The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSeptember 14, 2020City 6h PICKE RiNG Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 14, 2020 Hybrid Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Due to COVID-19 and the Premier's Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, members of the public may observe the meeting proceedings by accessing the Iivestream. A recording of the meeting will also be available on the City's website following the meeting. Page 1. Roll Call 2. Disclosure of Interest 3. Delegations Due to COVID-19 and the Premier's Emergency Orders to limit gatherings and maintain physical distancing, members of the public looking to provide a verbal delegation to Members of the Planning & Development Committee for any matters listed under Planning and Development Reports, may do so via an audio connection into the meeting. To register as a delegate, visit www.pickering.ca/delegation, and complete the on-line delegation form or email clerks@pickering.ca. Persons who wish to speak to an item that is on the agenda must register by 12:00 noon on the last business day before the meeting. All delegations for items not listed on the agenda shall register ten (10) days prior to the meeting date. The list of delegates who have registered to speak will be called upon one by one by the Chair and invited to join the meeting via audio connection. A maximum of 10 minutes shall be allotted for each delegation. Please ensure you provide the phone number that you wish to be contacted on. Please be advised that your name and address will appear in the public record and will be posted on the City's website as part of the meeting minutes. 3.1 Paul White, Fairport Beach Neighbourhood Association Re: Report PLN 18-20 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study - Planning Recommendations Report (Phase 3 Report) 4. Planning & Development Reports 4.1 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 18-20 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study - Planning Recommendations Report (Phase 3 Report) 1 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 14, 2020 Hybrid Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Staff/Consultant Delegation David Riley, Principal, SGL Planning & Design Inc. on Report PLN 18-20. Recommendation: 1. That the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020, as contained in Attachment #1 to Report 18-20, be endorsed; 2. That, in accordance with the recommendations in the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020, City staff; a) be authorized to initiate the recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment processes; b) be authorized to undertake the necessary steps to implement the recommended by-law to restrict the width of driveways in the public right-of-way; and, c) be directed to investigate the implementation of a by-law for the protection of trees on private property and report back to Council in mid 2021. 3. That Council adopt the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts contained in Appendix B of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020. 4.2 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 14-20 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Shared Network Canada Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) Installation #66 85 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 14, 2020 Hybrid Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Report PLN 14-20 was deferred at the August 10, 2020 Planning & Development Committee meeting. Recommendation: That Shared Network Canada be advised that City Council does not object to the proposal for a 45.0 metre high tapered self -supported style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road, based on the design and location of the revised proposal. 4.3 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 16-20 The Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan 2020-2030 Prepared by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority - City of Pickering Recommendations to the Draft Watershed Plan Recommendation: 1. That the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) be requested to revise the Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan (CCWP), as follows: (a) Providing greater clarity about the "77%" figure identified as the potential increase in downstream peak flows under the hypothetical land use Scenario 3 modelling analysis including: explaining that it is a "worst case" scenario and why; identifying the rainfall and storm duration parameters for a Hurricane Hazel type event; and relating the modelled increases in peak flows to the proposed management recommendations; (b) Revising Management Recommendation 3.1.1 respecting the protection, expansion and restoration of the Natural Heritage System (NHS) in the watershed, to reflect discussion in the introductory text that precedes Table 8: NHS Management Recommendations, to allow consideration of alternative configurations, size and composition for an enhanced NHS to that identified on Map 2 of the Draft CCWP; and, (c) Adding a new Management Recommendation 1.3.6 stating that TRCA continues to support and enhance the existing flood model by increasing the number of rainfall monitoring stations 232 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cty oh DICKERING Planning & Development Committee Meeting Agenda September 14, 2020 Hybrid Electronic Meeting — 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles and stream flow gauges on all tributaries including the most minor. 2. That a copy of this Report and Council's resolution be forwarded to the TRCA, the Region of Durham and the Town of Ajax. 4.4 Director, City Development & CBO, Report PLN 17-20 Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/18 Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, Now Part Lots 1, 2, and 3, 40R-11413 (1865 Pickering Parkway) Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-002/P, submitted by Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc., to reduce the minimum net residential density from 80 units per net hectare to 58 units per net hectare for the lands located on the south side of Pickering Parkway west of Notion Road, and to re -designate the easterly portions of the subject lands and the lands (1805 Pickering Parkway) immediately to the south, currently owned by Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. Trustee, from "Mixed Use Areas — Specialty Retailing Node" to "Open Space System — Natural Areas" to allow a residential condominium development to be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 39 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 17-20 be forwarded to Council for enactment; and, 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/18, submitted by Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc., to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 130 townhouse units on lands located on the south side of Pickering Parkway west of Notion Road, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 17-20, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. 5. Other Business 6. Adjournment 336 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact: Committee Coordinator 905.420.4611 clerks@pickering.ca Cfy ot DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 18-20 Date: September 14, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study - Planning Recommendations Report (Phase 3 Report) - File: D-1100-096 Recommendation: 1. That the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020, as contained in Attachment #1 to Report 18-20, be endorsed; 2. That, in accordance with the recommendations in the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020, City staff; a) be authorized to initiate the recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendment processes; b) be authorized to undertake the necessary steps to implement the recommended by-law to restrict the width of driveways in the public right-of-way; and c) be directed to investigate the implementation of a by-law for the protection of trees on private property and report back to Council in mid 2021; and 3. That Council adopt the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts contained in Appendix B of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020. Executive Summary: This report provides an overview of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study, presents the final Planning Recommendations Report prepared by the City's consultants, and seeks Council's authorization to proceed with the implementation of the Study's recommendations. The Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020, (SGL's Phase 3 Report) is on the City of Pickering website at pickering.ca/InfillStudy. A full copy of the Report is provided as Attachment #1. Report PLN 18-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing In Established Neighbourhood Page 2 The purpose of the Study is to develop options and make recommendations for an appropriate policy framework, regulations and other tools that may be implemented so that the City has a sensitive way to manage new construction in those parts of the City's established neighbourhoods, (in the South Pickering Urban Area), undergoing significant change with homes being demolished and rebuilt, or larger lots being severed and new homes built. The results will guide the planning and design of this minor infill and replacement housing to ensure compatibility of the new development with its surroundings. The SGL Planning Recommendations Report completes Phase 3 of the Study. It built on the work and feedback received in all 3 phases of the study, and identifies 10 recommendations for the City's consideration. The detailed recommendations include: • identifying "Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zones", being the specific areas where proposed new official plan, zoning and other by-laws would apply; • defining "infill" and "replacement housing" in the Pickering Official Plan and Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036; • proposing new official plan policies related to compatibility of infill and replacement housing to ensure that new development minimizes impacts related to privacy, overlook, shadowing and loss of open space; • defining "Front Entrance" in Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036; • proposing new, or amended, zoning regulations for dwelling height, height of front entrance, dwelling depth, lot coverage, minimum and maximum front yard setback, maximum garage width, maximum driveway width, and minimum side yard setback for infill and replacement housing; • proposing the adoption of Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts; • implementing a by-law to regulate the width of driveways within the public right-of-way; and • considering the implementation of a Private Tree Protection By-law. Financial Implications: On June 28, 2018, Council approved the project funding of $147,995.00 and the financing as 55 percent from property tax and 45 percent from Development Charges. Funds to complete the Study were carried over in the 2020 Current Budget for the City Development Department, Consulting and Professional (Account 2611.2392.0000). 1. Background 1.1 In June 2018, City Council approved the proposal submitted by SGL Planning & Design Inc. (SGL), to undertake an Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Study. The Study was undertaken over a period of approximately 2 years through a highly collaborative process involving City staff, members of the public, and key stakeholders and has been concluded by the preparation of a Planning Recommendations Report and Draft Urban Design Guidelines (UDGs). 2 Report PLN 18-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing In Established Neighbourhood Page 3 1.2 Study Purpose The purpose of the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study is to provide direction for the preparation of appropriate official plan policies, zoning regulations and other implementation tools, and to develop draft design guidelines to facilitate a sensitive transition between existing houses and new construction occurring in certain parts of the City's established neighbourhoods. The Study was prompted by the construction of an increasing number of houses, either as the result of a demolition and rebuild, or larger lots being severed and new homes built, that were significantly larger than existing adjacent houses. These new homes, commonly referred to as "monster homes", created impacts to privacy, shadow, and overlook for the neighbouring homes and altered the streetscape within these parts of established residential areas of the City. The results of the Study will guide the planning and design of this minor infill and replacement housing to ensure compatibility of the new development with its surroundings. 1.3 Summary of Phase 1 Findings The Phase 1 Report: • identified that 9 of the 15 South Pickering Urban Area neighbourhoods, referred to as the "Focus Neighbourhoods", may be susceptible to pressure for the development of infill and replacement housing. The Focus Neighbourhoods are Bay Ridges, Dunbarton, Highbush, Liverpool, Rosebank, Rougemount, Village East, West Shore, and Woodlands; • identified the key issues regarding infill and replacement housing that are of concern to stakeholders; and • provided a summary of the feedback received at the Public Open House 1. In addition, Phase 1 of the Study found that the majority of observed changes occurring within the Focus Neighbourhoods relate to: • height and overall scale of dwelling; • roof pitch; • height of the front entrance; • separation distance between houses; • front yard setback; • amount and character of landscaped open area on private property; • width and configuration of the driveway; and • location of the garage and/or carport. The Phase 1 Report noted that these observed changes can lead to compatibility issues related to overlook conditions, privacy, shadowing and sense of place. The Phase 1 Report also provided a summary of best practices from other municipalities that have experienced a similar increase in infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods. - 3 Report PLN 18-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing In Established Neighbourhood Page 4 On April 23, 2019, Council received the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report (Phase 1 Report) prepared by the consultants, and authorized Phase 2 of the Study. 1.4 Summary of Phase 2 Findings Phase 2 of the Study included the identification of preliminary options, tools and strategies to address the issue of compatibility identified in Phase 1, and the preparation of a Phase 2 Report (Planning Options Report) containing a Preferred Strategy for the City with respect to managing change within the Focus Neighbourhoods. The Phase 2 Report also contained proposed boundaries to "Neighbourhood Precincts" within the 9 Focus Neighbourhoods (see Map of Focus Neighbourhoods & Precincts, Attachment #2). The Neighbourhood Precinct boundaries are based on a combination of age of dwellings, lot coverage, where there were a large concentration of observed changes to the neighbourhoods, and where change is expected to continue to occur in the future. Community input on the Draft Phase 2 Report was received through the October 29, 2019 Public Open House 2 and an online survey (the Infill Survey). On January 27, 2020, Council received the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Options Report (Phase 2 Report) prepared by the consultants, and authorized Phase 3 of the Study. 2. Phase 3 2.1 Summary of Phase 3 SGL prepared a Draft Planning Recommendations Report (Draft Phase 3 Report) that builds on the work and feedback received in the first 2 phases of the study, and identified 10 draft recommendations for the review and consideration through the Phase 3 engagement opportunities. Feedback received through Phase 3 engagement, was considered and is addressed in the SGL's Phase 3 Report. In addition, SGL has modified certain draft recommendations in response to feedback received. This is detailed below in subsection 2.2.3, Outcome of Engagement. 2.2 Summary of Phase 3 Engagement Phase 3 Engagement for the Study consisted of an Electronic Public Open House (August 11, 2020), meetings with Heritage Pickering (June 24, 2020), Committee of Adjustment (July 8, 2020), and Homebuilders (August 13, 2020). In addition, staff and the consultants have had individual conversations with a number of interested parties. 4 Report PLN 18-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing In Established Neighbourhood Page 5 2.2.1 Electronic Public Open House 3 On August 11, 2020, Electronic Public Open House 3 was held and consisted of a pre-recorded presentation by the consultant, followed by a facilitated discussion with a panel of staff and consultants, and comments and questions from 6 pre -registered delegates. The Electronic Public Open House 3 was Iivestreamed on the City's YouTube channel (https://www.youtube.com/user/SustainablePickering) and, to date, there have been 185 views of the recording. 2.2.2 Other Engagement Sessions Virtual meetings were held with Heritage Pickering (June 24, 2020), Committee of Adjustment (July 8, 2020) and the City's homebuilding community (August 13, 2020), and consisted of a presentation of the consultant's pre-recorded presentation followed by a discussion on the Draft Planning Recommendations Report. 2.2.3 Outcome of Engagement Table 1 in Chapter 3 of the SGL Phase 3 Report summarizes the comments and questions received on the Draft Phase 3 Report. In addition, SGL summarized key concerns and their associated response to the concerns in Table 2 in Chapter 3 of their Phase 3 Report. Following a review of the key concerns submitted, SGL is proposing the following modifications to their draft recommendations: 1. Lot Coverage The draft recommended performance standard for Lot Coverage specified that calculating Lot Coverage is determined by the primary residential building, excluding any permitted accessory structures (such as sheds) on the property. Since this method of calculating Lot Coverage differs from the definition of Lot Coverage in the City of Pickering's zoning by-laws (which includes accessory structures in the definition of Lot Coverage), it was concluded that calculating Lot Coverage should continue to be determined as currently defined in the City's zoning by-laws. A more thorough discussion regarding this matter is contained in the section "Discussion" following Table 2 in the SGL Phase 3 Report. 2. Separation Distance Between Dwellings While the City's zoning by-laws regulate minimum rear yard and side yard setbacks, they do not distinguish between minimum required side yard setbacks where a rear yard to rear yard condition changes to a rear yard to side yard condition. For this reason, an additional performance standard applicable only to "infill" housing, as defined, is being recommended (see Recommendation 7H on page 31 of the Phase 3 Report). This additional regulation would require a minimum side yard setback of 4.5 metres where the side lot line (previously a rear lot line) abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record. This matter is more fully discussed in the "Discussion" section following Table 2 in the SGL Phase 3 Report. 5 Report PLN 18-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing In Established Neighbourhood Page 6 3. Geographic Applicability of the Recommendations Although it was the intent of the draft recommended official plan policies to apply only to the corresponding Established Neighbourhood Precincts that are the subject of the draft zoning by-law and draft urban design guideline recommendations, it is noted that, based on comments received, these draft recommended policies may be unclear in this regard, and that they could be interpreted to apply to all of the residential neighbourhoods within the City of Pickering. In light of these comments, SGL have amended the wording of the draft recommended official plan policies 3.9 f) and 9.2 k) by removing reference to "within the City's residential neighbourhoods" from both policies, and rely on the recommended definitions of "infill" and "replacement housing" which clearly relate their applicability to the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. To complement the above -noted revision to the draft recommended policies, changes have also been made to the definitions of "infill" and "replacement housing", in the recommended official plan policies and zoning by-law regulations, to clarify that the recommendations apply to the areas identified within Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 2.3 Recommendations of the SGL Phase 3 Report The SGL Phase 3 Report is proposing that the City implement the following 10 recommendations to address compatibility of infill and replacement housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts in South Pickering: 1. Add a new section to the appropriate City zoning by-laws that apply to the "Established Precinct Overlay Zone". 2. Add definitions of "infill" and "replacement housing" in the Pickering Official Plan 3. Add a policy in the Pickering Official Plan that, when considering applications for infill and/or replacement housing, requires that the development is compatible with the character of the neighbourhood with respect to: scale as observed from neighbouring properties and the street so that impacts associated with privacy, overlook and shadowing are minimized; reinforcing the established pattern of existing side yard setbacks and separation distances between dwellings; reinforcing the established pattern of existing lot widths in the neighbourhood; reinforcing the established pattern of front yard setbacks on the street; promoting garages/carports to be flush with, or behind, the front main wall of the dwelling; maximizing the front yard landscaping; encouraging the preservation of existing mature trees; and considering the goals and objectives of the proposed Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 4. Add a new Community Design Objective in the Pickering Official Plan that encourages the development of compatible infill and replacement housing as it relates to minimizing the impacts of privacy, overlook and shadowing. - 6 - Report PLN 18-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing In Established Neighbourhood Page 7 5. Add definitions of "front entrance", "infill", and "replacement housing" in the City's Zoning By-laws 2511, 2520 and 3036. 6. Add a map to the appropriate City zoning by-laws that identifies the specific areas for which the "Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone" would apply. 7. Add the following performance standards within each Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone within the appropriate City zoning by-laws: a. Maximum dwelling height of 9.0 metres; b. Maximum height of the Front Entrance of 1.2 metres; c. Maximum dwelling depth: i. for lots with depths up to 40 metres: 17 metres; ii. for lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres; d. Maximum Lot Coverage: i. Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; ii. Highbush Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; iii. Liverpool Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%; iv. Rosebank Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%; v. Rougemount Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%; vi. Village East Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; vii. West Shore Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 30%; viii. Woodlands Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%; e. Front Yard Setback: i. Minimum Front Yard Setback shall be equal to the smaller front yard setback of the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smaller front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block; ii. Maximum Front Yard Setback shall be 1.0 metre greater than the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the maximum front yard setback shall be 1.0 metre greater than the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block; f. Maximum Width of Garage shall be no greater that 50% of the overall width of a dwelling; Maximum Driveway Width shall be 6.0 metres, or where the entrance to the garage is wider than 6.0 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of the garage; h. Minimum Side Yard Setback for Infill Housing shall be 4.5 metres where the side lot line of a newly created lot for an infill dwelling abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record. g. - 7 Report PLN 18-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing In Established Neighbourhood Page 8 8. That Council adopt the proposed "Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts" (provided as Appendix B of the SGL Phase 3 Report). These urban design guidelines address: a. Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch; b. Height of Front Entrance; c. Dwelling Length, Width and Depth; d. Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings; e. Garage or Carport Placement; f. Driveway Width; g. Front Yard Landscaping; and h. Street Trees. 9. That Council adopt a driveway width by-law (municipal by-law) to regulate the width of a driveway on public property to a maximum of 6.0 metres; and 10. That the City consider implementing a private tree by-law (municipal by-law) to protect trees on private property. 3.0 Conclusion This concludes the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study. Staff concurs with the recommendations of the SGL Phase 3 Report, and recommends Council adopt them and authorize staff to initiate the required official plan, zoning and municipal by-law amendments. Attachments: 1. Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods, Planning Recommendations Report, prepared by SGL Planning & Design Inc., dated August 2020 2. Map of Focus Neighbourhoods & Precincts 8 Report PLN 18-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Infill and Replacement Housing In Established Neighbourhood Page 9 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Margaret Kish, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner, Policy Original Signed By: Dean Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics MK:DJ:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By: Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer 9 oe PJCKER1NG Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 18-20 Planning Recommendations Report August 2020 - 10 - ♦4%1L,. . Ttiv Pl rrinF & Design Inc. Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report Table of Contents grAliWnlpigirw 11117 - MU, 1 Introduction 2 1.1 Study Background and Context 2 1.2 Study Purpose and Objectives 3 1.3 Summary of Phase 1 and 2 3 1.4 Phase 3 4 2 Analysis of Preferred Strategy 5 2.1 Preferred Strategy Analysis — Official Plan 5 2.2 Preferred Strategy Analysis — Zoning By-law 6 2.3 Preferred Strategy Analysis — Urban Design Guidelines 10 2.4 Preferred Strategy Analysis — Other Tools 11 3 Engagement & Discussion 13 4 Recommendations 26 4.1 Official Plan Recommendations 26 4.2 Zoning By-law Recommendations 27 4.3 Urban Design Recommendations 31 4.4 Recommendations for Other Tools 32 5 Next Steps 33 APPENDIX 'A' - Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone APPENDIX 'B' - Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts 4210 Tar 1 z pe_y Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report 1 Introduction maw ellIPARITA 1.1 Study Background and Context Large lot sizes, generous building setbacks and large separation distances between houses as well as mature landscaping are just some of the common characteristics observed in the established residential neighbourhoods of the City of Pickering (the City). These neighbourhoods tend to have older homes that are modest in size with large front, side and rear yards as compared to new homes being built in these neighbourhoods. Although these new homes may "check all the boxes" of the Ontario Building Code and City's Zoning By-laws, they may not be reflective of the character of established residential neighbourhoods. The Provincial Policy Statement and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe emphasize the efficient use of land and infrastructure to support the long-term prosperity, environmental health and social well-being of communities. Provincial policy, increasing land costs in the Greater Golden Horseshoe and a trend towards increased house sizes has contributed to progressively smaller lots with large homes. This trend is being seen not only in new subdivisions but also in established neighbourhoods through infill and replacement dwellings. New construction of infill and replacement housing in Pickering's established residential neighbourhoods has sometimes been the result of a consent process and/or minor variance process. However, not all of the new construction in established residential neighbourhoods has been the result of a planning process, as as -of -right zoning has permitted the larger, new dwellings. There is an important balance to strike between encouraging and promoting re- investment through new development or redevelopment and maintaining and enhancing a neighbourhood's character. Municipalities have a variety of planning tools at their disposal to address the balance of promoting investment and maintaining and enhancing community character when infill and replacement housing is built. These tools include: • Official Plan policies; • Zoning By-laws; • Development and design guidelines; and • Other tools, such as Site Plan Control. Faced with the challenge of increasing development pressure in established residential neighbourhoods, the City of Pickering is undertaking the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (the Study) to explore options for addressing t! i .tom• .�� - 12 - 2 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report neighbourhood character within established residential neighbourhoods and ensuring that it is properly considered through the development and building approval processes. 1.2 Study Purpose and Objectives On September 13, 2017 City of Pickering Council authorized staff to retain consultants to complete a planning and design study to address infill and replacement housing in established residential neighbourhoods (Report PLN 15-17). This direction followed a public engagement process facilitated by City staff in May 2017 resulting from concerns expressed by local residents that new homes being built in their neighbourhoods were not compatible with the existing character of their neighbourhoods (November 21, 2016 Resolution #236/16). The overall purpose of this study is to develop options and make recommendations for an appropriate policy framework, regulations and/or tools that may be implemented so that the City has a sensitive way to manage new construction in established residential neighbourhoods. The key objectives of this study are: 1. To identify the City's established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, within the South Pickering Urban Area that may be susceptible to pressure for the development of infill and replacement housing (Phase 1); 2. To identify and evaluate the unique qualities and characteristics of the City's established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, and the key issues regarding infill and replacement housing that are of concern to residents (Phase 1); 3. To identify and/or develop tools the City can use, including Design Guidelines, that will allow neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, to evolve while respecting the character of the area (Phase 2 — Options and Phase 3 — Recommendations); and 4. To provide an opportunity for full and meaningful engagement and consultation with residents, agencies and the development industry through the Study process (all Phases). 1.3 Summary of Phase 1 and 2 The Existing Conditions and Preliminary Observations Report provided an explanation and overview of the results from Phase 1 of the Study. Phase 1 of the Study established that nine of the fifteen South Pickering Urban Area neighbourhoods warrant in-depth study since these neighbourhoods contain the majority of the older housing stock that has experienced most of the new infill and replacement housing over the last few years. Phase 1 found that the majority of observed changes occurring within the Focus Neighbourhoods relate to: t! i .tom• .�� - 13 - 3 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report • Height and overall scale of dwelling; • Roof pitch; • Elevation of the first floor; • Separation distance between houses; • Front yard setback; • Amount and character of landscaped open area on private property; • Width and configuration of the driveway; and • Location of the garage and/or carport. The Phase 1 report categorized the various key elements of neighbourhood character that can have an impact on compatibility of new development into three themes: Built Form, Streetscape and Neighbourhood Composition. Additionally, Phase 1 contained a review of best practices from other Ontario municipalities that have also experienced an increase in infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods. The Planning Options Report provided an explanation and overview of the results from Phase 2 of the Study. The Phase 2, Planning Options Report: • Identified gaps and opportunities in existing City policy, guidelines and strategies to address the matter of infill and replacement housing; • Identified and delineated Precincts within the Focus Neighbourhoods; • Identified preliminary options, tools and strategies to address the issue of compatibility between new construction and existing built form within the identified Precincts within the established residential neighbourhoods; Engaged the public, agencies and stakeholders; and • Identified a Preferred Strategy for the City with respect to managing change with respect to infill and replacement housing in the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 1.4 Phase 3 Phase 3 of the Study consists of building on the work and feedback received in the first two phases of the study, and identifies recommendations for the City's consideration, based on the Preferred Strategy outlined in the Phase 2 report. This Planning Recommendations Report includes recommendations for: • New policies to be included within the City's Official Plan; • Amendments to the City's current Zoning By-laws; • New urban design guidelines for infill and replacement housing; and • Other tools for the City's further consideration and potential future implementation. Owti - 14 - 4 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report 2 Analysis of PreferredStrate oda 1\11111 A Preferred Strategy has been created and is summarized in Section 5 of the Phase 2 Report. The Preferred Strategy includes changes to the City of Pickering Official Plan, the City's Zoning By-laws, the creation of Urban Design Guidelines and other tools to be implemented to address infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods. This Section of the report provides an analysis of the Preferred Strategy with respect to the following points: • Anticipated results; • Anticipated resources (related to City processes and efficiencies); and • Whether the element of the preferred strategy should be carried forward to a recommendation. 2.1 Preferred Strategy Analysis — Official Plan As noted in the Phase 2 Report, the City's Official Plan contains some policy direction speaking to the requirement for City Council to have regard for protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods: • Sections 2.9, 3.2 and 3.9 speak to maintaining, protecting and enhancing the different identities and characters of the City's neighbourhoods as they evolve over time by considering, when making planning decisions and developing performance standards, such matters as building height, yard setback, lot coverage, and access to sunlight; • Chapter 9 - Community Design sets out a strategy that focuses on the relationships between the City's community building blocks, including streets, parks, public squares, shops and residential neighbourhoods, and their visual character and aesthetic qualities; • Chapter 12 provides neighbourhood policies for each of the City's urban neighbourhoods, including the nine Focus Neighbourhoods, some of which are policies to guide compatible development within certain neighbourhoods; and • Chapter 14 — Detailed Design Considerations contains a section on the design of buildings. Within this section, policy 14.10 states, in part, that where new development is proposed within an existing established area, building designs should reinforce and complement existing patterns such as built form, massing, height, proportion and dwelling placement. However, the Official Plan does not contain any specific policies to require that new infill and replacement housing fit in or complement the character of established neighbourhoods. As such, the Preferred Strategy includes the addition of new policies 114, �40a 1r b 5m� - 15 - 5 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report within the Official Plan to address the key elements of neighbourhood character, specifically dealing with: • Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch; • Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings; • Lot Frontage; • Front Yard Setback; • Garage or Carport Placement; • Front Yard Landscaping; and • Street Trees. Anticipated Results It is anticipated that the additional policies will provide for greater clarity when City Planning staff are reviewing applications for infill and replacement housing. Further, the addition of these new policies would provide the City with the necessary "teeth" and direction to stand behind zoning, variance and consent recommendations and decisions with respect to infill and replacement housing. Anticipated Resources The inclusion of additional policies within the Official Plan is not anticipated to impact staff resources or City processes in any way. The additional policies should not generate or require additional time or effort by City staff in reviewing development applications for infill and replacement housing within established neighbourhoods, nor should they affect or impact established City processes in reviewing development applications. Rather, the additional policies should provide for greater clarity when City Planning staff are reviewing such applications. Carry Forward to Recommendation? ✓ Based on the findings through Phases 1 and 2 of this Study, as well as the above analysis, this element of the Preferred Strategy should be formulated into a recommendation. 2.2 Preferred Strategy Analysis — Zoning By-law As described throughout the Phase 2 Report, the City's Zoning By-laws currently address some of the key elements of neighbourhood character. However, in order to better manage change through the creation of infill and replacement housing, the Preferred Strategy includes the creation of additional performance standards to address the key elements of neighbourhood character that specifically address: • Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch; • Height of the Front Entrance; • Dwelling Depth; IS SG 1 . - 16 - 6 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report • Lot Coverage; • Front Yard Setback; • Garage or Carport Placement; and • Driveway Width. The rationale for these additional performance standards has been addressed in detail within the Phase 2 Report. However, to provide additional context with respect to the preferred strategy for the elements of Dwelling Depth and Lot Coverage, additional rationale is provided here. Dwelling Depth refers to the distance measured between the minimum front yard setback and the rear wall of a dwelling. The preferred strategy includes a new performance standard to address the varying nature of dwelling depths observed through the development of infill and replacement housing within the Focus Neighbourhoods, and identifies maximum dwelling depths for dwellings based on the overall depth of a lot. The proposed maximum depths are based on observations within the Focus Neighbourhoods, and specifically, within the identified Neighbourhood Precincts. Within these areas, it has been observed that new dwellings typically have rear walls that extend further into the rear yard of properties than original dwellings, with ranging depths. Recognizing that original dwellings tend to have a shorter dwelling depth than newer dwellings, it is expected that there will continue to be variations in the depth of dwellings within a block. However, the intent of the additional performance standard for dwelling depth is to ensure that the rear walls of new dwellings (or additions to existing dwellings) do not project well beyond those of adjacent dwellings to mitigate potential impacts related to shadowing, privacy and overlook on rear yards of neighbouring properties. As such, the maximum depths proposed aim to strike a balance between recognizing the character of existing dwelling depths within Neighbourhood Precincts, while also allowing for flexibility for the construction of new infill and replacement housing based on the overall depth of a lot. Lot Coverage refers to the area of the footprint of a building relative to the area of the lot. The Preferred Strategy identifies that lot coverage within Neighbourhood Precincts should be adjusted to reflect the lot coverage characteristics of dwellings within those Precincts, and proposes maximum lot coverages ranging between 25% and 33%, depending on the Precinct. This range is generally based on existing lot coverages within each Neighbourhood Precinct, including original dwellings as well as infill and replacement dwellings. To further inform the recommendation for maximum lot coverage within the Neighbourhood Precincts, previous Committee of Adjustment decisions have been reviewed. The following is a representation of the range of approved increases to maximum lot coverage within the identified Neighbourhood Precincts within the Focus Neighbourhoods (where applications have occurred): • Bay Ridges: 37% to 45%; • Dunbarton: 35% to 42%; • Highbush: 33% to 35%; • Rosebank: 36% to 51%; - 17 - 7 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report • Rougemount: 36%; • West Shore: 37% to 39%; and • Woodlands: 35%. Based on this review, it is evident that some Neighbourhood Precincts are experiencing greater increases in lot coverage through the construction of infill and replacement dwellings than others. This is in part due to the size of lots. Within some Precincts, such as Bay Ridges, the lot sizes are smaller than those within other Precincts. As such, a home of an equal size within another Precinct with larger lots would have a lower lot coverage than that same home on a smaller lot within Bay Ridges. Given this, and recognizing that infill and replacement dwellings are typically larger in size than original dwellings, the recommendations for alternate performance standards for Lot Coverage within this Report are intended to address the character of each Neighbourhood Precinct, and, where appropriate, recommend a smaller lot coverage than what is currently permitted within the Zoning By-laws. This approach would assist in providing a balance between original, replacement and infill dwellings with respect to size and massing in relation to established neighbourhood character. Within the Neighbourhood Precincts, there have been relatively few minor variance applications for increases in maximum lot coverage. However, it is important to recognize that based on our review of previously approved minor variance applications, it is also evident that new infill and replacement dwellings within the Neighbourhood Precincts are being constructed while meeting the existing maximum permitted lot coverage of 33%. While this could indicate a trend for larger dwellings, the purpose of this Study is to mitigate the adverse impacts that can sometimes be associated with larger dwellings, as observed. As such, it is recommended that those Neighbourhood Precincts with larger lot sizes have a Lot Coverage of 25%, and that those Neighbourhood Precincts with smaller lot sizes have a Lot Coverage of 30%. The exception is Bay Ridges, where it is recommended that the existing maximum lot coverage of 33% remain the same. Front Yard Setback refers to the distance between the front lot line and the front wall of a dwelling. The Preferred Strategy outlined new provisions for minimum and maximum front yard setbacks for dwellings within the Neighbourhood Precincts of the Focus Neighbourhoods. For minimum front yard setback, the Preferred Strategy outlined that this would be based on the average existing front yard setback of neighbouring dwellings. The Preferred Strategy also included a new provision for maximum front yard setback, requiring a maximum front yard setback of 1.0 -metre greater than the minimum. The intent of the new performance standards for minimum and maximum front yard setbacks is to reinforce the open space characteristics of the neighbourhood by promoting a consistent "street wall" of the front walls of dwellings, and in turn, helping to regulate the extent of dwelling depths along a block. Upon further consideration of this, and after reviewing comments made, the minimum and maximum front yard setback performance standards should be amended to allow for infill and replacement dwellings to match the smaller of the front yard setbacks of adjacent properties, while still allowing for some flexibility and range in front yard setbacks to recognize that there is some variability in front yard setbacks along many blocks. As such, the minimum front yard setback should be revised to permit a setback that is no smaller than that of ottv - 18 - 8 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report adjacent dwellings, and the maximum front yard setback should be revised to be based on the average front yard setback of adjacent dwellings, plus one metre, allowing for an appropriate range to reflect neighbourhood character. In addition to new performance standards, the Preferred Strategy identifies the need for additional definitions, including definitions for "front entrance", "infill" and "replacement housing". One of the items of feedback received on the Preferred Strategy was about whether an additional definition for "dwelling height" should be created to specify that the height of dwellings should be based on the established grade measured at the front of the dwelling. To look into this matter, definitions within each of the three Zoning By- laws that apply to the City's Established Neighbourhood Precincts have been reviewed, and in particular, definitions for "building height" and "grade" were reviewed, which are the same for each by-law. According to the zoning by-laws, "building height shall mean the vertical distance between the established grade, and in the case of a flat roof, the highest point of the roof surface or parapet wall, or in the case of a mansard roof, the deck line, or in the case of a gabled, hip or gambrel roof, the mean height level between the eaves and ridge...". According to the zoning by-laws, "grade shall mean, when used with reference to a building, the average elevation of the finished surface of the ground where it meets the exterior of the front of such building...". Based on this review of existing definitions for "building height" and "grade" within the zoning by-laws, it is clear that the height of buildings, which include all residential dwellings, is already required to be based on the average grade measured at the front of dwellings. As such, no further changes are recommended with respect to the definitions related to building or dwelling height and grade. Anticipated Results Similar to the additional Official Plan policy recommendations, it is anticipated that additional and updated zoning performance standards will provide for greater clarity with respect to the review of planning and building permit applications by City staff. In turn, it is anticipated that the additional and updated performance standards would result in infill and replacement housing that fits into and complements the character of the City's established neighbourhoods. Anticipated Resources The new and updated performance standards would provide a few additional measures for the City to evaluate applications for infill and replacement housing. While these additional measures will increase the amount of "checks" one needs to address through application review, it is not anticipated that the additional zoning performance standards would impact City resources in terms of staff time. In fact, the additional and updated performance standards have been formulated to assist the City in evaluating proposals - 19 - 9 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report for infill and replacement housing, and as such, provide clarity to planners forming opinions on the appropriateness of a development application and building plan examiners when reviewing conformity to the zoning by-law, resulting in efficiencies. The addition of new and updated zoning performance standards would not impact any established staff processes, nor would it create any additional processes beyond the implementation process of these performance standards. Carry Forward to Recommendation? ✓ Based on the findings through Phases 1 and 2 of this Study, as well as the above analysis, specific amendments to the City's Zoning By-laws should be made to implement the Preferred Strategy. It should be noted that in addition to amendments to the City's existing and in -force Zoning By-laws, the recommended performance standards should be carried forward to the City's ongoing Comprehensive Zoning By- law Review process. 2.3 Preferred Strategy Analysis — Urban Design Guidelines As identified in the Phase 2 Report, urban design guidelines can help to reinforce the Preferred Strategy for Official Plan policies and Zoning By-law performance standards. As such, the Preferred Strategy includes the creation of Urban Design Guidelines that address the following: • Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch; • Height of the Front Entrance; • Dwelling Length, Width and Depth; • Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings; • Garage or Carport Placement; • Driveway Width; • Front Yard Landscaping; and • Street Trees. Anticipated Results As noted in the Phase 2 Report, urban design guidelines are used as a tool to coordinate the various key elements of neighbourhood character to create an attractive, appealing and functional urban environment. It is anticipated that the urban design guidelines outlined in the Preferred Strategy would be useful in directing the overall design and placement of infill and replacement housing. It is also anticipated that urban design guidelines would function as a complementary tool to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law elements of the Preferred Strategy, by guiding and providing design rationale for the development of infill and replacement housing. This tool could also be used alike by City Staff, the Planning and Development Committee, City Council, the Committee of Adjustment, landowners, home builders and homeowners as a tool to t! i eo .tom• .�� -20- 10 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report review and inform opinions and decisions on infill and replacement housing, through all steps of the process, beginning at the initial design phase. Anticipated Resources The new urban design guidelines for infill and replacement housing would provide the City with an additional tool to consider and evaluate applications for infill and replacement housing. Similar to the comment above with respect to additional Zoning By-law performance standards, while the implementation of urban design guidelines will increase the amount of "checks" one needs to address through the review of development applications, it is not anticipated that urban design guidelines would significantly impact City resources in terms of staff time spent on application review. Over time, the implementation of urban design guidelines would also assist homeowners, home builders and landowners with designing homes that fit in with the character of Pickering's established neighbourhoods. The City should encourage residents and builders to review the urban design guidelines prior to designing new homes. The guidelines should be promoted on the City's website and at the planning counter at City Hall. This approach may in turn lead to fewer planning (Committee of Adjustment) applications related to infill and replacement housing, potentially reducing staff time spent reviewing minor variance applications. The new urban design guidelines for infill and replacement housing is not anticipated to impact any established staff processes, nor would it create any additional processes. Carry Forward to Recommendation? ✓ Based on the findings through Phases 1 and 2 of this Study, as well as the analysis above, this element of the Preferred Strategy should be formulated into a recommendation, including the creation and implementation of detailed urban design guidelines for infill and replacement housing. 2.4 Preferred Strategy Analysis — Other Tools As identified in the Phase 2 Report, the Preferred Strategy identifies the potential use of other tools to help manage change related to infill and replacement housing within established neighbourhoods, including tools to address the following key elements: • Driveway Width; and • Tree Protection. Anticipated Results Much of the feedback received throughout this Study has related to the change in the open space elements of neighbourhood character through the construction of infill and replacement housing and the resulting loss of mature trees and landscaped open space. Oskv - 21 - 11 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report With respect to a by-law to regulate driveway width within the City's public right-of-way, it is anticipated that this by-law would be an effective tool for the City to control and regulate driveway widenings on City -owned lands. Ideally, such a by-law would require driveways to be in line with maximum permitted driveway widths on private property, as outlined in the Zoning By-law recommendations in this report. The driveway width by- law would provide the City with another tool to ensure that the open space character of established neighbourhoods is maintained as infill and replacement housing is proposed. It is anticipated that a Private Tree By-law would also assist in addressing this matter, by implementing regulations to protect trees where possible, and to require the replacement of trees where appropriate to ensure a healthy and perpetual tree canopy within established neighbourhoods. It is anticipated that this additional tool would provide the City with an effective way to regulate tree removal, tree replacement and tree protection during construction. Other than providing the City with additional tools to maintain and enhance the open space character on private property within the City's established neighbourhoods, the benefit of both of these Preferred Strategies and implementation of new tools also relates to mitigating climate change impacts within the City by promoting mature vegetation and reducing the extent of paved areas. Anticipated Resources With respect to a driveway width by-law, which would apply to the portion of the driveway within the public right-of-way, the development of such a by-law would require staff resources to draft and implement the by-law, as well as additional resources to enforce the by-law. While there will be some impact to City resources, it is not anticipated that the implementation of such a by-law would negatively impact City processes, nor is it anticipated that such a by-law would necessitate the hiring of additional staff. With respect to a private tree by-law, which would affect all trees over a certain diameter on private property, the development of a such a By-law would also require staff and/or consultant resources to draft and implement the by-law, as well as additional resources to enforce the by-law. Since such a by-law would be establishing a new City process by which certain applications for development would be required to address tree protection, preservation, and replacement measures, it is anticipated that the City would likely need to hire additional staff to administer and enforce the by-law. Carry Forward to Recommendation? ✓ Based on the findings through Phases 1 and 2 of this Study, as well as the analysis above, this element of the Preferred Strategy should be formulated into a recommendation. Pa Em 12 -22- Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report 3 Engagement & Discussion rinitlIMST,SAISNISTAIM Based on the analysis of the Preferred Strategy outlined in Section 2 of this report, draft recommendations were developed and released for review and comment. The draft recommendations were released in two reports: • A report titled "Draft Planning Recommendations Report" (dated April 2020), which contained draft recommendations for Official Plan polices, draft recommended zoning by-law performance standards, draft recommendations for other tools, as well as a summary of draft recommended urban design guidelines; and • A report titled "Draft Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts" (dated April 2020), which contained a detailed set of draft urban design guidelines. Beginning in May of 2020, members of the public had the opportunity to review these documents and provide comments to the City. In light of restrictions on public gatherings and hosting of public events due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, and in an effort to continue to engage the community as best as possible, the City held a number of planned and advertised virtual events and meetings with the public and stakeholders to present the draft recommendations of the Study, including the following: • Virtual meeting with Heritage Pickering (the City's heritage advisory committee) on June 24, 2020; • Virtual meeting with members of the Pickering Committee of Adjustment on July 8, 2020; • Virtual Public Open House on August 11, 2020; and • Virtual meeting with local homebuilders on August 13, 2020. Comments on the draft recommendations were received at each of these events, and additional comments were also sent directly to City staff and the consulting team. This section of the report provides the following: • A summary of comments received on the draft recommendations; • A table summarizing the key concerns raised, as well as our response to these key concerns; and • A discussion on changes to the draft recommendations arising from some of the key concerns raised. -23- 13 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report Summary of Comments from Engagement Events The following table, Table 1, provides a summary of comments and questions received on the draft recommendations, organized by topic. Table 1 — Summary of Comments and Questions Topic Comments and Questions General • The policies, regulations and guidelines should apply to the entire neighbourhood rather than just precincts. • The recommendations should be applied across the whole City. • Will the guidelines apply to new houses only or will they also apply to houses where expansions are proposed? • If a proposed new dwelling complies with the zoning by-law, how would the draft urban design guidelines be implemented? • How would existing conditions be recognized in the zoning by-law? • Would the recommendations apply to new applications only? • Since the commencement of the study, new dwellings have been constructed. Would these new dwellings be considered as part of the existing character? • The recommendations of the study could discourage the introduction of innovative, more affordable infill and replacement housing, including the `missing middle'. • The draft policy recommendations are currently drafted to apply to all residential neighbourhoods. These recommendations should be reworded to apply to the established neighbourhoods, which is the focus of the study. • A suggestion to refine the definitions of "infill" and "replacement housing" has been submitted, to clarify the geographic location of where such definitions are applicable. • The documents should be easy to read and user friendly. • The draft guidelines are very user friendly and the photos and illustrations are very helpful. • The documents are plain language and easy to understand. • The overlay zone is a creative idea. -24- 14 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Planning Recommendations Report August 2020 004 ,ageal -25- 15 • Pleased with the overall study. Neighbourhood Specific • • • • There should be specific guidelines for Liverpool neighbourhood. There is no recommended maximum lot coverage for the Bay Ridges neighbourhood. Why? The Nautical Village guidelines should be addressed in the infill guidelines. The recommendations should encompass the entire West Shore neighbourhood. Established • How were the size and location of the established Neighbourhood neighbourhood precincts determined? Precincts • The precincts do not cover the entire neighbourhoods. Housing • How does this report address the "missing middle"? Lot Coverage • How is lot coverage calculated and does it include accessory buildings? • Reduction of maximum lot coverage for some precincts will limit the size of the dwelling that can be constructed. Size of Dwellings • There should be a maximum size cap on replacement dwellings of 1,000 square feet (beyond the size of existing dwellings). • There should be a requirement that new replacement dwellings can't be larger than the existing dwelling on the property, or they should be based on the size of neighbouring dwellings (i.e. based on an average or percentage of the average of nearby dwellings). • The Committee of Adjustment should not be granting any increases to house size. Dwelling Height • The height restrictions should include all areas of West Shore and Bay Ridges. • Other homes have been constructed that are higher than 9.0 metres — why were these allowed to be built? • Concern that with the 9.0 metre height restriction it may be difficult to get nine- or ten -foot ceiling heights, which is what people want when building or buying a new home. • Building height should also be based on roof pitch. 004 ,ageal -25- 15 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Planning Recommendations Report August 2020 004 ,ageal -26- 16 • Maximum building height should be based on the height of neighbouring dwellings. Front Yard Setback • The recommendations should reflect "original" front yard setbacks rather than recognizing the existing setbacks, which includes original and new dwellings. Height of Front • The proposed maximum height of the front entrance of Entrance 1.2 metres (6 steps) should be removed. • Does the recommendation for height of front entrance consider dwellings where there is a grade difference from the front to the back of a dwelling? Separation Distance • The recommendations should also address the Between Dwellings condition where new infill dwellings are introduced behind existing dwellings, creating a rear yard to side condition and leading to a `boxing effect'. Garage and Carports • The recommendations related to the placement and width of garages are good, including for promoting greater safety for residents. Driveways • Happy to see advocacy for use of permeable pavers on driveways. • There should be by-laws regulating maximum driveway width to help address the issue of water runoff. Trees • How would the proposed tree by-law work? Would it be something that another City department administers? • There is a need to protect mature trees and regulate the removal of mature trees. • The guidelines should discuss that there should be enough room to sustain tree growth, and this should be something that is applied to the whole City. • Need by-laws to protect mature trees on private and public property (like the City of Toronto). • When submitting development applications, there should be a requirement to submit a plan showing the location of mature trees. Next Steps • When will the policies, regulations and guidelines be implemented? 004 ,ageal -26- 16 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Planning Recommendations Report August 2020 Other Comments • Comments were raised about site-specific examples of new infill or replacement dwellings where there are issues related to ongoing construction activity. • A comment was raised that the hydro, gas and water lines should be located prior to construction starting. • Fines should be imposed on builders and developers who violate by-laws. • There should be a requirement or building inspectors to respond to complaints filed by neighbours prior to the City signing off on building permits. • Concerns were raised about builders from other areas who don't know Pickering. • A comment was raised that prior to construction, videos or photographs should be taken to document what's on and surrounding a property in case there is damage. • A comment was raised with respect to the Bayly and Liverpool red light camera, and that rather than this, the City should have considered solar speeding monitors. • Home owners have no say at the Committee of Adjustment. • The residents of Pickering will not be satisfied unless the by-laws are enforced. • The granting of minor variances needs to follow stricter guidelines. • In the future, the City should consider tools to encourage local commercial development to look like the character of the neighbourhood. Summary of Key Concerns Raised Many of the comments and questions received throughout the Phase 3 engagement events and meetings, as summarized in Table 1 of this report, reflect themes that have been discussed throughout the study, including options and recommendations related to front yard setback, height of the front entrance, width and location of garages and carports, driveway width, and tree protection. However, many key matters and concerns have been raised where further discussion is merited within this report. The following table, Table 2, summarizes the key concerns identified in Table 1 and our response to the matter. -- : Ittal9 -27- 17 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Planning Recommendations Report Table 2 — Key Matters and Concerns August 2020 Key Matters and Concerns Response 1 Should the Size of Established Neighbourhood Precincts be Increased? The Established Neighbourhood Precincts were determined based on a number of characteristics, primarily the following: • areas within established neighbourhoods with original dwellings constructed primarily prior to the 1980's; • areas within established neighbourhoods where many instances of infill and replacement housing has been observed; • areas within established neighbourhoods where the "footprint" of homes relative to the size of their lot results in a lower lot coverage than observed elsewhere within the neighbourhood; and • in addition to lot coverage, areas within established neighbourhoods where lots are generally larger than other parts in the neighbourhood. Based on these characteristics, the boundaries for the Established Neighbourhood Precincts were delineated. These boundaries were presented to the public and refined as appropriate to reflect areas where ongoing change related to infill and replacement housing is anticipated to be observed. As such, the Established Neighbourhood Precinct boundaries are recommended to remain the same. 2 Does the study consider the `Missing Middle'? The term "missing middle" generally refers to multi -unit residential housing between 4 and 8 storeys in height, which is more dense than single and semi-detached dwellings, and less dense than high-rise apartment buildings. "Infill" housing, in the context of this study, refers to the development of two or more ground -oriented dwelling units such as single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings, and does not include stacked townhouses, stacked back-to-back townhouses, apartment buildings or other forms of multi -unit housing. In this respect, this study addresses compatibility between infill (to the extent described above) and replacement housing in the context of Pickering's established neighbourhoods. While in some cases there may certainly be opportunities to promote denser forms of housing (the SG 1. -28- 18 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Planning Recommendations Report August 2020 t! i .tom• .�� -29- 19 "missing middle") within and on the fringes of established residential neighbourhoods, these types of development would be considered in the context of a comprehensive development application, typically involving zoning by-law and/or official plan amendments. Such applications would be the subject of a thorough level of review through the City's established development review processes. In 2015 the City embarked on the South Pickering Intensification Study (SPIS) with a community engagement program regarding where and to what extent growth should occur in South Pickering. Phase 1 of the SPIS established that the primary areas for intensification are the City Centre and the Mixed Use Nodes and Corridors within the city. Phase 2 of the SPIS consisted of the recently completed Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study. In December 2019, Council endorsed the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Plan which confirms and guides how intensification should proceed along the Kingston Road corridor and within the Specialty Retailing Node (located to the south and east of Kingston Road and Brock Road, and north of Highway 401). It is intended that the "missing middle" will be predominantly accommodated, in addition to other forms of residential and mixed use development, in these areas. 3 Should there be a Maximum Size of Dwellings? Currently there are no performance standards within the City's Zoning By-laws that regulate the maximum size of dwellings in terms of gross floor area (or square footage). Some of the comments received from members of the public, as noted in Table 1, suggested that the size of dwellings should be restricted to a maximum size. For example, a suggestion was made that a replacement dwelling should be no larger than an additional 1,000 square feet of the existing dwelling on a property. It is important to note that concerns related to the size and mass of infill and replacement dwellings have been expressed to the City even prior to the inception of this study. Phases 1 and 2 of this study focused on gaining an understanding the key elements of neighbourhoods that contribute to their character, and arriving at options to address and mitigate adverse impacts associated with development perceived to be incompatible. With respect to large dwellings, adverse impacts that were identified related t! i .tom• .�� -29- 19 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Planning Recommendations Report August 2020 tov -30- 20 to shadow, privacy and overlook onto neighbouring properties. While a dwelling may be perceived to be "large" on a smaller lot, that same dwelling located on a larger lot may be perceived as "fitting in" with the character of the neighbourhood. Taking this into consideration, this study looked at ways to manage the size of dwellings based on the various elements that contribute to defining the mass of dwellings, including dwelling height, dwelling depth, the height of the front entrance, garage width, yard setbacks and separation distance between dwellings. Although there is no recommendation to limit the gross floor area of a dwelling, the combination of these other recommendations related to building mass address the overall scale of a dwelling in relation to neighbouring properties, addressing and mitigating the adverse impacts identified as concerns by the public. 4 How is Lot Coverage Determined? As noted previously in this report, Lot Coverage refers to the area of the footprint of a building relative to the area of the lot. Currently, the City's Zoning By-laws permit a maximum lot Coverage of 33% within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. The draft recommendations included alternate maximum Lot Coverage requirements, ranging from 25% to 30% within the Precincts, with the exception of Bay Ridges, which was recommended to remain at 33%. The proposed alternate Lot Coverage regulations are based on existing lot coverages within each Established Neighbourhood Precinct, including original dwellings as well as infill and replacement dwellings. In addition, to further inform the recommendations for maximum lot coverage within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, previous Committee of Adjustment decisions were reviewed. Given this, and to recognize that infill and replacement dwellings are typically larger in size than original dwellings, the proposed alternate standards for Lot Coverage are recommended to remain the same as those proposed in the Preferred Strategy. In addition, the draft recommendations suggested that an alternate approach be used to calculate lot coverage in Established Neighbourhood Precincts, by excluding accessory structures from the calculation. Upon further review it was concluded that the existing method of calculating lot coverage, as per the definition of Lot Coverage in the City's Zoning By-laws (to include accessory structures in the calculation), be maintained in Established tov -30- 20 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Planning Recommendations Report August 2020 S - 31 - 21 Neighbourhood Precincts. A further discussion on this point is found in the "Discussion" section following Table 2. 5 How is Separation Distance Between Dwellings Addressed when Infill Housing creates a Rear Yard to Side Yard Condition? One of the comments heard related to instances where infill development is proposed immediately adjacent to existing dwellings. In some cases, infill development, particularly where a new road would be created, could result in a change in the yard to yard relationship. In these cases, the rear lot lines of existing lots may become adjacent to the side lot lines of newly created lots. This could result in situations where the established pattern of separation distance between the rear of dwellings is reduced, since typically side yard setbacks are much smaller than rear yard setbacks. This interface could result in compatibility issues between existing dwellings and infill development, leading to potential impacts related to shadowing, privacy and overlook. As such, there is merit in investigating potential tools to address this matter. This matter is explored in the "Discussion" section following Table 2. 6 Where do the Building Height Restrictions Apply? Questions and comments were made with respect to the geographic location of where the proposed maximum building height of 9.0 metres would apply. To clarify, the City of Pickering recently passed a by-law applying to parts of Bay Ridges, parts of West Shore and to the Rosebank neighbourhoods to institute a maximum building height of 9.0 metres in areas where no maximum height limit previously existed. Through this study, a maximum building height of 9.0 metres is being recommended for all of the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Outside of these Established Neighbourhood Precincts, existing height restrictions in the City's Zoning By-laws will continue to apply. 7 Applicability of Recommendations Going Forward As noted in Table 1, some comments were received inquiring about how the draft recommendations would be applied going forward, and a question was posed about how existing development approvals would be treated once the recommendations are implemented. Going forward, following the implementation of the recommendations, all new development applications and building permit applications within the Established S - 31 - 21 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Planning Recommendations Report August 2020 t! i .tom• Av., -32- 22 Neighbourhood Precincts would be subject to the new policies, zoning performance standards and urban design guidelines. Likewise, decision makers including City Council and the Committee of Adjustment will consider all development applications within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts through the same lens of planning tools. For existing approvals, such as a plan of subdivision or a rezoning application approved prior to the implementation of the recommended planning tools, where a building permit has not yet been issued, existing policies and zoning in place at the time of approval would continue to apply. 8 How will the Urban Design Guidelines be Implemented When Development Complies with Zoning? If a proposed development is permitted by the City's Official Plan and complies with all aspects of the Zoning By-law, the proponent of such a development can apply directly for a building permit. With that said, the end product of this study is to recommend tools on how best to manage change within established residential neighbourhoods to promote compatible development. If a proposed development complies with the Zoning By-law following the implementation of the recommended performance standards, that development should be considered to be more compatible than a development proposed prior to the implementation of the recommendations. If a proposed development complies with the Zoning By-law, proponents of development applications are encouraged to review the Draft Urban Design Guidelines for Established Neighbourhood Precincts prior to finalizing their designs. The Checklist in Appendix B of the Planning Recommendations Report, August 2020, is a useful tool to ensure that the urban design guidelines are followed. The guidelines are intended to be used not only by the City and decision makers, but also by the public, builders, architects and other professionals to help inform design and massing choices for new residential dwellings within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. 9 Interpretation of Geographic Applicability of A comment was raised about potential confusion related to the interpretation of the draft recommended Official Plan policies. Specifically, the comment raised a question as to whether it is the intent of the draft policy recommendations to t! i .tom• Av., -32- 22 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study Planning Recommendations Report August 2020 Discussion Based on the key matters and concerns outlined in Table 2, further discussion within this report is warranted with respect to certain matters that may result in a change to the draft recommendations presented. In particular, these matters are the calculation of lot coverage, separation distance between dwellings in the context of infill housing, and the geographic applicability of the recommendations. -33- 23 Official Plan policies apply to "all neighbourhoods", or rather, the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. To clarify, the recommendations apply to the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. As such, there is merit in considering revised wording for the draft recommended policies. This matter is discussed in greater detail within the "Discussion" section following Table 2. 10 When will the Recommendations be Implemented? The Draft Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts will be implemented once endorsed by Council. The recommendations for the Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law amendments could take between 6 months to a year to be implemented. However, in the interim period, if there is a conflict between the Draft Urban Design Guidelines and current zoning regulations, the zoning regulations will prevail. The recommendations for other tools, including a private tree by-law and driveway by-law, may undergo further detailed review prior to being implemented. 11 How can Construction Related Issues be Addressed? Many of the comments and concerns identified by members of the public related to construction practices on building sites for infill and replacement housing, including concerns with respect to safety, property standards and maintenance. The City's brochure on Expectations for Construction Site Maintenance addresses the issues described above and is made available to all builders within the City. In addition, City staff have noted these concerns and will be communicating with the Building Department to ensure that they are aware of the issues raised through this Study. Discussion Based on the key matters and concerns outlined in Table 2, further discussion within this report is warranted with respect to certain matters that may result in a change to the draft recommendations presented. In particular, these matters are the calculation of lot coverage, separation distance between dwellings in the context of infill housing, and the geographic applicability of the recommendations. -33- 23 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report Lot Coverage As noted in Table 2, alternate Lot Coverage performance standards for the Established Neighbourhood Precincts are recommended. According to the City's Zoning By-laws, Lot Coverage is defined as "the combined areas of all the buildings on the lot measured at the level of the first floor and expressed as a percentage of the lot area". Based on this definition, the footprints of each building on a lot, including accessory structures such as a shed or a detached garage, would count towards the calculation of Lot Coverage. While the draft recommendations specified that accessory structures would be excluded from the calculation of Lot Coverage within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, this would be contrary to the definitions within the City's Zoning By-laws. The intent of the alternate Lot Coverage performance standards is to recognize existing characteristics within the Established Neighbourhood Precincts, including lot size. Since replacement dwellings within these neighbourhoods are typically constructed with attached garages, other accessory structures on the property will generally have a minimal impact on overall Lot Coverage on a property. As such, it is recommended that the existing definition of Lot Coverage apply to the alternate Lot Coverage performance standards for Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Separation Distance Between Dwellings in the Context of Infill Housing As noted in Table 2, the separation distance between dwellings in the context of infill dwellings is an important concept to consider with respect to potential compatibility issues related to shadowing, privacy and overlook. The draft recommended Official Plan policies that were presented to the public include language that speaks to this issue. In particular, proposed draft recommended policy 3.9 f) requires development to minimize impacts associated with privacy, overlook and shadowing on neighbouring properties, and to reinforce the established pattern of existing side yard setbacks and separation distances between dwellings as observed on the street. This is an appropriate policy to be included in the Official Plan, and appropriately addresses this matter at a high level. An additional zoning performance standard could be added to further support draft recommended policy 3.9 f) as it relates specifically to separation distance between dwellings in the context of infill housing. While the Zoning By-laws regulate minimum rear yard and side yard setbacks, they do not distinguish between minimum required side yard setbacks where a rear yard to rear yard condition changes to a rear yard to side yard condition. As such, an additional performance standard applicable only to "infill" housing, as defined, would require a minimum side yard setback of 4.5 metres where the side lot line abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record. A typical minimum rear yard setback for dwellings in the Established Neighbourhood Precincts is 7.5 metres, and a typical minimum side yard setback for dwellings in these neighbourhoods ranges from 1.5 metres to 2.4 metres. In addition, corner lots require a -34- 24 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report 4.5 -metre setback for the side yard flanking the street. Requiring a larger side yard separation distance where there is a rear yard to side yard condition would ensure greater separation distance between existing dwellings and infill dwellings in this situation, thus mitigating impacts related to privacy, overlook and shadowing. Geographic Applicability of the Recommendations As noted in Table 2, it is the intent of the draft recommended Official Plan policies to apply only to the corresponding Established Neighbourhood Precincts that are the subject of the draft zoning and draft urban design guideline recommendations. However, as noted, the draft recommended policies are unclear in this regard, as they could be interpreted to apply to all of the residential neighbourhoods within the City of Pickering, as currently worded. In light of this, and as suggested by comments received, changes are made to the draft recommended policies 3.9 f) and 9.2 k) to remove reference to "within the City's residential neighbourhoods" from both policies, and rely on the definitions of "infill" and "replacement housing" which are applicable to the Established Neighbourhood Precincts. To complement the above noted revision to the draft recommended policies, changes are also required to the definitions of "infill" and "replacement housing", in both the draft recommended Official Plan and Zoning By-laws, to clarify that the recommendations apply to the areas identified within Established Neighbourhood Precincts. These changes are appropriate to provide for greater clarity of interpretation. -- : Ittal9 -35- 25 rrAnitntLSISAISNISIIIWO Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report 4 Recommendations This Section of the report includes detailed recommendations for the City of Pickering to address compatibility of infill and replacement housing in established residential neighbourhoods. Where applicable, these recommendations have been revised from the previously presented draft recommendations based on feedback received through the engagement process, as discussed in the previous section of this report. Official Plan Recommendations It is recommended that the City's Official Plan be amended to include new policies and objectives to implement the Preferred Strategy for infill and replacement housing within Pickering's established neighbourhoods. Specifically, the following recommendations are made: Recommendation 1 It is recommended that new definitions be included within the Glossary of the City of Pickering Official Plan (Section 15.15), defining "infill" and "replacement housing" as follows: Infill means the development of 2 or more ground -oriented housing forms such as single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located within an `Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone', as identified in the applicable Zoning By-law. Infill does not include the development of stacked townhomes, stacked back-to-back townhomes, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi -unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. However, such proposals may be appropriate and would be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Infill can occur through draft plan of subdivision/condominium, site plan and/or consent. Replacement Housing means a smaller dwelling being substantially altered or demolished and replaced with a new larger dwelling located within an `Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone', as identified in the applicable Zoning By-law. Recommendation 2 It is recommended that a new policy be included within Policy 3.9 of the City of Pickering Official Plan, dealing with Urban Residential Areas, as follows: 4b 'a 1cus° 'a tit -36- 26 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report 3.9 City Council: (f) when considering applications for the development of infill and/or replacement housing, shall require that such development fits in, complements and is compatible with the character of the neighbourhood with respect to the following: (i) minimizing the impacts associated with privacy, overlook and shadowing on neighbouring properties and promoting development of a compatible scale as observed from neighbouring properties and the street; (ii) reinforcing the established pattern of existing side yard setbacks and separation distances between dwellings as observed on the street; (iii) reinforcing the established pattern of existing lot widths in the neighbourhood; (iv) reinforcing the established pattern of front yard setbacks on the street; (v) promoting garages and carports to be located flush with or behind the front main walls of dwellings, such that they do not dominate the width of the fagade; (vi) maximizing the front yard landscaping to the greatest extent possible; (vii) encouraging the preservation of existing mature trees to the greatest extent possible; and (viii) considering the goals and objectives of the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts. Recommendation 3 It is recommended that a new Community Design Objective be included within Policy 9.2 of the City of Pickering Official Plan, as follows: 9.2 To achieve the community design goal, City Council shall: (k) encourage the development of compatible infill and replacement housing to ensure that new development minimizes impacts related to privacy, overlook, shadowing and loss of open space, particularly with respect to the matters identified in Policy 3.9 (f). 4.2 Zoning By-law Recommendations It is recommended that the City's Zoning By-laws (specifically Zoning By-law 2511, Zoning By-law 2520 and Zoning By-law 3036) be amended to include new and updated performance standards to implement the Preferred Strategy for infill and replacement housing within Pickering's established neighbourhoods. t! i .tom• .�� -37- 27 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report The recommendations outline that a new overlay zone be created and identified within each Zoning By-law, identified as the "Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone", and that new and updated performance standards would apply only to lands covered by the overlay zone. Further, it is also recommended that these recommendations be carried forward and incorporated into the City's ongoing Comprehensive Zoning By-law Review process. Specifically, the following recommendations are made: Recommendation 4 It is recommended that Zoning By-law 2511, Zoning By-law 2520 and Zoning By-law 3036 each be amended to include the following definitions: Front Entrance "Front Entrance" shall mean the main door within the front main wall of a residential dwelling. Generally the front entrance within the front main wall of a dwelling faces the front lot line. However, in the case of corner lots, the front entrance within the front main wall of a dwelling may also face a side lot line. Infill "Infill" shall mean the development of 2 or more ground -oriented housing forms such as single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot located within an `Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone'. Infill does not include the development of stacked townhomes, stacked back-to-back townhomes, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi -unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. However, such proposals may be appropriate and would be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Infill can occur through draft plan of subdivision/condominium, site plan and/or consent. Replacement Housing "Replacement Housing" shall mean a smaller dwelling being substantially altered or demolished and replaced with a new larger dwelling located within an `Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone'. Recommendation 5 It is recommended that Zoning By-law 2511, Zoning By-law 2520 and Zoning By-law 3036 each be amended to include a map identifying specific areas for which the "Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone" would apply. A map showing the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone is included in Appendix A to this report. 104 oval �b 5m� 1120 1'�.� A z A1 -38- 28 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report Recommendation 6 It is recommended that Zoning By-law 2511, Zoning By-law 2520 and Zoning By-law 3036 each be amended to include a new section applying to the "Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone". Within each By-law, the section should include the following: SECTION X — ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOOD PRECINCT OVERLAY ZONE The following provisions shall apply to the Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone: No person shall hereafter use any building, structure or land nor erect any building or structure except in accordance with the following provisions: Recommendation 7 Further to Recommendation 6, it is recommended that Zoning By-law 2511, Zoning By-law 2520 and Zoning By-law 3036 each be amended to include the following performance standards within each Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone (Recommendations 7A -7G): Recommendation 7A X.1 Dwelling Height Maximum — 9.0 metres Recommendation 7B X.2 Height of Front Entrance The maximum height of the front entrance, as measured to the top of the floor immediately inside the front entrance, shall be 1.2 metres (6 steps) above grade. Recommendation 7C X.3 Dwelling Depth 114, 40a 1r b 5m� The maximum depth of a dwelling, measured from the minimum front yard setback to the rear wall of a dwelling, shall be as follows: i) For lots with depths up to 40 metres: 17 metres ii) For lots with depths greater than 40 metres: 20 metres -39- 29 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report Recommendation 7D X.4 Lot Coverage Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the following maximum lot coverage provisions shall apply: i) Dunbarton Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. ii) Highbush Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. iii) Liverpool Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%. iv) Rosebank Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%. v) Rougemount Neighbourhood Precincts: Maximum 30%. vi) Village East Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. vii) West Shore Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 30%. viii) Woodlands Neighbourhood Precinct: Maximum 25%. Recommendation 7E X.5 Minimum Front Yard Setback Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smaller front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the minimum front yard setback shall be equal to the smaller front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. X.6 Maximum Front Yard Setback The maximum front yard setback shall be 1.0 metre greater than the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the immediately abutting lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. For corner lots, the maximum front yard setback shall be 1.0 metre greater than the average of the existing front yard setback of the dwellings on the nearest two lots located along the same side of the street and within the same block. Recommendation 7F X.7 Width of Garage or Carport The maximum width of an attached garage or carport shall be no greater than 50% of the overall width of a dwelling. SG 1. -40- 30 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report Recommendation 7G X.8 Driveway Width Despite any other provision in this by-law, for lots within any Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone, the maximum width of a driveway shall be 6.0 metres. However, for lots where the entrance of a garage or carport is wider than 6 metres, the maximum driveway width shall be no greater than the width of the entrance of a garage or carport. Recommendation 7H X.9 Minimum Side Yard Setback for Will Housing Where the side lot line of a newly created lot for an infill dwelling abuts the rear lot line of an existing lot of record, the minimum side yard setback to the side lot line abutting the rear lot line of an existing lot of record shall be 4.5 metres. 4.3 Urban Design Recommendations Recommendation 8 It is recommended that the City adopt the "Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts" to implement the Preferred Strategy. Specifically, these urban design guidelines address the following matters: • Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch; • Height of Front Entrance; • Dwelling Length, Width and Depth; • Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings; • Garage or Carport Placement; • Driveway Width; • Front Yard Landscaping; and • Street Trees. The Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts" are included within Appendix B of this report. SG 1. - 41 - 31 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report 4.4 Recommendations for Other Tools It is recommended that the City consider the implementation of two additional tools to address infill and replacement housing in established neighbourhoods, as outlined in the Preferred Strategy. It is possible that the City may need to undertake further study to implement these tools. Recommendation 9 As described in the Preferred Strategy, it is recommended that the City implement a driveway width by-law to regulate the width of a driveway on public property, including the portion of a driveway that traverses a sidewalk and the portion of the driveway between the sidewalk and the road. Through such a by-law, the width of the portion of the driveway on public property should be limited to a maximum of 6 metres. Recommendation 10 As described in the Preferred Strategy, it is recommended that the City consider implementing a private tree by-law to protect trees. Such a by-law should include criteria to regulate the removal or injury of the trees, tree protection measures for existing trees where development is proposed nearby, as well as compensation measures to ensure the provision of new trees or, as a last resort, financial compensation to the City when trees are removed. rav -42- 32 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report 5 Next Steps Froxanws7,&‘AMISTAW-1...1 This Planning Recommendations Report, August 2020, has been prepared following the engagement opportunities described in Section 3 of this report, as well as having reviewed and considered all of the feedback received through these engagement opportunities. The next step in this Study process is that this report will be presented to Planning & Development Committee on September 14, 2020 and subsequently to Council on September 28, 2020. Should the Council endorse the recommendations, the City can then begin work on preparing an Official Plan amendment and Zoning By-law amendments, and the Urban Design Guidelines for Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts would be adopted. It is anticipated that the Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments could be finalized and implemented within 6 months to a year following Council endorsement of the Study's recommendations. It is important to note that there will be a separate public process associated with any proposed amendments to the Official Plan and Zoning By-law. The recommendation for a driveway width by-law may undergo further detailed review prior to being implemented. The recommendation to consider a private tree by-law will require further investigation. 1ek.�b 5m! 1iaw 1rvg. z NA, -43- 33 Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report APPENDIX 'A' - Established Neighbourhood Precinct Overlay Zone Mr. AStona Road Third Concession Road Finch Avenue =J Focus Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Precincts re 110 1. Bay Ridges 2. Dunbarton 3. Highbush 4. Liverpool 5. Rosebank 6. Rougemount 7. Village East 8. West Shore 9. Woodlands -44- Brock Road 4, rAnitIVI7SW1 ISMSTAWS Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study August 2020 Planning Recommendations Report APPENDIX `B' — Urban Design Guidelines for Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts 4��by 5m1 -45- Ctir6 PICKERING Urban Design Guidelines Infill & Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhood Precincts Prepared by August 2020 Table of Contents 1 Introduction 5 1.1 Why Were these Urban Design Guidelines Developed? 5 1.2 Where do these Guidelines Apply? 6 1.3 Vision 10 1.4 Objectives & Principles 11 1.5 How to use the document 12 2 Built Form 14 2.1 Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch 15 2.2 Height of Front Entrance 16 2.3 Dwelling Length, Width and Depth 18 3 Streetscape 20 3.1 Side Yard Setback and Separation Distance Between Dwellings 21 3.2 Garage or Carport Placement 22 3.3 Driveway Width 23 4 Neighbourhood Composition 25 4.1 Front Yard Landscaping 25 4.2 Street Trees 26 Appendix A: Urban Design Guideline Checklist Appendix B: Focus Neighbourhood & Precinct Map 0 Al - A2 B1 - B10 nn n 0 -48- 0 0 66 The City's distinctive landscape, history, location and settlement pattern are valuable assets. Properly nurtured, these assets can set Pickering apart from other municipalities. The City's unique identity must be fostered and promoted. 99 City of Pickering, Official Plan -49- Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts 1 Introduction 1.1 Why Were These Urban Design Guidelines Developed? Throughout several of the City of Pickering's established neighbourhoods, houses are being replaced with larger houses, existing houses are being renovated and new houses are being built. Faced with these development pressures, the City undertook the Infill and Replacement Housing in Established Neighbourhoods Study (IRHEN Study) to address a few key objectives: 1. To identify the City's established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, within the South Pickering Urban Area that may be susceptible to pressure for the development of infill and replacement housing; 2. To identify and evaluate the unique qualities and characteristics of the City's established neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, and the key issues regarding infill and replacement housing that are of concern to residents; 3. To identify and/or develop tools the City can use, including Design Guidelines, that will allow neighbourhoods, or parts thereof, to evolve while respecting the character of the area; and 4. To provide an opportunity for full and meaningful engagement and consultation with residents, agencies and the development industry through the study process. These Urban Design Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed as part of the recommendations from the IRHEN Study prepared by SGL Planning and Design Inc. The IRHEN Study developed options, including making recommendations for an appropriate policy framework, regulations and/ or tools that may be implemented so that the City has a sensitive way to manage new construction in established residential neighbourhoods. Help to refine the sense of character of a place through Design Principles; Provide detailed design direction to help implement a municipality's vision of a particular area or neighbourhood; Help implement policies in the official plan and provisions in the zoning by-law; and Are used by staff, developers and the public for evaluation and preparation of development or re -development applications. 4ae,Bgr: iL - 50 - The Urban Design Guidelines have been developed to support and enhance the following neighbourhood characteristics: Q Dwelling Height and Roof Pitch Garage or carport placement I Q o Height of the front entrance Side yard setback and separation distance between dwellings Where do these Guidelines Apply? Within the South Pickering Urban Area there are fifteen neighbourhoods. Of these fifteen neighbourhoods, the IRHEN Study identified nine Focus Neighbourhoods (Figure 1) where most of the infill and replacement housing has been constructed over the last few years. These guidelines apply to the Neighbourhood Precincts within the nine Focus Neighbourhoods as delineated within the IRHEN Study (Figure 2). The detailed delineated boudaries of the Neighbourhood Precincts are found in Appendix B. Altona Road Third Concession Road Whites Road Finch Avenue Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhoods FOCUS NEIGHBOURHOODS Bay Ridges Dunbarton Highbush Liverpool Rosebank Rougemount Village East West Shore; and Woodlands Figure 1: City of Pickering Focus Neighbourhoods Lake Ontario 4/ 52 - Neighbourhood Precincts These Neighbourhood Precincts are areas within a Focus Neighbourhood that have been delineated based on a combination of age of dwellings, existing lot coverage, and where there have been many observed changes related to infill and replacement housing Altona Road Third V co 0 cc co Concession Road Finch Avenue IMP a OFocus Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Precincts Lake Ontario FIGURE 2: Map of Neighbourhood Precincts wthin Focus Neighbourhoods Brock Road 4 8 -53- These Guidelines Use the Following Definitions: Infill Means the development of two or more ground - oriented housing forms such as single detached, semi-detached and townhouse dwellings through a consolidation of lots or the severance of a larger lot. Within the context of this document, infill does not include the development of stacked townhomes, stacked back-to-back townhomes, apartment buildings, or other forms of multi- unit housing resulting in a higher level of density. However, such proposals may be appropriate and would be evaluated on a site-specific basis. Infill can occur through draft plan of subdivision/ condominium, site plan and/or land division on a site-specific basis. Replacement Housing Involves a smaller dwelling being substantially altered or demolished and replaced with a new, larger dwelling through the building permit application process and possibly the minor variance process. Note: Existing housing stock will not be affected by these guidelines unless subject to a development application. Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts -54- 9 1.3 Vision The vision for the City of Pickering's Neighbourhood Precincts within the nine Focus Neighbourhoods is to support and enhance the character elements that collectively create a sense of place, identity and enjoyment. Recognizing that change is occurring within the Neighbourhood Precincts, the Guidelines provide a better way to manage new and infill development to support the existing character rather than freezing neighbourhoods in time. Figure 3: Images of infill and replacement housing within Pickering's Focus Neighbourhoods that respects existing character through design elements ranging from height, garage placement, setback, landscaping, roof slope, and tree protection. 10 - 55 - Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts 1.4 Objectives & Principles Objectives The objectives of the Urban Design Guidelines are informed by the City's Official Plan Community Design goals and policies and the Official Plan's Detailed Design Considerations, and support the intent of the IRHEN Study. The Guidelines have been developed to address design goals that include human scale, pedestrian comfort, permeability, context, legibility and natural heritage, as well as detailed design consideration for community image, development and subdivision design. Principles These Urban Design Guidelines intend to provide guidance and serve as an example of key principles and policies supported by the City of Pickering's Official Plan. These Guidelines are based on the following design principles: Enhance and integrate new built form that 1 is compatible with the characteristics of the Neighbourhood Precinct. Encourage architectural diversity that 2 complements the character of the Neighbourhood Precinct. 3 Encourage pedestrian friendly neighbourhoods that foster a healthy and inclusive community. 4 Enhance the character, identity and sense of place of the Neighbourhood Precinct. 5 Incorporate low impact design opportunities to mitigate the potential increase in stormwater runoff related to an increase in impervious surface and to enhance the ecosystem health. 6 Encourage the greening of streetscapes and private property. -56- m 1.5 How to Use the Document Urban Design Guidelines are used to coordinate the various components of built form, streetscape and neighbourhood composition to create an attractive, appealing and functional urban environment. These Guidelines are one of the useful tools identified from the IRHEN Study to help ensure both a high quality public and private realm within the Neighbourhood Precincts. Urban Design Guidelines establish baseline standards to guide the development of infill and replacement housing, providing for greater design rationale and detail. These Guidelines should be included in the Compendium Document to the Official Plan and are to be used in conjunction with the Official Plan, existing Development Guidelines, zoning by-laws and other planning tools. The Compendium Document of the City's Official Plan includes development guidelines for certain neighbourhoods, or parts of certain neighbourhoods. There are three development guidelines that apply in the context of the Neighbourhood Precinct that must be read in conjunction with these Guidelines: • Dunbarton Neighbourhood: Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; • Bay Ridges Neighbourhood: Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines; and • Rosebank Neighbourhood: Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Each of these development guidelines provides a differing level of detail. The Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development Guidelines contains area specific guidelines within the neighbourhood, addressing matters such as permitted dwelling type, minimum lot frontage, minimum front and side yard setbacks, maximum building height, and various guidelines for the public realm including the provision of sidewalks and cycle paths, and connectivity to natural areas. The Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines address strategies for open space, development standards to implement an effective transportation network, preserving views and vistas, providing for adequate parking areas, and promoting appropriate built form in keeping with the Great Lakes Nautical Village `vision' for the neighbourhood. The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines establish guidelines for certain precincts within the neighbourhood, that address limited matters including permitted dwelling types, minimum lot size, and lot frontage. To aid in the application of these Guidelines a checklist is provided at the end of the document (Appendix A) that summarizes the key intentions of the guidelines. Urban Design Guidelines should be read in conjunction with the Development Guidelines, and in the case of a conflict the Urban Design Guidelines take precendence. Era -57- 66 We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us. 99 Winston Churchill -58- 2 Built Form Built Form examines the design elements of building type and architectural form that contribute to the massing and appearance of buildings. The compatibility issues currently existing within the City of Pickering's Neighbourhood Precincts (Figure 4) as they relate to the elements of Built Form result from new housing typically being taller and larger than the original homes on the street. New homes can have a higher elevation of the first floor, greater lot coverage, reduced separation distances between neighbouring dwellings and reduced landscaped open area in the front yards. The overall scale, massing and placement of the new homes can create an obvious contrast when located beside more modestly sized original homes. This contrast can sometimes lead to impacts such as shadowing, overlook, and privacy. This section provides guidelines to help address compatibility issues through these Built Form design elements: • Dwelling height and roof pitch; • Height of front entrance; and • Dwelling length, width and depth. Figure 4: Examples of existing Built Form seen in Pickering's Neighbourhood Precincts. 14 -59- Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts 2.1 Dwelling Height & Roof Pitch Dwelling height can be defined as the overall height of a dwelling, typically measured from the average established grade of the ground. The point of a dwelling to which height is measured varies depending on the type and pitch of roof that exists on a dwelling (Figure 5). Measured at Highest Point Flat Roof Measured at Measured at Midpoint Midpoint alio= Gambrel Roof Gabled or Hip Roof Measured at Deckline Figure 5: Examples of how building height is measured by the City of Pickering. Mansard Roof The following guidelines ensure a compatible building height and roof style along a street. 1. The height and roof pitch of a new home or addition should be compatible with the general scale and shapes of surrounding houses (Figure 6); and 2. For buildings with the highest point above 8.5 metres, the roof should be limited to two storeys and sloped back from adjacent houses. Figure 6: Appropriate height transitions between buildings. -60- 2.2 Height of Front Entrance The location of front entrances of dwellings along a street is a contributor to the character, comfort and safety of a neighbourhood. The height of the entrance ensures the front door of the dwelling is directly visible and easily accessible from the street. Figure 7 shows the preferred number of front steps for a front entrance. Preferred 3 Steps (0.6metres) Maximum 6 steps (1.2 metres) Above 1.2 metres is prohibited Figure 7: Examples showing preferred, maximum, and prohibited front entrance heights. The following guidelines have been developed to promote compatibility of dwelling scale as perceived from the street. 1. The height of the front entrance of a dwelling should be located at a height that is compatible with the height of front entrances of neighbouring dwellings, and provide for a maximum number of six (6) steps to access the front door (Figure 8); 2. The main entrance to the dwelling should be directly visible from the street; 3. The design and detailing of the main entrance should be consistent with the architectural style of the dwelling (Figure 9); Figure 8: Front entrance with 6 steps or less. Figure 9: Main entrance architecture is in keeping with the style of the dwelling. 16 - 61 - Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts 4. Weather protection at the main entrance should be provided through the use of covered porches, porticos, canopies, verandas or recesses (Figure 10); 5. Natural light at the entry is encouraged though the use of sidelights, transoms and door glazing. 6. Enhancements to emphasize the main entry area is encouraged and may include pilasters and masonry surrounds; 7. Stairs accessing the main entrance to the dwelling should be designed as an integral component of the dwelling's facade; 8. Access routes should be provided for people with disabilities whenever possible; 9. The front entrance design and architectural elements should reduce the visual dominance of the garage and the front driveway (Figure 11); and 10. Subject to site grading conditions, additional sets of steps, separated by a pathway, may be permitted in order to promote a more comfortable pedestrian experience (Figure 12). Figure 10: Front entrance should have weather protection. Figure 11: Front entrance design that reduces the visual dominance of the garage. Figure 12: Additional steps may be permitted due to grade changes. 4, - 62 - 2.3 Dwelling Length, Width & Depth Dwelling length is the distance measured between the front and rear main walls of a dwelling, and Dwelling width is the distance measured between both side main walls of a dwelling (Figure 13). Dwelling depth is the measurement of the distance between the minimum front yard setback and the rear of the dwelling, which is a measure of how deep a dwelling protrudes into a lot, irrespective of the actual length of that same dwelling (Figure 14). The following guidelines help guide appropriate dwelling depths, lengths and widths that are compatible with other dwellings on the same street (Figure 13 & 14): 1. For new dwellings or dwelling additions, Dwelling Length and Width should be in keeping with the rhythm of the street. 2. Dwelling depth should be generally in keeping with the existing dwellings along a street to avoid privacy and overshadow issues. Dwelling Length Rear yard Setback Front Yard Dwelling Setback Width tine Fiaure 13: Example of dwelling length, and width. Dwelling Depth io Figure 14: Example of similar front and rear yard setbacks, and dwelling depths. 18 -63- 66 You can't really say what is beautiful about a place, but the image of the place will remain vividly with you. 99 Tadao Ando -64- 3 Streetscape Streetscape examines the relationship of buildings to the street and other buildings, as well as the other defining landscape characteristics of properties within the private realm. The following summarizes the compatibility issues that are currently associated with the key elements of Streetscape in Pickering's Neighbourhood Precincts related to: • Side yard setback and separation distance between dwellings; • Garage or carport placement; • Driveway width; and • Front Yard Landscaping (see Section 4.1 for more details). It is common for larger replacement dwellings to be built much closer to the side property line than the original homes while still complying with the required zone standards. This affects the established consistency of larger separation distances between dwellings. The result changes the pattern of development and creates a sense of crowdedness along the street. The garages and/or carports of original houses are typically sized for one vehicle and are sometimes set back from the front facade and therefore do not dominate the front of the dwelling. New infill and replacement houses typically have wider garages that are integral to the house to accommodate two or more vehicles. New infill and replacement dwellings often have wider driveways than those of the original dwellings within an established neighbourhood, which reduce the amount of landscaping on the property and alter the open space character of a lot and streetscape. 20 -65- Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts 3.1 Side Yard Setback & Separation Distance Between Dwellings Side Yard Setback refers to the distance between the side property line and the nearest exterior side wall of the dwelling on that property. Separation Distance Between Dwellings refers to the distance between the side wall of one dwelling to the nearest side wall of the adjacent dwelling (Figure 15). The Separation Distance Between Dwellings, whether large or small, has an impact on the perceived sense of open space in a neighbourhood. Typically, in Neighbourhood Precincts in Pickering, there is a larger separation distance between the original dwellings in that neighbourhood when compared to newer subdivisions in other parts of the city. A larger separation distance between dwellings has the effect of reducing the perceived massing of a dwelling and increasing the opportunity for providing landscaped open space. The following guidelines for Side Yard Setback and separation distance have been developed to reinforce the open space patterns within Neighbourhood Precincts. 1. Adequate Separation Distance Between Dwellings should be maintained to reinforce open space patterns between dwellings on the same block (Figure 16); and 2. Where needed, greater Side Yard Setbacks should be used to mitigate shadowing associated with greater building mass. Side Yard Setback Property Line Separation Distance Between Dwellings Figure 15: Examples of separation distance between dwellings and side yard setback. Figure 16: Google map aerial of Cliffview Road and Park Crescent showing the replacement housing (yellow) differs in side yard setback and separation distance between houses as compared to original dwellings (red). 66 - 3.2 Garage or Carport Placement The location and placement of a garage or carport has an impact on the streetscape and overall character of a neighbourhood. In Pickering, Neighbourhood Precincts have an eclectic character with respect to garage and carport placement. The following garage or carport placement guidelines have been developed to minimize the impact of projecting garages, where they are part of the neighbourhood character 1. Garage and parking configurations should minimize the appearance of garage doors from the street (Figure 17); 2. To minimize the massing impacts of projecting garages they should have sloped roofs; 3. Double car garages should have two single garage doors separated by a masonry column or, in the case of a full double wide door garage, a style with the appearance of two single bay doors, and a centre pier should be encouraged (Figure 18); 4. Projecting garages are only permitted in neighbourhoods where there are multiple pre- existing projecting garages on both sides of the street (Figure 19); and 5. In neighbourhoods where projecting garages are not part of the neighbourhood character, all new infill and replacement dwellings are to have the garages either flush with, or recessed behind, the front main wall of a dwelling. Flush Garage Recessed Garage Figure 17: Examples of garage and carport placement in relation to the main front wall of the dwelling. Figure 18: Garages recessed behind the front entrance minimize the appearance of garage doors. Figure 19: Examples of multiple projecting garages. -67- Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts 3.3 Driveway Width The width of a driveway can have a significant impact on the streetscape of a neighbourhood. New infill and replacement dwellings with wider driveways to accommodate a greater number of vehicles, when compared to prevalent driveway widths, have the effect of reducing the amount of landscaping on a property, removing mature trees, limiting the space for street trees and impacting the character of the street. Driveway widths also have an impact on infiltration into the soil. The following guidelines have been developed to minimize driveway width and help minimize the impact to the streetscape, to support the character of the Neighbourhood Precincts. 1. Driveways are to be no wider than the width of the permitted garage (Figure 20); 2. To maximize water infiltration, consideration should be given to the use of permeable pavers and other technologies (Figure 21); and 3. To ensure that there is sufficient space for planting street trees between driveways within the public right of way, tapering driveway widths to 6 metres is encouraged where appropriate. 4-111.14 � w Figure 20: The driveway width is no wider than the garage. ��__._ �} , Figure 21: Example of a permeable paver system appropriate for driveways and pathways. -68- 66 Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody. 99 Jane Jacobs -69- Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts 4 Neighbourhood Composition Neighbourhood Composition generally includes elements in the public realm that contribute to neighbourhood character. In the case of the City's established neighbourhoods, private landscaping in front yards including mature trees, and street trees, contribute to the overall character of the neighbourhoods. In order to help maintain and enhance the character of the public realm, landscaping, preservation of existing trees, and tree planting is encouraged. 4.1 Front Yard Landscaping Front yards provide an opportunity to add to the neighbourhood composition by creating a great streetscape. As well, landscaping and trees play an important role in lowering summer temperatures and providing areas for rainwater to filter into the ground. The following guidelines have been developed to ensure that front yard landscaping enhances the character of the streetscape: 1. Existing mature trees should be preserved whenever possible (Figure 22). 4ae,Bgr: iL 2. Native tree species should be chosen that are hardy for the location and that are drought and salt tolerant, and disease resistant (Figure 22). 3. Avoid landscaping that completely screens the view of the house from the sidewalk/ street. 4. Use ground cover or other low -growing plants to maintain visibility of the house. 5. Use drought -resistant native plant species to avoid having to continuously water. (Figure 23) 6. Limit paving in the front yard to walkways and small areas at the front door. Figure 22: Preserve mature trees wherever possible. Figure 23: sustainable and resilient front yard landscaping. -70- 4.2 Street Trees Planting street trees as part of an infill or replacement project goes a long way to add to the character of the neighbourhood. The following guidelines have been prepared to ensure that street trees are provided as part of the infill or replacement dwelling: 1. Trees on all streets should be a diverse mixture of species to limit the ability for diseases to spread. If a uniform look is desired it can be achieved by focusing on matching the form of trees rather than using the same species (Figure 24). 2. Selection of trees should take into consideration mature tree size, proximity to power lines and setback to existing trees or structures. 3. Wherever possible large canopy shade trees should be planted adjacent to sidewalks to reduce the heat island effect and enhance pedestrian comfort and safety. 4. Adequate space should be provided for trunk expansion. 5. Native tree species should be chosen that are hardy for the location and that are drought and salt tolerant, and disease resistant (Figure 25). 6. Street trees should be spaced at 10 to 12 metres apart or seek to reflect the existing placement pattern of street trees (Figure 26). Figure 24: A mixture of tree species with the same form along a street add to the character and resiliency. Figure 25: Several varieties of Maple Trees are native and provide fall colour. Figure 26: Street Trees should be planted 10 to 12 metres apart. 26 - 71 - Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Appendix A Urban Design Guideline Checklist City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Urban Design Checklist Please note, if you mark "no" below please provide your rational in the adjacent "Comments" section either supporting, or not supporting the proposal. YES NO Comments 1. Does the proposed dwelling have a sloped O 0 roof proposed such as a Hip, Gable, Mansard or Gambrel? (see Figure 5) 2. Is the proposed dwelling height and roof pitch O 0 similar/compatible with the surrounding dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 1) O 0 3. For dwellings with a height greater than 8.5 metres - is the dwelling a maximum two storeys with a sloped roof back from the adjacent dwellings? (see Section 2.1: Guideline 2) O 0 4. Does the front entrance have 6 or less steps? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 1) O 0 5. Is the main entrance visible from the street? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 2) 6. Is the design of the main entrance consistent with O 0 the architectural style of the dwelling? (Section 2.2: Guidelines 3 and 4) O 0 7. Does the main entrance include a porch, portico or other weather protection in keeping with the design of the dwelling? (see Section 2.2: Guideline 4) 8. Are the stairs to the main entrance designed as O 0 an integral component of the front facade? (Section 2.2: Guideline 7) 9. Does the design of the front entrance reduce O 0 the visual dominance of the garage and driveway? (Section 2.2: Guideline 9) 10. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar O 0 Dwelling Depth to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Section 2.3: Guideline 2) - 72 - Al Appendix A Urban Design Checklist Cont'd YES NO Comments Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts 11. Does the proposed dwelling have a similar Side O 0 Yard Setback to the adjacent dwellings along the street? (see Figure 15) 12. Has shadow on adjacent dwellings been O 0 mitigated with greater setbacks? (Section 3.1: Guideline 2) O 0 13. If a projecting garage is permitted, does it have a sloped roof? (see Section 3.2: Guidelines 2 and 4) 14. If a double car garage is proposed, does it O 0 have 2 single doors or is it designed to look like 2 separate doors? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 3) O 0 15. Is the garage flush or recessed from the main front wall? (see Section 3.2: Guideline 5) 16. Is the proposed driveway width the same as the O 0 permitted garage width? (see Section 3.3: Guideline 1) O 0 17. Are sustainable design features or resilient landscaping proposed as part of the site design? (Section 3.3: Guideline 2 and Section 4.1: Guideline 5) O 0 18. Does the plan preserve existing trees? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 1) O 0 19. Does the plan include tree planting on private property? (see Section 4.1: Guideline 2) O 0 20. Does the plan include one or more native species street trees? (Section 4.2) A2 -73- 714 WI! Ible% .1111W Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Appendix B Focus Neighbourhoods & Precinct Map Altona Road Third CU 0 CC CO 0 Finch Avenue Concession Road Nog ay ;1/‘ O Focus Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Precincts FOCUS NEIGHBOURHOODS Brock Road 1. Bay Ridges 4. Liverpool 7. Village East 2. Dunbarton 3. Highbush 5. Rosebank 8. West Shore 6. Rougemount 9. Woodlands -74- B1 Appendix B Focus Neighbourhoods Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Bay Ridges Neighbourhood Precinct .a Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Lot Coverage: 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40- 50% 50 - 100% B2 - 75 - SGL Urban Design Guidelines nunbarton City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Lot Coverage: 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% Neighbourhood Precinct Kingston Road Corridor Study Area -76- B3 Appendix B Focus Neighbourhoods Highbush Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering ed Establish Neighbourhood Precincts B4 - 77 - 0- 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% SO - 100% orp,m,n, Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Liverpool Lot Coverage: 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40- 50% 50 - 100% ir--r Neighbourhood Precinct Kingston Road Corridor Study Area -78- B5 Appendix B Focus Neighbourhoods Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Rosebank B6 79 -tirt, 'quo 0- 10% 10.20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% M- 50 - 100% '$ L Urban Design Guidelines ougemount City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Neighbourhood Precinct Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage: 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% 80 - B7 Appendix B Focus Neighbourhoods Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Village East Neighbourhood Precinct Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage: 0 - 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40-50% M_ 50 - 100% — B8 - 81 - 42,74 enr, -$ Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts - 82 - 0. 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40- 50% 50 - I00% B9 Appendix B Focus Neighbourhoods Woodlands Urban Design Guidelines City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts Neighbourhood Precinct Kingston Road Corridor Study Area Lot Coverage: 0- 10% 10 - 20% 20 - 30% 30 - 40% 40 - 50% 50 - 100% B10 -83- 714 WI! Ible% .1111W Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 18-20 Appendix Urban Design Guidelines Focus Neighbourhoods & Precinct Map Altona Road Third Finch Avenue Concession Road City of Pickering Established Neighbourhood Precincts al FOCUS NEIGHBOURHOODS =Focus Neighbourhood Neighbourhood Precincts Brock Road 1. Bay Ridges 4. Liverpool 7. Village East 2. Dunbarton 3. Highbush 5. Rosebank 8. West Shore 6. Rougemount 9. Woodlands -84- B1 Cfy �t DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 14-20 Date: August 10, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Shared Network Canada Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, Plan 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) Installation #66 Recommendation: 1. That Shared Network Canada be advised that City Council does not object to the proposal for a 45.0 metre high tapered self -supported style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road, based on the design and location of the revised proposal. Executive Summary: Shared Network Canada has submitted a revised proposal to construct a 45.0 metre high tapered self -supported style telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road within the Claremont Union Cemetery (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #1). The applicant initially proposed to construct a 46.0 metre high tri -pole lattice style telecommunication tower located in the northwest corner of the Claremont Union Cemetery property. At the June 17, 2019 Planning & Development Committee meeting, staff recommended that Council object to the location of the telecommunication tower based on its location and design. Planning & Development Committee recommended that the matter be referred back to staff for further review and discussions with the applicant regarding the City's protocols pertaining to the telecommunication tower. Based on further discussions with Shared Network Canada regarding the location and design of the tower, the applicant has relocated the tower to the northeast corner of the property and revised the design of the tower to maximize the distance from the nearest residential dwellings and reduce any negative visual impact. Shared Network Canada has completed the public consultation process for the revised tower location in accordance with the City's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol (Cell Tower Protocol). The key concerns expressed by two area residents were the perceived impacts on health and property values associated with the proposed cell tower, the business model of the proponent and the visual impact of the tower. Three comments were received in support of the revised tower location. -85- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 2 City staff have reviewed the revised installation proposal against the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The proposed tower is located within a rural area and has minimal impact on the existing operation of the cemetery and minimal visual impact on the immediate area. The cell tower meets the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location requirements and is located with appropriate setbacks from the surrounding residential properties. Staff recommends that Shared Network Canada be advised that Council does not object to the proposed telecommunication tower located at 2170 Ninth Concession Road, based on the revised design and other details submitted with the application. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject property is located on the north side of Ninth Concession Road, east of Sideline 14 and west of Sideline 12. The property currently supports the Claremont Union Cemetery (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #1). The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Oak Ridges Moraine Countryside Area" and "Prime Agricultural Areas on the Oak Ridges Moraine". The portion of the subject site where the revised cell tower is proposed to be located is zoned Oak Ridges Moraine Institutional Zone ("(H)ORM-I-2") within Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 6640/06. A telecommunication tower is a permitted use under the public utilities exemption of Zoning By-law 3037. 1.2 Applicant's Original and Revised Proposal Shared Network Canada initially proposed a 46.0 metre high tri -pole lattice -style telecommunication tower. The tower was proposed to be located in the northwest corner of the subject lands where it would be contained within a fenced compound area (see Original Submitted Plan, Attachment #2 and Original Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan Attachment #3). At the June 17, 2019 Planning & Development Committee meeting, staff recommended that the Committee object to the initial proposal, as the proposed tower did not satisfy the location and design criteria of the City's Cell Tower Protocol. The Committee referred the matter back to staff, for further review and discussion with the applicant. In November 2019, Shared Network Canada submitted a revised proposal for a 45.0 metre high tapered self-supporting style telecommunication tower to be located in the northeast corner of the subject property where no burials have occurred (see Revised Submitted Plan, Attachment #4). The tower will be painted and illuminated in accordance with the requirements of Transport Canada and NAV Canada. -86- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 3 The proposed tower will be contained within a fenced compound area measuring 13.0 metres by 13.0 metres in size. Also proposed within the fenced compound are 3 ground -related cabinets that will contain supporting infrastructure for the tower. The security fence will be 1.8 metres in height and topped with barb wire (see Revised Elevation and Compound Plan, Attachment #5). Access to the tower and ground equipment will be provided by a new gravel driveway located along the west side of the property. The new driveway will connect to the existing gravel driveway, which provides access to the cemetery from the Ninth Concession Road. As a result of the revised location and design of the tower, Shared Network Canada was required to initiate a new Public Consultation process for the revised proposal. 2. Comments Received 2.1 City Departments & Agency Comments Engineering Services • no comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • the subject property is partially located within TRCA's Regulated Area • no objection to the proposal 2.2 Public Notification has been completed for the revised proposal Shared Network Canada has completed the public consultation in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol for the revised proposal. As this proposal is located in a rural area, the minimum circulation radius of 500 metres from the tower location was applied. A total of 11 property owners were notified by mail, and a newspaper notification was placed in the November 21, 2019 edition of the News Advertiser. A Public Notice sign was also posted at the front of the subject property along Ninth Concession Road on November 21, 2019. The applicant has advised that a total of 5 written comments were received as a result of the circulation (see Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report, Attachment #6). Written comments received from 2 adjacent property owners to the east and west expressing concerns related to: • the perceived impacts on property value associated with the proposed cell tower; • the perceived negative health implications associated with a telecommunications tower; • the business model of the applicant, which is to maximize revenues by erecting and operating for profit the maximum number of cell towers; • inconsistency with the design and location criteria of the City's Cell Tower Protocol; and • inaccurate representations in the supporting materials submitted. Written comments from 2 other households and the representatives from the Claremont Union Cemetery expressed support for the proposed cell tower, indicating that they experience unreliable cellular and internet services on a daily basis. The letters also indicated that the proposed cell tower will improve such services and their quality of life. -87- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 4 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 Assessment of the Proposal against the City's Cell Tower Protocol The City's Cell Tower Protocol was established to provide direction for proponents on the location and design of antenna towers and provide criteria for staff to assess a proposal. City Development staff have reviewed the proposed cell tower against the location and design criteria of the City's Cell Tower Protocol (the Protocol). 3.1.1 The revised proposal maintains the location criteria of the City's Protocol The Protocol specifies "preferred" and "discouraged" locations for new antenna systems to minimize the number of towers and facilities required to service the City and limit the visual impacts of towers on the surrounding area. The Protocol outlines that sites within industrial, commercial, and non-residential, or that maximize the distance from residential areas are preferred locations for antenna system installations. Additionally, the use of City -owned lands or facilities where technically feasible is strongly encouraged. The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in residential areas, on sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views, and within environmentally sensitive lands or immediately adjacent to Heritage Properties. The subject lands are a non-residential property located within the rural area. However, the tower was initially proposed to be sited in the northwest portion of the subject lands, located approximately 100 metres from the nearest residential dwelling. Following the initial Public Consultation process, City staff requested that the applicant examine alternative properties for the proposed tower within the surrounding area, which were further from residential dwellings. At that time, Shared Network Canada advised that following an extensive review of the surrounding area, no viable alternative sites were available for their desired service area. The applicant cited airport zoning regulations limiting height, unwilling property owners and topography as limiting factors for an alternative site. Subsequently, City staff requested the applicant explore relocating the proposed tower in an alternative location on the subject lands, to maximize the distance from existing residential dwellings. As a result, the applicant re -located the proposed tower to the northeast corner of the subject lands. The revised tower location is approximately 180 metres from the nearest residential dwelling. The location of the proposed tower maximizes the distance from the 3 closest residential dwellings immediately to the east and west, which will contribute to minimizing the visual impacts on the adjacent property owners. Existing vegetation along the north, east and west property boundaries will further reduce the visual impact of the proposed tower and will screen ground -related supporting infrastructure. 3.1.2 The revised proposal incorporates the design considerations of the City's Protocol The Protocol outlines specific design criteria that are required to be maintained to minimize the visual impact of an antenna system on the surrounding area. The criteria require designs that: 88 - Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 5 • accommodate for future co -location of additional carriers; • utilize stealth techniques such as flagpoles, clock towers, trees and light poles, where appropriate and in harmony with the context of the surrounding area; • utilize monopole towers with antennas shrouded or flush -mounted, particularly when the tower is proposed near a residential area; • are not illuminated, unless required by Transport Canada; and • screen equipment shelters by landscaping in a matter that is compatible and sensitive to the surrounding area. The initial proposal was for a 46.0 metre high tri -pole lattice style tower, which was an equal width from the base to the top (see Original Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan, Attachment #3). Following the Public Consultation process for the initial proposal, City staff recommended that the applicant explore alternative tower designs that would minimize the visual impact of the tower on the adjacent residents and the broader landscape. Through consultation with the applicant, it was determined that the proposed location of the tower does not lend itself to utilizing a monopole tower or stealth techniques such as a flagpole or tree design as the surrounding area is rural and does not benefit from having mature vegetation. The applicant revised the design to propose a 45.0 metre high tapered self-supporting style tower (see Revised Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan, Attachment #5). This tower design benefits from having a lattice style, which is more characteristic of the rural area and will appear more open and transparent than a monopole tower, minimizing any potential shadowing. The tower will also narrow significantly as it reaches its maximum height. The revised tower design will contribute to reducing the visual impact of the tower on adjacent residents and is appropriate for the proposed location in the rural area. The proposed tower maintains the criteria established by the Protocol. 3.2 Co -location and Alternative Locations have been examined The applicant provided a justification report to the City Development Department in support of the tower. The applicant investigated the opportunity to co -locate their equipment in the immediate area. Shared Network Canada advised that the closest existing tower was located approximately 1.8 kilometres away in Claremont and is operated by Bell. The applicant outlined the Bell tower is located within a building and does not exceed 4.0 metres in height. This tower would not be available for co -location and does not serve the capacity issues in the proposed area. Three towers were also identified, which are located approximately 6.8 kilometres to the west, approximately 4.7 kilometres to the north and approximately 7.4 kilometres to the east. Shared Network Canada indicated that these towers would not accommodate their network coverage requirements or desired service area, and were therefore not viable for co -location. Shared Network Canada has confirmed that the proposed tower has been engineered to accommodate co -location by multiple service providers, including Rogers, Bell, and Freedom Mobile. -89- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 6 3.3 Comments received regarding health and safety concerns Two adjacent property owners expressed concerns related to perceived concerns with the health impacts of cell towers and the radio frequencies they emit. The City of Pickering's Cell Tower Protocol does not address health-related concerns respecting cell towers as this is not within our jurisdiction or expertise. The licensing of cell towers is regulated by the Radiocommunication Act through Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC). ISEDC requires all operators to meet the requirements of Safety Code 6: Health Canada's Radiofrequency Exposure Guidelines. Health Canada reminds all Canadians that their health is protected from radiofrequency fields by the human exposure limits recommended in Safety Code 6. Health Canada indicates that it has established and maintained a general public exposure limit that incorporates a wide safety margin and is therefore far below the threshold for potentially adverse health effects. The adjacent property owner immediately to the east also expressed they are concerned the tower poses a safety hazard and that in the event it falls, it would cause significant damage to their property. Shared Network Canada has attested that the proposed tower will be constructed in compliance with the Canadian Standard Association and comply with good engineering practices including structural adequacy. As a part of the applicant's submission to ISEDC, they will be required to submit engineering drawings for all aspects of the tower's construction, including structural components. 3.4 Additional concerns were related to the applicants business model and impacts on property value Residents also expressed concerns regarding the business model of the applicant and the impact on property values of the existing homes in the area as a result of the proposed cell tower. The purpose of the City's Cell Tower Protocol is to establish an enhanced public consultation process and provide the City's specific location and design guidelines for antenna systems located in the City. Concerns about the business model of the applicant or the possible impact of the proposal on property values is not a consideration under the City's Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna System Protocol. 3.5 Comments received in support of the proposal A total of three written comments were received in support of the revised telecommunication tower proposal. Comments from two households expressed that the proposed cell tower would contribute to more reliable cellular coverage in the Claremont area, allowing residents to have better connectivity to family, friends and emergency services. Comments were also received from representatives from the Claremont Union Cemetery on behalf of the Board of Directors, expressing support for the proposed tower. The comments outlined that cellular network coverage within the rural area is undependable, particularly for farmers working on large properties and that the proposed tower will provide for improved cellular connection and dependability. -90- Report PLN 14-20 August 10, 2020 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Page 7 4. Conclusion The revised proposal has been circulated and reviewed in accordance with the City's Cell Tower Protocol. Staff recommend that Council endorse the recommendation in this report as the installation satisfies the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location requirements. The tower is located on a rural property and appropriately set back from the existing residential dwellings to the east and west. Furthermore, the visual appearance of the tower will be minimized due to the revised tower design. The proposed tower will contribute to improving the availability and reliability of the cellular network in the rural area of the City, in particular the Claremont area. Attachments 1. Air Photo Map 2. Original Submitted Plan 3. Original Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan 4. Revised Submitted Plan 5. Revised Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan 6. Applicant's Public Consultation Summary Report Prepared By: Original Signed By: Cody Morrison Planner II Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CM:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By: Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer - 91 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 14-20 Cd# 4 Air Photo Map File: Installation #66 PICKER] NG City Development Department Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road Date: Jul. 07, 2020 n ©The Cerporaden of the City of Pickenng Produced (in part) under Ilcense from; © Queens Pnnter, Ontano Minstry of Natural aces. All rights reserved.;© Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natvuts al Resources. All rreserved.; served.;©pflAssessment sessment Corporation and its slppfers all rights reserved.; ©Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its suppliers all rights rela SCALE: 1:10, 000 I THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 14-20 Proposed Tower Location 1. 4 T .—..-- �: xml z v 0 TREEs e m 4 j' a -, --- i '-' 3 ' /r— ---A..... �\� Al ,. 7 o l 3`s'/ /fig- 0.1 ` -' i 3, canuc- owrc.ur c� \'''''' . 1 I t — — a. 1 13 g (it Y7 s s ,. L--=1 / % l\� / L ss� f W z 1 is .' a f, e 1 o-. I N 1 ,S, Nn 1'''' 1 111 1 IA, Z D 0 I il W 1 1 lamt E,en 9m a r)_'''—a:-r---- 814 7 v1.61SP+) f�+kiq L. --.-`s.:-. `s em___ v 1iNG �fl41i1.—A A y cnisiPuv✓cc F b �. AsrH!ur Eooe �+.4 1. Ninth Concession Road PICKERING City Development Department Original Submitted Plan File No: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: July 7, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\S\CommunicationTowers -93- Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 14-20 ELEVATION PLAN NOT TO SCALE OUTER SURFACE =300.00 V TOWER TOP =299.5 V AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT = 255.Om GROUND =253.50 < 0 ce a0 La II 0 PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1:200 0 0 10.00 L 7 E r 3m j j_ 3m PICKERING City Development Department Original Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan File No: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: July 7, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\S\CommunicationTowers -94- Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 14-20 $49:5 141, N 7'57]74 (P1) N1P36N0' E (Nxa I aI 1 ff pari 5 0 0 a 9u T mAr¢ uWxEWAW ,--4— BIS f. 0 WO GATE �� N Toye'ea• �� Px `1v g /�gPxkT ECO: �1 �•;� 4 -%-4,." REGIONAL ROAD No.5 (NCAD ALLOWANCE I[TW[FN CONCESNONS PN ;6392-0002 (LT) 4; 4b r 1 Proposed Tower Location (17) 99w-t5C9t Md PICKERING City Development Department Revised Submitted Plan File No: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: July 7, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\S\CommunicationTowers -95- Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 14-20 ELEVATION PLAN NOT TO SCALE OUTER SURFACE = 300.00 TOWER TOP =293.6 E AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT =255.Om V w U z wco 11 U GROUND =248.6 PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1:200 a 13.00 fI 12.00 r i •r, - --il I • : Lt �m_J r' '-1 • I I, Er a • •L 3m j • VY SEE ELEVATION PLAN .50 0.50 8 wi PICKERING City Development Department Revised Elevation Plan and Compound Layout Plan File No: Installation #66 Applicant: Shared Network Canada Property Description: Part of Lot 14, Concession 9, Now Parts 2 to 4, 40R-20211 (2170 Ninth Concession Road) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: July 7, 2020 L:\Planning\01-MapFiles\S\CommunicationTowers -96- Attachment #6 to Report #PLN 14-20 e.""4 shared netwNorAD Ak C A May 28, 2020 Town of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Re: Proposed New Telecommunication Tower Installation Claremont Cemetery, Concession 9, Claremont, ON File No. SNC0120 Contents Introduction 2 Coverage Objective 3 Site Profile 7 Public Consultation 12 Tower Change / 2nd Public Consultation 13 Conclusion 14 Appendix A - AZR (Airport Zoning) Report Appendix B - Detailed Site Profile Appendix C - Public Consultation Comments / Responses Appendix D - Public Consultation Proofs Appendix E - 2nd Public Consultation Comments / Responses Appendix F - 2nd Public Consultation Proofs Appendix E - Site Survey 1 _97_ shared network C A N A 4/4-46 A Introduction Shared Network Canada is proposing a new wireless telecommunications facility at the Claremont Cemetery in Claremont - Pickering. The subject property is a parcel located in Claremont, northwest of the intersection of Concession Road 9 and Sideline Road 12. The proposed location is indicated by the blue star on the following aerial photograph: The proposed structure is a 45 -metre tower. The telecommunications tower location has been situated based on the anticipated current network improvement needs of wireless telecommunication companies. Approval of the tower would allow carriers to locate upon the tower instead of constructing their own, single carrier installations. The tower height and compound size will accommodate multiple wireless service providers, including licensed cellular carriers. As of the date of this application, an incumbent national carrier has expressed interest in collocating on the proposed pole. The tower is being designed to accommodate multiple antenna equipment from Rogers, Bell and Freedom Mobile, including space for their radio equipment cabinets within the fenced area located on the north end of the field. Space on the tower will also be made available for any fixed wireless Internet tenants, as well as for municipal/public communication equipment purposes. 2 _98- 0"1 r shared network C A N A 4/4-46 A Coverage Objective The proposed installation is designed to improve wireless services in the Town of Claremont due to high capacity of users in the surrounding farm areas as well as the high traffic demand of this busy intersection. Significant suburban development in this location has increased demand for wireless services in the area, and the increase in demand will continue as additional properties are developed, and people discard their fixed lines. As residents continue to rely solely on their mobile devices and mobile device coverage, safety issues arise as residents require the ability to call for help in the case of an emergency. As fixed household lines are no longer seen as necessities, having access to good signal for mobile devices in houses, stores and in vehicles in order to have the ability to contact emergency services has become a necessity. Gaps in cellular coverage are evident in Claremont, both in residences or while outside driving. Wireless internet connectivity and speeds to local residents, especially rural, is lacking due to its proximity to the nearest wireless connection point. — _• The nearest existing installation to the proposed SNC0120 facility (blue star on the map photograph below) is an in -building Bell Mobile installation at small building owned by Bell on Joseph St. & Wixson St. approximately 1.76km from the proposed site. This system is not meant to service the entirety of the region as the maximum height of the building is 4m, and there is no opportunity for co -location. 3 _99- shared network A N A D A Image of the Bell installation location surrounded by residential properties in the heart of Claremont where co -location is not an option as a tower or pole would not be a suitable option for the surrounding community. The next nearest tower installations are found 6.82km to the west, 4.66km to the north, and 7.36km to the east from the Town of Claremont. These grand setbacks are the main contributor to a lack of cellular coverage, and co -location opportunities in Claremont. 4 - 100 - shared network A N A D A Above is our proposed location, we chose to set the proposed tower back as far as possible from the Town of Claremont while continuing to allow the installation to provide great coverage to the entire Town, surrounding communities and commuting traffic. 5 - 101 - shared network C A N A D A Shared Network Canada has been searching for a proposed site in this area to adequately cover the Town of Claremont since 2017. Following each meeting with the Planning Department of the City of Pickering and in order to address one comment received during the public consultation process we exhausted every possible alternate location. Due to airport zoning restrictions in the area, Claremont and the surrounding area is considered to be in the Outer Surface and no obstruction is permitted above an elevation of 300.0m above sea level. Attached in "Appendix A" is such report for the proposed location, but this depicts our necessity to find a property with a low elevation (as seen in Site Profile) in order to comply with the federal regulations. Moving to the north of Claremont is not an option since the elevation rises the further we moved away from the Town. We explored any alternative location possible, but due to many constraints, the airport constraint mentioned along with the other constraints below, the location we are proposing is the only adequate location to propose a tower to service the Town. We've attached the above map for reference: • depicts Landlords we've approached who either weren't interested or weren't open to discussing. • Yellow Cross Hatching is Federally owned land for the purposes of the prospective airport. • were areas that are restricted by the conservation authorities as well as the height restriction issue. • al is an owner that was interested but his property is surrounded by many residential properties abutting in very close proximity. 6 - 102 - rirshared`CANADA 46 Site Profile 7 - 103 - 0.A shared network t-.16 A 8 - 104 - shared network C A 9 - 105 - 0.A shared network t-.16 A 10 - 106 - • shared network CANADA The proposed tripole tower, as depicted by the sample photos included as "Appendix B". The tower design has been selected to provide maximum collocation potential with a relatively small footprint and limited visual impact on the immediate surrounding. The proposed tripole tower blends in with the rural community, minimizing its profile against the surrounding area and is also a compatible design with the character of its immediate area. 11 - 107 - oak. shared network CANADA Public Consultation On Sept. 2, 2014, City of Pickering adopted a protocol (City of Pickering Protocol for Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems (Cell Tower Protocol) — File A-1110-004 The City's Protocol can be viewed at www.pickering.ca. In consideration of the community and at the City's request, Shared Network Canada conducted a public consultation on the proposed site at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont in order to provide the community with the information on the proposal. This process allowed the City, Shared Network Canada and the public to exchange information pertaining to our installation. The City of Pickering has developed a protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. In accordance with the City's Protocol, Shared Network Canada is required to provide a notice to all property owners located within 500m of the furthest point of the tower compound. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Shared Network Canada provided an information package to all those property owners located within a radius of up to 500 metres from the base of the installation. Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation Shared Network Canada placed a notice in the local community newspaper, News Advertiser, and erected 1 sign on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. Copy of this information package was also provided to the City of Pickering's Planning Department and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. In agreement with the municipality, 13 notices were mailed to neighbouring property owners, located within the radius from the subject property, up to 500m. Of the 13 notices mailed during the consultation, Shared Network Canada received a total of 3 comments. 1 comment received was in opposition of the site 2 comments received were in support of the site Both comments in support come from residences outside of the information package notification radius (500m from installation). All comments and responses have been attached into "Appendix C". 12 - 108 - shared network CANADA Tower Change The Shared Network Canada proposal for this tower was brought to the Pickering City Council Meeting on June 17, 2019, in which Council deferred their decision on the approval of the proposed tower to allow Shared Network Canada further work with the City Planning Team and local residents to enhance their proposal. Shared Network Canada proposed many options to the City Planning Team, in terms of new location on the other side of the property along with different tower styles to be used. Through working with the planning team, Shared Network Canada changed the location of the proposed tower to be placed on the most northeast corner of the Cemetery Property, the furthest possible setback from all local residents possible. Shared Network Canada also changed the tower type from a large lattice tower to a slim -line self-support tower, which will further and greatly reduce the visual impact to the immediate area. 2nd Public Consultation In consideration of the community and the City's request, Shared Network Canada conducted a second public consultation on the proposed site at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont in order to provide the community with the information on the proposal. This process allowed the City, Shared Network Canada and the public to exchange information pertaining to our installation. The City of Pickering has developed a protocol for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. In accordance with the City's Protocol, Shared Network Canada is required to provide a notice to all property owners located within 500m of the furthest point of the tower compound. In fulfillment of the City's request for public notification, Shared Network Canada provided an information package to all those property owners located within a radius of up to 500 metres from the base of the installation. Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation Shared Network Canada placed a notice in the local community newspaper, Pickering News Advertiser, and erected 1 sign on the property notifying the public of the consultation period. Copy of this information package was also provided to the City of Pickering's Planning Department and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. Of the 19 notices mailed during the consultation, Shared Network Canada received a total of 3 new comments (residents which did not comment during the first public consultation period). 2 new comment received was in opposition of the site 3 new comments received were in support of the site All 3 comments in support come from residences outside of the information package notification radius (500m from installation). The total number of comments received from both Consultation Periods were as follows: 3 comments received were in opposition of the site 5 comments received were in support of the site All comments and responses have been attached into "Appendix E". 13 - 109 - ow, shared network CANADA Conclusion Reliable wireless communication services are a key element of economic development across Canada. It facilitates the growth of local economies by providing easy access to information, and connectivity for residents and business alike. As identified in the City of Pickering's Economic Strategic Plan, telecommunications is a powerful economic enabler that supports Pickering's goal to promote home occupations, teleworking, telecommuting and improved community networking and information dissemination. Like many areas of the province, Claremont is experiencing a growing demand for wireless services. As people rely more on wireless devices such as smartphones, tablets and laptops for business and personal use, network improvements are required to ensure high quality voice and data services are available. In response to this growing demand for wireless services, Shared Network Canada has worked to find the most suitable location for a new telecommunications tower in efforts to provide improved coverage within the surrounding area of the Town of Claremont. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are also critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Wireless communications products and services, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters and other first responders, are an integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. Shared Network Canada has undertaken and now completed a comprehensive public consultation process as it pertains to the wireless communications site located at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont in fulfillment of all the requirements under City of Pickering Protocol and Industry Canada guidelines. While we appreciate there remains one concern with the location due to public's health concern or proximity to their property, unfortunately due to a lack of alternative sites in the area, the only workable solution continues to be the current location at the Claremont Cemetery on Concession 9 in Claremont. In addition, Shared Network Canada assures and attests that our site and all wireless carriers on the tower will be fully compliant with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. Shared Network Canada has at all times been transparent and fully compliant with both municipal protocol and federal regulations pertaining to this proposal. Furthermore, Shared Network Canada has demonstrated our strict adherence obligations pertaining to health and have provided the parties that had submitted comments with numerous resources for the Federal and Provincial government bodies, as Shared Network Canada has no input into review or setting of standards and regulations. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at dom@sharednetwork.ca. Dom Claros - 110 - 14 ow, shared network CANADA Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance Health Canada's role is to protect the health of Canadians, so it is the Department's responsibility to research and investigate any possible health effects associated with exposure to electromagnetic energy, such as that coming from cell phones and base stations. Health Canada has developed guidelines for safe human exposure to RF energy, which are commonly known as Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 has been adopted by Industry Canada and is included in their regulatory documents on radiocommunication licensing and operational requirements. Industry Canada requires all proponents and operators to ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with the Safety Code 6 at all times. Shared Network Canada attests 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 co -locations and nearby installations within the local radio environment. For more information on Safety Code 6, please visit the following Health Canada site: www.healthcanada.gc.ca/radiation. Canadian Environmental Assessment Act Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site will comply with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, as the facility is exempt from review. The proposed location creates no impact on area environmental features. It is located on an already disturbed area of an existing industrial operation. No trees or vegetation is being removed to accommodate the installation. Transport Canada's Aeronautical Obstruction Marking Requirements Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system described in this notification package will comply with Transport Canada / NAV CANADA aeronautical safety requirements. When Transport Canada / NAV Canada have determined if any aeronautical safety features are required for the installation, such information will be provided to the Town. For additional detailed information, please consult Transport Canada at: http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation/regserv/cars/part6-standards-standard621-512.htm Engineering Practices Shared Network Canada attests that the radio antenna system as proposed for this site will be constructed in compliance with the Canadian Standard Association and comply with good engineering practices including structural adequacy. 15 0P-. shared network CANADA Contact Information As a representative of Shared Network Canada, you can contact us at the following: Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 275 Macpherson Ave, Unit 103 Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 (647) 241-2788 municipal@sharednetwork.ca Municipal Consultation Process Shared Network Canada builds and operates shared wireless telecommunications infrastructure, designed to ensure that service providers can address their customers' needs in the most efficient manner. As a federal undertaking, Shared Network Canada is required by Industry Canada to consult with land -use authorities in siting telecommunication infrastructure locations. The consultation process established under Industry Canada's authority is intended to allow the local land - use authorities the opportunity to address land -use concerns while respecting the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction over the siting and operation of wireless and data systems. Shared Network Canada welcomes comments from the municipality and its agencies to address any expressed comments that are deemed relevant by Industry Canada's CPC -2-0-03 Issue 5. Industry Canada's Spectrum Management Please be advised that the approval of this site and its design is under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Canada through Industry Canada. Shared Network Canada is participating in this consultation in accordance with Industry Canada's guidelines CPC -2-0-03 Issue 5. For more information on Industry Canada's public consultation guidelines including CPC -2-0-03 contact http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/sf08777e.html or the local Industry Canada office: Industry Canada, Spectrum Management Toronto District Office 151 Yonge Street, 4th floor Toronto ON M5C 2W7 Telephone: 1-855-465-6307 Email: ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto.ic@canada.ca General information relating to antenna systems is available on Industry Canada's Spectrum Management and Telecommunications website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/home 16 - 112 - shared network A N A D A Appendix A - 113 - 55 J.D.BARNES L 1 M 1 T E D l ND INFORMATION SI'EC1 ALISTS Rogers Wireless Network Implementation 8200 Dixie Road Brampton, ON L6T 0C1 Attention: Leticia Avanse Dear Sir/Madam: Re: SURVEYOR'S ATTESTATION SNC0120 Claremont - Union Cemetery Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 (Geographic Township of Pickering) City of Pickering 22 August 2019 File: 17-15-112-00 E-MAIL This report details the proposed telecommunication tower placement with respect to Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations under the Federal Aeronautics Act, at a location more particularly described as being Part of Lot 14, Concession 9 (Geographic Township of Pickering), City of Pickering. This location lies within the Outer Surface as defined by the Pickering Airport Site Zoning Regulations SOR/2004-212. No obstruction is permitted above an elevation of 300.0 m (984.3') at the location of proposed telecommunication tower described below (in NAD83 Coordinates): Proposed Antenna Centre Ground Elevation at Proposed Tower Airport Reference Point Elevation Top of Proposed Tower Elevation Outer Surface at Proposed Tower Latitude N43°58'45.7" Longitude W79°06'28.6" 248.6 m (815.6') 255.0 m (836.6') 293.6 m (963.3') 300.0 m (984.3') This information is depicted on attached Plan Showing Proposed Telecom Tower Installations, Ref. No. 17- 15-112-00 dated August 22, 2019. In summary, based on the proposed telecommunication tower placement, there is 6.4 m (21.0') clearance from the Top of Proposed Tower to the plane of Outer Surface. Yours truly; J.D.BARNES LIMITED M. Fisher, P. Eng., OLS 140 Renfrew Drive Suite 100 Markham Ontario Canada L3R 6B3 T: [9051 477-3600 F: [9051 477-0892 www.jdbarnes.com - 114 - 1 shared network C A N A A Appendix B - 115 - - 116 - h' h' r_ r_ ; - 124 - shared network A N A D A Appendix C - 125 - From: SNC Municipal Relations municipal@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Fwd: Claremont Communications Tower Date: February 21, 2019 at 11:29 AM To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://shared network. ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Pickles, David, Councillor" <dpickles@pickerinq.ca> Subject: Re: Claremont Communications Tower Date: February 21, 2019 at 11:27:26 AM EST To: Linda Robinson Cc: "municipal@share networ c.ca" <municipa @sharednetwork.ca>, "ic.spectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca" <ic.spectrumenod-spectredeno.ic@canada.ca>, "Butt, Shaheen, Councillor" <sbutt@pickering.ca>, "Bentley, Kyle" <kbentley_@pickering.ca> Hi Linda I am sharing your email with our planning staff. They review and comment on these applications. To be clear the towers are by owned and constructed by private sector companies not the city. The city reviews and provides comments to the federal government who is the approval agency for communications towers. Signals will also depend on what cell services are using which towers. By copy of this email I will ask staff to update both of us on this application. Thanks David Pickles Regional Councillor — Ward 3 905.420.4605<te1:905.420.4605> 1 1.866.683.2760<tel:1.866.683.2760> dpickles@pickering.ca<mailto:dpickles@pickering.ca> [cid:image003.png@01 D1 F4AD.80090790]<http://enews.pickering.ca/en/enews/signup.aspx> [cid:image005.png@01 D1 F4AD.80090790]<https://www.facebook.com/CityofPickering> [cid:image011.png@01 D1 D084.35FE8C30] On Feb 21, 2019, at 11:20 AM, Linda Robinson wrote: To the municipal affairs manager, - 126 - My husband and I are residents on , and I am writing to give my support for the proposed tower in Claremont. My family and I moved to Claremont in 1996, and have enjoyed living in this quiet area of Pickering. However, over the years, we have noticed the cell -service and wireless coverage is less than adequate in this area. Calls will drop when travelling north on Brock road, and there are areas in our house where calls will also drop, or the Wifi signal is low or non-existent. The cell coverage in the general area is spotty and unreliable at best. Sometimes we have to move to a particular area of our house just to make a call, or be able to pick up Wifi. It frustrates us but we have accepted it as a part of living out of the city, but we would appreciate better service in the area. It has come to our attention that a cell phone tower in closer proximity to Claremont will help this problem, and we are in full support of this proposal, and trust that it can be built soon and that it will not get tied up in the bureaucratic process. Thank you for your time and please take our support into consideration. George and Linda Robinson This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and/or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. - 127 - From: Leticia Avanse leticia@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Fwd: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: July 5, 2018 at 12:25 PM To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Kathy Keats Subject: SNC File Num er: N 1 Possi a tower near aremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca I am a resident of , Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. At my location, we have no access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. - We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. - We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. - Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which... - ... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modern world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast Internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available—literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. Kathy Keats - 128 - From: Kathy Keats Subject: Re: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: July 26, 2018 at 9:46 AM To: dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Hey! • I was just wondering if you had any news re: this tower. Both Bell towers in the area (Claremont and Dagmar) are malfunctioning and so the other towers in the area is overwhelmed. Kathy Keats On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Hi Kathy, Hope your week is going well. Sorry I'm just getting back into the office from vacation. Thank you very much for sending this email, really appreciate it. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada 1 http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Kathy Keats iniim Subject: SNC FileNumber: ossi a tower near aremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca I am a resident o , Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. At my location, we have no access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. - We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. - We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. - Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which... - ... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modern world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available—literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. Kathy Keats - 129 - From: Kathy Keats Subject: Re: SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possible tower near Claremont Date: September 6, 2018 at 9:26 AM To: dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Hi Dom, I know I'm being a bit of a stalker, but any news on the tower (SNC0120) in Claremont? Thanks so much for your efforts! Kathy Keats On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:23 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Hi Kathy! • Thanks for letting us know, we are working hard to get everything approved by the City of Pickering and should hopefully have an update for you shortly. Thanks! Dom Claros Shared Network Canada 1 http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca On Jul 26, 2018, at 9:46 AM, Kathy Keats wrote: Hey! I was just wondering if you had any news re: this tower. Both Bell towers in the area (Claremont and Dagmar) are malfunctioning and so the other towers in the area is overwhelmed. Kathy Keats On Thu, Jul 5, 2018 at 2:28 PM Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Hi Kathy, Hope your week is going well. Sorry I'm just getting back into the office from vacation. Thank you very much for sending this email, really appreciate it. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: "Kathy Keats Subject: SNC File Num • er: SNC012 Possi • e tower near aremont Date: June 24, 2018 at 3:26:18 PM EDT To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca I am a resident of Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. - 130 - Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard. At my location, we have no access whatsoever to internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. - We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. - We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL. - Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable. Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which... - ... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest internet functions hopelessly slow, if not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modern world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available—literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto. This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure. I highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont. Thank you for your efforts in this regard. Kathy Keats - 131 - From: A & L Wilder Subject: SNC0120 Date: December 5, 2019 at 2:34 PM To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca Dear sirs: We have received the information package regarding the Claremont antenna. As referenced, the coverage in this area is incredibly poor. With the lack of service and apparent withdrawal of service from Bell Canada we are becoming more and more reliant on cellular service. We live on a rural property and therefore don't have the luxury of accessing service provided in a more densely populated area. Ironically, several of the photo views were taken from nearby our property which tells us that if the tower goes ahead as proposed we should finally get reliable cell service. We are 100% in favour of this project and proposal, the sooner the better. Andy & Lori Wilder - 132 - From: Karen Bisson Subject: Shared Network Tower - Claremont Union Cemetery - Support of Construction Date: December 23, 2019 at 1:20 PM To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca Good day, How many times a day do you reach for your cell phone? You pick it up and check it without giving it another thought. If you need to make a phone call because of an emergency, you are able to do so without any service issue. That is a luxury that the rural inhabitants of north Pickering are not permitted. I have been a resident of Claremont for my entire life. My family has deep ties to the community going back generations and has witnessed the progress that has come along to our lovely rural community as well as the discrimination against this community for being less urban. Claremont has had a strong agricultural community for generations, and with the advance in technology in agricultural equipment, accidents still happen, people still have medical emergencies and when that call for help is unable to be placed because we do not have service in this area, it provide a stark and frightening reality that is often faced in a rural community as the folks in the more urban areas don't take their rural neighbours into consideration. How would you feel if your brother, sister, spouse, parent or child were unable to call you because they were in an area that does not provide reliable and stable cellular reception. How much worry would run through your mind especially if there was emergency circumstances? With the installation of this proposed tower, it allows for the community which is often forgotten in Claremont (North Pickering) to have access to emergency contacts and stable reliable cellular service. Anyone who opposes the installation of this tower, is selfish, unreasonable and neglecting the basic needs of the health and safety of the community. Anyone who opposes this tower who lives south of Highway 7 should lose all credibility as they do not understand or appreciate the challenges this rural community often faces. This tower is only logical and services the needs of the northern Pickering community. Be the change that fuels a safer community with more reliable cellular service. Allow the community of Claremont to enjoy the services that the more urban part of Pickering takes for granted. I welcome any constructive dialogue you may wish to have, and can be reached at (Providing I am in an area that has service). Sincerely, Karen and Martin Bisson - 133 - The Claremont Union Cemetary Co. Ltd Murray Jones President Date: June 5, 2019 Subject: Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Reference SNC0120 To: Susan Cassell D. Ryan — Mayor, City of Pickering D. Pickles — Regional Councillor, Ward 3 S. Butt — City Councillor, Ward 3 D. Claros — Shared Network Canada Doug Cummings Secretary/Treasurer My wife Kathy and I have been on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Union Cemetery for several years and we currently function as its Secretary/Treasurer. We reside on 170 acres on Sideline 12 in Pickering where Kathy's ancestors are the original settlers of the land we live on. We are both retired, Kathy was a Professor teaching Nursing at what is now Ontario Tech in Oshawa and I was an HR Manager - Labour Relations at General Motors in Oshawa. In June of this year we attended the Planning Committee meeting where Shared Network and others, including myself, made presentations regarding the tower being proposed. At that time, discussion of this proposal ended with a decision on the matter being deferred for further investigation and amendment between Shared Network and Pickering's Engineering Dept. Since that time we have had discussions with several community members and farmers regarding Cellular and Internet performance in the Claremont area. Where we live we do not have access to high speed internet through cable or fibreoptic and in our discussions with Bell Canada we are not likely to have these available in the near future. We have been using a Rogers Rocket Hub device for internet, however cellular service remains poor with many "dead zones" in the area. These dead zones are of particular concern for our area farmers who may run into trouble while performing their regular agricultural activities. Since breakdowns do not frequently happen in convenient locations in the fields, cellular service is now as much a tool as a wrench or a hammer. It might simply be a mechanical breakdown requiring the help of another family member or the closest neighbor or perhaps more seriously it - 134 - could be a medical issue requiring immediate attention. Without the ability to call for help using 911 or calling home, the farmer may not be found until its too late. When we last met on this proposal in June 2019 I told of the situation we face at our own home where when standing on our deck and using my cell phone to call the landline in our house, less than 15 feet away, it is sometimes a long distance call. Suppose Kathy or I were outside alone, felt and recognized the symptoms of a heart attack or stroke being imminent and tried to phone the other for help. The additional precious seconds it takes to redial if it turned out that it was of those times when the call was "long distance" might mean the difference between life with prognosis for full recovery or a less desireable out come. It is our hope that with more towers such as the one being proposed by Shared Network, our ability to access reliable and secure Internet and Cellular services will be available. It will help provide for the safety of all residents in the Claremont area and the area farmers whether owners or tenant farmers using our lands. This tower is needed now! Thank you for giving this your sincere consideration. On behalf of the Claremont Union Cemetary Board, Dou las Doug) J. Cummings cc: file Pagc 2 - 135 - Wednesday May 16, 2018 Mr. Kyle Bentley City of Pickering — City Development Department Pickering, ON Aghlab Al-Joundi Re: Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120 Dear Mr. Bentley, As a follow up to my email sent May 14, 2018, I have additional material concerns about the above noted cell tower proposal. I will outline them below. 1. SNC business model emphasizes erection of towers, not provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services Are you aware that the proponent, SNC, is not in the business of providing cellular communications and internet services to residential and commercial clients, but rather their business model is specifically about generating maximum revenues from the erection of as many cell towers as possible? This is very clear from statements on their website including, "We build towers and rent space on them for radio equipment, such as cellular antennas". They add, "...we think it makes more sense than ever before for wireless carriers to recognize that towers are not their core business, and that these assets can be more efficiently built, owned and managed elsewhere." Given their undisputed business mandate is to maximize revenues by erecting the maximum number of new towers (there is nothing in their attestations about cell based services to end users/communities as a primary business objective), there is a fundamental conflict with the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first - 136 - explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards". Not surprisingly, both Industry Canada and the CPCTP prioritize any cell services provider to utilize existing infrastructure to support installation of their electronics, and even the wording of such prioritization is almost identical between the two authoritative bodies. Fundamental to Industry Canada's position about the erection of such towers is also found in their website which states about their rules, "rules are designed to make sure companies are looking at ways to reduce the number of new towers they are building". Mr. Bentley, given SNC's business model, please provide evidence that they seriously made efforts to reduce the erection of additional towers by utilizing existing infrastructure. Given their business model, it is obvious that SNC would not have seriously considered existing infrastructure. Fundamentally, both the Industry Canada and CPCTP requirements are based on a carrier type of business model, where the carrier's business model is about maximizing revenues through the maximizing of cellular telecommunications and Internet residential and commercial subscriptions to such services. Within that model, the erection of cell towers are necessary to deliver such end user services, but the erection of the towers themselves is not a primary business objective, though the rental of space on such towers becomes perhaps a secondary source of revenue. In this traditional carrier business model, such service providers have a primary motivation in maximizing revenues through cell tower based services to the community, hence not only would they be interested in erecting towers to facilitate the delivery of such services, but also in installing their electronics on existing infrastructure for the provision of services. The risk with the SNC model is that they have absolutely no interest in utilizing existing infrastructure, but rather erecting as many new towers as possible, and as quickly as possible. I use the word "risk" deliberately because there is no doubt that given the existing Industry Canada and associated municipal guidelines (including those of the City of Pickering), SNC sees a loop hole for their business model that they want to exploit as quickly as possible. In this sense they create "facts on the ground" that a municipality would very likely end up having to grandfather even when more current, relevant guidelines are developed. The SNC business model which in effect is, "get as many towers up, as quickly as possible", is completely incompatible with the rules and protocols relating to the provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services as espoused by the Industry Canada and related City of Pickering municipal guidelines and protocols (i.e. CPCTP). - 137 - 2. Negative impact on my property value, and unfair Risk/Benefit model Based on research publicly available, there is no doubt that residential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. The phenomena of lower demand for such properties where everything else is equal, is a fact. According to the research, the lower demand for such properties is driven primarily by two concerns as expressed by potential buyers, a) aesthetics — such towers are aesthetically unpleasing, they are not compatible with the nature of the neighborhood or natural features. They create a visual blight, and change the character of the area, especially when constructed in rural settings, and b) health concerns — notwithstanding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance which every proponent of cell towers is quick to reference, the fact is that there remains widespread media attention about scientific studies regarding the potential long term effects of proximity to such towers, and persistent health concerns that the public continues to express. In fact, a US study by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy published in June 2014, titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found: • 94% of home buyers and renters are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna; • 79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas; and • 90% said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in residential neighborhoods The above public perception is very disconcerting to any property owner within the vicinity of an existing or proposed cell tower. The salient point here, the incontrovertible point, is that perception is what influences a potential buyer. With widespread concerns (as acknowledged in part by every cell tower proponent feeling they have to quickly make reference to the Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance), comes widespread negative perception. Negative perception means less demand. Less demand means less competition. Less competition means a lower price/value. It is that simple and categoric. As well, consider how unfair this proposed cell tower site is for my family and I. Under this site, SNC generates rental revenue for itself. Under this site, Claremont - Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while none of the owners have to live with the tower looming over them. Under this site, notwithstanding that my home will be close to, and the closest to the site, my family receives absolutely zero income though as outlined above, yet we assume all of the risks. - 138 - I cannot count on SNC to protect my property value, and mitigate my risks when they propose to erect a cell tower. However as a longtime resident and tax payer within the community of Claremont, my family needs to know, that the City of Pickering is not encumbering my family with major risks and zero benefits associated with the proposed cell tower site, and is doing everything it can to ensure that my family's wealth and economic prosperity is protected from opportunistic, for profit business interests ? 3. Attempt to avoid Environmental considerations Within the Public Notice Package ("PNP"), SNC suggests that the proposed cell tower "is excluded from environmental assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, 2012 (CEAA 2012)". However, it is common knowledge that the Trudeau government is replacing this Harper era Act of 2012, with the Impact Assessment Act (IAA) under Bill C-69 which is being finalized at this time. According to prominent Law firm Tory LLP, the IAA "is intended to enable more comprehensive impact assessments" and represents a "shift to broader assessment of project impacts, including environmental, health, social and economic effects", including "more public consultation". Therefore it is not legitimate for SNC to claim that the proposed cell tower falls outside any necessary environmental considerations when a new, more comprehensive environmental assessment regime under the IAA is in the process of being implemented. 4. PNP is misleading - The single photo in the PNP with an alleged (so small, i.e. one quarter of an 8.5" X 11" page) rendering of the proposed tower is misleading, understated and promotes an inaccurate impression of size and actual location of the tower. Selective, south facing view point is misleading. It does not reflect the alarming reality of how close the proposed tower would be to my family's house, and it avoids the key topographical prominence of the actual Oak Ridges Moraine rolling hills and vistas that a more common, north facing view (i.e. associated with the vehicular traffic traversing Concession 9/Regional Road 5), provides of the proposed site . 5. Proposed site service road is an issue The proposed site service road runs the length of the cemetery and immediately alongside my property. Under the SNP proposed business model, it would be reasonably expected that multiple services providers would install their equipment on the proposed tower, resulting in regular service vehicular traffic through the cemetery on this service - 139 - road. This would add further noise and disruption to enjoyment of my residential property, especially worrisome given that my outdoor patio and deck face, and are in proximity to this part of the cemetery. My home is situated in a mixed residential/agricultural area. It is not in an industrial or commercial zone where nobody resides, and where the regularity of such service vehicles is more expected/accepted. 6. Lack of Public Information Session as per Industry Canada guideline CPC 2-0-03, article 4.2 Within the PNP, why is there no requirement by the City of Pickering for a "Public Information Session" as had been provided by SNC in their other PNP's, such as for example to those residing within the vicinity of 459 South River Road, Centre Wellington, Ontario, under SNC file number, SNC0133? Why would the City of Pickering not require SNC to hold a "Public Information Session" as it appears other municipalities have done? Industry Canada requires the proponent to "...(engage) the public and the land -use authority in order to address relevant questions, comments and concerns regarding the proposal. This was never done. Why not? 7. SNC PNP was understated and mistaken for "junk mail" As per Industry Canada's requirement article 4.2, "Public notification of an upcoming notification must be clearly marked, making reference to the proposed antenna system, so that it is not misinterpreted as junk mail. The notice must be sent by mail or be hand delivered. The face of the package must clearly reference that the recipient is within the prescribed notification radius of the proposed antenna system. The SNC notice was delivered in a regular, plain white envelope with no special markings, which we initially threw out because it resembled the many items of junk mail that we have stuffed into our mail box. Equally, there was NO notification or reference that we are within the prescribed notification radius. It was only upon sorting our recycling material for our blue bin that we opened the SNC envelope to discover the PNP. How was this allowed to happen? Aside from the content of the PNP for such a matter of public concern, have you actually investigated/confirmed how SNC delivers such content to ensure that people are not inadvertently throwing out such content without first being made aware that what they are receiving is specific to them, and not "junk mail"? For example, why would the - 140 - CPCTP not also include that such content be delivered through priority post, or other hand delivered service? 8. Preferred Location under City of Pickering Cell Tower protocol Under 6.2 "...where co -location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities" Neither of these articles of the CPCTP have been satisfied with the proponent's proposal. Under 6.3 — Discouraged Locations "The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in the following locations: Residential areas...On sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views and vistas." AND, "Within Environmentally sensitive lands." Given that the selected site is on the Oak Ridges Moraine and is of topographical prominence, the City of Pickering needs to disqualify this proponent's site selection. Mr. Bentley, as the above suggests, there are serious flaws and concerns with respect to the proposed SNC cell tower scheme. Everything about the SNC proposal suggests an opportunistic, for profit, private business entity that is highly motivated to erect as many cell towers as possible, create the "facts on the ground" before any new Industry Canada and associated City of Pickering municipal protocols are developed to consider their type of business model, which is all about erecting towers, and not services, and before the full weight of the IAA comes into effect. The SNC proposal is not fair to my family by having us assume significant risks with zero benefits, is incompatible with the fundamental Industry Canada and CPCTP rules, is incomplete, and is misleading. These facts, and all the likely changes associated with the IAA, and my family's absolute rejection of a proposal to erect such a cell tower so close to our home, not to mention such a tower's blight on our vista and landscape, logically conclude that this proposal must be rejected by the City of Pickering, or at the very least delayed indefinitely until new protocols are developed to consider SNC types of business models and the IAA comes into full effect. - 141 - Mr. Bentley, given the serious nature of this proposed engagement, I request a meeting with you, and my Councilor's Mr. David Pickles and Mr. Shaheen Butt to ensure that you all also have my family's interests at heart. I will be reaching out accordingly shortly. Thank you, Aghlab Al-Joundi Cc. Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan - 142 - shared network CANADA June 23, 2018 Aghlab Al-Joundi By email to: RE: Letter addressed to Mr. Kyle Bentley, dated May 16, 2018. Dear Mr. Al-Joundi, Thank you for your letter dated May 16, 2018. We appreciate you sharing your comments and concerns in regards to the proposal for a tower near Claremont, Ontario. Shared Network Canada values the input of all participants in this process, whether in support or opposition. While Shared Network Canada does not currently provide cellular or Internet service, the process of determining potential tower locations does not differ from companies which provide such services. As you mentioned, Shared Network Canada is a third -party infrastructure provider, in which much of the capital cost of building and operating a tower is born by Shared Network and space on the tower is rented to customers who provide cellular and Internet services. As such, the tower would not be constructed if the space on the tower were not needed by customers providing either cellular or Internet services. We understand your concern regarding the proximity to your residence and are willing to work with you and your family in order to potentially relocate the tower. As illustrated in Schedule A of the attached, we can look into relocating the tower to the opposing corner of the property, over 100m further setback from your residence surrounded by the mature tree line. In regards to the safety concerns, our team attempted to locate the study from the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" and could not locate the article. We attempted both web pages below to locate any information regarding this article or the Institute but were unable to locate anything, we may be making a mistake in our research, would you mind pointing us in the direction of the correct article mentioned above. https://natinstsciencelaw.org/ https://natinstsciencelaw.org/emf-safety-%26-health Please also see attached in Schedule B the "Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Associations" published handbook with more detailed information in regards to the process and safety of Telecommunications sites. www.sharedne twork.ca 275 Macpherson Ave #103, 'Toronto, ON M4V iA4 - 143 - It" shared netwANorADAk • C Shared Network Canada does and will continue to abide by and follow all environmental and safety requirements for all proposed tower locations. As with the proposed Claremont site, Shared Network Canada has been working with and will continue to work with all necessary health, safety and environmental approval processes in place for the construction of the tower. When proposing the access road, it was placed along the mature tree line in order to mask the majority of the viewshed of any potential vehicles passing through. Once the equipment is installed on the tower, only quarterly maintenance inspections would be done on the tower save for times of emergency (i.e. Power Outage). When looking to relocate the tower to the opposing end of the property, we can also look into relocating part of the access road as well. The proposed location was determined as there is a need to service and coverage to the residents of Claremont, please see one letter we receive in Schedule C, outlining the residents' concerns and comments supporting the towns need for a tower. As the town needs a tower, Shared Network is proposing to locate the tower away from the town of Claremont on the rural portion of the not for profit cemetery land. We will continue to work with your family to receive your input regarding the potential relocation of the proposed tower on other portions of the cemetery land. Again, thank you for your valued input. Yours sincerely, Dom Claros CC: Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan - 144 - rail shared network a�vaa Schedule A - 145 - rail shared network a�vaa Schedule B - 146 - Connecting Canadians: Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada Des Canadiens branches: Choix des sites de bads d'antenne au Canada Association canadlenne des telecommunications sans 111 Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association cwta Association canadienne des telecommunications sans fil Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association acts Contact us at 613 233 4888 or info@cwta.ca Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association 130 Albert Street, Suite 1110 Ottawa, ON K1 P 5G4 www.cwta.ca Pour nous joindre : 613 233 4888 ou info@cwta.ca Association canadienne des telecommunications sans fil 130, rue Albert, bureau 1110 Ottawa, ON K1 P 5G4 www.cwta.ca table of contents table des matieres 5 Connecting Canadians: 5 Des Canadiens branches : Choix des sites Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada de batis d'antenne au Canada 7 Building a New Wireless Tower Reasons for building Antenna Towers The Site Selection Process 13 The Antenna Approval Process Jurisdiction Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting Local Land -Use Authorities 17 Health and Safety Issues Electromagnetic Waves and Fields Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations Safety Code 6 Other Projects On Health and Safety of Wireless Devices 7 Construction d'un nouveau bati d'antenne Pourquoi construire de nouveaux batis d'antenne? Le processus de selection d'un site 13 Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antennes Competence Cadre reglementaire relatif a l'emplacement d'antennes sans fil Autorites regionales responsables de l'utilisation du sol 17 Questions de sante et de securite Champs et ondes electromagnetiques Competence relative a la sante et la securite de batis d'antenne Code de securite 6 Autres projets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fil 23 Antenna Tower Information Resources 23 Sources d'information sur les pylones d'antenne - 149 - - 150 - Connecting Canadians: Wireless Antenna Towers Siting in Canada There are about 8,000 cell sites in all of Canada. As communities demand new or improved wireless service, local carriers respond to this need by building a wireless antenna structure, commonly called a "tower." In addition to meeting the needs of individual Canadian consumers, improved cellular coverage means better access to emergency services such as fire, police, or ambulance, and business development opportunities as business services are enhanced. An antenna structure build may raise concerns in the community about aesthetics, or about the health and safety of towers. This brochure provides basic information about the many rigorous factors that go into site selection and tower build, and answer some key questions about health and safety issues. For more thorough information, parliamentarians and staff are encouraged to contact the association, or consult the resources section at the end of this guide. Des Canadiens branches : Choix des sites de batis d'antenne au Canada On retrouve environ 8 000 sites cellulaires au Canada. A mesure que les communautes exigent de nouveaux services sans fil ou encore des services ameliores, les telecommunicateurs regionaux repondent a cette demande en construisant un bad d'antenne, qu'on appelle couramment une « tour ». En plus de satisfaire aux besoins individuels des consommateurs canadiens, une meilleure couverture permet un meilleur acces aux services d'urgence fournis par les pompiers, policiers et ambulanciers, et de meilleures occasions d'affaires, puisque les services commerciaux s'en trouvent ameliores. La construction d'un bati d'antenne peut susciter certains questionnements au sein de la communaute, notamment en ce qui concerne leur aspect esthetique, ou la sante et la securite des tours. La presente brochure fournit des renseignements de base sur les rigoureux criteres de selection du site et de la construction de batis d'antenne. Elle repond egalement a des questions primordiales sur la sante et la securite. Pour obtenir davantage de renseignements, les parlementaires et leur personnel peuvent communiquer avec l'association ou consulter la section sur les ressources qui figure a la fin de ce guide. - 151 - 5 - 152 - Building a New Wireless Tower In this section • Reasons for Building Antenna Towers • The Site Selection Process Construction d'un nouveau bati d'antenne Dans cette section • Pourquoi construire de nouveaux bads d'antenne? sus de selection d'un site - 153 - Why a new tower? Wireless carriers continue to build out their networks in response to the tremendous consumer demand for their services. Today, more than 18 million Canadians have a cellphone or wireless device, a number that is growing by more than 10% annually. People take the availability of wireless service for granted and expect that their service provider will provide coverage anywhere and everywhere they live, work or play. Indications are that this demand will only increase dramatically as Canadians' reliance on wireless communications at home and in the workplace, increases. Indeed, as wireless communications provide the communications services, and products, used daily by police, EMS, firefighters, and other first responders, wireless is also an integral part of Canada's safety infrastructure. Every year, Canada's wireless carriers spend over $1 billion in capital improvements to their networks and have cumulatively invested over $20 billion to date in building Canada's world-class wireless infrastructure. Across Canada there are approximately 8,000 cellular/PCS antenna sites. For comparison purposes, the United Kingdom, with its much smaller land mass, has approximately 35,000 sites. A considerable portion of this is spent improving network availability, both in terms of coverage and capacity. Network coverage consists of extending the reach of the network to new areas as well as eliminating the so-called "dead zones," areas where cellular coverage breaks off. Increasing capacity allows more users within the existing footprint of the network and provides for faster transmission speeds for wireless data services. Radio antennas, associated equipment and supporting structures are fundamental components of a radiocommunication system. Without them, none of the services on which Canadian individuals, businesses and governments have come to depend would exist.," 54 A unique tree -shaped antenna tower. Un pyl"one d'antenne en forme d'arbre. 8 Pourquoi construire de nouveaux bads d'antenne? Les telecommunicateurs sans fit poursuivent l'expansion de leurs reseaux en reaction a la tres forte demande de services de la part des consommateurs. Aujourd'hui, plus de 18 millions de Canadiens ont un telephone cellulaire ou un appareil sans fit, un nombre qui augmente de plus de 10 pour cent chaque annee. Les gens tiennent le service sans fil pour acquis et s'attendent a ce que leur fournisseur offre une couverture partout ou ils se rendent pour des raisons personnelles ou professionnelles. Tout porte a croire que cette demande conna?tra une augmentation marquee et continue, puisque les Canadiens comptent de plus en plus sur les communications sans fila la maison et au travail. En effet, puisque les policiers, ambulanciers, pompiers et autres premiers repondants utilisent des produits et services de communications sans fil, les telecommunications sans fil sont une composante primordiale de l'infrastructure de securite au Canada. Chaque annee, les telecommunicateurs sans fit canadiens consacrent plus d'un milliard de dollars a l'amelioration de leurs immobilisations de reseau et ont investi jusqu'a maintenant plus de 20 milliards de dollars pour doter le Canada d'une infrastructure sans fil de classe mondiale. On compte environ 8 000 emplacements de pylones cellulaires ou SCP au pays. Par comparaison, au Royaume-Uni, qui occupe une aire geographique beaucoup plus petite, on en retrouve environ 35 000. Une part considerable de ce milliard de dollars investis chaque annee est consacree a l'amelioration de la disponibilite du reseau, tant sur le plan de la couverture que sur le plan de la capacite. L'amelioration du reseau consiste a agrandir la portee de celui-ci sur de nouvelles zones et a eliminer les soi-disant « zones mortes » soit les zones ou it y a bris de couverture. Ameliorer la capacite signifie un plus grand nombre d'utilisateurs potentiels parmi la zone de couverture existante du reseau et une transmission de donnees plus rapide. Les antennes radio, l'equipement connexe et les structures qui les supportent sont des composantes fondamentales d'un systeme de telecommunications. Sans elles, aucun des services sur lesquels peuvent compter la population, les entreprises et les instances gouvernementales du Canada n'existeraient. - 155 - 9 The Site Selection Process When a requirement for a new site has been identified, the wireless carrier begins evaluating the options in an area based on radio frequency characteristics. These frequency characteristics are influenced by: the local terrain, existing structures, the number of subscribers, distance from existing sites, the availability of existing structures (buildings, other towers, etc.), and the availability of a willing landlord. Because they are considerably more cost effective and time to service is reduced, the first consideration is typically to look for existing structures such as building rooftops, water towers, hydro corridors, or towers belonging to other carriers or other utilities. The use of existing structures generally results in a smaller impact on local surroundings. Of the roughly 8,000 cellular/PCS sites in Canada, 40% are located on structures other than purpose-built towers. Choosing an existing structure can reduce costs and the time to complete an installation, but the location or height may be unsuitable. Co -locating on existing towers may reduce the number of new towers but can result in the need for taller, more visible towers. Some municipalities actually prefer smaller, individual towers, to one massive, but collocated, tower. Bell and TELUS have employed an infrastructure sharing agreement to reduce the need for additional sites. When all of these strategies are considered, approximately 60% of all cell sites in Canada are shared in one way or another. Sites are only selected after thorough analysis of expected coverage outcomes based on field measurements and predictions com- bined with customer requirements. Upon selecting a preferred site, a carrier will begin the approval process. Of the 8,000 sites in Canada, 40% are located on structures other than towers. - 156 - 10 Le processus de selection d'un site Une fois que le besoin d'etablir un nouveau site se manifeste, le telecommunicateur sans fil commence a evaluer les options presentes dans la zone en question, selon les caracteristiques des radiofrequences. Plusieurs facteurs influent sur ces caracteristiques: le terrain, les structures existantes, le nombre d'abonnes, la distance relative aux emplacements dela en place, la disponibilite de structures existantes (immeubles, autres tours, etc.) et la presence d'un proprietaire dispose a louer ['usage d'une structure. Parce qu'elle est considerablement plus economique et qu'elle permet une mise en service plus rapide, la premiere option est habituellement de chercher des structures deja en place, comme des toits d'immeubles, des chateaux d'eau, des corridors hydroelectriques, ou des tours appartenant a d'autres telecommunicateurs ou d'autres services publics. En regle generale, ['utilisation de structures deja en place a un impact restreint sur l'environnement immediat. Des quelque 8 000 emplacements cellulaires ou SCP au Canada, 40 pour cent se trouvent sur des structures autres que des pylones construits a cet effet. Choisir une structure deja existante permet de reduire les couts et le delai necessaires a ['installation, mais la localisation ou la hauteur pourraient ne pas convenir. L'utilisation conjointe de pylones dela en place reduit le nombre de nouveaux pyl"ones, mais elle peut faire en sorte que les tours doivent etre plus hautes et plus visibles.. l'heure actuelle, certaines municipalites preferent des tours a usage unique plus petites mais plus nombreuses plutot qu'une seule tour a usage multiple plus imposante. Bell et TELUS ont conclu une entente de partage d'infrastructure qui reduit le besoin d'etablir de nouveaux sites. Toutes ces strategies font en sorte que 60 pour cent de tous les sites cellulaires au Canada sont partages, d'une maniere ou d'une autre. Les sites ne sont choisis qu'a la suite d'une analyse exhaustive de tous les resultats potentiels sur le plan de la couverture, fondee sur les previsions et les mesures sur le terrain, mise en parallele avec les besoins de la clientele. Une fois qu'un site specifique est choisi, le telecommunicateur entreprendra le processus d'approbation. quelque 8 000 emplacements cellulaires ou SCP au Canada, 154 our int se trouvent sur des structures autres que des pylones. 11 - 158 - The Antenna Approval Process In this section • Jurisdiction • Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting • Local Land -Use Authorities Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antennes Dans cette section • Competence • Cadre reglementaire relatif a l'emplacement d'antennes sans fil • Autorites regionales responsables de l'utilisation du sol - 159 13 14 The Antenna Approval Process Jurisdiction Any discussion of tower approval procedures requires an understanding of the jurisdictional issues and the facts upon which jurisdiction is based. Canada's federal government has exclusive and comprehensive jurisdiction over the area of radiocommunication and telecommunications .1 The Privy Council determined in its decision re Regulation and Control of Radio -Communications in Canada2 that the Parliament of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction to regulate and control ra- diocommunication. Provincial Courts of Appeal (such as British Columbia and Ontario) have followed the Privy Council's decision without reservation. National jurisdiction over telecommunications, including the authorization of radio- communication facilities, is a common characteristic of the regulatory structures of all countries having advanced radiocommunication networks. Industry Canada is responsible for regulating radiocommunica- tion in Canada including authorizing the installation of radio- communication towers and sites. This authority is derived from the Department of Industry Act, which describes the powers and duties of the department and the minister, and the Radiocommunication Act, which specifically provides the authority to approve antenna supporting structures. Indeed, the most recent authoritative review of Industry Canada's policies governing the siting of radiocommunications facilities, i.e. the 2004 Townsend Report, recommended that the legislative authority to regulate the siting of towers "should remain exclusively with the Government of Canada." 3 1 Canadian Municipalities and the Regulation of Radio Antennas and their Support Structures, prepared for Industry Canada 1 by David Townsend, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, 1987 2 re Regulation and Control of Radio Communications of Canada [1932] A.C. 304 (Privy Council) 3 Report on the National Antenna Tower Policy, prepared for Industry Canada by David Townsend, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, 2004 Le processus d'approbation relatif aux antennes Competence Toute discussion sur le processus d'approbation d'un pylone necessite une bonne comprehension des questions de competence et des faits sur lesquels reposent les champs de competence. Au Canada, les radiocommunications et les telecommunications sont un champ de competence relevant exclusivement et entierement du federal 1. Dans In re, la reglementation et le contra' le de la radiocommunication au Canada 2, le Conseil prive a determine que le Parlement du Canada a la competence exclusive de reglementer et d'exercer un controle sur les radiocommunications. Des cours d'appel provinciales (telles que celles de la Colombie-Britannique et de l'Ontario) ont respecte la decision du Conseil prive sans reserve. Les telecommunications, et l'autorite des installations de radiocommunications, sont communement de competence nationale dans tous les pays dotes de reseaux de radiocommunications avances. Industrie Canada est responsable de la reglementation des radiocommunications au Canada, ce qui comprend l'autorisation d'installer des pylones et des sites de radiocommunication. Cette autorite est conferee par la Loi sur le ministere de ('Industrie, qui precise les pouvoirs et les responsabilites du ministere et du ministre,et par la Loi sur la radiocommunication, qui confere explicitement le pouvoir d'autoriser les structures qui supportent les antennes. En effet, la plus recente etude faisant autorite au sujet des politiques d'Industrie Canada visant l'emplacement des installations de radiocommunications, soit le rapport Townsend de 2004, recommandait que l'autorisation legate de reglementer l'emplacement des tours aa demeure la competence exclusive du gouvernement du Canada. 3 >> Les municipalites canodiennes et to reglementation des antennes radio et des basis d'antennes, rapport soumis a �ustrie Canada par David Townsend, Faculte de droit, Universite du Nouveau -Brunswick, 1987. sell Pr,, In re, la reglementation et le controle de la radiocommunication au Canada, [1932] A.G. 304 3 Rapport sur 1'examen de 0 politique nationale sur les pyldnes d'antenne, rapport soumis a Industrie Canada par David Townsend, Faculte de droit, Universite du Nouveau -Brunswick, 2004. Regulations Governing Wireless Antenna Siting Industry Canada's procedures for constructing and installing antenna structures are covered in a Client Procedure Circular entitled Environmental Process, Radiofrequency Fields and Land -Use Consultation. For cellular/PCS service providers, com- pliance with these procedures is required as a condition of licence. In exercising its authority, Industry Canada also makes use of the input and expertise of federal departments and agencies. To ensure the environment is not harmed, antenna structures must conform to the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To ensure the safety of air navi- gation, antenna proponents must comply with Transport Canada's antenna structure clearance procedures. Similarly, Health Canada's Safety Code 6, which wireless carriers rigidly ahere to, ensures that radio frequency emissions are more than well within safe levels. Cadre reglementaire relatif a !'emplacement d'antennes sans fil Les procedures dictees par Industrie Canada pour la construction et ['installation de batis d'antennes sont enoncees dans une Circulaire des procedures concernant les clients intitulee Processus environnemental, champs de radiofrequences et consultation sur l'utilisation du sol. Le respect de ces procedures est une condition de licence pour les fournisseurs de services cellulaires ou SCP. Pour exercer ses pouvoirs, Industrie Canada peut egalement compter sur les commentaires et ['expertise d'autres ministeres et organismes federaux. Afin de s'assurer que l'environnement est protege, les bads d'antenne doivent etre conformes aux exigences prescrites par la Loi canadienne sur !'evaluation environnementale. Afin de s'assurer que la navigation aerienne est securitaire, les antennes doivent etre conformes aux procedures d'autorisation de ['emplacement et des bads d'antenne par Transports Canada. De plus, le Code de securite 6 de Sante Canada, auquel les telecommunicateurs sans fil adherent rigoureusement, fait en sorte que les emissions en radiofrequence sont de beaucoup inferieures aux limites permises. - 161 - 15 Local Land -Use Authorities As a result of the federal jurisdiction of telecommunications operations, traditional municipal land -use planning controls such as zoning by-laws, development approvals, and Building Code requirements are rendered inoperative to the extent that they affect or interfere with the siting, physical location, design, construction and operation of federal undertakings such as cellular/PCs carriers. In other words, the prohibition, restriction or regulation of land for its use as a wireless telecommunication facility would be the authority of the Land -Use Authority. Nevertheless, as a condition of their wireless licences, Industry Canada requires carriers to consult with the municipal/land-use authority when proposing the installation of significant antenna structures in order to gain the land -use authority's concurrence. Industry Canada generally considers that once a participating land -use authority is contacted, it should make its views known to the applicant within 60 days. Further, the entire consultation process should be completed within 120 days. For the vast majority of cases, the procedures and processes in place have worked well in meeting the needs of communities, individuals, wireless carriers and their subscribers. Autorites regionales responsables de ['utilisation du sol Parce que ['exploitation des telecommunications est de competence federate, les mesures de controle traditionnelles de l'amenagement du territoire, telles que les reglements de zonage, ['approbation de lotissements et les normes et reglements de construction, sont sans effet pour ce qui est de la localisation, ['emplacement materiel, la conception, la construction et ['exploitation d'immobilisations relatives a des secteurs regis par le federal, comme le sont les telecommunications cellulaires ou SCP. En d'autres mots, ['interdiction, la restriction ou la reglementation de ['utilisation du sol relativement a des installations de telecommunications sans fit releve du responsable de ['utilisation du sol. Toutefois, Industrie Canada exige comme condition de licence que les telecommunicateurs consultent les responsables de ['utilisation du sol municipaux ou regionaux lorsqu'ils prevoient installer une structure d'antenne d'importance, afin d'obtenir leur assentiment. Industrie Canada croit qu'a partir du moment ou le responsable de ['utilisation du sol concerne a ete avise, celui-ci doit faire connaitre sa decision au requerant dans les 60 jours. En outre, ['ensemble du processus de consultation devrait etre termine dans un dela' de 120 jours. Dans la vaste majorite des cas, les procedures et processus en place ont permis de satisfaire aux besoins des collectivites, des individus, des telecommunicateurs sans fit et de leurs abonnes. - 162 - 16 Health and Safety Issues In this section • Electromagnetic Waves and Fields • Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations • Safety Code 6 • Other Projects on Health and Safety of Wireless Devices Questions de sante et de securite Dans cette section • Champs et ondes electromagnetiques • Competence relative a la sante et la securite de batis d'antenne • Code de securite 6 • Autres projets visant la sante et la securite des appareils sans fil - 163 17 Health and Safety Issues Electromagnetic Waves and Fields One of the most volatile issues related to antenna sites anywhere in the world is the potential effects they may have on human health because they emit electromagnetic energy. Wireless devices use radio frequencies (RF) that are non -ionizing waves below the visible light part of the electromagnetic spectrum. Waves above visible light are of the ionizing type such as gamma and X-rays, which are know to be harmful to humans. Electromagnetic waves are a form of energy that consist of vibrating electric and magnetic fields. Electric fields are produced by forces of electric charges, and magnetic fields are produced when electric charges are in motion. When an appliance is plugged in, an electric field is produced around the appliance; when the appliance is turned on and the electrical current is flowing, a magnetic field is produced. The main natural source of electromagnetic radiation is the sun. Natural electromagnetic energy (i.e. sunlight) is necessary for photosynthesis in plants. Man-made sources, however, account for most of the electromagnetic radiation in our environment. With the proliferation of new technological devices in our home and workplace we are all exposed to electromagnetic radiation daily. Everyday household electrical devices such as hair dryers, electrical ovens, fluorescent lights, microwave ovens, stereos and computers all emit electrical and magnetic fields of varying intensities. Mobile phones and the transmitters that support these items, just like all radio systems, function because they are able to send, receive and manipulate these fields. Studies have shown that cellular/PCS emissions represent less that 25% of the ambient RF emissions in an urban area. - 16 18 In 2002, Industry Canada conducted a study4 examining the level of RF fieldsin the City of Toronto, where the highest concentration of radio systems exists in Canada. The study took measurements at 61 locations around the city and found that on average, ambient RF field levels are 0.14% of Safety Code 6 allowable levels (705 times less). The study also found that cellular/PCS transmissions represented only 9% to 24% of measured RF energy. valuation of Electromagnetic Field Intensity in the City of Toronto, Industry Canada, June 2002 Questions de sante et de securite Champs et ondes electromagnetiques Une des questions les plus tumultueuses associees aux antennes partout au monde est leurs repercussions eventuelles sur la sante humaine, puisqu'elles emettent de l'energie electromagnetique. Les appareils sans fil utilisent des radiofrequences qui sont des longueurs d'ondes non ionisantes inferieures au rayonnement visible du spectre electromagnetique. Les longueurs d'ondes superieures au rayonnement visible sont de type ionisant, comme les rayons gamma et les rayons X, qui sont reconnus comme etant nocives pour les humains. Les ondes el ectromagnetiques sont une forme d'energie qui consiste en des champs electriques et magnetiques vibrants. Les champs electriques sont produits par la force de particules electriquement chargees, alors que les champs magnetiques sont engendres par le deplacement de charges electriques. Quand un appareil est branche, un champ electrique se forme autour de l'appareil; quand un appareil est mis sous tension et que le courant electrique y passe, un champ magnetique se forme. Le soleil est la principale source naturelle de rayonnement electromagnetique. L'energie electromagnetique naturelle (c'est-a-dire la lumiere du soleil) est necessaire a la photosynthese des vegetaux. Toutefois, l'essentiel du rayonnement electromagnetique present dans notre environnement provient de sources artificielles. Compte tenu de l'abondance de nouveaux appareils technologiques dans nos foyers et nos lieux de travail, nous sommes tous exposes quotidiennement au rayonnement electromagnetique. Des appareils electriques de tous les jours comme les sechoirs cheveux, les cuisinieres electriques, les lampes - 16 fluorescentes, les fours a micro-ondes, les chaines stereo et les ordinateurs emettent tous des champs electriques et magnetiques d'une intensite variable. Comme tout systeme de radiocommunication, les telephones mobiles et les emetteurs qui les soutiennent fonctionnent parce qu'ils ont le potentiel d'emettre, de recevoir et de manipuler ces champs. Des etudes ont demontre que moins de 25 pour cent des emissions de radiofrequences ambiantes en milieu urbain proviennent du cellulaire ou SCP. En 2002, Industrie Canada a mene une etude4 sur l'intensite des champs de radiofrequences dans la ville de Toronto, la o6 l'on retrouve la plus forte concentration de systemes radio au Canada. Dans le cadre de cette etude, on a pris des mesures a 61 endroits un peu partout dans la ville pour conclure qu'en moyenne, l'intensite des champs de radiofrequences ambiants representaient 0,14 pour cent des limites prescrites par le Code de securite 6 (soit 705 fois moins). L'etude a egalement demontre que les transmissions cellulaires ou SCP ne representaient que 9 pour cent a 24 pour cent de l'energie en radiofrequences mesuree. aluation de 1'intensite du chomp electromognelique dons to vine de Toronto, Industrie Canada, juin 2002 19 Jurisdiction over Health and Safety of Antenna Installations The Electromagnetics Division of Health Canada has primary responsibility for ensuring that devices that emit electromagnetic fields are not harmful to Canadians. In order to meet this man- date, the Division: • develops guidelines for the protection of the general public and workers from exposure to EMFs • conducts research in the assessment of EMF exposure levels in residential and workplace environments • conducts laboratory studies and monitors external research on the biological effects of EMFs • sets regulations for the safe use of microwave ovens and enforces their compliance • advises government departments and agencies, industry, and the general public on exposure to EMFs 20 Competence relative a la sante et la securite des bads d'antenne La responsabilite de s'assurer que les appareils qui emettent La responsabilite de s'assurer que les appareils qui emettent des champs electromagnetiques ne sont pas nocifs pour la sante des Canadiens repose principalement sur la Division d'electromagnetisme de Sante Canada. Afin de remplir ce mandat, la division: • developpe les lignes directrices pour la protection du grand public et des travailleurs contre l'exposition aux champs el ectromagnetiques • mene des recherches relatives a revaluation des niveaux d'exposition des champs electromagnetiques dans le secteur residentiel et en milieu de travail • mene des recherches en laboratoire et surveille les recher- ches effectuees ailleurs, portant sur les effets biologiques des champs electromagnetiques • etablit des reglements pour une utilisation securitaire des fours a micro-ondes et veille a leur observation • conseille les ministeres et les organismes publics, l'industrie ainsi que le grand public au sujet de questions relatives a l'exposition aux champs electromagnetiques - 166 - Safety Code 6 Code de securite 6 The guideline that applies to mobile phones, base stations and all other RF transmitters is Safety Code 6.5 This safety code is one of a series of guidelines Health Canada has produced on the safe use of devices that emit radiation. Safety Code 6 has been adopted by many organizations across Canada and referred to in a number of regulations, including the Canada Occupational Safety and Health Regulations. The limits given in Safety Code 6 were arrived at after looking at many scientific studies on the health effects of RF energy exposure and considering international exposure standards. At ground level, the level of exposure to RF emissions is typically a small fraction of Health Canada's Safety Code 6 levels. Health Canada does not directly regulate mobile phone manufacturers or network operators. Industry Canada does directly regulate the industry, and requires, as a condition of licence, that: radio stations are installed and operated in a manner that complies with Health Canada's limits of human exposure to radio frequency electromagnetic fields for the general public including the consideration of existing radiocommunication installations within the local environment. Safety Code 6 is consistent with standards from around the world and is based on a large body of scientific research including a review performed by the Royal Society of Canada prepared at the request of Health Canada. 5 Limits of Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields in the Frequency Range from 3 RHZ to 300 GHZ - Safety Code Le Code de securite 6 est la directive qui s'applique aux telephones mobiles, stations de base et tout autre emetteur de radiofrequences 5. Ce code de securite fait partie d'une serie de directives au sujet de l'utilisation securitaire d'appareils emetteurs de rayonnement produite par Sante Canada. Le Code de securite 6 a ete adopt& par de nombreuses organisations partout au Canada; on y fait reference dans nombre de reglementations, y compris dans le Reglement canadien sur la sante et la securite au travail. Les limites prescrites par le Code de securite 6 ont ete etablies suite a une revue de nombreuses etudes scientifiques sur les consequences sur la sante de l'exposition a l'energie des radiofrequences et en tenant compte des normes internationales d'exposition. Au niveau du sol, le degre d'exposition aux emissions de radiofrequences represente habituellement une fraction minime des limites prevues au Code de securite 6. Sante Canada ne regit pas directement les fabricants de telephones mobiles ou les exploitants de reseaux. Industrie Canada a le pouvoir de reglementer directement l'industrie et exige comme condition de licence que : les stations radio soient installees et exploitees conformement aux limites d'exposition humaine aux champs de radiofrequences electromagnetiques etablies par Sante Canada qui visent le grand public, en tenant compte des installations de radiocommunications deja en place dans le milieu environnant. Le Code de securite 6 correspond aux normes internationales et est fond& sur de nombreux documents de recherche scientifique, y compris un examen men& par la Societe royale du Canada a la demande de Sante Canada. ilites d'exposition humaine aux champs de radiofr6quences AlectromagnOtiques dans la gamme de fr€quences de 3 NHZ d 300 GHZ - Code de securite 6 21 Other Projects on Health and Safety of Wireless Devices Health Canada has also been taking part in the International EMF Project, coordinated by the World Health Organization (WHO). The goals of this project are to verify reported biological effects from exposure to electromagnetic fields and to characterize any associated health risks to humans. A valuable source of information on the state of the science around the health effects of EMF is RFcom.ca based at the Uni- versity of Ottawa McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment. RFcom.ca is an internet-based information resource managed by a Science Panel that reviews and reports on the most recent research studies about wireless technology and health from around the world. More than 6 million calls to 9-1-1 are made per year from cellular phones. Plus de 6 millions des appels au 9-1-1 chaque armee sont places a partir d'un cellulaire. Autres projets visant Ia sante et Ia securite des appareils sans fil Sante Canada participe egalement au Projet international sur les CEM coordonne par l'Organisation mondiale de la Sante (OMS). Le but de ce projet est de verifier les effets biologiques reportes resultant de l'exposition aux champs electromagnetiques et de caracteriser n'importe quel risque associe au detriment de la sante humaine. RFcom.ca, au Centre R. Samuel McLaughlin d'evaluation du risque pour la sante des populations a l'Universite d'Ottawa, est une source precieuse de renseignements sur l'etat des recherches scientifiques au sujet des effets de forces electromotrices sur la sante. RFcom.ca est une ressource documentaire sur Internet dirigee par un groupe d'experts scientifiques qui passe en revue et commente les recherches les plus recentes menees dans le monde entier sur les technologies sans fil et leurs effets sur la sante. - 168 - 22 Antenna Tower Information Resources Industry Canada - Let's Talk Towers http: //www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst. nes/en/ sf01637e.html An overview of the process for radiocommunications antenna siting. Includes a video presentation. University of Ottawa McLaughlin Centre for Population Health Risk Assessment www. rfcom. ca A comprehensive source of information about electromagnetic frequencies and their health effects. Includes a primer on electromagnetic frequencies, wireless phones and an up-to-date bibliography of scientific journal articles on the health effects of EMF. Health Canada Safety Code 6 http: / /www. he-sc. gc. ca /ewh-semt / pubs/ radiation / 99ehd-dhm237/preface-preambule_e. html A link to Safety Code 6, the Government of Canada developed safety standard that governs antenna siting. Sources d'information sur les pylones d'antenne Industrie Canada - Parlons pyl"ones http: / /www.strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst. nsf/fr/ sf01637f.html Un apercu du processus de localisation d'antennes de radiocommunications. Comprend une presentation video. Centre R. Samuel McLaughlin d'evaluation du risque pour la sante des populations a l'Universite d'Ottawa www. rfcom. ca Une source complete de renseignements sur les frequences electromagnetiques et leur effet sur la sante. Comprend une introduction sur les frequences electromagnetiques, les telephones sans fil et une bibliographie a jour sur des articles de revues scientifiques sur les effets des champs electromagnetiques sur la sante. Code de securite 6 de Sante Canada http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/ 99ehd-dhm237/preface-preambule_f.html Un lien vers le Code de securite 6, la norme de securite etablie par le gouvernement du Canada qui regit l'emplacement d'antennes. World Health Organisation Organisation mondiale de la Sante http://www.who. int/peh-emf/about/WhatisEMF/en/indexl.html http://www.who.int/peh-emf/project/EMF_Project/fr/ index. html The WHO EMF Project provides information about electro- magnetic fields, including potential health effects of exposure. Le Projet CEM de l'OMS fournit des renseignements sur les champs electromagnetiques, y compris les consequences eventuelles sur la sante de l'exposition a ceux-ci. - 169 - 23 16 4 Irn klr , +17 -14 're.4,7,11 -1....4A ' *4* , 41 ,.r..!li .• ,. .., ,. r.•..1 , , • ..„... . ,_. : if !.A. I 1 . -I, • ' ----1--- . ,i 1 - '!' • ' r 1,11 , 'I ,, '', , ? : '-- . , ' , 1.-' : .,.;', , 1,K; -.. / • -'1 . rt-----'4tt • * 's ': :. --ti -- !'A shared network CANA Schedule C From: Subject SNC File Number: SNC0120 Possat Ie tower new Claremont Date. June 24, 2018 at 326 PM To: niunlcipai0stlareonerwork.ca I am a resident ofiMSidelineal Claremont and this tower is DESPERATELY needed. Internet IS an essential service, and our area is sorely undeveloped in this regard_ At my location, we have no access whatsoever to Internet services other than the LTE network and so are highly dependent on towers. - We are down in a valley with a high tree line, which makes satellite impractical. - We are too far from the main boxes in Claremont to get DSL_ - Even the current LTE situation is barely tolerable_ Despite data prices being outrageous, we are dependent on LTE for internet that has any hope of navigating the dense data websites of today. The current towers are either too far out to be of much use, too overwhelmed by the growing population to be dependable, or too few to be able to pick up the slack when tower issues develop which... - ... to add insult to injury, happened most recently with the Claremont Bell tower through May and June of 2018, making even the simplest Internet functions hopelessly slow, it not impossible. As such, all of this impacts our ability to be a part of the modem world in numerous ways, and our safety because cell service is also severely compromised. The lack of access to reliable and reasonably fast internet is ludicrous in this day and age with the technology and resources available—literally 40 minutes from downtown Toronto_ This is completely unacceptable and is an embarrassing example of Canadian infrastructure_ highly encourage that a tower be erected as quickly as possible to serve the community on the east side of Claremont_ Thank you for your efforts in this regard. - 171 - From: Ag Al-Jound Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal Date: July 19, 2018 at 2:24 PM To: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, murnaghanc@hotmail.com, Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, crose@pickering.ca Good afternoon Mr. Claros, Thank you for your email below dated July 10, 2018. However it does not address the relevant issues presented in my letter to the Council of Pickering at all, which mostly have to do with your sales proposal not respecting/adhering to the Industry Canada and City of Pickering rules about the erection of cell towers. I will respond to your letter more specifically and completely in a separate letter to be sent to you and the City of Pickering within the next week. However, at this time, I would like to know why your report to teh City of Pickering about the proposed site suggests that my home is no less than 212 meters from the proposed cell site, when in fact a quick Google Maps view clearly shows my home is approximately 98 meters from the proposed site. Does this inaccuracy represent the same extent of due diligence behind your report Mr. Claros? As for the study from the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?", please copy and past the following URL to review a summary of the report findings; http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property- desirability/ Notwithstanding the above study, on the matter of the impact of cell towers on residential real estate values, with everything else being equal, would you really argue that there would exist the same demand for properties within or without proximity to cell towers? If you reasonably conclude that yes, everything else being equal, of course there would be less people interested in properties close to cell towers, i.e. less demand, then how could you not logically also conclude that the price for such properties would also be lower. Is this not the most basic economics principle? Lower demand...lower price. Will SNC protect my family against any such depreciation in property value? Thank you, Aghlab Al-Joundi From: Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM To: Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca; Pickles, David, Councillor; murnaghanc@hotmail.com; Morrison, Cody; kbentley@pickering.ca; crose@pickering.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal nnnri Affarnnnn Mr AI-_Iniinrii - 172 - I hope your week is going well. Please find the attached response to your comments and concerns attached. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached letter, or anything else regarding this project. Thanks! Dom Claros Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca - 173 - From: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal Date: July 23, 2018 at 1:33 PM To: Ag Al-Joundi Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, murnaghanc@hotmail.cc , Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, crose@pickering.ca Good Afternoon Mr. Al-Joundi, I hope you had a good weekend. Thank you for following up. I have been working with our team, and I believe when they were on site they made a mistake in reporting the street address and our engineer calculated a different address as the closest. You are absolutely right, after following up with the team and looking over the plans, your property is approximately 100 metres from the proposed location. As mentioned in our letter, we would be willing to work with your family to relocate the tower to the opposite end of the field to greatly increase this setback, please let me know your thoughts. Thanks for sending the link, our team will look into this new website. During our initial research we came across this website which references the study titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" conducted by the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy", but our team has not been able to locate the actual study or published documents with this title or by this organization. Please let us know if you could help our team locate this study for our review. We will look forward to receiving your response this week. Please let me know if I can help with anything else. Kind regards, Dom Claros Shared Network Canada http://shared network. ca 647-544-5080 (direct) dom. cla ros@sh ared n etwork. ca On Jul 19, 2018, at 2:24 PM, Ag Al-Joundi wrote: Good afternoon Mr. Claros, Thank you for your email below dated July 10, 2018. However it does not address the relevant issues presented in my letter to the Council of Pickering at all, which mostly have to do with your sales proposal not respecting/adhering to the Industry Canada and City of Pickering rules about the erection of cell towers. I will respond to your letter more specifically and completely in a separate letter to be sent to you and the City of Pickering within the next week. However, at this time, I would like to know why your report to teh City of Pickering about the proposed site suggests that my home is no less than 212 meters from the proposed cell site, when in fact a quick Google Maps view clearly shows my home is approximately 98 meters from the proposed site. Does this inaccuracy represent the same extent of due diligence behind your report Mr. Claros? As for the study from the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" published in June of 2014 titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?", please copy and past the following URL to review a summary of the report findings; http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/ Notwithstanding the above study, on the matter of the impact of cell towers on residential real estate values, with everything else being equal, would you really argue that there would exist the same demand for properties within or without proximity to cell towers? If you reasonably conclude that yes, everything else being equal, of course there would be less people interested in properties close to cell towers, i.e. less demand, then how could you not logically also conclude that the price for such properties would also be lower. Is this not the most basic economics principle? Lower demand...lower price. Will SNC protect my family against any such depreciation in property value? Thank you, Aghlab Al-Joundi From: Dom Claros <dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca> Sent: July 10, 2018 3:57 PM To: Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca; Pickles, David, Councillor; murnaghanc@hotmail.com Morrison, Cody; kbentleypickering.ca: crosena pickering.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Canada - SNC0120 - Claremont Proposal Good Afternoon Mr. Al-Joundi, I hope your week is going well. Please find the attached response to your comments and concerns attached. Please feel free to reach out should you have any questions or concerns regarding the attached letter, or anything else regarding this project. Thanks! Onrn ('larnc - 174 - Shared Network Canada http://s hared network.ca 647-544-5080 (direct) d om. claros@shared network. ca - 175 - Tuesday July 24, 2018 Mr. Dom Claros Shared Network Canada 275 Macpherson Ave., Unit #103 Toronto, Ontario M4V 1A4 Re: Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120, and response to your letter to me dated June 23, 2018, and email to me dated July 23, 2018 Dear Mr. Claros, Thank you for your letter to me dated June 23, 2018, as well as your email to me more recently on July 23, 2018. As I mentioned to you in my initial, email, response to your June 23, 2018 letter, said letter does not address the relevant issues I presented in my May 16, 2018 letter to the City of Pickering, addressed to Mr. Kyle Bentley. A primary issue presented in this May 16, 2018 letter is that SNC ignores the most basic Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards" Mr. Claros, in the two communications you have extended to me (as noted above), you have not addressed this point about making use of existing infrastructure. Instead, you quickly offer to move the tower about 100 metres to the east. Such a proposal does not address the critical issue of making use of existing infrastructure. Please demonstrate to Industry Canada, The City of Pickering, and my family, that you have conducted an independent engineering study that proves you have explored available, alternative, antenna -supporting infrastructure, and that such alternatives are not viable thereby confirming that a cell tower is required, and is required only in the specific location you propose. You mention specifically in your June 23, 2018 letter to me that, "while Shared Network Canada does not currently provide cellular or internet service (a point which I asserted in my letter dated May 16, 2018 to emphasize that SNC's business model is not directly linked to improving community cellular and internet services, but rather is directly linked to the erection of cell towers), the process of determining potential tower locations does not differ from companies which provide such services". Hence clearly you acknowledge that the requirements (as noted above) for the erection of such towers is the same for SNC, however you do not address this requirement other than to acknowledge it, and continue to avoid providing any evidence that you have adhered to such requirements in determining that the proposed site is exactly the site required to erect a new cell tower. - 176 - Mr. Claros, I have also made it very clear to my City of Pickering Council members that I will not accept any negative impact on my property value in association with the erection of a cell tower within the vicinity of my property. I find it curious that notwithstanding the research that is abundantly available suggesting a deprecation in residential property values within the proximity of a cell tower (an example of which has been referenced in my May 16, 2018 letter, and my July 19, 2018 email to you), you appear to not accept what is also obvious to most home owners, and residential property agents. That is, residential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. If you are so confident that this is not the case, let us explore an arrangement whereby SNC guarantees to reimburse my family for any depreciation in the market value of my residential property in the event your proposed tower is erected. I would be happy to consider a model proposed by an independent third party professional market valuation service provider for such. If however you are not so confident, then, is it fair, or reasonable even, to consider your proposed model, whereby SNC generates rental revenue for itself, the Claremont -Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while neither of the associated principals of either SNC, nor the Claremont -Union Cemetery have to live with the tower looming over them, while my family receives absolutely zero income or benefit (notwithstanding Schedule C in your June 23, 2018 letter about an alleged, single, Claremont community resident suggesting they are in need of improved cellular and internet services because they live in a valley, my family has great mobile cell and internet service...we don't suffer in this regard, and based on discussions I have had with community members, they don't suffer in this regard either), and my family assumes all of the risks? Finally, Mr. Claros, in the event you do provide independent evidence that, as per section 6.2 of the CPCTP, "...where co -location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible", please do follow the rules as set out in the same section which stipulates that under such circumstances, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities". Thank you, Aghlab Al-Joundi CC: Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Mr. Kyle Bentley — Director, City of Pikcering Development Ms. Catherine Rose — Chief Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickerin Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan — - 177 - flit shared network August 22, 2018 Aghlab Al-Joundi By email to: RE: Letter addressed, dated July 24, 2018. Dear Mr. Al-Joundi, Thank you for very much for taking the time to respond in your letter dated July 24, 2018. Thank you for your comments which state: "SNC ignores the most basic Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, 'before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards". To the contrary, SNC follows Industry Canada Protocol and prioritizes the sharing of existing equipment. While SNC does not directly distribute a telecommunication network, the process by which SNC determines a new location for a telecommunications tower matches the process used by telecommunications carriers. SNC and its team determine locations in great need of telecommunication or internet services, in which there is no current infrastructure upon which carriers or providers could go. In turn, SNC provides the infrastructure for all carriers and providers to co -locate upon the tower to provide service to the area. If the telecommunication service was not needed, or if there was currently existing infrastructure providing such service, the need for an SNC built tower would not exist. The need for a tower near Claremont can be seen below. As illustrated in "Schedule A" attached, the two nearest towers to the proposed site (SNC0120) are located over 4.3 kilometres northwest (1) and over 5.5 kilometres northeast (2). The surrounding rings (red circles) demonstrate the approximate radius of good coverage attained by each tower. The need for a tower to service Claremont, Brock Road and the surrounding community can be seen in a gap of good coverage to the south of the two towers. Please also see attached in "Schedule B" the proposed area of coverage SNC aims to deliver, by providing infrastructure with the ability for co -location of any and all wireless carriers or internet wwtiv. sh aredne lwo rk. ca 275 Macpherson Ave. #103, 'Toronto, ON M4V 1A4 - 178 - shared network CANAA providers as per Industry Canada Protocol. The tower is proposed in an optimal location in order to serve as the only infrastructure needed in the Claremont area to deliver the services needed, providing co -location to all service providers while eliminating the need for the proliferation of any other tower nearby. SNC understands your concern regarding the initial proximity of the proposed tower to your property, and we are willing to relocate the tower on the Claremont -Union Cemetery property, fully masked by mature trees on all sides in order to greatly reduce its visual impact. Moving the tower over 100 metres further from the proposed location will have a great impact on viewshed from your property and eliminate potential noise from any technicians driving to the site. In regards to your comment `1 find it curious that notwithstanding the research that is abundantly available suggesting a deprecation in residential property values within the proximity of a cell tower (an example of which has been referenced in my May 16, 2018 letter, and my July 19, 2018 email to you)" referencing the research you presented titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas—Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found here (http://electromagnetichealth.org/electromagnetic-health-blog/survey-property-desirability/), this potential study and survey cannot be located anywhere, more specifically in a scientific journal. The data and facts presented are not reinforced by any scientific journal or governmental agency. Upon research of the "National Institute for Science, Law, and Public Policy (NISLAPP)" found here (https://natinstsciencelaw.org/) which is mentioned as the agency which performed the survey, the data nor the survey itself could be found. We could not determine if the "National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy" has any published anecdotal studies or if it is an agency with any government association. SNC has followed and will continue to follow all rules stipulated in the Industry Canada Protocol. As previously mentioned, the co -location of equipment is not possible to service the Claremont area as there is currently no infrastructure available. Due to airport zoning restrictions surrounding Claremont, the topography of the proposed location had to be considered, as there is a maximum height of 300 metres above sea level for any structure constructed in the area. With much of the property surrounding Claremont owned by the Provincial Government for use of the potential future airport, and in complying with Industry Canada's Protocol to maximize its distance from residential areas, SNC has proposed this location. This location maximizes the distance of the tower from the densest residential areas of Claremont, is currently found on non-residential land, on non-profit owned property – which is most favourable after eliminating the option to locate the tower on City -Owned land or facilities. We are here to work with you and your family if you would like to discuss determining an alternate location on the Claremont -Union Cemetery Property. Our next step will be to work with you, if interested, in order to determine an alternate location. We will look to propose a new location 100 metres away from your property if no other proposed tower location is provided in order to move the proposal forward in our application with the City of Pickering and in order to bring the proposed application forward to Council. I hope the above helps to clarify the need for a tower in the area, please feel free to reach out to discuss alternate locations. - 179 - shared network CANAA Thank you, Dom Claros 647-544-5080 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca CC: Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Mr. Kyle Bentley — Director, City of Pikcering Development Ms. Catherine Rose — Chief Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan — - 180 - rail shared network Schedule A SNC0121:1 - Claremont Coverage area of the existing antennas near the proposed site. gp• mew, _ • •:-.=•"'r. 7, • . • ' i-e.nociwoo,d 7111111 ••""" • Rogers Torverillt SSSri . N44.0131 W79.1369 -.* "1 01' Legend sto Existing Coverage Pagers Towers st• SNG0120 Coverage Area SNG0120 Poposed Location • \ :Rogers i• Doors U.) N44.(.10911V74! iS4-2 fer - 181 - r% shared network cANaa Schedule B SNC0120 - Claremont Coverage arae of the proposed site. mt. rallr 11.— ��X. .''0r -�Lovdwugd .. AIR .r:" e - Ro crs To rFs 5111 5S.Si... *44.0131 WT9.1369 �\\ .r pF - 5 ' •Roosts lgwPri I.'y4J.�m N44.0(141 V6:`1'[ .41- ef R Lomond:. Exlstit g Coverage s Rogers Tourers .`.. SNC0120 Coverage Area d SNC0120 Poposed Location SNC0120 Google Earth 2018 C3rxjIs mega © 2014 F rat Baas Sal utians - 182 - Thursday December 5, 2019 Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 10 Four Seasons PI, Suite 1056 Etobicoke, ON M9B 0A6 Re: "Revised" Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna (45m) Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120 Dear Madame/Sir, I recently received by Canada Post mail your "Public Notice Package" (PNP) regarding the above. Notwithstanding the concerns I expressed about your original proposal (as per the public consultation process of May/June 2018), and the multiple violations this proposal had presented to both the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP"), as detailed in my letter to Mr. Kyle Bentley of the City of Pickering, dated May 16, 2018, a copy of which SNC also has, and the fact that in their report (PLN 16-19) dated June 17, 2019, the City of Pickering had also rejected your proposal saying, "the installation does not satisfy the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location", your so-called "revised" proposal is very disappointing in that it is identical to the original except that you now suggest moving the tower 96 m further east, still within the Claremont -Union Cemetery. Whereas your original proposal had placed the tower within 96m of a corner of my home, your "revised" proposal now places the tower 202 m from the same corner of my home. Given that your "revised " proposal does nothing other than move the tower 96 m further east, the same concerns and violations remain, as follows; 1. SNC business model emphasizes erection of towers, not provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services SNC acknowledges that it is not in the business of providing cellular communications and Internet services to residential and commercial clients, but rather their business model is specifically about generating maximum revenues from the erection of as many cell towers as possible? Given your undisputed business mandate is to maximize revenues by erecting the maximum number of new towers there is a fundamental conflict with the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards". Not surprisingly, both Industry Canada and the CPCTP prioritize any cell services provider to utilize existing infrastructure to support installation of their electronics, and even the wording of such prioritization is almost identical between the two authoritative bodies. Fundamental to Industry Canada's position about the erection of such towers is also found in their website which states about their rules, "rules are designed to make sure companies are looking at ways to reduce the number of new towers they are building". Given your business model, you have no incentive to reduce the erection of additional towers by utilizing existing infrastructure. It is obvious that SNC would not have seriously considered existing infrastructure. - 183 - Your SNC business model which in effect is, "get as many towers up, as quickly as possible", is completely incompatible with the rules and protocols relating to the provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services as espoused by the Industry Canada and related City of Pickering municipal guidelines and protocols (i.e. CPCTP). 2. Negative impact on my property value, and unfair Risk/Benefit model In their report, PLN 16-19 mentioned above, the City of Pickering cites another reason for rejecting the SNC proposal because, "the tower is located within a rural area that has a number of residential dwellings and based on the design of the tower, will have a negative visual impact for the residents residing in the immediate area" Given the above acknowledgement and based on research publicly available, there is no doubt that residential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. The phenomena of lower demand for such properties where everything else is equal, is a fact. According to the research, the lower demand for such properties is driven primarily by two concerns as expressed by potential buyers, a) aesthetics — such towers are aesthetically unpleasing, they are not compatible with the nature of the neighborhood or natural features. They create a visual blight, and change the character of the area, especially when constructed in rural settings, and b) health concerns — notwithstanding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance which every proponent of cell towers is quick to reference, the fact is that there remains widespread media attention about scientific studies regarding the potential long term effects of proximity to such towers, and persistent health concerns that the public continues to express. In fact, a US study by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy published in June 2014, titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found: • 94% of home buyers and renters are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna; • 79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas; and • 90% said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in residential neighborhoods The above public perception is very disconcerting to any property owner within the vicinity of an existing or proposed cell tower. The salient point here, the incontrovertible point, is that perception is what influences a potential buyer. Negative perception means less demand. Less demand means less competition. Less competition means a lower price/value. It is that simple and categoric. As well, consider how unfair this proposed cell tower site is for my family and I. Under this site, SNC generates rental revenue for itself. Under this site, Claremont -Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while none of the owners have to live with the tower looming over them. Under this site, notwithstanding that my home will be close to, and the closest to the site, my family receives absolutely zero income though as outlined above, yet we assume all of the risks. 3. Photos of proposed tower in your PNP are misleading - The photo's in the PNP with alleged renderings of the proposed tower are misleading, understated and promote an inaccurate impression of the size and intrusiveness of the proposed tower. The PNP renderings do not reflect the alarming reality of how close the proposed tower would be to my family's house, and it avoids the key topographical prominence of the - 184 - actual Oak Ridges Moraine rolling hills and vistas that a more common, north facing view (i.e. associated with the vehicular traffic traversing Concession 9/Regional Road 5), provides of the proposed site. A more realistic impression of the proposed tower visual impact on my home is found in the attachment to this letter, which is a photo of an existing cell tower on the east side of Brock Road, just north of Concession 7. This tower is the same 45m height as the SNC proposed tower, and the picture taken was from the same 202m away from the tower that is being proposed under the "revised" proposal. Please look at the photo again. Would you support such a tower being erected in such proximity to your home, and obstructing the view from your home like this? 4. Preferred Location under City of Pickering Cell Tower protocol Under 6.2 "...where co -location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities" Neither of these articles of the CPCTP have been satisfied with the proponent's proposal. Under 6.3 — Discouraged Locations "The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in the following locations: Residential areas...On sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views and vistas." AND, "Within Environmentally sensitive lands." Given that the selected site is on the Oak Ridges Moraine and is of topographical prominence, the City of Pickering needs to disqualify this proponent's site selection. Summary As the above suggests, your "revised" proposal addresses none of the concerns and violations I outlined initially, nor does it resolve any of the reasons the City of Pickering rejected your original plan as per their report PLN 16- 19. There remain the same serious flaws and concerns with respect to the "revised" proposed SNC cell tower scheme. The SNC "revised" proposal continues to be unfair to my family by having us assume significant risks with zero benefits, and continues to be incompatible with the fundamental Industry Canada and CPCTP rules. To be frank, SNC does not appear to be sincere about revisions that address my family's concerns, about it's violations of the Industry Canada and CPCTP rules, nor about the reasons why the City of Pickering rejected your original proposal. For these reasons, you cannot be permitted to proceed with your "revised" proposal. Thank you, - 185 - Aghlab Al-Joundi Cc. Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Ms. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner City of Pickering Mr. Kyle Bentley— Director City of Pickering Development & CBO Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Nilesh Surti, Manager Development Review & Urban Design, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan — In response to your correspondence re .File # SNCO12O Nov. 23.2019 The proposed Radio Tower Site as indicated on the map on the east side at the back of the Claremont -union Cemetery located on Concession 9 just next to our property which is a 11 acre lot located on the east side of the Claremont -union cemetery. There is currently 2 sheds on our property, this land is a building lot not a hay field. We purchased the lot over 5 years ago to build a home. This is prime Land in Claremont which we bought at a very high price, we currently pay over four thousand dollars a year in property taxes for this lot. We also own the property next to the land as mentioned above at 'which we pay over ten thousand dollars a year in property tax. Our objections to this proposed site of the radio tower is as follows: 1. It will definitely reduce the current value of our properties. Who will compensate us for our loss in equity? (lawsuit to follow) 2. This tower will be too close to where we propose to build our home, it will pose safety and health risks. 3. Health risk includes, cancer, headaches, memory loss, cardio vascular diseases etc. 4. The radio frequency emitted by this tower will penetrate metal and brick walls 5. The wild life in the area will also be threatened; a large number of birds are killed each year by these towers. 6. Safety hazard because of the location of the tower so close to our fence line if this tower was to collapse it would fail on our property destroying whatever is in its path. 7. We don't want to have a radio tower in our backyard, it will be a blemish on the landscape. This tower is a threat to people's health as well as the health and well being of all wild fife and farm animals. My family and I moved from the city over 13 years ago to live in the country for better health and longevity however 1 feel if we allow this tower to be built beside us it will jeopardized our health and well being. John Mitchell Indira Jaik an Wendy Mi hell (daughter) cc. Cody Morrison Planner rl , Mr. David Pickles Regional Councillor, Mr. Mitch Wiesberg (lawyer) and Jennifer O'Connell MP - 187 - shared network CANADA March 3, 2020 SNC0120 - Claremont Shared Network - Telecommunications Slimline Proposal Attention: John Mitchell, Indira Jaikaran, Wendy Mitchell Subject: Shared Network Canada - Communications Slimline Proposal Dear John, Indira, Wendy, Thank you very much for reaching out to Shared Network Canada with your comments related to the wireless telecommunication proposal to be located at The Claremont Union Cemetery in the Township of Claremont. We sincerely appreciate you taking the time to mention your concerns regarding health and safety, property value and tower location. When proposing a wireless telecommunications site, Shared Network Canada identifies an area in which they can help enhance cellular coverage, in this case the Township of Claremont due to the great need for improved cellular coverage. Alternative locations were explored during the initial study of the area, all other areas both surrounding Claremont and inside of the Town of Claremont were considered. Due to airport zoning restrictions surrounding the Township, this location was the only viable proposed property in order to comply with all airport zoning regulations as well as expand setbacks from as many nearby residents as possible while servicing Claremont. This currently proposed location maximizes setbacks from the vast majority of residents nearby, and will allow Shared Network Canada to greatly improve the cellular coverage in the immediate area. Once this location had been determined, Shared Network Canada wanted to go a step further with its proposal and is proposing to construct a telecommunications structure which will be a slim line self-support tower which will greatly reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. In regards to your concerns about health and safety, may I begin by stating that Shared Network Canada takes their obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where they construct a wireless facility, Shared Network Canada is obligated to demonstrate to Industry Canada (ISED) that they meet all health and safety standards before we are allowed to move forward. To allay your health concerns, please note that the site at the Claremont Union Cemetery will be fully compliant with the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada (ISED) and Health Canada. The following background information is provided by scientific and expert research 188 relates to the issue of health and the effects of radio signals associated with wireless communication installations. Industry Canada through ISED strictly regulates all telecommunication equipment and safety standards through Safety Code 6, to which standards Shared Network Canada will always abide. ISED continues to state that so long as the Safety Code 6 standards are met and maintained, Canadians can rest assured the telecommunications towers are safe to live nearby, including residents of the Claremont Community. The Canadian wireless industry as a whole, through the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association ("CWTA"), continually monitors the study of health issues related to wireless communications technology. The consensus among Canadian government health organizations and the scientific community is that there is no evidence that the radio signals produced by wireless communication structures have adverse effects on human health. Health Canada's safety limits are defined within a standard known as "Safety -Code 6" and are based on current accepted scientific data. Health Canada works closely with the World Health Organization in determining Safety Code 6 guidelines. Scientists at Health Canada continuously update their research to ensure that Safety Code 6 guidelines continue to protect public health. According to Health Canada, to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence to support any contention of adverse health effects that might be speculated to occur at levels below the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 has also been the subject of several independent reviews, including a study by the Royal Society of Canada in 1999, which was updated in 2003, and again in 2009. The Royal Society of Canada is an independent national body composed of scholars and scientists selected by their peers for outstanding contributions to the sciences. None of these three studies took issue with Safety Code 6's standards. The Medical Officers of Health for York Region, Hamilton and Vancouver also do not take issue with Safety Code 6. A number of independent expert groups have conducted detailed reviews of the potential health risks associated with RF field exposure. These groups also include expert panels convened by the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and the British Medical Association. All of the credible scientific reviews completed recently conclude that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with low-level RF fields, like those from cell sites. For further information on Health Canada and Industry Canada requirements, please find the attached information pamphlet on Wireless Communication and Health from Industry Canada (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09591.html), Frequently Asked Questions developed by Health Canada & Industry Canada in relation to questions on protection of the public, as well as some other useful resources and links related to health and wireless communication. As stated previously, Industry Canada (ISED) requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with Safety Code 6 at all times. Shared Network Canada attests that the telecommunication installation proposed for the Claremont Union Cemetery will at all times comply"witl 89th Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. As for your concern with property values, ISED has concluded that there have been no studies to support any evidence that would show any decreases in property value associated with new telecommunication towers or antennas installed nearby. In addition to this, Shared Network Canada has worked very hard to ensure that the telecommunication tower would be as least visually intrusive as possible, and given the proposed location is surrounded by trees Shared Network Canada has proposed to disguise their telecommunications tower as best as possible from the surrounding area. Shared Network Canada is proposing the slim line self support style of tower in order to allow it to blend in to its surroundings and remain as unnoticeable as possible to passerby's and residents. We trust the information provided on the requirements and efforts made by Shared Network Canada in demonstrating our compliance obligations will resolve the safety concerns that have been expressed. We also hope this response will help illustrate all of the due diligence taken into the site selection process to compile this proposal including the location, height, and style of the structure, in order to best service area residents while also blending the pole into its surrounding community. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to express your comments. Please let me know if we can help answer any other questions or concerns you may have, we would be happy to reach out over the telephone to help further explain any portion of this proposal. Sincere regards, Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) - 190 - shared network A N A D A Appendix D - 191 - LSu bject Properties CDRadius around subject properties ■ Properties inside radius 192 - 030002023000000 RR #4 CLAREMONT 2020 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030002051000000 P.O. BOX 105/ SCOTIA PLAZA 40 KING ST W Suite 4802 TORONTO ON M5H 3X2 CAN 030007119000000 RR# 4 CLAREMONT 5020 SIDELINE 12 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007121000000 RR#4 CLAREMONT 2230 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007123000000 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A2 030007127000000 5105 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007184000000 RR #5 1900 EIGHTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A2 CAN 030002024000000 RR#4 2090 NINTH CONCESSION RD CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007118000000 R.R. #4 5100 SIDELINE 12 RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007120000000 RR#4 CLAREMONT 2230 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007122000000 5205 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007126000000 5175 SIDELINE 14 PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007128000000 5105 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 - 193 - 8 COMMUNITY 0 0 (5 2 co 1- c7 - a) d .4 N 3 z c 0( U durhamreg ion.com POETRY SLAM IN PICKERING V-� I S �{j ti77 Jason Liebregts/ Metroland Cheyene Jones from Dunbarton High School competed in the annual Poetry SLAM at Dunbarton High School on May 3. Once again this year, Durham schools brought their best spoken -word poets to compete. Six schools vied to claim the trophy and the title of best SLAM school in Durham this year. PERSONAL INJURY + MEDICAL MALPRACTICE Experienced Trial Lawyers Serving .] Oshawa, Pickering and Whitby UfsWLawyers.ca 289.634.1680 13 John Street West Oshawa choir FM: itl-t ON OUR $50/MlJ. PLAN' 111111lam IN1 IBA. Till *TnT .11 11111 III.IlO • �1'IFII IR 11;111111, 1it'1 1h. LET'S GET GOING VISIT SUR ill OMAN TURN 1f1I+R �M Hl1LIM Et kptil HiliI P1 PRIP Fa1hrmgmkpow Loran Ltfl . gfw.dYui,mamaILrawWIosororp Eifiasiit loal/11l1I >•It01.1 1ISM IM llM!L.l I I+." hi 161.1.1.01-411 chctr �.._�., � Ti I ., PUBLIC NOTICE PROPOSED SHARED NETWORK CANADA 45m TRIPOLE WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER INSTALLATION SUBJECT: • Type: Wireless 45m tall tripole tower. • Location: 2170 Ninth Concession Road, Pickering - Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering. • Legal Description: PART OF LOT 14, CONCESSION 9, NOW PART 2 TO PART 4, 40R-20211 • Facility: The facility will include a proposed 10m x 10m fenced compound. • Site: The site space for improved wireless voice and data services in the surrounding area. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC) is the governing body for installations of this type or telecommunication antenna installation and can be contacted at: ISEDC – Toronto District Office – 151 Yonge Street, 4th Floor, Toronto, ON, M5C 2W7 ANY PERSON may make a written submission to the individuals listed below by close of day June 11th, 2018, with respect to this matter. Please reference site SNC0120 in your correspondence. Further information may also be obtained through the following contact: Municipal Contact Information Cody Morrison, Planner I City of Pickering – City Development Department (905) 420-4660 / cmorrison@pickering.ca "Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by Federal Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and administered by Industry Canada. Provincial legislation such as the Planning Act, including zoning by - laws, does not apply to these facilities. The City of Pickering is participating in land - use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of Industry Canada's CP C 2 - 0 - 03. In the case of a dispute between the proponent and the City, a final decision will be made by Industry Canada."; APPLICANT CONTACT: Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 10 Four Seasons PI, 10'" Floor Suite 1056 Etobicoke, ON M9B 0A6 (647) 242-9395 municipal@sharednetwork.ca SITE LOCATION MAP y r�ru rr • w 711. Mai - 194 - fa SMARM NETWORK CANADA 15 PROPOSING TO LOCATE A TELECOMMUNlCATFON TOWER FACT: ; : r BEING 45 METRES IN HEIGHT, ON THIS PROPERTY, PUBLIC COMMENT 15 INV{TED THE CLOSING DATE FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS IS JUNE 11"',aoas FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT THE MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS MANAGER: NIU NICIPAL@SHARE DNETWOR K, CA 647.242.9345 TELECOMMUNICATION TOWER/ANTENNA SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED EXCLUSIVELY BY FEDERAL LEGISLATION UNDER THE FEDERAL RAF}IOCLJMMUIVICRTIf]AIACFAND ADMINISTERED BY INDUSTRY CANADA. PROVINCIAL LEGISLATION SUCH AS THE PLANNNGACT, INCLUDING ZONING BY- LAWS, DOES NOT APPLY TO THESE FACILITIES. THE CITY OF PICKERING IS PARTICIPATING IN LAND -USE CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO ISSUE 5 OF INDUSTRY CANADA'S CPC 2-0-03 IN THE CASE OF A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PROPONENT AND THE CITY,A FINAL DECISION WILL BE MADF Hv pp INDUSTRY CANADA, T 7 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT CITY OF PICKERING - CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM E N CODY MORRISON, PLANNER I AT 905.420-4660 OR ISE DC - TORONTO DISTRICT OFFICE. 751 YCNGESTREFT 4 "FLOOR, TORONTO, ON MSC 2W) ICSPECTTiUMFINOO-SP£CTTLEDENQ,7Cg C4NAOR C4 shared network A N A D A Appendix E - 196 - From: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: Shared Network Tower - Claremont Union Cemetery - Support of Construction Date: March 26, 2020 at 3:02 PM To: SNC Municipal Relations municipal@sharednetwork.ca, Karen Bisson Cc: Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca Hi Karen, Thank you very much for following up. We're just getting used to this new work environment but will be submitting our final comments in the next couple days and then we will be seeking to move our proposal forward to Council for their approval. Thank you so much your support! Hopefully the tower will be up in no time! Kind regards, Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca On Mar 14, 2020, 10:09 AM -0400, Karen Bisson , wrote: Good day, I am following up on this issue and hope to you have made the wise and logical decision to support this tower project for the health and safety of those in our lovely little forgotten community. If you can please confirm you are proceeding with this project, it would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Karen Bisson On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 10:48 AM SNC Municipal Relations <municipal(asharednetwork.ca> wrote: Good morning Karen and Martin, Thank you for taking the time to write a review about our SNC0120 proposal in Claremont, the public input during the commenting period is very important. Happy New Year! Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca On Dec 23, 2019, at 1:20 PM, Karen Bisson wrote: Good day, How many times a day do you reach for your cell phone? You pick it up and check it without giving it another thought. If you need to make a phone call because of an emergency, you are able to do so without any service issue. That is a luxury that the rural inhabitants of north Pickering are not permitted. I have been a resident of Claremont for my entire life. My family has deep ties to the community going back generations and has witnessed the progress that has come along to our lovely rural community as well as the discrimination against this community for being less urban. Claremont has had a strong agricultural community for generations, and with the advance in technology in agricultural equipment, accidents still happen, people still have medical emergencies and when that call for help is unable to be placed because we do not have service in this area, it provide a stark and frightening reality that is often faced in a rural community as the folks in the more urban areas don't take their rural neighbours into consideration. How - 197 - VV 1-1 u yvu ivvi le yvu .puu.Ov, pc. vl IL u IIIc VVGI uIIauIG .� 0I� y..0 IJ l.,Qu.Ov 11 VVGIG II I 011 area that does not provide reliable and stable cellular reception. How much worry would run through your mind especially if there was emergency circumstances? With the installation of this proposed tower, it allows for the community which is often forgotten in Claremont (North Pickering) to have access to emergency contacts and stable reliable cellular service. Anyone who opposes the installation of this tower, is selfish, unreasonable and neglecting the basic needs of the health and safety of the community. Anyone who opposes this tower who lives south of Highway 7 should lose all credibility as they do not understand or appreciate the challenges this rural community often faces. This tower is only logical and services the needs of the northern Pickering community. Be the change that fuels a safer community with more reliable cellular service. Allow the community of Claremont to enjoy the services that the more urban part of Pickering takes for granted. I welcome any constructive dialogue you may wish to have, and can be reached at (Providing I am in an area that has service). Sincerely, Karen and Martin Bisson - 198 - From: SNC Municipal Relations municipal@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: Reference SNC0120 Date: January 2, 2020 at 9:38 AM To: Good morning Douglas, Happy New Year! Thank you for forwarding this letter to our attention. We will include it in the package to send to the council to get the approval from the City. Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca On Dec 23, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Sorry sent to Dom earlier . Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad wrote: Begin forwarded message: On Thursday, December 19, 2019, 5:00 PM, R.E. Hoboth wrote: Please find attached my letter of endorsement of Shared Network Canada's proposed Wireless Telecommunications Antenna which is being considered for installation on the property of Claremont Union Cemetery. Should you have any questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact me. Doua Cummings <City of Pickeiring Planning Committee meeting letter. Dec 18 19.doc> - 199 - The Claremont Union Cemetary Co. Ltd Murray Jones President Date: June 5, 2019 Subject: Telecommunication Tower Installation #66 Reference SNC0120 To: Susan Cassell D. Ryan — Mayor, City of Pickering D. Pickles — Regional Councillor, Ward 3 S. Butt — City Councillor, Ward 3 D. Claros — Shared Network Canada Doug Cummings Secretary/Treasurer My wife Kathy and I have been on the Board of Directors of the Claremont Union Cemetery for several years and we currently function as its Secretary/Treasurer. We reside on 170 acres on Sideline 12 in Pickering where Kathy's ancestors are the original settlers of the land we live on. We are both retired, Kathy was a Professor teaching Nursing at what is now Ontario Tech in Oshawa and I was an HR Manager - Labour Relations at General Motors in Oshawa. In June of this year we attended the Planning Committee meeting where Shared Network and others, including myself, made presentations regarding the tower being proposed. At that time, discussion of this proposal ended with a decision on the matter being deferred for further investigation and amendment between Shared Network and Pickering's Engineering Dept. Since that time we have had discussions with several community members and farmers regarding Cellular and Internet performance in the Claremont area. Where we live we do not have access to high speed internet through cable or fibreoptic and in our discussions with Bell Canada we are not likely to have these available in the near future. We have been using a Rogers Rocket Hub device for internet, however cellular service remains poor with many "dead zones" in the area. These dead zones are of particular concern for our area farmers who may run into trouble while performing their regular agricultural activities. Since breakdowns do not frequently happen in convenient locations in the fields, cellular service is now as much a tool as a wrench or a hammer It might simply be a mechanical breakdown requiring the help of another family member or the closest neighbor or perhaps more seriously it - 200 - could be a medical issue requiring immediate attention. Without the ability to call for help using 911 or calling home, the farmer may not be found until its too late. When we last met on this proposal in June 2019 I told of the situation we face at our own home where when standing on our deck and using my cell phone to call the landline in our house, less than 15 feet away, it is sometimes a long distance call. Suppose Kathy or I were outside alone, felt and recognized the symptoms of a heart attack or stroke being imminent and tried to phone the other for help. The additional precious seconds it takes to redial if it turned out that it was of those times when the call was "long distance" might mean the difference between life with prognosis for full recovery or a less desireable out come. It is our hope that with more towers such as the one being proposed by Shared Network, our ability to access reliable and secure Internet and Cellular services will be available. It will help provide for the safety of all residents in the Claremont area and the area farmers whether owners or tenant farmers using our lands. This tower is needed now! Thank you for giving this your sincere consideration. On behalf of the Claremont Union Cemetary Board, Douglas (Doug) J. Cummings cc: file Page 2 - 201 - From: Indira Jaikaran knocky007@gmail.com B Subject: File # SNC0120 Date: November 24, 2019 at 7:36 PM To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca Attached is our response to the public notice with regards to the above mentioned file. Owners John Mitchell Indira Jaikaran in res nye to your correspondence re . File # SNCCx 2i) rlJov, 112019 The proposed Radio Fowur Site as 411%c -died on the Map on the east aide at the back of the Claremont-umbn Cemetery 'Mated err Cancesskon 41ust next to aur property Ihrhich is a 11 arzre 10! 1acat cid en the cost side of the' C larerno tt•IJr» IV! cemetery, There is cwrten1NV 2 5hedl an our property, this /arid IS a building hot nota hay Field_ We purchased the lot cover 5 years ago to build a -horny. This Js prir�1e Land in Clermont which wt bauoh# ata very hig41 price, we curr,fntlyr pay aver tour thousand dollars a y+earTn property t xes far this Iot. We also h'dn the property next to the land AS mentioned above at itlth we ow? over inn thousen d dollars. a yQar In property tax. Orr 4blecklrrrl5-to the proem Bite Of the radlv tower is A4 fCJIf?W3: 1. rt wIll definitely reduce the {urreht Value Of our prQpertle5.4 Who wllM compensate us kir our loss in eoulty'r {lawsuit to follow} 2. This tower wilt be too erose ti where wie propose to build our home, it ON pose softy and he.altlt risks. 3- Health Nak li cJ-Ides, canter. headaches. memory foss. candle vastUlar dkei.5e5 etc, 4. The radia fregirenryr ernrtted by this fewer will penetrate mewl. and brick walls 5. The wild We In the area will a iso be threatened; a Targe nurm*er of birds ate killed each year by these towers. 5. Safety bawd because of the location of the tower so close to our fence Roe If thi; tower was to collapse it would Fall ori out property destroying whatever is In its path. 1 We don't wvant to have a radio tower in our Jaarckvard, it will be # blemish on the landscape. Thi tiwer is a threat to people's health as -well as the health and well being of all vAld Itfe ono farm anImals_ MY family and 1 moved from the El t}+ over 13 years mita to live in the coo miry for better health and lorwpOry however 1 '00 if we allow this fewer to be boil( 15415141! 1.0 it Wali teapardhzed our health and well belch, Iahn Mitrtholl Welf& d M h ii pug €L Cody, %lortison Planner ll , Mr. Cwidid P+ekle% Regional Councillor, Mr_ WW1. Wiesbe rg jlawyerj and Jennifer O'tonne111 NIP PDF scan0002.pdf - 203 - From: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca B Subject: Re: File # SNC0120 Date: March 4, 2020 at 11:10 AM To: Indira Jaikaran Cc: Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, Jennifer.Oconnell.C1@parl.gc.ca, Leticia Avanse leticia@sharednetwork.ca Good Morning Indira, John, I hope this email finds you both well! Please see attached our response to your comments as per Industry Canada's guidleines, please feel free to reach out with any other questions you may have. Thanks! Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca On Dec 6, 2019, 11:39 AM -0500, Indira Jaikaran wrote: Thank you for your response. On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 9:51 AM SNC Municipal Relations <municipal@sharednetwork.ca> wrote: Good morning John and Indira, I am writing this email to confirm our receipt of your comment below. Our team will review and prepare a response within the next couple of days, please feel free to reach out with any other questions or concerns in the meantime. Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://shared network.ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca Begin forwarded message: From: Indira Jaikaran Subject: File # SNC0120 Date: November 24, 2019 at 7:41:20 PM EST To: municipal sharednetwork.ca Attached is our response to the public notice with regards to the above mentioned file. Owners John Mitchell Indira Jaikaran Shared Network Canad...se.pdf -204- shared network CANADA March 3, 2020 SNC0120 - Claremont Shared Network - Telecommunications Slimline Proposal Attention: John Mitchell, Indira Jaikaran, Wendy Mitchell Subject: Shared Network Canada - Communications Slimline Proposal Dear John, Indira, Wendy, Thank you very much for reaching out to Shared Network Canada with your comments related to the wireless telecommunication proposal to be located at The Claremont Union Cemetery in the Township of Claremont. We sincerely appreciate you taking the time to mention your concerns regarding health and safety, property value and tower location. When proposing a wireless telecommunications site, Shared Network Canada identifies an area in which they can help enhance cellular coverage, in this case the Township of Claremont due to the great need for improved cellular coverage. Alternative locations were explored during the initial study of the area, all other areas both surrounding Claremont and inside of the Town of Claremont were considered. Due to airport zoning restrictions surrounding the Township, this location was the only viable proposed property in order to comply with all airport zoning regulations as well as expand setbacks from as many nearby residents as possible while servicing Claremont. This currently proposed location maximizes setbacks from the vast majority of residents nearby, and will allow Shared Network Canada to greatly improve the cellular coverage in the immediate area. Once this location had been determined, Shared Network Canada wanted to go a step further with its proposal and is proposing to construct a telecommunications structure which will be a slim line self-support tower which will greatly reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. In regards to your concerns about health and safety, may I begin by stating that Shared Network Canada takes their obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where they construct a wireless facility, Shared Network Canada is obligated to demonstrate to Industry Canada (ISED) that they meet all health and safety standards before we are allowed to move forward. To allay your health concerns, please note that the site at the Claremont Union Cemetery will be fully compliant with the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada (ISED) and Health Canada. The following background information is provided by scientific and expert research 205 relates to the issue of health and the effects of radio signals associated with wireless communication installations. Industry Canada through ISED strictly regulates all telecommunication equipment and safety standards through Safety Code 6, to which standards Shared Network Canada will always abide. ISED continues to state that so long as the Safety Code 6 standards are met and maintained, Canadians can rest assured the telecommunications towers are safe to live nearby, including residents of the Claremont Community. The Canadian wireless industry as a whole, through the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association ("CWTA"), continually monitors the study of health issues related to wireless communications technology. The consensus among Canadian government health organizations and the scientific community is that there is no evidence that the radio signals produced by wireless communication structures have adverse effects on human health. Health Canada's safety limits are defined within a standard known as "Safety -Code 6" and are based on current accepted scientific data. Health Canada works closely with the World Health Organization in determining Safety Code 6 guidelines. Scientists at Health Canada continuously update their research to ensure that Safety Code 6 guidelines continue to protect public health. According to Health Canada, to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence to support any contention of adverse health effects that might be speculated to occur at levels below the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 has also been the subject of several independent reviews, including a study by the Royal Society of Canada in 1999, which was updated in 2003, and again in 2009. The Royal Society of Canada is an independent national body composed of scholars and scientists selected by their peers for outstanding contributions to the sciences. None of these three studies took issue with Safety Code 6's standards. The Medical Officers of Health for York Region, Hamilton and Vancouver also do not take issue with Safety Code 6. A number of independent expert groups have conducted detailed reviews of the potential health risks associated with RF field exposure. These groups also include expert panels convened by the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and the British Medical Association. All of the credible scientific reviews completed recently conclude that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with low-level RF fields, like those from cell sites. For further information on Health Canada and Industry Canada requirements, please find the attached information pamphlet on Wireless Communication and Health from Industry Canada (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09591.html), Frequently Asked Questions developed by Health Canada & Industry Canada in relation to questions on protection of the public, as well as some other useful resources and links related to health and wireless communication. As stated previously, Industry Canada (ISED) requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with Safety Code 6 at all times. Shared Network Canada attests that the telecommunication installation proposed for the Claremont Union Cemetery will at all times comply wit2OGth Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. As for your concern with property values, ISED has concluded that there have been no studies to support any evidence that would show any decreases in property value associated with new telecommunication towers or antennas installed nearby. In addition to this, Shared Network Canada has worked very hard to ensure that the telecommunication tower would be as least visually intrusive as possible, and given the proposed location is surrounded by trees Shared Network Canada has proposed to disguise their telecommunications tower as best as possible from the surrounding area. Shared Network Canada is proposing the slim line self support style of tower in order to allow it to blend in to its surroundings and remain as unnoticeable as possible to passerby's and residents. We trust the information provided on the requirements and efforts made by Shared Network Canada in demonstrating our compliance obligations will resolve the safety concerns that have been expressed. We also hope this response will help illustrate all of the due diligence taken into the site selection process to compile this proposal including the location, height, and style of the structure, in order to best service area residents while also blending the pole into its surrounding community. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to express your comments. Please let me know if we can help answer any other questions or concerns you may have, we would be happy to reach out over the telephone to help further explain any portion of this proposal. Sincere regards, Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) - 207 - From: SNC Municipal Relations municipal@sharednetwork.ca Subject: Re: SNC0120 Date: December 6, 2019 at 9:46 AM To: A & L Wilder Cc: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca, Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, Bentley, Kyle kbentley@pickering.ca, Jennifer.Oconnell.C1@parl.gc.ca Jennifer.Oconnell.C1@Parl.gc.ca, crose@pickering.ca, Surti, Nilesh nsurti@pickering.ca Good morning Andy & Lori, Thank you for taking the time to write about our telecom proposal at 2170 Ninth Concession Road in Claremont. The public input during the commenting period is very important. Regards, Leticia Avanse Shared Network Canada http://sharednetwork.ca municipal@sharednetwork.ca On Dec 5, 2019, at 2:34 PM, A & L Wilder wrote: Dear sirs: We have received the information package regarding the Claremont antenna. As referenced, the coverage in this area is incredibly poor. With the lack of service and apparent withdrawal of service from Bell Canada we are becoming more and more reliant on cellular service. We live on a rural property and therefore don't have the luxury of accessing service provided in a more densely populated area. Ironically, several of the photo views were taken from nearby our property which tells us that if the tower goes ahead as proposed we should finally get reliable cell service. We are 100% in favour of this project and proposal, the sooner the better. Andy & Lori Wilder - 208 - From: Ag Al-Joundi Subject: Shared Network Canada "revised" Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Proposal Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering SNC File Number:SNC0120 Date: December 5, 2019 at 10:56 AM To: municipal@sharednetwork.ca Cc: sbutt@pickering.ca, Pickles, David, Councillor dpickles@pickering.ca, Jennifer.Oconnell.C1@Parl.gc.ca, Rose, Catherine crose@pickering.ca, kbentley@pickering.ca, cmorrison@pickering.ca, Surti, Nilesh nsurti@pickering.ca, Cynthia Murnaghan murnaghanc@hotmail.com Dear Madame/Sir at Shared Network Services, Please find attached the rationale underlying why your proposed plan as per the above must be rejected. - 209 - SNC Cell Tower letter C...9.docx Thursday December 5, 2019 Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 10 Four Seasons PI, Suite 1056 Etobicoke, ON M9B 0A6 Re: "Revised" Proposed Shared Network Canada ("SNC") Wireless Telecommunications Antenna (45m) Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering, ON, SNC File Number: SNC0120 Dear Madame/Sir, I recently received by Canada Post mail your "Public Notice Package" (PNP) regarding the above. Notwithstanding the concerns I expressed about your original proposal (as per the public consultation process of May/June 2018), and the multiple violations this proposal had presented to both the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP"), as detailed in my letter to Mr. Kyle Bentley of the City of Pickering, dated May 16, 2018, a copy of which SNC also has, and the fact that in their report (PLN 16-19) dated June 17, 2019, the City of Pickering had also rejected your proposal saying, "the installation does not satisfy the requirements of the City's Cell Tower Protocol with respect to design and location", your so-called "revised" proposal is very disappointing in that it is identical to the original except that you now suggest moving the tower 96 m further east, still within the Claremont -Union Cemetery. Whereas your original proposal had placed the tower within 96m of a corner of my home, your "revised" proposal now places the tower 202 m from the same corner of my home. Given that your "revised " proposal does nothing other than move the tower 96 m further east, the same concerns and violations remain, as follows; 1. SNC business model emphasizes erection of towers, not provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services SNC acknowledges that it is not in the business of providing cellular communications and internet services to residential and commercial clients, but rather their business model is specifically about generating maximum revenues from the erection of as many cell towers as possible? Given your undisputed business mandate is to maximize revenues by erecting the maximum number of new towers there is a fundamental conflict with the Industry Canada and City of Pickering Cellular Tower Protocol ("CPCTP") which prioritizes the sharing of existing infrastructure. For example, the Industry Canada website states about this priority, "before building a new antenna -supporting infrastructure, Industry Canada requires that proponents first explore the following options: consider sharing an existing antenna system, modifying or replacing a structure if necessary; locate, analyze and attempt to use any feasible existing infrastructure such as rooftops, water towers, etc." Similarly, the CPCTP states in section 6.1, "Before submitting a proposal for an Antenna System on a new site, the proponent must explore the following options: a) consider sharing, modifying or replacing an existing Antenna System structure; b) consider using any feasible existing infrastructure in the area, including but not limited to, rooftops, water towers, utility poles or light standards". Not surprisingly, both Industry Canada and the CPCTP prioritize any cell services provider to utilize existing infrastructure to support installation of their electronics, and even the wording of such prioritization is almost identical between the two authoritative bodies. Fundamental to Industry Canada's position about the erection of such towers is also found in their website which states about their rules, "rules are designed to make sure companies are looking at ways to reduce the number of new towers they are building". Given your business model, you have no incentive to reduce the erection of additional towers by utilizing existing infrastructure. It is obvious that SNC would not have seriously considered existing infrastructure. -210- Your SNC business model which in effect is, "get as many towers up, as quickly as possible", is completely incompatible with the rules and protocols relating to the provision of cellular telecommunications and internet services as espoused by the Industry Canada and related City of Pickering municipal guidelines and protocols (i.e. CPCTP). 2. Negative impact on my property value, and unfair Risk/Benefit model In their report, PLN 16-19 mentioned above, the City of Pickering cites another reason for rejecting the SNC proposal because, "the tower is located within a rural area that has a number of residential dwellings and based on the design of the tower, will have a negative visual impact for the residents residing in the immediate area" Given the above acknowledgement and based on research publicly available, there is no doubt that residential property within the immediate vicinity (i.e. distance, view) of wireless telecommunications towers that is for sale, realizes less demand from potential buyers than other similar properties where everything else is the same. The phenomena of lower demand for such properties where everything else is equal, is a fact. According to the research, the lower demand for such properties is driven primarily by two concerns as expressed by potential buyers, a) aesthetics — such towers are aesthetically unpleasing, they are not compatible with the nature of the neighborhood or natural features. They create a visual blight, and change the character of the area, especially when constructed in rural settings, and b) health concerns — notwithstanding Health Canada's Safety Code 6 Compliance which every proponent of cell towers is quick to reference, the fact is that there remains widespread media attention about scientific studies regarding the potential long term effects of proximity to such towers, and persistent health concerns that the public continues to express. In fact, a US study by the National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy published in June 2014, titled "Neighborhood Cell Towers & Antennas — Do They Impact a Property's Desirability?" found: • 94% of home buyers and renters are less interested and would pay less for a property located near a cell tower or antenna; • 79% said that under no circumstances would they ever purchase or rent a property within a few blocks of a cell tower or antennas; and • 90% said they were concerned about the increasing number of cell towers and antennas in residential neighborhoods The above public perception is very disconcerting to any property owner within the vicinity of an existing or proposed cell tower. The salient point here, the incontrovertible point, is that perception is what influences a potential buyer. Negative perception means less demand. Less demand means less competition. Less competition means a lower price/value. It is that simple and categoric. As well, consider how unfair this proposed cell tower site is for my family and I. Under this site, SNC generates rental revenue for itself. Under this site, Claremont -Union Cemetery enjoys a monthly annuity from SNC, while none of the owners have to live with the tower looming over them. Under this site, notwithstanding that my home will be close to, and the closest to the site, my family receives absolutely zero income though as outlined above, yet we assume all of the risks. 3. Photos of proposed tower in your PNP are misleading - The photo's in the PNP with alleged renderings of the proposed tower are misleading, understated and promote an inaccurate impression of the size and intrusiveness of the proposed tower. The PNP renderings do not reflect the alarming reality of how close the proposed tower would be to my family's house, and it avoids the key topographical prominence of the - 211 - actual Oak Ridges Moraine rolling hills and vistas that a more common, north facing view (i.e. associated with the vehicular traffic traversing Concession 9/Regional Road 5), provides of the proposed site. A more realistic impression of the proposed tower visual impact on my home is found in the attachment to this letter, which is a photo of an existing cell tower on the east side of Brock Road, just north of Concession 7. This tower is the same 45m height as the SNC proposed tower, and the picture taken was from the same 202m away from the tower that is being proposed under the "revised" proposal. Please look at the photo again. Would you support such a tower being erected in such proximity to your home, and obstructing the view from your home like this? 4. Preferred Location under City of Pickering Cell Tower protocol Under 6.2 "...where co -location on an existing Antenna System or structure is not possible, proponents are encouraged to: "Select sites for new towers that are within industrial, commercial or non-residential areas, and/or that maximize the distance from residential areas." "Consider the use of City owned lands and/or facilities" Neither of these articles of the CPCTP have been satisfied with the proponent's proposal. Under 6.3 — Discouraged Locations "The City discourages the installation of new antenna systems in the following locations: Residential areas...On sites of topographical prominence that would obscure public views and vistas." AND, "Within Environmentally sensitive lands." Given that the selected site is on the Oak Ridges Moraine and is of topographical prominence, the City of Pickering needs to disqualify this proponent's site selection. Summary As the above suggests, your "revised" proposal addresses none of the concerns and violations I outlined initially, nor does it resolve any of the reasons the City of Pickering rejected your original plan as per their report PLN 16- 19. There remain the same serious flaws and concerns with respect to the "revised" proposed SNC cell tower scheme. The SNC "revised" proposal continues to be unfair to my family by having us assume significant risks with zero benefits, and continues to be incompatible with the fundamental Industry Canada and CPCTP rules. To be frank, SNC does not appear to be sincere about revisions that address my family's concerns, about it's violations of the Industry Canada and CPCTP rules, nor about the reasons why the City of Pickering rejected your original proposal. For these reasons, you cannot be permitted to proceed with your "revised" proposal. Thank you, -212- Aghlab Al-Joundi Cc. Mr. David Pickles — Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Mr. Shaheen Butt - Councilor City of Pickering Ward 3 Honourable Ms. Jennifer O'Connell — MPP Pickering -Uxbridge Ms. Catherine Rose, Chief Planner City of Pickering Mr. Kyle Bentley — Director City of Pickering Development & CBO Mr. Cody Morrison — Planner, City of Pickering Mr. Nilesh Surti, Manager Development Review & Urban Design, City of Pickering Ms. Cynthia Murnaghan — From: Dom Claros dom.claros@sharednetwork.ca & Subject: Re: Fwd: Shared Network Canada "revised" Wireless Telecommunications Antenna Proposal Claremont -Union Cemetery, Pickering SNC File Number:SNC0120 Date: May 29, 2020 at 11:21 AM To: Ag Al Cc: Morrison, Cody cmorrison@pickering.ca, Leticia Avanse leticia@sharednetwork.ca Dear Mr. Al-Joundi, I hope you have been keeping well during these different times! Please see attached SNC's final response in regards to our application for the slim line self support tower near Claremont (SNC0120). Thanks! Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) dom.claros©sharednetwork.ca On Dec 5, 2019, 10:56 AM -0500, Ag Al , wrote: Dear Madame/Sir at Shared Network Services, Please find attached the rationale underlying why your proposed plan as per the above must be rejected. Thank you, PDF SNC0120.pdf -214- '"',) shared network C A N A D A May 29, 2020 SNC0120 — Claremont Shared Network — Telecommunications Slim line Proposal Attentions: Aghlab Al-Joundi Subject: Shared Network Canada — Communications Slim line Proposal Dear Mr. Al-Joundi, Thank you very much for reaching out to Shared Network Canada with your comments related to the wireless telecommunication proposal to be located at The Claremont Union Cemetery in the Township of Claremont. We sincerely appreciate you taking the time to mention your concerns regarding health and safety, property value and tower location. As stated previously, when proposing a wireless telecommunication site, Shared Network Canada identifies an area in which they help enhance cellular coverage, in this case The Township of Claremont due to the great need for improved cellular coverage. Alternatives were explored once again after the public consultation period in May/June 2019. All other areas both surrounding Claremont and inside of the Town of Claremont were considered. Due to airport zoning restrictions surrounding the Township, this location was the only viable proposed property in order to comply with all airport zoning regulations as well as expand setbacks from as many nearby residents as possible while servicing Claremont. This currently proposed location maximizes setbacks from the vast majority of residents nearby, and will allow Shared Network Canada to greatly improve the cellular coverage in the immediate area. Looking back to your previous letter, Shared Network has decided to move the tower further to the east corner of the property and change the tower type to a slim line self-support tower which will greatly reduce its visual impact on the surrounding area. In regards to your concerns about health and safety, may I begin by stating that Shared Network Canada takes their obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where they construct a wireless facility, Shared Network Canada is obligated to demonstrate to Industry Canada (ISED) that they meet all health and safety standards before we are allowed to move forward. To allay your health concerns, please note that the site at The Claremont Union Cemetery will be fully compliant with the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada (ISED) and Health Canada. The following background information is provided by scientific and expert research as it relates to the issue of health and effects of radio signals associated with wireless communication installations. -215- o shared network CANADA Industry Canada through ISED strictly regulated all telecommunication equipment and safety standards through Safety Code 6, to which standards Shared Network Canada will always abide. ISED continues to state that as long as the Safety Code 6 standards are met and maintained, Canadians can rest assured the telecommunications towers are safe to love nearby, including residents of the Claremont Community. The Canadian wireless industry as a whole, through the Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association ("CWTA"), continually monitors the study of health issues related to wireless communication technology. The consensus among Canadian government health organizations and the scientific community is that there is no evidence that the radio signals produced by wireless communication structures have adverse effects on human health. Health Canada's safety limits are defined within a standard known as "Safety -Code 6" and are based on current accepted scientific data. Health Canada works closely with the World Health Organization in determining Safety Code 6 guidelines. Scientists at Health Canada continuously update their research to ensure that Safety Code 6 guidelines continue to protect public health. According to Health Canada, to date, there is no convincing scientific evidence to support any contention of adverse health effects that might be speculated to occur at levels below the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 has also been the subject of several independent reviews, including a study by the Royal Society of Canada in 1999, which was updated in 2003, and again in 2009. The Royal Society of Canada is an independent national body composed of scholars and scientists selected by their peers for outstanding contributions to the sciences. None of these three studies took issue with Safety Code 6's standards. The Medical Officers of Health for York Region, Hamilton and Vancouver also do not take issue with Safety Code 6. A number of independent expert groups have conducted detailed reviews of the potential health risks associated with RF field exposure. These groups also include expert panels convened by the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and the British Medical Association. All of the credible scientific reviews completed recently conclude that there is no clear evidence of adverse health effects associated with low-level RF fields, like those from cell sites. For further information on Health Canada and Industry Canada requirements, please find the attached information pamphlet on Wireless Communication and Health from Industry Canada (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09591.html), Frequently Asked Questions developed by Health Canada & Industry Canada in relation to questions on protection of the public, as well as some other useful resources and links related to health and wireless communication. As stated previously, Industry Canada (ISED) requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their installations and apparatus comply with Safety Code 6 at all times. Shred Network Canada attests that the telecommunication installation proposed for the Claremont Union Cemetery will at all times comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. -216- o shared network CANADA As for your concern with property values, ISED has concluded that there have been no studies to support any evidence that would show any decreases in property value associated with new telecommunication towers or antennas installed nearby. In addition to this, Shared Network Canada has worked very hard to ensure that the telecommunication tower would be as least visually intrusive as possible, and given the proposed location is surrounded by trees Shared Network Canada has proposed to disguise their telecommunications tower as best as possible from the surrounding area. Shared Network Canada is proposing the slim line self-support style of the tower in order to allow it to blend in to its surrounds and remain as unnoticeable as possible to passerby's and residents. We trust the information provided on the requirements and efforts made by Shared Network Canada in demonstrating our compliance obligations will resolve the safety concerns that have been expressed. We also hope this response will help illustrate all of the due diligence taken into the site selection process to compile this proposal including the location, height and style of the structure, in order to best service area residents while also blending the pole into its surrounding community. Again, thank you very much for taking the time to express your comments. Please let me know if we can help answer any other questions or concerns you may have, we would be happy to reach out over the telephone to help further explain any portion of this proposal. Sincere regards, Dom Claros 647-804-9036 (direct) -217- From: Celia Subject: Re: Confusing site location for proposed Rogers tower Date: October 8, 2019 at 3:35 PM To: Leticia Avanse Thank you Leticia. Much appreciated. Celia On Oct 8, 2019, at 13:09, Leticia Avanse wrote: Good afternoon Celia, Thank you very much for your patience, I hope your week is going well. First of all, my apologies for the confusion on a keymap included in the newspaper ad. We have replaced the notice which you saw with the correct map - please find attached the amended notice. The file C6752 is specifically being proposed in the back of the plaza property on 1900 Dixie Road in Pickering, and it was mixed in with a map of a different tower proposal in Claremont which goes by the code SNC0120 with another company. Thanks for letting us know, there is a great need for a tower in Claremont and there is a telecommunication tower being proposed at the Claremont Union Cemetery on Sideline 14 and Regional Road 5 that will soon begin with public consultation period of its own. A new ad in the newspaper will be issued for this other tower shortly with the correct information for that location. I hope this helps, If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Best, Leticia Avanse <LandSquared Sept. 19 2019 Pickering News Advertiser Qrtr. Page ad_DNMR0015090783_Ir (1).pdf> On Oct 1, 2019, at 11:51 AM, Celia wrote: Good morning Felix, I have not heard anything regarding the confusing site location proposed for the 25m Rogers monopole. It has been almost a month since my inquiry. Will it be located at 1900 Dixie Road or as the map shows at Sideline 14 and Regional Road 5? We need a tower in the Claremont area. Looking forward to your response. Celia Klemenz On Sep 6, 2019, at 10:57, Leticia Avanse Good Morning Celia, I hope your Friday is going well. wrote: I am writing this email to confirm our receipt of your comment below. Our team will review and prepare a response within the next couple of days, please feel free to reach out with any other questions or concerns in the meantime. Have a great weekend! Kind regards, -218- Leticia Avanse On Sep 6, 2019, at 8:39 AM, Chau, Felix <fchau@pickering.ca> wrote: Good Morning Celia, By way of this email, I am forwarding your comments to the applicant who will be able to prepare a response to your inquiry. Regards, Felix Chau Planner 1 1 City Development Department 905.420.4660 ext. 2220 1 1.866.683.2760 fchau@pickering.ca <image001.png> Your City. Right Now. pickering.ca <im e0:071ing age008.png marnarnam > ge ge ge ag 01 01 01 e0 2.p l.p O.p 09 ng ng ng .p From: Celia > ng Sent: Thursday, September 5, 2019 5:52 PM To: Chau, Felix <fchau@pickering.ca> Subject: Fwd: Confusing site location for proposed Rogers tower Good afternoon Felix, I attempted to send this email to the applicant Leticia at Landsquared with my question but the email address does not exist so I am forwarding this to you and perhaps you can clear up the confusion. Celia Klemenz Begin forwarded message: From: Celia Date: September 5, 2019 at 17:47:11 EDT To: Subject: Confusing site location for proposed Rogers tower Good after Leticia, I read with interest about the site proposed for the Rogers -219- communications l5 m monopole wireless telecommunications tower installation in the Sept. 5, 2019 Pickering News Advertiser. The map shows the site to be on the north/east corner of Sideline 14 and Concession 9/Regional Road 5 just east of Claremont. Good news! Yet when I read the info listed in Subject the Location states 1900 Dixie Road, Pickering. Which is it, Claremont or south Pickering? Celia Klemenz - 220 - shared network A N A D A Appendix F - 221 - r Su bject Properties CDRadius around subject properties ■ Properties inside radius J�-0D��-0DJ�-0G��-0D-0�-0D��-0D J�-0D��-0D J�-.. �-0DJ�-0G��-0DJd D��1D JAd D��-0DJ�-0D�-0DJ�-0D��-0D J�-0D��-0D J�-0D��-0;12:16:1D.c.:4::. 4 4R�y 4 RR R RR 44R 4R�R RR fy4 4R 44R44R�y 44' 44 R�y RRP-0Dv D-0 DD-0DvD-0DP-0DvD-0D -0DvD� DvD� D'�DvD� DD� D�DvU-0P-0DvD-0D-0 Dv-0D-0Dv.1 P-0 Dv , DR-0DDvAD 8 RQD Dv� DQDv-0DDv-0 DvD Dv -0D Dv -0D DvA Dv� D DDhc. RRp D4 8R4 -0D484R8-0R 848-0 D4 8R48-0 D 4 R 4 8-0D48R 4 8-0 D48R4 -0 D RRR cDdRvA-0 D4 8R.,4� Q ▪ � 4,6 A 8� 48%..3D.� 1t2DQ -Q1� 4thp 48QBE 4. Q°�D Q� 4� D,c. 7. QD°D o-° D o-°Do-°Do-°DDDSDDSDo-D o-° Do -°Do -°Da° Do-°Do-DD°Do-° D D°Do-°'D.'Do-°o-°Do-°Do-� 61D1,%1 4 D R ' �� , R• D R h ' D :Dal h 4 D R h 4 D R 1 D 4 1 D R -0 D 4 1 D R 1 D 4 8 1 D R 8 1 D 4 1 D R 4 -0 D R -0 U '' -0 D R h 1 D RF a� D��Q o-a�a {'vD��a �� o-a� �� aa� �� aa� D�Q aa� D�crikga.n.til:::D aD��Q o-a� D��Q o-a� ��o-a� ��Ya� -0 Rc.-0R -0DR -0 R8-0 DR.1 R1D' R' 1DR DR DR8R-0R DR -0 R R DR-0DR R8v� °=.o� D D6 v�Dd 1DD Dd A'D Dv� D DDDd v�D Dd c�DDc v� D Dc o: D D D D D1 D R R4 R4 ▪ 4 8 RR 4 4 4 R44 ▪ R 8 ;11 R4 R 4 R dR 44R48� 48�48� 48�484GpG� 48� 4�4AIQCT 4848� 8� 8� 4 48� 48� • 48� 4 � � � D � D � D � D � D � D � D � D � D 11'7 � D � � � 3.1r D � D D D D D D D D D D D D .7.1: E 1 D';'1:41 D 4� 1 DR P Q M 1 DR D ' -0� R ▪ D 7 l DR D 4� IDR D 4� 1 DR D 4� 1 '';''''1D R D 4� 1 DR -0 D 4� 1 DR P Q 4F 9� 9 DDS -09� 9 D7 -0 i., ,i D�� -0-0� 9 D� -0p9� 9 Dll 1;16.1 Doh -0p9� D DEa 4p9� 9 D77 -0 2.A 9 D�� -0p9� 9 DDS -0p9 .� 8 R 8 v 4 8 .71D 8 v 4 8 R 8 v 8 R 8 v 4 R v R R v 4 R v 4 R 8 v 8 R R R 8 R 8 v 4 8 �� v D11E1'D D� �v D� - 41 DVD D 46vt D D� DV D� D D� DVD Tpv � pv � D� . D� v-0 D d D W•16.7:.;1 Q D d D RQ D d D RQ D 6 RQ D D RQ D RQ D d D C RQ D'L 1 W D D RQ D D R :3,[:•17(:.6:..!.3.. D R 8 R v c� D v a R v c� D v� R v�� D v� R v c� D v� R v c� D v� R v c� D v� R v c� D v'n:77.1 R v�� D v� R c� D a d 4 v 8 Q �D Rk D .10'14E32 � -0D R�r D -08 : R�7 D CI D Dv�A ;, J� -0DRV � D A4 -0D Rhe D * �aRhD . �h �Dv f D 'J 4 1 .%'7 D * 1D t2 D p 4 R R R R R v R 8 v R 8 v R 8 4 R 4 R R R R R R R R R 4 R 4 R 4 R A 4 R 4 R 4 R 4 R R R �� D� D� D D� D� D D: D� D4 D' D D� D D� D D� D D� D� D� D� D �� D D7 D �� DI D1 8 1 DR 4 1 DR '' 1 DR 4 A 1 DR 8 1 4 DR 8 4 8 D --1;%14:37; R 8 4 DR 8 4 DR 4 i DR 8 4 i DR 1 -0 Dip -0D-0� -0 D7 -0D-0. ID t IDI 1 Dl 1D1 1 D1 -0DA� -0 Dip -0D�� D Dp'7-:::(7:. -0p�''1"1'. A �� -0D-0� ( Dip -0D-0� Dip -0D-0� R R ▪ R R R R R R R R R R R R R A R R R R R R :D:3 R R R R R R R R (:-., D V D D � D V D D D� D V - D� D Q p-0 D � 1 D V t': D D� D V D D � 4 D'4 D� D �� DVD D �� DVD 3 D �� D ''t2 D D D� D 1 D d:71::' 1 v� D d D v� D d D v� D A D 1 v� D D v� D D v� D d D A v� d D v� D d D v� D v DDRB v� 11>1 v a R v d R v� 9 D v� R v� 9 D v R v� 9 D v R v� 9 D v R v� 9 D v R v� D v ▪ R v a 12;46: D v6 R R A �, 4 ▪ D-0 7t E, 7. -0,: ,. v1.V 4 � a 1 4 �Q � 6 2�Q � � � � � D :4C1: � D �� Dc' D �� D �� D�' .� D D� D D� D D� D D� D D� E1 D D� D �i D D1 D �? D D� v 1 D v 1 Dia Dv1 v -0 D�� Dv� FR �F �- ry -0 v D�� Dv -0 v D�� DvA v D�� Dv� v D�� v D�� -0 - '1 READ v '1 Al( v �J ��D v l AlD -0 ��D v 1 ��D v 1 �1D v 1 -0D v �tr D�� -0D-0� -0 �� -0D-0� 1 D1. lDl Dip -0D �� D -0D' D-0� AD2.=.1"7r, A D-0� -0D '� D-0 -0. . .. `,. 4 4 R 4 . v R 8 R v d 4 4 R R R6r1;''' 7.V7 4 R D� Dv D� D D� Dv D� D D' Dv D� D U-0 Dv D-0 D Dv DA D DDv D� D' . . v1� a DI v A D a D v D D v D D D v °�'��a• ,�,ti,y__� _ -. -0DR� v�v��Dvd v�v��Dv� v�v��Dv � v Qv v, �Q pB�R pB�Q 42v pB�Q pB�R D D8 � D D� D � DD. D� D D� D D� -0D v° 1 READ v� -0 '' 1 �� D�� -0D�: D� -0D �� D DDS 4 4 4 R R R �� Dv D� DR D� Dv D� DR D� Dv D� D E fL v� D a D v1 D d D 1. D D. ic';vdvv��Dv d v R��DR avRR � R �R▪ :�RteR 6R D� �1 D D1 �1 D 1 D D i� 6,14.1'7:2 "lc': R U64 � Dv p "I:: R U� DD • DV U-0 .t c-0 D d D � ad D 6 � v� D d D � v� 1 D v c R v D v d R v D v c R v A D �� D D� ▪ D D� ▪ D D1 D D� D D1 D D1 D R.7 D D 1 R 1'D D 1 v 1 D D 1 LAC; v� 1 va�D v� 1 v��D R� 1 v� 61.1241:t1Av DlAv DlAa ▪ a Dl�a D1 16 D� Dv� Dv�� Dvt-1 DL 6' ▪ Dvn= Dv a D � D D D2 D 9 0 D D� D DR Q D D �Dv�v vc �Dvdv vc �Dvdv vt�Dv� ��Dv i c D��Dv�� D� T ;DAA D-0�1Dvt v vt'7,2": v v� v v� v v� v v� v v� v v� : D D� D� D D� D D� D D� D D� D DA / I R � Dia Dv -0 v � Dia Dv -0 v � D�� Dv -0 v � D�� qD v 1 a1D v 1 �1D q 1 �qD v 1 dq, .. p°R°R Rn°R ▪ �2 R��R t�1, Qn�R �4.D71 Rp°R ti � Dq Dv D9 D D9 Dv D9 D D9 Dv D9 D D-0 Dv D-0 D D9 Dq Dv D a D 1 vq D a D 1 vq D D 1 vq D A D v. v vA1Dvd v vA1Dv� v vA1Dvd v v' ,4.7::D 488 7'' 1 4888 48�Q 4t2r LI 4868 4 y 88Q 48°� Z IL D•1 D D1 D D1 D D1 D D1 D D1 D D� D D1 D ' D•� D D•� v Dia E- v Dia Dv1 v D�� Dv� v D�A Dv1 •�� Dv� v D� 1":7; D v 1 SAD v 1 ��D v -0 � 1D v 1 �. -04 Det t-'1 -0 Df6 -0D-0� -0 D�� -0D-0a -0 Dip 3 4 4 R R v R 8 R v R 1 R 4 R D� Dv D� D � Dv D� D D� Dv D� D D-0 Dv D-0 D DA v-0 D D � v� D d D � v� D d D � v� D S D � v. D v. R p R d :ii. R 1 D R A :::.D. R 8 1 D 4 6 ▪ � D•- �111 f'''' D .=,. D� D Di D D� D D1 D D� D DI 1 D i:37: l� l D1� -0Dl� l D1� 1 -0Dl� l D�� 1 1l Dia -0%� D R v R R v R R :D.,1 8 R 8 v R D� pv D.1 D D� pv D� D D� pv D: D D� pv D� D D� v-0 D a D � v467 D d D � v� D S D 1 v� D S D ;14°7 v v v G:3. R d v v p D R v v A 1 D 7.D° o _ 5 �� v�� 4DR�-0�.1Dv�DD-0y G� b G� v�-0 Dv�-0 Dv�-0 Dv�-0 DVG Dv P'" D� D v D D6 D 1-0 D D� D 4 -0D v� Q va�D v�1v��D v� �.", f �y 1111 1 ▪ D/6Q D1 ,.V D,6. D DS DV DQE' 1.EY 1D'p1 DV U1• R114' D D R jai D 1 73'::17 � D A D R1 �Dvc R R -1D7G R ;7111 ��D48 4 v8 �D ��v..� D �� DvA� D �6 �Dv1c D-0� i. � � v� v v� v v� ,..1 v� c.: v� ▪ v v� v v D'b D D� D D� D1 D2D D� D �1 o� JDv p vA JDv 1p v' 1Dv 1 ID:: oA 8 R 8 R 8 R 8 R 8 D.8 R 8 1 R-` � v� D Dc D � �� D D� D .:3E:1,1 1> 2�1 v1FR Dd D f}f �gDva v�v��Dv� v�v�gD - , 1c.'7%7•1 1DvA v�' -� v� DR� DRQ DDT• 4 � DR�v a D11�A.D A T. ▪ a 4 - 222 - 030002023000000 030002024000000 RR #4 CLAREMONT RR#4 2020 NINTH CONCESSION RD 2090 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030002051000000 030002052000000 P.O. BOX 105/ SCOTIA PLAZA 40 KING ST W Suite 4802 TORONTO ON M5H 3X2 CAN 2015 NINTH CONCESSION RD CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A2 030007118000000 030007119000000 R.R. #4 5100 SIDELINE 12 RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 RR# 4 CLAREMONT 5020 SIDELINE 12 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007120000000 030007121000000 RR#4 CLAREMONT 2230 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 RR#4 CLAREMONT 2230 NINTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007122000000 030007123000000 5205 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A2 030007125000000 030007126000000 5205 SIDELINE 14 5175 SIDELINE 14 PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 CAN PICKERING ON L1Y 1A1 030007127000000 030007128000000 5105 SIDELINE 14 5105 SIDELINE 14 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 CLAREMONT ON L1Y 1A1 030007184000000 RR #5 1900 EIGHTH CONCESSION RD PICKERING ON L1Y 1A2 CAN -224- David Ryan Mayor City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 David Pickles Regional Councillor, Ward 3 City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 - 225 - Shaheen Butt City Councillor, Ward 3 City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Cody Morrison Planner I City of Pickering- City Development Department One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 11 OPINION PICKERING-UXBRIDGE MPP PETER BETHLENFALVY CALLS ALLOWING DIGS =IN PATIOS 'A GREAT DECISION' !PROVINCE IS CUTTING DIG GINE RED TAPE a 0 m f ETER ETHLENFALW olumn r mornings snowfall ar- riving, it's clear: Winter is coming. The start of November saw our government an- nounce the removal of un- necessary and burden- some red tape to allow businesses the choice to al- low dogs on their patios. This issue was first brought to my attention by The Second Wedge Brew- ing Company, a fantastic business right here in Ux- bridge. As Second Wedge told me, after receiving a complaint about their clog - friendly environment, the rules weren't clear about whether or not pets could be allowed in restaurants and breweries where food was not being prepared. After that meeting, I reached out to my col- leagues, Minister of Red Tape Reduction Prabmeet Sarkaria and Minister of Health Christine lliott, to see what we could do. I am pleased to say that, if passed, businesses will be free to choose to allow pets on their patios and inside - where food is not being prepared - come Jan. 1, 2020. This is a great decision. The provincial govern- ment should be responsi- ble for ensuring business- es provide safe and healthy environments for their customers. But when businesses are running safely and responsibly - and when their customers want to enjoy that space with their canine compan- ion - they should be free to do so. I want to thank Sarka- ria, lliott, their teams and mine for the hard work they put in to see this change realized. Like many of you, Fm looking forward to taking my dog Tokyo out to a patio to celebrate. Supporting small busi- ness is in our nature here in Pickering -Uxbridge. Oct. 26 was Small Business Saturday - a chance for our community to come to- gether and support our lo- cal businesses across Pick- ering -Uxbridge. I had the pleasure of meeting our lo- cal entrepreneurs and job creators, including the Wizards Festival on the Hallows ,xpress at the York -Durham Heritage Railway, to Second Wedge Brewing Company, Take Root Creative, Tin Mil Restaurant, The Bridge Social, Blue Heron Books, Kathryn's Bar and Grill, and The Curl Ambassa- dors. It was great to see the wealth of talent and entre- preneurial spirit our com- munity shares on display. It's because of business- es like this that I can say, with confidence, that it's Durham's time. Peter Bethlenfalvy is the president of the trea- sury board and MPP for Pickering -Uxbridge P NEWS WATER MAIN BREAK CLOSES SECTION IF BAYLY IN PICKERING PICK •RING -A section of Bayly Street in Picker- ing is closed due to a water main break. Bayly between Begley Street and the West Short Community Centre will be closed until the water main is repaired. Unfavourable weather conditions could affect the work schedule. Durham Region's works department wants residents and businesses in the immediate area to know they may experi- ence a temporary water service interruption or decrease in water pres- sure during the repair. When the water service returns to normal, cus- tomers should turn on a cold water tap only and let it run for five to 10 minutes to clean out any sediment that may have accumulat- ed in your water. This will avoid any sediment enter- ing the hot water system. The region realizes that the work is disruptive and will make every effort to complete the work as quickly and efficiently as possible. Drivers are asked to ex- ercise caution for the safe- ty of pedestrians, cyclists and the work crews. SIGN UP FOR OUR WEEKLY NEWSLETTER AT DURHAMREGION.COM PUBLIC NOTICE REVISED SHARED NETWORK CANADA PROPOSAL FOR A 45m TAPERED SELF-SUPPORT WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS TOWER INSTALLATION SUBJECT: • Type: Wireless 45m tall tapered self-support telecommunications structure. • Location: 2170 Ninth Concession Road, Pickering — (Claremont -Union Cemetery) • Legal Description: PART OF LOT 14, CONCESSION 9, NOW PART 2 TO PART 4, 40R-20211 • Facility: The facility will include a proposed 13m x 13m fenced compound. • Site: The site space for improved wireless voice and data services in the surrounding area. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada (ISEDC) is the governing body for installations of this type or telecommunication antenna installation and can be contacted at: ISEDC — Toronto District Office — 151 Yonge Street, 4'" Floor, Toronto, ON, M5C 2W7 ic.spectrumtoronto-spectretoronto. is@canada.ca ANY PERSON may make a written submission to the individuals listed below by close of day December 21, 2019, with respect to this matter. Please reference site SNC0120 in your correspondence. Further information may also be obtained through the following contact: Municipal Contact Information Cody Morrison, Planner II City of Pickering — City Development Department (905) 420-4660 ext. 2913 / cmorrison@pickering.ca "Telecommunication tower/antenna systems are regulated exclusively by Federal Legislation under the Federal Radiocommunication Act and administered by ISEDC. Provincial legislation such as the Planning Act, including zoning by - laws, does not apply to these facilities. The City of Pickering is participating in land - use consultation pursuant to Issue 5 of ISEDC CP C 2 - 0 - 03. In the case of a dispute between the proponent and the City, a final decision will be made by Industry Canada." APPLICANT CONTACT: Municipal Affairs Manager Shared Network Canada 10 Four Seasons PI, Suite 1056 Etobicoke, ON M9B 0A6 (647) 241-2788 mu nici pal@shared network.ca SITE LOCATION MAP N COMMUNITY WHAT'S GIING IN HERE? WHITES RIAD RESIDENTIAL CIMPLEX xcavation on a lot on Whites Road has begun to make way for a new devel- opment adjacent to the Bol- locks Pub & Kitchen and across from Dunfair Street in Pickering. THE FACTS: • Pine Ridge Tower Lim- ited is constructing a 12 - storey apartment with 227 residential units. - 226 - • ...- _.-.•�.,,rr Vis„='��"r • The site received plan approval in 2017 and is cur- rently in the midst of con- struction. • The fmished tower will be directly adjacent to Dunbarton High School on the east side of Whites Road and north of an exist- ing apartment complex. Jason Uebregts/Torstar R WHAT' GOING 'WONDERING WHAT'S GOING ON SOMEWHERE IN YOUR COMMUNITY? VISIT DURHAMREGION.COM PUBUC NOTICE i CELL TOWER FORM spirr movie, W1 d%•••1+1• 4Lir!cm.11. �Y.41+14�r 0111,1111.1.1 ICL xF,AN9r rem ommi 01211. oldnpMa +vss:. L it TON 1LIVfrti 4 . 4 i .r,,.� 4 M Lb.11.1411 XP r" li++ii. i ''i ti1mr• .r1ii+lL iid SNo4.11ai.f } . Cdli'a‘s J a aprb1 £.1.4.1 O i 111edi N. Pot L I 4 !'7T8dr Ma M YID' r. .. VC =4001F: GT51 IJrVYnl rm.dgr - 22 - shared network A N A D A Appendix G - 228 - SUUBJECTDPROPERTY PLAN SCALE 1,250 PROPOS EFFIC \\P1N 2 6 392-016 PIN 26392-0166 I TPR' E - I PIN 26392-0179 / I U-) O � Z 0 0 O2 PIN 26392-0177 I J 0 ,,0 AlDETAIL" �I h^�$ IB(rv) PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1,200 SCALE 1,250 h,!` SITE DATA EXISTING PROPOSED PROPERTY AREA BUILDING AREA LOT COVERAGE 2.736axa. 25.3 0.09 % a a 0.11 % AREA REQUIREMENTS COM ND (EXCLUSIVE) ACCESS (NON-EXCLUSIVE) HYDRO TOTAL I69.o 9016. w TBD UNITS 1 TOWER 3 CABINETS FTOWER as m SETBACKS (PROPOSED TOWER) FRONT SIDE REAR 204.6 m 4.6 m 5.8 m SETBACKS (PROPOSED CABINETS) FRONT SIDE REAR 198.3 m 2.7 rn 4.4 rn KEY PLAN WESTHEY RD SIDELINE 12 RD 13.00 12.00 // ® n' SEE. ELEVATION PLAN SEE 'DETAIL' -PART 1 (comm., ry rsr3�o• w S031(11) 5.2sae.n NOTES =ram PA NT COLOUR SUBJECT TO NAV CANADA REOU REMENTS ANTENNA NUMBER AND LOCATONS TO BE DETERM NED FOUNDAT ON DESIGN PENDING SOIL REPORT 6900Dl7Mel`4. 048661 o�cA0 w 7 0.50 CONCRETE SLAB (3.0m . aom). '000) 6E ° PSCSso°JI"I61 i010NWs0.An8x6091l)I001) 42TMC#ITT. 0.50 ®4 6E#OE EASING TOPSOIL PROOF ROLLog8B82EXDA. v FR nUC 60P08ED SIRUCNRES LAIN. 2A Ox ALL AGES TO v6oW0E WA2 ORuxAGE. O igmO'ITN BARBED RWE SURRWNsEO COMVWxo. PART 1 PLAN 40R-19425 PIN 26392-0166 (LT) N ELEVATION PLAN DT TO SCALE 159 21014.015914(M) CLAREMONT - UNION CEMETERY PIN 26392-0163 (LT) N 25.3800. 4, PLAN 40R-20211 PIN vACANT LAND1 26392 - 0178 6 try r� / z \ 1yAs' (L r)1 ` Es 4/ I 2 '� e5 Jh saPART 3 M1tiy°h PLAN 40R-20211 heR ,. PART 22 PLAN 409-3423 Of•KIM`D4 at/ I& GRAVEL DRIVEWAY -�-- 09 1 UWEss) PART 21 - x 2 zroBoaO' w HEADSTONES 8, / PART 23 PLAN 40R-3423 1n IETusi`DNuzA ES � x 175150 w(vl49.I.®) 0 67 G 0 HEADSTONE 0 4480 HEADSTONE w .., `. \ Ch tiS`"-_.ys---2 rya=caAil DalcwA+• °' 4. W 46.835"' ry hth Y5=22(M. hy2a_K(P1)79� h� 911.06(Pl9Neo.) PART 1 PLAN 404-20211 PIN 26392-0177 (LT) - 229 - 5 PART 4 PLAN 40R-20211 PART 24 PLAN 409 3423 n7°-eo Tsssa. ono249 I IZ II II I I HP AN SCHEDULE PART LOT CONCESSION PIN AREA PART OF PART OF 26392-0178 (LT) 2016.4 a9 M. PIN 26392-0178 (LT) - SUBJECT TO PICKERING AIRPORT ZONING REGULATIONS AS IN DR429021. PLAN SHOWING TOPOGRAPHY AND SITE LAYOUT DESIGN OF PROPOSED TELECOM TOWER INSTALLATION PART OF LOT 14 CONCESSION 9 (GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF PICKERING) CITY OF PICKERING REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SCALE 1 500 J.D. BARNES LIMITED ONTARIO LAND SURVEYORS METRIC MIOTTREEEAD CAN0601006770»646106144046. NOTES E001 (d BT REAL TME INEiwORKNOBSERVAIIONi EURA ZONENl57 (ORP.) NAD83 (COTS) (2010). i0 CRID BT MULTPLYMC grE COMBMED SCAIEEACTOR Of 0.999849 WAS ung TO NB 2,Ts'ONPLOATN8PIN TOF COL% TO U1M GRID BEARINGS. AND S00ENR PROXIM1TDY (F UNOERCROUND ULI110S 14 2 CC OROANC6 697I�I RBURDEN SAE � n (a) aF O.NEc. szs/91. ELEVATIONS SHORN HEREON ARE RELATED TO GEODETIC DATUM AND ARE SERVICE ANCMREFERGTO MEENHi2_OA VUERTICALHSYS MRNET NENAIRK LEGEND O DENOTES MONUMENT PLANTED • DENOTES MONUMENT FOUND voT DENOTES WITNESS SIB DENOTES STANDARD IRON BARON BEA SSIB DENOTES SHORT STANDARD IB DENOTES IRON N 006 DENOTES H. FUN, O.L.S. 1095 DENOTES JOHN DOUG. CARTER LTD, 0.L.S. NI DENOTES NO IDENTIFIER PI DENOTES PLAN 40R-20211 HP DENOTES HYDRO POLE AN DENOTES ANCHOR -0C- DENOTES OVERHEAD CABLE SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE 1. THE FIELD WORK WAS COMPLETED ON THE AUGUST e. 2019. • NOVEMBER 5 2019 P CAUTION HOF ANY UNDERGROUND SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE. OTHER BURIED U,LITIES MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION. CONTACT ALL POTENTIAL OWNERS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION REVISION 5. SHEET 3 2019. REVISION 4. TOWER PELF 22ND o LARGER D. AUGUST 19, 2019. REVISION 3, COMPOUND RELOCAND, AUGUST 13, 2019. REVISION 2' APPROXIMATE LOCAPON OF PUFFIN CREEK TRIBUTARY AND ESC DETAILS ADDED AS SHEET 2. MAY 24. 2019 REVISION 1: TOWER HEIGHT CHANGED. APRIL 17. 2015 SHARED NETWORK CANADA LATITUDE N 43 58 45.7 LONGITUDE W 791/628.8. ELEVATION 248 6rn SITE: SNC0120 CLAREMONT - UNION CEMETERY J.D.BARNES LIMITED o, LAND o�6HDR)49RPINFORMATION 11SPECIALISTS (905)417,600 F;(90.51 411.3882 4ww.yldram.m.m DRAM 13, ,«6 CHECKED 8, IAJF REFERENCE -12-00 (60ET1 OFA mr,G\9�\I DATED. DECEMBER fi, 2017 PLOTTED; 11/05/69 KEY PLAN (NOT TO SCALE) WESTNET RD SIDEUNE PIN 26392-0163 (LT) 0 0 6 SCALE 1:250.,o, 125 AD D ,. PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN ^'00 I a' hr0 • I I M105 LEASE°r• �1. AREA T h• 1 -1 J 10• I. \'.'\ :, rP \ TT,,� yj1 h1 Bo M11 EES PART 2 PLAN 40R-20211 P I N VACANT LAND EES 0 03 03 0 0 G 900 SCALE 1:200 13.00 2 o 12 00 // PART 1 PLAN 40R-19425 PIN 26392-0166 (LT) 6392 M,EYIAY E'12-1 TREES 0178 r- Doxma PENCE .- 0.50 0.50 50 NOTES cP OEourvOA S 0 sTEE� 00EW302201 0 00 00 01 &Von PLACE REINFORCED CONCRETE SLAB (3.00 000901 0041 006L w0c400 41 n0N90 0010900 nuTlr..—.. RUSHED GRAVEL SURFACE TO BEMINma, ABOVE SEzAONEAuSI O MDN.AOEOUATEDRAINmAUGEC.NRES i0PPR0oBmT11i e42 xciaENsuPaaux oR1Tr rtNCE DED coMPOurvo. TREES ,°a e /l h,. 95 0 h° PART 3 \ \�/ 'c^0 PLAN 40R-20211 $. PART 1 PLAN 40R-20211 PIN 26392-0177 (16) ELEVATION PLAN O u GRaOEErDPI AY Y 6 M1f 4, N�R0 09 PART 23 PLAN 406 3423 °f>a-eo TtFixosroi 3`oeg HEADSTONE + HEADSTONE ° 4,-..-90h`, h•1��\ L— it_ — o% — r 440 PART 4 PLAN 40R-20211 3 /g - 230 - 40 PART 24 PLAN 40R-3423 PART 22 PLAN 40R-3423 EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PART OF LOT 14 CONCESSION 9 (GEOGRAPHIC TOWNSHIP OF PICKERING) CITY OF PICKERING REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM SCALE 1 : 500 J.D. BARNES LIMITED c0PralcxTONTARIO LAND SURbEY0R5 © zm9 METRIC cTREs As CAN BE C00`ON82R111E0 io 473001 DINOINC BT0 902o. CAUTION lirrEY INFORMATION HAS BEEN COMPILED FROM AVAILABLE RECORDS AND HAS Oi BEEN V£RIFlED BY FlELD SURVEY. BENCHMARK EERIVERRO NT CREOBSERVATON USBNG MEOPOWERNET NEIWJRKRE SERNCE AND REFER TO THE HT2_0A VERTICAL SYSTEM. PERSPECTIVE VIEW SECTION VIEW A >m ... �. ..w re. V• AL, PLAN OF SILT FENCE BARRIER ONTARIO PROVINCIAL STANDARD DRARI NG HEAVY DUTY SILT FENCE BARRIER OPSD — 219 30 LEGEND DENOTESHP DENOTES HYDRO POLE AN DENOTES ANCHOR OVERHEAD CABLE —0— DENOTESPROPOSED SILT FENCE REVISION 6: SHEET 2 SILT FENCE UPDATED, DECEMBER 5, 2019. REASION 5: SHEET NOVEMBER 2019. REVISION 3 PELEv 000DLLA D. AUGUST 19. 2019 REVISION 3, COMPOUND RELOCATED, AUGUST 13, 2019. IMATE LOCATION OF DUFFIN'S CREEK TRIBUTARY AND S REVISION 1: TOWER HEIGHT CHANGED, APRIL 171 r 24, 2018 20 9 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLETION 1 GEID 1. WORK was COMPLETED ON THE AUGUST 8, 2019. DA, DECEMBER 6. 2019 CAUTION LOCATIONS OF ANY UNDERGROUND SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE, OTHER BURIED UTILRIES MAY EXIST WHICH ARE NOT SHOWN BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION. CONTACT ALL POTENTIAL OWNERS OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION SHARED NETWORK CANADA LATITUDE 8 45,7 LONGITUDE W 79.06.25.5, ELEVATION 240 Sm SITE: SNC0120 CLAREMONT - UNION CEMETERY J.D.BARNESL AND INFORMATION SPEC A LISTS RB004WDRNGR1>1E100.MAR«9AM ON 13018 :1003)477-390 .(000)417.3002 3310wwwAdbarnes.com B LD 11/00 MJR \ Sur ww\n-Isle\ro\uorne\I]-33.31D F IJ15-l HTE --00 (SHEET s DP 31 PLOTTED 31/00/19 ELEVATION PLAN NOT TO SCALE OUTER SURFACE =300.00 TOWER TOP =293.6 E 1 - AIRPORT REFERENCE POINT =255.Om V GROUND =248.6 REVISION 5: SHEET 3 (ELEVATION PLAN) ADDED, NOVEMBER 5, 2019. TL DRAWN GM CHECKED . J.D]� T N ^ SURVP.VING L LKi L/�, j`` FLJ n LAPPING DATED: LIMITED C S S NOV. 5, 2019 LAND INFORMATION SPECIALISTS Ref. No. 140 RENFREW DRIVE, SUITE 100, MARKHAM, ON L3R 6B3 9-15-112-00 T: (905) 477-3600 F: (905) 477-3882 www.jdbarnes.com SHHET 3 OF 3 231 \Surveys\17-15-112\00\Drawing\17-15-112-00D.dgn 01 0 w H 0 J a Cfy �t DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 16-20 Date: September 14, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: The Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan 2020-2030 Prepared by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority - City of Pickering Recommendations to the Draft Watershed Plan File: D-8100-028 Recommendation: 1. That the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) be requested to revise the Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan (CCWP), as follows: (a) Providing greater clarity about the "77%" figure identified as the potential increase in downstream peak flows under the hypothetical land use Scenario 3 modelling analysis including: explaining that it is a "worst case" scenario and why; identifying the rainfall and storm duration parameters for a Hurricane Hazel type event; and relating the modelled increases in peak flows to the proposed management recommendations; (b) Revising Management Recommendation 3.1.1 respecting the protection, expansion and restoration of the Natural Heritage System (NHS) in the watershed, to reflect discussion in the introductory text that precedes Table 8: NHS Management Recommendations, to allow consideration of alternative configurations, size and composition for an enhanced NHS to that identified on Map 2 of the Draft CCWP; and (c) Adding a new Management Recommendation 1.3.6 stating that TRCA continues to support and enhance the existing flood model by increasing the number of rainfall monitoring stations and stream flow gauges on all tributaries including the most minor; and 2. That a copy of this Report and Council's resolution be forwarded to the TRCA, the Region of Durham and the Town of Ajax. Executive Summary: On March 16, 2020, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) released the Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan (CCWP) for public review. The new CCWP has been developed by the TRCA in collaboration with the Region of Durham, the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax. The watershed plan process included an assessment of the current health of the watershed, revisiting its vision and management philosophy, detailed fieldwork, developing scenarios, recommending management actions focused on the protection, restoration, enhancement, and long-term management of the watershed, as well as a proposed monitoring and evaluation program to track the implementation of the Watershed Plan. The work on the Watershed Plan commenced in 2015, and included various stakeholder and public engagement opportunities. The Draft CCWP is provided as Attachment #1, and can also be accessed via the following hyperlink: https://trca.ca/conservation/watershed-management/carruthers-creek/watershed-plan/. - 232 - Report PLN 16-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: The Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 2 Comments on the Draft CCWP were initially due June 16, 2020, but the deadline was indefinitely postponed in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Council is requested to endorse the recommendations of Report PLN 16-20 derived from staff's review of the draft CCWP. This report was prepared in collaboration with City Engineering Services staff. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. Discussion: 1. Structure of the Report Section 2 of this report provides background on watershed planning. Section 3 provides background on the Carruthers Creek watershed. Section 4 explains why an update to the Watershed Plan was required. Section 5 provides comments and recommendations on the Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan (CCWP) for Council's consideration. Appendix I provides an overview of the CCWP, and Attachment #1 is a full copy of the Draft CCWP. 2. What is the Purpose of Watershed Planning? The purpose of a watershed plan is to understand the current conditions of a watershed and identify measures and actions to protect, enhance and restore the health of a watershed. Watershed planning is aimed at maintaining the ecological integrity of a watershed, which consists of two integrated systems — the water resources system and the natural heritage system, and to inform decisions on planning for water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure, and the allocation of growth. Watershed planning integrates natural systems into land use and infrastructure decision-making by identifying natural features to protect and by recommending how to mitigate impacts from land use and infrastructure development on natural systems. The main policy drivers for watershed planning are the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2020), A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2020, (Growth Plan), and the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 (Greenbelt Plan). PPS policies encourage a coordinated approach to planning and recognize that watersheds provide an ecologically meaningful scale for integrated and long-term planning. The polices also direct the protection, improvement or restoration of the quality and quantity of water by minimizing potential negative impacts. Similarly, Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan policies require watershed planning to be undertaken to support the protection, enhancement or restoration of the quality and quantity of water within a watershed. Municipalities are required to conform to the PPS and applicable provincial plans when updating their official plans and making planning decisions. 3. Where is the Carruthers Creek Watershed? Carruthers Creek is a small watershed located west of Lake Ridge Road, extending from the Eighth Concession Road in the north to Lake Ontario in the south. The watershed covers rural lands in northeast Pickering, and rural and urban areas in the eastern parts of the Town of Ajax (see Figure 2: Carruthers Creek Watershed, and Figure 3: Carruthers Creek Subwatersheds, pages 10 and 16 of Attachment #1). - 233 - Report PLN 16-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: The Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 3 The watershed is bordered to the east by the Lynde Creek watershed and to the west by the Duffins Creek watershed. Rural lands in the Carruthers Creek watershed located between Highway 7 and Taunton Road are identified as Protected Countryside in the Greenbelt Plan. In the south part of the Carruthers Creek watershed in the Town of Ajax, there is an area identified as a "Flood Vulnerable Cluster" where existing structures are located in the flood plain (see Figure 2, page 10 of Attachment #1). There has been historical and recent flooding events in the Carruthers Creek watershed due to extreme precipitation events. 4. Why was the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Updated? Firstly, the previous watershed plan for this area, the Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, dates back to 2003. Many changes have taken place in the watershed since 2003, partly as a result of climate change and urbanization. Also, provincial policy regarding watershed plans have evolved, and science has become more advanced in monitoring and modelling the impact on, and the conditions and functions within, watersheds. In view of the evolving planning regime and the science advancements, and since many of the issues identified in the 2003 watershed plan are still prevalent, an updated watershed plan was considered necessary in 2015. The Region of Durham engaged the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in a consulting capacity to develop the new watershed plan for Carruthers Creek. At the request of the Region, a small area of the East Duffins Creek subwatershed, that are immediately adjacent to the Carruthers Creek watershed, was included in the watershed plan study area to provide a more complete analysis of lands in the area. Secondly, policy 7.3.11 p) of the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) requires a watershed plan update for the East Duffins and Carruthers Creek watersheds where a "Municipal Comprehensive Review" of the ROP includes consideration of an urban area expansion into lands in northeast Pickering. The Region is undertaking a municipal comprehensive review of its Official Plan. Through that review process, the Region has received two requests to expand the urban area into northeast Pickering: one from Pickering Council to enable age friendly and more affordable housing residential development (Resolution #140/19, dated September 19, 2019); and the other from Dorsay (Pickering) Limited (Dorsay')1, dated October 17, 2019. Dorsay's request would facilitate the development of a proposed new community, known as "Veraine"2, on lands that include the northern third of the Carruthers Creek watershed. 1 Dorsay (Pickering) Limited owns approximately 25 percent of the lands in the Veraine Master Planning Area. On their own initiative, Dorsay put together an interdisciplinary consulting team to undertake a planning study on the Veraine lands. A Vision and Guiding Community Planning Principles have been prepared as well as a number of background reports in support of their request to be included in the urban area. 2Veraine is the name given to a proposed new community on lands in northeast Pickering. The Veraine lands are generally bounded by Westney Road to the west; the Eighth Concession Road to the north; Lake Ridge Road to the east; and the Sixth Concession Road/Highway 7 to the south. The lands are outside of the Greenbelt and are currently rural. -234- Report PLN 16-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: The Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 4 5. Staff Comments Overall, staff congratulates the TRCA in bringing the long process to a conclusion and producing an updated comprehensive watershed plan. It is evident that significant effort went into producing a document that uses plain language, defines most terms, is generally easy to read (use of infographics, for example), and logically laid out in accordance with the process followed. This is especially important because readers do not always read a document from front to back, or comprehend what terms mean if they do not have background knowledge in watershed planning and the many sciences it involves. Staff generally agrees with the majority of the Management Recommendations, but through the detailed review of the Draft CCWP, have identified a number of matters that need clarification. These concerns relate to the following: • The lack of clarity around the presentation of a "77%" increase in downstream flooding under land use Scenario 3 with a Hurricane Hazel event; • The lack of clarity regarding the proposed enhanced Natural Heritage System shown in the central and northern sections of the Carruthers Creek watershed, and reflected in land use Scenarios 2 and 3; and • The lack of clarity about whether rainfall and stream flow data will continue to be collected for the current watershed flood model. These concerns are discussed in more detail below. 5.1 The lack of clarity around the study findings of a "77%" increase in downstream flooding under Scenario 3 As described in Appendix I to this report, and shown on Figure 5: Future Scenarios Mapping, page 33 of Attachment #1, the Draft CCWP developed 3 hypothetical land use scenarios to model the impact on the natural systems. Scenario 1 reflected development in accordance with the existing official plan designations. Scenario 2 added an enhanced natural heritage system to this development. Scenario 3 then added urban development to lands in northeast Pickering. Urban development assumes an increase in imperviousness, and a faster rate of stormwater run-off than natural or rural land use. The natural hazard conditions for each land use scenario, and two storm events, were modelled. The results are shown on the Table 4 infographic on page 38 of Attachment #1. The change in conditions, measured relative to Scenario 1, indicates that under Scenario 3 with a Hurricane Hazel type storm, peak flows downstream would increase by 77%, which would cause significant impact to flood levels throughout the watershed. The use of an infograph in this case, as a way to simplify complex modelling, assumptions and inferring potential impacts, produced a single number ("77%") that is easily misunderstood by readers without the context of how the management recommendations address this finding. - 235 - Report PLN 16-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: The Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 5 In this regard, City staff found that the background Hydrological Assessment, prepared for the CCWP in November 2019, provided a better discussion of the implications of the modelling results and recommendations to address the potential increase in peak flows (see Extract of Hydrological Assessment, pages 10-14, Attachment #2). The discussion immediately follows the presentation of the modelling results. It is quite possible that readers of the Draft CCWP didn't read the text of the Plan in detail, and/or read no further than the page 38 infographic, and the Summary of Implications on page 39. Review of the Hydrological Assessment and discussions between the City's Division Head, Water Resources & Development Services and TRCA engineering staff, revealed that an increase in downstream flooding by 77% is an inaccurate presentation of the Assessment's findings. The 77% figure does not appear in the Hydrological Assessment. The "77%" represents an average of the change at 2 measurement points in the watershed, (Taunton Road and Shoal Point Road), and could not be relied upon as an average for the whole watershed. The figure overstates the increase in peak flows at Shoal Point Road and understates the increase in peak flows north of Taunton Road. The TRCA is receiving comments that indicate readers are drawing the conclusion that no urban development can occur northeast Pickering on the basis of the 77% figure. This is not the case. The Draft CCWP identifies potential impacts of development and proposes a series of mitigation measures to manage those impacts, should development be considered within the headwaters area. Mitigation measures could include improving downstream conveyance, flood protection options and/or on-site controls. As a result of the general public misunderstanding about the meaning of the 77% figure, the Chief Executive Officer of the TRCA issued a letter of clarification on July 20, 2020 (see Letter from John MacKenzie, Attachment #3). The natural hazard modelling simulates a Hurricane Hazel type event. But the Plan contains no details on the assumptions used to model a Hurricane Hazel storm. The Hurricane Hazel modelling scenario is a "worst case" scenario. For those who are not aware, after a very wet fall, Hurricane Hazel struck Southern Ontario on October 15, 1954, dropping 285 millimeters (11.22 inches) of rain in 48 hours. In those conditions, it is assumed that all existing stormwater infrastructure has failed or is overflowing. Thus, the modelling did not factor in modern stormwater management facilities. Although Hurricane Hazel struck the western part of the Greater Toronto Area, the TRCA uses that rainfall amount and duration to calculate the flood plain for each of its watersheds. As a "worst case" scenario", the modelling of Hurricane Hazel type storm becomes the benchmark against other urban land use scenarios would be compared. However, the comparison would have to be made in the context of the additional studies that would need to be completed and proposed mitigations measures to manage the impacts as identified in the Management Recommendations of the Draft CCWP (see Management Recommendations for the Carruthers Creak Headwaters Area, pages 54 and 55 of Attachment #1). Staff recommends that greater clarity be provided about the "77%" figure including: explaining that it is a "worst case" scenario and why; identifying the rainfall and storm duration parameters for a Hurricane Hazel type event; and relating the modelled increases in peak flows to the proposed management recommendations. - 236 - Report PLN 16-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: The Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 6 5.2 The lack of clarity regarding the proposed enhanced Natural Heritage System shown in northeast Pickering, and reflected in Modelling Scenarios 2 and 3 Scenarios 2 and 3 reflect an enhanced Natural Heritage System (NHS) in the central and northern parts of the watershed (north of Taunton Road, up to the headwaters) (see Scenarios Mapping, page 33 of Attachment #1). The enhanced NHS increases the area of natural cover from its current 25 percent to 36 percent (which equals an increase in natural cover of approximately 415 hectares (1,030 acres) of land). This would create a NHS that is significantly larger than the NHS reflected on Schedule IIIA of the Pickering Official Plan, and the Regional NHS for the Growth Plan, completed by the Ministry of Natural Resources in 2019. It is stated on page 49 of the Draft CCWP that it will be up to municipalities to adopt a NHS that is consistent with provincial policy and informed by the goals and objectives of the CCWP. The Draft CCWP also points out that the exact size and configuration of the NHS could fluctuate due to other factors, assuming the analysis is comparable to the one that resulted in the proposed enhanced NHS recommended in the Plan. However, the language in the narrative is not carried into the management recommendations. Management Recommendation 3.1.1 regarding the protection, enhancement and restoration of a NHS refers to the recommended NHS as set out in Map 2: Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Enhanced Natural Heritage System (see page 64 of Attachment #1). Accordingly, the enhanced NHS as reflected in the Draft CCWP could be misconstrued as being the only possible option for the headwaters. A watershed plan seeks the best possible outcomes to improve and restore the conditions of, and functions within, a watershed. The inclusion of large tracks of farmland into an enhanced NHS as shown in hypothetical Scenarios 2 and 3, may present a best -case scenario from a watershed planning perspective. However, the proposed NHS represents a poor scenario from a land development perspective (significantly reducing and fragmenting potential development areas and jeopardizing coherent urban development on lands in northeast Pickering). The Draft CCWP does not address the possibility of whether the municipality may adopt and implement an enhanced NHS with an alternative configuration, size or composition in the headwaters, subject to studies demonstrating that it is consistent with provincial policy and the goals and objectives of the CCWP. It is recommended that the Draft Management Recommendation 3.1.1 respecting the protection, expansion and restoration of the NHS in the watershed be revised to reflect the discussion in the text that precedes Table 8: NHS Management Recommendations, to allow consideration of alternative configurations, size and composition for an enhanced NHS to the existing recommended NHS on Map 2. Staff further note that should development not be considered in northeast Pickering, a significant land acquisition program would be required to secure additional lands in public ownership and rehabilitate them to a natural condition. While selected owners may be willing to enter into a management agreement and convert the land to natural cover, it is unlikely any amount close to the required 415 hectares would be secured. - 237 - Report PLN 16-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: The Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 7 5.3 The need to continually gather data to calibrate the flood model Land Use Management Recommendation 1.3.5 states that TRCA complete comprehensive floodplain mapping based on new models and best available information to inform land use and infrastructure decisions. Although new flood models may be developed, there has been significant background work completed as part of this Draft Watershed Plan using the existing flood model. The model was used to evaluate a land use scenario in 2012. If a decision is made that development will be permitted in northeast Pickering, it is clear that much more detailed modelling will be required to assess the impacts on the watershed of both the proposed NHS and the proposed development. The modelling would need to address both the "usual" subdivision level stormwater controls plus an evaluation of upstream and downstream mitigation measures to ensure downstream flooding does not increase. The Draft CCWP is silent of the importance of ensuring the watershed model is continually updated to be as accurate as possible. Should the decision be made to consider urban development in northeast Pickering, the most up-to-date calibrated model should be available based on ongoing collection of rainfall and stream flow on each tributary, no matter how minor. This was particularly important in Seaton as the stormwater model was calibrated on updated data to allow the effect on the tiniest tributary to be modelled. Accordingly, it is recommended that a new Management Recommendation 1.3.6 be included stating that TRCA continue to support and enhance the existing flood model by increasing the number of rainfall monitoring stations and stream flow gauges on all tributaries. Adding this Recommendation would allow both the development of new models, if feasible, and the ongoing refinement and calibration of the current flood model in the watershed at a very detailed level. 6.0 Conclusion A watershed plan is not a land use plan. However, the recommendations from this new watershed plan will help shape future decisions regarding land uses and infrastructure by identifying natural features to protect and recommending how to mitigate impacts from development. It is therefore important that any potential for misinterpretation of the information in the Draft CCWP is clarified. It is recommended that the TRCA clarify the study findings of a "77%" increase in downstream flooding under Scenario 3, revise Management Recommendation 3.1.1 respecting the protection, expansion and restoration of the Natural Heritage System in the watershed, and add a new Management Recommendation 1.3.6 indicating that TRCA continues to support and enhance the existing flood model. - 238 - Report PLN 16-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: The Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 8 Appendix Appendix I Overview of Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, 2020-2030 Attachments 1. Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, 2020-2030 (released March 16, 2020) 2. Extract of Hydrological Assessment, 2019 (pages 10 to 14) 3. Letter from John MacKenzie, Chief Executive Officer, of the TRCA, dated July 20, 2020 Prepared By: Original Signed By: Dean Jacobs, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy & Geomatics DJ:CR:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Original Signed By: Kyle Bentley, P. Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer - 239 - Appendix I to Report PLN 16-20 Overview of the Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan - 240 - Overview of the Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Process, Findings and Recommendations 1. The Development of the Draft CCWP The main components of the Draft CCWP are listed below, and then described in more detail in the following sections that follow: (a) a communication and engagement strategy; (b) developing a new vison for the watershed; (c) characterizing the watershed (to understand the current state of the watershed); (d) assessing future conditions based on potential land use scenarios; and (e) developing a management framework consisting of proposed management recommendations and a monitoring and evaluation program. 2. The Communication and Engagement Strategy The project team consulted with the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, as well as numerous stakeholders including watershed residents, developers, farmers, golf course operators, and residents from Ajax and Pickering. Additionally, the communication and engagement strategy involved: • reports and presentations to Councils and Committees of the Region of Durham, the City of Pickering, and Town of Ajax; • municipal working group sessions with staff from the Region, City of Pickering, and the Town of Ajax through the duration of the study; • the launch of an interactive website to promote participation and notify the public and stakeholders of events, and posting study materials for comments, including on an on-line survey; and • public open houses have been held in both Ajax and Pickering, one in each of phases 1 and 2 of the study. The third and final open house, which has been postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic, has not yet been held. 3. A new vision for the Carruthers Creek Watershed (CCW) The following new vision for the CCW was developed through stakeholder and municipal working group inputs: Carruthers Creek watershed is a healthy and resilient natural system that is managed through partnerships to balance resource protection with human activity. Sound science and best management practices will protect and restore ecosystem functions, protect watershed residents from natural hazards like flooding, and maintain our natural heritage and water resources for present and future generations (see page 11 of the Draft CCWP, Attachment #1). 4. Watershed Characterization Watershed characterization determines the current state of the watershed and consists of assessing the water resources system and natural heritage system in the watershed. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) characterization of the CCW included the preparation of eight peer-reviewed technical reports that assessed the following aspects: - 241 - Overview of the Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 2 (a) hydrogeology (groundwater conditions); (b) fluvial geomorphology (the creek's flow and sediment movement process, drainage patterns and erosion risks); (c) aquatic crossings and barriers; (d) aquatic habitat (e.g., fish community richness and composition, stream temperature, etc.); (e) headwater drainage features (small streams in the upper portions of the watershed that may not flow year round); (f) water quantity; (g) surface water quality; and (h) terrestrial (land based) features (habitat, species, and natural cover). The four key issues that were identified through the watershed characterization process are as follows: 1. The aquatic ecosystem is sensitive and near the level of land use development it can sustain long-term. 2. There is not enough natural cover, or good quality habitat, needed to maintain ecosystem resilience (i.e., capacity to respond to change) due to changing land use patterns and climate change. 3. Water quality is impaired (i.e., degraded), requiring improvements to stormwater management. 4. The flow of water through the watershed is out of balance from natural conditions, resulting in flooding and erosion issues. In order to better understand the conditions of the watershed, TRCA included a summary of the benchmarks and associated targets in relation to each of the key issues listed above in the Plan (see Table 2: Current Watershed Conditions Benchmarks, pages 27 to 29 of Attachment #1). The benchmarks are key reference points for understanding how watershed conditions can change over time in order to evaluate the success of the watershed plan. The targets (or rating scales) show the ideal state of each particular watershed component, including aquatic health, groundwater recharge, habitat quality, etc. The targets are informed by relevant TRCA strategies, federal or provincial guidance materials, and established conservation science. 5. Scenario Development Understanding how a watershed will respond to potential future changes requires an analysis of alternate scenarios that reflect a difference composition of possible land use conditions. Accordingly, the following three hypothetical future scenarios were used and compared to 2015 land use conditions (the baseline) as part of the CCW planning process (see Figure 5: Future Scenarios Mapping, page 33 of Attachment #1) and as described below: • Scenario 1 (+OP) assumes all lands south of the Greenbelt are developed as planned in approved Official Plans up to the year 2031. - 242 - Overview of the Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 3 • Scenario 2 (+NHS) assumes the same development as Scenario 1 but includes a proposed enhanced Natural Heritage System (NHS) that includes natural features and areas, such as forests, meadows, wetlands, and potential natural cover enhancement areas. The proposed enhanced NHS was informed by new and updated information from natural heritage science and practices and is intended to identify a more expanded and integrated NHS consisting of existing natural cover and potential areas for additional natural cover that would improve ecosystem functions and services in the watershed. • Scenario 3 (+Potential Urban) assumes post -2031 urban development in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek (northeast Pickering lands) outside the proposed enhanced Natural Heritage System. It is important to note that scenario analysis does not result in decisions about the type and configuration of land uses. Instead, scenario analysis helps to inform decisions through the municipal planning process (e.g., Official Plans). It is the responsibility of the applicable municipality to determine the ultimate land use configuration for any future changes within the watershed. Key components of watershed health were assessed in terms of each of the three future scenarios, to identify whether the watershed responds positively, neutrally, or negatively to the potential future scenarios in comparison to identified benchmarks. Climate change was incorporated into the scenario analysis where possible. For example, storm events considered to be more frequent under climate change scenarios were included in the hydrologic modelling in the watershed planning process. The main results of the scenario assessment process are as follows: • The condition of the aquatic habitat and functions in the watershed will deteriorate overall from current conditions by 6% under Scenario 1, and by 12% under Scenario 3, likely resulting in the loss of Redside Dace (endangered fish species) within the watershed. Implementing the management recommendations identified in this watershed plan, especially limiting impervious cover and undertaking restoration activities will help Redside Dace habitat. • The condition of the NHS, which includes terrestrial habitat and their functions, will improve overall from current conditions by 1% under Scenario 1, by 7% in Scenario 2, but will slightly decrease by 6% under Scenario 3 due to the impacts of surrounding urban development. • Water quality within the watershed is likely to continue deteriorating with increased urbanization unless improved land use practices, and salt and stormwater management are implemented. • The existing flooding issues in the watershed will increase marginally (by 2%) under Scenario 1 but that increase will be neutralized under Scenario 2 (the flood risk would in essence be the same as current conditions). However, flooding issues will significantly increase (by 77%) under Scenario 3, unless considerable mitigation measures are implemented. - 243 - Overview of the Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Page 4 6. Management Framework In order to address the four main results of the scenario assessment process (listed above), the Draft CCWP contains a Management Framework that consists of goals (outcomes to achieve) and corresponding objectives (statements about desired results/steps to undertake to achieve goals); indicators (how the progress of implementing the objective is going to be measured); and management recommendations (explanation of what should be done) to protect, restore and enhance the health of the watershed. The proposed Framework, consisting of three goals, nine objectives and eleven indicators, is contained in Figure 6: Overview of Management Framework (see page 42 of Attachment #1). The 3 goals that have been set for the CCW are as follows: • achieve sustainable land use and infrastructure development patterns to protect, enhance and restore water quality and maintain stable water balance; • protect, enhance and restore the areas and features that make up the Water Resource System (including aquatic habitat) for ecosystem resilience and sustainability; and • protect, enhance and restore the Natural Heritage System and urban forest within the watershed to improve ecosystem resilience and sustainability. The Management Recommendations (MRs) in relation to each of the above 3 goals and their associated objectives are contained in Tables 6, 7, and 8 respectively of the Plan (see pages 43, 47 and 50 of Attachment #1). The MRs apply to the entire watershed. MRs specific to the Headwaters are contained in Table 9 (see page 54 of Attachment #1). The MRs in relation to the Land Use/Infrastructure, Water Resource System, and Natural Heritage System Goals speak mostly to proposed actions to be taken by the Region of Durham, or the Town of Ajax or City of Pickering, and/or to collaboration between all three municipalities and/or TRCA to achieve associated objectives. The majority of the MRs are "encouraging" in nature, acknowledging that the implementation of many recommendations is dependent upon factors such as available resources, level of collaboration, local context and decision making. -244- Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 16-20 Carruthers Creek WATERSHED PLAN 2020 - 2030 Developed in collaboration with the Town of Ajax and City of Pickering - 245 - DURHAM REGION elkToronto and Region Conservation Authority Executive Summary A watershed is an area that is drained by a river and its tributaries. Healthy watersheds provide numerous ecosystem services; from sustaining drinking water, supporting biodiversity, reducing flood and erosion hazards, protecting the quality and quantity of water, and replenishing aquifers. Due to the importance of healthy watersheds, they merit collaborative efforts to ensure their long-term sustainability. The purpose of a watershed plan is to understand the current conditions of the watershed, and identify measures to protect, enhance and restore the health of the watershed. Watershed planning integrates natural systems into land use and infrastructure decision-making by identifying natural features to protect and by recommending how to mitigate impacts from land use and infrastructure development on natural systems. Ontario's provincial planning framework recognizes that watershed planning is important to informing land use and infrastructure planning decisions. The development of this watershed plan has been a collaborative effort between the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Region of Durham, the Town of Ajax and the City of Pickering. Additional stakeholders and members of the public have been involved throughout the watershed planning process. Carruthers Creek is a small watershed that crosses rural and urban lands, including portions of the provincial Greenbelt, before entering Lake Ontario. Urbanization and the impacts of climate change will continue to stress the health and resiliency of the watershed. Watershed planning is a means to identify opportunities to mitigate and adapt to potential changes in watershed health arising from land use and infrastructure development patterns. - 246 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan The development of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan was a multi-year process that consisted of: 0 Watershed characterization, which involves the identification of current conditions in the watershed. The key issues with Carruthers Creek were identified to be: a. The aquatic ecosystem is sensitive and near the level of land use development it can sustain long-term (without additional and improved mitigation). b. There is not enough natural cover, or good quality habitat, needed to maintain ecosystem resilience (i.e. capacity to respond to change) due to changing land use patterns and climate change. c. Water quality is impaired (i.e. degraded), requiring improvements to stormwater management. d. The flow of water through the watershed is out of balance from natural conditions resulting in flooding and erosion issues. 0 Understanding future conditions through the analysis of potential land use scenarios. Three potential future scenarios were compared to 2015 land use conditions as part of the Carruthers Creek watershed planning process. a. Scenario 1 (+OP) — assumes all lands south of the Greenbelt are developed as planned in approved Official Plans up to the year 2031. b. Scenario 2 (+NHS) — assumes the same development as scenario 1 but includes the proposed enhanced Natural Heritage System (includes natural features and areas, such as forests, meadows, wetlands, and potential natural cover enhancement areas). c. Scenario 3 (+Potential Urban) — assumes post -2031 development in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek outside the proposed enhanced Natural Heritage System. These three potential future scenarios help determine how the watershed would react to these potential land use changes, which can help inform future land use and infrastructure planning decisions. In other words, would these potential changes have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on the health of the Carruthers Creek watershed? Scenario analysis does not result in decisions about the type and configuration of land uses. Instead, scenario analysis helps to inform decisions through the municipal planning process (e.g. Official Plans, secondary plans). 0 The development of a management framework to provide recommendations on how to protect, enhance and restore the watershed. The management framework consists of goals, objectives, indicators and management recommendations. This management framework is designed to address existing issues in the watershed and mitigate impacts from potential future land uses, while recommending appropriate actions to protect, enhance and restore the watershed. Decisions on the configuration of future growth and land use throughout the watershed are the purview of the applicable municipality (e.g. Region of Durham for decisions such as settlement area boundary expansions and local municipalities for site-specific decisions). 0 A monitoring and evaluation program to track implementation progress and ensure mechanisms are in place to adjust approaches as needed. The indicators identified as part of the management framework will help determine if actions taken in the watershed are having the desired benefit. Adaptive management will be used to adjust the management framework as needed. Through the implementation of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, TRCA and its municipal partners, can improve the health of the watershed and ensure integrated long-term planning for land use and infrastructure decision-making. Protecting, enhancing and restoring the natural systems within the watershed; accompanied by sustainable land use and infrastructure planning of redevelopments and future growth is essential for a healthy Carruthers Creek watershed. - 248 - :r ) • 4 4 - ,,'- %.,• So } 4 ,..• - 249 - WHAT IS A WATERSHED? An area that is drained by a river and its tributaries. Wherever you are right now, you are in a watershed. WATERSHEDS DELIVER IMPORTANT BENEFITS Human - provide safe drinking water and food, and help to reduce flooding and erosion. Economic - produce energy, and supply water for agriculture, industry and homes. Environment - promote a healthy water cycle, and provide vital habitat for wildlife and plants. What is the Natural Heritage System? Consists of natural features and areas, including wetlands, forests, meadows and valleylands, that are needed to maintain biodiversity and healthy ecosystems. What is the Water Resource System? Consists of groundwater and surface water features and areas, including streams, lakes, / 0.0 groundwater recharge areas and springs, = needed to sustain healthy aquatic and NIP terrestrial ecosystems, and human water supply. How can salt impact a watershed? Mill Chlorides can contaminate drinking water and negatively affect the health of aquatic species. 000 1 What causes flooding? Rivers naturally flood with heavy rain or snowmelt, but flooding can become a problem when buildings and other structures are placed in floodplains. Climate change and urbanization can make flooding worse. 1 What is stormwater? Rain and melting snow rushes off roofs, sidewalks and parking lots into pipes and pours into streams and lakes. Without proper stormwater control and treatment, flooding and erosion can increase, waterways can become polluted and local ecosystems can be damaged. FIGURE 1 Understanding a Watershed How can agriculture impact a watershed? Agricultural areas provide valuable greenspace and reduce stormwater, since precipitation can penetrate the soil. On the other hand, agricultural fields can release harmful contaminants into waterways as excess nutrients (e.g. phosphorus) and pesticides. Soil erosion from fields can increase the amount of sediment in waterways negatively affecting aquatic ecosystems. #1, www ®®® II How can urbanization impact a watershed? Since impervious surfaces (roads, buildings, parking lots) prevent water from penetrating into soil, stormwater runoff can carry contaminants into waterways and increase the likelihood of flooding. Infrastructure and land use development can degrade habitat, reducing the quality and quantity of natural systems and their connectivity. 0 0 Surface and Groundwater Interaction Rain and melting snow penetrate the soil in permeable areas draining into an aquifer (i.e. groundwater recharge areas). That groundwater can then discharge at springs into streams, wetlands or other surface water features. Groundwater recharge JIIIJ 11[11.1111 0O 0 Benefits of the Urban Forest All trees in a city collectively help to remove pollutants from air and water, reduce stormwater runoff, cool communities, save energy, and improve human health and well-being. Table of Contents 1. Introduction and Background 1.1 Rationale and Policy Basis 1.2 Local Context and Considerations 1.3 Partners and Stakeholders 2. Water Resource and Natural Heritage Systems 3. Existing Watershed Conditions 3.1 Context and Background 3.2 Historical and Current Land Uses 3.3 Current State of the Watershed 4. Future Watershed Conditions 4.1 Future Stressors 4.2 Future Scenarios 4.3 Scenario Analysis 5. Management Framework 5.1 Land Use / Infrastructure Goal 5.2 Water Resource System Goal 5.3 Natural Heritage System Goal 5.4 Carruthers Creek Headwaters Management 6. Monitoring and evaluation 7. Maps 8. Glossary 9. References 11 LIST OF FIGURES 12 FIGURE 1: Understanding a Watershed 15 FIGURE 2: Carruthers Creek Watershed 17 FIGURE 3: Carruthers Creek Subwatersheds FIGURE 4: Comparing Urban Forest and Natural Cover 18 FIGURE 5: Future Scenarios Mapping FIGURE 6: Overview of Management Framework FIGURE 7: Monitoring Stations Map FIGURE 8: Adaptive Management Cycle FIGURE 9: Subwatershed Quality Due to Changes in Impervious Cover 21 22 23 23 LIST OF TABLES 30 TABLE 1: Description of the Water Resource System and Natural Heritage System TABLE 2:Current Watershed Conditions Benchmarks TABLE 3: Potential Future Land Use Scenarios TABLE 4: Scenario Analysis Implications TABLE 5: Management Framework Explanation 43 TABLE 6: Land Use Management 47 Recommendations 49 TABLE 7: WRS Management Recommendations 54 TABLE 8: NHS Management Recommendations TABLE 9: Headwaters Specific Management 56 Recommendations TABLE 10: Carruthers Creek Monitoring Program 62 TABLE 11: Restoration Opportunity Summaries 74 79 30 31 34 40 - 252 - 6 10 16 25 33 42 57 61 73 19 27 32 35 41 43 47 50 54 58 68 Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan '"CRONYMS ANSI Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest CCME Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment CTC Credit Valley, Toronto and Region and Central Lake Ontario DFO Department of Fisheries and Oceans ESGRAs Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas FBI Family Biotic Index FVC Flood Vulnerable Cluster GIS Geographic Information System Growth Plan Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 GTA Greater Toronto Area IBI Index of Biotic Integrity IRP Integrated Restoration Prioritization LAM Landscape Analysis Model MECP Ministry of the Environment, Conservation and Parks MNRF Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry NHS Natural Heritage System PPS Provincial Policy Statement PWQO Provincial Water Quality Objectives ROP Regional Official Plan TRCA Toronto and Region Conservation Authority TSS Total Suspended Solids WRS Water Resource System Indigenous Land Acknowledgement As we strive to develop a comprehensive watershed plan for the Carruthers Creek watershed, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) acknowledges that this watershed planning was undertaken within the traditional territory and treaty lands of the Anishinaabeg of the Williams Treaty First Nations, and the traditional territory of the Huron-Wendat Nation. As stewards of land and water resources within the Greater Toronto Area (GTA), TRCA appreciates and recognizes the history and diversity of the land, as well as our shared values and interests and is respectful of working in this territory. - 253 - Toronto and Region Conservation Atriiwd A Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make c anges and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: 2015 Land Use Conditions 0 0.5 1 2 3 KM Municipal Boundary c, Flood Vulnerable Cluster Watercourse Land Use Ile Natural Rural 4 Urban Greenbelt Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study Area -254- 1. Introduction and Background Carruthers Creek is a small, yet important watershed that crosses rural and urban areas before entering Lake Ontario. This watershed plan represents a collaborative effort to determine the current state of the watershed, assess potential future land use scenarios, and determine an appropriate management framework to ensure the long-term sustainability and resiliency of the watershed. See Figure 2 for a map of the Carruthers Creek watershed and its land use conditions as of 2015. This watershed plan has a ten-year time frame. However, regular monitoring and evaluation, including adaptive management, will ensure that the watershed plan is updated, or refined, as needed on an ongoing basis. Vision for the Carruthers Creek watershed: Carruthers Creek watershed is a healthy and resilient natural system that is managed through partnerships to balance resource protection with human activity. Sound science and best management practices will protect and restore ecosystem functions, protect watershed residents from natural hazards like flooding, and maintain our natural heritage and water resources for present and future generations. - 255 - 11 12 1.1 RATIONALE AND POLICY BASIS Watershed planning is important because it helps to understand the current conditions of the watershed (i.e. watershed characterization), and identify measures to protect, enhance and restore the health of a watershed. Watershed plans provide a comprehensive understanding of the ecological forms and functions of the various features and areas that comprise the water resource and natural heritage systems. Additionally, watershed planning helps to inform how land use and infrastructure planning influence and affect the natural ecology of the watershed. This subsection will explain the provincial policy basis for watershed planning and the roles of municipalities and TRCA in implementing that policy framework. Provincial Watershed Planning Policy Basis Ontario's planning policy framework recognizes the importance of watershed planning to inform land use and infrastructure decision-making. The key policy driver for watershed planning is applicable provincial policy direction in the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS, 2014) and provincial plans such as the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 (Growth Plan) and the Greenbelt Plan, 2017 (Greenbelt Plan)'. PPS policies encourage a coordinated approach to planning that recognizes the watershed as the ecologically meaningful scale for integrated and long-term planning. The PPS also directs the protection, improvement or restoration of the quality and quantity of water by minimizing potential negative impacts. Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan policies require watershed planning to be undertaken to support the protection, enhancement or restoration of the quality and quantity of water within a watershed2. Furthermore, watershed planning is to be used to identify the Water Resource System (WRS), inform decisions on allocation of growth and planning for water, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure3. Provincial policies also recognize the importance of protecting, enhancing and restoring the Natural Heritage System (NHS) to maintain long-term ecological and hydrologic functions of the features and areas'', and demonstrating that there will be no negative impacts from development and site alteration. The integrated nature and importance of the natural heritage and water resource systems is discussed in greater detail in Section 2. 'There are other geographically specific provincial plans that do not apply to the Carruthers Creek watershed (e.g. Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and Niagara Escarpment Plan). 2Growth Plan policy 4.2.1.1 and Greenbelt Plan policy 3.2.3.2 'Growth Plan policy 4.2.1.3 and Greenbelt Plan policies 3.2.3.3 and 3.2.3.4. 'Natural Heritage System policies for the Growth Plan are 4.2.2 and the Greenbelt Plan are 3.2.2. - 256 - Municipalities are required to conform to the PPS and applicable provincial plans through the municipal planning process and when updating their Official Plans. This Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan identifies management recommendations necessary to demonstrate conformity with provincial policies related to watershed planning. By implementing the recommendations included in this watershed plan, municipalities will be able to demonstrate how the features and areas that comprise the natural heritage and water resource systems, as well as water quality and quantity, will be protected, enhanced and restored. Ontario's Clean Water Act, 2006 is designed to protect existing and future sources of drinking water. Under the Clean Water Act, 2006, source protection plans were developed by source protection committees representing municipal, Indigenous, public and business interests. The Credit Valley — Toronto and Region — Central Lake Ontario (CTC) Source Protection Plan applies in the Carruthers Creek watershed. The CTC Source Protection Plan is a strategy and suite of policies developed by residents, businesses and the municipalities, which outlines how water quality and quantity for municipal drinking water systems will be protected. The CTC Source Protection Plan includes its own set of policies and compliance mechanisms, in accordance with the Clean Water Act, 2006, that are not repeated in this watershed plan. The management recommendations identified in this watershed plan are broader than drinking water and complement the requirements of the applicable source protection plan. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Reducing Natural Cover Losses in the Carruthers Creek Watershed There have been losses and impacts to natural cover in the watershed, including parts of the Greenbelt. These changes have continued since the enactment of the Greenbelt Act, 2005. POLICY FRAMEWORK As discussed in this section, the Greenbelt Plan is one part of Ontario's land use planning framework. One vital policy tool for maintaining natural cover in both the Growth Plan and the Greenbelt Plan is the NHS policies. Once a NHS is designated in a municipal Official Plan, any development or site alteration must meet certain policy requirements in the applicable provincial Plan. Observed land use changes within the Carruthers Creek portion of the Greenbelt include fill sites, road widenings, land clearing on existing lots, farming and non-farm business operations and vehicle and other storage. MOVING FORWARD This watershed plan identifies recommendations to strengthen municipal policies to protect the NHS, in accordance with provincial policy, and identifies opportunities for restoration programs. If community members are concerned about any development, large scale tree cutting or fill activities, please contact your local municipality, Region of Durham, or conservation authority for assistance. - 257 - 13 14 Ontario's provincial planning policies recognize the importance of the Great Lakes'. Carruthers Creek flows into Lake Ontario. The series of Great Lakes agreements, legislation and policies set binational, national and provincial commitments to protect and restore the Great Lakes. This watershed plan is intended to improve the conditions within the Carruthers Creek watershed, thereby reducing negative impacts to Lake Ontario from this single watershed. Role of Municipalities Within the Greater Golden Horseshoe, most municipalities in Ontario are organized into two- tier systems. Upper -tier municipalities, such as the Region of Durham, are comprised of several lower -tier municipalities. The role of regional government is to address issues and concerns that apply to broader geographic areas, crossing the borders of lower -tier municipalities. For land use planning, regional government's primary planning tool is a Regional Official Plan (ROP). The ROP implements the requirements of any relevant provincial legislation, provincial plans, and the PPS. Area municipalities develop their own, more detailed Official Plans (and may include more detailed secondary plans, Part II Plans, or tertiary plans as the case may be), as well as implementing zoning by-laws. While the ROP is required to implement provincial policy, area municipal planning tools are required to conform with both Regional and provincial policy. Municipalities are granted decision-making powers through the Municipal Act and Planning Act. Watershed planning helps municipalities to make informed decisions on where and how to grow, while identifying opportunities to improve natural watershed conditions (e.g. restoration opportunities). Role of TRCA Conservation authorities were established and granted responsibilities under the Conservation Authorities Act. Conservation authorities play an important role in land use planning and environmental protection processes in partnership with municipalities, but are not the decision -makers in land use and infrastructure planning. Conservation authorities deliver programs and services related to natural hazard protection and management (i.e. flooding), conservation and management of conservation authority lands, drinking water source protection (as prescribed under the Clean Water Act, 2006), and conserving natural resources. Through its watershed expertise, TRCA, in partnership with the Region of Durham, Town of Ajax, and City of Pickering, has developed this watershed plan to help inform land use and infrastructure planning decisions. 'The PPS identifies the importance of considering the priorities identified in various agreements related to the protection or restoration of the Great Lakes — St. Lawrence River Basin. The Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan require the consideration of the Great Lakes Strategy and the Great Lakes Protection Act, 2015, and any applicable Great Lakes agreements as part of watershed planning. - 258 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan 1.2 LOCAL CONTEXT AND CONSIDERATIONS Carruthers Creek is a relatively small watershed with a drainage area of approximately 38 km2, ranging from 2-3 km in width and 18 km in length, and occurs within the South Slope and glacial Lake Iroquois physiographic regions. It is the easternmost watershed in TRCA's jurisdiction and is bordered by the Duffins Creek watershed to the west and the Lynde Creek watershed in the east. The watershed has approximately 41,000 residents and is located entirely within the Region of Durham. Carruthers Creek's headwaters form to the south of the Oak Ridges Moraine, in the City of Pickering, and the creek enters Lake Ontario in the Town of Ajax. The watershed is mainly rural north of Highway 7 and urbanized south of Taunton Road to the Lakeshore. From Highway 7 south to Taunton Road, most lands are in the protected countryside designation of the provincial Greenbelt Plan. Carruthers Creek watershed consists of four subwatersheds, for the purposes of this watershed plan. Subwatersheds are defined as areas drained by a tributary, or portion of the stream, and are a more geographically specific scale than watersheds. Some of the technical analyses conducted as part of this watershed planning process used the four subwatersheds identified in Figure 3 to evaluate the conditions of the watershed from a more refined geographic location. The previous 2003 Duffins and Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan evaluated existing watershed conditions and identified recommendations to protect, restore, and enhance the natural systems and water quality of Carruthers Creek. The issues identified in the 2003 plan are still prevalent in the Carruthers Creek watershed, such as the need to protect and restore natural areas, improve stormwater management and address water quality concerns. Since 2003, the Carruthers Creek watershed has undergone significant changes associated with urbanization and the impacts of climate change (See Section 3 for more information). Since many of the issues identified in the previous watershed plan are still occurring, an updated watershed plan using the latest advancements in watershed science, monitoring programs and computer modelling was necessary. Periodic reviews of watershed plans are an integral component of the watershed planning process and allow for adaptive management to incorporate new scientific approaches and to address emerging initiatives. This watershed plan update is also more reflective of current provincial policies around watershed planning, which have evolved since the 2003 plan. At the request of the Region of Durham, a small section of lands in the East Duffins Creek subwatershed, which are immediately adjacent to Carruthers Creek watershed and outside of the provincial Greenbelt, were included in the study area to provide a more complete analysis of lands in the area. However, only watershed planning processes that occur at the regional, rather than the watershed scale, were assessed (i.e. NHS planning and groundwater modelling), as these processes extend beyond the watershed boundary. -259- 15 FIGURE 3: Carruthers Creek Subwatersheds -4 0,006' 044 AI' i NW 5ry 50, Toronto and Region 1' Conservation Aut6odtp Date: Janurary 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. 16 N s L• . i$ ti'r'`� ile 6- h rir�-ix'E Central Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Subwatersheds 0 0.5 1 2 3 KM - 260 - � trst t^' South Subwatershed Boundary Central NE NW South — Intermittent Streams — Permanent Streams IZ'Carruthers Watershed Boundary MCarruthers Watershed Plan Study Area The development of this Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan was a multi-year process completed in the following sequence: • Field work on existing watershed conditions (2015-2016) • Watershed characterization technical reports completed (2017) — See Section 3 for the results of watershed characterization. • Potential future scenarios modelling and analysis undertaken (2018) • Scenario analysis technical reports completed (2019) — See Section 4 for information on the potential future scenarios and results • Water Resource and Natural Heritage Systems identified (2019) — See Section 2 for more information on these systems • Management framework for Carruthers Creek developed (2019) — See Section 5 for the Carruthers Creek management framework 1.3 PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS In 2015, the Region of Durham engaged TRCA to develop a watershed plan for Carruthers Creek. The key partners involved in the process to develop this watershed plan are TRCA, the Region of Durham, the Town of Ajax and the City of Pickering. Throughout the multi-year process discussed in Subsection 1.2, TRCA engaged the Mississaugas of Scugog Island, stakeholders and the public to raise awareness of the watershed planning process and solicit feedback on components of this watershed plan. Stakeholders engaged include watershed residents, landowners, farmers, developers, golf course operators and environmental non-governmental organizations. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Stakeholders were engaged at various points during this watershed planning process, as follows: LATE 2015 — LATE 2017 Promoted and raised awareness of the watershed planning process for Carruthers Creek through reports and presentations to Councils and Committees of the Region of Durham, Town of Ajax, and City of Pickering. LATE 2017 — EARLY 2019 Continued to raise awareness of the watershed planning process for Carruthers Creek and gathered feedback from the public on a vision for the watershed plan. This was completed by launching an interactive website and hosting information booths at various events across the watershed. MID 2019 — LATE 2019 Gathered feedback on the draft management framework for the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan from partners and stakeholders. Two public open houses were held in October 2019. Feedback received from partners and stakeholders was invaluable in the development of this watershed plan. The Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan reflects the diversity of issues and concerns raised throughout the planning process and represents a realistic and manageable plan to improve the overall health of the Carruthers Creek watershed. All the partners and stakeholders engaged as part of this process play a key role in the effective implementation of the management recommendations identified in Section 5. - 261 - 17 18 2. Water Resource and Natural Heritage Systems The aquatic and terrestrial features and areas that maintain the ecological integrity of a watershed consist of two integrated systems, the WRS and NHS. Together, these two systems provide essential ecosystem services, including water storage and filtration, cleaner air, support to biodiversity and habitats, carbon storage, as well as resiliency to climate change. Maintaining extensive, connected and high-quality ecological and hydrological features and areas of both systems is essential for the long-term health and sustainability of Carruthers Creek, as shown in Figure 1. As mentioned in Subsection 1.1, identifying and protecting both systems is a key policy requirement in the Growth Plan and Greenbelt Plan. -262- Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan The features and areas that comprise both systems are explained in Table 1 below. TABLE 1: Description of the Water Resource System and Natural Heritage System Water Resource System Natural Heritage System A system consisting of groundwater features and areas A system made up of natural heritage features and and surface water features (including shoreline areas), and hydrologic functions, which provide the water areas, and linkages identified to provide connectivity (at the regional or site level) and support natural resources necessary to sustain healthy aquatic and processes which are necessary to maintain biological terrestrial ecosystems and human water consumption. and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species, and ecosystems. The WRS consists of: The NHS consists of*: Key Hydrologic Areas • Significant Wetlands* • Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (including • Significant Coastal Wetlands Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas) • Other Coastal Wetlands in Ecoregions 5E, 6E and 7E • Highly Vulnerable Aquifers • Fish habitat* • Significant Surface Water Contribution Areas • Significant Woodlands • Significant Valleylands in Ecoregions 6E and 7E Key Hydrologic Features (excluding islands in Lake Huron and the St. Mary's • Permanent Streams River) • Intermittent Streams • Habitat of Endangered Species and Threatened • Inland Lakes and their Littoral Zones Species • Seepage Areas and Springs • Significant Wildlife Habitat • Wetlands* • Significant Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) • Sand barrens, savannahs, tallgrass prairies and alvars • Federal or provincial parks, and conservation reserves *Notes: Wetlands are important features in both systems. For the purposes of mapping in Section 7, wetlands are shown separately in Map 1A for the WRS and included as natural cover in Map 2 for the NHS. Fish habitat in the NHS overlaps with features and areas in the WRS. The majority of these terms are defined in the Growth Plan, 2019. Some, but not all definitions, have been included in the Glossary (Section 8) of this watershed plan. Not all of the NHS features or areas identified in this table are part of the proposed enhanced NHS for Carruthers Creek, since some of these features do not exist in this watershed (e.g. sand barrens, savannahs, etc.), or are not distinguished specifically from natural cover areas (e.g. significant woodlands and significant wildlife habitat). Due to the importance of both systems, the protection, enhancement and restoration of the WRS and NHS are goals of this watershed plan (Section 5). See Section 7 for maps of the WRS and the recommended NHS. -263- 19 How the WRS was delineated? The key hydrologic areas and key hydrologic features that comprise the WRS were delineated using various techniques and methodologies. Highly Vulnerable Aquifers and Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas were determined through Technical Rules established under the Clean Water Act, 2006 for the purposes of regional source water protection planning. Ecologically Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas (ESGRAs) were determined using a model developed by the Oak Ridges Moraine Groundwater Program to optimize the protection of groundwater dependent ecosystems. The model results for ESGRAs were assessed to minimize the land area covered by these key hydrologic areas while maintaining a high degree of hydrological function protection for these ecosystems. Significant Surface Water Contribution Areas include many of the intermittent streams in the headwaters (northern portion) of Carruthers Creek. Each of the five key hydrologic features were delineated using a combination of satellite imagery, ArcHydro GIS and field site verification. 20 Protecting the WRS and NHS The WRS provides habitat for aquatic life (e.g. fish). The conditions of aquatic habitat in Carruthers Creek were assessed as part of this watershed planning process. How the NHS was delineated? The components of the NHS were delineated using a robust methodology that incorporated ecological models (e.g. Landscape Analysis Model), information from satellite imagery, monitoring data, field site verification and expert based knowledge. The components of the NHS were identified for their ecological value as existing and potential natural cover (i.e. areas targeted for restoration and enhancement), to: • Increase natural cover (e.g. forests, wetlands, meadows, etc.) quantity and quality by improving habitat size, shape, and connectivity in and around existing natural areas, as well as in areas for potential restoration; • Protect and restore species and vegetation communities by incorporating diverse habitat types, mitigating the impacts of urban development, and improving the ecological connectivity across the watershed; and • Incorporate natural system vulnerabilities to climate change in planning processes to build a more resilient NHS. As mentioned in Subsection 1.2, provincial policies recognize the importance of protecting the WRS and NHS. Municipalities are required to demonstrate how these systems will be protected. Through its technical and scientific expertise, TRCA delineated both systems as part of this watershed planning process. For the recommended NHS, the areas identified as potential natural cover (enhancement areas) should be restored to maintain the long-term resiliency and sustainability of terrestrial ecosystems, in addition to protecting the existing natural cover. TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy has a minimum target of 30% natural cover across the entire jurisdiction, while recognizing there will be variability among TRCA's nine watersheds due to existing land uses. The Carruthers Creek watershed is currently below that target (see Subsection 3.3 for more information). The management framework (Section 5) of this watershed plan, recognizes that land use and/or infrastructure decisions may impact, or occur, within the WRS or NHS, and establishes recommendations to avoid these features and areas, mitigate impacts, or when impacts are unavoidable, provide for ecosystem compensation. Municipalities are responsible for designating a NHS that is consistent with provincial policies and informed by the goals and objectives of this watershed plan. -264- 3. Existing Watershed Conditions Watershed characterization is a vital part of watershed planning, which helps to determine the current conditions of the watershed. As part of this watershed plan, TRCA produced technical reports on different components of the watershed, which are summarized in this section. - 265 - 21 3.1 CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND Since the previous watershed plan is from 2003, the existing conditions of the watershed were evaluated using more recent data and science. TRCA produced eight peer-reviewed technical reports as part of watershed characterization. These technical reports helped determine the current state of the watershed, as discussed in Subsection 3.3. Watershed characterization includes the following topics (see full technical reports listed in Section 9): Aquatic Crossing and Barrier Assessment Involved the assessment of existing structures in Carruthers Creek that represent barriers to fish passage, such as perched culverts and online ponds. Aquatic Habitat and Community Characterization Involved the assessment of aquatic habitat conditions, stream temperature, fish community richness and composition, and benthic invertebrate richness and composition. Fluvial Geomorphology Involved the assessment of the creek's flow and sediment movement processes, drainage patterns, and potential erosion risks. Headwater Drainage Features Involved the assessment of small streams in the upper portions of the watershed that may not flow year-round (i.e. intermittent and ephemeral). These features provide hydrologic and ecological functions to maintain downstream watershed conditions. 22 Hydrogeology Involved the assessment of groundwater conditions within the watershed, such as groundwater recharge and discharge, and groundwater flow and quality. Surface Water Quality Characterization Involved the assessment of current and past water quality conditions to determine trends and factors influencing water quality. Terrestrial Natural Heritage Involved the assessment of natural cover, terrestrial habitat and species across the watershed. Water Quantity Characterization Involved the assessment of the volume, velocity, spatial distribution and timing of water moving through the stream network (i.e. streamflow). - 266 - 3.2 HISTORICAL AND CURRENT LAND USES Ongoing urbanization in the Greater Toronto Area continues to convert natural and agricultural lands to other uses. This is true in the Carruthers Creek watershed as well. In 1999, the watershed consisted of 28% natural cover, 53% agricultural lands, and 12% urban area6. As of 2015, natural cover had dropped to 25% and agricultural lands to 34%. Urban land use increased to approximately 37% during that time period. See Figure 2 for a map of 2015 land use conditions. This historical context is important for characterizing the current conditions of the watershed as it helps to understand the rate of change within the watershed and provides a useful benchmark for comparison. 3.3 CURRENT STATE OF THE WATERSHED Based on the technical assessments conducted as part of watershed characterization (discussed in Subsection 3.1), there are four key issues in Carruthers Creek: 0 WATER RESOURCE SYSTEM: the aquatic ecosystem is sensitive and near the level of land use development it can sustain long-term (without additional and improved mitigation). The current state of the WRS includes assessments of headwater drainage features, fish communities, instream barriers to fish movement and groundwater. The analysis of the small stream features north of Highway 7 (i.e. headwater drainage features), showed that 67% of the features have been altered (i.e. reducing hydrologic connectivity and increasing surface runoff) in some way by human activities, primarily through tile drainage. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Tile Drainage Tile drainage is a common and important land management practice in many agricultural parts of Ontario. Tile drains are corrugated plastic tubing, clay or concrete drains installed beneath the surface of fields to drain excess water from the crop root zone. Working with the agricultural community is important to identify opportunities to mitigate the potential impacts of tile drainage. Consult the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, or the Ontario Soil and Crop Improvement Association for more information. 6Additional land use categories such as water, recreational, golf courses, cemeteries and hydro corridors make up the remaining percentages not included in the categories of natural, agricultural and urban land uses. - 267 - 23 Currently, the fish communities within the watershed are dominated by cool water native species. Redside Dace, an endangered species, is currently found within the watershed. Urbanization results in impervious land cover (i.e. pavement, or areas where water cannot penetrate the ground). Imperviousness can increase the severity and duration of peak flows during storm events, cause erosion and sedimentation, and increase stream temperatures, which impacts aquatic habitat for all species. Some areas of the watershed are impacted by poor water quality, which negatively impacts the aquatic ecosystem (see key issue number three, water quality for more information). Existing instream barriers to fish movement associated with development and infrastructure adversely impacts the aquatic system in Carruthers Creek by limiting access to feeding and spawning areas, increasing water temperature, and affecting sediment transport. Instream structures that act as barriers to fish passage include dams, weirs, road and rail crossings, and some culverts. From a groundwater perspective, there are three aquifer systems present in the watershed. These aquifer systems include one shallow system (Oak Ridges Moraine/ Mackinaw Interstadial aquifer complex) and two deep systems (Thorncliffe and Scarborough aquifer complexes). Long-term groundwater quality information for specific sites within the Carruthers Creek watershed are unavailable, but there have been a number of studies conducted in adjacent watersheds to provide an indication of background groundwater quality. The available information from Duffins Creek and Rouge River indicate elevated levels of nitrates and chlorides in groundwater attributed to road salts and fertilizer use. Maintaining the flow between groundwater and surface water (i.e. recharge and discharge) is essential for a healthy watershed. 24 0 NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM: there is not enough natural cover, or good quality habitat, needed to maintain ecosystem resilience (i.e. capacity to respond to change) due to changing land use patterns and climate change. As of 2015, approximately 25% of the watershed consisted of natural cover. Approximately 9% of that natural cover is forest, 7% wetland, 4% successional (transitioning to forest), and 3% meadow'. Current habitat conditions are overall poor in terms of patch size, shape and influences from surrounding land uses. In addition to this assessment of natural cover within the watershed, TRCA also conducted terrestrial inventories of plants and animals. These inventories found 845 vascular plant species, of which only 57% are native species. These results indicate a significant presence of invasive species, such as dog -strangling vine, garlic mustard, and common buckthorn. The inventory also identified 153 flora species of regional conservation concern including four species that have not been found anywhere else in TRCA's jurisdiction. Inventories documented a total of 133 breeding vertebrate fauna species over the past decade comprised of 106 breeding birds, 18 mammals, and 9 herpetofauna (i.e. reptiles and amphibians). The urban forest within the Carruthers Creek watershed contains 94 types of woody plant species, with over 270 varieties. Maples make up the most common type of tree within the watershed. In 2017, approximately 23% of the watershed consisted of tree and shrub canopy. 7The remaining natural cover percentages are around, or less than, one percent, consisting of water, hydro corridors, and beach/bluff. -268- Urban Forest (tree cover) •motip o r 1 r 11111.11111111118 1r MI. r 1 11 I ®® ER ®® FR I 11 1 o 1► hui )r41r A W�L . FIGURE 4 Comparing Urban Forest and Natural Cover Natural cover Forest cover 1 Difference between urban forest and natural cover The term urban forest is used to describe the trees and woody shrubs located on all private and public property within a watershed, including urbanized spaces (e.g. along roads) and in forests. The percentage of urban forest within a watershed is determined by the area covered by the canopies of all trees and shrubs. Natural cover, expressed in hectares, or as a percentage of the overall watershed area, is the area of the watershed covered by natural habitats including forests, meadows, and wetlands. Natural cover includes habitats with varying degrees of trees and shrubs. Meadows for example are open habitats that do not contain trees. Although meadows, and other non -treed habitats, are natural cover, they are not part of the urban forest. Similarly, the urban forest includes trees located within built portions of the watershed, outside of natural habitats. For these reasons, the amount of natural cover and the amount of urban forest in a watershed will not be equal as is the case of the Carruthers Creek Watershed. See Figure 4 for a visual representation of this explanation. -269- 25 0 WATER QUALITY: is impaired within the watershed, requiring improvements to stormwater management. The headwaters of Carruthers Creek contain elevated concentrations of total phosphorus, phosphate, total ammonia, E. coli, total suspended solids (TSS), turbidity, and some trace metals. These elevated concentrations in the headwaters were likely influenced by agricultural practices and the construction of Highway 407. Just upstream of urban development, concentrations were reduced for most parameters except chloride. Chloride levels regularly exceeded the threshold for the protection of aquatic life in the reaches of Carruthers Creek with urban influences. Additionally, increased concentrations of total ammonia, nitrite, phosphate, turbidity, and trace metals are often observed downstream of the urban area. As expected, the concentrations of many water quality parameters were elevated during high flow conditions that occur during storm runoff and wet weather. Prior to the 1980s, stormwater management focused solely on flood control (stormwater quantity). Modern stormwater management provides a higher level of protection for the environment, property, and residents by incorporating mitigation provisions for water quality, erosion, and water balance in addition to water quantity control. The Carruthers Creek watershed has various levels of stormwater control that are indicative of the age of development and the prevailing stormwater management practices at the time. 26 0 NATURAL HAZARDS: the flow of water through the watershed is out of balance and there are flooding and erosion issues. Urbanization converts formerly pervious surfaces (e.g. forests, meadows, agricultural lands) to impervious surfaces (e.g. roads, parking lots, rooftops). From 1999 to present day, the increase in urban cover has greatly altered the natural water balance. In addition, existing agricultural lands located in the headwaters of the watershed are extensively tile drained. Several sites with erosion issues were identified as part of the fluvial geomorphic assessment. During storm events, the increase in surface runoff associated with impervious surfaces can result in excessive riverine flooding and stream erosion. Currently, a Flood Vulnerable Cluster (FVC) exists in the lower part of the Carruthers Creek watershed in the Town of Ajax (see Figure 2 or 5 for the location of this FVC). There have been both historical and recent flooding events in the Carruthers Creek watershed due to extreme precipitation events. These four key issues provide the basis for the management framework of this watershed plan, discussed in Section 5. Table 2 summarizes benchmarks for the four key watershed issues previously discussed. The benchmarks are important reference points for understanding how watershed conditions can change over time to evaluate success of this watershed plan. Table 2 also identifies targets (or rating scales) to show the ideal state of that particular watershed component. The targets are informed by relevant TRCA strategies, provincial or federal guidance, and established conservation science. The scenario analysis, described in Subsection 4.3, summarizes how the watershed will respond to potential future scenarios in comparison to the benchmarks. Section 6 uses indicators to evaluate the success of implementation through a watershed monitoring program. The indicators identified in Section 6 will track watershed conditions relative to the benchmarks discussed in Table 2. Where a monitoring station is referenced in Table 2, see Figure 7 for the location of that monitoring station within the watershed. - 270 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan TABLE 2: Current Watershed Conditions Benchmarks Key Watershed Issues Sub -Issue Benchmarks Targets (if applicable) WATER RESOURCE SYSTEM Aquatic Health Family Biotic Index (FBI)8- rating of fairly poor and poor across Carruthers Creek: • Poor = 6.59 (Average from 2013 - 2017 at monitoring station Aquatic 1) • Fairly poor = 6.19 (Average from 2013 - 2017 at monitoring station Aquatic 2) • Fairly poor = 6.07 (Average from 2013 - 2017 at monitoring station Aquatic 3) Index of Biotic Integrity (181)9: • Rating of poor at three sites (2015) • Rating of fair at two sites (2015) • Rating of good at six sites (2015) Rating scale for FBI: Value Rating 0 - 3.75 Excellent 3.76 - 4.25 Very good 4.26 - 5.00 Good 5.01 - 5.75 Fair 5.76 - 6.50 Fairly poor 6.51 - 7.25 Poor 7.26 -10 Very poor Rating scale for IBI: Value Rating 38 Very good 28 - 37.9 Good 20 - 27.9 Fair <_20 - 5.75 Poor Riparian corridor (30 m buffer around streams) Within the riparian corridor natural cover is 49%. 75% of stream length is naturally vegetated Streamflow (surface water) Carruthers Creek at Achilles Road had an average total volume of 1.14 x 10' m3 over the 2008 - 2016 period. This corresponds to a discharge rate of 0.360 m3/s when averaged on an annual basis. Not applicable (should not vary significantly from natural fluctuations year to year) Groundwater Recharge Average recharge rate is estimated at 118 mm/year Not applicable (should not decrease significantly from natural rates) Groundwater Discharge Average discharge rate is estimated at 130 mm/year Not applicable (should not decrease significantly from natural rates) 'The Family Biotic Index is often used to assess the quality of water in rivers and is a scale for showing the quality of an environment by indicating the types of organisms present in it. 'The Index of Biotic Integrity measures a chosen set of metrics (in this case number of fish species, presence of sensitive fish species, abundance and food chain classifications) to assign a rating of very poor to excellent. - 271 - 27 Key Watershed Issues NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM WATER QUALITY (SURFACE) Water quality benchmarks are based on average concentration of 17 water quality samples collected monthly from June 2015 to May 2016. 28 Sub -Issue Natural cover Habitat quality Animal (i.e. fauna) species of concern Number and area of sensitive vegetation communities Tree and Shrub Canopy (urban forest) Chlorides Total suspended solids Benchmarks Approximately 25% total natural cover, consisting of 9% forest, 7% wetland, 4% successional (transitioning to forest) and 3% meadow. Evaluated using Landscape Analysis Model (LAM), which assigns a score based on total number of habitat patches, patch size, patch shape, and influences from surrounding land uses. Overall patch quality in the Carruthers Creek watershed was found to be 'poor'. North of Taunton Road = 39 South of Taunton Road = 56 Entire watershed number = 43 Area = approximately 54 hectares Approximately 23% tree and shrub canopy for the entire watershed (2017). • 183 mg/L at monitoring station Water Quality 1 • 72 mg/L at monitoring station Water Quality 2 • 35 mg/L at a no longer active monitoring station that was located west of Salem Road at Hwy7 • 20 mg/L at monitoring station Water Quality 1 • 11 mg/L at monitoring station Water Quality 2 • 59 mg/L at a no longer active monitoring station that was located west of Salem Road at Hwy7 Targets (if applicable) Minimum 30% natural cover. TRCA recommended NHS for Carruthers Creek: 36% natural cover; 16% forest, 7% wetland, 13% other (primarily successional forest and meadow) Rating scale: Patch Score Quality Condition 13 - 15 Excellent 11 -12 Good 9-10 Fair 6-8 0-5 Poor Very poor Not applicable (ideally maintained or improved) Not applicable (ideally maintained or improved) Not applicable (targets to be established through management recommendation 3.3.2) The long-term water quality guideline for the protection of aquatic life (CCME) for chlorides is 120 mg/L. CCME water quality guideline for TSS is based on increases over background levels. Monitoring results show large fluctuations in TSS in Carruthers Creek. Key Watershed Issues WATER QUALITY (SURFACE) cont'd Sub -Issue E. coli Benchmarks • 706 CFU/100 ml at monitoring station Water Quality 1 • 517 CFU/100 ml at monitoring station Water Quality 2 • 475 CFU/100 ml at a no longer active monitoring station that was located west of Salem Road at Hwy 7 Targets (if applicable) CFU — Colony Forming Units. Provincial Water Quality Objective (PWQO) for E. coli is 100 CFU/100 ml. Averages for Carruthers Creek exceed this guideline. Total phosphorus • 0.044 mg/L at monitoring station Water Quality 1 • 0.031 mg/L at monitoring station Water Quality 2 • 0.091 mg/L at a no longer active monitoring station that was located west of Salem Road at Hwy 7 PWQO to avoid excessive plant growth in river and stream concentrations below 0.03 mg/L. Averages for Carruthers Creek exceed this guideline. Stormwater management10 As of 2003, approximately 64% of the developed portion of the watershed has stormwater controls that meet TRCA criteria. Of the remaining percentages, 29% have no stormwater controls and 7% have water quantity control only. Established by municipalities, in collaboration with TRCA, through stormwater master planning and secondary planning NATURAL HAZARDS Peak flows (flooding) Regional Storm (i.e. Hurricane Hazel) • 71.61 m3/s at Taunton Road • 140.52 m3/s at Shoal Point Road 5 -year Storm (i.e. 1 in 5 probability of flow being exceeded in any one year) • 7.27 m3/s at Taunton Road • 11.00 m3/s at Shoal Point Road Not applicable (peak flows should not increase) Flood vulnerable roads and structures Metres of impassable road length affected: • Average annual = 91 m • Regulatory flood event = 2,532 m Number of households affected: • Average annual = 1 • Regulatory flood event = 89 Not applicable (ideally a reduction in vulnerable roads and structures) Notes: See Section 6 for map and description of monitoring station locations referenced in this table. Other surface water quality parameters were characterized as part of TRCA's technical analysis, but only parameters of concern are included in this table. 10For the purposes of determining the current state of the watershed, stormil,Myripagement has been grouped with water quality. However, inadequate stormwater management can also increase the frequency and duration natural hazards) and impact aquatic habitat (i.e. WRS). 29 30 4. Future Watershed Conditions An important part of watershed planning is assessing future conditions based on potential future land use scenarios. The results of watershed characterization discussed in Section 3 were used to inform the potential future land use scenarios discussed in this section. TRCA produced peer-reviewed technical reports on different components of the watershed as part of scenario analysis, which are referenced in Section 9. 4.1 FUTURE STRESSORS To determine what land use scenarios to assess requires identifying potential future stressors on a watershed. For Carruthers Creek, urbanization continues to drive land use change, converting natural and agricultural areas to residential, commercial and industrial lands. This urbanization impacts the health of a watershed largely through the loss of natural cover and increase in impermeable surfaces, which alter the hydrologic regime. Despite some positive watershed management efforts to date in Carruthers Creek, the watershed exhibits signs of stress due to the impacts of urbanization and climate change. By 2041, the population of the Region of Durham is expected to nearly double from 682,000 to 1.2 million. Some of that growth will certainly be in the Carruthers Creek watershed. -274- Climate change is expected to increase precipitation, annual average temperatures and the frequency of extreme weather events, which will impact watersheds within the Region of Durham. Some of the implications of a changing climate include localized flooding, violent storm damage, changes to ecosystem composition, and changes to agricultural conditions and production. These stressors were evaluated as part of assessing future watershed conditions. The management framework in Section 5 of this watershed plan recognizes these stressors by identifying recommendations to mitigate potential future watershed impacts. 4.2 FUTURE SCENARIOS An effective way to assess how a watershed will respond to potential future change is to develop, analyze, and compare several alternate scenarios, each reflecting a different composition of possible land use conditions. In this way, land use scenario analysis is used as a tool to compare how possible future land uses might add to existing pressures on the natural system, and how these pressures might affect watershed health. Land use scenario analysis is a technical exercise that is typically undertaken when developing watershed plans to ensure management recommendations are based on the best available science. The results help guide the development of management recommendations and support municipalities in land use and infrastructure planning decision-making. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Climate Change Climate change was incorporated into the scenario analysis for various technical components of this watershed planning process, where possible. For example, the terrestrial impact assessment completed as part of the NHS planning specifically incorporated climate change vulnerabilities as one of its criteria for determining priority NHS sites. The impacts of future climate change were factored into potential stresses on the aquatic system as part of that technical assessment. Additionally, hydrologic modelling completed as part of this watershed planning process incorporates storm events considered to be more frequent under climate change scenarios. The management framework recognizes the importance of climate change by prioritizing the protection of the WRS and NHS, which can, if properly protected and restored, improve climate adaptation and increase ecosystem resilience. The use of green infrastructure and low impact development combined with improvements to stormwater infrastructure are also important management recommendations to adapt to a changing climate. TRCA, the Region of Durham, Town of Ajax and City of Pickering all recognize the challenge of climate change and have various strategies and action plans to address this challenge, in addition to the recommendations identified in this watershed plan (e.g. Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan and Durham Community Climate Change Local Action Plan). Note: Additional climate modelling is being completed for the Region of Durham, in collaboration with conservation authorities, that can be used to inform future watershed or subwatershed studies. -275- 31 Three potential future land use scenarios were developed and analyzed as part of this watershed planning process to assess possible changes and impacts in both the built and natural environments. The year 2015 was used as the baseline for this watershed planning process due to the availability of data sets at the initiation of this project. It is worth noting that since 2015 was used as the baseline for scenario analysis, potential impacts from the extension of Highway 407 (completed in 2016) through the headwaters of Carruthers Creek can only be assumed. Ongoing monitoring of the Carruthers Creek watershed will help determine any potential changes to overall watershed health arising from the construction of this highway infrastructure. TABLE 3: Potential Future Land Use Scenarios Scenario 1 (+Official Plan) This scenario assumes that all lands south of the Greenbelt are developed up to 2031 based on approved Official Plans. This scenario included municipally designated NHS's that were part of Official Plans. This scenario provides insight into how watershed conditions will likely change as approved Official Plans are implemented. This scenario assumes the same development as Scenario 1 but includes the enhanced NHS (i.e. potential natural cover). Scenario 2 New and updated information from natural heritage science and practice was incorporated to identify potential areas for natural cover that would improve (+NHS) ecosystem functions and services in the future. This scenario provides insights into how watershed conditions will likely change with increased consideration of additional natural cover. This scenario assumes post -2031 development in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek Scenario 3 (north of the Greenbelt), outside the enhanced NHS. (+Potential Urban) This scenario provides insights into how watershed conditions will likely change if potential full growth is approved in the watershed. See Figure 5 for representative maps of each scenario. 32 -276- 6 1 4 Scenario 3 a krona and Region onserva Lion Authprli Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Future Scenarios 1-3 0 0.5 1 2 3 KM Municipal Boundary �r Watercourse Land Use dir Natural Rural Urban Flood Vulnerable Cluster Greenbelt Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study Area 33 4.3 SCENARIO ANALYSIS As part of this watershed planning process, key components of watershed health were assessed using the previously discussed three future scenarios. The results of these scenario analyses were used to: O Understand the implications of each scenario on overall watershed health and integrity O Develop the management framework for this Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan, which can be used to inform land use and infrastructure decisions It is important to note that scenario analysis does not result in decisions about the type and configuration of land uses. Instead, scenario analysis helps to inform decisions through the municipal planning process (e.g. Official Plans). It is the responsibility of the applicable municipality to determine the ultimate land use configuration for any future changes within the watershed. 34 Table 4 explains the implications of the three potential future scenarios for each of the key watershed issues as identified in Subsection 3.3. Based on the technical assessments completed as part of this watershed planning process, Table 4 identifies whether the watershed responds positively (conditions improve), neutrally (conditions remain the same), or negatively (conditions deteriorate) to the potential future scenario in comparison to the identified benchmark. The colour coding in Table 4 indicates the severity of how the watershed component reacts: GREEN UP ARROW: >+5% change findicates watershed conditions improve from a hydrologic or ecological perspective EQUAL SIGN: 0 to +5% or 0 to -5% change indicates a roughly equal comparison from a hydrologic or ecological perspective ' YELLOW DOWN ARROW: -6% to -10% change indicates watershed conditions deteriorate from a hydrologic or ecological perspective PURPLE DOWN ARROW: >-10%change 11 indicates watershed conditions significantly deteriorate from a hydrologic or ecological perspective The changes identified in Table 4 are calculated by comparing scenario 1 to the current conditions, whereas scenarios 2 and 3 are compared to scenario 1. Since scenario 1 represents the currently approved Official Plan, it represents a future scenario that will occur, therefore it is more realistic to compare scenarios 2 and 3 to scenario 1. Some of the scenario analysis technical reports referenced in Section 9 compare the three future scenarios to current conditions. The numbers identified in Table 4 have been adapted accordingly to compare scenarios 2 and 3 to scenario 1. - 278 - TABLE 4: Scenario Analysis Implications WATER RESOURCE SYSTEM" Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Includes: the features and areas of the WRS, including aquatic habitat, and their functions. Percent change is based on changes to impervious cover mentioned under aquatic health. Impervious cover is a critical measure of various factors12 that impact aquatic health. See Figure 9 in Section 7 for an illustration of subwatershed quality. CURRENT CONDITIONS SCENARIO 1 (+OP) SCENARIO 2 (+NHS) (From subsection 3.313) (Compared to Current Conditions) (Compared to Scenario 1) SCENARIO 3 (+POTENTIAL URBAN) (Compared to Scenario 1) % change -6% +1% ♦-12% Aquatic Health Subwatershed quality: NW and NE good - fair; central and south fair - poor Impervious cover at 24% across the watershed Subwatershed quality: no change from current conditions Impervious cover at 30% across the watershed Subwatershed quality: NW shows improvement to good Impervious cover at 29% across the watershed Subwatershed quality: all four have fair - poor conditions Impervious cover at 42% across the watershed Riparian corridor (30 m buffer along streams) 49% natural cover along the corridor 50% natural cover along the corridor 65% natural cover along the corridor 65% natural cover along the corridor Streamflow (average surface water discharge) 0.52 m3/s 201 mm/year 152 mm/year 0.53 m3/s 0.53 m3/s Groundwater discharge (average rate) 197 mm/year 201 mm/year Groundwater recharge (average rate) 147 mm/year 152 mm/year 0.56 m3/s 194 mm/year 141 mm/year "This assessment does not consider protection measures for the WRS. For example, if impervious surfaces were minimized in groundwater recharge areas, hydrologic function would be maintained. 1'These factors include channel stability, water quality, stream biodiversity and natural flow. See the Aquatic Impact Assessment technical report for more information. 13The numbers for streamflow, groundwater discharge and recharge are different in table 4 from table 2 due to models used for the scenario analysis. -279- 35 NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM Includes: the the features and areas of the NHS, including terrestrial habitat and their functions. Percent change is based on an equally weighted average of the total natural cover and habitat quality values. CURRENT CONDITIONS SCENARIO 1 (-i-OP) SCENARIO 2 (+NHS) (From subsection 3.3) (Compared to Current Conditions) (Compared to Scenario 1) SCENARIO 3 (+POTENTIAL URBAN) (Compared to Scenario 1) % change 25% natural cover 7.6 +1 % ♦+7% 14 G Alk +6% Total natural cover 25% natural cover 36% natural cover Habitat quality (average LAM15 score) 7.5 7.9 IlkHabitat connectivity (regional at watershed-scale)16 28% 28% 45% 36% natural cover 7.6 45% Climate vulnerabilities (average of five high vulnerabilities indicators)17 51% 51% 55% 55% 14While habitat quantity (as represented by natural cover) increases under scenario 3 relative to scenario 1, the habitat quality results require a caveat. LAM scores are an equally rated average of patch size, shape and matrix influence. Under scenario 2, the matrix influence score increases threefold from scenario 1, indicating improved habitat quality. Under scenario 3, the matrix influence score decreases, indicating decrease in habitat quality. 5o, while patch size and shape increase under scenarios 2 and 3, scenario 3 negatively affects the matrix influence of habitat quality. 15These LAM scores, known as Landscape Analysis Model, combines the metrics of patch size (larger patches support larger populations), patch shape (habitat fragmentation) and matrix influence (influence of surrounding land uses). A LAM score of 6 — 8 = poor. See the Terrestrial Impact Assessment technical report for more information. 16Habitat connectivity values represent the percentage of area for connectivity priorities that overlap with the proposed enhanced NHS. Improved connectivity has benefits for habitat quantity and quality. In other words, higher percentages indicate more habitat connectivity corridors. 17The average high vulnerability indicators are ground surface temperature, climate sensitive community, habitat patch quality, soil drainage and wetlands. The climate vulnerabilities values represent the percentage of climate vulnerable features represented in the proposed enhanced NHS. A higher percentage indicates more habitat included in the system, and therefore, if protected, improved resiliency to climate change. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan WATER QUALITY'$ Focused on parameters of concern associated with urbanization and agricultural land uses. Amounts are based on a comparison of 2005 to 2015 average flow. CURRENT CONDITIONS SCENARIO 1 (+OP) SCENARIO 2 (+NHS) (From subsection 3.3) (Compared to Current Conditions) (Compared to Scenario 1) SCENARIO 3 (+POTENTIAL URBAN) (Compared to Scenario 1) % change -* It is difficult to draw a conclusion on the percent change for water quality solely. As mentioned in the WRS row of this table, water quality is one of the factors considered under the impacts of impervious cover. Of the parameters of concern identified in Table 2, TSS and total phosphorus were assessed as part of scenario analysis. Total Suspended Solids" 4,602 tonnes 4,674 tonnes 4,641 tonnes 4,939 tonnes Total Phosphorus20 9,843 tonnes : 9,864 tonnes 9,295 tonnes 8,602 tonnes 'aStream water quality in urbanized watersheds is generally degraded by increased turbidity, nutrients, metals, E. coli and other contaminants due to more impervious surfaces and increased runoff. See the Aquatic Impact Assessment technical report for more information. "Table 2 in Subsection 3.3 identified T55 readings at three monitoring stations in mg/L. For the purposes of scenario analysis, TSS was measured in tonnes at the outlet of the watershed (i.e. where it drains into Lake Ontario). 2OTable 2 in Subsection 3.3 identified total phosphorus readings at three monitoring stations in mg/L. For the purposes of scenario analysis, total phosphorus was measured in tonnes at the outlet of the watershed (i.e. where it drains into Lake Ontario). ,1111999 • NATURAL HAZARDS (Flooding and Erosion) Focused on flood modelling as measured by peak flows21. Percent change is based on an average from both locations for the regional storm only (as the worst-case scenario). CURRENT CONDITIONS SCENARIO 1 (+OP) SCENARIO 2 (+NHS) (From subsection 3.3) (Compared to Current Conditions) (Compared to Scenario 1) SCENARIO 3 (+POTENTIAL URBAN) (Compared to Scenario 1) % change -2% 0% 22 -77% Regional Storm (i.e. Hurricane Hazel) 71.61 m3/s at Taunton Road 69.90 m3/s at Taunton Road 68.59 m3/s at Taunton Road 148.84 m3/s at Taunton Road 140.52 m3/s at Shoal Point Road 149.50 m3/s at Shoal Point Road 147.19 m3/s at Shoal Point Road 210.63 m3/s at Shoal Point Road 5 -year Storm (i.e. 1 in 5 probability of flow being exceeded in any one year) 7.27 m3/s at Taunton Road 7.18 m3/s at Taunton Road 6.58 m3/s at Taunton Road 6.80 m3/s at Taunton Road 11.00 m3/s at Shoal Point Road 11.71 m3/s at Shoal Point Road 11.11 m3/s at Shoal Point Road 11.83 m3/s at Shoal Point Road 21 Peak flows are the maximum rate of discharge during the period of runoff caused by a storm. Potential erosion issues were not assessed. However, erosion is likely to be worse with increased peak flows. 22The flood modelling completed as part of scenario analysis did not factor in potential mitigation measures (e.g. modern stormwater infrastructure). 11 INP, • • , • , • , • , Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Table 4 illustrates expected changes to watershed conditions based on available information and assessments conducted as part of this watershed planning process. The management framework in Section 5 identifies what is necessary to protect, enhance and restore watershed conditions. It also identifies management recommendations to encourage more sustainable land uses. Summary of implications: • One of the four subwatersheds shows improved aquatic conditions under scenario 2. Conversely, all four subwatersheds have fair — poor aquatic conditions under scenario 3, likely resulting in the loss of Redside Dace, a listed endangered species, within the Carruthers Creek watershed. • The amount of natural cover and habitat quality improves under scenario 2. Under scenario 3, the amount of natural cover improves, while habitat quality decreases compared to scenario 2 due to the influence of surrounding urban development. • Water quality is currently impaired in the watershed for parameters like chloride, phosphorus, TSS and E. coli. Without improvements to land use practices, salt and stormwater management, water quality is likely to continue to deteriorate with increased urbanization (scenario 3). • There are existing flooding issues in the watershed, which will significantly increase under scenario 3 without the implementation of considerable mitigation measures. The hydrologic assessment shows a reduction in peak flows associated with the recommended NHS for smaller design storms (i.e. 2 -year storm). These hypothetical future scenarios are illustrative of potential watershed conditions. In addition to the summary of implications, it is important to recognize the following: • Protecting, enhancing and restoring the recommended NHS provides vital watershed benefits as illustrated by Scenario 2 and is consistent with targets as identified in Table 2. • Limiting impervious cover in any potential future growth areas, or through redevelopments, provides significant benefits to aquatic biodiversity. Federal guidance recommends urbanizing watersheds maintain less than 10% impervious land cover, while already degraded urban systems should not exceed a second threshold of 25 to 30%. Scenario 1 shows impervious cover reaching this 30% threshold with only a marginal improvement to 29% under Scenario 2. See Figure 9 in Section 7 for more information. The management framework developed as part of this watershed plan contains recommendations to improve watershed conditions regardless of potential future land use decisions. The management -283- 39 40 5. Management Framework The management framework for the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan represents what needs to be done to protect, enhance and restore watershed health23. The management framework consists of goals, objectives, indicators and management recommendations. TRCA developed this management framework in collaboration with its municipal partners and refined it based on feedback from stakeholders and the public. The goals, objectives and management recommendations were developed to address the issues identified through watershed characterization and account for potential different future land use scenarios. Many of the management recommendations are expected to mitigate many of the potential impacts associated with potential land use changes, as identified through the scenario analysis. Each of the goals are complementary, with no one goal being more important than another. To fully realize the vision for Carruthers Creek will require the implementation of each goal area. Management recommendations were grouped under the most appropriate objective and are also listed in no particular order. Any recommendations contained in the scenario analysis technical reports are consolidated in this management framework. Refer to the technical reports for detailed methodologies and findings beyond what was summarized in Sections 3 and 4. This watershed plan is the final source for goals, objectives, indicators and management recommendations related to Carruthers Creek. Readers are encouraged to refer to the technical reports for more detailed implementation suggestions. 23As mentioned in Subsection 1.1, the CTC Source Protection Plan also applies in the Carruthers Creek watershed and includes policies to protect drinking water. Implementation of this Source Protection Plan is required under the Clean Water Act, 2006. Consideration of Great Lakes agreements and legislation is also important for effective watershed management. These requirements are in addition to, and complementary of, the management framework identified in this watershed plan. -284- Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan TABLE 5: Management Framework Explanation Management Framework Components Description GOALS Represent the outcomes to achieve. OBJECTIVES Are the specific statements about desired results, or steps to be undertaken, to achieve the goal. INDICATORS Explain how progress on implementing the objective is going to be tracked or measured. Some indicators are compared to the benchmarks identified in Table 2. Other indicators are about reporting on implementation progress as it relates to policies, best practices, or infrastructure improvements and do not have an associated benchmark in Table 2. Where applicable, the targets identified in Table 2 can be used as a measure to achieve. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Specifically explain what should be done to accomplish the relevant objective. The management framework consists of three goals, nine objectives and 11 indicators (see Figure 6). The management recommendations for each goal area are described in Subsections 5.1 — 5.3. The management recommendations apply to the entire watershed; identifying opportunities to improve conditions in the developed portion of the watershed and the types of studies and best practices that should be utilized for any potential future development, or redevelopment. Subsection 5.4 summarizes recommendations that would specifically apply to any potential Settlement Area Boundary Expansion in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek. - 285 - 41 FIGURE 6: Overview of Management Framework Land Use Achieve sustainable land use and infrastructure development patterns to protect, enhance and restore water quality and maintain stable water balance. I 11111 111!21Il1 Water Resource System Protect, enhance and restore the areas and features that make up the Water Resource System (including aquatic habitat) for ecosytem resilience and sustainabilty. OBJECTIVE 1 Minimize the impacts of land uses through sustainability policies and the use of low impact development and green infrastructure. Indicators: Report on implementation of sustainable development policies/standards OBJECTIVE 2 Install and upgrade stormwater infrastructure using best available technologies to reduce runoff; resulting in improved water balance and water quality. Indicators: Report on the status of stormwater management OBJECTIVE 3 Manage the risks of natural hazards through appropriate mitigation measures and restoration. Indicators: Reduce number of flood vulnerable structures and roads OBJECTIVE 1 Implement appropriate policies and programs that protect, enhance and restore the areas and features that comprise the Water Resource System. Indicator: Appropriate policy designations are in place for the Water Resourse System OBJECTIVE 4 Encourage the use of agricultural best management practices to minimize agricultural runoff and improve rural land stewardship. Indicators: Work with the agricultural community to track implementation of best management practices OBJECTIVE 2 Promote aquatic habitat connectivity to faciltate native fish movement throughout the watershed. Indicator: Maintain, or improve, aquatic health rankings r411# rIIP 04110 dr Natural Heritage System Protect, enhance and restore the Natural Heritage System and urban forest within the watershed to improve ecosystem resilience and sustainability. 42 OBJECTIVE 1 Improve the quality and quantity of the Natural Heritage System across the watershed through ecosystem protection, enhancement and restoration, and implementation of relevant policies. Indicators: Increase total natural cover in the watershed OBJECTIVE 2 Ensure habitat exists for native terrestrial species to thrive throughout the watershed. Indicators: Maintain, or increase, the number and area of species and vegetation communities of concern OBJECTIVE 3 Increase the urban forest cover within the developed portion of the watershed to improve social and environmental well-being. Indicator: 111110,111) Increase total tree canopy in the watershed Appropriate policy designations are in place for the Natural Heritage System - 286 Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan 5.1 LAND USE / INFRASTRUCTURE GOAL GOAL 1 Achieve sustainable land use and infrastructure development patterns to protect, enhance and restore water quality and maintain stable water balance. This goal area focuses on the policy, land use and infrastructure planning processes that influence the health of the watershed. The management recommendations are numbered to correspond with their applicable goal and objective. TABLE 6: Land Use Management Recommendations - 287 - 43 LAND USE OBJECTIVE 1 Minimize the impacts of land uses through sustainability policies and the use of low impact development and green infrastructure. 1.1.1 Lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and TRCA, to adopt green development policies, or standards, and require new developments, and re -developments, to utilize low impact development and green infrastructure techniques to limit the impacts of increased impervious cover. The following should apply to any municipal policies, or standards, in particular within ESGRAs, as identified on map lb: a. new developments should minimize impervious cover and strive to achieve 90th percentile volume control of annual rainfall b. redevelopments should minimize impervious cover and strive to achieve 75th percentile volume control of annual rainfall 1.1.2 The Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with TRCA, to develop mechanisms to track and report on implementation of sustainable development practices to assess the effectiveness of policies and standards. 1.1.3 If it is determined that a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion is required in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, in accordance with Growth Plan policies, the Region of Durham, in collaboration with lower -tier municipalities and TRCA, to develop a Terms of Reference outlining requirements for further studies in support of subwatershed planning that includes, but is not limited to: - 287 - 43 1 LAND USE OBJECTIVE 1 cont'd a. a hydraulic assessment b. how natural hazards will be assessed and mitigated (i.e. the risk of flooding will not increase) c. how the Natural Heritage System and Water Resource System will be protected, enhanced and restored d. how water quality and quantity will be protected. 1.1.4 During planning for transportation infrastructure improvement projects, or new projects, the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities to implement best management practices for design, expansions and widenings in accordance with TRCA's Crossing Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors, and ensure consistent policies and standards are in place to facilitate hydraulic function (e.g. prevent flooding) and ecological connectivity (e.g. wildlife passage). See map 3 for priority crossings. 1.1.5 Lower -tier municipalities to improve the management of excess soils and prevent fill deposition that is incompatible with the soils and hydrology of the area by: a. ensuring adequate policies and bylaws are in place to manage excess soil b. improving compliance and enforcement of policies through collaboration between TRCA and municipalities c. conducting education and outreach on: i. the importance of proper soil management ii. existing regulatory requirements iii. regulatory responsibilities of various agencies, including who to contact with concerns. d. collaborating with agencies and other levels of government, including the Region of Durham, to ensure infrastructure projects that generate, or receive excess soil follow best management practices. 1.1.6 The Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with other levels of government and TRCA, to work to reduce the amount of chlorides entering the watershed by: a. continuing to implement best management practices for winter de-icing procedures on public property b. continuing education and outreach on salt management for private property. 1.1.7 TRCA, in collaboration with the Town of Ajax, to identify and promote opportunities for sustainable community retrofits in priority planting neighbourhoods (See map 8). 44 - 288 - -289- 45 Land Use Objective LAND USE OBJECTIVE 2 Install and upgrade stormwater infrastructure using best available technologies to reduce runoff; resulting in improved water balance and water quality. 1.2.1 Lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and TRCA, through stormwater master planning continue to: a. employ best management practices for stormwater management and consistent design criteria to manage runoff quantity and quality b. consider stormwater funding options for cost recovery and to reduce impervious surfaces in the watershed c. examine opportunities to retrofit outdated stormwater infrastructure and install stormwater controls in areas without controls through long-term planning and investment strategies d. refine existing policies to ensure modern stormwater controls are required e. adaptively manage stormwater infrastructure through operation maintenance schedules and procedures. 1.2.2 Lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and TRCA, to develop mechanisms to track the status and effectiveness of stormwater management infrastructure. 1.2.3 Lower -tier municipalities to explore opportunities to enhance stormwater management in neighbourhoods with outdated or no stormwater facilities by retrofitting infrastructure to meet modern stormwater design criteria, as much as possible, given site characteristics. 1.2.4 For new developments, lower -tier municipalities to require hydrologic analysis and erosion threshold assessments downstream of potential stormwater management facilities that need to demonstrate no negative, or adverse, downstream impacts, prior to municipal approvals. LAND USE OBJECTIVE 3 Manage the risks of natural hazards through appropriate mitigation measures and restoration. 1.3.1 TRCA, in collaboration with lower -tier municipalities, to prioritize the restoration of the erosion hazard sites identified on map 4. Additional channel restoration, or increased stream bank protection may be required as preventative measures in areas downstream of new developments. 1.3.2 The Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with TRCA, to identify potential hazard risks to sewer and existing road infrastructure associated with in -stream creek erosion and implement strategies to eliminate identified risks. -289- 45 46 - 290 - Land Use Objective LAND USE OBJECTIVE 3 cont'd 1.3.3 Implement appropriate flood mitigation measures for the Flood Vulnerable Cluster in the Town of Ajax, which could involve: a. reopening, or initiating, a new environmental assessment to provide a more comprehensive list of alternatives to offset impacts associated with potential development in the headwaters b. the application of regional control in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, if developed, and required by the updated flood modelling (see management recommendation 1.3.5). 1.3.4 TRCA, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, to educate property owners in high flood risk areas about proper lot level practices (e.g. removing hydraulic impairments). 1.3.5 TRCA to complete comprehensive floodplain mapping based on new models and best available information to inform land use and infrastructure decisions. LAND USE OBJECTIVE 4 Encourage the use of agricultural best management practices to minimize agricultural runoff and improve rural land stewardship. 1.4.1 In collaboration with the agricultural community and provincial ministries, TRCA, the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities to identify opportunities to expand best management practices that reduce agricultural runoff and improve water management, such as: a. use cover crops and / or leave crop residue b. adopt no till farm practices during non -growing season c. conduct soil testing for nutrients and adjust fertilizer application rates, if required. 1.4.2 In collaboration with the agricultural community, rural land owners, and provincial ministries, TRCA, the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities to identify opportunities to improve rural land stewardship best management practices through: a. natural buffers between agricultural lands and natural and / or water resource features and areas b. implementation of Environmental Farm Plans and other rural land stewardship programs (e.g. TRCA's Rural Clean Water Programs) c. education / outreach about the benefits of utilizing best management practices to improve habitat (e.g. meadows for sensitive bird species). 46 - 290 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan 5.2 WATER RESOURCE SYSTEM GOAL GOAL 2 Protect, enhance and restore the areas and features that make up the Water Resource System (including aquatic habitat) for ecosystem resilience and sustainability. This goal area focuses on ensuring policies are in place for the long-term protection of the WRS and undertaking priority restoration initiatives to benefit the long-term resiliency of the WRS. The WRS is presented in map 1A and map 1 B. The areas and features that comprise the WRS are to be protected in accordance with the recommendations laid out in this subsection. TABLE 7: WRS Management Recommendations WRS Objective Management Recommendations WRS OBJECTIVE 1 Implement appropriate policies and programs that protect, enhance and restore the areas and features that comprise the Water Resource System. 2.1.1 The Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with TRCA, to ensure the protection of the Water Resource System (map 1A and B) and its functions, by: a. updating Official Plans and zoning bylaws to adequately protect the Water Resource System b. assessing existing standards and guidelines for land use and infrastructure development to ensure they reflect current provincial policy direction to protect, enhance and restore the quality and quantity of water c. avoiding development near key hydrologic features through the establishment of appropriate buffers d. requiring the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures where avoidance of key hydrologic areas is not possible, in order to maintain hydrologic function 2.1.2 TRCA, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, to routinely update mapping data layers for all components of the Water Resource System as new information becomes available. - 291 - 47 WRS Objective Management Recommendations WRS OBJECTIVE 1 cont'd 2.1.3 TRCA, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, to prioritize the restoration of the aquatic sites identified on map 4, which have been selected for contributing to the following: a. enhancing habitat quality and watershed connectivity b. ensuring biodiversity persists c. improving watershed resiliency to climate change. 2.1.4 If it is determined that a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion is required in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, in accordance with Growth Plan policies, the City of Pickering, in collaboration with the Region of Durham, Town of Ajax and TRCA, as part of secondary planning to demonstrate through a subwatershed plan (or equivalent) that: a. key hydrologic features will be protected b. where avoidance of key hydrologic areas is not possible, appropriate mitigation measures are to be implemented to maintain downstream hydrologic function, and c. there will be no negative or adverse downstream effects, such as increased flooding, erosion, or deteriorated water quality. WRS OBJECTIVE 2 Promote aquatic habitat connectivity to facilitate native fish movement throughout the watershed. 2.2.1 TRCA, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities and landowners, to remove the six priority barriers to fish movement identified in map 5. 2.2.2 TRCA, through its application review function, to identify and implement avoidance, conservation, design and mitigation measures for the protection and / or recovery of native aquatic species, including Redside Dace and its habitat. For activities that affect Redside Dace habitat, consult the Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected Habitat (MNRF 2016), MECP and DFO to determine requirements under species at risk legislation. 48 - 292 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan 5.3 NATURAL HERITAGE SYSTEM GOAL GOAL 3 Protect, enhance and restore the Natural Heritage System and urban forest within the watershed to improve ecosystem resilience and sustainability. This goal area focuses on improving the quality and quantity of natural systems throughout the watershed. The proposed enhanced NHS identified on map 2 is recommended by TRCA to achieve this goal. It will be up to municipalities to adopt a NHS that is consistent with provincial policy and informed by the goals and objectives of the CCWP. The proposed enhanced NHS includes areas with existing natural cover and areas that are targeted to be potential natural cover through restoration. The exact configuration and size of the NHS could fluctuate due to other factors (e.g. construction of infrastructure), assuming the analysis is comparable to the one that resulted in the proposed enhanced NHS recommended by TRCA. The recommended NHS is designed to move towards the minimum target for natural cover in an urban and urbanizing watershed as established in TRCA's Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy (2007) and How Much Habitat is Enough? (Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2013). Assuming that the identified potential natural cover areas are restored, the recommended NHS achieves approximately 36% natural cover across the watershed, including approximately 25% forests and successional forests and 7% wetlands, consistent with the minimum targets. A large amount of the land recommended for potential natural cover occurs in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek. If development proceeds in this area, it will be essential to restore and protect (i.e. through securement) an amount of land consistent with the recommended NHS. To appropriately implement a NHS will require updates to municipal Official Plans, which can then guide future land use decisions to avoid development in the municipally adopted NHS, mitigate any impacts or, where impacts are unavoidable, provide ecosystem compensation. The management recommendations related to the NHS in this subsection are consistent with TRCA's protection hierarchy of avoid, minimize, mitigate and as a last resort compensate. Urban forests provide valuable terrestrial habitat, help manage stormwater, provide clean air and other socio-economic benefits (e.g. regulates local temperatures, improves personal well-being). Including urban forestry under this NHS goal recognizes the integrated nature of natural areas (i.e. NHS) and the ecological value of additional natural cover in parks, on streets, or private property (i.e. urban forests). - 293 - 49 TABLE 8: NHS Management Recommendations limiii NHS OBJECTIVE 1 Improve the quality and quantity of the Natural Heritage System across the watershed through ecosystem protection, enhancement and restoration, and implementation of relevant policies. 3.1.1 The Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with TRCA, to ensure the protection, enhancement and restoration of a Natural Heritage System consistent with the goals and objectives of this watershed plan (map 2 for recommended NHS) by: a. updating Official Plan policies and associated zoning bylaws to protect a municipally adopted enhanced Natural Heritage System b. assessing existing standards and guidelines for land use and infrastructure development to ensure they reflect current provincial policy direction to maintain, restore or enhance the municipally adopted Natural Heritage System c. avoid infrastructure development (i.e. buildings and structures) and minimize infrastructure linear feature crossings, in a municipally adopted enhanced Natural Heritage System d. adopting municipal policies for ecosystem compensation, in accordance with TRCA's Guideline for Ecosystem Compensation, where development in a municipally adopted enhanced Natural Heritage System is unavoidable e. applying a minimum 30 metre vegetation protection zone along features at the boundary of a municipally adopted enhanced Natural Heritage System to protect ecological function f. requiring development and redevelopments be designed and approved to prevent encroachment into a municipally adopted enhanced Natural Heritage System. 3.1.2 TRCA, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, to prioritize the restoration of the terrestrial sites identified on map 4, which have been selected for contributing to the following: a. increasing habitat quantity b. enhancing habitat quality and connectivity c. ensuring biodiversity persists d. adapting for climate vulnerabilities. 3.1.3 TRCA, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, to explore opportunities to secure the sites identified on map 6 for ecological protection and to increase public land ownership and connectivity along the main channel of Carruthers Creek south of Taunton Road. 50 -294- Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan NHS Objective Management Recommendations NHS OBJECTIVE 1 cont'd 3.1.4 TRCA, the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities to regularly update their trail guidelines and standards for consistency, and to ensure that any new, or modifications to existing trails, use best practices, such as prioritizing the use of boardwalks in sensitive areas (e.g. wetlands), and implementing methods to ensure trail users stay on marked trails (e.g. signage, barriers to humans and dogs, but not other species, and limited access during breeding season). 3.1.5 TRCA, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, to minimize impacts to the municipally adopted Natural Heritage System from any active recreation and human activity by: a. ensuring proper trail management and signage b. providing education and outreach on the importance of the municipally adopted Natural Heritage System c. promoting community stewardship to maintain and monitor the municipally adopted Natural Heritage System for improper trail usage (e.g. off -trail compaction and erosion), illegal dumping and invasive species, while encouraging community restoration programs (e.g. tree plantings). 3.1.6 Wetland water balance studies that demonstrate how the hydrological function of the wetland should be protected will be undertaken by the landowner for any potential future growth in the areas identified on map 7, or other areas identified during subwatershed planning, prior to applicable planning approvals. NHS OBJECTIVE 2 Promote terrestrial habitat connectivity to ensure native species thrive throughout the watershed. 3.2.1 The Region of Durham, lower -tier municipalities, TRCA, landowners and other agencies will collaborate to manage problematic invasive species. 3.2.2 TRCA will continue to work with landowners to restore meadow habitat areas in support of open country bird species at risk, in accordance with the terrestrial restoration priorities identified on map 4. -295- 51 NHS Objective NHS 3.3.1 OBJECTIVE 3 Lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with the Region of Durham and TRCA, to update existing urban forest studies and consolidate them into a Increase the urban forest cover comprehensive study that: within the developed portion of a. accounts for all public and private lands the watershed to improve social b. develops targets for public and private lands for inclusion in an urban and environmental well-being. forest strategy c. develops indicators for the quality and quantity of the urban forest for inclusion in an urban forest strategy. 3.3.2 The Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities, in collaboration with TRCA, to develop a comprehensive urban forest strategy that: a. enhances tree and soil conservation in accordance with Preserving and Restoring Healthy Soil: Best Practices for Urban Construction at any new development, or redevelopment, (e.g. Carruthers Creek Business Area), and on regional property (e.g. along Taunton Road) as depicted on map 8 b. focuses urban forest tree planting programs in the Town of Ajax as depicted on map 8 c. encourages an urban forest with diverse and native (or non-invasive) tree species and class sizes d. ensures consistent policies and bylaws for tree conservation on public and private lands e. explores opportunities to increase the capacity of the Region of Durham to implement an Urban Forest Strategy consistent with this management recommendation f. encourages participation in knowledge -sharing and collaboration through the Regional Public Works Commissioners of Ontario's Urban Forestry Sub -working Group and Ontario's Municipal Arborist and Urban Foresters Association g. includes urban forest targets for existing developed areas and any future development as part of the strategy. 52 - 296 - 414.00 4 •• +.71 • •• '' - _ .94. `5 i l:y'••- - 4j#moi - 297 - 5.4 CARRUTHERS CREEK HEADWATERS MANAGEMENT There are several management recommendations that refer to potential future studies, subwatershed planning, or potential development in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek. The headwaters that could potentially have development in the future are the lands outside of the Greenbelt north of Highway 7. At the moment, these lands are not designated as part of the settlement area of the City of Pickering in their Official Plan, or the Region of Durham's urban area boundary. For any future development to occur, a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion, in compliance with the Growth Plan, would need to occur. The following management recommendations speak to what would be required based on provincial policy and the recommendations in this watershed plan. These management recommendations were already discussed under their relevant goal, but are repeated here as they are specific to the headwaters of Carruthers Creek. Should a decision be made to proceed with a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion, the full suite of management recommendations in Subsections 5.1 — 5.3 would apply to that area. TABLE 9: Headwaters Specific Management Recommendations 1.1.3 1.1.4 54 Relevant Management Recommendations If it is determined that a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion is required in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, in accordance with Growth Plan policies, the Region of Durham, in collaboration with lower -tier municipalities and TRCA, to develop a Terms of Reference outlining requirements for further studies in support of subwatershed planning that includes, but is not limited to: a. a hydraulic assessment b. how natural hazards will be assessed and mitigated (i.e. the risk of flooding will not increase) c. how the Natural Heritage System and Water Resource System will be protected, enhanced and restored d. how water quality and quantity will be protected. During planning for transportation infrastructure improvement projects, or new projects, the Region of Durham and lower -tier municipalities to implement best management practices for design, expansions and widenings in accordance with TRCA's Crossing Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors, and ensure consistent policies and standards are in place to facilitate hydraulic function (e.g. prevent flooding) and ecological connectivity (e.g. wildlife passage). See map 3 for priority crossings. Rationale and Provincial Policy Basis Appropriate scoping of any subwatershed studies for potential future Settlement Area Boundary Expansions will allow those studies to build upon work completed through this watershed planning process in a collaborative fashion. Growth Plan policies 2.2.8.3 (d) / (e) and 4.2.1.3 (c). This management recommendation is intended to ensure hydrological and ecological connectivity by improving crossings when new transportation infrastructure is built, or existing infrastructure is upgraded. This recommendation will help protect the integrity of the WRS and NHS, consistent with Growth Plan policies 4.2.1 and 4.2.2. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan - 299 - 55 Relevant Management Recommendations Rationale and Provincial Policy Basis 1.2.4 For new developments, lower -tier municipalities to require hydrologic analysis and erosion threshold assessments downstream of potential stormwater management facilities that need to demonstrate no negative, or adverse, downstream impacts, prior to municipal approvals. This management recommendation is intended to identify potential changes to the functions of the WRS arising from new development. It is consistent with Growth Plan policies related to stormwater management (3.2.7). 1.3.3 Implement appropriate flood mitigation measures for the Flood Vulnerable Cluster in the Town of Ajax, which could involve: a. reopening, or initiating, a new environmental assessment to provide a more comprehensive list of alternatives to offset impacts associated with potential development in the headwaters b. the application of regional control in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, if developed and required by updated flood modelling. This management recommendation is in reference to existing flooding issues in the lower part of the Carruthers Creek watershed in the Town of Ajax. The exact nature of the flood mitigation measure will depend on whether development proceeds in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek. 2.1.4 If it is determined that a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion is required in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, in accordance with Growth Plan policies, the City of Pickering, in collaboration with the Region of Durham, Town of Ajax and TRCA, as part of secondary planning to demonstrate through a subwatershed plan (or equivalent) that: a. key hydrologic features will be protected b. where avoidance of key hydrologic areas is not possible, appropriate mitigation measures are to be implemented to maintain downstream hydrologic function, and c. there will be no negative or adverse downstream effects, such as increased flooding, erosion, or deteriorated water quality. Similarly, to management recommendation 1.1.3, this management recommendation identifies what is necessary to protect the integrity of the WRS and NHS. Growth Plan policies 2.2.8.3 (d) / (e), 4.2.1.3 (c), 4.2.2.3 and 4.2.2.7. 3.1.6 Wetland water balance studies that demonstrate how the hydrological function of the wetland should be protected will be undertaken by the landowner for any potential future growth in the areas identified in map 7, or other areas identified during subwatershed planning, prior to any planning approvals. Wetlands are vital features to both the WRS and NHS. Any development in proximity to wetland features should demonstrate the protection of hydrologic functions. Growth Plan policies 4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.4 and 4.2.2.3. - 299 - 55 56 6. Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring is vital to the successful implementation of this watershed plan. Monitoring will help evaluate trends in watershed conditions and track the implementation of plan objectives. Monitoring will help determine what is working to maintain or improve conditions and what, if necessary, needs to change should conditions deteriorate. The Carruthers Creek monitoring program is designed to evaluate both watershed health and indicators associated with objectives of this watershed plan. The monitoring stations map (Figure 7) identifies monitoring stations by category based on what they monitor. Table 10 explains the Carruthers Creek monitoring program in detail. The stations identified in the monitoring stations map are cross referenced in the station's column in Table 10 (e.g. the first station listed in the table is an aquatic station, which is the yellow number 1 on the map). Additional monitoring stations are likely necessary to adequately track watershed health trends and the identified indicators over time. TRCA, in collaboration with its municipal partners, will identify opportunities to expand watershed monitoring with appropriate resourcing. It will be particularly important to ensure monitoring stations are collecting data in all parts of the watershed. Currently, monitoring stations are limited in the northern part of the watershed. - 300 - ri? Toronto and Region €1Conserva tion Authority A Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Monitoring Stations 0 0.5 1 2 3KM - 301 - 0 Aquatic • Groundwater • Terrestrial • Water Quality • Water Quantity Municipal Boundary •••••-•Watercourse Greenbelt Boundary Land Use dir Natural Rural is Urban c3Carruthers Creek Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study 57 TABLE 10: Carruthers Creek Monitoring Program Monitoring Category Stations Monitoring Frequency What is monitored? Why do we monitor it? WATER ID#: CCOO1WM Every three Fish community, Indicator: RESOURCE (Yellow #1 years aquatic habitat Maintain, or increase, aquatic health SYSTEM (aquatic ecosystems) on map) and benthic invertebrate community y rankings. Applicable to WRS Objective 2. ID#: CCOO2WM (Yellow #2 on map) Monitoring these aquatic habitat characteristics allows for the assessments of the overall health of the aquatic ecosystem. ID#: CC003WM (Yellow #3 on map) NATURAL ID#: Annually Vegetation and Indicator: HERITAGE FV -18 & FV -18_1 forest birds Maintain, or increase, the number SYSTEM (Orange #1 and area of species and vegetation (terrestrial ecosystems) on map) communities of concern. Applicable to NHS Objective 2. Monitoring these terrestrial habitat characteristics helps to understand how the system is functioning and if there are changes to species composition over time. Note: This indicator requires inventory data from across the watershed to be properly assessed. The identified monitoring stations only collect data at that particular location and therefore do not assess trends across the watershed. An inventory would need to be conducted within the next ten years to update information regarding current conditions. 58 -302- Monitoring Category Stations Monitoring Frequency What is monitored? Whydo we monitor it? SURFACE WATER QUALITY ID#: 107002 (Red #1 on map) Monthly samples Water chemistry (e.g. nutrients), metals, bacteria and temperature Applicable to overall watershed health and trends to know whether water quality conditions are improving or not. Monitoring water quality helps to understand the impacts of land uses on local water quality that ultimately flows into Lake Ontario. ID#: CC005 (Red #2 on map) SURFACE WATER QUANTITY ID#: HY013 (Blue #1 on map) Continuous water level data collected, reported in 15 -minute intervals Stream level, discharge and temperature Applicable to overall watershed health and trends to know whether hydrology conditions are improving or not. Monitoring stream level, discharge and temperature helps to understand the interconnections between groundwater and surface water. This information can be used to guide the management and protection of baseflow levels to protect aquatic life and ensure sustainable human use of surface water. ID#: HY090 (Blue #2 on map) ID#: HY089 (Blue #3 on map) ID#: WO002 (Blue #4 on map) Continuous water level and certain water quality data collected, reported in 15 minute intervals. Monthly grab samples for full suite of water quality parameters. Also takes event -based (i.e. heavy rainfall) water quality samples. Stream level, discharge and temperature Note: also measures water quality as part of Lake Ontario tributary monitoring Applicable to overall watershed health and trends to know whether hydrology and water quality conditions are improving or not. The primary purpose of this station is to assess nutrient loadings to Lake Ontario. - 303 - 59 Monitoring Category Stations Monitoring Frequency What is monitored? Why do we monitor it? TBD Continuous Rainfall and Applicable to overall watershed (New in real-time snowfall health and trends to know 2019) (reporting every amount and whether hydrology conditions (Blue #5 on map) 5 minutes) temperature are improving or not. Precipitation monitoring information assists with flood forecasting and warning, event - based sampling, and watershed planning. TBD (New in 2019) (Blue #6 on map) GROUNDWATER TBD Hourly Water level and Applicable to overall watershed QUANTITY AND (New in groundwater water chemistry health and trends to know QUALITY 2019) level and whether hydrogeology (Purple #1 on map) temperature, monthly manual groundwater level measurements and periodic water chemistry conditions are improving or not. Groundwater and surface water interactions are essential for a functioning WRS. Understanding groundwater conditions is vital to understanding the nature of these interactions. Note: The following indicators are not evaluated through a particular monitoring station in Carruthers Creek, but will be periodically assessed through GIS analyses: • Reduce number of flood vulnerable structures and flood vulnerable roads (Land Use Objective 2) • Increase total natural cover in the watershed (NHS Objective 1) • Increase total tree canopy in the watershed (NHS Objective 3) The remaining indicators are qualitative (e.g. ensuring policies are in place) and will be reported on by TRCA in collaboration with its municipal partners. 60 -304- Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Reporting As part of the Carruthers Creek monitoring program, TRCA, in collaboration with its municipal partners, will conduct annual reporting to communicate on the health of the watershed and plan implementation progress. Annual reporting will help to track watershed health trends and the indicators identified as part of this watershed plan. Some components of this watershed plan may not be reported on annually (e.g. aquatic community and terrestrial species). This is due to different monitoring frequencies for certain components (e.g. aquatic species are surveyed every three years). Adaptive Management Adaptive management is a systematic process (see Figure 8) for continually improving practices by learning and applying updated knowledge to improve project outcomes. In the context of this watershed plan, adaptive management, in combination with the monitoring program, will allow modifications and refinements to management recommendations, and/or the monitoring program throughout the life cycle of this watershed plan. For example, if water quality continues to deteriorate, certain land use management recommendations may not be resulting in the desired outcome, requiring adjustment. FIGURE 8: Adaptive Management Cycle 0 Implement 0 Adjust / Refine 0 Learn 0 Monitor 0 Evaluate -305- 61 Pickering The Water Resource System is essential to maintaining the long-term ecosystem resilience and sustainability of the Carruthers Creek watershed. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2.1.1 refers to this map. Map 1A includes the key hydrologic features that comprise the WRS. See Map 1B for key hydrologic areas. Notes: For Seepage Areas and Springs, this map only includes areas where groundwater discharge exceeds the median discharge rate for the watershed. In other words, it shows areas with higher than average groundwater discharge. There could be other seepage areas and springs not shown on this map. '(P�NjoN PD VJ • nn Ajax O G01oNRO �. L BPVEV"V'1 QG ' PO ,ESZNEV ao 5 Torortta and Region 90- Conservation Atrthorliat N A Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make c angel and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Water Resource System - Map A 0 0.5 1 2 3 KM Key Hydrologic Features S Inland Lakes �— Intermittent Streams -nom— Permanent Streams Seepage Areas and Springs Wetlands Municipal Boundary Carruthers Creek L) Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study 62 - 306 - Pickering Map 1B The Water Resource System is essential to maintaining the long-term ecosystem resilience and sustainability of the Carruthers Creek watershed. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2.1.1 refers to this map. Map 1B includes the key hydrologic areas that comprise the WRS. See Map 1A for key hydrologic features. vosl „ESSw a0 S Toronto and Region 411 Conservation Authority Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Water Resource System - Map B 0 0.5 1 2 3 KM Key Hydrologic Areas Highly Vulnerable Aquifers Significant Groundwater Recharge Areas Ecologically Significant K Groundwater Recharge Areas Municipal Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study - 307 - 63 9SN 03` 0.D Map 2 The proposed enhanced Natural Heritage System consists of existing natural cover areas and potential enhancement areas (yellow) that are necessary to maintain the long-term ecosystem resilience and sustainability of the Carruthers Creek watershed. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 3.1.1 refers to this map. Notes: Wetlands are shown separately on Map 1A for the WRS and included as part of natural cover on Map 2 for the NHS. Wetlands are a feature of both the WRS and NHS in provincial policy. v CPUN �p55\ANo �� ,00.55`14 „cow's.”' • Taranto and Region 'r;• ' Conservation A ,4utk f t Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Enhanced Natural Heritage System 0 0.5 1 2 3 KM O Valleyland F9 ANSI K Natural Cover (Existing) Natural Cover (Potential) Land n Provincial NHS Municipal Boundary Greenbelt Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study Area Use Natural Rural Urban 64 - 308 - rtgi Pickering S°LC64 RQ Map 3 This map represents both priority hydrological and ecological connectivity (i.e. habitat connectivity) improvements. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 1.1.4 refers to this map. The hydrological crossings are where roads intersect with the stream network and have been identified as needing improved infrastructure (e.g. culverts). The ecological crossings are road segments that are priorities for improved infrastructure to facilitate wildlife crossings. These priorities are intended for when the identified portions of roads are undergoing maintenance or upgrades. illF Conservation Ruthpdgi A Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data GIStDepartm. please16) 661 6600 RCA Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Priority Crossing Improvements 0 05 1 2 3 KM Priority Hydrologic • Crossings Improvement Areas Priority Ecological Connectivity Areas .n.w Watercourse Greenbelt Boundary cCarruthers Creek Watershed W Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study Area Land Use 41 Natural Rural 41 Urban Municipal Boundary Note: Priorities shown in this map are for regional roads only - 309 - 65 Pickering .0,13:10.14) 4• 8th Concession & Sideline 6 7th Concession & Si 5th Concession & Sideli .s sY Audley Rd N l rµ Map 4 This map represents priority restoration areas. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 1.3.1, 2.1.3, 3.1.2 and 3.2.2 refer to this map. These areas were prioritized based on the ecological benefit of the restoration opportunity, their geographic distribution across the northern and southern parts of the watershed, and the range of aquatic and terrestrial restoration opportunities. See Table 11 for descriptions of each restoration opportunity. Rossland Rd E & Salem Rd N X54"" Ajax q41 Kingston Rd E Warbler Woods wsw Toronto and Re9917'i _. Conservation b ty Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Restoration Priorities 0 0.5 1 2 3 KM OErosion Priority Restoration Sites OPriorRestorationityAreasOpportunity Municipal Boundary -n.-- Watercourse Land Use IP Natural Rural Urban Greenbelt Boundary ) Carruthers Creek Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study Area Ecological Benefit of Restoration Opportunity Highest Benefit 66 -310- Restoration Opportunity Planning for Carruthers Creek Restoration opportunity planning is TRCA's current process for identifying and recording site -level information for terrestrial and aquatic restoration opportunities (e.g. wetland, riparian, forest, meadow and stream restoration). TRCA's Integrated Restoration Prioritization (IRP) tool is used to help select priority restoration opportunities where ecological impairments exist and, if restored, could contribute most to the terrestrial natural heritage and water resource systems. Restoration opportunities in the Caruthers watershed were originally identified using desktop assessment techniques as per the restoration opportunity planning methodology. For the Carruther's Creek Watershed Plan, a more detailed prioritization method using additional data identified the most important areas to consider for restoration. This involved combining the IRP scores with the criteria listed in management recommendations 2.1.3 for aquatic and 3.1.2 for terrestrial. TRCA then overlaid these scores with the restoration opportunity planning information to identify the highest scoring areas, which are circled in Map 4 (Note: the Audley Road N opportunity was selected for meadow restoration potential in support of management recommendation 3.2.2). Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan - 311 - 67 TABLE 11: Restoration Opportunity Summaries Location Restoration Opportunity 8th Concession and Sideline 6 • Forest, wetland, stream and riparian restoration opportunities have been identified in areas of residential and agricultural land uses. • Forest restoration will help connect and expand existing forest to the north. • Large-scale wetland and riparian restoration would restore headwater drainage feature functions and benefit downstream habitat. Existing land use patterns have altered streams, wetlands and riparian areas. • With agriculture as the predominant land -use, the focus of restoration should be to work with property owners to restore and maintain marginal lands that do not negatively impact agricultural use but promote best management practices and contribute to the potential enhanced natural heritage system. 7th Concession and Sideline 6 • Forest, wetland, stream and riparian restoration opportunities were identified in this largely agricultural area. • Highest priority areas include riparian corridors and around existing forest patches. • Portions in the north-east and along hydro corridors of this area provide meadow restoration opportunities. • Areas of wetland restoration will increase habitat diversity, contribute to the reduction of run-off and increase water infiltration and storage. 5th Concession and Sideline 6 • Forest, wetland, riparian and meadow restoration opportunities were identified in this priority area. • Restore large area of wetland and riparian habitat in the northern portion of this area. • Meadow habitat can be created along the hydro corridor running east to west in this area. • Existing forests can be expanded along the proposed enhanced NHS. Audley Road North • Restore wetland and meadow habitat to the east of the stream, in collaboration with golf course. • Meadow restoration potential in the hydro corridor to the south of the area to support habitat for sensitive species. Rossland Road East and Salem Road North • Restore riparian buffer to the west of the main branch of the creek and create a forest buffer between future development and the NHS. • Work with developer to restore wetlands and riparian corridors and encourage the use of best management practices such as low impact development and buffers as part of any development. Kingston Road East • Restore riparian cover along the main channel of Carruthers Creek. • Restore large wetlands to the east of this area and plant riparian and forest habitat around the wetlands. • Restore ponds in floodplain north of Kingston Road East to enhance wetland habitat and connect corridor along the stream network. Kingston Road East • Restore wetland habitat north of existing wetland to provide a buffer between this area and potential development. Warbler Woods • Restore wetland habitat north of existing wetland to provide a buffer between this area and potential development. 68 -312- Pickering a,� Luffy 4A Map 5 This map represents priority fish barriers for removal to restore in -stream aquatic habitat connectivity. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 2.2.1 refers to this map. The red barriers are listed in order of priority for removal. Additional barriers should be considered for removal after the six priority barriers are removed. Priority barrier types and amount of habitat made available through the removal of the barrier: Barrier Type Habitat (km) 1 culvert 6 2 weir 2 3 log jam 0.75 4 weir 0.75 5 pipe 0.75 6 culvert 0.75 Toronto arid Region ." Conservation Auttwd,,„ A Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Fish Barriers 0 0.5 1 2 3 KM • Priority Barriers • Other Barriers - - - Municipal Boundary Watercourse Greenbelt Boundary Carruthers Creek C„Z Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study Area Land Use f Natural Rural Urban -313- 69 Map 6 This map represents priority areas for public land securement. It is focused south of Taunton Road due to the amount of existing development in that area. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 3.1.3 refers to this map. This map does not imply the entirety of the identified areas should become public ownership, but rather where to focus securement efforts when opportunities arise. These areas are in close proximity to existing public land ownership and the main channel of Carruthers Creek. Notes: Should development proceed north of Taunton Rd., the priority securement areas would be the existing and potential natural cover areas identified as part of the recommended NHS on map 2. ,r RC15 \NJE5'; Toronto andRegion .'.3;1' Conservation Apthodty. A Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Priority Securement Areas 0.4 0.8 1.6 KM Priority Securement Greenbelt Boundary - Land Use Areas C Inland Lakes Watercourse Municipal Boundary 1271 Carruthers Creek de Natural Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study Area Rural Urban 70 -314- Pickering Map 7 This map represents areas where wetland water balance studies are needed for any potential development in proximity to the priority wetlands identified. Data should be collected first in areas of high risk and no data. The medium and low risk areas would be secondary priorities. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 3.1.6 refers to this map. This map is focused on areas north of Taunton Road to maintain hydrologic function in the event of potential future developments. Refer to TRCA's Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation (2017) for more information. Toronto and Regioni Y-ifi Conservation A Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Wetland Water Balance Study Priorities 0.5 1 KM Wetland Priorities* Greenbelt Boundary No Data C:3 Carruthers Creek Watershed Boundary diHigh Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study Area Medium Land Use Low le Natural Municipal Boundary �— Watercourse Rural Urban *Classifications based on TRCA Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation framework -315- 71 �PUN��NRo\J Map 8 This map represents areas to prioritize tree conservation and tree planting within the developed portion of the watershed (i.e. urban forestry projects). MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION 3.2.2 refers to this map. -73c This map is focused on areas south of Taunton Road due to the urbanized nature of that part of the watershed. oposssj\N Ajax Ajax s Toronto and Region '' Conservation Authudtp A Date: September 2019 Created by: TRCA Information Services/Information Technologies Disclaimer: The Data used to create this map was compiled from a variety sources and dates. The TRCA takes no responsibility for errors or omissions in the data and retains the right to make changes and corrections at anytime without notice. For further information about the data on this map, please contact the TRCA GIS Department. (416) 661-6600. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Priority Urban Forestry Areas 0 0.25 0.5 KM 4o Road Priorities Parks in Priority Neighbourhoods GIPriority Conservation Neighbourhood Priority Planting Neighbourhoods Municipal Boundary w�— Watercourse Greenbelt Boundary Carruthers Creek - -' Watershed Boundary Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Study Area Land Use Natural Rural Urban 72 -316- FIGURE 9 Subwatershed Quality Due to Impervious Cover Figure 9 As discussed in Table 4 for the aquatic health of the WRS, subwatershed quality was assessed based on impervious cover under the existing benchmark conditions and the three future scenarios. The proposed enhanced NHS benefits the aquatic ecosystem in scenario 2 where the north-west subwatershed improves from good — fair to good. The increase in impervious cover associated with scenario 3 results in all four subwatersheds degrading to fair — poor conditions, and will likely result in the loss of Redside Dace, a listed endangered species, within the Carruthers Creek watershed. Implementing the management recommendations identified in this watershed plan, especially limiting impervious cover and undertaking restoration activities will help Redside Dace habitat. The rating scale for subwatershed quality is based on the amount of impervious cover, with: • Good (green) = 0 to 10% imperviousness Good — fair (yellow) = 10 to 25% imperviousness • Fair — poor (red) = greater than 25% imperviousness Notes: the percent imperviousness identified in Subsection 4.3 is for the entire watershed; while the subwatersheds may have different imperviousness values (e.g. Scenario 1 has 30% imperviousness across the entire watershed, whereas imperviousness by subwatershed is as follows: 10% north-west, 11% north-east, 53% central and 49% south). See Aquatic Impact Assessment technical report for more information. -317- 73 Aquifer A saturated permeable geologic unit that can transmit significant quantities of groundwater under ordinary hydraulic gradients. They can be classified as confined or unconfined. In southern Ontario, aquifers are typically comprised of sand and/or gravel, or fractured limestone. Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Biodiversity The variability among organisms from all sources including terrestrial, marine and other aquatic ecosystems and the ecological complexes of which they are part; this includes diversity within species and ecosystems. Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Ecological Integrity Which includes hydrologic integrity, means the condition of ecosystems in which, a. the structure, composition and function of the ecosystems are unimpaired by stresses from human activity, b. natural ecological processes are intact and self-sustaining, c. the ecosystems evolve naturally. Source: Greenbelt Plan, 2017 Ecosystem Services The benefits provided by ecosystems that are critical to the environment's life support systems and that contribute to human welfare both directly and indirectly and therefore represent social and economic value. Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Green Infrastructure Natural and human -made elements that provide ecological and hydrologic functions and processes. Green infrastructure can include components such as natural heritage features and systems, parklands, stormwater management systems, street trees, urban forests, natural channels, permeable surfaces, and green roofs. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 74 -318- Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Headwater Drainage Features III -defined, non -permanently flowing drainage features that may not have defined beds and banks. Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Highly Vulnerable Aquifer Aquifers, including lands above the aquifers, on which external sources have or are likely to have a significant adverse effect. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 Hydrologic Function The functions of the hydrologic cycle that include the occurrence, circulation, distribution and chemical and physical properties of water on the surface of the land, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere, and water's interaction with the environment including its relation to living things. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 Hydrogeology A science that describes the movement of groundwater, and its interaction with water that moves on the ground surface in rivers, lakes, streams, and over land. Groundwater seeps into the ground to varying depths and collects in aquifers. Groundwater can remain stored underground for periods ranging from a few days to thousands of years. Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Hydrology The engineering science that analyzes the different components of the hydrologic cycle, and takes into account that the natural cycle can be altered by human and natural activities. Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Life Science Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSIs) An area that has been identified as having life science values related to protection, scientific study, or education; and further identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry using evaluation procedures established by that Ministry, as amended from time to time. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 -319- 75 76 Low Impact Development An approach to stormwater management that seeks to manage rain and other precipitation as close as possible to where it falls to mitigate the impacts of increased runoff and stormwater pollution. It typically includes a set of site design strategies and distributed, small-scale structural practices to mimic the natural hydrology to the greatest extent possible through infiltration, evapotranspiration, harvesting, filtration, and detention of stormwater. Low impact development can include, for example: bio-swales, vegetated areas at the edge of paved surfaces, permeable pavement, rain gardens, green roofs, and exfiltration systems. Low impact development often employs vegetation and soil in its design, however, that does not always have to be the case and the specific form may vary considering local conditions and community character. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 Natural Hazards (Consisting of Erosion Hazard and Flooding Hazard) EROSION HAZARD Means the loss of land, due to human or natural processes, that poses a threat to life and property. FLOODING HAZARD Means the inundation of areas adjacent to a shoreline or a river or stream system not ordinarily covered by water. Source: PPS, 2014 Natural Heritage System A system made up of natural heritage features and areas, and linkages intended to provide connectivity (at the regional or site level) and support natural processes which are necessary to maintain biological and geological diversity, natural functions, viable populations of indigenous species, and ecosystems. The system can include key natural heritage features, key hydrologic features, federal and provincial parks and conservation reserves, other natural heritage features and areas, lands that have been restored or have the potential to be restored to a natural state, associated areas that support hydrologic functions, and working landscapes that enable ecological functions to continue. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 Negative Impacts Means: a. in regard to policy 1.6.6.4 and 1.6.6.5 degradation to the quality and quantity of water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their related hydrologic functions, due to single, multiple or successive development. -320- Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan b. in regard to policy 2.2, degradation to the quality and quantity of water, sensitive surface water features and sensitive ground water features, and their related hydrologic functions, due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities; c. in regard to fish habitat, any permanent alteration to, or destruction of fish habitat, except where, in conjunction with the appropriate authorities, it has been authorized under the Fisheries Act; and d. in regard to other natural heritage features and areas, degradation that threatens the health and integrity of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified due to single, multiple or successive development or site alteration activities. Source: PPS, 2014 Regional (flood) Control Stormwater management control of flood flows from the regional storm event (Hurricane Hazel) to mitigate increases in flood risk associated with development (urbanization). Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Riparian The areas adjacent to water bodies such as streams, wetlands and shorelines. Riparian areas form transitional zones between aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Seepage Areas and Springs Sites of emergence of groundwater where the water table is present at the ground surface. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 Significant Groundwater Recharge Area An area that has been identified: a. as a significant groundwater recharge area by any public body for the purposes of implementing the PPS, 2014; b. as a significant groundwater recharge area in the assessment report required under the Clean Water Act, 2006; or c. as an ecologically significant groundwater recharge area delineated in a subwatershed plan or equivalent in accordance with provincial guidelines. For the purposes of this definition, ecologically significant groundwater recharge areas are areas of land that are responsible for replenishing groundwater systems that directly support sensitive areas like cold water streams and wetlands. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 - 321 - 77 Sustainable Community Retrofits Focus on actions in older, urban neighbourhoods by retrofitting buildings and infrastructure, regenerating habitats and urban ecology, and revitalizing a community's social fabric. TRCA's Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Program provides examples of sustainable community retrofits. Source: Sustainable Neighbourhood Action Program, TRCA, 2020 Urban Forest All trees, shrubs and understorey plants, as well as the soils that sustain them, on public and private property within an urban setting. Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Vegetation Protection Zone A vegetated buffer area surrounding a key natural heritage feature or key hydrologic feature. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 Water Balance The hydrologic cycle of precipitation, groundwater infiltration, evapotranspiration (into the atmosphere and by plant interception), and surface runoff.. Source: TRCA's Living City Policies, 2014 Water Resource System A system consisting of ground water features and areas and surface water features (including shoreline areas), and hydrologic functions, which provide the water resources necessary to sustain healthy aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems and human water consumption. The water resource system will comprise key hydrologic features and key hydrologic areas. Source: Growth Plan, 2019 78 - 322 - 9. References Carruthers Creek Watershed Characterization Technical Reports Dr. Richard Gerber and Mike Doughty, Oak Ridges Moraine Groundwater Program, 2017. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Hydrogeology. Prepared for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Region of Durham. Matrix Solutions Inc., 2017. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Fluvial Geomorphology Assessment of Regional Watershed Monitoring Program Data 2003 - 2016. Prepared for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2017. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Aquatic Crossing and Barrier Assessment Report. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2017. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Aquatic Habitat and Community Characterization. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2017. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Headwater Drainage Features Characterization. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2017. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Preliminary Water Quantity Characterization. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2018. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Water Quantity Characterization. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2017. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Surface Water Quality Characterization. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2017. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Terrestrial Biological Inventory and Assessment. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Carruthers Creek Watershed Scenario Analysis Technical Reports Matrix Solutions Inc., 2019. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Fluvial Geomorphic Assessment. Prepared for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Region of Durham. - 323 - 79 80 Oak Ridges Moraine Groundwater Program, 2019. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Groundwater Modelling. Prepared for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2019. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Modelling. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2019. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Aquatic Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2019. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Stormwater Management. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2019. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Hydrological Assessment. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2019. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Terrestrial Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2019. Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan: Urban Forest Assessment. Prepared for the Region of Durham. Provincial / Federal Policies / Plans / Guidance Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, no date. Water Quality Guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life. CTC Source Protection Committee, 2019. Approved Source Protection Plan: CTC Source Protection Region. Amendment (Version 2.0) effective March 25, 2019. Environment and Climate Change Canada, 2013. How Much Habitat is Enough?Third Edition. Ontario, 2019. A Place to Grow: Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Ontario, 2017. Greenbelt Plan. Ontario, 2016. Guidance for Development Activities in Redside Dace Protected Habitat. Ontario, 2016. Water Management: Policies, Guidelines, Provincial Water Quality Objectives Ontario, 2014. Provincial Policy Statement. Under the Planning Act. - 324 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Great Lakes Agreements and Policiess Government of Canada and Government of Ontario, 2014. Canada - Ontario Agreement on Great Lakes Water Quality and Ecosystem Health. Government of Canada and Government of the United States of America, 2012. Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. Ontario, 2016. Ontario's Great Lakes Strategy. Municipal Official Plans City of Pickering, 2018. Pickering Official Plan: Edition 8. Region of Durham, 2017.2017 Durham Regional Official Plan Town of Ajax, 2016. Official Plan. Municipal Guidelines, Reports or Strategies Cole Engineering, 2012. Carruthers Creek Flood Management and Analysis EA. Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128 Impact Report. Prepared for the Town of Ajax. Region of Durham, 2016. Towards Resilience: Durham Community Climate Adaptation Plan 2016. Region of Durham, 2012. From Vision to Action: Region of Durham Community Climate Change Local Action Plan 2012. TRCA Guidelines Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2014. Evaluation, Classification and Management of Headwater Drainage Features Guidelines. Credit Valley Conservation and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2010. Low Impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2018. Guideline for Determining Ecosystem Compensation (after the decision to compensate has been made). Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2017. Wetland Water Balance Risk Evaluation. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2016. Integrated Restoration Prioritization: A Multiple Benefit Approach to Restoration Planning. -325- 81 82 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2016. Wetland Water Balance Monitoring Protocol. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2015. Crossings Guideline for Valley and Stream Corridors. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2014. The Living City Policies: for Planning and Development in the Watersheds of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2012. Preserving and Restoring Healthy Soil: Best Practices for Urban Construction. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2012. StormwaterManagementCriteria. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, 2007. Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy. -326- -327- Developed in collaboration with the Town of Ajax and City of Pickering -328- -1 DURHAM REGION IW Toronto and Region S Conservation Authority Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 16-20 Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan -Hydrological Assessment RESULTS AND DISCUSSION As noted above, a comparison of Regional Storm peak flows at multiple locations through the watershed is provided in Table 2. In addition to the Regional Storm simulations, Appendix 2 includes results for the design storm simulations for Scenarios 1, 2 and 3. Please see Appendix 3 for the hydrographs associated with the Regional Storm. Although the text below refers mainly to the results from the Regional Storm simulations, the trends observed for the Regional Storm are also observed for the design storm simulations. As such, the description and rationale provided below are also applicable for the design storm simulations. Please note that the peak flow values differ slightly between the 2011 update and current study for Scenario 1; this is due to the reclassification of residential land use between the two models. Specifically, Scenario 1 combined low- and medium -density residential land use, which resulted in a higher impervious value than what was used by Cole in 2011. The increased impervious value affects the %Imp and XIMP parameters in the model, resulting in slightly increased peak flow values over those established by Cole in 2011. Although the modelling completed as part of this scenario analysis only looked at land use as a future stressor, climate change is expected to increase precipitation, annual average temperatures and the frequency of extreme weather events, which will impact watersheds within the Region of Durham. Some of the anticipated implications of a changing climate include localized flooding, violent storm damage, changes to ecosystem composition, and changes to agricultural conditions and production. Scenarios 1 and 2 Generally, there is a slight reduction in peak flow values when comparing Scenario 1 and 2 (see Table 2). This reflects the impacts associated with the enhanced NHS. From a flood mitigation and management perspective, the proposed NHS has negligible impacts on flood flows however there are several ecological and temperature mitigation benefits which have been documented within the CCWP. Scenarios 1 and 3 Results at a catchment scale for Scenarios 1 and 3 indicate significant changes in peak flow values. In one instance, peak flow values are reduced while an increase in peak flow is observed for most of the watershed. It is important to note that the reduction in peak flow values for the East Tributary downstream of Highway 7 is the result of changes to catchment timing under Scenario 3, where the location of the potential development area and increases in impervious surfaces results in runoff reaching the catchment outlet faster than the land use assumptions used for Scenario 1. Page 10 of 34 - 329 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan -Hydrological Assessment TABLE 2 REGIONAL STORM SIMULATION RESULTS Regional Storm VO2 Sub- 2011 Scenario 1 (+OP) catchment Update IDs Location Peak Flows (m3/s) Scenario 2 (+NHS) Scenario 3 (+Potential Urban) Peak 1 % Change Flows from 2011 (m3/s) Update Peak Flows Change (m3/s) from Scenario 1 U/S Hwy. 7 (W. Tributary) 3096 12.98 1175 7.6 3095 20.49 D/S Hwy. 7 (E. Tributary) D/S 5th Concession (E. Tributary) 1181 5.73 11.012 7.601 18.612 5.725 -15.2% 10.713 Peak I % Change Flows from (m3/s) Scenario 1 - 2.7% 47.347 0.0% - 9.2% -0.1% 7.394 18.107 - 2.7% 31.893 - 2.7% 78.605 5.539 -3.2% 3.345 330.0% 319.6% 322.3% -41.6% 1182 7.21 7.205 -0.1% 7.005 -2.8% 30.395 321.9% 1183 7.01 7.011 0.0% 6.91 -1.4% 19.927 184.2% 3103 18.57 18.572 0.0% 18.114 - 2.5% 62.462 236.3% U/S Taunton Rd. (Confluence) 1179 3.68 3.678 - 0.1% 3.691 0.4% 3.691 0.4% 3102 3101 3094 23.42 23.423 0.0% 22.916 - 2.2% 61.279 161.6% 26.99 26.992 0.0% 26.505 - 1.8% 62.965 133.3% 35.13 32.702 - 6.9% 31.944 - 2.3% 78.623 140.4% 3098 33.76 34.465 2.1% 33.924 - 1.6% 67.896 97.0% 3093 68.89 67.153 - 2.5% 65.855 - 1.9% 146.519 118.2% Taunton Rd. 3092 71.61 69.897 - 2.4% 68.593 - 1.9% 148.839 112.9% CPR U/S Rossland Rd. Hwy. 2 E. D/S Bayly St. 3087 70.66 3082 68.988 70.51 68.863 1044 94.07 99.6 1033 105.74 - 2.4% - 2.3% 67.941 67.689 - 1.9% 156.109 126.3% -1.3% 160.888 133.6% 5.9% 96.468 -3.1% 193.789 94.6% 114.651 8.4% 112.25 -2.1% 190.371 66.0% Shoal Point Rd. 1005 140.52 149.498 6.4% 147.189 -1.5% 210.632 40.9% Lake Ontario 1000 146.92 155.952 6.1% 153.714 -1.4% 213.973 37.2% Page 11 of 34 - 330 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan -Hydrological Assessment At a sub -watershed scale, significant increases in peak flows are also observed. This is also a reflection of the location and scale of the potential development area used in Scenario 3. The significant increase in impervious surfaces associated with the potential development will impact runoff volume and watershed timing, increasing peak flow values at and downstream of confluence points. At a watershed scale the change in peak flow values are not as pronounced as those at a catchment and sub - watershed scale. This reflects the magnitude of the peak flow values being compared to one another, and the effects of routing flows through significant downstream valley corridors. Without proper mitigation, the increase in peak flow values observed through Scenario 3 would have significant impacts to flood levels throughout the watershed. Of concern is the impact to flooding for the Lower Carruthers Flood Vulnerable Cluster within the Town of Ajax. Past studies completed by the Town and TRCA have indicated the need to implement flood remediation solutions in the form of an identified Flood Protection Landform and improved conveyance through the valley to reduce existing flood risk. As per TRCA's Flood Protection Land Forming Technical Guidelines, AECOM 2019: A flood protection landform is generally defined as a non-structural measure made of earth that provides permanent flood protection. Landforms are similar to dykes and berms, since they are man- made barriers placed adjacent to river corridors to provide passive protection from flooding. Unlike traditional dykes and berms, however, landforms are built on a much larger scale with very gentle slopes. Furthermore, landforms are designed to generally require less maintenance and provide a significantly higher lever of protection in terms of typical models of failure. Should development within the Carruthers Creek headwaters proceed, the flood remediation solutions proposed for the Lower Carruthers Flood Vulnerable Cluster would not meet the original design requirements established through the EA process (i.e. provide permanent flood control for Lower Carruthers to the Regional Storm). As such, a thorough reassessment of the Carruthers Creek Flood Management & Analysis Municipal Class EA would be required should a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion be justified following the Municipal Comprehensive Review process. This reassessment would involve initiating a new environmental assessment to investigate a more comprehensive list of alternate solutions to offset any impacts associated with potential development in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek following a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion. It should be noted that the intent of this assignment was to simulate the hydrologic response of several land use scenarios to inform the CCWP. Completing a detailed hydraulic assessment to quantify the impacts to flood levels within the watershed was outside the scope of work. Given the observed increase in peak flow values for Scenario 3 it is recommended that, following a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion, in accordance with the Growth Plan, and prior to municipal approval of a development proposal, a thorough hydraulic assessment be undertaken to quantify the potential changes to flood levels prior to development proceeding. Further, if current urban areas are susceptible to flooding under Scenario 3, then further flood remediation assessments in the form of feasibility assessments and Environmental Assessments would need to be undertaken by TRCA or its municipal partners in Durham. Page 12 of 34 - 331 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan -Hydrological Assessment Scenario 3 and ROPA 128, 2012 The Cole report entitled Carruthers Creek Flood Management & Analysis Municipal Class EA: Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 128 Impact Report, May 2012, simulated hydrological impacts from potential future build -out conditions using the Natural Heritage System delineated in the current City of Pickering Official Plan. This scenario is herein referred to as ROPA 128, 2012. There was interest amongst CCWP stakeholders to compare the results of the ROPA 128, 2012 scenario with Scenario 3 to examine the benefits of the Enhanced Natural Heritage System for various design storms if potential future build -out should proceed. Because the Enhanced NHS is likely to have limited hydrologic benefit during a storm event with a magnitude such as the Regional Storm, it is not surprising that there is no significant difference in Regional Storm flow values between Scenario 3 and the ROPA 128, 2012 modelling results. However, benefits of the Enhanced NHS can be observed for the smaller storms as peak flows are up to 25% higher for the ROPA 128, 2012 scenario compared to Scenario 3 (e.g. for 2 -year storm). It should be noted that TRCA did not develop a new modelling scenario for ROPA 128. Flow values presented in Appendix 4 for the ROPA 128, 2012 scenario were taken directly from the 2012 hydrology summary report by Cole. Please see Appendix 4 for details. MANAGEMENT/MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS The following section provides a high-level list and description of potential management recommendations related to flood impacts for Region of Durham, Town of Ajax, and City of Pickering consideration. The management recommendations provided are preliminary and should be confirmed and validated through additional hydrologic and hydraulic modelling, in compliance with the Growth Plan. This will ensure that the recommendations remain applicable should a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion in the headwaters of the Carruthers Creek watershed be required following the Municipal Comprehensive Review and Land Needs Assessment processes. The management recommendations will need to be reassessed at the appropriate time (i.e. secondary planning, subwatershed planning) prior to any development being approved. Land Use Planning Should a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion be justified in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek watershed, in accordance with the Growth Plan, then it must be demonstrated through subwatershed planning (or equivalent through a secondary plan process) that the proposed expansion would be planned to avoid, or minimize and mitigate, any potential negative impacts on watershed conditions and the Water Resource System, including the quality and quantity of water. This approach would utilize land use planning approaches to minimize imperviousness and maintain hydrologic processes and downstream flows. For example, focusing potential development in smaller, higher -density development areas could maintain larger natural areas that would limit downstream flows. Implementation of Downstream Flood Remediation Alternatives In combination with land use planning, a thorough reassessment of the Carruthers Creek Flood Management & Analysis Municipal Class EA would be required should a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion be justified following the Municipal Comprehensive Review process. This reassessment would involve initiating a new environmental assessment to investigate a more comprehensive list of alternative solutions to offset any impacts associated with potential development in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek following a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion. Any reassessment of flood mitigation measures developed for the Lower Page 13 of 34 - 332 - Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan -Hydrological Assessment Carruthers Flood Vulnerable Cluster should consider future impacts of climate change using the most up to date climate modelling data for Durham Region in addition to a detailed analysis related to the impact on flooding as a result of record Lake Ontario levels in 2017 and 2019. Future Studies As noted above, potential changes to flood levels across the watershed should be assessed following a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion and prior to municipal approval of any development proposals (i.e. at the Secondary Plan stage). If this assessment identifies that new areas of the watershed are susceptible to flooding, then further flood remediation assessments, in the form of feasibility assessments and/or environmental assessments would need to be undertaken to mitigate any potential impacts. Regional Storm Stormwater Management Quantity Control The application of Regional Control in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek is recommended should development be proposed following a Settlement Area Boundary Expansion. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) has not accepted this approach in TRCA's jurisdiction and further consultation including support from the MNRF would be required to apply Regional Control. Land use needs to accommodate the required runoff volume may not comply with land use targets due to pond size. Municipal Infrastructure Upgrades Existing water crossings overtopped during a Regional Storm event should be upgraded to ensure safe public and emergency response passage. Furthermore, watercourse crossings where upstream flood levels result from insufficient crossing capacity should be replaced'. 1 A list of these structures has been provided under a separate cover and will be included in the CCWP. Page 14 of 34 - 333 - Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 16-20 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority July 20, 2020 To Concerned Members of the Public: Re: Draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan Clarification of TRCA Findings and Position Related to Development Proposals in the Watershed The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) appreciates the significant public interest in the draft Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan (CCWP) that was released for public review in March 2020, The development of the draft CCWP has been a multi-year collaborative effort between TRCA and the Region of Durham, in consultation with the Town of Ajax and City of Pickering. Extensive public engagernent has occurred to develop this watershed plan. This effort has included gathering input from watershed residents and stakeholders by using tools such as online surveys, pop-up displays at community events, stakeholder workshops, presentations to committees and councils, and Public Information Centres. TRCA recognizes and appreciates the concern that residents have for protecting and restoring the health of the watershed. Recently, concern from members of the public has been expressed to local municipal and provincial officials on the findings of the watershed plan and how it relates to proposed development in the headwater areas of Carruthers Creek. TRCA would like to clarify some of the findings of the watershed plan and to offer some insights on our role in the planning process: Flood Risk TRCA assessed potential future scenarios as part of the watershed planning process to determine how different land uses would impact the watershed (Section 4 of the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan). Scenario 3 assumed development in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek, outside the proposed enhanced Natural Heritage System. Peak flows were identified to potentially increase by 77% for the regional storm event, compared to current conditions. However, the flood modelling completed as part of this watershed planning exercise did not factor in potential mitigation measures (e.g. modern stormwater infrastructure). To address this, TRCA included a series of management recommendations which includes additional studies to be completed prior to the consideration of any development approvals in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek. Headwaters Development Some members of the public's recent correspondence relating to the watershed plan findings and proposed development in the headwaters states "The TRCA Report makes 11 very clear that under 170 circumstances should the Carruthers Headwaters be urbanized. The cost is too great." The draft CCCWP does not state that development in the headwaters of Carruthers Creek should not proceed. Instead, it identifies potential impacts of development and proposes a series of mitigation measures to manage those impacts should development be considered within the headwaters area. The success of these mitigation measures is, however, predicated upon the establishment of an enhanced Natural Heritage System in the headwaters, Specifically, subsection 5.4 of the draft CCWP outlines recommendations relevant to potential development in the headwaters. These recommendations include the need to protect adequate land in the headwaters which can be restored, to complete a hydraulic assessment, and to implement appropriate flood mitigation measures to mitigate downstream impacts that may exacerbate the existing Flood Vulnerable Cluster in the Town of Ajax. This may require the consideration of Regional Flood Control (e g., offline detention systems) and 1 - 334 - Op' I I k Toronto and Region 41) Conservation Authority updating or undertaking a new Environmental Assessment of the downstream Flood Vulnerable Cluster in Ajax depending on the nature and configuration of any development. The detailed planning of the proposed Natural Heritage System would be formalized through the municipally led development approval process that would follow the Municipal Comprehensive Review (MCR) process being led by the Region. Planning Process Watershed plans inform land use planning decisions and municipal decision-making processes for land use and infrastructure planning. TRCA, in collaboration with the Region of Durham, and in consultation with the Town of Ajax and City of Pickering, developed the management framework for the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan based on the MCR process envisioned in the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. It is through this MCR process that municipal decisions on potential future development will be made. TRCA is aware of the Ministerial Zoning Order request by Dorsay Development Corporation for the Veraine community on privately held lands in the Carruthers Creek Watershed Plan study area. TRCA notes that a Ministerial Zoning Order would be a departure from the current provincial land use planning framework and the collaborative work of the Region and lower -tier municipalities. TRCA would rather see the MCR process continue as planned to ensure all matters of provincial and municipal interest related to TRCA's mandate are addressed. TRCA has communicated this position to the Province and has indicated our interest in discussing the matter further with appropriate provincial staff. TRCA has also met with Dorsay Development Corporation during the development of the draft CCWP to discuss their concerns and will continue to do so. In addition, TRCA will continue to act as a technical advisor and resource to the Province, Region and local municipalities by informing all parties of the findings of the draft CCWP as the Province considers the Dorsay request. Please visit https://trca.ca/conservation/watershed-management/carruthers-creeklwatershed-plan/ for more information on the development of the CCWP, or contact carruthers[a?trca.ca if you have any questions about the draft Plan or this process. As stated on the website, the public review of the draft CCWP has been paused due to the COVID-19 situation and will resume once the state of emergencies from all levels of government are lifted. John MacKenzie Chief Executive Officer Toronto and Region Conservation Authority cc: Hon. Rod Phillips, Minister of Finance, MPP for Ajax Hon. Steve Clark, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing Peter Bethlenfalvy, MPP for Pickering -Uxbridge Jennifer Innis, TRCA Board Chair John Henry, Regional Chair and CEO Kevin Ashe, Acting Mayor of Pickering, TRCA Board of Director Joanne Dies, Regional Councilor, TRCA Board of Director David Ryan, Mayor of Pickering Shaun Collier, Mayor of Ajax Brian Bridgeman, Commissioner, Planning & Economic Development, Region of Durham Sameer Dhalla, Director, Development & Engineering Services. TRCA 2 - 335 - Cfy ot DICKERING Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: PLN 17-20 Date: September 14, 2020 From: Kyle Bentley Director, City Development & CBO Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-002/P Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/18 Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, Now Part Lots 1, 2, and 3, 40R-11413 (1865 Pickering Parkway) Recommendation: 1. That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-002/P, submitted by Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc., to reduce the minimum net residential density from 80 units per net hectare to 58 units per net hectare for the lands located on the south side of Pickering Parkway west of Notion Road, and to re -designate the easterly portions of the subject lands and the lands (1805 Pickering Parkway) immediately to the south, currently owned by Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. Trustee, from "Mixed Use Areas — Specialty Retailing Node" to "Open Space System — Natural Areas" to allow a residential condominium development to be approved, and that the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 39 to the Pickering Official Plan as set out in Appendix I to Report PLN 17-20 be forwarded to Council for enactment; and 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/18, submitted by Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc., to facilitate a residential condominium development consisting of 130 townhouse units on lands located on the south side of Pickering Parkway west of Notion Road, be endorsed subject to the provisions contained in Appendix II to Report PLN 17-20, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By-law to Council for enactment. Executive Summary: The subject lands are located at the southwest corner of Pickering Parkway and Notion Road within the Village East Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The applicant's original proposal included an application for a draft plan of subdivision that proposed 1 block for residential use, 1 block for open space/parkland and 1 block for a road widening along Pickering Parkway (see Original Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #3). Within the residential block, the applicant proposed a common element condominium development consisting of a total of 224 dwelling units comprising 64 townhouses and 160 back-to-back townhouses, accessed through an internal private road (see Original Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #4). The proposal required a site-specific Official Plan Amendment to reduce the minimum net residential density to 70 units per net hectare from "over 80 units per net hectare" to facilitate the proposed residential condominium development. - 336 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 2 In response to identified concerns including the outcome of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed future Highway 401 — Notion Road overpass, the applicant revised their proposal (see Revised Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #5). The key revisions to their proposal include: • reducing the total number of units from 224 units to 130 units; • refining the limits of development resulting in a smaller developable area of 2.204 hectares from 3.13 hectares; • decreasing the density of the original proposal from 70 units per net hectare to 58 units per net hectare in the revised proposal; • redesigning and shifting of the 0.16 of a hectare private amenity area to a location more central to the development; • removing the secondary easterly access in the vicinity of Marshcourt Drive; • conveying a 0.523 of a hectare Open Space/Floodplain block to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for flood storage purposes (in the original proposal these lands were to be conveyed to the City as parkland); and • conveying a 0.314 of a hectare of land to TRCA as wetland compensation. As a result of the revisions to the proposal, staff support the proposed residential development. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council approve Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 18-002/P, and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/18. Financial Implications: No direct cost to the City is anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands, municipally known as 1865 Pickering Parkway, are located at the southwest corner of Pickering Parkway and Notion Road within the Village East Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The lands have been, and remain, disturbed by previous clearing and filling activities. The site has 2 man-made wetlands areas, totaling approximately 0.37 of a hectare, which are overgrown with non-native vegetation. Surrounding land uses include (see Air Photo Map, Attachment #2): North: Across Pickering Parkway is a low-density residential neighbourhood consisting of detached homes, and a vacant parcel of land between Marshcourt Drive and Notion Road. On February 26, 2020, the Local Planning Appeals Tribunal approved applications for zoning by-law amendment and draft plan of subdivision to permit 7 lots for detached dwellings along the east side of Marshcourt Drive. The balance of the lands will be acquired by the City to facilitate the future construction of the Notion Road overpass and raising of the grade of Pickering Parkway. - 337 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 3 East: Across Notion Road, in the Town of Ajax, is the St. Francis de Sales Catholic Cemetery; an industrial area with outdoor aggregate storage facilities; motor vehicle repair and towing businesses; and recycling services. South & Immediately to the south and west is the Shops at Pickering Ridge shopping West: centre and Blue Sky supermarket, and further south is Highway 401 and the Metrolinx/CN railway corridor. 1.2 Applicant's Original Proposal Metropia originally submitted applications for Official Plan Amendment, Zoning By-law Amendment, and Draft Plan of Subdivision. After the initial submission, an application for a Draft Plan of Condominium was submitted. These applications were intended to facilitate a residential common element condominium development. The original applications proposed 1 block for residential use, 1 block for open space/parkland and 1 block for a road widening along Pickering Parkway (see Original Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision, Attachment #3). Within the residential block, a total of 224 dwelling units consisting of 64 townhouses and 160 back-to-back townhouses were proposed accessed through an internal private road (see Original Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #4). Details of the original proposal included: • primary vehicular access was from Pickering Parkway opposite Beechlawn Drive; • secondary fire access was proposed on the south side of the property connecting to the adjacent commercial parking lot; • internal vehicular and pedestrian circulation consisted of a private road network having a width of 6.1 metres, a 1.5 metres wide pedestrian walkway lining one side of the internal private road system, and pedestrian connections to the existing transit stop along Pickering Parkway at the intersection of Pickering Parkway and Beechlawn Drive; • 2 parking spaces (1 in a private garage and 1 in the driveway) per dwelling unit; • access to private garages from the internal private road network; • visitor parking spaces provided at a ratio of 0.19 spaces per unit for a total of 42 spaces at various areas throughout the development; • the 0.49 of a hectare open space/park block at the easterly most area of the subject lands to be conveyed to the City for a public park consisting of active and passive recreational features; and • the re-creation of a wetland on the adjacent commercial property owned by Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. Trustee (1805 Pickering Parkway) immediately south of the open space/park block as compensation for the loss of the wetland on the subject lands, to be conveyed to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). - 338 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 4 1.3 Applicant's Revised Proposal In response to concerns and comments received from commenting agencies, including the outcome of the Environmental Assessment (EA) for proposed future Highway 401 — Notion Road overpass, the applicant has submitted a revised concept plan (see Revised Submitted Conceptual Site Plan, Attachment #5). The revised site plan proposes a residential condominium development consisting of 130 townhouse units within 15 residential blocks, a 0.16 of a hectare private amenity area, a 0.523 of a hectare open space/floodplain block, and a re-created compensatory wetland on the adjacent lands immediately south of the open space/floodplain block. Specifically, the key changes to the proposal include: • withdrawal of Applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval and Draft Plan of Condominium (Common Element) Approval; • changing the tenure from common element condominium to a standard condominium; • reducing the total number of units from 224 units to 130 units; • refining the limits of development resulting in a smaller developable area of 2.204 hectares from 3.13 hectares; • further decreasing the density in the original proposal from 70 units per net hectare to 58 units per net hectare in the revised proposal; • redesigning and shifting the 0.16 of a hectare private amenity area to a location more central to the development; • increasing the width of the internal private roadways to 6.5 metres; • removing the pedestrian connection to the adjacent commercial lands to the south; • revising the property boundaries in the southwest corner to accommodate a redesign of the adjacent laneway accessing for the abutting commercial lands to the west and south; • removing the secondary easterly access in the vicinity of Marshcourt Drive; and • conveying a 0.523 of a hectare Open Space block to TRCA for flood storage purposes (in the original proposal these lands were to be conveyed to the City as parkland). The applicant has submitted a site plan application, which is currently under review. A Land Division Application has been submitted by Pickering Ridge Land Inc. Trustee proposing to sever and convey a 0.396 of a hectare parcel of land to Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc., of which 0.314 of a hectare will then be conveyed to TRCA as wetland compensation and the remaining 0.082 of a hectare will be conveyed to the City to accommodate the Notion Road overpass. The application is to be considered by the Region of Durham Land Division Committee on September 17, 2020. A draft plan of condominium application will be submitted at a later date. 2.0 Comments Received 2.1 Open House, Statutory Public Meeting and Written Submissions An Open House meeting was held on May 22, 2018, and the Statutory Public Meeting was held on June 18, 2018. The following is a summary of key concerns and comments expressed by area residents at the Open House and Statutory Public meetings and written submissions received: -339- Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 5 • commented that the proposal to build townhouses on the vacant parcel is supported as the property has not been maintained and has become an eyesore; • concerned that the proposed development will lead to increased traffic using Pickering Parkway worsening the already difficult vehicle turns onto Pickering Parkway from Marshcourt Drive and Beechlawn Drive; and • concerned that traffic from the shopping centre to the south of the proposed development will increase the traffic using the intersection of Beechlawn Drive and Pickering Parkway, and questioned whether this intersection should be signalized. 2.2 City Departments and Agency Comments 2.2.1 Region of Durham • The Region generally has no concerns with the proposed revised Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments; • the Region's peer reviewer has confirmed there are no land use compatibility issues related to noise, dust, and odour; • the Official Plan Amendment conforms to the Region of Durham Official Plan and is exempt from Regional approval; • the revised proposal as shown in Attachment #5 does not meet the Guidelines and Standards for waste collection on private property; the applicant will be responsible for retaining private waste collection services at their own expense; • municipal water supply is available from the existing 200 mm diameter watermain on Notion Road or the existing 300 mm diameter watermain on Pickering Parkway; sanitary sewer servicing can be provided from either the existing 200 mm diameter sanitary sewer on Notion Road or the existing 250 mm diameter sanitary sewer on Pickering Parkway; • the applicant is to provide the Region with an updated request to apply non -potable standards prior to the submission of the Record of Site Condition; • the applicant is to submit an addendum letter addressing the predicted sound level for the Open Green Space block, and an assessment of installing a noise attenuation fence along the east side of the Open Green Space block from Pickering Parkway to Townhouse Block 13; and • the recommended mitigation measures/warning clauses of the Noise Study will be required in any future site plan/condominium agreement with the City of Pickering, to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham. 2.2.2 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) • The TRCA has no objection to the approval of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment as the floodplain and water management components have been addressed; • detailed design of the floodproofing and the conveyance and restoration of the wetland block can be addressed through the Site Plan and Draft Plan of Condominium applications; • the land conveyance to facilitate the compensation for the loss of the wetland are the subject of future consent application; - 340 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 6 • at the Site Plan stage, the applicant is to demonstrate that the site is floodproofed to elevation 85.13 metres; • the Mike Flood 2D model is to be updated with the proposed grading, and the final stamped Stormwater Management Report is to be provided once the detailed grading is finalized; • an update will be required for "Floodplain Map duf_05" once the detailed grading is finalized; and • a maintenance plan and salt management plan is required to be provided for the oil grit separator unit, the permeable paving and the catch basin shields since the functionality of the runoff treatment components are dependent on maintenance and minimizing salt use, and should be incorporated into the condominium documents. 2.2.3 Ministry of Transportation of Ontario • All Ministry encroachment and building land use permits must be applied for with our guidelines. 2.2.4 Town of Ajax • This area is subject to flooding under Regional Storm conditions; the specific level of flood protection to be imposed, and any flood protection measures to be implemented relative to an individual development application shall be determined in cooperation with the TRCA and will require their approval; • the Town's Design Services staff recommend a wider landscape buffer along the south side of the property, to have a better and healthier landscape planting buffer between the commercial and residential uses; and • requests that the Site Plan Application be circulated to the Town of Ajax. 2.2.5 Engineering Services Department • No objection to the proposal; • matters concerning grading and drainage, tree preservation and protection, fencing details and requirements, stormwater management details and construction management requirements will be further reviewed through the Site Plan Approval process; • the applicant may be required to enter into a development agreement with the City of Pickering for off-site works such as the provision and installation of roads, services, grading, drainage, easements, cost-sharing, as well as securities and insurance; • on-site works prior to Site Plan Approval will not be permitted, unless the City has issued a permit under the Fill and Topsoil Disturbance By-law; and • the proposal and all property lines are to comply with the plans for the recently completed EA for the new Highway 401 crossing (Notion Road to Squires Beach Road). - 341 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 7 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The amendment to the Official Plan to decrease the density on the subject lands is appropriate The subject lands are within the Village East Neighbourhood and are designated "Mixed Use Areas — Specialty Retailing Node". In addition to hotels, special purpose commercial uses such as large format food stores and large format discount stores, limited offices, and community, cultural and recreational uses, this designation also permits limited residential development at higher densities as an integral part of the overall development scheme. The "Mixed Use Areas — Specialty Retailing Node" designation permits a maximum net residential density of "over 80 and up to and including 180 units per net hectare", and a maximum floor space index (FSI) is up to and including 2.5 FSI. The applicant is proposing 130 units on a 2.204 hectare of developable land, resulting in a density of 58 units per net hectare, which is not within the permissible density range. Therefore, an Official Plan Amendment is required to facilitate the residential condominium development. In addition, the applicant, the City and the TRCA have worked together to mitigate the floodplain on the site. The lands to be conveyed to the TRCA to accommodate the floodplain are proposed to be re -designated to "Open Space System — Natural Areas". The policies of the Official Plan state that City Council shall encourage a broad diversity of housing by form, location, size, tenure and cost within the neighbourhoods so that the housing needs of existing and future residents can be met as they evolve over time. City Council shall maximize the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimize the consumption of vacant land by encouraging infill development of vacant or underutilized blocks of lands. Furthermore, City Council shall encourage the provision of an adequate supply of housing throughout the City including the provision of an adequate supply of affordable housing. The high water table and stormwater management requirements of the site preclude the use of underground parking or basement levels, which limits the type of built form that could be considered for the subject lands. The proposed townhouse development reflects a compact urban form that makes efficient use of the physical constraints on the subject lands as well as the existing infrastructure. The proposed rear -loaded and back-to-back townhouse housing built form will create a safe, attractive and pedestrian -friendly environment along Pickering Parkway and will provide for an appropriate and desirable built form within the context of the surrounding community, which includes an existing residential neighbourhood north of Pickering Parkway consisting of detached homes, and commercial lands to the west and south of the subject lands. Staff support the site-specific official plan amendment to reduce the minimum residential density to 58 units per net hectare and rezone these lands to a residential zone category to permit a condominium development consisting of 130 townhouse units. Staff also support the re -designation of the easterly portions of the subject lands and the adjacent commercial lands immediately south of the Open Space/Floodplain block to "Open Space System — Natural Areas", and to rezone these lands to Open Space. It is recommended that the By-law to adopt Amendment 39 be forwarded to Council for enactment (see Appendix I). - 342 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 8 3.2 The proposal maintains the vision for the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retail Node Intensification Plan In December 2019, Council endorsed in principle the Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study, which provides a framework for the redevelopment and intensification for the lands within the study area, including the subject lands. Council authorized staff to initiate an Official Plan Amendment to implement the vision and intensification plan for the corridor and node. The subject lands are located within the Brock Precinct in the easternmost part of the study area. As indicated in Figures 11 and 78 of the Intensification Plan, a north -south road is proposed, which would bisect the subject lands from opposite Beechlawn Drive to the adjacent commercial properties to the south. Based on further discussions with the applicant and Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. Trustee (Bayfield), it was determined that the proposed roadway would generate traffic from properties south of the subject lands, which may adversely impact future residents and is not necessarily required to facilitate the future development of the area. To provide for secondary access to the adjacent commercial lands to the south, Metropia has agreed to convey a 0.06 of a hectare of land to Bayfield to widen the existing service lane to accommodate two-way vehicular traffic and delivery vehicles. This arrangement will allow the subject lands to be redeveloped for residential use without being adversely impacted by the traffic generated from the abutting commercial development while providing for safe ingress and egress access for the patrons of the commercial plaza. Furthermore, the removal of the north -south road on the subject lands will not compromise the ability of the commercial lands to the south and west to be redeveloped and intensified in accordance with the vision as set out in the endorsed Kingston Road Corridor and Specialty Retailing Node Intensification Study. 3.3 The proposed residential development has no land use compatibility issues related to noise, dust, and odour with surrounding land uses In support of the residential development, the applicant submitted a Land Use Compatibility, Environmental Air Quality, Noise & Vibration report, prepared by Novus Environmental, dated January 16, 2019. This report reviewed potential land use compatibility to ensure compliance with the Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks (MECP) D -Series Guidelines from the existing industries to the east on the proposed residential development. The report was reviewed by the Region of Durham and was peer reviewed by Trinity Consultants on behalf of the Region. The applicant also submitted an addendum letter, prepared by SLR, dated March 27, 2020, which addressed additional comments from the Region's peer reviewer and the updated design. The closest residences in the proposed development are now significantly farther from the existing industries to the east than existing residences along Pickering Parkway, Marshcourt Drive and Ashford Drive. The proposed revisions to the site plan places the closest residential unit approximately 180 metres away from the existing asphalt plant to the east, which will reduce any odour levels. This distance will allow for further dispersion/dilution of any dust, odour, or other air quality contaminants emitted from these industries. - 343 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 9 A revised Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by Novus Environmental, dated March 2020, was submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the Region of Durham. A detailed assessment of noise impacts from surrounding industrial lands uses, including Shops at Pickering Ridge, Strada Aggregates, and Coco Paving was conducted. The consultant concluded that the applicable MECP noise guidelines are met. Given the setback distances, adverse impact with respect to noise and vibration are not anticipated at the proposed development. The Region of Durham has advised that there are no land use compatibility issues related to noise, dust, and odour. 3.4 Environmental sensitive lands will be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority A small portion of the subject lands in the vicinity of Pickering Parkway is indicated as Shorelines and Stream Corridors in the Official Plan. In addition, Pickering Parkway is the south limit of the Flood Plain Special Policy Area. Specifically, the TRCA has identified the subject lands as being within the spill area of the regulatory floodplain associated with the Duffins Creek. TRCA has also noted that in 2017 a wetland area of approximately 0.37 of a hectare was identified on the subject lands. The proposed development requires fill to safeguard the development from the regulatory floodplain. To eliminate the flood risk, the proposed development area will be elevated above the regulatory flood elevation. To compensate for the lost storage associated with the placement of fill in this area, the Open Space/Floodplain block at the eastern portion of the site will be graded to provide the necessary storage. As noted in Section 1.1 of this report, 2 wetland areas totaling 0.37 of a hectare have been identified on the subject lands. The applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Study, prepared by Beacon Environmental to assess impacts related to the removal and compensation of the natural heritage features on the subject lands resulting from the proposed development. Based on discussions with TRCA, the applicant has agreed to convey a 0.314 of a hectare triangular portion of 1805 Pickering Parkway located immediately south of the Open Space/Floodplain block as wetland compensation. The Open Space/Floodplain block and the wetland compensation block will be re -designated to Open Space Areas — Natural Areas to reflect the future use of these lands and as requested by the TRCA. TRCA has advised that they have no objection to the approval of the Official Plan Amendment and the Zoning By-law Amendment. Detailed technical matters regarding floodproofing and the conveyance and restoration of the wetland block can be addressed through the Site Plan and Draft Plan of Condominium applications. - 344 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 10 3.5 Revisions to the proposal will not impact the preferred design concept of the Notion Road Overpass In October 2019, the City completed an EA for a new Highway 401 crossing to connect Notion Road and Squires Beach Road. The stated purpose of this transportation infrastructure project is to improve road connectively, increase capacity, provide active transportation facilities to support future growth in the City of Pickering, and provide relief to the existing road network. The new road crossing will also support the ongoing development of land south of the Highway 401 corridor to Bayly Street between Church Street South and a Canadian National Railway spur line to the west. As a result of this EA process, a preferred design concept emerged consisting of a bridge crossing of Highway 401 with a sidewalk and multi -use path. To facilitate this crossing, a realignment of Notion Road and Pickering Parkway has been recommended adjacent to the subject lands. The revised proposal responds to the preliminary design of the preferred crossing concept by relocating the residential and open space uses to the west to mitigate potential impacts on future residents. Through the site plan approval process, staff will continue to work with the applicant to ensure grading and servicing will be compatible with the proposed overpass. 3.6 The existing road network can accommodate the traffic generated by this development The submitted Transportation Impact Study, prepared by WSP Canada Group Limited, including an addendum report in support of the revised proposal, investigated the traffic conditions and effects of the proposed development on the local road network. The study specifically looked the traffic impacts on Pickering Parkway, Notion Road, Brock Road and Kingston Road as well as took into consideration existing traffic conditions and future traffic conditions. The Study found that the site traffic will not adversely impact the existing road network or the proposed site access. The existing road network can readily accommodate the traffic generated by this development. The study also assessed the new site driveway on Pickering Parkway opposite Beechlawn Drive and this intersection is expected to operate at an acceptable level. Given the lower number of trips generated by the revised development, this intersection would not warrant signalization. Engineering Services has reviewed the submitted Transportation Study and concur with the consultant's recommendations. Currently, there is an existing Durham Region Transit eastbound bus stop at the location where the site driveway access is proposed. It is recommended that the eastbound stop be moved approximately 35 metres to the west. This would have the added benefit of enabling the bus route to be modified such that buses can make a left onto Beechlawn Drive rather than Marshcourt Drive since a median is currently proposed as part of the Notion Road overpass design that would prevent left -turn movements at this intersection. - 345 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 11 Resident parking is provided at a ratio of 2 spaces per unit, and visitor parking at a ratio of 0.25 spaces per unit. The proposed development includes 33 visitor parking stalls, 2 of which are accessible spaces. The proposed visitor parking supply meets the City requirements. Staff are satisfied that there are sufficient parking spaces available to accommodate the proposal. 3.7 Technical matters will be addressed through site plan approval The applicant has submitted a site plan application, which is currently under review. Technical matters to be further addressed include, but are not limited to: • construction management/erosion and sediment control; • stormwater management; • floodproofing; • conveyance of open space/floodplain and wetland compensation blocks to TRCA; • noise mitigation measures including noise warning clauses; • on-site grading; • site servicing; • landscaping; • payment of cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication; • architectural review; and • continue to work with Region of Durham to review minor design details to permit municipal garbage collection. 3.8 Staff support the proposed Official Plan Amendment and recommend that a zoning by-law be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment The applicant's proposal satisfies the applicable Official Plan policies. The applicant has worked with City staff and external agencies to address various technical requirements. Staff supports the site-specific Official Plan Amendment OPA 18-002/P to permit a minimum residential density of 58 units per net hectare and to re -designate the easterly portions of the subject lands and the abutting lands to the south to "Open Space Areas — Natural Areas" to facilitate a residential condominium development. Staff recommends that the By-law to adopt Amendment 39 be forwarded to Council for enactment (see Appendix I, Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 39). Furthermore, staff support the Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/18 and recommends that the site-specific zoning provisions, containing the standards set out in Appendix II to this Report be finalized and brought before Council for enactment. 3.9 Applicant's Comments The applicant concurs with the recommendations of this report. - 346 - Report PLN 17-20 September 14, 2020 Subject: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Page 12 Appendices Appendix 1 Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 39 to the Pickering Official Plan Appendix 11 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Air Photo Map 3. Original Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision 4. Original Submitted Conceptual Site Plan 5. Revised Submitted Conceptual Site Plan Prepared By: Original Signed By: Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design NS:Id Approved/Endorsed By: Original Signed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Kyle Bentley, P.Eng. Director, City Development & CBO Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Original Signed By: Marisa Carpino, M.A. Interim Chief Administrative Officer -347- Appendix I to Report PLN 17-20 Draft By-law to Adopt Amendment 39 to the Pickering Official Plan - 348 - The Corporation of the City of Pickering By-law No. XXXX/20 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 39 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering (OPA 18-002/P) Whereas pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsection 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 on February 23, 2000, Regional Council passed By-law 11/2000 which allows the Region to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments form its approval; And whereas the Region has advised that Amendment 39 to the City of Pickering Official Plan is exempt from Regional approval; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1. That Amendment 39 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted; 2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments. 3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. By-law passed this XX day of XXXX, 2020. David Ryan, Mayor Susan Cassel, City Clerk -349- Exhibit "A" to By-law XXXX/20 Amendment 39 to the City of Pickering Official Plan - 350 - Recommended Amendment 39 to the Pickering Official Plan Purpose: The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the minimum net residential density required on the lands located on the northwest corner of Pickering Parkway and Notion Road to facilitate a residential condominium development. The second purpose of this Amendment is to re -designate the easterly portions of the subject lands and the lands immediately to the south (1805 Pickering Parkway), owned by Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. Trustee, from "Mixed Use Areas — Speciality Retailing Node" to "Open Space System — Natural Areas" to facilitate the conveyance of these lands to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Location: The site specific amendment affects the lands located on the southwest corner of Pickering Parkway and Notion Road described as Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, Now Parts 1, 2 & 3, 40R-11413, City of Pickering. Basis: The Amendment for the lower minimum density facilitates an appropriate development that responds to the site constraints, and the surrounding residential development. The re -designation of the easterly portions of the subject lands and the lands (1805 Pickering Parkway) immediately to the south, owned by Pickering Ridge Lands Inc. Trustee, are required to enable the future conveyance of these lands to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the purposes of floodplain storage and compensatory wetland area to facilitate the proposed residential development of the subject lands. The Amendment is consistent with the policies of the Provincial Policy Statement 2020, and conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and the Durham Regional Official Plan. Actual The City of Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Amendment: 1. Revising Section 12.11, Village East Neighbourhood Policies by adding a new subsection (h) as follows: "(h) despite Table 6: Mixed Use Areas: Densities and Floor Area by Subcategory, permit a minimum residential density of 58 units per net hectare on the "Metropia" lands located on the south side of Pickering Parkway, west of Notion Road." as identified and shown on Schedule 'A' attached to this amendment for information. 2. Amending Schedule I — Land Use Structure by replacing the "Mixed -Use Areas — Speciality Retailing Node" designation with "Open Space System — Natural Areas" designation for lands identified on Schedule 'A' attached hereto. Implementation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. Interpretation: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. OPA 18-002/P A 03/18 Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. - 351 - Schedule 'A' to Amendment 39 Existing Official Plan 111. 1'. 11 1 1111 II 11ii11,1 II 1111 1 1111111111 1I 11 1 1j111 1 11j11111111 d 1 1 1 11111 >_ -_ - 111111111 111 III 1111111 111 II . 'a 1 I 111 1111 1 11 111 111 L �_ 1 II 11 IIII1'11 ) - 111 II1111111111I1I11I11I11111II r.I - _`- IIII fl1 ce 111 IIIIIII11111I1111I111111111111 (5" 111111 1 1 11 III O 1 1 1 III 1j111 1 11 y v - O 111111�111�111�111�1111111111111 �1j11j1�1111111 - 4% DCIVe y - O 1 111111 11111111 111 111111111 1.1111111i11111I 111111 111111 1111 1 1 11.1 ,1111.1 1111 111 Pickering►Parkway /IIII O U rt por m / al - _ 1 1 11j1i 1 111j1111i11 "HI _ 11 'il I I 1; ;•,I I.1' IIII 111111 III 11�11111111i11 11 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 11111 11 11 11 II II 11 III 1 111111111111111111111111111 11 11 1 1 11 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 h,�;,�.11ll, I1il1'1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 IMI 11111111 111 11 1'." '1 1 III 'I IIII 11 III 1111 11 11 1 1 11 11 11 1 1111 111 IIII 111 1111 111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111111111 1 III 1 11 1 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1111 1 1111 l 11111 II Redesignate from „ Mixed UseAreas- Specialty Retailing 11 III 1 1111 1j11111111111111�IIIII1III111 1 111 1111 11111 1111 IIII 11 IIII 111 11 111 11111 II I 1j1i1i1 "Open 1j11111111111IIIIII11111111I111111111 I � I 1 1�' 1 11 1 1 111 I 111 HI Node" to 111 11111111 1111 111;,1.1 111 1,11 �i 1 1 1 1I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 111 1 • 1 1 Space System - 1 1 III 1 1 1 1 1 11 11 11 1 1111 IIII 111 I I 1 1 1111 111111 1 II 1I I 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 II 1 1 1 1 1 1 I1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I' III 1 IIII'll 1 II11 11 11 11 11 111 I j 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 IIII 1 I I_- - 1 l 1 j Natural Areas„ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 1 II II 111 11 II II 11 1 1 1 1111 II -_= 1 L 1j 1111 1 -=- Reduce the minimum residential density to 58 units per net hectare' 1 11 111111 will 11 1j11I 1 111111 1 III I I I i 111 IIII 1 1 111111 1 III IIII I I I I I11 111 1 -- ==`111 1 III --- -- -r/ c �9h% /, Extract of Land Schedule! to the Edition 8 Urban Use Structure Residential Areas Pickering City of Pickering ... - e Official Plan Mixed Low Density Areas Use Areas Freeways and Major Utilities Area Shown , I I i I I I Specialty Retailing Node E Controlled Access Areas This Ma of A;ax V Open Space System Employment Areas CilyofPickering Natural Areas / Prestige Employment City Development Department ®July, 2018 - _ _ _ This Map Forms Pari of EtliEon Bof Ne Pickering Official Plan antl — — Must Be Reatl in Conjun Rion with Ne Other Schedules antl Ne Text. " ixed Employment Mixed p A r A Appendix !Ito Report PLN 17-20 Recommended Zoning By-Iaw Provisions for Zoning By-Iaw Amendment A 03/18 Recommended Zoning By-law Provisions for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/18 That the implementing zoning by-law permit a residential condominium townhouse development in accordance with the following provisions: A. Zoning Provisions for Residential Development (Standard Condominium) Permitted Uses 1. Permitted uses include: Block Townhouse Building, Back-to-back Townhouse Building, Private Park and Water Meter Room. Building Restrictions 2. All buildings and structures shall be located entirely within a building envelope as illustrated on Schedule I attached. 3. A 3.0 metre wide build -to -zone adjacent to Pickering Parkway. 4. No building or portion of a building or structure shall be erected within the build -to -zone, unless a minimum of 60 percent of the entire length of the build -to -zone is occupied by a continuous portion of the exterior wall of a building. 5. The minimum separation distance between the front wall of a building or a dwelling where it faces the front wall of another building or a dwelling, shall be a minimum of 10.0 metres. 6. Minimum separation between the exterior walls of buildings or dwellings, except for the front wall, shall be a minimum of 2.4 metres. 7. Minimum number of dwellings units: 130 8. Maximum building height: 13.5 metres Parking Requirements 9. Minimum 2.0 parking spaces per dwelling unit to be provided either in a private garage or on a private driveway plus 0.25 of a parking space per dwelling unit for visitors. 10. Garage requirements: For dwelling units less than 6.5 metres in width vehicular entrance for an enclosed private garage shall be located a minimum of 5.6 metres from a private street that provides vehicular access to the private garage. 11. Interior garage size: a private garage shall have a minimum width of 2.9 metres and a minimum depth of 5.5 metres; however, the width of a private garage may include one interior step and the depth may include two interior steps. 12. No parking lot or parking space shall be permitted within 4.5 metres of a public street. 13. The minimum right-of-way width for a private street shall be 6.5 metres. - 354 - Landscape Area and Private Residential Amenity Area 14. Minimum landscape area requirement: 20 percent 15. Private amenity area: a. Minimum Area — 10.0 square metres per unit; b. Accessory structures such as pergolas, sheds or other similar structures shall not be permitted on the private amenity area above the garage at the rear of the dwelling unit. 16. Minimum balcony depth: 1.5 metres 17. Minimum landscape buffer width along the south lot line: 1.3 metres 18. Minimum 1,500 square metres for private park area (outdoor amenity area). Model Homes 19. A maximum of 2 blocks together with no fewer than 2 parking spaces per Model Home is permitted. General Provisions 20. Projections including balconies, uncovered and covered porches, decks, platforms and awnings, stairs, window sills, chimney breasts, fireplaces, belt courses, cornices, pilasters, eaves, eave troughs and other similar architectural features may project outside the building envelope provided that no such feature projects a maximum of 2.0 metres from the main wall of the building. 21. Air conditioners units shall not be located between the front wall or a building or a dwelling and Pickering Parkway. 22. A water meter room required by the Region of Durham for the purpose of measuring the quantity of water delivered shall be exempt from the zone provisions and requirements. B. Zoning Provisions for Open Space & Wetland Blocks Permitted Uses 1. Permitted uses include Preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife. Building Restrictions 2. No buildings or structures shall be permitted to be erected, nor shall the placing or removal of fill be permitted, except where buildings or structures are used only for purposes of flood and erosion control, resource management, or pedestrian and/or bicycle trails. - 355 - 0 • Inset Map 'A' 16m 1 Pickering Parkway 1 a) > "L 0 I1 0 0 L CO 2 15m–* --- - L , � 1♦_ T 2mI RH 111 OS •-,_.k OS -HL Al -3m Notion Road Inset Map 'A' 4m 3m RH 3m N\ghway 40' —� Building Envelope Build To Zone OS -HL Mayor Clerk - 356 - Attachment #1 to Report #PLN 17-20 Subject Lands BainbridgeOn\ie� Banbury Court Beechlawn Park 0 c m 0 0 Pickering Parkway a 0 0 0 Z Town of Ajax Proposed Recreated Wetland a ca 0 rY _c 0 c6 N 00 Tribro Studios A\,enue AN C44 Location Map File: OPA 18-002/P & A 03/18 PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, Now Part Lots 1, 2 and 3, 40R-11413 (1865 Pickering Parkway) Date: Jul. 22, 2020 01 he Corporation of the City of Rckenng Produced (in part) under ncenae from .Queens Printer, O n tare Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.',. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; 3V Tea net Enterprises Inc. and les suppliers H1 rights res&ved11linlilMFMPt Assessment Corpora.. and its suppliers all rights reserved: SCALE: 1:5,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY. L:\PLAN NI NGO1-MapFl les \OPA\2018\OPA 18-0023 SP2018-038 A003-18 Metrop la (Notion Road) Development Inc OPA 18_002P_A03_18_Lo W,1 Attachment #2 to Report #PLN 17-20 Oi,_ 1 ,'...,:.,. �t yMY ... �, U \� ! 0 .!. ,...1.4,:p..,..,41.,. 1 • "+! Banbury Court�� c IN dGly i s,. r .\p,yiiyyms n mom! L_ i 111 r,,, -N , . ,,.: .-ii . , . ir .".. 0 ..,,,,• . I II A a' N _r .. 1 1111 ♦ 411:3 41 `1\1111 Mr• i '9 {s 11d'NW11 ,1{3 1 _i E• Ili •Qt,t ...E 0, . fI 11i ALOA101.1 \ .. . . 0 r dere Court 0 0 U N CO Pickering Parkway„., II II I • Subject 40� vvg_ Lands Proposed Recreated Wetlan1"11d y�, I0*00 ,.,,.,,,.,,��c .1 Tribro Studios Avenue C Air Photo Map File: OPA 18-02/P & A 03/18 a/ PICKERING City Development Department Applicant: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, Now Part Lots 1, 2 and 3, 40R-11413 (1865 Pickering Parkway) Date: Jul. 22, 2020 ( The Corporation of the City of Plckenng Produced (n part) under license from. m Queens Prlmer.Ontarlo Ministry of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.;® Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, Department of Natural Resources. All rights reserved.; 0 Teranet Enterprises In. and Its suppliers all rights reserved.;IllininiP/lty Assessment Corporation and Its suppliers all rights reserved.; SCALE: 1 :5,000 THIS IS NOT A PLAN OF SURVEY L:\PLANNING\01-MepFiles\OPA\2018\OPA 18-002P, SP2018-038 A003-18 Metmpia(Notion Road) Devel opment Inc\OPA18_002P_A03_ 18_ Air• oto Attachment #3 to Report #PLN 17-20 PARr 4. B 443-9876 t7 PART 6, PLAN 40R-9779 PICKERING PARKWA Y y 1 VAD€NING R 26 m R.O.W. PART 7, PLAN 40R-9779 BY BY-LAW NO. 2625 87 AND 211 85 PAR 1,1, PLAIti40R-i 43 PART 6. 1 PLAN 4094-20443 291.8 LOT 17 PART 1, PL4N 40R-29810 BLOCKI TOWNHOUSES 224 UNITS 3.1352 ha ,Q,& EC 70 , N F45LiEN1 4g W 64662612117 NO 06,612627 2729 OPEN SPACE BLOCK2 OPEN SPACEIPARK 0.4847 ha 54.0 J °g PICKERING City Development Department Original Submitted Draft Plan of Subdivision File No: OPA 18-002/P, A 03/18 Applicant: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, Now Part Lots 1, 2 and 3, 40R-11413 (1865 Pickering Parkway) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Aug 25, 2020 Attachment #4 to Report #PLN 17-20 1'f EXISTING COMMERCIAL eflrIFtr![IIq f rr 4112 4itir;;4. or p. V )1•g �A141 j fltj, ilhFi w yi .r.41.4 s 1.} Ft,.1.:1OS (I-1) ;,41;pFall I h].7an-k SITE ELEMENTS PERMEABLE VEHICULAR PAVERS I B DECORATIVE VEHICULAR UNIT PAVERS IC IMPROVED PUBLIC STREETSCAPE - 2.0m sidewalk - Sireet tree plantings j D PARK/ OPEN SPACE - Refer to L-100 for Park Enlargement Plan I E PROPOSED WETLAND I F DECORATIVE BUFFER / 2.6m HIGH PRIVACY FENCE Gi ENHANCED ENTRANCE - Pillars ? signage walls T Gtyo PICKERING City Development Department Original Submitted Conceptual Site Plan File No: OPA 18-002/P, A 03/18 Applicant: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, Now Part Lots 1, 2 and 3, 40R-11413 (1865 Pickering Parkway) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Aug 25, 2020 Attachment #5 to Report #PLN 17-20 a Pickering Pkwy 0 EXiSTANG COMMERCIAL 7 L 4 EXISTING COMMERCIAL tereE tet iiir f SITE ELEMENTS CA1 ▪ CONCRETE WALKWAY PERMEABLE VEHICULAR PAVERS IMPROVED PUBLIC STREETSCAPE - 2.0m sidewalk - Street tree pEantings , Frl F! I i , ,';:rl Dr f . r no rrti 4104104 3 D❑ PARK IOPEN SPACE E] PROPOSED WETLAND n 1.5m WIDE PLANTED BUFFER WITH 2.0m HIGH PRIVACY FENCE ENHANCED ENTRANCE T cdrg PICKERING City Development Department Revised Submitted Conceptual Site Plan File No: OPA 18-002/P, A 03/18 Applicant: Metropia (Notion Road) Development Inc. Property Description: Part of Lot 17, Concession 1, Now Part Lots 1, 2 and 3, 40R-11413 (1865 Pickering Parkway) FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Aug 27, 2020