has a limited number of existing lots fronting Altona Road which provide lot frontages of approximately 20 metres in size and newer subdivision developments which provide lot frontages of 15.0 metres and less. The applicant's proposal includes a request to recognize the location of the existing dwelling and detached garage which will be located on the proposed northerly lot (labeled as parcel 1 on the applicant's submitted plan). Special recognition of these structures is required as they will not comply with the proposed general zoning provisions for the development. The implementing by-law will permit the continuance of these buildings as they exist on the day of the passing of the by-law. The intent of this provision is to allow an existing situation to remain but will require any future redevelopment of the proposed lot to be in conformity with the by-law' provisions established for the adjacent lots. The applicant has also requested that the existing second dwelling unit located within the second storey of the detached garage be recognized in the implementing by-law. The zoning amendment for the second dwelling unit is to recognize an existing situation on a proposed lot (Parcel I on the applicant's submitted plan - See Attachment #2) that provides sufficient parking area to accommodate the second dwelling unit. 3.2 Land Severances Four additional lots are proposed to be created from the subject lands, through the land severance process. Section 15.26(b) of the Pickering Official Plan states that City Council shall limit the creation of lots for residential purposes by land severance to a maximum of three, and require that an ownership of land capable of being divided into more than three additional lots be developed by a plan of subdivision, except where it is demonstrated to Council's satisfaction that a plan of subdivision is neither appropriate nor necessary in which case Council may authorize the development to proceed by land severance. The subject lands are capable of being divided into more than three additional lots, and therefore permission is required from Council to allow development of these lands to proceed through the land severance process. The applicant's proposal is for four additional lots only and is does not warrant the requirement for development by plan of subdivision. The City's interests can be appropriately addressed and protected through conditions of land severance approval. It is anticipated that the owner's remaining lands located on the east side of Petticoat Creek will be developed by plan of subdivision in the future. Development of the lands fronting Altona Road will create a "landlocked" condition for the remainder of the applicant's property. Section 20.7.6 of the Region of Durham Official Plan permits the creation of a land locked parcel related to a land assembly for a future subdivision proposal provided that there is an overall plan indicating the approximate extent of the land assembly and provisions for future access. The applicant has been in discussion with the City of Pickering regarding the future development of their land holdings on the east side of Petticoat Creek. The future lands will have access to a public road from the abutting approved draft plan of subdivision to the north. Report to Council PD 38-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 4 095 3.3 Protection of the Petticoat Creek Valley The Petticoat Creek Valley crosses through the applicant's land holdings at the rear of tile proposed severed lots. A field review was completed with TRCA staff, City staff and the applicant tbr the purpose of identifying the location of tine top of bank and to establish an appropriate buffer area. The applicant submitted a supporting slope stability study that provided recommendations which indicated that tile stable slope line is located within the top of bank line. Revisions were required to ensure the stable slope line and top of bank were not located within the limits of the proposed severed Jots. The slope stability report also provided comment ttnat slope stability could be enhanced by restoration wittn selective native plantings including deep rooting systems which would penetrate the original buried topsoil. Tine applicant has submitted a planting plan prepared by a landscape architect to enhance the slope stability as outlined in the report. The TRCA tnas requested that tile valleylands and buffer immediately adjacent to the proposed lots be recognized in an appropriate zoning designation to prohibit tile construction of structures, tile placement of fill and the removal of vegetation. The TRCA has not requested that the vallevlands and buffer be conveyed to a public authority at this time, however they have indicated that through the future draft plan of subdivision process the valleylands and buffer areas will be further defined and then subsequently transferred into public ownership. 3.4 Access to Altona Road To address safety concerns respecting the number of access points onto Altona Road, the applicant proposes to pair the driveways to the proposed severed lots. The preliminary design of these shared driveways provides a "turnaround" area for the proposed lots in order to provide safe in,ess/egress to the proposed lots (See Applicant's Proposed Driveway Configuration Attachment #3). The applicant has been in consultation with the Region of Durham Works Department regarding the access points. The shared driveways will be established through easements which will be created through tlne associated land severance applications. 3.5 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions It is recommended that a modified "R4" --Fourth Density Residential Zone be applied to the portion of the subject property that fronts Altona Road. \Vhile various zoning requirements in this category will be typical of"R4" standards applied elsewhere in the City (i.e. frontage, area and yard requirements) it is recommended that some special standards be applied in this circumstance to recognize thc existing dxvelling and detached garage in their current location on the northerly proposed lot and recognition and establishment of zoning standards for the second dwelling unit which is located in the existing detached garage. It is recommended that all of those lands identified as ~'opcn space" by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be zoned in an "OS-HL" Open Space-Hazard Land zone category to protect natural features within those areas, and to restrict any development within the zone (see Appendix 1). 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has reviewed the contents of this Report. and concurs with the contents. 0O6 Report to Council PD 38-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 5 ATTACHMENT S: 1. Property Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan 3. Applicant's Proposed Driveway Configuration 4. Information Report 5. Minutes of Public Information Meeting 6. Region of Durham 7. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: TyCr Barnett ~--~____ Plarmerj~ Neil Carroll, MCIP RPP Director, Planning & Development Lynda Taylor, MCIP RPP Manager, Current Operations JTB/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ., __ ~------ _ Z :,z'.~- ,'2. ~" · . · ' ' ' :' r Tl~o~as J. Quinn, ~hmf A~d4mnlstratlOe4:~.ffice APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 38-01 RECCOMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 08/01 1.0 3.0 That prior to the lbnvarding of the implementing zoning by-law to Council for consideration, the applicant shall provide a reference plan illustrating the proposed severances, the existing dwelling, the detached garage and the boundaries of the open space hazard lands to the satisfaction of the City. That the implementing zoning by-law: a) shall amend Bv-law 3036 by changing the zoning on the portion of the subject property that fronts Altona Road from "A" Rural Agricultural Zone to an appropriate zone category to permit the development of 4 additional residential lots with minimuna lot frontage s of 1,5.0 metres: b) include but not limited to, the following performance standards and requirements: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) minimum lot I¥ontages of 15.0 metres; minimum lot areas of 460 metres: nfinimum side yard oI~ 1.5 metres on one side and 2.4 metres on the other expect where an attached private garage is provided then 1.5 metre side yards shall apply on both sides: mininmm front yard depth of'7.5 metres: minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres; maximum lot coverage of 33 percent; maximum of 1 dwelling unit per lot with a minimum gross floor area of 100 square metres; despite (vii) above, establish appropriate provisions to recognize the existing second dwelling unit located in the detached garage on the northerly proposed lot: shall establish appropriate provisions to recognize the existing dwelling and detached garage on the proposed northerly lot; and shall zone the portion of the lands abutting the Petticoat Creek Valley in an appropriate "OS-HL" - Open Space Hazard Land zone category restricting any' development within that zone. That the following condition be included in comments to the Land Division Committee regarding applications LD 102/01 to LD 106/01. a) That the owner/applicant enter into an appropriate development agreement to the satisfaction of the City to address matters to include, but not necessarily limited to, servicing, easements, road restoration, grading and drainage, boulevard tree planting, driveway location and paving, fencing, parkland dedication contribution, contributions for downstream oversizing and or shared se~qcing costs, and required securities to ensure completion of thc project. 008 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD v~-~OG° oO~yG\°°G NE AVENUE GROVE TRANQUIL SPAR/~OW SUMMERPARK CRES. SUMMERPARK CRES. WOODSMERE CRESCENT WESTCREEK bANE :RFORO STREET ~IDS SUBJECT OF A 08/01 WATERFOR£ GATE FOXWOOD LAWSON STREET AUTUMN CRES. T~/YN RIVERS DRIVE City of Pickering SHEPPARO AVENUE Planning & Development Depar[ment PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 32, CONCESSION 1; PART 1,40R-20197 ,/~ OWNER E. WILLIAMSON JUN 22, 2001 DRAWN BY RC /, APPLICATION No. A 08/01 DATE SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY TB FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-IO PA- *,TTACH,L~ENT ~~TO REPORT # PD~ 009 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMII-I'ED PLAN E. WILLIAMSON A 8/01 T.R.C.A. L~--~-~ X ~' ' ~ , - - (~.018 ha- 9 93 ac.)' FOR FUTURE DRAF~ p[AN~, SUBMISSION ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONFIGURATION E. WILLIAMSON A 8/01 62.0 70.2 16 15 INFORMAf~ON ~SUPPORT 5ERVIC~ OCTOBER ~1, 2001 $TTACHIV, ENT ~' ~-...~_ITO REPORT~ PD.~ '~..~ PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 23-01 FOR PUBI,IC I. FORMATION MEETING OF August 9, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05.01 E. Williamson South Part of Lot 32, Concession 1 (East side of Altona Road, north o£Sheppard Avenue) City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 3.2 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION tile applicant's total land holdings are located on the cast side of Altona Road, north of Sheppard Avenue; tile total holdings are 4.541 hectares in size and have 74.01 metres of frontage on thc east side of Ahona Road (see location map Attachment #1 ); only the xvest part of the applicant's property is subject of this application; the subject lands comprise a total land area ot' 0.607 of a hectare; one detached home, a detached garage and two accessory buildings exist on the subject lands; surrounding the subject lands are: the valley of the Petticoat Creek and vacant lands to the north and east; residential t.~ses to tile south and west. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the applicant proposes to rezone, the subject lands fronting Altona Road, from "A" - Agricultural Zone to "R4" - Detached Dwelling Residential Zone to permit the establishment of 15.0-metre lot frontages with the intent to establish four additional detached residential dwellings and to recogni×e the existing detached dwelling (see applicants submitted plan - Attachment #2): the applicant is proposing to establish two shared driveways which are to serve the four additional units with the intent to Iimit the number of access points onto Altona Road; it is anticipated that the two accessory buildings located arc to be demolished; the applicant has requested that Council authorize thc creation of the additional lots through the land severance process rather than by draft plan of subdivision: the applicant has submitted applications to thc Durham Land Division Committee (LD 102/01 to 106/01) which have been tabled pending the outcome of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 0S01. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan - the Durham Regional Official Plan designates tile subject lands as Living Area; - the applicant's proposal complies with this designation' Pickering Official Plan Schedule I of the Pickering Official Plan - Land Use Structure, identifies the lands subject of this application as being located within an Urba~t Residential Areas - Low De~sia' Area which permits residential development up to and including 30 units per hectare; 01¸2 information Report No. ATTACHMENT ~ ~,..~~TO REPORT ~ PD_ 3 $ - o t Page 2 3.3 4.0 4.1 the applicant is proposing 5 dwellings on 0.607 of a hectare, resulting in a net residential density of 8.2; the applicant's proposal complies with the density provision; section 15.25(b) of Pickering's Official Plan requires any ownership of land that is capable of being divided into more than three additional lots to be developed by a plan of subdivision, except where it is demonstrated to Council's satisfaction that a plan of subdivision is neither appropriate nor necessary; where these circumstances exist, Council may authorize the development to proceed by land severance; the applicant's total land holdings are capable of being divided into more than three additional lots, and therefore permission is required from Council to allow any development of these lands to proceed through the land severance process; the remainder of the owner's lands is designated Open Space System - Natural Areas along Petticoat Creek and Urban Residential Area - Medium DensiO, Area to the east of the creek; section 14.4 of the Picketing Official Plan states that the exact boundary of the open space system shall be determined in consultation with the Conservation Authority, and considering the results of any required Environmental Report; Schedule II - Transportation Network to the Official Plan designates Altona Road as a Type B Arterial road which indicates that Altona Road is designed to accommodate traffic at moderate speeds, provide some access restrictions and have a fight-of-way of 30 to 36 metres; Schedule III - Resource Management to the Official Plan designates the lands surrounding Petticoat Creek as an Environmentally Significant Area and a Shorelines and Stream Corridor; section 15.9 of the Picketing Official Plan states that City Council shall for "major" development, and may for "minor" development, require the submission and approval of an Environmental Report as part of the consideration of a development application within 50 metres of an Open Space - Natural Area, Environmentally Significant Area, or Shoreline and Stream Corridor designations; Schedule III also identifies the subject lands as lying within the Altona Forest Policy Area; sections 10.18 and 15.29 of the Official Plan provide guidance on development applications including the requirement to consult with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and the possible requirement for the submission of an Environmental Report, a Stormwater Management Report, and a Construction Management Report; section 11.12(d), Highbush Neighbourhood Policies, of the Official Plan requires new development to have regard for the Rouge Park Management Plan; Zoning By-law - Zoning By-law 3036 identifies the lands subject of this application as being designated "A" - Agricultural Zone, which requires a minimum lot frontage of 60 metres and a minimum lot area of 0.8 hectares; an amendment to the by-law is required to allow the applicant's proposal to proceed; the remainder of the owner's lands is designated as "A" Agricultural and "G" - Greenbelt. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments no written resident comments have been received to date; 4.2 4.3 Aglencv Comments - no written agency comments have been received to date; Staff Comments in evaluating the merits of this application, staff's review will include the following: - a comparison between the proposed lot frontage, and the range of existing lot frontages in the neighbourhood; - an assessment of the compatibility of the proposed development with the existing built form; Information Report No. 23-01 ATTACHMENT ~ '.--~TO F~EPORT # PD------~..~'¢ c, ~ Page 3 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 an assessment of the impacts that additional access points may have on the traffic of Altona Road; the need for a road widening adjacent to Altona Road: although the applicant, City staff, and TRCA staff have staked the top-of-bank prior to submission of the application, the proximity of the existing dwelling to the top-of-bank is of concern: thus. it must be determined whether it is appropriate to recognize the existing dwelling in its current location, or have it remain lawful non-conforming; - while this application appears to be "minor", staff must determine the need for the applicant to submit an Environmental Report: and the review of such Report if required; - whether the proposed development has had regard for the Rouge Park Management Plan; a determination of when. and if, the lands designated Ope~ 3~ace &'s~em - Natural Area should be conveyed to a public agency as a condition of this application or through the draft plan of subdivision that is anticipated for the remaining lands: an assessment of the need for the applicant to submit a stonnwater management plan, a construction management and/or an edge management plan, and the review of such studies and plans if required; - the appropriateness of the applicant's request to proceed bv land severance. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department: oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Recommendation Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department lbr a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to resen;e the option to appeal Council's decision, you nmst provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal: if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. OTHER INFORMATION Appendix I - list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report; Information Received the applicant has submitted a slope stability report and an archaelogical assessment report in support of the application: full scale copies of the applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Picketing Planning & Development Department. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Tyler Barnett Planner 1 JTB/ph Cop>': Director, Planning & Development ORIGINAL SIGNED BY L>qqda Taylor Manager. Current Operations t 14 Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes of Thursday, August 9, 2001 PICKERING STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES The Manager, Policy Division, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (i) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 08/01 E. WILLIAMSON SOUTH PART OF LOT 32, CONCESSION 1 (EAST SIDE OF ALTONA ROAD~ NORTH OF SHEPPARD AVE.) o Linda Taylor, Manager, Current Operations, on behalf of Tyler Barnett, Planner 1, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #23- 01. Kevin Tunney, representing the applicant, advised that they had inadvertently failed to recognize the existing house. Mr. Tunney also stated that the slope has been determined through working with the Conservation Authority and the plan has been modified as required. The rear set back has been adjusted to approximately 14m in depth. Lot frontages will be 53' except for the existing house, which is 100'. Driveways will be designed to enable a turnaround. /~TTACHMENT ~'_ TO 0!5 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department Box 623 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor tang Tower West Building . Whitby, Ontario Canada L1N 6A3 Tel: (905) 728-7731 Fax: (905) 436-6612 A. L. Georgieff, MCIp, RPP Commissioner of Planning August 9, 2001 Tyler Barnett, Planner I Planning & Development Department One the Esplanade Pickerin'g, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Barnett: Re; Zoning Amendment Application A 08101 Applicant: E. Williamson Location: South Part of Lot 32, Concession 1 Municipality: City of Pickering RECEIVED AUG I 6 200] DEVELOPMENT CSPARTMENT We have reviewed this application and the following comments are offered with respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Official Plan, the proposed method of servicing and delegated provincia plan review responsibilities. The purpose of the application is to amend the existing zoning from "A' - Agricultural Zone to "R4" - Detached Dwellinq Residential Zone to permit the establishment of 15.0 metre lot frontages with the ~-ntent to establish four additional detached residential dwellings and to recognize the existing detached dwellinq. The applicant has made applications to the Durham Land DMsion Committee for {'he proposed severances. However, the Land Division Committee has tabled the applications pending the outcome of th~s zoning by-law amendment application. The lands subject to the rezoning application are designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes and shall be developed to incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure. The proposed amendment is in conformity with the Durham Regional Official Plan. Municipal water and sanitary sewer services are available on the AItona Road frontage to service the subject lands. Reg onal requirements.with respect to servicing, road widening and access will be covered by appropriate conditions to be satisfied through the Land Division process. This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan rewew responsibilities. The subject site abuts Altona Road, a Type 'B' arterial road, creating the need for a detailed noise study. The study can be submitted for Regional rewew at the Land Division stage. No further provincial interests appear to be affected. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me. Yours truly, Ray Davies, Planner Current Operations Branch cc. Region of Durham Works Department, Attn. Vic Goad R:\trainln§~d ~.onmgto~a08.01 .doc ® 100% Pos~ Consumer n!c ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD pnservaEon RONTO AND REGION September 4, 2001 Mr. Tyler Barnett Planning Department City of Pickering Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 RECEIVED SEP - ? 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. Barnett: Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 08/01 Part Lot 32, Concession 1 (East Side of Altona Road north of Sheppard Road) City of Pickering (E. Williamson) CFN 32209.02 SEP 0 6 2001 CITY OF PICKERING RtCKERING, ONTARIO Further to our letter of July 25 2001 staff acknowledge receipt of'a revised plan Drawing Entitled Display Project No. TUN 391-1 as provided on August 27/01 and a Landscape Drawing prepared by Henry Kortekaas ane Associates (Drawing D1 of 1 File No. 01194-SP). The drawings have been revised to reflect TRCA concerns as follows. A buffer is being provided from the top of bank in accordance with the recommendations of a geotechnical report prepared by the applicant and approved by TRCA staff. Plantings are also proposed on the adjacent slope feature to further enhance the stability of the site. The proposed lots are sufficiently setback and a proposed buffer provided to address TRCA requirements. In light of this staff have no objections to the rezoning application and severance application being approved subject to the valleylands and buffer being recognized in the appropriate designation to prohibit the construction of structures, the placement of fill, and the removal of vegetation. We also note that the applicant must erect a chain link fence at the rear of the new lots to be created and request that this be a condition of approval. The applicant will alSO be required to apply and receive permits for any regrading within the Fill Regulated Areas prior to commencement of work on the subject lands. Finally staff note that the lands to be retained including the valleylands and buffer, are part of a subdivision application now being pursued by the applicant. Through this subdivision process staff will require that the valleylands and buffer be further defined and transferred to public ownership. We trust that this is satisfactory. If you 'have any questions please contact the undersigned. Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 RW/fa cc: Kevin Tunney, Tunney Planning Inc. F:\PRS\CORRESP\PICKERIN\CFN32209.02 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview. Ontario M3N .154 (4'16) 66'1-6600 [AX 66~-699g www. trca.on.¢a 017 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY That City Council recommend to Region of Durham, that Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P 2000-04, as revised, submitted by Sean Michael Greene, on lands known as Part of Lot 3, Plan 282, City of Pickering, be APPROVED AS FURTHER REVISED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 37- 01. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/01, to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P 2000-04 as revised, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix II to Report Number PD 37-01. REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: October 30, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 37-01 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P 2000-04 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/01 Sean Michael Greene Part of Lot 3, Plan 282 (Rockwood Drive, north of Hogarth Street) City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That City Council recommend to the Region of Durham, that Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P 2000-04, as revised, submitted by Sean Michael Greene, on lands known as Part of Lot 3, Plan 282, City of Picketing, be APPROVED AS FURTHER REVISED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 37-0l. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/01, to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P' 2(100-04 as revised, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix II to Report Number PD 37-01. ORIGIN: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P 2000-04 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/01, were submitted to the Region of Durham and City of Picketing respectively, by Sean Michael Greene, on behalf of the 10 property owners. A revision to Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P 2000-04 has also been submitted to the City of Pickering. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P 2000-04 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/01 propose to develop the subject lands for a residential subdivision consisting of 15 detached dwellings on lots with minimum frontages of 15.0 metres on a proposed extension of Rockwood Drive. Report to Council PD 3%01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP 2000-04 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 2 01_9 The associated rezoning proposes to amend the side yard, front yard and lot coverage provisions of fine current "R4" residential zoning cate?fy for detactned dwellings over the entire development, and retain the standard "R4" requirements for minimum lot frontages of 15.0 metres and minimum lot areas of 460 square Inetres. A property location map and reductions of the Applicant's (initial) Submitted Plan and tile Staff Recommended Plan are included as Attachments ~1, r-2 and .~3, respectively, to ttnis Report. Residential subdivision development of tine subject lands includes a northward extension of Rockwood Drive. The proposed subdivision provides lotting that is in character with existing development in this nei~hbourhood and constitutes an appropriate infill residential development. A number of conditions are recommended (as detailed in Appendix I and Appendix 1I to this Report) to promote efficient and orderly development of tile subject lands and compatibility with thc existing surrounding development, and to address a number of issues identified by sta'ff and surrounding residents. BACKGROUND: 2.0 2.1 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting for tins application was held on April 19, 2001. At the meeting, Infon'nation Report No. 12-(/1 was presented, wtnich summarizes the applicant's original proposal and outlines the issues and comments identified through circulation of the application to that date. information Report No. i2-01 is provided for reference (see Attachment #4). At the Public information Meeting, four area residents made comments about the proposed development, in addition to tine applicant and tile applicant's solicitor. Concerns expressed included safety of ctfildren on fine existing souttnerly portion ot' Rockwood Drive due to increased traffic, particularly during the construction of the proposed subdivision and opposition to an east-west connecting road betxveen Pine Grove and Woodview Avenues. Interest was expressed by owners of properties to the north of the subject lands in subdividing the rear portions of their lands with the further northward extension of Rockwood Drive to connect with the "Molinaro" subdivision (see Attachment #1). The Minutes of the Statutory Public Information Meeting are attached (see Attachment #5). Additional Information Comments Received From City Departlnents The Director of Operations & Emergency Services has advised that parkland is not required in this location and that cash-in-lieu of parkland will be required. In comments about the original Draft Plan submitted by tile applicant, the Development Control section of the Planning & Development Departme~2t advised that: · a stormwater management report will be required as will necessary easements for stormwater management purposes: · uneven rear lot lines for Lots ~=S to =15 were unacceptable as ttney would create drainage problems and require additional catch basins: · the rear lot line of Lot ~7 should be realigned to meet tile rear lot line of Block 55, located to the south of the proposed subdivision, in order to allow for proper development of Block 55 in conjunction with lands to the north; · a temporary turning circle should be required at thc north limit of Rockxvood Drive; · a preliminary grading and drainage plan, geotechnical investigation, sedimentation fencing and erosion controls and thc decommissioning of existing wells and septic systems on the subject lands should be required; · the applicant should be required to contribute to downstream oversizing costs and sizing of storm sewers to accommodate t'urttner upstream development; · a sidewalk slnould be required on tine east side of Rockwood Drive; 020 Report to Council PD 37-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP 2000-04 Datc: October 30, 2001 Page 3 · a 0.30 metre reserve should be provided across the frontage of the land between Lot #4 and Lot #5; the applicant should be required to obtain prior approval to any tree clearing or removal, or placement of fill within the property prior to execution of a subdivision agreement with the City; · the owner should be required to enter into a subdivision agreement to require provision of engineering drawings, roads, storm sewers sidewalks, street lighting, fencing, lot grading, tree planting and associated financial obligations and securities to the satisfaction of the City; · side yard widths for Lots #1, #7, #8 and #15 should be a minimum 1.5 metres to permit construction of dwellings without affecting existing adjoining properties. Upon submission of the revised draft plan by the applicant in September 2001, the Development Control section provided the following further comments: · the revised rear lot lines for Lots #8 to #15 and Lot #7 allow the grading and drainage plan to be submitted with normal engineering submissions, not as a condition of Draft Plan approval; · blocks of land should be provided to the City to accommodate the temporary turning circle for the new cul-de-sac terminus of Rockwood Drive, with these blocks to be returned to the adjacent lot owners when the cul-de-sac is removed and Rockwood Drive is extended further northward. It is recommended that the owner be required to enter a subdivision agreement with the City prior to registration of the plan to satisfy the foregoing City requirements. 2.2 Comments Received From Other Agencies Bell Canada requested that the conditions of Draft Plan Approval include installation of underground services and any required easements for Bell Canada telecommunication services (see Attachment #6). The Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that they have no concerns with this application (see Attachment #7). Canadian National Railways has advised that a clause, warning home purchasers about the proximity of railway operations and potential noise and vibrations, should be inserted in the subdivision agreement and in any agreements of purchase and sale for dwelling units within the subject subdivision. The applicant is also required to have a noise study undertaken to identify noise abatement measures to achieve maximum levels set by the Ministry of Environment and Canadian National for this proposal (see Attachment #8). 2.3 Comments Received From Area Residents Malcolm McKaye, a resident of Rockwood Drive to the south of the subject lands, expressed concern about the safety of children on the current dead end portion of Rockwood Drive once traffic from a further 15 homes starts using this portion of the street. Concern was also expressed respecting preservation of vegetation, drainage, grading, maintenance of property values if the subdivision is not constructed at one time, prematurity of this subdivision until such time as a proposal to subdivide the lands to the north is under consideration, and general concern that green space is being developed for new homes (see Attachment #9). Mr. & Mrs. Zung, also residents of the southern part of Rockwood Drive, expressed concern with the lack of a single developer to construct the homes at one time, that safety may be prejudiced if homes are not constructed at one time, that the development is premature until the lands to the north are also proposed to be subdivided and Rockwood Drive extended to connect with the "Molinaro" subdivision (see Attachment #10). Report to Council PD 37-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP 2000-04 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 4 Jim Morrison, representing thc Woodview Pinegrove Association, expressed concerns about the traffic impact of the subject proposal on Woodviexv Avenue and a possible east/west connection from Woodviexv to Pincgrove. Mr. Morrison requested a meeting of residents, the Planning Department and Council members to discuss alternate choices for an east/west connecting road (see Attachment ¢11). 2.4 Comments From Other Property Owners Fairport Developments Inc., the owners of a 9 metre-wide renmant parcel of land (Block 55, 40M- 1692) left over from the subdivision of lands to the south, indicated that when the lands to the south were subdivided, Block 55 ,,','as set aside to be developed in conjunction with the future development of adjacent lands fronting onto Pine~ove Avenue to the north, and expressed concern that the desigm of the proposed draft plan of subdivision did not provide for the proper development of Block 55 (sec Attachment #12). 2.5 Supporting Documentation · Tree and Vegetation Survey A copy of the above-noted document is available for viewing in the City's Planning & Development Department. 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Lotting Pattern Applicant's Submitted Plans The Draft Plan initially submitted by the applicant proposed a lotting pattern with irregular rear lot lines at the eastern edge of the subdivision, rear lot lines too far westerly at the southern end of the subdivision, and a road that ended without provision for traffic or service vehicles to turn around. Discussions were held with the applicant about a number of specific aspects of the proposal that resulted in the submission of a revised Draft Plan in September 2001 which addresses most of the identified matters. Right-of-way A 7.62 metre right-of-way, beside 1787 Pine Grove Avenue. currently provides access to an existing home located on proposed Lots ¢1 to #4. This right-of-way will no longer be necessary with the development of this draft plan. Consequently, it is recommended that the right-of-way be extinguished as a condition of Draft Plan appr~)val. A condition to this effect is contained in Appendix I. Excluded Lot The proposed Draft Plan excludes one lot on the west side of the proposed extension of Rockwood Drive, located between Lots ~4 and #5. The width of this parcel meets the minimum lot width of 15 metres required by the 'R4' zonin_o. It is expected that the owner of this parcel will wish to create a new lot at this location i~ the future. In order to ensure that City requirements for such matters as grading, drivexvav location, tree planting and architectural design can be enforced for this future lot, it is r~commended that a 0.3 metre reserve be required across the front of the excluded lot. This recommendation is contained in the Staff Recommended Plan and in the conditions for approval in Appendix I to this report. 021 022 Report to Council PD 37-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP 2000-04 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 5 Alignment of Rear Lot Lines At the time of development of abutting lands to the south in 1992, a future development block (Block 55, Plan 40M-1692) was created which was intended to be incorporated into future development. Block 55 is located adjacent to Lot 7 of the applicant's plan. While the applicant's initial plan did not properly accommodate the future development of Block 55, the revised plan made appropriate revisions such that Block 55 can be accommodated through future development of abutting lands. The initial Draft Plan submitted by the applicant included the staggered rear lot lines shown on the east edge of the Applicant's Submitted Plan. As noted in comments from the Development Control area, grading and drainage concerns were expected if these rear lot lines are staggered. The revised Draft Plan submitted by the applicant in September 2001, adjusted the rear lot lines as shown in the Staff Recommended Plan and resolve the grading and drainage issues. Cul-de-sac Neither the initial submitted Draft Plan nor the revised Draft Plan provide blocks of land to accommodate a temporary cul-de-sac at the north end of the proposed extension of Rockwood Drive. In order to provide for this, 8 metre blocks of land (shown as Blocks #20, #21, #22 and #23 on the Staff Recommended Plan) should be dedicated to the City with the proviso that at such time as Rockwood Drive is extended further to the north to connect with the "Molinaro" subdivision, the cul-de-sac will be taken out, the frontage of these lands will be reconstructed, and ownership of the blocks transferred to the home owners on the abutting lots. In addition, in order to promote suitable front yard depths for the lots abutting the cul-de- sac, provisions should be contained in the architectural design statement to require the houses constructed on these lots to be set back a minimum of 4.5 metres from the cul-de-sac blocks (8 metres back from the street line) and the houses on the abutting lots to have staggered set-backs greater than the minimum required 4.5 metres, in order to foster a pleasing street appearance. 3.2 Amendments to the Zoning By-law The subject lands are zoned "R4" (minimum 15 metre frontage and 460 square metre area). The applicant is requesting a rezoning for the subject lands to change the side yard minimum requirement of 1.5 metres, front yard minimum requirement of 7.5 metres and maximum lot coverage of 33% to a minimum side yard of 1.2 metres, a minimum front yard of 4.5 metres and maximum lot coverage of 38% respectively. These proposed revised standards are identical to those previously approved by Pickering Council for lands within the "Molinaro" subdivision to the north (Rockwood Drive at Prohill Street). Table 1 to this Report sets out the standard R4 zoning provisions and the zoning provisions proposed by the applicant. Appendix II to this Report contains recommended conditions of approval for amendment to Zoning By-law 3036 to implement the requested zoning amendment. The comment of the Development Control section that 1.5 metre side yards should be retained as a minimum standard for Lots #1, #7, #8, and #15, in order to permit construction of dwellings on these lots without affecting adjoining properties, can best be accommodated through an architectural control statement. A condition is recommended in Appendix I to this report to address this issue in an Architectural Control Statement that the applicant and the City should enter into prior to issuance of building permits. Report to Council PD 37-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP 2000-04 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 6 0 2 3 3.3 Connection from Rockwood Drive to Pine Grove Avenue The City's Official Plan contains a policy to endeavour to provide a new local road connection between Woodview and Pine Grove Avenues. The provision of such a road connection would provide better access for traffic, pedestrians, servicing and emergency services. Residents on Woodviexv Avenue have indicated they do not want this road connection as it would introduce more traffic onto Woodview Avenue and aggravate current pedestrian safety problems. Location of such a connecting road on the subject lands is not appropriate as it would require expropriation of property I¥onting on Pine Grove Avenue and may require demolition of at least one existing house. Construction of Prohill Street in the "Molinaro" subdivision, to the north, implemented the easterly part of this connection and provided access for that subdivision. At this time, it appears that the only location suitable for a westerly connection between Rockwood Drive and Pine Grove Avenue would be through the "Don~.ld Spring" properly located north of the "Molinaro" subdivision (see Attachment #1). Thc July 2000 approval of a land division application on the "Donald Spring" lands in the vicinit~5 of the current westerly terminus of Rockwood Drive was given with provision for preser('ation of future develot~ment on the remainder of the applicant's lands ("Donald Spring" lands) that could accommodate a potential future east-west road COlmection between Rockwood Drive and Pine Grove Avenue. Conceptual lotting patterns provided by Mr. Spring at the time, demonstrated that a public road could be successfully located on the'property, if necessary in the future. 3.4 Grading, Drainage and Tree Preservation It is the City's standard practice to prese~'e as many trees as possible through the consideration of subdivision plans. However, in many cas~s ,orading requirements necessary to achieve proper drainage and servicing necessitate' fairly Jubstantial removal of existing vegetation. The applicant's landscape architect has prepared a tree and vegetation survey that identifies the number, type, size and condition of trees located on the subject lands. Staff will request preservation of healthy trees of significant size unless located where the street, servicing facilities or dwellings are proposed. Final approval of the tree preservation plans, and adherence to them will be addressed in a subdivision agreement as a condition of approval of the proposed development. The recommended conditions of approval contain a requirement that the applicant submit a tree preservation plan to the satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of building permits. 3.5 Demolition of Existing Structures Demolition of those buildings and structures that straddle the lot lines of the new lots will be required prior to registration of the Plan. This will include the existing house on proposed Lots #1 to #4 and structures in the rear lots of lots =14 and #15. It is recommended that demolition of all buildings and structures within the draft plan be required (see Staff Recommended Plan Attachment a3). in addition, there are a small number of buildings and structures on abutting lots in close proximity to the rear or side lot lines of several proposed lots that may not meet the normal zoning requirements for minimum side or rear yard clearance. It may be necessary for such buildings and structures to either be demolished, moved or the owners advised th~at they do not comply with zoning provisions. - O24 Report to Council PD 3%01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP 2000-04 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 7 3.6 Parkland A neighbourhood park is located nearby to serve the park needs of the residents of the proposed subdivision. The City's Operations & Emergency Services Department has advised that no land for park purposes is required from the subject development. It is recommended that the applicant satisfy the City's parkland dedication requirements through a cash-in-lieu payment as a requirement of the subdivision agreement. 3.7 Noise Control CN rail has advised that rail traffic has recently increased on their rail line located to the south of the subject lands. The applicant must meet two conditions to respond to possible adverse effects due to the proximity of this location to the rail line. Firstly, the subdivision agreement should include a requirement that all agreements to sell or lease homes in this subdivision contain a warning clause advising purchasers of the proximity of the rail line, that expansion of railway activity could occur in the future and that CNR will not be held responsible for complaints about resulting noise or vibrations. Secondly, the applicant must have a noise consultant undertake a noise study and provide the maximum level of noise abatement set by Ministry of the Environment standards and C an adian N ati onal. Conditions are recommended to be included in the subdivision agreement to implement the requirements of CN prior to registration of the M-Plan. 3.8 Construction Management A number of surrounding residents have expressed concerns with the impact of construction of the new development on the safety for children on the southern part of Rockwood Drive. It is recommended that the applicant be required to provide a construction management plan for the approval of the City's Planning & Development Department which must address access during construction, dust suppression, sediment and erosion control, road cleaning, soil and building material storage, hours of construction, parking of construction and workers vehicles and compliance with the City's Noise By-law. 3.9 4.0 Sidewalks Conditions are recommended (see Appendix I) to require that the applicant construct a sidewalk on the east side of Rockwood Drive. Applicant's Comments The applicant has reviewed this Report and agrees with the Staff Recommended Plan. In addition, the applicant advises that, once approved, the Plan will be registered as one phase and the extension of Rockwood Drive will be constructed immediately. The dwellings on the fifteen lots will not all be constructed immediately or by one builder, however. Report to Council PD 37-01 Subject: Draft Plan of' Subdix ision Application SP 200C)-04 Date: October 30, 2001 Page 8 ,ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Property Location Map Applicant's Submitted Plan Staff Recommended Plan Information Report Minutes of Statutory Meeting Bell Canada Comment Region of Durham Planning Department Comments CN Rail Comment Letter from Malcolm McKave Letter from Mr. And Mrs. Zung Letter from Jim Morrison Letter from Anison Management Inc. Prepared By: Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner 2 Approved Endorsed by: Nell C arr~'~¥1ctP,~PP Director, ~[,~.am~g & Development Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP ....... ", ) Manager, Current Operations Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~ ,, *h~a~J. 0uir0~, Chi'~f Ad"~strative Officer 026 TABLE 1 Standard R4 and Proposed Zoning Provisions minimum front yard width mimmum lot area maximum lot coverage minimum front yard mimmum rear yard minimum side yards R4 Zoning Requirements 15 metres 460 square metres 33% 7.5 metres 7.5 metres 1.5 metres (one side) 2.4 metres (other side)* Proposed R4 Provisions 15 metres 460 square metres 38% 4.5 metres 7.5 metres 1.2 metres 1.2 metres * 1.5 metres with attached garage APPENDIX 1 TO REPORT NUMBER PD 37-01 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl. FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SP 2000 - 04 1.0 1.1 1.2 GENEIL~L CONDITIONS That this recommendation apply to the plan as identified as the Staff Recommended Plan included in Recommendation Report PD 37-01, and bearing the City's recommendation stamp: That the owner submit a draft 40M plan to the satisfaction of the City which reflects the Staff Recommended Plan. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.2.4 PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE PLAN That the associated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/01 be approved and becorne final and binding; That the owner enter into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Stomn Drainage (a) satisfaction of tine Director of Planning cM Development. in consultation xvith the Toronto and Region Conservation .Authority, respecting a stormwater draina~,c= and n'~anagcment system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easements: Grading Control and Soils (a) (b) (c) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting submission and approval of a grading and drainage control plan, with special emphasis on co-ordinating grades with tile adjacent properties and the preservation of existing trees where possible: satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting submission and approval ora geotechnical soils analysis: and, satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting sedimentation fencing and erosion controls. Road Allowances (a) (b) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting construction of internal roads with curbs, storm sewers, street lighting, fencing, tree planting, sidewalks (on the east side of tlne extension of Rockv,'ood Drive). and boulevards and associated financial obligations and securities; and. satisfaction of tile Director of Planning & Development respecting contruction of a temporary turning circle in the cul-de-sac at the north end of Rockwood Drive. Construction/Installation of City Works & Services (a) satis£action of' the City respecting arrangements for tile provision of ail services required by tile City: 2.2.5 2.2.6 2.2.7 (b) (c) (d) 2.2.8 -2- satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas, and other similar services; satisfaction of the City respecting decommissioning of cxisting wells and septic systems on the subject lands; and, satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting submission and approval of a construction management plan addressing such matters as safety of children on nearby lots, sediment controls, road cleaning, access during construction, mud and dust control during all phases of development, building material and soil storage areas, parking areas for construction workers, working hours according to City By-laws and compliance with the City Noise By-law. Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 the dedication of all road allowances with proper comer roundings and sight triangles (shown as Block #16 on the Staff Recommended Plan) to the City of Pickering; comer roundings; transfer of a 0.3 metre reserve at the street frontage of the land located between proposed Lots #4 and #5 (shown as Block #19 on the Staff Recommended Plan) to the City of Pickering; any other easements/dedications/transfers/conveyances that may be required; and, the dedication of four-8 metrc deep blocks along the frontage of Lots #1, #2, #14 and #15 (shown as Blocks #20, #21, #22 and #23 on the Staff Recommended Plan) to accommodate a temporary turning circle; the 7.62 metre fight-of-way beside 1787 Pine Grove Avenue be extinguished as a condition of Draft Plan approval. Tree Preservation/Planting (a) the submission of a tree preservation and street tree planting program to the satisfaction of the City; no tree clearing or removal or placement of fill shall be permitted prior to execution of this subdivision agreement with the City. Desi.mn Planning (a) (b) (c) the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting a report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development, and the submission of site plans and architectural drawings identifying how each unit meets the objectives of the report, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of a residential unit on the lands; and, the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development must address building envelopes, house design, including special architectural features on the flankage side of dwellings on comer lots, siting, and streetscapes, as well as garage designs, locations, massing, and projection from the main dwelling; and, the report shall specify minimum side yards of 1.5 metres on the south sides of Lots #7 and #8 and on the north sides of Lots #1 and #15, to require a minimum setback of 4.5 metres from the front lot line, measured from the blocks to be dedicated to accommodate the temporary turning circle and staggered front yard setbacks on Lots #3, #4, #12 and #13 to achieve a gradual shift in the front yard depths from abutting lots. Parkland Dedication (a) the satisfaction of the City regarding required cash-in-lieu of parkland; -3- 2.2.9 Development Char~es'.Serx-icinz Costs satisfaction of the City financially, with respect to the Development Charges Act; and, satisfaction of the City respecting contribution to downstream oversizing costs and sizing of storm sewers to accommodate further upstream development. 2.2.10 Noise Control 2.2.1 1 (a) (c) satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham that appropriate methods of noise control will be implemented in the development of the subjcct lands; which shall include a xvaming clause to be inserted in all agreements to sell or lease homes in this subdivision advising purchasers of the proxirnity of the rail line, that expansion of railway activity could occur and that CNR will not be held responsible: and, a noise study shall be undertaken and the maximum level of noise abatement set by Ministry of the Environment standards and Canadian National shall be implemented. Existin~ Buildings (a) satisfactory arrangements with the City respecting the removal, demolition, and/or retention of all structures on the subject property. This ':,,ill require the demolition of' all buildings and structures including the house located on proposed Lots x 1 to #4 and structures in the rear yards of Lots #14 and #15, if necessary: and. (b) buildings and structures located on existing abutting lots in such proximity to the rear or side yards of new lots as to violate minimum yard requirements may be required to be demolished, or the owners advised that they may not comply with zoning standards and asked to rectify such non-compliance. O3O APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 04-01 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 02/01 1.0 2.0 That prior to the forwarding of an implementing zoning by-law to City Council, Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P 2000-04 receive draft approval from the Region of Durham, and that a Draft 40M-Plan and surveyor's certificate be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Planning & Development Department. That the implementing zoning by-law shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: (a) permit a minimum front yard depth for all lots of 4.5 metres; (b) impose a maximum height of 9 metres for all buildings within the draft plan; (c) permit side yards of a minimum of 1.2 metres; and, (d) permit a maximum lot coverage of 38%. ND, BY SPRING GROVE_ SA~OHURST AVENUE TRANQUIL THICKET OOPLEy STREET SECORD STREET HICKET CRESCENT WHITE PINE CRESCENT CESTCREEK PPR( iRO ~N 18' ,' V, ATERF©RD OATE 'LICA TION RIVERS DRIVE City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRtPTION PART OF LOT 3, PLAN 282 -'~ OWNER SEAN GREENE ~ -- f ~ : DATE OCT 25, 2001 ,~ DRAWN BY RC ; /, APPLICATION No. SP2000-04 ; -- j -----: SCALE 1:7500 I CHECKED BY SG FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-10 PA- 022. ATTACl-II~fr# ;2 ,, TO RFJ:'ORT ¢ Pi) ~ '?- e i INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMI]-FED DRAFT PLAN $P2000-04; A 2/01 SEAN GREENE LLI LU 0 ~'~ o~ Z · BLOCK 26 9,70 BLOCK 25 o.~o N 73°04'20" E N 73"06'10 68.58 61.oz 8.53 N '3"04'20' E IO,O0 HLOCK 5~ k ~) 259.10 ~ ~ N 73"04'00' E DETA~ - NOT TO 5~.oo BLOCK 27 ~ BLOCK ~ 16 LU Z DJ 40R-2256 ~ 83.0Z z 67.78 ~ 67.78 LL~ 83.02 ~. 83.02 ~ -- 18180 0 63.02 0 THIS I/AP FAS PRODUCEO BY rile CIIY OF £1CKE£1NC PLANNING & ~/EI_OPMENT §EP,~£11~fEN~ It~FORMAI~ON ,~ 5UPPORFSE'RVICES. OCI'OEER tS, STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN BASED ON APPLICANTS REVISED PLAN SP2000-04; A 2/01 SEAN GREENE ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PD~ LU ~°o 6102 O BLOCK 26 ~ ~ o tooo BLOCK ADD 8.0 METRE DEEP BLOCKS ACROSS FRONTAGE ~ 16 ~)~o ~ooo IOF LOTS 1, 2, 14 AND 15 AS BLOCKS 20, 21, 22 AND 23.I //~ BLOCK l ADD A 0.3 METRE RESERVE ACROS~ THE FRONTAGE OF LAND BE'DiVEEN .. LOTS 4 AND 5 AS BLOCK 19. N 75°O4'20' E Case 6102 DETAIL - NOT TO ~CALE 68.53 15 14 ~- 40R-2256 ~ STREET SUMMARY 5 DETACHED HOUSE LOTS FRONTAGE - 15 METRES LLI Z IL! LLI ~TTACHMENT #. ~ TO PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 12-01 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF April 19, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP 2000-04 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 02/01 Sean Michael Greene Part of Lot 3, Plan 282 (Rockwood Drive, north of Hogarth Street) City of Picketing 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the site consists of land assembled from nine developed large lot residential properties located between Pinegrove Avenue and Woodview Avenue, north of Rockwood Drive which runs north from Hogarth Street (see Attachment #1 for the location map); this site has an area of approximately 1.5 hectares, and includes one existing dwelling in the north-west comer; the site is generally level, currently occupied by rear yards maintained by the existing residential property owners, one detached dwelling and various fencing, accessory buildings, hedges, trees and other vegetation; the site is situated between deep lots occupied by detached dwellings fronting onto Woodview Avenue to the east and Pinegrove Avenue to the west. The site is situated immediately north of detached dwellings located on the north side of Hogarth Street and Rockwood Drive. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the applicant proposes to develop the subject site with' detached dwellings on 15 lots with minimum frontages of 15 metres, minimum side yards of 1.2 metres, minimum front yards of 4.5 metres and maximum lot coverages of 38% of lot areas; the proposed lots are to have lot depths of between 36 and 67 metres; the proposed lots are intended to front onto a northerly extension of Rockwood Drive; the applicant's submitted plan is included as Attachment #2; new homes would be constructed on all of the proposed lots, with demolition of the dwelling on the north-west comer required to accommodate new dwellings at that location. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan - designates the site as "Living Area" housing purposes; where lands are to be used predominantly for Information Report No. 12-01 Page 2 0.25 3.2 3.3 4.0 4.1 4.2 Picketing Official Plan designates the site "Urban Residential - Low Density Area", located within the Highbush Neighbourhood: this designation permits residential uses at a net residential densit,/ up to and including 30 dwellings per net hectare; ' this development proposes a net site density of approxinmtely 12.5 units per hectare, which is within the penni,cd density range; the Official Plan contains a policy that development shall maximize tile efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimize the consumption of vacant land by the addition of residential milts within the South Picketing Urban Area; the site is within the Highbush Neighbourhood, and is subject to neighbourhood policies. Those policies include: a proposed road comlection of the northern part of Rockwood Drive to the southern part of Rockxvood Drive; · provision of'a new local road connection between Woodview mid Pine Grove Avenues through the review of development proposals and iii consultation with land owners; · encourage development m this area to be compatible with the character of existing development and preserve significant vegetation. The character to be considered includes low lot coverage, existing lotting pattern, style and siting of dwellings and significant mature vegetation. New dwellings and lots £ronting new internal streets are to create density and lot frontage gradients with development t'ronting tile existing older roads by use of buffering between the new and existing development, careful establislmmnt of lot lines and siting of new dwellings to reflect existing building setbacks and yard depths, and to protect significant vegetation. all new lots created by this application are to have minimum lot frontages of approximately 15 metres, and minimum lot depths ranging between 36 ;md 67 metres; tlfis proposal will extend Rocknvood Drive further north with potential further extension in the future, if and when similar back-lot infill development proceeds in the area to the north between this proposed development and the draft approved Molinaro subdivision. Zoning By-law 3036 the site is zoned "R4" - One-Family Detached Dwelline Fourth Density Zone in By-law 3036; ~ this zoning pernfits detached dwellings on lots with mininmm frontages of 15 metres and nfinimmn lot areas of 460 square metres; amendment to the standard provisions for front yard setback, side yard setback mid lot coverage of the "R4" zoning is required in order to permit this proposal. Table 1, at the end of this hifomlation Report, shows the standard "R4" provisions and the applicant's proposal for zoning these lands. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (see Attachments ~ 3 - 10) Resident Comments No written comments have been received to date. _A~ency Comments Durhan'~ District School Boar~ - has no objections to the proposal, and indicates that the eight elementary pupils that could be generated by this development can be acconunodated within existing school facilities (sec Attactuncnt//3). O.B6 - Page 3 Information Report No. 12-01 ATI'ACHM£NT ~. 5" TO 4.3 4.3.1 Canada Post - indicates that the existing Community Mailbox site in the area can be reconfigured to accommodate the new lots in this plan of subdivision (see Attachment #4). Durham Catholic District School Board - advises that the Board has no ot~iection to this plan of subdivision, that these lands fall within the catchment area of St. Monica Catholic Elementary School and that this development can be expected to yield three elementary school students (see Attachment #5). Veridian Connections - advises that electric service is available on the road allowance touching this property; that a servicing agreement must be signed with the Corporation in order to obtain servicing; and that the applicant's civil consultant must forward a first submission civil design so that a preliminary design and estimate can be completed (see Attachment #6). Enbridge Consumers Gas - requests a number of conditions be included in the subdivision agreement. The applicant must agree to co-ordinate preparation of an overall utility distribution plan, construct streets to municipal standards and satisfv Enbridge respectin,~ ~ading of streets ~nd Drovisioo of field survev inf~_rm~fi~n. Since the natural gas d~strmutmn system w~ll be ~nstalled w~thin the proposed road allowances, no easements will be required (see Attachment #7). Le Conseil Scholaire de District du Centre-Sud-Ouest - advised that they have no comments or objections to the proposed subdivision plan (see Attachment #8). Toronto and Region Conservation AuthoriW - indicates that the subject lands are not impacted by any natural features under their jurisdiction and that TRCA has no objections to approval of this application (see Attactmaent #9). _Hydro One Networks Inc. - indicates that they have no objections to the proposed plan as presently laid out (see Attachment #10). Staff Comments Preliminary Review of the Draft Plan a similar subdivision is proceeding to final approval farther to the north (the Molinaro subdivision that will result in the construction of a further portion of the Rockwood Drive connection (see Attachment #1). When further development occurs on the other block north of the Molinaro subdivision, and similar back-lot infill subdivision occurs between the subject development and the Molinaro subdivision, the northern and southern parts of Rockwood Drive can be connected; options for a suitable location for an east-west connection between Pinegrove and Woodview Avenues will be reviewed, along with the issue of whether it should occur through the subject lands; the reasons why the rear lot lines at the eastern edge of the proposed subdivision are staggered and whether this is appropriate will be evaluated; the draft plan will be reviewed to ensure that orderly development occurs that is compatible with the character of the area; an appropriate use of the 7.62 metre fight-of-way currently providing access to the existing dwelling in the north-west comer of this subdivision will be recommended; the relationship of Block 55 to the west and this subdiuision will be examined; the proposed variations from the "R4" zoning standards for front yards, side yards and lot coverage will be evaluated; appropriate treatment for the rear yard of the lot fronting onto Pinegrove Avenue that is not part of this subdivision (between proposed Lots #4 and #5) will be evaluated; a cul-de-sac will have to be constructed at the northern end of the extension of Rockw~ood Drive with appropriate setbacks from a new road bulb. Information Report No. 12-01 ATTACHMENT #?.-.-~TO Page 4 0 ,'~ 7 4.3.2 5.0 6.0 6.1 Teclmical Matters - a tree inventory and preliInina~7 preservation plan. along with a preliminary grading plan, will be required prior to preparation of Plmming recommendations for Council's consideration; location of existing buildings and structures on the subject lands must be identified by the applicant prior to preparation of Plmming rcconnnendations for Cotmcil's consideration; - no noise report will be required because this site is sufficiently distant from the C.N.R. railway line south of Hogarth Street, the high berms along most of the north side of the railway m~d the iutervening houses provide sufficient noise attenuation for the subject site. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Plmming & Development Department; oral cmmnents may be made at the Public inlbmmtion Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as-input in a Plmming Report prepared by the Plmming & Development Depamnent for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to reserve tile option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide colnments to the City before Council adopts m~y by-law for this proposal; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the C/tv Clerk. OTIt El/INFORMATION Appendix I - lists tile conmmnts received on this proposal at the time that this lnfom~ation Report was written; 6.2 6.3 hfformation Received full-scale copies of the applicant's submitted plan are available For viewing at the offices of the City of Picketing Plmming & Development Department; Site Landowners the applicmtt indicates that the landowners represeuted by the Scan Greene application include J. S. Gill, M. S. & J. ;vi. Wylie, S. iX4. & K. M. Greene, D. & C. Taylor, J. H. & D. Booth. J. E. & J. Murleyl L. & B. Russell, B. J. Plackitt and F. & I. Molinaro. Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner 2 SC/pr > . lot, MC/I~, RFP Manager, Current Operations Copy: Director, Planning & Development O38 LOT FRONTAGE LOT AREA MINIMUM SIDE YARDS M1NIMUM FRONT YARDS MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE ATTACHMENT t /-7/ TO REPORI' ~ PD_~ ~ 7- o / TABLE1 R4 Zoning Standards 15 metres 460 square metres 1.5 metres (one side) 2.4 metres (other side) 7.5 metres 33% Applicant's Proposal 15 metres 460 square metres 1.2 metres (each side) 4.5 metres 38% /:TTACHMENT ~_ ~ _TO APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 12-01 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) No written comments received. COMMENTING AGENCIES (2) (-~) (4) (S) (6) (7) (8) The Durham District School Board Canada Post The Durham District Catholic School Board Veridian Comlections Enbridge Consumers Gas Le Conseil Scholairc de District du Centr¢-Sud-Ouest The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Hydro One Networks h~c. O4O ATTACHMENT # ~' TO ,~EPORT~PD ~ P~ ©( Excerpts of Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes of Thursday, April 19, 2001 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, April 19, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. The Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. (II) DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SP 2000-04 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 02/01- SEAN MICttAEL GREENE PART OF LOT 3, PLAN 282 (ROCKWOOD DRIVEl NORTH OF HOGARTH STREET) Steve Gaunt, Planner II, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #12-01. Sean Greene, applicant and representing remaining applicants, advised that the extension of Rockwood Drive has been in the Official Plan for the past 20 years. He stated that the applicants will be living in this development and want to keep the character of the area. They will maintain the properties and will work with the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham to preserve as many of the trees as possible. Problems may arise if they are required to exit onto Pinegrove Ave. Timothy Vanular, Solicitor, representing the applicants, advised that he is present to answer any legal questions. He stated his concern with the roadway going through the property to Woodview Ave. He advised that grading and tree preservation is not a problem. David Martinko, 1805 Pinegrove Ave., reiterated what Sean Greene and Timothy Vanular stated. He stated that he is against connecting Pinegrove Road and Woodview Ave. He would like to see the extension of Rockwood Drive as he is concerned with his property being land locked. Malcolm Zung, 1702 Rockwood Drive, stated his concern for the safety of the children due to increased traffic. He advised that a lot of money was spent developing their properties. He stated his concern with the preservation of trees and advised that he is not in favour of development. Steve Gaunt, Planner II, advised that residents are free to come into the office and review the tree preservation plans for the Molinaro Development. He further advised that their will be some disruption due to construction. ~TTACHMENT # ~-' ,TO ~£PORT ~' PD__.~. 7 - ~- / Sean Greene, stated that it is not their intention to disrupt the neighbourhood and will attempt to ensure safety of children during construction. Tree preservation is important to the applicm~ts, residents are not dealing with a developer but those who will be living in the development. Some trees will have to come down due to sewers and roads. Timothy Vanular, Solicitor, advised that there is a tree preservation plan m~d as many trees as possible will be maintained. He advised David Martinko that his land will not be land locked. Safety issues will be dealt with in the Construction Management Plan. It is anticipated that construction will begin about this time next year. Gary Discontees, advised that he has purchased the Conti residence on Woodview Ave. which is located two properties north o£ this site and stated that he would like to see Rockwood Dr. co~mected to Woodvie~v Ave. 042 Right of Way Fi 5 - 100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4W2 Tel: 416 296-6291 Fax: 416 296-0520 May 1, 2001 City of Picketing Planning Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 ATTENTION: C. Anne Greentree I RECEIVED NAY 2. 3 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RE: DRAFT PLAN OF Subdivision File No: SP 2000-04 North of Hogarth Street between Woodview and Pine Grove Sean Michael Greene City of Picketing --~ Thank you for your letter of March 14, 2001 concerning the above proposed Subdivision. Would you please ensure that the following paragraphs are/ have been included as conditions of Draft Plan Approval: 1 - Bell Canada shall confirm that satisfactory arrangements, financial and otherwise, have been made with Bell Canada for any Bell Canada facilities serving this draft plan of zubdiviSicn which are re~'~ ~y the Municip~]~ty to be installed underground; a copy of such confirmation shall be forwarded to the Municipality. 2 - The owner shall agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in words satisfactory to Bell Canada, to grant to Bell Canada any easements that may be required for telecommunication services. If there are any conflicts with existing Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for re- arrangements or relocation. If you have any questions, please contact: Sushannah Spataro at 416 296-6599 Y~urs t~ruly,/~ uanzce Young Manager - Right of Way t~'FI'ACH1V, ENT f 7 TO October 18, 2001 Steve Gaunt, Planner,Il Planning & Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 The Region'al Municipality of Durham Planning Department 1615 Dundas St. E. ~*'~ Floor, Lang Tower ~t Building RO. Box 623 Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 (905) 728-7731 Fax: (905) 436-6612 ~w_ww._region.d ur ham._on.ca A.L. Georgieff, MC~P, RPP Commissioner of Planning Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: Zoning Amendment Application A02/01 Cross Reft S-P-2000-04 Applicant: Sean Michael Greene Location: Lot 34. Concession i Municipality: City of Pickering We have reviewed this application and the following comments are offered with respect to compliance with the Durham Reqional Official Plan, .the proposed method of servicing and delegated provinci~al plan review responsibilities. The purpose of the application is to amend the front yard depth, side yard width and lot coverage provisions of the "R4" - Residential zoning requirements in order to permit the development of 1 5 lots for detached dwellings. The subject property Es designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes and shall be developed to incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure. The pro'posed amendment is in conformity with the Durham Regional Official Plan. It is anticipated that all Regional requirements for the provision of Regional services will be satisfied th.rough appropriate conditions of draft approval for.the subdivision plan. This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. No provincial interests would appear to be affected. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me. Yours truly, Ray Davies, Planner Current Operations Branch CC. Rob Roy, Region of Durham Works Department 10,0% POSt Consumer 43 . 44 /~3-rACHMENT ~,,, ~ TO ~EPORT ~ PD, _~ ?- c / APR 2;:}I 'Gl G3: L:,'DF'H E:ItRF' ToPor-tTO VZA FAX: 905-420-9685 Mr. Steve Gaunt, Planner 2 Planning & Development Department City of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L:tV 6K7 8m Floor 277 Front Street West Toronto, Ontario MSV 2X7 20 April 2001 Your File: SP 2000-04, A 02/01 Our File: TZ-qS00-P-02 Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: Proposed Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment Part of Lot 3, Plan 282, north of Hogarth Streetf between Woodview Avenue and Pine Grove Avenue We have reviewed your letter dated 14 March 2001 regarding the above noted applications and have the following comments to be included in the Draft Conditions, to be cleared by CN; The following warning clause shall be included in the Subdivision Agreement and insert in all Agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease for each dwelling unit. Provisions must be included in the Subdivision Agreement to ensure that the warning clause survives the release of the Owner's obligations under the Subdivision Agreement and remain on title. "Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a right-of-way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail facilities on such right- of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as aforesaid may expand ifs operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the development and individual dwelling(s). CNA will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way." The Owner is required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and provide abatement measures necessaW to achieve the maximum level limits set by the Ministw of Environment and Canadian National, to the satisfaction of the Town and Canadian National. Should Council decide to approve the applications without incorporating the above requirements, we have no alternative but to request that these applications be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board pursuant to the provisions of the Planning Act, R.S.O. ~990, C.P.;t3. We would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft conditions prior to approval, and ultimately, we request receiving a copy of the Approved Draft Conditions and notice of the Amendment being approved. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact tl~e undersigned at (4t6) 217-696;L Geoff ~Woods Development Review Coordinator )..i 4 /UOl DEVEI_G~-{;: .: : vIENT April 20, 2001 Mr. A. Georgieff Commissioner of Planning 1615 Dundas St. East 4th Floor, Lang Tower, West Building Whitby, Ontario LiN 6A3 Dear Mr. Georgieff, RE: DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SP 2000-04 I had the opportunity to attend, and speak at, the Public Meeting held last night in regards to the above-ment/oned application. Since public speaking is not my forte at the best of times, let alone when I am not well, I thought it prudent to put nw comments in writing. The application as submitted by Sean MichaeI Greene proposes to cievelop 15 lots north of the existing "southern portion" of RockTvood Dr.. The area proposed for development is currently largely vacant laid, save for a home on fine lot bet~veen his lot 4 & 5 which is not included m his plan, and is covered with mature trees, bush and field grass. Dr. (south) is currently a dead end street with only four (4) homes. Rockwood We had our home built in November 1993. Our three immediate neighbours purchased their homes during the subsequent txw,_, ?ars. Essenfiall); our portion of Rockwood Drive has been fully developed for the pz~t five (5) years. Each of has spent a considerable amount of time, effort and money in cnsunng that our properties were well maintained, landscaped and cared for. PersonalI~; I have spent in excess of $ 60,000.00 on the exterior of my home and enhancements to m)- property. Additionall); each of the four (4) homes located on fills portion of Rock, rood Dr., an~J many of those adjacent homes on Hogarth Ave., are home to at least one (1) ,'md in some cases, m~n)', pre-school and elementary school children. Rockwood Dr. has been a welcome haven for these children away from the h~ards of busy Hogarth Ave. The)? have become used to the idea of playing in the street without fear of danger from die traffic created by either a daoroughf'are or muluple home roadway. - Several years ago, I would like to sa), 1995 although I'm not entirely sure, we had a flooding problem caused by the spring melt and heavy rZUn on the very lands that are included in this application. The City of Pickenng at that time found it necessary to construct catch basins and drainage ditches to ensure that this problem would not reoccur in the future. These catch basins are located, running ea_~t to west through proposed lots 7 & 8 as well as the proposed street extension. With the foregoing, I have tried to paint a verbal picture of the area in which we live and the lifestyle to which we have become accustomed. Following, I will try to address our concerns with fl~e application before you. - 046 ATTACHMENT ~ ~ TO ~POR? # PD ,~, '~- o / - 2 - April 20, 2001 Traffic and Safety Rockwood Dr. (south) has been a dead end street since the area was developed in the early 1990's. It has become a play area for both of 'our' children and those of our neighbours. The mindset of our children is that they are safe on our street. How do we combat 7+ years of this belief? We recognize that there are only 15 homes currently being considered; but with an average of two cars per home that's an additional 30 cars per day minimum travelling down this short stretch of road. And how many times does each car come in and out? What about friends and family? What about deliveries? What about those who are looking to connect to the northern portion of Rockwood Drive? What about snow plowing and street cleaning? The addition of 15 homes may seem insignificant to those not now living here, but to those who do, it is anything but that. If the planned connection to the northern portion of Rockwood Dr. and/or the "Molenero development" were to be completed it would only serve to exacerbate the problem. Environmental It was mentioned during the meeting that environmental consideration is being given to the preservation of as much of the mature vegetation as possible. How noble! Perhaps one should visit the Molenero-development where the same noble sentiment was expressed. It has been stripped clean! Ask those on the northern portion of Rockwood Dr., and back onto that development, hoxv they feel about the proposed environmental protection. Ask the wildlife what they think; oh that's right, they do not have a voice! Sounds a lot like those of us currently living on Rockwood Dr.. What assessment has been done in regards to drainage and grade? How can we be assured that the drainage problem that existed several years ago will not resurface? Property Value & Appearance In talking last night with some of the property owners who are part of this application, I was advised that i.t is not their intent to develop their properties in the near future. How then, does this benefit either the City or those of us currently on Rockwood Dr.? The prospect of 15 tots, several of which I assume will remam in their current state of disuse, on a residential street does nothing to enhance the value of my property. I would suggest that the result would be quite the contra!7! I am also of the opinion that the single lot not included in this application, and which will remain fronting onto Pine Grove, will only serve to enhance the decline of the property values of the existing homes on Rockwood Dr.. Please, someone show me the benefits! Save for a few select property owners, I cannot see any! Additionally, can someone explaLn to me why the proposed lots on the east side of the proposed extension are not uniform? It seems to me that these property owners wish to retain as much as possible of their existing land while still receiving a cash windfall; regardless of the resulting chaos in land division. Much was said about maintaining the overall integrity of the area including ensuring that the "setbacks" would the same as those existing, ttow can this be accomplished when at least one lot does not even front on the street? ATTACH).4ENT "':-PORT ~' April 20, 2001 Construction Mayhem! IVhat else can be said? A construction plan? \Vonderful! However, who is going to ensure that our daildren and pets are sate? \~]~o's going to ensure that our properties and vehicles are not damaged? What steps have been, or will be, taken to keep construction dust to a minimum? If my pool or our landscape vegetaUon is damaged from excessive dirt, or other inherent nuisance, will there be recompei~se? Surel); some consideration must be given to those '*'ho are impacted directly by this affront to our lives. If this plan is a "fait accompli", as I believe it is, then the obvious solution is to WAIT. Wait until an application is received for the land immediately north of this, tie it into the Molenero development and have all construction access from the north end coming off Woodview. If you are set in your desire to proceed with the eventual joining of Rockwood Drive, why would you not wait until the whole process can be completed at one time? One application! One review! Why duplicate effort for the same basic project? Summary Progress; ~vhat a wonderful concept! When, however, does progress simply become change? Change for the sake of change. I recognize that there are some who have loeen in this area much longer than I and xvould suggest that xve should all consider why we d~ose this location in whid~ to live. Not only does it provide us with easy access {o the £nqe attributes of 'Ibronto; it shelters us from the hustle and bustle of sudl a major urban centre, tt allo~vs us the opportunity to enjoy a 'igltmpse" of country living xvhile still maintaining all the anaenities of the city. \Ve have already lost the land adjoining the Rouge with the 'alleyrldge development. \X"e have lost the hydro lands at Pine Grove and Woodview. \Ve have lost the vacant land next to tile new p~k on Pine Grove & xve've even allowed 2, 3 or 4 homes to be crammed onto properties that were single family dwellings. \v~'t~en does it stop? Do we really want to remove all our green-space? Are we all so eager to turn a quick dollar that we are willing to sabotage the very reason we canoe here in the first place? Surely there are enough available lots with street frontage already in our area without creating more. Pickermg signifies more than just an area east of Toronto. Its inhabitants, specifically in our area, '*'ant more than a small parcel of land surrounded by a multitude of people. \Ve want space. We want green space. \Ve want birds, and rabbits, and squirrels, m~d foxes. We want our neighbours to be considerate. We want a community based on common values and a respect for others. \Ve do not want the almighty dollar to reign supreme. We do not want builders, developers, realtors and investors to dictate, ever5, so cleverly, what a wonderful concept progress is. Ask why they are so eager to proceed with this project! \Ve do not want people buying up lots only to subdivide and turn a profit. We want what we have! We want the Picketing we CHO~E to move intol WHEN DOES IT STOP? ' Sincerely, A. M~Kaye 1700 Rockwood Drive, Pickering, Ontario L1V 6R3 Tel.: 905-509-4402 n45 From: Malcom & Cindy Zung 1702 Rockwood Drive Pickering, Ontario LIV 6R3 (H) 905-509-5939 April 25th, 2001 ATTACHMENT # /~ TO ,-SEPORI' # PD .~, 7- £~ / R EC¢ E ilfED MAY - 1 2001 CITy OF PICKER NG PLANNING AND D,,.~EEVELO PM E NT DEP^RTMENT To: Mr. A. Georgieff Commissioner of Planning 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor, Lang Tower, West Building Whitby, Ontario LIN 6A3 Dear Mr. Georgieff: This letter is in regards to Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP 2000-04, and is a follow-up to my verbal submission at the Public Meeting held April 19th. We understand that the applicant(s) propose to extend the southern portion of Rockwood Drive to create 15 building lots from existing backyards, and that the goal of the project is actually the creation of accessible building lots, and not necessarily homes. We have several concerns regarding the project as proposed in this plan: · The lack of a single developer taking ownership of this project and the lack of a unified development plan for the proposed building sites creates the potential for haphazard development with the result being a poorly planned subdivision that remains in various stages of development over an extended period of time. · We feel that there are safety issues with the creation of a long dead end road where the lots may remain undeveloped for a lengthy period of time. It may become a convenient sheltered and quiet place for criminal activity. · We think that possible alternatives to the proposed plan might be to (1) reject the proposed subdivision plan and leave Rockwood Drive the way it is today, or (2) wait for a proposal that fully extends Rockwood Drive to connect the northern and southern portions thus eliminating both dead ends. In summary, we are not in favour of this plan. Thank you very much for listening to our concerns. cc: Steve Gaunt, Planner 2, City of Pickering Best Regards, Malcom & Cindy Zung / L'TTACHUEI~JT ,~ // __TO %EPORT ~, PD. j~ P -C / Woodview Pinegrove Association 1803 Woodview Avenue Picketing, Ontario L1V 1L3 (905) 509-7679 (416) 286-3044 (416) 286-0091 (fax) RECEIVED JUN 2 8 200i CIFy Oi: i.~iCKE~dNG DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT June 27, 2001 City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Planning and Development Department Re: Application #SP2000-04 After reviewing this application we have recognized that there would be an undeveloped piece of land north of this proposal and south of Molinaro subdivision 18%98007. Time was taken to visit the planning office and review this proposal. We were told that the Molinaro subdivision would end with a southbound cul de sac and the new application would end with a northbound cul de sac. This tells us that the undeveloped lands between the two have no access form north or south and would mean the only access would be from east to west. Our questions is where? We are sure if you check records from previous meetings you will find that there is a lot of objection pertinent to more traffic coming along Woodview Avenue. We understood there would not be any extension of Waterford Gate west from Woodview Avenue and that this was a dead issue. We know that Pickenng would like one other east/west connection from Woodview to Pinegrove but we were promised an east/west would not continue west from the Molinaro subdivision. Pickenng usually refers to the "Official Plan". Originally the Official Plan showed Rockwood Drive running form Hogarth to Pinegrove. Obviously with what proposals are on the table your "Official Plan" is continuously being changed to develop properties when individual land owners are ready. Before approving Application #SP2000-04 we are requesting a meeting of all residents with the Planning Department and Council members because if a nexv home is built on existing vacant land you eliminate alternate choices of easvwest connections. June 26, 2001 City of Pickering Planning Department Page 2 ~TrACHM[[J'r ~ // TO ~EPOR'r # We have had multiple meetings and discussions pertinent to proper development and traffic control. We have had lines painted on Woodview, larger stop signs and Neighbour Hood Watch programs just to control existing traffic with no success. We have patiently awaited promised speed humps at the intersection of Woodview and Waterford. You still have us on hold! You still want to plan and build more and route traffic the most convenient way and worry about the traffic control later. Look ahead and plan ahead. We want to satisfy our existing problem (traffic control) before you approve anything else. You are compounding the problem. Your choice of meeting a small number of residents versus all of us seems not to be working in our favour. Please respond immediately. Woodview Pinegrove Associaiton cc: Wayne Arthurs - Mayor Picketing Council ATTACHMENT # ~/' TO ,~EPORT ~' PD~~, n51 G_~ 09`0 ~ SUBDIVISI( PINE GROVE TRANOUIL THICKET CRESCENT COPLEY STREET SF'CORD S I-REET THICKET CRESCENT WHITE PINE CRESCENT WESTCREEK STREET WATERFORB LAWSON STREET IN IIVYN RIVERS DRIVE City of Pickering Planning & Dovelopment Departmont PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 3, PLAN 282 GREENE DATE APR 4, 2001 i DRAWN BY RC OWNER SEAN L APPLICATION No. 9P2000-04 ! SCALE 1:7500 i CHECKED BY SG FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-10 PA- ~ TTACHMENT #_/"~ ~TO ~EPORT ~' PD ~ ~?'- c~' / ANISON MANAGEMENT'INC. Land Management and Consulting April 26, 2001 Sent BP Fax: (905) 420-7648 City of Pickermg Planning and Development D~ent Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade . Picketing, Ont. L1V 6K7 Attention: Lynda Taylor, Manager, Current'Operations Dear Ms. Taylor: Re: Draft Plan.of Subdivision Application - SP 2000-04 Zoning By-law Amendment Application - A'02/01 Sean Michael Greene North of Hogarth Street between Pinegrove Avenue and Woodview Avenue On behaWofour client. Fairport Developments Inc. the owners of Block 55, Plan 40M- 1692, we would like to provide our comments on the above noted applications submitted to the City of Picketing. As you are aware, Fairport Developments Inc. developed the lands immediately to the south of the application as plan 40M-1692. At that time, Block 55, 40M-1692 was set aside to be.developed in conjunction with the development of the adjacent lands fronting onto Pinegrove Avenue to the north. We have reviewed the applicant's proposal as presented at the Public Meeting on April 19, 2001 and are concerned that the design of the proposed draft platt of subdivision has not provided for the development of Block 55. We are therefore requesting that the City ensure that planning is carried out in a comprehensive manner and that Block 55 be taken into consideration in the proposed development for the adjacent lands. We would be pleased to meet with sta_ffto review all poss~le options for the inclusion of Block 55 into the proposed development. Yours Very Truly, Tanya lV~ Roman 20 Valleywood Drive, Suite 10G, Markham, Ontario, L3R 6Gl * Telephone (905) 474-2514 - Fax: (905) 474-2,517 200t 053 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY That Report to Council PD 39-01, on the five-year review of the Provincial Policy Statement, be received for informatiom and That the comments contained in Regional Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P- 84, provided as Appendix I to Report to Council PD 39-01, be endorsed as the City of Pickering's submission to the Province of Ontario on the Provincial Policy Statement review; and That a copy of Report to Council PD 39-01, together with a copy of Pickering Council's resolution on the matter, be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Region of Durham. 054 PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: October 31, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 39-01 SUBJECT: Five-Year Review of the Provincial Policy Statement City of Pickering Comments RECOMMENDATION: That Report to Council PD 39-01, on the five-year review of the Provincial Policy Statement, be received for information; That the comments contained in Regional Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P-84. provided as Appendix I to Report to Council PD 39-01, be endorsed as the City of Pickering's submission to the Province of Ontario on the Provincial Policy Statement review, and That a copy of Report to Council PD 39-01, together with a copy of Pickering Council's resolution on the matter, be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the Region of Durham. ORIGIN: Request of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing for comments on the Provincial Policy Statement. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There is no cost to the City to endorse the recommendations of this Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Staff recommends Pickering Council endorse the comments contained in Regional Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P-84 as the City's submission to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on the Provincial Policy Statement review. Commissioner's Report 2001-P-84 is provided as Appendix I to Report to Pickering Council PD 39-01. City Planning & Development staff had input into the Regional Report. and rather than repeat all comments in a separate Report to Pickering Council, staff recommends this streamlined approach to conveying comments to the Ministry. Report to Council PD 39-01 Subject: Fixe Year Review of the Provincial Policy Statement City' oF Pickering Comments Date: October 31. 2001 Page 2 055 BACKGROUND: The Provincial Policy' Statement expresses land usc planning matters that are of provincial interest. The Province of Ontario is undertaking its mandated five-year review of the Provincial Policy Statement. Staff from the Picketing Planning & Development Department attended a facilitated workshop in early September, 2001, sponsored bv the Ministry of Municipal Afl;airs and Housing. The purpose of the workstnop was to identiI\' aspects of the Policy Statement in need of review. In late September, staff from tine City's Planning & Development Department collaborated with Durham Regional Planning staff, and other Durham area municipal planners, on the preparation of' comments to tine Ministry' on matters in the Provincial Policy Statement requiring review. These comments were set out in Regional Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P-84. A copy, ofttne Commissioner's Report is provided as Appendix 1 to Report to Council PD 39-01. On October 24. 2001, Regional Council adopted the recommendations of Planning Commissioner's Report 2001-P-84 as tine Region's submission to the Province of Ontario on the Provincial Policy' Statement review. A copy of Regional Council's resolution on the matter is also provided as part of Appendix I. The comments contained in the Regional Conmnissioner's Report have been reviewed by Planning & Development staff and reflect stafffs discussions adequately. Therefore, it is recommended Council endorse the connmcnts contained in Report No. 2001-P-84 as the City of Pickering's comments on the Provincial Policy Statement review, and advise the Ministry of Municipal At'lairs and Housing. and thc Region of Durham. We note this same collaborative and streamlined approach to reporting to local Council was used by both the Towns of ,Ajax and \Vhitbv. Ajax and \Vhitby Councils endorsed the Regional comments. APPENDICES: I. Region of Durham Planning Commissioner's Report 2001-P-84 together with Regional Council's Resolution to the Minister o£Municipal Affairs and Housing Prepared By: Catherine Rose Manager, Policy CLR/sm Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Approved / Endors.59A-By: Dir~~g & Development Recommended for the consideration of Picketing City Council ,/ Thomas J. _Qu~n, Chief' Adm~_ APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER 39-01 REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISIONER'S REPORT # 2001-P-84 INCLUDING COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION 05'7 The Regional Municipality of Durham 'Clerk's Department 605 ROSSLAND ROAD E. RO. BOX 623 WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3 (905~ 668-7711 Fax: t9051 668-9963 www. clerKs@reg on aurnam on.ca Pat M. Madill, A M.C.T. CMM ~ Regional Clerk "SER V/CE EXCEL L for our COMML,~IT} October 25, 2001 Honourable C. Hodgson Minister of Municipal Affairs~ 777 Bay Street, 17TM Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 2E5 Re: Provincial Policy Statement Review, 2001 File: D00 The Planning Committee of Regional Council considered the above matter and, at a meeting held on October 24, 2001, Council adopted the following recommendations of the Committee: "a) THAT Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P-84 be endorsed as Durham Region's submission to the Province of Ontario on the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) review; b) THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to provide all interested stakeholders the opportunity for comment on any proposed revisions to the Provincial Policy Statement; c) THAT a copy of Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P-84 be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and HOusing, the local municipalities, school boards, conservation authorities and Land Division Committee; d) THAT Communal Services not be considered as a means of Smart Growth in rural areas; that transportation systems be planned to emphasize goods movement and transit; that overall planning be based on watersheds; and, that agricultural activities be balanced in the context of the environment." Enclosed, as directed, is a copy of Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P-84 of Mr. A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning. P.M. Madill, A.M.C.T., CMM Regional Clerk PMM/cb Encl. cc: See Attached Pages 055 The Regional Municipality of Durham To: From: Report No.: Date: The Planning Committee Commissioner of Planning 2001-P-84 October 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Provincial Policy Statement Review, 2001 RECOMMENDATIONS: a) THAT Regional Council endorse Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P-84 as Durham Region's submission to the Province of Ontario on the PPS review; b) THAT the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to provide all interested stakeholders the opportunity for comment on any proposed revisions to the Provincial Policy Statement; and c) THAT a copy of Commissioner's Report No. 2001-P-84 be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the local municipalities, school boards, conservation authorities and Land Division Committee. REPORT: PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this report is to proVide comments and recommendations to the Province, in response to the five year review of the prOvincial Policy Statement. "The goal of the review is to make sure that the Province's land use planning policies are effectively protecting Ontario's interests and to determine whether any changes need to be made to the policies". The Province requests feedback and comments by October 12, 2001. 7 059 Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 2 BACKGROUND 2.1 Policy Statements issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act, set out overall policy directions on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The Planning Act requires that municipalities, provincial ministries, the Ontario Municipal Board and other decision makers "have regard" to the Policy Statement when making land use planning decisions. It is expected that the Policy Statement issued by the Province will be implemented through more detailed municipal planning instruments. 2.2 On May 22, 1996, concurrent with the proclamation of the Land Use Planning and Protection Act (Bill 20), the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing issued the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS). The PPS replaced the Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements (CSPS) previously issued in 1995, in conjunction with the Planning and Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act (Bill 163). 2.3 2.4 The PPS was notably much shorter in length and more general than the CSPS. This was further reinforced by the replacement of the requirement that planning decisions had to be "consistent with" the Policy Statement, with the requirement that planning authorities must "have regard to" the Policy Statement. As a result, municipalities and other decision makers had greater latitude in the interpretation and applicability of the policies. The Province introduced the current PPS as pad of an initiative to streamline the land use planning system, which also involved the devolution of planning authority to municipalities. Section 3 (10) of the Planning Act requires that the Minister, at least every five years from the date that a policy statement is issued, initiate a review of the policy statement for the purpose of determining the need for revision. O6O Report No.: 2001 -P-84 Page No. 3 THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 3.1 The PPS consists of: I) a preamble, II) a set of guiding principles, III)a set of policies addressing: Efficient, cost-effective development and land use patterns, Resources, Public Health and Safety, an explanation of how the Statement is implemented and interpreted, and definitions of terms used in the document. 3.2 The Durham Regional Official Plan is the principle policy instrument which expresses Regional Council's vision for the future growth and development of the Region. The plan effectively implements the PPS and goes beyond by providing Durham Region specific policies in areas such as agriculture. In exercising its approval authority, Regional Council has ensured that Local Official Plans and amendments, also have regard to the PPS. After five years of implementation, experience has shown that the PPS can be improved to meet the current needs of the growing areas of Ontario, particularly south central Ontario. REGIONAL REVIEW PROCESS 4.1 Planning staff from the local municipalities and the Region met on September 26, 2001, to discuss the PPS review. The purpose of the meeting was to generate broad based discussion as a basis for a Regional response in collaboration with the local municipal planners. The discussions focused on four themes: 9 Report No.: 2001 -P-84 061. Page No. 4 Provincial Vision, Growth Management, Environmental Resources, and Implementation 4.2 The Durham Environmental Advisory Committee also provided comments on the review. 4.3 To provide Planning Committee a context for the review, this submission has been organized to follow the format of the current PPS. This approach also provides a basis for general overall comments on suggested Provincial Policy directions and specific comments on the PPS. This report does not suggest wording for policies. Once the Province has received comments and develops a revised policy statement, it is essential that stakeholders have the opportunity for further input into the development of the policy. At that time, recommendations on specific wording can be brought forward. To ensure this opportunity is provided, it is recommended, as part of this submission, that the Region request the Minister to provide consultation on the draft. OVERALL COMMENT.?, 5.1 The PPS represents a series of general planning principles. What is lacking is a fundamental context for these principles. A broad based plan or vision for the Province, based on the principles of growth management (i.e. Smart Growth), is needed. This vision, together with a PPS, would provide a basis for the alignment of policies of all levels of government. What is essential, is a vision that expresses in broad terms what issues and values the Province considers significant and worthy of consideration through more detailed official plan policy and other implementation mechanisms. The overall vision should recognize the diversity of the Province and the need, not only to develop general policy direction, but to develop policies recognizing special circumstances. This would provide the context for the protection of unique features, such as the Oak Ridges Moraine, that are essential to the evolution of the Province as a sustainable community. _10 Report No.: 2001 -P-84 Page No. 5 5.2 Earlier this year, the Province announced a Smart Growth initiative intended to result in a strategy promoting and managing growth in ways that sustain a strong economy, build strong communities, and promote a healthy environment. Many of the elements of Smart Growth: · · · · · · maintaining firm urban boundaries and increasing densities; developing key nodes; improving transit; protecting greenspace and the countryside; protecting the environment; and, supportive fiscal policy; are principles of good planning that are contained in the official plans of the Region and its local municipalities. To fully implement these policies, the Regional Planning Commissioner's of Ontario prepared a paper entitled "Beyond Smart Growth: A Call to Action". They identified ways implementation can be improved, for example: significantly increasing public investments in infrastructure, particularly public transit and greenspace protection; realigning fiscal policies and legislation in support of Smad Growth; and, directing the Ontario Municipal Board to uphold Smart Growth principles in its decision making. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Province acknowledge it has a key role to play, not only in policy making, but also in implementing Smart Growth through directions in the PPS as well as other necessary initiatives. 1! Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 6 PREAMBLE AND PRINCIPLES 6.1 This section introduces the purpose of the PPS which is to "provide policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development". 6.2 It is expected that the policies, which "focus on key provincial interests related to land use planning", will be complemented by local policies that address matters of local interest. Three key interests are: 6.3 a healthy economy is vital to Ontario's prosperity; protection of the Province's resources over the long term; and, protection of the long term health of the population, and the financial and economic well-being of the Province and municipalities. These interests are founded in three broad principles on which Ontario's long term economic, environmental and social health depend on: managing change and promoting efficiencies in land use; protecting resources for economic and environmental benefit; and, reducing risk by directing development away from areas where there is a risk to public health and safety or of property damage. Comment 6.4 The Preamble and Principles set out the legal and conceptual basis for the PPS. The focus is on economy, resources and cost effectiveness. Although environment and health and safety are mentioned, the emphasis is on economic well-being. The PPS needs to reflect a clear balance between economy and quality of life principles, within the context of developing sustainable communities. Factors that contribute to quality of life include availability of shelter, food, mobility, employment opportunities, education, and a clean and healthy environment. Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 7 6.5 As a measure to achieve this balance, the PPS must include a policy dedicated to the environment. The current PPS addresses the environment only as content and not as context for policy. For example, in the context of land use policies, the PPS states: "Development... which may cause environmental.., concerns.., shall be avoided". Similarly, in the context of transportation policies, the PPS states: "Transportation systems will be provided which are safe, environmentally sensitive, and energy efficient"..It is recommended that the PPS include a specific section on the environment that sets out the intent of the Province on the protection of water, air, significant natural heritage features, and other environmental concerns as a context for policies. Reference is also made to planning authorities "having regard to" the PPS. The adequacy of this approach has been constantly debated. On one hand, the approach is supported as it provides flexibility in the application of Provincial Policy to the diverse circumstances encountered in the Province. On the other hand, the approach is considered weak as there may be no consistent application of policies by planning authorities and the OMB, throughout the Province. In support of this latter view, the Durham Environmental Advisory Committee has recommended that the approach be strengthened to read "be consistent with". Notwithstanding what phraseology is used, what is essential is a clear definition of its meaning/intent as a basis for its application by planning authorities and the OMB. DETAILED PROVINCIAL POLICIES 7.1 The detailed policies are organized under four broad categories: · Efficient, Cost-effective Development and Land Use Patterns, · Resources, · Public Health and Safety, and · Implementation/Interpretation 13 Report No.: 2001 -P-84 065 Page No. 8 7.2 7.3 Efficient, Cost-Effective Development And Land Use Patterns The policies in this section establish the elements of the approach to growth management that the Province expects municipalities to follow. Policies are organized under the headings: developing strong communities, housing and infrastructure. Develo~ Communities The PPS advocates the development of strong communities and sets out a basic set of policies regarding growth. Comment 7.4 To strengthen the policies, the concept of growth management needs to be introduced in the context of creating sustainable communities. To achieve this, it is recommended that the PPS provide more detailed policies implementing the principles of Smart Growth. The policies should, for example, provide the tools that planning authorities need to support the creation of sustainable communities. The policies should require or support: establishment of firm urban boundaries with prescribed time horizons; establishment of a heirarchy of higher density nodes supported by transit and roads; encouraging the establishment of appropriate minimum gross residential and employment densities for growing urban areas; establishment of public transit at .the time of initial development of residential and employment lands; and commitment to dedicated sources of revenue and other initiatives to support implementation. 066 Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 9 7.5 The PPS states that urban areas and rural settlement areas will be the focus for growth. This places rural settlements such as hamlets on an equal footing with urban areas as receptors for growth. It is recommended that the policy be revised to emphasize that urban areas are the primary growth centres, whereas, rural settlements are restricted to "limited growth". This is the approach established in the Durham Regional Official Plan. 7.6 7.7 To prohibit premature expansion of urban areas and to allow the form and function of communities to mature, it is recommended that the PPS be amended to only permit municipalities to initiate the process of considering the expansion of urban boundaries. This will avoid premature privately initiated amendments and give municipalities the opportunity to consider the pace and extent of growth. Housinq The PPS requires that provision be made for a full range of housing by types, density and affordability in each community. A 10 year supply of land and at least a 3 year supply of residential units must be maintained. The policies are couched in the language of "encouraging" affordable housing. Comment 7.8 The policy direction is very general. The policy does not address the specific need for affordable housing. The PPS should be amended to emphasize the need to supply affordable rental, assisted and for-purchase housing. To ensure implementation, programs, tax changes and incentives are essential. Promoting the development of affordable housing will demonstrate the Provinces commitment to Smart Growth and the development of sustainable communities. 15 067 Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 10 I nfrastructu re 7.9 The PPS states that full municipal sewage and water services are the preferred form of servicing for urban areas and rural settlement areas. Communal services are the preferred means of servicing multiple lots/ units in areas where municipal services are not planned. Comment The Region recently reviewed the feasibility of permitting communal service systems in the rural areas. Durham concluded that Regionally- owned and operated communal services in rural settlements would only be considered to address a health or environmental problem. Unfortunately, the PPS facilitates rural growth on communals, that would otherwise, not be technically feasible. The policy is inappropriate as it would have the effect of: directing growth away from urban areas, where municipal services already exist or are being planned; encouraging unplanned growth in rural areas by making urban like development feasible in the rural area; creating opportunities for conflicts with agricultural and farm-related activities in rural areas; and placing additional demands on municipalities and other bodies to provide municipal and community services in scattered, limited growth areas. It is recommended that the policies be amended to direct the majority of growth to planned, fully serviced urban areas. Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 11 7.10 Transportation The PPS requires transportation systems to be safe, environmentally sensitive and energy efficient. The PPS also requires that potential corridors and rights-of-way be protected. Comment 7.11 7.12 This policy should be expanded to address the need to reduce auto- dependence through the provision of land use patterns and densities that can be sustained by public transit and the promotion of transportation demand management initiatives. Goods movement should also be addressed. Waste Manaqement The PPS calls for the establishment of appropriate waste management systems. Comment 7.13 Policies need to be expanded to place more emphasis on the principles of reduction, re-use and recycling of waste as a means of accommodating the increased waste generated by growth. The long-term handling of waste in a healthy and responsible manner is essential to the development of sustainable communities. RESOURCES 8.1 In this section, the Policy Statement addresses agriculture, mineral resources, natural heritage, water quality and quantity, and cultural heritage and archaeological resources as distinct policy areas. t7 Report No.: 2001 -P-84 069 Page No. 12 8.2 Aqricultural Policies The PPS calls for the protection of prime agricultural areas. Permitted uses include agricultural uses, secondary uses such as home occupation and fruit stands, and agriculture-related uses such as small scale industrial/commercial uses directly related to farming. Lot creation is discouraged but is permitted for the creation of agricultural lots, farm retirement lots, a residence surplus to a farming operation and residential infilling. Areas may be removed from prime agricultural areas only for urban area expansions, extraction of mineral resources, and limited non- residential uses. 8.3 8.4 Comment The primary focus of the agricultural policies of the PPS is the preservation of the land base. No reference is made to the significance of agriculture to the provincial and local economies and as a way of life. To ensure that agriculture and agricultural interests carry weight in the face of other competing interests including expanding urban areas and non-farm rural residents, it is recommended that the PPS be revised to recognize the need to protect a viable agricultural industry. Fudhermore, it is recommended that the PPS recognize lands that are not necessarily classified as prime agricultural land, as an essential component of the rural landscape. A viable agricultural industry is threatened by the fragmentation of large farm parcels and the creation of non-farm residential parcels that are incompatible with farm operations. As noted above, the current PPS permits lot creation for various purposes in the prime agricultural area. The policies are very general and do not effectively limit the number and kinds of lots permitted. It is recommended that the PPS be strengthened to more effectively restrict rural lot creation. 070 Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 13 Mineral Resources 8.5 The PPS calls for the protection of mineral aggregates, minerals and petroleum resources for long term use. The mineral aggregates policies are relevant to Durham. The policy states that mineral aggregate operations will be protected from activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use. The policy defines "Mineral Aggregate Operation" as: lands under licence or permit, certain other recognized pits and quarries and "associated facilities used in extraction, transport, benefaction, processing or recycling of mineral aggregate, or the production of secondary related products". Comment 8.6 8.7 The emphasis of the policy is the protection of the resource. There is no mention of protecting the environment from aggregate uses. It is recommended that the policy be amended to introduce environmental impact as a potential constraint to aggregate activities. The definition of Mineral Aggregate Operation is too broad regarding the potential range of permitted uses. The reference to "certain other recognized pits and quarries" lacks definition. Similarly, reference to "the production of secondary related products" is also unclear. The ambiguity may lead to land use conflicts and differences in interpretation of permitted uses. It is recommended that the policy be amended to clarify and limit the range of permitted uses. Natural Heritaqe 8.8 The PPS calls for the protection of natural heritage features and areas from incompatible development. Development is prohibited in significant wetlands and in significant portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species. However, development may be permitted in fish Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 14 habitat, significant woodlands, significant valley lands, significant wildlife habitat and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, provided that there are no negative impacts on these features and natural functions. Comment 8.9 This policy provides very general guidance on the approach to protect natural heritage features. Use of terms such as, "incompatible development", "significant" and "no negative impact" provide latitude in the interpretation of the policy and inevitably result in debate, often adjudicated before the OMB. It is recommended that these policies be strengthened to clearly define what natural heritage features are to be protected, what processes are to be followed, and to introduce the concept of cumulative impacts of development. In particular, it is recommended that the PPS address the protection of peat bogs as a natural heritage feature. It is also recommended that the policy address the following matters identified as part of the Tri-Regional Oak Ridges Moraine initiative: 8.10 the protection of glacial moraines threatened by development, in particular the Oak Ridges Moraine; recognition of natural corridors, linkages and protection zones; protection of tableland woodlots; establishment of minimum buffers or protection zones from key environmental features; and inclusion of landform conservation policies to maintain visual and physical form, character and a variety of landscapes. Water Quality_ and Quantity The current PPS simply states that the quality and quantity of groundwater and surface water and the function of sensitive groundwater recharge/discharge areas, aquifers and headwaters are to be protected and enhanced. 072 Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 15 Comment 8.11 Given the recent events pertaining to the protection of water resources, it is recommended that this area of the PPS be re-examined and enhanced. Matters to be considered include: the need for preparation of watershed plans; application of the concept of water balance when groundwater use is contemplated; the protection of the quality and quantity of groundwater through the establishment of standards for matters such as base flow to streams and water temperature; the assessment of cumulative impact prior to issuance of water taking permits; and implementation of water conservation measures including setting conservation targets for all users PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY 9.1 Policies in this section focus on natural and man-made hazards. The policies direct development away from areas where site conditions or location may pose a danger to public safety or public health or result in property damage. The policies address natural hazards from flooding, erosion and dynamic beaches and human-made hazards from mines and contaminated sites. 10. IMPLEMENTATION / INTERPRETATION 10.1 This section of the PPS reconfirms the requirement that planning authorities "have regard to" the Policy Statement in making decisions on all planning applications. Official plans are to "integrate all applicable provincial policies", Offioial plans are referenced as the most important vehicle for implementation of the Policy Statement. The PPS clearly 2! 073 Report No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 16 states that planning authorities are not prevented from establishing official plan policies that go beyond the minimum standard established by the PPS. Comment 10.2 The implementation policies clearly place the emphasis on official plans as the fundamental mechanism for applying provincial policy. This is consistent with an emphasis on a municipally-led planning system that was introduced by the Province. If indeed planning is to be municipally-led, then the PPS must be strengthened to give additional weight to the decisions made by municipalities on applications that may be appealed to the OMB. 11. CONCLUSION 11.1 The foregoing submission of the 5 year PPS review has been prepared in consultation with local municipal staff and the Durham Environmental Advisory Committee. The Province has established a deadline for submissions of October 12, 2001. Since Regional Council will not consider the recommendations of the Planning Committee until October 24th, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing will be advised accordingly. 11.2 As suggested by the Planning Committee, stakeholders in each of the local municipalities have been advised of Committee's consideration of this report. Copies of this report were made available on request. 11.3 It is recommended that this report be endorsed as the Region's submission to the 5 year review of the PPS. In addition, it is also recommended that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing be requested to provide further opportunity for comment on revisions being considered to the PPS. 22 Repod No.: 2001-P-84 Page No. 17 11.4 A copy of the Provincial Policy Statement is attached to this report. A.L. Georgieff, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Commissioner of Planning RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE G.H. Cubitt, M.S.W. Chief Administrative Officer Attachment: 1. Provincial Policy Statement H:\l-2\agendas~O01\10-09-01\PPSReviewReport.doc 23 Attachment 1 75 (~ Ont;rio Provincial Statement Revised February 1, I 997 PROVINCIAL POLICY Approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No. 764-96. This Provincial Policy Statement was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act and came into effect on May 22, 1996. It replaces the Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements. Amendments (indicated in lexl): New policy added to not permit new residential development or other sensitive land uses in areas near' airports above 30 NEF/NEE Approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Order in Council No. 102-97. This amendment to the Provincial Policy Statement was issued under Section 3 of the Planning Act effective February 1, 1997. 25 Table of Contents I II III o o PREAMBLE ...................................................................................................................................... PRINCIPLES .................................................................................................................................... I POLICIES ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Efficient, cost-effective development and land use patterns ......................................................... 2 1.1 Developing strong communities ........................................................................................... 2 1.2 Housing ................................................................................................................................... 4 1.3 Infrastructure .......................................................................................................................... 4 Resources .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Agricultural Policies ............................................................................................................... 6 2.2 Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................. 7 2.3 Natural Heritage ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Water quality and quantity .................................................................................................... 2.5 Cultural Heritage and Archaeological Resources ................................................................. 9 Public Health and Safety ............................................................................................................... 10 3.1 Natural Hazards ................................................................................................................... 10 3.2 Human-made Hazards ........................................................................................................ 10 IMPLEMENTATION/INTERPRETATION ................................................................................. 11 FIGURE .......................................................................................................................................... 12 DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................................................... 13 IV Italicized terms are defined in the Definitions section. For other terms, the normal meaning of' the words applies. In certain cases, terms are italicized only in specific policies. For these terms, the defined meaning applies where they are italicized and the normal meaning applies where they are not italicized. 26 PROVINCIAL POLICY STAT,EM PREAMBLE This Policy Statement is issued under the authority of Section 3 of the Planning_~!. It provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning ~nd development. The policies focus on the key provincial, interests related io land use planning. These policies will be complemented by locally-generated policies regarding matters of local interest. Section 3 of the Planning Act requires that, in exercising any authority that affects planning matters, planning authorities "shall have regard to" policy statements issued under the Act. The Policy Statement is intended to promote a policy-led system which recognizes that thei'e are complex inter-relationships among environmental, economic and social factors in land use planning. A healthy economy is vital to Ontario's ongoing prosperity. Wisely managed growth can result in communities which are economically and environmentally sound, and which meet the full range of needs of their current and future residents. Doing things right the first time can avoid the need for cosily remedial measures to correct-problems. The Province's resources - its agricultural land base, mineral resources, natural heritage resources, water supply and cultural heritage resources - provide economic, environmental and social benefits. The wise use and protection of these resources over the long term is a key provincial interest. Equally, the Province has an interest in protecting the long term health and safety of the population, and the financial and economic well-being of the Province and municipalities. II PRINCIPLES Ontario's long term economic prosperity, environmental health and social well-being depend on: 1. managing change and promoting efficient, cost-effective development and land use patterns which stimulate economic growth and protect the environment and public health; 2. protecting resources for their economic use and/or environmental benefits; and 3. reducing the potential for public cost or risk to Ontario's residents by directing development away from areas where there is a risk to public health or safety or of property damage. 27 III POLICIES It is the policy of the Province of Ontario that: Efficienl, Cost-effedive Development and Land Use PaHerns !.! l.l.1 Developing Strong Communities Subject to the provisions of policy 1.1.2, cost-effective development patterns will be promoted. Accordingly: a) Urban areas and rural settlement areas (cities, towns, villages and hamlets) will be the focus of growth; b) Rural areas will generally be the focus of resource actMty, resource-based recreational activity and other rural land uses; c) Urban areas and rural settlement areas will be expanded only where existing designated areas in the municipality do not have sufficient land supply to accommodate the growth proiected for the municipality. Land requirements will be determined in accordance with policy 1.1,2. The policies of Section 2: Resources, and Section 3: Public Health and Safety will be applied in the determination of the most appropriate direction for expansions. Expansions into prime agricultural areas are permitted only where: 1. there are no reasonable alternatives which avoid prime agricultu'ral areas;, and 2. there are no reasonable alternatives w/th lower priority agricultural lands in the prime agricultural area; d) Development and land use patterns that would hinder the efficient expansion of urban areas or rural settlement areas are not permitted in adjacent areas; e) A coordinated approach should be achieved when dealing with issues which cross municipal boundaries, including: 1. infrastructure and public service facilities; 2. ecosystem and watershed related issues; 3. shoreline and riverine hazards; and 4. housing and employment projections, based on housing market areas. Where upper tier planning takes place, projections for municipalities will be coordinated and allocated by upper tier governments, in consultation with lower tier governments; f) Development and land use patterns which may cause environmental or public health and safety concerns will be avoided; and g) In territory without municipal organization, the focus of development activity will be resource activities and resource-based recreational activities, with the following restrictions: 1. The establishment of new permanent townsites is not permitted; and 28 PRO¥1NCIAL POLICY STATEMENT 1.1.2 1.1.3 2. Development other than resource activity and resource-based recreational activity will be restricted in the area adjacent to and surrounding municipalities unless: · the area forms part of a planning area; and · it has been determined, as part of a comprehensive planning exercise, that the i~pacts of growth will not place an undue strain on the public servicefaciti~es and infrastructure of the adjacent municipality. Land requirements and land use patterns will be based on: a) the provision of sufficient land for industrial, commercial, residential, recreational, open space and institutional uses to promote employment opportunitieso and for an appropriate range and mix of housing, to accommodate growth projected for a time horizon of up to 20 years. (However, where a longer time period has been established for specific areas of the Province as a result of a comprehensive provincial planning exercise, such as that coordinated by the Province in the Greater Toronto Area, that time frame may be used for upper and lower tier municipalities within the area); b) densities which: 1. efficiently use land, resources, infrastructure and public service facilities; 2. avoid the need for unnecessary and/or uneconomical expansion of infrastructure; 3. support the use of public transit, in areas where it exists or is to be developed; 4. are appropriate to the type of sewage and water systems which are planned or available; and 5. take into account the applicable policies of Section 2: Resources, and Section 3: Public Health and Safety; c) the provision of a range of uses in areas which have existing or planned infrastructure to accommodate them; d) development standards which are cost effective and which will minimize land consumption and reduce servicing costs; and e) providing opportunities for redevelopment, intensification and revitalization in areas that have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure. Long term economic prosperity will be supported by: a) making provisions such that infrastructure and public service facilities will be available to accommodate projected growth; b) providing a supply of land to meet long term requirements, in accordance with policy 1.1.2; c) providing for an efficient, cost-effective, reliable, multi-modal transportation system that is integrated with adjacent systems and those of other jurisdictions and is appropriate to address expected growth; d) conserving energy and water by providing for energy and water efficiency; e) maintaining the well-being of downtowns and mainstreets; f) optimizing the long-term availability and the use of agricultural and other resources; and g) planning so that maior facilities (such as airports, transportation corridors, sewage treatment 2g Added By OIC 102-97 081' facilities, waste management systems, industries and aggregate activities') and sensitive land uses are appropriately designed, buffered and/or separated from each other to prevent adverse effects from odour, noise and other contaminants. , To protect airports from incompatible development: : 1. New residential development and other sensitive land uses will not be permitted in areas near airports above 30 NEF/NEP, as set out on maps (as revised from time to time) approved by Transport Canada; but 2. Redevelopment of existing residential uses and other sensitive land uses or infilling of residential and other sensitive land uses may be considered above 30 NEF/NEP if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the 16ng-term function of the airport. 1.2 1.2.1 Housing Provision will be made in alt planning iurisdictions for a full range of housing types and densities to meet projected demographic and market requirements of current and future residents of the housing market area by: a) maintaining at all times at least a 10-year supply of land designated and available for new residential development and residential intensification; b) maintaining at all times, where new development is to occur, at least a 3-year supply of residential units with servicing capacit2' in draft approved or registered plans; c) encouraging housing forms and densities designed to be affordable to moderate and lower income households; d) encouraging all forms of residential intensification in parts of built-up areas that have sufficient existing or planned infrastructure to create a potential supply of new housing units available from residential intensification; and e) establishing cost-effective development standards for new residential development and redevelopment to reduce the cost of housing. 1.3 Infi'astructure 1.3.1 SEWAGE AND WATER SYSTEMS 1.3.1.1 Planning for sewage and water systems will recognize that: a) full municipal sewage and water services are the preferred form of se~'icing for urban areas and rural settlement areas. In areas serviced byfull municipal sewage and water services, lot creation will be permitted only if sufficient reserve water and sewage plant capacity will be available to accommodate it; b) communal services are the preferred means of servicing multiple lots/units'in areas where full municipal sewage and water services are not or cannot be provided, where site conditions are suitable over the long term; and 3O c) lot/unit creation may be serviced by individual on-site systems where the use of communal systems is not feasible and where site conditions are suitable over the long term; but d) partial services will be discouraged except where necessary to address failed services, or because of physical constraints. 1.3.2 TRM~/St'OR~'AT~ON - 1.3.2.1 Transportation systems will be provided which are safe, environmentally sensitive, and energy efficient. 1.3.3 TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS AND INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS 1.3.3.1 Corridors and rights-of-way for significant transportation and infrastructure facilities will be protected. . 1.3.4 1.3.4.1 Waste management systems need to be provided that are of an appropriate size and type to accommodate present and future requirements, and will be located and designed in accordance with provincial standards and legislation. O83 PROVINCIAL POLICY STAT~ENT 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.1.4 2.1.5 Resources Agricultural Policies Prime agricultural areas will be protected for agricu]ture. Permitted uses and activities in these areas are: agricultural user,, secondary user, and agriculture-related uses. Proposed new secondary uses and agriculture-reiated uses will be compatible with, and will not hinder, surrounding agricultural operations. Lot creation in prime agricultural areas is generally discouraged and will be permitted only in the following situations: a) new lots for agricultural uses may be permitted provided that they are of' a size appropriate for the type of agricultural use(s) common in the area and are sufficiently large to maintain flexibility for future changes in the type or size of agricultural operation; b) new lots may be permitted for agriculture-related ~er, and c) new lots for residential uses may be permitted for: 1. a farm retirement lot;, 2. a residence surplus to a farming operation; and 3. residential infilling. Any new lot for residential uses wilt be limited to a minimum size needed to accommodate the residence and an appropriate sewage and ~,ater system. An area may be excluded from prime agricultural areas only for: a) an expansion of an urban area or rural settlement area, in accordance with policy 1.1.lc); b) extraction of mineral resources, in accordance with policy 2.2; and c) limited non-residential uses, provided that: 1. there is a demonstrated need for additional land to be designated to accommodate the proposed use; 2. there are no reasonable alternative locations which a~,oid prime agricultural areav,, and 3. there are no reasonable alternative locations in prime agricultural areas with lower priority agricultural lands. Impacts from any new non-agricultural uses on surrounding agricultural operations and lands will be mitigated. New land uses, including the creation of lots, and new or expanding livestock facilities will comply with the minimum distance separation formulae. In prime agricultural areas, agricultural uses and normal farm practices will be promoted and protected. 32 ...................................... PROVINCIAL POLI~ 5TAT~ 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.2.1 2.2.2.2 2.2.2.3 2.2.2.4 Mineral Resources: Mineral Aggregates, Minerals, Petroleum Resources Mineral resources (mineral aggregates, minerals and petroleum resources) will be protected for long term use. M1hr~voa. s ^Nr) PETROLEUM RESOURCF~ - Mineral mining operations and petroleum resource operations will be protected from activities thai would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use or which would be incompatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact. In areas adjacent to or in known mineral deposits or known petroleum, resources, and in areas of mineral potential, development which would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to the resources will only be permitted if: a) resource use would not be feasible; or b) the proposed land uses or development serves a greater long term public interest; and c) issues of public.health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. Rehabilitation to accommodate subsequent land uses will be required after extraction and other related activities have ceased. Progressive rehabilitation will be undertaken where feasible. Extraction of minerals and petroleum resources is permitted in prime agricultural areas, provided that the site is rehabilitated. 2.2.3 MINE~& AGGREG^T~ 2.2.3.1 As much of the mineral aggregate resources as is realistically possible will be made available to supply mineral resource needs, as close to markets as possible. 2.2.3.2 Mineral aggregate operations will be protected from activities that would preclude or hinder their expansion or continued use or-which would beAr, compatible for reasons of public health, public safety or environmental impact. Existing mineral aggregate operations will be permitted to continue without the need for official plan amendment, rezoning or development permit under the Planning Act. 2.2.3.3 In areas adjacent to or in known deposits of mineral aggregates, development which would preclude or hinder the establishment of new operations or access to the resources wig only be permitted if.' a) resource use would not be feasible; or b) the proposed land uses or development serves a greater long term public interest; and c) issues of public health, public safety and environmental impact are addressed. 2.2.3.4 Wayside pits and quarries and portable asphalt plants used on public authority contracts will be permitted, without the need for official plan amendment, rezoning, or development permit under the Planning Act in a~J areas, except those areas of existing development or particular environmental sensitivity which have been determined to be incompatible with extraction and associated activities. O85 .................................................. P~O¥1~/(IA[ POl. lOl 5'fM~£1t[ 2.2.3.5 Progressive rehabilitation to accommodate subsequent land uses will be required. 2.2.3.6 In prime agricultural areas, on prime agricultural land, ectracfion of mineral aggregates is permitted as an interim use provided that rehabilitation of the site will be carried out whereby substantially the same areas and same average soil quality for agriculture are restored. : On these prime agricultural lands, complete agricultural rehabilitation is not required if: a) there is a substantial quantity of mineral aggregates below the water table warranting extraction; or b) the depth of planned extraction in a quarry makes restoration of pre-extraction agricultural capability unfeasible; and c) other alternatives have been considered by the applicant and found unsuitablel; and d) agricultura/rehabilitation in remaining areas will be maximized. 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4 Natural Heritage Natural heritage features and areas will be protected from incompatible development. a) Development and site alteration wil/not be permitted in: · significant wetlands south and east of the Canadian Shield~; and · significant portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species. b) Development and site alteration may be permitted in: · fish habita~ · significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield2; · significant woodiands south and east of the Canadian Shield2; · significant valleyiands south and east of the Canadian Shield2; · significant wildlife habita~ and · significant areas of natural and scientific interest if it has been demonstrated that there wil/be no negative impacts on the natura] features or the ecological.functions for which the area is identified. Development and site alteration may be permitted on adjacent lands to a) and b) if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or on the ecological functions for which the area is identified. The diversity of natural features in an area, and the natural connections between them should be maintained, and improved where possible. Nothing in po/icy 2.3 is intended to limit the ability of agricultural uses to continue. Other alternatives include resources in areas of classes 4 to 7 agricultural lands, resources on lands cornmttted to future urban uses, and resources on prime agr~cuhural lands where rehabditatwn to agriculture is posstble. Areas south and east of the Canadian Shield are shown on F~gure I 34 / PRO¥1NCLAL POLI~ STATE~E 2.4 2.4.1 2.5 2.5.1 2.5.2 Water Quality and Quantity The quality and quantity of ground water and surface water and the function of sensitive ground water recharge/discharge areas, aquifers and headwaters will be protected or enhanced. Cultural Heritage and Archaeological ResotLrces Significant built heritage resources and cultural heritage landscapes will be conserved. Development and site alteration may be permitted on lands containing archaeological resources or areas of archaeological.potential if significant archaeological resources have been conserved by removal and documentation, or preservation on site. Where significant archaeological resources must be preserved on site, only development and site alteration which maintain the heritage integrity of the site will be permitted. 35 Public Health and Safety 3.1 3.1.1 3.1.2 Natural Hazards Development will generally be directed to are~ outside ob. a) hazardous lands adjacent to the shorelines of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes which are impacted by flooding, erosion, and/or dynamic beach hazards;, b) hazardous lands adjacent to river and stream systems which are impacted by flooding and/or erosion hazards;, and c) hazardous sites. Development and site alteration Mil not be permitted within: a) defined portions of the dynamic beach; b) defined portions of the one hundred year flood level along connecting channels (the St. Mary's, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers); and c) a floodway (except in those exceptional situations where a Special Policy Area has been approved). 3.1.3 Except as provided in policy 3.1.2, development and site alteration may be permitted in hazardous lan& and hazardous sites, provided that all of the following can be achieved: a) the hazards can be safely addressed, and the development and site alteration is carried out in accordance with established standards and procedures b) new hazards are not created and existing hazards are not aggravated; c) no adverse environmental impacts will result; d) vehicles and people have a way of safely entering and exiting the area during times of flooding, erosion and other emergencies; and e) the development does not include institutional uses or essential emergency services or the disposal, manufacture, treatment or storage of hazardous substances. 3.2 3.2.1 3.2.2 Human-made Hazards Development on, abutting or adjacent to lands affected by mine hazards or former mineral resource operations will be permitted only if rehabilitation measures to address and mitigate known or suspected hazards are under-way or have been completed. Contaminated sites will be restored as necessary prior to any activity on the site associated with the proposed use such that there will be no adverse effect. PRO¥1NCIAL POLICY STAT[Mi IV IMPLEMENTATION/INTERPRETATION 1. The Provincial Policy' Statement came into effect on the date of proclamation of Bill 20,-'and applies to all applications submitted after that date. Planning authorities "shall have regard to' the policy statement in making decisions on all applications submitted on or after the proclamation date, and to all applications which were commenced on or after March 28, 1995 and in respect of which no decision had been made on the date of proclamation. The Provincial Policy Statement replaces the Comprehensive Set of Policy Statements. Section 75 of the Plannin. g__6~ provides when an application is considered to have commenc, and when a decision is considered to have been made for the purposes of this section. 2. Nothing in this policy statement is intended to prevent planning authorities from going beyond the minimum standards established in specific policies, in developing official plan policies and When making decisions on planning matters, unless doing so would conflict with any other policy. The Provincial Policy Statement is to be read in its entirety, and all pertinent policies are to be applied to each situation. The Province, in developing and amending provincial plans, will have regard to these policy statements. Provincial plans, such as those adopted under the Ontario Planning and Develo ment Act 1994 or the Ni._Niggara Escarpment Planning and Develo~ which have been approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, Mil take precedence over policies in .this statement. These policies are to be applied in dealing with planning matters. Official plans will integrate all applicable provincial policies and apply appropriate land use designations and policies. Since the policies focus on end results, the official plan is the most important vehicle for the implementation of the Policy Statement. 5. Infrastructure may be authorized under legislation other than or in addition to the ~ Act. Other authorizing legislation may include the Environmental Assessment Act, the Ontario Energy_Board Act, and the Ontario Water Resources Act. An environmental assessment process may be applied to new infrastructure and modifications to existing infrastructure under applicable legislation. The applicable policies would be considered as part of the evaluation conducted under the relevant environmental assessment process. 6. The Province, in consultation with municipalities, will identify performance indicators for measuring the effectiveness of some or all of the policies, and will monitor their implementation. Municipalities are encouraged to establish performance indicators to monitor the implementation of the policies in their official plans. 37 ............ PROVINCIAL POLICY S'IATEMENT Figure 1 0 8 9 ' E .o 38 noo Adde~ By OIC 102-97 PRO¥1~CIAL POLICY DEFINITIONS , Adjacent lands: means those lands, contiguous to a specific natural heritage feature or area, where it is likely that development or site alteration would have a negative impact on the feature or area. The extent of the adjacent lands may be recommended by the Province or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives. Adverse effects: as defined in the Environmental Protection Act, means one or more off impairment of the quality of the natural environment for any use that can be made of it; injury or damage to property or plant and animal life; harm or material discomfort to any person; an adverse effect on the health of any person; impairment of the safety of any person; rendering any property or plant or animal life unfit for use by humans; loss of enjoyment of normal use of property; and interference with normal conduct of business. Agricultural uses: means the growing of crops, including nursery and horticultural crops; raising of livestock and other animals for food, or fur, including poultry and fish; aquaculture; agro- forestry; maple syrup production; and associated on-farm buildings and structures. Agriculture-related uses: means those farm related commercial and farm-related industrial uses that are small scale and directly related to the farm operation and are required in close proximity to the farm operation. Airports: means all Ontario airports, including designated lands for future airports, with Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF)/Noise Exposure Projection (NEP) mapping: Areas of archaeological potential: means areas with medium or high potential for the discovery of archaeological resources. This potential is based on the presence ora wide range of geographic and historical features which influenced past settlement. Archaeological potential is confirmed through archaeological assessment. Areas of mineral potential: means areas favourable to the discovery of mineral deposits due to geology, the presence of known mineral deposits or other technical evidence. Areas of mineral potential are identified using accepted scientific methodology. Areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI): means areas of land an d water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related to protection, scientific study, or education. : Built heritage resources: - means one or more buildings, structures, monuments, installations, or remains associated with architectural, cultural, social, political, economic, or military history, and identified as being important to a community. Cultural heritage landscape: means a defined geographicul area of heritage significance which has been modified by human activities. Such an area is valued by a community, and is of significance to the understanding of the history of a people or place. Defined portions of a dynamic beach: means those portions of the dynamic beach which are highly unstable and/or critical to the natural protection and maintenance of the first main dune feature and/or beach profile, where any development or site alteration would create or aggravate flooding or erosion hazards, cause updrift and/or downdrift impacts and/or cause adverse environmental impacts. Defined portions of the one hundred year flood level along connecting channels: means those areas which are critical to the conveyance of the flows associated with the one hundred year flood level along the St. Mary's, St. Clair, Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Rivers, where development or site alteration will create flooding hazards, cause updrift and/or downdrift impacts and/or cause adverse environmental impacts. Deposits of mineral aggregates: means an area of identified mineral aggregates that has a sufficient quantity and quality to warrant present or future extraction. Designated and available: means, for the purposes of Policy 1.2. la), designated in the official plan for urban residential use. For municipalities where more detailed official plan policies (eg. secondary plans) are required before development applications can be considered for approval, only lands that have at least begun the more detailed planning process are considered to be designated for the purposes of this definition. Development: means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the ~ but does not include activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; or works subject to the Drainage Act. Dynamic beach: means areas of inherently unstable accumulations of shoreline sediments along the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes. The dynamic beach hazard limit includes the flooding hazardlimit plus a dynamic beach allowance. Ecological functions: means the natural processes, products or services that living and non-living environments provide or perform within or between species, ecosystems and landscapes. These ma3' include biological, physical and socio-economic interactIons. Endangered species: means any native species, as listed in the Regulations under the ~ that is at risk of exuncfion throughout all or a significant portion of its Ontario range if the limiting factors are not reversed. Erosion hazards: means the loss of land, due to human or natura] processes, that poses a threat to life and property. The erosion hazard limit is determined using the 100 year erosion rate (the average annual rate of recession extended over a hundred year time span), an allowance for slope stability, and an erosion allowance. Essential emergency sen'ices: means services such as those provided by fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical substations, which would be impaired during an emergency as a result of flooding, the failure of floodproofing measures and/or protection works, and/or erosion. Established standards and procedures: means the following: Floodproofing standard, which means the combination of measures incorporated into the basic design and/or construction of buildings, structures, or properties to reduce or eliminate flooding, wave uprush and other water related hazards along the shorelines of the Great Lakes- St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes, and flooding along river and stream systems. Protection works standard, which means the combination of non-structural or structural works and allowances for slope stability and flooding/eros/on to reduce the damages caused by flooding, erosion, and other water related hazards, and to allow access for their maintenance and repair. Access standard, which means a method or procedure to ensure safe vehicular and pedestrian movement, and access for the maintenance and repair of protection works, during times of flooding, erosion and/or other water related hazards. Farm retirement lot: means one lot from a farm operation for a full time farmer of retirement age who is retiring from active working life, *,'as farming on January 1, i994 or an earlier date set out ?n an existing official plan, and has owrLed and operated the farm operation for a substantial numb(r of years. Fish: means fish, shellfish, crustaceans, and marine animals, at all stages of their life cycles. Fish habitat: means the spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas off which rYsh depend directly or indirect/y in order to carry out their life processes. Flood fringe (for river and stream systems): means the outer portion of the flood plam between the floodway and the flooding hazard limit. Depths and velocities of flooding are generally less severe in the flood fringe than those experienced in the floodway. The flood fringe is the area where development and site alteration may be permitted, subject to appropriate floodproofing to the flooding hazard elevation or another flooding hazard standard approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources. Flood plain (for river and stream systems): means the area, usually low lands adjoining a watercourse, which has been or may be subject to flooding hazards. Flooding hazards: means the inundation, under the conditions specified below, of areas adjacent to a shoreline or a river or stream system and not ordinarily covered by water: a) Along the shorelines of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System and large inland lakes, the l%oding hazard limit is based on the lOO year flood leve'lplus an allowance for wave uprush and other ~'ater related hazards. b) Along river and stream systems, the flooding hazard limit is the greater off 1. the flood resulting from the rainfal/actually experienced during a major storm such as the Hurricane Hazel storm (1954) or the Timmins Storm (196 I), transposed over a specific watershed and combined with the local conditions, where evidence suggests that the storm event could have potentially occurred over watersheds in the general area; 2. the one hundred year flood; or 3. a flood which is greater than 1) or 2) which was actually experienced in a particular *,'atershed or portion thereo(as a result of ice.iams and which has been approved as the standard for that specific area by the Minister of Natural Resources. 40 .............................................. PROVINCIAL POLICY ST~.1'EM .................................... except where the use of the one hundred year flood or actually experienced event as the standard for a specific watershed has been approved, by the Minister of Natural Resources (where the past history of flooding supports the lowering of the standard). Floodway (for river and stream systems): means the portion Of the floodplain where development (other than uses which by their nature must be located within the floodway, flood and/or erosion control works, or where appropriate, minor additions or passive, non- structural uses which do not affect flood flows) and site alteration would cause a danger to public health and safety or property damage. Where the one zone concept is applied, the floodway is the entire flood plain. Where the two zone concept is applied, the floodway is the inner portion of the flood plain, representing that area required for the safe passage of flood flow and/or that area where flood depths and/or velocities are considered to be such that they pose a potential threat to life and/or property damage. Where the two zone concept applies, the outer portion of the flood plain is called the flood fringe. Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System: means the major water system consisting of Lakes Superior, Huron, St. Clair, Erie and Ontario and their connecting channels, and the St. Lawrence River within the boundaries of the Province of Ontario. Hazardous lands: means property or lands that could be unsafe for development due to naturally occurring processes. Along the shorelines of the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence River System, this means the land, including that covered by water, between the international boundary, where applicable, and the furthest landward limit of the flooding, erosion or dynamic beach hazardlimits. Along the shorelines of large inland lakes, this means the land, including that covered by water, between a defined offshore distance or depth and the furthest landward limit of the flooding, erosion or dynamic beach hazard limits. Along river and stream systems, this means the land, including that covered by water, to the furthest landward limit of the flooding or erosion hazard limits. Hazardous sites: means property or lands that could be unsafe for development and site alteration due to naturally occurring hazards. These may include unstable soils (sensitive marine clays [leda], organic soils) or unstable bedrock (karst topography). Hazardous substances: means substances which, individually, or in combination wi~ other substances; are normally considered to pose a danger tc public health, safety and the environment. These substances generally include a wide array of_materials that are toxic, . ignitable, corrosive, reactive, radioactive or pathological. Housing market area: refers to an area, generally broader than a lower tier municipality, that has a high degree of social and economic interaction. In southern Ontario, the county or regional municipality will normally {eryc as the housing market area. Where a housing market area extends significantly beyond county or regional boundaries, it may include a combination of counties and/or regional municipalities. Infrastructure: means physical structures that form the foundation for development. Infrastructure includes: sewage and water works, waste management systems, electric power, communications, transit and transportation corridors and facilities, and oil and gas pipelines and associated facilities. Institutional uses: means those uses, associated with hospitals, nursing homes, pre-school, school nurseries, day care and schools, where there is a threat to the safe evacuation of the sick, the elderly, the physically challenged or the young during an emergency as a result of flooding, failure of floodproofing measures or protection works, or erosion. Large inland lakes: means those waterbodies having a surface area of equal to or greater than 100 square kilometres where there is not a measurable or predictable response to a single runoffevent. Mine hazards: means any feature of a mine as defined under the MiningAct or any related disturbance of the ground that has not been rehabilitated. Mineral aggregate: means gravel, sand, clay, earth, shale, stone, limestone, dolostone, sandstone, marble, granite, rock or other material prescribed under the Aggregate Resgurces AcT suitable for construction, industrial, manufacturing and maintenance purposes but does not include metallic ores, asbestos, graphite, kyanite, mica, nepheline syenite, salt, talc, wollastonite, mine tailings or other material prescribed under the Mining Act. Mineral deposits: means an unusually large or rich concentration of valuable minerals identified within a small part of the Earth's crust. Mineral aggregate operation: mearls: a) lands under license or permit, other than for a win'side pit or quarry, issued in accordance with the r~,gZ~ate ~ or successors thereto; b) for lands not designated under the rAgg_r~g!~ ~ established pits and quarries that are not in contravention of municipal zoning by-laws and including adjacent land under agreement with or owned by the operator, to permit continuation of the operation; and c) associated facilities used in extraction, transport, beneficiation, processing or recycling of mineral aggregate, or the production of secondary related products. Mineral mining operation: means mining operations and associated facilities, or, past producing mines with remaining mineral development potential that have not been permanently rehabilitated to another use. ' Minerals: means metallic minerals and non-metallic minerals as herein defined, but does not include mineral aggregates or petroleum resources. Metallic minerals means those minerals from which metals (e.g. copper, nickel, gold) are derived. Non-metallic minerals means those minerals that are of value for intrinsic properties of the minerals themsdves and not as a source of metal. The}' are generally synonymous with industrial minerals (e.g. asbestos, graphite, kyanite, mica, nepheline syenite, salt, talc, and wollastonite). Minimum distance separation formulae: means formulae developed by the Province to separate uses so as to reduce incompatibility concerns about odour from livestock facilities. Multi-modal transportation system: means a transportation system which may include several forms of transportation such as automobiles, walking, truck, cycling, bus, rapid transit and rail. · Natural heritage features and area.s: means features and areas, such as significant wetlands, flsa habitat, significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield, si£nificant valle?lan&south and east of the Canadian Shield, significantportions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species, stgnificant wildhfe habitat, and stgntficant areas of natural and sciemific interest, which are important for their environmental and social values as a legacy of the natural landscapes of an area. ' Negative impac=:0 9 3 1TI e a.I-t5: a) in regard to,fish habitat, the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction offish habitat, exce-'pt where it has been authorized un4ier the ~, using the guiding principle of n~ net loss of productive capacity. b) in regard to other natural heritage features and areas, the loss of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified. One hundred year flood (for river and stream systems): means that flood, based on an analysis of precipitation, snow melt, or a combination thereof, having a return period of 100 years on average, or having a 1% chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year. One hundred year flood level: means: for the shorelines of the Great Lakes, the peak instantaneous stillwater level, resulting from combinations of mean monthly lake levels and wind setups, which has a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year. in the connecting channels (St. Mary's, St. Clair, .Detroit, Niagara and St. Lawrence Privets), the peak instantaneous stillwater level which has a 1% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year. for large inland lakes, lake levels and wind setups that have a I% chance of being equalled or exceeded in any given year, except that, where sufficient water level records do not ex/st, the one hundred year flood level is based on the highest known water level and wind setups. Other water-related hazards: means water-associated phenomena other than flooding and wave uprush which act on shorelines. This includes, but is not limited to ice, ice piling and ice jamming. Petroleum resource operations: means oil, gas and brine wells, and associated facilities, oil field brine disposal wells and associated facilities, and facilities for the underground storage of natural gas and other hydrocarbons. Petroleum resources: means oil, gas, and brine resources which have been identified through exploration and verified by' preliminary drilling or other forms of investigation. This may include sites of former operations where resources are still present or former sites that may' be con¥'erted to underground storage for natural gas or other h?drocarbons. "q 9 4 Portable asphalt plant: means a facility: a) with equipment designed to heat and dry aggregate and to mix aggregate with bituminous asphalt to produce asphalt paving material, and includes stockpiling and storage of bulk materials used in the process; b) which is not of permanent construction, but which is to be dismantled at the completion of the construction project. Prime agricultural area: means an area where prime agricultural land predominates. Prime agricultural areas may also be identified through an alternative agricultural land evaluation system approved by the Province. Prime agricultural land: means land that includes specialty crop lan& and/or Canada Land Inventory Classes 1, 2, and 3 soils, in this order of priority for protection. Public service facilities: means land, buildings and structures for the provision of public services, but does not include infrastructure. Public services: means programs and services provided or subsidized by a government or other public body. Examples include social assistance, recreation, police and fire protection, health and educational programs, and cultural services. Quality and quantity (of water): is measured by indicators such as minimum base flow, oxygen levels, suspended solids, temperature, bacteria, nutrients, hazardous contaminants, and hydrologic regime. Reserve water and sewage plant capacity: means design capacity in a centralized water and waste water treatment facility which is not yet committed to existing or approved development. Residence surplus to a farming operation: means one of two or more existing farm residences built prior to 1978 and surplus to the farm, or an existing farm residence that is rendered surplus as a result of farm consolidation (farm consolidation means the acquisition of additional farm parcels to be operated as one farm operation). Residential infilling: means the creation ora residential lot between two existing non-farm residences which are on separated lots ora similar size and which are situated on the same side of a road and are not more than I00 metres apart. Residential intensification: means the creation of new residential units or accommodation in existing buildings or on previously developed, serviced land and includes infill, accessory apartments and rooming houses. River and stream systems: = means all watercourses, rivers, streams, and small inland lakes or waterbodies that have a measurable or predictable response to a single runoff event. Rural areas: means lands in the rural area which are not prime agricultural aregls. Secondary uses: t means uses secondary to the principal use of the property, including home occupations, home industries, and uses that produce value-added agricultural products from the farm operation on the property. Sensitive land uses: means buildings, amenity areas, or outdoor spaces where routine or normal activities occurring at reasonably expected times would experience one or more adverse effects from contaminant discharges generated by a nearby major facility. Sensitive land uses may be a part of the natural or built environment. Examples include: residences, day care centres, and educational and health facilities. Sewage and water systems: Full municipal sewage and water services: means piped sewage and water services that are connected to a centralized water and waste water treatment facility. Communal services: means sewage works and sewage systems, and water works that provide for the distribution, collection or treatment of seWage or water but which: are not connected to full municipal sewage and water serviceg are for the common use of more than five residential units/lots; and are owned, operated, and managed by: the municipality; or another public body; or a condominium corporation or single owner which has entered into an agreement with the municipality or public body, pursuant to Section 51 of the Planning Act, providing for municipal/public body assumption of the communal services in the event of default by the owner. Individual on-site systems: means individual autonomous water supply and sewage disposal systems, that are owned, operated and managed by the owner of the property upon which the system is located and which do not serve more than five residential units/lots. 43 Partial services: means connection to one communalservice or full municipal service where the other connection will be to ~ individual on-site system. Significant: mealS: in regard to wetlands and areas of natural and scientific interes~ ~ area identified as provinci~y significant by the Ministry of Natural Resources using evaluation procedures established by the province, as amended from time to time. in regard to other features and areas in policy 2.3, ecologically important in terms of features, functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system. Criteria for determining significance may be recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve the same objective may also be used. in regard to other matters, important in terms of amount, content, representation or effect. Significant archaeological resources: means the remains of any building, structure, activity, place or cultural feature, which because of the passage of time is on or below the surface of the land or water, and which has been identified and evaluated and determined to be significant to the understanding of the history ora people or p~ace. The identification and evaluation of this resource is based upon an archaeological assessment. Site alteration: means activities, such as fill, grading and excavation, that would change the landform and natural vegetative characteristics of a site. Special policy area: means an area within a community that has historically existed in the flood plain and where site specific policies, approved by the Ministers of Natural Resources and Municipal Affairs and Housing, are intended'to address the significant social and economic hardships to the community that would result from strict adherence to provincial policies concerning development. Specialty crop land: means areas where specialty crops such as tender fruits (peaches, cherries, plums), grapes, other fruit crops, vegetable crops, greenhouse crops, and crops from agriculturally developed organic soil ~ands are predominantly grown, usualiy resulting from: soiJs that have suitability to produce speciaJty crops, or lands that are subject to special climatic conditions, or a combination of both; and/or a combination of farmers skilJed in the production of specialty crbps, and of capital investment i?re~a Sd' facilities and services to produce, store, or process specialty crops. Threatened species: means any' native species that is at risk of becoming endangered through all or a porti-on of its Ontario range if the limiting factors are not reversed. Valleylands: means a natural area that occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year. Waste management system: means sites and facilities to accommodate solid waste from one or more municipalities and includes landfill sites, recycling facilities, transfer stations, processing sites and hazardous waste depots. Wave uprush: means the rush of water ut> onto a shoreline or structure following the breaking of a wave; the limit of wave uprush is the point of furthest iandward rush of water onto the shoreline. Wayside pits and quarries: means a temporary pit or quarry opened and used by or for a public authority solely for the purpose of a particular project or contract of road construction and not located on the road right of way. Wetlands: means lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case the presence of abundant water has caused the formation ofhydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens· Periodically soaked or wet lands being used for agricultural purposes which no longer exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to be wetlands for the purposes of this definition. Wildlife habitat: means areas where plants, animats and other organisms live, and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space needed to sustain their populat./ons. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annuai or life cycle; and areas which are important to migratory or non-migratory species. Woodlands: means treed areas that provide environmenta] and economic benefits such as erosion prevention, water retention, provision of habitat, recreation and the sustainable harvest of woodland products. ~,%odlands include treed areas, wood/ors or forested areas and vary in :heir ]eve/of significance. 44 RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY o That Report Number PD 40-01, of the Director, Planning & Development and the Director, Operations & Emergency Services, on the Durham Transportation Master Plan: Public Consultation Drat~ - September, 2001, be endorsed as Picketing's comments to the Region; That Regional Council and staff be advised that Picketing Council requests that the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) remain with Regional staff and not be forwarded to Council until the Region consults with the City and collaborates on an approach to the proposed transportation matters for the East Duffins Area, Seaton and the Federal lands, in light of the significance of the TMP in forming the basis for Regional funding mechanisms; That Regional staff be requested to: release the four remaining working papers and the Environmental Assessment Summary Report; commence a dialogue between Pickering and Regional staff to address the outstanding matters as noted in Recommendation #2; and prepare and release a revised draft Transportation Master Plan for consultation; That Report to Council PD 40-01, including the comments contained in Appendix I, be forwarded to the Chair of the Project Management Team of the Durham Mobility Study, and the Clerk of the Region of Durham. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL 09'7 FROM: Ncil Carroll Director, Planning & Development and Everett Bunstma Director, Operations & Emergency Services DATE: November 2, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 40-01 SUBJECT: Durham Transportation Master Plan Public Consuhation Draft- September 2001 City of Picketing Comments RECOIVlMENDATiON: That Report Number PD 40-01, of thc Director, Planning & Development and thc Director, Operations & Emergency Services. on tile Durham Transportation Master Plan: Public Consultation Draft - September, 2001, be endorsed as Pickering's comments to the Region; That Regional Council and slaff be advised tlnat Picketing Council requests that the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) remain x~ith Regional staff and not be forwarded to Council until fine Region consults with the City and collaborates on an approach to the proposed transportation matters for the East Duffins Area, Seaton and tine Federal lands, in light of the significance of the TMP in forming tine basis for Regional funding mechanisms; That Regional staff' be requested to: release the four remaining working papers and the Environmental Assessment Summary Report: commence a dialogue between Picketing and Regional staff' to address the outstanding matters as noted in Recommendation #2; and prepare and release a revised draft Transportation Master Plan for consultation; That Report to Council PD 40-01, including tile comments contained in Appendix [, be fom.'arded to the Chair of the Project Management Team of the Durham Mobility Study, and the Clerk of the Region of Durham. ORIGIN: The Durham Transportation Master Plan: Public Consultation Draft - dated September 2001, was referred bv thc Chair of the Project Management Team for tine Durham Mobility Study, to the public and members of local and regional Councils in Durham ReGion for comment by November 7, 2001. The Region anticipates the Plan being lbr',vardcd to Tri-Comnfittee in late November, and Council in early December. AUTHORITY: Tine Planning ..tot, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No financial implications arise from providing comments on the draft Durham Transportation Master Plan. Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan Public Consultation Draft - September 2001 City of Pickering Comments Date: November 2.2001 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Durham Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is the strategic document that identifies transportation needs in the Region to the year 2021, and sets out a program of new and improved road, transit and other facilities to meet those needs. The program seeks to shift the focus from auto dependency to a better balance of transit and other non-auto methods of personal transportation. The policies and transportation elements that are proposed in the Plan serve as the basis for amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan, the justification of the major infrastructure improvements that meets some of the requirements under the Environmental Assessment Act, the basis for Regional financing through the Region's capital budget and the justification for setting the levels of development charges. For these reasons, the TMP is a very important document. While staff commends the Region for undertaking the transportation study, staff have serious concerns that leave us unable to support the plan in its present fOlqn. Required infrastructure that is not recognized in the TMP could result in no, or inadequate funding. Despite substantial information available through Pickering's ~vork on East Duffins, and the Seaton Structure Plan, the Region has chosen, for the most part, to leave transportation matters in north Pickering for future studies, or has incorrectly illustrated proposed roads. For example, the road pattern proposed for the East Duffins Area does not accurately reflect previous local and regional decisions; the TMP does not identify a complete road pattern for the Seaton lands, interchange locations for Highway 407 through Seaton, or road needs to serve a potential regional reliever airport; and, the TMP does not resolve other outstanding transportation deferrals in the Pickering Official Plan. These are significant deficiencies in a major growth area of the Region since unidentified road corridors and infrastructure elements will not be reflected in the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Region's Capital needs assessment or calculation of Regional development charges. The City had anticipated a process of consultation through discussion papers and release of draft alternatives. The only information released since June, 2000 was the draft TMP in September of this year. The public consultation on the draft TMP is not accompanied by sufficient technical data for Picketing staff to advise Council respecting whether the policies or proposed transportation improvements are appropriate. In addition, while an estimate of the Region's capital costs until 2021 is provided, no data is available about capital or operating costs that may accrue to Picketing or to other funding partners and no proposed schedule of priorities or timing is provided for completion of the many transportation improvements shown in the Transportation Master Plan. Further, without analysis and discussion of alternatives to many of the individual elements of the proposed transportation system in the report, it may not satisfy the requirements of the Phase 1 and Phase 2 evaluation under the Environmental Assessment Act. For these reasons, the Transportation Master Plan should not be forwarded to Regional Th-Committee or Council at this time. Rather, the TMP should remain with Regional staff to allow a collaborative process to revise the plan to address Pickering's issues, including identifying missing road links, and providing City staff with sufficient time to review the missing technical working papers, environmental assessment summary report and a proposed set of priorities for infrastructure elements. Only then should the revised Plan be considered by Regional Council. Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master PlaTa - Public Consultation Draft- September 2001 - City of Pickering Comments Date: Novernber 2, 2001 Page 3 BACKGROUND: 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Joint Planning & Development/Operations & Emergency Services Report This is a joint report from Planning & Development, and Operations & Emergency Services (Municipal Property & Engineering) prepared for Picketing City Council, with input from the Corporate Projects & Policy Division. Conmaents from tiao Ajax Pickering Transit Authority on aspects of tile Transportation Master Plan that have importance to transit issues were provided directly to the Chair of the Durham Mobility Study project management team (see Attachment g 1 ). 1.2 Durham Transportation Master Plan The Durham Transportation Master Plan (TMP) is tile strategic planning document that identifies and addresses the transportation needs of tile Region o:: Durham to the year 2021 and beyond. It defines the policies, programs and infrastructure improvements required to meet future transportation challenges in the Region. The TMP indicates that the most significant of these challenges is to accommodate tile demands of growth in an environmentally responsible manner. The Transportation Master Plan is the product of the Durham Mobility Study. A Public Consultation Draft of tine Durham Transportation Master Plan, dated September 2001, has been released for comments. All members of Council were sent a cop>' by tine Region. A copy is available for review at the Planning & Development Department. 1.3 Durham Mobility Study The Durham Mobility Study commenced in late 1999 directed by a Steering Committee of 11 members of Regional Council. The Community Advisory Committee, an hater-agency Team and a Regional Inter-departmental Team provided guidance to tho Project Management Team who managed the Durham Mobility Study. City staff sit on thc Inter-agency Team, which has met three times, at the call of tile Project Management Team, as tbllows: at the outset of the study in March 2000; upon release of tile first fbur working papers m June 2000; and upon release of the public consultation draft of the Draft Transportation Master Plan in October 2001. The study process included broad-based consultation, produced three newsletters, and prepared an initial set of four working papers (=1 Public Opinion Survey Results, #2 Vision, Policy and Issues, 03 Transportation Demand Management and Transit and #4 - Evaluation Process and Criteria) in mid-2000. Based on thc proposed work program, four further working papers (#5 - Recommended Plan Elements, 06- Planning lmpact Statement, ~7 -- Economic Impact Statement and ~8 - Environmental hnpact Statement) xvcrc to be released later. Pickering Planning & Development staff advised the .X, Iavor and Members of Picketing Council about the study in July 2000 and provided comments to tile Durham Mobility Study Project Management Team at that time (a copy of tine July 5, 2000 memorandum to Mayor and Council with the attached comments from Planning & Development staff to the Chair of the Durham Mobility Study Project Management Team is provided as Attachment =2). The last four working papers have not been released to date. 1.4 Importance of a Transportation Master Plan The Transportation Master Plan is intended to provide the l[bundation tbr revised transportation policies for the Durham Regional Official Plain (DROP), which is currently under review. The policies and the transportation elements in the transportation Plan are intended to be identified in the text and the transportation schedule of the DROP. The Transportation Master Plan is also intended to satisfy the master planning provisions for municipal class environmental assessments as required by the Environmental Assessment Act. 100 Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan - Public Consultation Draft- September 2001 - City of Pickering Comments Date: November 2, 2001 Page 4 The TMP is to serve as a comprehensive examination of the infrastructure system to identify improvements needed to serve planned growth and outline a framework for planning subsequent municipal projects. The intent is that the work done in preparation of the Transportation Master Plan will satisfy the needs to identify the problem and consider alternative solutions (Phases 1 and 2) as required in the five-phase EA process for planning and designing road improvement projects. Any road and other transportation elements identified in the Transportation Master Plan can be implemented through servicing and financing studies and the Regional Capital Budget. Transportation improvements identified in the Transportation Master Plan also provide a major input to the calculation of development charges. In summary, the importance of the Transportation Master Plan is that it identifies not only the policies and transportation infrastructure to be contained in the Durham Regional Official Plan, it provides the initial phases of justification for the transportation infrastructure items listed to satisfy the Environmental Assessment Act, the basis for Regional financing through the Regional Capital Budget and the basis for charging developers the cost of the identified infrastructure improvements as development charges. Infrastructure elements not identified in the Transportation Master Plan will not be justified for those purposes. 1.5 Overview of the Durham Transportation Master Plan Report 1.5.1 The Report The September 2001 Public Consultation Draft of the Durham Transportation Master Plan is a 70 page report that sets out the purpose of the Transportation Master Plan, the process of the Durham Mobility Study, the relationship between the Transportation Master Plan, a set of other planning and operational plans, recommendations for amended official plan policies, a proposed priority transit network, identification of a comprehensive list of roads, intersections, corridors and improvements to transportation routes as a basis for a proposed capital improvement program for the Region for the next 20 years. The 74 recommendations contained in the Draft Durham Transportation Master Plan report encompass a broad range of general policy matters and identify specific improvements to be implemented throughout the Region over the term of the Plan - the next 20 years. The recommendations are contained in three chapters dealing with the Foundation Elements, the Plan Elements and the Implementation Elements of the Transportation Master Plan. 1.5.2 Foundation Elements (Transportation Vision) of the Plan Following public open houses, an opinion survey, responses to the website and advice from the community advisory committee to obtain citizen input on transportation priorities, a transportation vision for Durham was recommended to meet the following key challenges and emerging trends: Challenges: serve a growing and ageing population that is becoming more culturally diverse; support expanded empl%vment opportunities within Durham related to a new university, extension of Highway 407, and potential for ITER and a Pickering airport; accommodate a northward expansion of population; manage congestion for a continually increasing volume of goods-moving trucks; limit environmental impacts of cars and trucks on greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, noise, speeding traffic and community separation. Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan Public Consultation Draft - September 2001 - CityofPickering Comments Date: November 2, 2001 1 (-) 1 Page 5 Expectations identified by residents and employers: public transit services with better connections, service and coverage; - better travel options for tlnose x~ithout cars: - plan the transportation system xvittn higtn priority for protection of natural environment and neighbourhoods: reduce auto use through incentives; and, car will continue as the primary transporlation mode. The Transportation Master Plan is needed to deal wittn increasing gridlock and deterioration of the existing road network to accommodate anticipated development and diverse demands. Tine Transportation Master Plan proposes to do this by shifting from an auto-dominated system to provide greater balance between auto and other modes of transportation. The Vision for the Transportation Master is proposed to include tile following key components: · An integrated, balanced system using a variety of transportation strategies to support mobility for citizens, investment in the community, wellness, and a healthy environment: · Reduce auto-dependency xvittn a stnift towards transit, walking and cycling; · Employ higher densities, mixed land usc strategies, development policies and intennodal integration to support the vision: and · Funding from all levels of government and potentially the private sector to achieve the transportation improvements needed. In addition to the transportation vision, tile folloxving goals are reconnmended: B. C. D. E. Facilitate sustainable economic growth: Use the system efi'cctivelv: Move people and Roods safely, reliably and efficiently; Provide choice in services: and. Promote responsible development and environmental integrity. Each goal is further articulated by a series of principles that are used to guide adoption of the plan elements. 1.5.3 Plan Elements The proposed strategy to address the vision, goals and principles is contained in Chapter 2, The Plan Elements. The overall approach is presented as four strategics: · Reducing environmental and community impacts: · Providing more travel choices: · Preserving and optimizing the regional road network: and, · Expanding the transportation system. To achieve the four strategies, a series of 68 recommendations are presented, including: · A priority transit netxvork of existing and proposed transit corridors and service routes (Figure 6, pages 26-27 of the draft TMP) and a list of future transit opportunities (Table 3, pages 2S-29); · A plan for regional road rehabilitation, reconstruction and replacement requirements showing road and bridge proposals throughout the Region (Figure 7, pages 36-37): · A proposed program of recommended intersection and corridor improvement locations (Figure 8 on pages 40-41 ); · A proposed program of recommended road improvements and corridor protection (Figure 9. pages 48-491): 1,0° Report to Council PD 4t,-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan Public Consultation Draft - September 2001 City of Pickering Comments Date: November 2, 2001 Page 6 · An analysis of specific road segments (Table 6, pages 54-60) that sets out a series of recommendations for regional road designations and jurisdictional status; and, · An estimate of capital costs for the Region's share of the Transportation Master Plan based on the 1999 Development Charges Background Study. Figures 6, 7, 8 and 9, Tables 6 and 8 are attached to this report as Attachments #3 to #8 respectively. 1.5.4 Anticipated Effects of Adoption of the recommendations in the Transportation Master Plan The Report states that implementation of the recommended policies, programs and infrastructure improvements in the Transportation Master Plan is expected to have a measurable impact on mobility within Durham Region by 2021 compared to continued implementation of the current approach. Adoption of the Transportation Master Plan recommendations is predicted to manage the expected growth in road congestion by: · Reducing auto travel by 15% from levels predicted by the year 2021 under current growth projections; · Decreasing average vehicle speed by only one-third as much as the current approach; decreasing severe peak period regional road congestion by almost 9% in the Ajax/Pickering urban area; · Decreasing over-capacity usage of regional roads from 9% to 2% region-wide and from 12% to 2% within urban areas. It will also improve travel choices for non-drivers and improve competitiveness of non-auto travel modes and benefit goods movement by reduced congestion on regional roads and reduce congestion on Provincial highways, even in the absence of needed freeway expansions, by 15% over the current approach. Total capital costs for the Region's share of implementation of the Transportation Master Plan are estimated at $438 million over the 20 year life of the Plan. This does not include any capital costs to local municipalities, transit providers (including GO transit), private landowners or developers or senior governments or their agencies. Types of costs may include operational and capital costs for staff, marketing and the provision of facilities for TDM initiatives (eg: car pool parking lots), upgrading of pedestrian, bicycling and transit connections to private lands, local municipal streets or utility rights-of-way, capital contributions from provincial or federal agencies etc. One specific example is the upgrading and expansion of the Rossland Road/Third Concession connection through Pickering, Ajax and Whitby. The costs of this future expansion are currently the responsibility of the local municipalities (estimated cost of $60 - $70 million) and are not included in the Regional capital costs estimate. 1.5.5 Implementation Elements The Transportation Master Plan will be implemented by adoption of its major elements in the Regional Official Plan, programming individual elements through capital budgeting, approval under the remaining phases of the Environmental Assessment process, design, construction and operation. The transportation system and its individual elements will be subject to monitoring and subsequent adjustments to respond to shifting priorities, timing and funding with a list of transportation indicators provided to employ for such monitoring. Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan - Public Consultation Draft - September 2001 City of Picketing Comments Date: November 2, 2001 Page 7 103 2.0 Staff Comments 2.1 Positive Steps Forward We would like to congratulate tile Region for recognizing the need for a balanced approach to providing mobility choices within thc Region. Such an approach was strongly advocated in the Picketing Official Plan (approved in 19975. In particular, we support xvalking as an alternate travel choice and the associated pedestrian amenities proposed as elements of developments in the Region. In addition, reinforcing the Kingston Road Corridor and exploring concepts for transportation centres provides a complimentary package of supportable items. The City of Picketing supports the change in status of Finch Avenue west of Altona Road and Townlinc Road from Finch Avenue to Taunton Road. from arterial road Type 'B' to an arterial road Type 'C' designations, in addition, tho Region's position that traffic calming on arterials may be considered, is welcome. 2.2 Concerns 2.2.1 Road Pattern in the East Duffins .Area The proposed new coimection shown in Figure 9 Recommended Road Improvement and Corridor Protection Programs, through the Taunton Brock;Whites/Rossland block, does not accurately reflect tile alignment of thc Type 'C' arterial road proposed for the East Duffins Area of Pickering. It also does not appear to con-ectlv map thc extension of Rossland Road, which appears to be shown as a new connection on Figure 9 across the closed dump. Similarly, the lack of detail does not assist ii1 resolving the outstanding Official Plan Deferral #39 to the Pickering Official Plan. The aligmment for the roads in the East Duffins area should be specific enough to show an accurate alignment for each corridor and connection to resolve the outstanding deferrals. To the west of tile East Duffins Area. tile TMP shov, s a proposed new connection along the Third Concession. Pickering's work on this issue proposed a location north of the existing Third Concession, in light of existing settlements and environmental features. 2.2.2 Road Pattern North of Taunton Road and Highxvay 407 interchanges in the Seaton lands Figure 9 does not show road improvements or corridor protections for the roads shown in either tile Council adopted version of the Picketing Official Plan, the Regional Official Plan, or the City's preliminary work on the Seaton structure plan. It does not reflect the City's proposed alignment of the new Fifth Concession arterial south of \Vhitevale Road (rather than along the historic Whitevale Road). Background work is unavailable for review with respect to the need for the extension of this road to meet with the 14tI' Avenue in Markham. In addition, the rationale provided in Table 6 Anatvsis o£ Specific Road Segments, recommending that matters related to the road patterns in thc proposed Seaton and East Duffins communities be addressed through on-going planning studies has the effect of not including these connections and corridors in tile Regional Official Plan. the capital budget process or environmental assessment approval functions of the Transportation Master Plan. These elements and corridors of the road pattern for tile Seaton lands must be recognized nov,' in the Transportation Master Plan. 2.2.3 Dixie Road Designation The lack of technical background data on the rationale Ibr supporting a Type 'B' arterial designation does not allow Picketing staff to evaluate and comment on this matter. Council is on record as supporting a Type 'C' arterial designation. 1 O 4 Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan Public Consultation Draft - September 2001 City of Pickering Comments Date: November 2, 2001 Page 8 The draft TMP appears contradictory in terms of recommending corridor protection into Seaton for an extension of Dixie Road, while also stating there is likely only one ne~v crossing of the West Duffins Creek. That Creek crossing is identified for the westerly extension of Rossland Road (the Third Concession). The difference between corridor protection and new connections is not clear, particularly for Dixie Road. Dixie is built and constructed between Kingston and the Third Concession. What is being protected - fight-of-way width? Pickering's work on the East Duffins Area shows a Type 'B' Arterial connecting from the extension of Rossland Road to Taunton. This proposed road alignment should be shown, rather than corridor protection for a Dixie Road extension. If the high growth scenario shows a possible connector required between the existing Third Concession and the proposed westerly extension of Rossland Road to Whites Road, then a proposed new connection should be identified between the Third Concession and the new extension of Rossland Road. 2.2.4 Whites Road Alignment Whites Road is currently designated a Type 'A' arterial road and a transit spine in both the Pickering and Region of Durham official plans up to Taunton Road and as a future Type 'A' arterial road and transit spine up to Highway 7. Figure 9 - Recommended Road Improvement and Corridor Protection Program, does not show an alignment for Whites Road between Taunton Road and Highxvay 7. Clarification is required. 2.2.5 Fifth Concession Connection with 14th Avenue The connection of the Fifth Concession Road in Pickering to 14th Avenue in Markham proposed in the 1997 Picketing Official Plan was deferred (D 38) until a road pattern for Seaton and the federal airport is resolved. The TMP does not include technical background information that would assist in analysing the need for this road connection. The technical data should be released, for possible peer review, in order to support the need for this road connection. 2.2.6 Federal Lands/Potential Airport Needs The Federal Government has recently announced an intention to protect for a 'regional reliever' airport on the Pickering lands. A careful re-examination is required of the proposed regional road structure through the Federal lands, north-south roads to link a potential airport with southern urban areas and other parts of the Region and the GTA. The recommendations to examine the rail corridors as possible future transit routes to link to Pearson airport and other Toronto and York Region destinations may deserve more immediate consideration. 2.2.7 Technical Data to Substantiate Findings The Draft TMP presents conclusions and recommendations based on technical information not yet made available. City staff require the Technical Support Data, plus sufficient time to review that data (through a peer review). In the absence of receipt of the data and sufficient time for review, City staff can not properly advise Council whether to agree or disagree with the conclusions and recommendations contained within the Draft TMP. The absence of the last four background reports and the Environmental Assessment Summary Report (with associated technical backup to demonstrate the need for the particular road segments and links within Durham and to other areas) makes it impossible to evaluate the individual improvements, corridors, road segments and related designations of the proposed transportation system. Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan Public Consultation Draft - September 2001 City of Picketing Comments Date: November'~ 2001 105 Page 9 In particular, the absence of information to demonstrate that alternative routes, corridors or specific elements for transit or road improvements may invalidate the Transportation Master Plan in one of its stated purposes. Tlnat purpose is to satisfy Phase 1 and 2 requirements under tine Environmental Assessment Act to show ttnat altemati;'es were considered and found not suitable fbr each specific Schedule C major infrastructure element, and for Full approval of more minor Schedule A or B improvements. 2.2.8 Fairport Road In the absence of supporting technical data being made available for Pickering to review, staff can neither agree or disagree with tile Region's argument for keeping Fairport Road as a Type 'C' Arterial. However, staff is pleased to see the Region giving consideration to allowing traffic calming on arterial roads. This flexibility may be what is required to address resident issues being raised about traffic on Fairpon Road (see Section 3.(i) of this Report). 2.2.9 Further Improvements to Support \Valking and Cycling as Travel Choices Further emphasis for a pedestrian-Friendly environment should be given by recommending sidewalks on both sides of Regional Roads in built-up urban areas, and at all intersections and transit stops in built-up urban areas, priority winter snow clearing of all sidewalks on Regional roads, more pedestrian activated cross-xvalks, pedestrian friendly traffic medians, pedestrian bridges/tulmels at selected Highway crossings, especially near GO stations, capital funding for pedestrian-safe facilities on Regional Road innproxement projects for the 'Main Street' (Kingston Road). more transit shelters with snow clearing, more intersections that are better designed tbr special needs pedestrians. \Vithout ttnese ttnings, pedestrian convenience, comfort and safety will be at risk and the travel choice o~' xxall,:ing will remain an unpalatable travel choice. Council should support the recolnmendation that a Regional Bicycle Plan be prepared, provided this occurs in co-ordination with existing local municipal bicycle plans. 2.2.10 Update to Reflect Recent Announcements Since the TMP was prepared, recent announcements have been made by senior governments that should be clearly' reflected in thc TMP. The recent announcement of tine Provincial Premier to disband the GTSB, return control of GO Transit to the Province, fund operating costs of GO from Provincial revenues, and fund some capital improvements for transit, highways and roads intYastructure suggest changes to text and recommendations may be warranted, in addition, some assumptions and technical background analysis, although not released vet. may warrant re-examination. This may result in changes to the Estimated Capital Costs shown in Table 8. 2.2.11 Technical Presentation Details The clarity of meaning of some of tile information contained on Figure 6 - Priority Transit Network, Figure 7 - Regional Road Rehabilitation. Reconstruction and Replacement Requirements, Figure 8 - Recommended Intersection and Corrid:or Improvement Locations should be improved both in the text and on tine figures. It would be helpful to list in tabular form, infornmtion presented on figures by road name. segment, and area municipality. Legends and graphic presentation should be more precise. *1ulti-coloured presentation and better detailed base mapping and fuller legends and explanatory notes are suggested. 2.2.12 Financial Implications and Setting of Priorities Since no data is provided to evaluate tile financial implications of many of the recommendations to local municipalities, transit providers and the Region (xvith the exception of the capital costs to the Region), it is not possible to provide advice to Council about these matters. Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan Public Consultation Draft- September 2001 City of Pickering Comments Date: November 2, 2001 Page 10 Costs and allocation of the costs of a transportation demand management program, costs to implement recommended environmental improvements and other similar matters are not provided. No analysis or recommendations are made respecting allocation of such costs to the different 'partners'. No discussion is provided of the changes to maintenance or operating costs for the Region or local municipalities, costs to other agencies, utilities or private land owners and no assumptions about senior government partnerships or cost sharing are provided. A major weak point of the Transportation Master Plan is its lack of a schedule to establish priorities and target dates for the provision of transportation infrastructure elements summarized on the Figures and the Capital Plan on Table 8. Priorities, target dates and associated allocation of costs should be included in the Transportation Master Plan. 2.2.13 Shift In Focus The Transportation Master Plan proposes railway and hydro corridors for new transportation facilities. In particular, the protection of the CP Belleville/Havelock rail right-of-way as a future GO transit corridor is supported. The TMP also proposes a shift towards a more heavily transit- oriented system while ackno~vledging auto dependency. The TMP recognizes a more limited number of new road corridors in order to reduce capital infrastructure costs, which can occur through active management of travel demand. If active management of travel demand is unsuccessful in reducing the need for new roads, a reduced capital expenditure on road improvements could potentially result in unacceptable levels of traffic congestion. Council should be aware that this rebalancing comes with the risk of not adequately providing for infrastructure needs. The most significant traffic capacity deficiencies occur at the western boundary of Durham Region where improvement options are limited. 2.2.14 Inconsistencies Between Recommendations Recommendation #7, to support conversion of rural cross-sections on Regional roads to urban cross-sections only where necessary to control drainage, enhance safety, manage access or address right-of-way constraints, is inconsistent with the travel demand management program contained in recommendation #11, to promote transit, pedestrian and cycling oriented development. Maintaining rural cross-sections in urban areas, especially along Kingston Road, will not permit safe and comfortable pedestrian or cycling routes or safe and comfortable pedestrian access to transit, which are essential to changing people's preferred travel choices. Similarly, encouragement of widening of Kingston Road in order to add High Occupancy Vehicle only lanes will establish a 'Main Street' for Kingston Road that is too wide to be pedestrian-friendly. 2.2.15 Municipal Jurisdiction In general, the City of Pickering supports the transfer of jurisdiction of Rossland Road/Third Concession to the Region of Durham. However, it is unfair to allocate the costs of constructing the missing sections of this road and its reconstruction to arterial road standards to the local municipalities at an estimated cost of $60 - 70 million. In addition, the Durham Region public works officials Who Does What panel has reached conclusions that Rossland Road/Third Concession be transferred to Regional jurisdiction, no consideration has been given by the panel of transferring jurisdiction for the portion between Brock Road and Valley Farm Road. This extension could be considered in the future. Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan - Public Consultation Draft - September 2001 - City of Pickering Comments Date: November 2, 2001 Page 11 lC 7 2.2.16 Other Issues The recommendation (=8) that tiao Region develop a Re<ional Road Traffic Management Policy to address concerns with traffic in residential areas recognizes that local municipal efforts in tt~is respect merit support, but Regional funding should also be proposed to support this recommendation. In addition, proposals ibc traffic calming on Regional roads should be clarified to identify the methods and suitable level of traffic calming proposed on Regional roads. Figure 9 proposes a new east-west road south of Taunton Road with an eastern terminus at Audley Road. Staff question why this road is not proposed to extend[ to Lakeridge Road. 3.0 Comments Received from Area Residents 3.1 Vivian Vandenhazel Ms. Vandenhazel requests that Fairport Road be redesignated from Type 'C' Arterial classification in the Regional Official Plan to a local collector road ~:o qualify for traffic calming measures, including stop signs, in order to make the street safer I see Attachment #9). 3.2 Fairport Road Action Committee The Fairpon Road Action Committee, comprised of a number of residents with homes on Fairport Road (including Ms. Vanden Hazel), recommend that Fairport Road be downgraded to a collector road to enable sate driving, walking, biking and driveway access from their homes. The Committee also opposes a future minor transit corridor, shown on Figure 6 Priority Transit Network (.pages 26-27) linking \Vhites Road to the north of Fairport Road, as it may direct more traffic onto Fairport Road (see Attachment #10). 4.0 Conclusion Development of the East Duffins Area, the Seaton lands and potentially the Federal lands, will be a major focus of the Region over the next twenty ~cars. However, the infrastructure necessary to serve this significant development area is not identiI~ed in the draft Transportation Master Plan. This omission will have serious funding implications f'or Picketing and the Region. Accordingly, it is recommended that Regional staff not for~vard Transportation Master Plan to Regional Tri-Committee and Council at this time. Moreover, it is recommended that Regional staff initiate a collaborative process with relevant stakeholders to identify infrastructure needs for this area of Picketing, and prepare a revised Transportation Master Plan for Council's consideration. APPENDIX: I. City o£Pickcring Detailed Comments 1.08 Report to Council PD 40-01 Subject: Durham Transportation Master Plan - Public Consultation Draft - September 2001 - City of Pickering Comments Date: November 2, 2001 Page 12 ATTACHMENTS' 1. Comments from Ajax Pickering Transit Authority; 2. Staff Comments (July 2000) on first four Durham Mobility Study working papers; 3. Technical Figure #6, Priority Transit Network, excerpt from the Durham Transportation Master Plan 4. Technical Figure #7, Regional Road Rehabilitation, Reconstruction & Replacement Requirements, excerpt from the Durham Transportation Master Plan 5. Technical Figure #8, Recommended Intersection and Corridor Improvement Locations, excerpt from the Durham Transportation Master Plan 6. Technical Figure #9, Recommended Road Improvement and Corridor Protection Programs, excerpt from the Durham Transportation Master Plan 7. Table 6, Analysis of Specific Road Segments, excerpt from the Durham Transportation Master Plan 8. Table 8, Estimated Capital Costs for the Region's Share of the Transportation Master Plan based on the 1999 Development Charges Background Study, excerpt from the Durham Transportation Master Plan 9. Questionnaire Response from Vivian Vandenhazel to the TMP; and, 10. Comment letter from Fairport Road Action Committee. Prepared By: i Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner II Catherine Rose Manager, Policy Approved / Endorsed By: Everet( Bunt.am~ Director, Operations & Emergency Services Nell Carrog; 'MC/P,~-RPP Director, Pi'aonmg & Development Richard Holbo,m' D,~ision Head, Municipal Property & Engineering SG/CLR/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ×, ~t'fo~as J. Quit~,Chief. JAdm~ I'M 110 0 0 0 < 113 0 L~ o~ 0 Z © z~ l'"d '~ ~ 0 o 1.16 ;>. o o 1.18 Z-- 0 120 0 O~ 0 121 12 2 0 0 0 0 (D © ~.< ©Z ;~< o o 123 124 125 126 ATTACHMENT i~/..~.~TO REPORT ~ PD~ ! 2'7 I AJAX PICKERING AUTHORITY ax Pickering Transit Authority 10 Westney Road South ax, ON ;anada LtS 2C8 October 10, 2001. Mr. Gene Chattier, P. Eng. Manager, Transportation Planning and Design Transportation and Construction Services Branch Regional Municipality of Durham Works Department Box 623,105 Consumers Drive Whitby, Ontario. L1N 6A3 Dear Mr. Chattier; This is to acknowledge receipt of the September 2001 Public Consultation Draft of the Durham Transportation Master Plan that has been developed as a final product of the Durham Mobility Study. The Ajax Picketing Transit Authority (APTA) has reviewed the public transit components of the Draft and prepared the attached comments for your consideration. Sincerely, Ted al Manager, APTA Copy: Regional Councillor Jim McMaster, Co-Chair, APTA Board of Management Regional Councillor Maurice Brenner, Co-Chair, APTA Board of Management Leo Deloyde, Director, Planning and Development Services, Town of Ajax Sarah Brown, Manager, Engineering, Town of Ajax Nell Carroll, Director, Planning and Development, City of Pickering Steve Gaunt, Planner II, City of Picketing Mailing Address: 65 Harwood Avenue South, Ajax, ON Canada L1S 2H9 Telephone905-427-5710 · 905-683-4111 · Fax 905-427-3473 www.townofajax.com · www. cityofpickering.on.ca 128 Page 1 Ajax Pickering Transit Authority Durham Transportation Master Plan Comments October 10, 2001. DTMP Reference 2.2.2 Air Quality and Emissions Recommended Action: 5. "Train employees to act more environmentally responsible when operating vehicles". 2.3.1 Demand Management Recommended Action: 11. "Develop and Implement a Transit Demand Management Program to reduce peak hour auto travel by up to 15% by the year 2021, focusing first on actions to: 1. Create more public transit, pedestrian and cycling oriented development through land use management; 2. Enhance public transportation services; and 3. Promote more walking, cycling and ridesharing". 2.3.1 Demand Management Recommended Actions: 13. "Access the potential market for ridesharing and, if promising introduce a ridematching service, with the assistance of other groups and agencies". 14. "Identify and develop appropriate locations for commuter parking lots". APTA Comments APTA supports the reduction of vehicle emissions with a system-wide Standard Operating Procedure that prohibits the idling of buses at terminus and layover locations for longer than 3 minutes. APTA supports a coordinated approach toward Transportation Demand Management (TDM) within Durham Region and the GTA. The recommendation to "enhance public transportation services" requires clarification to specify the nature of proposed enhancements. APTA is preparing for a comprehensive review of our transit routes and services. The potential for future transit shuttle connections at rural transportation centers identified in Figure 6 (Brock Rd. / Taunton Rd. & Brock Rd. / Highway 407) will be considered as part of this review. Coordinated transit services like park-and-ride, vanpooling and demand responsive services would encourage northern residents as well as out-of- boundary commuters to consider accessing key urban destinations and urban transportation networks to/from these locations. A1-FACHMENT t/.._.~TO REPORT I PD '~,, - 0 ' 129 Page 2 DTMP Reference 2.3.1 Demand Management Recommended Action: 15. "Petition the Federal Government to amend taxation laws to enable employers to provide income tax - exempt transit passes to employees". 2.3.2 Land Use Recommended Action: 18. "Work co-operatively with the Local Municipalities to prepare and implement, through Planning Act instruments, land use guidelines that define the concept and the elements of' a transit-supportive land use plan, which includes: 1. Requiring 90% of residences, _jobs and other activities to be located within 400 meters of a transit stop; 2. Configuring neighborhoods for convenient and efficient routing of transit; 3. Incorporating transit stops and amenities, such as shelters, seating, lighting, and trash disposals, into development where possible; 4. Providing transit facilities at high-density housing complexes and major destination locations; 5. Providing safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to transit, and provides for bikes on transit; and 6. Minimizing walking distances and providing easy pedestrian access to transit by locating building entrances on major pedestrianways and close to transit stops and stations." APTA Comments APTA supports ongoing Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) initiatives to lobby the Federal Government for taxation legislation to permit tax exemption for employer-provided transit passes and public transportation infrastructure funding. APTA generally supports the development of a transit supportive land use plan that includes the elements listed in 2.3.2. Developers should be required to incorporate transit- supportive land use policies in their planning submissions and share in the cost of' related transit street amenities. Like other local transit providers, APTA has Agreements with transit advertisers to facilitate the installation of new transit shelter and transit bench amenities at no cost to the municipality. Advertisers have a limited capacity to finance new transit street amenities based on forecasted revenue projections. APTA supports specific planning guidelines (i.e. 90% of residences, iobs and other activities to be located within 400 meters of a transit stop) provided these guidelines do not unreasonably burden municipalities with the cost of' installing transit facilities. 130 ATTACHMENT#_ / TO REPORT # Pi)_ ~o - ~_~/' Page 3 2.3.3 Public Transportation Integration of Transit Services "Residents attending public open houses and forwarding comments expressed a strong desire for more connections between municipalities. Less than half (46%) of the public opinion survey respondents were satisfied with bus service between municipalities, and about 85% felt thai better inter-municipal transit was either essential or fairly important. Throughout the study, the Community Advisory Committee strongly advocated the need for better transit service integration." 2.3.3 Public Transportation Integration of Transit Services "The development of a Regional Transit system is likely to occur in stages over a long period of time. Four stages can be identified that lead to a full Regional Transit system: 1. Individual system operation. 2. Introduction of cross-boundary services to major generators .... 3. Amalgamation of adjacent local services (Pickering/Ajax and Whitby/Oshawa) depending on land use development with connections between systems. 4. Introduction of a fully integrated Regional Transit system between all areas within the southern portion of the Region." Recommended Action: 21. Develop an implementation strategy to create integrated, region-wide conventional and specialized transit service by striking a task force involving the Regional Transit Coordinating Committee that will report to Regional Council on the plan for establishing such services. Through our participation on the Regional Transit Coordinating Committee (RTCC) with Clarington, Oshawa and Whitby, APTA recognizes the need for co-operation between local service providers within Durham Region and GO Transit to make more effective and efficient use of existing resources. APTA also recognizes the need for seamless public transportation links to/from the GTA. APTA supports the introduction of integrated transit fares between local providers and GO Transit, improved transfer connections and coordinated customer information systems. Based on current passenger demand, APTA considers commuter travel to/from the GO Train, student transportation and Ajax/Pickering cross- boundary route coordination as our three key service priorities. APTA vehicle and financial resources must be allocated accordingly to support these operational priorities. The Implementation Phase of the 1999 RTCC commissioned study "Co-operation and Consensus: Rationalizing Transit Services in the Hwy 2/ Hwy 401 Corridor" became bogged down with the realities of insufficient GO Transit vehicle resources and the lack of conscientious concerning the appropriate municipal cost-sharing model to fund improved transit frequency along the Hwy. #2 corridor. With the recent funding announcement and eminent restructuring of GO Transit under a Provincial mandate, the Region of Durham will be required to determine the future use of the $11 million obtained annually through taxation to finance GO Transit. APTA would support the redeployment of GO Transit funds generated by Durham Region through taxation to support annual municipal cost sharing associated with the implementation of the recommendations of the Entra study. A'FrAOHMEI,~T #/~TO REPORT # PD~ Page 4 2.3.3 Public Transportation (continued) Integration of Transit Services 2.3.3 Public Transportation Recommended Actions: 22. Priority Transit Network .... 23. Hwy #2 as Durham's most significant transit corridor... 24, GO Transit expanded rail service... 25. GO Transit expanded bus service... 26. Support the protection of transportation corridors .... 27. Initiate and facilitate a Community Transportation Program .... 28. GTA-wide inter-regional transit plan... 29. GO Transit/TTC service connections and fare integration .... 30. Private sector participation in the delivery of service .... 31. Improve [passenger] information related to inter-regional and local transit services .... 32. Investigate feasibility of CP Bellevilte subdivision between Toronto and Bowmanville fo~tential transportation uses. APTA recognizes the need for improved coordination and cooperation between local transit providers. APTA intends to engage other municipalities in future merger discussions. APTA will continue to recognize the right of all municipalities to determine their best course of action based on individual municipal transit objectives and requirements. APTA supports the approach of ongoing dialogue between municipalities leading to a mutual decision to actively pursue future municipal transit system mergers. APTA recognizes the Region of Durham as a key player in coordinating and facilitating seamless cross-boundary transit links between local transit operators and GO Transit. APTA supports an evolutionary move toward Stage 4 provided that individual municipalities maintain autonomy to establish levels of service and flexibility to initiate transit services that meet local needs. APTA supports in principle, all recommendations contained in the sections identified opposite. ATTACHMENT REPORT ~' PD~ Page 5 2.5 Expanding the Transportation System 2.5.1 Future Demand on the System Table 5 - Forecasted Peak Period Travel Volumes and Mode Splits. APTA supports the goal of achieving a 15% reduction target in auto use from the current 1999 base (Auto/77%, Transit/8%, Other/15%) to the proposed target mode split in 2021 (Auto/68.4%, Transit/16.6%, Other/15%). Based on the Region of Durham Official Plan growth scenario, achieving this goal would quadruple transit person trips in Durham from the current 17,800 per day to 56,500 person trips per day in 2021. Municipalities would be hard-pressed to fund additional fleet capacity to accommodate increased demand on this scale. APTA will require long-term infrastructure funding support from the Provincial and Federal Government to assist our municipal funding partners in providing the necessary resources to achieve this goal. 133 July 5, 2000 INTERDEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO: Mayor .~thurs FROM: Catherine Rose and Members of Council Manager, Policy Durham Mobility Study Comments on Working Papers The Region of Durham commenced preparation of the Transportation Master Plan late in 1999. The purpose of the Plan is to prov/de a "blueprint" to guide the Region's transportation plans and investments. It will identify the new and improved £acilities needed to achieve the growth and transportation objectives set out in the Durham Regional Ol25cial Plan. It will also suggest strategies to encourage the use of non-auto modes of travel (transit, cycling, walking) and identify Ways to better use existing transportation services. Newsletter #1 of the Durham Transportation Master Plan outlines the reasons for conducting the study, its contents, the methods of obtaining public involvement, the study process and an invitation for people to comment on the study and submit proposed names for the study. A copy of Newsletter #1 is attached to this memo for you information. The stud)' is now called the Durham Mobility Study. A Steering Committee of l 1 members of Regional Council directs the Durham Mobility Study (DMS). The Community Advisory Committee, Inter-agency Team and Inter-departmental Team provide guidance. The Project Management Team and Consulting Team conduct and manage the DMS. The Community Advisory Committee is made up of members of the public and non-governmental organizations interested in the Study. The Project Management Team and the Inter-departmental teams are made up of staff members of Regional departments. The Inter-agency Team is comprised of staff members of Region of Durham area municipalities (including emergency services and rransi~ operations), adjacent municipalities, conservation authorities and Federal and Provincial Ministries. CiD' of Picker/ng staff from the Planning & Development Department, the Fires Services Division, Transportation Division, and both the Municipal Works & Traffic Sections of the Municipal Property' & Engineenng Divisions were invited to sit on the Inter- agency Committee. The role of Inter-agency Con~mittee members is to provide input to the Project Management Team, review and comment on the key products of the DMS, consult within the City and inform other members of the City about pro~ess and conclusions. The Inter-agency Committee first met in March, 2000, and met again on June 13, 2000 w/th another meeting planned for this fall. .... continued 124 ,..) ;?"'r ACHL';ENT # [,"~ TO F-;.--F:'ORI' # PD /-:/~ ~ ¢ ,' _2¸_ At the June 13, 2000 meeting, Project Management Team members updated committee members on the progress of the study and presented the first four working papers for discussion and review. The working papers are: · Draft Working Paper #1 - Public Opinion Survey Results; · Draft Working Paper #2 - Vision, Policy and Issues; · Draft Working Paper #3 - Transportation Demand Management and Transit; and, · Draft Working Paper #4 - Evaluation Process and Criteria. The working papers had previously been authorized to be released for public review by the Steering Committee. They were circulated to the Community Advisory Committee, the Inter- departmental Team and members of the public for comment at the same time. Comments on the working papers were requested from Inter-agency Committee members by June 30, 2000. It was pointed out that, because the Steering Committee was comprised of the Mayors and Regional Councillors, comments from the Councils of the Region of Durham area municipal Councils will not be requested until the final recommendations of the Durham Mobility Study are presented. The attached comments have been provided to the Project Management Team of the Durham Mobility Study. The comments were prepared by staff of the City.of Pickering Department of Planning & Development after consultation with the Fire Chief, the Manager of the Transportation Division and the Co-ordinator of Traffic and Waste Management. In addition to the comments on the four working papers, a summary of the papers is attached for your information. If you require further information, please call me at extension 2038 or Steve Gaunt at extension 2033. Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Planning & Development Manager, Transit Services Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Fire Chief Attachments SG/pr 1.25 ATTACHMENT # 1 Summary/Overview of Working Papers Working Paper #1 Public Opinion Survey Results (Draft for discussion purposes - May, 2000) Summars;/Overview Working Paper #1 provides results and analysis o£ a public opinion survey conducted by the Angus Reid Group as part of the Durham Mobility Study. 400 Durham household heads were surveyed on a random basis but with the same percentage of respondents from each constituent municipality as the percentage of population of each municipality within the Region of Durham. Angus Reid used telephone i~uerviews to leara about the residents' satisfaction with transportation services, attitudes towards reducing auto use, attitudes towards transportation improvements and preferred funding sources. The following Executive Summau, of Findings were presented: · 71% of residents work outside the home and 80% drive a car to work; · Residents are generally satisfied with transportation services, but feel that the most important issue is lack of adequate public transportation including GO trains and buses (45%); · 77% feel that auto use should be reduced in order to reduce pollution; · Roads and transportation planning should protect the natural environment (44%); · Road maintenance is the most important measure to improve transportation (93%); · Community design makes it unrealistic for people to use their cars less; · Few residents favor denser development in existing areas (31%); · Half of residents use Highway 407 at least infrequently (51%); · More residents would use Highway 407 if extended into Durham; and, · Residents are aware that road improvements are £unded mainly by property taxes (61%). Other findings noted in the survey results included: · 34% of Pickering respondents identified the most important transportation issue as "too few local buses,d0ad public transit"; · 64% of Durham residems identified either inadequacy of local or GO public transit or traffic congestion (including to Toroato) as the most important transportation issues in Durham Region; · 88% of Durham workers get to work by automobile. The survey did not ask whether they were alone on these trips (one-person auto trips); .... continued ATTACHMENT # 1 - Summary/Overview of Working Papers Page 2 · 77% felt that people should drive their vehicles less to reduce pollution (80%) and to reduce traffic congestion (38%); · 76% of residents feel "we need to reduce car usage"; · 76% of residents feel new commercial developments should include showers and change rooms to encourage people to walk or bike to work; · 69% felt that new housing developments should be provided with bus service as the first residents move in; · 68% oppose denser development in urban areas; · The most important transportation improvements are fixing potholes, provision of better access to transit services for the physically challenged, controlling speed, and coordination of traffic lights to improve traffic flow; · Improving local bus service, improving major provincial highways and improving condition of existing roads was preferred to widening roads; · Improving GO service was preferred over improving local bus service; · Improving bus and GO services between Durham and Toronto was preferred to improving bus services between Durham municipalities; · The best way to spend tax dollars on transportation improvements was to repair/extend/widen roads and highways (37%), improve GO systems (13%), more routes/connections (12%), and more frequent bus service (8%); · Funding for transportation improvements should be from a mix of sources, including senior governments (31%), traffic ticket revenue (21%), companies that benefit fi.om transportation improvements (17%), and gas and tire taxes (13%) with very low support for road tolls and user fees. .... continued A"r'TACH~.~ENT ~-,~3~T # PD q-C- ATTACHMENT # 1 - Summary/Overview of Working Papers Page 3 Working Paper #2 Vision, Policy and Issues (Draft for Discussion Purposes - May, 2000) Summary/Overview Working Paper #2 draws on the results of Working Paper ~1, the Angus Reid su~'ey of the attitudes of Durham residents about transportation issues. It examines three radically different options to guide a vision for the Region of Durham Transportation Master Plan (TMP) that includes a set of transportation principles and objectives. Working Paper #2 identifies future challenges to the provision of mobility services in Durham, noting the elements of the existing and currently planned transportation system, the current travel characteristics of Durham residents and the areas where the system is operating over its built capacity at peak hours. It draws on the .Angus Reid survey to conclude that auto use should be reduced, the automobile will remain the primary mode of transportation, improved GO and local transit is needed to improve connections between Durham municipalities, limited public support for major change to the built environment, improvement to roads and highways is the priority, managing change must protect the natural environment, senior government funding should be obtained, and that to improve transportation conditions, more transit, better roads and coordinated services should be supported by incentive measures rather than strategies that make auto travel expensive or difficult. The three options that were considered were: · Auto domination: Continuing current patterns of automobile domination by maintaining the current balance of transit use and automobile use; Auto reduction: Implementing reasonable transportation demand techniques to obtain a moderate shift from single-person automobile trips to increase transit, bicycle and pedestrian trips; and, Auto constrained: Constraining auto use through aggressive tectmiques by building no further road capacity and investing only in other types of infrastructure and imposing a general constraint on auto use. The Auto Reduction option was selected as best exemplifying the opinions of the survey respondents and best serves the objectives of addressing traffic congestion, providing travel choice and impacting communities in the most positive maimer. Highlights include: use of practical transportation demand management strategies, reduction in private automobile use through providing opportunities for increased use of non-automobile travel modes and encouraging mixed-use development pockets along transportation corridors. It seeks to increase vehicle occupancies from current lex els of 1.18 persons per vehicle to between 1.2 and 1.5 and to increase the choice of travel from current 8% for non-auto use to between 8% and 15% by the year 2021, which is the time frame for this Durham Transportation Master Plan. .... continued 138 A'I-rACHMENT # ~ TO ATTACHMENT # 1 - Summary/Overview of Working Papers Page 4 The study selects this option because the status quo was not considered acceptable and neither were the restrictions that would result fi.om the auto-constrained option. 5 goals and 46 principles and objectives were identified to guide the formulation of the individual elements and proposed system improvements to be detailed in the Master Plan. .... continued /;TTACHMENT # o~ ,,TO REPORT # PD ~('~ - ";, ATTACHMENT # 1 - Summary/Over¥iew of Working Papers Page 5 Working Paper #3 Transportation Demant Management and Transit (Draft for Discussion Purposes - May, 2000) Summary/Overview Working Paper #3 discusses methods of Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and Transit. TDM strategies seek to improve the operation of the transportation system to provide acceptable travel times within acceptable infrastructure expenditure levels. Since unacceptable travel times and congestion are forecasted unless unacceptable levels of infrastructure expenditure occur, mainly for trips between urban Durham and the central parts of the GTA at peak times, most techniques encourage alternatives to single-person automobile trips. Working Paper #3 notes that benefits of emplo34ng TDM techniques include reduction or deferral of the costs to build and maintain infrastructure and reduction of societal costs that include environmental damage, high land and resource consumption, decreased quality of health and increased levels of individual stress. Objectives include minimizing the number and length of automobile trips, shifting travel choices from peak hours to off-peak hours, encouraging walking, cycling, public transit and carpooling and generally providing alternative modes of transportation and route selection using community values to dictate the priorities. A list off potential TDM measures includes service improvement options, incentives and disincentives, alternate working arrangements and land use planning technique. Successful measures employed in Canada include public transit improvements, improved bike/pedestrian amenities and improved land use planning. The best measures involve strategies which reduce auto usage, have no major negative impacts on transit or other modes and are generally acceptable to the public, such as bicycle and pathway development, staggered work hours, flex time, park 'n' ride lots, land use changes, HOV lanes and transit improvement. Other techniques used in urban areas include carpools, vanpools, transit-related designs and land use design changes. In discussing barriers to successful implementation of TDM strategies, it is noted that one difficulty within Durham Region will be to obtain "buy-in" by all local municipalities and the other levels of government. Societal attitudes must be changed so that people realize that to avoid severe congestion, measures must be accepted to encourage people to change from one- person car trips to other methods of getting about. A simplified analysis is provided of TDM measures employed in the Region of Durham. Public transit and bike/pedestrian networks are among the methods recognized in the Regional Official Plan. Local transit is identified as the provider of transit within Durham with GO as the provider of' inter-regional service to connect to Toronto and other GTA regions. Currently, 8% of morning peak trips are made on public transit. .... continued 140 ~TTACHMENT # c~ TO ATTACHMENT :fi: 1 - Summary/Overview of Working Papers Page 6 In discussing opportunities for TDM measures in the Region of Durham, Working Paper #3 notes that TDM techniques are generally practiced and successful in major cities like Toronto. In suburban areas and small cities, such as Durham, there is little sense of urgency to implement such measures. However, the western and southern urban parts of Durham are feeling some of the same congestion which is expected to increase for the trips at peak hours in the westerly direction. TDM should be employed to obtain shifts in usage away from single person automobile trips. Measures recommended for immediate consideration in Durham include public transit improvements, bicycle and pedestrian programs and facilities, car and vanpooling and supportive land use mechanisms. A list of potential measures and implementation tools that would be reasonable for use in Durham is provided. Educational measures to encourage people how to improve health while walking and cycling for commuting and recreational purposes are listed. Although noting constraints of market and societal acceptance, 7 planning tools to encourage pedestrian, bicycle and transit-friendly land use planning and site design are listed. An extensive list of measures to encourage public transit use along with implementing tools is provided. A further discussion and list of a range of more aggressive strategies, measures and tools to reduce single occupancy vehicles from roadways is provided, including ride sharing (car and van-pooling matching services, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, preferential parking and parking pricing policies), employee incentives (subsidized transit passes), parking management, alternative work hours, telecommuting and congestion/road pricing (charge a fee for use of roads during peak times for single occupancy vehicles). Working Paper #3 concludes that the purpose of using TDM measures is to reduce use of private automobiles to prevent congestion from reaching intolerable levels, reduce investment in infrastructure and ensure the provision of sustainable and environmentally friendly mobility. TDM measures can only be partially successful in reducing auto use and changing personal mobility patterns. It is expected that the Durham public would resist reduced auto use even though the survey indicated general support. The paper recommends that Durham endorse TDM as a method to reduce auto dependence, to promote sustainable and environmentally friendly mobility services and to develop a program of TDM measures that have the greatest probability of success and the broadest public support including walking and cycling, transit initiatives, land use management and car/van pooling. .... continued ~-TTAOH~.~ENT # E~, ~TO 141 ATTACHMENT # 1 - Summary/Overview of Working Papers Page 7 Working Paper t~4 Evaluation Process and Criteria (Draft for Discussion Purposes - May, 2000) Summary/Overview Working Paper #4 - Evaluation Process & Criteria, provides an m~alysis and explanation of how the Durham Mobility Study is designed to meet manx' of the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act. The details of the approval requirements set out in the EA for individual, class and master plan approvals for small or system wide transportation projects are detailed. The process of public consultation and consideration of a range of alternatives to meeting the transportation objectives to be realized by implementation of the Durham Mobility Study is designed to meet many of the steps of the EA process. This is intended to reduce considerably the number of transportation works that will require exhaustive EA review in the future. It is intended that the Transportation Master Plan, specific municipal road operations, maintenance, construction and reconstruction projects that are subject to the EA Act, will fulfill either all or some of the requirements for EA approval. The evaluation process is intended to be traceable, replicable and understandable to those who could potentially be affected by the range of transportation works that may be proposed by the Durham Mobility Study. ; 7TAOHMENT # ~-~.__.._TO ATTACHMENT # 2 Transportation Master Plan The TMP will provide a This newsletter is the first ina W~~ , "blueprint" for the Region's series designed to inform future transportation the Region of Durham's J~lJ, JI~'--- d~cisions. It will identi~ the Transpo~ation Master Plan ~~ new and improved facilities (TMP) Study. This study will Sgg ' ..~. n~dCd to achi~v~ the gro~h ~xamine the many and transpo~ation obje~iws transpo~ation issu,s facing ,~, d~l~~~ s~t out in th, Durham R~gional Durham, and produce Jill~- Official Plan. ~eTMPwillalso recommendations to guide ~e Jw-- s u g g ~ s t s t r a t e g i e s t o Region's transpo~ation plans ~ncourage the use of non-auto and inves~en~ for the n~ modes of travel (transit, ~nWyears and beyond. ~cling, walking) and id~nti~ ways to b~r use existing transpo~ation se~ic~s. )nal system and busi the existing develop a trans difficult tran: set out the strates~ Municipality of Durham is a diverse region. With a strong equally robust residential communities, Durham is poised ignificant growth over the coming years. The transportation important role in meeting the mobility needs of the people Region if we are to cOntinue to grow, By reviewing on our infrastructure and forecasting future needs, .we can ~n plan that provides innovative solutions to ensure that ssues are addressed with minimal impacts. This study will an environmentally responsible course of action that will "move" Durh~ Roger Anderson Regional Chair lit 143 ATTACHMENT # 2 Page 2 Durham is one' of Canada's fastest growing areas. Located in the eastern part of the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), the Region's population increased by more than 40% between 1986 and 1996 to nearly 460,000 people. Prospects for future growth are also bdght; Durham could reach a population of nearly 1 million people by the year 2021. The safe and convenient movement of people and goods will become more important and challenging as the Region continues to grow. A plan detailing future transportation strategies, which can be updated on a regular basis, is needed today to ensure the community's growing mobility demands can be 'met in the most economically and environmentally sustainable manner possible. Over the coming year, the TMP Study will review all aspects of the transportation system. The review will be presented Jn a series of Working Papers, including: Management Strategies; · Planning Impact Statement; · Economic Impact Statement; and · Improvement Pdodty Plan Vision and Policy; Transit Strategic Plan; Transportation Demand ~:.-'.:~'%-~-~:~ L~: ::::-~':C :' L- SouFces: 19E~,~ramsDo~a~ O~T ~mo~ra~bu~¢ ~ The final TMP will summarize all the input received and identi~ the priority investments, programs and policies needed to achieve the Region's long term transportation vision. Morning Travel Destinations Number of Vehicles Per Household Walk or ~ , Other- L, ycle . 10% motorcycle taxi, 4% 16% 3 ~ . ~ 29% 8% ~ Car How Tdps Are ~ade Household Size (¢ of persons) Yo~ Other 4+~ 9%o 2% 6% 5% 3% . Toronto ~ 21% JJ Du~am } ~ 71% ¢o 35'/0 48Y~ ~ 144 ATTACHMENT # 2 Page 3 The success of the TMP Study will hinge on the quality of input obtained during the public involvement process. The public's input will play an important role in shaping future transportation services provided in Durham. Development of the TMP will require a significant consultation effort, not only because the Region is so large, but because transportation (mobility) is such a major factor to so many citizens and industries. A number of public consultation' techniques will be used throughout the TMP Study inCluding: · Public Opinion Survey · . Newsletters~ · Media Articles and Releases · Intemet- (see the NEWS section of www. region. durham.on.ca) · E-mail- (TMPStudy@region.durham. On. ca) · Public Open houses, workshops and focus group sessions · Displays in municipal buildings A Community Advisory Committee (CAC) will also be formed to guide the public involvement process. The CAC will interpret the public input received through the course of the TMP' Study as a basis for providing input into the final TMR Are you interested in joining the CAC? Please contact Gene Chartier at the address noted on the back page by February 18, !2000 for further information on how you can become involved. Act, the ROP defines Regional infrastructure projects and 145 ATTACHMENT # 2 Page 4 The TMP tneeds ?:...~ name ~'~ : ts 'the t. Enter for your to win by submitting entries in writing, by fax or e-mail to Mr, Gene Chartier at the address noted below, by F~br~ar~ 11, 2000, To place your Contact: . ,' · :Pttl~li~ !sstte~$ tltltl or fa,~ us: Mail :ca Visit our website at www. region.durham.on.ca, Zoo/cttnderNews. 146 ;,TT/~CH~ENTi~O~ ..... TO ~PORT ~ PD ~'0- 0 ,' ATTACHMENT # 3 The Corporation of the City of Pickering PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT July 7, 2000 Mr. Gene Chart/er Chair, Project Management Team Durham Mobility Study Works Department Regional Municipality of Durham 105 Consumers Drive Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 Dear Mr. Chartieri Durham Mobility Study Review of Draft Working Papers #1 - #4 City of Pickering We welcome the opportunity to provide input to the Region of Durham Transportation Master Plan, now named the Durham Mobility Study. Comments were requested from members of the Durham Mobility Study Interagency Team, by June 30, 2000, on the first four draft working papers prepared as part of the Durham Mobility Study. Three more working papers will be prepared once the initial four papers are redrafted as a result of these comments. Catherine Rose and Steve Gaunt of the City of Picketing Department of Planning & Development Department are members of the Durham Mobility Study Interagency Team, along with the Fire' Chief, the Manager of the Transportation Division and the Co-ordinator of Traffic and Waste Management. The following comments incorporate the concerns of the City of Picketing Fire Services Division, Transportation Division and both the Municipal Works & Traffic Sections of the Municipal Property & Engineering Division. In addition, Steve Gaunt has spoken to GeoffBrooks directly. In general, the main thrust contained in the conclusions and recommendations cOntained in the first four working papers of the Durham Mobility Study are appropriate and supportable by picketing. Prior to commenting on the details contained in the individual working papers, comments of a general nature are presented. it is not clear from .either the newsletters or the initial four working papers whether technical studies have been done to date to forecast future transportation demand. These wilt be .... continued Department (905) 420-4617 - Fax. (905) 420-7648 E-mail Pickering Civic Complex, One the Esplanade, Picketing, Ontario, Canada LIV 6K7 DirectAccess (905) 4204660 147 ATTACHMENT # 3 Mr. Gene Chartier RE: Durham Mobility Stud~ Page 2 July 7, 2000 needed to identify future volumes of traffic based on projected population growth, employment growth and goods movement requirements. The two projections noted on page 3 of Wor'king Paper #2 are dramatically different and must be rationalized prior to reaching conclusions of what improvements should be planned. Demand projections would be useful in predicting future directions of transportation demand and to act as a balance to the public opinion.survey in formulating the transportation system vision, goals, principles and objectives. The Study Team could consider conducting a literature review of recent transportation studies that are pertinent to the Region of Durham and summarize the findings of such studies. Throughout the four working papers, the relationship of Durham to the Greater Toronto Area appears to be understated. The papers discuss Durham as if it were a self-contained region with little connection to the larger urban area. In addition, although I am aware that study team staff are involved in the Greater Toronto Senrices Board studies and reports on transportation needs, little reference is made to the issues raised in those GTSB studies. The major issue that must be addressed in the Greater Toronto Area is traffic congestion. The GTSB papers provide a picture of where congestion is currently experienced on GTA roads and highways and where it is predicted to become unacceptable given projections of future urban growth and transportation demand. Those p~apers conclude that unless unprecedented investment in highway and roadway improvements is made, gridlock will become widely experienced in the GTA. Such levels of investment are not currently possible by GTA municipal ?vernments without senior government sponsorship or concessions to allow' new sources of dedicated funding. It would be useful if the Durham MobiliD,' Stud3' could paint a picture of where congestion is currently experienced and how it is projected to grow in the future. The Durham Transportation Master Plan should then state clearly what steps Durham Region should take to assist in mitigating this creeping problem and how it will seek to co-operate and influence neighbouring municipalities to the west, the GTSB and the Provincial and Federal Govermnents, to ensure the problem does not degrade the quality of life for Durham residents and the economic competitiveness of its employers. It appears that Durham faces two strategic issues: how to best provide for travel within Durham and how to best provide for travel between Durham and the rest of the GTA. Those two challenges must be met by balancing the system elements of roads and highways and those of public transit. Public transit and TDM measures are the tools to ensure that congestion and gridlock on the roads and highways does not become unacceptable. The vision, goals, principles and objectives should reflect this more clearly. The Region of Durham is within the urban shadow and the commuter shed of greater Toronto. As more urban areas of Durham are developed and occupied by Toronto-bound commuters, providing enough transportation improvements to control congestion and gridlock will be an ongoing challenge. As the Existing Transportation System Performance chart facing page 7 of Working Paper #2 indicates, the transportation system is already overloaded close to the western border of Durham. Future projections will likely show that this will gradually get worse as further development and population growth continues in Durham Reg/on. .... continued !48 ATTACHMENT #-~ ATTACHMENT # 3 Mr. Gene Chartier RE: Durham Mobility Study Page 3 July 7, 2000 Transportation system overload/congestion can be predicted to gradually creep eastward as time passes. To address this, a graduated implementation of TDM methods and transit improvements in addition to highway and road capacity increases will be required. These transit and TDM measures may be predicted as being both more publicly acceptable and more appropriate in those parts of Durham Region that are closer to the urbanized western boundary of Durham Region. The urban areas will suffer traffic congestion first and worst, whereas the more rural and easterly parts of the Region will not feel these damaging effects to their quality of life as much. In fact, some of the statistics from the Angus Reid survey from'Picketing residents, and existing policies of the City of Picketing demonstrate that Picketing is already reacting to these threats. The City of Picketing, which is in closest proximity to the other municipalities of the GTA, has already supported most of the strategies put forward by the strategic vision proposed by Working Paper #2 and the proposed list of TDM strategies to be implemented in Durham Region put forward in Working Paper #3. With the foregoing comments as a background, more specific comments on the draft working papers are now provided. Comments are provided On: Draft Working Paper #1 - "Public Opinion Survey Results"; · Draft Working Paper #2 - "Vision, Policy and issues"; · Draft Working Paper #3 -" Transportation Demand Management and Transit"; and · Draft Working Paper #4 - "Evaluation Process and Criteria". 1. Draft Working Paper #1 - "Public Opinion Survey Results" The Angus Reid survey asked 400 household heads in Durham Region about their understanding and views on a broad range of transportation issues. The questions asked and responses obtained 'allow conclusions to be drawn in support of the status quo or to support changes that would promote transit and TDM strategies. In order to obtain even more useful information, it would have been useful to ask those recipients who indicated dissatisfaction with GO services or transportation access to Toronto, a number of further questions. These could have included their trip origins and destinations, the time spent traveling, the cost of travel to work, their -.views of the stress of highway/road congestion and also their opinions of what system improvements might lure them to change their mode of travel to public transit/GO or into multi-occupancy automobile trips. System improvements to ask about could include a transitway on Highway 407, removal of tolls on Highway 407, more parking at GO stations, better GO connections to the Toronto subway/LRT 'systems, Go bus connections to suburban GTA business centers such as Woodbine & Steeles or Leslie & Highway #7 in Markham. Respondents could have been asked if satellite parking lots with better local bus connections to GO transit stations or more GO train routes on rail corridors would make transit convenient enough to woo them out 'of their cars, or,if a matching service to .... continued I48 ATTACHMENT # 3 Mr. Gene Chartier RE: Durham Mobili Stud Page, 4 Jnly 7, 2000 put them in touch with fellow car-pool prospects to suburban Toronto destinations might be desirable. The survey could have also asked whether development charges that are passed along by developers to result in higher sale prices of houses should be supported for Durham or GO transit spending. 2. Draft Working Paper #2 - "Vision, Policy and Issues" The analysis of future challenges to the provision of mobility services in Durham Region notes two broadly different population and employment forecasts. It notes that these will be considered for work being undertaken as part of the Study and that growth projections will be monitored. It would be appropriate to consider the conclusions of such growth projections and demand forecasts along with those of the public opinion survey as input to the vision for the Durham Mobility Study., At such time as the growth projections and demand forecasts become available, the "Vision", goals, principles and objectives should be revisited. The results of studies done recently by the GTSB and Toronto should also be examined in order to extract any applicable conclusions that may affect transportation planning in Durham Region. It would be useful to identify the locations and times at which road congestion is currently experienced and plot the locations and times of projected future congestion under different improvement scenarios (i.e. if Highway 401 is increased to x lanes, GO introduces specific new routes, Highway 407 is constructed to x intersection, connectors to 401 are completed, tolls are retained, or removed etc.) It would also be useful to see resulting traffic conditions if predicted improvements do not occur. The results of the technical studies should be used to enlarge or refine the summary of issues and conclusions so that the public survey is not the sole input to the vision and goals as it currently appears. The Summary of Issues and Conclusions should also note that GO transit services should also provide greater connectivity and integration to adjacent municipalities in Toronto and Markham. The Strategic Transportation System Goals should include a goal to integrate the system of transit (rail and bus), tdghway and roads to serve the anticipated growth within the GTA to ensure a healthy economy, en,Aronment and quaL/D~ of life. The three strategic options appear as too simplistic in their assumptions. They should reflect the dramatic growth that is projected and that threats to the environment and people's ' quality of life are the challenges facing Durham Region no matter what option is adopted. In all cases, growth and change will occur. The status quo option should indicate that traditional techniques will continue to be used to manage the dramatic growth that is expected. Limited growth in TDM and transit initiatives would be instituted. Although I agree with the option selected, without the technical studies with growth projections and forecasted transportation .... continued 150 ATTACHMENT # 3 Mr. Gene Chartier RE: Durham Mobili Studt~L~ Page 5 ju y 7, 2000 demand and a set of proposed improvements,.formuIation of options based solely on a one-time, 400 respondent public attitude survey is problematic. The Auto Reduction option proposed in section 5.0 is the appropriate option to adopt. This option is supportive of the existing policies of the City of Pickering Official Plan. The assumption that support will be forthcoming from the Provincial and Federal governments in promoting TDM programs may have to be reconsidered as current funding arrangements do not include Provincial or Federal Government support for transit or roadway systems or TDM strategies. However, the Greater Toronto Services Board has responsibility for the funding and planning of GO transit services, and are currently developing a strategy to take the lead role in transportation demand management and transportation planning in the GTA. The role of the GTSB should be considered in this option. Many of the elements of the auto reduction option are already recognized by City of Pickering Official Plan policies. Examples include a goal to change from an auto-dominated place to a pedestrian-friendly City. Other policies include moderation of traffic congestion, providing a broad range of travel choices, support for transit, and pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use and high-density development along a transit-supported corridor. The discussion of TDM techniques in Working Paper #3 makes no reference to Transportation Management Associations (TMA's), which are a recognized delivery mechanism for TDM techniques. Both Toronto and the GTSB are promoting TMA's as partnerships between concerned governments (i.e. local, regional and GTA), transit authorities and private sector partners to encourage TDM activities. TMA's are becoming recognized as effective delivery vehicles for TDM strategies. The Region of Durham should investigate establishment of one or more TMA's in Durham and co-operate with other TMA's in the GTA. Respecting Table 5.1 - Assessment of Alternative Transportation Service Provision Plans, the Lifestyle Changes factor for Option 1 should note that significant lifestyle degradation can be expected if'this option is adopted. This will result from dramatically increased traffic congestion because required road improvements are unlikely to occur because of unacceptable high cost and difficulties of obtaining necessary approvals. The purpose and meaning of the explanations of section 5.2 - the Assessment of Strategic Options and the Strategic Options Continuum table are difficult to understand. I would suggest section 5.3 - Conclusions propose introduction of a graduated policy. A graduated policy would institute policies and improvements that fight traffic congestion, increase transit services, support land use policies promoting higher densities and mixed-use development and other TDM techniques first in the southern urban parts of Durham Region and in the westerly areas of Durham, and then implemented later in the more northerly and easterly areas of the Region. The Conclusions should also recognize that promotion of TDM strategies should occur in co-operation with other GTA municipalities including the GTSB. .... continued 151 ATTACHMENT # 3 Mr. Gene Chattier RE: Durham Mobili~ Page 6 7, 2000 With respect to the Principles and Objectives proposed in section 7.0, senior government approval of new funding sources should be added to Goal A-8. in addition, consideration should be given to recommending to the Ministry of Transportation that no further expansion and a roll- back of existing tolls on highways be implemented, that planning be continued for a transit-way on Highway 407, and that Highway 407 and the links to Highway 401 be completed at the earliest time. Goal B-2 should include increased GO rail and bus service. Goal B-7 should suggest construction of infrastructure before capacity over-utilization occurs; that is, before congestion and gridlock occur. Goal C-l, should take into account that, unless arterial roads and highways are built in time and of sufficient capacity, preventing the use o£ non-arterial roads for thru-traffic removes an important safety valve that often prevents congestion and gridlock on arterial roads. If there is no safety valve, the arterial roads will increasingly become congested. The GTSB and the MTO should be included in Goat D-5. Goal D-3 could include opposition to more toll roads. Has the Region studied the impact of increased traffic on arterial roads and highways because some drivers will not or can not afford to pay the tolls on Highway 407? Implementation of Goal D-9 will likely require bicycle lanes on many regional and local roads. With regard to Goal E-4, decisions made by other municipalities and levels of government impact on Durham residents while traveling inside and outside Durham Region. The goals could address how the Master Plan is intended to influence the adoption of development charges for Durham Re,on and for the Greater Toronto Services Board, through GO Transit. 3. Draft Working Paper #3 - "Transportation Demand Management and Transit" The impact of not adopting TDM and transit alternatives could be better explained by pointing out that traffic can be expected to get much worse unless extremely expensive road and highway improvements are made. In addition, the number of new road and highway lanes that would be needed are not likely to be acceptable to the public or to be approved. You may wish to explain that the existing system already has congestion (Highway 401 in the Ajax to Pickering sections at both AM and PM rush hours) that will be exacerbated by anticipated growth. Note the difficulty of obtaining agreement and approvals for new routes for roads, highways or rail corridors and that funding sources are limited for municipalities and that senior governments do not provide such funding. These problems suggest that the level of traffic congestion can only be kept at acceptable levels if fairly significant shifts of modal split shifts occur away from single-person auto trips. Transit or TDM methods are the only way to keep time, cost and quality of life of commuters xvithin acceptable ranges. The subject matter of this working paper would be more understandable to the lay public if concrete examples of both TDM and TSM techniques were given in section 1.2. .... continued 152 ATTACHMENT ~'~TO ,qEPORT # PD ~,-o ~" Mr. Gene Chartier RE: Durham Mobility Study ATTACHMENT # 3 Page 7 July 7, 2000 Goal 2 would be improved if it mentioned reduction of cost, stress and time for commuters as ways to improve their quality of life. The greatest need for using TDM strategies is to address current and predicted traffic congestion, specifically caused by rush hour trips to the center of the GTA. Accordingly, establishment of one or more Transportation Management Associations (TMA's) and co-operation with Toronto, the Region of York and the GTSB in this regard could be proposed as an additional goal. TMA's could be mentioned as additional measure to promote TDM strategies in section 3.0. It could be noted that as desirable as they may be, HOV lanes can be difficult to implement effectively, as experienced in Toronto. Since the study concludes that disincentives to private use of automobiles are too aggressive a TDM technique for Durham Region, and notes that tolls are such an aggressive method, the MTO should be asked why it has instituted such a major disincentive to commuter use of Highway 407. The Region could consider a position in opposition to such tolls. With respect to Land Use Planning techniques, strategies such as~ encouragement of high density and mixed-use development in close proximity to mass transit stations and such micro-design techniques as permitting lower parking space provisions for buildings designed to favor bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes of travel could be proposed. With respect to section 3.1 - Evaluating the Success or Suitability of TDM Measures, other techniques than the three noted can be successful when implemented properly. Van-' pooling has been successfully promoted in New Jersey, for example. With respect to Section 4.0 - the Benefits of TDM, another societal benefit of employing TDM techniques is the reduced stress and cost and improved quality of life for commuters. The discussion of the benefits of TDM should make clear that TDM will not reduce congestion, or spending on infrastruature, but it will reduce the growth in congestion, spending and air quality degradation. Unless urban growth stops, reduction will not occur. In section 5.2 - Societal Barriers, it could be noted that TDM measures and transit strategies are alread}f successful practices in Durham Region. The historic and growing support for local transit and GO rail and bus services and supportive policies contained in the City of Pickering Official Plan policies are examples. The request for all-day GO train service, larger GO parking lots, urban design policies, co-ordinated transit service on KingSton Road are further examples for these strategies. The Durham Mobility Study could suggest that "more" of these strategies be implemented in more parts of Durham Region. The TDM tools to be used could be promoted as methods of making Durham residents' commuting easier, faster, cheaper and healthier. When presented in that way, individual~ will evaluate the personal benefits on a practical basis. In section 5.3, the discussion of TDM as a marginal activity could suggest that TDM be promoted first and most aggressively at'locations where people currently exper/ence congestion and next in areas where congestion is predicted to grow. In section 5.4, in discussing TDM as a long term investment, it could'be noted that the benefits of successful implementation will multiply if such techniques are practiced in co-operation with neighbouring jurisdictions. Employment of TMA's as a means of creating partnerships between public, private and transit organizations should be explored. Section 5.7, which addresses obstacles and identifies .... continued 1,53 ATTACHMENT # 3 Mr. Gene Chartier RE: Durham Mobilit ST._~_m___~ Page 8 7, 2000 incentives to TDM measures, should include the use of TMA's, either at the Regional level or at the local municipal level, as a means of promoting TDM strategies. The second-last paragraph on page 15 in section 7.4 - Public Responses in the Region of Durham to Potential Initiatives would be more accurate if it predicted lower growth of private auto trips and average occupancy ratios, rather than actual reductions. The recent ~owth in GO passengers of5% a year may already be the modal split even after accounting for other ~owth in other types of GTA-bound morning peak period trips. Section 8.0 - Opportunities for TDM in the Region of Durham, could be more supportive of TDM opportunities. It could refer to ~owth in support of TDM measures and more effective delivery and targeting of TDM strategies to those urban areas of the Region that are in proximity to Highway 401 and the GO rail stations. Definitions, examples and explanations of how the many methods of TDM can be implemented would be useful for a better understanding by the general public of the whole working paper and particularly of Table 8.1. The meaning of"Priority Rating" in Table 8.1 is not clear. Section 8.1 - Primary Opportunities for Walking and Cycling could focus more strongly on measures and tools that would improve the modal split such as bicycle lanes on Regional roads, bicycle racks at GO parking lots, government and private buildings, education of bicycle riders and drivers on safe driving practices for cyclers and automobile drivers. The discussion of Land Use Management techniques could give positive comment about the eXisting policies promoting these strategies contained in the City of Pickering's Downtown Development Guidelines and Kingston Road Corridor Guidelines. Comments could note that there is already acceptance of such practices in the Region, particularly in the western urbanized areas. The "Possible Tools" could be focused to better attain an improved modal split by proposing tools such as: · adopt po. licies to encourage (or require) medium or kigh density and mixed-use development within walking distance of GO rail stations and to a lesser extent along transit spines; develop mandatory standards favouring transit, bicycle and pedestrian friendly design for both public and private development, including Provincial Highways, Regional and local roads. Further transit-friendly tools could include: integration of local transit with neighbouring municipal transit services; co-ordination of TDM measures with GO, the GTSB and Toronto; initiate one or more TMA's with Provincial Government, Regional, local municipalities, private industry, the City of Toronto and the GTSB as possible partners. .... continued 154 ~L ATTACHMENT#3 Mr. Gene Charfier RE: Durham Mobility Study Page 9 July 7, 2000 In section 8.2, that discusses other TDM. opportunities, the strategies to encourage ride- sharing and increased automobile occupancy would be more understandable if explained more fully. This section could include other examples such as ride-matching services and car and van- pools to GO stations. Employer/Employee incentives could also note the opportunity for TMA participation by employers that can encourage car and van pools, ride-matching and the availability of preferred parking spaces for such multi-occupancy vehicles. The discussion of alternative work schedules appears to indicate that such opportunities are not available to public employers. The discussion of congestion/road pricing would be more easily understood if HOV was explained. This discussion about congestion would appear in fuller context if data was presented that identifies locations of both current and projected traffic congestion. The statement made in paragraph 3 of section 9.0 - Conclusions and Recommendations, that "the public would resist voluntarily reducing auto use" does not appear to be supported by the public survey in which significant support was noted for various TDM activities. It may be more accurate to state that "the public would resist mandatory reduction of auto use". The survey results appear to invite promotion of TDM measures provided they provide better alternatives from which people can choose. It may be suitable to note that the Region of Durham Official Plan already endorses a number of transit-friendly and other TDM strategies. These policies support policies in force in a number of local municipalitiesl neighbouring municipalities, the GTSB and the Province of Ontario. Recommendation Number 2 may be more effective if it directs implementation of TDM measures to parts of the Region where they will have the greatest benefit and probability of success. These should be targeted to Toronto-bound commuters in the southern urban areas in closest proximity to .the central GTA, Highway 401 and the Lakeshore GO rail line. It would be advantageous to propose and finance a Region-wide TMA in partnership with local municipalities, private employers, transit operators, etc. 4. Draft Working Paper #4 - "Evaluation Process and Criteria" It is a wise and prudent step for the Durham Mobility Study to follow the procedures for Transportation Master Plans that are required by the Environmental Assessment Act in order to minimize future procedural delays for transportation improvement projects. It is unclear whether the "document" referred to in section 2.1 - Municipal Class Environmental Assessment, is an amendment to Provincial law, Cabinet regulation or guidelines. Depending on the type of change, you may wish to question whether Ministry staff have legal authority to approve use of a procedure that has not yet come into force. .... continued 155 Mr. Gene Chartier RE: Durham Mobili~ Smd~v ATTACHMENT#3 Page 10 7, 2000 The discussion of Phase 1 in section 3.1 - Approach to the evaluation process and criteria, refers to the technique that will be used to determine future travel demands, but it does not determine th3se demands or identi~, potential problem areas. At what stage of the Durham Mobility Study will the future travel demands and potential problem areas be identified? In Phase 2 - Identification and Evaluation of Alternative Solutions, have you considered including commuter rail corridors, lines, stations and corridors as alternative improvements to solve remaining problem area. Major fixed-rail transit facilities are also component parts of the transportation network. Including them in the list of improvements may reduce the EA approval requirements for wttichever service provider may construct such transportation improvements at a later date. The use of such jargon as sub-area, screenline and linklevel makes this working paper difficult to understand. Does the list of stakeholders to be consulted include the GTSB and GO Transit? Respecting the proposed evaluation criteria, a number of other questions emerge. Is there an analysis of the ability of the Region of Durham to finance the needed improvements, and, has there been any projections of a shortfall in needed capital resources? If so, how can the Region address the short-fall and what are the consequences of not financing the shortfall? What are the economic and financial impacts.of using the individual EA, this Master Plan or the Municipal Class EA approval process? If certain transportation systems/improvements/routes or facilities are 'privatized', are there cost savings to be obtained by simpler EA approval requirements? W-hat is the environmental, economic, fiscal and societal impact of not implementing general or specific transportation network improvements? Thank-you for the opportunity to comment on the first four working papers of the Durham Mobility Study. We look for~vard to reviewing the other working papers and to continued participation in this important project. If further clarification of any of these comments is required, please call me at extension 2038 or Steve Gaunt at extension 2033. Yours very truly, SG/pr Copy: Nell Carroll, Director, Planning & Development 1,96 ATTACHMB~r ~ ~ TO 13 I (0~ 3NFiNMO1 HYHBnO-~BO~J Ot BB 157 158 ~TTACNMEN~ # _TO ~-;F_?OR'T # PD HI} -~%, .q .q ! (Od 9NIgNMOI HVHBIIO')O:IOA) 0£ b'B ~DO~iS) ~ UU : 30DRIS) g ~ 15~) ATTACHMENT ~ ~ _TO REPORT # PO I~:- C W~TES ROI L~KE PJDGE R.D BJJ.DWI# ST (KWY 121 ._ :O T CTv'~ U ,N E~R.~ - COURT'CE RD --t 1' I11 Ill m .q 160 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD TO 0 ! (019 3Nr'lNMOJ. HYHi:II'IO'MBOA) O~ '"' Z uJ o tu 161. ~Cld ~ .Lt~Od3H O.L------~ ~ 1_62 ATTACHMENT ~5PORT # PD~ ~) 0 0 (0~ 3NI'INMO.L I~IYHI:I~O'~4~IOX) 0£ 163 ATTACHMENT # '_~._..._TO ~PORT# PD :' '- 2 I11 1_64 ATTACHMENT # '~' .TO q..EPORT# PD ~.'0 0 0 165 ATTACHMENT i~TO gEPORT ,~ PD~ ..... C) 0 0 o = Z m m m m Z ATTACHMENT # "c~ TO REPORT t PD~~ '3 167 C) O o ~ 168 ATTACHME}~T #-'~ ...... TO REPORT # PD HI;,- r~l ,, 0 Z 169 ATTACHMENT ~'~TO ~£PORT # PD~ 113~n m~ CE' 13 Z I11 Z 170 ATTACHMENTt,~'~''~' TO · REPORT # PD Cm lU 0 171 KFI'ACHMENT .~O~T,, P~~ Z m I'- m Ill Z gl 172 ATTACHMENT #, '~ TO REPORT # PD ~-Tz~ - c? / DURHAM MOBILTTY STUDY DRAFT TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN Name: Address: E-Mail (Optional): PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE Pickering Recreation centre Mo-nday, September 24, 200:t /7 '7 /o Please check off the appropriate box(es) to help identify your interest in the Transportation Master Plan, Local Area Resident: Homeowner [~ Rent/Lease L--~ Local Area Business: Business Owner ~ Rent/Lease _Local Area Landowner: Current De,elopment Interns I J Future Development ,ntLrests Other: Do you have any comments on the draft Transportation Master Plan? ---- .~, 5~ ~ ..c~ '~.~.~.~, /2"-&~,-~ '~,.~,~.-'E~.,~....:, ~7/. ~,~ ~- ' .. -~ ~ , ~ ~ ~-- - ,./',,' ~C--. ~/~- ~-~'~ / (./~ ~ ., t; . ~ .~- . ~ . 7~ · ' ~1 . t ,/ ' Do you wish to be ke~ info.ed as the ~udy proceeds? Yes ~ No ~ By mail . ~ E-Mail ~ 2001 DEVELO~k~-; i ;.' ATTACHMENT ~/..,-,-.~TO ,~EPORT # PD~ 173 174 ' ATrACHMENT d /0 TO REPORT ~ PD~ FAIRPORT ] OAD ACTION COMMmEE 1811 Fairport Road, Picketing, Ontario L1V 1T2 Contact: Gayle Clow Phone/Fax: (905) 839-3158 October 25, 2001 RECEIVE OCT 2 6 2001 Regional Municipality of Durham Durham Works Department 105 Consumers Drive Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 CITY OF PLANNING & DEVELOPMEN'I DEPARTMENT Attention: Mr. Gene Chattier Dear Sir: The following is the response of the Fairport Road Action Committee ("FRAC") to the Durham Transportation Master Plan, Public Consultation Draft. FRAC is dedicated to preserving the unique residential character of Fairport Road in terms of both development and traffic issues. PLAN DETAILS FRAC is opposed to maintaining Fairport Road as a type "C" arterial roadway in order to accommodate "future travel demands" (p. 57). We have recommended that Fairport Road be downgraded to a collector. Our response to Pickering's drat~ Safer Streets Management Strategy details our rationale for this position and is appended for your information. Briefly, we wish to be able to drive, walk, bike, cross the street and access our driveways safely. These daily activities are difficult now and will become next to impossible with "future traffic" added. We note that the Urban Area Map on page 27 includes a "Future Minor Transit Corridor" linking to Whites Road and running north of Fairport Road. Curiously, this is not mentioned in the text and in the absence of any explanation, we envision an additional "future" event that would direct traffic from the north onto our residential street. We are vigorously opposed to this transit corridor. There are roads better suited to accommodate additional traffic. Maintenance of well established residential areas must take precedence over future growth and short-term capital expenditures. The plan ought to give more consideration to the impact of regional decisions on urban residential communities and allow for increased co-ordination between the Region and the Municipalities. ATTAOHMENT ~ / ~ TO REPORT ~' PD ~'7- ~'; 175 In our area, we have experienced increased traffic flow due to: -additional traffic signals on Whites Road (Regional) driving traffic to Fairport Road (locat) where there are fev¥'er sign/signal interruptions: -providing a dedicated left hand turn lane southbound from Finch (Regional) to Fairport and not providing one southbotmd from Finch at Dixie (it is our understanding that this will be rectified shortly); -providing a left-hand turn signal northbound to Fairport from Kingston Road. PROCESS Our members responded to the Region's initial request Ibr input over one year ago. Despite our stated interest and input, neither copies of the Draft Plan nor notification or: public meetings were received by any of us. Additionally, the method of informing tile public about the Plan and timelines Ibr response and attendance at public meetings were minimal in the first case and extremely short in the second. We point out these issues in tile hope that they will be improved. Please ensure that FRAC is informed of all future meetings and receives Plan copies. CONCLUSION In conclusion, FRAC strongly supports co-ordinated Regional/Municipal initiatives and is eager to be part of the process not opponents. Respectfully, Fairport Road Action Committee, Gayle Clow Christine Thompson Cindy Wang Vivian Vanden Hazel George Elliot Ludy and Wayne Gibson Alan Thornton Sue Peschke cc: City of Pickering: CC: CC' Wayne Artburs Mark Holland Maurice Brenner Rick Johnson Stephen Brake Liverpool West Community Association (LWCA) Joyce Herzog Paul White Bill McLean Dave Ryan Dave Pickles Catherine Rose ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PD FAIRPORT ] OAD ACTION COMMI EE 1811 Fairport Road, Pickering, Ontario L1V 1T2 Contact: Gayle Clow Phone/Fax: (905) 839-3158 September 30, 2001 Safer Streets Traffic Management Strategy Team City of Picketing Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Mr. Stephen Brake Dear Mr. Brake: You will find enclosed the Fairport Road Action Committee's ("FRAC") response to the draft Safer Streets Traffic Management Strategy FRAC is dedicated to preserving the unique residential character of Fairport Road in terms of both development and traffic issues. Our response reflects this mandate. We support politicians and staff who wish to ensure that Pickering evolves as a strong and vibrant city that well serves its residents. We look forward to working with you. Respectfully, Fairport Road Action Committee, Gayle Glow - 1811 Fairport Road Sue Peschke- 1831 Fairport Road Cindy Wang - 1845 Fairport Road P. Bradshaw - 1891 Fairport Road George Elliot and Chtistine Thompson - 1889 Fairport Road CoG. Wayne Arthurs Mark Holland Bill McLean Maurice Brenner Dave Ryan Rick Johnson Dave Pickles Joyce Herzerg - LWCA Ludy and Wayne Gibson - 1748 Fairport Road Alan Thornton - 1750 Fairport Road Paul and Lucy Lorefico - 1881 Fairport Road Sam and Paola Persic - 1883 Fairport Road Vivian Vanden Hazel - 1757 Fairport Road ATTACHMENT f /~) TO REPORT ,~ pD._..._Z~.~, _ 177 mo Fairport Road Action Committee Response to Safer Streets Traffic Management Strat~ General Comments The SSS does not reflect tile transportation objectives included in tile Pickering Official Plan, specifically: -"participate in the design and operation of a transportation system that enable tile year- round movement of people, goods and services, within and through the City, in a manner that is safe, convenient, reliable, eflScient, aesthetically pleasing, and recognizes the local context"; -"balance the need to accommodate private automobiles with tile need to accommodate pedestrians, cyclists, the disabled, public transit, taxis, and tile movement of goods and services . Despite these objectives, there is no real consideration given to public transit, bicycle traffic, pedestrian traffic or parking. Tile City seems to be making a concerted effort to make our streets more pedestrian and bike friendly by adding green spaces, bike lanes and sidewalks, while the SSS is single-mindedly 2ocusing on moving cars. The City's actions do not seem to support continuing the "bedroom community" mentality of Pickering while the SSS does. Pickering is maturing. It is time to integrate the components that will make it a vibrant urban community, components like bike lanes, safe access to parks, community transit, and encouragement of walkers. Planning is needed for what we want in the future, not for what exists now. With this report, it is a good time to incorporate plans to increase alternative traffic methods. I draw your attention to the City of Toronto's eftorts to increase bicycle use. Exhibit I. The SSS seems to be written by traffic planners for traffic planners as if a new city is being created. Pickering is not a newly planned city. It is a collection of urban, suburban, rural, residential, retail, commercial, new and older streets and properties, few of which fit into a predetermined mold. Pickering exists with lots of quirks and anomalies. Treating these quirks and anomalies as treasures rather than obstacles would reflect a maturing city, a city with character. At the SSS presentation on September 19, 2001, Stephen Brake stated that the SSS is a "living document". The intention is not that it be "carved in stone" but that it grow and charge over time and benefit from new ideas and additional input. FRAC applauds this policy and wants it stated in the executive summary and body of the document along with the details of a procedure for informing interested parties of impending changes to the SSS. 17S ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PD_ e o There are no provisions in the SSS for traffic speed or volume redaction (a.k.a. "traffic calming") on roads other than collectors and local roads. All arterials are automatically excluded regardless of the residential component. This policy must be changed to "recognize the local context" as the objective above states. Residential roads including Glenanna, Strouds Lane, Rosebank, Sheppard and Fairport would not qualify for the most minimal of traffic calming under this proposal. The report lacks evidence. Accident statistics, current and projected vehicular traffic volumes and speeds, transit statistics, destination patterns, to name a few, are not included. How can concrete recommendations be put forward for approval without evidence? The presentations and document stressed that "the 85th percentile speed is generally considered the speed which is safe, reasonable" and is, therefore, the speed at which a street should be posted. How is this view reconciled on 400 series highways where the 85th percentile speed appears to be 120 to 130 km/h versus the posted 100 km/h or Kingston Road where it seems to be 80 km/h versus the posted 60 km/h? Footnote and include sources for all tables and quotations. FRAC'S Recommendation for Fairport Road. FRAC recommends that the designation of Fairport Road be downgraded from Arterial Type 'C' to collector and that traffic be diverted to more suitable roads. Fairport Road is an anomaly within the road classification system. Most of its characteristics are those of a collector but it is classified Type 'C' Arterial. 'C' Arterials are designed primarily to move traffic and secondarily to provide access to property. Exhibit II. 'C' Arterials are defined as having traffic flow interrupted only by traffic signals and crosswalks. 'C' Arterials are designed to connect collector roads to arterial roads and expressways, not to connect local road to arterials. Exhibits II and III. Fairport Road currently has 127 residential properties fronting onto it between Highway #2 and Finch, with an estimated/O to be added soon. Property access must be considered equal in importance to moving traffic at the very least. Flow of Fairport is interrupted by traffic from the 127 homes, traffic from Bonita, Dunbarton and Glenanna, as well as from in-fill development on Taplin, Vogager and Wingarden. (Note: There are at least 5 large properties on Fairport Road that will likely be developed in the foreseeable future.) ~TTACF, I.,~ENT ~ /S Tn I79 There are no collectors in the svstcm of roads that includes Fairport, only local roads and arterials. It makes sense technically to designate Fairport Road as a collector. Alternatives are available in both the short and long term to accommodate the City's desire to increase residential development (and resulting traffic) from the north while avoiding additional traffic, noise, pollntion, accidents and harm to the quality of life on our residential road. a) Dixie Road is better designed to handle increased north-south traffic in thc short term. It has no houses fronting on it and only one ill fill pocket from Highway #2 to Finch. This allows uninterrupted flow except for the acceptable cross-walk and traffic light. Dixie is wide enough to accommodate four (4) lanes of traffic. b) Picketing needs an additional direct access artery to tile 401 in tile long term. Other towns and cities of similar size. like Ajax and Barrie have three (3) (the third soon to be constructed) and five (5), respectively. The lack of sufficient suitable connections to the 401 is pushing tile traffic problem to Fair'pon Road. City staff has agreed that Fairport Road's designation, as an Arterial 'C,' is an anomaly due to its heavy residential component. At the July SSS presentation, Richard Holborne agreed with FRAC but stated that nothing can be done. On the contrary, now is the ~ time to do something. Delay will only entrench the problem. Volumes will increase as properties facing on Fairport Road and in-fill developments are added. In addition, Durham Region's Draft Transportation Master Plan (input due October 26, 2001) calls for maintaining FaiFport Road's Type 'C' arterial designation "in order to serve future travel demands". {p.57). The Region's priority is moving vehicular traffic not the comfort and safety of the homeowners of Picketing and not the preservation of residential communities. FRAC calls on tile City's staff and politicians to support the residents' views in our community. A majority of homeowners on Fairport Road support reducing traffic speed and volume. Attached are signed petitions From ~g"7 homes on FaiFpon Road and /(? completed comment forms. The petition reads: "To Pickering Safer Streets Committee and City Council: I am opposed to instituting a 60 km speed limit on Fairport Rd. I am for restricting traffic volume on this residential street. I am for instituting safe access and use by children, pedestrians, bicyclist and residents using their street and driveways." 180 ATTACHMENT # / o TO In addition, a summary of responses by street address is attached. This reflects information that we have in hand regarding the issue. We are aware of some responses that have been directed to the Picketing Traffic Department but not all. Exhibit IV. C. Changes to Fairport Road A "collector" designation would allow for several desirable changes: warranted all-way stop signs at Taplin, Glenanna, Bonita/Voyager (allowing pedestrian crossing to the new park), Stroud's Lane (remove lights), Wingarden, Welrus (retain 3 way stop), Dunbarton, Sheppard and at any new in-fill related local roads; traffic calming measures suitable to reduce speed and volume; installation of signs requesting "slow-children at play", "please respect our speed limits". D. Other Issues A 'safer streets' document must deal with dangerous intersections. On Fairport Road, the intersection of Highway #2, Fairport and Sheppard and the gas station constitutes a hazard to traffic of all types. This intersection must be changed to make it safe. E. Conclusion Our recommendations constitute a plan that harmonizes the needs and desires of the residents of the Fairport Road Community with those of the City of Pickering. We would hope that Pickering Council will agree that local decisions, locally arrived at, work best for all citizens. Now is the time to give whole hearted approval to our plan. The residents of Fairport Road know what they want. L_ <( ¢3 1.8° ATTACHMENT ~EPOF1T # PD P. 04.'"0 Geometric Design Guide for Canadian Roads 0 ,September 1999 o Page 1 16.3,14 16.3.15 accommodate high occupancy vehicle or bus lanes wher~ required; and c) vii) permit private accesses generally located a minimum o 80 metres apart in urban areas; and further Type C arterial roads st~all be designed to: i) iii) accommodate the movement of lower volumes of traffic including truck traffic relative to other arterial roads; intersect with other arterial and collector roads as identified in this Plan and in area municipal official plans; provide an acceptable level of service and vehicle operating speed while complementing adjacent land uses and activities; v) have a ~,ght-of-way ranging from 26 to 30 metres; and generally maintain a desired operating speed of 50 kilometres per hour in ur ban areas. Outside of Central Areas and Hamlets, the right-of-way widths, speeds and access spacing requirements of Sections 16.3.13 shall generally apply to the arteIial roads shown on Map 'B'. However, if the intent of this Plan is adhered to, and following adequate study to tt~e effect that such provisions' are impractical and cannot be implemenLed precisely, the authority having jurisdiction on such roads may deviate from these provisions without the need for an amendmen~ to this Plan. Within Central Areas and Hamlets, speed and access spacing requirements of Section 16.3.13 shall not apply to arterial roads. The right-of-way width requirements shall apply unless it can be demonstrated, in consultation wit/] the Region, that exceptions to tt~e riqh[-of-way widths are appropriate for specific sections of arterial road,~_ These exceptions shall be incorporated into the area municipal official :lan, In the consideration of development applications abutting or adjacent to artedal roads and existing or potential transit spines and routes, Regional .Council and Councils of the area municipalities shall have regard to: a) the designation of complementary activities and uses in terms of density and intensity; b) the identification of' additional potential transit routes and stops; 87