HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 12, 2003 Planning Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, May 12th, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.
Chair: Councillor Holland
(l)
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Meeting of April 14, 2003
(11)
1.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 21-03
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 20/00
SHERIDAN CHEVROLET
NORTH PART OF LOT 18, CONCESSION 1
PART 1, PLAN 40R-11779
(SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF BROCK ROAD AND FINCH AVENUE)
PAGE
1-23
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 23/03
RECOMMENDED REVISED PROCESS FOR
DRAFT PLANS OF CONDOMINIUM
24-28
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 22/03
ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE
-ALLIANCE RESOLUTION 95/02 DISCOURAGING
INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE ROUGE PARK
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 20-03
STREAMLINING OF PART LOT CONTROL PROCESS AND
FEE STRUCTURE
45-48
Planning Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, May 12th, 2003 at 7:30 p.m.
Chair: Councillor Holland
Illl) ·
CORRESPONDENCE
Members of Council may formally table an item of correspondence that has been
circulated by the Mayor, CAO, Clerk or other staff person.
(IV) ADJOURNMENT
001'
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/00, be APPROVED as set out in
the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Report No. 21-03, to amend the existing
zoning of the lands to an appropriate commercial zone to accommodate the
expansion of the currently permitted vehicle sales and rental establishment, on the
lands being Part of Lot 18, Concession 1, Part 1,40R-11779, City of Pickering; and
That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment
Application ^ 20/00, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 21-03 be
FORWARDED to City Council for enactment.
0O2
REPORT TO
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 21-03
Date: April 22, 2003
From:
Nell Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/00
Sheridan Chevrolet
North Part of Lot 18, Concession 1
Part 1, Plan 40R-11779
(South-east corner of Brock Road and Finch Avenue)
Recommendation:
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/00, be APPROVED as set out
in the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Report No. 21-03, to amend the
existing zoning of the lands to an appropriate commercial zone to accommodate
the expansion of the currently permitted vehicle sales and rental establishment,
on the lands being Part of Lot 18, Concession 1, Part 1, 40R-11779, City of
Pickering.
That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 20/00, as set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 21-03 be
FORWARDED to City Council for enactment.
Executive Summary: The applicant's total land holdings are currently dually zoned
'CA3' - Commercial Automotive and 'A' - Agricultural. The applicant proposes to amend
the agricultural zoning of the subject lands (known as Part 1,40R-11779), to extend the
existing 'CA3' zoning in order to accommodate additional vehicle storage and/or display
associated with the existing vehicle dealership (see Location Map and Applicant's
Submitted Site Plan, Attachments #1 and #3).
Approval of this application will establish a zoning for the subject lands which is identical
to that of the existing Sheridan Chevrolet vehicle dealership. As this application was not
pursued by the applicant between August 2000 and early this year, a resident meeting
was held in April 2003 to update the community, and notice of this Planning Committee
meeting was circulated to residents within 120 metres of the subject lands. Concerns
from surrounding residents regarding sUch issues as landscaping, site lighting, access
from Finch Avenue, noise, and stormwater management were raised at the resident
meeting. Measures to address these matters were discussed and will be implemented
through the site plan approval process.
It is recommended that the application be approved, and the draft by-law be forwarded
to Council for enactment,
Report PD 21-03
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20~00
April 22, 2003
OO3
Page 2
Financial Implications:
proposed development.
No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
Background:
1.0 Comments Received
1.1 At the August 10th, 2000 Information Meeting
(see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #4 and #5)
- Residents expressed support for the application, but also expressed concern
regarding noise from the paging system, storm water drainage, access from
Finch Avenue, and the testing of vehicles along Finch Avenue;
1.2 Following Information Meeting
Residents in Support:
several residents support the rezoning of the property, but have some concerns
regarding fencing, tree preservation, stormwater management, and zoning
(see Attachment #6);
a letter from residents concerning the possibility of having traffic calming
measures along Finch Road (see Attachment #7);
Resident in Opposition:
a resident opposes the rezoning of the property (see Attachment #8);
1.3 Resident Working Group Meeting
due to the reactivation of this application, and as agreed to at the Information
Meeting in August 2000, a resident working group meeting was held on
April 10, 2003 to update the community and further discuss this application;
see Section 2.2 for more information about the issues addressed at the meeting;
1.4 Agency/Staff Circulation:
Comments were received from the Regional Municipality of Durham, the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority, Veridian, Development Control, Fire Services,
and Municipal Property & Engineering; all had no objection to the application.
Specific comments regarding the development of the subject lands will be
addressed through the site plan approval process.
OO4
Report PD 21-03
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/00
April 25, 2003
Page 3
2.0
2.1
2.2
Discussion
Subject lands are to be zoned the same 'CA3' zoning as the existing vehicle
dealership
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/00 was submitted in May 2000. At
the time of the original submission, the applicant was proposing to amend the
current "A" Agricultural zoning of the subject lands to an appropriate commercial
zone to accommodate the expansion of the existing vehicle dealership. The
proposal outlined that the expansion was intended to accommodate the
relocation of the used car sales component, and a site plan was submitted
proposing the construction of a 200 square metre sales building to be located on
the subject lands (see Attachment #2). A Public Information Meeting for Zoning
By-law Amendment Application A 20/00 was held on August 10, 2000.
Since the Public Information Meeting held in August 2000, the applicant has
revised the proposed site plan, and is no longer proposing a bUilding at this time.
The applicant now proposes to use the lands for the storage and/or display of
vehicles only. The vehicles to be stored on this site will be associated with the
existing Sheridan Chevrolet vehicle dealership (see Attachment #3).
It is recommended that the subject lands be zoned the same 'CA3' zoning as the
existing vehicle dealership. Even though the applicant is currently proposing to
use the subject lands for the storage and/or display of vehicles only, the
proposed 'CA3' zoning would allow for the future development of the lands in
accordance with provisions outlined in the implementing by-law. However, any
future proposals regarding the development of subject lands would require a
revision to the site plan.
Resident concerns regarding landscaping, tree preservation, site lighting,
noise, access from Finch Avenue, and stormwater management have been
addressed
At the Statutory Public Information Meeting held in August 2000, residents
expressed comments and concerns regarding such issues as stormwater
management, site lighting, tree preservation, and the use of Finch Avenue for the
testing of vehicles. Several residents wrote letters prior to the meeting stating
many of the same issues as being of concern to them as well.
After the Information meeting, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/00
was temporarily put on hold by the applicant, but has recently been reactivated.
Despite the deletion of the initially proposed sales outlet building, surrounding
residents continued to express similar concerns to those voiced in 2000.
Report PD 21-03
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/00
April 22, 2003
Page 4
In order to update residents of the changes that have been made to the proposed
site plan, and to further address previous concerns and comments made
regarding this application, Planning & Development Department staff, along with
the applicant and agent, met with residents at a Resident Working Group
Meeting held on April 10, 2003. Below is a list of the issues that were discussed
at the April 2003, meeting and the ways in which the applicant/agent propose to
address each issue through the site plan approval process:
Issues Issue Resolution
Tree Preservation and Landscaping
Stormwater Management
submitted Landscaping Plan indicates that
most trees located along the north lot line
(along Finch Avenue) are to be preserved;
and that some trees from other parts of
the property are to be relocated to help
fill in any gaps;
hoarding is to be placed around the
trees while the site is being constructed
in order to protect trees;
lot paving will be set back from north lot
line to avoid damaging the tree roots;
applicant to replace trees if any die;
some landscaping will be introduced on
the south side of the subject lands.
the flow of water from the site will
remain consistent before and after
development through the implementation
of stormwater management measures;
drainage from site is to be directed to
the east side of the subject property,
then north to an existing ditch;
proposal will not add to the current
stormwater problems that are being
experienced by some of the surrounding
residents.
006
Report PD 21-03
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/00
April 22, 2003
Page 5
2.3
3.0
Site Lighting
Noise from Paging System
Loading/Unloading of Vehicles Along
Finch Avenue
lights from the existing vehicle
dealership located along Kingston Road
are to be relocated onto the subject
lands;
Iow level of lighting is proposed, and
lights are to be directed toward the
subject lands, away from residential
properties along Finch Avenue;
trees to be preserved along Finch
Avenue will help to buffer light;
proposed lighting is for security only, not
for the display of vehicles.
no intention of servicing the subject
lands with outdoor speakers.
- the entrance on Finch Avenue is not to
be used as a main entrance for the site;
- this entrance is to provide access for
emergency vehicles and limited
movement of vehicles for sale;
-the proposed entrance along Finch
Avenue is not to be used as a staging
area to load/unload vehicles onto the
site, vehicle deliveries to the site are to
be from Kingston Road.
Staff are satisfied that the matters raised by the community can be satisfactorily
addressed through the site plan approval process.
By-law to be Forwarded to Council
'The attached by-law, included as Appendix I to this report, implements Staff's
recommendation to approve the requested !CA3' zoning. It is further
recommended that the attached by-law be forwarded to Council for consideration
(see Appendix I).
Applicant's Comments
The applicant is aware of the contents of this report and concurs with the
recommendation.
Report PD 21-03
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/00
April 22, 2003
Page 6
007
Appendix
Appendix I: Draft Implementing By-Law
Attachments:
1. LoCation Map
2. Applicant's Original Site Plan from 2000
3. Applicant's Recently Submitted Site Plan
4. Information Report
5. Minutes from Public Information Meeting
6. Resident Comments in Support
7. Resident Comments in Support
8. Resident Comments in Opposition
Prepared By:
Carla Pierini
Planner I
Approved / Endorsed By:
NeiC~Carrol~p,
Director, PI~ Development
Lynda Taylor, MCI, PC', RPP
Manager, Development Review
CXP:jf
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
T~orfias J. Qui~, Chief ~dministra ,~fficer/'
OO8
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 21-03
DRAFT BY-LAW
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 20/00
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as
amended by By-law 1055/79, to implement the Official Plan of the City of
Pickerin~h Region of Durham in Part of Lot 18, Concession 1, Part 1,
40R-11779, in the City of Pickering. (A 20/00)
WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
rezone the subject lands, being Part of Lot 18, Concession 1, Part 1, 40R-11779, to
accommodate the expansion of the existing vehicle sales and rental establishment;
AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 1055/79, is
therefore deemed necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
009
o
SCHEDULE "I" AMENDMENT
Schedule 'T' to By-law 1055/79 is hereby revoked and replaced with Schedule 'T'
attached hereto.
BY-LAW 1055/79
By-law 1055/79 is hereby further amended as set out in Schedule I attached
hereto. Definitions and subject matter not specifically dealt with in this By-law
shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended.
EFFECTIVE DATE
This By-law shall take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to the
approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required.
BY-LAW read a first, second, and third time and finally passed this
of ,2003.
day
Wayne Arthurs, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, City Clerk
010
SCHEDULE 'r TO BY-LAW
AS AMENDED BY-LAW
PASSED THIS
DAY OF .2003
MAYOR
CLERK
CA3
1055/79
FINCH
AVENUE
CURRENTLY ZONED
'CA3'
01I
APPLI(
TOTAL
DRIVE
City of Pickering
COURT
Planning & Development Department
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOT 18, CPNCESSlON 1; PART 1, 40R-11779
OWNER SHERIDAN CHEVROLET
FILE No. A 20/00
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-9 PA-
DATE APRIL 17 2003
SCALE 1:7500
DRAWN BY JB J%
CHECKED BY CP
RFPOR't' ~ PD :~ ! ~ ¢9 '5
APPLICANT'S AUGUST 2000 PLAN
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN
A 20~OO
SHERIDAN CHEVROLET '
This plan has been abandoned and replacecJ with a Revised Plan,
(see Attachment # 3)
FINCH
I I
THIS MAP WA~ PRODUCED BY'THE C~]"Y OF PiCKERIt~G
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, JULY 12, 2000.
APPLICANTS SUBMITTED CONCEPTUAL 0 ]. 3
SITE PLAN
A20/O0 A,'~ACHMENT ~ ~. TO
Rc~-UR"f' # PD., , ,~;.-,,,!- C~ ':~ ~
SHERIDAN CHEVROLET
REVISED SITE PLAN
JANUARY 2003
THIS /dAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING,
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPART/dENT,
INFOR/dATION & SUPPORT SERVICES,
APRIL 22, 2OOJ
014
~.TTACHMEN~ ~ ~ ,TO
REPORI#PD_ d~/~C;~
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 19-00
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
August 10, 2000
IN ACCORDANCE WITI-I THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF TIlE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13
SUBJECT:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A20/00
Sheridan Chevrolet
North Part of Lot 18, Concession 1
Part 1, Plan 40R-i1779
(South-east comer of Brock Road and Finch Avenue)
City of Pickering
1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
the subject lands are located at the south-east comer of Brock Road and
Finch Avenue;
the subject property comprises an area of approximately 0.95 of a hectare, and is
currently vacant;
surrounding land uses include: residential dwellings to the north; vacant lands to the
west; a police station and post office to the south; and an existing vehicle dealership
to the east;
a property location map is included as Attachment #1 to this report.
2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
the applicant proposes to amend the zoning by-law from "A" - Agricultural Zone to
an appropriate commercial zone to accommodate the expansion of the existing
vehicle dealership and the relocation of the used car component;
access to the proposed used car sales area is proposed from Finch Avenue, and from
the existing car dealership lands to the east; no access is proposed from Brock Road;
a reduction of the applicant's proposed development is included as Attachment #2 to
this report.
3.0
3.1
OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING
Durham Regional Official Plan
the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject property as "Living Area";
this designation also permits, among other uses, special purpose commercial uses
which consume larger parcels of land and require exposure to traffic such as,
including but not limited to, automobile sales and services subject to the inclusion of
appropriate provisions and designations in the area municipal official plan;
Brock Road is designated a "Type 'A' arterial" road, and is intended to carry large
volumes of traffic;
the application appears to conform;
Information Report No. 19-00
Page 2
015
3.2 Pickerin~ Official Plan
Schedule I - Land Use Structure to the Picketing Official Plan designates the subject
property as "Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridor"; this designation permits, among
other uses, the establishment of special purpose commercial uses; the proposed use
conforms to this designation;
Schedule II - Transportation System to the Official Plan designates Brock Road as a
"Type A arterial" road, and Finch Avenue as a "Local Road"; Type A arterials are
designated to carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speeds; local roads
generally provide access to individual properties, and have a right-of-way of up to
20 metres;
Map 19 - Neighbourhood 9: Village East of the Official Plan identifies the subject
lands as being within a "Detailed Review area"; section 11.2 (d) of the
Picketing Official Plan requires the completion of detailed reviews for all or part of
Detailed Review Area prior to pem~itting "major" development on the subject lands;
to date, no guidelines have been prepared for this area;
Schedule III Resource Management of the Official Plan designates a
"Shoreline and Stream Corridor" and a "Flood Plain Special Policy Area" on and
around the subjects lands; Shorelines and Stream Corridors identify lands that may be
prone to flooding; on lands designated Shorelines and Stream Corridors that also are
designated in a land use other than Open Space (such as Mixed Uses), new
development and "major" redevelopment may be permitted subject to the results of an
Environmental Report;
section 15.9 and Appendix II of the Official Plan indicate that Council shall, for
"major" development, and ..may, for "minor" development, require the submission of
an Environmental Report for lands within the Shoreline and Stream Corridor
designation; Environmental Report requirements are described in section 15.11 of the
Plan;
Flood Plain Special Policy Areas identify lands where communities have developed
on lands susceptible to flooding, and recognizes the continued viability of those areas
by permitting some new development, subject to appropriate flood protection
measures as set out in section 15.30 of the Official Plan;
section 15.30, among other matters, identifies that the City and
Conservation Authority may require the submission of engineering and stormwater
management studies when considering applications on lands designated
Flood Plain Special Policy Area; ,
3.3 Zonin~ By-law 3036
- the subject property is zoned "A" - Agricultural Zone, which requires minimum lot
frontages of 60 metres;
- an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's proposal.
4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
4.1 Resident Comments
no written comments have been received to-date;
4.2 Agency Comments
- no written comments have been received to-date;
016
Information Report No. 19-00
Page 3
4.3
4.3.1
Staff Comments
Land Use and Site Plan
the key issue to be reviewed for this proposal is the compatibility of the car dealership
expansion with the surrounding neighbourhood;
compatibility of the proposal must be reviewed from the following perspectives:
· impact on the streetscape of Brock Road and Finch Avenue;
relationship to, and impact on, surrounding residential properties;
traffic generation and omsite parking availability;
· vehicular access;
· building location, massing, height and materials;
· landscaping, fencing, and tree preservation;
· lighting;
· outdoor storage and display areas;
· water and sanitary servicing availability;
· stormwater management;
staff must also evaluate the proposed site functioning, including parking
requirements, building setbacks, maximum/minimum lot coverage .and architectural
controls;
4.3.2 Guidelines and Supporting Reports
staff must determine whether this proposed development constitutes "major" or
"minor" development to assist in deciding whether the preparation of
Development Guidelines is required, and/or the submission of an
Environmental Report is required, as part of the consideration of this application;
also, in determining whether an Environmental Report and/or other engineering and
stormwater reports are required, Planning & Development staff will be consulting
with the Toronto Region Conservation Authority staff.
5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the
Planning & Development Department;
oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting;
all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Platming Report prepared
by the Planning & Development Department for 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 decision regarding this proposal, you must
request such in writing to the City Clerk.
6.0
6.1
OTHER INFORMATION
Appendix No. I
list of neigxhbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and
City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing
report;
Information Report No. 19-00
ATTACHMENT
~SEPORi # PD.~~
Page 4
017
6.2 Information Received
full-scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the
offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department;
6.3 Comtaany Principal
the principal of Sheridan Chevrolet is Mr. Jerry Gazarek.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Tyler Barnett
Plmmer 1
JTB/pr/par
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
Manager, Current Operations
018
APPENDIX I TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 19-00
COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
(1) none received to date
COMMENTING AGENCIES
(1) none received to date
COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS
(1) Planning & Development Department
Excerpts of Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes
of
Thursday, August 10, 2000
STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES
01.9
A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, August 10, 2000 at 7:05
p.m. in the Council Chambers.
(IV)
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 20-00
SHERIDAN CHEVROLET
NORTH PART OF LOT 18, CONCESSION 1
(SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BROCK ROAD AND FINCH AVENUE)
Tyler Barnett, Planner 1, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in
Information Report #19-00.
Henry Kortekaas, agent acting on behalf of applicant, advised that a number of
existing trees will be preserved along the northern border of the Site. lie further
advised that the building to be constructed will be a low profile building and that
the lights will be low and directed away from the neighbours to the north.
Smaller trees on the site will be relocated to the southern border.
Gerald Lepard, 1766 Finch A:eenue, resident across from Sheridan Chevrolet for
the last 15 years advised that he has found this dealership to be a good neighbour
and is pleased that they will be the ones developing this site. His concerns
include the present paging system being expanded to include this site and the
testing of cars along Finch Avenue. He requested that better technology be
implemented to page staff. He stated his pleasure with the planned tree
preservation.
Jim Mason, 1734 Finch Avenue, advised that he lives directly north of the
property. He concurs with the comments made by Mr. Lepard. He requested that
consideration be given by the Police, the Post Office and Sheridan to consider
storm drainage.
John Bentley, 1770 Finch Avenue, also advised that he concurs with the previous
statements. He stated his concern with the access point onto Finch Avenue from
this site and questioned if this will be a major access or will there be an access
onto Kingston Road through the present site.
Jerry Gazarek, applicant, advised that he will investigate a better paging system.
They have attempted not to be intrusive on the neighbours and staff are well
aware that testing of the vehicles is not to take place on Finch Avenue. Access
will be both from Finch Avenue and the present site. There will be no sump
pumps on this site.
7. Tyler Barnett, Planner I, advised that storm drainage will be looked at by staff.
020
August !4, 2000.
Tyler Barnett
Planner 1
Planning .and Development
The Corporation of the Cit?; of Pickerimg
tiE:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A20/00
Sheridan. Chewolet
North Part of Lot lg, Concession 1
Part 1, Plan 40R-I1779
Oils, of Picketing
Dear I~,~. Barnett,
This letter is in regard to inibrmation stated in Ita%rmation Report No. 19-00 as well as
items discussed at' the public inCh,-marion meeting on Augmt 10, 2000, pertaining to the Zoning
By-law Mrtendment Application cited above.
We will adrkess each issue that i~ of particular importance to us:
Landscap'_m¢._ fencing m~d tree .preservation: ~Mr. Jerry Gazarek has graciously promgsed
that the existing barrier of trees will be maintained and even enhanced, par~icularl¥ in areas where
the present b "*
amir is sparse. We are very grateful for this as these evergreens p~°vide a pleasant
~een vista which, we fred preferable to a parking lot and wNch is much more compatible with a
resideniSal n~ighbourhood. As well these trees absorb some of the noise generated ~ the ever
increasing traffic on FGngston Rd. and Brock Rd. It is our understanding that it is the
responsibility of the landowner to ~o~dde consistent and continuous maintenance of all aspects of
~ site plan, We would apprec/ate being advised as to whethm~ we may assume that il'ds
responsiNjjg, applies to this imperator and much, valued tree barrier.
Stom~.water mm~a~ement: The area to be developed serves as a drainage basin for much
the a4ioitfing !and. A~ times, pm~ticularty t~: year; the depth, of water Ms been ac d~c~i: ~at it
h~ been ~ossibte for the post~ work~ ~ho p~k ~o~ F~ch Ave. to gm~ access m ~.e post
offi.c~ prope~: by wa~g. across the vacant wes, Pa~,~ ~e new pafi~ng icl and ~/~tiu~ the
water :o the -~
a~tct~ are~ along :'mc.~ Ave wig ~l'~er comsat.cate dr~&mge ~ss'ues f0:~ '~e
=krug :he :<>~: side o::'Fmc~.: Many o:' us ~.ave sump pumps WNch already work ove~iim_e
Zoning: M~-. Gazarek has been a considerate and approachdoie neighbour for 'years. We
are quite comfortable ~ith the concept of the expanded car dealership as presented by' Ivh-.
Gazarek. We und~-~rstand that it is likely that rite amended zoning would match the zoning
d~signafion on the ¢~thtg dealership~ It is also o~ar belief that 'this z,ming is very specific and
limits use of these lands to a vehicle dealership. We are sure that you can undersnud our
reluctance to contemplate any zoning designation that/s more open. We must be ~rotected by the
CiB; in. the event that at some point in the future the owner of these lands decides tO sell. We mu~st
know that should that possibi~ty arise we would ~a£,~ have all. of the protection and. invoh.~ement
that citizens are given by the planning process. Please let us know ff we are in error regarding any
of the above information.
We are ve~ grateful that the process allows us to be heard. Thank you for your t/me and
cm~sideration.
October 24, 2000
City of Pickering,
Pickering Civic Complex,
One the Esplanade,
Pickering ON L1V 6K7
Attention: Tyler Barnett
Planner 1
Regarding: A20/00 Sheridan Chevrolet
NOV - 9 000
CITY OF PICKERING
PICKERING, ONTARIO
Dear Mr. Barnett,
The residents at 1764 and 1766 Finch Avenue would like the city
to consider implementing a raff~c calming zone for Finch
Avenue in light of the recent proposal from Sheridan Chevrolet.
As you are aware our street, Finch Avenue east of Brock, is a
dead end. This does not however appear to register with some
motor vehicle drivers who attempt to link to Highway 2 and once
cognizant that there truly is no exit, register their frustration
by driving back out at excessive speeds.
Additionally, our street is presently utilized as a parking lot
by neighbouring institutions who have not supplied sufficient on
site parking for their employees. This narrows our "two lane" to
just one during business hours.
To all of this you can add the "water trucks" who fill up from
our fire hydrants.
This eclectic mix could not sustain any additional "road test"
traffic from the expanded dealership and although the dealership'
has stated that they do not use our road, we wish to advise you
that their customers do. Not all road tests have a sales agent
from the dealership accompanying them on their drives.
We have children, pets and seniors living on our short stretch of
road and we ask that the city give serious consideration to our
request.
1764 Finch Avenue
1766 Finch Avenue
O24
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
1. That Council ENDORSE the revised process respecting approval of Draft Plans of
Condominium, recommended in Report Number PD 23-03.
REPORT TO
PLANNING COMMITTEE 025
Report Number: PD 23-03
Date: April 25, 2003
From:
Nell Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject: Recommended Revised Process for Draft Plans of Condominium
Recommendation:
1. That Council ENDORSE the revised process respecting approval of Draft Plans
of Condominium, recommended in Report Number PD 23-03.
Executive Summary: Following the delegation of approval authority from the
Region of Durham to the City of Pickering for Draft Plan of Subdivision, Draft Plan of
Condominium and Part Lot Control Bylaw approval, staff have continually reviewed
opportunities to streamline the processing of applications.
The standard reporting process of submitting detailed reports to City Council for each
proposed plan of condominium is considered unnecessary and could be eliminated in
specific circumstances, thereby reducing processing time.
The draft plan of condominium review process is technical in nature and relates in most
cases to development projects that have already undergone extensive public review
under related Planning Act processes, that have Council approval, and that have
received, endorsement by the Site Plan Committee.
It is recommended that Council authorize the Director, Planning & Development to
issue draft approval for condominium applications under the delegated authority of
By-law 5391/01, at a Department level, without Council's consideration of a report"from
the Planning & Development Department.
Staff will continue to bring reports to Planning Committee respecting draft plans of
condominium in situations where concurrence is not achieved between the applicant
and staff respecting approval or related approval conditions.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of this
implementing this revised process.
n26
Report PD 23-03
Subject: Recommended Process for Draft Plans of Condominium
Date: April 25, 2003
Page 2
1.0 Back_clround:
1.1 Past Process
Prior to 2001, the processing and approval of draft plans of condominium was the
responsibility of the Region of Durham. The City was circulated draft plans of
condominium for review and comment. The Planning & Development Department
would prepare a report for Council's consideration outlining the proposed tenure of
the development, along with any conditiOns recommended to be imposed by the
City. Council's resolution and conditions would be forwarded to the Region of
Durham to be included in their conditions of draft approval.
1.2 The Process Changed
The process for the review and approval of Draft Plans of Condominium changed
in 2001 with the delegation of approval authority from the Region to the City.
Although the process has been somewhat streamlined, the Planning &
Development Department continues to submit detailed reports to Planning
Committee for each proposed plan of condominium. Through staff's continuing
efforts to identify process efficiencies, it has been concluded that this standard
reporting process is unnecessary and could be eliminated under specific
circumstances, thereby reducing processing times for the development industry.
1.3 No requirement to hold public meetings for Draft Plan of Condominiums
1.4
The provisions of the Planning Act do not require the approval authority to provide
notice of the application or hold a public meeting for an application for Draft Plan
of Condominium. The City's process does not currently involve public notice.
Public meetings are held in accordance with the Planning Act provisions and
Council procedures for related Planning Act applications that may apply to a
condominium project. The City of Pickering will continue to circulate plan of
condominium applications to agencies that have specifically requested notification,
and their comments\conditions will be considered for incorporation into the
conditions of draft approval.
The Director, Planning & Development proposes to exercise his delegated
approval authority for 'Plan of Condominium Applications that are technical
in nature, without formal reporting to Planning Committee.
The City of Pickering was delegated approval authority from the Region of Durham
to approve draft plans of condominium on January 1, 2001. City Council
subsequently passed By-law 5391/01, which further delegated approval authority
to the Director, Planning & Development.
Report PD 23-03
Subject: Recommended Process for Draft Plans of Condominium
Date: April 25, 2003
Page 3i3
1.5
Typically any development that is subject to an application for draft plan of
condominium has already been subject to another Planning Act application(s)
such as Site Plan Approval, Zoning By-law Amendment, Official Plan Amendment
or a Draft Plan of Subdivision. It is through the review of these applications that
City Council considers the merits of proposed development and renders decisions.
Plans of Condominium essentially deal with matters of tenure and are introduced
at the end of the development process, possibly during project construction.
Review, approval, and registration of condominium applications is technical in
nature. To ensure that the approval process is facilitated as expeditiously as
possible, it is recommended that the Director, Planning & Development be
authorized to exercise his delegated approval authority and proceed to issue draft
approvals for condominiums without formal review of a Report by Planning
Committee, and Council approval.
City Council will receive reports for Condominiums in the event disputes
between the applicant and the City cannot be resolved.
A report to Council will be prepared in the event that the applicant does not agree
with the proposed conditions of approval and/or does not concur with staff's
position respecting the plan of condominium. Most commonly, disputes over what
is to be included within a condominium unit boundary or common element
boundary may occur and therefore the applicant would have the opportunity to
address this issue at Planning Committee and Council.
The recommended process is similar to that used by other Municipalities in the
Greater Toronto Area and the Region of Durham. While some Planning
Departments still report to Council, it is not uncommon for condominium
applications to be dealt with at the department level.
Report PD 23-03
Subject: Recommended Process for Draft Plans of Condominium
Date:
April 25, 2003
Page 4
$~- Site Planning
Lynda Taylor/~cIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
TB:jf
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Approved / Endorsed By:
.."/ , ...¢'? / .
Neil Carro'[l;~l~RPp
Director, Pla'~rfg & Development
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
TI~'3. (~inn, O-¢hie~~trative Officer
029
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report PD 22-03 concerning Resolution 95/02 of the Rouge Park Alliance
about discouraging infrastructure in the Rouge Park, be RECEIVED by City
Council; and
That the Rouge Park Alliance be ADVISED that the City supports the review and
approval of municipal infrastructure projects through the Rouge Park under the
Environmental Assessment Act, which provides a rigorous and consistent review
process while ensuring that the goals, objectives, and principles articulated in the
Management Plans for Rouge Park are considered; and
That a copy of Report Number PD 22-03 be FORWARDED to the Rouge Park
Alliance and all Rouge Park Partners for their information.
030
PICKERING
REPORT TO
PLANNING COMMITEE
Report Number: PD 22-03
Date: April 25, 2003
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Rouge Park Alliance
- Alliance Resolution 95/02 Discouraging Infrastructure in the Rouge Park
RecOmmendations:
That Report Number PD 22-03 concerning Resolution 95/02 of the Rouge Park
Alliance about discouraging infrastructure in the Rouge Park, be RECEIVED by
City Council;
That the Rouge Park Alliance be ADVISED that the City supports the review and
approval of municipal infrastructure projects through the Rouge Park under the
Environmental Assessment Act, which provides a rigorous and consistent review
process while ensuring that the goals, objectives, and principles articulated in the
Management Plans for Rouge Park. are considered; and
That a copy of Report Number PD 22-03 be FORWARDED to the Rouge Park
Alliance and all Rouge Park Partners for their information.
Executive Summary: On November 22, 2002, the Rouge Park Alliance passed
Resolution 95/02 to establish a vigorous policy to discourage the use of the Rouge Park lands
for new infrastructure sites and routes. This resolution was forwarded to all Rouge Park
Alliance Partners for endorsement.
Staff has reviewed the Resolution and do not consider that the freestanding resolution
of the Rouge Park Alliance requesting the establishment of a vigorous policy
discouraging any new infrastructure throuqh the Park is required. The forceful position
of their Resolution is contrary to the review process established in the approved
Rouge Park and Rouge North Park Management Plans, and may prejudice the
establishment of necessary municipal infrastructure.
Pickering continues to support the goals, objectives and principles of the Rouge Park,
and its management plans. The Park plans recognize that municipal infrastructure
projects may be proposed within the Rouge Park, and require that projects be reviewed
and approved under the Environmental Assessment Act. Among other matters, this
process ensures there is a demonstrated need for the infrastructure, that alternatives
have been considered, and any approval granted is tested against the Park's goals,
objectives and principles.
Report PD 22-03
Subject: Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02
Date: April 25, 2003
Page 2
Financial Implications: Not Applicable.
Background:
1.0 Rouge Park Alliance Resolution
1.1
The Rouge Park Alliance requested the Park partners to support and
implement its resolution to establish a vigorous policy discouraging new
infrastructure in the Rouge Park.
On November 22, 2002, the Rouge Park Alliance passed Resolution 95/02 "to
establish a vigorous policy to discourage the use of the Rouge Park lands for new
infrastructure sites and routes, including new pipelines, transmission lines,
transportation corridors, communication towers and similar uses". The Alliance
forwarded the resolution to the City and the other Park partners, with a request
that the partners endorse this infrastructure policy and assist in implementing it
within their jurisdiction or area of responsibility (see Attachment #1).
1,2
The Council of the Region of Durham supports the use of the
Environmental Assessment Act process to review municipal infrastructure
projects in the Park, not the stronger position proposed in Resolution 95~02.
On March 26, 2003, Durham Regional Council adopted a resolution to support
"the review and approval of municipal infrastructure projects through the
Environmental Assessment Act, as it provides a rigorous and consistent process,
which ensures that the values, goals and objectives for the Rouqe Park,
expressed in its Management Plans, and alternatives for location are t~ken into
account in the approval of infrastructure projects" (see Attachment #2). In
addition, York Regional Council adopted a similar resolution advising that
Regional infrastructure improvement projects are subject to review and approval
under the Environmental Assessment Act.
2.0 Discussion
2.1
The City supports the goals, objectives and principles of the Rouge Park,
and its management plans, which plans have a process for dealing with
new infrastructure proposed within the Rouge Park.
The City currently supports, and should continue to support the goals, objectives
and principles of the Rouge Park, the Rouge Park Management Plan (which
covers the Park south of Steeles Avenue), and the Rouge North Management
Plan (which covers the Park north of Steeles Avenue).
032
Report PD 22-03
Subject: Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02
Date: April 25, 2003
Page 3
2.2
2.3
The Rouge Park Management Plan contains a process for dealing with
infrastructure within the Park. A number of rail lines, hydro corridors pipelines,
and sewer and water right-of-ways currently exist within the Park. Although no
new roads are permitted through the Park south of Steeles Avenue, utilities and
services are not precluded from continuing to exist or new facilities being
permitted in existing right-of-ways.
Similarly, the Rouge North Management Plan (RNMP) deals with infrastructure
and recognizes that the planning of infrastructure through Rouge Park North must
have regard for environmental impacts in addition to technical and economic
considerations (section 6.4.2.2). Further, section 6.4.2.3 of the RNMP
acknowledges the authority of the Environmental Assessment Act and the
Planning Act in the planning and design of municipal and provincial transportation
facilities. The RNMP does not prohibit transportation facilities from being improved
or implemented in the park and does not limit such improvements to those that
are currently planned or under consideration.
The stronger policy direCtion contained in the Rouge Park Alliance
resolution is not supported by any reports.
Resolution 95/02 of the Rouge Park Alliance is not supported by any reports
evaluating the effectiveness of the current management approach for
infrastructure or demonstrating the need for a stronger policy position. The
Alliance has not provided information justifying a position against considering the
use of the publicly-owned Rouge Park lands as an appropriate and necessary
location for new infrastructure sites and routes.
The view appears to be related to another position of the Alliance to request a
"bump up" of the Class Environmental Assessment of the York Durham Sewer
System-Southeast Collector Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project between Box Grove in
Markham and Pickering's municipal boundary.
Staff does not consider the establishment of a strong policy discouraging
new infrastructure appropriate as it would be contrary to the approved
management plans and could prejudice the establishment of necessary
municipal infrastructure.
The provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act govern all infrastructure
projects involving municipalities. The Act requires the proponent to fulfill its
responsibilities to the public to protect the environment and to deliver its services
in an efficient, economic, and environmentally responsible manner. This process
ensures that the need for the project is justified, alternatives are examined, and
the values, goals and objective expressed in the Management Plans for the Park
are taken into account in planning for infrastructure projects.
Report PD 22-03
Subject: Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02
Date: April 25, 2003~
3
3
Page 4
If supported, the Alliance resolution could result in a policy that impedes the
provision of cost efficient and environmentally sound infrastructure for Durham
and Pickering residents. Despite the policy intent to discourage new
infrastructure sites and routes, it could be used to constrain future improvements
to Steeles Avenue or the proposed extension of GO Train service on the
St. Lawrence & Hudson Rail line through Pickering. Further, it could be used to
support the closing of existing roads through the Park, such as Twyn Rivers Drive.
The closure of Tywn Rivers Drive would be contrary to Council's position to
maintain Twyn Rivers Drive as a 20-metre road allowance through the
Rouge Park.
Accordingly, it is recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance be advised that the
City supports the review and approval of municipal infrastructure projects within or
through the Rouge Park under the Environmental Assessment Act, which ensures
that the goals, objectives, and principles articulated in the Management Plans for
Rouge Park are taken into account.
Attachments:
Letter dated December 17, 2002, from R. M. Christie, Chair, Rouge Park
Alliance, including Resolution #95/02, correspondence from John O'Gorman,
and a report from Lewis Yeager, General Manager, Rouge Park Alliance
Letter dated March 27, 2003, from P.M. Madill, Regional Clerk, Region of
Durham including Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-29
034
Report PD 22-03
Subject: Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02
Date: April 25, 2003
Page 5
Prepared By:
Grant"McG;-egor~-~cl~, RPP
Principal Planner- Policy
(/~/../x_~,.~,,._.~/1~
Catherine Rose
Manager, Policy
Approved / Endorsed By:
Nell ~;a rroll,~ R(PP'"~/
Director, Plan ni~9_~evelopment
GM:jf
Copy: David Ryan, City Councillor- Ward 1 (Rouge Park Alliance Representative)
Chief Administrative Officer
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy (Rouge Park Alliance Alternate)
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
// }..-% ,. :' ./
Thd'n~s J. Quin¢, Chiegf Admi~
Rouge Park
A~AOHMEN? #,, , [ TO
REPORI' # PD__~Z - OJ5
Rouge Park Tel:
50 Bloomington Road West Fax:
Aurora, ON L4G 3G8
(905) 713-6038
(905) 713-6028
035
December 17, 2002
Mayor Wayne Arthurs and Councillors, and
Mr. Bruce Taylor, Clerk
City of Pickering
One The Esplanae
Picketing, ON L1V 6K7
DearM~urs.and Councillors and Mr. Taylor:
Re: Infrastructure in Rouge Park
At its meeting on November 22, 2002, the Rouge Park Alliance expressed concern about the cumulative effect
of communications towers, major sewers, and other infrastructure projects which are being proposed in what
is intended to be a significant natural environment park, theRouge Park.
The Alliance passed a motion to establish a vigorous policy to discourage the use of Rouge Parklands for
new infrastructure sites, and routes, including new pipelines, transmission lines, transportation corridors,
communication towers and similar uses.
The Rouge Park Alliance further asks all its partners, including the City .of Picketing, to endorse this
infrastructure policy for the Rouge Park, and to assist in implementing it within your jUrisdiction or area of
responsibility.
Thank you for help{ng to make the Rouge Park an outstanding natural area.
Sincerely,
R. M. Christie
Chair
Rouge Park Alliance
LY/dm
Att.
(Note: Similar letter sent to All Rouge Park Alliance Partners)
cc:
Councillor David Ryan, City of Pickering
Mr. Tom Melymuk, City of Pickering
036
ATTACHMENT ~ J TO
REPORT # PD 22. ~0.~
EXCERPT FROM DRAFT MINUTES OF ROUGE PARK ALLIANCE MEETING #7/02,
NOVEMBER 22, 2002
MOTION:
Res. #95/02
Moved by: Dick O'Brien
Seconded by: DerekLee '
THAT Rouge Park staff, in cooperation with TRCA staff, review the final version of the Class EA
document for the York Durham Sewage System-Southeast Collector Trunk Sanitary Sewer Project,
and, if there remains insufficient ground water information to assess potential impacts and ~ealistie
mitigation, the Rouge Park Alliance request a "bump up" to a full individual environmental assessment
during the review period;
AND THAT the Rouge Park Alliance establish a vigorous policy to discourage the'use of Rouge Park
lands for new infrastructure sites and routes, including new pipelines, i' ~tranSmission lines,
transportation corridors,, communication towers and similar uses;
AND FURTHER THAT Rouge Park partners endorse this infrastructure policy and assist in
implementing it within their jurisdictions and 'areas of responsibility.
MOTION AS AMENDED .................................................... CARRIED
29 GrandvieW Ave.
Thornhill, Ont.
L3T 1G9
June 3, 2002
037
Mr. Ron Christie
Chair, Rouge Park Alliance
50 Bloomington rd. W., 3~a Floor
Aurora, Ont.
L4G 3G8
Dear Mr. Christie:
~Markhfim's.senior river, the Don, suffered the pains of development' before
tneremre, there are lessons to be taught to the later developed Rouge. The iess~~
Senior't° junior are usUaliy abofit what NOT t° doand that'i~ why I ~te fodaj;i?:
.In three of our valleys 'within the past nine months ~ ~,~.-;~,-.'~ ,-:~: ~' ''~': ':~-:'
aetenorated to the point of fadure The' vall~s'"a~6 p,,~'ka;~; n~z~; ,.2~>;;, :"~';~!~' :~
:_,_ ,~._ __,, .... · c ...... r:v~*.,~m,t ~uau naa m be
,~[,, m~ vauey re anew constructmn machinery to access the sewer line. The co~~
of the road meant that the fifty years of restoration and naturalization (that
td;eV~OfrPaesdtr~er ~e initial ..de .st}-uc. tion .of the environment for the initial constmcti,~, of'
, .cmre) was qmre aesrroyed. The destruction of trees and ,wh~,
~eaves ' · . . . ~.~-
an oOwous record. The ~mpact on aquatic hfe and w~ldlife in the area ~ii:"be
totally unrecorded. ,...
The point, then, a.s .~I ha. ye .made directly to Markham Council, is that it is f~se:.
to establish any infrastructure up any n.'ver/stream valley if you
following reasons: ?'~'~' '~''. '" ' .......... -~'"
· initial destruction of habitat
', the certainty that ANY. infrastructm-e will eventually require repair and/or
replacement
cost of con~mction of an access mad f0r'rePair/replacement
conco f"&Struction. O habitatagahi:: '. :'
cost of environmental restoration afterwards
cost of loss from environmental advantages of mature habitat (e.g. trees planted
as.a restorative measure do not absorb as many pollutants as the larger trees that
they replace)
cost of pollutants/destruction caused by the broken infrastructure (flood,
pollution, etc.) in an environmentally sensitive area ,:'.i:..!i:i~::/;::..
cost and. difficulty of monitoring vis a vis the ease of omtonng
infrastructure were beside a roadway and more apparent (see San'
Canyon Watch program)
cost of the withdrawal of public use for the time of the breakage through
restoration
038
cost of environmental change and destruction as a direct result of construction
(e.g de-watering for trenches and then the resulting "French drain" effect on an
aquifer)
the usually ignored harm to the fauna
not in the extreme .but very definitely, the Rouge valley is liable to seismic
activity
with further climate change imminent, the next "storm of the century"(Haze!) is
closer than we think.
sincerely,
There is ~lan for the York-Durham sewer to go down the Rouge valley for Pm,, qf/ts
length. Th,, supporting argument is based upon costs calculated purely as the expen~
of dollars. Please keep the construction out of the valley. Please keep all ~ ~, "" '
out of our river vall~ys. ' . , . ..
eom some valleys such as the sewer tl~t traverses M~lne Park. Please do not
further exploitation .of the valleyS. Promote the idea that the Ro~g~
John O'Gorman
cc. Mai-lrtiam CounCil
· % ~ '~.'::.~'", ~ ..
Markham Conservatmn Co~e
Friends of the R6Uge Watershed
Save the Rouge Valley System
TO:
FROM:
Chair and Members of the Rouge Park Alliance
Meeting #7/02, November 22, 2002
Lewis Yeager, General Manager, Rouge Park
York Durham Sanitary Sewer Project
039
KEY ISSUE
The Region of York has prepared a draft Class Environmental Assessment of its proposed York
Durham Sanitary Sewer section' which would cross the Rouge Park in Markham and Toronto by one
of several candidate routes. The Rouge Park staff and the Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (TRCA) have provided comments on the draft EA, and, as indicated during the
proponent's presentation at the October 25, 2002 Alliance meeting, a final Class EA dOcument is
to be prepared and submitted early in 2003. There would be a comment peribd follo~ng
submission.
While there are many broad and specific issues related to the expansion of this sewer system, Rouge
Park staffsee two issues that are uniquely within the mandate of the Alliance and its partners.
The Rouge Park should not be 'viewed as a cheap and convenient dumping ground for
infrastruc, ture; and
It is clear from the proponent's presentation to Rouge Park staff, to the Heritage Committee,
and to the Alliance, that no detailed geotechnical and hydrogeological work is to be done
until a preferred alignment is determined. Recent experience with dewatering for other
nearby sewer construction suggests that significant and extended lowering of the water~le
can be expected. In addition to impacts on wells, which may be mitigated after a fashi6h'~'~
many cases, we fear lengthy disruptions to base flow impacts to the Rouge River, greaily
altering cold water aquatic habitat for fish and other aquatic life. These impacts are unlikely
to be effectively mitigated.
With the present, very limited level of hydrogeological information supplied by the
proponent, I feel that it is not possible to develop an informed opinion on the extent of these
impacts and the differences in such impacts which would result from selection 0leach 0~e
alternative routes. A full, individual Environmental Assessment is a mechanism which
requires a greater level of comparison of alternatives, compared with the Class EA process
presently underway.
RECOM.MENDATION
THAT Rouge Park staff, in cooperation with TRCA staff, to review the final version of the
Class EA document, and, if there remains insufficient ground water information to asSeSs
potential impacts and realistic mitigation, the Rouge Park Alliance should request a "bump."
up" to a full individual environmental assessment during the review period;
040
A'I'~'ACHMEIT'i' #__ t. TO
Chair and Members of the Rouge park Alliance Page 2
Meeting #7/02, November 22, 2002
Re: York Durham Sanitary Sewer Project
AND TIJ_AT the Rouge Park Alliance establish a vigorous policy toQ'~i's~c_c°~Urage the use of
Rouge Parl~ lands for new infrastructUre sites, and routes, including new' pipelines,'
transmission lines, transportation corridors, communication towers and other uses;
ANI~/FURTHER TH_AT Rouge Park partners endorse this infrastructure polidYa-nd
implementing it within their jurisdictions and areas of responsibility.
Report prepared by: Lewis Yeager, General Manager, Rouge Park
For information-contact: Lewis Yeager, 905-713-7374 . _, .~.~'
March 27, 2003
041
· '25 ~:~'¢, ~,,
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Clerk's
Department
PO BOX.623 .
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E.
WHITBY ON LIN 6A3
CANADA
(905) 668-7711
1-800-372-1102
Fax: (905). 668-9963
E-maih
' clerks@ region.durham.on.ca
www. region.durham.on.ca
Pat M. Madill, A.M.C.T., CMM I
Regional Clerk
Mr. Lewis Yeager,
General Manager
Rouge Park Alliance
50 Bloomington Road West
Aurora, Ontario
L4G 3G8
Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95102,'Fiie: 4.1.35.10.rl
.(Our File: A01) (#2003-P-29)
Mr. Yeager, the Planning Committee of Regional Council considered.the
above matter and at.a meeting held on March 26,' 2003, Council adopted the
following recommendations of the Committee:
"a)
b)
THAT the RoUge Park Alliance be .advised that the Region of Durham
supports the review and approval of municipal infrastructure projects
through'the Environmental Assessment,Act, as it provides a rigorous and
consistent process, which ensures that the values, goals and objectives
for the Rouge Park, expressed in its Management Plans, and alternatives
for location are taken into account in the approval of infrastructure
projects; and
THAT a copy of Planning Commissioner's Report No. 2003-P-29 be
forwarded to the Rouge Park Alliance and the City of Pickering."
· [ - 7/
P.M. Mad!Il, A.M.C.T., CMM I
Regional Clerk
PMM/cb
CC:
B. Taylor, Clerk, City of Pick.e..ri~g
A.L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning
"SER I4I CE 'EXCE LLEN CE
for o~ir COMMUNITY"
lO()sc Post Consumer
,ATTACHMENT ~ ~ TO
REPORT # PD,, 2...'2-.. -0'5
The Regional Municipality of Durham
To:
From:
Report No.:
Date:
The Planning Committee
Commissioner of Planning
2003-P-29
March 11,2003
DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT:
Rouge Park Alliance Resolution 95/02, File: 4.1.35.10.1
Correspondence 2003-113 dated December 17, 2002 from R.M. Christie, Chair, Rouge
Park Alliance
RECOMMENDATIONS:
a)
THAT the Rouge Park Alliance, be advised that the Region of Durham
supports the review and approval of municipal infrastructure projects through
the Environmental Assessment Act, as it provides a rigorous and consistent
process, which ensures that the values, goals and objectives for the Rouge
Park, expressed in its Management Plans, and alternatives for location are
taken into account in the approval of infrastructure projects; and
b)
THAT a copy of Commissioner's Report 2003-P-29 be forwarded to the
Rouge Park Alliance and the City of Pickering.
REPORT:
PURPOSE
1,1
This repod provides information on a resolution by the Rouge Park Alliance
related to new infrastructure through the Rouge Park.
BACKGROUND
2.1
On November 22, 2002, the Rouge Park Alliance adopted a resolution
(Attachment 1) to establish a "vigorous policy to discourage the use of the
Rouge Park lands for new infrastructure sites and routes, including new
pipelines, transmission lines, transportation corridors, communication towers
and similar issues". The Alliance also requested that its partners endorse this
Repo~ No.:
2003-P-29
~TTACHMEN'~ # ~ TO
REPORT # PD~ ~L ~0~
q43
Page No. 2
infrastructure policy and assist in implementing it within their jurisdictions and
areas of responsibility.
COMMENTS
3.1
3,'2
3.3
m
Although there are no written reports expressing the reasons for the
resolution, it is apparent that the Alliance is taking a stand against the use of
publicly owned Rouge Park lands as a convenient location for infrastructure.
This may be a reaction to a number of infrastructure projects reviewed by the
Alliance in recent months, including a component of the York Durham
Sewage System in York Region and a communications tower in Toronto.
The process followed for approval of new infrastructure varies depending on
the type of infrastructure and the agency who has the approval authority, in
some instances approvals are governed by legislation such as the Federal
and Provincial Environmental Assessment (EA) Acts, which require extensive
consultation. In other instances, such as communications towers, the
governing legislation (i.e. Radio Communication Act) is less prescriptive with
regard to stakeholder consultation.
All infrastructure projects involving the Region of Durham and other
municipalities are governed by the provisions of the Environmental
Assessment Act. The Act ensures that the Rouge Park and the values, goals
and objectives expressed in the Management Plans for the Park, north and
south of Steeles Avenue, are taken into account in planning for infrastructure
projects.
CONCLUSION
4.1
It is recommended that the Rouge Park Alliance, be advised that the Region
of Durham supports the review of municipal infrastructure projects through the
Environmental Assessment Act. The Act provides a rigorous and consistent
process, which ensures that the values, goals and objectives for the Rouge
Park, expressed in its Management Plans, are taken into account in the
approval of infrastructure projects. As an agency that may require the
establishment of new infrastructure that may encroach upon the Park, the
Report No.:
2003-P-29
Page No. 3
Region will continue to engage interested parties in a manner appropriate to.
the project.
A.L. Georgieff, M.C.I.P., R.P.P.
Commissioner of Planning
RECOMMENDED FOR PRESENTATION TO COMMITTEE
G.H. Cubitt, M.S.W.
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachment: 1.
Correspondence 2003-113 from Rouge Park Alliance
H:\1-2~.gendas~2003\03-11-03\Rouge Park Alliance.doc
25
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
PLANNING COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That the revised Part Lot Control Process and Fee Structure set out in Report PD 20-03
be endorsed by Council.
REPORT TO
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 20-03
Date: April 23, 2003
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Streamlining of Part Lot Control Process and Fee Structure
- File No.: PLC.
Recommendation:
That the revised Part Lot Control Process and Fee Structure set out in Report PD 20-03
be endorsed by Council.
Executive Summary: In keeping with our efforts to continue streamlining
development approval processes, it is recommended that the Part Lot Control Process
and Fee Structure be amended. The recommended revised process will eliminate
repetitive requests of Council to enact Part Lot Control By-laws and improve the
timeliness of our service to the development industry.
Financial Implications: General analysis indicates that, while this revised process
may create a moderate increase in fees to the developer, the fees being recommended
are in keeping with the cost to the municipality to provide this service and fall within the
range of fees being charged by other municipalities in the Region.
1.0
Background: In 1999, the City simplified its procedures respecting the
processing of Part Lot Control By-laws. On the recommendation of the City
Solicitor at the time, authority was granted for Part Lot Control By-laws to be
forwarded directly to Council for enactment, rather than being first considered by a
Committee of Council. This process was initiated to provide a more time-efficient
process for staff, Council and the development industry. In keeping with our
efforts to continue streamlining development approval processes, it is
recommended that the Part Lot Control process be further amended.
Part Lot Control By-laws are required under the provisions of the Planning Act
where more than one dwelling unit is being constructed on any lot/block within a
plan of subdivision. At the present time, developers submit their requests for By-
Report PD 20-03
Subject: Part Lot Control Process
Date: April 23, 2003
4'7
Page 2
laws following the pouring of dwelling unit foundations and the preparation of
applicable reference plans ("as-built survey"). Once it is confirmed that the units
comply with zoning, a Report to Council and By-law are prepared, forwarded to
Council for enactment and then registered. This process may be repeated several
times for lands within one plan of subdivision depending on:
(a)
(b)
the number of units being constructed within the plan of subdivision; and
the scheduled closing dates of the units (as these By-laws must be
registered prior to the developer conveying each dwelling unit into private
ownership).
2.0 Discussion
2.1 Revised Process
It is recommended that following the registration of a plan of subdivision, a Report
be forwarded to Council requesting the enactment of a Part Lot Control By-law,
which by-law, would reference all of the lots/blocks within the plan of subdivision
that will have more than one dwelling unit constructed thereon. The enacted By-
law would then be held and registered against specific lots and blocks as as-built
surveys, lot frontages and area certificates are provided and zoning compliance
confirmed.
This method is currently being used by other municipalities in Durham and has
proven successful. Under the current system, the timeline to process a Part Lot
Control By-Law is approximately one month. If the recommended revised process
is adopted, it will:
(a)
(b)
eliminate repetitive requests of Council to enact Part Lot Control By-laws;
and
improve the timeliness of our service to the development industry by
approximately two weeks.
2.2 Revised Fee Structure
It is also recommended that the fee structure currently in place be revised. Under
the current process a fee of $300.00 (plus GST) is charged for the preparation of
each By-law (there could be several By-laws for one housing project), plus
registration and reporting costs. It is proposed that the City continue to charge a
$300.00 fee for preparation of the initial By-law and that an additional fee be
charged at the time a developer submits a request for Part Lot Control exemption
of:
(a)
$35.00 for each unit being constructed on the lots/blocks within a plan of
subdivision, or other development where Part Lot Control is required; and
Report PD 20-03
Subject: Part Lot Control Process
Date: April 23, 2003
Page 3
(b)
$20.00 for each unit being constructed within a common element
condominium plan. (This fee is lower as the review process for units
being cOnstructed pursuant to a common element condominium is not as
extensive as the process to ensure compliance of units being constructed
via the plan of subdivision or other application process).
These fees strictly cover the City's administrative costs to complete zoning
compliance review on each unit within each type of request, and staff time to
register each By-law. It is also in keeping with the fee structure and process used
by other municipalities for this service. The City would continue to charge for By-
law registration and reporting fees.
Prepared By:
Denise B-ye(, Coordinator
Property & Development Services
Approved / Endorsed By:
Neil Carr~l~61P, R[~'P
Director, Pl'~:l~ & Development
DB:bg
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Manager, Development Review
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
T~o~s J. CCinn, Ct(:rf'ef Adm~ative Officer