Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 27, 2013 City oq a, Minutes ill Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee , ;� 40"1. ;: June 27, 2013 PICKERIN 7:00 pm Main Committee Room Attendees: T. Besso S. lyer W. Jamadar M. Sawchuck S. Sheehan C. Sopher J. Van Huss C. Celebre, Senior Planner, Development Review & Heritage T. Dole, Water Resources Engineer L. Roberts, Recording Secretary Absent: Councillor Rodrigues R. Lattouf E. Mason T. Reimer D. Rundle Item 1 Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items I Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as appropriate) 1.0 Welcome C. Celebre welcomed everyone to the meeting. 2.0 Minutes Moved by M. Sawchuck Seconded by C. Sopher That the agenda be approved as circulated. Carried Moved by W. Jamadar Seconded by J. Van Huss That the minutes of the May 23, 2013 meeting of the Heritage Pickering Advisory Committee be approved. Carried Page 1 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as a••ro•riate) 3.0 Delegations C. Celebre introduced Tom Dole, Water Resources Engineer with the City of Pickering. T. Dole appeared before the Committee to provide an overview of the recently completed Whitevale Drainage Master Plan Environmental Assessment. He outlined the study area, noting that due to extreme rainfall in 2008, the flooding in the hamlet caused severe damage to the bridge. As a result of this, the study was undertaken to comprehensively address the deficiencies in Whitevale's drainage system. Mr. Dole explained that a Stage 1 Archeological Assessment was completed as part of the study which indicated 11 locations where Stage 2 Archeological Assessments will be required at the detailed design stage. He provided an outline of alternative solutions, noting that one of the evaluation criteria was the potential for affects on cultural/built heritage resources. The preferred alternatives from the study are all consistent with the Hamlet of Whitevale Heritage Conservation District Study. Mr. Dole outlined the next steps as follows; • Road needs study • Capital Works Forecast • Budget Request to Council • Detailed Design A question and answer period ensued. C. Sopher noted the following concerns and questions: • Would like to see material Circulated to members sooner in order to review before providing comments. • Questioned whether the Seaton development would change the catchment area. • Felt impact would be on a number of items including wells, trees and buildings in Whitevale. • Questioned the necessity of digging a new ditch when the development in Seaton could make it unnecessary. • Questioned, why not build a pond. C. Sopher also noted concerns that there would be no opportunity to make changes at the design detail stage. Page 2 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items I Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as appropriate) T. Dole and C. Celebre responded to member's concerns, noting that a number of these issues will be addressed at the detailed design stage. Currently the City is at the road needs study stage. C. Celebre noted that the EA was being presented to the Committee for information because the EA study is located in the Whitevale Conservation District and there are guiding principles in the plan that speak to Public Works. C. Celebre read from the District Guidelines which states that Public Works must be carried out with sensitivity to the historic rural content of the District. C. Celebre and T. Dole also advised that there have been meetings with the Whitevale Citizens Drainage Committee regarding this project. C. Celebre noted that the alternatives provided through the EA do consider the historic character of the area She advised that the Committee's comments will be forwarded to engineering staff. She also noted she would forward the link to the City's website for members to review the EA if they would like to review further. T. Dole stated there will be additional consultation with the Committee at the detailed design stage. J. Van Huss questioned whether the members could be sent information on the design elements. W. Jamadar questioned whether comments would have any impact once the final design is presented. C. Sopher stated that if the work is not required due to the future development of Seaton, this should be a consideration. T. Dole responded that as there is no firm time frame for this work and it may not take place for many years, it does not address the drainage system deficiencies as they exist today. C. Sopher noted the residents felt that Alternatives 3 were more appropriate as opposed to Alternative 5 (the preferred alternative), which is what the detailed design will be based on. T.Dole responded that Alternative 3 was not selected as it had hie h costs due to the need for ace uirin• land. Page 3 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as appropriate) 4.2 Doors Open Update M. Sawchuck provided an update on the Doors Open Program. He stated all sites have been confirmed with a total of 21 this year, with approximately 1/3 of them being new to the program. They are moving ahead with promotional materials and have held a meeting with the participants which was well attended. T. Besso stated the next steps would include arranging the bus tours. C. Celebre noted the City of Pickering has prepared draft maps, with the Frenchman's Bay tour still to be finalized. M. Sawchuck also noted that they still need to meet with the site representatives to discuss programming for their site. Discussion also ensued with respect to the bus company, and budget. C. Celebre informed the Committee that they can always use additional volunteers, if any members would like to participate. 4.0 Other Business 4.1) Updates C. Celebre noted the designation by-law for 560 Park Crescent would be going to Council on July 8, 2013. C. Celebre provided an update with respect to the demolition on Mulberry Lane as C. Sopher questioned ownership of the property at the time of the demolition, as he understood it to be owned by a developer. She stated that when researching ownership at the time of demolition and with consultation with the Building Department, it was determined that this property was owned by the Province; therefore no demolition permit was required or issued. C. Celebre provided an update on the application for Front Road. She stated the variance was approved and the applicant would work with the City of Pickering on final design details. She noted the applicants had been informed of the Committee's comments from the May 23rd meeting. C. Sopher had questions regarding the stone house that was demolished on Brock Road and if a permit was issued. Page 4 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items I Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as appropriate) C. Celebre to C.Celebre noted that she would look into this and consult the action Building Department. 4.2) M. Sawchuck questioned the 5,000 acres being allocated for C. Celebre to the Urban Park and whether it was being investigated to see if action any heritage homes exist on the property. Discussion ensued with respect to listing properties owned by the Provincial and Federal governments and whether they could be listed if they were situated in a park. It was felt this was important to proceed with and C. Celebre noted she would look into this and send out information. The importance of listing properties was discussed, noting this as the best way to protect heritage. C. Celebre noted that a lot of research had already been conducted on properties located in the Seaton lands, which would make it easier to move forward with potential listing of the properties should ownership change. 4.3) M. Sawchuck noted he was continuing his work on updating the register and listings and would go through the research done by Unterman to compile a new listing for the purpose of preparing an updated register for Council approval. Discussion ensued with respect to focusing on South Pickering, the Dunbarton area in particular, as an area for potential property listing. It was also discussed whether to list everything, or just the obvious properties, and how best to educate the public on the benefits of listing their property. W. Jamadar questioned how to determine the heritage L. Roberts to significance for the register, and whether you could search the action database by year. He also questioned the evaluation sheet which had been prepared previously. L. Roberts to look into and email to members. Discussion also took place with respect to possible incentives for C. Celebre to residents to designate their property, such as tax rebate look into grant programs and grants and whether funds in the Heritage Budget programs could be included or reallocated for this. Moved by W. Jamadar Seconded by J. Van Huss Page 5 Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion Action Items / Ref# (summary of discussion) Status (include deadline as appropriate) That the next scheduled meeting of Heritage Pickering be held on September 26, 2013 5.0 Next Meeting/Adjournment Next Meeting: September 26, 2013 The meeting adjourned at 9:10 pm. Copy: City Clerk • • • Page 6