Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 4, 2002PICKERING AGENDA COUNCIL MEETING Anne Greentr~ Supervisor, Legislative Services FEBRUARY 4, 2002 Council Meeting Agenda Monday, February 4, 2002 7:30 P.M. ADOPTION OF MINUTES Special Meeting of January 14. 2002 Regular Meeting of January 21,2002 Special Meeting of January 21. 2002 DELEGATIONS Bob Stricken, Nuclear Support, Ontario Power Generation, will provide Council with their quarterly update on the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. Kees van der Vecht, 3965 Kinsale Road, will address Council with respect to concerns in Kinsale. John Ibbetson, 787 Shepaprd Ave.. will address Council with respect to the Wood, Carroll Zoning Amendment Application. (Ill) RESOLUTIONS To adopt the Report of the Finance & Operations Committee dated January 28, 2002. To adopt the Report of the Planning Committee dated January 28, 2002. To consider Planning & Development Report PD 01-02, concerning the Zoning Amendment Application, submitted by Christopher Speirs. Deferred from the Janua~ Council Meeting To receive and endorse the resolution concerning the 2002 APTA Budget. passed by the Board of the Ajax Pickering Transit Authority. To consider proclaiming the month of February 24 to March 2, 2002 as "Freedom to Read Week". PAGE 1-3 4-5 6-58 59-66 67-68 (IV) BY-LAWS By-law Number 5939/02 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3037. as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of ?ickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Lots 15. 16 and 17. Plan 21 (Parts 31, 50 and 52, 40R-1140) in the City of Picketing. (A 19/01(R)) PURPOSE: ZONING BY-LAW LOCATION: 430 WHITEVALE ROAD APPLICANT: CHRISTOPHER SPEIRS 69-72 Council Meeting Agenda Monday, February 4, 2002 7:30 P.M. B_B_y-law Number 5948/02 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Picketing District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Lot 32, Concession 1, City of Picketing. (A 8/01) PURPOSE: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ZONING BY-LAW EAST SIDE OF SHEPPARD AVE. E. WILLIAMSON ALTONA RD, NORTH OF B_B_B~-law Number 5949/02 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Picketing District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Lot 18, Concession 1 (Parts 6 to 8, 12 & 13, 40R-10635), City of Picketing. (A 33/00) PURPOSE: LOCATION: APPLICANT: ZONING BY-LAW 1048 TOY AVENUE 802226 ONTARIO LTD. B_y-law Number 5950/02 Being a by-law to authorize the signing of an agreement for fire protection services. B_y-law Number 5951/02 Being a by-law for the collection of taxes and to establish the installment due dates for the Interim Levy 2002. B_B_B_~-Iaw Number 5952/02 Being a by-law to name highways or portion of highways within the jurisdiction of the City to which a reduced load period designation applies and to repeal By-law 5801/01. 73-79 80-87 88 89-91 92 NOTICE OF MOTION Moved by Councillor Brenner Seconded by Councillor Ryan 93 WHEREAS the Toronto Region Conservation Authority has requested that the "City of Pickering conduct a review of the Official Plan for the north area of Picketing from the Seaton Lands in the east to the York/Durham Town Line in the west"; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Director of Planning and Development be directed to report at the March 8th Planning Committee Meeting the elements of a "Growth Management Study" which would provide the basis for an Official Plan Review of all lands as set out in the Toronto Region Conservation Authority Resolution and that said lands be defined within the northern boundary of Highway 7 and the southern boundary as C.P. Belleville Rail line; and Council Meeting Agenda Monday, February 4, 2002 7:30 P.M. THAT such review include consideration of any existing studies conducted either for the City (Town), Region or Province, e.g., Environmental Study conducted by Dr. N. Eyles in 1997; and THAT such review will form the basis for how Pickering will manage future growth pressures. Moved by Councillor Holland Seconded by Councillor Ryan 94-95 WHEREAS in a review of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) it was found that 15 GTA municipalities spent over $20 million on cases relating to policy issues and new large-scale urban area designations over the last five years; and WHEREAS the Corporation of the City of Pickering dedicates significant resources in staff time, legal fees and other related costs, as outlined in the attached memorandum from staff, to represent the corporation at cases before the OMB; and WHEREAS the members of the OMB are appointed by the Government of Ontario and have no direct accountability back to the electorate; and WHEREAS the original intent of the OMB was to be a check against bad or biased planning but has grown into a body that may overturn sound planning decisions and reshaping communities in a manner that is contrary to their will and vision; and WHEREAS there is an increasing trend for developers to appeal matters before local Councils to the OMB prior to the elected representatives considering the matter and often before public statutory meetings occur; and WHEREAS in many recent decisions the OMB has overturned decisions of local councils because a land use was not expressly prohibited thus creating an impossible burden to municipal official plans which will require a laundry list of allowable and disallowed uses for protection; and WHEREAS a municipal official plan should be broad based and flexible but will become encumbered by restrictions that may have undesired outcomes in an attempt to provide protection from the OMB; and WHEREAS the Government of Ontario can not expect 'smart growth' to occur in an environment where local planning and years of public input and debate can be overturned by an appointed body with often little knowledge of the municipalities who's future they are shaping; and WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report on the OMB states that "as an appointed tribunal, the OMB should not be determining growth patterns of the GTA" and notes that, "municipal taxpayers, after paying for exhaustive planning policy processes, have to pay an unacceptable price to defend their decisions in the OMB arena"; and WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report further states "There is no evidence, at least in the opinion of municipalities, to suggest that the $20 million plus yields a higher quality of life and a better-planned GTA than would have been yielded by the decision-making of the elected municipal councils, following the exhaustive planning processes and legal requirements that we now follow". Council Meeting Agenda Monday, February 4, 2002 7:30 P.M. NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering urges the Government of Ontario to remove or, at the least, radically reduce the role of OMB back to a pure check against bad or biased planning; and THAT the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be requested to act upon the report done by the Town of Caledon, work done by the GTSB and requests of municipalities by applying meaningful and lasting pressure to dissolve or radically alter the OMB; and THAT the leadership candidates for the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition be requested to respond back to the Council of Corporation of the City of Pickering as to their position on this issue; and THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Region of Durham be requested to endorse this motion; and THAT this motion be circulated to; · All area Mayors and Chairs · Janet Ecker, MP.P - Pickering-Ajax-Whitby · Jim Flaherty, M.P.P. - Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance · Tony Clement, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing · Elizabeth Witmer, Environment Minister · Ernie Eves, former Minister of Finance and candidate for the leadership of the Ontario PC party · Dalton McGuinty, Leader of the Official Opposition · Mike Harris - Premier of the Province of Ontario Memorandum from staff to be circulated under separate cover (vi) OTHER BUSINESS (VI/) CONFIRMATION BY-LAW {VIH) ADJOURNMENT RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Report of the Finance & Operations Committee dated Janua~ 28, 2002, be adopted. CARRIED: MAYOR nn2 Appendix I Finance & Operations Committee Report FOC 2002-1 That the Finance & Operations Committee, having met on January 28, 2002, presents its first report to Council and recommends: OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 43-01 FIRE SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF WHITCHURCH-STOUFFVILLE AND THE CITY OF PICKERING That Report to Council OES 43-01 regarding Fire Services Agreement, be received; and That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing authorize the signing of a Fire Services Agreement between the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and the City of Picketing regarding Fire Protection Services to another municipality. OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 001-02 REDUCED LOAD PERIOD BY-LAW ANNUAL COMPILATION OF STREETS 1. That Report OES 001-02 respecting the reduced load period by-law be received; and 2. That a by-law be enacted to designate highways under the jurisdiction of the City to which a reduced load period applies; and 3. That By-law 5801/01 be repealed. OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 003-02 STREET LIGHT REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE SERVICE That Report OES 003-02 regarding street light repair and maintenance service be received; and That City staff be directed to prepare specifications and documentation required to tender the services of street light repair and maintenance. OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 002-02 STATUS REPORT ON THE "ROLLING TO REDUCE" WASTE DIVERSION PILOT PROJECT That Report OES 002-02 concerning Status Report on the "Rolling to Reduce" Waste Diversion Pilot Project, be received for information. CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 02-02 2002 INTERIM LEVY AND INTERIM TAX INSTALLMENT DUE DATES 1. That Report CS 02-02, concerning 2002 Interim Levy and Interim Tax Installment Due Dates be received; and 2. That an interim levy be adopted for 2002 for all of the realty property classes; and 3. That interim levy installment due dates be Februarv 27 and April 26, 2002; and Appendix I Finance & Operations Committee Report FOC 2002-1 That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any changes or undertake any actions necessary, including altering due dates, in order to ensure the tax billing process is completed: and That the attached by-law, pro~dding tbr the imposition of the taxes, be read three times and approved bv Council: and That the appropriate City of Picketing officials be authorized to take the necessa~ actions to give effect thereto. CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 03-02 CONFIRMATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CRIME INSURANCE FOR 2002 1. That Report CS 03-02 concerning Confirmation of Comprehensive Crime Insurance ~br 2002. be received and forv,'arded to Council for information. 00" RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Report of the Planning Committee dated January 28, 2002, be adopted. CARRIED: MAYOR Appendix I Special Planning Committee Report PC 2002-2 That the Planning Committee of the Citv of Picketing having met on January 28, 2002 presents its second report to Council: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 08-02 COUNCIL POSITION FOR THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING ON AMENDMENT TO THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 22/00 WOOD, CARROLL ET AL (HAYES LINE PROPERTIES INC.) PART OF LOT 28, RANGE 3, B.FC. 1~778-790 K1NGSTON ROAD, EAST OF WHITES ROAD} That Council ADOPT a site specific amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines as the City's strategy for detailed land use, urban design, transportation and infrastructure for the Wood, Carroll properties (Hayes Line Properties Inc.) within the Northeast Quadrant. as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 08-02: and That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/00. submitted by Wood, Carroll et al. (Hayes Line Properties Inc.) on lands being Part of Lot 28, Range 3, B.F.C. in the Citv of Pickering, to permit residential and retail/commercial and restaurant uses, as revised by the applicant to only permit the development of retail/commercial and restaurant uses, be ENDORSED IN PRINCIPLE, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, as set out in the staff recommended implementing by-law attached as Appendix II to Report Number PD 08-02; and That Council re-affirm the requirement for the applicants to pay their proportionate share of the study costs of the Northeast Quadrant Review prior to the zoning coming into force; and 4. That Council require the applicant to construct and convey to the City a public lane across the north part of the property; and That Council require the applicant to contribute to the costs of downstream stormwater management efforts and construct on-site stormwater controls if construction on the subject lands precedes downstream stormwater management works; and That staff be authorized to present Council's ENDORSEMENT IN PRINCIPLE to the Ontario Municipal Board as Council's position on Zoning Amendment Application A 22/00 at an Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, and further authorize staff to make adjustments to the staff recommended implementing by-law as technical issues are finalized. RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97 (R01), submitted by Christopher Speirs, on lands being Lots 15, 16 and 17, Plan 21, City of Pickering, to amend the zoning of the subject lands from "HMC7" to a "HMR3" zone, in order to permit the development of a detached dwelling on the subject lands, be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 01-02; and That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97 (ROD, as set out in dra~ in Appendix II to Report Number PD 01-02, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. That the City Clerk advise the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) that Picketing City Council requests their assistance in working with Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) and the City to explore access opportunities to the Seaton Hiking Trail, north of Whitevale Road. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE' January 2, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD 01-02 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97(R01 ) Christopher Spelts Lots 15, 16 and 17. Plan 21 430 Whitevale Road City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-lay,' Amendment Application A 19 97 {R01), submitted by Christopher Speirs, on lands being Lots 15. 16 and 17. Plan 21. City of Picketing, to amend the zoning of the subject lands from "HMCT' to a "HMRY' zone, in order to permit the development of a detached dxvelling on the subject lands, be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 01-02; and; That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97 (R01), as set out in draft in Appendix II to Report Number PD 01-02, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. That the City Clerk advise the Toronto Region Conse~'ation Authority (TRCA) that Pickering City Council requests their assistance in working xvith Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) and the City to explore access opportunities to the Seaton Hiking Trail, north of Whitevale Road. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97(R01) 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 at the north-v,'est comer of the intersection of Whitevale Road and Mill Street in the Hamlet of Whitevale. The subject lands are currently zoned "HMC7" by Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, and only permits a mill, granars' and fertilizer establishment. The applicant has requested a "HMRY' zone which pem~its detached dwelling residential uses, "domestic business - type A" and "domestic business type - B". An amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's proposal. Report to Council PD 01-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97(R01) Date: January 2, 2001 Page 2 The proposed development reflects an appropriate land use, does not adversely impact the existing neighbourhood and the requested zoning is the exact same zoning that is applied to the majority of the residential properties in Whitevale. It is recommended that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97(R01), and that the draft amending zoning by-law set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 01-02, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Introduction The subject lands are located at the north-west comer of intersection of Whitevale Road and Mill Street in the Hamlet of Whitevale. A property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1). The subject lands currently support a steel and concrete block building that was at one time part of a grain mill operation. The Seaton Hiking Trail is located on adjacent property next to West Duffins Creek, and up until a few years ago passed through the subject property. The application that is being considered is an amendment to the zoning by-laxv in order to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling on the eastern portion of the property. The applicant's proposed lot layout is provided for reference (see Attachment #2). The existing building on the property is to be retained and used as an accessory structure to the proposed dwelling. The preliminary design concept for the proposed dwelling is a two storey, board and batten structure of approximately 300 square metres, that conveys the character and external appearance of a typical late 19th century small commercial building (see Attachment #4). The applicant has requested to rezone the property to a "HMR3" zone, which is the same zoning that is applied to the majority of the residential properties in Whitevale. 2.0 Information Meeting A Public Information meeting for the subject application was held on September 20, 2001. Information Report No. 24-01, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues identified as of the date of writing the report, was prepared for the meeting. No whtten comments from area residents or circulated agencies had been received as of the date of the writing of the information report. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #3). At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff gave an explanation of the application. There were several interested ratepayers in attendance at the meeting. Three ratepayers spoke in opposition to the application. Their opposition can be summarized as follows: the application does not provide an indication of the proposed use of the existing buildings; · the application does not address the historical significance of the subject property; · access to the Seaton Trail that used to be enjoyed across the subject property has been lost; · loss of available parking for Seaton Trail users; · the zoning of the property is premature until the issue of the trail use is concluded; · scale of proposed building not in keeping with the surrounding buildings; and, · the subject lands should be acquired by the municipality for public use. The applicant submitted a report at the public information meeting that outlined the application and provided an opinion on the issues that had been raised (see Attachment #4). Minutes of the public information meeting held September 20, 2001 are included as Attachment #5. Report to Council PD 01-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19'97(R01) Date: Januao;'~_, 2001 Page 2.0 Additional In£ormation Since the preparation of ln£onnation Report No. 24-01, the Iblloxving agency comments have been received: Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has advised that the western portion of the property is wittnin tile Authoritv's fill regulation limit and tine property is adjacent to tile Duffins Creek valley con-idor and the Whitevale Con'idor Environmentally Significant Area. In consideration ttnat no works are proposed in the xvcsten~ portion of the property, they have no objection to the application/see Attactmnent = 6 ). Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that tine subject lands are designated as Hamlet in the Durham Region Official Plan. Tile proposal would appear to be permitted by the polices of the Durham Plan. Municipal services (water supply and sanitary sexvers) are not available to tile subject lands. Thc site is presently serviced by a well and septic system. 'File Durham Health Department is unable to comment oil tile application until detail site plains are provided showing the existing and proposed location of all structures, well(s) and private sexvage disposal systems. Region Of Durham Planning Department has advised that tile subject lands have been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. No provincial interests appear to be affected {sec Attachment =-). Durham District School Board bas advised that t}lev }lax e no objections to tile application. (see Attachment #8) Heritage Pickering (LACAC) has advised that tilex' have no objections to tine application (see Attachment #9). Since the public meeting the following comments have been received from area residents. Michael and Shirley Curran, 459 ChurcMvin Street - advise t¼cv support the application, consider the proposal complimentau,' to thc Hamlet and are not aware of an,,, negative impact the proposal will have on the community (see Attachment =I0). Charles and Brigitte Sopher, 440 ~Vhitevale Road - advise that they are in opposition to the proposed rezoning. They are concerned that fine public access through the subject property was lost without public consultation and tine resolution of the trail access must be resolved prior to the subject application being considered. Further concerns relate to: insufficient parking for trail users at tine community center: increased commercial use of the souttn milt property; present usc of tile subject property: tile disruption of tine proposal on tile significant heritage feature and archaeological site: and, thc proposal does not comply with tine Heritage Guidelines. Suggests tile City sho~Id proxide tile applicant with alternative land and then acquire thc subject lands Gr public parposcs (see Attachment =11). Marion Thompson, 437 ~'hitevale Road advises tllat silo objects to the application. Concerns relate to tine size of tile proposed building, the use of the existing building, the placement of rocks and tree limbs on the subject property' and tile loss oftlne access through the subject land to tile Search trail and tine parking lot. Suggest tile City should buy the subject lands and use them tbr public purposes (see Attachment =12 ). Ronald Dawe, 385 ~Vhitevale Road - advises that he has no objection to thc subject application. He notes ttmt tine previous use of thc property, a mill operation generated complaints form the community. He docs want thc issue of access to the no~th portion of the Seaton Trail to be resolved, however not at tiao cost of the applicant (see Attachment # 13). 10 Report to Council PD 01-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97(R01) Date: January 2, 2001 Page 4 Gordon and Anna Wilson, 455 Whitevale Road - advise that they do not support the application. Their reasons for objection include: the application does not describe the Proposed use of the existing heritage building or the rest of the property; the historical, industrial, social and political significances of the property to the Hamlet of Whitevale does not seem to be considered by the applicant, or the Municipality; and, that the issue of access to the Seaton Trail including public parking has not been resolved by the Municipality (see Attachment # 14). James Thompson, 437 Whitevale Road - advises that he objects to the application. The reasons for objection include: the application is premature and no decision on the land use of the subject property should be made until the matter of access and parking to the Seaton Trail has been concluded; the property has been and continues to be used in violation of the zoning by-law; the previous application for the subject property was opposed by a large number of residents; and concerns that the proposed building would not be in keeping with the Heritage guidelines (see Attachment #15). Isobel and Tommy Thompson, 3181 Byron Street - have expressed concern on the application. They have requested information on what type of business uses the applicant is proposing. They also have concerns that access to the north Seaton Trail has been lost and whether access could be obtained through the subject property by means of the trail along the west side of the subject property (see Attachment #16). 3.0 Discussion 3.2 3.3 3.1 Neighbourhood Character The subject property is located at the north-west corner of Mill Street and Whitevale Road in the Hamlet of Whitevale. The Hamlet is composed of a mixture of typical rural Ontario vernacular architecture style dwellings located on a variety of lot sizes. The proposed dwelling is considered to be in keeping with the level of massing and scale to the existing buildings in the Hamlet. Therefore, the proposal would be compatible with the other dwellings in Whitevale. Whitevale Heritage Conservation District The subject property is included within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District. The conservation guidelines apply to maintenance and repair of existing heritage buildings, alterations and additions to existing buildings, new buildings, site development, landscaping, and municipal infrastructure. A Heritage District Permit would be required for the site development, any alterations which affect the external appearance of the existing building and for the construction of a new detached dwelling. The Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines provide guiding principles for new buildings, including building height, setbacks and visual compatibility. The proposed dwelling, as characterized by the applicant is designed to reflect a small, late 19th century commercial building. The proposed development has been conceptually reviewed and supported by Heritage Pickering as meeting the intent of the guidelines. Detailed review will occur through the Heritage/Building permit process. The detailed design of the proposed development will be reviewed against the Heritage guidelines and will have to comply in order to obtain a building permit. Seaton Trail It is recognized that the Seaton Trail, at one time, had access for the general public across the subject property. A driveway and parking area was available on and adjacent to the subject property for use by the general public. It is also recognized that this access is no longer available. The public has no permission to cross the subject lands to assess the Seaton Trail. The Seaton Trail currently is accessible from Whitevale Road by means of a wooden stair and trail that is located west of the subject property. Report to Council PD 01,02 Date: January 2, 2001 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application .* 19 97(R01) Page 5 Some trail users have established an informal access point off of Mill Street, north of the subject property. This informal access can be characterized as "less challenging" than the formal access along the banks of the West Dui'fins Creek. However, the informal trail access could be made more accessible with some modification. While the loss of the previous public access across the subject property is regrettable, it is now time to explore other opportunities that will provide improved public access to the Seaton Hiking Trail within reasonable cost parameters. The current landowner is not responsible ibr providing public access across the subject property. The Seaton Trail is not located on municipal property, but rather on lands owned by the Provincial Government (ORC). One option that warrants close examination is the introduction of a formal trail access point from Mill Street, north of the subject property. Trail users will be able to use the parking lot at the Whitevale Community Centre and Park on the west side of Duffins Creek south of Whitevale Road and walk to the new proposed access point. The Toronto Regional Conservation Authority has expressed interest in becoming involved with ORC, the City and the community to explore access opportunities to the trail system. 3.4 Appropriateness of the Application The current zoning by-law only permits the property to be used lbr industrial type of uses (mill, granao.' and fertilizer' establishment). The proposed use. being a detached dwelling, is considered to be more compatible with the surrounding land uses than the existing uses permitted by the zoning by-law. The proposal is considered appropriate in its location and contributes positively recognizing the land use context and the surrounding land uses. The proposed detached dwelling is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The new dwelling will be serviced by private well and septic system. Durham Health Department approval will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. The proposed "HMR3" zone is identical to the zoning that is applicable to the majority of the residential properties in thc Hamlet. This zoning will permit the opportunity for the establishment of a 'domestic' business, subject to the identical restrictions and opportunities of other properties in the area. The subject application is considered to be consistent with and in general conformity to the Durham Regional Official Plan and the City of Picketing Official Plan. The existing, approximately 310 square metre, steel and concrete block building (at one time part of the grain mill operation) is to remain on the site. An',' alterations to this building will require a Heritage Permit. The buiding is to be used as an accessory structure to permitted uses. At this time the building will be associated xvith the proposed residential use. The proposed zoning will not permit industrial or warehouse uses. An area resident expressed concern respecting potential for an archeological site in this area. The Region of Durham is responsible for review of Provincial interests and have advised that no provincial interests are affected bx' the proposal. In reviewing this application consideration was given to the competing interest of the applicant, the immediate neighbourhood and the community as a xx'hole. A balanced consideration of the competing interests was considered and it was concluded the application is appropriate, compatible with the surrounding land use and would not have a destabilizing effect on the area. Accordingly, staff recommend that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97(R), as set out in draft in Appendix I to Report Number PD 01-02. Further, staff recommend that the draft by-law be forwarded to Citv Council tbr enactment. 012 Report to Council PD 01-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97(R01 ) Date: January2,2001 Page 6 3.5 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions A Draft By-law, attached as Appendix II to this report, has been prepared which recommends the subject property be rezoned from "HMC7" zone to a "HMR3" zone. The existing performance standards respecting yard depth, building height and lot coverage that are contained in the existing zoning by-law, and already apply to the rest of the majority of residential properties in Whitevale will apply to the subject property. The current use rights within this zone are as follows: i) a "HMR3" zone which permits detached dwelling residential uses, "domestic business - type A" and "domestic business type - B"; ii) "domestic business type - A" is defined as an antique store, an arts and craft shop, a book store, a business office, a clothing boutique, a custom workshop, a professional office, or a specialty home furnishing shop, which is: a) operated from a detached dwelling on the lot, or a building or structure accessory to the detached d~velling on the lot; and b) managed, directed or conducted by one or more of the occupants of the detached dwelling on the lot; iii) "domestic business type - B" is defined as bakery or a tea room, which is: a) operated from a detached dwelling on the lot, or a building or structure accessory to the detached dwelling on the lot; and b) managed, directed or conducted by one or more of the occupants of the detached dwelling on the lot. The by-law further specifies that the aggregate of the gross floor area of all "domestic business - type A" and "domestic business type - B", on a lot shall not exceed 25 percent of the gross floor area of the detached dwelling on the lot. This zoning will result in the existing structure becoming legal non complying. While the use of the building as an accessory structure is permitted, the building will not comply with location or yard requirements. Any future additions or alterations would be required to comply to the new zoning provisions. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has reviewed the contents of this Report and draft by-law and concurs with the contents. Report to Council PD 01-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19:97(R01) Date: January '~ 2001 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 11. 12. 15. Property Location Map Applicant's Submitted Plan Information Report Applicants report on the Proposal for Rezoning Minutes o£September 20, 2001 Statutory Public In£ormation Meeting Agency Comment - Toronto and Region Conse~'ation Authority' Agency Comment - Region of Durham Planning Department Agency Comment - Durham District School Board Agency Comment Heritage Pickering Resident Comment - Michael and Shirley Curran. 459 Churchwin Street Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Resident Comment - Charles and Brigitte Sopher, 440 \Vhitevale Road Comment Marion Thompson. ~-37 VVhitevale Road Comment - Ronald Dawe, 385 \Vhitevale Road Comment - Gordon and Anna Wilson. 4.55 \Vhitevale Road Comment James Thompson. 437 Whitevale Road Comment - isobel and Tommy Thompson. 31 $1 B\Ton Street Prepared By: Ross Pym, MCIP, Principle Planner - Development Reviexv .-Xpproved Endorsed Bx': Nell Can-oll.'~pP Director. Planning & Development Lynda Tayq'or, MCIP RP/ Manager, Current Operations Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of' Picketing City Council Th6n~as J. QuipS, Chief~dminist~(ficer O]4 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 01-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 19/97(R) (a) (b) That the subject lands be rezoned from a "HMC7" zone in Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, to a "HMRY' zone. That prior to approval of any building permit the owner/applicant: (i) submit plans, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development in consultation with Heritage Picketing that demonstrate the proposed development complies with the Conservation Guideline of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District; (ii) submit, and receive approval, by the City of Pickering, of a tree preservation plan for the subject property; (iii) submit and receive City approval of a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment report; (iv) satisfy the requirements of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for any works on the property. APPENDIX 1I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 01-02 DRAFT BY-LAW ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 19/97(R01) THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3037, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Picketing District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Lots 15, 16 and 17, Plan 21 (Parts 31, 50 and 52, 40R-1140) in the City ofPickering. (A 19/01(R)) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing passed By-law 2677/88, amending Zoning By-law 3037, to permit development of residential, commercial, church, community, agricultural and greenbelt uses in part of lots 30, 31, 32, and 33, Concessions 4 and 5 in the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing now deems it desirable to amend By-law 2677/88 to Zoning By-law 3037, to permit the development of a detached dwelling on Lots 15, 16 and 17, Plan 21 (Parts 31, 50 and 52, 40R-1140) in the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2677/88 to Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCHEDULE I Schedule I to By-law 2677/88, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from a "HMC7" zone to a "HMRY' zone designation of the lands being Lot 15, 16 and 17, Plan 21, in the City of Pickering, as shown on Schedule 'T' to this by-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Lots 15, 16, and 17, Plan 21 (Parts 31, 50 and 52, 40R-1140) designated "HMRY' on Schedule I attached hereto. BY-LAW 3037 By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this day of ,2002. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, 017 HMR3 .~? SCHEDULE ']' TO BY-LAW '%~ ',~.~ PASSED THIS '~'- DAY OF 2OO2 MAYOR CLERK 018 WHITEN'ALE road City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOTS 15 TO 17, PLAN 21; PARTS 31, 50 AND 52, 40R-1140 APPLICANT CHRISTOPHER SPEIRS DATE AUG 8, 2001 DRAWN BY RC /'~ APPLICATION No. A 19/97(R01) SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY RP FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-S2 PA- 0! 9 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN A 19/97(R01) C. SPIERS JO WHITEVALE ROAD LIJ HIS ,",'",AP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING, PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, AUGUST 24, 2oo1. PICKERINLG INFORMATION REPORT NO. 24-O1 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF September 20, 200t 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 19/97(R01) Christopher Speirs Lots 15, 16 and 17, Plan 21 430 Whitevale Road City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are located at the north-west comer of the intersection of Whitevale Road and Mill Street in the Hamlet of Whitevale; a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1); the subject lands currently support a steel and concrete block building that was at one time part of a grain mill operation; there is a wood fence along the eastern property line; the Seaton Hiking Trail is located on the adjacent property next to West Duffins Creek, and up until a few years ago, passed through the subject property; surrounding land uses are; north - wooded open spaces; south buildings associated with the former mill operations; east hamlet residential properties; west main channel of the West Duffins Creek. 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the application that is being considered is an amendment to the zoning by-law in order to permit the construction of a new detached dwelling on the eastern portion of the property; the applicant's submitted plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2); the existing building on the property is to be retained and used as an accessory structure to the proposed dwelling; the preliminary design concept for the proposed dwelling is a two story, board and batten structure, that conveys the character and external appearance of a typical late 190, century small commercial building; the applicant has requested to rezone the property to a "HMR3" zone, which is the same zoning that is applied to the majority of the residential properties in Whitevale. 3.0 BACKGROUD - the rezoning application for the subject property was originally submitted in November 1997 by 1047114 Ontario limited; the original application was to rezone the site to permit the development of a "Building Supply Centre"; - a public information meeting was held on the original proposal in February 1998 (see Attachment #3 for excerpts from the February 19, 1998 Statutory Public Information Meeting); Information Report No. 24-01 ATTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT # PD i- Page 2 (),? 1 - the City received numerous letters of objection to the original proposal; - after the public inlbnnation meeting, a follow-up meeting was held with local residents and City staffto explore options lbr the subject property; - the original application has been inactive since the spring of 1998; - the subject property has since been conveyed to tile current owner who has amended the application and requested that the revised application proceed. 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan designates tile subject lands as within the ttamlet of IFhite~'ale; the Durham Regional Official Plan states that Hamlets shall be developed in harmony with surrounding uses and may consists of a variety of housing types (including detached dwellings), employment area and commercial uses that meet the immediate needs of the residents of the hamlet and surrounding rural area; the application appears to contbrm to this designation; Pickering. Official Plan - the Pickering Official Plan desigmates the subject lands as Rural Settlement; - the Whitevale Settlement Plan, within the Official Plan, designates the lands as tlamlet Commercial; - uses permitted within Hamler Commercial include, amongst others, residential uses and ho~ne occupations; - the Whitevale Settlement Policies of tile Official Plan encourage opportunities for enhancing the historical village of Whitevale through general or site-specific zoning that allows the introduction of arts and craft studios, custom workshops and small-scale commercial enterprises on suitable sites, provided the histoticat character of the village and the interests of the neighbouring residents are respected; the Whitevale Settlement Policies of the Official Plan specifies that development within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District is to comply with the adopted heritage district guidelines and heritage district permit process; Schedule III of tile Picketing Official Plan - Resource Management, designates lands in close proximity to the subject lands as Shorelines and Stream Corridors and Environmentally Sign(ficant Areas in recognition of the subject properties proximity to West Duffins Creek; the exact boundaries of the Shorelines and Stream Corridors will be determined in consultation with the relevant agencies, and in consideration of a required environmental report; - Schedule II of the Picketing Official Plan - "Transportation Systems" designates Whitevate Road where it abuts the subject lands as a Local Road; - Local Roads generally provide access to individual properties, to local roads, carry local traffic and generally have a right-of-way width of up to 20 metres; - the subject applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Picketing Official Plan during the further processing of the applications; ~ By-law 3037: as alnended the subject lands are currently zoned "HMCT" by Zoning By-law 3037, as amended; the existing zoning permits a mill, granary and fertilizer establishment; an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's proposal; the applicant has requested a "HMR3" zone v, hich permits detached dwelling residential uses, "domestic business - t)pe A" and "domestic business type - B"; "domestic business type - A" is defined as an antique store, an arts and craft shop, a book store, a business office, a clothing boutique, a custom workshop, a professional office, or a specialty home furnishing shop, which is: a) operated from a detached dwelling on the lot, or a building or structure accessory to the detached dwelling on the lot; and {)22 Information Report No. 24-01 REPOR~ ~ PD~ Page 3 4.4 b) managed, directed or conducted by one or more of the occupants of the detached dwelling on the lot; - "domestic business type - B" is defined as bakery or a tea room, which is: a) operated from a detached dwelling on the lot, or a building or structure accessory to the detached dwelling on the lot; and b) managed, directed or conducted by one or more of the occupants of the detached dwelling on the lot; - the by-law further specifies that the aggregate of the gross floor area of all "domestic business - type A" and "domestic business type - B", on a lot shall not exceed 25 percent of the gross floor area of the detached dwelling on the lot; - the requested use right are the same use rights that are enjoyed by the majority of the residential properties in Whitevale; Whitevale Heritage Conservation District By-law the subject property is included within the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District; the conservation guidelines apply to maintenance and repair of existing heritage building, alterations and additions to existing buildings, new buildings, site development, landscaping, and municipal infrastructure; a Heritage District Pennit would be required for the site development, any alterations which affect the external appearance of the existing building or for the construction of a new detached dwelling; the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Guidelines provide guiding principles for new building, including building height, setbacks and visually compatibility. 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments no resident comments have been received to-date on the revised application; Agency Comments - no comments from any of the circulated agencies have been received to-date on the revised application; Staff Comments - in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: · ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, surrounding lands; · whether the proposal is compatible with the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District; · impacts of the proposed application on the Seaton Trail, considering the subject property's past relationship with the Seaton Trail; · the impact the'proposed use / site changes may have on the character of the neighbourhood; · the impact the development might have on the existing vegetation on the subject property; this Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and the public. Informt/tion Report No. 24-01 Page 4 () o ,-5 6.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Inffornaation Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to be notified o£ Council's decision regarding the zoning by-law amendment application, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; if a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision of the City of Picketing in respect of the zoning by-law amendment does not make oral submission at the public meeting, or make a written submission to the City of Pickering before the zoning by-law is passed, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision of the proposed zoning by-law amendment application, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal. 7.0 7.1 7.2 OTHER INFOILMATION A~pendices_ Appendix I - list o£ neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing this report; Information Received copies of the Applicant's submitted plan and building elevations are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Picketing Planning & Development Department; the City of Picketing has not received an.,,' technical information/reports on the proposed application; certain technical reports may be required to be submitted and will be reviewed and reported on, as necessary. Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Plmmer - Development Review RP/pr Copy: Director, Planning & Development Department L?nda Taylor, MCIP. d/RPP Manager, Current Operations APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 24-01 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) None received to-date COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) None received to-date COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) None received to-date Proposal for Rezoning Lots 15, 1 6, 17, Plan 21 Whitevale, City of Pickering Prepared by Christopher Speirs Reference to: City of Pickering, Information Report NO. 24-01 ATTACHMENT #, L.,J REPORT ¢' PD TO .2 ? _J 0 ,--.4 0 ..~ ,TO Table of Contents 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Purpose of the proposed application Responses to staff comments Conclusion Elevation sketches of proposed new structure Photos of Lot 15: proposed location of new structure Survey illustrating government vs. private lands Page 1 Pages 2 - 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 028 ~T~&gHMEN'f # ~ .TO "~"P~'~ PD (-2[- Purpose of the proposed application: With regards to the proposed application and the subject property, I would like to make Whitevale my place of residence, and, in so doing, wish to construct a new building for a personal residence, and renovate the existing buildings in such a manner that their presence'would provide a seamless transition from neighbouring properties. Any additions or renovations would carefully replicate the 19th century architectural styles common to Whitevale, while respecting the historical uses of this particular piece of property. The present zoning is HMC7 - Mill, Granary and Fertilizer establishment, i would like to amend the zoning to HMR-3. This would allow a single family residential home as well as small hamlet-commercial uses. The requested use rights are the same use rights that are enjoyed by the majority of the residential properties in Whitevale. At present the only structures on the property are a steel clad barn and a weigh-scale shed. I would like to construct an additional structure on the property that would be suitable for use as my personal residence. The property is bounded by3 road allowances to the west, south and east, and adjoins Ontario Realty Corporation property on the north perimeter. The western boundary, known as the unopened road allowance 'River Street', is also owned by the Ontario Realty Corporation. The O.R.C. operates the 'Seaton Hiking Trail' along the River Street road allowance and through their land holdings to the north of my property. The ORC does not have any structures on these lands. The odginal mill race still terminates at the north-east section of the property, though it is now dry as a result of the gates having been removed from the head of the dam in the 1970's. Mature deciduous trees run along the east and west boundaries of the property, providing natural screening as well as reinforcing the traditions of a rural environment. It is my intention to supplement these existing trees with additional specimen plantings at other points on the property. I am planning additional landscaping to reduce the toll that late 20th century commercial practices have taken; much of the property is covered with a gravel surface that was used to provide driveways for heavy transport trucks. I will undertake a 'greening' of this land to restore it to a more traditional appearance. The piece of the property known as Lot 15 is the highest portion of the property, and is therefore the lot which is best suited for a residence. TO In response to the City of Pickering, Information Report NO. 24-01, Section 5.3, Staff Comments, I would like to make the following submissions. With regards to: "Ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, surrounding lands." The subject property is bounded by Whitevale road on the south lot line and Mill Street on the east lot line. The north and west lot lines abut the Seaton Hiking Trail. In effect the property is an island of privately owned land in a sea of land that is controlled by various levels of government. The nearest building is located on the opposite side of the Whitevale Road allowance, this being the former mill structure which towers over 50 feet in the air. The nearest residential structure is located on the opposite side of the Mill Street road allowance, this being a 2-storey brick structure that is obscured from view by a 25 foot tall cedar hedge on that property. · The proposed construction of a single family home on the eastern portion of the subject property is an extremely Iow-impact development. The grading of the lot at the lot lines would not be changed in any manner, and any other grading changes would be minor in order to facilitate gardens or similar landscape features. · There will be no interference with existing swales or ditches. · As a single family home it can be expected that traffic volume will be very Iow. · The existing tree lines will remain and will be maintained using sound horticultural practises. · Intended improvements to the existing accessory building will substantially improve its visual appeal. · New specimen trees will be planted to improve the visual appeal of the property. · Water runoff from the proposed new structure will be carefully controlled to replicate existing water runoff patterns. /~'T .~- CHMEN-f #--~: TO '-' .:;~ ~' PD O,i- F~,,-,q "Whether the proposal is compatible with the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District?" History_ of the Property The earliest land patent on file for this property was issued to Truman P. White in 1852, according to Land Registry records. It is acknowledged that this land was in the posession and use of Truman White from 1845 onwards. Prior to this the land was occupied by Mr. John Major, who had operated a sawmill from approximately 1820 until the sale of the property to Mr. White. The village of Whitevale, as named by Truman White in his village plan of 1870, was once known as Majorville, a name assigned to it by John Major. These 3 lots were the site of the town's first grist mill; it was this mill which provided the original economic engine around which the community of Whitevale was built. The original mill was lost in a fire in 1876. This site has also been home to other enterprises including a cooper shop, a sawmill and turning factory, a private residence, a dentist's office, a blacksmith shop, as well as being the home of a temperance hall, where the town's first church services were held. Following World War II, the property was used chiefly for grain delivery and storage, as well as to service the needsof the now defunct milling operation. I, like my fellow neighbours, appreciate the unique character, history, environment and tranquility of Whitevale. I would like to return this property, once the centrepiece of the Hamlet, to the level of splendour, dignity, and reserve that is owing. With regards to the proposed development and its compatibility with the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District, consider the following excerpts from The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heritage Conservation District Study, The District Plan., June 1990. 3.35 Construction of New Buildings: "The introduction of new buildings into Whitevale must be seen as part of the continuing change that alLcommunities experience" "Contemporary design is encouraged but with a view to utilizing traditional building forms." 3.3.5.1 Building Height: "Building height of new structures should maintain the building height of adjacent properties" ~ .TO 3.3.5.2 Building Location: "Every effort should be made to respect the predominant gable roof within the district." "Garages in particular should not form part of the front facade of a new building and are best located towards the rear of the building." 3.3.5.5 Exterior Walls "Walling material for new residential building should reflect the district's traditional building material of wood, either clapboard or vertical board and batten." The new building which has been proposed for this property respects all of these important guidelines. It has been designed to reflect the characteristics of a small, late 19th century commercial building; this is in keeping with the historical pattern of usage for this property. It is similar in style to 19th century commercial buildings in the nearby communities of Cherrywood, Brougham, Claremont, Green River, and Greenwood, as well as Whitevale's commercial buildings as depicted in the Ontario County Atlas of 1876. The proposed design utilizes a gable roof two-storey structure with a frontal measurement of 30 feet; this distance reflects the most common size for a building width in the Whitevale and surrrounding area during the 1860 - 1880 period. While residences were often one and a half storeys in height, commercial buildings were typically two storeys in height. (Some commercial structures, such as mills, were often four or more storeys in height.) Additions to the rear of these buildings were common, as the need for space increased with the growth of business. The intended design takes this into account, and utilizes an 'L' shaped footprint, the most typical form of addition during the late 1800's. ~'~7~CHMENT #_ L.( _TO "Impacts of the proposed application on the Seaton Trail, considering the subject property's past relationship with the Seaton Trail." In reviewing this comment, it is crucial to understand the relationship of this plot of private property in relation to the public lands that it abuts. The Seaton Hiking Trail is operated on a path that is accessed from Whitevale Road. This path leads onto the Ontario Realty Corporation's lands abutting the west property line, and continues along the O.R.C.'s holdings that are north of the subject property. The Ontario Realty Corporation, as an agent of the Crown, maintains ownership of all the lands surrounding Whitevale, having obtained them by means of purchase or expropriation during the 1970's. Each and every piece of property in Whitevale, including the subject property, was at one time owned by the Crown during the 1970's. When the Crown chose to sell the subject property in the mid 1990's, it did so without providing a right of way or easement across the property. Thus, there exists no right of way or easement across this property; this is acknowleged by the Ontario Land Registry Office, the Solicitor for the City of Pickering, John Reble, The Government of the Province of Ontario, and the. Ontario Realty Corporation. The property has been clearly and continuously posted 'No Tresspassing'. The vast majority of people using the Seaton Hiking Trail respect the private ownership of the subject property and use the Hiking Trail as it is intended. There is a concern among some that they would prefer to have level access to the Trail; this can be easily provided by accessing the Trail from Mill Street, as the Trail does abut Mill Street. A small footbridge would likely be required to assist in crossing the old mill race. This solution has been suggested on prior occasions by a number of individuals, as well as members of the Whitevale Resident's Association; City of Pickering staff have acknowledged the feasibility of this idea, but no action has been taken to date. To summarize, this proposed application has no bearing on the operation of the Seaton Hiking Trail; the Trail will. continue to operate exactly as it presently does. Public lands surround the subject property on all 4 sides; O.R.C. property to the north and west, Whitevale Road to the south and Mill Street to the east. It is difficult to imagine a similar piece of property that has public boundaries on all four sides. ATTACHMENT ~-----~ TO "The impact the proposed use /site changes may have on the character of the neighbourhood.' When the subject property was fast being used as part of the milt operation, the City of Pickering received numerous complaints regarding the mill operation with respect to noise, truck traffic, pollution and other issues. This was a considerable factor in the decision to cease operation of the mill. It was quite clear that many of the residents of Whitevale did not want a mill operation in their community. The requested use rights are the same use rights that are enjoyed by the majority of the residential properties in Whitevale. This is much more in keeping with the desires of the vast majority of Whitevale's residents. The proposed improvements to the site will greatly enhance the visual appeal of the subject property, and more closely replicate the pattern of the rest of the hamlet. "The impact the development might have on the ex/sting vegetation on the subject property." ~ The proposed application has been carefully considered and planned to ensure the existing trees on the property will remain. Sound horticultural practises will be used to ensure the ongoing health of these trees. The west and north-east boundaries of the property are also characterized by a growth of wildflowers; these too will be preserved. The remainder of the property is largely a gravel surface. This will be improved by means of planting lawns and gardens, as well as specimen trees, that replicate the patterns set forth by the residents of Whitevale in their own landscaping. 035 ATTAOHL':ENT # L~ TO REPORT ¢ PD ~' ~ Conclusion This proposal has been well researched and thought through in order to best reflect the historical uses of the subject property and the Hamlet of Whitevale. Careful consideration has been given to the recommendations of The Hamlet of Whitevale, Heri~Conservation District Stud Th.~District Plan, June 1990. It is with the solid background of this knowledge that the proposed application has been made. The subject property, at the present time, detracts from the beauty of V~itevale. The proposed changes will serve to create a property which adds to the strength of the community, both visually and in its character and purpose. The changes represent a logical and beneficial progression of use for this piece of land. ~ 36 A~-TACR~ENT # .TO 037 "-5 n38 ATTACHMENT #. ~ TO ~'0° E \ \ 7 AR,CA £N~F_,B RRF__A bF_.k!,O'Tg5' LAN, bS' C___..OM'"T'ROLLFr_~ AS pU6Llc_ P~op6.eT,/ I,,';1AII('[S !;llllWlJ Oil ItlJ'; PI^Il At,l: II1 ri:l! I AND CArl Ill~ ~ illlVl Il lilt 03 M[II;ES LI'~' Mill 111'[.'¢111~, II, ~1 H¥111 ASSOCIATION OF ONTARI LAItO SUfWEYOI]S 1081663 ISS~(D IY Till S~flV[~O~ I:ILI~ N' 0 - 96 039 ::'-u~= ~ PD_._C~.J::~,i~ Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Planning Act Thursday, September 20, 2001 8:00 P.M. Chair: Councillor Holland The Manager, Policy Division. provided an overview of tile requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (II) ZONING BY-LAI,V AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 19/97(R01) CHRISTOPHER SPEIRS LOTS 15, 16 AND 17. PLAN 21 430 WHITEVALE ROAD Cathy Rose, Manager. Polio,' Division, on behalf of Ross Pym. Principal Planner- Development Reviev~', provided an explanation of'tile application, as outlined in Infbrmation Report ~24-01. Chris Speirs, Applicant. stated his wish to live in \Vhitevale in the proposed home. He advised that this home has been desioned~ in keepino~ with tile surroundimz~ area and existing trees and swales will not be afi'ected by this proposal. Gordon Willson, 445 Wbitcvale Road, advised that tile proposal does not indicate the use of the existin~ buildinos=, tie provided a history of thc property, v, hich bas been unfavorable lbr the area and stated his concern with tack of access to the trail and parking. He suggested that a resolution be brought forward which would assist residents. Jim Thompson, 437 Churchxvin St., stated his objection to the application, outlining that there are outstanding matters which need to be addressed prior to anx action with respect to this proposal. He advised of his concerns with respect to the closure of tile right-of-way to the trail, unfairness of the rezoning application and the inappropriate addition to Whitevale. He requested that the City either defer or den,,,' the application. Charles Sopher, 440 Whitevale Road, stated his opposition to the application and advised that tie has the same concerns as previously outlined. This application will not enhance the neighbourhood and will change the streetscape. Tile structure oil the property is being used for a non-conforming use and the scale of the proposed building is not compatible with the area. This structure is proposed fbr the high side of the property which will make it quite prominent. Access will be required onto Mill St. and a problem already exists with traffic. Chris Speirs, Applicant, stated that the proposed home will have a 30' frontage which is typical in Whitevale. The property is heavily treed and no trees will be destroyed. Traffic xvill not be a concern as this is a one car, single-fhmily dwelling. Tile present structure is being used for a legal non-conforming use. AT'[ACHI,.,qFcI',JT #_ &TO September 18, 2001 Ms. Ann~tree, Cifl~pof~ckering Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 CITY OF , I(~KERING PICKERING, ONTARIO Dear Ms. Greentree: Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A19/97 (R01) Christopher Speirs Lots 15, 15 and 17, PI2~n 21; 430 Whitevale Road City of Pickering CFN 29358.01 Staff have received the above mentioned application and have the following comments. TRCA staff commented on the subject application on February 16, 1998. The purpose of the 1998 application was to permit redevelopment of an existing building and construction of a parking lot. The proposed works were not completed, and the application has been recently revised to permit a proposed new structure on the eastern portion of the subject property. Authority staff have no objection to the application, but offer the following information. Enclosed please find a part print of the Authority's Duffins Creek Map No. 31 on which we have plotted the subject property, the flood line, and the Authority's fill regulation limit. The subject property falls partially within the fill line and in accordance with Ontario Regulation 158, a permit is required from the Authority prior to any works taking place within the fill line. In addition, the subject property is adjacent to the Duffins Creek valley corridor and the Whitevale Corridor Environmentally Significant Area (ESA). The TRCA does not support works that have negative impacts on ESAs or within a valley corridor. In light of the fact that there are no proposed works in a regulated area, and the proposed works are on the east side of the property, not adjacent to the valley corridor or ESA, we have no objection to the application. If future works are proposed on the subject property, please contact this Authority. We trust this is satisfactory. Should further discusSion and/or clarification be required, please do not hesitate to call either Patti Young at extension 5324 or the undersigned. Yours tr.)uly, Russel White Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 PY/fa Encl. 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www. trca.on.ca \\4 Part Print Flood Plain Mapving Appl~c~tio~ no.~ Scale: ~(..) ~ ~:,-:~':,~?':;:~'Subject Property .......... Regional Storm Floodline * ~ Fill Regulation Line Date Floodline Revision Pending. Hydrologic update study is complete and hydraulic update study is complete / pending. May result in revised flood elevations and flood plain limits. n42 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department Box 623 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor Lang Tower West Building Whitby, Ontario Canada L1N 8A3 ',1: (905) 728-7731 ax: (905) 436-6612 A. L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planmng September 21,2001 Ross Pym Principal Planner Planning & Development Department One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LlV 6K7 RECEIVED SEP 7 4 2001 DEVEL( -,; ;~TMENT Dear Mr. Pym: Re: Zoning Amendment Application A19/97(R01) Applicant: Christopher Spiers Location: Lots 15-17, Plan 21 Municipality: City of Pickering We have reviewed this application and the following comments are offered with respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Officia Plan the proposed method of servicing and delegated provincial plan review responsibilities. The purpose of the application is to amend the existing zoning to permit the construction of a detached dwelling on the subject property, while retaining the existing building. The applicant has applied to zone the subject property 'HMR3' to permit a detached dwelling and a domestic business use. The lands subject to the rezoning are located in Whitevale, a designated Hamlet in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Hamlets may contain commercial uses that meet the immediate needs of the residents of'the hamlets and the surrounding rural area The proposal would appear to be permitted by the policies of the Durham Plan. Municipal services (water supply and sanitary sewers) are not available to the subject lands. The site is presently serviced by a well and septic system. The Durham Health Department is unable to comment on this application until the owner provides a detailed site plan that shows the existing and proposed location of al structures well(s) and private sewage disposal systems(s). This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities No provincial interests appe .... be affected. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me. Yours truly, Ray Davies, Planner Current Operations Branch cc Karl Kiproff, Region of Durham Health Department Rob Roy, Region of Durham Works Department R:\training~rd~om ng~p^a- 19-97-R01 .doc IO(P~ Post Consumer THE DURHAM DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Facilities Se~cices ~i00 launton Road East Whitby, Ontario L1R 2KO ~ne (905) 666-5500 1 800-265-3968 Fax: (905) 656-6439 September 5, 2001 C IT ¥ ,-' - _ DEVELOPMEHT ;3¥PARTMENT The Corporation of the City of' Picketing Planning Department Picketing Civic Centre One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Mr. Ross Pyro Dear Mr. PyTn, RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 19/97 (R 01) Christopher Spelts Lots 15, 16 and 17 Plan 21 430 Whitevale Rd., City of Picketing Staff has reYqewed the infom]ation on the above noted application and mandate of the Durham District School Board. has no objections. Yours truly, Christine Nancekivell, r'lanner CN:em under the I:XPROPLAN' D-~T:\ PI.NG ZBL :\19 9'7 ~R01 I 44 .TO P Ross From: Sent: To: Subject: Kearns, Debbie Wednesday, December 05, 2001 9:54 AM Pym, Ross Spiers Properly - Whitevale Ross; I am writing to advise that the Local Architectural Conservation Advisory Committee (Heritage Pickering) discussed the application submitted by Mr. Christopher Spiers of Whitevale at their October meeting. After a brief discussion the Committee concluded that they had no objection to this application. Thanks for giving the Committee Members an opportunity to respond to this submission by Mr. Spiers. Debbie Kearns, Committee .Coordinator r 45 TP OCl - ~ 2UU1 ',ZNT September 29, 2001 Planning Department Citv of Pickering One The Espanade Pickering, Ontario Attn: Ross Pym Dear Ross, Unfortunately, we were unable to attend the city hearing tbr the Milt zoning change but we are acquainted with Chris Speir's plans for the Mill site in Whitevate and feel that his proposal is quite complimentary' to the hamlet. We are not aware of any negative impact this proposal would have on the community and agree that his request should be granted. Yours truly, Michael and Shirley Curran 459 Churchwin Street Whitevale cc:David Pickles f146 ~.,TTACHMEN7 # ~ I TO :DEF'--2:E:--.~E~O i O? :24 ~hl'l I_:h o.r- I e~. :z;,_-,~.h et- C: ,-, r, s- L~ I t .~L--~5 491 E.Q:_Z:2 Charles Sopher PO Box 5-14 Wlfitev'ale, Ontario LOH 1 MO September 27, 2001 City of Pi0kormg Ptasming & Developmont Department One Esplanade Pickermg, Ontario L1VtK7 Allen: ~p, RPP I~vltl~lA?ata~r- Development Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A19/970101) Lois 15, 16, and 17, Plan 21 430 Whg00vale Road Whltevale Dear Sir: Fax: 905-420-9685 DEVELOPML:~,;, : ~ ~_NT We have received and rev/ewed the recent City of Picketing documentation with respect to t/la above noted application. We bare also attended the Public Meeting of September 20, 2001 mid made comment. This letter will confirm our concern m~d register our opposition to the propo.~ed amendment Dining the September 20, 2001 meeting the concern of most residents of Whitevalc and many of the stwrounding community was clearly expressed by IVh', Willson mid Mr Thomson: the original sale of the mill property by the govermnent was wrong It removed deeded public access thai e~sted on the north mill property, eliminating access for lite public to the h/ldng tail and parking area to the north of the subject property. This action took place without consultation of the residents oa~d the City of Picketing_ 'lllc City has reviewed/he legahties of ttLis action. This issue must be adcLressed as priority to ely co~zsideraI/on of the 7xming Ry-law Amendment The City h~q an obligation to consider the consequences of conceding to the unit[st consequences of the present ~imafion. The Hamlet is under great pressure as a dest/nat/on by the gre-~er community for day visits and use of'the trail. There are inadequate parking fat.qlities al thc community cenhe to accommodate the client visitors The rcm)oval of the access on thc north milt s)le has removed a significant portion parking that was available to visitors This has impacted our community and will cmly become more acute W~th hme as the demand for access to natural areas and Conservation [Sistricts such as Whitevale come tinder more pre.saute w/th lhe deve}opment ofsmxonnding land The recent changes to the south mill site have res~flted in additional vigitor traffic and there is lillle to no accommodation at the south n~ll to deal with park/rog The removal of the north null site access and parking combined w/th its commerciahsation will not be a positive benefit to our Hamlet. 'Ihe applicant is currently using file mill building fit a non-confi,rming tkse, a storage garage. This is not perrmlled trader the cmxent zomng nor the requested mnended zoning T[ie site is strewn voth strategically placed wire, rocks, chain link fence, snow £ence and signage some of which is likely on City property. The applicant's at~empts to control access to the properly fl~rther ilhmtrate the problem erected whml government without consultation or consideration removed the access For tl~e Seaton Trail and parking. n47 Charles Sopher PO Box 5-14 Wttitm'ale, Ontario LOH 1 MO One of the joys of visiting our commuru~, is thc natural surrotmdmg~ of the Seat0n Trial along West DuflSns Creek. The mml setting of the historic }tamlet is pleasam ~md a deswable place to live and visit. The comrmmity is a Hcmtage Consewaiaon Mca Th~s does not tmply t/mt the C~ should approve ehmlges Ihat v, qtl commercmltse \Vhi/evalc and c~I~t;ihm:: chanmnz ~mr }Iamlet int,~ anothc'r Unio~'ille or Niagara- Oll-the-l.akc These commttrutms have 1,,>~ most of the t~iginal charact:~st~c~ that c(mmbuted to their ttlIlqt~¢Hess a~]d ~low coastal ora fabricated ,,enos of commercial ventures that hear )ttle resemblance to the on!final commmti~ fabric The proposed amendment w/It result m disruption lo a siimificanl hm'imgc feature and archaeological site Thc proposed dwell/n? is ~o be co[~.smicted on thc mill chase. '[llis is conlnwdp,' r~ the ()blecll;'es et thc Conservation Dismct. The dwelling combined wilh rear adrhl~on and alrachcd g:uage ~s approximately 100' long %ere is no p~cccd~tt in the } lamlct For ~s dwelling. ~II~e altached garage m not respectS5 :~fthe He~rage Dndehnes. ]]}c pressed loca~on of Ibc dwelling ~ql] requue accrues onlo ~ Street '['h~s ~qll ~ter the s~et and m~pact s~ee/frees ~e site presently has 200' of fionlage on ~qutcvnle Road and docs nat require addifion~ vehicle access 1o Milt S~rect pamcnl~lv if ~bc commerciM nsc of thc iwape~y x~ql] result in ~cieased tra~c onto Nf~ Saee~ %~at provis~on ha~ ~cn made to accommo(ialc die pre, posed commercial me of Ibc prope~ ~d parking rcq~ed tm(k~ HMR ~? %e ttMR 3 zoning also indicates that the ~oss floe[ area ofa~ domestic b~iness shall not exceed 25 pcrcenl of~e detached dwelling on the lot How does the exisling m~ s~lcmre relate to this recl/uiemant? ~e locaticm of the proposed dwelling may also st~gcst speculative aspirations with respect ta fl~: m/Il s~t~. ars thc ncxt st~ would be to request a sevemce ~d ad~fional building lots The proposed nses amendmen! should nol proceed There mre. asonable ol>pos~hon to applovn} from our community Let file Ci~ hake posi~vc steps lo protec~ thc mill site kilN] llssoclated landscape as g~e Oble~ves of ~c Conse~a~on Dis~ct receded trod *}~e commmuty h.~ ~equ~ted 'Ihe C~W sho~d explore ways lo prom(lc ~otber location fo~ ~e applicant and remm th~s site to thc commtm~ty to benefit of all. %c City musl elect tn prese~'e our cornmtm~b' CtmrlTtcl BnDtte Sophcr S;EP-21-2001 11:46, HEE;E: ITT HElL I FA:::'::: 902 42! 7811 To: The City of Pickerh~g Department of Planning & Development Fro m: Mrs. Marion Thompson 437 Churchwin St. Whitevale, ON L0H 1M0 (905) 294-8266 Date: September 17, 2001 (sent from Halifax on Sept. 21) RE: Zoning By -Law Amendment Application A 19/97 (R01 ) Christopher Spelts Lots 15,16 and l7 Nan 21 430 Whitevale Road, Whitevalc :' ' '". 2001 OEVELOPt '~NT Di'{::z F~TMENT Having been unexpectedly called out of town, I am unable to attend the Sept. 20, 2001, public meeting on the above matter. However, as a direct neiDhbour of Mr. Speirs and as a concerned citizen of the Historic Hamlet of Whitevale, [ wish my views on this application to be on record and t° be t~-~.ken into consideration in your deliberations. As a neighbouring resident homeowner who will be directly affected by Mr. Speirs' plans, I must voice my strong objections to his application, both as we understand it locally and as presented in your documentation. Frown the footprh]t shown on the site survey, it appears that Mr. Speirs plans to ered an enormous building that will cover most of the eastern side of the lot. Whereas as ncio~hbours facing the property in question, we coexisted happily with the mill operation that reflected W'hitevale's agricultural roots and that honoured the righl-of-way to the Scaton Hiking Trail, this new development presents a very dismal prospect. To this time, we have been dismayed and angered by the total failure of thc City of Pmkering to stop ongoing mfringements of the By-Laws including demolmon ~f the mill structures withou! permits and the obvious -and continuing storage of fuels and flammable mater/als in the sheds. Such flagrant disregard of existing By-Lmvs ,'md Zoning (which remain unenforced by Picketing), apart from being illegal, poses a very real Ere hazard to the whole Hamlet and its predominantly wooden eenmry-old structures. Mr, Speirs has fenced off his property in a very ugly maturer and has posted crude warning signs on all sides. He has further placed large roclcs aloug thc roadsides so tim! tim public will not pm'k on "his" property. And, over the last year, he has deliberately left, or purposely placed, large fallen tree limbs on the eastern verge to further deter those who would park on the shoulder beyond his eastern fence· These and the large rocks, many of them concealed by ~ass or snow, pose a real danger to people and cars. [I am surprised that Picketing has not removed this stuff while busily mowing the rest of the verge!] E, EF'-./i-_'UOi iI:4F, lIE-P!T~ ~rCIFHii '_q0.2' 425 ?011 \Ve do not believe that Mr. Speks, who is c,xrrentlv a resident of Scarborough, has m~y inclination to be, or mterest in being, sen.qhiv¢ To the 14eFitage ttamlet conceot. On the contrary, he has plans for a ,.'eD large house in a domknm~t pos]non in the veu' heart of W~fitevale and has held himself apart from thc residents in all matters. \x,3af. e, i',, i~, accepted that he owns the property, hc must understand that he does not ha:e :m'r.c ~'~/:~,2chc m Its :~sc. that hc must conform to local standards and not be a jarring and wildly mappropriaTc m,tc ir: thc streelscape. The siting of the proposed build.ut¢ on thc s~tc survey, which Pickenng stint to us as dkectly- affected homcowncrs, is totaJ}>' tmint'o~ativc as to rite nature of thc "new stixicture". Its very \Ve deplore the loss of the Seaton Iqlkmg I'ra:! ngh: of-way (thanks to; thc reprehensible actions of thc Ontario Realty Corp. and its agent, (~coff Spnng, and thc tol~ lack of action on the pa~t of The C~9' of Picketing and our politicim~s at cvc~w icxcl. ~'. SpdFs clearly has no wish to in any way help the public, the school children, thc dderly, thc fishem~en, who love lo visit Whitevalc for m~y reasons and xvhom we welcome. Tiaanks tn his retractable t>o:;itzon, ali those who were formerly able to access the nodh Tail and thc publicly-owned parking from the road, arc e/'lbctively cut off. The only route now is a precipitous tli~hl of wooden stairs, inslalled hy The City of Picketing. and impassable to the mother with a stroller, the elderly, or the infi~, and even more so in water. Rather than permitting Mr. Spei~s 1<~ have hi~ way, unchallenged, on the very shores of Ihe West Duffin (.'reek, I implore The City of Picketing to brry the property ('expropriate' ts a nme word...) and turn it into parkland with ai7 edt~catio? center either on h or nearby in the old blacksmith's shop. This would be an asset to, the area and a positive henctk to all the school ~onps especially who continue To t:w to rase tl~s nurlli 'I rail. We have been badly served, mdeed, ben-ayed, by The City of Pickermg and its Cnuncillors to whom we have appealed a~ain and again since i9q4-95 For a ~olid and p~mitivc re,,pc)nsc velT real concerns. We also note, increasingly c>~icail.~, lhat where the~e is a will, there is a way, and Councillors can make thmgs happen ffthev feel zt ~s m their oxm~ interest 1o simply forge ahead. Why can't some of that creative energy be brm~2, ht to bear on our dilcmna? We demand much more detailed inlbmmtion about this api)licatior: s,n E~at we may better the dubious meats of an action that would change Forever the ¢%ential r, aturc oF'~Vhitevalc. And, m case, the peat has been lost, I remain totally opposed to it. Yours [rnly, Marion Thompson Cc: Janet Eeker, MP.P. Wayne Arthurs tkick Johnson David Pickles TOTAt P. ~L TO r-;ET"OR? # PD_..~_L.zz..Q~ The Corporation of the CiD' of Picketing One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LI V 6K7 Attention: Ross Pvm Catherine Rose Ron Taylor Planning and Development Department REClEI VED CITY OF PICKERiNG PLAF4i'q NG & DEVELOPMENT ~)EPAP, TMEFIT I write with respect to the application for Zoning By-Law amendment application A 19/97(R01) Christopher Speirs. I am a resident of Whitevale, 385 Whitevale Rd. I do not object to Mr Speirs' request. Iwould like to address a few points presented by those residents who do object in hopes that common sense will prevail. Historically, the property was part of Wilsons Mill. Since 1973 when I moved into Whitevale, it was a maintenance facility for mill vehicles and equipment, it contained the weigh scale, it contained dryers for grain, and mill related equipment was stored on the site. Coincidentally, previous owners of both Mr. Sopher's and Mr. Thompson's homes voiced strong objections to the operations of the then operating mill, most of the objections stemming from operation of the grain dryers, vehicle traffic, and storage of fertilizer equipment on this very property. A considerable amount of grief was created for the Wilson family who operated the mill, who nonetheless worked to try and reme~ the situation while trying to run a business which had been here long before those objecting individuals. Not only did the Wilsons attempt to please, but the property was always open and available for access to the North Hiking trail. I am personally sad that the mill is no longer a pan of this village but change is inevitable. So, ifI can remain focused here, these individuals need to look at what has happened to the north Mill property in a more positive light. No longer do they have what some considered objectionable aspects of mill operation happening in their faces, instead they have an individual who has purchased the property. with intent to build a home and reside there. I believe it is his intent to keep the present buildings, bringing them up to better condition. These bnildings really do not seem to have much architectural significance, ---they were maintenance and storage buildings---, however on a sentimental basis, they are a part of Whitevale and Mr. Gordon Willson, who objects to this application, partly on the basis of sentiment when he speaks of this as being the core of our village, needs to keep in mind that these buildings will likely remain as reminders of part of our heritatze :is opposed to another owner who could easily demolish them. Now the first ox~q~cr of this property pt{rchascd from ORC appeared unapproachable and uncooperative with other residents of the village with respect to his intentions for the property, which did not seem veu condusive to the "plans" for our much studied village. Hence I understand Mr Thompson's reference to thc "attitude" of the previous owner, but I do not understand his reference to" attitude" of the present owner who has cleaned up the property, keeps it maintained, and is frequently on the site, approachable and friendly. I commend Mr. Speirs for what appears to be exceeding amounts of tolerance towards the three residents that I have heard voice formal objections and who themseh,es could use some attitude adjustment. I find Mr. Thompson's suggestion that Mr. Speirs be offered another property by one of the governments involved or that he give up a portion of the property for an access to the Noah Trail totally out of line considering the present owner's intentions. Perhaps t~is would'ye worked with the previous owner whose intentions were different. The sloppy procedure of not considering past access to the trail was done when ORC initially sold the property. In conversation with Mr. Speirs, his attitude is not one of "...could care less..", but simply "...this was not my doing..." It seems unfair to hinder Mr. Spiers with a problem created by another party who certainly could do something to address the situation. Mr. Sopher, another properly owner who objects, made reference to the physical aspects of the proposed house to be built, size, height, location, for example. I am impressed ( 51 with the considerations that Mr. Speirs' plans shiny for the [tentagc desigmation which Whilevale has and also for his ncighbours. There is considerable mature tree covcr u, hich would appear lo provide a good visual and sound buffer There arc other tx~o storey dwellings and Ills design v, otlld nol appear ou! of place to me. As to increased traffic on Mill strecL arc xvc not talkimz of one residential property here as opposed to what used to be considerable commercial traffic xvhcn the'~nill operated, and should'there still be a parking 1oi for north trail use. would there not bc much more vchicu}ar traffic than Mr Spcirs ~ill contribute?? There is some merit to having access to thc propcrt? [~hind for parking. In a pcrfcct s~orld, schoolbuscs or physically challenged individual's vehicles could have caster access 1o the relatively easier to travel porton of the trail which runs along the mill race and back to the dam area. And this would diminish the problem of roadside parking which is a xalid concern for Mill Street users and residents. However. one need onh live next to lhe existing parking lot for the trail and community ccutre as I do to realize that this is not a perfect_ world and there arc often times when parking lot use and abuse is objectionable ....car alarms goiug off. graxel spinning, late and earls vis,ors, loud music and partying.. I think neighbeurs and residents would do well to think carcflllh' bcfo-rc ob. iccling to a driveway to a residence and in the next breathe considering a vehicle accessible access to that propert?' and l'~m of tile trail. I do support strongly the issue of resolving access problem for the Noah Frail ho~ ever not at Mr. Speirs' cost with respect to delay or unreasonable proposals and objcct~ons. Ill Your capaci~' as a Planning and Development Dcpamnent. and as part of tills very progressive City of Pickenng which has such a wonderful mi×turc of nc~ and old. hisloncal and technological, and a g~od track record of moving forward with respect to preserving what we have and rcasonabh, controlling what we will have, I would suggest that you could tx instrumental itl rcactung a solution to North Trail access_ You have heard some of the attempts s~ e as residents have made in the past ill our approaches to the governments and govcmment dcpamncnts inx oh'edL Jn my olmniom it is cas>' for municipal, conservation authority, and province to pass it off as the other's problem and vcr-,- little progress is made but a lot of frustration created. I urge you to continue to please and amaze us wiih your pl,m~i and solutions ..... we can work towards that idealistic perfect ~orld .... hox~ about an anti'tut culvert and a heritage style footbridge, accessible by wheelchair, stroller, cie., to cross thc mill race.and cater tile Noah 'Frail from Mill Street and then pleasing, natural imt-,cdiments such :.Is plantings, x~oodcn fences, to discourage parking on the street?'?'??? Thankyou for heanng my concerns. I hope that the Spcirs' rc×oning application will bc approved and that sensible progress be made quickly on thcse propemes m thc eonlinul~lg process of prcscntmg a proud pleasant flamlct in the City of Pickenng. C.C. Mayor Wayne Arthurs Members of Pickenng City Couucil Member of Prox.1ncial Parliament, Jara:l Eokcr Toronlo Rcgion Conservation Authority The Clerk Clerks' Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering Ontario RECEIVED SEP 2 1 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 19 September 2001 Regarding Zoning By-law Application #A 19/97 (R 01) Concerning the north Mill property in the Hamlet of Whitevale Dear Sir I do do support this application for a number of reasons: 1. This application does not describe the proposed use of the existing heritage buildings or the rest of the property. 2. The historical, industrial, social and political signifance of this property to the Hamlet of Whitevale does not seem to be considered by the applicant, or by the Municipality. 3. It is unforunate, to say the least, our locally elected politicians have' not yet resolved the situation made by the Government of Ontario who created the Seaton Hiking Trail, including its access points and public parking etc., and the subsequent unresolved mess-up devised by the Ontario Reality Corporation before giving leave to Mr. Spiers to make this application. 1. Considering the importance of the applicants heritage property to the village I fail to see any description of what he intends for the land or the existing buildings. As one of many here who have fought for the preservation of this village, during the 'airport years' and for the prolonged and great difficulties in establishing the Heritage District Designation we now have, this is of prime interest. Also in respect to this heritage property the applicants proposed structure appears to measure 30 feet by 100 or more feet. Other than the existing mill buildings themselves, tl~is would easily be the largest structure in the village. As this is a historic property of particular signifigance to the Hamlet of Whitevale and to the City of Pickering I am frankly surprised at the size and scale of the house proposed. And surprised too at the location he proposes considering the hidden concrete emplacements. In brief; without any description of intended land use and and description of intended use of existing buildings, this application should not be approved. continued/2 Page 2 2. The intersection of the Fifth Concession Road crossing the West Duffin Creek is at the heart of our history. On the applicants property or immediately north of it was Major's Saw Mill, the first industry of Majorville (later Whitevale). It is on this property that T.P. White built his Wool Mill and where he got the idea of 'workers rights' and where he started the Green Party* and where he was elected and served as MP in the Ontario Legislature. Since the naming and promotion of the Seaton Hiking Trail as a public resource by tt~e Ontario Ministry of Housing in 1976, there has been a growing discovery and enjoyment, of this wilderness trail.and the village itself. After the purchase of the mill properties, the existing right-of-way, on the north side, registered on title, was conveniently assumed bythe province as the level assess to the north Hiking Trail and which also provided access to the public parking area which the Ministry of Housing established behind the existing buildings. This.parking area can hold as many as 30 cars on occasion. However, the sale of the land, the unilateral extinguishment of the right-of-way by ORC and its subsequent sale of the land to a junk yard merchant, cannot be regarded as anything but a perverted act to screw Whitevale which it is continues to do, apparently with Pickering's acquiescence. Both villagers and visitors now must contend with a stupid arrangement where mom's with youngsters, strollers and baby carriages or people with limited climbing ability can no longer access the north Trail which features the only extended flat portion in the entire Seaton Hiking Trail system. This is unexceptable. Because ORC severed access to the public parking area visitors must and do pa~k on the road, on people's lawns or anywhere when there is an overflow. We have lost a major public parking facility which has halved our capacity to accommodate visiting trail users in school buses and private cars. Film crew vehicles can greatly exacerbate the parking problem. Now there is discussion about a proposal to revitalize our old Blacksmith Shop, a worthy project. If successful, it may further impact our existing parking problem too. We're going backward, not forward. Residents and the visiting public did not create this situation, nor will it improve without action from council. The Hamlet Plan should be reviewed to examine impacts on the village including public uses of existing natural and built resources, emerging trends, the projected impact 407 will have, and to anticipate a plan to meet the village needs now and for our future. In brief; without some kind of overall planning review by the municipality, for the reasons outlined above, this application should not be approved. (*No known relationship to todays political party by the same name). Continued/3 Page 3 Regarding Zoning By-law Application #A 19/97 (R 01) Continued/3 3. The failure, so far, of our locally elected representatives to address the political situation created by the Government of Ontario (creation of the Seaton Hiking Trail and the present unresolved mess-up devised by Ontario Reality Corporation), before granting leave to make this application is unfortunate to say the least. As such no remedy can happen without the asssistance of our locally elected politicians. This is a wholly political matter. Staff, who have looked at this p[roblem and who I believe understand our concern, frustration and annoyance. They have identified a workable compromise; - by c~eating access along the edge of the bank of the creek to the now landlocked public parking area behind the existing buildings and the restoration of a level access to the north Hiking Trail. This seemed like a good compromise, considering all the factors. When in a meeting of staff and neighbours at City Hall, this was proposed to Mr Spiers, he declined to accept this compromise. He did not create this situation nor did he consider it his responsibility to-accomodate the interests of residents, visiting trail users, the municipality or anyone else. As a land owner, I guess this is probably his perrogative. But it does point out the need for our council to help remedy this on-going, festering problem. This unfortunate legacy of ORC has at least one workable remedy but can only be made to happen with the assistance of our locally elected representatives. In brief: Until a review of the hamlet plan in this respect the claims made here has been undertasken I oppose this application. David. I hope this explains my strong oppositon to this application, and I hope you will take some leadership to initiate a Hamlet Plan review toward finding an equitable solution that serves community interests now and in the future as well as respect the property rights of Mr Spiers. Sincerely Go~don and Anna Gordon & Anna Willson, 455 Whitevale Road, Whitevale Ontario. LOH 1MO ,.TTaChiMENT # i~" TO ~EPORT # D~ 437 CHURCH~VIN STREET IVHITEVALE, ONTARIO, L0H l~,10 To: From: Re: The City of Picketing - Planning and Development Department City Clerk's Department Dr. James C. Thompson Zoning By-law Amendment Application A19i97 (R 01) Christopher Speirs Lots 15, 16 and 17 Plan 21 430 Whitevale Road Whitevale 20tn September 2001 CITY OF PICKERIN - PLANNING AND G 1. I wish to record my objection to the above application for reasons stated below. 2. I wish to be informed of the decision on this matter, whether ~t involves the passing of any zoning by-law amendment or not. 3. I wish to be informed of any future meetings related to this matter. 4. I state my interest in this matter since I am a resident of Whitevale and my property, at the comer of Mill Street and Churchwin Street overlooks the subject area. My wife is away this week, but I know she shares my views on this matter and would have brought her own concerns to this meeting, perhaps with even greater vehemence. 5. Since my belief is that this is as much a political matter as it is one for the City Planning and Development Department, I am sending copies of my remarks to our M.P.P., our Mayor, our Regional Coundllor and our City Councillor. 6. Io~ed 8. to the applicant's proposal on ;.he fo!!owing grounds: There are outstanding matters that have been raised by residents of Whitevale since the time of the sale of the Mill by the Oatado Realty Corporation (ORC) in 1995. These matters have been raised with our M.P.P., the Management Board of Cabinet, the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Picketing, and members of the Staff of the City of Picketing. These matters are not resolved and, until they are, to a reasonable degree of satisfaction, no action whatsoever should be taken on the matter of re-zoning. These matters relate to: the sale of the Mill by the ORC; the arbitrary closure of the right-of-way access to the Seaton Hiking Trail and parking area north of the Mill; the wishes of residunis o~ Whitevale expressed many times both in wdting and in nub!!c meetings; the interests and needs of visitors to Whitevale, including fishe'rmen, toudsts and school groups; and the refusal of the previous and current owners of the North Mill property to make any effort to try to meet the sedous concerns of the community in which they seek to live and work. Hence, this or any application for re*zoning is premature and should not be entertained until these sedous and important matters have been resolved. This is unfinished business which must not be diverted by this zoning application. The current zoning allows for use as a "Mill, Grainery and Fertilizer" establishment. Neither the current nor the previous owner has used the property for those purposes. It has been used for storage of surplus building materials, cars and other non-conforming uses. In spite of numerous complaints made to the City, no action has been taken to enforce proper usage. We have no confidence whatsoever that there will be any greater compliance with City By- Phone: 905*294-8266; FAX: 905.294-/213 laws or the Hamlet Plan in the future, no matter what may purport to be permitted by any zoning amendment. c. An application for re-zoning by the previous owner in 1998 was solidly opposed by a large number of residents. This application was either withdrawn or refused. Subsequently, the property was sold again. It is not clear how much was made clear about the status and permitted uses of the property at the time of this sale. We suspect that there was very little disclosure of the facts. d. The notice of this meeting, dated 28th August 2001, provides no detail of the proposed use of the existing building, once the property is re-zoned. The Mill property is listed as part of the Whitevale Heritage Conservation District. No indication is given of how any new use or modification of the existing building would be consistent with the Hedtage guidelines. Since the latter are just guidelines, and given the attitude to date of the current owner, there can be little confidence that the hedtage aspect world be maintained. In addition, the scale of the proposed res dence being some 30 feet by 100 feet, is totally out of keeping with neady all residences in VVhitevale. It would be a singularly inappropriate addition to the architecture of the community. I have a voluminous file of correspondence on this matter. While I shall not take the time of this meeting to go over all of it in detail, I would be quite happy to provide copies of it to the City for its consideration of this matter. I will, however, make the following points. a. The first letter in my file was wdtten to our then newly-elected M.P.P., Janet Ecker, in September 1995, at the time that the Mill was first put up for sale by the ORC. After several more letters, the groat lady herself actually visited Whitevale in September 1997 and saw for herself the problems created by the then owner and the c!osure of the right-of-way access. She took a close look at the property, incidentally trespassing on what was by then pdvate land, and said she would do everything possible to help resolve the issue. That was the last we heard from Janet Ecker, either on this issue or on anything else of concern to the residents of Whitevale. b. Aisc in 1997, we had correspondence with Mr. David Johnson, Chair of the Management Board of Ccbinet, and Ms. Michele Noble, Secretary of that body. They sent me a map showing the existence of the right-of-way, but said that it had been relocated as part of the sale. Our questions about the lack of consultation with residents on this change, and on possible alternatives to try to resolve the problem, remain unanswered. c. Over the last six years, we have had much correspondence, written and electronic, with the elected and appointed officials of the City of Picketing, including, especially, Nell Carroll, Tom Melymuk and David Pickles. As recently as this spdng a meeting was convened by Tom Melvmuk at which the concemed and interested parties stated and exchanged their views. A number of suggestions were made which seemed worthy of further sedous consideration. These included: i.) Provision of level access to the hiking trail on either the east or west side of the Mill property, the land being purchased if necessary by Picketing from Mr. Speirs. ii.) A land exchange, whereby Picketing would purchase an appropriate and non-contentious piece of land for Mr. Spelts, taking possession of the Mill property from him in exchange. The fact of the current application seems to indicate that no further effort has been made to pursue these or any other options, and/or that they have all be rejected by Mr. Speirs. Nonetheless, the fact that there are such options indicates that the matter is not a finished business and, hence, that the application is premature. The very recent proposal that the old blacksmith's shop be restored and brought back into use focuses even moro importance to the Phone: 905-294-8266; FAX: 905-294-~.213 ~---rACHMENT ~~TO 'centre' of the village, on either side of the bridge, including the area around the Community Centre on the west and the Mill on the east. It is now too late to do anything about the south Mill property, which is in pdvate hands. However, that owner did at least come and discuss his plans with the residents and established some degree of understanding and support before his application for re-zoning. However, returning the north Mill to public ownership, as in ii) above, and making it into a resource centre for the Hiking Trail and a focus for the historic middle part of Whitevale would ad a strong reinfor~ment for the heritage character of the village. 8. These problems became prominent with the original, unprincipled and dishonest sale of the Mill by the ORC. For that, the Government of Ontado is responsible, but it has abdicated its responsibilities. The fact that a second sale was then made without the issues being resolved shows further disregard of the serious concerns expressed by residents. While the current owner may not be responsible for the misdeeds of previous owners and their agents, these misdeeds must not be condoned by allowing this re- zoning before the wrongs have been made dght. However, in spite of numerous requests, complaints and suggestions, Picketing has stood back and permitted this situation to go from bad to worse. Now, Picketing has one last chance to sort it out, by denying this application and taking imaginative and constructive steps towards a solution. Picketing must not follow the sordid example of the Province and abdicate its responsibility. 9. I hope that our expectations for wise action by the City will not be confounded. It is time this business was finished, but it must not be finished by further betrayal of the Whitevale community. Thank you. James C .Thompson Whitevale, Ontado C.Co Janet Ecker, M.P.P. Wayne Adhurs Rick Johnson David Pickles Phone: 905-294-8266; FAX: 905-294-1213 /~-TACHMENT # I ~ TO Pickering Planning & Development Department One,The Esplanade, Picketing,Ont. 3181,Byron St., Whitevale, L0H 1M0 Sept. 7/01 Dear Sirs, re Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 19/97 (R 01) Whitevale We cannot be present at the Sept. 20 Public Meeting so we would like our comments to be given consideration and we would also like to be informed of any subsequent meetings on this matter. In reference to the proposal to construct one new detached dwelling on this property, to use up to 25% for domestic business, and presumably to also use the existing mill shed for a commercial purpose: we would like to know what use, or uses, the applicant is planning for these two sites. In view of the Whitevale Heritage Designation of the Hamlet, obtained after long and difficult negotiations by many of us in Whitevale, we consider it important that not only the letter of the new Municipal Plan, but the spirit of the heritage designation be honoured. The existing building, which is after all a replacement for the original building, burnt in the 1950's, is only acceptable because of its historical origins. To see it adapted for some unsuitable use such as a truck repair yard or a service station, would destroy our community. We are also concerned that access to the North Section of the Seaton Hiking Trail is lost to beings like us who have used it for years but who are too old and grey to negotiate all the steps of the alternate new access the city put in when the occupant shut off the original path. This would also apply to parents with young children. Mr. Speirs would not be too inconvenienced if he were to leave a path about a metre wide which could run on the west and north perimeters of his land. This could be fenced off. We know that the O.R.C. made a mess of the original sale but would hope Mr. Speirs would have the goodness to consider re-opening access to the trail, which would certainly be appreciated by his new neighbours and those seeking a peaceful walk in the country. And incidentally much more easy to navigate in winter weather! Yours truly, ~Tomm~v Th~ cc. Clerk's Department Councillor David Pickles RECEIVED SEP 1 12001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND ~DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT RESOLUTION OF COt.NCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Council of the City of Picketing receive and endorse the resolution passed by the Board of the .Ajax Picketing Transit Authority, concerning the 2002 APTA Budget; and That a copy of this resolution be for~¥arded to the Region of Durham. CARRIED: MAYOR AJAX PICKERING AUTHORITY Ajax Pickering Transit Authority 110 Westney Road South Ajax, ON Canada L1S 2C8 January 30, 2002 Bruce Taylor, City Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Please be advised that the following resolution was passed by the Board of the Ajax Pickering Transit Authority at its Board Meeting held on January 29, 2002. RECOMMENDATION: That the Status Report to The APTA Board of Management APTA 05-02 concerning the 2002 APTA Budget be received and referred back to staff to develop alternative budget(s). That the APTA Board of Management formally approach our funding partners, the City of Pickering and the To~'n of Ajax immediately to have them aggressively pursue their respective shares of funding from the Region of Durham that has been collected through the GO Transit taxation for 2001. Further, to redirect future transit taxation at the Regional level, to both the existing service providers and any other Regional contracted services. That the APTA Board of Management and the Councils of Ajax and Pickering immediately and actively pursue the Province of Ontario for payment of transitional funding requests that have been submitted as a result of the merger; That the APTA Board of Management immediately contact the Ministry of Transportation to obtain written clarification concerning the release of Region of Durham transit funds that have been collected through taxation; That the APTA Board of Management endorse the ongoing applications for transit funding from the Province of Ontario; and; That the APTA Board of Management immediately contact the Ministry of Transportation to obtain details concerning the process for obtaining 1/3 funding for transit. That the report and the Recommendation of the APTA Board be forwarded to the Councils of Ajax and Pickering. Telephone 905-427-5710 · 905-683-4111 · Fax 905-427-3473 www.townofajax.com · www. cityofpickering.on.ca Should you have any inquiries with respect to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at any nme. I may be contacted by telephone at (905) 420-4660 Ext. 5236. Tours Truly, Deanna Wilson Administrative/Operations Coordinator .Ajax Picketing Transit Authority :\ttachment: Report Number ,&PTA 05-02 ('op): 'Fed Galinis: General Manager..APTA CSil Paterson: 'I'rcasurer, APTA AJAX PICKERING AUTHORITY REPORT TO BOARD FROM: Ted Galinis DATE: January 28, 2002 General Manager, Ajax Pickering Transit Authority REPORT NUMBER: APTA 05-02 SUBJECT: Status Report - 2002 APTA Budget RECOMMENDATION: l. That the Status Report to The APTA Board of Management APTA 05-02 concerning the 2002 APTA Budget be received and referred back to staffto develop alternative budget(s); That the APTA Board of Management formally approach our funding partners, the City of Picketing and the Town of Ajax immediately to have them aggressively pursue their respective shares of funding from the Region of Durham that has been collected through the GO Transit taxation for 2001. Further, to redirect future transit taxation at the Regional level, to both the existing service providers and any other Regional contracted services; That the APTA Board of Management and the Councils of Ajax and Pickering immediately and actively pursue the Province of Ontario for payment of transitional funding requests that have been submitted as a result of the merger; That the APTA Board of Management immediately contact the Ministry of Transportation to obtain written clarification concerning the release of Region of Durham transit funds that have been collected through taxation; 5. That the APTA Board of Management endorse the ongoing applications for transit funding from the Province of Ontario; and; 6. That the APTA Board of Management immediately contact the Ministry of Transportation to obtain details concerning the process for obtaining 1/3 funding for transit. 7. That this report and the Recommendation of the APTA Board be forwarded to the Councils of Aj ax and Pickering. ORIGIN: General Manager, Ajax Pickering Transit Authority Report to Board 05-02 Subject: Status Report - 2002 APTA Budget Date: January 28, 2002 Page 2 :\UTHORITY: Not applicable FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: CURRENT BUDGET ,,\PTA 2002 Net Current Core Budget: Increase over 2001 Net Current Expenditures: Percentage Increase over 2001: 19.855o $ 810,921 Total 2002 Current Transitional Budget: Total 2002 Additional Requirements Budget: Total 2002 APTA Current Budget: Increase over 2001 Net Current Expenditures: 5 997. I $1 Percentage Increase over 2001: 24.47°~o ('APIT:XL BUDGET: :\PTA 2t!(!2 Net Capital Core Budget: increase over 2001 Net Capital Expenditures: Percentage Increase over 2001: 79.58% $ 914,655 'I oral 2002 Capital Transitional Budget: Total 2002 .NPTA Capital Budget: Increase over 2001 Net Capital Expenditures: S 1.257.555 Percentage Increase over 2001:109.4200 CURRENT & CAPITAL BUDGET: Total 2002 APTA Capital & Current Budget: Increase over 2001 Net Capital & Current Budget: Percentage Increase over 2001' 43.07% S 4,896,616 113,119 __53 141 iS 5,082,876 $ 2,063.955 342,900 S 2,406.855 S 7.489.73 Report to Board 05-02 Subject: Status Report - 2002 APTA Budget Date: January 28, 2002 Page 3 Potential APTA Current Budget Impact on Municipal Tax Levy: Ajax: $ 484,747 or 2.07% (based on 42.53% cost sharing) Pickering: $ 512,434 or 2.08% (based on 57.47% cost sharing) Potential APTA Capital Budget Impact on Municipal Tax Levy: Ajax: $ 374,728 or 1.60% (based on 42.53% cost sharing) Picketing: $ 882,827 or 3.58% (based on 57.47% cost sharing) Potential APTA Total Budget Impact on Municipal Tax Levy: Ajax: $ 859,475 increase or 3.66% (based on 42.53% cost sharing) Picketing: $ 1,395,261 increase or 5.67% (based on 57.47% cost sharing) Note: All figures are shown without subsidy. Unknown Cost Pressure: APTA and other GTA transit providers face the unique challenge in 2002 of supporting World Youth Day 2002 to be held July 23, 2002 through July 28, 2002 in Toronto. An estimated 67,500 pilgrims are expected to be billeted in Durham Region. APTA is awaiting logistical details from WYD organizers. APTA has formally expressed our concern that there has not been a resolution of the issue of costs associated with providing additional WYD transit service and integrated transit passes. APTA and other GTA transit providers are working toward supporting this important event, however, no budget provision is included in the 2002 APTA Budget for associated additional costs. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On Monday, January 21, 2002 APTA senior staff met with the Chief Administrative Officers (CAO) and Treasurers for Ajax and Pickering to review the 2002 APTA Budget submission. It xvas clear as a result of this meeting the there is no Municipal staff support for the 2002 APTA Budget in it's form as of that date. The Municipalities have advised that the 2002 APTA Budget is not affordable. The APTA budget cannot be financed with a reasonable 2002 increase in taxpayer contribution. Mr. Tom Qui~m, CAO advised that the City of Picketing is in a period of limited growth. Pickering is not prepared to permit increased APTA budget requirements to impact on Picketing to the extent that current municipal service levels would need to be reduced. Mr. Richard Parisotto, Ajax CAO concurs. Report to Board 05-02 Subject: Status Report - 2002 APTA Budget Date: January 28, 2002 Page 4 The expectation of the Municipal CAO's is that APTA continue to develop strategies to intensify' the ongoing efforts to access funding support from all possible sources including: In 2001, the Regional Mmficipality of Durhazn levied property taxes of approximately S ll.5 million For GO Transit purposes. The remaining 510 million is not required for that purpose. The representative share of funding stnould be returned to the municipalities for support of local transit initiatives. A similar initiative is underway in the Region of Peel. The Province of Ontario, Golden Horseshoe Transit Investment Partnership (GTIP) funding f'or fareboxes/smartcard, telephone systen~wireless data upgrade and APTA merger transitional funding. GTIP Letters of Interest are being submitted in cm~junction with GO Transit, the Regional Municipality of Durham and by APTA directlv. Provincial and Federal funding for replacement buses and transit infrastructure renewal. Even if the Province provides their stnare of funding. 23 of tile burden still remains with the N I unicipalities without Federal support. The fomnal Transitional Funding Request in the amount of approximately S2 million submitted by the APTA General .Xlanagcr to Janet Ecker. *i.P.P. Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge dated June 28, 2001 and subsequent folloxv-up con:espondence dated September 24, 2001. It is noted that APTA has had to proceed x~ith a number of initiatives in order to maintain an ongoing business and that additional items have been identified that also should be included. F~A('KGROLiND: Pickering and Ajax face the challenge of financing uncontrollable merger related costs in tine 2002 Cun'ent Budget as v, ell as significant bus replacement costs in the 2002 Capital Budget. Based on input from the Municipal CAO's at our meeting on January 21, 2002, the APTA 2002 Budget will )not receive Municipal support. In tiao absence of Provincial funding support tbr transit, ~iax and Picketing have not been in a position to adequately fund transit capital replacement for the last three to four ,,'ears. Provincial funding in the amount o£ approximately SS0,000 to facilitate tile development of Ajax Picketing Transit Amalgamation Study was originally provided. APTA was created with the understanding that additional funding support would be forthcoming from tile Province. APTA officials have formally requested Provincial transitional funding in thc amount of approximately $2M through Minister Janet Ecker. At this current time there has been no funding provided and additional costs have been identified. Ajax and Picketing transit systems have faced significant annual increases in tile cost of fuel, mechanical repairs and labour. APTA passenger fares have remained unchanged and are now well below other GTA area transit providers. Transit ridership in Ajax and Picketing has been steadily increasing. Municipal tax increases that would otherwise have assisted in offsetting cost increases trove remained relatively flat. Report to Board 05-02 Subject: Status Report - 2002 APTA Budget Date: January 28, 2002 Page 5 With the likelihood of the majority of our capital vehicle replacement needs being delayed due to limited Municipal resources and continuing uncertainty related to Provincial and Federal funding support, APTA and our Municipal partners face a significant problem as we approach an election year in 2003. As a result, support for a three to 10 year fleet replacement and growth plan is not achievable at this time. The implementation of an aggressive strategy to secure funding from sources other than the Municipal tax base is critical to both the short-term and long-term viability of APTA services. In a recent statement to the Toronto Star, Transportation Minister Brad Clark said that he expected Toronto's repatriated GO money to be spent on TTC Capital projects. This statement supports the APTA position that the Region of Durham should be accountable for releasing transit funds collected through taxation back to lower tier municipalities in a timely fashion so that these funds can be included in their 2002 budgets. APTA needs the support of municipal parmers in considering all possible means of contributing and facilitating funding processes to the extent were it is possible for APTA to maintain our Core service commitments to the residents of Ajax and Pickering. This should include consideration of a staged passenger fare increase at planned intervals over the next three-year period. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Budget Summary Pages A, B, C APTA Response to World Youth Day Request dated January 18, 2002 Prepared / Apl2roved / F~dor~ed By: T .~ali~s~, G~h~erat Manager /Ajax_.J~'c~kering Transit Authority Approved / Endorsed By: Ajax Picketing Transit Authority RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Mayor Arthurs be authorized to make the following proclamation: "Freedom to Read Week" Februa~ 24 to March 2. 2002 CARRIED: MAYOR From the ol~ce o£ Cyntlda Meatus C.E. 0 Pickedng Public Library CLERK'S DIVISION TO: DATE: SUBJECT: Bruce Taylor, City Clerk, City of Pickering January 22, 2002 Proclamation The Pickering PuN ic Librau' is again this year participating in the Canada-wide programme, D'eedom-lo Read ~Vee/¢ which runs from FebruaB, 24 to March 2, 2002. This programme celebrates the right of all Canadians to freedom of thought, belief and express/on as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Picketing Public Library would like to request that the Council of the City of Pickermg, on behalf of the citizens of Picketing, proclaim February 24 to March ~,~ 2002 Freedom to Read Week. Would you please bring this request to the attention of Council. I trust that ] am following the usual protocol in this request. It' re)t_ please let me know. Thank you for your assistance m this matter. t LAN~ING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NiEMOtLANDUM January 15, 2002 To: I:I'Ol]l: Subject: B. J. Taylor (;it), Clerk Ross Pvm Principal Planner Developincnt Review I)raft Amending By-law for Zoning Bv-laxv Amendment Application A 19.97 {R01) Christopher Speirs Lots 15. 10 and 17, }'lan 21 430 Whitevalc Road City of Picketing _)0_. Plannina Conm~ittee recommended approval oC Zoning By-law On January 14, ~( ~ Amendment Application A 19 971R()]) to permit the development of a detached dwelling on the subject lands. 1{' Council adopts Planning Conmnttce's recommendation for approval at their JanuaFv 21, 2002 Nleeting, Council may consider thc attached Zoning By-law later on that same meeting. A Statutory Public Meeting was held tbr tt~is application oiq September 20, 2001. Please note that this bv-la~' may be given all three readings at the January 21, 2002 Council Meeting, provided Council appro~'es the above-noted application earlier that same iXleeting. The purpose and effect of this by-law is to pei'n'dt dex'elopmcnt ora detached dwelling o1-1 the subject lands. Il' you require £urther assistance or clarilScation, please do not hesitate to contact the undersianed I concur that this by-law be considered at this time. LDT/pr Enclosure THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 5939/02 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3037, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Lots 15, 16 and 17, Plan 21 (Parts 31, 50 and 52, 40R-1140) in the City of Picketing. (A 19/01(R)) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering passed By-law 2677/88, amending Zoning By-law 3037, to permit development of residential, commercial, church, community, agricultural and greenbelt uses in part of lots 30, 31, 32, and 33, Concessions 4 and 5 in the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering now deems it desirable to amend By-law 2677/88 to Zoning By-law 3037, to permit the development of a detached dwelling on Lots 15, 16 and 17, Plan 21 (Parts 31, 50 and 52, 40R-1140) in the City of Picketing; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2677/88 to Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKER1NG ttEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. SCHEDULE I Schedule I to By-law 2677/88, as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zoning from a "HMC7" zone to a "HMRY' zone designation of the lands being Lot 15, 16 and 17, Plan 21, in the City of Pickering, as shown on Schedule 'T' to this by-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Lots 15, 16, and 17, Plan 21 (Parts 31, 50 and 52, 40R-1140) designated "HMRY' on Schedule 1 attached hereto. o BY-LAW 3037 By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2677/88. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this _2_l~day of January ,2002. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk ~)71_ HMR3 PARTS SCHEDULE T TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS 21 DAY OF January _ 2002 -- 5939/02 MAYOR CLERK n72 WHITEVALE WHITEYALE City of Pickering Planning & Development Department N DATE DEC. 19, 2001 o73 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMOI~-~NDUM January 25, 2002 t:FOITI: Subject: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Tyler Barnett Plmmer II Zoning By-law Amendment App'lication A 0S 01 E. Williamson South Pa~ of Lot 32. Concession 1 (East side of Altona Road, no~h of Sheppard Road} City of Picketing City Council. on November 19, 2001, approved the above-noted application to amend tile existing zoning of tile lands to recognize tile existing detached dwelling and detached garage containing a seceded dx\oiling unit. and to pemait thc creation o£ four additional residential lots fi-onting onto Altom~ Road. xxitH minimum lot IYontages o£ 15.1) metres. The apt)licant was required to prepare a rel'cFcncc plan identiI:ving the existing structures. proposed lot divisions and open space boundaries prior to the preparation and lbrwarding of an implementing by-law. Thc applicant }las subnmted a reference plan to tile satisfaction oF the City. The draft bx-law has been circulated to and approved by tile applicant and is attached for tile consideration of City Council at their meeting scheduled ibr February 4, 2002. A Statutory Public Meeting ,,','as held for this application on August 9, 2001. The purpose and effect o£ this by-law is to amend thc existing zoning of' tile lands to recognize tile existing detached dwelling and detached garage containing a second dwelling unit and to permit the creation of ibur additional residential lots fronting onto Altona Road. with mininmm lot I¥ontages of 15.0 metres. I£ you require further assistance or clarification, ptcasc do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. I concur' that this by-law be considered at this time. TB,'sm Attachment THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 5948/02 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Picketing District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Lot 32, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering. (A 8/01 ) WtlEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit the development of detached dwellings and open space areas in part of Lot 32, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULE I Schedule i attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lot 32, concession 1, designated "R4-20" and "OS-HL" on Schedule I attachcd hereto. GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved, or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-la;v. DEFINITIONS In this By-law, (a) "Dwelling" shall mean a building or part of a building containing one or ~norc dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer; (b) "Dwellina Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities; (c) "Dwelling, Single or Single Dwelling" shall mean a single dwelling containing one dwelling unit and uses accessory hereto; (d) "Dwelling, Detached or Detached Dwelling" shall mean a single dwelling which is freestanding, separate, and detached from other main buildings or structures; (2) (a) "Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey; (3) 14 ) (5) -2- t17- . "Gross Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or pan thereof as tim case may be, other than a private garage, an attic, or a cellar; (a) __ "Lot" shall mean ail area of land I¥ontin,, on a street which is used or intended to be used as tile site o£ a buildin~.~ or group of buildinos= , as tile case illav be. together with anx accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area. regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole ora lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision: (b) "Lot C'overaae" shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all buildings on the lot: (c) "Lot Fronta~49~ shall mean the width o£ a lot between the side lot lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant From the tkont lot lille: ~lxate Oara2c shall mean ail enclosed or partially enclosed structure for thc storaoc of one or more x'chictes, in which su~cture no business or service is conducted Ibr proi~t or otherwise: "5"a~'d'~' slmll mcan an area of land x~tnictn is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open. uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except Ibr such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specitically permitted thereon: "Front Tard" shall mean a yard extending across tile full width of a lot between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest wall of tile nearest main building or structure on the lot: c) "Front Yard Del~th" shall mean thc shortest horizontal dimension of a 15-ont yard of a lot betv, eon the front lot line and the nearest wall of tim nearest main building or structure on the lot: "P, ear Yard" shall mean a yard cxtendino across tile full width otTa lot between the rear lot line of thc lot, or where there is no rear lot line. the junction point of the side lot lines, and thc nearest wall of thc nearest main building or structure on tile lot: (e) "Rear Yard Depth" shall mcan the shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard oF a lot between the rear lot line of the lot. or where there is no rear lot line. the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall oF the nearest main building or structure on the lot: "Side Yard" shall mcan a yard of a lot extending from the front yard to the rear yard, and fi'om the side lot line to the nearest ;valI of the nearest main building or structure on the lot: "Side Yard \Vidth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension ot'a side yard of a lot betv,'ccn tile side lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tile lot: h) "Flanka~2c Side 'lard" slnall mean a side 'card innncdiatcly adjoining a street or abutting on a rcscrxe on the opposite side of which is a street; (i) "Flankatze Side Tard \Vidth" stlal] mcan tile shortest horizontal dimension ora flankage side yard of a lot bctx~ccn the lot line a4ioining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street, and tile nearest walt of the nearest main building or structure on the lot' "Interior Side Yard" shall mean a side yard other droll a llanka,,e side xard. -3- PROVISIONS (1) (a) Uses Permitted ("R4-20" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "R4-20" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (i) detached dwelling; (b) Zone Reciuirements ("R4-20" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "R4-20" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (i) LOT AREA (minimum): 460 square metres; (ii) LOT FRONTAGE (minimum): 15 metres; (iii) FRONT YARD DEPTH (minimum): 7.5 metres; (iv) REAR YARD DEPTH (minimum): 7.5 metres; (v) SIDE YARD WIDTH (minimum): A 1.5 metres on one side, 2.4 metres on the other side; or B 1.5 metres on both sides where a private garage is erected as part of the dwelling; (vi) DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS: maximum one d~velling unit per lot and minimum gross floor area residential of 100 square metres; (vii) BUILDING HEIGHT (maximum): 9 metres; (viii) LOT COVERAGE (maximum): 33 percent; (ix) SPECIAL REGULATIONS: A despite the provisions of subsection 5.(1) above, the detached dwelling and detached garage existing on the lands designated "R4-20" and hatched on Schedule I attached hereto, on the date of passing of this by-law, as illustrated on Part 1, Plan 40R-20936 prepared by Donevan Fleischmann Petrich Ltd., dated January 9, 2002, shall be deemed to comply with the provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. Any alterations, additions, or new development on the lands shall comply with the provisions set out herein. B despite subclause 5.(1)(b)(vi) or any other provision of this By-law, a second dwelling unit may be erected on the second floor of the existing detached garage on the lands hatched on Schedule I attached hereto and as illustrated on Part 1, Plan 40R-20936 prepared by Donevan Fleischmann Petrich Ltd., dated January 9, 2002. (2) (a) Uses Permitted ("OS-HL" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "OS-HL" on Schedule I attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: -4- (i) preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil wildlife; 077 and (ii) resource management; (iii) pedestrian trails and walkwavs: (b) Zone Requiremcnts t"O$-HL" Zone) No buildings or structures shall bc permittcd to be erected, nor shall thc placing or removal of fill be permitted, except where buildings or structures are used only for purposes of flood and erosion control, resource management, or pedestrian trail and v,'alkway purposes. BY-LAW 3036 By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby funhcr amended only to the extent necessau' to give effect to tile provisions of tt~is By-law as it applies to tile area set otlt ill Schedule t attached hereto. Definitiotqs and subject matters not spccilically dealt with in this Bv-laxx shall be governed by relevant provisions of Bv-laxx 3036. as amended. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from tile day ol'passmg hereof subject to the approval of the ()ntario Municipal Board. if required. t¢'~'-L.:\\V read a first, second, and third time and fhmllv passed this 4 day of l:-ebruarv .2002. Wavnc Arthurs. Nlavor Brncc Tavloi', Clerk o7s/ L R4-20 ' ,2_O ~ 9 2 SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS4 DAY OF Febru*_ry 2002 5948/O2 MAYOR CLERK 079 FINCH AVENUE FINCH -- AV~-NU~ ¢ ~ ///~. PINE grOVE ~ I I X X x.~ WOODSMERE -- ~l iiiiiii1~ - i -- I - ~ L ~ I ", ', ~ ~ ~~:'~"~l -- ~~--¢== - +--o~ ~~~% x~ ~~DS SUBJECT ~~ ' - - ~ AUTUMN CRES. N RIVERS D~E ' SHEPPARD ~ ~ A~NUE City of Pickering Planning & Development Depa~ment dSO January 28, 2002 To: From: Subject: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Bruce Taylor City Clerk Tyler Barnett Planner Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 33/00 802226 Ontario Limited Part of Lot 18, Concession 1 Parts 6-8, 12, 13, Plan 40R-10635 (1048 Toy Avenue) City of Picketing City Council, on January 21, 2002, approved the above-noted application to add a vehicle service and repair shop to the permitted uses on the subject lands. There are no conditions of approval and a draft amending by-laxv has been prepared. The draft by-law has been circulated to and approved by the applicant and is attached fbr the consideration of City Council at their meeting scheduled fbr Fcbmary 4, 2002. A Statutory Public Meeting was held fbr this application on March 22, 2001. The purpose and effect of this by-law is to add a vehicle service and repair shop to the pmTnitted uses on the subject lands. If you require further assistance or clarification, please do not hesitate tt, contact the undersigned. I concur that this by-law be considered at this time. Director, P~evel~pment" Attachment ~1 r B---a e~ Ii THE CORPORATION OF THE CiTY OF PICKERING BY-I._AW NO. 5949/02 Being a By-law to alnend Restricted Area (Zoning) Bv-laxv 2511. as amended, to implement tile Official Plan of the City of Picketing District Planning Area, Region of Durhaln in Pail of Lot IS, Concession t (Parts 0 to 8, 12 & 13, 40R- 10635), City of Picketing. (A 33/00) WHEREAS tile Council of the Corporation of tile City of Picketing deems it desirable to add a ;ddcle service and repair shop to the permitted uses on the subject lands, being Part of Lot 1 S, ('oncession 1 tPatls 6 to 8, 1£ & 13.40R-l/;035), City of Picketing: .\NI) WHERE, AS an amendlnent to Bx-laxx 2511, as amcnded, is therctbre deemed necessary7 NO\\' TttEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERiNG HEREBY ENACTS .45 FOLLOWS: SCHEI)ULE 1 $c-l~cdulc I attached t2ereto xxith notatiotas declared to be part of this Bx-laxv. and rcl'ercnccs shoxxn thereon is hcl'ebx AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to tho~c l~nds in P~ o~ Lot 1~, Con~es~ion 1 (Parts 6 to 8, 12 & 13, 40R-1~>35/. City of Pickcring. desi2nated "MC-lC' on Schedule i attached hereto. GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used. occupied, erected, moved, or structurally altered except in conlbnnitv with tile pro\ isions of this By-law. (1 DEFINITIONS this By-law "Business Office" shall mean any building or part ot'a building in which one or more persons are emploFed in the management, direction or conducting of an agency, business. brokerage, labour or tkaternal organization and shall include a telegraph oI2Sce, newspaper plant and a radio or television broadcasting station and its studios or theatres, but shall not include a retail store: "Dry Cleanin2 Establishment" shall mean a building or part o£ a building where articles, goods or fabric are subjected to dry cleaning, and related processes, are received or distributed, or xvhere a dry cleaning plant is operated, or both, and which may include the laundering, pressing or incidental iailoring or repair of articles, goods or fabric: "Financial Institution" shall mean a building or part of a building in whict~ n2onex is deposited, kept, lent or exchanged, and whicta includes a chartered bank or branc}2 thereof: 2 (4) "Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys above or below grade, but shall exclude the floor area of any parts of the building used for mechanical equipment, stairwells, elevators, and any part of the building below established grade other than that used for retail conm~ercial or office purposes; "Food Preparation Plant" shall mean a building or part of a building in which processed food products are cooked, baked, mixed, packaged or otherwise prepared for distribution to retail or institutional outlets; (6) "Gross Leasable Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of all storeys above or below established grade, designed for owner or tenant occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding storage areas below established grade; (7) "Light Manufacturing Plant" shall mean a manufacturing plant used for: the production of apparel and finished textile products other than the production of synthetic fibers; printing or duplicating; the manufacture of finished paper other than the processing of wood pulp; the production of cosmetics, drugs and other pharmaceutical supplies; or, the manufacture of finished lumber products, light metal products, electronic products, plasticware, porcelain, earthenware, glassware or similar articles, including but not necessarily restricted to, furniture, housewares, toys, musical instruments, jewellery, watches, precision instruments, radios and electronic components; (a) "Lot" shall mean m~ area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (b) "Lot Coverage" shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all buildings on the lot; (c) "Lot Frontage" shall mean the width of a lot between the side lot lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from the front lot line; (9) "Manufacturing Plant" shall mean a building or part of a building in which is carried on any activity or operation pertaining to the making of any article, and which shall include altering, assembling, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, cleaning, polishing, washing, packing, adapting for sale, breaking up or demolishing the said article; (10) "Merchandise Service Shop" shall mean an establishment where articles or goods including, but not necessarily limited to, business machines, appliances, furniture or similar items are repaired or serviced, and includes the regular place of business of a master electrician or master plumber, but shall not include a manufacturing plant or any establistunent used for the service or repair of vehicles or a retail store; fll) "Professional Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined by the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.M. 45, as amended from time-to-time, or any successor thereto; (12) "Sales Outlet" shall mean a building or part of a building accessory to a food preparation plant, light manufacturing plant, merchandise service shop, or a warehouse, wherein products manufactured, produced, processed, stored, serviced or repaired on the premises are kept or displayed for rent or for wholesale or retail sale, or wherein orders are taken for future delivery of such products; "Scientific, Medical or Research Laboratory" shall mean a building or part of a building wherein scientific, research or medical experiments or investigations are systematically conducted, or where drugs, chemicals, glassware or other substances or articles pertinent to such experiments or investigations may be manufactured or otherwise prepared for use on the premises; 3 14) 15} 16) "Vehicle Service and Repair Shop'_' st~all mcan an establistunent containing Facilities tbr the service and repair' of xehicles on tile premises, in which vehicle accessories arc sold and vehicle maintenance and repaxr operations are performed, but shall not include any cstablistunent engaged ii1 tile retail sale of motor vehicle I\~cls: "Warehouse" shall mean a building,= or part o£ a buildim,= which is used primarily, lbr tile housing, storage, adapting tbr sale. packaging, or wholesale disu'ibution of goods, wares, merchandise, food-stu£fs, substances, articles or things, and includes the premises of a v,'archousernan but shall not include a fuel storage tank except as an accessory use; "Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located o~l thc same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except 1'or such accessory buildings, structures, or other t~sos als are specifically permitted then:on: (b) "Front Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the Full width of a lot between the front lot line of the lot and tile nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tile lot: (c) "Front Yard Dct2tlC shall mcan tile siaortest horizontal dimension of a front yard of a lot betxx cea the front lot line and tile nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot: d) "Rear 'Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the Full width ot'a lot betv, ccn thc rear lot line of tho lot. or' v, llere there is no rear lot linc. the junction point of the side lot lines, and the ilcarest xxall of the nearest main building of structure on thc lot: "Rear Yard Depth" shall mean tile shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard of a lot between the rear lot linc of tile lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of tine side lot lines, and tile nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tile lot: (fl "Side Yard" shall mean at yard ora lot extending from the front yard to the rear yard, and from the side lot linc to tiao nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on thc lot: (g) "Side Yard Width" shall mean tile shortest horizontal dimension ora side yard of a lot between tile side lot line and tile nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tile lot: (h) "Flanka~.e Side Tard" shall mean a side yard ilnmediatelv adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on thc opposite side ot'whic}~ is a street: (i) "Flankagg_ Side Tard \Vidtlf' shall mean tile shortest }lorizontal dimension of a flankage side yard of a tot between the lot linc adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of v, inch is a street, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure oil tile lot: and (j) "Interior Side Yard" shall mean a side yard other than a flankage side yard. PROVISIONS "~, ' 0" Uses Permitted { , 1(-1 Zones) No person shall within the lands designated "NIC-16" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or structm'e ibr any purpose except the following: ia) business office; 4 (b) (c) (d) (e) (g) (h) (i) 0) dry cleaning establishment; food preparation plant; light manufacturing plant; merchandise service shop; professional office; sales outlet; scientific, medical or research laboratory; vehicle service and repair shop; warehouse; (2) Zone Requirements ("MC-16" Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "MC-16" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) LOT AREA (minimum): 0.4 hectares (b) LOT FRONTAGE (minimum): 45 metres (c) FRONT YARD DEPTH (minimum): 12metres (c) INTERIOR SIDE YARD WIDTH (minimum): 4.5 metres (d) FLANKAGE SIDE YARD WIDTH (minimum): 12 metres (d) REAR YARD DEPTH (minimum): 7.5 metres (e) LOT COVERAGE (maximum): 45 percent (f) BUILDING HEIGHT (maximum): 12 metres (g) OUTDOOR STORAGE: Outdoor storage shall be permitted in any yard except the front yard so long as the area use for outdoor storage purposes does not exceed 30 percent of the area of the lot. (h) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: Section 5.21.2 (b) of By-law 2511 as amended shall not apply to the lands designated "MC- 16" on Schedule I attached hereto. (i) SPECIAL REGULATIONS: A A sales outlet shall be permitted only if accessory to a food preparation plant, a light manufacturing plant, a merchandise service shop, or a warehouse, provided the gross leasable area of the sales outlet does not exceed 20% of the gross leasable floor area of the food preparation plant, light manufacturing plant, merchandise service shop, or warehouse; B A vehicle service and repair shop shall be permitted only in the area hatched on Schedule I attached to this By-law. BY-LAW 2511 (1) By-law 2234/86, as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached to this By-la,v, is hereby repealed. 08- (2) By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Dcfi~litio~s and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this Bv-law shall be govci-i~ed bx' relevant provisiorts of t3y-law 2511. as amended. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect t'rom the dz~x' of passing hereol' subject to tile approval off tile Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BS'-i~:.X\\' read a ISrst. seco~ld, amd third time :r~d i'i~alls' passed this 4 da.,,, Feb. , 2002. Bi-ucc 'l-avlor. Clerk MC-1 MC-16 O SCHEDULE T TO BY-LAW 59~9/02 PASSED THIS ,t DAY OF ?ebr. ary 2002 MAYOR CLERK /~~ DICKER)NG ARK Y 0 Ei^YLY ~ $UBJE~ T PROPERTY 0 ~AY~Y City of Pickering PLUMMER STREET STREET ! I CLEMENTS ROAD STREET Planning & Development Department DATE SEPT 29. 2002 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 5950/02 Being a by-law to authorize the signing of an agreement for fire protection services WHEREAS NOW TItEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE PlCKERiNG HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF The Mayor and Clerk hereby be authorized to execute an agreement between: The Corporation of the Town of Whitchurch-Stouffville and The Corporation of the City of Pickering With respect to an agreement for fire protection services expiring on December 3 l, 2002. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 4th day of February, 2002 Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk THE CORPORATI()N OF 'Fl tE CITT OF PICKERING BT-LA\VN(). 5951/02 Being a by-law lbr tile collection of taxes and to establish tile installment due dates l'or thc imerin2 Lev\ \Vi I t-~Rt5A$ Section 370. subsection / 1 ~ oF the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990, as amended, provides that thc council of' a local municipality may. bctbrc thc adoption of tile estimates lbr the year, under section 307, may pass a bv-tax~ levyin,5 amounts on tiic assessment oF pFoperty, in the local ~nunicipality ratable tbr local municipality purposes: and \VI IEREAS, tile Council oF tile CorpoFatioi~ of thc ('ltv of Picketing deems it appropriate to pFovide tbr such an interim levv on thc assessment of property in this municipality. NOW' TtdI2RF, FORtE, THE~ CO['NCIL OF I itt( ('Ote, POI~VI~iON Of: THE CITY PICKERIN(i [t[!REBY ENAI.'TS _-NS ()F 1. Thc alnoLlllts levied shall bc as i'oliox~ s: For the residential, pipeline, t'at-nlland and illanagcd ibrcst property classes there shall be imposed and collected an interim Ievx of: If no percentage is prescribed. 5ti~!, ei' thc total taxes ibr municipal and school purposes levied on in the year 2/)l)l. [:or tile multi-residential, conmacrcial an0 industrial propert5' classes there shall be imposed and collected al1 interim lexv oi': If no percentage is prescFibcd, 5/)~?,, of thc total taxes ibr municipal and school purposes levied on in thc \caf 2t)/tl. {c) For the payment-in-lieu propcr¥ classes, there shall bc imposed and collected an interim levy of: If no percentage is proscribed. 5~",~ of thc total taxes Ibr mumcipal and where applicable tbr school puqooscs, on in thc \car 2~,t~l. FoF tile purposes oF calcutatinL4 the total an~ount of taxes Ibr the year 2002 under paragFaph one, if any taxes lbr municipal and school puq>o~cs x~crc lex'lcd on a propert/ lbr only part of 200l because asscssmcnl ~ as added to thc collector's roll during 2~ ~)1. an amount shall be added equal to the additional taxes that would have been levied on d~c property if taxes for municipal and school puq~oscs has bcc~7 levied Ibr tl~c entire x car. The provision of this by-law apply in tile ex ent that assessment is added tbr the ,,'ear 2002 to the collector's roll after thc date this bv-lax~ is passed and an interm~ low shall be imposed and collected. 4.. Taxes shall be payable to tile Treasurer. City of Picketing. \Vhen not in default, tile pa?lent of taxes, or an\ instalhnent thcrcoL may also be made at any financial institution permitted by tho %lunicipal Act. R.$.O. 1990, c. ~\1.45, as amended, as designated by thc TrcasureF. ]'he Treasurer or 'Fax Collector max mail, oF cause to bc mailed, all notices oF taxes required in accordance with the pro~isions of thc Nlunicipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.45, as amended, to the address of the residence or place of business of the person taxed pursuant to this by-law. Notices will not be mailed to tenants, it is thc responsibility of'tho person taxed to notify and collect taxes tkom tenants or et}let persons. 12. 10. 11. 13. The Treasurer or the Tax Collector shall be and they are hereby authorized to accept part payment from time to time on account of any taxes due, and to give a receipt for such part payment provided that acceptance of any such part payment does not affect the collection of any percentage charge imposed or collectable under Section 399, Subsection (3) of the Municipal Act R.S.O. 1990, in respect to non-payment of any taxes or any class of taxes or of any installment thereof. The Treasurer-Collector is hereby authorized to prepare and give one separate tax notice for the collection of 2002 taxes, one notice being an INTERiM notice, with two installments, as follows: INTERIM Tax Notice due date of the first installment February 27, 2002 due date of the second installment April 26, 2002: or either date adjusted by the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Except in thc case of taxes payable under Section 33 and 34 of the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A31, as amended, the percentage charge (one and one-quarter percent) as a penalty for non-payment of taxes and monies payable as taxes shall be added to every tax or assessment, rent or rate of any installment or part thereof remaining unpaid on the I~rst clay of default and on the first day of each calendar month thereaftcr in which such default continues but not after December 3 t of the year in which the taxes become payable, aad it shall be thc duty of a Tax Collector, immediately to collect at once, by distress or otherwise under the provisions of the applicable statutes all such taxes, assessments, rents, rates or installments or parts thereof as shall not have been paid on or before the several dates named as aforesaid, together with the said percentage charges as they are incurred. In respect of taxes payable under Sections 33 and 34 of the Assessment Act. R.S.O. 1990, c.A.31, as amended, the percentage charge (one and one-quarter percent) imposed as a penalty for non-payment of taxes and monies payable as taxes shall be added to every amount of taxes so payable remaining unpaid on the first day after twenty-one days from the date of mailing by the Treasurer or a Tax Collector oI' a demand for pa~nent thereof and on the first day of each calendar month thereafter in which default continues but not after December 31 of the year in which the taxes become pa,~ able; and it shall be the duty of a Tax Collector immediately after the expiration of the said twenty-one days to collect at once by distress or otherwise under the provisions of the applicable statutes, all such taxes as shall not have been paid on or before the expiration of the said twenty-one day period, together with the said percentage charges as they are incurred. Nothing herein contained shall prevent the Treasurer or Tax Collector from proceeding at any time with the collection of any rate, tax or assessment, or any part thereot; in accordance with the provisions of the statutes and by-la~vs governing the collection of taxes. Where tenants of land owned by the Crown or in which the Crown has an interest are liable for the payment of taxes and where any such tenant has been employed either xvithin or outside the municipality by the same employer for not less than thirty days, such employer shall pay over to the Treasurer or Tax Collector on demand out of any wages, salary or other remuneration due to such employee, the amount then payable for taxes under this by- law and such payment shall relieve the employer from any liability to the employee for the amount so paid. If any section or portion of this By-Law is found by a court of competent jurisdiction to bc invalid, it is the intent of Council for the Corporation of the City of Picketing that all remaining sections and portions of this By-Law continue in force and effect. 14. 'l'hat this by-law is to come into e£~'cct on ti~c 1st day or-Jai~Llarx, 2. 112 B¥-I_.L\\¥ read a first, second and third tii~c a~xd fint~li¥ ?usscd this 4ti: daix of' }:ebruar~', 2002. \Vax~c :\rthurs, Mayor Bruce 'I'c~vlor, Clerk THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 5952/02 Being a by-law to to name highways or portion of highxvays within the jurisdiction of the City to which a reduced load period designation applies and to repeal By-law 5801/01. WHEREAS pursuant to the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990 chapter 11.8 section 122(7), or a predecessor thereof, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing enacted By-law 4399/94 designating the date on which a reduced toad period shall start or end and the highway or portion thereof under its jurisdiction to which the designation applies. AND WHEREAS, new streets have been created which require the designation of a reduced load period; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CiTY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: For the purpose of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of section 122 of the Highway Traffic Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chap. 11.8 the reduced load period shall be that period commencing on March 1st of each year and ending on April 30th, both inclusive, of each year. The highways to which the reduced load period designation applies shall be those highways or portions thereof as set out in Schedule A attached hereto. By-law 580t/01 is repealed. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 4th day of February, 2002. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk NOTICE OF MOTION DATE: FEBRUARY 4, 2002 MOVED BY: COUNCILLOR BRENNER SECONDED BY: COUNCILLOR RYAN WHEREAS the Toronto Region Conservation Authority has requested that the "City of Pickering conduct a review of the Official Plan fbr the 'north area of Picketing from~the Seaton Lands in the east to the York/Durham Town Line in the west": NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLYTD that the Director of Planning and Development be directed to report at the March 84 Planning Committee Sleeting the elements of a "Growth Management Study" which would prmAde the basis for an Official Plan Review of all lands as set out in the Toronto Region Conservation Authority Resolution and that said lands be defined within the northern boundan, of Highway 7 and the southern boundao' as C.P. Bellville Rail line: and THAT such review include consideration of any existing studies conducted either for the City (Town), Region or Pro,,Snce: e.g.. Environmental Study conducted bv Dr. N. Eyles in 1997; and THAT such review will form the basis for how Picketing will manage future growth pressures. CARRIED: MAYOR NOTICE OF MOTION DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY February 4, 2002 Councillor Holland Councillor Ryan WHEREAS in a review of the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) by the Greater Toronto Services Board (GTSB) it was found that 15 GTA municipalities spent over $20 million on cases relating to policy issues and new large-scale urban area designations over the last five years; and WHEREAS the Corporation of the City of Picketing dedicates significant resources in staff time, legal fees and other related costs, as outlined in the attached memorandum from staff, to represent the corporation at cases before the OMB; and WHEREAS the members of the OMB are appointed by the Government of Ontario and have no direct accountability back to the electorate; and WHEREAS the original intent of the OMB was to be a check against bad or biased planning but has grown into a body that may overturn sound planning decisions and reshaping communities in a manner that is contrary to their will and vision; and WHEREAS there is an increasing trend for developers to appeal matters before local Councils to the OMB prior to the elected representatives considering the matter and often before public statutory meetings occur; and WHEREAS in many recent decisions the OMB has overturned decisions of local councils because a land use was not expressly prohibited thus creating an impossible burden to municipal official plans which will require a laundry list of allowable and disallowed uses for protection; and WHEREAS a municipal official plan should be broad based and flexible but will become encumbered by restrictions that may have undesired outcomes in an attempt to provide protection from the OMB; and WHEREAS the Government of Ontario can not expect 'smart growth' to occur in an environment where local planning and years of public input and debate can be overturned by an appointed body with often little knowledge of the municipalities who's future they are shaping; and WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report on the OMB states that "as an appointed tribunal, the OMB should not be determining growth patterns of the GTA" and notes that, "municipal taxpayers, after paying for exhaustive planning policy processes, have to pay an unacceptable price to defend their decisions in the OMB arena"; and WHEREAS the Town of Caledon report further states "There is no evidence, at least in the opinion of municipalities, to suggest that the $20 million plus yields a higher quality of life and a better-planned GTA than would have been yielded by the decision-making of the elected municipal councils, following the exhaustive planning processes and legal requirements that we now follow". NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing urges the Government of Ontario to remove or. at the least, radically reduce the role of OMB back to a pure check against bad or biased planning: and THAT the Association of Municipalities of Ontario be requested to act upon the report done by the Town of Caledon, work done by the GTSB and requests of municipalities bv applying meaningful and lasting pressure to dissolve or radicallx alter the OMB; and THAT the leadership candidates tbr the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party and the Leader of the Official Opposition be requested to respond back to the Council of Corporation of the City of Picketing as to their position on this issue: and THAT the Council of the Corporation of the Region of Durham be requested to endorse this motion; and THAT this motion be circulated to. · All area Mayors and Chairs · Janet Ecker, M.P.P - Picketing-:~iax-~Vhitby · Jim Flaherty, M.P.P. Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance · Ton5, Clement, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing · Elizabeth Witmer. Environment Minister · Ernie Eves, former Minister of Finance and candidate tbr the leadership of the Ontario PC party · Dalton McGuinty, Leader of the Ofl2cial Opposition · Mike Harris - Premier of the Province oI' Ontario Carried Mayor