The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAddendum to Report PD 47-04PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL Addendum to Report Number: PD 47-04 Date: February 1,2005 From: Nell Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Additional Comments on the Draft Greenbelt Plan: October 2004 City of Pickering Recommendation: That Pickering Council RECEIVE Addendum to Report PD 47-04 relating to the draft Greenbelt Plan for the northeast sector of Pickering; 2. That Pickering Council REQUEST the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing to: (a) include in the Greenbelt Plan, revisions proposed by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing staff clarifying that property owners within the hamlets will be governed by the traditional planning controls of the provincial policy .statement, local and regional official plans and zoning, rather than the restrictive policies of the draft Greenbelt Plan; (b) expand the boundary of the Greenbelt around the Hamlet of Greenwood to include a small section of Carruther's Creek valley south of Highway 7 that is part of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline, and to also include lands north to Highway 7 and east to Salem Road that form the countryside context for Greenwood, as set out On Appendix I to Addendum to Report PD 47-04; (c) within the boundary expansion recommended in 2.(b), identify the Carruther's Creek valley as part of the "natural heritage system", and the remaining lands outside the Hamlet as part of the "agricultural system" in the Greenbelt Plan; (d) circulate any new revisions to the boundaries for the Greenbelt Plan to municipalities prior to approving the Greenbelt Plan; and (e) provide financial programs to support the ongoing viability of agriculture in the Greenbelt Area; and That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Addendum to Report PD 47-04 to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Region of Durham; and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Executive Summary: On December 6, 2004, Pickering Council received Report PD 47-04 on the draft Greenbelt Plan and passed Resolution #157/04 (see text of Report PD 47-04 and Resolution #157/04, Attachments #1 and #2). Addendum 1 to Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan February 1, 2005 Page 2 Council supported the concept of a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe, provided specific comments on the draft Greenbelt Plan, and directed staff to consult with all affected communities respecting two matters: the boundary and rationale for inclusion of hamlets and other rural settlements in the Greenbelt; and the boundaries, extent and rationale of the proposed greenbelt and non-greenbelt lands in the northeast sector of Pickering. After consulting with the Province, TRCA, and biologists, staff is satisfied that the Greenbelt Plan boundary as shown in the northeast sector of Pickering generally reflects the terrestrial natural heritage system and hydrologic features and functions associated with the former Lake Iroquois Shoreline/Beach - with one exception. Staff recommends that the Carruther's Creek valley, south of Highway 7 and west of Salem Road, be included within the draft Greenbelt Plan (see Technical Revision, cross-hatched area on Recommended Boundary Expansion, Appendix I). In mid January 2005, two open houses were held in Greenwood to discuss the draft Greenbelt Plan. Approximately 200 people attended the open house sessions. Staff provided information about the Greenbelt Plan and concepts for the expansion of the Greenbelt boundary. From a review of the comments and submissions, the opinions respecting expansion differ between the residents of Greenwood who are generally in favour of an expansion of the Greenbelt in order to maintain the hamlet's countryside context, and the rural residents to the east and north of Greenwood who are generally opposed to a boundary expansion. There were some opposing views in both instances. After careful review, it has been concluded that an expansion of the Greenbelt boundary to include the Hamlet of Greenwood and lands around the Hamlet north to Highway 7 and east to Salem Road, as shown on Appendix I is appropriate. The expansion would sustain Greenwood as a rural settlement in a vibrant countryside, providing opportunities for tourism, recreation and rural uses. Within the hamlet, typical planning controls would apply. The effect of the boundary expansion would be to enrich the function of the Greenbelt in this sector, in a manner consistent with the prevailing Greenwood resident opinions on maintaining a rural quality of life in a near-urban setting, while not prejudicing long-term municipal growth opportunities. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. Background: 1.0 A Consultation Process Report outlining the activities undertaken by staff and summarizing the findings of those activities is attached, Attachment #3 to this Addendum Report is a Consultation Process Report outlining the steps staff undertook, the results, and a copy of all comments received. Addendum 1 to Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan February 1,2005 Page 3 2.0 3.0 3.1 Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) staff advises that the draft Greenbelt Plan is to be revised to rely on traditional planning controls, such as zoning and local and regional official plans, on lands within the hamlets. The first issue Council asked staff to consult on was the boundary and rationale for inclusion of the hamlets and other rural settlements in the Greenbelt. City staff had expressed concern that the Hamlet of Greenwood should not be split by the Greenbelt Plan, and that proposed policies for lands within the Hamlet would be too restrictive. Accordingly, in Report PD 47-04, staff recommended that the west part of Greenwood be eliminated from the Greenbelt. During a meeting between City and MMAH staff about this matter, MMAH staff advised that they were clarifying the Greenbelt policies for lands within the hamlets. The intent of the MMAH revision is to have typical planning controls (such as the provincial policy statement, local and regional official plans and zoning) apply to lands within the hamlets. Planning & Development staff concur with this proposed revision. City staff recommends an expansion to the Greenbelt boundary to include the Hamlet of Greenwood and lands north of the Hamlet to Highway 7, east to Salem Road and south to the draft Greenbelt boundary, so as to maintain Greenwood in its countryside context. The second issue Council asked staff to consult on was the boundaries, extent and rationale of the proposed greenbelt and non-greenbelt lands in the northeast sector of Pickering. A number of views had been expressed on this, including: · City staff had questioned the basis for the irregular boundaries of, and extensive lands included, along the East Duffins Creek and through the Fifth Concession of land (the Lake Iroquois Shoreline/Beach), in Report PD 47-04; · A representative from the Greenwood and Area Ratepayers Association (GARA) recommended that the lands in Pickering between Sideline 16 and Salem Road, south of Highway 7, be included in the Greenbelt, at Pickering's December 6, 2004 Council meeting; and · Regional Council recommended that the Province include in the Greenbelt, the lands within the Greenwood hamlet boundary as defined in the Pickering Official Plan, at their mid December 2004 meeting; Staff recommends a boundary expansion for environmental protection. According to MMAH staff, the rationale for the boundary of the Greenbelt in the northeast sector of Picketing was based on a combination of the terrestrial natural heritage system and the underlying hydrologic features and functions associated with the former Lake Iroquois Shoreline/Beach. MMAH staff advised that the Ministry of Natural Resources is reviewing further the Greenbelt boundary for accuracy in this area. MMAH staff clarified that the goal for the Greenbelt in this part of Pickering is for sustainable environmental protection in existing or future urban areas, as opposed to other possible goals of agricultural land protection, providing culture, recreation and tourism opportunities, or sustaining rural communities. Addendum 1 to Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan February 1, 2005 Page 4 3.2 Considering the Province's stated goal of environmental protection, staff is generally satisfied with the extent and boundaries of the Greenbelt along the East Duffins Creek and through the Fifth Concession - with one exception. Lands south of Highway 7, on either side of Carruther's Creek just west of Salem Road, also exhibit shoreline/beach hydrology, and should be included in the Greenbelt (see Technical Revision, cross-hatched on Recommended Boundary Expansion, Appendix I). Staff recommends a boundary expansion for rural settlement character protection. In Report PD 47-04, staff noted that a possible future vision for the Hamlet of Greenwood is to remain as a rural settlement within its countryside context (as was recommended for the Hamlet of Whitevale in the Growth Management Study), rather than being assimilated into future urban development. However, in forming our recommendation at that time (to exclude the Hamlet from the Greenbelt), staff did not have the benefit of the GARA comments on the Greenbelt Plan, the January 2005 consultation and review, and MMAH comments clarifying the hamlet policies in the Greenbelt Plan. From the Comment Forms/Submissions received, there is an obvious split in views respecting possible expansion of the Greenbelt boundary, between the residents of Greenwood who are generally in favour of expansion of the Greenbelt in order to maintain the countryside context around the Hamlet, and rural residents to the east and north of Greenwood who are almost all opposed to an expansion of the Greenbelt primarily for future development opportunities. The historically significant settlement of Greenwood together with its surroundings have a number of unique attributes that merit special consideration over the long term. These characteristics include: the historical buildings; Greenwood's setting on a drumlin; the rich cultural landscapes; the Pickering Museum Village; the Greenwood Conservation Area; and Duffins Creek and valley. An expanded Greenbelt boundary would provide opportunities for minor rounding of the Hamlet outside of the former Lake Iroquois Shoreline, to other lands north, east or south of Greenwood. Minor rounding out would be consistent with the Pleasant Growth Workshop (of April 2003), GARA's community survey on growth (October 2004), and the Region's recommended direction for limited hamlet growth to 25% increase (October 2004).. However, minor rounding out may not be sufficient to generate a population to sustain the local school or library branch (although there are many other factors influencing a decision to close such facilities). Also piped water and sanitary sewer services would not be permitted in the Greenbelt. Further, any additional residential (or other uses sensitive to noise) in the Greenwood area would be subject to local and regional planning, and new controls to protect for a potential future airport (including the Greater Toronto Airport Authority's Interim Airport Protection Area and proposed use of the more restrictive 25 (instead of 30) noise exposure forecasts). Addendum 1 to Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan February 1, 2005 Page 5 4.0 5.0 The countryside area around the Hamlet (including any minor rounding out) would form an appropriate interface between Greenwood and an area for potential future urban growth. The size and location of the lands to be added to the Greenbelt would not prejudice strategic future growth opportunities, such as development along the future Highway 407. A protected countryside area could provide opportunities for establishing tourism and recreational developments, such as driving ranges and golf courses, consistent with the objectives of the Greenbelt Plan. Also, the countryside could support agri-tourism activities, such as culinary tourism, organic farming, cottage industry greenhouses, nurseries, tree farms and retail agricultural markets on the rural-urban fringe. Greenwood residents supported these types of active and diversified countryside uses. This vision is consistent with another goal of the Greenbelt Plan -- to sustain the character of the countryside and rural settlements. The countryside uses would reflect the Agricultural System: Rural Area policies of the Greenbelt Plan, the Countryside Area designation in Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan, and the new countryside designation the City recommended be established by the Region through its official plan review. During the City's consultation, the agricultural community requested the Province provide further support for agriculture as protection of the land is not enough. At the public open sessions, farmers spoke about the financial hardships facing the agricultural sector and their concern with not being able to secure loans from financial institutions for next year's crops as a result of the Greenbelt Plan. As farmers use their properties as collateral for loans, any loss in property values would make it more difficult for banks to provide financing at the same level. The issues of agricultural viability in the proposed greenbelt area and the potential loss of equity need to be addressed. It is recommended that Council request the Province to address the issues raised by the agricultural community prior to approving the Greenbelt Plan. In addition, the Province should modify existing funding programs to enable the viability of farming in the greenbelt area. Staff will continue to monitor the Greenbelt Plan and advise Council of significant events or information. Staff will follow-up with the Province respecting Council's comments on the Plan, and will advise Council of significant matters about the final Greenbelt Plan. Also, staff will be identifying required changes to the city's Official Plan to implement the final Greenbelt Plan (for example, an amendment that would be considered to implement the recommendations of this Addendum Report would be redesignating lands south of Highway 7 to Open Space - Active Recreational Areas, to ensure an appropriate range of countryside uses are permissible). Addendum 1 to Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan February 1,2005 Page 6 Appendix Recommended Boundary Expansion Attachments 1. Text of Report PD 47-04 2. Council Resolution #157/04, of December 6, 2004 3. Consultation Process Report, dated February 1, 2005 Prepared By: Grant McGregor, MCIP, I~PP Principal Planner-Policy Approved / Endorsed By: Nell Carroll~__~,RPP - Director, Planning & Development Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy GM:CR:Id Copy: Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~Th o ¢na~s/~O. O u (.n~, C h ~e~/ APPENDIX I TO ADDENDUM TO REPORT NUMBER PD 47-04 DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN: RECOMMENDED BOUNDARY EXPANSION REAl Fi- 5 Draft Greenbelt Plan: Recommended Boundary Expansion Legend Watercourses ED Greenbelt Boundary - - Proposed 407 Extension ;.'~Add to Greenbelt Boundary Technical Revision CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT J DATE: JAN. 31,2005 PICKERING ATTACHMENT#_ / T.O REPORT # PD ~1-1- Oq REPORT TO 0 4 2 COUNCIL Report Number: PD 47-04 Date: December 2, 2004 From: Nell Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan: October 2004 Recommendation: That Pickering Council RECEIVE, and ENDORSE Report PD47-04 as its comments on the provincial Draft Greenbelt Plan, dated October 2004, EBR Registry Number: PF04E0006; That Pickering Council ADVISE the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, that: (a) Picketing Council continues to support the concept of a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe; (b) the southern part of the Agricultural Assembly (the Cherrywood community) be excluded from the Greenbelt Plan and that lands east of the Hamlet of Whitevale be added; ~ (c) the other Greenbelt land use and boundary issues be addressed as set out in Sections 3.0 and 5.0 of this Report; (d) the approval of the draft Greenbelt Plan should be delayed until such time as municipalities and other stakeholders have had an opportunity to review the Ministry's supporting documentation; and (e) the draft Greenbelt Plan should not be approved until such time as the Province's Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe as well as other provincial initiatives such as the Planning Act reform are released as a comprehensive package for further consultation; That Picketing Council authorize City staff to continue to review and provide technical comments on the draft Greenbelt Plan to the Province after the deadline date of December 12, 2004 to address the issues raised in Sections 3.0 and 5.0 of this Report; and That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 47-04 to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal; the Region of Durham; Durham Region Area Municipalities; the Town of Markham; the Region of York and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Executive Summary: In late October 2004, the Province released its draft Greenbelt Plan for consultation, following the release of the Provincially-appointed Greenbelt Task Force's advice and recommendations report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing in August 2004. Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan A~TACHMENT ~ .... I TO , REPORI # PD..Li-)'Oq(~jcrlJUr~J December 2, 2004 Page 2 The greenbelt area generally includes lands under the jurisdiction of the Greater Toronto Area Regions of Durham, York, Halton and Peel; the Cities of Hamilton and Toronto; the tender fruit and grape lands as designated in the Region of Niagara Official Plan; the Niagara Escarpment Plan; and the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. Smaller areas within the County of Simcoe and the County of Wellington are also located in the Greenbelt. Previously, Pickering Council provided comments to the Greenbelt Task Force on its Discussion Paper entitled Toward a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt. The City agreed with the Task Force on the use of comprehensive planning studies to support urban area expansions and requested the Task Force to consider incorporating the Phase 2 results of Pickering's Growth Management Study into its final recommendations. Despite the City's sound rationale for accommodating urban growth on the southern part of the Agricultural Assembly lands, the Province has chosen to include all of the area west of West Duffins Creek within the Greenbelt Plan. Other lands in Pickering also contained within the Greenbelt Plan include an area located generally south of Highway 7 to Urban Ajax, and parts of the Rosebank, Rougemount and Rouge Park Neighbourhoods. No technical information supporting the proposed Greenbelt Area boundary and associated land area has been provided to local municipalities. There was no consultation on a map for the greenbelt by the Province prior to the release of the draft Greenbelt Plan. The Province should delay the approval of a Greenbelt Plan until such time as municipalities and other stakeholders have had an opportunity to review the Ministry's supporting documentation and comment on a revised boundary together with the provincial Growth Plan. It is recommended that the Province incorporate comments provided in Report PD 47-04, and that Report PD 47-04 be also forwarded to the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal for consideration as part of its Greater Golden Horseshoe growth management planning exercise. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. Background: 1.0 The Greenbelt Task Force released its Discussion Paper entitled Toward a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt for public consultation in May 2004, Last May, the Greenbelt Task Force released its Discussion Paper entitled Toward a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt. The Task Force, in its Discussion Paper considered five 'layers' that would provide the framework for the proposed greenbelt: environmental protection; agricultural protection, including tender fruit and grape lands, and the Holland Marsh; transportation and infrastructure; natural resources, particularly mineral resources; and culture, tourism and recreation opportunities. In addition, two overarching themes included: Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan December 2, 2004 Page 3 O44 1.1 1,2 2,0 · Ontario's growth management and other related initiatives as the context for development of a permanent Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt; and · implementation and administration approaches, models and tools for establishing and administering a greenbelt. During the months of May and June, stakeholder and public sessions were held in the Golden Horseshoe area. City staff attended various stakeholder sessions. The City provided detailed comments to the Greenbelt Task Force on its Discussion Paper through Report PD 28-04. On June 29, 2004, Pickering Council passed Resolution #101/04 endorsing Report PD 28-04. Although City staff supported the concept of a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe, the Task Force was requested to consider incorporating the results of local growth management studies, such as the City's Growth Management Study, into its final recommendations. The Task Force was also requested to coordinate its work with the Province's work on a Growth Plan for the Golden Horseshoe as well as other initiatives such as the Planning Act reform work, prior to making its final recommendations to the Province. The Task Force provided the Minister with its final advice and recommendations on greenbelt protection. In August 2004, the Greenbelt Task Force submitted its report entitled Toward a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt: Advice and Recommendations to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The recommendations provided principles for identifying lands for protection from development in order to preserve Ontario's natural heritage, sensitive environmental areas, vital agricultural communities, natural resources, and opportunities for tourism, recreation and cultural heritage. No map of a proposed greenbelt was prepared. The Task Force recommended that the Province undertake a multi-disciplinary, multi-stakeholder approach to defining the greenbelt, and that the provincial greenbelt and the growth management initiatives proceed simultaneously. Further, the Task Force noted that there is a great deal of knowledge resting at the local level with municipalities and others that will prove essential when drawing the lines that will define the greenbelt lands. Recent Provincial Greenbelt Initiatives On October 28, 2004, the Province introduced Bill 135 - Proposed Greenbelt Act, 2004 and released a draft Greenbelt Plan. A copy of the draft Greenbelt Plan is provided as Attachment #13. The effect of these initiatives would be to protect about one million acres of environmentally sensitive and agricultural land in the Golden Horseshoe from urban development, in addition to the approximately 800,000 acres already protected by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Niagara Escarpment Plan. 045 Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan December 2, 2004 Page 4 2.1 2,2 Bill 135 - Proposed Greenbelt Act, 2004 The Province released draft legislation on October 28, 2004, which provides for the establishment of a Greenbelt Area and a Greenbelt Plan. The highlights of the proposed legislation are provided in Attachment #1. It is anticipated the Act will receive Royal Assent on or before December 16, 2004. Of note, only the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can propose amendments to the Greenbelt Plan in respect of areas designated as Protected Countryside. The Bill outlines the process by which the Province may consider amendments to the Greenbelt Plan, including consulting with the municipality, other affected public bodies and the public. Decisions on amendments are made by the Minister and are not subject to appeal. Draft Greenbelt Plan The draft Greenbelt Plan establishes a framework to protect environmentally sensitive and agricultural lands. These lands are identified as Protected Countryside. The Plan also includes lands within the Niagara Escarpment Plan and Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. The draft Plan aims to: · ensure the environment, including its water systems, remains healthy to support existing and future generations of both people and wildlife; · encourage growth in cities and towns outside the Greenbelt while supporting vibrant rural communities within the Greenbelt; · support agriculture as a source of commerce, employment and domestic food production; and · provide outdoor recreational and other leisure opportunities to support the needs of our rapidly expanding population. A significant portion of Pickering, approximately 43% of the City's land area, is included in the Greenbelt Plan. Besides the Oak Ridges Moraine in north Pickering, the entire Agricultural Assembly and other lands generally south of Highway 7 to Urban Ajax are within the Protected Countryside. For the Rural Settlement Areas, only the Hamlets of Cherrywood and Greenwood are identified on the Greenbelt Plan maps. Omitted from the maps are the Hamlets of Brougham, Claremont, Green River and Whitevale. There are two major areas of land that are neither part of the existing urban area nor part of the greenbelt on the Greenbelt Map (see Attachment #2 - Greenbelt Map). One area coincides with the southeast part of the Federal airport lands, and the other includes part of northeast Pickering, from just south of Highway 7 and extending north to the Oak Ridges Moraine. These lands are potential future urban areas of Picketing, subject to further land use studies to determine appropriate designations. Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan ATTACHMENT # [ TO, . REPORT # PD Li-t-0q(A~enCbm) December 2, 2004 Page 5 3.0 3.1 The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has requested comments on the Bill 135 - Proposed Greenbelt Act, 2004 by November 27, 2004 and on the draft Greenbelt Plan by December 12, 2004. However, we understand through Ministry staff that the Ministry's time for review of comments and preparation of the final Greenbelt Plan may be extended to February. Discussion Staff's main comments are structured around four topics of strategic concern to the City. The topics relate to both the Greenbelt legislation and draft Plan, as follows: · Lack of rationale for the Greenbelt Plan boundary. · Conclusion and background work of the City's Growth Management Study ignored. · Conclusion on broader range of countryside uses for Pickering ignored. · Lack of rationale for including the western portion of the Hamlet of Greenwood in the Greenbelt Plan. Lack of rationale for the Greenbelt Plan boundary. Although the Greenbelt Plan specifies that the Protected Countryside lands have been identified through a "combination of best science available, consideration of existing and future patterns of urbanization, and local knowledge and advice", no rationale is provided in the document justifying the extent of the proposed Greenbelt Area or the lands proposed to be included within it. In fact, there was no consultation by the Province on a specific boundary prior to the release of the draft Greenbelt Plan. According to Provincial representatives, one of the intents of the draft Greenbelt Plan is to protect the prime agricultural areas identified in upper-tier and single-tier Official Plans and to separate the greenbelt from urban areas. However, in the City's case, the Greenbelt Plan excludes a large prime agricultural area located northeast of the Hamlet of Greenwood while it includes the Cherrywood community (of the Agricultural Assembly) that abuts the current urban boundary. Parts of urban Pickering including the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, as well as properties located east of the Rouge River are also identified within the Greenbelt Plan area. On November 24, 2004, Pickering and other municipal and conservation authority staffs met with representatives of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to discuss the Greenbelt legislation and draft Plan. At the meeting, municipal and conservation authority staffs indicated that the lack of scientific analysis and background information relating to the features and boundary makes it difficult for municipalities to advise the Province on the relevancy of the boundary for a permanent greenbelt. Despite some explanation by Ministry staff on the Plan's boundary, it appeared that the delineation of the boundary was very subjective. 047 ATTACHMENT #_ [ TO, ~, Report PD 47-04 REPOR! ~/ PD~OLi(A(~(~.q~u~J Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan December 2, 2004 Page 6 Clearly, there are inconsistencies with the way the criteria were applied by the Province in determining the Greenbelt boundary for Pickering. The release of the Province's analysis may assist City staff in tracing the rationale for the Greenbelt boundary in Pickering. Without this documentation, it will be very difficult for the City to defend its conforming official plan and zoning by-law amendments at any Ontario Municipal Board hearing. It is recommended that the Province defer approving the draft Greenbelt Plan for a period of approximately six months in order to provide sufficient time for local municipalities and other stakeholders to review the Province's supporting documentation. Conclusion and background work of the City's Growth Management Study ignored. The Greenbelt boundary in Pickering is proposed in direct conflict with the City's input provided to the Greenbelt Task Force and to the Province. In this regard, the Phase 2 report of Pickering's Growth Management Study (GMS) comprehensively documented the appropriateness of the south part of Agricultural Assembly lands (the Cherrywood community) to accommodate future urban growth. This logical extension of Pickering's urban area provided an opportunity to link Cherrywood and Seaton communities with south Pickering, make efficient and economic use of existing and proposed infrastructure, while maintaining the environmental resources of the urban area and protecting the countryside area around the Hamlet of Whitevale. Instead, the Province chose to ignore the Greenbelt Task Force recommendations that key agricultural lands be identified for protection using criteria including: science; socioeconomic factors such as fragmentation, urban/suburban encroachments, loss of agricultural support mechanisms and rural development; and regional and local official plan designations and criteria. The GMS quite clearly documented the constraints to economically viable farming in the Cherrywood community and concluded that the Cherrywood community is more appropriately used in the long term for urban purposes than for agriculture. The redesignation of the southerly portion of the Agricultural Assembly (Cherrywood community) for urban purposes is reflected in the City's proposed Official Plan Amendment 13. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has publicly stated that the preservation of the entire Agricultural Assembly is based on fulfilling the Government's election platform and on science. As stated above, there has been no technical information provided by the Province that supports the Cherrywood community for permanent agricultural protection. It is recommended that the Province exclude the Cherrywood community from the draft Greenbelt Plan and add the lands east of the Hamlet of Whitevale on the basis of the GMS results, which is beinq implemented throuqh Amendment 13 (see Maps 1 and 2, Attachments 6 and 7). ATTACHMEN'I' # .... I 3{:) , Report PD 47-04 REPOR'[ # PD/~']-Oq~Ar~-~urn~_ Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan December 2, 2004 Page 7 Conclusion on broader range of countryside uses for Pickering ignored. The City had commented to the Greenbelt Task Force that there should be a distinction between the more pure "agricultural areas" and "countryside areas", where a broader range of uses could be permissible. In that comment, it was suggested that the non-urban lands south of the Oak Ridges Moraine (at least in western Durham) be considered as "countryside areas" and lands north of the Moraine be retained as "agricultural areas". The draft Greenbelt Plan identifies a single Protected Countryside designation, which is further differentiated into an Agricultural System and a Natural Heritage System. In the Agricultural System, the lands are either "prime agricultural" or "rural" areas, with the rural areas permitting a broader range of uses including recreational uses. Under the Greenbelt Plan, all lands in Pickering's Agricultural System will be considered "prime agricultural" as they are designated Permanent Agricultural Reserve in the Regional Official Plan. The prime agricultural areas would only permit agricultural, agriculture-related and secondary uses as defined by the Provincial Policy Statement. In contrast, the City's proposed Countryside Area designation under the Growth Management Study and in Amendment 13 would also permit non-traditional agricultural related uses such as country inns, rural theatres, country spa's, and antique stores. It is recommended that the Province be requested to consider a rural designation for the north part of the Aqricultural Assembly lands, and the lands around Whitevale, thereby permitting a broader ranqe of near urban uses. A similar request will be made to the Region as part of the City's comments on the Regional Official Plan Review to eliminate the distinction between prime and rural designations. Local planning controls could then be used to determine if further restrictions are required in light of the local context. Under the Greenbelt Plan, intensive beef and hog operations could potentially be established in the southern part of the Agricultural Assembly adjacent to the south Pickering urban area, subject only to the minimum distance separation (MDS) formulae. These uses are inappropriate on the rural/urban fringe where there is the potential for adverse dust, odour and noise impacts on nearby urban residents. It is recommended that the Province be requested to consider restricting intensive farm operations in close proximity to urban areas. Lack of rationale for including the western portion of the Hamlet of Greenwood in the Greenbelt Plan, The Greenbelt boundary appears to follow the Lake Iroquois shoreline through the Hamlet of Greenwood. This results in the west part of Greenwood being included in the greenbelt. Although there are good agricultural lands north and east of the hamlet, these lands were not included in the Greenbelt. As noted earlier, this area could potentially be a future urban area of Pickering. Staff does not understand the rationale for establishing the greenbelt in the vicinity of Greenwood. Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan December 2, 2004 Page 8 Staff, in reviewing the Greenbelt boundary for the Greenwood area, considered two options. The first option would be based on a long term vision for Greenwood as a rural hamlet within a permanent countryside of agriculture and open space lands. To this end, consideration could be given to expanding the Greenbelt boundary to include the entire hamlet and other lands to the north and east. Input from Greenwood residents could be obtained in early January to meet the Ministry's timetable. The second option would be based on eliminating "provincial" restrictions on private landowners within an established settlement (the City's approved Official Plan and zoning by-law address land use in detail), and leaving future land use studies to establish the long term vision for the hamlet (which could include retaining open space around it). Accordingly, this option would remove from the greenbelt the lots on the west side of the hamlet (generally west of Trimbles Lane). Staff also considered other emerging initiatives influencing the area such as: · the Individual Environmental Assessment for the eastern extension of Highway 407; · the Greater Toronto Airport Authority's recommended Interim Airport Planning Protection Area (IAPA) for a possible future regional airport, which implements a higher standard of the 25 Noise Exposure Forecast contour. This IAPA would restrict establishment of new, noise-sensitive uses. If the final decision is made by the Federal government following an environmental assessment to construct an airport, then any further residential and other noise-sensitive land uses may be permanently restricted in this area; · the Regional Official Plan Review Recommended Direction to limit hamlet growth to an increase of 25%; · the Province's draft Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe identifies lands in northeast Pickering as a future urban area but would be subject to further study by the City and Region; and · the Pleasant Growth exercise for Greenwood and the Greenwood Area Ratepayers Association community survey dated October 2004 supported a moderate level of growth for Greenwood. In order to provide better consideration of the opportunities and constraints of the various initiatives following City, regional and community input on Greenwood, it is premature to request the Province to include the lands in and around the Hamlet in the greenbelt at this time. Staff is recommendinq that the Province exclude the western part of the hamlet from the Greenbelt Plan. Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan December 2, 2004 Page 9 050 4.0 5.0 Impact on Planning Act Applications In December 2003, the Province introduced Bill 27, the Greenbelt Protection Act. This Act had the effect of putting 'on-hold' three applications in Picketing for "urban uses" outside "urban settlements" as defined by the Act. The three development proposals were all in the vicinity of the Hamlet of Greenwood, and included the following: the 2001 Bitondo Markets 13-1ot hamlet residential proposal; the Clancey driving range proposal; and the Berrywoods Farms Inc. 381-lot hamlet expansion proposal. The Greenbelt Protection Act will be repealed on December 16, 2004, and the moratorium on processing the above-noted proposals will end. However, processing of these applications will now be required to meet the requirements of the Province's new legislation (proposed Bill 135, the Greenbelt Act, 2004) and the Greenbelt Plan. Staff has reviewed the effects of the new legislation (as currently drafted) and the draft Greenbelt Plan on the three planning proposals. Both the Clancey and the Bitondo Markets proposals lie outside the proposed Greenbelt, and can be processed as usual. The southern part of the Berrywoods proposal lies within the proposed Greenbelt. As the Berrywoods proposal was submitted after the introduction of Bill 27, it will be considered as if it is received after December 16, 2004, and will be required to comply with the Greenbelt Plan. A table summarizing the status of these applications, and a map showing their locations are attached (see Attachment #3). Pickering has several other country residential proposals, or approved but unbuilt country residential subdivisions that lie within the draft Greenbelt. These include the following: Staxton Glen Phase 2 (Bitondo/Brown) country residential; Birchwood Estates country residential; Barclay Estates country residential; and Forest Creek country residential. As all of the applications pre-date by many years the December 16, 2004 date, processing of the applications and issuance of building permits are "grandfathered" and do not have to conform to the Greenbelt Plan. A map showing these proposals is attached (see Attachment #4). Also, there are applications located within the Neighbourhoods that are shown in the Greenbelt. Inc., 812723 Ontario Inc., and Pine Ridge "grandfathered" (see Attachment #5). Rouge Park and Rosebank These applications, by Nicou Land Assembly, are also Summary of Requested changes to the Greenbelt Plan Boundary As part of the City's review, staff is requesting the Province make the following changes to the Greenbelt Plan boundary: 1. delete the Protected Countryside designation from the southern part of the Agricultural Assembly (the Cherrywood community); 0 5 ~ Report PD 47-04 Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan ~.T~_,~OHMENT # I TO December 2, 2004 Page 10 6.0 2. add the lands located on the east side of the West Duffins Creek surrounding the Hamlet of Whitevale to the Greenbelt as part of the "rural" agricultural system; 3. delete the Protected Countryside designation from the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, which is within Pickering's existing urban area as identified in the City and Regional Official Plans; 4. delete the Protected Countryside designation from all of the residential lots approved in Registered Plans of Subdivision along the edge of the Rouge River, south of the Rouge Park neighborhood to Lake Ontario; 5. delete the Protected Countryside designation from the Hamlet of Greenwood; 6. examine boundaries, extent and rationale of proposed greenbelt for lands along East Duffins Creek; and 7. examine boundary and rationale of the proposed greenbelt for lands through the Fifth Concession, east of Brock Road. All of the above changes were discussed with the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing at the November 24, 2004 meeting. Changes are shown on Maps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (see Attachments 6 to 12). The Ministry also agreed to meet with the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to review Greenbelt boundary issues. Issues 3 and 4 are not discussed further on this Report as we understand MMAH staff agree to these changes. Issues 6 and 7 are not discussed further as Ministry staff advised they would be available to discuss these boundaries in more detail. The approval of the Greenbelt Plan is premature until the Province releases a comprehensive package of all of its initiatives. Last summer, the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal released a discussion paper on a proposed Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Comments through Report PD 33-04 were provided to the Province. At that time, Pickering Council requested the Province to release a comprehensive package of all its initiatives for further consultation including all planning reform initiatives, the above noted Growth Plan, Greater Golden Horseshoe Transportation Strategy, the 10-year Strategic Infrastructure Investment Plan, and the proposed Greenbelt Plan, prior to finalizing the growth plan. A common theme being voiced at recent meetings with stakeholders and the public on the draft Greenbelt Plan was the need for the Province to release a comprehensive package of all of its initiatives for consultation, prior to any of the initiatives being finalized. ATTACHMENT#,, Report PD 47-04 REPORT ~' PD q-/-Oq Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan December 2, 2004 Page 11 052 7.0 The Province's planninq process under the Ontario Planning and Development Act (OPDA) supercedes the Greenbelt Plan as it relates to the Agricultural Assembly. As discussed earlier, the draft Plan identifies the entire Agricultural Assembly within the Greenbelt Plan. Concurrently, the Province is undertaking a planning process under the OPDA for the Agricultural Assembly and Seaton lands. Under the proposed Greenbelt Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing can make a plan or an amendment to a plan under the OPDA even if the Greenbelt Plan is in effect in the area to be covered by the Plan. Therefore, a development plan approved by the Minister for the Agricultural Assembly lands would supercede the Greenbelt Plan. 8.0 Next Steps Staff will follow-up with the Province on the recommended changes to the draft Greenbelt Plan and will advise Council of the release of the final Greenbelt Plan. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. Highlights of Bill 135 - Proposed Greenbelt Act, 2004 Extract for Pickering of draft Greenbelt Map Current Planning Applications Table and Map Map of Planning Applications "Grandfathered" in the Rural Area Map of Planning Applications "Grandfathered" in the Urban Area Map 1 - South portion of the Agricultural Assembly (Cherrywood Community) Map 2 - Lands surrounding the Hamlet of Whitevale Map 3 - Rouge Park Neighbourhood Map 4 - Rosebank, Rougemount, and Highbush Neighbourhoods Map 5 - Hamlet of Greenwood Map 6 - Lands around East Duffins Creek Map 7 - Lands within the Fifth Concession, east of Brock Road Copy of Draft Greenbelt Plan Report PD 47-04 ATTACHMENT # REPOR'I # pDLFI-6q Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan December 2, 2004 Page 12 Prepared By: '~RIGINAL SIGNED BY Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner-Policy ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy GM:jf:ld Copy: Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ORIGINAL SIONI~ 11¥' Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer Approved / Endorsed By: ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Neil Carroll, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning & Development ATTACHMENT # ~-- 1'0 ~ Excerpts from the Council Meeting Minutes Monday, December 6, 2004 7:30 PM 05,; (11) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Special Meeting of November 9, 2004 Regular Meeting of November 15, 2004 (IV) RESOLUTIONS Resolution #157/04 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Pickering Council RECEIVE Report PD 47-04 as its comments on the provincial Draft Greenbelt Plan, dated October 2004, EBR Registry Number: PF04E0006; and 2. That Pickering Council ADVISE the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; (a) That Pickering Council continues to support the concept of a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe; and (b) That the southern part of the Agricultural Assembly (the Cherrywood community) be excluded from the greenbelt Plan and that lands east of the Hamlet of Whitevale be added; and (c) That the other Greenbelt land use and boundary issues be addressed to: i) delete the Protected Countryside designation from the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, which is within Pickering's existing urban area as identified in the City and Regional Official Plans; and ii) delete the Protected Countryside designation from all of the residential lots approved in Registered Plans of Subdivision along the edge of the Rouge River, south of the Rouge Park neighbourhood to Lake Ontario; (d)That the approval of the draft Greenbelt Plan should be delayed until such time as municipalities and other stakeholders have had an opportunity to review the Ministry's supporting documentation; and (e)That the draft Greenbelt Plan for the Golden Horseshoe as well as other provincial initiatives such as the Planning Act reform are released as a comprehensive package for further consultation; and 055 PICKERING ATTACHMENT # ~-- 1~ Excerpts from the Council Meeting Minutes Monday, December 6, 2004 7:30 PM (f) That further examination is required, in consultation with all affected communities, respecting: i)the boundary and rationale for inclusion of hamlets and other rural settlements in the Greenbelt; and ii)the boundaries, extent and rationale of proposed greenbelt and non- greenbelt lands in the northeast sector of Pickering. That Pickering Council authorize City staff to continue to review and provide technical comments on the draft Greenbelt Plan to the Province after the deadline date of December 12, 2004 to address the issues; and That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 47-04 to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal; the Region of Durham; Durham Region Area Municipalities; the Town of Markham; the Region of York and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. CARRIED AS AMENDED PICKERING f-,T.T,~CHMEI~T ~ 3 TO ,~ 05t3 CONSULTATION PROCESS REPORT DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN Planning & Development Department February 1, 2005 ATTACHMENT # CONSULTATION PROCESS 1.0 1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION Report PD 47-04 On December 6, 2004, Pickering Council received Report PD 47-04 as its comments on the draft Greenbelt Plan. At the meeting, Council also passed Resolution #157/04, which in part, supported the concept of a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe and directed staff to consult with all affected communities respecting: (i) the boundary and rationale for inclusion of hamlets and other rural settlements in the Greenbelt; and (ii) the boundaries, extent and rational of the proposed greenbelt and non-greenbelt lands in the northeast sector of Pickering. A copy of Resolution #157/04 is provided as Appendix A. Consultation Process Page 2 2.0 CONSULTATION ATTACHMENT #_ ,.~ TO 055 2.1 2.2 Consultation with Province Following the December 6, 2004 meeting, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) advised that an extension of 45 days would be granted to municipalities to allow for further review and comments on the Greenbelt Plan. Also, municipalities would be provided an opportunity to meet with MMAH staff to discuss mapping and other technical matters relating to the Greenbelt Plan. On January 10, 2005, City staff consulted with representatives from MMAH to discuss the draft Greenbelt Plan. MMAH staff clarified that hamlets within the Greenbelt Plan will continue to be subject to municipal official plan policies. Also, MMAH staff clarified that the lands to the north and south-east of the Hamlet of Greenwood shown as Natural Heritage System are an integral part of the terrestrial natural heritage and water resource systems associated with the former Lake Iroquois Shoreline/Beach. MMAH staff advised that due to new information received from the Geological Survey of Canada on the Oak Ridges Moraine, the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) would be reviewing the map boundary for accuracy. Following the meeting, City staff wrote to MMAH requesting a meeting with MNR to discuss potential revisions to the Greenbelt boundary as soon as possible. MMAH subsequently turned down our request citing that Cabinet is responsible for approving any revisions to the draft Greenbelt Plan. Consultation with TRCA City staff consulted with a Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) watershed specialist and independent biologists with Dillon Consulting to review the terrestrial natural heritage and hydrologic features within the Greenbelt boundary in the northeast sector of Pickering. It was agreed that the boundaries of the draft Greenbelt Plan are generally consistent with the location of the former Lake Iroquois Shoreline/Beach as identified by the Geological Survey of Canada. The Shoreline is an important natural connection to the Oak Ridges Moraine and discharges significant quantities of groundwater to the creeks in the area to sustain the coldwater fisheries populations. Based on our understanding of the rationale for the Greenbelt in this sector, and a further examination of aerial photography and the subsurface mapping has convinced staff to recommend that lands on either side of Carruther's Creek, located west of Salem Road, south of Highway 7 should be added to the Greenbelt Plan (see Appendix B - Technical Revision). Consultation Process Page 3 0'35 2.3 ATTACHMENTt¢ LI~ TO , REPOR]' ~ PD/-i7-0~ ~,~¢rCurrt~ Consultation with the various Rural Settlement Associations in the affected communities. Following the discussions with MMAH, staff telephoned the following rural settlement associations to clarify the restrictions imposed by the Greenbelt Plan on the hamlets and to invite them to the upcoming open house sessions: · Whitevale and District Residents Association; · Green River Residents Association; · Claremont and District Community Association; · Greenwood and Area Ratepayers Association; · Kinsale and Area Residents Association; · Cherrywood Residents Association. In addition, a meeting was held with the Greenwood and Area Ratepayers Association (GARA) executives to discuss Greenbelt issues affecting the Hamlet of Greenwood. 2.4 Consultation with the Public 2.4.1 Open House Sessions On January 20, 2005, two open house sessions were held at the Greenwood Community Centre to discuss the draft Greenbelt Plan. City staff presented information on the draft Greenbelt Plan in both the afternoon and evening sessions, and a question and answer period followed. Map and display materials were also available for public review. In addition, an Information Package and Comment Form were provided to all persons entering the facility (see Appendix C & D). The Comment Form provided an opportunity for the public to review three concepts representing current public positions on possible expansions to the Greenbelt Plan boundaries. · Concept A related to the December 2004 Durham Regional Council position to include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood in the Greenbelt Plan; · Concept B related to the Pleasant Growth Workshop undertaken for the Hamlet of Greenwood in April 2003; and Concept C related to the Greenwood Area Ratepayers Association's submission to the Province on the draft Greenbelt Plan to include all lands in Pickering south of Highway 7, between Sideline 16 and Salem Road. For additional information about the origin of these concepts, see Appendix E. Consultation Process Page 4 2.4.2 2.4.3 ATTACHMENT# ~ TO, REP0R3 # PDL/7'Oq Registrant Location Analysis Approximately 85 people attended the afternoon session and 115 people attended the evening session. A total of 121 people registered at one or both of the open house sessions. From the property addresses provided by the registrants, a table grouping the addresses by sector and a map outlining the boundaries of the sectors have been prepared (see Appendix F). The percentage of registrants by sector is shown as follows: · 22% were from the Hamlet of Greenwood/Cluster; · 5% were from lands located in proposed Concept B or C; · 11% were from lands east of Concept C, south of Highway 7; and · a further 24% were from the area north of Highway 7, east of the airport lands. In addition, 3% were from other rural Pickering locations, 4% were from urban Pickering, 16% were from outside Pickering, and 15% did not provide an address. Public Comments At the open house sessions, numerous residents raised the issue of reduced property values and increased property taxes facing landowners particularly farmers as a direct result of the Greenbelt designation. There was support from many residents for Provincial compensation for landowners facing reduced property values. Also, residents expressed concerned with the Greenbelt Plan restrictions prohibiting no new lots in the Greenbelt Plan outside of the hamlets. Farmers from the surrounding area also spoke about their inability to secure loans from financial institutions to continue farming in the greenbelt. A resident questioned the rationale for farm properties having been divided in half by the Greenbelt boundary. Other residents sought clarification relating to building restrictions imposed by the Greenbelt Plan in Greenwood and in the surrounding rural clusters. Specific comments relating to Pickering are summarized below: · why is the Greenbelt boundary south of Greenwood; · what is the reason for including residential lots within the urban neighbourhoods of south Pickering in the Greenbelt Plan; · need to address the impact of the airport on lands within the Greenbelt Plan; · where does Pickering see future urban growth occurring; and · can connections be made to existing services (e.g. water and sewer) that lie within the Greenbelt Plan area. Staff requested that the Comment Forms and/or letters commenting on boundaries for the Greenbelt Plan be submitted by Tuesday, January 25, 2005. Consultation Process Page 5 2.4.4 ATTACHMENT # ,~ TO ~ Comment Forms and Submission Analysis The City has received 46 submissions including comment forms, emails and letters relating to the Greenbelt Plan boundary expansion concepts. It should be noted that the Comment Form is used only to gather respondent's opinions on Greenbelt boundary expansions and it is not intended to represent a statistical survey of resident attitudes. The responses are grouped by sector and boundary preference as shown in the Table 2 (see Appendix G). From the responses received, there is a definite split in views respecting possible expansion of the Greenbelt boundary between the residents of the Greenwood, who are generally in favour of expansion of the Greenbelt in order to provide an undeveloped buffer around Greenwood and rural residents to the east and north of Greenwood who are generally opposed to an expansion of the Greenbelt boundary. Responses regarding possible expansion of the Greenbelt summarized in the table show that a large majority (15 out of 17) of respondents from Greenwood want a significant Greenbelt buffer (either Concept B or C) to expand the Greenbelt to the east of Greenwood. In general, this reflects a desire to preserve the existing character of the Hamlet of Greenwood. However, the 2 respondents located north and east of the Westney Road and Concession 6 intersection, are in favour of either no expansion to the Greenbelt or the addition of only the eastern part of Greenwood to the Greenbelt. Conversely, all but one response from residents in the rural areas within the Concept B or C expansion lands, the lands further to the east that are south of Highway 7, and lands located north of Highway 7 which are east of the Airport lands favour either no expansion, or even a rollback of the Greenbelt lands. In general, this reflects a desire to protect their rights to use the lands without the new set of Government controls introduced by the Greenbelt Plan. These landowners are now also aware that future potential urban uses may one day be considered within the areas. Other concerns included an interest in obtaining water and sewer services, and that GARA did not consult with all potentially affected landowners when making their comments on the draft Greenbelt Plan. All of the comment forms and submissions received by the City are shown in Appendix H. Consultation Process Page 6 ATTACHMENT# ~ TO~ ~ APPENDIX A PICKERING COUNCIL RESOULUTION #157/04 0O,, A~ACHMENI ~,, , J TO , fiEPORl # PD~~ Excerpts from the Council Meeting Minutes Monday, December 6, 2004 7:30 PM (11) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Special Meeting of November 9, 2004 Regular Meeting of November 15, 2004 ,(IV) RESOLUTIONS Resolution #157/04 Moved by Councillor Ashe Seconded by Councillor Pickles That Pickering Council RECEIVE Report PD 47-04 as its comments on the provincial Draft Greenbelt Plan, dated October 2004, EBR Registry Number: PF04E0006; and 2. That Pickering Council ADVISE the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; (a) That Pickering Council continues to support the concept of a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe; and (b)That the southern part of the Agricultural Assembly (the Cherrywood community) be excluded from the greenbelt Plan and that lands east of the Hamlet of Whitevale be added; and (c) That the other Greenbelt land use and boundary issues be addressed to: i) delete the Protected Countryside designation from the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, which is within Pickering's existing urban area as identified in the City and Regional Official Plans; and ii) delete the Protected Countryside designation from all of the residential lots approved in Registered Plans of Subdivision along the edge of the Rouge River, south of the Rouge Park neighbourhood to Lake Ontario; (d)That the approval of the draft Greenbelt Plan should be delayed until such time as municipalities and other stakeholders have had an opportunity to review the Ministry's supporting documentation; and (e)That the draft Greenbelt Plan for the Golden Horseshoe as well as other provincial initiatives such as the Planning Act reform are released as a comprehensive package for further consultation; and PICKERING Excerpts from the Council Meeting Minutes Monday, December 6, 2004 7:30 PM 064 (f) That further examination is required, in consultation with all affected communities, respecting: i)the boundary and rationale for inclusion of hamlets and other rural settlements in the Greenbelt; and ii)the boundaries, extent and rationale of proposed greenbelt and non- greenbelt lands in the northeast sector of Pickering. That Pickering Council authorize City staff to continue to review and provide technical comments on the draft Greenbelt Plan to the Province after the deadline date of December 12, 2004 to address the issues; and That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 47-04 to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal; the Region of Durham; Durham Region Area Municipalities; the Town of Markham; the Region of York and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. CARRIED AS AMENDED APPENDIX B TECHNICAL REVISION REPORT i PD Draft Greenbelt Plan: Technical Revison Legend -- Watercourses ~ Greenbelt Boundary - - Proposed 407 Extension ~ Add To Greenbelt Boundary Map 1 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JAN. 17, 2005 /~TTACHMENT# ~ TO . REPORT # pdt/7-or ~'/~J~,~c~,,,,) APPENDIX C INFORMATION PACKAGE ~TlACH~ENT# 3 TO , OG,3 HCKE_lP4NG DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN REVIEW INFORMATION PACKAGE Planning & Development Department January 2005 ATIACHMENI' # ~ T,O ~ Background In October 2004, the Province released its draft Greenbelt Plan for consultation. The Greenbelt Plan would protect about one million acres of environmentally sensitive and agricultural land in the Golden Horseshoe from urban development. A significant portion of Pickering is included in the draft Greenbelt Plan. On December 6, 2004, Pickering Council received Report PD 47-04 on the draft Greenbelt Plan. In that Report, staff had recommended that the western portion of the Hamlet of Greenwood be excluded from the draft Greenbelt Plan because of a concern with potential restrictions within the hamlet, and also not to have the hamlet half in and half out. Following consideration of the Report, Council directed that further consultation with the affected communities respecting the boundary and rationale of the proposed greenbelt and non-greenbelt lands in the northeast sector of Pickering was required. Boundary Concepts There are three concepts that reflect current public positions on the draft Greenbelt Plan boundary to date. Maps showing these concepts are provided as part of this Information Package. Concept A relates to Durham Regional Council position to include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood in the draft Greenbelt Plan; Concept B relates to the Pleasant Growth Workshop undertaken for the Hamlet of Greenwood; and Concept C relates to the Greenwood Area Ratepayers Association (GARA) submission to the Province on the draft Greenbelt Plan. Information relating to these concepts is provided below: Boundary Concept A - Durham Regional Council Position · Recommended the remaining portion of the Hamlet of Greenwood as defined by the Pickering Official Plan be included in the Provincial Greenbelt Plan; · Rationale is to have "same rules" apply across the Hamlet; · For development within the Hamlet, Provincial staff advise that the Greenbelt Plan being changed to eliminate restrictions (existing planning policies will apply); · Any future expansion of Greenwood would involve lands outside the Greenbelt boundary, and would be subject to existing planning policies - not the Greenbelt policies; · Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted; · Lands in the northeast sector of Pickering, outside the Greenbelt, are identified in draft Provincial Growth Plan as a potential future growth area; · Future planning process and decision required on whether Greenwood would be assimilated into new development, or whether some countryside around the Hamlet would be retained; City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Information Package 1 ATTACHMENT # ? TO REPORT # PD Boundary Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · Shows additional lands around the Hamlet of Greenwood, reflecting the boundary identified through the 2003 Pleasant Growth Workshop (bounded by Highway 7 on the north, Sideline 8 road allowance on the east, and the hydro corridor on the south); Rationale is to include a buffer around the rural settlement, sustaining its countryside context, cultural heritage resources, near-urban agriculture, and enabling opportunities for sustainable tourism development; · For development within the Hamlet, Provincial staff advise that the Greenbelt Plan is being changed to eliminate restrictions (existing planning policies will apply); · Any future expansion of Greenwood would be restricted to "minor rounding out" (as well as existing planning policies); Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted; ° The Hamlet would retain its rural character together with its countryside context, offering an alternative choice of neighbourhood within the City; · Lands in the northeast sector of Pickering, outside the Greenbelt, are identified in draft Provincial Growth Plan as a potential future growth area and would be reduced in size; Boundary Concept C - Greenwood Area Ratepayers Association (GARA) · Shows additional lands around the Hamlet of Greenwood, reflecting GARA's submission on the Greenbelt (bounded by Highway 7 to the north, Salem Road to the east, the Fifth Concession Road to the south, and Sideline 16 to the west); · Rationale is to include a buffer around the rural settlement, sustaining its countryside context, cultural heritage resources, near-urban agriculture, and enabling opportunities for sustainable tourism development; · For development within the Hamlet, Provincial staff advise that the Greenbelt Plan is being changed to eliminate restrictions (existing planning policies will apply); · Any future expansion of Greenwood would be restricted to "minor rounding out" (as well as existing planning policies); · Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted; · The Hamlet would retain its rural character together with an even larger countryside context than Concept B, offering an alternative choice of neighbourhood within the City; · Lands in the northeast sector of Pickering, outside the Greenbelt, are identified in draft Provincial Growth Plan as a potential future growth area and would be further reduced in size than Concept B; WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO COMMENT ON THE ABOVE CONCEPTS AS THEY AFFECT THE NORTHEAST SECTOR OF PICKERING. PLEASE PICK-UP A COMMENT FORM. City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Information Package 2 07~ ATTACHMENT#__,...~TO -~ REPORT # PD~ Draft Greenbelt Plan: Regional Council Position Concept A Legend -- Watercourses ~ Greenbelt BOundary - - Proposed 407 Extensionr'n Add to Greenbelt Boundary CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: JAN. 17, 2005 ATTACHMENT REPORT f Draft Greenbelt Plan: Pleasant Growth WOrkshop Concept B I Legend --Watercourses ~Greenbelt Boundary ~ Illl ATTACHMENT# ~d .......TO - REPORT # PD~ Draft Greenbelt Plan: GARA Submission Legend --Watercourses ~Greenbelt Boundary - -Proposed 407 Extensioni~]Add to Greenbelt Boundary CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Concept C DATE: JAN. 17, 2005 REPORI ~ PD//7 O74 APPENDIX D COMMENT FORM 075 PIC _KE G ATTACHMENT # 3 TO ~ ~FP0~7 ~, PD~ DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN COMMENT FORM This Comment Form provides a mechanism for the City of Pickering to collect your views on the draft Greenbelt Plan as it affects the northeast sector of Pickering. There is an Information Package containing maps, information and questions relating to three Greenbelt Plan boundary concepts for the northeast sector of Pickering. Responses will be used in evaluating and refining the concepts, and selecting a "recommended Greenbelt Plan boundary" for Council's consideration on February 7, 2005. For your convenience, there are a number of ways the survey can be completed and submitted to the City: · On-line at cityofpickering.com · At the Public Open House to be held at the Greenwood Community Centre on January 20, 2005 between 2:00 pm and 9:30 pm · After the Public Open House, by returning the Comment Form to the Pickering Planning & Development Department, or after work hours, by depositing it in the City's mail "drop-box" outside of City Hall by January 25, 2005 · By regular mail or by fax to either Grant McGregor or Steve Gaunt at the following address Grant McGregor Principal Planner- Policy City of Pickering One The Esplanade, Pickering, L1V 6K7 Fax: 905. 420.7648 Phone: 905.420.4660 ext. 2032 Email: .qmc_qre~or@city.pickerin.q.on.ca OR Steve Gaunt Senior Planner City of Pickering One The Esplanade, Pickering, L1V 6K7 Fax: 905. 420.7648 Phone: 905.420.4660 ext. 2033 Email: s.qaunt~.city, pickering.on.ca Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: /~?rACHMENT# c~ TO, ,~ 0 7 8 Property Address: City: Phone: Postal Code: Email: (if appficable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Re.qional Council Position · include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road north of the hydro corridor Concept C - GARA's Submission · include an area defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the north, and Salem Road to the east City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 2. Are there additional concepts you feel should Why? be considered? O73 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 O75 APPENDIX E INFORMATION ON CONCEPTS A, B & C 050 INFORMATION ON CONCEPTS A, B & C Concept A - Regional Council Position On December 15, 2004, Durham Regional Council requested the Province to modify the Greenbelt boundary to include the remaining portion of the hamlet of Greenwood as per the Pickering Official Plan. Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop On April 5, 2003, the City held a Greenwood Growth Workshop to obtain community input to the future growth of the hamlet. The premise for the workshop resulted from an earlier public meeting on the Bitondo Markets Limited application to permit 13 residential lots. One of the conclusions reached at the end of the public meeting was to hold a 'charette' to consider conditions and controls for future growth of Greenwood. The findings of the workshop resulted in a consensus to define acceptable growth for Greenwood, in a future amendment to the Greenwood Settlement policies of the Pickering Official Plan. The Greenwood policies currently establish the maximum possible northern limit of the Hamlet as Highway #7 and the maximum possible eastern limit as the Westney Road By-pass. The Workshop provided a maximum southern boundary of the Hamlet as the hydro corridor. Hamlet expansion would include development of between 35 and 70 dwelling units by 2016 on minimum lot sizes of 1.5 acres. Concept C - Greenwood Area and Ratepayers Association (GARA) Submission The Greenwood Area Ratepayers Association (GARA) made a submission to the Greenbelt Task Force recommending that the area around the Hamlet of Greenwood as defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway No. 7 to the north, and Salem Road to the east be included within the Greenbelt Plan. The Association noted that the area around Greenwood contains numerous features, prime agricultural lands, environmentally sensitive lands, and recreational lands. 081 APPENDIX F TABLE & MAP OF RESPONDENTS' ADDRESSES BY SECTOR ~T'~CHr~E~T #_-.~__.~T0, Table 1 PROPERTY ADDRESS OF REGISTRANTS BY SECTOR Greenwood Hamlet/Cluster Lands added by Concepts 'B' & 'C' Lands east of Concept C - south of Highway 7* Northeast Sector - north of Highway 7 & east of Airport lands Other Rural Pickering Addresses Urban Pickering Addresses Non-Pickering Addresses Other People (no address provided) Totals REGISTRANTS 26 (22%) 7 (5%) 13(11%) 29(24%) 3 (3%) 6(4%) 19(16%) 18(15%) 121 (lOO%) Includes both lands north of the draft Greenbelt boundary and those within the draft Greenbelt boundary. REPORT # PD ' m ~'~ I I'~l[~ ~ d Sectors of :>:i ~ ~ l? ,~,~:_~-~ ~_~.~_o. _ Consultation Resm)ndents ~: ./~'~---~., l =-'3 ~ a 1- GREENWOOD HAMLET/CLUSTER :: ~ ~: i ~ : 3 I~"Ds ADDED BY CONCEPT ~ ~"~ : 4-LANDS EAST OF CONCEPT C ~ ~ ~~~~---~ ,~.., ~ ~.,o,,,~s, s,c,o,,,om o~ ,~, ~_ .. ~ _ ,-- ~ :: - GREENBELT BOUNDARY Development Department I DATE: JAN. 27, 2004 I ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD O84 APPENDIX G TABLE OF RESPONDENTS' PREFERENCES BY SECTOR 085 Table 2 COMMENT FORM RESPONSES TO EXPANDING THE GREENBELT BOUNDARIES Property Preferred Changes Location of No Concept A Concept B Concept C Number Respondents Expansion 1) Greenwood Hamlet and Cluster 2 1 3 11 17 2) Lands Added by Concept B* 8 0 0 0 8 3) Lands Added by Concept C** 3 0 0 0 3 4) Lands east of Concept C, south of 6 1 0 1'**** 8 Hwy 7*** 5) Northeast Sector- north of Hwy 7 & 7 1 0 2 10 east of Airport lands Totals 26 3 3 14 46 Does not include lands in the Hamlet. Does not include lands in the Hamlet or in Concept B. Includes both lands north of the Draft Greenbelt boundary and those within the Draft Greenbelt boundary. Includes responses in favour of no expansion, rollback of boundaries or of no Greenbelt. Respondent preferred a larger boundary extension, east to Lake Ridge Road, north to Highway 7 /~T'I'ACHMEN'I' #_ ~ TO APPENDIX H COMMENT FORM RESPONDENTS AND SUBMISSIONS RECEIVED ATTACHMENT # .~ TO Table 3 COMMENT FORM RESPONSES AND SUBMISSIONS Submission No. Name Submission No. Name 1. Claudia Meise & Rick Looy 25. June & Brian Cranfield 2. i Natalie Fedchak 26. Seonjo Lee 3., 4. & 5. William & Ann Clancey 27. Giacomo & Shirley Salpietro 6. Robert Lennox 28. Serge Rielau 7. John van den Hengel 29. Grant Carson 8. Eva McLean 30. James Wilson 9. Annette Ainsbury 31. Louise Cranfield 10. Alex Artuchov 32. Gerry Marks 11. William & Jacqueline Carr 33. Bruce & Bea McCowan 12. Farhan, Noman & Ahmad Basharat 34. Erik Igel 13. Eileen & Allan Gilchrist 35. Jeanine Carson 14. Mavis Churchill 36. Russ & Judith Phillips 15. Joel Dahl 37. Aurelio Ibanez Bill Oosterholt SR & 16. Bill Oosterholt JR 38. Greg Daly 17. Brian McCord 39. William A. Brown 18. i V&P Chong-Knight 40. Kenn McTaggart 19. ' William & Nancy McCowan 41. Bill Middleton 20. Mauro (Malcolm)Campagna 42. Douglas & Marjorie Morden 21. Pat Campagna 43. Don Beach 22. Antonio Maggio 44. Joan Moritsugu 23. Murray & Evelyn Jones 45. David Clark 24. Jeanette Wiles 46. Leonard Bitondo I:\Greenbelt\Greenbeltreport\Summary of Public Comments1 .doc 083 Required Information: (p/ease print c/ear/y) Name: Property Address: City: y"¥-('cj.¢~ ..~. Postal Code: ~,/,,.~ ~?_.,,_ J (' Phone: ~0 .S" ~ ~ - ~,,.~_ / Email: (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts Concept A - ReRional Council Position include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood What I like about this concept is... because... What I don't concept is ... because ... like about this City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... .Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road north of the hydro corridor Submission defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the north, and Salem Road to the east City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 2. Are there additional concepts you feel should be considered? Why?' 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: Property Address: City: Phone: Postal Code: L-.o/--/ ! ~ Email: (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Regional Council Position · includethe entire Hamlet of - Greenwood ~.~, City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road north of the hydro corridor Concept C - GARA's Submission ~ ~,,,,[0._~lude an ~ detlnea Dy / Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, / Highway 7 to the north, and Salem Road to the east City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 093 2. Are there additional concepts Why? you feel should be considered? 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 STERLING & GOLD HOLDINGS ......... & ANN CLANCEY 49 5th Concession El ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Ajax ON. L1T4V6 (905) 428 7407 December 22, 2004 City of Pickering Planning Department One the Esplanade Picketing ON L1V 6K7 FIECEIVED O£C 2 2 200 CITY OF P/CKE PLANNING & DIE DEPARTMENT Catherine Rose, We do not agree with the ratepayers association of Greenwood, or any resolutions made by council to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that Greenwood be included in the Golden Horseshoe Green Belt. Nor do we want the surrounding North East section of Picketing to be designated greenbelt as the Provincial Government has already determined these areas are excluded from the proposed greenbelt. John Wager and the area ratepayers do not represent the majority of the land owners in the North Picketing/Greenwood area. They do not represent our views or those of the Provincial Government, or those of Pickering Planning. That all the Hamlet of Greenwood and surrounding area be included in it's entirety in the Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt. We agree with Catherine Rose, a Manager in the planning department, that Greenwood and the North East area of Pickering should be removed in it's entirety from the proposed greenbelt. It is disturbing to have found out through the Picketing - Ajax News Advertiser that the Greenwood area ratepayers were delegates at the Dec. 6, 2004 meeting. Furthermore the discussion of any resolutions to amend the land designations in Greenwood and surrounding area, and passing such amendments, without the landowners present to voice their concerns is unacceptable. Especially seeing as there was no written or verbal invitation extended to all area landowners to be represented at this meeting. O93 Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: Property Address: City: Phone: Postal Code: Email: (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concel~t A - Reqional Council Position · include the entire ~'~e~'~,- Hamlet of Greenwood . City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is .. concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B- Pleasant Gro~h Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road no~h of the hydro ~h~;c,< ~gce -~:'~ corridor ' Concept C - GARA's Submission · include an area defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 2. Are there additional concepts you feel should be considered? Why? : -. ,U - 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: Property ~ '7 /.5- Address: / City: Phone: ~?/c &,,~,z Z, ,~C'-. , Postal Code: / Emaii: (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - ReRional Council Position , /g ~,T /~/ · include the entire t~ Hamlet of , Greenwood City of Picketing Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts ' What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B-Pleasant /I--//-~ /::)~,~ 0/-'- ~ t'~£' Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of ;:E~-Z> f ~" Westney Road /^,~ ~/-/,~ north of the hydro corridor Concept C- GARA's / Submission N~.~A¢~ c~/~: ~,~ · include an area defined by Concession 5 to the , , south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east ? City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 Are there additional concepts you feel should be considered? Why? 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? I! PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 Required Information: (please pdnt clearly) Name: Property Address: City: Phone: Email: (if appficable) Postal Code: 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Re.qional Council Position · includethe entire Hamlet of Greenwood City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road north of the hydro corridor Concept C - · include an area defined bY Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 .J ------ to the west, Highway 7 to the north, and Salem Road to the east City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 2. Are there Why? additional concepts you feel should be considered? 3, Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 January 19, 2005 Val ri ranm r ~ A s s o c i a t ~ s Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP, Manager, Policy, Planning & Development Department, City of Pickering, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering Ontario, L1V 6K2 RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2005 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Ms. Rose: Re: Draft Greenbelt Plan On behalf of Robert and Catherine Lennox, I am pleased to provide comments on the Draft Greenbelt Plan. Mr. & Mrs Lennox are owners of property within and adjacent to the Hamlet of Kinsale in the City of Pickering. They are presently obtaining planning approval for the portion of their lands within the existing hamlet boundary for residential development. There is potential for the rear portion of their lands, to become part of the hamlet, subject to appropriate planning approvals. However, the most efficient form of development would require the construction of a road. The draft Greenbelt Plan supports a strong rural economy by allowing for the social, institutional and commercial uses needed by the local population of the Greenbelt's existing towns, villages and hamlets. In this regard, infill development and intensification is permitted along with minor rounding out of Hamlet boundaries at the time of municipal conformity. This direction in the Greenbelt Plan is supported. In determining what constitutes "minor rounding out" it is important to consider development that would permit the hamlet to develop in depth and not as strip residential development along a road. The minor development permitted must be sufficient to allow for the residential development to be cost-effective and efficient. It is approi~riate that the municipality', in this case, the City of Pickering, determine what constitutes minor and rounding out. Attached is a map of the Hamlet of Kinsale indicating what should be considered as a minor rounding out of the northwest quadrant. A proposed road as shown would allow for the hamlet to develop in depth behind the existing residential and commercial uses. 105 It is understood that the City will be required to conduct a conformity exercise within the next five years to bring their official plan into conformity with the Greenbelt Plan. It is anticipated that the boundaries of the hamlets in the City will be reviewed at that time to determine the appropriateness of the existing boundaries. More detailed information can be supplied at that time to support the proposed minor rounding out of the Hamlet of Kinsale. Please provide the undersigned with any reports that may be considered by your Council w/th respect to the proposed Greenbelt Plan. We look forward to working with the City in determining the appropriate growth in the hamlet of Kinsale. Yours truly; Valerie Cranmer, MCIP, RPP c.c Robert & Catherine Lennox SCHEDULE IV. 9 SETTLEMENT 9: KINSALE T-n ) PROPOSE D43 LEGEND RURAL SETTLEMENT SPECIAL INTEREST SITE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN: Chapter Twelve - Rural Seftlomenfs 22,5 From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 22, 2005 12:20 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: John van den Hengel Address: 2465 Greenridge Drive City: Greenwood PostalCode: L0H 1H0 Phone: 905 427 1802(home) 416 592 2385 (work) email: LikeAboutConceptC: Same comments as for Concept BNo significant issues Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: This concept retains the charm and rural flavour of the village as it currently exists - but there is no certainty about development outside of the existing boudary which could destroy this rural flavour. DontLikeAboutConceptA: Municipal water and sewer cannot be extended into the Hamlet but could be into lands outside the boundary. The Provincial Growth Plan inludes these outside lands as a potential future growth area therefore raising the potential that high density residential development could occur. Given that Greenwood is protected by greenbelt to the west and also south of the 5th concession and will be bounded eventually by Highway 407 to the north, it is necessary to ensure that the flavour of the village is not destroyed by high density development to the south to the 5th and into the east towards Salem Rd. This would destroy Greenwood similar to what has happened in Brooklin where the original village is lost in the new development. LikeAboutConceptB: This concept addresses those issues which I raised in Concept A. It allows growth around Greenwood but this growth would be consistent with the existing rural settlement and retain some of the existing farmland consistent with a rural Hamlet. It is this flavour which has drawn most of to the Hamlet, Allowing some rounding out of the Hamlet woul allow some growth which would allow some new residents looking for this kind of community. The rounding out might be defined on the east side entually by the Westney Road bypass around the Hamlet which would reduce traffic through the village (which has the potential to increase dramatically when the 407 is extended with Westney Road as a potential access. DontLikeAboutConceptB: No significant issues Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: No. Concepts B and C address any issues I have on the retention of the rural Hamlet. Question3OtherComments: Concept B and Concepn C are essentially the same except for some boundary issues primarily to the east. The different boundary to the south appears to be reconciled by the Greenbelt Plan. From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 20, 2005 9:56 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http ://www'city°fpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: Eva McLean Address: 3225 Greenwood Road City: Picketing PostalCode: L0H 1J0 Phone: 905-428-9072 email: evamclean@rogers.com LikeAboutConceptC: Best of the three proposals. Green space is a vital component for our health - physical, emotional & spiritual. We are too crowded together as it is and we all need green space - for exercise, to walk our animals, to replenish our souls. Wildlife is being crowded out by all the surrounding growth and we must preserve some space for them. Also, we must think of future generations and pass something on to them other than pollution, urban sprawl and rage. I had the privilege recently of looking out my window and watching 10 deer make their way through my yard - they had no choice - most of the green space around here where they used to live and roam is now gone! Lucky for me to see them - unlucky for them that they now have to expose themselves so much more! We have more than enough concrete and asphalt but precious little green space in comparison!!!!, BI: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: DontLikeAboutConceptA: Allows for more development - benefits one developer only, without any positive benefits to the people in the surrounding area. Driving up Westney Road daily through the massive developments is already depressing enough. The only sightline is a massive sea of roofs. It will take years and years and years to see any growth in the few trees planted to supplement those removed to make room for the development. LikeAboutConceptB: Beter than A as it preserves more land. DontLikeAboutConceptB: Not enough land preserved. Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: Anything that would include even more green space. Question3OtherComments: i0,5 From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 24, 2005 12:01 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http ://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: Annette Ainsbury Address: 3520 Westney Rd. City: Greenwood PostalCode: L0H 1H0 Phone: 905-683-9261 email: aainsbury@rogers.com LikeAboutConceptC: This is my preference - the area makes sense and will create enable Greenwood to maintain a full and thriving community. It will protect prime farm land and do a better job of protecting the sensitive environmental features. I see nothing wrong with this plan. Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: Sustaining the heritage and strong community within Greenwood is my primary concern and this plan does a better job of this than the initial draft plan from the province. DontLikeAboutConceptA: The Hamlet will not truly be protected without also protecting its rural surroundings - it is a rural community and pulls much of its character from the surrounding countryside. This plan also does not protect the prime ag lands around the Hamlet. I also believe to protect the underground environmental features, you need to allow a buffer zone or development will seap in and infect the areas protected. LikeAboutConceptB: This plan does a much better job of adding the buffer around the Hamlet and will help to maintain the rural nature of the Hamlet. DontLikeAboutConceptB: I still don't feel it goes far enough - to be true to their objectives, the Greenbelt committee should be looking at protecting and maintaing more than just underwater acquifers - we also need the rural communities, heritage, prime farm land, etc. Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: I feel very strongly about the Greenbelt initiative - I appreciate that the city would rather make these decisions, but too many municipalities have proven themselves unable to make the smart growth decisions that we need (Whitby, Markham, etc.). The Greenbelt is absolutely necessary to protect the future. Even city council has admitted that their OP's are often changes and adapting - a Greenbelt needs to be established that CANNOT change and adapt. Yes, another provincial government might override this effort, but we're further along with i% than without it. And the sinic in me asks you to pay close attention to the issues from the larger landowners - are they concerned about saving their lands or selling them for millions of dollars. Those who are looking to stay outside the Greenbelt so they can later sell to developers are a big part of the urban sprawl issue. ~ Question3OtherComments: I believe Pickering can continue to be a beautiful, unique and innovative place to live. Let's not strive for more of the same (another Whitby/Brooklyn or Markham) - let's be much better than that. We can provide a variety of lifestyles within our community support and provide for each other. I think this will prove to be the best thing that ever happened to Picketing by ensuring we stay one of the best cities to live in in Ontario. There is no better community I have ever lived in, than Greenwood - to protect it means so much to the people that live here but I believe we also offer a lot to the surrounding community, including a small school alternative, open spaces and a very .giving community. 01/26/05 04:05 FAX ~/02 Alex Artuchov $an25,2005 Mr. N, Carroll Director of Planning and Development City of Pickering ! The Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V ]C7 Dear Mr. Carroll: Re: Draft Greenbelt Plan Review We attended a meeting relating to the above on January 20, 2005 and thought that the subject issue was significant enough to not only provide handwritten comments on the form provided but, to also follow up with some correspondence. As you are well awaxe, the undersigned has been engaged to represent the interests of Bitondo Markets for quite some time now. It is in this capacity that these comments are being made. It should also be noted that Mr. Bitondo may also be offering some comments independently. With regard m the three almmatives presented by staff, it would be difficult for us to identify MY one of them as being preferred. If presented with only three choices, then "Concept A' would certainly be preferable. Our clear choice would however be for another concept that would retain less land within the greenbelt We would consider "Concept C" as being too restrictive and isolationist in nature. If the Picketing Airport does indeed proceed, lands outside of the Greenbelt that would be in the future 407 corridor, would in the fullness of time be more prone to develop as non-residential, A more global and longer term vision would take such possibilities into consideration and bolster the residential viability of the commurfity by padding itself with some additional population. In the past, the closing of the local school was threatened. A larger Greenwood would in this regard not seem to be outside of the interests of the community. With further regard to "Concept B' it does not in our opinion correctly reflect the conclusions that were reached in April of 2003 as part of the c'Pleasant Growth" process. "Concept B" does not allow for contiguous developmem around the existing hamlet. The issue of contiguous development was d/seussed but never brought to a 1370 Don Hills Rand Suit~ 3IX) Tnrongat Ontarto~ Tel: (416}424-6618 Fa= 1~.03 clear conclusiora "Concept B" in, this regard does not mfllx~t or correctly relate the conclusions reached at the "Pleasant Crrowth' workshop. It would therefore seem that "Concept B" and the "Pleasant Growth" conclusions are impropexly matchezL The undersigned would be very pleased if the above noted comments proved to be of value to you and your Council. Alex Amu:hov, MCIP, RPP $370 Don Hills Road S. im 300 Toront~ Ontario, Tel: (416)42~6618 Fa~: (416)424-6636 Required Information: (p/ease print c/ear/y) Name: ~ Property Address: City: Phone: Postal Code: Email: (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Re.qional Council Position · includethe entire Hamlet of Greenwood I City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road no~h of the hydro corridor Submission Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 JAN ~ ,~ 2005 Required Information: (please print clearly) CITY OF PiCKERIM~ Name: Property Address: City: Phone: Emaih (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this le ,.. concept la ... because ... becauee ,,. ConceDt A ~' ~eolonal Hamlet Of c.1. G.nwood ~~ ¢ City of Picketing Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: Property Address: City: Phone: Email: (if appficable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts Concept A - Re.qional Council Position include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood What I like about this concept is... because.,, What I don't conceptis... because... like about this L City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B- Pleasant Growth Workshop , include lands on both sides of Wes tney Road Concept C - OARA's ~"~ Submission . include an area // ~ Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 .o. ewe.. Highway 7 to tho I City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 2. Are there additional Why? concepts you feel should be considered? 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 Gaunt, Steve From: McGregor, Grant Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 8:42 AM To: Gaunt, Steve Subject: FW: GREENBELT PLAN Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner- Policy Planning & Development Department City of Pickering 905.420.4660 ext. 2032 ..... Original Message ..... From: Planning Web Email Sent: January 25, 2005 8:39 AM To: McGregor, Grant Subject: FW: GREENBELT PLAN Hey Grant, This came in on the Planning Email. Veronica ..... Original IVlessage ..... From: allan gilchrist [mailto:allang@rogers.com] Sent: .January 24, 2005 6:44 PM To: Planning Web Email Subject: GREENBELT PLAN As owners of property located in Staxton Glen (3260 Greenbum Place) we are is complete agreement with the Greenbelt Plan for the Golden Horseshoe as it affects the northeast sector of Pickering. Eileen and Allan Gilchrist 1/25/'2005 McGre~lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: A'rTACHIVIENT , Webmaster Web Email January 24, 2005 1:53 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: Mavis M Churchill Address: 2425 Conc 6 City: Greenwood PostalCode: LOH IHO Phone: 905 686 0877 email: mavis.churchill@rogers.com LikeAboutConceptC: Excellent plan. This is preferred choiceStill not enough GreenSpace Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: Not enough Greenbelt extention DontLikeAboutConceptA: Ruination of the hamlet. Area should be kept as historic inc Museum and hamlet LikeAboutConceptB: As a second choice I would reluctantly chose this plan DontLikeAboutConceptB: It is still NOT enough Greenbelt!!! Desimation of valuable farmland Disgraceful!! Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: Housing developement will ruin area Question3OtherComments: We should not allow ourselves to be intimidated by developers who do not seem to care about the environment Joel Dahl 2745 Sixth Concession Road Locust Hill, ON L0H 1J0 905-428-3749 January 24, 2005 Grant McGregor Principal Planner- Policy City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 RE: Draft Greenbelt Comment Form Concept A - Regional Council Position I object to this concept. This concept would restrict the ability of residents to acquire municipal services as they become available in the future. Many lots in the Hamlet are too small according to today's standards for a well and septic system. There is also the problem of wells running dry in the summer months. These residents would be faced with drilling a new well even if there was a water main right in front of their property. Our School, Library and Community Center all need to be connected to a safe and reliable source of water once it is available. Our Community Center has signage warning people NOT to drink the water because it is contaminated. If anything, the portion of the Hamlet that is in the Greenbelt should be removed so that all of Greenwood is outside of the Greenbelt and the rules are applied the same to all. This would also give the residents the opportunity to connect to services once they become available. Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop I object to this concept. The City of Pickering has stated in the Workshop Summary on page 4, question 16, "The primary purpose of this workshop was to f'md out how much residential growth the community could support." The boundaries that were discussed in this workshop were to set physical limits for the growth of Greenwood. Suggesting that the lands within these boundaries should be included in the Greenbelt Plan is contrary to the Growth Workshop itself. Concept C - Greenwood Area Ratepayers Association (GARA) I object to this concept. This concept suggests that the Greenbelt should follow streets and has no scientific reason for its boundaries. GARA did not consult all the residents of the proposed affected area before submitting this concept. This concept would lock all residents out of municipal services. This concept would squeeze the life out of Greenwood. Without growth, our school will close. The Federal Government is currently evicting its tenants from the airport lands and tearing down the houses where they once lived. Many of those children go to Valleyview Public School in Greenwood. Eventually it would make more economic sense to bus our few children to a bigger school within a growing community than to bus their children here. The City of Pickering has already threatened to close the Greenwood Library. As a community, we can barely justify keeping it open. Growth is needed to secure its future. This concept will not accomplish that. Our Community Center is in desperate need of repair. It is inaccessible for people in wheelchairs and difficult for the elderly to enter. It needs to be brought up to current standards. Greenwood does not use it enough to support it on its own. The photo~aphs in the display case are of people 17 years ago and the banners on display are from 1973. Unless we have growth to support it, it makes more economic sense to demolish it than to renovate. Additional Concepts I would recommend pushing the Greenbelt boundaries out to exclude all of Greenwood and lands East of Duff'ms Creek and North of the Fifth Concession Road. Additional Comments The Planning Department had a map on display at the open house in Greenwood that was incorrect. I believe it was "Background Map 3" where the Planning Department had indicated that it would make recommendation that a portion of land East of Greenwood and South of Highway # 7 should be included in the Greenbelt Plan because it was "Recharge Area". The area indicated was part lot 8, concession 5 and should have been part lot 7, concession 5. Required Information: (p/ease print c/ear/y) Name: RECEIVED ~.: 5 ~ 2 4 CiTY OF PIcKERING pLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Property Address: City: Phone: Email: (if applicable) 1. What are the things concepts and why? that you like or don't like about each of the Boundary Concepts Concept A - Re~iona! Council Position include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood What I like about this concept is... because... What I don't like about this concept is ... because ... /' I Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B-Pleasant. · inc udelandson both sides of no~h of the hydro corridor C'~ ~ ~ ~ Concept C. GAR~:~ L Submission · includean area defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, HiQh~y ~ to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east I 2. Are there additional concepts Why? you feel should be considered? 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? ~1~ il .'J ...,..~,~",~, ~-~,,.,'"'~,..~ ,~. ( ~.%,.,~;? .- PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 Required Information: (p/ease print ~learly) Name: Property Address: City: _~P,.F~F-~J.~O0~ Postal Code: t-O ~- I IA-O .... Email; (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts .Conce=t A ~, Redon_eJ Council ,Poslflor! Include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood What I like about this concept Is,,, because... what I don't lika conceptls.., bacause,,, about this City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is .,, because ... because .., Conceot B - Pleasant ~'~'~Wth W0rksi~oo · Include lands on both sldem of Westney Road no~h of the hydro corridor .C~nce~t C. GARA's Submission include an area Concession 5 to the South, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the Road to the east City of Plckering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 Are there additional concepts you feel should Why? be considered? 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 u~.,~ 14:~ru3 City of Picketing Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 McGre~lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 24, 2005 2:16 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http ://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: Mr & Mrs V&P Chong-Knight Address: 2395 Concession 6 City: Hamlet of Greenwood PostalCode: LOH 1HO Phone: 905 686 8815 email: pipchong_knight@hotmail.com LikeAboutConceptC: The best option presented. Our Preferred concept., Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: Do not like this concept DontLikeAboutConceptA: The area in question is too limited. LikeAboutConceptB: Better than Concept A. DontLikeAboutConceptB: Greenbelt area not large enough to protect environmentally sensitive area. Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: Any concept which extends the area encompassed by Concept C, housing developments are encouraching upon rural villages and settings, an extension of the Greenbelt is a necessity ! Question3OtherComments: We have the opportunity to protect this environmentally sensitive area for future generations, we must ensure this is achieved, before it is too late. There is a connectedness, which we have ignored, forgotten, greed has made us blind to the negative effects on the environment, it is time we re-address the balance and start protecting our environment. Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: ~t ~.. ~/,~.~, RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2~05 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND ~DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Property Address: City: /~/¢Z~,,8 ~/,, ,~; Postal Code: Phone: ?,~ g ¢'3 ~,z ? o Email: (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A- Reflional Council Position · includethe entire Hamlet of Greenwood City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 132 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road north of the hydro corridor Concept C - GARA's //~.~-~ ,.,~,- Submission · include an area defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 ,13,'3 2. Are there additional concepts you feel should be considered? Why? ' 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? II PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 FURTHER COMMENTS ABOUT DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN JAN 2 CITY OF PIGKI~RING PLANNING ANI~ _ DEVELOPMENT DEP, ARTMENT 13, The proposed City of Seaton in the mid 70's with a population of 90,000 not being developed as needed has created Urban Sprawl. These people are now living in Port Perry, Brooldin, Oshawa, Markham, Newmarket, etc. Thus, #7 Highway, Taunton Road, #2, 401 and any concession that is handy is certainly causing traffic problems. There is already one big sewer pipe going4hrough Picketing to Markham. I believe another one is going to be put in going even up to Newmarket. This is to service homes built on the best farmland in the world. Brooklin being developed is certainly Urban Sprawl - bypassing thousands of acres south of it, and having water and sewers going up through vacant undeveloped land. It seems that the people against Urban Sprawl are the ones causing it. There are sewers within a mile and one-quarter of Concession 5. Would it not make more sense to continue the services up to the very Marginal Farmland of Picketing for Housing. There are 200,000 immigrants and refugees entering Canada every year. That is approximately the population of Picketing and Ajax together. Where are they going to live? The proposed Greenbelt is comprised mostly of scrub trees - damp and wet spots (mosquito breeding - West Nile). Most of the bigger trees in 20 - 30 years will be dead, leaving very undesirable forest. It only takes 20 - 30 years to produce a good growth of trees, and properly maintained, will last forever. The present proposal of privately owned greenbelt will probably be a real mess in 20 - 30 years. We are not against freezing land or greenbelt from development, until it is needed, even if 20 years. But to have it frozen forever and ever with no compensation is not Canada's Way of Life. I spent three years in the R.C.A.F. During World War 2 - a war fought for our way of life and FREEDOM, yes FREEDOM. We own ten acres. We feel that this is a very unfair situation. When and if the time came for development we would be willing to give probably 3 or 4 acres to Picketing - if the rest could be developed. Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: Property Address: CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT City: Phone: Postal Code: Email: (if appficable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts Concept A - Reqional Council Position include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood What I like about this concept iS... because... What I don't concept is ... because ... like about this City of Picketing Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... C~oncept B - Pleasan~t "- ~F-',/~t~f4~ Prt. ep~T- _Growth Worksho~n · include lands on both sides of Westney Road /' 'D~ Ca~-~/ o~ PtcK~e4~f, north of the hydro - corridor ~onc~pt C - GARA's Submission - · include an area - defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east 2. Are there additional concepts you feel Should be considered? Why? 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Required Information: (please print c/early) Name: J~^T' ~,Wt?~ CT N h, Property Address: city: Phone: ~_~;) ~/?~ Postal Code: -0'~ To E.,c'r .~o I Email: (if appficable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts ,Concept A - Regional ,C.,ouncii Position include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood What I like about this concept is... because... What I don't like conceptis... because... about this CJtv of Piokerinn f-4rnnnh¢lf Dian 133 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road nodh of the hydro corridor · include an area defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east , City of Picketing Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 140 2. Are there additional concepts you feel should be considered? Why? 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 147;. McGregor, Grant From: Planning Web Email Sent: January 17, 2005 11:51 AM To: McGregor, Grant Subject: FW: Draft Greenbelt Plan FYI, Veronica ..... Original Message ..... From: Antonio Maggio [mailto:amaggio@trebnet.com] Sent: January 17, 2005 10:50 AM To: Planning Web Email Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan ATTACHMENI' ._ Attention: Mr. Grant McGregor, Principal Planner- Policy Dear Mr. McGregor, Our company, AGS Properties Inc., has 10 acres on the North/East corner of Concession 7 and Salem Rd. in North Pickering. Civic address: 4015-4025 Salem Rd., described as part of Lot 6, Concession 7. I have been present at all of the public meetings the Province has had with regards to the Greenbelt Plan and Growth Plan. Though this land is presently zoned as agricultural the Province's "Smart Growth Plan" indicated it is a future development area. This is the appropriate designation because the soil is not Class 1,2 or 3 and there are no sensitive features on the land which require protection. In complete contradiction to the study, this designation is to be changed at the last minute to a Greenbelt zone. Individuals and groups making decisions regarding zoning should be guided by the scientific and economic studies which have already been done for that purpose. These were thoughtful and thorough studies and they must be considered and acted upon in order to maintain fairness in the zoning process. There are rules and procedures one must follow to allow for the fair appraisal and development of land. Disregarding all the scientific and economic studies conducted with respect to the future of our land in Picketing is neither fair nor democratic. If these lands are left for future development they will provide logistical support for the future airport. Businesses including manufacturing, retail, servicing and hotel/motels which the airport needs for its successful operation can all be accommodated. This would not only be beneficial for the airport success but for the surrounding community as well. Please let me know what I can do to ensure that the process remains justly guided by the rules and principles we must all abide by. Yours sincerely, Antonio Maggio, President AGS Properties 905-812-1533 5273 Drenkelly Crt., Mississauga, Ontario. L5M 2H7 23/01/2005 Requimd.ln~:. ;.i/. ',.:..~ 14© Nsme: Property Address: City: /~?/~/,,/~;#au~,~ .... Postal Code: Phone: _~'- ~? -,,5'.~00 .... ~,~! ~/~ To: Organtzem of Meeting: JAN 2 4 2005 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT I thank-you for t~e forwarding lelter re the meeting at Greenwood providing the opportunity to view area maps etc as It affeats the northeast seotor of City of Plckoring. The north east sector includes our Centenlal Farm of 95 acme, which has been Jones' aln~e 1842, (L~ 5 Con 7 N) this not being large enough for a viable farming operation have made u~e of an extra $00 + acres In our ama to crop. At the afemoon opsnhouse most of the oonoem ~eemed to csrd~ around the hamlet of Gi~denwood. A I~arge portion of outlying am~s were included in 'fUtura growth areas' In which I thine our property is Ioca~d. I would propose that the less area CovMed by Greenbelt Protection and yet protecting the environmentaiy sensitive areas wouM be the most sensible: becmJSe (a)long-establisfled farming would bce a large loss of equity if the use of the farmland Is fn~en, (b) if property has no futura increase in value or a value decrease ! am not aware of any provlslon~ to that are in plm:e for rx)mpensation. ( o ) it should be noted that most of the farms within the proposed greenbelt are privately owned, not t~ be ¢onfused w~h public access lands, Land ownem (fannem) should not be on their own to p~ the environment of rural Ontario the Landscape, and water sources, I do support protecting sensitive omenspace but oppose most of the cost put o~ the soulderS of lend ownem. Thank-you Murray & Evelyn Jones )zickering Required Information: (plea,~e print c/early) Name' Property Address: /~TTACH~v;EN? # .... --~ TO. ~ City: ~-~("~.-e_~.._,~._D~('q el _Postal Code: ~0 g ! /-~, Phone: ~~_ ~ Emaih (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concep[s What I like abo~,tthis concept What I don't like about this Is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concent A - Regional Gr~nwood - City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan E'~ SDEL-BE~-SDS suo~%nIos $~$~ ~T~m Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is .., concept is .,. because ... because ... no~h of the hydro Concept C - GA~'s · include an a~ Conc. sion 5 Highway 7 tothe R~d to the ~t City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 2. Are there additional Why? concepts you feel should be considered? 3. Am there other comments you would like to make? II .... II COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 II I I City of Picketing Greenbelt Plan Comment Farm 3 ~-d BOC£-85~-~06 ~uoT~nTos s$e~s~$ seI~M NdE~:~ SDOE uec ~ Required Information: (p/ease print c/ear/y) Name: ~- - Property :~-T:_7 ~N,~? r"' ~,.~i.,~c.% '~,b Address: City: C; ~,,m ¢, (.~.~ c: Postal Code: Email: (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Re.qional , Council Position · include the entire ~,~.,~ ...... ~. ,,, ~ ' ,, ...... . City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 147 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant * include lands on both sides of Westney Road no~h of the hydro corridor Concept C GARA's Submission . include an area : ~' , ~ ' ' , , r, defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 ,., , ~ . .J. ~+ to the west, Highway 7 to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east I I ! City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 ATTACHMENT#. REPORT t 148 2. Are there additional concepts you feel should be considered? Why? .... 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 149 ATTACHMEN? #._ .~ TO Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: ~%-7, ~~ o RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2005 LCITY OF PICKERING ~_~I.~NNING & DEVELOPMENT (..... DEPARTMENT JAN 2 5 CITY OF PICKERING PIGKERING, ONTARIO Property Address: City: ~::~'"xL /'~,~ Postal Code: .. /...-o//' /~ o Phone: ~of' ~ ~P..~ O,g'~"?~ Email' (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Regional Council Position · include the entire Hamlet of GreEnwood City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 /~TTACHMENT # ,~ TQ Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road north of the hydro corridor Concept C - GARA's Submission · include an area defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 Required Information: (please print clearly) ~roperty ~ ~ ~ ¢ ~ ? ~- L.~-~' ~ Address: Email: (if applicable,) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Regional Council Position · include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because .., Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · includelands on both sides of Westney Road north of the hydro corridor Submission · includean area defined by Concession 5 to the no~h, and Salem City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 153 ,McGre~lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 25, 2005 9:26 AM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http://www, cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: Serge Rielau Address: 3425 Greenwood Rd City: Pickering PostalCode: LOH1H0 Phone: 905 426 5912 email: srielau@ca.ibm.com LikeAboutConceptC: Of course the more the better .... I see little "hard value" which makes up for the hardship imposed on property owners. Whiel having major roads as clear cut borders has symbolic value it underutilized investments in infrastructure Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: It makes it clear that the Hamlet is to be protected and not just teh natural structures. In reality thsi is mostly symbolic I suppose since I doubt current residents plan for high-rises on their properties .... DontLikeAboutConceptA: To really protect the Hamlet its borders need to be protected. So whiel this proposal adds a "moral" preotection it fails of truly protecting the Hamlet LikeAboutConceptB: This is the best proposal in my opinion it protects the Hamlet in its rural setting. DontLikeAboutConceptB: Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: I believe the concepts are a reasonably representative of the possibilities, w.r.t Greenwood · Question3OtherComments: Ail this discussion would be irrelevant if the residents could rely on the city upholding the current zoning around Westney road. It is fear of the unseen side of the coin that spurs the high emotions. ?. I54 If tl~s is being d~ne ft~r less m~ ~utd at Greenwood. I am txnally against the other than in ~ hamlet itself. On/y they warn to enlarge aml have control to.sto~ develol~merR m~und Greenwood the f~, I wo~d rather the ptatming RECEIVED:. JAN 2 4 )_005 CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 153 McGre~lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 25, 2005 2:16 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http ://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: James A. Wilson' Address: 4980 sideline 6 City: Ashburn PostalCode: LOB lA0 Phone: (905} 649-5818 email: LikeAboutConceptC: , Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: Please see comments at end of form DontLikeAboutConceptA: LikeAboutConceptB: DontLikeAboutConceptB: Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: Question3OtherComments: As most of your questions involve Greenwood we did not answer them. We are farmers on sideline 6, and we are opposed to the greenbelt it will devalue our property and what other rules and regulations will they apply to farming practices. McGre~lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: ATTACHMENT# '-~ _TO · Webmaster Web Email January 24, 2005 10:04 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http:/iwww.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html 156 Name: Louise Cranfield Address: 2405 Concession 6 City: Greenwood PostalCode: L0H 1H0 Phone: 905-428-0647 email: lacranfield@rogers.com LikeAboutConceptC: - includes prime agricultural lands. - identifies significant features of the hamlet and surrounding areas. -protects water source (major discharge) of the drumlin - protects Lake Iroquois Shoreline - protects other significant identified areas to the east that should have been included in the original Greenbelt plan. - ensures protection of the historic, rural character of the hamlet and surrounding areas. - potential for agri-tourism on agricultural lands., Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: DontLikeAboutConceptA: - does not include prime agricultural, class l&2 lands (finite resource) - does not include the drumlin (major disharge area critical to source water) - possibly extends the urban boundary to the north. Urban boundary should remain Taunton Road to the south. LikeAboutConceptB: DontLikeAboutConceptB: - excludes some prime agricultural lands. - possibility of the urban boundary moving north of Taunton Rd. Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: The federal airport lands to the north west must be considered when planning the future of north Pickering.. The City has a responsibility to identify environmentally significant features of these lands and bring it forward to the Province and Greenbelt task force, who in turn have a responsibilty to address this with the federal government. Planning cannot be done piecemeal and in "isolation". Question3OtherComments: McGre~lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: ATTACHMENT #~__._ ~0 REPORT Webmaster Web Email January 25, 2005 7:39 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: Gerry Marks Address: 2370 Concession 6 City: Greenwood PostalC0de: L0H 1H0 Phone: 905-427-8578 email: pollikers@hotmail.com LikeAboutConceptC: The best of the three options.Could still cover more territory. BI: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: DontLikeAboutConceptA: Insufficient coverage. LikeAboutConceptB: DontLikeAboutConceptB: Better than A, but still not enough. Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: Question3OtherComments: McGre~lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 26, 2005 12:00 AM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html 15,3 Name: Address: City: PostalCode: Phone: email: LikeAboutConceptC: BI: Bruce McCowan 19 Monarchwood Crescent Don Mills M3A1H3 416-447-4895 bmccowan@netrover.com Submit LikeAboutConceptA: DontLikeAboutConceptA: LikeAboutConceptB: DontLikeAboutConceptB: Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: Additional Concept: Area -- North side of the Fifth Concession, from sideline 8 to Lake Ridge Road. (Essentially, much of the "foot" of the overall proposed Greenbelt area.) Facts -- On the north side of the Fifth Concession, from sideline 8 to Lake Ridge Road, there are at least five significant estate lot developments in various stages of planning or completion. There is a large scrap yard on the west side of Balsam Road. There is a landscaping operation on the west side of Balsam Road. The golf course (Deer Creek) immediately to the south spreads tons of herbicides and pesticides. The golf course even sprays pesticides on the north side of the Fifth Concession to reduce mosquito breeding. The facts do not make this area seem like a bonafide greenbelt. My comment -- If this area does not appear to be a bonafide greenbelt, then it should not be legislated as greenbelt area. Concept proposal -- Remove the subject area from the Draft Greenbelt Plan. Question3OtherComments: 150 ,McGm[lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: bea mccowan [bea@beamccowan.com] January 25, 2005 11:59 PM McGregor, Grant Draft Greenbelt Plan -- Comment as requested Grant McGregor Principal Planner, Policy City of Picketing Dear Mr. McGregor The following comment was submitted on-line at www.cityofpickering.com at about 11:55 pm Jan.on 25/05. Additional Concept: Area -- North side of the Fifth Concession, from sideline 8 to Lake Ridge Road. (Essentially, much of the "foot" of the overall proposed Greenbelt area.) Facts -- On the north side of the Fifth Concession, from sideline 8 to Lake Ridge Road, there are at least five significant estate lot developments in various stages of planning or completion. There is a large scrap yard on the west side of Balsam Road. There is a landscaping operation on the west side of Balsam Road. The golf course (Deer Creek) immediately to the south spreads tons of herbicides and pesticides. The golf course even sprays pesticides on the north side of the Fifth Concession to reduce mosquito breeding. The facts do not make this area seem like a bonafide greenbelt. My comment -- If this area does not appear to be a bonafide greenbelt, then it should not be legislated as greenbelt area. Concept proposal -- Remove the subject area from the Draft Greenbelt Plan. Thank you very much for taking this comment into consideration. Sincerely Bruce McCowan 416-447-4895 .McGregor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 25, 2005 10:38 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html 100 Name: Erik Igel Address: 3600 Westney Rd. City: Greenwood (North Picketing- Ajax) PostalCode: L0H 1H0 Phone: 905-427-5579 email: erik@igel.ca LikeAboutConceptC: This plan is the most comprehensive in its attempt to preserve the area in and around Greenwood as we know it today. With such extensive overdevelopment taking place in the Ajax Picketing region we need to protect what is left of our green spaces and the smaller communities within these greenspaces still not spoiled by the urban sprawl. If there must be development then surely there are many other areas that have already become unrecognisable and would therefore be better suited for further development rather than destroying yet another rural community and the environment surrounding it., Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: DontLikeAboutConceptA: It is to natrrow in scope and is rather moot as the area proposed in this option is already developed. Leaving the lands of concern to the residents of this community totally unprotected LikeAboutConceptB: I appreciate that this plan includes lands on both sides of Westney Road north of the hydro corridor. DontLikeAboutConceptB: However it still leaves much of the land of concern to the residents of this community totally unprotected. In short it is not extensive enough. Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: Question3OtherComments: Development of land for development sake is not a positive trend. Perhaps we as a community should be looking at a more controlled longterm plan to the development of this region (Ajax Picketing)as a whole with a more controlls on the developers who it seems are buinding without regard for anything but their potential profits. In spite of, or even because of our abundance of land we should be looking to a more european model based on Self sufficien~ community development incorporating mass transit systems infrastructure for business connecting the people that these developments are supposed to be for with other people in their communities and with the greater city as a whole. McGregor, Grant From: jeanine carson [jeaninecarson@look.ca] Sent: January 21, 2005 11:06 AM To: McGregor, Grant Subject: additional comments re draft greenbelt plan following the meetings at Greenwood Communtiy Centre Jan.20,2005 To the Pickering Planning & Development Dep't: I agree in principal with designating "greenbelt areas". I do NOT agree in any way with designating URBAN areas as "greenbelt areas". Areas that are abutting the G.T.A. sprawl are already NON-VIABLE agricultural lands because of high taxes & total lack of farm related services within a reasonable proximity. "LAND-OWNER FARMERS" ~n these areas have been paying taxes based on "REAL-VALUE ASSESSMENT" of their property. If these same people are put in a designated "greenbelt", thei~'~. property value will instantly be drastically reduced and in most cases, their investment for retirement instantly become insufficient for them to enjoy any fruits from their years of hard labour. The last few years have been brutal to all farmers. Because those trying to farm in the urban sprawl areas of the G.T.A.face much higher operat!on costs, they must be EXCLUDED from this plan, or "greenbelt" designation will force them into extinction even sootier. Developers would then enjoy BARGAIN priced access to these lands anyway. THE PROBLEM IN THE FUTURE WILL NOT BE LACK OF FARMLAND. THE PROBLEM WILL BE LACK OF FARMERS!!! Jeanine Carson 23/01/2005 Gaunt, Steve From: -Phillips [sysgenss@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 8:18 AM To: Gaunt, Steve Subject: Draft Greenbelt Plan Comment Form Hi Steve, In response to your phone message of last night, where you asked for a clarification of my choice of the Proposed Concepts outlined in the Draft Greenbelt Plan.. I was not aware of the fact that we had to make a choice of one of the three Concepts. No where on the form did I see that. As you can see by my response, no one of them is completely to our liking. If fact when it comes down to it, we would like something that would allow for the following: · We do not want 12-15 new neighbours backing onto your property. · We would like to be able to sub-divide our 2 acre parcel of land into 2-4 separate building lots, sometime in the foreseeable future. · We would like to have access to municipal water and sewers. · We do not want a Golf Diving Range situated on our road, which is going to increase traffic and noise in our area. So can you tell me which of the three Concepts will do all or the majority of our needs & wants mentioned above. Regards, Russ s_y_sgenss@.hotmail.com 1/26/2005 1GS McGre~lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 25, 2005 2:59 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http ://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: Russ Phillips Address: 2595 Concession 6 City: Greenwood (Locust Hill for mailing) PostalCode: L0H 1H0 (LOH 1J0 for mailing) Phone: 905-427-2170 email: sysgenss@hotmail.com LikeAboutConceptC: Shows additional lands around the Hamlet of Greenwood, reflecting GARA's submission on the Greenbelt (bounded by Highway 7 to the north, Salem Road to the east, the Fifth Concession Road to the south, and Sideline 16 to the west); For development within the Hamlet, Provincial staff advise that the Greenbelt Plan is being changed to eliminate restrictions (existing planning policies will apply); Any future expansion of Greenwood would be restricted to "minor rounding out" (as well as existing planning policies); The Hamlet would retain its rural character together with an even larger countryside context than Concept B, offering an alternative choice of neighbourhood within the City; Rationale is to include a buffer around the rural settlement, sustaining its countryside context, cultural heritage resources, near-urban agriculture, and enabling opportunities for sustainable tourism development; · Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted;;- WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED, THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE. · Lands in the northeast sector of Pickering, outside the Greenbelt, are identified in draft Provincial Growth Plan as a potential future growth area and would be further reduced in size than Concept B; Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: Recommended the remaining portion of the Hamlet of Greenwood as defined by the Picketing Official Plan be included in the Provincial Greenbelt Plan; Rationale is to have "same rules" apply across the Hamlet; For development within the Hamlet, Provincial staff advise that the Greenbelt Plan being changed to eliminate restrictions (existing planning policies will apply); · Any future expansion of Greenwood would involve lands outside the Greenbelt boundary, and would be subject to existing planning policies - not the Greenbelt policies; DontLikeAboutConceptA: Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted;- WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED, THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE. Lands in the northeast sector of Picketing, outside the Greenbelt, are identified in draft Provincial Growth Plan as a potential future growth area;- THIS SHOULD BE REVEIWED. ALSO IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PROPOSED HAMLET EXTENSION. · Future planning process and decision required on whether Greenwood would be assimilated into new development, or whether some countryside around the Hamlet would be retained; LikeAboutConceptB: · Shows additional lands around the Hamlet of Greenwood, reflecting the boundary identified through the 2003 Pleasant Growth Workshop (bounded by Highway 7 on the north, Sideline 8 road allowance on the east, and the hydro corridor on the south); · Rationale is to include a buffer around the rural settlement, sustaining its countryside context, cultural heritage resources, near-urban agriculture, and enabling opportunities for sustainable tourism development; For development within the Hamlet, Provincial staff advise that the Greenbelt Plan is 1 being changed to eliminate restrictions (existing planning policies w~ii apply); Any future expansion of Greenwood would be restricted to "minor rounding out" (as well as existing planning policies); The Hamlet would retain its rural character together with its countryside context, offering an alternative choice of neighbourhood within the City; DontLi keAboutConceptB: · Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted;;- WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED, THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE. · Lands in the northeast sector of Picketing, outside the Greenbelt, are identified in draft Provincial Growth Plan as a potential future growth area and would be reduced in size; Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: I feel that all concepts should include the proposed extended Hamlet of Greenwood. Question3OtherComments: I strongly feel, that existing planning policies should be reveiwed. ,,M¢6re[lor, 6rant From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 25, 2005 2:59 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: Judith Phillips Address: 2595 Concession 6 City: Greenwood (Locust Hill for mailing) PostalCode: L0H 1H0 (LOH 1J0 for mailing) Phone: 905-427-2170 email: sysgenss@hotmail.com LikeAboutConceptC: Shows additional lands around the Hamlet of Greenwood, reflecting GARA's submission on the Greenbelt (bounded by Highway 7 to the north, Salem Road to the east, the Fifth Concession Road to the south, and Sideline 16 to the west); For development within the Hamlet, Provincial staff advise that the Greenbelt Plan is being changed to eliminate restrictions (existing planning policies will apply); · Any future expansion of Greenwood would be restricted to "minor rounding out" (as well as existing planning policies); The Hamlet would retain its rural character together with an even larger countryside context than Concept B, offering an alternative choice of neighbourhood within the City; · Rationale is to include a buffer around the rural settlement, sustaining its countryside context, cultural heritage resources, near-urban agriculture, and enabling opportunities for sustainable tourism development; · Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted; · Rationale is to include a buffer around the rural settlement, sustaining its countryside context, cultural heritage resources, near-urban agriculture, and enabling opportunities for sustainable tourism development; Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: Recommended the remaining portion of the Hamlet of Greenwood as defined by the Picketing Official Plan be included in the Provincial Greenbelt Plan; · Rationale is to have "same rules" apply across the Hamlet; For development within the Hamlet, Provincial staff advise that the Greenbelt Plan being changed to eliminate restrictions (existing planning policies will apply); · Any future expansion of Greenwood would involve lands outside the Greenbelt boundary, and would be subject to existing planning policies - not the Greenbelt policies; DontLikeAboutConceptA: Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted; Lands in the northeast sector of Picketing, outside the Greenbelt, are identified in draft Provincial Growth Plan as a potential future growth area; Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted;- WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED, THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE. Lands in the northeast sector of Picketing, outside the Greenbelt, are identified in draft Provincial Growth Plan as a potential future growth area;- THIS SHOULD BE REVEIWED. ALSO IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE PROPOSED HAMLET EXTENSION. · Future planning process and decision required on whether Greenwood would be assimilated into new development, or whether some countryside around the Hamlet would be retained; LikeAboutConceptB: · Shows additional lands around the Hamlet of Greenwood, reflecting the boundary identified through the 2003 Pleasant Growth Workshop (bounded by Highway 7 on the north, Sideline 8 road allowance on the east, and the hydro corridor on the south); · Rationale is to include a buffer around the rural settlement, sustaining its countryside context, cultural heritage resources, near-urban agriculture, and enabling 1 opportunities for sustainable tourism development; 16~ · For development within the Hamlet, Provincial staff advise that the Greenbelt Plan is being changed to eliminate restrictions (existing planning policies will apply); Any future expansion of Greenwood would be restricted to "minor rounding out" (as well as existing planning policies); The Hamlet would retain its rural character together with its countryside context, offering an alternative choice of neighbourhood within the City; DontLikeAboutConceptB: · Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted; · Extension of municipal water and sewer services into the Hamlet would be restricted;;- WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE RESTRICTED, THIS SHOULD NOT BE THE CASE. · Lands in the northeast sector of Picketing, outside the Greenbelt, are identified in draft Provincial Growth Plan as a potential future growth area and would be reduced in size; Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: I feel that all concepts should include the proposed extended Hamlet of Greenwood. Question3OtherComments: I strongly feel, that existing planning policies should be reveiwed. McGre~lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: REPORT ~ PD~ Webmaster Web Email January 24, 2005 10:07 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form 1 of http://www.cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform-html Name: Address: City: PostalCode: Phone: email: Aurelio Ibanez Lot 5 Concesion 5 Pickering LOB lC0 (905) 655-8363 a.ibanez@rogers.com LikeAboutConceptC: Imposing further greenbelt restrictions upon any private land owner is wrong and unconstitutional. Bi: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: DontLikeAboutConceptA: Imposing further greenbelt restrictions upon any private land owner is wrong and unconstitutional. LikeAboutConceptB: DontLikeAboutConceptB: Imposing further greenbelt restrictions upon any private land owner is wrong and unconstitutional. Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: Reducing the amount of land which will be enveloped by the greenbelt is a concept that I would support. The lands which the above concepts include will be rendered worthless. They are not big enough for anykind of farm use to be profitable. Question3OtherComments: Lands within the greenbelt will have very little market value. The process of creating the greenbelt in esence is discrminating against a select few landowners and should be unconstitutional. These lands are currently owned by private citizens who pay taxes on these lands and will be expected to pay taxes on these lands but their investment will be drastically reduced if not wiped out all together. What would happen if the government were to impose such measures to the stock markets? What would people say then? The greenbelt designation will drastically minimize what the landowner can do on or with,the land. If the lands are really so sensitive for the environment and the betterment of all the people then why should the burden be paid by the few who currently own the lands? Why does 5he government not expropria5e the required lands and pay the land owner a proper marke~ value? This then would truly be the right thing to do. The masses who will benefit from the designation can then as a whole pay the burden together. If the goverment requires lands to build water treatment plants or other types of services that are required they are expected to purchase the lands at then current market value. This is law. Why then is the provincial governmenz allowed to discriminate agianst the land owners affected by this greenbelt designa5ion? This is not how democracy should operate. ATTACHMENT~' ~ ~TO ~ REPORT # PD~ Januaw 25,2005 City of Pickering: One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Attention: Mr. S. Gaunt, Senior Planner Dear Sir: Re: Draft Greenbelt Plan Our File No: 03.656 We are planning consultants for Berrywoods Farm Inc., and have existing applications for Regional and Local Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendment and draft Plan of Subdivision applications on file with Durham Region and the City of Pickering. This letter responds to requests from the City of Pickering for input on the Greenbelt specifically in the northeast part of the City of Pickering arising from Pickering Council direction to staff in late 2004. It is our submission that the location of the Greenbelt boundary should be based on environmental principles in keeping with the direction identified by the provincial government. The draft Greenbelt Plan identifies elements of the Natural Heritage System to be protected. It specifically states that when considering these elements for Durham Region' In addition to the urban river valleys, portions of the "Lake Iroquois Shoreline" within Durham Region traverse existing or approved urban areas. Municipalities are encouraged to consider planning, design and construction practices that maintain or where possible enhance the size, diversity and connectivity of key natural heritage and key hydrologic features and functions of those portions of the Lake Iroquois shoreline within their approved urban boundaries. It is clear from the draft Greenbelt Plan that the Lake Iroquois shoreline is a predominant feature that drives the location of the Greenbelt line in the vicinity of Greenwood. Our environmental consultants through their investigations have assessed the shoreline, its importance and its location in relation to the Berrywoods lands. Attached is a graphic representation of the location of the draft Greenbelt line in Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited Planning Urban Design Environmental Assessment 172 St. George Street Toronto, Ontario M5R 2M7 Tel. 416/968-3511 Fax. 416/960-0172 e-mail: admin@wndplan.com web: www.wndplan.com Peter R. Walker, FCIP, RPP Wendy Nett, FCIP, RPP Robert A. Dragicevic, MCIP, RPP Principals Jason C. Wu, MRAIC, OAA Gregory J, Daly, MCIP, RPP Associate Principals Martha Coffey Controller Date: 'Page 2 File: relation to the Lake Iroquois shoreline as determined by the City of Pickering in its Official Plan. The shoreline location is corroborated in other Official Plans and the work of environmental experts, notably Chapman and Putman as far back as 1972. Bird and Hale, in completing their Background Environmental work for the Berrywoods lands concludes that the Lake Iroquois shoreline falls south and east of all lands subject of the Berrywoods application. The simple logic of this assessment becomes clear when it is understood that the lands sit on top of a drumlin feature which straddles the current location of Westney Road and extends just south into the Town of Ajax. A composite drawing of the location of the Lake Iroquois shoreline feature as identified in various documents with an overlay of the proposed Greenbelt boundary is attached for your reference. The province has clearly indicated that environmental considerations should drive the boundary of the Greenbelt. The Lake Iroquois shoreline is the identified feature to be protected for in this part of Durham but the location of the shoreline has not been accurately referenced in the draft Greenbelt Plan. It is our submission that the Greenbelt boundary should be moved to reflect the location of the Lake Iroquois shoreline based on long standing findings of Pickering, Ajax, and various environmental professionals Yours very truly, WALKER, NOTT, DRAGICEVIC ASSOCIATES LIMITED Planning. Urban Design · Environmental Assessment Gregory J. Daly MCIP, RPP Associate Principal Eric. copy: Mr. R. Miller, Runnymede Development Corporation Ms. L. Stocco, Tribute Communities 1 ? 0 Gaunt, Steve From: Greg Daly [gdaly@wndplan.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 2:43 PM To: Gaunt, Steve Cc: Istocco@tributecommunities.com; rodger@runnymede-dev.com Subject: Greenbelt Response Steve: Here is our response as solicited by the City. A hard copy is coming to you by courier. The maps will come to you in colour if you cannot print them out. Thanks Greg Daly Associate Principal Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Limited 172 St. George Street, Toronto, ON M5R 2M7 Phone 416 968-3511x166 Fax 416 960-0172 NOTE: This e-mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you have received this message in error, or are not the named recipient(s), please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail message. 1/27/2005 PICKERING OFRCIAL PLAN: Chapler Two -The Planning Framewodc 45 Pickering Official Plan Physiographic Regions Greenwood City of PiCkering Scale: N.T.S. .~ala~~ January 24, 2005 ~'-..~ Major Streams Wate,"~hed Boundaries Proposed Greenbelt Limit - Greenwood Janua[y 2.4, 2005 ,Air, photo Date: 2002 172 RECEIVED JAN 2 6 2005 DRAFT GREENBELT PICK KN Go COMMENT FORM ~NNING & DEVE DEPARTMENT This Comment Form provides a mechanism for the City of Pickering to collect your views on the draft Greenbelt Plan as it affects the northeast sector of Pickering. There is an Information Package containing maps, information and questions relating to three Greenbelt Plan boundary concepts for the northeast sector of Pickering. Responses will be used in evaluating and refining the concepts, and selecting a "recommended Greenbelt Plan boundary" for Council's consideration on February 7, 2005. For your convenience, there are a number of ways the survey can be completed and submitted to the City: Grant McGregor Principal Planner- Policy City of Pickering One The Esplanade, Pickering, L1V (iK7 Fax: 905. 420.7648 Phone: 905.420.4660 ext. 2032 Email: .qmc_qreqor~city. pickerin.q.on.ca OR On-line at cityofpickering.com At the Public Open House to be held at the Greenwood Community Centre on January 20, 2005 between 2:00 pm and 9:30 pm After the Public Open House, by returning the Comment Form to the Pickering Planning & Development Department, or after work hours, by depositing it in the City's mail "drop-box" outside of City Hall by January 25, 2005 By regular mail or by fax to either Grant McGregor or Steve Gaunt at the following address Steve Gaunt Senior Planner City of Pickering One The Esplanade, Pickering, L1V 6K7 Fax: 905. 420.7648 Phone: 905.420.4660 ext. 2033 Email: s.qaunt~city, pickerinq.on.ca Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: Address: City: Phone: Email: (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Co~ncepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this , is ... concept is,,].:~ ~! S ~--g /-'~"-~ because ~__~,,r~ ... because. ~~ ~ Concept A - Regional Council Position . · include the entire ~ , ~ ~ Hamlet of / ~ ;.~ / ~ ~ .... 7 Greenwood / / -~ ,~ ~ ~'OJ /, , I ~.~.~ , . ,. ~ c,,~ City of Pickeri. ng Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road north of the hydro corridor Concept C - GARA's Submission · include an area defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to the west, Highway 7 to the no~h, and Salem Road to the east City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 2. Are there additional Why? concepts you feel should be considered? - /~ · / - ~.. ,, ~,~, 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? ~ }~~,,~Q~ ~.~ ~f.- ~ .~- ~; _ . _ J ., ,.¥.... .."~ i, 4 ,-', ( , ,- .... , c,. :~i'.-~,'-'~ , .X .: .:...,~ -- .> :, ~ ,~ ~ !:- .... ~ .'! L_~ i!~ ~. ,',., t V' l '~ d' ~.,."~'~?''~ , i :" Greenbelt Plan Comment Form ,.,'.-..u.'..,~._,~: ' i ~'J / ~ City of Picketing Required Information: (p/ease print c/ear/y) Name: Property Address: City: ~.~.~,~ Postal Code: Phone: 96) ~- ~ ~ FY~ Email: (if appficable) 1. What are the things that you concepts and why? like or don't like about each of the Boundary Concepts Concept A - Regional Council Position include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood What I like about this concept is.., because... What I don't like about this conceptis.,. because... City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: 175 Property Address' City: Postal Code: Phone: Email: (if appficable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept is... Concept A - Re,qional Council Position include the entire Hamlet of Greenwood because ... NO What I don't like concept is ... because ... about this Do ~ £E£¢ 8E LT / // City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: D e, o ~_,. k ~,:~ ~ '~,/~/AR ;it'O re ~ ~ City: ~~/~oo~ Postal Code: Phone: Email: (if applicable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Regional Council Position - ~/',~. · · include the entire Hamlet o~ Greenwood City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Gaunt, Steve From: Don Beach [don.beach@sympatico.ca] Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 6:04 PM To: McGregor, Grant; Gaunt, Steve Subject: Greenbelt comment Greenwood My name is Don Beach, I own and live on a property of about 10 acres with mail address 2555 Highway 7 and my wife Pat owns about 10 acres with address 2575 Highway 7, Greenwood. My son and his family live at 2575. We have owned and lived on these properties for about 35 year~s. Both of these properties are on the south side of Highway 7 and have entrances off Highway 7 only which, with the termination of Highway 407 at Brougham, has become an extremely busy road, At rush hou. r morning and evening it is difficult and dangerous to exit our driveways and proceed west. We hope to eventually gain access to our homes from Concession Road 6 to the south with the development of the property between the hamlet of Greenwood and our property. The current Greenwood plan allows for an eventual development of the property between Greenwood and Highway 7. We are strongly opposed to the inclusion of our property in the proposed Greenbelt as proposed by the Greenwood Ratepayers Association (GARA) In our opinion GARA is a group of activists who have recently moved to the area and are trying to take over and control the future planning of Greenwood. They do not speak for the residents of Greenwood. In fact, I believe that the majority of Greenwood residents do not support their views. Our preference is that the Greenbelt not be extended further into Greenwood at all. As for the three alternatives in your survey, Alternative A is the least objectionable. Alternatives B and C are totally objectionable. Why would the City of Pickering propose to relinquish planning jurisdiction over the land immediately north and east of Greenwood to the Province when it has not been requested? Please do not request a_ay extension of the Greenbelt as proposed by the Province. As you know, inclusion in the Greenbelt seriously diminishes the value of any property. McGregor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: Webmaster Web Email January 25, 2005 7:35 PM McGregor, Grant Data posted to form I of http ://www. cityofpickering.com/standard/planning/studies/commentform.html Name: Joan Moritsugu Address: 2370 City: Greenwood PostalCode: L0H 1H0 Phone: 905-427-8578 email: jhmoritsugu@hotmail.com LikeAboutConceptC: This is the best concept presented-it facilitates Greenwood's rural designation and provides a reasonable buffer to connurbation. It could still go farther to protect the Duffins Creek watershed BI: Submit LikeAboutConceptA: It's slightly better than the initial Greenbelt proposal. DontLikeAboutConceptA: It. doesn't cover enough area to effectively protect the Duffins Creek watershed. LikeAboutConceptB: This proposal made sense in 2003. DontLikeAboutConceptB: The rules have changed since 2003 and Greenwood and the Duffins Creek watershed now need more protection. Question2AdditionalConceptsToConsider: Even though the lands in the north-east sector of Pickering, outside the Greenbelt are identified as a potential growth sector, I fail to see any urgency to develop those lands any time soon. Question3OtherComments: Thank you to all in Planning-Neil, Catherine, Steve, Grant-for continuing to work with us in the Greenwood community. David Clark 3060 Hwy. 7 Pickering, On. LI¥C7P January 20, 2005 To the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department: My sister and I own a 150 acre farm in the proposed greenbelt plan area. We were bom and raised here and our family has farmed in the Greenwood area since 1840. I maintain that the agricultural side of the story is not being told. This may be partly our fault but also many of us are not allowed to join the active local ratepayers associations because many of our homes and businesses are located outside their boundaries. " It is important to remember that this area is not just where we live, but it is where many of us run our agricultural businesses and try to earn a living. In this greenbelt plan, it states that one of the goals is to preserve "viable agricultural land". I for one, maintain that:~s.is~no:.:longer~.:a ~?viable agriculturally, area~. There are many reasons that I have come to that conclusion and I would like to take this oppommity to name a few. mere..iS notasing!e, fullscaleagrieultural,serviee::leflin:the:,~Ci~::ofPickering,, Town of Ajax, or the Town of Whitby. They are all gone, and they won't be replaced. As a result, many of us are rapidly discovering what it is like to be a "city farmer". I question what might be said if there were no automotive dealerships or related services in these areas. Also, we recently had a property evaluation report done on our farm. In part it states" This Ministry:of A~cul~e and: Food ~ seen:~e: average size o£ an :agriculture prod~tion farm in Ontario~ increase:from appro~imately:50.hectareO23,5:acres):m:over:200hectar~:(494, acres) in the past 25 years. This fact alone concludes that the subjects total land area of 60.5 hectare (150 acres) may be insufficient without agricultural niche marketing or specialization in Order to sustain a VIABLE agricultural producing farm and may require further land holdings in order to sustain future success." Because most, of'.the~farms~in this area are-trader ~e~200,~:hectare threshold,~:one ean~e0nelude~; that-they:are no longer:viewed as being ¥IABLE by outside sources. Since most of our equity is in our land and its value, and we currently own a farm that is no longer viewed as being VIABLE, what additional hardship would we face in seeming working capital from financial institutions to continue running our farming operations? This would again, be one more nail in the coffin for those struggling to keep a farm designated to be in a greenbelt area operable. As well, a number of us may be required to sell some of our property to the Ministry of Transportation for the completion to the east of Highway 407. Will the "A~icultural Greenbelt Designation" have an e~ec~ on the value of this !and since it no longer has open market forces to determine its value? Sincerely, D~,,m Clark 18o W~n. David Cla~.k 3060 Hxvy. #7 Pickerh~g, ON L1Y1C7 June 1, 2004 To: The Members of the Greenbelt Task Force: I attended the Greenbelt Task Force information meeting at Durham College on May 25, 2004. Although, the opportunity to speak was offered, I feel more comfortable expressing my views in writing. Allow me to introduce myself. My name is David Clark. My sister and I own a one hundred and fifty acre farm in the now City of Picketing. We are located on the north side of H/ghway #7, midway between the Village of Greenwood and the Hamlet of IGnsale. We are the fifth generation of our family to have farmed in this locality since our forefathers arrived here in the 1830's. We will also be the last generation to live here, as neither of us has any family. As I mm fifty years of age, and have farmed here all of my life, I thought that I would like to inform you of some of the changes that I have seen over time. In his opening remarks, Mr. Russ Powell referred briefly to preserving agriculture in "viable" agricultural areas for furore generations. One might ask, "Is our area a viable agricultural area?" I like to refer to the "reality factor", as I call it, that my business has had to endure over the past twelve to fifteen years. The following lists farm services that have closed or moved from our area over this timeframe: 1. Whitevale Mills, Whitevale, ON 2. Brougham Farm Service, Brougham, ON 3. U.C.O. Stouffville, ON 4. U.C.O. Uxbridge, ON 5. U.C.O. Claremont, ON > This is now a Country Depot and L.C.B.O. outlet 6. Fisher's Farm Service, Ashburn, ON 7. Valance Farm Equipment, Brooklin, ON > Located further North/East, gave up the Massey Ferguson farm equipment l/ne to sell Kubota and Stihl outdoor products. 8. HUB Case-International Farm Equipment, Brooklin, ON >~ Located further north in a new location. 9. Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, Port Perry Office > Relocated some staff to Lindsay and Brighton, ON Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Closed Moved Moved Closed To my knowledge, there is not a single agricultural support service left in the City of Picketing, Town of Ajax or Town of Whitby. I am not referring to a place to purchase a few nuts and bolts or a piece of hose, but a business where I can buy seed, fertilizer, farm chemicals, etc. or take my farm equipment in to have repaired. All of these agricultural support businesses are gone and they are not coming back! I am now forced to travel further and further to get my inputs and when my crops are ready they too must be trucked a much further distance, resulting in an increase to my time and a substantial cost to my business. At our farm, I have experienced other ts-pes of the "realit3/factor". The farm immediately to the east of ours has become the £mal resting place for thousands upon thousands of tonnes of the G.T.A.'s construction soil and offal. Over the last five to six years a mountain of dirt, concrete, 184 etc. has been built; sixty to seventy feet high, covering approximately one half to two-thirds of this farm. My guess would be that there is more money in tipping fees than farming! It will never be possible to produce anything on that land again! The farm over our north fence has been purchased by the M.T.O. It is to be used for the construction of the east 407 highway link, when that is constructed. Less than one half of a kilometer to the south of us is a worked-out gravel pit which is currently being surveyed and prepared for an approved subdivision consisting of thirty-five estate- residential homes. Direcdy to the south of this is Deer Creek Golf Course, a huge executive course surrounded by fifty-eight estate-style homes. Finally, approximately three kilometers to the west of us is the future community of Seaton and the very real possibility of a reliever airport. The farming community that we grew up in is also almost gone; many of our neighbours have either sold their farms or passed on. Only a handful remains who own the land that they farm with perhaps only a couple of these farmers being under fifty years of age. The local church in IGnsale has been torn down. The community centre closed and sold by the city and is now an established day care centre. As well, in the Village of Greenwood, the general store and post- office have been closed and sold. Today, they are home to an antique store. The remaining church struggles harder with each passing year to keep its doors open. Moving agricultural equipment is another huge problem. Traffic on #7 highway, which fronts our farm, is so congested during both the morning hours, 6:30 a.m. - 9:00 a.m., and again from 4:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. that is often impossible and frankly dangerous to enter with large tillage and harvesting machinery. I used to rent parts of two adjacent farms; however, no longer farm them due in large part to many close calls with commuters and large trucks on this highway. In closing, I would like to go back to Mr. Poxvell's statement regarding a "v/able" agricultural area. Do my sister and I live in one? With the slow but relentless strang~ation~ha.t our farming business and remainin farms have had to endure over the years I ~~~?that we do not! A decision by the Greenbelt Task Force to dictate otherwise will rape the heritage farmers of our area from the right to retire or move to a more viable farming community. This would be a travesty and an undue hardship to force upon individuals who have given their lives to sustaining the tables of this community. It is imperative when making your decision that you recognize that farming is about more than a "nice view" and instead consider the "realit¢- factor" of struggling to farm an area that no longer supports agriculture. Sincerely, Wm. David Clark (905) 655-4667 185 Required Information: (p/ease print c/ear/y) Name: Property Address: City: ~,';~¢'~_.,/'""~ Postal Code: Phone:L~/ Email: (if appficable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Re.qional Council Position · includethe entire Hamlet of / Greenwood / City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept B - Pleasant Growth Workshop · include lands on both sides of Westney Road no~h of the hydro corridor Concept C - GARA's Submission / · includeanarea defined by Concession 5 to the south, Sideline 16 to th~ we~t, [~' Highway 7 to tho no~h, and Salem Road to tho oa~t ?~.. ~- City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 2 2. Are there additional concepts you feel should be considered? Why? 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 Required Information: (please print clearly) Name: 188 Property Addressi City: Pi"¢/, (/g (.4.,/¢ Postal Code: / Phone: (-~¢]--' ~'J~ ~ -, ~ ~ ' Email: (if appficable) 1. What are the things that you like or don't like about each of the concepts and why? Boundary Concepts What I like about this concept What I don't like about this is ... concept is ... because ... because ... Concept A - Re.qional Council Position / "/ / · include the entire /~ , Hamlet off(~,j? ~,~, ,- ~ j;~ Greenwood City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 1 183 2. Are there additional concepts you feel should be considered? Why? £ J 3. Are there other comments you would like to make? PLEASE REMEMBER TO RETURN YOUR COMPLETED II COMMENT FORM BY JANUARY 25, 2005 II City of Pickering Greenbelt Plan Comment Form 3 $ Des ~ January 10,2005 Hon. Dalton McGuinty Premier of Ontario Room 281, Main Legislative Building Queen's Park Toronto, Ontario MTA 1A1 OPEN LETTER FACSIMILE: (4t6) 32§-7578 Dear Premier: The Ontario Government has stated that !egislation creating the GreenbeLt-seeks to protect farmland. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) knows farmland in Ontario will not be protected unless the business of farmin9 in Ontario is protected. While farmers in Ontario, for a variety of reasons, are experiencing significant losses, the Ontario government has increased regulatory costs and burdens on farmers and continues, through regulation and legislation, to limit the ability of Ontario farmers to operate viable farm operations. in spite of OFA's best efforts to communicate the disastrous situation Ontario farmers are currently experiencing, the government is continuing to ignore the issue of the viability of Ontario farm businesses. The 40,000 farmer membem of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture (OFA) will not support the Ontario government's Bill !35 - A~ Act to establish ~ ............. ~a~; ¢4 .~994, because the following issues have not been addressed: 193 1. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture demands the government delay the passing and implementation of the Greenbelt Legislation until: The government of Ontario strike the Task Force on the Viability of Agriculture in Ontario and give them the identical mandate recommended by their own Greenbelt Task Force in their May 2004 report Toward a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt. The Task Force on the Viability of Agriculture in Ontario reports its recommendations* and implements recommendations prior to designation of a "Greenbelt" in Ontario, *Background: The Ontado government's appointed Agricultural "Team" in August 2004 was not mandated to study options to ensure the viability of agriculture in the context of the Greenbelt Task Force recommendations. 2. In addition, the Ontario government must charge the task force with making recommendations that will improve the viability of farming in Ontario by: Giving immediate attention to the economic impact to farming inside and outside of the currently frozen greenbelt land. Implementation of a land value monitoring program and a commitment to compensating farmers for any loss experienced because of §overnment policy, Provide for 'access to operating and capital funding for farmers. Address liability issues created by public access to private land, which could result in high costs to farmers. The government of Ontario must ensure provincial supercedence on issues to support municipalities looking for clarity on agricultural practices (eg: Nutrient Management Act & Regulations). The government of Ontario must review the current mapping available in the designation of greenbelt lands for accuracy and ensure that the lands designated are based on scientific evidence of the. need for protection. The government of,.~,,~'~'~=rio must notify every landow.ne~- within the proposed 9reenbelt to a,,' ¢ them cT their status and provide them with no-cost sppea~ process, to appea~ erroneous designations. The government of Ontario must enhance and protect the viability of farms by addressing existing government policy and legislation, including: ,, Strengthen the Farming and Food Production Protection Act, to enhance a farmers' ability to carry out their best management practices on farms. Strengthen the Trespass to Property Act, to prevent damage to crops and livestock from individuals who may consider the greenbelt as public property, including stiffer fines and higher damage awards. ,, Uphold the Line Fences Act Change tax policy to protect farming ag: elimination of Lsnd Transfer Tax for all farm successions, realistic Property Tax Assessments. ,, Develop policies to enhance farming in unique areas: grape farmers in Niagara would benefit from Changes to Ontario grape content in the Wine Content Act and more shelf space at LCBO for Ontario VQA wines. Premier, your interest in the health of Ontario's agriculture industry was demonstrated by your hosting of the Agri-lndustry Summit in December 2.004. Addressing the viability of farm business is imperative to.the future success and growth of the AgrMndustry in Ontario. CFA demands that the issues of farm business viability in Ontario be addressed immediately. I look forward to your immediate response. Sincerely, Ron Bonnett President 194