Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 28, 2003Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda Monday, July 28, 2003 Chair: Councillor McLean ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of June 9, 2003 (11) 1. DELEGATIONS Michael Skretteberg, 4863 Livingston Street, Claremont, will address Council to present some ideas about recognizing that Ciaremont was the birthplace of Tom Thompson. The following representatives of the Durham West Arts Centre will address Members of Council in support of the Notice of Motion respecting the establishment of an Arts Centre: a) Edward Falkenberg b) Carol Bamford c) Al Monks d) Bob Xu (shoo) e) John Sabean f) Dorsey James g) Terry Green (ill) 1. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 31-03 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 07/03 1381190 ONTARIO LIMITED 701 KROSNO BOULEVARD BLOCK T, PLAN M15 (PARTS 2 AND 3, 40R-21463) PAGE 1-50 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPOrt PD 28-03 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION a 11/02 THE GIMI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED 550 FINCH AVENUE PARTS 1 AND 3 OF PLAN 40r-10641 AND PART 2 OF PLAN 40r-11450 PART OF LOT 30, CONCESSION 2 61-85 Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda Monday, July 28, 2003 Chair: Councillor McLean PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 30-03 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 05/03 GLEN HARPER 1905 VALLEY FARM ROAD (NORTH PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 1) 86-102 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 29-03 DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW 103-116 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 19-03 TENDER T-2-2003 TENDER FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF ROUGEMOUNT DRIVE 117-136 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 07-03 FEDERAL GREEN SPACE LANDS STATUS UPDATE 137-143 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 06-03 PICKERING NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY EXPANSION CITY OF PICKERING'S COMMENTS ON DRAFT EA STUDY REPORT 144-185 o CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 08-03 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT TERMS OF REFERENCE HIGHWAY 407 EAST COMPLETION CITY OF PICKERING COMMENTS 186-197 Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda Monday, July 28, 2003 Chair: Councillor McLean CLERK'S REPORT CL 17-03 PUBLIC NOTIFICATION POLICY 198-219 10. CLERK'S REPORT CL 21-03 BY-LAW TO REQUIRE PROPERTY OWNERS AND OCCUPANTS TO CUT LONG GRASS AND CLEAN AND CLEAR PROPERTY 220-225 11. CLERK'S REPORT CL 20-03 COMPOSITION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING PUBLIC LIBRARY BOARD 226-232 12. CLERK'S REPORT CL 22-03 APPOINTMENT TO ENFORCE THE PARKING BY-LAW AT 591 LIVERPOOL ROAD 233-238 13. CLERK'S REPORT CL 24-03 APPOINTMENT TO ENFORCE THE PARKING BY-LAW AT 1822 WHITES ROAD AND 1100 BEGLEY STREET 239-243 14. CLERK'S REPORT CL 23-03 APPOINTMENT TO ENFORCE THE PARKING BY-LAW AT 650 AND 705 KINGSTON ROAD 244-248 15. PROCLAMATIONS "UNITED WAY WEEK" - SEPTEMBER 7 - 13, 2003 249-250 PICKERING Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda Monday, July 28, 2003 Chair: Councillor McLean (!V) CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. To consider a Partnership Opportunity. (V) OTHER BUSINESS (VI) ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE, , MOVED BY SECONDED BY, , Should .Council continue to support the position as implemented by Zoning By-law 6006/02 and consider the additional use requested by the applicant inappropriate, then Council should pass the following resolution: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 7/03, submitted by Jassie Khurana of Khurana Associates on behalf of 1381190 Ontario Limited (Ramesh Patel), on lands being Block T, Plan M15, Parts 2 and 3, 40R21463, City of Picketing, to amend the zoning by-law to permit the establishment of a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar on the subject lands, be REFUSED. OR Should Council determine that the additional use requested by the application is appropriate, then Council should pass the following resolution: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 7/03, submitted by Jassie Khurana of Khurana Associates on behalf of 1381190 Ontario Limited (Ramesh Patel), on lands being Block T, Plan M15, Parts 2 and 3, 40R21463, City of Pickering, to amend the zoning by-law to permit the establishment of a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar on the subject lands, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions included in Appendix I attached to Report No. PD 31-03. 02 PICKERING REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: PD 31-03 Date: July 4, 2003 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 7/03 1381190 Ontario Limited 701 Krosno Boulevard Block T, Plan M15 (Parts 2 and 3, 40R21463) City of Pickering Recommendation: Should Council continue to support the position as implemented by Zoning By-law 6006/02 and consider the additional use requested by the applicant inappropriate, then Council should pass the following resolution: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 7/03, submitted by Jassie Khurana of Khurana Associates on behalf of 1381190 Ontario Limited (Ramesh Patel), on lands being Block T, Plan M15, Parts 2 and 3, 40R21463, City of Pickering, to amend the zoning by-law to permit the establishment of a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar on the subject lands, be REFUSED. OR Should Council determine that the additional use requested by the application is appropriate, then Council should pass the following resolution: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 7/03, submitted by Jassie Khurana of Khurana Associates on behalf of 1381190 Ontario Limited (Ramesh Patel), on lands being Block T, Plan M15, Parts 2 and 3, 40R21463, City of Pickering, to amend the zoning by-law to permit the establishment of a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar on the subject lands, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions included in Appendix I attached to Report No. PD 31-03. Executive Summary: The subject property is located on the south-east corner of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road (see Attachment #1 - Location Map). The property currently supports a gas bar operation, which includes the limited sale of accessory convenience store items (see Attachment #2 - Applicant's Submitted Plan). PD Report 31-03 Subject: 1381190 Ontario Limited Date: July 4, 2003 Page 2 03 In October of 2001, the property owner submitted an application (File: A22/01) to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar, a dry cleaning depot, and technical amendments to clarify existing yard requirements. In May of 2002, the Planning & Development Department recommended to Council that the applicant's request to amend the existing zoning on the subject property to include a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar be approved as it was considered appropriate development for the subject property and compatible with surrounding uses. Council did not adopt the staff recommendation and instead approved the application to permit the continuance of the existing gas bar, with limited sale of accessory convenience items. The sale of accessory convenience items was limited to coffee, chips, donuts, muffins, cakes, cigarettes and beverages, in single servings for immediate consumption by the traveling public, and specifically excluded a retail store, and a neiqhbourhood convenience store. The technical amendments to the by-law were also approved, however, the dry cleaning depot use was refused. In July of 2002, Council rezoned the subject property to implement this limited additional use, by passing Zoning By-law 6006/02. The owner of the subject property was therefore unsuccessful in securing a convenience store as a permitted use on the property. The owner has hired a planning consultant and has once again applied to amend the zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar. The proposed use is intended to serve the day-to-day needs of the neighbourhood, and is considered compatible with other commercial development in the area. Staff continues to support its initial recommendation that the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to this report. The conditions include a limitation on the amount of floor space devoted to the convenience store use, the establishment of specific vehicle parking standards and the requirement to enter into a site plan agreement with the City. Financial Implications: proposed development. No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the Background: The table below indicates that the applicant has attempted through different Planning Act processes, such as the Committee of Adjustment and zoning by-law amendments through Council, to permit the establishment of a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar. The Planning & Development Department appreciates that these applications have become an arduous process for the public, having to continually write letters and attend public meetings. However, the City is obligated under the Planning Act to process every complete planning application that is submitted in accordance with the requirements of Provincial legislation. 04 PD Report 31-03 Subject: 1381190 Ontario Limited Date: July 4, 2003 Page 3 The following table provides a brief history on the planning applications submitted for the subject property. DATE COMMITTEE OF REQUEST DECISION ADJUSTMENT / COUNCIL September 2000 Committee of Convenience Store Partial Approval, Adjustment - Minor limited sale of Variance accessory (P/CA 44/00) convenience items May2002 Council- Re-zoning Convenience Store, Council approved (A 22/01) permission to sell the sale of limited full convenience accessory store items convenience items December 2002 Committee of Redefinition of Refused - Appealed Adjustment- Minor "limited accessory to Ontario Municipal Variance convenience items" Board (OMB) by (P/CA 67/02) applicant in January 2003. Held in abeyance by OMB, pending outcome of current re-zoning application (A 7/03). February 2003 Council - Re-zoning Convenience Store To be considered by (A 7/03) Committee of the Whole/Council on _ July 28, 2003 A detailed planning application history of the subject property is provided on page 2 of Information Report No. 16-03 (see Attachment #3). 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information meeting was held on June 19, 2003, to present the applicant's proposal. Information Report No. 16-03, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues identified through circulation of the application, was prepared for the meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference as Attachment #3. At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff provided an explanation of the application. Mr. Jassie Khurana of Khurana Associates (planning consultant) was present to answer questions on behalf of the applicant. Several members of the public were in attendance, both in support and in opposition to the proposal. Minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment ~4. PD Report 31-03 Subject: 1381190 Ontario Limited Date: July4,2003 Page 4 05 2.0 Additional Information Since the preparation of Information Report No. 16-03, several resident comments have been received: Resident Comments in Objection - The City has received 4 letters and 42 form letters signed by area residents in objection to the proposed zoning by-law amendment. The main concerns expressed by the residents included: · competition - no need for another convenience store in the area; · aesthetics of the subject property; · potential increase in traffic at the three-way intersection of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road; · safety concerns respecting the proposed installation of a propane tank; and · abuse of the municipal approvals / planning process. The objection letters and a sample objection form letter are included as Attachments #5 to #9 of this report (all letters available for viewing at the Planning & Development Department). Residents in Support - The City has received a petition signed by approximately 378 area residents in support of the proposed zoning by-law amendment. A sample page of the petition is included as Attachment #10 (complete petition available for viewing at the Planning & Development Department). Commenting City Departments - The City of Pickering Fire Service has no objection. However, it wishes to reserve the opportunity to be informed and make comments at the time of site plan review. Commenting Agencies - No agency comments have been received to-date. 3.0 Discussion A similar zoning by-law amendment application (File: A22/01) was processed for the subject property, approximately one year ago. At that time the lands included the 'Big M' restaurant, which has since been severed from the site. The differences between the current application and the application from one year ago are identified in the table below. 06 PD Report 31-03 Subject: 1381190 Ontario Limited Date: July 4, 2003 Page 5 APPLICATION Zoning By-law Zoning By-law DETAIL Amendment A22/01 Amendment A7/03 Property Description 701 - 711 Krosno Blvd. 701 Krosno Blvd. Block T, Plan M15 Block T, Plan M15 Parts 2 and 3, 40R21463 Lot Area approximately 0.35 approximately 0.2 hectares hectares in size in size Existing uses supported a gas bar supports a gas bar operation and a restaurant operation (land division application LD117/02 severed gas bar from restaurant) Requested uses convenience store in convenience store in association with the existing association with the existing gas bar, dry cleaning depot; gas bar and technical amendments to clarify existing yard requirements Site Layout see Location Map and see Attachments #1 and 2 Applicant's Submitted Plan of this report within Attachment #11 of this report The results of the circulation and the Statutory Public Information Meeting held on June 19th, 2003, indicated that issues and comments previously reviewed by staff for application A22/01 remain unchanged and are still applicable to the current zoning by-law amendment application A7/03. The Planning & Development Department continues to support its initial recommendation that the application be approved, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to this report. For a complete and thorough discussion of the issues regarding this zoning by-law amendment application, reference should be made to Recommendation Report: PD22-02 (see Attachment #11 ) that dealt with rezoning application A22/01. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant is aware of the contents of this report. PD Report 31-03 Subject: 1381190 Ontario Limited Date: July 4, 2003 Page 6 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Location Map Applicant's Submitted Plan Text of Information Report Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Objection Letter- Bo Heum Park Professional Corporation Objection Letter- Bay Ridges Market Objection Letter- Liverpool South Plaza Inc. Objection Letter-Walter M. Norwood Sample Objection Form Letter Sample Page of Petition in Support of Application Recommendation Report: PD22-02 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Prepared By: N~il C~~, RPP Director,'~nning & Development Lynda Taylor,~~P Manager, Development Review PK:Id Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ThoCn--a~ '~.-Quinni/Chief ~lminist~. 08 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 31-03 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 7~03 1.0 That, the implementing Zoning By-law: 2.0 (a) permit automobile service stations - Type G, restaurant - Type A, personal service shop, and a convenience store (only in association with a gas bar); and (b) include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: (i) minimum building setbacks; (ii)establish a parking standard of 8 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable area for any restaurant use and retain 5.5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable area for all other uses; (iii) restrict gross floor area to 120 square metres for convenience store (in association with gas bar), and personal service shops. That, prior to the forwarding of the implementing zoning by-law to Council, the applicant/owner shall: (a) obtain site plan approval for the appropriate site improvements from the City's Director of Planning & Development; and (b) enter into the appropriate agreement(s) with the City of Pickering to secure works required through the site plan approval process. -% AVE. ATTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT # PD ..~ ~~\ I II BAYLY STREET POPRAD AVENUE STREET HALLER AVENUE OLD ORCHARD AVE. -- PATMORE LA~E TATRA DRIVE GRENOBLE 1~ FUSCHIA LAI4E BO U LEVAR D FORDON PLACE LUNA CRT. BOULEVARD ILONA PARK FOXGLOVE AVENUE 'E 09 City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION BLOCK T, PLAN M15, PARTS 2 & 3, 40R-21463 APPLICANT 1381190 ONTARIO LTD. I DATE MAY 21, 2003 APPLICATION No. A 07/03 I SCALE 1:5000 FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-3 PA- DRAWN BY JB /% CHECKED BY PK 10 ATTACHMENT#_ REPORT # PD_ 3 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN 1381190 ONTARIO LTD. A O7/O3 KROSNO BOULEVARD ,.~ CITY """"OWNED PROPERTY '%, GAS STATION SUBJECT PROPERTY THIS MAP was PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, MAY 20, 2003. ATTACHMENT # 3 'tO REPORT# PO _~1-05 11 PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 16-03 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF June 19, 2003 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 7/03 1381190 Ontario Limited 701 Krosno Boulevard Block T, Plan M15 (Parts 2 and 3, 40R21463) City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject property is located on the south-east corner of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road and is approximately 0.2 hectares; a property location map is provided for information (see Attachment #1); the subject property currently supports a gas bar operation, which includes the limited sale of accessory convenience store items; the surrounding land uses are primarily residential to the north and south, and commercial to the east and west; a reduced site plan, compiled from the applicant's submitted plan, showing the existing site, is provided for information (see Attachment #2). APPLICANTS PROPOSAL the applicant proposes to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a convenience store associated with the existing gas bar; no site or building alterations are proposed at this time to accommodate the proposed new uses. 12 Information Report No. 16-03 ATTACHMENT#_ REPORT # PD Page 2 3.0 BACKGROUND September 2000 - a Committee of Adjustment decision (File: P/CA 44/00) approved a maximum gross floor area of 64 square metres within the existing gas bar building dedicated to the limited sale of accessory convenience items; the sale of accessory convenience items was limited by the Committee of Adjustment to coffee, chips, donuts, muffins, cakes, cigarettes and beverages, in single servings for immediate consumption by the travelling public, and specifically excluded a retail store, and a neighbourhood convenience store; October 2001 - the property owner submitted an application to amend the existing zoning (File: A22/01) on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar and a dry cleaning depot; technical amendments to the by-law were also requested to clarify existing yard requirements; May 2002 - the Planning & Development Department recommended to Council that the applicant's request to amend the existing zoning on the subject property to include a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar be approved as it was considered appropriate development for the subject property and compatible with surrounding uses; Council did not adopt the staff recommendation and instead approved the application to permit the continuance of the existing gas bar, with limited sale of accessory convenience items as permitted by Committee of Adjustment application P/CA 44/00; the technical amendments to the by-law were also approved; July 2002 - Council rezoned the subject property by passing Zoning By-law 6006/02; October 2002- a Committee of Adjustment application was submitted in October of 2002, to redefine the accessory convenience items to include the sale of items such as lottery tickets, candy, gum, chocolate bars, sliced bread, bagged milk and other dairy products, in conjunction with the gas bar operation; December 2002 - a Committee of Adjustment decision (File: P/CA 67/02) refused the proposed redefinition of "accessory convenience items" in conjunction with the gas bar operation because the proposal did not meet the general intent and purpose of the Zoning By-law; January 2003 - the owner of the subject property appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB Case No. PL030021 and OMB File No. V030010); the appeal is being held in abeyance pending the outcome of this zoning by, law amendment application (File: A 7/03), which was submitted on February 28, 2003. Information Report No. 16-03 ATTACHMENT f__ 3 TO REPORT # PD., .3 ~ - O~ Page 3 13 4.0 4.1 4,2 4.3 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Reqional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being within a "Living Area" designation, where lands are to be used predominantly for housing purposes; in addition, convenience stores that are compatible with their surroundings with limited retailing of goods and services, in appropriate locations may be permitted; the applicant's proposal appears to comply with this designation. Pickerinq Official Plan - the subject property is designated "Mixed Use Area - Local Node" within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood - Detailed Review Area; mixed use areas are areas and corridors of development having the highest concentration of activity in the City and the broadest diversity of community services and facilities; this designation permits residential, retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods, offices and restaurants, community, cultural and recreational uses; in the "Mixed Use Area - Local Node" designation, the Pickering Official Plan establishes a maximum gross leasable floorspace for the retailing of goods and services of up to and including 10,000 square metres and a maximum floorspace index (total building floorspace divided by total lot area) of up to and including 2.0 FSI; - Schedule II to the Pickering Official Plan designates Krosno Boulevard and the portion of Liverpool Road south of Bayly Street as collector roads; - collector roads generally provide access to individual properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type C Arterial Roads; carry greater volumes of traffic than local roads, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit; and generally have a right-of-way width ranging from 20 to 22 metres; the applicant's proposal appears to comply with this designation. Liverpool Road Waterfront Node Development Guidelines - the Liverpool Road and Krosno Boulevard intersection is subject to the Council adopted "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node" Development Guidelines; - the guiding vision for the entire Node is that of a "Great Lakes Nautical Village" with a mix of uses and an ambiance that is inviting; - the Liverpool Road and Krosno Boulevard intersection is intended to create a "gateway" to attract travelers down Liverpool Road by maintaining visual continuity and interest between Bayly Street and the 'Nautical Village'; - the "gateway" is to consist of many design elements that will be implemented on the public right-of-way. Information Report No. 16-03 ATTACHMENT ~_ ~ TO REPORT # PD ~ i - 02 Page 4 4.4 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 Zoning By-law 2520 the subject property is currently zoned "CA(G)"- Commercial Automotive Type G Zone by By-law 2520, as amended by By-law 6006/02; this zoning permits the establishment of automobile service stations - type G (with limited sale of accessory convenience items), personal service shops and restaurants - type A; an amendment to the by-law would be required to implement the applicant's proposal. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments - no resident comments have been received to date. Aqencv Comments - no agency comments have been received to date. Staff Comments 6.0 in reviewing the application to-date, staff has identified that it has reviewed a similar zoning by-law amendment application (File: A22/01) for the subject property; the issues previously reviewed by staff included: · impact on the streetscape of the Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road intersection; · the scale and appropriateness of the proposed use in relation to abutting commercial properties and surrounding residential properties; potential floor area restrictions on the proposed use; · traffic generation, on-site parking availability, site function; and · landscaping. staff will review previous comments to determine if they are still applicable to this zoning by-law amendment application A 7/03. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION - written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; - oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; - all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; Information Report No. 16-03 ATTACHMENT~ --~ 1'0 REPORT il' PD_ Page 5 15 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. OTHER INFORMATION Appendix No. I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report. Information Received full scale copies of the applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department. Property Principal - Jassie Khurana of Khurana Associates is the agent working on behalf of 1381190 Ontario Limited (Ramesh Patel). ORIGINAL SIGNED Perry Korouyenis Piannb~ i PK:Id Attachments ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review Copy: Director, Planning & Development 16 ATTACHMENT #.,, ~ TO REPORT # PD_ ~'~ ' 02 APPENDIX NO. I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 16-03 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) none received to date; COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) none received to date; COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) Planning & Development Department; ATTACHMENT # /-[ TO REPORT # PD .':~i-~ Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting r,l l I N! Thursday, June7:0019, 2003p. M. 17 The Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (11) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 07/03 138t 190 ONTARIO LIMITED 701 KROSNO BOULEVARD BLOCK T, PLAN M15 (PARTS 2 AND 3~ 40R21463) Perry Korouyenis, Planner I, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #16-03. Jassie Khurana, representing the applicant, advised that he was present to answer any questions. Angela Smiglicki, 1210 Radom St., Unit 104, stated her support of the opposition of this application advising that Bay Ridges is an established neighboUrhood that will not see much growth. Maureen Charlton, 740 Krosno Blvd., stated that survival is the issue and not development. She suggested, as she has in the past, that an establishment to compliment the area be considered. She pointed out that Mr. Patel clearly disregards the decision of the Committee of Adjustment as he continues to sell large items. Mr. Lim, owner of the Bay Ridges Market, stated his opposition to the application and questioned why they were here again addressing the same issue. He advised that nothing in the neighbourhood has changed but the closing of a dollar store. He stated his right to protect his business for his family, staff and community and further stated his opposition to changing the by-law. A resident of 1295 Wharf St., questioned why stations above Hwy. 401 are allowed to sell large items and Mr. Patel is not. He suggested that there is growth in the area, at the bottom of Liverpool Road and that there should not be a problem with competition. Scotty Ramage, 760 Krosno Blvd., stated that Bay Ridges Market has been a great neighbour and that only one convenience store is needed in the area. 18 ATTACHMENT l_ /'-/TO ~~EPOR't' ~' PD .~i '0~, Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, June 19, 2003 7:00 P.M. o 10. 11. 12. Angela Smiglicki, emphasized the good work of the Bay Ridges Market in the community and advised that the objection is to large retail. Sylvain Trepanier, 1218 Monica Cook Place, stated that this is not just planning but also common sense. Bay Ridges is not growing and this application would cause a split of revenue and profits. He advised that those sitting on the Committee of Adjustment, are also community citizens appointed by Council. This application has twice been denied and he questioned why it is here again. He further stated that what is happening above Hwy. 401 is not a fair comparison. Jassie Khurana, representing the applicant, advised that the applicant has retained the services of a lawyer and planner and further that the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board will be dropped if this application stops at City Council. He stated that this is also a family business and that Mr. Patel is also committed to the community. Klara Bergant, 704 Krosno Blvd., advised that she has been in attendance at all the meetings and that her concerns are with respect to traffic. She stated her opposition to this application and questioned why another type of business such as a dry cleaners could not be considered. Maureen Charlton, 740 Krosno Blvd., questioned why Mr. Patel continues to sell items not included on the list of allowable goodsl -2- ATTACHMENT #_ ~ TO REPORI' # PD__ ~i BO HEUM PARK PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION BARRISTER AND SOLICITOR 19 RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2O03 CITy OF' PJCKERING PLANNING AND DEYEELO FT~;~J?D E PARTMENT 315 SH~PPARD AVENUE EAST TORONTO, ONTARIO M2N 3B3 Hand Delivered TEL: (416) 226-3582 FAX: (416) 22673736 June 16, 2003 City of Pickering Planning & Development Department One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Sir or Madam: Re: Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 7/03 - 1381190 Ontario Limited 701 Krosno Blvd. Block T, Plan M-15 Parts 2 and 3, Plan 40R-21463 City of Pickering Please be advised that I am the solicitor for David Lim, the owner of Bay Ridges Market located at 713 Krosno Blvd., Picketing, Ontario. My client has been operating the convenience store from the aforesaid premises since 1983. I understand from Information Report No. 16-03 that the owner of the property municipally known as 701 Krosno Blvd. has made the above noted application to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a convenience store associated with the existing gas bar. I submit on behalf of my client that the existing zoning by-law is consistent with the official plans and has been serving the community well in the past and that the above noted application should be rejected. As you are aware, the applicant has been constantly asking various levels of the government to look at the same issue over and over again. In the most recent application the applicant was seeking relief fi'om the by-law to redefine the accessory convenience items to include the sale of items such as lottery tickets, candy, gum, chocolate bars, sliced bread, bagged milk and other dairy products, in conjunction with the gas bar operation. The said application was rejected and the applicant has appealed the decision of the Committee of Adjustment to the Ontario Municipal Board. I 2O ATTACHMENT # ~ ,,TO REPORT if PD ..~ - 03 understand that the appeal is held in abeyance pending the outcome of the above noted application. The applicant also made two (2) previous applications with respect to the zoning of the property in the past. From the 1st application, the applicant was successful in obtaining the approval on sale of accessory convenience items in conjunction with a gas bar operation. However, in both applications, the Committee of Adjustment clearly stated that the establishment of a convenience store and a dry cleaning depot associated with the existing gas bar is not permitted on the subject property. The existing by-law has been gradually changing to accommodate the development of the commerce in the area and the growth of the community. The Committee of Adjustment's decisions in the previous three (3) applications reflect the changing nature of the community and the resulting by-law has been supported by the community and the municipal government to date. The mix of the existing businesses has been serving well the people in the community, as evidenced in the letters from the individuals in the area. With already high competition in the area, the establishment of another convenience store would be contrary to the balanced development of the commercial activity. It would be of common sense not to encourage more convenience stores in the area, but to attract more diverse businesses into the area, which has potential to become centre of the commercial activity in the neighbourhood. Furthermore, I submit that this application appears to be an abuse of the process. This application is in essence raising the same issue as in the previous three (3) applications brought by the applicant. The applicant has brought the same matter before the various levels of the govemment over a number of years and this new application in my opinion amounts to an abuse of the administrative process. The applicant's attempt has been very disruptive to the harmonious growth of the community and especially detrimental to my client's business, as my client has been distracted from focusing on his business, in order to meet the applicant's challenge. Therefore, it is submitted that the above noted application should be rejected and the existing by-law continues to direct the development of the business activity in the area and grows over time in conjunction with the development of the area. Please contact me if you have any questions. /'/ / ATTACHMENT #~1'O REPORT it' PD BAY RID GES MARKET 713 KR OSNO BL VD. PICKERING, ONT. L1W 1 G4 TEL./FAX: 905-831-1270 21 RECEIVED JUN 1 9 2003 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION: A 7/03 1381190 ONTARIO LTD. 701 KROSNO BLVD. BLOCK T, PLAN M15 ( PARTS 2 AND 3, 40R21463) JUNE 19, 2003 Good Evening: I am Maureen Charlton, currently at 867 Hillcrest Rd. but will be moving back to 740 Krosno Blvd. in July. As most of you know, I have been the manager of'Bay Ridges Market' for almost 22 years. My family has lived on Krosno Blvd. since 1972. From living and working here most of my life, I feel that I can offer an opinion that is shared by a lot of people who live in the Bay R/dges area. We are a unique community. Throughout all of the development in north Pickering, we have remained a small close knit community. We have a great cross section of residents, from those who have been here for 40 years, to young families just starting out, to families such as mine, who have come back home again. The continued changes at the foot of Liverpool Rd. will certainly revitalize the area when completed. But as Pickering has grown, the potential for business growth has moved above Bayly St. and the 401. Growth below the 401 reached it's saturation point many years ago. Several times throughout the years, there have been two convenience stores operating at the same time, but eventually we are always back to one. Gone are Macs Milk, Ray's Convenience, and Beckers. Seven years ago, the Royal Bank in our plaza closed because the growth potential wasn't there anymore. We have now had two dollar stores in the plaza close down, due to lack of business, and it has proven difficult for the landlord to rent the existing empty units in our plaza. To me it is clear that the area cannot sustain two similar businesses so close together. The issue isn't even so much competition, but survival for both businesses. What the area needs is something different. Mr. Patel has a great location, I would like the city to encourage him to consider something we don't have, perhaps expand to a full sit down donut shop and deli, or a pizza parlour. Or since the Liverpool Rd. development guideline considers the Liverpool/Krosno intersection a gateway, perhaps a store or service complimenting the Liverpool Rd. changes. So, now back to why we are here again. As you know there have been 3 attempts already by Mr. Patel to bring in a convenience store. The result was a bylaw last year to uphold the original Committee of Adjustment decision of September 2000. It is clear that after 3 times around the same circle that the city doesn't want to allow another convenience store. Of course Mr. Patel has generated support for his application, just as we have support in objection to it, as with any 22 ATTACHMENT# ~ ,TO REPORT ,~ PD _~ issue there will be those for, and those against. I would like to submit a collection of letters I have received from concerned residents reflecting their opposition. I would also like to point out that as a result of all of the decisions rendered throughout the past 3 years, there is a limited list of items Mr. Patel can offer for sale, btit he has continued to sell large bottles of pop, large bags of chips and lottery tickets, items that he shouldn't have been able to sell since the original Committee of Adjustment decision. Clearly he has completely disregarded these decisions. And due to the continued applications, the city's hands seem to be tied as far as enforcing these decisions. I also believe these applications are an abuse of the municipal process. Of course each one has been slightly different in wording, but the general intent has been the same, and 3 times we've ended up back at the same place. I am also aware that there is an appeal pending with the OMB regarding last year's committee of adjustment decision, which is fine, but then why this application'too? I understand that he would like to operate similar to Esso and Petro but he should have considered the zoning situation befOre he Purchased the property. I would like to ask you all to review carefully all of the background information, and to keep in mind the uniqueness of the Bay Ridges area. Generally progress is a natural thing, but sometimes things are just fine the way they are. I thank you all for considering our position, and hope that you reject this application and uphold the current bylaw. Thank You Maureen Charlton ATTACHMENT# 7 ,TO REPORT ~ PD Liverpool South Plaza Inc. 35 Frontenac Avenue Toronto, Ontario MSN IZ6 May 30, 2003 Attention: City of Pickering Planning and Development Dept. One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Re: Public Hearing June 19, 2003 At 7 pm Jessie Khurana On behalf of 1381190 Ont. Ltd, 701 Krosno Blvd, Zoning Change Application 23 RECEIVED JUN I 9 2003 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Attention: Mr. Bruce Taylor A,M.C,T. Dear Mr. Taylor, We are the owners of the property that is adjacent to the property, which is the subject matter of the application herein for an amendment to the zoning by-law, Our strip plaza was purchased approximately two years ago. We still have difficulty renting out our empty units. We pay a substantial amount of property taxes to the city, and would like to keep and establish a first class rental environment, There is 3500 square feet currently available {'or rent and at the end of June 2003; we will have an additional 3300 square f**,t empty because of other similar Dollar stores in the area competing with them, We are opposing the proposed application for an amendment to the zorfing by-law, in our plaza just a few feet away from 70l Krosno Btvd. We already have a convenience store ia our plaza. We know from experience that two convenience stores almost side-by-side will not survive. We thank you for your consideration of this matter, Yours very Truly, Liverpool South Plaza Inc, 24 The City of Pickering The Esplanade, Picketing, On. ATIACHMENI # ~ .TO REPORI # PD ~-0':% Walter M. Norwood 1268 Haller Avenue., Pickering, On. L1W 1H8 RECEIVED JUN 1 9 2003 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Application for rezoning # A7/03 Our family have been residents of Bay Ridges for over 30 years. In this time, we have seen many entrepreneurs come and go. In our opinion, this application for rezoning is redundant. We already have a convenience store and a Dollar discount store within 100 metres of the applicant, the area is very well served. There is adequate parking there. The Bay Ridges Market employs a number of local students, giving them valuable business experience. We don't need, and can't support, 3 stores in this small area trying to serve the same market. Bay Ridges is full, aside from some townhouses under construction at the base of Liverpool Road, there is no room for anything else. This is a mature marketplace, there is no more Market share out there. Any new share will be at the expense of other established enterprises. Traffic is already bad enough, just try to get on Liverpool Road in rush hour. We do not support the current application for the above reasons. Thank You and regards. W. M. Norwood JUNE,2003 ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD ~1-C)-~5 .~_ 25 RECEIVED JUN 1 9 2003 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT To Whom It May Concern; Re: the Re- Zoning Application for 701 Krosno Blvd. This purpose of this letter is to voice my objection to this application. This matter has been dealt with 3 times, and been turned down. There is no need for another convenience store in this area. I would support a business that is different than the existing ones in such a small area. Thank You, NAME: ADDRESS: 26 ATTACHMENT #~ /tO TO REPOR'I# PD., 251 -OB PUBLIC MEETING JIJNE 19TM 2003 I/WE Support the rezoning of 701 Krosno Blvd, Pickering, to permit the owner to operate convenience store at this location. DATE NAME ADDERSS TELEPHONE SIGNATURE PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL ATTACHMENT # I I TO REPORT # PD ~; ~ - 0 ~ 27 FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: April 24, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD 22-02 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 1381190 Ontario Limited Block T, Plan M15 701 - 711 Krosno Boulevard City of Pickering RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01, submitted by Ramesh Patel, on lands being Block T, Plan M15, City of Pickering, to amend the existing zoning to include a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar, a dry cleaning depot, and technical amendments to clarify existing yard requirements on the subject lands, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions included in Appendix I attached to Report No. PD 22-02. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 submitted to the City of Pickering. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S,O. 1990, chapter P.13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The subject property is located on the south-east comer of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road (see Attachment #1 - Location Map). The property currently supports a gas bar operation, which includes the limited sale of accessory convenience store items, and a restaurant (see Attachment #2 - Applicant's Submitted Plan). A Committee of Adjustment decision in September of 2000 approved a maximum gross floor area of 64 square metres within the existing gas bar building dedicated to the limited sale of accessory convenience items. The Committee's decision limited the sale of accessory convenience items to coffee, chips, donuts, muffins, cakes, cigarettes and beverages, in single servings for immediate consumption by the traveling public, and specifically excluded a retail store, and a neighbourhood convenience store. The applicant proposes to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a convenience store in association with the existing gas bar and a dry cleaning depot. Technical amendments to the by-law are also requested to clarify existing yard requirements. The proposed uses are intended to serve the day-to-day needs of the neighbourhood, and are considered compatible with other commercial development in the area. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to the conditions outlined in Appendii I to this report, to address a limitation on the mount of floor space devoted to the requested uses and the establishment of specific vehicle parking standards. 28 Report to Council PD 22-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 Date: April 24, 2002 ATTACHMENT #,,, ~ .... TO BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information meeting was held on February 21, 2002, to discuss the applicant's proposal. Information Report No. 09-02, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues identified through circulation of the application, was prepared for the meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference as Attachment #4. At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff gave an explanation of the application. Mr. Nick Givalas of Givalas Real Estate Ltd. was present to answer questions on behalf of the applicant. Several members of the public were in attendance, both in support and in opposition to the proposal. Minutes of the meeting are included as Attachment #5. 2.0 Additional Information Since the preparation of Information Report No. 09-02, several resident and agency comments have been received: Resident Comments in Objection - The City of Pickering Planning & Development Department has received six letters and a petition signed by 38 area residents in objection to the proposed zoning by-law amendment. The main concerns expressed by the residents included: · competition - no need for another convenience store in the area; · aesthetics of the subject property; · potential increase in traffic at the three-way intersection of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road; and · safety concerns respecting the proposed installation of a propane tank. The objection letters and petition are included as Attachments #6 to #11 of this report. No department or agency that provided comments has any objection to the application. 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Appropriateness of the Application 3.1. ! Convenience Store and Dry Cleaning Depot Use The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property "Mixed Use Area - Local Node" which permits the retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the surrounding neighbourhoods. Although some of the surrounding residents have indicated that there is no need for another convenience store to compete in the area, it is a use permitted to be considered for this property under the Mixed Use designation of the City's Official Plan. Planning review and zoning is intended to address compatibility of land uses, not competition between business operations. During the past few years, gas station facilities have shifted their range of services to include the sale of convenience items, and items associated with the sale of petroleum products and fuel. The proposed land uses, convenience store (associated with a gas bar) and a dry cleaning depot are compatible with other commercial development on the site and within the area. The uses are intended to serve the day-to-day needs of the neighbourhood residents. It is recommended that the convenience store be permitted only in association with a gas bar, not as a freestanding store. It is further recommended that any resultant by-law establish a maximum floor area for the uses, restricting development of the site to the floor area that generally exists today, while allowing for a potential minor expansion to the restaurant. Report to Council PD 22-02 Date: April 24, 2002 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 A~I~IENT #,,, ~t TO REPOR'i' # PD, ~ Current zoning on the subject lands permits motels, hotels, places of amusement, open air farmers market, and parking stations in addition to automobile service stations, restaurant - type A, and service stores. It is recommended that certain uses be deleted from the list of permitted uses and that others be updated to reflect current definitions, as outlined in the chart below. 29 The following chart identifies the uses currently permitted in a "C3" - Highway Commercial Zone, the uses requested by the applicant, and the uses recommended by staff: C3 Zone Permitted Uses Applicant's Requested Staff Recommended Uses Uses Automobile Service Stations Retain Retain - Update definition to Automobile Service Station - Type G Motels No No Hotels No No Places of Amusement No No Open Air Farmers Market No No Restaurant - Type A Retain Retain Service Stores No Retain - Update definition to Personal Service Shop (ex. barber shop, tailor, etc.) .Parking Stations No No ................................... Add Convenience Store Yes (only in association with ................................... a gas bar) ................................... Add Dry Cleaning Depot Yes 3.2 Site Planning The subject application constitutes minor development, as outlined in the Picketing Official Plan. Therefore, the requirements of the Detailed Review Area designation applying to the property and surrounding area are not required to be fulfilled at this time. Should any major building alterations or land use changes be proposed at a future date, the requirements of the Detailed Review Area for the development of design guidelines, may be required to be satisfied. The applicant has indicated that no major site or building alterations are proposed at this time to accommodate the proposed new uses and that this zoning by-law amendment is an interim step toward future re-development. The Liverpool Road and Krosno Street intersection is subject to the Council adopted "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node" Development Guidelines. The guiding vision for the entire Node is that of a "Great Lakes Nautical Village" with a mix of uses and an ambiance that is inviting. The Liverpool Road and Krosno Street intersection is intended to create a "gateway" to attract travelers down Liverpool Road by maintaining visual continuity and interest between Bayly Street and the 'Nautical Village', which will consist of many design elements. Design elements may be implemented by the City on the City-owned sight triangle located at the south-east comer of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road, adjacent to the subject site. Due to the limited nature of this application, no design elements are recommended on the City land. Although the application does not propose to alter the existing buildings on the lands, some site improvements are recommended. There is a need to enhance the general appearance of this site, including such elements as site paving, parking, curbing, landscaping enhancements, garbage storage, and site clean up. The applicant has submitted a site plan indicating the proposed parking layout and function (see Attachment#3). It is recommended that the site plan issues highlighted above be addressed to the City's satisfaction through a site plan agreement with the owner, prior to the implementing by-law being forwarded to Council for consideration. 30 Report to Council PD 22-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 Date: April 24, 2002 A~NT #_ REPORT # PD [ ~ TO The current parking standard for the subject lands is 5.5 spaces per 93 square metres of gross leasable floor area. Based on the total existing gas bar operation and restaurant floor area, a total of 12 parking spaces are currently required on-site. The site presently functions as two independent parcels, with the restaurant on the most easterly portion. It is recommended that the implementing zoning by-law establish a parking ratio of 8 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area be established for a freestanding restaurant. The site has adequate area to meet this higher parking ratio. 3.3 Traffic Schedule II to the Pickering Official Plan designates Krosno Boulevard and the portion of Liverpool Road south of Bayly Street as collector roads. Collector roads generally provide access to individual properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type C arterial roads. They carry greater volumes of traffic than local roads, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit. Residents have expressed concern about the potential increase in traffic at the three-way intersection of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road as a result of the proposed zoning amendment. Municipal Property & Engineering staff advised that they have no concern with the applicant's proposal and do not consider the additional uses to be significant traffic generators. 3.4 Propane Tank A site plan application for the installation of a horizontal propane tank was processed and approved prior to the submission of this rezoning application. The City's Fire Prevention Officer reviewed safety concerns respecting the installation of the tank and had no objection provided the installation met all applicable Ontario Building and Fire Code requirements. The installation of the propane dispensing tank will be in accordance with the Ontario Propane Storage, Handling and Utilization Code, as prescribed under the Energy Act. Aesthetic concerns regarding the propane tank may be further investigated and addressed through the site plan approval process recommended as a condition of zoning approval. 3.5 Implementing Zoning By-law and Yard Requirements The preliminary site plan indicates that the additional uses can be appropriately introduced provided the applicant obtains site plan approval prior to the preparation of an implementing by-law. The implementing by-law will establish permitted uses, minimum yard setbacks and other zoning requirements to clarify technical matters of by-law interpretation (see Appendix I). 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has reviewed the contents of this Report, and concurs with the content. Report to Council PD 22-02 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 Date: April 24, 2002 R?MENT # Il T#PD .~170.~ ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Location Map Applicant's Submitted Plan Parking Layout and Function Site Plan Text of Information Report Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Objection Letter- Belmont, Fine & Associates Objection Letter- Bay Ridges Market Objection Letter- Pickering Panthers Junior "A" Hockey Club Objection Letter - Nancy Soltys Objection Letter- Chris Wright Objection Letter- Bay Ridges Market Petition 31 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Perry Korouyenis Planning Technician Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development, MCI?, RPP Lynda D. Taylor, MCI?, RPP Manager, Development Review PXK:pr Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer 32 ATTACHMENT# I J TO REPORT NO. PD 22-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 22/01 1.0 That, the implementing Zoning By-law: 2.0 · (a) permit automobile service stations - Type G, restaurant - Type A, personal service shop, convenience store (only in association with a gas bar), and dry cleaning depot; and (b) include, but not be limited to, the following provisions: (i) minimum building setbacks; (ii) exclude motels, hotels, places of amusement, open air farmers market, and parking stations as permitted uses; (iii) establish a parking standard of 8 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable area for any restaurant use and retain 5.5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable area for all other uses; (iv) restrict gross floor area to 120 square metres for convenience store (in association with gas bar), dry cleaning depot, and personal service shops; and (v) restrict gross floor area to 135 square metres for restaurant. That, prior to the forwarding of the implementing zoning by-law to Council, the applicant/owner shall: (a) obtain site plan approval for the appropriate site improvements from the City's Director of Planning & Development; and (b) enter into the appropriate agreement(s) with the City of Picketing to secure works required through the site plan approval process. ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ 33 BAYL¥ I.~NE FR£NOH~N'S BAY City of Pickering . PROP,~H I ¥ DESCRiP¥iON BLOCK T, M-15 OVVNER 1381190 ONTARIO LTD. APPLJC^TION No; A 22/01 FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-3 PA- Planning & Development Department 34 ATTACHMENT 'f~TO REPORT t PD_ ~/:-o ~ INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S*SUBMITTED PLAN A 22/01 ' · 1381190 ONTARIO LTD, TH~ MAP WAS PRODUCED By THE Cr/'y OF PiCKER~(3 PLANNINg & DEVELOP M E NT DEP/U:FEMEN~, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES. J.,~nJARY 'm, 2002. REPORT t PD_ 3 i-o3 35 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S .SUBMITTED PLAN 1381190 ONTARIO LTD, A 22101 __ __ KROSNO BOULEVARD c-,, CITY ""'OWNED PROPERTY / / THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BYTHE CITy OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SI.A~PORT SERVICES. APRIL 24, 200Z 36 PICKERING ATTACHMENTd // .TO REPORT # PD ,~ / ' 0 -~ INFORMATION REPORT NO. 09-02 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MlgETING OF February 21, 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH TIlE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, 1LS.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 22/01 1381190 Ontario Limited Block T, Plan 701 - 711 Krosno Boulevard City of Picketing 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject property is located on the south-east comer of Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Koad and is approximately 3,533 square metres in size and has a Krosno Boulevard lot frontage of 58 metres; a property location map is provided for information (see Attachment #1); the subject property currently supports a gas bar operation, which includes the limited sale of accessory convenience store items, and a restaurant; the surrounding land uses are primarily residential to the north and south, and commercial to the east and west; a reduced site plan, compiled from the applicant's submitted plan, showing the existing site, is provided for information (see Attachment #2). 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL 3.0 3.1 the applicant proposes to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a convenience store and a dry cleaning depot associated with the existing gas bar, and technical amendments to clarify existing yard requirements; no site or building alterations are proposed at this time to accommodate the proposed. new uses; · a Committee of Adjustment decision (File: P/CA 44/2000) in September of 2000, approved a maximum gross floor area of' 64 square metres within the existing building dedicated to the limited sale of accessory convenience items; the sale of accessory convenience items was limited by the Committee of Adjustment to coffee, chips, donuts, muffins, cakes, cigarettes and beverages, in single servings for immediate consumption by the travelling public, and specifically excluded a retail store, and a neighbourhood convenience store. ' OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being within a "Living Area" designation, where lands are to be used predominantly'for housing · purposes; in addition, convenience stores' that are compatible with their surroundings with limited retailing of goods and services, in appropriate locations may be permitted; the applicant's proposal appears to comply with this designation; Information Report No. 09,02 a?0[tT t P[~~ Page 3.2 37 Picketing Official Plan ATTACHI~I~rI'#- [ [ TO REPORT # PD_ Si- O~ ~ · o subjoin propo~ is &si~atcd "Mixed Use ~ca - Local Node" wi~ tho Bay ~dges Nei~bo~hood; ' re&ed use ~e~ ~e ~e~ ~d eo~dors of development hav~g ~e hi.est eoneen~afion of aefih~ in the CiW ~d the broadest ~versiW of co~iW semites' ~d facilities; ~s &si~mion pemits residenfifl, remil~g of goods ~d se~ees' generally se~g · e needs of the su~ound~g neighborhoods, offices ~d resm~m, eo~uniW, cultural md recreational uses; in the "~xed Use ~ea - ~cal Nod~" desi~afion, ~e Piekemg Official PI~ establishes a m~m ~oss le~le floorspaee for the remil~g of goods ~d se~iees of up to ~d ~elud~g 10,000 squ~e me.es ~d a m~imm floorspace ' ~dex (to~ building floonpace divided by total lot ~ea) of up to ~d ~clud~g 2.0 FSI;' Sehed~e ~ to the Pick~g Offieifl PI~ desi~ates ~osno Boulevard ~d ~e po~on of Live¢ool Road sou~ of Bayly S~eet as collector roads; collector roa~ generally provide access to indihdual prope~es, to loefl roa~, to o~er eollemr roads ~d to T~e C ~al roads; e~ ~eater volmes of raffle · ~ local roads, ~elu~g automobiles, pedes~s, bicycles ~d ~sit; ~d generally have a fight-of-way wid~ m~ng ~om 20 to 22 me.es; · e applic~t's proposal appe~s to comply wi~ this desi~ation; the Liverpool Road and Krosno Street intersection is subject to .the Council adopted "Liverpool Road Waterfront Node" Development Guidelines; the guiding vision for the entire Node is that of a "Great Lakes Nautical Village" with a mix of uses and an ambiance that is inviting; the Liverpool Road and Krosno Street intersection is intended to create a "gatewaf' to attract travelers down Liverpool Road by maintaining visual continuity and interest between Bayly Street and the 'Nautical Village'; the "gateway" is to consist of niany design elements that will be.imPlemented on the public fight-of-way; 3.3 Zonin~ By-law - the subject property is currently zoned "C3" - Highway Commercial Zone by By-law 2520, as amended; this zoning permits the establishment of automobile service stations, motels, hotels, places of amusement, open-air farmers' market, a restaurant - type A, service stores and parking stations; - an amendment to the by-law would be required to implement the applicant's proposal. 4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 4.1 Resident Comments no written residentcomments have been received to date; 4.2 Agency Comments - the Durham District School Board has reviewed thc application and has stated that it has no objectionS; 4.3 Staff Comments in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: impact on the streetscape of the Krosno Boulevard and Liverpool Road intersection; 38 Information Repor~ No. 09-02 Page 3 ATTACHMENT REPORT f PD · the scale and appropriateness of the propose.d uses in relation to abutting commercial properties and sun'0t~uding residential propeffie;s; · potenti~ floor area restrictions on proposed uses; · traffic generation and 6n-site. parking availability; . ·vehicular access and egress; · landscaping; · pedestrian access/egress and safetY; · ' site lighting; · ,applicant has'indicated the potential for a possible land severance of the subject property, therefore land severance impacts shall be considered; · staff will review.the need to update.and clarify existing by-law definitions and provisions to. reflect current standards for newer gas bar oper?fious and commercial.uses. 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 6.3 written comments regarding this proposal shonld be directed to the Plamaing & Development Department; oral Comments may be made a~ the Public Information Meeting; all co,~ments received will be noted and used as input in a plannin~'Keport prepared · 'by the Plannin. g & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a' Committee of Council; ' · if yot~ wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; if you Wish to.be .notified of Council's decision regarding ibis .proposal, you must · request such in writin, g to the City Clerk.. ,. OTHER. INFORMATION Appendix I : · .. - list of .neighbourhood resident.s, community associations, agencies and ' city Departments that have commented on the application at the time of writing report; Information Received - full-scale copies of the Applicant's .submitted plan are available for viewing at. the · offices of the City of Picketing Planning & Development D6partment; Company Principal - the applicant advises that the principal of 1381'190 Ontario Limited is Mr. Ramesh Patel. ' // TO 31-03 Perry Korouye~s Planning Technician PXK/pr Attachments Lynch D. T.,~lor, MCIP RPP Manager, ~Development Review Copy: Diregtor, Planning & Development ATTAOHMEi~ # ..... J'} ...... TO INFORMATION REPORT NO: 09-02 39 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LAN3)O~R,q (1) none received to date COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) The Durham District School Board COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) Planning & Development Department 40 ~ Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes ~7'~7~,':~ ~-~ ' ' 'Pursuant to the Planning Act · . ,,, ,,-,t;HME~T~_ // TO Thursday, February 21, 2002 REPORT# PO_ 3/-03 7:00P.M. Chair: Councillor ltollan~l The Manager, Policy, provided an .overview of the' requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board re~pecting this m6eting mad matters under consideration there at. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 22/01 1381190 ONTARIO LIMITED BLOCK T, PLAN M15 1'701-711 KROSNO BOULEVARD) Perry Korouyenis, Planning Technician, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #09-02. Maureen Charlton, 867 Hillcrest Road, stated that this application should not be permitted as there are enough businesse~ in the.area properly zoned to service the neighbourhood. She stated her concerns w/th respect to the proposed or existing propane tanks. She advised that lottery tickets and large food items are being sold at this establishment without proper zoning.: The area is .not large enough to support two similar businesses. Agnes Deutsch, ow~.er of the property.adjacent, stated that this application conflicts with the development presently talfin.' g place in her plaza. She stated· her strong opposition to this application. Brent Copin, Fairview Ave., advised that he frequents both establishments and believes in competition. At resident at 1295 Wharf St., advised that he also purchases items at both stores and sees no problem with competition. Joarme Key, 1303 Luna Court, advised that she sees no problem with/he proposal and also frequents both stores.' She is anxious to.have a dry cleaning facility in the area. Sylvain Trepanier, 1218 Monica Cook Place, questioned if market research has been done in the area to ensure snstainability from the Bay Ridges area. He questioned if the applicant is opposed to building one or the other or must they both be built together. ' Danny Murphy, 804 Helen Cms., stated that allowing the gas station to sell lottery tickets and large items prior to rezoning circumvents good faith. George. Vlachos, 724 Annland St., stated is agreement with the application and is in favor of competition. 10. N/cE Devalis, representing the applicant, advised that this is a two point plan to redevelop the property, develop a first class station eventually to enhance the area and improve the site. 11. Kash Joshi, .196 Joseph Aaron Blvd., applicant, stated that he is not going to ask for al/the items sold.by a convenience store.but wishes tO sell. only the items other gas Stations. carry. 12. Cathy. Rose, Manager, Policy, advised that Council may choose to approve either the convenience store or the dry cleaning depot or both. She further stated that a review of the circulation of this item will be undertaken. TrACHMErCr 1 ' TO REPORT # PD 3J-03 41 BELMONT, FINE & SSOCIATEs Barristers and $oIic~tor~ Brian D. Belmont, LL.B Suite 601 1120 Finch Avenue West Toronto, Ontario M3J 8H7 Telephone: (416) 661-£066 Facsimile: (416) 661-2116 , DELIVERED VIA FACSIMILE (905) 420-7648 AND REGULAR MAIL February 12, 2002 File No. 01-233 City of Pickering Planning & Development Department One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Perry KOrouyenis Dear Mr. Kerouyenis: . . RE: . Zoning By:law Amendment App icat on A 22/01 13811.9'0 Ontario Limited Block T,"Plan M15 701 - 711 Krosno Boulevard (South-East corner of Krosno and Liverpool) City of Pickering Please be advised that I represent Liverpool South Plaza Inc. My client is the owner of the property that is adjacent to the property which is the subject matter of the application herein for an amendment to the zoning by-law. ' Please be further advid, ed .that my Client opposes the' Croposed application for an amendment to the zoning bY-law. Liverpool South Plaza Inc. recently purchased the adjacent I~roperty, which is a strip plaza specializing in retail stoFes serving the-surrounding neighbourhoods. As the owner of this property, my client pays a substantial amoupt of p.r¢perty taxes to the City; this, in addition to my client's' efforts to cultivate and establish a first class retail environment means, we would respectfully submit, that my client has become an important part of the commercial landscapb in the 'subjeCt area.. My cl!ent respectful y submits that the proposed amendment to the zoning by-law Significantly conflicts with the commercial deyelopment taking place in my client's plaza, offices in Scarboro~gh & Brampton in association not ~ partnership 42 A~ACHMB~T#,=~ ; TO REPORT # PD_ 0.'~, - 0 ~. ATTACHMENT ~_ // TO BELMONT, FINE & ASSOCIATES " 2 which is a substantially more attractive, valuable and commercially impodant property as far as the surrounding area.is concerned. Due to the recent departure of a couple of tenants, my client's plaza presently has approximately 8,000 square feet of available rental space, which presents an exciting opportunity to further enhance and develop the retail environment in this area. My client's intention is to secure a new tenant in a portion of the available space to operate a thriving convenience store (and potentially a dry-cleaning depot), and my client has been working vigorously to achieve this objective. It is respectfully submitted that the proposed amendment would substantially conflict with both the present and imminent development on my client's property. There .is no need for a second convenience store on the adjacent property (which, as stated above is not nearly as attractive and valuable as my client's property); further, it would seriously inhibit the development of a thriving retail environment in my client's strip plaza. According Y, as stated above, my client Liverpool South Plaza Inc. strongly opposes the proposed application for an amendment to the zoning by-law. In addition my client wishes to.be notified of any subsequent meetings called to address this matter, and further requests to be notified of the passing of any zoning by-law amendment. ' We thank you for your. kind consideration of this matter. BRIAN D. BELMONT BDB/trh cc. Uverpool South Plaza Inc. REPORT ~- PD REPORT ~ PD~ RECEIVED o , FEB ~2 1 2002 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 'BAY RIDGES MARKET 713 KROSNO BLVD. PICKERING, ONT. L1W 1 G4 905-831 - 1270 FEBRUARY 21.,2002 My name i~: Maureen Charlton. I have. been store manager of 'Bay Ridges. Market' for most of the 20 years I've worked there. I am speakin9 tonight on behalf of the owners, David and Jenny Um and myself. !J~o~ ~r,d-c/~ · Simply, our concerns ore the following: ~ ,~ c~,. c~ ~ · There are enough businesses properly zoned, in the immediate area to serve the needs of our community. What the area needs is some · diversity, not more of the same. We feel the existing zoning is broad enough to allow many other uses. · The 3-way stop at the ~:orner of Liverpool Rd. & Krosno Blvd. is already extremely busy~ We are concerned about increased'traffic, especially for those residents ~lirectly opposite on Krosno Blvd. · We are also concerned about a proposed(or existing) propane tank on the property, since there are a lot of homes, businesses and schools very close by. In September of 2000, we attended o 'committee of adjustment' meeting regarding, a bylaw amendment for this property~ The amendment was approved subject to the foilowing(P/CA44/O0) "That the limited sale of accessory convenience items be limited to coffee, chips, donuts, muffins, cake, cigarettes and beverages, IN SINGLE SERVINGS FOR IMMEDIATE CONSUMPTION BY THETRAVELING PUBLIC, but not include a Tetail store, or a neighbourhood convenience store." At the some' meeting, Mr. Dacres, an agent for the applicant, stated that the.display stands were not intended for the sale. of convenience store items, but for automotive supplies. Since that.meetin9, the following items have been offered for sale;' · Potato chips in large sizes(270grams+). · 2 Litre bottles of pop · Cans of pop sold by the case · Lottery tickets REPORT ATTACHMENT//_/'/TO · REPORT # PD__.~,~/- 0 .~ While perhaps some people do consume these sizes in one sitting, they are ' generally considered take home packages. In September of 2001, I informed bylaw officer Kimberly Thompson' of our concerns regarding these items~ She originally asked the owners tO remove .the lottery tickets Within one month: When I followed up on November1, 2001,. she informed me of their intention to apply for rezoning, 'and that . instead they could continue selling them while waiting for the rezoning issue to be settled~ We feel. that they should stOp selling the tickets and large items, until such a. decision is made. Also we would like !~o point but that we did not receive n~)tification of tills meeting, and while some of the. residents did receive one, many we know didn't; including Mr. Scott Ramage, who though unable to be here this evening has strongly expressed his objection in this matter as well. 'On a personal level, I would like I~o sail, we've been 6round a long time, I myself grew up on Krosno Blvd, and we've seen a I°t of changes: good and bad. We consider our customers part of our family, we've provided many jobs to 'the young people of our community and all we Would like i:o see is something different t° enhance the area and local businesses' not saturate it with too much of ihe same thing. Thank You. Sincerely, David Lira Jenny Lim Maureen Charlton ATTAOHUEI~T REPORT # PD~ 45 ]unior 'A" Hockey Club Nembe~ of ~he On.do Provln~ 3unior H~kay.League 200I-2~2 3~ ~iv~ Se~ ' "February 20,2002 City'Of Picketing ,' Town Councll The purpose 'of this le~er Is '1:o provide Suppor~ to Hs.lVlaureen Chadton,manager of= Bay P. idges Harket, Bey P, idges Harket fias been s[Jppo~ing Picketing Pantl~ers .lunlor "A" ~tockey with the sale of: Nevada gaming tickets. Since late summer of last year our sales have dropped dramatically! After conversation with Ms. Charlton, It is our understanding that the sale of nevada tickets b~, thc adjacent OLCO gas bar may contravene local by-laws. Further, that in the August/September 2001 time. frame, a by-law officer gave them 30 days 'To get rid of them", WithoUt the continued proceeds I~om the sale of Nevada t:ickets by Bay Ridges the future existence of the Picketing'Panthers 3unlor "A" Hockey team is in serious jeopardy. * Michael Boyer -' 46 REPO}~T ~ PD_r'~..~.,-- 0 "3r.-..' ATTACHMENT#_ / / TO REPORT # Pi) 3/~ 0 ~, Korouyenis, Per~ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: McLean, Bill ~ Councillor Tuesday, February 26, 2002 8:39 AM 'nancy@soltys.ca' *Planning & Development RE: Road safety Thank you Nancy 'for your e mail. I will forward your concerns about the propane tank to the planning department. As far as the lights there are strict requirements that have to be met before traffic lights can be installed. We will monitor this situation and 'see how much traffic does increase. If there are any other concerns please do not hesitate to call. ..... Original Message ..... From: Nancy Soltys [mailto:na~cy@soltys.ca]. Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 10:09 PM To: McLean, Bill - Councillor Sabjgct: Road safety Dear Councillor McLean: £ have a concern for the corner of Krosno and Liverpool. With the Upgrades that the service station wants to implement there is going to be an increase of traffic. If the proposed props_ne, tank goes through we will have a large increase of commercial traffic as these vehicles are being switched over to propane. I do not have any problems with any of the. upgrades to the station. And it would be great for business in the area. I do hope that a light will be 'installed at t~e corner of Krosno and Liverpool as the increase of traffic from the service station and the waterfront project will make this already difficult corner into a Zoo. I must say as of now there is some mornings it takes me 15 min. to get out of my driveway. Yours trully: Nancy Soltys nancy~soltys.ca ~EPOI:IT ~' PD 3t -o~ ' 47 -A'r'rAc~Er~r ATTA;3H~V;ENT #..-/.~/,--.TT~, 2TO REPORT # PD BAY RIDGES MARKET 713 KROSNO BLVD. PICKERiNG,'ONT. L1W 1G4 905-B31-1270 FEBRUARY 28,2002 To Whom It May Concern, RE: Zoning By-Law Amendment RpplicaUon'R 22/01 1381190 Ontado Ltd. Block T, Plan M15 701-711 Hfosno Blvd. City of Pickering I attended and spoke at last week's public info'rmo~ion meeting regarding this application, and also submitted o written copy of my comments so I will not repeat them here. I am enclosing a letter from a concerned resident QS' well as 2 pages of signatures from other residents who object to this application. I would like I~o emphasize that while competition is always an issue, it is not.our main concern, there are many other issues that ore more important, as I've.already stated in my previous comments, so please consider those when making your decision. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to express our concerns, both as small business owners and residents of this area. Sincerely, Maureen Chadt°n per David Lira REPORT FEBRUARY 21,2002 FEB 2 8 2002 ' CITy OF:. F~ ' PLANNinG.. & D ICK~RING REGARDING ZONING HRQSNO BWD. IN SIGNING THIS ~E STATE OUR OBJE~ION 'TO THIS RPPUCRTION ATTACHMENT # .... REPORT # PD RECEIVED "FEBRUARY 21,2002 REGARDING ZONING KROSNO BLVD. FEB 2 8 2002 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR 701-711 IN SIGNING THIS WE STATE OUR OBJECTION TO THIS APPLICATION RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02, submitted by GIMI Construction Ltd., be APPROVED, to permit retail, convenience-commercial, personal service, business and professional office, bakery and restaurant uses, for 550 Finch Avenue, being Parts 1 and 3 of Plan 40P,-10641 and Part 2 of Plan 40P,-11450, Part of Lot 30, Concession 2, City of Pickering; and That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 28-03, be FORWAP,DED to City Council for enactment; and That Council ADOPT a resolution noting that "the expanded list of uses to include professional and business office, bakery and restaurant uses is minor in nature and does not require recirculafion of Application A 11/02". 52 PICKERING REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: PD 28-03 Date: July 4, 2003 From: Nell Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02 The GIMI Construction Company Ltd. 550 Finch Avenue Parts 1 and 3 of Plan 40R-10641 and Part 2 of Plan 40R-11450 Part of Lot 30, Concession 2 City of Pickering Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02, submitted by GIMI Construction Ltd., be APPROVED, to permit retail, convenience-commercial, personal service, business and professional office, bakery and restaurant uses, for 550 Finch Avenue, being Parts 1 and 3 of Plan 40R-1064! and Part 2 of Plan 40R-11450, Part of Lot 30, Concession 2, City of Pickering; That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 28-03 be FORWARDED to City Council for enactment. That Council ADOPT a Resolution noting that "the expanded list of uses to include professional and business office, bakery and restaurant uses is minor in nature and does not require recirculation of Application A 11/02". Executive Summary: The applicant proposes to change the zoning on the subject vacant lands to permit retail, convenience-commercial, personal service, business and professional office, bakery and restaurant uses on the subject property, located on the north side of Finch Avenue, east of Rosebank Road (see Location Map - Attachment #1). Two buildings are proposed to be constructed on the lands with a combined gross floor area of 806 square metres (see Attachment #2). The proposed uses comply with the provisons of the City's Official Plan and the subject lands are suitable for the proposed use, Several conditions of development necessary to ensure compatibility with adjacent uses will be addressed through the site plan approval process. It is recommended that the application be approved. Report PD 28-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02 July 4, 2003 Page 2 53 Financial Implications: Sidewalk construction across the Finch Avenue frontage of the property is identified as a development charge project, payable in 2004 (total project cost of $96,525 of which the City's share is $48, 263). Background: 1.0 Comments Received 1.1 At the November 21, 2002 Public Information Meeting (see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #3 and fi-A) Richard Ward, former owner of the property, supports the application; and, a resident expressed concern that commercial uses may attract crime. 1.2 Following the Information Meeting comments provided verbally to staff by two residents identified concerns with; · possible loitering of students, hours of operation and increased traffic due to the proposed uses; 1.3 Agency Circulation Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA): la order to protect the wildlife corridor; the applicant should install silt and wood fences during and after construction along northern property boundary; and, direct lighting away from the corridor; (see Attachment # 5). Durham Planning Department the proposal conforms to the Durham Region Official Plan; municipal water and sanitary sewer services are available; one traffic access to Finch Avenue with turn lanes from Finch Avenue should be provided; the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor should be protected; and, a subsurface environmental site investigation is required; (see Attachment # 6). Veridian Connections & Hydro One - no objections. Report PD 28-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02 July 4, 2003 Page 3 1.4 City Department Comments Development Control Supervisor Municipal Property and Engineering: The following requirements must be satisfied prior to site plan approval: - a stormwater management report; - a Finch Avenue storm sewer may be required with cost sharing and easements; - a sidewalk along Finch Avenue; - fencing along the Hydro Corridor; and, - a sediment and erosion control plan, a construction management plan, a soils report and a Fill/Topsoil permit; (see Attachment #7). a sidewalk is required; and, relocation of the vehicular entrance to the east end of the site should be considered; (see Attachment #8). 2.0 Discussion: 2.1 The application includes an expanded list of permitted uses since the application was originally circulated. The rezoning application form submitted by the applicant proposed retail, convenience-commercial and personal service uses for the lands. However, a letter accompanying the application also included business and professional offices, bakery and restaurant as additional requested uses. The notice sign posted on the site, the Notice of Public Meeting circulated to neighbouring properties and Information Report No. 33-02 each listed the applicant's proposed uses as retail, convenience-commercial and personal service uses, being those uses listed in the rezoning application form. The applicant has since confirmed that its land use request includes the broader list of permitted uses. Consequently, this report and the proposed amending zoning by-law contained in Appendix uses. The public were advised of the notice circulated to interested parties II, reflect the expanded list of proposed full range of requested uses through the and residents, advising of the July 28th meeting date for consideration of the application. Further, the text of Report PD 28-03 and the proposed amending by-law both provide clarification of the full list of proposed uses. This change is not considered to be of such significance as to warrant full recirculation of the application. It is recommended that Council adopt a Resolution to state that "the expanded list of proposed uses to include business and professional office, bakery and restaurant uses is minor in nature and does not require recirculation of Application A 11/02". Report PD 28-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02 July 4, 2003 Page 4 55 2.2 2.3 Proposed use conforms to the Pickering Official Plan The subject property is designated "Urban Residential- Low Density Area" in the Picketing Official Plan. This designation permits the proposed retail, convenience- commercial, personal service, business and professional office, bakery and restaurant uses to be considered for approval. Approval of the rezoning would conform with the Pickering Official Plan designation. In addition, development of the subject site for the proposed uses will be compatible with the lands to the north that are designated Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor provided the recommendations of the Environmental Report, dated August 2002, conducted by Niblett Environmental Associates for the applicant are implemented through the site plan agreement. A copy of the Environmental Report may be examined at the Planning & Development Department. The proposed use also conforms to the Region of Durham Official Plan. The Site is Suitable for the Proposed Use The applicant is proposing to develop two buildings on the site for retail, convenience-commercial, personal service, business and professional office, bakery and restaurant uses (total 806 square metres gross floor area). As there are no similar uses currently located in the immediate area, this will provide for local convenience needs. The proposed uses will be compatible with the existing surrounding Iow density residential uses to the east and the south and the hydro corridor and Rouge-Duffins wildlife corridor uses to the north provided appropriate buffering, landscaping, fencing and similar mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Report prepared by Niblett Environmental Associated Inc. are required through the site plan approval process. Due to the size, configuration and location of the subject lands, the amount of floor area for restaurant use should be limited to approximately a quarter of the total floor area of buildings on the site. The proposed by-law limits the restaurant use on the subject lands to 220 square metres of gross leasable floor area and prohibits a drive-thru restaurant. Sufficient site area is available to accommodate the proposed uses and the required parking with one direct access provided to Finch Avenue. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of the site, prepared by Pinchin Environmental concluded that "due to the presence and the unknown source of fill material on the property, a subsurface investigation was recommended to determine the presence or absence of contaminants at the site". Aims Consulting Environmental subsequently conducted a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment and concluded that the site is suitable for the proposed commercial uses (see Attachment #9). Copies of the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments may be examined at the Planning & Development Department. 56 Report PD 28-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02 July 4, 2003 Page 5 2.4 The Site Plan Approval Process will address Site Development, Site Functioning, Urban Design, and Servicing, to be secured through appropriate agreements. A proposed site plan was submitted to the City in April 2002. Consideration of the proposed site plan will proceed once a decision on the zoning amendment is reached. The proposed site plan illustrates that adequate parking and efficient site functioning can be achieved (see Attachment Cf 2). In order to facilitate development, both on-site and off-site improvements will be required. Finch Avenue Sidewalks The urbanization of Finch Avenue, including a sidewalk along the frontage of the subject lands, will be required to be completed by the property owner in conjunction with the development of these lands. The City has identified that a sidewalk will be required for this section of Finch Avenue as a development charge funded project, payable in 2004. Sidewalks currently located on the south side of Finch Avenue and on the north side of Finch Avenue to the east of the subject site are shown on Attachment Cf10. Provision of sidewalks along the frontage of the subject lands will provide opportunities for safe pedestrian passage across the front of this commercial development. Intersection Improvements Even with the installation of sidewalks on Finch Avenue, full pedestrian accommodation will not be achieved until the 'jog' at the Rosebank/Finch intersection is eliminated and traffic signals are installed. The elimination of the 'jog' is identified in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood policies in the Pickering Official Plan. Recent approvals for the Rosebank Gardens Inc. draft plan of subdivision (Application SP 2001-02) and the draft plan of subdivision proposed by Jocelyn Barber (Application SP 2003-02) emphasize the growing need to eliminate the 'jog' and signalize the intersection (see Attachment Cf11). Through redevelopment of Rosebank Road, north of Finch Avenue, for the Rosebank Gardens draft plan of subdivision, staff are presently reviewing the potential 'jog' elimination of Rosebank Road through Finch Avenue. Funding for the urbanization of Rosebank Road, north of Finch was approved in the City's 2003 capital budget as a development charge funded project (external subdivision). Elimination of the "jog" with this reconstruction will facilitate signalization of the intersection when warrants are achieved. However, hydro corridor lands will be required to implement the new road alignment. Report PD 28-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02 July 4, 2003 Page 6 ,5? 2.5 Storm Sewers In addition, the Finch Avenue storm sewer and outfall may be required prior to proceeding with this development. Cost sharing and cost recovery for the storm sewer can be addressed in the site plan agreement. Full details of required road urbanization will be identified through the site plan process and secured as part of the site plan agreement. Sanitary Sewers The applicant will be required to satisfy the Region of Durham respecting provision of a sanitary sewer extension from Seguin Square (to the south of Finch Avenue) to the subject site at the expense of the applicant through the site plan agreement. Architectural Details, Height and Odour Suppression Although the City has received an application for site plan approval, architectural details of the proposed building designs will be reviewed through the site plan approval process following adoption of the zoning amendment. In order to assist with compatibility of the proposed development with residential development to the east, the implementing by-law restricts building height to generally the same height as existing dwellings to the east (9.0 metres). The proposed site plan illustrates buildings located at the west edge and in the middle of the site. The final location of the buildings will be addressed through the site plan approval process. However, to ensure that new buildings are set back adequately from existing residences, a minimum 15 metre setback requirement from the east lot line has been established in the proposed by-law. In addition, due to the introduction of restaurant uses, provisions requiring odour suppressant equipment should be implemented in the site plan agreement. Lastly, the applicant has advised that the siting of the proposed buildings is the result of constraints posed by two existing easements. Compliance with the terms of the easements will also be dealt with through the site plan process. Approval of the application is recommended and an amending zoning by-law should be enacted. A draft implementing zoning by-law is attached to this report for Council's enactment (see Appendix II). The by-law provides for a change in permitted uses from open space uses to retail, convenience-commercial, personal service, business and professional office, bakery and restaurant uses and appropriate performance standards for the site. 5 8 Report PD 28-03 July 4, 2003 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02 Page 7 Site functioning, required urbanization of street frontages, conveyance of the road widening, lighting, landscaping, and other site development standards will all be addressed at the site plan approval stage, through a site plan agreement. Recommended conditions of approval for the implementing zoning by-law and the site plan agreement are outlined in Appendix I to this Report 3.0 Applicant's Comments: The applicant concurs with the recommendations of this Report. APPENDICES: APPENDIXI: APPENDIXII Recommended Conditions of Approval Draft By-law Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Location Map Conceptual Site Plan submitted with Zoning By-law Amendment Application Information Report 33-02, dated November 21,2002 Minutes of Statutory Public Information Meeting held November 21,2002 Comments from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comments from Durham Region Planning Department Comments from Supervisor, Development Control Comments from Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Phase II Environmental Site Assessment- Executive Summary, AIMS Consulting Environmental, dated April 15, 2003 Sidewalk Map Expected development in the Rosebank/Finch area Report PD 28-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/02 July 4, 2003 Page 8 59 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Steve Gaunt;MClP, RPP Planner II Director, Planning & Development Lynda Ta~;Ior, MC~~,% Manager, Development Review SG/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council · I Thomas J.~uinn, (~ie~d~nistr~ '~fficer I 60 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER 28-03 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 11/02 That the implementing zoning by-law: a) allow retail, convenience-commercial, personal service, business and professional office, bakery and restaurant as permitted uses; b) restrict restaurant use to 220 square metres of gross leasable floor area; c) prohibit drive-thru restaurants; d) establish a maximum building height of 9.0 metres; and, e) establish a minimum east yard width of 15.0 metres. That the site plan agreement include requirements such as, but not restricted to: a) odour suppressant equipment for any restaurant use in the property; b) sidewalks along the frontage of the subject lands; c) provision of a Finch Avenue storm sewer and outfall, as required; d) provision of road urbanization, as required; e) provision of sanitary sewer extension, as required; and, f) provision of a road widening across the Finch Avenue frontage to a minimum of 15 metres from the center-line of Finch Avenue. APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER 28-03 DRAFT BY-LAW FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 11/02 62 T. CO BY-LAW NUMBER OJ~Fr Being a By-Law to amend Restricted Area By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, in Part of Lot 30, Concession 2 (Parts 1 and 3 of Plan 40R-10641 and Part 2 of Plan 40R-11450), City of Pickering (A 11/02) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing deems it desirable to change the zoning of the lands to permit the establishment of retail, convenience- commercial, personal service, business and professional office, bakery and restaurant uses on the subject lands; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE CORPORATION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: i. SCHEDULES I & II Schedules I & II attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law. 2. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lot 30, Concession 2 (Parts 1 and 3 of Plan 40R-10641 and Part 2 of Plan 40R-11450), City of Picketing, designated "C18" on Schedule I attached hereto. 3. GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, Occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. 4. DEFINITIONS In this By-law: (1) "Adult Entertainment Parlour" shall mean a building or part of a building in which is provided, in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, services appealing to or designed to appeal to or designated to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations; (2) "Bakery" shall mean a building or part of a building in which food products are baked, prepared and offered for retail sale, or in which food products baked and prepared elsewhere are offered for retail sale; (3) "Business Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which the management or direction of a business, a public or private agency, a brokerage or a labour or fraternal organization is carried on and which may include a telegraph office, a data Processing establishment, a newspaper publishing office, the premises of a real estate or insurance agent, or a radio or television broadcasting station and related studios or theatres, but shall not include a retail store; (4) (5) "Dry Cleanin.q Depot" shall mean a building or part of a building used for the purpose of receiving articles, goods or fabrics to be subjected to dry cleaning and related processes elsewhere, and of distributing articles, goods or fabrics which have been subjected to any such processes; "Financial Institution" shall mean a building or part of a building in which money is deposited, kept, lent or exchanged, and which includes a chartered bank or a branch thereof; (6) (a) "Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor surface contained within the outside walls of a storey; 63 (b) "Gross Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys above or below established grade, designed for owner or tenant occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding storage areas below established grade; (c) "Gross Leasable Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys above or below established grade designed.for owner or tenant occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding storage areas below established grade; (7) "Laudromat" shall mean a self-serve clothes washing establishment containing washing, drying, ironing, finishing or other incidental equipment; (8) "Personal Service Shop" shall mean an establishment in which a personal service is performed and which may include a barber shop, a beauty salon, a shoe repair shop, a tailor or dressmaking shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include a bodyrub padour as defined in The Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; (9) (10) "Professional Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician but shall not include a body rub parlour as defined in The Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto; "Restaurant - Type A" shall mean a building or part of a building where food is prepared and offered or kept for retail sale to the public for immediate consumption on the premises or off the premises, or both on and off the premises; and, (11) "Retail Store" shall mean a building or part of a building in which goods, wares, merchandise, substances, articles or things are stored, offered or kept for retail sale to the public. 5. PROVISIONS (1) Uses Permitted ("C18' Zone) No person shall, within the lands designated "C18" on Schedule I hereto, use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: (a) bakery; (b) business office; (c) dry cleaning depot; (d) financial institution; (e) laundromat; (f) personal service shop; (g) professional office; (h) restaurant, type A; (i) retail stores. (2) Zone Requirements ("C18" Zone) No Person shall, within the lands designated "C18" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure except in accordance with the following provisions: 64 -3- (a) BUILDING RESTRICTIONS (i) Buildings and Structures shall be located entirely within the Building Envelope illustrated on Schedule 11 attached to this By-law; (ii) For the purpose of this clausel the building envelope shown on Schedule II attached hereto shall be measured from the property lines; (iii) Building Height: maximum 9.0 metres. (b) OPEN STORAGE All uses, other than parking, shall take place entirely within enclosed buildings or structures with no outside storage or display permitted. (c) PARKING REQUIREMENTS (i) A minimum of 5.5 parking spaces shall be provided and maintained on lands zoned "C18" on Schedule I attached to this By-law for every 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area or part thereof; (ii) Clauses 5.21.2 (a), (b), (c) and (e) inclusive, of Bylaw 3036, as amended, shall not apply to the lands zoned "C18" on Schedule I attached hereto; (iii) Despite Clauses 5.21.2 (g) and 5.2i.2 (k) of Byqaw 3036, as amended, all entrances and exits to parking areas and all parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt, or concrete or any combination thereof; and, (iv) All parking spaces shall be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from Finch Avenue and the easterly boundary of the lands zoned "C18" on Schedule I attached to this By-law. (d) SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS: (i) No drive-through facility shall be permitted in association with any of the uses permitted on the lands designated "C18" on Schedule I attached hereto; and, (ii) The gross floor area of restaurant Type 'A' uses on the lot shall not exceed 220 square metres. 6. BY-LAW 3036 By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedules "1" & "11" attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant previsions of By-law 3036, as amended. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof, subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. By-law read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this ,2003. day of Wayne A~~-- Bruce Taylor, Clerk C-18 © 65 SCHEDULE T TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF MAYOR · 2003 CLERK 66 BUILDING ENVELOPE SCHEDULE. ~ TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF MAYOR CLERK ATTACHI~NTd [ TO REPORTd'PO ,~'O ~ 67 oO~\o°~ SUBJECT PROPERTY FINCH SEGUIN SQ. AVENUE NIPISSINO COGNAC CRES. DEERHAVEN LANE AMBERLEA ~~D RIFTWO0[ HIGHVIEW ROAD GRACELAND ERAMOSA CRESCENT City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CON 2 PT LOT 30 NOW RP 40R-10641 PART 1-3 AND RP 40R-11450 PART 2 OWNER GIMI CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. FILENo. A 11/02 FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-11 PA- DATE JUNE 27, 2003 SCALE 1:5000 DRAWN BY JB CHECKED BY SG I I I I I I % \ \0 ~ ~Vd z o l l I Il I Z 69 PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 33-02 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 21sT, 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application (A 11/02) The GIMI Construction Company Ltd. 550 Finch Avenue Parts 1 and 3 of 40R-10641; and Part 2, 40R-11450 Part of Lot 30, Concession 2 City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject property is located on the north side of Finch Avenue, east of Rosebank Road, west of Ameretto Avenue (see location map, Attachment #1 ). APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL - the subject property is approximately 0.3 hectares in area; - the applicant is proposing two buildings with an approximate total floor area of 806 square metres (8,675 square feet). Building A is approximately 218square metres and Building B is approximately 588 square metres (see Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachment #2). - the applicant proposes to change the zoning on the subject property to permit retail, convenience commercial, and personal service uses; - the applicant has also submitted an application for Site Plan approval (file # S-005/02). OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Reqional Official Plan subject property is designated as "Living Area" and "Open Space Linkage" in the Durham Region Official Plan; Information Report No. 33-02 Page 2 70 ATTACHMENTtf ~ Tn REPORT ~ PD_- 3.2 3,3 4.0 4.1 the Region of Durham Planning Department will provide comments regarding conformity with the Durham Region Official Plan, servicing and delegated Provincial review responsibilities. Pickerinq Official Plan - the subject property is designated "Low Density- Urban Residential" in the City of Pickering Official Plan; - the "Low Density- Urban Residential" designation permits primarily housing and related uses and activities. However, compatible employment uses, and compatible special purpose commercial uses serving the surrounding area are also permitted; - Section 3.9(b) of the City of Pickering Official Plan states that City Council may zone to permit the above-noted uses, and in doing so, will apply appropriate performance standards, restrictions and provisions; Section 3.9(c) of the City of Pickering Official Plan states that in establishing performance standards, restrictions and provisions, particular regard shall be had for the following: o protecting and enhancing the character of the established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as building height, yard setback, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions, and traffic implications; o restricting the size height and/or floorspace of non-residential development in response to provisions specified in a Part Three Neighbourhood Plan to prevent excessive commercial development, or where neighbourhood character and/or environmental constraints warrant; - the subject property is located within the "Amberlea Neighbourhood" of the City of Pickering Official Plan; Zoning By-law 3037 the subject property is currently zoned "02" - Public and Pdvate Open Space Zone, in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended; the "02" zone permits such uses as parks, walks, statues, fountains play lots, playfields, playgrounds, athletic fields, etc.; retail, convenience commercial, and personal services uses are not permitted under the current zoning; a zoning by-law amendment is required to permit the proposed uses. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments none received to date; Information Report No. 33-02 Page 3 ATTACHMENT ~_ ~ TO I:~..PORT d PO_ ,~ ~ -~ ~ 4.2 Aqencv Comments none received to date; 4.3 Staff Comments 4.3.1 Information Submitted by the Applicant: Environmental Report the subject property backs onto the Rouge Duffin's Wildlife Corridor identified on Schedule III to the City of Pickering Official Plan; Section 15.9 of the Official Plan requires that an environmental report be completed for the subject property because it is located within 50 metres of the Rouge Duffin's Wildlife Corridor; the Environma~ Report prepared for lhe applicant by Niblelt Environma~ Associates Inc. concluded that the proposed development will not have an impact on the features and functions of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor, provided the following mitigation measures are implemented: 1. Use and storage of heavy equipment, stockpiles, debris and site grading should not occur outside of the property boundary; 2. The property boundary should be clearly marked and staked prior to site grading. Temporary silt fencing would help operators visually to avoid entering the corridor; 3. use of diffuse lighting and directing lighting away from the corridor (facing south) to limit pollution of the corridor. Security lighting should be diffuse and splash onto the paved areas only; 4. A solid wooden fence should be constructed along the entire northern boundary of the development to prevent light pollution and disturbance to the wildlife using the corridor; 5. A wildlife-monitoring program is not recommended for this development due to the small scale of the development and adjacent development. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) City Staff understand that, due to filling and grading on the subject property, as well as unknown former land uses, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was needed to determine potential contamination on the subject property; the Phase I ESA prepared for the applicant by Pinchin Environmental, submitted with the rezoning application, concluded that "due to the presence and unknown source of the fill material on [the subject property], a subsurface investigation is recommended to determine the presence or absence of contaminants at the Site". 72 Information Report No. 33-02 ATTACHMENT# .~ TO Page4 REPORT # PD ~ ~ ~d) .~ 4.3.2 Staff Comments - In reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: o appropriateness of the site for the proposed use; o development constraints; o compatibility with surrounding land uses; o impact on surrounding land uses; o servicing constraints; o conformity with the City of Pickering Official Plan, the Durham Region Official Plan and other applicable policies; o impact on Ambedea Neighbourhood; o review of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment regarding potential site contamination; o review of the Environmental Report regarding impact on Rouge-Duffin's Wildlife Corridor; and o agency and department comments. - approval of the Site Plan application is also required prior to development proceeding. 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION - written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; - oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; - all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; - if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; - if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 6.0 OTHER INFORMATION 6.1 Information Received copies of the following information submitted by the applicants are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department: o applicant's submitted conceptual site plan; o Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA); o Environmental Report. Information Report No. 33-02 ATTACHMENT# ~ ..... oT(~ REPORT ~' PD ~'~¢" Page 5 ? 3 6.2 Company Principal Mitko Stankovsky is President of The GIMI Construction Co. Ltd.; The GIMI Construction Co. Ltd. is the registered owner of the subject property; Bob Martindale, Martindale Planning Services, is the agent for the Zoning By-law Amendment application; Suu-Dda Patkar, Suu-Dda Patkar Architectural Corporation, is the agent for the associated Site Plan application (File # S-005/02). ORIOINAL SIGNED BY Edward W. Belsey Planner II ORIOINAL SIGNED Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review EB:td Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development ?4 HCKEI?dNG Statutory Public Information Meeting · Thursday, November 21, 2002 A,T,.,T~CHI~ENT #._~z.~.z._ ..... fi". 7:00 P.M. The Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (111) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 11/02 THE GIMI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD. 550 FINCH AVENUE PARTS 1 AND 3 OF 40R-10641; AND PART 2, 40R-11450 PART OF LOT 30, CONCESSION 2 Edward Belsey, Planner II, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #33-02. Mr. Sulaiman, 1528 Sequin Sq., resident across the street from this property, questioned if this application will affect the neighbourhood. He stated his concern with the possibility of crime. Richard Ward, 3709 Regional Road 9, Orono, requested residential or commercial for this property in 1986 when he was the owner. He was advised at that time that residential was not suitable for the area. He stated his support of this application for commercial. Further environmental assessment is not required as he placed excellent topsoil on the land in 1986. Bob Martindale, agent for the applicant, feels that this commercial development will be beneficial to the neighbourhood. Belse¥, Edward From: Sent: To: Subject: ATTACHMENT# REPORT # Pi:) David_Lawrie@trca.on.ca November 19, 2002 4:01 PM Belsey, Edward Zoning By-law Amendment, A11/02 ?5 Dear Mr. Belsey, Our Staff Ecologist has reviewed the Environmental Report submitted to us by Nibtett Environmental Associates Inc. for the Pickering Commercial Development Part Lot 30, Concession 2 in the City of Pickering. TRCA offers the following comments for the upcoming Public Meeting on November 28th, 2002: 1. Ail works should be limited to the subject property. A silt fence should be installed along the northern property boundary to prevent encroachment into the wildlife corridor during construction; 2. Diffuse lighting should be directed away from the corridor (facing 'south); and, a solid wood fence should be installed along the entire northern property limit to prevent encroachment once the commercial facilities have been ~pnstructed. I hope this helps. David 416-661-6600 ext 5268. 7 The Regional · Municipality ' of Durham Planning Department 1615 DUNDAS ST.. E. 4TH FLOOR, LANG TOWER · WEST BUILDING P.O~ BOX 623 WHI~BY, ON L1N'6A3 (905) 728-7731 FAX: (905) 436-6612 www. region.durham.on.ca A.L Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning "SERVICE EXCELLENCE ATTACHMENT #' ~ "TO REPORT # PO --~'U-'~ 3 November 12,' 2002 Ed Belsey, Planner II '. Planning &.Development DePartment. One the .ESplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 RE.CE;VED NOV I 3 2002 CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND Dear Mr. Belsey: Re: ZOning Amendment Application A 11/02 Applicant: GIMI Construction .CO. Ltd. Location: Part of Lot 30, Concession 2 Municipality:. City of Pickering . . We have reviewed 'this application .and'the following comments are offered with respect 'to compliance with .the DUrham' Regional Official Plan, the'proposed, method of servicing and delegated provincia plan review ,responsibilities. The Purpose of the application is to.rezone the Subject property to permit retail, convenience commercial, and personal service useS. Durham Reqional Official Plan The subject property is ·designated ~'Living Area': in the Durham Regional Official Plan,.' Limited office development and retailing of goods and services are permitted within this designation., in appropriate locations. These uses are permitted as components of mixed use developments, provided that Community and Local Central Areas are designated in the area municipal official plan, and the functions, and characteristics of the Central Areas are not adversely affected, The proposed amendment is in Co.n, formity.with the Durham·Regional Official ·Plan, Method of Servicing Municipal water supply is available to the property. Sanitary sewer' service, however, is not immediately available. Sanitary sewer service- mUst.be extended from SegUin Square to the Site at full expense to the applicant. .The subject, property will be permitted one direct access to Finch Avenue. The. construction 'of auxiliary lanes on Finch'Avenue, consisting of an eastbound left-turn lane and a westbound right-turn lane.will be required to service the su. bject property. The applicant will also be 100% Pos~ Consumer required to satisf~'th~Reg,on " ''t° ~he.Conveyan~~eKmg aC~0ss the Finch Aven'ue frontage to provide for an~~~~°~h of the centreline of Finch Avenue~ "~ ' -. " · ' - . Provincial Plan Review'ResponSibilitie.. . . This application has been'sCreened in accel'dance with the'terms of the provincial plan review reSponsibilities. The subject property abuts the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife'Corridor. An Environmental Report submitted by the applicant indicates that if the recommended mitigation measures are implemented, the proposal will not impact the features and functions-of the Corridor. -The Reportl. s recommendations should be-implemented to protect the ecological'function and natural features of this Corridorl A Phase I 'Environmental Site Assessment was:completed for the.subject p[ope, rty.' It concluded that a subsurface investigation is reco.mmended to determine .the presence .or absence of contaminants on the site, No further provincial interests appear to:be affected by this proposal, If you have any questions or require additional information,' please call me. Yours truly, Ray DavieS, Planner . · .Current Operations Branch CC. Pete Castellan, Durham Region Works Department R:~t raJning\rcl~oning~pickering al 1-02.doc 78 ~ORKS DEPT To: From: Date: Fax :9056682051 3un 26 2005 ATTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT# PD ~t2~ Ray Davies Pete Castellan November g, 2002 11:54 P. 02 Planning Department Development Approvals Division Zoning By-Law Amendment Application All/0R IE C E I V'E D JUN 2 6 2003 OIM1 Construction Co. Ltd. Pa_et of Lot 30, Concession 2 550 Finch Avenue City of Picketing Our File No: RZ.16/02/P CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Tl~e Regional Municil~ality Of Durham Wo~s Department PO BOX 623 105 CONSUMERS DR, WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 CANADA (905) 668-7721 Fax: (COS) 668-2051 E-Mall works~ll.r,~i~mdulIla m~o~ region ,durham ,on, J.R. McCorkell, P. Eng. Commissioner of Works The Regional Works Department has' reviewed the above mentioned site plan application and offers the following comments. Thc proposal submitted by the applicant is to rezone the sub3ect property from "Low Density - Urban Residential'' to a zoning which will permit retail, convenience commercial and personal service use for the lands at the above noted address. Municipal water supply is available to the property from a 300 mm watermain on Finch Avenue, Sanitary sewer servicing is not immediately available; therefore the sanitary sewer must be extended from Seguin Square to the site at full expense to thc applicant, As a condition of site plan approval the owner will be required to pay a Water Main Frontage Charge of $12,573.91 (412.53' ~ $30.48 per ft.) and the actual cost for the water service connections prior to issuance of building permits. The Transportation Division of the Works Department wishes to advise that the applicant will be permitted one direct access only to Dundas Street. We will require the construction of auxiliary lanes on Finch Avenue, consisting of an eastbound left turn lane and a westbound right turn lane, to service the subject property. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed geometric design drawing and cost estimate upon submission of a site plan. Furthermore, the applicant will be required to satisfy our road widening requirements with respect to the conveyance ora road widening across the Finch Avenue frontage to provide for an 15.0 metre right-of-way north of the centerline of Finch Avenue. Please note that Regional Commercial Development Charge Levies will apply at the building permit stage based on the gross floor area of the building being constructed. Subject to the above, the Region has no objection to further processing of the site plan application. We trust the above is satisfactory; nevertheless, should you require additional information, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, P~te (~astellan Development Approvals Division May 27,2003 To: From: Subject: ATTACHMENT #, "~ ,TO REPORT # PD o,~ ~ -o "~· PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Steve Gaunt Planner II Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control Zoning By-law Amendment Application A11/02 The Gimi Construction Company Ltd. 550 Finch Avenue Parts 1 and 3, 40R-10641 and Part 2, 40R-11450 Part of Lot 30, Concession 2 City of Pickering ?9 We have reviewed the above-noted application and provide the following comments: 1) A Stormwater Management Report will be required for this site and for external drainage areas to the north. This Report will need to detail quantity and quality requirements for this development. Initial details of the Finch Ave. storm sewer and outfall were developed as part of the approval process for Draft Plan SP 2001-02 (Rosebank Gardens, Rosebank Rd. and Finch Ave.). The installation of the Finch Ave. storm sewer and outfall may be a requirement prior to this development proceeding. An agreement will be required between the applicant and the City to determine cost sharing and/or cost recovery for these works. Easements may be required by the City for stormwater management purposes. 2) A sidewalk will be required on Finch Ave. fronting the site. This has been identified as a development charge project and cost recovery for this item will be addressed in an agreement with the City. 3) Fencing will be required between these lands and the Hydro Corridor. 4) A Sediment and Erosion Control Plan will be required for this site. 5) A Construction Management Plan will be required for this site and should address items as indicated on attachment. 6) Utility relocations and/or installations will be the applicant's responsibility. 7) A Soils Report is required for this site. It must also contain information on Finch Ave. if the storm sewer installation becomes part of this development. $0 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A11/02 The Gimi Construction Company Ltd. ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD May 27, 2003 '7 TO ~ ~o_ C, ~ Page 2 City of Pickering has recently passed a Fill and Topsoil Disturbance By-law which restricts certain works on this site until agreements are in place or a Fill/Topsoil Permit has been issued. A copy of that By-law No. 6060/02 and Permit Application are provided with these comments and should be forwarded to the applicant. RS:bg Attachment Copy: Coordinator, Development Approvals Robert Starr 2 ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT ~ PD ¸81 OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM July 29, 2002 To: John McMullen Senior Planner- Site Planning From: Richard Holborn, P. Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Subject: Site Plan Application S05/02 -WARD 1 Gimi Construction 550 Finch Avenue Part of Lot 30, Concession 2 City of Pickering The Municipal Property & Engineering Division is in receipt of the above noted site plan for the development of two commercial buildings. I provide the following comments. This Division is requesting that the applicant consider re-locating the property entrance to the east end of the site where it can better serve the majority of the allocated parking spaces and also allow for a longer throat to accommodate additional vehicle stacking. A sidewalk is required to be constructed across the Finch Avenue frontage of the property. Details need to be provided with respect to the storm sewer outfall for the internal drainage system. chard H,ofborn, P. Eng. RH:ds - Copy: Director, Operations & EmergAncy.Services I:\SITEPLANB05-02.docAug-02 A MS ATTACHMENT # ?' .,TO REPORT # PD d~ ~ ~ AiMS Consulting Environmental ' 1020 Benison Street Unit 111 Markham, Ontario L3R 3W5 Tel: (905} 474-0058 Fax: (905) 474-0601 web site: www. aimsconsulting.com April 15, 2003 Report No. AR134-03 Mr. Mitko Stankovski The Gimi Construction Company Ltd. 59 Beckenridge Drive Markham, Ontario L3S 2V4 Dear Mr. Stankovski EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Phase H Environmental Site Assessment 550 Finch Avenue Pickering, Ontario We are pleased to present our report of a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) of the above-referenced property. The work was authorized by Mr. Mitko Stankovski on April 2, 2003. It is Understood that the subject property is contemplated for'a commercial development . and the Phase II ESA was required for site re-zoning purposes. The findings Presented in this report may be used for this purpose subject to the limitations mentioned herein. The subject 0.86-acre triangular-shaped property is presently vacant and covered with sparse vegetation. The site elevation varies throughout and is generally higher than. the surrounding properties. The surrounding areas are partially developed with residential and institutional land uses including hydro corridor contiguous with the north property line. There are no gasoline service stations or industrial land uses in the vicinity. Historically, the site has remained undeveloped over the years. Approximately 40 truckloads of imported fill materials and topsoil from a construction site were reportedly placed on the site in 1986. Based on our review of a Phase I ESA Report prepared by 'PinChin Environmental dated October 16, 2002, potential sources of subsurface contamination identified in association with the subject property included imported fill materials and topsoil of undetermined quality underlying the subject property. Professional Engineers by Association of Engineers Authorized the Professional Ontario of Ontario to offer professional engineering services. AT'I'ACHMEI~IT REPORT # PD $3 Phase H Environmental Site Assessment i~ Report No. AR134-03 550 Finch Avenue,. Pickerin~, Ontario April 2003 The aforementioned concerns were investigated in the course of our Phase II ESA, which entailed four sampled boreholes advanced to depths of 1.2 to 1.5 m below grade. The observed stratigraphy generally comprised surficial sod and fill materials overlying a major silty sand stratum. 'Fill materials, which were encountered in all boreholes, comprised light brown silty sand to clayey silt with some gravel; topsoil pockets and scattered rootlets. No petroleum odours were observed in any 'of the boreholes, and no elevated concentrations of volatile hydrocarbons were measured upon screening the soil samples with a portable organic vapour monitor (OVM). Laboratory analyseS on representative soil samples indicated that the reported contaminant concentrations in all soil samples analyzed complied with the Ministry of the Environment (MOE) Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (updated 1998) criteria for commercial land uses. The numbers also met the Table F background criteria. Based on these fmdings we conclude that no adverse subsurface impacts to the subject property have been identified in association with the aforementioned potential environmental concerns during our Phase II ESA. Therefore, in our opinion, the site is suitable for the Proposed commercial uses, and no special provisions need to be made for soil dispoSal during the site grading and foundation excavations. We trust you will fred this report to be complete within our terms of reference. Should you have any questions regarding the information contained in the report, or require further assistance, please contact our office. Sincerely AiMS COnsulting Environmental Mohamed M. Jagani, P.Eng., PE Project Manager 84, SIDEWALK MAP A'rI'ACHIUIEI'JT ii, ,, /0 TO City of Pickering Planning and ~ sidewalks Development Department THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED B'~J THE COTY OF PIC//.ERIN~ PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT JUL Y 3, 2C03 Arr,~C.ME.T, ~/ TO 8;5 REPORT d ~ i SP 2003-02 ~J I APPLICATION IN PROCESS ~- × -') I 37 DWELLINGS //'/ / "'ROSEBANKGARDEN HOMES INC 90,8` SUBDIVISION APPLICATION ' _~\  - SP 2001-02 ou'- ~ ~ APPROVED 67 DWELLINGS ~~ FINCH AVEN~ /INCH AVENUE REZONING APPLICATION ~ I I I I I I I I m m ~ ~/~ ~o. ~__ ORACE~ND COUR~ A 11/02 AMBERL~ COMMERCIAL USES ri I1' ~ I}111111111~1111[~, ~,~ ~ r SUMMERPARK CRES ~¢ HIGHVI~ City of Piokering Planning & Development DepaAment EXPECTED DEVELOPMENT IN FINCH/ROSEBANK AREA DATE JUNE 2003 30, RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/03, be APPROVED subject to conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report No. 30-03, to amend the existing zoning of the subject lands to. a "SA-11" zone in order to permit the development of five townhouse dwelling units on the lands being the North Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, City of Pickering. That the amending zoning by-!aw to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/03, as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 30-03 be FORWARDED to City Council for enactment. That the request made by Glen Harper to permit the division of the subject lands, 1905 Valley Farm Road, being the North Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, City of Picketing to create a total of five residential building lots through land severance, rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED. REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: PD 30-03 Date: July 4, 2003 8? From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/03 Glen Harper 1905 Valley Farm Road North Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 City of Pickering Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/03, be APPROVED subject to conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report No. 30-03, to amend the existing zoning of the subject lands to a 'SA-11' zone in order to permit the development of five townhouse dwelling units on the lands being the North Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, City of Pickering. That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/03, as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PD 30-03 be FORWARDED to City Council for enactment. That the request made by Glen Harper to permit the division of the subject lands, 1905 Valley Farm Road, being the North Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, City of Pickering to create a total of five residential building lots through land severance, rather than by draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED. Executive Summary: The applicant proposes to amend the existing zoning of the subject property to permit the development of five townhouse dwellings on lots with minimum lot frontages of 5 metres fronting onto Valley Farm Road (see Location Map and Applicant's Submitted Site Plan, Attachments #1 and #2). Approval of this application will establish a zoning for the subject property which is identical to the zoning for the existing townhouse development located one lot north of the subject lands. The applicant is also proposing that the design and character of the future townhouse development be identical to those already constructed along Valley Farm Road. The proposed development is considered to compatible with the surrounding neighbourhood and conforms to the Pickering Official Plan. It is recommended that the application be approved, and the draft by-law be forwarded to Council for enactment. $$ Report PD 30-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/03 July 4, 2003 Page 2 The applicant's request to divide the subject lands by means of land severance is also considered appropriate and recommended for approval. Financial Implications: proposed development. No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the Background: 1.0 Comments Received 1.1 At the May 15th, 2003 Information Meeting (see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #3 and #4) - no one spoke for or against the application. 1.2 Following Information Meeting - no resident comments have been received. 1.3 Agency Circulation: The Regional Municipality of Durham no objection a Noise Study will be required through the related land division process. Veridian Connections no objection 2.0 2.1 Discussion: The subject lands are to be zoned the same 'SA-11' zoning as the recently approved townhouse development on the east side of Valley Farm Road. It is recommended that the subject lands be zoned the same 'SA-11' zoning as the existing townhouse development located on the east side of Valley Farm Road, just one lot north of the subject lands. This zoning would permit the development of lots with minimum lot frontages of five (5) metres and minimum lot areas of 180 square metres. The applicant's submitted plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2). Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 03/02, submitted by Sean Regan, was previously approved by City Council in May of 2002, to allow for the development five townhouse dwellings, one lot north of the subject lands. Report PD 30-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/03 July 4, 2003 Page 3 89 2,2 2.3 Zoning the subject property a zoning category that is identical to that recently approved for the abutting townhouse development addresses compatibility of the development with the abutting lands, and helps to establish and maintain a design and character for the area. In order to ensure that the subject property is developed in harmony with the existing townhouse development, all conditions regarding the development of the lands will be similar to those applied in the zoning by-law amendment application A 3/02. The proposed development is compatible with surrounding development. The proposed development of the subject property is to be similar to the townhouse development recently constructed on Valley Farm Road. All units are to front onto Valley Farm Road with only two (2) driveways accessing the road. A proposed right-of-way is to be established across the front of all the townhouse dwelling units in order to provide street access to all the units. The proposed elevations of the townhouses are identical to those recently built along Valley Farm Road. The design has been reviewed by City staff, and is considered to be acceptable and compatible with the surrounding development. However, the number of risers proposed for the front stairs of each dwelling unit must be reduced in order to reflect the maximum five riser limit established for the existing townhouse development. A formal architectural statement will be required to be submitted for approval by the City. The subject lands are to be developed in compliance with the density requirement of the Official Plan. The property is designated as 'Urban Residential- Medium Density' in the Pickering Official Plan. This designation establishes a density range over 30 and up to and including 80 dwelling units per net hectare. The proposed gross density of the subject lands is 33.3 units per hectare (a road widening has already been taken from the subject lands). The proposed use for five townhouses is considered to be more in line with the Official Plan designation than the existing detached dwelling use. Given that there is a mix of residential uses in the immediate neighbourhood, the proposed development is considered compatible and appropriate for the area. All matters of development can be dealt with through the land severance process rather than plan of subdivision. The applicant has requested that the proposed five lots be developed through the land severance process. Section 15.26(b) of the Pickering Official Plan states that City Council shall limit the creation of lots for residential purposes by land severance to a maximum of three, and require that an ownership of land capable of being divided into more than three additional lots be developed by a plan of subdivision, except where it is demonstrated to Council's satisfaction that a plan of subdivision is neither appropriate nor necessary in which case Council may authorize the development to proceed by land severance. 90 Report PD 30-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/03 July 4, 2003 Page 4 The subject lands are capable of being divided into more than three additional lots, and therefore permission is required from Council to allow the future development of these lands to proceed through the land severance process. The applicant's proposal for five residential lots does not warrant the requirement for development by plan of subdivision. The City's interests can be appropriately addressed and protected through the subject rezoning application and conditions of land severance approval, as outlined in Appendix No. I to this report. 3.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant is aware of the contents of this report. Appendices: Appendix I: Conditions of Approval Appendix I1: Draft Implementing By-law Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Site Plan 3. Information Report 4. Minutes from Public Information Meeting Report PD 30-03 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 5/03 July 4, 2003 Page 5 Prepared By: Carla Pierini Planner I Approved / Endorsed By: Neil Ca rroll'~.,~PP -' Director, Pla'hrr~ & Development Lyn~"&-T~, M'CIP, RPP "~ Manager, Developmentt~:M-~w CXP:jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council_ ., The/rn~a~ J. Ouinn, ~0¢hief A~r.j/ninist~ 0ffice~ 92 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 30-03 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 5~03 That the subject lands be rezoned from a "R-3" zone in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, to a "SA-11" zone, to permit development of single attached dwellings on lots with minimum frontages of 5 metres. That the following conditions be included in comments to the Land Division Committee regarding any future land severance applications; a) That the owner enter into an appropriate development agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering, prior to the City's release of any clearance of land division conditions, that will address, among other matters; noise attenuation, servicing, construction management plan, fencing, easements, road restoration, road cleaning, grading and drainage, boulevard tree planting, driveway location and paving, stormwater management, parkland contribution, required securities to safeguard the City and satisfying the City financially, including the payments required to satisfy the Development Charges Act. b) That the owner submit to the City of Pickering an appropriate siting and architectural design statement and that the owner agrees to implement the recommendations of the siting and architectural design statement in the required development agreement. c) That the owner satisfy the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features. APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 30-03 93 DRAFT BY-LAW ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 5~03 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF P~,,I~ BY-LAW NO. ~~' ~ Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5985/02, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District Planning Area, Region of Durham in North Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering. (A 05/03) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to rezone the subject lands, being North Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, for the development of five townhouse dwelling units; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5985/02, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULE "1" AMENDMENT Schedule 'T' to By-law 5985/02 is hereby amended by including the lands known as North Part of Lot 20, Concession 1, in the City of Pickering, as shown designated SA-11 on Schedule "1" to this by-law. BY-LAW 5985~02 By-law 5985/02 is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matter not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 5985/02. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontado Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this __ of ,2003. day Wayne Arthurs, Bruce Taylc PARTS 1, 4, AND 5, 40R-11,306 PARTS 2 AND 5, 4OR- 11506 SA-11 SCHEDULE T TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DAY OF .2003 MAYOR CLERK 95 96 FINCH AVENUE ATTACHMENT # / TO REPORT ,¢ PD ,~ 0 -- o 'A, FINCH AVENUE ;TREET ROSEFIELD ROAD ROAD LODGE L~NE BOULEVARD II O City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION NORTH PART LOT 20, CONCESSION 1 OWNER GLEN HARPER I DATE APRIL 15, 2003 APPLICATION No. A05/03 I SCALE 1:5000 FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-12 PA- DRAWN BY JB CHECKED BY CP ATTACHMENT J ~'q TO REPORT # PD.~° - o~ INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S PROPOSED PLAN A05/2003 II il JNOTE: THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN,. ELEVATIONS ARE TO BE MODIFIED TO REFLECTA ~IMUM OF 5 RISERS THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION MAPPING AND DESIGN SECTION. APRIL 17, 2003. 98 ATTACHMENT# .~ TO REPORT t PD .~,~ - 0 ~ PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 12-03 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF May 15th, 2003 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 05/03 Glen Harper 1905 Valley Farm Road (North Part of Lot 20, Concession i) City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject property is located on the east side of Valley Farm Road, north of Kingston Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1); the subject property currently supports a detached dwelling that was constructed in the 1950's; the subject property has an area of 0.15 hectares (1503.7 m2); the subject lands are surrounded by detached residential dwellings to the north, west (on the opposite side of Valley Farm Road), and commercial uses to the east and south; the development of 5 townhouse units is currently under construction one lot north of the subject property. 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL - the applicant proposes to amend the zoning of the subject property to 'SA-11'- Single Attached Dwelling Residential Use, to permit the development of 5 townhouse dwellings on lots with minimum lot frontages of 5 metres fronting onto Valley Farm Road; - the applicant's proposed plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2); - the dwelling unit design is to be similar to the townhouses that are currently being developed at 1911 Valley Farm Road; Information Report No. 12-03 ATTACHMENT ~ ,'~ .TO Page2 REPORT ~' PD - the number of stairs at the front of each unit as shown on the applicant's submitted plan are to be revised to reflect a maximum of five (5) stairs; the proposed site plan has two (2) driveways accessing Valley Farm Road, with a proposed mutual right-of-way across the front of all the townhouse dwelling units that will provide street access to all the dwelling units; the applicant has indicated that if this application is successful, applications will be made to the Durham Region Land Division Committee to create five new lots; - the applicant would require permission from City Council to create a total of five residential building lots through land severance, rather than by draft plan of subdivision. 3.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING 3.1 Durham Reqional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being within a 'Living Area', where development is intended to be predominantly for housing purposes; the proposal appears to conform to the Durham Region Official Plan; 3.2 Pickerin.q Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being located within an 'Urban Residential - Medium Density Area' within the Liverpool Neighbourhood; permissible uses within this designation include a variety of residential uses; the Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range over 30 and up to and including 80 dwelling units per hectare for development within an 'Urban Residential - Medium Density Area', the proposed development would provide a gross density of 33.3 units per hectare (5 units / 0.15 ha); a road widening has already been taken from this property. no development guidelines have been prepared for the Liverpool Neighbourhood; Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan -"Transportation System" designates Valley Farm Road as a Type 'C' Arterial Road; Type 'C' Arterial Roads are designated to carry lower volumes of traffic at a lower speed than a Type 'B' Arterial Road, provide access to properties and generally have a right-of-way ranging from 26 to 30 metres; the applicant's proposal conforms to the policies of the Plan; 3.3 Zoning By-law 3036~00 - the subject property is currently zoned "R3" - Detached Residential Dwelling Zone, by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended; - the existing zoning permits a detached dwelling on a lot with a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres and a minimum lot area of 550 square metres; 9.9 Information Report No. 12-03 4.0 4.1 4,2 4.3 5,0 ATTACHMENT#. ~ TO Page3 REPORT # PD _'-~ o O,.~ ..... a zoning by-law amendment is required for the subject property to allow the development of 5 townhouses on lots with minimum lot frontages of 5 meters fronting onto Valley Farm Road. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments none received to date; A_~encv Comments - none received to date; Staff Comments In reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: · ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, surrounding development; · ensuring that proposed townhouse elevations reflect the character and design of the townhouses currently being developed in the neighbourhood; · the impact that the proposed use / site change may have on the character of the neighbourhood. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION - written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; - oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; - all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; - if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. Information Report No. 12-03 ATTACHMENT #.._~ TO REPORT # PI)_ -i~,¢ -o ~ Page 4 6.0 6.1 6,2 OTHER INFORMATION Appendix No, I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report; Information Received - a copy of the applicant's submitted plan is available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Carla Pierini Planner I CXP:jf Attachments ORIOINAL SIGNED BY Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review Copy: Director, Planning & Development Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting ATTACHMENT#, Z~ TO Thursday, May 15, 2003 REPORT # PO _~O-- o3 7:00 P.M. (11) The Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 05/03 GLEN HARPER 1905 VALLEY FARM ROAD (NORTH PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 1) Lynda Taylor, Manager, 'Development Review, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #12-03. Glen Harper, Applicant, advised that this is a joint venture and that the proposed building will be exactly as the one being built at this time. -1- 103 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report Number PD 29-03 concerning Phase 2 - Consultation Process of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review be RECEIVED for information; and That a copy of Report Number PD 29-03 be FORWARDED to the Region of Durham. 104 REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: PD 29-03 Date: July 4, 2003 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review Recommendations: That Report Number PD 29-03 concerning Phase 2 - Consultation Process of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review be RECEIVED for information; and That a copy of Report Number PD 29-03 be FORWARDED to the Region of Durham. Executive Summary: Regional Council has endorsed a two-phased approach to reviewing the Durham Regional Official Plan. The first phase, which was completed in 2001, identified the following policy areas of the Regional Official Plan as requiring review: environment/open space; commercial structure; population and employment growth; urban land requirements; rural/agriculture; and transportation. The second phase is focused on the analysis of these policy areas through Discussion Papers. The issues related to transportation are being dealt with through the Region's Transportation Master Plan. Proposed policy directions are provided in the Discussion Papers with the objective of refining and enhancing these policy areas. Staff will be reviewing the proposed directions and consulting with Regional and other public agency representatives on specific matters over the summer. A report will be prepared for Council's endorsement as the City's comments on the Discussion Papers early in the New Year. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. Background: 1.0 Durham Reqional Official Plan Review: 1.1 Regional Council initiated a two-phased approach to reviewing its Official Plan with the first phase completed in 200'1. Report PD 29-03 Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: July 4, 2003 Page 2 1.2 On April 5, 2000, Regional Council endorsed a two-phased approach to reviewing the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP). Part of the first phase involved releasing a background report, which included a summary and status of the ROP changes that have occurred in the Region since 1991, and an outline of five policy areas suggested for review in the ROP. The background report was circulated to local municipal and other interested stakeholders for review and comment. A series of public open houses were held in each of the local municipalities and a statutory public meeting was held to hear comments on the need to review the ROP. On December 18, 2000, City Council endorsed Report Number PD46-00 (Revised) and requested that the Region of Durham address the issues raised in the City's Report in its review of the ROP. The City supported the review of the policies suggested by the Region and identified other issues for review including: · the review and update of housing policies to reflect changes to Provincial legislation and programs; · consideration of removing urban separation designations from the major open space system; · specific designations for a future extension of Clements Road in Ajax, Finch Avenue west of Altona Road and Townline Road north of Finch, Dixie Road, and the freeway to freeway connector between Highways 401 and 407; · and a number of technical issues. Subsequently, Regional Council considered the results of the consultation process undertaken for Phase 1 of the Official Plan review and endorsed the following policy areas in the ROP for review: · environment/open space policy · commercial structure; · population and employment growth; · urban land requirements; · rural/agriculture policy; and · transportation system Regional Planning Committee authorized Regional staff to initiate the consultation process for Phase 2 of the Official Plan based on the Directions proposed in the Discussion Papers. On June 3, 2003, Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-67 pertaining to Phase 2 of the Durham Region Official Plan Review was tabled by Planning Committee in order to allow Planning Committee and Council the opportunity to review the papers and to consider an appropriate consultation process. 106 Report PD 29-03 Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: July 4, 2003 Page 3 2.0 2.1 On June 24, 2003, Regional Planning Committee authorized staff to initiate the consultation process for Phase 2 of the Official Plan Review. The second phase begins with the release of four Discussion Papers, which are focused on the analysis of the policy areas identified in Phase 1, for public and agency consideration. With the exception of the Transportation System review, which is pending completion of the Region's Transportation Master Plan, the five policy areas are reviewed in the following Discussion Papers: · Towards a Sustainable and Healthy Environment; · Population, Employment and Urban Land; · Commercial Policy Review; and · Protecting our Rural Resources. As well, as part of the Discussion Papers, directions are proposed to refine ROP policy for consideration. The proposed directions represent Regional staff positions and are not Regional Council's position on changes to the Regional Official Plan. To assist in the Review, the Durham Environmental Advisory Committee held a workshop in March of 2002 to advance the discussion of environmental issues. As well, the consulting firm of Malone Given Parsons Ltd. was retained to prepare the commercial component in consultation with local staffs. Representatives of the consulting firm met with City staff to discuss the commercial structure policies in the Regional Official Plan. Also, amendments to the Regional Official Plan pertaining to the Oak Ridges Moraine have been adopted by Regional Council, as required by the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, and are awaiting Provincial approval. A copy of all proposed directions, as set out in the Issues and Directions Report, is provided for Council's information (see Attachment #1). Copies of the Discussion Papers are available from the Regional Planning Department or may be viewed on the Region's website. Discussion: A Public information Session in Pickering to solicit public input on the proposed directions in the ROP Review Discussion Papers is supported. A series of Public Information Sessions is planned for the fall of 2003 (one for each of the local municipalities). The Sessions will be used to solicit public input on the proposed directions in the Discussion Papers. The proposal to hold one of the Public Information Sessions in Pickering is supported. Report PD 29-03 Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: July 4, 2003 Page 4 107 2.2 2,3 Staff will notify Council of the timing and location of Pickering's Public Information Session. Notice of the Session will also be placed on the City's website. The deadline for municipal comments on the proposed directions in the Discussion Papers has been extended to early 2004. Both the Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-67 and the Issues and Directions Report indicated a deadline of November 28, 2003, for submitting comments to the Region on the proposed directions. City staff advised the Region that the deadline was problematic as municipal elections are being held in November and that a more practical and realistic deadline for municipal comments should be early 2004. As a result, the Region has extended the deadline for municipal comments to February 28, 2004. Afterwards, Regional staff will present the results of the Phase 2 consultation process to Regional Planning Committee and seek authorization to initiate a series of amendments addressing the recommended refinements to the ROP. On-going consultation with the Region and other public agencies should assist in the review of the proposed directions in the Discussion Papers. The Region has committed, as part of the Region's consultation process, to meet with local staffs and Councils where requested on the proposed directions highlighted in the Discussion Papers. For the most part, the proposed directions address the issues previously raised by the City in its report on Phase 1 of the Official Plan Review. However, Regional staff is proposing major enhancements to the environmental policies in the ROP. The rationale in support of these directions requires further clarification and discussion with Regional staff and other public agencies. In addition, the implications of the proposed directions to the Pickering Official Plan and to the Growth Management Study are being reviewed. Staff will be providing comments on the proposed directions in the ROP Discussion Papers for Council's consideration early in the New Year. Attachments: 1. ROP Review Discussion Papers' Proposed Directions Table 108 Report PD 29-03 Durham Regional Official Plan Review Date: July 4, 2003 Page 5 Prepared By: Grant McGregor, MCII~/[Rr~P Principal Planner- Policy Approved / Endorsed By: ~~nt Manager, Policy GM:Id Attachment Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering C~y Council .., x.~? ,, .%"/...~--,.,'-~.~.1 I .---.. ' "~' "' ~' I T'I~I'~s J. Ouinn~Chief/~minist~ ATTACHMENT ~ / 1'0 REPORT~PD Z~/ -03 109 Region of Durham Official Plan Review Phase 2 Areas of Discussion Papers Analysis Proposed Directions Towards a Protecting Water It is proposed that policies in the P,OP be enhanced by Sustainable and Resources identifying the minimum components of a watershed plan, Healthy Environment and requiring the preparation of watershed plans as a pre-requisite to development. It is proposed that P,OP policies be enhanced to protect surface and groundwater quantity by: · requiring an amendment to the ROP for any application made under the Planning Act that proposes to remove more than 50,000 L/d groundwater or surface water, and/or is deemed to have potential negative impacts on water quantity; and · ensuring that aquifer recharge areas and infiltration rates are protected in the consideration of development applications. Policies to minimize the establishment of impervious surfaces through the development process should be considered. It is proposed that P, OP policies ensure the protection of groundwater quality by: · including a constraints map identifying aquifer vulnerability areas and policies that restrict the types of uses that are permitted, to only those which do not pose a risk to groundwater. Proposed development within or adjacent to these areas would be subject to an environmental impact study which verifies that there will be no impact; · including a constraints map identifying significant groundwater discharge areas and policies to ensure that these areas are protected through the development approval processes; · protecting capture zones for municipal wells from uses that have the potential to contaminate or unnecessarily deplete the water resource. This will implement the findings of the P,egional Wellhead Protection Program; and · specifically requiring any land use proposal having the potential to impact water quality or quantity to submit a hydrogeological study at the time of application. 110 Region of Durham Official Plan Review Page 2 Areas of Discussion Papers Analysis Proposed Directions Towards a Enhancing It is proposed that the ROP policies be enhanced to Sustainable and Natural Heritageprotect the natural heritage features in the Region by: Healthy Environment Features · recognizing, in the place of environmentally sensitive (continued) areas, a Natural Heritage System for all areas of the Region, that aligns with the system already in place for the Oak Ridges Moraine. To accomplish this, it is proposed that Natural Heritage System mapping and j policies be incorporated into the Plan; · including vegetative setbacks from Natural Heritage Features in rural areas, based on standards established for the Oak Ridges Moraine. Setbacks for Natural Heritage Features in Urban Areas and Hamlets will be determined through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Study; · encouraging the protection of linkages and corridors in the consideration of development applications, and the formulation of more detailed policies in the area municipal official plans; · establishing a target for woodland coverage of 30% of the Region's land area; and · encouraging the preparation of area municipal tree strategies that will advance the implementation of the woodlands coverage target. It is proposed that the Region, in consultation with area municipalities, stakeholders, and other agencies involved in land securement, develop a land securement strategy to protect key natural resources within the Region. It is also proposed that the ROP be amended to allow the consideration of a severance that facilitates the conveyance of a natural heritage feature to a public body or non-profit entity for conservation purposes, provided that no more than one lot is retained by the original owner. Improving the It is proposed that appropriate amendments to the ROP Region's Air addressing air quality be considered as a result of Quality initiatives, such as the Regional Air Quality Working Group and Transportation Master Plan currently underway. ATTACHMENT t ...... I , TO REPORT ~' PD;Z q o O.5 Region of Durham Official Plan Review Page 3 .? ~. '~ Towards a Improving the it is also proposed that the ROP be amended to Sustainable and Region's Air acknowledge the potential implications of climate change, Healthy Environment Quality (continued) (Continued) and indicate an intent to respond as knowledge and understanding of what can be done from a planning perspective, to mitigate impacts emerges. Measuring the It is proposed that the Region consider initiating a Health and program to monitor key indicators of the Region's Sustainability of environmental, social and economic health as part of the the Region's Communities Community Strategic Planning Process. It is proposed that the ROP be amended to include a provision outlining the process that must be satisfied prior to development proceeding in areas where soil contamination is known or suspected. It is proposed that the ROP be amended to encourage local municipalities to incorporate policies in their official plans and/or pass by-laws to minimize light pollution 112 ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PD Region of Durham Official Plan Review I TO Page 4 Areas of Discussion Papers Analysis Proposed Directions Population, Population and It is proposed that the ROP policies be amended to Employment and Employment incorporate and/or address the results of the population Urban Land Forecasts and employment growth forecasts as follows: · by changing the planning horizon year in the ROP from 2021 to 2031; · by replacing the population targets in the ROP with the recommended population forecasts contained in Table 1; · by presenting the population forecasts in five-year increments to the year 2031, reflecting growth expectations based on the best information currently available; · by replacing the employment targets by category in the ROP with an overall jobs to population ratio target based on the employment forecasts; · by continuing to place strong emphasis on more effective means of achieving the jobs to population target ratio; and · by regularly monitoring population forecasts and recognizing that they are subject to change within the planning horizon, particularly in the longer term. Urban Land It is proposed that the ROP policies be amended to Requirements incorporate and/or address the results of the urban land needs analysis as follows: · by maintaining the current Urban boundaries to provide the opportunity for a number of ongoing initiatives, including Highway 407, Seaton, Pickering Airport and Smart Growth, that will have a significant impact on i Regional growth, to evolve. · by recognizing that adjustments to the urban area boundaries may be considered as part of the next comprehensive 5-year review; and · by proposing no expansions to designated Employment Areas. ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PO Region of Durham Official Plan Review I TO 2.~ - o.5 Page 5.~ ! .'~ Areas of Discussion Papers Analysis Proposed Directions Commercial Policy The Region's It is proposed that the ROP policies be amended to: Review Interest in · provide a more general framework that sets out Planning for Future Commercial procedural requirements, goals and objectives for area Development municipalities to plan commercial areas; and · establish criteria which defines Regional interest as a commercial proposal of 600,000 sq. ft. or larger, on an individual or cumulative basis. Requirements forIt is proposed that the ROP policies be amended to: Market Studies · remove the requirements for a retail impact study for commercial proposal over 2,500 sq. m. (26,910 sq. ft.); and · require a retail impact study for applications which would result in the creation of a new regional 'centre', or the expansion of an existing regional 'centre', and which meet the established criteria for Regional involvement (600,000 sq. ft. or larger). Commercial It is proposed that the ROP be amended to establish the Hierarchy and intended role, scale and form of Central Areas. The Central Area policies should establish principles to guide local Definitions municipalities in preparing secondary plans or approving development proposals in these areas. Floor Space It is proposed that the policies which establish floor space Allocations for allocations in Central Areas as a method of directing Central Areas commercial growth within the Region, be modified to describe the Central Areas in terms of their relative scale. Nodes and It is proposed that the ROP policies be amended to Corridors incorporate a more flexible approach to the use of arterial roads for commercial purposes, within a concept of nodes and corridors that would establish main arterials, such as Highway 2, Taunton Road and certain north-south roads such as Simcoe and Brock Street, as corridors for commercial use. It is also proposed that the policies be strengthened to promote higher density, mixed uses along arterial roads, and that more flexibility be provided for commercial uses to locate at the periphery of designated Employment Areas. Urban Form It is proposed that the Region establish design criteria for Regional arterial roads. Magnitude ofIt is proposed that the ROP policies be amended to Retail Growth establish criteria to guide future site designations for I commercial centres (Central Areas). 11./ ATTACHMENT # ..... REPORT # PD Region of Durham Official Plan Review I 3'O 2.q -o~ Page 6 Areas of Discussion Papers Analysis Proposed Directions Protecting Our Rural Consent It is proposed that the policy, which provides for the Rural Resources Policies consideration of the severance of a surplus dwelling from a nonabutting farm by amendment, be deleted. It is proposed that the policy that permits the consideration of one farm retirement lot from the total farm holding be deleted. It is proposed that the ROP be amended to enhance the criteria related to the consideration of farm-related industrial uses to ensure that severances for these uses do not create non-viable agricultural parcels. It is also proposed that the ROP be amended to indicate that further detail on the types of uses that may be considered, and the criteria, may be provided in area municipal official plans. It is proposed that the ROP be amended to permit "stand alone" farm-related commercial uses in a manner similar to farm-related industrial uses It is proposed that the ROP be enhanced to clarify the intent and nature of accessory farm uses, addressing such matters as scale and number, and potential impacts on surrounding uses. It is also proposed that the area municipalities be encouraged to include detailed policies in their official plans to address this issue. Rural Settlement It is proposed that the Region work with the area Policies municipalities to develop detailed guidelines for the preparation of settlement capacity studies. It is also proposed that the Hamlet policies be clarified to more closely reflect the form, type and limited scale of development planned for Hamlets. It is proposed that the policies that provide for the consideration of new Country Residential Subdivisions be deleted. It is proposed that the ROP be amended to remove policies that permit the identification of new clusters. Policies to permit lot creation within existing clusters should be retained. It is proposed that the ROP policy which permits rural residential infilling within concentrations of 4 hectare (10 acre) lots be deleted. ATTACHMENT ~,,, REPORT ~ PD Region of Durham Official Plan Review ~ TO z cf Page 7 J...~. 5 Areas of Discussion Papers Analysis Proposed Directions Protecting Our Rural Rural Settlement It is proposed that the ROP be amended to permit limited Resources Policies new Rural Employment Areas in the Townships of Brock (continued) (continued) Uxbridge and Scugog, subject to the preparation of a comprehensive industrial study for the municipality. To provide guidance, the ROP should also be amended to add specific study requirements that must be followed to establish the need and location of new Rural Employment Areas. Rural Non-farm To address these issues, it is proposed that the ROP be Use Policies amended to: · prohibit golf courses in Agricultural Areas; · specifically require the submission of a Hydrogeological Study that assesses the impacts on water quality and quantity; · require the submission of a Best Management Practices report that addresses design, construction and operational considerations, including traffic; · require area municipal official plans to limit the scale of clubhouses and other associated uses in rural areas to ensure such uses will be secondary to the primary use of the golf course; · require all proposed new golf courses and golf course expansions in the Region be considered by amendment to the ROP; · require the submission of technical studies in support of golf course proposals in conjunction with the ROP amendment application; and · require a program to monitor before, during and after construction conditions to ensure environmental and other technical standards are met. It is proposed that the policies, as they pertain to designating Regional Nodes in urban areas, be removed; and further, that no new Regional Nodes be considered in the rural area. The grandfathering of existing rural Nodes should be considered. It is proposed that the ROP policies be updated and/or enhanced: · to reflect new (current) geological, socio-cultural and environmental constraint information and license status of aggregate resource extraction areas (Map 'A', Map 'C' and Schedule 4); · to require an assessment of operational aspects of pits and quarries, such as exhaust emissions and lighting impacts, and that the Plan require that mitigation measures be provided for all potential impacts of the operation, at the time aggregate related amendment applications are being considered; 116 ATTACHMENT ~,,, REPORT # PD,,, Region of Durham Official Plan Review J TO 2~/-oB Page 8 Areas of Discussion Papers Analysis Proposed Directions Protecting Our Rural Rural Non-farm · to require that rehabilitation be undertaken in a timely Resources Use Policies manner, and that the site be restored to its pre- (continued) (continued) excavation landform. Also, policy should be added to require that rehabilitation sites be restored to either the same soil capability as pre-excavation, or to a vegetative state using native species; · to clarify the requirement for development of an overall rehabilitation program to ensure that: rehabilitation plans are submitted in conjunction with ROP amendment applications; rehabilitation plans be reviewed in conjunction with the submitted ElS in accordance with poliCy 2.3.17 of the ROP; and, that such rehabilitation plans be considered in conjunction with adjacent and/or groups of operations in an area; and · to specify that Site Plans and technical reports, as required by the Provincial Standards established under the Aggregate Resources Act and Regulations, should be submitted, where appropriate, to address the requirements of the ROP. It is proposed that the ROP be amended to reflect that peat extraction activities are to be regulated through the new Municipal Act. It is proposed that the ROP be amended by deleting the policy that permits the consideration of gas stations and/or gas bars in the Agricultural Area and Major Open _ Space System. It is proposed that the ROP policy which permits cultural facilities, health facilities and community facilities in the rural area be deleted. It is proposed that the ROP should be revised to prohibit the establishment of cemeteries in prime agricultural areas. It is proposed that the ROP be amended to distinguish between recreational uses which are compatible with the character of the open space lands in the urban and rural areas. Agricultural It is proposed that the ROP's two Agricultural Area Designations designations be merged into one land use designation for the purpose of agriculture and farm-related land uses. 117 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY o That Report OES 19-03 regarding the Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive, be received; and That Tender T-2-2003, submitted by North Rock Limited for the Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive and related sidewalks in the amount of $1,104,022 (plus G.S.T.) and a net cost after G.S.T. rebate of $1,137,143, be accepted; and That the total project cost of $1,251,924 including the tender amount, the Region of Durham's portion and other associated costs and a net total cost after recoveries and rebates of $842,958, be approved; and That funding in the amount of $842,958 including transfers from Replacement Capital Reserve ~4611 in the amount of $24,148, be approved; and That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the project through the issuance of debentures through the Region of Durham; and a) That debt financing not exceed the amount of $818,000 for a period not exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined; and b) That financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $111,140 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2004 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; and 118 c) That the amount of $810 be financed from the 2003 Current Budget; and d) That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt and Financial Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial obligations for 2003 as established by the Province for municipalities in Ontado; and e) That the Treasurer is authorized to take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary action to bring effect thereto. PICKERING REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: OES 19-03 Date: June 16, 2003 119 From: Richard Holborn, P.Eng. Division Head Municipal Property & Engineering Subject: Tender No. T-2-2003 - Tender for Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive Recommendation: That Report OES 19-03 regarding the Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive be received and that; Tender No. T - 2 - 2003 submitted by North Rock Limited for the Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive and related sidewalks in the amount of $1,104,022 (plus G.S.T.) and a net cost after G.S.T. rebate of $1,137,143 be accepted; The total project cost of $1,251,924 including the tender amount, the Region of Durham's portion and other associated costs and a net total cost after recoveries and rebates of $842,958 be approved; The funding in the amount of $842,958 including transfers from Replacement Capital Reserve (#4611) in the amount of $24,148 be approved and; Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the project through the issuance of debentures through the Region of Durham; and a) Debt financing not exceeding the amount of $818,000 for a period not exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined; and b) Financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $111,140 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering commencing in 2004 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; and c) The amount of $810 be financed from the 2003 Current Budget; d) The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt and Financial Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial obligations for 2003 as established by the Province for municipalities in Ontario; and e) The Treasurer is authorized to take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and 120 Report OES 19-03 Subject: Tender T-2-2003 Tender for Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive Date: June 16, 2003 Page 2 The appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary action to bring effect thereto. Executive Summary: As part of the 2003 Capital Budget, Rougemount Drive was identified as a road construction project. Tender T-2-2003 was issued in March 2003 and closed on April 9, 2003. The total project cost is estimated to be $1,251,924 with a portion to be recovered from the Region of Durham for an estimated net cost to the City of $842,958 (net of GST rebate). Staff were instructed to investigate the possibility of placing the overhead utility wires underground as part of this project. Veridian Connections were contacted and provided City staff with options for the underground conversion which were deemed not feasible due to the cost. Staff has been directed to report to Council on the results of the tender and financing in order to proceed with this project in a timely manner. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 1. Tendered Amount T-2-2003 $1,104,022 G.S.T. 77,281 Sub Total 1,181,303 G.S.T. Rebate (44,160) Total $1,137,143 APPROVED SOURCE OF FUNDS: 2. Account 2003 Capital Budget Roads 2320-6003 2003 Capital Budget Sidewalks 2323-6108 2002 Capital Budget Roads 2320-6003 (Carry forward amount) FUNDS AVAILABLE Project Code Amount 03-2320-008-00 $850,000 debt - 10 years 03-2323-001-02 60,000 debt -10 years 02-2320-008-03 24,148 replacement of capital reserves $934,148 Report OES 19-03 Subject: Tender T-2-2003 Tender for Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive Date: June 16, 2003 Page 3 ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTING SUMMARY 3. T-2-2003 - Construction - Rougemount Drive City of Picketing portion Section1, City Storm Sewers & Appurtenances Section 2, City Roadworks & Sidewalks Sub Total - City of Pickering Re_qion of Durham portion Section 2, Region Sanitary Sewers Section 3, Region Watermains Sub Total Total T-2-2003 Associated Costs Material Testing Utility Relocation Project Contingency Total G.S.T. Total Gross Project Cost Revenue to be received from the Region of Durham for Contract Administration & Field Inspection for their portion of this tender (15% of their contract value) Less - Recovery from Region of Durham Less - G.S.T. Rebate Total Net Project Cost $395,349 396,195 $791,544 $ 20,010 $292,468 $312,478 $1,104,022 $ 10,000 $ 32,000 $ 24,000 $1,170,022 $ 81,902 $1,251,924 ($46,500) ($312,468) ($ 49,998) $ 842..958 I Project Cost over (under) Approved Funds $(91,190) 122 Report OES 19-03 Subject: Tender T-2-2003 Tender for Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive Date: June 16, 2003 Page 4 The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has reviewed the budgetary implications and the financing of the expenditures contained in this report and has provided the financing recommendations. Background: Bids for Tender No T-2-2003 were received on Wednesday April 9, 2003. Ten (10) companies submitted bids at the time of closing. The Iow bidder, North Rock Group Limited has completed a similar project for the City in the past under Tender No T-4-1996, Reconstruction of Woodview Drive, and are deemed acceptable by the Supervisor, Municipal Works. The Health & Safety Policy, a list of personnel trained in Confined Space, and the CAD 7 form issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, as submitted by North Rock Group Limited have been reviewed by the Safety & Training Coordinator and are deemed acceptable. Credit information as provided by Equifax for North Rock Group Limited has been reviewed by the Senior Financial Analyst and in conjunction with staff's review of reference information and the bonding available on this project, is deemed acceptable. Hydro underground conversion was investigated by City staff and the cost estimate provided by Veridian Connections to undertake these works was deemed not feasible by City staff for this project. Upon careful examination of all tenders, and relevant documents received the Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering Division recommends the Iow bid Tender No. T-2-2003 submitted by North Rock Group Limited in the amount of $1,104,022 (GST extra) and that the net total project cost of $842,958 be approved. This report has been prepared in conjunction with the Manager of Supply & Services who concurs with the foregoing. The Minister of the Environment has advised that an Environmental Assessment Part Two Order is not required for this project. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. Location Map Record of Tenders Opened and Checked Supply & Services Memorandum Correspondance from Veridian (Conversion Estimates) Report OES 19-03 Subject: Tender T-2-2003 Tender for Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive Date: June 16, 2003 Page 5 123 Prepared By: ~ ua r;~ I~iBs ~ rS, e I~Suk~i c i p~a i-W-o k~ Director, Operations & Emergency Services Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer /l~ichard V~. Holborn / Division,Head, Municipal Property & (._.. Engineering DS Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Cou. F~c~ Th~r~-'~ ~. eui~)~, Chi~ Adminis~~ CHIEF 124 MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING Attachment For Tender: T-02-2003 ROUGEMOUNT DRIVE i - x', ~ ,, x .: --~ i C;AT~:: ~ ~:s:o~ ~'~ LOCATION MAP PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES: Road reconstruction, storm sewer and watermain replacement - Reconstruction of Rougemount Drive from rural section to urban section- Rouge Hill Court to Altona Road - Replacement of storm sewer and watermain - Reinstallation of traffic calming - Dalewood Drive to Altona Road I:~Attachments for Tender$[2OO3[ T-02-2003 - Rougemount Drive.doc 0 0 '"I 0 e"- 125 126 CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM April 9, 2003 To: From: Richard Holborn Division Head Municipal Property & Engineering Darrell Selsky ~' Supervisor, Municipal Works Vera A. Felgemacher Manager, Supply & Services Subject: Tender for Reconstruction on Rougemount Drive Tender No. T - 2 - 2003 Tenders have been received for the above project. Ten (10) companies were invited to participate. An advertisement was placed in the Daily Commercial News, News Advertiser Community Page and on the City's Website all of which yielded interest from additional bidders. Eighteen (18) bidders picked up tendering documents for a non-refundable fee of $100.00 per set of which eleven (11) responded. A copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and Checked used at the public tender opening is attached. Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 10.03 (r) provides checking tendered unit prices and extensions; unit prices shall govern and extensions will be corrected accordingly, which has been done. All deposits other than the Iow three bidders may be returned to the applicable bidders as provided for by Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 10.03(w). Therefore, the tenders of the Iow three (3) bidders are attached for your review. -~MEN'f #_._~ rOREPORT¢~_0..~ iq-(.~ 2, of.....3 Tender for Reconstruction on Rougemount Drive Tender No. %2-2003, April 9, 2003 Page 2 127 Summary (PST included, GST included) North Rock Group Ltd. 1,181,302.75 1,181,302.75 Miwel Construction Limited 1,189,000.00 1,188,932.59 B.N. Fenton Construction Ltd. 1,197,814.18 1,197,814.18 Pentad Construction Limited 1,221,329.76 1,221,328.90 Ron Robinson Limited 1,233,029.05 1,233,029.05 Hard-Co Construction 1,249,648.43 1,245,552.11 Elirpa Construction & Materials Ltd. 1,274,969.22 1,275,502.88 Drainstar Contracting Ltd. 1,295,592.38 1,289,564.00 Pachino Construction Ltd. 1,453,338.20 1,453,338.20 Mar King Construction Unable to bid Hollingworth Construction Co. Rejected - Bid deposit not sufficient. Reference: PUR 010-001, 10. 04, Item 9(d) Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 21, the following are being requested of the Iow bidder for your review during the evaluation stage of this tender call: (a) a copy of the Confined Space Entry Procedure document to be used on this project; (b) a list of employees trained in the Confined Space Entry Procedure who will be working on this project; (c) a copy of the Health & Safety Policy to be used on this project; (d) a copy of the current Cost and Frequency Report issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (in lieu of the Cost and Frequency document, a copy of the current CAD 7, NEER, or MAP reports may be submitted); (e) a copy of the current Certificate of Clearance issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board; (f) the City's certificate of insurance shall be completed bY the bidder's agent, broker or insurer; 128 Tender for Tender No. T-2-2003, April 9, 2003 Page 3 Please review the copies of the bids. Include the following items in' your Report to Council: (a) if items (a) through (c) noted above, are acceptable to the Safety & Training Co-ordinator; (b) any past work experience North Rock Group including work location; (c) without past work experience, if reference information is acceptable; (d) the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged; (e) the budget amount(s) assigned thereto; (f) Treasurer's confirmation of funding; (g) related departmental approvals; (h) any reason(s) why the Iow bid of North Rock Group is not acceptable; and (i) related comments specific to the project. Caryn Kong, Financial Analyst has received commercial credit rating information on North Rock Group and upon our review of the information, it is deemed acceptable. If you require further information, please feel free to contact me. Vera A. Felgemacher Manager, Supply & Services /bt Attachments Copy for: Director, Operations & Emergency Services VERIDIAN CONNECTIONS March 6, 2003 M_~. Scott Booker The City of Pickering I The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario LI¥ 6K7 xrTACHPIENT# 129 55 Taunton Road East Ajax, ON LqT 3V3 TEL (905) 427-9870 TEL 1-888-420-0070 FAX (905) 619-0210 www.veridian.on.ca Dear Sir: Re: Rougemount Drive, Picketing - Electrical Upgrade Options We are pleased to submit the following options and cost sm~maries as they relate to the proposed construction project on Rougemount Drive in Picketing: · engineering work cost · contractor cOSt for installation of road crossings per our preliminary submission dated February 20, 2003 · four (4) main design options and costs · supplemental option for street lighting Please note that the costs provided are still estimates as orders of magnitude and all costs sl2own include GST. Once a specific option is selected, further engineering and design can be completed to produce a more accurate cost analysis. Please be advised that Veridian is not considering sharing the cost for this project and the amounts specified are to be entirely borne by the City of Picketing. The options, specific particulars and costs will be outlined on the following pages. Should you have questions or comments regarding this information, please feel free to call me at Ext. 3242. Yours truly, Ross Barnett Engineering Technician RB/df Attach. The power to make your community better. Veridia. n Connections is a wholly owned subsidia.ry of Veddia.n Corporation 130 March 6, 2003 Rougemount Drive, Picketing Electrical Upgrade Options F.n~ineerinff Costs Explanation These costs cover the work required by Veridian to design and estimate the pr0}ecr. Included are field visits with Verid/an field superv/sors, contractors and customers. A detailed design comprising of drawings and an estimate will be forwarded ro the City for review and approval. If approval is granted, and with financing arrangements in place, materials would be ordered and consrrucuon scheduled with line crews and contractors. With a project of this magnitude, the technician will try to arrange meetings with each customer to discuss the work and meter base derails. During construction, site inspections will be conducted by Veridian. After construction, a walk through final inspection will occur. Cost Analysis Initial Engineering 0Draxving Markups, PrelLminary Designs and Order of Magnitude Options) ............ $ 3,600.00 The above amount is to be invoiced to the City - Please provide a Purchase Order #. Option #4 Engineering (For consideration only if Option 4 is chosen) ..................................................... $ 6,200.00 Road .Crossing Costs Explanation Based on our standing tender with our in-house civil contractor, we have compiled an estimated cost to install the road crossings as shown on our preliminary design to Veridian Connections standards. These costs include excavations, concrete encasement, reinforcing, ducts, pulling ropes and restoration to orig4nal conditions. It is assumed that these crossings w21 be placed after deep services are installed and before final restorations are completed to the road surface. Granular bases will be restored to City of ?ickering standards. The crossings are for Veridian sezwices only. Cost Analysis Each crossing length estimated at 11.0m. Four (4) crossings with two (2) crossings with three (3) ducts each and one (1) duct crossing with four (4) ducts. ducts each, slx (6) Cost for comparison to costs received on City's tender ........................................... $ 20,300.00 The power to make your community better. ;,.;TACHMENT# L} r TOREPORT# 3 131 Page 2 March 6, 2003 Rou8emount Drive - Electrical Upgrade Options OPTION #1 Explanation This option is a basic upgrade of the existing overhead secondary and neutral conductors only. We are proposing to replace the existing (#4 ACSK) neutral with a larger (#1/0 ACSK) conductor. The existing secondary is known as an open bus secondary arrangement with three (3) conductors spaced on the poles. The proposed replacement being secondary cables lashed to the new neutral conductor. All proposed work is to current standard construction practices. We also anticipate having to 'replace some of the existing thirty-one (31) overhead customer services with upgraded overhead secondary as well. This option does not include any pole replacements. Length of Construction: Approx. 1.5 weeks Power Interruptions: All customers affected at .scheduled times. Notices will be distributed. Order of Magnitude Cost: $ 34,000.00 Photograph of existing conditions. Existing Open Bus Secondary The power to make your community better. 132 Page 3 March 6, 2003 Rougemount Drive - Electrical Upgrade Options OPTION #2 (Should be combined with Option iii) Explanation This option basically covers the costs to upgrade the existing primary conductor to #1/0 ACSR and replace the twelve (12) existing poles'that were not replaced previously as part of our pole replacement program. The existing poles are acceptable for service and the main reason for' replacement is aesthetics as some of the poles are shorter than others and this would give a more uniform appearance to the existing poles. Poles would be replaced within approximately one (t) to two (2) metres of the existing poles. Existing street lights would be transferred to the new poles. Existing secondary services will remain as is. The transformers on replaced poles will be transferred to the new poles. Length of Construction: Approx. 2.0 weeks Power Interruptions: All customers affected at scheduled times. Notices w/il be distributed. Order of Magnitude Cost: $ 82,200.00 Photograph of existing conditions. Existing pole showing need for extension bracket. The power to make your community better. ~..iTACNPiENT#~.~ ...... TOREPOP, T# OP--':c~. Iq-O~ 133 Page 4 March 6, 2003 Rou~emount Drive - Electrical Upgrade Options OPTION #3 (Should be combined with Option #1) Explanation This option includes the replacement of the existing primary conductor with #1/0 ACSR. In addition, all main line poles will be changed to 40' round concrete, distribution poles. The secondary crossing poles will be changed to 35' round concrete distribution poles. This option also proposes that the thirty-one (31) existing overhead secondary services be changed to under~ound and includes the upgrade to their meter bases to the underground 200A standard. Existing underground customers will remain as is. The primary, neutral and secondary will remain overhead. The proposed method of installing the new secondary underground services is with a directional bore. This method is the least obtrusive to the existing grade, trees and Sther landscaping. Length of Construction: Approx. 4.0 weeks (Veridian) + 4.0 weeks (contractor) Power Interruptions: All customers affected at scheduled times. Notices will be distributed. Order of Magnitude Cost: $373,500.00 Photograph of existing conditions. Existing pole w/th underground secondary dips. The power to make your community better. 134 Page 5 March 6, 2003 Rougemount Drive - Electrical Upgrade Options OPTION #4 Explanation This option is separate to all other options and is a full underground conversion. It is the original opdon that was proposed to the City of Picketing on December 136, 2002. When complete, all overhead pr/mary and secondary services will be relocated underground. Our costs do n0.t., include the placing of other utilities underground. Our proposed design would see eight (8) new iow profile padmount transformers installed on the boulevard. All secondary services xxfi]l be routed to the new transformers. This option will replace the existing cobra head street lights with carriage style units mounted on octagonal concrete poles. It should be noted that this style of street light may not be appropriate for Rougemount Drive because of the extensive tree coverage. Please see. the supplemental page for a street light style that would provide better light distribution. Length of Construction: Approx. 4.0 weeks (Veridian) + 8.0 weeks (contractor) Power Interruptions: All customers affected at scheduled times. Notices will be distributed. · Order of Magnitude Cost: $696,200.00 · Photograph of existing conditions. Appleview Road - Existing View after conversion Tine power to make your community better. 135 Page 6 March 6, 2003 . Rougemount Drive - Electrical Upgrade Options Compariaon of Street Lighting Explanation Rougemount Drive 'has an extensive tree canopy that can seriously alter the effectiveness of the luminaires installed. On Option #4 we have included the costs to install carriage style lights with decorative scroll arms, however it is the opinion that this illumination is not suitable for this area. One other option that may be considered is that of full cut-off flat lens cobra head luminaires. These 1/ghts have been installed on IGngston Road (Glenanna - IGlob Hill Farms) and in Ajax on Bayly Street (Picketing Beach Road x Shoal Point Road) with great success. The lighting pattern with these lights is significantly better than that of the carriage sty!e. Det~dled below are the related costs for each type. The ftrst is that of the cart/age style as proposed in Option #4. The Second cost is that of the flat lens style installed in place of the c~rHage style. The last option is for consideration if flat lens style were to be installed on existing poles. The cost shown covers only the lights and arms; poles are not included. Length of Construction: Same as Option #4 (unless considered separate) Power Interruptions: Same as Option #4 (unless considered separate) Order of Magnitude. Cost: $ 92,500 - Carriage style - included with Option #4 cost $ 73,200 - Flat lens style $13,600 - Flat lens style on existing or new poles only Photographs of existing conditions. Flat Lens Style Carriage Style The power to make your community better. Page 7 ~ March 6, 2003 Rougemount Drive - Electrical Upgrade Options :: .~.~.CHMENT #._~ oi_F~REPORI~- OE-~, q -oB Rougemount Drive - Proposed Options Summary Combined Combined ] Project Details (Components) Option #1 Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 N Y N N New wood poles installed N N Y N New concrete poles installed N y Y N New overhead primary conductor y Y - If combined Y - If combined N New overhead secondary conductor with Option #1 with OptiOn #1 y Y - If combined Y- If combined N New overhead neutral conductor with Option #1 with Option #1 y Y- If combined Y- If combined N Upgrade overhead house services (as required) with Option #1 with Option #1 N N N Y New underground primary cable N N N Y New underground secondary cable N N Y Y Conversion of overhead house services to underground N N Y Y New meter bases @ each overhead fed house y y Y N Leave existing street lights as is N N N Y Replace street lights with new underground style Approximate cost of project $34,000 $82,000 $373,500 $696,200 Other items: Engineering Costs (At this time) $3,600.00 Engineering Costs for Option #4 (for reference only) $6,200.00 Cost for Veridian contractor to install road crossings $20,300.00 Price of Option #-4 with Carriage Style Luminaires $696,200.00 Price of Option #4 with Full Cut-off Style Luminaires $676,900.00 Cost to replace existing luminaires with Cut-off style $13,600.00 "Y" - Yes, item included "N" - No, item not included The power to make your community better. 137 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Report CAO 07-03, providing an update on Transport Canada's work on the Federal Green Space Lands, be received; and That Transport Canada staff involved in the Green Space Project be invited to attend a future Pickering Council meeting to present their draft findings and conclusions with respect to the Project; and That Transport Canada, in addition to obtaining the advise and assistance of the Green Space Stewardship Advisory Committee, also seek input from the affected municipal councils, affected tenants, and others interested in the Green Space Project, before finalizing a Master Plan for submission to the Minister; and That a copy of this report be forwarded to Transport Canada's Green Space Project Team. 138 PICKERING REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: CAO 07-03 Date: July 10, 2003 From: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Federal Green Space Lands - Status Update - File: A-2510-004 Recommendations 1. That Report CAO 07-03, providing an update on Transport Canada's work on the Federal Green Space Lands be received. That Transport Canada staff involved in the Green Space Project be invited to attend a future Pickering Council meeting to present their draft findings and conclusions with respect to the Project. That Transport Canada, in addition to obtaining the advise and assistance of the Green Space Stewardship Advisory Committee, also seek input from the affected municipal councils, affected tenants, and others interested in the Green Space Project, before finalizing a Master Plan for submission to the Minister. 4. That a copy of this report be forwarded to Transport Canada's Green Space Project Team. Executive Summary: The purpose of this Report is to update Council on Transport Canada's work on the Federal Green Space Project, and to invite Transport Canada staff to attend a future meeting of Council to present their draft findings and conclusions with respect to the Project. It is also recommended that Transport Canada, in addition to obtaining the advise and assistance of the Green Space Stewardship Advisory Committee, be encouraged to also seek input from the affected municipal councils, affected tenants, and others interested in the Green Space Project, before finalizing a Master Plan for submission to the Minister. CAO 07-03 Federal Green Space Lands July 10, 2003 Page 2 139 Financial Implications: None Background: In May 2002, Federal Transport Minister David Collenette announced his Government's intention to establish a Green Space Strategy to protect the federally owned portion of the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) in Pickering, Markham and Uxbridge, as well as a north-south corridor in Markham that connects the ORM lands to the Rouge Park. Approximately 3050 hectares (7540 acres) of "Green Space Lands" are involved in this initiative, which is approximately 40 percent of the total lands acquired in this area by the federal government (see map, Attachment No. 1). To assist with the development of a vision and master plan for the Green Space Lands, the Minister created a Green Space Stewardship Advisory Committee (GSSAC). GSACC has membership from the affected local and regional municipalities, tenants, the conservation authority, the Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust, and an environmental interest group (the Green Door Alliance). The City is represented by the Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy. A listing of all GSSAC members is provided as Attachment No. 2 to this Report. At the outset of the study, fifteen "guiding principles" were announced by Minister Collenette including the following: 1. Ownership of the lands will remain with the federal government. 2. Environmentally sensitive areas will be protected. 3. The Rouge Park North Plan, the Oak Ridges Moraine Plan, local government (official) plans and potential future airport plans will be considered. 4. Land being used for agricultural shall continue with the adoption of enhanced best practices, and be compatible with safe airport operations, enforced through covenants and long-term leases. 5. Residential tenancies are to be compatible with green space guiding principles and activities, through covenants in their leases. 6. Cultural heritage should be maintained with emphasis on revitalizing and enhancing the Hamlet of AItona. 7. Native cultural heritage initiatives are to be incorporated where possible. 8. Cemeteries and archaeological sites are to be preserved. 9. Long term re-naturalization, preservation, enhancement and restoration of watersheds, corridors, linkages and infrastructure (buildings) will be a priority. 10. The public shall have controlled access with uses being passive in nature. 140 CAO 07-03 Federal Green Space Lands July 10, 2003 Page 3 11. No new residential or large-scale commercial development. 12. No expansion of service corridors (major highways, pipelines) except where there would be linkages with smart urban transportation solutions, as approved by the Minister. 13. Expansion of the green space lands at a later date could be considered. 14. Transport Canada will have effective communication strategies for all aspects of Green Space planning. 15. Activities must be consistent with the government's Alternate Service Delivery policy. Transport Canada hired a consulting team, lead by EDA Collaborative and Senes Consultants Ltd., to work with GSSAC to develop a Green Space Master Plan. Work is progressing, and it is anticipated that a Master Plan will be completed later this year. Many issues will need to be considered in finalizing a master plan, including: · Establishing a distinct and exciting vision for the Green Space Lands. · Ensuring that planning for the Green Space Lands recognizes and supports other significant planning exercises currently underway, including the Greater Toronto Airports Authority's master planning process for a regional-reliever airport, and Pickering's Growth Management Study. · Deciding how best to accommodate required road and other service corridors to and through the Green Space Lands (both in a north-south and east-west direction). · Determining whether buildings and structures on the Lands need to be retained in federal ownership, or whether they can be offered for sale to tenants. · Determining where and how best to encourage on-going, viable and environmental sensitive farming practices. · Selecting appropriate implementation measures, including an appropriate governance structure for the Green Space Lands and long-term funding commitments. The Federal Government should be commended for setting aside the Green Space Lands, and initiating a process with the objective of retaining and enhancing these lands for future generations. To help ensure that the Plan for these Lands is readily supported and of lasting benefit to the community, it is recommended that Council encourage Transport Canada to seek input from affected municipal councils, affected tenants, and other members of the public interested in the project (in addition to the valuable advise and assistance provided by GSSAC), before finalizing a Master Plan for submission to the Minister. CAO 07-03 Federal Green Space Lands July 10, 2003 Page 4 'Attachment: 1. Map of the Federal Green Space Lands 2. Membership on the Green Space Stewardship Advisory Committee Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Thomas E. Hely~uk Division Head, Corporate Policy TJQ:tm Attachments Copy: Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Th~m"as ~J. Quit~n, OhYefA" "' d ~ -- -- m~ ATTACHMENT #_.~__TO REPORT #~ ~-"'~' Attachment No. 2 to Report to Committee of the Whole Report CAO 07-03 Federal Green Space Stewardship Advisory Committee Membership Organization Representative City of Pickering Tom Melymuk Green Door Alliance Brian Buckles Oak Ridges Moraine Land Trust Don Prince Region of Durham Alex Georgieff Region of York John Waller Rouge Park Alliance Ron Christie Tenant Representative Bruce Moran Toronto Region Conservation Authority Craig Mather Town of Markham Lilli Douba Town of Uxbridge Alex Grant 144 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY, That Report CAO 06-03, regarding the draft Environmental Assessment Study for the expansion of the Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility; be received; and That the submission prepared by IER Planning, Research and Management Services, and Scimus Inc., attached as Attachment No. 2 to this Report, be endorsed as the City's comments on the draft Environmental Assessment Study for the expansion of the Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility; and That a copy of this Report, including the submission of IER/Scimus be forwarded to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ontado Power Generation, the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities, and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization for information. REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: CAO 06-03 Date: July 14, 2003 From: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Study Report File: 0-5260-002 Recommendations That Report CAO 06-03, regarding the OPG Draft Environmental Assessment Study for the expansion of the Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility be received. That the draft submission prepared by IER Planning, Research and Management Services, and Scimus Inc., attached as Attachment No. 2 to this Report, be accepted as the City's comments on the OPG Draft Environmental Assessment Study for the expansion of the Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility. That a copy of this Report, including the draft submission of IER/Scimus be forwarded to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, Ontario Power Generation, the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities, and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization for information. Executive Summary: Ontario Power Generation (OPG) is planning to expand the Waste Management Facility at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, to allow nuclear waste fuel to continue being stored at PNGS up to the end of the planned 40-year service life of the station. The expansion requires an environmental assessment (EA) under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. To assist in monitoring the EA process and reviewing EA documents, the City commissioned a consulting team lead by IER Planning, Research and Management Services, and Scimus Inc. (hereafter collectively referred to as "IER") to provide peer review services. This Report provides IER's draft peer review comments on the Draft EA Study Report prepared by OPG. Staff concurs with the findings and conclusions of IER, and recommends that Council accept and forward the IER submission with this report to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) as the City of Pickering's comments on the Draft EA Study Report. 146 Report CAO 06-03 Date: Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion - City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Study Reports July 14, 2003 Page 2 Financial Implications: None. OPG has agreed to cover the City's peer review costs. Background: Ontario Power Generation proposes to expand the existing Waste Management Facility at the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (PNGS) to accommodate the storage of used fuel from PNGS-A and PNGS-B to the end of the planned 40-year service life of the station. The expansion requires an environmental assessment (EA) to be completed in compliance with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Under the Act, CNSC is the "responsible authority" for preparing the EA. CNSC has determined that a screening level assessment is required, and has delegated the. preparation of a draft EA study report to OPG. The Draft EA Study Report, and comments received on the Report, will be used by CNSC as the basis for preparing the final EA Screening Report for submission to the Commission. The purpose of the EA is to determine whether the expansion of the Waste Management Facility at PNGS is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects, taking into account appropriate mitigation measures. After analyzing various options, OPG proposes that two new storage buildings be located at the southeast corner of the property, in an area that is currently used for outdoor storage of equipment and materials. If approved to proceed, OPG would be in a position to initiate site preparation and construction of the first new storage building in 2005-2007, and the second building in the 2014-2016 time period. At present there are two existing Waste Management Facility storage buildings at PNGS. They began operation in 1996 and 2001, and together are designed to hold up to approximately 650 dry storage containers (DSCs). By the end of 2007, it is anticipated that the existing buildings will have approximately one-year of dry storage container space remaining. The two new buildings that are proposed in the expansion would each be able to hold 500 additional DSCs. Each DSC is designed to hold up to 384 waste fuel bundles. Accordingly, should the expansion be allowed to proceed, PNGS in total would be capable of holding approximately 1650 dry storage containers and over 633,000 bundles of nuclear waste fuel for up to the next 50 years, unless the Government of Canada decides on an acceptable alternative solution for storing nuclear waste fuel during this time period~. The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was created under the federal Nuclear Fuel Waste Act to provide recommendations (within three years) to the Government of Canada on the long-term management of used nuclear fuel. The Government of Canada will then decide on an approach, and this decision would be implemented by the NWMO, subject to all necessary regulatory approvals. Report CAO 06-03 Date: July 14, 2003 Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion - City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Study Reports Page 3 147 To assist in monitoring the EA process, and rewewing EA documents, the City commissioned a peer review consulting team (IER). OPG has agreed to cover the consulting costs for this peer review service. Following receipt of the City/IER peer review comments, CNSC will tabulate all of the comments that it receives from submitters and then will forward them to OPG for their review and response. OPG will formally address each of the comments with explanations, additional information, and/or a commitment to alter the project, etc. The City will subsequently have an opportunity to reply, with the assistance of IER, to OPG's responses. The entire process is intended to result in the completion of a final report that will be submitted to a CNSC public hearing in 2004. In late June, the Draft EA Study Report and thirteen Technical Support Documents were released by OPG and distributed by CNSC. Attached for information purposes, is the Executive Summary of the Draft EA Study Report (see Attachment No. 1). The complete Draft EA Study Report and all of the Technical Support Documents are available for viewing through the CAO's Office. IER has reviewed the Draft EA Study Report and Technical Support Documents (TSD), and have provided comments to the City. They have a number of "significant findings" and "detailed minor comments" (see Attachment No. 2). In general, the Review Team found the EA to provide adequate documentation to support most of the findings and conclusions presented. The environmental conditions of the study area are adequately described, with some exceptions that are more fully described in IER's submission. The assessment of the selected Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) was carried out in a manner consistent with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and current environmental practice, although it is not clear whether the public was involved in the selection of VECs. Assuming that OPG clarifies the inconsistencies identified and provides important missing information, the Review Team agrees that there would be no significant residual adverse environmental effects of the PWMF II project at the preferred Site, Area B, taking into account the identified mitigation measures. Below, is a summary of IER's other significant findings: In the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, a significant percentage of respondents indicated that they might change their decision to live in the community as a result of the project. The assessment also notes that respondents have concerns about the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station as a whole. This is the second temporary storage solution at the Station, and permanent storage may be an option considered for the future. This point, while outside the limited scope of the EA analysis for PWMF II, is most relevant in terms of the concentration of Report CAO 06-03 Date: Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion - City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Study Reports July 14, 2003 14 9 Page 5 10. With regard to the description and assessment of credible malfunction and accident scenarios, there are inconsistencies in the assumptions used to describe the bounding accident, and the dose calculation methodology appears to be based on PWMF I conditions (Phase II site location is considerably closer to the property boundary than the Phase I site location). 11. The cumulative effects assessment predicted that the effects on VECs do not possess a cumulative effects trigger. While the conclusions seem reasonable it will be extremely important to revisit these predicted effects during the follow-up and monitoring program, especially in light of the pending international airport located some 12 km. to the North of PWMF II and slated to open within ten years. 12. The Review Team recommends that several additional elements be incorporated into the follow-up and monitoring program. Staff concur with the IER's findings and conclusions, and recommend that Council accept the IER submission and forward it with this Report to CNSC as the City of Pickering's comments on the Draft EA Study Report. It is also recommended that a copy of this report, including the IER submission be forwarded to OPG, the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities, and the Nuclear Waste Management Organization for information. Attachments: 1. Draft EA Study Report Executive Summary (prepared by OPG) 2. IER Draft Review of OPG Draft EA Study Report (submission to the City dated July 2003) Prepared By: A.L. (Joe) HQnwicks / Emergency Respons~oordinator Thomas E. Melymuk Division Head, Corporate Projects 8, Policy Approved / Endorsed By: Thd'~as J. Quinn ~/ Chief Administrative Officer 150 Report CAO 06-03 Date: Subject: Pickering Nuclear Waste Management Facility Expansion - City of Pickering's Comments on Draft EA Study Reports July 14, 2003 Page 6 TJQ:tem:alh:kr Attachments Copy: Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~ ~ ,t Th6~'l"a~'J. Quin~ Chief~dminist'~~ ATTACHMENT REPORT ' '' 151 Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II Ontario Power Generation Inc, Environmental Assessment Draft EA Study Report EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 INTRODUCTION Ontario Power Generation Inc. (OPG) proposes to expand capacity of the existing Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase I (PWMF I) for additional interim storage of used fuel at the Pickering Nuclear (PN) site in southern Ontario. The PN property is located in the City of Pickering in the Regional Municipality of Durham on the northern shore of Lake Ontario, 32 km east of downtown Toronto and 21 km south-west of the City of Oshawa. There is insufficient space immediately adjacent to PWMF I to accommodate the required expansion. In addition, construction of the expansion adjacent to PWMF I would interfere with the operation and maintenance of the PN reactors. Therefore, OPG is proposing to construct and operate Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II (PWMF II) at a separate nearby location within the PN site to provide the required additional storage capacity. The proposed expansion will not alter the basic purpose or function of the existing PWMF I. The expanded facilities, will use the same storage technology as is currently in use in the existing, licensed PWMF I. OPG's plan from the outset was to develop the PWMF in two phases as the used fuel volumes at PN increased. The proposed Phase II project is the expansion of the used fuel dry storage component of the existing PWMF I to accommodate used fuel from Pickering Nuclear Generating Station A (PNGS-A) and PNGS-B to the end Of their planned 40 year service lives. Decommissioning of PWMF II is anticipated once all the used fuel has been transferred to a long-term waste management facility. The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) is the federal authority responsible for the regulation of nuclear facilities in Canada. The siting, construction and operation of the facility would be authorized by the CNSC under subsection 24(2) of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act (NSCA). Licensing approval from the CNSC invokes a federal Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to Section 5(1) (d) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). The CNSC has determined that a screening level assessment is required for the proposed project. As the licensing body, the CNSC is the Responsible Authority (RA) under the CEAA for the purpose of this assessment. The CNSC has delegated the preparation of an EA Study Report to OPG. Once accepted, this report will be used by the CNSC as a basis for the preparation of the required Screening Report. The EA Study Report is organized into 14 chapters. The highlights of Chapters 2 to 12 are provided in the following sections of this Executive Summary. Chapter 1.0 is an Introduction to the project, Chapter 13 is References and Chapter 14 is Abbreviations and Acronyms. ES-I June, 2003 152 ATTACHMENT # TO REPORT # Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II 9%'~ ¢:2~ ~ Ontario Power Generation Inc. Environmental Assessment Draft EA Study Report 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT This chapter provides an overview of used fuel dry storage at PN, project location, description of components of the proposed facility, the proposed works and activities, project schedule, waste management at the facility, a description of OPG's environmental, safety and monitoring programs, and a description of a conceptual decommissioning plan. Used Fuel Dry Storage Phases I and II The existing PWMF I Storage Buildings (1 and 2) together will hold up to 650 DSCs. The proposed PWMF lI will have two identical Storage Buildings (3 and 4) each designed to contain up to 500 DSCs for a total of 1000 DSCs. Site Location of Phase II A Site Options Study identified and analyzed the various options for locating the PWMF II within the PN property. The criteria used were potential impacts on present and future land use, impacts on operations and maintenance, traffic and material flows, health and safety, and security. The preferred siting option was a 13 ha PWMF II Siting Area located in the East Complex of the PN site on lands primarily used for outside storage, material lay down and parking, and adjacent to a small wetland and PN landfill areas. Components of Facility The DSC design used in PWMF I will continue to be used. It is a free standing reinforced concrete container, with an inner steel liner and an outer steel shell. It is made of two sub-assemblies, a lid and a base with provision for installing safeguard seals. The DSC has been designed to provide a storage life that will meet all shielding and containment integrity requirements over a minimum 50 year service life. The Storage Buildings will be single storey, commercial-type, pre-engineered or pre-cast concrete structures with a concrete slab-on-grade floor. The Storage Buildings will meet the requirements of the National Fire Code of Canada and the National Building Code of Canada. As a Class lB Nuclear Facility, the PWMF II will be provided with appropriate security and alarm systems to comply with CNSC security requirements. It will be located within a designated "protected area", bounded by a perimeter fence. The specialized Transfer Vehicle already in use at PWMF I will continue to be used to transfer loaded DSCs (weighing approximately 70 Mg) between PWMF I and PWMF II. The design speed of the vehicle is 4 km/hr. Transfer routes and timeframes have been identified between PWMF I and PWMF II along with appropriate safety and security. Proposed Works and Activities The activities associated with the Site Preparation and Construction Phase are: ES-2 June, 2003 AT'rACHME~ #~0 REPORT ~0.~ (~-~ Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II ~3C2~.~'~ ~' '~'~ Ontario Power Generation Inc. Environmental Assessment Draft EA Study Report · site clearing; · excavation; · site grading and compaction; · construction of foundation and inactive drainage system; · site service hook-ups; · construction of the storage buildings; · site paving and landsCaping; · road construction and/or upgrading; and · installation of perimeter fence and security system. 153 The activities associated with the Operation Phase are: · Transferring loaded, seal-welded DSCs from the existing Processing Workshop or the PWMF I Storage Buildings to the new PWMF II Storage Buildings; · Operating and maintaining the PWMF II Storage Buildings; · Routine security and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspections. Project Schedule Subject to EA approval from the CNSC, the proposed schedule for implementing the PWMF II Project is as follows: · Initiation of detailed design - Fall of 2004. · Site preparation and construction of Storage Building 3 - 2005 to 2007. · Operation of Storage Building 3 - 2007. · Construction of Storage Building 4 - 2014. · Operation of Storage Building 4 - 2016. 3.0 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY The assessment methodology followS the general requirements of CEAA and is reflected in each chapter of the report. This methodology requires that the project works and activities be considered to determine how each one may interface with, and affect, the environment. This is done by establishing temporal and spatial boundaries relevant to the project, identifying applicable environmental components (biophysical, cultural and social), and selecting the Valued components (VCs) that represent important features of the environment as a focus of the EA study. The spatial boundaries include a Regional Study Area - the 10 km emergency planning zone (centered on the PN property), as identified by Emergency Management Ontario; a Local Study Area - areas within the municipal boundaries of the City of Picketing and the Town of Ajax south of Highway 401; and a Site Study Area - the PWMF II Siting Area and the area encompassed by the associated transfer routes. ES-3 June, 2003 154 ATTACHMENT#, ~ TO REPORT # ~ C~G- ~-~ Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II %k~ C~,~ -'~ Ontario Power Generation Inc. Environmental Assessment Draft EA Study Report 4.0 COMMUNITY AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION AND COMMUNICATION The Community and Stakeholder Consultation and Communication Program (CSCCP) involved a series of coordinated activities and events throughout the EA study. Highlights included three EA Newsletters, Project Information Packages, three rounds of Open Houses each held in Picketing, Ajax, Scarborough East, and Whitby, mailings of invitation cards and comment cards, three presentations to the Picketing Nuclear Community Advisory Council, toll-free information line, a website, and project information repositories The communication process with Aboriginal groups (six First Nations and M6tis Nation) was undertaken through consultation with the appropriate contact persons and councils. All issues raised by stakeholders were recorded in a Stakeholder Comment Database and addressed either through the CSCCP and/or in the EA Study Report. 5.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING ENVIRONMENT The Site Study Area is an industrial area containing a mix of uses including warehouses, machine shops, hazardous materials storage building, parking areas, material storage, access roads and drainage ditches. No soil contamination was found in the Siting Area; therefore, soil quality is considered acceptable for an industrial site. No watercourses traverse the Site Study Area and all but two of ten site catchments drain directly into Lake Ontario. In general, drainage is a mix of ephemeral swales, ditches, culverts and storm sewers containing minimal vegetation cover and wildlife habitat. The quality of stormwater was found to be generally consistent with that of typical urban runoff. The direction 'of groundwater flow beneath the Siting Area is towards the Lake Ontario shoreline; groundwater quality was measured to be within appropriate guidelines. The analysis of baseline conditions in the Regional, Local and Site Study areas is documented in nine Technical Support Documents (TSDs) and summarized in the EA Study Report. The following VCs were identified from the analyses: · Radiation and Radioactivity - members of the public and workers; populations of non- human biota. · Atmospheric Environment - residents at Durhamdale House (the closest residence). · Aquatic Environment - benthic invertebrates, emerald shiner and white sucker in Lake Ontario. Terrestrial Environment - red-winged blackbird, grey catbird, woodchuck, northern leopard frog, chokecherry, narrow-leaved cattail, and sandbar willow. Socio-economic Conditions - population, business activity and tourism, housing and property values, recreational and community features, municipal finance, community character, use and en2 oyment of property. ES-4 June, 2003 ATTACHMENT# , -h 155 Pickering Waste Management Fac'lity Phase II ..o Ontario Power Generation Inc. Environmental Assessment Draft EA Study Report Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources - aboriginal structural remains, subsurface features and artefacts; historic architecture, structural remains, artefacts; agricultural landscapes. Aboriginal Interests - employment and business opportunities, community character, hunting and fishing for subsistence and economic purposes; archaeological resources, ceremonial sites, burial mounds or petroglyphs. No VCs were identified for Geology and Hydrogeology, and Land Use and Resources. 6.0 EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF PROJECT LOCATION Using a conceptual facility layout to determine the area needed for the approximate footprint of the PWMF II, three alternative Site Areas were identified within the Siting Area (A-West; B-Central; C-East). The Site Areas were evaluated using factors such as shielding requirements, foundation conditions, building removal, stormwater drainage, construction disruptions, interaction with PN operations, and security considerations. Based on the technical evaluation, all of the Siting Area was found to be acceptable. However, Site Area B and its associated transfer routes was selected as the preferred site and was the location most preferred by the public. 7.0 ASSESSMENT OF LIKELY ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION No potential effects on VCs from project works and activities were identified except for those related to radiation and radioactivity, land use, and socio-economic conditions. The evaluation for radioactivity indicated that the additional radiation dose from PWMF II to members of the public living, working or undertaking recreational activities outside the PN property boundary is expected to be a very small fraction of the dose from background radiation. As such, it will be indistinguishable from the temporal and spatial variations in radiation levels. Also, the estimated doses to workers during normal operations of PWMF II were determined to be within appropriate guidelines and regulatory limits. Public concern was raised with respect to views of the proposed facility from the Waterfront Trail which passes by the eastern boundary of the PN property. With the proposed construction of a natural berm and/or planting of a mature tree screen, the visibility of the facility will be minimized, resulting in improved natural character of views overall. A net positive effect for the City of Picketing will result from the project as a consequence of increased tax revenue generated by the presence of new buildings on the PN property. An additional net benefit will result from the implementation of the proposed Stormwater Management Concept which will improve the existing wetland habitat and increase biodiversity in the area immediately east of the PWMF II. Also assessed were likely effects of the environment on the project, and likely effects of the project on sustainable use of renewable and non-renewable resources. No adverse environmental effects were identified. ES-5 June, 2003 156 ATTACHMENT# , , Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II ~% Environmental Assessment ~-, ~'~ -~ Ontario Power Generation Inc. Draft EA Study Report 8.0 DESCRIPTION AND ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBLE MALFUNCTIONS AND ACCIDENT SCENARIOS Credible malfunctions and accidents, both non-radiological and radiological, were screened for likely effects during construction, on-site transfer of DSCs and DSC storage operations. The screening identified a single "bounding event" for evaluation: on-site traffic accident involving a Transfer Vehicle. Radiation doses to workers, the public and non-human biota from such an accident are expected to be below acceptable levels. 9.0 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS There were no likely adverse residual effects identified for the PWMF II Project. However, in response to comments received from the public, the cumulative effects assessment was broadened in scope to include the cumulative effects of radiation and radioactivity; that is, the effects of radiation dose on three VCs - members of the public, workers and non-human biota. Twelve other projects on and around the PN property were analyzed for possible cumulative environmental effects on the VCs. The estimated cumulative doses to the most exposed members of the public; to workers and to non-human biota, are expected to be well below acceptable levels. 10.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION AND PLAN FOR FOLLOW-UP AND MONITORING PROGRAM Mitigation measures were used in two ways on the PWMF II Project to minimize potential adverse environmental effects: Mitigation measures which are part of the basic project design. These ,in-design" mitigation measures were assumed at the outset of the EA study and were identified in the various assumptions made in the assessment of the Project Works and Activities. They include such measures as radiation shielding for the Storage Buildings, and the development of a Stormwater Management Plan for PWMF II. Additional feasible mitigation measures identified during the EA study. These include modifications to the Stormwater Management Plan for PWMF II to enhance the East Wetland, and the visual screening of the facility from viewpoints along the Waterfront Trail through berms and planting of mature trees. A preliminary follow-up and monitoring program was defined to verify the accuracy of the EA study predictions, and to confirm whether the proposed mitigation measures are effective. Some of the monitoring activities will be part of normal existing monitoring programs for PN and PWMF I; others are specifically developed for PWMF II. The latter activities will be incorporated into PN's/NWMD's overall environmental management system. Details of the program will be developed in response to the CNSC's direction and in consultation with other stakeholders as appropriate. ES-6 June, 2003 ATTAI~HMENT# ~ TO REPORT# Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II ~'~-x~ C~ ~ ~'~ Ontario Power Generation Environmental Assessment Draft EA Study Repofl' '~' 7 11.0 SIGNIFICANCE OF RESIDUALENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS There are no residual adverse effects that were required to be advanced for consideration of significance. However, the scope of the chapter was expanded to include a summary of human health and safety considerations. The World Health Organization's definition of health as "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity" was used in the overall approach to assessment of human health and safety in this EA study. No adverse effects on human health from non-radioactive emissions are expected. No effects on the safety of workers and the local public, or on the general well-being of the public are anticipated. Radiation doses from PWMF II are estimated to be indistinguishable from background and should not result in health effects on members of the public, workers and non- human biota. 12.0 CONCLUSIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT The results of the assessment identified no significant residual adverse environmental effects of the PWMF II project, assuming the PWMF II is located within Site Area B, taking into consideration the identified feasible mitigation measures. Site Area B was selected for environmental and engineering reasons and was preferred by the public. The three alternative Site Areas (A, B and C) are located in close proximity to one another in highly modified industrial lands with minimal natural habitat. Accordingly, the site selection process identified only minor environmental and technical differences among the three Site Areas. Therefore, all would be acceptable to accommodate PWMF II with the application of different levels of mitigation measures. The final project design is not expected to be very different from the conceptual design used in the EA study. Minor differences in design that may be required are not expected to result in any significant adverse effects on the environment. OPG recommends that the CNSC accept the conclusions as the basis for the preparation of its Screening Report under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. ES-7 June. 2003 158 ATTACHMENT# c;) TO REPORT Draft Review of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report For the Pickering Waste Management Facility II Project Conducted by IER- Planning, Research and Management Services and Scimus Inc. In association with North-South Environmental Inc. 7501 Keele Street, Suite 300 Concord, Ontario L4K 1Y2 July 2003 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT #~_~,TO REPORT # ~-~- ~'~ 15 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY IER and SCIMUS Inc., in association with North-South Environmental, were retained by the City of Picketing to undertake a peer review of the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Proposed Picketing (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility II Project. In general the Review Team found the EA to provide adequate documentation to support most of the findings and conclusions presented. The environmental conditions of the study area are adequately described with some exceptions which are more fully described in this peer review. The assessment of the selected Valued Ecosystem Components (VECs) was carded out in a manner consistent with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and current environmental practice although it is not clear whether the public was involved in the selection of VECs. Assuming that the proponent clarifies the inconsistencies identified and provides important missing information, the Review Team agrees that there would be no significant residual adverse environmental effects of the PWMF II project at the preferred Site Area B taking into account the identified mitigation measures. Our key findings are as follows. o In the Socio-Economic Impact Assessment, a significant percentage of respondents indicated that they might change their decision to live in the community as a result of the project. The assessment also notes that respondents have concerns about the Picketing Nuclear Generating Station as a whole. This is the second temporary storage solution at the Station, and permanent storage may be an option considered for the future. This point, while outside the limited scope of the EA analysis for PWMF II, is most relevant in terms of the concentration of nuclear facilities and associated wastes within the Region of Durham and City of Pickering and the potential cumulative impacts that can affect the community. It will be extremely important to monitor public attitudes to ensure that perceptions do not lead to changing behaviour patterns. It is strongly recommended that the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham be directly involved in the design and implementation of the follow-up and monitoring program to verify the accuracy of the EA study predictions. Regarding the existing Geology, Hydrogeology and Seismicity environment, there were several omissions and inconsistencies in the groundwater monitoring data described in Appendix B of the Technical Study Document (TSD). In some cases the interpretation of results was questionable. These issues should be addressed in the revised EA Study Report, especially due to the presence of a closed landfill site located up-gradient of the proposed siting area. The evaluation and selection of the project location was transparent and traceable but it could have been improved using a numerical ranking scheme. Also, complete and detailed information is not provided on public consultation activities associated with the selection of the project location. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental i 160 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT #,,~, , TO REPORT # July 2003 o o ° o o During peak hours, existing traffic conditions at various intersections on Brock Road leading into the PWMF II siting area are described as unacceptable according to level of service standards. The Review Team is concerned that additional traffic generated by PWMF II construction activities will exacerbate existing traffic problems. In some cases the Main EA document differs from the Technical Study Document (TSD) supporting the Main EA. These differences should be explained in the form of an appendix to the Main EA Report. There are several instances where the objectives of the community and stakeholder consultations and communication program (CSCCP) do not appear to be fully satisfied, e.g., the Appendices in both the Draft EA and TSD had frequent omissions, incorrect references, hidden references and/or photocopying errors. Other areas of concern are presented in the main body of the peer review. The description of the existing atmospheric environment is based on ambient air monitoring stations located some distance from the PWMF II facility. The follow-up and monitoring program should confirm that the baseline data is accurate. The description of the existing terrestrial environment did not properly inventory breeding amphibians during dry periods nor did it provide sufficient data on the marsh wren. 10. 11. 12. With regard to the description and assessment of credible malfunction and accident scenarios, there are inconsistencies in the assumptions used to describe the bounding accident and the dose calculation methodology appears to be based on PWMF I conditions (Phase II site location is considerably closer to the property boundary than the Phase I site location). The cumulative effects assessment predicted that the effects on VECs do not possess a cumulative effeCts trigger. While the conclusions seem reasonable it will be extremely important to revisit these predicted effects during the follow-up and monitoring program, especially in light of the pending international airport located some 12 km. to the North of PWMF II and slated to open within ten years. The Review Team recommends that several additional elements be incorporated into the follow-up and monitoring program. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental ii ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT 161' TABLE OFCONTENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. ........................................................................... .................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Review .................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Scope of the PWMF II Project ..................................................................................... 1 1.3 Scope of Assessment ...................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Scope of the Review ...................................................................................................... 3 2. 0 SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUD Y REPORT. .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.6.1 2.6.2 2.6.3 2.6.4 2.6.5 2.6.6 2.6.7 2.6.8 2.6.9 2.7 2.8 2.9 2.10 2.11 3.0 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 5 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 Description of the Proposed Project ............................................................................ 5 Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................. 5 Community and Stakeholder Consultation and Communication ............................ 6 Description of the Existing Environment ................................................................... 7 Radiation and Radioactivity Environment .............................................................. 7 Atmospheric Environment ....................................................................................... 7 Hydrology, Water Quality and Aquatic Environment ............................................. 7 Terrestrial ............................................................................................................... 8 Geology, Hydrogeology and Seismicity .................................................................. 8 Land Use ................................................................................................................. 9 Socio~Economic Conditions .................................................................................... 9 Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources ........................................................... 10 Aboriginal Interests .............................................................................................. 10 Evaluation and Selection of Project Location .......................................................... 10 Assessment of Likely Environmental Effects and Mitigation ................................. 11 Description and Assessment of Credible Malfunctions and Accident Scenarios.. 13 Assessment of Cumulative Environmental Effects .................................................. 13 Follow-up and Monitoring ......................................................................................... 14 DETAILED MINOR COMMENTS ................................................................................ 15 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental ~4ssessment Study Report Pickering }Kaste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT TO REPORT July 2003 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of the Review IER and SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental (hereinafter collectively referred to as "IER"), were retained by the City of Picketing to undertake a peer review of the Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Picketing (Nuclear) Waste Management Facility II Project. The documentation included a Main Report (including five appendices), an Introductory Document to the Technical Support Documents (TSDs) and 12 separate TSDs. The City of Picketing intends to provide the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) with written comments relating to the Environmental Assessment (EA) of the Proposed Picketing Waste Management Facility II (PWMF II) project. The City wants to ensure that the economic, financial, social, cultural and environmental interests of the municipality and its residents are satisfactorily protected. The peer review was conducted so that City staff can produce documentation for City Council to consider as part of its submission to CNSC. For this stage of the review, IER was required to perform the following activities: Conduct a peer review of reports and studies prepared and submitted by Ontario Power Generation (OPG) and CNSC staff to the CNSC in fulfilling the requirements of the final Environmental Assessment Guidelines; Provide technical comments and advice to municipal staff and Council to assist in understanding the content of technical reports; and 3. Attend a ½ day workshop with City and OPG staff to review the project. The first two activities were completed and reported herein. The third activity was a workshop which took place Tuesday, May 27, 2003. 1.2 Scope of the PWMF II Project The CNSC is the authority responsible for the regulation of nuclear facilities in Canada. The CNSC has determined pursuant to Section 5(1)(d) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) that a federal environmental assessment (EA) is required before it can provide OPG with an authorization to initiate the different on-site activities that comprise the PMWF II project. In May of 2003 the CNSC issued the "Final EA Guidelines (Scope of Project and Assessment) for the Environmental Assessment of the Proposed Pickering Waste Management Facility, Phase II, Pickering, Ontario." OPG has prepared an EA Study Report designed to meet the requirements of the EA Guidelines and to describe in detail the EA conducted for the proposed PWMF II project. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental I Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft En vironm ental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II suiy oos 1 S 3 In the EA Guidelines, the CNSC determined that the scope of the PWMF II project was as follows: The physical works involved in this project are the storage buildings to be built for the dry storage containers; all facilities, systems and activities required for the construction and operation of PWMF Phase II; and the facilities, systems and activities involved in the transfer of loaded welded DSCs from PWMF I to the storage buildings in PWMF II. While decommissioning is not part of the project, a preliminary decommissioning plan for PWMF II will be included in the assessment. Associated operations and activities that are within the scope of the project include: Preparation of the site and construction of the storage buildings o Site cleating, excavation, grading and compaction o Construction of foundation and inactive drainage system o Site service hook-ups o Construction of the storage buildings o Site paving and landscaping Preparation of systems and facilities involved in the transfer of loaded welded DSCs o Road construction and/or upgrading o Transfer of loaded welded DSCs from the Processing Building or Storage Buildings in PWMF I to the Storage Buildings in PWMF II · Installation of perimeter fence and security system o Facilities and systems for maintaining security of the site · Operation and maintenance of the PWMF II o Radiation and security monitoring, inspection and maintenance 1.3 Scope of Assessment The scope of assessment identifies the factors to be considered in the EA. The scope of a screening assessment under the CEAA must include all the factors identified in paragraphs 16(1)(a) to (d) of the CEAA, and, as provided under paragraph 16(1)(e), any other matter that the CNSC requires to be considered. Paragraphs 16(1)(a) to (d) require the following factors be included in the screening: · "the environmental effects of the project, including the environmental effects of malfunctions or accidents, that may occur in connection with the project and any cumulative environmental effects that are likely to result from the project in combination with other projects or activities that have been or will be carried out; · the significance of the effects identified above; · comments from the public that are received in accordance with the CEAA and its regulations; and IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 2 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report 1 6 4 Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II ATTACHMENT #_~_.__TO REPORT #(~Z): C~.c~-~'~ July 2005 · measures that are technically and economically feasible and that would mitigate any significant adverse environmental effects of the project." In accordance with sub-section 16(1)(e) of the CEAA, in the EA Guidelines the CNSC required that the following additional factors be included in the screening: · the purpose of the project; · various sites within the PWMF II siting area; · various waste transfer routes; · the need for, and requirements of, a follow-up program in respect of the project; and · the capacity of renewable resources that are likely to be significantly affected by the project to meet the needs of the present and those of the future. 1.4 Scope of the Review In response to the direction from the City of Pickering and to determine whether the EA Study Report meets the CEAA requirements, the review team focused on the following: Compliance with the EA Guidelines Significant gaps in the information contained in the documentation Methodology Results and Conclusions of the Assessment According to Section 1.4.1.2 of the Main EA Study Report, "the EA Study Report is based on a series of technical supporting documents which provide the detailed technical information used in the EA study. Although the supporting documents are not part of the EA Study Report per se, they are referenced throughout the EA Study Report and contain useful supporting and background information that may be of interest to a reader wishing more detailed information on any of the technical components of the EA study. The TSDs were completed in Spring 2003. Completion of this EA Study Report required additions and/or revisions to some of the information in the TSDs. Where there are differences between the TSDs and the EA Study Report, the latter should be regarded as being definitive. The TSDs comprise a series of 13 separate reports: one introductory document; one of each of the nine components of the environment that were defined and adopted for the EA study, plus one each for: malfunctions and accidents; cumulative effects; and community and stakeholder consultation and communication. The TSDs present the detailed results of the EA study, including the assessment of the environmental effects." As such, IER's review focused on the Draft EA Study Report and the findings presented in this report are based on that review. In some cases the relevant section of the TSD was referenced. The Draft EA Study Report is organized into two sets of comments. The first set of comments provides our significant findings in the same sequence as the Sections of the Main EA, i.e.: Executive Summary IER & SClMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 3 ATTACHMENT# ~'~ TO REPORT Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Ch Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facili~ Phase H ~ July 2003 165 Introduction - Section 1.0 Description of the Proposed Project - Section 2.0 Assessment Methodology - Section 3.0 Community and Stakeholder Consultation and Communication - Section 4.0 Description of the Existing Environment - Section 5.0 Evaluation and Selection of Project Location- Section 6.0 Assessment of Likely Environmental Effects and Mitigation- Section 7.0 Description and Assessment of Credible Malfunctions and Accident Scenarios - Section 8.0 Assessment of Cumulative Effects - Section 9.0 Proposed Mitigation and Plan for Follow-up and Monitoring Program - Section 10.0 Significance of Residual Environmental Effects- Section 11.0 Conclusions of the Assessment - Section 12.0 The second set provides further detailed comments. For each of the above sections of the Environmental Assessment, the environment is represented by the following components: Radiation and Radioactivity Atmospheric Environment Hydrology, Water Quality and Aquatic Environment Terrestrial Environment Geology, Hydrogeology and Seismicity Land Use and Resources Socio-Economic Conditions Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources Aboriginal Interests While the Review Team concentrated its effort on the Main EA, a comprehensive review was also performed on the TSDs to ensure traceability. 2.0 SIGNIFICANT FINDINGS OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STUDY REPORT In general the Review Team found the EA to provide adequate documentation to support most of the findings and conclusions provided. The environmental conditions of the study area are adequately described and the assessment of the selected VECs was carded out in a manner consistent with the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and current environmental assessment practice, although it is not clear whether the public was involved in the selection of VECs. Based on the information provided, the Review Team agrees that there are no significant IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 4 166 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental ~lssessment Study Report Pickering }Yaste Management Facility Phase H AI'TACHME~ ~ TO REPORT July 2003 residual adverse environmental effects of the PWMF II project assuming the PWMF II is located within Site Area B, taking into consideration the identified mitigation measures. The comment provided is, however, subject to clarifications or provision of further information with respect to several areas within the Draft EA. In some cases information was missing or the interpretation of results was unclear. Our major observations are as follows. 2.1 Executive Summary As indicated in Section 2.11 "Follow-up and Monitoring Program", it is strongly recommended that the City of Picketing be involved in the design and implementation of the follow-up and monitoring program to verify the accuracy of the EA study predictions and to confirm whether the proposed mitigation measures are effective (ES-6, last paragraph). In the summary of"Significance of Residual Environmental Effects" (ES-7, first paragraph), the report indicates that no adverse effects on human health from non-radioactive or radioactive emissions are expected. Human health includes mental and social well-being which are both linked to perception. This underscores the importance of sustained on-going monitoring to assure stakeholders of "no adverse effects". 2.2 Introduction In the first paragraph of Section 1.4.1.2 (pages 1-8), it is stated "where there are difference between the TSDs and the EA Study Report, the latter should be regarded as being definitive". This demonstrates a lack of traceability. An Appendix explaining the differences and/or errata should be added to the Final EA report. 2.3 Description of the Proposed Project The level of detail and the scope of the description is acceptable. It is sufficient to allow proper consideration of issues related to potential impacts within the temporal boundaries. This section contained a clear discussion of the interface of this project with the long-term waste management program as part of the discussion of future decommissioning. The total capacity of the storage buildings is 1654 Dry Storage Containers (DSC's), only 7% more than the total number of DSC's expected. This does not appear to provide sufficient contingency against unforeseen problems (Section 2.2.1, page 2-1) 2.4 Assessment Methodology The Review Team found the assessment methodology to be acceptable and consistent with the requirements of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 5 Review B' IER o~Ontar .... ATTACHM~I#C~ TO REPORT y ,j to t'ower t~eneration k ~ Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - Pickering Waste Management Facili~ Phase H ~ July 2003 167 2.5 Community and Stakeholder Consultation and Communication Key concerns raised by the public at the first and second Open Houses included: Safety of interim storage of used fuel in their community; The lack of a long-term solution for the disposal of nuclear fuel; and Opposition to any long-term storage of used fuel on the PN site and a desire to participate in future discussions of the long-term options (P. 4-9, 3rd paragraph) This demonstrates the need for ongoing dialogue with affected stakeholders through an existing vehicle such as the Community Advisory Committee. The objectives of the CSCCP appear to have been met in general. There are some instances where it is not clear whether the objectives have been fully met; these are discussed below. The outreach area is broad and inclusion of known stakeholders from outside the area on the mailing list is appropriate. The types of stakeholders included in the project are clearly identified in the bulleted list on Page 4-3. However, the list of stakeholders in Appendix C is considerably smaller than that suggested by the list on Page 4-3. The distinction should be made between the stakeholder mailing list (which would have hundreds of contacts on it) and the list of key stakeholders to be contacted directly for scoping interviews - which appears to be what is represented in Appendix C. There was found to be incomplete information in the report. The Appendices in both the Draft EA Report and the TSD had frequent omissions, incorrect references, hidden references and/or photocopying errors. These are identified in Section 3 of this peer review. The omissions are the most important aspect, as the lack of specific information does not enable a full assessment of the details of information provided to the public and agencies and information received in response to be able to confirm OPG's consultation results. Specific instances of missing information are contained in Section 3. The decision to cancel the two EA workshops that had been planned in the Community and Stakeholder Consultation and Communication Plan appears to have been made without sufficient effort to determine if there was interest at the times that the workshops were to have taken place (rather than at any initial interviews). A workshop for municipal representatives, with a written invitation to other stakeholders at the time of the proposed workshop would have been a viable alternative to addressing an initial lack of interest in a later workshop. Secondly, the CAC should not have been used as a vehicle for providing workshop information to stakeholders, since it was identified as a stakeholder that would have provided periodic updates in any case. A more detailed discussion is included in Section 3. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 6 168 Review ay/ER of Ontario Power aeneration ATTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report %X\ CD ~ Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H July 2003 2.6 Description of the Existing Environment This Chapter of the EA describes existing environmental conditions and is based on the following nine Technical Support Documents: Radiation and Radioactivity; Atmospheric Environment; Hydrology, Water Quality and Aquatic Environment; Terrestrial Environment; Geology and Hydrogeology; Land Use and Resources; Socio-Economic Conditions; Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources; and Aboriginal Interests. The Review Team's comments are based on the content of the Main EA Report but are supported, in some cases, by issues identified in the TSDs. While the intent of the Main EA Report was to be a stand-alone document, the TSDs are referred, where appropriate, to improve the traceability of the assessment process. 2.6.1 Radiation and Radioactivity Environment The existing radiation and radioactivity environment is adequately described. 2.6.2 Atmospheric Environment The Main EA concludes "However, for the purposes of the study, the air quality in the Site Study Area can be represented by the air quality in the Regional Study Area". Atmospheric monitoring is not conducted in the vicinity of the Siting Area and the results of the atmospheric environmental assessment rely on the closest ambient air monitoring stations located in Scarborough (almost 20 km. SW) and Oshawa (20 km. NE). Furthermore, as shown in Table 4.2.1.1-1 of the TSD (P. 9), there are no Total Suspended Particulate or Inhalable Particulate data identified East of the Siting Area. It is normal EA practice to describe existing atmospheric conditions using local monitors. If these are lacking, as in the case of PWMF II, then temporary monitors would be established to confirm that Regional data are appropriate especially for a facility the size of PNGS. At the very least, the future monitoring program should be capable of confirming the conclusions of the EA. Also, dustfall is missing from the list of air quality constituents considered. The EA report should explain why this parameter was not included. 2.6.3 Hydrology, Water Quality and Aquatic Environment Section 5.4.2 of the Main EA Report discusses varying levels of erosion on the Lake Ontario shoreline immediate south of the Siting Area and the TSD discusses the catchments where erosion occurs. The Review Team could not find any discussion of any remedial work which IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 7 ATTACH M ENT # ~ Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation~ ~'~ Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report ~ Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H ' TO REPORT #~,'~-o~~~ July 2003 169 would be undertaken for those catchments exhibiting erosion, especially those associated with stormwater discharges from PWMF II. 2.6.4 Terrestrial The existing Terrestrial environment is adequately described with the exception of improper inventories of breeding amphibians during a dry period and insufficient data on the marsh wren. Some details are described in Section 3. 2.6.5 Geology, Hydrogeology and Seismicity Under Section 5.6.4 of the Main EA Report and Section 4.2.2.3 of the TSD "PN East Complex Soil and Groundwater Quality", results of groundwater sampling and analysis are discussed based on the data presented in Appendix B of the TSD. The Review Team found several omissions and inconsistencies in the data in Appendix B and the interpretation of same, as follows: · Wherever silver was analyzed as part of groundwater monitoring the detention limit was always higher than the GUCSO Table B criteria. This should be explained in the Main EA. · The Main EA should explain why GUCSO Table B criteria were used instead of the conventional suite of groundwater parameters. On P. 5-29 of the Main EA under the section entitled "Groundwater Quality", it is stated that groundwater quality within the site study area does not exceed GUCSO Table B criteria. Table B-2 of the TSD identifies two monitoring wells within the siting area which show exceedances of Vinyl Chloride, Lead and Mercury. This discrepancy should be explained, especially given the fact that the siting area is directly down gradient of the East Landfill using inferred direction of shallow groundwater flow shown in Figure 4.2.3-3 of the TSD. The analysis of groundwater quality for Round 1 shown in Table B-2 of the TSD is missing PCB's and Phenols for all monitoring locations reported. This information is important due to the presence of PCB storage facilities and the up-gradient closed landfill sites. Section 4.2.2.6 on P. 11 of the TSD indicates that soil and groundwater samples from monitors RGM-51 and RGM-52 were analyzed for PCB, PH, metals, TPH, VOCs, cresols and phenol compounds. Table B-2 of the TSD does not show metals, PCB, TPH, VOCs, cresols and phenols compounds in the analysis of groundwater quality. The last full paragraph on P. 13 of the TSD indicates "Wells OPG - MW-3, OPG-MW-5, OPG-MW-6, OPG-MW-61 and OPG-MW-7 are located down gradient of the East Landfill and monitor groundwater conditions between it and Lake Ontario (Figure 4.2.5.2). The analytical results for samples collected from these wells confirm that the East Landfill does not have an effect on groundwater quality (Appendix B)". These results could not be found IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 8 170 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation ATTACHMENT #~:~ TO REPORT Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report ~ \ ~ c~ Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II July 2003 in Appendix B. The Review Team therefore cannot confirm the acceptability of groundwater quality in the Siting Area. With respect to Section 4.2.3.5 "East Site Garage" groundwater analysis of samples from RGM-19 and RGM-19B was missing key parameters such as Benzene, Total Hydrocarbons and several other organics. The above concerns make it unclear whether there is presently soil and groundwater contamination from off-site influences such as the East Landfill, the Inert Fill Sites and other facilities. Since contaminants may be migrating from these sites in the groundwater system, which has been shown to flow predominantly in a southward direction under the Siting Area, it is important to have an adequate assessment of this potential impact throughout the duration of the project. This is identified as a need for follow-up and monitoring in Section 2.11. 2.6.6 Land Use Section 5.7.2.2 of the Main EA and Section 4.2.2.1 of the TSD do not indicate whether the Pickering Zone By-law M2- Industrial Zone includes the storage of spent nuclear fuel as a permitted use. This should be clarified. The Main EA does not describe the existing traffic operations in the vicinity of PWMF II. This is described in the TSD (P. 25) and is judged to be significant because key intersections on Brock Road are currently operating at unacceptable levels of service. Also, Section 4.2.3 of the TSD states that "From a transportation perspective, the PMWF II site is readily accessible by existing roads". This statement is inconsistent with the levels of service described above. 2.6. 7 $ocio-Economic Conditions The negative perception of the Pickering nuclear facilities is not adequately described. The following observations can be made. In Section 5.8.1, it is quite evident from the information in the report that a substantial number of people (somewhere between 21% or 27%) - think about the PNGS on a regular basis and how it affects their sense of health, safety and well-being. These are large segments of the community population who have at the least perception concerns about the existence of the full Pickering Operation. This comes to the fore during the EA public consultation for the waste facility. As an issue, it is extremely important to acknowledge this high percentage of concern and to take steps to address the perceptions. While the EA report and the Socio-Economic TSD acknowledge issues of perception and stigma, it is noted that these issues are not directly relevant to the socio-economic impact analysis based on the existing legislation. While this is technically correct, it is important to recognize these issues of concern as they can and do lead to people potentially changing behaviour patterns as a direct result ora project or proposal. It appears to us that the limiting definition of social impacts in the terms of reference and in the CEA Act does not lead to full consideration of what is a substantial social concern. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 9 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation ~T~HMEN~# C~ TO ~REPOR~T# C'IXtrD-o~-cb~ Drafl Environmental Assessment Study Report ~ \ ~ C~ ~ ~3 Pickering }Yaste Management Facility Phase H ~--J July 2003 171 On page 4-22 of the Socio-Economic TSD, the table Most Negative Attributes, points out that the nuclear plant in general terms was considered a negative attribute. It was one of the top three. With respect to issues that negatively affect the image of the community, the nuclear plant was the most important issue at both the local and regional study areas. When one excludes those who could not name a negative issue affecting image, it is approximately 25% of the respondents in the local study area indicating that the nuclear plant negatively affects the image of the community. On page 6 of Appendix D of the Socio-Economic TSD, it is noted that the Picketing station is not a dominant issue in the local and regional study areas. While this is correct in one sense, it is not in another when it is noted in some sections of the survey that the nuclear station in fact is something that affects people sense of well being. It is a concern for 21% of the local area respondents (which is the highest) as well as 18% at the regional level (second highest). This has not been given proper weight in the analysis based on table 2, page 8. The analysis on page 11 of Appendix D of the Socio-Economic TSD, dealing with issues that most negatively affects image of the community states that no one issue dominates. However, out of the issues that are presented, there are two major issues - one being crime and the other being nuclear stations dangers. The nuclear station is the most frequently mentioned issue. 2.6.8 Physical and Cultural Heritage Resources The physical and cultural heritage resources described are relevant for predicting environmental effects likely to result from the PWMF II project. 2.6.9 Aboriginal Interests The existing environment for Aboriginal interests was adequately described. 2.7 Evaluation and Selection of Project Location The site evaluation process was transparent, traceable, replicable (for the most part) and consistent in the evaluation and decision making process. The Review Team has the following comments: Step 1 (P. 6-1) should have fully described the Site Option Study rather than Section 2.2.3. The process described in Step 1 was confusing. Analysis reflected in Table 6.4-1 could have been improved using a numerical ranking scheme. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 10 172 ATTACHMENT# c=~ TO R_EPORT #~-oQ~-o~ Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation ~ \ ~ (3 ~ ~ Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H ~-.3 July 2003 In Section 6.4.2.2, Public Consultation During the Site Selection Process, complete and detailed information is not available on information presented to the public at open houses or received from them at these events. Similarly, there is only incomplete information on discussions at key CAC meetings where preferences on a Site Area were established. This information is critical to dispel the possible perception that the decision on a preferred site area was made in advance of the public consultation on the three options. 2.8 Assessment of Likely Environmental Effects and Mitigation With respect to Section 7.3, "Radiation and Radioactivity, a brief summary of the shielding calculation methodology and results should be included as an Appendix to the EA or in the TSD. Regarding Section 7.4.2 "Noise", it is indicated that as long as the equipment utilized for the construction project is in compliance with the sound emission standards, the construction activity is considered to be in compliance from a noise perspective. It is, therefore, important to perform the necessary noise tests during the operation of this equipment to ensure compliance. Regardless, a formal complaint response system should be established, if it isn't already in place, to respond to any concerns the public may bring forward. With respect to the Terrestrial (Section 7.6) and Aquatic (Section 7.5.1) wildlife, it is agreed that the proposed works are not likely to affect terrestrial or aquatic wildlife, with the caveat that: Further investigations should confirm that there are no amphibians breeding on the site, and that fish are not present when water levels are maximum (a site visit should be made after frogs begin calling in the region, approximately early April). · The issue of marsh wren breeding or non-breeding in the East Wetland should be clarified (if breeding, marsh wren should be added to VECs). The issue of sediment deposition in the East Wetland should be addressed, and the sediment and erosion control plan should include the issue of sediment deposition in the East Wetland. The conclusion that there are not likely to be measurable effects of construction on aquatic life, terrestrial wildlife, vegetation, natural heritage features seems reasonable given the developed nature of the site. The issue of sediment deposition in the East Wetland during construction is dismissed in this report in the Aquatic Environment section (Page 7-19). However, in the TSD aquatic section it notes that the Terrestrial TSD would deal with the issue of sediment deposition in the East Wetland, as there is no aquatic life present in this wetland. The Terrestrial TSD did not address this issue. The ranking of VECs is not very useful. More weight should be given to species of specialized habitat whose environment could be affected by the proposed works, as this reflects the priorities IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 11 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # ~c::::,.c~_ ~.~ July 2003 173 of municipal and provincial agencies. For example, marsh wren is listed as one of the inhabitants of the East Wetland (though its presence there as a breeding bird needs to be clarified). If the stormwater control measures planned (creation of ponds where the East Wetland now stands as in Figure 7.5-1) are implemented, the habitat for this species, which consists of cattail marsh, would be eliminated. Marsh wren is considered Regionally significant in the Greater Toronto Area (according to TRCA) and is on the list of priority species of conservation concern for Durham Region. Great Horned Owl should also be added to the list of VECs, as it is important as an "apex predator". In Section 7.8.3, it is not clear whether earth-moving operations during site preparation will involve off-site truck movement. If so, the impact of this on local traffic should be addressed. Also, it is stated that trips of construction workers are expected to have negligible effects on transportation Levels of Service (LOS) both in terms of duration and extent. The Review Team questions the reasonableness of this statement given the already highly unacceptable Level of Service at key intersections on Brock Road, i.e. is it reasonable to make a highly unacceptable traffic situation slightly worse? In Section 7.9.1.2, it is stated that approximately 19% of the respondents in the Local Study Area and 24% in the Regional Study area indicated they might change their decision to live in the community as a result of the project (a significant percentage). The subsequent analysis notes that there are concerns about the safety of the Picketing Nuclear Generating Station as a whole rather than the PWMF II. It is important to recognize that there is a need to build a positive image of the facility within the community, particularly in light of the longer term future disposal and the fact that this is the second temporary storage solution and permanent storage on site may be a reality in future years. This point, while outside the limited scope of the EA analysis for PWMF II, is most relevant in terms of nuclear facility and waste concentration in Durham Region and the City of Picketing and the potential cumulative impacts that can affect community image/stigma and safety and contingency planning concerns. It may indeed be the reason for a relatively high percentage of people being concerned about the facility because of the perception that temporary storage may become permanent. On June 16, 2003 the Nuclear Waste Management Organization made a presentation to Picketing Council and stated that one of the options for long-term management of nuclear waste was to store it on the site where it is generated. It is, therefore, not surprising that people are expressing a higher degree of concern than might be warranted by the specific project that is currently under consideration. The public attitude surveys should have included the following additional information: · Identification of employees of OPG or the Picketing facility. This may have been useful because there may be as many as 5% of those drawn randomly could have some direct relationship with OPG or Picketing and analysing their responses separately could be enlightening. For example, removing their responses from the general survey for analysis may have provided a somewhat different picture of peoples' issues and concerns. Gender data. Distance from facility. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 12 174 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT#.,,, . TO REPORT July 2003 2.9 Description and Assessment of Credible Malfunctions and Accident Scenarios There is inconsistency in the assumptions of the bounding accident: · In Section 2.3.3.3, it is stated that "..escort .. and traffic and pedestrian restriction would be applied to each transfer ora loaded DSC to the PWMF II.". Why is this accident even considered for the bounding accident rather than dismissed as incredible? It is agreed that the consequences (100% release of gaseous radionuclides in DSC) of a bounding accident are extremely conservative and incredible (probability < 10'6); however, there appear to be some assumptions made in the dose calculations that are less than conservative (eg two minutes for NEW exposure; if injured may be difficult to extract one-self; non-NEW excluded because of low probability but low probability consequences are assessed for NEW because dose acceptable). The Dose calculation methodology is for PMWF Phase I. It appears the same ADFs are used for Phase II as for Phase I even though it is considerably closer to the site boundary (Appendix D of Radiation and Radioactivity TSD). The predicted dose to the member of the public at the site boundary was 0.1 ~tSv for Phase I (assuming 10% fuel element failure) and 1 ~tSv for Phase II (assuming 100% fuel element failure) indicating that the same ADFs were used. It is indicated in Section 8.2.4 (P. 8-7) that construction activities will involve best management practices (BMPs) and environmental management plans (EMPs) for all aspects with potential to effect the environment. The City of Pickering should have access to these plans and they should review them if they have not already. 2.10 Assessment of Cumulative Environmental Effects A key requirement under CEAA is for a project proponent to assess the contribution of proposed project effects on VECs, and to consider the contribution of these effects in combination with other effects from other projects and activities on the VECs. Effects can be caused by past, current or existing and foreseeable future projects or activities. Relatively speaking this is a new dimension to the art and science of environmental assessment and the understanding and application of this EA component is evolving. The Review Team considers the presentation in the EA Study Report, regarding the project's specific contribution to cumulative environmental effects to be generally acceptable, based on the selected VECs, although it is not clear whether the public was involved in the selection of VECs. The EA Study Report does provide a description in Section 9.0 of other projects and activities within the regional study area with respect to radiation and radioactivity. The description identifies both past projects and ongoing and foreseeable future projects. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 13 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering }Vaste Management Facility Phase H The assessment of each of the VECs in Section 9.0 as to whether a cumulative effects assessment consideration is warranted and useful. In these sections the proponent provides the rationale for determining if there is a cumulative effects consideration or trigger for each VEC. The Review Team generally agrees with the rationale and conclusion provided by OPG, based on the information provided and assessments presented within the EA Study Report. In particular, the conclusions that the predicted effects on the VECs do not possess a cumulative effects trigger are reasonable. Our conclusions are dependent on the implementation of the commitments by OPG to all mitigation and monitoring and other measures that make up the Follow-up and Monitoring Program as presented in Section 10.0. For example, Table 9.2-1 indicates that there are no likely adverse residual effects with respect to socio-economic conditions. It will be extremely important to follow-up on this environmental component not only to confirm the assumptions inherent in the analysis but also to recognize a new airport which could be operational in Picketing within 10 years. Also, in the Assessment of Likely Environmental Effects and Mitigation, it is stated in terms of off-site traffic, that the additional 50 vehicles per day during the Site Preparation and Construction Phase is not expected to be noticeable. It should be noted that traffic levels of services on Brock Road leading into the PNGS are already unacceptable and any increase in personal vehicles as well as potential truck movement could result in a cumulative effect. 2.11 Follow-up and Monitoring The following should be incorporated into the Proposed Monitoring Program. Public surveys should be conducted after storage building three is in service but also in the first year after storage building four is in service. In addition, a clear protocol on the planning and implementation of contingency measures, involving the City of Pickering and Durham Region should be developed in this stage. Follow-up monitoring should include a recommendation to inventory habitat for amphibians at the site. This should be done at the time most appropriate for detecting breeding of some of the most sensitive species: in early to mid April and again in May, particularly early in the season for leopard frogs. Follow-up monitoring should also include a survey to note if the great homed owl is still present. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 14 176 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II ATTACHMENT#,,~'~,~ TO REPORT#,Q~-o(~(~ July 2003 Follow-up monitoring should include a recommendation to confirm that habitat for fish does not occur at the site in the East Wetland. This should be done after the snow melt in April when water levels are at a maximum. The probability of an aircraft accident involving PWMF II should be re-evaluated in the event of the construction of a new international airport in the vicinity of Picketing. Since the Storage Buildings will meet the requirements of different codes, standards and bylaws that are unlikely to sustain the impact of an airline crash, it is important to confirm that this remains an incredible event. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is currently studying this issue for nuclear plants in the vicinity of major airports. The effect of the additional personnel vehicles and earth moving trucks on the traffic on Brock Road should be monitored during the construction phase. Dust and noise monitoring should be conducted during the construction phase to ensure levels are acceptable. Monitoring of groundwater from East Landfill and Inert Fill Sites should be conducted throughout the project as required. Monitoring of sediment loading on the wetland should be conducted during the construction phase. 3.0 DETAILED MINOR COMMENTS The following are minor detailed comments on the various sections of the EA report and relevant TSDs. Main EA Document On Page 2-3, Section 2.2.3: There is confusion as to whether sites reduced to 5, (line 4 paragraph 2) or 6 (line 7, paragraph 2). The discussion of how sites were reduced to final three is also confusing. Page 2-7, Section 2.3.1.1: The Maximum sheath temperature of the used fuel (175°C) should be given here to allow reader to see the margin that exists. Presently this information is buried in Appendix D of the Radiation and Radioactivity TSD. Page 2-8, Section 2.3.1.2: Mention is made in section 2.3.1.1 that temperatures under 300°C and the presence of helium restrict the release ofradionuclides into the DSC cavity. These factors also limit corrosion of the steel inner lining. However, there is no monitoring of these conditions IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT ~TO REPORT #_Q.~-(:5~ 177 July 2003 in the Inspection, Maintenance and Aging Management plan. It appears that all efforts are focused on the outer liner. Some monitoring of inner conditions should be considered, especially in preparation for future fuel retrieval prior to conditioning for disposal. P. 2-9, Section 2.3.1.3, last bullet: It would be useful to know the intensity and duration of the fire considered. Page 2-14, Section 2.3.3.3, second last sentence: This appears to indicate that there will be restrictions on other traffic during the transfer of DSCs from the PWMF I to PWMF II. These would drastically reduce the probability of the bounding accident discussed in Section 8.3.4. P. 2-15, Section 2.3.4.1, second paragraph: Same comment as Page 2-14 above. Page 3-13, Section 3.9.1, last paragraph - Mentions consideration of probability in nuclear accidents. Should specify both non-radiological and radiological in both construction and operations phases. The text in Section 4.2.3 indicates that the notification letters introduced the EA study team, asked the recipient about a possible interest in a briefing, and included an invitation to attend an open house. The sample notification letters in Appendix C do not include this information. Page 4-6 of 4.2.5 Stakeholder Contacts and Scoping Interests indicates, "A list of the preliminary stakeholders and groups contacted to determine their interest in the project, the subsequent meetings or discussions that were held and the issues or topics raised are provided in Appendix C." None of these items are provided in Appendix C. There is no indication of which stakeholder groups had meetings with the EA team, when, and the results. This information is important, since the meetings were not only intended to identify issues from the organization's perspective but also to determine their interest in attending an EA workshop, which was later cancelled due to these responses. Section 4.2.6.1 indicates that the first newsletter included information on the siting area and the three layout options. A review of the newsletter (provided as part of the Project Information Package in Appendix C) indicates that a map of the siting area was included, but no indication or description of the 3 layout options was included. Section 4.2.6.2 indicates that the second newsletter described the differences among and presented the preliminary evaluation results for the three alternative site areas. The newsletter in Appendix C indicated that "OPG had now completed the Site Areas Evaluation and selected the preferred site location for building the PWMF II." Thus, recipients of the newsletters would have had no opportunity to comment on the three layout options until a decision on the preferred option had been made. The newsletter did indicate that the decision was made with input from the CAC and participants at a round of open houses. The description of the first newsletter in Section 4.2.6.1 should be reworded to indicate that the description of the three options was not in this newsletter. A copy of the third newsletter is not included in the Information Package in Appendix C and should be added. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 16 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II /~TTACHMENT #_..~___._TO REPORT# O_.,j~o-c3L,:=,-. o'~ July 2003 The description of each round of open houses in Section 4.2.8 refers the reader to Appendix C for the report on each open house. The report on the first round of open houses indicates that: A sample of the invitation card and maps of the distribution area are included in Appendix A; · A sample of the advertisement is included in Appendix B · A sample invitation letter is included in Appendix C; · The 14 information panels from the open house are provided in Appendix D; · A sample Comment an Evaluation form is provided in Appendix E; and · A full listing of the written comments and questions provided on the Comment and Evaluation forms as well as some typical verbal questions, comments and concerns responded to by the EA consultants and OPG representatives is included in Appendix E. None of these materials are provided in their respective appendices for the first, second and third round of open houses. In the first round of open houses the key missing item is the information on the 14 information panels, for the reviewer to be able to confirm that the three layout options were in fact described for public input. In the report on the second round of open hoUSes it indicates (Page 5) that open house visitors were invited to provide comments on the evaluation of the three alternative site locations. Yet, the report indicates that the results of the evaluation were being presented at this open house (Page 1). With the missing information in hand, it may be possible to dispel the potential perception that a decision on the layout alternative had already been made in advance of the second round of open houses. The report on the third round of open houses indicated that there were no objections raised to the selection of Site Area B, but again the listing of comments was not available in the Appendix. Section 4.2.9 indicates that two EA study workshops were planned, but due to the finding that only municipal representatives were interested in attending one workshop proposed for the Fall of 2002, these were cancelled, and, in lieu of the workshops, three presentations were made to the CAC, an existing stakeholder group. It is difficult to determine if this decision was appropriate, in the absence of information on: which stakeholders were consulted, how contact was made, when in the process the contacts were made, in what manner the workshop was discussed and with what information given to participants. Without this information, the perception exists that the consultation program was unnecessarily abbreviated. Also, a workshop for municipal representatives, with a written invitation to other key stakeholders would have been a viable alternative approach. No information is provided on why a second EA workshop that was planned was not held. The three presentations to the CAC would have been appropriate in any case, without the CAC being viewed as a substitute for two EA workshops. Also, was there an intent to include the public in these workshops? Section 4.2.9 (last paragraph) states that a summary of the discussions at the CAC presentations were provided, but such a summary in the text is only available for the last CAC presentation. Appendix C does contain a copy of one of the presentations made to the CAC, but it is undated IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 17 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering }Yaste Management Facility Phase II #~TO REPORT ATTACHMENT %~'~ c~ ~ ~ July 2003 and some pages begin with "continued" where the original page on the topic appears to be missing. Section 4.2.9.2 (October 2002 - EA Update and Evaluation of Site Areas) indicates that details of the CAC input into the site selection process are provided in Section 6.4.2.2 of this report. This is the first mention in Section 4.0 that some results of the consultation program are located in a different chapter - consultation results not only from the CAC, but also from the first two rounds of open houses. Such hidden reference to (important) additional consultation information elsewhere in the Draft EA Report is confusing. A review of Section 6.4.2.2 follows at the end of the review of Section 4.0. Table 4.4-1 should indicate the meeting dates and names of stakeholders for the stakeholder contacts and scoping interviews in May-June 2002, July-August 2002 and September 2002. Section 5.2 is much better focused than the Radiation and Radioactivity TSD. The TSD contains much extraneous material. The existing noise environment described in Section 5.3.3 of the EA is based on conservative assumptions and not recent monitoring according to the TSD (Section 4.2.3.2 on P. 14 of the TSD). In addition, under Section 5.0 "Assessment of Likely Environmental Effects and Mitigation of the TSD, the proponent correctly points out that as long as equipment utilized for the construction project is in compliance with the appropriate sound emission standards then the construction activity is considered to be in compliance from a noise perspective. This demonstrates the need for noise monitoring of construction equipment during that phase of the follow-up and monitoring program. Also, as discussed in Section 5.2.2.2 of the TSD, the noise levels generated by the DSC transfer vehicle should be confirmed. In Section 5.4.3.3 of the Main EA, it is not clear why stormwater quality results were compared against Provincial Water Quality objectives since these objectives apply to receiving streams (creeks, rivers or Lake Ontario). The text should also explain whether Durham Region administers stormwater effluent guidelines as part of its municipal bylaws and whether these guidelines, if they exist would apply to this EA. In Section 5.4.4.1, sediment quality in the Regional and local study areas is discussed. The text indicates that some parameters exceeded the MOE 1997 Guideline for Use at Contaminated Sites in Ontario (GUCSO). Section 4.4.2 "Regional Study Area Sediment Quality" and Section 4.4.3 "Local Study Area Sediment Quality" from the Hydrology, Water Quality and Aquatic Environment - TSD correctly compare sediment quality to the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines and don't make reference to the GUCSO criteria. This difference should be explained. In Table 5.8-1, Valued Components for Environmental Assessment lists commtmity character and use and enjoyment of property as two sub-components but, in fact, they are also tied to image and perception both of residents in the Picketing area as well as those who look at Pickering "from the outside". IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 18 180 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # July 2003 Page 7-3, Section 7.3.1.2 Identified Mitigation Measures: Sentence is incomplete. With respect to Section 7.13, "Assessment of Likely Effects of the Environment on the Project", it would be helpful in the section on "Tornadoes" (P. 7-50) and Earthquakes (P. 7-51) to elaborate on the nature and extent of tornadoes and earthquakes and the design features of the PWMF II to withstand such conditions. On Page 7-30, it is unclear whether the site preparation earthworks of 600 tonnes/day (Table 2.1- 1) will involve off-site truck movement. Cumulative Effects TSD In the Cumulative Effects TSD, the Sewage Treatment plant adjacent to the proposed site was not mentioned and the potential of a New Picketing Airport within the next decade should be taken into account in the technical study or the EA. This is relevant in terms the range of socio- economic pressures and activities that will be occurring within the regional study area and will also be affected to the local study area. In addition, it further elevates the public issue regarding security and the need to ensure contingency plans are in place to deal with any eventuality. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Aquatic Environment TSD In Section 5.2 of the TSD (P. 37, 3rd paragraph) the text indicates that background values for a number of metals in near shore sediment exceed the Lowest Effect Level of the Provincial Sediment Quality Guidelines but the magnitude is not discussed. The text goes on to explain that minor exceedances are considered "marginally polluted" and that direct management action is required only when concentrations exceed the Severe Effect Level. The text should include a discussion of the magnitude of the exceedance. Table 3.0 on P. 5 of the TSD indicates that Construction Phase Stormwater Management and the Operations Phase will not interact with "Groundwater Recharge". Given that there will be hardening of surfaces by grading and paving thereby increasing runoff and decreasing infiltration, there will be potential interactions and these should be identified on Table 3.0. This discussion would also apply to Table 7.1-1 of the Main EA Report (following P. 7-2). Page 3 - Could add that there were no habitats which warranted more intensive sampling, if that is the case. Page 12 - Site visit appears to have been made in August, when all habitat on site could be expected to be dry. Page 29 - 32, rationale for selection of VECs in table 4.8.1-1 is reasonable, but could add additional factor: habitat specificity, to identify whether proposed development is likely to eliminate species with highly specific habitat requirements. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 19 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase II ATTACHMENT#. c~ TO REPORT July 2003 $ocio-Economic TSD In the Socio-Economic TSD, pg. 5-17, there is reference to the mobility data for the City of Picketing and other communities in Southern Ontario but the data is not provided. This is a general comment as there are some other instances where the actual data should be included in the Appendices so one can verify the conclusions that are drawn. A typographical error appears in Table 5.3.1-1 on page 5-26. The title of the table should refer to "PWMF II" instead of"DUFDS". On page 15 of Appendix D of the Socio-Economic TSD, the analysis states that people do not think more frequently about living near the PNGS based on proximity to the Station; and that women do state more concern than men, but there are no data provided to back up these conclusions. Public Consultation TSD The list of stakeholders in Table 3.3-1 who were sent notification letters which also suggested they would be contacted for a briefing included federal and provincial government representatives. Assuming that follow-up telephone calls were made (there is no record), did all the federal and provincial representatives decline a briefing on the project? The results of contacts with federal and provincial departments and ministries should be included in Table 3.5- 1 in the TSD. It is indicated (on Page 10, in the full paragraph) that local environmental organizations and ratepayer organizations were initially telephoned, not sent notification letters that introduced the project and asked if they would be interested in an interview or briefing. Such letters may have sparked the organization's interest before the telephone messaging contact began. The consultation plan in Appendix A was not followed regarding the contacting of stakeholders for potential interviews or briefings. In Table 6.1, 33 contacts were identified for possible briefings and 21 for possible interviews. In the summary of contacts (including federal and provincial government representatives, Council briefings, MP and MPP contacts) a total of 37 organizations were contacted for either a briefing or interview. Also, in Section 4.2.2 of the consultation plan it indicates that briefings would be given to educational institutions. No record of such contacts is included in the summary of contacts. On Page 14 (last sentence in the section), the reference should be to Appendix E, not F. On Page 18 (last paragraph in Section 3.8.1.2) it states that samples of the notification letter, advertisement, invitation card, comment and evaluation form and a copy of the display panels are in the Report on the First Round of EA Open Houses, June 2002, located in local libraries. Similarly, in Section 3.8.1.3 reference is made to written and verbal questions and comments in Appendix E of the report on the first round of open houses. These samples of communication IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 20 182 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering }Vaste Management Facility Phase II A~[ ~'ACHMENI #~TO REPORT # (~t~o-~- ~-_% July 2003 pieces and summary of comments for all three rounds of open houses are not available in any of the documentation provided for review. This information should be presented in both the Draft EA Report and the TSD. On Page 30 (last sentence in Section 3.9) it states that copies of the CAC presentation slides are included in Appendix G of the TSD. Two of the three presentations are found in Appendix F (not G), and are provided with the minutes of the CAC for the meetings at which the presentations were discussed. The minutes would have provided useful information on the discussions at the CAC, but only every second page is provided. Thus, the discussion on the straw tally that was said to determine the CAC's preference for Site Area B could not be verified. Similarly, only every second page of the presentations is provided. No minutes are provided with the presentation for the third CAC presentation in March 2003. In Appendix A: Community and Stakeholder Consultation and Communication Plan - Section 4.4 describes the two workshops that were planned for "stakeholders and individuals with a high level of interest in and commitment to participation in the PWMF II EA." The letters of invitation to these workshops (even to determine a level of interest) were apparently not sent. Both workshops were cancelled in favour of holding three presentations to the CAC (which were expected in any event through the plans for ongoing stakeholder contact described in Section 4.2.5 of the consultation plan). The decision to cancel the two workshops and use of the CAC as a substitute needs to be called into question. Terrestrial Environment TSD On page 3-4, dates for field investigations are too late for inventories of breeding amphibians (specifically frogs): these must be done in mid-April to early June. Breeding amphibians likely one of the most sensitive groups in the vicinity and should have been surveyed properly, given that they may travel between breeding habitat (e.g. the Hydro Marsh) and terrestrial habitat on the property. It is not possible to determine from the Methods whether previous work (e.g. for Picketing A Return to Service) was done at the correct time for amphibian surveys; the report should state that the surveys were done at the correct times if so. On page 3, Natural Heritage System should have additional bullet: alteration of trophic structure that supports significant elements (not just effects on vegetation communities, should include insect communities and rodent communities as well) On Page 5, methods note that breeding bird surveys were conducted at 0630 to 1030: breeding bird atlas and Canadian Wildlife Service protocols state surveys should start at 0500 and end at 1000. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 21 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Pickering Waste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT # ~:-'~ TO REPORT#~_..~.-(::~(~' ~:~ 183 July 2003 On Page 5, Broader Regional status should have been assessed according to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) list of fauna species of concern in the Greater Toronto Area as well. This list is specifically applicable to the rapidly urbanizing areas around Toronto. On Page 5, figure numbers are wrong: references on page 5 to local and regional study areas are to figures 2.2-1 to 2.2-3, figures numbered 2.3-1 to 2.3-3. On Page 5, references 0290 and 0291 are missing from References list (Section 9: list only goes up to 0289). On Page 10, relevance of local study area and regional study area to these evaluations is obscure. The two most significant features in the local study area (as shown in Figure 2.3-2) are Frenchman's Bay and the Hydro Marsh. The statement here that "in the local study area, most of the vegetation has been removed as the land has been developed since the time of European settlement", and the subsequent discussion, do not highlight the significance (considerable, especially given the urban setting) of these areas at all. These areas are also missed in the Regional evaluation table (Table 4.1 - 1). On Pages 13-14, mention of area (ha) of each of these vegetation blocks would be helpful in determining habitat significance. On Page 15, no mention of whether amphibians use the marsh for breeding: because it's not known? (noted that no standing water present, but study team didn't look in April-May when it could be expected to provide habitat for breeding amphibians). There is no appendix listing amphibian species, though a few are noted in the section on Herpetofauna (page 18). On Page 16, green heron and black-crowned night heron L3 (significant) in TRCA. On Page 17, under marsh: black-throated green warbler and marsh wren, noted in marsh habitat, are both significant (L3) in TRCA. Text mentions that they were migrants, but the species list in Appendix C does not distinguish migrants from breeding species. There is no mention of other field visits to detect migrants, the only field visit recorded in Methods was on June 25 which is a time suitable for breeding birds. If the marsh wren was noted during this visit, it was in suitable habitat at a suitable time of year and should be considered a possible breeder. Marsh wren is significant in Durham Region and in TRCA Greater Toronto Area list. On what basis is Northern mockingbird a regionally significant species? Reference 0297 not in reference list. It's considered L4 (not significant) on the TRCA list. On Page 23, Table 4.5-1: 2. Ecological Importance: should add to "critical component of ecosystem (e.g. apex predator or dominant prey species)" 4. Conservation Status 1 =add Regionally rare according to TRCA IER & SClMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 22 1.$4 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental ~lssessment Study Report Pickering }Vaste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT#~ TO REPORT# Jury 2oo3 5. Degree of Exposure c) breeds in the study area: should receive more weight if yes, because of vulnerability of eggs/nestlings/fledgelings 6. Habitat specialist should have higher weight Not much weight is given to species that normally are of concern to municipality and province, e.g. those that have the most stringent habitat requirements and are most likely to be lost as a result of development. On Page 25, Table 4.5-3 What is the basis for inclusion of candidate VEC species in this table? Great homed owl, green heron, black-throated green warbler, willow flycatcher, are mentioned in text but not included in this table: all could be candidate VECs, and there is no consistent rationale for excluding them (e.g. black-throated green and marsh wren were both said to be migrating, yet marsh wren was included while black-throated green warbler was excluded). The great homed owl should not be dismissed so summarily: it was confirmed breeding according to the text (page 16). It is not always possible to determine what criteria birds use to select habitat, but if they fledge young, it was presumably the right choice of habitat however atypical it seems to the human observer. On Page 25, Table 4.5-3- Generally, this table is not very useful. Selection criteria for VECs has given the most weight to the most common and adaptable species that are likely to be least affected by development, contrary to the direction usually taken by the province and by municipalities. Dependence on specific habitats, especially for breeding, should have more weight because loss of specific habitat, and therefore loss of a species that depends on that habitat, may have regional implications. It is not obvious how the species are ranked in this table, as many organisms have the same score but are in different parts of the table, and there are many species that have the same score as the chosen species. (Ranking in table 4.5-3 has apparently been ignored anyway and a species that is 12th on the list has been chosen as the upland repreSentative VEC). Page 28 should add red-tailed hawk or great homed owl to selection of VECs, given that importance of apex predator is stressed in Table 4.5-1 (section 2), and that red-tailed hawk ranked highest on table 4.5-3 See comments for marsh wren under Page 17, marsh wren should be a VEC if it is a breeding species. On Page 32, potential for sediment-laden runoff during construction to enter adjacent natural (especially wetland) habitat should be considered here. Page 32-33, Section 5.2.1.1: could consider recommending confining construction to fall and winter to avoid impacts of earthworks on wildlife IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 23 Review By IER of Ontario Power Generation Draft Environmental Assessment Study Report Picketing Waste Management Facility Phase H ATTACHMENT # c~ TO REPORT# ~::::~o ~(~. ~ July 2003 Need recommendation for an erosion and sediment control plan to control runoff to natural areas during construction. On Page 38, should the diamond in the Natural Heritage System column of table 5.2.3-1 be a square? (if not, should put this symbol in the legend). On Page 39, it would be useful to evaluate the effects on the apex predator as an additional VEC (great homed owl or red-tailed hawk): these species may hunt for small mammals etc. on the open part of the site. IER & SCIMUS Inc. in association with North-South Environmental 24 186 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Council receive for information Report CAO 08-03 conceming the Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference for the Highway 407 East Completion, prepared by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (TSH) and Gartner Lee Limited for the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). That Council endorse the following recommendations with respect to the Highway 407 East Completion Draft EA Terms of Reference: a) That the City be provided clear and compelling supportive arguments prior to considering any preferred alignment and associated links of the Highway 407 East extension that deviate significantly from the previously recommended alignment anticipated in Picketing. b) That options for the location, design and number of interchanges, transit stations, truck inspection stations and commuter parking lots in Pickering be developed and reviewed in consultation with the City. That Council request MTO to expedite the Highway 407 East Completion EA process wherever possible and commence construction of the extension of Highway 407 from Brock Road eastward immediately following the conclusion of the EA process. That Council request MTO to assist the City and Region of Durham in funding improvements to existing City/Regional roads that have been negatively impacted and deteriorated from significant increased local traffic movements and volume resulting from the current Highway 407 East terminus being located in Pickering. 187 That a copy of this Report and Council recommendations be forwarded to MTO and the Region of Durham. 188 PICKEI{INC REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: CAO 08-03 Date: July 14, 2003 Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference - Highway407 East Completion - City of Pickering Comments - File: D-7400-001 Recommendations: That Council receive for information Report CAO 08-03 concerning the Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference for the Highway 407 East Completion, prepared by Totten Sims Hubicki Associates (TSH) and Gartner Lee Limited for the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). That Council endorse the following recommendations with respect to the Highway 407 East Completion Draft EA Terms of Reference: A. That the City be provided clear and compelling supportive arguments prior to considering any preferred alignment and associated links of the Highway 407 East extension that deviate significantly from the previously recommended alignment anticipated, in Pickering. B. That options for the location, design and number of interchanges, transit stations, truck inspection stations and commuter parking lots in Pickering be developed and reviewed in consultation with the City. That Council request MTO to expedite the Highway 407 East Completion EA process wherever possible and commence construction of the extension of Highway 407 from Brock Road eastward immediately following the conclusion of the EA process. That Council request MTO to assist the City and Region of Durham in funding improvements to existing City/Regional roads that have been negatively impacted and deteriorated from significant increased local traffic movements and volume resulting from the current Highway 407 East terminus being located in Pickering. That a copy of this Report and Council recommendations be forwarded to MTO and the Region of Durham. Report CAO 08-03 Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Highway 407 East Completion Date: July 14, 2003 Page 2 189 Executive Summary: The Ministry of Transportation recently released the Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference for the Highway 407 East Completion project for comment. Comments have been requested from stakeholders by July 31, 2003, after which the Terms of Reference (ToR) document will be revised as necessary, and submitted for approval to the Minister of Environment. The Draft ToR document sets out the parameters of the formal Environmental Assessment (EA) to be undertaken. The boundaries of the proposed Study Areas in the Draft F_A ToR generally respect the previously recommended 407 alignment established in the early 1990's in Pickering. Staff is satisfied with the general approach and outline of the Draft EA ToR. Route alternatives in Pickering are being explored for the segment of the Highway between Sideline 16 and Salem Road, and the West Durham Link between Highway 401 and 407. It is recommended that MTO provide clear and compelling supportive arguments prior to considering any recommended final alignment and associated links of the Highway 407 East extension that deviates significantly from the previously recommended alignment anticipated in Pickering. The future EA process will also consider Highway interchanges (including improvements to the existing Brock Road interchange), transitways and stations, truck inspection stations and commuter parking lots. It is recommended that MTO develop and review options for the location, design and number cf these facilities/infrastructure in consultation with the City. The route location/concept design EA Report is planned for completion in Winter/Spring, 2005. It is recommended that MTO expedite the completion of the EA process and commence construction of the Highway extension immediately following the conclusion of the EA process. Due to the delay in extending Highway 407 eastward, it is further recommended that MTO assist the City and Region of Durham in funding improvements to existing City/Regional roads supporting significant increased traffic accessing/exiting the current Highway 407 East terminus at Brock Road in Pickering. City Staff will continue to be involved in the EA consultation process, with ample opportunity for comment respecting Highway alignment and interchange locations. Regular updates to Council respecting this project will be provided. Financial Implications: Not Applicable. Study Overview: MTO recently released the Draft EA ToR for the Highway 407 East Completion, and requested comments on the draft document from stakeholders by July 31, 2003. 190 Report CAO 08-03 Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Highway 407 East Completion Date: July 14, 2003 Page 3 Once comments are received by MTO, a final EA ToR document will be revised as necessary, and submitted to the Ministry of Environment (MOE) for approval by the Minister. The Draft EA ToR and subsequent proposed EA process are structured in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act. As the project will also likely be subject to Federal EA requirements, the EA ToR have been structured proposing federal endorsement of the scope and assessment of the project. This will allow the project to proceed in a coordinated and streamlined manner satisfying both Federal and Provincial EA requirements. A map depicting the Highway 407 East Completion study area is included as Attachment #1 to this Report. The proposed Highway 407 East Completion project consists of: · the extension of Highway 407 from its current terminus at Brock Road eastward to Clarington; · the establishment of two north-south links between Highways 401 and 407; · the establishment of a public transit corridor within the extended highway right-of- way from Brock Road to the East Durham Link, and within the West and East Durham Link right-of-ways; and, · consideration for the location and number of interchanges (including improvements to the existing Brock Road interchange), transitway stations, truck inspection stations and commuter parking lots. MTO has noted in the EA ToR that it is their intention to confirm the location of the original route, where possible, and examine alternatives where required through the completion of the EA process. Although a technically preferred route for the extension of Highway 407 eastward and associated north-south links to Highway 401 were previously identified in the early 1990's, the EA work needs to be updated to reflect changes in the overall study area and regulatory process. The proposed EA for this project is being considered in three "Study Area Segments" (see Attachment #1). Study Area Segment 1 (Route Refinements) For this segment, previous EA assessment and evaluation can be confirmed, therefore requiring only minor adjustments to the previously recommended route. Segments in Pickering falling into this classification, and therefore requiring only route refinement alternatives (within 100 metres of the previously recommended route) include the segment from Sideline 22 to Sideline 16, and from Salem Road eastward (to Thorton Road in Oshawa). Report CAO 08-03 Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Highway 407 East Completion Date: July 14, 2003 Page 4 191 Study Area Segment 2 (Route Alternatives) For this segment, generation/assessment/evaluation undertaken to establish a technically preferred route. into this classification are: of route alternatives will be Segments in Pickering that fall The segment from Sideline 16 to Salem Road (the study area for this segment includes the area between Highway 7 and the previously recommended route). The West Durham Link from Highways 401 to 407 (the study area for the proposed west boundary of the West Durham Link is established along Audley and Kinsale Roads in Ajax and Pickering, and the proposed east boundary continues to be west of Coronation Road in Whitby). Study Area Segment 3 (Transportation Alternatives) This study area segment does not affect lands in Pickering. For this segment, the work completed on the identification and updating of problems and opportunities has resulted in the need to generate, assess and evaluate a number of transportation alternatives. This study area segment is located in Clarington only, and will look at required transportation links from the proposed East Durham Link to Highway 35/115. Discussion: Route Alignment Staff is satisfied with the general approach and outline of the Draft EA ToR. The majority of the proposed Highway 407 extension through Pickering identified in the EA ToR is very similar to the previously recommended 407 alignment established in the early 1990's. It is recommended that the City be provided clear and compelling supportive arguments prior to considering any preferred alignment and associated links of the Highway 407 East extension that deviate significantly from the previously recommended alignment anticipated in Pickering. The Highway 407 alignment has been depicted in the City's Official Plan for many years, and past land use decisions/considerations have been based on this alignment. Significant changes to the previously recommended 407 route and location of the West Durham Link are not desirable, and no compelling reasons have been cited, to-date, suggesting the need for major alterations to the previous alignment and associated links. Study Area Segment #1 in Pickering consists of minor route refinement considerations, as previous EA assessment and evaluation can be confirmed. Highway segments within thi.s Study Area in Pickering will have little or no variation from the previously recommended route. Staff supports the review approach for this Study Area. 192 Report CAO 08-03 Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Highway 407 East Completion Date: July 14, 2003 Page 5 Study Area Segment #2 in Pickering consists of route alternatives being explored, and includes the segment of the Highway in Pickering between Sideline 16 and Salem Road, and the West Durham Link between Highways 401 and 407. The EA ToR identifies the segment between Sideline 16 and Salem Road as a study area requiring a minor route location refinement from the previously recommended route. The general route alignment remains between Highway 7 and the previously recommended route, and continues to cross Highway 7 east of Brougham and is located north of Greenwood. Reasons noted to consider a minor route location refinement in this Highway segment include a shift of the existing Highway alignment westerly due in part to groundwater issues on the slopes of Sideline 16 and possible recent improvements to the natural and social environment east of Sideline 14. Anticipated alignment changes within this segment of Highway 407 appear to be technical and minor in nature, and therefore Staff are supportive of the review approach in this segment. The previously recommended location of the West Durham Link was in Whitby, west of Coronation Road and east of Halls Road. The EA ToR identifies the West Durham Link segment within a new study area bound by the previously recommended route to the east, and Audley and Kinsale Roads within Ajax and Pickering to the west. The EA ToR cites a number of planning and environmental issues that require consideration when assessing the preferred alignment. Staff will closely monitor the alternatives suggested for the West Durham Link location that differ from the previously recommended link location in Whitby, and request MTO to provide a compelling rationale for any recommended location change. Staff will further seek a Council position respecting a location of the West Durham Link, if a change is recommended in the future EA Report. Interchanges and Related Infrastructure The EA ToR notes that a review of a proposed transitway and associated stations, truck inspection stations and commuter parking lots will be incorporated into the EA process. The consultant has also confirmed that Highway interchanges (and over/underpasses) will be considered in conjunction with the Highway alignment review (although not explicitly noted in the EA ToR). The existing Brock Road interchange will be included in the EA, with possible alternative design options being developed. The previously recommended 407 east route plan identified full interchange locations in Pickering at Brock Road, Sideline 14, Westney Road, Salem Road and Lakeridge Road. Options for these highway-related facilities/infrastructure will be closely monitored by Staff throughout the EA process. It is recommended that options for the location, design and number of interchanges, transit stations, truck inspection stations and commuter parking lots in Pickering be developed and reviewed in consultation with the City. Report CAO 08-03 Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Highway 407 East Completion Date: July 14, 2003 Page 6 193 Proiect Timing City Council passed Resolution #107/02 in July, 2002, requesting the Minister of Transportation to establish an expedited timetable for the Highway 407 East Completion project. A copy of that Resolution is included as Attachment #2 to this Report. It is critical to extend the Highway westward as soon as possible in order to alleviate local traffic congestion, reduce local road deterioration and encourage economic development opportunities in Pickering and Durham Region. The route location/concept design EA Report is planned for completion in WintedSpring, 2005, with additional months (4-6) required for approvals and comment. It is recommended that MTO expedite the Highway 407 East Completion EA process wherever possible and commence construction of the extension of Highway 407 from Brock Road eastward immediately following the conclusion of the EA process. Phasing of the EA process and/or construction of the Highway mainline extension may be an appropriate method of expediting this project, as only route refinements and "technical" route alternatives are proposed from the current 407 terminus at Brock Road to the proposed West Durham Link. Provincial Funding Assistance for Existing Roads The current Highway 407 East terminus at Brock Road in Pickering has created significant traffic congestion on local roads providing access to and from that intersection. The resultant traffic well exceeds expected traffic counts that would be generated at the Brock Road interchange if the Highway was extended eastward. The increased traffic movements and volume have resulted in accelerated deterioration of surrounding Local/Regional roads. It is recommended that MTO assist the City and Region of Durham in funding improvements to existing City/Regional roads that have been negatively impacted and deteriorated from significant increased local traffic movements and volume resulting from the current Highway 407 East terminus being located in Pickering. Consultation/Information Updates The proposed process allows for multiple updates to stakeholders, and incorporates several public and municipal consultation milestones. The Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy represents the City on the Municipal Technical Advisory Group (MTAG) for this project, and will provide updates to Council as the study proceeds. The City will have an additional opportunity to comment on a future draft EA Report to MTO, and if necessary, an opportunity to comment directly to the Ministry of Environment 194 Report CAO 08-03 Subject: Draft Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference Highway 407 East Completion Date: July 14, 2003 Page 7 References; 1. "Draft Highway 407 East Completion - Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference", prepared by TSH and Gartner Lee Limited for MTO, and dated April, 2003. 2. "Draft Highway 407 East Completion Transportation Planning/Needs Report - Supporting Documentation for the EA Terms of Reference", prepared by TSH et al. for MTO, and dated April, 2003. 3. "Region of Durham Commissioners of Planning and Works Report No. 2003-J- 18", dated June 25. 4. "Highway 407 East Completion Study" website, www.407eastea.com, July,' 2003. Attachments: 1. Map - Proposed Study Area Overview 2, Council Resolution #107/02 Prepared By: I~on Tayl~ Z' - Economic Development Officer Approved / Endorsed By: Chief Administrative Officer ~~.___.~ Prepared By: Thomas E. Melymuk Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy RST:TM:kr Attachments Copy: All Directors Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council 'Th~m'as J. Q~i'nn, Cl~l'ef Adminis~ Offic'er PROPOSED STUDY AREA OVERVIEW - HIGHWAY 407 EAST COMPLETION ATTACHMENT #1 TO REPORT #CAO 08-03 LAKE 195 LEGEND Study Area - Segment 1 (Route Refinements) Study Area - Segment 2 (Route Alternatives) Study Area - Segment 3 (Transportation Alternatives) 196 ATTACHMENT.ft, c~ TO Resolution #107/02 Passed on July 29, 2002 Moved by Councillor McLean Seconded by Councillor Holland WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering has been supportive of the construction of Highway 407 through the City of Pickering to connect to Highway 35/115; and WHEREAS this support has been expressed as far back as 1990 when it endorsed the preferred route alignment of Highway 407 through Pickering and in 1996 when Council requested the Ministry of Transportation to proceed expeditiously with the planning and environmental assessment work relating to the construction of Highway 407 east from Markham Road to Highway 35/115, including two links with Highway 401; and WHEREAS Council supported the extension of Highway 407 through Pickering to Highway 35/115 because it recognized not only the economic benefits to the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham but also the requirement for an alternate commuter route for residents throughout the Region of Durham; and WHEREAS Council was of the understanding that the extension of Highway 407 east of Brock Road would be completed by 2005; and WHEREAS the Ministry of Transportation made a presentation to the Regional Works Committee wherein it was indicated that an Environmental Assessment Terms of Reference and an Environmental Assessment for Route Location and Concept Design would need to be completed and that this would not occur until the end of 2004; and WHEREAS the completion of the Environmental Assessment studies will delay the completion of Highway 407 to Highway 35/115 until approximately 2010; and WHEREAS the required Environmental Assessment studies were completed in 1994 but not filed with the Ministry of Transportation; and WHEREAS any delay to the construction of Highway 407 east of Brock Road in Pickering to Highway 35/115 will have a major impact on the economic well- being of the Region of Durham; ATTACHMENT #,,~ TO REPORT# I97 NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby requests the Honourable Norm Sterling, Minister of Transportation, to direct that the Terms of Reference for the Environmental Assessment for Highway 407 completion from Brock Road in Pickering to Highway 35/115 be completed no later than December 31, 2002 and that the Environmental Assessment for the Route Location/Concept Design be completed no later than December 31, 2003; and FURTHER THAT the Minister of Transportation set a deadline of no later than December 31, 2005 for the extension of Highway 407 beyond Brock Road in Pickering; and FURTHER THAT this resolution be forwarded to the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham and all area municipalities for endorsation; and FURTHER THAT this resolution be forwarded to: The Honourable Janet Ecker, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge The Honourable Jim Flaherty, MPP, Whitby-Ajax Jerry Ouellette, MPP, Oshawa John O'Toole, MPP, Durham CARRIED 198 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY,, That Report CL 17-03 regarding Public Notification Policy, be received; and That the draft By-law to provide for the Public Notification Policy be enacted. REPORT TO 1'99 Committee of the Whole Report Number: CL 17/03 Date: June 17, 2003 From: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Subject: Public Notification Policy File: A-1010 Recommendation: 1. That Report CL 17-03 regarding the Public Notification Policy be received; and 2. That the draft By-law to provide for the Public Notification Policy be enacted. Executive Summary: In accordance with Section 251 of the MunicipalAct, S.O. 2001, the Public Notification Policy is presented to Council for endorsement. The objective of the policy is to ensure compliance with the Municipal Act, provide accurate and timely notice to the required audience, ensure that the notification process is consistent, and to ensure all notices published by the City are in an effective and relevant medium. The scope of the policy includes only notices issued in accordance with the Municpal Act. Financial Implications: N/A Background: The Municipal Act, S.O., 2001, came into effect January 1, 2003. Where the City is required to give notice under a provision of the Act, Section 251 of the Act grants the authority to Council to determine the manner and times which are adequate to give reasonable notice. Current and proposed notice mediums used to communicate to our audience include: correspondence addressed to individuals and/or businesses, on-site posted signs, the City of Pickering Website, and newspaper publications. In most cases, and where practical, notice is provided using more than one medium to ensure that the target audience is being met. Staff have reviewed all notice provisions of the Act and, in consideration of current notice practices, recommended the attached Public Notification Policy. Although Appendix 1 to the Policy identifies the notices specifically addressed in the Act, Section 200 Report CL 17-02 Subject: Public Notification Policy Date: June 17, 2003 Page 2 03.03 of the Policy further states that where the Act refers to "reasonable notice", the City shall make every effort to give not less than five days or more than thirty days prior to the proposed notice of intention to pass a by-law or notice of a public meeting being taken. Attachments: 1. Draft By-law to adopt the Public Notification Policy Prepared By: C/Anne G r~'er~ee Supervisor, Legislative Services Approved / Endorsed By: Bruce Taylor City Clerk BT:ag Attachments Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~/~ ~ ' .... ~'/':)~'Tla~s~J. Qu~n, ChbfAdm~m - co poRAtlou of C tY OF 2 01 BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law for establishing policies regarding public notification requirements under the MunicipalAct, 2001. Hereinafter called the Public Notification By-law. WHEREAS the Corporation of the City of Pickering is required to give notice under various sections of the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001; AND WHEREAS Section 251 of the MunicipalAct, S.O. 2001 requires the City to, except as otherwise provided in the Act, give notice in a form and in the manner and at the times that the council considers adequate to give reasonable notice under the provision; AND WHEREAS the City deems it expedient to establish a policy to ensure that public notices are accurate, timely, consistent, and are published by the City in an effective and relevant medium; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS the following Public Notification Policy as detailed in Attachment 1. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 28th day of July, 2003. Wayne arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 2O2 CITY POLICY/PROCEDURE Approval: Reference: Policy Title: Date Originated: Date Revised: Public Notification Policy Policy Number: Classification: ADM Category: '100 Subject: 001/001 POLICY STATEMENT: The Corporation of the City of Pickering is committed to complying with legislative requirements respecting public notification as stated in the Municipal Act, S.O. 2001 and related Regulations. POLICY OBJECTIVE: The objective of this Policy is to: 2. 3. 4. Ensure transparent government services which promote public input. Provide accurate and timely notice to the required audience. Ensure notification process is consistent. Ensure all notices published by the City are issued in an effective and relevant medium. Page 1 of 1 CITY POLICY/PROCEDURE 203 Approval: Reference: Date Originated: Date Revised: Policy Number: Classification: ADM Category: 100 Subject: 001 Policy Title: Public Notification Policy GENERAL: 01 Definitions: 01.01 Emergency - means an unexpected matter that may arise which is considered to be of an urgent or time sensitive nature or which could affect the health or well-being of the residents and may prevent the City from providing the standard public notice. Emergency does not mean an emergency as defined in and governed by the Emergency Management Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.E.9, as amended. 01.02 Newspaper- means a printed publication in sheet form, intended for general circulation, published regularly at intervals of not longer than a week, consisting in great part of news of current events of general interest and sold to the public and to regular subscribers. 01 .O3 Notice - means a written, printed, published, or posted notification or announcement. 01.04 Published - published in a daily or weekly newspaper that, in the opinion of the Clerk of the City of Pickering, has such circulation within the City as to provide reasonable notice to those affected thereby, and "publication" has a corresponding meaning. 01.05 Website - City of Pickering corporate website, cityofpickering.com, "Public Notices" section as indicated in the section that provides links to public notification on the homepage. 02 Responsibilities: 02.01 Council to: (a) Approve the Public Notification Policy. (b) Approve amendments to the Public Notification Policy. Page 2 of 6 204 CITY POLICY/PROCEDURE Approval: Reference: Date Originated: Date Revised: Policy Number: Classification: ADM Category: 1 O0 Subject: 001 Policy Title: Public Notification Policy 02.02 02.03 02.04 02.05 (c) Support the Public Notification Policy. Chief Administrative Officer to: (a) Support the Public Notification Policy. (b) Declare, in consultation with the Mayor, when emergency provisions may be invoked. Department / Division Head: (a) Support the Public Notification Policy. (b) Ensure staff prepare notices within the designated time. Supervisor, Marketing Research & Communications to: (a) Support the Public Notification Policy. (b) Act as City representative with the newspaper. (c) Coordinate notices to be published in the newspapers. (d) Follow-up on any misprints. Website Coordinator: (a) (b) (c) Support the Public Notification Policy. Add, maintain and remove notices from the website as requested by departments responsible for giving notice. Maintain a record of notices published on the website. Page 3 of 6 PICKFRINIG CITY POLICY/PROCEDURE 295 Approval: Reference: Date Originated: Date Revised: Policy Number: Classification: ADM Category: 1 O0 Subject: 001 Policy Title: Public Notification Policy 03 Notice Method and Timinq: 03.01 The Municipal Act, S.O. 2001 requires the City to give notice respecting several matters. The means of giving notice may be set by Municipal Policy, may be set out in the Act that requires the notice to be given, or may be prescribed by Minister's Regulation. 03.02 Where the Act and Regulations are silent on how notice shall be given, the standard mediums for issuing a notice may include one or more of the following: a) Letters - for notice to individuals, interested parties, the upper tier municipality or other level of government. Depending on the notice or statutory requirement, letters may be hand delivered, or sent via first- class mail or registered mail, faxed or e-mailed. b) Newspaper- public notices, notice of intent to pass by-law, notice of public meeting, property tax installment notices, notice of public sale. c) Posting - public notices posted on site. d) Website - public notices, notice of intent to pass by-law, notice of public meeting, property tax installment notices, notice of public sale. 03.03 Unless otherwise stated in Attachment I, where the Act refers to "reasonable notice", the City shall give not less than five days or more than thirty days notice. 03.04 Attachment I is a chart detailing the Minimum Notice Requirements which shall be provided by the City, including legal requirements, medium, notification period, and frequency of notice. Page 4 of 6 · ""' .~ 0 .tO r- · '---. 0 ._o I;;;2 211 ._o t- 0 o r- ID'*" .,., 0 .~ c cl o I Q. ~ I ._ 0 ._~ 0 0 0 0 0 I 'rX It} 217 o o r- r- 0 0 0 I 0 tn i :EX 0 > ~ --~ '> ~ o~ ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 0 z z z I ~ ~ o · ~ .- E ~ o o ~ ._ 0-5 ~ 0 = 0 t- O t- o o r- 220 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Clerk's Report CL 21-03 regarding a draft by-law to require owners or occupants of lands to cut long grass or weeds and to keep their land clean and clear of refuse or debds, be received; and That the draft by-law to require the owner or occupant of land to clean and clear their land or refuse or debris or to cut long grass or weeds be enacted. REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE 2 21 Report Number: CL 21-03 Date: July 9, 2003 From: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk Subject: By-law to Require Property Owners and Occupants to Cut Long Grass And Clean and Clear Property Recommendation: That Clerk's Report CL 21-03 regarding a draft by-law to require owners or occupants of lands to cut long grass or weeds and to keep their land clean and clear of refuse or debris be received. That the draft by-law to require the owner or occupant of land to clean and clear their land or refuse or debris or to cut long grass or weeds be enacted. Executive Summary: This Report provides Council with a draft by-law that will require owners or occupants of land to cut long grass or weeds and to keep their land clean and clear of refuse or debris. With respect to the cuffing of long grass and weeds, this draft by-law will be an important tool in keeping the mosquito population under control in the residential areas as well as giving the staff a tool to require yards to be kept reasonably neat and tidy. Financial Implications: Not applicable Background: Section 127 of the new Municipal Act provides the following authority for municipalities to pass by-laws with respect to keeping private property clean and clear of debris and long grass: 222 Report CL 21-03 Subject: By-law to Clean and Clear Land Date: July 9, 2003 Page 2 A local municipality may, a) require the owner or occupant of land to clean and clear the land, not including buildings, or to clear refuse or debris from the land, not including buildings; b) regulate when and how matters required under clause (a) shall be done; c) prohibit the depositing of refuse or debris on land without the consent of the owner or occupant of the land; and d) define "refuse" for the purpose of this section. Please find attached to this Report a draft by-law that requires owners or occupants of land to keep their lands clean and clear of refuse and debris. It is important to point out that the draft by-law includes the trimming or cuffing of weeds or grass more than fifteen centimeters (six inches) in height. Although staff can deal with yards that contain debris or refuse through the Property Standards By-law, it takes a great deal of time to do so because that By-law requires that the owner of the land be served notices and orders which are all appealable to the Property Standards Committee. This draft by-law will allow staff to deal with messy yards in a more expeditious manner. As noted in the draft by-law, the owner or occupant of a messy yard will be served a Notice that will require them to clean and clear the land within a reasonable length of time, usually one week. If the land is not cleaned or cleared within the prescribed time, the City will have the land cleared and the expense will be put on the property taxes of the owner. The draft by-law will also allow staff to require yards where the grass or weeds are in excess of fifteen centimeters to be cut within a reasonable length of time, usually three days. If the grass or weeds are not cut, again the City will carry out the work and put the expenses on the property taxes of the owner. The regulations that allow the City to cut long grass or weeds is of particular importance not only for aesthetic reasons but also as a tool to keep mosquitoes under control in a residential area. Attachments: 1. Draft By-law CORP0227-07/01 Report CL 21-03 Subject: By-law to Clean and Clear Land Date: July 9, 2003 Page 3 223 Prepar~: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Attachments Copy: Chief Building Official Emergency Response Coordinator Manager, By-law Enforcement Services Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ~ho~n~ J. Q~nn, C-'~hief Adm~~cer CORP0227-07/01 224 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PIGKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to require the owner or occupant of land to clean and clear the land. WHEREAS pursuant to Section 127 of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, as amended, a local municipality may require the owner or occupant of land to clean and clear the land, not including buildings, or to clear refuse or debris from the land, not including buildings; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. In this By-law: a) b) c) d) e) g) h) i) 2. a) b) "City" means the Corporation of the City of Picketing; "Expense" means the cost of carrying out the work to be done by the notice pursuant to Section 3(a) and a 25% administrative charge; "Lifter" includes any material left or abandoned in a place other than a receptacle or place intended or approved for receiving such material; "Occupant~' means any person who is in control of any grounds, yard or vacant lot; "Officer" means a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer appointed by the Council of the City of Pickering; "Owner" includes any person registered as the owner of any grounds, yard or vacant lot and the person or persons able to exercise the rights of ownership with respect to any grounds, yard or vacant lot; "Person" means an individual, firm, corporation, association or partnership; "Premises" means any grounds, yard or vacant lot; "Refuse" includes debds, rubbish, or material of any kind and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes a vehicle that appears by reason of its appearance, mechanical condition or lack of current licence plates to be inoperative, inoperative mechanical equipment, automotive and mechanical parts, disused furniture, garden refuse, earth or rock fill, old or decayed lumber, or materials from construction or demolition projects. Every owner or occupant shall keep his or her premises clean or cleared and shall comply with any notice given by a Municipal Law Enforcement Officer pursuant to Section 3(a) of this By-law. For the purposes of Section 2(a), "clean or cleared" includes the tdmming or cutting of weeds or grass more than fifteen centimeters in height. - a) b) c) a) b) An Off~cer may, by notice, sent by registered mail to the owner or occupant of the premises, or by posting the notice in a conspicuous place on the premises, or by delivering the notice personally to the owner or occupant, require the owner or occupant within the time specified within the notice to clean or clear or remove from the premises any refuse, litter, weeds or grass. A notice mailed to an owner shall be mailed to the address of the owner as shown on the last revised assessment roll or to the last known address of the owner. A notice mailed to an occupant shall be mailed to the premises or to the last known address of the occupant. Where the owner or occupant fails to comply with a notice pursuant to this By-law, an Officer may cause the work to be done by the notice and the City may recover the expense in so doing in a like manner as municipal taxes. Any person who contravenes any provision of this By-law is guilty of an offence and upon conviction is liable to a fine or penalty for each offence, exclusive of costs, as prescribed by the Provincial Offences Act. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 28th day of July, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 2.,'?.5 226 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Clerk's Report CL 20-03 regarding the composition of the City of Pickering Public Library Board, be received; and That the draft by-law to provide for a Library Board of nine members, be enacted; and That the draft by-law to authorize the Chief Executive Officer of the Library Board to call the first meeting of the Board of each new term, be enacted. REPORT TO 2 2 7 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: CL 20-03 Date: July 8, 2003 From: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk Subject: Composition of the City of Pickering Public Library Board Recommendation: That Clerk's Report CL 20-03 regarding the composition of the City of Pickering Public Library Board be received. 2. That the draft by-law to provide for a Library Board of nine members be enacted. That the draft by-law to authorize the Chief Executive Officer of the Library Board to call the first meeting of the Board of each new term be enacted. Executive Summary: To implement a recommendation of the Public Library Board be comprised of nine persons. Financial Implications: Not applicable Background: Please find attached to this Report a letter dated July 7, 2003 from the Secretary Treasurer of the Pickering Public Library Board advising that the Public Library Board passed the following motion at its meeting of May 22, 2003: That the Board recommend to the City of Pickering that the Library Board be comprised of 9 Board Members: 3 Councillors and 6 members-at- large. Report CL 20-03 Subject: Composition of the Public Library Board Date: July 8, 2003 Page 2 The current Library Board is comprised of nine members of which three members are Councillors, two members are appointed by the Durham District School Board, one member is appointed by the Durham Catholic District School Board and the remaining three members are Pickering residents who are appointed by Council. As noted in the letter from the Secretary Treasurer of the Board, School Board appointments are no longer required. It is also important to note that the number of Members of Council appointed to the Board cannot form a majority of the Board. The Public Libraries Act simply states that a publiC library board shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the municipal Council. I believe that it would be prudent for this Council to pass a by-law to provide for a Board that is comprised of nine members, however, the composition of the Board should remain flexible so that each new Council can decide on how many .Council appointees it wishes on the new Board. I will certainly make the Council that is elected in the 2003 general election aware of the recommendation of the Board that it be comprised of three Councillors and six residents. It is important to note that at the May 22nd meeting of the Board, a committee was established comprised of two Board members to report to the Board with recommendations for publicizing and recruiting new Board members. I understand that it is the goal of the Board to invite applications from a wide range of groups in order for the Board to reflect the diverse demographics of the City of Pickering. In addition to the efforts put forward by the Library Board, I am also required by the Public Libraries Act to invite applications from residents. Council should be aware of the following provisions of the Public Libraries Act that regulate the composition and appointments to the Board: · The Board shall be composed of at least five members. · Members of Council cannot form a majority on the Board. · The Board shall hold office for a term that is the same as the Council. · The Clerk shall publish a notice in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality inviting applications from residents to sit on the Board. · A Board member must be 18 years of age, a Canadian citizen and a resident of the City of Pickering. · Council must make appointments to the Board within 60 days of its Inaugural Meeting. · The current Board will continue to hold office until the Council makes its appointments. · If authorized by by-law, the Chief Executive Officer of the Board will call the first meeting in each new term of the Board. · The Board shall appoint a Chair at its first meeting. CORP0227-07/01 Report CL 20-03 Subject: Composition of the Public Library Board Date: July 8, 2003 229 Page 3 In order to implement the recommendation of the Board, I have attached a draft by-law that provides for the Board to be comprised of nine members and a separate by-law authorizing the Chief Executive Officer of the Board to call the first meeting. These two by-laws will replace By-law Numbers 2120/85 and 2121/85 that provides for the foregoing, however, the new by-laws will make reference to the updated Public Libraries Act and reflect the change of name of Pickering from Town to City. Attachments: Letter dated July 7, 2003 from Secretary Treasurer of Library Board Draft by-law to provide for a Library Board comprised of nine members Draft by-law to authorize the Chief Executive Officer of the Library Board to call the first meeting of the Board of each new term. Prepared By: '~ruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk Attachments Copy: Chief Executive Officer, Public Library Board Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Th(~"~'S J. Ouinn, ( hief/~mi~tiv~ Offi(':er CORP0227-07/01 230 ATTACHMENT#_..~/TOREPORT# c:/... 'z o -~ o~ PICKERING PUBLIC LIBRARY One, The Esplanade, Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Telephone (905) 831-6265 Fax (905) 831-8795 July 7, 2003 Mr. Bruce Taylor, City Clerk, The City of Pickering, One The Esplanade, Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Taylor: As you are aware, the Public Libraries Act was amended in November 2002. There is now greater scope with respect to the size of the Board, and School Board appointments are no longer required. With that in mind the Board has reviewed the legislation and has prepared a recommendation to Council which is outlined in a motion passed by the Pickering Public Library Board at the May 22nd Board meeting. The motion reads: "That the Board recommend to the City of Pickering that the Library Board be comprised of 9 Board Members: 3 Councillors and 6 members-at-large." Please bring this motion to Council's attention. Thank you. Your sincerely, Cynthia Mearns, B.A., M.L.S. Secretary Treasurer, Pickering Public Library Board. Mailing Address for Central Library and Branches: P.O. Box 368, Pickering, ON Canada L1V 2R6 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to establish the number of members of The City of Pickering Public Library Board WHEREAS pursuant to Section 9(1) of the Public Libraries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.44, as amended, a public library board shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the municipal council; and WHEREAS in a motion passed by the City of Pickering Public Library Board on May 22, 2003, it was recommended that the Board be comprised of nine members; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The City of Picketing Public Library Board shall be composed of nine members appointed by the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing. 2. By-law Number 2120/85 is hereby repealed. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 28th day of July, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk CORP0223-07/01 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to authorize the Chief Executive Officer of the City of Picketing Public Library Board to call the first meeting of the Board of each new term. WHEREAS pursuant to Section 14(2) of the Public Libraries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.44, as amended, a municipal Council may by by-law authorize the Chief Executive Officer appointed under Section 15(2) thereof to call the first meeting of the public library board in each new term; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The City of Picketing Public Library Board's Chief Executive Officer, appointed under Section 15(2) of the Public Libraries Act, R.S.O. 1990, c, P.44, as amended, is hereby authorized to call the first meeting of the Board in each new term of the Board. 2. By-law Number 2121/85 is hereby repealed. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 28~ day of July, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk CORP0223-07/01 233 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 1. That the draft by-law to appoint three persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 591 Liverpool Road, be forwarded to Council for approval. REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: CL 22-03 Date: July 9, 2003 From: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Subject: Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 591 Liverpool Road. Recommendation: That the draft by-law to appoint three persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 591 Liverpool Road, be forwarded to Council for approval. Executive Summary: Not Applicable Financial Implications: None Background: Correspondence has been received from The Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. requesting the appointment of three persons as By-law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at 591 Liverpool Road. Attachments: Correspondence from The Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. Draft By-law Report CL 22-03 Subject: Appointment of By-law Enforcement Officers Date: July 9, 2003 Page 2 935 Prepared By: Debbie Kearns Committee Coordinator BT:dk Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Approved I Endorsed By: Bt~ce Taylor City Clerk Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council -:l-,l~(~as-J. Ou~/~', Chi~ff/Adminis~_.ffi_ffice~ ~~.~ Executive Offices "~ ~ .~'~i 591 LIVERPOOL ROAD Associate Company ~ ~]~ ' PICKERING, ONTARIO L1W 1 R1 FRENCHMAN'S BAY HARBOUR ,~, ~~ Z~ ~, Telephone (905) 839-5036 & MARINE SERVICE CO. LIMITED i ..... ~ ~ ~ Fax (905) 839-4380 Jul),' 3. 2003 CITY OF PICKERING JUL u 2003 The City of Pickering ()ne The Esplanade Pickering Civic Complex Pickering, ON LIV 6K7 ~ Attention: Chie~'orcement Officer CLERK'S DIVISION Dear Sir: We are interested in having one of our employees appointed as a special constable lbr the purpose of issuing parking tickets on our own private property. Our property is immediately adjacent to the City's parking lot near Millennium Square on Liverpool Road South. In spite of our property being privately owned and posted as a parking area tbr marina customers only, we get a considerable number of non-marina customers illegally parking on our lot. Could you please advise us if training tbr a special constable is provided by the City, and we would ask that our request is brought before Council and put on the August agenda. As an interim measure, could a by-law officer attend, when called, to take out illegally parked vehicles on our property. Yours very. truly. TItE PICKERING H~RBOUR C/~PANY I,IMITED tptra~U g 7 ~[/ (-'"'""-~'"., JUL--09--03 12:31 PM PIr'K£R~NG M~RI~OUR r'O. 905 839 4388 P. ~' 591 LIVERPOOL ROAD' '?~ ~sociote Company ~~ PICKETING, ONTARIO L1 W 1R1 '.?:'~ .... JF~ENCH~N'S ~Y HARBOUR ~ Telephone (905) B39-SOa6 ¥~,~::I: '.'::~ ~RINE SERVlC~ CO, LIMITEB F~ (905) 839.4~80 : Ms. J")ebbie Keams, Clerks Department, Thc City of Picketing, One The Esplanade, Pkkering Civic Complex, Picketing, Ontario, LIV 6K7. Sent via fsx: 905-420-96B$ Dear Debbie: Thank you for your' telephone call this morning. As discussed 1 would like the following,people to have authority to ticket illegally parked vehicles on our property. Harold Hough Bob Evans Cathy McConnell I would like to put'this policy into effect as quickly as possible therefore if you require any additional information please do not hesitate contacting me, Yours very truly, THE PICKERINO HARBOUR COMPANY LIMITED P.tk inglick~ll¢lcil)'ofl'iu~uly2003 jATTACHMENT# TO REPORT#_ THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation - 591 Liverpool Road). WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality; and WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(2) of the said Act, municipal by-law enforcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That Harold Hough, Bob Evans and Cathy McConnell be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement officers in and for the City of Picketing in order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands municipally known as 591 Liverpool Road: The authority granted in section 1 hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authority set out in section 1. These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section 1ceasing to be employees of The Pickering Harbour Company Ltd. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 28th day of July, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 239 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the draft by-law to appoint two persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road and 1100 Begley Street, be forwarded to Council for approval. ~?~ 4O REPORT TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Report Number: CL 24-03 Date: July 15, 2003 From: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Subject: Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road and 1100 Begley Street. Recommendation: 1. That the draft by-law to appoint two persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road and 1t00 Begley Street, be forwarded to Council for approval. Executive Summary: Not Applicable Financial Implications: None Background: Correspondence has been received from Securitas Canada requesting the appointment of two persons as By-law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road and 1100 Begley Street. Attachments: 1. Correspondence from Securitas Canada 2. Draft By-law Report CL 24-03 Subject: Appointment of By-law Enforcement Officers Date: July 15, 2003 Page 2 Prepared By: Debbie Kearns Committee Coordinator BT:dk Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Approved I Endorsed By: City Clerk Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ,~ 'l~h~'mas J. Q~i~n, Ch,ef Admi~ativ~ Offic/er / Jul,15. 2003 2:32PM No.2857 P, 2 242 July 15, 2003 City of Picketing Debbie Kcaras - Committee Coordi~tor One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Debbie Keams; We Sccttritas Canada Lid. on behalf of $imerra Property Management and Valiant Property Management, respectflttly request that you consider for approval thc following two Securitas Canada Ltd. employees for by law services: Kyle Sawyer Brian Diethelm This request is for the following two locations: 1822 Whitens Road North 1100 Begley Street. Thanking you in advance for your comin~ed assistance. Client Service Manager Securitas Canada Oshav~, O~tnrio LIO 4WI F~c (905) 571-0617 i,ATTACHMENT# THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. 6173/03 Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation - 1822 Whites Road and 1100 Begley Street). WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality; and WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(2) of the said Act, municipal by-law enforcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That Kyle Sawyer and Bdan Diethelm be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement officers in and for the City of Pickering in order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands municipally known as 1822 Whites Road North and 1100 Begley Street. The authority granted in section 1 hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authority set out in section 1. These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section 1ceasing to be employees of Secudtas Canada or upon Securitas Canada ceasing to be an agent of 1822 Whites Road North or 1100 Begley Street, or whichever shall occur first. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 28th day of July, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 244 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 1. That the draft by-law to appoint two persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 650 and 705 Kingston Road, be forwarded to Council for approval. REPORT TO? 45 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE" Report Number: CL 23-03 Date: July 10, 2003 From: Bruce Taylor City Clerk Subject: Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 650 and 705 Kingston Road. Recommendation: That the draft by-law to appoint two persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 650 and 705 Kingston Road, be forwarded to Council for approval. Executive Summary: Not Applicable Financial Implications: None Background: Correspondence has been received from Knights On Guard requesting the appointment of two persons as By-law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at 650 and 705 Kingston Road. Attachments: Correspondence from Knights On Guard Draft By-law 246 Report CL 23-03 Subject: Appointment of By-law Enforcement Officers Date: July 10, 2003 Page 2 Prepared By: Debbie Kearns Committee Coordinator BT:dk Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Approved I Endorsed By: ~uce Taylor City Clerk Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council [~ds J. ~uinn, dhief ~i~~cer Jul-09-03 15:BB KNIGHTS ON GUARD (90r-.) 420-9957 ATTACHMENT # ..... P .02 ...... TO REPORT #o-2~4 247 To Secure, Deter & Protect July 9, 2003 Town of Picketing By-Law E~'partmcnt Parking Entbrcement Unit Fax: (905) 420-9685 Att: D~bbie Kcarns We would like the next Security Officers to be appointed for Parking Enforcement Amanda Reardon and John Canninghgam, The site location is 650 and 705 King.%lon road, Picketing Please also delete Robert Moore from the above locations. If you have any questions or concerns please contact Valelltina l~l~ovski Office M~nager ' 1048 Ik)y Aw',., -%,itc l(J1, I'ickering, ( )nt~.~rio LIW 3P! · 'l'~q: (gtJ~) 427-7863 · Dispatch: (90.5) 420-6566 · I-'ax: (905) ,120-9957 TO REPORT . THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation - 650 and 705 Kingston Road). WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I)of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality; and WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(2) of the said Act, municipal by-law enforcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of enfoming municipal by-laws; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That Amanda Reardon and John Canningham be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement officers in and for the City of Pickering in order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands municipally known as 650 and 705 Kingston Road. The authority granted in section 1 hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authority set out in section 1. These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section 1ceasing to be employees of Knights on Guard or upon Knights on Guard ceasing to be an agent of 650 or 705 Kingston Road, or whichever shall occur first. 4. By-law 6114/03 is hereby amended by deleting Robert Moore. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 28th day of July, 2003. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 249 RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Mayor Arthurs be authorized to make the following proclamation: "United Way Week" - September 7 ~ 13, 2003 CARRIED: MAYOR ~ng-Uxbridge Board of Trustees Allan Gibbim, President Doug McKay, Past-President (ex-officio) Alan P. Froggatt, CA, VP of Finance Brace Boyle David [~sncr Kevin Grah~ James E. Hodgin~ Ginger Jac -ks(m David Kentish Madge lfint(m Joseph Mitschang John Ostler Sutesh Paul Kelly. Peters Moe Pringle Paul Tmong Barry Wohl Elizabeth W(~dbury Man'an W~xxts 2003 Campaign Cabinet Val Marshall, 2003 Campaign Chair Mayor Wayne Arthurs, Honoura~ Co-Chair Mayor (}ertl Lynn O'Connor, Honourary Co-Chair Mayor Steve Parish, Honourary Co-Chair Margaret Bishop Brace Boyle Rhoda Brands-Smart Doug Crichtcxn Sheila M. Entwisfle Barbara M. Fleming Ken (;allen Ricaxdo Gomez Tom 1 taslam Nancy ttughcs lt. (Nindi) Kang Louise Fact John l.eonard Jamic Ix)wery GeoffNic Bob Pinkney Demma Roxburgh Kristin Sciarra Bill Smith Jcrc.:ny W'a~d Tobi Williams Beth Wilson Peggy Wilson Executive Director Edna Klazek CITY OF P~CKERING June 17, 2003 ' CLERK S DIVISION Mayor Wayne A~hurs The Corporation of the Ci~ of Picketing One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontado LlV 6K7 Dear Mayor Arthurs, On behalf of United Way of Ajax-Pickering-Uxbridge, I would like to make the request that the City of Pickering designate the week following our campaign kick off event, "United Way Week" (week of September 7 to September 13, 2003). Our campaign kick off event is Sunday September 7 and is a walk-run event. In conjunction with this, we would be appreciative if the City would fly the United Way flag or banner at City Hall. Mayor Arthurs, I would like to thank you for the continued support of United Way of Ajax-Pickering-Uxbddge. I look forward to hearing from your office in the very near future. I can be reached at 905-686-0606. Sincerely, Debbie Kalogris Resource Development Manager CC: Val Marshall - 2003 Campaign Chair, United Way of Ajax-Pickering-Uxbridge 95 Bayty Street West, Suite 407, Ajax, ON LIS 7K8 (905) 686-0606 · Fax: (905) 686-0609 E-mail: dka_!o~tis~.u~.[te~_ay_~r~e~_;c_om, Website: www.aiaxpickerin~.unitedwa¥.ca