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