HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 52-02
002
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report Number: PO 52-02
Date: November 26, 2002
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P
City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Implementation
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1.
(a)
That Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P, initiated by the
City of Pickering, to implement the results of the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Study, as follows:
.
revise Schedule I - Land Use Structure to adjust the boundaries of the Urban
Residential and Open Space designations;
revise Schedule III - Resource Management to adjust the boundaries of
the Shoreline and Stream Corridor, Wetlands and Rouge-Duffins
Wildlife Corridor designations;
revise the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Policies; and
revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies;
.
.
.
be APPROVED, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PO 52-02;
(b)
That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan be
FORWARDED to Council for enactment as set out in Appendix I to Report
Number PO 52-02.
2.
That Amendment 1 to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines be
ADOPTED by Council, as set out in Appendix II to Report Number PO 52-02.
3.
That the City Clerk be directed to forward a copy of Report Number PO 52-02 to
the Clerk of the Region of Durham along with the draft by-law once Council
enacts the draft by-law.
Executive Summary: The attached draft amendments to the Pickering Official Plan
and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines are recommended in
order to implement the findings of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study. That Study was
endorsed by Council on April 10, 2000, following extensive public, landowner and agency
consultation.
Report PD 52-02
Date: November 26, 20020 n :3
Page 2
Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P
Proposed Official Plan Amendment 11 (Appendix I) includes revisions to the land Use
Schedule, the Resource Management Schedule, the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor
policies and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood policies that reflect the amendment
considered at the Statutory Public Information Meeting and the recommendations made
by staff in response to the comments received (see Attachment #13).
In addition, proposed amendments to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development
Guidelines addressing population targets for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood are set
out in Appendix II.
It is recommended that Council adopt the amendments to complete its consideration of
the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study.
Financial Implications:
Not Applicable.
1.0 Background:
1.1 Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Completed in 1999
Following completion of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study in December 1999,
Pickering City Council, at its meeting held April, 2000, received the Phase 1 and
Phase 2 Study Reports, adopted the Environment Master Servicing Plan, the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines and Informational Revision 7
to the Official Plan and directed staff to hold a Statutory Public Information
Meeting to receive comments on the proposed Official Plan Amendment, and
several other matters.
Council also requested that Ontario Realty Corporation discuss conveying
ownership of its developable lands within the Neighbourhood to TRCA to enhance
wildlife habitats, corridor functions and for other conservation purposes. A further
request was made to the Ministry of Natural Resources and other agencieslpartners
to prepare a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan" and establish funding
for its maintenance and restoration.
1.2 Official Plan Amendment Delayed Awaiting a Response from Ontario Realty
Corporation on Conveyance of their Lands
Since ORC has responded that they are not currently prepared to conveyor sell
the lands for conservation purposes (see Attachment #1), and several
development applications have recently been approved or otherwise resolved in
the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, it is now appropriate for Council to adopt the
Official Plan Amendment before the end of this term of Council.
004
Report PO 52-02
Date: November 26, 2002
Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P
Page 3
The proposed amendment to the Official Plan has been prepared in accordance
with the Minutes of Settlement, signed by the City of Pickering, and area
landowners, which resolved Appeals 1 and 2 to the 1997 Pickering Official Plan.
In addition, the amendment incorporates the Ontario Municipal Board decision
on the appeal of the Map Realty lands (now the "Nicou Inc." lands), located on
the north side of Finch Avenue, opposite Woodview Avenue.
The delay in bringing this amendment back before Council is due to the timing of
the ORC response and other staff priorities.
2.0
Comments Received
Information Report No. 21-02 (see Attachment #2) was considered at the
Statutory Public Information Meeting held June 19, 2002. Verbal comments
were provided at the meeting (see Attachment #3) and written comments were
subsequently received from a number of individuals and agencies
(see Attachments #4 to #12). Details of the comments and staff responses are
provided in Table 1 (see Attachment #13) and the key comments and staff
responses are summarized as follows.
2.1
Main Comments and Responses Affecting Schedule I - Land Use Structure
. In response to Mr. Daniell's concern that redesignation of part of his property
to Open Space - Natural Areas will remove his right to a building permit for a
new house (see Attachment #9), staff advise that a building permit can be
obtained under existing "A - Agriculturaf' Zoning.
. In response to a TRCA concern that a 50 metre buffer between development
and Wetlands, suggested by the OMB should be reflected on Schedule I
(see Attachment #12), it is staff's position that the buffer was a suggestion of
the OMB, not part of its order; staff will have regard to the OMB text in
reviewing the site specific development application for the site.
2.1.1 Main Comments and Responses Affectinq Schedule 111- Resource Manaqement
. In response to requests to remove the Shorelines and Stream Corridor
designation from five properties on the west side of Woodview Avenue
(see Attachments #7 & #10), staff concur and TRCA agrees.
. In response to Ms. Barber's comment that no lands with residential street
frontages other than three connecting corridors identified in the
Environmental Master Servicing Plan should be designated Rouge-Duffins
Wildlife Corridor (see Attachment #11), staff advise that this matter was
resolved by the OMB in its disposition of appeals 1 and 2 to the 1997
Official Plan.
Report PO 52-02 Date: November 26, 2002 00.)
Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P Page 4
. In response to TRCA's question of whether deletion of Wetland from the
south-west portion of the Nicou property adds these lands to a development
block (see Attachment #12), staff advise that this boundary change reflects
wetland mapping from the Ministry of Natural Resources.
2.1.2 Main Comments and Responses Affecting Rouqe-Duffins Wildlife Corridor
Policies - Section 11.17
. In response to TRCA's request for a status update and formal request to
participate in preparation and funding of a Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor
Management Plan (see Attachment #12), staff advise that the policy, once
adopted, will encourage interested agencies (MNR, TRCA, the Region of
Durham, Ontario Hydro or others) to prepare and fund the Plan, but that, to
date, no agency has done so.
2.1.3 Main Comments and Responses Affectinq Rouqe Park Neiqhbourhood
Policies- Section 11.16
. In response to the Pickering Division Head of Municipal Propertv &
Enqineerinq comment (Re: Policy 11.16 (d)) that safety gates have already
been installed on the C. P. Rail Line at Altona Road (see Attachment #4),
staff recommend that Altona Road be deleted from the list of locations for
such safety gates.
. In response to the concern by Sernas Associates that Policy 11.16 (a)(i) to
discourage reverse frontage lots adjacent to Finch Avenue may be
interpreted as a prohibition (see Attachment #5), staff advise that Sernas
Associates have been advised that the policy is to discouraqe, not prohibit,
and staff recommends that further policy direction be included to clarify the
types of situations that may be suitable for consideration of a limited amount
reverse frontage lotting patterns.
. In response to several comments suggesting that Policy 11.16 (a)(v) provides
a population target that is too open-ended (see Attachments #6, #7 & #8),
staff aqree and recommend deletion of the policy and a further amendment to
the Rouqe Park Neiqhbourhood Guidelines to reflect updated sanitary sewer
capacity restrictions in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood.
. In response to Mr. McLauqhlin's comments that new roads and road
improvements should be rejected because they threaten wildlife in the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood (see Attachment #8), it is staff's position that the
amendment to the Official Plan represents a balanced strategy to achieve
ecological protection and some urban development.
006
Report PO 52-02
Date: November 26, 2002
Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P
Page 5
. In response to Ms. Barber's objection to Policy 11.16 (a)(vi), which requires a
road connection from Finch Avenue to Rosebank Road that crosses her
property (see Attachment #11), it is staff's position that connecting roads
provide for better community design and access arrangements than do
multiple cul-de-sacs, particularly when the number of access points to an
arterial road should be restricted.
. Ms. Barber and TRCA commented that Policy 11.16 (b) (which encourages
retention in public ownership of Provincially-owned lands within the Rouge
Park Neighbourhood that are environmentally sensitive and disposition of
Provincially-owned lands that are identified as developable) contradicts
Council's motion to request the Ontario Realty Corporation to discuss
conveying its developable lands to TRCA for conservation purposes
(see Attachments #11 & #12), TRCA further commented that it still supports
the proposed urban designations for Provincially-owned developable lands.
It is staff's recommendation that as Council's motion was a free-standing
resolution, and ORC declined to convey its lands to TRCA for conservation
purposes at that time, the implementation of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Official Plan amendment should proceed at this time.
2.2
Minor Revision to Population Targets in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines
. In response to the Reqion of Durham Planninq Department comment that
sanitary sewer capacities for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood should be
clarified for the benefit of interested agencies and landowners
(Attachment #6), staff recommend that the Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines be amended to reflect updated sanitary sewer
capacities.
Appendices
APPENDIX I:
By-law to adopt Amendment No. 11 to the Pickering Official Plan for
the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (Amendment included as Exhibit "A"
to By-law)
Amendment 1 to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
APPENDIX II:
Report PD 52-02
Date: November 26, 2002 0 n 7
Subject: Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P
Page 6
Attachments:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Letter from the Ontario Realty Corporation, dated July 18, 2000
Information Report No. 21-02
Minutes of the Statutory Public Information Meeting held June 19,2002
Comments of the Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Comments of Sernas Associates on behalf of Nicou Inc., dated June 20, 2002
Comments of Region of Durham Planning Department
Comments of Agnes and Peter Ruzsa et ai, dated July 1,2002
Comments of Doug McLaughlin, dated June 20, 2002
Comments of Gary Daniell, dated June 17, 2002
Comments of Otto & Erna Stock et ai, dated June 21,2002
Comments of Jocelyn Barber, dated July 26,2002
Comments of Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, dated October 31 , 2002
Table 1 - Summary of Comments Received and Staff Responses on proposed Official
Plan Amendment 11 (Rouge Park Neighbourhood)
Prepared By:
~.4~
Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP
Planner II
Approved I Endorsed By:
¿¡
Neil Carroll,
Director, Plan
.. ~
L .;itJr~ tv--
Catherine Rose
Manager, Policy
SG:td:jf
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
..:.-
-'
on8
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 52-02
BY-LAW TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11
TO THE
PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
009
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-lAW NO.
DRAFT
Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 11 to the
Official Plan for the City of Pickering.
(OPA) 02/001/P);
WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, RS.O. 1990, chapter 13, subsections
17(22) and 21 (1), the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering may by
by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS pursuant to Section 17(10) of the Planning Act, the Minister of
Municipal Affairs and Housing has by order authorized Regional Council to pass a
by-law to exempt proposed area municipal official plan amendments from its
approval;
AND WHEREAS, the Region has advised that this Amendment is NOT exempt from
Regional approval;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCil OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOllOWS:
1. That Amendment 11 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto
as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted;
2. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the
Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure:
Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments, to seek Regional approval of an
Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan;
3. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing
hereof.
BY-lAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this
December, 2002.
day of
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor (t.
~~
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
010
Exhibit "A" to By-law
AMENDMENT 11
TO THE
CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT 11 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
f) 1 .ft
. --1
PURPOSE:
The purpose of the amendment is to revise the boundaries of
residential and open space designations on Schedule I - land Use
Structure, revise the boundaries of Wetlands, the Rouge-Duffins
Wildlife Corridor and Shorelines and Stream Corridors on Schedule
III - Resource Management, revise the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife
Corridor policies and revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood
policies to implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Study.
LOCATION:
The amendment affects all lands in the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood, which is located on the west side of Pickering at
the northern limit of the City's South Urban Area.
This area is approximately 160 hectares in size.
BASIS:
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study was completed for lands in
the City of Pickering and received by City Council in April 2000.
City Council adopted a comprehensive plan to guide future
development of the neighbourhood through two principal
documents: the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master
Servicing Plan and the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development
Guidelines.
The Environmental Master Servicing Plan provided direction on
edge management strategies between developable and
non-developable areas to ensure that new development maintains
and enhances adjacent natural features and functions. It also
established a stormwater management strategy.
The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
established urban design criteria and identified school and park
sites and major street connections.
The land Use objectives for this amendment are to adjust the
boundaries of the land use designations to accurately reflect the
findings of the Environmental Master Servicing Plan and adopt
policies for both the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor and the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood that will guide development in the
manner articulated in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development
Guidelines. Wetland boundaries shown on the amended Resource
Management schedule are based on updated 1999 mapping from
the Ministry of Natural Resources.
012
Appendix I to Report PO 52-02
Page 2
Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to Bv-Law to Adopt Official Plan
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT:
1.
2.
3.
Council of the City of Pickering passed resolution #29/00, Item #1,
at its meeting of April 10, 2000, which included initiating this
proposed amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to implement
the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study and a number
of other associated recommendations, The proposed amendment
has been prepared considering comments received at the Statutory
Public Information meeting held on June 19,2002.
The Pickering Official Plan be amended by:
Revising Schedule I - Land Use Structure to revise the
boundary between the designations of Open Space System -
Natural Area and Urban Residential Areas - Low Density
Areas for certain lands in the Rouge Park N eighbourhood, as
set out on Schedule 'A';
Revising Schedule III - Resource Management
Schedule, to:
(i)
revise the delineation of Wetlands in the Rouge
Park Neighbourhood, as set out on Schedule 'ß';
revise the delineation of the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife
Corridor, as set out on Schedule 'C'; and
revise the delineation of Shorelines and Stream
Corridors, as set out on Schedule 'D';
(ii)
(iii)
Revising section 10.17 - Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor
Policies, to add a policy limiting the uses permitted on lands
that are designated both Freeways and Major Utilities -
Potential Multi-Use Area and Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor;
and add a policy encouraging the preparation of a
"Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan" such that
section 10.17 reads as follows:
CITY POLICY
Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor
10.17 City Council recognizes that the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife
Corridor is intended to function as a significant
vegetated connector providing for species migration
between the Rouge and Duffins valley systems;
accordingly, Council shall,
Appendix I to Report PO 52-02
Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-Law to Adopt Official Plan
Page 3013
4.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
despite the permissible uses listed in Table 13,
permit utility and ancillary uses, as well as any
uses permissible within the Open Space System -
Natural Area designation (see Table 3) on lands
designated Freeways and Major Utilities -
Potential Multi-Use Area on Schedule I and
Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor on Schedule III;
and,
encourage the Ministry of Natural Resources,
Toronto & Region Conservation Authority,
Region of Durham, Ontario Hydro and interested
others to both prepare a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife
Corridor Management Plan" and establish
funding for on-going maintenance and
restoration of the Corridor.
(f)
Replacing section 11.16 - Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies
to revise subsections 11.16 (a)(i), (a)(iv) and (d); such that the
entire section 11.16 reads as follows:
CITY POLICY
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies
11.16
City Council shall,
(a)
in the consideration of development proposed within the
neighbourhood,
(i)
(ii)
discourage designs which require the use of
reverse frontages, berms and significant noise
attenuation fencing adjacent to Finch Avenue
and Altona Road, unless justified for a limited
proportion of street frontage within any proposed
development by unique site configuration, road
access or proximity considerations and mitigated
by special design and/or landscaping features;
encourage a "neighbourhood focus" at the
intersection of Finch Avenue and Altona Road
through the utilization of structural massing,
architectural elements, and landscaping that
establishes a strong relationship with the
intersection;
0.14
Appendix I to Report PO 52-02
Page 4
Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-Law to Adopt Official !:.@o..
(e)
(b)
(iii) despite the permissible uses listed in Tables 5*
and 9*, not permit the establishment of
automobile service stations and drive-thru
facilities such as restaurants, banks and
convenience stores within the neighbourhood;
in accordance with sections 15.17 and 15.18,
permit the use of density transfers and bonuses,
as further detailed in the Rouge Park
N eighbourhood Development Guidelines;
require a road connection running from the north
side of Finch Avenue to the west side of
Rosebank Road;
require new development to have regard for the
Rouge Park Management Plan;
encourage the retention of environmentally sensitive
Provincially-owned lands within public ownership and
the appropriate and timely disposition of Provincially-
owned lands outside of the Rouge Park that are not
environmentally sensitive;
endeavour to eliminate the "jog" at the Rosebank Road
and Finch Avenue intersection;
support improvements to the level crossings of the coP.
rail line at the Scarborough-Pickering Townline Road
and Rosebank Road, such as the installation of
appropriate safety measures including automatic safety
gates; and
for the north-east corner of the Beare Estate/Map Realty
lands, located on the north side of Finch Avenue,
opposite Woodview Avenue, interpret the minimum
extent of the "Open Space System - Natural Areas"
designation to be the southerly drip-line of the existing
hedgerow plus 1 metre, with the maximum extent to be
determined during the review of the related development
applications. **
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(c)
(d)
Appendix I to Report PO 52-02
Page 50 15
Amendment 11 to the Pickerinq Official Plan - Amendment to By-Law to Adopt Official Plan
IMPLEMENTATION:
The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as
amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall
apply in regard to this Amendment.
INTERPRETATION:
The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as
amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply
in regard to this Amendment.
* Copies of Tables 5 and 9 of Chapter 3 are provided for reference at the end of this
Amendment. It does not constitute part of the Amendment.
** This clause reflects the order of the Ontario Municipal Board in its disposition of
the Beare Estate/Map Realty appeal.
0.16
CITY POLICY
TABLE 5:
Mixed Use Areas:
Permissible Uses
by Subcategory
CITY POLICY
TABLE 9:
Urban Residential Areas:
Permissible Uses
'.
'I
¡
i
I
I
i
!
__._n -.-.............. ... n" -.-.,......-- n.__... n___'_---" - 'no--' .-.. n- - -.. _no, -. "- -.- -..-..., - ---...,
. ¡
I
!
!
i
..-.... '-"-' -....-.- .._n_- .-.-.. - ---""--'--"""" _.._..n._"" _n..- -... -.----.".- ---..-...- --..j
. ¡
All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at a !
scale and intensity equivalent to Community Nodes; I
j
Special purpose commercial uses. !
-. --.- -- -"""-- -. -----"..--'- .-----.............. -.. .....-. -... ....-. -. -. n. ....-- ...-..- ...... ......- -"'-i
i
¡
¡
!
¡
!
j
!
--.....-.... --- -. --- --.. ............ ---. -.-.-.-... --.."... --...-.......-... ---.. ..------'
Residential;
Retailing of goods and services generally serving the needs of the
surrounding neighbourhoods;
Offices and restaurants;
Community, cultural and recreational uses.
All uses permissible in Local Nodes, .at a larger scale and intensity,
and serving a broader area.
All uses permissible in Local Nodes and Community Nodes, at the
greatest scale and intensity in the City, serving City-wide and
regional levels;
Special purpose commercial uses.
Residential uses, home occupations, I
limited offices serving the area, and ¡
limited retailing of goods and services ¡
serving the area; !
j
!
cultural and recreational ¡
I
uses, and!
comm~j
Compatible employment
compatible special purpose
uses serving the area.
SCHEDULE 'A' TO AMENDMENT 11
REDESIGNATE FROM 'OPEN SPA
SYSTEM-NATURAl AREAS" TO "UR
RESIDENTIAL AREAS-LOW DENSIlY
------
N
SCHEDULE no THE
PI CKERIN G
OFFICIAL PLAN OPEN ~:: :::;:M
~ ~ RECREA'IlONAL
~ """'NA AREAS
LAND USE S1RUCl1JRE
m;
.-
t
MIXED USE AREAS
. LOCAl.. NODES
. COMMUNITY NODES
. MIXED CORRIDORS
. DOWNTOWN CORE
EMPLOYMENT AREAS FREEWAYS AND MAJOR UTlUTlES
D GENERAL EMPLOYMENT IIBI POTENTIAL MULTI-USE AREAS
~ PRESTIGE EMPLOYMENT ëËI CONlROLLED ACCESS AREAS
~ MIXED EMPLOYMENT OTHER DESIGNATIONS
URBAN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. URBAN STVoY AREAS
LOW OENSITY AREAS SEATON URSAN STtJoY AREA
~ MEDIUM DENSITY AREAS AGRICULTURAL AREAS
ê3 HIGH DENSITY AREAS IDiI DEFERRALS
=':r"::;~~~=.
-.- -- ,----
REGIONAL NODES
. REGIONAL NODE 1
. REGIONAL NODE 2
RURAL SETTLEMENTS
. RURAl.. CWSTERS
. RURAL HAMLETS
+
+
SCHEDULE m TO THE
PI CKERIN G
OFFICIAL PLAN
SHOREUNES AND STREAM CORRIDORS
(MAY INCLUOE HAZARO LANDS)
WETLANDS
0
[]]]]]
~ + + + +1
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
ROUOE-DUFFINS WlLDUFE CORRIDOR
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
FORMER lAKE IROQUOIS SHDREUNE
ALTDNA FOREST POUCY AREA
FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL POUCY AREAS
ROUGE PARK BOUNDARY
AA£'oS OF NATUIW. AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST
.
KNOWN WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
..- ~~ l'
---_I.-..'§.----
--_ø_-------. N
--~
DE ETE uROUGE-DUFFINS WILD FE
CORRIDOR' DESIGNATION
+
+
SCHEDULE mTO THE
PICKERING
OFFICIAL PLAN
SHOREUNES AND STREAM CORRIDORS
(MAY INCLUDE HAZARD LANDS)
WETLANDS
~-:::-:-~
IIIIIIIJ
r++l
~
ENVIRONMENTALLY SlGNIF'lCANT AREAS
ROUGE-DUFFINS WlLDUF'E CORRIDOR
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
FORMER LAKE IROQUO~ SHOREUNE
ALTONA FOREST POuCY AREA
FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL POUCY AREAS
ROUGE PARK eOUNtIo'IRY
AREAS 01' NA11JRAL AND SClENTlF1C INÆREST
.
KNOWN WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
""""'- l'
~ - .............. -.....-.
---_t.~-~=----
------------_. Ii
--
SCHEDULE 101 TO AMENDMENT 11
0
<C
0
cr
+
+
SCHEDULE mTO THE
PI CKERIN G
OFFICIAL PLAN
SHOREUNES AND STREAM CORRIDORS
<MAY INCLUDE HAZARD lANDS)
WETlANDS
u
mrnu
0
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
ROUGE-DUFFINS WlLDUFE CORRIDOR
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
FORMER lAKE IROQUOIS SHOREUNE
At.TONA FOREST POUCY AREA
FLOOD PLAIN SPECIAL POUCY AREAS
ROUGE PARK SOUNDARV
AREAS OF ""1URAL AND SClENTTAC INTEREST
.
KNOWN WASTE DISPOSAL SITES
1'LNH«J~dr"""'" l'
----~o;;;....._----
------------_. "
---
AMENDMENT 1 TO THE
APPENDIX II
TO REPORT NO. PD 52-02
ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
()'>l~
. (..,
022
AMENDMENT 1 TO THE ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT
GUIDELINES
ACTUAL
AMENDMENT:
The Pickering Official Plan to be amended by:
In accordance with updated sanitary sewer capacities provided to the City during
the processing of Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P (now
Amendment 11 to the Pickering Official Plan), in Section N1.8 - Neighbourhood
Population Targets, replace the number "2200" with "2000", the number "500"
with "550" and the number "1700" with "1450", such that Section N1.8 reads as
follows:
"The Official Plan establishes a population target for the Rouge Park Neighbourhood of
1,600 people. Based solely on the sanitary sewer capacity, a population target of 2,000
people is achievable 550 west of Petticoat Creek, and 1450 east of the creek.
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 minimize the need for public facilities in this area of limited developable
lands, a population target of 1,600 people will be retained, with a maximum of 550
people on lands developed west of Petticoat Creek, which contribute to the Woodview
Avenue sanitary sewer.
At Council's discretion, the population target may be exceeded if the City, in
consultation with the Durham District School Board, is satisfied that existing
development, or proposed development, does not generate the need for additional
school facilities within the Neighbourhood (which would be in addition to the site
required by the Durham Catholic District School Board, see section N 1.9.5).
The population target of 550 people west of Petticoat Creek may be exceeded if the City
and Region are satisfied that alternative servicing arrangements are feasible and
appropriate. This may include a direct connection to the York-Durham Trunk Sewer via
a privately owned and operated sewage pumping facility."
ATTACHMENT #J_TO
REPORT # 1>0 S ¡;l - 0 L
,
"'~L#., '
0, í'.3
r:.'
¡
"'1'"
l' "
eA,
"rl '
~"
~~_.,
~
He étage ,
Édifice Ferguson
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A IN3
Fax: (416) 327-3942
j
Jut 'ltj ~
- -
!ri Ontario Société
= Realty immobiltère
Corporation de ¡'Ontario
- nlh Floor
Ferguson Block
Queen's Park
Toronto, Ontario
M7A1N3
Tel: (416) 327-3543
July 18, 2000
Office of the Vice-Presi~e?t: Marketing " "..~.ø:n¿~J~5~,>3~~
Real Estate and Sales DIVISion" , " , , /,'/(,:; ~~' ','~ \,
! ,; ø" ' '\
'........ , < .. '\
~--- j ,/ ,'~" '
i ~ f¡::'- - ~ ----~r~J' if '\ \~' \./"';;"\
I,' n ..... ~ it:: J V E, D', ~ -, -,',? \ J!'., "f!J" ~:;"""\
r , 00. ,I ~'.""i. I!\...., "I");>
1" ,1, ~ '<,""" ,!'\.,{\:~..~ !''It.:.\,,
I ¡¡ ~..."'" Îit (..\,ì, .' I:
t,' f ¡¡I~ '1 'i ,.., .(}'1fi,; ,~ {"\ ,\ \f'.. \~ o'~ £I!
E, d,v\J¿'i'lÚ¡'~' ,H~¡ t-","-J¡~ ...OI'C'" ,":o¡'!
~ . \.~ ~'\' ,~ .I>..'\..è. l!
! "';-u" Ii \A \~" - &\~- ,
f '>oril1TOFP1CKE,R, IN~ ~,;, ,/\, O'p., , :
i "",,;,...l~Y~NINS A/IID', f \ C{' '
~~~¡:¡!~eM' f,{ '( ~
"'-'_4, ~
Mr. Wayne Arthurs
Mayor,
, City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Complex
One the Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L 1V 6K7
Dear Mr. Arthurs:
Thank you for your letter dated April 17, 2000 to the Honourable Chris Hodgson, Chair,
Management Board of Cabinet, regarding your concern for the protection of the
provincially-owned lands within the Rouge Park Neighbouthood Study area. Minister
Hodgson has asked that I respond to you.
As noted in your letter, the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study area comprises
approximately 160 hectares of land. The Ontario government owns approximately 50
per cent (80 ~ectares). of the land in the Study area. Of this portion, 84 per cent (67.2
heçtares) has been or is proposed by the .Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study to be
desi,gnated "Open Space System - Natural Area." The remaining 12 per cent (12.8
hectares) is designated for development in the Official Plan.
At this time, the ORC feels it wou~d be' premature to meet with the various stakeholder -
groups who have expressed concern over'the future of the developable lands in the
Study area. Since- receiving direction from Management Board Secretariat (MBS) to
dispose of the lands, the ORC, as agent for MBS, has only had discussions with the
Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) concerning the sale of all of the
government-owned land holdings in the Study area, at fair' market value.
If the sale of MBS properties in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood to the TRCA is not
possible, the ORC will then conduct an Environmental Study Report, as required by the
MBS Class Environmental Assessment Process. This Environmental Study Report
would include extensive public consultation.
O?4
2
AT1ACHMENT H_~TO
REPOR1 tI PO .5"".;).. - 01-
- -
Any sale of the subject lands must be in keeping with the ORC's Guidelines and
Procedures for Real Estate and Sales. In addition, it will need the endorsement of the
ORC Board of Directors and the Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet.
The ORC is pleased to have receiveq a copy of the City of Pickering's Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Study. As we guide the disposition of these provincially owned lands,
the O~C will continue to.consider the advice of stakeholders having an ínterest in the
property.
Once again, thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention.
Sincerely,
(
. ¡¿ ~ ßw:;f/..
R. L. Budd
Vice-President, Marketing
c.c.
Hon. Chris Hodgson, Chair, Management Board of Cabinet
Hon. Janet Ecker, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge
James McKellar, Chair (A), ORC Board of Directors
Tony Miele, President and CEO, ORC
I,.
ÞT1 ".('HI 'rrlT #;).. TO
,.. h..,..."-,, ---
REhJRT # PO 5.;;. 0 ;2.
026
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 21-02
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
June 19, 2002
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.B
SUBJECT:
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P
City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbourhood
City of Pickering
1.0
PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
- the Rouge Park Neighbourhood is located on the west side of Pickering at the
northern limit ofthe City's South Urban Area;
- Rouge Park Neighbourhood is bounded on the west by the Pickering-Toronto
boundary, on the north by the Interprovincial Pipeline/St. Lawrence and Hudson
(fonnerly C.P.) Rail line, on the south by the Ontario Hydro Gatineau Corridor, and
on the east by open space lands, just east of Rosebank Road (see Location Map,
Attachment #1);
- Rouge Park Neighbourhood comprises approximately 160 hectares in area.
2.0
BACKGROUND
following completion of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study in December 1999,
Pickering City Council passed a resolution, at it's meeting held April 10, 2000 to:
. receive the "Rouge Park Neighbourhood Phase 1 and Phase 2 Reports" as
background infonnation;
. adopt the "Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan";
. adopt the "Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines";
. adopt "Infonnational Revision No.7 to the Pickering Official Plan";
. direct staff to hold a Statutory Public Information Meeting to discuss this
proposed amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to implement the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study;
. request the Region of Durham to consider the redesignation of parts of
Finch Avenue and Townline Road fÌ'om Type B Arterial Roads to Type C
Arterial Roads;
. request the Ministry of Natural Resources and other agencies to prepare a
"Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan";
. request the Ontario Realty Corporation (ORC) to transfer non-developable
properties in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood to a public authority with a
conservation mandate; and,
. forward the report to interested agencies (see Attachment #2 - Council Resolution
#29/00, Item #1);
Infonnation Report No. 21-02
ATTACHMENT '_~TO
RFPnRT # pn :5 ,;J.. - 0 2.
Page 2
026
Council paSsed a further motion at its April 10, 2000 meeting, requesting ORC to
discuss protection of its lands that are designated to permit development with the
City, Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and other interested
landowners and conservation groups to enhance wildlife habitat and corridor
functions by investigating the opportunity to "Convey ownership of those lands to the
TRCA for conservation purposes (see Attachment #3 - Council Resolution #57/00);
in July, 2000, the Ontario Realty Corporation replied, indicating that it was premature
to meet with stakeholder groups over the future of the developable lands; ORC
indicated that it had only held discussions with TRCA about sale of all the
government owned lands in the Study area at fair market value;
accordingly, it is appropriate at this time to continue to implement Council's
resolutions respecting the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study by amending the
Pickering Official Plan;
the September 2001 Public Consultation Draft of the Durham Transportation Master
Plan includes a recommendation>to redesignate Finch Avenue, between Altona Road
and Pickering Townline Road, and Pickering Townline Road, between Finch Avenue
and Taunton Road, ftom Type B Arterial roads to Type C Arterial roads in the
Durham Regional Official Plan;
3.0
CITY PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
the City of Pickering proposes to amend the Pickering Official Plan in order to
implement the results of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study including the
"Rouge Park Environmental Master Servicing Plan and the "Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines";
the attached amendments include the following policy and Schedule revisions to the
Official Plan;
. revise Schedule I - Land Use Structure and Schedule III - Resource Management
of the Pickering Official Plan to revise the boundaries between residential, open
space and fteeway and major utilities designations and the delineations of the
wetlands and the Rouge-Duffms Wildlife Corridor to reflect the findings of the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental Master Servicing Plan and to
implement the signed Minutes of Settlement for Appeals 1 and 2 to the 1997
Pickering Official Plan;
. revise the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Policies to further restrict uses
permitted on the hydro corridor at the south edge of the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood and encourage preparation of a "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor
Management Plan";
. revise the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Policies to:
. delete the requirement for a neighbourhood study;
. encourage better neighbourhood design;
. establish a community focus;
. pennit no automobile service stations or drive-thru facilities;
. encourage retention of environmentally sensitive lands in public
ownership;
. endeavour to eliminate the 'jog' at the Rosebank RoadlFinch Avenue
intersection;
. other related policies as set out in the proposed amendment contained
in Appendix I to this report; and,
4.2
Information Report No. 21-02
~Tll\r,::"r,"iT#.""J To
p " ' ,,~!I --~
r:-:\ ¡in it Pf'i ~C;.;). - o,;L
02'7
Page 3
.
also include for informational purposes, the policy added by the
Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) in its disposition of appeal Al to the
1997 Pickering Official Plan that sets out a method of determining the
extent of the boundary of the "Open Space System - Natural Areas"
designations in the north-east portion of the lands on the north side of
Finch Avenue north of Wood view Avenue.
4.0
OFFICIAL PLAN
4.1
Durham Re !ional Official Plan
lands within Rouge Park Neighbourhood are designated as Living Area, Major Open
Space, Major Open Space - Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Open Space
Linkages respectively;
in addition, the northern edge of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood is designated as the
Urban Area Boundary and as the location for a Future GO Rail line;
both Finch Avenue and Altona Road are designated as Type B Arterial Roads;
lands designated Living Area shall be used predominantly for housing purposes, in
addition to certain home occupations, convenience stores, public and recreational
uses, limited office development and limited retailing of goods and services;
lands designated Major Open Space shall be used for conservation, recreation, and
reforestation uses;
lands designated as Open Space Linkages, including the Rouge-Duffin Corridor must
provide for the migration of flora and fauna and preserve and maintain the
environmental features and functions, with detailed policies provided in area
municipal official plans after consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and
the respective conservation authority;
the wetlands in Rouge Park Neighbourhood that are designated Major Open Space -
Environmentally Sensitive Area will require an environmental impact study which
must assess plants, wildlife, forests and streams, and protect them by identifying
methods of mitigating potentially damaging effects prior to development;
Pickerin!! Official'Plan
lands within Rouge Park Neighbourhood are designated as Urban Residential Areas -
Low Density Areas, Mixed Use Areas - Local Nodes, Open Space System - Natural
Area and as Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Area;
lands designated Urban Residential Areas may be used for residential, home
occupation, limited office, limited retailing, community, cultural and recreational
uses, compatible employment uses and compatible special purpose commercial uses;
lands designated Urban Residential Areas - Low Density Areas, are permitted a
maximum residential density up to and including 30 dwellings per net hectare;
lands designated Mixed Use Areas - Local Nodes (the lands on the south-east comer
of Altona Road and Finch Avenue) may be used for residential uses at a maximum
residential density over 30 and up to and including 80 dwellings per net hectare,
retailing of goods and services of up to and including 10,000 square metres of floor
space up to and including 2.0 floorspace index, offices and restaurants, community,
cultural and recreational uses;
lands designated Open Space System - Natural Areas may be used for conservation,
environmental protection, restoration, education, passive recreation and similar uses;
lands designated Freeways and Major Utilities - Potential Multi-Use Areas may be
used for utility and ancillary uses, and public or private uses that are compatible with
adjacent land uses;
Finch Avenue and Altona Road are designated on Schedule II - the Transportation
System as Type B Arterial Roads;
significant parts of Rouge Park Neighbourhood are designated on Schedule III - the
Resource Management schedule of the Pickering Official Plan as Shoreline and
Stream Corridor and as Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor; most of the western part of
the Rouge Park Neighbourhood is also designated as Wetlands Class 3; the
western-most part of the Neighbourhood is also designated Rouge Park.
Infonnation Report No. 21-02
<'nl',r'¡Ji'.:,n'lf # -;..,. TO
;;;~:)í ;~l"~'-~D - Sã:= 0 -L
Page 4
O~?8
5.0
RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
5.1
Resident. Al!encv and Staff Comments
-No comments have been received to date.
6.0
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
6.1
Official Plan Amendment Avvroval Authoritv
the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments ITom
Regional approval if such applications are detennined to be locally significant, and do
not exhibit matters of Regional and / or Provincial interest;
at this time, the Region has not yet detèrmined whether 'this official plan amendment
application is exempt ITom Regional Approval;
6.2
General
written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning &
Development Department;
oral comments may be made at the Statutory Public Information Meeting;
all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared
by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Councilor a
Committee of Council;
if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide
comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal;
if you wish to be notified. of Council's adoption of any official plan amendment, you
must request such in writing to the City Clerk;
if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with respect to the
proposed amendment to the official plan, you must make a written request to the
Commissioner of Planning, Region of Durham Planning Department.
7.0
OTHER INFORMATION
a number of development applications have been submitted to develop lands in the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood; these applications are proceeding, although the
proposed official plan amendment is cUlTently being considered, where the
applications are consistent with the provisions of this proposed amendment;
7.1
Appendix I
a copy of the City initiated proposed Pickering Official Plan Amendment;
7.2
Information Received
copies of the following documents are available for viewing at the offices of the City
of Pickering Planning & Development Department:
. the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Phase I and 2 Reports;
. the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Environmental MaSter Servicing Plan;
. the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines; and,
. fufonnation Revision No.7 to the Pickering Official Plan.
~,A~
Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP
Planner II
~~
Catherine Rose I
Manager, Policy
SG/jf
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
ATTACHMENT #_-~ TO
r;E'Jf,l Ii PO Sõl - D ~ ..
'-) r. 9
t :!
Excerpts from the
Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes
Pursuant to the Planning Act
VVednesday,June19,2002
7:00 P.M.
The Manager, Development Review, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and
the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at.
(I)
OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICTION OPA 02-001/P
CITY INmATED: ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD
1.
Steve Gaunt, Planner II, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Infonnation
Report #21-02.
2.
Gary Daniel, 1979 Woodview Ave., advised that he is not in opposition to the OP A proposal but
is concerned with the development line which cuts through the frontage of his property which
would hinder his plans to build on the south portion of his lands on Woodview Ave. He
requested that a minor adjustment be considered.
3.
Jocelyn Barber, 450 Finch Ave., questioned the origin of proposed policy amendment 10.17(e)
and advised that a number of land owners have right-or-ways in the hydro colTÍdor and felt that
the City did not have the legal right to take this away from these individuals.
4
Clay Warner, 1555 Oakbum St., representing the Altona West Community Association.
questioned when this item would appear before Council.
O~jO
ATTACHMENT#~~TO
RE?ORì # PO .'5::l - Ò L _co
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION
MEMORANDUM
August 7, 2002
To:
Steve Gaunt
Planner II
From:
Richard Holborn, P. Eng.
Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Subject:
Official Plan Amendment OPA 02-001/P
City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbourhood
City of Pickering
The Municipal Property & Engineering Division is in receipt of the above noted
application.
I provide the following comments.
In reference to, "Replace section 11.16 (d), Altona Road crossing gates. The
proposed amendment suggests that automatic safety gates be supported for the
Altona Road level crossing of the C.P. Rail Line. Automatic safety gates
currently exist at this crossing location. A meeting with Transport Canada and
CP Rail on July 31,2002 was held, and automatic safety gates are confirmed for
installation in 2002 for Rosebank Road and Scarborough-Pickering Townline.
RH:ds
Copy: Director, Operations & Emerge cy Services
I:\SITEPLAN\OP ADZ-DD I P.docAug-DZ
Land Development Engineering
Land Development Planning
Municipal Engineering Services
Transportation & Transit Planning
Utility Infrastructure Design
Water Resources Engineering
SE~NAS ASSOCIATES
IJ member of The Semas IJroup Inc.
031
ATTACHMENT #"-_5 TO
F;E~'(jRT # PO :5 ~ - D ~
110 Scotia Court
Unit 41
Whitby, ON
L1 N BY7
T.9O5.686.6402
F.9O5.432.7877
semas.com
June 20, 2002
City of Pickering
Planning and Development Department
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L 1V 6K7
~~~~~~~~
CiTY OF PICKERING
PICKER1NG, 08l1'l"ARIO
Attention: Ms. Catherine Rose
Dear Ms. Rose:
RECE~
Re:
.¡UN 2 4
Official Plan Amendment OPA 02-001/P
100 Finch Avenue
City of Pickering
Our Project No. 01269
We are writing in response to the circulation of notice for Official Plan
Amendment OPA 02-001/P.
Our client, Nicou Inc., owns property within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood, the
area affected by the proposed amendment. Nicou Inc. has submitted a
Proposed Draft Plan of Subdivision (SP-2002-02) and Zoning By-law
Amendment (A 09/99(R2) application for the subject lands, which are currently
under circulation.
Our client has reviewed the proposed Amendment and has concerns with
respect to how proposed policy 11.16(a)(i) may be applied to its development
plans currently under circulation for comment.
The Nicou Inc. property has approximately 316.0m of frontage along Finch
Avenue. A small portion of that frontage, ninety-two metres (92m), is considered
'reverse frontage'. In designing this plan, every attempt has been made to
reduce the overall amount of reverse frontage while maintaining an efficient
development pattern. Our client's concern would become an objection if the
principle of discouraging reverse frontage were to be applied dogmatically to
prohibit the limited amount of reverse frontage proposed in its Plan of
Subdivision.
As a result, our client requires clarification as to the specific intent of this policy
as it would apply in this instance in order to determine if its concern is valid.
... 2/
""1r,""'~'r~ll'.I1 5' TO
c, -nV-'"',,':'I,, ff__-
r;[-\lfH f, PO S,d,2 - ¿) .;L-~,
City of Pickering
Ms. Catherine Rose
June 20, 2002
Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to provide input into proposed Official Plan
Amendment OPA 02-001/P and look forward to receiving your response.
Yours truly,
SERNAS ASSOCIATES
BLJ/br
cc:
Nicou Inc., Attn: Mr. P, Boiron
, The Regional
Municipality
, of Durham
, Planning
Department
ATTACHMENT ,-LTO
REPORT # PO ~~..;1. - 02.
August 1 , 2002
C')'~ ,~
,- j
Steve Gaunt, Planner"
Planning and Development Department
City of Pickering'
One the Esplanade
Pickering ON L1 V 6K7
Dear Mr. Gaunt:
1615 DUNDAS ST, E.
4TH FLOOR, LANG TOWER
WEST BUILDING Re'
P.O. BOX 623 .
WHITBY, ON L 1 N 6A3
(905) 728-7731
FAX: (905) ,436-6612
www.region.durham.on.ca
A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner of Planning
Region's Review of an Application to Amend the Pickering
Official Plan -OPA- 02:001/P
Applicant: City Initiated
Location: Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Municipality: City of Pickering,' ,
The Regiorfhas reviewed this application and the following comments are
offered with respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Official Plan,
the proposed method of servicing and delegated provincial plan review
responsibilities. '
The purposeof this application is to revise the boundaries of the
residential and open space designations on Schedule I - Land Use
Structure, to revise the boundaries of wetlands and the Rouge-Duffins .
Wildlife Corridor on Schedule 111- Resource Management, to revise the
Rouge - Duffins Wildlife Corridor policies and to 'revise the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood policies to implement the results of the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Study~ '
The lands within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study Area are
designated "Major Open Space" with an indication of environmental
sensitivity, "Living Area" and "Open Space Linkages" in the Durham
Regional Official Plan. '
Lands within the Major Open Space designation are,to be used'for
conserVation, recreation, reforestation and agriculture and farm-related
uses. Lands designated Living Area are to be used predominantly for
housing purposes, but may also include certain home occupations,
conv,?nience stores, public and recreational uses, limited office
development and limited retailing of goods and services. Open Space
Linkages are to consist of natural areas and features to provide for the
migration of flora and fauna and the movementof pedestrians, where
appropriate. Uses within the Linkages shall preserve and maintain
"SERVICE.EXCELLENCE
fòYgfir COMw,UNITY" ,
$
100% Post Consumer'
034
ATlt¡CHr,/;un #_~~fLJ
REPORT # PO ..s ¡;¿, . - () 2..
Page 2
. environmental features and functions. The location" features and policies
of Linkages are to be detailed in area municipal official plélns in .
consultation with the Ministry of Natural Resources and the respective
conserv.ation authority. .
, ,
MuniciparWater Supply and Sani~arv Sewer Service,
The Regional Works Department has concerns with respect to revisions
proposed to Section 11.16 of the Ròuge Park Neighbourhood Plan.
Municipal sanitary sewers can be extended to service the Rouge Park'
Neighbourhood. However, capacity limit,ations exist in the downstream
receiving sewer syste.m., The maximum allo~able population, which can
be serviced to the existing sanitary sewer system, is approximately 2000
persons. The Woodview Avenue sewer can service approximately 550
persons and the Altona Road sewer can service roughly 1 :450 persons. '
Although sub~section (V) of Section 11.160f the proposed Neighbourhood
Plan provides flexibility for revising population targets for this
neighbourhood, it is crucial that all agencies be made aware ofthe. '
constraint in advance to avoid potential misconéeptions in future planning
, and development application:s. '
Municipal watermains are available to service the area. Extensions of the
watermains will be required to future deve.lopments in the neighbourhood.,
Transportation
The draft Transportation Master Plan recommended the 're-designation of
Finch Avenue from a Type-B arterial road to aType- C arterial road,
between AltonaRoadand Pickering Tòwnline Road.' With the exception
of townhouse units, this fe-designation does ~ot placerestrictibns on the
spacing of private accesses (driveways) along arterial roads. This is '
consistent with the existing and amended Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Plan, and a recent development application in the area fronting Finch,
Avenue (S-P-2002-02). ,
Provincial Plan Review Responsibilities
This application has been screened in 'accordance with the terms of the
provincial plan review responsibilities. There are several key natural
features within the Rouge park Nèighbourhood, including a wildlife'
corridor, Class3 wetlands and stream corridors. The Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority should be satisfied that the ecological integrity of '
, the area is protepted through the policies adopted by the amendment
'" ,(p . ¡~
f)!:,f\JHI Ii PÚ' - .tf"j¿~"ô).
"J ~ ,..
(..~
Page 3
procass. The Rouge ParkNeighbourhood is also an area ofhigh
archaeological potential. Any proposed, development in this area will'
, require an archaeological assessment of the site prior to development
approyal. No further provincial interests appearto be affected.
This application IS not exempt under Section 1.3,5 of the Procedures for
Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments., Please advise of any
dec!sion on this application by Oshawa Council. If Council adopts an
Amendment, please forward a record to this Department, within 15 days of
the date ofadQption. The record must include the following: '
. Adopted Amendment (1 certified copy, 4 duplicates & 5 working
copies) "
. Region's submis~ion form (1 copy) ,
'. Letter requesting the Region's approval
. Adopting,by-Iaw (2 certified copies)
. Minutes of all public nïeetings '
. All written 'submissions ,and comments (Òriginalsor copies), showing
the dates rE?ceived ' , , .
. AU planning reports considered by Council ,
. Affidavit(s) of municipal employee(s) certifying that, Notice of Public
Meeting was given, a public meeting was held, and Notiée of Adoption
was given in accordance with the requirements of the Planning Act
. Mailing list of persons who spoke at the public meeting(s)
If you have any questions, please call Hay Davies at (905) 728-7731,
extension 3223.
Yours truly,
~~
Jim Blair, Director
Plan implementation
Current Operations Branch
, ,
, cc.: Greg Gummer, Hegional Works Department
, Chris Leitch, Regional Planning Department
R:ITrainingIRcNopalopaO2-0Q1-P
O:~6
Gaunt, Steve
ATTACHti'HH #_1 _TO
~\~"uRT It PD 5;;;. - 0 ?.
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Agnes R. [flaxdi@hotmail.com]
Monday, July 01 , 2002 10: 19 PM
Gaunt, Steve
pruzsa@hotmail.com
Comments re: Rouge Park Neighbourhood, Official Plan Amendments
Subject:
Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 02-001/P
City Initiated: Rouge Park Neighbourhood, City of Pickering
Dear Mr. Gaunt;
We attended the Public Information Meeting on Wed. Jun. 19th/2002 re: the
above agenda and we have read all the relevant written material. We, the 5
neighbours on Woodview Ave. (listed below) have the following concerns and
comments for your action.
1. Schedule III shows about 1(2 (half) of our properties as "Shorelines and
Stream Corridors". This should be totally removed from our properties, in
keeping with deletion of the Wetland designation and redesignation to Urban
Residential (on Schedule I).
Also, please refer to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) Minutes of
Settlement (Approval Authority File #: LOPA-P-97-001, OMB Case File #:
PL971296, OMB File #: 9970221, and Town of Pickering File #: L939707) where
it clearly states in a letter Exhibit D2 dated Oct.09/98, as a result of
site visits held Jul.28/98, that these 5 properties are developable to the
west edge of property lines (ie. 600 feet), subject to a development
buffer/setback, which renders the Shorelines designation as irrelevant and
contradictory, and we believe it was left on the map in error. It has been
understood all along by all parties that all "natural/green" designations
will be removed from over our private properties.
Please ensure that this error is corrected and that the "Shorelines and
Stream Corridors" designation is removed from our 5 properties as well, so
that the OMB mediation agreements may be upheld and it is clearly shown on
ALL maps that our properties do not have any further development
~estrictions over them, once and for all.
2. Appendix I - #3, Revising section 10.17 (v)... states "permit a
neighbourhood population that exceeds targets established in Table 1.. .".
Perhaps a new target population should be established and specified. Also,
since only about 17% of the neighbourhood will be developable in total, and
of that most will be low density, we hope that population growth in the
other areas (eg. at Finch and Altona) will not be allowed to the extreme.
3. We are in agreement with all the other proposed amendments to the
Official Plan.
Thank You!
AGNES and PETER RUZSA
465 Rougemount Drive
Pickering, Ontario L1W 2B8
Home Tel: (905) 509-0458
Bus. Tel: (905) 509-8073
E-mail: flaxdi@hotmail.com
On behalf of the following 5 neighbours:
----------------------------------------
1. Carstens, 1942 Woodview,
2. Ruzsa, 1950 Woodview,
3. Snowdon, 1952 Woodview,
1
4. Buchan, 1956-1958 Woodview,
5. Stock, 1960-1962 Woodview.
ATTACHMENT #_"7-. TO
¡:'PORT # PO S;¡). -() ~
037
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
2
O:~8
562 Cattail Court
Pickering, Ontario
LlV 6A3
June 20, 2002
:;::~~E;ri # ~,)r2 -~°d-
fõ)~~~O\\ff~rm
If)J JUN 2 4 2002 lW
Pickering Civic Complex
Planning & Development Department
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
LlV 6K7
CITY OF P.ICKERING
PICKERING, ONTARIO
Re: Official Plan Amendment OP A 02-00 lIP, Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Dear Sir or Madam,
The following are my comments regarding the proposed official plan amendment OP A 02-00 lIP.
1. Section 11.16 (a) - (v). I am strongly opposed to pennitting a neighborhood population that exceeds
targets established in Table 1.
The cumulative impact of a population increase will adversely affect the more sensitive wildlife and
vegetation in the Rouge-Duffins wildlife corridor and adjacent natural areas. In particular, greater
use of the corridor and adjacent natural areas for various activities (walking, bike riding, exercising
the dog, etc) may stress certain species to the point where they will abandon these habitats
altogether.
A larger human population will result in more traffic on the roads traversing the wildlife corridor
resulting in more death or injury to wildlife attempting to cross these roads.
An increase in the human population will cause a an increase in the pet population. Unfortunately,
dogs and cats disturb, harass and kill a lot of wildlife. Pets have a tremendous advantage over local
wildlife in that they are generally well-fed, well-cared for, are vaccinated against many diseases,
provided with good shelter, etc. Life will become a lot more difficult for many of the species in the
Rouge Park neighbourhood as a result of the increase in the cat and dog population. Any barriers
installed to prevent access to the corridor and natural areas that proved to be an effective obstacle to
cats and dogs would probably have an adverse impact on the movement of wildlife, thus defeating
the purpose of a wildlife corridor.
The February 4, 2000 letter from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to the City of
Pickering regarding the Phase II report emphasized the above danger: "The impacts of human
presence should include the fact that people and their pets are continually in an area and will affect
the adjacent habitat by making it uninviting or unsuitable for some sensitive species. Some of the
other impacts that should be noted include bright lights and noise (eg. lawn mowers)".
Page 6-1 of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study also acknowledged the problem: "The presence of
humans and their pets also may affect the quality of adjacent natural areas. Human activities that
may result are encroachment of yards into natural areas, dumping of brush and lawn clippings,
vandalism of trees, development ofinfonnal trail systems, noise (lawn care equipment), and
Page 1 of2
ATTACHMENT # - L TO
REPGRT # PO Sc;. - 0 J-
O:~9
disturbance of wildlife. Pets may also have deleterious effects, primarily due to predation on
wildlife species".
In consideration of the above, I recommend that section 11.16 (a)-( v) of proposed amendment OP A
02-00 lIP be deleted.
2. Section 11.16 (a)-(vi), (c) and (d). I am strongly opposed to any changes in the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood road system unless ironclad guarantees are provided and realistic solutions are
implemented to provide safe passageways for wildlife.
The Rouge Park Neighborhood Study does not provide credible solutions to the problem of wildlife
death and injury on the neighborhood roads. The issue is not dealt with in the Durham
Transportation Master Plan.
In consideration of the above, I recommend that section 11.16 (a )-( vi), (c) and (d) of proposed
amendment OP A 02-00 lIP be deleted.
3. I received no written response to my verbal presentation to Pickering council on April 10, 2000 and
followup letter (as requested by Mayor Wayne Arthurs) of April 12, 2000 regarding problems and
flaws in the Rouge Park Neighborhood Study,
I received no written response to the concerns raised in my letter of September 24,2001 to Durham
Region regarding the Durham Transportation Master Plan.
In consideration of the above, I recommend that no further progress be pennitted on the
development of the Rouge Park Neighborhood until my concerns have been adequately addressed.
Sincerely,
4ð, vu<. h~.sl~~
Doug McLaughlin
cc.
- Mr. A. Georgieff, Region of Durham Planning Department
- Ontario Municipal Board
-~ ..-.. VV'VU ...
IUL.'\lHIL.!l1\1!\UUr
rH^ NU, qlD q~O ððcU
r. UI
040
A T.T.ACH~¡.ErJT # -- h-- TO
REPUR1 # PO d -0 ~,
, !EH~C """~\'¡~~'M
In" .~: I, 11::"
I C1TY OF P¡CIŒ,m"¡G
! '. PLM';N't", AND
~"'p'~V!;~:.r~L,:'EP,:::::;;'\:::NT
VIA FACSIMILE
June 17,2002
Steve Gaunt
Planning & Development Department
City of Pickering
One the Esplanade
Pickering, ON LIV 6K7
Dear Mr. Gaunt;
Further to our meeting on June 14 2002, regarding the proposed city initiated official pJal1
amendment; I a111 asking you to cotlsidcr the negative effects, which adversely affects my
property at 1979 Woodvicw Avenl!e,
As we discussed, it appears there was an obvious oversight, thc proposed Hne for
development cuts though the south side of my property and carries along to the middle of
west portion. Proposing to designate the south side as open space.
The land maintains the same characteristics across the entire frontage, and approximately
150-200 feet to the e¡:¡st o[woodview. Tl is mostly level, sodded with a gravel drive and
with a few random 110n- signifIcant trees. I see no significant reason why this restrictive
designation should be placed 011 the south sectiollup to 150 feet cast as this is where I
plan to build a new home,
Last year, under the current policies I Sllbmitted an applíeation to build a custom home at
the southwest comer oCthe property. I obtained Regional, Health, Planning and
Engineering approval to move forward. The building permit application was S11bmitled
and was ready to be issued subject to demolishing or the existing home, Due to the fact
thalthe neighbor to the north east of my properly and the Town of Pickering has
pem1itted TELUS MOB IUTY to erect a 160 foot tower and trailer with barb wire
fencing around it just 2 feel from my north east property Hne. Construction ofthc new
home was delayed so I could asses the size and investment of the home, 10catio11 and
layout of windows looking towards the tower.
I ful1y intend on building a new home at the southwest corner in the near future. 1 am
asking for a minor adjustment to development line to represent the property appropriately
allowing for my future plans at a minimum, as they exist today, (Attached)
Thank you for your consideratioll, llook forward to supporting the town initíaled or ^
under these circumstances.
You~J
Gary Daniell
1979 Woodview Avenue, Pickering.
U ua 11 u(.. lIUI1 Uv',JU J 11
Inc 1\01 IL!J~ 111\.UUr
roil I~U,
'tIU 'to;) DOCU
,
Ul;
ATTACHMENTI~-----TO
REPORT # PO Sd.- -0 ';;2.
041
-1 ¿
;::¡.V'
~
"ø"
. "",
"""
~~
"."
í OONCl:5SION 1
t"-'" ...-"'"
1-
\,
,
'&R
~
N,,?/'n...
.~
,~... . '
""" fLOT '^
,":1- '1~'
-t.. .,,"
'6 .,,-" "",t'
. "",
"".""
."."
,.""
""' .
~
.","
.,,"
~"".
~..."
,""
. .,,'
g
.."" ...."
.",0'
l':
§
R
~
1,.,..
LOT
.,"',"""
.",.",
:£!
",.ot ".."
."""
..,," >""j>
,.." <f' ..."
~
..# >.?" .,""
.",~ "."
"-'~
.""
. .1"-
§
WOOD VIEW
A VENUE
NORTH
bS,.G!J:!.!1: 12:>-45 ()II$TlNG ELEVATIoN. CATV P(MSTAl
'J3,4~ rnOPoSëo O:L<\IATION UGiIT POI.E
- DRAINAGE n.OW .. EXTERIOR DOOR
CJ CATCH aA51N :; :~~:t¡,D:~oWS
-9- Ii'I'DRANT Fr FlNI""!:D FlOOR
0 VALVE WI'! TOI' ,OUNDATION WAll
I!I TI1AN:W""MER as BAS(N(NT SCAD
¡¡¡¡ BELL rEDEgTAL USF UNO£J¡SIDE FooTING
CLIENT: PROJ¡¡CT NA~~:
1HE: KAlll.IN CROUP LTD. WOOD\lfEIV AVENUE.
CONSULTANT: C. M. SEnNAS &: ASSOCIATES LTD.
SIGNED:,......¿"..........., DATE:..,..2:'.~~~,
'IF '"I. - :,,' "- "" ro. '0""'"
G. M. SERN
l]OS
W";lby,
r -
S
LOT GRADI
NOTES:
1>1( OO/'lmAc,oR IS To "I:"'f'Y
'Ll DlMENSI()N$ AND REPORT ANY
OI~EPmClES TO ,HE ENGINEI:R
PRIOR To CONon¡UCTIDN-
SIn: I,",POR"'I\TlON:
LOT AREA ,......u...!'!;?:!.~,l¡¡u.... sq.rn,
lOT CO\>1i:RACE ,,1.7.p'-,p.;\,. oq,rn. . P.:R~, I:
CONSULTANTS DECLARATION:
TIllS PROPOSAL CONPOR",. \\1m TI'E
Al'rICG\lED SU8DI,",SIC'N ~OT <:RADIN"
.,AN. TIlE PROÞOSED HCU,!: TYPE
1£ CDM~ATlBL£ "'1>1 'IH! GRADING,
~JE:O~"6~~~~G~¡:::AM"::~J'~~,;,. SEALE
or ANY ¡)(I STING oN .,REET SERI'JC(S PROJECT 880855
G..M. Bernas ':I.;¡~::,r,~\;:
8I!'SOCJates . ... .u. I-I ",-,,-.
...... "" "" "'-""
~htlr.9"'U-
.- ..... "'~
OIlY
OF
PICKERING
1 : 500
lOT NO.
18
042
ATTACHMENT #_¿~TO
REPOR1 # PO 5..;l - 0 -2..,
TO
TIlE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPT.
CITY OF PICKERING
A TTN: MR. STEVE GAUNT
Pickering, June 21, 2002
From: OTTO & ERNA STOCK
1960 WOODVIEW A VB.
PICKERING, ONT. L1V1L6
RE: OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPL.
OPA 02-00I/P
ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD
( Hand delivered)
RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Gaunt
JUN 2 4 200?
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
We and other owners of the west side of Woodview Ave. have the following concerns:
1) Your Information Report No.21-02 Schedule lIT shows the back part of our property, and the
four properties to the south of us , in green stripes ( restricted ). It is our understanding that as
part of the 0 M B Settlement these restrictions should have been removed. ~ &ø, ø{{;1 1> 2 (Oct; <~ 11i~
2) The addition of the front part of the property to the north of us ( 1968 Woodview Ave. )
to the Wildlife corridor etc. as marked on Schedule III could create extra restrictions on the part
of our property fronting on Woodview Ave.
The front part of 1968 Woodview Ave. is residential property with a twostory dwelling and
occupied by a family of four.
The names and properties involved are:
, Stock 1960 Woodview Ave.
Buchan 1958 Woodview Ave.
Snowdon 1952 Woodview Ave.
Rusza 1950 Woodview Ave.
Carstens 1942 Woodview Ave.
See map included.
Your help in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you,
Yours truly.
fÅk Jö-nb
¡-¡IF
v
TRuNI< .'
L'NE
"\
LANDS SUBJECT f
OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
@
Þ
~
@
@5
@
Þ
City of Pickering
l'
~
~~--
"
/
,>/
--
':;;;'.::ìiüm..k' -
r,
'--
.--' 1-- . " -
F--
r
ð
0:
\
¿~. ~
-
-=---'- I I .....- ~
::::::.II I ~
SCALE 1:1lliJQO
APPLICANT CITY OF PICKERING: ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD
APPLICATION No. CPA 02-001/P
I DATE MAY 28.2002
:""'. ~
. -
c-- »
:;..;¡ C")
-I::¡:
.....~
m
"2
I::' -
'Ib
k.
1 I~
Cd
'r-J
c
;~
~)
04Ll
RECEIVED
Ii II\! 2 7 'ìno?
v,"," . l !-OJ '-
ATTÞ,CHMENT #_.lLro
REPJRl # PO 5.;) - t) ~
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPAí=!TMENT
Pathmaster's House,
450 Finch Avenue,
Pickering LIV IH8
Mr. Steve Gaunt,
Pickering Planning
C i t Y C e n t.r e .
by hand
Department,
July 261,
2002
Dear Sir,
Comments re Official Plan Amendment 02-oo1jP
Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Revising Schedule I
I;-this-S~hëdüïë-üp to date? I know the boundaries are the issue
here but should not other information on the Schedule be accurate?
I think there are three commercial sites in the neighbourhood now.
There is the Robin Hood Inn, which is designated commercial;
there is the Patterson site, north Finch west of Altona Road; and
there is the site - is it a landscaping tusiness - where the
telephone tower is.
~~~i~i£~_~£g~~~l~_lll
Could I suggest that AI, which has now been settled be removed?
It would be helpful if the neighbourhood could see the map with
all the deletions and additions shown.
I would like to query the addition of RDWC to the small property
just north of Otto Stock's property; . Mr. Stock is the northernmost
property in the Woodview block. On the site visits in July '98
we visited that property; it is small, it belongs to ORC. It
consists of a house and a large raised septic bed; there may have
been 20 feet of lawn west of the septic bed. This property is
completely man-made. It has no feature for the RDWC and it has no
function for the RDWC. but the property south of it will have to buffer
it, Similarly with the southernmost property in the Woodview block.
Could I query the developable area on the 6-acre, property opposite
Amos Ponds? That property was always Open Space. It was sold with
an Open Space designation on it. The Open Space designation reduced
the value of the property: it sold for $320,000 for two houses,
large barn, 6 acres and two ponds; within a year it was back on the
market with an asking price of, I think, $585, OOv. Does this property
now have a developable area? How did it acquire this?
I would like to suggest that, except for the three "connecting
corridors" - north Finch woodlot, Petticoat Creek and Amos Ponds
(these are shown in Figure 3.4 Developable Limits page 3-22 of
Phase 2 Report) there sould be no designation of RDWC on residential
street road fronaages. This settlement between the two utility
corridors has been here long before any imaginary Wildlife Corridor;
it should be accorded some priority.
ATTACHMENT #_1 L-ro
F.PURT p po <;'::J - O,::!,--
045
2.
Revising 10.17 (e)
Ï-ctõ-not-think-the City of Pickering can limit the uses permitted
on the OH transmission corridor. I cannot recall any discussion
of this issue. Could I point out that the Tertiary Plan shows
a TRAIL ACCESS to the OH corridor.
Revising 10.17 (f)
Thi;-paragraph-reads Council shall "encourage the Ministry of Natural ~
Resources, Toronto & Region Conservation Authority, Region of Durham,
Ontario Hydro and interested others to prepare a 'Rouge-Duffins
Wildlife Corridor Management Plan', and establish funding for on-
going maintenance and restoration of the Corridor."
This reads that Council shall encourage..... .and establish funding....
I do not think Council intends to establish funding. This should
read "Council shall encourage.. .both to prepare.. .and to establish
funding" and eliminate the comma after Plan.
~~E.l~£.i:~lLll~l§'
i~l_.i:!
This section refers to the use of density transfers and bonuses.
and suggests using a policy in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines. The policy in that document differs from
some connected policies in the Official Plan. This neighbourhood
is part of Pickering. The policies in the OP should apply
to this neighbourhood.
11.16 (a)(vi)require a road connection running from the north side
£i_I.i:~£~_~!~~~~_!£_!~~-~~~!_~.i:~~_£i_~£~~£~£~_~£~d;
I object to this policy on the following grounds:
1. The Tertiary Plan shows several pr~posed roads. There is an access
to finch that extends south of the Bopa property; this extension
is wholly on Provincial property. The, Woodview and Map Realty roads
are confined to those two developable areas. The East Altona
road is wholly on Provincial land. The north Finch road though
affects both private and Provincial properties. The north
Finch road gives Finch access to the 10-acre Rosebank Road property
although throughout the development of Finch no property has
ever been given access to Finch if it did not have access to
Finch prior to development. This connection to the Rosebank
:'~ Road property severely limits the economic developability of
my property and all the other north Finch properties; the north
Finch properties are small. The north Finch road involves both
private properties and Provincial properties; Council has in
ResolutionS? 12000 recommended that the 16~developable publicly-
owned properties reain undeveloped. Though this resolution
may not affect the Rosebank Road property it certainly affects
my property which has a Provincial property on east and west.
The traffic from the Rosebank property should be dealt with on
Rosebank Road not directed to an unregulated access on Finch.
It does not make traffic sense and it degrades the value of the lots
that are available to the North Finch properties. The general
rule has always been No Access to Finch if not previously owned.
To break that rule is very detrimental to the other properties.
I object to my property being the universal access for all the
046
P'T !~'~¡:'~[rn #__../L__, TO
L: ,;,n t> P[, .._..Sd.: O..J.:.
3
other properties. In the Tertiary Plan 40% of my property is
roads; in some configurations I have four roads on my property
and most of the lots have two road exposures, including two lots
with three road exposures. The Rosebank traf~ic should be
confined to Rosebank Road where it will use a four-way intersection
with Finch, and that will probably be signalised.
I thoroughly object to a road connecting Rosebank and Finch:
IT MAKES NO TRAFFIC SENSE AND IT DENIGRATES THE VALUE OF THE
NORTH FINCH PROPERTIES.
,
Policy 11.16 (b)
Thi;-p~ïiëy-i;-in direct contradiction to the Resolution of Council.
The resolutions proposed by Councillor Doug Dickerson at the
Rouge Alliance are in favour of retaining all Provincial properties
as publicly-owned; Councillor Dickerson was speaking as Pickering's
official representative at the Rouge Allianc@. Similarly Resolution
57/2000 states "Whereas the Rouge Park Alliance and a number of
residents have requested that additional provincially owned lands be
protected, in public ownership, to further enhance wildlife
habitat and the Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor." That is additional
to the 84% deemed "environmentally sensitive".
The City of Pickering was a signatory to the Minutes of Settlement.
The Minutes of Settlement included a map which showed the 16%
of Provincial lands deemed developable by the representatives of
the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the
Region of Durham and the City of Pickering. I maintain that Coun.
Dickerson was behaving illegally in proposing those motions at the
Rouge Alliance.
How can this policy be included in an Official Plan amendment?
I have one query on another point not related to the OPA but mentioned
in the Background Information. Council has adopted the Rouge
Park Neighbourhood Master Servicing Plan. This Plan changes the
watersh~d of several properties in the neighbourhood; the engineering
firm resp~ible says these cross-watershed flows «ere requested
by the City. An Addendum Report repeated these errors. If the
Plan has ueen adopted by Council, do these cross-watershed flows.
remain or not. I would like to know which watershed is my propevty 1$
in this wee~ ~
Yours truly,
~ \5~~
Jocelyn Barber
ðñs êrvaNUo n
for The Living City
October 31,2002
RE
04, ,""
,
ATTACHMENT,-1~TO
REPORT # PD .15:l - () :2..
Mr. Steve Gaunt
Planning Department
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Centre
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 6K7
i
!
~
ß
- C,r-'-'I",i!3 "
'"""TY Or:: PI "I'.¡::'i'~ H
'-',. .'
PLANNING AND "NT
DEVELOP~:~
[] Œl¡ñJ
a d~lI
{;rry ,PUJKERIl\'
PIGKEI~ING\ (,)Nl~AAIO ~G
r, ',</OO,1y
t¡ iL
,......."
!r\
. ¡ II
¡ <..l j
¡ -.."
II It ,Au'",
1.$ u! t U ~i
Dear Mr. Gaunt:
He:
Official Plan Amendment Application CPA 02-001/P
City Initiated Rouge Park Neighbourhood
City of Pickering
Further to our discussions and after review of the proposed Official Plan Amendment for the
Rouge Park Neighbourhood, please be advised of the following comments.
The OPA is supported by a City initiated Master Environmental Servicing Plan prepared by
XCG Consultants Limited. We acknowledge receipt of a response document prepared by XCG
as provided on October 28th, 2002. TRCA staff are now reviewing this document and will
provide comments shortly.
In addition, we note that Pickering staff were directed to request the MNR and others to
prepare a Rouge Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan. We note that this is reflected as
policy in the OPA. Please advise of the status of this plan as the TRCA staff has no formal
request for involvement in this process. We note that we are prepared to participate in this
process, once advised.
The lands encompass properties which are currently in public ownership including those
owned by the Ontario Realty Corporation, We note that there is a council resolution which
seeks to have these lands remain in public ownership. This resolution is also echoed by the
Rouge Park Alliance. TRCA staff are supportive of this direction and would promote that this
objective be realized in the finalization of the Official Plan Amendment. In this regard we note
that Rouge Park Policy(b) on page 3 may contradict these previous resolutions.
Notwithstanding the above, we note that in previous discussions and site meetings TRCA staff
have defined areas which are suitable for protection. These area are reflected in the revised
schedules being the proposed amendment with the exception of the following:
As you are aware, the Nicou property, formally the Beare property, was the subject of an OMB
hearing which defined the limits of development which should be applied on the property. The
OMB decision references a minimum 50 metre buffer from the adjacent wetland. This does not
appear to be reflected on the revised Schedule I and III. Does the deletion of wetland on the
Nicou property suggest that these lands are now part of a future development block? Also, we
note that Policy (c)on page 4 should reflect this OMB decision. Please clarify.
cont'd/...
5 5horeham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca
a
; '+q;I \
. .._,'
048
ATTACHMENT ,-iii-TO
RE?ORT # PO - 5"' ~ ' t.J '2
Mr. Steve Gaunt
- 2-
October 31,2002
The urban boundary proposed on the west side of Woodview south of Finch is reflective of the
. site reconnaissance and MESP discussions conducted with the TRCA and MNR. However we
advise that studies including an EIS will be required to ensure that the appropriate buffers are
achieved in accordance with the Rouge Park objectives and the TRCA policy requirements. We
suggest that a policy could be added to reflect the need for these future studies.
We trust that this is satisfactory.
YOF~
t:J White
Senior Planner
Development Services Section
Ext. 5306
RW/dli
c.c.
Brian Denney, TRCA
F: \P RS\ co rres p \P I CKE RI N\2002\Beare. wpd
049
ATTACHMENT #13
REPORT NUMBER PD 52-02
TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED AND STAFF RESPONSES ON
PROPOSED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11
(ROUGE PARK NEIGHBOURHOOD)
Page 1
TABLE 1
ATTACHMENTI~ ~ TO
REPORT fI PO -I:')".:;¡ - () 2..
.-
'-
e,..'1
Q
Division Head, Municipal
Property & Engineering,
City of Pickering
(Attachment #4)
Sernas Associates
Nicou Inc.)
(Attachment #5)
Re: Policy 11.16 (d)
. Safety gates have already been
installed on the C.P. Rail Line at Altona
Road.
(furl Re: Policy 11.16 (a)(i):
Concerned that policy to discouraqe reverse
frontages, berms and significant noise
attenuation fencing adjacent to Finch
Avenue may be interpreted as a Qrohibition
for the proposed subdivision.
Amend Policy 11.16 (d) to remove the
requirement for safety gates at Altona
Road.
The intent of the policy is not to prohibit, but
to discouraqe the itemized development
elements. The applicant (Nicou Inc.) has
been so advised.
Due to the configuration of the developable
lands for the proposed subdivision and the
need to reduce the number of driveways onto
Finch Avenue, a limited number of reverse
frontage lots with noise attenuation are
considered acceptable at this location.
Amend Policy 11.16 (a)(i) to specify that
reverse frontage lots, berms and
significant noise attenuation fencing may
be justified due to unique site
configuration, road access or proximity
considerations for a limited proportion of
the street frontage of any proposed
development if mitigated by special
design and/or landscaping features.
Page 2
ATTACHMENT' 13 TO
REPORT I PO 5:2 - O~
Region of Durham
Planning Department
(Attachment #6)
Agnes and Peter Rusza,
eta!.
(Attachment #7)
Doug McLaughlin
(Attachment #8)
Mr. McLaughlin
(Other comments)
(Attachment #8)
Populations Targets:
Concern was expressed that Policy 11.16
(a)(v), which permits a population exceeding
existing targets (1600 people by the year
2016) provided servicing and school
facilities are satisfactory would establish an
open-ended target
The Region suggested that agencies be
made aware that sanitary sewers can
service a maximum of 2000 people in the
RPN - 550 by the Woodview Avenue sewer
and 1450 by the Altona Road sewer.
A new population target is suggested that is
better defined. In addition, extreme
population growth should not be allowed at
Finch and Altona.
Opposed to a population exceeding targets
in Table 1 because it threatens wildlife.
Suggests deletion of Policy 11.16 (a)(v).
Other Comments:
Mr. McLaughlin expressed concern that
policies for specific road improvements
(road connection from Finch to Rosebank,
elimination of the jog at Rosebank and
Finch, and support for safety gates at C.P.
rail crossings of various roads) will impact
negatively on wildlife.
Staff agreed that the proposed open-ended
target may cause confusion. In addition,
based on current development approvals and
proposals, there is now less interest in higher
densities.
It is recommended that Policy 11.16 (a)(v)
be deleted.
Guidance should be provided to landowners
and others of updated sanitary sewer capacity
for the RPN.
It is recommended that the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines,
Policy N1.8 be amended to reflect
updated sanitary sewer capacity.
The proposed policies for the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood balance the need for road
improvements with the need for ecological
protection. TRCA is supportive of the
amendment
c
CJl
;'-°.
Mr. McLaughlin
(continued)
Gary Daniell
(Attachment #9)
Agnes and Peter Ruzsa
eta!. & Otto Stock eta!.
(Attachments #7 & #10)
Page 3
Mr. McLaughlin expressed concern that he
has not received responses to his previous
comments on this matter and similar
concerns on the Draft Durham
Transportation Master Plan.
Mr. Daniell is concerned that the proposed
re-designation from "Urban Residential
Areas - Low Density Areas" to "Open Space
System - Natural Areas" on the south-west
part of his property removes his right to
obtain a building permit for a new house.
Requested that existing "Shorelines and
Stream Corridors" designations (on
Schedule III - Resource Management) be
removed from five properties on the west
side of Woodview Avenue.
\3
52 - 0:)..
c:.
(:11
N
Staff recommend no change to proposed
policies 11.16 (a)(vi), 11.16 (c) and 11.16
(d).
No copy of Mr. McLaughlin's earlier letter is
contained in Planning & Development files
on this matter. This letter has been
forwarded to Durham Region officials for
their response respecting the DTMP.
The re-designation does not prevent the
issuance of a building permit for a new house
on the property under the existing "A -
Agricultural" Zoning.
Staff recommend no change to the
proposed designations shown on
Schedules I - Land Use Structure and III -
Resource Management.
Staff concur and TRCA agrees.
Staff recommends removal of "Shorelines
and Stream Corridors" designation from
five properties on west side of Woodview
Avenue.
Page 4
.' " { F3..___.. TO
. 5.;l:- ...0:6
Otto Stock eta!. &
Jocelyn Barber
(Attachments #10 & #11 )
Otto Stock & Jocelyn
Barber (continued)
Jocelyn Barber
(Attachment #11 )
The proposed addition of a "Rouge-Duffins
Wildlife Corridor" designation for the
property north of Mr. Stock's property could
create extra development restrictions on Mr.
Stock's property.
Re: Schedule I - Land Use Structure
Does the Schedule accurately reflect the
uses on three commercial sites in the
neighbourhood (the Robin Hood Inn at the
south-east corner of Altona and Finch,
which is designated commercial, and two
other commercial uses).
The requirement for an Environmental
Report already exists because of the existing
designation. Re-designation of the front 30
metres to Open Space - Natural Systems
will not add additional restrictions and is in
accordance with the Environmental Master
Servicing Plan, the Rouge Park
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines and
the Minutes of Settlement of the OMB
appeals.
Staff recommend no change to the
designation of the property as "Rouge-
Duffins Wildlife Corridor" on Schedule III
- Resource Management.
The south-east corner of Altona and Finch is
designated "Mixed Use Areas - Local
Nodes" to attract a broad range of
commercial and residential uses to this key
intersection. The other two properties are
designated "Urban Residential Areas - Low
Density Areas" which permits residential
uses and the introduction of limited retailing
of goods and services, subject to zoning.
<:
r.ft
<'..A-)
Jocelyn Barber
(continued)
Page 5
Why is the "Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor"
designation proposed to be added to the
southernmost property in the Woodview
block?
Except for the three "connecting corridors"
shown in Figure 3.4 - Developable Limits of
the Environmental Master Servicing Plan,
no other lands with residential street
frontages should be designated "Rouge-
Duffins Wildlife Corridor".
Re: Proposed Policy 10.17 (e)
Ms. Barber does not believe Pickering can
limit permitted uses on the Ontario Hydro
transmission corridor, does not recall
previous discussion of this issue, and
indicates that the Tertiary Plan (in the
Council-adopted Rouge Park Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines) shows a trail
access to the OH corridor.
£Ti!GI':~~r:.fn #,~.tQ,~,",TO
,', f. 1'[1 52=-_Qa,~.
c
f:.Jl
i+~
The property is designated "Open Space -
Natural Areas" and the Minutes of Settlement
of the OMB appeal states that any lands
designated "Open Space - Natural Areas" on
Schedule I should be designated "Rouge-
Duffins Wildlife Corridor on Schedule III.
Staff recommend no change to the
proposed designation.
This issue was dealt with at OMB appeals 1
and 2 to the 1997 Official Plan in the
resulting Minutes of Settlement and the OMB
decision.
Staff recommend no change to the Rouge-
Duffins Wildlife Corridor designation on
Schedule III.
The City can designate non-utility uses on
lands owned by Ontario Power Generation
and Ontario One Network. This matter was
discussed in the Clerk's circulation notice
prior to the Statutory Information Meeting,
Information Report No. 21-02 and in
Planning & Development Report 07-00 on
this matter. Trail access uses are permitted
on the designation.
Page 6
\3 iU
cJ;- 5~--:o.?-",
Jocelyn Barber
(continued)
Re: Proposed Policy 10.17 (f)
Ms. Barber suggests the policy should have I Staff agree and revisions are reflected in
wording and punctuation changes to more policy 10.17 (f).
accurately reflect Council's intent.
Re: Proposed Policy 10.16 (a)(iv)
Ms. Barber commented that general Official
Plan policies on density transfers and
bonuses should apply in this
Neighbourhood, not the different policy that
is proposed.
Re: Proposed Policy 11.16 (a)(vi)
Ms. Barber objects to the requirement for a
road connection from the north side of Finch
Avenue to Rosebank Road that crosses her
property. Among other reasons, Ms. Barber
considers that the connecting road makes
no traffic sense and will degrade the value
of her property.
The proposed policy refers the reader to the
fact that additional guidance is included in
the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Guidelines.
Staff recommend that proposed policy
10.16 (a)(iv) be amended to clarify that it
applies in accordance with the general
Official Plan policies on density transfers
and bonuses.
Since access to Finch Avenue, a Regional
Type 'B' arterial road should be restricted,
coordinated subdivision design of abutting
private properties is essential. Connecting
"through-roads" provide better access to the
community for residents both in vehicles and
as pedestrians, and for service providers and
emergency services vehicles than do
multiple cul-de-sac roads.
C
f'J'l
<.n
Page 7
A.'T.TAC.HMENT#~:Z; TO
r.~?(¡RT Ii PO F)j.~
C
(fl
ÇJJ
Jocelyn Barber
(continued)
Jocelyn Barber
(continued)
Re: Proposed Policy 11.16 (b)
Ms. Barber considers that the proposed
policy (which encourages retention of
environmentally sensitive Provincially-
owned lands within public ownership and
disposition of Provincially-owned lands not
environmentally sensitive) contradicts
Council's Resolution to request the Ontario
Realty Corporation to discuss conveying its
developable lands to TRCA for conservation
purposes.
Provision of more access options to a
community gives drivers more choice in
entering or exiting the community and more
direct connections to different destinations in
the larger community.
The policy is worded such that the exact
location of the road and connections to the
major roads will be determined when specific
development proposals are made.
Staff recommend no change to Policy
11.16 (a)(vi).
Since Council requested, as a free-standing
resolution, that ORC consider conveying its
developable lands for conservation purposes
and ORC responded by declining to do so at
this time, it is appropriate to proceed to
implement the balanced policy proposed for
the Rouge Park Neighbourhood at this time.
Staff recommend no change to Policy
11.16 (b) and the proposed designations
contained in Schedules I and III.
Page 8
t..n ACHMHJT # _J2- TO
T.H'URI Ii PO .~=-D~
Toronto and Region
ConseNation Authority
(Attachment # 12)
TRCA
(continued)
Re: Proposed Policy 11.17 (f)
Requests a status update and formal
request to participate in implementation of
this policy that encourages MNR, TRCA, the
Region of Durham, Ontario Hydro and
interested others to prepare a Rouge-
puffins Wildlife Corridor Management Plan
and establish funding for its maintenance
and restoration.
Re: Proposed Policy 11.16 (b)
TRCA supports public ownership of
Provincially-owned environmentally sensitive
and developable lands for conservation
purposes as an objective in the Official Plan
Amendment. This is echoed by the Rouge
Park Alliance.
Notwithstanding the foregoing position,
TRCA supports designation of lands as set
out in the proposed amendment to the
Official Plan, with the exception of the lands
addressed in the following comment.
The policy, once adopted, would encourage
the identified agencies to prepare and fund
the Management Plan. To our knowledge,
no agency has commenced preparation of a
Rouge-Duffins Wildlife Corridor Management
Plan to date.
As noted in response to a similar comment
from Ms. Barber, the Ontario Realty
Corporation has declined to convey
Provincially owned developable lands to
TRCA for conservation purposes at this time.
Since the proposed strategy for the Rouge
Park Neighbourhood balances ecological
protection with development rights, it is now
appropriate for Council to implement this
proposed amendment to the Official Plan.
Staff recommend no change to Proposed
Policy 11.16 (b) or the proposed
designations on Schedules I and III of the
Official Plan Amendment.
<:
(;}1
--::
Page 9
t-TT l\CHMENT # \ -:> TO
F.;E?;JRT # PO "?)~
0
rJl
00
Re: Schedule I - Land Use Structure &
Schedule 111- Resource Management
The OMB decision respecting the Nicou Inc.
property (formerly the Map Realty or Beare
property) suggested a minimum 50 metre
buffer between any proposed development
and the adjacent wetland, which does not
appear to be reflected on the revised
Schedules I and III.
TRCA
(continued)
TRCA
(continued)
Does deletion of wetland (Schedule III) on
the south-west portion of the Nicou property
suggest these lands are part of a future
development block?
TRCA
(continued)
Agrees with the designations proposed for
the five properties on the west side of
Woodview Avenue and will require an
Environmental Impact Study to ensure
suitable buffers are achieved.
The text of the OMB written decision
suggested the 50 metre buffer, but the OMB
order approving the Official Plan amendment
for the property did not include the 50 metre
buffer.
Staff will have regard to the OMB text in
reviewing site specific development
applications and Environmental Reports for
this site. Protection of the wetland may be
achieved through other methods than just
distance.
Staff recommends no change to the
proposed designations shown on
Schedules I and III of the Official Plan
Amendment.
The boundary change reflects wetland
mapping provided by the Ministry of Natural
Resources. Exact development limits will be
determined through review of the proposed
draft plan of subdivision for the Nicou Inc.
lands.
Since an Environmental Report is required
through the subdivision process, no change
to the policy is required.