HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 01-11002
�� OR p��
�
REPORT TO COUNCIL
FROM: Neil Cnrroll DATE: �ebruary I8, 20G0
Director, Pianning and Development
REPORT NUMBER: PD 07-00
SUBJECT: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study
Recommended Environmental Master Servicing Plan
nnd Neighbourhood Dcvclopment Guidelines
City of Pickering
rtECOMMENDATION:
1. That Council reccive us background infortnntion thc "Rouge Pnrk Neighbourhood -
Phnse 1 Report" and "Rouge Park Neighbourhood - Phnse 2 Report", prepnred by the
Planning and Devclopment Depnrtment, and thc consulting firtn of XCG Consuitunts Ltd.
in conjunction with ESG Intemational Ina (the documents werc prcviously distributed
under separatc cover);
2. Thnt Council ndopt the "Rouge Pnrk Neighbourhood Environmentnl Master Servicing
Plan", prcpnred by XCG Consultants Ltd, in conjunction with ESG Intemational Inc.,
atinch�d as Appcndix t to Report No. PD 07-00, as the City's stmtegy for nutuml
rcsouree conservation and stortnwutcr munogement within thc Rougc Purk
Ncighbourhood;
3. That Council adopt thc "Rougc Purk Ncighbourhoad Devclopment Guidelines", nttnched
ns Appendix 11 to Plnnning Report No. PD 07-00, as the City's strntegy for urbnn design,
mnjor sucet Inyout, und public facility siting within thc Rougc Purk Ncighbourhood;
4. Thnt Council adopt "Informntionul Revision No. 7 to the Pickering Ofiiciul Plan",
uttachcd as Appendix III to Rcport No. PD 07-00;
5. Thut Council dircct staff to hold n Statutory Public Infortnntion Meeting to discuss
potential amendmcr.ts to thc Pickering Officinl Plan rcquired to implement the
recommeqdations of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study, ns generully sct out in
Appendix IV to Rcport No. PD 07-00;
6. That Council request the Region oF Durham consider the rcdesignution of Finch Avcnue
west of Altona Road, and Townline Rond south of Taunton Road, from Type 'II' Aricriul
Roads to Type `C' Arterial Ronds, during prcparation of the Region of Durham
Transportation Mnsterplan Study;
7. Thut Council request tha Ministry of Natural Resources and other approprinte
agencies/partners, prepare a"Rouge-Duftins Wildlife Corridor Mnnagement Plnn", and
establish funding for the maintenance and restoration of thc Corridor;
8. That Cauncil mquest the Onwrio Renity Corporation transfer nll non-dcvelopnble
properties within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood to nn nppropriatc public nuthority with
u conscrvation mandatc; and
9, That Council direct that the City Clerk fonvnrd n copy of Report No. PD 07-00 ta thc
Canadian Pacific Railwuy, Durham Cntholic District School Board, Durhnm District
School Board, Intcrprovincinl Pipelinc, Ontnrio Hydro Scrviccs Compnny Inc., Ontatio
Reulry Corporation, Ministry of Naturul Resourccs, Region of Durham, Rouge Park
Alliance, and thc Toronto nnd Rcgion Conscrvntion Authority.
REPORT NUMBER 07-00 Date: February 18, 2000 0 n 3
Subject: RouQe Park Neighbowhood Study Page 2
ORIGIN:
Council authoriud stnff to initiete the Detailed Review of the Rouge Pnrk Neighbaurhood on
Mny 17, 1999, Uuough Resolution #111/99,
/:liyM:(�7:7��1'ii
The Planntng Act, R.S.0.1990, chapter P.13
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of Council's adoption of the Rouge Purk
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines and Environmental Master Servicing Plan. My
commitment by the City toward pnriicipation and funding of n Rouge•Duffins Wildlife Corridor
Manngement Plan will be subject to Council's consideration of a futurc report on the matter.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Pickering initiated a"detuiled revicw" of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood in ]une, 1999. The
pu�pose of the study was to prepare a comprehensive pinn ta guide future development of the
neighbourhood. The completcd study has resulted with two principnl documcnts - the Rouge
Purk Neighbourhood Environmeninl Mnstcr Servicing Plan, nnd Rouge Purk Neighbourhood
Dcvelopment Guidclines.
The Environmentel Mnstcr Servicing Pian (scc Appcndix I to Report No. PD 07-00) refines the
limils of dcvelopnble arcus of the ncighbourhood. It nlso providcs direction on cdge
mnnngcment strategics rcquircd nlong boundarics betwecn devclopable and non•developablc
arens to ensure thut new dcvelopmcnt maintains, and wherc nccessary, enhunces adjncent natuvl
features and functions. The third componcnt is n stortnwater management strategy. Together
these components establish a strategy for nntura! resource conservation and stormwater
munagement within thc Rouge Park Neighbourhood. Stnff therefore recommend thnt Council
adopt the Ro�ge Pazk Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan.
The Rouge Park Ncighbourhood Devclopment Guidelincs (see Appendix 11 to Report
No. PD 07-00) estnblish urban design criteria, identify sites for nn elementary school and
neighbourhood pazk, nnd identify major strcet connections. To establish a basis for thc
prcpnrntion nnd review of dcvclopment epplications for lands within the neighbourhood, stnff
recommend that Council adopt the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidclines.
Completion of the neighbourhood study has provided a comprehensive understanding of tho
aren, nnd its future requirements. This bcttcr Ievel of information can be used to rcvise certain
designations and policies within the Pickering Official Plan, regarding such mauers as land use,
urban design objectives, and transportation links, Some informational revisions, such as those to
descriptive text and the Rouge Purk Neighbourhood Map, can be implemented through a Councii
resolution. Accordingly, staf'f recommend that Council adopt "Infomiational Revision No. 7 to
the Officinl Ptan", as set out in Appendix IV to Report No. PD 07-00, Official Plen nmcndmcnls
ure required for the remaining revisions, therefore smff recommend thnt a Statutory Public
Infortnation Meeting be held to discuss potential emendments to thc O�cinl Plun, es gcnernliy
set out in Appendix V to Report No. PD 07-00.
Statl'recommend thet Cauncil request the Region of Durhwn consider thc mdesignation of Pinch
Avenue west of Altone Rood, and Townline Rosd south of Tnunton Road, from Type 'B'
Arterial Roads to Type 'C' Arierial Roads, during preparntion of its recently initiatcd
7'ranspoctetion Masterplen Study. If the redesignations ure determined to bc appropriatc, Uic
resultant lowerin$ of road stetus would ossist in shiRing their roles ns conduits for commutcr
;rnffic to thnt of e neighbourhood focus, while reducing the potentint for ncgutive impncts on the
natural environtnent.
� � � REPORT NUMBER 07-00
Subject: Rouge Park Neighbawhood Study Dute: February 1 S, 200p
Page 3
Additionally, to essist with the on-going health of thc Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor, swff
I recommend that Council request the Ministry of Netural Resources and other appropriate
agencies/partners, preparc a"Rouge•Duffins Wildlifc Corridor Manegement Plan", and establish
funding for the maintennnce and restoration of thc Cortidor. Stafi' also recommend that Council
request the Ontario Renity Co�poration iransfcr all non-developable propenies within the Rouge
Pnrk Neighbourhood to a public authority having a conservation mandate.
BACKGROUND:
1.0 Studv Overview
1.1 Neighbourhood Descriptian
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood is located nlong thc west side of Pickering, at the
northem limit of the City's South Urbnn Area. It comprises an arca of about
160 hectnres. The neighbourhood is bounded on the west by the Pickering-Toronto
boundary, on the north by the interprovincial Pipeline/C. P. Rail linc, on the south by ihe
Ontario Hydro Gntineau Corridor, and on the csut by open space lands just east of
Rosebank Roud (see Location Mup, Attachment #1).
Curmnt land usc in the neighbourhood cnn bc chnractcrized ns primarily pre-1970's
scattered residential, with n fortncr reslnurnnt use at the south-eust corncr of Altona Roud
nnd Finch Avenuc. Lnnds within thc ncighbourhood contnin numerous smnll psucels in
privnte ownership, interspersed with somewhat larger blocks of Innd hcld under
provincial ownership. Thc curmnt populntion of thc neighbourhood is approximotely 200
peoplc.
1.2 Pickering Officinl Plan
Until 1997, Innds in thc Rouge Pnrk Neighbourhood werc located outside of thc City's
Urbnn Area. With the approvul of the new Pickering Official Plan in October, 1997, Innd
use designations wcrc cstablished for thc ncighbourhood. Thc Innds nre primarily
designatcd as "Urban Rcsidential Arcn - Low Density" and "Opcn Spacc System -
Natural Arcu". The Ontnrio Hydro cortidor Innds nre designated "Freewuys und Major
Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Arcn", and the south-east comer of Finch Avenue nnd
Altona Roud is designnted "Mixed Usc Aren - Locul Node", which permits a range of
residentiel, retnil, commercial, and institutional uses. Thc Official Plnn populntion tnrget
fnr the ncighbourhood is 1,600 people by the year 2016.
Following the Region of Durham's approval of the new Pickering Oflicial Plan, sevcrul
appeels were made to the Ontazio Municipal Baard (OMB), two of which nffected this
nrca. Appenl A1 was initiated by the Ministry of Municipa! Ati'airs, and dealt with the
Officinl Plan's designation and policies related to the Rouge-Du1Tns Wildlifc Corridor.
Appeul A2 wns initiated by a privute pnrty, und pertained to the "Open Space System -
Na!urel Area" designadon of lands ulong the north boundury of the ncighbourhood.
Through a series of OMB mediation sessions, the parties and pariicipnnts involved in the
two appeals resolved their issues, and reached a settlement. Central to the settlement was
nn agreement that the Rouge-DuTns Wildlife Corridor would coincide with lands
designated "Open Space System - Natural Area", as well as "Freewnys nnd Major
Utilities - Potentinl Multi-Use Area". This settlement was npproved by the OMB in
April, 1999. However, the two nppeuls remain unresolved for tha north-cnst comcr of n
property known ns the Benre Estate/Mup Renity Property, locnted on thc notth side of
Finch Avenue, opposite Woodview Avenue (refcr to Attachment H2 — sce section 3.3 of
this Report for additional dctnils).
REPORT NUMBER 07•00 Datc: Febcuary 18, 2000 0 n)
Subject: Rouge Pazk Neiyhbourhood Study Pagc 4
1•3 Purpose of thc Neighbourhood Study
Although the new Official Plan establishes urban land use designetions for the
naighbourhood, it requires the underteking of a"Detailed Review" prior to pertnitting
major development. The purpose of undertaking the review is to establish end elaboratc
upon a"vision" for the neighbourhood, which will guide future development. In
June, 1999, engineering and environmental consultnnts were retained by the City to assist
staff with the study.
The principal tasks of the review included:
• identify end assess the natural features end functions of the area, nnd develop
strategies to maintnin/enhance these features;
• refine the mix, aRangement, scale and intensity of land uses, including the siting of
municipnl parks and school sites;
• identify a future collector road pattem;
• identify design objectives for the relationship between new developmcnt and public
streets, und identify udditional specific design sUategies for the neighbourhood which
articulate un "urban village" chsuacter at the intersection of Altona Road and Finch
Avenue; end
• idenlify the proposed wnter, stormwatcr management �nd snnitary servicing schemes.
1.4 Background Reports
During the Full and cariy Winter of 1999, two mnjor reports were produced. The Rougc
Peck Neighbourhood Study - Phase I Report wns releused on October 7, 1999 (copies of
the Report sue nvnilable from thc Planning and Dcvclopment Departmcnt). The Report
includes: an assessmcnt of significant nnturnl nnd man-mnde fentures that currently exist
in the neighbourhood; a discussion on infraswcture rcquired to support new
dcvelopment; urbun dcsign objectivcs; and, n serics of neighbourhood development
concepts that display various means of accommodnting the dircction cswblished by thc
first threc sections of thc Phnse i Repart
The Phase 2 Report of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study (relensed on December 10,
1999), continues from thc infortnation, conccpts and strategics discussed in the Phase I
Rcport, The Phnse 2 Report (also ovnilable from the Pinnning ond Development
Department) is divided iato five parts, which include: an account of all written
comments received on the Phase 1 Repart; a singlc, refined neighbourhood development
concept; a drafi Environmental Master Servicing Plan; draR Development Guidelines;
nnd, an identification of amendments nnd informationnl revisions to the OfTcial Plnn that
may be requircd to implement the recommendntions of this study, as well as other
matters worthy of further discussion.
The Phase 2 Report hns served as the background document for thc prcparation of thc
recommended Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines nnd Environmcnml
Mnster Servicing Plan. Staff recommend that both reporls be received as background
infarmation.
1.5 Public end Agency Consultation
Consulting with residents nnd landowners within nnd nround the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood, as well es technical agencies end iNerested others, hns been nn integml
component of this study. The time and effort tnken by all wha hnve contributcd is grently
appreciated.
1.5.1 Rauge Pazk Neighbourhood Study Advisory Commitlee •
M advisory committee was established lo provide key stalccholders with n fonun for
discussion during the progress of the study. A list of thc advisory committec membcrs is
included es Attachmcnt H3.
O n� 1tEpORT NUMBER 07-00
Date; Februaiy 18, 2000
Subject; Rouge Pazk Neighbourhood Study Page 5
1.5.2 Notice of Meetings
With respect to genernl public consulmtion, circulation lists include nll landowners within
the study area and within l20 meves of the study area, tenants within the study area,
Pickering ratepayer associations, and any others who requested noticc. The agcncy
circuladon list includes the Region of Durham, adjacent municipalities, Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, Ontario Hydro Services Campany Inc., Ontario Realty
Coiporation, Rouge Pazk Alliance, and both Durham school boazds,
The consultation program included four formal public meetings:
• introductory Public Information Session hcld August 25, 1999, to discuss the purpose
of the study;
• Public Meeting held October 14, 1999, to discuss the background information,
servicing and design strategies discussed in the Phase 1 Report;
• a workshop held November 23, 1999, for landowners snd residents within the
neighbourhood to "brainstortn" and discuss neighbourhood design issues; and
• Public Meeting held December 14, 1999, to discuss the components of the Phase 2
Report.
In addition to written noticc of thcse mectings, newspaper udvertisements were also
pluced. Additionnlly, all landowners nnd tenants within the study area received a
summnry of the Phasc 2 Rcport and a copy of notcs tnken during the Dccember 14'�
public mceting.
1.53 Commenis Received
A summnry of nll written comments on the Phase 1 Rcport was included as a table within
the Phase 2 Report. All written comments submided rcgnrding the Phnse 2 Report nrc
incluc;ed ns Appcndix V to Report No. 07•00. Notes taken during the December 14,
1999, public meeting are nlso included within Appendix V.
All pubiic and agency comments wero considercd in the prepurntion of the recommended
Development Guidclines and the Environmentul bfastcr Servicing Plan.
2.0 Discussion
2.1 Environmental Muster Servicing Plan (EMSP, see Appendix I of Rcport No. 07-00)
The consulting firms of XCG Consultants Ltd. and ESG Intemational were rctained by
the City to prepare the EnvironmenWl Master Servicing Plan for the Rouge Pnrk
Neighbourhood. Their understnnding oF engineering end environmenml matters rclated
to the neighbourhood has been of great ussistnnce tivoughout this study, nnd stnfT ure
apprcciative of their efTorts.
2.1.1 Components of the Recommended Environmentnl Master Servicing Plan
The rccommended Environmental Master Servicing Plen provides direction on thrcc key
nspects of development in the neighbourhood, as follows.
(a) Refrnemen� oj,Developmen� Llmtls
Schcdule I of the Official Plan identifies lnnd use des�gnations. One of lhe first tnsks
of the consulwnts was to better define thc boundnries between "devclopnble" and
"non-developable" nreas within the neighbourhood. Upon cxaminotion of existing
information, air photo interpretation and field rcconnaissance, devclopable umas
were rofined, based on thc following principnls:
• refercnce to the OMB-approved resolution to Appenls Al nnd A2 (sce section
1.2 of this Rcport); thc Bonrd's dccision includcs Minutcs of Sctticment, which
REPORT NiJMBER 07-00 Date: February 18, 2000 0 n 7
SubjecC Ruugc Park Neighbourhood Study Page 6
identify certain lends as being developablc (the discussion focuses on lands on
the north side of Finch Avenue, east of Altone Road, and a pocket of land on
the west side of Woodvicw Avenuc, south of Finch Avenue);
• exclusion of lands identified within thc revised wetiand baundary for thc
Townline Provincially Significant Wetland Complex;
• axclusion of valley and stream corridors;
• exclusion of upland wooded habitet contiguous to wetlands and valleylands;
• exclusion of key lands providing/augmenting habitat linkages; and
• exclus: �n of areas where development would have significant negative impacts
on features and functions of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor.
As mentioned in section 1.2 of this Report, Official Plun designutions for the
north-east portion of the Beare Estute/Mnp Renity propedy remain undcr appcal.
The cstablishment of development limits for this property will occur tluough revicw
of its relnted development applications, or a future OMB hearing, if necessary.
(b) Edge Management S�ra�egtes
Following the refinement of developnble urcas, thc EMSP explains thnt whcrc
devclopment occurs adjacent to natuml habitats, there is a need to manage the
interfacc betwecn natural and developed arens. The purpose ofthis is to ensure that
impacts of new development on adjacent naturnl fcatures and functions azc
minimiud. The EMSP identifies the various edge types that exist in the
neighbourhoc,d, und lists mechenisms that can addrcss the edge (bufters, setbucks,
fencing, restorntion, etc.).
lnitinlly, it was hopcd thnt completion of the EMSP would providc specific edgc
mnnngcmcnt strntegics for all arcus within thc ncighbourhood, thus climinnting the
future necd for site-specific Environmcnml Rcports. Howevcr, after gaining a better
nppreciation for thc arcu's brond vnricty nnd intcrtclutcd naturc of its natural features
nnd functions, und reulimtion that a specific cdgc munagcmcnt must rclatc to the
specifics of a detailed devclopment proposal, it is apparcnt that a scoped
Environmenml Rcport will bc rcquircd.
Accordingly, the EMSP providcs directian on the type of cdae munagement most
likely requircd for u specific cdge type, and identifics any further assessmcnt thnt is
required. Environmental Reports will bc rcquired for individunl devclopmcnt
proponents; they must be approved by the City, in consulwtion with conservution
authorities.
(c) S�ormwa�er Management Srraregles
The final component of the EMSP is a stormwater manngcment svatcgy for the
neighbourhood. The strategy includes two preferted locations for stormwater ponds
within the Ontario Hydro corridor: one located near Woodview Avenue, and the
other near Altona Road (see Figurc 7.4 of Appendix I). The two ponds nrc to be
designed as "queliry" ponds (artificial wetlends), and have been sized to uddmss
downstreum erosion concems.
The Report provides a"pinnning" level of detnil for the pond sizcs and geneml
locations. Responsibility for prccise siting of the ponds, detailed enginecring, and
construction of the works will be cost-sharcd among dcvelopers within thc
neighbourhood. Ontnrio Hydro has agreed to thc use of thcir corridor Innds, subject
to the revicw of detailed plens.
2.1.2 Revi�ions to the DrnR Environmentnl Moster Servicing Plnn
The provious section summarius thc contcnts of thc Recommcnded EMSP. A drnR of
the EMSP wes included with the Phasc 2 Report, which was rcicascd for public comment
o�s
REPORT A:iIMBER 07-00 Date: February 18, 2000
Subjxt: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Page 7
on December 10, 1999. Following a rcview by staff und consultants uf the commcnts
rcceived, ihe tollowing revisions werc incorporated into Ihe recommcnded GMSP:
• a rcviud discussion on 1he role of wildlifc corriJors;
• an updated list of rcquircments thnt nn Environmentnl Report will nddrcss for various
developable areas within the neighbourhood;
• revised edge management strutegics for lends adjucent to the Peuicoat Crcek;
• a rcvised discussion on lend stewnrdship and the ownership of bufi'crs;
• revised locations for the sturtnwater manngement ponds;
• revised stortnwater cnlculations;
• a list of secondury "best mnnagoment practices" that if incorpomteJ µiih future
development, could reduce the rcquired size of stortnwater management pond:;
• inclusion of an implementation section thut identifies a rccommcnded �iming of
works, conswction phasing, nnd costs;
• revisions to various meps nnd figures; and
• scvcral editorial revisions and tcchnical clnrificntions.
2.1.3 Conclusions on the Recammended Environmental Master Scrvicing Plan
The consultants' finul rcport provides a stmtcgy for natural rcsource conservntion and
stortnwatcr management within thc Rouge Pnrk Ncighbourhood. It will nssist with the
review of devclopment npplications, and also providcs dircction for the prcparation of
development proposals. Accordingly, stafTrccommend thnt Council endorsc the "Rougc
Purk Ncighbourhood Gnvironmental Mu�tcr Scrvicing Plan", nttachcd as Appcndix 1 to
Rcport No. PD 07-00, ns the City's prcferrcd �trntcgy for nawml rcsource conscrvution
nnd stortnwatcr managcmcN µithin thc Rougc Park Ncighbourhood.
2,2 Devclopmcnt Guidclines (sce Appendix II of Rcport No. PD 07•00)
Developable nreas wi►hin the Rouge Park Ncighbourhoocf comprise many small
propertics, somc of which arc irrcgulnrly shnpcd. Thc chnllcngc facing ncw dcvclopmcnt
is ovcrcoming this fragmcnted owncrship, so that thc rcsulting impression is thut of u
cohcsivc, well-dcsigncd ncighbourhood. In order to nchicvc this, thc Rougc Pnrk
Ncighbourhood Developmcnt Guidelines provide Council, sinff nnd proponcnts with a
comprchcnsivc basis for th: prcparation and rcvicw of dcvclopmcnt applicntions.
2.2.1 Components of thc Recommcnded Devclopment Guidclincs
The following highlights the key sections of the rccommendcd Rouge Pnrk
NeighbourhooJ Devclopmcnt Guidelines:
(a) Servlcing
The Development Guidelines identify the two prcCerred locations for stormwnter
menagement ponds recommended by the Eh1SP (see scction 2.1 of this Report).
The Region of Durham has confirtned that water supply is adcquutc in this
ncighbourhood for the level of development envisioned by the Devclopment
Guidelines.
W�th respect to snnitary servicing, capaciry exisu in snnilnry sewcrs to the south thnt
will accommodnte approximately 500 peoplc H�est of Petticout Cnrk, nnd 1,700
people east of the creek. Minor improvcments to ench scwcr will bc rcquircd prior to
development. An altemate means of providing snnitary sewcrnge to certuin amus
(particularly those on Ihc north sidc of Finch Avenue, wcst of Petticont Crcek) is u
direct connection to the Yark-Durham Trunk Sewcr via n pumping stntion/fomcmuin.
The Developmenl GuiJelines providc support for this type of servicing ntrangement,
provided thut the pumping stntion/forccmnin is privntely owned and op�ratcd, or
othcrwisc agrced to by the Region of Durham.
REPORT NUMBER 07-00
Subject: Rouge Pazk Neighbourhood Study
(bJ Populalion Targels
Datc: February 18, 2000 � n 3
Page 8
The Official Plan establishes a population target for the Rouge Pnrk Neighbourhood
of 1,600 people. Based solely on sanilary sewe± .apacity, a population target of
2,200 people is achievable (500 west of Petticoat Creek, and 1,700 cast of the creck).
However, if the population were to grow much beyond 1,600 people, the Durham
District School Board has indicated that an elementary school site would be required
within the neighbourhood. In order to minimiu the need for public facilities in this
area of limited developable landa, the Development Guidelines retain a population
target of 1,600 people, with a meximum of 500 people on Innds developcd west of
Petticoat Creek.
The Guidelines explain the population uvget muy bc excceded if lhe City, in
consultation with the Durham District School Bonrd, is satisfied thnt existing
development, or proposed development, docs not genemte the need for ndditiona!
school facilitics within the neighbourhood (which would be in nddition to the site
required by thc Durhem Cntholic District School Bonrd).
The populution terget of 500 people west of Petticoat Creek mny bc exceeded if the
City nnd Region nre sutisfied that nitemative scrvicing nrrangcments nre fensible and
nppropriute (see scction 2.2.1(n) ofthis Report).
(c) Transpar�a!!on
The Tertiary Plan of the Dcvelopment Guidclines establishes the genernl locntion of
future principal ronds, ns �vcll ns potential ncccss locations to Finch �venue and
Altonn Roud. These locations havc bcci rcvicwcd by Regionnl Works Depnrtment
staff, and nre ucceptable.
Thc precisc oricntation und numbcr of futurc roads will bc considered ttuough the
rcvicw of dcvelopment applicutions.
(d) Nelgh6ourhood Cenlre
Developmcnt eround the intersection of Finch Avcnue und Altona Road will be the
"hcart" of the neighbourhood, both in appearance and function. The use of
epproprinte building heights, massing, architecturel features and Inndscnping will
esmblish a focnl point nt this intersection.
The south-east comer of the intersection is designatcd "Mixed Use Area - Local
Node" in the Official Plan. This designation provides for u broad rnnge of uses,
including: medium density residential; retniling of goods and services; otiices;
resteurants; und community, cultural and recreutional uses. Thc mix of uses
permitted by the Local Node designation fiuiher enhances opportunities for the
Finch/Altona intersection to be thc focus of the neighbourhood, by providing for the
day-to-day shopping needs of aren residents. Redevelopment of this comcr is
strongly encouraged to accommodate a range of uses, in particular, rctail,
commercial and office space on the first few tloors, with residential units on upper
floors.
The Guidelines expinin that retail focilities within the Neighbourhood Ccntre should
provide for the day-to-day shopping needs of residents in the areu. Thereforc,
"highwuy-commerciel" type uses such as gas stntions and drivc-through restawunts
will not be pertnitted.
(e) Pub!!c Facl/!tles
A neighbourhood purk and cicmentnry school site ore locutcd nt the north-wcst
corner of Finch Avenue and Altonn Rond. The Durhnnt Calholic Disvict School
Board and the City's Director, Opcmttons and Emcrgency Scrvices have indicated
the s(tes arc acccptable. Thc Catholic Bonrd ndviscs thcre is nn immediate nccd for
O 1 O�pORT NUMBER 07-00 Datc: February 18, 2000
Subject: Rouge Pazk Neighbourhood Study Page 9
its school, and nnticipates its construction within the next f.:w years (subject w land
acquisiGon).
(n Denslry Tran.sfers and Bomues
Sections 15.17 and 15.8 of the Oliicial Plen pertnit density bonuses and transfers, at
the discretion of Council. Thc Development Guidelines esmblish the parametcrs in
which the trunsfedbonus may accur.
A density transfer mey occur if both the grunting nnd receiving properties
demonstrate that the transfer will satisfy the requirements of the Guidelines. [f
approved, an implementing zoning by-law will detail the granting and receiving
properties, and the number of units trunsferred.
A density bonus (up to 25% beyond thnt pennilted by the Officinl Plan), is given
only in retum for the provision of specific services or facilities listed in the O�cial
Pian, such as: additional open space; community facilities; ussisted or special needs
housing; preservation of herimge buildings or structures; or, the preservation of
natural herimge fcatures and fwctions. The Dcvelopment Guidclincs provide a list
of scrvices or facilitics that may wurtant bonuses if thcy are provided through
development in tl�c Rouge Pnrk Neighbourhood. The list includcs the provision of
land for trnils, the provision of afl'ordable housing, and thc conswction of
playgrounds.
2.2.1 Revisions to the Druft Dcvelopment Guideiines
Thc previous section summnrizes thc contcnts of the rccommcnded Development
Guidelines. A draR of thc Guidelines was includcd wilh thc Phnse 2 Report, which was
relensed for public comment on Dccembcr 10, 1999. Fallowing stnffs review of the
comments rcccived, thc following rcvisions wcre incorporated into the recommended
Guidelines:
• udditionnl discussion on the importance of existing nnd ncw strcets being designed in
a mnnner thnt presents a distinct, cohesive character for thc neighbourhaod;
• a revision to the strcetscape discussion such thnt a high level strectscapc design apply
to Finch Avcnue and Altonu Rond;
• additional discussion on building hcights for lands outsidc of thc Neighbourhood
Centrc;
• additional discussion on access locations, screcning, end restriction on commerciul
uses;
• additional diuussion on the circumstnnccs under which density trnnsfers and bonuses
may be permitted;
• minor revisions to the Tertiary Plan; and
• several editorial revisions and technicul clarifications.
2.2.2 Conclusions on the Recommended Development Guidelines
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines will provide direction for
future development within the neighbourhood. As with the EMSP, the Guidelines will
assist with the review of development applications, and provide direction for the
preparation of development proposnls. Accordingly, staff rccommend that Cowcil adopt
the "Rouge Park Neighbourhood Develapment Guidelines", atwched as Appendix Il to
Report PD 07•00, as thc City's preferted appronch for urbnn design, major strcet layout,
and public facility siting within the neighbourhood.
23 Informational Revisions to the Pickering Officiel Plan
Chapter 11 —"Urban Neighbourhoods" oF the Official Plnn, includes ncighbourhood
policies specific to each neighbourhood. The policies are prcceded by introductory lext
thnt describes thc ncighbourhood, and n nclghbourhood map that identifies such items as
REPORT NUMBER 07-00 Date: February 18, 2000� � 1
Subject: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Page 10
future schools, parks and road connections. Revisions to thc introducwry text and
neighbourhood map can be made by Council without a fortnal amendment of the Plen.
With the adoption of the Rouge Perk Neighbourhood Development Guidelines and
EMSP, the neighbourhood's introductary text and map will require rcvisions in order to
identify:
• that a detailed review has been completed, end Development Guidelines have been
adopted by Council;
• the location of u proposed elementary school and proposed ncighbourhood perk site;
• a"proposed new road connection" illustrated ns a crescent on the west sidc of
Woodvietv Avenue; and
• a"proposed new roud connection" running from Finch Avenue to Rosebank Road.
Steff recommend that Council adopt "Informationnl Revision No. 7 to the Officinl Plan"
as set out in Appendix 111 to Report No. PD 07•00.
2.4 Official Plan Amendmenu
One of thc bencfits of undertuking a comprchensivc study of this nnture, is thet it
provides n dctniled level of information requircd by Council to make more detailed
decisions (such as decisions on developmcnt applications). This infarmntion can be used
to revise certain uspects of the OfTicinl Plnn. For exumple, a substantial amount of field
work wns requircd for the EMSP — this has providcd enough information to rcfinc the
Official Plan's Innd use und rcsourcc manngcmcnt schcdulcs. Othcr work, including
prcpnrntion of the Dcvclopment Guidelincs, hus aiso providcd informntion thnt cnn refine
O�ciul Plan policics.
Appendix IV to RepoA No. PD 07-00 identifies scveml potentinl umcndmenls to the
Official Plan. Thc following is nn ovcrvicw of thc proposed revisions.
(a) Sched�Je 1— Land Use Srrucrure
Certain lunds would bc rcdesignnted such that boundnrics between "Open Space -
Nnturul Arca", and "Urban Residcntial Areu - Low Density", better rcflect the limits
of dcvelopable nrcns, as dctertnined through the EMSP, nnd thc Minutes o1'
Settlement for Appcnls Al and A2 to thc Pickering Official Plon.
(b) Schedule ///— Resource Managemenl
Certuin lends would be redesignated such thnt:
• the boundary of the "Rouge•Duffins Wildlife Comdor' reflects Uie updated
boundaries of the "Open Spoce — Natural Area" designntion on Schedule 1; and
• the boundary of the provincially significant wetland "Townline Rand Swamp
Complex" retlects the OMB decision rcgarding Appenl A1 and A2, as well ns
revised mapping of the wetland recently updnted by the Ministry of Naturul
Resources,
(c) Sec!!on ll. /6 — Rouge Park Neighbourhood Paltcles
Delete the current provision requiring the completion of Devclopment Guidclines
prior to pertnitting mejor development within the uren.
Add additionel policies ta
• providc direction on tho implementation of density transfers nnd bonuscs;
• identify thc relationship betwecn permission for cxceeding population targcts,
end school board requircmcnts;
Ol2
REPORT NIJMBER 07•00 Datc: February 18, 2000
Subject: Rougc Park Neighbourhood Study Page I 1
• prohibit highway-commercial type uses et the intersection of Finch Avenue and
Altone Road (ges slations, drive-ilvough rcstnuran4s, etc.);
• identify a locat road connection between Finch Avenue and Rosebank Road;
• support ;he elimination of the Rosebank Road' jog" at Finch Avenue;
• encourege the transfer of non-developable provincial lends to an appropriate
conservation agency; and
• provide direction on thc scale and types of uses pertnitted in the Local Nodc
designadon at ihe south-east comer of Finch Avenue and Altona Road.
(d) Seclion /0.17— Rougu-Du�ns W!ldlife Corrtdor PoHctes
Add additional policies to:
limit the range of pertnitted uses for lands designated "Freeway nnd Major
Utilities • Potential Multi-Use Area" (the hydro corridor); and
encourage the preparation of a Rouge-Duflins Wildlife Corridor Management
Plan, and the establishment of funding for thc on-going maintenance and
restorntion of the Corridor (see section 3.1 of this Report).
2.4.1 Statutory Public Informntion Meeting
All amendmenis to the Official Plan will require n public consulintion process separate
from this study, including o Stntutory Public Infortnntian Mceting. Accordingly, it is
recommended thut Council direct stnff to hold a Stututory Public Infortnation Meeting to
discuss potential amcndments to the Pickering Official Plnn rcquircd to implement thc
recommendations of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study, as gencrally set out in
Appendix IV to Report No. PD 07•00.
3.0 Other Mnttcrs
3.1 Downgrading of Finch Avcnue and Townlinc Road
One of the principal goals af the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines is
that Finch Avenue will continuc its role as the "backbone" of the neighbourhood. Finch
Avenue is designated as a Typc 'B' Arterial Road in the Durham end Pickering O�cial
Plens. Such e designation anticipates a specific rond function and design that will
accommodate significant traffic volumes und speed. Ovcr time, this road functiom m�y
fnuuate efforts in establishing a proper rclationship between the strcet and new
devclopment, as wcll as pluce added suess on thc aren's natural features and functions.
Finch Avenue west of Altona Road is owned by thc City. If the classification of this
portion of the road is "rcduced" to a Type 'C' Arteriel, the lesscr dcsignation would result
with less stringent acccss rcsUictions, right-of-way rcquirements and other design
parameters. This will essist in shifiing Finch Avenue trom its role as a conduit for
commuter traftic to thal of a neighbourhood focus, and reduce the potential for impacu
on the natural environment.
Townline Road is elso designated es a Type `B' Arterial Road, and it is a component of
the same Regional road network. If Finch Avenue is reclnssified es a Type'C' Arierinl,
it may also be appropriate to redesignate Townline Road (at Ieast the portion south of
Tnunton Road) as a Type'C', for the same reasons discussed above.
Both roads were designated es Type 'C' Arterial roads in thc Council•ndopted Official
Plen, but were modified to Type 'B' Roads by the Region of Durham in its approvel of
the Pickering Plen. • This is en opportune time to rcconsider theu designations, ns ihe
Region hns initieted a"Transportation Masterplan Study" to revicw its n�ad nenvork and
undettske an assessment of future needs, The Region's study provides an opportunity to
review the future role of Finch Avenuc and Townline Rond within that road network, and
within the context of an emerging urban neighbourhoad.
REPORT N[JMBER 07-00 Date: Febniery I8, 200� � 3
Subject; Rouge Pazk Neighbourhood Study Page 12
Staff mommend that Council request thc Region of Durham consider the redesignation
of Finch Avenue west of Altona Road, and Townline Road south of Taunton Road, from
Type `B' Arteria! Roads to Type `C' Arterial Roads, durin� preparation of the Rcgion of
Durhem Transportation Masterplan Study. ]f the redesignations arc determined w Ix
appropriate, amendments to the Pickering end Durhnm OfTicial Plans wili bc required.
3.2 Rouge-Duffins Wildlifc Corridor
The Rouge-Du�ns Wildlife Corridor provides hebitat and migratory linkages among the
valleys of the Rouge River, Petticout Creck, and West Duffins Creek, as well as with the
Altona Forest and other significant natural arens (see Attachment #4). Concems have
been expressed by some Pickering residenu, the Rouge River Restoraticn Committee,
and others, that development within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood will lead to the
destruction of the Rouge-DuRins Wildlife Corridor. The following discussion explains
steps taken to cnsure this does not occur.
(a) O�cla! Plan Background
The Corridor is one component of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. With respect to
the approved Pickering Official Pinn, the Corridor exisu specifically on lands
designatcd "Open Space System - Natuml Area" as well ns "Frceways and Major
Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Arca", which is the Ontario Hydro comdor. Other
lends within the neighbourhood nre dcsignatcd "Urban Rcsidentinl Amu - Low
Density" und "Mixed Use Arca - Locnl Node". These areas ure not part of thc
designated Wildlife Comdor.
As explained in section 1.2 of this Report, the Officini Pinn policics nnd designntions
dealing with the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor wcre npproved by the Ontnrio
Municipnl Board. All partics ngrced to u settlemcnt, with the central principal bcing
that the Rouge-Duffins Wildlifc Corridor would coincide with lands designated
"Open Space System - Natural Arca', ns well as "Freeways and Major Utilities -
Potentinl Multi-Use Area'. The sctUement rccoRniud thnt new develapment within
the neiahbourhood could co-cxist with e well-functionin¢ RouQe-Duffins Wildlife
Comdor.
The sctticment included thc Ministry of Municipul Atfairs nnd Housing (MMAH),
which had pursucd U�e appcal on bchalf of the Ministry of Nutural Resources
(MNR). The concept of a"wildlife cortidor' in this arca of the City originntcd with
MNR in 1991, during discussions pertnining to the Altona Farest. By agreeing to the
above settlement, MNR (through MMAH), agreed that the Pickering Official Plsn, as
approved, provides an nppropriate policy and land use framework for the long-term
functionaliry of the Rouge•Dutlins Wildlife Corridor. Another party to thc OMB
hearing, the Toronto and Region Conscrvution Authoriry, concurs with this position.
(b) Rouge Park Nelghbourhood Srudy
The role of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study on this issue is not to substentiate
future development within the neighbowhood. Rather, its role is to better define
where, what, and how development occurs. The study, through the EMSP, hns
refined ihe boundaries between future development and the Wildlife Cortidor, and it
identifies edge management strategies that, once implemented, will ensure thut new
development does not significantly impact upon the featums and functions of
ndjacent natural areas that constitute the Wildlife Cortidor (see scction 2.1 of this
Report).
In addition, thc EMSP contains a discussion on wildlifc corridors (scc scction 3.3 of
Appendix I to RepoA No. PD 07-00), It explains whnt wildlife corridors arc, and
how they work. The discussion continucs by identiFying the types of spccics that arc
present in this area of the City Ihat use cortidors, and lists thc rypicul corridor widths
requircd by these species. The EMSP concludes by stating thut cortidor widths
�, � REPORT 1Vl1MBER 07-00 Datc: February l8, 2000
Subject: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Page 13
within the neighbourhood are of nn appropriate breadth to accommodate thc needs of
corridor-using species present in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood area.
(c) Addlltonal S�eps �o Assfs� in !be Protectlon ojlhe Rouge-DqQlns {Vfldlrfe Cor�idor
Establishing an Officiel Plan land use and policy framewark for the Wildlife
Corridor was the first step in ensuring iu future. UndeMking the EMSP was the
second, end prepazation of site-specific Environmentel Reports in order to provide
detailed edge management strategies will be the third. There nre howevcr, other
steps thnt cnn be tnken to assist in ensuring a henithy futurc for the Wildlife Corridor.
Section 2.4 of this Report identi6es a number of Potential amendments lo the O�ciul
Plan. One change involves amending the Land Usc Schedule such that boundaries
between open spnce and residential areas better reflect the findings of thc EMSP.
The net effect of this is tin increase of open space lands, which direcdy increases the
umount of land designated Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Cortidor (nn increase of 3.8
hectazes). Once amended, the OtTicial Plan will designute 75% of the ncighbourhood
as Rouge-DufTins Wildlife Cortidor.
Another step that cnn be taken is the preparution of a Rouge-Duffins Wildlife
Carridor Managcment Plnn. The cdge managemcnt strategies recommended by the
EMSP nre dirccted nt developable Innds, but mnnagement strategics are also needed
to ensure thc on-going hcnith of the Rougc-DufTins Wildlifc Comdor.
The Rougc Park is currently supportcd by govemmcnt funding and the Rouge Pnrk
Manngement Plan. Thc samc should be true of the Rougc-Duffins Wildlife Corridor.
It is importnnt that thc Ministry of Nntural Resources, Toronto and Region
Conservution Authority, Region of Durhnm, City of Pickering, Ontnrio Hydro, C.P.
Rail, Intcrprovincial Pipeline, and interestcd othcrs come together to forge n
partncrship to suppon the futurc of thc Comdor.
This supporl �vould include the preparation of a Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Cortidor
Mnnag�ment Plan, and the establishmcnt of funding for on-going maintcnance nnd
restoration of lhe Cortidor. It should nlso be supportcd by un initintive of the Ontnrio
Renity Corporntion to trensfer all non-developablc properties within the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood to an npproprinte public authority with n conservntion mandate.
An additional important step is to nFUrow the range of uses permitled within the
"Freewnys and Major Utilities - Potentinl Multi-Use Aren" designntion (the Hydro
comdor lunds). Currently, the Official Plan pertnits uscs that urc compatible with
adjacent land uses. This mny permit uses that are compatible with residential
development, but potentinlly incompatible with the function of the Rouge-Duflins
Wildlife Corridor. One of the recommended nmendments to thc Official Plan (sce
Appendix [V to Report No. PD 07-00), would remove this type of permission.
(d) Proposed Refenflon ojA// ProvincFal Lands
The Rouge River Restoration Committee (RRRC) has recommended that all
provincial lands within the neighbourhood be retained in public ownership, in order
to nugment the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor (see Attnchment �5). The
Committcc also suggcsts that n portion of the provincinl lends could be tmnsferred to
private ownership in cxchnngc for privutelyheld Innds which, in RRRC's opinion,
have been inapproprintcly identificd by the EMSP as devclopnblc. Thc Rougc Purk
Alliance has endorsed these rccommendalions (see Attnchment #6), nnd 1'orwunicd
their resolution to the Onterio Realty Corpomtion (ORC).
Through discussions with ORC represenwtives, City statf nre of thc understanding
that surplus provincial lands within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood will be sold.
Thc totel provincial Innd holdings constitutc neorly holf of the ncighbourhood's totnl
area. However, the EMSP hav detecmined thut just 16% of those Innds ure
REPORT NiJMBER 07-00 Date: Febnu�ry I S, 2000 �� J
Subject: Rouge Pazk Neighbourhood Study page 14
"developable". As discussed enrlier, staff ere recommending the remaining 84%
"non-developable" lands be conveyed to a public body with a conservation mandatc.
Representatives of ORC have met with TRCA, MMAH and Ciry statT to discuss the
prospective sale of their surpius lands. Each agency hes advocated the importance of
environmentally sensitive lunds remaining in public ownership. Although ORC has
yet to formally ngree to this request, there does appear to be general concurrence that
public ownership of sensitive lands will be maintained.
During the settlement of Appeals 1 und 2 to the Pickering Official Plnn, staff
considered the merits of designating Iands us "Open Space System — Natural Area"
and "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor" based on Innd ownership. We conciuded
however, thnt designoting Innds in such an arbitrnry menner wns not defensible. This
conclusion was shared by MMAH, MNR and TRCA.
Tluough this Neighbuurhood Study, we have refined the designation of Open Space
and WildliCe Corridor lands in the neighbourhood, on the basis of nntural features
and functions identified on site, regardless of owncrship. Ncvertheless, it is
important to realiu that upprovnl of Innd use pluns and development guidelines does
not compel � landowner, privntc or public, to devclop their Innds. This principal
applies to nll of Pickering.
Within any given nrea of the City, if lands sue not developed as anticipated, it muy be
necessary to mview nnd rcvisc any relevunt O1Ticinl Plun policics, designations and
Dcvelopment Guidclines at an uppropriatc timc in the future. If this siluation werc to
arise, swfiwould bring it to Council's uttention nnd seck dircction on addressing the
issuc.
(e) Praposed AcquJsilfan ojlhe Beare Estale/Map Realty Properly
The Rouge River Rcstoration Committee hns also recommcnded that the Beure
Eswte/Map Rculty property be publicly ucquired. A portion of the site is designnted
"Urbnn Residential Areu — Low Dcnsity". As stnff continucs its revicw of
devclopmcnt upplicntions submitted for the property (sce section 3.3 of this Repon),
rccommendntions will be mnde to Council rcgarding the ownership/stewnrdship of
that portion of thc sitc dctermincd by staff to bc non-dcvclopablc.
3.3 Development Applications
As expinined in section 1.3 of this Report, a Detailed Review of the neighbourhood is
required prior to Council considering major dcvelopment applicatiuns. Once Council
adopts the Rougc Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines and Environmental
Master Servicing Plnn, this O�cial Plan requirement will be satisfied.
Two mnjor development applications ere curren►ly being processed by the Planning and
Development Depariment. The first proposes an "adult oriented lifestyle community"
proposing a totnl of 230 residential units and I88 "retirement beds" on the Bcurc
Estate/Map Realty property (norih side of Finch Avenuc, opposite Woodview Avenue).
The second application proposes 56 semi-dewched units at the south-west comcr of
Finch Avenue nnd Altana Road. Subject to Council's adaption of the EMSP and
Development Guidelincs, swff intend to present Council with mporis on these
npplications later this Spring.
CONCLUSION:
With Council's ndoption of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmcntnl Master Servicing
Plan and Dcvelopment Ciuidelines, n comprchensivc framcwork will bc cstablishcd for futurc
development within ihe neighbourhood. The framework includes direction on resource
conservntion, stormwater managcment, urban design, transpodation, and siting of public
fucilities.
p � 6REPORT NUMBER 07-00 Date: February 18, 2000
Subject: RougePazkNeighbourhoodStudy PagelS
Implementation of those two documcnts along with other recommcndetions discussed within the
body of this Report, will ussist in ensuring thc futurc health of the Rouge-Du�ns Wildlife
Corridor. The recommendations include increasing the amount of lend designatcd as "Open
Space System - Natural Area", requesting that all non-developable provincial lands be conveyed
to a public agency with a conservation mandatc, and requesting that a Rouge-Duffins Wildlife
Corridor Menugement Plan be prepared and funding established for its long-term restoration.
APPENDICES:
I. Staff Recommcnded Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmentul Mnster Servicing Plan
1I. Staff Rccommended Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidclines
III. Informetional Revision No. 7 to the Pickering Officinl Plan
[V. Proposed Amendments to the Pickering OHicial Plan
V. Comments Received on the Phase 2 Report
AT'I'ACHMENTS:
l. Study Area Mnp
2. Lacntion Mnp of Mnjor Dcvelopment Proposals within thc Rouge Park Neighbourhood
3. Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Advisory Committee Members
4. Map of Significunt Nnturnl Areas Linked by the Rouge-Dufiins Wildlife Corridor
5. Correspondence from the Rouge River Restorntion Comminee
6. Minutes of thc Pebruary 4, 2000 meeting of the Rouge Park Alliance
Prepnred By: Approved / Gndorsed by:
� ,
G Knight cil C•
Plnnner 2 Director, P ng and Development
�?.�
Cutherine L. Rose
Manager, Policy Division
GM/CLR/ph
Attachments
Coay: ChiefAdministrativeOfficer
Recommended for the consideration of Pickering
Ciry Council
"�� �
� 9 /Ol11
o as !. Q i n, ief A istmtive O cer
APPENDIXITO
REPORT NUMBER PD 07-00
� Staff Recommended
Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Environmental Master Servicing Plan
��7
o,. s
XCO File N3•1100-01
FINAL REPORT
ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL MASTER SERVICING PLAN
FEBRUARY18,1999
SYIw/aalb:
CITY OF PICKERINO
PICKERINO CIVIC COMPLFJ(
ONE THE ESPLANADE
PICKERINO, ONTARIO
S�+arnl !y:
XCG CONSULTANTS LTD.
1 PORT STREET EAST� SUITE 201
MISSISSAUGA, ONTARIO
L6G 4N1
9. Auewrrv..mf:
ESG INTERNATIONAL INC.
o�.�
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................. �..........................1-1
1.1 Overview of an Environmental Master Servicing Plan ............................... t-1
1.2 ReportContents ..............................................................................1-2
2. STUDY AREn ...............................................................................2-1
3. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPA[iLG LIMITS ...............................3-1
3.1 Natural Environment ........................................................................3-1
3.2 L.andscape Ecology ..........................................................................3-2
3.3 CorridorFunctions ..........................................................................3-6
3.4 Key Featura and Functions of Fiabitat Palches ........................................3-9
3.4.1 Habitat Arca l ................................................................... 3-1 l
3.4.2 Habitat Arca 2 ................................................................... 3-11
3.43 ilrbitat Arca 3 ................................................................... 3-1!
3.4.4 Habitat Area 4 ................................................................... 3-12
3.4.5 Fiabilat Area 5 ................................................................... 3-12
3.4.6 Habitat Arw 6 ................................................................... 3-12
3.4.7 Ilabitat Area 7 ................................................................... 3-13
3.4.8 flabitat Area 8 ................................................................... 3-13
3.4.9 Habitat Arca 9 ................................................................... 3-13
3.5 Petlicuat Crcek Gvaluation ............................................................... 3-14
3.5.1 General Description ............................................................ 3-15
3.5.2 Field Survey Observatians ar�l rindiugs ................................... 3-15
3.5.3 Flow Conclitions ................................................................ 3-16
3.5.4 Creck Channcl anJ Grosion Corxlitions .................................... 3-16
3.5.5 Ficld Canclusions ............................................................... 3-19
3.5.6 Ftoal Susceptib�e Arcas ....................................................... 3-19
3.5.7 Pclticoat Creek Summary ..................................................... 3-19
3.6 Devclopablc Gnvclopcs ................................................................... 3-20
4. LAND USE PLAN ...................... �....................................................4-I
S. ENVIRONML•NTALRGf'ORT..........� .......................................��...........5-1
6. EDOE MANACEA1f:NT STRATEGIGS ................�.....................................6-1
6.1 Ec1ge Managemcnt OvcrvieW� ..............................................................6-1
6.2 Rouge Park Neighbourhoal Edge Management .......................................6-2
6.2.1 Amas Adjacent to Roads or Existing Devclopment ........................6-2
6.2.2 Areas Adjacent to Disturbed I�abitat ..........................................6-2
6.2.3 Areu Adjacent to Watercoursa ...............................................6-2
6.2.4 Areas Adjacent to Woodlands ..................................................6•7
6.2.5 Areaz Adjacent to Wetlands ....................................................6-8
6.3 Land Stewardship ............................................................................6-9
6.4 Summary - Edge Management Strategies ...............................................6-9
ruaaoimooii to u�on.uoo
v�eioo �
020
7. STORMWATGRMANA6EMENTSTRATEOIES......� .....................................7-1
7. t Stormwater Quanlity and Quality Conttol ..............................................7-1
7.1.1 Quantity Requi�ements ...........................................................7-�
7.1.2 Stormwater Quality Requircments .............................................7-5
7.2 Erosion Impact Assessment and Control ................................................7-6
7.2.1 MeUiod of Analysis ...............................................................7-7
7.2.2 Analysis Results ...................................................................7-8
7.2.3 Integrating Erosion Control with Other Stormwatcr Detentian
Requiremenls................................................................................ 7-9
73 Stortnwater Facility implemenlation Plan ............................................. 7-12
7.3.1 Faciiity Siting .................................................................... 7-12
7.3.2 Stormwatet Management Facility Outlets .................................. 7-16
7.3.3 Implementation Plan and Costs .............................................. 7-17
73.4 Stormwa�er Management Facility Costs .................................... 7-18
7.4 Groundwater Managcment ............................................................... 7-18
7.4.1 Mitigation Approach for the Proposed Development Area ............. 7-22
7.4.2 Recommencled Approach ...................................................... 7-23
7.5 Summary - Stormwater Management Stratcgics ..................................... 7-25
8. GMSP SUMMARY ..........................................................................8-1
8.1 Developmem Limits .........................................................................8-1
8.2 Gnvironmental Rcpons .....................................................................8-I
8.3 &lgc Managcment ...........................................................................8-2
8.4 Stormwaicr Managcmcnt ...................................................................8-3
FIGURES
Figurc2.1 StuJy Area ....................................................................2-2
Figurc 3.1 Ovcrvicw of Rougc Park NeighbourhooJ ...............................3-3
�igure 3.2 Rouge Park NeighbourhooJ Peatures and Functions ................ 3-10
Figure 3.3 Erosion Zones in f'etticoat Ctcek ....................................... 3-I8
Figurc 3,4 Rougc Park Ncighbourhood Dcvclopment Limits and Natural
Corridors.................................................................... 3-22
Figure 6.1 Gencric Examplc of Eclgc Trcatment ....................................6-3
Figure 6.2 Ccncric Exampie of Ecige Treaunent ....................................6-4
Figure 6.3 Generic Example of F.�Ige Trcatment ....................................6-5
Pigure 6.4 Diffcrcnt Ecigc Types .......................................................6-6
Figure7.1 Slorm Drainage A:eu ......................................................7-4
Figurc 7.2 Storage-Outtlow Curvc Ezamplc ....................................... 7-10
Figure 7.3 Woodview Stormwater Managemcnt Facility Concept ............. 7-14
Figure 7.4 Altona Stormwaler Management Faciliry Concept .................. 7-15
Figure 7.5 Stormwater Management Strategy .................................. 7-27
3•1IOU-0110200111D Repor4Joc
3/INW II
TABLES
Table 3.1 Petticoat Creek Flow Observations ..................................... 3-16
Table 7.1 Neighbourhood Development Concept "E" Area Characteristics ..7-2
Table 7,2 Stormwatcr Quantity Control Requirements ............................7-6
Table 7.3 Stormwater Quality Control Requirements .............................7-6
Table 7.4 Erosion Storagc Rcquircmcnt .............................................7-9
Table 7.5 Stormwatcr Control Volumc ............................................. 7-11
Table 7.6 Example of Potential Impact of Development on GrounJwatcr
Recharge.................................................................... 7-21
Table 7.7 Groundwatcr Mitigation .................................................. 7-22
Table 7.8 Gtoundwater Recharge ................................................... 7-23
APPENDICES
A Srormwatcr Quantiry and Quality Control
B Erosinn Impact Assessment anJ Control '
C Groimdwatcr Managcment
D I.and Arca Requiretnents and Cost Worksheets
)•1100-01102W2110 RepoRdae
v�e�m
��
0?_ 1
022
SECT/ON 1
INTRODUCT/ON
1. INTRODUCT/ON
The City of Pickering initiated a"Detailecl Revicw" of tha Rouge Park
Neighbourhood as required by the Official Pian prior to permitting major
development in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. The "Dctailed Review"
constitutes a detaileJ evaluation of environmental considerations, land usc and mix,
transportation network, community design, and scrvicing requircmcnts, as well as a
public consultation process. The outcome of the "Detailed Review" includes:
. Environmental Master Servicing Plan — An asscssment of environmental
features and functions, and stormwatcr management slrategies.,
. Rougc Park Ncighbourhoad Development Gufdelines — General
guidelines on urban developmcnt conccpls fot the Rouge Park
Ncighbourhood integrating cnviromnental factors, community design, land
use and transportation elements.
The purposc of this report is to prescnt thc E�ivironnrenfal Master Servicing Plan
for the Rouge Park Neighbourl�oal, Ti�e othcr componcnt of the "Detailed
Review" has been prcpareJ by the City of 1'ickecing and is a companion report.
1.1 Overview of an Envli onmental Master Servlcing Plan
Thc Environmcntal �'las�cr Scrvicing f'lan (GMSP) for thc Raugc Park
Ncighbourhood addres�cs two important clements of dcvclopmcnt in the
Neighbour:�ood - cnvironmental considcrations anJ stormwatcr management.
Thc purpose oC thc EMSP is to mcct thc following objcctivcs:
. Refine devclopablc limits of resiJcntiaily JcsignatcJ IanJs currcntly defincd
in thc City's Official Plan by confirming or establishing thc natural fcatures
and fun,.liuns, anJ iJcntifying approprialc protcction and cdgc managemcnt
mcasures; and,
. Develop a stormwater management stralcgy for the area,
An undcrlying objcctivc of thc GMSP is to csmblish cnvironmcntal dcsign
guidelines and management stralegics to assist in thc review anJ approval of
development applications. 'fhe guidelines will bc useful to thc City, dcvelopers,
local landowners, and othcr interested stakcholders, cnsuring all arc involved in thc
successful planning and growth of the Rouge Park Ncighbourhoal.
The EMSP work program included:
. Field investigations to document the natural environment fcatures anJ
functions;
7•I IOQ01102005110 Rcpon.da 1_1
vieroo
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
• Slormwatcr strategy devclopmcnt inclusive of groundwater, runoff quamity,
qualiry control and crosion control;
. Refinement of development limits recognizing natural features a►ul
functions;
. An approach to edge mai�agement; and,
• Public and stalccholder consuitation.
1'he intent af this report is to provide guidance to the City, dcvelopers, landowncrs
and stakeholders in the development of the Rougc Park Neighbourbood. The
guidance presented is at a planning Ievcl and is limited to thc site investigations
undenaken providing an overall environmcntai strategy and stormwater
managcment strategy for thc area.
Thc environmental fcatures and functions presentcd, and the cvaluation of Pctticoat
Creck and hydrologic Ceatures are bascd on site visits conJuctcd in lhe summer and
fall of 1999. The final determination of Jcvclopment limits, cdge treaunents anJ
stormwatcr management features will be subject to specific development
applications, supporting cnvironmcntal and stormwatcr management studies,
regulatory rcvicw, and the dcvclopment application rcvicw process.
1.2 Report Contents
'fhe report is Jividcd into eight major scctions plus supporting technical appendiccs:
Sectlon 1—lntroducUon
. Describes the purpose and contents of Ihis report.
SecUon Y— StudyArea
. Dricf discussion of thc study arca.
SecUon J — Natura/ Environment
. Idcntifies thc cnvironmcntal fcatures and functions of the Rouge Park
NeighbourhooJ anJ surcounding areas uscd to definc thc dcvelopable limits.
Secdon 4— Land Use Plan
• Outlines the land use concept plan for the area within thc developable limits.
SecUon 5— Environmental Report
• Highlights environmentai swJy and reporting neeJs to support development
applications for di(ferent areas in the Rough Park Neighbourhood.
7•I IOP0110IOOlt to Repan.doe � _2
v�aroo
0?.3
024 ' .
S�cnoN 1
IN7RODUCTION
Secdon B— Edge Managoment Sfrateglei
' • Presents edge management svategies for the development parccis.
Sect/on 7— StoimwaterManagement SUategles
• Describes Ihe hydrology/6ydraulics ofthe Rouge Park Neighbourhood and
surrounding area presendng stormwatcr management stratcgies including
groundwater, erosion control, BMPs and servicing strategies.
Sect/on 8— EMSP Summary
• Summary of emironmental reporting, edge managcment and stormwaler
management stratcgies.
Appendlx A— Stormwater QuanGry and Quallty Control
• Technical detail on the development of stormwater management quantity and
quality control requirements.
Append& B— Eros/on Impact Assessment and Control
• Technical detail on thc crosion control assessment in Petticoat Creek as part
of Ihe stormwater management strategy.
Appendix C— QroundwaterManagement
• Technical approach to groundwater managemcnt for planning levcl
understanding of arca watcr budgct.
Appendlx D— Land Area Requlrement and Cost Worksheets
• Technical details on lancl area requirements and consuvcdon cost estirnates
for stormwater management pands.
a•uoaoiammi io rt�on.a�e 1_3
viaioo
i
,,:
.�
.. � . ... . .. .�,:.. ..,... . ... . �. .,� .. � . , . . .��..
� 025
SECTION 2
STUDYAREA
2• STUDYAREA
In 1997, a new Pickering Otfcial Plan was approved expanding the City's Urban
Area. The expansion nonh of thc Ontario Hydro Gatineau CoaiJor crcateJ a new
Neighbourhood calied the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. The new Rouge Pazk
Neighbourhood is approximately 160 hectares in sizc and is bounded to ihe west by
the Pickering-Toronto border, to the north by the Interprovinciat Pipeline/C.P. Rail
linc, on the South by Ontario HyJro Services Company Inc. Gatincau Corridor and
on ihe east by open space lands east of Rosebank Road. Tlie Otticial Plan
established basic land uses. Further, the Of6ciai Plan required, prior to major
development occuaing, that a detailed review be undertalcen addressing the specifie
mix of land uscs, community design, transportation, sanitary und storm water
services and environmental issues.
Thc study area has been the subject of several background studies. Ponions of it
are in the Rouge Park and the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor. Boundaries of lhe
wilJlife corridor have bccn dctermined Cor many propertics within thc study area at
a previous Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hcaring. Thc Townline Wctiand
Complex lies paniatiy in the study arca. The boundaries were rcconfirmed carly in
1999 by thc Ministry of thc Naturai Environmcnt (MNR) for this Provincially
Sign3ficant WcUand (PSW).
Unlikc many areas within urban or rural IanJscapcs, thc study arca is well forested
and connectecl ro other natural habitats. It is Jirectly connected ro the Rouge Park
anJ thc Rougc River valley to thc wcst. It is bordercJ on the south by an Ontario
Hydro Services Company Inc. corridor nnd on the north by the York-Durham
Sanitary Sewer coniJor and a CPR track. The Townlinc Wetland complex is
located within and adjacent to the study arca, and tl�e Pctticoat Creek valley passes
though iL The Altona Forest is situateJ immediately south of the Rougc Park
Neighbaurhood.
The cuncnt iand use is characterized by scattered residential homes such that there
arc numcrous small parcels in privatc owncrship in amongst largcr blocks of land
held in pubiic ownership. Thc only municipal scrvice in the area is water supply.
However therc are a numbcr of homes stili using welis. Figure 2.1 shows d�e study
ama highlighting significant fcatures in thc Rougc Park Neighbourhood and
adjacent arcas.
3•�toao�wloo:iio t4�n.a� 2_I
v�eroo
. c .
• \\ .
1 .
/
n
• ,
n' .
`
' �� �.. . . ' .. �. , , .. :. . .: . � - � � �� : .�. . . ... .:. �:' . , �. . , . ' � . .
027
Secno;� 3
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE LIM/TS
3. NATURAL ENV/RONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE LIM/TS
The primary purpose of the naWral envitonment component af thc Rouge Park
Neighbourhood EMSP is to identify the naWral features and CuncUons wonhy of
protecdon. The outcome af this work is a definition of which lands wilhin �t►e
study area may be devcloped, and what edge managements are requ'ved. Edge
managemcnts refer to the treatment of the interface betwcen developtnent and
natural areas that are ro be retained to provide a buffer. Thc edge treatment is w
protect the natural areas from adjacent land uses, and to protect land uscs from any
ha7ards that may be posed by natural edges. Edge maaagement may consist of
building setbacks, but%rs, mitigation measures or physical barriers such as fencing.
Evcn if areas are identified as being suitable for development, thia dces not mean
that they are unconstrained. Proponents will be required to demonstrate that
proposcd development wili have no or minimal negative impacts on the fcatures and
functions of adjacent nawral areas.
This section of thc EMSP describes the landscapc ecology of the ama, discusses
functiotu of corridors, identifies ihe kcy fcatures and funcdons of natural areas
within and immediately adjacent to thc study area, and detcrmiues which areas may
be dcveloped. As well, this scction provides u description of Petticoat Creek and
ils features bascJ on field observations, Subsequent sections aJdress edgc
managemcnt stratcgies a�xl requircmcnts of Environmcntal Reports that would be
rcquired as part of any devclopmcnt application.
3.1 Netural Environment
The study area has bccn the subjcct of sevcral background studies. Portions of it
are in thc Rcugc Park and the Rouge-Duffins Wildlifc Corcidor. Boundaries of the
wildlife corridor havc bccn dctcrmincd for many properties within thc study area at
a previous Ontario Municipal Doani (OMII) hcaring. The Townline Wetland
Complex Itcs partially in thc stuJy area. The boundaries were rcconfirmed carly in
1999 by the Ministry of the Natural Environment (MNR) for this ProviruiaUy
Significant Wetland (PSW). Extencive fieldwork has bcen undertaken in the PSW
to detertninc the significant species that it supports, as wcll as its general features
and functions.
Far ccrtain properties witt►in the study area, in particulaz where there are
development applications under consideration, more detailed biological work has
becn cornfuctal as part of an Environmenlal Report. For onc largc parccl in 1hc
study area, south of Finch Avcnue anJ wut of WooJview Avenue, bra;ding bird
work was completed as part of a pilot study of spccics sampling techniques for
Ontario Hydro - no report was prepared for this work. The available inCorniadon
has been used in the identification of study area features and funcdons.
i� ioaoiamm�to n�n.a« 3-1
viemo
��-'.1
SECT/ON 3
NATURAL ENV/RONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE LIMITS
In addition lo simply identiFying arcas whcrc development may occur, a broadcr
picture of how the study nrea functions at thc landscape acale is required. The
stuJy area is one of the more heavily-forestal areas in Pickering anc! uctions of it
are part of the Rouge Park. Corcidors are an issue, as certain wildlifc sPecies move
among the area's patches of natutal habitat.
For this Repott, ficid invcstigations werc conducted to asscss the natural features
and to define iheir function not only within the context of thc Rouge Park
Neighbourhood, but as part of a continuous ecosystcm. The primary objectives of
the ficld investigations included:
• Idcntification of significant environmcntal features;
• Defining linkages bctwcen environmcntal featurcs; and,
• Identification of environmentai functions.
The fie1J investigations inciuded reconnaissance Ievcl fieldwork in each natural area
to detcrmine vegctation communities, gcneral quality of vcgetation, presence of
arca•sensitive bird spccics, wilJlife habitat and currcnt cdgc conditions. A dctailed
invcstigation was not undcrtakcn idcntifying slxwific plant or fauna spccies. In
addition to thc ficldwork, cxisting sources of information were reviewed and
considercd. In particular thc work previously undertaken hy thc City, work done
by the Ministry of Naiurai Rcsources and studics donc in support of development
applications proviJc valuable information.
3.2 Landscape Ecology
Unlikc many areas within urban or rural lanclscapcs, the study area is well forested
and connecteci to othcr namral habiiats. It is directly connccted to the Rouge Park
and thc Rougc Rivcr valley to Uu wcst. It is borJcred on thc south by an Onlario
Hydro Scrviccs Company Inc. corridor and on thc nonh by the York-Durham
Sanilary Sewer corridor ancl a CPR track. The Townline WetlanJ compicx is
IocateJ within and adjacent to thc stuJy arca, and ihe 1'etticoat Crcek valley passes
though it. The Allona Forest is situatcd immediately south of the Rougc Park
Neighbourhoal. �igurc 3.1 provides an overview of 1he Rouge Park
Neighbourhoal in thc contcxt of thc surcounJing natural fcatures showing thc
intcgrated nature of thc currcndy designatcJ open spaccs in thc ncighbourhood.
The largc blceks of natural arcas in and aJjaccnt to thc study arca, msult in
conditions that are seldom seen in predominantly urban arcas. The extcnsive
foresis providc habitat for several wildli(e species that arc considered area sensitive.
Thesc specics rypically occupy arcas only once they are a cetlain thrcshold siu,
which is usually scveral times larger Ihan thc spccies' homc rangc or territory.
�-� toaoiwmoii to t��n.ao�
vie�ai 3-2
e. .
• . ,'
c\ ' - �! . • . . . . � -.
�yirr�i= . �
! Pii n� ` .
+ �-
�'° ':: ` ��
' i `:�.
�:. . .
, �; ` ��. � `�.
- - � � i —r ' .j _
. ��'.�r�`' ; t. - � '• '! s. �'�.
j� 1 i �
� �� �7p `�_- -• � �. i .,t ," F . �.
t �
�� -�f _ � 4 �
�
\ ' ` ��
• F� � p
� � � .
. ,�?Y r . f ` ` ,` .
>> � s?ET71COAT � ^� ;,
•`, � CR�E�(, � � ',
t _ � a
� 'VALI,EY�' �,� i i��
.4'�(LDLl�fr '` .';.
.. SAMCiUAR�� ��SS 1nJ CPR ..
'_ POUGE : •.-:`�.i � �
RIVE�, s . ^ '"',
VALIEY ` .�' r�
- O 4
�� � ,�ij
G��� � :
� .
.� � 1{ � �
' ' .f. " �.�O���i ALTONA
�� S � FOREST
,v ff� r � �� + , ' 'C � ,� � E 5'A
.� �� . i
Se � • i
`_ f,y�` �;� . / �' � , "`4 t' . ♦
:;, �� 'tEt � � � � � �
-� �� � L ` t
�?'�t �TO`�onr � ; �' � �
�zod �f' � � :�
; �o , �
r�'*��� -. � ; �' .l � p ,��1 r ,� .
, ' � • � ' S� r- � . ��.. t �,_ �} .
� ��" *k,,4 T '� 1
ROUGE. ' ; "
b' �! . PARI( �:.
\ �'
u
'..
:':rr.r.i
. .. •• r. r :� ��� �
. q '
�
030
SECT/ON 3
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE LIMITS
For instance, many species of birds mquirc a forest to bc 20, 30, 50 ha or evcn
largcr before they will cecupy it, even though they may have a terziwry size of only
1 or 2 ha, Although breeding bird surveys have not becn conJucted throughout the
sludy ama, the following area-sensitive breeJing ,bird species have becn
documented: Ruffed Grouse (25), Hairy Woodpecker (10), Pilcated WoaiPecker
(40-100), Winter Wren (30), White-breasted Nuthatch (10), Veery (20), Ovenbird
(20), Northern Waterthrush (20), and Whitc-throated Spartow (10). The
approximate minimum size requirement in hectazes is indicated in brackets behind
each spccics.
The woaf Ftog may also be considered an area-sensitive species. It breecis in
woodland pools eatly in the spring and spcnJs ihe rest of the year within forest
habilat. Once forests bccome too small or fragmenteJ, local populations arc in
Janger of extirpation due to drying of pools or predation.
In adJition to arca-sensitive species, largc blocks of habitat, cspccially if they arc
contiguous to othcr natural arcas, may provide habitat for species that have large
homc rangcs. Thcsc are specics that typically use eithcr a wide variety of habitats,
or that reyuire very extensive areas of similar liabitat. The white-taileJ dcer is an
example oF a habitat gcn:;ralist that uses a wide variery oF open and forested habitat,
as well as upland anJ wetland communities. It is also highly tolerant of human
activity. The mink, which also occurs in and adjaccnt to thc study arca, is morc oC
a habitat spccialist. It prefcrs marshcs and watcrcourses where it (ecds
prcdominantly mi muskrats, fish, and amphibians. It requires habitat to be fairly
continuous, whereas deer will cross wide areas of agricultural or open land.
Iarge habitat patches support more spccics than smaller ones. The large forests
within the study arca and along !hc watercourscs contain a high diversity of species.
According to the various atlases, 7 species of amphibians, 5 reptile species, and 98
breeding bird species were documcnted from the atlas square (10 x 10 km) in which
thc study arca is situated. This is a fairly high diversity for an urban area.
Signiftcant specics reported Gom thc squarc wcre Red-shouldcred Hawk, Black
Tern, ReJ-headeJ Woaipeckcr, anJ Wcstcrn Mcadowlark.
When several natural patches are in close proximity to each other, these patches
support a higher diversity of species than samc-siud patches that are isolaeed. In
addition, thcy tcnd to support species that woulJ normally be found only in larger
patches. For many species, the amount of natural habitat within (he landscape is
more important than Ihe size of individual patches. Therefore, some of the
woodlands within the study area and in adjacent arcas suppon species that would
normally occur oNy in larger habitat patchcs.
7-I IUO-0110iarl110 Repan.doe 3.q
v�uoo
031
SECTION 3
NATURAL ENViRONMENt AND DEVELOPABLE LIMITS
The area and environs contain a diversity of natural habitat, plus some
anthtopogenic areas lhat support some of the functions of more natural areas.
There tue opcn-water marshes, meadow marshes, dcciduous awamps, wnifcrous
swamps, upland deciduous forests, upland conifcrous foresis, shcubby arcu, old
fields, and acpve agricultural fields. Even devcloped, landscapecf lots provide
habitat for some common species oF wildlife.
The high diversiry of habitats support more species than landscapes that are morc
homogencous. In addition, there an: cenain species that require more than one
habitat type. Examples include waterfowl that nest in meadows, but forage, raise
their broods, moult, and stage in wetlands; frogs that breed in woalland poots but
spend the summer in open meadows; and birds that nest in Corests but feecl in open
areas.
The location of the study area also wntributes to its diversiry. It is at ihe base of
the Lake Iroquois shorciine. This results in thc arca being undcrlain mostly by
sands or gravels, but there are areas where there is a veneer oC organic soils
developed over coarser matcrial. Thcsc Jiffcrcnt soil typcs support different
vegetation communities ancl wildli(c asscmblages. Thc soils resul: in microhabitats
so that the stuJy area supports a fcw species that are usually found farther north or
south. Examples include horse-balm which occurs mostly in the Carolinian Forest
Rcgion, anJ White•toppcJ aster, which is at lhc southcrn cxtcnt of its range hcrc.
Thc study arca is highly connected to other nawral or undeveloped arcas. The area
to thc nonh is mostly agri�ultural land, while therc arc connections to the east along
the railway linc, hydro corridor and lhrough habitat patches within thc study arca.
Thcrc arc also goocl connections to thc wcst nonh of Pinch Avcnue, and along thc
hydro corridor io Uie south. Immediatcly to the south-west is a large block of
natural habitat in thc Rouge Park. The Altona Forest is in the south-eut, and therc
are Jircct connections to it via the hydro corridor and the riparian strip along
Petticoat Creek.
In summary, thc stuJy arca supports a high diversity of vegctation communities and
plant arxl wildlife species. This is due to a number of factors: soil types, large
blocks of naturel arcas, and high connectivity to other large natural arcas. The
large forested areas along the Rouge River contribute to the diversity of thc area,
especially for thosc species ihat are depcndcnt on IanJscapcs with a high proportion
of forest. Loss of natural areas within the study area has the potentiai to adversely
atfect adjacent areas. Some forest-dependcnt species could be lost in adjacent areas
if the amount of forest in thc landscape fell below that requircd for certain species,
and there could be changes in downsveam water quality and quantity.
Although the habitat patches within thc study area are functioning well for the most
part, they are depenclent on the suaounding lanclscape. In tum, lhe study area
��taaotwwmi io nc�n.d� 3-5
v�eroo
�
o��
SECTION 3
NATURAL ENVlRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE LIMITS
suppods the surrounding landscape, and certain amenities and functions of adjacent
areas could be lost or impaired if the entire study area were developecl.
3.3 CorrldorFuncHons
The unique assembly of habitat patches and linkages discussed in Ihe previous
section, combine ta provide a network of linkages between the valleys of lhe Rouge
River, Petticoat Creek and the West Duffins Creek, as well as the Altona Porest.
This network has been named the "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor".
The Rougc-Duftins Wildlife Conidor perfortns scvcral imporiant functions,
incluJing:
• providing passage for certain species as thcy travcl from one habitat patch to
anolher;
• providing foaJ anJ cover during movement;
• facilitating genc flow;
• facilitating rccolonization;
� increasing habilat diversity anJ specics abunJance; anJ,
• proviJing home ranges for ccrtain s�ries.
To undcrstand thc corcidor on a funclional basis onc should look at which spccics
actually usc conidors arxi what spccific rcquiremcnts thcy dcmand.
Birds generally do not use corridors, cxccpt for a vcry (cw spccies. These tend to
be thosc that havc rclativcly low �wcrs of flight, such as Northern Bobwhitc and
Wild Turkcy (which do not occur in thc stuJy arca). Most birds simply fly from
one area to the next regarJless of what habilat is bcncaUi them. Although there are
a few stuJies that inJicate Ihat spccics (such as Bluc Jays) follow fence lines when
they are flying, this appears to be cxceptional. Most birds use a viewscape
approach, arul fly directly between habitat patches. Even dispersing young do not
follow corcidors when thcy are Ieaving thcir parcnls' territory.
Ccnain amphibians, reptiles, and mammals Jo use cotridors. Some amphibians
anJ reptiles use different habitat typcs during diffcrent scasons. Of the seven
amphibians that inhabit the study area, the IeoparJ frog is the one that is most likcly
to use a coaidor. It brceds in woalland pools in springtime, but spends the
summer in damp meadows, ideal conditions are when these two habitats arc
contiguous, but it will movc along corridors to reach essential habitat. The best
corridors are grassy mcadows, but it may also cross lawns. In urban areas, it may
be susceptible to road kill, prcdation, and chemicals when it moves between spring
and summer habitat.
s•� �oaonomoii w tu�on.a� 3-6
v�uw
033
SECT/ON 3
NATURAL ENV/RONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE UMITS
The five reptiles ihat may occur in thc nrea include the painted turtle aixi four snake
species. Therc arc instances when turtles necd corcidors to uavel to gravely or
sandy areas to i�est. This dces not appcaz to be the casc in the study azea, with
atnple gravely arcas near the Amos Poncls. Snakes also nced to move between
summer habitat and winter hibernacula. However, the four species that may be
present (eastem garter snake, northem ribbon snake, northern redbelly snake, and
brawn snake) all have small home ranges and have limited to no necd for corridors.
Therefore, it is uNikely ihat any of the reptiles that may occur in the study azea
need corridors.
Mamn�al usage of corridors is variable among spccies. Some almost never use
corridors; some arc indi(ferent to corridors, using them casualiy if they happen to
lead to whcre the animal wants to go; while some specics preCer to use corcidors if
they are moving among core areas.
The following is a discussion of the corridor usage of mammal species that may
occur in the vicinity of the study area.
7'�ose that never use corridors arc littic brown bat and big brown bat. Other bat
spccies may occur occasionally in Pickering, particularly when migrating, such as
the reci bat and hoary bat. None of the bat specics use corridors.
Spccics that frcquently movc through urban areas include grey squirrel, red
squirrcl, Nonvay rat, house mouu, racoon, and striped skunk. These spccies do
not nccd corcidors, but may use thcm if A�cy arc availabte. In agricultural
landscapcs whcrc natural habitats arc distantly spaccJ, thc skunk does rely on
cocridors to get from one arca to another. Conidors do not 8ave to bc widc to
facilitate skunk movcment in thcse cases, anJ fcncc lines arc usually adequate.
Othcr spccics thal may cecasionally movc through urban habitat include short-tailed
shrew, star-noseJ molc, castem coltontail, eastcrn chipmunk, woodchuck, dcer
mouse, white-footed mouse, meadow vole, mcaJow jutnping mouse, coyote, red
fox, anJ white-tailcd dccr.
Spccies that am rather indif(ercnt to corridors include coyote, red Cox, and white-
tailcd deer. The coyotc and (oz tend to avoiJ corridors whcn travclling across the
latxlscape, preferring to stay out in the opcn. They may, however, occasionally
hunt in corridors. Dcer tcnd to lravel Jirectly to wherc they want to go, and are
more likely to movc in the opcn than along a corcidor. One cxception is deer
migradon corridors. These are traditional routes lhat are used by dccr to rcach
wintering areas from thc summer habitat, and thcy tend to be in heavily-forested
amas. This is a concern only where decr yard up for the winter in large
concentrations.
�i too-oiw�i�o tcrooa.aa 3_7
vterou
034
SE�T/ON 3
IVATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE LIMITS
5pecies that prefer to use coaidors may bc subdividal into those that pcefer
riparian conidors to those lhat usc upland corridors. Ripazian corridor species
include muskrat and minlc. Ttiese species uavel either in watereourses or along
streambanks. Buffers that are normally left along stream are usually adcquate to
allow these species to condnuc to movc through the landscape provided this leaves
adequate habitat for t6eir prey.
Species that prefer to use upland coaidors are masked shrcw, smoky shrew, short-
tailed shrew, eastem cottonlail, eastem chipmunk, woocichuck, decr mouse, whitc-
footed mouse, mcadow vole, meadow jumping mousc, and ermine. Olher species
that will commonly use these upland corcidors arc grcy squirrel, red squirrel,
racoon, and striped skunk. None of thcse species requires very wide corridors, and
10 to IS m is usually wide enough. Corridors should have adcquate ground cover
in the form of tall grasses and forbs to providc protection from predators while
mammals are moving through the corridor. Somc species also prefer shrub and
tree cover including eastern chipmunk, castern cottontail, ermine, squircels, and
racoon. Limbs, logs, ancl othcr downed debris enhance hab+tat for eastern
chipmunk, caslcrn cottontail, anci erminc.
Most urban wildlife is accustomeJ to using narrow corridors. Thc species that
require more habitat than a narrow strip of naturai area tcnd to be thosc that do not
use corridors per se, such as rcd fox and coyote. Thcse specics need a network of
natural patchcs of difCercnt habitat rypes so that thcy can fulfil all of their life
history functions ancl not dcpcnci on small arc�s for prey.
Generaliy the wider a corridor, the more spccies that may use it. This, however,
must take into account thc species that inhabit die general arca and their
requirements for corridors. The wildlifc spccics diat occur in and adjacent to thc
study arca are mosdy adaptal to urban lifc anJ nanow corridors will sufficc for
them. CorriJors 100 m in widtli should accommalatc thc movement pattcrns of all
species in the stuJy area. Even wiJcr corridors in somc arcas may be bene6cial,
not necessarily as a corriJor, but as a habitat patch for spccies with small home
rangcs. It must bc rccogniud that wilh urbanization movcmcnt by some specics
wili be curtained. Providing for a series of core and other habitats that are
connected by corridor lands is an attempt to continue to provide for species that
curcently exist in this part of thc Region as thc landscape mavix changes from rural
to urban.
Corcidor functions are well maintained in the study area and adjacent areas as
shown on Figure 3.1. East-west corridors occur along the railway line and York-
Durham Sanitary Sewer in the nonh and the Ontario Hydro Services Company Inc.
right-of-way in the south. Wildlife may also move east-west in the agricultural
lands to the north ofthe Rouge Park Neighbourhoocl and along the hydro corridar
a•��ao-o�wzoo:i�o rtepondoe 3-8
v�eroo
3.4
O3J
SECT/ON 3
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE UM/TS
to the Rouge River valicy. There is also wildtife movemcnt between the Amos
Ponds arca and We wildiife sanctuary west of the Townline.
Therc is a atrong north-south connection between the Amos Poncis area north of
Finch Avenue and thc wedand south of Finc6. Natural habitat occurs to the eJge of
the road on both sides. Wildiife moving in this direcdon can travel north tluough
the agricultural land norih of thc railway tracks, or south to the hydro corridor.
Another major north-south corcidor occurs along Petticoat Creck, from the
agricultural lancls to the north to Altona Forest in the south. A third nonh-south
corriJor occurs eazt of Altona Road, through old-field habitat nonh of the study
area, the woaled azca near the water lower, ORC lands south of Finch Avenue, to
the hydro corcidor and Altona Forest. The fourth north-south corridor is east of
Rosebank Road, through the foresteJ area south of the railway to the hydro
conidor and to Altona Porest.
Key Features and FuncUons of Hab/tat Patches
The Rouge Park Neighbourhoai contains significant natural rcsourees, including
portions of the Rouge Park, Ihe Rouge-Duffins WildiiCe Corridor, Provincially
Significant Wcpa�xls, and the Pctticoat Crcek watershcd. Thc natural fcatures and
functions of the individual resources are unique anJ valuabie, but collectively they
are more important to cach othcr and to adjaccnt natural features in maintaining
overal� ccological functions. A high percentage of thc study area is wooded.
Ninety-cight breeding bircl species, inc:luding four provincially threatened or
vulncrablc spccies, and twelvc specics uf reptiles and amphibians werc rccordeci
during wilJlife atlases in thc !0 x 10 km syuarc lhat includes thc Rouge Park
Ncighbourhoocl.
Figure 3.2 shows lhc corc habitat patches within and adjaccnt to the swdy arca.
The key fcatures ancf functions of each of thcsc arcas arc dcscribed below. It
shoulJ be emphasizccf that the boundarics of thcsc nre�s arc conccptual and are not
intencled to be prccisc bounJarics among habitats or Ponctions but to provide an
ovcrview af features and functions tivoughout thc Neighbourhoal and adjacent
areas.
s���aoo�amosi io a�n.a« 3-9
viuw
�to
• 037
SECT/ON 3
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE UMITS
3•4.1 Ha6ltat Area !
Habitat Area 1 abuts thc northwest patt of the Rouge Park Neighbourhocd. Arca 1
comprises one part of the Townline Provincially Signifcant WeUand Complex and
is designated "core area" in the Rouge-Duffins Dnft Natural Hcritage Strategy
(Geotnatics, 1997). This area consists of an open emergent marsh with some
deciduous swamp around thc perimetcr. This feature providcs imporlant tiabitat for
birds, hetpctofauna, and mammals. It is a breeding, fccding and slaging area for
waterfowl, fceding habitat for several spccics of herons (Grcat Bluc Heron, Green
Heron, Black-crowned Night-Heron), and fceding and nesting habitat for
provincialiy and locally significant birds including Trumpeter Swan. li provides
dabitat for turUes, furbearcrs, and amphibians. The MNR's wetlanJ evaluation
indicates that thcrc arc locally significant plant species present. The woodcd
portion is habitat for common woociland species.
This portion oF thc wetland contains most of thc significant species that resulted in
the welland being designated provincially significant. Because of the large siu of
the open marsh, it attracts several species of herons anJ watcrfowL It is a source
area, with wildlife in this area spilling over into adjacenl areas. ['or instance, it is
unlikely that many herans ancf king6shers would be attracteci to the Amos Ponds if
this portion of thc wctlanJ did not cxist.
3.4.2 HabltatArea 2
Habitat Area 2 includes portions of the Townline Provincially Significant Wetland
Complex nnd is designateJ "core arca" in ►he Rouge-Duftins Draft Natural
Heritage Sirategy. This pan of the wmplex contains deciduous swamp, butronbush
thickct swamp, an cmcrgent marsh and thc Amos poixls. Thc fcaturc also includcs
thc surrowxling upiancl dcciduous forest. Thc ponds providc habitat for turtics,
brecding habitat for amphibians (including grccn frog, woocl frog, leopard frog and
fanerican toad) and a feeding arca for herons anJ kingfishers. The buttonbush
thicket swamp is a locally rare plant community. The swamp and forest contain
locally significant plant species and provide habitat Cor common woodland wildlife.
There is potcntial for arca•scnsitive bird spccics, and thc brccding bird survcy
conclucted by Gartrnr Lee Limitect (1999) detcrmincd that Hairy Woocipecker and
Pileated Woodpecker were prcunt. The forest and swamp were designated
together, along with the woods in Area 3, as a significant woodlanci in Pickering
due to thcir combined size, natural heritage features and ecological functions (MNR
1996).
3.4.3 Ha6ltatArea3
This feature contains the wooded Petticoat Creek conidor, some carly successional
vegctation and open field. The feawre provides habitat for common upland species.
The early successional vegetadon unit contributes to the size of thc forest patch in
a•i toaonomm�io n��on.ao� 3-11
vieroo
1 :
SECTION 3
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE UMITS
Area 2, acts us a link to tho riparian Petticoat Creek corriJor, and is desiguated
"corc arca" in the Rouge-Duffins DraR Natural Heritage Strategy. Combined,
these forest units were designateJ as a significant wooJlancl in Pickering (MNR
1996). Petticoat Crcek proviJes intermittent fish habitat and may provide breecling
habitat for amphibians.
There are some impaicments to habitat quality in this arca. There are two types of
early successional habitat. One is an old gravcl pit that has regenerated with young
trees. The ground flora in this area is almost entircly dog-strangling vine, an
invasive species that chokes out native vegetation. In addition, the lack of topsail
in thls area creates harsh conclitions for trce growth, and thcre is evidence of stress
in some of the young vees.
North of the old gravel pit, there is another young forest dominated by poplars.
Although thcre is some ash regcnerating, U�e lowcr canopy is dominated by
common buckthorn, an invasive shrub. This shadc-tolerant spccies eventually
eliminatcs regeneration of native Imes and shrubs, and evcn inhibits dcvclopment of
the understory layer.
3.4.4 Ha6ltatArea4
Habitat Arca 4 includes several small woallanJ patches. These patches and the
arca bctwecn providc habimt for common upland ficlJ and woalland species. The
Wnter Tower woallot was designated as a signifcant woodland in the City of
Pickering (MNR 1996) bccausc of uncommon features (in this case, likely because
of its trcc spccics divcrsity). In aJdition, this rclativcly mawrc woodlot may
provide habitat for cavity-Jependcnt specics.
3.4.5 Habltat A►ea 5
This fcaturc consists of part of largcr mixcd and conifcrous woals. The woods
havc thc potcntial to support arca•sensitive bird specics and wildlife that requirc
snags and large trees. Woocila�xl pools havc the potential to provide limited
ampliibian brecding habitat. The woociland was designated as significant in
Pickering because of its natural heritage Ceawres, uncommon features and
ecological functions, anJ is designatcd "core area" in thc Rouge-Du(fins DraR
Natural Heritagc Sttategy (Geomatics international Inc., 1997).
3.4.6 Ha6ltat A►ea 6
Habitat Area 6 contains a portion of the Towniinc Provincially Significant Wetland
Complex. This pact of the complex eonsists of deeiduous swamp and thicket
swamp. Woodland pools provide breeding amas for amphibians, including woal
frogs. Area-sensitive bird species are present, as are lacally significant species of
plants and wildlife. This woodland was designated as significant in Pickering due
�•iioao��ovi� �o tu�on.a� 3-12
v�e�oo
03�
SECTION 3
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE UMITS
to ils siu, namral heritage features and ccological function, anJ is designatecl "wre
area" in thc Rouge-Duffns DraR Natutal Heritage Strategy.
3.4.7 Habltat Area 7
This feature includes parts of the Townlinc Provincially Significant Wctlancl
Complex, consisting of deciduous and coniferous swamp and the woafed Petticoat
Creek corridor. The feature has Uie potential to support arca-sensitive bird species.
Woodland pools and Petticoat Creek provide breeding habitat for amphibians,
including Ieopard frog. 'fhis woodland was designated as signifcant in Pickering
because of its siu, natural heritage features and ccological function, and is
designated "cote area" in the Rouge-Du(fins Draft Natural Heritage Strategy.
Petticoat Creek provides fish habitat. The riparian corridor acts as a link from
Finch Avcnue to the south side of thc stuJy arca.
There aze some minor limitations to the functioning of this habitat patch. The
water lablc is not as ciose to thc surfacc as the patch to Uie west. In Jrier years, it
is likcly that woalland pools dry up before amphibian larvae can transform into
adults. At this point, Petticoat Creek is intermittent, and is reduced to pools of
water with no flow bctwcen them. 7'hcrc will bc ycars whcn thc strcam dries up
before amphibians can transform, and there may be complete losses of fish some
years when thc strcam Jrics up completely. Cvcn whcn thc stream dces not dry up
completely, the rcduccd, or lack of, baseflow makcs amphibians and fsh
suueptiblc to prcdators.
3.4.8 Habltat Area 8
This fcaturc is thc Ontario Hydro Scrviccs Ccmpany Inc. right-of-way. Thc
Pctticoat Crcek corridor is not as heavily woalcd as it crosses the right of way.
Thc arca proviJcs habitat for common birds anJ othcr wildlifc species. Petticoat
Crcck proviJcs fish and amphibian habitat. Thc riglit-of-way acts as a corridor for
thc northcast-southwest movemcnt of wildlifc, and the Pctticoat Crcek corcidor is a
link from thc significant wctlanJ to thc Altona Forest Environmcntally Significant
Arca (GSA). Thc right-oFway probably proviJcs summcr habitat for leopard frogs.
This habitat is subjected to periociic maintenance by Ontario HyJro, which includes
use of hcrbicides or physical cicaring to removc woody vegetalion. The area is
highly disturbed, and mcadow marshcs an thc right-of-way arc frcqucntly
dominatcJ by purplc looscstrife.
3.4.9 Ha6ltat Area 9
Habitat Area 9 adjaccnt to the southeast part of the Rougc Park Neighbourhood, is
the Aitona Forest FSA. Thc arca has a high diversity of biological communities
nnd provides habitat for a wide variety of spccies, some of which azc provincially
or localiy rare, The forest supports area-scnsitive birds and providcs habitat for
�•i ioaoiwmoz i to rt�on.a� 3-13
vieroo
040
SECTlON 3
NATURAL ENV/RONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE UMITS
amphibians. This woodiand has been designated as significantin Pickaring because
of its size, nntural heritage features, uncommon Ceatures and ccologi:al function,
and is designated "corc area" in the Rouge-Duffins Draft Naturai Heritage
Strategy. Petticoat Creek suppods fish and functions as a riparian corridor. Recent
development pressure along the edges aF Allona Forest has likely affected its
suitability for some of the species that have nesteJ thcre in the past, such as Red-
shouldered Hawk and Northern Coshawk.
3,5 Petflcoet Creek EvaluaVon
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood is predominately in the Petticoat Creek watershcd.
A small portion of the ncighbourhoal on 'he eastem boundary is a tributary to the
Amber:ea sewershecl. Field reconnaissance was conducted to document Petticoat
Creek Ceatures. The reconnaissancc included a reach of Pctticoat Creck extcnding
from the northern boundary of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood at ihe railway tracks
down to Sheppard Avenue. The reconnaissance incluJed walking this reach of
Pelticoat Creek, Jocumcnting fcatures (outfalls, crosion zoncs, ctc.), and taking
fieid measurc�nents of tcmperature and ilow. Thc field work did not include any
fishery assessmcnt.
To supplement the fieid work a delailcd review of thc Stage 1 Study of
Comprchensive Stormwater Management Stralcgy for Altona Forest Area, Cosburn
Patterson WarJman LimitcJ, Fcbruary 1994 was rcviewcd and incorporated in the
assessment along witli revised flualiine mapping work approved by Toronto Region
Cona•:n�ation Authoriry (TRCA) anJ thc ": ownlinc Swamp Compicx" preparcJ in
April 1999 by Ontario Ministry oY Natural Resourccs, Aurora District.
In the summer of 1999, ficld sta(f carricd out ground reconnaissance surveys of the
Rougc Park Ncighbourhocxf and downstrcam scctions of Pctticoat Creek W
Sheppard Avcnue. Thcse walking surveys were carried out lo gather information
on:
. Gencral drainagc conditions and patterns in the Rouge'Park Neighbourhood;
. Sources of flow to thc Pclticoat Crcck;
. General physical conditions along thc crcck Jownstrcam of thc development
area, especially with respcct to iJcntifying sites of active crosion and overall
erosion susceptibiliry of the areek and its ravine; and,
• Identification of groundwater recharge zones.
Drainage conditions tivough and around the Rouge Park Neighbourhood werc
investigated with the aid of the mapping of the "Townline Swamp Complex"
prepared in Aprii 1999 by MNR Aurora District (based on 1:10,000 OBM map
sheets for thc areal. The map shows the location and ditection of drainage roules
�-ttoamw�aoxi�o x�pon.doc 3-14
v�uoo
_ . , .,: �•;:
041
SECT/ON 3
NATURAL ENV/RONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE LIM/TS
tluough and around ihe weUand complex in Oie easlern portion of thc
neighbourhood. An initial survey was conducted in August 1999 and a
supplemental survey in September 1999. It must bc recognizeci that the field
reconnaissance represent the field conditions found during August and Septcmbcr of
1999 and are not representative of ►he spring conditIons. It should be required as
patt of an Envir:uwental Report to furiher Jocument conditions in the watershed
under more typical spring and summcr conditions.
As part of the walking survey of Petticoat Crcek estimates of creek flows and any
L*ibutary flows (e.g. storm outfall flows) were made, spot water temperamre
readings taken, photographs and documcntation of crcek features.
3.5.1 Genera/0escdpUon
The Petticoat Creek watcrshed drains approximately 26 km2 of land in the City of
Pickering. The watercourse is approximately 14 km in length and drains directly
into Lakc Onlario. The portion of Pctticoat Creck in the Rouge Pazk
Neighbourhood is approzimately 0.5 km long. From the hydro corriJor to Lake
Onlario, Pctticoat Creek flows within a stcep wcll dcfineJ river vaUey. The creek
has a well-cle6ned low tlow channel Ihat meanders within a wide floodplain.
3.5.2 Field Survey ObservaUons and Findings
The following observations were maJe Juring field surveys:
. 7'he length of Petticoat Crcek in lhe Rouge I'ark Neighbourhood is
approximatcly 0.5 km;
. The surfacc drainage routes shown on thc MNR Townlinc Swamp Complex
mapping wcrc Jry during August 1999;
. The drainage paUu in the Rougc Park Ncighbourhoal are shallow, heavily
vegelated anJ not well Jefinal, other than the main channel of Petticoat
Crcek itscif. Just south of tlie Finch Avenuc culvert a small pool was
present on both occasions;
. Spot observations of drainagc conditions in lhe Rougc Park Ncighbourhood
were made in Scptcmbcr, and again no surface flow was obscrved in spitc of
rain that occurced during thc previous few �days and on the morning of thc
field survey. However, somc localizcd ponding in low spots wcrc observed
� on Ihat had not been present in August. Also, �he level of the pool that
fotms in the Petticoat Creek channel just south of the Finch Avenue culvert
was higher than observed in August, alihough there was no observable flow
into or out of this pool on either occasion;
. T'he presence of the surraunding wetland areas in thc Rouge Park
Neighbourhood indicate high local water table conditions. Higher
3•IIOUOIW2002�ID Repon.da 3-IS
2/1lNO
042
Secnonr 3
NATURAL ENVJRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE UMITS
topography to the north of the area (i.e. abovc the Lake Iroquois Shoreline)
may be a contributing to sustaining these conditions. The presence of more
localized surface ponding and higher pooling level in the main crcek in
September shows lhet the water table responded to the recent rain. The
Ievcl did not rise enough to generate any significant surface outflow; there
was no surface flow observed in the main creek culverts under Altona Rd at
Pine Grove Avenue in August or September; and,
• From Pine Crove Avenue to Sheppard Avenuc ihe crcek ravinc/valley lands
are characterized by densc vegetative growth, with some stands of mature
trees. This condition prevails through the bottom land to lhe very edge of
the creek channel.
3.5.3 F/ow CondlUons
As noted above, thcre was no significant flow observed on uny occasion in the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood reach of Petticoat Crcck or at the downstream Pine
Grove/Altona RoaJ culverts (triple 3m by 3m concretc box culverts).
rlow observations on Scptembcr 9'", 1999 (between 10:30 am and 3:30 PM),
pro�ressing downstrcam are summarized in Tablc 3,1,
Tab/e 3.1 Petticoat Creek Flow ObservaUons
I.ocatlon D�vcriptfon ���malcd Observed hteasurcd
Flow Tcmperulure
Entrance of CSP culvtrt wxtcr Al�ona
R�ad neu Tranquil Ct. Flow originata �.2 Lps Na
from P7'2I which entcn ihe creek below
U�c Pinc GrovdAhona boa culvcn
Outfall PT20 i510 201.p� 17°C
Outfall Pf I9 2 lo S l.ps Na
Outtall PT18 Approx. 20 Lps Na
Crcek Ilow bclow PTIB Approx. SO Lps 17°C
Crcek at Sheppard Avenue BO to 100 Lpa Na
3.5.4 Creek Channel and Eroslon CondlUons
The following 6cld observations were made regarding the channel and crosion
conditions in the creek:
. The creek itseif is characterized by a cobble/stone/boulder Ilow channet that
is shallow (not deeply envenched) and which varies in width from roughly 2
to 5 metres. The "bankfull" flow depth is typically less than 0.5 m;
Y��oaonmoml �o nePOn.d« 3-16
viuw
043
Secnoru 3
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPAQLE LMITS
• The cobblc channel appears to rc[lect Ihe surrounding glacial UII soils and
overburden. Thc Soil Survey report for the former Ontario Counry notes
the presence of soil profiles developecf from glacial outwash sands and
gravels; for example, the Brightan scries sandy loam (with gravel and stony
phases) that is mappecl in the area;
• The cobble channcl appears to provide good dissipation of hydraulic encrgy
under low to moderate tlow conditions;
• Generally, the main creek channel and storm outfatl channels (e.g. short
drop chantiel from PT18 to the creek) appearcd stabic with no sigcu of
significant erosion of sedimcnt deposition;
• Erosion protection (rip•rap stone over gcotcxtile) has bcen itulalled along
sections of the creek between Pine Grove/Altona box culvert and the SPCSP
cuivert unJer Altona just south of proposcd 5troud's Lane extension. The
rip-rap is now generally overgrown by grasses, goldenrod and other plants,
and appears to be in giwd condition and not displaced by high flow events;
. The shallow crcek channel is gcnerally flanked by broad, level bottom land
that will act as floociplain during high-tlow cvents. This provides the bcnefit
oi reduced flow velociry anci (lowrate atlenuation during IIoods, which helps
control crosivc potential;
. There are locations where an craling bank is present. Figure 3.3 shows the
crosion zones identified;
. While the rate of erosion dces not appear to bc high at these sites (as
indicateJ by lack of cvidencc of recent mass movcment or downstream
deposition), therc is obvious polcntial for signitcant erosion and removal uf
exposed bank matcrials from lhese locations during high Ilow episodes: The
bank materials are erodible, consisting oC loam, sandy loam and coarser
material;
. Of particular concern may be the sile immeJiately east of Granby Court
wherc the crcek channel (lows close to the tce of the stcep ravine slope
(slope hcight esdmatcd at 8,0 m) ihat is prescnt at the rear lot line of
residentiai propertics on the east side of Granby Court. Thcre is erosion
occurring at the bottom of this steep, treed slope; and,
. The erosion zones idcntificd are consistcnt with those idcntified in the
Stormwater Management Suategy for Altona Forest Area, February 1994.
�•uao-oiwmozuo tu�on.aoe
viuoo
3-17
o��
Exlstlng gabion and �ip�rap
prolection al the Pine
Grove/Allona lriple box
culveA provides hlgh-tlow
erosion aoteclio�
Sleep embankment at rear lot line
Granby Ct., evidence ol loe
eroafon Ihat could contribule to
slope movement. Oeomelricai
InvesUgaAon needed
Petticoat Creek
vtn
Exisling erasion proteclion (dp�rap
over geolexUle and placed
bouldera) providing good protection
al presenL but erosion at ihis
IocaUon would be a concem due to
proximity to residenlial propeNes
r " =ttL � -
Existlng rip�rap over geotexUle in
place and atable as indicated by
vegelatfve overgrowlh
Active eroslon of easlern
embankmenl
Fgure 33
Flosion Zones in Petticoat Creek
� 045
SECT/ON 3
NATURAL ENVlRONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE UM/TS
3.b.b Fle/d Conclualons
The following conclusions are drawn from thc field observationc:
• The observations made in thc summer of 1999 indicate that the surfacc
drainage routcs ttvough the Rougc Park Ncighbourhood flow intcrmit�ntly,
most likely during the spring freshet and perhaps in the auwmn wct period,
when water table levcls arc highest;
. The wetland complex, drainage routes and crcek in the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood area are hydraulically linked with groundwater systems;
• The character of the local vegetative communides and ecosystem linkages in
tlze Altona/Finch/Sheppard portion of Petticoat Cmek watershed is
summarized in the Altona Forest Gnvironmental Management Plan
(MTRCA, 1996), which notcs the significant role of this area as pan of the
Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor;
. In general, ihe creek is gcncrally frce of widespread or severe erosion
problems, cxcepting thc erosion silcs noteJ above. At low to malerate
tlows, crosion susceptibility may be low, by virtue of the encrgy dissipation
anci physical protection providcd by thc cobblc channel and the erosion
works now in placc;
. At the erosion sitcs notcd abovc, higher tlows and tlow vclocities will cause
removal of material Gom craling banks and slopcs, and this may bc a
concem from the point of vicw of downstream habitat and ecosystem
protection, as wcll as adjacent property proteclion. Any significant changes
in ilow regime (espccially incrcascd Gcquency and duration of tlow bcyond
the capacity of thc main cobblc channcl) will bc a conccrn; and,
. The creek tu�s becn categorized as warmwater aquatic habitat (Altona Forest
Envumunental Managcmcnt Plan, MTRCA, 1996).
3.5.6 Flood Suscep06le Areas
Petticoat Crcek floalplain has bccn mappcd by TRCA from Lakc Ontario to
Taunton Road. In the Rouge Park Neighbourhoal there are no flood susceptible
areas where public or private property is at risk. The floal wlnerable areas are
locateci in the arca of Pine Grove Avcnue and Altona Road, and bctween Highway
401 and Kingston Road.
3.5.7 PetUcoat Creek Summary
T6e following is concluded from the field reconnaissance and mview of available
historical infortnation:
. Petticoat Creek can be ciassificd as a warmwater aquatic habitat;
7•t ioo-o�m�ooii io �on.doc 3-19
v�emo
045
• SECTION 3
NATURAL ENV/RONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE LIM/TS
• Level 1 protecdon should be applied when considering stormwater
mamgement feawres. Level 1 protecdon hes been setceted becauae of the
ialeracdon between the crcek and the weqands as well as the dowastream
features and Po�tions of Petdcoat Creek;
• Erosion is evident at selected locadons requiring erosion controls W mitigate
further erosion with upstream development;
. Groundwater levels affect creek tlows in the Rouge Pazk Neighbourhoal;
and,
• The wetland complex, drainage roufcs and creek in the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood area ere hydraulically linked through groundwater systems.
3.6 Deve/opa6le Envelopes
Figure 3.4 shows areas of land witlw► the Rouge Pazk Neighbourhood that aze
considered developable. Dcvclopment areas have been idcntifed by numbers for
ceference purposes only. Thc rationale for defining the developable envelope is
based on the following principles:
. Reference to the OMB-approved tesolution to Appeals A1 and A2; thc
Boazd's decision includes Minutes of Settlement, which idendfies certain
lands as being devclopable (the discussion focuses on lands on the north side
of Fi�xh Avenue, east of Altona Road, and a pocket of land on the west side
of Woalview Avenue, south of Finch Avenue);
. Gxclusion of lands tdentifiai within the revised weUand boundary for the
Townline Provincially Significant Wetlnnd Complex, plus appropriate
buffers - which may vary depending on the edge management technIque
cmployeci;
. Exclusion of vallcy and stream corridors;
• Exclusion of upland wooded habitat contiguous to wetlands and valleylands;
. Exclusion of key lands providing/augmenting hebitat linkages (linknges
shown in Figurc 3.4); and,
• Exclusion of areas where development would have significant negative
impacls on the features and (uncdons of the Rouge-Duffins WildliCe
Corridoc • '
The deSclopable areas identified on Figure 3.4 aze approximate in their delineation.
Areas not identIfied as developable will become part of the Rouge-Duffins Wildiife
Corridor. As development applicadons are submitted and reviewed, detailed site
investigations of ihe applicabic property will result with a more precisely definal
and surveyed limit of development. Thls is currently the case for lands adjacent to
Area 1 where a dcvelopment applicatian is activc. Currently the definitive
�aiaaonmamuon�wn.aa 3-20
vieroo .
;�.., „ , ^.5..
� 047
: SECTION 3
`:
NATURAL ENV/RONMENT AND DEVELOPABLE UM/TS
devclopable limit line is under discussion (as indicatecl in Flgurc 3.4) between
various agencies, including tha City, TRCA, MNR, and thc Devcloper and
stakeholders.
Precise delineauon of davelopment limits "in the field" wili occur during lhe rcview
of detailed developmeat applications, and their respectivc EnvironmenWl Rcports
(refer to Section 5.0).
T6e conidor linkages shown in Figure 3.4 demonstrate Ihat strong conidors witl be
maintained even after all suitable areas have been developed. All wrridots are a
minimum of 100 m in width, with most of them being wider. 7'hesc corridors will
maintain the movement patterns of wildiife species that cecur in and adjacent to the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood.
�
i
I ' a•uoao�wwmuot�on.aoe 3-21
, vieroo
4. LAND USE PLAN
043
sECnonra
LAND USE PLqN
As PlckerL�g continues to grow and evolve, design excellence must be promotal
when basic communiry building blocks aze conswcted, including streeta, pazks,
public squares, shops and residential neighbourhoods. Communiry design should
focus on the reladonship betwecn, as well as the visual character and aesthedc
qualides of, the City's basic community blocks. T6e Rouge Pazk Neighbour600d
presents an opportuniry to e�cemi� these relationships, and establish elements of
good neighbourhood design prior to the area developmendre-development.
To this e�, 1he City has undertalcen an extensive planning and consultation process
to establish altemative co�eptual neighbourhood designs that fit within, and
complement, the developable limits previously defined in Section 3.6. Tluough the
consultation pracess with Ciry and Regional staff, land developers, tandowners and
other stakeholders the City tias prepared a concept for Ihe Rouge Park
Neighbourhood.
Found wit6in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study - Phase 2 Report,
Neighbourhood Development Concept "E" conceptually identifes a variery of
residential densities an elementary school and a neighbourhood park. The land use
shown is used in dcfming stormwater managcment strategies.
This plan provides a vision of the neighbourhoocl's' land uses, densities and
coverage, which are importanc factors in the detertnination of appropriate
stormwater management strategics. The plan is canceptual only, and does not
i�lude buffars anci other necessary edge management tools. This plan is not
intended to iilustrate thc actual manner in which the neighbourhood will develop.
�uaaonmovtuo t�o�.da ,41
y�rroo .
�. > , . ----�
050
SECTION 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
6. ENVIRONME.N7AL REPORT
Although developable areas have been identificd, this does nat mean there are no
constralnts to development in t6ese arcas. For most propertics in the Rouge Pazk
Neighbourhood, the Pickering O�cial Plan will require that an Environmental
Report be submitted with development applications (see secdons 15,8, 15.9 and
15.11 of the Official Plan). The Environmental RepoR is a detailed asscssment of
the proposal and its potential ellects on surrounding natural features and functions.
The Environmental Report will as�ess the posidve and negative effects of thc
proposed development on the environment, and provide recommendations to
prevent negative effects or enhance positive effects. Where potentiai negadve
effects aro unavoidable, the report will recommend actioas to mitigate or remedy
the negative effect. The Environmental Report should also idendfy any restoration
opportunities to cnhance conditions over what exists today. The Environmentai
Report wili be subject to review and approval by the City and othcr Regulatory
Agencies.
For the natural environment component of an Environmcntal Report, it may bc
nccessary for proponents to undertake breeding birJ surveys and botanical studies.
Inventories should bc completed during spring, summer, and autumn to determinc
the full range of specics present. DcpenJing on the nature of the proposed
development and the adjacent natural habitat, it may bc necessary to compietc
studies that are more detailed. These may inciude, but not be limited to, amphibian
and reptile surveys, description of fish habitat and fish species assemblages, and
detcrmination of wildlife movcment patterns. Proponents are urged to consult 1he
City prior to undertaking fieldwork to determine what studics will be requircd in
support of their application.
The Environmental Report will prccisely define thc developmcnt limit on-site, and
identify thc appropriutc cdge managemcnt — buffers, building setbacks, mitigation,
and rehnbititadon (if nccessary). See Section 6 for n discussion of edge
management strategies. As part of the Environmental Report, a detailed
Stormwater Management Rcport wili be required. Thc detailed Stormwater
Management Report is to be baseci on the stortnwater management suategies
outlined in thc EMSP report and is to address stormwater issues such as quantiry
and quality cantrol, erosion controi and groundwatcr management as well as
detaileJ siting and design of facilities. Section 7.0 has furthcr discussion on
stortnwater and groundwater management issues and sirategies.
The following describes the topics that Environmcntal Reports should addmss
wherc dcvelopment is proposcd. The topics prescnted do not ncccssarily represent
all elements required in an Environmeatal Report but the topics identified through
the level of reconnaissance conducted for this study. Detailed site level
�-uoaoiwzoo�iio a��.� g_1
��a�oo
051
Secnonr 5
ENV/RONMENTAL REPORT
investigations may roveal other pertinenc issues that must be addressed Quough the
Envlronnientat Repoct. As well, it must be recogniud that cumulative affects must
be considered as development occurs. Although the environmental impact of one
azea development may not affect the local environment, lhere may be occasions
when the Environmental Repart must examine a broader area to ensure Uu
cumuladve effecis of development are wnsidered. Further, monitoting can be
incorporated into Environmental Reports as a means of identifying any cumulative
affects that may arise as development progresses in the area.
Deve/opa6/e Area 1
This is north of Finch Avenue west of Petticoat Creek. Cuaendy a portion of Area
1 is uncler detail review. The azea designated as having potendal for development
includes former agricultural land.
For development planned within this azea, an Environmental Report should addross
ihe following key issues:
. Maintaining the water table atxl flow paths and preserving
recharge/discharge areas to wetlands, Amos Pand and Petticoat Creek;
. Maintaining/enhancing water qualiry in Amos Ponds and Petticoat Creek;
. Minimize negative impacts of development on wildlife habitat (amphibian,
bird habitat anJ other area-0ependent specics);
. Minimize ncgative impacts of dcvclopment an wildlife movement; and,
. Minimize negativc impact of developmcnt on vegetation and wildlifc spccies
that occur aJjacent to the site.
Deve/opa6/e Area 2
1'his area is nonh of Finch Avenue and wcst of Altona Road. The arca is mostly
Jisturbed and early successionallands.
For development ptanned within lhis arca, an Environmental Rcport should deal
with thc following issuu;
. Prcscrving rcchargc area to Petticoat Creek;
. Maintaining water quantity and qualiry in Petticoat Creek;
. Pmserving groundwater recharge/discharge functions and balance;
• Minimize ncgativc itnpact of dcvelopmcnt on wildlife habitat (amphibian,
bird habitat and other azea-deper,dent spccies);
. Minimize negative impact of development on wildlifc movement; and,
}iiaao��oo:iio t�n.a« 5-2
vieroo
05?
SECnoN 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
• Minimize negadve impact of development on vegetation and wildlife apecies
U►at occur adjacent to the site.
Developa6/e Area 3
This arca is north of Finch Avenue and east of Altona Road. It is predominandy
early successional lands with some existing homcs.
For development planned withiin this area, an Environmental Report should deai
with the following issues:
• Minimize negative impact of development on wildlife movemcnt;
. Minimize negadve impact of development on vegetation and wildlife species
ihat occur adjacent to thc site; and,
. Preserving groundwater rechazge/disch:�rge functions and balancc.
Deve/opa6le Area 4 .
This azea is north of Finch Avenue and west of Rosebank Road. The area is mostly
disturbed and early successional lands with some czisting residences.
For devclopment planned within this area, an Environmental Report should deal
with the following issues:
. Minimize negative impact of development on wildlife movement;
. Minimize negative impact of developmcnt on vegetation and wildlife species
that occur adjacent to the sile; and,
. Preserving groundwaler recharge/dischargc functions ancl balance.
Deve/opa6/e Area 5
This arca ls south of Finch Avcnue and wcst of Woalview Avenue. The area is
mostly existing resiJential, most of which is on previously filled land.
For develapment planneJ within this area, an Environmental Report should deal
with the following issues:
. Prescrving groundwater recharge/dischargc funcdons and balance to
wetlands;
. Minimize negative impact of devclopment on wildlife habitat (amphibian,
bird habitat and other area-dependentspecies);
. Minimize negative impact of dcvelopmcnt on wildlifc movcmcnt; and,
. Minimize negativc impact of dcvelopment on vegetation and wildlife species
that occur adjacent to the site.
3•i�oaoiw�omi�o n��n.aa 5_3
vieroo
053
SECTION 5
ENV/RQNMENTAL REPORT
Developa6/e Area B
This is the area south af Finch Avenue and east oF Woalview Avenue and is mostly
existing residential.
For development planned within this area, an Environmental Report should deal
with the following issues:
. Preserving rechargc azea to wctlands and Pctticoat Creck;
. Maintaining water quantity and qualiry in Petticoat Creek;
. Preserving grounJwater recharge/dischargc functions and balance;'
• Minimize negative impact of development on wilJlifc habitat (amphibian,
bird habitat and od�er area-dependentspecies);
. Minimize negativc impact of devclopmcnt on wildlife movement; and,
. Minimizc negativc impact of development on vegctation and wildli(c specics
that occur adjacent to thc sitc.
Developable Area 7
This is the arca south of Finch Avcnue and west of Aitona Road. It is mosUy open,
Jisturbcd land with samc carly succcssional IanJs.
For Jevelopmcnt planneJ wiUiin this area, an Gnvironmcntal Report should deal
with the following issucs:
. Prescrving recharge arca to Pctticoat Creek;
. Mainmining walcr yuantity and qualiry in PGticoat Creck;
. Prcscrving groundwatcr rechargc/dischargc functions and balancc;
. Minimizc ncgativc impact of dcvclopmcnt on wildiifc habitat (amphibian,
birJ habitat and other arca-cicpcndcnt spccics);
. Minimizc ncgative impact of development on witdlife movement; and,
• Minimize ncgativc impact of devclopmcnt on vcgetation anJ wildlife species
Ihat occur adjacent to lhc silc.
Developa6le Area 8
This is Ihe area south of Finch Avenuc and east of Altona Road. It is mostly
disturbed carly successional land with some existing residences.
For development pianneJ within this area, an Environmental Report should deal
with thc following issucs:
. Minimize negative impact of devclopment on wiidlife movement;
3•1100-01103W7110 Repon.doe 5�
vieioo
054
SECTION 5
ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT
:' Minimize negative impact of developmenE on vegetation and wildiife species
that occur adjaccnt to the sitc; and,
• Preserving grouncfwater recharge/discharge functions and balancc.
�
� . � . �� � }t100-011020�RI10 Report.da. � _ . � j.s � .
y�eroo _
,
055
SECTION 6
EDQE MANAGEMENT STRATEO/ES
6. EDGEMANAGEMENTSTRATEGIES
The following scction oudincs an approach to cdge managemcnt for the Rouge Park
Neighbourhoocl. Fdge management will depend dircctly on the type of
development proposed. As such, thc following discussion on eJge management
sUategies highlighls relevant issues and provides guidance for detcrmining
appropriate edge management techniques for U�c Rouge Park Neighbourhood. Thc
final features of edge managcment for cach devclopment are subject to review and
approval.
B.! Edge Management Overview
Whcre development may occur adjacent to natural habitats, there may bc a nced to
manage the inrerface between natural and developi.�cl areas. The purpose of this is
to ensure those direct and indirect effects on the feamres and functions oC namrai
amas arc minimiud.
Development has the potential to have cenain Jirect and inJirect effecW on adjacent
natural areaz, and tliese effects may occasionally be substantive if appropriate
mitigation is not undcnakcn. lmpacts may occur during construction and also from
the presence of a new human population oncc the area is developed.
Potential impacts during construction include noise, dust, soil compaction, erosion,
scclimcntation and changcs to drainagc. Thesc typcs of cffccts can usually be
minimiud or eliminated if bcst management practices are followed during
construction. Even beyonJ const�uction, U�e same impacls will need to need
managed atxl mitigation measures taken.
A numbcr of impacts may occur if new cdgcs are established by rcmoving existing
vegclatian. Thesc may include loss of interior habitat, invasion by non-nativc piant
species, parasitism of bird nests by Drown-hcaded Cowbirds, penetration of wind
and light drying the undcrstory, and winJttuow. Sunscald is oRen mentionecl as an
impact, but this is a rare occurrence Ihat alfecls only trees wiAi very thin bark.
Thc presence of humans and their pcts also may affect the quality of adjaccnt
natural azeas. Human activitics that may result are cncroachment of yards into
natural areas, dumping of bcush anJ lawn clippings, vandalism of vees,
development of informal trail systcros, noise (lawn carc equipment), and
disturbance of wilJlife. Pets may also havc deleterious effccts, primarily due to
predation on wildlife species.
When proponcnts aze preparing an Environmental Report, all of the potential
impacts indicated above should be discussed in addition to ihe site-spcciftc topics
identified in Section 5.
)•I IOD-0I�U2002110 R�port.doc (_]
vieroo
056
SECTION B
EDQE MANAGEMENT STRATEG/ES
The type of edge managcmcnt requireJ depends upon the nuturul features and
functions that occur adjacent to thc property, and on thc type of development that is
proposed. For example, different edge treatments may he rcquired for adjacent
lands that are wetlands than for upland areas. In aJdition, setbacks for single
residen�es may differ from multi-unit buildings.
Figures 6.1 to 6.3 provide generic examples of types of edge treatment that might
be considered.
6.2 Rouge Park Nelghbourhood Edge Management
In the Rouge Park Neighbourhoal, potcntial edge tteaunents are described below.
Optimal edge treaunents will be Jetermincd tivough preparation of an
Environmental Report (see Section 15.11 of ihe Pickering OCficial Plan), which will
have more dctailed infotmation rcgarding proposcd developmenl and thc natural
resourccs of 1he site and adjacent lands, than is conGlincd within this repon. In the
Rouge Park neighbourhoal, thc following cdge managemcnt conditions cxist that
need to bc addresscd in an Environmental Rcport. Figure 6.4 highlights the
different eJge types in thc Rougc Park Neighbourhood.
6.2.1 Areas AdJacent to Roads or Exlsting Development
In some instanccs, no bu(fcr or cdge treatment will bc mquired. For cdgcs adjaccnt
ro roaJs, the City's strcctscaping nolicics will have to bc considered. In keeping
with thc fact that thc Ncighbourhoal is important for wildlifc movement,
consideration shoulJ be givcn to thc alignment anJ dcsign of roads to allow for the
avoidance of con0ict bctween wildlife and traffic promoling lhe safe movement of
species between habitats. Plants used in IanJscaping should be native stock
whcrcvcr pocsibic.
6.2.2 Areas Ad/acent to Dlsturbed Habltaf
Thcse may incluJe carly succcssional arcas, thc hydro corridor, or tlic York-
Durham Trunk Sanitary Sewcr. Thcsc types of sitcs lend themselvcs well to habitat
improvement Uvough planting of nativc trces and shrubs. This witl enhance
wildlife conidor functiotu anJ provide foal and shelter for wildlife.
8.2.9 Areas AdJacent to Watercourses
A buffer along Petticoat Creek of at least 10 m is rcquired from eilher thc top of
stnble bank, Regional floodline, or cdge of woody vegctation contiguous with the
watercourse, which ever is more slringent.
If lot lines end at the bu(fer, a furthcr building setback may be required, depending
on the nature of the development. For inslance, it may be acceptable to have minor
developments such as gardcn sheds near the edge o! the bu(Cer, but single dwellings
should be at least 10 m distant from the buffer. Larger building setbacks may be
required if more intensive development is requircd.
3-i ioaoiwxoolito t�pon.aoe 6_Z
v�emo
�
;�v
��;;�s�
-�.K
�..�; ;�3'
�
��!
<<����
����;
.�k ,�;
�, �,�{.�}�
k}L�+j7
� it'! 5"
�,��• "��.: .�; y�'
• �:
fk�i;,
r�.�
� {
�. r
� �c,� «
�.;�`,��
���x,
�
����:
�,,
a�,
��;5 .:
�n �,
rµer
�l� F�i
r:
4 ���:
� �ktk�
u% F»�..
�SE �
ty: 4K::`r;
�h� �:
`�jr .
�E�;
t,. ..
�X;€�i`�
�L h ''-�. �;:
1 ,.Y "'{ `'.
4 i€t�._=
til�:
t � {Y
� '�; .,.�yi..w
• ��'zr€,°:
•
i £ti '
�i
�
• ��� "t
`���:';'
• ,� �'f �;
�; .1�
� �, �1
"'��
4..m ,:�
,�i � s
� �'�`i
�� �.
-^�i
�70
� -
���.:�_ � a
� - a
� � +:� 5C
z�c',', o
., �-, a
'c-,. '. r
•' �i
.,,.;�-, i `
a>m .,
� :C ' I / 3SH(1��lf31tlM
N , 1 �� —_
�. '� �-- --�� g
K � r
�
� ; o
o" �'�ti
� ,j: ..,� � f�
; •-...._ ,
...................
� ,
� 1 ..W..
M oo �� '
00 �,
� ^
H °�
� N
w
� s�
Zn
� c . . .
� �,' m � , .�, .•H3�jf18 �'•�
.'
� � �` �, � � ' ,�I�eB•10-dol � ` � � ���'
n' � m � i.,� i I \ yi
� � 1 •r � g�1lf10�H31� � �i
� � ♦ / �` � �
3 �
=z $
�m° s
v =
0
y"`w""'.. ......�_..�.... �..�",
�
�5�
��� �}�.
�'�x`�
����
� �k
L� t'�tr'
,���^`.t i
!�t(�
{Ga�yh,,;
�����:
� �i� ���
� � �3 ''�il:
�Y
f� ?
F;� �'�
����
� �
�9y� �
� ;�:w
�,�'a���
�r },r�,
�.�r�r��5;
�
.r
��
��.;
� �y f .:
C`i°;
� .
e''�'
��if�°
���,
�i„}r.:,'
�� !�—;
�
x
�F� .�
a ., '-
��5 �
� • (� .1�:•':.
� w 34s•
f _-
} � i f� z
� t��t�:
t��3;-,
. Mt.tet" .ax?
yi t Z+'�,',
k *
. 4 S�"`€yt` ^»�
�.f �?:
K �t s
_ i.
�
!....t�!.�Y�
r
g+ .�--''ys
Y:?�t�er.�:
ra � ai;
u�O
' . . , i;;r •"..,. .
. .. � . �. . . .. . . . . . .. � 0�7�
. .. i., . _..,.. . . . . . ; � , . . .
. i
�
osi
SECT/ON B
EDGE MANAGEMENT STR,4TEGIES
When calculating buffer requirements, the following factors should be considered:
• Will there be increased runoff to the watercourae, and how much of a
vegetated area is required ro reduce watcr velocitics and nutrient
concentrations to acceptable levels before dischar�c to thc watercourscl
• Are contaminants likely to be generated (e.g. oils, grease, sand, salt, and
snow from parking areas) and how much of a buffer is requiral to reduce or
eliminate the amount of these rcaching the watercourse?
• Is the dcvelopment likely to result in a large number of people going to lhe
watercourse? This may require fencing if thc numbcr of people may result
in loss of shorelinc vegclation or direct erosion. If practical, living fcnces
of native thorny shrubs should be considered to inhibit human movement.
Thcse features do not impair wildlife movement and may provide food and
cover.
There are often opportunitics to cnhancc watcrcourscs. One of the most e(fective
wuys is to establish riparian vcgctalion by plandng trccs or shrubs, or simply
allowing natural regeneration to procced. This has many benefits such as
maintaining water tcmperatures, stabilizing banks, providing esscntial nutrienls and
food for aquatic invertcbrates and fish, and enhancing wilJlife habitat. Pctticoat
Crcek wherc it ilows through the hydro corridor is one location that would benefit
from aJditional riparian vcgelation.
8.2.4 Areas Ad/acent to Wood/ands
At a minimum, the dripline and 1 mcuc must bc maintained as a butfer where no
developmcnt, grading, or consttuction activity may occur. This buffer may need to
be inereascd if the cdge trees have root zones scnsitive to human activiry or
construcdon activity. Thc buffer may necJ to be largcr iC the woallot is associatcd
with n local wetland (rcfcr to Scction G.2.5). In addition, buildings will havc lo bc
set back from the buffer. The distance of setback will depend on factors such as the
type of developmcnt proposeJ, nnd thc type of trees in thc adjacent woodland.
Largcr setbacks may be requircd if lhc adjacent trecs are tall and could pose a
hazard, if trecs have a shatlow root system that is dependent on watcr near the
sutface, if tlie development coulJ shadc trces that werc previously in full sunlight,
or if the woodland contains significant or sensitive spccies. If fencing is required, a
living fence (hedge row or other form of barrier plandng) should be considered.
It may be possible to enhance some woodlands by tree planting or promoting
natural succession in bufCer arcas. This may add to thc overail size of woodlands,
enhancing their capability to provide habitat to area-sensitive species. The shape of
woodlands may also be improvcd by filling in irregular edges.
�-itaaoiw�ooi�to tu�n.a«
v�eroo 6-7
os�
6.2.5
SECT/ON 8
EDGE MANAOEMENT STRATEOlES
If n new woocllund edgc is createJ, Uie EnvironmenWl Report should consider
factors such as windthrow, sunccald, invasion by non•native spccies, drying, aiui
loss of interior habitat. The Environmentnl Report must demonstrate that U�erc will
be minimal negudve impacts, or idcntify mitigation measures that will minimize
3mpacts. Possible mitigation may inciude revising �he site plan to avoid crcating
new edges, pre-stressing, planung conifers or othcr species at ihe new eclge to
tnhibit wind through ihe naturai area, planting other cdges of the natural area to
increase interior habitat, and cnsuring that tcsidual trees on the edge arc heallhy
and sound. Proponents may identify othcr effective mitigadon measures;
Areas AdJacent to WeUands
In the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, thc main wetland habitat is the Townline
Provincially Significant WeUand. Environmental Repons prepared Cor developmcnt
ptoposcd within "dcvelopable areas" aJjacent to the wetland must proviJe cdge
management strategics that will minimize impacGS on the fcatures and functions for
which the azea was idcntified. •
Buffer width and building setbacks from the buffer will vary dcpcnding on the type
and intcnsity of proposed development. To dctermine how wide a buffer from U�e
wctland should be, thc foilowing factors should bc considcrcd:
• Surfacc water yuality anJ quantity dischargcs to thc wetland should be
maintaincJ;
. Croundwater quality anJ quantity shoulJ not bc altcred as a result of
devclopmcnt;
. Natural, healthy upland woalcd habitat adjacent to thc wctland should be
retaincd as a buffcr, as thcse urcas may bc important to spccies that require
both wctland and upland habitat during their lifc cycle. Duffers and building
setbacks may also bc rcyuircd as discusscJ abovc Cor areas adjacent
woallands;
• Wherc thcrc may be dircct runoff from devclopmcnt into wctland habitat, a
bu(fer of 30 m or morc may be rcquircJ lo filter out sediments and otlier
contaminan►s before they reach the wetland. The actua( buffer rcquired to
filter out contaminants will vary dcpcnding on factors such soil typc, slopes,
type of devclopment, type of contaminant, and naturc of thc wctland at this
point;
• Disturbance to wildlife and habitat fcatures by humans and pets as a result
of development should be considcrcd. The amount of bufCer and setback
required will depend on the sensitivity of the species and habitats in the
wetland and the numbers of humans and domesticated animals that arc
anticipatcd to visit the wctland;
�•uoaaiwwmuo a�n.a« 6-8
v�uoo
'_ 063
SECT/ON 6
EDQE MANAGEMENT STRATEOlES
6.3
6.4
• In some insmnccs, fcncing may bc required to limit wcUand Jiswrbancc.
Wherever possible,living fences should be considered; and,
• There may be opportunities to restorc or create weUand habitat, and this
should be evaluated in Environmental Reports. In somc areas, fill has been
piaced in weqand habitat, and'removal of fill wouid reslore more wetiaiul
habitat and functiqns. In uddition, proponents should revicw the Temperatc
Wetland Restoration Guidelines to see if there are restoration techniques that
can be appiied in buffcr areas to enhance wetland functions.
Land Stewardshlp
Generally, buffers shoulJ be public property owncd by either the City of Pickering
or the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Building sc►backs from buffers
shauld be private property, with guidelines for the degree of setbacks bcing
determined by the City and Conscrvation Authority Ihrough review of thc
proponent's Environmental Report. Land stewarJship strategies (public ownership,
agrecments with privatc land owners, ctcJ of natural features and tlieir buffers
should be considered in tlie review of development applications.
Summary - Edge Management Strategies •
Edge management stratcgies will neeJ to be establishcd for the following conditions
in thc Rougc Park Ncighbourhoal:
• Areas adjaccnt to roaJs or existing devclopments;
• Arcas adjaccnt to disturbcd habitat;
• Arcas adjaccnt to watcrcourses;
. Arcas adjaccnt to woocilanJs; and, •
• Atcas adjaccnt to wetlands.
1'he edge managemcnt reyuircd will dcpenJ on thc natural features and funetions
thal occur on, and adjacent to the property, in comb3nalion with the type of
developmcnt proposed. Ecige managcment strategies in Ihe Rouge Park
Neighbourhood nced to recogniu the importance of the natural features and
functions, and be dcsigned to protect, enhance anJ restorc natural areas.
3•uto-oiwzooxua rtePon.doe 6-9
v�emo
064
SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAQEMENT STRATEGIES
7. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
The objective of developing a comprehensive stormwater management stratcgy is to
define stonnwater management features for thc Rougc Park NeighbourhooJ. The
stormwater management strategy must consider the management oF stormwater and
grounJwater as a resource, and the protection and maintenancc of weUands and
watercourse habitats. Thc stormwater management philosophy for the Rouge Park
Ncighbourhooci is founded on the concept of souree controls and communal
facilities. Elements of the stotmwater management strategy arc designed to be
compatible with land use planning while addressing regulatory requircments of
quantity, quality, erosion and baseflow control as featured in the Ministry of thc
Environment Stormwatcr Management Practices Planning and Dcsign Manuai, lune
1994.
The purposc of this section is to prescnt the stormwater managemcnt strategics for
the Rouge Park Ncighbourhoal bascd on a devclopmcnt schcme consistent with
Neighbourhoal Devclopment Conccpt "E" of the Phase 2 Report. This scction
pravides guidancc for stormwatcr quality/quantity conuol, crosion control anJ
groundwater managcment associatcd wilh devclopmcnt in tlie Rouge Park
neighbourhooJ. 1'hc Jctail stormwatcr mam�gemcnt plan for each development will
bc subject to approval by the City and appropriatc regulatory agencies. The intent
of U�is section is to proviJe guidance on storniwater control, groundwater protection
and erosion control U�at would be expectcd in nny detail. slormwatcr managcment
plan submission. The calculations undertaken are not mcant to represent the Cmal
sizing of stonnwatcr facilities, bul providc an unJcrstanding of thc facilitics
requircd, thcir size anJ importance to thc arca.
Thc following assumptions i�avc bccn used in thc sizing of stormwatcr managcment
fncilitics:
. Lcvcl 1 Protection for Pclticoat Crcek will apply;
. BMPs havc not bccn considcrcd in thc sizing;
• All roads arc curb and guttcr; and,
. Lanil use is consistent with Neighbourhoal Development Concept "E"
Development.
7.1 Stormwater QuanBty and Quallty Control -
Appendix A contains ihe technicat detailed used in the quantiry and qualiry control
assessment. In order to determine the amount of stortnwater quantity and quality
control required, an analysis was undertaken based on Neighbourhood Development
7-I1060��02002110 Rcpon.da �_1
v�eioo ,
065
SECTION 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Concept "E" lancl use development. Generully, the Rouge Pnrk Neighbourhoocl
land falls from Ute northwest to thc southeast, except for the area adjacent to
Petticoat Creek. As such, the developable urea can logically be divided into three
storm drainage areas as shown in Figure 7.1, the first to ihe west surrouncling
Woodview Avenue, the second centrally located around Altona RoaJ and the last
area to the east adjacent to Rosebank Road.
Table 7.1 summarizes the characteristics of the three drainage azeas.
Ta61e 7.! Nelgh6ourhood Development Concept "E" Area
CharaefadstlCS �
----- - - - Woodvfew Allona Aosebank �
Area (WaQ (Crntnl) (�)
Toul Area (lu) 19.0 17.5 10.4
Medium Density
I�nJ Uu Low/ Afedium Ra. Ruidentfal, Commerciil Low Densi�Y RaideNial
ud School
PrrDevelopment 18.0 5.8 B.l
961mpervlousness
� Existing stormwater serviccs in areas south of d�c Rougc Park Neighbourhood were
invcstigated as possible stormwater outicts for thc Rouge Park Neighbourhood.
Tlurc is an exiting stormwater sewcr on Woodvicw Avenuc souUi of the hydro
cortiJor, no scrviccs availablc on Altona Road and a stortnwater sewer on
. Rosebank Road and WitJOowcr Drivc, souA� oC Pinch Avcnue. The available
� capacities of the Woalvicw and Roscbank sewcrs wcre investigated. � The
Woodview sewer was designed lo accept stormwater drainagc Gom the areas
adjacent to Woafview Avcnue at a 0.20 runo(f coefficient (equivalent to an
undevelopcd arca, or pre�dcvelopment conJitions) for a 5 year design cvent. The
Rosebank scwer was not siud to accommalatc any additional flow from thc Rouge
Park Neighbourhoal. The Rosebank slorm sewcr dischargcs into an existing
srormwater quality poncl locatecl at 5hcpazd Avenue, west of Autumn Crescent.
This facility was dcsigned as a qualiry pond to provide ueatment of a 25 mm
raintall event. The Altona area has no local storm service to conncct into and will
require a new outfall into Petticoat Creek.
Based on the location of each of the three development azcas, it was initially
conceived in Phase 1 that sturmwater generated from the Woodview and Altona
areas would be ueated at ncw facilities. Stormwater from dcvelopment areas wcst
of Rosebank would largely be serviced back to Aitona Road, except for a small area
3•uoo-o�w¢oo�i io temon.ua 7-2
v�eroo
0 6 G • sECnoN 7
STORMWATER MANAOEMENT STRATEOIES
assac3ated with Rosebank Road, which would wntinue down Roscbank into U�e
existing atorm sewer.
�uoaotwmmuoncpon.ax �-3 "
vierao _
oss
7.1.1
7.1.2
SECTION 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
An analysis of the existing storm sewer on Rosebank Road and Wildflowcr Drivc
was undertaken to determine the peak flow that could bc conveycJ to the cxisting
pond to determine the extent of the Rosebank area that could be scrviced directly.
The analysis determined that 52 Us of stormwater from the Rosebank nrea could be
accepted and conveyed to the existing ponJ by the existing storm sewer. This peak
flow corresponds to approximately 0.5 ha of development atea resulting from a 5
year storm event which would accommodatc Iceal road drainage from Finch
Avenue and Rosebank Road. �
Therefore, storage for stormwater control from the remaining 9.8 ha, west of
Rosebank will need to bc provided elscwhcre. To minimize the number of facilities
required for the study area, it is suggested, as in Pliase 1, that stormwater generateil
in ihe Rosebank area be conveyed and treated at the proposed Altona facility which
wiil be sized to provide storage for both arcas.
QuanUty Requlrements
Storage requirements were estimatcd to mcct stormwater quantiry guidclines.
Thesc guidelincs rcquire that post dcvclopment tlows not excccd predevelopment
flows. Quantity requircmcnts were cstimatcd for the 2 year, 5 ycar and 100 year
using the City of Pickering Design Storm events. Tablc 7.2 presenls thc storage
requiremcnis and outflow ratcs.
Stormwater Quallry Requfrements
Stormwater qualiry rcquiremcnts wcrc bascd on Uie Slorniwatcr Management
Practiccs Pianning and Dcsign Manual (MOE, 1994). All storagc requircmcnts
wcrc calculated for mccting I.evcl 1 Protcction rcquirements tluough the
conswction of wct ponds with a permanent pool. Dased on Neighbourhood
Developmcnt Conccpt "G" dcvelopmcnt, tl�e perccnt imperviousness assumed for
each of the areas to dcterminc storagc requiremcnts for quaiity control are 55°6
35`% and 85� for Woociview, Altona and Rosebank respectivcly. The storagc
requirements are 190 m'lha, 140 m'/ha and 250 m'/ha respectively. In each case,
thc activc pool rcprescnts 40 m'/ha and tlie balance represents thc permancnt pool
portion of storagc. Table 7.3 presents U�c stormwater quality storage requirements.
In comparing Tablcs 7.2 and 7.3, the rcquired pond volume for Woodview is 2,850
m� permanent pool nnd 1,210 m� active pool for a total of 4,060 m�. The Altona
facility will require a permanent pool of 2,740 m' and active pool of 1,100 m� Cor
3,840 m�. The Roscbank storage rcquires a 105 m� permanent pool and 20 m�
active for a total of 125 m'. A furthcr assessmcnt is required to Jetermine the role
of erosion in the finai sizing of facilities.
�-tioo-oiw:omi io rs��on.a« 7-5
v�eioo
0�9
SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Ta61e 7.3 Stormwater Qua!!ty ConUol Requliements
Area Woalriew Allom Nosebank
Tdal Ara (lu) 19.0 27.4 0.50
Stonge RequiremeM 190.0 140.0 250.0
(m�/lu) (SS% imporviousneu) (JSR imperviousness) (85% impervlousness)
�ToulStor�ge Heyuiral 3,610 3,830 125
(m')
Wet PonJ Permanent � a30 Z��qp 105
Pool (m')
Nme: I. PuoJ sizing bueJ on a minimum 24 liour detention time
7.2 Eroslon Impact Assessment and Control
Previous studies of Petticoat Creek watershed have notcd that there is active erosion
of the banks of Petticoat Creek at locations below Pinch Avenue to Lake Ontario.
3•t 10601101001110 Rrpon.da
t/IM00
7-6
070
SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAQEMENT STRATEGIES
Reconnaissance field investigatlons cnrried out in 1999 co�rmcd bank erosion is
occuning at a numbcr of locations betwecn the Altona RoaJ/Pine Grove Avenue
culvert and Sheppard Avenue, as well ns below Sheppard Avenue. Along much of
the crcek, the creek has developed in soils that can bc considered as erodible (c.g.
non-cohesive sandy loams).
The proposed development will increase runoff volumes. Without adequate
stormwatcr management, the frequency and duration of erosive Ilows will increase
at downstream locations along the creek. Continuing or aggravatect crosion wili
result in degraded water qualiry, Jamage of aquatic habitat and possiblc safery risks
or propeny damagc.
This study is intended to evaluate potential erosion impacts in an effort to providc
planning-level rccommcndations on thc amount of urban stormwater Ilow control
necded to address crosion concerns downstream along Pctlicoat Crcek. Appendix B
presents the icchnical information and additional dctail uscd for thc crosion impact
assessment.
7.2.! MethodofAnalysis
The methocl of analysis can be summarizcJ as follows:
I. Computcr modclling softwarc (QUALIiYMO) has bcen uscd to develop a
streamilow simulation malcl for Petticoat Crcck. Thc malel considers the
entire watershcd and uscs accepted hydrologic principles and tcchniqucs to
computc runoff volumcs and strcam Jischarge in response to precipitation data
supplied lo thc malcl. Therc are no known strcamflow data for Yetticoat
Creek, so it has not becn possible to calibrate tl�e modcl or verify its accuracy.
Howevcr, U�c malel dcvclopcJ for this project has•bccn partly based on a
previous I�yJrologic malcl documcntcJ in the 1993 report "Hydrolo�y and
Iiydraulics Upcfalc for Main Pctticoat Crcck: Stagc 1 Study oF Comprchcnsive
Stormwater Managcmcnt Strategy for Allona Forest Area" (Cosburn Patterson
Wardman LimiteJ, Dcc 1993). SelcctcJ malelling paramcters (e.g. unit-
hydrograph dmcs lo pcak, infiltration paramctcrs) for the QUALHYMO
watershed modcl havc been madc consistcnt with the earlicr CPWL mociel. The
resuiting QUALfIYMO moclel produces simulated peak tlows for the 5 year
event lhat are consistent with the eatlier CPWL moclel.
2. IIecnuse crosion ralcs will dcpcnd on the frequency, magnitude and duration of
critical erosive tlows, it is, important to ezamine impacts by considering the net
effect over the course of a number of runo[f evcnts (as opposed to considering
impacts during only selected "design" events sucli as 2-yeaz or 5-year event),
Therefore, the QUALIiYMO modei has been used to carry out sUCamtlow and
3-1 �00-01102001110 Repon.dac
T/IEI00 !'7
7.2.2
07�.
_ SECTION 7
STORMWATER MANAOEMENT STRATEQIES
erosivc stress simulation for continuous periocis using hourly meteorological
data for the periocl 1980 to 1988.
3. For the existing land-use condidon and for Ncighbourhood Development
Concept "E" dcvelopment, indices of the erosivc power of simulaled
streamflow dave been computed for two locations along Petticoat Creek:
— Along the main channel at a location alongside the northeast corner of
Granby Court (approximately 300 m upstream of thc twin culverts at the
CNR tracks); and,
— Along the main channel at a location approximately 100 m downstream
of the outlet of the Sheppard Avenue culvert.
Creek cross-sections were surveycci at these locations on November 15, 1999, and
samplcs of channel bed materials were taken to allow for assessment of erodibility
and critical erosive velocities. Using simulated streamflows, indiccs of erosive
power have been computeJ via t6e QUALHYMO mocicl using the methoclology
described in the 1982 MNR report "Vulncrability of natural watercourscs to crosion
due to differcnt flowrates".
Analysls Resulfs
The malel has bccn used to examinc thc impact of proposed land devclopment on
pcak flows ancf volumes gcncratcd by the 5-year storm. Without stormwater
managcmcnt, it is estimated that 5-ycar peak tlow in Pctticoat Crcek at the CNR
will incrcasc by about 15%, and cvcnt runoff volumc will increasc by about 4%.
Erosive impacts have bcen examined by computing the erosive impulse dclivered to
the banks of Pctticoat Crcck (at thc two locations noreJ above) tor thc perioJ May 1
to Oct 31, 1981. This six-month periocl was choscn as a lest perioct sincc modclling
results indicalcd tl�at it incNdes a goocl rangc of smaller, malerate and larger
runoff events. Malelling tcsulls for thc perial show that at the creek location
below Sheppard Avcnue, dic erosive impuisc coulJ incrcasc by 40% to over 200%
at dcpths abovc channel bottom of 0.3 to 0.6 mctres if there is no stormwater
tnanagemcnt for the proposed development. At this location along the creek, Uie
banks are characteriuJ by active erosion of eralible sandy loam matcrial that is
bare and exposed for up to 1 metre up thc bank.
Control of downstream erosive impact will require detention and controlled release
of stormwater from new development azeas. The model has been used to cstimate
what volume of stormwater detention for each of the three development blocks will
be needed to reduce thc erosive impulsc to near existing Icvcls.
�i ioaoiwmmim rt�n.a« 7-8
x��eroo •
072
SECTION 7
STORMWATER MANAQEMENT STRATF.Q/ES
A sequence of modol runs wns used to arrivc nt th� following conclusions on
detention volume nceded for erosion control as prescnted in Table 7.4. The
detention volume shown in Table 7.4 docs not include a permanent pool required
for qualiry conuol.
The outflow rates represeuts the erosion tlucshold. The erosion ttveshold is
impormnt in the design of the facility outlet structure. The design of the ouUet
structure should strive to control outflow for frequcnt •HCt wcather cvcnts to the
erosion thresholJ. Frequent events are those tlu�t occur generally with a return
period of less than 1 year. The erosion threshold for the Woodview (acility is 190
Ls �nd the Altona facility is 410 Ls
Ta6/e 7.4 Eroslon Storage Requirement
Slormwater delentlon atoragdoutllox needed Storage� �
Uevelopment Dlak (o� rnnlrol of erm�ve impulu In Petlicoat Developmenl Volume (m )
Creek Area pla) (Eroslon
Threshold)
Woalvlew
Westem ara 12U m� per hceUre of dtveiopment �ra, witl� �9 Q 2,28(1
(�nchlWwdview) corresporwiing outilow uf 10 L/scc per ht (190IJs)
Arcar 1, 3 and 6
Altotu
Central area ISO m� per hecure of Jeveiopmem ue�, wiih 27 4 4.110
(Pinch/Altoru) corrcspundiny um0uw o! IS Usec per lu (4101Je)
Arrar 1. 3, 4, 7 aml 8
Roscbank
°Gstem ara ISO m� per hecurc of Jevelupment ua, with 0.50 �S
(flneh/Roxb�nk) currupunJing ou�flow uf IS Ils�e per lu (7.51/s)
Ponlon o/Area 4
Naes:
I, ONenlion volume does na incluJe allowmce for 100 m�/lu perminen� puul rcyu(¢J for qualiry conlrol
7.2.3 IntegraUng Erosfon Conbol wlth Other Stormwater DefenUon Requlrements
Separate active•storagc rcquircmcnts have been dctcrmined fot:
. peak tlow convol for 2-year evcnt;
. peak flow control for 5-yr cvcnt;
. peak flow control for 100-yr event; and,
. erosive power control bazcd on considering continuous multi-cvent
simulation of a six-month period.
b1106-01102WIIIORepott.dae . 7-9
zivao
_ : 0'7 3
SECTION 7
' S7'ORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEOIES
In dcs(gning u multi-purpose srotage tncility, thcsc various atoragc-outtlow
requirements need to be integratecl to devclop a single storage-outflow relationship
that describes the Wnctional hydraulics of the faciliry (presuming it wili bc designed
as a"passive" system in wtrich outllow is controlled by non-operatcd strucwres
such as fuecl weirs or orifices; as opposed to real-time out(low control using
operated devices such as overshot gatcs).
Tlvs integration is best describecl by considering lhe storage-outElow curve. Figure
7.2 illustrates a storage-outflow curve, thc solid curvc represenls what can be
considered a"conventional" storage-outflow relationship designed to provide peak-
flow control for infrequcnt cvents (e.g. 2-year to 100-year).
Cl.......'f 9 c��'��.. n..M�... n..�._ �.__�_i_
When erosion control is added to the picture, the nct effect is to provide more flow
attenuation during the more frequent cvents. 17�e resulting effect on ihc overall
faciliry rating curve is as shown by the dashed curve. At relatively low flows,
�•��oao�wwoz� io ru�onaa 7-10
vieroo
074 , SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEG/ES
more storage is bcing provided than woul� be requircd by the peak-Dow convol
requirement alone. The "erosion tlueshold" storage-outflow point is detcrmineJ
from the erosive power analysis. Where this threshold point is locatcd relative to
the 2-year, 5-year or 100-ycar peak flow storage-outftow JepenJs on creck
sensitivity and the degrec of pre-versus post-dcvelopment hydrology changes.
At storage-oultlow above lhe erosion ttueshold, the rating curvc can teturn to the
requiremenls dictated by peak-flow constraints. The use of passive outllow control
means that this transition must be smooth. If the curvc smoothly iransitions back to
the rating curvc for peak flow control at the 100-yeaz storage-outflow point, then
the result is lhat at intecmediate return periods (e.g. 5-ycar), more storage is being
provided Ihan required by the peak-flow consuaint (i.e. somc over-control providcd
at 5-yr level).
The challenge for the designer may be to achieve a rating curvc modified for
erosion control that can indeed return to the rating curve for peak flow control at
the 100-yr point. The shape of rating curve for peak ilow control might bc
achieved by a simple broad-cresled weir. The rating curve modified for erosion
control might be achieved thraugh use of low-flow orifice and compound weir to
deal with maleratc to high tlows. Depcnding on how far the erosive tlueshold
point is IocateJ uway trom thc rating curve for peak flow controi, and the amount
of water-level variation bcing dcsigned into thc facility, it may become di[fcuit to
design a weir/orifice combination lhat can actually bring the rating curve modified
Cor erosion control back to lhe rating curve for pcak tlow control. The result may
bc that dcsign constraints c((ectivcly forcc somc over-control through to the 100-
yeaz levcl, mcaning that tolal storagc rcquired would bc largcr than that required by
100-ycar peak flow control alone.
Tablc 7.5 summarizcs Ihc combined stomiwater control volumes lo required
achicvc quantily, quality anJ crosion conlrol.
Tab/e 7.5 Stormwater ConUol Volume '
� \Yoodrfew Volume Allona Volume Roxbank Volume
Cr(teda (m� (mi) (m�
Arca (lu) I9.0 27.4 0.5
Permanenl Pool 2,850 2,740 105
Active Pool 3.800 7,000 73
'folal 6,650 9,740 18U
In prepazing a dctail design for either the Woodview or Altona facilities the final
pond size must take into consideradon the storage-outflow characteristics to satisfy
�.t ioaoiwmoit io a�pon.doc 7-11
v�erou
7.3
7.3.1
075
SECTION 7
STORMWATER MANAOEMENT STRATEG/ES
ttie erosion control requircment. For thc Woodvicw and Altona facilities, thc
erosion threshold is 190 Ls and 4l0 Us, respectively. Beyond the erosion
tlueshold, the storage-outilow telalionship should attempt to control the 100-year
event to predcvelopment levels. This may require more storage than currently
idendfied given the variables associated with the design of the outlet awcture to
achieve the two objectivcs of erosion control for frequent cvents, and quantity
control for extreme evcnls. Only at the detailed design stage will thc final stonge
volumes be determined with a combination of souree controls, conveyance controls
and end-of-pipe controls.
Stormwater Facillty /mplementadon Plan
Fac(Iity Sitlng
The opporiunity to site stormwatcr management wet pond facilities is somewhat
limited within the developable arcas. The use of lands inside the development
limits will take away from the alrcady limitcd development potential in the area.
Altcmative sites were invcstigated including the use of the hydro corcidor located at
Ihe southern limit of thc Rough Park Neighbourhood. Preliminary discussions have
been held with Ontario Ilydro Services Company Inc. in consultation with TRCA
regarding use of corridor lands for stormwater managcmcnt facilities. At this time,
the corridors represent a feasible altemalive for stormwatcr management facilitics
bascd on thc land requircmcnts and proximity to hydro towers. Realizing the hydro
corridor ns a location for stormwater managcment facilitics will rcquire developers
to meet thc rcquirements of Ontario Hydro Scrviccs Company Inc, rcgarding a land
lease, securing easements and satisfying siting critcria relatcd to tl�c function oF the
corcidor for delivering power. My (acility in thc corridor would bc subject to
approvai by Flydro, the City and TRCA anJ eventually bccome tl�e responsibility of
lhc City to maintain.
In siting thc Woaivicw aixl Allona stormwater managemcnt facilities, the hydro
corridor has bccn identified as the preferrcd location. In the event an agreement
cannot be rcacheci with Ontario Hydro Services Company Inc. altemativc sites
would need to be icientified within thc devclopment envelopes.
The land requircmcnts idcntified for each facility is based on minimal BMPs being
employcd. Developers shoulJ imcstigatc and incorporate DMP and infiltration
features with the objective of minimizing the storagc requiremcnt by maintaining
storrttwater as close to source as possible. Keeping stormwater at the source has
clear benefits in maintaining local groundwater conditions, maintaining base (low in
Petticoat Creck, reducing the size of engineered stormwater management facilities,
minimizing the potential af increases in water temperature of stored water and
viewing stormwater as a community resource.
3-I I00-01102001� 10 Repon.da �_� 2
LIE/00
O 7 6 SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEQIES
Woodview Fecility
As previously discusscd, a storm sewer will Collow Woodvicw Avenue and connect
inta the exiting storm scwer south of ►he hydro corridor. The stormwatcr
management pond for this development block is best sited at the southern most
boundary of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (northern border of the hydro
cortidor). It is possibie to site the facility on either the east or the west side of
Woodview. The east side is less intrusive in thc hydro conidor. The storage
volume identified is approximately 6,650 m�, this volume equates to a land
rcquirement, inclusive of landscaping of approximately 1.0 ha (re[er to Appendix D
tor pond "foot print" sizing). Tl�e facility outlet should be designed to satisfy ihe
erosion thmshold of 190 Us — this may incrcaze tl�e activc storage requirement.
Figure 7,3 shows the ulternative locationt in the hyJro corridor for thc Woodview
Avenue facility. The ezisting outlet structure to Petticoat Creek should be
invesdgated to ensurc Ihat there is sufficient cnergy dissipation and crosion
protection.
Thc rntionale for selecting thcse altemative locations include:
• Natural drainagc routes;
• Road network;
• Access to facilitics from local roads;
• Minimum impact on natural area features anJ functions; and,
• OverOow routcs from thc facilities arc to natural arcas bcyond the
dcvelopment cnvelope.
Alfona Faclllry
Thc Attona facility is largcr, rcquiring a volumc of 9,740 m', or a"footprint" arca
of approximatcly 1.5 ha with appropriatc landscaping (rcfer to Appendix D for
pond "foot print" sizing). Thc facility outlet should be dcsigned to satisfy the
erosion threshold of 410 Us — this may increasc thc aclivc storage rcquirement.
The facility can bc locateci on ihe east or west side of Altona road in the hyJro
corridor. The west side location is aJjacent to Pctticoat Crcek and may have somc
sitc constraints givcn thc proximity of thc Creck.
Altematively, the facility can bc located on the cast side of Aitona Road and still
discharge to Petticoat Creck. Rcducing lhc volume requiremcnt tluough source
control would make the west side location more desirabie as a stormwatcr
management facility and be less inwsive on thc hydro corcidor. If the hydro
corridor werc not available, then the facility would be located within the
developable limits of Area 7. Figurc 7.4 shows the alternative locations for the
stormwater management facility.
�-i wo-oiw2omi io n�n.me 7-13
v�eroo
-��
� � .. :
I� ���� �11
�r -
woodvlew:'Lasi � W�
Corridor Lands
1.0 ha
3,650 m3
���4f'!'�
�
�,
1 �
�
Woodvlew East
Corrldor Lands
1.0 ha
,�11U1111�II� '�
��������'�
������ � = �
�.._ •-
Fgure 7.3
Woodview Stortnwaler Manngement Facility Concept
0�7
/
1 ;
New s�om,
Sarvice —
extend werlo
� 1 ��
�V� _�_
� "�
� � .
Altona West
Hydro corridor
1.5 ha
9.740 m3
,,``��,��������I'�� ��
,` ����� =I���� ����� i
�� ,% 111111�/� /
Altona East
• Development
L(mits
• 1.5 ha
• 9,740 m3
New storm
itleq to Creek
�;g�� �.a
Altona Stortnwatcr Manngement Fncility Concept
073
SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAOEMENT STRATEGfES
The oudet of ihc facility would be direcUy to Petticoat Creek requiring a new crcek
outfall. The new crcek outfall must bc dcsigncd to minimize erosion potcntial with
mitigative mcasums. The selectIon of this location for the facllity was based on the
foliowing:
• Natural dtainage roules;
. Road network;
• Access to facilities frum local roads;
• Minimum impact an natural area features and functions; and,
. Overflow route from the facilitics are to nawral areas beyond thc
devclopment envclope.
Rose6ank Servicing
Drainage from Rosebank Road will be directcd inro U�e cxiting stortn sewer south
of Finch Avenuc. At the timc of storm sewer dcsign associate with road
improvements, the downstrcam storage facility should be assessed to ensure the
additional tlow would not adversely aCfect the current operation and ouUet
charactcristics. If rcquired the exiting pond should be retrofittcd as rcquired.
7.3.2 Sformwater Management Facllfty Outlets
Thc proposed stormwatcr management facilitics will outict to Pctticoat Crcek. 7'he
Woodview facility wili outlet through an existing outict structures while the Altona
faciliry will rcquirc a ncw ouUct struclurc.
In revicwing or siting outict structures devclopers must providc information on the
locat feawres and functions of d�e strcam to show that minimal impact will be
experienced in the crcek from a new outlet or from the existing ouUet. Developers
will nccd ro considcr:
. Topography of nrca and soil lypc
• Protcction oC natural features of vallcy lands
. Minimal trce removal and whcre possiblc avoided.
. Hydraulics - outict flow a�xl velocity control, pond bypass, pond ovcrflow
Where there are ncgative impacis from outlets, mitigative measures must be
included to minimize the impact. Such control may include energy dissipation
features, relocation of outict lo a Iess sensidve area, erosion protection, orifice
oudets and weir overIIows, and other design features to achieve storage and outlet
objectives.
3-1100�01102002110 Rcpon.d« 7-16
7/lal00 •
080
SECTION 7
STORMWATER MANAQEMENT STRATEO/ES
7.3.3 Imp/ementa8on Plan and Cosfa
Staging .
All 1hm stormwater sub-catchmrnts can be develaped independendy. As the
staging of development is unknown in the Rouge Park Neighbour6oad, 1he phasing
of stormwater services will be gu3ded by inidal development 3n each area. This
will trigger the need for conswedon of the stormwater roanagement facility, as
well as storm sewers and road networks. The use of temporary facilities is not
recommended in any of the areas.
It is recommended that the stormwater management facilities be wnswcted with
the fust development in an area. The construcdon of the facility and thc main
collcctors at U�e beginning will provide stomwater treatmcnt for an azea during
construcdon minimizing conswcdon impacts on Petticoat Creek. This should be
� co-ordinated with the road work in the area to avoid unnecessary disrupdons in the
area for existing residence and wildlife.
Cost Shadng
The preparadon of a cost sharing agreement will be required and per unit area cost
� for futures developments is recommended to cover upfront costs paid by the earliest
developer(s). It is anticipated that as funds are collected by the City as patt of thc
dcvelopment approval process, the original devcloper wauld be reimburscd for their
over contribution. �
Imp/emenfatlon
The sizing unclertaken as part of Ihc EMSP for stormwater menagement facilities is
at a planning level. More detaileJ devclopmcnt information witt be available to
refine the storage requirements within the framework of the EMSP. At the
planning and design stage, the final site for stormwatcr management facilities must
be idcntifed with connccling sewer layouts and ouqet structures. The corridor
lands rcptcsent the best available site for the Woodview and Altona facilities and
negotiations ahould be entered into with Ontario Hydro Service Company Inc. and
the Ciry at the earliut point in time to determine if arrangements can be made to
locate the facilities in the corridor. As part of the design process detailed sutveys
of the proposed sites, or alternalives, witl be necessary. As well, detailed faciliry
site plans and utility infrastructuro, storm sewer layouts of connecting pipes and
detail design of the wet pond and outlet structures is necessary.
3•uooawmosiiox�aaa 7-17
7/IElW . . . -
7.3.4
7.4
081
SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAQEMENT S7rRATEQ/ES
A Construction Management Plan will be requlred far each developmenc addressing
sediment control. Features of the plan include, but are not IimiteJ W:
• Installadon of sediment control fencing on the perimetcr of the development
sitc;
• Construction of check dams upstream from the proposcd wet pond locations;
• Construction of road and utiliry infraswcture;
• Storm sewer flushing oncc road and utility infrastructura is complete;
, • Construction of wet ponds at We proposed locations;
•, Connection of storm sewers to the stormwater management facility;
• On-sitc construcdon;
• With compledon of developments, flushing of storm sewers. The flushing
mny be carried out aRer several developmcnts have proceecled, as Iong as
the storm sewer and stormwatcr management facilities function unimpaaed;
and,
• Sitc clean up - rcmoval of sediment fcnces, chcck dams, accumulated
sediment and debris, seeding, sewer flushing and clean out of pond Faciliry.
Stoimwater Management Fac111ty Costs
Costs developcd include costs to conswct a wct pond stormwater management
faciliry including the pond, thc outlet sWClure and landscaping. Costs do not
inciude land, storm sewer (connccting or outlet) or manholes. Refer to Appendix D
for detail on pond "foot print" sizing and cosls.
For the Woodview facility of 6,650 m�, the estimated capital cost is $406,000, in
1999 Jollars. The capital cost for thc Altona facility of 9,740 m� is estimated to be
5515,000. There is no cost associated with Ihe Roscbank azea assuming t}ie
existing downstream searmwater management facility will accommodate the storage
requirements, Costs may increasc if more volumc is required as a result of thc
storage-outflow rclationship.
Qroundwater Managemen t
An important natural feature of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood is the provinciatly
signiFcani wetland complex in the weslern and central portion of the
neighbourhood. The weUand complex (induding Amos Ponds) area topography
and the Laka Iroquois shoreline create a groundwater recharge and discharge area
that is an integral pan of the Peuicoat watershed. Technical information on
groundwater management is contained in Appendix C,
3d I00-0t1020031 �0 Rcport.da
7/I8i00 7'18
osz
SECTION 7
STORMWATER MANAQEMENT STRATEGIES
The proposed urbnn development in thc Woodvicw/Altona urca is likcly to l�ave an
impact on the local groundwater system and some resulling cffects on the hydrology
and water supply of the adjaccnt wetland complex. Givcn developments will likcly
be serviced by "conventional" storm sewer systems, dic proposcd Jcvelopment
might havc the following implications for thc local groundwatcr systcm:
. ReJuced infiltration of water through lhe soil profilc to d�e water table, duc
to diversion of hard-surface runo(f dircctly into storm scwers, as well as
improved grading and drainage of vegetatcd areas;
. ReduceJ contribution to U�e water table due to intcrception of infiltrated
water by building foundation drains; and,
. Reduced pertneability of sur(ace soil horizons due to soil compaction ihat
takcs piacc during site cicaring, grading and consuvction of roadways and
buildings.
Good Jesign and mitigation elforts can minimize thcsc impacts.
Analysls Approach:
To examine U�c nct impact on the wetland complex, two approaches can bc
considcrcJ:
1. Water budget analysis for thc entire wetianJ complex - bascd on quantifying
watcr inputs from ali sourccs to thc wctiand, including thc proposed
devclopmcnt zoncs.
2. Watcr budget analysis for thc dcvciopmcnt properties thcroscivcs - to providc
estimatcs of thc change in watcr buJget components (e.g. surface runoff, water
tnble recharge) that ocwr uver the propeny arca as land use changes from
currcnt conditions to proposed urban dcvclopmcnt.
The first approach wou1J reyuire a regional underslanding of groundwater systems
anJ surfacc watcr so�rccs fccding thc wetland complcx. This would likcly only
show lhat the proposeJ dcvclopmcnt would havc marginal impact on the overall
watcr budgct for the wetland, (prcsuming that thc total development area of about
40 ha dirccUy affects only a relative small portion of thc grounJwater systcm
supplying thc wetlanJ).
The second approach is more useful since it quantifies the local impact of land
development and drainage system installation over the dcvelopment arca itsclf, and
does not rely on accurate or detailcd undcrstanding of larger-scale groundwater
systems.
)•I IUU011USOOi110 Repon.Ja 7-19
LI8�00 �
083
SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAOEMENT STRATEGIES
This "local" approach hns bccn uscd to cslimata net nnnual contribution to thc
water table over the proposed development atca by carrying out annual water
budget calculations using meteorological data for the GTA. For any timc intcrvrl,
the water buJget calculates an estimate of contribution to groundwaler as follows:
Contribudon to Groundivater = Precipitnlion
- Evapo�ranspiratia� fran vegetated areas
- Evaporarlon jran Iwrd surfaces
- Direct surface runoj%jran vegelated areas
- Direct surjace runojjjroin lmrd surjaces
The water budgct analysis is uscd to estimatc the changc in the water budget
components. It also is designeJ to sUow how the changes will bc managed or
mitigated. Annual and scasonal watcr budgets arc rcquired to fully understanci the
groundwater conditions in an area anJ to determine lhe most critical time of year.
Potentlal Urban Impact on Groundwater Recharge
Table 7.6 prescnts example results for vnriuus landuse conditions showing thc
Jramatic rcJuction in groundwatcr contribution that can result from urbanization,
Opportunity for MltigaUon
The above resulls also sl�ow lhat nct water yicld will incrcasc with urbanization.
This is.largely due to rcJuctions in evapotranspiration and incrcases in surface
runoff. This incrcascd yielJ presents thc opponuniry to mitigate the impact on
groundwatcr contribudon by infiltrating a portion of thc incrcascd surCace runoCf
volume.
On new dcvciopmcnt sitcs, infiltration of hard•surfacc runoff can bc accomplished
in various ways including:
I. Gngincercd infiltration facilities in which runoff is collected, pre-vcated and
thcn alloweJ to infiltratc into the nativc soil profile. Siting of such facilities
rcquires gooJ undcrslanding of Iceal groundwatcr systems, flow pattems and
scasonal watcr-tablc cicvation fluctuations if thc systems arc to perform as
intendcd.
2. Spatially-distributeJ promotion of infilttation across the Jevelopment area and
individual properties through various techniques such as:
— having roof drain downspouts discharge onto grassal arcas;
— promoting the use of drainage swales to allow infiitration opporiunity;
— designing park areas to promote influation of runoff from adjacent area;
a•uoo o�wtarsi to rtePon.da 7-20
v�eroo
O 8 � SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAOEMENT STRqTEG/ES
— minimizing or eliminating thc usc of storm-scwcr cutchbasins to pickup
surface drainagc from landscaped areas; and,
— Lot grading taking sueface tlows away from footing drains.
Table 7.6 Example o/ PotenUal lmpact of Deve/opment on Groundwafer
Recharge
Lnnd Use Undevelopcd land: L°`�''�ens(ty urban Ilfgh-0ensity urban
development: developmenl:
30% arcal 60% are�l
(mperviousncss, all Imperviuusness, all
abandoned fum��nJ impervious arw impervious uw
Ducriptian wiih low surf�ce runoR connecleJ lo stomi connectnl to atorm
genention sys�em, good surfacc sysmm, guoJ sud�a
Jniruge of vegcutal Jralnage o! vegemiaf
uns �reu
Annu�l Prxipiwtiun � n m � mm � nM
GTA
EvTr from vegelamd Spp mm 350 mm � 200 mm
+reas
Ewp (rom harJ surfaca 0 mm 70 mm 60 mm
Rum�(f from vegeu�eJ q0 mm
aras � ���» SO mm
Runnff frum IurJ 0 mm 230 mm 440 mm
surGces
Na waier yiclJ J00 mm q20 mm 140 mm
Nel contribulfon lo =bp mm 110 mm SO mm
grounJwater ayctem
NWes:
Ne� wmer yielJ ie prafpiution minus �II ewpotranspiralivt lu.sxs anJ rcpresenls �he toWl amaunt uf wamr
leaving Ihe IanJ surface tidier by surface rwwff or Jownwud contributiun �u the waler table.
Ewputnnspiralion vilues basai an ossum�xion dwt nver vegevleJ ueas, surface mil harizons havc a wamr
holJing ca�uciiy (ficlJ n�ucity) uf 100 m 200 mm (cluncterfuic of clay loam �o saidy loam)
In general, the lattet approach is pre(erable since it provides for spatially-
Jisiributed intiltration (which more closely mimics prc-devclopment conditions) and
does not rely on highly engineereJ facilitics. As well, the highcr groundwatcr tablc
in the ama makes infiltration facilities incffcctive.
3-t 100-0iki2(qSl t0 Repon.doe
L�B�oo '� %-21
085
SECT/ON T
STORMWATER MANAQEMENT STRATEG/ES
7.4.1 MiUgadon Approach for the Proposed Deve/opment Area
For the proposcd developmcnt area, tha feasibility of maintaining cxisting volumcs
of groundwater recharge has been examined at a planning level on an annual basis
by conducting water budget calculations for various hypothetical scenarios where a
por4on of hard-surface runoff is dischargcd onto vcgetatcJ arcaz and allowed to
infiltrate, Table 7.7 shows an exampte of these calculations:
Table7.7 GroundwaterMitlgaGon
Urban@ed l0 45% Urban(zcd to 45% Impervloiunm
6npervlousness wllh no harJ• wllh 50% of harJ-surface runolf
sudact runoff InOt�nted InNlnled
Annu+l Precipiutian GTA &)0 mm 8(10 mm
EvTr from vegeu�nl arns 280 mm 280 mm
Gvapontfun !rom lunl surf�ca 50 mm � SO mm
Direct mnoff lrom IurJ surfaes 320 mm 160 mm
Dirat runuff from veQeuied bp mm 90 mm
arcu
Ncl wNribulion �o wamr uble 90 mm 220 mm
Thc watcr budgct calculations show that groundwatcr contributions can be
mainmineJ at existing levcls if a substantial portion of hard-surfacc runoff is
allowcJ to infiltratc ovct vcgctated areas.
A sct of calculations was carried out to delerminc what percenG�ge of hard-surface
runoff nccds lo bc infiltratcd to maintain IocaliuJ water table recharge over
development properties at about cstimalcd existing Icvcls. Table 7.S summarizcs
thc percentagc of impervious hard surfacc that necds to be infiltrated to maintain
groundwater recharge.
These results are bascd on various assumptions about surface runoff characteristics,
soil moisturc holding capacity and other hyJrologic factors that nced to be verified
through subsequent analysis. Nonethelcss, the resulis dcmonstrate that area-wide
water table contribution can bc maintained if rouglily 5096 of hard-surface runoff is
given the opportunity to infiltrate over vegctated areas.
�•� ioo-o�w�aoi�to ne�on.� 7-22
v�eroo
1:•
SECTION 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Tab/e7.8 GroundwaterRecharge
Amount of impervlous arw over Ihe devclopment pruperty �ercenlage of hardiurfau runoR that
(percmtage ot tota) land area) ahould be Inllllraled lo malnlain water-
lable rahurge over Ihe proptrtr
3096 SOR l0 60b
45% 43% to 53%
60N 40% lo SO%
7.4.2 Recommended Approach
The hard surfaces include all roaJs, parking areas, sidcwalks, drivcways and
rooftops. In general, runo[f from road and parking surfaces can bc expectcd to be
contaminated and carry seJiment loads A�at make it unsuitable for infiltration unless
first veated. In any evcnt, runo(f from d�ose surfaces will be collcctcd via
catchbasins to thc storm sewcr systcm, resulting is no opportunity to infiltratc this
portion of sitc runoff unlcss cngincereJ cnd-of-pipc facilities arc uscd.
What remains is thc opporwnity to takc roof drainagc for infiltration. In common
urban development, residential or commercial, roof arcas typicai account for 40R6
to 7096 of impervious arca. Thercforc, lhe roof drainagc alonc can meet the
infittration volumc targct identificd abovc.
On this basis, it is recommendcd that urban devclopmcnt design for the
dcvclopmcnt arca should bc bascd on Jcsigning silc drainagc such that:
1. A tninimum of 50% of roof drainage is divcrtcd onto vcgetatcd areas in a way
that promotcs JislributcJ infil�ration. Thc could include the usc of splash pads,
sidc-yard and rear-yard swales and other grading mcasures to promote
infiltration while also maintaining cxpcctcd Ievcls of service (i.e. avoiding
nuisance ponJing and prolongcd wctncss in rcar yards).
2. Use of catchbasins to collect rcar-yard drainagc and divert it into the storm
sewer system should bc avoideJ as much as possible. Instcad, lot graJing
shoulJ allow exccss lol runoff to Jrain onto edge lreatment areas anJ into the
wctlanJ arcas adjacent to the devclopmcnt zone. Por lots that are not siwated
aJjacent to a wetland edge-treauncnt zone, use of grassed side-yarJ and rear-
yard swales should bc used as much as possible to convcy lot runoff and
promotc i�llration to neatby edge-treatmcnt areas.
3. For each individual property devclopment, the City shoulJ require that the
devcloper provide detailed site drainagc plans and supporting watcr budget
calculations that demonslrate that present-day contributions to the water table
3-i ioao�wwozt to rt��n.� 7-23
viaoo
os7
SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
will be maintnined in future, Uuough measures such us d�ose outiined above.
The water budget calculations should co�uider scasonal variations.
In addition to the ubove features special cansidcration must be givcn to thc role of
foundation drains in any development in the area. The rccommcnJcd approach in
which roof water is Jraincd onto grassed areas will, as the waler budget
calculations show, maintain what has bcen tcrmed "net annual conuibution to
groundwater". This tcrtn refers to thc volume of walcr that vcnically drains
ttuough thc soil profile to water-bearing zones that arc decper than ihosc subjectcJ
to cvapotranspiration losses. [n othct worJs, the net contribution to grounJwatcr
has becn computed as tlie amount of water that will drain to bclow thc root zone.
Wilhin an urban development area, building foundation drains wiil intereept
shallow subsurfacc water. Thc currcnt dcsign approach is that foundation drains
outlet to the stortn sewer system, whic6 ultimately drai�u to nawral watcrcourses
such as Petticoat Creek. field investigations along Petticoat Creek in 1999 dcarly
showed that creck base(low was being fed by dry-weadier auttlows from urban
stom► ou►falls, and Uic sourcc of this dry-wcatt�cr scwcr ilow is likely partly or
mostly faundation drainage.
In arcas adjacenl to protected weAands, the net e(fect of founJation drains may be
to divcrt groundwalcr away from thc wcdanJ. As such, foundation drains can
potentially causc significant luwering of laal walcr tablc. Wliilc the divcrted
groundwater may help to maintain basetlows in downstream watercourses, local
lowering of walcr table cuuld resull in negative impacts on weqand hydrology.
For devclopment arcas surrounding Woocivicw Avcnuc, Pinch Avcnuc anJ Altona
Road adjaccnt lo thc wcUand complcx and Pctlicoat Creck, this issuc should bc
addresscd property-by-properry by cxamination of proposcJ building foundation
drain cicvations vcrsus wctianJ walcr clevations and estimareJ pcak watcr-table
Icvcls ovcr the dcvclopmenl propertics. This will lead dirccdy to a detertnination
of whethcr or not proposed foundalion Jrains will have localiud water-table
impacts. Seasonal variations in the water tablc must be considcred. In gencral, it
will obviously be desirable to locate builJing foundations above the seasonaily high
water-table level, both from a building protcclion perspcctivc and wetland
protcction perspective. If in ccrlain cascs building foundation drains are proposcd
to be cituated below estimate peak water-tabic levels, then the buiiding and site
design should be reviewecl in detail to see iC potential local water-tabie lowering can
bc avoideJ,
The result of this type of investigation may Iead to development where foundation
Jrains are not desirabic that take watcr away from the area to storm scwcr pipcs.
a• i i000iw2omi io rt��,r�.u�c 7-24
v�eroo
0 8 g SECTION 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
Mitigativc mcasurc may includc no bascmcnts (no nccJ for founJation drains), or
use oF sump pumps to intercept foundation (low and pump tlicm to surface locally.
7.5 Summary-StormwaterManagementStrateglos
As part of thc stormwater planning proccss stotmwatcr managemcnt facilities were
sized to proviJe the level of protection requircd lo achicve quantity, quality and
erosion control. The sizing represents the worst-casc facility siu givcn no BMPs
or souree controls arc implemenled. The use of BMPs anJ other flow rcduction or
control techniques will result in smalicr stormwater management facilities. It is
unlikely that the facilities can be climinatcd through source controls alone.
Key elements of the stormwatcr management stratcgy are shown on Figure 7.5.
Pigures 7.3 and 7.4 showed aiternativc "footprints" of thc Woodvicw and Altona
stormwatcr management ponds respectivcly. The final siting anJ sizing of each
facility is subjcct to thc appropriate revicw and approvals proccss.
The following issucs must bc considcrcd in U�c dcvclopmcnt ot stormwater
management stratcgics for the Rouge Park Ncigl�bourhood:
• Quantity and Qualiry conlrol;
• Grosion control in Petticoat Crcck;
• Mainlaining ►hc hydrologic cycic (groundwatcr rcchargc and dischargc,
strcam baseflow); and,
• Prolcction af Yrovincially 5ignificant Wcllands and habitat.
'fo aJdress Ilicsc issucs a Jctailcd stormwatcr managcmcnt plan must considcr, but
not tx IimitcJ to thc following cicmcnts:
• Confirn�ing existing and acwal availablc capaeiry of existing stomi sewcr
serviccs on WooJview Avenuc and on Roscbank Road including tl�e existing
storniwatcr yualiry pond.
. Reducing the size of engineercd stormwatcr managcmcnt facilitics Q�rough
source controls, inlinc storage, infiltration and/or olher BMPs and Ilow
reduction tecliniyues.
. Finalize storage reyuirements with thc implcmcntation of DMPs and other
flow reduction mcasures, as wcll as considcring thc crosion threshold
rcyuircment, storage-outflow curve, and outlet design.
• Evaluation of flow conditions in Petticoat Crcek under different seasonal
conditions ensuring baseflow levcls are maintained scasonally. As wcll, an
evaluation of groundwatcr conJitions under seasonal conditions.
�•IIOD�01102002110 Rrpan.Juc 7-25
v�a�uo
089
SECT/ON 7
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
• Adopttng a"locnl" or property appronch to watcr buJgct analysis to cnsurc
that at the local levcl tliat groundwater recharge is maintaincd.
• Evaluation of thc cumulative impact of devclopmcnt on the hydrologic cycle
(ground and surfuce watcr).
. Evaluadon of the effect of foundation drains on seasonal groundwater levels.
. Integrating stortnwater management features with cxisting natural features
and functions or as part of edge management.
• Strategies to promote roof Icadcrs to be dirccted to vcgetatcd areas to protect
groundwater recharge.
• Petticoat Creek instrcam (lows should be evaluated to ensure that quantiry
control dces not adversely affect insteam hydrograplu localiy or at
downsvcam locations.
• Quantiry control should bc considered for a range of events up to and
including the Rcgional storm.
In preparing detailed stormwatcr managemcnt plans Cor thc Rouge Park
ncighbourhoocl opportunitics lo bc considcrcd includc:
. Directing more (low Gom Arca 4 to Rosebank is fcasiblc with upgrades to
selccted storm scwcr pipcs. A pmlimirary assessment of the facilities
inJicatcs that thcrc is capacity wiq�in tlic cxisting facility to accammodale
morc flow anJ that thc facility could bc rctrofitted for additional control.
. On•sitc stonnwatcr managcmcnt facilitics and fcatures such as swales,
inGltration pits/trcnchcs, cisicrns and sump pumps Cor foundation Jrains will
reJuce the sizc of communal facility, •
. Design of building wilhout basements avoiding the nced tor deep foundation
drains.
. Surfacc Jischargc ofrooflcaJcrs.
• In-pipe storagc in Uic stortn collection systcm to reduce thc volume
reyuircment of a stormwaler managcmcnt faciliry.
. Facfiltratiun storm systems — exfiitrate stormwater from catchbasins and
slorm sewer.
. Stormwater managetrent facilities Ihat rcly on infiltration versus direct
dischargc
3•i �oo-oiwxomt io nc�n.ao� 7-26
viauo
oso
sec�fi9a� 8
EMSP SUMMARY
8. EMSP SUMMARY
The foilowing secdon provides guidance on the prcpazadon of environmcatal
documents that will need to be prepared and considered with any development in
the Rouge Pazk Neighbourhood.
8.1 Developmonf Umlts
The developable limits as defined in tliis study are approximate and subjcct to some
change with detailed fieldwork to support any change. The devclopable limils have
been refined for the City's Official plan designadng a greater portion of the Rouge
Pazk Neighbourhood as Open Space, Thc rationale fot defining the developable
areas is based oa the following principtcs:
• ReCerence to the OMB-approved resolution to Appcals A1 anJ A2; the
' Boazd's decision includes Minutes of Settlement, which identifies certain
lands as being developable (Ute discussion focuses on lands on the norlh side
of Finch Avenue, east of Altona Road, and u pocket of land on the west side
of Woodview Avenue, south of Finch Avenue);
. Exclusion of lands identified within the reviscd wetland boundary for the
Townline Provincially Significant Wet1anJ Complex, plus appropriate
buffcrs - which may vary depcnding on thc cdgc managcmcnl technique
employecl;
. Exclusiou of vallcy and stream corridors;
. Exclusion of uplanef wooded habitat contiguous to wetlands and valleylands;
. Pacclusion of key lands providingJaugmenting habitat linkages (linkages
shown back in Figurc 3.3); and,
. Ezclusion of atcas whcrc devclopmcnt wou1J have significant negative
iropacts on 1he feamres and functions of thc Rouge-Duffins Wildlifc
Coaidor.
Areas not identified as developable will become part of the Rouge-Duffins WildliCc
Corcidor. As devclopmcnt applications are submitted and reviewed, detailed site
investigations of the applicable property will result with a more precisely defined
and surveyed limit of dcvelopment.
8.2 Environmental Reports
For most properties in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, the Pickering O[ficial Plan
will require tLat an Environmental Report be submitted with any development
applicadons (see sections 15.8, 15.9 and 15.11 of the Official Pian).
a-i �oaoiwzoozi �o n��n.aa 8-1
v�eroo
• 0 9 2 SECnonr 8
EMSP SUMMARY
The Envlronmentni Rcport will precisely define thc devclopment limit on-sil�, anJ
idcntify the appropriate edge management — buffers, building sctbacks, mitigalion,
and rehabilitation (if nccessary). The Environmcnta! Report ahoulJ also idcntify
any restoration opportunities to enhance conditions over what exists talay.
The following descriUes the topics that Environmental Repons should address
where developmcnt is proposed. The topics presented do not necessarily represent
all clements rcquireJ in an Environmental Report but thc topics identificJ through
the level of reconnaissance conducted for this study. Detailed site Ievel
investigations may reveal other peninent issucs lhat must bc aJdressed Uuough thc
Environmental Report.
Elements of Environmental Repons will necd to address A�e Collowing types of
concems;
• Prescrving rcchargc areas to wetlands anJ Pctticoat Crcek;
• Prescrving grou►Klwater recharge/discharge functions and balance;
• Maintaining watcr yuantity and quality in Pctticoat Creck;
• Minimizc negativc impact of dcvciopmcnt on wildlifc habitat (amphibian,
bird habitat and othcr area-clepcndent species);
• Minimiu ncgativc impact of developmcnt on wildlifc movcment;
• Minimizc ncgative impact of dcvclopmcnt on vegelalion and wildliCe spccics
that acur adjaccnt to Uic sitc; and,
• Rccogniu and/or evaluatc lhc cumulativc affccts of dcvelopmcnt in thc area
on locai liabitat anJ watcr resourccs.
Thc Environmcntal Rcports must also rccognizc stormwatcr and groundwater
managcment issues and consider mitigative measures that �re complementary.
8.3 Edge Management
Whcrc Jevelopment may occur adjacent to natural habiWts, thcrc may be a need to
manage the inlcrface bctwcen nawral and developed areas. The purposc of this is
to cnsure thosc inJirect c(fects on the fcatures and functions of natural azcas arc
minimizcJ. This is accomplishcd through F.cigc Managcmcnt.
Eclge managcment strategics will need to be established for the following edge
conditions in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood:
• Areas adjacent to roads or existing dcvclopmcnts;
• Areas adjacentto disturbed habitat
7•1 taaotwioo2110 Repnn.duc $_2
L�NW
1_ �.
093
SECT/ON 8
EMSP SUMMARY
• Mcus adjacent to wntcrcouraes;
• Atens adjncent to woodlands; and,
• Arcas adjacent to wcUands.
The edge management required will depend on the natutal features anJ functions
adjacent to the deveiopment propeny, in combination with the typc of development
proposed. Edge management strategies in thc Rougc Park Neighbourhoa! neec! to
rccognize the importance of lhe namral features and functians, and be designed to
protect, enhance and restore natural areas.
8.4 StormwaterManagement
The follow�ng issucs must bc considercd in thc developmcnt of stormwater
managemcnt strategies for the Rouge Park NeighbourhooJ:
• Quantiry and Quality control;
• Erosion control in Petticoat Creek;
• Maintaining the hydrologic cycle (groundwater rechargc and discharge);
and,
• Protcction of I'rovincially Significant WetlanJs and habitat.
As part of die stormwater planning proccss stormwatcr management (acilitics were
sizeJ to provide thc Ievcl oF proteclion rcquireJ to achicve quantity, quality and
erosion control. The sizing rcprcscnts the maximum facility sizc recognizing no
DMPs or sourcc controls are incorporatcd. Thc usc of DMPs and othcr tlow
reduction or control tcchniqucs will result in smallcr stormwaler management
facilities; it is unlikciy that the facililics can be eliminateJ through source controls
alonc.
In preparing a JetailcJ stortnwatcr managcment plan for the Rougc Park
ncighbourhoai the following must considcr:
. Confirming existing anJ actual available capacity of existing storm sewer
scrviccs on Woafview Avcnuc and on Roscbank RoaJ including the existing
stormwater quality pond.
. Reducing the sizc oF engineered stortnwatcr management facilities tivough
source controls, inline storage, infiltration and/or other BMPs and flow
reduction techniques.
• Finalize storage rcquirements with the imptemcntation of BMP's and other
IIow recluction measures, as well as considering the erosion threshold
requirement, storage-outtlow curve, and outiet design.
ii�nro�o �wwoi��oReuort.dae 8_3
os4
SECTION 8
EMSP SUMMARY
• Bvnlundon of flow conditions in Pctdcoat Crcck undcr dillcrcnt scasonal
conditions ensuring baseflow Ievels are n�aintained seasonally. As well, an
evaluation of groundwnter conditions under seasonal conditions.
• Adopting a"local" or property approacli to water budget analysis to ensure
that at the local level that groundwater recharge is maintained.
• Evaluation of the cumulative impact of dcvelopment on the hydrologic cycle
(ground and surface water).
• Evaluation of q�e affect of foundation drains on seasonal groundwatcr levels.
• Integratin� stocmwater managcmcnt features with existing natural fcatures
and functions or as part oC edge managcment.
• Rcducing the sizc oF enginecred stormwater managemcnt facilities througU
source controls, inline storage, inGltration and/or other BMPs and ilow
rcduction techniques.
. Strategics to promole roof Icadcrs io bc dirccted to vegctated areas to protect
grounJwatcrrechargc.
• Petticoat Creek instrcam (lows should be evaluatcd to ensurc that quantity
control dces not a�vcrscly affect instrcam hydrograplu locally or at
downstrcam locations.
• Quantity controi should bc considcrcd for a rangc of cvenis up to anJ
inciuding the Regional storni.
In prcparing deta�lcd stormwater managemcnt plans for thc Rouge Park
ncighbourhoal opportunitics to bc considcrcd includc:
. Directing morc flow Gom Arca 4 to Roscbank is fcasiblc with upgrades to
selectcd stom� scwer pipes. A preliminary assessment of thc faciliry
indicatcs that thcrc is capacity within thc cxisting faciliry to accommodatc
more tlow volume and that the facilily coulJ tx: retrofittcd for aJditional
control.
• On-site stormwatcr management facilitics and features such as swales,
infiltration pits/trenches, and sump pumps for foundation drains will reduce
the sizc of communal faciliry.
. Design of buiiding without bascments avoiding the need for decp foundation
drains.
. Surface dischargc of roofleaders.
7J100-0110l00211D Repon.doc 8�
vieiw
095
SECT/ON 8
EMSP SUMMARY
• In-pipe storage in the storm collcction system to teJuce U�e volume
requirement of a stormwal�r management faciliry.
• Exfiltration storm systems — exfiltrate stormwater from catchbasins and
storm sewer.
• Stormwater management facilities that rely on infillration versus direct
dischazge.
. 9J �00-011070011 to Repon.da
v�eroo
$-$
096
xco ru� r�•i iao-0i
TECHNICAL APPENDIX A
STORMWATER QUANTITY AND QUAUTY CONTROL
ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURH000
ENVIRONMENTAL MASTER SERVICINO PLAN
FEBRUARY 78, 2000
s
�
�: . . � ' .
097
TABLE OF CONTENTS
P�ge No.
IN7'RODUCf10N ..................................... �............................................. 1
A.I Stormwater Management Guidelines ....................................................... 1
A.2 Water Quantity Guidelines ................................................................... 1
A.3 Water Quality Guidelines .................................................................... t
A.4 Stortnwater Management Requirements ................................................... 3
A.4.1 Stormwater Quantity Requirements ............................................. 3
A,5 Stormwater Quality Requirements ........:................................................. 5
TABLES
Table A.1 Waler Qualiry Storage Requirements for Lcvcl 1 Protection ....... 2
Tnble A.2 Model Pazameters for Pre Development ConJitions ................. 4
Table A.3 Pre Devclopment Peak Plows (Ls) .....................................4
Table A.4 Post Dcvelopmcnt Malcl Parameters ................................... 5
Tablc A.5 Post Dcvclopment Peak Flows (Ws) .................................... 5
Table A.6 Required Storage Volumes (m�) .......................................... 5
Table A.7 Stormwatcr Quality Control Rcquircmcnts ............................. 6
U•II0001112991979tatuoemo.da �
December7l� 1999
1':
' APPEND/X A
STORMWATER QUANT/TY
AND QUAL.lTY CONTROL
INTRODUCT/ON
As part of the development of a comprehensive stortnwater management stratcgy
for the proposed Rouge Park Neighbourhood, stormwater quantity and quality
requirements were estimated. From a stormwater drainage perspective, the Rouge
Park Neighbourhood consists of two distinct development azeas. The first
development area is located to the east and sunounds Woodview Avenue while the
second devclopment azca is located to the wcst and sunounds Altona Road and
Finch Avenue.
The following Technical Appendix provides technical detail of thc developmcnt of
qualiry and quantiry requiremenis for the two development azcas in suppott of the
Final EMSP Report.
A.1 StormwaterManagement Guldellnes
The Ministry of the Environment has defined water qualiry and quantity guidelines
for stormwater managemcnt in the Stortnwater Managcment Practices Planning and
Design Manual (MOE, 1994). The foilowing sub•sections highlight the water
quantity and quality guidelines.
A.2 WaterQusntltyGuldellnes
For sub-watershed planning, the Collowing are general water quantiry guidelines:
• If there is a potential for flood ha7ard immediately downstream of the
proposed site, water quantity controls must bc implcmentcd.
• If the development is locatcct in the lieadwater areas, the post developmcnt
pcak flow rates should bc controllcd to pre-development levels.
. If Uie development is IocatcJ in the lower reaches of the watcrshed cither no
water quantity will be requircd or ovcr-convol would be required where
there are ilooding concerns immediately Jownstrcam of the proposed
dcvclopment.
The proposed Rouge Pazk Neighbourhood is located within the headwaters of
Pctticoat Creck and rcprescnts thc first urban area contributing stormwater flow.
As such, Ihe second water quantity criteria applies to the area and post development
peak flow rates must be conuolled to prc-development level.
A.3 Water Qua!!ty Guidellnes
As part of the Stormwater Management Practices Planning and Design Manual,
extensive modelling of different end-of-pipe stormwater management facilities was
undertaken including wet poads, dry ponds, infdtration systems, and wedands. Thc
vtioo-ontss�im�mo.a� /1-1
Decemhr xl. 1999
oss
APPEND/X A
STORMWATER QUANT/TY
AND QUAUTY CONTROL
resulla of the modelling ulong with u relutionship betwcen temoval elfclencics and
habitat protection allowecl stormwater management facility sizes to be
recommended for difCerent imperviousness Icvels and level of habitat protection. A
totai of four levels of habitat protection were specified including the following:
• Level 1 protection is to be applied in fishin� spawning areas, esscntial fish
rearing areas, highly praluctive Ceeding areas, rcfugcs, constrictcd
migration routes, habitats supporting endangered or thrcatencd spccics, anJ
groundwater recharge areas for coldwater strcams.
• Level 2 protection is tu be applied for feeding areas, unspecialized spawning
nreas, and in areas with extensive pool -riffle-nm complexes.
•[.evel 3 protection is to be applicd for arcas that incluJe municipal drains,
highly ultered watercourses and artificial drainage swales.
• I.evel 4 protection is intcnded only for retrofit and re•developmcnt
simations.
Upon consideration of the recciving watcrs that will rcceive stormwater from the
proposed Rouge Park Neighbourhood, Lcvcl 1 protection will be required.
Although Petticoat Creek is not considered a coldwater stream, it has a direct
mlationship to the Provincially Significant WGIanJs in tlic area, habitat, and thc
grounJwater systcm. As such, as I'ctticoat Crcck is considcred to rcquirc Levcl 1
Protection.
Table A,1 prescnis the Lcvel 1 storagc volumc requircmcnts for infiltration ponds,
wetlands, wct poncis und dry ponds for a rangc of imperviousncss.
Tab/e A.1 Water Qualiry Storage Requirements for Level 1 Protectlon •
Slormwaler Slonee Volume Requlremen� (m7fha)
I�lon�gemmt �59G SS% 70% 85%
Facflily Trpe �mpenlousnm Impervluusnea Impervlousneu Impervlousneu
lnfiltrufon PonJ 25 30 35 40
Wetl�td 80 105 17A 140
Wa Pond 140 190 225 250
Dry PonJ 140 190 210 233
In addition to the requirements shown in Tablc A.1, the guidclines rcquire that all
storage for wctlarxls and wet ponds, exccpt for 40 m'/ha, be permanent pool
volume.
U•IIOU�U111399193AecAmeon.Jac
Datmhr Ti. 1999
A-2
10�0
A.4 StormwaterManagement Requlremonts
A.4.! StormwaterQuantlryRequlrements
APPEND/X A
STORMWATER QUANTITY
AND QUALITY CONTROL
Stormwatcr quantity requirements wcrc estimaled baseJ on controlling post
development pcak flows for all storm cvcnts up to and including the 100 ycar storm
event to pre development levels. �or the Rosebank area, thc post devetopment
flows must Also be less than thc cxcess capacity in an existing stortnwater on
Rosebank Avenue.
An analysis of this sewer using a 5 year design storm determined that oNy 0.50 ha
of the Rosebank area could be drained into this sewer. The rcmaining area will be
drained by a storm sewer on Finch Avenue and into the Altona Road storm sewer
system. The uttachecl design shcet for thc Rosebank Road storm sewer shows that
the capacity of this eaisting storm sewer will not be cxceedeJ because of a 5 ycar
storm with the addition of 0.50 ha to lhe overall drainagc area.
To determine prc and post development flows, an XP-SWMM model of tl�e
devclopment areas was developed. Thc model consisteJ of threc area nodes
representing the dcvclopment arounJ Wooclview Avenuc, Altona Road and
Rosebank Road. In keeping with thc fndings of the existing Rosebank RoaJ storm
sewer analysis, thc Rosebank area consists of 0.50 ha of road arca while thc
remaining developeJ arca in the vicinity of Rosebank RoaJ will drain towazJs
Altona Road.
Ma1cl inputs includcd catchmcnt arca, percent imperviousness, width and slope and
infillration paramcters. Catchmcnt areas, wiJth and slopc were measured from
maps of the arcas. Pcrccnt imperviousncss was calculatcd by assuming Ihat ali
azens with thc cxccption of thc road arca arc pervious. Infiltration paramelcrs were
selectecl based on soil types. Table A.2 ptesents the model parameters selected to
represent prc-cicvclopment conditions.
Tnble A.3 prescnts Ihc prc development tlows Jevcloped for the Uucc areas based
on thc paramctcrs shown in Tabie A.2.
Post development conditions wcrc defined using thc land usc pianning maps
completed by the Town of Pickcring, To represent post dcvclopment conditions,
modcl parameters were adjustcJ to rctlect more impecvious arca and shoner
drainage routes. The following assumptions were used in the Jevelopment af post
development model parameters:
• All proposed road areas were azsumed to 90% imperviaus. ,
. The achool area, including the school building, parking lot, and adjacent
grassed areaz, was assumed to be 259b impervic�s.
u-uoo-onizv�ims���.a«
n«e�aer:�. �v99
A-3
101
APPf:ND/X A
STORMWATER QUANTITY
AND QUAUTY CONTROL
• The park arca was assumed pervious.
• I.ow density residential areas were assumcd to be 35� impervious.
• Medium density residential areas were assumeJ to 40% impervious.
• High densiry residential areas were assumed to be 45 % impervious.
Ta6/e A.2 Model Parameters for Pre Development CondlGons
Model Paruueler Woodvlew Aren Allom Area Roaebunk Mea
Ma (lu) 19.0 27.4 0.5
Percent Imperviousness �$ 0 5.8 90
(%)
G�chment WiJth (m) 250 I50 70
C�IChmenl Slope (;6) 0.2 0.2 0.2
Impervious Depression 2 0 2.0 2.0
Stonge (mm)
Pervfous Ara
Depression S�urage S.0 5.0 5.0
(mm)
Impervfous Ara 0.33 O.JS 0.10
Mmniu¢s'n'
Pervious Ara Afannines O.JS 0.15 0,10
'n'
Percent Zcru Daentinn 0 0 0
(9G)
Afuimum Infiliniinn � 0 50.0 50.0
R�te (mmlhrJ
Minimum Infiltntfun �5.0 �5.0 IS.O
Rue (mmmr)
Daap Raie of 0.0015 O.00IS 0.0013
infiltntion
Table A.3 Pre Deve/opment Peak Flows (Us)
Storm E�enl! Arca Woodvlew Ntona Rosebank
2 Yar EveM 330 I80 60
3 Yar Evau G60 370 105
100 Yar EveM 1.91A i.l 10 26U
u•uaam�u�is�vu�n�.a«
o«.m��2�, tssv
A-4
1 � 2 APPEND/X A
STORMWATER QUANTITY
AND QUAl.ITY CONTROL
IIased on the abovc assumptions, mocicl parameters wcre developcd for post
development conditions. Table A.4 presents the arcas, percent imperviousness,
catchment width and catchment slope for post devclopment conJitions. The
remaining model parameters were identical to the ptc development model
parameters,
Table A.4 Post Developmenf Mode/ Parameters
ParometerlMw Woodvfew Allona gosebapk
Ara (ha) 19.0 27.4 0.50
Percent Imperviousnoss (R) 46.9 38.3 9p
Cuctunent WIdU�(m) )SO 450 70
Glchment Slope (R) 0.5 0.5 0.5
Table A.5 prescnts the uncontrollcd post development ilows developed for the three
areas based on the paramcters shown in Tabic 4.
Tab/e A.5 Posf Development Peak Flows (UsJ
Slorm EvenU Area 1Yoodview Allonn Rosebank
2 Yar Cvea 970 1,220 60
S Yar L'venl I,B20 2,)00 105
100 Ywr Crent 4,SS0 5,790 260
To ensure posl dcvclopment pcak tlows do not cxcecd pre development levcls,
storagc volumes werc cstimatcd. Tablc A.6 prescnts thc estimated storage
volumcs. Thcsc volumcs wcrc cstimateJ assuming that stortnwater would bc
discharged from a proposeJ facility at thc pre dcvclopmcnt pcak Ilow.
Table A.8 Requlred Storage Volumes (m')
Storm EvtnU Am 1Yoalvlew pltonv Rosebank
2 Yar F.vem 2,000 3,00!) 0
S Ycar Gve�u 2,600 4,600 0
100 Yar Gvem 7.800 7.000 0
A.5 Stormwater Quallty Requlrements
Based on approximating the �imperviousness for quality control from thc perccnt
imperviousness calculated for the post development conJitions shown in Tablc A.4,
tha appropriatc stormwater management faciliry requircmcnts wcre estimatcd based
v��oo-anu�iv�v��mo.� MS
Uacm6er zl. 1999
103
. APPEND/X A
' STORMWATER QUANTITY
AND QUAUTY CONTROL
on I.cvel 1 protection. Stormwater managcment facility myuircmcnts were
estimated for an extended wet pond anly.
Table A.7 Sformwater Quallty Conbol Requlrementa
pRa wouartn. ,utuaa Roxbanlc
Dr�irege Arn (lu) 19.0 27.4 O.SO
PerceN Imperviousness (9L) 46.9 78.5 90
SSR 35% BSR
Stonge RequiremeN (m'/h�) 190 140 250
�Toul Rryuiml Volume (m�) 3.610 J,830 125
Requirnl Pernnncnt Puul 2,850 2,740 I05
Volume (m')
Nae:
1. IbnJ aixing baxJ on a minimum 24 hour Jcmntion �ime
�ttoo-on�:�i9�v�n,�mo.a« A-6
n...mu.r:�, �svs . � .. .
�UT
r ,
- 1"�5
� xca rue r3-� �oi-0� _
TECHNICAL APPENDIX B
EROSION IMPACT A8SESSMENT AND CONTROL
ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL MASTER SERVICING PLAN
FEBRUARY 18, 2000
.
' 106
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa�e No.
INTRODUCTION............................................................:.................. 1
B.1 Overview ........................:............................................................... 1
B.2 Watercourse Ground Survey ................................................................. 2
B.3 Watercourse 8rodibiliry Evaluation ........................................................ 3
B.4 Development of Slreamflow Simulator .................................................... 4
B.5 Selectal Simulation Intervals for Erosive Analysis ...............................:...... 6
B.6 Erosive Index Analysis ....................................................................... 7
B.7 Analysis Resulu :..............................................................................10
B.8 Integrating with other stormwater detention requiremenls ............................ I1
B.9 5ummary - Erosion Assessment and Control ............................................ l l
FIGURES
Figure B.1 l.ocations of Watercourse Secdons ......................................... 2
Figure B,2 Simulated Strcamflow ........................................................ 7
Figure II.3 Potential crosive impact of proposcd dcvelopment as indicated by
QUALHYMMO Modci Simulation of crosivc impulse for May-Oct
1981 ......................:....................................................... 8
Figure B.4 Mitignting cffcct of stormwater dctention ...............................10
Pigure B.5 Petticoat Crcck - Section A .................................................13
Figurc 8.6 Pctticoat Crcck - Scction II .................................................13
Figure II.7 Pclticoat Creek - Section C .................................................14
Figure B.8 Petticoat Creek - Scction D .................................................14
FigurcD,9 Pctticoat Creck - Scction G .................................................15
Eigurc II.10 Schematic of QUALF{YMO Mocicl of Gxisting Condilions...........16
Figurc II.1( Schematic of QUALHYMO malel of future condition with proposed
land dcvclopmcnt in Rougc Park neigl�bourhood, with SWM control
inplacc .........................................................................17
TABLES
Tablc B.1 Pelticoat Creck stream channcl bank matcrials ........................... 3
Table B.2 Watershcd Subcatchments for QUALHYMO Malel .................... 5
Table B.3 Stormwater detention storage/outflow necdcd for control of crosive
impuisein Pctticoat Creek ..................................................10
Table B.4 Erosion Storage Requirement ..............................................12
3-1 �OD-0I \11991978 7ECIIMFAf O.UOC
December 31� 1999
107
APPEND/X B
EROS/ON IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL
INTRODUCTION
The following Tecluilcai Appendix provides lhe detail on the analysis methodology
and resulls presented in the main taxt of lhe Final EMSP Report,
The erosion analysis is intended to evaluate potentiai erosion impacts in an effort w
provide planning-level recommendadons on the amount of urban stormwater flow
control needed to address erosion conceras downstream along Petticoat Creek. .
The proposed development will incrcasc cunoff volumes. Without adequatc
stormwater management, the frequency and duration of erosive flows will increasc
at downstream locadons along the creek. Continuing or aggravated erosion will
result in degraded water qualiry, damage of aquadc habitat and possible saCety risks
or property damage.
B.1 Overvlew
Staff of XCG Consultants met with staff of Toronto Rcgion Conservation Authoriry
in early November to discuss Ihe approach to erosion impact analysis. !t was
agreecl that use of a computer mafel to simulate streamtlow and erosion indices in
Petticoat Creek downstream ns a far as Sheppard Avenue would be a suitable
approach, It was agrccd that the QUALHYMO hydrologic modelling sotiware
would be appropriate, and that computation of erosion indices using the technique
dcscribed by MNR (1982) would be suitable. It was also agrced that erosivc
indices shouid be based on long-tcrtn continuaus stmamflow simulation (as opposed
to single "design event" simulation), recognizing that thc frequcncy and duration of
smaller to moderate runoff cvenis can bc critical in terms of ongoing erosion, It
was further agrecd that runoff moclelling parametcrs could be dcrived from Ihe
OTfHYMO watershai model that had been earlier developed for Petticoat Creek
by Cosburn Patterson Wardman Limited, as described in the 1993 report
"Hydrotogy and Hydraulics Upclate for Mnin Petticoat Creek: Smge 1 Study of
Comprehensive Stonnwatcr Managemcnt Stratcgy for Altona Porest Area"
(Cosburn Patterson Wardman Limited, Dec,1993).
On November 15, 1999, field staff canied out ground survcy of representative
cross-section of thc crcek flow channcl and floodplain, and gathered samples of
channcl bed and bank materials to allow Cor quantitative analysis of the erodibility
of these materials.
Subsequently, a QUAI.HYMO model was dcveloped to allow for continuous long-
tem� stteamflow simulation and erosive index computadon.
tldOT!-0111 2 99193 8 ta6memo.da"
Deamber 11. 1999
B-t
108
i f
APPENDIX B
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL
B.2 Watercourse Ground Survey
Five watercoursc cross-scctions wcre surveycJ in dctail on November 15, 1999.
The locations of the five cross-secdons are shown in Figurc B.1. These locations
were selected as being generally represenlative of thc watcrcourse in terms of depth
and wiJth ofthe main flow channel, channel bank slopes, and width of overbank
floodplain wne.
Flgure 8.1 LocaUons of Watercourse SecUons
LocaOons of watercourse
cross•sections surveyed
November 15✓99. Allgnment
of each secUon was marked
using yellow survey stakes
located at each end o/ each
section.
Thc level survey of the sections was based on using local bcnchmarks (as opposed
to using established gcodetic vertical-control monuments, as none were
conveniently located). Sections A, B anci C were surveyed relative to a benchmark
set on a concrete headwall of a storm out[all pipe from Granby Court. For Sections
D and E, the vertical benchmark was the top of a stake installed in the creek
overbank area.
U•107 7-0111 2 9 919)8 medmemo.da
Daember 41. 1999
B-2
109
APPEND/X 8
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL
During the survey, elevntions werc atso survcyed at various poinls along thc
thalweg of the creek flow channel, to provide data on longitudinal channei graJient.
Plots of the resulting creek cross-scctions ate shown in Figures D.5 to D.9. All
survey notes are on file with XCG Consultants Limited,
B.3 WatercourseErodlbilityEvaluaHon
At each of the five cross-sections, samplcs of channcl bank materials were taken
from near the edge of water, as wcll as at locations roughly 0.3 to 0.6 mcters up
the channel bank. Sufficient sample was gathered to allow for grain-size analysis
(using sicve and/or hydrometer nnalysis) as well as Atterberg limits tests if Uie
matcrial proved to be su(ficicntly cohesive.
� 14 samples were gathered and submitted to Inspec-Sol Inc. (Kingston, Ontario) for
the geotechnical analysis. None of the samples was found to have suffcient
cohesiveness or swcture to warrant Atterberg limits testing. Crain-size nnalyscs
were completccl using sieve analysis on 8 of 14 sunptes, and sieve/hydrometer
analysis on the remaining 6 samples. Results are summariud below in Table II.1.
Ta61e B.! Petticoat Creek sfream channe/ bank materlals
Texturol classiftcatlon results
13-1077-0IV29919J8 melunemo.da
December 21. I999
B-3
110
APPEND/X 8
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENTAND CONTROL
Overall, these resulls indlcatc thnt thc channcl bcd matcrials are erafible, non-
cahesive sandy materials. During sample collection, it was noted that there are
significant vegetativo root binding effects within ihe channel bank soil profilc; the
eFfect of vegetative cover and associated root systems likely plays a significant role
in conuolling crosion of channcl banks.
B.4 Deve/opment of St�amBow Simulafor
Computer modelling soCtware (QUALHYMO) was used to develop a stceamllow
simulation moclel for Petticoat Creek downstream to about 150 meters bclow
Sheppard Avenue (at the location of survey Section E). The model considers the
enlire watershed and uses accepted hydrologic principlcs and techniques lo compute
runoff volumes and stream discharge in response to precipitation dala supplied to
thc mocfcl.
The model was created by subdividing thc watershed into a number of
subcatchments. This was done Cor the present-clay (1999) conditions as wcll as Uie
proposed future condition in which thc Rouge Park Neighbourhoal is Cully
dcvclopcd undcr Concept '�". Tablc B.2 lists thc subcatchments for tl�e existing
anJ fulure conditions, respectively.
Thc QUALfIYMO mocici operatcs by simulating thc outtlow Gom cach
subcatchment, and thcn routes and adds ihe subcatchment tlows as shown in the
connectivity diagrams shown in Figures 8.10 and B.11. The tesuit is simulatecl
streamflow at various locatioru along Petticoat Creek.
Thc modcl includes cxplicit rcprescntalion oF thc existing SWM pond (stormwatcr
trcatment pond) locatcd just north of thc CNR rail line and just east of Autumn
Drive. lnformation on the characteristics of this ponJ werc obtained from a report
entiqed "Storn�watcr managcmenl Pond Design Bricf, Dramalea Highbush
Sutxlivision 18T-88074" prcparcJ by Cosburn Yattcrson Wardman Limited, July
1994.
The QUALHYMO model developed for diis project was partly based on a previous
hydrologic moclel documented in thc 1993 rcport "Hydrology and liydraulics
Upclate fot Main Pcuicoat Crcek: Stage i Study of Comprehensive Stormwater
Management Strategy for Altona Forest Area" (Cosburn Patterson Wardman
Limited, Dec 1993). Given that there is no known streamflow data for Petticoat
Creek, direct calibration and verification of the moclel were not possible. To select
model paramctcrs reference was maJc to the early QUALFIYMO model developed
by CPWL. As such, sclected maielling parametcrs (e.g. unit-hydrograph times to
peak, infiltration parameters) for the QUALHYMO watershed model were made
consistent with lhe earlier CPN1L model. As a result, the QUALHYMO model
U-1077-01\129919J8 �ecMxmo.doe , B�
Deeember 71. IPD9
1 ].1
APPEND/X B
EROSION IMPACT
' ASSESSMENTAND CONTROL
produces simulated penk itows for the 5-year cvent very similar to the carlier
CPWL model.
Table 8.2 Watershed Su6catchments for QUALHYMO Model
Exisling I.nnd Use Future Land Uae
C�lthment Ikted bn Arca C�IChmml Dacd M�a
NotwrWn deadw�ut uea mnh of
A ud B CPR n011ne. CorretponJ la A� 910 ha A�rcl A Surc ss ex4Unj. A� 910 h�
subu�ehmenu A�nl 0 of I99J 8� 880 tu p. ggp �
CPWL model.
EcbGng midenWt mlxlirblon
PT31 (Spurow Ciale, CNckaJea Q) 7.1 tu PT 31 Same u exMOy 7,2 tu
dninin a uortn atldl IT21
Mau of w+mNed ue� between
CPR uW IlyJro conWor. S+me �rc� u eAlsting, bul
C Corte�ponla w ve� C of �993 I09.1 lu C wi�h propuuJ Jerclopmau 78.91u
CPWL mafcl. uus rcmortJ
Ponbn uf vu O of 199J CPWL S+me �s eiisling bul wl�
OI imJel du� Jnim tu crcek a6ore 45.0 lu 01 Pn7"'� �erelopment J8.81u
She{y�nl Arenue lFircNWualriew)
rcmovcd
ExWinj rctMknWt irc� dninina m
PT30 aUall P7'SO �Pirc Oruve Avc, 28.0 lu PI' YO S+me u eAlnina 28.0 lu
S�nflwnt CR� �m
L`tuint roiJential va Jnining m
PT19 wUdIPT19(WeuCrcakDrive 16.61u PT19 S�meuexlning 16.Gha
�rca
CxWin� rc�iJenti�l ue� dninin{ b
PT'IB WU�II PTIB (Wmt(Unl 7J.21u P7' IB S�me u C�illity J7.21u
GitUWuulriew Are va
D Al1oN FofHi RCStfYt �ft� foUlll 76.t lu D S�m: u eabtln` 76.I lu
of Ilydro Cortidor a CNR nil line .
• ExWin� rciMfentiil Jerslupmen� '
ew o! eteek �nl wnt uf RoseDmk
RuaJ (ircluJin� WiWllower Dr.
P.�.�� Sumirc�p�t, WuuJunne, SArer q1.31u PI'17 S�ne u existin; 45.3 ha
M�ple Dr, White CcJ+r Dr,
Auwnn Cai) J�alnin� w ex��int
SWM podjuu mnh nf CNR anJ
wcs� of Auwnn Drire
ProposW Jerclopmcnl,
PI:6 Jerelo�nnent blak� t, 3 I6.1 lu
�n� 6 (h7rcA
AveRVmlriew Ave m�
Prupoud development, 13.9 tu
F2776 developmeH blaki ], �. 7
ud 8 (Rrch ArdAlwn�
pdre arta
� Proposed dereln�nem, d.7 tu
F JcrclupneMdock4
(�ucL ArdNoKMnk Rd
�rci
u•ion-0�ui��vae ��.a« B-5
December 2�. 1999
112
APPEND/X B
EROS/ON IMPACT
ASSESSMENTAND CONTROL
Thc QUALHYMO model wns uscd to examinc thc impact oC proposcd laiul
development on peak flows and volumes gcncrateJ by thc 5-ycar storm, to provide
an initial indication of the potential cffect of Ihe proposed urban development. It
was determined that without stormwater managcment, the modcl estimatcs that 5-
year peak tlow in Petticoat Creek at the CNR will increase by about IS%, and
avent runoff volume will 3ncreaze by about 4%.
B.5 Selected Slmulatlon Intervals for Eroslve Ana/ysls
Streambank erosion rates will depend on the frcquency, magnitudc anJ duration of
critical erosive flows. It is therefore important to cxamine impacts by considering
the net ef(ect of changes in walershed hydrology over the course of a number of
cunoff evcnts (as opposed to considering imQacls during only sciccted "dcsign"
evcnts such as 2-year or 5-year cvcnt).
The QUALHYMO malel was initially uscd to simulate the May-October perial of
10 years, 1979 to 1988, using continuous records of hourly prccipitation for the
Greater Toronro arca. Thc resulting continuous simulated sveamllow resul►s werc
revicwed in conjunction with thc prccipitation data to select a single six-month
interval (May 1 to Oct 31) that could be considered as a suitable "test periocl" for
cxamining crosivc impacts and for analyzing mitigatic:n rcquirements. A six-month
test periocl was dcsirable lo facilitatc iterative simulations to dctcrmine thc amounts
oP urban runoff detcntion nccded for the ncw developmcnt to control downstrcam
erosivc indiccs to ncar cxisting lcvcls
Thc rcvicw oC thc simulation results indicated that May 1 to Octobcr 31 of 1981
would be a suitable test perial. 'fhis �xriod was chosen sinee moclelling resulis
indicated that it includcs a gooci range o( smaller, maleratc and larger runoff
events. As well thc 1981 May-Oct perial had relativcly high prccipitation and
runoff. 5imulatcd strcamflow at Sheppard Avcnue (cxisting wnditions) for May 1
to Oct. 31, 1981, is shown bclow.
U-107 7-01112 9 9 1 93 8 �a6mcmo.doc
Deeem6er21, 1999
B-G
. 113
� APPENDlX B
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL
Figure 6.2 Slmulated SbeamAow
6.8 ErosivelndexAnalysis
For thc cxisting land•use condition and for future sccnarios, indices of the erosive
power of simulatcd strcamilow havc bccn computcd Cor two locations along
Pctticoat Crcck
. Along U�e main cl�anncl at a location alongsidc tlie northeast corner of
Granby Court (approximalcly 300 m upstrcam of thc twin culvcrts at the
CNR tracks). Survcy scctions A, B anJ C wcrc used to develop a
represcntativc crcck cross-scction at this localion.
. Along the main channel at a location approximatcly 100 m downsUeam of
the outlet of tlic Shcppard Avcnue culven. Survcy section D and E were
used lo Jevelop a representative section Cor this location.
Using simulated sucamtlows, inJiccs of crosivc powcr havc bccn computcd via thc
QUALHYMO malei using thc methodology dcscribcd in ihe 1982 MNR rcport
"Vulncrabiliry of Natural Watercourscs to Eroslon duc to Different Flowratcs".
This methodology rcquires the estimation of critical tractivc shcar stress for creek
bed and banks. Using Ute empirical data presentcd in thc 1982 MNR report and the
resulis of the grain-size analysis of channcl bank materials, it was judged reasonable
to use the following cstimates of critical tractive shear stress:
. 5 Pa for channcl bank materials located 0.0 to 0.3 m above channel bottom.
u-tanAn�:�vime ��.a,� B-7
Decem6er ]I. 1999
' � 114 APPEND/X 8
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENTAND CONTROL
• 6 to 10 Pa for chazmel bank matcrlais situatccl 0.3 to 0.6 m abovc channel
bottom.
. 15 to 30 Pa for channel bank materials situatcd 0.6 m or morc above
channel bottotn.
The increaze in criticai stress with height abovc channel bottom was intendeJ to
representthc e[fects of vegctative cover and root binding thatincrease up the height
of channel banks. The channel becl was estimated to have a critical crosive stress of
over 100 Pa based on the consistent presence of a stable cobble bed along the
cBannel that providcs energy dissipation and high resistance to bcd scour.
The simulated streamtlows for May 1 to Oct. 31, 1981 were then used to compute
crosion index values (i.e. cumulative excess shcat stress) at regular intcrvals of
0.025 m ovcr the height of thc channcl banks. Initial runs werc carricd out for the
existing condition, as well as the futurc condition without stormwater management
controls in place. This alloweJ for somc cxamination of the potential uncontrolled
impact of the proposcd devclopmcnt.
Modelling resuits for the perial show that at the creck location below Sheppard
Avenue, thc crosivc impulsc could incrcasc by 409b to over 20�o at dcpths above
channcl bottom of 03 to 0.6 metres, if lhcrc is no srormwatcr managcment for thc
proposed dcvelopmcnt. At this location along Qic crcek, the banks are cl�aracterizeJ
by active crosion of cralible sandy malcrial q�at is bare anJ exposed for up to 1
mctre up thc bank. Scc dic photos bclow.
Thc maiel results arc depicted graphically bclow ]n Figure D.3.
F/gure B.� Potentlal erosive Impact of proposed development aslndicated
by QUALHYMMO Model SimulaUon oi eroslve lmpulse for May-Oct 1981.
r.��koN c. .. .w,.� ioa... i»i.�w en.i+,«.� n..
_"_� I?rm�r Mnlw���. M�YI lo Ool. ,l. 1001 �
0.1
O.�f
� 0.6
� O.•
O.�
C
� 0.2
o,t
O 1
0 50p 1000 160U 3000 Z600
Erwlr Paw�r lP�•��wr�)
u�ion-0�uzv�i9�e m��.aa B-8
December 21. 1949
115
APPEND/X B
EROSION IMPACT
ASSES�MENTAND CONTROL
Thesc results show thut the potentinl impnct on the erosivic encrgy of Uu flow
tegime is significant, especinlly ut depth nbove channel bottom greatcr than
0.3 metres. This is especially significant just below Sheppnrd Avenue where iherc
is curtenUy active bunk erosion. ,
1'hotos of octive trosion of channel banks at approaimamly I(10 m below �he oWlet of Uie
ShepparJ Avenue culvcrt. 71ie banks are cut into n sanJy, high, eraJible soil profile. The
eroJing bank is approximately I m high.
A series of simulation runs was then carried out to deterniinc whut amount of
stocmwntcr detention would bc nceded to control runoff (lows from Uic proposcd
devclopment to the extcnt ncedcd to rcduce U�c erosivc impulsc to near caisting
levels. To nllow this analysis lo proceed, i! was necessary lo makc somo modclling
assumptions about wherc storniwatcr dctention might be provided.
The following assumptions werc made:
. A single SWM dctendon facility would accommalale ninoff from proposed
Jevelopment blocks I, S nnd 6(Fnch AvdWoaivicw Ave nma);
. A single SWM de�cnGon facility would uccommodate runoff from
development blocks 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8(Finch/Altona urca); nnd,
. Locnl runoff (rom Rosebank Road ut Fnch would be direcled to the ezisting
SWM fucility just nonh of the CNR anJ east of Autumn Drive.
The locations of these SWM fucilities are indicatecl in the model schematic shown in
Fgure B.10.
The nnalysis involved ihe trial-and-ertor udjustment of the characteristic rnting
cu�ve (storage volume versus outflow) for lhrce stormwntcr fncilities. It wns
V-1077-0I\12991938 kchmemo.doc Q•9
Deeem6er1�,1999
' 1 i. 6 APPENDlX B
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENTAND CONTROL
assumed that nt each facltity, outflow from the detcntion alorage volumc (i.e. Iive
storage) would be regulated by a simple orifice anJ spill wcir.
B.7 Analysls Results:
The modelling nins resulted in Ihe follo-Hing conclusions, as presented in Table
B.3, on detendon volume needed for downsucam erosion control in Pcuicoat
Creek. Figure B.4 shows the erosive power with and without controls.
Tab/e B.3 Stormwater detenUon storage%utl/ow needed for control o/
erosive Tmpulse in PetNcoat Creek
Development block Srormwater deten�ion storoge%ufJlow nerded jor
eonlrol ojrrorive impulse in PeUieoat Cro�k
Westem area (y0 m' pen c�ctarc of devclopmcnt arca, with
(Finch/Woodview) corresponcling outtlow of 10 Uscc per ha
Areas I 5 and 6'
Central arw (FinciilAltona) I50 m' {xr hectare of development area, witli
Areas 2, 3, 4, 7 a�x18 corresporxling out(low of 15 Laec per ha
Eastem area I50 m' pcn c�ctarc of devclopment area, with
Local Roubank Road) correspo�xling outtlow of IS Uscc per ha
Flgure 4 MlUgaUng eNect o/stormwater defenUon
Patllco�t Crook about 100m b�low Shoppsrd Avn
6o�lv� Powor, MayOct 1881
O.O
O.8 �� IXISTVJC3
0
4� �•�Fulura No Conirol
q 0.4
� �--�� Future w Hh Eroebn Control
� 0.9 - ---- -- --- ---- -- —
�
{4 0.2
H
8 0.,
o a —�i
O 500 1000 1600 2000 2800
6oaNa Fbwor (Pa-houre)
U-IW7AIU3991976 uehmemo.doe B-10
Deccmber Il. 1999
1,1.7
APPEND/X B
EROS/ON IMPACT
ASSESSMENTAND CONTROL
On Ihc basis of thc maleiling resulls, it is recommendcd �hat the detentlon volumc
allowances listed in Table 3 be incluJect in prcliminary sizing of SWM facilitics as
nealeci for finalizing land-usc pians for the developmcnt arca.
B.8 IntegraHng wlth otherstormwaterdetentlon r�equirements
The erosion-control detention volumes outlined abovc need to bc intcgratal with
othcr tlow-control volume requircments when sizing SWM facililies and Gnalizing
SWM land area reyuiremenis. Specifically, l6e aJdilional Jetention volwne
requirements that come into play include:
Stormwater TreaUnent
The current MOE guidclines recommend that the toWl trcatmcnt volume (c.g. Level
1= 140 m'/ha) include 40 m'/ha of livc storagc (i.c. detcntion volumc)
Downsfream SewerSystem Capaclty Constrelnts
Whcre proposcd Jcvciopmenis will outict to existing stortn scwcrs, tlows from thc
devclopment arca for thc 5-ycar design lcvcl must bc limitecl to the capacity
allowance that was built into thc originai dcsign of the existing stomi pipe systcros.
Downstream F/ood Rlsk Control
Flow detcntion may also be nccdeJ to avoiJ any unacccptable incrcascs in (loal
�evels along Petticoat Crcek for the Regutatory C•locxl event (Hurricane Ffaul rain
stortn).
1'he sizing for proposcd SWM facilitics must consider d�c nccd to intcgtatc thesc
detention volumc rcyuirements with thc rec:ommended erosion-control volume
rcquircmenls, tt is important to notc that thc rcspcctivc dctention volume
requiremenls (crosian control volume, trcaunent dctcntion volume, nnd pcak Oow
control volumc for 5-ycar or Regional Storm cvcnts) arc not additivc. For
example, lhe crosion control volume can be considercd as effectively incluJing the
40 m�/ha dctention volumc nccdcd as part of the trcatment requirement. As well,
the crosion volume wili provide somc or all of thc valume needeJ to control peak
S-ycar or Rcgional Storm outflows (dcpcnJing on how stringent thc 8ow limits
arc). Thcrcfore, whal is nccdcd to finalizc thc total dctention (livc sloragc) volume
required Cor any development arca is dctcrmination of thc volumc (if any) necdcd
for controlling peak 5•year a� Regional Storm outflows.
B.9 Summary - Eroslon Assessment and Control
Table B.4 summarius the volumc requircments associated with tlic erosion conaol
asscssment for each of the three storm servicc arcas based on Concept 'E'
�rion-0nus�iv�n ��.a« B-11
Deeember 11. 1999
1 a. 8
APPENDIX B
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENTAND CONTROL
development. Tt�e summury shows thc rcquircJ volume as well ns Uic outllow
cot►clitions that neccl to be met to mitigatc erosion becausc of Jcvelopment.
Thc erosion control detcntion volumcs dctermined above neeJ to be intcgratccf with
the quantity ancl quality conuol vo►ume requirements when sizing stormwatcr
management facilities to Jctermine which control mcasurc governs.
� . r.,.,�r.,.. ce,,.snn Rneuirement
�au�vu. ...��._"_'_'_ _--
$lo�Y�e
Slorwwater delmtlon don�doultlow oeeJed �.i�opmrnt Volwne (m�)
Derelopmeat Block for wntrol of er CrreNikmpulse �n Pellicoal Arca (11�) (M.ros�on
7Lratwidl
Woalview 2.2H0
Weslem arca 120 m� �Kn c�curc uf development ara. with 19.0 190 Us)
(�inch/�yuuJview) cunapunJing outlluw uf IO llsec per tu (
Arrar 1, S ary16
AUuna 4.110
Cemral aru ISO m� per heeure of Jerelupment ara, wiih 27.4 (410 Us)
(���Wp�i�N) rorresponling willuw of IS Usee per lu
Arcar 2, 3, �, 7rwt 8
RoseWnk 73
Cutem area ISO m' per hecurc uf Jevelupmem arra. with p,w S IJs)
(�nclJRosetunk) rnnespuidi�� uutlluw uf IS Usec rrr lu n•
Puniun nJArru I
Naes:
1. De�emlun rulume ans iut irclufe allowance for 1 W m41u pernunent �anl reyuireJ for yuiliry
cuNml
worr.onit�iv+a ��.aa
pacmber 71. t999
B-l2
1 ]. 9
APPENDIX �
EROS/ON IMPACT
ASSESSMENTAND CONTROL
�.--- .. . .,_..r---. n.,....1. _ ca..�t.... e
r-�a� o..... . .....'��' _'--" ---`---
Petticoat Creek
SECTION B
tao.00
.......... ......... .......... .......... .......... .......... ..........
� Wabr lewl Nov 15199 . ...... ...... ...... ......
.......... ................... .......... .......... .......... ..........
89.00
. c . ... .. .. ... ...... ...... ......
� ...... � .... ...... ...... ...... ......
.. .. . .. ... . . .. ..
�.�
.......... .... .. .......... .. SuneyedNov15r99byXCG. Ele�atlons ..
,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,, „ relatl�e b IocelbenchmaAcealablithed ..
.......... ......... .......... .. byXC6. ..
.......... ......... .......... ..... . .
97.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
pistance
V•10T7-011139919JB Iechmemo.da
pecem6erlt. 1993
8-13
120
APPENDIX B
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENTAM� CQNTROL
Flgure B.8 PafHcoat Creek - SecUon D
111QT7-01\I2fl91978 rcclurcmo.doc
Daember 71. 1999
D-14
. _
----- -
,;
. 121
APPENDlX B
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL
Flgure 8.9 Pefticoat Creek - Secdon E
U-1077-0I\13991918 �echmemo.doc
Daem6cr21, 1999 �
�k
i
II-15
1?.2
APPEND/X B
EROSIDN IMPACT
ASSESSMENT AND CONTROL
QUALHYMO STREAMFLOW SIMULAT►ON MODL�L fur PETTICOAT CRLGK
downstream to Slicppazd Avrnue
Flgure 8.10 SchemaAc of QUALHYMO Model of ExfsNng Conditions
U-107T-01112991978 teclunemo.due
Dccember 21, 1999
B•16
123
APPENDIX B
EROSION IMPACT
ASSESSMENT ANO CONTROL
Flgure 8.11 Schemadc ofQUALHYMO mode/ o/future condiUon wJth
proposed /and development !n Rouge Park nelghbourhood, wifh
SWM control ln place
�•ton-0nii�vime ����,o.aa B-17
n���:i. i�
124
! XCO File M3•U00-01
TECHNICAL APPENDIX C
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD
ENVIRONMENTAL MASTER SERVICINO PU1N
FEBRUARY16,2000
ti
125
TABLE OF CONTENTS
: P�Qe No.
INfRODUCfION�.......�..� .................�..................................................... 1
C.1 Analysis Approach ............................................................................ I
C.1.1 L.ocal Water Budget Approach ................................................... 2
C.2 Opportunity for Mitigation ................................................................... 3
C.2.1 Mitigation Approach for the Proposed Developmcnt Area ................. 5
C.3 Recommended Approach ..................................................................... 6
TABLES
Table C.1 Example of Potential lmpact of Devclopment on Groundwatcr
Rec6arge........................................................................ 4
Table C.2 Groundwater Mitigation ...................................................... 5
Table C3 Grou►xlwater Recharge ....................................................... 5
U�I 10 0-01112 9 9197 9�ttM¢mo.da
viuw
126
APPENDIX C
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
INTRODUCT�ON
The following Tcchnical Appcndix outlines the approach used to address groundwater
management in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. The approach aJopted providcs a
planning level undetstanding of the arca watcr budget highlighting design feawrrs that
are to be considered in the development of any parcel.
The proposcd urban development in 1he Finch/Woalvicw Avenue ama is likely to
have some impacts on the local groundwater system and somc resulting elfects on the
hydrology and waler supply of the adjacent wetland complex. Given that the proposed
developmenis are to be serviced by "canventional" storm sewer systems, the proposed
development miqht have the (oilowing implications for thc local groundwatcr system:
. Rcduced infiltration ot water through the soil profile to thc water table, duc to
diversion of hard-surfacc nmoff dircctly into storm sewers, as well as
improveJ grading ancl drainage of vegetateJ areas.
. Reduced contribution to the water table duc to intcrccption of infiltrated water
by building foundation drains.
. ReduceJ permcability of surface soil horizons duc to soil compaction that lakes
placc during �:ie cicaring, grading and conswction of roadways and buildings.
C.1 Analysls Approach
To examine the net impact on the wetland complex, two upproaches can be
consiJered:
. Water budgct analysis for thc cntirc wctlanJ complcx, which is bascd on
quantifying watcr inputs Gom all sourccs to thc wctland, including the
proposcd dcvclopmcnt zoncs.
. Water budget analysis for the dcvelopmcnt propertics thcroselvcs, to providc
cstimatcs of d�c changc in watcr budget componcnts (c.g. surfacc runo(f, watcr
table rccharge) ►hat occur over the property area as land use changes from
curcent wnditions to proposecl urban dcvelopmcnt.
The first approach would require a regional unclerstanding of groundwaler systems and
surface watcr sourccs Cecding the wetland compicx. This would likciy only show that
the proposed development would have marginal impact on thc overall watcr budgct for
the wcUancl, (presuming that the total development arca of about 40 ha direcqy atfects
only a relative small portion of thc grounciwater system supplying ehe wctland).
The second approach is more useCul sincc it quantifies the local impact of land
developmcnt and drainage system installation over the dcvelopmcnt arca itself, and
U•I 106U11129 9 197 9 uclwemo.doe �-�
yieioo
127
APPEND/X C
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
does not rciy on accurnle or deWilcd uncierstancling of larger-scalc grounJwatcr
systems.
This "local" approach has been used to estimate nct annual contribution to the watcr
table over the proposed development arca by carrying out annuat water budget
calculations using meteorological data for ihe GTA. For any time intervai, the water
budget calculates an estimate of contribution to grounJwater as follows:
C.1.1 Loca/WaterBudgetApproach
Over any land arca, the nct annual contribution to U�e water table can be cstimated by
carrying out annual watcr budget calculations using appropriatc mctcorological data.
For any time interval, the water budget calculates an estimate of contribution to
groundwatcr as follows:
Cantriburron to groundwater = Preciptlation
- Evuporransplrutlon Jran ��egetated areas
- E�wporation jram hard surjaces
- Dircu surface runop'jrom vegetated areas
- Direcr surface runofjjrom hard surfares
- Chnnge in soil ivater smroge
Hcre, thc tertn "soil walcr storagc" rcfcrs to thc water stored in surCace soil horizons
subject to evapotrenspiration losses.
For annual water budgct calculations for a typical or averagc ycar, the changc in soil
watcr storage is taken to be uro (i.c. soii water storage is samc at thc end of the ycar
as it was at the start). 7'his allows esthnation of annual contribulion to groundwater
bas�:d on cstimalcs o! cva�wtranspiration and dircct surfacc runoff.
To allow cslimation of annual watcr buJget ovcr devclopmcnt zones in the proposcd
Pickcring Rougc Park Ncighbourhood, thc following information sourccs and
nssumptions havc bccn usecl:
• Prccipitation valucs I�ave txen bascd on i�ng-term averages for thc Toronto
arca, az published by E�vironmcnt Canada
• Evapotranspiration losscs Gom vcgctaled arcas have bccn based on estimalcs
dcvcloped by Enviro►uncnt Canada using metcorological data from Toronto
International Aiqwrt. These estimatcs are pmscnted and czplained by Phillips
(1976). Valucs for assumed soii watcr holding capacity of 200 mm were used
as most suitabie for the sandy loam soils that characterize the study area.
• Sudace evaporation losses Crom impervious surfaces has becn estimaled at 100
mm per year bazed on QUALHYMO simulation rcsults which were based on
using potentiat evaporation rate data from Environmcnt Canada. The
UJI00-0IU2991979 tecturcmo.Joc C.2
vieroo
1`�$
APPEND/X C
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
QUALFIYMO simulation results account for th: fact Uu�t total annual hard-
surface evaporadon is a function of both potential evaporation rate ancl duration
that surfaces are wcttcd by precipitation.
• Surface runoff volumes for existing vegetateJ areas on the proposcJ
development propenies have bcen estimated at 5� of annual precipitation
volumc. This was felt to be a reasonable estimate Cor undevelopal propcnics
in the study arca that are characlerized by high soil infiltration, generally
poorly definccl surface drainagc and heavy vcgetative cover.
• Surface runoff from impervious arcas has been computcJ as total precipitation
less direct evaporativc losses.
• Surface runoff Crom vegetatcd areas within urban developmcnt areas (i.e.
I.awns, residential yarJs, park areas) has bcen estimated at 15% of annual
prccipitation. This assumption is intended to rcflcct the cffects of improved
grading and other urban landscaping and drainage fcawres ll�at tend to promote
efficient surface drainage.
On this basis, annual water budget catculations have been made for existing and
proposed conditions over proposcd devclopmcnl propertics. '1'hcsc resul�s shown in
Tablc C.1 show thc patcntially dramatic reductiun in grounJwatcr wntribution that
can resuit from urbaniration.
C.2 OpportunityforMitigation
Thc atwve results also show that nct watcr yicld will incrcasc wiUi urbanization. This
is largcly duc to raluctions in eva�wtranspiration and increases in surlace runoff. This
incrcascd yicld prescnts thc opponunity to mitigatc thc impact on groundwatcr
contribution by infiitrating a ponion of thc incrcascd surfacc runoff volumc.
On new development sites, infiltration of hard•surface runo(f can be accomplished in
various ways incluJing:
• 8ngi�mcrcd infiltration facilitics in which runoff is collcctcJ, prc-trcatcd anJ
thcn allowed to infillratc into the nalive soil profilc. Siting of such facilitics
rcquires goal understanciing of local groundwater systems, ilow patlerns and
scasonal water-tabic cicvation tlucwations if the systcros are to perform as
intendecf.
�•uoao�u:v��mv m�ro,.�e G3
v�eiao
129
APPEND/X C
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
Table C.! Example o1 PotenUal /mpact oi Devalopment on Groundwater
Recharge
Land Ua Undereloped land: �°w-denslty urLw 111�4deroity urbw
derelopmmt: development:
311%. ueal 609G unl
imperviousness, all imperviousrcu, ill
abonlorcd farmland imperviw�s ua imperviout ara
Dcscripdon with low aw(aa runuft connccteJ a storm connectal �o uorm
gercration system, gouJ sur(ace system, gua! turGce
JninaQe of vegewteJ Jraimge uf vegcutnf
aress uas
Annu�l Praipiution �� gpp � 80p mm
OTA
BvTt frum veecu�ed �� 750 mm 20D mm
uw
Gv�p from hard surfaces 0 mm 30 mm 60 mm
Rwiuf( from vege�ial 40 � g� nun SO mm
ueu
RunuR from lurd 0 mm 230 mm 4i0 mm
surfua
NN water yieW )00 mm A20 mm 540 mm
Nel eonlributlun Io �p mm 110 mm SO mm
RrounJwater �7stem
Naes:
NH w��ct yield is praipimiun minus ill ev�p�inmpiniivc lusses �n�l represcros the �oul �muunl uf w��er
learinp �a IanJ swfoce efdKr by surf�ce rww�ff nr �k�wnwud cnnuilNtion iu �he w�ter ublo.
L'r�polraiupinlion wlues baseJ on auutnplion itul mer veQclalcd �rcu, surfue soil horizons luve � water
MilJinQ w�uciry (fielJ eapaeity) u( 100 �n 200 tnm (chancteriuic uf eLv lo�m �o sanJy Iwm)
Spatially-distributcd promotion of infiltration across the dcvelopment area and
individual propcnics through vurious icchniqucs such as:
— having roof drain downspouts dischargc onto grassccl areas,
— promoting the usc of drainagc swalcs to allow infiitration opportunity,
— dcsigning park arcas to promote infiltration of runoff from adjacent arca,
ancl
— minimizing or eliminating the use of storm-scwer catchbasins to pickup
surface drainage from landscapcd areas.
U•I IOD-011129919)9 kcMrcpq.dot C.4
vtwo
130
APPEND/X C
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
In gei�cral, thc Inttcr approach is prcfcrabic sincc it providrs spatially-distributul
infiltration (which morc closely mimics pre-clevelopment conclitions) anJ dces not rely
on highly engincercd facilities.
C.2.1 MiHgaUon Approach for the Proposed Deve/opment Aroa
For the proposed development atea, Ihe Ccasibility of maintaining existing volumes of
groundwater recharge lu�s been examined by conducting waler buJget calculations for
various hypothctical sccnarios in whicl� a ponion of hard-surface runoff is dischargcd
onto vegetated azeas aixi allowed to infiltrate. These calculations provided resuits such
as the following:
Tab/e G.2 GroundwaterMitlnation
Ur600f:ed l0 0.SR Urbanized to 45R Impervtousnas
impervtomness xtth no 6ard- wllh SO% of 6ard-surface runo(f
surfacerunoftln(i�tnted inlillraled
Amuil Precipiu�K�n GTA gpp n�m g�p ����n
EvTr from vegebuJ aas 260 mm 280 mm
Gv��r�lion frum furd wrfxes SO mm SO nun
Dira� runuff frum IurJ surfaca RO nun 160 mm
Uira� runu(f from vr�euieJ ueas ��i��i� qp ���m
Nn con�ribuiiun w W��er �ble YU mm 22U mm
Thc waler budgcl calculations show that groundwaicr comribuliuns can bc maintainrcl
al cxisting Icvcls if a substantiat �wnion of harJ-surfacc runoff is allowcd lo infillratc
ovcr vcgctated arcas.
A scl of caiculations was carricd wt ro dcicrniinc what perccnlagc of lu�rd-surfacc
runoff nci.�Js to bc infiltratcd to nu�intain IocaliuJ water tablc rechargc over
devclopmcnt propcnics at about cstimatcJ cxisting Icvels. 7'hc following summarizes
thc conclusions rcachcJ:
Tab/e C.J Groundwater Recherge
Amouot of Gnpenbu� area or�r tbe derelopmml property �emnlaRe of hard-wrface runoff Ihal
Ipernntate of IWd land anal �Id be InNlroled lo malnlain water-
table recbarRe over Ihe properlr
30;6 SOR tn 60%
45% 45? �o SS°L
60R 40R �o SO%
U•I100-011129919)9 teebmemo.doe C_5
v�ew
131
APPEND/X C
GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT
7'hcse resul�s arc based on the assumptions dcscribal abvvc about surfacc runoff
characte�istics arnl ovapotranspiration losses that necd to be verificd Iluough
subsequeni analysis. Nonetheless, the results demo�ssuatc that arca-wide watcr tablc
contribution can be maintainal if roughly SO% of hard•surfacc runoff is given the
opportuniry to intiitrate ovcr vegetateJ arcas.
C.3 Recommended Approach
The hani surfaces include all roads, parking arcas, sidewaiks, driveways and rewflops.
In general, cunoff from road and parking surfaces can bc expected to be contaminatcd
and carry sediment loads that make it unsuitablc for infillration unless first lrcatcd. In
any evcnt, runoff from those surfaccs will be collectcd via catclibasins to the storm
sewcr systcm, resulting is no opportunity to infiltratc this portion of sitc runoft unlcss
enginecrcJ end-of-pipc facilitics arc useJ.
What rcmaina is thc opportunity to take roof Jrainagc and infiltratc it. In typi�al urban
development, rcsidential or commercial, rcwf areas lypieal account for 40% to 70% of
impervious arca. Thereforc, the rw! drainagc alone can mcct the infiltration volume
targct identified above.
On this basis, it is rccommendcJ that urban dcvclopmcnt dcsign for thc wcstcrn
portion of thc Jcvclopment arca (Arras 1, 5 and G in tlic rinch/Woodvicw arca) should
bc bascJ on dcsigning sitc Jrainagc such that
1. A minimum of 50'� of roof Jrainage is divcncd onlo vcgctalcd arcas in n way
ihat prumotes Jistribuled infiltration. 7'he could inctudc thc usc of splash paJs,
sidc-yard atxl n:ar•yard swales anJ othcr grading mcasures lo promotc
infiltration whilc also maintaining expcct�Kl Icvcis of scrvicc (i.c. avoiding
nuisancc poncfing a�xl prolong��J wctness in rcar y�rds).
2. Usc of catchbasins to coilect rcar-yard drainagc and divcrt it into tlre storm
scwer systcro should bc avoiJcJ as mucli as �wssibic. Instcad, lot graJing
should allow for cxccss lot runoff to drain onto cJgc trcalment amas arxl into
lhc wctlanJ arcas adjaccnl to thc dcvclopmcnt zone. I'or lots that arc not
situatcd adjacent to a wctlancl eJgc•trcatmcnt zonc, use of grasseJ sidc•yard
arnl r;.u-yard swalcs should bc useJ as mucli as possiblc to convey lot tunoff to
ncarby cJgc-trcaunent areas.
3. For cach individual property dcvclopmcnt, thc Town should rcquim thac thc
dcvcloper providc detailcd sile Jrainagc plans and supporting watcr buJget
calculations that demonstrate that present-day contributions to the water tablc
will be maintainal in future, through measures such as those outlineci above.
The water budget calculations should consider seasonai variations.
�I100-011119919J9 �eclunemo.doe `.�
viuw
13 2 APPEND/X C
GROUNDWATER MANAQEMENT
Conaldan0ons Regaid/ng Bu!lding FoundaUon Dralna
Thc recommeaded approach in which roof water is draincd onto grassccl azcas wiil, as
Ihe water budget calculations show, maintain wlu�t has becn termul "nce annual
contribution to proundwatcr". This tcrm rcfcrs to the volumc of watcr that vcrticaily
drains tluough the soil profile to waler-bcaring zones U�at arc dceper than tt�osc
subjectecf to evapotranspiration losses. In oUier worJs, die nct contribution to
grounclwater has been compuled as the amount ot watcr that will drain to below the
root zonc.
Within an uPoan Jcvclopment arca, builJing Coundation drainc wiil intcrccpt somc of
this water. The wrrcnt design approach is that foundation drains autict to the storm
sewcr syslem, which ultimately drains to nawral watercourscs such as Petticoat Cr��ck.
Picld invcstigations along Pctticoat Crcck in 1999 dcarly showcd that crcek bascilow
was being fcJ by dry-wcather outflows Gom urban storni outfalls, and U�e sourcc of
Ihis dry-wcalher sewcr Ilow is likcly panly or mostly fowxlation drainage.
In areas adjaccnt w protecteJ weUanJs, qie nct effcct of foundation drains may bc to
diven grou►xlwaler away from the wctland. �oundation drains can potentially cause
significant lowering of local watcr table. Wliile ihc divcncd groundwa;cr may help to
maintain basc0ows in downstrcam watcrcourscs, Iocal lowcring of watcr tablc could
result in �xgativc impacts on wctlanJ hydrotogy,
I�or thc proposccl Jcvciopment zoncs in thc Finct✓Woexlvicw Avcnuc area that arc
aJjaccnt lhc Amos 1'onJ wctland complcx , �his issuc shoulJ bc aJdresscd property-by-
Property by examinalion c�f pro�uJ building foundation drain cicvations vcrsus
weUand watcr cicvatiotu arnl atimalcd pcak watcr-table Icvcis ovcr thc dcvelopmcnt
propertics. This will Iead dircctly lo a Jcicrmination of whcthcr or not proposed
foundation Jrains will havc localiu�l watcr-tablc impacts. In gencral, it will obviously
bc dcsirablc to lucate building foutxlations abovc thc scasonally high watcr-tablc Icvcl,
bodi from a building proicctiun pers�xctivc anJ wcUa►xl protcclion perspcctivc. IC in
certain cases building foundalion drains are proposed to be situated below eslimate
pcak water-tablc Icvels, thcn lhc builJing and sitc dcsign shoulJ bc rcvicwcJ in dctail
to see if �wtential local water-table lowering can be avoided.
�•nawni:v9�v�v u�n�o.aa C-7
n�eruo
_ 133
xco ni� r3•uoo-0i
TECHNICAL APPENOIX D
LAND AREA REQUIREMENT AND COST WORKSHEETS
ROUGE PARK NEI(iHB0URH00D
ENVIRONMENTAL MASTER SERVICIN(3 PLAN
FEBRUARY 18, 2000
13 �! ,
TABLE OF CONTENTS
' P�ye No.
It�n'rtc�ucnoN ........................................................................... ... 1
TABLES
Tablc D.1 Woalview Estimated Iarnl Area Rcquircmcnt ........................ 1
Table D.2 Altona Estimated Lznci Arca Rcquircmcnts ............................ 2
Tabic D.3 Estimated Capital Costs Cor Woodvicw Faciliry ....................... 3
Tablc D.4 Estimatcd Capital Cost far Altona Facility ............................. 3
v�� �aaoni:v��v�suznn,o�.a�
n.�.�.x�. i9w
135
APPENDIX D
LAND AREA REQUIRF.MENTS
AND C05TWORKSHEETS
1NTRODUCTION
The following Tcchnical Appendix prescnts the worksheets useJ ro detern�inc the "foot
print" land aren rcquirement for thc Woaiview anJ Altona stormwatcr managcment
facilities. The land arca rcquiremcnt is fowxied on acceptable aspccr ratios anJ pool
depths usal in ihc provincc. A latul arca contingency has bccn incluJcJ to providc
dcsigners with sufficient room to malify atxl dcsign facilities to optimiu the facilities
for quantiry, quality anJ crosion control. 'fablc D.l and D.2 show thc land area
requimments tor the Woalview ancl Aitona facilities, respcxtivcly.
Table D.1 Woodview EsUmated Land Area Requlrement
ua iaaoiuzva�v�v�n�e.,.� p_ �
Dasm6cr 21. 19A
r'c: '1r
1.� 6
APPENOIX D
LAND AREA REQU/REMENTS
AND COST WORKSHEETS
Tab/e 0.2 Alfona EsUmatad Land Area Requlrements
Thc atinutcJ WnJ arca rcyuircmcnt fur thc Wocxi�•icw fuilily is I.Q Ila an�f the
Altom fxility is 1.5 tu.
Capiwl Coscs lu�•c bccn atimateJ for cxh fuility. Thc costs do cux irsciuJe larnl
cos�s ur storm scwtr connections ani manhola. A contingcrcy ot 30� tus bccn
ireluJaf. T�bla D.3 anJ D.� sumnuriu �he ccnt ati►nata fur �hc Wax1r•icw anJ
Nton� fxilitia,
w�uoon�sw�9��a� p-,
� ii. ��
�
Table D.3
137
APPEND/X D
, LAND AREA REQU/REMENTS
AND COST WORKSHEETS
EsGmated Caplfal Costs for Woodvlew Facilify
u�m u�i uou p.�a �u�r c�
obitln1lunlJemab, tite clearing atwl finil cleanup Al�nwmce SS,000.00 I f3,000
� avulon + lianhwork m� S7.W I I.FSp 581.1lW
n Suge Pmpantion m� SI3.00 0 SO
Inlel workt uwl Omlet Strucwre Unil SSU.000.00 � SSO,ppp
wlon Pro�ection / Rip Rap tn� f30.00 2,725 S69.gpp
iml ar�dinQ a�wl I�nlsc�piny inclmling tealing. m° 525.W 4.416 ' SI10.4W
ing. Plml(ng
oniloring/Sampling SUtions incl. Power �upply S�tiun 523,000.00 0 s0
I�nfAcyuisftiun m� SIS.00 0 SO
otal Fsllmaled Caulruetion Cmt ��2�ppp
IXal wilh JO% CuntlnRmey sqpb�ppp
Tab/e D.4 Estlmated Capltal Cost for Altona Facility
�lun Unll Unit prlce Quanqly Cost
obilinifonlJemub, site claring anJ firul cleanup Allawma SS.000.00 1 55,000
ar�tion + Canhwurk m� Z7.00 16,�07 5112.700
Wel Suge Pre�untion �n� S�S.00 0 SO
nlel warks �nJ Owl�l Suucture Unii 550,070.W 1 SS0,000
roeiun Proteciiun / Rip Rap m� SJ0.00 2,829 S&1.900
�mi gnJing onJ I�nil.uping including secJing.
ing, pl�NinB m� 525.00 3,94) 5148.560
anlioring/Sampling Sutiom incl. power cupply 5ution S2S,000.00 0 SO
Latuf Acqulsition m� SI5.00 0 SO
otalFst(mated Cortatruclfon Cost j,796,�gp
olal alth 30!S Conlingency 5515,000
U-1100-011129919J9uchmemo.Ja
n«e�on��:�� ��v
D-3
• 13 g APPENDIX II TO
REPORT NUMBER YD07-00
c
�
Staff Recommended
Rouge Parlc I�eighbourhood
Development Guidelines
,
,;
t�
. . . .
r
.
,�
. �
�
0
��
�
e
�i�
. . . .. � . . . ' . � � ' �. ' � - � .
140 Roug� Pa�rk NeighbourhooJ
Development Guidelines — Table of Contents
Section
Page
N1.1.0 General Description �
N1.2.0 DevelopmentGoals � 1
N1.3.0 TertiaryPlan 2
N1.4.0 Environmental Master Servicing Plan 2
N 1.5.0 Rouge Parlc Management Plan 2
N1.6.0 Rouge�Duffins Wildlife Corcidor Management Plan Initialive 2
N1,7.0 Servicing 3
N1.7.1 StormwalerManagement
N1.7.2 SaniWrySewerage
N1.7.3 WaterSuppiy
N1.7.4 Servicing Other Lands
N1.8.0 Neighbourhood Population Targels
N1.9.0 DevelopmentStandards
N1.9,1 DevelopableAreas
N1.9.2 Transportation Network
N1.9.3 Streetscape
N1.9,4 NefghbourhoodCentre
N1.9.5 School and Park Site
N1.9.6 ViewsandVistas
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
8
10
11
12
N1.10.0 CulWral Heritage : 12
N1.10.1 HeritageStructures 12
N1.10.2 Archaeological Resources 12
N 1.11.0 Unit Trans(ers and Densiry Bonuses 12
N1.11.1 UnitTransfers 12
N1.11.2 Densiry8onuses 13
N1.12.0 Staging 14
N 1.13.0 ImplemenWtion , 14
The Rouge Park Nelghbourhood Development Gutdellnes were adopted �
6y Pickerfng City Councll through Resoludon iii on �7i.
�(
;3 � . , , , - .,� .. . , :.
E
141
Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines
N1.1 Genere) Description
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood is located along the west side of Pickering, at the northern limit of
the Ciry's South Urban Area. It comprises an area of approximately 160 hectares. The
Neighbourhood is bourtded on the west by the Pickering-Toronto boundary, on the north by the
Inlerprovincial PlpelineJC. P. Rail Ilne, on the south by the Ontario Hydro Gat(neau Corridor, �nd
on the east by open space lands just east of Rosebank Road.
The Neighbourhood includes part of the Rouge Park, and has significant open space lands
associated with the Petticoat Creek valley, wetlands, and various wooded areas. The Official Plan
designales lhese lands as 'Open Space Syslem - Naturel Area'. All lands wilh the 'Natural Area'
designation, as well as 'Freeways and Ma(or Util(ties — Potential Multi-Use Areas' (the Ontario
Hydro Gatineau Conidor), are also designated as the'RougrOuffins Wildlife Corridor'. Additional
information regarding environmental (eatures and stormwater management is available in the
Rouge Park Nefghbourhood Environmenlal Master Servicing Plan (see seclion N1.4 of these
Guidelines). .
The developabie lands within ihe Neighbourhood are designated 'Urban Residenlial Areas - Low
Density', as well as 'Mixed Use Area - Local Node' at the south-east corner of Finch Avenue and
Allona Road. Developable lands comprise approximately 2596 0! the total Ne(ghbourhood area.
N1.2 Development Gaals
Developable areas within the Rouge Park Nefghbourhood comprise many small propertics, some oI
which are irregularly shaped. The challenge in developing/redeveloping ihe Neighbourhood is
overcoming this Gagmenled ownership, w ihal Ihe resullfng impression is lhat of a cohesive,
well-desfgned neighbourhood.
In order to accomplish this, ihe Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines establfsh the
following broad goals:
Goal I: Finch Avenue will serve as the backbone o/ the Neighbourhood.
Development adjacent lo Ihis primary road should establish a slrong visual and physical
relationshfp with the street, a relalionship which is evident through thc Ncighbourhood.
Goa12: Development must maintain a connectlon wieh surrounding nalura! areas.
The greatest attribute and most idenUOable aspect o(lhis Neighbourhood (s the variety and number
o( natural areas, valleys and open space lands. Neighbourhood design within developable areas
must be done in a manner that retains visual and physical (where appropriate) connecUons lo these
areas. This can be accomplished through caretul design and placement o( internal roads and
walkways, and siting of buildtngs.
Rouge Park Nefghbourhood Development Guldelines Page 2
142
Coal 3: 7he intersection of Flnch Avenue and Alcona Road will be fhe cenbal /ocus o/ the
Neigh6ourhood.
Thts w(II be accompltshed though development controls requiring high�uality building and
landscape design, and Ihe provision of a mix ot uses includfng educational facilflies and multi•unit
residential development, as well as Nmited relail, commercial, insHtut(onal, and ofOce uses.
Goal 4: Resldentlal arcas leatum a variety of housing types ol hlgh-yuality design arranged on
e/licient street pattems.
Housing types may include detached, semitletached, townhomec, and multi-unit dwellfngs which
contribule to a lotting pattem and sUeetscape that is aesthelically pieasing, diverse, encourages
social Interadfon within a neighbourhood, and supports safe environments.
N1.3 TertiaryPlan
Figure A presents a Tertiary Plan that illuslrates many of the design objectives discussed in lhe
(ollowing text. The location oF the various symbols on ►he Tertiary Plan should not be considered
absolule, as they will be refined through the review and approval of development applications.
N1.4 Environmental Master Servicing Plan
City Council has endorsed an EnvironmenWl Master Servicing Plan (or the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood (EMSP). The EMSP is a companion document to these Development Guidelines,
and provides direcUon on stormwater management and strategies (or developing in a
environmentally responsfble manner, Slaf( and Council will refer to the EMSP when considering
development applications wilhin the Neighbourhood. Landowners and developers must refer lo
ihe EMSP when designing and undertaking development.
N1.5 Rouge Park Managemenl Plan
A portion of the Rouge Park occupies much o( lhe western Ihird of the Neighbourhood. The
Pickering O(ficial Plan contains policies that deal specifically with the Park. Section 10.16 of the
Plan establishes general resource management policies for supporting the goals of the Rouge Park
Management Plan, and s�rlion 11.16 requires that new development in lhe Rouge Park
Neighbourhood have regard for Ihc Managemenl Plan.
N1.6 Rouge�Dufrns �Idli(r Corridor Managemenf Plan Iniliafive
A Management Plan should be prepared for ihe Roug�Du(fins Wildlife Corridor, which would
address preservation, maintenance and restoretion of the Corridor. SWkeholders such as lhe
Ministry o( Nalural Resources, Toronlo & Region ConservaUon Authority, Region of Durham, City
of Pickering, Canadian Paciflc Railway, Interprovincial Pipelines, and Onlario Hydro Services are
encouraged to come together and (orge a partnership to support the future of ihe Wildlife Corridor.
Owners of lands within the Wildli(e Corridor should be requfred to operate and undertake works
wilhin the parameters established by a Rouge-Duffins Wildli(e Corridor Management Plan.
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelinet Page 3
N1.7 Servicing
N1.7.1 StormwaterManagement .
143
The Tertiary Plan identifies Ihe preferred IocaUon of two stormwater management ponds. Lands
west of Petticoat Creek would contrfbute to a pond located on Onlario Hydro lands on the east side
of Woodview Avenue. Lands east of Petticoat Creek would canlrlbutc to a pond located on
Ontarfo Hydro lands on Ihe west side of Altona Road. Detailed siling, engineering and greding
plans are required prior to finalization of lhe sites — reference should be made to the Environmencal
Master Servicing Plan for addiUonal stormwater management details.
As discussed tn the Environmental Master Servicing Plan, lhere may be a Iimited opportunity for
some lands at the north-west comer of Finch Avenue and Rosebank Road to draln lo an existing
storm sewer along Rosebank Road. '
N1.7.2 SanitarvSeweraue
The existing main sewcr Unes are laated along Woodvlew Avenue near Sandhurst Crescent, as
well as along Allona Road at Pinegrove Avenue. The extension of sanitary sewers into the
Neighbourhood will be required prior lo development occurring.
The sewer along Woodview will serve the area west o( Petticoat Creek. It will require minor
upgrades prior to exlenslon, and has capacity to accommodate approximalely 500 additional
people. The sewer along Altona can serve the remainder of the Neighbourhood. With minor
improvements, (t can accommodate approximately 1,700 additional people.
It may be possible to service a Itmited amount o( land west ot Rosebank Road via a sanitary sewer
which exists on Rosebank, soulh of Finch Avenue. Such a possibiliry can be examined (urther ance
detailed development appliwtions are submilled (or the arca. The City will support this servicing
arrangemeni provided Ihat ft is acceptable to the Regian ol Durham, and does not require
substanlial regrading o( ihe subject lands which may inapproprialely impact surrounding
propertfes.
An altemate means of providing sanilary sewerege to certain areas (particularly those on the north
side of Finch Avenue, west oI Petticoat Creek) is a direct connection to the York•Durham Trunk
Sewer via a pumping station/(orcemain. The City will support this serv(cing arrangement, provided
that the pumping station/forcemain is privalcly owned and operaled, or othenvise agreed to by lhe
Region,
N1.7.3 WaterSuuolv
The majority of homes within lhe Neighbourhood are currently scrved by the Regional water
supply system, which includes watermains installed along Finch and Woodview Avenues. With
the recenlly completed expansion of the Ajax Water Supply Plant, there are no constraints on the
system's ability to accommodate planned growth in this area. No facilities other than the exte�sion
of watermains are required.
;� ' _
��.� . v4 , '.. �. . . ., .. ...; ' .. .�.. . :, . .,�. . � . _ � .
-�I'.lF �� . . . . . . . ' � .
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines Page 4
14 �1.7 4 Servicjpg Other Lands
Within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, a few existfng homes are situated oulsfde of developable
areas (there are several on Finch Avenue west ot Woodview Avenue). As lands in 1he vicin(ty ot
such homes are developed, Ihe Regton is encouraged to make available water and sanitary
sewe�age to exist(ng homes.
N1.8 Neighbourhood Population Targeta
The Official Plan establishes a population Wrget for lhe Rouge Park Neighbourhood of
1,600 people. Based solely on sanitary sewer capaciry, a population Wrget of 2,200 people is
achievable (500 west of Petticoat Creek, and 1,700 east o( the creek). However, i( the population
were to grow much beyond 1,600 people, the Durham District School Board has fndiwted lhal an
elementary uhool site would be required within the Neighbourhood.
In order to minim(ze the need for public facilities in lhis area of Umited developable lands, a
population Wrget ot 1,600 people will be retained, with a maximum oi 500 people on lands
developed west of Petticoat Creek which cbnUibute to the Woodview Aienue saniWry sewer.
At Cuuncil's discretion, the population Wrget may be exceeded if the City, in consulWtion with the
Durham District 5choal Board, is saHsfied that existing development, or proposed development,
does not generate the need (or additional school facilities within the Neighbourhood (which would
be in addition lo lhe site required by the Durham Catholic Dislrid School Board, see section
N1.9.5).
The populalfon target o( 500 people west o( Petlicoat Creek may be exceeded if ihe Cily and
Region are ulisfied ihat alternative servici�g arrangemenis are fcasible and appropriate. This may
include a dtrect connection to Ilie York-Durham Trunk Sewer via a privately owned and operated
sewage pumping taciliry.
r �
Rouge Park Nefghbourhood Development Guidelines p�$e 5
N1.9 Devdopment Standard�
N1.9J DevelonabieArca�
145
The TeAlary Plan (ncludes a delineation ot'developable areas' within the Neighbourhood. The
delineation fs based on the exclus(on of sensit(ve natural teatures such as wetiands, woodlots and
stream rnrridoa. Functions associated wtth ihose features may depend on lands adjacent to the
features and thus, wme resvfctfons may be placed on the adjacent lands within the develop�3ble
areas cunently identified.
The precise relationshfp between features and functions for specif(c areas will be determined wlien
development is proposed tor that area, through the submission of an EnvironmenWl Report (see
section 15.11 of Ihe Pickering O(ficial Plan). The Environmental Report will be required to, among
other matters, precisely define the Umits of development and identify appropriate edge
management strategies which may include bu(fers, restoration zones, and building setbacks. The
Environmenlal Master Servicing Plan provides direction on undenaking this work for various areas
within the Neighbourhood. Where apprapriate, the conveyance of signi(icant environmen4J
(ealures and their bu((ers to the City or other public agency may be required as conditions o(
development approval.
�:
I I II • �� �`'�'�''r'
, f,.,
� ' , ,�.�-;
sl� •�`;`' ��4y ''� �,, .
� �'�'��,'•'.)i,•�� ��/ s
1� �� • � �y� �:,;�;tii'%�:>1K;x
�'4 ��', �� „i �: �, r 'q Ak'i
� i 'K,; i•.�i i �1 /�`,'4• �ft
� �l-'= _,i�i�l���`��J�c���!.'�i�.M
Gross-sectlon o!a typical edge management sUategy
At the time of Council approval of these Development Guidelines, the lands on the noAh side o(
Finch Avenue, opposile Woodview Avenue, were subjed to a development appllcaHon and appeal
of Ihe Pickering Official Plan. The 'dashed' Itne identified on the Tertlary Plan for this area
indicates that development limils have yet to be determined. This will be accompllshed through
Ihe review of the development application, and resolulion of the Official Plan appeals.
146
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines Page 6
N1.9.2 Transoortation Network
Exlst(ng Roads
The two primary roads in the Netghbourhood are Finch Avenue and Altona Road, which are both
artcrial roads that perform an important Ua(fic function in the City. As lands are developed along
these roads, lhis (unclion must be mainWi�ed. Accordingiy, the number and spacing of new access
points lo Finch and Allona will be carefully reviewed by C(ty and Regional staf(. However, with
the Cily's interest in Finch Avenue serving as the Neighbourhoai's 'backbone', access restriclions
to Finch will be less stringent compated with Altona Road.
It is anticipated Ihat Finch Avenue and Allona Road will be widened to four lanes in Ihe future, and
upgraded to standard urban cross-sections wilh curbs, gutters and sidewalks. At ihe time of
improvemenls to Finch Avenue, the Finch/Rosebank Road inlersedion will be realigned. it is also
anticipated that new signalized intersections will acur along Finch Avenue at Rosebank Road, and
at Woodview Avenue.
As modificaUons to Finch Avenue, Allona Road, and Rosebank Road are made, impacts on the
area's natura) features and functions, and abutting propeAies, should be minimized and
opportunities to maintain/enhance natural features and fundions should be pursued. SWndard
engineering and construction techniques may not be appropriate. Innovative and
environmentally-responsible techniques such as Ihe following may be required:
■ eslablish right�of•way widths that are consistent with the required number of lanes, rather than
securing ihe maximum permissible widths;
• shade slreet lights and other amblent lighting away from nearby woodlots;
• minimizc alteralions to exisling grades and drainage paticrns;
• minimize loss of existing vegetation; and
• provide culverts and olher roadtrossing opportunilies for herpetovores and small mammals.
As set out in section 11.16(c) of the Official Plan, Cily Council will support improvements lo lhe
level crossings of the C.P. rail Iine at Ihe Scarborough•Pickering Townline Road, Allona Road, and
Rosebank Road, such as the (nstallation o( appropriate safely measures including automatic safety
gales, and gredc separations where appropriatc.
Futurc Roads
The Tertiary Plan identifies Ihe approximatc alignment of fulure principal roads wilhin the
developable areas, These principal roads (in addition to other future roads Ihat may be required for
some areas), are required to create permeable development pockets, and (acilitale an e(ficient
movement of pedestrians, private vehicles, iransil, and service vehicles through the
Neighbourhood.
The TeAiary Plan also identifies'additional access locations' along Finch Avenue and Altona Road.
These locations will provide access to smali and/or irregularly shaped areas that may be better
served by private roads rather than more landtonsumptive public roads. Alternate, additional and
temporary access pofnts must be approved by ihe City and Region of Durham, Altemative
development standards such as reduced right-of•ways and privale rear lanes will also be considered.
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines FaBe 1
147
A potenttal •through-road' between Finch and Allona fs fdentified (or the south-east corner o( thc
two sireets. This conneclion is pre(erced if the lands redevclop primarily as one block. However, if
exisling homes on the south side of Finch are reWined ihrough redevelopment, the through-road
(although desfrablel will not be required (see sectio� N1.9.3).
Cohesive Street Deslgn
As new public roads and (mprovements to existing roads are designed, the outcome should be a
public road netwark that presents a dis►inct character for the Neighbourhood. This would include a
uni(ied approach ta:
• street tree species;
• boulevard and median landscaping, particularly at the Finch/Altona intersection;
� demarcation of pedestrian crossings .
• style o( street lights; and
■ placement o( slreet (umiwre.
In addition, the style of street lights and selection of street trees and landscaping materials should
enhance environmenWl (eatures and functions in Ihe Neighbourhood.
SJdewalks
Sidewalks will be required on at least one slde of all new public roads. For condominium
developmenls, a palhway syslem should provide convenient pedestrian access to appropriale areas
within Ihe sile, as well as connections to public sidewalks and streets.
Trail System
The City o( Pickering Trails and Bikeway Master Plan idenlifies a nelwork o( o(f and on-road trails
throughout urban and rural Pickering for such users as pcYlestrians, joggers, cyclists, in-line skaters,
cross-country skiers, etc. Over lime, key recommendalions of the Master Plan will be implemented
to achieve lhe City's vision af a multi-modal community,
The Master Plan identi(ies several conceptual trail routes Ihroug�; the Neighbaurhood. Un-road
'(uture bikc routes' are identified along Altona Road, Finch Avenuc and the Townline Road. O(f-
street trails include a'future hiking trail' along Pelticoat Creek (likely on the east side of Ihe creek),
and '(uture multi-use pathways' within the Hydro corridor and aloiig lhe York•Durham Trunk
Sewer.
The Tertiary Plan identifies polential trail access locations that will Ifnk new development with
these trafl syslems. Opportunities lo secure adequale right-of•way for these future trail systems, as
well as links lo Ihe Neighbourhood, will be considcred in the revicw of subdivision and site
designs, as the area develops. Prior to Ihe construction of any trails, detailed assessments o( trail
localions and alignments will be required.
Design of improvemenls to Finch Avenue and Allona Road should accommodate space within the
right�of-way for bicycle lanes, as per the Trails and Bikeway Master Plan.
r
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Cuidelines Page 8
148
N1.9.3 �
Devclopment Along Finch Avenue andAltona Road
Finch Avenue ts expected to mainWin (ts
role as the key street or'backbone' of the
community. This may fnvolve a
conlinuatiun o( the historic development
pattern along Finch — that of homes and
other buildings facing the street.
New development along Finch Avenue
and Altona Road should employ
innovalive architectural and urban design
lechniques to humanize the street, mitigate
ihe effecls of traffic, and present an
attreclivc frontage along these roads.
Oevelopment with reverse fronWges and
noise altenuation devices such as
significant fencing and earih berms is
slrongly discoureged.
Appropriate design treatmenls could include the use of:
• singlrloaded service roads:
• homes orienled lowards Finch and/or Altona, and accessed via private rear lanes;
• sofl landscaping Ireatments Itrees, shrubs, hedges, etc.) which help define street and property
edges, while also providing limited sound absorplive qualities;
• enhanced flankage elevations fealuring ample glazing, enlrances and archilectural detailing;
and
• multi-Ooor builJings siled close to existing strcels, thereby using iheir building mass as a
separator between the roaJ and rear amenily arcas.
Altona Road wil� likely experience a higher rale of traffic growlh than Finch Avenue. Allhough use
of Ihe above desiqn treatments is also encouraged for Altona Road, limiled use of noise attenualion
devices may be permissiblc.
Potentiallor Rear-Lot Devclopment
As mentioned previously, development paltems along Finch Avenue have historically (ealured
buildings that face the sireet. This includes several existing homes fronting Ihe south side of Finch
just east o( Allona Road, and the norlh side n( Finch immediately east o( the Regional Waler Tower.
The properties on which ihese homes are situated are o( sufficient depth to accommodate rear-lot
development, which would allow for redevelopment of the surrounding �ands while retaining
existing homes, This wili only be pradical however, if landowners are unifled in their approach to
redevelopment of the lands — either all homes arc retained, or the entire block is redeveloped.
A coordinated plan will be required for these blaks upon submission o( the first major development
applications in these areas. I( existing homes are reWined, abutting development should be of a
compatible scale and cha�acter, with particular attention to lot Gontage and build(ng heighls, as well
as Gont, side and rear yards.
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines Pa6e 9
Development Along New Roads
As discusxd in seclion Nt.9.2, a nelwork ot
public and/or privale roads will be required
within the developable areas to provide (w
permcabSlity and 10 faciliwte e(ficient vehicular
and pedesUian circulation. For groundoriented
dwellings (detached, semkietached, townhomes
etc.), attention to a dwelling's relationship with
the street is important.
Accorclingly, Iheir design should coosider the
(ollowing principals:
14�
Principal I: Homes should featurc prominent main entrances that are easily identifia6le and
visi6le (rom the street.
A prominent entry point provides a focal point forthe home and fosters a sense o( warmth and
human habitation. Highly visible entrances support informal surveillance along a street, thereby
reducing potential for vanJalism and crime.
Principal 2: Homes should provide windows and doorways at tlie front lace of the house to
provide 'eyes on the stmet'.
Windows 'open Ihe home', which fostcrs a sense of warmth and human habitation and providc
opporlunities for living space (e.g. family room / kilchens) to be drawn to the front u( a dwelling.
This arcangemenl of internal space maximizes oppoAunities (or in(ormal surveillance o( yard and
street Gom within a home.
Principal 3: Homes should o(fer an amenity area that accommodales opportunity for street-side
lntcraction.
An amen(ty area cauld be a front yard, landscaped area, porch, veranJah, etc. Providing Ihis space
enhances oppoAunities to socialize with neighbours — this social interection can strengthen a sense
of communiry within a neighlx�urhoal. Reduced building setbacks can draw ameniry areas closer
together.
Principal 4: A garage should be scaled and integrated wiefi the design of a house such that it is not
the dominant aspect o/ ehe home.
The width and projection of a garage should be sensitive to Ihe over-all xale of the house. The
garage could be c!c�ached and piaced in rear or side yard. The use of shared driveways can
increase the percenWge of a front yard available (or landscaping. Common underground parking
areas could �e used for multi-unit grade related housing.
Rouge Park Neighbourhoad Development Guidelines Page 10
150 N1.9.4 Neig�ourhaodCentre
Building Focus
Develapment around the intersection ot Fnch Avenue and Altona Road will be the 'heart' of the
Neig��bourhood, both i� appeaiance and funuion. The use of appropriate building heights,
massing, architectural (eatures and landscaping will
establish a(ocal point at lhis interseUion.
The Tertiary Plan identifies a'neighbourhood focus' at thc
four rnmers of lhe interseclion, which require a slrong
presence al Finch and Altona Io define Ihe area as a
centrc. Thfs wn be accomplished by buildinp, close to the
stree�, providing ouldoor public space (squues, plazas),
and the use of hard and soh landscaping. Parking areas
should be organized such lhat the majoriC� of the area
does not separate principal buildings from Finch /lvenue.
Architecturally significant structures that relate to the buill
heritage of this area are encouragecl. This would include
use o( similar architectural styles and building materials.
The building focus should be augmented by distindive
boulevard and median landscaping which will usist in Bui/dmymauefarcarrangcdinamannei�hat
establishing a sr.nse �f 'arrival' dl �he inictsec�ion. lramci anddriw� attcntion ro the in�crsection
n�., a..:�r i� �...*own ��.a i� �u i.«�aem
,� �.��d �er d�upa
Quilding hlcights
In order to provide for a suitable viaual focus within the Centre, building heighls wil) pre(erably
range (rom 8.5 to 15 metres in height Igenerally 3 to 5 storics), with nothing less Ihan a height
typicaliy achieved with 2 storeys. Within this range, proposed building heights and massing musl
be sensitive (i.e. minimize Ihe casting o( shaJows) to adjacent development.
in areas bcyond the Neighlwurhood Cenlre, buiiding hei�hls should be sensitive to the area's
suROUnding built and naturai environmenl. Typically, the tallest buildings will be comparable in
height to that of a malure Iree canopy — 4 l0 5 storics.
local N� le
The south-east corner ot Finch Avenue and Altona Road is designaled 'Mixed Use Area - Local
Node• in the O(ficial Plan. This designation provides for a broad range of uses, including: medium
density residential; retailing of goods and services; o(fices; restauranls; and community, culturai and
recreational uses. Considering the size of the Local Node parcel, as much as 1,000 square metres
of non-residential space is anticipaled i( lhe property redevclops.
The mix of uses permitted by the Local Node designation further enhances oppohunities for the
Finch/Altona fntersection lo be the focus of the Neighbourhood, by providing for the day-to-day
shopping needs of area residenls. Accordingly, redevelopment of this comer is strongly
encouraged to accommodate a range of uses, fn particular, retail, commercial and o(fice space on
ihe first (ew floors, with residential units on upper (loors.
Rouge Park Neighbourhoal Development Guidclines Page i l
If the buiiding on the site is rNUSed, rather than fully red�.weloped, an intens:ve redandsc�ping of" 51
the site is enrnuraged. This could include an architecturaUtarxlsape fealure to serve �s a focus
Iowards the Finch/Altona intersection, mmicured greenspace paralleling �he perime�er o( thr site,
and landxape strips IFwt define puking are�s.
Nnrth.fasi Comer
The dep(h of Ids at ihe nortMeast comer of Finch Avenue and Altona Road may be too sPwilrnv t�
attommodate development fronling /Utona Rwd. Preferably, Ihe enlire block of land will be
developed comprehensively. ,
Access Locations to Properties at the In(enection �.! Finch and Aitona o
Access to the blocks of land at ihe four comea of the intersection will tx dependant on the type of
use proposed on lhese propcnies. Residential development will be encouragcd lo mskc use of
new, internal roads. For commerciaUmixed use development, ihe Region of Durfwm will generalty
permit (ull attess to Finch Avenue, provided the access point is located as far as possible Gom the
intersection. Access lowtions along Altona Road may have restrictecl turning movements.
Equipment and Service Area Screening
Roof mounted mechanical equipment should tx screened so it is not visible (rom the road or any
adjacent use. Screening methals should be integrated inla Ihe building design. Mechanical
equipment, scrvice arcas, and iransformcrs at grade should be housed in the main building where
possible, or where nol possible, screened �vilh decorative (ences, landsca{x fealures or building
elements.
Re(use storege must be fully enclosed and preferably interna! lo ihe buildings. Provision must also
be made to accommodate waste recycling.
Oulside storegc will not bc permiued.
Restriction on Uses
Retaii facilities wilhin ihe Neighbourhoal Centre shoulu provide for ihe day-lo-day shopping needs
of residenls in Ihe area. Therefore, 'htghwaytommercial' type uses such as gas stalions and
drivo-lhrough facilities such as restaurants, banks and convenience stores will not be permitted.
N 1.9.5 School and Park Si�e
As identifled on Ihe Tertiary Plan, Ihe noAh-west corner o( Finch and Allona has been reserved for a
2.4hectare elementary school site (or ihe Durham Catholic Dislrict School Board, and a 1.7 hectare
Neighbourhood Park. These communiry facilities will serve Ihe Neighbourhood and a broader
area.
The school and its related landscaping elemenls will provide a prominent focal point for the
Neighbourhood. The building should be sited close to the inlersection, with ouldoor play areas
provided at the rear of the school.
�.
,,
1,
I;
�; � �
.. . � .. . . . �'i4 .. . . . . . . . . �
RouRe Park Neighbaurhood Develapm�rt Guidelines Page 12
l .r1.: N 1.9.6 �ews and �stas
Certain existi�g and buiit teatures will est�blish arxl enfunce ihe are�'s chuacter, sense o( plxe,
�nd aeate landmuks. They will alw usist wilh one's aient�lion within ihe Neighkwurhoocl. Tu
create and/a retain these views, local road aientatio� anJ building rnass sfwulJ be utilited in a
minner that �cuu►es and fnmes prominent views o( aeek valleys and faested areas.
In particular, the vista along any extension Ipublic a privale road) d Woodview Avenue shoulJ tx
termirwted by either the existing natural features to the noAh, or an archilMural tcxal puint or
significanl landscape feature.
N1.10 Cultural Herita6e
N1.10.1 HcritaxeSlructures
The Ciq/s Cultural HeriWge goal is lo respect its cultural heritage, and conserve and inte}yate
important cultural heriWge resources (rom all time periods into the communiry (section 8.1 of Ihe
Official Plan). This can be xu nolished by identifying important cuhural heriWge resources, w
Ihal they can be conserved and �.��;raled into the community fabric.
Four dwellings in {wrticular, at 51, 240 and 450 Finch Avenue, anJ 1973 Altona Road (identified
on the Tertiary Plan), are conside:ed significant. Prior lo development accuning on these
propehies, an assessmenl of the architectural and herilage sisnificance o( each slructure should be
undcrtaken by the appliwnt, and strat��qies for rewining the slrucwres on site should be explornl, if
appropriate. This same examination should apply to any property in the Neighbourhood i( it
exhibits Iraits of archilectural ancUor heritage significance. Heritage Pickering should be consulted
in determining if the examinalion is necessary (or these olher slructures.
N I.10.2 1r���gS��1 Neso.u_r�g�
Thue are registered archaeological resource sitEK wilhin Ihe general area of 1`.� 'neuee Park
Ncighbourhood. If development is proposed on or near a property that contains one o( the
registered sites, Ihc Region of Durham will requi�c Ihe applicant underWkc an archacological
assessment of lhe subject property.
Nl.tl Unit Transfers aad Densily Bonuses
N1.11.1 UnitTrens(ers
The Rouge Park Ncighbourhood has a smal) developable area. Recognizing (andowner intcresls,
design objectives, and the population target, residential unit transfers in accordance with Ihe
density trans(er policy of lhe O(ficial Plan (section 15.10) may be permilled,
For those circumstances in which a development proposal may be able to fulfill the objectives of
thls Development Cuideline, yet exceed the maximum allowable residential density established by
the Official Plan, the trans(erring of residenlial unils (rom one property to another within the
Neighbourhood will be considered. Both the grenting anri receiving properties must demonstrate
how the transfer will satisfy the requiremenls o( this Guidel(ne, and, if approved, an implementiog
zoning by-law will detail the granting and receiving properties, and the number of units transferred.
7
Rouge Park Nelghbourhoad Development Guidelines Page 13
N1.11.2 I?ensilv Bonuses 15 3
Densiry bonuses may bo permitted, as per seclion 15.17 0( the Offlcial Plan, subject to Council's
approvai. Coundl may pass a bylaw for a specffic site that permits an fncrease (n density of up lo
2596 beyond the maximum allowable density permitted by the O(Rcial Plan, (or that site.
A bonus is given only in relurn (or lhe provision o( speci(ic services or (acilities lisled in the O(ficial
Plan, such as: additiunal open space; community facilities; assisted or special needs housing;
preservat(on of heritage buildings or strudures; or, lhe preservation o( natural heritage fealures znd
tunctions, The accompanying table lists serv(ces or facillUes that may warrant bonuses i( they are
provided through de�elopment in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood.
In considering a development proposal which requlres a density bonus, Council will evaluate:
• the proposal within all applicable obJectives of these Guidelines and relevant O(ficial Plan
policies; and
■ the 'public good' that would be gained by accepting the benefit oHered by the proponenl in
exchange for the density bonus.
As a condiUon of passing a density bonus bylaw, lhe City will require thal benefiting landowner(s)
enter inlo one or more agreements, registered against lhe litle o( the lands, dealing with the
provision and timing of speciflc (acilities, services or matlers tn be provided in return for the bonus.
Preparation and registration o( such agreements will be at Ihe expense of the applicant.
Rouge Pa�k Neighbourhood Development Guldelines Page 14
15�4 . . _
N1.12 Staging
DevelopmenVredevelopmenl wfthin the Rouge Park Neighbourhoad wlll occur on fuil municipal
services, and will proceed based on orderly extension of the services. At Ihe discret(on of the City
and Reglon, properties may be permitted to develop independently, provided that road and
servicing connecHons to adJacent properties are designed for, protected, and where required,
constru�ted withfn ihe limits of lhe subJecl properly.
Landowners may be required to enter cost-sharing agreements (or certain facilities, such as
stormwater management ponds, as condiHons of developmenl approval. Developers may be
required, as cond(llons of development approval, to post signs at the terminus of partially
completed roads identifying that (ulure construction of a through road will occur.
N1.13 Impiementatien
Council and Ciry staff will rely on the dfrection provided by the O((icial Plan, the Rouge Park
Nefghbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan, and these Development Guidelines in the
review of all derelopment applicaUons in the Neighbourhood. The Guidel(nes should also be
referred to in the preparation of:
• zoning by-law amendment applfcations;
■ drak plans of subdivision;
• drafl plans of condominium;
■ siting and architectural design slatemenls;
■ site plans;
• building permil applicalions; and
• consltuction/engineering drawings.
Landownen are required lo contribute to Ihe cost o( the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Sludy, which
wili be adJustcYl annually based on Ihe Saulham Construction Cost Index. Contributions will be
based on the developable area o( the property, and required as a condition of development
approval.
a��
i
,
_ .. e. : . . . _- : - � .
i�J 6 APPENDIX III Tl�
REPORT NUMBEI: PD 07-00
INFORMATIONAL REVISION NO. 7 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
1. Revlse fhe introductory 1ex1 to fhe Rouge Park Neighbourhood in order to ldentify thal
Coanct! has adapled !he "Rouge Park Neighbourhood llevelopment Gulde/!nu ; such
thnt !he Inlroduc�ory terl reads as jollows:
NEIGHBOURHOOD 14: ROUGE PARK
Dacription
NeighbourhoodPopulation . ]sboundedbythePickering-Torontoboundary,theC.P.railline,an
Projection open space area eut of Rosebank Road, and the Ontario Hydro
tru�smission corridor
1996 Population .]ncludes part of the Rouge Park, u:d hu signi�cant open space
Projected Growth lands azsociated with the Rouge•DufGns Wildlife Corridor
Percrnt Increase . Most of the neighbaurhood developed prior to the 1970s
2016 Po ulation . Consis[s o[ primarily detached dwellings; commercial building is
located �t thc southeast comer of Altona Ro�d and Finch Avenuc
• HuenvironmentallysensitiveuruusociateJwi[htheRougeRiver
and PuR, Pctticoat Creck, Townline Swamp Complex, and various
woodcd ueu within and adjacent to thc neighbourhood
• City Council hu adopted the "Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Development Gwdelines", which apply to thc entirc neighbowhood
2. Revlse Mop 2� by: revlsing Ihe boundary ojrhe De�alled Revlew Areo �o Jnc/ude a/! lands
in Ihe Neighbrurhood; adding shading lhal lndlcalu �he Delailed RevTew has been
complefed; re/ocoNng lhe proposed park symbo! lo !he north-west corner ojFincli Avenue
and A!lona Road; adding a proposed separate e%menlary sr.hoo! symbol to 1he norlh-west
corner ojFin�h Avenue and A!lona Road; addJng propased new road connecllons between
Flnch Avenue nnd Rosebonk Road, and �he wuf sJde oj iVoodvlew Avenue; and, make
corresponding revlsJons !a !he legend, such lhat Map 14 appears as on the jollowtng page.
MAP 24 15 7
NEIGHBOURHOOID 14: ROUGE PAYtK
L[i0[iND SYMIIOLS
NnmmounHOOO S[PMATC ClC4CNfNtY
���� HCW ROAO CONNCCiION! (PROPOlEO) 0 BOUNpMY SCHOOL
�� DET�ILC� RMCw MG � PUBLiC SCNOOL OO PMK
INID! IOR WMiCN COUNC�I Nw! pqOP03[0 PUDLIC
r��,�?'f�„ IWOPT[O OMLOPU[M OUID[�INC! � CL[11[NIMY SCNOOL OO PPOPOSEG PMN
(RCI[R t0 COYP[NDIl1Y pOCUMCNT)
� PROPOSCO 3[PMATE ,
[LC�[MMY SCHOOL
�nW HCR�W
/!�d!�r�M! WD C[Y60tifM OVYItYLIIt �
� �'�'°� m�..ee..... �r �PFM ON SCSNEW�LE�t'NTIONS
flCKERINGOFFlCUU.PUNEDRION2 Chaptor8aven—thbonNabhbouhoods 192
15 H APPENDIX IV TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 07-00
POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
l. Revise sectJan l0.17 —"Rouge-Dr{,Q7ns WIld!{% Corrldor Pollclu'; to add a po/!cy lIm111ng
the uses permllted on lands fhal are destgna�ed bolh "Fieeways and MaJor UNUtles —
Potentia! Multl-Use Area" and "Rouge-DufJTns Wlld/ife Corrldor'; and, add a po/!cy
encouraging fhe preparatlon oja "Rouge-Du,,()7ns Wild/ife Corridor Managemenl Plan';
such fhat sectlon 10.17 reads as jol/ows:
CCl'N POI.ICY 10.17 City Cauncil recognizea �hat the Rouge•DufCms WddG(e Corcidoc i�
Rargr•Dxffrxr �NBfr Corridor intrnded to fmc6on a� � �igniticant vegetated connecror providing far
�pedo migntion betwecn �he Rouge and DuCfine valley eyetema;
accocdingly, Council �hill,
(o) ...
ro> ...
<<� ...
c� ...
(e) de�pim the pemtis�ible usa Geted in Table 13, pemtit
utiliry an� mcill�ry uses, ae well �a any uen pemti�dble
ui�hin Ihe Open Sp�ce Sy�tcm — Natunl Acea
daignauon (�ee Table 3) on Imd� deiignated Freew�ys
and Dfajor Udliries — Potrnri�l D(uld•llee dca on
Schedule I and Rouge•Duffins 1�IdGfe Corridor on
Schedule III; �nd
(Q rncounge �he Alini�iry of N�mnl Re�ourca, Toronro de
Region Can�erntion Authority, Region of Duchun,
Onnrio FIpJro and imcrated othen to prcpace a
"RougaDuffim WJdGfe Comdor �t�nagemrnt Pl�n",
and e.nbli�h funding tor on�going maintrn�nce and
rcsmnuon af the Comdor.
I. Rep/ace secllon 1/./6 —"Rouge Park N�ighbourhoad PolJcies" wJlh rhe jo!lowing:
CI7Y POLICY I I.1G Ciry Council shall,
Ruxg Pa,,E Nrjabborrdoud Pa6nii
(o) in �he eoneidention o( developmrn� proposed within the
ncighbourhowl,
n diuounge daign� which requim the use of rcverse
Gontagu, becm� and significmt noisc anenuation
(rncing odjacent ro rinch Avenue and Al�on� Road;
(u) encounge a"neighbouchood (ocui" at �he inrcnecdon
of rinch Avenue ond Ahona RwJ through the
utilization of �tn�ctur�l mu�ing, architecturil elemrnn,
and landu�ping tha� snbGsha a itmng rcl�uonship
wi�h �he intcnec6on;
(w) despite tho pemtissible uus Gsted in Tahla 5 and 9, not
pemtit �he atabfishmrnt of automobile iecvice �mrions
and drive-thm Gdlitia mch ae rceuunnn, 6anka and
convatirnce srore� within the neighbouehood;
(v) permit �he use of drndry Inm&n and bonuse�, as
deuiled in the Rouge Pork Neighbouchood
Devdopment Gwdelines;
(v) pemtit a ndghbowhood populadon �hot ezceeds tacgees
aabGahcd in 'Table 1: South Pickering Urban Axa
Papul�don Targeti', providcd the Ciry and Region arc
wd�6ed with aecvicing �mngemrnb, snd school
boarda orc ud�fied �hat ui��ing/planned uhool
6cilitia can occommodarc �he popul�pon, md anp
other omngemenb Council comiden necettary;
(v�) mquin a road connecrion eunning fmm the nonh ude
oC F'mch Avrnue ro the wnl �ide of Rotebank Road;
(vii) rcquim nea developmrnt ro hrve rcgaed for the Rouge
Pack btmogemeat Plm;
(b) mcounge �he cctrndon of environmenhlly �rndtivc
Provind�lly�oumed I�nd� within public oumenhip, and the
tppropriue and limdy di�poution of Provinciallq�owned
Lnd� ouuidc of Ihe Rougc Pak thtt �tt not
. . � � . . . . environmrnt�Uy tenutivc;
Appendti IV to Report Number PD 07-00 Page 2
159
Potential Amendmenb fo the PickeNn¢ OfTiclal Plan (continuedl
(c) endnvortoeliminuethe'jog"utheRosebmkRou!and
Finch Avenue intenation; utd
(d) suppon improvemenu to the levd crossingt of the C.P. nil
IineattheSarborough•PickeringTownlineRoad,Al�om
Raad, md Rosebank Road, :uch u the installation of
appropriate s�lay meuurcs including automaticufety gatn,
3. Revise Schedule I—"Land Use SlrucJUre'; lo revise the boundary betweex the
designatlons oj "Open Space Sys�em — NoturalArea" and "Urban RuldentlalArea — Low
Denslty"jor ceNaln lands In the Rouge Pa�k NeJghbourhood, sach lha� the dulgnations
appear os deplcted on the jol/owJng exlracl ojSchedule !.
4. Revlse Schedu/e /!I —"Ruource Managemen� Schedu/e'; �o revise Ihe delinealion ojthe
"C/ass 3{i'eflands" ar the wuf end of fhe Rouge Park Neighbourhood, and to revtre the
lands deslgnated as "Rouge-Dufj'Ins WI/d/!fe Corrldor'; such lhal Ihey appear as deplcled
on lhejo!lowing extracl ojSchedafe I//.
. �
\\��•>
_
.'
� �'� � �'�A�,'� � �� � ����� • � �m � ��� �� �: � a�-
< �
� \•:� � � � ���s.��'\� �. � � � \�� ni
� �� � � � � � �,,: es�' �� � � �� \
�,���� `� �� �� � ���\�.� ,� '� ��� \\�
� . �:�.
\,, : zi .. �� � �\��^` ��/ ��:\ �. ` ��,
. � ' . \ . � .w . �\ . � ��\�\� � � � . � �
. \\ �:� .\ .��+��C Co � /� �. .
�` :�'` '' �;�� �r�'�` �;����`� � :., ,' �.
. ��� � �� � �➢ �� • � �
��3���� ,��- F��,�,��, n ��
� ���< ,,� �.. . a,. ��..,r
�°' ,,* � � : � `\` ' . � �
� , � _� ��a����� ���\ `� � �
�� � � � .�\� A A� � � . .� .
��Z3� � � .. �F
� �:.. ���,+:�:�, ,�� , :� � ,r .
� ,� t �
�� '����� ,:��y . �� �\
�
, i\� L ����.�� ' �s ,
�,, �, �
, .:;
:�� , .
@` � :
,,, .�x
� �� m.. �.
� rn
,
��
� -
0
'
� : ,
� . . . ' ., � _ ,. . � . ... . .. •0 . - � , .. •
.. . . . � � . . - . . . .. �.�� . ' � �1�� ,
st
������
PICKERING r�� �s � � � ^�°°^,
OFFICIAL PLAN � �°�
� pM11pH1101f11LLY LONIIIGWT MW
� 1 RWOC�WiN! YIRDUIL COMIOOR
AESOURCSMANAOBDfBNf � AR[A! W NWM POTMML
MIHLIW. A0011[Gl[ R[tOV11C0
� MK IUOOO YORNM[
� r..�.r�� /p�Yp1 Wt6 IROOIqO 6MOII�JM[
.����' N.lo1M IORClf MUCY MU
�. n000 n�m ucau roucr ,�nw
� 11IXw[ PMIf lNHpVtY
. �� MW K IMTINI MO lGf111�f0 M0�6�
• NNOWI� N/JR OItPOU1 f11[�
A1 �+�
w�..� �'�'.�w .
`JCiS'S�C�7if�'�9"23 �.,�
16 2 APPENDIX V TO .
REPORT NUMBER PD 07-00
COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE PHASE 2 REPORT
Comments were received from the following regarding the Rougo Park Neighbowhood Study —
Phasa 2 Reporl:
L A. Ruzsa, 465 Rougemount Drive, Pickering
2. M. Morrow, 943 Alanbury Crescent, Pickaring
3. G. Mazerolle 8c J.C. Palinski, 932 Mountcastie Ctescent, Pickering
4. J. Barber, 450 Finch Avenue, Pickering
5. P. Boiron, Reaze Estate/Map Realry Ltd.
6. L. Carscadden, 20 Gilder Drive, Scnrborough
7. J. Doleweed, 502-000 Kingston Road, Pickering
8. D. Casseiman, Rouge River Restoretion Committee
9. V. Gupta, Bopu Developments Ltd.
10. E. Buntsme, Department of Operations and Emergency Services
11. Durham District School Boazd
12. Durham Catholic DisVict School Board
13. Toronto and Region Conservntion Authoriry
The accompanying Wble briefly summazizes the comments, nnd provides a staff response.
Following the table nre the written submissions, and notes taken during the December 14, 1999
public meeting held to discuss the Phnse 2 Report.
���� ����� l���� �� �?� �
� • � �� �' �
� � � ��
� Q q
F
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • N
g u
� � � � 4 g d � c
� �� � �� �� � � �� �� �� � �� �
� ag � � � a �
� �' � � � � � � 3
,� _
� �Z '� � ��^' � z � ��n �� z '}g �
�$ � �S ,$• � s ,$• a � � d �
� ' � Ci m 3
��� �� $ � �� � � �8 �ry�n� �
6 � N 9 �
� E � � � � � � � � � � � a � T
� � n g n � � g n � � � � � �
m �' p��" �� 3 m '� � g � � 'g o `� �'� m
� p�� � �j � �
-1 g7 1 V� �
� � .� � y� y �3 � � � � m A Vl
�
�" � � � � � �
� g � N � 4 � N � � � � � ?
� 3 �, B 3 � B p� �� O
� � m � m g Fi �
$ 1D 2
� m 2
� ��� �s�� ���� m
� � � � � � �
� � � � � �
�
...... ..... ��
�� �� �� � � �� ��� � � �� a� $ �
�s �g s � � � �� � �� � �
�� � � � � � � _ �� � g �� _
�� �� ��g � ������ � � ��� �
� yy o
�°.� g5� �. $ aa o
�6 '2Li' �,g� 3 � S� � �� g � �� � O
�� �S�' �� � � � � � � � �
� 5 � � g � � �� � � �i� m
�� � �� � � ���� � � ���� �
.�.� � .� � � � � .� � ��� �
�� � � a � .�, �, � �a
� � �: �. �, � � $ �,
� � �� � � �� �� � � ��
� � �� �. � �"� �. ���
������� ����.
�
� � . � . �
� . � � � � � �
�:� � �
A' �
� �
EyT
� �r ����
��� � ���
� � .
�
�
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�' $ � � ,� �'� �a � � � "g � m
� S � � � � �' �
� g �. � 3
� � � B � �� ��s �g �� � �_ � �� �
� � � � �; � g � � m �: � � � � � � ��;
d � �r� � s .� s
g � � � � � �g �$ � � � � � � ��:
s o �. < � � � � � �. �' g � ; i
�� �� �� � � �� ������'��
3 � �' � � � $ g B � ^�
m � � � � � �
� � � � � � g a � �� ��.
�. � � � � � � � � � � �� �
S Q ' � yr � g � � � �g ��
� ts. G S � � � g � }� � �
� � � � � �� �
� ,� � � �S g a
� a � � � n
� � � � � � � � � � ��
g � � � � � �
� 9 � � � � � � � �� S'
� n �,
� � � g �
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�� � ���� � � � � �� ���. � �� � �
� � �
��� �� ���� -� � � � � e �.
� $ � �. � �,
�� � � :� � � � �� ��� a� ��� � �
.� �
�� � ����' �� � � �� s��� � ���� � �
������m ��� ����� g��� �
�. .� � g��� � � �� � � � . �
����� �� � ���� �� � �
� ��� � � � �� � �
� B � �
� � ���� �� � � �� ��� �
.� �g .� � � � � � �
g �� � .�$_ .�
� a
g..� .�. ��� �
� A�- ��� � � ���.� �
� � � s ,� �
�'� � � � � � �
��� �8 � �, a. � . � �
� � � . � �� � � �
� �� � � � � �� � �
� �� � � � �
� �
69T
�
��
. .
� �
g �
� �
�� �
� �
� I�
� �
� �
� �
•
� �
� �
� ��
�,v�;
� �����
� �
� � �
� ��
� �s�
� �� �
� �`��
���
��
��
B
��
R �
59i
�� �� ���
�� � �
� � �
..
�� �
ry 3
C7�$ �,
�
�� �
�. �
$'�
��� �
a�s �
��� &
�m�� �
g � ' U
,d �� �
�
�� �
��9
• •
����@
���
����
� .�
.�� �
a�g �
��� �
� ��� �
��
��LS �
�� �
� ��
$��� �
��� �
� �
. �' �
�� �
� �
.. ......
��� �� �� �� ��� � �
�
� m gg � �
a� �� �� �g� g
� � _ � s
. � �� �� �� � �
� � �� �� � �
� o � � �'� � �� � g
� gs g.� �
d � m
a� �
� �
� �s ��
�� �� �� �a �. �
v � �
�� � �� �:� � �
� A' B � S
�� � �� � �
� � �
• • • • • • • •
� �� � � �� �� �� � n� �3
��m � Q� : � �N ' �' �
��� s_. � ���� ��� �.
� a ���� �� �� �� �
�� � ���g ��: .��� ��� �
���� ��� � �' � � ��� �
���� ���g � ���� ��� �
� � �� � .� �� �. � �� �. �
� ��� �� � � �
� � g
� �
� �� ��� � �� � �
a �� � � ���
���� ��� ���
�� ��� � �
� � � , � a
� �� � �
• � �
� � �
3�
.
•
��
��
g�
�
��
��
�.�
��
��
d
� � ��� �� ����
a�
� �� �� �� .
�� ����
� ��
�
. . . . . . . . > . . . . . . •
� o: a: S 4. — � d � � �3
� �. �� �$ � o'� �.a� $ ���� � � � � � ��
y � } � d �� �� ��� m � � 9' � ^� ��E
� � �.� � � ��g ,�g ���g `• � � � �� ��
� �$ ���� �sg��� �5��
�� �
� � � ��� �� �$�� � � � � �� ��
� � � � � � � �.� ����. � s � � �g
� �� � �. $� .S � � � s ��
� � s. � �. $ � � � �� � � � � � � �
W � �� ���������� �� � � �
� �� y ��� � 9.�$ a � � � d
' �� � � � �a � � � �
� � s �� � � � �
� �����. � � _
� � � $ � �
R $ ����� �
�
� � � �
• n • • • • • • •
�� � t� � � � s� `� `� � � � � � �
�.N �� � ��a �� � ' g�
�' .� �� � � � �� ,��
�� � � �
��
g � R � :� ��
�� �� �� � � �' �� �� �
� ���' �� � �� � � �� g� �
�� `�� � � �� ��
� �g� �� � �� � � � �
�� ��� �� �� � � �
�•� � +�
�� � � �d� �� .
o � �� � � � � � ��
� ..� � �� � 9. �
g � �
� � �• �� �
� �
� �
t � � � � � ��
. � � � �
�� � � � ��
��
�� � $ �
� � �
r,�-
99T
1; 9 T
� �
A �
�
�
• • • • • • • •
���� � �� �� �� �� ��
��� � �� �� --� �� �
� �� � �� � � �� �� �
� ���� �� � � �.
��������
�g��� � �
���������
"�� ��� � � �
�� � �
�����
� � � � $ g� �
� � ���
� ��� �
$ �
........
�
�� � � �� � � � � �
�� � � .� � � � �
�� � � �� � � � �
� ��
��� � � � �
� �
� �
� �
� �
� �
�
�
� �
�� �
� �
1�-(0-001UE 3:23 PY �^��'��1►LiL� �, p
1 c O DNIH3HOIpd p,�,l�
UO ��,y,,,,� ROUG� PARK sss� r� �3a
� } NEIGHBOURHOOD S b���3�
Pttblic Meetittg to discuss tl:e P/tase 2 Report
Dccember 14,1999
����
Commont Sheet
Feel (ree lo leave any mmments or qucsGons lhat you may have.
7his sheet wn be IeR wilh us aRer Ihe meedng, or sent to:
GeoBMcKnighf, PlanninD Department, Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade, Piekering ON L1V 6K7
Phone (905J 4Q20-4660 x2032 – Fax (905) 420-7648
NAME:_ A�'S f�Ll�3U
MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE NUMBER: � — D ,
�� —
� � / � i
ii�►'C�.�'L71��!-�lld .f3'P.�i���
.�! , �' � 1.�L�/dJ%1f.'9.�iL'�'d
/ �,,��
".�'T�II!'JIl7���I1��"ad1�d1GE'�•►�li . _ .
9�. 7►► 9 6. i L' '� 1 A f t Z.� 7 I I. 6 Y i 1'.' F l 711.J/ f�i T%�';
i7l,Illl�l�%'l�LC����Il� � � ,�� r .
. /1?d.3�L.�1,�.�ll.-,lJh��+ '�iriri �s�r`�.n'�a'i
/ / Si1l�/i�� i/ /� ... �.�i / 3 � ' �
. / /�i�/�����������
_LL�i7�!!L'/J�Il�!!lllilS3J1'� �%iflL' L/
/ /
� � ��/�/r�Il.Ilv�il�/l:�li�',��71./.TlLli
�T'./Q111.?�'���u�.�^' /
i�L�i� ;»�• �TH%L�/ - � - .
�-� Ovl ia-�'� o� � G�/�odv�ecv yie��.� s r
P�C�� fD��ShO�✓d0/�� GarS�'��� �Uo�u.n,
I� Z'� �� �. $,
�1� �sa
m
15 December 1999 ' �� ..� " 16 �
• � AECEIUc'D
Doug Dickeroon ^ t � � • .
Regional Councillar, Ward 2 ' ��C f u 19y9
i
1646 Bay1y Strcet TpWN OF PICNERIN�
Pickering, ON LIW IL9 PU�NNINO DEPAflTIdEP1T
Dear Mr. Dickerson, � '
, �.
How can the Town of Pickering be plenning to develop the Rouge Park Neighbourhood insida the
Rouge-DutTn's Wildlife corrido�7 Is there not any consideruqon of Gmits to development7 1 am
upset and unheppy about this plan. �
. • i
The current Rougc Park Neighbourhood plan will bc exremely damaging to the Wildlife Corridor
in its function ns habitat. We have some smell trcasures in our town but they will be lost if we •
keep developing and destroying. The Hydro Corcidor, the York-Durl�am Sanitary Trunk and the
CP Rail line are not a sufTicient East-West wildlife corridor link between tha Rouge River and
Du(iin's Creek. These areas ere subject to periodic herbicide spraying, removal of woody
vegetalion and will remein highly diswrbed and in a state uf poor growllL ;
I would like all the Ontario Realry Corporation lands wiUiin and adjacent tto Uie Rouge Park 't �
Neighbourhood to remain publicly owned and to be Uansferred Gom thc provincial government to
the Town ofPickering for additlion to tlie Rouge-Dumn's Wildlife Corridor. �;
, , � ,.
Can they really be considering devcloping thc Bcarc Eslate proparty next to Amos Ponds7 �, �
Condominium Towero7 70 Townhomes7 I have grcat ditlicully believing this. One of Ihe �'
pleasures of living in Pickering for the last S+ycars has been fccling a lilde closer to nature and
lhe area around Mios Pond has contributed grcaqy to thal fecling. I heve takcn visitors for '� `
drivcs and spotted white tail deer in lhe field end beauliful swuns, great blue hcrons, night herons, '
kingfishcrs and more on thc pond. Onc glorious Jay my husbvid nnd i actually cnmc upon a.�
molher phensunt with a dozen or more chicka jusl north of Ihe pond. These arc true lrcasures and
contributc so much lo thc quality of lifc in Pickcring.
� • , � ,.
I urge lhe Town of Pickerin�; to purchase the_Beare Gslate property and add it to lhe Rouge- '
Du1Tin 1Vildlifa Corridor. Our grandchildren and thcir chilJren will be q�ankful and will be mora .
— impressed with a town that held on to naturnl treasures than one which destroyed them to feed thc `�
seemingly unending appetite for devclopment.
Please act quickly. This issue is urgent end impartant. Tliank you for your consideration and
cooperation.
. i
' . �i
Sincerely �% � i ' . .
'^%J, , : �� �11
� ��,�,,,r�,..� v �\..
Marilynn Mortow , ' :r, , i .. , ' .:
943 Alanbury Crescent ; ' i � . ;� '
Pickering,ON L1X2S2 • � � r�; • '
., ` • � �',
;i �
. - ; � � ,
.i
i
_ ' , • �; , ._.
m
1'70 .
• Dttember 14, 1999 '
Doug Dickcraon
16a6 Dayly Slmt
Pickeriu�, Onalrio
LIW IL9'
�
cicnd•r hLv,uoUe .h lean Clurlc: ryfnski
932 MounlcasUe Cres
Pldttring, Onurio
L1 V 319
....,+..-e�'""'"""'...-
FicCEPJc17
OEC 1 G 1999
TOWN OF PICKERIN6
p1ANNINO L'E°ART6IENT
Duu Mr, Dickerson, �
i nm writing tids leUer due to tl�a fact ihat I am vcq� unluippy �vith tlie Town of Pickcring's plon lo dc��eiop
Uic Rougc Purk Nciy��borliood ins(de of IBe AougaDuffin's Wlldlifc Corridor.
Thc cunenl Rouge Park Nel�li6orliood pian will bc cxlrcmelp damagins to tl�e Rougc•Duffin't Wildlife
Corcidor m�d to Ilds wca'a funclion as wIIdIUa 1u61ut. Thc Hydro Conidor, the Yo�k•Dwlum Sa�ulary
'ftunk and Uia C.P. Rall Iinc orc noi u su�ficienl Bist-West WIIJIife Cartidor Wdc bciween ��e Rouge River
und !ht DuRn's Ciak. These uws provide very low quedity Lubil+n fot raidenl «•Ildlife. Thatcc arcas
uc subjccl lo periodie habicide s�ir�ying, removal ot woaly �egewGon, elc and t�ill tenuin WgNy
dislwtxA und [orcver in a alale of poor �a�hl�.
I twtdd like al! Omarfo Reyiy Coryor,ilion (publicly o�vned) lands �vltliin and adJacent lo The Rou�c Pmk
Ncighborhood lo tenwin publicly o�cnr�l �id be tmnsfcircd (iam U�e p�ovincial govenuncnl to U�c Town of
Pickcdng for additlon io �hc RougrDuRn'� WiIdIUe Corr(dor.
( yn �tiry diss�llsficd wilh lhc pino� lo derelop tlie Deare Gstetc properly (lht IenJ �lirectly lo the Gast of
Amos Pomis). 11�e Mas Pouds me pvt of a Provinc�ally Signiltcanl WeUa�id Cmnp�ea, whiGi is home to
die grca�at ebwxlnnce ol'wildlife In tlie whole t�alcrshcd induding divase wnphiUlaiS repUle, bird �nd
��•alc�fuwl populadons This uildhfc uiics on Uie watcr and mrla��d 1u61mts for thcir survi�•ul. Tlie currem
o�rncr of Uw Dwre EsWle property plyis io dcsUOy Amos PonJs' on•land habiu� by bul lding 4
conJominium lowers, one 9 Nories, Uu oUmr I I roriu m�J 70lo�rnhouses. Desuoying tlie an•land Iubilol
ui�l tdUmaicly dulroy Amos Pands.
1 woulJ like tl�e Beare Esute pro�xily lv Ix putchascd Uy Ihe Torcn of P(rkcring ond eddcJ lo Thc Rouga
DiJfin's WilJlife Carrldor.
I wgc pou to pienu act q�Ickly on my rcquests, Uds �ssue is exuemely Imporunl lo ma Thvik you for
yoiv eoiufdemUon and cooperarion in Uds mattcr. '
Sin 1', � n�. Q, ��
�,�.�,,ua,�,C��J� �
n zu e" Jc, n Chmlea P, ki
I
' �
' �
� �I
i
I
i �
J,SIO OOHd � S39tS �1` li�Ul 130,t166.h1-'J3� �
r�U'd 91fS fi� 91h�931
H
R��E,v�o � 171
QfCj'1999 450 Finch Avanue,
p�H�QFPICH� Pickerina L1V 1118
The Advieory Committee. �fPqpMF
Aouge park Neighbourhood�Study, �
Pickering Planning Departmunt,
One The Eaplanade,
Pickering LiV 6K7
November lG, 1999
Denr Sira/Madam,
Rei Rouga Park Neiahbourhood Study
PHASE 2 REPORT
On the 14th I got caught in a aevere storm up north and eo miesed
the Public Information Heeting. Nould you be so kind ae to send
me a copy of your record of the meetine and remind me of the dnte
of the next Advisory Heeting. Many thanka.
My concerna with tbe Phase 2 Report are�
1. The Procena
_ 2. The Nidening of Finch
3. The atntua of Finch
4. The Map Raalty Land Asaembly - Diock 4
5. The Froblems of Rosebank Road Nocth
6. Danaity bonus.
7� �'i1.C�. ,{�CCe4�
1. TIIE PROCESS
Altliouah in thc Terms oC Reference "landoWnera' intereate" ie mentioned
I uieh to record thnt no member of the Advisory Committue hus ever
asked me whut I Would uiah for my proparty. Plnnnera have 6een unilaterall
making decisions about my proparty aince 1972. Hy property has been
eterilised 1972 - 1998. Cinnners�deciaione have uluaya been
^ detrimantal to my property. I am totally opposed to Nalghbourhood
Development Concept D and E uhera my property is part of a large
land assemblyt the dceign of Block 4 is totally out of keeping with
the deaign of the rest of the neighbourhood. I uould like to aell my
property ns a cul-de-sac type of development...much as [he Hitchell
property. I am the only north Finch property that doea not have
residentiai development on the south aide of thn road; I have two
legal acceasea to Finch� I am in mid-blocki if the deve]oper retaina
the house, the property is entitled to a 25� deneity bonus...this is the
time at uhich thesc iasues are decided. I am totally opposed to
Neighbourhood Concept D and E.
, �:
172
z
Z• Tf1E MIDENING OF FINC11
The Tartiery Plan and tho Ncighbourhood Concept muet ehou the
widening of Finch.
Preaently Finch hae a 66' right-of-uay expanded to 3 lanoa at the
intereection with Altona� the municipal water eupply - 200mm pipe
30 years old ie located at the aouth edga of the right-of-uay.
Finch ia an arterial H and will have a xidth of 30 to 36 metres.
If Finch ie expanded to 30 metrea it uill become 98 feet Wide...
32 feet Hider than at present, presumably 16 feet uider on north and
eouth, but Ne cannot aseume that until We aee it on a map.
If Finch is expanded to 36 metres it uill become L18 feet uide, 52 feet
Wider than at present and presumably 26 feet widar each sidei until
it ia an a map ue cannot aseume the Widening will be taken equally.
26 feet ia quite a chunk out of anyone's front garden.
Some propertiea at the intersection have already loat frontage. This is
the time to diecover uhat further expanaian is naeded.
Now is the Cime to reaolve the isaue of the Widening of Finch at the
Amas' Ponde location. Presumably Finch uill not be expanded north
into the Ponde. Doea this mean that Nr. Coddard and his neighboura
Hill be uaked to give up 52 feet to tha roadl
Amos' Ponda are in thc Rougu Park and thc Rougc Park hua a policy
of no expaneion of exiating trnnsportntion fncilitiea.
Doea thie mean that Finch uill bc Widened to an Arterial B as far ae
Amos' Ponds then reducod to a 66' right-of-way.
Thie is tha time to resolve thase isauea.
I am requeating that the widening of Finch muat 6e ahoWn on the
Tertiary Plan and the Neighbourhood DEvelopment Concept.
3.__ TIIE STATUS OF FiNCII
In both the Phaea 1 and Phase 2 Reporte thera saume to ba a deliberete
uttempt to portray Finch as a high-apeed, high-voluma nrterinl.
Finch however ia an Arterial B nnd I uould augguat thut the Tranaportation
aection quotos 4.10 (b) (11) of thc Pickering Official Plan...
"Type B Arterial Roada: are designed to carry modernte volumes of
traffic at moderate speeda, within a municipality� have some accesa
reatrir.tionai and ganerally have u right-ot-wny width run�ing from
30 to 36 metrae."
4� THE HAP REALTY LAND_ASSEMBLY HLOCK �i
This ia another area that Hap Realty ie intereated in developing...
He have all been invi[ed numerous times by Hap Realty to hand over
our properties to them in raturn for their advice!
It would appear that there ie some secret a�reement between the
municipality and Map•Realty on thie issue and certainly this large
land asaembly provea it. Mr. Boiron atarted advertieing for investors
promiaing "unusual returns" in the Clobe 6 Maii in October 1998.
On inveatigation Hr. Boiron etatea that the promiaed returns - 25I
to 35X - are due to the extremely loW purchase price of these
propertias= he diatinguiehed betWeen his oun project and thia one.
The extremely low purchaee price is bad newa for Linton, Smith,
����
173
3
Barber and Holmea.
I have to aek "Ie Nr. Doiron hallucinating or ie there indeud an agreement
to hand over our area to a commercial real eatate company that
can barely finance it own development and ie advertieing in the
Globe 6 Hail for inveetore to buy out the longtime residente
real cheap?" Certainly the lotting concept for Block 4 would support
Mr. Boiron's claim that he has an underetanding uith the municipality.
I would euggeat again - ae I did aftar the Phaee 1 Report - that
Block 4 be divided into 3 parcels� Smith, Lintan and ORC,
Barber aeperate and Holmae eeparate. I would auggest the Finch
propertiea not be connected to Rosebank Road North becauae af the
major engineering projecte thut are planned for that roadi in other
aorda the aervice road ahoutd finish on the east boundary of/4v
Barber.
5. THE PROBLEMS OF ROSEBANK ROAD NORTFI.
Rosetrank Road North is not just another aideline road. The Region
hae an interest in Rosebank North and ha{g already built a reaervoir
north of the railuay tracke. Roae6ank is certainly the route of the
York Loug Term Nater Projact and the eite of the Nater Filtration Plant.
Roaebank Nill be invoived in changea to the York-Durham SeNer.
Only one property uill be compananted...the Rosebank Road 10-acre
property.
To connact all the Finch properties to Aosebank Road is to sprend
all the uncertaintiea and procraetinatione of thesa major ventures
onto the propertiea of Darber, Linton nnd Smith.
The Roaebank Road�ahould not have Finch accees...it hna no Finch frontage.
If tha ptannera uiah to limit accesa to Finch uhy give Finch access
to 80 lote thut are not entitled to it= eepeciully ae to use the
acceae the propertiea of the much amallec neighboura - Linoon, Smith
and Barber - are devalund by the volume of traffic coming from the
Rosubank property.
The Roaebank property ahould be serviced from Rosebank Road - seuer,
wator and tranaportation. I do not necs how the expenditure for
n eignnliaed intersection at Finch and Rosebank can be supported
unlees tha Roaebank property ie confined to usina Rosebank for both
entrance and exit.
6. DENSITY DONUS
Is this not an iseue that should be dcalt With at this atage7
_ Nhan does ona get a fsnal anauer on thie7
7� FINCH ACCESS
In the Phase 1 Report Concepte A, B, nnd C shoued Ili�h School and
Neighbour6nod Park on the northeaet Finch propertiea. On November 23
Concept D ahoWe�e uneignallaed acceas for all 160 lota - 320 cars -
and that accesa devalued the lots available to Smith and Linton by the
quantity of interior traffic. On November 30 at the Advisory Committee
Meeting I epoke to the fact tha6 all the concepts deprived me of the
ability to aell my property ae a cul-de-sac development although I
preaently have txo legal accesaes to Finch. In Concept E the sole
accese for all 160 lota - 320 cara - ie placed on my property.
I am opposed to Concept E.
174
4
A Fineh accese for my property only ia important. A proporty near
the Altona interaection ie given a Finch accees� I am not near
any intereection. I note that the retirement residencee have one
legal accasa io Pioch but on tha Tartiary Plan they have tuo acceeeee
to Finch, although ir�volving the traffic from feWar lota.
I do not eupport any of the Concepta for northeast Finch. I think
we need to limit thQ damage of tha York project by aliminating any
proposed connection to Rosebank Road North.
I xould like a cul-de-sac type of development and I require a
Finch accesa for my property alone. Hhatever "arrangements" Pickering
�ay have made, I do not want my property within any land aesembly.
I would like to point out that my property haA dane its "community
aervice" eineo 1972...far more than any other property in thie
Hhole neighbourhood.
YOURS TRULY,
�t/�w ��°�^"'V
Jocclyn Barbur
� y, ��t `�
L� i
�' .
mc ze �� ie�s�art tRa� �eos� saa�zz
Map Realty Ltd
RBA L B9TATH INVERM9NI7
171 AmberSemcy,��lp IN
�+�, on.h a.nao i.�a �ea
beeembev 20, 3999
N:l. CG�hW'NIO �i05E
�9u: Poliry Dlvfefon
Tow� of P�dceri►g
DearlMs. Resc:
. ""^�+w'.ror�....
c�cCEIVED
. . . . ---DE� 2 � 1999 . . . .
�� N6 UE'PAqTMEN7
Via Foxs (90.� 420-76�8
L'.Y• \�_ ' _ � _ �,��
P.1
rt5ate e�o75
TU: fYDSI AN�%00
ft(:1�l4/.y6jj
--►�'�'.w�r..�
2�t C ( pee.10.19991
Par. 3.4 p. 3-10 Bottan af bst poragtnpl�.
Thts is momiirgless unless we know what thc 10 x 30 km 4xlude. Photo or plm tt
��
.3 x 4�'-8'"Ilne.
"il+e swonp and fa�esF oantoins locally sk,�n{fluqit (md specks•. This doea not
aetuvtaly r�efkef wFwt was wrfften fn ihe 6artner Lee Rtporf: p, 3.Z3
Out�ida of tha wetland, the ony fhditg wa�
Fbory Verwin (Verberw strvctu}
'A sinole ulanfi wos obsq'vtd near iha edgs of fhe fleld Ahhagh ra9ladly nc+'e. ihis
plant ia adaphd to d�atu�bed sondy soif f and therofpv bdt of dfshrbo�ea w�u ��� w
��.
if w�afw�a, f ha word Yoreat'shaid be dekted.
It a�aid dso M pointed out thot only 1�' , ttk blue-gray grwtcutd►er wca {nud �
}he fonstc���}�. (,u,
It sfadd be ogvin pofnted out lhot the rclfoWltty of the MNR 1496 study, conduetu!
by Fx.onwtia, u vay questiotwbk stnce it wnt a tabk-top studY. I,a, no supporN�g
'fkld rerifioatiau'.
. 3.4.3 Z'� porogrroph, 2i1 line.
'Ear(y sueoessia�al habitot'. This ia a misnomer for a 75 to BO yw� old orea
rt9ena�ation.
Flo�b.4 The Easta�ly bo�r�faiy of ar wood lot is �fiow� as bein9 adJaant }o a streom oorr+dor
wh(k n faw wcelts ogo, tt wos nof (eea ottoched�
This seans to imply that, if we aro dlowed to devtbp this parF of the s'rte, wa wll) be
s�bjected to "edgt n�o9enx.nt of a�as adJaant to wata�carses'. ?fds Fas ban
artifidaliy ercated arid sladd be carrected.
DEC 20 '99 1B�57f%I FROM f965) 944�9G22 •:-j.: '�P.2
, DEC 2 � 1999
1/ 6 TOWN OF PiCKfnir�0
PLA IH DEPr.�,•vc!IT
It► odditlo�, it doc+ not rofle�t tOx feat�ras of tha latd, wl
n�t ar oast�ecly bandarY•
FirH�amoro, and s�+perca�l+9 � a� pm'a9�, P^��Y ihis aame arwx, part of
tha ORCs mx! 2 aere s}ts �rat damed develop�k. It ahafd t'elnoin sa
Nar. 6.2.5 La.tF rym+oyi�aph - 8ufftrs and awnershlµ
Tl�+�d b no �ustiflcntion in the uidarlytn9 a+a+MHon : tfiat pubUc property tr bette.�
kept or prot�ectsdthan prtvate one.
Tn foct, M dcpcnda on ihe cirdmstanoes ar1d, fTeqtwttly. Prlwtt aw�ershtp i4 {ar mone
prof�robk. Fa� exmnpk, vre do not laaw of arrr pritute paid as dMty as Mios Pand.
� Wa haMa n sat of colar photogrophs �fawin9 9erbuge ad debrts to proMn M. If wm
ow�ned /I�nosPond, it would Fwva a chain linit fence orand M to protect It from wndals.
The piffille own�ip adraated intha atud�r impiic! publk acctss, with dl ihat'R
omrlet with It. Ii wadd ba much wiser io deciQa ta9e by case. As far nr ar sffe fs
ooncanad, �ra a�e abaolutely adamant ihat prtvate awner�+ip waid be bett�er becaue:
1. Retircd pa�tons (Ff Yre ane abb to retain ar oonoept of a Retirc�nenF cammunity)
ae nuxh bettcr sle�ads of noture a�d the mviromsertt ttwn Yarge.� peoy�le
(portiwlaiiy childreti�
2. Tf �e ucuss, or ladt thereof, axl respecttve ireatment of these areas wouk! be
spelkd aut in ihe oondomtniun rcpulatbns.
3. '(he nwirtFUmoe aew for tha ca�iomin'Kan corpa'ation wa�d ba well awae of
'- wlwF shaW, or bhaid rot, ba doria in tba0e bufftri
4. 6overtunants may nn out of nwrwy to protect tlxsa onas but can, much nwrti
easly u,d economioelly, aiforce regu�attau on a oorKtomrdutn eorpomt�on.
Pan 7.41 2 p. 7-15 Drainoge Swoles
Otr SNe Pian p�oposcd a crc.ek, ►rhich mn ba dSO called a drakiage swale, but this vros
nixad by'iRCAI SFadd it be wnsidacd ogoin?
ibr• N 18 3rd Paragroph
We �nderatad this ro te►eati that aur site, whet�e thero would be ro ch�ld�n, wouid tat
be caMed in tf a populatiort forget. Ys Ft yar tnderttandhg, too?
Par. N L9.1 Bulldkg set 6adt and bufftr ahould not bt oQditivt md fh� ptoctke wrles wklely
_ acroas the 6rA. Tht buildirg set badt should be froin the Btu�t of the buffer (Or.
Der�dc Colonwn}
Pur. N 1.13 LaSt Pm'cgraph
Coat plus iMerest at 1076 per yeor.
PeM E LO 4ast Pa�ag�u�,h
The puWic Fas already batt rons�lted, ot grmt lelgth. fnr ihl9 Neighbarfwod Plan
CartmMirg it ogain i� rspctkiau, tr.dindartt and e waste of tima md isahcy. It would
be oktn to ooe�sulting the publie ogoin oe what k has jus! bee� oo�kcd.
1hVlyqrOr, iw d hL n Mr! hpeNto7t/i0V M
�
DEC 20 '99 10�57q'I FROM f905) 944-9G22 P.3
3
177
B�€� . z"' or 3^' pn�ag�h.
Ws do rot thWt Mwf n Rar,�aDufHns Wlldlifc Corctdor Manogancnt Pfm ta twxs�oy.
arK! ae�fa4�y �at,�nYiflod, slnoa thitgs Marlc p�tty wel! a� ff � are at afatcd In tbe
neport. Kf ndly aasu� tFwt aKh a plan doea rat impoae fut�lha� r+ettrktbnd an priwte
lntd owna�s
You�s tniy.
`-�`�1�
pw � eo�,�„
��
�e�,�
attadima,t - z
Ps: cw�,�nr��a� wfrr► � ar„ay. Yau are doirg u Way profasiaoal Job ox! you keep a► iwshin9
fast. 1lwrdcs
w�w�.,r.�arwi.,.rr. ea.�.ri�nnw,w
���
� r'
. �
N @.
w
s �
�
6'd
�-------------- - ---±-•
i
. i
,
,
.,
,
� -c
� �o
f �,
�^���� �
� ��
1 �D,
•:� � (
t � �
,
,
,
t �
,
,
,
1 �
,
,
. . . :
��
i
i
�I
i
BS 66i 0d''J3Q I• �.
�
� m g•d �Td96r6t+6 f�6) FY� WHBS�OT 66� 0Z �3t[
C�r� _ _
180 ���,,, ROUGE PATiZK p �c? OV9 �
~ � NEIGHBOURHOOD STUDY-�_�-`YFq��!0
Pr�blic Meeting to discuss the Pltase 2 Report
December 14,1999
� �-1 � � r..� ,r , ^, .7 r,-i �-.
I� r_
r
Comment Sheet
Feel free to leave any commeats or quesUons that you may have. f��, , �''''� '
This sheet can be left wilh us after the meeling, or sent to: • �`
Geo!lMcKnighf,PlanningDeparfinent,PickenngCivicComplex M ' � ""-��r�:q
One The Esplenade, Pich.enng ON L1V 6K7 '"' �• •�'��
Phone (905) 420-4660 x2032 — FaY (905) 420-7648
NAME: �i/ ,� —
MAILING ADDRESS: ����,� p,c2 J� 2 �` 7U
PHONENUMBER: C'�a2� �,,)�M,vS /
0
�
F -Z'A<So
��� �Ai �(IG
' /�ieESr,�(/(=
.�.P_..�� _..._M
,� ����:7� .
�
_ t
181
�,
�, �,�� �,G1� �� �� _
. �z�-,.�' �� ��- Gtf..����.a,riJ�,-•_�-
, -.�c� �2��axJ �c��L'-a-t.o �C�P. , -
� .
. ��� , , �� �- � �
�.'�'�; v �� -� ���
-'�'�� � � �� -,�� �...ai ��
• � -- .-G��� � �J
�:-��� /°�� J �' - , C/�.�z�J
��.� �
y�!-�'�.�.��.� � �!� ��
,
. � � .�,<_ _ � - ..�� �,- � �� -
; � . �-� ' .�� vnJ r.�J _
��
� �' / G y�'
; .�rrJ Giriw �GcrnJ � _�. . ,��J .��o ..�2�J
.Ca.J . Ccrr� ///yr��� �,�(�, n- —.cwl�uzJ .12.t..
�r'LtJ"fY� �.. /ZIGL/� �!LLQ/ .� ' � % U-C�C/ d%L
� L� C.^Cfi;%^C�� �� �
rl�.��� (��
��� �����
� 1�-�o-oa 7ue 3:2z Pu
P. I
182
aotn no�w�ra
502do0 Klagston Rd.
Pkkuing, ON L1Y bSl
aanu�r lo, z000 RL6EIyED
c�a�c�n�nr,r�nn�n�Dm�� dAtr � t �000
� � ��
One Tbe Esplaaade, P'idnerin8, �N
Faz (905) 42a7698
. i�tafscElVf��hC
I am wriang to pcpvide mmments cooaming t6e Pbaae 2 Rcport of the Rougc Park
Nelghbaurhood SiudY Some of mq mmc�anta ate raponsea m the Plannin8 DeParharnra
pubfished responaes W�y commennt on the Phase t ILepott
I aigrx with the tcapoou that high deaslty halsin8 is betmr au;ted co Picloe[ing's downwwn
for all the rea�aw stated. I do not agree thet lovHrt deadtY Ksideatial deveLoPment in the
Rouge Puk Neighboushood is 4thcc apptnpriaoe or wll( have a"minlmal impaa on the
atvltoamrnt". For devdopment W trulyluve a°minlmsl impact" on tLis arta thete is onlp
one aolutioa - The teaaaci 6ot this Lt tLat thls area,
whleh amtalns the Rnugo-Dut6tu WildGfe Coaldor, ia a vItel Itnlcfor wlldli� betwern
. IiouBe Park and the Altona Fanat. Any development allowed 1n thla acea will datmy thi�
lialc and wildltfe ha6itac. Dtveiapmca4 onoe atlawed� tenda to aooelcrate urileu rirkt llmiU
aze mfatoed
Anothv respoeae tu my mmu►eat wu tlwt "D�Pa P��B muat balana ap lntaats". i
submdt to you thet in aome c�a dili b�landng wlll kad ro solutiona tbat will wmpromue
vital ecokgical vatuea in the uear lUhue. Suci► ls the caee tn thu cmironmmtally�seasf6ve
ndg6bourhood. 7f devrlopar� wanted to bultO ln an a�c+ tbat alneady hed ea estabWhed
aaaspoxutlon sys�em end oehu savtcw Ic wwtd be more appmpciare and auccainebk.
I am tapecially am�rmd that MAP ftcnity plana to tuild hlgh�da�slcY co�os and
rowD.homm on t}r Bcane B�tate propacy� which wW lead !n tbe dat�ocdon of the
Prm�indally Slgn[5caot W Wa►�Compiex anQ LabSat tbr diverx wfldiitt knawq aa Amos
Pond�. The o0aromle InOaats of developa: must mt be allowed to oaa�nomite the long-
tam wstaimMiiry of the natual aceu of the Rou� Perk ndghbon�hood. QOe.t�
�-�^. `•��h..�M.1f� rd3-.--"-1 ueat L ee�� f[oc 9�e ��i� �i�.x. ot �In..
pa pa�e 8 otthe Yhase 2 sdufy a taponse statea that "tbe appsov�d O�dul Plea
detl&�adnns Pamit a levd oPdevdopment t6at wdl roqui�e addldanal/apa�bd roads
(p, l of 2)
!AH-10-001UB 3:23 PY nc�'�iVGI(7 . 2
. JAN i t �Opp
�irv �� 1$ 3
w3ttdn t6e nelghbourhood". 7'hh soema to imp�y Wac a4y
below a deaslty kvid apptaved in the OP (�uch ad afiat cmlrooimm�ts wap call lbr) will
be ia vdn �mlea the O�c1a! I'lan ls amended ro loxer thae levela. b Wt+ aamectl Pleasc
rapom. If this is lhe cas�, what L tlbe proass tor anaending the Oflidal Yleio7 I woald
apprudate it If you oould pravide me wlth a bddouWne of thit praxx�.
I wauld alao lllce to add my auppoat ta Dan Cnaadman's su�o� !br a tcuat t4nd tn be
pmb8shed for the im�rovcmeat of tbe Wi1Qli& Cortidor� aa wdl as his idea for a SVaoegy W
achleve a austainable, luncdonal Gnrridoc •
T6e 8m primciple ofP3dmi�s �rv O�dai Ylan is "to meet ptoplds aeed� wlrik ec�swfng
emdTOnme�tallY aPProprlate actloaf" (1997, p.13). I am writing to inform yw dat as a
ddzen of Plckaing "devrtopas' noeds" for pro8t do not reprawt my �xds or the naeds oP
ma�t oP the PkYciing dfu.em I Imow. Pkase ensme our
�� in yout plen8 foc lhis ndghboiuhood. r
'1'haak you for yaur comidaradon. • . �
SinaemJy,
� ��
' Jol� Aokweerd (40� 509-5418 .
pF' Doug Didte�Gn
Ridc Johc►wn
Mayor Weyne At�qtt}
• :�
p. 2 of 2
189
Rouge 13iver Restoration Committee
188 Coplsy 8�, Ploke�InO ON L1V E87 Tel (418) 2640267 F�x (418) 282-6231
Meyor, Membera of �ouncil & Planninp Staif
P.O. Box 300
Pidce�ing ON
RECEIVED �anuary2o,2o00
JAN 2 1 2000
CITY OF P�CKERINO
DEVELOPMEM OEPAHTMFM
L1V 6K9
ATTENTION: =e-o� f' Planning Depa n!, p/ease dlstdbuto to May�urs
� V and Member�Councll
HAND DELIVERED January 20, 2000, 8 Pages Total
RE: Comments 2nd Phase 2 Draft Report Rouge Park Nelghbourhood Study
Dear Mayor Arthurs, Members of Council and Pianning Staff,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on lhe 2nd Phase 2 Draft Report of the Rouge Park
— Ne(ghboufiood Study. Your inco�poration of many of our commenls irom the 1" Draft Phase 2
Report into th(s 2"d Draft Phese 2 Report is greally apprectated. Please consider lhe following
comments.
Page 3-1, Section 3 Natura� Environment and Developable Lfmits, Paragraph 2, 2nd Sentence -
Please chanpe to:
'.,.nat have negatfve impacts on the features and functions of a- e end adjacent natural
areas'.
Thia correclian would be consislent wilh Section 5, topics that Environmenlel Reports should
deal wilh where development ia proposed.
Page 3-15, Section 3.5 Petlicoat Creek Evaluation, Netural Environment and Developable
Limits, 2nd Paregraph from botlom - Piease change lhe last sentence to:
'It us be requirdd as �arl of an Environmenlel Report to fu�ther document conditions in the
• watershed under more typical spring and summer conditions'.
From the observations of the Rouge River Restoration Cammittee, Project Coordinator and
meny volunteers, water levels (n the Pelticoat Creek Watershed in the Spring of 1999 were far
higher than those observed in the Summer or Fall of 1999. In general the 1999 seasan was a
dry one and did not represent lypfcal conditions in either the Spring, Summer or Fal!.
pages 3-16 and 3-17, Sections 3,5.2 Petticoat Creek Fieid Survey Observations and Findings
and 3.5.3 Flow Conditions -
To our knowledge, the mein tribulary of Pettfcoat Creek upslream from the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood was (and currently is) dammed by a Beaver prior to the field observations and
flow condition measurements taken. The existence of lhe Beaver dam at the time of these
observations would render them inaccurate untess the Beaver dam were to remain for lhe
entire existence of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. The presence of the Beaver dam along
with the elypical dry 1999 condittons and the genaral dry conditlons of Summer and Fall at lhe
t(me ot deta colleclion would in our apinlon neceasitate further obaervatlons and date colledion
in ihe Spr(ng of 2000. We can guarentee you lhet the flow conditions observod on September
9'", 1888 are fer from typical Spring ftow conditlons. 185
In addition, weter level observatfons made for lhe Townline Swamp Complex in Aupust and
September ot 1999 ere very fer from representfng Sprinp conditions. From our observationa,
lhe differenc� in the amount oi waler wilhin lhe Rouge Park Nefghbourhood area observed in
lhe Spring oi 1999 compared to the Summer and Fall is actuaily quite astounding. It would
seem logical when planning a neighbounc�od thel water level observat(ons be made durfng
peek water level condfl(ons (i.e. during lhe Sprinp) or lhat h(gh water marks be used to assess
such conditions when possible.
Page 3-21, Seclion 3.6 Developable Envelopes, 3rd Paragraph from bottom reads: `To change
lhe developable limits K�II require the appropriete aupporpng environmental work fn lhe fonn of
Environmental Reports (refer'to Section'5.0)'. To our understandfng, one of the mafn' �'
objectfves of lhia nelehbourhood atudy Is to establish development envelopes or spatial limits to
development wilhin the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. Th(s slatement should be removed as it
inval(dates one of the major obJectives which lhfs study is intended to fulfil.
Section 3 Nalural Envfronment and Developable Limits, Figure 3.4 Developable Limits displays
a long double aided arrow North of the C.P. Rail L(ne merking an East-West Open Space
-- Corridor through the Provincial agricultural lands. As lhis Open Spece Corridor (s (n fact Norih
of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood lands, does lhis arrow fndicate the Town's intent to protect
those agriculturel Iends direclly North of the nefghbourhood as en Eest-West Open Spece
CoMdor to funclion as part of the Rouge-Duffin's Wildlife Corridor7 if this assumplfon (s
correct, we would like to commend the Town on taking lhis (nitiative and would like to offer our
highest level of suppott.
Pape 5-1; S'ection 5 Environmental Report, 1" Paragraph, 2nd Senlence reads: `For os
propeAfes in lhe Roupe Park Neiphbourhood, Rhe Pickering ONicial Plan will require that an
Environmentai Report be submitted with eny development applicatians'. The use of the word
most fn thls sentence implies that their exists c�iterfa which would permft the exemplion of
certain properties wilhin lhe Rouge Park Nefghbourhood from submitting an Env(ronmental
Repott along with an applicetion for developmenl We believe this should be changed to
requfre all properties wilhin the Roupe Park Nelphbourhaod to submit an Environmentel Report
— along with an applicetfon for development. Exclud(ng certa(n propertlos from doing so would in
eifect undermine the b(g pfcture or landscepe approa�h lhat lhis neighbourhood study has
adopted, All properiles within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood ife wilh(n the boundarfes of the
Rouge-Duffin's Wildlife Corridor, development on any oi these properties will hava a dfrect
(mpact on lhe Wfldlife CoRidor (one of Pickering's mosl sensitive and cherished environmental
features) and therefore no properties should be exempt from submitting an Environmental
Report with an appiication for development.
As well, every Envfronmental Report submitted should address lhe positive or negative impact
the proposed development will have on the overall features end functions of the Rouge-Dufiin's
Wildiife Corridor and not be isolated lo addressing only the (mpact to on-site and adJacent
natural features and funcqons. This would be cons(stent wilh the landscape approach taken by
the Rouge Park Nefghbourhood Study.
2
18 6 pe8e 5-1, Section 5 Environmentel Report, 2nd ParaBraph,l" Sentence reads: 'The
Environmentel Report wlll preclaely deMe the devalopment Itmit on-site, end (dentify the
aPProprlete eQpe cnanapement • buffere, aetbecka, mftiaation, end rehabilitetion (if neceasary)'.
Ernironmentei Reports are paid for by e propert�s Intended developer(s) end will therefore
re8ec� thefr fntentions. For lhfa reason elone, it doea not meke aenae for developers, along
with their hired Environmental Consultant�, to be the sole deflners of their ovm on-site
developme�t Iimit, buRera, aetbacks, mit(gation, and rehebilitation. It fa a clear coMlict of
intereat and we propose lhat apency ataff (Toronto Reeion and Conservatfon Aulhority, Ministry
of Naturel Resources), locel Env(ronmental Group(s) and interested stakeholders be directly
involved in eatabUshing these boundaries and aiterta at the Env(ronmental Report stage. We
befleve thfs to be a reasonable request as we are dealing wilh a very unique case where a
neighbourhood is being planned eround a Provincially Significent Wetland Complex, e cxeek
and within lhe boundaries of the Rouge-DuNin's Wlldlife Conidor, _�
Page 5-1; Section 5 Environmental Report, Area 1- Please edd to the list of key issues to be
a'ddressBd in'an"Erwfronmental Report for development planned in Area 1:
•`No n�gative (mpact'of development on plant and wlldlife species that occur on and adjacent
to the site.
We can not see:any reasoning as to why this key issue should not be addres'sed for thfs area.
Page 5-2 l0 5-4, Section 5 Envfronmental Report, Areas 3,4,7,8 - Please add to lhe list of key
(ssues to be addressed in an Environmental Report for development planned in Areas 3,4,7
— and B:
• No ne8atfve (mpect of devetopment on wlldlife habilat (amphibian, blyd habitat and other
area-dependent specles),
We can not see any reasoning as lo why lhis key issue should not be addressed for these
areas.
Page 6-2, Sectfon 6.2.1 Edge Management SVategfes, Areas Adjacent to Roads or F�cisting
Development - Please chanpe second and lhird sentence to:
'In keep(ng with lhe fact lhat the Nefghboufiood is important for wiidlife movement, landscaping
lhat enhances cover and food resources for wildlife us be considered. Plants used in
lendscepfng �s be natfve stock'.
Page &2, Section 6,2.3 Edge Management Stratepies, Areas Adjacent to Watercourses, 1d
Paragraph, 1" Senlence reads: 'A bu(fer of at least 15m from the stream should be retained
where the stream is intermittent but stlll occas(onally providfng downstream baseflow, and in the
case of warmwater sVeams'. Pelt(coat Creek ts categorized as warmwater aquat(c habitat but
this does not make it any less valuable to lha needs of area wlldlife and humans, only tess
valuable in mafntaining a cold water fishery (MNR, TRCA mandate). Intermittent streams which
occaslonaily provide dovmsUeam baseflow are still dlrect contributors to water quality, whelher
that contribution be on occasion or noL M ebsolute minfmum buffer of 30m is requfred and fs
not lo be regarded as a mexfmum. A substantial area is required for infiltration, 30m, fn some
areas, Is aufficient for the effective take up of nutr(ents, such es pestiGdes, herbictdes, potential
spilis, etc. In some areas 30m is sufficient to mitigate the negative effects of househoid pets,
namely cats and does, es well as the negative effects of no(se pollutlon. Please change the
15m figure to 30m.
P88e s-8, Saction 8.2.5 Edge Manapament SVetegies, Areas Adjecent to WeGends, Ilated j$ 7
under the followinp facto►s should be �ronsidered, 3id Bullet, leat aentence should be chenped
to;
'If these upland habitets ere woodlanda, buffera and setbacka to them �j be required ae
diacusaad ebove;
4"' Bullet,l" Sentence should be chenged to:
'Where there may be dtrect runoff from development into wetland habitet, a buFfer of 30m or
more �yjjj be required to filter out sed(ments and other contamfnants before they reach the
wetlend.
PeBe 7-11, SecQon 7.3 Stormwater Facil(ty Sfling, Altona Facility, Stormwater Manegement
Sfrategies,l'' Sentence reads:'The oullet oi the tacilily would be diredly to Petlicoat Creek...'.
OMine ponds negat(vely effect river hab(tet by warming the temporarily stored water (thfs
warming ia greally fncreased in stormwater management ponds ciue lo lheir hlgh level of
exposure lo�the sun)°and then releas(np it directly (nto the attached watercourae: 'The water
temporarily stored (n isolated ponds (not on-line) hes the adventege of being pre-cooled
throuph the process of seeping into the pround water or from being released into lhe
atmosphere via suAace evaporation, evapotransp(ration from vegetation, etc. before being
released into a ne(phbouring wetercou�se. To our knowledge this is the preferred
wellendlwetercourse relalionship and e great deal of Ume and efiort fs made, every year by
many ditferent agencies and organizalions, to remedy the problems created by on-Iine ponds
by renderinp them off-Ifne. Please investigate other possible solulions for the release of water
from lhe Allona Stomiwater Management Facility.
In addit(on, who will be responsible for mainta(n(ng the stormwater management ponds? And,
who will be responsible for losting fhe e�cacy of the stormwater management ponds (SMP)1
There has been a great dea� ot conuoversy over lhe efiectiveness of SMPs in remaving toxins
from westewater runoit Many of these ponda are being created for this purpose but lhere is
little avidenc� lhet they wo�fc, With th(s knowledpe, we rewmmend that a SMP directly on-line
wilh Pett(wat Creek not be buflt.
Pege 7-17, Secqon 7.4.3 Recammended Approach, Slormwater Management SUategfes, Point
#2 reads: 'Use ot calchbasins to coilect rear-yard dreinape and divert it into the storm sewer
syatem should be avoided as much as possible. Inatead, lot prading should allow excess lot
runoN to dra(n onto edge Uealment areas and into the wetland areas adjacent to the
developmenl zone'. Thfs is another reason why wettand and watercourse buNers should be no
less than 30m in widlh (see e�ianation ebove for Page 8-2, Section 6.2.3 Edge Management
SUatepies, Areas Adjacent lo Watercourses),
Page 7-17, Sedfon 7.4.3 Recommended Approach, Stormwater Management SUategfes, Point
#3 is one of the many pieces oi lhis study we wouid like to wngratutate the Tawn and the
consultanls for including, and wouid like lo hiahlipht it as it will be necessary to adopt thfs
recommendatlon in order to ma(ntain curcent water supply to lhe Tovmline Provit�cially
SigniBcant Wetland Camplex, etc. 'For each fndivldual property development, lhe Town should
requfre lhat the developer provide detailed site drainage plans and supporling water budget
calculalions that demonstrate lhat present-day contributions to the water table will be
mainleined in (uture, through measures such as those oullined above'.
18 $ The retional tor deflntnp the developeble ereas within the Rouge Perlc Nefghboufiood is baaed
o� 6 Principloa (Page &1, Section 8.1 Development Limits 8 eleo Ilated on Pepe 3-21, Section
3.8 Deveiopable Envelopea). The OM8-epproved resolution to Appeals A1 and A2 is a
principle adopted to protect the intereste of privete landownera in the ne(phbourhood. The
other 5 principlea were edopted to protect the nalurel featurea end fundfona of the
neiphbnurt�ood, qmonp them ere the Townline Provinclally Signiflcant Wetland Complex,
valley and stream corridors, upland habitet contfeuous lo wellends end valleylands, lands
providinplaugmenqng habitat Iinkeges and lhe overell features and functlons of the Rouge-
Duffin'a Wiidlife Cortidor.
'The challenge in developinglredeveloping the Neighboufiood (wrillen on page 1 of Roupe
Park Neighboufiood Development Gu(delines) (s overcoming this fragmented ovmership, so
that the resulUng impression is that of a cohesive, well-designed neighbourhood'. This
challenge has been met wilh the'curtent Nefghboufiood DeVelopment Concept E. In order to
meet this chal(enge, ihe princfple adopted to protect the fnlerests of privale landowners has
tieen meC by'lumping thei� propeAles in wilh ProvinGal Lands lo produce a cohesive
ne(phbourhood at the e�ense of the 5 other principles, adopted to protect the natural fealures
and fundions of the erea.
The Rouge River Restoratfon Committee wouid Iike to work wilh the Town to design a
Neighbourhood Development Concept that would protect not only the interests of private
�andowners in the neiphbourhood bul would also provide better protection to the naturai
— features and functions of lhe neighbourhood and at the same time meet the challenge in
developinp/redevelaping lhe neighbourhood which (s to overcome the fragmented ownership,
so lhat the resuiting (mpression is lhat of a cohesive, well-desfgned neighbourhood.
One possible solulion to Ih(s problem fs rather than lumping lhe developable privately owned
lenda in wilh the developable Provincially owned lands, pool all of the developeble privetely
ovmed lands lopether. Totel the area of developable privately owned lends, then using lhe
Developab�e Envelopes already defined by the Neighbou�hood Study, design the Rouge Park
Neiphbouthood withfn lhose envetopes not excaeding the total erea of developable privately
owned lands, thus protedinp the lnlerests oi the neiphbourhood's private landowners.
The total area (not necessarily the adual parcels) of Provincial�y owned lands within the
Nefghbaufiood would be maintained as natural area, cutting lhe actual davelopment area by
about 4096, allowinp for a ne(phbourhood concept lhat could be much more sympathetic to the
natural features end funclians oi lhe neighbourhood and al lhe same time meet the challenge
of maintaining e cohesive, well-designed neighbourhood. If the previously filled wetland areas
in the neiphbourhood were restored, lhe actual area of development could be reduced by as
much as 5096. This would ot course reduce lhe amount of developable land for those
landovmers who filled wetlend on the(r properties.
Based on lhe new neighbourtiood design, Provinclally owned lend to be developed wouid be
swepped for p�ivatety owned land to be maintained as natural arealRouge-Duffin's Wiidiife
Corridor. Each landovmer withfn lhe ne(ghbourhood would be compensaled based on the
amount of developable nefghbourhood land whl� he/she owns but the actual parcel of
deVelopable land which he/she awns would not necessarily be developed. Landovme�s would �
receive the same finenc(al compensation as they would with the cuRent Neighboufiood
Concept and development could be moved further away from Amos Ponds an:i other portfons of
the Townline Provincially Sipnificant WeGand Comple� development would not have to infringe
enywhere on PetUcoat Creek end a mwe funclionel Eest-West Roupe-Dufl(n's Corridor Lin� ��
oould be aroeted by froeinp up the land aroa oowpisd by the devalopeble Provindelly ovm
lends.
All of the private Iandowners in the neiphbourhood and the Tovm could combine their effata in
merketinp the development of the entfre Rouge Perk Nefphbourhood to fndividual developera.
Development of the enUre neiphbourhood by a sfngle developer could fuAher ben�t lhe
raticnel, prindples and challenges of the Rouge Park Neiphbourhood. We believe the poolinp
oi the developeble privetely owned lends would simplify the development procesa. Rather than
handling each ind(vidual eppiicaUon for each separate parcel of land it could become one
development epplication wilh a single set of aludiea, etc. This could dramalicatly increase
profits to landownersldevelope�s and save lhe Town a heap of time and money by aeatinp a
single review process, a sinple series of public meeqngs, etc. —(n essence it could be handled
as a'sfngle development epplicatfon,
We believe this concept would prolsct not only Ihe interests of private landowners in lhe
neiphboufiood but would also provide better proteclfon to the natural features and funGions of
the neiphbourhoodlRoupe-Duf(in's 1Mldlife Corridor and at the same time meet the challenpe in
developinglredeveloping lhe neighbourhood which is to overcome lhe fragmented ownership,
so that the resultfng impression is that of a cohesive, well-designed neighbourhood.
The Roupe River Restwation Commitlee would preatly appreciale the opportunily to meet with
the Town plenn(np deparlment, Mayor Wayne Arthurs, the local and regionel councillors and
Rouge Park Neighbourhood private landovmers to discuss this and other possible concepts.
We are also willing to (nvest a great deal of our time to help design such a concepl..
Thank you for your consideration of allemalive neighbourhood concepls and our comments.
We would Uke lo meet as soon as possible to discuss lhis and olher possibie solut(ons. Please
incorporate our commenta and suggeslions into lhe current Phase 2 Report. Should you have
any quespons or require additionel intamation, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
���""'^'`�' `��"-
Daniel Casselman
ProJeci Coordinator
Rouge River Resloration Committee
�so
02-14-',2000 F16�70Ph1 LPf�-F'RO El�i.
I�Ni)�P�O
�
ZCfi Co�ultaat� Lbd.
1 Port at. E., 8uite aol
Mieeieaauga, Oatario,•
LSG 4N1
Talt(905)891-240D �
P�:I905)991-2554
� i�E �E
FEB 15 yppp
• -���.�e� . ��,�,�a�r---�
aebz„a:y �a, s000
7lttentiont 1(r, philip Oray, P. 8ng.
bear Yhilip,
Re: Petticoat Creek Homea
243 Pinch Avenue/1960 Altona Road
Town of Pickering
18T-98018
�1r F�le No. 96012
Upon instsuctiona•from Bopa Developmente Inc., we coameaced detailed
deeign review and set-up for thair eite at Altona/Pl.nch, in the City o!
Pickering, laet aeek.
Obviously, the review of the overu�l atorm drainaga strategy wae a
etarting point with ehe preeumptioa that your firm haa performed an
indepth etudy Eor the eame, prior to eotabliehing the degign parametera.
ATe have, hawever, tLe folloaing commeate for your review:
,1. The Altona/Pinch aection ie suppoae to addreno Z, 5 and 100 year
etoz�na, draining to Che 3HM pond. eince open corridore exiot within
this aection of Altona/�inch, would St not be difficult to direct the
100 year etorm overland floxs to the 9WM pond7 Please elaborate on
the akxrve 1
2. You have indicated a Eoot-print of tt�e Altona/Finch SWM pond as 2.0
hectarea in area, in your report. A brief review o! eha 3��000 ecale
TRCA plan indicate9 that thla large azea for the sHM pond ehall
utiliae all of the O.R.C. and the Hydro table lando (eee attachtdl;
3. You have recommended etormwatar atorage volumee to be for quality
controle and erosion controls Eor areas further dowaetream. Thia
approach and aome re-diveraion of drainage azeso, created a very
large atornge requirementa of 6850 � cubic metesa. The SwM pond
footprint oP 7 hectnzee, eherefore, rhall glve you an average depth
o! o.3S metnr (1 foot) oi ponfling. PleASe review;
4. Pleaee explein thn conoept of bufiere for thie Bi�M pondi
5. Hae anyone reviewed the relative elavatione within Nhich thie 8NM
pond ie suppoee to funation? Ia bhe pazmanent storage o! etoranraCer,
ubove or below the ilood level4
...Z
�
F12-14-2080 06�37PM Lf;l�-fii0 F1�Ci. 90.T G2.i 19B.i P.02
RECEIM��
�PItO 191'
FfB � � �1E�0 �,,,,��
����� �
6• Yowr outflow conatraint of 15 litree
amaller than the 4s litres per eecoa4 �r eecond per hectare ie
for ix�om the building =ooEe, uadcr etrict ontrolgcoaditionea�lowad
Pleaoe provides your cortmeata eo that xe are able to p�eed aith our
daeailed desiga rrork.
Yours very truly
Iand-Pro Snqineering
Conaultante Inc.
����
vijay l3upCe, P.Bng.
Copy to :�, peoff Mcknighh - City - Planning
vdiag
9BOS1C70
. . . . ....,�.-. . ,
;�
�
.. - ., ,;
. .. ,
. - � • •� r `
193
' DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONS AND EMERGENCY SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
RECEIVED
December 15, 1999 pEC 1 6 1999
rowaocweKeaeo
tiN..ra ocvwrruerr
To: Catherino Rose
Manager, Policy Division
Subject: Rouge Park Nelghbourhood Study
The 1.7 hcctazes of purk proposcd at the N.W. comer of Finch and Altona is slightly Iess
than our present standard for parkland of 8.6 hectazes per 1,000 pcopte (3.5 acres/1,000).
However, given the constraints of the Neighbourhood and thc unticipated natural open
spacc system the areu may be su�cicnt to meet the nctive pazk needs for the immcdiatc
azea if appropriately designal with the school board lands.
� The gcneric mcasures outlinal for strcam nnJ woodland protection adequatcly rc(lect lhe
concept of buffering desired for prescrvntion of thesc natural Ceatures.
I huvc fonvnrdcd thc dceumcnt to RicharJ Holbom, Division Hcad, Municipnl Property
& Enginccring for commcnt rcgarJing Stortn W nnagement issues.
-.".
Evcrclt Buntsm
Dircctor, Operations and Emcrgcncy Scrvices
EB:mIJ
Copy: Division Head, Municipal PropcAy & Engineering
P�W��AI6000
� ,�,I.,
� 1 • � I
THE
DURHAM
DISTRICT
SCHOOL
BOAR,D
FadliUes SeMCes
400 Taunton Road Easc
Whitby. Onwrlo
LIR 2K6
ielephone: �905) 666•5500
t•800�265•3968
Fac (905J 666�6q39
�/
�
���
J�,�y io, z000
Thc Corporntion oC thc Town of Pickering
Planning Dcpurtmcnt
Pickcring Civic Complcx
One thc Esplanadc
Pickering, Ontnrio
L1V 6K7
Atin.� Ms. Colhcrine Rose
Dcar Ms. Rose,
RECEI�ED
JAN 1 1 1000
CITY OF PIC
etvE °�"N'"��wORINO
LOP4EMOEPMiMEM
RE: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Sludy
Phase 2 Report
Town of Pickcring
StafChas rcviewcd the Rouge 1'ark Ncighbourhood Study Phasc 2 Report and
hus thc following commcnts....
1. As per our Novcmbcr 22, 1999 Ictter, n sccondury school sitc is not
necJcJ withinthc Ruugc Park Ncighbourhood.
2. If the Ncighbounc�wJ population tnrget wcrc to rise abovc 1,600 pwple,
thc Durhum District School OoarJ would reyuirc m� clemcntary school
silc within thc Rougc Purk NcighbourhooJ.
3. lf nn cicmentnry school sitc wcre nccdcd, duc to un incrcase in the
populution targct, a ccntmlly IoculcJ sitc nJjnccnt to a park would bc
rcquircd.
Yours truly, .
w�`�'G
Christine Nuncckivcll,
Planner
IMIOIM1AWDAiA/PLC/PICKERMO/ROUGE PA0.1J1ANUARY 10 C ROSE LiA
�
. JF�F-12-20�F7 12=48
�
fROM:
TOPTC;
905 576 1905 P.92
THE DURHAM CATHOLIC DISTRICT �CHOOL �OARD 195
Gu6o►1r EJacur&rn: tswntnp d uvin� In faun
MEM�RANDUM
FiECE1VED
c�rHa�E aosE,
�N,�w�sE� Po�scv Q:v=saoN, cm oF prcK�xr� JAh � t�
6ERRY OTlQLI. ��"""1°0f
R+Ot/&E PARK NQ6F�OURHOOb STUDY
PHA6E 2 REAORT
DA'iE: JAN.12.20Q0
5?aff hov�s nwiswsd fh� Rage Park Nsighbaafiood Sfudy Phass 2 Rsport w�d
haw ra ob,�ecfion to ihe school siirlportc destgnation ns sho�m. Plawo� provid�
ma wtth d copy of ths davslopnet�t guidslinsa MMn coMplatai.
v V�
.
C
� 65U ROUIu.f Rntd West, (h1uW0. �r� LIJ 7C4
'IMepAana (903) S76fi13U Suppon Scrv4a Fat (SOS) 776�19lI
firaRA Mdn4 6A. FI. Ed.- OYw��al EdmWBwwMfnruw
TOTAL. P.B2
_. _
�96 �e
�THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
66hOrshrnDrM�Oo�nMrw�OnWb1A7N IB� (�10�ELI-0E00 FA%CEI-0BY7 htlPJ/www.trn.on.0
FebruaryA,2000 ��D°"��aurro CFN30325
Ms. Oalherine C Rose °j�'0Z n�o P�c Ep'�Q�or
City of Pickedn
Pickedng Clvic Cenve FEB 8 1p R E C E 1 VED
One The Esplenade �impa,�
P�kering,ON L1VBK7 ' 3���'�"° o'� 9 Z00�
z o.,�f8
Dea� Ms. ROS9: CI7Y OF PICKEq�Np
� OEVFLOP�Mpli EpAqIMEMi
Re: Rouge Park Nelghbourhood Study
Phase II Report
Town of Pickering
Further to your rnquest for comments on lhe above-noled study, please revfew ihe lollawfng (nlormapon.
SecUon 3:
Nan�ral Fnvtrnnmant and Develooabie Limits
3.0 Stafl do not concur with the statement that'edge management reters lo lhe emounl of
encroachment that development may have on naturel areas to be retained ' This would imply
thet edge management can be used as a technique to ellow further losses of the natural areas
Ihat are to be protecled. Edge menagement b to provlde a bufler to protecl the neturel areas
from edJecent land uses, end to protect land uses irom any hazerds thet mey be posed by
naturel edges.
3.1 Stafl request en oppoAuniry to review the Breeding Bird Survey which was conducled by Ontario
Hydro. In lhis regard staN are not certein ol lhe scope and scale ot tield Investfgatfons which
were aclually undertaken aa the repott relers to reconnaissance level, hawever menUons
breedfng birds nnd wildlife habitat which generally requires (feld invontory beyond
reconneissance.
3.2 (Page 3-0) StaH concur with the flndings that'tor many species, the amount oi habilat with(n lhe
lendscape Is more important than lhe size ol lhe individual patches.' Thfs has been evidenced in
work condudad by Gartner Lee on the 8oare property where sensitive bird specles were found
on the lorested ereas on lhe northem end eastem part of tha property. On its own in the
landscape this habitat would rwt be expected to support such species. It is very Iikely that the
habMat value for sensitive specles is being paAly supported by the proximity to lhe other torest
hebitats within th(s part of lhe Rouge Corridor.
3.3 The Corridor FuncUans section of the report is not acceptable to TRCA slaH. In examin(ng lhe
deiinilion of the cortidor, stafl note thet ihe cortidor should be noted es the'Rouge-Duilin
Corridor' and not'Wildlife Corridor'. We note that the Rouge-DuHin Corridor was flrst klentifled by
MNR biologbts whiie doing en aerial photograph examinalion ol this part ot lhe GTA They
noNced that ihere were a number ot significent forest and wetland hebitels fn an east•west Ifne
behveen the Rouge Fiver and the DuHin Creek. These included lhe ESA's at the north oi the
Rouge, the Townlfne Swamp, Pineprove, Altona Forest and the Whftevale Cortidor ESA and the
Duflin Creek. In addition lo these core habftats, a number of other forest hatidets were scariered
along the same line. This line roughiy lollowed the Wlity cortidors that run east-west across lhis
part of Pfckering. It was also noted that these habNa4s also follow the encient lake Iroquois
ahoreline.
� ...12
WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW�S GREENSPACE
Ma Catherine L Roae • 2• February 4, 2000
197
Within e predominalely egdculturei matdx these habket patchea ere not totally isolated end many
specias can move belween lhem. In fact, es noted earlier, the habNat patches act in concert to
aupporl apecies that would not normally use such e small patch. It is recognked thet as
agriculturei lends become developed, a number ot Impacts would occur which aHect the funcUon
of these signHlcant habitets. Their eb(liry to funcUon collecUvely would be impaired. EssenQally
urbanhed lands do not provide ihe same oppoAunkies lor movement as do egriculturai lands.
/!+ core habttats become rtwre isolated the opportunfties (or sensitive species ere dimfnished. It
. ror this reason ihal the core habitats, other forest hebitets, end the connected meadows
easociated wilh ihe uUlity corridors were IdentNied as being en important part ot the natural
heritege system es the lendscape changes.
Steff quesNon the eppropriateness of the discusslon on the merits and demerits of the corridor
withfn lhs document We note lhal lhere ere veryfng ergumenls on the validity o( corridors and
lhe report eppears to focus on erguments which dlminish the need for corridors wilhin the
landscape. For exemple, some species like woodland irogs found in the Town-Ifne swamp need
to move between the weUends where they ere breeding to lhe lorests where lhey forege end
ovetwinter. The points included on page 3•8 ere cortect, bul steH note lhat when there are core
habftats that provide breeding habHet tor a species, there is a need to have some way for the
young to disperse to other habkats (generally they cannot occupy the same territories as their
paronts). As correclly noted, many species do not move in slraighl Iines along narrow pathways.
Rather lhey move in a rather diHuse manner across lhe landscepe. 'Species that are ralher
Inditlerenl to cortidors include red lox, coyote, and whKatailed deer. The coyote and fox tend to
avoid corridors when Uavellfng across the landscape preferring to stey out in ihe open.. ' What is
not recognaed is lhat once the landscape becomes urbanized, the ability ot many species
(including the one's they described above) to move will be cuAailed. Providing for a serfes of
core and other hebNats that are connected by the open fields associated with the utility corrfdor is
en attempt to contlnue to provide lar lhe suite of species that currenlly exist in this part ol the
reglon as the Iendscape maUix changes irom rural to urban.
The report noles that gene flow along corrtdors has never been demonslrated but lhat it (s
diHicult to study end cannot be dismissed. SteH suggest that lhis kind ol speculeUon is
completely Inappropriate in this report. Secondly, while lhere may not be much (nformalion on
genes moving in corridors, lhere hes been a huge amounl of study around whet is generally
known es'island biogeography' that has shown how isolated habitals become genetfcally
isoleted like islands (eg; tho Cia�apagos). As well, lhere have been sludles on some small
mammals that has shown that once a barrier was created between the habitat patches, that the
populetbns become generally isolated wilhin a couple of genereHons.
In t.ddftlon stafl have lhe impressbn that corridors ere defined es forested areas only. This is not
necessariiy true.
Finally on ihis issue, the contradfctlon is noted on pages 3•10 which stetes that'noAh-soulh
corridors ere funcNonfng are well.' Given the summary on corridors provided earlier fn the
report, thb statement appears to ba (n conVadfdion.
3.4.1 The 8gure provided (3.2) is not clear in Identifydng the bounderies. The orange line representing
the Rouge-Dutfin CorrWor appeara lo have large gaps. The line excludes tho lorested eastem
part ot the Beare property that fs curtenlly under discussion. Secondly it was understood that the
forested ereas on the east slde ot Woadview Ave. were to be part o(1he corridor.
StaM do not support lhe low habitat value assigned to the north porUon ot the Beare Road
property.
Clariflcatlon Is requfred on the Ifmib of the cortidor on flgure 3.2
../3
198
Ma. Cethedne L Rose • 3- February 4, 2000
3.4.5. ThIs sectlon makes reference to lhe Rouge DuHin Natural Herftage Strategy. Please conflrm that
ihis ta accurate.
3,4.8. This indicates that Area e has hydrogeological function. SIaH suggest that the enUre area gNen
ke relatlonship to the Lake Iroquols Shoretine has important groundwater recharge, discharge
and rtwvement lunctions thet could be aHecled by development.
3.5 Staif need clariflcaGon on the extent of Iield reconnatssance used to document the Pettfcoat
Creek
SecUon 5
Etea t
Th(s sectlon stetes lhat this area is designated as having potenUai for development end includes
egriculturel lends and an abandoned gravel pit StaB note that consensus had not been gained an
Wlfzing the grevel pit lor development. More discusslon is required in this regard.
ClariiicaGon fs required on this secGon es the numbera of the'areas' referred to are diKerent from the
numbers used earliar in the repoA end es shawn on figure 3.2 vs. flgure 3.4.
The following points need to be eddressed in the Envfronmentel Report being recommended.
• there appeara to be an omission in lhe sentence'mainteining the water teble and tlow paths due
to lhe deveiopme�d activiry'. We note lhat the quality, quantiry and movement of ground water
ere ell crk(cal. The connections behveen lhe su�lace and subsurtace systems �eed to be
Identliled and their lunclions mainlained. Given this we suggest that a water budgel needs to be
conducted on a seasonal basis.
• The report should note thal there should be no neaative imoacis on the veaetetion communities
whlch in turn would equate to e benefit in wIIdINe habital oppoAunilies.
• The proposed environmental report should look at opportunities to improve condiUons over what
oxbts today.
• Points Identified forlvea t are likely applicable over the entire erea. Staff are unsure why these
points ere excluded lor area 3, 4 and 8.
• StaH auggest thel there needs to be a mechanism to manage ihe cumulative impacts that result
from all areas proposed lor development.
Thfs report does not give any direction tor the required Envfronmentel Report to be conducted
other than to suggest that the Emironmentai Report should demonstrate no negetive impacts. At
minimum, there ehould be an IdenU(iceUon on some of the works to be undertaken by
proponenis such es requirements lor fieid irnentories of amphibians, breeding birds, vegetaUon,
dralnage pattems (surface end aubsurface), etc.
Section 8
8.1 Edge Management Overview, artw�g the potenUal Impacts durfng construclion should inc�ude
changes in drefnege. It shouid be rwted ihat post construcUon many of the Impacts lisled mey
still occur such as drafnege changes, sofl compaclton, noise, erosion etc. end need to be
managed/miUgated.
.../4
199
Ma. Cetherine L Rose • 4- February 4 2000
The Impacte noted for new edgea ahould Include tncreased penetraUon of wind end Iight which
can dry the undetatorey end resuft in chenpes In Ne swcture and apecles composition.
The Impacts ol humen presence ahould include ihe lact ihet peopie end lheir pets are cont(nually
in en area and will aBect the adJacent habitat by making it uninviting or unsuitable for some
sensiWe species. Some ot the olher impacta that should be noted Include bright Iights and noise
(eg. lawn mowers).
The last paragraph on page 8�1 suggests thet'The type of edge man�gement roquired depends
upon the natural features and functions lhat occur Q,p or edjacent to the property. .' Natural
features should nol be }y[�i� the lots. Our experience has been lhat these features will not be
protected In Ihe Iong term.
8•2.1. This secGon suggests that landscapfng adjncent to roads should be considered wildlite habitat.
This cen atUact wildlKe into conflfcts wflh tre(�c and may ectually cause InJury or death to wildlile.
ConslderaUon ehould be give� in the alfgnment end design ot roads to allow for the avoidance al
conilict between wfldlife and Vatlic and promotes the safe movement of species between the
verfous habitala.
8.2.2. This section Indicates thal In some instences no edge treatment olher than a setback may be
required adjecent to disturbed habitats. YVhile applicable in ceNein areas s1aM are concerned that
lhis standard wfli be applled in atl ereaa. We suggest lhat disturbed ereas may be most in need
of enhancements to ensure their continued funclfon in the long term.
8.2.3. This section refers only to areas edJacent to watercourses. Reference should also be given to top
ot banks and in floodlines. In ihis regard staM are uncertein of the recommendations ior buifers
end meander belts. Figure 8.2. does nat seem to be rellective ol a buHer es described in the texL
ClarHicaGon Is required on determination of the limfts ot open space.
8.2.4. Section 8.2.4 deals with ereas adJacent to woodlends. The report suggesis that drlpline plus 1
metre wfll be a no touch zone. There are e number of olher Issues that nned to be considered
ensuring the rootzones of the edga trees are not Impacted. For instance, there may be e greater
buffer required H there are specles that are very sensitive to humen presence, or it there is a need
for grade changes. It cannot be assumed that ell iorests can heve trails running through lhem so
there may bo a need lo have the trails routed oulside ihe edge. It should also be noted that
some ol the lorests are swemps and are part ol the PSW so there are addfUonal consideraqons
that have to be deatt with es per seclion 8.2.5.
8.2.5. The aecond poirn on groundwater should deal with the dming and location of releases. The need
lor Vafls should be considered when deveioping bWfer requirements since lhey wfll not be
allowed within the PSW lor the most part. Page 8 of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Developmenl Ouidelines mentbns lhe Town ol P�ker(ng Trails and Bikeway Master Plan and
refers lo the idenlfied routes. It would be helpful to have ihfs mapped so that ft would be eesier
to tdentily needs withfn th(s neighbourhood for connections etc.
fie last bullet on page 8-8 notes'it a new edge in either weUand or woodland will be created.'
fiere ahould be no new edges created in weUands. All development hes to be outslde the PSW.
Also, please clarily ihe term'Iiving tences'.
..JS
2 Q Q M�, Cathe�lne L Rosa - 5- Febru q, 2000
���
� Stormwater Manegement
The proteclion and maintenance of wetlands and watercourse habitats should be considered in
this sectlan. Stormwater manegement objectives should not preclude the protection of lhese
areas,
Figure 7.2 shows lhe conceptual locatfons for facllfUes. It appears that they are parlially wilhin
forest and wetland habNats. Th(s is not acceptable. TRCA staH promote the protectlon of these
habitats and strongly suggest thet the locations of all ponds be reviewed and epproved fn the
field.
7.4.1 Section 71s the Section on Storm Water Management Strategfes. In ihe first sectfon the report
oWines the objecUves for storm water menagement. The report should should include the
protectfon and maintenance of the wetlands es well as the watercourse hab(tets.
Flgure 7.2 shows ihe conceptual IocaUons lor faciliUes, it looks like they may be, at least parUy,
within torest or wetland habitals. Again, ihis is not eppropriate.
Sectfon 7.4.1 (ndicates the weter budget analys(s should estimate ihe change In the water budpet
components. A water budget analysis needs to show how the changes will be managed or
mftigated. In addition the budgets need to be seasonal end not annual as prescribed In this
seclion.
7.4.3. The recommended approach does not mention lhe need lo pralect agninst Ihe (nlerceppon or
truncalton oi shallow subsurtace Oows. Rather a b�anket approach is recommended whfch is to
take backyard drainage to wetlands. As noled prevfousiy, Ihe amount, timing end locatfon of
water being directed to wettands haa to Include the exisling condltions end needs to be
conifrmed in a seesonal watur budget.
It appeers that storm water may be taken turther downstream before it Is outletted. This may
have impacls on base flow in the upper part of the Petticoat Creek. Impacts on Pelticoat Creek
need to be examined.
8.4 The 5th bullet polnt suggesls that Stormwater Management facilitfes will be integrated into lhe
natural setting. As noted prevbusly, all ponds must be located beyond the netural araes.
SteN note that additionel comments will be lorwarded chortly as a result of our engineering section review
of Sect(ona 7 and 8 0l llie report, in the interim we request ihat the ebove concerns be examined end
that changes be made to the report to satisiy TRCA interests. We are prepared to meet to discuss the
comments end to provide eddfHonal clarity If required.
We trust that thfs is of assistance.
Youra truly,
Rus— sel Whk�
Plans Maiyst
Development Services Section, Ext 5308
RW/fa
ca Janet Foster, TRCA
Dena Lewis, TRCA
�� 2� 1'
vTHE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORI7Y
6 BhorYwn DrM� OormMaw� Ontrb MJN 13� (/IE� EEt-0000 FA%EEI-0BBE htlp:l/wMw.Va.on.p.
FebNery 8, 2000 • CFN 30325
Ms. Catherine Rose
City of Pickortng
P�ceo�n� cn�tc ce�ve � R E C E I V E D
One The Esplanade
Pickedng, oN uv e� FEB 1 4 2000
Dear Ms, RosO: � CI7Y OF PICKERINO
� � 0�'EIOPI�ENTDEPAqiMEHi
Ae: pouge Park Nelghbourhood Study
Phaae 2 Report
Town ol Pickering
Tha tollowing ere ad�itfonal comments from TRCA Engineering s1aH on Seclions 7 Stormwater Menagement
Stratagies and SecUon 8 Development Guidelines of the ebove report.
Sect(on 7 Stormwater Manegement Requirements
7•1 The reporl notes ihat the Woodview sewer was designed to eccept drainage
from ihe areas adjecent to Woodvlew et a.20 runoff coett(cfent( equivalent
undeveloped erea, or pre-developmenl conditions), Please clerity the design
event applicable to lhis statement(2,Syr).
Also please clarHy whether ilow is proposed to be diverted Irom Amberlea Waterahed to
Peqicoat Creek within the Rosebank erea,
In the (irst paragreph on page 7-4 please confirm the impacls to the exisGng
pond with ihe additianal Oow.
7.1.1 fie flrst paragraph sugges4s that there may be negetive impacts to the slream
whlch have not been examined (I.e. Timing and peaks). Please clarify the anelysis
completed in this respect.
Table 7.2 Under the headfng Altona, the predevelopment flows should only Include the
17.5 hectare erea draining to Altona Central given that there ere sensitive erosian
sKes downstream on the Pett(coat Creek.
7.1.2 Teble 7.2 shows higher velues under category percent impervious than this section
suggests. Please clarity.
Teble 7.3 The tab�e fs nat correct it percent fmpervlous is es shown on table 7.2.
Please note the mfnimum detentfon Gme on tebla 7.3,
StaH note that quantity control volume ahould be added to quality and not one or the other
es the last paragraah suggests.
..12
WORKING TOGETHER fOR TOh10RROW'S GREENSPACE
2 0 2 Ma. Cathedne Rose • ' , 2- FebruaN e, 2000
�•�1 • The leat paregreph on pege e mentiona the erosive velxkies but does not quantity. Please
indicate the eroslve velxftles.
7•2.2 • Thls sectlon la uncloar ea s1aN need clerl0cation on how Dualhymo and the MNR. .
Melhodoiogy are Interrelated. There is no menpon of extended delentlon releasu ratea fn lhe
third parngreph.
�; In the Iast paragraph(page 7-n this is intended to connect to a atorm sewer. Whet ere the
. impacts of adding dreinage to the e�JsUng pond.
Teble 7A Agein, piease note the minimum detentfon dme on thfs table.
� 7.2.3 ' ..
Table 7.5 The report notes that'Table 7.5 summadzes the prevlously delermined slormwaler control
volumes. Erosion conVOl govems for ell ereas on ihe Rouge Park Neighbourhood. ' This is
not correcL Engineering steft need to discuss this stetement end methodology with the
consul.ent (ie. N release rate is set et f 200 L!S then 100 year would slgni8cantly Impact the
volume).
� Woodvlew FecilGy
Staff note Ihat the numbers descrfbing storage volume and ouHlow from lacility are incorrect
M overcontrol is to be achieved. Statt nole that the same commenl applfes to numbere on
Altona Faciliry.
7.4.3 Cisterns should also be Included undor the firal bullet point.
7.6 Builet polnt lwo (s applfcable only if iniiltration is leclored.
StaM questbn actuel under 8ultet Point three. Is this actual ol more accurale.
Pleese explain'vegeteled level' in the last bullet point.
Staff note the comment lhat'the downsueam stormwater quality pond is able to handte
addiNonai tlows'. Pleese explain how this was assessed.
We note that a meeting has been arranged tor Tuesday February 15th. StaN wfll be In etlendance to further
cladfy and discuss lhe above issues. We irusClhet lhe ebove commenls are of assfstance. '
Yours truly,
W �--` .
R ssel White
Plans Malyst '
Development Servlces SecUon �
Ext.5308 ' .
RWRe
cc: ' GeoB McKnight, Town of Pickedng
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
203
DATG:
Dccember 14, 1999
FILE NUMDER/OTHER RGFGRENCE:
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study
MEETMG:
Poblic Meeting to Discuss Phesc 2 Report
TALKED/MET WITH:
AdvJsory Commil�ee Membera:
Councillor Dickcrson
Councillor Pickles
Catherine Rose, Plenning & Dcvclopmcnt Dcpl.
Gcoff McKnight, Plenning 8c Dcvclopmrnt Dept.
Robcrt Starr, Pienning & Dcvclopment Dept.
Dan Casscimen, Rouge River Rcstoration Commiucc
Ja Pessoa, Woodview Community Association
Picrrc Doiron, Map Rcalry Lld.
Ross Norris, Map Rcalry LtJ.
Herkiron Uopari, Dopu Dcvclopments Ltd.
Philip Gray, XCG Consultants Ltd.
Allan Sandilands, GSG Intcrnulionnl Inc.
Members oJlhe Publfc:
• epproximutely 40 pcopic at 1hc bcginning of U�o mccling, and IS— 20 arrived latcr (scc altachcd
sign-in shcet)
•�������������������������•
• C. Rasc wcicomcd cvcryonc, introduccd slaff, and adviscd ihnt ihc Meyor scnt his rcgrcis, os hc wes
visiting a relativc in lhe hospilal
• D. Dickcrsan adviseJ lhat Cauncillorlohnson was ill, and unable to attend toniyhCs mecting
• C. Rosc provided nn ovcrvicw of thc purposc of the mceting (seo ngcnde)
• Q. McKnight prcsentcd thc first two parts af ihe Phnsc 2 Report— Part A bcing thc reporl on public
consultatfon, and Pert B consisting of tlie rcfined neighbourhood dcvc�opmcnt conccpt
• P. Grny presented Part C of the Reporl — the dreR Environmentnl Master Servicing Plen; his
discussion focussed on developable areas, edgc menagement, stormwater manegemenl, end
maintnining groundwater rogimes
Notes of Public Meeting — Deccmbcr 14,1999 Page 2
2� l� �u8� Pork Neighbourhood Study - Phase 2 Report
• G. McKnight concluded the presentetion by dlscussing thc dreR Rougc Perk Neighbourhood
Dcvclopment �uidelines, polenlial officlal plan amendmcnls, and othcr Inittatives
• mem6ers of Ihe public were invited to esk questions and providc commcnls
Dan Cassolman, Rougc Rivcr Restoration Committec
• concemed that Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor wil) nol funclion properly if development occurs
within neighbourhood
• all ORC properties within neighbourhood should bc rcteined in public owncrship,end become part of
the Rougc-Duftins WildliCc Corridor
• the pocket of clearcd land an thc west side of Woodvicw Avcnuc wes oncc part of thc Townline
Provincially Significant Wetland; over time, this arca of wetland hes becn fiiled; it should be restorcJ
back lo wetland habitet
• the Ucare Estate (north side of Finch opposite Woodview) is subject to a devclopmcnt application by
Map Realty; devclopmcnt on this site will detrimentelly affcct thc Amas Pand wctland arca; tl�e Town
should acquire lhe Beare Eslate and Iceve it as open spacc
• an individual askcd about thc potcntiel for commercial dcvclopmcnt in thc ncighbourhood
• G. McKnight rcsponded that res(dcntial designations within thc ncighbourhood permit n limited
amount of cammcrcial•lypc uscs, but thc ncighbourho«1's focus for commercial nctivity is thc
intersection of Finch/Aitona — primerity within the Local Naie dcsignation at Ilw south-cast corner
Picrre Doiron, Mnp Rcnity Lld.
• conccmed thnt dcvclopment guiJoline objeclive of crcnting strong rclationship bctwcen ncw
devclopmcnt and I'inch Avcnuc rrthcr than using fcnccs nnJ bcrtns will climinalc cxisling trccs nlong
Finch, wl�ich udd lo thc area's charactcr
• providcJ photos of trecs nlong Finch, ns wcll as photos Ihat provide exemplcs of devciopmcnt timt
Mr. Doiron finds morc desireblc thmi what devclopmcnt guidclines may rcquire
• Mr. Dairon Icll ballols for pcoplc lo idcntify whctMcr thcy prcfcr his examplcs or tlic dcvclopmcnt
guidclinc objccliva
• C. Rosc explaincJ lhat many of tlu cxisting trecs along Finch arc within Il�c rond's right-of-way;
mnny of Oum may hnve to bc rcmoveJ when the rood is rebuilt Gom a rural lo urban profile; carc will
be taken lo rctain trees werc possiblc
•(GM NOTE: aJ1er reviewing Afr. Uoiron's pholas r j"n�we deslrable" developmenf, !f appears l/wl
most ojrhe exumpfes Jo!la�v die sume obJeclivrs ujlhe devefopnienl guideUnes— �ae ojsingle-loaded
serv/ce rowls, and homea flio! provlde !!re uppearance ojfmn� entrances orlen�ed towards 1he stree�;
of d,e s nl,oros, �us� one jea�wea vege�u�lon �har preda�es !he abulting developmen�— a!! alLer
examples jeafure lrees mrd l�edge-rou:r lhof were par� oj tlie landscaping compleled dwing
conslrucllai oj/he developmenfJ
• of the 50 — 60 peoplc in aticndancc, one person filicd in a ballol indicaling lhot finch shouid bc Icit as
it is
• nn individual askccl if public trunsit acccss to/from Pickcring will bc improvcd in rcsponse lo
increased development
• G. McKnight cxplained thnt Durham Rcgion and ihc Grcater Toronto Services Ooard arc looking at
improvcd tronsit acccss and coordination within Durham and thc GTA; Pickering Transit will scrvicc
the Rouge Park Ncighbourhood oncc devclopmcnt occurs
Notes of Public Mating — Decembcr 14,1499 Page 3
Rouga Park Neighbourhood Study - Phasc 2 Rcpori . 2� 5
tan Olenwilliame, Prosident of Save the Rougo Vallcy System
• asked if now alorm sewer outfells W Petticoat Creek will exaaperete existing probicros of Itooding and
erosion within ihe crcek valley
• P. Grey expleined that one of the two proposed ponds wili outfall direclly to Petticoat Crcek, and that
ell proposed ponds have been siud and conceptually deaigned to limit the potential for erosion
� Mr. Glenwilliems asked that if lhe provisions for density transfcrs and bonuses Iead W denser
devclapment, in particular on the Beare Estate, would this have an impact on the pond sius
• P. Gray and B. Start replied that yes, ponds may have to be larger but Ihc precisc siu cannot be
determined until actual d,t�alopment proposals are submittcd; if a pond is in placc and a dcvelopment
is proposed that cannot be accommodated by the existing pond, the applicent may have to reconswct
lhe pond, provide facilitics on thcir propeAy, or rcdesign their concept
• Mr. Glenwilliams identified a large Black Welnut situeted on the north side of Pinch Ave. just west of
Woodview Ave.; he noted that the species is rare in this area
Joc Pessoa, Woodview Community Association
• supparts public awnership of thc Deare Estetc property
• feels lhe Town should enact n trce prcservation by-law
• lighling in the arca shauld be of a pedesirian scale, in order to avoid over-illumination that mey hinder
ihe Rougc-Dulfins Wildlife Corridor
• Hydro, Bcll and olhcr cablcs should bc buried
• prohibit 24-hour operation of any new storcs/gus stetion duc to ovcr-illuminntion conccm
• an individunl statcd that poAions of Woodvicw Avc. and Pinc Grovc Avc. hnvc bccn rebuilt from rural
to urban profiles wilhout losing any of its charactcr; Ihis is bccnusc U�c nrca fcalures lurge lals and
lrccs wcrc rctaincJ; thc wmc thing could not happcn if narrow lots arc in placc
Dill Ncill, 1897 Woodvicw Avc.
• azked if the Town will rcquirc restoralion of thc nuw-fi11cJ wetlnnd on thc Denrc Estutc, regardlcss of
whether devclopment is approvcd for thc propcAy
• C Rosc indicateJ thot diuussions were on•going among Ihc Town, MNR, TRCA and thc applicanl
rcgarding thc property
• nn individual statcd Ihat many pcople in attcndancc carc ebout tlw ncighbourhood, end that shc dces
nol fccl lhcir opinions nrc bcing praperly considcrcd by dcvclopers
Thc mecting wnciuded nt 9:00 P.M. People wcrc invited to scnd eny commcn4s thcy mny hnvc to thc
Planning end Dcvclopmcnt Dcpartmcnt by Jonuary 12, 2000. Steff anticipute praviding Cuuncil with a
Recommendalion RcpoA on the EnvironmenWl Mestcr Scrvicing Plan and Dcvelopment Guidelines et its
mecting of January 24, 2000.
Gcoff McKnight
�i����
�`�,��� �a ie �eo aa�.�an �rsan ceas� �w-�
� �y_
1���, � lru�p RC81ty Ltil
ABAL R}iATR pt WS7A�gHR
206 "��.'°�`��e�
Fabrtioiy 18, 2000
M! GRf {'Im'�flE �i056
Platutin9 Cepartment
City of Pickerin�
Oear AAs Ros�
P.1
Piaro Boiron
rniJr
Td:176f)9/4A6fA
�••:r�+,a+�.�su
AECEIVEp --'���� .�..--
� �� � 8ppp
�ITN�F�R
'OSw+nn�uw���tIYID
�+�max�rn�Nr
V�1 FNf: �� �-%�i8
Re: Rouge Park Neiahbourhood
In �this IetFer, we would like to oomme►rt on sane of the polnta eover�ed in the 7RCA's letter
af Febnnry 4'�, 2000, n capy of whtch Is attached.
TFte pa�agraphs were numb�red for eose of ide►rtifioation:
1. How con we obtain a oopy of this 8reeding Blyd surve�il
3. 'Thi! hae been twisted: In this study, Garina� l.ta �hawa! that, outside o, f tHe wetland
aree, there wns only 1 mre bird (blue-grey 9rntartcher) which normalfy doPS not Itve in
this Wnd of habitat.
5. 'Essentially, urhnnized landt do rat provide the same opportunities for movement as do
ogrlaNurol lands'.
'This one (more thun obvious) should be in the 10 besi� jokes of 4¢ttern�an's or 4eno's
sfiow.
6, a) Zt is extreme �uriate to d�saeu the merits and demerlts of the corrida�. The
doameM would be binsed if it dld not mentlon the prros und cons. Furthermore, thls
was written by a flrm of proFessiomis, which ore highly respected, and questioning
their profusioral honesty is�,diahonest.
ObJecfiv�e commertts on wildlife corridars huve been discussed under pp 3.6 of aur
kttrr on the EMSP. R�torafbn of the obJective disassion, presentcd in ihe
Decmnb¢r 10.1994 unrsion of the Phese II r2nort. Is_recemm¢nded thereln: •
,J2
�en,aur+a.►.e vwnrroaN
�e ie
Ms C. Rose - Gly of Pickerirg
Febttnry le, Z000
�z
207
RECEiVED
FE8 1 8 2000
c�rvv���rxa+mo
���,�,�
b) As for frogs, eta, we agked Dr. Ron Brooks, professor at iha UniHersity of 6uelph
and presidertt of ihe Canadfan Assockttbn of I�k+�petologists, to conduct a study,
1�la�e is an excerpt;
'Regording the suitnbiliry af this poplar buckthorn acrub
"forv,sY as amphibinn breeding MbtMi, lt cleaq�ty is utterfy
unsuitable. As well, thts hnbitat is unsuFtable as summer or
oHeiwintering IabFrat for any of our nnt(ve amphibiant."
a) "ihe coyotes � fox_' Daas 1RCA rmtit cvyot�es, thesa frtendiy crmtures who love
to �nt domestie eots and smnll dogs, to co-hcbitate with fwmans7
7. Firat 2 lines: Another Imp of fath i� aslced of u�, with ro cts, as uaal.
6ene {bw is�ues nre hondkd more obfectively in the origiral neport, m�d are e►rtirely
appropriute to disass, far the infornwtian of the public and staff.
Thu'ekre, we recommend (for puragmphs 6 6 7); Thnt thc tf#ion 3.3 te..+•t be
Leplaced with tlwt givee in the Decanber 10 1999 Phase Z neport.
9 610. Figure 3.2 seems clear, in our revicw, and we could find no gops discusud by TRCh.
The wtldlife corrldor a�cludea part of tha sidcly thicket Infesfed wlth buckthorn a�d
dog-sttnngling vine, (1i2CA's tum is'forrsted eaatern part of the properly"). 'This
area wai rated by the Town's wnwltaMs na having low hobitnt tinku. Thi� is
consistq►t with the mary �tud�es which lwve been undertaken by AAap in response to
TRCA't requesfs ot� initiatives, Such studies Fave beert undertaken in good falth to
negatiate ranediatton ond arca Improwment, rnther than quicWy takirg the issue to
the OMB for �sokition (t.e. 6an Eden}
Further, this thicket is under appeal for cortstderattan for redeslgrwtkn to urban,
whlch seam�t rrorrnmed In the opinion of o�r e�tviro►vnentnilst and eeology aontultaMs.
1�1e recommend that figure 32 af the December 10 1949 Phase 2 retbrt be rstainr.d
•m is•
,.,/3
wpu,�,.,c�mur»�.r wvw�vpye�
� 18 �BB 04t4EPM F}tOhl (9B6) 944-9622
zos '
Ms G. Roae - Crty of Pickrring
��pry 1B, 2000
Pnge 3
P.3
16. �VhYj Ts TRCA ooMu�ding f}wi. the situatlon fo� is'peachy'? Why, ihen, Lnprove
(f?
Youra�hv�Y,
c=�����.--� ,
� e��ro�
Pre.+id�nr
PB/lanc
Ati'pd1mt11}
P.S. Wa are reolly disiurb¢d wFth the'dlrectton'taken by th(s sfud�,
�fter ca►+eful scrcening, staff chose the firm of xCS ZrAamationai. obviousy, they
were ectisfied with thetr profwbml expertise,
Howe�, time and time again, iheir inftial t recommetidatiohs, were ignorad
and replaca! by very di ffentrt •positions•. Thertfore, this study we�rt fram being
ob,�errive and nqitrn� to being wb,Jee?ive. Thte Is rat acceptnble.
!*4�ydByCr�7AGk1r�fM4M/WAWM . � . � . � .
FE8 18 '8B 84�47PM FROM (9B5) 944�J6P2 P.4
wrAa a�►�nr �m . ,� �,,,,..�,
u� :+"�°`.ae;�'�nw�a,�yar.b ua3m rda�`�.�' �� 2A9
� Mer�orandum
DAiC! Fe6tterY 18� 2000
70� PtemtNokon
FROMI hoso NaRfa
�• OOM�ff.KT&: PFlIISE 2 EMSP REPORT
I hm �svim�ad tlra Ra+go Park Envtrorunental AAaeler Servidnp pten (elone and b oomparison v�iri Iho
i�us draf�� end I ortar Ihs fdlowine cuapesUons
pp3.s Tra cwdacX Fu�fiaa cedion nas been quib aertainly tmtaaa to mia ►nucn obJ�divNy a,a rea�ity out a
a,a oriyr� pre,enmyon. 'n,fs, to ua, is dcin ro e dedaretlon ttwuha world I� eat a belfel se�touary
advoceied by swne o�eniz�ior,a wilh dreamuq memeers. vrre aa,rocate �eplacert,�,t whn tlw wip4,at,
to:
• rectoro Qonw tearty end pive in�ort»od oonment for pubNc dlacuaaion
•�� �� �� ta a proper dba�saion d dtemeNvea, �aumr umn a'1wd�'
• aNtiaiph carw miph! baQeva uo to be neive� we beieve thntlul) obJedhre daaubn w8 lead W beltet
aeatlon. by boan slan ana membero a tl,e pua�c
• evdd o0rno of tlw pNfalG o! �r�aub�ta�ioMd b61of in a wikflh canitfor fn lhis bcatbn:l0
tmd�mse�s t�w !»�tl ad+rowlod fa Flnoti Aw p�at0�p0 Of fropf m1tl turUes, dsaPqe:
• tho nxqor Prohiool boirp dudtt 8� yooeo on Ihe load� e000►ding tn residenls
• thero betny no qobiem �coordin8 � Y� ropds adrt�ir�atrative a�enioor .
� tlte fed tlmt the I'mited roed k/ on Finfi ts assodated wiUt PeltloOet Goak, eqtwtgh d has a r►1�jor
ailv� acmrrJfnp to a mnidaft T►xn undmpastes aeent an n�ernive waste d ma�ey, wHh minor,
ttary� aabncs (memo a o.a to", t996).
RECOMMENAA7TON 1: Tltet tlre aecilon 3.3 fsxt bs isFJeced w!!h lhe origlneJ
pCrZ Per.1 � Developebk Aroe 1 hes baan rovlsed irom Ua prevbue drtqR debtin8 tlts rofaence Eo...'an
abandonedOravN piC.
RBCOAfMENOATIONT. 7Aat Na po�aDrnPh rolncorpon�fa Eh+s rol�ro»oe so Ywt tla sendanae reeds as In
fl� at�hN►, 'i!» aM dwsipnrfdas twtiMip pobnNd lbrdw�lopmrnf !nclud�a Ibrm�raprfcuitural lwid
end en ebendone0 prmbl pk,"
...n
NqA�yN�nr ■w n 1Mw t il� IY�i/1NAAG�M
�
�
FE� 18 �0B 04s47PMIFROM (9051-944-9622 P.5
, ...
2,. OI�FJIAO TO PIERRE BOIRON — Re PAaw 2 EM5P Roport
� 18� �
pa-9 Tlw p�repraph pivoacfrg aec�la� 8.3 la a dlscuasbn of tz�lfers. The leod reads: ...'9anaa�ly ditara
shoWd be pubGc property bwrl9d by 6ilher 1ho CiIY d Pid�Ari�p or Yw To�ado and Repion Canwrv�tion
�utlb►ity...•. ws ara advbsd tlwt tta p�aioes +ra�Y widey ecrosa ibe GTA, to auit acumslaneo�. On
��D +ha, sucfi ownerahlp Is a Ps�si+red Probbm, Ohron O�e otandaids a�eceed� arW ProvincJol
cul6ada to both Govemmen! departmenti arid MuNdpalises.
RECOJNAfENLfATION& Wb++� Hret fFw m�donoo bo �vlsod do tord ...�/faa maY�P�+�ProW�Y
cwned eyeanera►e cRyd�d�Llp orthe roronm anditopla, consawsonaueranry:
N�IOy,rw�4i,..�n+.eFrara�rrnMx�aa,N� . . . . .
F� 18 'BB 84t47R1 FROM (905) 9M3�9622 P.6
. . ,
Map �unr ��m T.� �,,,,.,�„ z � ,
�.�,��� ��, �: ��++�
,�� ��
Memorandum
DATl: Fehnery lg, 20pp �
To: Piane 9oiron
FROM: Roms NoRia
� COMMEN'T& ROUGE PARK Nk2GHB0URH00D DEVELOPF�Hi GUip�ES
I haw laviawad tlte C3iiideCnee (wilh ths ptavioua draft), Yntl I ofier canstruCtlw stp�fons beloMl.
P3 Ni.e rtmkea robrenoo to ttw Wfltflifo Corridor Marmpertbnt Plan. lt ceoms b me tltat pararnemr� a uta!
v�n a,nua m m�fea ne�efi� ro0►er aun t�nvhp a �srar yot, w anotl�er d«a�n�er�. socwimy. N:ounds
�� tl�ia docun�ent haa yet to be prepsne, erw a,r ooncem is tliet R may chande the atated poels and
�mm�c a ars pen.
eacxuo tome people ate esaumhp thet a wll� oarldar is neoeasary - and wv do not - thfs Hdldiife
tarkfa', in �Ea bcntion. woms irrelevant in oaitrast wNh the altwrr�ttva belwee� the 4'' CalCesdon arM
steefea-Teunton,�s rsoornrtwrded In �es7 cy c�eomancs ��9. rnat Caonmlks proposat has edded me�rt,
bacatua
• �ww tMt exprubn of tho Roupo Ptwk nath ot Sbedss la behy proposed: ft fs moro cwitr-�I to the
Pe►k
• it meeb the oortkJor ciarie dramaticany boitor-eapedaGy (n temts of widlh
• H Iinka meny more oae areas�aorridota�linkepes as notod on map 7 ot the Oflidal Plan (NeWral
Syotemi plm)
• Map 4 �Fawa Ihe arca to b,i fillod wilh Foreat, fielda rKl Fwdpworvs� most of ufiich aro I(nkeci
• u is hsH n,a anp� r�aa nan w nwny rood aoasinga and u,e road aosainqe are nYal �atlwr uwn
1rba�'1 itl nahlle. e(M b uldi6hit�ed by uben deve{o�X►lent
• Ttw D�AM¢ Raqe AprkWWrai P�eservs tms bMn annar�oocl, oonaervi�p about 7600 aaes for
e8tia�tal end cortvwvallon Pwposo�
� s bs proPos«l ror mnds awt aro alreaay ow,�ed by a�e Province, rathar than a pald,woric or publtc ana
privote tarxb
• tha aidre Duffns RouQe Ayricul4ral Presenro permits miprstion witl� an etfodive caridor wbth of S
km �afher than tla net mrthio�wfdtli d 100m at 1ho Gxurpwood Trenciomier atatbn, wtdch is both
fenoed and proveied or peived
•�ao�ooM�N��fs� aa a w�7aite curidor now� peNalary lor la�ger animab �ice deer
p4 N1.8, Parapraph 3. refarence alwuld be b N1.9.6. pnatead o� N1.8.8)
p9 N1.92, Fudre Roads: Reference b made A►ice to'princqle' roado al�idt thould road'prinapal roads^.
Y�IIi�rYMwnAapGw{�.�rlrl�I�r�pVOD� M
. , . � � � � � � � � � .
/'
0
/.
. i . . . . _ ./ , .. .. .
214
ATfACIIMIiN7 N.� 'f0 REPOk7 N PD � 1�00
ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD STUDY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Thc Rougc Park Ncighbourhood Study Advisory Committce is compriscd of the following
P�PIe:
Citv Conncil
Muyor Wayne Atlhurs �
Councillor poug Dickcrson
Councilior Rick Johnson
Councillor Dnvc Pickles
Environmenml Groups
Danicl Cussclmen, Rougc River Restorntion Committec
Communitv Grouns
Joc Pcsson, Enst Rougc Community AssociaUon
Rourtc Park Nciahbourhood Landowncrs •
Ross Nortis, Mnp Rculry Ltd.
Vijay Gupta, Dopa Devclopmcnts Ltd.
Citv and ARCncv Staff
Catherine Rosc, Piunning anJ Dcvclopmcnt DeparUncnt
Gcoff McKnight, Planning and Devclopment DcparUncnt
Bob Stnrr, Pinnning nnd Developmcnt Dcpartment
Janct Fostcr / Russcll Whitc, Toronlo & Rcgion Conscrvution Authority
John Shurpe / Gary Mueller, Region of Uurham Planning DcpnrUnent
,
,
�. ' �.. � �t"t�� re.y�y4�',�i t1�R nj(C:,j1 . �. _� ; . .
, * . } " ' } � ' f� � + 1 ,� �' it '" 11`� ` 5`}`�L�"T ` m�.�4i
f " .� ,,, �.���,� � �. �� �, , ¢9 � 4 � _ �,
�
� . (�1✓ . ,r� _ , : kry � v f ) fa �i � �� ��� ��. �hs a s
. �!` � � y S , � ��� � wp' � �'�„�� r'�v�rsaz��•
7�' 'J ��� `�'. F ' �+ `" s ! ''�+' +�' � .^�+�T-'�'' .
��'}�� ��'it �% � 4� j`.f"�� t� `��?r'. �f f'r4atp�wa _�, � f, .
1ti�"� ) a � .y.� J � .. 1 '( � .
":' ? `���£� ������ Y `� ' ' _ 'n� � � �
in . r� ,x •�� � . a '�..
f -�� 1 '` Y ����I�x_5'` �y �; �.
•�-- - � � "� ' ,,.i�
�,y � / + �` j X9 � � y .+ `i" � f .. L, . . . . .
� � :] ..,� / / . o,.�.� t�'y . l �.� � t�.,
. .� �%. � i?�'�'c . ,,G � .� � .� .g` . .
�� �( �
� � �: '`�' ':r� `; �y,�,,�_�c _� . . . - . - .c ,' f � - - t _ .
- ��i� a. • . . _ � i. . .�
� � . . '. �� . . k'` a � . � .* �,. '• t �r�t 'L'+ ,
. . . � �t �4��� .. �., ' J,a �� '� � � ..
. � r `?' 's �. k �- �l � t . • �- *,ni "' `'`F`' f � + j e.. .."x�. a �'�,%'
� s � r r. �, rt / r «� } , t �, ,.ya 2 ��'p.� . .
r .ty v ' S � -c .
� I �� �.:,� . r � -a 1 � ri�.t -
. . . "j\:s�� ,t�R Y � ��,Y;:.%',�.��. ��~ ._.� � ' � F �g "~� +��;i L�r-� ., . .
. �''�: 3�yr��.. � �, + °� = �:'' � �_ . ,
+;
. .��,. i�,. •. . . .. �w .. . .:_j � �`� a , 5 ,•� .
. ■.�.'. � . i". e ��i j ��': fr.n .- ,Cty� �` ` �� ��-. ,
� � � �' � � .� r��,� `. "�
, , . �.i; f�, ,M P. , ti�
, 5 : � �, ,. ,, � �J� w .l. , �� Y.
�, {1"�1-,-- � ,� �;! . - �,� c �.
� � . y :��,. ,�; � ei� ' , ' �i. � ?,k}- ; _. . ?�`°? � ',
. `t .f� �M t�..�� ��y1 t'. .i� 7 r'` �. ..
, �T 1f.A S• � d :'y � � � •' . ir � �. ? x � ��z�- .
. �ti •1 1 - }. 'd , 1 „ . 4� � 1 _ f�' , ti.
, : t �y t '.. �.y��`•--fi��i' . `� ,�N�.,,, ��=h r tr . ,
rF '..L �� T+' �4.i��' .. ij� 2.+y �;�',�1� � .
. . w }� ' � �"t �fr . .- � � �;A�t�'. i � � Y�'� �'` .
. f . � ' ; (� . � +.v � t*X�jt . .
. '1� t StV' • ,�� �'� . �� ,,;���. �` 2�'t�y�7°�' �'�6��• �7`Pa. . .
` , , - <t $
1 j i ' , ' ' � '`,�� ;^:� � ' � �,�,c
�y
+ �
� � .. , ,�}� `� c.. � � � ;,i� . +� , , �
' � . t h'ac. t'"�[�' Y , . ' 1'' ' �, S� � � q '
. , , _ � 4 ' y �"J � { ' . .. -n L. � 1 �=���: r*.'�1 �. _ .
�.� � . C � . �K (� ' , .' .
� , 4 ' t � , s . —i L �r.54t . �� . � •� '
� � = ', ", � � � ��� f �• '±?�* . � �: a L � ..
� � . . � � �,� . . 4 <,,y�si� '.�'��*dt�� . . ijfx �, `i
i � t 1 ,q r
.. r '�� � i4� ;� ��"y � �,<�y,�t�ll'..'������� r. �-♦�, ,
' '� +. f /� ��
� !' e r „�
� � ~..-� � ,1�� •, + \���sFJ '�f� ����� �� ���nr�T � , .
'N 4 ,GC. ..�r . t ` .. � -arRdh B r; +5 : � r �„ ?''. � ,
1 : � t� ^ i{ . F ., x y'�,E..� eI -.;. ..: . �
�2 ;�1 � i� � f,,y1 �� -` ��+.r� Z\
�� ,��� , T ��i`,S"! . � f�if.�'� + .
} ^ ` 1 � �+fi,��+.� f r�.l��l� '; y� � � .
'i. R ,� �i { - •��, rF;J�/� % A�I�¢ ,r� i ''sti:a .
. , � ¢,,.�1y• .� ' + t� �"I// //� x��3:.� ���;i+ .
• ; -� �,`�..' ' '�$iI ,I/ // �c ,` � ,Y.;�� �� .
i a .._rr•. ( � � fs.i7° , /� r.s„�ie . � .
. � 1' 1 4 �'f�. ` '„ �% � /., J` ly' •.
r� �-:�- �C.
_ �..1 � �4 ij r - f �� M �}.i _' " _
. • 1 S t1•�,1 �t'��� ..�V �P yf��.i rt 1. .
1 � � +y "� � ,` ,.,�� ���d � �j Ii. .
` r.. t t f � �� e t� '�
5 � �' �1� ; �,�Y•��f� <�� .
4 .,. � ..- �•? � � � �+. ����
_ . _
'� t .. � ,(� a�" �� � �t. .
i �1 � � t, �!. L 'A f '�t
� � - r ��<" � 1 +-� ,��t�1 Y�iq�,{ �,�k � � .
� i �+ 7 r �+t1 �
� '?'� i'� t M�.I._,"
� ' ��� � � � ��� p ' � '��+ ���h
.�.a-' � } t �"i i �
� ' • ts , 'J✓A�A)� �-�, � ' ♦ i _ 1 R ,
� . � i�j., �r, � `✓ ' k �, ..• t r � _.�
. �. -
�,�� . •� � . �',
� ""' • �'.� '" , _: ` ! . >'r��c,£ , _,_,;�fi� � �,
z�u+ t . 4�5 t ��*i � .-i '� ?t � _ S ' �
. . ''r1,'.'*4{"a��'',st�4,vt�•;�yi� �..,� v �f� }�i ` ��...� '� r �
�t�3.�
!} Y ,1�.5 � #"�i F Y.�,n � .f ;1 .� � r� �s.,, i � .•��
� � • �
A7'I'ACI IMGNT q S TO RL'PORT k P0 0 7-op
Fob-17-00 13:63 Rouga Park
� Rouge River Restoration Committee
21 6 188 CopNy 8�, Pbke�inp ON L1V b87 Tai (416) ?A4.0267 Fau (�16) 262-6Z81
Rouae Puk Alilanw MNNna of F�brL�rv 4�000
RE: Roupe Rhrer-0uffin'a Croak Wlldlifa Corridor f RouQa Pa►ic Natghbourhood
The Roupe River Restoratlon Commitlea on behetf of ineny Pickerfng basad and olher bca!
Envirom�enlal end Naqrrallsta proups end oommunity members requests the Rouge Park Alliarxe
P86S lhe following motions.
Motione:
1. Thet all provincia�y omied lands wllhin the Rouga Park Nei�barhood are to remein p�bildy
awned end be canveyed to the Rouge Park ar other conservation body for (ncwporation (nto the
Rauge-Duffin'n Wlldlife Corcidor.
Z. That provincially awned landa wiUiin !he Rouge Park Neighbourhood be used tor poasible lend
awaps wilhin lhe Rouge Perk Neighbouhood fn order lo benefit the overatl ecologfcal funclton of
lhe Rouge-Outfin's WI{dli(e Corridor.
3. i'hat Ihe Beare Eatale prope�ty, d(recUy adacent to lhe Provindaliy Sipnfficant Amos Ponds,
be atxruired by whatover means posaible for oonservaUon purposes.
Why should the Rouge Park Alliance pasa these motions7
1. The current Rouge Park Neighbaxhood devetopment limils oomprlse approximately 40°,G
pmvinclally owned lands. 8y conservinp lhese lands the ecolopical furxtion oi the RouAe-Ouffin's
YVfldlife Cortklor wfli be greaUy improvgd.
'fhe Roupe-O�Afin'a wldlHe Corrido� prov(des the only exlsUnp subclentielly foresled link,
beNreen lhe Rouye Paric end Ihe Oak-Ricipea I�Iwaine(providinp oontinentelly wide coMdor Itnks}.
Meintalning tNa Ifnk Is criUcal to the lor�term heallh oi the Roupe Perk, the Provinctally
SlpnHicant Townline Wellend Complex, fhe PeUicoat Creek, Alt�e Creek, Duffin's Creek
Watetsheds and Ihe Altona Faesi.
2. The Roupe Park Neiphbourhood hae hapmented ownership end land swaps coutd ba very
ber�eNctel to Ihe overall ecolopical funqion of the Roupe-DuHin's Wlldiife Corridw.
3. The Provinclally S(gn�card Amos Ponds I TowNine Wetlarxf Camplex has the richest diverslty
oTwildlKe h the entire Rouge Weterehed.
By developirp Ihe landa adjaoenl to Mws Ponds the terresUfel hab(t o� which these wi�dlHe rely
will be destroyed in tum destroyinq the wtldlde.
The direct eNeas of atorrtnvatar nx�off end chanpes lo the tocel hydrologicel cycle induoed by lhe
proposed developmen! will deatray /4rws Ponds.
:.l;al. q� -
0
v.�_� o aa a taoaaa ol � a.tHawH�v.W.v
Feb-17-00 13:62 Rougo Park
ATTACfIM1iNTq �? TONEPORTqpD O 7'�
2t8 '
THE ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
M 1 N U T� S Ml/00 - FEBRUARY 4, 2000
Thc Rougc Puk Alliaue met u ihe Toronto Zoo, NoAh Adminisuation guilding Main Boardroom. pi F,,ti�,an• �. ?
Ram Chriatio. Chair. ca11a1 the modiog to orda st 9;10 a.m. (NN�
PRFSENT
Manberi;
Ron Chriitie, C6air
Cwixillor Da�'�d Bartmv, Trnw of Riclurond Hip
Councillor RaYmond Cho, TRCA
Gkan Ik Baacmaeker� Sate tGc Rquge yalloy gya�
Cowkilbr Daug Didcer:ou, City d'pic�ri�g
Steve Oilcluist, MPP, Provmcc otOntario
Regiaul Cancitlor Frank Snrpiqi, gegion of Yorlc
Daek I.oc, MP. Fakral Gmsrw�nt
Calvin 14hite. Torwua Zoo
s�.n:
Suo Rusxp, Public ReWious Cnmdi�utoT
Doroea McCart�: A�rulve Auivaot
Gord Wcedai. Gcnaal Mamge►. Rouge Puk
�bitfYlftS
IdDC C�O:KC1'. TO(UNO dL �011(�pItlGY2IlOG AYIIb(1fY
L'JG Duoba. ToHn of Mukhan4 plaoncig pept,
Lou Jame�, Save thc RouB� y+�1�Y SY�tan la.
Paula Taiuh, UD(, Omuio
Ncil Kot�ns� Up�. Ontuio
� �ocluwe, Wvine Propecty Owacn Asrodatioo
Jun Robb, Friadi of tbe Rouge W�w�hed
!ey Todd. City of 7oronto
ABSENT
Man6en:
CwnaUor Bu BeDcissoon. City of Twooto
Coweilla Pekr pobciclti Town dWh&elnue�Stauffvilk
ReSimal Crnu�¢illor ]cvine HamD, Re$ioo of Dnrlum
Jdm MoKa}•. MP. Fedcnl Qova�n�
CwariUor Didc O'Sriw, City of Taaoto
Alternatu:
Neewr Chomoba9� Rcson of Durtum
Brian De�ey TRCA
Tom FamO, Miciatry• of Natural Raouras - Aurora
Tan Melyawlc, City of Pidcuing
RECEIVED
FEB 1 7 1000
CITY OF PICKEqINO
DEVELOPPL.IAIENT DE�PAq}MENT
A1lcmaoeB:
Jim Baird, 7'oxn of MarYlwm
CouociUor D�vid Allison, Tm�n of M�m
CamciUor Muk G+roU. Ta+n of Whitchwch•Stouf%ilk
ReBional Cwncillw Michael DiBiasc, llegion of York
Sne (iuntoty Tarmto Zoo
Paul Ha�Dby. Tmoow Zoo
Nobe+� 1�4tnlull. S�ve Ihe Rouga Vallry• S�zian
Rnb Masoervey, Minisin• ofNatursl Rcsourux _ Aumra
. � ,,:
i,v. � � �,�.F�': •!wl• . .. � . . . . .
y
Fob-17-00 13sS2 Rougo Park !
� , ATTACHMGNT q� TO RG'ORT N PD O 7_ �
ROUpfi PARK pL1,1ANCg PaQe 2 of 7 21(�
MMUfESof'�NIJ00 F�ruen� 2UlN�
BUSINESc ARlSINO FROb' 77iE b�R�L�c
MINU7'ES FKOM MEBTING #b, DECEMBER 6, 1499
Firrt item on the egendu is tha mimrip of the mating hdd on December 6. 1999. which was faxed
outto you.
M0770N Moved by; Dong Dk4rrson
B�7L'�4 Seeooded by: Steve Gikhr4t
7'iiAT thc mtauta of Meelin` N6/49 bc approved witY corrccUon to minor error oa Page 6
uuder Molio� (Rts. N13U'99� to rcAd: T6e Motk� Mu not ucooded, t6erefore .„ the Motion
wu soI voted oa.
CARRIED
� � i� . .i' • 1. �Il�l �1 .
� � • 1�1: ►1� l
.,
DELEOA7'IONS
1. lim Robb hended out a Idta ;latal Febnury 3, 2000. (Anechment �1)
2. Denicl Cesselman discributed hwdout regvding Rougo River-DuH'ins Creel; Wildlik
Cortidor, (Attacha�art A2)
�� M4T14�{ Moved by: Doua Diekenan
B�L�(l2LQQ Seeooded by: R��ood CYo
7iat t6e rccomoeodallont (Modonr) outlined ia rcpoR (6apdout) by D�ntd Caudmao,
Rou6e Rtver Ratontbr Coovlttee, be introduud u an cmer�ea�y item.
CARRIED
�� �Ll Moved b�: Dos� Diclmnon
$�44 Seeonded bys David Btrr�o�v
7Tut We fallow�iuL ►ecommcndatlors (Modo�u) ouWned (n report (b�ndout) by D�oiN
��°�W R°� �h'�'' Rat°tau°n Cavmltla, be reoeived md tonvardM to the
�ppropri�te a�enelp:
(
. . , . . . . . i; . �
� �_
C�; iE6Ub1N .
Fob-17-00 13:69 Rougo Park
. ATTACHMENf p� TO RBPORT a Pp O 7-�
�?1!
ROUGE PARK AI.LIANCE Page 3 oF7
M1NUi'ESofMoetinpMllW Fcbnun4 21if1(1
TAAT a0 provindaily owned l�ndi wit�in fhe Rou�e Park Ndjhbonrdood ue to remain
P�b1idY owncd �od 6e coavqed to t�a Ror�e Park or ot6�r consavation 6ody for
lncoRwraUon Into the RouYo-DuR'n� Wildide Cor►idor.
TMT proviaei� oNOed Lnd� w�ithin tie RouYe P�rk Netgh6aor600d be wed for
possiMe 4nd n►ap� wU6fu l6e Ronse P�rk Neighboafiood in order to brnelSl the ovenli
ecolo6iql functk� of l6e Roupo-D�tRns Wlldli[e Cor�idor,
AND 7'HAT the geue Ettate pnpperty, diratl�, adjuwt to the Provucially Signtlicaa�
Amoi Pond�, be aeqdred b� Nlytevv mam pouibk for eonscrv�tioa purposes,
�� THE M0710N WAS . .............................................. CARRIED
1. Rouae Nnrth Rerw�
MOT10N Moved by: Randy Barbcr
� Seconded by: Derek La
Chair. Roe Chriatie, tabled twa raolatiooi Uut provided word'm=tltat w�oWd bt intorporated inlo
Ibe fmal Rou�e Norih Mma�eowt Plaa to �ddraa reaoludoos N97 ud M96.
DEFEATEU
KEY ISSUE
Necam�a�dation from t6e Rouge Nordi Mio�gantnt Plan Staring Cmtmitta on t}K; Rwgc Parfc Alliat�cc
n.'sduGont of Odober 4, 1999 dnling with tbe Reu6o Patk Mm�aneot Plan and tlr� bairMan
d�lincatioo strategy, •
MOTtON Mored by: Stere Gi7rLriit
Bsf.8�LQ4 Seeended by: Raysood CLo
THAT tk moummdatiom be �plit.
CA�RIED
MOT[ON Moved byt Ste►e Gikhri�
�...'d� Secauded lry: Rayap�d C6o
THAT the Ro��e Park Alliaooe reexivs t6e r[port of t6� Rou�e NorfL Mn�eemeut Pl�n Steai�
Co�ttce
CAAIt1ED
, .,. . . . ... `'_�.�. _ � � _ • .c , . .. -. . � .. . �.