The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPD 38-02 77 REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: July 19, 2002 REPORT NUMBER: PD 38-02 SUBJECT: Resolution of Deferral 36 to the Pickering Official Plan Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Alcorn & Associates Limited on behalf ofE. and E. Taylor Part of Lot 29, Concession 2 West side of Whites Road, north of Finch Avenue City of Pickering RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 submitted by Alcorn & Associates Limited on behalf of E. and E. Taylor, on lands being Part of Lot 29, Concession 2, City of Pickering, to permit the development of a plan of subdivision, be APPROVED AS REVISED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Planning Report Number PD 38-02. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 submitted by Alcorn & Associates Limited on behalf of E. and E. Taylor, on lands being Part of Lot 29, Concession 2, City of Pickering, to establish performance standards to allow the implementation of the draft plan of subdivision, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix II to Planning Report Number PD 38-02. 2. 3. That in accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act and notwithstanding that the rezoning proposed in the public meeting notice, public meeting report and at the public meeting differs to some degree from that presented in the report of the Director, Planning & Development, dated July 19, 2002, Planning Report Number PD 38-02, such differences are not substantial enough to require further notice and another public meeting. 4. That the Region of Durham be requested to resolve Deferral 36 to the Pickering Official Plan and adopt modifications 22 and 23 to the Pickering Official Plan that would designate Part of Lot 29, Concession 2, City of Pickering Open Space - Natural Area and Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area that would permit the implementation of draft plan of Subdivision S-P-2001-06. ORIGIN: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2001-06 submitted to the Region of Durham and circulated to the City of Pickering for comment, and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 submitted to the City of Pickering. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, chapter P.13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Park development costs are the responsibility of the City as a result of the development of the subject draft plan. The exact facilities for the proposed park block have not yet been determined. 78 Report to Council PD 38-02 Date: July 19, 2002 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Page 2 Therefore, an estimate for parkland development for the proposed park block cannot be established. The capital costs will be funded through the Development Charges levy and/or other capital budget processes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to develop a draft plan of subdivision consisting of 149 dwelling units (17 detached dwellings, 104 semi-detached dwellings and 28 street townhouse dwellings). All lots will front a new "P" shaped road that will intersect with Whites Road opposite Craighurst Court. The applicant proposes to amend the current zoning to allow the proposed dwelling units with appropriate performance standards, to permit the implementation of the draft plan. The proposed plan of subdivision implements the previous City Council's decision to permit residential development on the subject lands. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Introduction The subject lands are located on the west side of Whites Road, north of Finch Avenue between the hydro corridor and the railroad tracks. A property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1). The subject property is currently vacant of any buildings or structures. The majority of the subject lands are currently forested. The site's topography is relatively flat with a slight slope from the north-west to the south-east. There is a drainage swale that runs through the property from the north to the south-east. The original draft plan of subdivision contained 149 dwelling units, consisting of 1 detached dwelling and 148 semi-detached dwellings. This is the proposal that was presented at the public meeting and described in the public meeting information report (see Attachment #2). Since the public meeting, the applicant has revised the draft plan of subdivision. The revision to the draft plan relates to the lotting. The road configuration remains the same as originally proposed. The revised lotting is now 17 detached dwellings, 104 semi-detached dwellings and 28 street townhouse dwellings for 149 total dwelling units, the same number as the original proposal. The revised draft plan also provides for a park block and large open space blocks (see Attachment #3). The following is background information on the subject applications: Proposed Development Detail Gross area of draft plan Net residential area of draft plan Open space blocks Park block Streets Number of detached dwelling lots Number of semi-detached building lots Number of semi-detached dwelling units Number of Street Townhouses Total dwelling units Net residential density Detached dwelling lot frontages - minimum 12.0 metres - minimum 10.0 metres Semi-detached building lot frontage - minimum 15.2 metres Original Plan Revised Plan (Attachment 2) (Attachment 3) - 12.5 ha - 12.5 ha - 4.25 ha - 4.25 ha - 6.03 ha - 6.03 ha - 0.07 ha - 0.07 ha - 1.48 ha - 1.48 ha - 1 - 17 - 74 - 52 - 148 - 104 - 0 - 28 - 149 - 149 - 35 units/ha - 35 units/ha - 1 - 0 - 0 - 17 - 74 - 52 Report to Council PD 38-02 Date: July 19, 2002 79 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Page 3 2.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting for the subject applications was held on February 21, 2002. Information Report No. 07-02, which summarizes the applicant's original proposal and outlines the issues and comments identified to that date through circulation of the application, was prepared for that meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #4). At the Public Information Meeting, one area resident, John Liska, representing the Whites Grove Community Association commented on the applicant's proposaL Comments included: . increased traffic and related safety for children; . stormwater management for the site; . lack of sidewalks in the area; . impact on the subdivisions in the area; . possible increased vehicle traffic on Amaretto Avenue and Whisky Gate in order to by- pass the traffic lights at Finch Avenue and Whites Road; . construction impacts; and, . impacts the proposed subdivision will have on the forested environment. Minutes of the February 21, 2002 Statutory Public Information Meeting are provided for reference (see Attachment #5). 2.1 Public Comment Prior to the public meeting no comments were received from area residents. Since the public meeting only one public comment has been received. Ian Davidson, 647 Cognac Crescent - questioned if sidewalks will be constructed between Amaretto Avenue north to the new subdivision; whether the developer would be responsible for the construction of this sidewalk; and whether the rail crossing will be put in at Rosebank Road and CP Rail be instructed not to blow the horn at level crossings (see Attachment #6). 2.2 Comments from Other Agencies The following agencies have advised they have no objection to the subject applications provided certain conditionslrequirements are addressed. . Veridian Connections (see Attachment #7). Canada Post (see Attachment #8). Bell Canada (see Attachment #9). Enbridge Consumers Gas (see Attachment #10). . . . Durham District School Board has advised that approximately 75 elementary students could be generated by the development, that these students will be accommodated within existing school facilities and therefore, have no objection to the application (see Attachment #11). Durham Catholic District School Board has advised that the proposed development is within the catchment area of St. Marguerite Bourgeoys Catholic School and the projected student yield will be 30 students and therefore, have no objection to the application (see Attachment #12). 80 Report to Council PD 38-02 Date: July 19, 2002 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-200l-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Page 4 Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) has advised that they cannot support the applications at this time as they have major concerns that have not yet been resolved. TRCA note that the proposed subdivision does not meet TRCA policy under the Valley and Stream Comdor Management Program. Specifically TRCA has concern with the ecological and hydrological impacts both on the subject property, and the surrounding area. (see Attachment #13). Region of Durham Planning Department has not yet provided any comments on the applications. It is noted that the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Area, where development is intended to be predominantly for housing purposes. The draft plan appears to be in proximity to lands designated as Open Space Linkages, which recognizes the Rouge-Dufflns Comdor. It is anticipated that if this application is approved, matters related to Regional servicing and financing will be addressed in a required agreement between the developer and the Region. The developer will be required to provide the appropriate water services and sanitary services to subject property. 2.3 Comments from City Departments The Municipal Property & Engineering Section has advised of the following on the original application: . additional design detail is required to review the centre median proposed as well as the road allowance width; . the proposed park block needs to be large enough to accommodate a playground; . questions if a walkway connection is required to access adjacent lands; and, . storrnwater matters must be addressed (see Attachment # 14). On the circulation of the revised draft plan, clarification was provided with respect to the size of the park block. The proposed 0.07 hectare block is too small to accommodate playground equipment. The proposed park block should be increased in size to 0.15 hectare. Therefore the draft plan should be revised prior to the issuance of conditions of draft plan approval that provides for a park block of 0.15 hectare that backs onto the open space block that is adjacent to Whites Road. A park block of 0.15 hectares is only 2.4 percent of the developable land of the draft plan, which is still short of the 5 percent parkland dedication requirement by 2.6 percent. The Development Control Section has advised of the following: . The technical report submitted in support of the application have been reviewed and technical comments are provided on the reports (see Attachment # 15). 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Deferral 36 In 1997, Council considered Planning Report No. 22/97 on the "Whites Road North Urban Study - Staff Recommended Land Uses". On August 5, 1997 Council passed the following resolution: That Council adopt "Proposed Modification No. 22 to the Council adopted Pickering Official Plan" for lands within the Whites Road north urban study Area, as set out in Appendix No. I to Planning Report No. 22/97; and Report to Council PD 38-02 Date: July 19, 2002 81 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Page 5 That council adopt "Possible Modification No. 23 to the Council adopted Pickering Official Plan" for lands beyond the Whites Road north Urban Study Area, as set out in Appendix No. II to Planning Report No. 22/97, and request the Region of Durham to modify the Pickering official Plan accordingly. The aforementioned Modifications No. 22 and 23 related to land use designation in the area around Whites Road, north of Finch Avenue, including the lands subject to the subject applications. The land use designations for the lands on the east side of Whites Road have been resolved. The unresolved matter that is subject to Deferral 36 relates to the land use designation on the subject lands. Modifications No. 22 and 23 designated the subject lands Urban Residential- Low Density Area and Open Space System - Natural Areas. The residential designation was shown on the southern portion of the subject lands. At the time the modifications were forwarded to the Region, it was detennined by the Region that there was insufficient background infonnation to process the modification and that additional field work and background information would be required prior to concluding a position on the modifications. It was considered that when specific development application were submitted, the required field work and background information would be undertaken in sufficient detail to resolve the land use designations, and then the Official Plan modifications could be finalized and brought into effect. The applicant submitted various technical reports with the submission of the subject applications. Despite TRCA's concerns with the extent of the proposed residential development the applicant's consultants have provided opinions and recommendations that provide justification for the proposed limits of development that in their opinion is reasonable and appropriate for the subject lands. The applicant's consultants established their position based on Council's previous position. It is therefore, recommended that the Region of Durham be requested to resolve Deferral 36 to the Pickering Official Plan based on the subject applications and the background information that was submitted in support of the applications. This would result in lands use designations that are based on the subject draft plan. TRCA can continue to pursue it's interest through resolution of Deferral 36. 3.2 Subdivision Design Considerations The overall subdivision design is based on the premise that half of the overall property is developable. Therefore, the subdivision design has been laid out by accommodating developable land in southern portion of the property with open space lands to the west, north, and east. Half of the property is proposed to remain as open space lands. The applicant's consultants have advised that lands that are to remain as open space have a higher environmental constraint than the proposed developable land. The proposed subdivision is an isolated plan that will not connect with any other developable land due to the surrounding land uses. Hydro transmission towers encumber lands to the south. Lands to the west are wooded lands. These lands are designated as Open Space System - Natural Areas and are not developable. A servicing corridor for the York Durham Sanitary Sewer and the St. Lawrence and Hudson (formerly C. P.) Railways north of the subject property restrict any development in a northern direction. The resulting subdivision design, as submitted by the developer, proposes a "P" -shaped road with all dwelling units accessing and fronting onto this new municipal road. The draft plan proposes a mix of unit types, including detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings and street townhouses. All units located on the outside of the new street will back onto open space lands. A small parkette is proposed in the south-east comer of the draft plan. A walkway/maintenance access is proposed between lots 14 and 15 in the western portion of the draft plan. 8 2 Report to Council PD 38-02 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Date: July 19, 2002 Page 6 The applicant's revision to the subdivision dealt mainly with reconfiguration of the unit types. However, the unit yield did not change, and remains at 149 dwelling units. The revision did not change the overall "foot-prine' of the lands that are proposed to be developed. The reverse lot frontages and the noise attenuation fences will be appropriately separated and buffered from Whites Road by the open space block (Block B). The subdivision design incorporates 6.03 hectares of land as open space in two blocks (Blocks A and B). This portion ofthe draft plan is currently vegetated and will remain in a natural state, although some rehabilitation of this area may be required. These blocks have been interpreted by the subdivider as corresponding to the lands that are proposed to be designated as Open Space System - Natural Areas in the Official Plan. These lands are not developable and the conveyance of these lands to a public authority does not constitute conveyance of parkland under Section 42(1) of the Planning Act. 3.3 Urban Design Considerations The development of the proposed detached dwelling and semi-detached dwellings on small lots must be carefully planned and controlled to avoid a monotonous streetscape, minimize the negative affects of garage projections at the front of the houses and reduce lot access conflicts. These potential problems can be mitigated through the application of good urban design techniques. The modulation of front yard depths and eliminating garage projections beyond the main walls of dwellings can visually improve a streetscape. Where lot depths and widths pennit, house designs can be chosen that eliminate full garage projections. Incorporating habitable floor space above garage extensions or the use of hip roofs on the garage extensions also improve the streetscape. The twinning of driveways provides for increased curb space for visitor parking, reduces lot access conflicts and the amount of driveway asphalt in front yards and may facilitate the planting of trees. In considering a streetscape, the design element that contributes the most to the appearance of the dwelling is how the garage is treated. This includes both the proj ection of the garage and the width of the garagelgarage door. The width of the garagelgarage door also relates to the amount of asphalt/driveway in the front yard. On plans of subdivisions that incorporate small lots (having a lot frontage of 10 metres or less), front yards are compromised when the driveway takes on a high priority due to its size. In this subdivision, the majority of the dwellings will have a lot frontage of 10.0 metres or less. If a two-car garage was pennitted, the result would be that almost 2/3 of the front yard would be driveway. Furthennore, with a two-car garage on a 10.0 metre wide lot, there is not enough room left on the main wall of the house to accommodate both a front door and a front window that both face the street. Therefore, it is recommended that the width of the garage and garage door be controlled in the architectural design statement. Based on the forgoing, this Department recommends that prior to the execution of the subdivision agreement and/or the issuance of any model home pennits, the applicant prepare a report to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development, outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the draft plan of subdivision that includes streetscapelarchitectural guidelines. These guidelines will include restriction of garage projections, garage width and model types at certain locations as outlined in Section 2.3.12 of Appendix I of this report. 3.4 Appropriateness of the Proposed Development The proposed development boundaries are generally based on the applicant's interpretation of the location of the Urban Residential - Low Density Area designation as reflected in Modifications No. 22 and 23 to the Pickering Official Plan that was adopted be City Council. Report to Council PD 38-02 Date: July 19, 2002 83 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Page 7 The precise boundaries of the proposed development result from the recommendations of the detailed environmental, hydrogeological and engineering studies prepared by the applicant's consultants. Certain site constraints were identified in these studies and were taken into account in the design of the subdivision. The draft plan proposes a density of 35 units per hectare. This exceeds the pennitted upper limit of Urban Residential - Low Density Area designation, which pennits a maximum limit of up to and including 30 units per hectare. However, the Amberlea Neighbourhood policies provide additional opportunities for the development of the subject lands, including the option of residential density of up to 80 units per hectare if the resulting development form demonstrates that the size characteristics and constraints are better addressed. The applicant contends that the proposed design satisfies these policies in that a significant amount of land in the draft plan is proposed for open space and will remain in its natural state. 3.5 Zoning Requirements The applicant has requested zoning that will implement the draft plan and requirements similar to the zoning that has been applied to similar developments in the City. This would include appropriate set backs and building performance standards that are typical of development on lots similar to the proposed development. It is anticipated that the amending zoning by-law will be brought forward to Council after the appropriate resolution of Deferral 36 of the Official Plan, the issuance of the conditions of draft approval of the subdivision and the submission of an acceptable draft 40M plan. 3.6 Technical Matters Fencing The subject draft plan will require the perimeter of the residential lots to be fenced. A noise attenuation fence is required along the entire eastern boundary of the lots, including wrap-a-rounds on the comer lots. The southern perimeter, excluding the lots that have noise attenuation fences, will require an appropriate fence separating the residential lots from the Hydro corridor. All lots that back onto open space Block A will require chain link fencing along the rear property lines. Prior to the installation of the pennanent fence, a temporary. construction fence will be erected and maintained. Conditions of Approval recommended in Appendix I to this Report include provisions to ensure that both temporary and permanent fencing will be installed around the subject lands. Subdivision Agreement A future subdivision agreement between the City and the owner of the lands will be required to ensure that all matters of interest to the City are protected. This required agreement, and several other development implementation matters, are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this proposal found in Appendix I to this Report. Parkland The draft plan proposes the conveyance of a 0.07 hectare block (Block D) for park purposes. The draft plan should be revised to increase the park block to 0.15 hectares. However, five (5) percent of the developable land (6.22 hectares) of the draft plan is 0.31 hectare. Therefore, there is a shortfall of 0.16 hectares. The City will accept cash-in lieu ITom the subdivider for this shortfall in order to satisfy Section 42(1) ofthe Planning Act. Report to Council PD 38-02 Date: July 19, 2002 84 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Page 8 Edge Management/Open Space Restoration An edge management plan and an open space restoration plan will be required for Blocks A and B. As part of the detailed design for the draft plan the impact of the development will have to be assessed with regard to impact on vegetation, surface hydrology, and ground water. This may result in the placement of topsoil, planting of appropriate native species and the removal of dead or declining trees. The restoration plan along with the detail stormwater management plan will also have to address the drainage swale that flowed through this area. Sidewalks As part of the development of the draft plan the safe movements of pedestrians has to be considered. Sidewalks are required internal to the subdivision as well as on the perimeter of the subdivision. A standard sidewalk is required along the Whites Road frontage of the draft plan from Street "A", southerly to the southern property line of the draft plan. A temporary sidewalk is required to be constructed from the termination of the sidewalk mentioned above to the existing sidewalk that terminates along Whites Road, just north of Amaretto Avenue. 3.7 Conditions of Draft Approval While the specifics of the TRCA's and the Region of Durham's conditions of approval for this draft plan are not known at this time, no conditions of draft approval will be issued by the City until the appropriate conditions of approval are received and incorporated into the formal conditions of draft plan approval. Further, no conditions of draft approval will be issued until Deferral 36 has been appropriately resolved. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has advised that they concur with the recommendations of this report. Report to Council PD 38-02 Date: July 19, 2002 85 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Page 9 APPENDICES: APPENDIX I: APPENDIX II: Recommended Conditions of Approval for SP-2001-02 Recommended Conditions of Approval for A 09/01 ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Property Location Map Applicant's Original Submitted Plan Applicant's Revised Submitted Plan Information Report No. 07-02 Minutes of the February 21,2001 Statutory Public Meeting Resident Comment - Ian Davidson, 647 Cognac Crescent Agency Comment - Veridian Connections Agency Comment - Canada Post Agency Comment - Bell Canada Agency Comment - Enbridge Consumers Gas Agency Comment - Durham District School Board Agency Comment - Durham Catholic School Board Agency Comment - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Staff Comment - Municipal Property & Engineering Staff Comment - Development Control Prepared By: Approved I Endorsed by: Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner - Deve opment Review ,RPP ing & Development Catherine Rose Manager, Policy RP/jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer 86 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 38-02 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAFT PLANS OF SUBDIVISION SP-200l-06 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAFf PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SP-2001-06 8'7 1.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.1 That this recommendation apply to the revised draft plan prepared by Alcorn & Associates Limited, dated of June 12, 2002 (Drawing # 032-DP13), for Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-200l-06 Submitted by Alcorn & Associates Limited, on behalf of E. and E. Taylor, on lands being Part of Lots 29, Concession 2, City of Pickering, to permit the development of 17 lots for detached dwellings, 52 semi-detached lots for 104 semi-detached dwellings, 4 blocks for 28 street townhouse dwelling units, open space blocks, a park block and a road widening block subject to the comments contained in the report of the Director, Planning & Development Department, report number PD 38-02 regarding the size of the park block. 2.0 PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE PLAN: 2.1.1 That the owners submit a Draft 40M-Plan to be approved by the City Planning & Development Department. 2.1.2 That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 09101 become final and binding. 2.3 That the owner enter into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: 2.3.1 Storm Drainage (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easements; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department for contributions for down stream stormwater management works. 2.3.2 Grading Control and Soils (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Development Department respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis. 2.3.3 Road Allowances (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting construction of internal roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs to maximize front yard space without impeding services or the safe operation ofthe streets: and, (b) that all streets be named to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. 2.3.4 Sidevvalks (a) that the owner construct a sidewalk along the outside lots/blocks of Street 'A' to the satisfaction ofthe Director, Planning & Development Department; (b) that the owner construct a sidewalk along Whites Road from Street "A" to the southern limit of the draft plan; (c) that the owner construct a temporary sidewalk along Whites Road ITom the southern limit ofthe draft plan connecting to the exiting sidewalk north of Amaretto Avenue. 88 - 2 - 2.3.5 Construction I Installation of City Works & Services (a) satisfaction of the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City; (b) satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar servIces; (c) that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the subdivider; (d) that if during the detailed review of engineering drawings, it is determined that the walkway/maintenance access as show between lots 14 and 15 is not required, it be deleted and the lands be incorporated in the abutting lots; (e) that if during the detailed review of engineering drawings, it is determined that a walkway/emergency access is required from Block D (the park block) to Whites Road, an appropriate block be shown on the draft 40M plan and it be design and constructed by the owner all at no cost to the City. 2.3.6 Dedications I Transfers I Conveyances (a) the dedication of all road allowances with the proper comer roundings and sight triangles to the City; (b) that the owner convey to the City in a form satisfactory to the City and at no costs to the City: (i) (ii) (iii) Block D, being a park block; any easements as required; and, any reserves as required by the City. (f) that the subdivider convey any easement to any utility to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction ofthe City and the utility. (g) that the owner convey to an appropriate public authority Blocks A and B, in a form satisfactory to the appropriate public authority and at no costs. 2.3.7 Construction Management Plan (a) that the owners make satisfactory arrangements with the City respecting a construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls; addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public street; ensurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised ofthis 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. - 3 - 89 2.3.8 Development Charges (a) satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. 2.3.9 Coordinated Development (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to arrangements necessary to provide for co-ordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of development that may be required. 2.3.10 Fencing (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works; (b) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of a chain link fence or wood privacy fence along the southern perimeter of the subject property were there is not a need for a noise attenuation fence; (c) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of noise attenuation fencing as per a noise report approved by the City of Pickering. (d) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of chain link fencing along the rear of all lots or residential blocks that abut Block A. 2.3.11 Street Tree Planting (a) the submission of a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City. 2.3.12 Design Planning (a) the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development, and the submission of site plans and architectural drawings identifying how each unit meets the objectives of the report, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of a residential unit on the lands; (b) the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development must address building envelopes, house designs, siting, upgraded side/flankage elevations at entry, and streetscapes as well as garage designs, locations, massing, width, and projection from the main dwelling; (c) the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development must place special emphasis on the model to be built on lots that have a front lot line at street line, of 10.0 metres or less, and models on these lots will have restrictions on garage width; (e) the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development must address driveway placement and curb cut location on the proposed public road to ensure adequate room is maintained to accommodate street furniture and boulevard landscaping; (f) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the provision of appropriate aesthetic details and design of all boundary fencing and noise attenuation fencing. 2.3.13 Noise Attenuation (a) that the owners satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features satisfactory to the Region of Durham, and the City of Pickering. -4- 90 2.3.14 Engineering Drawings (a) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing and tree planting, and financially-secure such works. (b) that the engineering plans be co-ordinated with the architectural design objectives and further the engineering plans shall co-ordinate the driveway width, street hardware and street trees in order to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and street trees are accommodated. 2.3.15 Other Approval Agencies (a) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region of Durham; (b) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements, financial and otherwise of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority; and, (c) that any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the development of this plan be obtained by the subdivider, and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City of Pickering as verification ofthese approvals. 2.3.16 Parkland Dedication (a) that the subdivider provide to the City a park block of 0.15 hectares in size and provide the City cash-in-lieu to satisfy the shortfall of parkland dedications, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development, in order to satisfy Section 42(1) ofthe Planning Act. 2.3.17 Edge Management (a) that the subdivider provide an edge management plan, to the satisfaction of the of the Director, Planning & Development Department, such Plan to contain, among other things: (i) an identification of all hazard trees located at the edge of the property to be removed prior to the initiation of works on the site; protection hoarding as required during the construction process; grading details which confirm that the root zone on the adj acent vegetated areas will be protected; plans for the edge planting adjacent to rear lots; the planting oftreesllandscaped stock as per the approved plan. (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 38-02 91 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 21/01 I. That the implementing zoning by-law: (a) permit the establishment of detached dwellings in accordance with the following provIsIons: (i) minimum lot area of 250 square metres; (ii) minimum lot frontage of 10.0 metres; (iii) minimum front yard depth of 4.5 metres; (iv) minimum rear yard depth of7.5 metres; (v) minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side; (vi) minimum flankage side yard width of2.7 metres; (vii) maximum building height of 12.0 metres; (viii) minimum gross floor area of 100 square metres; (ix) maximum of one dwelling unit per lot; (x) maximum lot coverage of 48 percent; (xi) minimum one private garage per lot, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; (xii) wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit, except where a covered and unenclosed porch or verandah extends a minimum of 1.8 metres from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit, no part of no part of any private garage shall extend more that 3.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit; or where a covered and unenclosed porch or verandah extends a minimum of 2.0 metres from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit and where second story habitable floor space located above the garage is set back no more than 2.5 metres beyond the vehicular entrance of an attached private garage, no part of any attached private garage shall extend more than 6.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit. (xiii) uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 2.0 metres in height shall be permitted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into a required rear yard. (b) permit the establishment of semi-detached dwellings in accordance with the following provIsIons: (i) minimum lot area of 205 square metres; (ii) minimum lot frontage of 7.5 metres; (iii) minimum front yard depth of 4.5 metres; (iv) minimum rear yard depth of7.5 metres; (v) minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side and 0.0 metres where dwelling on adj acent lot is attached; (vi) minimum flankage side yard width of2.7 metres; (vii) maximum building height of 12.0 metres; (viii) minimum gross floor area ofl00 square metres; (ix) maximum of one dwelling unit per lot; (x) maximum lot coverage of 50 percent; (xi) minimum one private garage per lot, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; (xii) maximum projection of the garage front entrance ITom the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit shall not exceed 2.5 metres in length, whether or not such garage has a second storey, except where a covered and unenclosed porch or verandah extends a minimum of 1.8 metres ITom the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit, in which case no part of any attached private garage shall extend more than 3.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit; 92 (c) -2- (xiii) uncovered steps and platfonns not exceeding 2.0 metres in height shall be pennitted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into a required rear yard. pennit the establishment of street townhouse dwellings in accordance with the following provisions: (i) minimum lot area of 180 square metres; (ii) minimum lot frontage of 6.0 metres; (iii) minimum front yard depth of 4.5 metres; (iv) minimum rear yard depth of7.5 metres; (v) minimum side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side and on the side where dwellings on adj acent lots are attached, no side yard is required, provided any wall other than the common wall that is on the side ofthe lot upon which the dwellings are attached, shall be set back from the lot line separating such lots as follows: A 1.2 metres measured perpendicularly to such side lot line if no side yard is provided on the abutting lot; or B 0.6 metres measured perpendicularly to such side lot line if a side yard is provided on the abutting lot. (vi) minimum flankage side yard width of2.7 metres; (vii) maximum building height of 12.0 metres; (viii) minimum gross floor area of 100 square metres; (ix) maximum of one dwelling unit per lot; (x) minimum one private garage per lot, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line and not less than 6.0 metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; (xi) wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit, except where a covered and unenclosed porch or verandah extends a minimum of 1.8 metres from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit, no part of no part of any private garage shall extend more that 3.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit; or where a covered and unenclosed porch or verandah extends a minimum of 2.0 metres from the wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit and where second story habitable floor space located above the garage is set back no more than 2.5 metres beyond the vehicular entrance of an attached private garage, no part of any attached private garage shall extend more than 6.0 metres beyond the wall containing the main entrance to the (xii) uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 2.0 metres in height shall be pennitted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into a required rear yard. (d) include appropriate provisions permitting the construction of model homes. ATTACHMENT' 1. TO REPORT I PO ~<n- 02 93 . >-ûlt'o ~ CORR/DOR c ~ II: ,.- ,/ /~ /fi? O?- ?-?-\Q cO .,;;;:< Q ?- 0 / ~ i w (/) 0 II: -- Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 29, CONCESSION 2 APPLICATION No. SP-2001-QS DATE JAN 23, 2002 SCALE 1 :7500 DRAWN BY RC CHECKED BY RP l' OWNER E. AND E. TAYLOR FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-11 PA- 94 ATTACHMENT.3l..o TO' REPORT # PO - 2 Original Draft Plan of Subdivision - dated July 11, 2001 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS' SUBMITTED PLAN SP-2001-06 E. ANDE. TAYLOR ~ Reakfentiol Subdlviøton """""'- .... - , ,..-- a ð 0:: (I) ~ 'w t:: ~ , ~ ~ .... ... . . :J. , Hydro Ðectrio 1i nami88ion Corridor """- . --- -~ ~ THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, . JANUARY 23, 2002. 95 ATTACHMENT ,----'3~- TO REPORT I PO '38" - 0;2... Revised Draft Plan of Subdivision - dated June 12, 2002 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S REVISED SUBMIITED PLAN E. TAYLOR SP-2001-06 ~ ! 1/' Open Spoee/ . Ruldenllal Residential Subdivision > ~ '-- ~ COURT ,r r;::::- 0 « 0 0::: (f) 'W != :r: ~ ~ 't"~':,",:¡J WeDdlDnds; Open SpaCe " I-!ydro Electric I i t . t j TrpmsmiSSion i Ope. Spcce Corridor I j ¡ I f. Y. ~ & . . ------- -...- =1./ MWlETTO A'IENIH . ;,1'\ Schedule of Land Use Residential 4.25 ha. 35% Single Detached 11 units 1.48 ha. 12% Semi-Detached 104 umts 6.03 ha.' 50% Street Townhouses 28 units .1' 0.42 ha. 2.5% TOTAL 149 units 0.07 ha. 0.5% 12.25 ha. 100% IV Streets (190m) Open Space (Blocks A & B) Road Widening (Block C) . Park (Block D) TOTAL THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY 1'H£ CITY OF PICKERING . PlANNING &- D£VE:LOPME:NT DEPARTMENT; INFORMATION &- SUPPORT SER'vTCEs, . . JULY 22, 2002. 96 ATTACHMENT' Ii TO REPORT II PO j;A£- 02 INFORMATION REPORT NO. 07-02 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF February 21, 2002 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.0.1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Resolution of Deferral 36 to the Pickering Official Plan Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/01 Alcorn & Associates Limited on behalf of E. and E. Taylor Part of Lot 29, Concession 2 (West side of Whites Road, north of Finch Avenue) City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are located on the west side of Whites Road, north of Finch Avenue between the hydro corridor and the railroad tracks; a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment # 1); the property is currently vacant of any buildings or structures; the majority ofthe subject lands are currently forested; the site's topography is relatively flat with a slight slope from the northwest to the southeast; there is a drainage swale that runs through the property from the north to the southeast; surrounding land uses are: north south east York-Durham sewer corridor and CPR rail line; Gatineau Hydro corridor; one small residential property at the northeast comer of the subdivision; on the opposite side of Whites Road is an open space block and a residential subdivision; vacant land with forest cover. west 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL Alcorn & Associates Limited on behalf of the owner, have submitted an application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision and an application to amend the zoning by-law in order to implement the proposed draft plan; the applicant is also requesting that the land use designation for the subject lands be established through the resolution of Deferral 36 to the Pickering Official Plan; the applicant's proposed subdivision plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2); the draft plan proposes the creation of one new "P-loop" shaped municipal streets, extending west from Whites Road; the new street is proposed to intersect Whites Road at the existing intersection of Craighurst Court and Whites Road; half ofthe subject lands are proposed to remain as open-space; an existing drainage swale, that is to remain, bisects the subject lands and has resulted in the proposed residential area being set back over 42 metres ITom Whites Road; the applicant proposes residential lots next to the hydro corridor on the south side of the draft plan; a small park is proposed in the southeast comer of the draft plan; Information Report No. 07-02 ATTACHMENT#~. TO REPORT # PO .- Page 2 97 the following chart outlines the proposed development detail: Details of the Draft Plan Total area of draft plan Area proposed for residential development Open space blocks Park block New road Road widening block Number of single detached dwelling lots Number of semi-detached building lots Number of semi-detached dwelling units Total dwelling units Net residential density 3.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING - 12.5 hectares - 4.25 hectares - 6.03 hectares - 0.07 hectares - 1.48 hectares - 0.42 hectares - 1 - 74 - 148 - 149 - 35 units per hectare. Durham Re!!ional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Area, where development is intended to be predominantly for housing purposes; lands in the vicinity of the subject property are also identified as Open Space Linkages which recognizes an east-west ecological linkage known as the Rouge- Duffins Corridor; Whites Road is designated as a Type A Arterial Road where it abuts the subject property; the proposal appears to conform to these designations; 3.1 3.2 Pickerin!! Official Plan 3.2.1 Deferral 36 in March 1997, the Council adopted Official Plan designation for the subject land was Open Space - Natural Area and Urban Study Area; in August 1997, Council, following receipt of Whites Road North Area Urban Study, adopted modifications 22 and 23 to the Pickering Official Plan affecting these lands; the modifications proposed the establishment of Open Space - Natural Area and Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area on the subject lands; the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) did not support the modifications and requested further detailed information about the subj ect lands; in September 1997, Regional Council deferred consideration of the land use designation for the subject lands and established DefelTal 36; it was understood that through subdivision and rezoning applications and the required supporting reports, the additional information required by TRCA would be submitted in order to resolve the outstanding issues of Deferral 36; 3.2.2 Other Policies modification 22 and 23 of the Pickering Official Plan proposes the establishment of Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area and Open Space - Natural Area designations for the subj ect lands; permissible uses within the Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area designation include residential uses, including both single detached dwellings units and semi-detached dwelling units; the proposal is within the Amberlea Neighbourhood ofthe Pickering Official Plan; the Plan establishes a maximum density range for the low density residential development designation of up to and including 30 units per net hectare; however, the Amberlea Neighbourhood plan provides some additional policies for the development of the subject lands including the option of residential density of up to 80 units per hectare if the resulting development form demonstrates that the size characteristics and constraints are better addressed; 98 Infonnation Report No. 07-02 ATTACHMENT II 4 TO REPORT # PD.,. ?ß-O2 Page 3 3.3 4.1 4.2 the proposed development would provide a net site density of approximately 35 units per hectare (based on the potential 149 dwelling units being developed on approximately 4.25 hectares ofland); the lands that are proposed to be designated Open Space - Natural Area represent land that are within and lor abut the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor; permissible uses within land designated Open Space - Natural Area include conservation, environmental protection, restoration and passive recreation; Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation Systems designates Whites Road where it abuts the draft plan as a Type A Arterial Road; Type A Arterial Roads are the highest order arterial road that are designed to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speed and have access restrictions; the proposed new public streets serving the proposed development would function as Local Road; section 11.13( c) of the Official Plan requires new public roads intersections on Whites Road north of the Ontario Hydro corridor is provided to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham; section 11.13( d) of the Official Plan provides development guidelines for the subject lands that encourages a development form that takes advantage of the small, isolated pockets of land in close proximity to a Type 'A' arterial road, and minimizes the impact of development on the area's natural features and functions; and, ensure that new roads connecting to Whites Road are designed in a manner that minimizes impacts on the area's natural features and functions, and intersects with Whites Road at locations that do not prejudice the future construction of a Whites 'Road/c.P. rail line overpass; Schedule III of the Pickering Official Plan - Resource Management designates lands to the north, west and south of the subject property as Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor; section 10.17 of the Official Plan clarifies that the boundary of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor coincides with the boundary of the Open Space - Natural Areas designation; this section of the plan also requires an Environmental Report to address setbacks, buffers, edge management and stonnwater; in accordance with Official Plan policies, an environmental report has been submitted; the subject applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications; Zonin2 By-law 3036. as amended the subject lands are currently zoned "A" - Rural Agriculture Zone, by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended; the existing zoning permits a range of agricultural uses, one detached dwelling, some recreational and community institutional uses, and selected agricultural commercial uses; an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to allow the development of the proposed draft plan of subdivision. 4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (See Attachments #3 to #9) Resident Comments no resident comments have been received to-date. A2enCy Comments Veridian Connections - has no objection to the proposed development and requests a number of technical requirements if the application is approved (see Attachment #3); Information Report No. 07-02 ATTACHMENT # H TO REPORT' PO.:..Jß.:.O? Page 4 99 Canada Post - requests conditions of draft approval be imposed on their behalf regarding the location and installation of a temporary and permanent Community Mailbox, and required sidewalk, boulevard and curb works serving the mailbox (see Attachment #4); Bell Canada - requests conditions of draft approval be imposed on their behalf addressing the location and installation of underground servicing (see Attachment #5); Enbridge Consumers Gas - requests conditions of draft approval be imposed on their behalf addressing utility distribution plans and the installation of gas lines (see Attachment #6); Durham District School Board - advises that they have no objection to the applications, that approximately 75 elementary students could be generated by the proposed development and these students will be accommodated within existing school facilities (see Attachment #7); Durham Catholic District School Board - advises that they have no objection to the applications, that approximately 30 students could be generated by the proposed subdivision, and the development falls within the catchment area of St. Marguerite Bourgeoys Catholic School (see Attachment #8); Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) - advises that the proposed development is within a tableland woodlot; TRCA staff promote the protection of the woodlot features as it serves a significant linkage function and appears to provide a significant habitat function; however, since an Environmental Impact Study has been submitted TRCA staff will be reviewing the study prior to providing any detailed comments on the applications (see Attachment #9). 4.3 Staff Comments 4.3.1 Deferral 36 staff are reviewing, along with other agencies, all the technical reports to ensure the information received in conjunction with the applications for approval of draft plan of subdivision and rezoning will provide sufficient clarity to resolve Deferral 36; a decision on deferral 36 must be made by Regional Council prior to any decision by the City of Pickering on the subject development applications becoming final; Council's approved modifications 22 and 23 illustrate a different arrangement of open space and residential area than proposed by the development applications; staff will need to make recommendations to Council on this matter. 4.3.2 Environmental Matters significant environmental matters being reviewed by staff include: . ensuring the integrity of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor is not negatively impacted by the proposed development; . reviewing the proposed development to ensure that it will not have a negative impact on the surrounding woodlot or whether any impacts could be appropriately mitigated; . reviewing the impacts on the watercourse and the water budget for the area that will result ifthe development proceeds in it's current configuration; 4.3.3 Other Draft Plan and Rezoning Issues in reviewing the application to-date, the following other matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: . reviewing the appropriateness of the lot frontage mix and proposed dwelling type mIX; ATTACHMENT # 4 TO REPORT # PO AA.O2 Page 5 100 Information Report No. 07-02 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 . reviewing the proposed subdivision design to determine if the development form qualifies for the increased density as permitted by the Official Plan; . ensuring that the proposed street, lotting pattern and dwelling designs maintain a high quality residential streetscape; . ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, surrounding lands; . reviewing supporting technical submissions and reports to ensure that adequate information is provided, that technical requirements are met and that the proposed subdivision design does not impact on the abutting properties; further issues may be identified following receipt and review of comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public; PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Councilor a Committee of Council; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding either the proposed plan of subdivision or zoning by-law amendment application, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision of the proposed zoning by-law amendment application, or Council's decision on the draft plan of subdivision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law or before the City of Pickering issues it's notice of decision for this proposal. OTHER INFORMATION Appendix I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing this report; Information Received full scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices ofthe City of Pickering Planning & Development Department; the City of Pickering is in receipt of the listed reports, which contains technical information and recommendations on the proposed subdivision: . Planning Report Taylor Property City of Pickering by Alcorn & Associates Limited, dated October 2001; . Stormwater and Servicing Analyses by Cosburn Patterson Mather Limited, dated October 2001; . Whites Road Property Pickering, Environmental Impact Assessment report by ESG International Inc., dated October 2001; . Hydrogeologic Study Proposed Taylor Residential Subdivision by Terraprobe, dated October 10, 2001; the need for updated information and/or addendums to these reports will be determined through the review ofthe applicant's current proposal; Infonnation Report No. 07-02 ATTACHMENT # J.-..I 10 REPORT I PO ~~- 02 Page 6 1 01 6.3 Property Owners - the current property owners are Earl and Elizabeth Taylor. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner - Development Review Catherine Rose Manager, Policy RP/pr Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development Department 102 ATTACHMENT # kJ TO REPORT # po?ß-O2. APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 07-02 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) none to date COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Veridian Connections Canada Post Bell Canada Enbridge Consumers Gas Durham District School Board Durham Catholic District School Board Toronto and Region Conservation Authority COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) Planning & Development Department 2. 4. ATTACHMENT # 5 TO REPORT # PO .3ß::.D2-____- 103 Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes Pursuant to the Planning Act Thursday, February 21, 2002 7:00 P.M. Chair: Councillor Holland The Manager, Policy, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. (VII) RESOLUTION OF DEFERRAL 36 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN DRAFf PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SP-2001-06 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 21/01 ALCO RN & ASSOCIATES LIMITED ON BEHALF OF E. & E. T A YLO R PART OF LOT 29, CONCESSION 2 (WEST SIDE OF WHITES ROAD. NORTH OF FINCH AVENUE) 1. Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #07-02. Randy Alcorn, representing the applicant, advised that he is present to answer any questions. 3. John Liska, 700 Amaretto Ave., Whites Grove Community Assoc., stated their concern with respect to building 149 units on 4.25 hectares, increase in traffic, safety of children, pond depth and lack of sidewalks. He further stated their concern that this development will take away from their area and the new development across the street. He questioned if a report on storm water impact on the pond has been submitted. He also questioned if Amaretto and Whiskey Gate would be used as a shortcut to Finch to avoid the lights. He stated concern with respect to lane reductions due to construction, debris left from construction and environmental concerns. Randy Alcorn, representing the applicant, advised that townhouses are not to be built, only semi- detached, a storm water report has been submitted and no additional storm water will go into the pond, traffic will increase and the Region will tend to adjusting the lights at the corner of Finch Avenue and Whites Road. He further advised that technical reports were submitted to the Planning Department in September. 5. Cathy Rose, Manager, Policy, advised that Information Reports are ready for pick up on Friday prior to the Statutory Public Information Meeting. 104 ATTACHMENT # l D, TO' REPORT # PO ~ /J '. I."" l_-r-/ ff /' " V <1.::_,- ~ ~::--~~ #,¿ c"c;M/ r ff$S" kc¿ ., fllll' AX C«'h/ 6~ c;¡~ c I ~ £~4 ~P/71l? ßy .'--Ldt~ ",4/??~¿1*liNr ð/}~4Z::C~;?-~' , /1- ~ //ð / , .LJ/f..~;Þ-r &-&¿t-le;1 Fs«. d¿J-k V~~oN s~ '-~~..fbo /-0 I- ¡i¿'¥Ì1S6ZJ~.<S¿JÜ(Z8~(.7/l/ tttjdiðT ..5k¿tJØ"""é?r C/c:.IW4/¿":5~ /Z/CJ/C.,~c,1F U/f/¿!! #- ðt/£f~ . /. r VV'Z::Sff 7ð & /f/¿;J F("~~¿ t/ ¡:::'A-~ or.L..e,-- /(1::(Æf/~:. þ)"L4? h, ;J-_S' ~ .PJ z:: tA/r~~ .."L~/&" ,/l/ç,:!h'"¡¡(¿c.1 c:J P /:k- eIzc:zsz:¿>¡V c;yF ~ ,Cz~/ ô F /Zb:: ~r¿&-. ,t/U' /)t£ " de ~T 'hj ;L4c~' ÆA-'N". (jUJ2S h t1~-:S- ~ ' ;;¿q,?:¿éffS:>~ tV/1-/~ &- rt,,;/c//d HCY'lL. . Að?#4er:x70 ~(./¿:':.~ ,~¿Æ1..77;;I- 7Q f:4:. ~' s,.{ ß£}Z:;ct/Z::;SC'roÂ) , ~pYl.4~¡~f;Y". /Â2q;c1{.re4fw/9-/J:. ,tYJ ~' 5/¿~ 9,c :I~ ¡ILl~/lF£L)tûc?¿) CtJIr-z:¡-d~ .£~ .:2 ¡V,2::¿t ~ C!~W~&?4;~ /Ø-J--;"Á.e:. /.1:..,t-h,.Jc: IAJ rj¿ /,S . s¿" bcL[(/'/;S,tA.l~¿?c/; U,AP/;K.L,/;Þzo:vc.7 p"-;;:.;?' ~4$ S/d:: ¿U4j~ /4¡::::i4,,'~ z.:z¿¿/4 (s/~) ,~" :5fÆ4 4:7? /L& tf<i¥ /4 S',ïf-A;:- /Î-4u. s.S, " ~ ,.#, s (" ~) xV Ç?¡/ ,ße ?-<4 tØl"'-?<Ré./ L ß f/ ð,;r.æ "'ÞLúO ¡:::;CJT,' 5. W~4.",4. ~1Za~.A'/kjW4fiCtt;:1:;S>W4 Ide ,.atl- §/J./.!l?-?l¿vP;-/Zà.s<?ß¿d.K-!6d,* CA /¿4tfl ~~7;-J_74:'c:4"'¿ /v¡¿r ffJ ~ ßí?fY 1<7-1/1/3" 4/f¡ Úb¿ff,4 as"~N.J!,5 "V 6'S 4o~ ¡;¿J/t 1M S?t.,/:;q,I'4r-< S/¿<¿>J o/lJ ý'M ¿Ç, A-1i'::T S;~ I##A/;,t-.: ' :z:/¡¡J «() /-11/ :t:¿J.:S: C7 ~ ri+?- Gc-/VÂ-C l'¡¿¿:r...S MAR 1 1 2002 (}jDAt'ri Ñ_- ¿; ON r OITYOF PICKERING t'J _./ j PLANNING AND .i/>i /ß1/ DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT r¿/Øl4¡/ /q/Jci e ~ I-Vy-eco/1') ., Co/1-\.. . - - - 4... ~Q~T~. ,+Í-e TfN.f} L7~. RECEIVED 11)0 ~ ([; lli~ l \\Î!' í5 'I~T:~ì) , ~ ;;;:;:¡ .:.'J -::": ,i.i ,}:::¡ t' ¡ ¡ ill ~1AR 1 Î 2DO2 L.).J crfV OF PICI<EÎili'<JG PICKERINGI. ÜN",<\RIC\ -- - --"_C_----'------.---....... "_c_- .--..-----..-...-....-...---------------------....-_c_-------..---.----------..c_---...."...--...-..---..-..-....-. ..-_c_, c......- --.-'c 20 'd ATTACHMENT # I TO REPORT # PO ~~ß.O2 105 VERIDIAN CONNECTIONS DEVELOPMENT APPUCA TIOr\: REVIEW ,. I I I [PROJECT NAME! [\DDIŒSS/PLAN: ~~UNICIPALI1'\': Alcorn & A~50dat~s ünùted on Bd,J,¡tlf atE. an.:! 8. Tàylo.t '0 '0 Lot 29, Conçcs&tan 2 (Whites Road, Jiorth afFim ~ Avenue) IS ~ Pick~ting .- ]tEl. NO.; 8-);1-2001-06 & A 21/01 SUBMISSION DA ~r E: ]antWy 30, 2002 == .- 1. Electrie Service 15 available on the toad allowallce(s) touching this pt(P'~tty. Setvidngwill be from the east side afW'hites Road. 2. lndlvidual mc;:te:dng far each Wlit is required. 3. The;: following standatd fixed fee east$ ~1I \\p1'1y (all figw:c::.~ are a1'pro:ii'natc::): Service Connection Fee $130.00 per unit 4. The Applicant must make direct applicatioil to the Cotpotation to I) ~tain sþecific approval of the electrical servkc arrangement$ ¡lnd J.:elated work foJ: chis project. :~;le applicant is cautioned that tC11de:cs, !.:ontracts, or work :iniriated prior to obtaining specific: áþþ!o'm:: will b~ subject to change. 5, A Servicing Agtccment must be lõigncd with the CotpotaìÎox1 in ord!;!: .;~ obtain servicing fot this site. 6. All wQtk from the þubliç toad allowat1t:<; to the service ê!1ttal1ce and the In<:te.dng arrangèítu::nts must comply with the Co!pO1"J.tÎoo's requirements and specifications. 7. The Applic:ant will be requited to grant to the CorporalÏot1 á standard I: ( Cupittío.n casement, registered on litk, for possible route £01' p.t1mary cable thtough Block B & D. 8. Pdo! to enc:tgizil1g any new sctvice, the Appticant shall apply to the CCltpor:atlon's Customer Catc Departmc:nt to open. an energy account. 9. Prior to obtaining a building petroh:. the Applkant shall, by :!.gtecment, c )nfmn acceptance of the tenns and c:ondilÍon~ of providing t.:lc::c:ttic:a1 service. 10. Whc,te cranes or l11atcrial handling cq1J.Ïþment or workers Ihust wo.tk in t roximity to existing overhead wires, with the capability of contact 01: coming within the limits of approach, l:J.e devc1oper/buildçt shall pay all costs for the te1'Ilþotary telocation, buriaL or prqtcçtion of the w1tcs, OJ: athe t ¡c.:tion deemed necessary by Veridian to providç fot worker saf<::ty and the sec:u.dty of the electrical system. 11. talldscaping, ~pcdfically tfee$ ::I,nd shrubs, should be relocated away fror I tbe CorporalÍQn's transformer to avoid Ìtitt:rfcrence with equipment access, Lopsided appearance of I'\ cs from tritntning may re$Wt. 12. Will not attend sc::h<::duled City of Pickering DAR'".t' Meeting for this deya opment. OIGO 619 906 'ON X~j N~IGIH3^ Wd 9I:GI G3M GO02-EI-83j 106 Á,' !T~CHMENT #~~- TO RcPORT # PO, 04. Page 2 VElUD1AN CONNECnONS DEVELOPMENT APPlICATION REVmW 13. Veridian Connections hll.$ no objection to thc proposed devek)pmcn:: Please fotward a coPy of first submistdon civil design 50 that a ptelitn.ina.ty design and t'::snooate can h ~ completed, 14, All of the above conditions of service;: ~.tc subject to Ont~rio Energy ::'11 lárd (OBB) approval Technical Representative - Dave Bell Tefepho,oc 427-9870 Ext. 3233 Pit-- f(¡v p]>/dr P:W'ON D"",'m""t:.Wcridi.n\J;.¡q,;In<~g "" Gon.truc~oll\L),m.""p'TIont ~<\pplic.~"" krn."""\Pic~crins\2iJl12\^I"nH1 & ^,,"";,. ,Ltd. - W"".~;.,I" cfWhito,I<o,¡J. N..."h "(Finch,dec Rev. Date: November '1, 1999 EO 'd 0120 619 906 'ON Xij~ NijIOIH3^ Wd 91:21 03M ~OOè-£1-83j AflÞ,CHMENT# ~. TO REPORT # PO - OZ ..... - 10~7 DELIVERY PLANNING 1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGH ON M1P 5A1 CANADA PO ~T ~ POSTES CANADA (416) 285-5385 (T) (416) 285-7624 (F) December 11,2001 õìrE~lEO\YlfE ~ h1 DE C 1 3 2001 ;:J CITY OF PICKERING PICKERING. ONTARIO Mr. N. Carroll Director of Planning City of Pickering I The Esplanade Pickering On LIV 6K7 Dear Mr. Carroll, RE: Application for Approval of a Plan of Subdivision Durham Region File No.: S-P-2001-06 Applicant: Earl and Elizabeth Taylor Lot: 29 Concession: 2 City of Pickering Ref.No.: 66213 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above noted application. As a condition of draft approval, Canada Post requires that the owner/developer comply with the following conditions: - The ownerldeveloper agrees to include on all offers of purchase and sale, a statement which advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox. - The ownerldeveloper will be responsible for notifying the purchaser of the exact Community Mailbox locations prior to t~e closing of any home sale. - The ownerldeveloper will consult with Canada Post Corporation to determine suitable locations for the placement of Community Mailbox and to indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans. -The ownerldeveloper will provide the following for each Community Mailbox site and include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans: - An appropriately sized sidewalk section (concrete pad) as per municipal standards, to place the Community Mailboxes on. - Any required walkway across the boulevard, as per municipal standards. 108 .' ! fj\CHMEI\lr # -jj TO ;~roRT # PD~ DELIVERY PLANNING 1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGH ON MIP 5Al (416) 285-5385 (T) (416) 285-7624 (F) - 2 - -Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access. The ownerldeveloper further agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada Post until the curbs, sidewalks and final grading have been completed at the permanent Community Mailbox locations. This will enable Canada Post to provide mail delivery to new residence as soon as the homes are occupied. I trust that this infonnation is sufficient, however, should you require further infonnation, please do not hesitate to contact me the above number or mailing address. Sincerely, &Ø~~ Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planner a: utildraw. sam C.c, /è. S~.Þ:- A..TTACHM.ENT#~~-i~. CiTo. REPORT tI PD~_- 109 Bell O)lE~~n\V1~ ~ Jl) OCT 1 8 ZO01 .::.; CITY OF PICKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO Right of Way Floor 5,100 Borough Drive Scarborough, Ontario M1P 4W2 Tel: (416) 296-6291 1-800-748-6284 Fax: (416) 296-0520 October 12, 2001 Town of Pickering Planning Department 1 The Esplande, Pickering, Ontario l1V 6K7 ..Nï Attention: N. Carroll RE: Draft Plan of Subdivision Whites and Finch Earl and Elizabeth Taylor File No: S-P-2001-06 Town of Pickering Thank you for your letter of September 10, 2001 concerning the above proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision. . Would you please ensure that the following paragraphs are/have been included as conditions of Draft Plan Approval: 1 - The Owner shall be requested to enter into an agreement (letter of Understanding) with Bell Canada complying with any underground servicing conditions imposed by the municipality, and if no such conditions are imposed, the owner shall advise the municipality of the arrangemsnt made for 2uch servicing. If there are any conflicts with existing Bell Canada facilities or easements, the Owner/Developer shall be responsible for re-arrangements or relocation. If you have any questions, please contact: Sushannah Spataro at (416) 296-6599. Yours truly, . . /--' ~ A7 ~.A-J2"~ ~~ ~Ýo;~ Manager - Right of Way . ÀnAGHI\,~ErJ1 # - ,(t _\ (1 ~. "",,, R"r # PO :>Jf5. ëP. . ',!.fU ' b.....--.- '- 110 RECEIVED' .~p/ OCT - 1 2001i1iißENBRIDGE Consumers Gas 500 Elgin Mills Road East Richmond Hill Ontario L4C SG 1 2001-09-24 CITY OF PIc.KERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MR N CARROLL DIRECTOR OF PLANNING CITY OF PICKERING -MUNICIPAL BLDG 1 THE ESPLANADE PICKERING ON L1V6K7 "'0")) r...¡~~ (ê~ !~ q í~p ~~ ¡ ñ\ ru~E~ ; ~ ;~~~ U CiTY OF PICKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO Dear Sirs Re: APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION DURHAM FILE NO. S-P-201-06 EARL & ELIZABETH TAYLOR REF. NO. 66200 It is requested that the following conditions be included in the subdivision agreement. The owner is to co-ordinate the preparation of an overall utility distribution plan to the satisfaction of all effected authorities. Streets are to be constructed in accordance with the municipal standards. The owner shall grade all streets to final elevation prior to the installation ofthe gas lines, and provide the necessary field survey information required for the installation of the gas lines, all to the satisfaction of Enbridge Consumers Gas. All of the natural gas distribution system will be installed within the proposed road allowances therefore easements will not be required. JJJ H~'\ViÎcox planning Supervisor (905) 883-2613 HW/swc THE DURHAM DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Facilities Services 400 Taunton Road East Whitby, Ontario LI R 2K6 Telephone: (90S) 666-5500 1-800-265-3968 Fax: (905) 666-6439 1~1 IJI ~~tf~ ATTACHMENT#~TO REPORT # PO - 111 February 5, 2002 The Corporation of the City of Pickering Planning Department Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LIV 6K7 Attention: Mr. Ross Pym Dear Mr. Pym, RE: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2001-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A21101 Alcorn & Associates Limited on behalf of E. and E. Taylor Part of Lot 29, Concession II West Side of Whites Road, north of Finch Avenue City of Pickering Staff has reviewed the information on the above noted application and has the following comments... 1. Approximately 75 elementary pupils could be generated by the above noted application. 2. It is intended that any pupils generated by the above noted plan of subdivision, be accommodated within an existing school facility. 3. Under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, staff has no objections. Yours truly, - \}JcL-r~ ce):A.JJ .eS& Christine Nancekivell, Planner CN:em I :\PROPLAN\OA T A \PLNG\SUB\SP200 I -O6a 112 p, iTMJHiVíENT #- 12 TO ~G'(JRT # PO ?{\-O2 - f) t(~ THE DURHAM CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Catholic Education: Learning & Living in Faith F $, I February 6, 2002 .;::FI!NG Neil Carroll Director, Planning and Development City of Pickering Municipal Building 1 The Esplanade Pickering, ON L 1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Carroll: RE: DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION ApPLICATION S-P-2001-06 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT ApPLICATION A 21/01 ALCORN & ASSOCIATED LIMITED ON BEHALF OF E. AND E. TAYLOR PART OF LOT 29, CONCESSION 2 CITY OF PICKERING Staff has reviewed the above noted application and the Board's previous comments of October 15, 2001 are still apply to this application. The subjects lands fall within the catchment area of S1. Marguerite Bourgeoys Catholic Elementary School, located at 1765 Meadowview Avenue in Pickering. The projected student yield from this development is 30 students. Sincerely yours, ~~:F- Planner 650 Rossland Road West, Oshawa, Ontario LlJ 7C4 Telephone (905) 576-6150 Business Services, Fax (905) 576-1981 Grant A. Andrews, B.A.. M. Ed. - Director of EducationlSecretarylTreasurer 113 \: "'L!!"¡¡:i{;i..I~~~,ro ~h)nRT /t PO,~~.-Ø,6 W'""'70RONTO AND REGlON.t:V- . ' fA.,onserva Ion, fo,(' The living City July 22, 2002 ' r""RE'ce"ïveDl 11 1 . ¡ JUL 2 2 2002 i CITY OF PICKERING ¡ PLANNIf,¡G AND DEVELOPMENT DEPÁI'11MENT CFN 32577 BY'FAx AND MAil (905) 420-7648 Mr. Ross Pirn City of Pickering Pickering Civic Centre . One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 ' Dear Mr. Pim: Re: , Whites Road (Taylor) Property. . CIty of Pickering As ,per your .request, this letter serves as an update on the Whites Road jTaylor) Property , suqdivision application. TACA staff provided detailed comments on the EnvironÌTientallmpac~ Statement to Alcorn and Associates Umited on March 14, 2002 (attached). Our comments at this time have yet to be address~d. . The proposed subdivision does not meet TACA policy under the Valley and Stream Corridor .Management Program (VSCMP, 1994). We have difficulty în.many ofthe met~ods used to assess ecological impacts of develòpment on the proposed site. There is heavy reliance on secondary information, and where primary data has been collected, the detail thatwe expect of an application of this type is lackìng. Specifically. we are concerned with ecolQgical and' , hydrological impacts both on site, and the surrounding area. The current application fails to adequately examine impacts beyond tha proposed site. As we have noted. the forested area in question is part of a larger èore forest block; and changes to one portion of the forest will have significant impacts on the entire forest blocK area. . . .Additionally, method,s (or lack there of) to accommodate ecological and hydrological changes have not been satisfactorily addressed. Some of our major concerns include impacts of ((better defining" the watercourse, downstream ecological impacts, creation of a new edge, the need for connectivity an,d corridors, defining the minimum acceptable width for corridors etc. Accordingly, as our major concern~ have not yet been rasolved. the TAGA cannot support this application at this time. ' . We trust these comments are satisfaètory. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate. to contactthe undersigned. . 114 .\;\";,1;; .j n ,1.~._=_TO . it PI} .- :3 <Q - 0 2.. JUL-22-2002 15:07 Tor Region .td~àeriJ Author ,ft . Yours truly, . ~ .øuJ V Russel White Senior Planner Development Services Section Ext. 5306 AGI cc: Catherine Ro$e. City of Pickering Richard Szarek. Region of purham' . .2- 416661 6898 P.03/08 July 22, 2002 ATTACHMENT#1~' TO REPORT I PO .3 F3 - 0 2 115 JUL-22-2002 15:07 Tor Region ConserlJ Author 416661 6898 P.04/08 ',,' onservatTon , ,TORONTO AND REGION , , March 14, ,2002' ,'cFN 32577' , Mr. Randy Alcorh Alcorn. & AssocIates Limited One Valleyw~od Prîve 'Suite 1A ' , Markham. Ontario L3A 5L9 -,RECÈlve51 . JUL 22 2002 , . CITY OF PICKERING] PLANNING AND ......EEVEl~PMENT DEPARTM':.r:!!..- Dear Mr. ~Icorn: Whites Road Þroperty, City of PickerIng Envlro.nmentallmpaCt Assessment, Authority staff have had the opportunitY to reviéw the above noted ,submission (herein referred to as the EIS) and provide the following comments. We note that the Hydrogeologic StUdy has bèen recently provided and is stÎII under reviëw, however we provide comments on the ,EI$ in the interim. ' , Ae: General Comments, . , , As, we' note,d on our site walk. the loc~tion and si~e' of the proposed development envelope does not seem to be based on a.ny differences In habitat etc. that could baseen on the ground. Rather it was 'confirmed that the proponents were working from the best perspective 'that 6 hèCtarl;!S could be 'developed and were looking at how-to best orient that within thE! lands owned by the proponent. ' , The EIS refers to th~ work that Pa!.!! B~wen (Terraprobe) did and the' recommen'datlons he made to conclude, that there would be no impacts on the hydrology/hydrogeology of the natural areas. , This report was not forwarded as part of this.package. We are unable to verify this but will do $0 with the review of the Hydrogeo!ogic rèport ' . . , The report also references a stormwater, management and grading plan preparèd by CPM. (2001). Some comments regarding the drainage of the site, and potential,additional impacts , associated wíth grading for swales etc. may change once we have reviewed the abQv8 rioted ,report. ' As you are aware, the TRCA h~ b~en conducting inventory work on the, lands In qU'estion. A ' copy Of the fauna'data that has ~een collected to date was proyided to the proponent and the Town during our site visit.' The final report on our inventory work should be compl~ted soon, and will be provided, for your use. The Information prevIously provided highlighted the signiflcanc80f this foreSt In conjl.Jnction with the Ontario Realty Corporation lands to the west, in terms of habitat fqr forest and area sensitive forest birds). Through our breeding bird work at the TROA, we have documented 1 å fauna species of concern. The proPQnent only undertook,one breeding bird, survey (we believe it was only in the portion of the forest owneç:t by'the proponent; even so, the , report documents some area sensitive forest birds. Additionally, a list of amphibians is Included in the report. however the report does not mention whether any amphibian sulVeys were conducted. . , . . , , . ' The forests on the subject lands are part of a larger forest block. In terms, of habitat, this means that the lands cannot be treated separately. Accordingly. all the vegetation communities in the entire forest block ar~ acting in concert to support an array,of flora and fauna species. , .,/2 F:\P RS\CORRES P\PICKERIN\2002\ CFN32577. WP D Healthy Rivers ~ Biodi'Ver.r;;ity and' GrEenspace . fducatkm for Sustainable Hying m__- - . ,--..-,~--- - "-' ~,~~~~,,'" 1:1..6 \: ,IG':\,iFi\\' 1.."1~~_-ro "L'UI11# po :3 J:2- 02. --.-----.---. . JUL-22-2002 15:07 Tor Region Conserv Author 416661 6898 P.05/08 Mr, Randy Alcorn . - 2, March 14.2002 . The deveicipment block that the proponent shows would re~ult it:' the direct .removal of" a large . portion of the forest block; reducing its size, shape and diversity. This would result in the loss of habitat opportunities for a number of species, As well, there would be the cr~ation of a new eøge . over a large distance. Thåre are many negative impacts associated with creating new edges, , '. including: additional losses of trees along the edge due to wind throw or sun scald, penetration' of light and wind in1ó.the forest causing chang,es In the microclin:tate (generaHy drying) that can affect the composition and health of ground flora, provision 'o{an intertace for the invasion of weedy or non-native invasive species Into the core habitat, ~nd increased interface .for predation , or nest p'arasitism of forest dwelling fauna. . . Detailed Comments' Section 3.2.1 Landscape Context references the 1997 Geomatics work on the Rouge Duffins Corridor. Our understanding of the refer~nced report, is that it was a desktop exercise examining landscape level 'connectivIty between the Rouge and Duffing watersheds and that there was no field invent.òry work assoc!ateç:l with ft. ,Hence, the recommendations in this slIbmlssion about' corridor widths and habItat aizes etc. w~re based on generalities from the literá.ture.' The report does flag the forests !;last and west of Whites Road as a habitat core along.the corridor. Also, the hydro ¡ands,were considered to. contribute to the corridor function.. 'Additionally, the report recognized that the corridor, was narrower than the literature would recommend as optimum and , . thatthere a,re areaS (such as, cherrywood) where it is quite narrow. These observations support the notion that the habitat functions of t~ese lands (in terms of' both core and movement corridors) may be at a threshold ahdshoulq not be further reduced. , . . . Over the course of two days of field inventory, the proponents observed 137 plant species. including a number of regionally rare plant species and a high degree of native species in this portion ,of the forest. The vegetation communities represent 8 veget~tion units. And as we noted on our site walk, the vegetation communities are very diverse 'with fore$ts, thickets: fields, upland . and wetland types. The removal of % of the area for housing 'woulcf remove a number of ' vegetation units and affect the o\lerall native diversity of the area. From a habitat perspective, it would also change tbe size/shape and edge to interior ratio of. the entire block to a less desirable configuration. . . The area in question has a number. of overland flow areas that exhibits a rather braided pattern, supporting 'the numerous vegetation communities documented in the report, and in turn, the wildlife habitat values (Including amphibians).' Although the proponents did not fin~ any fish in the area, section 4.3 of the ~eport does recognize that the area supports c!ownstream aquatic habitats. Howeyer, section 4.3 lists flow as the only contribution to downstream aquatic systems. Headwater areas such B$ this provides additional benefits to the health of the downstream aquatic systems, Including: supplying sources of food (organic and invertebrates) attenuate flows 'so that the ,timing and valocnles downstream are moderated, provide ground . water/baseflòw and shading to keep water temperatures cool and otherwise maintain good water . . quality to the downstream habit~~. The report Indicates that 'flows are directed to' Pine Creek, and that ,further downstream flows are piped under an existing subdlvlsi.on. ClarifÍcatiQn is required as to whether or not flows are directed to Pine Creek or Dunbarton; As well, to our knowledge both systems are open all the , way to Frenchman's Bay (except for road culverts etc.); we are not aware of any areas where the flows hav~ been piped throÙgh a. subdivision.' .' . .', ../3 , . F:\PRS\CORAES p\PI CKERIN\2002\CFN32S77. WPD 117 ATTACHMENT # 13 TO REPORT' PO 3 F3 - 0:2.. JUL-22-2002 15:08 Tor Region Conserv Author 416 661 6898 P.06/08 Mr. Rand}' Alcorn - 3'. March i 4', 2002 ... During our 5~e waÎkl there were discussi~ris surrounding the" pro~onents proposal to, "b~tter define-the watercourse into a channel that circumvents ~he proposed dE.welcprrient. 1Ns would greatly alter the drainage characteristics ,of the area. The implications of concentrating flows via a swale system (along the north sides 01 the development) and a defined, system. rather that Ii ' diffused braided system, has not been addressed. This could potentially alter the charac1er of the vegetation commLJhities'(mainly the remnant forest on the prop~nent'B lands arid the thlcke1/wetland$ down gradien~ in ~he hydro,corridor) that depend on diffused drainage. As well, , , the increas~d volumes and concentratlo~ offlows on the downstream watercourse have not been addressed. (AS notèd ~arlierl this report is relying on the grading plans and 'storm water report ,~repared by CPM which we, have nof seen yet.) , Section 4.4 Significant W90dlan,ds, ~otes that the forests are considered significan't in the Town , of Pickering. Ih 'addition to the criteria suggeeted' by the Pickering Significant WOodlands study, ' The TRCA would add: habitat fer area sensitive species. diversity Qf vegetation types' ~nd natural features, and species d,iversity: Additionally, it Is likely that the results of our T errestriaJ Natural Heritage inventory and analysis will shpw the area to be significant within our region. ' : Ifl Section 4.7.1 Migration, Corridors, empha~¡s ',is placed ~:m' trying to down play the role of corridors. The role of habitat connectivity (corridors if you will) has a much bróadet function than just the seasonal migration that the report focuses on. Core habitats that 'are connected within the laodscape are'more sustainable.' The cor:mectivity not only supports specie~ that migrate on a seasonal basis but also allows for:, " " recolonization of habitat patches should a local population go extinct ,allows for the lol}g term ,exchange of genetic material allows mOvements be1Ween breeding and feeding areas allows for the dispersal of young from the breeding territory All of these factors support the long term sustaìnabilitý and diversity within the core habitats. A$ noted before, the habitats on this site are part of'a large core area. w~ disagree with ~ numbe'r of the statements made ,In this section and offer the following examples:, The report suggest tha~ plant dispersal does' not require corridors since most plant , dispersion occurs by wind or animals. We would suggest thai movement by, ani!'TIaJs is facilitated by corridors (especially in an urban or developing landscape rnat~jx). Wind dispersal only works if the winds drop the seeds in an are!! where ,the plant can grow. In an urban matrix the suitable growing, areas are generally the corridors. It is important to recognize the slow incremental movement of many species over time as populations expand their range along the continuum of conneç:ted core habitats., '," " ' The report states, "Even though the best available sc!ence does not demonstrate clear and quantifiable functionalbenefit$ from corridors, the intuitive value of a c~nnected ecosyStem leads most people to strongly support a network of côrridors. H This statement is very misleading. It would, likely be more correct to say that there is no clear quantifiable science that demonstrates that core habitats that are Isolated, from one another benefit. In fact the study of "Island biogèography" and the long term diminishment of biodiversity in isolated habitats is what has' lead to the advocation of the principle of connected natural sy~tems. What t,he report has failad to recognize is that even within an agricultural land matrix there is connectivity between habitat patchès for many speoíes. How~ver; that all changes when the matríx converts to an urban u~e" ../4 F :\P AS\ co RI1 ESP\PICKERI N\2002\ C FN32õ71. WP 0 118 ATTACHMENT' 13 TO REPOAT I PO 39') - ö:2.. JUL-22-2002 15:08 Tor Region Conseru Author , " . 416 1':.£=".,1 6898 P.07/0S , " ,"" "" '" Mr., Randy Al.corn' "" ," ...,.' , '~4 - " .. March 14, 2002 . , ,The urban area is ~st3riÞ.Y$:;nc:lI1ö~tile barrier to the ~~vement of species; On page 20 of ' the report, an outlines qn hqw$ÞIl'l~sþécles do not use corridors Is provid~d. Hqwever, the issue relating'to the fact that mostspeclés do need to move across the landscape is oV~r!ooked, and th<3;t an urban use 9an b~ a ba,rrier (path physical and psychological) to movement., ,Section 6.1 Significant 'Forêst and, wiÍdlÌie'Corridor and 6.1.1 Potential Impacts to Wildl~e' Corridor: Although the titlS oft,he section mentions significant forest, there is no discussion concerning the Impa,cts of removing 6 hectares of forest on the large core habitat blocK. A$ , noted earlier,' this direct loss will, have' a significant impact ÒI1 the habitat values and species (both , flora and fa!Jna): The bulk of the Impact amilysis relates to the corridor function. The report indicates that a corridor of 100.170m will be protected on the north side of the ' develópment" and that thIs would be adequate as it is similar to the width a~ Cherrywo,?d. The , Geomatics rsport is referenced earlier in the'report, maintaining that the corridor is Kcompromlsed" to some extent by the Cherrywood Facility. It would seem that using the' narrowest part of the corridor as the standard for other areas will only increase the degree çf compromise. Ecologically the corriijor should be maximized so that the impacts of narrow areas , ' , are less profound. '. ' , , The anàlysis fails to look beyond the site: the proposed corridor on the north side of the þroperty , would run right into:the nE1W ~elJeloÞmeAt on the Swan North property. The forest corridor in that instance was protected on the ~outh ,side to encompass the måture forest' alid the habitats within the hýdro corridor. . The a'~alysis indicates'that "e new edg~ will be created", 'In this context, 'for the rE!asons noted earlier, this Is a negative impact The prestressing that is recommE!nded does not mitigate ,all 'the impacts of removal of,a large chunk afforest. We also n'cte tha,t while this is freqùently , re~om{nended, when creation of a' new edge Is unavoidable; the timing of the development usually precludes its use. ' , . Rgure 5 shows a em transition zone including gradIng, construction of swa[e~ and plantlngs. ç:larificaticn is required as to "ihether this area:ls in addition to the a ha previously mentioned to , be removèd. At our site walk it was madë clear ~at all grading and drainage works had to occur on the d~velopment side of the line and not be part of the ,natural area., ' , '", Section 6.2 Ground water. Once TRCA reviews the'hydrogeologlc report, we will be providing detailed comments., The report states th!lt the development could result Înan increase in imperviousness and therefore reduce Inflltrat,lon; we nòte that this development vim result in increased imperviousness. The report notes that there will be more water available for infiltration since evapotranspiration will be less. It is not clear on how the Increased "available water" will be utilized for infiltration. ,The'EIS geneÌ'ally mentions the large open space' block, (i$ this within the development, or is this referring to the remnant forest block?), flat let grades, ånd the direCtion of roof leaders to swales. In terms of the lot grading, we haye not seen the plans, but It is our understanding that filling Will occur on the site. The amount and type of fill materia,¡ will affect the , amount of infiltration that could occur. fn terms of the swales, it is expected that these wol,lld . enhat:1ce overland flow Í"~ther than infiltration.. ,It is possible that the' roof leader disconnect would just direct ~ater to the surface swale system. ' .../5 F :\PR$\ co ARES P\P IOKERI N\2002\ CFN3257T. W P D ATTACHMENT' 1 -g,., TO REPORT I PO 3 8 -02.. JUL-22-2002 15:09 Tor Region Conseru Author 416661 6898 ,'" , " 119 P.08/08 , , Mêlrch 14" 2002 ' Mr. Randy Alcorn ' -5- AlthQugh ~he report propos~s fill for the houses, the EIS indicates, that be;sements will ~ti!l be'1 m ' into the ground water table and that drawdpwn would be within 10m òf the basement. Where will, , this water be red¡re9t~d? Will it contrib,ute to the surface flows? Clarification and documentation' is requlr~d. ' ' , " , We tru,st these comments are satisfactory and are prepared to meet with the aÞPl.icant and the City to further discuss issues related to this development proposal. If you have any questions please do not' hesitate to contaèt the undef!;ígned. " , .., ',-.. .. , " ", , , .. , , , ... . , Yours truly, uss'el White,', Senior Planner Developme,nt Services Section , Extension 53d6 'ag/ co: , Catherine Rose, Qlty of Pickering ,Richard Szarek. Region of, Durham , ESG' Internatlooallnc. ' '," F:\PAS\CORRESP\PICKERIN\2002\CFN32S71.WPD ' 120 i~ '1 ACHMErn # I Y TO "::r'V'I':1T" PD'.~~ ..uIA, il ~.:..u.~"._,,~.. OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM February 20, 2002 To: Ross Pym Principal Planner - Development Review From: Richard Holborn, P. Eng. Division Head, Municipal Property& Engineering ~ i ~ I I I i' F"::n 2.. t.", . Subject: . , Draft Plan' of Subdivision Application S-P-200l-06 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A2l/0l Alcorn & Associates Limited on behalf ofE. and E. Taylor Part of Lot 29, Concession 2 West side of Whites Road, north of Finch Avenue City of Pickering The Municipal Property & Engineering Division is in receipt of the above noted draft plan of subdivision, and provides the following comments. l) More detailed plans are required to properly review the center median proposed on the access road, the road allowance width. 2) The proposed Park block (0.07 ha) needs to be large enough to accommodate new playground. 3) Is there a need to provide mid-block engineered walkway between Lot 28 and 29 for potential future connection to the subdivision off of Rosebank and/or open space? 4) A stormwater management report is required to indicate level of controls and outfalllocation(s) for the storm sewer system. RH:ds Copy: Director, Operations & Emergenc~ I:\SITEPLAN\SP-200 l-O6.docFeb-O2 1.'...r.~...i'¡IF\f'!:~I-1 " ~.. ''U' Hr." ...1 ""'- ,0- \L?úfH # PD- ~n2.- 121 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM January 9, 2002 To: Ross Pym Principal Planner - Development Review From: Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP 2001-06 Taylor Subdivision We have reviewed the following reports for the above-noted draft plan application and provide the following comments. I) Planning Report - By Alcorn and Associates Limited Dated October 2001 a) 3.0 - Proposed Development The report indicates the road access to Whites Road will contain a "boulevard separated access to Whites Road". , Since this will be the only access to the site, we propose a wider road allowance that will provide an eleven (11) metre wide pavement at the intersection with Whites Road and extends at this width for approximately 75m to 100m then narrows to the nonnal 8.5m width. This is similar to Craighurst Court, which is directly opposite this site. This additional width will be beneficial should emergency access be required to this court. The proposed boulevard will not provide the same benefit. b) The proposed separated boulevard will restrict access to Lots 1 & 2 as presently proposed. 2) Environmental Impact Assessment - By ESG International Dated October 2001 a) 3,1.2 - Soils and Drainage The minor flows from this site presently appear to flow south of the site to existing cross-culverts which convey the drainage to the east side of Whites Road and into the Hydro Corridor that would eventually drain to Pine Creek. Major flows may go south to a ditch inlet and then into Dunbarton Creek. The report should be revised to reflect this. ~ 12) -' t... AnACHMENT #:, 16 TO REPORT # PD ?k)-O2. Ross Pym January 9, 2002 Page 2 3) Hydrogeologic Study - By Terraproble - File No 00109 Dated October 10,2001 a) 4.3 - This report indicated' the need for instål1ation of seepage cut-off measures in the service trenches. Further details will be required as detailed engineering is received. b) 4.4 - This report confirms the same requirement as indicated in the environment impact assessment, règarding basement depths not being more than I m below existing grades. The preliminary grading information with C.P .M. report appears to confirm that this is possible. Further review will be required as detailed engineering is received. 4) Stormwater and Servicing Analyses - By Cosburn Paterson Mather Limited File No 20077, Dated October 31,2001 a) Site Grading - The proposed 1050mm C.S.P. culvert provided for the open space and rear swale drainage will need sufficient cover. Existing information does not confirm this. b) We are concerned with the proposed width (l.Om) of the drainage block at the rear of Lots 11 to 22 inclusive (see Figure 3). The 1m may not provide sufficient width to accommodate a suitable swale for this drainage and the report indicates a 2m swale at the west end. . c) The rear swales within the drainage block along the north and west side are indicated at less than a 2% grade. Swales at the proposed grades do not provide suitable drainage for areas directly adjacent to rear yards, and would tend to create slow moving andlor standing water. If increasing the grade of the swale is not possible, a sub drain or other alternative would be required. d) The report proposes that roof leaders not be connected directly to the storm sewer. Our normal standard requires that lots having a frontage of 12 metres and less are to have the roof leaders connected to the storm sewer which would include all lots within this development. However, we are willing to allow the roof leaders to discharge to the surface providing each lot has independent drainage. The report indicates that Lots 47 to 75 inclusive are not designed with independent drainage (Figure 2A) and so we would require these lots to have the roof leaders connected directly to the storm sewer. This report should be revised accordingly. Ross Pym '.-¡j,..:;H~I~;:N! # ~ TO . -')!;iF ,i po-O2 123 January 9, 2002 Page 3 5) RSlsm e) Figure 3 - The City standard, for semi-detached dwellings is to use 0.60 as the run-off coefficient. Figure 3 should be revised. As this drainage is directed to the existing cross-culverts on Whites Road it will need to be detennined whether these existing culverts have capacity for the additional flow created by this development. f) There are existing erosion concerns in Pine Creek south of Finch Avenue. This report should indicate whether this development will further impact this erosion and if so, any controls that should be implemented. Noise Impact Study - By G.M. Sernas & Associates Project No 01262, Dated December 2001 a) Drawing No. N-OOI - The Proposed noise fence is indicated along the rear lot line separating Block D (Park Block) from Block B (Open Space). We would not want these blocks to be separated by the noise fence. The Plan and Report is to be revised to reflect this change. The Report should indicated if connection to the house on Lots 41 and 42 is required and proposed location of this connection. As access to the rear yard will be required, the use of gates in the noise fence should be addressed. b) The proposed design of the fence must be submitted for approval with the detailed engineering submission. ~ Robert Starr mgmr/tSIaIT/memoslSP2001-06.doc