HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 44-05 REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 44-05
Date: November 16, 2005
From:
Nell Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2004-05
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04
Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tyas
542 Kingston Road
Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C.
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2004-05 submitted by Weldon Lands
Inc. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tyas, on lands being Block B Registered
Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Pickering, to permit the
development of a plan of subdivision, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions
outlined in Appendix I to Report PD 44-05.
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 submitted by Weldon Lands
Inc. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tyas, on lands being Block B Registered
Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Pickering, to establish
performance standards to permit the development of townhouse dwelling units,
be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix II to Report
PD 44-05.
Executive Summary: The applicant proposes to develop a draft plan of subdivision
consisting of one block. The block is proposed to be developed with a future draft plan
of condominium consisting of 37 freehold townhouse dwelling units. The condominium
proposal will be a common element condominium. The applicant proposes to amend
the current zoning to allow the proposed freehold townhouse development with
appropriate performance standards.
The proposal represents appropriate density on an infill site resulting in transit
supportive intensification next to a transit spine. The design is considered compatible
with the surrounding land uses. The proposed development is appropriate as it
implements the Official Plan.
Financial Implications:
proposed development.
No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
Report PD 44-05
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Date: November 16, 2005
Page 2
Background:
1.0 Introduction
Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the owners, have submitted applications for
approval of a draft plan of subdivision and an amendment to the zoning by-law in
order to implement the proposed draft plan on the subject lands (see Location
Map, Attachment #1). The draft plan of subdivision is proposed to create one
block of land for residential development (see Attachment #2). On the residential
block the applicant proposes to submit an application for draft plan of
condominium for 37 freehold townhouse dwelling units. The condominium
proposal will be a common element condominium for private internal roads,
visitor parking area, a walkway and some perimeter landscaping elements.
Revised Plan
Since the public meeting the applicant has submitted a revised development
plan. While the plan of subdivision continues to propose one development block,
changes have been made to the development plan. Changes include: a
reduction in the number of dwelling units; the relocation of the driveway from the
easement on the abutting property to the western side of the subject property; a
reorientation of buildings in the northwest corner of the subject lands so that the
proposed townhouse unit back yards will abut the back yards of the existing
dwellings on Rosebank Road; and, the relocation of the visitor parking spaces to
a central location within the development. The applicant's initial and revised
development plans are provided for reference as Attachments #3 and #4
respectively.
The development plan does not propose the creation of any new municipal
streets, rather the creation of private roads/laneways. All of the freehold
townhouse dwelling units will front onto the private road. The subject lands are
proposed to have vehicular access from Kingston Road.
The following chart outlines the proposed development detail:
Details of the Applications
Total area of draft plan
Building coverage
Private roads, walkways and visitor
parking coverage
Landscape open area
Number of townhouse dwelling lots
Net residential density
Residential parking provided (2 per unit)
Visitors parking provided
Total parking provided
Building height
Original Plan Revised Plan
(Attachment #3)(Attachment
0.68 ha -- 0.68 ha
34% - 32%
31% -- 27 %
- 34%
- 42
- 61.2 units/ha
-- 84
-- 13
-- 97
-- 3 storeys
-- 41%
-- 37
-- 54.4 units/ha
-- 74
-- 12
-- 86
-- 3 storeys
Report PD 44-05
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Date:
November16,2005
Page 3
2.0
2.1
2.2
Comments Received
At the December 16, 2004, Public Information Meeting
Numerous residents appeared at the meeting to voice their opposition to the
proposed development and to raise concerns related to density, proposed
development not in compliance with the Special Policy Area for the
neighbourhood, traffic and parking impacts on neighbouring properties, and the
type of housing and compatibility with the neighbourhood. Representatives of
the abutting church noted their concern with the easement over their property
and their opposition to allow access to the subject property by way of the
easement (see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #5
and #6).
Written Public Submissions on the application
Area residents have expressed written objection or concern with the initial
applications. A form letter from approximately 30 neighbouring residents has
been received expressing opposition to the application. The issues identified in
the correspondence are:
· The proposed development would not be compatible with the existing
neighbourhood.
· Lack of buffer between the existing detached dwellings and the proposed
townhouses.
· Impact on the school system.
· Increased traffic in the neighbourhood and access onto Kingston Road will
create problem (see Attachments #7).
The Rosebank Road Association/Steeple Hill Community has provided written
comments on the original application. Their concerns include:
· Townhouse development not compatible with existing detached dwellings.
· Density is too high and will strain community resources.
· Increased traffic on already congested streets will cause safety problems.
· Site layout of the proposed townhouses will negatively impact the abutting
properties.
· Security concerns for the existing neighbourhood.
· The proposed development represents piecemeal planning and a
comprehensive review is required prior to any redevelopment occurring.
· The proposed development represents no net gain to the community
(see Attachment #8).
Report PD 44-05
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Date: November 16, 2005
Page 4
2.3
Neighbourhood Meetings did not achieve consensus
February 10, 2005 Meeting
A neighbourhood meeting was held on February 10, 2005, in order for
representatives of the neighbourhood and the applicant to discuss the application
and to explore options for development. Various options and issues were offered
and examined as to the future land use of the subject property. No consensus
was obtained at the meeting. After the meeting the neighbourhood
representatives provided written comments stating that an acceptable design
would be for the development of two-storey detached dwellings having lot
frontages of 13.7 metres along the north and west side of the property (where the
subject property abuts existing detached dwellings) while the rest of the site
could be for townhouses. Other matters related to site design (fencing,
elimination of the walkway onto Lightfoot Place, visitor parking location and
having a representative at the Site Plan Meetings) were also requested (see
Attachment #9).
November 15, 2005 Meeting
A second neighbourhood meeting was held on November 15, 2005 to discuss
the revised plan. The meeting concluded with the neighbours stating they would
accept two-storey detached dwellings where the subject property abuts existing
detached dwellings. The applicant was not present at this meeting, however, he
advised that he will consider alternative unit distribution in these areas of the
plan. He further requested that staff proceed with the application for the
townhouse development.
Easement on Church Property no longer being used as access to site
The abutting church property to the east, Revivaltime Tabernacle Worldwide
Ministries, expressed concern with the original proposal that provided vehicular
access to the townhouse development by way of the easement across the
church driveway (see Attachment #10). The revised plan provides access to the
development at the western edge of the Kingston Road frontage, thereby
eliminating the need to use the easement lands over the church property.
Agency Comments
Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
No objections
(see Attachment #11 ).
Report PD 44-05
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Date: November 16, 2005
Page 5
2.4
3.0
Region of Durham
The proposal is permitted by the policies of the
Durham Region Official Plan.
Municipal water supply and sanitary sewer service
can be provided.
Driveway access to Kingston Road is acceptable at
west limit of property.
The applications have been screened in accordance
with Provincial Interests and Delegated Review and
there is no concern with the applications.
The Region has no objection to the applications
and has provided condition of approval (see
Attachment #12).
No other agency that provided any comments has any objection to the subject
applications. Certain technical issues and requirements related to the proposed
use of the site can be addressed during any site plan/condominium process, if
this application is approved.
City Departments
Development Control
Certain technical matters will have to be addressed
during the detailed design if this application is
approved (see Attachment #13).
Fire Services
No objection on the land use and technical
comments are provided, and need to be addressed if
this application is approved (see Attachment #14).
Discussion
The Proposed Density and Housing Type are Appropriate
The subject property is designated Mixed Use Area -Mixed Corridors Area in the
Pickering Official Plan. Permissible uses within Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors
Area includes, amongst others, a variety of residential uses including
townhouses. The subject property is within the Woodlands Neighbourhood of the
Official Plan. The Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range of over 30
and up to and including 140 dwelling units per hectare for development within a
Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area. However, policies for the Woodlands
Neighbourhood specify that despite the density range noted above, a maximum
residential density restriction of 55 units per hectare applies for lands located on
the north side of Kingston Road that are designated Mixed Use Area and abut
lands developed as Iow density development.
The overall density proposed for the project is 54.4 units per hectare which is at
the maximum limit of the permitted density range. The design of the project
appropriately distributes the dwelling units evenly over the property, thereby
achieving the proposed density requirements of the Official Plan designation
throughout the site.
Report PD 44-05
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Date:
November 16, 2005
Page 6
The applications comply with the Official Plan and represent appropriate
development for the subject lands.
The proposed number of dwelling units is also in keeping with the principle of
intensification corridors. Kingston Road, being one of the major corridors in
Pickering, is a corridor where intensification should be encouraged.
The subject property is appropriately designated for the proposed development
and is considered to meet the spirit and intent of the policies of the Official Plan.
The proposed development is considered compatible with the surrounding land
uses.
Suitable Separation is provided between the Townhouses and the Existing
Detached Dwellings
Concern has been expressed by area residents that there is insufficient separation
between the existing detached dwellings along Rosebank Road/Lightfoot Place and
the proposed townhouse development. The applicant's revised plan increases
the separation between the western property line and the townhouse dwelling
units. The original development plan proposed a townhouse block and visitor
parking lot adjacent to the Rosebank Road property rear yards, with a 1.3 metre
setback from lot line. The proposed separation is now a rear yard condition, with
the municipal standard rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant has also
broken up the run of townhouse dwelling units that abut the western property line
in an endeavour to reduce the massing of structures so they would be similar to
the massing of a large detached dwelling.
As a condition of approval it is recommended that the owner construct a privacy
fence where the townhouse development abuts the existing detached dwellings.
If two-storey detached units were to be considered in the north and north-west
sectors of this development, the unit width and separation between units must be
sufficient to accommodate a garage and vehicle parking in front of the garage.
Driveway Location and Traffic Movements on Kingston Road are
Acceptable
Kingston Road, where it abuts the subject property, is designated as a Type B
Arterial Road. Type B Arterial Roads are designed to carry moderate volumes of
traffic at moderate speeds. Kingston Road is a five-lane cross-section in the
vicinity of the subject property.
The turning movement characteristics of the Kingston Road access are
influenced by the high westbound volume in morning peak hour and high volume
eastbound in the evening peak hour. While the high traffic volumes will cause
some minor delays to residents of the proposed townhouses, the site access will
operate within acceptable standards.
Report PD 44-05
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Date:
November16,2005
Page 7
The applicant's initial development plan proposed that vehicular access to the
site be provided over an existing easement across the church property at the
east limit of the subject lands. The church expressed objection to this proposal.
The revised site layout now has provided an independent driveway onto Kingston
Road at the west limit of the property.
Access to Vacant Property to west to be from subject site
The Region of Durham has advised that it will permit access to the site from the
relocated driveway at the west limit of the property. The Region further advises
that vacant lands to the west of the subject property that front onto
Kingston Road may not be permitted an independent driveway access onto
Kingston Road. Access to this abutting property may be restricted to an
easement across the driveway of the proposed townhouse development. The
applicant has designed the project to provide possible options for the
redevelopment of this vacant property.
The design of the subject townhouse proposal is such that the abutting vacant
property can be redeveloped independently or with some relation to the subject
application. As part of the conditions of approval, it is recommended that future
right-of-way for access be granted if development is such that it is associated
with the proposed development.
Easement on abutting Church Property to be used as Emergency Access
It is recommended that the easement held by the subject property over the
abutting church property be utilized only for emergency access. This means that
the north and south private driveway aisles of the townhouse development will
terminate with a rolled curb or other engineering design that supports emergency
vehicle access. Gates or other suitable control will be required in the design of
the fence that will be required along the eastern property line of the development.
Walkway Connection will be required from Townhouse Development to
Lightfoot Place
The proposed walkway from the townhouse development to Lightfoot Place will
provide access to Steeple Hill Park and provide a travel path to destinations that
are internal to the neighbourhood such as schools. The interconnection of
walkways throughout the City is an important feature, specifically when there is a
connection to a transit spine.
It is therefore recommended that the development of the subject property include
a walkway connection from the townhouse development northward to the existing
walkway connection to Steeple Hill Park.
Report PD 44-05
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Date:
November16,2005
Page 8
3,1
Technical Matters
Fencing of the Site is Required
The internal perimeter of the development must be fenced. Noise attenuation
fences are required for end units that front Kingston Road. The western,
northern and eastern perimeter of the residential block will require appropriate
fencing. Fencing may be required surrounding the vacant residential lot.
Prior to the installation of the permanent fence, a temporary construction fence
will be erected and maintained. Conditions of Approval recommended in
Appendix I to this Report include provisions to ensure that both temporary and
permanent fencing will be installed around the subject lands.
Subdivision Agreement will be required to Address Development
A future subdivision agreement between the City and the owner of the lands will
be required to ensure that all matters of interest to the City are protected. This
required agreement, and several other development implementation matters, are
incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this application
and are found in Appendix I to this Report.
Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland
As no park blocks form part of the draft plan, the City will accept cash-in lieu from
the subdivider in order to satisfy Section 42(1) of the Planning Act.
Interface between Proposed Development and Existing Property
The interface between the proposed draft plan and the existing residential lots to
the west and north will have to be appropriately designed so that the existing
residential properties are not physically impacted by the proposed development
construction. This will include addressing matters such as grading, fencing,
drainage and vegetation preservation and planting.
These matters should be addressed in the detailed design of draft plan and
through the site plan approval process.
Permanent Turning Circle at Terminus of Lightfoot Place is Required
The existing south limit of Lightfoot Place was constructed as a temporary turning
circle with the intention that a permanent turning circle would be concluded with
the development of the subject property. As part of the development of the
subject property a permanent terminus of Lightfoot Place is required. The
applicant has demonstrated on their development plan that a permanent turning
circle can be achieved. Upon review of the design of the municipal standard for
turning circles it is noted that a reduced design needs to be explored to lessen
the impact on abutting property owners. These details, including the owner's
contribution for this work, will be concluded through the required agreements.
Report PD 44-05
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Date: November 16, 2005
Page 9
4.0
Further Processing of the Development
The effect of this plan of subdivision will be to create one block of land for the
future development of townhouses by plan of condominium. The individual
blocks and lots for the townhouse units will be created through the draft plan of
condominium process and part lot control. The detail design issues will be dealt
with through an application for site plan approval. The detailed design process
will include, amongst others, site servicing, grading, parking, landscaping,
lighting, three-stream refuse collection, elevations and building sittings, all of
which may have an impact on the number of dwelling units that can be achieved.
At the request of the neighbours, staff will involve resident representatives in the
site plan review process.
No further reports are anticipated to be brought before Council if the subject
applications are approved. The actual zoning by-law amendment (implementing
zoning by-law) will come before Council for adoption after design detail is
presented to staff on some technical issues.
Applicant's Comments
The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report.
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX I1:
Recommended Conditions of Approval for SP-2004-05
Recommended Conditions of Approval for A 13/04
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Location Map
Draft Plan of Subdivision
Original Development Plan
Revised Development Plan
Text of Information Meeting Report
Minutes from December 16, 2004 Statutory Public Information Meeting
Resident Comment- Example of Form Letter
Resident Comment- Rosebank Road Association/Steeple Hill Community
Resident Comment- Rosebank Road Association/Steeple Hill Community
Resident Comment- Revivaltime Tabernacle Worldwide Ministries
Agency Comments - TRCA
Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department
City Department Comment - Development Control
City Department Comment - Fire Services
Report PD 44-05
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Date:
November 16, 2005
Page 10
Prepared By:
Ross Pym, MCIP, RI
Principal Planner - Development Review
Approved / Endorsed By:
Director, Planning & Development
Lynda T,~ylor, MCIP, R~I~
Manager, Development Review
RP:jf
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
c//-/~/ 0 ~Tho~ J. OuiJChie~Adminis
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT PD 44-05
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-P-2004-05
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-P-2004-05
1.0
1.1
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
GENERAL CONDITIONS
That this recommendation apply to the draft plan prepared by David Horwood
Ltd., dated October 25, 2004, Project Number 6239, for Draft Plan of
Subdivision Application S-P-2004-05 submitted by Weldon Lands Inc., on lands
being Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C., City of
Pickering, to permit a development block for a 37 townhouse dwelling unit
development.
PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE PLAN
That the owners submit a Draft 40M-Plan to be approved by the City's
Planning & Development Department;
That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application
A 13/04 become final and binding;
That the owner enter into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction
of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements,
financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to
the following:
Storm Drainaqe
(a)
satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department
respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all
the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easements;
(b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department for
contributions for down stream stormwater.management, if required.
Grading Control and Soils
(a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department
respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan;
(b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department
respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis.
Road Allowances
(a)
satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department
respecting construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and
boulevard designs.
-2-
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
Construction / Installation of City Works & Services
(a) satisfaction of the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all
services required by the City;
(b)
satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the
provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural
gas and other similar services;
(c)
that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary
maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall
be the responsibility of the subdivider.
Dedications / Transfers / Conveyances
(a) that the owner convey to the City, at no costs:
(i) any easements as required; and
(ii) any reserves as required by the City.
(b)
that the subdivider convey any easement to any utility to facilitate the
installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City
and the utility.
Construction Manaqement Plan
(a) that the owners make satisfactory arrangements with the City respecting a
construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things:
(i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of
construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain
these controls;
(ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction
and building materials during servicing and house construction, and
ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or
emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public
street;
(iii) ensurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all
contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law;
(iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent
to the site;
(v) type and timing of construction fencing;
(vi) location of construction trailers.
-3-
2.3.7
2.3.8
2.3.9
2.3.10
2.3.11
Development Charqes
(a) satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development
Charges Act.
Coordinated Development
(a)
satisfaction of the City with respect to arrangements necessary to provide
for coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any
phasing of development that may be required.
Fencin.q
(a)
satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing
around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior
to the commencement of any works;
(b)
satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of a fence along the
north, east and west perimeter of the development to the satisfaction of
the Director, Planning & Development Department.
Street Tree Planting
(a) the submission of a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City.
Desitin Plannin,q
(a)
the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department
respecting a report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for
the development, and the submission of site plans and architectural
drawings identifying how each unit meets the objectives of the report, prior
to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of a residential
unit on the lands;
(b)
the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the
development must address building envelopes, building designs, siting,
and streetscapes as well as garage designs, locations, massing, width,
and projection from the main dwelling;
(c)
the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the
development must place special emphasis on units that will face
Kingston Road;
(d)
that the owner satisfy the City respecting the provision of appropriate
aesthetic details and design of all boundary fencing and noise attenuation
fencing.
-4-
2.3.12
2.3.13
2.3.14
2.3.15
2.3.16
2.3.17
Noise Attenuation
(a)
that the owners satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment
regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control
features satisfactory to the Region of Durham, and the City of Pickering.
Engineering Drawinqs
(a)
that the owner satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate
engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads,
storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing and tree
planting, and financially-secure such works;
(b) that the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design
objectives.
Other Approval Aqencies
(a) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements of the Region of Durham;
(b)
that any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham for the
development of this plan be obtained by the subdivider, and upon request
written confirmation be provided to the City of Pickering as verification of
these approvals.
Parkland Dedication
(a)
that the subdivider provide to the City cash-in-lieu of parkland dedications,
to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development, in order to
satisfy Section 42(1) of the Planning Act.
Walkway
(a) that the owner design and construct a walkway to connect with
Lightfoot Place to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development.
Easement
(a)
that the owner agree in the subdivision agreement, and in future
agreements, to grant a right-of-way easement for future development of
526 Kingston Road, if required.
APPENDIX II TO
REPORT PD 44-05
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/04
1. That the implementing zoning by-law:
(a)
permit the establishment of townhouse dwelling units in accordance with the
following provisions:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
(xii)
(xiii)
maximum of 37 townhouse dwelling units;
maximum building height of 12.0 metres;
minimum front yard depth of 2.5 metres from Kingston Road;
minimum west side yard width of 7.5 metres that abuts a detached.
dwelling;
minimum
minimum
minimum
east side yard width of 1.5 metres;
north yard depth of 3.0 metres for a side yard;
north yard depth of 5.0 metres for a rear yard;
minimum unit width of 5.0 metres;
maximum of one dwelling unit per lot;
minimum two private parking spaces per dwelling unit, which can be
provided by either 2 parking spaces within an attached garage or one
parking space in an attached garage and one parking space in a drive
way immediately in front of the parking garage for that dwelling unit;
minimum of 12 visitor parking spaces;
uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 2.0 metres in height
shall be permitted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into a required
rear yard;
that all townhouse dwelling units shall front onto a private road/driving
aisle.
ATTACHM£NT #_ ! TO
-' I ~ ~ \ \ ~~ ~j~. CRESCENT__ I CATTAIL Cu~
-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / /~/
City o~ PickeFing Planning & Development Depa~ment
PROPER~ DESCRIPTION BLOCK B, REGISTERED P~N 473 AND PART LOT 30, RANGE 3, E.F.C.
OWNER ESTATE OF A. ~AS DATE NOV. 5, 2004 j D~AWN BY JB
FILE No. SP 2004/05 & A 13/04 SCALE 1:5000 CHECKED BY RP
[ ,
FOR DEPARTNENT USE ONLY PN-6 PA-
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS DRAFT PLAN
OF SUBDIVISION
PLAN- SP 2004-04 & A13/04
/
,/
LOT 24
LOT 25 ~
[ZONING: R-4]
LOT 26
ZONING
REG'D PLAN 473
LOT 47
I ZONING S--,1
BLOCK B
20.58m N 64' 26' 30" E
0~' 24' 40" W
BLOCK 1
[ZONING: R-~
LOT ,30 , RANGE 3
BROKEN FRONT CONCESSION
i ~ ~ ! BLOCK
i 40.02m N
REG'D PLAN 40M-1
[ZONING: t (C)
BLOCK 54
BLOCK 61
pIN 2~J0~-0202
THIS MAP W,4S P,~ODUCED BY THE' CITY OF PICHERING,
PL.4NNING ~f¢ DEVELOPMEN? DEP,4RTMENT,
INFO/~MATION ~ SUPPORT SE'NVICE$,,
NOVEMBER 5, 2004.
~TTACHMEN'r # ,.:"Z) TO
REPORi'#PD ~5~-O~
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
SP 2004105 & A 13/04 - ESTATE OF A. TYAS
ORIGINAL
PLAN
80.30m
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING INFORMATION SERVICES
DIVISION MAPPING AND DESIGN, NOVEMBER 5, 2004.
-ATTACHUEN7 ~1 ~. 1'0
REPORq' t PO IF/.~-~ ~
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS
PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
PLAN- SP 2004-04 & A13/04
REVISED
PLAN
DR~VE~A¥
I i
/ i
I I
i
TH/b- M~P WAS P}PODL/CED
I'~D4N~'//VG ~ DEVELOPMENT DEP~I~TAXEAIT.
INFOR,~tATION
NOVE,~B~R ~?, 2005.
ATTACHrvIENT l' ,*~ TO
REPORT f PD /--/~ * (.~.-,,~
PICKERING
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 18-04
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
December 16, 2004
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13
SUBJECT:
Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04
Weldon Lands Ltd. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tyas
542 Kingston Road
Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C.
City of Pickering
1.0
PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
the subject lands are located on the north side of Kingston Road west of
Rosebank Road;
a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1);
the property is currently occupied with a detached dwelling and accessory
buildings;
the property has an extensive lawn area surrounding the house and has a
variety of mature trees;
the site's topography is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the north;
the northern portion of the property abuts the Lightfoot Place road right-of-way;
the subject property benefits from a right-of-way easement over a portion of
the property to the east for access purposes;
surrounding land uses are:
north - detached dwellings that front onto Lightfoot Place and a municipal
walkway that provides access to Steep Hill Park;
south - on the south side of Kingston Road across from the subject
property is a municipal Fire Station and the Comfort Inn Motel;
east - a church, the Revivaltime Tabernacle Worldwide Ministries;
west a vacant property that fronts onto Kingston Road and detached
dwellings that front onto Rosebank Road;
west of the vacant property is a commercial plaza.
Information Report No. 18-04 Page 2
ATTACHMENT l .~" TO
REPORT t PD ~'/-¥- O,~
2.0
3.0
3.1
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
Weldon Lands Ltd. on behalf of the owners, have submitted an application for
approval of a draft plan of subdivision and an application to amend the zoning
by-law in order to implement the proposed draft plan;
- the draft plan of subdivision proposes to create one block of land only, for
residential development;
- on the residential block the applicant proposes to submit an application for
draft plan of condominium for 42 townhouse dwelling units;
- it is anticipated that the condominium proposal will be a common element
condominium for private internal roads, visitor parking area and possible
perimeter landscaping elements;
- the applicant's proposed development plan is provided for reference (see
Attachment #3);
the development plan does not propose the creation of any new municipal
streets, rather the creation of private roads/laneways;
all of the freehold townhouse dwelling units will front onto one of the private
roads;
the subject land is proposed to have site access from Kingston Road via the
existing right-of-way easement on the property to the east;
- the following chart outlines the proposed development detail:
Details of the Applications
Total area of draft plan
Residential block
Building coverage
Private roads, walkways and parking coverage
Landscape open area
Number of townhouse dwelling lots
Net residential density
Residential parking provided (2 per unit)
Visitors parking provided
Total parking provided
-- 0.68 hectares
-- 0.68 hectares
-- 35 percent
-- 31 percent
-- 34 percent
-- 42
-- 61.2 units per hectare
-- 84
-- 13
-- 97
OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING
Durham Re.qional Official Plan
designates the subject lands as Living Areas;
areas designated as Living Areas are intended to be predominantly for
housing purposes, including townhouses;
Living Areas shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities
and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial
roads;
Kingston Road where it abuts the draft plan is designated as a Type B Arterial
Road;
the proposal appears to conform to the Durham Region Official Plan;
Information Report No. 18-04
ATTACHMENT #_ ~ TO Page 3
REPORT # PD_ ~' ¥ 'd._,~'
3.2
3.3
3.4
Pickerinq Official Plan
- the Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as Mixed Use Area -
Mixed Corridors Area;
- the subject property is within the Woodlands Neighbourhood of the Official
Plan;
- no development guidelines have been prepared for this area of the
Woodlands Neighbourhood;
- the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines are applicable as the
subject property fronts Kingston Road;
- permissible uses within Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area include,
amongst others, a variety of residential uses including townhouses;
the Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range of over 30 and up to
and including 140 dwelling units per hectare for development within a Mixed
Use Area -Mixed Corridors Area;
the Woodland Neighbourhood policy specify that despite the density range
noted above, a maximum residential density of 55 units per hectare for lands
located on the north side of Kingston Road that are designated Mixed Use
Area and abut lands developed as Iow density development;
- the proposed development provides a net density of approximately 61 units
per hectare;
- Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation Systems designates
Kingston Road where it abuts the draft plan as a Type B Arterial Road;
- Type B Arterial Roads are designed to carry moderate volumes of traffic at
moderate to high speed and have some access restrictions;
- the subject applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions
of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications.
Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines
the subject lands are included in the Whites Road Corridor Precinct;
guideline objectives for this area include building being closer to the street;
Iow and mid-rise buildings on the north side of Kingston Road; a minimum
building height of two storeys; and, consideration for pedestrian and bicycle .
movements;
the applications will be assessed against the Kingston Road Corridor
Development Guidelines during the further processing of the applications.
Zoninq By-law 3036
the subject lands are currently zoned "R-3" (Detached Dwelling, Third Density
Zone) by Zoning By-law 3036;
the existing zoning permits one detached dwelling per lot on a lot having a
minimum lot area of 550 square metres and a lot frontage of 18 metres;
Information Report No. 18-04
4.0
4.1
4¸,2
4.3
an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's
proposed townhouse development;
the applicant has requested an appropriate zone that would permit the
proposed development.
RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
Resident Comments
- no formal written resident comments have been received to-date.
A_~encv Comments
No Objections or Concerns: (see Attachments CfA - #7)
Durham District School Board
Enbridge Gas
Canada Post
Bell
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 land uses;
· ensuring a coordinated and sensitive approach to development with the
surrounding lands;
· compatibility with the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines;
· compatibility with the Woodland Neighbourhood policies, specifically the
maximum density for the property of 55 units per hectare of land;
· ensuring that the proposed private streets, lotting pattern and dwelling
designs maintain a high quality residential streetscape;
· reviewing the appropriateness of the proposed site access by means of
the right-of-way across the abutting property to the east;
· ensuring adequate parking is provided on the subject property in
appropriate locations;
· reviewing the proposed development to ensure that adequate information
is provided, that technical requirements are met and that the proposed
development design does not impact on the ability of abutting properties to
function in an appropriate fashion;
this Department will conclude its position on the draft plan design after it has
received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies
and public.
Information Report No. 18-04
AT[AOI'-IJVIENT//, ~
~EPORI ~ PD~ .... Page 5
5.0
6.0
6.1
6.2
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 be notified of Council's decision regarding either the proposed
plan of subdivision or zoning by-law amendment application, you must
request such in writing to the City Clerk;
- if a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the City of
Pickering in respect of the proposed draft plan of subdivision and/or zoning
by-law amendment, does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or
make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the draft plan of
subdivision application is considered for approval, or before a zoning by-law
is passed, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal;
- if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision of the proposed
zoning by-law amendment application, you must provide comments to the
City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal.
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
the report.
Information Received
full scale copies of the applicant's submitted plans are available for viewing at
the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
including:
· the draft plan of subdivision
° proposed development plan
the need for additional information and/or addendums to submitted reports
will be determined through the review and circulation of the applicant's current
proposal.
Information Report No. 18-04 Page 6
;~ FrACHMENT # ,~ Tj~
6.3
Company Principal
the owner, of the subject lands is the Estate of A. Tyas, who have entered
into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Weldon Lands Ltd.;
the Weldon Lands Ltd. are the authorized agents for the subdivision and
rezoning applications;
Richard Weldon is the principle of Weldon Lands Ltd.
ORI(]INAL SIGNED BY
Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner- Development Review
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager- Development Review
RP:Id
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
APPENDIX NO. I TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 18-04
COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
(1) none received to date
COMMENTING AGENCIES
(1) Durham District School Board
(2) Enbridge Gas
(3) Canada Post
(4) Bell
COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS
(1) none received to date
~ACH,,",E~T ~ ~ T0
REPORT ,~ PD. ~"O..~ Excerpts from the
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Thursday, December 16, 2004
7:00 P.M.
The Principal Planner, Development Review provided an overview of the requirements
of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and
matters under consideration thereat.
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SP-2004-05
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/04
WELDON LANDS LTD. ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF A. TYAS
542 KINGSTON ROAD
BLOCK B~ REGISTERED PLAN 473 AND PART LOT 30~ RANGE 3 BFC
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an overview of
property location, applicant's proposal and City's Official Plan policies
pertaining to this site, as outlined in Information Report #18/04.
Richard Weldon, representing the applicant, provided brochures that give an
overview of his company and he provided sketches that set out alternatives to
the development of the land. He displayed a compromise development that
provides for access from Kingston Road in the centre of the property, with
singles backing onto properties on Rosebank Road, visitor parking in the centre
of the property and townhouses located closer to the church and the
discontinuance of the right-of-way on the church property.
Ellen Adams, 1411 Rosebank Road, stated that she is a member of the
Rosebank Road executive. She opposes the building of townhouses because
they are not in character with the existing neighbourhood and the subject lands
are located in a Special Policy Area that was established to protect existing
properties. The current zoning provides only for single detached dwellings and
there should be no compromise on that. The present proposal does not comply
with existing zoning requirement or the Special Area Policies. The existing
Tyas house should be preserved for historical reasons. The density of the
present proposal is too high and will put a strain on local services. Visitors to
the proposed townhouses will use the church parking lot or the plaza parking
lot. Noise from the proposed development will impact on the existing houses.
Bruce Foster, 492 Lightfoot Place, stated that he is representing residents on
Lightfoot Place and Steeple Hill. The existing residents have upgraded their
homes over the years and the introduction of townhouses in the area would not
be appropriate; there is too much existing high density in the area. A high
density development will create social and safety problems on the existing
neighbourhood. He stated that he is concerned that property values and
neighbourhood character will be compromised by the proposed development.
ATTACHMENT # ~ TO
REPORI # PD ~/~/'-o5 Excerpts from the
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Thursday, December 16, 2004
7:00 P.M.
o
10.
11.
Denham Grant, representing the Revival Time Tabernacle Church, noted that
the senior pastor of the church has sent a letter to the City detailing the
church's concerns. He stated that the easement on the church's lands that
allows access into the proposed development was meant to be used only for
the single detached dwelling and not for a high density development. Problems
may occur on the church's lands as a result of a high density development.
Darlene Scarfo, 1415 Rosebank Road, stated that she opposes the proposed
development. The proposal does not comply with the Special Policy Area or
the Official Plan. She asked that the existing zoning be maintained in order to
keep the character of the neighbourhood. She does not want infilling of this
property by a high density development that will impact on the existing
properties. She stated that the townhouses that are proposed to be built are
too tall for the area. There are currently too many townhouse and apartment
developments in the area. She stated that she is concerned about infill
development because this is the gateway to the City and must be carefully
planned.
G. Hibbert, representing the Revival Time Tabernacle Church, stated that the
church has safety and security concerns with respect to future visitor parking on
the subject lands and vandalism.
Councillor Maurice Brenner stated that he understands the concerns of the
community and noted that the Steeple Hill community was developed by
neighbourhood input. He noted that the community wants a working group
established to discuss this proposed development with the developer and City
staff. He noted other properties in the area where development will be
considered and stated that through working groups, there can be development
that is acceptable to all parties.
Joanne Adams, 1420 Rosebank Road, stated that she does not want the
subject lands to be developed with townhouses. The density of the proposed
development will put pressure on existing services and will not be in character
with the existing neighbourhood. She stated that any development on the
subject lands should be in conformity with the Kingston Road Corridor Study.
Richard Weldon, representing the applicant, stated that the compromise
development he is proposing takes the residents' concerns into account. He
noted that the Official Plan allows for higher density housing and he welcomes
further discussions about this development with the neighbours.
Patricia Foster, 492 Lightfoot Place, stated that residents are concerned about
development in the overall area. The residents of a high density area could
-2-
PICKERING
ATTACHMENT #, ~ TO
RE~OR~ ~ PD Y~ *: ~ Excerpts from the
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Thursday, December 16, 2004
7:00 P.M.
12.
lead to safety problems. She noted that the church could be used for overflow
visitor parking.
Richard Weldon, representing the applicant, stated that he agrees to participate
in a working groups on condition that the development process continues.
3
ATTACHMENT
REP0R1 # PD
Mr. Ross Pym,
Principal Planner- Development Review
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
Re:
Draft Plan of Subdivision, SP-2004-05
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A13/04
Dear Mr. Pym,
We have been made aware of the proposed development on Kingston Road and we just
you to be aware that we are opposed to this development. The density proposed is too
high and does not reflect the true nature of the Woodlands Special Policy Area.
The development is not in keeping with the existing special policy neighbourhood and
causes concern on several fronts.
· There was a precedent set with the Steeple Hill Community Development to protect
the existing homes on Rosebank Road with larger lots abutting on to them and this
should be continued in the case of this development and should include protecting the
homes on Lightfoot Place as well.
· The road access onto Kingston Road is going to cause safety issues. The traffic in this
area is already congested and adding another road entrance so close to Rosebank
Road and Steeple Hill is going to cause accidents. The entrance is almost directly
across from the Firehall.
· The density is going to put a strain on our school system.
We would like to advise that we are against the townhomes but realize that the
development is in keeping with the Official Plan. Therefore we feel that it would be in the
best interest of our community that the Planning Department recommend a compromise
solution of single family detached dwellings on 40-50 foot lots where the property abuts
the existing community along the west and north boundaries of the proposed
development.
Please keep us informed of future meetings on this matter.
Sincerely,
/
Copy:
Mayor David Ryan
Regional Councillor for Ward 1 Maurice Brenner
Local Councillor for Ward 1 Kevin Ashe
Ci~ Clerk Bruce Taylor
REPORT
Rosebank Road Association
December 22, 2004
Mr. Ross Pym,
Principal Planner - Development Review
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
Re:
Draft Plan of Subdivision, SP-2004-05
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A13/04
Dear Ross,
Attached please find the Rosebank Road Association's response to the Information
Meeting held on Thursday, December 16, 2004 regarding the above applications.
Also included in tiffs envelope are copies of additional letters submitted by residents in
the Rosebank Road/Steeple Hill Communities voting against the rezoning of the subject
property and against the building of townhomes in this Woodlands Special Policy Area.
As was determined at the meeting on December 16 and confirmed by Maurice Brenner's
email on December 21 we will work to determine who will best represent our
commtuzities as move forward with the Commtmity Work Group. We will be in touch
with you early in the new year to advise the names of our representatives. We look
forward to working with the group in order to determine a feasible, community friendly
development for tiffs site that recognizes the Woodlands Special Policy Area and the
earlier precedents set for its protection.
We would also like to take this opportunity to wish you and your family a very Merry
Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Kind regards,
Mrs. Ellen Adams
On behalf of the Rosebank Road Association/Steeple Hill Commtmity
1411 Rosebank Road
Picketing, Ontario
L1V 1P3
ROSEBANK ROAD ASSOCIATION
1411 ROSEBANK ROAD
PICKERING, ONTARIO
L1V 1P3
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
SP-2004-05
ZONING BY-LAW
AMENDMENT APPLICATION
A13/04
RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION
MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY,
DECEMBER 16, 2004
Rosebank Road Association
Prepared by Mrs. E. Adams on behalf of the
Rosebank Road Association, Steeple Hill Community
,and Revivaltin, te Tabernacle.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ROSEBANK ROAD ASSOCIATION RESPONSE - ELLEN ADAMS ...................................... 3
STEEPLE HILL/LIGHTFOOT RESPONSE - BRUCE FOSTER .............................................. 7
REVIVALTIME TABERNACLE RESPONSE - DENHAM GRANT ......................................... 9
HIGHWAY 2 CORRIDOR - DARLENE SCARFO ............................................................ 11
Housing that Meets Social Needs in Our Area ........................................................... 13
Areas of Possible Development Opportunities .......................................................... 14
SUMMARY - JO-ANNE ADAMS ....................................................................... 16
ROSEBANK ROAD ASSOCIATION RESPONSE - ELLEN ADAMS
Good Evening Councillor Ashe and Planning Department Staff
My name is Ellen Adams and my husband Denis and I live at 1411 Rosebank
Road - one of the properties that abut the Tyas Property.
I am a member of the Rosebank Road Association Executive and I am here
tonight to speak on behalf of our community and in conjunction with the Steeple
Hill Community and Revivaltime Tabernacle. I am the first speaker in our
delegation to address the development proposal being put forward by Richard
Weldon.
We are here to go on record as opposing the rezoning of the property to allow
town homes to be built.
We realize that the developer's plans are allowable WITH REZONING
according to the Town of Pickering's Official Plan; however, the development of
the Tyas Property by building town homes is not in keeping with the existing
Woodlands Special Policy area.
Let me give you a little history about our community where we have lived for 23
years...
Our community is considered a Special Policy area requiring special attention.
This was acknowledged in 1988 in the Woodlands Plan when the planning for
the Steeple Hill community ensured that all abutting property was consistent in
land width resulting in 50ft frontage and rear yards abutting Rosebank Road.
This area was designated a special policy area in order to protect the nature of
the older existing community. It is meant to ensure that the flavour of the
existing community is not adversely affected by progress and change. This area
is all single-family dwellings made up of modest to high priced homes on larger
more rural lots. We are hopeful that the Town of Pickering will continue to
recognize the precedent and protect this unique area by denying the rezoning
request.
Not only is this proposed development not in keeping with the special policy
designation of the area but it requires re-zoning to permit the town homes]
The current zoning calls for ONE detached dwelling per lot on a lot having a
minimum lot area of 550 square metres_and a lot frontage of 18 metres!I! Which
is precisely what the Rosebank Road Community and much of Steeple Hill
consists of.
We want the existing zoning left in place!
On November 24, 2004 1 met with a member of the Planning Department to
review the proposed development. At that time I was left with the distinct
impression that the property did not require rezoning in order to allow the
building of town homes which lead to some confusion when we initially met
with the developer and contacted our neighbours.
After meeting with the developer the Executive put together a communication
for our community and that of Steeple Hill. Part of that communication was a
draft letter for them to use which requested that the Planning Department work
to find a compromise of a mix of the single family detached and town homes.
However, the Association's stand on the proposed development changed
dramatically Upon receipt of the Town Report on December 10 where it was
duly noted that rezoning was indeed required and clearly stated the existing
zoning as being ONE detached dwelling per lot on a lot having a minimum lot
area of 550 square metres_and a lot frontage of 18 metres!!!
We do not believe that there is room here for a compromise on the zoning of the
property - the property zoning should not change!
Since then we have cleared the confusion and the neighbourhood is in total
support of calling for the existing zoning to remain in place so that NO town
homes can be built on this property.
We appreciate the contact between ourselves and the developer that was
initiated by Richard and Joanne Weldon including a meeting held on November
25, 2004. The meeting was both friendly and informal but very much to the
point. The developer stated that they wanted to build 42 town homes on the
property and the Association stated that we were against this type of dwelling.
Despite our efforts to keep the meeting in line with our desire to ensure that no
town homes were built the meeting continued in the form of a discussion about
our concerns with the developer's proposal for 42 town homes. This was also
influenced by our belief at the time that this was allowable under the current
conditions. It is nice to see that Richard has taken some of our concerns into
consideration with his compromised plan however, it still does not meet the
needs of this community, and it does not meet the current zoning requirements,
and certainly does not meet the guidelines of the Woodlands special policy area.
Once again, we do not believe that there is room here for a compromise on the
zoning of the property - the property zoning should not change!
4
This community, was here first and the needs of this community should be met
first as those needs will set the bar for every other incoming resident. Existing
residents in the Rosebank Community and the Steeple Hill Community should
only have to accept the impact that would be consistent with our present
environments. And that means that any development of this property should
adhere to the existing zoning.
The Tyas home is over 100 years old and was here long before any of the homes
in either area. It would be such a shame to lose a part of our community
heritage.
We know that we should keep our arguments to those of sound planning,
however, when we are talking about our community then we believe that some
emotion is allowed. Mr. and Mrs. Tyas were very strong members of this
community. They believed strongly in helping each other out and worked
tirelessly for several charities. They were members of our Rosebank Road
Association when we first formed and Alf Tyas was our treasurer. He believed
in preserving as much of our history as we could and they believed in giving
back to the community. Developing this property with town homes does not
give anything back to our community. Rather it will negatively impact our
precious community both financially and esthetically. We cannot continue to
build in Pickering without clearly taking the impact of the development on the
existing community into consideration- we were here first and have invested a
lot of time, effort and money into our homes. We need to ensure that we
maintain the integrity of the existing Rosebank and Steeple Hill Communities.
Our community is continually upgrading itself. Just take a look at the recent
construction boom on Rosebank Road - over a dozen new homes have been
built and each of these homes has sold for between $500,000-$800,000 in the past
year alone!
The density of this proposal is far too high and is going to put a strain on the
community resources - increased traffic, increase noise level, increased safety
concerns, increased pressure on our school system, etc.
The road access directly in front of the Fire Hall on the other side of
Highway 2 is going to cause safety issues. The traffic in this area is already
congested and adding another road entrance so close to Rosebank Road and
Steeple Hill is going to cause accidents.
Either proposal is going to have an unfair impact on the Revivaltime
Tabernacle. This is a very active congregation and the traffic congestion is
going to be a huge problem in the evenings and especially on the weekends.
Visitors to the proposed development will end up using the Church parking
lot, due to convenience, causing parking problems for the congregation -
which means that the cars will simply spill over and park along Highway 2
causing serious traffic concerns or move into the Rosebank Plaza causing
parking issues for business owners and patrons.
· The road pattern is not safe - how would emergency vehicles get in and turn
around within the planned site?
· The visitor parking is a concern in both plans:
· Having vehicles come and go at all times of the day and night - car lights
shining into existing properties.
· Increased noise from snow plows late at night, garbage trucks, parties, etc.
· Safety concerns - children always utilize these parking spaces for games -
which is unsafe because of the vehicle traffic
· Increased pollution of having cars running right next to our yards and
homes
We firmly believe that it would be in the best interest of our Woodlands Special
Policy Community that the Planning Department and Town Council
DENY THE REZONING REQUEST so that it will afford the existing
community with an impact that would be consistent with our present
environment.
· Maintain the existing zoning on the property! ONE DETACHED
DWELLING PER LOT ON A LOT HAVING A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF
550 SQUARE METRES AND A LOT FRONTAGE OF 18 METRES!
· This would afford the existing community with an "over-the-fence"
reflection of itself.
· It will present a fresh face to the Highway 2 area - why does Picketing
continually try to develop this corridor to look like the Scarborough corridors
that are such a mess!? We have the option to make things look better and
provide a more welcoming face to our community!
· This will lower the proposed high density for the area and thereby help to
alleviate some of the traffic and parking issues caused by the proposed
development.
· It will also lessen the affect on the Revivaltime Tabernacle in terms of use of
their parking lot for visitor parking and household cars that exceed the
number of parking spaces available.
Once again we would like to reiterate that WE ARE AGAINST THE
TOWN HOMES AND AGAINST THE REZONING REQUIRED.
6
ATTACHMENT# ~ TO
REPORT # PDt0.5'
STEEPLE HILL/LIGHTFOOT RESPONSE - BRUCE FOSTER
Good Evening Councilor Ashe and Planning Department Staff
My name is Bruce Foster and I live at 492 Lightfoot Place, along with my wife
Patricia and our two children. Our home is one of the properties at the end of the
Lightfoot Place just adjacent to the Tyas land. I am here to represent the views of
the residents of Lightfoot and Steeple Hill area.
We -The people of the Lightfoot and Steeple Hill area are here to
go on record as opposing the rezoning of the property to allow
town homes to be built.
I would like to begin by describing the Rosebank area. We, as homeowners,
have worked very hard to develop this area into a lovely and mature
residential community with well-maintained homes that have been recently
upgraded. Ellen has just spoken a little about the history of this area.
We, the present residents in the Lightfoot and Steeple Hill areas, are the
fortunate ones who we have benefited from the plight of those before us.
It is apparent that the residents of this community take great pride fl~ their
homes. Almost each and every home has improved our neighbourhood by
doing additional landscaping, upgrading, exterior finishes, driveways and
such.
This is about our whole Community... Steeple Hill... Lighffoot and Rosebank.
There is a "Unique Flavour' to our habitat.
We have done our best to create a safe and comfortable atmosphere, through
street parties, neighbourhood watch and such ....
A need to keep our homes properly maintained and our families safe is of
utmost importance to us, as it would also result in a safe and prosperous
Pickering.
To introduce this type of development---Town homes---High-density housing is
highly inappropriate.
We do not believe that there is room here for a compromise on the zoning of the
property - the property zoning should not change!
We would like to understand what vision is planned for Pickering. We do not
believe that such an addition as is being suggested would enhance our
community or the over-all Picketing area. The sub-division currently has co-
op housing on both sides. Town homes were introduced a couple of years
ago and more are presently being built. We cannot understand the reason for
saturating this area with this type of high-density growth.
Again I would like to point out that it is important to maintain the
integrity of the existing Rosebank and Steeple Hill Communities.
IS THIS REALLY "GOOD" GROWTH?
We at Lightfoot Place have recently had some incidences regarding "kids"
parking at the end of our dead end street late at night. Smoking, drinking,
playing loud music and other activities are involved, and this, as we have
seen in the news lately, can lead to very deadly situations... We feel that
adding high-density housing would only increase the potential of this sort of
situation happening more frequently.
Overflow parking- Additional traffic---Potential Litter- Possible vandalism.
Infrastructure needs would also be concerns where would the overflow of the
parking problem lead?
Directly to us.
We enjoy our community and its present environment. Quiet, peaceful safe
and beautiful. We've worked very hard to get it this way.
What reassurances can be given to us that our property value will stay the
same and not decrease? That the same community atmosphere will be
maintained.
SECURITY ISSUES LIFESTYLE ISSUES
This is extremely UNFAIR to the type of community that has been developed, as
has also been pointed out by Ellen. The neighbourhood is in total support of
calling for the existing zoning to remain in place so that NO town homes
can be built on this property.
IS IT GOOD GROWTH OR JUST GROWTH FOR PROFIT, AT ANY
COST?
8
REVIVALTIME TABERNACLE RESPONSE - DENHAM GRANT
Denham Grant spoke on behalf of Revivaltime Tabemacle and reviewed the letter
sent in by Rev. Dr. Audley N. James.
Revlvaltlme Tabernacle
Wedd~-~ Minist~tes
i)~,.,sT~v. 0~. December 7, 2004
Revivaltime Tabernacle Durham
550 Kingston Rd. Picketing, ON.
Mr. Ross Pk'm
Principat'lbianner Development Review
City of Picketing
One the Esplanade
Pickering~ Ont. LIV 6K7
Re: 542 Kinaston Road
BLK. B. RP 473+PL LT. 30 R.3
Dear Nh'. P3un:
We have reviewed the proposed redevelopment pla~s for the subject
property and we are very much concerned about the proposal of having the
church property sharing its mare access with occupants and owners of a
development ofthis size. our reasons are as follows-:
(a) This itldenture (No. 23815) dated July I9,1943 dearly stated that
ease~nt as granted was for the sole use of the Typas family and not
for am. ulti-developmem project.
(b) There }s aheady existing, a separate main entrance to the subject
property off Kingston Roadl This should be used for fi,ture
developments.
(c) For the church to be asked to share its main entrance with the owxaers
and occupiers ora development of tiffs size it is impossible and
inconceivable as this would result in man.,,, future traffic problems.
The churoh premises are opened seven days a week for church related
functions and activities and the parking lot is often fully occupied
We see tremendous traffic problems developing if a Sub-di~4sion of
this size was allowed to share lhe main access with the~
~tefi~i}~: '~;~vl;evi~,~itihetabCrhaCle~co_l!! email: i0fo~revivaltimetabernfi*le.¢.t
~T fAL;Ht~ENT #---L___TO
REPORT # PD.~_.~..q -0 5
We do not wish to prevent or delay any future re-development at
542 Kingston Road, we are simply as~ng that the developers be allowed
7o use the already main access for the new development, Milch is separate
from the church premises.
Thank you for this opportunity to respond to this development p~ol~osal.
We would be pleased to meet with you for further discussions if
necessary.
Yours mspectthlly,
S~James
Founder/Sr. Minister
'q¥ot onl~l a v[si~tJon, but a ImbitatioT[' for the HolJt sFirit to dwell"...
~Vebsite: ~we'nv.revivaltimetabemacle.corg email: info~re¥ivqltimetabemacle.cor
10
HIGHWAY 2 CORRIDOR - DARLENE SCARFO
Good Evening Councillor Ashe and Planning Department Staff
My name is Darlene Scarfo. I live at 1415 Rosebank Road - one of the properties
adjacent to the Tyas Property.
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak as a member of the
Woodlands Community and the Rosebank Road Association regarding the
development proposal of the Tyas property.
I would also like to thank the members of our community who have come out
tonight in support of this concern especially during this busy time of year.
We are here to go on record as opposing the REZONING of the
property, currently zoned 'R3' permitting detached dwellings with a minimum
lot frontage of 18 meters. Rezoning could allow the proposed erecting of (3
story) town houses with less than 5 meter frontage. This is not in keeping
with the precedent of the Woodlands Special Policy Area and is in excess of
the Pickering Official Plan section 3.2 density range.
This property abuts lands designated as LOW density development.
The Woodlands Neighborhood policy specifies a maximum density rate of 55
units per one hector, this property is .68 hectors which works out to
approximately 37 units per hector. The submitted proposed development
provides for a net density of 61 units per hector - this is in excess of 24 units.
We want the existing zoning left in place to ensure that we maintain the
integrity of the existing Rosebank and Steeple Hill Communities!
The community supports development and the Pickering Growth
Management study which is responsible growth management providing:
· future land use options for growth. (Mid Picketing area - Taunton)
· a range of housing types
· an estimated increase in residence (77,000) and job opportunities (33,000).
However our Support lends itself to sound, responsible, planned development,
and this type of planning along Kingston Road is contrary to good planning.
We do not want this area used for m-filling higher density quotas but want a
coordinated development compatible with the existing surrounding properties
and ensure that it does not negatively impact on the community.
11
AT~rACHMENT #_ ~ ~TO
Our community property continues to increase in dollar value. There have been
many new homes built on Rosebank Road in the past year with a real estate
price of $500,000-$800,000.
The proposed development is on property that falls within the community and
will play a major role in the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines
- this can not be PIECEMEAL planning! The proposed townhouses (3
storeys) are already in excess of height restriction (max 2 storey) as designated in
the guideline.
12
Housing that Meets Social Needs in Our Area
This commtmity has already participated in social planning.
· Co-op Rougemount X Hwy 2
· Co-op Whites Road x Hwy 2
· Townhouses Sheppard x Hwy 2
· Townhouses - Steeple Hill x Hwy 2
· Townhouses - Altona x Hwy 2
Most of those developments do not have road access to Hwy 2 which would
result in additional traffic congestion and safety issues.
Developing tiffs property with town homes does not give anything back to our
community, there is NO NET GAtN. Rather it would negatively impact it with
high density, safety concerns, road congestion, noise, and be esthetically
tmappealing.
Another issue is the lands to the East and West of this area whi 'ch will be
available for development in the near future.
Housing that Meets Social Needs in Our Area
~-*~Woocila~ d.~ Special
4 town home
complexes in
our area
2 Co-Op
complexes
in our Area
13
Areas o.f Possible Development Opportunities
1. Two homes sold on Hwy 2 east sMe of Co-op
2. Gas Bar and comer on north west comer of Rosebank Rd x Hwy 2
3. Rosebank Plaza - leases not being renewed
4. Balfour property between Rosebank Plaza and Tyas property - sale being
negotiated with owner by Developer.
5. Payless Plaza - rumors of viability of store
6. Pickering Nursery - vacant property
7. Two properties for s~e - east of Whites Rd on Hwy 2
These lands must also be planned in conjunction with use and design.
Townhouse development would impact lost opportunities for developing the
Hwy 2 corridor between the Petticoat Creek Library and Whites Road. The
town is going to lose development potential of this corridor if it is developed
piece by piece - PIECE MEAL PLANNING.
This section of road is the main gateway into the city of Pickering and should
not replicate the 'unappe~ing' Scarborough corridors.
Areas of Possible Development Opportunities
2004 MapOueM.¢om. !.c ::,~ ;)004 NAVTFG
I - The two homes just sold
on Highway 2 on the east side
of the Co-Op
~ - The Gas Bar and corner
lot on the north west corner
of Rosebank Road and
Highway 2
3
- The Rosebank Plaza
rumours about leases not
being renewed
d~ _ The Old Balfour Property
between the Rosebank plaza
and the Tyas Property
~.5 - The Payless Plaza
rumours about viability of the
store.
~- The Picketing Nursery
Property sitting vacant
7- Two homes for sale
That are a couple of acres just
east of Wendy's/Tim Horton's
14
We support development but it has to be sound progressive planning. Detailed
planning needs to be done to create a VISION for this corridor that has real
opportunities that will benefit all Picketing. We encourage a working group
between these two community groups, the town and the developer to determine
what is best for the community as a whole.
Our holiday wish is to develop opportunities such as church expansion or a
seniors' facility or other beneficial projects to the community. Given the
demographics of the area we do need senior and transitional facilities.
We firmly believe that it would be in the best interest of our Woodlands Special
Policy Community that the Planning Department and Town Council DENY
THE RE-ZONING REQUEST so that it will afford the existing community with
an impact that would, at the very least, be consistent with our present
environment.
15
A'rTACHMEI~T #~TO
SUMMARY - [O-ANNE ADAMS
My name is Jo-Anne Adams and my husband & I have lived on Rosebank Rd.
for 16 years.
To summarized some of the previous speaker's key points:
We don't want this parcel of land to be developed with townhomes. We are
afraid of the negative impact of a high concentration of people, the traffic and
safety issues and the increased pressure, on our existing community facilities,
such as our schools and our law enforcement, fire departments and other
support groups within the area.
You've heard the some of the history of this area. We don't want to loose the
mature, developed look of our neighbourhoods by piece-mealing, un-
planned, highly concentrated, residences within our midst.
We have the existing zoning for a reason.
This property is just a portion of a much larger picture. We want this
property to be included in the City of Pickering development plans for the
entrance to Pickering, the Kingston Rd./Hwy 2 corridor. We believe that time
is required to properly develop these plans and that community work groups,
with representation from the surrounding communities (Rosebank, Steeple
Hill, Lighffoot, Revivaltime Tabernacle and others) need to be assembled and
work in conjunction with our council and our city's planning committee.
I'm sure that there are many other members of our respective communities
that would be willing to speak which would take up much more time, but it is
not our intention to overburden this meeting with speakers. With the
Chairman's permission, I would like to ask that all those who oppose the
current, proposed plans for the Tyas property to raise their hands. Mr.
Chairman, is this acceptable?
Mr. Chairman, We thank you for the opportunity to let our concerns be heard.
16
Response to Community Working Group Meeting Feb. 11)-05
Pym, Ross
From: Adams,Ellen,.
Sent: February 16, 2005 10:54 AM
To: Pym, Ross
Cc: denella@rogers.com
Subject: Response to Community Working Group bleeting Feb. 10-05
Dear Ross,
Further to our meeting of Thursday, February 10th 2005, as agreed to, we are responding to
the Applicant's offer of providing single family, detached homes on the north and west borders
of the proposed development property.
Based on discussions we have had with various community members and our community
working group we would like to propose the following-
· 45 foot wide lots along the north and west sides of the development property
· 2 storey, detached, single family homes built on the 45 foot wide lots
· Maximum fence height allowance consisting of board on board along the property lines
that abut existing homes on the north and west sides
· No pedestrian walkway access to Lightfoot Place
· Removal of the two visitor spots in the north west corner
· Community representation at the Site Plan Meetings (in order to address such issues as
buffering, fencing, garbage storage, area parking, lighting..)
In arriving at this we believe that our suggestions are consistent with the intent for the
Pickering Official Plan and its recommended densities while ensuring a level of compatibility
and sensitivity for the abutting property owners.
Would you please share the results of our meeting with the Applicant by forwarding this email
We again wish to stress that it remains our desire to work in a co-operative fashion to avoid
unnecessary costs to the Applicant associated with an OMB Hearing.
Kind regards,
Ellen Adams
On behalf of the Rosebank Road Association,
Lightfoot/Steeple Hill Community and Revivaltime Tabernacle
Ellen Adams
16/'02/2005
4340 Duffcrin Street, Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3H 5R9
(416) 630-9346 (416) 630-8873
March 29, 2005
FAX (416)630-2547
Mr. Ross Pyro
Principal Plmmer I)evclopment Review
City of Pickering
One the Espimmdc
Picketing, Ontario
LI.V 6K7
RE: 542 Kingston Rd
Dear Mr. Pyro,
We were inibn-ned that the iRegion of Durham in a letter to you on February
14, 2005 requested that the Town of Pickering consider using the existing
shared access with the Church as the main access to the new sub-division and
the church.
As previously expressed to you m our letter of I)ecember 7, 2004, the entire
church congregation is strongly opposed to the idea of the church having to
share it's main access witln the owners and occupiers of a development of this
size. This is grossly un[hit to the Revivaltime church congregation, as it
would definitely create the following difficulties.
~'ra:ll5c congestion - the church premises are open seven days a week,
church relaied activities, and the parking lots is often fully occupied.
The occupiers and visitors in this sub-division will end up using the church
parking lot which is ah'eady Full. This could create an unsa~ access to and
fi'om Kingston Rd.
There is already cxistina a separate main entrance to the subject property off
Kingston Rd, which should be used for future development.
Indenture (No. ,~.~815 ) Date July 19, 1940, clearly stated that the basement as
granted was for the sole usc of the Tyas's family.
Watch The Hour
We the congregation of Revivaltime Tabernacle is asking and requested that
the developers be allowed to use the already existing access to the property as
their main access and not thc shared access with the church.
Rgv."Dr"At~dle¥ N. James
Seni6i' Pastor/6ounder
onserva lion
for The Living City
January 31,2005
BY MAIL ONLY
A'J TACHMENT
REPORT # PD
/!
CFN 36014
Mr. Ross Pym
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Centre
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
Re:
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2004-05 - 2nd Submission
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04
Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tayas
542 Kingston Road
City of Picketing
This letter acknowledges receipt of the second submission of development
plans for the above-noted applications. As per our previous comments dated
November 26, 2004, the subject property is not affected by the TRCA's policies
or regulations. The TRCA continues to support any initiatives to manage water
quality and quantity on site, and defers the review of the stormwater
management design to the City.
In light of the above, staff have no objections to the submitted applications.
We trust this is of assistance. Should you have any questions, please do not
hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours truly,
Carla Pierini
Plans Analyst
Development Services Section
Extension 5314
F:\Home\F'ub ic',Devei3pment Ser¢~ces'~Du?~a'T~ Region P ,';kerin,~ 542 Ki,~gston vvpa
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ()ntario hA3N 1S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-b898 www. trca.on.ca
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning Department
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E
4" FLOOR
PO BOX 623
WHITBY ON L1N 6A3
CANADA
~05-668-7711
Fax: 905-666-6208
E-mail: planning@
region.durham.on.ca
www. region .durham .on .ca
A.L. Georgieff, MClP, RPP
Commissioner of Planning
"Service Excellence
for our Communities"
September 22, 2005
~ "~ ~CH?JEN'I' # / ~ TO
Mr. Ross Pym
Planning & Development Department
Pickering Civic Complex
Picketing, Ontario
L1V 6K7
RECEIVE, D
CITY OF' PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Pym:
Re:
Regional Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision
File No.: S-P-2004-05 Cross Ref.: Z 13/04
Applicant: Weldon Lands Inc.
Location: Block B, Reg. Plan 473 & Part Lot 30, Range 3, BFC
Municipality: City of Picketing
Further to information provided on February 2, 2005 and February !4, 2005, we wish to
offer additional comments with respect to delegated provincial plan review responsibilities
for the noted subdivision.
The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated
July 2005, concluded no evidence of environmental site contamination. No further site
investigation is required.
The Noise Impact Study prepared by John Swallows Associates., dated August 31, 2005 will
need to be revised using the Regional Planning Department's traffic forecasts. We ask that you
refer to our letter dated September 22, 2005 for detailed noise comments.
Based on the forgoing, the Region has no objection to draft approval of this plan. The
attached conditions .of approval shall be complied with prior to clearance by the Region for
registration of this plan.
In addition to sending the Region copies of the draft approved plan and conditions of
approval, at such time as the draft approval is in effect, please e-mai! a digital, copy of
the conditions of draft approval to the planner responsible for the file.
Please call Vannitha Chanthavong at (905) 668-7711, ext. 2543, if you have any questions.
Yours truly,
PJchard Szarek,
Plan Implementation
Attach.: Conditions of Draft Approval
cc: Peter Castellan, Regional Works Department
N:pim/vc/Subd/S.P-2004-05/Regional Review 3.doc
'~00% Post Consumer
A~: ~ACHMENT
;:EP,~R'I # PD. z./¥,. C~_~'
Attachment to letter dated September 22, 2005
To:
Weldon Lands Inc.
S-P-2004-05
City of Picketing
o
o
The Owner shall prepare the final plan on the basis of the approved draft plan of subdivision,
prepared by W. H. Project No. Al, dated June 6, 2005, which illustrates 37 townhouse units,
roads and parking.
The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region of Durham and
the City of Picketing for revieTM and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more
than one registration.
The Owner shall agree that any existing sanitary or water Services within the plan which are
proposed to be relocated shall be maintained in full service until such time as the new
services have been completed and approved by the Region, and all costs incurred in
relocation and abandonment 'of these services shall be borne by the Owner.
The Owner shall submit to the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering, for review and
approval, a revised acoustic report(s) prepared by an acoustic engineer based on projected
traffic volumes provided by the Region of Durham Planning Department and recommending
noise attenuation measure for the draft plan in accordance with the Ministry of Environment
guidelines. The Owner shall agree in the City of Picketing subdivision agreement to
implement the recommended noise control measures. The agreement shall contain a full and
complete reference to the noise report (i.e. author, title, date and any revisions/addenda
thereto) and shall include any required warning clauses identified in the acoustic report. The
Owner shall provide the Region of Durham with a copy of the subdivision agreement
containing such provisions prior to final apprOval of the plan.
The Owner shall grant such easements as may be required for utilities, drainage and
servicing purposes to the Region of Du£nam.
The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities
which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this
plan. In addition, the owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary server and water
supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other
developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities
are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the
Region of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be
made to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham, and are to be completed prior to final
approval of this plan.
Page I
Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Region of Durham shall be satisfied that
adequate water pollution control plan and water supply capacities are available to the
proposed subdivision.
o
The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region of Durham.
This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between
the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitary sewers,
water supply, roads and other Regional services.
N:pim/vc/Subd/S-P-2OO4-O5/Draft Conditions.doc
Page 2
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
Januaw 10,2005
To:
From:
Subject:
Ross Pym
Principal Planner- Development Review
Robert Starr
Supervisor, Development Control
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2004-05
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04
Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the estate of A. Tyas
542 Kingston Road
Block B, Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C.
City of Pickering
We have reviewed the recent submission of the above-noted application, circulation
dated January 6, 2005 and provide the following comments:
1)
Until preliminary grading plans are submitted for review, we have concerns with the
proximity of the units and limits of road to the east property line, Unit 1 and driveway
at the west property line, and north property line at Unit 14.
2) The proposed visitor parking spaces at Unit 14 may create egress problems for Unit
14 and grading may not permit them at that proximity to the lot line.
3) The permanent turning circle for Lightfoot Place has not been addressed.
We include a copy of our previous comments dated December 6, 2004.
RS:bg
Copy:
Coordinator, Development Approvals
Development Control Inspector
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
December 6, 2004
To:
From:
Subject:
Ross Pym:
Principal Planner- Development Review
Robert Starr
Supervisor, Development Control
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2004-05
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04
Weldon Lands inc. on behalf of Estate of A. Tyas
542 Kingston, Road
Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C.
City of Pickering
We have reviewed the above-noted application and provide the following comments.
The existing south limit of Light'foot Place within plan 40M-1480 was constructed
as a temporary turning circle with the intention of this road continuing south into
this property whenever it was to be developed.
Extending this road into these lands does not appear to be the proposal for this
application, and should that remain to be the intent, then a solution must be
proposed that will provide an end to Lighffoot Place. A permanent turning circle
having a minimum curb radius of 12.5m and a suitable property line radius will be
required.
The land conveyance, design and construction of the permanent turning circle,
removal of the temporary turning circle, and associated restoration will be the
applicant's responsibility, and must be addressed, among other things, in an
agreement with the City.
2. A storm water management report will be required for the site, which must
address quaiity control and quantity control.
................ ,-., ......... ~ ~-,~ v~m ~ i~Nuu~u ~llu ii~u~'. ~U'~l~5~J stoiTf"i sewers,
sanitaFy s..w~ ~, s an,~ water supply for the site.
Draft Plan of Subdivisio,. ¢P-2004-05 .;.:
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 13~04
December 6, 2004
Page 2
A Conceptual Grading Plan will be required to provide enough detailed
information to illustrate the overall grading of the site and how it affects adjacent
properties.
Installation and/or relocation of any utilities will be the applicant's responsibility.
A Utility Coordination Plan will be required with detailed design.
A Construction Management Plan will be required. The requirements for the
plan are enclosed and should be forwarded to the applicant..
Any earthworks proposed on the site prior to approvals will require a Fill/Topsoil
Disturbance Permit. A copy is enclosed and should be forwarded to the
applicant.
8. A Geotechnical Report will be required for this development.
9. A Noise Report will be required for this develdPment.
RS:lmc
Icalvell~/~ ut~v~ns/S P.2OO4.OSipteliminFJry Comments
Copy:
Development Control InspeCtor (L. Calvelii)
Coordinator, Development Approvals
Robert Starr
Fire Department
comments
October 24, 2005
Rex Neath, Fire
Prevent/on OFficer,
Pickerin9 Fire Services
Further to our site visit of October 24, 2005 the Pickering
fire Service forwards the following comments
The drawings should reflect the following
A centreline radius not less than 12 m (39 ft 4 in) to
accommodate firefighting apparatus and equipment.
A change in gradient not more than 1 in 12.5 over a
minimum distance of 15m (49 ft 3 in) which should apply to
entire site.
Rolled curbs or other engineered designs to support
emergency vehicle access on the south and northeast dead
ended driveways/private roads. Gates will have to be
provided through the proposed 1.8-meter' privacy fence on
the lot line to access the property.
Location of internal "fire routes" for the site.
Site servicing drawings indicating the location of any fire
hydrants used to protect the site in the event of fire.
The Pickering Fire Service reserves the opportunity to
make further comments upon the circulation of any
additional drawings.
While under construction, properties are to be clearly
identified with temporary signage in accordance with the
existing municipal by-law 3503 - 90