The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSeptember 3, 2013 City Oil Planning & Development Committee Agenda Tuesday, September 3, 2013 KERI G Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe Part "A" Pages Planning & Development Reports 1. Director, City Development, Report PLN 15-13 1-33 Conservation Policies The Draft "Living City Policies", Toronto and Region Conservation Authority "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario", Conservation Ontario Whitepaper" Recommendation 1. That Report PLN 15-13 of the Director, City Development regarding the draft "Living City Policies" of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario", a Whitepaper by Conservation Ontario, be received; 2. That City Staff comments on the draft "Living City Policies" of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, as set out in Appendix Ito Report PLN 15-13, be endorsed, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to reflect the comments in the final "Living City Policies"; 3. That Pickering Council advise Conservation Ontario and the Ministers of Natural Resources, Environment, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, that the City of Pickering does not support: a) transfer of ownership of flood control infrastructure to municipalities from Conservation Authorities; and b) delegation of the authority for policy interpretation for natural heritage protections under the Planning Act to Conservation Authorities from municipalities; 4. That Pickering Council request that area municipalities be invited to participate in the discussions about a new funding formula for Conservation Authorities that may have direct impacts on municipal interests; and Accessible For information related to accessibility requirements please contact P I C K E I G Linda Roberts Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: Iroberts5.oickerina.ca 1 Gf Planning & Development Committee Agenda .. _ J: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 5. Further, that copies of Report Number PLN 15-13 be forwarded to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Region of Durham, other Durham Region local municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Conservation Ontario and the Ministers of Natural Resources, Environment, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. 2. Director, City Development, Report PLN 17-13 34-62 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 12-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/12 Pine Ridge Tower Limited (formerly Cambridge Centre Village Inc.) Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Registered Plan 456 (1473, 1475 & 1485 Whites Road) Recommendation 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 12-001/P, submitted by Pine Ridge Tower Limited (formerly Cambridge Centre Village Inc.), on lands being Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Registered Plan 456, to allow a maximum site density of 228 units per net hectare in order to facilitate the development of a 12 storey, 227 unit apartment building, be approved, as outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PLN 17-13, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward the draft by-law to adopt Amendment No. 25 to the Pickering Official Plan to Council for enactment; 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/12, submitted by Pine Ridge Tower Limited (formerly Cambridge Centre Village Inc.) on lands being Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Registered Plan 456, to permit the development of a 12 storey, 227 unit apartment building, be endorsed as outlined in Appendix II to Report Number PLN 17-13, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward the implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment; and 3. Further, that an amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines, as generally set out in Section 3.5 of Report Number PLN 17-13 be endorsed, and brought forward for Council approval with the implementing Zoning By-law. Planning & Development Lily ei( »_ Committee Agenda 0 � Tuesday, September 3, 2013 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Ashe 3. Director, City Development, Report PLN 18-13 63-75 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/13 J. Micklewright Part of Lot 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R-18460 (535 Rouqemount Drive) Recommendation That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/13, submitted by J. Micklewright, to amend the zoning of the subject property to an "R4" — Fourth Density Residential Zone in order to facilitate the creation of two lots with minimum lot frontages of 15.0 metres on lands being Part of Lot 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R- 18460 be approved, and that the draft zoning by-law, as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 18-13 be forwarded to City Council for enactment. 4. Director, City Development, Report PLN 19-13 76-99 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Wind Mobile 270 Highway 7 Installation #56 Recommendation That Wind Mobile be advised that City Council does not object to the proposed 60.0 metre high telecommunication tower installation located at 270 Highway 7, based on the design and other details submitted with this request. (II) Other Business (III) Adjournment City 4 Report to ..-, ,,;:, ._,. Planning & Development Committee I ERI Report Number: PLN 15-13 Date: September 3, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Conservation Policies The Draft 'Living City Policies", Toronto and Region Conservation Authority "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario", Conservation Ontario Whitepaper File: D-8000-046 Recommendation: 1. That Report PLN 15-13 of the Director, City Development regarding the draft "Living City Policies" of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario", a Whitepaper by Conservation Ontario, be received; 2. That City Staff comments on the draft "Living City Policies" of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, as set out in Appendix Ito Report PLN 15-13, be endorsed, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority be requested to reflect the comments in the final "Living City Policies"; 3. That Pickering Council advise Conservation Ontario and the Ministers of Natural Resources, Environment, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, that the City of Pickering does not support: (a) transfer of ownership of flood control infrastructure to municipalities from Conservation Authorities; and (b) delegation of the authority for policy interpretation for natural heritage protections under the Planning Act to Conservation Authorities from municipalities; 4. That Pickering Council request that area municipalities be invited to participate in the discussions about a new funding formula for Conservation Authorities that may have direct impacts on municipal interests; and 5. Further, that copies of Report Number PLN 15-13 be forwarded to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Region of Durham, other Durham Region local municipalities, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, Conservation Ontario and the Ministers of Natural Resources, Environment, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure, and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 2 Executive Summary: Two significant but separate Conservation Authority (CA) policy documents were released for consultation late in 2012 and early in 2013. They are: the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) draft "Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the TRCA" (LCP) and Conservation Ontario's Whitepaper respecting "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario" (Whitepaper). The LCP includes a history of the TRCA, evolution of its policies and proposed compilation of new policies to address the future of planning and development in the watersheds in TRCA's jurisdiction. The Whitepaper evaluates the current status of governance, functions, funding and relationships to Provincial Ministries and to municipalities of all of Ontario's Conservation Authorities. Staff recently commended TRCA on its thorough set of proposals and identified several areas of concern in a City staff comment letter sent in August 2013 (see Appendix I). Key comments and concerns with the LCP include: • comments provided by the TRCA, under the LCP, should reflect whether the comments are being made under its regulatory and permitting role, its delegated Provincial responsibilities, its advisory role in commenting on Planning Act and Environmental Assessment Act matters, or its advocacy role on sustainability • implementation of the policy stating, that all areas identified by TRCA as "potential natural cover" be protected for restoration and enhancement, is problematic unless the lands are acquired by TRCA, or designated and zoned for natural heritage under the municipal planning documents • policies to implement a "compensation protocol" for environmental mitigation are considered premature, as the compensation protocol is not yet available, and the authority under which the compensation would be required is unclear; and • the stormwater management policies should be revised to acknowledge the critical need for municipalities to have maintenance access roads to stormwater management infrastructure Staff recommends that City Council endorse the comments and that TRCA be requested to reflect the comments in the "Final" Living City Policies. Staff supports the Conservation Ontario's Whitepaper objective of updated CA roles to deliver further Ministry of Natural Resources and Ministry of the Environment programs along with committed funding. Staff does not support the suggestions to download flood protection infrastructure to municipalities, or to delegate from municipalities to conservation authorities how best to protect natural heritage features and systems. Staff also requests that area municipalities be invited to participate in discussions about aspects of a new funding formula for conservation authorities that may impact municipal interests. Staff recommends City Council endorse the comments in this Report and forward a copy to the TRCA, Conservation Ontario, Ministers of the interested Ontario Ministries, Region of Durham and Durham area municipalities. Report PLN 15-13 Subject: Conservation Policies September 3, 2013 Page 3 Financial Implications: None 1. The Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Draft, January 2013 1.1 Background 1.1.1 The "Living City Policies" is a new, draft policy document of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority undergoing consultation In January 2013, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) released the draft "Living City Policies for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the TRCA" (LCP). The purpose of the LCP is to guide the TRCA staff and Board in implementing its regulatory and planning responsibilities over the next ten years. The LCP: updates existing plan and permit review practices; reflects new regulatory authority, recent Provincial Plans, and modern scientific practices for the protection of the natural environment; and compiles previously separate policy documents into one. The LCP contains policies for sustainable communities, environmental planning, and for the regulation of development in proximity to wetlands, shorelines and watercourses. The LCP sets out a suite of policies for its various roles, including: • Regulatory Authority, providing direction on and issuing permits under Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act respecting development, interference with wetlands, and alterations to watercourses. • Delegated Provincial Interest under the Provincial Policy Statement, providing direction on how planning proposals should be designed to minimize impacts on flood and erosion hazard lands. • Public Commenting Body under the Planning Act, to provide advice to municipalities on watershed management, natural hazards, and natural heritage as input to municipal decisions on planning policy and applications. • Public Commenting Body under the Environmental Assessment Act, to provide advice to proponents on watershed management, natural hazards, and natural heritage as input to individual and class environmental assessments. • Watershed Based Resource Management Agency, developing programs to reflect local watershed needs. • Advocacy role, to promote development and practices that minimize impacts on climate change, address other environmental challenges, and promote sustainable communities. • Service Provider, to provide planning and environmental advisory services with respect to water management, natural hazards and natural heritage, on behalf of a municipality, through a memorandum of understanding; and • Landowner, owning and operating facilities and practicing land stewardship. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 4 The full 164 page LCP can be made available to Councillors upon request by the City Development Department or can be viewed on the TRCA website at http://trca.on.ca/dotAsset/159098.odf. A summary of the draft LCP is provided in Attachment#1 to Report PLN 15-13. 1.2 Discussion 1.2.1 City staff provided comments to TRCA requesting revisions to the LCP to clarify mandatory policies from guidelines, re-examine policies related to "potential natural cover", "compensation protocol", and stormwater infrastructure City staff attended a TRCA information seminar about the LCP in the spring, at which comments were invited on six "high-level" aspects of the document. More formal comments were also invited. City staff submitted its "high-level" comments to TRCA in the "City staff comment letter" provided as Appendix I to Report PLN 15-13. The main "high-level" comments provided by City staff to TRCA are discussed below: • • Staff commended TRCA on the production of the LCP as it is a comprehensive compilation of background and proposed policy to guide TRCA staff and the Board in carrying out the Authority's responsibilities. It is obvious that a concerted effort was made to identify which policies apply to its different roles and to provide the related legislative authorities. • Despite the effort, and recognizing the many roles it provides, staff continues to see considerable overlap in the policy topics discussed in each chapter such that comments that are of an advisory nature could appear to be regulatory. Greater clarity is requested. Further, in providing comments to area municipalities, the comments should clearly indicate the capacity in which they are being provided and thus, whether they are advisory, regulatory or advocacy. • Staff had a number of comments on the approach to defining the natural heritage system. The inclusion of"potential natural heritage" in the definition of the natural heritage system refers to lands identified by TRCA as having potential for restoration and enhancements to improve biodiversity in the watersheds. However, implementation of this policy is problematic as there is no mechanism to require restoration of those lands unless the TRCA has ownership. Further, the City's official plan does not include most of the "potential restoration" lands identified by TRCA for Pickering in a designation that would restrict the use to natural heritage. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 5 • With the loss of natural heritage features during development, TRCA has been requesting monetary compensation to fund environmental planting or restoration in other locations, through conditions of development approval. The LCP proposes to formalize this as a policy that references a "compensation protocol". However, that protocol has not been yet released for consultation. Staff suggest this policy not be approved at this time. Further, City staff questions the authority under which a requirement for monetary compensation for loss of natural heritage features is being asserted. • Although the LCP contains numerous policies related to stormwater management and related facilities, the draft policies do not recognize the municipal need for access roads to maintain such facilities. Given the access roads may also result in a loss of natural heritage, their need should be recognized as an integral part of the stormwater facility. A policy revision to this effect is requested. 1.3 Recommendation Report PLN-15-13 is recommending that Council endorse the comments submitted by City staff and that TRCA be requested to reflect the comments in the final "Living City Policies". 2. Conservation Ontario Whitepaper: Watershed Management Futures for Ontario 2.1 Background • 2.1.1 Conservation Ontario has called for discussions to map out role changes for Conservation Authorities to better meet existing and emerging challenges. In December 2012, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority forwarded the Conservation Ontario Whitepaper entitled "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario" to the City of Pickering. The Whitepaper requests a dialogue with the Province on behalf of all 36 Ontario Conservation Authorities respecting a number of challenges, and seeks a renewed Provincial-Municipal-Conservation Authority governance framework in Ontario. A full copy of the Whitepaper is available on Conservation Ontario's website at http://www.conservationontario.ca/watershed management/watershed manage ment futures.html . A summary of the Whitepaper is provided as Attachment#2 to Report PLN 15-13. The Whitepaper outlines the evolving roles of Conservation Authorities and relationships with Provincial Ministries and municipalities. The challenges identified include: Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 6 • a complex maze of legislation and inefficient administrative structures that have resulted in less-than-desired outcomes • a tendency to address problems with new legislation that introduces a problematic regulatory burden • unanswered calls for a comprehensive approach • additional responsibilities for CA's to address critical environmental pressures amid reduced Provincial supports; and • increased costs to municipalities and to the proponents of property changes to finance CA services The Whitepaper calls for an integrated approach to watershed management and a revised relationship with Provincial Ministries (mainly with the Ministries of Natural Resources and Environment (MNR and MOE), but also with the Ministries of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Infrastructure and Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs). The Whitepaper proposes discussions to review and revise: • the CA mandate • CA-Ministry relationships • the CA governance model • the funding formula; and • the accountability framework 2.2 Comment 2.2.1 The main concerns arising from the Whitepaper relate to the CA's mandate, CA-Ministry relationships, and funding formula City staff appreciates the expertise of CA staff in applying the flood hazard and stormwater regulations and providing advice on how best to protect natural heritage and hydrologic features in dealing with planning applications. In addition, City staff rely on the Conservation Authority input to environmental assessments for major infrastructure projects proposed by senior governments, master environmental servicing plans to justify new urban communities, and smaller scale local infrastructure initiatives. In examining the broad range of issues addressed in the Whitepaper, staff are aware of most of the issues raised. However, the City does not have a critical interest in most of the issues raised. Staff have concerns with some of the issues raised that could potentially be harmful to City of Pickering interests. Two specific areas of concern are: • the suggestion to transfer the authority under the Planning Act to interpret how natural heritage considerations should be addressed in official plans and individual planning applications from municipalities to Conservation Authorities; and • funding for Conservation Authorities, including the possible transferring of ownership and costs to maintain flood control infrastructure to municipalities Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 7 2.2.2 Ongoing responsibility and funding should be provided for Conservation Authorities to implement suitable Ministry Programs The Whitepaper notes the increasing reliance of MNR and MOE upon Conservation Authority resources to implement significant Provincial programs, but by one-off, annual agreements. Review of these relationships and ongoing funding support is recommended, to replace the current one-off arrangements. Staff consider that greater authority is merited for Conservation Authorities in implementing MNR and MOE programs that the Province is unequipped to carry out. Greater funding for such endeavours also appears warranted on an ongoing basis. 2.2.3 The Whitepaper's suggestion to transfer the responsibility for interpreting how best to protect natural heritage systems to Conservation Authorities from municipalities would constrain municipal decision-making The Whitepaper supports municipal authority under the Planning Act to make decisions on official plans, zoning bylaws and related planning applications. The Whitepaper also comments that policies for the protection of natural heritage systems are less robust than policies under flood protection regulations. To correct this situation, the Whitepaper recommends that Conservation Authorities obtain delegated responsibility from the Province for interpretation of how best to protect natural heritage systems and features under the Planning Act. Such a change would upgrade the current Conservation Authority practice providing "advice" to assist municipalities in making decisions to the provision of "mandatory direction", similar to powers currently practiced by CA's under the Conservation Authorities Act Regulation for flood protection and water resources. Staff are concerned with the possible delegation of policy interpretation for natural heritage protections to CA's from municipalities. Such a change would greatly reduce the ability of municipalities to balance protection of natural heritage matters with the appropriate consideration of other Provincial interests and City interests, such as economic development and the development of safe and healthy communities, along with many others. Under Planning Act authority, municipalities have a duty to balance the various provincial interests in determining how to decide on planning applications. Removing the ability to consider the full range of interests could prevent municipal councils from making properly balanced decisions on many land use planning matters. Staff recommend that Council advise Conservation Ontario and the relevant Provincial Ministers that it does not support the suggested change in delegation of policy interpretation for natural heritage protections under the Planning Act from municipalities to Conservation Authorities. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 8 2.2.4 The Whitepaper's suggestion that a sustainable funding formula be adopted is supported, but transferring flood control structures from Conservation Authorities to area municipalities is not supported The Whitepaper raises a number of issues respecting challenges to the funding of CA operations including: • significant reductions in Provincial transfer payments to CA's, creating pressure to increase levies to municipalities (upper and single-tier) and to increase fees for the review of planning applications and environmental assessments • expected increases to CA responsibilities • proposed transfer of flood control infrastructure to municipalities The only flood control structure in Pickering (located east of Brock Road, north of Finch Avenue on the Pickering/Ajax border) is the Duffins Dike. A transfer of ownership and costs of such a facility would burden both the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax to a small extent. In addition, the separation of management of other aspects of the watershed from flood control infrastructure could be problematic in the future. Staff recommend that Council advise Conservation Ontario that it does not support the transfer of flood control infrastructure to municipalities. 2.2.5 Area municipalities should be part of the discussions on the future of Conservation Authorities While the remaining issues affecting funding do not propose a specific new funding formula, their resolution could have financial impacts on municipalities. The Whitepaper proposes meaningful discussion among all the stakeholders (the Province, municipalities, non-governmental organizations and Conservation Authorities) of the identified issues with the Province taking the leadership role in establishing the dialogue at the earliest possible date. City staff are concerned that if municipalities are not included in or kept apprised respecting the discussions with the Province about the key matters of concern, decisions could be made that may be prejudicial to City interests. Although it is unclear whether, how or when the Province will address the issues raised by the Whitepaper, the City should seek an opportunity to monitor and/or participate in the discussions of interest to the City of Pickering. Accordingly, the City of Pickering should request that area municipalities be invited to be "at the table" for discussions that may/could result in material changes to the relationships between municipalities and the Conservation Authorities. In addition, the Region of Durham, other Durham Region local municipalities and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario should be advised of the City's request. Report PLN 15-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Conservation Policies Page 9 Appendix Appendix I City Staff Comment Letter on TRCA draft "Living City Policies" Attachments 1. Summary Document of the draft "Living City Policies" of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 2. Summary of Conservation Ontario Whitepaper: Watershed Management Futures for Ontario Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By:.___, 7s,k,,s,„ 4 ii tea. ` ,- Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Ca herine Rose, MCIP RPP Principal Planner, Policy Chief Planner (-0174-1/1--- ‘'-- OVK6'A": ,- /77,i Marilee Gadzovski Thomas Mely 1W- MCIP, RPP -- Manager, Water Resources Director, City Development Ricl1 rd Holb%rn, P.Eng. Director, Engineering & Public Works SG:jf Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit ouncil iJ , ,'Ii . tcf, zo15 Tony Prevedel, P,Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Appendix I to Report PLN 15-13 City Staff Comment Letter on TRCA draft "Living Policies" Pickering vomplex. o0 One T Cihe ic EsCplanade Pickering, ON LTV 6K7 Direct 905.420.4660 1 so . L� .�_�zl L • ToII Free-1.966.683.2760 DICKERING: pickering-ca City !Development•Department _ ' T. 905.420.4617. TTY.' ;905.420.1.739 , F: 905.420.7648 Email. ..citydev@picketing.ca • . August 7,.2013 : • Mary-/inn Burns,_Planner • Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, • 5 Shoreham Drive, - Toronto, ON M3N 1S4 • ' SuiLject: Comments-on the Draft"•Living City Policies" of the • Toronto.and Region Conservation Authority's - ::: : : - File: D-8000-046 •We commend the Toronto and-Region:ConservationAuthori RCA .on the release of tY Cr . . ). - the draft"Living .City:Policies:for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the : Toronto and Region'Conservation Authority" (Living'City'Policies), on January 25, 2013. The draft "Living City Policies"provide a thorough compilation of background information; analysis and policy proposals to guide TRCA Staff and.Boardin`conducting •• its various stewardship, advocacy,advisory and regulatory responsibilities: Presentation of the reasoning and policies in a single "Living City.Policies"'document . • provides,comprehensiveness and,transparency that will augment,the effe tiveness of TR,CA's work: • The following comments respond'to the six questions.provided (shown in bold) and • • : reflect input from staff of both City Development:and & Public Works 1. • . . • Departments: • 1•. Interests of a conservation authority, or.of TRCA'in particular, that have not been addressed or are not clear in the document. • . • Appears td be,complete: , 2. Support for the principles in Section 5 as an;overarching set of directions for TRCA's advocacy,:planning and regulatory roles and responsibilities. . Agree with all the principles. • • • • • Comments on the Draft "Living City Policies" of the TRCA :•August 7, 2013 ' Page 2 3'.`.Comprehensiveness and clarityof goals, objectives:and policies in sections 6•through 8 to:carry'out:TRCA's role's and responsibilities in the planning and • ,development process, • • a) Chapter 6 • Paths to Achieving The Living City: Policies for Sustainable '• . Communities. .,. • `Support:the'polici'e's: . '••' • • •b) Chapter 7 Policies for•;Environmental Planning. • • ..••••• •• • Chapter 7 begins by stating that policies for environmental planning will deal with its Mies under the Planning Act and the Environmental Assessment:Acts and ' - then proceeds'to include Matters.that fall under-its Con ervation Act • responsibilities ., •:. : • • TRCA'sdifferent roles in the fulfilment of its, environmental-planning: • responsibilities are set out in•Chapter.7 and include:. • ' • • • • the regulatory role.'(diirective) under Censer ation Authorities Act - • . + the;plarl:review:.role (advisory):under the Planning Act and.,•the Environmental Assessment Act,.arid ' : ; the•advocacy roleto•obtain healthy.environmentat outcomes on matters not directly;regulated by=land use legislation, as.expanded upon in Chapter. 6 City staff has found that•some`past TRCA comments on Planning:applications 7. :have not clearly identified whicn parts of comments are diirective, advocacy Or: advisory,- It is'recognized thatthe•siites subject to some planning applications include both features that.fall'under TRCA's regulatory role (wetlands, valleys of watercourses etc.), and the advisory role•(natura'l heritage and.:hydrologic • 'features governed.'by Planning Act and Provincial Policy Statement•(pPS) : . provi'sio ns):,.in'add.ition.:to advocacy comments: It is often difficult for the City to differentiate which Comments relate to the portions of sites that fall-Under TRC1's directive role.or its.advisory'role: It i$:requested that future comments be more • - carefully qualified as to their regulatory',(directive),advisory{plan review! :`: •': • : ..recommendation)or advocacy',authority • • • ' • Prior to addressing specific policies,.it would•provide greater clarity'to-users of . • - the Living City Policies if: . • each policy was fully numbered.in the highlighted,policy sections (i.e.: - Policy 7.3:,1. (a)), not just•(a). . links to:other policy sections and-other:documents were,."readily accessible, and • :a.compilation of the full set of proposed policies was•provided • Comments On the Draft "Living City Policies" of the TRCA '. August 7,-201.3: - 1 . - Page 3, ' -C Policy.7.3.1 �The Natural System . . - Although the General Policies for Plan Input and Review in section 7:5.2 clearly • • articulate T.R.CA's advisory,role-in the.plan review function,•the policies-proposed' . . • in.sectIon 7.3:1:lead.to confusion,-about how•TRCA will.differentiate its'directive - recommendations:from-the advisory recommendations made under its,plan.,•• review functions. .. • : . •.. s . .•- . The Planning Act requiresmunicipalities"to request comments from:Conservation • Authorities on planning-applications containing natural heritage'features . ', • - governed by:the'definitions and•policies contained in the PPS., Municipalities• - 'must take such comments into-,account in arriving at,decisions on planning - . applioations.and also must balance protection'of.natural heritage with the . , • : ':consideration of Other provincial.interests, plans,;laws and regulations in arriving• •�at decisions:on planning applications.. Except for•the portions of sites that fall• , •' . •withinTR•GA's'regulatory role,.municipal Councils have authority to: akethe' : .• '• decisions on planning-applications, • - • • . . - - With the•foregoing,in mind, there are a.number df-areas of.concern with respect : to Policy.7.3:1.: These'include:; •; r• • Inclusion in the.broad definition•of the Natural System of components:that fall :-.•• ,,under TRCCA's regulatory role, sortie that fall under the advisory:-role:(plan. • :review functionfPPS).an;d one.not explicitly recognized by the Planning Act .• (potential natural...cover).:This'makes.it confusing to,determine'how TRCA will ,•separate the directive from the-advisory comme'nts.to municipalities: :. • • •, - , .The.meaning:of"Natur al-Features;and.Areas".isuncl.ear:• It appears.that,the.:: • • -.intended"meaning.is.as set.out:on page'65.:.Since no differentiation is...: .•. . i provided for"significant"features from features titat are not Significant, it, - . • •• appears that TRCA is.proposing to apply the more;restrictivei polici.es.for ;significant features.contained,in��the.'FPS policies.to features are not - ' . . °significant".in its•comments to.municipalities on both,regulatory and advisory, - -matters,:an.extension.of current Provincial policy: ` • - .• Inclusion of Potential Natural. Cover-Within the-Natural Systern, in the absence. ' . of legislative authority in.the•Planning Acf;.also appears to be an extension Of ' Provinbia-1 policy.`Accordingly, potential. natural cover-.should. be removed . ' - • from the:definition of Natural System. See comments below respecting Policy ••..7.3'.1.4 for further-reasoning: . I. - . . •lrnplementation-of the prohib.itions.of development and site alterations and : • . iirifrastr:uoture'contaihed in Policies 7.3.1 (b) and (c)'isnot supported as they . apply to:natural.features and areasthat.do notfall within the definitions.of the • ' PPS (i.e::,those'not"significant"). For the following'reasons,.:any application of these policies to potential natural cover is not supported. The exceptions in - . Policies 7.3:.1• (b) and (c) that state: except:in accordance with the policies in. - . Sections 7 and 8" are too general and undefined.to.lbe understandable. , ' Accordingly; City staff does not support Policies 7.3.1 (a) to (c),as currently, .• written. Comments'on the Draft "Living City Policies" of the TRCA August 7., 2013 Page 4 Although earlier sections of.the draft Living City Policies acknowledge that ' development-is defined differently in the PPS than in:the Regulation under the Conservation Authorities Act, it.is:unclear which-definition should be assumed for - . the different applications of Policy 7.3:1 since,.some apply:to.�matters that fall . under TRCA's regulatory-functions and some would,fall under the its advisory functions. . ' • - , Proposed Policies 7.3:1 (e) and..(f) that require,.technical reports.to Abe prepared '. in accordance with TRCA standards and,Provincial Standards should also ' : • indicate.that municipal policies respecting technical reports, must also be;met.. Written comments should provide better clarification of which matters fall within. TRCA's regulatory authority from those within its advisory authority by separating • comments respecting lands and features with water resource and natural hazards (regulatory) from comments that address Natural features and areas • (advisory'}. . d) Policy 7.3.1.3 Natural Hazards - .• • In`proposed Natural Hazards Policy 7.3.1.3 (h) (i), the meaning of an institutional -. . 'use."associated with"the listed uses is confusing.' We recommend it be revised . ' to refer to an.institutional use 'Including"the listed uses., Policy 7.3.1:3 (d) proposes that a buffer be applied to thelim.it:.of hazardous lands . and sites and shall Include the applicable erosion access allowances. •; . Recognizing that the erosion access allowance is•defrned to ensure a safety zone for people and vehicles to access anarea'during an emergency, the policy . should clarify whether the erosion access'allowance should.be added to the buffer or included within the required buffer. - . . e) Policy 7.3..1.4 ,. Potential Natural Cover and Buffers. - . • We support the concept of"potential natural cover" as a sound objective.to . protect the ecological health of a watershed as a-whole. Similarly,:the concept of - the target terrestrial natural heritage system;is supported as a concept. - For municipalities; however, the legal authority to require landowners and planning applicants to participate is lacking unless:the lands are designated as • Natural Heritage System in the local official plan:. Municipalities must balance'•' natural heritage objectives with other provincial interests, plans and laws while- ' also respecting rights of landowners and vother stakeholders without creating, - conflicts. . . Comments on:the'-Draft."Living.City'Policies"•ofthe TRCA • • 'August 7, 2013 • • . • • . ; ., . "Page.5• ., • - .• •Policy7,3:'1.4 a).is too simplistic and broad:: ft'calls for"all areas of potential. : • • • •:. :natural cover, to be.protected for restoration and:enhancement, in•accordance • •• . ' -with Natural.System.Policy 7:.3,1: ::Policy.7,3.1.'includes prohibition of, : . development and site'alteration and infrastructure within-potential'natural.cover. • - • - • areas:. These intentions corif{ict with the general PP$,policyto balance-;. - '•.: •'. • • application•of.the full rannge•of PPS-policies. • - : The TRCA.has:not.released.its proposed Compensation Protocol to date;•.When . • •• the TRCA'initially released:its "Targef Terrestrial Natural Heritage,'System •:' . . • • - .• compensation was:proposed,to be I.mplemented:-on:lands owned by:other that ` • ' TRCA felt:should be.part•:of the target terrestrial natural heritage system The. . - ' • - • 'Planning,A'gtallows municipalities to regulate land uses-to ensure compatibility: • - .. • • • -with:•uses on other affected lands but does not authorize a 'transfer. of obligations '. -. :. - - , to:lands.rerimote from:the application.site. . Land.use.policies and'designations In ' " -Official'plans and-zoning provisions that would identify•lands.as'"potential-natural : '. - cover".or:target terrestrial natur-al'heritage:forpurposesof conservation,: as set • ' •:.out in the Natural:Systems.portion of:section 7::•3:1l is.beyond.the powers of'the • : :municipality and -accordingly:should-.be. reconsidered. : • • . . • .` • -. In'our view,the policy proposed to achieve habitatffeaturesrestoration ill' ••potential natural.coverareas should'be:permissive and voluntary not mandatory . • as currently framed . - . . • • - • - • : - •Also-iri.our view, the following principles•should be•given consideration in the •• : • s. formulation/finalization•of the Compensation"Protocol: - : , ' • - ' • • . • - '• totriitigate net negative impacts.on.the environmental health of a Watershed:: '••- , ;or.subwatershed , . : • . . •. �n•situations':where oh-site mitigation'cannot be'negotiated as•a•condition of,' ' •approval:of a planning'application• • ' ' • • TRCA Will recommend that'municipalities negotietetwith planning applicants • the•restoration and/or:enh'ancement on Lands wiithin'the target:area of the'• ' :• •. • • -: watershed.or subwatershed• , .'. - • . • ` Mitigation be considered on•lands owned•by.willing host public agencies, or , ' on.,privatelyowried lands whose,owners voluntarily agree'to provide for . • mitigation on.a-"site away:,from the'.development site,•and-other:private owners ..- - • WhQ voluntarily-agree.to steward the restoration that results:from this. , : . . arr'a,n9emenf . . • . - . . .• . . at the expense of the. planning applipant'site owners • • TRCA may wish to advocate for:mu'nicipal.offcialplan.policies to support• •• - strategies to achieve'potential natural cover.:principles•in a manner that falls within the policy provisions of the PPS and.be•'more directive only for those` •. : 'aspects Of Policy 7;3.1 related to.water. resources:and natural'.hazards.lands. • • Comrnentsron the Draft "Living City.Policies"of the TRCA ' August.7;2013 . . • • .. Page 6 . • ,. •Similarly, the proposal in•Policy.7:3:1 (d) to require connection for isolated natural . .'..: ' features to other natural features cannot be supported unless the connection, is.. . on•lands also subject to the'planning applicatibn-under.consideration Further. , , . this proposed'policy.,appears to conflict with advice from the Region..of Durham - . • • • that the.City may consider removal of.some isolated natural heritage features : : . - . ' . .from.the natiararl heritage:system'being finalized for.the environmental.:' • • - . • - . .• 1 amendment, which is part of the City of Pickering Official Plan Review(currently underway)_• • f) .Policy7 .4::1.1.1 ; Policies for.Stormwater Management; • .: :- .. . Similer:to the concern noted earlier, the City.does.not support: TRCA's:apparent - ' . . assumption in Policies 7.4:1;.1,1 (b) and:(d) of the sole authority to set'criteria for. • ' technical reports on matters.related to planning applications.= ' • • • . . A.critical component,of the long-tear effectiveness and sustainability of municipal . • . • - stormwatermanagement infrastrdetyre is the.ease With which maintenance operations can be completed:-Inadequate access can,vastly increase the cost • and complexity of maintenance operations: Giventhat•the continued erosion. ,. _ • • control,,and water quality and mater quantity functions of stormwater . - ma�nagement facilities requires.maintenance,:-access to Such facilities-must be. . recognized in,TRCAs-policies. . • ' .. .Since,TRCA plays an important role in the review and approval:ofstormw,ater management infrastructure, TRCA's po,licies.should:acknowledge the critical � ` : importance of.future maintenance reSu'fremernts in the design of stormwater " ..management infrastructure: , Furthermore, where stormwater management.infrastructure is located within the 1 • • Natural Herita9e System;•there-is potential for conflict lbetween TRCA's policies .' - • nd: •amunicipal requirements for maintenance access roads to stormwater • . •management infrastructure: :It is the opinion of the`City of'Pickering that the - TRCA's Natural Heritage:System and Storrnwater Management policies should ' recognize that maintenance access•roads be required for storrriwater -- - mariagement facilities: : : , - • g): Policy 7.4.2,1 . Natural Features and Are'as•Management Policies• - • • Section-7.4.2:appears to be premature in that',-at least at the time.ofwriting-the • :Living City Policies, TRCA's Compensation Protocoa had not been approved. It,is • . •accordingly pre-mature to incorporate it into the policy document. ' In addition„similarly to earliercomments, although section 7 is supposed to .• relate to.natural.heritage tatters that fall under'the Planning Act, which assighs dedision making authority to municipalities, paragraph 1 suggest that TRCA - . makes the decisions In consultation with the municipality. This should be • corrected. The municipality, in consultation with TRCA, has'authority to . - determine such matters: • • ' Comments.on•the Draft:"Living City Policies" of;the TRCA ' • August 7,:201.8 Page 7 • •h) 'Policy 7:5:2.2 Official.Plans,Official-Plan Amendments,Secondary Plans • ' • References in proposed,;Policies,7.5.2.2 (PI and 7,5.2.4 (a)to,potential natural.cover'. • . should be'revised to reflect th'e earlier comments. 4. Background''info'rmation to policies•:in Sections 6 through 8. •• . '. No further comments . . • ' '&..Policy conflicts TheOnterio-Ministry;of Natural,Resources Technical Oujda for River and Stream • •• - Systems: Flooding Hazard Limit explicitly prohibits the use of stormwatef •` • . management facilities tQ:reduce flows froth tfie Regulatory'Storm. Given-that,.any • `mention of Regional Flood Control Facilities:should be-removed.from the document • as it is in conflict withtthe.govern'ing policy;.from the Ministry•of.Natural Resources, • '6: 'Issues.orclarification;required for City role in the.planning and.development •process • No new comments:; . } Thank'you'for:the opportunity to provide staff-to-staff comments',on the Draft Living City : 1A • Policies, and we'look;forward to an opportunity to.discuss these'comments with TRCA' staff shortly;:A report to P iickerng:City.Council is:also being.prepared for September. '. II. • , • If further clarification of any of these comments is required,-please contact..Steve'$auint. • either by email at sgauntapickering.ca''or by:phone at 905.420.4660, extension 2033: 'Yours',truly. ' :: • Steve''Gaunt, MCIP, RPP , •. • . • :Principal Planners.Policy f • , S.G:l d J:Vocument DevelopmenriD-E0001bH00P0/BSCOmments to TRG On pion Gty Pdldes Legerdac .' • Copy Director,,City.Development. - ' •.Director;Engineering•& Public Works ., Manager, Water.Resources • •:Water Resources Engineer . :� Chi'ef. Pllanner • • Toronto and Region Conservation for The Living City, • , .. =• �. r .- :,t,.. R.♦ l...SI 1IAi 4{, i ! -tom ... rt+..�.,'1X•f.1�" , - k,-°-«4w d rh 'I, 1 '' s+�.4-. y' lie ,;. s :,SA, 6:4,,..,_ � ,.....i..0....-4 '�.' =Ld [ "•` W F. 4„r K :-..., '7... i r- i,1 ti• ` i`. `f. + :,,,...41.,t ' , i Tlf x{71) 11 - a i i< 1: } i f� 1�, f� d ,:-:;,,,.• ...,-..,:• _rte ;' L,,_ R ,F a Z.`)ec,1`• .�`' ._yf"_ 4.� .. R+• 1 �. ,' • �� !« 0 W R ..... 1t +4,4..y. M, , •.�..4 ;J:4;1•1„Nr kg .5•• • t,. �i ,{I.c.+.',L7i�,i.- to■.c�r..4 J , r -!I 1 I - ti.. �� 'r, � '�1 ; 1F !1 tY`yV`s .-jL a • `� 1.4- —.tom», tom` ,I i -i �`'`'1�� ` rte ,� r� 11 psi`' �'� r` `, - 'A •tt.... St;.,..'::;.:: -i• Y ^ ` -1((S _ . G _ i � L a_� y'1 ,I� . •-1 :* g Cit, , .‘ . ,i.jr., ,,tn,....: 0 .,....., . y 1 4. °44' ..::3;• . f , k. S for Planning and Development in the - -- ��`- Watersheds of the Toronto and Region ' - .`- -- -- Conservation Authority - - - - -- - - la,� r "e.er '4'.z;-.41e. " - y+� A-y ".r -�1A* ''^ SUMMARY DOCUMENT ' , ie -ham 5 .I r i�./�� jv • j_ , r , ;{/ ,.ice / , . 1., t,7 > r•r ',-.4-: • r r. ;4 r 7 ,iilq,t �' ,� a.?:` r,''j Vii: •'J �.�,+_^ •,..,:o•• ^ +tea... •,_ ••°.-+-,1)�K,, 'f�.. 'j y; �[, - ^ '� , - -•___mac �'_._ s-. AITACtitoIRT# / TO aEPOR7,7 Z?- !,v /5-/3 0 0. What is this document? 1 O What is The Living City? 2 O Why does TRCA need a new policy document? 3 O What's new in The Living City Policies? 5 O The Living City Policies - Chapter by Chapter Contents 6 O Process and Timelines 7 O Evolution to The Living City 8 0 -- ---,.., I :.;d., t. '' 4 ' ,• ' , ' .4t ' . •-• , . ; ...0.., - .y. •,`.,',..11,.. . • , ', ' .. .i. .0.06,.4. ..*, -. .. '-c• • 1 . , ''' ".. ';t111.4.4f"I ,. laillii . ■ ■ • . _j§,.. **** .e,---. .4";,-,,., • A..:,t,,,,, - „g.•••• __ : - ,. "; . ---7- --, •, -- =...-•...s- . , t •• • *le..- .. , , - ' - - •iti : ,,.:2 ; . _ 1 .. , A /1 g, - I • •- • 1 -- 1 1, '.--..- `-','.. -7:* '..---f" 'j'1 rt., .2-'1., '14 .., .,, ' 4, __,, 1 X-.'I:: . • ' '- ;" 1 -„,-.4 '1' - --'''--••,:,,, '1 .• . — Aliwil I I I t .i''' • .- - ::,,,,,(_,c,76-_ ..I.Aper,:g__4 I-..--._ - - --- - -1.-' .*:of II '- -.. - —' 17...r - '''-• _,,. • L *' _ -4 • ..-,A ,..t- rt - .,_ . ... • _ . . • --„,.._ A n,..,,,, , . . 11101 4111 Ell 1 .Q..kl 1 1-4 IA --- - , ._... . .. . . ---,a-- • . - - _.......... .,:sing , -.. , .. _. 1 9 . - --- -- - - ATTl.0 MEET# TO REPORT i . P1-N i5 �3 1 • l0 What is this document? The Living City Policies is the new DRAFT policy ten years.Comparable to a combined municipal document of the Toronto and Region Conservation official plan and zoning by-law,The Living City Authority(TRCA)that is now released for Policies represents a compilation of existing plan municipal,public and stakeholder consultation. and permit review policies and practices that have It is a conservation authority policy document to evolved over time.It also contains new policies guide the implementation of TRCA's legislated and related to TRCA programs,scientific research,and delegated roles and responsibilities in the planning external planning and development initiatives. and development approvals process over the next Its purpose is four-fold: :, 1 ;: '.::2 ' 3 ,.. 4 To guide TRCA To provide the To inform TRCA's To assist and enable review of planning basis for approving advocacy role for our partners'and • applications and environmental permit applications The Living City in the planning stakeholders' under Section 28 contributions to assessments; of the Conservation and development building The Living City. Authorities Act; process; and I I. f i C .x- ' r y . , . -- - '-., _ iv/ . .... ,,7 , : ,.,i • - t 1..`, :rats.,„.„ sx r y_,.i • .,..•' ,-`*.,....!,' ...t- L. '+I'i 1`1, it is 1 i i r Y i'1.4ili 1• . . 'W '...s' •4:06,S.',��, ,� �' . • ..- 1,e4,..._ ..i.: of y. lt, ': i1--�•.�1., lbw ,- . ^err+ :; `-- y .. •• .+Rl.�;i�y'_ 47 v4"+tiy 1 K" �Q` ��i i�.�`yE�, ,rP' :„ ('r '• , 4 ,....- ?l� •. ,,s�- .0 ,'� llt • ,.•"••r'.. _j _,�_, lHST. ,4!AI. -ice '� �!I�,�T` M . Yi� '•f /lei'• W--- t_ ' ,,, ..a...s .. �r]y r- "` :�T.. 7- �.[ 1 '4.4.-;,G.:••" 'yam 1' SM;�yr�. 'r y q. �� • "tt s •!Ir.. .•,C 'v .4• '' * e" ate, . ,._ . �� •t� frl /u` '. �;r .��` Nip- ..,-, s .i. fib `,41 rt S ;a„ ». A . ." __ . `�:It. _ ;:_ e,,qr.- , 4:� 20 ATT MENTL TO 2 REDO►TO . ,Z;L3 • 0 What is The Living City? • Simply put,The Living City is TRCA's vision for TRCA works from the perspective a healthy,attractive,sustainable urban region that natural processes contribute _- ' • prospering into the next century.Its foundation to the physical form of cities `;, f1 is the traditional conservation authority mandate, and neighbourhoods;and that A 1 '; adapted for the distinct needs of an urbanizing the development of urban ,.-+u00"* 0/- city-region.TRCA agrees with the assertion by the areas influences and affects the United Nations that the future of the planet will be health and ecological integrity determined in rapidly expanding city-regions,such of natural systems—that cities I as our own Greater Toronto Area (GTA).We believe are part of,not separate from,nature.TRCA's quest that the future of our region depends on decisive for sustainable development,through building The action now to change unsustainable practices,both Living City,seeks to reconnect human and natural individual and corporate,and to find creative new environment objectives by working in partnership with ways of city building and of living in our rapidly the community.Accordingly,the mission of TRCA is: growing urban region.Accordingly,TRCA has put forth its vision for a new kind of community: To work with our partners to ensure that The Living City is built on a natural The Living City,where human settlement foundation of healthy rivers and can flourish forever as part of nature's " shorelines, greenspace and biodiversity, beauty and diversity. and sustainable communities. III ., .. ,_,...".4 • I' Trtir*- ..,7 '''., q kl.,ti 1 . ,s - 4. • 44. I Alt" • 1' . i\If#e , ,:.. ' ' ::i ire �.4 �. ‘A,144; fit. .4 • '•'1,4 . . ,,,t,.; , , u-, .. . I ' •• . . ,..-• .,,-;--..ir.ite 'O.', .i, , . . • , ` ~ •T.+ � { 'rN.. . • ! , I # to F ' ' I "� ,. 1 ;• 21 ' ' A ATTPIC MEMT# / TO REPO M P A/ /513 3 • © Why does TRCA need a new policy document? Under the Conservation Authorities Act, a conservation authority implements a program to further its"objects"of conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources. TRCA's main program currently guiding the Authority in its planning and regulatory roles is the Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program (VSCMP) endorsed by the Authority in October 1994. The Living City Policies (The LCP)will supersede In a 2009 Mining and Lands the VSCMP while continuing and expanding on the Commissioner decision, the tribunal program's valuable foundation of principles and affirmed the importance of such policy intent.Since the VSCMP was first introduced, programs in order for CAs to many changes have occurred in the quality accomplish their objects. and extent of scientific understanding of TRCA watersheds,as well as changes to the planning, development and growth management realm of It is clear to the tribunal that the Authority the GTA.The development of The LCP was informed has the right, and in fact the responsibility to by these changes and will serve to:fulfill TRCA's develop programs to 'accomplish its objects.' legislative responsibilities;support our municipal Ontario Regulation 166/06 outlines the objects partners in building environmentally,socially accepted by the TRCA. The Valley and Stream and economically Corridor Management Program has been sustainable developed to guide the Authority in the communities;and `T� fig`'y1 • implementation of its objects. In effect, the minimize the need Policy's purpose is to further the aims and for costly remedial �; ° P P F , 0t�F `. objectives of the Authority and provides a measures through the ri,'9` �`;r ��, �!I land 4100, purposive approach' to both the Act and conservation of lan ;,F.;�•�l y the regulation. and resources. ,�:�. � , (MLCDecision,Russell versus the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(CA 003-05)May 27,2009) ' -.+Aid, .' I ,vr' � • 22 ATTi K9Et Tif�TO 4 REPO A--A/ /-5-7? Some of the changes that An update to TRCA's to manage human activities IIII highlight the need for policies is needed at this (such as land use change)and adapting and updating time to address not only natural resources on a"systems" TRCA policies include: the policy,administrative basis,in order to address critical and environmental issues such as the cumulative •The requirement to conform changes identified above, impacts of rapid growth and with new provincial legislation but also to address new transitioning to a sustainability and policies such as the Oak challenges facing the GTA model for all aspects of society. Ridges Moraine Conservation in the coming years. Key Plan,the Greenbelt Plan,the among these challenges Places to Grow Growth Plan, from TRCA's perspective and the 2005 Provincial Policy and mandate are: i Statement,among others; •Growth and urban intensification •Clarification of the roles and in the context of environmental responsibilities of conservation . protection and managing the authorities through provincial risk from flooding and erosion ,. initiatives such as Generic hazards;and N.Regulation conformity,the Conservation Authority •Adapting to and mitigating for Liaison Committee(CALC), the potential impacts of climate Integrated Watershed and the delegated authority change. Management is a holistic for representing the provincial approach that recognizes and interest for natural hazards; operates based on the inter- The Living City Policies are connectedness of environment, •New or updated memorandums also needed to capitalize economy and society-in short, a sustainability-based model. of understanding with on the opportunities IWM is an evolving,continuous our municipal partners for resulting from the and adaptive process through plan review,environmental many changes since the which decisions are made for the assessment review and technical adoption of the VSCMP, sustainable use,development, clearance services; such as: restoration and protection of ecosystem features,functions and linkages.Integrated •A growing body of scientific •The promotion of a"Culture watershed management allows research and evidence of Conservation,through the for addressing multiple issues documenting the declining Growth Plan for the Greater and objectives,and enables us quality of the environment Golden Horseshoe,to protect to plan within a very complex in TRCA's increasingly urban natural systems,increase energy and uncertain environment. watersheds;and and water efficiency,as well (Conservation Ontario) f as to value and protect prime •Systems-based approaches and agricultural areas and cultural best management practices heritage resources;and to address the decline and promote healthy,sustainable •TRCA's adoption of a science- communities. based,integrated watershed management(IWM)approach III J / .....r . l�, I � `_` 23 , ` ATT'ACK1EENT# / TO HEM 'LA/ 15-13 5 • 0 What's new in The Living City Policies? The foundation for The LCP is TRCA's mandate under the Conservation Authorities Act for the management of natural hazards and natural heritage in our watersheds and waterfront using a watershed-based ecosystem planning approach.The protection of valley and stream corridors through our regulatory role remains as the primary foundation of The LCP.The new policies being introduced reflect TRCA's current plan review practice and are based on many TRCA initiatives and programs consulted on previously. New policy areas in The LCP include •Wetland and Lake • Natural System • Natural System •Policies to address Ontario Shoreline protection policies management policies flood risk reduction policies in accordance based on the science for redevelopment and redevelopment with TRCA's Ontario from TRCA's Terrestrial of existing urban through comprehensive Regulation 166/06, Natural Heritage System lands that emphasize planning to integrate as approved by the Strategy(2007),and as restoration of degraded science,engineering and 4111 Province in May 2006; refined in watershed plans and municipal natural areas and the ecological design in urban remediation of flooding intensification areas; official plans; and erosion hazards; •Stormwater •Environmental •Policies that emphasize •Sustainable management policies Assessment,Master an"ecosystem services" Communities policies based on TRCA's SWM Plan and Infrastructure perspective in which that advocate for other Criteria Document policies that incorporate human health and urban Living City program (2012)that include the consideration of design benefits can be interests in the planning managing water balance cumulative impacts and maximized by drawing and development for natural features and adaptive management; on both the natural and process. groundwater recharge built elements of"green through options such as infrastructure"; low impact development measures in a"treatment / train"approach; i/ / „ .. .., , , , ....:.,......... ,., , , . . . .. • • .. / �. i , .. ;i 2 4 . . . AT ACHMB T# / TO 6 REPORTO P,/,v i5-1 3 © The Living City Policies - Chapter by Chapter Contents • Introduction The Toronto Legislative TRCA History Purpose,Scope Region Foundation and Evolution and"How to Read" Description of Overview of TRCA's to The Living the document. TRCA's jurisdiction. mandate and roles City in planning and development. The Living City Paths to Policies for Regulation Vision, Mission, Achieving The Environmental Policies Strategic Living City Planning Policies to Guide Objectives and Advocacy Policies Policies to guide TRCA's regulatory Principles for Sustainable TRCA's role as a responsibilities Communities commenting agency under section 28 under the Planning of the Conservation Act,Environmental Authorities Act. Assessment Act and as a technical review agency and service �� •i . I • , ,•.~ provider to our :C .. I l i municipal partners. ' ° '_ . ' r+'� J }• - *b.\ :411* z • x, ipip IL. •- _ ;qty � "��" r i v , .fir !� i e y . 6 ikiti • 1 -� �� `; 1 " '� ' ,' R 7 ATlrr airM r# / To REPO TO . AZ 4-) /S: 3 7 • 0 Process and Timelines The process to bring The LCP to this draft stage Manual in 2007,which provides technical and where it is ready for external consultation has procedural details for many of the policies found in been ongoing for several years and has included: The LCP.The intent of the Procedural Manual is to the completion of many TRCA projects such as enhance TRCA's cooperative working relationship watershed plans,natural heritage strategies,and with municipal partners,the development the development of new technical guidelines or community,and permit applicants regarding the the update of existing ones.Each of these discrete implementation of TRCA's planning and regulatory projects has included their own elements of public functions, including opportunities to increase and/or stakeholder consultation.Additionally,TRCA procedural transparency and streamline the review created the Planning and Development Procedural process where appropriate. The process to consult on and finalize The LCP over the next year is proposed as follows: January 2013 Winter& Spring 2013 Summer& Fall 2013 Early 2014 Authority board Municipal,provincial and Revise The LCP as Final approval by • notification of agency consultation; necessary based on Authority board and external consultation Stakeholder consultation consultations; 30 day implementation. on the DRAFT with BILD, ENGOs, posting of final draft document. general public and other document. interest groups. t. y��y a I {I SLY~ A ' h • p- 44. , 1, , • r • ,,•. ,� i...4 ' f �; ;.'_ , +10 26 . dam- 7 \ / , 41.„ i i{ � _• ,--4111611° 4110 AUMT Li—....1) 0 Evolution to The Living City The Living City Policies is the next step in TRCA's continuous evolution in responding to changes in public policy, environmental conditions and citizen and stakeholder demands.The following historical overview demonstrates how TRCA has continually adapted itself over the years to changing times, new science and fiscal realities. • 1960s MTRCA was designated by imiimmaarr the Province as the lead The prevailing ideology was an implementing agency engineering-based structural for the Etobicoke to 1946 approach to flood control. Ajax-Pickering shoreline 14 years ears after the devastation of Plans were formulated for the (except for the central \ construction of numerous multi- downtown waterfront) The Conservation Hurricane Hazel that leading to the formulation Authorities Act is killed 81 people and left purpose dams,engineered river 9 channel improvements,the of waterfront plans based y passed in the Ontario thousands homeless due on an integrated shoreline legislature to enable to flooding,four small acquisition of flood plain lands and the creation of a flood warning management approach. municipalities to conservation authorities The plans addressed the establish a conservation are amalgamated to form system(which still exists today). p But as the costs of land acquisition need to limit high rates authority to manage the Metropolitan Toronto of erosion while enabling g escalated throughout the 1960s safe public access and the on a watershed basis. Authority(MTRCA). creation of regional scale and 1970s,it became clear that __ these aspects of the approach parkland and waterfront were not financially viable. recreation opportunities. 27 9 I ,1 { "'�i Stiff. �� r �'M' ��` ..� ?- iS i ... . , , ,.. 0 . ` I J' :.! Sri, ti '- M 1111104 AIL . I Ilia?yy` F ��f 7 • r all Al tliar£151V1# / _TO Fi M 0 /42.0/J /S-43 • Looking Forward to 2050 2000s Since the days of Hurricane Hazel,TRCA has a long III1990s The information technology history of researching, WNW revolution was a key theme regulating,advising and Public involvement in in conservation in the collaborating with our watershed management first decade of the new partners to manage the This decade marked a can be characterized as millennium.Real-time in- health of our urbanizing shift in provincial policy the theme of this decade. stream monitoring,digital watersheds and waterfront. direction away from the The Don Watershed Task modeling of storm and The Living City Policies structural engineering Force was established with flooding simulations and of builds on this tradition, approach to an ecological a mandate to develop an natural cover,biodiversity adapts locally for the approach in watershed ecosystem regeneration losses and restoration needs, new global concerns and management.Biological plan for the entire Don all came together through societal trends,and seeks to inventories to identify River watershed,through Geographic Information achieve a broad,ambitious, Environmentally Significant its landmark strategy Systems.Additionally, and positive vision for Areas were undertaken by "Forty Steps to a New Don." provincial direction through the Toronto Region in the MTRCA;water quality and This community-based, the Greenbelt Plan,the coming decades.TRCA is healthy aquatic life took on ecologically-focused model Green Energy Act,the Clean working to create a new new importance;and the was adopted for MTRCA's Water Act,the Greater kind of community,The sensitivity and significance other watersheds,resulting Golden Horseshoe Growth Living City,where human of the headwaters on the in numerous river and Plan and others,is seeking settlement can flourish Oak Ridges Moraine,as shoreline clean-ups,tree to move society towards a forever as part of nature's well as the vital role played plantings,wetland creation "Culture of Conservation" beauty and diversity. by natural lands in flood and the development of and apply a sustainability and erosion control was trails and management lens to all aspects of growth recognized. plans for MTRCA's vast management. holdings of public lands. . ci ___ 28 i mic_ ►- ATT.CKIEETiP---_TO FIE ai? /x ti /S--/-3 9....\ • Toronto and Region Conservation . for The Living City- For further information or to comment,go to www.trca.on.ca/LCP iI 1 i DUFFERIN I -_. Adjala- S I M C O E j ; i , m, -7- t osoro io I �r j i i- t"ii _: I r i 1 `t',es . ,{ i r j i • is i ji.. �i iy `4 r• 1,- --,i I Aurora f'- 1 ob • } Mfrs 1, Y.• �' - , 'K ` r ' 4 :, i 1t¢: •,0 ry �► ,1-te r.v`71 34tg,• + U V " ge 4 _ . ` .,A.d ! cfe�s,lr 1' y,4 tg ,;.•. "'i:). r . r L. 1. . - Caledin - .. �- _,, .+ -• Relive, �c . ,, 0 7 rP .t .r - - ,x i„.:.., '��'�1 be [t-,qtr + r� ` 'c ti i4iiiik.,, 'p4 Ri, r , x. .. �1., .th '• l I i i ersp1 �,� u m S. c v yr ., , ` r �arautl=crs r k � � , ` J Rr', .�y �'a, � 3 9 rshcd \\ N '�� : V4- tig'aii .' 'pon RN . _' l Psi *IC 1 , Pi 1 r y r- .on- ; - :r`a, v , Mlpt3 'r" s, .. n n i 0 J ,� . i �'T. / Watcrsh '� i. �+ y _. Hgh and C•r k� 0• IA I { �i' _„h 'a_ h . I ` atcrsh1 ' 'Eicoke ek+ j �� • ^' ' ,,...'r11 .,� Watershed -. =y !� '� ... ... '� a r i. �\ III i Mississauga - 0 . .• _ ... .—_ iu a n,� 29 \. / sill ATTAVti"P WNTr c2_. U4d • itii Watershed Management Futures for Ontario Summary Conservation Ontario Whitepaper Conservation (September 2012) 0NTARI0 Natural Champions Working with Ontario's 36 Conservation Authorities (CA's), Conservation Ontario has produced a Whitepaper entitled"Watershed Management Futures for Ontario". The purpose of this paper is to spur discussion between Conservation Authorities and the Province about how to more effectively manage Ontario's watersheds by leveraging local and provincial resources in order to create efficiencies in Ontario's watershed management services and programs. It is suggested that discussions focus on the roles and responsibilities for managing Ontario's watersheds, as well as how to redefine relationships between Conservation Authorities and provincial ministries.While the management of Ontario's watersheds involves a very wide range of participants, this whitepaper specifically addresses what Conservation Authorities can provide to the Province. To move forward,the whitepaper acknowledges that the dialogue must include municipalities and other stakeholders and asks that the province take a leadership role in establishing the dialogue at the earliest possible date. • Drivers For Change—Fewer Resources to Address Growing Environmental Issues Ontario's economic realities are creating budget constraints at all levels of government and there is a need to streamline operations,.share resources and leverage expertise. New working relationships at provincial and local levels are needed in order to address increasingly complex watershed conditions created by climate change and growing populations. Maintaining the status quo and continuing on the current path will result in expensive and serious consequences. Ontario's water and land resources and natural systems provide important ecological, economic and societal benefits and should be protected. Forests,water resources,wetlands, soils, plants and animals are all necessary to produce goods and services such as clean sustainable water supplies, clean air,food, fuel, energy and healthy green spaces. 4ECOtNS 7.ern Good,s..8L., 5 stainable' forests,.,.IC°S. ?• canbmy` wetlands, clean water, t' Resilient water, soil, food,.fuel, Environment plants, energy, animals habitat oea}�le •t: .• Threats to Ontario's water and land resources such as urbanization and climate change are significant and growing larger. Managing impacts on natural ecosystems is the key to ensuring sustainable resources for drinking water, agricultural production, municipal needs, and industrial uses. Keeping water clean and sustainable also requires ensuring healthy land resources needed to protect water quality and quantity. • 30 • RPM There is an opportunity for changes in the way we practice watershed management in Ontario.The call'for • greater government efficiency and effectiveness from the Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services(2012) is spurring a modernization and transformational change across the Ontario provincial government, creating an opportunity for the Province and Conservation Authorities to re-assess our traditional approaches to watershed management in Ontario. In addition, the provincial government, itself, is currently targeting issues around the Great Lakes and climate change impacts(Climate Ready: Ontario's Adaptation Plan and Strategy; Great Lakes Protection Strategy). With some strategic investments in Conservation Authority programs, the Conservation Authorities offer a unique opportunity for the Province to leverage CA resources in order to continue to meet provincial environmental agendas despite a more restrained fiscal base. Challenges to Ontario's Current Watershed Management Framework The whitepaper identifies a number of specific challenges with the existing watershed management policy and governance framework in Ontario that compromise the Conservation Authorities'ability to effectively and efficiently manage the impacts on water and other natural resources.These include: ✓ legislative mandate of Conservation Authorities, ✓ declining provincial funding for provincial priorities, . ✓ inconsistent provincial policy support and interpretation, and ✓ variability in Conservation Authority capacity to plan &implement watershed programs&services. The current fiscal reality further exacerbates these challenges. Framework for Watershed Management in Ontario Conservation Authorities believe an integrated watershed management approach as the best way to manage • issues around water and related resources. Integrated watershed management is the process of managing human activities and natural resources on a watershed basis,taking into account social, economic and environmental issues, as well as community•interests in order to manage water resources sustainably.This approach allows us to address multiple issues and objectives,and enables us to plan within a very complex and uncertain environment. Conservation Authorities call for the Province to confirm their support for using the • integrated watershed management approach to build resilient watersheds and protect the health of Ontario residents. Focus for Discussions The whitepaper recommends discussion around five key inter-related items: 1. Confirmation of the Conservation Authority mandate and the importance of the CA model that promotes an integrated watershed management approach to protect Ontario's watersheds 2. Enhancements to Conservation Authority-Ministry Relationships • Renewed Conservation Authority—Ministry of Natural Resources relationship focusing on restructuring of local delivery models, hazard management responsibilities, Conservation Authority support for a role in the implementation of the provincial climate change strategy, governance and accountability. • Formalized Conservation Authority—Ministry of Environment relationships focusing on source protection and Great Lakes program implementation,formalization of important environmental monitoring and reporting roles, implementation of the provincial climate change strategy as it pertains to MOE. • • 31 ATOMMINTILL.TO REPORT/ At au /S-/3 • New tbrmallred relationships with otherM!Me61a such as MMAH, OMAFRA,and Ministry of infrastructure around common activities such a planning and development, Infrastructure and stewardship. ' 3. Revamped Conservation Authority Governance Model:Evaluate and assess the broader and localized governance structures of Conservation Authorities in order to be more Inclusive of wider stakeholder holder Involvement. 4. Development'of a Sutrtalnable Funding Model:Discussions should take place on developing a cost sharing model that takes local ability to pay Into account,and this should be penanent,rather than project-baud.Also need to address Conservation Authority flood hazard Infrastructure by including CA assts In the pool of municipally owned infrastructure or another appropriate asset manegemsntframeworic 5. Improved Accountability Framework:aovemana,finance,msndete,and accountability are all closely linked and need to be considered in en Integrated fashion. It Is recognized that such a sweeping review of watershed management In Ontario has Implications for the Conservation Authority model Itself,the refinement of which must certainly be on the table.Conservation Authorities are already pursuing Internal discussions on ways to address current deficiencies to provide a more consistent fevei of service. Conservation Authorities Offer Significant Local Resources There Is a lot of good work going on In Ontario that protects water,land and wildlife;reduces climate change Impacts,and prorates awareness about the Issues with Ontario residents.Whet Conservation Authorities bring to the table Is their demonstrated ability to leverage local watershed manegsmsnt expertise,knowledge,and resources.The Conservation Authorities'work in watershed science,stewardship,monitoring,and reporting Is critial to informing strategic local and provincial dsdsidn-making, Conservation Authorities deliver practical,cost effective programs and services totalling approximately$300 million per year.They often work in partnership with all levels of government,landowners and other agencies. The types of programs that most Conservation Authorities offer Indlyde: • Watershed Strategies&Management • Watershed Monitoring a Reporting • Flood 8 Erosion Protection • Rural Water Quality and Quantity • Reforestation&Sustainable Wbodlot • Environmental Regulations and Land Use Management Planning • Stormweter Management • Agriculture&Rural landowner Stewardship • Natural Heritage Protection Assistance • Intonation Management, GIS • Land Management • Outdoor Recreation • Soll Conservation • Sensitive Wetlands,flood plains,valley • Environmental Education&Outreach lands protection Conservation Authorities are the second largest landowner group next to the provincial government with landholdings totalling 145,000 sq ion.These Mural areas provide important ecological features and systems that contribute to the overall halh of Ontario's watersheds. In 2011,Conservation Authorities: ✓ planted over 3 million trees with 2,000 landowners; ✓ Implemented over 600 water quality Improvement projects • Ai} '/3 , r implemented$5.4 minion in habits!raaton ton prolaate=wound wetlands,shoreline habitats,stream a fish habitat ✓ °l Provincial Nsti*end404 sites bta»Pmvindel Surface Water Monitoring Pftelim sit monitored batik Inver rindes 4.4,117 sites(try orgenlsns that Ilya In or on the bottom sedinants or riwars,streams and lekaa end nerve es.*Indllattor OHM overall aquatic environment) • ✓ offered 2,600 lime tiling tells and a,400 oarrtpstlas in t *many Donsensttaf-Msea I daMS anvkonmantal eduction promos to 411,000 Otto Sidra with.4000 whole ✓ Ovsre.b m6M0n On irt*Malted s Conseivadrin Ares In 2011. Status Quo le Not M Optlen Opportunities err and It is a time to be bold,to think afrsteploty and to toiNidaMhe ranee ot poaate0ttl a that could be Implemented Waugh new or renev ad paint*that laverapa resources and atrpOrtl *for* MaMhler economic,amdronmsntel,end MIMS fuk+Ea. For More Information Don Pearson,emend Menne Conservation Ontario • Tel.9O64960711 4xt22l . .ca • Cis" Report to Planning & Development Committee U CM NI N 1\C . Report Number: PLN 17-13 Date: September 3, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 12-001/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/12 Pine Ridge Tower Limited (formerly Cambridge Centre Village Inc.) Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Registered Plan 468 (1473, 1475& 1485 Whites Road) Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 12-001/P, submitted by Pine Ridge Tower Limited (formerly Cambridge Centre Village Inc.), on lands being Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Registered Plan 458, to allow a maximum site density of 228 units per net hectare in order to facilitate the development of a 12 storey, 227 unit apartment building, be approved, as outlined In Appendix Ito Report Number PLN 17-13, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward the draft by-law to adopt Amendment No. 25 to the Pickering Official Plan to Council for enactment; 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/12, submitted by Pine Ridge Tower Limited (formerly Cambridge Centre Village Inc.) on lands being Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Registered Plan 458, to permit the development of a 12 storey, 227 unit apartment building, be endorsed as outlined in Appendix II to Report Number PLN 17-13, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward the implementing Zoning By-law Amendment to Council for enactment; and 3. Further, that an amendment to the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines,as generally set out In Section 3.5 of Report Number PLN 17-13 be endorsed, and brought forward for Council approval with the Implementing Zoning By-law. Executive Summary: The subject lands are located on the east side of Whites Road north of Kingston Road, and opposite Dunfair Street(see Location Map, Attachment#1). Pine Ridge Tower Limited (formerly Cambridge Centre Village Inc.) submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment initially proposing the development of the lands municipally known as 1473, 1475 and 1486 Whites Road for a 18 storey rental apartment building containing 228 units (see Original Site Plan and Original Building Elevation,Attachments#2&#3). • • Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 2 In response to concerns Identified by City staff, agency stiff as well as comments from the public,the applicant has made a number of improvements to the proposal M order to minimize Impacts on the townhouse development to the north and enhance the design of the building. The key changes Include: • reduction of the maximum building height to 12 storeys • reorientation of the building mass to Whites Rood . . provision of additional on-site'landscaping and outdoor amenity ares/ptay area • reduction in the amount of at-grade perking • deletion of the southerly driveway, and • improvement of the on-site vehicular and pedestrian droulatlon The changes have resulted in a 12 storey rental spaMent building containing 227 units (see Revised Site Plan and Revised Building Elevation,Attachments tee and#6). The proposal Is consistent with pales of the Provincial Policy Statement,the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the Durham ReglanlM .Of lolal Plan, by providing for intensification and redevelopment of vacant lands Ins within the built up area and Promoting the use of existing and planned N . The proposed development establishes a high density residential use along. Whites Reed, a Regional Transit Spins it is also 120 metres north podde and the future Durham Bus Rapid Transit. The development wlth.the existing medium and high density surrounding land uses. A strong relationship with Whites Road will be established by the deslgh of the proposed development which Is consistent with the goals and ob1ectives of the Northeast restadr0 Development Guidelines. The recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law 1p�t for appropriate density and performance standards for the development InAll site resulting In transit supportive intensification along Oast transit spine, Sits plan approval will address detailed design and technical maattters. Staff recommend that the applications be approved, and the Implementing zoning Plan and the Northeat-Quadrent Development Guidelines finalized ines be andidforwarded to Council adoption. Financial Implications: Woodlands Neighbourhood policies of the City's Official Plan require vehicular access from Delta Boulevard to Whites Roedthrough lands already between the applicant and the City VAN be required for owned the construction of this public road which Is a Development Charge Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 3 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject property is located on the east side of Whites Road, north of Kingston Road (see Location Map,Attachment 01), and comprises three lots • having a combined land area of approximately 0.997 of a hectare of developable land, with approximately 117 metres of frontage along Whites Road. The site, which slopes from west to east(an approximately 3.0 metres change In elevation), Is presently vacant with some remaining small trees and shrub vegetation. Surrounding the subject lands to the north Is a townhouse condominium development, to the east is a retail commercial plaza, and to the south is a six storey residential apartment building. Across Whites Road to the west is the Dunbarton High School, 1.2 Applicant's OHpinal Proposal • The original proposal consisted of a 18 storey, 228 unit rental apartment building (see Original Site Plan and Original Building Elevation,Attachments#2 and#3). Initially the building was proposed as multi-level, "T"shaped building featuring 3, 8 and 9 storeys along the Whites Road frontage. The portion of the building perpendicular to Whites Road was proposed to step up to 14 and 18 storeys and then step down to 9 storeys at the easterly end of the building. While outdoor landscaped areas were proposed, outdoor amenity areas or children's play areas were not specified. 1.3 Applicant's Revised Proposal Based on comments from the City staff, agencies and area residents, the building elevations (see Revised Sltle Plan and Revised Bluilding site plan and Elevations, Attachment#4 and#5). City staff have worked with the applicant to achieve an Improved building mass in order to minimize impacts on the townhouse development to the north; provide additional on-site landscaping and an outdoor amenity/play area; reduced surface parking; improved site vehicular and pedestrian circulation; and enhanced treatment of ground floor units along Whites Road. The applicant revised the vehicular site access to reflect the Region of Durham's comments showing one right-In/right-out driveway at the north end of the site. Specifically, the revisions to the proposal include the following: • reduction in building height from 18 to 12 storeys • reorientation of the building mass to be parallel to Whites Road - Report PLN 17-13 ' September 3, 2013 Subject Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 4 • •. reduction In residential density from 229 units per net hectare to 228 units per net hectare • reduction In floor space index(FSI)from 2.o to 2.4 • deletion of the'authority env y • widening of the resident only vehicular access to permit ingress and in ® (unrestricted be maintained) • dar outdoor amenity arealchidren's play area • relocation of the service and loading area away from the adjacent townhouse development to the north; and • addition of a second level of underground parking The revised proposal complies with the allowable FBI of the Official Plan. The proposed Official Plan Amendment Is to increase by site Specific exception, the maximum allowable residential density to 228 units per net hectare. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Public comments from public meetings and written submissions On June 21, 2012, a Pub#C Open House meeting was held by the owner to Inform area residents about the original development proposal. Five residents attended the Open House meeting. The owner a residents the meeting:ofollowing verbally expressed by area • the building height should be reduced by six storeys • • the November and December shadows have too great of an impact . • there would beJncnased security problems • • there would be a decrease In property values, and • there are objections to t.propOsed Increases in traffic and population • The City Development Department received a petition dated July 30, 2012, containing approximately 55 slaritures from t residents of 735 Sheppard • Avenue. Key concerns NS by petition Suds Inappropriate building scale, light blockage,decrees'in properly values, and traffic. • Apprxudmately eleven residenWhurdowners attended the Public information Meeting l held September 4, 20 the concerns identified are regarding lows: the original proposal. Specifically, • Whites Road and Kingston Road are at capacity and cannot, accommodate additional traffic • Delta Boulevard cannot handle additional traffic from the proposal • Inadequate resident and visitor parkng ratios are proposed • the shadows cast by the propaed development are too great Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 5 • the proposed development would have a negative impact on property values of adjacent townhouses • the proposed height and density is Incompatible with existing low and medium density housing • a maximum of 6 storeys should be permitted • a perk for children Is required • the proposed development does not comply with the Northeast Quadrant Development Guidelines On August 13, 2013, the City Development Department held a Public Open House meeting to inform the community Of the revisions to the proposal. Approximately 10 members of the public attended the meeting. Comments received from the public included: • support for the reduction In building height and resulting reduction In shadow Impact on surrounding development •. support for the Introduction of more housing options in rental housing • concern that the proposed density did not substantially change from the original proposal • rental housing is not appropriate and would not generate as much property tax revenue for the City as would a condominium development • the proposal should Include accessible apartment units • concern over the impacts on the surrounding area from the construction of the proposal • concern regarding the traffic congestion the proposal would add to the already congested areas of Whites Road, Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue • inquiry regarding rental pricing 2.2 City Departments &Agency Comments Region of Durham • the Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that the proposal conforms to the policies of the Living Areas designation and the Regional Corridor overlay of the Regional Official Plan • In accordance with Regional By-law 11-2000, the Official Plan Amendment application is exempt from Regional approval • the updated Environmental Noise Analysis recommends upgraded construction requirements and warning clauses be included in all rental agreements • Report PLN 17-13 September 3,2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited . Page 8 • Region of Durham • the updated Phase I dntedd Environmental 2012 and (continued) Sinvestigagon eptember 19,2012, Slots that the moults of the Boll and groundwater testing were blow the parameters of the Ministry of Environment Table 2—Potable Groundwater Standard;the Reg reegR�)the thing of a Record of Site • . Condition• sanitary sewer and water services are • available across • the Region-requires a road widening the Whites Road frontage :22:6 metres from the centerline of the road • the revised proposal,with one right-In/right-out driveway at the north end of t subject Regional Is consistent with the policies Official Plan • • the Region requires, ai a condition of site plan • approval,the construction of an 80 metre northbound right turn toper Into the site from ' Whites Road Toronto and Region • the TRCA has advised that the subject lands Conservation Authdrlty are not in the Screening IS and do not . (TRCA) rsquireTRCA review Engineering.&Public Works • generally satisfied with the proposal at this time;detailed drawlrpp.feiNMIng landscaping, . sronnvwter management and grading will be •reviewed through the site plan approval process ,• a development agreernent'wlll be required to address any off-site watts, road restoration, land transfer,easements, utltity relocation, oat sharing,grading, drainage, and securities, es wall es,cost recovery for the Delta Boulevard and Kingston sizing,o d and the downstream stornawwr • Northeast Quadrant study Fire Services • details of emergency vehicle access will be finalized through the site plan review process . • Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 7 Durham District School • the Board has no objections to the proposed Board development • 29 elementary school students and 14 high school students are expected to be generated from the proposed development and will attend Altona Forest Public School, and Dunbarton High School Durham Catholic District • the Board has no objections to the proposed School Board development • 15 elementary school students and 16 high school students are expected to be generated from the proposed development and will attend St. Elizabeth Seton Elementary School, and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School • 3. Planning Analysts 3.1 The proposal complies with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, Growth Plan and the Durham Regional Official Plan The Provincial Policy Statement(PPS)provides provincial direction for land use planning and development in Ontario with which municipal planning decisions must be consistent. The PPS states that opportunities for intensification and redevelopment shall be Identified where the availability of suitable existing or planned infrastructure and public service facilities can accommodate projected needs, The proposal provides for Intensification within an urban area already served by existing Infrastructure as well as transit and which will be served by a rapid transit system in the future. The proposal conforms to the provisions of the PPS. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (Growth Plan) provides a framework for managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe including direction for where and how to grow. The development of the subject site for the proposed high density development satisfies the Growth Plan objective of encouraging new growth to be directed to the bulk-up areas of the community through intensification along roadways that support established transit services. The subject lands are designated "Living Areas'with a "Regional Corridor" overlay within the Durham Regional Official Plan. Within the Living Areas designation, lands are encouraged to be developed in a compact form through higher density uses. In conjunction with the policies for Living Areas, lands within the Regional Corridor shall be planned and developed as high density mixed-use areas, which include residential, commercial and service areas. densitieeslonalvacant lands withiencourages rban areaassiaslyell astIntensification eand sable redevelopment along arterial roads. • Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 • • Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 8 The Regional Plan was wordy amsnded;to.bring it into conformity with the • Provincial Growth Plan and now requires local municipalities to i�ways of Increasing densities of new residential development po utilize I#nd • urban areas to reduce the per capita oast of municipal services and• more efficiently. The proposal conform to the policies of the Durham Region • Official Plan. 3.2 The Intensification areas idendfled through the City's preliminary Growth Plan conformity work Included the Subject lands Along with adjacent lands to the seat and south along Kingston Aced and the . vacant lands to the west acmes Whnes Road,ti»subject landewere included within the Intensification area Identified through the City,of Pickering's, preliminary Growth Plan conformity work undertaken In 2010, ,This conformity work Is scheduled to resume laterin 2014. The proposal intensifies a she , Identified within an area considered(appropriate for•lntene on. • . 3.3 A site specific Official Plan amendment to allow a nouthnunt residential density of 228 unit per net hectare suPperts t1higo-M and objectives of the Pickering Official Plan The subject lands are deiignated*Mond Use Area-Mind Corridor" In the Pickering Official Plan,which permits!density range Waver 30 units up to and . • including 140 units Per net hectare,and a maximum floor spece•Index(FSI)of 2.5. The appllbant is proposing 227 units on 0.997 of•a hectare of developable land, resulting M a density of 228 units per net hectare.-The applicant has .submitted an Official Plan Amendment application for silts specific exception'to permit a maximum density of 228 units per net heaters. The proposed Official Plan Amendment Is appropriate antis supported by staff units as representing good planning. The proposal for gre states apartment C�Council shall implements Section 8.20 of the Official Plan, and tenure types l all encourage the provision of an adequate range!,lousing a meet re needs of • available and integrated within the City's nelgsqurheods Siting and,future populations. The PropoeS!lao compllea'wkh Section 8,6, . which states that City Council shall ma dmins the efficiency of existing • infrastructure and min*nlzs the consumption of vacant land by encouraging major or Intensification In Mixed:Use Ames and the k►1W development of vacant or underutilized blocks of land. . The proposal reflects both major Intensification and Infi l development that makes efficient use of existing era s infrastructure. Furthermore, the neighbourhood provides wi h the surrounding neighbourhood which is sensitive to and compatible • neighbourhood. • • • Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 9 3.4 Design and transportation objectives of the Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies am addressed The Woodlands Neighbourhood policies of the Pickering Official Plan require new development to establish buildings on Whites Road close to the street edge, with the front doors facing the street, and with a specified percentage of their front walls required to be located within build-to-zones. The neighbourhood policies also require that new dwellings along Whites Road frontage have a minimum of four functional storeys. The proposal achieves a consistent and urban street wall element with at grade uses enhancing the streetscape through the incorporation of the following design elements: • the primary wall of the four storey base of the building is sited parallel to and setback 3 metres from Whites Road • the building occupies approximately 78 percent of the Whites Road • the ground floor along Whites Road contains at grade apartment units with direct access to private patios • views Into the surface parking area from Whites Road are minimized, and • the,main building entrance fronts Whites Road ' Vehicular access on Whites Road is restricted to right-In/right-out only. Accordingly, the neighbourhood policies require easements from Delta Boulevard to Whites Road to facilitate convenient vehicular access from the subject lands to Delta Boulevard and subsequently to the signalized intersection at Kingston Road where full turning movements are available. At the northeast corner of the site, a two-way vehicle access, restricted to building residents, is proposed to access City owned lands. These City owned lands are to be developed as a public road that will connect to the adjacent Delta Boulevard. Design of this road will be finalized through site plan approval. Cost sharing between the applicant and the City will be required for the road with the City's contribution coming from Development Charges. The proposed pedestrian access to Delta Boulevard will not be restricted. The applicant will be required to enter Into agreements with the City, Region and other agencies as appropriate, for the payment of but not limited to the following: • off-site works including the construction of a public road connecting Delta Boulevard, • contributions to the cost of a downstream stormwater management facility, • cost recovery for the Delta Boulevard and Kingston Road downstream stormsewer over sizing, and • cost recovery for the Northeast Quadrant study. Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 10 • 3.1 The proposal Is consistent with the Northeast Quadrant Development Guideline The subject lands are located within the Woodlands Neighbourhood for w> Development a elCt � Guidelines*tatethat new residential ds Sintegrated into the area in a minim that is both respectful of thoStad es of the Sating neighbourhood and serves-as an interface betweenlhis area and the surrounding lands. The guidelines also stats that the southeast coiner oflihsppard Avenue and Whites Road phesis of the existing tormitases)shelled as a transition area between the higher buildings on Why Road widths ytrawr i s on . Sheppard Avenue. The four'storey building height proOmed the townhouses frontage Is slightly higher than the existing two'and e form. use ca providing both a transition and oompatIbltiy the proposed of on building , • the existing townhouses Is reduced through the redesign of where the greeter building mass is adjacent to Whites Readtratfier than . perpendicular to Whites Road. The Access Concept contained In the Norti>•NtQuadrant Development well as Guidelines s ty demonstrates amen to Individual properties opportunities for shared access and coordirratedffitemal moons In the quadrant. Updating of the Access Concept is required-to Sod approvals.granted since the adoption of the Guidelines a well as the 4utnsatrikeellan transportation planning for Whites and Kingston Roads, An amendment will be brought forward , • to Council for endorsement at a later date. 3,E th no s , haste*achieved e s a massing ,_ , • Compatibility'of the proposal with the surrounding neighbourhood Is achieved by dealing with the elements of scale, massing,skint iMbaoks and shadowing. The applicant has pellet angular planes attire northerly and easterly property limits to achieve comptbie building height, massing and setbacks. Angular planes or be used to shape the scat,height-swing and character of development.and assist.In achieving transitions in n use and that can take the form of gradual changes in scale,height, development does not overwhelm or negatively effect mighbotsing land uses. • Application of angular planes resulted In a decrease in building height from 16 to 12 storeys, locating the,massing of the building parallel to Whites Roe&and an increased setback of 18.8 metres from the north property fins. Staff • resulting 12 Moreybuliding, massing and setbacks to be compatible with thee adjacent Sating developments. . . • ammmwmmmml Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 11 Further, staff consider that particular design elements of the proposed development has achieved compatibility with the adjacent uses and neighbourhood through the following design considerations: • the subject site is sufficiently large to provide an appropriate setback to existing townhouse development and still achieve Intensification of the site • the four storey base along Whites Road is compatible with the existing townhouses to the north and appropriately frames the east side of Whites Road by providing a street-wall edge • the number of units overlooking the existing townhouse rear yards is greatly minimized by an 18.5 metre setback to a wall with no balconies and a 45 metre setback to balconies • the grade-related units on Whites Road provide active at-grade uses creating a comfortable urban condition along Whites Road • the density and height are appropriate in terms of the site's close proximity to future rapid transit service,and existing retail/service-commercial uses • the stepping of the upper levels of the 12 storey building minimizes adverse shadows • the connection to Delta Boulevard through a future public road ensures pedestrian and vehicular permeability within the neighbourhood 3.7 Shadow impact on the adjacent townhouse"will be minimal Residents expressed concerns that shadows cast by the proposed development are too great. A shadow study has been submitted in support of the proposal, it Identifies the shadow impacts of the revised development on the surrounding properties during the spring (March 21st), summer(June 21st), fall (September 21st)and winter (December 21st)seasons for the morning, afternoon, late afternoon and early evening hours. Beat practise In assessing shadow Impact is that shadow impacts should not exceed two hours In duration on private outdoor amenity areas during the spring, summer and fall seasons. The shadow study shows that the proposal will cast shadows for approximately two hours on the most westerly and southerly blocks of townhouses and the children's play area located to the north of the subject lands only during the winter solstice. However, the study also shows that the shadows cast by the proposal on the rear patio areas of the townhouses are not new shadows. The townhouses themselves cast shadows on the townhouses' rear patio areas during the spring, fall and winter seasons. Staff Is satisfied that the shadow impacts on the townhouse development is minimal. • Report PLN 17-13 September 3,2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited • Pape 12 . 3.a Traffic Issues and road hnprowmenM are not anticipated as a result of We • proposal Residents also raised concerns with respect to the pots for higher traffic levels along Whites Road and Delta Boulevard as a result of this development. , in order to Identify operational concerns and recommend road network improvsmenb,the submitted Tfesporr and Paddng Study, prepared by Stantec, investigated the traffic Miote of the proposed development w e surrounding area and its Inbrseollons'of Reed/Sheppard The Study Whites Road/Kingston Road and Kingston found that under the existing conditions these ice'with the exception of • the Whites Road/Kingston Roatintscseilion,operate at a good level or near capacity in both am and pm peak hours. During the pm peak hour the Whites Further an Road/Kingston-Road Intsnecticn exceedeMe•pMnned a�Psc�MY�hour tripe examination of the findings of the Study`demon peak hour generated by the proposal represent a negligible peroenta{W • trips that already move through the intersections. The Study concludes that the impact of traffic generated from the proposed development on any of Mae intersections Is considered to be neglig gale, and would likely be lees than the typical day-to-day s required along . As• result,there are no physical road capacity improvements t, Whites Road and Delta Boulevard toacoommodete the proposed development. It Is anticipated that future trafflo monitoring endiipnal timing adjustments by the Region will assist In addressing the impacts fled to anticipated,changes in the study area traffic. No traffic concerns are anticipated as a result of this development. . The Studys recommendations included the follSMng transportation features: • 'channelization of the Whites Road site access to restrict it to a dght-NAght-out . a gated,tenant only vehicular aogees to Delta Boulevard • internal walkways providing unrestricood access to Wig Road and • Delta Boulevard for ease of access to transit and amenities . bicycle parking facilities City staff have reviewed the Study and concur with its conclusions and . . ' recommendations. , 3.9 Sufficient parkdng will be available to serve the proposed deSopme t Mother concern raised by are residents was that the proper resident and visitor parking ratios are inadequate. • • Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 13 The City's typical parking requirement for apartment type dwellings is a minimum rate of 1.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit plus 0.3 parking space per unit for visitors. On this basis, the proposed development would require a total of 341 parking spaces(273 spaces for residents and 88 spaces for visitors). The • applicant is proposing a total of 305 parking spaces(101 underground resident parking spaces and 108 surface parking spaces for visitors and residents), an 11 per cent reduction in the required number of parking spaces to be provided on-site. • At the request of staff,the applicant's traffic consultant contacted Durham Region municipalities and found that the Town of Ajax, Town of Whitby and the City of Oshawa have permitted parking reductions ranging from 7•%to 32% from their typical parking requirements where development proposals meet the following conditions: • rental apartment occupancy(as surveys show that there is relatively low vehicle ownership as compared to other housing types) • well served by existing and planned public transit, and • located in close proximity to retail and service commercial uses The subject site has attributes that are similar to other developments where parking requirements have been reduced. Specifically, the development will be rental, well served by existing transit(Durham Region Transit and GO Transit), within 120 metres of Kingston Road and the future Durham Bus Rapid Transit (Br)service, located In close proximity to retail and service commercial uses along Delta Boulevard and Kingston Road, and well served by existing and planned Improvements to the active transportation network (sidewalks, and walkways). Staff concur that the overall supply of 305 parking spaces is sufficient to accommodate the parking demands for the proposed development. 3.10 Public concerns include that the proposal will have negative Impacts on private property value Another concern that was expressed by the area residents was regarding the Impact on property values of the existing homes in the area as a result of this development for high density, rental apartments. Property value Is Influenced by a number of factors such as location, proximity to services and amenities, local economics, home improvements and condition, home and property size, and dwelling style. Impact on property value is not a consideration under the Planning Act In the review of development applications. However, appropriate development that is compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood can positively contribute to the Immediate area and the community as a whole, Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 . Subject Pine Ridge Tower Limited Pegs 14 3.11 Additional concerns raised by the public have been addressed by the applicant The applicant has provided the following Information to the City Development Department n'response to questions relied from the public at the August 13 Public Open House meeting: requirements will be met • applicable accessibility requ • deity construction times will be weekdays'7 am to 7 Pm • a full-time construction manager will be on site • construction fencing vdll be erected around the perimeter of the property as per City requirements • rental rates are anticipated to range from $1,290.00 to$1,090.00 per month (this is subject to review) 3.12 The noise study recommends all units be equipped with air conditioning and upgraded glazing A noise impact study prepared by Valcoustlos Canada Ltd., submitted in support of the application recommends that all units be equipped with air conditioning and clauses be upgraded glazing.lea. It also menmm�l tenants of potential potential noise concerns included In all lea agreements from the rooftop mechanical units on the adjacent commsrS plaza to the east. 3.13 The proposal achieves a Level 1 suetalnabiilty rating The applicant submitted a Sustainabliity Report that Is based on the City's Draft Sustainability Guidelines. Staff have reviewed the report and rated the proposal as achieving and exceeding Level 1. The proposal Incorporated many of the elements set out In the Guidelines such as enhanced nooses to amenities, Increased,residential density, native species planting, reduction in the use of fertilizer, enhanced access to amenities,rting requirements. There will be additional opportunities to reduction prove this rating as additional susta nablliy measures become available through the site plan approval process and detalled building design. 3.14 Technical matters will be addressed as conditions of the sits plan review process A site plan application Is yet to be submitted. Detail design will be addressed through the site plan approval process. Matters to be addressed through the site plan review process, Include, but are not limited to: • cash-In lieu of parkland dedication • refinement of building massing and orientation Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 15 • refinement of building elevations and details of materials • resident, visitor and handicapped parking • • landscaping • emergency vehicle access • secure, resident only access only to underground garage • dedication of Whites Road road widening • development and maintenance agreements for the construction of the public road connection to Delta Boulevard • development agreement with the Region for the Whites Road taper • site servicing • cost recovery for the Delta Boulevard and Kingston Road downstream stomrsewer over sizing, and the Northeast Quadrant Study, and • any other City and agency requirements 3.16 Staff support the revised proposal and the Proposed Official Plan Amendment Staff find the proposal to be consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan, and the Regional Official Plan and support the proposed development. The proposal provides for appropriate intensification in Pickering's urban area, along Whites Road that Is designated a transit spine, and within walking distance of the future Durham Region BRT along Kingston Road. The applicant has made several modifications to the proposal to ensure that the building is compatible with the surrounding evolving neighbourhood and adverse impacts are minimized. Based on the revised proposal,staff supports the site specific Official Plan amendment to permit a maximum residential density of 228 units per net hectare, and recommends that the By-law to adopt Amendment No. 25 be forwarded to Council for enactment(see Appendix O. 3.18 Zoning By-law to be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment The subject lands are zoned "MU-2"—Mixed Use(1473 Whites Road) and "MU-31—Mixed Use (1475 & 1485 Whites Road) by Zoning By-law 3038. The applicant has submitted a rezoning application to permit a 12 storey, 227 unit rental apartment building. To ensure compatibility with the surrounding community and an appropriate design, the zoning by-law will have site specific provisions, including but not limited to, maximum building height, minimum building setbacks, build-to zone, minimum landscape buffer widths, maximum number of units, and minimum number of on-site resident and visitor parking spaces, and fully enclosed internal garbage storage area. Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 16 . Staff supports the rezoning application and recommends that a site-specific Implementing.by-law containing the standards attached se Appendix II to this report be finalized and be•brought before Council for enactment. It is anticipated that the by-law will betrought to Counoltonce the appllosM is substantially . through the site plan approval process. 3.17 Applicant's Comments The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report. • Appendices , Appendix I. Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix II Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/12 • Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Original Site Plan • 3. Original Building Elevation 4. Revised Site Pin. 5. Revised Building Elevation • • • Report PLN 17-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Pine Ridge Tower Limited Page 17 Prepared By Approved/Endorsed By: Debor I g aft Wyl C , RPP Catherine RoseRPP Senior la er-P Icy Chief Planner Nllesh Surti, MCIP, ." .C, , , RPP Thomas M y , M P, RPP Manager, Development Review Director, City Development &Urban Design DW:jf Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Coun I oitit 1g, Z3 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Appendix I TO • REPORT P M 17.13 • Byelaw to Adopt AnMndment,26 to the City of PIekednQ Official Plan D FT The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No,XXXX/XX Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 25 to the Official Plan for the City of Picketing. (OPA 12-001/P) • Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990,o.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering; And Whereas pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional council to pass a by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from Its approval; And Whereas the Region has advised that this Amendment is exempt from Regional approval; Now Therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering Hereby Enacts as follows: 1, That Amendment 25 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit"A",Is hereby adopted; and 2. This By-law shall come Into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this day of 2013, David Ryan, M Debbie olds, City Clerk Exhibit HAS to By-law Amendment.25 to the City of Picketing Official Phan • • Amendment 26 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to permit,as an exception, a site specific increase in the maximum permissible density for lands within the Mixed Use Areas— Mixed Corridor designation. Location: The Amendment affects an area of approximately 0.997 of a hectare, located on the east side of Whites Road between Kingston Road and Sheppard Avenue. The lands are legally described as Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Registered Plan 458. Basis: The lands subject to this Amendment are designated Mixed Use Areas—Mixed Corridor in the City of Pickering Official Plan and are within the Woodlands Neighbourhood. The proposed development has been designed to address the Woodlands Neighbourhood policies that require a minimum of four functional storeys for the Whites Road elevations of new dwellings fronting Whites Road, and require that the design of new residential development be compatible with existing low density development on Sheppard Avenue with respect to matters such as building heights, yard setbacks, building orientation and massing, access to sunlight, and privacy. The lands subject to this Amendment were identified as a potential Intensification area through the City of Pickering's preliminary Growth Plan conformity work. The subject lands • are located on Whites Road which is designated as a Transit Spine in the Region of Durham Official Plan, and within 120 metres of Kingston Road and the Durham Region Bus Rapid Transit. Transit Spine policies provide for complementary higher density. The proposed development provides for appropriate intensification in Pickering's urban area, and is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement, the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, and the Durham Regional Official Plan. Amendment 25 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 Actual The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Amendment: 1. Revlaint policy .11.0 — Woodlands Neighbourhood Policies, by adding a new subsection 11.0(eKvill) and renumbers existing subsections Ml) and(ix)to(Ix) and (x)respectively: (viii) despite Table s.of Chapter That establish a m net residential, ot221 units per of � north Kingston Road side described as-Partof Lots 1,2"and II, Registered Plan 46$. Implementation: The provisions set forth In the City of Pickering Official Plan, as emended; regarding the Implementation of the Plan shall ` apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth In the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended; regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply In regard to this Appendix II To • Report PLN 17-13 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/12 • Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1112 That the Implementing zoning by-law permit the establishment of multiple dwelling-vertical units In accordance with the following provisions: a. minimum lot frontage of 116 metres b. minimum lot area of 9,900 square metres c. maximum number of units of 227 units d. maximum gross floor area of 23,560 square metro e. minimum building height of 4 storeys/11 metres f. maximum building height of 12 stbreyW37 metres(excluding mechanical) • • g. minlmum'buikldo zone along Whites Road of 90 metres • h. minimum building setback from the north lot One of 18 metres and 46 • metres I. minimum building setback from Whites Road of 2.06 metres j. parking to be provided at 1.14 resident spaces per unit and 0.20 visitor spaces per unit k. building envelopes and required stepping of building heights will be Indicated on a zoning schedule I. other appropriate zoning provisions as required • • • • ATTACHMENT#_LTO REPORT# • . _ - 3 ■_ = �n a; um IIIIIIIIIII �� illlll' ea mss_ ,.,na =sea JA l ■_ _ � _ E =UhIIIHIIIIH, l ,p 111111 aim f= MIII0 aljt ‘61.=inns paging i . __ ::_��r�✓. _t .: TRAIL -∎ "=\ ��Csom� .... _ .ire %/111111111111111 =�♦ _ rIIIIIIl111111111111� .C� ■ I- SQUARE iII,I'lli It 1IUJIJIiii UIIIJI1 Ii1IiJiii -ii .IHHHHIFi1IH IIII BE SHEPPARD AVENUE SHEPPARD AVENU IDUNBARTON LMOH SCHOOL OUNBARTON_. 1 =SWIMMING POOL �� CCrr 1, �ROPR7Y +es ,,/r I;r IP, ill !11dz �� S4. �� ' Location Map FILE No: A 01/12&OPA12.001/P ya`,`,.1,.‘,. APPLICANT: Pine Ridge Tower Ltd. C PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1486, 1475 and 1473 Whites Road Plan 466, Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3 DATt Juy 17,so h MM.=b .r.. " --...,. I SGla 1:x000 I PN4 • • • ATTACHMENT I TO • . REPORT. FAA/ / 7 43 L•lu L■uu .. rat MAW�rSr+n . I .MI�� • -- i' •.r ,lRP/- ka al C-' ■ i • il'iraSwV.ffi r fir ilivaririli l�iifft liu ffirri Il.:r_: a pi r like l 'w4 t1\17111 i . _ '"' lir.ate �.1 i :_ 1 E y ► ! i imr--in- 11 • I 1 ►' DUNFAIR STREET I� �-tax III i'1 1 Cr =i11i1rai ►_ I L-= • rApv,lr,tpp? � _ .N� Rr r _ r_ I PISS Q 11‘ • •Intl Us Plan Caret FILE No: A01/14A •,- 12.004/P i ;a:1:r;41►�. i!l Dt03 - - • I - 1478 and 1474 WhlbrRoad Citsparpaltillent Plait Ode Party'Lob 14 r + �.• r . r•,. •r:.r, n. . rot- . oA7alJWlfl,�/1� ATTACHMENT # -3 TO REPORT # ,d Ai / 7-/3 ei r i.... .. . ■ co ! .1;' N a .. t1 'I rR d, �: . vu `i _ / ; .s .:11.1k. am, , ! ' -'• ''� d �� r paraffin i CZ t7lie_Z._be_L-11..1 . El ,Prtilev.,2- 2fflusa 0 , t Mr ' ''�.''. B pry r .-. �'If�t ` A� • ■.. .C(7 hr I�ow I, , ; t` )4 r_ 1 1 1 I 4 t5�1!!�u D11 1 1c� 5`k' L? I l se 10,1:7,9 - ( iW`CAI +" ' I i s T r ee�' ? h na 1 i I't t ., tom— i d CO cX "rw�,fI aC?+ �' e lil'.'1 �.1i1� iti'1.P SSr. Ts jt/ i� . - h c T H z N a I� O O t.- ::,.....)-04, .4',,,,1).4i.,4,,,_ 1 r R' , ,rt I f� 0- �7 h--' Y 1 r . C_ (f) 4-- 1 Zvi' 1`vii 3 ' ,rJd . _� �_ W O 10 t �' CL cLas �;', ' ? �y `" '^ Q r� ,R I \ TO 0 0 Lij in ° J > � W },�{t�y :,.: . . ii 1��F�i �1 rr 0 LL Q O. Allr E ... 7 . ., ,,, , .., ., ,„ �s .:. F . .: 'p'AS'f Ar:1. . . T .,. ,., . . . _ . . . .,. .j I ..11.},i , , , ,. k-1 . ■ ill '` 4 acallim 73 ': Y� -'n�, hy U al - - 6d ATTACHMENT # 174 TO REPORT# AC /i' /7-/ 3 I L2 E%TG.9LKNTOWNHOUSE, 1 EXTG.MK L TOWNHOUSE. m oI } 1 IL._JI I u_. 1.. .i d -1 L1 1 A .U.tIC W.hL LW Pi I 1 � i i - I I I R a� it r f . il . -- i'1!— " I I £ I -ice.' - -JJ - .. ; ' , nn H - 1I � 1 - 1f i _ ` J — . i _ ID Pi !_ £ ,,,,,2',J is A ----) I 1 d of 11 -L-7--:—'71 ., • n it I —. — a1 '- • I x I ! T - 4 y _� - mss. :s _. . y E. 1 I F— 1'1/4_ Revised Site Plan Ci '0 - FILE No: A 01/12 & OPA 12-001/P . �� " � � APPLICANT: Pine Ridge Tower Ltd. li 1I/ II" PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 1485, 1475 and 1473 Whites Road City Development Department Plan 456, Part of Lots 1, 2 and 3 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE OTY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DATE: Aug.13,2013 6r ATTACHMENT # ,-- TO REPORT # 121. A) / '7 -/___ r O N - a ii%WE`I_ 4Pd , 1 0 ■t �T .1` `r,.I/ji7i oil, Q7 E�7T /T ++(�j I w �y , f .il �� Ifs_ ri + (s `'• r 1 I .igy" `' Ar r' Q nEZ s o! :I _ •,,, t Co Alga f lir—lir NE—Mr— pri T_ : '7: si- t \i,t04. i 1D Lo CL 4-1 CO nt CO S� O W -- /-. �•I� N '!� tir4'.�i'rey� Q 'tea > 0 T � -;.4:4",. '21, 0 N 0 ` S a t 1 O 0 CO�,, CL- • ;ti r,$i, . Z U w w,. t�`', _ u) J CC LJ_ < a • ',.44.711111r E c,. o 1� '(a:y'; ; 1 Q !y I' sE Clic est Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number PLN 18-13 Date: September 3, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/13 J. Micidewright Part of Lot43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R-18480 (535 Rougemount Drive) Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1/13, submitted by J. Mlcidewright, to amend the zoning of the subject property to an "R4"— Fourth Density Residential Zone In order to facilitate the creation of two Iota with minimum lot frontages of 15.0 metres on lands being Part of Lot 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R-18460 be approved, and that the draft zoning by-law, as set out in Appendix Ito Report PLN 18-13 be forwarded to City Council for enactment. • Executive Summary: The applicant has submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment Application to change the existing zoning from "R3(DN)"—Third Density Residential Zone ("Day Nursery, Type C")to an "R4'—Fourth Density Residential Zone in order to facilitate a future severance application to create two residential lots,for detached dwellings with a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres on Rougemount Drive (see Location Map and Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachments#1 and #3). The subject property is situated within an established residential neighbourhood and currently supports a detached dwelling. The recommended zoning for the subject property will permit the creation of two residential lots that will be consistent with the provisions of the Pickering Official Plan and the Rosebarik Neighbourhood Development Guidelines;and Is In keeping with the established pattern of development within the surrounding neighbourhood. If approved, the applicant intends to submit a Land Division Application to the Region of Durham to sever the subject property Into two residential lots. The proposed zoning by-law contains requirements that will Include site-specific provisions to allow for the development of detached dwellings with appropriate reduced building height and Increased front yard depth standards to ensure compatibility with the neighbouring properties along Rougemount Drive. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Report PLN 18-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Zoning Amendment Application A 1/13 • Page 2 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject property Is located on the east side of Rougemount Drive, north of the Intersection of Rougemount Drive and Pine Ridge Road (see Location Map, Attachment#1). The property has a lot frontage of 30.5 metres along Rougemount Drive and a lot area of 0.24 of a hectare. Currently, the property supports a detached bungalow with a semi-circular driveway, which previously accommodated a day nursery on the lower level. The subject property is situated within an established residential neighbourhood comprising detached dwellings with various lot frontages and lot depths (see Lot Frontages along Rougemount Drive, Attachment#2), In 2010, the abutting property to the south, municipally known as 531 Rougemount Drive, was rezoned from "R3"to"R4"to facilitate the creation of two residential lots with a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres for detached dwellings. 1.2 Applicants Proposal The applicant is requesting Council's approval to rezone the subject property from"R3(DN)"—Third Density Residential Zone (Day Nursery—Type C)a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres to an"R4"—Fourth Density Residential Zone, requiring a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres. Should Council approve this application, the applicant intends to submit a Land Division Application,to the Region of Durham Land Division Committee to facilitate the creation of two residential lots with a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres for detached dwellings (see Applicants Submitted Plan, Attachment#3). The existing dwelling will be demolished before the additional lot Is created. The reduced lot frontage estabilshed•through this rezoning application will allow City staff to consider the proposed severance. 2. Comments Received 2.1 At the May 6, 2013 Public information Meeting and In written submission No members of the public were present at the Public Information Meeting to express their support or concerns for this proposal and no written submissions were received. • Report PLN 18-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Zoning Amendment Application A 1/13 Page 3 2.2 City Departments•Agency Comments Region of Durham • the Region of Durham Planning Department advises that the proposal compiles with the Living Areas designation policies of the Regional Official Plan • municipal water supply and sanitary sewer servicing is available to the subject site Engineering &Public Works • no comments or concerns at this time • detailed drawings regarding grading and site servicing will be reviewed through the land • division process 3. Planning Analysis • 3.1 The proposal meets the minimum density,minimum lot size and required dwelling unit type specified In the Pickering OAkial Plan and the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject properttas'Urban Residential —Low Density Areas`within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. The Plan recognize the established character that has evolved overtime within the neighbourhood. • The Plan requires that new development meet the neighbourhood policies and the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines,which help define the character of the neighbourhood. The Rosebank Neighbourhood policies specifically restricts the lands west of Rosebank Road and along Rodd Avenue to the development end infilling of single detached dwellings with a maximum resldentlul density of 17 unite per net hectare. The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines provides direction on • development at a more detailed level than the Pickering Official Plan Including recommendations for minimum lot frontages and lot depths. New residential lots within the neighbourhood require minimum lot frontages of appr ely 1188 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between appro�dmately 33 unless the character of the area recognizes reduced lot frontages or lot depths. The applicants proposal is to create a total of two lots for detached dwellings, which will result in a density of approximately 8 units per net hectare with lot frontages of 112 metres and lot depths of 77 maths. The proposal conforms with both the Official Plan policies and the development guidelines. Report PLN 18-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Zoning Amendment Application A 1/13 Page 4 3.2 Restricting the maximum building height and increasing the minimum front yard depth will further ensure the compatibility of the new development with the character of the surrounding neighbourhood in addition to density, lot size and dwelling unit types, other performance standards also affect neighbourhood character. The Official Plan recognizes that the character of an established neighbourhood is reviewed through the consideration of matters such as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications. Properties north of the subject property on both sides of Rougemount Drive are currently zoned "R4°with minimum lot frontages of 15.0 metres. The majority of the existing lots along Rougemount Drive between Toyrtevale Road and the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Rougemount Drive have lot frontages of 15.2 metres, except for six lots that have lot frontages which exceed 15.2 metres (see Lot Frontages along Rougemount Drive, Attachment#2). A variety of front yard depths and building heights currently exists along Rougemount Drive between Toynevale Road and the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Rougemount Drive. The built form along Rougemount Drive Varies, from single storey"cottage" style dwellings to new two and two and a half storey detached dwellings. In order to ensure that the-proposed development is compatible with the neighourhood, staff are proposing site specific zoning provisions restricting the maximum building heights and increasing the minimum front yard setbacks. The proposal to rezone the subject lands from "R3(DN)"to"R4"to permit two lots with minimum lot frontages of 15.0 metres with site specific zoning provisions to restrict maximum building heights to 9.0 metres and increase the minimum front yard depths to 10.0 metres would be in keeping with the established pattern of development along Rougemount Drive. 3.3 Sustainability implications Staffs review of the application against the City's Draft Sustainable Development Guidelines resulted in a score below the Level 1 standard. Given the smell scope of the application, there is limited opportunity to achieve Level 1. The proposed development would increase the residential density and will utilize existing services along Rougemount Drive. Future opportunities exist for the applicant to implement additional sustainable options through future development and building permit processes. Report PLN 18-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Zoning Amendment Application A 1/13 Page 5 3.4 Development.mattera Sated to the City will be addressed through conditions of Land Division As part of the creation of the new lots, the City will have the opportunity to Provide comments and recommend conditions of severance to the Region of Durham Land Division Committee to address development matters such as, but not limited to: • tree inventory, preservation and enhancement plan(to protect mature healthy trees where possible) • architectural design statement(to ensure the proposed housing design is in keeping with the character of the established neighbourhood) • the removal of the existing dwelling • preliminary lot grading and drainage plans • proposed driveway locations and entrances and • parkland dedication fee If approved by the Land Division Committee, the applicant will be required to satisfy the conditions noted above(amongst others)to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering: 3.5 By-law to be forwarded to Council The draft zoning by-law attached as Appendix Ito this report implements staffs recommendation for approval of the application. it is recommended that the attached draft zoning by-law be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment, should Council approve this zoning by-law amendment application. • Report PLN 18-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Zoning Amendment Application A 1/13 Page 6 Appendix Appendix I Draft Zoning By-law Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Lot Frontages along Rougemount Drive 3. Applicant's Submitted Site Plan Prepared By: Approved/Endorsed By: , taloa ( t_ hley Yea •• •, MCIP, RP; Catherine Rose, M P RPP Planne II Chief Planner J ' Nilesh - rti, MCIP, RPP Thomas Me uk, CI-, - - - Manager, Development Review& Director,City Development Urban Design AY:jf Recommended for the consideration of Pickering puny Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Appendix Ito Report PLN 13.13 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 1113 • DRAFT The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No.=OM( Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area(Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to Implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham In Part of Lot 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R-18480 In the City of Pickering (A 1/13). Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to amend the zoning of the lands, being Part of Lot 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R-18460 to"R4"-Fourth Density Residential Zone in the City of Pickering In order to facilitate the development of two lots for detached dwellings; And whereas an amendment to By-law 2511, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. Ana ReetNctsd The provision of this By-law shall apply to those lands legally described as Part of Lot 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R-18480, in the City of Pickering. 2. Schedule I Schedule'I is hereby amended by changing the current"R3(DN)"zoning designation to."R4"as shown on Schedule I attached thereto. 3. Text Amendment (a) Section 9.3 of Zoning By-law 2611,as amended by By-law 1874183 is hereby Wooled. (b) Section 10—Residential Detached Dwelling Zone—"R4" is hereby amended by adding the following subsection after subsection 10.3.4 10.3.5 Part of Lot 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R-18480 Despite the height requirement provision of Subsection 5.10 and the front yard requirement provision of Subsection 10.2.3 of this By-law, where any lot having frontage on Rougemount Drive on lands known as Part of Lots 43, Plan 350, Part 1, Plan 40R-18480 In the City of Pickering, is used for a detached dwelling, the following provisions shall apply: By-law No XXXX/XX i 4 T Page (a) Dwelling Height(mwdmum);; 0.0 metres; ' (b) Front Yard Depth (minimum): 10.4 metres; 4. . By-law 2611 By-law 2611,as amended,is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this Bylaw as set out in Section 2 and 3 above. Definitions and subject matter not specifically dealt with In this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2611, as amended. 6. Effective Date This Bylaw shall come into farce In accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. By-law read a first, second,and third time and finally passed this XX day of September, 2013. I . David Ryan, Mayor Debbie Shields, City Clerk • 1 . - -r ` -- - - y ' 1 O / - -- 4 ice°" 0 13 1 G 1 r / 10 e Lit ce dit / r- SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF 2(13 AAA CLERK - LI.VIID•. AAA, It/3 004141S:7 =1111a B __��I. 11• ••U•I•II=_ : :=1 �' _ _w a_ w• __ __ ii �*e e_ I1 _w _ IMMO f = ..J!!! -III- :� MINE immommel ma mounts. :m : aC mow III ■� w�a_ , a r._^ n _..lam teararm , moss. K �� _:. _ ... _ =1111110........r..z.„ . , \• .... .......... ......,,,,,.,,,,. a ar.:::.,.c. =.1 OMNI \ 4, Wall 10 MIMI 11111M• :11111•111•111111111 lona 1111•111111.... 1111111 "".J: II 1111 . in..ww:■ Off if T4:51 .5011 #rF := 1111 _MIMI11111=1111 . •• C•SP? 1\1111ras_assrlimpl= Ellirall In k 1,' iii �i111111,1n © i ,c r / __ 'h. • ill Of _IMMO mow. Imam Maa PILL;No: A 01113 APPLICANT: JI. MIOIdomtht 4 is:414:4 1‘..' PROPMTY INSCRIPTION:H0 Rouao:ount Dun(PM of LOt it plan 3110, Pat 1,40R•1MOM DAM aar+• Depwiment / -xre.tad. M sew WM 'WOO IPew avert r a 10 RE11M AN /P-!s / l I I I I I I i I .../ TOYNEVALE ROAD i o cr 1 H Ulm t s 2z La 8 rffivii : DTP a • ....---- , glia F E �_ z COURT ._ "Pt NolltiMi w ..___ Flo . IIIIIIM_! IX 4 . -mil r A irt 09O r o zr- 0004 i p- .Y. - m - ■ A\\ ■ Lot Frontage Along Rougumount Drive Car 4 FILE No: A 01/13 Ill:41"A::4 It'i APPLICANT: J. Mloldawrlght la PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:633 Rougamount Drlw (Part of Lot 43, ow Development Plan 360, Part 1,40R-16460) fl July 211,IOU Department rinihn.ta.' .� rex! - WPM NTS I w«. • le .. PAN �P!1 1 • na re R01110611D ❑ f Z - O a • . w • ..-U -I o CC p dosnt s$ubnitEsd PIWI Oar PILE No:AO1/1a APPLICANT J.ttloksiwAOht (S;4:i 7.4 h."; PROPMTY DNCRIPTICN:bad Ro:igsmount Drive (Part Lot 43, Olfreanntnent '"t Plan so, Pr 1,40N45430 I oars July sr,ale . Car Report to Planning & Development Committee 011iSION110.1 Report Number PLN 19-13 Date: September 3, 2013 ,From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Wind Mobile 270 Highway 7 Installation#58 Recommendation: That Wind Mobile be advised that City Council does not object to the proposed 60.0 metre high telecommunication tower installation located at 270 Highway 7, based on the design and other details submitted with this request. Executive Summary: In February 2013,Wind Mobile submitted a proposal to the City Development Department to construct a 80.0 metre high lattice style telecommunication tower at 270 Highway 7. . Since the submission of the Initial proposal, Wind Mobile has completed their public consultation process In accordance with Industry Canada requirements. Wind Mobile has advised that no public comments were received and are requesting that City Council provide a statement of concurrence in support of the installation. City staff are prtive of the proposed ear to be acceptable opportunities to co-locate this installation installation. with There an existing does not tower app in the immediate area. In view of the public consultation conducted by the applicant and Council engagement associated with this proposal, the processing of this application through this report is not considered contrary to Council's recent resolutions respecting cell towers. It is recommended that Wind Mobile be advised that City Council does not object to the proposed call tower at 270 Highway 7, based on the design and other details submitted with this request, Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Report PLN 19-13 • September 3, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 2 1. Background 1.1 Applicant's Proposal • In February 2013,Wind Mobile submitted a letter to the City Development Department requesting comments on their proposal to construct a 60.0 metre high lattice style telecommunication tower at 270 Highway 7(see Location Map, Attachment#1). The tower is proposed to be located at the north-west comer of the subject property. The base of the tower le approodmately 2.9 metres wide. The ground cabinet,which houses the radio equipment, occupies an area of 100 square metres and Is located at the bees of the tower. The tower and ground cabinet will be located In a fenced compound measuring approodmately 10,0 metres by 10.0 metres. Access is proposed from the meeting driveway off Highway 7 (see Applicant's Submitted Site Plan and Tower Elevation Plan, Attachments 02 and #3). 1.2 Property Location and Description The subject property is located on the north side of Highway 7,west of Sideline 32, at the eastern limit of the Hamlet of Green River. The subject property is privately owned and currently supports a residential building. The surrounding land uses include agriculturalresidentlal uses to the north, east, south and west The closest residential property(266 Highway 7)le approximately 100 metres south of the proposed tower. The subject property Is designated as Rural Settlement- Rural Hamlet Area in the Pickering Official Plan and Is zoned 'HMRIIHMC6'—Hamlet Residential Detached Dwe lling/Hamlet Commercial Zone in By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2676/88. The Hamlet Commercial Zone permits the establishment of a general contractors yard and outdoor storage. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Required Public Notification has been completed City Development staff are In the process of developing a protocol respecting the Installation of telecommunication'towers for City Councils consideration. It is anticipated that this protocol will be forwarded'to City Council for its consideration In the fall of 2013. In the absence of a City protocol, applicants must follow Industry Canada requirements as outlined In the Client Procedures Circular (CPC)2-0-03 Issue 4, entitled "Radlocommunlcatlon and Broadcasting Antenna Systems'. Report PLN 19-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 3 The Industry Canada requirements for public consultation require the proponent to consult with the land use authority, and the public within a radius of three times ' the tower height, measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure. Based on the proposed 80 metre tower height, the proposed Installation required notification to the 8 adjoining property owners within a 180 metre radius. The Province of Ontario is the owner of five of the neighboring properties and the notification was extended to two additional private property owners located outside of the required circulation radius. The local ratepayers association was also sent a copy of the public consultation package for comment. Wind Mobile has indicated that they have delivered written notification to the adjoining property owners, ratepayers association and placed a notice of the proposed Installation in the April 24, 2013 edition of the Pickering News Advertiser. They also confirmed that no public comments were received as a result of the public notification process (see Applicant's Public Consultation Report, Attachment#4). 2.2 Agency Comments Toronto and Region • TRCA has advised that the property is partially Conservation Authority located in a regulated area of the Duffing Creek (TRCA) Watershed; however the proposed location of the telecommunication tower is outside of their regulated area and therefore have no objection to the works and confirmed no permit is required from the TRCA 2.3 Co-location opportunities have been examined The installation and creation of separate, stand alone, radio communication towers and broadcasting facilities Is discouraged unless all other co-location options have been explored and are considered unfeasible. There are two telecommunication towers in the area. The first tower is located on an unopened road allowance (Sideline 34) between Whitevaie Road and Highway 407 and the other tower is located on 18th Avenue in the City of Markham. These towers were examined for co-location and the proponent has advised that they are not suitable candidates for co-location as they are located outside their search area. The applicant indicated that the proposed tower will accommodate future co-location opportunities. 2.4 Council Resolutions in May 2011, City Council passed a resolution requesting Industry Canada to cease consideration of communication towers in any residential area of Pickering in order to establish criteria for all matters pertaining to land use for the installation of these towers (see Council Resolution 102/11 —Attachment#5). • • Report PLN 19-13 September 3, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 4 This resolution was a response to a number of all tower installations that were erected without municipal and/or public consultation, specifically a proposed • tower Installation•under 15.0 metres at 1820 Whites Road. TM Whites Road proposal precipitated an earlier Council Resolution in April 2011 requesting that Industry Canada reverse approval of the tower and amend Its policies to require municipal consultation on all installations, regardless of height(see Council Resolution 87/11,Attachment 88). The proponent has provided confirmation that this proposed installation has been publicly circulated In accordance with Industry Canada requirements and the proposals are now before Committee and Council for consideration. In view of the public consultation and Council engagement associated with this proposal, the processing of this application through this report is not considered contrary to Council's Resolutions. 3. Planning Analysis • 3.1 Proposed Tower Location is Acceptable Staff support the proposed location of this telecommunication tower. The proposed roresidential and areass.. TM fret r is be set back approximately located in 800 metres from Highway 7. The location of the tower also avoids adverse impacts on natural features along the western portion of the property. Staff recommend that City Council approve the recommendation in this report as the proposed Installation has minimal Impacts to the Brea, is not sited in proximity to incompatible or sensitive land uses, and is located with appropriate setbacks from Highway 7. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan—Site Layout 3. Applicant's Submitted Plan—Tower Elevation 4. Applicant's Public Consultation Report 5. City Council Resolution 102/11 8. City Council Resolution 87/11 Report PLN 1 9-13 September 3, 2013 Subject Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 6 P - - : Approved/Endorsed • By: Illh!/ - _ � a�G C� Catherine Rose, MCI , R P Sen or Plan -Site Planning Chief Planner Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Thomas M lym , CIP, Manager, Development Review ' Director, City D velopment & Urban Design TB:jf Recommended for the consideration of Pickering CI, Council i . tS, 2or3 Tony Pre -el, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer ir M ./tIalfillnil , C•sf1„111.1 • libill HE HLIIR ws \ 1..... 1 . . EN Radius "" � ; •motto j \ 1111 IlL, ■114110 0•0# 114111111161111 1 illi A J op FILE No: Indouatlon#50 CIA d APPLICANT: WMd Mobilo . PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 270 HIEhwoY 7 "41.1:41:1:11‘74' Con,O t.PL Lt 00,401114031 Pets 0.0 0 ten, sour OltsparDoslozinont M., r u%per t nr+i M•+fl�Nf�•,,r « rw• 1/0Nu 1 VI I M1# ATTACHMERT#-- _TO 0 RPOR # „ A i\1 /1'/3 L.=c60.00m(AGL) n B „ I B 96 •;I9 IN ► N Ir*At I -'I I :... .. , _ . _ . .... . ,,,_ ...,..,17., r....e. . . . • co W _. ki . _-_, .4,.. --- ,.. 110110' . Atti h NyY .! 1 PHOTO SIMULATION OF PROPOSED TOWER 0 ♦ H EL.=0.00m .FINISHED GRADE LEVEL Applicant's Tower Elevation Plan Cali'� FILE No:Installation #56 ii; -�`"�'` '- 'ti t APPLICANT: Wind Mobile _ _ — di -p. ��loC PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 270 Highway 7 City Development Concession 6, South Pt. Lot 33, 40R-2_631 Part 6 TO 8 Department DATE: July 9,2013 Excerpts from the Pickering News Advertiser Wednesday,April 24, 2079 nruarrr ro R&OOre., Pl n/ /9/3 ,i _ ,vi • • rr- . C { t . 4a< 1 J v;, ku yr i Ygk^' s'£j �r Re^w { I �•,, 'P t " n �w � , M1k' kk ' v i l istl l I y� L t .�. • • • ''Qi3 4 xf matirmaa rr#2 K5 nears atayekrers Oast Ps 44 SOS P77 NM 01417 C4V4A1 May 2S,2015 Nand Delivered Mr.Tyler Bnnett Senior Planner-Site Planning, City of Plckerhrg • One The Esplanade Pickering,ON,UV'KT . Dear Tyler, Yk 270HWYT,Plokeking,ON , Propkleed T.Ncomrnunkatlon Tower Further to our recent discussions,we are pleased to report that opr PubNk Consultatlon for the above- captioned site Is now complete,Our padage(copy provided to you ApdF LS by small)was dMrlbuted to the public AprI1 15 with a stated SO-day RANI for public reply unsling May 16.Our newspaper notice.(copy attached hen)was published In Durham Region's News Advertiser April 24,.2013 with a Meted 30.day period for public reply ending May24,2015.Napublic response to tha/g netts have been received to date,and as such we now consider this process crimping. We look forward to your concurrence In this regard. Sincerely, ' Benjamin Cook Mvnieipoi as Coordinator Turrb Sites Corp. Attachments. • • Tungs Sas Carp, to ► SALLS13 Proposed Wireless Telecommunications Tower 270 Highway 7, Pickering (01R0680) July 2012 LModlfled pill 2013] `CTilmie Tunis Eta Inc. 70 Todd Read Oeoryetown,ON L70 4R7 Proposed Tele00mmunlsetlIMPORT on site IMPORT I PAM%4-, 270 Highway 7,Plakedng Background Information Globallve Wireless The use of wireless services In Canada continua to grow. Long gone are the days of the comparatively simple analog cell phone which has been replaced at an Increasingly growing rate with advanced digital smart phone such as the Blackberry and (Phone. Meeting the coverage and capacity demands of consumers is a continual challenge faced by the service providers. To provide effective service, the centers develop extensive networks comprised of antenna sites located on rooftops, other existing structures, and, as a last resort, towers. In 2008, Industry Canada awarded licenses to three new carriers to address the lack of wireless competition in Canada.As a result of lagging competition, Canada ranks last in wireless penetration amongst 22 developed countries. Canada's penetration rate sits at 65 per cent, well below the United States at 90 per cent and many European and Mien countries at well over 100 per cent. The lack of competition has also resulted In Canadians paying double what Americans pay per minute and using half as many minutes per month (Merrill Lynch). Gioballve received one of the new licenses in 2008 and the company is providing voice; text and data services to Canadians under the brand WIND ("Wind") Mobile on a next-generation wireless network. WIND is committed to offering a level of wireless service presently not available in Canada.This location Is part of the second phase of its deployment of the state-of-the-art GSM network in southern Ontario. The operation and development of telecommunication services and antenna sites In ' Canada are regulated by the federsl government through Industry Canada, which encourages site sharing and the construction of multi-tenant facilities. Tunis Sites Inc. Is an independent manufacturer and developer of telecommunications infrastructure specifically designed to house several radiocommunications providers at each facility. The facility at 270 Highway 7, Pickering will initially service WIND but has also been specially designed with additional capacity to support multiple tenants and will be actively marketed to other 2 A11J w*Sar+ ` 1 REMIT. -41112:13 Proposed Telecommunication Site 270 Highway 7,Plowing wireless carriers. These carriers Indude the incumbents: Bell,TELUS and Rogers; and the new entrants: WIND Mobile, Public Mobile and Mobllicity. Turns' accommodation of all telecommunication carriers In Canada will ultimately reduce the number of towers required.Tunis attests that the radio tower described in this notification package will be constructed In compliance with the National Building Code of Canada and comply with good engineering practices Including structural adequacy. Tunis is lead by two key individuals: John Wahba, Ph.D., P. Eng., P. E. Is Turrls' principal engineer and is recognized internationally for his tower engineering - a reputation earned through 16 years of experience In structural engineering at the design and research level. Dr. Wahba has designed some the world's most complex towers — the most recent being the • "hybrid" in Jakarta, Indonesia. Dr. Wahba has co-authored several publications In the field of dynamic and static analyses of guyed towers. Dr. Wahba holds engineering licenses In over forty jurisdictions across North America and is/has been active.on many technical committees (CSA,TIA, ASCE dynamics of latticed structures), and the CSA Technical committee on Communication Towers and Wind Energy. Richard Sullivan, P. Eng., Is an expert In telecom and broadcast project management, operations and the development and implementation of structures and ancillary facilities. Mr. Sullivan's career spans 25 years in the supply, Installation, and commissioning of communications Infrastructure in both the Wireless and Broadcast Industries. Mr. Sullivan's experience includes all facets culminating In senior management positions heading Manufacturing, Engineering, Field Services and Broadcast Services both domestically and Internationally. Mr. Sullivan has extensive knowledge of Tall Tower and Broadcast Facility implementation and the associated construction and rigging techniques and practices required in this challenging field. He is constantly sought out for his experience and advice in resolving challenging conditions and situations. 3 ATI ,°: TL 10 Proposed Telecommunication Site �P� d�' / 270 Highway 7, Pickering • Site Justification A. Coverage Requirement _ WIND is currently in the second stage of the development of their network. WIND presently offers coverage in the greater Toronto area through a combination of their own network (Home Zone) as well as roaming on one of the incumbent networks (Away Zone). It is WIND's intention, as well as a requirement of their operating license, that Pickering be covered by WIND's own network - of which this location is a key component. The prime requirement is to provide coverage along Highway 7 and the surrounding areas, as shown in Figure 1.0. Figure 1.0: Other Wind Sites in Area 06' . * • i ti` " ,'. ,T.TRO447s, _ Glee 'l �'• 'M 1• ti .Tv.. II) Vii,. ,,!` :',_,Si _,., *' d.:, -- -7— . ' . .•Proposed Sit- i '1L • � awy. i,, ;, a' k ,y .,_, ,, ;, , - ..._ , Ai' r r�s • - • , 0 Wltevato f •'4 � / '.1W ' ..- .4. s 4 „ , _,,,,..„ . ...,.. __,------- lirR'sy 4 \ f• ', w , Yar O,7R098B OTgo Ali'• . •,. 'S i. _...,-44-• ..' of '�� 7 i, \ :� •5-s )I1i &:oi• `dam i^:-.77114V. .mot _ Existing WIND sites are marked with green circles, and sites in development are marked with black circles. The proposed location, marked in Yellow with a 60m _ tower, fulfills engineering requirements and will enable contiguous coverage with existing and future adjacent sites in the area. It also maintains a significant buffer to major residential areas. The absence of the proposed site would result in a severe coverage gap in the area. O4 89 Proposed Telecommunication Site REPORTO ____ 270 Highway 7, Pickering B. Interest from Other Carriers II WIND is committed to collocating on any appropriate existing infrastructure and also makes any of their proposed sites available to the other carriers. The sharing of this site is integral to Turris' business model and as such, the incumbent carriers (Bell, TELUS and Rogers) will be notified of WIND's intentions to develop this tower. Mobilicity, one of the new entrants, has expressed interest in locating on this site and formal agreements are being discussed. C. Existing Wireless Telecommunication Infrastructure in the Area It is always preferable to locate on an existing structure. In this particular case, there are currently two wireless telecom facilities in the area around the proposed tower. Figure 2.0 shows the relationship between the proposed site and area sites utilized by Rogers and Bell. Figure 2.0: Existing Infrastructure 1 f i.. 11111 4, Ro ° -- 0 and BeII Site ii,,, -I is '',1/4 0, fi t ,15,P7---,------.;' ---:Propos e.d Site , . . r 1 s ►f - 1.. ��at f �' i , /".. , P•, ,,. ! I - s.:Site r a ;.201'Guo It The yellow pins represent the approximate location of each site. III 90 ATIMMENT • Proposed Telecommunication Site s4��Q� 270 Highway 7, Pickering • Figure 1.1: Existing Site: Rogers Figure 1.2: Existing Site: Rogers and Bell • x ¶ ppi WIND has considered these facilities and discounted their viability for the 1. The tower is following: 1. of WIND's N2.0 1. The tower is —1.6km outside of WIND'S search parameters required to create search parameters required to create homogeneous coverage. homogenous coverage. 2. The antenna height requirements for interested carriers are beyond the height of this tower. • 1110 Given the lack of existing infrastructure and suitable rooftops in the immediate vicinity of this proposed site is the reason WIND and Turris are proposing the construction of a tripole at this location capable of supporting multiple carriers. • • 6 91 ATTACHMENT# 44, TO Proposed Telecommunication Site RE FO° ,_.e.4V j2 270 Highway 7, Pickering D. Proposed Site Location - 270 Highway 7, Pickering III The proposed facility is located on the north-west corner of a rural residential property. The proposed property is surrounded by mostly large rural farmlands as seen on the satellite images in Figure 2.0 and Figure 3.0. The nearest residential unit is south of the site (approximately 100m away - please refer to Figure 3.1). The geographical coordinates of the proposed site are: 43 deg 54 min 13 sec N -79 deg 10 min 36 sec W Figure 3.0: Proposed Site it r , Ifi.rto o se o tie- • - + 4'. fi 0- . - .„.r,*„ Mr + . __ ,. l _* it; r'' +., "it :"Itt • * .'. 4""*Jr•"As . 0.. r., 1 1 , ,i, • - In fit ' . y - i • 7 III A1TA u # TO Proposed Telecommunication Site � �( _"-L • _ : 270 Highway 7, Pickering Figure 3.1: Neighbouring Residential *It t G.-, , \ -,., * ifAi i f. y titit r C , /. ,_ ell : ./0� 1,4.4,-,‘,,,qv rS •,4 4 ;.,y. , ', -y.. ��"' + • s v.',' a . ,I. . . , . Y , + 1�'l'..} .-1 vs.t r ? 4�"" °I�op se Site '` 't)t. ip,;•r". ' iciot • $ ' ,1'ii 1 . 4 �r $ {,...— to, 4 • It III , , Ike '' kit R i4 , r, t , r,. ,1, � t.,',1.14., ,,.,1{.. ‘,, ' eti; ^ a r br V .•lam *1.4. ,, 4, . til,,,;.,:,:. : , ', .„ ..44 ,,,,.. ,, , , : , -. „,.. Figure 3.1 shows a radius of 180m from the base of the tower. The proposed location is well separated from residential uses. The nearest residential unit is a low-density dwelling approximately 100m away. • 8 93 ATIMMET# IT To Proposed Telecommunication Site REPORii e Pell 270 Highway 7, Pickering E. Proposed Tower - 60m Tripole III Turris has agreed with the property's owner to installing a 60m.tall galvanized latticed tripole. Figure 4.0 below shows a sample profile of a triopole similar to the proposed tower. Turris has designed this pole to additionally support Mobilicity's antennas and other parties who may be potentially interested - ra-. - 54476n jiA li enabling it to accommodate additional carriers - reducing the E` = Main number of towers overall, while providing a minimal visual intrusion. Ii II II EL. =3E.47n /1 The small footprint provides space for present and future tenants to 1 accommodate the ancillary radio equipment. All the equipment will be placed on concrete slabs and there is no intention to construct a ok.i.4 a.. = 4&64m shelter. OA Figure 4.0: Proposed 60m Tripole - Sample Profile Picture = 4081H 1 ta a • EL,- 34,96n .e . /1 EL - 25t15n /1 1 /1 ' // N. L. - 23 32n e'I4114 e 14 "4 TSP 2980 rim pi EL - 1.7.4% TYPICAL SECTION ,' a. = 11.66n 1 a. = 393n ►' EL. = am, H 0 ATTI CHMEt1L TO Proposed Telecommunication Site REPOR ir` 270 Highway 7, Pickering • Fi•ure 4.1: Photographic Simulation: View toward the North-West via hi•hwa 7 1* . •f dwi • t• ( '0 , �� f LAte . • • i9 95 Proposed Telecommunication Sae fl J 270 Highway 7,Pickering F. Health Canada Safety Coda 6 Compliance • Industry Canada requires that all operators of radio communication systems attest that the radio antenna system described In this notification package will comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits, as may be amended from time to time, for the protection of the general public Including any combined effects of additional carrier collocations and nearby Installations within the local radio environment. WIND and any additional carrier will be providing the Safety Code 6 compliance upon installation of their equipment. O. Transport Canada Aeronautical Obstruction Marking Requirements Tunis attests that the structure described In this notification package will comply . with Transport Canada/ NAV Canada aeronautical safety requirements. Tunis has made all necessary applications to Transport Canada and NAV Canada. At this time,Tunis has yet to receive an Aeronautical Obstruction Clearance Form from Transport Canada stating that the proposed Installation would not require marking as per the CAR 621.19 Standards Obstruction Markings. For additional detailed Information, please consult Transport Canada at: 21.htm) 11 Proposed Telecommunication Site p �, 4•/; 270 Manny 7,Pickering • Appendix A- Existing Pae!IRIM The following table contains the results of a search of the Industry Canada database. Due to the complexity of the networks and the associated sitting requirements (I.e. very small search areas),sites more than two kilometers any are not viable. alternatives. It Is also important to note that each carrier may operate more than one set of services from the same site which Increases the number of results but not necessarily the number of sites. For your Convenience, we have grouped the various services by site. Sites Less than 2 krn Away: Iv ill 12 MTAQMfff#f�# r i0 RENF R# PLn/ 1 '9'13 j xcerot from May 18'^.2011 Council Meetino Minutes Resolution#102/11 Moved by Councillor O'Connell Seconded by Councillor Ashe WHEREAS On April 18, 2011 the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering formally opposed the Installation of a communications tower at 1820 Whites Road in the City of Pickering; and • WHEREAS hundreds of area residents have signed a petition objecting to the installation of a communications tower at 1820 Whites Road and other City locations; WHEREAS the City of Pickering received a response from Industry Canada in regards to our request to relocate the proposed communications tower at 1820 Whites Road and have ordered all communication tower installations cease on this site until Industry Canada can review this matter; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering.requests the Government of Canada cease further consideration of communication towers In any residential area of Pickering In order to commence ' discussions With the City of Pickering to establish criteria based on mutual respect for all matters pertaining to land use In the City of Pickering for the installation of communication towers throughout our community. ' AND THAT a copy of this resolution be sent to Durham Regional Council, Comellu Chisu, MP Elect for Pickering/Scarborough East, Chris Alexander, MP Elect Ajax Pickering,the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry and the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology). Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote • mummer 6 TO • • , , Excerpt from AcrII 18.2011 Councli Minutis ' ' r e SA /9.•-•-•/1 • • • • • .. •:Reeolytlon 087/11 : • •• • : . • • Moved by Councillor O'Connell • , . . . ' . • ', . • . $ebondedbyCouncillorAshe . . , • • , • • • • . ••• WH?REA3�the City of Pickering was fecently Informed That Industry,Canada hat. • • apprcved'a bell phone tower at 1820 Whkes Road,Amberiga'Pieabyterian Church • . '. • • • • without;any'consultation Mai the City of Pickering;and •,' , . • . • • • WHEREAS ths.Federal Ocverhhient through indultrycanada4 refusei to . . •• ', . racdgnize clip Important role that municipalities play In regard.tq local land•ups, •, •. • ' , ' matters slid specifically where cell phone tpwers maybe altuated;•and.,, • i • • , VyHEREAS local residents residing In the .. 'nbgrIbi/Foxhollow Neighbourhood are . •• outraged,having become gwi 3 p te,througph arty infortnetidn'that such eh, . j . intrusion.oafl,be proofed'In•a•feilderltlal corhmpnity . ;•. * . ." NOW THEREFOREBE It RESOLVEDittiat the Feifiral Goveinment.thrqugh% '' Industry Canada'be.advisett that the City of Plokertng.objegts tb the Instalkitivn of ' a cell pho netoyer at jS2d•Wftee Road and•that the/Wend ibr approval and:' . 7 . • . • enter Ihtd dlecueaone.wlth,the Clty of Pickering:In order to find k more approprfi e, • ••• location; " . • •AND AND FURTHER the Federal'OOvemment barequhed to arnend.thelr pollotee;, ' ' • • aria procedural for the•apprOval of;gelI phone Ind hdio towers to allow fl*local' z. , •• . munrcipiiitles donaultatigo on ill applications knd,to not epproVe.,appllc floni ^ ; . . objected to by the local Municipality; ; '• •• ; ;•;"• • • •• . • F - : AND FURTHER that conaultatlon lakee place through the Federatiort of . 'Municipalltlee,on establlihing guidelines to Assisi Industry Canada in setting' :••' • • ' " •• •crlterla'that•oan be used'by munlclpajlpee to seise*each applloatign,.ubmltted Tot.. ; • '.AND theta copy of tide mctlartbe.forwarded to'FQM to.be•lncludbd for ' . ' • • •:'endorsement pt tta annual meeting ` • •• • • AND that copies this ies ofis resolution be eentto Den MoTaague, MP for • ' • • . . • • . . ' Pickering/Soerborough,East,the Honourable toriy Clement,Minister of Industry; : • • • '. .and the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State(Science and Tchnology), •• ' • • ' • . Ceded Unanimously on a• • r Recorded Vote • . . , • • • . ' • • ' . . •