Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
June 11, 2001
AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer JUNE II, 2001 AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 11, 2001 7:30 P.M. CHAIRMAN' Councillor Ryan ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 14., 2001 (I1) 1. DELEGATIONS A1 McCormack, 953 \"istula Drive, will address the Committee to compliment Members of Council on the positive effect of' tiao by-law to regulate the placement of news boxes and to request that Council encourage other municipalities in the Region to pass a similar bv-laxv. Ne will also be seeking assurance that lighting will be installed in Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. (lid MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 22-01 CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LIMITED DU[UtAM REGION ePA APPLICATION ePA 20()~ }-!)5 'D PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT .APPLICATION ePA 00-002/P DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S-P-2000-03 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS a 26/00 AND a 29/00 MINISTER'S ZONING ORDER AMENDMENT APPL. 18-ZO-02900-01 PART OF LOTS 12 TO 16, CONCESSION 7 (LANDS SOUTH OF EIGHTH CONCESSION ROAD. NORTH OF DURHAM REGIONAL ROAD NO. 31 AND WEST OF SIDELINE 12) 1-161 F. AND A. SCAS, iGA HOLDINGS LIMITED LOT 23, PLAN 492 (WEST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD, NORTH OF KINGSTON ROAD) 162-188 CORP~O/Iksff~E SERVICES .AND TREASURER'S REPORT CS 15-01 DEVELOPMENT CHARGES 189-194 LEGAL SER~EPORT L 11 ()1 ROAD C~.,OglNG AND SALE OF (?ITY LANDS PAp~T""OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN L'0TS 34 AND 35, CONCESSION 3 195-200 LEGAL SER~S REPORT L 12 ()1 ROAD..C...L<SSING AND SALE OF CITY LANDS PARTLOT 20, CONCESSION 8 201-205 CLERK'S REPORT APPOINTME~.T.,O'F' OFFICERS TO ENFORCE PARKING BY-LAW 206212 OTHER BUSINESS (~) ADJOURNMENT AGENDA COMMITTEE OF THE ~VHOLE MEETING MONDAY, JUNE 11. 2001 7:30 P.M. CHAItLMAN: Councillor Rvan ~OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of May 14, 2001 DELE GA_~T..IO~ A1 McCormack, 953 \:istula Drive, will address tt~e Committee to compliment Members of Council on the positive effect of\he by2!aw to regulate the placement of news boxes and to request that Council-~nCOurage--'oXheT- municipalities in the Region to pass a similar by-law He will also be seeking assurance that lighting will be installed in Petticoat Creek Conservation Are, MATTERS FOR CONSIDERX_TION PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 22-01 CHERRY DOVv~S COVENTURE LIMITED DURHAM REGION OPA APPLICATION OPA 2000-05/D PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 00-002/P DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S-P-2000-03 ZONING BY-LAW ~&MENDMENT .APPLICATIONS a 26/00 AND a 29/00 MINISTER'S ZONING ORDER AMENDMENT APPL. 18-ZO-02900-01 PART OF LOTS 12 TO 16, CONCESSION 7 (LANDS SOUTH OF EIGHTH CONCESSION ROAD, NORTH OF DURJ-IAM REGIONAL ROAD NO. 31 AND WEST OF SIDELINE 12)_ PAGE 1-161 PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 21-01 ZONiNG BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 30'00 F. AND A. SCANGA HOLDINGS LIMITED LOT ~.>. PLAN 492 _(WEST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD. NORTH OF KINGSTON ROAD~ .CORPORATE SER\;ICES AND TREASURER'S REPORT CS 15-01 )EVELOPMENT CHARGES _EGAL SERVICES REPORT L 11 01 ?ROAD CLOSING AND SALE OF CITY LANDS :iPART OF THE ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 34 AND 35. CONCESSION 3 162-1~ 189-1S 195-20 '%~ LEGAL, SERVICES REPORT L 1'~ ()1~ iROAD CLOSING .AND SALE OF CITY LANDS PART LOT 20. CONCESSION $ iApCLERK'S REPORT CL 23 01 POINTMENT OF OFFICERS TO ENFORCE PARKING BY-LAW (IV) OTHER BUSINESS 201-2~ 20621 (V) ADJOURNMENT RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Picketing Council recommend to the Region of Durham that Regional Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D, submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16. Concession 7. Cip,' of Pickering, to: (i) change the designation of portions of the subject lands from "Major Open Space" and "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" to "Country Residential Subdivision"; (ii) permit the development of a maximum of 125 dwelling units on the subject lands; and. (iii) permit Regional Council to consider the approval of country residential subdivisions serviced by privately owned and operated communal systems for water supply and / or sanitary sewage on a case by case basis: be APPROVED AS REVISED. to permit the development of one new ~pe of Country Residential Subdivision on a portion of the subject lands located generally west of Sideline 14, supporting a maximum of 80 dwelling units, and serviced partially or entirely by a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system. That Pickering Official Plan ,~nendment .Application OPA 00-002/P submitted by M~. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Harris. Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of CherD' Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, Ciu' of Pickering, to: (i) change the designation of portions of the subject lands from "Open Space System - Active Recreational Area" and "Agricultural Area" to "Country Residential"; (ii) permit the development of a maximum of 125 dwelling units on the subject lands; (iii) permit the country residential development to be serviced by privately owned and operated communal svstems for water supply and / or sanitary sewage; and, o (ix') allow a maximum of nine lots proposed on the subject lands to be serviced by individual water and septic systems; be APPROVED AS REVISED, to permit the development of one "Rural Recreational Residential" development on a portion of the subject lands located generally west of Sideline 14, supporting a maximum of 80 dwelling units, and serviced partially or entirely by a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system. That Picketing Council recommend to the Region of Durham that Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03, submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of Pickering, to: (i) develop 9 lots supporting estate residential homes serviced by individual water and septic systems on a publicly-maintained cul-de-sac located on the north side of Durham Regional Road No. 31, east of Sideline 14 and west of Sideline 12; (ii) develop 16 detached dwellings located on the east and west side of a realigned Sideline 14 and serviced by a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system; (iii) develop 100 condominium units (both semi-detached and attached units) in two residential clusters located within one development block west of Sideline 14 and serviced by a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system; and, (iv) permit the establishment of a communal servicing/maintenance block, approximately 6.7 hectares in size, on the west side of Sideline 1 ~' be APPROVED AS REVISED, to permit: (a) the development of a maximum of 80 dwelling units (detached, semi- detached and/or attached units) on a portion of the subject lands located generally west of Sideline 14; (b) individual lots and / or a condominium development to be serviced partially or entirely by a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system located west of Sideline 14; and, (c) a maximum of 16 individual lots, supporting only detached dwellings on both the east and west side of a realigned Sideline 14, to be serviced by either individual water and septic systems or a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system, and providing minimum lot frontages of 30 metres; subject to future draft plan conditions apprcved by the Ontario Municipal Board, and secured through appropriate required agreements with the City of Pickering and the Region of Durham. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/00, submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of Picketing, to permit the development of 125 residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, send-detached and attached units) within two separate development areas on the subject lands be APPROVED AS REVISED to permit the development of a maximum of 80 residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units) within one development area located generally west of Sideline 14. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 29/00, submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of Picketing, to permit the establishment of a communal servicing and maintenance facility block located on the west side of Sideline 12 serving a majority of the proposed residential development and a future clubhouse facility located generally north of the Sideline 14 terminus be APPROVED AS REVISED to permit the establishment of a communal ser~qcing and maintenance £acilitv block located west side of Sideline 14 to ser¥ice both residential development and a new future clubhouse facility ser¥ing the ChcnT' Downs ©olf` and Country' Club. That Picketing Council recommend to the Ministry of' Municipal Affairs and Housing that Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-ZO-02900-01, submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of' Pickenng, to permit the development of 125 residential dwelling units (consisting ot' a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units) within two separate development areas on the sub_ject lands, and serviced mainly by privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitar-v sewage systems be APPROVED AS REVISED to pernqit the development of a maximum of 80 residential dwelling units iconsisting oI'a mix of' detached, semi- detached and attached units), within one development area located generally west of Sideline 14, and serviced partially or entirely bY a privately owned and operated communal water supply' and sanitary sewage system. That Staff be authorized to present Council's recommendations as set out in Items #1 to #6 above, to the Ontario Municipal Board {OMBt. as Council's position on the Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. applications, at the scheduled OMB Prehearing and Hearing, and further authorize Sta1`1` to develop and defend appropriate conditions of approval and associated technical matters that are of City interest through the associated Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, as outlined in Appendix I to Planning Report Number PD 22-01. Btaylor:recomm zoning Cherry. Downs 4 REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: June 4, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 22-01 SUBJECT: Durham Region Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D Pickering Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 00-0027P Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 26/00 and A 29/00 Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-ZO-02900-01 Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7 (Lands south of Eighth Concession Road, north of Durham Regional Road No. 31 and west of Sideline 12) City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Pickering Council recommend to the Region of Durham that Regional Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/I3, submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of Pickering, to: (i) change the designation of portions of the subject lands from "Major Open Space" and "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" to "Country Residential Subdivision"; (ii) permit the development of a maximum of 125 dwelling units on the subject lands; and, (iii) permit Regional Council to consider the approval of country residential subdivisions serviced by privately owned and operated communal systems for water supply and / or sanitary sewage on a case by case basis; be APPROVED AS REVISED, to permit the development of one new type of Country Residential Subdivision on a portion of the subject lands located generally west of Sideline 14, supporting a maximum of 80 dwelling units, and serviced partially or entirely by a pinnately owned ard operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system. That Picketing Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 00-002/P submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of Picketing, to: (i) change the designation of portions of the subject lands from "Open Space System - Active Recreational Area" and "Agricultural Area" to "Country Residential"; (ii) permit the development of a maximum of 125 dwelling units on the subject lands; (iii) permit the country residential development to be serviced by privately owned and operated communal systems for water supply and / or sanitary sewage; and, (iv) allow a maximum of nine lots proposed on the subject lands to be serviced by individual water and septic systems; be APPROVED AS REVISI~D, to permit the development of one "Rural Recreational Residential" development on a portion of the subject lands located generally west of Sideline 14, supporting a maximum of 80 dwelling units, and serviced partially or entirely by a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system. Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cheru, Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4. 200I Page 2 That Picketing Council recommend to the Region of Durham that Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03, submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of Picketing. to: (i) develop 9 lots supporting estate residential homes sen'iced bv individual water and septic systems on a publicly-maintained cul~de-sac located on the north side of Durham Regional Road No. 31, east of Sideline 14 and west of Sideline 12; (ii) develop 16 detached dv,'ellings located on the east and west side of a realigned Sideline 14 and sen'iced bv a privately owned and operated communal water suppl.,.' and sanitars' sev,'age system: (iii) develop 100 condominium units (both semi-detached and attached units) in two residential clusters located within one development block west of Sideline 14 and serviced bv a privately ov,'ned and operated communal water supply and sanitars' sewage system: and. (ix,) permit the establishment of a communal sen'icing / maintenance block, approximately 6.7 hectares in size, on the west side of Sideline 12; be APPROVED AS REVISED, to permit: (a) the development of a maxmmm of $(I dxvelling units (detached, semi-detached and/or attached units) on a portion of the subject lands located generally west of Sideline 14: (b) individual lots and~ or a condominiun~ development to be se~'iced partially or entirely by a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system located west of Sideline 14; and, (c) a maximum of 16 individual lots. supporting only detached dwellings on both the east and west side of a realigned Sideline 14, to be se~'iced bv either individual water and septic systems or a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system, and providing minimum lot frontages of 30 metres; subject to future draft plan conditions approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, and secured through appropriate required agreements with the City of Picketing and the Region of Durham. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/00, submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler 8,: Smith Inc.. on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of Picketing, to permit the development of 125 residential dwelling units {consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units) within two separate development areas on the subject lands be APPROVED AS REVISED to permit the development of a maximum of 80residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units) within one development area located generally west of Sideline 14. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 29/00. submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc.. on behalf of Cherp,' Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Pan of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of Pkkering, to permit the establishment of a communaI servicing and maintenance facility block located on the west side of Sideline 12 ser"ving a majority of the proposed residential development and a future clubhouse facility located generally north of the Sideline 14 terminus be APPROVED AS REVISED to permit the establishment of a communal servicing and maintenance facility block located west side of Sideline 14 to service both residential development and a new future clubhouse facility serving the Cherry Downs Golf and Country Club. Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry. Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 3 That Pickering Council recommend to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing that Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-ZO-02900-01, submitted by Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc., on behalf of Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., on lands being Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7, City of Pickering, to permit the development of 125 residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units) within two separate development areas on the subject lands, and serviced mainly by privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage systems be APPROVED AS REVISED to permit the development of a maximum of 80 residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units), within one development area located generally west of Sideline 14, and serviced partially or entirely by a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system. That Staff be authorized to present Council's recommendations as set out in Items #1 to #6 above, to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB), as Council's position on the Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. applications, at the scheduled OMB Prehearing and Heating, and further authorize Staff to develop and defend appropriate conditions of approval and associated technical matters that are of City interest through the associated Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, as outlined in Appendix I to Planning Report Number PD 22-01. O~G~: Durham Region Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03 submitted to the Region of Durham and forwarded to the City for comment; Pickenng Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 00-002/P and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 26/00 and A 29/00 submitted to the City; and, Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-ZO-02900-01 submitted to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and forwarded to the City for comment. All of these applications have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., to be considered in conjunction with their appeal of Durham Region Official Plan Amendment No. 60, as it affects the subject lands. An Ontario Municipal Board Heating, four weeks in length, has been scheduled, commencing Monday, November 26, 2001. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to establish 125 residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units) within two separate development areas on the subject lands. A majority of the proposed development would be serviced by privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage systems. Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: ChefU, Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 4 The application is recommended for approval, as revised, to permit a maximum of 80 residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units) within one development area located generally west of Sideline 14. It is recommended that the proposed development be serviced partially or entirely by privately owned and operated communal water suppl.,,' and sanitary sewage systems. The proposed development, as revised, represents a desirable next' form of rural settlement within the City that can be appropriately integrated into the existing rural landscape in a sensitive manner, while providing a new form of rural housing. The resultant residential development will complement the existing and future expanded Cherry Downs Golf and Country. Club, and will encourage development that is less land-consumptive when compared to traditional rural residential development. Existing natural features and functions would be maintained, and adjacent agricultural operations xvould not be impacted. The resultant rural settlement, as revised, would be appropriately sized so as to not detract from the major hamlets (considering both rural ~owth and settlement significance), and the settlement would be unobtrusive on the existing rural landscape and compatible with existing surrounding land uses. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Summa~licant's Proposal Applicant's Proposal The applicant proposes to establish 125 residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached units) within txvo separate development areas on the subject lands in conjunction with the existing and future expanded golf course facility. A Property Location Map and Site Plan showing the existing golf course and site conditions are included as Attachments #1 and r-2 respectively, to this Report. A site plan showing proposed fhture improvements to the subject property (including improvements to the existing golf course operation) is provided as Attachment #3 to this Report. The proposed residential development would be supported by a combination of communal and private services. A reduction of the applicant's Proposed Subdivision Plan is provided as Attachment #4 to this Report. Development Area #1 is located within a southeast portion of the subject lands, where an existing nine-hole golf academy is currently operating. Within this development area: nine lots, providing a minimum lot area of approximately 0.4 of a hectare each, and supporting detached dxvelling units are proposed on these lands; and, each lot is proposed to be serviced by an individual well and private septic system, and would front onto a newly-constructed, public cul-de-sac originating from Durham Regional Road No. 31; A Conceptual Plan depicting Development .Area =1 is provided as Attachment #5 to this Report. Development Area #2 is located within the southwest sector of the subject lands, generally west of Sideline 14. Within this development area: · 100 dwelling units, comprising semi-detached and attached dwelling units, are proposed west ora realigned Sideline 14; · these dwelling units are proposed to be constructed in two residential clusters, each with dwelling units fronting a private, condominium road network accessed from Sideline 14; 8 Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 5 · associated private community facilities (i.e. communitv centre, tennis court, walking trail, etc.) are also proposed; and, 16 lots supporting detached dwelling units on lots providing a minimum lot area of 0.4 of a hectare are also proposed, fronting onto the east and west side of realigned Sideline 14. A Conceptual Plan depicting Development Area #2 is provided as Attachment #6 to this Report. All of the development located within Development Area #2 is proposed to be serviced by a communal well and sewage treatment facility. The communal servicing facilities are proposed to be located on the west side of Sideline 12, north of Michell Creek. Staff Recommended Revised Plan Through StafFs review of the submitted applications and consideration of all applicable policies and technical considerations, it is recommended that the proposed development be supported, with revisions. Specifically: · a maximum of 80 dwelling units are supported, located within one development area (fvhere the applicant's proposed Development Area #2 is located); · of the maximum 80 dwelling units, a maximum of 16 lots supporting detached dwellings and serviced by either individual or communal services is supported; · the resultant development would constitute a new rural settlement type in the City, classified as a "Rural Recreational Residential" settlement, not a "Counto' Residential" settlement; · dwelling units may be detached, semi-detached or attached dwelling units; · the proposed development would be serviced partially or entirely by a communal well and sewage treatment facility; · the proposed servicing block supporting the sewage treatment facility and related storage ponds would be located west of Sideline 14, in a manner that is environmentally and visually sensitive; and, · proposed Development Area #1, supporting nine estate lots on individual private services, is not supported. The proposed Staff recommended subdivision plan revisions, outlined above, are depicted in Attachment #7 to this Report. A comprehensive land use plan that depicts StafFs recommended plan and identifies the remaining land uses (both existing and approved uses) on the subject lands is included as Attachment #8 to this Report. 2.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting for this development proposal was held on March 6, 2001. Information Report No. 02-01, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues and comments identified to that date through circulation of the application, was prepared for that meeting. The text of that Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #9). A majority of the comments received at the time of writing Information Report No. 02-01 were in response to the Region of Durham's circulation of Regional Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03, and are summarized in that Report (see Attachment #9). For reference, those agency comments received only through the Region's circulation process, including :omments from the Region of Durham Health Department, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Durham Catholic District School Board, are included again as Attachments #21 to #23, respectively, to this Report. In addition, one resident who commented, only through the Region's circulation from (J. Markland), is also included as Attachment #46 to this Report. Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cheru' Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 6 With the exception of Mr. Markland, all other residents who responded to the Region's circulation process also responded to the City's circulation. Their new comments are summarized below, but all letters have been included as attachments to this Report for ease of reference. The Region held a Public Information Meeting regarding the Regional Official Plan Amendment Application on August 29, 2000. Minutes of that meeting are provided for reference tsee Attachment #10). At the Public Information Meeting held by the City of Picketing on March 6, 2001, several area residents commented. One resident stated his support for the proposal indicating he 'knew a number of people who would be interested in purchasing a home in this type of development. Other residents who spoke, however, expressed concern with the proposal. The issues raised included: · environmental impacts of the development: · concern with the refocusing ofgTowth from hamlets: · possible additional applications of this nature; · the lack of action to-date on previous commitments and conditions: · location of the communal servicing 01ock~ · the need for financial securities for the communal system in the event of its failure; adequacy of the proposed lot sizes if traditional septic systems are used; adequacy of existing roads to handle additional traffic. Minutes of that Meeting detailing those comments made by residents, the applicant and City Staffare provided for reference (see Attachment =11 ). 3.0 Additional information Since the preparation o£ Information Report No. 02-01, the following comments have been received: Agency Comments: Canada Post (letter dated February 2, 2001) continued to recommend that conditions of draft approval be imposed respecting informing purchasers of mailbox type and location, and consulting Canada Post to determine suitable mailbox placement and surrounding treatment of boulevards, sidewalks, curbs, etc. serving the community mailbox (see Attachment #13). Canada Post made identical comments in a letter dated September 29, 2000 thlough the Region's circulation of their applications (see Attachment ~:12 ); Greater Toronto Airport AuthoriD' (letter dated May 22, 2001) reiterated that they consider the proposed development to be premature and not consistent with good planning practices, in the absence of a Master Plan for an airport on the Picketing lands and significant outstanding issues and unknown matters, including ultimate runway configurations and operation details (see Attachment #16). Similar comments were submitted by the Greater Torontc Airport Authority and Transport Canada through the Region's circulation of their applications (see Attachments # 14 and #15 respectively); No Objections or Concerns: (see Attachments = 1S and = 20) - Durham District School Board (letter dated January 29, 2001) and Hydro One Networks Inc. (comment dated February 14, 2001). Both the Durham District School Board and Hvdro One Networks Inc. provided identical comments through the Region's circulation of their applications (see Attachments #17 and #19 respectively). 10 Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4. 2001 Page 7 Resident Comments: Mr. W. Wilder, of Sideline 12 expressed his continued opposition to the proposed development, noting, among other things, that the proposed development is in conflict with both the Region of Durham and City of Picketing Official Plans, that communal servicing will encourage future additional development and that the proposed development may not be financially sound (see Attachment #25). Previous comments were provided by Mr. and Mrs. Wilder to the City (dated August 23, 2000 - see Attachment #24) and by Mr. Wilder (dated February 1, 2001 - see Attachment #26); He further noted that he was disappointed by the lack of information provided to the public by the consultants representing the applicant, questioned if there is a time limit for the completion of the golf course expansion, and asked if there is flexibility in any approvals to allow the residential development to be randomly placed on the subject property; Mr. J. McGinnis, of Eighth Concession Road, expressed his continued opposition to the proposed development, noting, among other things, that the development is inappropriate for the area, will lower his property value and is in conflict with Picketing's Official Plan (see Attachment # 28). A previous comment was submitted by Mr. McGinnis (dated August 23, 2000 - see Attachment #27); Ms. J. Moritsugu, Chair, Greenwood and Area Ratepayers Association, expressed opposition to this proposal, noting that the proposed development does not conform to the Region or City Official Plans, it would encourage urban sprawl outside the defined urban area, and would result in negative impacts on the environment, existing water quality and supply and traffic (see Attachment #29); P. Shatalow and L. Cranfield, of Sixth Concession Road, expressed opposition to this development proposal, noting that the proposed development does not conform to the Region or City Official Plans, would result in negative impacts on the environment, the agricultural reserve, existing water quality and supply and traffic, and would not enhance the rural character of North Picketing (see Attachment #30); Mr. P. Mahon, of Greenwood Road, expressed opposition to the proposed development, noting this proposal is not in keeping with the Official Plan, will negatively impact on both water quality and quantity and may set precedent for future additional development (see Attachment #31); Ms. P. Leamon, of Central Street, expressed opposition to this application, noting such concerns as urban sprawl and environmental impacts (see Attachment #32). A follow-up letter was received by Ms. Lemon reiterating her opposition to this proposal (letter dated May 22, 2001 - see Attachment #33); Ms. S. McInerney, of Claremont, expressed opposition to the proposed development, noting concerns with negative impacts on existing water supply and quality, and that the proposed development is not in keeping with the Official Plan respecting Agricultural designations and rural settlement growth policies (see Attachment #34); Mr. D. Cherry (423338 Ontario Ltd.), of Sideline 12, expressed opposition to this proposal, noting the proposed communal sewage system will negatively impact his property, and may negatively impact on Michell Creek and contaminate his well water (see Attachment #35); Mrs. J. Friedl, of Whitevale, expressed opposition to the proposed development, noting concerns with impacts on ground water and wells, impacts on environmentally significant areas, and incompatibility with the existing rural character (see Attachment #36); Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cher%,' Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 8 11 Ms. K. Dean, of Montgomeu' Avenue (Toronto) reiterated her opposition to this proposal, outlining numerous reasons for objection and providing additional beyond those cited in her ,August 26, 2000 letter (see Attachment = 38). Previous comments were received by Ms. Dean (letter dated August 26, 2000 - see Attacim~ent Mr. and Mrs. T. and I. Thompson, of X, Vhitevale. expressed objection to this application, noting concerns with the impact of the development on water quantity, and the disregard to current Official Plan policies and pla~med, appropriate growth strategies (see Attachment #39); Ms. A. Jones, Executive Director of Conservation Durham Inc.. expressed concerns respecting Clublink's request for a Permit to Take Water. and provided various back~ound materials respecting Clublink's history of water-taking (see Attachment #41). Previous comments were received by Ms. Jones I letter dated August 23. 2000 - see Attachment #40); Mr. A Gillespie, of the Picketing Uxbridge Townline. reiterated his opposition to the proposed development (see Attachment = 431. A previous comment was received from Mr. Gillespie I letter dated August 24, 2000 see Attacbanent #42); 1Mr. and Mrs. B. and M. l'homas, oi- Locust Hill. reiterated their opposition to this proposal, noting their support for the current communal servicing policies resulting from Durham Region Official Plan Amendment No. 60. and concern with the pressures on wildlife populations resulting from the proposed development t see Attachn~ent = 45 t. *ir. and Mrs. Thomas provided previous comments (undated letter see Attachment =441: Mr. S. Murray, an abutting proper-t> oxvner, noted his opposition to this proposal, providing various issues for consideration t see Attachment ;47 }. $zaff Comment~ Supervisor, Development Control will require additional information prior to registration should the development proceed. This information includes: stormwater management techniques, geotechnical information, fencing, and construction management techniques, and noted various development implementation requirements and previous commitments of the owner that must be addressed (see Attachment #48); Additional comments were provided by the Superx'isor, Development Control, respecting the applicant's submitted technical reports, and revised development standards and comments respecting road construction, griding, drainage and stormwater management to be implemented during construction (see Attachment # 49); Fire Prevention Officer requested information respecting proposed fire protection provisions for the proposed residential development and future golf clubhouse facility, and requested that the owner provide the fire department access to the on-site water supply, if needed, to fight fires in other rural areas within the municipality (see Attachment Division Head, Municipal ProperD' & Engineering outliaed the owner's responsibilities respecting the realignment of Sideline 14, and noted that Sideline 14 should not be extended north beyond its current terminus to serve the future golf clubhouse and related parking area (see Attachment #51); Division Head, Culture & Recreation noted no specific issues of interest from his Department's perspective, and noted that interest for expanded or enhanced golf facility development was indicated through responses from the Recreation. Parks and Cultural Services Master Plan process (see Attachment ,~52). 12 Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 9 Other Background A history' of past development applications submitted by Clublink Corporation and a general chronology of events occurring through the subject applications submitted by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. is provided in Appendix II to this Report. 4.0 Discussion 4.1 Rural Growth and Settlements The Picketing Official Plan notes that some controlled rural population growth in Picketing is necessary and desirable to maintain a healthy and viable rural area. The Plan further notes some of this population growth may occur through the development of new rural settlements, if approved by Council. The Plan envisions a rural area population increase of between 1000 and 1500 people for the year 2016 (a 20-year population allocation based on the life of the Plan). This additional rural population would be accommodated by: · at least 700 people in hamlets and clusters identified in the Plan; · up to about 200 people on lots existing outside of defined settlements; and, · up to between 100 and 600 people in new rural settlements. Currently, approximately 200 additional people are allocated within approved rural settlements in the Plan, including Barclay Estates, Birchwood Estates, Forest Creek, Staxton Glen (Phase 2) and Spring Creek. A remaining maximum 400 additional people could be accommodated in future approved rural settlements over the life of the Plan. The applicant estimates that their proposed development of 125 dwelling units would result in a population increase of between approximately 270 to 320 people, and would therefore fall within the general remaining new rural settlement population allocation range. Planning consultants for Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. assumed a persons per unit ratio of 2.0 to 2.5 for the condominium component, plus 2.8 persons per unit for the estate lots, for a 'blended' persons per unit ratio of 2.16 to 2.56 persons per unit. Assuming the same blended persons per unit ratio, Staff's revised maximum 80-unit development would result in a population increase of between approximately 175 to 205 people. Compliance with this range, however, does not dictate the appropriateness of the size of a particular development proposal. When considering the appropriate maximum size of any new settlement, the following factors must be considered: · the scale of the proposed development compared to other defined settlement types; · ensuring that other viable new residential settlements can be established over the life of the Plan (while continuing to respect the Plan's rural population targets); and, · the compatibility of the proposed settlement with surrounding existing land uses and the established rural landscape. Hamlets are the focus of rural growth and development, and should therefore remain the rural settlements of historic significance containing the largest populations. Rural Clusters are generally located in close proximity to, and associated xvith hamlets, and often have little opportunity for growth or expansion. Country Residential settlements are typically large lot, rural estate developments with little or no growth opportunity or expansion. The proposed development would constitute a new rural settlement type, and could be appropriately referred to as a "Rural Recreational Residential" settlement. This new type of settlement could be characterized as development that: · supports a mix of housing types (detached, semi-detached and attached units for example); · is generally serviced by communal wells and sewage treatment facilities; Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4. 2001 Pa~,e 1 (} 13 is associated to and / or provides complimentau opportunities for existing or planned recreational uses; · typically has a lower persons per unit ratio l approximately _ C to _._ persons per unit) within the "lifestyle" housing form Iwhen compared to typical development at 3.2 persons per unit): and, · is less land consumptive per dwellin~ unit t~vhen compared to other typical settlement types). Total Population ,4llocatiott The Pickering Official Plan rural kn-owth targets account for development over a 20-year period, of which 5 years have lapsed. When considenng the establishment of an,,,, new settlement, the amount of population allocated to any one project must be considered. ,Additional opportunities fbr viable future residential settlements must be maintained. .,ks noted previously, a maximum ot~ 4i)0 additional people could be accommodated in future approved rural settlements over the li~'e of the Picketing Official Plan. The applicant's proposed development of 125 dwelling units would constitute a population increase of between approximately 270 to 320 people, leaving a remaining maximum of 80 to 130 people to be potentially allocated to other new rural settlements. Staff's revised maximum 80-unit development would constitute a population increase of between approximately 175 to 205 people, leaving a remaining maximum of' 195 to 225 people to be potentially allocated to other new rural settlements. It is appropriate to maintain the ability t'or other future viable rural settlements to be considered and established over the life of the Plan. The applicant's proposed development would constitute approximately 75% of the remaining ~owth allocation for new rural settlements, whereas the development, as revised by Staff: would constitute approximately 50Clo of the remaining growth allocation for new rural settlements. The revised maximum 80-unit rural settlement would better protect for future population allocation to other future settlements, while encouraging moderate growth in the rural area that is sustainable and respects the scale of other settlement types. Either traditional country residential settlements or a similar rural recreational residential settlement could be contemplated over the remaining 15-year time frame of the Official Plan. The applicant has argued that higher unit allocations allow the cost of the communal servicing to be shared between more users, and thus, the cost to individual home owners is reduced. We understand that off' er developments with 80 units, 3r less, operate on communal systems. Rural Settlement Hierarchy The Chart below lists existing, and approved but not vet built, rural settlements in Picketing together with the proposed rural settlement by ChenT' Downs CoVenture Ltd.. For each rural settlement, its type and its projected population for the year 2016 are provided. For the proposed Cherry, Downs settlement, it is listed twice for comparison purposes - at the size submitted by the applicant, and at the size recommended by Staff. 14 Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Chert3r Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 11 Pickering's Rural Settlement Hierarchy Rural Settlement Name Rural Settlement Type Projected 2016 Population* C laremont Ham let 1015 Proposed Cherry Downs ] Rural Recreational 270-320** (Proposal at 125 units) Residential Brougham Hamlet 315 Whitevale Hamlet 255 Greenwood Hamlet 245 Cherrywood West Cluster 235 Proposed Cherr), Downs Rural Recreational 175-205*** (Staff Revision at 80 units) Residential Green River Hamlet 135 Kinsale Hamlet 125 Greenwood Cluster Cluster 100 Staxton Glen (Phase I) Country Residential 100 Cherrywood East Cluster 85 Barclay Estates Country Residential 75 Balsam Hamlet 60 Cherrywood Hamlet 55 Birchwood Estates Country Residential 50 Forest Creek Country Residential 30 Claremont Cluster Cluster 25 Staxton Glen (Phase II) Country Residential 25 Spring Creek Country Residential 20 Altona Hamlet 20 * Figures for 2016 Projected Population are from Edition 2 of the Pickering Official Plan, September, 2000. ** Figures for 2016 Projected Population were prepared by Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler & Smith Inc., for Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.. *** Figures for 2016 Projected Population were prepared by Picketing Planning & Development Staff using same persons per unit ratio as Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc.. At 125 units, the proposed settlement by Cherry Downs, when compared with the 2016 projected populations for other established rural settlements within the City, would be larger than all other settlements, except Claremont, and would be about the same size as Brougham, the second largest existing rural settlement in Picketing. The proposed development, as revised to support a maximum of 80 units, would more appropriately maintain the scale of modestly sized hamlets and the largest cluster settlement, which is the preferred scale of rural recreational residential settlements. Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: CherT>,, Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 1 '~ 15 The revised development would maintain a size that would not detract from the size, scale and significance of the City's largest rural hamlets, namely Claremont, Brougham, Whitevale and Greenwood. The proposed settlement, as revised by Staff, would be somewhat larger than the modestly sized hamlets, namely Green River and Kinsale, and would support generally the same number of units as Whitevale and Greemvood. Below is another a chart to assist in comparing the size of the proposed development to the size of the City's largest and modestlx sized rural hamlets, by both population and units xqelds: Settlement Name 1996 Projected 1996 Number of 2016 Population Units Number of Units Projected Unit Increase over Time Frame of Plan Projected 2016 Population Claremont 272 320 aS 935 1015 Cherry Downs N/A 125 N .:~ NA 270-320 (Applicant's Proposal) Brougham 80 106 2~ 270 315 Whitevale 76 ~82 o 240 255 Greenwood 74 79 5 235 245 Cherry Downs N/A S() N .~ N/A 175-205 (Staff Revised Plan) Green River 39 43 4 125 135 i Kinsale 27 34 ' 85 125 The City's six largest hamlets' combined 2016 projected populations account for rural population growth from 1996 of approximately 20(t people. These settlements are considered the City's focus of rural growth, and must take priority. To permit the applicant's proposed development, supporting 270 to 320 people, that project alone would greatly exceed all of the projected growth in the six largest hamlets in the City, and may detract from focusing growth to these hamlets. StafFs recommended plan would encourage a more moderate growth (175 to 205 people) to be allocated to the proposed settlement on the subject lands. When companng unit ,vields in various settlements, again, StafFs recommended plan would encourage a maximum of 80 units to be established. The four largest rural hamlets combine with a projected unit yield increase over the life of the Plan of approximately 85 units. The applicant's proposed plan for 125 units well exceeds this number. Cornpanng the number of unit:, projected for the larger hamlets in the City, the applicant's proposal would well exceed all hamlets in total unit yield, save and except Claremont. StafFs revised maximum unit v/eld more appropriately equals the total unit 54elds of Whitevale and Greenwood, and is less than Brougham and Claremont. Based on the above-noted comparisons, no new rural settlement in the City should exceed the size of the City's largest rural hamlets. When considering the fact that rural recreational residential settlements are less land consumptive and typically support less people per unit than otT~er traditional settlements, it is appropriate to encourage a ~eater number of units to these settlement types compared to country residential settlements. 1G Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 13 The applicant's submitted Planning Analysis, prepared by Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler & Smith Inc., notes that traditional country residential settlements typically support development at a gross density of approximately 1.0 hectare per unit (including infrastructure and other complementary and supportive uses). Comparatively, a rural recreational residential settlement would consume much less land per unit, approximately one-quarter to one-third of the land consumed by typical settlement types. This net reduction in land consumption is desirable when considering such things as settlement integration into the rural landscape, impacts on the environment, and agricultural land consumption. Rural Character and the Proposed Development The size of any rural settlement must 'fit' with the surrounding rural character and respect surrounding existing land uses. Staff's revised plan would establish one development area on the subject lands that could be unobtrusive on the rural landscape (it is less visible), whereas the applicant's proposal requires the establishment of two separate development areas within close proximity, one of which is highly visible from surrounding properties. The proposed rural residential recreational settlement, as revised to support a maximum of 80 units, maintains an appropriate size and scale of development that will fit with the mixed rural character of the surrounding area, while being sensitive to the current land configuration. Resultant development could be naturally buffered and integrated with surrounding activities. The single 'down-sized' settlement could maintain the rural character, and would not 'scatter' visible development in separate pockets that would combine to detract from existing rural activities and uses. General conditions of approval reflecting Staff revised recommended plan are outlined in Appendix I to this Report. 4.2 Technical Considerations Environmental Impacts The applicant has provided an Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by ESG International Inc.. This study concludes that the proposed development will present minor localized negative environmental effects that can be largely mitigated. The Report further concludes that enhancement opportunities exist especially associated with the Spring Creek ecosystem, and that functions and features of the Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) associated with that system could also be maintained and enhanced. A peer review of this Report was conducted by Bird and Hale Limited, on behalf of the Region of Durham, and in consultation with the City, and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Through a preliminary review of the applicant's Report, Bird and Hale Limited support the general findings of ESG, subject to some additional clarifications. Bird and Hale Limited conclude that: · the resultant development can be viewed as providing a positive contribution to the natural heritage; · the proposed development area locations appear to have little or no implications to natural heritage features or functions, subject to mitigation measures and confirming the development area limits through top-of-bank staking and surveying; · additional investigation is required to address the layout and design of communal service facilities, and associated infrastructure (reservoirs, pipes, etc,) to mitigate their impact on natural heritage features and functions and ensuring they maintain previous environmental commitments through past development approvals on the subject lands; and, Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 1 .!. 17 · a detailed hydrogeological analysis ~s necessarx, particularly to fully assess the groundwater impacts. Through consideration of the comments made through the peer review process, the applicant has since made several significant revisions to the development proposal to address concerns, and is working to provide detailed hydrogeological information and delineating development limits, in consultation with the City, Region and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Particularly, the relocation of tile proposed communal servicing and maintenance block in a location immediately southwest of proposed Development Area 7-2 alleviates many of the concerns expressed, and is currently being explored by the applicant. Staff agree that pre-development conditions on and adjacent to the subject lands can be maintained and, and is some cases improved, in a post-development scenario. Staff are satisfied that residential development can be achieved that generally maintains, and in some instances provides a net improvement to. existing natural heritage features and functions. The applicant's Environmental impact Statement (ELS) appropriately identifies the valley lands along Michell Creek and tributary of Spnng Creek as significant environment features to protect. As required by the Picketing OFficial Plan. features identified as Shoreline and Stream Corridors, Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA's). wetlands and woodlots require special policies to adhere to when considering them. including: · identifying them to increase axvareness of their existence; · protecting them through public acquisition and / or zoning; · promoting their rehabilitation and maintenance in their natural state; and, · requiting recommendations of an environmental report to be implemented. The applicant's submitted ElS adequately addresses all of the above noted criteria, encouraging identification, protection, rehabilitation and maintenance of these significant environmental features. in order to ensure this, it is recommended that approval of any development be subject to recommendations outlined in the applicant's Environmental Impact Statement (with additional information forthcoming, as outlined above, and to the satisfaction of the City, Region and the 'I'oronto and Region Conservation Authority), and that certain additional environmental commitments be carried out. These commitments would include: · the implementation of buffer zones abutting significant features and identified ESA's (including a tributary of Spnng Creek) outside of residential ownership; · the removal of existing on-line ponds; · the relocation of the proposed communal servicing and maintenance block to a location west of Sideline 14, ideally immediately southwest of proposed Development Area #2; · reforestation, where necessars', and appropriate plantings within established buffer zones; and, · the reduction in water used for golf course irrigation purposes (through the use of treated effluent from the resen, oir associated with the. communal sewage treatment facility serving the residential development). Staffs recommended revised plan will reduce the amount of indirect environmental impacts fhuman intrusion, amount of activity, etc.) and will focus development to one settlement area, at a reduced scale, further minimizing anticipated environmental impacts. General conditiors of approval reflecting StafFs recommendations, including environmental protection measures, adherence to the applicant's EIS and additional information and commitments, is included in Appendix I to this Report. 18 Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 15 Agricultural Impacts The applicant has provided an Agricultural Impact Assessment, prepared by ESG International Inc., in support of the proposed applications. This assessment concludes that the subject lands are no longer part of a stable agricultural community, and that the higher capability soils are distributed as fragmented pockets within lower capability soils, limiting their potential for production. The assessment further notes that the study area is not characterized by intense agricultural production, and that much of the surrounding area and the subject lands are owned by non-farm interests using land for purposes other than agriculture. Site visits to the subject lands confirm that the majority of land designated "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" in the Region Official Plan and "Agricultural Area" within the Picketing Official Plan (generally where proposed Development Area #2 is located) is: not supporting agricultural activities (and haven't for several years); · fragmented mainly due to changing topography and existing slopes; and. · likely not to be farmed due to their close proximity to the existing golf course. The assessment confirms that proposed development would maintain the Minimum Distance Separation to existing and potential agricultural operations required by the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. A small south most portion of proposed Development Area #2 would be restricted from being developed upon to comply with the MDS Formulae, and would be restrictively-zoned to ensure compliance. Staff agree with the conclusions of the Agricultural Impact Assessment, and further note that the form of development is significantly less land consumptive than traditional country residential settlements. Although the proposed development would result in the loss of some high capability agricultural land, there is a mix of non-agricultural rural uses within the surrounding area and on the subject lands, the majority of the lost land is not currently farmed (and hasn't been for many years) and the high capability land is fragmented by lower quality soils and through varying topography. The Durham Region Official Plan prohibits country residential settlements to be located within the Permanent Agricultural Reserve, and identifies primarily agriculture and agriculture-related activities as permissible uses within that designation. Staff agree with the conclusions of the applicant's submitted Agricultural Assessment that deem the subject lands to be more rural in character than agricultural, recognizing the fragmentation of that land, the lack of agricultural activity on those lands, and the lands' association to the surrounding golf course operation. The relatively small amount of high capability agricultural land lost for this proposal must be weighed against the resultant use of those lands for a c ~mpeting, yet equally appropriate and desirable use. No comments were received from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs respecting this application. Through comments they made on previous (1993) Clublink applications on the subject lands, they noted that the loss of agricultural land must be evaluated in the context of established rural settlement policies, and that a net reduction in the amount of agricultural land lost could result from allowing 'cluster residential' forms of development (smaller, more compact rural recreational residential settlements) as opposed to typical rural settlement forms. It is recommended that the applicant adhere to recommendations outlined in the submitted Agricultural Impact Assessment. This condition of approval is outlined in Appendix I to this Report. Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 10 }~'ater Supply and Sewage Disposal A majority of the proposed development would be serviced by communal water supply and engineered Class 6 sewage treatment system. Staff are recommending at least some of the proposed development must be serviced in this manner, with no more than 16 lots for detached dwellings along the east and west side of Sideline 14 potentially supporting individual private well and septic systems. Preferably, all of' the proposed maximum 80 units would be serviced communally, to optimize the amount of users on those systems. Water would be provided from several wells that would be pumped, treated within a privately owned and operated water treatment facility (located on the subject lands), and stored in a storage tank for use by the residents. 'The proposed sewage treatment system would pre-treat sanitary effluent through a communal system, and then treat and U-V disinfect it through a main aerobic biofilter system. The treated effluent would then be stored in a holding pond. where treated effluent could be monitored. Treated effluent would then be recycled lbr spray irrigation purposes for the golf course. In support of these servicing options, the applicant has submitted a Functional Servicing Report, prepared by G. M. Sernas and Associated Ltd., and a Se~'icing Concepts Report, prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc.. The Servicing Concepts Report concludes that these communal systems are successI'ullv used in other developments in Ontario, and could be implemented to service the proposed development. The Report further notes that technically the proposed communal services are appropriate, and would meet all existing Code and Ministry of Environment and Energy requirements. Communal servicing enables smaller lot sizes to be established, whereas typical country residential settlements require substantially more land area to support individual well and septic svstems. This decrease in land size allows the opportunity for vaosng housing forms, which in appropriate locations, are a desirable alternative to the traditional detached estate dwelling units. The Provincial Policy Statement clearly notes a prel'erence tbr communal services in rural settlements, where full municipal sewage and xvater ser~'ices are not or cannot be provided and where site conditions are suitable over the long term. The proposed residential development, as revised, appears to meet this prescribed criteria. Through consideration of the Region of Durham Official Plan Amendment to create policies considering communal systems in rural areas, Regional Council adopted OPA 60 that did not includ2 policies allowing for the consideration of privately owned communal systems servicing new rural settlements. Instead, Regional Council adopted policy allowing Regional Council to only consider the limited use of new Regionally owned and operated communal systems for water supply and / or sanitao' sewage in rural settlements where Council deems it necessary to deal with health or environmental problems. City Council, in commenting to the Region through circulation of this amendment through Council resolution #196/99, noted that they support the Region's use of new Regionally owned and operated communal systems for water supply and or sanitary sewage in rural settlements to deal with health or environmental problems. City Council also advised the Region that the wording provided in their policy was too restrictive, and should be revised to reflect the City's position that privately owned and operated communal systems should receive equal consideration with all other viable means of ser~'icing appropriate forms of development in rural areas. Communal services should be given equal consideration with all other viable means of servicing appropriate forms of development in rural area. If proposed development represents 'good planning', meets the intent of the rural growth policies, is technically supported, and is communally serviced, the proposed development should be supported subject to development and financial agreements. 2O Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry. Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4. 2001 Page 17 The applicant's proposed Regional Official Plan Amendment respecting OPA 60 requires that the owner enter into a Responsibility Agreement with the Region of Durham, providing for, among other matters: design and construction of the communal system to Regional and the Ministry of Environment and Energy standards; · financial guarantees to ensure that no Regional funds are required for the construction, maintenance, operation, repair, replacement or upgrading of communal systems in the event of default by the owner and to mitigate risk associated with environmental liability; · a definition of default; and, · operation and maintenance standards to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the Ministry of Environment and Energy including easements, rights of entry for inspection and monitoring. It appears that there could be appropriate means and controls put in place to ensure that Regional liability and costs are minimized, while encouraging a unique housing form with the Region's rural area. It is recommended that communal services be supported as the primary servicing option for the proposed development, in a form satisfactory to, and in compliance with, both the Region of Durham and the Ministry of Environment and Energy. Recommended conditions of approval respecting the proposed communal services are outlined in Appendix I to this Report. Traffic Impacts The applicant has submitted a Traffic Study, prepared by RGP Transtech Inc., in support of the proposed applications. This Study concludes that a modest amount of additional traffic will be generated from the proposed settlement. The Study further concludes that an eastbound left turn lane onto Sideline 14 is not required. No upgrades to the existing traffic system serving the subject lands and surrounding area are recommended as a result of the proposed development. The Study does note that the Region should monitor the Brock Road / Seventh Concession Road intersection to determine the need for signalization at that intersection to serve increasing east-west commuter traffic. No specific concerns or comments were raised by the City's Municipal Property & Engineering Division through their review of the Traffic Study. The Regional Road #31/Sideline 14 intersection should be further reviewed to ensure that appropriate sightlines are maintained from Sideline 14 (due to this intersection being located close to a depression in Seventh Concession Road). Staff do not anticipate any significant traffic impacts from the proposed development. Any comments from the Region of Durham Works Department (no comments have been received by them to-date) should be addressed by the applicant. Recommended conditions of approval, including specific road design and layout issues, are provided in Appendix I to this Report. 4.3 Other Considerations Impacts on a Future Pickering Airport The Provincial Policy Statement states that to protect airports from incompatible development, new residential development will not be permitted in areas near airports above 30 Noise Exposure Forecast / Noise Exposure Protection CNEF / NEP) as set out on maps, as revised from time to time, approved by Transport Canada. Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherrx,~ Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 18 Current mapping indicates that all of the proposed residential development would be located in an area outside (below) 30 NEF. In cases where development is below the prescribed Noise [:_xposure Forecast, but still within close proximity to lands held for a future airport, t.vpical dvcelling design features are implemented to protect future residents from noise exposure. ,:\n Environmental Noise Analysis, prepared by Jade Acoustics. confirms that the proposed development would be located bem'een the 25 NEF and 30 NEF. Based on their interpretation of the policies of Transport Canada and the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA). they conclude that the proposed development should not be opposed by either Transport Canada or the GTAA, but may require the inclusion of warning provided to potential purchasers and the inclusion of acoustic insulation features be considered. .lade Acoustics further notes that for housing between NEF 30 and NEF 25, the Ministr3,' of ~::_nvironment and Energy's assessment criteria require certain building features to insulate internal living areas from noise, and to establish warning clauses for prospective purchasers to be aware of the dwelling's adherence to prescribed criteria. Conditions of approval outlined in Appendix I include conditions that ensure that the proposed development will adhere to the recommendations outlined in the Environmental Noise Report. P, ecent comments were received from the GTAA, commenting on the Jade Acoustics Report cited above (see Attachment # 16). The,,, note that: · the Report appears to be correct in interpreting the noise exposure at the subject site (based on 1986 Transport Canada NEF mapping): · the noise impact at the subject site would be verx' sensitive to a number of key design and operational considerations, should an airport proceed on the held Pickenng Lands, and any changes to current assumptions could result in the subject lands being exposed to noise levels equal to, or higher, than that depicted bx' the 1986 contour maps; and, · they have begun preliminars.' work to initiate a Master Plan for a Picketing Airport, including runway configurations, physical facilities and addressing related land use planning issues. They conclude that in light of several outstanding issues related to the design and operation of a future potential airport and the degree to which future decisions and plans may influence aircraft noise at the subject property, that the',' view the proposed development as premature and not consistent with good planning practises. These same conclusions were noted by both the GTAA and Transport Canada through previous comments. Both the GTAA and Air Transport Association of Canada have requested that the Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board, and both have been granted party status. They note that additional bird ruination to the subject lands resulting from certain development features (particularl.v ponds and the proposed effluent storage rese~,oir) may occur, and could negatively impact on an airport operation. Staff recommend that any development approved on the subject lands ensure that both noise impacts and potential bird hazards are mitigated, to the satisfaction of the City in consultation with the Region, Transport Canada and the GTAA (see Appendix I). 22 Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 19 Residential Impacts Any development on the subject lands must be unobtrusive on the rural landscape, and respect existing rural activities. Conditions outlined in Appendix I include various requirements for the buffeting of the proposed development, including: the maintenance of existing vegetation along the southern lot line of Development Area #2 to buffer the communal servicing block from view from Regional Road #31 and the southerly abutting lands; · the maintenance of buffer zones adjacent to forest features to minimize disturbance of natural function within those features; · approptiate landscaping and rehabilitation / replanting of displaced vegetation species; · fencing to ensure rear yard amenity areas do not impose upon natural features; and, · consideration of buffering techniques between incompatible land uses, including the residences and the proposed effluent storage reservoir, and the residences and golf course activities (play or course maintenance). Other conditions are included in Appendix I that recommend those typical matters of City interest respecting subdivision developments. Where appropriate, the conditions in Appendix I are also recommended to be implemented through appropriate agreements with the City and Region of Durham, in consultation ~vith any relevant agencies. Community Benefits The proposed development can be viewed as a positive complementary use to the existing and future expanded golf course, providing mutually beneficial opportunities for each other, and likely the catalyst to bring about the golf course expansion. A unique form of recreational residential housing in the City's rural area can be implemented, and it is believed that there is a demand for this form of development within Pickering. The resultant development will recycle treated effluent into spray irrigation for the golf course, reducing water demands for that process on the golf course, while appropriately removing sanitary sewage effluent from a desirable rural settlement. The City is exploring the opportunity for the Fire Department to be granted access to water supplies on the subject lands to provide a reliable water supply in the rural area to fight fires in North Picketing. Economic development and local employment opportunities exist should the golf course operation be successfully exlzanded and provide a Regionally significant golf destination. 5.0 Additional information Status of Sideline 14 and Public kValking / Equestrian Trail Clublink received conditional site plan approval to expand their current golf course, subject to various conditions. One condition requires the owners of the subject lands to formally identify and provide a public easement along a north portion 6f Sideline 14 and along a portion of Michell Creek, ptior to the golf course expansion occurring. This public easement would support the establishment of a public walking trail and equestrian trail. Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Chero' Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 20 Although a portion of Sideline 14 was closed and sold to Clublink, no trail or easements have been established to-date. Although the City still maintains appropriate controls to ensure the trail and easements may be achieved, concerns from areas residents include their lack of access through the subject lands to Eighth Concession Road lpreviously enjoyed along the portion of Sideline 14 which was sold). The applicants have committed to work with the City through these development applications to provide an interim access solution, in the form of a temporar5' public access easement over the closed portion of Sideline 14 until the new trail system is developed. 'The applicants have noted that they fully intend to fulfill their commitment of prox'iding permanent future trail access, when the golf course expansion is designed in detail and pursued. Permits to Take Water it is our understanding that Clublink has not received a formal permit to take water to-date, but has had an application submitted to the Ministo' of Environment and Energy to do so for many months. Staff continue to encourage them to obtain this permit for the existing golf course. additional increases in water taking,= resultino= from future ~:olf course expansions should also obtain appropriate Ministry of Environment and Energy tMOEE) approvals. It is anticipated that treated effluent from the proposed sewage treatment facility serving the proposed residential development will be recycled as spray irrigation for the golf course, and over time would reduce the total amount of surface water currently taken for the existing golf course. Future permits to take water should include the amount of treated effluent being recycled, if available, to determine the net amount of water being taken. Correspondence provided by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc.. dated May 31, 2001, confirms that through conversations with Staff at MOEE. the submitted permit, due to backlogs in applications and the amount of time to appropriately complete their reviexv, it is anticipated that no permit would be issued until at least the end of 2001. Regional/Local Responsibilities respectitt5 ('ommu~a/ Se~Tices The Region of Durham is in the process of providing information to the Solicitor for the City that outlines Regional responsibilities respecting communal services, particularly those that arise in the event that privately owned and operated systems fail. Through the Region's review of communal services in rural areas (OPA 60), it was concluded that the Region would have ultimate responsibility for any communal system installed in Durham. If the system should fail, the Region would be reqmred by legislation to ensure the health and well being of affected residents. Hoxvever, through appropriate agreements and conditions of approval, the applicant can be required to post full financial guarantees to cover any potential system failure. No direct or specific implication on the local municipality have been identified should communal svstems fail. City Staff are working to obtain a legal opinion for Council that outlines responsibilities of the Region and" or City should a communal system fail. Such information should be available prior to or at the June 11, 2001 Committee of the Whole Meeting. 7'he background information intended to be provided to Council will include recent changes to current MOEE legislation, including applicable policy outlined in the Ontario Clean Water legislation. 24 Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: CherD.' Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 21 Recent OMB Decision respecting Coug's Investments (Ajax) The Ontario Municipal Board recently denied the development of a 107 unit adult lifestyle community associated with Deer Creek Golf Club in the Town of Ajax. The proposed development also consisted of semi-detached and attached units, and would be serviced by a communal sewage treatment facility (municipal water is available to the subject lands). There are a number of differences between the development proposed in Ajax and the proposal by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.. They include: · the Cherry Downs lands are not immediately adjacent to Pickering's urban area, and full municipal services are neither available nor intended to service these lands; · Pickering's Official Plan provides general policies that encourage the consideration of communal servicing as an option to service rural settlements, whereas the Ajax Official Plan appears to much more restrictive respecting communal servicing; · Both the Town of Ajax and the Region stated that the Coug's development threatened an established rural / urban separator, and would negatively impact on the established rural landscape, whereas the Cherry Downs development could be unobtrusive on the rural landscape, and represent a desirable rural settlement type in Pickering. It appears that through that Board Hearing the issue of the technical capabilities and suitability of communal services providing water and sewage disposal to residential developments was not challenged by either the Region or Ajax. 6.0 Conclusions The proposed rural recreational residential settlement on the Cherry Downs lands, as revised by Staff, represents a desirable new form of rural settlement within the City that can be appropriately integrated into the existing rural landscape in a sensitive manner, while providing a new form of rural housing. The resultant residential development will complement the existing and future expanded Cherry Downs Golf and Country Club, will provide a broader range of housing types in the rural area, and will encourage rural recreational residential development in a less land-consumptive manner than traditional rural residential development. Goals and objectives of the Picketing Official Plan respecting rural systems have been adopted by Council. They are outlined in section 2.21 of the Plan. The proposed rural settlement as revised by Staff will maintain these rural goals and objectives as described below. The proposed new rural settlement as revised by Staff would not jeopardize the cultural and natural heritage of the rural area, and although a modest amount of high capability agricultural lands will be lost, the overall desirable agricultural resource base in the City will not be significantly depleted. The proposed new settlement as revised by Staff would contribute to a vibrant rural economy, enhancing planned outdoor recreational uses and resulting in a desirable new form cf rural residential development. The proposed development would contribute to, and complement, the existing and future expanded golf course. The proposed rural residential development, if limited to the size recommended by Staff, would represent appropriate and modest rural population growth that would not detract from continued population growth primarily within hamlets. The proposed housing form differs from that typically offered within rural hamlets. The l'esultant lot sizes supporting the proposed development, although in many cases significantly smaller than traditional rural estate residential lots, is a desirable alternative rural housing option that is less land consumptive (when compared to typical rural settlements) and does not require each lot to provide additional area simply to support individual well and septic systems. Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 22 25 The proposed development, as revised by Staff. would be energy efficient, would provide an expanded range of rural housing choices within the City's rural area, and would be environmentally appropriate in terms of its form, water usage and sewage disposal systems. The revised development would not have an adverse cumulative impact on the environment, and would provide opportunities for the protection, enhancement and rehabilitation to natural features and functions. The revised development would create one distinct rural settlement area that is well separated from hamlets, other country residential subdivisions and from urban areas. Those considerations outlined in the Official Plan (Section 12.2) relating to criteria to consider for development in rural settlements have been appropriately addressed by the applicant, and where necessary will be inte~ated as conditions of approval to ensure that criteria is maintained. Fhe resultant rural recreational residential settlement would be appropriately located, would be compatible with the scale, character and relationship of existing rural uses, would encourage the introduction of new housing tbrms within the City's rural area that are desirable and would be appropriately serviced so that the natural environment, surrounding property owners and future ovcners would not be burdened or negatively impacted. 'Fhe Region of Durham Official Plan (Section 13.2.5t notes that country residential subdivisions, which are limited in both size and number, may be permitted by amendment to that Plan, provided the development does not: · change the rural landscape: · adversely impact agricultural operations: · adversely impact the environment: and, · represent a use that is incompatible with existing surrounding land uses. Staff conclude that the proposed development, as revised by Staff. would not significantly change the existing rural landscape, would not adversely impact on agTlcultural operations and the environment, and would be a compatible and complimentarF.' use with surrounding existing land uses. 7.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has been made aware of Staff recommended revisions to their plan. They do not support the decrease in the total number of units recommended by Staff, and w.ll be submitting further justification for the larger number of units. The applicant will give further consideration to Staffs recommendation to delete the nine lots within proposed Development Area #1 (they note these lands are surplus to Clublink's needs and currently support a golf course use). The applicant is pursuing the relocation of the proposed communal servicing block to a location south-west of proposed Development .Area ATTACHMENTS: Maps and Plans 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Property Location Map Site Plan - Existing Golf Course and Site Condition Site Plan - Approved Future Golf Course Improvements Applicant's Proposed Subdivision Plan Applicant's Conceptual Plan - Proposed Development Area #1 Applicant's Conceptual Plan - Proposed Development Area #2 Proposed Staff Recommended Subdivision Plan Revisions Proposed Staff Recommended Comprehensive Land Use Plan Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Cherry. Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 23 Reports and Meeting Minutes 10. 11. Text of Information Report No. 02-01 Minutes of Region of Durham August 29, 2000 Public Information Meeting Minutes of March 6, 2001 Statutory Public Meeting Agency Comments 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Canada Post (letter dated September 29, 2000) Canada Post (letter dated February 2, 2001) Greater Toronto Airports Authority (letter dated August 14, 2000) Transport Canada (letter dated July 27, 2000) Greater Toronto Airports Authority (letter dated May 22, 2001) Durham District School Board (letter dated June 26, 2000) Durham District School Board (letter dated January 29, 2001) Hydro One Networks Inc. (comment dated July 20, 2000) Hydro One Networks Inc. (comment dated February 14, 2001) Region of Durham Health Department Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Durham Catholic District School Board Resident Comments 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. Mr. and Mrs. Wilder (letter received August 23,2001) W. Wilder (letter dated February 1, 2001) W. Wilder (letter dated March 22, 2001) J. McGinnis (letter dated August 23, 2000) J. McGinnis (letter dated February 2, 2001 ) J. Moritsugu (Chair- Greenwood and Area Ratepayers Association) P. Shalalow and L. Cranfield P. Mahon P. Leamon (letter received March 14, 2001) P. Lemon (letter received May 22, 2001) S. Mclnerney D. Cherry (423338 Ontario Limited) J. Friedl K. Dean (letter dated August 26, 2000) K. Dean (letter dated March 17, 2001) T. and I. Thompson A. Jones - Conservation Durham Inc. (letter dated August 23, 2000) A. Jones - Conservation Durham Inc. (letter dated March 28, 2001) A. Gillespie (letter dated August 24, 2000) A. Gillespie (letter dated March 29, 2001) B. and M. Thomas (undated letter) B. and M. Thomas (undated letter) J. Markland S. Murray Staff Comments 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. Supervisor, Development Control (letter dated February 14, 2001) Supervisor, Development Control (letter dated March 22, 2001) Fire Prevention Officer Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Division Head, Culture & Recreation Report to Council PD 22-01 Subject: Chem., Downs CoVenture Ltd. Date: June 4, 2001 Page 24 Prepared By: Ron Taylor ,~Planner'2 Catherine Rose Manager, Policy P. ST CLR pr Attachments Approved Endorsed by: Director, Planning & Development Copy: Chie£Administrative of:ricer Solicitor for the City Recommended for the consideration of Picketing Tl~om~is J. Qu~ ~ 28 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 22-01 MATTERS OF CITY INTEREST TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING FOR CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS 1. GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS (a) That the residential development on the subject lands be contained within one development area generally west of Sideline 14, and not exceed 80 dwelling units; (b) That the residential development and any future buildings associated with the Cherry Down Golf and Country Club be serviced by a privately owned and operated communal water supply and sanitary sewage system, subject to the applicant entenng into the appropriate legal agreements and posting required financial securities with the Region of Durham; (c) That despite b) above, larger lots (providing a minimum lot frontage of 30 metres) supporting only detached dwellings and serviced bv individual private well and septic systems are acceptable fronting the east and west side of a realigned Sideline 14. 2. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS (a) That a future zoning by-law permit detached, semi-detached and attached dwelling units on a portion of the subject lands generally west of Sideline 14 and south of a tributary of Spring Creek; (b) That identified buffer zones between natural features and residential development be zoned in a protective manner that prohibits any development within that zone; (c) That appropriate performance standards be established that are sensitive to surrounding land uses, and maintain a rural character compatible with the established rural landscape; (d) That significant natural features be clearly identified and protectively zoned, including the original proposed communal servicing block to be zoned in an Open Space zone category, reflecting environmental rehabilitation commitments made by the owner; (e) That resultant zoning identify any portions of the subject lands required to satisfy nitrate dilution requirements identified. 3. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS (a) That development be reviewed and implemented through an Environmental Report, that includes the required hydrogeological information, in a form satisfactory to the City, Region and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and that recommended mitigation measures and buffering techniques be carried out; (b) That Grading Control Plans be prepared and reviewed in consultation with the Environmental Report, and in a form satisfactory to the City, Region and TRCA; (c) That previous environmental commitments through Conditional Site Plan Approval for the golf course expansion be maintained, including public hiking / equestrian trail details and survey(s), cart path location details, removal of existing on-line ponds off- line and obtaining required water-taking permits, environmental rehabilitation where the communal servicing block was originally proposed and along a portion of Sideline 14, all to satisfaction of the City, Region and TRCA; (d) That development details be provided to ensure environmentally-sensitive areas and rehabilitation areas are not impacted, including details of the proposed communal servicing and maintenance facility (and associated watermains and pipes), the extent of Sideline 14 and confirmation that this road will terminate at approximately its current location, and the intended routing of walking paths, pipes, etc.; (e) Determination of the top-of-bank, in consultation with TRCA, at the north edge of proposed Development Area #2, and ensuring appropriate setback and protection measures at this location are implemented; (f) Removal of additional on-line ponds beyond those previously promised; and, (g) Stormwater pond discharge methods to Spring Creek. Appendix I to Report Number PD 22-01 Matters of City Interest to be Addressed Through Ontario Municipal Board Hearing Page 2 29 4. SERVICING CONSIDERATIONS (a) The exact revised location of the communal servicing block, and resultant impacts needs to be verified; (b) The final sanitary effluent treatment facility proposed must be confirmed (Sequential Batch Reactor vs. Waterloo Biofiher systems/, and designed in compliance with all applicable MOEE and Region of Durham requirements: (c) Ensuring that related infrastructure does not encroach or impact on environmentally sensitive areas; Id) The provision of detailed system designs, including size and details of related buildings, reservoirs, and ancillaO, uses /pipes). and ensuring that these uses and activities do not offend future residents and surrounding land owners; (e) Confirmation that nitrate concentrations, originating from both private individual septic facilities and from the proposed discharge spray irrigation methods from the communal sanitary effluent facility, comply with all applicable MOEE requirements; (f) Detailed fire protection measures serving the proposed residential development must be outlined, through a certified engineer's review, to the City's satisfaction; (g) Details of stormwater management facility locations, including detailed information respecting buffeting techniques, the maintenance and protection of roads and slope stability where the storage facility is located, and confirmation that the proposed stormwater pond is to be privately-owned and maintained: (h) Details respecting roof leader output (connected to store: sev,'ers vs. run-off into surface swales) and detailed storm sewer information /particularly that portion of the storm sewer located between Regional Road =31 and the Sideline 14- realignment). 5. AGRICULTURAL CONSIDEtL:kT1ONS (a) That the recommendations of the Agricultural impact Assessment. submitted by the applicant, are implemented to ensure compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation requirements of the Ministry of Agriculture. Food and Rural Affairs (including appropriate restrictive zoning and the provision of "buffer zones" along the south edge of the proposed residential development area). TRAFFIC CONSIDEILa. TIONS (a) That Sideline 14 be realigned and constructed to an acceptable City Standards, at no cost to the City, and that previous improvements that are required to Sideline 14, but not completed, are addressed; (b) That the int:rsection of Sideline 14 and Durham Regional Road #31 be reviewed in detail to ensure that appropriate sight lines are maintained for traffic turning onto Regional Road #31 from Sideline 14, and confirmation that a deceleration lane is not required for westbound traffic on Regional Road =31, to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City of Pickenng; (c) That the owners undertake all necessary steps to have the City stop up and close portions of Sideline 14 not needed for the proposed road realignment, at the owner's expense; (d) That Sideline 14 terminate in a cul-de-sac, designed to City Standards and constructed at the applicant's expense, terminating at approximately its current north limit (a privately-maintained driveway is recommended to se~'e future golf facilities). 7. AIRPORT CONSIDERATIONS (a) That the owner(s) satis~, the requirements of the MOEE and Study Recommendations outlined in the Environmental Noise Analysis, submitted by the applicant, to the satisfaction of the City, Region and MOE£; (b) That the owners satisfy the City, in consultation with the Region, Transport Canada and the GTAA respecting appropriate mitigation measures to control bird hazards in the design and siting of infrastructure and existing , relocated ponds on the subject lands. 3O Appendix I to Report Number PD 22-01 Matters of Citv Interest to be Addressed Through Ontario Municipal Board Hearing Page 3 8. TYPICAL SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT REQUIREMENTS (a) That the owners enter into an appropriate subdivision agreement(s) with the City of Picketing, in consultation with the Region of Durham, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and Transport Canada, to address specific conditions of development approval imposed by the Ontario Municipal Board. Such agreement shall address, but not be limited to, the following typical development matters: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (xvii) (xviii) the submission of detailed survey plans for development, including any required reference plans, draft 40M-plan and topographical information for City review and approval; satisfying the City respecting appropriate stormwater drainage and management through appropriate reports and / or plans; satisfying the City respecting appropriate grading and coordination of grading with surrounding properties and roads; the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis, including information regarding construction activity and / or infrastructure required; satisfying the City respecting the construction and / or reconstruction of roads to municipal standards, including the construction and/or installation of related infrastructure (i.e. sidewalks, ditches, utility corridors); restoring the realigned Sideline 14 to municipal standards, at no expense to the City, and terminate that road with a standard turning circle generally at its current northern terminus, to the City's satisfaction; dedicating portions of the subject lands to public authorities, where warranted, for road widenings, road reserves, open space purposes, and providing any appropriate easements, where necessary, for grading, drainage, servicing and / or access; the submission, approval and adherence to, a Construction Management Plan that controls development practises in a manner that is sensitive to adjacent properties, travelled roads, and environmental features, including recommended edge management practises, tree removal and / or pre-grading to be camed out; satisfying the City respecting required parkland dedication and / or payment of cash-in-lieu of parkland; satisfying the City financially respecting the Development Charges Act; satisfying the City respecting fencing and / or other buffering techniques along lot lines abutting adjacent properties and uses not compatible with residential uses (including golf course fairways); the submission, approval and adherence to a Tree Preservation Plan and Street Tree Planting Plan; the submission of a Siting and Architectural Design Statement outlining building location and design objectives for the development; satisfying Canada Post respecting the location, and installation of a Community Mailbox(s), and including appropriate clauses in future offers of purchase and sale that the residential development will be serviced by a designated Community Mailbox; satisfying the City respecting access to on-site water supplies to fight fires in other rural areas within the City; satisfying the City and the Region of Durham respecting the submission and approval of an archaeological assessment; obtaining additional development application approvals to implement the development, to the satisfaction of the City and the Region of Durham, including, but not limited to, draft plan of condominium and site plan applications; satisfying the City respecting the provision of appropri ~te easements for public walkways and equestrian routes as previously committed through approval of the future golf course expansion; Appendix I to Report Number PD 22-01 Matters of Citv Interest to be Addressed Through Ontario Municipal Board Hearing Page 4 (xix) satisfying the City and Region of Durham respecting adherence to the submitted Environmental Noise A2qalvsis, including the provision of appropriate noise xvarnmg clauses on title and air conditioning for those units affected and identified in the report. APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 22-01 HISTORY OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LIMITED in August 1993, Cherry Downs Development Corporation (later Clublink Corporation) submitted planning applications to allow an 18-hole expansion and redesign of Cherry Downs Golf Course, the development of up to 300 residential dwelling units on the subject lands (serviced by communal water and sewage systems) and the establishment of commercial uses on the subject property (within the existing clubhouse, approximately 250 square metres in size); amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan, the Picketing District Plan (replaced by the Picketing Official Plan), the City's Zoning By-law and Minister's Zoning Order No. 1 were required, and submitted; in September 1995, Clublink submitted a revised development proposal to develop, among other golf-related uses, 225 residential dwelling units (including detached dwellings, attached golf villas and link-type dwellings) on the subject lands; the Executive Committee of Picketing Council, in January, 1996, in considering the applicant's revised proposal, considered a recommendation that the applications be referred back to City Staff to encourage a reduction in the number of requested dwelling units and requesting the submission of revised supporting documentation; that recommendation was lost; Executive Committee, at that same meeting, recommended that Council endorse "Rural Population Growth Targets" and directed Staff to incorporate these targets into the new Pickering Official Plan under preparation at that time; the targets are outlined in section 2.22 of the approved Picketing Official Plan; Clublink, in April 1996, revised their development proposal further, eliminating residential development, and proposing only a golf course expansion and establishment of an associated new clubhouse facility; the required Zoning By-law Amendment and Ministers Zoning Order Amendment Applications to implement the applicant's revised development proposal were subsequently approved; the applicant obtained conditional site plan approval from the City in October, 1997 to expand the existing Cherry Downs Golf Course (this golf course expansion has not occurred to-date); in June 1998, Clublink re-opened dialogue with the City regarding plans to consider residential development and the establishment of a conference centre on the subject lands; in December, 1998, the Region of Durham began consideration of a proposed Durham Regional Official Plan Amendment to allow for the use of commuaal servicing systems in certain circumstances; in June, 1999, City Council passed Resolution #131/99 that advised that Council considers an anticipated official plan amendment application from Clublink for residential development on communal services as suitable for consideration as a pilot project that fit within the context of a development of significance to the Region under Durham's proposed amendment for communal servicing subject to all other land use approvals being obtained; in December 1999, the Region of Durham adopte~ Regional offi6ial Plan Amendment No. 60 to establish communal servicing polities following the completion of a Communal Services Technical Feasibility Study; Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 60 was appealed by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. to the Ontario Municipal Board; beginning in June of 2000, the applicant submitted the various development applications subject to this Report; all of the subject applications have since been appealed by Cherry Downs CoVenture Limited to the Ontario Municipal Board, to be heard in conjunction with their appeal of Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 60, as it affects the subject lands; Appendix II to Report Number PD 22-01 Histou' of Planning Applications - Chert\' Downs CoVenture Limited Page 2 in August, 2000, both the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) and Air Transport Association of Canada requested that the Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board: in December, 2000, the Ministu' of Municipal Affairs and Housing referred the proposed Minister's Zoning Order Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board, citing Chem' Downs CoVenture Ltd.. the GTAA and Air Transport .Association of Canada as those parties requesting the referral to thc Board: pre-hearing conferences regarding these appeals were held in December, 2000 and March, 2001; a motion submitted by the Solicitor for the City. on behalf of Pickenng Council, was heard by the presiding Board Member on Max' 14. 2001, to prohibit the GTAA from obtaining party status at the future Board Heanng: this motion was dismissed bx' the Board. providing the GT.~A with full party status for both Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. appeals and their referral of the Minister's Zoning Order amendment; a future prehearing has been scheduled for September 21. 200 I. to identify issues from ail active parties; the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing to consider these applications is scheduled to commence Monday, November 20. 2001. and continue over a four-week duration. ATTACHMENT f / TO REPORTf PD, ~,.2-o I ROAD EIGHTH ROAD PROPOSED COMMUNAL SERVICING City of Pickering DEVELOPMENT AREA #2 PROPOSE[ AREA #1 Planning & Development Department CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD. LANDS AND RELATED APPLICATIONS SUBJECT r="'"'=l CHERRY DOWNS PROPERTY DATE JAN 17, 2001 A'FI'A¢I-NENT t, 2 _TO REPORI' # PD........~ ,~ - o t 33 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS I I I ! ! 1 ! .! FARM BUILDINGS ROAD - R E G~ ONAL~ RO~', . ~ ----'----- N.T.S. EXISTING GOLF COURSE EXISTING CONDITIONS 3 0 ATTACHMENT REPORT f PD PROPOSED FUTURE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS ' ~- ~I ~E~GHTH CON_CESSION ROAD-~ PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE-.-.--. ~PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL ~ PROPOSED GOLFCOURSE N.T.8. ~ iqur~ OHERRY DOWN8 MASTER P; A'FI'AC~ REPORT APPLICANT'S PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAN SP-2000-03 LOCK 26 S EYP,qCING/ MAINTENANCE 6 6~5 ba ~, PROPOSED T ~: COMMUNAL -~ SER~C NG - - BLOCK PROPOSED : ~ 1~ ':~ ~ ~ONcEsSlON ROAD ~-$ ' REGIONAL ROAD 38 A'FI'AgHMENT ~ ~ TO REPORT~PD ~-c.,; CONCEPTUAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA -//'1 CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD. ~. ' .~ EXISTING CHERRY .... ~,'~' DOWNS GOL~ - - ,~ COURSE EXISTING CHERRY DOWNS GO LF COURSE 17 24 t~,.~ NO. 31 SITE DATA - AREA i: STE AREA - ~2.2 ACRES ESTATE SINGLES, !w'JAL - ATTACHMENT # ~__~,__.__TO REPORT ~ PD~c' ,' 39 CONCEPTUAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AREA #2 CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD. 16 10 11 k 4O ATTACHMENT t '7 TO I:EPORTtPD. 2o2- c~ I PROPOSED STAFF RECOMMENDED SUBDIVISION PLAN REVISIONS il PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ~REA #2 PROPOSE[) RURAL RECREATIONAL SETTLEMENT 80 UNITS MAX. 7th CONCESSION ROAD APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY OF RESIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT - TO ~ BE VERIFIED PROPOSED ; ~ ' CLUBHOUSE il Bi ¥.~[T i PROPOSED ~ SER~CING ~' BLOCK PROPOSED SEF~ICING BLOCK ! ! RECOMMENDED TO BE R{EI~OCATED wES;r OF SIDEU[NE z~, ,PREFERABLY ~OUTWESl~ ,OF j~ PROPOSED DEVELOPMI~I~ T PROPOSED !~ AREA #1 RECOMMENDED TO BE REMOVED REGIONAL ROAD No. 31 ........ ~ ADDITIONAL LANDS OWNED --' TO ATTACHMENT # .~ _ PROPOSED STAFF RECOMMENDED COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN 8th CONCESSION ROAD I L 7th CONCESSION ROAD REGIONAL ROAD No. 31 AGRICULTURAL COMMUNAL SERVICES GOLF I OPEN SPACF_ RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 42 ATTACHMENT # d/ TO REPORT d' PD ~..2 - ~ I INFORMATION REPORT NO. 02-01 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF February 8, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Durham Region Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D Pickering Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 00-002/P Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 26/00 and A 29/00 Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-ZO-02900-01 Clublink Corporation (Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.) Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7 (Lands south of Eighth Concession Road, north of Durham Regional Road No. 31 and west of Sideline 12) City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are approximately 219 hectares in size, and are generally located on the north side of Durham Regional Road No. 31, east of Brock Road, west of Sideline 12 and south of Eighth Concession Road; a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1); approximately 70 hectares of the subject lands currently support a 27-hole golf course and related facilities; a site plan showing the existing golf course facility and site conditions is provided for reference (see Attachment #2); clusters of farm buildings are located in three separate locations on the subject lands, and one dwelling currently exists on the east side of Sideline 14; the subject lands are traversed by Michell Creek and an associated west tributary, and by a tributary of Spring Creek;' surrounding land uses include agricultural lands and detached dwellings, and the Claremont Field Centre (owned by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) is located to the east of the subject lands across Sideline 12. 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the applicant proposes to establish 125 residential dwelling units (consisting of a mix of detached, semi-detached and attached hnits) within two separate development areas on the subject lands in conjunction with the existing and future expanded golf course facility; a site plan showing proposed future improvements to the subject property (including improvements to the existing golf course operation) is provided for reference (see Attachment #3); the proposed residential development would be supported by a combination of communal and private services; a reduction of the applicant's Proposed Subdivision Plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #4); Information Report No. 02-01 YE-PORT Page 2 Development Area =1 is located within a south-east portion of the subject lands. where an existing nine-hole golf academy is currently operating: · nine lots, providing a minimun~ lot area oi' approximately 0.4 of a hectare each. and supporting detached dxvelling umts are proposed on these lands; · each lot is proposed to be ser",'iced by an individual well and private septic system, and would front onto a newly-constructed, public cul-de-sac originating from Durhan~ Regional Road No. 31; · a Conceptual Plan depicting Development Area =1 is provided for reference (see Attachment #5 ): Development Area ~2 is located within a south-west portion of the subject lands. generally west of Sideline 14: · 100 dwelling units, comprising semi-detached and attached dwelling units, are proposed west ora realigned Sideline 1.4: · these dwelling units are proposed to be constructed in two residential clusters, each with dwelling units fronting a private, condominium road network accessed from Sideline 14; · associated private community facilities (i.e. community centre, tennis court, walking trail, etc. ) are also proposed: · 16 lots supporting detached dwelling units on lots providing a minimum lot area of 0.4 of a hectare are also proposed, fronting onto the east and west side of realigmed Sideline 14.: · a Conceptual Plan depicting Dexelopment Area =2 is provided for reference (see Attachment ~6): · all of the development located within Development Area #2 is proposed to be serviced by a communal well and sewage treatment Facility; the communal servicing facilities are proposed to be located on the west side of Sideline 12, north of Michell Creek. 3.0 3.1 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan - the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands "Major Open Space" (primarily recognizing Michell Creek and the surrounding valley lands traversing the subject lands), and "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" (within south-west and north-east portions of the subject lands); - all of Development Area #1. the eastern-most portion of some of the lots within Development Area #2, aLd the proposed communai servicing block serving Development Area #2 appear to be located within the "Major Open Space" designation; - predominant use of lands in the Major Open Space System shall be conserx'ation, recreation, reforestation, and agncuhure and farm-related uses (with the exception that in valleylands in built-up areas, a~iculture and farm-related uses are not permitted); almost all of the proposed Development Area =2 appears to be located within the "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" designation: activities and uses within the Permanent Agricultural Reserve shall be primarily agriculture and farm-related uses; Section 5.3.29 of the Regional Official Plan states that Regional Council, in consultation with the Ministry of the Environment and Energy, shall undertake a feasibility study with respect to the provision of full or partial communal systems to hamlets, country residenual developments, rural emplo,,,Tnent areas and regional nodes in the rural areas: Information Report No. 02-01 ArrAcHMENT~ ~ TO Pa~e 3 in December 1999, the Region of Durham adopted Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 60 to establish communal servicing policies following the completion of a Communal Services Technical Feasibility Study; Amendment No. 60 was appealed by Chert3, Downs CoVenture Ltd. to the Ontario Municipal Board and will be considered by the Board, as it affects the subject lands, in conjunction with the subject applications that have also been appealed by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.; Section 13.2.5 of the Regional Official Plan states that country residential subdivisions, which are limited in both size and number, may be permitted by amendment to that Plan, provided that such development does not: a) change the rural landscape; b) adversely impact agricultural operations; c) adversely impact the environment; or d) represent a use that is incompatible with existing surrounding land uses. - Regional Council shall not consider such amendments until a municipality-wide analysis has been prepared which demonstrates the need for and amount of country residential development within the municipality and assesses the long-term cumulative impacts of such development on municipal servicing costs and the natural environment; - an analysis was conducted in 1995 by the City of Pickering that resulted in Council's endorsement of rural population growth targets to be incorporated into the Pickering Official Plan (which was under review at the time); - the resultant growth targets (as outlined in Section 2.22 of the Picketing Official Plan) establish the potential for up to between 100 and 600 people in new settlements over a 20-year time period ending in the year 2016; Sections 13.3.18 to 13.3.22 of the Regional Official Plan further detail various policies and guidelines to adhere to when considering an application for a new country residential development, including: · country residential subdivisions shall not be permitted in the Permanent Agricultural Reserve; · country residential subdivisions shall be individually serviced with drilled wells and private sewage disposal systems (subject to completion of a feasibility study with respect to the provision of full or partial communal systems, clustering within country residential subdivisions may be encouraged to allow for servicing by communal water and sewage systems and as a means of protecting the environment); and, · consideration of the results of the municipality-wide analysis undertaken in accordance with Section 13.2.5 and determine the size of each proposal en its own merit provided that no country residential subdivision shall exceed a size of 50 lots (Local Councils may further reduce the maximum number of lots permitted if deemed appropriate). Section 13.3.23 of the Regional Plan further states that the development of a country residential subdivision shall: a) not be of a size as to detract from the dominance of hamlets as preferred locations of rural residential settlements and activities; b) be unobtrusive and blend into the Region's landscape; c) not detract from the surrounding natural environment or require significant alterations of existing topography, waterways or vegetation; d) not have an adverse cumulative impact on the environment; e) be distinct and well separated from hamlets and other country residential subdivisions; f) be distinct and well separated from urban areas; g) contain a range of lot sizes generally 0.6 of a hectare to 1.0 hectare; h) be serviced with an internal road system, having a minimum of two access points without direct access onto a Provincial highway or a Type A arterial road; · i) not be located on lands of high capacity for agriculture, recreation or aggregate resources extraction and not have a negative impact on agricultural activities; Information Report No. 02-01 45 3.2 j) not be located in corridors affected by existing or proposed highways, airports. railways, hydro transmission lines and other utilities: k) be in conformity with the AgTlculturat Code of Practice: 1) not be located within, or contiguous to, or have a negative impact on. environmentally sensitive areas tas identified within that Plan); and, m) be in conformity with the provisions of the area municipal official plan. the Regional Plan requires an amendment application to designate a country residential subdivision to be accompanied by a settlement capacity study (in accordance with Section 13.3.6) of that Plan). a detailed landscape analysis of the site and adjacent properties, and a planning analysis indicating how the proposal meets the policies of that Plan: the Plan further states that an application 1hr approval of a draft plan for a count~' residential subdivision shall be subject to the provisions of Section 13.3.9 and 13.3.10 of that Plan, requinng the application to be accompanied by various supporting repons, and outlining conditions to be incorporated into any future draft approval of the proposed development: Section 2.3.16 of the Regional Plan requires an environmental impact study to be completed for proposed development in proximity to environmentally sensitive areas, or for development applications which may have major environmental impacts, addressing criteria prescribed in that Plan: amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan arc required to implement the applicant's proposed development: the proposed Draft Regional Official Plan Amendment prepared by the applicant is provided as Appendix II to this Report. Pickerin.g. Official Plan the Picketing Official Plan designates the subject lands "Open Space System - Active Recreational Area" (primarily rec%mizing the existing and future expanded golf course on the subject lands). "Agricultural .Area" (the south-west, north-west and north-east portions of the subject lands) and "Open Space System - Natural Area" (the north-west portion of the subject property where a portion of Michell Creek and a ,,,,'est tributary are located); - all of Development Area #1, the eastern-most portion of some of the lots within Development Area #2, and some of the attached units located within the north-most residential cluster within Development Area =2 are located within the Open Space System - Active Recreational ,Area designation: - permissible '.~ses within this designation in.?lude active recreational, community and cultural uses, and other related uses, and all uses permissible within Natural Areas; - almost all of the proposed residential clusters within Development Area =.2. and the proposed communal set-vicing block serving Development .Area #2. are located within the "Agricultural Area" designation; - permissible uses within Agricultural Areas include primary agricultural uses and complementary, and supportive agricultural uses: portions of the valley lands are proposed to be traversed by pipes connecting communal servicing infrastructure, and a proposed walkway travelling northward from Development Area-=2 across Spnng Creek to a future proposed clubhouse facility; the valley lands along Michell Creek and tributars' of Spnng Creek are identified as Shoreline and Stream Corridors, Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) and contain pockets of Wetlands as outlined on Schedule III Resource Management to the Picketing Official Plan; Information Report No. 02-01 ATTACHMENT # q TO REPORT # PD ~- o t Page 5 sections 10.5 and 10.10 of the Plan outline policies to adhere to when considering these natural features, including their identification to increase awareness of them, protecting them through public acquisition and/or zoning, promoting their rehabilitation and maintenance in their natural state, and requiring the recommendations of an Environmental Report (as set out in section 15.11 of the Plan) to be implemented; goals for the City's rural system have been adopted by Council (as outlined in section 2.21 of the Plan), including: (a) to protect and enhance the cultural and natural heritage of the rural area, and conserve the rural resource base, including agricultural lands, for existing and future generations; (b) to encourage a vibrant rural economy with a wide range of rural uses and activities, including, (i) primary agricultural uses; (ii) complementary and supportive agricultural uses; (iii)outdoor rural recreational uses; and, (iv)other compatible rural uses that contribute to the diversity of economic activities in the area; (c) to promote improved social and economic linkages between urban and rural Pickering; (d) to encourage limited rural residential development primarily in hamlets; (e) to encourage rural residential development that is energy efficient, enhances the range of rural housing choices, and is environmentally appropriate in terms of its form, water usage and sewage disposal systems; to encourage the timely and appropriate disposition of lands in rural Pickering owned by the provincial and federal governments; and, to involve residents, business-people, landowners, relevant public agencies, and other interested groups and individuals in making decisions concerning the rural system. (g) section 2.31 of the Picketing Official Plan states that Council, by amendment to the Plan, may permit expansions of existing rural settlements and may designate new Rural Settlements, providing: (a) the total population that may be generated from expanding existing settlements and from establishing new rural settlements, shall respect the population targets identified in section 2.22 of the Plan (which establishes, among other growth targets, up to between 100 and 600 people in new rural settlements, including Barclay Estates, Birchwood Estates and Spring Creek, and any others if approved in accordance with the provisions of the Plan); and, (b) the provisions of Chapter Fifteen (Development Review - including requirements for supporting reports and studies when consider/ng various applications ) of the Plan are met. sections 15.5 and 15.6 of the Picketing Official Plan further state that local official plan amendment applications within rural lands must be accompanied by: · a Planning Analysis (evaluating the proposal against the relevant goals, objectives, and general intent and purpose of the Plan); · an Agricultural Report (demonstrating that the proposed settlement will not significantly adversely affect the amount or quality of Class 1 to 3 agricultural land, is located and/or operated in compliance with the Minimum Separation Formulae and cannot be accommodated on less significant agricultural lands in a rural settlement or in the urban area); and, · an Environmental Report (including at least the minimum information prescribed in section 15.11 of the Plan). for development in Rural Settlements, section 12.2 of the P:an states that Council shall: a) require development to occur along existing roads, and along new roads introduced in locations identified either on the rural settlement maps or through the review of development proposals; Information Report No. 02-01 ATfAOHMENT ~ ~ TO REPORT = Pg, ~,-~j _ ~ / Page 6 47 3.3 3.4 b) encourage and where possible requires, the scale, character and relationship of new development /including lots. buildings, structures, roads, services and utilities) to be compatible with the scale, character and relationship of existing development, considenng features such as the size and shape of lots, lot coverage, building heights, building setbacks, building floor area, building material and desigm, road widths, street patterns and vegetation; c) encourage new development to enhance the range of housing choice in the settlement and to be innovative in relation to compact form, water usage and sewage disposal: d) require all new development, whether on individual or communal water and sanitary services, to be based on appropriate technical review to ensure the adequate provision of services, protection of the natural environment, the protection of nearby property owners, and compliance with Provincial and Regional standards; and, e) protect for road connections to adjacent lands. amendments to the Pickenng Official Plan are required to implement the applicant's proposed development: the proposed Draft Pickenng Official Plan Amendment prepared by the applicant is provided, as Appendix III to this Report. Zoning By-law' Zoning By-law 3037. as amended by Bv-laxv 5129/97. currentlv zones portions of the subject lands: · "A" - Rural Agncuhural Zone, which permits a detached dwelling, agricultural uses, accessory agricultural residential uses and specific home occupations, certain parks and recreational uses iexcluding a country club. golf course, driving range and similar outdoor activities) and certain institutional and business uses; · "A/GC" - Rural Agricultural'Golf Course Zone. which permits those uses listed within the "A" zone categoU' outlined above, as well as a Golf course and related ancillary, uses; and, · "OS-HL" - Open Space - Hazard Lands Zone, which permits conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife, resource management, hiking trails, equestrian routes and Golf cart paths. - all of proposed Development .area ¢1, and the eastern-most portion of the proposed lots supporting detached dwellings located on the east side of realigned Sideline 14 within Development Area ¢2, are currently zoned "A/GC" - Rural Agricultural/Golf Course Zone; - the proposed communal servizing block located on the west side of Sideline 12, and the majority of Development ,area ~-2, are currently zoned "A" - Rural Agricultural Zone; portions of the subject lands zoned "OS-HL" Open Space - Hazard Lands Zone generally recognize significant land surrounding natural features, including Michell Creek and an associated west tnbutap,.,, and portions of the tributary of Spring Creek that traverse the subject property: although no changes to this established zoning designation on the subject lands is proposed, exceptions to this zoning max' b~ required to allow the proposed pipes connecting communal servicing infrastructure, and the proposed walkway travelling northward from Development Azea =2 across Spnng Creek to a future proposed clubhouse facility. an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's proposed development. Minister's Zoning Order No. i all of the lands are subject to Minister's Zoning Order No. 1, which is a provincial Order intended to restrict the use of lands surrounding Federally-owned property held for the potential future development of an airport: 48 Information Report No. 02-01 ATTACHMENT ~_../--.,.~TO REPORT ~' PD___...~.~ - ~ 1' ~ Page 7 this Order was amended by Ontario Regulation 289/98 on June 16, 1998, permitting the subject lands to be developed for golf course uses in accordance with amending Zoning By-law 5129/97; a further amendment to this Order is required to implement the applicant's proposed development. 4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION (See Attachments #7 to #20) a majority of the comments outlined below were received in response to the Region of Durham's circulation of Regional Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03. The Region held a Public Information Meeting regarding the Regional Official Plan Amendment Application on August 29, 2000. Minutes from that August 29, 2000 meeting are enclosed (see Attachment #7). 4.1 Resident Comments - Mr. J. McGinnis, of the Eighth Concession Road, expressed objection to the subject applications, noting the proposed development is in conflict with policies of both the Region of Durham and the City ofPickering (sev Attachment #8); - Mr. And Mrs. Wilder, of Sideline 12 both noted opposition to these applications, expressing concerns with negative impact on groundwater supply and prime agricultural lands (see Attachments #9 and #10); Ms. K. Dean, of Montgomery Avenue (Toronto) expressed opposition to these applications, noting the proposed development would do extreme health and environmental damage; would increase demand for roadways; would destroy acres of prime farmland; encourages urban sprawl; is located within a permanent agricultural preserve; would negatively impact ESA's, wildlife areas, coldwater fisheries, surrounding wells, groundwater, and rare plant and animal species; provides no benefits to the surrounding rural community; and uses up most of the remaining rural population targets for Pickering (see Attachment #11); Ms. A. Jones, Executive Director of Conservation Durham Inc., expressed opposition to these applications, noting the proposed development would negatively impact, among other things, the Permanent Agricultural Preserve, surrounding ESA's, the Duffins Creek Watershed, the surrounding rural community, the Claremont Field Centre, and rare plant and animal species (see Attachment #12); - Mr. A. Gillespie, of the Pickering/Uxbridge Townline, expressed objection to these applications (see Attachment #13); - Ms. J. Markland expressed opposition to these applications, noting the proposed development will encourage urban sprawl; is located within the Permanent Agricultural Preserve; and will negatively impact important wildlife areas, coldwater fisheries, surrounding wells and groundwater, the Claremont Field Centre, and rare plant and wildlife species (see Attachment #14); Mr. And Mrs. Thomas, of Westney Road, expressed opposition to these applications, noting the proposed development encourages the depletion of the Permanent Agricultural Preserve lands; will encourage rural population targets for Pickering to be reached already; will increase traffic congestion; and will negatively impact a surrounding ESA (see Attachment #15). 4.2 Agency Comments Transport Canada - Ontario Region (see Attachment #16) noted that the proposed development is adjacent to the eastern border of Federal Lands being retained for a possible future airport; expressed concern with any proposed development that would be considered incompatible with airport operations; Information Report No. 02-01 .gTThCHt,:£t;T ~__ -/--L~T0 Page 8 4? noted the proposed development appears to border the Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) 30, and noted that the developer should advise future tenants or purchasers of potential noise impacts, and suggested that the development not proceed until acceptable acoustical insulation features are implemented: noted that the applicant should be required to identify mitigating measures designed to reduce the attractiveness to birds (particularly treated effluent and storm water detention ponds ): concluded that they generally view the development of residential communities in close proximity, and potentially under aircraft approach paths, to be inconsistent with good planning practices: Durham Region Health Department (see Attachment =17) noted that the proposed private sewage disposal system will be sized for greater than 10, 000 litres per day that will require the review and approval of the Ministry of Environment and Energy' for a large on-site sewage works'communal system; Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (see Attachment ~l 8) noted they granted conceptual approval to past golf course expansion proposal subject to conditions that have not vet been satisfied as the expansion has not yet occurred; noted proposed servicing may potentially have a negative impact on Michell Creek and Spring Creek: requested the future servicing study provide detailed information, including information on the location oi' the communal service facility and related infrastructure (pipeline crossings), the impact on water quality and quantity and the impacts on the base flow of adjacent creeks: noted specific portions of the proposed residential development (including associated roads and pathways) impacting si~ificant natural 1`eatures. and requested an Environmental Impact Study be completed to determine impacts and proposed mitigation/buffering measures: requested a preliminaD' storm water management plan be completed: concluded that they cannot support the proposed development in the absence of outstanding information; Greater Toronto Airports Authoritx (see Attachment Xl 9) noted the subject lands are adjacent to the eastern border of Federal Lands being retained for a possible future airport: concluded that the proposed development is premature and would not be consistent with good planning practices in light of a number of significant outstanding issues related to the design and operation of a potential future airport and the degree to which these outstanding issues may influence aircraft noise impact on the subject property; Canada Post (see Attachment =20) recommended conditions of draft approval be imposed respecting informing purchasers of mailbox t.,,T)e and location, and consulting Canada Post to determine suitable mailbox placements and surrounding treatment of boulevards, sidewalks, curbs, etc. serving the community mailbox: No Objections or Concerns: Hydro One Netxvorks Inc., Durham District School Board, and Durham Catholic District School Board. ~ 0 Information Report No. 02-01 ATTACHMENT ,~?~TO REPORT ,!, PD ~,~ - o I Page 9 4.3 Staff Comments 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3 4.3.4 in reviewing the applications to-date, the following matters have been identified by Staff requiring further review and consideration: Environmental Considerations ensuring the protection and/or improvement to existing natural features and habitats, including, but not limited to, Michell Creek and associated tributaries of that creek and Spring Creek, significant valley lands, wetlands, important natural linkages and ESA's, and significant plant, forest and wildlife communities; ensuring previous commitments to environmental restoration and enhancement are maintained; assessing cumulative ecological effects of establishing a new settlement in conjunction with the previously approved golf course expansion; maintaining or improving existing ground and surface water quality and quantity, reviewing methods of stormwater management, and assessing impacts on aquatic habitats; reviewing the appropriateness of the proposed communal servicing facilities and their associated impacts; considenng tree and vegetation preservation on the subject lands, and the identification of areas requiring protection, reforestation and/or rehabilitation; exploring opportunities for lands supporting significant natural features to be publicly- acquired to promote further protection of those lands; reviewing technical reports submitted in conjunction with the applicant's proposal, and determining their adequacy, both through review by City Staff and appropriate agencies, and through peer-reviews, where warranted; Rural Growth and Settlement Considerations reviewing anticipated rural growth trends and assessing the significance of this proposal on anticipated and potential future growth in the City's rural area; - considering potential infrastructure improvements needed to support the proposed development and impacts on existing infrastructure; - determine whether the proposed growth is compatible with the scale, character and relationships of existing rural settlements in Pickering; - reviewing potential growth characteristics, and establishing, where appropriate, maximum development limits on the subject lands; Impacts on the Rural Landscape assessing the compatibility of the proposed development with the existing and future expanded golf course facility and surrounding rural land uses; reviewing the impact of the proposed development on surrounding agricultural lands and operations; analyzing the impacts of the introduction of communal services for development within the City's rural area; considering design details of the proposed development to assess the compatibility of the resultant scale, character and relationships o£ the new development with the surrounding countryside (including visibility, development intensity, street patterns, massing and design of buildings, landscaping, fencing, building materials, etc.); Social and Economic Considerations reviewing the positive and negative effects resulting from the proposed creation of a new settlement within the City's rural area, considering such matters as, but not limited to, · relationships with the proposed golf course improvements; · economic development and local employment opportunities; information Report No. 02-01 Page 10 5 1 A'FrACHMENT ~'~TO REPORT # PD~ 4.3.5 demands on public services (road maintenance, snow removal, parks and community facilities): · fire protection: · traffic implications: · housing options and densities: · opportunities and implications for future rural development, and resultant cumulative impacts on the gn-owth in the City's rural area: and, · the loss of agncuhural lands to non-farm development, considenng the type and quality of lands consumed as a result of this proposal; · compliance with agricultural Minimum Distance Separation Formulae; understanding the potential impacts of the proposed development on the Federal lands being held for a future potential airport, and considenng the appropriateness of large-scale residential development being established in close proximity to these lands; Plan of Subdivision 4.3.6 reviewing and determining the exact boundaries of the proposed development considering natural features, technical requirements and other development activities on the subject lands i and assessing alternatives, if xvarranted); reviewing the appropriateness of the realignment of Sideline 14 and establishment of a new public cul-de-sac accessing Regional Road No. 31, associated proposed street and lotting patterns, and proposed access point locations: clarifying the proposed northerly terminus of Sideline 14: Zoning Matters identifying of appropriate zoning standards to respect and protect natural features; assessing the proposed lbrms of housing and establishing, if appropriate, reflective development standards: understanding the implications of the proposed condominium tenure of development, and any resultant unique zoning standards; considering related activities and uses proposed, including pathways, servicing infrastructure, community facilities and other related uses, and limiting and/or regulating these uses through appropriate zoning. 5.0 5.1 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION Geheral Information written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning 8,: Development Department: oral comments may be made at the Public information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council: if you wish to be notified of Cit>.' CounciI's adoption of a proposed local official plan amendment or passing of an,,' zoning by-la,,v amendment, you must make a written request to: City Clerk City of Pickenng Pickering Civic Complex One the Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 52 Information Report No. 02-01 ATTACHMENT REPORT ,f' Page 11 5.2 5.3 5.4 if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with respect to proposed regional and local official plan amendment applications or draft plan of subdivision application, you must make a written request to: Mr. A. Georgieff Commissioner of Planning Region of Durham Planning Department 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor, Lang Tower, West Building Whitby, ON L1N 6A3. A_p_proval Authorities for Sub~lications the Region of Durham may exempt certain local official plan amendments from Regional approval if such applications are determined to be locally significant, and do not exhibit matters of Regional andJor Provincial interest; the Region has verbally confirmed that the submitted Pickering Official Plan Amendment application is not exempt from Regional approval; the City's recommendations on the proposed official plan amendments and draft plan of subdivision application will be forwarded to the Region of Durham, which is the approval authoritv for these applications; the City's recommendations on the proposed Minister's Zoning Order Amendment application will be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (the province is the approval authority for this application); the City of Pickering is the approval authority for the submitted zoning by-law amendment applications. Standard A ealRi hts if a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the Regional Municipality of Durham in respect of the proposed official plan amendments or draft plan of subdivision does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the Regional Municipality of Durham before these applications are considered, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal; if a person or public body that files a notice of appeal of a decision of the City of Pickering in respect of the passing of a zoning by-law amendment does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or does not make written submissions to the City of Picketing before the zoning by-law amendment is passed, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal. Additional Procedural Information Specific to these Ap_plications - the subject applications have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant, Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., and are therefore planned to be considered by the Ontario Municipal Board at a future Board Heating; - a preheating conference is scheduled for Friday, March 30, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. in the Picketing Council Chambers; - should you wish to be involved with the Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. ongoing appeal, you should attend the March 30, 200'1 prehearing conference. Information Report No. 02-01 A'I-rACHMENT ¢' __ TO REPORT ~- PD ~ - o, Page 12 6.0 6.1 OTHER INFO1LMATION Property' History in August 1993. Cherry Downs Development Corporation (later Clublink Corporation) submitted planning applications to allo`,v an 18-hole expansion and redesign of Cherry Dov,'ns Golf Course. the development of up to 300 residential dwelling units on the subject lands tsen'iced by communal water and sewage systems) and the establishment of commercial uses on the subject property (within the existing clubhouse, approximately 250 square metres in size); amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan. the Pickenng District Plan (replaced by the Picketing Official Plan). the City's Zoning By-law and Minister's Zoning Order No. 1 ',','ere required, and submitted: in September 1995. Clublink submitted a revised development proposal to develop. among other golf-related uses. 225 residential dwelling units (including detached dwellings, attached golf villas and link-t.`,'pe dwellings) on the subject lands; the Executive Committee of Pickenng Council. in Januao'. 1996. in considering the applicant's revised proposal, considered a recommendation that the applications be referred back to City Staff to encourage a reduction in the number of requested dwelling units and requesting the submission o£ revised supporting documentation; that recommendation was lost: Executive Committee. at that same meeting, recommended that Council endorse "Rural Population Growth Targets" and directed Staff to incorporate these targets into the new Pickenng Official Plan under preparation at that time: the targets are outlined in section 2.22 of the approved Official Plan: Clublink, in April 1996, revised their development proposal further, eliminating residential development, and proposing only a golf course expansion and establishment of an associated ne,.',' clubhouse facility: the required Zoning Bv-la~v Amendment and Ministers Zoning Order Amendment Applications to implement the applicant's revised development proposal were subsequently approved: the applicant obtained conditional site plan approval from the City in October, 1997 to expand the existing Chenw Downs Golf Course: - in June 1998, Clublink re-opened dialogue with the City regarding plans to consider residential development and the establishment of a conference centre on the subject lands; in December, 1998, the Region of Durham began consideration of a proposed Durham Regional Official Plan Amendment to allow for the use of communal servicing systems in certain circumstances: in June, 1999, City Council passed Resolution =13199 that advised that Council considers an anticipated official plan amendment application from Clublink for residential development on communal sen'ices as suitable for consideration as a pilot project that fit within the context of a development of si~ificance to the Region under Durham's proposed amendment for communal sen'icing subject to all other land use approvals being obtained; in December 1999, the Region of Durham adopted Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 60 to establish communal sen'icing policies following the completion of a Communal Sen, ices Technical Feasibility Study; - Regional Official Plan Amendment No. 60 was appealed by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. to the Ontario Municipal Board: - beginning in June of 2000, the applicant submitted the various development applications subject to this Report; all of the subject applications have since been appealed bv Cherry Downs CoVenture limited to the Ontario Municipal Board, to be heard in conjunction with their appeal of Regional Official Plan ,Amendment No. 60, as it affects the subject lands; in August, 2000, both the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GT, UA) and Air Transport Association of Canada requested that the Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application be referred to the Ontario Municipal Board; Information Report No. 02-01 Page 13 ATTACHMEr, JT #--?-------TO REPORT # PD 6.2 6.3 - in December, 2000, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing referred the proposed Minister's Zoning Order Amendment to the Ontario Municipal Board, citing Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., the GTAA and Air Transport Association of Canada as those parties requesting the referral to the Board; - a pre-heating conference regarding these appeals was held in December, 2000. A_~_pendix No. I a listing of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report. Information Received 6.4 the applicant has submitted the following techniCal reports in support of the proposed development: · "Cherry Downs Recreational Residential Community - A Planning Analysis" preparedby Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., and dated June 2000; · "Cherry Downs Housing Development EIS" (Environmental Impact Study) prepared by ESG International Inc., and dated July 2000; · "Cherry Downs Golf Club Agricultural Impact Assessment" prepared by ESG International Inc.,-and dated June 2000; · "Functional Servicing Report"prepared by G.M. Semas & Associates Ltd., and dated June 2000; · "Servicing Concepts Report for Cherry Downs Golf Club" prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc., and dated June 2000; and, · "Traffic Study" prepared by RGP Transtech Inc., and dated June 2000. the applicant's submitted technical reports and all large-scale plans submitted by the applicant, are available for viewing in the City of Picketing Planning & Development Department. Information the agent, Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Hams, Cutler and Smith Inc. advises that Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. consists of a real estate venture formed between Clublink Corporation and the Kaitlin Group Ltd.. Angela Baldwin is the representative for Clublink Corporation and Kelvin Whalen is the representative for the Kaitlin Group Ltd. Planner 2 RT/pr Copy: Director, Planning & Development Department Solicitor for the City Catherine Rose Manager, Policy ATTACHMENT f_~ TO REPORT ~ PD ~' ~ 55 APPENDIX I TO 1NFOI~MATION REPORT NO. 02-01 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (7) Mr. J. McGirmis, 2585 Eighth Concession Road B. and J. Wilder, 5335 Sideline 12 Ms. Kathryn Dean, 158 Montgomery Avenue (Toronto) Ms. A. Jones, Conservation Durham Inc. Mr. A. Gillespie, 2045 Pickering/Uxbridge Townline Ms. J. Markland B. and M. Thomas, 3378 Westnev Road COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Hydro One Networks Inc. Transport Canada Ontario Region Region of Durham Health Department Durham District School Board Greater Toronto Airports Authority Toronto and Region Conse~'ation Authority Durham Catholic District School Board Canada Post COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS ( 1 ) none to date MEETING MINUTES (1) Minutes of the August 29, 2000 Region of Durham Planning Committee respecting Regional Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D 50 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD The Regional Municipality of Durham MINUTES PLANNING COMMITTEE TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2000 A regular meeting of the Planning Committee was held on Tuesday, August 29, 2000 in the Planning Department Main Boardroom, Lang Tower, West Building, 4t~ Floor, 1615 Dundas Street East, Whitby, Ontario at 10:00 a.m, Present; Councillor Parish,' Chair Councillor Dickerson, Vice-Chair' Councillor Gadsden Councillor Harrell Councillor Para Regional Chair Anderson left the meeting at 12:00 noon ,,,.--,. Absent: Councillor Diamond Councillor Drumm Also Present: Councillor Johnson Councillor Moffatt Councillor L. O'Connor Councillor Shier Staff Present: A,L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning N. Chornobay, Director, Strategic Planning J. Blair, Director, Current Operations T. Gettinby, Manager, Policy Planning and Special Studies B. Hodgins, Senior Planner, left the meeting at 1:30 p.m. G. McGregor, Planner, attended the meeting at 1:25 p.m, and left at 1:35 p.m. N. Rutherford, Planner R. Szarek, Planner, attended the meeting at 12:05 p.m.and left at 1 ;1'0 p.m. K. Yew, Manager, Plan. Implementation T. Sloley, Manager, Engineering, Planning and Studies, Works Department, left the meeting at 1:35 p.m. D. Bowen, Committee Secretary 130 A'FrACHMENT # /o .TO REPORT # PD ~.'¢ - c~ i Planning Committee ~¢1; l~'hq'l .UUh~l-b-fFI h"LHl~llillb Df-i~ I -2 - ADOPTION OF MINUTES U. d/lid Au§ust 29, 2000~ \ MOVED by Councillor Dickerson, (132) "THAT the minutes of the regular Planning Committee meeting held on June 20, 2000 be adopted." CARRIED COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS a) OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT- PUBLIC MEETINGS The Chair explained that this meeting involves two statutory public information meetings under the Planning Act to deal with two proposed amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan. He advised that the committee will be dealing with the application from Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.' first and the Wilfrid Bog issue will be dealt with next followed by the application from Youngfield Farms Limited. The Chair advised that the purpose of the public meetings is to provide information about the applications and to hear submissions. He added that a decision to approve or deny these applications is not being made at this time, The Chair further advised that notices of the public meetings were published in the appropriate newspapers. He also advised that a public meeting report for each amendment proposal has been prepared by the Regional Planning Department containing background information. He noted that copies have been made available to the public and can be obtained at the reception area. He added that the reports are to be received for information today by the Planning Committee. The Chair advised the public that it is important to make a verbal submission at these public meetings or a written submission as soon as possible after these meetings and prior to Regional Council making a decision, He explained that if a person who submits an appeal is not on record as having made a verbal or written submission, the appeal may not be considered valid by the Ontario Municipal Board. The Chair further advised that the Planning Department will continue to process each of these applications, including receiving and reviewing submissions. He noted that at a later date a recommendation report for each application will be presented to Committee and the Committee's recommendations will be dealt with by Regional Council at a subsequent meeting, If adopted, Regional Council wilt give notice of adoption, and 131 REPORT # PD. ~'~ - o t lblanning Committee - :3 - August 29, 200~' Council's decision'wilt be Subject to a twenty day appeal pedod. If no appeals are received, Council's decision will be final. The Chair further advised that persons making submissions today will be notified of future meetings of Planning Committee and Council dealing with each of these applications. b) FIRST PUBLIC MEETING - APPLICATION TO AMEND THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN, SUBMITTED BY CHERRY DOWNS CO- VENTURE LTD., TO PERMIT A COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON LANDS DESIGNATED PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL RESERVE AND MAJOR OPEN SPACE, IN THE CITY OF PICKERING, FI/E: OPA 2000-005 ..(#2000-P-611 The Chair called upon Ms. Barb Hodgins, Senior Planner, presentation, to give a STAFF PRESENTATIONS a) MS. BARB HODGINS, SENIOR PLANNER, RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Ms. Hodgins outlined in detail the contents of Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61. She advised that the application proposes a country residential subdivision with 125 units within the Permanent Agricultural Reserve designation in the City of Picketing. With the aid of a map, Ms. Hodgins described the size and location of the lands owned by the applicant and the existing uses. She also showed the two locations for the proposed new residential developments and described the servicing being proposed for each. Ms. Hodgins also provided information on surrounding land uses. She also reviewed the technical reports submitted with the application and noted that an Environmental Impact Study was received last week and will undergo the peer review process. Ms. Hodgins also reviewed previous applications and approvals, She then reviewed the current proposed amendment. Ms. Hodgins also reviewed the concurrent applications and appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant. She also reported on the agency comments received from Transport Canada, Ministry of Municipal Affairs & Housing, the Health Department, and the Toronto Region Conservation Authority. Ms. Hodgins responded to questions from members of the Committee, The Chair invited public comments. 132 ATTACHME~'JT #~ / o TO REPORT ~, PD ~' ~-; - c~ I Planning Committee -4- DEPUTATIONS MR. BRIAN MOSS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT, CLUBLINK PROPERTIES LIMITED, AND MR. PETER SMITH, BOUSFIELD, DALE- HARRIS, CUTLER & SMITH INC., PLANNING CONSULTANTS, 3 CHURCH STREET, SUITE 200, TORONTO, ONTARIO MSE 1M2, ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 August 29, 2000'~ \ Mr. Brian Moss advised that ClubLink will be responsible for expansion of the golf course and new clubhouse while their joint venture padner, Country Club Communities (a division of the Kaitlin Group), will manage all of the real estate on the property, Mr. Moss also commented on the proposed reservoir that will be used for the golf course. He advised that it would be a five acre pond, with the potential to expand, made up of a combination of st°red water, treated effluent and surface water. Mr. Moss also indicated that testing has cbnfirmed a good potable water source to service the real estate component. Mr. Peter Smith highlighted the changes with respect to the residential component from 1993 and the reduction to 125 residential units, He advised that the resulting population figures are within the rural population targets for growth in both the Regional Official Plan and the Picketing Official Plan, Mr. Smith also discussed the status of the application for amendment to the Pickering Official Plan and zoning by-law. Mr. Smith also provided his interpretation of the communal services policies contained in the Provincial Policy Statement, the Picketing Official Plan and the Regional Official Plan, He concluded by listing five benefits of communal services including environmental, conservation, compact form of development, housing choices, and better community amenities. Mr. Smith responded to questions from members of the Committee. The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2,c)]. 133 6O ATTACHMENT ,~_ ./O TO REPORT # PD.. ,~2, - o I Planning Committee - 5 - AugusL ,'=,/..v~... ..... c) MR. STEVE SHAW, VICE-PRESIDENT, CORPORATE AFFAIRS & COMMUNICATIONS, GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY, LESTER B. PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, P.O. BOX 6031, 3111 CONVAIR DRIVE, TORONTO, ONTARIO, L5P 1B2, RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000~P-61 Mr. Steve Shaw appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. He noted that the proposed development is adjacent to the eastern border of the federal lands being retained for a possible future airport. He explained that although there is no commitment from the federal government for these lands and no plans for an airport,-in light of the number of outstanding issues related to the design and operation of a possible airport and the degree to which these future decisions would influence the air.craft noise impact at the subject property, it is his View that the proposed development is premature. A written submission from Mr. Shaw was included in the handouts distributed at the meeting. Mr. Shaw responded to questions from members of the Committee. The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)]. MR. LORNE ALMACK, P.O. BOX 97586, 364 OLD KINGSTON ROAD, SCARBOROUGH, ONTARIO, M1C 4Z1, ON BEHALF OF GREEN DOOR ALLIANCE, RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Mr. Lorne Almack appeared before the Committee on behalf of Green Door Alliance in opposition to the proposed residential development. He expressed concern over the application being in front of the Region before Picketing Council has dealt with it, Mr. Almack also commented that urban sprawl is the issue that concerns him and not communal services, He discussed the negative impacts and costs associated with urban' sprawl. Mr. Almack also described surrounding land uses that in his view were not correctly depicted on the map. He undertook to provide the Planning Department with a list in this regard. The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)]. 134 Planning Committee - 6 - d) August 29, ~0 MS. ANGLE JONES, R.R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2, ,~ RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 ~. e) Ms. Angle Jones appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. She made reference to a statement contained in the "GTA Country Side Strategy" document that there will be no active farms below the Oak Ridges Moraine or Niagara Escarpment in fifty years and she stressed the importance of protecting farmland in Durham Region and not allowing it to become an area for urban sprawl. Ms. Jones also expressed environmental concerns and stressed the importance of clean, drinkable water. She added that the property is also the habitat of the protected Red Shouldered Hawk. Ms. Jones also discussed a discrepancy between the water amounts that were given to Pickering Council in a previous application and what was in an application to the Province. Ms, Jones also expressed concern that the notification period for this public meeting w~s insufficient and also in conflict with the OMB pre-hearing being held in a different location and affecting the same members of the public. For these reasons she suggested another public hearing be held. Ms. Jones also commented that she would like an official position from Pickering Council on this application. A written submission from Ms. Jones was included in the handouts distributed at the meeting. The recommendations contained in CommissioneCs Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)]. MS. SUE MCINERNEY, R,R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Ms. Sue Mclnerney appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. She expressed concern about the possible negative impacts on her private well water supply, She also questioned the safety of communal sewage systems and asked who is responsible for correcting any problems. Ms. Mclnerney also stressed the importance of protecting agricultural lands in north Picketing. She also expressed the viewpoint that this is not a hamlet expansion. Ms. ' Mclnerney advised that she has lived at her present address for sixteen years. The recommendations contained in Commissioneds Report #2000-P-61 were adopted ~ater in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2,c)]. 135 ATTACHME~'~¥ ~ ,/.~ TO REP0~7 ~' PD.. ~ - ~ / ~r_F ~3 ' ~(_.J[I [I.[ , Iql"l'l L)ur~r'll-fl'l I-Li"ll'~'ltl'lb ~JrF I ' PlahningCommittee - 7 - August 29, 2(Tu~u~ iv f) g) h) MR. GORDON DUNCAN, R.R, #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Mr. Gordon Duncan appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. He expressed concern about the possible negative impacts on his water supply. He indicated that he has lived at his present address for thirty-six years but for the past five years he has had to buy water and his personal opinion is that the golf course may have contributed to his low water supply. Mr, Duncan also expressed concern about the location of the proposed reservoir. In his view it should be placed in the centre of the applicant's property and not in the backyards of adjacent property owners. The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeti_ng [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2,c)]. MR. STEVE MURRAY, R.R, #5, CL.AREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Mr. Steve Murray appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. He advised that he has lived at his present address for thirty years, Mr, Murray expressed concern that this is just the first phase of a much larger urban scale subdivision. He suggested placing a moratorium on any future applications for additional housing. Mr. Murray also ques, tioned the status of the proposed hotel and conference centre that was part of an earlier proposal. Mr. Murray also questioned the need for more golf courses. He also commented on the amount of water that ClubLink uses at its Milton golf course. Mr. Murray also discussed a discrepancy between the water amounts that were given to Picketing Council in a previous application and what was in an application to the Province, Mr. Murray also expressed concern about the possible negative impacts on his well water supply. He also urged protection of rural lands, Mr. Murray responded to questions from members of the Committee, The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)]. MS. PAT HORA, R,R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, LIY 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Ms. Pat Hora appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development. She indicated that her property has been in her family almost fifty years. Ms. Hora expressed concern about 136 SEP 25 REPORT ~ PD. ,~ ~ . -c¢I 14PM DURHAM PLANNING DEPT · . ' '-'~-P. 9/1E~"'"_"'~ the possible negative impact on fish habitats in area streams. She also expressed concern about water quality, noting a recent problem with vegetable coliform in her well water. The recommendations contained in Commmsioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)j, MR, CHRIS WlLLENS, R.R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2 RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61 Mr. Chris Willens appeared before the Committee in opposition to the proposed residential development, He expressed concern about water quality and quantity and suggested the Region hire an expert to review the water studies presented by the applicant. Mr, Willens also expressed concern about urban sprawl and suggested there be a logical policy for rural development, - The recommendations contained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61 were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)], There were no fudh6r comments from those present at the meeting. Written submissions from the following individuals were included in the handouts distributed at the meeting; - Judith Wilder; - Jack McGinnis; - Barrio & Marion Thomas; - Jessica Markland; - Alastair Gillespie; - Bill Wilder; and - Kathryn Dean COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS APPLICATION TO AMEND THE DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN, SUBMI'FTED BY CHERRY DOWNS CO-VENTURE LTD., TO PERMIT A COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON LANDS DESIGNATED PERMANENT AGRICULTURAL RESERVE AND MAJOR OPEN SPACE, IN THE CITY OF PlCKERING.~_FILE: CPA 2000-005 £#2000_P_61_~L~ Report #2000-P-61 was received from A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning. A staff presentation and delegations were heard earlier in the meeting. [See Pages 3 to 8, Items 3,a) and 4.a) to i)], 137 64 *A'I'I*ACHIVEN~_ // TO ~ REPORT # PD i~ - ~ ! '~ STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Tuesday, March 6, 2001 at 7:10 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: Councillor M. Brenner, Chair ALSO PRESENT: C. Rose - Manager, Policy R. Taylor - Planner II D. Kearns - Committee Coordinator The Manager. Policy, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Omario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. (I) o o DURHAM REGION OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 2000-05/D PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 00-002/P DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S-P-2000-03 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS A 26/00 AND A 29/00 MINISTER'S ZONING ORDER AMENDMENT APPLICATION 18-ZO-02900-01 CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD. PART OF LOTS 12 TO 16, CONCESSION 7 (LANDS SOUTH OF EIGHTH CONCESSION ROAD, NORTH OF DURHAM REGIONAL ROAD NO. 31 AND WEST OF SIDEI,INE 12) Ron Taylor, Planner II, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #02-01. Peter Smith, Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc. advised that Cherry Downs Co-Venture Ltd. consists of a real estate vemure formed between Clublink Corporation and the Kaitlin Group Ltd. Mr. Smith gave a brief background report on the proposals put forward by Clublink advising that the number of units have been reduced to 125 and this proposal fits within the rural population growth plans. He noted the residential proposal represents no more than 20% of the total lands owned by Clublink (which was a similar standard imposed by York Region on comparable development), making the residential component accessory to the golf operations. He further advised that these applications have been appealed to the Omario Municipal Board. A peer review study is underway dealing with environmental and traffic issues. Bill Wilder, Side Road 12, advised that he has submitted two letters in opposition to this application. He questioned the size of the proposed golf course, how this development will be financed and whether or not golf course holes are fixed. A representative of the applicant responded by advising that the land situated in the north-east comer has been idemified as environmemally significant and no development can take place on this land. He further responded by stating that the bank finances their projects and yes, the golf course holes are fixed. REPORT # PD ~,:2 - o I o Chris Whillans, stated that he believes the housing development is proposed to pay for the golf course and to put money into the developers pockets. He has great doubts that they won't come back in a couple of years for further housing. What would happen if the well and septic system thil in five years and if the communal system goes, who pays for repair. He 'also questioned how this will enhance the communitv. Councillor Brenner requested Planning staff to consider and comment on the new Ontario Government Clean Water Legislation as it may affect the proposal when providing recommendations to Council. Brian Buckles, Conc. 7, advised that he will forward more elaborate comments by letter but wished to state his concern with the communal septic. He asked if Clublink would be willing to guarantee in perpetuity that only 125 units will be built on this property. He also advised that Planning staff should look at the precedent which will be sent and stated his concern that with Hwy. 407 under construction this will create more applications Ibr this type of development. Mike Newmam feels the nine lots are a foregone conclusion and will be approved. He questioned if Planning staff can request the developer to improve the water system and straighten out the on-line pond. Mike Jones, representing the applicant responded to Mr. Newman by advising that water will only be taken when there is a lot of water in the creek. Water will be recycled, being used lbr irrigation and then returned to irrigation pond. Communal systems usually have financial agreements to cover maintenance. Two on-line ponds are being taken out of existence. Fred Beer, 4945 Westnev Road, questioned how big the lots will be and stated that if lot sizes were increased, septic systems and weeping beds could be used. He also stated his concern with the environmental impact this will have on the area. A representative of'the applicant responded by adxdsing that communal servicing allows residential development to be less land intensive and more environmentally-sensitive while allowing a different housing option in rural areas. He noted that Health Departments are not likely to grant approval for private services on smaller lots (citing 15,000 square feet as no longer a viable lot size to sustain private services). He noted that the Provincial Policy Statement suggests communal servicing arrangements are preferred when considering rural residential development. Steve Murray, 2325 R. R. #5, Claremont. stated his concern '~dth the application sitting in the Planning Department since August with no decision being made. Planning should not be indifferent to the environment and community implications. His further concerns include the taking of water and their change in environmental companies. He advised that the community does not support this application and further advised that residential growth was to occur around existing hamlets. This application should be refused. A representative of the applicant advised that a currently applied for water taking permit to the MOEE requests the maximum of 18 million gallons of water be taken per year. Angie Jones, R. R. #5, advised that Clublink have never received a permit to take water and ther~ :fore are doing it illegally. She thanked Fred Beer for all his work over the years on this issue and for handing over his files. She requested a letter from the Planning Department advising of the person responsible for making decisions on what is acceptable. She questioned why all four on-line ponds are not being taken off, they are illegal. She stated that it is her believe that if the 6O ATrAcHMENT ~ .// TO REPORT # PD ~7- ~ [ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. residential component of the application is not approved the golf course will not go through. A letter stating her concerns will be forwarded to the Planning Department. Ross Smith, Sideline 12, questioned why the Sewage Treatment Plant and Reservoir wasn't moved to the other side and will the reservoir sustain fish life. He stated that if the pond overflows a problem will arise. A representative of the applicant responded by stating that the design will prevent the pond fi.om overflowing and yes, the pond can sustain fish. He further advised that the Plant and Reservoir location is practical, as it is close to the water intake service and close to the proposed residential development, while easily accessed through Sideline 12. Jack Walmsley, 2125 Conc. 7, has lived in the neighbourhood since 1994 and is a member of the golf course. If the residents and the applicant work together this project could be done. He would like to buy a house on this property and knows 10 other people who also would like to reside there. Marion Thomas, Whitevale, requested that residents see a copy of the agreement with The Toronto Region Conservation Authorig, regarding on-line and off-line ponds, and commitments more for environmental protection and restoration prior to the golf course construction.. A representative of the applicant responded that there isn't an agreement but conditions set out. Rob O'Brien, Sideline t2, stated his concerns to include the Sewage Treatment Pond, water, condition of roads and bridge and ditching problems. He questioned why the Sewage Treatment Plant can't be placed in the middle of their property instead of where present residents can see it. Carolynn Parke, 1959 Fairport Rd., stated her concern with Spring Creek and Mitchell Creek. She questioned if Clublink has protocol in place to deal with pesticides in the creek. A representative of the applicant responded by advising that three years was spent developing the environmental policy within Clublink which they would try to make available to the public. This pertains to all aspects of the golf course development and operations. Active surface water monitoring is taking place. Fred Beer, 4945 Westney Road, questioned if they are taking water beyond their permit. Pat Home, 1940 Conc. 8, stated that the applicant promised to put in trees to keep water cold and stop pesticides from flowing into the water. She stated her concern with what is happening to streams and water. She questioned if the smaller homes are to be individually owned or time shared. A representative of the applicant responded by advising that all units will be individually owned. John Veele, residing north of the development, stated his surprise that this golf course will be built on the existing healthy eco-systern. Peter Smith, Bousfield, Dale-Harris, Cutler and Smith Inc., stated that wording has been included in documents concerning the fail.tre of the communal system. Securities will be posted by the developer and a reserve fund will be in place. Cost of default is covered every which way. On behalf of the consulting team and the Kaitlin Group, they will work together to address concerns. ATTACHI~IE/'jT ~_..,f/ TO REPORT ¢ PC ~J - c, i 67 Councillor Brenner requested City staff to review' new MOEE legislation and clarify and ramifications to the City anck/or Region should the communal servicing become tUulty or financially unsustainable. 19. Steve Murray, 2325 R. R. #5, Claremont, stated that there are five or six golf courses within five kilometres. This company is circumveming Planning by going directly to the Ontario Municipal Board. (II) ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:45 p.m. Dated Clerk 68 DELIVERY PLANNING 1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGH ON M1P 5Al AI')'ACHMENT #_ / ,~ TO (416)285-5385 (T) (416)285-7624 (F) SEPTEMBER 29, 2000 MR. N. CARROLL DIRECTOR OF PLANNING CITY OF PICKERING 1 THE ESPLANADE PICKERING ON L1V 6K7 RE: OCT 2 2000 CITY OF PICKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION DURHAM REGION FILE: S-P- 2000-03 CROSS REF.NO.: OPA 2000-05 APPLICANT: CHERRY DOB"NS COVENTURE INC. LOTS: 13-15 REF. NO.: 65261 CITY OF PICKERING Dear Mr.~fr ~2,~c ~L j Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above noted application. Please note our new conditions below. As a condition of draft approval, Canada Post requires that the owner/developer comply with the following conditions: The owner/developer agrees to include on all offers of purchase and sale, a statement which advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox. - The owner/developer will be responsible for notifying the purchaser of the exact Community Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any home sale. - The owner/developer will consult with Canada Post Corporation to determine suitable locations for the placement of Community Mailbox and to indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans. ATrACHMEN-r ~ '~~TO REPORI ~ PD J ~' ~ c The owner/developer will provide the following fbr each Community Mailbox site and include these requirements on the appropriate sen'icing plans: - An appropriately sized sidewalk section (concrete pad) as per municipal standards, to place the Community Mailboxes on. - Any required walkway across the boulevard, as per municipal standards. - Any required curb depressions ~br wheelchair access. The owner, developer further agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location(s), which ma.',' be utilized by Canada Post until the curbs, sidewalks and final grading have been completed at the permanent Community Mailbox locations. This will enable Canada Post to provide mail delivery to new residence as soon as the homes are occupied. I trust that this information is sufficient, however, should you require Further information, please dc, not hesitate to contact me tile above number or mailinu address. Sincerely, Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planning Officer c.c. Barbara Hodgins, Durham Region A:UT1LDRAW.SAM 70 DELIVERY PLANNING 1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGH ON M1P 5Al ATTACl. mENT I% / ~ TO ~:'ORT # PO ~,4 - e t (416)285-5385 (416)285-7624 (F) FEBRUARY 2, 2001 MR. R. TAYLOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT CITY OF PICKERING 1 THE ESPLANADE PICKERING ON L1V 6K7 RECEIVED FEB 5 - 2001 CiTY OF PICKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO RE: DURHAM REGION OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 2000-05/D PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION OPA 00-002/P DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION S-P-2000-03 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS A 26/00 AND A 29/00 MINISTER'S ZONING ORDER AMENDMENT APPLICATION 18-ZO-02900-01 CIIERRY DOV*~'S COVENTURE LTD. PART OF LOTS 12 TO 16, CONCESSION 7 (LANDS SOUTH OF EIGHTH CONCESSION ROAD, NORTH OF DURHAM REGIONAL ROAD NO. 31 AND WEST OF SIDELINE 12) CITY OF PICKERING Dear Mr. Taylor, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above noted application. Please note our new conditions below. As a condition of draft approval, Canada Post requires that the owner/developer comply with the following conditions: - The owner/developer agrees to include on all offers of purchase and sale, a statement which advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a designated Community Mailbox. - The owner/developer will be responsible for notifying the purchaser of the exact Community Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any home sale. - The owner/developer will consult with Canada Post Corporation to determine suitable locations for the placenent of Conmmnity Mailbox and to indicate these locations on the appropriate servicing plans. ATTAGHUE]Tr t--f? TO --... 71 The owncr, dcveloper will provide the tbtlowing l~br each Community Mailbox site and includc these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans: - An appropriately sized side~ alk section tconcrete pad) as per municipal standards, to place the Community Mailboxes on. - Any required walkway across the boulevard, as per municipal standards. - Any required curb depressions tbr wheelchair access. The owner/developer further agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporaU Community Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada Post until the curbs, sidewalks and final grading have been completed at the permanent Community Mailbox locations. This will enable Canada Post to provide mail delivery to new residence as soon as the homes are occupied. I trust that this information is sufficient, however, should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact rne the above number or mailing address. Sincerely, Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planning Officer A:UTI LDRAW.SA M 7© 'ATTACHMENT ~L /z/_ TO REPORT ~ PD, p~2 - c i AU~_24_'O~__}l!57RM DURHAM PLANNING ~E~'T:RIR 905~?~'7~93 TO 9i~543S6~i2 P' ~. 2/3 Greater Toronto ~lrports Authority Lester B. Pea~solq International Airport P.O. Bo~ §031, 3111 Convair Orive Toronto AMF, On~io, Canada LSP 1B2 GTAA August 14. 2000 Ms. Barbm-'.~ Hodgins, MCIP, P,.PP Senior Planner The Regional Municipality of Durham Box 623, 1615 Dundas St.met East Whitby, Ontario LIN 6A3 Dear Ma', Hodgins: Re: Applicatian to Amend the Durham Regional Official Plan, File OPA 2000-005 Cherry Downs Co. Venture Limited I am writing in response to your letter of July 4m requesting ;he Greater Toronto Airpm~s Authority (GTA.A) to comment on thc above-noted Official Plan Amendmem application. Background The GTAA is a private not-for-profit corporation mandated, to operate and develop Le.'ster B, Pearson International AirpmX ~earson Airport) and to work toward an efficient system of airports throughout south-central Ontario. Part of this mandate includes an obligation to communicate regularly with communities and government on matters pertaining to thi~ aystem of AS the operator of Pearson Airport, the OTAA is obligated to establish a nois~ management program, which includes, among other initiative.,, the co-ordination of nobe mitigation pwcedures for aircraft operating to and From Pearson Airp0rr within a ten nautical mile distanc~ from the airport. As part of this program, the OTAA has worked diligently [o ensure that thc imporr~:~ce of lC'cra'son Airport is recognized within the planning framework of applicable Official Plans in neighbouring communities. Cherry Downs Application Th= proposed ~velopment is adjac,nt to tl~ ~stem border of the federal lands (the l>ickering Lands) being ~tained for a possible future airport .ATTACHMENT ~_ REPORT 7'3 .DURHAM PLANNING DEPI-~C~IR 1~. Barbara Hodgin~ Reg~onat Municipality of Durham Re: Ch=try Downs co. Veniom Limited August 14, 2000 Page 2 'Flowcvcr, in ligttt of the number of significant outstanding issues related to the design anti operation of a po~fible ~o~ on ~c Picking L~n~. and the dc~e to which th~se futu~ d~l~ion~ would influ~cc th~ ai~r~'t noise impact at the subject pr~pe~y, it i~ thc view of the GT~ th~ ~e propo~ed ~veIopme~ ~s pr~matm'e and would no; b~ consistent w~h goo~ pl~ning practices. The QTAA would be ple~e~ to ~scuss this ~ub~/sion ancot the no,sc management program Pearson with you or other officios from the ReDon at your convenience. Yours truly, GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORiTY Steve Shaw Vice President, Corporate Affulr~ ~net Communication~ ** TOTAL PRr~.OE ~ 74 'A~ACHM~ ~ /5 .TO ~PORT~ PD ~- o I I,I Tra.s rt Canada Ontario Region Trans~ Canada R~ de i'O~do p~mmes ago0 ¥onge Street Suitc 400 Toronto, Ontario M2N GAS NU. L:~ Tek 416-952-0511 Fax: 416.952-3328 ' P. 2/3 July 27, 2000 M~. Barbara Hodgins, MCIP, RPP Senior Piarmcr The Regional Municipality of Durhaxn Box 623, 1615 Dund~< St. E. Whitby, Ontario LIN 6A3 RECEIVED JUL 2 7 2000 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dcm M.~- Hodgim: Re: Application to Amend the Durham Regional Official Plan, File OPA 2000-005 Chert~ Downs C0¥enture Lt~. Reference is made m your July 4 and July ?, 2000 letters regarding the application by Cherry Downs CoVentum Ltd. to designate a 125 trait residential subdi,,ision in association with the existing Chex~y Downs golf course. As you are aware ~c proposed development is adjacent to the eastern border oft. he federal lands being retained for a possible future airport in Pickering. Accordingly, we remain concerned with any proposed development that would be considered incompatible with airport ope2mfions. Iransport Canada ?ublicalion TP12¢7 "Land Use in the Vicinity of Airports", provides guidelin~ for l~nd uses which would be incompatible with airport opcral:ions. _~_'_'_~eral~ Nois.~ The Official Noise Contoum for a possible future airpot~ at Pick~ rem-~ to be ~ on ~e ofigm~ 1986 ~n~p~ ~way layom ~d naffic ~, ...2 Canad ATI'ACHMENT t / ~' .TO REPORT # PD ~ ~ - c / ' P. 3/3 75 For thc proposexi ~ Do~ res~d~mtial sxxb~v~siom th~ location of the devclopmet~t as depictex~ in the June 2000 £lanningAnaiysis, prepared by BoWel& Dale-Harris, CuQcr & S~ith Inc., wo~ appear to be borderm~ the Noi~ ~xpo~u~ Forecast 30. TP 1247 provid~ that: Annoyance caused by aircraft noise may begin as low as N£F 25. It is recommended that developers be made aware of this fact and that they undertake to so i~form ail prospective tenaras or purchasers of residential units. In addztion, it is suggested that development should not proceed un~zl the resportsible a~thority i~ satisfied thai acoustic tnzuiation features, if required~ have been considered in the buiiding desigr~ Fur'0aermore, we should caution that due to its pro:amity, any new runway Layout reconfiguration could potentially place the subject property at higher NEF contours. Aircraft zoning regulations prokibit the u~e of land outside a/~ort property boun0aries where such land uses are kazardous to a/rcraft operation. Treated effluznt and stormwater retention ponds such as the ones proposed are identified as bixd attractamts. TP1247 provides that reme~al action may be a viable alternative to the e~clusion of a particular ]mad u~e from an area around the ah'pon. Therefore, the proponent ~hould be raqmred to identify mitigating measures designed to reduce r~ attractiveness to bixd~. As you axe aware, the Cherry Do,.~'as property is subject to Ontario Kegulation 102/72 (Minister's Zoning Order), as amended, which applies to lands surrounding a pottmtial fumm airport at Pickerit~. The Depm'tment continues to support the application of ~his Order az it relates to the ~t~ject properts', In addition to thc above, we generally view the development of rehdenfial communities in close proximity, and potmafially under the aircrat~ approach path, to be mcor~istent with good planning pracxic~. If you have any question~ or xexluim fi.~rth~ information, please c[~ not hesitam to contact this office. Yours sincerely Patricia Short-Gall6 l~gional Manager Cn'~atex Toroato Area Programs c_c.- Ms. Joe Muto, Commumty Planner, Mimstery of Municipal Affairs and Homing_ ?G MAY ATTACHMENT #.~/. ~ TO REPORT ~ PD ~(~- o t 15:22 FR DURHAM PLANNING DEPT 905 436 612 TO PICKERING PLNG P,O FACSIMILE COVER PAG The Regional Municipality of Durham P.O. Box 623 Whitby Ont, L1N 6A3 TO: Recipient: Department: Company: Address: Fax #' FROM: Name:, ~.A r,,{C "j' Department: PLANNING Fax#' (905) 436-6612 Telephone#: (905) 728-7731 Number of Pages including cover page: Operator: '"~ ' URGENT F'-"-I SAME DAY ["--I COMMENTS: ORIGINALS OF THIS FAX: I"IMAILED ' [] COURtERED i~AXED O IF YOU EXPERIENCE ANY DIFFICULTIES IN RECEIVING THIS DOCUME PLEASE CALL BACK AS SQQN AS POSSIBLE, A~DDREBSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT 1~ PRIV FROM DISCLOSURE UNDE~ APPLIC, ABLE i~W. IF THE READER OF THI~ WES~AI3~ II INTENDED RECIPIENT, ON THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENOED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DI~E~ DIs'rRIBI..FrlON OR COPYING OF TI.~!S COMMUNIC~?ION 18 87RICTLY PROHIBITED. RECEIVED THIS COMMUNIQATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY' AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL TO US BY POSTAL SERVICE AT THE ADDRESS ABOVE. THAN RECEIVE MAY Z 9 2OlJ1 CITY OF PICKERI. PLANNING AND DFV£LO ~M£NT DEF'A~T~ ATTACHMENT ,~ / ~' TO REPORT# Pi:) ~- -,:_: 77 [qA'r 29 2001 15:23 FR DURHAM, PLANNING DEPT 9e5 436 6612 TO PICKERING PLNG GTAA Greater Toronto Airports Authority Lester ii. Pear, on International Airport ED, Box 6031. 3111 Oonvair Drive Toronto AMF, Ontario, Canada LSP May 22, 2001 NIs. Nancy Rutherford Planning Depart~c,nt Regional Mumcipahty of Durham Box 623 1615 Dunda~ Steer East 4~ Floor, Lung Tower, West Bmlding Wh.itby, ON LIN 6A8 Dear Ms. Rutherford: Re: Proposed Residential Development Cherry Downs Co-Venture I am writing to respond to your request for the Creater Toronto Airports Authority's (GTAA) comments on the JADE Acoustics Inc. Environmental Nmse Analysis on the above-noted development. Although the report's interpretation of the noise exposure a: the subject site a~corcling to the 1986 Transport Canada NEF map appears to be ¢orre~, the OTAA does not share the author's view that the 1986 contour map ncc. essaaily reflects a "worse case" scenario for a possible future airport at thc Picketing site. Should the future development of an airport on the Picketing lands proceed, the noise impact at the subject site would be very sensitive to a number of key design and operational considerations, These include the role of the aiq:mrt, volume of traffic to be served, aircraft mix, number of runways, orientation of thc runways, separation/staggering of parallel runways and runway utilization (particularly at night when the potential for aircraft noise annoyance is greatest). Any change(s) in these assumptions could result in the subject property being exposed, to noise levels equal to or higher than that depicted by the 1986 contour map. I would also like to draw to your attention a report prepared by Dalila C- Criusti, P.Eng. of JADE Acoustics dated February 15, 1994. Th.is JADE report inCLieates that the NEF contour map "is not an official .map because the airport does not exist and them is no master plan for the airport." It goes on to state "In view of the fact that the Picketing Airport is not y~t constructed and definite plans for its construction have not been made, it is difficult to accurately pmdi~, thc expected NEF contours for the proposed Chero, Downs development." This report appears to contradict the February 28, 2001 ~ADE Acoustics report, It is also important to mention the recent f~ral Government decisions that have been made with respect to the Picketing lands. In late March 2001 part of the Picketing lands to the north and 75 MAY 29 2~01 ATTACHMENT ~.~/{.- TO REPORT# PD ,~-tDt 15:23 PR DURHAM PLANNING DEPT 905 436 6612 TO PICKERING PLNG P.03/03 Ms. Nancy Rutherford Regional Municipality of Durham Re: Cherry Downs Inc. May 22, 2001 Page 2 west were identified by the Government of Canada for preservation for park purposes because they are on the Oak Rigdes Moraine and have environmental features considered worthy of protection. While this does not affect the feasibility of an airport being developed on the r~mainder of the l>ickenng Lands, preservation of the northm'n and western parts of the Picketing lands in a natural state means that runways will be located on the gour. hern and eastern parts of the site. This means that air traffic will be proximate to the subject lands. In addition, on April 5, 2001 Transport Canada confirmed that the GTAA has been asked to conduct, on behalf of Transport Canada. interim planning which is required before the Government ~cides whet. her to proceed with an airport on the Picketing lands, Transport Canada further confirmed that if the Govemm~m decides to build an Bi~ort, the OTAA would be called upon to develop and Operate it. The OTAA, therefore, has begun preliminary work to initiate a Master Plan for an airport on the Picketing lands. This Master Plan will outline the details of the proposed airport, including all aspects of its runway configuration and other physical facilities. The Master Plan will also address land use planning issues related to the airport and surrounding lands and will include e~;tcnsive public input. The owner of the Cherry Downs property will have the opportunity to participate in that process. As we have indicated before, in light of the number of significant outstanding issues related to the design and operation of a possible airport on the Picketing Lands and thc degree to which these future decisions would influ[mcc the aircraft noise impa~t st the subject property, it is the view of the GTAA that the proposed development is premiittlre and would not be consistent with good planning practices. In closing, I am pleased to advise that on May 14~ the Ontario Municipal Board granted the GTAA party status on the hearing with re. sp~t to this development application. Your~ truly, GR.F~TER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORrrY ~Stcvc Shaw Vice President, Corporate Affairs and Communications c. Start Stein, Osier Hoskin & Harcourt Cherry Downs - Jt~.DE Study - May Z2,, 2001 ** TOTAL PRGE.O ** TOTAL PRGE.I ~ ~qU{. 1~4 't~1~ 04:09F~f'1 DURHP~'I [:~_F~'~HTHG DEPT P.4/6 THE DURHAM DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD, Facilities 5erwc~s 4.00 Taunton Road East x,~/hitDy. ©nra:lo L 1R 2K~ ~lephonc', (905i 036-5~00 1-~00-265-396~ ATTACHMENT ~ /'~ .TO REPORT t PD__..~-? - :-' ' June 26, 2000 Planning Department Box 623 1615 Dundas Street. East 4th floor Lang Tower, West Building Whitby, ontario L1N 6A3 The Regional Municipality, Attn. Ms. Barbara Hod-runs Dear Ms. Hodgins, New Application to Amend the Durham Regional Official Plan OPA 2000-005 ClubLink Corporation Lots 13-15, Concessions Vll Ci_~' of Pickering~ Staff have reviewed the information on the above noted an& under the mandate of the Durham District School Boar& have no objections. Yours truly, Christine Nancekivell, Planner I:.../PLNG/OPA,'ROPA 00.005 Pickenng 8O THE DURttAM DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD l~acilities Sen/ices 400 ] .aLintor! Road East V %itby, Ontario L I R 2t4,3 i eL v; (905) 6~6.5500 ~ .800-255-396B Fax ~'905} 666-6439 January 29,2001 ATTACHMENT #~_ ./~' TO REPORT # PD ~,,9~2 - C t The Corporation of the City of Pickering Planning Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attn. Mr. Ron Taylor Dear Mr. Taylor, Durham Region Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-5/D Picketing Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 00-002/P Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 26/00 and a 29/00 Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-ZO-02900-01 Cher~ Downs CoVenture Ltd Lots 12-16, Concessions VII (Lands south of Eighth concession Road, north of Durham Regional Road No. 31 and west of Sideline 12) __~ of Picketing Staff have reviewed the information on the above noted and, under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, have no objections. Yours truly, Christine Nancekivell, Planner I:.../PLNG/OPA/ROPA 00-005a Pickering ATTACHMENT# /? TO REPORT ~ PD ~.3 - o ~ The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department Box 623 !615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor Lang Tower West Building Whitby, Ontario Canada L1N 6A3 · Tel: (905) 728-7731 Fax: (905) 436-6612 A. L. Georgleff, MClp, RP~ Commissioner of Planning June 21,2000 Mr. Paul Dockrill Real Estate Assistant Real Estate Services RECEIVED JUN 3 0 2000 LAND USE PLANNING Hydro. One Networks Inc. 7676 Woodbine Avenue, Suite 300 Markham ON L3R2N2 Dear Sir: 2 5 ZOO0 CITY OF PICKERING PIOKERING, ONTARIO RECEIVED 2000 CITY OF PICKERING PLANHING a, DEVELOPMENT' DEPARTMENT Re: New Application to Amend the Durham Regional Official Plan Durham Region File No.: OPA2000-005 Applicant: ClubLink Corporation /_~.,~ Lot: 13-15 COncession: 7 Municipality: City of Pickerin~ Enclosed are copies of this application for your review. The purpose of the appficationis to provide policies for the use of communal services, and to designate a 125-unit country residential subdivision on communal services. Please fOrward your comments to the Region and the area municipality within 30 days, and :call. me if you have any questions..n. . ' ,, ,"'( Yours truly, ~ ~.________________~~-¢__ Barb'ara Hodgins, MCIP,"'RPP Senior Planner 2 Encl. Application Form and Proposed Amendment Conceptual Plans (Figures 4 & 5) ssment and en:'ircnmcntal '1 82 Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. 'ATTACHMENTt. ~ D TO PuF-PORIt PD_ g2r2 -c, ~ Page 7 Additional Procedural Information Specific to these Applications The subject applications have been appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board by the applicant, Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd., and are therefore planned to be considered by the Ontario Municipal Board at a future Board Heating. A preheating conference is scheduled for Friday, March 30, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. in the Picketing Council Chambers. Should you wish to be involved with the CherTy Downs CoVenture Ltd. ongoing appeal, you should attend the March 30, 2001 preheating conference. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The applicant's submitted technical reports (a planning analysis, an environmental impact study, an agricultural assessment, a functional servicing report and servicing concept report, and a traffic study) and all large-scale plans submitted by the applicant, are available for viewing in the City of Picketing Planmng & Development Department. If further information is required regarding these applications, please contact Ron Taylor, the Planner who is responsible for these files at the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department at (905) 420-4617, extension 2091. RST/pr Enclosure City Clerk PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS IS THE ONw~Y NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC MEETING YOU WILL RECEIVE. SHOULD YOU WISH TO ATTEND, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU MARK THIS DATE ON YOUR CALENDAR. ~ c:,!~. F::-~n &opro',r-d/Ollk,mt Plan/ka',;,,a ....... _,- ~ uno Nt~lwor.;-~ Inc. has :-.?- C'B,!,SC:UO,'~ lo ~ subiect d~:unmrrm in ;- ~t; .- .... - ' ' - Adminiskal AUG 04 '00 04:09Prq DURHAM PLAHHIH4 DEPT P..5, 6 July 24~ 2000 ATTACHMEhrT ~ ;2 / TO REPORT ~ PD .2,~ - c~ / The Regional Municipality ot Durham HEALTH DEPARTMENT Head Office 1'615 Dundas Street East Suite 210 W kirby, O ntan o ' Canada L1N 2L1 (905) 723-8521 Fax: (905) 723-6026 Ton (905) 6B6-2740 1-800-841-2729 Durham Region planmng Department Box 623 1615 Dundas St E. 4th Floor Whitby, Ont, LIN 6A_3 Attention: Barbara Hod~ns Dear Madam: O.P.A 2000-005 ClubLink Corporation Lot 13 - t ~ Conc. ~ Pickering The above-noted apphcation has been investigated bv this Department and we offer the.fo]!owing for your consideration' (i) the proposed.private sewage disposal system will be. sized for >10,000 litres/day wh/cix ~411 require the remew and approval of the Ministry of Environment for a large onsite sewage works/communal system. Feel free to contact the undersigned ff more information is needed. Karl Kiproff, B.A,S, (E.H.), C.P.H_I_(C) Public Health Inspector KK/do ,ATTACHMENT ,~.~ 2 TO REPORT ~, PD,.~_...~_- o / (~THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORI~ August 18, 2000 CFN 31539 Ms. Barb Hodgins Planning Department The Regional Municipality of Durham 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor Long Tower, West Building P.O. Box 623 Whitby, ON L1N 6A3 Dear Ms. Hodgins: Re.' New Application to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan File No. CPA 2000-005 Part Lots 13 to 15, Concession 7 City of Pickering (Clubllnk Corporatlon) RECEIVED AU0 2 1 2000 CITY OF PIOKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT We acknowledge receipt of the above noted application and cannot recommend approval at this time. The proposal is to provide policies for the use of communal services and to designate a 125 unit residential community in association with the expanded Cherry Downs Golf Course. The submission includes among other documents a report entitled "Recreational Residential Community Planning Analysis" prepared by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. This report provides a general Summary of the proposal and notes That amendments to the City of Pickering Official Plan, the City's Zoning Bylaw and a Ministers Zoning Order are required for the residential development. The proposal notes that the golf course club house and expansion has been previously approved. TRCA staff were involved extensively in the planning history since August 1993 when the applicant applied for the golf course expansion, four residential pods, a commercial block and communal servicing. After years of discussions, the golf course expansion and club house component only, of the previous application, received conceptual approval by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). This conceptual approval was sufficient to SUpport the TRCA's recommendation for approval of the planning applications for the golf course expansion subject to conditions which have not yet been satisfied. We note that permits under Ontario Regulation 158 have not been obtained for the golf course expansion, This new proposal does not appear to involve any changes to the golf course expansion configuration. However, with the new residential component a number of servicing changes are being contemplated including the use of treated water from the communal servicing system to irrigate the golf course as well as the construction of stormwater management facilities. These changes may potentially have a negative impact on the Mitchell and Spring Creeks which flow through the subject site. Ms. 8arb Hodgins August 18, 2000 85 The planning analysis report provided suggests that a Communal Servicing Feasibility study is being prepared. At a minimum, the report should provide the necessary information to support the proposal for combined communal servicing for the residential and golf course development scheme, This study should include among other matters, information on the location of the facility and various servicing components (ie. pipeline crossings), t~e impacts on water quality and quantity and, impacts on base flow of the adjacent creeks. Also we note that the current hydrology and hydraulic models have to be updated to support the proposed development. The current models do not take into account this development. We identify that regional control may be required given the outcome of this update. We provide the following specific comments on the development proposal based on the plans provided with the application and contained within the planning analysis report. The ~esidential development is proposed on tableland and for the most part is separated from the natural systems by the existing and proposed golf course expansion. The exception is with the larger residential pod which abuts a tableland woodlot and a podion of the Spring Creek Valley. The woodlot is part of the Environmentally Significant Area and the ddpline of the woodlot has not been staked. Sufficient ecological buffers would be recluired to protect the sensitive species within the woodlot(ie, Red Shouldered Hawk). An Environmental lmr~act Study would be required to determine the exIent to which the residential pod may have to be revised to maintain the features and functions of the woodlot, Further, aDpropriate ecological buffers have not been determined from the Spring Creek Valley in accordance with the Authority's Valley and Stream Corddor Management Program. This policy document requires a minimum buffer of 10 metres from the greater of the stable top of bank and/or t~e Environmentally Significant Areas. The smaller residential pod containing larger iots serviced by private septic systems appears to be setback from the Spring Creek. However as part of the discussions on the golf course expansion proposal, modifications were being considered on the Spring Creek in order to move an existing pond off line and enhance the valley corridor. These considerations may result in the need for a greater setback for some of the lots within the smaller residential pod. The site plan provided also identifies the location of a roadway to facilitate the clubhouse and parking north of Spring Creek and south of the western tributary on the subject site. The roadway appears to encroach within the western tributary corridor. The limits of this corddor needs to be confirmed and the road sufficiently set back in accordance with the AI. rthority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program noted above, A new pathway is proposed connecting the residential pod with the proposed roadway to the north. The location of the pathway needs to be confirmec~ in the field To ensure that the fin 31 alignment would not have a negative impact on the Spring Creek Corridor. 86 Ms. Barb-Hod~ins ATTACHMENT # ,,~ 2 TO REPORT~ PD ~,~-c~ I - 3 - August 1 B, 2000 The planning analysis states that a stormwater management pond is proposed to serve the larger residential precinct and a tentative location is noted between hole Nos. 2 and 17. Depending on The final location, l~ere may be impacts to portions of Spring Creek. Staff will require apreliminary stormwater management report for the subject proposal. As noted prior, the golf course expansion w~ approved with a number of conditions which have not been satisfied, The residential development is inextricably tied to the golf course because of the required water budget analysis including communal servicing but aJso addressing irrigation, stormwater management and the resulting environmental impacts of that activity. The planning analysis presented for the residential component provides a general indication Of the changes to the water budget scheme related to communal but does not provide sufficient information to address the outstanding conditions with the golf course expansion(see attached letter) and the residential proposal Given the above outstanding information, staff reiterate that we cannot support the proposed planning applications at this time. We would be prepared to meet with the applicant to discuss our comments in detail and to address the issues noted above. If you have any questions please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Plans Analyst Development Services SecMon Ext. 5306 RW/fa. CC: Planning 'Department, Town 'of Pickering Jane Clohecy, TRCA Janet Foster, TI{CA TOTRL P. ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PD...._..~ 87 THE DURHAM CATHOLIC DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Ca.rhohc' Ea'~cg[totz: Le~rtzm~, ~ Living, m Faith October 13, 2000 Barbara Hodgins Current Operations Branch Planning Department Tine Regional Municipaltiy of Durham 1615 Dundas St. E., Box 623 4TM Floor Lang Tower, West Building Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 RECE VED CITY OF PICNEfllNG PI,-~NNING AND DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT Dear Ms. Hodgins: Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2000-03 Cherry Downs CoVenture Inc. Lot 13-15, Concession 7 City of Pickering Ref. No.: 65257 At the Regular Board Meeting of Tuesday, October 10 2000 the following motion was approved: "THAT the Durham Catholic District School Board indicate in its comments to the Regional Municipality of Durham and tine City of Picketing that the Board has no objection to Plan of Subdivision S-P-2000-03" Yours truly, Walter Yewchyn, MCIP, RPP Superintendent of Education - Support Services cc: N. Carroll, City of Pickering WY:GON:SMR:smr O3u Rossland Road ~kes[. L)~nal~,~. Omar,o L ii 'C4 Telephone ~9i)5 ~ ~76-¢,i ~11 Suppor', Se~ ', ~ce~. Fax , ~ ~5, 576-/9SI G~nlA Andrews BA M EC D~rector ct Edu~t~oc, $ecreta~Treasurer ATTACHMENT ~_~ EEPORT # PD_ -~'~'~- ~/'" W~ZZ:TT 000Z £Z '6n~ S£Pb6ZS90S : 'ON X~B SN~03 28h~ 9O ATTACHMENT A'I-TA~HMElgT # ~ ~,~-~TO 28~ .-) ATTACHME1TI* ~. ~/-'/ ,TO REPOITI' t PD ~..o..~ _ c~ / ATTAC~ f ~ ~ TO REPORT ~ PD.~.,~;~..,=~~ 93 WILLIAM P. W][LDER SCOTIA PLAZA SUFrE q802, P.O.Box 105 40 KING STREET W, TORONTO, ONTARIO M5H 3Y2 February ist 2001 Tel: q16-367-9833 Fax: q16-367-900~ Ms Catherine Rose City of Pickering Planning & Development Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ont LlV 6K7 RECEIVED FEB 0 2 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLAN i',Jl hJ,_~ AHE DEVELOPMEN¥ ©EPARTMENT Dear Catherine: Re: Cherry_ Downs Unfortunately I cannot attend the public meeting on February 8th with respect to the Cherry Downs application to build 125 condos. I am writing to express my opposition to this development for the following reasons: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) It is against the official plan and therefore the official plan, which has only recently been adopted, requires amendment. The development takes place on prime agricultural farmland which is also against the official plan of the Durham Region. It is also against the official plan with respect to Durham's OPA 60, relating to communal; sewerage systems. The proposed communal sewerage plant is located to the north east of the proposed condos and lends itself to service another 125 condos north of the proposed condos. I have had a Dun & Bradstreet review of the developer and it is not financially sound to undertake such a development - "they are rated slow pay". 'ATI'ACHMENT #_ ~,2 ~ TO -,~ REPORT # PD ~2o2 - o I Page 2. February 1, 2001 Finally, all the residents in the north part of Pickering have been opposed to this development for seven years - nothing has changed during this period - so it is wasting everyone's time and money. ]~ would appreciate being kept informed of any further developments. Thank you for your co-operation. Yours very truly, ATTAOHMEN? r ~2 ~ TO R£P0~7 ~ PD'-'~-'2:2 - ~ ~ 9S WILLIAM P. WILDER SCO~A PLAZA SUCRE q802, P.O.Box 105 q0 KING STREET W, TORONTO, ONTARIO MSH 3Y2 March 22, 2001 Tel: 416-367-9833 Fax: 416-367-9004 Ms Catherine Rose City of Pickering Planning & Development Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade, Picketing, Ont LlV 6K7 MAR 2 6 Z001 OlTY OF PICKERIN PICKERIN~3, ONTARIO i,,~A~ Z U ZOO1 DFVELOPM~N~ ©EPARTMENT Dear Catherine: Re: Cherr3L Downs ! was quite disappointed in the information meeting on March 6th. The consultants did not seem to know many answers or, if they did, they were not telling. ! was wondering how long their permit is good for to add another 18 holes. They have had approval to build these additional holes for almost five years. Surely there has to be a limitation on this approval? Secondly, once they submit a plan for the new 18 golf holes and the new condos, is this plan locked in. Can they move the layout on the north part of the property around to suit their own purposes, such as applying for another 110 condos? I would appreciate your comments, Kindest regards, Via Fax: 905-436-6612 August 23, 2000 Ms. Rarb Hodgins Senior Planner Durham Region ATrAgHME~# e~ 7 Re: ClubLink Aoplication Dear Ms. Hodgins, It is my understanding that ClubLink has submitted a development application to the Region - apparently for housing the be built on the Cherry Downs property in North Picketing. I have als0 learned that there will be a meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, August 29a~ to discuss this matter. I am sending this letter since I am not available to attend this meeting. And I wanted to raise the following points in this regard. · I have been opposed, as have hundreds of other area residents, to the previous applications submitted by ClubLink; · I have received no notice regarding this current application, which is somewhat surprising sinceiI have repeatedly placed my name on the record as being an interested party; · This proposed development, if it bears any similarity to previous applications by ClubLlnk, is clearly in conflict with policies of both the Region and the Town of Pickering. I would appreciate receiving any relevant information regarding this matter. And 1 would ask for the right to be heard on this ma~ter, prior to any action being taken by the Region, Thank you for you ~operation and assistance in this regard. Jack McGinnis 2585 8th Concession Claremont, LIY lA2 Home phone - 90,%649-2278 Work phone- 905~427-0009 Fax 90~428-8074 February 2, 2001 ATrACHMEBrI' #~TO ,. REPORT t PD~ Planning and Development Department City of Pickering Picketing Civic Complex One the Esplanade Picketing, ON L1 \? 6K7 Re: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd I cannot attend the Public Inf,ormation meeting for this proposed development, due to conflicting business plans, but l would like your Department to give consideration to my brief` written comments. I have lived in North Pickering for more than 20 years I currenth' live about 1,400 metres from the subject property. I regularh, walk in the Claremo~nt Conservation Area, which is adjacent to the subject property and also to mx' property There is little doubt that the proposed housing development is completely i}qappropriate for this area, and will also lower the value of my home. Some years ago when Pickering was working on its OfFicial Plan I spent quite a bit of time, over many months, as a member of the "rural working group". One of the key tasks addressed by this group was to provide the Plannina Department with recommendations regarding 'intelligent, planned growth limits' tbr N~rth Pickerinu. ARer much discussion and debate, appropriate numbers (i.e., housing units, per year) xv~re adopted. The proposed Cherry Downs housing development is clearly in conflict with the spirit and the letter of this work and the Plan adopted by Picketing. i could of course go on at length about other aspects of'this proposal. But I will simply ask that your Department look ver~' caref,ullv when considering the merits of this project, and thev compare to the negative impact on existing residents. If, you apply good planning principles in .',,our consideration. 1 am confident that you 'will oppose the various requested amendments. Thank you, Jack McGinnis 2585 8th Concession Claremont, ON L1Y lA2 ATTACHIVENT # ~ ~ TO RF. PORT~PD ~P-°t Or~en~x~ end ~ Rat,,,payer~ cJo 2370 Oreenv/ecxl, ON. L~H 1 HO. Mr. Ron Taylor, Planner, Picketing Planning aaa D~velopment Department, Pickerlng Civic Complex, One the Esplanade, Pl~edng, Ontado. L1V $K7. Fei=mary 8, 2001 Dear Mr. Taylor, Re: Cherry D~wne CoVentgm Ltd. Development Aeelloaflone The primary objective of the Greenwood and Area Ratapayare A~soclation (GARA) is "to promote eli measures that enhance the beauty, safety and general quality of life In the Greenwood area and lo oppose all conditions or measures tlnat diminish these features." Thl Gfl~'fCCx~ lad ~ Retepayers Association unequivocally opposes the subject development proposal. 8oma of our masons am: The location, ac. ale and scope do not conform to either the City's or Durham Region's Official Plans. It would encourage and Increase u~an sprawl outsld~ of defined urban areas, It would have a negatNe affect on wildlife habitats and natural watercourses. introduction of communal servicing would certainly affect and possibly compromise the water Clualtty and supply ol' current residents, The proposal contravenes Durham Region's standards and re<tulrements for communal servicing, Approval of communal servicing would set a very dangerous pmcodent, opening the door tm all manner of ill-conceived plans to blanket the countryside with randomly placed subdivisions of 'rural estate lifestyle' homes. It would increase tretfic volumes, To summadse, the subject proposal does not enhance any aspect of the rural lifestyle enjoyed by residents of north Picketing, We trust that bur City Council will continue to supporl the use of communal servicing only In existing communities, and only If there Is an environmental or health hazard. I am unable to attend the Put31ic Information Meeting $che<luled for tonight, but re{;ILIIst that these comments be entered Into the public record, I would be happy to discuss this issue at your conveniancJ~. Thank you, J~e~flMefltsug~ Chair, GARA Tel: g05.427-B578 FAX: 905-427-.467~ Trensmltted by FAX cc: Mayor Ar,hum end C~ty Councillor~ ATTAOH~ ' ~.~?0 P~'PO~T ~ PD~ Mr. Ron Taylor, Planner, Pickering Planning and Development Department, Pickenng Civic Complex, One the Esplanade, Pickenng,Ontano. L1V 6K7 February 16, 2001 Dear Mr. Taylor, Re: Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. Development Application Please be advised that as residents of Greenwood we are opposed to the Cherry Downs development proposal. The following is a list of issues: 1. W~th respect to growth and settlement; the scale, location, and form of the proposed development is not consistent with the goals set out in the Pickering Official plan nor Durham Region's Official Plan. 2. It will have an adverse impact on the natural environment, including natural watercourses and wildlife. 3. The development is locatecl in the Agricultural Reserve. 4. The proposed on-site communal system will set a precedent that will promote further development that is inappropriate for the rural area. 5. The impact of communal wastewater treatment and water supply systems on private wells in the vicinity is unknown. 6. This development will promote an unwanted increase in traffic volumes. The Cherry Downs Development proposal does not enhance the rural character of North Picketing. Our rural and agricultural areas should be strongly protected. City Council and its' Planning Department should support the use of communal services only in existing communities where a health or environmental hazard is posed. We appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely, /~/, Peter Shatalow ~ Louise Cranfield 2405 Concession 6, Greenwood, L0H 1H0 Transmitted by fax CC Mayor Arthurs, City Councillors CiTy ~... 100 ATTACHMENT ~' ~ / TO REPORT t PD ,.7~ - ~, / Pickering Planning Dept. 1 The Esplanade Pickering ON LlV 6K7 Reference: Cherry Downs Co-Venture application and appeal of OPA 60 - 5 2 CITY OF PlO PICKERING, Dear Madams and Sirs: I am a resident of the hamlet of Greenwood in the City of Pickering and t have concerns about the development being re-proposed by Cherry Downs Co-Venture. I am not totally opposed to development in Pickering. But my concerns are as follows: Official Plan: No plan is perfect. Once you write one and it is accepted, you should attempt to follow it with reason. In my opinion, this application is grossly at odds with the official plan in terms of its location, and the size and the potential for insidious growth. Stick to your plan about where you want development in the City, and how much growth you allow over time. This one is too big and in the wrong place. Water In: In a related letter to the MOE, I indicated that the town not only does not supply water to the residents in this area, there is little indication they plan to do so. Thus we depend on our wells. This development, and any development of the golf course will consume sufficient water that our wells will be further threatened (some are dry now), and the creeks will be reduced substantially threatening the flow in cold-water streams such as Mitchell creek and Duffin's creek. Water Out: Humans produce sewage, and there is no trunk sewer in the area. Thus, the treated effluent from the sewage will end up in the creeks and water table in the vicinity. I find this unacceptable. The water in my well is not perfect, but we should not deliberately further threaten it. Unless this development can install a sewage treatment plan capable of cleaning the water so thoroughly the residents can drink the effluent, I remain unconvinced that the development will not pollute both the water table and the creeks. Potential: This may be the thin edge of the wedge, in the sense that once the applicant attains success of this scaled-down development, they will reapply for their originally intended larger one. They need to be turned back before this goes any further. Continuous reapplication: We have dealt with this application before. Personally I have attended meetings at council on this very subject. Why again? Do we not have a process that says no and means no? Shall we allow corporate deep pockets to continuously reapply for ess~nf'ially the same thing, thus wearing down the constituency or perhaps even catching it unawares? I urge you to once again defy t,~his application, and reject it. Philip F Mahon, P. Eng. 3415 Greenwood Rd., RR1 Locust Hill, ON L0H 1J0 905-686-8003 cc R Johnson, Regional Councillor D Pickles, City Councillor - b DEVEL< ; ATTACHMENT REPORT 101 1750 Central Street. Claremont. Ontario. LiY iBI. 13/3/;01. 'i'o Pickering Planning Department. Although the public sector of our population has made it clear that the ma. jorit)' is against the Cherry Downs Development. this council sees fit. with Xtavor Arthurs in the lead, to return to the question. I would like to state my avid objection to this development for tile same reasons council has heard repeatedly: i.e. sprawl, environmental issues, etc.. RECEIVED CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 10o REPORt' ~ PD._~.~.0 I t750 Central Street Claremont, Ontario LIY 1 B1 (905) 649-2033 Dear Ron, Unfornmately, meetings will be held mhen I am away. Thus lhis let~r lo let you tmow tlmt I mn stiIt ver~- concerned about lhe outcome of decisions made ~ our repre~ntatives about the Cherry. Drm-ns hounding and dewelopment issues. To tttlow even one house to be ereetad on these lands would jeopardize the integrity of die area as~l the wishes of the major- ity of the people who ;ne mppo~od to be represented !~,' those in K~p taban growth where it is supposed to be ~, definition, if nothing else. Tile urbmi area below tim 4th still llas much space for growth as I understand it. There is no ~eason to consklar dem'oying water sheds, ~ildlffe, or any other aspects of this lmamifid, environmentally ~nsitive region. Po~ver and money should m)t dictate what ehoic~ are made. Insight and msdom shmtld be used, wilh power and mone3, as resourc~s~ Io make approprime choices. Sincerely, ATTACHMENT~ -~ T0 REPORT # PD___~,-~' - ~ i 103 R.R.# 5 Claremont, Ontario. L1Y 1A2 March 14, 2001. Pickering Planning Department. 1 The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario. L1V 6K7 RECE)VED CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMEf! DEPARTMENT Re: Cherry_Downs CoVenture Ltd. Develo men~tication First, I wish to state that I oppose the Cherry Downs CoVenture application for many reasons. Water is my major concern. My home on 13 acres is serviced by a drilled well and a septic system and to date there have been no problems1 However, adding another 125 homes is liable to negatively affect the quantity and quality of my water and that of my neighbours. That is a very real concern among the rural residents in the area being considered. Can anyone guarantee that our water supply will remain abundant if this development is allowed to go ahead? No one has a comprehensive picture of how much water is available in the subject area - not the City, not the Region, and not the Province. When you take into account the existing golf course, plus the expanded golf course, the communal water and sewerage system to service 116 homes and the wells for the other 9 homes, it is apparent that the applicant's proposed development would vastly increase the amounts of water used. No one knows for certain if sufficient water is available, or for how long. Can anyone guarantee that the groundwater won't be deleteriously affected and that the quality of our welt water will remain good, as it is now? Whether the proposed houses use septic systems or a communal sewage system, a lot of effluent would be entering the ground. I think there's a good reason why rural homes using wells and septic systems are built on large lots: i.e., generally one or two acres, or more. The ground can only handle so much. The land in question is zoned Permanent Agricultural Reserve. The citizens who provided input into drafting the Official Plan obviously saw no reason to suggest that a zoning change be made, nor did the citizens call for the population of rural Pickering to be increased so drastically or so quickly. 104 ATTACHMENT# -~ TO REPORT ~ PD ;2 ¢~ - c / The Official Plans of both Durham and Pickering allow for expansion of hamlets. However, this is not a hamlet expansion plan. This is not a plan that conforms in any way that I can see and it would consume almost all of Pickering's rural population targets through to the year 2016. This kind of urban-style development can be accommodated in other parts of Pickering. It is not approprate for a rural settlement area. Permitting it would definitely change the rural landscape, which both the City and the Region have deemed worthy of protection. In conclusion, I ask you to keep these points in mind when making your decisions and recommendations: 1) The application proposal is non-conforming, the proposed housing is not needed and the rural residents, in particular, are not in favour of urbanizing North Pickering; 2) No one knows if the water systems would be over-used and rural residents depend on adequate well water; and 3) Allowing this type of urban development to encroach into the rural area promotes urban sprawl. Sincerely, Susan M. Mclnerney RECEIVED CI-f'V OF PICKERIkJG ~: ,~r~;rd/f,O & DEVELOP[viEN7 DE PA RTtvlEr'4] ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PD~ 105 March 15/01 City's Planning & Development Department One The Esplanade Pickering Ont. L1 V 6K7 Ron Taylor In your consideration of Cherry Downs CoVentures proposal of 125 residential dwelling units in rural nodh Pickering, please except my opposition due to the following. 1. The communal sewage systems location and the prevailing North West wind will !eave a constant reminder, "my new neighbour is a sewage plant." 2. The location of the communal sewage system may contaminate Mitchelle Creek 3. The location of the communal sewage system may contaminate my well water. Please consider my concerns when making your decision. Thank You 423338 Ontano Limited c/o Doug Cherry 4150 Sideline 12 RR5 Pickering, Ont. L1Y 1A2 106 'A'I"rACHMENTd ,~g' TO REPORT d' PD ,~,~ - ~ / RECEIVE CITY OF Pi( liN( PLANNING & DEVELOP, F=,~EPARTMENT ATTACHMFNT# ~:~ ~ TO REPORT # PD~ - ~ I 107 108 ATTACHMENT t~ ..~_~7 TO REPORT # PD '.?.o~- o j Kath~jn j. Dean 1,58 Montgomery Avenue Toronto, Ontar/o M4R 1E2 phone / tel {416) 486-6192 fax / telecopi, -kavd e an(~,syrnpatico, ca FAX Date: August 26~ 2000 To/.4: Barb ttodgins, Senior i~lanner, Durham ~.gi$'~ 07t~ ~o~o-oo~<' From / De:' Kathryn Dean~ Ontario Citizen / Resident of the GT.4 Re/Au Sujet de: Cb. err!1 Downs Co-Venture Ltd. Application to Amend Durham a~eg~on OP 605 J~egional File Number OPA 2000.00S No. of i~ages (incl. this cover sheet) No. de ~vages (incluant la couvertureJ: As a citizen of .the Greater Toronto Area, who is ex erie ~ . to, cation and ~rresDo-~-'~,- · _ _ . P ricing, the adverse · '~ ,,~,,~u tana s~ewardshi e ec spraw~ ! am writing to n--':~ ...... :P ''ffi ts of urban . ~.- "_" ,-,.,,-, GU o m firm ODOositi aOove-mentioned develo~-r~ement ~ -~ - on to the ~ ..... ,, v aza homes on Che Downs' Gl course lands. A. Re--sorts for Opposing This Development 1. Cherry Downs Co-Venture Ltd. has applied to be exempted from GPA 60 ha order to circumvenl Durham Rog/oh's wise prohibition of commune servicing/n rural areas except for health or environmentE reasons - but the proposed 125-home development w/il do extreme u,~n~ rnar wouia outwe/ h the damn e that this deveIo ment would e etrate. Su.burban housing developments of the kind Chef Downs plans to build m-e of tko "sprawl" type - a community planteXerd in the middle of a rural region, but close enough to the metropolitan region of Toronto that ATTACHMENT REPORT # PE~ Ch~ rrg Dowms 2 it will rn~lt/ply car ~e ~ residen~ d~ to a~ from Toronto, pol~ting air and wate~ays T~se ~hicles are ~ta~o's nu~er one source of s~g-c~sing pollution, accounting for approximately 30 percent of smog precursors - ni~ogen ~des ~d volatile 109 2. Increased demand for roadways. Increased car use results in increased demand for roadways and highways - and highways mult/ply pr/rate vehicle use, resulting in a vicious circle of increased car use, more roads, and even more car use and higher and higher leve/s of air and water and soil pollution (including run-off from heavily salted winter roads). How would you be Planning to stop this c~cte by acceding to Cherry Dowr~s' rec2~estP Any acquiescence on this would m~tke no sertse. 3. The increased road building and sprawling housing developments that would result from bowing to Cherry Down~' appeal will des'troy acres of prime farmZand, which is becoming a scarce commodity in the GTA. Between 1976 and 1996, 150,000 acres of farmla.nd were lost in the GTA. At that raze (almost one acre every hour!J, we will lose another 165,000 acres in the GTA (most of the rest) by the year 2021.'~ In an era of climate change, when international food sources are threatened by extreme weather conditions and countries ail over the world are paving farmland at breakneck speed, it is foolish to destro!y Canada's vertj best. 4. The Cost of Urban Sprawl According to the Report of the GTA Task Force (the Golden Report),a urban sprawt of the outdated Cherrad Downs' var/ety w//i cost GTA taxpayers $12 b/il/on EXTRA in init/al infrastructure costs over the next 25 years~ and WILL COST GTA TAXPAYERS ONE BILLION DOLLARS EXTRA EVERY YEAR FOREVER in maintenance and service costs. ~ 9£¢n Doora' (Report of the Eavirmm:enlal Conmdssioner of Omario) (Toroato: Queen's Park, 1997). : GTA F~eml/ons of Agriculture. GTA Agricultural Economic l~pac! Study, 19 November 1999, pp. ii and iv. ~ Report of the GTA Ta.~k Force (Goldca Rcporl), Toroalo: l~ublic.alioa~ OIdario. January 1996, p. 111. ~ Dmcd from 1995. 110 SAT .ATTACHMENT # '3 ~' TO REPORT # PD oL-~ ,-~ - © i Down~ - Co~en~ bu K, Dean The developer of the proposed urban sprawl might atterrtpt to Justify their request for comma~nat servicing by pointing to Section 13.2.$ of the Durham Regional Official Plan, which states that country residential subdivisions, which are limited in both size a_nd number, may be permitted by amendment to that Plan, subject to established criteria. However, it is apparent that the development of this large number of homes - 125 - is not a "limited" development, especially since it is quite possible that Cherry Downs or another developer will later extend the area of the so-called settlement to areas nearer to, and extending from, the communal servicing block {about half a kilometre away from the block of nine houses the developer hopes to construct in the Major Open Space System). 2, Contravention of Cherry Downs' Own Proposed Amendment to the ~ickering Official Plan (Section 12.17). Parts (a) and (b) of Cherry Downs' proposed mnendment calls for Pickering City Council to "(a) ensure that development is undertaken in a manner that respects the rural character of the surrounding lands" and "(b) ensure that the development is undertaken in a manner that respects natural features within and nearby the settlement, including the habitat, linkage and corridor functions the natural features perform," Developing the land as proposed b~! Cherry. Downs and respectin~ the rural character and natural features of the surroundin.q land._~ are mutuatt~! exclusive. {a) Respecting the rural character of the surrounding lands. {i) The proposed development is a leapfrog development. The nearest communities are Greenwood, Brohm, and Claremont. Shops and other amenities do not exist within walking distance. Therefore, the proposed residents of the proposed urban sprawl development will have to take to their cars every time they want to buy a bottle of milk or bag of pretzels. Since most of their workplaces will also be distant arid the proposed community is nowhere near any high- speed intercity commuter rail service, these poor potential residents wilt add to, and suffer from, commuter congestion on local roads. Intentionally or not, they will also become a burden and a danger to local farmers. Many GTA farmers are already besieged by high- speed commuters who fail to respect their legally marked, s[o[~ SAT P . gJ'T 111 movlng farm vehicles. Farmers also ff~nd it dangerous or impossible, during rush hours, to cross roads in order to pass from one field to the other on their own road-bisected farms. One farmer near Georgina has been hit by a commuter vehicle more than once in his suburbanizing area, endangering his life and giving him a permanent injury. He is only one of many farmers in the GTA who has been inconvenienced, and in fact endangered, by urban sprawl encroaching on farmlands. In addition, it is well known that many people who move to scttlcmcnts such as this sprawling proposed development think they want to enjoy thc "country" experience, then develop a distaste for the normal, everyday working sounds and smells of an active farm operation. Soon, com~lain~ are launched against the local farmers and they are hampered and restricted in carrying out activities on which their livelihood depends. Sprawling "bedroom towns" and farming activities do not m/x. Hence, the Cherry Downs proposed amendment (Section 12, 17 (a)) and Cherry Downs' proposed sprawling development are of a fantastical inconsistency worthy of the writer of Alice rr~. Wonderlaad. {In Alice in Wonderland, characters sometimes say things that appear to make sense~ but their statements have little or nothing to do with the surrounding reatit~j.} Such inconsistencies make for curious and entertaining children's literature, but they make for sloppy, expensive, and polluting land uses, that threaten the food security and open. space needs of future generations. And the sprawling developments spawned by such distortions and inconsistencies militate against the needs and tong-term viabitithj of the surrounding agricultural communitlj. (ii) Future sprawl, As described in point (1) (a) ("Note") above, it seems possible, given the location of the actual communal servicing block - about half a kilometre away from the block of nine houses proposed for the Major Open Space System - that Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd, may have plains to continue building more sprawl closer to, and extending from, the actual proposed communal servicing block, Even if Cherry Downs does not currently have plans to expand the sprawl farther and farther out into the s~rrounding rural area, the existence of this leapfrog development will set an undesirable precedent that will encourage Chef .ry Downs and/or other developers to build more sprawl. SAT 5~ ATTACHMENT ~_ ~ ? _TO Cherry Dowr~s - Cornrnent~ by K. Dean As indicated in points (i) and (ii), above, it is clear that the very sprawlin9 nature and "leapfrog" Zocation of the proposed development will make it irr~ossible for Cherr~ Downs to "[respect] the rural character of the surrounding lands." Hence, Cherry Downs will contravene its own proposed Section 12.17 ia) and it will the contravene the spirit, intent, and letter of the Durhmn Regiona. Plan as it pertains to this area, {b} Ensuring that the development is undertaken in a manner that respects natUral features within and nearby the settlement, including the habitat, linkage and cotl ldorfunctlons the natural features perf orrr~ The proposed development, if approved, will be a patch of sprawl parachuted into the middle of a beautiful natural area. it will put pressure on both the Claremont Country Field Centre and the Duffin.Rouge Corridor, which was recently preserved by Ontario Municipal Board decision, It would be inconsistent to approve any urban sprawl development this close to the corridor, since it will be the "thin edge of the wedge"for the introduction of even more -,prawting developments that could easily eat away at the Corridor - threatening its future existence through "death by a thousand cuts." There is also an Environmentally Significant Area {ESA) contained WITHIN the proposed Cherry Downs development, It is difficult to guess how an ESA will be protected, enhanced, and respected ,by having 125 baseraents dug beside it and 125 piles of bricks, mortar, and other related construction materials built up in the nero' vicinity, The proposed development will also break up the wildlife corridor and habitat for the red-shouldered hawk (which is rare in Canada and dwindling in the United States]. 3. Unnecessary and Costly Urban Sprawl It's obvious that the proposed development is a classic example of exactly the kind of urban sprawl that is being prohibited tn many cities in the United States - cities which have already suffered urban decay as a result of sprawl and which are now trying to repair the damage by following "smart growth" models, Why should we, as Canadians, race to catch up with the misguided and harmful past of American cities, in order to repeat their errors even as they are in the process of reforming? How many decades will it take us to undo the damage of sp.r?wl . alt the while lagging ATTACH~ENT ~ ~ TO Cher~ Do~ns - Commen~$ by K, Dean 8 113 behind U.S. cities, whose economies will be on a path of regeneration while those of Picketing and other GTA communities will be at greater risk as a result of sprawl? What's wrong with urban sprawl? * For one thing, sprawling housing developments represent a net loss in revenue to the local municipal council {as described in Section(i) (b), above), * In addition, ftrefftghters, police, and other municipal service providers have to travel longer distances to serve sprawling developments, arid there are fewer taxpayers per mile of road in a sprawling development. This increases the burden on each individual taxpayer. According to the 1995 Golden Report, a continuation of current rates of urban sprawl wilt cost Greater Toronto Area taxpayers $12 billion EXTRA in initial infrastructure costs over the next 25 years (dated from 1995) and $1 billion EXTRA EVERY YEAR FOREVER in maintenance and service costs.3 * Sprawl is unnecessa~', especially in the location Cherry Downs wants to develop. "Brownfislds'r (vacant lands within areas ~ready designated for urban uses) and other re-developable ar~as should be developed first. In fact, brownfftelds and other re-developable areas within Ajax, Whitb!t~ and Oshawa . and the entire GTA . must be developed before any rnore fai-,iland or natural or recreational areas outside the urban envelope are destroyed. It's up to mumcipalities to provide developers with the appropriate incentives and opportunities to do SO. ' The Cherry Downs sprawl proposal may 'a/so cost taxpayers even more money. If there is a breakdown in the communal servicing not covered by bonds posted bi] the developer, taxpa!lers wilt pay for the cost of rectifying the breakdowr~ * Urban sprawl has always been a sensitive issue in Ontario, but it is even more so now, since Premier Michael Harris has recentt~t spoken publicly about the need for "smart growth." The Golden Report, Toronlo, 1995, p. [ 1. MAR--I?--O1 114 ATIACHMEI'~IT ~,__ D ~ _TO REPORT,~ PD_~-C I Cher%l Downs. Commen~s bu~ K. Dean 4. Expensive, Dirty Traffic Congestion Sprawling developments like the one proposed by Cherry Downs wilt lead to more traffic in the area. both local and commuter traffic. This is not just an inconvenience. It is a threat to health and safety and it is costly to taxpayers. As described in the October 1999 issue of The Business Exea~ffve, a "1986 U of T study estimated road congestion adds $3 billion per year to the cost of goods movement in the GTA, This estimate could be as high as $9 billion today."~ Increasing traffic also increases smog in thc GTA, since road vehicles are Ontario's number one source of smog-causing pollution, accounting for approximately 30 percent of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds,s And smog caused an estimated 1,900 premature deaths in Ontario in the year 2000.6 It' proper public transit systems were built, air quality in the GTA would improve and medical costs would also drop. The Ontario Medical Association has warned that if we do NOT do something to reduce our province's current levels of smog, we will forego a saving of between $394 million and $1.2 billion in medical costs by the year 2015.? However, public transit needs higher densities than "sl~rawl levels" in order to have high enough ridership levels to be profitable. So instead of approving the Cherry Downs proposal, decision makers should insist on developments that have sufficiently high densities to support profitable~ efficient public transit and high-speed tntereit~j rail. (Following are the densities required for different types of transit to operate profitably. For subway, 7,500 persons per square kilometre; for light rail/streetcar, 5,000 persons per squm'e kilometre; for frequent bus service (including express bus), 4,500 persons per square kilometre.a Note that these are all very liveable densities: the Yonge-Egtinton neigttbourhood in Toronto~ for instance, which has pleasant, walkabte streets and plenhj of green space, has a density of 10,000 persons per scjuare kiIometrefi} 4 Wcndy Peters, "Major Traffic Crisis Lomns in d~e GTA/H-W." The IJu.¥tm:,~:~' Erecutl,e. vol. 6, issue 10, Open Door~, Report of the Environmental Commi,~ioner of Ontario, 1997. and 1998, p. 86. * Ontario Medical Ass~iatioa, "Illness cost~ of Air Pollution: Findings Rcpon," June 2000 ~.oma.org), Dr. John Gray, Ontario M~ical Associalion's Tcstimony ~o d~c Sbnndlng Commitlcc on Rcsour~ Dcvclopmetlt regarding Bill 35, The Enur~ Competition ~ ct (Augusl 19. 1980), p. 2. Qld. in On[ario Enviromncat Network, "An Enviromncntal Agen~ for O,lario." draft (Guclpll: dEN, May 1999), ~ ~I lc,ct to Minislu orTmnsponadon of Onlario, qld. in Jocll Vande~agcn. "Transpodalion for Tomorrow" (ltmimscript). ~ J~ll Vandcm, agcik "Transpo~ation rot Tomorrow" (mam~scripl), 10 Replacing sprawling development with more higher-density residential developments within existing urban areas in Durham and serviced by profitable high-speed intercity rail and local public transit will also lead to a healthier economy. A 1997 study of 37 world cities "showed that cities with more balanced transportation systems are doing better economically than those that are more auto-dependent~ where trafJic congestion is undermining economic productivity."io Is there any possibIe justijqcation for approving a development that will increase car dependency, increase smog, and harm the local and Greater Toronto economies by increasing traffic congestion? There seems to be very little reason for this, I hope good sense will prevail and the decision makers will encourage Chen.-y Downs to build higher- density developments within urban azeas instead of in the middle of prime farmt,'m d, 5. Disturbance of Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitat As noted in Point 2 (b) (above), the Cherry Downs proposed development, if approved, would be a patch of sprawl parachuted into a natural area, It will put pressure on bo~ the Claremonr County Field Centre a.nd the Duffin-Rouge Corridor. It will threaten and adversely affect the Environmentally Significant Area (ESA) contained WITHIN its borders. It wilt also break up the wildlife corridor and habitat for the red. shouldered hawk {which is rare in Canada and dwindling in the United States), 6. Destruction of the Greater Toronto Area's Precious and Threatened Agricu Itura I Lands As indicated in Sections (1) (a) and (2) (a), above, leapfrog developments like that proposed by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. are (a) in and of themselves threats to the rural character and agricultur',d economy of the area and (b) precedents for more of the urban sprawl that h~s already destroyed 150,000 acres of the GTA's best farmland between 1976 and J 996TM and is projected to finish off 165~000 ~00Jvcn Door,s', Report of lhe Envlronmc, tttal C'ommls.vlonc, r (~f Orllario, 199g, p. 8'7. ~ GTA F'cdcn~tions of Agriculntrc Project Man,~gcmcm Commillc¢, (.Trea/er 'l'uronm/'rea Agricultural £cortomtc Impact Study Croronlo: wallon & Hunter Ptanmng ASsocint~l, 19 November 1999, p. ii. SAT .ATTACHMENT ~ ..~ ~ TO REPORT~ PD ~2- 0 [ Cherry DowrLs. Comrnen~ by K, Dean 11 more acres by the year 2021.12 That translates into almost one acre of prime GTA farmland lost even hour. Why is it so important to save the farmlands of the GTAP The agricultural lands around Toronto constitute a high proportion of Canada's scarce prime farmland, Although C~"mada has vast expanses of land, only a small fraction of that land has the top-quality soil and the high crop heat units (high average daily temperatures and great number of available planting days} that characterize the Toronto area. We're paving over Canada's very best farmland at breakneck speed and sprawling developments exactly like the Cherry Downs proposal are destroying that land. Agriculture in the GTA also makes a significant contribution to the regional and provincial economy, generating "an estimated $1,3 billion in annual gross sales .... "~'~ And farms in the GTA are more productive than farms anywhere else in the country. Where average sales from GTA fai'ii~s are $770 per acre, the provincial average is $560 per acre and even Huron County is tess productive, at $695. Developments like the Cherry Downs proposal also break up the farming community, because they lead to pressure to develop even more lands. As farmers here and there leave the business (selling out to developers of sprawl), farm-support businesses move away, and local farmers need to go farther and farther away for equipment repair, feed, seeds, and even to find bankers who have an understanding of the farm business. Why can't we just rely on imported food from the United States and other countries? Some would argue that we don't need to wot .fy about preserving sources of food close to home. They seem to be under the impression that supply lines from the United States and from other countries will never be interrupted. This conception of food sourcing is quite simply naive. The U.S. itself may be in trouble a few years from now, as climate change creates even more drought conditions, especially in the West, the Midwest~ and the Southwest. ~,~ Americans may have to rely ~2 Ibid,. p, iv, '-~ Ibid. p, 7.2 ~ Ibid.. p. 3.1. ,s Geographer Qucndn Chiotti writes that, with global warming, "{IJhcre is a clcar possibili~ flint water resourc~ will be a~erscly afl. ted in Iht American Mid-west. West. and Southwest, and fl~is could well give ri~ to gr~qter mtcrcsl on the pan of tile U,S. ill at.sS to Canada's walcr rcsour~s .... "I"An 117 12 on Canadians to supplement their own food supply. Although food surpluses do exist on the North American market, these are largely the result of "subsidies and other incentives that stimulate production even in the absence of demand," ~o Even if global warming were not a reality, the United States would be unreliable a~ a source o f food, since Americans are pa~ing over their farmland as speedily as we are. Places like Silicon Valley in the Santa Clara Valley have sprrtwted all over fine fruit.growing district~,~? and soil erosion in the U,S, results in the loss of "an average of twelve tons of topsoil per acre each year, while the annual rate of soil formation, under normal conditions, is only one and a half tons per acre." ~,* And other nations are losing farmland at rapid rates as well. South Korea, Japan, and Tmwan are net food importers. ~'~ China may be next to join that line-up - along with other Asian nations (India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and ThaiIand~ that are "sacrificing cropland to development."2o Fresh Food, Close to Home Even if international food supply lines were never interrupted, imported food is more likely to contain harmful spoilage- preventing additives, while local farmers have the potential to produce food that is relatively or completely chemic'a/free. And, of course, produce that does not have to travel long distances is fresher and more nutritious when the consumer purchases it, Food from the U.S. is much more likely to have been grown from genetically modified seeds or to contain growth hormones21 . or to have been subjected to irradiation. (Irradiation, used to delay spoilage, eliminates nutrients Assessment of thc Regional Impacts anct Opporttmilics from Climate Ch;rage in Canada." The Canadian Geographer, vol. 42, no, 4 (1998): 383.] 1(, "Food Security" ill ()ur (Tommon Future: 7he l&orld ('umm/s, iun un /i'nv~rut~t~tenI and Development (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp, 122-2~, ~* Aaron Sachs, "Virhml E¢olo~: A Bri~ Environmcnlal Histo~ of $ih¢on Valley,' World Watch, Jatmary-Febnmry 1999, p, 12, la Lorcn Wilkinson. cd., F_.ortb~eepl.~ t. the ,V/helle,v: 3lewar/a'hip t~("real~ort (Greed Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), p, 28. 19 Edward Goldsmitll, "Can tl~c Environulent Survive Illc Global Ecolloln~?" '£/?c Ecologist, vol. 27, no, 6 (1997); 174,176. ' a0 Ga~ Gardner, "Asia Is Losing Ground," World Woe'h, November-December 1996. p. 21, :1 Wayne Robc~ls, Rod MacRae, and Lori Slahlbrand,/(c,(;/h}~Jfi, r. (7?.n~,c, (Toronto; Raadom House, 1999), p, 19. 118 ATTACHMENT #_ _'g ? TO REPORI ~' PD ~ ~ - o ~ Cherry Downs - Cornmer~t.q by K. Dean 13 like Vitamins A, B, C, D, E, and K to "such an extent as to seriously reduce nutrient levels."}=" Conclusion The Chei-, q Downs proposed development is a cl~sic e~antple of inal~l~..ropriate teapfro.c! urban sprawl. If built, it wilt do seriou~ short, and lonq.term damage to the Fickerinq and GTA farmtanr' base and to important wildlife habitat. In addition, _the proposed development is neither consistent nor harmonious with the spirit or letter Of the Durham Reqiona? Official Plan. This submission is not a call to have developers stop building houses to shelter and provide communities for the residents of Picketing and the Greater Toronto Area. It is a call for political decision mal~ers and agencies such as the Ontario Municipal Board to act in the best food- security, econom!.c, and health interests of current and future residents of Picketing and the Greater Toronto Area. This means ensuring that alt existing brownj~etds in the GTA be developed to densities similar to those of downtown Toronto (which has been cited by urban pla.aner~ all over the world as a model community in terms of liveabitity, health, and sa/ety) before any greenj~eld development is even considered (especially leapfrog greenj~eld development tike the Cherry Downs proposal). I further submit that if this leapfrog development is permitted~ it will lead to more costly and unnecessary sprawl c~nd it wilt eat up prime farrnlands~ depriving our children's children o f fresh food, close to home and putting them in the position of facing food scarcity. It will also spawn more traffic congestion and air pdution, leading to premature deaths and high medical costs. Surely the developers of urban sprawl also have concern for the well~being of their own children and grandchildren. If they do not, it is time governors and regulators brought them to a better z~nderstanding of the tssues~ as outlined above, an~ helped them apply their many talents to more truly constructive entel]~rises. =: Kamn Graham, Food lrradi?tlo,: A Canadian Foll. v (Porlagc la Prllirie, MB: Pflpcr Birch PublisNng, 1992), qld in Roberts ¢! al., l~eal Food, p. 24. lla mc, rr, R E C E i V E D REPORT # PD~ Submission to Pickering Planmna Department re Chem' Downs Development OlTY OF PIOKERING , . P~NI~G & DEVELOPMENT 1. We are shocked to learn ~at the Chem' Dox~2s Co-Venture Ltd is making a thi~PARTMENT ~ tbu~h ?) attempt to subvert the declared wishes of both Pickenng and the Remon of Durham Co~cils to re~in these lands in their cu~ent uses. The O~cial Plan~ of both co~cils are quite specific as to the pe~ined uses and we do not beiiev~ that a small minoriW of mmnlv non-res~den~ should be allowed to dictate to us what is best for ~ in this ma~er. 2. I have recently appeared before the Regional Planning Committee offering my comments on the 10 year reviev,' of the Durham Officml Plan. I made the suggestion that the proposed population targets for this Region be reviewed, in view of the current reduced ffowth in this Region in comparison with the increased ~rowth in York Region and the Ci.ty of Toronto projected. At this time, surely, we shoulc~ not be allowing increases which make a travesty of the careful planning for rural Picketing which has taken place so recently. The building of 125 units would, we beheve, take up almost the entire allowance, in the Official Plan, for rural Picketing, outside the hamlets, for the next 20 years. This development, of course? x~'ould only be a Ibm in the door, and we guarantee would be treated as a precedent by many other developers with far deeper pockets than Picketing. or even Durham, to apply to the O.MB. for similar amendments to the Official Plans. Within 3 or 4 years we might as well scrap existing Official Plans and let the developers pave the whole of Picketing over Urban sprawl is spreading over a large portion of the GT.A., but there must be some part of' it which should remain green. Mistakes made nov,' can never be rectified. 3. There are many other reasons why this development should not be allowed to proceed, which will no doubt be brought forward First and foremost is the question of water. We do not believe that there are many commercial developments that use as much water as a golf course, especially when no municipal water is available, in addition surely the lessons of Walkerton will lead to much more stringent regulations being promhlgated, in the next two or three years, for the careful use of water, particularly in the rural areas. We are all fighting hard to save the Oak Ridges Moraine, and it seems ridiculous to allow very, large quantities of its precious water to be used for another 18 holes of a golf course which will be used by a few rather wealthy patrons. 4. We feel that the costs of maintaining, servicing and ploughing extra roads, of fire and police services, are additional burdens to our taxes which we should not be called on to bear. All indications are that we are entenng on a period of increasing taxes. The Provincial Government does not seem interested in contributing its share and we are going~be faced with heavy new expenses to improve access to Highway 407. The East Duffins Community, and eventually some more of the Seaton lands, are more than enough to satis~ the needs of Pickenng's growth during the next quarter ora century. Planning should be done in a logical, methodical manner, in the parts of Pick-,ring zoned for development, rather than in an ad hoc manner to suit those who have no real interest in our communiW excepting the profits they can take away from it. It is unfortunate that this matter has been brought back to life bv our previous council's 120 ATTACHMENT ~ L~ ~ _TO REPORT # PD.. '~ ~ ' © i invitation to Club Link to submit new proposals. We do not however believe that this plan has the support of the area's residents. Pickering Council has the opportunity, to be one of the first municipalities that are leaders in efforts to stop unsustainable urban sprawl. The fact that Club Link, an American company, is the largest builder of golf courses in the hemisphere, does not give them the rights to our land. Tommy and Isobel Thompson, 3181, Byron St., Whitevale L0H 1M0 March 5th. 2001. Phone 905-294-5720 ATTACHMENT ~' /7"~ TO REPORT ~ PD~ ...,r Conservation D rharn 121 ~-~ Au~us~ 2000 Mr Alex Georgieff Commissioner of Planning Region of' Durham Box 623 Whitby, Ontario LiN 6A3 Dear Alex, I am writing in response to the notice of public meetin_o re_oardin_o file number OPA 2000-005, the application submitted by' Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd to permit a countn' residentiaI development of 125 units using private communal services in the Municipality of Picketing. There are several points which must be made in re_oard to this punic meeting and application, includin~o the following: - ~ ~ Although the guidelines required bf' the Plannin~ Act to notify the residents within 120 meters of the property have been followed, and an advertisement was placed in the local paper, given the history' of'this developer's proposals over the last 7 years, the time allowed to notify' the public of this meeting is insufficient and furthermore, there is a direct conflict oftimin~ with the OMB pFe-hearin_o scheduled at_____exactlv the same time in a different location, and directly affectin%the same members of t__.~_pubtic, i only discovered about this meeting because one of the abutting neighbours received his notification. For these reasons alone, I request another public hearing be held. a~er consultation with stakeholder groups and individuais who have expressed and continue to express their concerns over thi~ proposed development Icg., Conse~'ation Durham, Green Door Alliance, Durham Action Network. Durham & Picketing Naturalists, etc.) The Permanent Agriculture Reserve is exaczlv that: permanent It is hardly the time for the Region to be considering lowerin,o its standards and letting the floodgates open to the developers - please see the attached GTSB (~ugust 2000) "A GTA Countryside Stratewv", wherein the facts speak for themselves. This land represents the perfect case stud,,' of' ~vhv our Official Plan has prohibited development on it - it is rural, it is part of the Duffin~ Creek'Watershed which provides valuable fish breeding/habitat and fresh water to Lake Ontario (not to mention the wells of surrounding residents), contains an ESA, and is picturesque beyond belie£ Protect it now from rampant urban sprawl - if ever allowed, this development would kJe the end of protecting any land in rural Durham from development. In addition it is unwanted (see a :tached copy of petition signed mainly by residents in the area, although as a "test" we be_oan to ask for si..qnatures in South Picketing, only to discover that well over 90 % of those residents were also opposed to the Picketing resolution mentioned below.) Correct me if I'm wrona, but isn't the present allowance for any new rural development only 50 houses? Should we try to accommodate this application for 125 homes merely because the developer doesn't make a I~rofit on anything under 1007 Even if the application were reduced to 50, we should oppose it because the next step would be to apply for 100, or 200, or ... we simply' can't a?fbrd to let the camel into the tent - ever! C/z'v'emo,~, Or~ £1Y IA2 Au.e~ztion: .,O~'Ue Jo~w_s Tel F'co:: 90.5-~9-5-~0 e.-nw~Z' corzserva~c~e.parr~Os-kmt:~'co, ca ATTACHMENT #__ .z~O TO After reading the Early Release of Report, I noticed missin~ information: such as Section 3. "Previous Applications and Approvals" where it is stated tl~at" In 1996, th~ applicant revised the proposal ..." where in fact the applicant's housing proposat was defeated bv overwhelmim7 public opposition - this information is every bit as important as the applications made! In fact the earlier attempt in 1993 was also defeated. Their subsequent application for an expansion to the golf course and club house were approved, however, another important missing piece of information is that since that time, no work was commenced to either expand the golf course o~' the club house: was there ever an intention to expand their o, olfcourse, or was it only a means of furthering vet another development proposal.'?. Has work already begun on the well to service the proposed development? How deep will the well be? How much water will it take? What methods will be used to "di.scourage" birds from using the ponds? Another point raised in the Cherry Downs documentation is how compact the proposed subdivision would be (thereby implying that it ~vouldn't "ruin" as much of the natural setting.) There is another, more obvious way to view compact development - it clears the ground for Phase II, Phase III, Phase IV, etc. etc.'etc. In Major Open Space and Permanent Agricultural Zones, the one loop-hole for developers seems to be the "recreation" designation given to gol'f'courses. SureIy it should be apparent by now that this developer has always had the ulterior motive of planting an urban-style development on the golf course! Given the outbreak of information about Ontario's water and air pollution record of late, the Region should be asking for a moratorium on all such development proposals (including golf courses given their abilitv to turn into housing applications later on) in the rural areas of Durham, let alone in the Duffins Creek Watershed. We do not have sufficient information on the long- term effects of the use of communal servicing in such areas, and do not want to pay the costs in the future for degrading this watershed today. How much water is Cherry. Downs already taking for its private golf club house and course use7 Is this monitored? As I'm certain.vou are aware, there is still a request to take water on the EBR registrv for the additional golf course and clubhouse for which ClubLink was given approval in i996 although never acted on: presumably this is nov,,' invalid as the intended use of the water taking has changed. Does the Region have any information on this request to take water7 Will we be informed in time to oppose any such request at the MinistrT. 7 Was a request for permission to take water ever made for the present golf club & course on the lands7 Attached is a copy of the Picketing Council resolution from last year (moved by Regional Planning Committee member Doug Dickerson, seconded by Mark Holland) following an invitation by Mayor Arthurs for ClubLink to give a so-called "status report" on their "anticipated application" for housing, conference centre on private communal servicing on the Cherry Downs property: before the Re~ion's OPA 60 had been decided by overwhelming majority of full council: This "creative" approach to the Planning Act shcJuld certainly not be encouraged at the Regional level! Also enclosed is a copy of the Durham Business News (unsigned) article fbllowing this resolution (which, for your information, was also opposed by many local residents at both the Executive and Council of Picketing meetings at that time) wherein the project is · touted as something which will be of great benefit to the Region, as if it were a "fait aceomplis". The sto~ ran right above an article outlining how ClubLinks' profits had soared in 1998... interestingly, the "new" application is under a different name, Cherry Downs Co-Venture Ltd. Why? And just one more question here: does the Region have the authority to request Pickerin~'s position on this application at this time? Especially given that it is an election year. it would be a shame if the voters were not notified of any municipal position before the matter can be sl(,ughed offas an OMB decision! ATTACH~,~, ~ _ ~ TO ~ REPORT I PD ~'~ - z ~ 123 The TRCA Glen Major complex of properties ([ am a member oftheir.\la.na_ement Advisory Board) includes the Claremont Field Centre & Durham Environmental EducJtion Centre property, ad.iacent to the Cheru., Downs lands. Attached is a copy of the TRCA response to the proposed 125-home development on the .oo/fcourse property, voicing its opposition. Good - there should be opposition by the body responsible for conservin,e, nature for future generations, although there are some questions which will undoubtedly be raised during this application process, not the least of which is the vet5. 10-metre top o~fbank minimum itself: there are many modern proponents of revisiting this number and increasing it for various situations. Given that TRCA Watershed Management Director Brian Denney at the Greenwood information meeting on the Duffins-Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Force publicly stated that the TRCA is itself looking into the 10-metre rule. ho~' can there be any' rush at ali to hut:?, this application along.'?. 7. The Durham Region Environmental Education Centre is another o_.ood reason to halt this application - to bring children out to this truly conserved natural settin_= ifa private urban-style development were permitted ri_oht next door ~'ould make a mocker-,, o~the "education centre - the traffic increases alone on thee 7c': concession and 12~' sideline an~ feinted noise and air pollution would render it more like a municipal park in an urban subdivisionJ $ The rural character would be irrevocably damaged bF. any alien deveiopment in this pristine, natural setting' the hamlets of Greenwood and Claremont would not benefit, in fact, history has sho`.~n that the loca! farmers wouid suffer as soon as the new residents beaan to complain about the farm activity (such as the subdivision dweller in Whitbv who complained about the flies because of the c~airv farm next door). These residents will j the communities which already exist ~- ..... ,, . ot become a hying, organic part of . . ~,c~c. and ~vn~ cont~nue to exist as a separate "lifestyle community" When will they want a 24-hour store on the cornero A XVaimjn? A shoppin~ mail? This area of Durham already · . has a community lifestvIe - it does not nee,~ ,^ ~-~ -~:*- ~- - ' by a private, "lifestyle comm..-:-~ , ,- ' : - ~ ,~ t,: ~,c u~cnrranchlsed ,.,,,,tv , zt ,,,,~ run not on v the nature of our life in this countryside, but permanent/v damage the picturesque view of the valley. 9. The Procter & Redfern study, commissioned bv the Region determined that privately owned and operated communal services would encoura_oe'urban sprawl and was not recommended for rural areas These conclusions are exactly as valid~todav as ,:,'hen the`.- were drawn - nothing has changed. 10. The property is the habitat of the Red Shouldered Hawk. a species which is nationally vulnerable and provincially uncommon to rare as `.veil as home to at least 8 rare plant species. 11. With respect to the Fact that the Mayor and Picketing Council promised after the public defeated the ClubLinks 1995 housing develo'pment application that the members of the punic who had voiced their opposition would be notified in future of any ClubLinks applications for housing on the Cherry Downs lands: last year, d,u, ring the fam,o, us ResoIution fiasco, blavor Arthurs said that since there was no application, just a status repo~', the public had not been contacted. Since Chero, Downs Co-Venture Ltd began its application on I June. 2000 at the municipality of Picketing (the da5,' before the OMB pre-hearing on OPA 60 which CherrT' Downs is appealing, and somehow is allowed to be at that hearino despite the 90-day = rule) we are wondering why Picketing has not yet notified those persons? Or at least notified the Region that such a promise ) a~. made, especially given that one of Pickerina's Regional Councillors, Doug Dickerson, sits he Plannin~ Committee. are many- other reasons to just sa,,, no to this application at the Region, not the least of which is hat this developer- is already at the OMB appealing the Regi( n's wise decision to forbid communal - 28F. z ATTACHMENT# z_/~,~ TO REPORT ~ PD ~2~ ~ c~ / servicing for new developments in the rural areas. What is going on with our planning process that this meeting can be held the same day and time as the OMB pre-hearing? Shouldn't a public meeting be held when members of the public are able to attend (i.e., after working hours)? I respectfully submit again that another public meeting is called for in these circumstances. Thanks in advance for your attention to this letter and enclosed attachments, Truly yours, Angle Jones Executive Director - Conservation Durham Inc:. Attachments: GTSB Publication "A Greater GTA Countryside Strategy" (revised June & August 2000) Copy of petition vs. ClubLink non-application in June, 1999 Copies of letters (only those included in the December 1995 Pickering Release of Report) from residents who opposed the development Copy of Picketing Resolution #131/99, Item #5 passed on 21 June, 1999 Copy of Durham Business News article (Aug-ust 2000) Copy of TRCA response to application by Cherry Downs Co-Venture Ltd. Copy of EBR. Registry Notification for Water Taking Permission by ClubLink for Cherry Downs Golf Course & Clubhouse expansion - 28L ATTACHMENT # /--/-/ .TO REPORT ¢,' PD ~ -: - g: / 125 'Conservation Durham Fax to' Catherine Rose, Ron TaYlor Pickering Planning 28tl~ March, 200'1 (20 pages including this cover) From: Re; Angle Jones Durham Conservation Association EBR~IA01E0194 Clublink request for PTTW at C~ Downs Dear Catherine & Ron, We as'e very concerned about the above request for a PTTW - it is ostensibly for the existing Cherry Downs 27-hole golf course & facilities, when it appears that the request actually feeds the needs of a planned subdivision on the lands. The request on the registry does not mention an,,' plans for housing or communal servicing on these lands. Along with the PTTW application, howeYer,, the proponent does indicate where the requested off-line reservoir north of Mitcheli Creek would go - in the identical location as the.p_Lqp_osed treated effluent pond for the sewa~onent of their hou~lication. It is also of ~ concern that this golf operation has been allowed to continue taking water, despite the fact it was never issued a permit to do so', Moreover, in communications to the Municipality, MOE, and other agencies and stakeholders, the proponent has tried to claim that the club opened in 1961 - it actually opened in 1965, with perhaps a few month's overture to that opening in the fall of 1964. Many of the irregularities of this company's requests and information - past and present- have-been the basis roi' Planning recommendations and Council decisions in the past, including the decision to allow an expansion of the golf course to 45 holes in 1996. We are certain you will review om concerns and we would be veu interested in receiving a cop3' of °ickering's submission to the MOE regarding this um'easonable PTTW request, Best regards to both of you, and I will finally be sending my comments on the housing application after this busy week of OMB-related work. Truly yours~ Angt~ RR5 Ckv'en'a~ Oat LIY iA2 Att: Angie,k:v~ Tel: 905.449-5480Fa:r: 649-5225 e-marl: ~ ~r~(~)'"!l.:*lt.jmOa Conservation Durham 27th March, 2001 Ellen R. Reed · tnt: A~i~t~nt Director's Of:~ce RECEIVED MAD 9 12 6 ? D-L~r ,',/Is, Reed, RE: EBR Registry Number IA01 E0194 Pursuant to discussions with Ted Belanyeh, Mark Harris, Robert Ryan and Doris Dumet, I am writing to express serious concerns about the above-referenced application for a permit to take water (PTTW) by ClubLink for their existing golf course & facility at Cherry Downs in north Picketing. My thanks are in order to everyone at the MOE who has provided me with relevant information on the EBR process, helping me to acquire a copy of the ClubLink application, and allowing me this extra time to get om comments in to your office. For the record only, I have outlined below our communications to this point. A. ~T. ,T~ AppLICATION BACKGROUND: 1. Incorrect EBR Registry Posting: "Permit Type" On February 17, we noticed that a PTTW application had been posted on the internet on February 9, 2001 (same Registry No. as above) wherein, under "Permit Type", it was listed as a "Renewal." After a with Ted Belanyeh at your offices, it was confirmed that, in fact, the Permit Type applied for by CiubLin was "New." Ihis error, if undetected and allowed to stand, could have misled the mewing public into the ClubLink application was a renewal of an existing permit. When we later acquired a copy of the application, it was difficult to understand how this kind of "human error" could be made - the layout of the application form seems to have a built-in check for such errors: if the permit type is "renewal", right next to that box is a very large area in which the existing permit number should be written. 2. Incorrect Information re Freedom of Information request tier numerous calls to Robert Ryan and Doris Dumet, I was told by Robert Ryan that ifI wanted a of the ClubLink application, I would have to launch a freedom of information request. Given that the EBR effect, an FOI branch of the MOE, I found this information even more disturbing than the misleading posting referred to above. The next person from MOE who contacted me was Mark Harris, to whom Mr. Ryan had referred my inquiries for a photocopy of the ClubLink application. Initially, Mark Harris left a message explaining that ClubLink gave their permission, I could have a copy of their application. Then I received a message statin8 there was a problem (ClubLink did not give their permission) and, again I was told I would have to launch FOI. continued.../2 -1- t?R5 C~ Ont LIY1A2 Att: Artgie Joins Tel: 905-649-5480 Far: 649-5225 e-maiL' ATTACHME~T #..~.~.~. TO REPORT ~ PD~ 127 At this point I called the legal department of the Environmental Commissioner's Office who were also very helpful, and the next day I received a call from Mark Hams explaining that apparently they had been using an old manual that didn't cover photocopy requests (Cathy Clark also called me to let me know I would be able to pick up a photocopy at the Durham office the next day) .Mr Hams still indicated, however, that he was waiting for a fax from ClubLink who now had no problems with the £BR office - i.e., the Enx, tronmental~ q/rice - releasing a copy of their application. In any case, the earliest the copy would be available was 7~ March, 2001 unfortunately the day following the public statutory information meeting at Picketing (see section "B" of this letter below for pe~inent information on Azimuth Environmental Consulting, lnc.'s response at that meeting ) Needless to say, I was very grateful for everyone's assistance in my quest for a photocopy. 3. "STAR" System & "Slated" Date In a three-way conversation with Doris Dumet. Robert P,,yan and myself, it was explained to me that the "STAR" system approval date for this permit was some time in early April (Ms. Dumet had asked Mr. Ryan during our conference call when it was "slated" for approvals) I was surprised to hear this application being referred to as "slated for approval" at this point - especially since we had only recently unearthed the truth about the type of permit ("NEW"), and the Ministry had not received any comments yet from any citizens groups or individuals I was subsequently told by g, ober~ Rvan that if we had any comments we should get them in as soon as possible before the 21 March target date posted at the Registry. Presumably, the "slated" date is only a guideline, and is not a date "carved in stone" on the SIAR system, especially when there is (and has been in previous years) public concern over ClubLink's application. Since then, I have been told by Mark Hams that gemng our comments in early this week would be acceptable and they would be considered along with those submitted before the 21~ March. 4. EBR Registry Posting on Internet vs. Actual Application by ClubLink to EBR Office The most disturbing aspect of the information available to the public in this process is the fact that although the Ministry was aware of ClubLink's intention to expand their golf course and/or build housing on the lands, the public is not informed of either of these intentions on the Feb. 19, 2001 EBR Registry, posting (see attached letter dated Nov. 24, 2000 from Mike Jones, Azimuth Environmental Consulting, Inc. to Ms. Cheryl LewandowskJ wherein he refers to the MOE Violation Notice #C14898 as well as both the expansion and the housing development.) ls the EBR Registry required to post all pemnent information that relates to "purpose of taking" on the internet for the benefit of accurately informing the public? If at any time in my inquiries, I had been put offby either 1. ("Renewal") or 2. ("You'll have to launch a Freedom of Information for that... ") above, not one member of the public would be aware of ClubLink's intentions, among which are: · ClubLink is applying for a water permit for 45 - not 27 - holes · ClubLink is intending to build housing if it gets the approvals, which leads to the next point: · The "new offiine reservoir" would be built to accommodate the above, not as a component of the existing golfcourse, _1292 t ld he d hu n effluent from the housin~ment. Please note that the location of the reservoir is identical in the EBR application to that in their housing application. We cannot stress enough that this request to dig out a 20 million Imperial Gallon pond on the banks of Michell Creek should raise all of the environmental flags at the Ministry - more on this below. - 2- continued.,./3 128 ATTACHMENT #~../'/' / TO REPORT # PD ~- ~> / Furthermore, the PTTW application is exagerrated in the extreme according to information we have from previous years - in 1996 Cagtner Lee staled that th~ present us~ for the 27-hole golf course avail,facility ~.~ between 8 and 10 million imperial gallons_per year - for supposedly the same purpose of taking as their application. Lastly, as you will read in "B" below, it appears that Clublink has misinformed the Ministry itself on several important points - and about which we are certain you would wish to be apprised. lk CLUB,LJ~K AND CHE,RRY DOWNS mSTOR¥ Cherry Downs opened its present course in 1965 -NOT 1961 as continuously mentioned in references your office in the PTTW application file. In Mike Jones' letter (Nov 24, 2000) he states: "The existing water-taking system has been in place since Cher~ Downs Golf Club was constructed.in 1961." To use 1961 date is misleading the MOE, MNK, TRCA, municipalities, the OMB and the public As the Ministry must be aware, ClubLink has already drilled a so-called "test" well 73 metres into the acquifer, which i~ ready-to-gu for any proposed drinking water needs of their development, if approved. Also, the Ministry should be aware that there are many obstacles for ClubLink/Kaitlm Io overcome before any l'uaueing will allowed on those lands, inoluding amendmem/almplications to (File no's from Pickering Planning): · Durham Region Official Plan · Pickering Official Plan · Draft Plan of Subdivision.AppLication S-P-2OBO-03 · Zoning By-taw Amendmerrt Application A 26/00 · Zoning By-law AmeMme, m Application A 29/00 · Minister',s Zoning Order Amendm~t Application 18~ZO-02900-01 · Cherry. Downs CoVemure Ltd. (ClubLink & Kaillin Developments) appeal at the OMB · Exception to zonings above for communal servicing pipeline infrastructure In its early years, the golf c~urse was using - according to golfcourse staff who worked them before ClubLink bought the course - a 30 or 35 horsepower pump NOT the 300 gallon/minute pump which is a new pump that ClubLink has inst~lled. The old pump apparently drew, maybe, 151) gallons a minute. Re~g the size of pump, it must be remembered thai ClubLink, in its prior discussions with stake[ about its golf course expansion, indicated a 200 gal/rain pump would be adequate! I'm cextainly no expe~", but would a 300 gal/rain pump even draw the excessive amounts of water being requested7 In 1993 and 1996, ClubLink made development applications to the Town of Picketing -for 300 and 225 homes respectively. The 1996 application included - as does the 2000 application - an application to the existing 27-hole golf course & facility to a 45-hole golf course. In 1993 the application was denied, in 1996 the housing application was denied - both were overwhelmingly opposed by residents. In expansion &the golf course was given approval by Pickermg, but based on information given to Planning by CiubLink, and certain conditions being met. We are not certain at this stage, that these conditions have, in fact, been met. ClubLink, in its submission to Picketing Planning in 1996, stated it would need between 12 to 16 million Imperial Gallons per ye,,r for the expanded ~ i.e. 45-hole - golf course & facility, Then, in 1997, ClubLink went to the MOE and requested exactly double that - i.e., 32 million Imperial Gallons per yem - 3 - continued.../4 ATTACHMENT ,~/ __TO 1 2 9 REPORT ~' PD £ ,~- ~ , In this case, ClubLink misled Pickering Planning and ultimately the Council during the planning stage of their application and the decision to grant even the expansion to 45-holes was no doubt at least partly based on the lower water-taking amount proposed. On the attached spec-shee~ from Gannet Lee in 1996, please note the requirements that this consultant put tbrward on behalf of ClubLink - the request is nowhgre near the present application's re,,q_mrements al~;hgugh the size Oft. he facility (~, identical :t0~day! Even though ClubLink was given the approval to expand their golf course, not a shovel went into the ground to that end! After 4 years, they instead applied for yet another housing development on the Cherry Downs lands - as the Ministtw must be aware, in the sensitive Duffins Creek watershed which includes Michell Creek & Spnng Creek, two of the last cold-water fish habitats in the GTA. 6. The property contains ESA #134 (copy attached) - the MimstD, should note the Comments section, eg: "It ts suspected that there ts a strong relationship between this ESI and ESA's 104 on Duffins Creek gO'ten £SA J 04 ts updated this relationship should be evaluated and perhaps the two ES,~ 's combined" .Also note the rare red, shouldered hawk and 8 rare plant species found ot~ the property, as well as Critc-'rion 7; "7he South of Claretnont Wetland a complex evaluated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is /outed on a tributary of Michell and 3'prtng Creek Over 80% c?f **'etlandx tn southern Ontario have been degrader; or destroyed Wetland~ are comtdered under repre,,ented tn the MTd~CA l~egnon." And: "Thc wooded portions of Michell Creek boaxt a diverse tnstream habitat, and is an important spawning area for brook trout." We are very. concerned that the proposed "new offiine reservoir" for treated human effluent be adjacent (on the north bank) of Michell Creek (and in the identical location for their housing application as on the EBR re, quest.) In 1999 I canvassed residents on Gre~wood Rd south of the present golf course on the anticipated development application (all were opposed.) Many of the residents complained that they had been forced to buy water for their individual wells - some had drilled new wells. As there is no record of how much water ClubLink has been taking, it is of grave concern that even the drilling of their so-called "test well" 73 metres into the acquifer could be a contributing factor to the resident's water problems and personal expense. Especially, what pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, etc. are going back into groundwater, creeks and possibly wells? At the very least, we do not have to remind the Ministry that ClubLink is not the only user of the water system in this area. ~ prior meetings with MOE, MNK, TRCA, Picketing & local residents, it was stated that the exact biological state of Michell Creek in the absence of water taking is an unknown. Also, that because the MOE has to deal wi~h other present and future water users on this system, allowing ever5' taker to draw a portion of base-flow is not sustainable. Therefore there is a need to speci~ a minimum flow for the system. Questions about drought conditions are not answered, and must be considered in whether or not to grant this application, especially for the 10-year period requested. Has a no-taking scenario during low baseflcn; periods been investigated? Wouldn't this be in keeping with the general condition of all permits that stream flow not be stopped amd that the natural functions of streams be respected? - 4 - continued.../5 'ATTACHMENT ~_ ¢'/ TO REPORT ~ PD ~,~ - ~ t 10_._~ Spnng Creek has 4 -four - in-line ponds on the property: why are only two of these being proposal to be removed? Surely c, on,~ltations wi~ the TRCA have raised the issue of in-line ponds with this applicant - I aware of at least one resident abutting the property who was required ~o remove his on-line pond, at his own expense, when he acquired his property. Do these conditions not apply to the large, golf-course conglomerates as well? l 1. At the public information meeting on 6~ March, 2001 in Picketing, I asked Azimuth Environmental Inc. representative M~e Jones as to whc'~her or not ClubLink ever was issued a permi! tolake water for their Cherry Downs operations. Neither Mike Jones nor any other member of the applicant's team would answer question at the meeting. As mentioned earlier, I had no't yet been able to see a c~py of the ClubLink - I would, however, see it the following day. You can imagine my surprise when I saw the cover letter from the above Mike Jones at Azimuth to Cheryl Lewandowski at the Central Region, noting the MOE Violation Notice #C14898. I was very disappointed in t} lack of cooperation by Azimuth in answering a member of the publids simple question. Curious now about background of this firm, I decided to look up on the internet and see if there was a web-site associated with Azimuth~s e-mail on the bottom of that cover letter, "azimuth~lirrks4oo.on.ca". The Ministry might be interested to note that the bulk of the Web site "www,links-!oo.on,c-' is devoted to the supply of toilet and septic systems, with a special section on getting approvals, l~m mentioning this because - in my naivete - I thought I could discover something about CiubLink's hired consultant's prior environmental work. 12 Especially relevant to the issue of permission to construct the new off-line reservoir is the participation of the ,JTAA alld other air agencies in the Chert)' Downs CoVenture appeal presently at the OMB - their concern is ,pt only on the housing application and related sound-zones, ~bu! also the construction ofbodies of water whic] might create additional bird hazard. 13. An important question of legality must be raised with respect xo'~his application: is there any regulation forbidding the issuance of a PTTW when it is related to an ongoing appeal at the Ontario Municipal Board? colby of this letter to the Legal Department olS.lh~Environmental Commissioner's Office.we hope to receive an answer to this and the OWRA Section 53 question below. For example: I£ for instance, the ho'using is ultimately denied at the OMB (given that CltrbLink has applied for another housing development it has had 4 years to begin work on expanding the golf course, we can probably safely assume this expansion not their number one primly) we would not want to see the Ministry being used as a vehicle for their next, inevitable housing application (again, likely without any golf course expansion) except - by then, and based only aa t:h/~;PTTW re~_ est -they migh! have already constructed their sewage effluent s~rage pond! In 'additmn, where the total volume of sewage generated on the property is greater than 10 cubic metres per day, O_WR~ Section~ 53 approval i~ requked for Ire construction and operation of a sewage treatment system. What steps have been taken to penalise ClubLink for operating ali these years without a permit to take water? any penalty planned? (see attached copy of an article outlining charges laid against ClubLink at Lake Joseph) In short, we believe there are numerous questions about this applicatmn for a PTTW which must be answered before the Ministry can, in carrying om their mandate to prcaect our environment, even consider allowing it to proceed. Especially any permission which would allow the construction of a new offiine reservoir which is a vital component of the ClubLink/Kaitlin housing application and (if we are to believe the reason given oll the EBR posting as irrigation of the existing 27-hole golf course & facilities) not a vital component of the existing .golf facility -- presently under review at Picketing, the Region of'Durham and the OlVlB. - 5 - continued.../6 REPORT ¢ p?i t~, :~2- ~ I 13]. Given the above, it is our request that this PTTW be denied, and only a tempora~ permit be given for this golf season, for this existing 27-hole golf course & facility, and further that the rate of pumping be restricted to the lowest level required to preserve this vital subwatershed (ie. not th me--m-fX~mum allgwable level) with n__qo constructio~2_p_3.~ new off-lm~oir to be .p. grmitted until ali of the necessary decisions directly tied to this PTTW request have been made (eg., will it be an expansion of the golf course or a housing development that will require the new off-line reservoir, and what ifne~ is ultimately allowed nor undertaken?) The recent Federal Lands donation and their announcement protecting the subwatershed of MJchell Creek, plus the involvement of other key agencies mentioned herein, underscores the necessity for cautaon in this case. We hope that the Ministry can appreciate from the above our concern that ClubLink has misinformed many of the participants in the process, including the Ministry of the Environment, the TRCA, the municipality of Picketing, the Region of Durham, and the public stakekolders from 1993 to the present - beginning with the very faa that they chose not to bother applying for a PTTW under Section 34(3) of the Ontario Water Resources Act, R.S O. 1990, and have been ser~,.ed a Violation Notice, No. C14898 under Section 34(8) of the OWK,k We sincerely believe the Ministry will not "rubber stamp' the ClubLink request for water in this especially sensitive watershed, in these especially sensitive times. If there is any way in which our association may be of assistance to you or if you have any questions, require further information, etc. please contact us anytime. Truly yours, Angle Jones Executive Director RR5 Claremont, Ont. L1Y !A2 Tel: 905-64<9-5480 Fax: 905-649-5225 e~mail; conservation durham~sympatico ca Maureen Carter-Whitney & David McRoberts - Office of the Environmental Commissioner Russell White - TRCA Catherine Rose & Ron Taylor - Picketing Planning Barb Hodgins - Durham Planning GTAA Attached are: · GartnerLeelmportantlnformation r, heet (1996) re Cherry Downs presen~ & futura golf course scenarios Cover page from Azimuth EnWaonmental Consulting, Inc. dated Nov. 24, 2000 to MOE · Copy of ClubLmk's Application for a PTTW dated December 8~', 2000 · Copy of EBRRegis-~ayPostmg on the mtemet - EIgR # lAOIE0194 · Copy of ESA #134 data from TRCA (attached to local resident's Feb. 1, 1996 letter from Dena Lewis, MTRCA) · Copy of amcle re charges laid against ClubLink under sections 35 (1) and 36 (3) of the Fisheries Act afar 15-month mv0~gatmn by MOE & MNR at Lake Joseph. -6- Conservation Association 4445 Westney ,Rd. RR5 Claremont On LI¥1A2 Tel: 905-649-5480 Fe~ 905-649~5225 e-mail: conservation, durham~$ympatico, ca 132 ATI'ACHMENT #, /"/:/ TO REPORT # PD Summary of Important njormatton Numberof · 27 - 18 ~le ~,~ pl~ 9 hole * 45-ouenew18holc~added~cxi~g27 Ho/es ~xecudve eo~ holes ~ater Taking · Mic~tI C~.k ' Mi~.Q Xourc~ lr~ga~on · ~p ~ wat~ ~m ~c~B C~k m · S~c ~te~, howler, m~ smm8e ~y Practice ~gahonpon~ ~du~ ~e nm~r ar ~ys mq~ from ~chell Current VoIum~ ' 8 to 10 ~lhon gal~e~w on a~mge. * i 2 ~ 16 ~llion gal~ye~. of Wat~ Pump Size * ~d for 3ffi ~F~ ' ~ size woutd ~t _ ~ . Wa~rUs~ * By ~y: ~e a~ night. U~ ,~ByD~: ~te afl~~t ~!~teof3 to ' ~ lffi ~ys, average ~ly u~ i~ * Ov~ 100 ~ys, average ~ily u~ ~ 160.~ A verag. Dai~ 1 ~.~ ga~y. Water Use (I) * ~ ~t~e 3~ gaV~ = 18.~ · ~p ~ws 18.~og~. gal~om, · ~ average pump~g t~e iS ~OUt 9 · Average p~p~ t~e ~ abo~ 5.5 ~y ' David ~ ~ ~lly ~ * Compu~c~,d ~6on ~smm ~11 Conse~affon appli~ion ~ ~om ~ of~e ~. on n~ golf co~. Water mv~gs Measures m 30%. ~i~ ~ga~on ~ wiU (~ ~Vmi.), ~ u~n Iow-flOW ~c~llCr~tk, men--nm ~ ~ ~mte ye~s, * he.md wat~ mq~me~ ~1 be met by ' Nmb~ of 'b~flo~ ~s ~e ~ely ext~d~g ~ily pmp~ ~d ~d by ]mpac~ to me~m~ ov~ ~t fora ye~ ~g~ * B~u~ storage ~n~ ~1 mog~ be ~fill~ Baseflow ~tolffiMsec(l~20~in}. d~g ~er flow ped~, ~e nm~r of ' ~ ~6on ~. p~c~. ~e "p~p~ ~y~" ~m ~cheU C~k should pmpo~on ofMic~ll C~k flow aff~d ~g-- from ~out 2~ up m 30% - Iat~ac~ to · ~chell ~ek c~ to provue s * NO ~o~s ~ould occ~ m fu~, b~ on Fisheries h~l~y fi~, proposed water ' ~ted on Sp~g Cr~k. * WiU cont~ to bc on S~ C~e~ · vol~ is ~o~ 12,~ m3 · ~epe~g of po~ (cl~ il out) ~ll ~cm~ (2.6 ~ ~), ~m~Se by ~m 35%. · New stonge pond is pwp~ed by Irrigation e~g ~r ~d ~n~ ~ sm~e Pond ~uld ~ up to 30,~ ma (6.6 ~n ' C~ ~ ~ m em ~t ~~ * ~~flows~lnot~~. flows h Sp~g C~k ~ ~t · ~t[et ~ ~ t~w v~ ~p-lo8~. * De~e~g of ~t~8 ~nd ~d ~cO~ of ~ pond pwvi&s op~ L Assumptions: * ba~ed on / O0 Irrigation · pump draws ~00 gal/mia · using maximum annual ~rrlgatton volumes (Lc., 10 million £cdMy~ar - ezi, ting/16 million gala~year .future) Ttl~ pa~er h made recyck,~ flbr, 'A .ZIMUTH ENVIRONMENT, L CONSULTING, INC. ~TTACHMENT TO 133 November 24, 2000 AEC 00-071 Ministry of the Envirom'nent Central Region 5775 Yonge Street g~h Floor North York, Ontario M2M 451 Attention: Ms. Cheryl Lewandowski, Supervisor, Water Resources umt, Central Region Re: Water-Taking Permit Application for ClubLink's Cherry Downs Golf and Country Club, Mark. hank Ontario Dear Ms. Lewandowski: This application for a Permit to Take Water (PTTW') is submitted on the behalf of ClubLink for Che Cherry Downs Golf and Country. Club. The existing water taking has been ope'rated since 1961 without significant impact to the aquatic habitat or downstream users of Michell, Spring, and Duffins Creek. However, as noted m MOE Violation Notice #C14898, the facility has been operating without a valid PTTW since it's inception in 196t. ClubLink is in the process of developing a new plan for the facility' that will see the construction of an additional 18-hole golf course and a proposed housing development (being completed by the Kaitlin Group as a co-venture). With re-development, several options will be constructed which will further reduce the water taking from Michell Creek, particularly during low flow periods. Yours truly, .~ Mike Jones; M.y~. President (,....." CONSULTING, INC. MGJ 111 Saunders Road, Unit2, Barne, Ontario L4M 6E7 telephone: (705) 721-8451; fax: (705) 721-8926; azimuth@link$-Ioo.on.ca ATTACHME~'~'r ~__ZTZ. / TO REPORT ~ PD ~.2. - C,' I Application for Permit To Take j N.,~. of ~,pp,~c.n~ ClubLink Corporation ' ^,~,,s 15675 Dufferin St., King City. Ontado [] New Permit Permit Renewal [] Permit Amendment Ezist~g Permit No, Telephone No. (905) 84 Postal Code i LTB 1K5 read tnsa'gct~n~ on ~ Gu~dc for ~l~g ~r A~ of ~t m T~ W~ ('G~') ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ of ~ ~n ~mpl~ ~ ~, ~y ~ ~ o¢ ~t ~ of T~ ~ ~ S~ ~ pmj~a~l~fl~ ~ for ~ of ~R 'GuSt". I ~ of W~t~ Late, Stream or River Name ($} Michell Creek Well(s): How many? I Spring(ah How ~any? PonO(,l: How many? 1 Typ'~: ~]~! DUOOUl [] By-Pass [] O~-Streem [] Pi1 or Quarry (~ Other: TyDe of Source ~- Construction data of Source Date of installation of Water Taking Equipment B Location of Taking ~, , Lo[. Concession, Township or former Townshio and Countl~ or Region or District, or City, Town or Village with name of street and number Cherry Downs Golf Club 2110 Concession Road #7(Lots 13-17) Town of Picketing Are [he proposed works located in an area of development ~ontrol as defined by tho Niagara Escarpment Planning end Development Act [] Yes [] No (if Yes, a~ach copy of NEPDA permit) C Location of Water Usa ] Same ,.i B or Lot Concession, Township or former Township an~ county er Region or DistrtcL or City, Town o~ Village with nnme of street and ~mbef Purpose of Taking Irrigation [] Commercial [] Ind~trt~l [] Muni¢iDal [] Public Drinking Wa,er ~ Ot~r (please Period of Water Tikln~ (complete either section I Taking to commence on a~ ta extend for a ~dod of Sea~nal taki~ to extend from ~ to --~ each year for 0608(11/94) Page t of 3 days [] weak. C] montl~ [::] years _ 10 _ (numbe¢ Of yesrsl · Ca formulaire eat dlsponibla an 135 Amount of Taking from each Source lit the tiling invoNea the tabng el water into storage, please state ~he amount of wa[er Ua $c ril:~lon taken per minute Maximum amount taken per of taklrxj par da¥- maxi~ur'~ N~rnber Number of hours Of taking Der day. 10 Michell Creek up to 400 432,000 24 Clubhouse well 25 7,700 24 365 Maximum numb~ of days et Pro--cation descrl tlon [or u oses of F.~R re at (brief descr]~ Cherry Downs Golf Club consists of an eighteen-hole championship golf course & a nine-hole executive golf course with associated facilities. The propose~l water taking is intended to satisfy irrigation requirements at the facility, only, with water being drawn directly from Michell Creek, pumped into a new off-line reservoir, then to an on-tine pond on Spdng Creek, where it is then subsequently utilized in the irrigation system. Water-taking is staged depending on creek flow and a Iow flow threshold equal to the 60% duration flow is proposed_ HEnvironmental Bill of~ulremont= Is rh,s a proposal for a Pre~cribed Inst~ment ~der EBR? If ~ is ~xce~ed [rom public noTIfica~on, provide re.on ".umentation is s~:~l~r[ of the above noted exCe~ion mus! be prov6-1ed (refer to EAA or Tribunal Decision Supporting ~formatlon check,et, ThJ Information and Pretectlon of Pdvec LAct (FOIPOPA) and tho Envl~nme~f Bill of SUPPORTING INFORMATION Pre-application consultation with MOE Documentation Provided Description of the proposed wor~s Environmental Study Repm't {ESR) Preilmma~ Re.ct Hydraulic end P?ocesl CalCUtltionl flit of lUl~i;~rtlng informltWn attached to thll Ippllcetlon end li aubject to thI Freedom of ATTACHED7 REFERENC6 CAN BE Dt$CLOSE~ ~yea C] no 0 ye, ~ ,~ r-] yes [] no ~yee [] ~ [] yea [] no [] ye~ ~ no [] yes [] no Violation Order # C 14898 · .al Plans end Specifica~Jor~ Raw Water Quality Analysis Hydro OeOIoglcll Other A~ached Information 0608(1 ~/9~) page 2 of 3 iX]yes rifle El,,, O. Bt,.. O.o ~Jyea r"'lrto ATTACHMENT #~ ..z./z/ ,TO 1_ 3 ~ REPORT ~ PD ~2.2- O.-L_.~ · and the inlormation submKted in , the ut3dersigned hereby declare that to the best O! my knowledge, the information contained herein /~ms application is complete and accurate tn every waY. The Qpplica~t ~graea to indemnify and save harmless the Crown in right of the P~ovm ontario and its officers, employees, agents and con~tecto~/ from a~ agai~t all damages, loss. costs, claims, suits, injuries, demand,, act~ns precee~ngs res~[[~ from o~ in e~y manner con~t~ with act or omission of the ap~icant or any ot its otlicers, employees, agents or cgnt~ relaumg ...... r '- :- i-suin- e Permit to Take Water to im~se ~ Ge~ral Tet~s a~ CO~Ol~lons appearl~ on 1~ I understand ~hat ~ Is the po.cy o% the u~ actor m ~ ~ / _ / Guide for APplwng tot Permit to ~ake Wa[er. ' ~ / ~ J -- Mike Jones -Azimuth Environmental / / ~ ~ ~ 12/08/ Dmg~am of Location of Water Taking 0608(11/94l Page 3 of 3 .. .? ; \' r "~ Pumphouse ' "~_,'lubhouse'Well ClubhOusf: ATTACH~,~EI',JT REPORT EBR Registry Number: IA01E0194 Type of Posting: Instrument Ministry: Environment Date Proposal Loaded: 2001/02/19 Comment Period: 30 day(s) Written submissions may be made between Februm'y 19, 2001 ~ March 21, 2001. Ministry Reference Number: 01-P-3004 Status of Posting: Proposal 137 NOT/CE OF PROPOSAL FOR AN INSTR--: ~ Queen's Printer for Omario, 2001 Th. is proposal notice has been re-posted to the Environmental Registry as the type ofperrait was mcon'ect, The commem per~d has been re-started. Instrument Type: OWRA s. 34 - Permit to take water Proponent: ClubLink CorporationCherry Downs Golf and Country Club, 15675 Dufferin St., King City, Ontario, L7B 1 K5 Location of Activity: PICK.EKING Co u n ty/District/Region: Regional Mua.icipality of Durham Other Activity Location Identifiers: Lots 13-17, ConceSSion 7 Description: Cherry Downs Golf Club consists of aa eighXeen hole championsNp golf course and a nme hale executive golf course w/Ih associated facilities. The proposed water taking is intended to satisfy irrigation requirements at the fac~ only, w/th water being drawn directly fi.om M/cheil Creek, pumped into a new off-line reservoix, then to an on-I/ne pond on Spring Creek, where it is then subsequently util/zed in the irrigation system. Water-taking is staged depending on creek flow and a l~w flow threshold equal to the 60% duration flow is proposed. Other Pertinent Information: of 2 3/1/01 8:45 AJ~ 138 Permit Type: New Source of Water: Michell Creek and Clubhouse Well Purpose of Taking: Irrigation of an existing Golf Course Period of Water Taking: January 1 to December 31 season Amoum of Taking: 1) 1818 Liters per minute for a maximum of up to 24 hours (1,963,900 Liters pea' day), This taking is from Michell Creek, 2) 114 Liters per minute for a maximum of up to 24 hours (163,660 Liters per day). This taking is from the clubhouse well. Length of Taking: From spring of 2001 to 10 years, Water taking may occur for a maximum of 240 days fi.om Michell Creek and ~r a maximum of 365 days from the Clubhouse Well. Comments should be directed to the following Contact Person: Ellen K Reed Assistant Director's Office, Central Region 5775 Yonge~Street, 8th floor Toronto, Ontario, M2M 4J1 PHONE: (416) 326-5945 FAX: (416) 326-3471 Some Government offices may have copies of this proposal for viewing. These are listed below: Central Regional Office 5775 Yonge Street 8th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M2M 4J1 PHONE: (416) 326-6700 FAX: (416) 325-6345 All comments will be considered as part of the decision-making by the Ministry if they: (a) are submitted in writing; (b) reference the EBR Registry number; and (c) are received by the Contact person within the specified comment period ** No acknowledgment or individual response will be provided to those who comment. All comments & submissions reeeived will become part of the public record. *+ ~f2 3/1/01 8:45 139 ATTAOHME~T REPORT CHERRY DOWNS STATUS: New ESA (134) CRITERIA FULFILLED: 2,4,5,6,7,8 ~ENRI~RAL DESCRIPTION_ The Cherry Downs ESA is located east of Brock Road, north of 7th Concession, in the Town of Pickering, It is also located immediately west of ESA 104. The natural features are associated with the Michell and Spring Creeks, and contain young to mature eastern whim cedar (Thuia occi¢.~ntalis) lowland forest; young to mature sugar maple ( .A.~:er sac_¢harum), American beech (Eaclus ¢lr_andifoli~), eastern hemlock (Tsuga ¢~nadensis) upland forest; and young trembling aspen (Populus trer0vioidesl, white elm (Ulmus ameri~;¢na), white ash (.Fraxinus ~rnericana) and white pine (Pinup_ ,strobus), Wetlands include reed canary grass (Phalaris arun~lioacea) and cattail (Typha spp,) marsh, and red-osier dogwood (~ornus sto!gnifera) swamp. The context of this ESA at this time is primarily crop farming and a golf course. CRITERIA FULFILLED Criterion 2 Springs and seepage are found throughout the site on both Michel[ and Spring Creeks. Many brook trout (Sa[y~linus fontinalis_) redds, which are usually associated with ground water discharge, have been observed on the site (OMNR 1994-95), Despite the lack of riparian cover and the use of water for irrigation, Michell Creek has retained its high quality cold water fishery, probably due to significant ground water inputs. Criterion 4 The wooded portions of Michell Creek boast a diverse instream habitat, and is an important spawning area for brook trout. A red-shouldered hawk (Buteo line_atus) was heard calling and a nest was found in the ~orest adjacent to Spring Creek (Gartner Lee 1993, 1994). This shy hawk requires forest interior habitat for nesting, and uses adjacent wetland and riparian areas for feeding. Criterion 5 The area supports three plants which are considered rare in the MTRCA Region: sedge fringed gentian northern manna grass (,Carex schweinitzii) (.Gentiana ~) (Gl¥¢eria i~orealis) 140 ATTACHMENT #_. z/./ TO REPORT# PD ~2- Ol The sedge ~arex pall~scens and fringed gentian are considered rare in the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources Southern Region (OMNR 1989), The red-shouldered hawk has found suitable nesting habitat in the dense maple/beech forest in proximity to a good food source in the flood plain reed grass wetland along Spring Creek. This hawk is rare in Ontario and in the MTRCA Region due to habitat loss and disturbance. Criterion Thirty-five natural community types were identified, supporting 345 plant, 59 bird and 14 mammal, amphibian and reptile species (Gartner Lee 1993). Richweed (Collinso[~ia (;anadensi.s.) is at the northern edge of its range, the Carolinian zone. Five American woodcock {Scolooax min~r) displayed from tableland meadows in 1995. The site provides nesting habitat for ruffed grouse (Bonasa gmbellus), a ground nester, and three obligate forest interior bird species {Gartner Lee 1994), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), wood thrush (HyIocichla mu.~l;elina) and ovenbird (Seiurus auroceDillus). The large wetland provides breeding habitat for a large population of spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) and wood frog (Rana s¥1vatica), The wetland is in proximity to upland forest where the frogs spend most of their life cycle, the entire summer, fall and winter. Criterion 7 The South of Claremont Wetland, a complex evaluated by the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is found on a tributary of Mitchell and on Spring Creek. Over 80% of wetlands in southern Ontario have been degraded or destroyed. Wetlands are considered under- represented in the MTRCA Region. Criterion 8 The woodland associated with Spring Creek provides nesting habitat for red-shouldered hawk, a sensitive species which requires reasonably remote, interior upland forest. COMMENTS It is suspected that there is a strong relationship between this ESA and ESAs 104 on Duffins Creek. When ESA 104 is updated, this relationship should be evaluated and perhaps the two ESAs combined. The existing golf course has submitted a proposal for an expansion. The concept which protects the ESA has been conceptually approved, The future of this application is unclear at the time, pending approval of an accompanying residential development. Any future development should take into account the impact of adjacent land use on the natural features and ideally should result in an increase in the size of habitat blocks. ATTACH V. Er.~'7 # z././ TO REPOR'[ ,~ PD .2 ~2- 0 l' 141 The following eight plant species found on the site are considered rare in Durham Region (Gartner Lee 1994): sedge sedge golden saxifrage richweed fringed gentian northern manna grass pale jewelweed pinesap ~hlenium americanum ..Cotlinsonia ~ Gentiana cr~ ~ j~allida 142 ATTACHMENT ,~ z// .TO REPO~7i PD ~- © ¢ Environmental I¥ Significant Area rlJJJl]B conmmr~atlo~ {glhafJt¥ #134 E.s.^. t 134 scale in 1500 - Cherry Downs metres 3000 Tomnship of Pickering ATTACHMENT ,~ .Z// TO REPORT ~, PD 2.2 - ~ t 143 CRITERIA FOR THE DESIGNATION OF ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS WITHIN THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY JURISDICTIONAL AREA September 1993 Criterion 1: The area represents a d~stinctive and unusual landform or other geological feature within the MTRCA region, Ontario, or Canada. Criterion 2: The area serves a water storage function and/or a groundwater recharge/discharge function. Criterion 3: Criterion 4: Criterion Criterion 6; Criterion 7: Criterion 8: Criterion The area provides e linkage or corridor function between sites that are of terrestrial or acluatm biological importance, and which depend upon the linkage/corridor for their continuation, The area is essential as habitat for the continuatmn of a significant terrestrial or aquatic species, populations, or concentrations of species, including migratory stopover or staging areas, breeding or spawning areas, and wintering yards. The area provides habitat for indigenous terrestrial or aquatic species that are considered to be rare, endangered, threatened or vulnerable within the MTRCA region, Ontario or Canada. The area contains aquatic or terrestrial habitats and/or biological communities, which are exceptional and/or of high quality, and/or diversity, within the MTRCA region, Ontar!o, or Canada. The area contains an aquatic or terrestrial ecosystem which has limited representation m the MTRCA region, Ontario or Canada and/or is a small remnant of a particular habitat which has virtually disappeared w'thin the MTRCA region. The area is of sufficient size to provide habitat or potential habitat for species intolerant of disturbance and encroachment, and those requiring extensive blocks of habitat. The area has been ~dentified or classified by the Province of Ontario as a Significant Natural Area (Area of Natural and Scientific interest -Life and Earth Science ANSi's) OR as a Provincially Significant Wetland (Class 1, 2 and 3). 144 ,moJ~ 00:11 6I-OS-AON ATTACHMENT ~ ~/~ TO REPORT ~ PD 2~ -c;, 145 .A. L A 6 T A I R 24 August 2000 VTA FAX: 1-905-436-6612 Mr. Alex Georgieff, M.C.I.P Commissioner of Planning Durham Region C/o Barbara Hodgins, Senior Planner Box 623 Whit. by, Ontario LIN 6A3 Re: REGIONAL FILE NO. OPA2000-005 Dear Mr. Georgieff: I would like to register my strong objection to the proposed country - residential development on lands designated Permanent Agricultural Reserve in the C'rty of Pickerin§. As you must know them is at least a 7-year history of community interest and involvement in this and related issues. I have appeared before the Picketing Coundl and its Committees. I have also appeared before the Regional Committee and the first OMB pre- hearing. Unfortunately I cannot be present for this heating. The decision to hold a public meeting on August 29m will offend many concerned residents. Quite apart from the short notice during a period of summer vacations the meeting date also conflicts direc%y with the OMB headng slated for 10:00 a.m. on August 29m. _ , 146 ATTACHMENT# /_/z~ TO REPORT ~ PD ~,~ -£, t Page 2 Mr. Alex Georgieff 24 August 2000 I strongly oppose the Cherry Downs application to amend the Durham Region Offidai Plan and permit 125 homes on their golf course lands. .- Yours sincerely, ALASTA~R W. GILLE.SPIE AWG/sk 2045 Uxbddge/Pickering Townline Cla~r~nont, Ontario LiY 1Al - ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD 1 4'? 03,29/01 13:29 ~416 968 1624 A GA L -4-*-4 PICKERING PLANNI 002 A L ,~. ~ T A, I R W. G I L L /r~ 8 P I ]~ 200i CiTY OF PtCKEFIING PLANN¢i,~ AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 145 ATTACHMENT ~,..~,z _TO REPORT d PD_ ,=2~ - o ~ ATTE',NFTION; COMNAI..q,q. iON~-R OF PLANNING FA.X: (905) 436-64,12 c/o Barb Hodgins, Senior Planner Commissioner of'Planning Box 623. Whitby. Outario LIN 6A3 Re :- KEG[ONAL i~[LE NO. OPA 2000-005 A.s a concerned resident of North Picketing I am registenng my apposition to any and all ul,.',,t~cs to Durham Regional Plan Amendment 60, ctu~eatly prohibiting the use of shared water/aewage services in rural areas except for extraordinary reason& It is felt that privately operated communal water supply and /or sewage treatment Facilities run a high risk of creating potential health lm. zards, not only to the prime users of such facilities but al~o to neighbouring residents. Any deviation from the Official Plan, at once becomes precedent seuit~3 and sustaining... I am Ibrther opposed to the Durham Region Official Plan which would permit Cherry Downs Co-Venture Ltd. to develop their proposed "aatellite community" the public meeting for which is scheduled for 29~' August, 2000. My mmn masons, (not necessarily in order of priority), for opposition to the proposed development are ~ I. Rapid depletion of"Prime, Permanent, Agricultural Reserve Lands" 2. The rural population growth targets of thc Picketing Official Plan up to year 2016 are approaching pre- set levels. 3. Possible inc,'ease in traffic density through Greenwood and North Westney Road areas. 4. The prolmsed develonmer~ is on. or in the vicinity of an Environmentally Significant Area. Further to ~his point I would add that I have persdnally been affected by "developer- paid", environmental surveys ant[ studies. They are invariably, biased in favour of the applicant and rarely depict a tree ificture. Please let the foregoing serve to register me as a participant lbr the hearings. I shall look forward tu bclng updated on all proceedings and decisions regarding the matter. Yours truly, Barrio & Marion Thomas 3378 Wcstney Road R.K # 1 Locust Hill, Ontario, L0H l J0 . Tel. (905) 683-4577 ATTACHMENT REPORT ~' PD ,To ~ Picketing Planning and Picketing Civic Complex The Esplanade Pickermg~ Ontario~ LIV Attention : Ron Taylor Re: Application appeal by Cherry Downs ('~-Venturc Lid. Since D.R.O.P.A. 60 re,0re<em<~ ~. ., a sound policy the al>ore,, appeal should unquestionably be re. iectcd. There are ))o extraordinary health or environmental concerns which wan'ant deviation fi'om the Official Plan Ammendment. The proposed Cherry Doxvp, s Co-Venture Ltd., development, if allowed to proceed will undoubtedly add further pressure to what remains of the once abundant wildlife population in the Pickering area. Barrie and Mar/on Thomas R.R./~1 Locust Hill, Ontario, I,0H I J0 150 ATTACHMENT ~,~ L TO From: Jessica Markland <jmmarkl @yahoo.corn> To: <planning @ region.durham.on.ca> 'Date: 08/25/2000 2:47PM 'Subject: Regional File No. OPA 2000-005 Attention: Barb Hodgins, Senior Planner I am opposed to the application by' Cherry Downs to build up to 125 houses on this site. There are numerous reasons why this proposal is undesirable, some of which are quoted below: 1. Urban sprawl and all the external costs it implies (schools, traffic, air & noise pollution, fire services, police, more taxes etc. etc.) 2. Location on Permanent Agriculture Reserve 3. Important Wildlife Area and coldwater fishery in Duffins Creek and its tributaries, eg. Mitchell Creek, Spring Creek 4. Impact on surrounding wells and'ground 'water of (a) water taking and (b) spewing out treated sewage on the golf course to irrigate it 5. Claremont Field Centre and Durham Environmental Education Centre is situated immediately beside the lands 6. There are 8 rare plant species and the Red-shouldered Hawk (nationally vulnerable, uncommon to rare Provincially and scarce in Durham Region) Blue-winged Warbler (locally or regionally uncommon). 7. Given the scathing reports on Ontario's water (and air) pollution since Walkerton, shouldn't there be a moratorium on all such proposed developments until a proper provincial policy and relevant environmental studies are performed? Please register my emphatic opposition to this application. Thank you. Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere~ http ://mail. yahoo.com/ ' ATTACHMENT ,~__ .z...~'/ TO REPORT # PD ~2~ ',.'. ; 151 P!a::ni:~c: Department Pii}:erinc Civic Centre One ?he Esplanade Pickeri ng, Ontario L!V CITY OF PIC. KERING PICI';ENIN(~, r',~,,i, r-i r'i ,UIJ! DE',.'E;_ : ' ~ MLN1 A mere decade ac::;, PlcEeri!ic ' 5 L;lalll'l,erF il5 : 5 : t>:ion for the fu(ure, of balanced urban s'z~'~q ;:::~1-¢ ::~niaining and preserving Pickering~s agri..sulrural a~i env.~r,i,:.r.,}:.~:~_iy sensitive areas in i~s Rural Ner~h. Apparently we don':L h~ve xl5:iners _ tke iL¢- -~F.-.i Yel For ! can only in¢errre _~_Lanning s pesi~ion en an app!isal! ;n ~hat was many of ~hese same D!anr!ers now sha. large urban scale s,'~- '~,- ' sensitive area cons%llu%es sesponsLf grewth J I believe the majority .of Pickering's .:2-~ ze::}' :.aren't swayed from that original planning visien that ~-;.,~lti alil',t.: uS 2e pass en a legacy o£ agriculzurai and environmenlal sle:~nr-lski: to our kids. Are those dreams not just as valiti ~r'_! L::.m{ Lianl as l;l. ublink ' s? As most of the maior cilleS ?.~ 'contain and grapple wi~h Urban Sprawl, this elannlns dep:arEmenL application se far demonsl~:ate a wi!izn:!ness ~o p:or0te i~. This Clublink application is nrily the epLi~n-.)' }f Urban Scraw!l Le~s not forge~ previous houses, a conference 2entre, st:riD r~i: and even a hoEe!. What is il. efore you now is ort!y ihe iirst s:~ese, (Golf course only - yeah "~ think %hat you would would jeapordize and degrade a ~r'slLne "permanent. agricultural reserve, corridor, set an irreversab!e 1:he Rural area and disregari --~ ~.:he co}~tunity all because development, is treublinc f T am not mistaken, ~,~ i. wo ~reviiils - , r .... ~,ro~asP~s 3~ ~.tuDlink's were no~ supported. S.o whal -3ull you poss~l'..~ .~ ...... :r: *~.~.~.~ new application tha~ wo"'d :o~-,-! ,--}- r,,- -~ -~ .... ~-;~ ~'s any d~ ~feren~ from ~he EreYl:i'lS ~,~- - -~- ~ --.-,, -. ..... r.. , - - scheme of Clublink'st 152 ATTACHMENT ~'~TO REPORT # PD_ ,~ - ~ / (Don Fleming, 1996: "Ne need at least 225 homes to make the ne~ golf course expansion financially viable." In my opinion this company poses a great threat to southern and central Ontario's natural envirenmen[ and it's precious and limited groundwater resourses. Clublink promotes Urban density developments in environmentally sensitive areas. It appropriates billions of gallons per year of a valuable puDlic resource at no charge, and is presently irrigating Cherry Downs without a valid permit to do so! Here are a few points that I hope you will consider in your deliberation of Club]ink's application. i. There are already 6 active Golf courses within minutes drive ef this site and 5 more in the proposal stage, two of which are en the doorstep of the Cherry Downs Property. I guess when it comes to the Michell Creek watershed, it leeks like the last developer with his pipe in the ground is a rotten egg! 2. The sewage plant they are preposlng is not in compliance with Durham regions policy for their use irt this area { OPA60 ). 3. There are 4 online ponds en their property that are illegal and sheutd be removed. 4. To my knowledge their irrigation scheme is not supported by the TRCA and if it is, there is something seriously wrong! 5. The Ontario Municipal Board has already rejected Deer Creek's smaller subdivision application in an already established estate community on municipal water, and deemed it "bad planning" I can only hope that the concept of stewardship and sound judgement will prevail in rejecting Clublinks's lates~ intrusion into this rare and sensitive part of your Rural area. In closing, I would strongly suggest that - if Pickering wants to salvage any shread of credibility - you will not only not support this application but will also rescind that bogus snd prejudicial resolution to invite the developer back made las~ year and to withdraw its support for the "Golf course only" expansion that was foolisly and recklessly approved in '96. Five years is enough - time~s up! Yours Truly, ~TTACHUE~rT ~_ ~/~Y TO REPORT ~ PDt, PLANNING 8: DF~\'ELOP*IENT DEPARTMENT MORAN FebruaO' l 3,2001 Subject: Ron Taylor Planner Il Robert Start' Supervisor, Development Control Durham Region Ofticial Plan Amendment Application ePA 2000-05/D Pickering Official Plan Amendment Application ePA 00-002/P Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2600 and A 29/00 Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application Che~' Downs ('o Venture Ltd. Part of Lots 12 to 1(~. ('oncession 7 (Lands south of Eighth ('onccssion Road. Durham Road No, 31 City off Picketing We have reviewed the above-noted application and p~'ovide the lbllowing comments: 1) A stormwater management rcpo~'t will bo required and must address all proposed developmmlt within this s~tc. 2) All easements required by thc t'itv tbr stormxxatcr management puq>oscs must be pro\ idcd. The development o~' [)eve]opnqcnt Area ~1 and the port,on o~' Development Area ~2 that fronts onto Sideline 714 (existing or realigned) must be addressed through a subdivision agreement(s) with thc ('ltv. We suggest the plan of subdivision be phased (Dev. Area ~1) and (Dev. Area ~2). Although this creates two registercd plans and two subdivision agreements, it will pem~it them to be independent as iht as timing of approvals, construction, maintenance periods, etc. The road within Development Area =t and the reconstruction and or realignment of Sideline ~14 will be constructed to standards set bx thc City of t'ickering. 4) continued ... 154 Ron l'avlor ATTACHMENT~ .~ TO REPORT ,f PD,~'~ ~ '~ - & t Februa~7 13, 2001 Page 2 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) ll) 12) The existing Sideline #14 will need to remain open for public use until the realigned portion is constructed to conditions that would permit it to be dedicated as public highway. Couditions should be implemented in the draft plan conditions, detailing the requirements of the City, necessary to permit any tree removal, pre-grading or other construction activity on the site. A soils report containing geotechnical inlbrmation for all areas of the site that xvill have construction activity or infrastructure installed is required. Details regarding fencing and/or separation requirements between private rear and side yards and the adjacent golf course activities nmst be addressed. A construction management plan will be required. It will need to address such items as schedule of construction, hours of operation during construction, sedimentation and silt controls, monitoring of all aspects of the development of the site, road cleaning, dust control, material storage (building, construction, soil, etc.), equipment storage, vehicle parking areas, etc. This is in addition to all requirements for environmental management. Development Area #1 - property ownership of the area between Lot 23 and 25 and Durham Road 31 will need to be addressed. There will need to be 0.3 metre reserves placed along the north side of Regional Road 31 adjacent to these lots on fids piece of land. Fencing along these flankages may be required as separation from the road. There should be fencing and/or visual buffering betxveen Sideline 12 and the proposed communal servicing block. Depending on the proposed depth of this facility, there will need to be sufficient distance between the thcility and the road (Sideline 12) to ensure a stable slope and protected road platfbrm. There is presently a development agreement between the City and 821034 Ontario Limited dated October 1, 1997, that addresses works on Sideline 14. However, the works addressed by this agreement have not been completed within the time limits set by the agreement. This matter should be rectified or resolved as a condition of this application. P,S/pr Copy: Development Approvals Co-ordinator Robert Starr AT"rACHMENT REPORTd~ PD~ ~ ~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 155 MEMORANDUSI Nlm'ch 22, 2001 1o: F l'O in: Ron Taylor Planner 2 Bob Start Supervisor, Development Control RECEIVED 2001 CITY OF PICKERING DE ,'E-LC ~ME'jT DEP4F~TM~N? Sub.iect: Comments- Submitted Studies Durham Region Orificial Plan Amendment Application ePA 2000-05/D Picketing Official Plan Amendment Application ePA 00-002/P Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 5-P-2000-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A 26,0~) and A 29/00 Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application I 8-ZO-02900-01 Clublink Corporation (Cherry Downs CoVenturc Ltd. Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7 (Lands south oF Eighth Concession Road, north Durham Regional Road No. 31 and west of Sideline I2 \Ve have reviewed the following reports and plans in support of the above-noted applications. In addition to our previous comments lb:warded to you by memorandum dated February 16, 2001, our comments are as follows: "Cherry Downs Recreational Residential Community - :\ Planning Analysis" prepared by Bousfield, Dale-Harris. Cutler and Smitt~ Inc.. and dated June 2000: 1. No specific comments Cherry Downs Housing Developinent ElS (Environmental hnpact Study) prepared by ESG International Inc., and dated July 2000; 4.1 Area 2 - 7.0m paved road with rolled curb is less than our minimum standard. If this is proposed for the realignment of Sideline 14, the minimum width will be 8.5m of pavement with rolled curb. Sideline 14 will continue as a municipal road to a point north of the most northerly residential tot where at turning circle should be identified, t3eyond that location the road is basicalh; access to a private area and municipal maintenance is not proposed. REPORT Ron Taylor Clublink Corporation (Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.) March 22, 2001 Page 2 Cherry Downs ttousing Development ElS (cont'd) 4.1.3 Roof leaders to surface swales will depend on the situation shown on detailed grading plans when submitted. Our present standard required any lot widths 12.0m or less to be connected directly to the storm sewer. The report will need to be revised to reflect this, they can add that with detailed grading some discharge to surface swales may be permitted. Cherry Downs Golf Club Agricultural Impact Assess~nent prepared by ESG International Inc., and dated June 2000; 1. No specific comments Functional Servicing Report prepared by G.M. Sernas & Associates Ltd., and dated June 2000; 2.0 Area 1 a) There is no indication on the drainage of the road. We would assume an urban cross-section as is proposed in Area 2. Due to the number of units an 18.0m Right-of-Way with an 8.0m pavement as per Pickering Standard P-705 should be acceptable, however a storm sewer and outlet should be identified. Area 2 a) The storm sewer is not indicated on the portion of Sideline 14 from the 7th Concession to tine realignment. This issue must be addressed. b) Roof leaders to surface swales will depend on tim situation' shown on detailed grading plans when submitted. Our present standard required any lot widths 12.0m or less to be connected directly to the storm sewcr. The report will need to be revised to reflect this, they can add that with detailed grading some discharge to surface swales may be permitted. c) The stormwater pond, although it receives road drainage, we anticipate it to be a privately maintained pond. This should be indicated in the report. ATTASHL:EL;T ~. _..~_.___TO REPORT ,~ PD --.J - c' Ron Taylor Clublink Corporation (Cheru' Downs Co\.'enture Ltd.) March 22, 2001 Page 3 157 Functional Servicing Report 6.0 Sideline 14 will have a milainaum 8.5m width of pavement with rolled curb (ii' desired) and a turllillg circle will be required at some point just north of' the most northerly housing unit, Beyond that location the road is a private access to thc Club House facilities Servicing Concepts Report for Cherry Downs Golf Club" prepared by Azimuth Environmental Consulting Inc., and dated June 1. No specific comments lraffic Slildy prepared by RGP Transtech Inc., and dated ,lunc 2()0 ). I. No specific comments Environmental Noise Analysis prepared by ,Jade Accoustics Inc., and dated February 28,2001 I. No specific comments ,,'et Copy: Development Approvals Coordinator R. Start 158 A'FI'AOHMENT ~' _~'D TO REPORT ~' PD .~',,~- ~:~ i Interdepartmental Memorandum Fire Prevention Date: Friday, March 16, 2001 To: Ron Taylor Planner 2 From: Rex Heath Fire Prevention Officer REi Comments - Submitted Studies Durham Region Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D Picketing Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 00-002/P Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2000-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/00 and A 29/00 Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-Z0-02900-01 Clublink Corporation (Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.) Part of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7 (Lands south of Eighth Concession Road, north of Durham Regional Road No. 31 and west of Sideline 12) Ron~ Further to our conversation of Friday, March 16, 2001 regarding the proposed residential development as noted above, this department forwards the following comments. Potable Water Supplies 1) Within the content of the study, documentation provided indicates that communal water supplies consisting of reservoirs, water mains etc. will be provided as a source of potable water. This supply will provide water for the operation of the golf course (irrigation, club house) and residential uses. However, throughout the report, consideration for fire protection has not been addressed. Therefore, we would request that the applicant provide documentation bearing an engineers seal, which shall outline fire protection requirements supporting the residential property use. 2) The report addresses an expansion of the existing clubhouse for the purposes of an anticipated increase in client base. As mentioned in item one, there seems to be no consideration given to fire protection for the clubhouse expansion. Understanding that costs are a consideration when developing sites of this description, it may be advisable to extend fire protection for future expansion. ATTACHMENT ~ ~_.~_.~.___- TO REPORT # PD "~ ~-.' - c: , 159 3) If this site were developed then this department would recommend that wording beneficial to the municipality be implemented into the subdivision agreement. Such wording would request that the municipal fire department be alloy, ed to use on site water supplies to fight fires in other rural areas within the municipality In closing, if you have any questions regarding the content of this report, contact the undersigned at your convenience. Regards, Rex Heath, Fire Prevention Officer ATTACHMENT t '5' / TO REPORT t PD '~ 2 .... , March 15, 2001 To: From: Subject: Operations & Emergency Selv. ices OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DE ,_~,, ~I':,~I¢,.?B]N? MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGLNrEERING I2{1~8~--I ,,-,Bt, TC) , ~ :.~.,.,, t. OP', TO: ....... MEMORANDUM ............. ~- Everett Buntsma ~-- Director, Operations & Emergency Se~ices DepOnent Richard Holborn Division Head, Municipal Property. & Engineering Durham Region Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 2000-05/D Pickering Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 00-002/P Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P 2000-03 Zoning By-law Amendment Applications A26/00 and A 29/00 Minister's Zoning Order Amendment Application 18-ZO-02900-01 Clublink Corporation (Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.) Part of.Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7 (Lands south of Eighth Concession Road, north of Durham Regional Road No. 31 and west of Sideline 12) The Municipal Property & Engineering DiVision has reviewed the above noted applications and I provide the following comments. The applicant shall undertake all requirements for the legal aspects including reference plans of re-aligning Sideline 14 with respect to stopping up and closing the section of the road allowance required for creating additional lots. The termination of Sideline 14, including sufficient lands for the construction of a permanent turning circle needs to be discussed further. The conceptual plan of continuing Sideline 14 further north and west as a Municipal Road only benefits the clubhouse and clubhouse parking, and is not supported. This access should be as a privately owned and maintained driveway off of Sideline 14. RH:ds l:~SITEPLAN\CherryDowns.docMar-01 A'FfACHM£NT ~ --' '~ TO REPOR'I # PD~ 161 SERVICES DEPARTMENT Subject: Stephen Reynolds, Division Head Comments - Submitted Studies Application OPA lO{~-O5 D D~h~ Re~ion Official Plan Amendment ~ Application OPA ~-t~-OOl ? Picketing Official Plan .~endment S_p-1000-03 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application '9 ~3fl Zomng By-law ,mendment Applications A 26 00 and A - - - Application i S_Z0-02900-01 Minister Zoninz Order ~endment Clubli~ Co~oration (Che~ Downs CoV enture Ltd. ~ pm of Lots 12 to 16, Concession 7 (L~ds south of Eighth Concession Road, ~orth of Durham Re~onal Road No. 31 and west of Sideline 1N As per your request, I have reviewed the documents relating to Che~' Downs Recreation Community Repo~S. We do not see ~Y issues relating to Culture & Recreation m respect to this proposal. The responses from the Recreation, p~ks and Cultural Se~'ices Master Plan process indicated ~ interest for expanded or enh~ced golf facilitF development- /'// ) ? -- ' ~hen Re}-nolds RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 36/00, submitted bv Mr. Frank Scanga of F. and A. Scanga Holdings Limited. on lands being [Jot 23, Plan 492. City of Pickering, to amend the zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a maximum one-storey, 130 square metre converted dwelling capable of supporting a personal service shop, professional and business office, and limited retail uses, be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix ! to Planning Report No. 21-01: and That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning B-law Amendment Application A 36/00. as set out in draft Appendix II to Report Number PD 21-01, be fbrwarded to City Council for enactment. Btaylor:recomm zoning scanga PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Nell Carroll Director. Planning & Development DATE: June 1, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 21-01 SUBJECT: Zoning By-lay, Amendment Application A 30 ()Il) F. and A. Scanga Holdings Limited Lot ~" 49'~ _~, Plan _ (West side of Liveu>ool Road, north of Kingston Road City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-lave An~cndmcnt Application A '~0 iii). submitted bx Mr. Frank Scanga of F. and A. Scanga Holdings Limited. on lands bein~ Lot 23. Plan ~92. City offPickering, to amend the zoning on the subject lands to permit thc establishment off a maximum one-storey, 130 square metre converted dwelling capable o~' supporting personal se~ice shop. professional and business office, and limited retail uses. be APPROVED subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Planning Report No. 21-01: and That the amending zoning by-law to implelncnt Zoning By-law Amendment Application A _6:00, as set out in draft in Appendix II to Report Number PD '~1-01. be forwarded to City Council for enactment. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 36 00 submitted to the City of Picketing. ALITHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS' No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The subject lands are located on tile west side of Liverpool Road betv,'een Kingston and Glenanna Roads (see Attachment :1 - Location Map). Tile property is currently zoned "RY', which permits a detached dwellim,=. Tile applicant has applied to amend the zoning by-law in order to permit the establishment of business and professionaI office, personal ser~'ice shop, and limited retail uses on the subject property (sec Attachment ::2 - Conceptual Site Plan). Currently, a detached dwelling exists on the subject property which is proposed to be converted into a personal service shop use for a hair salon in the short teml. The applicant has also applied to pemfit both professional and business office uses and limited retail uses on the subject property. In addition, Staff recommend the retention of the existing detached dwelling residential use on the subject property. 163 164 Report to Council PD 21-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 36/00 Date: June 1,2001 Page 2 Approval of this application will allo~v the owner to convert the existing dwelling into a hair salon, and potentially provide limited floor space for other uses (office and limited retail) in manner that is sensitive to surrounding land uses. This change in use is considered a first incremental step in the transition of this area away from an exclusively residential use to mixed uses. The proposal complies with the Official Plan policies which specifically recognize the reuse of existing dwellings in this area for offices, personal service, and retail uses. It is recommended that Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 36/00 be approved and that Council adopt the draft implementing by-law attached as Appendix II to Report Number PD 21-01. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meetim, A Public Information Meeting for this development proposal was held on February 15, 2001. Information Report No. 05-01, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues and comments identified to that date through circulation of the application, was prepared for that meeting. The text of that Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #3). No written comments were received from surrounding landowners at the time of writing of the Information Report. Prior to the Public information Meeting, written comments were received from the Durham District School Board (see Attachment #4) and the City's Supervisor, Development Control (see Attachment #5) expressing no objection to this proposal. Written comments were also received from Veridian Connections indicating that the applicant must make direct application to Veridian to obtain approval of the electrical service arrangements and related work for the project, that the existing service to the building may be inadequate, that all work from thc public road allowance to the service entrance and the metering arrangements must comply ~vith Veridian's requirements and specifications, and that prior to obtaining a building permit, the applicant shall, by agreement, confirm acceptance of the terms and conditions of providing electrical service (see Attachment #6). Minutes of the Public Information Meeting are provided for reference (see Attachment #7). 2.0 Additional Information Agency Comments Since the preparation of Information Report No. 05-01, the following comments have been received: Liverpool West Community Association (LWCA) through correspondence authored by Mr. Martin Herzog (LWCA director), noted they recommend a detailed review be required to address future land use and urban design, including types of new uses, the location of permitted uses, and how the uses that interface with adjacent stable residential areas will be managed to ensure sensitivity and minimize impacts. The LWCA is also concerned with the protection of trees during (re)development, both for this site and in a broader City-wide context, and traffic congestion during peak periods, citing the left turn vehicular movement in this area as a particular public safety concern. The LWCA prefers a traffic management study be undertaken and address opportunities for reducing or coordinating left turn vehicular movement (see Attachment #8). Report to Council PD 21-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 36 '(;(i Date: June 1, 2001 Page 3 1 6,5 The Region of Durham Planning Department noted that tile subject lands are designated "Living Area" within tine Durham Region Official Plan, whicil pc~'mits limited retai~n~ of goods and services, in appropriate locations, proxided that Community and Local Cc~;'tral Areas are designated in tile area municipal official plan. and the functior~s and characteristics of such Central Areas are not adversely affected. They furtIner noted that tile subject propen.,, is serviced with municipal v, ater and sanitary soy, er service, but ttnat improvements may be required to tine entrance onto Liverpool Road. a Type 'B' arterial road (see Attachment #9). Citv's Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering noted concerns regarding inadequate parking based on some of the requested commercial uses I sec Attachment ~10). 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Permitted Uses The existing zoning applicable To tile subject property permits one detached dwelling per lot. Tile applicant intends to convert tile existing detached dx,. elling into a personal service shop use (hair salon) in the short tenn, with the future potential of accommodating both professional office and business office uses. and limited retailin< of goods and services serving the area. Staff also recommends thc retention of a detactncd~dwelling residential use be permitted on the subject property. Section 11.14 (d) of the Picketing Oft"lc/al Plan indicates that Council shall consider the use in part, or reuse, of existing dxvellings on the x~cst side of kix'er-pool Road, south of Glenanna Road, for business and professional offices, studios, custom workshops, personal service uses and limited retail shops. The proposed ct~ange of use on the subject property from "RY' - Detached Dv,'elling Residential Zone to "R3-NIU" - Detached Dv,'elling Residential and Mixed Use Zone is in keeping v,'ittn tile Lix'crpool Nci~hbourlnood policies of the Picketing Official Plan and can be considered modest rcdcvclop~'~ent. The majority of tine proposed uses can be introduced to the ncighbourhood in a sensitive manner which respects surrounding residential uses. Eflkctive integration of tile proposed uses with abutting residential uses can be achieved by limiting the gross leasable floor area for all uses and by excluding high parking demand uses, such as convenience stores and food stores. These restrictions will se~'e to prevent more typical ~chain stores' that are common to retail plazas. The subject property is located within a transition area of tine Liverpool Neighbourhood, which is anticipated to slowly transform into a mixed-use area from a predominantly residential area. The conversion ora dxvellin~o unit to a dentist office, two lots south of tine subject property, was a clear indication ofthis~transition. As this application is also an earl,,, attempt to change the usc of tile lands alona thc west side of Liverpool and south o5- Glenanna Road, appropriate measures, includ~ng site plan approval, should be taken to ensure that tho proposed development successfully integrates with existin~ residential uses in the neighbourhood. If kept modest in scale, tho resultant personal servi~c shop, business and professional office, and limited retail uses are appropriate, sensitive and compatible with surrounding established land uses, and in keeping v, ittn the specific policy provisions of the Picketing Official Plan. Approval of the application wi I1 encourage a mix of uses serving a broader area at a community scale and intensity. 3.2 Building Size Limitations It is recominended that a maximum building gross fioo~ area of 130 square metres and maximum one-storey building height be established in tine implementina zoning by-law (see Appendix I). These recommended size limitations xvill address tile scaI~e of development to reduce the impact oil abutting properties and introduce intearation with the area (particularly existing residential properties surrounding the subject prope~rty). Report to Council PD 21-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 36/00 Date: June 1.2001 Page 4 The restrictions will provide the owner with sufficient flexibility to renovate the existing dwelling, providing leasable floor area on the main floor and partially within the existing basement. Any expansion of the building would require approvals from the City with associated staff review and zoning changes. 3.3 Parking Requirements It is recommended that a minimum of 8 parking spaces be provided on the subject property. This recommendation is based on the requirement of 5.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of building gross leasable floor area for the proposed new uses. This requirement should ensure an adequate supply of on-site parking to accommodate the proposed uses and the existing residential use. The proposed uses are to be modest in scale and are unlikely to generate a high parking demand. The rear yard of the subject property is capable of accommodating additional parking, should demand for parking arise in the future. The applicant's submitted plan proposes 7 parking spaces to serve development on the site. Staff's review of this application has determined that the configuration of the proposed parking on the applicant's submitted site plan will need to be revised by siting 3 parking spaces in the frOnt yard (including one handicapped parking space) and 5 parking spaces within the rear yard. The specific on-site parking space layout and treatment will be determined through the site plan review process. 3.4 Development / Site Plan Matters The subject property is located within a "Detailed Review Area" of the Liverpool Neighbourhood. Council could require that a detailed review of the subject property and surrounding lands be undertaken prior to development. The LWCA has expressed concern that a detailed land use and urban design study is appropriate and recommend that the application be deferred or that a temporary use by-law be considered for the applicant's proposed personal service shop use. However, as the proposed development is considered to represent 'minor development' that is modest in scale and as this form of development is envisioned by Official Plan policy, it is not recommended that a detailed review be undertaken as a prerequisite to this application. Through the review of the associated site plan application, staff will assess the proposed development based on the detailed design considerations outlined in Chapters nine and thirteen of the Pickering Official Plan. This assessment will consider matters including, but not limited to, the appropriate integration of the proposed uses into the existin[ residential neighbourhood, the existing landscaped areas and features, existing lot layout, parking areas, ingress/egress, pedestrian accessibility, traffic generation and patterns, and grading and drainage considerations. 3.5 Tree Preservation The subject property currently supports significant mature vegetation, particularly adjacent to Liverpool Road. This vegetation adds presence to the existing streetscape and establishes character within the rear yard. The existing vegetation on the subject property should be protected and retained where practical in order to preserve as many trees as possible, especially adjacent to Liverpool Road. It is recommended that the owner prepare a tree preservation plan to the satisfaction of the City's Director, Planning & Development. Report to Council PD 21-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 36/00 Date: Junel,2001 Page 5 16'7 3.(5 Traffic Conditions This section of Liverpool Road is identified as a Type-B Arterial Road, under the jurisdiction of the Region of Durham. Type-B Arterial Roads are designed to carry moderate volumes of traffic at moderate speeds, have some access restrictions, and generally have a rigtnt-of-way ranging from 30 to 36 metres. Concern was expressed by thc LWCA regarding traffic congestion experienced on Liverpool Road in this area during peak periods. Left-turn vehicular movement associated xvith the proposed use was sited as a particular public safety concern. The Region of Durham Planning Department has indicated that improvements may be required to the entrance onto Liverpool Road. The restricted uses recommended by Staff are not considered high traffic generators and are not expected to create a traffic safety problem. Traffic matters will be addressed through the site plan review process in order to ensure that adequate ingress / egress is provided from the subject property onto Liverpool Road, that traffic generations and patterns arc adequately identified, and that pedestrian safety is addressed. 3.5 Recommended Zoning By-law Amendment The proposed change of usc of the subject property from "R3"- Detached Dwelling Residential Zone to "R3-MU" Detached Dwelling Residential and Mixed Use Zone is in keeping with the Liverpool Neighbourhood policies of the Picketing Official Plan and can be considered modest redevelopment. The proposed uses conforn] to the Picketing Official Plan and can be introduced to the neiglnbourhood in a sensitive manner and respecting surrounding residential uses. E£fcctive integration of the proposed uses with abutting residential uses can be achieved through tine limitation of the maximum gross leasable floor area of the proposed uses. It is recommended that Council adopt tine draft implementing zonino~ bv-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 36;00, attached as Appendix II to l~epo~t Number PD 21-01. The proposal is compatible with the current built form of the area, and will not adversely affect neighbourhood character. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has reviewed and concurs with tl~e recommendations outlined in this Report. 168 Report to Council PD 21-01 Subject: Zoning Bv-laxv Amendment Application A 36"00 Date: June 1,2001 Page 6 170 APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 21-01 AMENDING ZONING BY-LAW TO IMPLEMENT ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPIACATION A 36/00 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PiCKERiNG BY-LAW NO. DRg. ET 171 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area/Zoningl B;-la~ 3t23(0. as amended, to implement the Official Plan of tile Cit~ of Picketing District Planning Area. Region of Durham in Lot 23, Plan 492 in thc City of Picketing. (A 3600) WHEREAS the Council of Thc Coq>oration of the City of Picketing deems it desirable to permit thc establishment of personal service shop. business and professional office, and limited retail uses. on lands being Lot _.~, Plan 492. City of Picketing: AND \VHEREAS an amendment to B~-lav,' 3(~30 is therelbre deemed necessao,; N()W THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREt~Y ENACTS .AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULE I Schedule I attached hereto with notations declared to be part of this Bv-laxv. and references shown thereon is hereby AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-lay, siaall apply to those lands in Lot 23. Plan 492 in the City of Picketing, designated "R3-MU" on Schedule I attached hereto. GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved, or structurally altered except in conlbrmity with the provisions of this By-law. DEFINITIONS In this By-law, (1) "Adult Entertainment Parlour" shall mean a building or part ora building in which is provided, in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, services appealing to or designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations; (2) "Business Office" staalt mean a building or part of a building ira which the management or direction of business, a public or private agency, a brokerage or a labom or fraternal organization is carried ora and which may include a telegraph office, a data processing establishment, a ne~vspaper publishing office, the premises of a real estate or' insurance agent, or a radio or television broadcasting station and related studios or theatres, but shall not include a retail store; (3) "Convenience Store" shall mean a retail store ira which food, drugs, periodicals or similar items of day-to-day household necessity are kept for retail sale primarily to residents of or persons employed in the immediate neighbourhood; (4) (a) "Dwelling" shall mean a building or part ora building containing one or more dxvelling units, but does not include a mobile home or trailer: 172 (s) (6) (7) (8) (9) (b) -2- DRAFT "Dwelling Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities; (c) "Dwellin~ or Sing!21e Dwelling~ shall mean a single dwelling containing one dwelling unit and uses accessory hereto; (d) "Dwelling, Detached or Detached Dwelling~ shall mean a single dwelling which is freestanding, separate, and detached from other main buildings or structures; (a) "Functional Floor Level" shall mean an enclosed building storey containing an area of at least 50% of the building's ground floor area, and having a ceiling height suitable to permit the intended use; (b) "Gross Floor ,area - Residential" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic, or a cellar; (c) "Gross Leasable Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as the case may be, other than rooms jointly used by tenants of the building, such as garbage storage areas, mechanical and electrical rooms; "Food Store" shall mean a building or part of a building in which primarily food produce is stored, offered and kept for retail sale to the public and in which items or merchandise of day-to-day necessity may be stored, offered and kept for retail sale to the public; (a) "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site ora building, or group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (b) "Lot Coverag~ shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all buildings on the lot; (c) "Lot Frontap__~ shall mean the width of a lot between the side lot lines measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from the front lot line; "Personal Service Sho/~ shall mean an establishment in which a personal service is performed and which may include a barber shop, a beauty salon, a shoe repair shop, a tailor or a dressmaking shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in section 224 (9)(b) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.45, as amended from time-to-time, or any successor thereto, or an Adult Entertainment Parlour as defined herein; "Professional Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a physician, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in section 224 (9)(b) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, as amended from time-to-time, or any successor thereto, or an Adult Entertainment Parlour as defined herein; (10) (11) DRAFT "Yard' shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except tbr suctn accessou; buildings, structures, or other uses as are specificall.v pcnmtted thereon; (b) "Front Yard" shall moan a yard extending across the full width of a lot between tile front lot linc of the lot and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tile lot: ( c ) "Front Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a front yard of a lot bctv~'cen tile front lot line and tile nearest wall of tile nearest main buildin~, or structure on the lot: (d) "Rear Yard" shall mcan a yard extending across the Full xxidth of' a lot between the rear lot line of the lot. or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of' tile side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tiao lot: (e) "Rear Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard of a lot betv,'con tile rear lot tine of tiao lot. or where there is no rear lot line, tile junction point et'tile side lot lines, and thc nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tile lot: (0 "Side Yard" shall mean a yard of a lot extending from the front yard to the rear yard, and From tile side lot line to the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tine lot: "Side Yard \Vidtln" slnalI mean the shortest horizontal dinlension of a side yard ora lot betx~ccn the side lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on tile lot: (h) "Interior Side Yard" shall mean a side xard other than a flankage side yard: "Retail Store" shall mean a building or part o~'a building in which goods, ,,','ares, merchandise, substances, articles or things arc stored, kept and offered for retail sale to the public. PROVISIONS (1) Uses Pem~itted ( ~x~-, ~c Zone) No person shall within the lands designated "R3-N1k'" on Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use anv building or structure tbr any purpose except the follov,'ing: (i) detached dwelling residential usc: (ii) business oFI5cc: (iii) professional oFllcc: (ix') personal sen'icc stnop: (v) retail store. (2) Zone Requirements ("R3-NIL:" Zone) No person shall within tile lands designated "R3-MU" on Schedule I attached hereto, use an,,' lot or erect, alter, or use any building except in accordance with the Follov,'ing provisions: 174 (a) AREA REQUIREMENTS -4- DRAFT (i) A detached dwelling residential use, and business office, professional office, personal service shop and retail store uses shall be permitted subject to the area requirements of Section 9.2 of Zoning By-law 3036, as amended; (ii) Despite (a) above, the minimum gross floor area for a detached dwelling residential use shall be 90 square metres, and the minimum gross leasable floor area for business office, professional office, personal service shop and retail store uses shall be 90 square metres; (b) PARKING REQUIREMENTS: (i) For the purpose of this clause, "parking space" shall mean a useable and accessible area of not less than 2.6 metres in width and not less than 5.3 metres in length for the temporary parking of a vehicle, but shall not include any portion of a parking aisle of driveway; (ii) There shall be provided and maintained on the lands designated "R3-MU" on Schedule I attached to this By-law a minimum of 1 parking space for a detached dwelling residential use; (iii) There shall be provided and maintained on the lands designated "R3-MU" on Schedule I attached hereto, a minimum of 8 parking spaces for any business office, professional office, personal service shop, and retail store, including a detached dwelling residential use; (iv) Clauses 5.21.2 a) and 5.21.2 b) of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to the lands designated "R3-MU" on Schedule I attached hereto; (v) Notwithstanding clauses 5.21.2g) and 5.21.2k) of By-law 3036, as amended, all entrance and exits to parking areas and all parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt, or concrete, or any combination thereof; (c) SPECIAL REGULATIONS: (i) The maximum aggregate gross leasable floor area for business office, professional office, personal service shop, and retail stores shall be 130 square metres; (ii) All uses, other than parking, shall take place entirely within enclosed buildings or structures with no outside storage or display; (iii) For the purposes of this By-law, a retail store shall not include a convenience store or a food store as defined herein; (iv) The maximum building height shall not exceed one-storey and 6.0 metres in height. BY-LAW 3036 By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. 7. -5- EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take elTcct /'rom the day offpassing hereo£ subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board. ii' required. read a first, second, and third tinae and iSnallv passcd this daN' ,2001. Bruce Taylor. Clerk R3-MU LOT 25, PlaN 492 SCHEDULE I TO B~Y-~W~ PASSED THIS .,,,~ ;L''~ DAY OF--~.'~ 2001 MAYOR CLERK ATTACHMENT t I TO REPORT ,¢ Pi2 ' .~,1 - ('. i 1 7'7 KITLEY CUt. ROSS E3AYL'¢ STREET POP.AD City of Pickering Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT 23, PLAN 492 , OWNER F. AND A. SCANGA LTD. ' DATE DEC 28, 2000 i DRAWN BY RC , APPLICATION No. A 36/00 SCALE 1:7500 ' CHECKED BY RD ; N FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-12 PA- 178 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN A 36~00 F. & A. SCANGA HOLDINGS LTD. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, SEPTEMBER 26, 2000. PICKERING 173 INFOR31ATION RF~PORT NO. 05-01 FOR PUBLI(7 I: FORMATION MEETING OF February 15, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE V~'ITll TIlE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 36 F. and A. Scalqga Holdings Limited Lot o* 49~ _~. Plan _ (1862 Liverpool Road) City of Picketing 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND I)ESCRIPTION the subject property is located on the west side of iSverpool Road, north of Kingston Road and south of Glenanna Road; a property location map is provided for reference {see Attachment #1); the subject property has approximately 25 metres of lot frontage and 1390 square metres (0.139 ora hectare) oflot area: the subject property cmTently supports a one-storey detached dxx elling; both the front and rear yards of the subject property support mature vegetation: detached dwellings are located directh' north, south and xxcst of thc subject property, and the Hub Plaza and townhouses arc located east of the subject property across Liverpool Road. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAE 3.(} 3.1 - the applicant proposes to establish zoning that would permit personal service shop, business office, professional office, and limited retail uses on the subject property; - the applicant's submitted plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2); - the applicant is interested in initially establishing a personal service shop use for a bait salon business, with the potential in the fixture to allox~ tbr professional office, business office, and limited retail uses on the subject property. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Main Central Area"; Main Cent/'al Areas are to be used as main concentrations of urban activities including community, office, service, shopping, recreational and residential uses; Main Central Areas should generally I~tmction as places of s)qnbolic and physical interest for the residents and provide identity to tine municipality; the application appears to coi1t'otq~2; 180 Information Report No. 05-01 ATTACHMENT # ;~ TO REPORT # PD r.,,-~j Page 3.2 Picketing Official Plan the Pickering Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being located within an "Urban Residential-Medium Density Area" within the Liverpool Neighbourhood; permissible uses ~vithin this designation include residential uses, home occupations, limited retailing of goods and services, limited offices serving the area, community, cultural and recreational uses, compatible employment uses, and compatible special purpose commercial uses serving the area; the subject property falls within a "Detailed Review Area" that identifies areas within a specific neighbourhood as priorities for the preparation of detailed land use, transportation, design or other development guidelines; in undertaking a detailed review, City Council may, among other things, examine the specific land use mix and arrangement, the scale and intensity of use, the transportation network, community design requirements, and any other matters Council deems necessary; should City Council consider this application to be major development, a detailed review may be required prior to its approval; Liverpool Neighbourhood policies encourage the consideration of the use in part, or reuse, of existing dwellings on the west side of Liverpool Road, south of Glenanna Road, for business and professional offices, studios, custom workshops, personal service uses and limited retail shops; Liverpool Road is identified as a "Collector Road", generally providing access to individual properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type-C arterial roads, and generally carrying greater volumes of traffic than local roads, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit; 3.3 Zoning By-law 3036 the subject property is currently zoned "R3" - Residential Third Density Zone, by Zoning By-law 3036, as amended; amendment of the zoning by-law is required in order to permit the new uses being requested. 4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION 4.1 Resident Comments no resident comments have been received to-date; 4.2 Agency Comments (Attachment//3) No Objections or Concerns: - The Durham District School Board; 4.3 Staff Comments in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: · the appropriateness of permitting a broad range of personal service shops, business and/or professional offices, and limited retail uses on the subject property; · the appropriate size and scale of development on the subject lands in relation to existing and future development within the surrounding neighbourhood, particularly maximum aggregate floor areas for certain uses; · the resultant mix of uses permitted on the subject property is compatible and viable, while not negatively impacting on abutting properties, traffic conditions, or the viability of other established commercial areas within the neighbourhood; Information Report No. 05-01 ATTACHMENT ~' ~ ..TO REPORT # PD~ Page 3 181. · site plan matters and property improvements, including the lot layout, parking areas, ingress/egress, pedestrian accessibility, traffic generation and patterns, and landscaped areas and features, and grading and draimige considerations; · the impact thal development n]av have on the existing vegetation along both Liverpool Road and the rear yard oEthe sulzject property. 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFOR31ATION 6.11 v,'ritten comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Inlbrmation Nleeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Reconunemtation Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department tbr a subsequent meeting of Council or 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 dccision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. OTitER INFORMATI ON 6.1 Information Received 6.2 copies of the applicant's subnfitted plans are available tbr viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department; - the applicant indicates that the principals of }:. arid ;\. Scanga Holdings Limited are Messrs. Frank Scanga and Nine Scanga. R;iy D a¥:ff~s Planning Technician RI)/ph Copy: Director, Planning & Development Department Lynda/Taylor, MC~P, RPP Manager, Curretlt Operations ATTACHMENT # I..{ TO REPORT ~' PD ~l- 0 [ VERIDIAN CONNECTIONS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW PROJECT NAME: F. and A_ Scanga Holdings ISamted ,MuNICIPALITY; Picketing ~REF. NO.: ^36/00 SUBMISSION DATE: Jan. 24/01 The Applicant must make direct applica~on to thc Corporation to obtain specific approval of the electrical sennce arrangements and related work £or th/~ project. An electrical consttlmnt or electrician i~ strongly recommended to co-ozdinat= service details, 'l/~e 9pplicant is cautioned that tenders, contracts, or work initiated prior to obt-hnh~g specific approval will be ~object to change. The e_xis~g ser,dce to thi.q building may bc inadequate. DetMls regarding a service ~pgrade can be obtained from our offices. All ,~otk f~om the public road allowance to the service entrance and thc metering arrangmncnts must comply with the Corpo~;~mon's rcquirements and specifications, Poor to obtaining a building permit, thc .Apphcant shall, by agreement, confirm acceptance 0f the terms and conditions of providing electrical service~ Gl-FY OF i:HGKERING F'L,,X,N i ~IH (3 ,\hid DEVELOPL~IENT DEPARTMENT Technical Kepzescntative - Don ]3amett Telephone 427-,9871) Ext. 3253 THE DURHL~M DIST!~ICT SCHOOL BOARD F aciiities Set vices 400 [auntor~ Road East \Vhitbv O?!erio L 1R 21(~, ~e: (905i 666-55d0 ~ -800-265-3968 Fax: (905! (,66-6439 A'I'I'AOHME]YT #, 5 ,TO REPORT ~' PD~ 183 January 30, 2001 --~C E I V E D ,lAN 3 1 2001 CITY OF PICKERII",IG P LA NI'IIt,~G Al'ID DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The Corporation of the City of Picketing Planning Department Picketing Civic Centre One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Ray Davies Dear Mr. Davies RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A36/00 F. and A. Scanga Holdings l,imited Lot 23, Plan 492 (1862 Liverpool Rd.-West side, between Kingston Rd. & Glenanna Rd.) City of Picketing Staff has reviewed the infonnation on the above noted application and under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, has no objections. Yours truly, Christine Nancekivell, Planner CN:em 1 :~PRO PLAN~ ATA~P LN G,Z 13 L A3 6 -00 184 ATTACHMENT # ~' TO REPORT# PD ~i-~' i Excerpts from Statutory Public information Meeting Minutes of Thursday, February 15, 2001 HCKER'! NG STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES The Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. (iv) ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 36-1)1) F. AND A. SCANGA HOLDINGS LIMITED LOT 23, PLAN 492 .(1862 LIVERPOOL ROAD) Ray Davies, Planning Technician, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #05-01. ATTACHMENT # ~._..~.~.~TO REPORT # PD~~ PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 185 M E M OtL~ND U M February t 3,2001 To: FI'Olll: S ubj ect: Ray Davies Planning 71'echnician Robert StaiT Supervisor, Dcvelotm~ent Control Zoning By-lay, Amendment Application A 36..0(I F. and A. Scanga Holdings Limited Lot 23, Plan 492 (1862 Liverpool Road west side, between Kingston Road and Glenanna City of Picketing \Ve have received the above-noted application and on the understanding that this proposal will require a site plan application ami review, we have no comments at this time. RS/pr Copy: Development Approvals Co-ordinator Robert Stan7 The Regional Municipality of Durham Plannina Department Box 623 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor Lang Tower West Buildi ng Whitby, Ontario Canada L1N 6A3 186 February 22, 2001 ATTAC ,v rr REPORT # PD_. '~l - C. i TO Ray Davies Planning Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON LlV 6K7 Dear Mr. Davies: Re: Zoning Amendment Application A 36/00 Applicant: F. & A. Scanga Holdings Limited Location: Lot 23, Plan 492 1862 Liverpool Road Municipality: City of Pickering Tel: (9051728-7731 We have reviewed this application and the following comments are offered with Fax: (905) 436-6612 respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Official Plan, the proposed method A. b Georgieff, MCIP. RPPof servicing and delegated provincia plan review responsibilities. The purpose of the Commissioner 'lanning application is to permit personal service,-business / professional office, and limited retai uses within an existing'single detached dwelling. The subject property is designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes and shall be developed to 'ncorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure. Limited retailing of goods and services is also permitted, in appropriate locations, provided thai Community and Loca Central Areas are designated in the area munlc~oal official plan, and the functions and characteristics of such Central Areas are no~ adversely affected. The Regiona Works Department has advised that the site s serviced with municipa water ana sanitary sewer service, however, improvements may be required to the entrance onto Liverpool Road, a Type 'B' arterial road. The applicant is required to submit six (6) copies of the site plan to the Regiona Works Department for review and approval. This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of tl~e provincial plan review responsibilities and no provincial interests would appear to be affected. If you have any questions or require additional information, please call me. Yours truly, CeleSte Terry~ Current Operations Branch cc. Region of Durham Works Department Attn. Vic Goad N:\pim\ct~zoning\p~a36.00.doc 10o~ Post Consumer ATTACHMENT t_.....~TO REPORT t PD~ 18'i L.W.C.A. - LIVERPOOL WEST COMMUNITY ASS D February22,2001 F~ '2 0 200'I Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A36/00 OITY OF PIOKERIN~ F. & A. Scanga Holdings 14(1. / 1862 ifiverl)ool Road PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ,'he Board of l)irectors of the LWCA t~as reviewed lhis application. There are several issues arising from this proposal, and the LWCA would like IO suhmil COlllnlellt5 al~d recommendations to the City of Picketing as outlined below: (1 l'ianning Ahead--The proposal xv~uld introduce commercial uses I'urthcr north along Liverpool R<)ad into what has until now been a residential area. '1 ouethci with a stalled redevelopment on Glendalc Road and a vacant commercial property on Kingston Rt)ad. this demonstrates the start of ma. it)r changes in this area atth(mgh tt~e application itself may not he deemed ma.jer. The subject property [hlls within a "detailed rex ~ex~ area", and the emerging process to change the character oi7 this neighbourhood should he sut'Iiciem criteria to trigger a detailed rex iew. The review should address fim~re land use and urban design including: types of new [lses, where these would be permitted, and how the interlace with adjacent stat>lc residential areas will be managed lo ensure sensitivity and nfinimize impacts. (;2 Uti)an Trees-This area contains some siunificant mature trees in the heart of our Main (?enlral Area. There have been mixed experiences with urban tree prescrx atica. SOII2O nlalul'e n'cos have been saved by the City/Region in doing road work in tiffs 'area in the past. More recently, on thc opposite side of'Live~ool Road x~c hax c .just lost several mature trees, and there are other such examples. The City should revisit its tree retention policy Jnd ~mpr,~x c ti~c protection of trees during (re)development, both tbr this site and ii2 a broader L'itx-x~ ide context. Mobility & Safety-Liverpool Road experiences tra i'Iic con?si ion in this area during all peak periods. Le~ turn vehicular movement in this area is a particular public salbty concern. Traffic issues in this area have only subsided temporarily (while there is no major commercial tenant in the Hub Mall opposite) but is expecled to increase once thc now dcx'clt~pmcnt with drive-through retail uses opens there later this vear. A traffic management study should be tmdcrtaken and st~ould address opporttmities tbr reducing or coordinating left turn ~ ehiculat- n~ox ci~e~qt. Proposed Uses Several commercial uses are requested ~.,~ tern~s oi /'ontng, although calx one tfpe of use is proposed in the ibreseeable l~utm-e. The I_\\'C~\ st!bruits that the detailed land use and urban design study is the appropriate next step. Depending on thc tim0 t)-alne ibr stlch a review process: consideration oi' tile application could be deferred, or a temporary use by-law could bc considered for Ihe single use the applicant contemplates at this time. Any approvals should be subject to the applicant agreeing to adhere to the requirements of the pending detailed review. ()n behalf of the LWCA Board of Directors, Martin }terzog, Director 188 ATTACHMENT d f C' TO OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING DIVISION MEMORANDUM February 7, 2001 ',./ - To: . Jotm McMu 1-'1i~ Senior Planner - Site Planning RECEIVED cEB 2 2 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT From: Richard Holbom Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Subject: Zoning Bydaw Amendment Application A36/00 F. and A. Scanga Holdings Limited Lot 23, Plan 492 (1862 Liverpool Road - West side, between Kingston Road and Glenanna The Municipal Property & Engineering Division is in receipt of the above noted application. Upon reviewing this proposal, our concerns are that with some of the commercial uses the applicant is proposing, there may be inadequate parking. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. /' RH:ds Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency S,~rvices Department Supervisor, Development Control RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE ~,~,'HOLE / / DATE MOVED BY SECONDED l'hat Report CS 15-01 off thc [)irector. C'orporz~tc >;erx'ices & I'rc~sLH'er regarding l)evelopment Charges be received and tlnat: Efff'ective July 1. 2001. as provided Ibr ill Section 1(~ ~,I' t3x-laxx 554699, the I)evelopment Charges referred to in Sections (~ zuad 11 off tlac~t }3x-law [we increased bx 8.68 per cent being thc annual increase in thc £'ons~ruction t'ricc Statistics as reported by Statistics C'anada for tine xca~r ended Marc}~ 31. :(101: amd The appropriate of'I2cials off the Citx of Pickcring bc gixcn authoritx to ~ix c el'fleet thereto. [~,tax lot rccomm I)c'.c[opmcnt £'hargcs 190 PICKERIN REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer DATE: May 28, 2001 ~ R' REPORT NUMBE . CS 15-01 SUBJECT: Development Charges RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Report CS 15-01 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received and that: 1. effective July 1, _00,. as provided for in Section 16 of By-Law 5546/99, the Development Charges referred to in Sections 6 and 11 of that by-law be increased by 8.68 per cent being fl~e annual increase in the Construction Price Statistics as reported by Statistics Canada for tt~e year ended March 31, 2001; and, 2. the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be ~iven authority to give effect thereto. ORiGIN: Report FIN 22-99 of the Director of Finance & Treasurer AUTHORITY: Report FIN 22-99 of the Director of Corporate Services and Treasurer and Resolution #16 9/99, Clause 6, of the Council of the City of Pickering. By Law 5546/99 Development Charges Act, 1997, as amended, and Regulations thereunder. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Increasing the Development Charges by 8.68 per cent will assist in keeping the revenues generated thereunder in line with current costs. The residential development charges for single and semi detached units xvill increase by approximately $568, other residential charges will increase similarly and the commercial/industrial charge xvill increase by approximately $0.99 per square metre. Rcporl to Council CS 15-01 Subiect: Development Charges Date: May 28, 2000 Page 2 191 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ,Adoption of the reconan~endations of tills ropom xx ill pk~t into oI'/~ct tbr the period July 2001 to Jm~c 2~){)2 increases that arc provided Iht-i~n t}~c Provincial [,c~islatio~a and By Ioaxx 554099 and arc needed to finance constrt~ct~on costs t~ndcr ttac ('itx's Dcx clopnTcnt Claargc Study adopted by COSTS. BACKGROLTND' ,:\s provided lbr in the Provincial Legislation and ira tlnc C'itx's /3x Laxx 5540;99, each year the development charges charged bx thc ('itu' tbr all t51ocs o~' <lex clopnncnt naav be increased without amending thc by-law. Adoption off tt~c r'ccommcndatioras co~2tai~cd i~ this report xxill allow that increase to take ctTect July 1, 2~n)l thcrcbx assisti~7~ i~n kocto~q5 oktu revenues in linc with the costs that development charges 5o tox~ards. Tine ('itx's obligz~t~o~qs under Recon~mcndations cointaincd in thc same repo~7 FIN 22-9') to ('okinci! will also ~ncr'oasc bx S.(>S poi- cent or approximately 5210,000 annuallx to 52.01{ ( ~) Thc 2{~{>1 Budget contaiiqcd 5Sill) )i)() l~r ttnis pUl']3OSC. Statistics Canada indicates tlac increase in thc Constructio~a Pmcc Stzxtistics tbr the most recently available annual per-led ending Nlarc}~ X l. 2~)I)1 of S.0S per cent IZo~' non-residential construction cost index (an indicator of our costs o~' construction) for' tiao Toronto area. The change is refqccted in the table attached. .Atlached is our revised brochure xv}~ic}~ xxill bc axailad~lo throughout thc building. The main changes are to updale the amounts to ~'cI]ecI rcco~qqH~cndations contained in t}ais rcpo~ and to rcl~ect the ctnangc in thc Region of Durham's Devclop~qqcnt Charges. also cfI~ctix'c July 1, 2001. The School Board's development charges arc not claa~ginL~ this ATTACHMENTS: 1. Residential Development Charges 2000 2()1)1 2. Picketing Development Charge Brochure Prepared Endorsed By: GP:vw ,~ttachments Gillis .-X. Paterson. Director. C'ou>oratc Serx ices 3c Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickcrinu Cit.,,' Council ief Adm~-atix c O~Sccr CITY OF PICKERING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Effective July 1, 2000 PER DWELLING UNIT Service Single & Apt. One Bdrm Apt. Two Bdrm Other Category Semi Detached & Smaller & Larger Dewlling Units Growth Studies 102 43 56 83 Fire Protection 159 67 88 i 131 Transportation 3.277 1,365 1,821 i 2,685 Transit 220 91 123 181 Parks & Rec 2.426 1,010 1,348 1,987 Library 36(5 1>a-~ 203 300 TOTAL 6.550 2,729 3,639 5,367 Non-Residential - $11.42 per sq. metre Service Category Growth Studies Fire Protection Transportation RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CHARGES Effective July 1, 2001 PER DWELLING UNIT Single & Semi Detached 111 173 3,561 Apt. One Bdrm & Smaller 47 73 1,483 Apt. Two Bdrm & Larger 61 95 1,979 Other Dewlling Units 90 142 918 Transit 239 : 99 133 197 Parks & Rec i 2,636 , 1,097 1,465 2.159 Library , 398 ! 166 TOTAL ' 7118 2,965 3,954 5,832 Non-Residential - $12.41 per sq. metre . Dollar Increase [568 1236 31 5 465 Non-Residential - $0.99 194 lg5 RECOMSIENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE \\'HOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That tine draft by-law to dedicate Part of tt~c Re:rd .-tllo~x anco between Lots 34 and 35. Concession 3. Picketing. as public tniglnx~:x~, be Ib~'x~arded to Council for enactllqOrlt. That tiae draft bv-laxx to stop-up and close }'a~-t of tiac [~.o~;d :\llowancc between Lots 34 and ~ ('oncession 3, Pickering. zliT,i to dcc~ t}~c st~b.icct lands su~tus to the needs of the ('orporate and authorize tel sktlc to t}~c adjacent owner accordance with the provisions of the Municipt~i .-Xct. bc Ib~'xx ardcd to Council enactment. 196 PICKER NG REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: John Reble Solicitor for the City DATE: May 31,2001 REPORT NUMBER: L 11/01 SUBJECT: Road Closing and Sale of Citv Lands - Part of the Road Allowance between Lots 34 and 35. Concession 3, Pickering - File RE0105 and W2302.55 RECOMMENDATION: A by-law should be enacted to dedicate Part of the Road Allowance between Lots 34 and 35, Concession 3. Pickering, as public highway. A by-law should be enacted to stop-up and close Part of the Road Allowance between Lots 34 and 35. Concession 3, Pickering, and to deem the subject lands surplus to the needs of the Corporation and authorize for sale to the adjacent owner in accordance with provisions of the Municipal Act. ORIGIN: Written request from The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. AUTHORITY: Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, sections 191,297, and 315. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Advertising/Legal Fees $2,000 (to be paid by TRCA) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 7, 2001, Council passed Resolution 65/01, item 4 authorizing the Solicitor for the City to commence the process of stopping-up and closing for the purposes of sale, the remaining "opened portion" of the Road Allowance between Lots 34 and 35, Concession 3, Pickering. Since the subject property is a very small land-locked portion of land and the TRCA owns all abutting property, the conveyance will be made to TRCA for nominal consideration: TRCA will be responsible for all legal fees. BACKGROUND: In 1902, By-law 800 was passed by the Township of Pickering to stop-up, close and sell certain sidelines within Pickering that were no longer required for public highway purposes. The sideline lying between Concessions 3 and 4 (outlined in the attached mapping) was included in that By-law, save and except a small portion of it, which remained open providing access between the adjacent properties. TRCA has recently acquired all property surrounding this small portion of road allowance and has requested that the City, convey the subject lands to them for nominal consideration. They will be responsible for all legal fees incurred associated with the stopping-up and conveyance of the road. Report to Council Lll/01 Sub ect: Road Closing and Sale of City I.ands [)ate: May 31. 2001 Page 2 1 9';' On Max 7. 2001. Council passed Resolution 65 ()l authorizing thc Solicitor for the Citx to commence the process of stopping-up and ciosmg, for tl~e purposes of sale. the remaining "opened portion" of the Road Alloxvance betx~een Lots 34 and -~5. Concession '~ Pickering. A Notice of this road closure and sale has been published once a week tbr ibur consecutive weeks and thc provisions of thc Municipal Act relating to thc stopping-up ora highway have been complied with. The City Clerk has received no oblcctlons to thc road closure. Since this part of the road attoxvance has not been assumed by thc Citx. it ~s a requirement of thc Municipal Act to dedicate this portion of road alloxvance prior to stopping-up and closing it. It is therefore recommended that: 1) Council et~act a by-lax~ to dedicate part of the small portion of the Road Allowance between Lots 34 and 35. ¢ oncession 3, Picketing. as a public road: Council enact a by-law to stop-up, close and sell to the adjacci~t ex, ncr that small portion of the Road Allowance bctxxccn I_ots 34 and 35. ('onccssion ~ Picketing: and 3) Thc Mayor and Clerk execute all ncccssarx documentation rclatin~ to the stopping-up. closino and sale of this road. AITACttMENTS: Locanon Map. 2. Draft by-lav,'s (2). Prepared By: JEP:ljm (opy: Approved tmdors~y: John Re bio.__.,," Chief Administrative Officer City Clerk Director. Planning & Development Division Head. Municipal Property & Engineering P, ecommended lbr the consideration of Pickcring City Council Officer '/ · I I I , I · · I I ! ! ! ! · · ! I · I I ~ I " ! I I I I I · I ! I " ! I ! I SUBJECT ,, · ~,s.,,~, ~ " I I I I · I I · II I - II CONCESSION ROAD __ City of Pickering Planning & Development Department ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN LOTS 34 AND 35 (CLOSED AND SOLD) FILl= No. W2302.55 DAlI= MAR 6, 2001 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING t~Y-LAW NO. WI IERIZAS, The Corporation ot' the City of Pickering is the oxvner that portion of the l,(oad Allo~vance between Lots 34 and 35, Concession 3, Picketing being described as tile t'ixception in Paragraph 18 of By-law 800 and wishes to dedicate it as public highway; NOW TttEREFObLE, the Council off The Corporation oF the City off Picketing HEt~EBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That portion of the Road Allowance between I,ots 34 and 35. Concession 3, Pickering, being described as the Exception in Paragraph 18 of Bv-laxv 8()0 lregistered as Instrument No. PI22182) is hereby dedicated as public highway. BY-LAW read a first, second and third lime and finally passed ~his l Nm dt~x' off June, 2001. Wayne Anhurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk P, E0105AV2302.55 2OO THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to stop-up and close as public highway that portion of the Road Allowance between Lots 34 and 35, Concession 3, Pickering being described as the "Exception in Paragraph 18 of By-law 800" and to authorize the sale of the lands to the adjacent owner fi;r nominal consideration. WHEREAS, pursuant to section 297(1)(a) of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering enacted a By-law, dedicating as public highway that portion of Road Allowance between Lots 34 and 35, Concession 3, Pickering being described as the Exception in paragraph 18 of By-law 800; and WHEREAS, pursuant to sections 191 (1), 297(1)(c), 297(1)(d) and 315 of that Act, the Council of the City may pass by-laws to stop-up a highway or part thereof and to authorize its sale or the sale of a part thereof at a fixed price; WHEREAS, Notice of this by-law has been published once a week for four consecutive weeks and the provisions of the Municipal Act relating to the stopping-up of a highway have been complied with; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The tbllowing portion of highway is hereby stopped up and closed to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic: That portion of the Road Allowance between Lots 34 and 35, Concession 3, Pickering being described as the Exception of Paragraph 18 of By-law 800 (registered as Instrument No. PI22182). The Corporation of the City of Pickering shall dispose of utility easements over any of the lands described in section 1, above, that presently contain utility structures of any nature or sort, to the appropriate utility authority, including but not necessarily limited to, The Regional Municipality of Durham, Bell Canada, Consumers Gas, and Veridian Corporation at a sale price of $2.00 each. That portion of the Road Allowance between Lots 34 and 35, Concession 3, Pickering being described as the Exception of Paragraph 18 of By-law 800, Pickering, shall be conveyed to the adjacent owner for nominal consideration, subject to any utility easement or easements previously granted or granted pursuant to section 2, above. The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any documentation approved by the City Solicitor and required to effect the dispositions, offers and transfers provided for in this By-law. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 18th day of June, 2001. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor RE0105/W2302.55 Bruce Taylor, Clerk RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY '['hat the draft by-la~w~(o stop-up and close that part t~' I.ot 20. ('onccssion 8. Pickering, designated as Pa~ 1'. Plan 40R-XXXX. and to deem ~}~c subject lands surplus to thc nceds (~I' thc Co~oration and authorize tk~r sz~lc to thc :~buttting oxxncr in accordance with provisions of tiao Municipal Act. be tk>rx~ ardcd to Co,thc il ~r-enactment. PICKERING REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: John Reble Solicitor for the City DATE: June 4. 2001 REPORT NUMBER: L 12/01 SUBJECT: Road Closing and Sale of City Lands - Part Lot 20. Concession 8, Pickering designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-XXXX - File: RE0005 RECOMMENDATION: A by-law should be enacted to stop-up and close that part of Lot 20, Concession 8. Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-XXXX, and to deem the subject lands surplus to the needs of the Corporation and authorize for sale to the abutting owner in accordance with provisions of the Municipal Acl. ORIGIN: Request from John Howes, Solicitor for Claremont Estates Limited. AUTHORITY: Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990. chapter M.45. sections 191,297. and 315. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Advertising/Legal Fees and Disbursements $2.000.00 (Purchaser's costs) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 7, 2001, Council passed Resolution 65/01, item 5. authorizing the Solicitor for the City to commence the process of stopping-up and closing, for the purpose of sale, that portion of Lot 20, Concession 8, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-XXXX. The required advertising has been done and it is now appropriate to enact the required By-law. BACKGROUND: in 1997, the City entered into a Development Agreement with Claremont Estates that required them to convey the subject lands to the City for temporary turning circle purposes to be used until such time as Acorn Lane (now Kodiak Street) was extended: the extension of that road is now complete and the turning circle is no longer required. On May 7, 2001, Council passed Resolution 65/01, item 5, authorizing the Solicitor for the City to commence the process of stopping-up and closing that part of Lot 20, Concession 8, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-XXXX and in keeping with the Development Agreement entered into in October 2000, reconveying the lands to Claremont Estates/Victorian Homes to ensure the orderly development of Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2~)00-02. Claremont Estates will be responsible for all legal fees associated with the road closing and sale thereof. Report to Council L12/01 Sublect: Road Closing and Sale of City Lands June 4.2001 Pa,,c A Notice of this road closure and sale has been published once a week tbr four consecutive weeks and the provisions of the *lunic~pai .Act relating to the stopping-up ora highway have been complied with. The City Clerk has received no objections to the road closure. It is therefore recommended that: Council enact a bx-lav, to stop-up, close and sell to the adiacent ov,'ner that part of Ix~t 20. Concession 8. Pickering. designated as Part 1. Plan 4(tf{-XXXX Fine Mayor and Clerk execute all nccessarx documentation relating to the stopping-up. closing and sale of this road. ATI'ACHMENTS' Location Map. Draft bx-law Prepared By: Denise Bye ..'xpproxcd End/~y:. _. .' . \x\ ,; /~,.' .John [,',eNo ' Copy: Chief Administrative ()fficer Citx Clerk Director. Planning & Dexelopment Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering Recommended tbr the consideration of Pickering Citx Council -boreas J. Quinn ' 'e Officer Quinnd:7 hief"Adminis~ ~TR~T SP2001 CENTRAL ~TR~ET NGTON LANE City of Pickering FILE No. RTO L05-01 I Planning & Development Department IDA'i'E APR 17, 2001 ATTACHMENT .~ ~ ..... THE CORPOtL~\TION OF TttE CITY OF PICKERING t2;Y-I,AW NO. 2O5 that part q/'Lot 20, thereq/'to the a~Oac'e~[ WHERt:iAS, on December 20, 1909. pursuant to section 297(1)(a) of the :~hmici/;a/Acz, R.S.O. 1090, chapter NI.45, the Council of The Co,oration of the City of Picketing enacted By-law 5595/99 dedicating that Pan of Lot 20, Concession 8, Picketing. originally designated as Pan 7. Plan 40R-17520 (now designated as Pan 1, Plan 40R-XXXX) as public highwa>: and WHEP, I-~AS, pursuant to sections 191( 1 ). 297( 1 )cc). 297(1)cd) and 315 of that Acl, the Council of the City may pass by-laws to stop-up a high\ray or part thereof and to authorize its sale at a fixed price; \, t tt-.RIzAS. Notice of this by-law has been published once a week lbr Ibur consecutive weeks and the provisions of the Municipal Act relating to thc stopping-up of a highx~ ay have been complied with; NOW TltEREFORE, the Council of the £'orporation of the City of Picketing }tEREBY ENACTS AS FOI.I.OWS: Thc ibllowing portion of high\ray is hereby stopped-up and closed to both vehicular and pedestrian traffic: Part of Lot 20, Concession 8, Picketing, designated als Part 1. Plan 40R-XXXX (Kodiak Street) The Corporation of the City of Picketing shall dispose of utility easements over any of the lands described in section 1, above, that presently contain utility structures of ally nature or sort. to thc appropriate utility authority, including but not necessarily limited to, The Regional Municipality of Durham, Bell Canada, Consumers Gas, and Veridian Corporation, at a sale price of $2.00 each. ]'hat Part of Lot 20, Concession 8. Picketing, designated as Pan 1, Plan 40R-XXXX, shall be offered tbr sale to the abutting owner for nominal consideration, subject to any utility easement or easements previously granted or granted pursuant to section 2, above. I'he Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute any documentation approved by the Solicitor for the City and required to effect the dispositions, offers and transfers provided for in this By-law'. BY-I,AW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this l 8th day of June, 2001. \Vavnc Ar\huts. Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk RE0005 206 / / RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE \?DATE /~OVED BY / SECONDED BY That the draft by-law to appoint two persons to enforce the Parking Bv-law at 1822 Whites Road and 1865-1867 Kingston Road, and one person to enforce the By-law at 1305/1315 Pickering Parkway. 963-979 Brock Road and 1735 Bayly Street be ibrxvarded to Council for enactment. Btaylor:recomm parking REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Bruce Taylor. AMC% CMM (_'it>' Clerk DATE: Junel.2001 ,-3-~ RI!PORT N[!MBER: CL __~/()1 SUBJECT: Appointments to enlbrce the Parking Bv-la~v at 1822 White's Rd.. Amberlea Plaz~a. 1865-1867 Kingston Rd.. 1305 1315 Picketing Parkway. 963-979 Brock Road and 1735 Ba31.x Street. in Picketing RFA'()MMENDATION' That thc draft by-law to appoint txvo persons to entbrcc thc Parking By-la,a at 1822 Whites Road and 1865-1867 Kingston Road. and one person to cnlbrce the by-law' at 1305/1315 Pickering Pkwx.. 963-979 Brock Rd. and 1735 Bayly St.. be lbrwarded to Council for approval. ()RIGIN: I.euers fi.om Burns International Securitx Services dated Max 29. 2001 and Nemesis Security Services Inc. dated May 14~ 2001. AUTHORITY: Section 15(I) of the Police Services Act. R.S.O. 1990. c.P. 15 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND: Correspondence has been received fi'om Bums International Security Services requesting the appointment of two persons as Bx-lav, Entbrcemcnt Officers lbr the purpose of entbrcing the Parking By-law at 1822 White's Rd.. Amberlea Plaz2. 1865-1867 Kingston Rd., and from Nemesis Security Services Inc. requesting thc reinstatement of one person as By-law Enlbrcement Officers at 1305/1315 Pickering Parkway. 963-979 Brock Road and 1735 Bayly St. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence from Burns International Security Services and Nemesis Security Services Inc. 2. Draft By-law. 2O8 Report To Council CL 23/01 Subject: Appointment ofBv-law Entbrcement Officers Dated: June 1. 2001 Page '~ Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Debbie Kearns BT:dk Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer 'Bruce Taylor Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council ..b~-.zs.~r.l N, 3 ~-- ~ ~-/,~ 1Pt~(~n~as J. Qu~, ~ef Ad~st~ Offic~ I ATTACHMENT #TO THE CORPORATION OI: THE CITY OF PICKERING 203 BY-LAW NO. Being a bv-lavc to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers tbr certain purposes (P~king Regulation 1822 White's Rd.. Amberlea Plaza. 1865-1867 Kingston Rd... 1305/l 315 Picketing Pkwy.. 963- 979 Brock Rd. and 1735 Bavlv St.I WItEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act.. R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enfiorce the by-laws of the municipality and \VI tt:.Rt~AS pursuant to section 15(2) of the said Act. municipal bv-laxv entbrcement officers are peace officers tbr the purpose of entbrcing municipal by-laws: NOW THEI>d:,FORE THE C()L~NCII, ()F TIlE ('()RPORATION ()1: THE CITY OF P1CKERIN(~ l IEREBY ENA('TS ,AS FOI.I.()WS: 1. That the tbllowing persons be hereby appointed as municipal taw enforcement officers in and for the City of Pickering in order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed zmd to enforce or cam' into eftbct the said By-law and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable thnes upon lands municipally known as: a) 1822 White's Rd., Amberlea Plaza, 1865-1867 Kingston Rd.' Co lleen Anderson Chris ttanunill b) 1305/1315 Picketing Parkway. 963-97'0 Brock Road and 17_35 Bayly Street: Delgado Cobourne The authority granted in section 1 hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time. to exceed the authoritx set out in section 1. These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section l(a) ceasing to be employees of Burns international Security Services ceasing to be ar~ agent of 1822 White's Rd., Amberlea Plaza, 1865-1867 Kingston Rd., or listed in section 1 (b) ceasing to be an employee of Nemesis Security Services Inc., or upon whichever shall occur first. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time mid tinally passed this 18th day of June. 2001. '¢,'avne ~M-thurs, Mayor Bruce Taylor, Clerk 210 909 Simcoe Street, Unit 4 Oshawa, Ontario L1G 4W1 Phone: 905-571-4040 Fax: 905-571-06'f 7 TO REPI3RT Phon~: __. Peges: Re: CC: [] Urgent [] For Review ~ Pl.-~e Comment [] Ple.~,e Reply *Commerttl: 211 ~MENT #~ TO FtEPOI~T # c~_~ BURNS .___..Burns Internationa| Security Services ~,, ~ ~ REQUEST FOR SECURITY OFFICER BYI~AW DEARSIR/MADAM PLEASE ADD OUR SECtJRITY Anderson and Chris Hammill TO BYLAW FOR OFFICERS, Colleen YOUR LIST OF THE FOLLOWING I: LACES !822 whiles road PickerinB 1865 Kingston road, Picketing 1867 Kingston road, Pickerin~ Thanks Debbie, as I believe the council wild hold a meeling in the near h.,ture, is this possible ia squeeze them in? Have a great da), Bill Hanna Ma}, 29, 2001 NEMESIS SECURI SERVICES INC. To Secure and Protect Monday May 14, 2001 A'I-rENTI'O N: RE: ~hn Wo'nilpj_~,. Manaqer- ~ylaw Services REIN~;TATE OFF~[(~ER TO COMP/~NY LTST John, Please. arrange to reinstate the following Officer to our Company list: REINSTATE: DELGADO COBOURNE #76256 .F~ PICKERING PARKWA~C ~63 - 979 BROCK ROAD AND 1735 BAYLY STREET Officer had resigned due to personal reasons and at time was not sure if he could return. His situation has cllanged and he has since return and been reinstated to his former position. Thanking you in advance, Michael Deppner General Manager 777 WARDEN AVENUE, SUITE # 214. $CARBOROUGH, ONTARIO MIL-4C3 PHONE: (416)-28.5-5233, FAX' (4 ~ 6) 285-0204, e-mail: nemesi~ri, tv(~home.c~