Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPLN 21-14cit'l O0 Report to 41 Planning & Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 21 -14 Date: September 2, 2014 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject'. Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 Durham Live — Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments- (Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. 1802 and 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Street Recommendation: That Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14, submitted by Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments ( Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc., to revise the list of permitted employment uses on lands being 1802 and 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Street in order to facilitate the development of an integrated mixed use tourist destination be endorsed, and that an implementing zoning by -law as outlined in Recommendation 2 of Report PLN 21 -14 be prepared and forwarded to Council; 2. That the implementing zoning by -law include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following provisions: a) The establishment of a Major Tourist Destination "MTD" land use zone on the Phase 1 portion of the site, which shall permit uses generally as set out in Appendix I; b) The establishment of an Urban Reserve "UR" land use zone on the Phase 2 portion of the site as an interim measure, which category shall permit only existing legal uses and uses permitted by Natural Heritage Systems zone; c) The use of an (H)- holding symbol-for the MTD zoned lands to limit the amount and /or level of development that may be allowed on site before the required Regional and /or Provincial transportation infrastructure is provided, which amount and /or level of development shall be determined by the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham in consultation with the Ontario Ministry of Transportation; d) The use of an (H)- holding symbol for the MTD zoned lands to ensure appropriate agreements are in place with the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham and the Province of Ontario, if necessary, prior to development; and e) The use of an (H)- holding symbol for the MTD zoned lands to ensure appropriate technical details have been provided related to the natural heritage features and environmental sensitive lands, to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and 169 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 2 3. Further, that Council direct staff to bring forward a report on the Phase 2 lands at a later date, recommending the rezoning of these lands from Urban Reserve to Major Tourist Destination and Natural Heritage System as may be'appropriate, once the required environmental investigations are completed to the satisfaction of the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. - Executive Summary: The subject lands are generally bounded by Highway 401 and GO Rail to the north, Church Street South to the east, Bayly Street to the south and the CN rail tracks to the west of Squires Beach Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc., known as Durham Live, have submitted an application to amend the zoning by -law to permit a broad list of employment uses on the subject lands in order to facilitate the future development of an integrated mixed use tourist destination (see Submitted Property Plan, Attachment #2). While the proposed application is for a major tourist destination development, a significant number of the comments that have been received have focused on only one of the requested uses — the gaming facilities /casino. It should be noted, however, that even if included as a permitted use, the gaming facility /casino, can only be established on the subject property with the approval of the Province of Ontario through the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation. The proposal has been divided into two development phases because of environmental considerations (see Submitted Phasing Plan, Attachment #3). The Phase 1 lands are not subject to any significant environmental constraints and therefore are recommended for rezoning at this time. However, for the Phase 2 lands, additional technical work on the natural heritage system is required before the lands can be recommended for rezoning. Accordingly, in the interim, the Phase 2 lands are recommended to be rezoned -as Urban Reserve until the required environmental information is submitted and evaluated. The subject property is appropriately located and of sufficient size to facilitate the development of a major tourist destination that would be of significant benefit to the City and the Region. Moreover, the proposed development readily allows for a broad and unique range of employment uses that could not easily (if at all) be located elsewhere in the City. However, because of the potential scale and intensity of development that may ultimately occur on the property, it is recommended that the implementing zoning by -law include an (H)- holding symbol to ensure that a number of required technical matters are adequately addressed prior to development, and to ensure that necessary regional and provincial road improvements are made as, and when. required, to support the scale and intensity of the development as it occurs over time. The proposed major tourist destination is in accordance with Provincial policy, implements the Official Plan, supports tourism and economic development in the City and Region, includes land uses that are compatible with the surrounding land uses, and represents good planning. The proposed development is an appropriate use of the subject lands, and staff recommends that Council endorse Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14, as set out in the recommendations of this report. 170 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 3 Financial Implications: The development of a major tourist destination on the subject lands should provide significant positive financial and economic benefits to the City in terms of jobs, tax assessment and other potential revenues to the City. According to the applicant's submitted Economic Impact Assessment study, the full build out of the project could create approximately 7,500 to 12,000 direct jobs and 4,000 to 5,200 indirect/induced jobs and generate annual municipal taxes of approximately $50 million. There are no direct costs to the City that are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this Report. Background 1.1 Property Description :The subject lands are generally bounded by Highway 401 and GO Rail to the north, Church Street South to the east, Bayly Street to the south and the CN rail tracks to the west of Squires Beach Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Two municipal roads, Kellino Street and Squires Beach Road, bisect the subject lands, resulting in three separate parcels. The lands have a combined area of approximately 90.5 hectares. The lands contain three minor tributaries of Duffins Creek, which flow from north to south, as well as forested and wetland areas that comprise part of the Lower Duffins Creek Wetland Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland (see Submitted Property Plan, Attachment #2). Portions of the subject lands have recently been used for agricultural purpose, while the remainder of the lands are vacant open space. There are no buildings or other structures on the subject lands. Surrounding uses include general industrial land uses, commercial uses consisting of a vehicle sales establishment and the Pickering Markets and Trade Centre, a property with trailers stored on it, a place of worship and a golf course. 1.2 Applicant's Proposal The applicant has submitted an application to amend the zoning by -law to establish a broad list of permitted employment uses on the subject lands in order to facilitate the future development of an integrated mixed use tourist destination. A preliminary conceptual master plan has' been prepared for the entire site demonstrating how various buildings and uses could be located and integrated on the site (see Conceptual Master Plan, Attachment #4). The concept plan illustrates a convention centre, performing arts centre, amphitheatre, cinemas, restaurant plaza, casino and five -star hotel, waterpark with hotel, office buildings, tourist centre /greenhouse, film studio, boutique hotel, fitness centre and spa, and parking structures. The Conceptual Master Plan is not intended to illustrate a specific site plan, but rather an illustration of how the integrated development could occur. The Conceptual Master Plan is for the entire land holdings, not just the Phase 1 lands. 171 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 4 The vision is to have the site develop over a 15 to 20 year timeframe, as a large, integrated and planned tourist destination complex with a strong commitment to architectural and urban design while integrating the development with the surrounding environmental features. Specific uses and their precise. locations would be further refined in the future. The applicant has indicated the project is not dependent on a casino, but that the scale and mix of uses might differ without this use. The applicant intends to proceed with the development if the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation does not approve the casino use for this property. 1.3 The applicant has requested that the consideration of the application be phased Generally, the eastern portion of the property is less constrained by environmental features than the western portion of the lands. As some of the environmental studies will require over a year to complete, the applicant has requested that the proposal be reviewed in two stages. The first stage is the Phase 1 lands, which is the subject of this report. The second stage will address the appropriateness of the Phase 2 lands when the required studies have been submitted. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Public comments from the April 7, 2014 Public Information Meeting and in written submission Approximately 100 residents attended the Public Information Meeting, and 14 people voiced opinions on the proposed application. Specifically, the comments included the following: • the relationship between casinos and horse racing • the viability of the project if a casino was not approved by the Province • the social impacts of gaming facilities • the development would result in major job creation for residents • the development would result in adverse traffic impacts • the casino use should not be considered prior to the results of the ballot question • concern about the impacts of a casino on local businesses • the tourist and entertainment facilities would benefit the community 2.2 Written public submissions received Staff have received a number of written submissions regarding the proposed amendment. A general summary of these written submissions and a copy of the correspondence are contained in Appendix 11, Fart A. In addition, staff also received a number of email submissions in response to a flyer "Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino" that was distributed by the Regional Councillors of Wards 1 and 2 to residents of those wards. A. summary of these written submissions and a copy of the correspondence are contained in Appendix II, Part B. 172 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 5 2.3 Town of Ajax submission received The Council of the Town of Ajax has provided comments on the subject application (see Attachment #5). Based on a staff report that was presented to the June 2, 2014, Community Affairs and Planning Committee, Town of Ajax Council on June 9, 2014 passed the following resolution: That the City of Pickering be advised that the Town of Ajax considers Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3114 to be premature. Town of Ajax staff have provided comments on April 14, 2014 and additional comments dated August 7, 2014. These comments include, but are not limited to questions on official plan conformity; need for additional technical information related to traffic, servicing, environmental investigations, and the need for specific development details (see Attachments #6A and #6B). 2.4 City Departments & Agency Comments Region of Durham • the subject lands are designated "Employment Areas in the Regional Official Plan • Bayly Street is designated as a Type "A" Arterial Road, Regional Corridor and a Transit Spine; Church Street is designated a Type "B" Arterial Road; and, Squires Beach Road is designated a Type "C" Arterial Road • the Regional Official Plan identifies Key Natural Heritage features and Key Hydrogeological Features on the lands, Phase 2 portion • the concept of the proposed development may be permitted by the Regional Official Plan and can be confirmed upon review of the implementing zoning by -law • the subject application conforms to the Provincial Policy Statements and the Growth Plan provided the implementing zoning by -law includes provisions to address infrastructure and natural heritage requirements • from a transportation infrastructure perspective, the Region is satisfied that up to approximately 25 percent of the proposed development could be accommodated with minor enhancements to previously planned Region road network improvements, after which additional road improvements will be required and the implementing zoning by -law should include provisions to address road infrastructure improvements 173 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 6 • municipal water and sanitary sewage service capacity is available to service the proposed development and surrounding employment area • additional technical matters, such as noise, archaeological assessment, natural heritage and environmental site assessment will need further review through the site plan approval process prior to any actual development • a copy of the Region's comments is attached (see Attachment #7) Toronto and . requests that any hazard lands and natural features Region shall not be zoned with a designation that permits Conservation development Authority . requests that the Phase .1 lands be zoned with an (H)- holding symbol until further detailed information respecting headwater drainage, water balance analysis and functional servicing is provided • a copy of the TRCA's comments is attached (see Attachment #8) Ministry of • Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has advised that the Transportation subject lands are within their permit control area • future development of these lands will require the Ministry's review and approval, and a MTO Building and Land Use Permit for any development, entrance, change of entrance use, building or structure within 45 metres of the Highway 401 property line, or within 395 metres of the centre point of an intersection or interchange with Highway 401 • a copy of the MTO's comments is attached (see Attachment #9) City of Pickering . standard development details will be required for Engineering & development including the need to enter into Public Works appropriate development agreements • from a traffic perspective, 25 percent of the development can be accommodated with minor improvements to the Regional road network • a copy of the Engineering & Public Works comments is attached (see Attachment #10) No other agency that provided comments has objected to the application. Certain technical issues and requirements related to the proposed use of the site will be addressed during the implementation process, should this application be approved. 174 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 7 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal conforms to the Employment Areas designation and general policies of the Pickering Official Plan The City of Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Employment Areas" — "Prestige Employment" and "Mixed Employment ", and "Open Space System - Natural Areas ". The majority of the lands are designated "Prestige Employment" while the "Mixed Employment" is located along the north side of Bayly Street. The lands. designated "Open Space System - Natural Areas' are located in the southwest corner of the subject lands. Employment Areas in Pickering are those areas having a significant concentration of manufacturing, assembly, warehousing and /or related employment opportunities and are classified according to their mix of uses, operational characteristics, design, and performance requirements. Prestige Employment permits a range of uses including: light manufacturing; offices; limited retail sales as a'minor component of an industrial operation; hotels; and personal services. Community, cultural and recreational uses and other uses with similar.performance characteristics that are more appropriately located in employment areas are also permitted. Mixed Employment permits the same uses as Prestige Employment while also permitting limited retailing of goods and services serving the area. The subject property is. located within the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood of the Official Plan.. There are two Detailed Review Areas within the Neighbourhood, one of which is located partially on the subject lands along Bayly Street. Detailed Review Areas are areas that have been identified as priorities for the preparation of detailed land use, transportation, design or other development guidelines. The neighbourhood policies, as they relate to the subject lands, describe the facilitation of vehicular movement including the extension of Squires Beach Road over Highway 401 and ensuring that any proposed new road intersection with Church Street South, north of Bayly Street is provided to the satisfaction of the Region. The Economic Development chapter of the Official Plan outlines the economic goals of the City of Pickering. Section 5.1 of the Plan states that City Council shall: a) strengthen Pickering's economic health and self - sufficiency by encouraging existing business and entrepreneurs within the City and by taking advantage of positive opportunities that arise from the City's interdependency with regional, national and global economies; b) encourage Pickering as a major business and employment destination for Durham Region and eastern Metropolitan Toronto; and 175 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 8 c) increase the number, diversity and quality of local jobs, to help balance the residential to commercial /industrial tax assessment ratio, and reduce out - commuting. Based on the designation and policies of the Official Plan, the proposed application complies with the Plan. The proposed rezoning application will broaden the mix of employment uses that will provide additional employment opportunities with a diversity of jobs, while encouraging tourism and improving the economic base of the City. 3.2 The traffic impacts can be addressed with the implementation of traffic infrastructure improvements as the Major Tourist Destination uses are developed over time An Urban Transportation Study was undertaken by the applicant's consultants. The traffic analysis that was conducted, examined a variety of factors including existing traffic, background traffic growth on regional roads, projected traffic. attributed to several specific developments in the vicinity of the subject lands, and projected traffic from the Durham Live proposal. The results of the signalized intersection analysis of this traffic scenario indicated that as the development proceeds, a combination of Regional road network improvements will be required, including modifications to signalized intersection turn lane configurations, a Highway 401 underpass connection between Squires Beach Road ,and Notion Road, and a partial, interchange to and from the west on Highway 401 at Church Street to ensure the overall study area road network will be able to continue to operate under good to very busy (but still acceptable) urban conditions. The required road and intersection improvements would be to Brock Road, Kingston Road, Bayly Street, Church Street, Westney Road, Pickering Parkway, Notion Road, Squires Beach Road and Highway 401 (see Submitted Recommended Public Street Improvement Plan, Attachment #11). As the Durham Live project is anticipated to be developed in stages over a number of years, the road infrastructure improvements will also need to be staged to ensure they keep pace with the scale and intensity of the development. The implementing zoning by -law is therefore proposed to include an (H)— holding symbol that will limit the amount of development that can occur on the property prior to road improvements. Before lifting the (H)— holding symbol, appropriate agreements and technical studies will be required to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham and the Province of Ontario, as necessary. 176 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 9 3.3 The buffer lands associated with the Natural Heritage System will require further analysis to determine the extent of development that will be permitted in the Phase 2 lands The subject site contains lands that are designated as Provincially Significant Wetlands located in the Phase 2 portion of the site. These lands, as well as the wooded area designated Open Space Systems — Natural Areas, are proposed to be zoned Natural Heritage System (NHS) in the future after a review of the required studies. In the interim., all the lands in Phase 2 are recommended to be zoned Urban Reserve, thereby removing the existing industrial zoning from these lands to ensure protection of the wetlands. The studies for the Phase 2 lands will assess the NHS to determine the extent of the buffers that need to be established to protect the NHS features or its ecological function. The assessment will also investigate if any activity other than conservation purposes could be permitted within the buffers. All lands within 120 metres of a Provincially Significant Wetland feature (which is the line that divides the Phase 1 lands from the Phase 2 lands), are being investigated, as required by the City's Official Plan and the Provincial Policy Statement. The required studies will also consider additional lands associated with other environmental features along with the extent of the buffer required to protect these features. 3.4 The proposed Major Tourist Destination uses are compatible with the surrounding land uses Lands to the south and west, in Pickering, are designated Employment Areas in the Pickering OfficialPlan, similar to the subject lands. A few surrounding properties have established permitted uses on these lands that include a. place of religious assembly, a vehicle sales and service establishment, a restaurant and the Pickering Markets. To the west of the CN Rail line is the GFL waste management complex amongst other employment uses. To ensure compatibility with the surrounding employment lases, certain of the proposed tourist destination uses (such as commercial school, day care, community centre and hotel) may need to be appropriately located within the subject lands and /or appropriately mitigated through the site plan approval process, as they may be considered sensitive land uses in an employment area. Sensitive uses will have to have regard to noise and vibration from road and rail traffic, and from noise, light, order and dust from. industrial operations, such as the GFL waste management complex. Adjacent land uses to the east, in the Town of Ajax, include the Annandale Golf and Curling Club, on the east side of Church Street, and employment uses on the southeast corner of Church Street and Bayly Street. The proposed tourist destination uses would also be compatible with the employment uses and the golf course use in Ajax. 177 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 10 3.5 Site servicing of the proposed Major Tourist Destination development will not impact existing or future uses in the surrounding area The Region of Durham has advised that municipal water and sanitary sewage services capacity is available to service the proposed development and the surrounding area.. A preliminary drainage plan has been prepared by the applicant's consultant that demonstrates an appropriate level of stormwater control can be accommodated. Detailed design requirements for water quality and quantity control, erosion control and water balance for natural features will be addressed during and through the site plan approval process. 3.6 An Economic Impact Assessment of the Major Tourist Destination development has been submitted The applicant has submitted an Economic Impact Assessment for the proposed development. The study is based on an integrated resort casino anchoring the tourist destination development. This form of development is projected to generate significant job creation, tax revenue for the municipality and visitor spending in the community due to the significant increase in tourism visitors to the area. 3.7 The Social impacts of the gaming facility are the responsibility of the Provincial Government A number of comments that were received relate to the social impacts of gambling on society. This issue is under the mandate of the Province of Ontario through the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation (OLG). OLG is a provincial agency which operates and manages province -wide lotteries., casinos and slot facilities at horse racing tracks in Ontario. The legislative authority of OLG is set out in the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation Act, 1999. Classified as an. Operational Enterprise Agency, OLG has a single shareholder, the Government of Ontario, and reports through its Board of Directors to the Minister of Finance. OLG has established a Responsible Gambling Program that considers the social aspects of problem gambling. 3.8 The development will incorporate strong urban design principles Some of the key urban design principles that will be articulated either in the zoning by -law and /or as urban design performance standards or guidelines in the required development agreement with the City will include: • protecting the environmentally sensitive lands by providing an appropriate buffer between the significant natural features and the developable lands, while integrating passive recreational trails and walkways within the buffer areas where appropriate 178 Report PLN 21 -14 September 2,, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 11 • encouraging the creation of a walkable, pedestrian friendly environment through the design of streets and blocks, the appropriate location of buildings relative to the streets and blocks, and the use of wide walkways • establishing prominent boulevards that include benches, street trees, other landscaping, pedestrian -scale lighting, and public art • establishing a strong commitment to design excellence with respect to enhanced architecture_ and urban design while incorporating sustainable design elements such as minimizing energy consumption, maximizing stormwater infiltration, and incorporating green roofs • designing public and private streets to accommodate multiple modes of travel, anticipated traffic, volumes, and on- street parking • minimizing surface parking, where appropriate, and incorporating on- street parking, time of use parking, and underground and structured parking 3.9 The Phase 2 lands are to be zoned Urban Reserve as an interim measure until the required environmental investigations have been completed This report. recommends the use of an Urban Reserve zoning category on the Phase 2 lands as an interim measure. This zoning would remain in place until the required environmental investigations, and any other technical studies are completed to the satisfaction of the City, the Region and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and the precise boundary of the developable area of Phase 2 can be determined. Once the required environmental investigations and all other technical studies are completed, staff will bring forward a report for Council's consideration for the rezoning of the Phase 2 lands for Major Tourist Destination and Natural Heritage System zones, if appropriate and where applicable, and in accordance with all completed investigations. The Urban Reserve zoning category will restrict uses on the Phase 2 lands to only existing legal uses and uses permitted by Natural Heritage Systems zone. 4.0 Sustainability implications have been reviewed Staff's review of the application against the City's Draft Sustainable Development Guidelines resulted in a score below the Level 1 standard. However, because the project design is conceptual only at this time, (insufficient amount of detailed design information available to be evaluated) there is limited opportunity to achieve a Level 1 standard: It is anticipated that with the receipt of more detailed design information the project will achieve a Level 1 or higher standard. Significant opportunities exist for the applicant to implement sustainable options through future site plan and building permit processes. 179 Report -PLN 21 -14 September 2, 2014 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Page 12 5.0 Appropriate development controls will be established through the required agreements, the required site plan approval process, and the use of an (H)- holding symbol in the zoning by -law The requirements of the City, Region and other public agencies (such as TRCA) involved in the development process will be protected and incorporated through the required development agreements, as conditions of site plan approval and /or through the use of (H)— holding symbols in the implementing zoning by -law. These development agreement requirements include, but are not limited to, building design and location, on -site grading, landscaping, tree preservation, fencing, stormwater management, construction management and detail design. Amongst other matters, the (H)— holding symbol will ensure that all required road infrastructure is in place to accommodate traffic generated by the development as it is constructed overtime, including the required Regional road improvements, a new Highway 401 underpass and a new Highway 401 interchange. 6.0 The implementing zoning by -law will include an appropriate (H)- holding symbol to adequately address transportation infrastructure concerns The implementing by -law will also establish an upset limit on the amount of development that can occur prior to lifting the (H)- holding symbol related to transportation infrastructure. The Region has advised that from a transportation infrastructure perspective, it is satisfied that up to approximately 25 percent of the proposed development could be accommodated with only minor enhancements to the previously planned improvements to the Regional road network. Beyond this amount of development, additional road improvements will be required to accommodate the development, as outlined in this Report. A.draft zoning by -law amendment is not included with this Report as further discussion is needed with the Region of Durham to establish appropriate (H)- holding symbol terms and conditions that will appropriately reflect and accommodate the 25 percent development limit. The draft permitted uses for the MTD zone (see Appendix 1) as well as the definitions for new uses will also be finalized. Discussions are on -going and it is anticipated that a draft zoning by -law will be available for consideration at the September 15, 2014 Council meeting. 7.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report. Appendices Appendix I Proposed Major Tourist Destination Uses Appendix 11 Written Public Comments Report PLN 21 -14 Subject: Durham Live - Pickering Developments Inc. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Submitted Property Plan 3. Submitted Phasing Plan 4. Conceptual Master Plan 5. Town of Ajax correspondence 6A- Town of Ajax Staff correspondence, dated April 14, 2014 613. Town of Ajax Staff correspondence, dated August 7, 2014 7. Agency comment — Region of Durham 8. Agency Comment — TRCA 9. Agency comment — MTO 10. City Comment — Engineering and Public Works 11. Submitted Recommended Public Street Improvement Plan Prepared By: C1-�� Ross Pym, MCIP, R P Principal Planner — Strategic Initiatives 0 Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design .. i Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council r Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer September 2, 2014 Approved /Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCI , RPP Chief Planner Thomas Melymu , MCIP, RPP Director, City Development Page 13 181 182 Appendix 1 to Report PLN 21 -14 Proposed Major Tourist Destination Uses Proposed Major Tourist Destination Uses Amphitheatre Financial Institution Arena Gaming Establishment/Casino Art Gallery Hotel or Motel Convention or Conference Centre Library Automobile Rental Establishment Medical Office Bake Shop Museum Banquet Facilities Nightclub /Bar Botanical Gardens Office Cafe / Restaurant / Tavern / Pub Outdoor Recreational Facility Cinema Park Commercial Fitness /Recreation Centre Performing Arts Centre/Theatre Commercial Parking lot and Commercial Parking Lot Structure Personal Service Establishment Commercial School Place of Amusement Commercial Tourist Establishments Private Club Community Centre Professional Office Community Gardens Spa Convenience Store Stadium Curling Rinks, Tennis Courts, Bowling Alleys or similar recreational facilities Travel Agent Day Care Centre Travel Information Centre Dry - Cleaner's Distribution Centre Waterpark/ Wave Pool Emergency Service Facility Retail Ancillary to a Permitted Use Film Studio 183 184 Appendix II to Report PLN 21 -14 Part A Written Public Comments Received on Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3114 Number "T 1. Commenter David McKay, HMBC Comment. concerns with the application related to possible Planning on behalf of impacts on the operation of GFL operations of their GFL Environmental Inc., facilities on Toy Avenue located on Toy Avenue not opposed in. principle to the application; but concern of land use compatibility and has requested additional information related to noise, traffic, odour and lighting 2. Emilio Trotta has an interest in the application and request to be Ajax Downs kept informed of the application 50 Alexander Crossing Ajax 3. Murray Chusid advises that they concur with the issues and on Behalf of Ajax Downs concerns expressed in Town of Ajax's Planning staff letter, 4. Robert Owen • opposed to the application for a casino Pickering Pentecostal • gaming facilities would have a negative impact on Church individuals and families • traffic and noise concerns • proposed uses not compatible next to the church 5. Leh Hummel not in. favour of gaming facility /casino Email -no address gaming facilities would have a negative impact on provided individuals and families • the proposal has not been given adequate opportunity for the community to discuss gaming facilities • traffic issues • should not consider the application until after the results of the ballot question on a casino in Pickering 6. Todd & Kim Smith • in support of the application 448 Rougemount Dr. • will create jobs, cause infrastructure improvements, Pickering provide first class entertainment, attract new corporation and their tax revenue 7. Sue Quackenbush & • great concern with the project Ken Devine • not supportive of land currently used for agriculture to 1210 Radom St. be loss to development Pickering • if casino is approved there will be loss of horse racing jobs from Ajax 8. Anne Ballyns 1125 Meadowlane Cres. Pickering • opposed to the application for a casino 9. Wasay Khan • for the development to succeed they must build a Email -no address provided Highway 401 exit ramps at Church street 185 Number Commenter. Comment 10. Leonardo Veronesi concern with the project, don't see the benefit of the Email -no address proposal if jobs are lost and have negative impact on . provided society 11. Dolores Forster & strong objection with the project Karl Goebel loss of horse racing and agricultural jobs in Durham 1774 Shadybrook Dr. Region Pickering traffic concerns 12.. John Foster opposed to a casino, concern with hardships on Email -no address families through addiction to gambling provided 13. Cheryl Bezanson concern with the casino due to traffic concerns and 41 Willow Lane that there are schools on and close to Church Street Ajax being a access route to the development • concern with the social issues of gambling 14. Marryann Boyd concerned with existing traffic and transit in the area 1210 Radom St. before any development is permitted all infrastructure Pickering has to be in place, and the developers should pay for the infrastructure April 4, 2014 Mr. Ross Pym Principal Planner - Development Review City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade South Pickering, ON L1 V 6K5 Dear Mr. Pym: RE: DURHAM LIVE TOURIST DESTINATION PROPOSAL COMPATIBILITY CONCERNS RELATIVE TO GFL FACILITIES, TOY AVENUE OUR FILE: 1436A KITCHENER LONDON KINI ,SIGN BARRIE MacNaughton Hermsen Britton Clarkson Planning Limited ("MHBC ") represents GFL Environmental Inc. ( "GFL' with respect to the above referenced matter. We are writing herein to outline GFL's concerns with the proposed Durham Live Tourist Destination development at 1802 & 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road. GFL owns and operates waste transfer and processing facilities on the lands shown in red on Figure 1, which are directly adjacent to the western limits of the Durham Live proposed development (shown in blue).. GFL's existing facilities are legally established land uses that operate in compliance with their respective Environmental Compliance Approvals (ECA's). The GFL operations are summarized as foI lows: • A waste transfer and processing facility is operated on the properties at 1060 and 1070 Toy Avenue and a portion of the property at 1048 Toy Avenue. o This facility receives a wide range of hazardous waste and liquid industrial waste (maximum 1,437,500 litres per day) and municipal waste including used oil filters, plastics, spill clean -up waste, catch basin waste, grease trap waste and contaminated soil (maximum 5048 tonnes per day). 230 -7050 WESTON ROAD / WOODBRIDGE / ONTARIO / L4L 8G7 / T 905 761 5588 / F 905 761 5589 / WWW.MHBCPLAN.COM 187 o Processes utilized at this facility include consolidation by mixing /bulking /blending in container or tanks, oil /water separation, wastewater treatment, oil filter crushing, solidification, and soil treatment (ex -situ biological treatment of petroleum hydrocarbon and road salt impacted soils). • A waste transfer facility is operated at 1048 Toy Avenue. This facility receives, processes, and transfers solid, non - hazardous ICI, municipal waste, and construction /demolition waste (Maximum 600 tonnes per day). • A vehicle service and repair facility is operated at 1034 Tov Avenue. • Each of the above properties includes related administrative offices and parking areas for vehicle fleets associated with the facilities. • The GFL property at the southeast end of Quartz Street is currently vacant. While GFL is not opposed in principle to the Durham Live proposal, GFL does have concerns related to land use compatibility matters which result from the introduction of the proposal to this employment area and the proposed expansion of uses permitted on the lands. Specifically, noise, light and odour impacts from the existing GFL facilities need to be assessed, and mitigation measures implemented by the proposal, if required. Further, given the size and scale of the proposed development, potential traffic safety and capacity issues need to be reviewed, in consideration of the heavy truck traffic generated by the existing GFL facilities (as well as other industrial operations in the area). As noted in the City's staff report, preliminary technical studies have been prepared in support of the Durham Live proposal, and the City of Pickering has agreed that the Applicant's zoning by -law amendment application may be pursued in two separate phases. Regardless of the phased approach structure and the Applicant's intention to prepare stand -alone studies to support the "Phase 2 lands" (but updated as part of a single application), it is evident that the impacts associated with the existing GFL facilities (i.e. noise, odour, traffic, etc.) need to be assessed and have not been identified in the preliminary technical studies that have been prepared in support of "Phase 1 "Durham Live proposal. In particular, the "Environmental Noise Feasibility Study" prepared by Aercoustics Engineering Limited and dated March 17, 2014 (the "Noise Study's and the "Durham Live Phase 1 Development Plan Urban Transportation Study' prepared by BA Group and dated March 20, 2014 (the "Traffic Study") neglect to identify and /or assess the noise and traffic impacts from the existing GFL waste transfer and processing facilities, which are adjacent to the western limits of the proposed development. On this basis, we provide the following comments: Noise Study: The existing GFL facilities are not identified as a surrounding land use with respect to the Durham Live proposal. The GFL Lands are simply identified as low density commercial lands to the west in the Noise Study. In reality, the lands to the west of the Durham Live proposal are used for industrial uses. The report identifies that the "principal existing environmental noise sources are road traffic on Highway 401, Church Street, and Bayly Street and railway noise from the CN Rail and GO Transit". The Noise Study does not identify or assess the noise generated by the GFL waste transfer and processing facilities, it only assesses road traffic and railway noise as noted above. While the report does recommend that "Hotels /motels, Schools, Offices, Restaurants, Indoor Theatres should not be approved unless a detailed road & rail traffic noise analysis is conducted and the required noise insulation features are considered by the architectural consultant responsible for the building design ", consideration should also be given to the GFL facilities in any future studies (including noise) relative to the design and implementation of the proposed development. Traffic Study: • The report does not identify the Bayly Street/Toy Avenue intersection as a "key signalized intersection to be assessed Thus, the proposed development does not have an understanding of the trip generation and distribution with respect to GFL's facilities on Toy Avenue. "Local Roads" such as Toy Avenue were not included in this assessment. The report specifically addresses the potential development scenario within the "Phase 1" approval area (i.e. eastern portion of the Durham Live proposed development). While the intention of this application is to prepare stand -alone studies for "Phase 2" of the proposal (as noted in the Traffic Study), traffic impacts associated with the GFL facilities should be included and assessed accordingly as part of "Phase 1 ", in order to have a more detailed understanding of the overall traffic impacts beyond what has already been assessed (i.e. traffic impacts on "Local Roads'." • Notwithstanding issues of road capacity, the proposal to mix heavy industrial truck movements with entertainment based recreational drivers is also a potential safety risk. This aspect of traffic should also be examined to ensure compatibility. In addition to the above, when considering the nature of the neighbouring GFL waste transfer and processing facilities, it is recommended that studies relative to odour and photometric impacts should also be prepared in support of the Durham Live proposal, in order to address other potential impacts on the uses proposed from the GFL lands. :• It is in the public interest that GFL's concerns are addressed prior to the adoption of any zoning by -law amendment for the Durham Live Tourist Destination application. Accordingly, we welcome a meeting with Durham Live representatives and City staff to discuss the above referenced matters. In addition, we are respectfully requesting that City staff provide MHBC all future correspondence relating to proposed Durham Live Tourist Destination development, including notification of future public meetings and any relevant reports. Thank you. Yours truly, MHBC 2'.. :T,Sc, MCIP, RP Partner cc: Patrick Dovigi, GFL Environmental Inc. Damian Rodriguez, GFL Environmental Inc. Barry Horosko, Brattys LLP Caterina Facciolo, Brattys LLP 190 191 ED A J A X. p0c:;a,c AAar-ch 1 i, ?014 Ci.hr of Pickering :Clerks Office Attention: Debbie Shields 1 The :Esplanade Pickerine ON L1V6Kiv 905- 420.4611 Dear Madam We understand that an application has been made to the City of Pickering for officia' plan on Zoning changes in order to permit gaming uses on lands adjacent to and in the vicinih! of Annandale Golf club in Pickering Ontario. We also understand that this application seeks other uses compatible with such gaming uses as vvelt. As you know Ontario Lottery and Gamine (OLG) approved gaming exists on lands in which w1° have an interest in the Tovvn of Ajax, and as a resultv,,e v,ould ask -to be kept advised of all meetings and- hearings which mielit tal c— place vdth respect to this application in Pickering.'t�%e would also ask to be provided -,ndth -copies of all v documentation pled on behalfofthe applicant(s) as well as copies of all reports made by or thru the tow =n ur its of; icials, If there is a charge for such documentation, please advise and tale would be pleased to patio same on request We understand that an information meeting (not-a statutory meeting under the planning act) is to be.11.eld with respect to this, ap.plication in the mg. rith of April and perhaps on April 7«. If that is the case, we particularty ask to be provided tAdth notice of such meeting and We look forward to receipt of same. Please acl•moivled.ge receipt -of this letter by .eithercalling or e- mailing me and as well send all information„ copies etc. to Aiax Downs c/o Emilio Trotta at 380 Kingston I:oad East, Ajax, ON L1Z 1W4.>(905) 686 8001 ext. 24.4. etrotta @ajax.downs:com Yours.- s.sr��'" -M `�M Emilio Trotta CEO Ajax DovArns JO.AL't7:;.1M111i - {,`� C.Rt1SSIIJG .•:ir. }:. (}.i� "C�.RIC? L.I Z. _-.[i ( ..-L r9ar5) 6 961 -Soo I 't=PJ:: (905,j lay — 192 2 J Plym, Ross From: Roberts, Linda Sent: April -16 -14 11:48 AM To: Rose, Catherine; Pym, Ross; Surti, Nilesh Subject: FW: Pickering zoning by -law amendment application A03/13 1802 &1902.Bayly St and 2028 Keliino Rd Pickering Developments [401) Inc etc FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: murray chusid [mailto:mc4873(@icloud.com1 Sent: April -15 -14 4:45 PM To: Roberts, Linda Subject: Pickering zoning by -law amendment application A03/13 1802 &1902 Bayly St and 2028 Kellino Rd Pickering Developments [401] Inc etc Thank you Ms Roberts for informing me that my e -mail sent yesterday at about 4:00 PM arrived without any message. My apology of course The intended message was [and of course still is] as follows: On behalf of the owners and principals of Ajax Downs, I appeared before the Pickering Planning Committee on April 7th last and made oral submissions as permitted under the Ontario Planning Act with respect to the Statutory Public Hearing for the above noted zoning amendment application. This e -mail is simply intended to confirm the above attendance and submissions and to advise that my said clients wish to indicate their concurrence with the issues and concerns exressed in the April 14th letter to your planning department by Mr Gary Muller of the Town of Ajax with respect to the same matter. Kindly forward this e -mail on to your planning department, and thank you again for bringing this e -mail error to my attention. Murray Chusid BA LLB QC 193 Mayor Ryan, Councillors, Members of Planning & Development Cmte; members of the Business community & fellow citizens .4, My name is Rob Owens and i am employed at Pickering Pentecostal Church so my comments reflect the position of the leadership team at PPC. The following comments are in respect to File Type & Number: Zoning Amendment Application: A 03/14 This correspondence is to oppose the application that would make provision for a casino in the City of Pickering. Pickering Pentecostal Church (PPC) is referred to in the reports made available as "surrounding land uses include among others — "a place of worship located at the northeast corner of Bayly Street & Squires Beach Road." -lickering Pentecostal Church by nature of its property location will be directly impacted by the development and building processes that will occur as a result of the by -law change that will allow future development. The proposal that has precipitated this by -law amendment is to broaden employment uses on the subject lands, specifically to provide the flexibility to facilitate the future development of an.integrated mixed use tourist destination. The requested list includes a wide list of "tourist destination uses." While the present zoning includes many of the requested uses, the by -law amendment is to.address a convention centre, hotel & casino. There are several concerns that PPC leadership feels should be expressed given the far - reaching implications and effect of these destination uses. 1. From a social and ethical perspective, we believe the inclusion of a gaming establishment would negatively impact individuals and ultimately families due to the nature of more available gaming. Revenue from gaming do come at the expense of your citizens. Although not able to be. measured in dollars, a gaming experience .gone way to bad can have a profound effect on the lives of those involved. I realize that the broad economic revenue can overwhelm the adverse effects on individuals or a select group of families but there are times when people's lives should receive consideration above straight economics. These challenges are recognized by governing bodies and my understanding is that a required amount of square footage at a gaming facility is designated to "help or counsel" those who 194 desire assistance. Again, this support and help is probably not utilized to full potential because for many, the guidance would have been provided "after the fact." 4 Traffic is a big concern! I 2. Given the construction that would need to occur for the completion of proposed plans, the traffic on Squires Beach and /or Kelino would certainly be affected either by interruptions or increase construction vehicles. - Neither of these roads are in great shape as it is and the increased traffic would deteriorate the roads significantly. Approximately 1300 -1500 individuals use the 1920 Bayly Street building on a weekly basis and the construction would affect this traffic flow. A consideration for the planning committee is the inclusion of an entrance /exit from Bayly on the SouthEast side of 1920 Bayly. if .1 look at Attachment # 3 drawings, this may have already been considered as there does seem to be an allocation for this next to the proposed parking structure. I believe the long -term traffic plan for Squires Beach is to link it with Notion Road on the nort across the 401. This would provide a further link to the South Pickering commercial area and bring increased traffic flow along our property. There is reference to 401 ramps being added — what happens if these route expansions are not approved? 3. The plans that have been presented are at a conceptual phase and the drawings presented are for illustrative purposes. Right now, the plans display smaller structures on the West side of Squires Beach across from the 1920 Bayly property. We do have a concern if those plans change and other structures would be built than those presently proposed. 4. The "noise study" mentions concerns about noise emitted from the amphitheatre that would affect the golf courses and infers that it would be best to "point the noise towards the south and west which is basically right towards the 1920 Bayly property. 5. If the project was to proceed, would there be consideration to having surrounding business link in with the stormwater drainage system that is being proposed. 6. The information report states that one of the matters far the Planning & Design. staff to further review is: "to ensure that the proposed development is compatible with and 195 sensitive to the existing surrounding uses." If I view any of the attachments, the current surrounding uses are few. 4 Would the Planning & Design committee consider these comments made in relation to the surrounding uses? Please include Pickering Pentecostal Church in any future developments /meetings that would occur relating to this project. Thanks for your time in reviewing this correspondence and would welcome feedback from the preceding comments. Thank you, Rob Owens Administration Pickering Pentecostal Church 1920 Ba..1.. r-- n: -L— _:__ r1 AI t -11 A! 196 Len Hummel hummelcl@sympatico.ca 416 283 -1511 (h) 416 866 -3320 (work) April 20, 2014 Mr Ross Pym Principal Planner _ .Development Review City of Pickering Dear Mr Pim, I am writing re Zoning Amendment Application —A 03/14, to amend the zoning by -law to permit a range of tourist related employment uses that could include a casino among other facilities. 1. Kindly note I am not in favour of a gaming facility (casino), for the following reasons: a) From -a social and ethical perspective, I believe the inclusion of a gaming establishment would negatively impact individuals and ultimately families due to the nature of more available gaming. According to the website from the Problem Gambling Institute of Ontario — Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), there are several risk factors that can contribute to the development of gambling problems. One such factor is that people are more at risk of developing a gambling problem if they have easy access to their preferred form of gambling. Having another casino in Southern Ontario would increase accessibility to those who are at risk of developing a. gambling problem. Rates of suicide are higher for people who gamble excessively, and for their family members. The CAMH website states: " It is estimated that 3.2% of Canadian adults are affected by moderate to severe problem gambling and this number is rising yearly with increased internet and slot machine gambling. Gambling problems are responsible for a tremendous impact on individuals and families affected. " See the following link: http: /Jwww camp ca /en /research /research areas /clinical translational labs/translational - - addiction- research / Pages /GamblingAddictionResearch.aspx By allowing another gaming establishment in Southern Ontario, the opportunities for even more people to suffer from problem gambling will only increase. b) The people of Pickering have not had a chance to adequately discuss whether or not to allow a gaming establishment in Pickering. On Dec 10, 2012 council voted to allow. Pickering to be a willing host for a casino. Apparently the only notice given in advance of this vote was via the City of Pickering website. I am not aware of anyone who was aware of this critical vote in 197 advance of it taking place. As the issue is so important to the community, it is worthy of public consultation. c) Traffic could be an issue. During the construction phase, regular traffic flow in the Bayly St & Squires Beach Rd area could be hindered. Furthermore, once construction is complete, ongoing traffic needs to be assessed. Those who attend PPC should not be affected by increased traffic flow during construction and post construction. 2. Pickering City Council is presently considering including a question to the Electors for the 2014 Municipal Election along the lines of the following: "Are you in favour of a gaming facility. (casino) in the City of Pickering as part of a Hotel Convention Centre, Entertainment Complex in a non- residential area ?" I support such a question (with amendment to wording as indicated below) being placed before the Electors during the 2014 Municipal election. This will give the people of Pickering the opportunity to weigh in on whether a casino should be allowed in the City of Pickering. Furthermore, I highly recommend that any decision re the Zoning Amendment Application — A 03/14 (to amend the zoning by- law to permit a range of tourist related employment uses that could include a casino among other facilities) should only be made after the 2014 Municipal election. If the ballot question reveals that the people of Pickering are not in favour of a gaming facility (casino) in the City of Pickering as part of a Hotel Convention Centre, Entertainment Complex in a non - residential area, then the Zoning Amendment Application — A 03/14 should be declined. Furthermore, the ballot question should be worded in such a way to clearly focus on whether a casino should be allowed. The question should be stated along the lines of the following: "Are you in favour of a gaming facility (casino) in the City of Pickering ?" Whether to have a Hotel Convention Centre and Entertainment Complex do not appear to be controversial issues warranting a ballot question during the 2014 Municipal election. Most citizens of the City of Pickering would not likely have an issue with having a Hotel Convention Centre and Entertainment Complex. However, whether to have a gaming facility (casino) is a much more controversial issue such that a ballot question is warranted. To include whether to have a Hotel Convention Centre and Entertainment Complex in the question only clouds the main issue, that is, whether to have a gaming facility {casino) in the City of Pickering. Please note I attend the Pickering Pentecostal Church (PPC), 1920 Bayley St Pickering. I am also a board Member and active volunteer at PPC. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, Len Hummel X P m, Ross From: Shields, Debbie Sent: April -22 -14 6:11 PM To: Pym, Ross Cc: Roberts, Linda Subject: FW: Durham Live Complex - Approval email From: Todd Smith Finailto•smithtc2(Drogers.com1 Sent: April -08 -14 5:35 PM To: Shields, Debbie Subject: Durham Live Complex - Approval email Hi Debbie, we saw the full page publication in the Pickering Advertiser about the fact that some folks at Ajax Downs are not in favour of it and want it cancelled. My wife and I could not make that Monday April 7 meeting but we want to put our vote in favour of this project. It will create a lot more jobs that it will retract, ,t will cause the city's infrastructure to be upgraded, It will help the fed's process with accelerating the Pickering International Airport, It will provide a first class entertainment environment, It will attract more corporations and their tax revenue, and higher quality ones as well. There are many more positive reasons.... The folks are Ajax Downs can apply to work at our Casino. We like Ajax people. Please let Mayor Ryan and the City counsel know we are in favour of this and we think they are doing a great job! Sincerely, Todd & Kim Smith 448 Rougemount Drive Pickering, Ontario L1W 2137 H - 905.509.2746 199 Pym, Ross From: Shields, Debbie Sent: April -23 -14 5:00 PM To: Pym, Ross; Roberts, Linda Subject: FW: Re "Durham Live" project From: Sue Quackenbush [ mailto :ppbutterflykisses(a)rogers.com1 Sent: April -21 -14 2:52 PM To: Shields, Debbie Subject: Re "Durham Live" project Good Morning Debbie; Please pass these, our concerns for the "Durham Live" project on to the council and planning dept. Speaking for the people that live in our area, South of the 401, driving Eastbound on most week Jays, starting at 2:30 pm - 3:00ish, the 401 is backed up and slow, and Bayly is the same, starting West of Church St. This being the situation now, what will the condition be, should this new complex be built? Also, anyone using the 401 to get to the new complex, would need to use either the Brock Rd or Westney Rd interchanges, adding MORE volume to these already busy interchanges, leading to further congestion, especially during peak hours. We are limited to the roads that take us either East/West or North, and Church St will be that much busier should this complex be built. We are aware of the ever growing population, requiring more food to be grown, yet, decisions are being made that the "Quality" land that grows the food is "being" zoned to put that land under "concrete" and "asphalt ". Where is the food (yours & ours) to. come from ? ?? A number of Us are conscious of where are food comes from, and wish to "support" our local farmers. The arable land, on this acreage is currently being used for agriculture, and we feel it should continue in that usage. Not to further decrease our local growers. Let the wetlands continue to be wetlands, as they are important for the eco- system. According to the Provincial Gov't, we already have a casino in this designated area, We congratulate Pickering on their awareness and diligence to create jobs. However, if the Ajax casino closed, that also closes the race track, and "many" more jobs would be lost. We sincerely ask, if people are aware of the ramifications that would affect farmers and the businesses that are spun out from the horse racing industry. Everyone from growing the hay, grain, straw, wood shavings, to feeding and caring for the horses. Please consider the jockeys, trainers, stable hands, tack shops & their suppliers, farriers, etc, the trickle down is huge. It's just like GM is to our area and what everyone talks about with their shutdowns. We hope and encourage our elected people and planners, who are custodians of our lands, future generations will "Thank" us for preserving Food generating land. This is "not" a "New" concept. Food over Landings!!!! Food over quarries!!!! Food over an entertainment complex!!! 200 We have Great concerns on the Overall Effects of this Project. Thank you for your acceptance of our thoughts. Sue Quackenbush & Ken Devine 506 - 1210 Radom St. Pickering, On L1 W 2Z3 201 f a 6�- - f Fx F- Cr- IVELJ CfTY OF PICKERING APR 0 8 2014 CLERK'S OFFICE 202 I P m, Boss Front: Bishop, Ian Sent: April -07 -14 8:42 AM , To: 'Pym, Ross Subject: FW: Plan for casino -- Original Message---= - From: infopesolutionsgroup.ca fmailto :infopesolutionsgroup.cal On Behalf Of K wasayphotmail.com Sent: April =06 -14 5:15 PM To: Planning Web,Email Subject: Plan for casino A very important factor for this development is the the 2 only exits for Pickering, Brock and Whites road. For this development to succeed with out stress, we would need to� develop a plan to build a 401-exit from westbound exiting off the highway at Church st. South of the 401. We can put a light there and that would also serve as additional major City of Pickering exit, with traffic being able to head North or South on Church st. This plan would not Interfere with the rail way tracks. Also to help traffic get on to the 401 they can make entrances to the 401 heading East and West. To save the city money, we.can include this cost in the budget for the casino development. Thanks, Wasay Khan Origin: http / /www pickering ca /en /cityhall /officialplan. asp? _mid =8914 ------------------------------- - - - - -- This email was sent to you by K wasay@hotmail.com through http• / /www.pickering -ca /. 203 }a Pym, Ross From: Roberts, Linda Sent: April-07-14 8:34 AM To: Rose, Catherine; Surii, Niiesh; Pym, Ross Subject: FW: Pickering Casino FYI From: Leonardo ueronesi jmailto:feozeira@grnail.com] Sent:: April-04-14 9:14 PM To: Roberts, Linda Subject: Pickering Casino - I would like to raise my concerns around the proposal to have a Casino built in Pickering along with the Entertainment complex. I don't see the benefits that such proposal would bring if jobs will be lost as a result of this project as well the negative impact to the Durham Region and its society. Cities like Toronto, Vaughan and Markham have refused this proposal already! �Zegards; Leonardo Veronesi 426 -356 -3171 204 Pym, Ross From: Roberts, Linda Sent: April -07 -14 8:35 AM To: Rose, Catherine; Surti, Nilesh; -Pym, Ross Subject: FW: Gambling casino in Pickering - public meeting -April 7, 2014 fYi From: Dolores Forster Imailto•doloresfor(cb mail.coml Sent: April -04 -14 12:56 PM To: Roberts, Linda; Harker, Lisa Subject: Fwd: Gambling casino in Pickering - public meeting - April 7, 2014 - - - - - -- - -- Forwarded message ---- - - - - -- From: Dolores Forster <doloresforngYmail.com> Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 12:52 PM Subject: Gambling casino in Pickering - public meeting - April 7, 2014 To: dshieldsQpickering.ca My husband and I are unable to be at the April 7 meeting, but as long time Pickering residents we wanted to make knows our strong objection to the building of a massive casino /entertainment complex here in Pickering. Not only would it mean the Loss of horse racing and countless agricultural jobs in Durham region but would bring much more traffic into the area - something we definitely do not need! We realize it would provide some added tax dollars .... but really at what cost? Let's keep Pickering a good and safe place to live, raise families and enjoy the natural pleasures of the area.. We say NO to a Casino/Entertainment complex in Pickering! Dolores Forster Karl Goebel 1774 Shadybrook Drive Pickering, Ontario LI -V3A5 205 Pym, Ross From: Roberts, Linda Sent: April -07 -14 8:36 AM To: Rose, Catherine; Surti, Niiesh; Pym, Ross Subject: FW: Casino FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Shields, Debbie Sent: April -04 -14 2:03 PM To: Roberts, Linda Subject: FW: Casino From: fostermum3pgmail.com [fostermum3 @gmail.com] Sent: Friday, April 04, 2014 1:14 PM To: Shields, Debbie Subject: Casino Hello Debbie, I am writing this e -mail to voice my concerns about the possible future casino in Pickering. It has been my observation that people I have known have destroyed their many hardships for their families through their addiction to gambling. Al those who prey on gamblers. For these reasons and others I do not support Pickering. Yours sincerely, John Foster U. lives and caused so, casinos attract a casino in 1.3 Pym, Ross From: Cheryl Bezanson [cbezanson3 @hotmail.com] Sent: April -09 -14 9:44 PM To: Pym, Ross Subject: RE: Resort at Bayly & Church Thank you for getting back to me. Unfortunately I missed the meeting ... only discovered 'info about it the evening of the 7th, I would like my comments to be.part of the public record. Cheryl Bezanson 41 Afillows Lane Ajax, Ontario L1S 6E7 905- 683 -8231 I am concerned with allowing a casino /resort to be built at Bayly and Church street. The access routes to such a structure would obviously include Church Street. There is an elementary school on Church Street and another on Lincoln Avenue that runs off Church Street so there is a lot of foot traffic by children, as well as ;chool bus traffic. I think it would be unsafe to residents to increase traffic in this area. I also don't think we need another casino in the area., One is enough. Another would only, encourage more gambling and increase the risk for crime, addicition and other personal issue for people that will weigh on our social system. I hope this project does not move forward. 3 Thank you. 207 aboutblank RECEIVED '14 July 11, 2014 JUL 2 8 2014 602 -1210 Radom St CITY OF PICKER {NG Pickering, ON CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT L1W 2Z3 Re; Downtown Intensification and Durham "Live" To Whom It May Concern;. My name is Mary Ann Boyd, and I reside in Bayshore Towers on Radom 5t. I have been a resident of Pickering for many years. Public transit is now my main means of getting around, as I no longer drive because of health concerns. I also now rewire a walker to aid my mobility. The transit system is making it harder to get around, rather than easier: We seniors who use the Community Bus feel confined, because it limits our activities with it's limited schedule. Transfer stops are no logger user friendly, especially for those of ins who have mobility issues. The traffic congestion mid afternoon on city and regional roads, especially going East is past enjoyable. As a cancer survivou ; and wishing to remain so, I try to keep all my appointments with my Dr's at Lakeridge Cancer Centre in Oshawa. Each appointment, the whole procedure, including waiting time can last for approx 3 hours. If I have an early afternoon appointment I'm able to get a ride over with a volunteer driver; But unable to get a return ride back, as drivers don't. drive during that rush hots -r period, and the volunteer offices close around 4:30. r- taxi costs C.0 to come back; and after an appointment I don't have the energy it takes to make all the conections with the buses. I live on a limited income and having to snake that expense, puts a further st uin of my budget. I feel if these 2 "new" projects, should they be approved, they are not going to help the traffic situation, Only make it worse. Not Ever=;one works in downtown Toronto and rides the GO train. You may noticed that I haven't (until now) even said anything about the existing problem most, or all of us living in the Bay Ridges area have, and that is the evacuation of the area, should there be a derailment or an emergence at the poluer plant. How can a "senior" afford to live in the "City" centre, where they will need to be, to have the services they Once had in heir -awn neighbourhoods; Grocer`s stores, Dr's, Dentists, Pharmacy, Bank, Etc, within walking distance, because developers ha =.re been buying up all the little plaza's to put up condo's, townhouses or offices, and City Council have been giving them a rubber stamp of approval, really without regard to the wishes of how the people, Yes, the People feel. Hasty Markets, ?- Elevens or Mac's Milic don't cur it. Think, Yes Think of how City Council feels when the Provincial Government does not listen to objections they 208 - -- ------ - - - - -- about:blank put forth, and steam rolls decisions in place. I am aware that a healthy and vibrant city requires expansion and progress, but some restraint would be nice to see. Dollars from new tax payers, are not always the best decision. People need some space between them to allow them to breath and live. It also lessens people's tensions, and by doing so, keeps them healthier and off the health care system. We have seen in cities where too much "intensification" leeds to slum conditions and increased crime, which in the end costs the city (taxpayers) more money. I believe that before expansion is allowed, "All" infrastructure has to be in place, both on and off site. Finished, Completed, and Read and 'Not" having the infrustructure done as . an after - thought. The costs of the infrustructure need be paid in full or no,less than 75% by the developer. 'It's his project, his cost. Thank you in advance for your co- operation in listening to my concerns and requests. Sincerely 14 23/07/2014 9:05 PM 209 Part B Written Public Comments Received on Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 From "Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino" Flyer Number Commenter ., . Comments 1. David Steele. the consideration of the proposal is premature as 966 Timmins Garden several supporting studies still haven't been completed Pickering ` a City report should be prepared on the Church Street interchange and the Notion Road - Squires Beach Road connection, that will include time frame to complete, MTO approval and cost estimates to complete including environmental assessment • a City report should be prepared on the traffic congestion in the area • a City report should be prepared if the referendum ballot question regarding a casino is null and void • Pickering seek Provincial approval to build proposed development and infrastructure prior to partial land use zoning final approval 2. William Girling • in support of the application 159 Spruce Hill Rd. Pickering 3. Richard Adams . supports the casino proposal and hopes that OLG and 427 Pineview Lane local jurisdictions could work together to increase the Pickering revenue sharing with municipalities 4. Adam Macintosh • supports the proposal as the positive impacts will 1583 Edgecroft Dr. outweigh any issues Pickering 5. Laurel Coish supports the performing arts centre and park and 1563 Heathside Cres. opposed to casino as people gamble away their Pickering money 6. Jeff Bowers questions the need for any development at this time Email -no address does not see the need for a casino in Pickering provided. 7. Fazeed Ramjohn concern with road infrastructure and. police presence 838 Zator Ave.. as existing roads are already congested and casinos Pickering bring crime 8. B. Bullock area roads are already congested and the 1507 Rawlings Dr. development would worsen the traffic congestion, Pickering although see's the economic benefits 9. Janice Cook • concern with proposal Email -no address provided 10. Finhas Jhaaveri • objects to the proposal 1205 Charlotte Circle • casino's will attract the wrong kind of people and will Pickering increase crime in the area 210 211 11. Lynda Burke • proposal is an extraordinary endeavour for boosting Email -no address Pickering's welfare for tourism provided • there needs to be better traffic flow in the area 12. Bob Kramer • supports the business development (convention Email -no address centre, office buildings, amphitheatre etc.) not in favour provided of casino due to the drawbacks of gambling addiction 13. Brian Major • supports the project but opposed to casino as Email -no address Pickering must continue to be family first city. provided 14. Angela Kirby • concern with proposal, issues such as lack of parking 925 Bayly St. and traffic Pickering 15. Lisa Anne Gray • opposed to the casino as it is unnecessary for 561 Norfolk Sq. Pickering . Pickering 16. Jeffrey Everingham supports the proposal 1235 Radom St. Pickering 17. Ray Kotchie in favour with the proposal but concern with traffic 1369 Fordon Ave. problems Pickering 18. Joe Yukich opposed to casino use, other proposed uses would not 307 Fiddlers Crt. Pickering be offensive 19. Andrei Zelenine opposed to the casino, issues include increased crime, 318 Fiddlers Crt. gambling addiction, prostitution and impact on social Pickering services 20. Colleen Timmins in favour of all proposal with the exception of the 982 Timmins Garden casino due to the negative impacts of casinos Pickering instead of a casino suggest green space for youths and families and a visual art centre 21. Joyce Herzog opposed to casino use but would support other uses if Email -no address provided no casino 22. Alex Parker 855 Liverpol Rd. Pickering opposed to the casino, traffic concerns 23. Jim Farinton questions what portion of casino revues will be used to Email -no address provided help lower residential taxes 24. George Turner opposed to the project, land should be used to entice 1780 Listowell Cres. manufacturing jobs Pickering concerns related to: traffic; need for a convention centre; cost to police the proposal; low paying jobs 25. Dawn McBride supports the project, only negative concern is traffic 1835 Storrington St. Pickering congestion 211 Number Corrimeriter Comments 26. Bruce Cowan . supports the project with the exception of the casino 1605 Rawlings Dr. use Pickering . casino revenue does not solve municipal financial problems 27. Irene Pantalone . supports the proposal, will bring jobs to the area Email -no address C questions if any impact on property values provided 28. Chris Daniell . a casino would not be in the best interest of Pickering Email -no address residents, concerns with traffic, proposed location is provided not suitable for this form of development 29. Gary Wicks opposed to casino and project, wrong place for the 420 Brian Ct. project and traffic concerns Pickering 30. Pilolla . opposed to a casino, people wreck their lives there Email -no address because they spend all their money provided 31. Nancy Lyew • supports the proposal, will bring opportunities for jobs , m Eail -no address increased revenue, modernization and sustainability provided 32. Doug Gregory • no objection, does note loss of agricultural lands 861 Naroch Blvd. Pickering 33. Jan vanTol • in support 1894 New St. Pickering 34. Andrew Larter . objects to the proposal on the grounds of: cale and 1006 Mountcastle location; impacts on the community and environment; Pickering and, design and implementation 35. Robert Violo opposed to the proposal, concerns related to traffic, Email -no address impact on the Lake Ontario shore and not the kind of provided uses/development Pickering needs 36. Alexf12 . opposed to casino Email -no address or name provided 37. Holly Foord . opposed to the proposal, project is short sighted and Email -no address socio - economically disastrous chain of events provided 38. David Caruana . questions why Pickering would accept a casino and try 1275 Maple Ridge Dr. to squeeze it in an already congested area Pickering 39. Dianne Hadden . supports the casino and entertainment complex 648 Annland St. Pickering 40. Terry Nuspl . in favour of the proposal, could use the employment Email -no address opportunities, hotels etc. of the proposal provided 212 213 41. Jim Bowen & Jane support the proposal Cottrell 1891 Pinecreek Ct. Pickering 42. Mary Mauceri opposed to casino, would have a significant impact on Email -no address the community and City provided a casino would have a negative influence on families 213 Pym, Ross From: davidsteele [dj.steele @sympatico.ca] Sent: June -08- 141-0:52 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; Councillor Jennifer O'Connell Subject: Response to your Flier Attachments: To.docx Bill and Jennifer, Please read the attached document. David 214 "1. To: Councillor Ms. Jennifer O'Connell Councillor Mr. Bill Mclean Casino- Hotel Zoning Application The City of Pickering referendum vote on the City of Pickering election ballot asks if you support the development of a hotel, casino, arts center, water park, film studios, office space, retail, convention center and infrastructure development to and from the proposed development area. The developer is seeking a land zone change prior to the City of Pickering Municipal election that will be held in Oct -2014. Once the land is re -zoned for the development of a hotel and casino (first stage) the referendum vote will serve no purpose. The proposed hotel and casino at the corner of Bayly and Church streets would include 2.7- million square feet. It is in my opinion that the zoning approval for the proposal is premature as several supporting studies still haven't been completed. 1) Hwy. 401 partial proposed 40.1 interchange at Church Street, as well as a connection .between Notion and Squires Beach roads has not been estimated, no environmental studies have been commissioned. The Ajax planner estimated cost is around 100,000,000.00 million dollars to build interconnection to the proposed development. Recommendation 41: City of Pickering Planning Department complete a written report with time frame to complete infrastructure with M.O.T. approval and cost estimate to complete including environmental assessment. 2) The present first stage of the land zoning amendment is for a hotel and casino only. Recommendation 42: City of Pickering Planning Department complete a written report on traffic congestion in the proposed development area and to include surrounding areas to Brock Road to the west, Hardwood Road to the east, Hwy 2 to the north and Bayly street to the south. . 3) As the question on the development is a referendum question on the election vote it is important to the citizens of Pickering know if there vote cast counts. Recommendation #3: City of Pickering Clerk completes a written report if the referendum ballot is null and void prior to the last council meeting before summer City of Pickering council break. 215 4) The City of Pickering was offered 1 million dollars a year from Town of Ajax O.L.G. slot machine facility, what guarantee are we of receiving approval from the Ontario Government that the proposed development for Pickering will be approved by O.L.G. Recommendation A. The City of Pickering seeks approval from the Province of Ontario to build the proposed development and infrastructure to include the 401 interchange prior to partial land zoning final approval. A conditional zoning agreement is approved by council and developer for the full proposed development and infrastructure with time schedules for all development upon Province of Ontario approval and support of the majority of the referendum vote. Central Development Proposal To intensify the central of City of Pickering could be good planning if the developments are of high quality with good neibourhood planning to include all recreational, educational, green space, retail, restaurants and easily accusable by bike, no cars just public transportation. Recommendation #5 That all buildings and infrastructure be of the highest standard as not to repeat St James Town and other high rise building in Toronto that will require enormous retrofits in twenty years or less. That all buildings-be built to LED gold or platinum standards. David Steele iL� _ _ $$_ „_ _I_ M Pickering 216 RECE14VED RECEIVED CfTY C F P"'KE-RING JUN 1 7 2 0 1 14 :.,N COUNGILLORS' c- Ty oF"pFjc:KF-R[NG RECEIV L; C{ it DNELAPNIE DEPArl MENT 0 N, 14 c cn�e ti CITY OF PICKERING DEPMM-r-� CM DEVELOPMEN William H Girling 1959 Spruce Hill Rd Pickering ON Ll V 1S6 2 217 Pym, Ross From: Richard Adams [rich a rd. adams @sympatico.ca] Sent: June -02 -14 5:42 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Proposed zoning changes and casino Hello I am a resident of Pickering and I support any changes that would bring a casino to Pickering. I also believe that Toronto voted it down because Council wanted a bigger piece of the revenue from the Province. I would hope that all politicians from each OLG location/jurisdiction could work together to equally raise the revenue that the province "shares" with the local municipality. I would appreciate any lists or social sites that I can join to further follow this topic. Thank you very much. Richard Adams 427 Pineview Lane Pickering, Ontario, L1V7G9 218 1 P m, Ross From: Adam Macintosh [Adam. Macintosh @websan.com] Sent: June -11 -14 10:49 AM To: Pickles, David, Councillor Cc: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino Hi I am a resident of Pickering for almost 30 years. Over that time, I have seen the community grow in many ways. As someone that commutes into Toronto daily for work, my biggest complaint for the City of Pickering has always been the lack of quality jobs. After thoroughly reviewing the proposed Pickering downtown & casino project, I would like to inform you that I whole- heartedly support this venture. I am aware of potential issues that may arise as a result, but feel the positive impacts would greatly outweigh any issues. I would like to lend my voice to you in any way needed to help get this project approved by Council. Much thanks Adam Macintosh 1583 Edgecroft Drive Pickering, ON UX 0136 adam.macintosh@websan.com 1 219 Pym, Ross From: Farley [princefarley @sympatico.ca] Sent: June -11 -14 5:23 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Re: casino My address is 1563 Heathside Cres. Pickering Ontario L1V 5V8 - - - -- Original Message---- - From: McLean, Bill, Councillor Sent: June 11,-2014 9:51 To: Farley Cc: O'Connell, Jennifer., Councillor Subject: Re: casino Thank you for your e mail,could you supply us with your address and we will forward your concerns to our planning department. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. From: Farley Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:24 AM To:. McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: casino Thanks for asking for input on the plans for the property near the go station. I. love the idea of a performing arts centre and the park but I am . totally against bringing a casino to Pickering. Encouraging people to gamble away their hard earn money is not something I want to do. Leave it to other cities. They generally do not bring in the money people expect and bring in an unsavoury element to the city. Laurel Coish CA This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and /or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e -mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. 220 1 G P m, Ross From: Jeff Bowers oeffbowers @rogers.com] Sent: June -08 -14 12:56 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Cc: Lynn Bowers (Work and Rogers Email); Larry Noonan (email); Rosemary Speirs Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino +Jennifer (I had wrong email address initially). Warmest Regards, Jeff Bowers From: Jeff Bowers Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2014 12:45 PM To: bmclean(a)pickering.ca; ennifer@ienniferconnell.ca Cc: Lynn Bowers (Work and Rogers Email); Jeff Bowers (Rogers); Larry Noonan (email); Rosemary Speirs Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino Good Afternoon. Thank you for literature you distn`buted on proposed changes to Pickering. Let's start by turning the whole thing around. What's wrong with Pickering just the way it is ?. What problem is all this development trying to solve? I can only assume profit oriented people and companies (the ones driving) do seethe up side. I would argue what makes Pickering livable and pleasant and appealing is the fact that it isn't overly developed; if all the things that are being discussed are implemented, in time Pickering will start to look more like Toronto then the charm we have today. Let's break it down. Jobs: I can already hear the argument that all this will create jobs; jobs for who? I would seethe bulk of the employed coming from outside Pickering so how does this help us? Also I can seethe bulk of the j obs being low wage paying so how is that-really helping anyone? How about getting some major corporations to set up here instead or more high end industries that bring high paying jobs. Taxes: I can. also hear this already; add to the tax base; is there a problem with the tax base now? We all seem to be managing as is so what is their to fix? Traffic: Traffic is already beginning to become an issue in Pickering on certain routes; with this development traffic jams will go to a whole new Ievel..All this development does zero for no car needed ideas; where are we with building huge boulevards with pedestration only, promenades and the like? Environment: No matter how you slice it, more building, more light, more people, more traffic, more waste; none of it fairs well for the natural world; from bird and animals to all that more human negative by- products being produced. 221 Casino: This is always. controversial. Why do we need one? For what? It a behaviour that isn't necessary and can for some only lead to negative. Again the job argument is lame; the bulk of jobs at a casino will be low paying. So, in summary, while some development is inevitable, what's the rush? Why don't we just slowly and organically grow with 'a well thought through process. Thank you. Warmest Regards, Jeff Bowers 222 2 7 Pym, Ross From: fazeed ramjohn [faz969 @hotmail.com] Sent: June -09 -14 9:19 PM To :' McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: RE: Proposed Casino in Pickering Fazeed Ramjohn 838 Zator ave Pickering Ont L1W 1Y1 647 969 5740 Regard$ • From: bmclean(a@pickering.ca • To: faz969 @hotmail.com • Subject: Re: Proposed Casino in Pickering ' • Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2014 01:07:53 +0000 > Could you also supply your address and phone number also. • Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. • From: fazeed ramjohn • Sent: Monday, June 9, 2014 8:53 PM • To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor • Cc: Dickerson; Doug, Councillor • Subject: Proposed Casino in Pickering > > > Hi Bill & Jennifer, > I really appreciate you taking the time and using the city funds to communicate using a news letter in the mail and asking the residents for feedback on the proposed changes and developments in our great city.ln my opinion these are the types of expenses that are justifiable for tax payers do- Ilars,l'm totally against and consider the expending of alcohol by city councilors not a good use of taxpayer dollars and absolutely wrong ,unfortunately Mr Dickerson does not agree with me . > With respect to the Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino expansion ,my greatest concern is the balance of infrastructure for roads and police presence .Currently we only 2 interchanges for Pickering and only 2 lane roads that are already congested and in need of repair With casinos brings crime and to be perfectly honest I do not agree with the government supporting casinos because it only destroys lives . > I hope you table my concerns at the next council meeti.ng. > Regards > Fazeed Ramjohn 1. 223 Pym, Ross From: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Sent: June -05 -14 11:42 AM To: B BULLOCK Cc: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Re: Development proposals Hello, Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with us. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out the newsletter specifically to seek feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I appreciate your specific comments. With your permission can I share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all before this decision is made and also ensure you are made aware of when this proposal will be debated. Sincerely, Jennifer Jennifer O'Connell Regional Councillor, ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 iennifer@ ienniferoco6nell.ca www.pickering.ca www.jenniferoconnell.ca Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! On 2014- 06 -05, at 9:33 AM, B BULLOCK wrote: I am writing in regards to your notification flyer regarding the two development proposals which would affect Hwy 2, Liverpool, and Bayly These areas are already highly trafficked and congested at times and although I see the economic benefits to these proposals 'l do feel it would worsen the congestion within this area. B. Bullock 1.507 Rawlings Dr Pickering. L1 V4Z9 224 1 From: iennifer @ienniferoconnell.ca Subject: Re: Thank you for your mail out re: Pickering Downtown and Casino Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 21:45:25 -0400 To: edgesskate sympatico.ca Perfect. I will check with Councillor McLean and get back to you with some meeting date options. Jennifer O'Connell . Regional Councillor, Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 iennifer ienniferoconnell.ca www.pickering.ca www.ienniferoconnell.ca Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2014, at 9:37 PM, JANICE COOK <edgesskate@svmpatico.ca> wrote: Yes, that would be great. Let me know when you will both be available to meet with me. Best regards, Janice From: iennifer ienniferoconnell.ca Subject: Re: Thank you for your mail out re: Pickering Downtown and Casino Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2014 21:03:56 -0400 To: edgesskate @sympatico.ca Hi Janice, Thank you for your email. Yes I would be happy to discuss these items further with you. Would you like me to invite Councillor McLean as well? We have been collecting this feedback together. Thanks, Jennifer Jennifer O'Connell I 2 225 Regional Councillor, Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 Lennifer(@ienniferoconnell.ca www.pickering.ca wwwjenniferoconnell.ca Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2014, at 8:20 PM, JANICE COOK <edgesskate(@svmpatico.ca> wrote: Good Evening Jennifer: Thank you for your pamphlet regarding the proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino. I would like to arrange a meeting with you to discuss a few of my concerns, as well as some suggestions for the proposed expansion of "Downtown Pickering ". Please let me know when you are available to meet with me in the near future. Many thanks, Janice Cook Pickering Resident for the past 23 years. 905 - 420 -8225 226 3 M �a Pym,Ross From: Finhas Jhaveri [finhas @yahoo.com] Sent: June -06 -14 8:40 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Cc: Rashna Jhaveri Subject:. Casino in Dickering Hello Bill and Jennifer, I received the flyer in my mailbox proposing the building of a casino in Pickering. I do not approve of this at all, as a casino will.bring in the wrong kind of people and will increase crime in the area. Pickering is a great family friendly area and I enjoy it being residential. I don't want it to become a commercial hub. I am very concerned and strongly object to this proposal. I hope you take my views into consideration. Thank you for your consideration. Finhas Jhaveri Resident of 1205 Charlotte Circle 1 227 1 1 ym, Ross From: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Sent: June -05 -14 11:46 AM To: Lynda Burke Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino - 2 Hi Lynda, Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with me. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out the newsletter specifically to seek feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I appreciate your specific comments. The issue of traffic is certainly a concern that has been raised by residents as well as Councillor McLean and myself during the Public Information session. With your permission can I share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all before this decision is made? Thank you once again for taking the time to comment. Sincerely, Jennifer -------------- - - - - -- Jennifer O'Connell Regional Councillor; Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 iennifer@ ienniferoconnell.ca www.oickering.ca www.ienniferoconnell.ca Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! On 2014- 06 -05, at 10:31 AM, Lynda Burke wrote: Dear Jennifer: Here are my comments. The Pickering Downtown area looks very good and encouraging for Pickering residents. Also, the Durham Live proposal is an extraordinary endeavor for boosting Pickering's welfare for tourism. We have been in 228 Pickering for 29 years this end of June, and nothing has been more exciting than this proposal. However, we do need better traffic flow areas, especially in our area. Whites. Road gets so congested with the exit from the 401, though I do not know of a solution, that will be left• to the experts. Also, we enjoy the concerts at the waterfront. It is a show of community when we go there and meet with friends. I hope this is enough for your On 03/06/2014 5:39 PM, Councillor Jennifer O'Connell wrote: Hi Lynda, If you email me your comments and provide your address and phone number we can share them with staff to include as part if the staff report for all of Council to consider. Thank you once again, Jennifer Jennifer O'Connell Regional Councillor, Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 j ennifer@j enniferoconnell. ca www_pickering.ca www jenniferoconnell.ca Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2014, at 4:20 PM, Lynda Burke <Lyndaburke@rogers.com> wrote: Dear Jennifer, Lynda here again. I went to the site and I did not notice anywhere to vote or to give my compliments. Can you assist me in this matter? Lynda 2 229 P m, Ross From: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Sent: June -04 -14 9:28 PM To: Bob Kramer Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino Hello Bob, Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with us. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out the newsletter specifically to seek feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I appreciate your.specific comments. With your permission I can share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all before this decision is made. Thank you once again for taking the time to comment. Sincerely, Jennifer -------------- - - - - -- Jennifer O'Connell Regional Councillor, Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 Jennifer @ienniferoconnell ca www.pickering.ca www.ienniferoconnell ca Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! On 2014- 06 -04, at 7:32 PM, Bob Kramer wrote: Dear Ms. O'Connell, I recently, received a flyer detailing the proposed expansion of "downtown Pickering ". Although I support the proposed business development (ie. Convention Centre, Office Buildings, Amphitheatre, etc.), I am not in favour'of the casino. 230 12 I do not feel the benefits (ie. jobs, tourism, etc.) outweigh the drawbacks of gambling addiction, etc. Just as Toronto has rejected proposed casinos for the Toronto downtown, I hope you will see fit to vote against any proposed casino for the Pickering downtown. Sincerely, Bob Kramer 2 231 13 Pym, Ross From: Brian Major [majorbrian @hotmail.com] Sent: June -04 -14 7:50 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Downtown Development Councillors McLean & O'Connell, Today I received your information package on the proposed downtown development projects. Having read through the package and the linked reports, I think this provides an exciting opportunity for the city of Pickering to build for the future. There are several parts of the report that I found very important - the commitment to green space, a walkable /bikeable downtown and the importance of ensuring the proper mix of land uses. The areas identified can certainly benefit from development as long as these commitments are respected. Having said all that, I do think there needs to be caution with the type of facilities being planned. First and foremost, I do not believe a casino should be part of the development project. Pickering must continue to be a family first city - a casino does not fit with the city I Anvicinn I look forward to hearing more about the projects are they Regards, Brian Major 232 1 14 Pym, Ross From: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Sent: June -04 -14 10:10 PM To: angelakirby @woridline.ca Cc: McLean, Bill, Councillor; ca @295.ca Subject: Re: Hi Angela, Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with us. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out the. newsletter specifically to seek feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I appreciate your specific comments. With your permission I can share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all before this decision is made and also ensure you are made aware of when this proposal will be debated. We understand that staff may have a report for Council to consider at the Planning Committee meeting on July 7th, therefore if you have additional comments prior to this meeting please share them with us. Thank you once again for taking the time to comment. Sincerely, Jennifer Jennifer O'Connell Regional Councillor, Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 iennifer@ ienniferoconnell.ca Www.oickerina.ca www.i e n n i f e roco n n e l l. ca Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! On 2014- 06 -04, at 9:42. PM, angelakirbynworldline.ca wrote: Have had a very quick scan of the proposals mentioned in your recent flyer and find them truly scary. There is no space alloted or identified on any of the figures you provided for parking, let alone expansion of Bayly Street into a more major highway. 233 Had the recent sirens truly indicated a nuclear disaster, we could not T have got out! Whites is under construction, Liverpool had work in " progress, Brock was under construction, and such high density amendments to the lands between Hwy 401 and Bayly Street appear to be supported by our city staff?. Incredible! I am.truly concerned. Unfortunately, I leave early tomorrow morning and will not be back in town till the end of the month. I hope this will allow me time to read the full reports and respond. Thank you for your flyer. Yours truly, Angela M.Kirby 3 =925 Bayly Street Pickering, ON L 1 W 1 L4 Canada P: 905- 839 -5264 Jennifer O'Connell Regional Councillor, Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 iennifer@ ienniferoconnell.ca www.oickerina.ca www.ienniferoconnell.ca Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! Jennifer O'Connell Regional Councillor, Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 Jennifer@ ienniferoconnell.ca www.oickerina.ca www.ienniferoconnell.ca Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! 234 15 Pym, Ross From: Lisa Anne Gray [graymomof2 @sympatico.ca] Sent: June -05 -14 9:53 AM To: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: opinion about Durham Live proposal Hello Jennifer and Bill, I received the flyer about proposed zoning changes in Pickering that you sent out. I have to admit that I am not sure which of you is my regional counsellor so I am expressing my opinion to both of you I feel that a casino is not needed and is unnecessary in the City of Pickering. If people feel the need to gamble -they can travel to Ajax or Port Perry. 1 feel a casino may generate money for the city but that money generally will come from people who cant afford to be losing that money in the first place. I oppose a casino! Thank you, Lisa Gray 561 Norfolk Square Pickering, On L1V3Y4 235 i� Pym, Ross From: Jeff Everingham Deff. everi ng ham @live. ca) Sent: June -04 -14 7:11 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: RE: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino 1235 Radom St. Apt. 3 905 - 903 -1373 > From: bmclean@pickering.ca > To: jeff.everingham@live.ca; jennifer@ienniferconnell.ca > Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino > Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2014 23:08:39 +0000 > Thank you Jeff, could you send us your address and phone number so we can forward your comments to our planning department. > Thanks for your input • Sent from.my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. • From: Jeff Everingham • Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 6:36 PM > To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; jennifer@ienniferconnell.ca > Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino > Dear Bill & Jennifer, > I received your notice in the mail regarding the proposals for Pickering's downtown and the casino. I wanted to let you know that my family and I support both the proposals. These would be great- additions to a city that has stagnated for a decade. > Regards, > Jeffrey Everingham > This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and /or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the. intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. 236 1 47 P m, Ross From: Ray Kotchie [rkotchie @nexusisp.com] Sent: June -04 -14 4:43 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor. Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino Hi Bill, My name is: Ray Kotchie Address: 1369 Fordon Avenue, Pickering, Ont. L1W 1K1 Phone: 905 - 420 -5318 I had the pleasure of speaking with you earlier today. We discussed the proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino. You asked me to put my thoughts and ideas in writing, and as we discussed I had some concerns about traffic in this area, as we live close to Bayly Street and Krosno Blvd. It would seem a no brainer to put an entry and exit to the 401 at Church Street, which would certainly alleviate some of the local traffic from being bogged down during rush hour. In fact Bayly is getting quite busy now during rush hour. We are certainly intrigued with the possibility of becoming more of an active community, and are in favour of this proposal. But again, we are concerned with heavy traffic in this area. Perhaps this could be discussed during a Council meeting and I would appreciate hearing from you on this proposal. Thank you for your time. Best Regards Ray Kotchie 1 237 UILM Pym, Ross . From: Sent: To: Subject: 307 Fiddlers Court Pickering Sent from my iPhone Joe Yukich Doe.yukich7 @g mail, com] June -04 -14 7:34 PM McLean, Bill, Councillor Re: Pickering Casino > On Jun 4, 2014, at 6:25 PM, "McLean, Bill, Councillor" <bmcleanpapickering.ca> wrote: > Thanks.Joe,could you give us your street address also so I can forward your comments to our planning department. That way it could be part of the report to council. > Thank you for taking the time to contact us. > Sent from my B1ackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. > From: Joe Yukich > Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 6:01 PM > To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; jenniferojenniferocconnell.ca > Subject: Pickering Casino > > Bill and Jennifer > My wife Janet and I are residents of Pickering and I am writing to say that we are opposed to any casino development in the city of Pickering. Other development that's proposed would not-be offensive but a casino per se would be. > In fact, a casino in Pickering might be the tipping point that would cause us to move from the community. > > You can contact me at this email or by phone at 905 -509 -5070 > Thanks > Joe Yukich > > > This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and /or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. 238 1 19 Pym, Ross From: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Sent: June -04 -14 10:34 AM To: Andrei Zelenine Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown &Casino Hi Andrei, Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with us. I should be clear that Councillor McLean and I were not advocating or championing these. developments. We put out the newsletter specifically to seek feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I . appreciate your specific comments. With your permission I can share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all before this decision is made. Thank you once again for taking the time to comment. Sincerely, Jennifer Jennifer O'Connell Regional Councillor, Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 j enniferQj enniferoconnell.ca www.pickering.ca www.j ennifero connell. ca Sent from my iPhone On Jun 3, 2014, at 10:54 PM, Andrei Zelenine <ontexcompanyQyahoo.com> wrote: Hi Jennifer, I am absolutely against this idea. There are numerous issues to consider, including potential revenue for the city, compared to the potential increase in crime, gambling addition, prostitution and its impact on social services. Andrei Zelenine. resident 318 Fiddlers Crt., Pickering, ON . 239 "'Q4- Pym, Ross From: colleen982 [colleen982@hotmail.com] Sent: June -03 -14 9:51 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Downtown Pickering proposal Hello Mr. McLean The proposal is very impressive. I am in favor of all the proposed development with the exception of the casino. I understand that It would bring revenue to the city but I believe the negative impact ie gambling problems outweighs the revenue gained. Our city is more than development and revenue, it is about families and quality of life. Families and lives can be ruined with excessive gambling. Instead of a casino, I would suggest greater green spaces for youth, and families. I also suggest that a visual_ art center be included perhaps as part of the performing arts center. A visual art center „t.t ate^ nr„x,;,tA programs for youth and the general population. Encouraging interest and supporl improve the quality of life for everyone than a casino. Sincerely, Colleen Timmins, Pickering resident Sent from Samsung tablet 240 P m, Ross From: Herzog & Whiteford [herzog @rogers.com] Sent: June -04 -14 9:48 AM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Downtown & Casino Hello Bill, Thank you for the information update on these two developments. Just a quick response before I get sidetracked with life. The Downtown Intensification Program by the upgraded GO train station and pedestrian walkway makes sense and can definitely improve Pickering's downtown as long as it is done with sensitivity to the neighbourhood of Bay Ridges to the South. I note that lower height levels are to Bayly with towers along the 401 — this makes sense as does the green space. The Durham Live project looks very ambitious and glitzy and I think the whole thing probably revolves around getting the casino approved first. I don't want the performing art centre (which Pickering needs) to be based on an industry that takes advantage of a certain segment of society and compounds misery for many. If hotels and convention centre can be . built without the casino then fine, always keeping to planning principles and no overdevelopment. Joyce Herzog 905- 839 -1498 241 zz Perm, Ross From: Alex Parker [alexanderparker @icloud.com] Sent: June -04 -14 3:04 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Re: proposed pickering down town &casino hi Bill my address is 855 liverpool road Phone 905 706 3037 thanks for the quick reply yours Alex Parker Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 4, 2014, at 2:28 PM, "McLean, Bill, Councillor" <bmcleanppickering.ca> wrote: > Thank you Alex for your e mail and your thoughts, as you can see by > the flyer we are not promoting these applications but looking to > inform our residents and get their feed back. Is it possible to get > your phone and address.so we can forward your thoughts to our planning > department to be included in the comment section of the report > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. > From: Alex Parker > Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 1:19 PM > To: McLean, Bill, Councillor > Subject: proposed pickering down town &cas.ino > Hi , I am very much against this idea traffic on bayly street is bad > enough . A casino is also a bad idea why doesn't the city build > these projects in north pickering so as not be a big inconvenience > Yours Alex Parker > > Sent from my iPhone > > This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and /or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you 'are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. 242 1 On 2014- 06 -04, at 11:37 AM, Jim Farintosh wrote: Hello Jennifer, Jim Farintosh here (West Shore resident), we have talked before. I left a message for you to call me, but no need now. A couple of points about the proposed zoning changes for the densified downtown area and the casino proposal: 1) The downtown plan looks fine, but I question the traffic flow to access this area. At present anyone coming from the west along the 401 will have to get off at Whites Road and crawl along Bayley, which will be grossly undersized for that kind of volume. The reality is that the eastbound exit that used to be at Liverpool Road would be best put back in service this increased traffic. Presently the land is still available. The cost of this road upgrade should be covered by the developments) as much as possible. 2)'What portion of the casino revenues will stay in Pickering to help lower the already too high residential tax base? We are already looking at some of the highest taxes in the GTA. There has to be some very compelling financial reasons to support this plan, the social cost may be considerable. 243 24 Perm, Ross From: joan turner [george.turner @sympatico.ca] Sent: June -03 -14 7:12 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Durham Live Proposal I am against the proposal of the Durham Live Project. I would rather see the land be put to use to entice manufacturing jobs into the Region instead of entertainment. I can see traffic congestion issues arising with this development along Bayly, Church and the 401. Will a new on and off ramp be set up for this complex? I would ask why another convention centre is being built — Is the Ajax Convention Centre fully utilized? With the Casino who will be paying for the extra policing requirements? These jobs appear to be on the lower end of the pay scales and as such will not benefit greatly this community. Will the City of Pickering be offering any incentives or guarantees towards the construction costs. George Turner 1780 Listowell Cres Pickering, ON L1V 2Y3 244 25 Pym, Ross From: Dawn McBride [mouster77 @hotmail.com] Sent: June -03 -14 7:42 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino Certainly, and thank you for the super fast reply. 1835.Storrington Street Pickering,. On L1V 2X2 905 - 492 -1414 home number day and night Sent from my iPad > On Jun 3, 2014, at 7:37 PM, "McLean, Bill, Councillor" <bmcleanppickeri.ng.ca> wrote:. > Thank you Dawn for your response, I would like to forward your response to our planning department. If we can do this could you supply us with your address and phone number. > Thanks again > >.Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. > From: Dawn McBride > Sent: Tuesday, June 3, 2014 7:32 PM > To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor > Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino > Received your brochure in the mail today. The proposed complex will only add to the beauty of our fair city. Sounds really exciting with such an interesting mixture of venues for all ages. > The only negative will be traffic congestion, but the whole planet has this problem anyway. > Dawn McBride > > Sent from my iPad > > > > This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and /or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you ,are.hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. > > 1 245 26 Pym, Ross From: Bruce Cowan [cowman @sym patico. ca] Sent: June -03 -14 3:58 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: RE: Pickering Downtown expansion Certainly. My address is: 1605 Rawlings Drive, Pickering, Ontario L1V 5B6 My phone number is: 905 - 839 -5969 Thank you Mr. McLean, Bruce > From: bmclean @pickering.ca > To: cowman @sympatico.ca > CC: iennifer@ienniferoconnell.ca > Subject: Re: Pickering Downtown expansion > Date: Tue, 3 Jun 201419:56:24 +0000 > Thank you very much Bruce for your thoughts, they are most important to us. > The reason for this news letter was to bring awareness and to get our residents thoughts and concerns, we appreciate you responding.. > > Would you mind supplying your address and phone number so. we can forward your response to our planing department to add your comments to the applications? > > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. > From: Bruce Cowan • Sent: Tuesday; June 3, 2014 3:46 PM • To: McLean, Bill, Councillor • Cc: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor' • Subject: Pickering Downtown expansion • Hello Ms. O'Connell and Mr. McLean! • As a long -time resident of Pickering, I have waited (in vain) and longed (with envy) for the 'move to the future' that our fair, but very under - developed, city should make to catch up to our neighbours. > When I drive from Pickering to Whitby to visit my daughter's family, I pass through the bustling, energetic and economically muscular Towns of Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa. And I always wonder why Pickering seems to be the'runt of the litter'. We should be the'alpha', given our proximity to Toronto with the potential to easily draw business a hop,-skip & jump across the Rouge River. .246 i 26 > We talk of this kind of development but it never gets off the ground. I hear whispers of 'too many foreign owners' of properties in Pickering (Federal, Provincial, other municipalities and private) who seem to be content to stall the process. Are we not masters of our own domain? And, if we are our own masters, how come Ajax, Whitby and Oshawa are miles ahead of us? > Plans like this look good, but do we really have the political will and clout to pull it off? This is deja vu to me! > As I once wrote, to Roger Anderson during the turbulent run -up to the Energy -From -Waste proceedings: "Leaders take us where we have not gone before. Stay the course; the future belongs to those who 'see it "'. > > I.could go on, but you know better than I of the real reasons for the 'whys'. > > On a constructive note, there is one issue that must be buried. Under no circumstances should a casino be allowed in Pickering. Toronto rejected one for all of the right reasons. Casinos are 'crack cocaine' for municipalities that are blinded by potential, initial financial gains (easy money) that addict them later - keeping them from accountable and honest fiscal policy. The seeds of 'corruption grow all- too -well in such fertile soil and we have had our (un)fair share of shady politicians before. Another'Ford brother' is out there waiting for such an opportunity. > I would be very disappointed if our fair city went down that slippery slope. > Point: If casinos or lotteries (of any kind) were the answer, why haven't the Federal and Provincial lotteries we've had for decades already solved all of our fiscal problems? The prosecution rests! • I hope that the City is sincere in its intentions this time and fearless with its resolve to make it happen. • Right now we are just'catching up' with our Regional siblings. > I'll be right here, as I've been for the past 27 years, waiting and watching. > Best of luck to both of you. > You are very fine people! 247 Z7 Pym, Ross . From: Irene Pantalone [irenepantalone42 @rogers.com] Sent: June -03 -14 9:29 AM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino Good morning Bill, Basically I'm for it as I feel it will bring jobs to the area. Before I give an unreserved yes, I would like your opinion on what this would do to property values. Irene Sent from my iPad 248 w Pym, Ross From: chris daniell [chris.daniell @hotmait.com] Sent: June -02 -14 9:47 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Cc: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: re: "proposed" casino I'm a resident of Pickering. I became a resident of Pickering to escape the hustle /bustle of the Toronto area. A casino would not, in my view, serve the interests of Pickering residents. A casino would only intensify traffic and make life in Pickering just as unbearable as life is in Toronto. There's enough 'rift-raft' or 'spill over' from Toronto as it is. A casino and the associated traffic congestion will only push residents further away. I know I'll likely look into moving to Uxbridge or Whitby. (1 work east -end of Toronto and I'll do a longer commute if I have to) If you're truly interested in improving the downtown core, you should consider working with what you have. I see plenty of unexploited opportunities to draw Pickering residents to local businesses. Look at the area where you're proposing a casino to begin with: poor condition /narrow roads with no on- street parking. Then consider what side of the 401 you're planning to build a casino: there's nothing there to attract businesses on this side of the 401. It's a commuter area with a number of small miscellaneous businesses - there's no reason to go there. Commuters use,the area, it's a hub —they come, they go. That will not change. Pickering is a commuter community. From the residents I know, we want nothing to do with Toronto. We don't want Pickering to become more than what it is. We're actually quite content with what we see. We're pleased to see improvements being made to help commuters. We live in the area because we work in Toronto. I'm actually a little disappointed to see Pickering Council debating such issues instead of working on improvements to existing services. Hopefully, Council can work towards finding a resolution that satisfies residents. Chris Daniell 249 Pym, Ross From: Gary Wicks [wicks @ca.ibm.com] Sent: June -02 -14 7:49 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Opposition to the proposed Pickering Casino and additional facilities Wrong place...... wrong level of traffic infrastructure..... which is very poor at best in this area with no off ramp on 401 Eastbound at Liverpool..... also wrong for an established area. Just a money grab in an area that will not support it. Period. Regards, Gary Wicks 420 Brian Court, Pickering, Ontario L1W #H4 250 Z9 Q P m; Ross From: Pilolla [pilolla @sympatico.ca] Sent: June -02 -14 10:26 PM To: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Casino? Hello Folks, I'd rather have an airport because it helps create revenue. Casinos relieve people of their money. Do people wreck their lives because they spend all their money at the airport? The idea sucks now please get down to some real councillor duties. Do we have enough cross -walks in town? Any cell tower complaints to deal with? You do want to be elected to office again? 1 251 31 Pym, Ross From: Nancy [nancy.lyew @gmail.com] Sent: June -03 -14 8:22 AM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Cc: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino Yes. Here it is. 618 Atwood Cred, Pickering 11w3w6 > On Jun 2, 2014, at 7:17 PM, "McLean, Bill, Councillor" <bmcleanppickering.ca> wrote: > Thank you Nancy, I really appreciate you responding to our information flyer. Your thoughts are very important to us, would you mind sharing your address and can I forward your comments to our planning department to be part of the commenting process? > Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. > From: Nancy > Sent: Monday, June 2, 2014 7:03, PM > To: McLean, Bill, Councillor;.0'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor > Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino > Dear Regional Council, > > I have been living in south Pickering for 23 years. I've enjoyed living here with the easy GO train access to the city for work and often stayed downtown for the better restaurants, shops and entertainment. This would mean I could enjoy the same quality in my own backyard. > I think this is fantastic! It will bring great opportunities to the city of Pickering for more jobs, increased revenue, modernization and sustainability in the Durham region. > Best Regards, > Nancy Lyew > c:416.819.7585 > This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and /or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e-mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. 252 3z P m, Ross From: Phineas J. Tirebiter [scopolomander @gmail.com] Sent: June -02 -14 6:05 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; Mayor Web Email; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Subject: Zoning changes I received the mailing about "Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino" today. There are two parts to this. As to the Durham Live Project, I have no big qualms. We'll be losing more agricultural land, but it shouldn't interfere with our lives too badly. The other issue - the Pickering Downtown Intensification Program is another thing entirely. I see in fine print "Transition to residential neighbourhood ". That means high rise, doesn't it? How many thousands are going to occupy this area? Have you tried driving our streets during rush hour? This new development will make our roads even worse. And think of the chaos that would ensue if there ever was an emergency at the nuclear plant. Whoever saw this area as being Downtown Pickering anyway ?? Kingston Road is downtown Pickering. There's lots of open land on Kingston road, west of Liverpool and around Valley Farm. Why can't that be used instead? Answer: our area is perceived as being low hanging fruit - easy prey by developers. I'm not against progress or development, but this is certainly not the place for it. I hope you will oppose these changes as vigorously as possible. Doug Gregory 861 Naroch Blvd. Pickering, Ont. 253 3 3 Pym, Ross From: Jan van To[ Danvantol @outlook.com] Sent: June -03 -14 12:01 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Casino I am all for the redevelopment of pickering downtown. It-is currently devoid of any character so anything that improves it so there is a reason to visit it I am all for. Jan 254 P m, Ross From: Andrew Larter [andrew- larter @hotmail.com] Sent: June -11- 1410:41 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Comments on Pickering Downtown & Casino Proposals Attachments: Pickering DowntownCasinoRemarks .pdf Hello Councillors McLean and O'Connell, I recently received a flyer in the mail detailing the City of Pickering's proposed Downtown Pickering Intensification and Pickering Casino and Entertainment Complex projects. The flyer stated that public comments and questions regarding these projects are welcome, and so I have attached to this email a PDF file of my comments and thoughts on them. Thank you in advance for your consideration of my remarks! Andrew Larter Pickering Resident, Ward 2 255 Dear Councillors McLean and O'Connell, My name is Andrew Latter, and you may remember me from this past April's council meeting, in which placing a referendum question regarding the Pickering casino proposal on the October 2014 ballot was discussed. During the public information session portion of that meeting, I spoke briefly to council in support of placing the question on the ballot, and for that reason I highly appreciated recently receiving a flyer from both of you detailing the proposed plans for Pickering downtown intensification and for the casino project. Since, public input on those plans was sought in the flyer, I am also more than pleased to give you my opiions. Overview I will do my best to keep these writings organized; however, they may become lengthy, so I will + provide here a quick overview of my strongest opinions regarding each proposal. I am in support of the downtown Pickering intensification, as I believe it will lead to a healthier city and a healthier community to build a denser and more central downtown, although I do hold a few minor concerns with the plans as they stand. I am also deeply opposed to the casino and entertainment complex proposal, owing to a number of factors including but not limited to its design and implementation, impacts on the environment and community, and scale. More detailed descriptions are given below. Downtown Pickering Intensification Having lived in Pickering as long as I have been alive, I have seen this city experience continuous population growth and development. In more -recent years I have become acutely aware of the many problems posed by continuing urban sprawl in the Greater Toronto Area and southern Ontario; in particular, the inadequacy of existing infrastructure to handle increasing numbers of residents, and the environmental impacts of paving large tracts of high- quality farmland in order to build new subdivisions and plazas. With this in mind, I feel it necessary to state that I am in general quite pleased with the plans found in the flyer for the intensification of a "downtown Pickering ". As it stands-today, Pickering has built out markedly less far to the north than neighbouring municipalities: the transition from suburban to rural occurs mainly between. Finch Avenue and Concession 3, whereas Ajax and Whitby have built (and continue to build) subdivisions as far north as beyond Taunton Road. I am aware, certainly, that this situation will change with the impending Seaton community plan, a plan with which I do not agree, yet I believe that our comparably compact city provides Pickering with a golden opportunity to develop in a more sustainable manner. Under the Places to Grow Act, Pickering has an obligation to accommodate a sizeable percentage of the. population growth that the GTA is projected to experience over the coming decades. The Pickering downtown intensification plan, by redeveloping existing low- density industrial lots into a dense mixed -use community, represents the sustainable way to take in and manage that growth. The proposal, as given in the flyer, demonstrates conformance to a number of prevailing principles of good urban design, including a mix of densities, a mix of uses (both commercial and residential), good. transit access and walkability (something difficult to accomplish in our mainly automobile - focused community) owing to its neighbouring Pickering GO Station, and the inclusion of sizeable greenspace in the form of Krosno Creek Park. I find these aspects of the plans to be forward - thinking and agreeable, for they will enable Pickering to undergo population growth while mitigating the negative impacts on traffic and our environment that sprawling, low - density growth would otherwise produce. 256 34 4 I have taken note of a few, more minor concerns with the downtown Pickering proposal, which I.feel necessary to include here. Firstly, and most importantly, the location of the planned intensified community is less than optimal. Although it will be situated next to the major transit hub that is the GO Station, the lots are also cut off off from access from the north by Highway 401: its streets end in cul -de -sacs at the highway. Excepting the GO Station pedestrian bridge, one would need to travel along Bayly Street and then cross the 401 at the Liverpool or Brock Road bridges to head north from this Pickering downtown. These bridges are already congested during rush hour and busy most hours of the day. Consequently, downtown Pickering has the potential to become difficult to access and isolated. Examples across North America, including many in the former Metro Toronto, exist of why it is crucial that high- density neighbourhoods be easy to access and well- integrated into a street network. An isolated or secluded high- density neighbourhood, the so -called "tower in the park" concept, is one which will fall into crime and urban decay. For downtown Pickering to become successful, its design must recognize the inherent barrier to access posed by the -401, and make every effort to ensure that the area is as integrated and accessible by diverse modes of transport, including alternatives to driving. Additionally, the possibility exists of a community backlash against the planned dense neighbourhood by the public in general or the existing residential community to the south in particular. Once the public becomes more aware of the downtown Pickering proposal, or even once construction begins, the image of multi - storey buildings being constructed nearby may provoke efforts to halt the development. Members of the public naturally become concerned over development, especially unprecedented development such as that detailed in the proposal, when they feel as though they have only become aware of it after it is a "done deal" and they cannot have a say in the process. Examples of this effect can be found in both Pickering and the wider Durham Region: for one, the condominium and townhouse development near the southwest corner of Liverpool and Bayly, which displaced several local businesses, resulted in a significant community uproar. Distributing these flyers has so far been a'great way to make the public notified and interested in the downtown Pickering plans; however, more must continue to be done to make this city and community aware. Possible routes of action include advertisements in the News Advertiser or an information booth at the Pickering Town Centre. With this being said, I believe still that the downtown Pickering intensification project is a definite step in the right direction..With careful management to avoid overloading infrastructure and with sufficient public engagement, this development will be allowed to flourish, and Pickering can begin to grow without needing to grow outwards. Pickering Casino and Entertainment Complex The other proposal regarding which I am writing to you is, I believe, of a remarkably different nature than the downtown Pickering plan, in terms of design, impact, and scale. Whereas downtown Pickering represents a new form of planning and a welcome experiment in urbanism, the Pickering casino and entertainment project serves as an example of flawed thinking and outdated urban design. I primarily hold objections to the casino proposal on three grounds: scale and location, impacts on the community and environment, and design and implementation. As I have touched on above, the Greater Toronto Area is in the midst of undergoing a serious shift in its prevailing urban planning wisdom, in order to curb urban sprawl and prevent low - density development from continuing to consume greenspace and farmland. The Pickering downtown 257 intensification proposal is an will be a welcome addition from this new shift in design — it will bring residents and jobs to our city while avoiding the need to build on previously undeveloped land. By contrast, the Pickering casino and entertainment complex is proposed to be situated on likely the largest remaining greenfield south of Finch Avenue in this city. The proposed casino site, on the northwest corner of the Bayly /Church intersection, is not only a presently undeveloped parcel of land, but is also particularly isolated in the southeast corner. of the City of Pickering. The Bayly- Church area is located at great distance from the proposed downtown Pickering and the central core of the city, where modern urban planning dictates the majority of our growth and development should be focused. Moreover, the site will be difficult to access by all modes of transportation: automobiles will need to travel south from Highway 401 via Brock or Westney Roads and Bayly Street, transit riders will face a long bus ride along the 923 Bayly route from Pickering or Ajax GO Stations, and walkability is practically nil. If constructed as planned, the casino complex would only serve to draw development away from Pickering's core — completely counter to the logic behind the downtown Pickering intensification proposal and the Places to Grow Act. The development of the casino site would undermine the viability of both existing and.planned businesses and developments in closer to the core of the city. The choice of the Bayly- Church site for the proposed casino and entertainment complex also highlights a lack of foresight with regards to the impacts that such a development would have on our city and community. As was mentioned during the council meeting which I attended in this past April, the push for a casino complex in Pickering will have a profound effect on the makeup of our community. Examples can be found across the world of the manner in which a nearby casino introduces crime and social degradation to a community — colloquially, Las Vegas is not known as "sin city" for nothing. I personally am no puritan, yet I do not think it unreasonable to wish to avoid Pickering gaining that sort of reputation, and I believe that this casino project is being seen through rose- coloured'glasses. Both at the council meeting and when reading coverage of the issue, the idea appears prevalent that Pickering may reap the benefits of the jobs that would come with an entertainment complex without the associated increases in crime. There is no reason why this would be so. The City of Toronto not long ago declined the proposal to build a casino along its waterfront for these very reasons, and this must serve as a sign of caution for our city if we are to embark on a similar project. Furthermore, the choice of location for the proposed casino and entertainment complex has the potential for serious negative environmental effects. As stated before, the casino site sits on one of the largest remaining tracts of greenspace in urban Pickering. Owing to its proximity to Duffins Creek, it features both woodland and wetland, as well as some active farmland along Kellino Street. Whereas there exists a conservation area following the route of Duffins Creek south of Bayly in order to protect the creek and its ecosystem from degradation, this particularly large parcel of pristinely undeveloped land.in the midst of an otherwise developed area has been earmarked for massive development in the form of the construction of an enormous entertainment complex. Although I am not an expert in the ecosystem of the area, I do not believe that one must be an expert to notice the potential environmental distress which could arise from paving over this greenspace for a casino, waterpark, convention centre, hotels, etc. If designated an urban nature preserve . or municipal park, the Bayly- Church- Kellino area could serve this city well as a source of recreation, relaxation, and balance with our surrounding environment as Pickering continues to develop. Instead, the proposal to pave it over for a casino has proceeded without concern for or public discussion and engagement of its potential environmental impacts. M 4 My final major concems with the Pickering casino and entertainment complex proposal deal.with what I view as flaws in the design and implementation-process of the plans at hand; that is to say, the way that the project has been carried out thus far. Having attended a debate over the proposal at council and having read about it in depth from a variety of sources, it seems to me that the project has proceeded not on the basis of solid facts and figures, but rather on a series of assumptions and presuppositions by the city. A number of questions arise as examples: is demand among the residents of Pickering for a casino within the city's borders high enough to warrant one and risk the negative effects which may accompany it? Will there be enough business interest for a convention centre, performing arts centre, amphitheatre, and film studios to be necessary, or will they sit largely empty? Similarly, will the planned luxury hotels host many guests, or will they too remain empty? The answers to these pertinent questions have seemed to be not under discussion with the public or not available entirely. Before embarking on a project of this scale and with such a vast potential to reshape the makeup of the City of Pickering, a much more thorough analysis and business case for the casino and entertainment complex must be produced and carefully considered. Above all else, however, the fate of the casino complex proposal in Pickering rests upon a few fundamental presumptions which have been made by the proponents of this project and which I. believe cannot be reasonably assumed. Firstly, as Councillor Dickerson noted during this past April's council meeting, there can legally only exist a single gambling facility within each OLG- designated gaming zone. Seeing as Pickering, Ajax, and Whitby lie within the same zone, the construction of a Pickering casino would require the cessation of gambling operations at the existing Ajax Downs slots facility. All discussion regarding a Pickering casino has as -to -yet made the assumption that Ajax Downs will indeed close down to make room for a gambling facility in this city; however, seeing as this slots facility is a noted money -maker for the Town of Ajax and has been a centrepiece of new development along Kingston Road East, its closure is highly unlikely. Secondly, the wider Pickering entertainment complex proposal has been designed conditional upon the two large -scale infrastructure projects in the area: a Highway 401 interchange at Church Street and an underpass under the 401, the CNR Kingston Subdivision, and the GO Transit right -of -way connecting Notion Road with Squires' Beach Road. The prospect of the Ministry of Transportation approving the return- of a 401 interchange to Church Street (the original Church on- and - off -ramps having been removed in 1986 with the opening of those at Westney Road) is very unlikely due to tight space constraints in the area of the highway overpass as well as its close proximity to the Brock and Westney Roads interchanges. Similarly, the costs of constructing an underpass from Notion to Squires Beach, which would presumably be borne by the City of Pickering, would likely be prohibitively high. In short, the entertainment complex project has, been proceeding based on assumptions of the highly unlikely construction of necessary pieces of road infrastructure. Lacking this infrastructure, the construction of any part of the proposal on the Bayly- Church site will only exacerbate an already - difficult traffic and transit situation in the area_ In light of the many points made above, I urge both of you, as councillors, to seriously reconsider the viability.and necessity of 'the Pickering casino and entertainment complex proposal. It is at this juncture in the growth and development of Pickering that we, as, a city, may choose the manner in which we choose to continue to develop. We may choose the path of sustainability and well- planned central urban growth, as is exemplified in the downtown Pickering proposal, or we may choose to embark upon garish mega- projects of the scale of the- casino, attempting to attract prestige and business to this city through their headline- grabbing construction. 259 Thank you very much for taking the time to consider my remarks on these proposals. I look forward to continued debate and discussion on these topics and also to further communication with, yourselves and other members of council regarding matters important to this city. Pickering is my home, and I take. great satisfaction in seeing it grow and prosper. Thank you, again, Andrew Latter 260 55 35 P m, Ross From: Robert Violo [violo_r @hotmail.com] Sent: June -07 -14 6:31 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino Thank you Bill and Jennifer for reaching out regarding the input for the proposed developments from us, the Pickering residents and tax payers. I know that I speak for a number of residents in the South Rosebank community when I say that this is not the development that Pickering is in need of at the moment. The Casino and proposed dwellings that would accompany it are not what we feel Pickering is about. Pickering is a safe, nature loving and family oriented community. We work hard to keep our community beautiful, especially the shores of lake Ontario. Having a huge complex of that size will almost guarantee the pollution of our shores. (Just like Toronto, all you have to do is take a trip to the Docks entertainment complex) And research will show that the owners of the Docks complex fully assured everyone of it's cleanliness and sound proof facilities. We don't want be a part of this trickery. There are also many residents (South Rosebank community) that live on the other side of Frenchman's Bay who will suffer from all the no that will flow across the bay. Our main issues are transportation. The traffic during rush hour in Pickering is worse than downtown Toronto. Kingston Road is an absolute NIGHTMARE. I'd like to hear more about what's being done to currently solve the transportation problems We already have before we start adding them. In conclusion our community is a BIG "NO" in regards to this new project that is being proposed. Thank you for your time, Robert Violo 261 36 Pym, Ross From: Rose, Catherine Sent: June -12 -14 11:12 AM To: Jacobs, Dean; Pym, Ross Cc: Surti, Nilesh; Brooks, Jeff Subject: FW: Casino Cathy - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ferreira, Laura On Behalf Of Planning Web Email Sent: dune -12 -14 8:55 AM To: Rose, Catherine Subject: FW: Casino - - - -- Original Message---- - From: info(@esolutionsgroup.ca [ mailto:infopesolutionsRroup.caj On Behalf Of alexfl2(@sympatico. ca Sent: Tune -11 -14 4:32 PM To: Planning Web Email Subject: Casino. Hi, I live at 1725 Silverthorn square - I am opposed to the Casino in our city. Please take this into consideration in your planning. Origin: http: / /www.pickering.ca /en/ cityhall /downtownintensificationprogram .asp -----------=------------------- - - - - -- This email was sent to you by alexfl2@sympatico.ca through http: / /www.pickering.ca /. 262 1 �% Pym, Ross From: Rose, Catherine Sent: June -11 -14 5:22 PM To: Pym, Ross; Jacobs, Dean Cc: Surti, Nilesh; Brooks, Jeff Subject: FW: Downtown Intensification Program Ditto - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Ferreira, Laura On Behalf Of Planning Web Email Sent: June -11 -14 3:42 PM To: Rose, Catherine Subject: FW: Downtown Intensification Program FYI - - - -- Original Message---- - From: infoOaesolutionsgroup.ca f mailto:infopesolutionsgroup.caI On Behalf Of hollyfoordphotmail.com Sent: June -11 -14 2:46 PM - To: Planning Web Email Subject: Downtown Intensification Program As a, 2i year old lifelong resident of Pickering by way of Dixie /Finch, it is my researched opinion that building a casino and hotel /water park in Pickering's downtown core is a short- sighted and socio -economically disastrous 'chain of events. Turning Pickering into a pale, flaccid, second rate entertainment district will destroy the community and drive away . permanent residents who offer financial support and sustainability to the region. Please consider this email a vehement rejection of the proposed intensification by someone who fits exactly in the demographic this plan is trying and failing to attract. ------------------------------------- Origin: http• / /www pickering.ca /en/ cityhall /downtownintensificationprogram .asp? mid =22050 ------------------------------- - - - - -- This email was sent to you by hollyfoord(@hotmail.com through http: / /www.pickering.ca /. 1 263 Pym, Ross. From: David Caruana [david_caruana @hotmail.com]. Sent: June -10 -14 10:08 AM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Proposed Pickering Downtown and Casino Toronto, Vaughn and Markham all turned down the casino for very good reasons. Why would Pickering try to squeeze all this development into an area that is already congested? Many residents would be suspicious of the motives of local politicians who would give these developers any encouragement. Sincerely, David Caruana 264 P m, Ross From: DIANNE HADDEN Dames. hadden @sympatico.ca] Sent: June -09 -14 11:57 AM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Subject: RE: Pickering Project - 648 Annland St—Pickering 905- 831 -9298 -- Original Message---- - From: McLean, Bill, Councillor fmailto:bmclean(@pickering.cal Sent: June -08 -14 1:12 PM To: james.haddenpsympatico.ca Cc: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Re: Pickering Project Thank you Dianne, if you supply your address and phone number we will forward your comments to our planning department. Thank you again for your thoughts. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Rogers network. From: DIANNE HADDEN Sent: Sunday, June 8, 2014 1:00 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor Reply To: james.haddenpsympatico.ca Subject: Pickering Project I think the proposed casino and entertainment complex is a fabulous idea. Go for it. This message is for the use of the intended recipient(s) only and may contain information that is privileged, proprietary, confidential, and /or exempt from disclosure under any relevant privacy legislation. If you are not the intended recipient or authorized agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any review, retransmission, dissemination, distribution, copying, conversion to hard copy, taking of action in reliance on or other use of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this message in error, please notify the sender by return e -mail and delete or destroy all copies of this message. 1 265 Pym, Ross 4 I From: tnuspl [tnuspl @rogers.com] Sent: June -08 -14 2:17 PM To: McLean, Bill, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Subject: Pickering Downtown Intensification Program, Durham Live Proposal I am fully in favour of both the Pickering Downtown intensification Program as well as the Durham Live Project. We need higher densities around to GO Train Station, Pickering Town Centre, the College and offices. We certainly could use employment opportunities, a hotel etc., as proposed in Durham Live. As an added bonus, none of these proposals would impact the airport lands or the agriculture preserve. Nor would they need "from scratch " infrastructure. Terry Nuspl 905 509 2272 Sent from my BlackBerry® P1ayBookTM www.blackberr�com 266 F T P m, Ross From: Jim Bowen oim @logicaltechsolutions.ca] Sent: June -11 -14 3:16 PM. To: McLean, Bill; Councillor Subject: Proposed Pickering downtown & Casino Hi Bill, The new downtown & casino proposal looks great. We are all for it. Jim Bowen & Jane Cottrell 1891 Pinecreek Ct. Pickering, ON L1V 3R4 267 2 Pym, Ross From: O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor Sent: June -10 -14 12:26 PM To: Mary Mauceri Subject: Re: Proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino Hello Mrs. Mauceri, Thank you for your email and sharing your comments with me. You are correct that Councillor McLean and I were not advocating or championing these developments, rather we put out the newsletter specifically to seek feedback because we were concerned residents were not aware of what was being considered. We have not taken a position on either proposal and will be making a decision based on the feedback we receive. And I appreciate your specific comments. This matter is not being considered at the Region, it is a proposal that will be debated at Pickering Council, most likely on July 7th. With your permission can I share your comments with our planning staff to ensure they are considered by all before this decision is made? Thank you once again for taking the time to comment. Sincerely, Jennifer Jennifer O'Connell Regional Councillor, Ward One City of Pickering 905.420.4660, ext. 4609 Fax. 905.492.5050 iennifer. @ienniferoconnell.ca www.pickering.ca www. i e n n i fe ro co n n e i l. ca Please consider your environmental responsibility - think before you print! On 2014- 06 -09, at 3:52 PM, Mary Mauceri wrote: Hello Ms. O'Connell, I am writing to share my comments on the recent inform_ ation I received regarding the proposed Pickering Downtown & Casino plans. As you and Mr. Bill McLean have asked the residents of Pickering to share our comments, I wanted to let you z know my thoughts on this matter. These proposals will have a significant impact on our community and our city, I am therefore very concerned about how negatively a Casino would influence our families and the Durham community as a whole. Please note my strong desire to oppose the creation of another Casino in the Durham area when you are discussing this project in the regional Councillor meetings. -Thank you, Mrs. Mary Mauceri . r.• ATTACHPAENT # I TO REPORT # LIB 2.1- ILL L) couRT ERNE � i tPIMRING PARKWAY Wt CHURCH flAriY STREET B�riY STREET H Location Map °¢ FILE No:A 03/14 Pickering Development APPLICANT: Pickerin Develo ment: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 20( City Development 1802 Bayly St. (S. Pt. Lt. 17, Con. 1, Pt. 2,3 Department Data SpU CGC Teronet EntnrpAaes Inc. end lts a,ppll, -. All rights 2013 MPAC antl Its aupplinrs. All ""ht. R..e d. h 270 O III J Li THE PIGKERING MART & T.M. -E n ATTACHMENT # �? TO REPGRI # 'PLN a I - I� ._... FIBBING RETAIL j *P Phase 2 EYhIING EMPLOYMEM LANG$ Phase 1 —• -- Subject Lands Proposed Phasing line Provincially Significant Wetlands (Boundary including buffer to be Confirmed) EIIIIIIIIIIINatural Heritage System (Boundary including buffer to. be Co firmed) e2 a a 0 AxxAN M GOLF ANO WUM MUB GAYLYSIREEE G C Submitted Property Plan °� FILE No:A 03/14 ?"'KV APPLICANT: Pickering Developments 401) Inc, Pickering Developments(Bayly) Inc, Pickerin Develo ments S uyires Inc PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 2028 Keflilno St�PPt. Lt115 16 Con. 'Pt. 1 '40R 5623 City Development 1802 Bayly St. (S: Pt. Lt. 17, Con. 1, Pt. 2,3 & Pt. 1, 40R -8440) Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. DATE: Aug. 14, 2014 271 ATTACHMENT # TO 2 4 .5 0 Ha = - -- - - -- ----------- — — — — — KELLINO ROAD - - - - - - - - - \ — ... iii . � PHASE 2 i I 69.29Ha I� it ' Il It uS M.- n- t GIUROI I L if 1 III _ B .__AVlVS___ TR—_. EET _ _ ______ ______ ___ THEPIEKERING MARK R TRADEaME - - - -- + � I I I I I I I i i I Submitted Phasir cay °¢ FILE No: A 03/14 ' - APPLICANT: Picke PROPERTY DESC City Development 1802 Bayly St. IS. Pt. Lt. Department FULL SCALE COPIES OF THIS PLAI CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN 272 V c- 0 N } Q G y +I � i �T ar, } TiT ST T +_ 2 aT 1 i L j T � k i r t i i 1 } Y } } ry 1 JY. T T r r TTACHN,' 1T;#� `� _TO j C CD O W W Z .01 tm- h V O - z a L LU U W �p C w m O 0 Z~ Q ...1 LtJ 0 p F 'H J W V LU a W 0 Q W C d H O CO.) W F F W t 1 6mj C7 m W F.. O = O H F= Z O O W LU LU Z 5 Q Q m d m LL= o O y Q N 0 W W Z o n z O C O a W F z a= 0 a O O O O O O O O O O © © O © © O ©O Ll z g LU Cn Q J Q a U z 0 U M W C3 LL Ee 273 Town of ax By the Lake RECEIVED TOWN OF AJAX CITY OF' PICKERING nUAOR 1 # I ;MA aj -1q 65 Harwood Avenue South Ajax ON L1 S 21-19 JUN i 12014 wvvw.ajax.ca CLERK'S OFFICE Debbie Shields, Clerk City of Pickering Municipal Office One The Esplanade Pickering, ON R E C `��° L1V 6K7 �?qq June 10, 2014 pICKERJNG F NEPAlEN S CITY DE ELOPNiE Re: City of Pickering Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application A 3114 1802 and 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road Please be advised' that the following resolution was passed by the Community Affairs & Planning Committee at its meeting held June 2, 2014 and endorsed by Ajax Town Council at its regular meeting held June 9, 2014. 1. That the report to Community Affairs and Planning Committee dated June 2, 2014 entitled "City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment A 3/14 - 1802.& 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road" be received for information; 2. That the City of Pickering be advised that the Town of Ajax considers Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 to be premature; 3. That a copy of this report be forwarded to the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Transportation for information. A copy of the staff report that prompted this action has been enclosed. • If you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact Gary Muller, Manager of Planning at 905- 619 -2529 ext 3201 or gary.muller(a)aiax.ca Sincerely Nicole Wellsbury Manager of Legislative Services /Deputy Clerk Copy: Region of Durham Toronto and Region Conservation Authority The Honourable Glen Murray, Minister of Transportation 274 Ontario's First ISO 9001 Quality Community FILE NO.: I A - c9LA-0 0 FORWARD COPY TO: MAYOR V FINANCE COUNCIL FIRE CAO XHUMAN RESOURCES' BY -LAW IT CITYBEVELOPMENT LIBRARY CORPORATE SERVICES V OFFICE OFSUSTAINABIUTY CULTURE &RECREATION PUBUCWORKS CUSTOMER CARE SOLICITOR ENGINEERING SERVICES SUPPLY & SERVICES Re: City of Pickering Zoning Bylaw Amendment Application A 3114 1802 and 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road Please be advised' that the following resolution was passed by the Community Affairs & Planning Committee at its meeting held June 2, 2014 and endorsed by Ajax Town Council at its regular meeting held June 9, 2014. 1. That the report to Community Affairs and Planning Committee dated June 2, 2014 entitled "City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment A 3/14 - 1802.& 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road" be received for information; 2. That the City of Pickering be advised that the Town of Ajax considers Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 to be premature; 3. That a copy of this report be forwarded to the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Transportation for information. A copy of the staff report that prompted this action has been enclosed. • If you require any additional information please do not hesitate to contact Gary Muller, Manager of Planning at 905- 619 -2529 ext 3201 or gary.muller(a)aiax.ca Sincerely Nicole Wellsbury Manager of Legislative Services /Deputy Clerk Copy: Region of Durham Toronto and Region Conservation Authority The Honourable Glen Murray, Minister of Transportation 274 Ontario's First ISO 9001 Quality Community TOWN OF AJAX REPORT REPORT TO: SUBMITTED BY: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: WARD: ATTACHMENT TO REPORT # i_ �y Community Affairs and Planning Committee Paul Allore, MCIP, RPP Director, Planning-and Development Services . Gary Muller,. MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning . Town of ax By the Lake City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 1802 & 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road n/a DATE OF MEETING: .June 2, 2014 REFERENCE: . . .- n/a RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That the report to Community Affairs and - Planning Committee dated June 2, 2014 entitled City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment A 3114-' 1802 & 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road" be received for information; 2. That the City of Pickering be advised that the Town of Ajax considers Pickering Zoning'By -law Amendment, Application A 3114 to be premature; 3. That a copy of this report be forwarded to the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham, -the Toronto and Region . Conservation Authority -and the Ministry of Transportation for information. BACKGROUND: The Town of Ajax was circulated a Zoning By -law Amendment application by the City of Pickering regarding a proposed development on 3 vacant parcels of land encompassing 90.5 hectares (223.7 acre) adjacent to the Ajax/Pickering municipal boundary immediately west of . Church Street, north of Bayly Street. The application was filed by Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments ( Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. On April 14, 2014 staff provided preliminary comments to the City'of .Pickering, reserving the right to provide additional comments on the application once a more detailed review was completed. Subject Lands The subject lands are crossed by two local roads under the jurisdiction of the City of Pickering. Squires Beach Road runs north -south and is designated as a Type C Arterial Road. Kellino Road is .a local road that connects to' Church Street and Squires Beach Road. 275 :� F _ rr> -_.,. .. - �-- _>,:' "" _ _':> _'�.`':♦ T �4s -� -mss '�..'�T f :I •7_`�.� v .3 - SZ"�r , _ is a �� � � _ - � e5 (• - el� _ c w:�'( 4 �s'- �.��r C � .t, •.i a - - •� _ � ♦ '-G � � Lem R; _ � 1 may, .,.�•- �� -- - �IN�� °, ° - ° . ° -_ . ,� � .� _ _ - -.-i: - _- _- _Kellinp Road AXi 1 13� zs �ICKL' RI N<.T-- 1 ATTACHN ENT # 5 TO Subject: City bf Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14'-.PORT # � !� g e 13 The subject lands are currently vacant and contain three separate tributaries of Duffins Creek. The subject lands slope from east to west and are crossed by four drumlin -like features. Portions of the subject lands have been cultivated. A Provincially Significant Wetland exists onthe subject lands, associated with the Lower Duffins. Creek Wetland Complex. A wooded natural feature. also exists adjacent to Church Street at the north east corner of the subject lands, in proximity to Duffins Creek. Area Context The area around the subject lands is characterized by the following land uses (see Figure 2). North: X truck and equipment sales establishment is 'at the north end of Squires Beach Road (west side). CN Rail Lines abut the majority of the north side of the subject lands. The CN Rail Kingston subdivision accommodates freight and passenger rail service. Further north is Highway 401. Further north are heavy industrial uses including processing - and outdoor storage of aggregate. To the northwest is commercial development in the City of Pickering. To the north and east is Duffins Creek. A low density residential community is to the east of Church Street, north of Highway 401 in the Town of Ajax. Further north on Church Street is a recently approved Heritage Conservation District. - South: The subject lands surround the Pickering Pentecostal Church site. Bayly .Street, a warehouse and logistics' facility, - Pickering markets, industrial and- other uses are to the south. Further south is the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station and the Duffins Creek Water Pollution Control Plant. East: Directly to. the east is Church Street. Further east is Annandale Golf Course and Duffins Creek-in the Town of Ajax. West: Directly to the west is a railway spur line. Mixed industrial, automotive, waste disposal and other uses are to the west of the railway spur. Proposed Zoning By -law Amendment The applicants propose to amend the current M1 and M2S zone categories and introduce a new Tourist Destination (TD} zone to permit a proposed entertainment oriented development (see Figure 2). Proposed uses include a casino, hotels, convention centre, performing arts centre, amphitheatre, cinemas, restaurants, waterpark, recreation centre, fitness centre, offices, arena, tavern /bar/pub, automobile rental establishment, automobile service station, banquet .facilities, commercial parking lot, place of amusement, personal service establishment, and various other uses. According to the documentation submitted, the site is proposed to be developed to a maximum floor space index (FSI) of 10 applied across the gross developable area of the subject lands. Within the City of Pickering Zoning By -law 2511, the subject lands are currently subject to the requirements of the Storage and Light Manufacturing Zone ("M1"), and Yard Storage and Heavy Manufacturing Zone ( "M2S'°). The M1,zone category permits a range of uses including storage and light manufacturing, business and professional offices, and railway and other uses. The M2S zone permits limited commercial uses, yard storage, industrial and railway uses. 277 ATTALHIRAIENT Tia Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3114REPORT 4 C A J Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 rui? T P P a g e 15 The application proposes a new definition within the City of Pickering Zoning By -law 2511. A "Tourist Destination Use" is proposed to mean a "premises which significantly support tourism related activity, tourism related economic development and foster an increase in job generation within Pickering and Durham Region and that are recognized by the Province of Ontario or Region of Durham or City of Pickering 'as tourist destinations. These uses will be complementary to existing ekes, independently sustainable and unique and %r are ancillary-to or in support of tourist destination uses." The applicants have requested that Pickering process and approve the application in two phases. Phase 1 is being requested for approval first, for the area beyond the identified 120 metre boundary of the Provincially Significant Wetland on the subject lands, Phase 2 would follow the completion of an Environmental Impact Study, an updated planning rationale report and other associated plans, schedules and supporting studiesAnformation is yet to be provided on Phase 2. The proposal is being marketed under the name of "Durham Live ". The following proposed land use statistics were submitted as part of the Urban Transportation Study. Land Use Intensity Floor Area m2 Floor Area ft2 Casino 4,500 gaming positions 25,000 269,000 Cinema Complex 12 screens 5,000 54,000 Commercial Office 41,800 450,000. Convention Centre 250,000 s . ft. 23,200 250,000 Hotels 1,350 Rooms 120,000 1,290,000 Performing Arts Centre. 5,000 seats 12,000 129,000 Restaurant Complex 200,000 s . ft 18,600 200,000. Water ark 100,000s'.'ft. 9,300 - 100,000 Ancillary Retail 30,000 s• . ft' 2,800 30,000 Total 257,700 2,772,000 Source: B/A Group Phase 1 Development Plan Urban Transportation Study, March, 2014 The application is also accompanied by a number of illustrations and'concepts, which present ideas for future development. A Conceptual Master Plan was included which depicts various buildings and a conceptual road network (see Figure 3). However, this conceptual drawing is. inconsistent. with other plans and drawings filed with the application. A proposed Block Plan (see Figure 4) identifies different boundaries for on -site natural features. . A comparison of both is provided on Figure 5. 279 k�res`f!.. . _ .il: ,.: •- e_T+ri¢1.es•�!I!� e. -sue +�i -` �e.a:L• - ' -'y A-� ��L�i iu `����� >>+ Y,., r•'^� I e 7a �..r� •sue �_'' �_.� :p ' : C. _ � I - 1 �_ _1 . �-.n. [ 1 `L�� ■ ,_ _ ..fib ■�� �i14yl' �`,T,3L��y .. � ?�s���� • ■ - �� �f•.�t� ��� WP -z, aevas� - ATTACHMENT # f TO Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3114R_i10R 11 7 _2� -?J-IIVP a q e 19 DISCUSSION: The following provides a review and commentary on various planning policies, as well as documents and studies filed in support of the application. Durham Regional Official Plan The subject lands are within the `Employment Areas' designation_ of the Durham Regional Official Plan. Within this* designation, permitted uses may include manufacturing, assembly and processing of. goods, service - industries, "research and development facilities, warehousing, offices and business parks; hotels, storage of goods and materials, freight transfer and transportation facilities. - Schedule 131 -d of the Durham Regional Official Plan designates Key Natural Heritage and Hydrological Features . on the subject lands, including the Lower Duffins Creek Wetland Complex and the wooded natural feature at- the north east corner of the subject lands. The Durham Regional Official Plan indicates that an Environmental Impact Study is required for any proposal for development or site alteration in proximity to natural heritage or hydrological. features, natural hazards, or which may have major environmental impacts. Components of .the study may .include an analysis of hydrogeological and geo- technical conditions, servicing options, groundwater and surface water analysis and an examination of terrestrial, wildlife, and aquatic species. Schedule C -2 of the Durham Regional Official Plan designates components of the road network. Bayly Street is designated as. a Type 'A' arterial road. Church Street, north of Bayly Street is designated as a Type `B' arterial road..Squires'B.each Road is designated as a Type 'C' arterial road. Highway 401 'interchanges are designated at Brock Road (Pickering) and Westney Road (Ajax). A future Highway 401 interchange 'is not designated at Church Street and Highway 401 within the Durham Regional Official Plan (see Figure.6). City of Pickering Official Plan The- City of Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Employment Areas — Prestige Employment ", "Employment Areas — Mixed Employment" and "Open Space .System — Natural Arpasn. Table 8 of the City of Pickering Official Plan indicates that permissible uses within the Prestige Employment designation include light manufacturing; assembly* and processing of goods, light service industries, research and development facilities, warehousing, equipment and vehicle suppliers, automotive and vehicle sales and repair, offices, corporate office business parks, limited personal service uses serving the area, restaurants serving the area, retail sales as a minor component of an industrial operation, hotels, financial institutions serving the area, community, cultural and recreational uses and other uses with similar performance characteristics that are more appropriately located in the employment area. . Table 8 also indicates that permissible uses within the Mixed Employment designation are all uses within the Prestige Employment designation and limited retailing of goods and services serving the area. Based on the foregoing policy criteria, staff are not clear how.the proposed broad mix of proposed entertainment uses conforms to the provisions of the City of Pickering Official Plan. 283 s fACHfitEt�T rr 5 TO Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3114 REPORT- Schedule III _ Resource Management of the City of Pickering Official Plan identifies a portion of the subject lands as "Wetlands" and other areas a Shorelines and Stream Corridors (May Include Hazard Lands). The proposed Phase 1 approval area does not appear to account for a Shoreline and Stream Corridor Area at the north east corner of.the property, which should be evaluated through a required Environmental Impact Study in advance of establishing the principle of development. A "New Road Connection (Proposed)" is illustrated on Map 14 (Neighbourhood 4: Brock Industrial Area) which runs east -west between Squires Beach Road and Church Street, south of Kellino Road (see Figure 7). This road connection does not appear within the Conceptual Master Plan for the subject lands, nor within any of the Block Plans fled with the application. The subject lands are also within a "Detailed Review Area" that runs along the north and south sides of Bayly Street, from west.of Church Street to west of Squires Beach Road. ` Submitted Studies The following provides an overview. of the studies submitted in support of the application and commentary on these studies.: .Urban Transportation Study A report entitled "Durham Live Phase 1 Development Plan Urban Transportation Study" (the UTS) prepared by the'BA Group dated March 20, 2014 was submitted in support of the application. The UTS provides recommendations regarding roads, transit and other improvements to support the proposed development. To assist in its review, the Town retained the MMM Group to undertake an initial review of the UTS. The UTS indicates that the Phase 1 development will be constructed within a 5 -year period, and will incorporate in the order of 250,000 ml, (2.69 million sq. ft.) of gross floor area {GFA). This is an overly optimistic time frame given the scope of approvals required, the scale of the proposed development as well as the required transportation commitments in terms of -approvals, funding and /or construction from the provincial and Regional levels of government. The UTS focuses on the transportation related aspects of the development of Phase 1 but does not examine, nor does it make any .assumptions about Phase..2. The transportation impacts related to the full build out of the proposed development should be quantified through an additional scenario with a long term time horizon. It is not possible to determine the. potential impacts of Phase 2 on the Transportation System without this further study. The subsequent expansion of the site would result in the generation of additional traffic, but the report does not quantify the impact of Phase 2 on the road network. The UTS is based on the assumption that a Church Street partial interchange with Highway 401, and a connection between Notion Road and Squires Beach Road via an. underpass of Highway 401 will be in place. It does not include a scenario that excludes either. Without these roadway improvements, more of the trips gene,Tated by the proposed development would need to be assigned to existing interchanges at Brock Road and.Westney Road. 285 I 286 �r0Q��T Subject: CdyufP�kohng Zoning By'�wAmendment App|im�onA3;- � P age 112 5 TO AATTACHMiENT Td Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A Page 113 Proposed Church Street/Highway 401 Partial Interchange and Related Works As noted earlier, the UTS includes a partial highway interchange at Highway 401 and Church Street, serving traffic to and from the west (see Figure 8). The UTS assumes that the works would be in place in order to manage the traffic-generated by the proposed development. A number of concerns exist regarding the proposed introduction of a new Highway 401 interchange at Church Street, as follows: The proposed interchange would not conform to the provisions -of the Durham Regional Official Plan, the City of Pickering Official Plan or the Town of Ajax Official Plan. An amendment to each of these planning documents would be required, and subject to separate statutory processes, supported by the requisite technical studies .along with public and agency input. The introduction of an interchange at Church Street and Highway 401 cannot be assumed. ii. An interchange is not reflected in the Environmental Assessment work completed to date for the Highway 401 widening east of Brock Road, which currently .illustrates two new bridge structures and express /collector transfer lanes; in the vicinity of Church Street (see Figure 9). iii. The proposed' interchange would cause a major shift in traffic patterns and the potential for disruption to the local residential community, including the following: a. the closure of Mill Street (a local road)* at Church Street. Access from, Church Street into this community would be forced to travel north to Lincoln Street; b. Shifts in commuter traffic loads on Church Street, which is currently a two -lane arterial road and a local active transportation route; c. An expectation of truck traffic travelling from the industrial lands to the south and elsewhere to access the new interchange and travelling up a grade separation at slow speeds before reaching highway traffic; d. Potential property. impacts and private property acquisitions to accommodate identified additional turning lanes; e. The introduction of four new traffic signals on Church Street, between Annandale Golf Course and Mill Street; f. Increased noise and other related impacts. iv. The portion of Church Street north of Highway 401 to Kingston Road was transferred to the Town of Ajax through. a road rationalization program with the Region of Durham'..The Town currently provides all summer and winter maintenance activities on Church Street from Highway 401 to Kingston.' Road. Roads under Town jurisdiction are not intended to handle traffic from Highway 401. V. If not already undertaken, a microsimulation would be necessary to determine if queuing and spillback would be potential issues at the proposed interchange. . On June 27, 2012 the Regional Municipality of Durham passed By -law 36 -2012, to enable the transfer of the -jurisdic Lion of roads between the .Region and the Town of Ajax as part of an ongoing road rationalization program. Church Street, generally from Highway 401 to lGngston Road was transferred from the Region of Durham to the Town of Ajax on August 14, 2013. I'� ° ° !� .�. .^ `^ � w w m ` TO- Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14;-­- Page 115 City of Pickering Zoning By -taw Figure 9 Town of Ajax Amendment Application A 3114 Planning and � .� Excerpt: Development A a Highway 401 East Environmental Services �y Assessment' the Lake ti June 2, 2014 Source: Highway 409 from Brock Road to Courfice Road — Gass Environmental Assessment and Preliminary Design Study WVI Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3114; age 116 vi. MMM indicates that in their professional opinion, the location of the proposed interchange is too close to the two adjacent interchanges and will result in diminished capacity, and also in safety and operational conflicts on this busy section of the highway. vii. The trip assignment methodology assigns more trips to Durham Region (east) than to other parts of the GTA. If more trips were coming from the population centres west of Pickering (Toronto), then more traffic may *use the proposed Church Street interchange. This interchange would be close to capacity and could be over capacity if trips increased greatly. Highway 401 Underpass connecting Notion Road/Squires Beach Road As noted earlier, the UTS assumes that a road connection in the form of an underpass-would be in place connecting Notion Road to Squires Beach Road in time- for the development. It is not indicated how the project would be. funded, nor does it appear to account for the required timing to undertake such matters as the required Environmental Assessment, detailed design work, road improvements related to the approaches for this facility or potential private property requirements in addition to the time required for tendering and construction. Study Area The UTS accepts. that the proposal will have major influence on the transportation demand at a regional level. The current study area needs to be widened. to capture the breadth of influence on local and regional -scale traffic operations at a number of signalized intersections, as follows: i. Kingston Road: at Brock Road, Bainbridge Road, Elizabeth Street, Rotherglen Road, Westney Road, and Harwood Avenue; ii. Bayly Street: at Finley Avenue, Monarch Avenue, Kitney Drive, and Harwood Avenue; iii. Rossland Road: at Brock Road, Church Street, Ravenscroft Road, Westney Road, Seggar Avenue, Harwood Avenue; iv. Church Street: Delaney Drive, Rossland Road. Lincoln Street should be identified as a signalized intersection in the Study. Other Technical Comments Other technical comments from MMM and transportation staff includes the following: i. A market study should be used to inform the trip distribution. patter for the proposed entertainment land .uses. - ` - ii. A list of proxy sites should be provided for evaluation purposes. iii. The spacing between the proposed signalized intersections on Church Street and existing signalized intersections do not meet the Regional guidelines for what is typically accepted as spacing between intersections on Durham Regional roads. iv. The UTS assumes Church Street as a 4 lane urban. road between Mill Street (to the north of Highway 401) and Kingston Road, which does not reflect its current, recently completed 2 -lane urban confi guration with a centre left -tum lane and bicycle lanes. The UTS also identifies the following improvements to the road network: Widening of Brock Road and Westney Road from 4 to 6 lanes by Durham Region. r•i Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14;; r 1 e 117 ii. The provision of double left -turn lanes eastbound on Bayly Street at the Brock Road and Church Street intersections, as well as'additional southbound left -turn and eastbound right - turn lanes at the Bayly Street/Westney Road intersection. These are identified as "background development requirements ". During the PM peak, the Highway 401 south ramp intersections at Brock Road and Westney Road operate close to capacity in the existing and future background scenarios. A significant proportion of the trips generated by the development have been assigned to the proposed Notion Road underpass and to the Highway 4011 Church Street partial interchange. The latter is also anticipated to operate close to capacity as a result. The northbound 95th percentile queue at the Church Street south ramp terminal is predicted to be in excess of 200m long in the 5 -year total future model. However, the.Synchro output file includes a caveat stating that the "95th percentile- volume exceeds capdcity, queue may be longer"... For the entertainment land uses, the population of each district was applied, with those in Durham Region receiving _a double weighting in the assessment for the regional catchment. It would be appropriate to' apply an increase in the weighting to eastern areas of the City of Toronto and York Region. For example, Clarington is 42km from the site byroad but has been given a higher weighting than Markham (33km). Scarborough Town Centre is only 22km away, and Richmond Hill and Downtown Toronto are comparable distances, each approximately 45km away, yet this is not reflected in the weightings. According to MMM, if these locations were reflected in the weightings, the effect. would be to rebalance the trip distribution, reflecting 'a higher number of trips arriving from the west and northwest of the study area than is currently shown by the UTS. Planning Rationale Report As part of the Zoning By -law Amendment application, a Planning Rationale Report (PRR) was prepared by Planning Alliance dated January 31, 2014. The PRR provides a description of the site, 'surroundings, the.proposed development concept and a planning analysis. The PRR notes that "the illustrative concept for the site includes a casino and five -star hotel, convention centre, performing arts centre, outdoor amphitheatre, cinema. entertainment, restaurant plaza, waterpark hotel and waterpark, a boutique hotel, tourist centre / botanical gardens, community recreation centre, fitness centre and spa and varying commercial office uses..." The .PRR also indicates that "although many of the proposed uses for the Durham Live Tourist Destination would be permitted with the current zoning, uses such as the casino, hotels and convention centre would not conform to the current zoning categories. As such the applicant is seeking a rezoning for the entirety of the site..." The PRR references a Conceptual Master Plan that was prepared for the subject lands., but acknowledges. that it "was not prepared as a site plan or- a plan of. subdivision and does not represent the precise locations of the proposed uses.. It is for illustration purposes only. More detailed plans and designs would be prepared at future stages of the planning process, subsequent to this Zoning By -law Amendment". According to the PRR, transit is proposed by providing express route shuttle buses from the Ajax and Pickering GO Stations, and makes mention of the °potential to explore the feasibility for an express GO station and other transit infrastructure throughout the site ". 291 'rr�;�I,,;E�,�� a ro Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14r ` Af- L a� Page is The report also indicates the, following: "The proposed site- specific Zoning By -law Amendment provided in Section 5. 1 includes a list of permitted uses, as well as a general standards table. Because there are no specific plans and applications for specific uses on the subject site, we recommend that future development applications for the site be required to apply for site specific exceptions with respect to standards that will require more detailed information and review. These standards include: maximum %t• coverage, minimum and maximum building height and gross floor areas and parking." Staff's comments on the PRR include the following: The PRR does not identify the existence of an existing natural feature at the north east corner of the subject lands (a designated Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Feature within the Durham Regional Official Plan) although it is identified in the Functional Servicing Report (see below). Proposed Phase 1 approval area includes this area, but the required Environmental Impact Study needs to be completed before the principle of development -(and any required distance separation,.. mitigation and %or remediation requirements) can be determined. The New Road Connections (Proposed) as illustrated. on Map 14 for the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood Area of the City of Pickering Official Plan is not included in the development concepts advanced thus far. Staff question whether the absence of this road would cause a conformity issue with the City of Pickering Official Plan. iii. The proposed definition of a "Tourist Destination Use" is vague and could encompass, uses that may not otherwise be permissible in the Durham Regional Official Plan or the' City of Pickering Official Plan (i.e. Major Retail or other uses). Staff question whether the proposed definition in the draft zoning by -law could include other uses not already listed or proposed. 'iv. The boundaries of all designated natural features need to be confirmed. The proposed Phase 1 approval area appears to assume that. there will be no impact on identified local natural features if the development is beyond a 120 metre distance separation. This conclusion is premature without having the requisite environmental studies completed, reviewed and approved by all agencies: - v. The proposal should confirm the form of development through a draft plan of subdivision, which clearly identifies the proposed system of public roads and individual development sites. The proposed development concept appears to illustrate the closure of a portion of Kellino Road, while other submitted plans do not. vi.. The proposed zoning by -law amendment would provide for 3.0 FSI across the entire site. it is not clear -how this overall density would be distributed on individual development sites, and whether certain sites would have higher densities. The ability to evaluate individual site densities, building heights, massing, access and local traffic distribution should be provided through a comprehensive planning process, including a draft plan of subdivision. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment dated October 2011 prepared' by V.A. Wood Associates Ltd. was filed in support: of the application. Based on staffs review, the assessment 292 Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 �T I `nom' "`''''��',!i _`5 PcP�tR! LNa�P a g e 119 was only completed for the portion of the lands- south of Kellino Road, east of Squires Beach Road. The Durham Regional Official Plan indicates.that a Phase 1, and if necessary, a Phase 2 Environmental Site- Assessment Report is required for any proposal for development or site alteration on lands or adjacent lands that were previously used for industrial or noxious uses or in proximity to areas where. soil contamination is known or suspected. Environmental Site Assessment reports must be submitted in accordance with Regional requirements and Provincial guidelines -and laws. Section 15:9 of the City of Pickering Official Plan indicates that an Environmental Report is required if the subject lands are within 500 metres of a known waste disposal site. Based on staff's review, Certificates of Approval are in place for two waste disposal sites for properties on Toy Avenue. One site permits the processing and transfer of solid, non - hazardous commercial, industrial, institutional and municipal waste, and another for the receipt and processing of contaminated soil2. In addition, the. subject lands*are adjacent to a heavily used freight rail line. The lines connect to the CN York subdivision which provides rail freight traffic through York Region, including the main CN Interinodal freight transfer facility at Macmillan Yard in Vaughan. These freight rail lines or neighbouring spur lines may have experienced spills or other events which should be acknowledged and investigated through an updated Environmental Site Assessment3. Natural Heritage Assessment A Natural Heritage Assessment was completed by Beacon Environmental dated March, 2014 in support of the application. The Durham Regional Official Plan states that an Environmental Impact Study is required for any proposal for development or site alteration in proximity to natural heritage or hydrological features, natural hazards, or which may have major environmental impacts. Components 'of -the study may include an analysis of hydrogeological- and geo- technical conditions, servicing options, groundwater and surface water analysis and an examination of terrestrial, wildlife, and aquatics pecies. Section 2:3.43 of.the Durham Regional Official Plan indicates that any proposal for development or site alteration in proximity to key natural heritage or hydrologic features shall be required to include an Environmental Impact Study as part of a complete application, The ROP also indicates that such a study .shall apply to the area to be developed, or may be expanded 'to include additional lands, as may be deemed necessary by the Region, in consultation with the respective area municipality, conservation authority and any other appropriate agency, A portion of the subject lands on the west side of Church Street is designated `Key Natural Heritage and he Features' within the Durham Regional Official Plan and 'Shorelines and Stream Corridors' within the Pickering Official Plan., requiring an Environmental Report for lands within 50 metres of the lands so designated. The .Natural Heritage Assessment indicates that "the top-of bank along the tributary of Duffns Creek off -site to the past ... defines the limit of both the valley -feature. and the extent of existing vegetation. This. feature will be staked in the field with TRCA. staff in the summer of 2014 and will be subsequently surveyed". 3 See Ministry of Environment Certificates of Approval A680301 and 5143- 5ARHMH for more information. The section of the track between the Ajax and Pickering GO stations experienced two freight train derailment events including March 1, 2007 and on March 30, 2010. See Report No. R10T0056 of the Transportation Safety Board of Canada regarding the March 30, 2010 event for more information. 293 A,rrACHtVE 1T # .5 To Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 REPORT # LE�J_� p a g e 120 The report concludes that "the portion of -the subject lands within the Phase 1 approval area is Presently characterized by cultivated fields and is therefore unconstrained from a natural heritage perspective ". However, the area at the northeast corner of the site is acknowled ed as a Natural Heritage Feature on the Functional Servicing and 'Storm Water Management Report (see Figure 10). It is premature to conclude that the Phase 1 approval area is unconstrained without the completion and acceptance of the requisite studies. The Study should also include an in of the potential post - development impacts on the adjacent natural heritage system, including the potential impacts of noise, lighting, drainage and buildings and activities on ecological conditions, wildlife activity and habitat. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Mana ement Report A Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report (FSSMR), dated March 2014 prepared by Sabourin Kimble Associates Ltd. was also filed in support of the application. The FSSMR identifies a steep wooded bank at the northeast corner of the site as a Natural Heritage Feature, depicted in a separate Block (Block 17). It also indicates that the limit will be further refined during a field inventory and staking exercise to be carried out with the TRCA and an appropriate buffer. limit applied. As indicated earlier; staff are of the-view that this work should form part of the required EIS. The FSSMR indicates the following: "the conceptual master plan. was prepared for the entire site to demonstrate how the variety of uses and internal road network could be located and integrated on the site, as depicted on Figure 3 of the Planning Rationale Report by planningAlliance dated January 31, 2014, however it is not intended to be used as a site plan or a plan of subdivision and does not represent precise locations of Proposed uses, it is for illustration purposes only. More ' detailed plans and designs would be prepared at future stages of the planning process, subsequent to the zoning by -law amendment." The FSSMR also notes that the internal road network would consist of• a mix of municipal and private roads, and depicts a road network concept for the proposed. Phase 1 approvaF area for .illustration purposes, but notes that this network is likely to change as plans develop. In staff's view, the zoning by -law amendment application needs to be accompanied by a draft plan of subdivision application and supported with information that includes the following: i. Intersection locations with adjacent arterial roads and whether these intersections achieve -compliance with Regional standards for intersection spacing and design, in addition to the location of access driveways from these roads; ii. The adequacy of the proposed storm drainage system including proposed storm outflow facilities, locations and any associated impacts. Storm sewer discharge to Duffins Creek appears to be illustrated opposite the north east corner of the subject lands, which appears to. be either on Town of Ajax lands or on adjacent private property; 294 �ACHiNri )T Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 RE POi? j _. _...._.,p.a_g..e 21 295 Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 FT' 0 . h`/5/ P a g -e 122 iii. The "adequacy of municipal services for the subject lands and lands within the sanitary catchment area in keeping with their zoned and designated planning permissions needs to be confirmed.' Section 8.4.2.10'of the Durham Regional Official Plan includes policies that allow for an office park with ancillary recreational and community uses, and a limited amount of retail and personal service uses, at the northeast corner of Church Street and Bayly Street, in the Town of Ajax, with a gross floor area not exceeding a total of 950,000 sq. ft.-of floor space. iv. The actual manner by which the proposed uses Would be distributed on the lands, and - the interrelationship with such matters as building massing and the distribution of densities. Other Comments An Information Report was prepared for 'the City of Pickering Planning and Development Committee (No. 04-1.4) that was made available at the public info ma meeting of April 7, ti on 2014 and is appended to this report (See Attachment 1). The report also indicates that consideration is being given to the use' of. one or more holding zone provisions in the implementing zoning by -law, to address the differences between the Phase 1 and the Phase 2 lands, and ensure that the following matters are addressed: i. Resolving all matters with respect to traffic and access, noise, stormwater management, and site servicing to the satisfaction of the City and the Region; ii. Entering into any development agreements required by the City and the Region; Preparing urban design guidelines to the satisfaction of the City which may provide details regarding such matters as: street and block pattern; land use mix and distribution; built form and architecture; massing and heights of buildings; pedestrian connections; .parking strategy; landscaping and open space connections; preservation of natural features; view corridors; and phasing of the .proposed development; iv. Obtaining all required approvals and permits from external agencies including' MTO and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; V. Reviewing the submitted Natural Heritage 'Assessment report to determine the site's developable limits, establish minimum buffer requirements from the Provincially Significant Wetlands and other natural features, and. recommend mitigation measures to minimize any negative impacts on the surrounding natural features; vi. Reviewing the submitted Urban Transportation Study to ensure the existing transportation network can accommodate the future traffic generated development, and determine if there are any road improvements that may be required to accommodate the proposal; vii.. Determining the appropriate performance standards to be included in the zoning by -law amendment with respect to building height, building setbacks, parking and landscaping; Viii. The City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and the public. 296 f.vVLil'' F ; ­ F0 F Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A.3/14 Rc�'G' f / "a% page 123 Staff are of the view that establishing the principle of the proposed development subject to a Holding (H) symbol remains premature for the following reasons: i. The proposed development is reliant upon a partial interchange at Church Street/Highway 401 which requires an amendment to the Durham Regional Official .Plan, local official plans and provincial approvals. This interchange would directly affect local transportation 'infrastructure, commuter travel patterns and properties within Ajax's jurisdiction. ii. The pattern of public roads, access driveways, intersection spacing and associated network connectivity, including Church Street needs to be understood as determined through the draft-plan of subdivision process. The actual 'distribution of uses, densities, - massing of buildings, infrastructure improvements and the associated impacts needs to be examined as part of a comprehensive planning process. iv. The adequacy and appropriateness of infrastructure and the associated effects- on lands within Ajax's jurisdiction needs to be confirmed. As of the date of the preparation of this report, additional studies remain outstanding including a social impact assessment and a marketing report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: n/a COMMUNICATION ISSUES: As noted in this report, in order to provide a complete evaluation of the proposal, additional public processes are necessary, including the following: i. An amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan to introduce a highway interchange at Church Street; ii. An Environmental Assessment to introduce an interchange at Church Street; iii. An Environmental Assessment to introduce a bridge over Highway 401 to connect Notion Road and Squires Beach Road; iv. A Draft Plan of .subdivision .to provide for information regarding road connectivity, infrastructure, block layout, grading', * drainage, intersection spacing and other information. As of the date of the release of this report, Pickering staff advised that they are yet to receive comments from the Region of Durham or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Staff requested .notification of when this matter will be considered by the City of Pickering. 297 r.r -�_ AT Subject: City of Pickering Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 �' "�"� :�!!?'�al- /f 24 CONCLUSION: The Town of Ajax has been circulated Zoning By -law Amendment application A3/14 by the City of Pickering for review and comment. This report provides commentary on the application based on the information received thus far. As more information comes forward, additional comments will. be provided. Gary Mull r, MCIP, RPP Paul Allore, MCIP, RPP Manager f Planning Director of Planning and Development Services ATTACHMENT: 1.. City of Pickering Public Information Report Information Report to Planning & Development Committee PICKE ,Ed � _ C _ Report Number: 04 -14 REPOR i Date: April 7, 2014 From: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 Durham Live — Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly),Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. 1802 and 1902 Bayly Street, and 2028 Kellino Street i. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information regarding a. Zoning By -law Amendment application, submitted by Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc.. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc., to broaden the list of .permitted employment uses on the subject lands in order to facilitate the future development of an integrated mixed use tourist destination. This report contains qeneral information -on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to. date. This report is intended to assist members -of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand,the,proposal. Planning & Develbpment Committee will hear public delegations-on the application, ask questions of clarification and ,identify any planning issues. This report,is for information and no decision on this application is being made at this time.. Staff will bring forward a recommendation 'report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. 2. Property Location and Description .S • the subject lands comprise three parcels which have a combined area of approximately 90:5 hectares; the subject lands are generally bounded by. Highway 401 and GO Rail to the north, Church Street South to the east, Bayly Street to the south and the CN rail tracks to the west of Squires Beach Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1) • two municipal roads, Kellino Street and Squires Beach Road, bisect the subject lands, resulting in three separate parcels • the subject lands contain three minor tributaries of Duftins Creek, which flow from north to south, as well as forested and wetland areas that comprise part of the Lower D.uffins Creek Wetland Complex, a Provincially Significant Wetland (see Submitted Property Plan, Attachment #2) • portions of the subject lands have recently been used for agricultural purpose, while the remainder of the lands are.vacant open space • there are no buildings or other structures on the subject lands am Information Report No. 04 -14 ' .. .:_. - ., " Page 2 • surrounding land uses include: north - CN Rail corridor and Highway 401 east of Squires Beach Road; and a property with trailers stored on it west of Squires Beach Road immediately south of the CN' Rail corridor south - industrial lands o.n the south side of Bayly Street consisting of vehicle sales establishment, Pickering Markets and Trade Centre, warehouse- logistic facility, and a place of worship located at the northeast corner of Bayly Street and Squires -Beach Road east. - Annandale Golf and Country Club on the east side of Church Street in the Town of Ajax west - CO Rail line, and further west, industrial lands occupied with general industrial land use 3. Applicant's Proposal • the applicant is proposing to broaden the list of permitted employment uses on the subject lands in order to provide the flexibility to facilitate the future development of an integrated mixed use tourist destination a preliminary conceptual master plan has been prepared for the entire site demonstrating how'various buildings and uses could be located and. integrated on the site; the concept plan illustrates a convention centre, performing arts centre, amphitheatre, cinemas, restaurant plaza, casino and 'five-star hotel; waterpark hotel and waterpark, office buildings, tourist centrelgreenhouse; film studio, boutique hotel, fitness centre and spa, and' parking structures, (see Conceptual Master Plan, Attachment #3) • the vision is to have the site develop over time as a large, integrated and planned tourist'destination complex with a strong commitment to architectural and urban .design while integrating the. development with the surrounding environmental features; specific uses and precise locations would be identified in the future • the key design considerations for this project include: o protecting the environmentally sensitive lands by providing a buffer between the significant natural features and the developable spaces, while integrating passive recreational trails and walkways within the buffer areas o establishing a strong. commitment to design excellence with respect to enhanced architecture-and urban'design'while incorporating sustainable design elements such as minimizing energy consumption, maximizing stormwater infiltration, and incorporating green roofs o encouraging the design of streets, and blocks that create a walkable, animated and pedestrian friendly environment , o establishing prominent boulevards that include benches, street trees, other landscaping, pedestrian -scale lighting, and public art o providing ground floor uses that face a public space with transparent glazing along the ground level to animate the street and providing at least one pedestrian entrance for each building wall facing a.publicly accessible space, such as .a street, square, plaza of open space 5404 fT k Information-Report No. 04 -14 `'r �� `L'`'� *-- TO Page 3, pr o designing public and private streets to accommodate multiple modes of travel, anticipated traffic volumes, and on- street parking o minimizing surface parking, where appropriate, and incorporating on- street parking, time of use parking, and underground and structure parking . Eli 4.1 • ' the applicant has submitted a single Zoning By -law Amendment application but has requested that the implementing zoning by -law be prepared in two phases (see Submitted Zoning Phasing Plan, Attachment.#4) • the Phase 1 area was determined by the applicant by delineating a 120 metre offset from the Provincially Significant Wetlands located on the Phase 2 lands; development of the Phase 1 lands would therefore be outside the area of impact for these features; an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Phase 1 area has been submitted • for the' Phase 2 area, the applicant has advised that a separate.EIS is being undertaken for review and consideration, along with other supporting studies, to establish development limits that ensure the development of the Phase 2' lands will have no negative impact on the environmental features and their functions Policy Framework Durham Regional Official Plan • the-Regional Plan (DROP) designates the subject lands as "Urban Systems - Employment Areas" with a "Regional Corridor" overlay along the Bayly Street frontage • . the lands containing,the Duffns Creek tributaries, forested areas, and the Provincially Significant Wetlands are.desi.gnated as "KeyNaturaf Heritage and Hydrologic Features" requiring any proposal for development or site alteration to demonstrate that there will be no negative effects on key natural heritage or hydrologic features, or their functions • the DROP states that the Region, in cooperation with the area municipalities, shall maximize the employment potential of designated Employment Areas • Employment Areas may permit a range of employment uses including manufacturing, assembly and processing of goods, service industries, research and development facilities, warehousing, business parks, limited. personal service uses, hotels, office, storage of goods and materials, retail warehouses, freight transfer and transportation facilities • limited personal service and retail uses, serving the'immediate designated Employment Area may be permitted as a minor component (e.g. 10 %) of the aggregate gross floor area .of�the uses in the designated. Employment Area provided that a single retail use does not exceed 500 square metres "Regional Corridors" shall be planned and developed as the plan states that higher density mixed use areas supporting higher order transit services and development • Bayly Street is designated as a "Type A Arterial Road" and a `Transit Spine ."; Church Street is designated as a `Type B Arterial Road "; and Squires .Beach Road is designated as a "Type G Arterial Road" 5 %01 Information Report No. 'Page 4 • Regional staff have verbally advised that the concept of an integrated tourist destination is permitted by the Employment Area designation 4.2 Pickering Official Plan • in 1997, the Council- adopted Pickering Official Plan identified the land use designations for the subject lands as "Employment Areas - Mixed Employment" along the north side of Bayly Street, "Open Space System - Natural Areas" on the southwest corner, of the subject lands, and "Employment Areas - Prestige Employment" on the remaining lands • however, the Region of Durham, in approving the City's Official Plan,. identified the subject lands as a Deferral Area, represented as "D32" on Schedule 1 — Land Use Structure • the deferral-was the'result of a request by the previous land owner (Runnymede Development .Corporation) at the time the Region of Durham was considering the approval of the Pickering Official Plan, in 1997 the Region of Durham agreed to the deferral; however, the rationale for the deferral was not.further advanced by Runnymede and remained in place • in December 2013, the applicant requested that the Region and the City .lift the deferral for these lands; on March 10,2014, the Region of Durham issued a Notice of Decision to remove Deferral D32 thereby approving the underlying designations. • a range of employment uses are permitted Within the Prestige `Employmerit designation including: light manufacturing; assembly and processing of goods;: light service industries; office; corporate office business parks; limited personal services uses; restaurants; hotels; and appropriate community, cultural and recreational uses • the Mixed Employment designation permits the same uses as Prestige Employment, as well as limited retailing of goods and services serving the area • the lands that are designated Open Space- Natural Area represent lands that are in proximity to the wetlands associated with Puffins Creek • permissible uses within lands designated .Open Space = Natural Area include conservation, environmental protection, restoration and passive recreation • Schedule II — "Tran "sportation Systems", designates Bayly Street as a- "Type.'A' Arterial Road" and a Transit Spine ", Church Street is designated as a "Type 'B' Arterial Road" and Squires Beach -is designated as a "Type 'C' Arterial Road" • Type `A' Arterial Roads are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds, have,some access restrictions, and generally have a right -of -way width ranging from 36 to 50 metres • Type `B' Arterial Roads are designed to carry moderate volumes of traffic at moderate speeds, have some access restrictions, and generally have a right -of -way width ranging from 30 to 36 metres 5 §0 2. -Information Report No.-04 -14' Page 5 • Type.'C' Arterial Roads are designed to carry lower volumes of-traffic at slower speeds, provide access to properties, and have alight-of-way width ranging from 26 to 30 metres • Transit Spines are recognized corridors where higher level of transit service is to be encouraged • the concept of -- an integrated. tourist destination is permitted by the Prestige and Mixed Employment designations • the subject application will be assessed against the policies and provisions* of . the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the application 4.2.1 Brock Industrial Neighbourhood Policies • the subject lands are located within the Brock industrial Neighbourhood. • the Neighbourhood Map identifies a Detailed Review Area on the subject lands along the Bayly Street frontage • the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood policies state that City Council shall facilitate vehicular traffic movement through the neighbourhood through the extension of Squires Beach Road over Highway 401 to connect with. Notion Road • the Brock industrial Neighbourhood Plan shows a "Proposed New Road Connection" between Church Street and Squires Beach Road, located about ' �aa-f- way - between- Bay1y--&tr- ee- t- a -nd- Ketlino~- Str -eet 4.3 Zoning By -law 2511 • the subject.lands are currently zoned as, "M1" — Storage & Light Manufacturing Zone, "M2" — industrial Zone and "M2S" —Yard Storage and. Heavy Manufacturing Zone within Restricted Area Zoning By -law 2511', as amended • all three zones permit a variety of industrial uses, including but not limited to, professional office, business office, .light manufacturing, railway trackage and loading. facilities, and warehouse ordistributioh depot,.and are subject to various performance standards • the applicant has requested a zoning "by -law amendment to broaden the list of existing employment uses to facilitate the future development a Tourist Destination Zone • the specific tourist destination uses that have been requested are listed in Appendix I.to'this report 5. Con meets Received -5.1 Resident Comments • various parties have expressed interest in the application and have requested information, but none have pFovided specific comments or concerns on the application 5903. - Information Rep r; ,,_;; ort No. 04 -14 ' �" '�.��'` ` WW t u Page 6 5.2 Agency Comments Ministry of Transportation Ministry of Transportation (MTO) has advised that the subject lands are within their permit control area future development of these_Jands will require Ministry's review and approval, and a MTO Building and Land Use Permit for any . development, entrance; change of entrance use, building or structure within 45 metres of the Highway 401 property line, or within 395 metres of the centre point of an intersection or interchange with Highway 401 5.3 City Departments Comments • none received in response to the circulation to date 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • reviewing the appropriateness of establishing a major tourisf.destination zone in the City of Pickering. • reviewing the applicant's suggested list of additional employment uses to determine if they are appropriate for a tourist destination zone and appropriately implement the policies and provisions of the City's Official Plan • ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with and sensitive to .the existing surrounding. uses • . considering an alternative to*the applicant's request to have the zoning by -law amendment application processed in two phases that would allow the entirety of the lands to be zoned at the same time • considering -the. use of one or more holding zone provisions in the implementing zoning by -law, to address the differences between-the Phase 1 and Phase 2 lands, and ensure that the following matters are addressed: o - resolving all technical matters with respect to traffic and access, noise; .stormwater management, and site servicing to the satisfaction of the City and the Region o entering into'any.developrQent agreements required by the City aind the Region o preparing urban design guidelines to.-the satisfaction of the City which may provide details regarding such matters as: street and block pattern; land use mix and distribution; built form and architecture; massing and heights of buildings; pedestrian connections.; parking strategy; landscaping and open space connections; preservation of natural features; view corridors; and phasing of the proposed development' o obtaining all required approvals and permits.from .external agencies including MTO and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 583.04 Information �. "': iT 5. n Report No.- 04 -14 Page _ 7 - • reviewing the submitted Natural Heritage Assessment report to determine the site's developable limits, establish. minimum buffer requirements from the Provincially Significant Wetlands and other natural features, and recommend mitigation measures to minimize any negative impacts on the natural features • reviewing the submitted Urban Transportation Study to ensure the existing transportation network can accommodate the future traffic generated by this development, and determine if there are any road improvements that may be required to accommodate the proposal • determining the appropriate performance standards to.be' included in the zoning by -law amendment with respect to building height, building setbacks,. parking, and landscaping • the City Development Department will conclude its.position on the applications after.it has received and assessed comments from the circulated department, agencies'and public 7. Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at- the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department,'-and Q* n the City's website: • Planning Rationale Report • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report. Natural Heritage. Assessment- Phase 1 Approval Area • Noise Study Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment • Urban Transportation Study — Phase 1 Development Plan 8. Procedural Information 8.1 General' • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department- oral comments may be made at the Public information Meeting • all comments received will be noted .and used as input to a Planning Report . prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal . Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by -law for this proposal any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 9 A 305 i Info` ".'... ..t _ rrnatiori Report No. 04 -14 Page 8 9. Owner /Applicant Information " • the owners of the subject lands are Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires} Inc.; the representative of these companies is Steve Apostolopoulos; their authorized agent is Emma West from plan ningAlliance Appendix Appendix I Applicant's Requested Tourist Destination Uses Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Submitted Property Plan 3. Conceptual Master Plan 4. Submitted Zoning Phasing Plan Prepared By: . Ross Pyni; MCI PP. Princi al Pla ner _ Development Review Nilesh Su rti, MCIP, RP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design RP :jf Date of Report March 21, 2014 .. Copy: Director, City Development I >0 306 Approved /Endorsed By Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Chief Planner Appendix 1 to Information Report #04 -14 Applicant's Requested Tourist Destination Uses Indoor Recreational Facility Amphitheatre - Arena Library Tavern /Bar/Pub Licensed 'Accessory Outdoor Patio Travel Agent Art Gallery Tavel Information Centre Assembly, Convention or Conference Medical Office Unlicensed Accessory Outdoor Patio Halls Automobile Rental Establishment Motel Veterinary clinic Automobile Service Station Museum WaterparkM(ave Pool Bake Shop Nightclub Banquet Facilities Office Gaming Establishment Other Tourist Destination Uses Bar . Outdoor Recreational Facility Botanical Gardens Park. Cafe / Restaurant Performing Arts Centre Nenue Commercial Fitness /Recreation Centre Personal Service Establishment Commercial Parking lot and Commercial Place of Amusement Parking Lot Structure Commercial School Private Club Community Centre n ura�iv a Vlrl YIt,tJ� Community Gardens . Spa Convenience Store Stadium Curling Rinks, Tennis Courts, Bowling Alleys or similar recreational facilities Tavern /Bar/Pub Day, Care Centre Travel Agent Drive - through Facility Tavel Information Centre Dry - Cleaner's Distribution Centre Unlicensed Accessory Outdoor Patio Emergency Service Facility Veterinary clinic Film Studio WaterparkM(ave Pool Financial Institution Retail Ancillary to a Permitted Use Gaming Establishment Other Tourist Destination Uses Hotel I 61 307' Infoobtlon I1 11' t HEWN 014 riffs 4�►�sl���tl�? Pa el . 309 _t f� L v rl In :T r x Y i . VIC . ! A .fir ,.�' �% . „ . y tr �. � - '. • _ �y — � z �! `' r T� as �' � +' 'w�� ^ 8� � � ' r • . w" •�.' � s ^'+ c ref �� '�I �� � �'+Z i �vj � >.x � �� ! • �' I � � a t r i. 1 � yr' i ���_� ! - $.}tz � S-'-' • � • a - , w Hl 64-10 ------------------------------ ------ I .. . ... . ......... A A tt,,,(�mm ent L4 (Phase 2) rExrEmzru A m TD(1) Phase 1) ---------- - --- Legend tPickering Official Plan Naturaj-�reat; oeflln.es, Stream Corridors and Wetlands* *Afote. As shown an Schedule 1 and SchLdW,3 of the 0yof Pickering _7 Official Man Submitted Zoning Phasing Plan FILE No: A 03/14 Pickering Developments 11 Inc Picketing Devei( APPLICANT: "'clle merits taulro Inc Flakenn'Q evelopm 6a bt PROPERTY DtSCRIPTiON: 2'90 "? Ke T in SL yo ' City Development 1802 Bayiy SL (S. PL LL 17, Con. i, PL Z3& P0, 4OR-8440) Depirlment OF THIS PLAN AREA FOR AEWINGkT THE CITY 01-- Pi5RMZ rm# =c,,,= DEPARTMENT. ........ . .. AMNANWIF DATE: Mar. 7, 2014 ,�11 Town of A(((jp4 e Lake April 14, 2014 Planning & TOWN OF AJAX Development Servicef.,,,,�� T635 Harwood Avenue South Tel. 905 -683 -4550 REPWi o l i�f -/(/- Ajax ON L1 S 21-19 Fax. 905 - 683 -0360 Ross Pym Principal Planner — Development Review City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering ON L1 V 6K7 Dear Mr. Pym: www.aiax.ca RECEIVED APR 1 52014 CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 03/13 Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments ( Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. 1802 & 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road Thank you for your circulation letter of March 10, 2014 regarding the above captioned zoning by -law amendment application. Based on the materials filed and reports prepared, we understand that the intent of the application is to "broaden the list of permitted employment uses on the subject lands in order to facilitate the future development of an integrated mixed use tourist destination ". The area beyond 120 metres of on -site provincially significant wetlands is proposed be placed into a new Tourist. Destination (TD) zone first, and the remaining lands proposed to be rezoned after an Environmental Impact Study is completed. Town staff are also in receipt of the following reports: • Planning Rationale Report • Phase 1 Development Plan Urban Transportation Study • Natural Heritage Assessment — Durham Live Tourist Destination Phase 1 Approval Area • Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment • Environmental Noise Feasibility Study • Functional Servicing and Stormwater. Management Report — Durham Live Tourist Destination Phase 1 Approval Area • Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Ajax staff are still in the process of reviewing the above documents, and will provide a complete set of comments as soon as they can be made available. In the interim however, we offer the following cursory comments for your review and consideration: The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment was only completed for the portion of the lands south of Kellino Road, east of Squires Beach Road. Please provide a copy of a completed ESA for the entire subject lands as soon as it is available. 2. A portion of the subject lands on the west side of. Church Street are designated `Key Natural Heritage and Hydrologic Features' within the Durham Regional Official Plan and `Shorelines and Stream Corridors'. within the Pickering Official Plan, requiring an Environmental Report for lands within 50 metres of the lands so designated. The Natural Heritage Assessment does not appear to address this feature or designation(s). 312 Ontario's First ISO 9001 Quality Community ATTliC Tn REPOR 3. The Urban Transportation Study indicates that the Phase 1 development will consist of 250,000 m2 (2.69 million sq. ft.) of gross floor space. The report further indicates.that Church Street is a 4 lane urban section from .Mill Street to Kingston Road,' under Regional jurisdiction. This section is a 2 lane arterial road with .@ centre left turn lane under the jurisdiction of the Town of Ajax. In addition, please provide additional information about the geometrics, land requirements, process and approval requirements, required timing and proposed funding -for identified infrastructure improvements highlighted in the report including: a. The proposed new highway 401 access ramps to Church Street; b. The proposed connection of Squires Beach Road to Notion Road over, (or under) Highway 401. 4. The Functional Servicing Report indicates that the internal road network on the subject lands will consist of a mix of municipal and private roads: It is unclear whether a separate draft_ plan of subdivision application will be filed and processed to inform this review. In terms of sanitary servicing, it is unclear whether the proposed scale of development will still enable existing permitted uses within Ajax to develop in accordance with zoned . permissions. Additional information and clarification on these points is appreciated. We wish to reserve the right to provide additional comments on the filed studies once a detailed review is complete. In addition, it is our understanding that the applicant will be filing additional reports, including a market/economic study. We would appreciate receiving a copy of the study at your earliest convenience. Thank you for your consideration. Yours truly Gary. Muller, MCIP, RPP Managef of Planning . Town of Ajax (905) 619 -2529 ext. 3201 gary.muller(aD_ajax.ca Ontario's First ISO 9001 Quality Community 313 ® Town of By the Lake August 7, 2014 Ross Pym Principal Planner - Development Review City of Pickering Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering ON L11/.6K7 Dear Mr. Pym: TOWN OF AJAX 65.Harvvood Avenue South Ajax ON L1 S 2H9 www.townofajax.com RECEIVED AUG 1 1 2014 ' CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Additional Comments Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3114 Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc: and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. Thank you for forwarding additional information regarding the above captioned development application. Further to the Town's comments in the June 2, 2014 report to Ajax Community Affairs and Planning Committee, we wish to provide the following additional comments. Planninq Rationale Report Staff's additional comments on the revised Planning Rationale Report (PRR) are as follows: 1.. The PRR needs to provide an analysis or planning rationale to indicate how the proposed zoning by -law amendment complies with the Employment Area designation in the Durham Regional Official Plan and the employment designations in the. Pickering Official Plan. 2. The PRR needs to include a schedule to the proposed zoning by -law that identifies the. Assessment Roll Numbers for each. parcel of land to be zoned "Major Tourist Destination" Zone (TD). 3. The list of permitted uses in the Major Tourist Destination zone category is open ended and not an explicit list of uses. The last bullet in the list of'permitted uses "Other Tourist Destination Uses" should be removed. 4. The proposed zoning by -law does not include any wording as to how the various phases of development will occur, how the public process will unfold, and what supporting documentation will be required. 5. The lands identified by the proposed TD zoning for Phase 2A should be zoned for Natural Heritage purposes. The proposed TD zoning for Phase 2B should not apply to all the lands since some of the lands will need to be zoned for Natural Heritage purposes to preserve the PSW and other natural features on the site once the EIS is completed and approved. 314 Ontario's First, ISO 9001 Quality Community T��(� T /O� 6. The PRR shows concept plans of the proposed facilities and appears to indicate that the buffers to the NHS will be developed. It is not clear what the development plan will look like, or if all of the proposed facilities would- be included in the Phase 1 development limits. The concept plans and the drawings within the FSR must match. 7. The PRR claims that the proposed uses could create. a viable tourist destination in the event that a casino is not implemented, which is contrary to the direction taken in the Economic Impact Assessment which indicates that an integrated "resort casino" is the primary driver for the development. This discrepancy should be made consistent in each of the supporting documents. Urban Transportation Study The revised Urban Transportation Study (UTS) introduces intermediate scenarios of development. However, the exact nature of the proposed development needs to be clarified and a clear, comprehensive and technically feasible set of measures to mitigate impacts on.the road network, including sections under the Town's jurisdiction is needed. A separate commenting memo from the Town's transportation consultant, the MMM Group is appended. Staff's additional comments are noted below: 1. There is a volume error at the EBT through movement under the "Future Total — 10 Year Horizon 100 %" scenario for the afternoon peak hour. The lane configurations at the Kingston /Brock and KingstonANestney intersections_for Figures 4, 17 to 22 needs to be updated. 2. Certain relevant intersections not included in the technical analysis should be included in the UTS to quantify the impacts of the site generated traffic from the proposed development, as follows: a. Kingston Road at Elizabeth Street; b. Kingston Road at Rotherglen Road; c. Church Street at Lincoln Street; and, d. Westney Road at O'Brien Court. 3. Any movements with ,v /c ratios at or greater than 0.85 are considered critical. Any movements with v/c ratios of 0.90 or greater may experience excessive delay and queuing conditions may occur. Mitigating measures should be provided for critical movements. Please provide a summary table that highlights any critical movements for each scenario as well as any proposed corresponding mitigating measures. 4. The peak hour factors utilized as part of the future traffic analysis are inconsistent. At some intersections, a common peak hour factor was applied to every individual movement while in others, different peak hour factors were applied to each movement. The future peak hour factors used ranged from 0.90 to 1.0. It is unclear how the future peak hour factors were determined and utilized. 5. Under future traffic conditions, the Synchro output sheets indicate that numerous 95th percentile queues exceed capacity and that the queues may be longer. A queue analysis is required to determine if the current storage lengths are sufficient to accommodate future traffic conditions. Recommendations should be provided where the existing storage lengths are insufficient to accommodate future queues. Page 2 315 ATT.`,C:, tr ^!T . TO Z N cg /-/� =s�a 6. Signalization is proposed at the intersections of Notion Road at Pickering Parkway, Notion Road at Kellino Street, Church Street at Kellino Street and Church Street at Proposed Access. A corresponding traffic signal warrant analysis should be provided based on the projected volumes. 7. The proposed Church Street/401 interchange and the Notion Road /Squires Beach Road underpass may not be approved. Contingency roadway improvement options should be identified and operational results quantified that would service future traffic conditions. 8. 'Section 5.4.1 acknowledges that the Region of Durham has policies in place to minimize any dual left turns. However, dual left turns are proposed at the following locations: a. Eastbound dual left at Kingston /Brock; b. Southbound dual left at Notion /Kellino; .c. Eastbound dual left at Church /Kellino; d. Southbound dual left at Church /Bayly; e. Southbound dual left at Westney /Bayly. Contingency improvements should be identified assuming the Region continues to oppose dual left turn movements. 9. Phase 2 of the proposed development will require improvements to the transportation network that are in addition those that are - outlined in the report. The extent of development within Phase 2 needs to be studied in order that its corresponding impacts and any related mitigating measures can be understood. 10. It is noted that the crossing of the 401 connecting Notion Road and Squires Beach Road is assumed as an underpass. There is a TRCA Special Policy Area immediately to the north of the Highway, from west of Notion Road to Duffins Creek in recognition of the existing floodplain. Staff question if the proposed underpass could act as a floodway during severe storm events. In turn, the length of the approaches should be clearly understood and their potential implications on the external road network, - future intersection designs and property requirements. 11. The UTS identifies potential funding sources for proposed improvements to the Regional and provincial road network, including federal and provincial infrastructure programs, potential development charges for .benefiting areas and direct private sector contributions. The UTS should clarify the following: a. The benefiting areas for the proposed improvements and whether financial contributions from landowners and /or developers within Ajax is required or sought for these improvements; b. The proposed funding source for proposed changes to local roads within Ajax; c. A cost estimate for the proposed works; d. The process and timeframe for securing the requisite funds. 316 Page 3 eT "'-'e 'PJ 0 TO Natural Heritage Assessment The following additional comments are provided on the revised Natural Heritage Assessment (NHA): The NHA cites Section 15.9 (Evaluation Reports Required within Natural Heritage System) as the appropriate report to evaluate the natural features on the site, however this report is only required for lands within the Greenbelt. It is our understanding that an Environmental Report is required for development within 50 metres of Shorelines and Stream Corridors or within 120 - 75m of a wetland depending on the classification. 2. The NHA assumes that only the portions of a development within 120 metres of the PSW would be evaluated. However, impacts on natural areas /systems can occur from development that is beyond 120 metres. It is appropriate that a comprehensive Environmental Report for the entire development be completed to delineate areas that are to be designated Natural Area and the adjacent vegetated buffer to protect the features from the impact of development and in turn determine the appropriate extent of the developable area. 3. The evaluation of impacts in the Environmental Report should be based on a detailed plan that depicts the scale and location of proposed buildings, structures, public and i private infrastructure, public spaces and proposed mitigation measures. Impacts from development cannot be adequately evaluated and addressed without this information. 4. The FSSMR indicates that the storm' sewer system for Block 2 (eastern half of the property located north of Kellino Street) will be designed to capture and convey the 5 year storm from roads and lots in the proposed development to'Duffins Creek. The storm water that will be directed to Duffins Creek will drain through Ajax's portion of the PSW and discharge downstream. As such, the NHA needs to evaluate how the proposed development will affect/impact the portion of the PSW in Ajax and explain the recommended actions to avoid potential adverse effects and negative impacts on Ajax's portion of the PSW. Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report The following additional comments are provided. 1. To facilitate our review of the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report ( FSSMR), the following additional information is needed: a. The Ajax and Pickering borders as well as the property lines surrounding the study area. b. The design and as -built details of the existing storm water management facility located external to the study area. Please include volumes, existing outlet controls and outlet locations. It should also be confirmed that the existing SWM facility was designed and constructed to current criteria (Municipal, TRCA & MOE). c. Slope stability information to determine whether it is appropriate to construct a LID at the top of the slope adjacent to the natural feature. at the north east corner of the site. Similarly, Metrolinx and CN should determine whether they are satisfied with the proposed LID and the associated runoff adjacent to their Page 4 317 infrastructure at the north limit of the subject site. It is difficult to determine if other options are feasible since a detailed site plan is not provided. 2. The existing pond outlet is directed to the Duffins Creek Marsh wetland complex which is an environmentally sensitive area. Additional treatment of runoff from the proposed development should be included to demonstrate that there is no net increase in phosphorus or other contaminant loadings. Additional on -site controls or whether there is a need to retrofit the existing SWM facility should be addressed. 3. A storm outlet is proposed east of Church Street which appears to cross a portion of the Duffins Creek Trail which was funded and constructed by the Town of Ajax. The impact of this outlet. has not been addressed. In addition, it will need to be demonstrated that there will be no erosion or other adverse effects from runoff being redirected to this area. 4. The 100 -year storm flow has been proposed to be captured and controlled to the 5 -year post development runoff rate. It is not clear where the major system flows will be directed if these controls fail or whether the proposed internal roads have the capacity to convey the uncontrolled 100 -year flow or the Regional Storm flow. All major system flows should be controlled internally and not be directed to Church Street or Bayly Street. If the TRCA allows a release rate to the Duffins greater than the 5 -year, then how will the flow be conveyed? It is not clear who will be responsible for the maintenance of the conveyance system or any portions thereof if it is within the Town of Ajax. 5. An FSSMR which addresses the entire study area needs to be provided, based on appropriate buffers from the natural heritage features to inform a site plan and storm water management strategy. Please forward any responses to this letter, our previous letter and the report of Ajax Planning Staff to the June 2, 2014 meeting of Ajax Community Affairs and Planning Committee to my attention. Yours tally, Gary M9Iler, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning Town of Ajax gary.muller(a-aiax.ca (90 5) 619 -2529 ext. 3201 Copies: Paul Allore, Director of Planning and Development Services Brian Skinner, CAO Council (Attachment) 318 Paoe 5 -- - - -._ — - - -- - - - -- - ANN& MMM GROUP To: Gary Muller, Town of Ajax Date: From: Michael Parker, Brett Sears Subject: Durham Live Tourist Destination: Peer Review of Planning Rationale Report and Phase 1 Approval Area Urban Transportation Study Town of Ajax: Transportation Services August 7, 2014 Job No.: 1613068 - 001 -LIV Per the Town's request, MMM Group has prepared a transportation peer review, of the 'Durham Live, Tourist Destination Planning Rationale Report' by planningAlliance and the 'Durham Live Tourist Destination Phase.1 Approval Area Urban' Transportation Study' by BA Group. Both documents are dated June 3, 2014. The review has been conducted .keeping in mind any potential impacts on the transportation network within and bordering the Town. Potential issues that have been identified on roads outside of the Town of Ajax are also noted as there may be indirect implications for the Town's network or the Town may wish to share these observations with the relevant municipality.- Executive Summary The following key points have been identified: • The applicant is seeking a rezoning for the entirety of the site from the existing designation for Manufacturing uses to a new Major Tourist Destination land use. • According to the Planning Rationale Report, the proposed development desires to move forward with or without the casino. Partial build out scenarios have been modelled in the Urban Transportation Study, however the adjustment in land uses and associated number of units for each has not been identified. • The rates applied to the trip generation calculations may result in an underestimate of the number of additional vehicles on the road due to the cinema complex in *the Saturday peak and due to the restaurant in the PM and Saturday peaks. • In addition to a 10 -year (2024) horizon that assumes the full build out of the development as per the trip generation calculations, partial build out scenarios of 25 %, 50 %, 60% and 75% have - been presented. As the scale of development increases, the horizon has been extended. • For all the presented scenarios except the 25% build out, the development requires a new underpass connecting Squires Beach Road and' Notion Road, and a partial interchange at Church Street. The Urban Transportation Study concludes that the road network can accommodate the additional trips generated by the 50% build out and the 60% `As of Right' scenario without the need for the Church Street partial interchange. However, the modelling outputs provided indicate that key Regional Road intersections would be operating at capacity, and that queuing from the Westney Road southern ramp terminal would affect Ajax GO Rail station access and the operation of Highway 401. • Even with the proposed partial interchange and underpass, the northern and southern ramp terminals of the existing Highway 401 interchanges at Westney Road and Brock Road' are all expected to operate at or above the recommended maximum volume -to- capacity ratio of 0.85 in the PM peak hour in the 75% and 100% build out scenarios. . • In assigning a horizon year to each future scenario, the UTS assumes that the roadway network improvements required to manage the site - generated traffic can be implemented by that time. Given the need for studies and co- ordination with Durham Region's upgrade program, the selection of horizon years may be optimistic. I 100 Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, ON L3T 0A1 I t: 905.882.1100 1 f:.905.882.0055 I w. wm.mmm.ca 319 AM II1d1�11 M GROUP Page 2 • The trip assignment methodology gives more weight to Durham Region (predominantly to the :east of the site) than to other parts of the GTA. If a higher than anticipated proportion of trips . were to come from the population centres to the west, then more traffic would use the proposed Church Street interchange, reducing its spare capacity. • It is not clear whether the existing bike lanes can be maintained if Church Street is widened from 2 to 4 lanes. • Currently, only one Durham. Region Transit route (923) runs along Bayly Street adjacent to the site boundary with a maximum frequency of 4 buses per hour. Significant improvements in service would be required to encourage transit use from Ajax and Pickering. • The spacing between the proposed signalized intersections on Church Street and existing signalized intersections does not conform to the Regional Arterial Corridor Guidelines_ • Several dedicated right -turn lanes are proposed, many of them channelized. These are being phased out in many urban areas and, depending on individual site characteristics, non - channelized right -turn lanes may not be an appropriate alternative. • The study anticipates that federal, provincial or private sector funding will be available to contribute to the cost of a partial interchange on Highway 401 at Church Street. However, it is not known what funding commitments, if any, have been made to date. • The location of the proposed partial interchange on Church Street is too close to the two adjacent interchanges at Westney Road and Brock.Road. This will,result in diminished capacity, as well as safety and operational conflicts on this busy section of the highway. • Ramp construction for the interchange would appear to necessitate the loss of the existing access to Church Street from Mill Street, which falls under the Town's jurisdiction. The closest alternative access point is Lincoln Street approximately 500m to the north. The exact nature of the proposed, development needs to be clarified. A clear, comprehensive and technically feasible set of measures to successfully mitigate impacts on the road network, including sections under the Town's jurisdiction, is also required. More detail on these and other observations is given below. Planning Rationale Report The Planning Rationale Report supports the development of the Durham Live site. From a transportation perspective, two items are of particular note. - -1 The applicant is seeking a rezoning for the entirety of the site. Presently, the proposed site is zoned M1 Light Manufacturing Zone and M2S Heavy Manufacturing Zone. The applicant states that some of the proposed land uses are not permitted under the current zoning categories. If the site were developed with the existing zoning consistent with the surrounding land uses, it would be expected to generate significantly fewer vehicle trips than the proposed Durham Live development. The proposed development desires to move forward, with or without the casino. The Planning Rationale Report acknowledges that the decision rests with Ontario Lottery and Gaming (OLG) on the location of a new casino in the province. In the event that the Durham Live site is not selected -by OLG, the development is expected to move forward with the other tourist destination land uses. The other proposed land uses without a casino would still encompass a major tourist destination, and would be expected to generate traffic volumes that would impact roads within the Town of Ajax. 320 100 Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, ON L3T 0A1 I t: 905.882.1100 1 f. 905.882.0055 1 w WWW_mmm.ca Page ._. M M M GROUP ;:. �, 1: ' °A Urban Transportation Study Quotations in italics are taken from -the Urban Transportation Study (UTS) and are accompanied by the relevant section number in brackets. General Comments • Figure 2 divides the subject lands into three approval areas. These are designated 'TD(1)', 'TD(2A)' and 'TD(2B)' which, according to the legend, correspond to the phasing of approvals. Areas 2A and 2B are both identified as "Phase 2 approval area subject to additional supporting studies ". The text states: "The Phase 2a and 2b approval areas have been proposed. because: o Further discussions with the TRCA will be required for the Phase 2a area in order to determine the buffer associated with the stable top of bank as well as the location of the road embankment boundary, o Further environmental study is required for Phase 2b to determine the limits of the natural features and their associated buffers." (1.2) The UTS states that "this Transportation Study report specifically addresses a potential development scenario within the Phase 1 approval area, indicated as TD (1)' in Figure 2" (1.2). • Figure 3 is entitled "Conceptual Illustration Master Plan" and is described as "only an illustration of one way that the site could be designed" (3.3.2) and "representing one possible scenario for the site" (1.2). However, the proposed development shown in Figure 3 extends significantly beyond the area designated as Phase 1 ('TD(1)') in Figure 2 and includes development on land designated as Phase 2b ('TD(2B)'). The footprint in Figure 3 also appears to cross the dashed lines in Figure 2 identifying "City of Pickering Official Plan Natural Areas, Shorelines, Stream Corridors and Wetlands boundaries. Figure 3 also includes an Express GO station, however this is not mentioned elsewhere in the Phase 1 report. Figure 3 does not appear to be consistent with the aforementioned statement indicating that the UTS report addresses only Phase 1 of the development. If this is not the case, the subsequent expansion of the site would result in the generation of additional traffic not considered in the UTS report • The Planning Background section (1.2) describes the proposed land uses. Among the listed uses are: • Automobile Rental Establishment and Service Station; • Bake Shop; : • Commercial School; • Convenience Store; • Curling Rinks, Tennis Courts, Bowling Alleys or similar recreational facilities; • Day Care Centre; • Drive - through Facility; • Dry- Cleaner's Distribution Centre; • Education and Training; • Emergency Service Facility; • Financial Institution; • Library', o Medical Office; • Museum;, • Nightclub; and • Veterinary clinic. 100 Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, ON L3T 0A1 I t: 905.882.1100 I f: 905.882.0055 1 W. www.mmm.ca 321 MMM GROUP �iyj _ Y Page 4 It is not clear from Figure 3 where many of those land uses will be accommodated. Also, these land uses do not appear to be represented in the land use schedule (Table 1) or trip generation calculations (Tables 3 — 5 and Appendix B). Although Figure 3 is described as conceptual and illustrative, it should be noted that it does show a "limited access road [that] will provide a direct connection to Bayly Street just to the west of Church Street. One or more additional limited access driveways may also be provided to serve the uses along Church Street" (3.1.1). The limited access road onto Bayly Street is shown approximately 150m west of the intersection with Church Street, and the additional driveways on Church Street are shown approximately 150m and 300m north of the Bayly Street intersection. Access and intersection spacing requirements should be confirmed with Durham Region. The UTS does refer to the Region's Arterial Corridor Guidelines, stating that for Type B arterials . "minimum intersection spacing criteria suggest 525m spacing on north /south roads" (2.1.2). However, drawing FD -01 and Figure 22 appear to show .three signalized intersections on the 650m section of Church Street, a Type B north -south arterial, between Kellino Street and Bayly Street. • "Certain street sections will be closed to traffic during peak times of evening and weekend activity at Durham Live with appropriate vehicular traffic operations continuing to be provided by the balance of the street system serving the project" (3.2.3). A significant proportion of those attending such events are likely to arrive from Ajax. Depending on the demand levels and road closures associated with a particular event, there is the potential for queuing to back onto the public roads bordering the site. Given the proximity of the accesses proposed in the southeast corner to the Bayly Street / Church Street intersection, such a scenario may impact its operation. The UTS also states that there will be a "series of new public streets and private ' driveways integrated with the surrounding arterial street system ... the internal street and driveway plan will continue to be refined through the site design process" (3.3.2). The operation of the internal network should be assessed, in particular the potential for queuing.to affect the operation of the external road network, particularly Church Street and its intersection with Bayly Street. • The UTS report correctly identifies the proposed cycling improvements in the 2012 Durham Regional Cycling Plan and states that "an integrated system of pedestrian and cycling facilities to complement the evolving Regional Active Transportation network will be provided within the Site _ I Plans prepared for individual components of Durham Live" (3.2.3.1). It should be noted that, based on the network phasing map in the Regional Cycling Plan,- the facilities on Bayly Street and Westney Road may not be implemented until 2032. The UTS makes no specific reference to seeking the accelerated implementation of any routes in the Regional Cycling Plan. Church Street is an Active Transportation route and it is not clear whether the existing bike lanes can be maintained if Church Street is widened from 2 to 4 lanes. Existing Conditions • The Church Street signalized intersection with Lincoln Street and Randall Drive is shown in Figure 4, which illustrates the Existing Study Area Street Network; however, it is not included in the list of signalized intersections that have been assessed in sections 1.3.1 and 4.1. 322 100 Commerce Valley Drive West, Thornhill, ON L3T OA1 I t: 905.882.1100 1 P. 905.882.0055 1 W. www.mmm.ca T. H. 01. __.T Page 5 i %VVV G R O U P 7 Future Background • "General corridor growth increases have been based upon discussions with the Region of Durham transportation staff. Growth of 0.5% per annum for all movements on all area roads has been adopted" (4.4). This is consistent with the Medallion Transportation Impact Study prepared by IBI Group in June 2012. Trips that are expected to be generated by the Medallion development have been taken from the, aforementioned IBI study- However, the following points should be noted: • The Phase 1 Medallion volumes used for the 5 -year. (2019) Durham Live horizon are expected to be on the road network in 2015 according to the Medallion report. The Medallion full build - out scenario has been applied to the 10 -year (2024) Durham Live horizon. • The Medallion TIS did not consider a Saturday peak period, and the projected trip generation and distribution for the Medallion PM peak has been assumed for the Durham Live Saturday peak. • The study area for Durham Live extends only as far east as Westney Road; however, volumes of up to 163 vehicles eastbound and 175 vehicles westbound are expected to be added to sections of Bayly Street to the east. The Medallion development report highlights future critical movements at the Salem Road and Harwood Avenue intersections,' even though it assumes that Bayly Street will be widened in that area- It also shows that at Harwood Avenue and the other intersections between Westney Road and Salem Road, the two heaviest movements are the eastbound and westbound through movements. Consequently, traffic generated by the Durham Live development can be expected to - place additional pressure on those intersections. • "No specific traffic volumes associated with the Soccer Centre and the Operation Centre have been added to Future Background traffic volumes. Given the small size of these developments, their low intensity and off -peak nature of traffic activity it has been assumed that any increases in traffic volumes associated with these developments can be reasonably assumed to be included with the allowance for corridor traffic growth" (4.4). However, an article on the Durham Region website indicates that the proposals include a 9,000 square foot air supported dome and that the club expects its 3,500 membership to increase with the availability of year -round training. The Pickering Soccer Club website indicates that many of their events commence at 7pm on weekday evenings. Consequently, this background development may produce additional traffic in the PM peak that is not accounted for in the Durham Live UTS report. Further investigation should be undertaken to determine whether increased volumes associated with the Soccer Centre development will reduce the spare network capacity available to accommodate a Durham Live development. "Preliminary traffic volumes for the South Downtown (Pickering Downtown Intensification) have been drawn from air ongoing Traffic Impact Study currently being completed by BA Group" (4.4). Although volumes have been included in Appendix D of the UTS, the source document has not been provided. MMM is unaware of other proposed developments in. the Town of Ajax; however, should any be planned, they will further increase traffic volumes and decrease spare network capacity. 100 Commerce Valley Drive west, Thomhill, ON L3T OA1 I t: 905.882.1100 1 f: 905.882.0055 1 w: www.mmm.ca 323 Page 6 Trip Generation "Trip generation rates have been selected based on: ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition (where available for each land use); • Various BA trip generation studies; and • A review of additional sources including previous transportation impact studies for less common land uses (such as the Casino and Cinema Complex)." (4.5. 1) A summary of trip generation sources is provided in Table 2 of the UTS, however the actual studies have not been provided. Trip rates were compared with the ITE Trip Generation Manual 9th Edition and other available documents. The following observations were made: • Casino: trip rates per gaming position are comparable to those identified in the paper `Trip Generation Characteristics of Small to Medium Sized Casinos' (Trueblood and Gude) and are hence considered reasonable. • Cinema Complex:. the PM trip rate is similar to that for a Movie Theatre with Matinee (ITE land use code 444). The Saturday rate is less than the ITE value for that land use code, hence the UTS may underestimate the number of site - generated trips in the Saturday peak. • Commercial Office: the rates were derived from the ITE trip generation manual for land use code 710. For the Saturday peak, the average rate was applied. However, for the AM and PM peaks the rates were calculated from the equation. Although this approach is inconsistent, the low number of Saturday trips means that the resulting rates are likely to be reasonable. - • Convention Centre: the assumed rates exceed those given in the ITE Trip Generation Manual under land use code 595, hence they can be considered conservative. • Five Star Hotel and Waterpark: trips rates are as per ITE land use code 310 and are therefore considered reasonable. • Performing Arts Theatre: the calculation table includes notes that the PM trips have been "adjusted to catch the shoulder rather than the site peak ". Given that most theatre -goers will leave home after the height of the PM peak period, this is a reasonable assumption. The Saturday peak "catches peak demand prior to a matinee show" and can therefore be considered conservative. • Restaurant: the AM trip rate trip is negligible, however this is consistent with land use,code 931 in the ITE manual and to be expected for this type of establishment. For the PM and Saturday peaks, the trip rates derived from BA surveys were approximately 20% lower than the corresponding ITE -.- a rates for the same land use code. In each case, this equates to a potential underestimation of 300 trips prior to adjustment for potential pass -by trips and internal synergies. The number of external primary trips in the PM peak should be corrected in Table 4 (950) to match the values used in the calculations in Appendix B (95). • Waterpark: trip rates are as per ITE land use code 414 as are therefore reasonable. • Ancillary Retail: trip rates match those for ITE land use code 820 and can hence be considered reasonable. In summary, the rates applied to the trip generation calculations may result in an underestimate of the number of additional vehicles on the road due to the cinema complex in the Saturday peak and due to the restaurant in the PM and Saturday peaks. Modal Splits • Under "Non - Automobile Trip Generation" (4.5.6), Table 6 outlines "potential transit ridership for visitors to [the] site ". For the Convention Centre, Performing Arts Centre, -Restaurant Complex, Waterpark and Ancillary Retail land uses, a peak hour transit mode share of 5% is assumed. However, for each of these land uses, the trip generation calculations in Appendix B assumed a 0% 100 Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, ON L3T 0A1 I t 905.882.1100 1 f. 9D5.882.0055 I w. www.mmm.ca 324 1 1A.LNIKfiENT k IEJLJ NXX X11 MM GROUP �r;'��1,,� � ice Page 7 transit use reduction. Although the 5% factors appear to be reasonable, it is unclear how the transit trip totals calculated in Table 6 may have been applied to the analysis. • Moderate and reasonable transit use reduction factors have been applied to trips generated by the casino (5 %), cinema complex (15 %), commercial office (10 %) and the Five Star and Waterpark Hotels (10 %). • Trip reductions due to transportation demand management measures have been assumed only for trips generated by the commercial offices. This is a conservative approach and the rate applied to the offices is reasonable at 10 %. "Private sector coach bus services . could be an integral component of many of the land uses proposed... private coach bus service facilitates travel opportunities for key visitor groups and assists in reducing the use of private automobiles" (3.2.2). Private buses and coaches are briefly mentioned in the new section 4.5.6 and Table 6, however these trips are not specifically quantified. Given the aforementioned reduction factors that have been assumed, the capacity analysis is not overly dependent on this and can be considered conservative in this respect. The UTS recognizes that "transit markets will differ depending upon the nature of land uses and intensities" in the land use plan (3.2.2.1). It also states that "following the confirmation of the proposed development scenario, the scale and scope of public and private transit needed to serve the site will be discussed with the Region of Durham and GO Transit" (4.5.6). Currently, only one Durham Region Transit route (923) runs along Bayly Street adjacent to the site boundary with a maximum frequency of 4 buses per hour.' Therefore, significant transit improvements would be required to encourage transit use from Ajax and Pickering. Pass -by Trips "Pass -by trips have been excluded from the total primary external trips generated by the site for the weekday afternoon and Saturday peak hours for the following land uses: • Casino (5 %); • Restaurants (909/o); and • Retail (25 %). (4.5.3)" - - These assumptions are considered reasonable given the site's location. Internal Trips For each peak hour and land use, the proportion of generated trips originating at another land use within the site-has been estimated. These are considered internal trips and do not add to traffic levels on the external road network. The UTS makes reference to the methodology outlined in the ITE Trip Generation. Manual and provides matrices giving the number of internal trips assumed to travel between each land use. Overestimation of the proportion of trips that are internal would lead to an underestimation of the number of external trips and the corresponding impact on road network capacity. Although the assumptions supporting the calculations are not explained in detail, the proportions appear to be reasonable overall. After the casino, the restaurant is the land use that generates the highest number of trips overall in the PM and Saturday peak hours. Of the trips expected to originate at the restaurant in the Saturday peak hour, 95% are assumed to be internal and the remainder are pass - by. This suggests that of 655 vehicles leaving the restaurant during a Saturday lunchtime peak hour, not a single one came just to eat at the restaurant. While it is acknowledged that the proportion may be low, it is unlikely to be zero. 100. Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, ON L3T 0A1 I t: 905.882.1100 1 f: 905.882.0055 1 V. www.mmm.ca 325 - — -- - - -- — A, f-C.HN"iENT #�_� _TO Page 8 Trip Assignment At the boundary of the study area, gateways have been identified at each end of Brock Road, Church Street, Westney Road, Bayly Street .and Highway 401. For each .Transportation Tomorrow Survey (TTS) zone, the percentage of trips entering and leaving through each gateway has been estimated for the following cases: Office land uses with a local catchment; Entertainment land uses with a local catchment; and Entertainment land uses with a regional catchment. For the office land uses, the number of TTS trips between each zone and the study area was used to factor each element of the distribution pattern. For the entertainment land uses, the population of each district was applied, with those in Durham Region receiving a double weighting in the assessment for the regional catchment. In calculating the trip distribution pattern for entertainment land uses with a local catchment, variable 'modification factors' were applied. It should be noted that the majority of Durham Region is to the east of the site, hence it may be appropriate to also apply an increase in the weighting to eastern areas of the City of Toronto and York Region. For example, Clarington is 42km from the site by road but has been given a higher weighting than Markham (33km). Scarborough Town Centre is only 22km away, and Richmond Hill and Downtown Toronto are comparable distances, each approximately 45km away, yet this is not reflected in the weightings. If it were, the effect would be to rebalance the trip distribution, reflecting a higher number of trips arriving from the west and northwest of the study area than is currently shown by the UTS report. In particular, this would increase the number of site - generated vehicles using the proposed partial interchange on Highway 401 at Church Street,'reducing its spare capacity. The UTS states that "a redistribution of existing traffic has been carried out for a proportion of traffic travelling to and from the west on Highway 409 and currently using ramps at Brock Road and Westney Road. Observations of traffic using the eastbound exit ramp from Highway 401 to southbound Brock Road indicated a number of vehicles continuing on Bayly Street and northbound on Church Street to Mill Street, and redistribution of existing traffic to a proposed Church Street interchange is expected" (5.1). The implications of this redistribution are discussed further below. Analysis - - The study includes projected volumes and. capacity analysis for the existing scenario, 2019 future background and total future scenarios for a 5 -year (2019) horizon. In addition to a 10 -year (2024) horizon that assumes the full build out of the development as per the trip generation calculations, partial build out scenarios have been considered. Under "Phasing and Timing of Improvements" (5.4), development scenarios are presented that generate 25 %, 50 %, 60% and 75% of the trips calculated for the Phase 1 build out in horizon years 2019, 2022 and 2024 respectively. As the scale of development increases, the horizon has been extended. In the total future scenarios assuming a 50% build out or higher, a significant proportion of the trips generated by the development have been assigned to the proposed Notion Road underpass and, in the 75% and 100% build out scenarios that include it, the Highway 401 1 Church Street partial interchange. In those cases, the northbound 95th percentile queue at the south ramp terminal of the Church Street interchange is predicted to be in excess of 200m in the PM peak hour. The model outputs .show queues of approximately 120m in the Saturday peak hour but'with the caveat that the queue may be longer. 100 Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, ON L3T 0A1 I t: 905.882.1100 1 f. 905.882.0055 1 w: www.mmm.ca 326 - - - - - -- --- - -- — - A- - - .. - .. .... .. - ��� `" 6 EE r; f v l l`: T /, �? =; -;�� F t� ice' �j-i� Page 9 IiVIiMM GROUP ��- • Several intersections are predicted to operate very close to their capacity. These include the Randall Drive / Church Street intersection in the AM peak, the Kellino Road / Squires Beach Road in the PM: and Saturday peaks, and the Highway 401 northern ramp terminals at Westney Road and Brock Road in the PM peak. This is associated with the aforementioned redistribution of traffic movements to and from Highway 401 which reallocated spare capacity across the network. • The volume -to- capacity ratio of the Bayly Street intersection with Church Street is above the recommended maximum of 0.85 in all future PM scenarios. The same applies to the Kingston Road / Church Street intersection in the 75% and 100% build out scenarios, which include the Church Street interchange. Both. intersections are shown as having volume -to- capacity ratios below 0.85 in the future background scenario. • Appendix G. contains tables summarizing the Synchro model outputs for each peak hour. `Critical' movements with a volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratio greater than 0.85 are highlighted in yellow. In a few cases, highlighted in red, the v/c ratio exceeds 1. Due to optimization, the exact links with a volume - to- capacity ratio over 0.85 can vary between scenarios, however in general there are more critical links in the total future scenarios than in the future background case despite the road network improvements listed below. The proposed development scenarios have a negative overall impact on the operation of the road network, despite the mitigating measures that.are indicated. The symbols "m" (indicating that the "volume for 95th percentile queue is metered by upstream signal) and " #•" (meaning that the "95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer") appear frequently in the model outputs. The impact of queuing on the network may therefore be greater than is reflected in those outputs, particularly for left -turn lanes. In those cases, left -turn traffic may spill back and potentially block through traffic at select intersections. Such caveats appear in the model outputs even. in the 25% build out scenario. The UTS concludes that only the 25% scenario can be accommodated by the network without either the Notion Road underpass or the Church Street partial interchange. The UTS states that "the capacity constraints can largely be addressed through the addition of turning lanes. In some cases, this will require dual left turn lanes or additional through lanes at intersections" (5:4.2). However, Figure 18 only shows an additional through -right lane on Westney Road northbound at Fairall Street; no dual left turn lanes are indicated. Although Church Street is proposed to retain its existing 2 -lane cross - section, Figure 18 indicates that a dedicated northbound right -turn lane will be required at Kingston Road. The full - signalizatiori of the Church Street / Mill Street intersection is also a requirement. According to Figure 19, the 50% scenario assumes double left -turn lanes on the eastbound Bayly Street and southbound Church Street approaches to that intersection. This is despite the recognition that "the Region of Durham prefers to avoid dual left turn lanes as a matter of policy" (5.4.1). Figure 19 also indicates the need for improvements to the Bayly Street / Westney Road intersection, however, they are mostly identified as being due to "background development or corridor growth" A Future Background scenario for that horizon year (2022) has not been produced, hence it is not possible to verify the extent to which these improvements would be required without the traffic generated by the Durham Live development. Although this scenario includes the Notion Road underpass, the UTS concludes that the road network can .accommodate the traffic without the need for the Church Street partial interchange. However, this is not supported by the modelling outputs in Table 8 and Appendix G, which show that: o The Bayly Street intersections with Church Street and Brock Road will operate at volume -to- capacity (v /c) ratios in excess of 0.9 in the PM peak and, in the latter case, with a .v /c ratio of 0.99 in the Saturday peak. 100 Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, DN BT 0A1. I t: 905.882.1100 1 f: 905.882.0055 1 W. wm.mmm.ca 327 N` tV1tVIGROUP Page 10 • The Brock Road southern ramp terminal will operate at or above the recommended maximum of 0.85 in all three peak hours. • The Kingston Road / Notion Road intersection will be over capacity in the PM peak. • The Mill Street / Church Street intersection, under the jurisdiction of the Town of Ajax, is showing a v/c ratio of 0.88 in the PM peak, which is double that of the 2019 future background scenario. • The southern ramp terminal at Westney Road will be at capacity (v /c =1) in the PM peak. 9.51h percentile queues in excess of 150rn are predicted on the northbound approach, although the Synchro output file includes a caveat stating that the "95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer'. With no spare capacity to manage capacity fluctuations, it is likely that the queue would at times extend at least 250m back along Westney Road'. This would interfere with the operation of the intersection with Fairall Street and access to and from the Ajax GO Rail station. On the Highway 401 off -ramp, queues in excess of 250m are expected with the same caveat stated in the Synchro model outputs. Given that the off -ramp is 400m long, it is likely that this queuing will at times impact the operation of the Highway 401 eastbound lanes. The queuing analysis in section 5.2.1 indicates that there is significant existing congestion on the eastbound off -ramps at Westney Road and Brock Road. This would be exacerbated by the addition of site - generated trips to the background growth in traffic expected on those roads, all competing for green time at the ramp terminal intersections. • The model outputs suggest that the Church Street partial interchange would be required to ensure the integrity of the network for the 50% build out case. However, such a scenario has not 'been modelled so its impact on the network cannot be assessed. One of the scenarios is entitled "Future As- of- Right" and was included "to determine what transportation network improvements would be triggered by development of the Phase 1 Approval Area on the subject site under existing zoning permissions", (5.4. 1). By comparing the total two -way PM peak hour trips that would be generated by a development conforming to existing zoning permissions (2,225) to the PM trips calculated for the full Phase 1 build out (3,845), the UTS determined that the "As -of- Right" scenario corresponds to a build out of approximately 60% (2,225/3,845). • It should be noted that this is much higher than the threshold that would be .calculated if the Saturday peak hour were considered instead (780/4,900 =16 %). However, Table 8 shows that for the 60% threshold, only the Pickering Parkway / Brock Road intersection is predicted to have a higher volume -to- capacity ratio in the Saturday peak than in the PM peak due to lower background volumes. Although Figure 20 does not show the Church Street partial interchange as a requirement for this scenario, the scale of development and hence the total number of trips generated are greater than the aforementioned 50% case which, as explained above, would necessitate the partial interchange. Even with the proposed partial interchange and underpass, the northern and southern ramp terminals of the existing Highway 401 interchanges at Westney Road and Brock Road are all expected to operate at or above the recommended maximum volume -to- capacity ratio of 0.85 in the PM peak hour in the 75% and 100% build out scenarios. 328 100 Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, ON L3T 0A1 I t: 905.882.1100 1 f: 905.882.0055 1 w www:mmm.ca U�Fi;E:;,i' Road Network Improvements Page 11 To accommodate the full Phase 1 build out scenario, Figure 22 identifies the following improvements to the road network: • Widening of Brock Road and Westney Road from 4 to 6 lanes by Durham Region. • The provision of double left -turn lanes eastbound on Bayly Street at the Brock Road and Church Street intersections, as well as additional southbound left -turn and eastbound right -turn lanes at the Bayly Street / Westney Road intersection. These are identified as "background development requirements ". • An underpass connecting Notion Road under Highway 401, with additional lanes and signalization of the intersections at Pickering Parkway and Kellino Street. • A new partial interchange to /from the west on Highway 401. at Church Street, with both ramps signalized, plus additional lanes and two new signalized intersections on Church Street between Highway 401 and Bayly Street. The spacing appears to be less than the 525m stated in the Region's Arterial Corridor Guidelines for a Type B north -south arterial road. • Several dedicated right -turn lanes are proposed, many of them channelized. These are being phased out in many urban areas, and non - channelized right -turn lanes may not be an appropriate alternative, however this cannot be determined from the UTS report. The various partial build out scenarios have different requirements as previously mentioned and shown in Figures 18 — 21. • The UTS also anticipates "that the proposed partial interchange will have significant costs associated with its successful implementation. Funding for this kind of broad -based regional improvement to the provincial and regional road network will likely involve several sources, including federal and provincial infrastructure programs, potential development charges for benefitting areas within surrounding urban areas, and direct private sector contributions. Details of these funding mechanisms and their magnitudes are the subject of additional discussions with all levels of government as the Durham Live development proceeds through the development approvals process and as discussions around the partial interchange are advanced with the agencies having jurisdiction over directly related road and highway elements" (3.3.1). However, it is not known what funding commitments, if any, have been made to date. • In assigning a horizon year to each future scenario, the UTS assumes that the roadway network improvements required to manage the site - generated traffic can be implemented by that time. The i phasing of Regional road improvements is determined by Durham Region. Also, the Notion Road / Squires Beach Road underpass and the Church Street partial interchange would require several studies to be undertaken before they could be implemented, assuming that all issues that may be raised by those studies could be mitigated. The selection of horizon years may therefore be optimistic. The 25% build out scenario has been modelled using the 2019 horizon year, although this does not include either the Notion Road / Squires Beach Road underpass or the Church Street partial interchange. The 50% build out and As -of -Right cases consider a 2022 horizon as the UTS concludes that the Church Street partial interchange would not be required in these cases. However, as described above, the model outputs indicate that the partial interchange would be required in those scenarios. The 75% and 100% build out cases, which assume construction of both the Notion Road / Squires Beach Road underpass and the Church Street partial interchange, have been assessed for a 2024 horizon and would require those improvements, along with the other widenings and dedicated turn lanes, to be in place by that time. • It is understood that this study represents Phase 1 of the development. The subsequent expansion of the site would result in the generation of additional traffic; however, the report does not appear to 100 Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, ON L3T OA1 I t 905.882.1100 1 f: 905.882.0055 1 W. www.mmm.ca 329 MMM GROUP Page 12 quantify the impact on the capacity of the road network. Additional roadway improvements may be required as a result. Feasibility of Highway 401 Interchange Improvements The proposed partial. interchange at Church Street and Highway 401 was reviewed from a geometric design perspective. Two additional movements, an eastbound off -ramp to Church Street and a westbound on -ramp from Church Street would help facilitate access to and from the proposed development in the southwest quadrant of the Highway 401 /Church Street flyover crossing. The crossing is located between the Brock Road Interchange to the west and the Westney Road Interchange in the east. The two movements are the 401W- Church St. N/S diamond configuration ramp and Church St. N/S - 401 West buttonhook ramp. The findings of our review are described below. These are based on the review of PDF drawings, hence the measurements may not be accurate and should be confirmed through a review of the original AutoCAD files, which were not made available at the time of the preparation of this memo. Alignment Review Hwy 401 Westbound Lanes: Westney N - 401 W Ramp: The length of the Speed Change Lane (SCL) of this entrance ramp is deficient by 100 m. The SCL is only 400m ±, which is sub - standard. According to the Geometric Design Standards for Ontario Highways ( GDSOH) manual, Figure FA -6, the requirement for a total length of SCL is 500m for 120 km /h design speed. This deficiency raises safety and operational concerns whereby vehicles will not have adequate distance to gain speed while entering the highway. While the distance between successive entrances along the highway for this ramp and the entrance Church St. NS - 401 W Ramp meets a minimum requirement of 350 m, this, distance should allow for a full acceleration lane to ensure safer design. • Church,N /S — 401 W Ramp: While the length of the SCL of 500m meets the highway standard, the configuration of this entrance ramp as a buttonhook is not desirable. The geometry on tangent followed by a tight curve, which is repeated again, does not allow for a consistent speed along the ramp and acceleration required to safely merge with the highway. • Successive entrances on opposing sides of the westbound Highway 401 represented by the added Church N/S — 401 W Ramp on the north side and Westbound Core to Collector Transfer on the south side. The distance between these entrances is deficient by 100m, while 210 m length is required by GDSOH, Figure 175 -17. This may result in conflicts where drivers have to make merging manoeuvres into the though traffic in close proximity to each other. Weaving section between Church N/S — 401 W Ramp and E -NS Brock Exit Ramp: The weaving length of 750m± appears to meet the geometric design guidelines based on a minimum requirement of 600 m. However, traffic modeling is required in order to determine whether the crossing manoeuvres could be safely accommodated between traffic entering the highway at Church Street and exiting Highway 401 at Brock Road. These manoeuvres may result in crossing conflicts and diminish safety and operations along the highway. The traffic from Church N/S Ramp will add to the Highway 401 traffic and will strain this weaving section further. This will also reduce service volumes and capacity of the highway. Micro simulation modeling is recommended to demonstrate the operations of this weave. In order to ensure safety and operations on this busy highway higher than minimum standards are desirable and highly recommended. Hwy 401 Eastbound Lanes: 401 W — Church N/S Ramp: This is a two -lane exit ramp. The SCL has a length of 535m, which meets the GDSOH requirement. The operations would be much improved if the SCL of Brock N/S — 330 1 DO Commerce Valley Drive West, Thomhill, ON L3T DA i I t 905.882.1100 1 f 905.882.0055 I w. www.mmm.ca - -.. _. - -- - -- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - -- ;;d �_� ��:� Page 13 iMMM GROUP 401 E Ramp is connected with the SCL of 401 W — Church N/S Ramp into a continuous lane and the tapers removed for both ramps. • Weaving section between Brock Road N/S — 401 E Ramp and 401 W — Church N/S Ramp: The weaving length of 750m± appears to meet the geometric design guidelines (a minimum requirement is 600 m), however, as noted in the review of the weaving section between Church N/S — 401 W Ramp and the E -NS Brock Exit Ramp, the weaving length should be confirmed through further analysis, such as micro simulation of forecast traffic conditions. It is also important to ensure that drivers have a view of the entire speed change lane to accomplish merging manoeuvres on the highway safely. A check of vertical sight distances have to be completed to demonstrate conformance with acceptable standards. If found inadequate, the speed change lane would have to be lengthened (or vertical crest curve flattened) to provide sufficient sight distance to the end of the taper. Additionally, the lengths of the speed change lanes have to be adjusted to accommodate signage spacing. In our professional opinion, the location of the proposed interchange is too close to the two adjacent interchanges and will result in diminished capacity, and also in safety and operational conflicts on this busy section of the highway. Regarding traffic circulation along Church Street with this proposed interchange in place, it should also be noted that: • The configuration of the proposed Church Street interchange differs between the figures of the report. The traffic volume figures suggest that the interchange design will allow only traffic to /from the south on Church Street, with no access to /from the north. However, the figures showing the physical layout of the interchange suggest that all movements will be permitted. • Figure 22 does not specifically identify that Mill Street, which falls under the Town's jurisdiction, will be converted to a cul -de -sac. However, it does show the existing Mill Street / Church Street intersection as the terminal of the proposed ramp. Based on this, it does not appear to be feasible to maintain the existing access to Church Street from Mill Street and construct the ramp as shown. The closest alternative access point is Lincoln. Street approximately 500m to the north. Conclusion In summary there are multiple issues, as outlined in this memorandum, which should be addressed by J the proponent. The exact nature of the proposed development needs to be clarified and a clear, comprehensive and technically feasible set of measures to successfully mitigate impacts on the road network, including sections under the Town's jurisdiction, should be presented. . Should you have any questions or.concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours truly, MMM GROUP LIMITED 100 Commerce Valiey Drive west, T.homhill, ON L3T OA1 I t: 905.882.1100 I f: 905.882.0055 1 w wm.mmm.ca 331 REPORT rr L N August 12, 2014 Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner Development Department 1974 -2014 Join the celebration! _.--- RECEIVED The application is proposing a comprehensively planned tourist destination development consisting of a casino, hotels, waterpark, convention centre, amphitheatre, movie theatre and other ancillary uses on lands located at the northwest corner of Bayly Street and Church in the City of Pickering. The subject lands are approximately 91.6 hectares (226 acres) and are bounded by Church Street, Bayly Street, Highway 401 and a rail spur line west of Squires Beach Road. The amount of floor area being proposed cumulatively, is in the neighbourhood of 250,000 square metres (2.7 million square feet). The proposed zoning by -law amendment would change the zone categories on the subject lands from `M1 and M2S - Industrial and Manufacturing' to 'TD - Major Tourist Destination'. The TD Zone would be a new site - specific zone category in the City of Pickering Zoning By -law. A draft zoning by -law has not yet been provided; however, it is our understanding that zoning approval is being sought in two Phases. Phase 1 would be for the area beyond the buffer distance of the site's natural heritage features. Phase 2 would follow the completion of additional natural heritage studies and other supporting materials. "Ser-v ee xcei(ence fo_ - - rCommdhfties`' If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 3 3 2 the Accessibility Co- ordinator at 1 -800- 372 -1102 ext. 2009. One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 AUG 13 20.i4 The Regional Municipality Dear Mr. Pym: CITY OF PICKERING of Durham CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTM ENT Re: Regional Review of Zoning By -law Amendment Application, Planning and Economic Development Department File No.: A03/2014 (/Durham Live l Applicant: Pickering Developments (Triple Properties) Planning Division Location: 1802 &1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road 605 ROSSLAND RD. E. (Northwest corner of Bayly Street and Church Street) 4T" FLOOR Municipality: City of Pickering PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1 N 6A3 CANADA We have completed an initial review of the above -noted zoning by -law 905 - 668 -7711 1- 800 - 372 -7102 amendment application. The following preliminary comments are Fax: 905- 666 -6208 provided with respect to Regional Official Plan conformity, Provincial Email: planning@durham.ca Plans, Regional services, and our.delegated provincial plan review. v✓ww.durham.ca responsibilities. We understand that additional reports and information are forthcoming. Further Regional comments will be provided once we A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning have had an opportunity Ito review this additional information. and Economic Development The application is proposing a comprehensively planned tourist destination development consisting of a casino, hotels, waterpark, convention centre, amphitheatre, movie theatre and other ancillary uses on lands located at the northwest corner of Bayly Street and Church in the City of Pickering. The subject lands are approximately 91.6 hectares (226 acres) and are bounded by Church Street, Bayly Street, Highway 401 and a rail spur line west of Squires Beach Road. The amount of floor area being proposed cumulatively, is in the neighbourhood of 250,000 square metres (2.7 million square feet). The proposed zoning by -law amendment would change the zone categories on the subject lands from `M1 and M2S - Industrial and Manufacturing' to 'TD - Major Tourist Destination'. The TD Zone would be a new site - specific zone category in the City of Pickering Zoning By -law. A draft zoning by -law has not yet been provided; however, it is our understanding that zoning approval is being sought in two Phases. Phase 1 would be for the area beyond the buffer distance of the site's natural heritage features. Phase 2 would follow the completion of additional natural heritage studies and other supporting materials. "Ser-v ee xcei(ence fo_ - - rCommdhfties`' If this information is required in an accessible format, please contact 3 3 2 the Accessibility Co- ordinator at 1 -800- 372 -1102 ext. 2009. 7 TO 2 _N a / port, prepared by Planning Alliance, indicates the D Zone will include (but not limited to): Ancillary Retail Gaming Establishment/Casino Am hitheatre _---------- ____------ -Hotel -- Arena Indoor Recreational Facility Art Gallery and Sales Library Assembly, Convention or Conference Halls Licensed Accessory Outdoor Patio Automobile Rental Establishment Medical Office Automobile Service Station Motel Bake Shop Museum Banquet Facilities Nightclub Bar Office Botanical Gardens . Outdoor Recreational Facility Cafe / Restaurant Park Cinema Performing Arts Centre/Theatre/Venue Commercial Fitness /Recreation Centre Personal Service Establishment Commercial Parking Lot and Commercial Parking Lot Structure Place of Amusement Commercial School Private Club Community Centre Professional Services Community Gardens Spa Convenience Store Stadium Curling Rinks, Tennis Courts, Bowling Alleys or similar recreational facilities Tavern /bar /pub Day Care Centre Travel Agent Drive-through Facility Travel Information Centre Dry-cleaner's Distribution Centre Unlicensed Accessory Outdoor Patio Education and Training Veterinary Clinic Entertainment Establishment Water ark/Wave Pool Emergency Service Facility Other Tourist Destination Uses Film Studio Financial Institution Regional Official Plan The subject lands are designated "Employment Areas" in the Regional Official Plan (ROP). Employment Areas are set aside for uses that by their nature require access to highway, rail, and /or shipping facilities, separation from sensitive uses, or benefit from locating close to similar uses. Examples of employment uses described in the ROP are manufacturing, assembly and processing, research and development facilities, warehousing and hotels. 333 ATTAICH NPIENT # To REPORT # C9 / �% 3 Limited personal service and retail uses may be permitted in Employment Areas as a minor component of the aggregate gross floor area of the uses in the Employment Area subject to appropriate provisions in an area municipal official plan or zoning by -law. A single use shall not exceed 500m2 . Bayly Street (Regional Road 22) is designated as a Type "A" Arterial Road, Regional Corridor and Transit Spine in the ROP. Church Street (Regional Road 24) is designated as a Type "B" Arterial Road. Squires Beach Road is designated as Type "C" Arterial Road. The Regional Corridors designation in this area is an overlay to the underlying Employment Areas designation and is intended to facilitate employment uses that support higher order transit services and pedestrian oriented development. Transit spines facilitate inter - regional and inter - municipal services along arterial roads. The ROP also identifies Key Natural Heritage features (woodlots and wetlands) and Key Hydrogeological Features (Duffin Creek tributaries) on the subject. lands. The primary tourist destination uses including hotels, casino, convention centre, performing arts centre, and outdoor amphitheater would benefit from locating near Highway 401 and being separated from residential areas. These uses.may be permitted in Employment Areas provided the technical requirements for the development along arterial roads and containing natural heritage features can be realized to the satisfaction of the Region. Other tourism uses proposed, including restaurants, retail and other service uses, would be ancillary to the primary uses and are permitted in a limited capacity. The implementing zoning by -law should include floor space limitations for the amount of ancillary uses proposed to ensure that personal service and retail uses remain a minor component of the overall development. Certain uses within the proposed TD zone may be deemed sensitive land uses. Additional technical study to determine if there are any adverse impacts from surrounding employment uses (noise, dust and /or odour) should be undertaken when considering the locations of a commercial school, community centre, community garden or day care centre on the subject lands. Also, City staff are encouraged to consider the impact that sensitive land uses may play in limiting future employment uses in the area. It is unclear what is meant by `other tourist designation uses' in the proponent's list of proposed uses. The proposed TD Zone category 334 ATTACHMENT #_-2-TO REPORT Z I -1-1 -- -. 4 should include a definitive list of permitted uses. 'Other tourist destination uses' is too vague and should not be included in the by -law. While, in concept, the proposed development may be permitted by the ROP, we are unable to confirm at this time that the proposal conforms to the ROP untiJ_we have_had...an op-p -ortunity_to_r_eview the_implementing._ i zoning by -law amendment. Provincial Policies Provincial Policy Statement The 2014 Provincial Policy Statement indicates that long term economic prosperity and social well - being is supported, in part, by promoting opportunities for economic development, providing opportunities for sustainable tourism development, and minimizing. social impacts. Regarding employment, the PPS indicates that Planning authorities should promote economic development and competitiveness by providing opportunities for a diverse economic base, including employment uses which support a wide range of economic activities and ancillary uses. Planning authorities should also ensure infrastructure is provided to support current and projected needs. Regarding natural heritage, the PPS indicates that natural features are to be protected for the long term. The diversity and connectivity of natural features in an area, and the long -term ecological function and biodiversity of natural heritage systems, should be maintained, restored or, where possible, improved. The proposed zoning by -law amendment would permit a suite of employment and ancillary uses which promote economic development through the development of tourism uses. A mixed -use development has been conceptualized, but will require detailed technical review to ensure the necessary infrastructure is available to adequately service the proposed development and surrounding employment lands. The requested phased approach to first approve an area of land beyond the buffer distance of natural heritage features allows time to study natural features and make recommendations for their protection and /or restoration. The implementing zoning by -law should include provisions to address infrastructure and natural heritage requirements to be consistent with the PPS. 335 ATCACHMENT REPORT # ��a���5� � �. 5 Growth Plan The Growth Plan contains policies for municipalities within the Greater Golden Horseshoe to manage growth to the year 2031. The Growth Plan establishes a built -up area boundary and indicates that growth should be directed to bu. ilt- u. p _ar_eas..-Th.e_P_Ian_envisages_a -diver -se- economy, supported in part by hospitality and tourism. Similar to the PPS, the Growth Plan indicates that municipalities should promote economic development and competitiveness by providing for a mix of employment uses including industrial and commercial. The Plan encourages employment uses which support a range of economic activities and ancillary uses. The proposed tourist destination development generally conforms to the Growth Plan by facilitating growth and economic development within the built -up area. The development would provide for a mix of uses to support economic activities. . Regional Services Transportation The Regional Works Department has completed a detailed technical review of the Urban Transportation Study submitted by the applicant. Based on the study's findings and recommendations, we are satisfied that up to approximately 25% of the proposed development on the site could be accommodated with relatively minor enhancements to previously planned Regional road network improvements. At approximately 50% build -out of the proposed development, construction of the Notion Road - Squires Beach Road underpass of Highway 401 would be required, and at approximately 75% build -out, a new partial interchange on Highway 401 at Church Street would be required. Multiple additional Regional intersection improvements would also be required in the latter two scenarios. The feasibility and implementation mechanisms for the transportation infrastructure improvements that are needed to support the proposed development are unknown at this time. Further discussion is required to ensure that the necessary improvements can be implemented prior to build -out of the development to the levels noted above. The implementing zoning by -law must include provisions to limit development to levels that can be supported by the available transportation infrastructure. We note that the subject lands are within the evacuation zone of the OPG Pickering Nuclear Generating Station. Transportation infrastructure may also need improvement to accommodate the potential influx of tourist 336 ATACHN E;NT 6 REPORT destination patrons to the area. The proponent is encouraged to consider site design and road access in the case of an emergency evacuation. Bayly Street and Church Street are identified as part of the Primary Cycling network in the Regional Cycling Plan. Cycling facilities should be included in subsequent site designs. 2 Transit The Durham Region Long Term Transit Strategy identifies Bayly Street as an enhanced conventional transit corridor (10 minute frequency) to be protected for future rapid transit. Subsequent detailed site design should include transit- oriented design principles. Municipal Water Supply and Sanitary Sewage Municipal water and sanitary sewage service capacity is available to service the proposed development and surrounding employment area. Detailed engineering drawings will be required to for review and approval as part of any future site plan application process. Provincially Delegated Review Responsibilities Noise A noise report, prepared by Aercoustics Engineering Limited, dated May 29, 2014, provides an overview of all the potential noise impacts on the proposed land uses. The report also provides an overview of stationary noise sources from adjacent industrial and commercial uses that may have an impact on the proposed development. The report provides recommended noise mitigation measures and location criteria for proposed land uses. The report concludes that the proposed development is feasible and suggests that further study be undertaken when considering the location of specific uses on the site. Section 8 of the report outlines the requirements for further study. The proponent should be encouraged to consider the impacts of building location and orientation as it relates to noise attenuation during the detailed design of the site. The City should ensure that the noise report recommendations regarding additional study and siting requirements have been implemented in any subsequent site development applications. 337 ATTAC NIIENT # REPORT # l�L� � 11 -�5� 7 Cultural Heritage A Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Archaeological Services indicates that there is the potential for archaeological deposits on the subject property. The report recommends that a Stage 2 archaeological assessment be undertaken for all lands on the subject property that are not defined wetland areas. The City should ensure that a Stage 2 Archaeological Assessment is undertaken and submitted to the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport in accordance with the Ontario Heritage Act. No land disturbing activities should take place on the subject property prior to the Ministry reviewing the archaeological assessment reports and indicating that there are no archaeological concerns. Natural Heritage The subject site contains a key natural heritage feature and a key hydrological feature. A Natural Heritage Assessment, prepared by Beacon Environmental indicates that the Phase 1 portion of the subject lands is unconstrained from the natural heritage features and suggests that Phase 1 lands would be suitable to be rezoned. The report indicates that an additional heritage assessment including an environmental impact study will be required for the remainder of the subject lands to determine the extent of natural heritage features; assess the ecological functions and recommend buffers /mitigation. We note that the natural heritage features are within the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) regulation limit. A copy of any additional natural heritage reports should be circulated to the Region and TRCA for review and approval. Environmental Protection A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA), prepared by V.A. Woods Associates Limited, dated October 2011, was undertaken on.one ,of three properties that make up the subject site. An updated Phase One ESA report, prepared within the past 18 months, will be required. The . updated report must include all three subject properties. Should the report conclude that a Phase Two ESA is required, a Record of Site Condition (RSC) may be required depending on the finding of the Phase Two.ESA. All ESA reports submitted in support of development applications in Durham Region must be'RSC compliant. 338 ATTAI C`rI MEN T # 7 T O REPORT # ' 4 a )-/5-1 -. 8 Summary The proposed zoning by -law amendment would rezone the subject site to allow a suite of tourist destination uses. Proposed hotel, casino and entertainment uses would be permitted in the "Employment Areas" designation provided the necessary transportation infrastructure can be constructed and the future natural heritage evaluation is completed to the satisfaction of the Region. Ancillary retail and service uses would be permitted in a limited capacity. Certain sensitive land uses may be permitted but should undergo siting analysis to minimize adverse impacts from adjacent employment uses. Lastly, subsequent site design,that achieves the objectives of the Regional Official Plan Corridor'policies; and the above comments regarding transportation, transit, cycling and emergency management will be required. Building location and orientation should be developed in accordance with the recommendations of the noise study and natural heritage assessment. Additional noise, archaeological and environmental assessment studies will be required. Please provide us with a copy of the by -law before it is passed so we can confirm that Regional interests have properly been considered. Please contact Dwayne Campbell, Project Planner in this Department should you have any questions or require additional information regarding this matter. Yours truly, Brian Bridgeman, MCIP, RPP Director of Current Planning Copy: P. Castellan - Regional Works Department D. Robertson - Regional Works Department 339 r 7 ,c!,I . : : # . July 23, 2014 VIA MAIL AND EMAIL (rpym "pickering.ca) Mr. Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP, PLE City of Pickering 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON L1 V 6K7 Dear Mr. Pym: { Toronto and Region . Conservation for The Living City° CFN 50331.02 RECEIVED AUG -1 2014 CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Re: Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/14 On lands municipality known 1802 & 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Keilino'Road (Durham Live - Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (gayly Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc.) Thank you for your circulation of the application captioned above. Staff at the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) have reviewed the following materials submitted in support of the application, received on June 9, 2014: • Natural Heritage Assessment, prepared by Beacon Environmental, revised to May 2014; • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report, prepared by Sabourin Kimble & Associates, revised to May 2014; . . • Stable Slope Setback Analysis', 'prepared by Golder Associates, dated May 21., 2014; • Planning Rationale Report, prepared by planningAlliance,.dated June 3, 2014. Based upon our review, we have the following comments: Purpose of the Application -.� It is our understanding that the purpose-of the application is to amend.the in -force Zoning By- law with a site specific amendment to establish a new "Major Tourist Destination (TD)" zone. Further, the subject lands are divided into three separate "approval areas ": TD(1), TD(2A) and TD(213) according to the need for additional supporting studies, specifically with respect to the natural environment. Zoning of Hazard Lands, Natural Features and Areas It appears that the application seeks to zone the entirety of the subject lands as "TD" once the supprting studies are finalized, In order to be consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014, hazard lands, such as the Duffins Valley, natural features and areas must not be zoned with a development classfication, but rather with an Tel. 416.661.6600, 1.888.872.2344 Fax. 416.661.6898 info @trca.on.ca 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, ON M3N 1 S4 340 www.trca.on.ca" Member of Conservation Ontario• ATTACHMENT I TO REPORT Mr. Ross Pym -2- July 23, 2014 appropriate Open Space or Environmental classification with uses limited to long -term conservation purposes. Natural Heritage Assessment /Environmental Report 2. The proposed Phase 1 development area is within 120 metres of the Duffins Creek significant valley to the east. The top of bank associated with the valley on the site has been staked in the field with TRCA staff. A slope stability analysis has been undertaken by a qualified professional and has been found to be satisfactory by TRCA staff. It is proposed that an updated stand -alone Natural Heritage Assessment report will be prepared as part of the application covering all "approval areas" following .completion of additional work in the Phase 2 area. We request that the updated Natural Heritage /Environmental report be submitted before any development takes place on any portion of the subject lands. Feature -based Water Balance 3. Much of the area proposed to be developed in Phase 1 flows towards the natural areas to the west. While the StormwaterManagement Report indicates that a feature -based water balance should be completed at Phase 2, the predevelopment drainage areas indicate that this analysis will need to be understood during Phase 1. We request that prior.to development taking place within the Phase 1 area, a feature -based water balance for the site be submitted by the applicant. Hydrology and Stormwater Management 4. There are several areas within Phase 1 that require evaluation using the headwater drainage feature guidelines. These include at least two features north of Kellino Street and the southeast corner of the site at Bayly and Church Street. 5. Stormwater management for the site must be as per the Duffins Hydrology Study - - (2013) and the TRCA Stormwater. Management Criteria (2012). In areas draining directly to the Main Duffins Creek, no-waer quantity control is required (as per the Duffins Hydrology Study), However, an assessment of the potential impacts of the point discharge on stream erosion will need to be investigated prior to development taking place on the Phase 1 area. 6. There is no specific criteria currently in place for areas draining through the employment lands south of the area, based on the Duffins Hydrology Study. However, given the presence of downstream landowners, quantity control is likely required, and will need to be investigated further, in consultation with the City of Pickering prior to development taking place on the Phase 1 area. 7. As per the Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management report, erosion control will be required, in the form of the retention of the first 25mm for a minimum .of 48 hours. 341 ATTACHIVIEftiT # T TO Mr. Ross Pvm -3- July 23, 2014 Recommendation We request that the hazard lands, natural features and areas on the subject lands be zoned with a separate Open Space or Environmental classification and not be designated with the proposed "TD" classification. It is understood that only the Phase 1 approval area is to be rezoned at this time and that subsequent phases will be considered upon the finalization of additioanl technical analysis. With this understanding, for lands within the Phase 1 approval area, we request that a holding provision be enacted that would require the following to be undertaken prior to removal of the holding symbol: • Submission of an.updated Natural Heritage Report that includes a headwater drainage feature analysis for the entirety of the subject lands to the satisfaction of TRCA; • Submission of a Feature -based Water Balance Analysis to the satisfaction of TRCA; • Submission of a finalized Functional Servicing Report to the satisfaction of TRCA. Our Commenting Role Finally, as you know, TRCA provides comments through a number of roles. This includes TRCA's commenting role under the Planning Act; the Conservation Authority's delegated responsibility of representing the provincial interest of natural hazards encompassed by Section 3.1 of the Provincial Policy Statement, 2014; TRCA's Regulatory Authority under Ontario Regulation 166/06 (as amended) related to Development, Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses; and our Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with,the Region of Durham where we advise our municipal partners on matters related to Provincial Policies relevant to TRCA's jurisdiction. We trust that this is of assistance. Please contact the undersigned for questions or clarification. Yours truly, ris Jone;er, , RP Senior Pla Planning and Development, Extension 5718 cc: Dayna Gilbert, PlanningAlliance (dgilbert@planningalliance.ca) Carolyn Woodland, TRCA (cwoodland @trca.on.ca) Steve Heuchert, TRCA (sheuchert@trca.on.ca) F: \Home \Public \Development Services \Durham Region \Pickering \1802 Bayly_i.wpd 342 k T TAeNitr,FET! T # Cl TO Pym, Ross From: Fraser, Hugh (MTO) [Hugh.Fraser2 @ontario.caj Sent: March -18 -14 4:20 PM To: Pym, Ross - Cc: Della Mora, Dan (MTO) Subject: MTO Comments: Zoning Amendment Application - File No. A 03/14 Attention: Ross Pym, Principal Planner Your Corporate Services Department, Legislative Services Division circulated a public notice meeting and request for MTO comments for the following Zoning Amendment Application, received by MTO on March 11, 2014: • Owner /Applicant: Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments ( Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires, Inc.) • Location: 1802 & 1902 Bayly Street; 2028 Kellino Road • File No.: A 03/14 The Ministry has reviewed the above noted application in accordance with the .requirements under the Ministry's Public Transportation and Highway Improvement Act and offer the following comments: This land is within the Ministry of Transportation's permit control area and future development of these 'lands will require Ministry review and approval. The owner / applicant will require an MTO Building & Land Use Permit for any development, entrance, change of entrance use, building or structure within 45 metres of the Hwy 401 property line or within 395 metres of the centre point of an intersection or interchange with Hwy. 401. In addition, construction on these lands must not commence prior to the issuance of the necessary MTO permits. Any proposed structures (above or below ground) or amenities which are essential to the viability of the site (e.g. utilities, frontage roads, fire routes, parking, stormwater management ponds) must be set back a minimum of 14 metres from the Hwy 401 property line. In support of an MTO Building & Land Use Permit application, the applicant will be required to submit a set of full scale (1:500) plans, including but not limited to site plans, grading plans, site servicing plans and detailed storm water management plans. The applicant may also be required to submit a Traffic Impact Study, a Storm Water Management Report and illumination plans. The Ministry will provide more detailed comments when a formal site plan is submitted. The applicant may require additional MTO permits. An MTO Sign Permit is required for any sign which is visible from Hwy. 401 and within 400 metres of the highway property line. All applicable MTO permit application forms may be obtained from our office located on the 7th Floor, Atrium Tower, 1201 Wilson Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M31VI 1 J8. They are also available on -line at the MTO Corridor Management public website: www.mto.ciov.on.ca /english/ engineering /management/corridor /index.htmi If you have any questions regarding these comments, please feel free to contact me. Hugh Fraser, C.Tech. I Corridor Management Planner Corridor Management Section I Central Region I Ontario Ministry of Transportation 7th Floor, Building D 11201 Wilson Avenue i Downsview, Ontario I M3M 1J8 Tel: 416 - 235 -5382 1 Fax: 416 - 235 -4267 343 ATTACHIM.'ENIT $ TO REPORT # 4 a/-�y caq a¢% �1 _ Me,mo PICKERING To: Ross Pym August 12, 2014 Principal Planner — Development Review From Richard Holborn Director, Engineering & Public Works Copy: Division Head, Water Resources & Development Services Manager, Capital Projects & Infrastructure - . Sr. Coordinator, Design & Asset Management Coordinator, Development Approvals Subject: Zoning By -law Amendment Application A3/14, Revised Supporting Materials Durham Live — Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments ( Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. 1802 & 1902 Bayly Street and 2028 Kellino Road File: D -3300 The Engineering & Public Works Department has reviewed the above application and comment as follows: Development Services General Comments 1. The City of Pickering's Fill & Topsoil By -law prohibits soil disturbance, removal or importation . to the site unless a permit has been issued. No on -site works prior to Site Plan Approval is permitted without a permit. A copy of the By -law and Permit Application is attached and should be forwarded to the applicant. 2.. All off -site works may require the applicant/owner to enter into a Development Agreement with the City. 3. A grading and drainage plan, which indicates that redevelopment of the site can be completed without adversely affecting the neighbouring properties and without affecting the adjacent stream corridor to the east of the site, will be required. 4. A Construction Management/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, which clearly shows how the applicant will ensure that no silt will leave the site and contaminate the adjacent Natural Heritage System will be required. As well, the plan must address mud and dust control. 344 NTTACHPI,ENT %D TO REPORT al —Y— 5. A Tree Preservation Plan that ensures protection of the Natural Heritage System, will be required. Any canopy loss may be subject to compensation either in the form of off -site tree planting or through financial compensation. 6. The owner shall, as a condition of the Site Plan Agreement: a) to agree to, and implement, the requirements of the TRCA's conditions; b) to design and implement on -site erosion and sediment control; c) to maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control measures in good repair during the construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the City and TRCA; d) to obtain all necessary permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, from the TRCA; e) to convey Open Space Block(s) associated with the Natural Heritage System to TRCA for a nominal sum; 7. The Owner shall, as a part of the Site Plan submission- a) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easements- b) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works for contributions for stormwater management maintenance fees; c) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works for the design and implementation of stormwater management. facilities and easements for outfalls and access to the outfalls; d) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting submission and approval of a grading and drainage plan; e) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis; f) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting the authorization from abutting land owners for all offsite grading, g) satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works respecting the construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs; h) satisfy the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City; August 12, 2014 Page 2 of. 6 Zoning By -law Amendment Application A3114 Durham Live — Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires), Inc. 345 AT 'If-AM-111A ED NITO /10 Tn REPORT # i) satisfy the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services; j) that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the owner, k) 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; 1) arrange at no costs to the City any easements required on third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and /or the Region and are. to be granted upon request at any time after draft approval; m) satisfy the City respecting submission and approval of a Construction Management/Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, such Plan to contain, among other. things: • details of erosion and sedimentation controls during. all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements for these controls • addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public.streets • insurance that the City's Noise By -law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By -law • the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site • type and timing of construction fencing • location of construction trailers n) ' details of the temporary construction access; o) satisfy 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; p) satisfy 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; August 12, 2014 Page 3 of 6 Zoning By -law Amendment Application A3/14 Durham Live — Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. and 3 J�ckering Developments (Squires) Inc. A T TAI 0 IA!EIN E it /0 TO REPORT # /_/N 2. Transportation Staff concurs with the Region's comment that for the most part, only minor technical issues have been identified with the data and the presentation of analysis in the report and memorandum. However, some concerns with the methodology and assumptions used to develop the site traffic and background traffic are still valid. 3. It is noted that the revised study provides a commitment to the provision of on -site pedestrian and cycling facilities and connecting these facilities to the surrounding public facilities. Transportation staff supports the provision- of a well - connected active transportation network within and in the vicinity of the proposed development. 4. Based on the study findings, it is agreed that approximately 25% of the proposed development can be accommodated with minor improvements to the Regional .roadway network. 5. The study recommends that the Notion Road /Squires Beach Road connection would be required at 50% development stage or in the "as of right" scenario, and that the Highway 401 /Church Street partial interchange would be required at 75% development stage, with additional intersection improvements at both stages. The revised urban transportation study continues to remain silent on the feasibility, timing, property acquisition, costs, and funding commitment for these major improvements. 6. It is noted that proposed Notion Road- Squire Beach Road connection is in the City and Regional Official Plans, however, currently the City does not have any funding mechanism or plans in place to construct this overpass /underpass over Highway 401 and rail corridor. Additionally, it also requires a comprehensive Municipal Class Environmental. Assessment (EA) process prior to construction. 7. Table 10 As of Right Scenario Trip Comparison (page 50): it is noted that the number of trips shown for the "As of Right" Scenario in the table are misleading. These numbers do not match with the revised values of number of trips in Appendix G. Please revise the table to reflect.correct number of trips. 8. Internal Comments on "As of Right" Scenario - Section 5.4 of the study report indicates that the "As of Right" development scenario is based on gross floor areas .generated by Planning Alliance, which included office and industrial GFA of approximately 2,189,400 sq. ft. and 260,500 sq. ft. respectively. The study also assumes that this scenario could develop by 2022. The study report fails to provide a rationale for the gross floor areas generated by Planning Alliance and the assumption that the full build out of this scenario could be achieved by 2022. 9. It is important to note that the study assumes only 50 %-75% of Phase 1 Durham Live Development by 2022. August 12, 2014 Zoning By -law Amendment Application A3/14 Durham Live — Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. 348 Page 5 of 6 Pickering Developments '(Bayly) Inc. and ArrrCHP,jEE i%T # 10 TO h" q) submit a tree preservation and tree planting plan-to the satisfaction of the City; r) ensure that the engineering plans be coordinated with the. streetscape /architectural control guidelines; s) satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, grading, streetlights, and financially- secure such works; t) that the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design objectives; Stage 1 Archaeological. Assessment 1. The assessment recommends a Stage 2 assessment be performed prior to any land disturbing activities. Natural Heritage Assessment 1. No comment. Durham Live Environmental Noise Study 1. Development is to conform to all recommendations of the noise study. Planning Rationale Report 1. No comment. Phase 1 Environmental Audit 1. No comment. Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment 1. The Phase 1 .assessment recommends a Phase II assessment be carried out. Proposed Grading Concept 1. No comments at this time. Comments will be provided at detailed design. Engineering & Operations Comments General 1. No comments at this time. Traffic Comments 1. Transportation staff generally concurs with the Region and their consultant's transportation comments on the study in its entirety. It is recognized that there are currently so many unknowns in terms of ultimate land use scenario for the site; and therefore some of the study components are deferred until the site plan stage. The study acknowledges that Transit Requirements, Site Circulation, Parking, Loading and Servicing, and Transportation Demand Management component of-this study can only be accomplished when the specific plan for the site has been prepared. August 12, 2014 Zoning By -law Amendment Application A3/14 Durham Live — Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. Page 4 of 6 Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. and 347 ATTACHMENT#_10 _; ?WPW i# PLN`2 7-1q-- 10. A comparison between the "As of Right" development scenario and Phase 1 Durham Live scenario is unfounded as both these development scenarios are based on different land uses and assumptions. The number of trips generated by land uses included in the "As of Right" scenario (Office & Industrial) do not account for trip reductions due to pass-by trips and internal interaction between proposed land uses. In case of Durham Live development, there will be significant opportunity for the internalization of many generated trips through interaction between the wide range of proposed land uses. Water Resources Comments 1. No comments. 6:,_, �G RH:Ir 61L-Attachments Fill & Topsoil Disturbance By-law Application for Topsoil Removal, Fill Placement, Erosion and Sediment Control Permit August 12, 2014 Page 6 of 6 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A3/14 Durham Live — Pickering Developments (401) Inc., Pickering Developments (Bayly) Inc. and Pickering Developments (Squires) Inc. 349 // . . (\I c\I • a) Ei a .Y, ff. i a O• 72 1 ' cn II g -A, '.Z - • .'Z I ?■ . . O §. e, 1 . , - ) It ( LI, 4 = = i . i Li . . : . . . . - .-- •,-. I I; >5 I- , 1 , . , : 1- _, __ .,_ ,.„: _. ,_.,. ,.---. ,rr, c- c • -2'. ' . SI . 1 1 • Et , ,,,,A S.t )11L 1 :=,71 .r.:: ' 7'12 .1.- koe9`'-. - •• i-9 0 , .. p z • .. .„_,,,,a44. .:-_- )1 k, "- ' tt • • . o . , . -dr, -....41 ,,,,.. ...,,,. 11.•••--- Alari,. \ ' .-t''-+-'' lilt'.1 C\I ......... -- .;rtic cr i :-6' *1Y( =-Z .1 i r i ■ C\I . .rRotherglen Rd. 65 ' ' ' •• 1 •-•‘• I ot 1 c , . . 1 . . . .,. • r - 0 , _. -1 I I, • I -" - f 1 II 0 a , . :.-... i -- II i W WO E-P, , =- 1 f Church St.S. Aim_ r.d._, , F o Fi A-- A- cm = --- --'0______---- -OM'-' '- > 0- l * 9'?...,...-...i,-;;.:1.Ng.rograwis,.44 I — j 11 ` ((-W7,-7- •••45* l'itP•V:4*------: -,. -...444 .1...*. 1 )19, _J 'ID ---L- )11' -fi-v, _,.. L 1'' 0.-....::::::::::::47‘; k::+:::,34..‘,.. #4::.K:::+0;,0_ •, . 2 .is,) -,, 1 t)*::::::■::::4 1:4:::::, .. -,._ dlx:::::.-N' u < c 5 4::::::::::::::::::* K::.:e.s\N■e:::!;!./.3)Vt..": 2 =CI) .6. , i",....4.044:9X4C. 44.0%, 4:::*\ .'.,'S'..•. \\, ' f ,\ . -::::::.c.:1...:0,:...: ;,,...„, ■......- , . ..;‘,. I r: - g„ •• : :' taita::::::::: .t D E /212' , ,,,„ s ---, C:44:4+*:::+ ' 1 ' ' v)::•:+:::44•:. toe............., ,:\,:,\`‘ >,'' a o '' \V-- v vo4ovr"... 1 \, \',....• c.) ,c, cu /p ccp -2, I 4:•:+4+:4+: l' c) , .,,, v ..,:attcat:*:t ■ \N \ ',I 1 __I < , H / i ,_ \ ki- 0 H 1 41 cirii-7,--- Lii / I:411-- \. \ f .,,,N,_ -.,‘,&,.tv& Rd. Notion Ra. ,..\ -,.;. k: i C[ (06 b i D In ÷ ')Iir -e- \' D El Li_ t 1 , L , I. o_"' \ . .c B t'. ii . i:T. Bainbridge Dr. I 0 - 1- ■ ■.1 I ' i P Y I roc ■•• i • D- ' , ,, ..,_ 1 EGLI\'''.\ .:--' Bk Rd ! 1. -,-- - _- --• . f - --,- : , , 1,1 -•• ,s",k 1 r -7: t 4.1‘1Y I - ■ --"i i ir- 1 i i r ok... E • ,•-_, m•3 i = t-----= ==-'E'''r -• I I • , it.. rnr• .-'," .= ''''' '= ' Al rig . te. k ‘ VNI 'tt-C_ i • 1 • 1\11 , _. .. _ . brintot 1,-At,•••-art,i-ee,••^6,1•,•4•1,,U11.0 f:(P.9tVdI-.,...13 11.0Z 4.41.:Gittid,41:1 350 •