The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJanuary 20, 2003 Council Meeting Agenda Monday, January 20, 2003 7:30 P.M. (I) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of December 16, 2002 (11) 1. PRESENTATION Councillor Holland, Passport to Prizes. Chair, WinterfeSt Committee, will present the Winterfest (iff) DELEGATIONS Bill Boyes, Chair, Pickering Public Library Board, will provide a presentation of the "Virtual Pickering Project". Les Fisher, 2250 Highway #7, will address Council with respect to the zoning application submitted by John Taylor Truck Sales Inc. (IV) 1. 2. RESOLUTIONS To adopt the Planning Committee Report dated January 13, 2003. To adopt the Committee of the Whole Report dated January 13, 2003. To consider Planning & Development Report PD 52-02 concerning Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Implementation. To consider Chief Administrative Officer's Report CAO 01-03 concerning PNGS (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Operating License Renewal. PAGE 1-4 5-6 7-82 83-90 Council Meeting Agenda Monday, January 20, 2003 7:30 P.M. (V) BY-LAWS By-law Number 6060/02 Being a by-law to prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil and the alteration of the grade of land. Referred to the Council Meeting of January 20th, 2003 from the Council Meeting of December 2nd, 2002 By-law Number 6080/03 Being a by-law to adopt Amendment 11 to the Official Plan for the City of Picketing (OPA 02-001/P) By-law Number 6081/03 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Transfer of Easement for storm sewer purposes from the Owner of that part of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21591. By-law Number 6082/03 Being a by-law to dedicate those parts of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Picketing, designated as Parts 30, 32 and 34, Plan 40R-11205 as public highway. By-law Number 6083/03 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Transfer of Easement for stormwater purposes from the Owner of that part of Lot 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1041, Pickering, designated as Part 8, Plan 40R-21388. By-law Number 6084~03 Being a by-law to dedicate that part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21531 as public highway. 94-109 110-119 120-122 t23-124 125-128 129 Council Meeting Agenda Monday, January 20, 2003 7:30 P.M. By-law Number 6085/03 Being a by-law to dedicate that part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21531 as "Valley Farm Road". By-law Number 6086/03 Being a by-law to exempt Lots I to 10, inclusive and Lots 13 and 14, Plan 40M-1918, Pickering, from part lot control. By-law Number 6087/03 Being a by-law to authorize the re-conveyance of that part of Block 18, Plan 40M-2068, designated as Part 3, Plan 40R-21447 to the adjacent owner. By-law Number 6088/03 Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation - 1822 Whites Road, 1865 and 1867 Kingston Road). 130 131-133 134-135 136 (vi) 1. NOTICES OF MOTION WHEREAS the City of Pickering represents approximately twenty percent of the assessment of the Region of Durham; and WHEREAS the City of Pickering taxpayers share in the cost of Region of Durham expenditures through the apportioned tax levy; and WHEREAS the Region of Durham Council has a responsibility to be accountable to the taxpayers of Pickering; and WHEREAS the Council of the City of Pickering realizes its' responsibility to exercise due diligence on behalf of it's constituents; and I:'ICKEI;tl' Council Meeting Agenda Monday, January 20, 2003 7:30 P.M. WHEREAS there has been limited information provided either to the City of Pickering Council and the local taxpayers regarding the proposed new Regional Headquarters; and WHEREAS there have been substantive changes to the reports issued to date at the Region which has resulted in some confusion; and WHEREAS the City of Oshawa, the Municipality of Clarington and the Town of Ajax have advised the Region of their opposition and/or concern; NOW THEREFORE be it resolved the Council of the City Pickering requests Durham Region Council defer any decision regarding the construction of a new Regional Headquarters until the all local Durham Municipalities have been provided with all reports and detailed documents supporting any business case analysis; and THAT the local Municipalities be given sufficient time for local review, public input and comment back to Regional Council; and THAT this motion be circulated to the Councils of all Durham Municipalities and all Durham MPP's {VII) OTHER BUSINESS (VIII) CONFIRMATION BY-LAW (IX) ADJOURNMENT RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Report of the Planning Committee dated January 13, 2003, be adopted. CARRIED: MAYOR PICK- RTiNG Appendix I Planning Committee Report PC 2003-1 That the Planning Committee of the City of Pickering having met on January 13, 2003 presents its first report to Council: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 41-02 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 4/02 JOHN TAYLOR TRUCK SALES INC. 3356 BALSAM ROAD SOUTH PART OF LOT 5, CONCESSION 5 That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 4/02, submitted by John Taylor Truck Sales Inc., at 3356 Balsam Road, being the south Part of Lot 5, Concession 5, City of Pickering, be NOT APPROVED. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 06-03 FRED CAMPETELLI, TRUSTEE (COMMERCIAL DEVCO INC./ROCKPORT GROUP) SOUTHEAST CORNER OF VALLEY FARM ROAD AND DIEFENBAKER COURT PART LOT 20, CONCESSION 1, AND BLOCK 11, PLAN 40M-1231 That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 16/02 be APPROVED AS REVISED, subject to conditions outlined in Appendix 1 to Report No. 06-03, to amend the existing zoning to add nursing home / retirement home uses; to reduce the minimum height provisions from 6 storeys to 3 storeys to facilitate the construction of 54 townhouse units; and to increase the maximum height provision for an apartment structure from 10 storeys to 16 storeys, submitted by Commercial Devco Inc., on lands being Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 and Block 11, Plan 40M-1231. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 02-03 622530 ONTARIO INC. 1745 FAIRPORT ROAD 901-905 DUNBARTON ROAD LOT 124 AND LOT 125, PLAN 1051 1. That the request made by 622530 Ontario Inc., be APPROVED, to permit the division of the subject lands, being Lot 124 and Lot 125, Plan 1051 (known as -5- PIcK FIb:INto Appendix I Planning Committee Report PC 2003-1 03 1745 Fairport Road, and 901-905 Dunbarton Road), for three additional lots by land severance rather than by draft plan of subdivision. 4. MODIFICATION #1 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN WHEREAS in May 1997, Pickering Council adopted Modification #1 to the Pickering Official Plan revising land use designations and policies for lands known as the East Duffins Area, and requested the Region of Durham to approve these land use designations and policies; and WHEREAS Regional Council endorsed these designations and policies in 1999 (with modifications) but because of an unresolved deferral to the Regional Official Plan (Deferral No. 7), the Region of Durham has not issued its Notice of Decision to approve, as modified, the East Duffins Area; and WHEREAS the East Duffins Area is divided into two neighbourhoods: Duffin Heights and Lamoreaux; and WHEREAS in May 2002, Pickering Council adopted Resolution #29/92 directing that staff initiate a growth management study for certain lands in Pickering, including the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood of the East Duffins Area; and WHEREAS on December 9, 2002, Pickering Council adopted Terms of Reference for the Growth Management Study, and directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals for the purpose of hiring a qualified Consulting Team to undertake the Study; and WHEREAS Pickering Council does not want to limit or prejudice the work of a consulting team in undertaking the Growth Management Study; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby rescinds its adoption of Modification #1 to the Pickering Official Plan as it affects the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood; and THAT staff be requested to fine-tune the land use policies and designations established for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood and report to Council on any further modifications that may be needed for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood; and -6- PICKERING Appendix I Planning Committee Report PC 2003-1 THAT the Region of Durham be requested not to issue its Notice of Decision to approve, as modified, the land use designations and policies for the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood, until further advised by Pickering Council. -7- RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the RePort of the Committee of the Whole dated January 13, 2003, be adopted. CARRIED: MAYOR PI(2KFRIN Appendix II Committee of the Whole Report COW 2003-1 That the Committee of the Whole of the City of Pickering having met on January 13, 2003, presents its first report to Council and recommends: MAYOR'S REPORT MO 01-03 GTAA PICKERING ADVISORY COMMITTEE - STATUS UPDATE 2 1. That Council receive for information, Report to Council MO 01-03 providing a status update on the GTAA's Pickering Advisory Committee. CLERK'S REPORT CL 43-02 NOMINATION FOR APPOINTMENT TO DURHAM ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE That the letter dated December 11, 2002 from the Commissioner of Planning for the Regional Municipality of Durham dated December 11, 2002 advising of the resignation of Pickering's representative on the Durham Environmental Advisory Committee be received. That Youssef A.H. Mroueh be nominated as the representative for the City of Pickering on the Durham Environmental Advisory Committee. -4- 07 RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE: MOVED BY: SECONDED BY: That Addendum to Report Number PD 52-02, conceming the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study implementation, be received; and (a) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study, as follows: revise Schedule I - Land Use Structure to adjust the boundaries of the Urban Residential and Open Space designations; · revise Schedule III - Resource Management to adjust the boundaries of the Shoreline and Stream Corridor, Wetlands and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor designations; · revise the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Policies; and · revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies; be APPROVED, as revised, as set out in Appendix I to Addendum to Report Number PD 52-02; (b) That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan be ENACTED by Council, as set out in Appendix I to Addendum to Report Number PD 52-02. That Amendment 1 to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines be ADOPTED by Council, as set out in Appendix II to Addendum to Report Number PD 52-02. CARRIED: MAYOR PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Addendum to Report Number: PD 52-02 Date: January 10, 2003 09 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Implementation City of Pickering Recommendation: That Addendum to Report Number PD 52-02, concerning the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study implementation, be received; 2. (a) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study, as follows: revise Schedule I - Land Use Structure to adjust the boundaries of the Urban Residential and Open Space designations; revise Schedule III - Resource Management to adjust the boundaries of the Shoreline and Stream Corridor, Wetlands and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor designations; revise the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Policies; and revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies; be APPROVED, as revised, as set out in Appendix I to Addendum to Report Number PD 52-02; (b) That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan be ENACTED by Council, as set out in Appendix I to Addendum to Report Number PD 52-02. That Amendment 1 to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines be ADOPTED by Council, as set out in Appendix II to Addendum to Report Number PD 52-02. Executive Summary: Revised land use and resource management designations are proposed for one property following consideration of the comments made by three local residents at the Planning Committee meeting held December 9, 2002. PJanning Committee referred the proposed amendment to Council for consideration at its meeting scheduled for January 20, 2003, so that staff could address the concerns of several residents. Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Date: January 10, 2002 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Page 2 Staff from the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, following a site visit, support minor revisions to the land use and resource management designations for the Daniell's property, and have clarified that only minimal buffering from the adjacent wildlife corridor is required when the Stock property is redeveloped. City Staff has discussed a broad range of concerns with the third resident (Barber) and is not recommending deletion of the required road connection from the Official Plan amendment. Staff recommend that Council adopt Official Plan Amendment 11 and Amendment 1 to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines as set out in Appendices I and II of Addendum to Report Number 52-02 in order to complete its consideration of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study. Amendment 11 includes the minor revisions to land use and resource management designations referred to in the previous paragraph. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. 1.0 Background: On December 9, 2002, Planning Committee referred the recommendations in Report Number 52-02 to the January 20, 2003 Council meeting (see Attachment #1) so that staff could respond to the concerns expressed by three residents and the written comment submitted at the Planning Committee meeting. 1.1 Minor Revisions to Designations in the Amendment in Response to Mr. Daniell's Comments Mr. Daniell commented that the Open Space land use and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor resource management designations proposed for the southern third of the property at 1979 Woodview Avenue would remove approximately a third of the development capacity from his lands. A site visit was conducted with the City planner, the TRCA planner, the TRCA biologist and Mr. Daniell present. TRCA staff advised that the Open Space designation proposed does not represent the limits of the natural features on the subject lands, as defined by TRCA's biologist (see Attachment #2). TRCA also advised that the open space lands should be transferred to public ownership when new lots are created on the property and the lots should be set back a minimum of 10 metres from the limits of the natural features. A copy of the TRCA comments will be retained on file in the Department to guide consideration of future development proposals for Mr. Daniell's property. Accordingly, the Open Space - Natural Area designation on Schedule I - Land Use Structure should be removed from the front part of the southern third of the property and added to the rear third of the entire property to properly reflect the existing natural features on the property. Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Date: January 10, 2002 Page 3 1.2 In addition, the Wetland and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor designations on Schedule III - Resource Management should be revised to conform to this Open Space - Natural Area designation. Schedule 'A' - Land Use Structure and Schedules 'B' and 'C' (amending the Resource Management Schedule) of proposed Official Plan Amendment 11 have been revised, as set out in Appendix I to Addendum to Report Number 52-02. Need For Only A Minimal Buffer Confirmed In Response To Mr. Stock's Concerns 1.3 Mr. Stock expressed concern with the proposed redesignation of the front part of an Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) property at 1968 Woodview Avenue, which is the property immediately north of Mr. Stock's property (1960Woodview Avenue). Mr. Stock was concerned that the proposed redesignation to Open Space and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor would require his property to incorporate such a large buffer zone that it would become undevelopable. The City planner, the TRCA planner and the TRCA biologist also conducted a site visit of 1968 Woodview when Mr. Daniell's property was evaluated. TRCA staff advise that since the rear part of the property is wetland, the front part of the property is naturally vegetated, and the lands to the east of Woodview Avenue are occupied by naturally vegetated wetland, the ORC property serves as a natural corridor for wetland species and should be designated as Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor and Open Space - Natural Area in the Pickering Official Plan. These designations are consistent with the recommendations contained in the Environmental Master Servicing Plan for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood and the Rouge Park Development Guidelines, which were previously endorsed by Council in April, 2000, and supported by the ORC, the owner of the property. TRCA staff have also advised that since the front part of the ORC property north of Mr. Stock's property is somewhat disturbed, (there is a house and a raised septic bed), the buffering required for any redevelopment on Mr. Stock's property can be minimal (see Attachment #3). The Planning & Development Department has provided Mr. Stock with a letter stating that minimal buffering of possible future residential development on the front part of Mr. Stock's property, from the property to the north, is supported by both TRCA and the Department. A copy of the letter will be retained on file in the Department to guide the future consideration of development proposals for Mr. Stock's property. No Deletion of Policy Requiring Road Connection Despite Comments of Mrs. Barber At the Planning Committee meeting, Ms. Barber requested deletion of the policy requirement for a road connection from the north side of Finch Avenue to the west side of Rosebank Road and requested a delay to allow her to meet with Planning staff to discuss various matters. 12 Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Date: January 10, 2002 Page 4 1.4 Planning & Development staff met with Ms. Barber on January 9, 2003, and discussed her concerns, which were similar to the concerns raised in her letter submitted following the Statutory Public Information Meeting held in June 2002. Ms. Barber's concerns were reviewed in greater detail than was done in the staff responses contained in Table 1 - Summary of Comments Received and Staff Responses On Proposed Official Plan Amendment 11, which is Attachment #13 to Report Number 52-02. As a result, it is not recommended that policy 11.16 (v), which requires a road connection from the north side of Finch Avenue to the west side of Rosebank Road, be amended at this time. A minor clarification to proposed policy 10.17(e) (Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor) was agreed on and is reflected in Amendment 11 in Appendix I to Addendum to Report Number 52-02. No Additional Protection Proposed for the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Despite Comment of Ms. James Ms. James submitted a letter dated December 9, 2002, to Planning Committee requesting an extra effort be made to protect the wildlife corridor between Rouge Park and the Altona Forest in order to encourage the best possible survival of wildlife habitat and species (see Attachment #4). Staff consider that the policies and designations proposed in Official Plan Amendment 11 balance the needs for both private development and for protection of wetlands and the wildlife corridor within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. TRCA is supportive of the proposed amendment. Conclusion: Following review of the concerns expressed at the Planning Committee meeting held December 9, 2002, it is recommended that Council implement the final aspect of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study by enactment and adoption respectively of Official Plan Amendment 11 and Amendment 1 to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines as set out in the Appendices to this Addendum to Report Number 52-02. Appendices APPENDIX I: APPENDIX I1: By-law to adopt Amendment No. 11 to the Pickering Official Plan for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (Amendment included as Exhibit 'A' to By-law) Amendment 1 to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Date: Januaw 10,2002 Page 5 13 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Planning Committee Meeting Minutes for December 9, 2002 Comments of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, dated December 16, 2002 Comments of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, dated January 10, 2003 Letter from Lois James dated December 9, 2002 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner II Catherine Rose Manager, Policy Neil tarroll, ~c(P, R~P Director, Plar~& Development SG:jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council /.p, -- 'T h,e/rn?f~ ) ~- Quinn~/Chief/~ ministra~ff(cer APPENDIXITO ADDENDUM TO REPORT NUMBER PD52-02 BY-LAW TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING ~ 5 BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 11 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering. (OPA 02-001/P); WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHEREAS, the Region has advised that this Amendment is NOT exempt from Regional approval; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Amendment 11 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted; That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments, to seek Regional approval of an Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan; 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this January, 2003. day of Wayne Arthurs, Mayo Bruce Taylor, Clerk Exhibit "A" to By-law AMENDMENT 11 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: BASIS: The purpose of the amendment is to revise the boundaries of residential and open space designations on Schedule I - Land Use Structure, revise the boundaries of Wetlands, the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor and Shorelines and Stream Corridors on Schedule III - Resource Management, revise the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor policies and revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood policies to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study. The amendment affects all lands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, which is located on the west side of Pickering at the northern limit of the City's South Urban Area. This area is approximately 160 hectares in size. The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study was completed for lands in the City of Pickering and received by City Council in April 2000. City Council adopted a comprehensive plan to guide future development of the neighbourhood through two principal documents: the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The Environmental Master Servicing Plan provided direction on edge management strategies between developable and non-developable areas to ensure that new development maintains and enhances adjacent natural features and functions. It also established a stormwater management strategy. The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines established urban design criteria and identified school and park sites and major street connections. The Land Use objectives for this amendment are to adjust the boundaries of the land use designations to accurately reflect the findings of the Environmental Master Servicing Plan and adopt policies for both the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood that will guide development in the manner articulated in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Wetland boundaries shown on the amended Resource Management schedule are based on updated 1999 mapping from the Ministry of Natural Resources. Appendix 1 to Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Page 2 Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-law to Adopt Official Plan Council of the City of Pickering passed resolution #29/00, Item #1, at its meeting of April 10, 2000, which included initiating this proposed amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study and a number of other associated recommendations. The proposed amendment has been prepared considering comments received at the Statutory Public Information meeting held on June 19, 2002. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Pickering Official Plan be amended by: Revising Schedule I - Land Use Structure to revise the boundary between the designations of Open Space System - Natural Area and Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Areas for certain lands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, as set out on Schedule 'A'; Revising Schedule III - Resource Management Schedule, to: (i) revise the delineation of Wetlands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, as set out on Schedule 'B'; (ii) revise the delineation of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor, as set out on Schedule 'C'; and (iii) revise the delineation of Shorelines and Stream Corridors, as set out on Schedule 'D'; Revising section 10.17 -Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Policies, to add a policy limiting the uses permitted on lands that are designated both Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor; and add a policy encouraging the preparation of a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan" such that section 10.17 reads as follows: CITY POLICY Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor 10.17 City Council recognizes that the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor is intended to function as a significant vegetated connector providing for species migration between the Rouge and Duffins valley systems; accordingly, Council shall, Appendix 1 to Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Page 3 1 9 Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-law to Adopt Official Plan (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 despite the permissible uses listed in Table 13', permit utility and ancillary uses, as well as any uses permissible within the Open Space System - Natural Area designation (see Table 3) on lands designated both Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area on Schedule I and also Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor on Schedule III; and, encourage the Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, Region of Durham, Ontario Hydro and interested others to both prepare a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan" and establish funding for on-going maintenance and restoration of the Corridor. Replacing section 11.16 - Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies to revise subsections 11.16 (a)(i), (a)(iv) and (d); such that the entire section 11.16 reads as follows: CITY POLICY Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies 11.16 City Council shall, (a) in the consideration of development proposed within the neighbourhood, (0 discourage designs which require the use of reverse frontages, berms and significant noise attenuation fencing adjacent to Finch Avenue and Altona Road, unless justified for a limited proportion of street frontage within any proposed development by unique site configuration, road access or proximity considerations and mitigated by special design and/or landscaping features; * A copy of Table 13 is provided for reference at the end of this Amendment. constitute part of the Amendment. It does not Appendix 1 to Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Page 4 Amendment 11 to the Picketing Official Plan - Amendment to By-law to Adopt Official Plan (b) (c) (d) (e) (ii) encourage a "neighbourhood focus" at the intersection of Finch Avenue and Altona Road through the utilization of structural massing, architectural elements, and landscaping that establishes a strong relationship with the intersection; (iii) despite the permissible uses listed in Tables 5* and 9*, not permit the establishment of automobile service stations and drive-thru facilities such as restaurants, banks and convenience stores within the neighbourhood; (iv) in accordance with sections 15.17 and 15.18, permit the use of density transfers and bonuses, as further detailed in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; (v) require a road connection running from the north side of Finch Avenue to the west side of Rosebank Road; (vi) require new development to have regard for the Rouge Park Management Plan; encourage the retention of environmentally sensitive Provincially-owned lands within public ownership and the appropriate and timely disposition of Provincially- owned lands outside of the Rouge Park that are not environmentally sensitive; endeavour to eliminate the "jog" at the Rosebank Road and Finch Avenue intersection; support improvements to the level crossings of the C.P. rail line at the Scarborough-Pickering Townline Road and Rosebank Road, such as the installation of appropriate safety measures including automatic safety gates; and for the north-east corner of the Beare Estate/Map Realty lands, located on the north side of Finch Avenue, opposite Woodview Avenue, interpret the minimum extent of the "Open Space System - Natural Areas" designation to be the southerly drip-line of the existing hedgerow plus 1 metre, with the maximum extent to be determined during the review of the related development applications.** * Copies of Tables 5 and 9 of Chapter 3 are provided for reference at the end of this Amendment. It does not constitute part of the Amendment. ** This clause reflects the order of the Ontario Municipal Board in its disposition of the Beare Estate/Map Realty appeal. Appendix 1 to Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Page 5 Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-law to Adopt Official Plan IMPLEMENTATION: INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. 2 2 Appendix I to Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Page 6 CITY POLICY T~4BLE 13: ]~reemays and Major Utilities: Permissibk Uses b~y Subcateego~y Utility and ancillary uses; Public or private uses that are compatible with adjacent land uses, comply with the goals, policies and general intent of this Plan, and do not adversely affect the operation or use of the utility. Freeways and utility uses, ancillary uses, and similar or related public or private uses. Appendix I to Addendum to Report PD 52-02 Paqe 7 ~3 CITY POLICY T.4BLE 5: Mixed Use ~4reas: Permissibk Uses by Subcate~,o~, Residential; Retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods; Offices and restaurants; Community, cultural and recreational uses. · All uses permissible in Local Nodes, at a larger scale and intensity, and serving a broader area. All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at a scale and intensity equivalent to Community Nodes; Special purpose commercial uses. All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at the greatest scale and intensity in the City, serving City-wide and regional levels; Special purpose commercial uses. CITY POLICY %4BLE 9: Urban Residential.4reas: Permissibk Uses Residential uses, home occupations, limited offices serving the area, and limited retailing of goods and services serving the area; Community, cultural and recreational uses; Compatible employment uses, and uses compatible serving the special area. purpose commercial REVISED SCHEDULE 'A' TO AMENDMENT '11 REVISED SCHEDULE 'C' TO AMENDMENT 11 PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ORIGINAL SCHEDULE 'D' TO AMENDMENT 11 SCI~ULE m TO TIiE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT APPENDIX II TO ADDENDUM TO REPORT NO. PD 52-02 AMENDMENT 1 TO THE ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 25 AMENDMENT 1 TO THE ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines to be amended by: In accordance with updated sanitary sewer capacities provided to the City during the processing of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02- 00lIP (now Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan), in Section N'I.8 - Neighbourhood Population Targets, replace the number "2200" with "2000", the number "500" with "550" and the number "1700" with "1450", such that Section N1.8 reads as follows: "The Official Plan establishes a population target for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood of 1,600 people. Based solely on the sanitary sewer capacity, a population target of 2,000 people is achievable 550 west of Petticoat Creek, and 1450 east of the creek. However, if the population were to grow much beyond 1,600 people, the Durham District School Board has indicated that an elementary school site would be required within the Neighbourhood. In order to minimize the need for public facilities in this area of limited developable lands, a population target of 1,600 people will be retained, with a maximum of 550 people on lands developed west of Petticoat Creek, which contribute to the Woodview Avenue san itary sewer. At Council's discretion, the population target may be exceeded if the City, in consultation with the Durham District School Board, is satisfied that existing development, or proposed development, does not generate the need for additional school facilities within the Neighbourhood (which would be in addition to the site required by the Durham Catholic District School Board, see section N 1.9.5). The population target of 550 people west of Petticoat Creek may be exceeded if the City and Region are satisfied that alternative servicing arrangements are feasible and appropriate. This may include a direct connection to the York-Durham Trunk Sewer via a privately owned and operated sewage pumping facility." ATTACHMENT ~.../...~T0 REPORT# PD ~2 -C '~ _ Planning Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, December 9, 2002 7:30 p.m. Chair: Councillor Holland ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of October 15, 2002 (U) 1. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 52-02 OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 02-001/P CITY INITIATED: ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD STUDY IMPLEMENTATION Referred to the January 20th, 2003 Council Meeting Gary Daniell, 1979 Woodview Ave., advised that the line identifying open space cuts through his property, severing approximately a third of his land. He further stated that no field study has been done on his property and it should not be restricted in any way. He requested that his land be exempt from the wildlife corridor. Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Ave., requested a meeting with Planning staff to discuss various matters. She stated her concurrence with Mr. Daniell's comments and her objection to the policy requirement for a road connection running from the north side of Finch Avenue to the west side of Rosebank Road and requested it be deleted or deferred for a month until her Plan of Subdivision could be addressed. She requested Council delay their decision until January. Otto Stock, 1960 Woodview Avenue, stated his concern with the property to the north of him being added as a woodlot and also that the buffer zone will be so large that he won't be able to develop his land. 2? 0 S for The Living City_, TO December 16, 2002 Mr Steve Gaunt City of Pickering Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: Proposed Residential Lot Southeast of Woodview and Finch Ave City of Pickering (Kaitlin) Further to our site visit and after review of the TRCA's mapping for the subject property please accept the following comments. A review shows plans to modify the open space limits being established through a secondary plan for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. At our site walk we defined the limits of the features and can confirm that the limits of open space envisioned for the property does not represent the limits of natural features on the subject lands. We would have no objections to revised open space limits consistent with the limits defined in the field by TRCA's biologist, Dena Lewis. In addition, we understand that the applicant has plans to sever the subject property to create in excess of two residential lots. At that time the TRCA will be requesting that the open space lands be identified as a separate block and transferred to public ownership. We may also require supporting technical studies to confirm any new lot lines. We advise that the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management requires that new lots be established a minimum 10 metres from the !imits of natural features. We trust that this is satisfactory. If you have any questions contact the undersigned at ext. 5306. Yours.truly, ~ussel White ' ~ Senior Planner Development Services $ection Ext. 5306 RW/dli F:\PRS\PU BLIC\woodview.wpd 5 Shoreh~m Drive, DoWnsview, OniEario M3N 154. (416)66i-6600 FAX 661-6898 wwW. trca.on.Ca ~ ~ T 28 January 10, 2003 Mr Steve Gaunt City of Pickering Planning Department Picketing Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: 1960 and 1968 Woodview Rouge Park Neighbourhood City of Pickering Further to our site walk with Dena Lewis and after review of your letter dated January 2003, please accept the following comments. At our site walk it was determined that the front portion of 1968 Woodview is occupied by a single residence while the rear portion appears to be well vegetated and forms part of a wetland feature. The lands are currently owned by the Ontario Realty Corporation. In our review of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study it was also determined that this property could serve as a critical link to natural features on the eastern side of Woodview Avenue and the Petticoat Creek. Therefore we continue to support the open space designation on this property. 1960 Woodview is to the south and is developed as a single family lot with a manicured rear yard. This area has historically been filled and while the stability of the material is not known, essentially this property has been removed from the wetland. As part of any future development application on this property, TRCA staff will require an Environmental Impact Study to determine the extent of buffering which would be required from the wetland. In our analysis we would consider the current use on 1968 Woodview in determining the appropriate buffer on 1960 Woodview and would expect that a minimum buffer would be required at the front portion of the property and adjacent to the existing single family residence. We trust that this is satisfactory. If you have any questions please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Russel White Senior Planner Development Services Section Ext. 5306 29 OF ?IOKERING · ~LANN}NG & DE'VELOPM~.NT DEPARTMENT PICKERING REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 52-02 Date: November 26, 2002 30 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Implementation City of Pickering Recommendation: 1. (a) That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to implement the results of the Rouge Park · Neighbourhood Study, as follows: revise Schedule I - Land Use Structure to adjust the boundaries of the Urban Residential and Open Space designations; revise Schedule III - Resource Management to adjust the boundaries of the Shoreline and Stream Corridor, Wetlands and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor designations; revise the Rouge-Dufflns Wildlife Corridor Policies; and revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies; be APPROVED, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 52~02; (b) That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan be FORWARDED to Council for enactment as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 52-02. o That Amendment 1 to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines be ADOPTED by Council, as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 52-02. That the City Clerk be directed to forward a copy of Report Number PD 52-02 to the Clerk of the Region of Durham along with the draft by-law once Council enacts the draft by-law. Executive Summary: The attached draft amendments to the Pickering Official Plan and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines are recommended in order to implement the findings of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study. That Study was endorsed by Council on Apdl 10, 2000, following extensive public, landowner and agency consultation. 3t Report PD 52-02 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Date: November 26, 2002 Page 2 Proposed Official Plan Amendment 11 (Appendix I) includes revisions to the Land Use Schedule, the Resource Management Schedule, the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor policies and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood policies that reflect the amendment considered at the Statutory Public Information Meeting and the recommendations made by staff in response to the comments received (see Attachment #13). In addition, proposed amendments to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines addressing population targets for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood are set out in Appendix II. It is recommended that Council adopt the amendments to complete its consideration of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. 1.0 1.1 1.2 Background: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Completed in 1999 Following completion of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study in December 1999, Pickering City Council, at its meeting held April, 2000, received the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Study Reports, adopted the Environment Master Servicing Plan, the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines and Informational Revision 7 to the Official Plan and directed staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting to receive comments on the proposed Official Plan Amendment, and several other matters. Council also requested that Ontario Realty Corporation discuss conveying ownership of its developable lands within the Neighbourhood to TRCA to enhance wildlife habitats, corridor functions and for other conservation purposes. A further request was made to the Ministry of Natural Resources and other agencies/partners to prepare a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan" and establish funding for its maintenance and restoration. Official Plan Amendment Delayed Awaiting a Response from Ontario Realty Corporation on Conveyance of their Lands Since ORC has responded that they are not currently prepared to convey or sell the lands for conservation purposes (see Attachment #1), and several development applications have recently been approved or otherwise resolved in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, it is now appropriate for Council to adopt the Official Plan Amendment before the end of this term of Council. Report PD 52-02 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Date: November 26, 2002 Page 3 32 The proposed amendment to the Official Plan has been prepared in accordance with the Minutes of Settlement, signed by the City of Pickering, and area landowners, which resolved Appeals 1 and 2 to the 1997 Pickering Official Plan. In addition, the amendment incorporates the Ontario Municipal Board decision on the appeal of the Map Realty lands (now the "Nicou Inc." lands), located on the north side of Finch Avenue, opposite Woodview Avenue. The delay in' bringing this amendment back before Council is due to the timing of the ORC response and other staff priorities. 2.0 Comments Received Information Report No. 21-02 (see Attachment #2) was considered at the Statutory Public Information Meeting held June 19, 2002. Verbal comments were provided at the meeting (see Attachment #3) and written comments were subsequently received from a number of individuals and agencies (see Attachments #4 to #12). Details of the comments and staff responses are provided in Table 1 (see Attachment #13) and the key comments and staff responses are summarized as follows. 2.1 Main Comments and Responses Affecting Schedule I - Land Use Structure In response to Mr. Daniell's concern that redesignation of part of his property to Open Space - Natural Areas will remove his right to a building permit for a new house (see Attachment #9), staff advise that a building permit can be obtained under existing "A - AgriculturaF Zoning. In response to a TRCA concern that a 50 metre buffer between development and Wetlands, suggested by the OMB should be reflected on Schedule I (see Attachment #12), it is staff's position that the buffer was a suggestion of the OMB, not part of its order; staff will have regard to the OMB text in reviewing the site specific development application for the site. 2.1.1 Main Comments and Responses Affectinq Schedule III - Resource Manaqement In response to requests to remove the Shorelines and Stream Corridor designation from five properties on the west side of Woodview Avenue (see Attachments #7 & #10), staff concur and TRCA agrees. In response to Ms. Barber's comment that no lands with residential street frontages other than three connecting corridors identified in the Environmental Master Servicing Plan should be designated Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor (see Attachment #11), staff advise that this matter was resolved by the OMB in its disposition of appeals 1 and 2 to the 1997 Official Plan. 33 Report PD 52-02 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Date: November 26, 2002 Page 4 2.1.2 2.1.3 In response to TRCA's question of whether deletion of Wetland from the south-west portion of the Nicou property adds these lands to a development block (see Attachment ¢12), staff advise that this boundary change reflects wetland mapping from the Ministry of Natural Resources. Main Comments and Responses Affectinq Rou.qe-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Policies - Section 1 t .17 In response to TRCA's request for a status update and formal request to participate in preparation and funding of a Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan (see Attachment #12), staff advise that the policy, once adopted, will encourage interested agencies (MNR, TRCA, the Region of Durham, Ontario Hydro or others) to prepare and fund the Plan, but that, to date, no agency has done so. Main Comments and Responses Affectinq Rou.qe Park Nei.qhbourhood Policies- Section 11.16 In response to the Pickering Division Head of Municipal Property & Engineering comment (Re: Policy 11.16 (d))that safety gates have already been installed on the C. P. Rail Line at Altona Road (see Attachment #4), staff recommend that Altona Road be deleted from the list of locations for such safety gates. In response to the concern by Sernas Associates that Policy 11.16 (a)(i) to discourage reverse frontage lots adjacent to Finch Avenue may be interpreted as a prohibition (see Attachment #5), staff advise that Sernas Associates have been advised that the policy is to discourage, not prohibit, and staff recommends that further policy direction be included to clarify the types of situations that may be suitable for consideration of a limited amount reverse frontage lotting patterns. In response to several comments suggesting that Policy 11.16 (a)(v) provides a population target that is too open-ended (see Attachments ¢6, ¢7 & ¢8), staff a.qree and recommend deletion of the policy and a further amendment to the Rou.qe Park Nei.qhbourhood Guidelines to reflect updated sanitary sewer capacity restrictions in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. In response to Mr. McLaughlin's comments that new roads and road improvements should be rejected because they threaten wildlife in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (see Attachment ¢8), it is staff's position that the amendment to the Official Plan represents a balanced strategy to achieve ecological protection and some urban development. Report PD 52-02 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Date: November 26, 2002 Page 5 34 2.2 In response to Ms. Barber's objection to Policy 11 .t6 (a)(vi), which requires a road connection from Finch Avenue to Rosebank Road that crosses her property (see Attachment #11), it is staff's position that connecting roads provide for better community design and access arrangements than do multiple cul-de-sacs, particularly when the number of access points to an arterial road should be restricted. Ms. Barber and TRCA commented that Policy 11.16 (b) (which encourages retention in public ownership of Provincially-owned lands within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood that are environmentally sensitive and disposition of Provincially-owned lands that are identified as developable) contradicts Council's motion to request the Ontario Realty Corporation to discuss conveying its developable lands to TRCA for conservation purposes (see Attachments #11 & #12). TRCA further commented that it still supports the proposed urban designations for Provincially-owned developable lands. It is staff's recommendation that as Council's motion was a free-standing resolution, and ORC declined to convey its lands to TRCA for conservation purposes at that time, the implementation of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Official Plan amendment should proceed at this time. Minor Revision to Population Targets in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines In response to the Region of Durham Planninq Department comment that sanitary sewer capacities for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood should be clarified for the benefit of interested agencies and landowners (Attachment#6), staff recommend that the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines be amended to reflect updated sanitary sewer capacities. Appendices APPENDIX I: APPENDIX I1: By-law to adopt Amendment No. 11 to the Pickering Official Plan for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (Amendment included as Exhibit "A" to By-law) Amendment 1 to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines 35 Report PD 52-02 Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Date: November 26, 2002 Page 6 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Letter from the Ontario Realty Corporation, dated July 18, 2000 Information Report No. 21-02 Minutes of the Statutory Public Information Meeting held June 19, 2002 Comments of the Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Comments of Sernas Associates on behalf of Nicou Inc., dated June 20, 2002 Comments of Region of Durham Planning Department Comments of Agnes and Peter Ruzsa et al, dated July 1, 2002 Comments of Doug McLaughlin, dated June 20, 2002 Comments of Gary Daniell, dated June 17, 2002 Comments of Otto & Erna Stock et al, dated June 21,2002 Comments of Jocelyn Barber, dated July 26, 2002 Comments of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, dated October 31, 2002 Table 1 - Summary of Comments Received and Staff Responses on proposed Official Plan Amendment 11 (Rouge Park Neighbourhood) Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner 11 Catherine Rose L Manager, Policy DNier~ector, P~Development SG:td:jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council T.h'd'Xa-s-J. Qui~n, Chi~dmini~~0ffic¢ APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 52-02 BY-LAW TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 1'1 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 3 ~/ THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 11 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering. (OPA) 02/001/P); WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHEREAS, the Region has advised that this Amendment is NOT exempt from Regional approval; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Amendment 11 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted; That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments, to seek Regional approval of an Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan; 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this December, 2002. day of Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk Exhibit "A" to By-law AMENDMENT 11 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 3 [;:::} AMENDMENT 11 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: BASIS: The purpose of the amendment is to revise the boundaries of residential and open space designations on Schedule I - Land Use Structure, revise the boundaries of Wetlands, the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor and Shorelines and Stream Corridors on Schedule III - Resource Management, revise the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor policies and revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood policies to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study. The amendment affects all lands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, which is located on the west side of Pickering at the northern limit of the City's South Urban Area. This area is approximately 160 hectares in size. The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study was completed for lands in the City of Pickering and received by City Council in April 2000. City Council adopted a comprehensive plan to guide future development of the neighbourhood through two principal documents: the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The Environmental Master Servicing Plan provided direction on edge management strategies between developable and non-developable areas to ensure that new development maintains and enhances adjacent natural features and functions. It also established a stormwater management strategy. The Rouge Park Neighbourhood established urban design criteria and sites and major street connections. Development Guidelines identified school and park The Land Use objectives for this amendment are to adjust the boundaries of the land use designations to accurately reflect the findings of the Environmental Master Servicing Plan and adopt policies for both the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood that will guide development in the manner articulated in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Wetland boundaries shown on the amended Resource Management schedule are based on updated 1999 mapping from the Ministry of Natural Resources. Appendix I to Report PD 52-02 Page 2 4 0 Amendment '11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-Law to Adopt Official Plan Council of the City of Pickering passed resolution #29/00, Item #1, at its meeting of April 10, 2000, which included initiating this proposed amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study and a number of other associated recommendations. The proposed amendment has been prepared considering comments received at the Statutory Public Information meeting held on June 19, 2002. ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Pickering Official Plan be amended by: Revising Schedule I - Land Use Structure to revise the boundary between the designations of Open Space System - Natural Area and Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Areas for certain lands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, as set out on Schedule 'A'; e Revising Schedule III - Resource Management Schedule, to: (i) (ii) (iii) revise the delineation of Wetlands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, as set out on Schedule 'B'; revise the delineation of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor, as set out on Schedule C, and revise the delineation of Shorelines and Stream Corridors, as set out on Schedule 'D'; Revising section 10.17 -Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Policies, to add a policy limiting the uses permitted on lands that are designated both Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor; and add a policy encouraging' the preparation of a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan" such that section 10.17 reads as follows: CITY POLICY Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor 10.17 City Council recognizes that the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor is intended to function as a significant vegetated connector providing for species migration between the Rouge and Duffins valley systems; accordingly, Council shall, 4 1 Appendix I to Report PD 52-02 Page 3 Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-Law to Adopt Official Plan (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 despite the permissible uses listed in Table 13, permit utility and ancillary uses, as well as any uses permissible within the Open Space System - Natural Area designation (see Table 3) on lands designated Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area on Schedule I and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor on Schedule III; and, encourage the Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, Region of Durham, Ontario Hydro and interested others to both prepare a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan" and establish funding for on-going maintenance and restoration of the Corridor. Replacing section 11.16 - Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies to revise subsections 11.16 (a)(i), (a)(iv) and (d); such that the entire section 11.16 reads as follows: CITY POLICY Rouge Park Neighbourbood Policies 11.16 City Council shall, (a) in the consideration of development proposed within the neighbourhood, d) (ii) discourage designs which require the use of reverse frontages, berms and significant noise attenuation fencing adjacent to Finch Avenue and Altona Road, unless justified for a limited proportion of street frontage within any proposed development by unique site configuration, road access or proximity considerations and mitigated by special design and/or landscaping features; encourage a "neighbourhood focus" at the intersection of Finch Avenue and Altona Road through the utilization of structural massing, architectural elements, and landscaping that establishes a strong relationship with the intersection; Appendix I to Report PD 52-02 Page 4 Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-Law to Adopt Official Plan (b) (c) (d) (e) (iii) despite the permissible uses listed in Tables 5* and 9', not permit the establishment of automobile service stations and drive-thru facilities such as restaurants, banks and convenience stores within the neighbourhood; (iv) in accordance with sections 15.17 and 15.18, permit the use of density transfers and bonuses, as further detailed in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; (v) require a road connection running from the north side of Finch Avenue to the west side of Rosebank Road; (vi) require new development to have regard for the Rouge Park Management Plan; encourage the retention of environmentally sensitive Provincially-owned lands within public ownership and the appropriate and timely disposition of Provincially- owned lands outside of the Rouge Park that are not environmentally sensitive; endeavour to eliminate the "jog" at the Rosebank Road and Finch Avenue intersection; support improvements to the level crossings of the C.P. rail line at the Scarborough-Pickering Townline Road and Rosebank Road, such as the installation of appropriate safety measures including automatic safety gates; and for the north-east corner of the Beare Estate/Map Realty lands, located on the north side of Finch Avenue, opposite Woodview Avenue, interpret the minimum extent of the "Open Space System - Natural Areas" designation to be the southerly drip-line of the existing hedgerow plus 1 metre, with the maximum extent to be determined during the review of the related development applications.** Appendix I to Report PD 52-02 Page 5 Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-Law to Adopt Official Plan IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. * Copies of Tables 5 and 9 of Chapter 3 are provided for reference at the end of this Amendment. It does not constitute part of the Amendment. ** This clause reflects the order of the Ontario Municipal Board in its disposition of the Beare Estate/Map Realty appeal. CITY POLICY TABLE 5: Mixed Use Areas: Permissible Uses by Subcaregory 44 Residential; Retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the sur. roundlng neighbourhoods; Offices and restaurants; Community, cultural and recreational uses. All uses permissible in Local Nodes, .at a larger scale and intensity, and serving a broader area. All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at a scale and intensity equivalent to Community Nodes; Special purpose commercial uses. All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at the greatest scale and intensity in the City, serving City-wide and regional levels; Special purpose commercial uses. CITY POLICY TABLE g: Urban Residential Areas: Permissible Uses Residential uses, home occupations, limited offices serving the area, and limited retailing of goods and services serving the area; Community, cultural and recreational uses; Compatible employment uses, and I compatible special purpose commercial! uses serving the area. ~ ORIGINAL SCHEDULE 'A' TO AMENDMENT 11 REDESIGNATE FROM "OPEN SPACE ~, ~ · ~ ~ ~..~, /,/ sYs~M-~'ru~ ~.s' ~'O'UR~ \ :~~ ~,, ~ ~.-' ~ .~s~ ~s-~ow ~s~. ~ ~ ~~,,? ~..'- S~D~ [TO ~ ~D USE S~U~ PICkiNG ~ ~ REC~A ~ P~ .... ~N ~ ~ ~ ~ OTHB OESIG~TIONS ~" ~ r ~ ~ NOO~ ~ ~ ~N S~T~ UR~ ~DY ~ _i~ ~ .......... ~.,~.~=~ ~~ ORIGINAL SCHEDULE 'B' TO AMENDMENT 11 SCHEDULE rrr TO THE PICKF. RING OFFICIAl, PLAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ORIGINAL SCHEDUI F 'C' TO AMENDM SCHEDULE rrr TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAl, PLAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ORIGINAL SCHEDULE 'D' TO AMENDMENT 11 SCHEDULE rrr TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IIIlll SHORELINES AND STR~I~M CORRIDORS (MAY INCLUDE ~D LANDS) WETLANDS ENVIRONMI~3~tTALLY SIGNIRO~I~IT AREAS ROUGE--DUFFIN8 WILDLIFE CORRIDOE APPENDIX II TO REPORT NO. PD 52-02 AMENDMENT1TOTHE ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES AMENDMENT 1 TO THE ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ACTUAL AMENDMENT: The Pickering Official Plan to be amended by: In accordance with updated sanitary sewer capacities provided to the City during the processing of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P (now Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan), in Section N1.8 - Neighbourhood Population Targets, replace the number "2200" with "2000", the number "500" with "550" and the number "1700" with "1450", such that Section N1.8 reads as follows: "The Official Plan establishes a population target for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood of 1,600 people. Based solely on the sanitary sewer capacity, a population target of 2,000 people is achievable 550 west of Petticoat Creek, and 1450 east of the creek. However, if the population were to grow much beyond 1,600 people, the Durham District School Board has indicated that an elementary school site would be required within the Neighbourhood. In order to minimize the need for public facilities in this area of limited developable lands, a population target of 1,600 people will be retained, with a maximum of 550 people on lands developed west of Petticoat Creek, which contribute to the Woodview Avenue sanitary sewer. At Council's discretion, the population target may be exceeded if the City, in consultation with the Durham District School Board, is satisfied that existing development, or proposed development, does not generate the need for additional school facilities within the Neighbourhood (which would be in addition to the site required by the Durham Catholic District School Board, see section N1.9.5). The population target of 550 people west of Petticoat Creek may be exceeded if the City and Region are satisfied that alternative servicing arrangements are feasible and appropriate. This may include a direct connection to the York-Durham Trunk Sewer via a privately owned and operated sewage pumping facility." Ontario Soci6t~ Realty immobiltbre Corporation de I'Ontario 11'~ Floor ? lle ~tuge , Ferguson Block l~.rlifice Ferguson Qu~n's P~k Quints Park Toron~, On. rio Toronto~ Ontario M7A 1N3 M7A Tel: (416) 327-~543 F~: (416) 327-3942 Office of the Vice-President, Marketing Real Estate and Sales Division July 18, 2000 Mr. wayne Arthurs Mayor City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario LIV 6K7 Dear Mr. Arthurs: Thank you for your letter dated April 17, 2000 to the Honourable Chris HodgsOn, Chair, Management Board of Cabinet, regarding your concern for the protection of the provincially-owned lands within the Rouge Park Neigbbourhood Study area. Minister Hodgson has asked that I respond to you. As noted in your letter, the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study area comprises approximately 160 hectares of land. The Ontario government owns approximately 50 per cent (80 hectares) of the land in the StUdy area. Of this portion, 84 per cent (67.2 hectares) has been or is proposed by the'Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study to be designated "Open Space System - Natural Area." The remaining 12 per cent (12.8 hectares) is designated for'development in the Official Plan. At this time, the ORC feels it wouM' be' premature to meet with the various stakeholder groups who have expressed concern over the future of the developable lands in the Study area. Since. receiving direction from Management Board Secretariat (MBS) to dispose of the lands, the ORC, as agent for MBS, has only had discussions with the Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) concerning the sale of all of the government-owned land holdings in the Study area, at fair' market value. If the sale of MBS properties in the Rouge Park NeighbourhoOd to the TRCA is not possible, the ORC will then conduct an Environmental Study Report, as required by the MBS Class Environmental Assessment Process. This Environmental StUdy Report would include extensive public consultation.' F.'Ei'-0R! # Any Sale of the subject lands must be in keeping with. the CRC's_ Guidelines and Procedures for Real Estate and Sales. In addition, it will need the endorsement of the CRC Board of Directors and the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet. The CRC is pleased to have received a copy of the City of Pickering's ROuge Park Neighbourhood Study. As we guide the disposition of these provincially owned"lands, the CRC will continue to.consider the advice of stakeholders having an ~nterest in the property. Once again, thank you for bringing ?our concerns to our attention. SinCerely, R. L. Budd Vice-President, Marketing Hon. Chris Hodgson, Chair, Management Board of Cabinet Hon. Janet Ecker, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge James .McKellar, Chair (A), CRC Board of Directors 'Tony Miele, President and CEO, CRC INFORMATION REPORT NO. 21-02 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF June 19, 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbourhood City of Picketing 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the Rouge Park Neighbourhood is located on the west side of Picketing at the northern limit of the City's South Urban Area; Rouge Park Neighbourhood is bounded on the west by the Picketing-Toronto boundary, on the north by the Interprovincial Pipeline/St. Lawrence and Hudson (formerly C.P.) Rail line, on the south by the Ontario Hydro Gatineau Corridor, and · on the east by open space lands, just east of Rosebank Road (see Location Map, Attachment # 1); Rouge Park Ne!ghbourhood comPrises approximatel.y 160 hectares in area. 2.0 BACKGROUND - following completion of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study in December 1999, Piekering City Council passed a resolution, at it's meeting held April t0, 2000 to: receive the "Rouge Park Neighbourhood Phase 1 and 'Phase 2 Reports" as background information; adopt the "Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan"; adopt the "Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines"; · adopt "Informational Revision No. 7 to. the Pickering Official Plan"; · direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting to discuss this proposed amendment to the Picketing Official Plan to implement the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study; · request the Region of Durham to consider the redesignafion of parts of Finch Avenue and Townline Road from Type B Arterial Roads to Type C Arterial Roads; · request the Ministry of Natural Resources and other agencies to prepare a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan"; · request the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) to transfer non-developable properties in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood to a public authority with a conservation mandate; and, * forward the report to interested agencies (see Attachment #2 - Council Resolution #29/00, Item #1); 5O Information Report No. 21-02 g77ACHMEMT #~T0 Page 2 Council passed a further motion at its April 10, 2000 meeting, requesting ORC to discuss protection of its lands that are designated to permit development with the City, Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and other interested landowners and conservation groups to enhance wildlife habitat and corridor functions by investigating the opportunity to convey ownership of those lands to the TRCA for conservation purposes (see Attachment #3 - Council ReSOlution #57/00); in July, 2000, the Ontario Realty Corporation replied, indicating that it was premature to meet with stakeholder groups over the future of the developable lands; ORC indicated that it had only held discussions with TRCA about sale of all the government owned lands in the Study area at fair market value; accordingly, it is appropriate at this time to continue to implement Council's resolutions respecting the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study by amending the Pickering Official Plan; the September 2001 Public Consultation Draft of the Durham Transportation Master Plan includes a recommendation'to redesignate Finch Avenue, between Altona Road and Picketing Townline Road, and Picketing Townline Road, between Finch Avenue and Taunton Road, from Type B Arterial roads to Type C Arterial roads in the Durham Regional Official Plan; 3.0 CITY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN the City of Pickering proposes to amend the Pickering Official Plan in order to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study including the "Rouge Park'Environmental Master Servicing Plan and the "Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines"; the attached amendments include the following policy and Schedule revisions to the Official Plan; revise Schedule I- Land Use Structure and Schedule III- Resource Management of the Picketing Official Plan to revise the boundaries between residential, open space and freeway and major utilities designations and the delineations of the wetlands and the Rouge-Duf£ms Wildlife Corridoi: to reflect the findings of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan and to implement the signed Minutes of Settlement for Appeals 1 and 2 to the 1997 Picketing Official Plan; * revise the Rouge-Dufflns Wildlife Corridor Policies to further restrict uses permitted on the hydro corridor at the south edge of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood and encourage preparation of a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan"; · revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies to: · delete the requirement for a neighbourhood study;, · encourage better neighbourhood design; establish a community focus; · permit no automobile service stations or drive-thru facilities; · encourage retention of environmentally sensitive lands in public ownership; " endeavour to eliminate the 'jog' at the Rosebank Road/Finch Avenue intersection; ' other related policies as set out in the proposed amendment contained in Appendix I to this report; and, Information Report No. 21-02 Page 3 also include for informational purposes, the policy added by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in its disposition of appeal A1 to the 1997 Pickering Official Plan that sets out a method of determining the extent of the boundary of the "Open Space System - Natural Areas" 'designations in the north-east portion of the lands on the north side of Finch Average north of Woodview Avenue. 51 4.0 OFFICIAL PLAN 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan lands within Rouge Park Neighbourhood are designated as Living Area, Major Open Space, Major Open Space - Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Open Space Linkages respectively; in addition, the northern edge of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood is designated as the Urban Area Boundary and as the location for a Future GO Rail line; both Finch Avenue and Altona Road are designated as Type B Arterial Roads; lands designated Living Area shall be used predominantly for housing purposes, in addition to certain home occupations, convenience stores, public and recreational uses, limited office development and limited retailing of goods and services; lands designated Major Open Space shall .be used for conservation, recreation, and reforestation uses; lands designated as Open Space Linkages, including the Rouge-Duffin Corridor must provide for the migration of flora and fauna and preserve and maintain the environmental features and functions, with detailed policies provided in area municipal official plans after consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the respective Conservation authority; the wetlands in Rouge Park Neighbourhood that are designated Major Open Space - Environmentally Sensitive Area will require an environmental impact study which must assess plants, wildlife, forests and streams, and protect them by identifying methods of mitigating potentially damaging effects prior to development; 4.2 Pickering Official'Plan lands within Rouge Park Neighbourhood are designated as Urban Residential Areas - LOW Density Areas, Mixed Use Areas - Local Nodes, Open Space System - Natural Area and as Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area; lands designated Urban Residential Areas may be used for residential, home occupation, limited office, limited retailing, community, cultural and recreational uses, compatible employment uses and compatible special purpose commereiai uses; lands designated Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Areas, are permitted a maximum residential density up to and including 30 dwellings per net hectare; lands designated Mixed Use Areas - Local Nodes (the lands on the south-east corner of Altona Road and Finch Avenue) may be used for residential uses at a maximum residential density over 30 and up to and including 80 dwellings per net hectare, retailing of goods and services of up to and including 10,000 square metres of floor space up to and including 2.0 floorspace index, offices and restaurants, community, cultural and recreational uses; lands' designated Open Space System - Natural Areas may be used for conservation, environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation and similar uses; lands designated Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Areas may be used for utility and ancillary uses, and pUblic or private uses that are compatible with adjacent land uses; Finch Avenue and Altona Road are designated on Schedule II - the Transportation System as Type B Arterial Roads; significant parts of Rouge Park Neighbourhood are designated on Schedule III - the Resource Management schedule of'the Picketing Official Plan as Shoreline and Stream Corridor and as Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridoi;, most of the western part of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood is also designated as Wetlands Class 3; the western-most part of the Neighbourhood is also designated Rouge Park. Information Report No. 21-02 Page 4 O 5.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 5.1 Resident~ Agency and Staff Commentn -No comments have been received to date. 6.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 6.1 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority 6.2 the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such. applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional and/or Provincial interest; at this time, the Re,ion has not yet determined whether'this official plan amendment application is exempt t~om Regional Approval; General '. written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Statutory Public Information 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 reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City ~efore Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; if you wish to be notified, of Council's adoption of any official plan amendment, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with respect to the proposed amendment to the official plan, you must make a written request to the Commissioner of Planning, Region of Durham Planning Department. 7.0 OTHER INFORMATION a number of development applications have been submitted to develop lands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood; these applications are proceeding, although the proposed official plan amendment is currently being considered, where the applications are consistent with the provisions of this proposed amendment; 7.1 Appendix I a copy of the City initiated proposed Picketing Official Plan Amendment; 7.2 Information Received copies of the following documents are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Picketing Planning & Development Department: the Rouge Park Neighbo.urhood Study Phase I and 2 Reports; .* the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan; the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; and, Information Revision No. 7 to the Pickering Official Plan. Steve Gaunt, MCm, RPP Planner II SG/jf Attachments Manager, Policy Copy: Director, Planning & Development PICK-F, [4iN Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes pursuant to the Planning Act Wednesday, June 19, 2002 7:00 P.M. 53 The Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICTION OPA 02-001/P CITY INITIATED: ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD 2o Steve Gaunt, Planner lI, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #21-02. Gary Daniel, 1979 Woodview Ave., advised that he is not in opposition to the OPA proposal b~t is concerned w/th the development line which cuts through the l~ontage of his property which would hinder his plans to build on the south portion of his lands on Woodview Ave. He requested that a minor adjustment be considered. Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Ave., questioned the origin of proposed policy amendment 10.17(e) and advised that a number of land owners have right-of-ways in the hydro corridor and felt that the City did not have the legal right to take this away from these individuals. Clay Warner, 1555 Oakburn St., representing the Altona West Community Association, questioned when this item would appear before Council. 54 A ~'FTACHMENT # ---~4~TO OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION August 7, 2002 To: Steve Gaunt Planner II MEMORANDUM From: Richard Holborn, P. Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Subject: Official Plan Amendment OPA 02-001/P City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbourhood City of Pickering The Municipal Property & Engineering Division is in receipt of the above noted application. I provide the following comments. In reference to, "Replace section 11.16 (d), Altona Road crossing gates. The proposed amendment suggests that automatic safety gates be supported for the Altona Road level crossing of the C.P. Rail Line. Automatic safety gates currently exist at this crossing location. A meeting with Transport Canada and CP Rail on July 31,2002 was held, and automatic safety gates are confirmed for installation in 2002 for Rosebank Road and Scarborough-Pickering Townline. RH:ds ,//,~hard Ho/~orn, P. Eng. Copy: Director, Operations & Emerge(~cy Services I:\SITEPLAN\OPA02-001 P.docAug-02 55 Land Development Engineering Land Development Planning Municipal Engineering Services Transportation & Transit Planning Utility Infrastructure Design Water Resources Engineering June 20, 2002 City of Pickering Planning and Development Department Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 110 Scotia Court T.905.686.6402 U n it 41 F. 905.432.7877 Whitby, ON sernas.corn L1N 8Y7 OITY OF PtOKERING Attention: Ms. Catherine Rose Dear Ms. Rose: Official Plan Amendment OPA 02-001/P 100 Finch Avenue City of Pickering Our Project No. 01269 RECE. VEG ,.!Uh.,I 2 4 zuuL We are writing in response to the circulation of notice for Official Plan Amendment ©PA 02-001/P. Our client, Nicou Inc., owns property within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, the area affected by the proposed amendment. Nicou Inc. has submitted a Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (SP-2002-02) and Zoning By-law Amendment (A 09/99(R2) application for the subject lands, which are currently under circulation. Our client has reviewed the proposed Amendment and has concerns with respect to how proposed policy 11.16(a)(i) may be applied to its development plans currently under circulation for comment. The Nicou Inc. property has approximately 316.0m of frontage along Finch Avenue. A small portion of that frontage, ninety-two metres (92m), is considered 'reverse frontage'. In designing this plan, every attempt has been made to reduce the overall amount of reverse frontage while maintaining an efficient development pattern. Our client's concern would become an objection if the principle of discouraging reverse frontage were to be applied dogmatically to prohibit the limited amount of reverse frontage proposed in its Plan of Subdivision. As a result, our client requires clarification as to the specific intent of this policy as it would apply in this instance in order to determine if its concern is valid. City of Pickering Ms. Catherine Rose June 20,2002 Page 2 We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into proposed Official Amendment OPA 02-001/P and look forward to receiving your response. Yours truly, SERNAS ASSOCIATES , ,;r,~z~... ~°rd,¢~.,.¢.~.~'., ~.~.~. ' ~ociam~.P'l,J.a~hing Manager BLJ/br cc: Nicou Inc., Attn: Mr. P. Boiron Plan August 1,2002 /~TfACHMENT iii..._ ~_ TO REPORT # PD.~~ The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department 1615 DUNDAS ST. E. 4TH FLOOR, LANG TOWER WEST BUILDING RO. BOX 623 WHITBY, ON L1N 6A3 (905) 728-7731 FAX: (905) .436-6612 www. region,durharn.on.ca A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning Steve Gaunt, Planner II Planning and Development Department City of'Pickering ' One the Esplanade Pickering ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: Region's Review of an Application to Amend the Pickering Official Plan - OPA- 02;001/P Applicant: City. Initiated 'Location: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Municipality: City of Pickerin9 The Region'.has reviewed this-application and the following comments are offered with respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Official Plan, the. proposed method of servicing and delegated pro~)incial plan review .responsibilities. The purpose'of this application is to revise the boundaries of the residential and open space designations on Schedule I - Land Use Structure, to revise the boundaries of wetlands and the. Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor on Schedule III - Resource Management, to revise the ROuge -Duffins Wildlife Corridor policies and to'revise the,Rouge Park Neighb°urhood policies to implement the reSults of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study~ The landS.within the Rouae Park.Neighbourhood StudY Area are designated "Major Open ,~paCe" with an .indication of environmental sensitivity, "Living Area" and "Open Space Linkages" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within the Major Open Space designation areto, be used for conservation, recCeation, reforestation and agriculture and farm-related uses. Lands designated Living Area are to be used predominantly for housing purposes, but may also include certain home occupations, convenience stores, public and recreational uses, limited office development and limited retailing of goods and services. Open Space Linkages are to consist of natural areas and features to provide for-the migration of flora and fauna and the movement of pedestrians, where appropriate. Uses within the Linkages shall'preserve and maintain foi,':OUr COMMUNITY 100% Post Consumer ,58 Page 2 environmental features a-nd functions. The Iocation,.features and policies of Linkages are to be detailed in area municipal official plans in consultation with 'the Ministry of Natural Resources and therespective conse~atiOn authority. Municipal' Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer Service. The Regional Works Department has concerns with respect to revisions proposed to Section 11',16 of the ROuge Park Neighbourhood Plan. Municipal sanitary sewers can be extended to service the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, However, capacity limitations exist in the downstream receiving sewer system, The maximum allowable population, which can be serviced to .the existing sanitary sewer system, is approximately 2000 persons.' The Woodview Avenue sewer can-service approximately 550 persons and the Altona Road sewer can service roughly 1.450 persons. Although sub,section (V) of Section 11.1'6 of the propOsed NeighbourhoOd Plan provides flexibility for revising population targets for this neighboUrh°od, it is crucial that all agencies be made aware of the constraint in advance to aVoid potential miscon(~eptions in future Planning and development aPplications. .Municipal watermains are available to service the area. Extensions of the watermains Will be required to future developments in the neighboUrhood.. Transportation. The draft Transpo.rtation Master Plan recommended the 're-designation of Finch Avenue from a Type-B arterial road to aType- C arterial road, between Altona:'Road .and Pickering T0Wnline Road.. With the exception' of townhouse un!ts, this re-designation does not 'Place,restrictions on the spacing of private accesses (driveways) along arterial roadS. This is . co. nsistent with the existing, and amended Rouge ParkNeighboUrhood Plan', and a recent development application in the area fronting Finch Avenue (S-P-2002-02). Provincial Plan Review Responsibilitie-~ This appliCation has been screened in 'accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. There are several keY natural features within the Rouge Park Neighbourhbod, including a wildlife corridor, class 3 wetlands and stream corridors. The Toronto and Region ConServation Authority should be satisfied 'th at the ecological .integrity Of the area is protected through the.policies adopted by the amendment 59 Page 3 process. The Rouge Park'Neighbourhood is .also an area of high archaeological potential..Any proposed, develOpment in this area. will require an archaeological assessment 'of the site prior to development appro.val.' No further provincial interests appear to. be affected. This application is not exempt under Section 1.3.5 'of the Procedures Area Municipal Official. Plan. s 'and. Amendments. Please advise of any decision on this application by Oshawa COuncil; If Council adopts an Amendment, please forward a record to this Department, Within 15 'days of the date of'adoption. 3'he record must include the follOwing: , Adopted Amendment (l certified', copy~ 4: dUplicates & 5. vcorki.ng copies) · Region's submission fOrm (1 coPy) ° Letter requesting the Region's appr~)val ° Adoptingby-law '(2. certified.copies) · Minutes of all' public meetings ° All. written Submissions .and comments (.0~'iginals or copies), Showing the dates, received · Alt planning reports considered 5y CounciJ °: Affidavit(s) of municipal employee(s) certifying thati. Notice of Public Meeting was given, a public meeting was held,' ar)d Notice'of Adoption was~given in accordance with the requi.rements of the Planning Act ° Mailing list of pers0ns.who spoke'at the public meeting(s) If you have any questions, pleasecali Ray 'Davies at (905) 728-7731, extension 3223. Yours truly; Plan implementation Current Operations Branch cc.: Greg Gummer,.Regional Works DePartment Chris Leitch, Regional Planning Department R:\Trainin g\Rd~lopa~o~a02-001 -p 6O ,Gaunt, steve From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Agnes R. [flaxdi@hotmail.com] Monday, July 01, 2002 10:19 PM Gaunt, Steve pruzsa@hotmail.com Comments re: Rouge Park Neighbourhood, Official Plan Amendments Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbourhood, City of Picketing Dear Mr. Gaunt; We attended the Public Information Meeting on Wed. Jun.19th/2002 re: the above agenda and we have read all the relevant written material. We, the 5 neighbours on Woodview Ave. (listed below) have the following concerns and comments for your action. 1. Schedule III shows about 1/2 (half) of our properties as "Shorelines and ~tream Corridors" This should be totally removed from our properties, in meeplng with deletion of the Wetland designation and redesignation to Urban Residential (on Schedule I). Also, please refer to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Minutes of Settlement (Approval Authority File ~: LOPA-P-97-001, OMB Case File #: PL971296, OMB File %: 9970221, and Town of Pickering File %: L939707) where it clearly states in a letter Exhibit D2 dated 0ct.09/98, as a result of site visits held Jut.28/98, that these 5 properties are developable to the west edge of prOperty lines (ie. 600 feet), subject to a development buffer/setback, which renders the Shorelines designation as irrelevant and contradictory, and we believe it was left on the map in error. It has been understood all along by all parties that all "natural/green" designations will be removed from over our private prgperties. Please ensure that'this error is corrected and that the "Shorelines and Stream Corridors" designation is removed from our 5 properties as well, so that the OMB mediation agreements may be upheld and it is clearly shown on ALL maps that our properties do not have any further development ~estrictions over them, once and for all. ? 2. Appendix I - #3, Revising section 10.17 (v) ... states "permit a neighbourhood population that exceeds targets established in Table 1..." Perhaps a new target population should be established and specified. Also, since only about 17% of the neighbourhood will be developable in total, and of that most will be low density, we hope that population growth in the other areas (eg. at Finch and Altona) will not be allowed to the extreme. 3. We are in agreement with all the other proposed amendments to the Official Plan. Thank You[ AGNES and PETER RUZSA 465 Rougemount Drive Picketing, Ontario L1W 2B8 Home Tel: (905) 509-0458 Bus. Tel: (905) 509-8073 E-mail: flaxdi@hotmail.com On behalf of the following 5 neighbours: 1. Carstens, 1942 Woodview, 2. Ruzsa, 1950 Wocdview, 3. Snowdon, 1952 Woodview, 4. Buchan, 1956-1958 Woodview, 5. Stock, 1960-1962 Woodview. 6! Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messen~er.msn.com 62 562 Cattail Court Pickering, Ontario L1V 6A3 June 20, 2002 Picketing Civic Complex Planning & Development Department One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 CiTY OF PI,,.,K~RING PICKER~NG, ON3'ARIO Re: Official Plan Amendment OPA 024)01/P, Rouge Park Neighborhood Dear Sir or Madam, The following are my comments regarding the proposed official plan amendment OPA 02-001/P. 1. Section 11.16 (a) - (v). I am strongly opposed to permitting a neighborhood population that exceeds targets established in Table 1. The cumulative impact of a population increase will adversely affect the more sensitive wildlife and vegetation in the Rouge-Duffins wildlife corridor and adjacent natural areas. In particular, greater use of the corridor and adjacent natural areas for various activities (walking, bike tiding, exercising the dog, etc) may stress certain species to the point where they will abandon these habitats altogether. A larger human population wilt result in more traffic on the roads traversing the wildlife corridor resulting in more death or injury to wildlife attempting to cross these roads. An increase in the human population will cause a an increase in the pet population. Unfortunately, dogs and cats disturb, harass and kill a lot of wildlife. Pets have a tremendous advantage over local wildlife in that they are generally well-fed, well-cared for, are vaccinated against many diseases, provided with good shelter, etc. Life will become a lot more difficult for many of the species in the Rouge Park neighbourhood as a result of the increase in the cat and dog population. Any barriers installed to prevent access to the corridor and natural areas that proved to be an effective obstacle to cats and dogs would probably have an adverse impact on the movement of wildlife, thus defeating the purpose of a wildlife corridor. The February 4, 2000 letter from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to the City of Picketing regarding the Phase II report emphasized the above danger: "The impacts of human presence should include the fact that people and their pets are continually in an area and wilt affect the adjacent habitat by making it uninviting or unsuitable for some sensitive species. Some of the other impacts that should be noted include bright lights and noise (eg. lawn mowers)". Page 6-1 of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study also acknowledged the problem: "The presence of humans and their pets also may affect the quality of adjacent natural areas. Human activities that may result are encroachment of yards into natural areas, dumping of brush and lawn clippings, vandalism of trees, development of informal trail systems, noise (lawn care equipment), and Page 1 of 2 ei ,'rl'AOH~ENT #~ LTO 63 disturbance of wildlife. Pets may also have deleterious effects, primarily due to predation on wildlife species". In consideration of the above, t recommend that section 11. t 6 (a)-(v) of proposed amendment OPA 02-001/P be deleted. Section 11.16 (a)-(vi), (c) and (d). I am strongly opposed to any changes in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood road system unless ironclad guarantees are provided and realistic solutions are implemented to provide safe passageways for wildlife. The Rouge Park Neighborhood Study does not provide credible solutions to the problem of wildlife death and injury on the neighborhood roads. The issue is not dealt with in the Durham Transportation Master Plan. In consideration of the above, t recommend that section 1 t.16 (a)-(vi), (c) and (d) of proposed amendment OPA 02-001/P be deleted. I received no written response to my verbal presentation to Picketing council on April t0, 2000 and followup letter (as requested by Mayor Wayne Arthurs) of April 12, 2000 regarding problems and flaws in the Rouge Park Neighborhood Study. I received no written response to the concerns raised in my letter of September 24, 2001 to Durham Region regarding the Durham Transportation Master Plan. In consideration of the above, I recommend that no further progress be permitted on the development of the Rouge Park Neighborhood until my concerns have been adequately addressed. Sincerely, Doug McLaughh~ CC. - Mr. A. Georgieff, Region of Durham Planning Department - Ontario Municipal Board 64 VIA FACSIMILE June 17, 2002 Stove Gaunt Platming & Development Depm-~nent City of Picketing One the Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 De, ar Mr. Gaunt: Further to our meeting on June 14 2002, regarding the proposed city initiated official plm~ amendment; I am asking you to consider the negative effects, which adversely affects my property at 1979 Woodview Avenue, As we discussed, it appears thoro was an obvious oversight, thc proposed line for development cuts though the south side of my property and carries along to the middle of west portion. Proposing to designate thc south side as Open space. The land maintah~s the same characteristics across the'entlre frontage, and approximately 150-200 feet to the east ofwoodview. It is mostly level, sodded with a gravel drive and with a few random non- signi'ficant trees. I sca no significant reason why this restrictive designation should be placed on the south section up to 150 feet c,'m as this is where I plan to build anew home. Last year, nnder the current policies I sabmitted an application to build a custom homo at the southwest comer of thc property. I obtained Regional, Health, Planning Engineering approval to move forward. Tile building permit application wa~ submitted and was ready to be issued subject to demolishing of thc existing home, Due to the fact lhat the neighbor to the north c~t of my property and the Town of Picketing has pemfittcd TELUS MOBILITY to erect a 160 foot tower and trailer with barb wire fencing around itjust 2 feet ~rom my nm'th east property line. Construction ofthz new home was delayed so I could asses the size and htvestment of the home, location and layout of wh~dows looking towards the tower. I tully intend on building a new home at the southwest comer in the near future. I am asking for a minor adjustment to development line to represent the property appropriately allowing for my fi~ture plm~s at a minimum, as they exls[ today, (Attached) Thank you for your consideration, i look forward to supporting the town in]Uated ePA under these circumstances. Gary Daniell 1979 Woodview Avenue, Picketing. At~ACH)~ENt i~._~~ TO RE, OR')' ~ PD ~-~ 65 LOT 18 WOOD VIEW A VENUE LE...~G.F_ND: t2'~,~5 E)(l$1tHG E{.EYATION II CATV PIT. D~STAI. -,.it,---- O?~AINAO~ fLOW "~ I[XTERIOR ODO~ ,~1OATCH BA.~IN V OPTIONAL DOOR ® VALVE: '~WTO{~ FUUNDA~ON WALL ~ 'fl~,~N.qFot~MER ~ §A.~ENENT ~ CLIENT: { PROJDnT MAI, ICI N O'FE.,.~ NORTH G. M. SERNA~,~,~ ~{j~OCIAT~S LTD LOT AREA .... 624g 79 sq.m. CONSULTANTS DECLARATION; PL~V, 'THE P~O~O~£D HOU.':-c 'n'PE OF ANy ;~"]~NG ON c:TNI~T ~E~E;Sl CITY' OF PICKERING S~'~-LE I : 500 ~'~"NO, ~',;8o~5s '~ T8 66 TO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPT. CITY OF PICKERING ATTN: MR. STEVE GAUNT Pickering, June 21, 2002 From: OTTO & ERNA STOCK 1960 WOODVIEW AVE. PICKERING, ONT. L1V1L6 RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPL. OPA 02-001/P ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD Dear Mr. Gaunt ( Hand delivered ) RECEIVED CtTY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT We and other owners of the west side of Woodview Ave. have the following concerns: 1) Your Information Report No.21-02 Schedule III shows the back part of our property, and the four properties to the south of us, in green stripes ( restricted ). It is our understanding that as part of the O M B Settlement these restrictions should have been removed. ~ ~,~a$;~-/~/ ~2 2) The addition of the front part of the property to the north of us (' 1968 Woodview Ave. ) to the Wildlife corridor etc. as marked on Schedule III could create extra restrictions on the part of our property fronting on Woodview Ave. The front part of 1968 Woodview Ave. is residential property with a twostory dwelling and occupied by a family of four. The names and properties involved are: Stock 1960 Woodview Ave. Buchan 1958 Woodview Ave. Snowdon 1952 Woodview Ave. Rusza 1950 Woodview Ave. Carstens 1942 Woodview Ave. See map included. Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated. Thank you, Yours truly. 67 u~-,4~ tltllllltllllJ ~ lllllJlllJlJlJlJl~ o _~.-j 68 CiTY OF P~CKER1NG PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr. Steve Gaunt, Picketing Planning Department, City Cent.re. by hand July 26:., 2002 Dear Sir, Pathmaster's House, 450 Finch Avenue, Picketing LIV 1H8 Comments re Official Plan Amendment 02-ool/P Rouge Park Neighbourhood Revisin~ Schedule I Is this Schedule up to date? I know the boundaries are the issue here but should not other information on the Schedule be accurate? I think there are three commercial sites in the neighbourhood now. There is the Robin Hood Inn., which is designated commercial; there is the Patterson site, north Finch west of Altona Road; and there is the site - is it a landscaping business - where the telephone tower is. Revising Schedule III Could I suggest that Al, which has now been settled be removed? It would be helpful if the neighbourhood could see the map.with all the deletions and additions shown. I would like to query the addition of RDWC to the small property just north of Otto Stock's property;..Mr. Stock is the northernmost property in the Woodview block. On the site visits in July '98 we visited that property; it is small, it belongs to ORC. It consists of a house and a large raised septic bed; there may have been 20 feet of lawn west of the septic bed. This property is completely man-made. It has no feature for the RDWC and it has no function for the RDWC. but 'the property south of it will have to buffer it, Similarly with the southernmost property in the Woodview block. Could I query the developable area on the 6-acre property opposite Amos Ponds? That property was always Open Space. It was sold with an Open Space designation on it. The Open Space designation reduced the value of the property: it sold for $320,000 for two houses, large barn, 6 acres and two ponds; within a year it was back on the market with an asking price of, I think~ $585, OOu. Does this property now have a developable area? How did it acquire this? I would like to suggest tha't , except for the three "connecting corridors" - north Finch woodlot, Petticoat Creek and Amos Ponds (these are shown in Figure 3.4 Developable Limits page 3-22 of Phase 2 Report) there sould be no designation of RDWC on residential street road fronaages. This settlement between the two utility corridors has been here long before any imaginary Wildlife Corridor; it should be accorded some priority. Revising 10.17 (e) I do not think the City of Picketing can limit the uses permitted on the OH transmission corridor. I cannot recall any discussion of this issue. Could I point out that the Tertiary Plan shows a TRAIL ACCESS to the OH corridor. Rsvising 10.17 (f) This paragraph reads Council shall "encourage the Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, Region of Durham, Ontario Hydro and interested others to prepare a 'Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan', and establish funding for on- going maintenance and restoration of the Corridor." This reads that Council shall encourage ...... and establish funding .... I do not think Council intends to establish funding. This should read "Council shall encourage ...both to prepare...and to establish funding" and eliminate the comma after Plan. , 2~lacing 11.16 (a) iv This section refers to the use of density transfers and bonuses, and suggests using a policy in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The policy in that document differs from some connected policies in the Official Plan, This neighbourhood is part of Pickering. The policies in the OP should apply to this neighbourhood. 1]..16 (a)(vi)require a road connection running from the north side of Finch Avenue to the west side of Rosebank Road; I object to this policy on the following grounds: 1. The Tertiary Plan shows several pr,oposed roads. There is an access to Finch that extends south of the Bopa property; this extension is wholly on Provincial property. The Woodview and Map Realty roads are confined to those two developable areas, The East Altona road is wholly on Provincial land. The north Finch road though affects both private and Provincial properties. The north Finch road gives Finch access to the 10-acre Rosebank Road property although throughout the development of Finch'no property has ever been given access to Finch if it did not have access to Finch prior to development. This connection to the Rosebank Z~wz~ 'Road property severely limits the economic developability of my property and all the other north Finch properties; the north Finch properties are small. The north Finch road involves both private properties and Provincial properties; Council has in Resolution~ /2000 recommended that the 16~developabte publicly- owned properties reain undeveloped, Though this resolution may not affect the Rosebank Road property it certainly affects my property which has a Provincial property on east and west. The traffic from the Rosebank property should be dealt with on Rosebank Road not directed to an unregulated access on Finch. It does not make traffic sense and it degrades the value of the lots that are available to the North Finch properties. The general rule Las always been No Access to Finch if not previously owned. To break that rule is very detrimental to the other properties. I object to my property being the universal access for all the ? 0 other properties. In the Tertiary Plan 40% of my property is roads; in some configurations I have four roads on my property and most of the lo'ts have two road exposures, including two lots with three road exposures. The Rosebank traffic should be confined to Rosebank Road where it will use a four-way intersection with Finch, and that ~ill probably be signalised. I thoroughly object to a road connecting Rosebank and Finch: IT MAKES NO TRAFFIC SENSE AND IT DENIGRATES THE VALUE OF THE NORTH FINCH PROPERTIES. Policx. 11.16 (b) This Policy is in direct contradiction to the Resolution of Council. The resolutions proposed by Councillor Doug Dickerson at the Rouge Alliance are in favour of retaining all Provincial properties as publicly-owned; Councillor Dickerson was speaking 'as PiCkering's official representative at the Rouge Alliance. Similarly Resolution 57/2000 states "whereas the Rouge Park Alliance and a number of residents have requested that additional provincially owned lands be protected, in public ownership, to'further enhance wildlife habitat and the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor." That is additional to the 84% deemed "environmentally sensitive" The City of Pickering was a signatory to the Minutes of Settlement. The Minutes of Settlement included a map which showed the 16% of Provincial lands deemed developable by the representatives of the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Region of Durham and the City of Picketing. I maintain that Coun. Dickerson was behaving illegally in proposing those motions at the Rouge Alliance. How can this policy be included in an Official Plan amendment? I have one query on another point not related to the OPA but mentioned in the Background Information. Council has adopted the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Master Servicing Plan. This Plan changes the watersh&d of several properties in the neighbourhood; the en§ineering firm resp~ible says these cross-watershed flows ~ere requested by the City. An Addendum Report repeated these errors. If the Plan has Deen adopted by Council, do these cross-watershed flows remain or not. I would like to know which watershed is my property ~ in this wee~ ? Yours truly, Jocelyn Barber TORONTO AND REGION for The Living City October 31,2002 Mr. Steve Gaunt Planning Department City of Pickering Picketing Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 REPORT # PD_ ,~&?-"¢~ '~- -- Dear Mr. Gaunt: Re: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P City Initiated Rouge Park Neighbourhood City of Pickering Further to our discussions and after review of the proposed Official Plan Amendment for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, please be advised of the following comments. The CPA is supported by a City initiated Master Environmental Servicing Plan prepared by XCG Consultants Limited. We acknowledge receipt of a response document prepared by XCG as provided on October 28th, 2002. TRCA staff are now reviewing this document and will provide comments shortly. In addition, we note that Pickering staff were directed to request the MNR and others to prepare a Rouge Duffins Wildlife COrridor Management Plan. We note that this is reflected as policy in the CPA. Please advise of the status of this plan as the TRCA staff has no formal request for involvement in this process. We note that we are prepared to participate in this process, once advised. The lands encompass properties which are currently in public ownership including those owned by the Ontario Realty Corporation. We note that there is a council resolution which seeks to have these lands remain in public ownership. 'This resolution is also:echoed bythe , RC,-, staff are supportive of this direction and would promote that this Rouge Park Alliance. T ,, objective be realized in the finalization of the Official Plan Amendment. In this regard we note that Rouge Park Policy(b) on page 3 may contradict these previous resolutions. Notwithstanding the above, we note that in previous discussiOns and site meetings TRCA staff have defined areas which are suitable for protection. These area are reflected in the revised schedules being the proposed amendment with the exception of the following: As you are aware, the Nicou property, formally the Beare property, was the subject of an OMB hearing which defined the limits of development which should be applied on the property. The OMB decision references a minimum 50 metre buffer from the adjacent wetland. This does not appear to be reflected on the revised Schedule I and III. Does the deletion of wetland on the Nicou property suggest that these lands are now part of a future development block? Alsol we note that Policy (c)on page 4 should reflect this OMB decision. Please clarify. cont'd/... 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 wwwtrca on ca ?2 Mr. Steve Gaunt 2 October 31, 2002 The urban boundary proposed on the west side of Woodview south of Finch is reflective of the site reconnaissance and MESP discussions conducted with the TRCA and MNR. However we advise that studies including an ElS will be required to ensure that the appropriate buffers are achieved in accordance with the Rouge Park objectives and the TRCA policy requirements. We suggest that a policy could be added to reflect the need for these future studies. We trust that this is satisfactory. Yo~,ruly, / Senior Planner Development Services Section Ext. 53O6 RW/dli c.c. Brian Denney, TRCA F:\PRS\Corresp\PICKERIN\2002\Beare.wpd ?¸.3 ATTACHMENT #13 REPORT NUMBER PD 52-02 TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AND STAFF RESPONSES ON PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11 (ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD) 74 > -~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~> ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o~ '- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ '- ~ ~ ' ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 m ~ o o ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ o : ~ c .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ _ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 .... ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ 0 ~ o ~-- .io ~ ~ o E ~ .. ?5 ?G ?7 ?8 '79 80 .... ~- ~ c.- 003 '~o ~ '-- (~ 0 '- 0 0 X c m m c c o ~ > =~ o o.~ o~ ~c~ ~EE: =~E ~ ~ '- o._m ._ .c~ m o ~w o o~ m~ o o m · - o ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~o~- E>~oE '- _ · - ~ · o~ . oB o=2 ~8~8~ ~8o* ~~ ._ G .~ 0 ~._ ~ ~ ~'~ =~ ~ o~ .~.- E .- > 0 ~ ~ ~ '=o~ ~ o ~'~m~=~ 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 81 82 RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 1. That Report CAO 01-03 regarding PNGS (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Operating License Renewal be received; and That Council inform the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that it does not object to the renewal of the PNGS (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility License providing that the term of renewal does not exceed three years; and That Report CAO 01-03 be forwarded to the CNSC, Ontario Power Generation, the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities, and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. CARRIED: MAYOR 84 PICKi RjN REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CAO 01-03 Date: January 13, 2003 From: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Subject: PNGS (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Operating License Renewal - City of Pickering Comments - File: O-5260-003-03 Recommendation: 1. That Report CAO 01-03 regarding PNGS (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Operating License Renewal be received; That Council inform the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) that it does not object to the renewal of the PNGS (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility License providing that the term of renewal does not exceed three years; That Report CAO 01-03 be forwarded to the CNSC, Ontario Power Generation, the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities, and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization. Executive Summary: The current Pickering (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility operating license that was issued by CNSC on April 1, 2001, expires on March 31, 2003. CNSC has received an application request from OPG to renew this license, this time for a period of five-years. Comments on the license renewal are requested by January 27th, 2003. Acres & Associated assisted staff in reviewing the license renewal request. Acres' comments are attached to this Report. They have no technical objection to the license renewal. Staff concurs with Acres' technical assessment. However, we do have a concern with the issuance of a five-year license. As a host municipality, the City should be afforded the opportunity by CNSC to review and comment on license renewals at least once during every term of office of City Council. To ensure that this occurs, the maximum license extension issued by CNSC should therefore not exceed three years. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council advise CNSC that the City does not object to the license renewal for the Waste Management Facility providing the term of the license renewal does not exceed three years. Report CAO 01-03 Date: January 13, 2003 Subject: PNGS (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Operating License Renewal City of Pickering Comments Page 2 85 Financial Implications: OPG has agreed to cover the consulting costs to the City for reviewing the license renewal application. Background: The Pickering (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility includes the Pickering Used Fuel Dry Storage Facility and the Retube Component Area. Attachment #1 is a photograph of the facility. Ontario Power Generation (OPG) has applied to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) to renew the operating license for the existing Pickering (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility. In December 2002, CNSC staff presented an overview of the OPG application to the Commission. The overview provided information on the application from a regulatory perspective, including OPG's past perform at the facility. Using a five point rating system (which addressed the overall program, implementation, and changes), CNSC staff gave a favourable assessment of the Waste Management Facility. A copy of the CNSC staff report is available for viewing through the CAO's Office. CNSC staff recommended that the existing two-year license be renewed for a period of five years. CNSC provided various reasons to support this recommendation, including the following: The hazards involved in the operation of the facility are well known and their impacts are well understood; those hazards are within the scope of the original environmental assessment and were addressed in the recent CNSC facility safety report. The measures and programs for protecting the health and safety of persons and the environment are established and appropriate to control the hazards posed by the Waste Management Facility. 3. There are effective compliance programs in place on the part of both the CNSC and OPG. OPG has demonstrated a consistent record of good safety performance and regulatory compliance in relation to the Waste Management Facility during the conduct of the licensed activities. 86 Report CAO 01-03 Date: January 13, 2003 Subject: PNGS (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Operating License Renewal City of Pickering Comments Page 3 City staff requested Acres & Associated to review the CNSC staff report and provide a technical comment. Acres' comments are included as Attachment #2 to this Report. Acres concurs with the information presented in the CNSC staff report, including the assessment of the facility's operating record. They found no technical reason to object to a renewal of the operating license for the Waste Management Facility. After reviewing all relevant information, staff agrees that a license renewal is appropriate from a technical perspective. However, if the City, as a host municipality, is to play a meaningful role in CNSC's regulatory process, the maximum period of any license renewal at PNGS should not exceed the normal term of a municipal council. OPG has requested a five-year license renewal for the Waste Management Facility, and CNSC staff agrees with this request. Nonetheless, to ensure the City has an opportunity to review and comment on all license renewals at PNGS at least once during every term of council, no license renewal should be granted for a period that exceeds three years. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council advise CNSC that it has no objection to the issuance of a license renewal for the Waste Management Facility so long as the term of the renewal does not exceed three years. Day Two of the hearing for this license renewal will take place on February 27, 2003. This Report and the related Council resolution will be provided as input to the Commission in advance of that meeting. The City also has the option of attending Day Two of the hearing in Ottawa to supplement this written submission with a verbal report to the Commission. Attachments: 1. Photograph of the existing Pickering (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility 2. Letter from Acres & Associates dated January 6, 2003 Report CAO 01-03 Date: January 13, 2003 Subject: PNGS (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility Operating License Renewal City of Pickering Comments Page 4 8? Prepared By: A.L. (Joe) H'unwicks Emergency Response Coordinator Approved / Endorsed By: Tho"r~a~s J Quinr~ /~ Chief Administrative Officer Division Head, Corporate Projects & Polic~ TJQ:alh Attachments Copy: Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of. Pickering City Cour~cil J ThO"r6~(S J~. Quinn'~hief A~ninistr~e O~i¢/er ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT #~,P~ c~ \-C~'~ PICKERING (NUCLEAR) WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY January 6, 2003 File: 2002-5897- 5.0 City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: ATTACHMENT #c~ TO REPORT #~ ~\-~'~ Acres & 89 Associateb Environmental Scientists and Consulting Engineers Mr. A.L. (Joe) Hunwicks Emergency Response Coordinator Re: REVIEW AND COMMENTS APPLICATION FOR OPERATING LICENCE RENEWAL FOR PICKERING WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY (PHASE I) Dear Mr. Hunwicks: As requested, we have reviewed the following documents in connection with Ontario Power Generation's (OPG) application to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) for renewal of OPG's Operating Licence for the above noted facility. Information and Recommendations of CNSC Staff(Document CMD 02-H28) to the CNSC at the Public Hearing Day 1 (December 12, 2002); 2. Documentary Information Summary (Document CMD 02-H28.1); OPG's Presentation to the CNSC (Document CMD 02-H28. lA) atthe Public Hearing Day 1 (December 13, 2002). In general, there are no particular environmental issues which, in our opinion, would preclude renewal of the licence. As discussed in these documents: There are no triggers that would require an assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). CNSC staff has rated the seven Safety Area programs designed to protect workers, the environment and the public (see Section 3.0 on page 4 of 21 from the Information and Recommendations ofCNSC Staff document) and have concluded that these programs have met the requirements with respect to the program and its implementation (see Section 6.1 on page 17 of 21 from this document). In particular, the implementation of the 'Operating Acres & Associate5 Environmental Limitd) 525-21 Four Seasons Place, Toronto, Ontario MgB 6J8 Telephone (416) 622-9502 Facsimile (416) 622-6249 4342 Queen Street, P.O. Box 1001, Niagara Falls, Ontario L2E 6Wl Telephone (905) 374-4470 Facsimile (905) 374-8365 90 January 6, 2003 The City of Pickering - 2 ATTACHMENT # (:~ T0 REPORT Performance',' Environmental Performance' and 'Radiation Protection' safety area programs were all rated by CNSC staff as having exceeded the requirements. Reference was made to OPG's plans for construction of Phase II of the Pickering Waste Management Facility (PWMF) - more particularly Phase II of the Pickering Used Fuel Dry Storage Facility (PUFDSF) - in Section 4.3 of the Information and Recommendations of CNSC Staff document. This proposed facilitywill be subject to an environmental assessment under CEAA and will require an amendment to the licence if approved (not expected to occur before September 2004). We hope our comments are of assistance in formulating your Staff Report to Council and reply to the CNSC. Please do not hesitate to contact me at (905) 374-4470, should you have any questions concerning the above. Yours truly, ACRES & ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED Bruce G. Bennett, M.Sc. Project Manager BGB M:~,andA\Projects~2002\025897\Report\Phasel LicRenewal^ltr.wpd Associat~B RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY WHEREAS providing the necessary time required to allow local analysis with full disclosure of all supporting documentation will demonstrate efforts of due diligence by the Region of Durham to its local area Municipalities and to the residents of the Region of Durham; and WHEREAS there have been substantive changes in the numbers presented through report 2003-J-01 regarding the construction of a new Regional Headquarters for which backup documentation and analysis has not been disclosed to support or reconcile the present numbers to the June 2002 report 2002-J-13, including but not limited to the following: 2. 3. 4. Square footage requirements have changed from approximately 291,700 square feet (including Police) to 334,155 square feet (approximately 15%). Lease costs have increased from $4.8 to $8.7 million (approximately 83%). Construction costs have increased from $6.7 to $8.2 million (approximately 22% [page 7 and Attachment 4 page 7] The total contract costs appear to have been fundamentally altered under the two scenarios without supporting reconciliation or documentation, including the following: cost to construct $44,180,195 for 334,155 sq. ft. equates to a cost/sq, ft. of $132. versus $44,039,600 for 251,700 sq. ft. at $175 per sq. ft. (the cost per square foot under the revised analysis does not appear to be presented), there are no demolition costs identified in the revised scenario, the furniture costs have changed from $4 million in the original scenario to $1.8 million and there are no identifiable contingencies in the first scenario but are shown at $3.7 million in the revised scenario, and the cabling/network costs are $3.9 million in the first scenario but are not separately identified in the revised scenario. 5. The original report identifies a discount rate of 3%, whereas it would be expected that the cost of capital would be used in the analysis, and the revised report is not clear on the assumptions made or rates applied. 6. The original cost comparison excludes costs related to communication equipment and telephone systems, whereas the revised scenario appears to have them included communications as well as technology cost (per section 6.5) with no detail or specification of assumptions used. 7. The future impact on the local tax base by up fronting $13.5 million from reserve funds that otherwise may be available to offset future tax impacts or pending capital projects that may now require financing from a future tax base. 8. Previous payback estimates of 21 years have been eliminated for suggestions of a payback after year 1 with no detail to support the conclusion. 9. The Police space needs analysis and review was to be reported back separately, and have been included in this analysis with a change in requirements from 40,000 square ff. in June 02 costing approximately $10 million, to 37,815 square ft. costing approximately $2.4 million based on the "EllisDon bidding/pricing strategy". There is no detailed explanation of the "strategy" and how it leads the significant change in construction cost. 10. The funding recommendation refers to use of Development Charges Reserve Fund without explanation of how this is permitted under current Development Charge legislation restrictions on use of these funds for administrative facilities. 11.While both reports refer to "maintenance and operating costs", neither provides details on what costs have been included in the category of costs. WHEREAS there has been no opportunity for public input at the local level despite the requests made verbally and as evidenced by Attachment #6 from Ron Hooper to the Municipality of Clarington; and WHEREAS the Clarington Board of Trade letter of December__ raising significant, reasonable and relevant questions has not been acknowledged nor answered; and WHEREAS the suggested future expansion requirements under section 3.5 are proposed to be introduced before the term of the current debenture is complete, any savings projected over 35 years are questionable; and WHEREAS section 3.5 of the report identifies that a conceptual design for building expansion at the southern end of the facility has been prepared for future growth needs without Council approval, and for which Council has not been provided any documentation; and WHEREAS report 2003-J-01, resolution # 5.1 identifies an option of providing alternative accommodation, without any details of such option such that a comprehensive analysis of all options is not possible; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE FINANCE AND WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL: THAT the decision of construction of new Regional Headquarters be deferred until the following have been resolved to the satisfaction of Regional Council and confirmation of concurrence has been forwarded to Regional Council from the local area Municipal Councils: 1. An audit analysis of the total project cost including assumptions and supporting documentation has been provided by the Region's auditors or an independent audit firm chosen by Regional Council; and 2. Public input and comments received at each of the local Municipalities after full disclosure of all information relating to the decision of construction of a new Regional Headquarters has been provided. 3. The outstanding matters identified in this resolution are resolved to the satisfaction of Regional Council; and THAT Regional staff be requested to report back directly to Regional Council with the information requested above. CARRIED: MAYOR REPORT TO COUNCIL Report Number: CL 2-03 Date: January 14, 2003 From: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk Subject: Proposed Fill and Topsoil Disturbance By-law Recommendation: That the draft by-law to prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil and the alteration of the grade of land, as attached to Clerk's Report CL 2-03, be enacted. Executive Summary: To consider the proposed Fill and Topsoil Disturbance By-law that was considered on December 2, 2002 and referred to the Council Meeting of January 20, 2003 in order for staff to meet to meet with area residents. Financial Implications: Not applicable Background: At its regular meeting of December 2, 2002, Council considered By-law 6060/02 to prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil and the alteration of the grade of land. Several residents of the Kinsale area addressed Council and expressed concerns that the by-law may not have enough strength to stop current dumping operations, that too much discretionary power was being delegated to the Director, Planning & Development and that the by-law may contain provisions that provide for the "grandfathering' of current fill operations. C°uncil referred any consideration of this by-law to the Council Meeting of January 20, 2003 in order for staff to address the concerns of the residents. Report CL 2-03 Subject: Proposed Fill and Topsoil Disturbance By-law Date: January 15, 2003 Page 2 95 In a letter dated December 31, 2002, the President of the Kinsale and Area Residents Association noted that members of the Association, along with the assistance of a Solicitor, reviewed the draft by-law and he provided changes that the Association requested be incorporated in the draft by-law. The changes requested by the Kinsale and Area Residents Association were reviewed by the Director, Planning & Development, the Solicitor for the City, the Manager, Buildings Services, the Supervisor, Development Control and myself. The following are the comments of the staff with respect to the major changes requested by the Association: All the areas where the draft by-law allowed discretionary powers by the Director, Planning & Development, have been deleted as requested by the Association. This will mean that the by-law will be interpreted literally and will not allow for any discretion in minor instances. This should not be a problem because in the first few years of administering the by-law, the Director would likely interpret the by-law very narrowly. The changes suggested by the Association to Sections 2(e) and 2(f) to exempt persons who are operating under a permit issued under the Aggregate Resources Act or in compliance with that Act could not be accepted because the Municipal Act specifically provides for these exemptions. In Section 17 of the draft by-law, the Association requested that a permit "shall" be revoked where the applicant has provided misleading or false information. Staff feel that the words "may be revoked" should be retained because the misleading or false information may have been provided inadvertently, the information may have been provided by a consultant and accepted in good faith by the applicant or the information is minor in nature and can be corrected easily. In Section 18 of the draft by-law, the Association requested that an order "shall" be made where there is a contravention of the by-law. Again, staff feel that the words "the officer may make an order" should be retained because there are many instances where the contravention can be immediately corrected and it would be inappropriate to commence the process of issuing an order. In Paragraph l(k) of Schedule "C", the Association requested that this paragraph be worded to state that construction machinery shall be operated only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. This change would be in contravention of the City's Noise By-law that allows construction machinery to be operated between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday. Staff have reworded this paragraph to state that construction machinery shall not be operated in contravention of the City's Noise By-law or its successor. 96 Report CL 2-03 Subject: Proposed Fill and Topsoil Disturbance By-law Date: January 15, 2003 Page 3 The Noise By-law is currently under review and the new by-law will be providing recommendations for somewhat less hours in which construction machinery can be operated. A representative of the Whitevale and District Residents Association also expressed a concern that the draft by-law may be an impediment to rural residents who will to install, repair or replace a septic bed. The exemptions set out in the draft by-law the removal of topsoil as an incidental part of the construction of underground services or utilities that would include septic beds. Attachments: 1. Draft by-law Prepared By: ,~(~ Ior, AMCT, CMM ity Clerk Attachments Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tho~a~ J. Quint{, Chi~Administra~ Office( ATTACHMENt' ~i___. 'i'C., REPOJTi f:(. ........ THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PIOKERING BY-LAW NO. 6060~02 Being a by-law to prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil and the alteration of the grade of land. WHEREAS pursuant to Section 142(2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, the Council of a local municipality may, a) prohibit or regulate the placing or dumping of fill; b) prohibit or regulate the removal of topsoil; c) prohibit or regulate the alteration of the grade of the land; d) require that a permit be obtained for the placing or dumping of fill, the removal of topsoil or the alteration of the grade of the land; e) impose conditions to a permit, including requiring the preparation of plans acceptable to the municipality relating to grading, filling or dumping, the removal of topsoil and the rehabilitation of the site; require that fill dumped or placed contrary to a by-law passed or a permit issued under Section 142 of the Act be removed by the person who dumped or placed it or who caused or permitted it to be dumped or placed; g) require the rehabilitation of land from which topsoil has been removed contrary to a by-law passed or a permit issued under Section 142 of the Act; h) require that the grade of the land altered contrary to a by-law passed or a permit issued under Section 142 of the Act be restored to its original condition by the person who altered it or who caused or permitted it to be altered; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: DEFINITIONS For the purpose of this by-law, a) "agricultural" means lands that are cultivated and/or used for raising of livestock; b) "applicant" means an owner, or an owner's agent who is authorized by the owner to act on behalf of the owner; c) d) e) "body of water" includes any brook, creek, stream, river, lake, pond, waterway, watercourse, canal, or other flowing or standing water; "City" means the Corporation of the 'City of Pickering; "contaminated fill" means soil, fill or other material containing any solid, liquid, gas, odour, waste product, radioactivity or any combination thereof which is present in a concentration greater than which naturally occurs and which has the potential to have an adverse effect on human activity; 9? 98 g) h) J) k) m) n) o) P) q) r) s) t) u) · . ?( REPO~,'i' #~ "development" means the construction of buildings and above or underground services such as roads, parking lots, paved storage areas, watermains, storm and sanitary sewers, general grading works and similar facilities; "Director" means the Director, Planning & Development for the the City of Pickering, or designate; "dumping" means the depositing of fill in a location other than where the fill was obtained and includes the movement and depositing of fill from one location on a property to another location on the same property; "dust" includes loose or blowing earth, sand or soil that may be transported from the site; "erosion" means the detachment and movement of soil, sediment or rock fragments by water, wind, ice or gravity; "fill" means any type of material deposited or placed on lands and includes soil, stone, concrete, sod or turf either singly or in combination; "grade" is defined as: "existing grade" means the elevation of the existing ground surface of the lands upon which dumping and/or placing of fill is proposed or as it existed prior to the placing or dumping of fill; ii) "finished grade" means the elevation of ground surface of lands upon which fill is proposed to be placed or has been placed in accordance with this by-law; "land disturbance" means any man-made change of the land surface including removing vegetative cover, removing topsoil, excavating, filling and grading; "litter and debris" includes building materials, garbage, waste, vegetation or any other loose material that may be transported from the site by wind, persons, vehicles or other means; "lot" means a legally described parcel of land; "mud tracking" means the obstruction, encumbering, injuring, or fouling of roads, boulevards and bridges via the throwing, placing or depositing of dirt, refuse or any other debris; "officer" means persons assigned by the Director to enforce the provisions of this by-law; "owner" means the registered owner of the land on which is located or will be located the topsoil removal, fill placement and erosion and sediment control; "permit" means a topsoil removal, fill placement and erosion and sediment control permit; "permit holder" means an owner to whom a permit has been issued; "site" means the lands from which it is proposed that topsoil be moved or removed, or subjected to land disturbance and/or land development; "topsoil" means those horizons in a soil profile, commonly known as the "O" and the "A" horizons, containing organic matedal and includes deposits of partially decomposed organic matter such as peat; ,'~TTACHNE:',:: ~... 'T© REPORT# 'Treasurer" shall mean the Director, Oorporate Services and Treasurer for the Gity of Pickering, or designate. EXEMPTIONS This by-law does not apply to: a) Activities or matters undertaken by the City, any local board of the City or the Regional Municipality of Durham. b) The placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land which is carried out to implement a site plan agreement, subdivision agreement or development agreement previously entered into with the City, pursuant to the provisions of the Planninq Act. The placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land imposed as a condition to a development permit authorized by regulation made' under Section 70.2 of the Planning Act or as a requirement of an agreement entered into under that regulation. d) The placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land undertaken by a transmitter or distributor, as those terms are defined in Section 2 of the Electricity Act, 1998, for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a transmission system or a distribution system, as those terms are defined in that Section. e) The placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land undertaken on land described in a licence for a pit or quarry or a permit for a wayside pit or wayside quarry issued under the A~re_~ate Resources Act. The placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land undertaken on land in order to lawfully establish and operate or enlarge any pit or quarry on land, ~) that has not been designated under the A.q.qre.qate Resources Act or a predecessor of that Act, and g) ii) on which a pit or quarry is a permitted land use under a by-law passed under Section 34 of the Plannin,q Act. The placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land undertaken as an incidental part of drain construction under the Drainage ACt or the Tile Drainage Act. h) The removal of topsoil as an incidental part of a normal agricultural practice including sod-farming, greenhouse operations and nurseries for horticultural products, provided the topsoil itself is not for sale, exchange or other disposition. J) Lands within a fill regulated area as defined by regulations made under the Conservation Authorities Act. Land disturbance associated with minor gardening, landscaping or the installation of swimming pools incidental to a residential use. The removal of topsoil as an incidental part of the construction of underground services or utilities, where the topsoil is removed and held for subsequent replacement. 99 = I) The removal of topsoil or placing of fill where the aggregate quantity of such removal or placement on any one lot does not exceed twenty cubic metres in any period of three consecutive months. PROHIBITION No person or corporation shall remove or cause the removal of any topsoil, place or dump fill, or grade or perform any other land disturbance or land filling activity on or from any lot in the City except in accordance with a permit issued under this by-law. Notwithstanding the exemptions described in section 2 of this by-law, no person or corporation shall remove or permit the removal of topsoil from any land or place or permit the placement of fill on any land adjacent to or within 30 metres of any body of water without a permit having been issued by the Director. Notwithstanding the exemptions described in section 2 of this by-law, no person or corporation shall: a) place or allow to be placed, or remove or allow to be removed any fill on any wetlands identified as provincially significant by the Ministry of Natural Resources, or b) place or allow to be placed, or remove or allow to be removed any contaminated fill on or from any land within the City unless the placing or removal of such fill is authorized by a certificate issued by the Ministry of Environment and Energy. PERMIT APPLICATIONS To obtain a permit, the owner of the land or his authorized agent shall file an application with the Director. All applications for permits shall be accompanied by: a) A completed application on the form as established by the Director; b) A site map identifying the location, boundaries and number of hectares in the site, the nearest major intersection and a north arrow;, c) Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Design Report in accordance with Section 8 herein; d) The fee prescribed in Schedule A to this by-law; e) 0 g) A letter of credit as prescribed in Schedule A to this by-law; A written authorization, signed by the owner, stating that officers of the City and/or any person in the company of the officers will be allowed to enter the site for the purpose of inspecting for compliance with the control plan or for performing any work necessary to bring the site into compliance with the control plan; Work schedule; h) A written confirmation from a qualified person that the material being placed or removed is not contaminated fill; and i) All other information as may be required. Erosion and Sediment Control Plans shall be certified by a professional engineer licensed to practice in Ontario and shall include: a) Drawings at a scale of 1:500 or 1:1000 which describe compliance with the site design requirements in Schedule B to this by-law, and which include: adjacent land uses and the location and use of any buildings and other structures adjacent to the site; ii) iii) the location, dimensions and use of the buildings and other structures existing or proposed to be erected on the site; the location and dimensions of driveways and rights-of-way across each lot; iv) the location of lakes, streams, wetlands, channels, ditches, other water courses and other bodies of water on and within 30 metres beyond the site boundary; v) the Regional Storm Flood Line and Conservation Authority Fill Regulation lines; vi) the location and boundaries of predominant soil types; vii) ix) the location and type of existing vegetative cover, including the species and size in caliper of all trees and the location of all shrubs; the location and dimensions of any existing and proposed storm water drainage systems and natural drainage patterns on and within 30 metres beyond the site boundary; the location and dimensions of utilities, structures, wells, sewage systems, roads, highways and paving within 30 metres beyond the site boundary; the existing site topography at a contour interval not to exceed one- half of one metre and to extend a minimum of 30 metres beyond the lot/site boundary; xi) the proposed final elevations of the site; xii) the location and dimensions of all proposed land disturbance activities; xiii) xiv) the location and dimensions of all temporary soil stockpiles; the location of designated haul routes and construction access points to the site including the location of mud mats or other measures to remove earth and mud from the tires of vehicles leaving the site; xv) the location, dimensions and details of all construction site control measures necessary to meet the requirements of this by-law; and xvi) an indication of the direction of overland flow routes. 102 o b) An Erosion and Sediment Control Design Report containing: i) ii) iii) a description of thefeatures in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; iv) a description of the measures proposed to prevent erosion and to retain sediment on the site, including, but not limited to, the designs and specifications for swales, dikes, drains, sediment control ponds, mud mats, silt fences, check dams, catch basin protection and slope stabilization measures and a schedule for their maintenance and upkeep; v) a description of the mud tracking control and road maintenance program a description of the measures proposed to control the offsite movement of dust, litter and debris and related offsite maintenance; the name and 24 hour contact telephone number of the person responsible for the maintenance programs described in iii) and iv) above; vi) a description of the vegetative measures to be used, including, but not limited to mulches, types of seeds and fertilizers and their application rates, the type, location and extent of pre-existing and undisturbed vegetation types and a schedule for maintenance and upkeep; vii) a schedule of the starting and completion dates of each land disturbing or retated activity, including the installation of construction site control measures needed to meet the requirement of this by-law. COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER REGULATIONS AND STATUTES The provisions of this by-law and the issuance of a permit by the Director shall not affect the obligations of an owner to comply with all other restrictions governing the work imposed under law by any authority having jurisdiction. 10. The Director shall not issue a permit unless; 11. 12. a) Where applicable, all requirements contained in the Oak Ridges Conservation Plan, O.Reg 140/02, and any other regulations made under the Oak Ridqes Moraine Conservation Act 2001 are complied with in the proposed work, and - b) The land use to which the proposed work pertains is permitted by the applicable by-laws passed under the Plannin.q Act. PERMIT ISSUANCE The Directer shall issue a permit where all the application requirements set out herein are completed, and the proposed land disturbance, Erosion and Sediment Control Plans and Design Report comply with the requirements of this by-law. Where the Director refuses to issue a permit, the applicant shall be informed in writing of the reasons for refusal. 13. Permits shall be subject to the conditions described in Schedule C to this By-law. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. Permits shall be valid for a period of one year, and may be extended one or more times for an additional one year, subject to any additional control measures and inspection fees as determined by the Director and as set out in this by-law. IMPLEMENTATION AND INSPECTIONS All erosion and sediment control measures necessary to meet the requirements of this by-law shall be in place prior to any land disturbance of the site. These measures shall be maintained by the owner during the period of land disturbance so as to ensure adequate compliance with the requirements of this by-law and to prevent damage occurring as a result of erosion, sedimentation or flooding. If the property for which the permit has been issued is transferred while the permit remains in effect, the new owner shall either: a) Provide the City with a written undertaking agreeing to comply with all the conditions under which the existing permit was issued; and b) Provide a Letter of Credit in accordance with the requirements of Schedule A to this by-law; or c) Apply for and obtain a new permit in accordance with the provisions of this by-law. REVOCATION OF PERMITS Where a permit has been issued on the basis of misleading or false information in an application, the permit may be revoked and the permit holder shall immediately cease all operations being conducted under the authority of the revoked permit. ENFORCEMENT If an officer is satisfied that a contravention of the by-law has occurred, the officer may make an order requiring the owner of the land or the person who caused or permitted the placing or dumping of fill, removal of topsoil or alteration of the grade of land in contravention of the by-law to discontinue the activity and the order shall set out, a) the municipal address or the legal description of the land; and b) reasonable particulars of the contravention and the period within which there must be compliance. Every person who contravenes any section of this by-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine or penalty for each offence, exclusive of costs as prescribed by the Provincial Offences Act. All Schedules attached to this by-law shall form part of this by-law. In the event that a court of competent jurisdiction declares any provision or provisions of this by-law to be invalid for any reason, the remainder of-the by-law shall remain in full force and effect. 103 ~ Fi/I BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk SCHEDULE A i 0 5 PERMIT FEES The Fee for processing, administration and inspection for a one year permit is Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) plus Twenty-Five Dollars ($25.00) per hectare or part thereof of site area. LETTER OF CREDIT (to guarantee site control measures) An irrevocable Letter of Credit or other security acceptable to the City to cover 100% of the estimated cost of site control measures including the cost of the Erosion and Sediment Control measures, mud tracking control measures, litter and debris control measures, and dust control measures is required. The security is to be in a form acceptable to the Treasurer. (a) The security must remain in effect for the full duration of the permit with an automatic renewal clause in the document. Any Letter of Credit and its subsequent renewal forms shall contain a clause stating that thirty (30) days written notice must be given to the City prior to its expiry or cancellation. All calculations to be supplied by the owner or their representative and verified by City staff. (b) In the event that the City receives notice that a Letter of Credit is expiring and will not be renewed, or, if further or additional securities are not provided within the said thirty (30) days, the City may draw on the current Letter of Credit at the discretion of the Treasurer. The permit holder agrees that any interest accruing on the realized security shall belong to the City and not to the permit holder. (c) It is the responsibility of the permit holder: (i) (ii) to provide evidence satisfactory to the Director that the site has been adequately reinstated and stabilized in accordance with this By-law and the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan accompanying the permit; and to notify the City no late~ than five working days of the completion of works set out in the Permit and to request that the City carry out an inspection to confirm that all relevant terms of this By-law have been complied with. (d) The security may be reduced from time to time by the Treasurer. When the provisions of subsections (i) and (ii) of section 2(c) have been fully complied with, the Treasurer shall release the Applicant's security. (e) If a new owner satisfies all the conditions outlined in the By-law, all securities will be returned to the original owner unless the original owner authorizes, in writing, the return of the securities to another person. PERMIT EXTENSION FEES The fee for processing, administration and inspection for a one year permit extension is Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00). 106 SCHEDULE B SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS The following requirements shall be met on all sites where a permit is required to remove topsoil: 1. Site Dewaterin,q: (a) If it is demonstrated that no particles are greater than or equal to 40 microns in size, then dewatering operations may be conducted provided that the water is not permitted to discharge directly into receiving bodies of water or streams. (b) Water pumped for dewatering operations on the site shall be treated by temporary sedimentation basins, grit chambers, sand filters, upflow chambers, swirl concentrators or other appropriate controls. Drain Inlet Protection: All rear lot storm drain inlets or any other inlets as the Director considers necessary, shall be protected with filter fabric, or equivalent barriers meeting accepted design criteria, standards and specifications accepted by the Director. Site Erosion and Sediment Control: The Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should consider the following types of controls: a) Stabilization practices for soil erosion and sediment control. The common stabilization practices of two types: vegetative stabilization practices such as temporary seeding, sod stabilization, permanent seeding and plantation, maintenance of buffer zone, and preservation of natural vegetation and non-vegetative stabilization practices such as mulching, geotextiles, soil-retaining measures and stream bank stabilization. b) Runoff velocity dissipation measures, which slow down the runoff flowing across the site by using measures such as check dams and surface roughening, and gradient terraces. c) Storm water runoff control, which prevent runoff from flowing across disturbing areas by using measures such as earth dikes, drainage swales, and drains. d) e) Structural control measures to eliminate the offsite movement of soil such as mud mats and silt fences. Structural practices Such as Sediment Control Ponds and ultimate SWM ponds, which hold storm water runoff in a controlled fashion and remove sediments in the storage device. f) In the event that a Sediment Control Pond cannot be constructed 'to service the entire site (i.e., capture all the runoff from the site), the reasons · · must be documented and alternative control works must be proposed. Other approved sediment control measures, which remove sediments from on-site runoff before it leaves the site must be constructed. As required in this By-law for the lots/sites with more than five hectares disturbed at a time, or in staggered manner, all of which are served by a common discharge location, a Sediment Control Pond, or equivalent control measures (e.g., SWM facility, if applicable) must be provided. The Sediment Control Pond volume should consist of a permanent pool and active storage component. The permanent pool component should be sized for ultimate development conditions to provide a volume equivalent to a Level 1 water quality control as per the current Ministry of the Environment SWMP Manual, or 125 m3/ha, whichever is greater. The active storage volume component should be sized for a minimum of 125 m3/ha of runoff and released over a minimum 24-hour period. If the ultimate SWM facility cannot be used as the Sediment Control Pond for the entire site/lot during construction period, a temporary sedimentation pond shall be constructed with design criteria as follows: a) b) The Sediment Control Pond shall be constructed prior to topsoil stripping or fill placement; Where possible, the Sediment control Pond and conveyance channels should be located in such a way that the runoff will be captured and conveyed from the entire disturbed area to the pond; c) d) The Sediment Control Pond volume must consist of a permanent pool and active storage component. The permanent pool component should be sized for ultimate development conditions to provide a volume equivalent to a Level 1 water quality control as per the current Ministry of the Environment (MOE) SWMP Manual, or 125 m3/ha, whichever is greater. The active storage volume component should be sized for a minimum of 125 m3/ha of runoff and released over a minimum 24-hour period; To maintain sufficient permanent pool volume during the land disturbance period, the ESC Plan should provide the maintenance schedule. The Sediment Control Pond should be cleaned once the removal efficiency of the pond has been reduced by 5% as per the MOE SWMP Manual; The following criteria apply to land disturbing activities that results in runoff leaving the site: a) All the activities on the lot/site shall be conducted in a phased manner, where appropriate, to minimize the area of bare soil exposed at any one time. b) Concentrated runoff from adjacent areas passing through the site shall be diverted around disturbed areas, if practical. Otherwise, the channel shall be protected by cut-off swales and/or silt fences being placed along channel edges to avoid sediment from disturbed areas reaching the channel. c) Any topsoil or dirt storage piles containing more than one hundred cubic meters (100 m3) of material shall be a minimum of 10 meters from or up the slope from a roadway or channel. If remaining for more than sixty (60) days, said soil or dirt storage piles shall be stabilized by mulching, vegetative cover, traps or other means. Erosion from topsoil or dirt storage piles which will be in existence for less than sixty (60) days should be controlled by sediment control fence (i.e., filter fence)obarriers around the pile. 107 108 d) Runoff from the entire disturbed area on the site shall be controlled as follows: ii) iii) All disturbed ground left inactive shall be stabilized by seeding, sodding, mulching or covering, or other control measure. The period of time of inactivity shall be at the discretion of the Director. Notwithstanding the above paragraph, a permit holder or applicant for a permit who has also applied for but not yet received a building permit or any other necessary permit may be granted an extension to the permitted period of inactivity, at the discretion of the Director, provided that said applicant or permit holder provides satisfactory proof that he has made his best efforts to have said building or other necessary permit issued. Fees for the extension will be deferred for the period of inactivity if the site is secured in a manner satisfactory to the City. For lots/sites less than five (5) hectares disturbed at one time, sediment control fences and cut-off swales/channels or equivalent control measures shall be placed along all downslope boundaries of the site. iv) v) For lots/sites adjacent to existing residential areas, a fence and a cut-off swale/channel may be required around the entire perimeter of the site to prevent drainage onto private lands. A three (3) meter wide buffer strip and/or sediment control fence shall be provided along the perimeter of the downslope boundaries of the site. The sediment control guidelines prepared by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Ministry of Natural Resources for the Province of Ontario, or municipal standards are to be followed. vi) For sites with extensive fill requirement, the Director may waive the requirements for stabilization of disturbed land after thirty (30) days of inactivity provided that the sediment control measures have been implemented to the satisfaction of the Director. SCHEDULE C PERMIT CONDITIONS All permit holders shall: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (g) (h) (i) (J) (k) Notify the Director or his/her designate a minimum of two business days prior to the commencement or recommencement of any land disturbing activity; Obtain permission in writing from the Director or his/her designate prior to modifying any element of the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Install all control measures as identified in the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Maintain all road drainage systems, storrnwater drainage systems, control measures and other facilities identified in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Promptly repair any siltation or erosion damage to adjoining surfaces and drainage ways resulting from land developing or disturbing activities; Inspect the sedimentation control measures at least once per week and after each rainfall of at least one centimetre and make needed repairs; Allow City officers or agents of the City to enter the site for the purpose of inspecting for compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan or for performing any work necessary to bdng the site into compliance with the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan; Maintain a copy of the permit on the site; Notify all sub contractors and suppliers of approved access routes to the site and ensure compliance with these instructions; Maintain all roads in same or better condition than existed prior to the commencement of the work and keep all roads free from any materials or equipment arising from the work set out in the permit; Ensure that no construction machinery is operated in contravention of By- law Number 3821, as amended, (Noise By-law) or any successor thereto. The City: a) Upon the failure by the permit holder to complete all or part of the works in the time stipulated in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the City may draw the appropriate amount from the securities posted and use the funds to arrange for the completion of the said works, or any part thereof. b) Upon failure by the permit holder to install, repair or maintain a specific part of the works as requested by the City, and in the time requested, the City may at any time authorize the use of all or part. of the securities to pay the cost of any part of the works it may in its or their absolute discretion deem necessary. c) In the case of emergency repairs or clean-up, the City may undertake the necessary works at the expense of the permit holder and reimburse itself out of securities posted by the applicant. 110 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Januaw 15,2003 To: From: Subject: Bruce J. Taylor City Clerk Steve Gaunt Plannerll By-law to Adopt Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbo.urhood Study Implementation City of Pickering On December 9, 2002, Planning Committee considered Planning & Development Report Number PD 52-02 and referred this matter to Council for consideration at its meeting of January 20, 2003, following staff consideration of concerns expressed at the Planning Committee meeting. On January 20, 2003, Pickering City Council will consider Planning & Development Addendum to Report Number PD 52-02 which recommends that: 1) Council approve City initiated Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P to implement the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study in the Pickering Official Plan; and 2) that Council enact a draft by-law to adopt Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan. A draft by-law for the enactment of Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan (including Amendment 11) has been prepared and is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for January 20, 2003. A Statutory Public Meeting was held for this application on June 19, 2002. Please note that this by-law may be given all three readings at the January20,2003 Council Meeting provided Council approves City-initiated Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P earlier that same meeting. Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA 02-001/P January 15, 2003 Page 2 The purpose and effect of this amendment is to: Revise Schedule I - Land Use Structure to adjust the boundaries of the Urban Residential and Open Space designations; · Revise Schedule III - Resource Management to adjust the boundaries of the Shoreline and Stream Corridor, Wetlands and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor designations; · Revise the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Policies; and · Revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies. If you require further assistance or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me at extension 2033. I concur that this by-law be co n s~d.~ re.d~ e: D~ect°r~g & Development SG:jf st aff/sxg/rougepark/memoccl.doc Attachments Steve Gaunt, Planner II THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a Byqaw to adopt Amendment 11 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering. (OPA 02-001/P); WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its approval; AND WHEREAS, the Region has advised that this Amendment is NOT exempt from Regional approval; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Amendment 11 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted; That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments, to seek Regional approval of an Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan; 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this January, 2003. day of Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 113 114 Exhibit "A" to By-law 6o8o/0..3 AMENDMENT 11 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN 115 PURPOSE: LOCATION: BASIS: The purpose of the amendment is to revise the boundaries of residential and open space designations on Schedule I - Land Use Structure, revise the boundaries of Wetlands, the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor and Shorelines and Stream Corridors on Schedule Ill - Resource Management, revise the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor policies and revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood policies to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study. The amendment affects all lands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, which is located on the west side of Pickering at the northern limit of the City's South Urban Area. This area is approximately 160 hectares in size. The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study was completed for lands in the City of Pickering and received by City Council in April 2000. City Council adopted a comprehensive plan to guide future development of the neighbourhood through two principal documents: the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. The Environmental Master Servicing Plan provided direction on edge management strategies between developable and non-developable areas to ensure that new development maintains and enhances adjacent natural features and functions. It also established a stormwater management strategy. The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines established urban design criteria and identified school and park sites and major street connections. The Land Use objectives for this amendment are to adjust the boundaries of the land use designations to accurately reflect the findings of the Environmental Master Servicing Plan and adopt policies for both the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood that will guide development in the manner articulated in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Wetland boundaries shown on the amended Resource Management schedule are based on updated 1999 mapping from the Ministry of Natural Resources. 116 AMENDMENT: 2 Council of the City of Pickering passed resolution #29/00, Item #1, at its meeting of April 10, 2000, which included initiating this proposed amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study and a number of other associated recommendations. The proposed amendment reflects comments received at the Statutory Public Information meeting held on June 19, 2002. The Pickering Official Plan be amended by: Revising Schedule I - Land Use Structure to revise the boundary between the designations of Open Space System - Natural Area and Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Areas for certain lands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, such that the designations appear as depicted on the following extract of Schedule I. Revising Schedule III - Resource Management Schedule, to: (i) (ii) (iii) revise the dehneation of Wetlands in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood such that it appears as depicted on Exhibit 'B'; revise the delineation of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor lands such that they appear as depicted on Exhibit 'C~ and revise the delineation of Shorelines and Stream Corridors, such that they appear as depicted on Exhibit 'D' which are shown as extracts of Schedule III. Revising section 10.17 - Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Policies, to add a policy limiting the uses permitted on lands that are designated both Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor; and add a policy encouraging the preparation of a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan"; and, Replacing section 11.17 - Rouge Duffins Wildlife Corridor to revise subsection (f); such that the entire section 11.17 reads as follows: 3 117 CITY POLICY R ouge-Duffins 'Wildlife Corridor 10.17 City Council recognizes that the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor is intended to function as a significant vegetated connector providing for species migration between the Rouge and Duffins valley systems; accordingly, Council shall, (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 despite the permissible uses listed in Table 13, permit utility and ancillary uses, as well as any uses permissible within the Open Space System - Natural Area designation (see Table 3) on lands designated both Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area on Schedule I and also Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor on Schedule III; and, encourage the Ministry of Natural Resources, Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, Region of Durham, Ontario Hydro and interested others to both prepare a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan" and establish funding for on-going maintenance and restoration of the Corridor. Replacing section 11.16 - Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies to revise subsections 11.16 (a)(i), (a)(iv) and (d); such that the entire section 11.16 reads as follows: CITY POLICY Rouge Park Neigbbourbood Policies 11.16 City Council shall, (a) in the consideration of development proposed within the neighbourhood, 118 4 (b) (c) (d) (e) (i) discourage designs which require the use of reverse frontages, berms and significant noise attenuation fencing adjacent to Finch Avenue and Altona Road, unless justified for a limited proportion of street frontage within any proposed development by unique site configuration, road access or proximity considerations and mitigated by special design and/or landscaping features; (ii) encourage a "neighbourhood focus" at the intersection of Finch Avenue and Altona Road through the utilization of structural massing, architectural elements, and landscaping that establishes a strong relationship with the intersection; (iii) despite the permissible uses listed in Tables 5 and 9, not permit the establishment of automobile service stations and drive-thru facilities such as restaurants, banks and convenience stores within the neighbourhood; (iv) in accordance with sections 15.17 and 15.18, permit the use of density transfers and bonuses, as further detailed in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; (v) require a road connection running from the north side of Finch Avenue to the west side of Rosebank Road; (vi) require new development to have regard for the Rouge Park Management Plan; encourage the retention of environmentally sensitive Provincially-owned lands within public ownership and the appropriate and timely disposition of Provincially- owned lands outside of the Rouge Park that are not environmentally sensitive; endeavour to eliminate the "jog" at the Rosebank Road and Finch Avenue intersection; support improvements to the level crossings of the C.P. rail line at the Scarborough-Pickering Townline Road and Rosebank Road, such as the installation of appropriate safety measures including automatic safety gates; and for the north-east corner of the Beare Estate/Map Realty lands, located on the north side of Finch Avenue, opposite Woodview Avenue, interpret the minimum extent of the "Open Space System - Natural Areas" designation to be the southerly drip-line of the existing hedgerow plus 1 metre, with the maximum extent to be determined during the review of the related development applications. IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. SCHEDULE 'A' TO AMENDMENT 11 REDESIGNATE FROM "OPEN SPACE SYSTEM-NATURAL AREAS" TO "URBAN , ' SCHEDULE [TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN LAND USE STRUCTURE EMPLOYMENT AREAS FREEWAYS AND MAJOR UTILITIES SCHEDULE 'B' TO AMENDMENT 11 O c-~ · k_~--' .. ¢ [ ROUGE PARK ADD ~ND ~ -~ El SCIH~DULE rfr TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Illlll SHOREMNES AND STREAM CORRIDORS (MAY INCLUDE HAZARD LANDS) WETLANDS Fa%%qRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS ROUOE--DUF-FINS WILDLIF~ CORRIDOR SCHEDULE 'C' TO AMENDMENT 11 SCHEDULE III TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IIIIII SHORELINES /I, ND STREAM COEEIDOE$ (MAY INCLUDE HAT-/M~D LANDS) WETLANDS SCHEDULE 'D' TO AMENDMENT 11 SCHEDULE EE TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Illlll SHORELINES AND STREAM CORRIDORS (MAY INCLUDE HAZARD LANDS) PICKERING REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 05-03 Date: January 2, 2003 120 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: F. & J. Waugh (now Bacchus) - Land Division Application LD 155/02 - Part Lot 12, Plan 282, Pickering - Transfer of Easement designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21591 - Road Dedication designated as Parts 30, 32 and 34, Plan 40R-11205 - File: Rdded.416 and RE0302 Recommendation: By-laws should be enacted to: (a) authorize the execution of a Transfer of Easement for storm sewer purposes from the Owner to the City over that part of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21591; and (b) dedicate those parts of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Parts 30, 32 and 34, Plan 40R-11205 as public highway. Executive Summary: Not Applicable Financial Implications: Not Applicable Background: Land Division Application LD 155/02 proposed to sever a new residential lot fronting onto Oakburn Street. One of the conditions of Land Division Committee was that the Owner convey to the City an easement along the northern limit of the newly created lot for storm sewer purposes. The Owner has now prepared and registered the appropriate reference plan outlining the location of the easement and is now in a position to convey the interest to the City. 121 Report PD 05-03 Subject: F. & J. Waugh (now Bacchus) Date: January 2, 2003 Page 2 As the Owner will have satisfied all of the conditions of the Land Division Committee upon the registration of the Transfer of Easement, the City should then register the applicable by-law lifting the reserves fronting the property thereby granting legal access to the newly created lot. Accordingly, it is being recommended that Council enact by-laws to authorize the execution of a Transfer of Easement to the City for storm sewer purposes over that part of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21591 and to dedicate those parts of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Parts 30, 32 and 34, Plan 40R-11205 as public highway, thereby giving legal access to the newly created lot. Attachments: Transfer of Easement By-law. Road Dedication By-law. Location Mapping/Site Sketch. Prepared By: Denise B~ ~, Coordinator Property & Development Services Approved / Endorsed By: Nell Car -RPP Director, Planning & Development DB:bg Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Supervisor, Development Control Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ,_ / I,.--.. , Tl~as J. QuinUChief ,~lmini~ive Of~cer ATTACHMEm'~_ I TO REPORTf PD 0%-c.,~i~ THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Transfer of Easement for storm sewer purposes from the Owner of that part of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21591. WHEREAS pursuant to Land Division Committee Application LD155/02, the Owner is required to grant an easement in favour or the City over that part of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21591; and WHEREAS pursuant to the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, the Council of the City may pass by-laws for acquiring or disposing of interests in lands. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute a Transfer of Easement in a form satisfactory to the Solicitor for the City over that part of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21591. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 122 123 ATTACHMENT # ~,~. TO REPORT # PD THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. l~082,[03 Being a by-law to dedicate those parts of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Parts 30, 32 and 34, Plan 40R~11205 as public highway. WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands lying in Pickering and wishes to dedicate them as a public highway. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Those parts of Lot 12, Registered Plan 282, Pickering, designated as Parts 30, 32 and 34, Plan 40R-11205 are hereby dedicated as public highway (Oakburn Street). BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk RF. PORT # PD 0~'0~ -[ ? 4 ~ ,w C ~' 0 Ldo__ ~ 0~ n~ ° I! [jJ -- k. ROAD DEDICATION PROHILL ST. O old ~¢' fy W Bu'FrERNUT C o~ > ~ JL L ot___ o o z~--_ D ,m ~ /2,,_ STREET I WATERFORD CREST ST City of Pickering Planning & Development Department TRANSFER OF EASEMENT PART OF LOT 12, REGISTERED PLAN 282, DESIGNATED AS PART 1, PLAN 40R-21591 ROAD DEDICATION PART OF LOT 12, REGISTERED PLAN 282, DESIGNATED AS PARTS 30, 32, and 34, Plan 40R-11205 DATE JAN 02, 2002 125 ICKERING REPORT TO PLANNING COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 04-03 Date: January 2, 2003 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Benedetto, Christopher and Adriana Transfer of Easement to City Part of Lot 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1041, Pickering, designated as Part 8, Plan 40R-21388 LD 66/02 - File: RE0301 Recommendation: A by-law should be enacted authorizing the execution of a Transfer of Easement for stormwater purposes from Christopher and Adriana Benedetto to the City over that part of Lot 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1041, Pickering, designated as Part 8, Plan 40R-21388. Executive Summary: Not Applicable Financial Implications: Not Applicable Background: In approving Land Severance Application LD 66/02, the Durham Land Division Committee imposed several conditions, one of which requires that the Owner satisfy the City with respect to the conveyance of a stormwater easement. The Owner has prepared and registered the applicable reference plan outlining the location of the easement and is in a position to convey the interest to the City. Enactment of the attached by-law will authorize the execution and registration of required Transfer of Easement. Attachments: Transfer of Easement By-law. Location Mapping/Site Sketch. Report PD 04-03 Subject: Benedetto Transfer of Easement to City Januaw 2,2003 Page 2 126 Prepared By: Denise's, Coordinator Property & Development Services Approved / Endorsed By: Director, Pt'aEning & Development DB:bg Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Supervisor, Development Control Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~ Thd'ma% J; Quinn, ~hief A~i/ministrativ-'C~c_.~r [- ATTACHMENT t I TO REPORT ~ PD THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. ~,0 ~3/03 Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a Transfer of Easement for stormwater purposes from the Owner of that part of Lot 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1041, Pickering, designated as Part 8, Plan 40R-21388. WHEREAS, pursuant to Land Division Committee Application LD 66/02, the Owner is required to grant an easement in favour of the City over that part of Lot 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1041, Pickering, designated as Part 8, Plan 40R-21388. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, the Council of the City may pass by-laws for acquiring or disposing of interests in lands; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Picketing HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute a Transfer of Easement, in a form satiSfactory to the Solicitor for the City over that part of Lot 4, Registrar's Compiled Plan 1041, Picketing, designated as Part 8, Plan 40R-21388. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk FINQH AVE ' DRIVE ~ D PLIN PUBL/C SCHOOL ---__ J. ~cPHERSOfl < PA~ City of Pickering Planning & Development Depa~ment DATE BEC 8, 2002 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 60~/03 Being a by-taw to dedicate that part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21531 as public highway. WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands lying in Pickering and wishes to dedicate it as a public highway. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: (a) that part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21531, is hereby dedicated as public highway. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6085/03 Being a by-law to name that part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21531 as "Valley Farm Road". WHEREAS, the City of Pickering is the owner of certain lands and the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering dedicated those certain lands as public highway under the jurisdiction of the The Corporation of the City of Pickering; and WHEREAS pursuant to the MuniCipal Act, the Council of a local municipality may pass by-laws for giving names to or changing the names of highways; and WHEREAS it is now desirable to name that portion of dedicated highway as "Valley Farm Road". NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: (a) that part of Lot 20, Concession 1, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-21531, is hereby named "Valley Farm Road". BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk .30 131 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM January 6, 2003 To: Bruce Taylor City Clerk From: Denise Bye Coordinator, Property & Development Services Subject: Part Lot Control By-Law E. Raponi Lots 1 to 10, inclusive and Lots 13 and 14, Plan 40M-1918 File: PLC.228 The above-mentioned lands are being developed in accordance with the appropriate Subdivision Agreement and Zoning By-Law in such a manner to allow more than one dwelling unit to be constructed on each of the lots referred to. Attached hereto is a location map and a draft by-law, enactment of which will exempt these lands from the part lot control provisions of the Planning Act, thus permitting transfers of those units into separate ownership. This by-law is in the form usually used in such cases and is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for January 20, 2003. DB:bg Attachment Denise THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6086/03 Being a by-law to exempt Lots 1 to 10, inclusive 'and Lots 13 and 14, Plan 40M-1918, Pickering, from part lot control. WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of section 50 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, the Council of the municipality may by by-law provide that section 50(5) of the Act does not apply to certain lands within a plan of subdivision designated in the by-law; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: Section 50(5) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13, does not apply to the lands described as follows: Lots 1 to 10, inclusive and Lots 13 and 14, Plan 40M-1918, Pickering. This by-law shall remain in force and effect for a period of one year from the date of the passing of this by-law and shall expire on January 20, 2004. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 13 2 MELDRON SANDHURST PINE GROVE CRESCENT PINE GROVE hi PROHILL ST. AVENUE WATERFORD WESTCREEK 'I DRIVE SUBJEC TRANQUIL TIES RU~-TERNUT CT. STREET ST. ¸ LANE GATE STREET LAW S O N STR E ET STARVIEW SWEETBRIAR Ct. City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOTS 1-10, 13 AND 14, PLAN 40M-1918 OWNER ERCOLE RAPONI, IN TRUST DATE JAN. 3, 2002 ~/~ FILE No. PART LOT CONTROL SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY DB DRAWN BY JB FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-10 PA- Date To: From: Subject: PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM January 8, 2003 Bruce Taylor City Clerk Denise Bye Coordinator, Property & Development Services Request for Re-conveyance of 0.12m Reserve (LD 112/02) - Norvalley Homes Ltd. - Part Block 28, Plan 40M-2068, being Part 3, Plan 40R-21447 - File: Roadded.420 When Plan 40M-2068 was registered, Block 28 (0.12 metre reserve) was conveyed to the City in order to restrict access to the property known as 1828 Woodview Avenue from Prohill Street. The Owner of 1828 Woodview Avenue has subsequently applied through Land Division Application LD 112/02 to sever 1828 Woodview Avenue into 2 lots and now requires that a portion of Block 28 (Part 3, Plan 40R-21447) be lifted in order to provide legal access to the newly created lot. In this instance, as this reserve block is not required as part of the road allowance, the process to lift it requires that the City reconvey it to the adjacent owner as opposed to registering a road dedication by-law. Attached hereto is a location map and a draft by-law, enactment of which will authorize the reconveyance of that part of Block 28, Plan 40M-2068, designated as Part 3, Plan 40R-21447 to the adjacent owner thereby granting legal access to the newly created lot. This by-law is in the form usually used in such cases and is attached for the consideration of City Council at its meeting scheduled for January 20, 2003. DB: Attachments Denise Bye Copy: Director, Planning & Development Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Supervisor, Development Control THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6087/03 Being a by-law to authorize the re- conveyance of that part of Block 28, Plan 40M-2068, designated as Part 3, Plan 40R- 21447 to the adjacent owner. WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of that part of Block 28, Plan 40M-2068, designated as Part 3, Plan 40R-21447, Pickering and wishes to reconvey it to the adjacent owner. NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute all documentation, in a form satisfactory to the Solicitor for the City, to effect the re-conveyance of that part of Block 28, Plan 40M-2068, Pickering, designated as Part 3, Plan 40R- 21447 to the adjacent owner. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING ~[ 3 6 BY-LAW NO. ~./~ Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation - 1822 Whites Road, 1865 and 1867 Kingston Road.) WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality; and WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(2) of the said Act, municipal by-law enforcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That Misty Jay T. Thompson, John Alexander Cole and Jason Charles H. Wylie be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement officers in and for the City of Pickering I order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands municipally known as 1822 Whites Road and 1865 and 1867 Kingston Road. The authority granted in section I hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authority set out in section 1. These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section 1ceasing to be employees of Secudtas Canada Limited or upon Secudtas Canada Limited ceasing to be an agent of 1822 Whites Road and 1865 and 1867 Kingston Road, or upon whichever shall occur first. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 20th day of January, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk