HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 8, 2001AGENDA
STATUTORY
PUBLIC INFORMATION
MEETING
Anne Greentree
Supervisor, Legislative Services
FEBRUARY 8, 2001
CITY OF PICKERING
STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING
Pursuant to the Planning Act
AGENDA
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2001
7:00 p.m.
CHAIR: COUNCILLOR BRENNER
DURHAM REGION OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
APPLICATION OPA 2000-05/1)
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 SIDELINE 12)
3.
4.
5.
Explanation of application, as outlined in Information Report #02-01 by Planning
Staff.
Comments from the applicant.
Comments from those having an interest in the application.
Response t~om applicant.
Staff response.
(II) ADJOURNMENT
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 02-01
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
February 8, 2001
IN ACCORDANCE WITtI 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
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
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 Picketing
1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
the subject lands are approximately 219 hectares in size, and are generally located on
the north side of Durhmn 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 units) 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 exis'.ting golf course operation) is provided for reference (see
Attachment #3);
the proposed residential development would be supported by a combination of
communal and private selwices;
a reduction of the applicant's Proposed Subdivision Plan is provided for reference
(see Attachment #4);
Information Report No. 02-01 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 minimum lot area of approximately 0.4 of a hectare each,
and supporting detached dwelling units are proposed on these lands;
· 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 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 of a 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;
· 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
realigned Sideline 14;
· a Conceptual Plan depicting Development 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, and the proposed communal 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 conservation,
recreation, reforestation, and agriculture and farm-related uses (with the exception
that in valleylands in built-up areas, agriculture 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 residential developments, rural employment areas and regional
nodes in the rural areas;
Information Report No. 02-01 Page 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 Cherry 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 riot 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. 11995 by the City of Picketing 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 on 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 a~icultural activities;
Information Report No. 02-01 Page 4
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 Agricultural Code of Practice;
1) not be located within, or contiguous to, or have a negative impact on,
environmentally sensitive areas (as 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 for approval of a draft plan for a country
residential subdivision shall be subject to the provisions of Section 13.3.9 and 13.3.10
of that Plan, requiring the application to be accompanied by various supporting
reports, 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 are 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.
3.2 Pickering Official Plan
the Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands "Open Space System - Active
Recreational Area" (primarily recognizing 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
west tributary are located);
all of Development Area #1, the eastem-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 uses within this designation include 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 servicing 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 Spring Creek to a future proposed clubhouse
facility;
the valley lands along Michell Creek and tributary of Spring Creek are identified as
Shoreline and Stream Corridors, Environmentally Significant Areas (ESA) and
contain pockets of Wetlands as outlined on Schedule 1II - Resource Management to
the Picketing Official Plan;
Information Report No. 02-01 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
Picketing;
(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;
(f) to encourage the timely and appropriate disposition of lands in rural Picketing
owned by the provincial and federal governments; and,
(g) to involve residents, business-people, landowners, relevant public agencies, and
other interested groups and individuals in making decisions conceming the rural
system.
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 considering 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 minimtrm information prescribed
in section 15.11 of the Plan).
for development in Rural Settlements, section 12.2 of the Plan 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 Page 6
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, considering features such as the size and shape of lots, lot
coverage, building heights, building setbacks, building floor area, building
material and design, 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 Pickering Official Plan are required to implement the applicant's
proposed development;
the proposed Draft Pickering Official Plan Amendment prepared by the applicant is
provided as Appendix llI to this Report.
Zonin~ By-law
- Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 5!29/97, currently zones portions of the
subject lands:
· "A" - Rural Agricultural Zone, which permits a detached dwelling, agricultural
uses, accessory agricultural residential uses and specific home occupations,
certain parks and recreational uses (excluding 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 category 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 servicing 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 tributary, 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 may be required to allow the proposed pipes
connecting communal servicing infrastructure, and the proposed walkway travelling
northward from Development Area #2 across Spring 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. 1
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;
Information Report No. 02-01 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 iEighth 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 of Pickering (see 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 Picketing (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
Picketing to be reached already; will increase traffic congestion; and will negatively
impact a surrounding ESA (see Attachment #15).
4.2 A~ency 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 Page 8
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 proximiiy, and potentially under aircraft approach paths, to be inconsistent with
good planning practices;
Durham Region Health Department (see Att.achment #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 #18)
- noted they granted conceptual approval to past golf course expansion proposal subject
to conditions that have not yet 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 of 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 significant natural features, and requested an
Environmental Impact Study be completed to determine impacts and proposed
mitigation/buffering measures;
- requested a preliminary storm water management plan be completed;
- concluded that they cannot support the proposed development in the absence of
outstanding information;
Greater Toronto Airports Authority (see Attachment #19)
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 type 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 Networks Inc., Durham District School
Board, and Durham Catholic District School Board.
Information Report No. 02-01 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 requiting further reviiew 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;
considering 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 prornote 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 Picketing;
reviewing potential growth characteristics, and establishing, where appropriate,
maximum development li:mits 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 of the new development with the
surrounding countryside (including visibility, development intensity, street pattems,
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
4.3.5
4.3.6
· 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 growth in the City's rural area; and,
· the loss of agricultural lands to non-farm development, considering 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 considering the appropriateness of
large-scale residential development being established in close proximity to these
lands;
Plan of Subdivision
reviewing and determining the exact boundaries of the proposed development
considering natural features, technical requirements and other development activities
on the subject lands (and assessing alternatives, if warranted);
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 forms 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
General Information
written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning &
Development Department;
oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting;
all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared
by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a
Committee of Council;
if you wish to be notified of City Council's adoption of a proposed local official plan
amendment or passing of any zoning by-law amendment, you must make a written
request to'
City Clerk
City of Picketing
Picketing Civic Complex
One the Esplanade
Picketing, ON L1V 6K7
Information Report No. 02-01 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 Dufftam Planning Department
1615 Dundas Street East
4th Floor, Lang Tower, West Building
Whitby, ON L1N 6A3.
Approval Authorities for Submitted Applications
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 and/or Provincial interest;
the Region has verbally confirmed that the submitted Picketing 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 authority 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 Picketing is the approval authority for the submitted zoning by-law
amendment applications.
Standard Appeal Rights
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
Picketing 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 zordng by-law amendment is passed, the Ontario Municipal
Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal.
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 Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. ongoing
appeal, you should attend the March 30, 2001 preheating conference.
Information Report No. 02-01 Page 12
6.0 OTHER INFORMATION
6.1 Proper .ty History,
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 Picketing 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 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;
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 #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 adopted Regional Official Plan
Amendment No. 60 to establish communal servicing policies 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;
- 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;
Information Report No. 02-01 Page 13
6.2
6.3
6.4
- 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.
Appendix No. I
- a listing of neighbourho.od residents, community associations, agencies and City
Departments that have co~nmented on the applications at the time of writing report.
Information Received
the applicant has submitted the following technical reports in support of the proposed
development:
"Cherry Downs Recreational Residential Community - A Planning Analysis"
prepared by 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 Consul[ting 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.
Company Information
the agent, Mr. Peter Smith of Bousfield, Dale-Harris, 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
APPENDIX I TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 02-01
COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Mr. J. McGinnis, 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 Westney 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 Conservation 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
APPENDIX II TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 02-01
PROPOSED DRAFT REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Draft Amendment No. __ to the Durham Regional Official Plan
Purpose:
The purpose of this amendment is to provide Regional policies
for the use of communal services.
Basis:
The Durham Regional Official Plan provides for the undertaking
of a study to investigate the feasibility of allowing development
within Hamlets, Rural Employment Areas, and Regional Nodes,
and clustering within Country Residential subdivisions on
communal services. The study is now complete, and it has been
determined that it is feasible to permit and/or provide communal
services.
Actual Amendment:
The Durham Regional Official Plan is hereby amended
by:
A)
deleting Section 5.3.29, which provides for the
preparation of a communal systems feasibility study, in
its entirety, and replacing it with the following new
policy:
"5.3.29
Regional Council may consider the limited use of new
Regionally owned and operated communal systems for
water supply and/or sanitary sewerage in rural settlements
where Council deems it necessary to deal with a health or
environmental problem. The installation of a communal
system in this circumstance shall be subject to the
principles of Sections 13.3.12 and 13.3.13."
B) renumbering policies 5.3.30, 5.3.31 and 5.3.32 and
adding a new Section 5.3.30 as follows:
"5.3.30
Regional Council may also conSider, on a case by case
basis and by amendment to this plan, the approval of
country residential developments serviced by privately
owned and operated communal systems for water supply
and/or sanitary sewerage.
2
The consideration of development on a privately owned and
operated communal system shall be subject to the
following:
a)
the development being integrated with a land-extensive
use, such as a golf course, that is viable over the long
term and is available for the disposal of treated effluent;
b) the application being accompanied by a report prepared
by a qualified professional providing:
i) an evaluation of alternatives for servicing the site;
ii)
an inventory of the environmental characteristics of
thE; site and possible impacts from the proposed
se~rvices;
iii)
an evaluation of the suitability of the site for
communal systems including the capability of the
soiils to support the safe and long-term use of
private sewerage systems and the long-term
awailability of water of sufficient quality and quantity
without adversely affecting existing wells;
iv) an evaluation of alternative communal systems;
v)
a preliminary design of the preferred communal
system, including collection and distribution
systems, water treatment, sewerage treatment and
disposal systems to municipal standards; and
vi)
systems maintenance and operations procedures
and protocols, monitoring program and system
failure contingency plan.
c) the owner entering into a Responsibility Agreement with
the Region providing for, among other matters:
i)
design and construction of the communal system to
Regional and the Ministry of the Environment
st~ndards;
"13.3.5
c)
D)
ii)
financial guarantee to ensure that no Regional
funds are required for the construction,
maintenance, operation, repair, replacement or
upgrading of the communal system(s) in the event
of default by the owner and to mitigate risk
associated with environmental liability;
iii) a definition of default; and
iv)
operation and maintenance standards to the
satisfaction of the Region and the Ministry of the
Environment including easements, rights of entry
for inspection and monitoring."
In light of the new Section 5.3.29, which enables the
consideration of Communal Systems for rural
settlements, and new Section 5.3.30, which enables the
consideration, on a case by case basis, of the use of
privately owned and operated communal systems,
deleting parts of the second sentence of Section 13.3.5,
which are no longer required, such that the Section
now reads as follows:
Development within hamlets shall be individually serviced
with private drilled wells and private sewage disposal
systems where ground water quantity and quality permits
and in compliance with the standards of the Region and the
Ministry of the Environment and Energy. Municipal water
service may be extended to a hamlet, without an
amendment to this Plan or the area municipal official plan,
in accordance with Sections 13.3.11 and 13.3.12 and
provided a settlement capacity study as outlined in Section
13.3.6 has been undertaken. In addition, notwithstanding
any other provisions of this Plan, where municipal water is
to be extended, the capacity of such service shall be
designed to service only the hamlet area delineated in the
area municipal official plan."
In light of the new Section 5.3.29, which enables the
consideration of Communal Systems for rural
settlements, and new Section 5.3.30, which enables the
consideration, on a case by case basis, of the use of
privately owned and operated communal systems,
"13.3.6
deletiing subsection i) in Section 13.3.6, which is no
longer required, and renumbering subsection j) to i)
such that the Section now reads as follows:
The dlelineation of the limits of ahamlet, and the details of
the land uses to be permitted within a hamlet shall be
incorporated in the area municipal official plan following the
conclusions and recommendations of a settlement capacity
study to the satisfaction of the Region, the conservation
authority and the Ministries of the Environment and Energy
and Natural Resources which shall include a cumulative
impact assessment of the following:
a)
an analysis of the hydrogeological regime in the area to
determine the availability and quality of ground water on
a long-term basis;
b)
an assessment of the impact of future development on
existing ground water quantity and quality and on
existing sources of drinking water, including municipal,
communal and private wells;
c)
an assessment of the long-term suitability of the soil
conditions for the effective operation of private sewage
disposal systems;
d) an identification of any existing restrictions to future
development;
e) an assessment of surface drainage;
f)
an inventory of cultural heritage resources and an
assessment of how new growth will be complementary
to, and consistent with, the historic character of the
area;
g)
an environmental inventory and assessment of the
impact of new growth on the natural, built and cultural
environments;
h) a statement of conformity with the Agricultural Code of
Practice; and
5
"13.3.20
"13.3,27
13.3.28
E)
F)
i)
an assessment of the impact on agricultural lands and
identification of directions for growth which will minimize
such impacts."
deleting Section 13.3.20 and replacing it with the
following:
Country residential subdivisions may be individually
serviced with drilled wells and private sewage disposal
systems which comply with the standards of the Region and
Ministry of the Environment and Energy. In addition, in
accordance with Section 5.3.30 and the provisions of
Sections 13.3.27 and 13.3.28, country residential
developments may be serviced by communal water and
sewage systems in order to encourage clustering and as a
means of protecting environmental features."
renumbering policies 13.3.27, 13.3.28, 13.3.29, 13.3.30,
13.3.31 and 13.3.32 and adding new Sections 13.3.27
and 13.3.28 as follows:
Country residential developments serviced by communal
water and sewage systems shall be considered as a
specialized form of country residential subdivision.
Accordingly, the policies in Sections 13.3.18, 13.3.20,
13.3.23 (a) to (f) and (h) to (m), 13.3.24 and 13.3.26 shall
apply to this form of development. In addition, the policies
outlined in Section 13.3.28 shall apply.
A country residential development serviced by communal
water and sewage systems shall:
a)
be integrated with a land-extensive use, such as a golf
course, that is viable over the long term and is available
for the disposal of treated effluent;
b)
generally not have a land area of greater than 50
hectares, including residential lots/units, public/internal
roads and communal open area;
c)
generally comprise no more than 20 percent of the total
land area of the integrated residential development/land-
extensive use; and
d)
be limited to a number of units as set out on Schedule 5,
determined on a site-by-site basis having regard to the
provisions of Sections 13.3.23 (a), (b), (c) and (d) and
13.3.28 (b) and (c), and subject to compliance with the
population targets set out in this Plan and in the area
municipal official plan."
G)
In light of the new Section 5.3.30, which enables the
consideration, on a case by case basis, of the use of
privately owned and operated communal systems,
deleting the second sentence of Section 15.2.4, which
is no longer required, such that the Section now reads
as follows:
"15.2.4
Regional Nodes within rural areas shall be serviced with
private drilled wells and a private waste disposal system."
H)
amending Map A4- Regional Structure, as indicated on
Exhibit "A" attached to this Amendment, and Schedule
5 - "Country Residential Subdivisions" by adding the
following:
"XX Pickering
Part of Lots 13, 14 and 15, Concession
7, former Township of Pickering
now in the City of Pickering
125
(on communal
services)"
Implementation:
The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official
Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the
Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment.
Interpretation:
The provisions set forth in the Durham Regional Official
Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan
shall apply in regard to this Amendment.
OF~ OU~A.
~ ~ REGION~
RE~ER~
~EC~
<~EE SCHEDU~ 5
REGAL ~DE (SEE 8ECTI~ t 5 F~ ~)
THE F~O~ 18 ~ SE~C~Ly, FOR ~SE ~ I~TA~
AR~S (SEE ~HE~ 4
EXHIBIT "A" TO
~.T.S. AMENDMENT NO.
APPENDIX III TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 02-01
PROPOSED DRAFT PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT
DRAFT AMENDMENT NO. __ TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN
PURPOSE:
LOCATION:
PROPOSED
AMENDMENT:
The purpose of this amendment is to add policies to
Table 11 of the Official Plan to allow for the use of
communal services and clustering in Country
Residential developments and to redesignate portions of
the Cherry Downs property totaling 31.5 hectares to
Country Residential, with appropriate site-specific
policies, in order to permit the development of a 125-unit
recreational residential community.
The lands proposed to be redesignated consist of two
separate areas within the Cherry Downs ownership, the
former being an area of approximately 27 hectares
located generally on the west side of Sideline 14, north
of the 7t" Concession Road, and the latter being an area
of approximately 4.5 hectares located on the north side
of the 7th Concession Road, east of Sideline 14.
The lands affected are described as Part of Lots 13, 14
and 15, Concession 7, City of Pickering.
The Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by:
Revising Table 11, by adding a second sentence
to the "Country Residential" row under the
"Development and Growth Characteristics"
column, so that it reads as follows:
"Large lot residential subdivisions on an internal road
with no growth potential. As an exception to the
foregoing, clustered forms of country residential
development serviced by communal water and
sewage systems, and developed by way of a plan of
condominium, may also be permitted, in accordance
with provisions set out in Chapter 12."
2. Adding a new Section 12.17 (Settlement 15:
Cherry Downs) as follows:
2
IMPLEMENTATION:
INTERPRETATION:
"12.17 City Council shall,
a)
ensure that development is undertaken in a
manner that respects the rural character of
the surrounding lands;
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;
c)
endeavour to ensure the country residential
environment of the settlement is maintained
once developed;
d) limit the number of residential units
permitted in the Zoning By-law to 125; and
e)
allow a maximum of 9 units to be serviced
by individual water and septic systems, with
the remainder to be served by communal
systems.
Revising Schedule I by redesignating the lands
shown to "Country Residential" as shown on
Schedule "1" attached.
The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as
amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan
shall apply in regard to this Amendment.
The provisions set forth in the Pickering Official Plan, as
amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall
apply lin regard to this Amendment.
SC~.nULE ITO THE
PICKERING
OFFICIAL PLAN
SHEET 3 OF,
LAND U.qE STRUCI~RE
N.T.S.
Schedule "1" to Pickering
Official Plan Amendment No.
ATTACHMENT# I "tO
INFORMATION REPORT#~
I~ITh-t~IHIH--HHItJt JI-~IH,,LJ__~ I,EO,g-A~ _,IL ~ I,OADI,o.~ IX~ IL
ROAD
PROPOSED
COMMUNAL
SERVICING
DEVELOPMENT
AREA #2
DURHAM REGIONAL
City of Pickering
NO. 31
AREA
Planning & Development Department
CHERFIY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD.
SUBJECT LANDS AND RELATED APPLICATIONS
r'"'""~'l CHERRY DOWNS PROPERTY
I DATE JAN 17, 2001
EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS
!
Tributar~
I I
HTH CONCESSION ROAD~
I I
I I '
UJ
t I
I I
DNAL
II
II
N.T.S.
EXISTING GOLF COURSE
EXISTING CONBITIONS
INFORI~TION REPORT#~
PROPOSED FIJTURE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS
I-.I
I~1
It
I
I
I
I
HTH CONCESSION ROAD~
'S'~"V-EI~ ~1 --C-O-N-C E S S I O N
~ PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
N.T.S.
~PROPOSED GOLF COURSE
mi
CHERRY BOWNS MASTER' PLA
ATTACHMENT# ~_L..TO
INFORMATION REPORT# ~,~'~) 1
APPLICANT'S PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLAN
SP-2000--03
AREA TABLE
Residential Sinqles Lots 1-25 10.467 he:l:
Residential Cluster Block 26 12,985
Residential Reserve Blocks 27,28 0.080
VacaR[ Block 29 6.064
.Buffer Block 30 0.189
Servicinq B~ock
Servicinq/~ointen~nce Block 52 6.685
20m Roads 871m 1.807
Total 38.563 ha~
EstaJe Lots 25
Residential Clusters
1oral 125 units
;
z
=
! jJ~!
D~LOPM~
ATTACHMENT# ~ TO
INFORMATION REPORT#
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
DEVELOPMENT AREA #1
CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD.
EXISTING CHI~RRY
DOWNS GO~-F
COURSE~
SITE DATA - AREA 1:
SITE AREA - 12.2 ACRES
ESTATE SINOLES,
TOTAL - 9
ATTACHMENT# ~ TO
INFORMATION REPORT# ~) 0..- 01
CONCEPTUAL PLAN
DEVELOPMENT AREA #2
CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE LTD.
Z_
/
/
...... ~F ......................................................................................... F .................
I '
10
SITE DATA - AREA 2:
SITE AREA - 67.0 ACRES
ESTATE SINGLES,
TOTAL - 16
ATTCHED DWELLINGS
TOTAL - 100
DWELLINGS TOTAL - 116
I'H/S MAP F/AS PRODUCED 8Y i7iE CI1T' OF PICI(£RING
PLANNING ~ DE1/ELOPIIENI' DEPARII~I£NI~, JANUARY 1.5, 2001.
ATTACHMENT# '7 TO
INFORMATION REPORT#~
I~JJ.. J.C..FI'I UI.~,d-H'II*I rL.r'lt'lll.J[.ll~J
The Regi~3,nal Municipality of Durham
MINUTES
PLANNING COMMITTEE
TUESDAY, AUGUST 29, 2000
· f the Planning ,Committee was held on Tuesday, AugU?t 29, 2000 in
A regular meeting o_' ....... ui din 4~ Floor, 1615
the Planning Department Ma~n Bo~,droom, Lang Tower, West B I g,
Dundas Street East, Whitby, Ontario at 10:00 a.m,
Present; Councillor Parish, Chair
Councillor Dickerson, Vice-Ch'ai'r'
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, Cornmissioner 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, affended the meeting at 12:05 p.m.and left
at 1:1'0 p.m.
K. Yew, Manager, Plan. Implementati°n
T. Sloley, Manager', Engineering, Planning and Studies, Works
Department, left the meeting at 1:35 p.m.
D. Bowen, Committee Secretary
130
Planning Committee
ATTACHMENT# "/ TO
INFORMATION REPORT #
J,,IUh~i-IHI'I I'""LHI"{I"III'"I~ UI'I-'I
-2-
I'%
August 29, 2000
ADOPTION OF MINUTES.
MOVED by Councillor'Dickerson,
(132) "THAT the minutes of the regular Planning Committee meeting
held od June 20, 2000 be adopted."
CARRIED
COMMISSIONEB;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 proppsed
amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan.
He advised that tl'ie committee will be ~ealing with the application from
Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd.' first and the Wiifrid 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 app, lication 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 will give notice of adoption, and
131
151anhing Committee
ATTACHMENT# ~ ,,TO
INFORMAl'ION REPORT#
-3-
Council's decision' will be.~ubject to a twenty day appeal period.
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,
FIRST PUBLIC MEETING - APPLICATION TO AMEND THE DURHAM
REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN, SUBMITTED BY CHERRY DOWNS CO-
VENTURE LTD., TO pi~-'RMIT A COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT ON LANDS DESIGNATED PERMANENT
AGRICULTURAL RESERVE AND MAJOR OPEN SPACE, IN THE CITY
OF PICKERING, FILE:_..QO~ --
The Chair called u. pon Ms. Barb Hodgins, Senior Planner, to give a
presentation, . .
August 29, 200~' ~'~ z~
If no
STAFF PRESENTATI[)_.NS_ ~
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 Pickering.' 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 ~pplicant.
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
Planning Committee
ATTACHMENT # il ~ , .i ~0
INFORMATION REPORT#
rLf'll311J, l~ ~--1-' I
-4-
August 2~ 2000
DEPUTATION~S
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 M5E 1M2, ON
BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, RE:. COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
#2000-P-61
Mr. Brian Moss advised that ClubLink Will be responsible for expansion of
the golf course and new clubhouse while their joint venture partner,
Country Club Communities (a division of the Kaitlin Group), will manage
all of ttie 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 st6red water, treated effluent and surface water. Mr. Moss
also indicated that testing has' donfirmed 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 Picketing 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
ATTACHMENT#~TO
INFORMATION REPORT# ~")--- C) I
Planning Committee
August. "=, r..~-. ....
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_._L .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 ~.ir.craff noise impact at the subject
property, it is his ~,iew that the. p. roposed 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 REPOR'r ~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
ATTACHMENT# 7 TO
INFORMATION REPORT#
Planning Committee
-6-
August 29, 200(~
· d)
e)
MS. ANGLE JONES, R.R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2,
RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61
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
Picketing Council 'in a previous application and what was in an applibation
to the Province, Ms, Johes 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 Picketing Council on this application.
A written submission from Ms. Jones was included in the handouts
distributed at the meeting.
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. SUE MCINERNEY, R,R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, L1Y 1A2
RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #2000-P-61
Ms. Sue Mclnemey appeared before the Commiffee 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 cot[acting 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 Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61
were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)].
135
INFORMATION REPORT#
~3I'K ~::D, ' ~ ~.L · .L,HI"I'I LAJI'~J"iHI'I I"LI-II'II'IJ.I'I~ Ur..I- I
° Pi~hning Committee - 7 -
August 29, 2~~ iQ
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 Commiffee 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 Iow water supply. Mr. Duncan also expressed
concern about the Iocati[on of the proposed reservoir. In his view it should
be placed !n the centre of the applicant's property and not in the backyards
of adjacent property ow~ners.
The recommendations q-ontained in Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61
were adopted tat~r in the.mee, ti.ng [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2,c)].
MR. STEVE MURRAY, R.R, #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO, LIY 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 Pickering 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 ~ecommendations 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
'00 O~:~4PM DURHIqM
ATTACHMENT# ,"7 TO
INFORMATION REPORT# (~,~) - ('~ I
PLRHHING DEPT
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 Commissioner's Report #2000-P-61
were adopted later in the meeting [See Pages 8 and 9, Item 2.c)].
MR. CHRIS WILLENS, R.R. #5, CLAREMONT, ONTARIO. L1Y 1A2
RE: COMMISSIONER'S REPORT #200_0.-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 spt. awl and suggested there be a logical policy for
rural developme, n{.
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 further comments frpm those present at the meeting.
Written submissions from the following individuals were included in the
handouts distributed at the meeting:
- Judith Wilder;
- Jack MCGinnis;
- Barrie & Marion Thomas;
- Jessica Markland;
- Alastair Gillespie;
- Bill Wilder; and
- Kathryn Dean
COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS;
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, FILE: OPA 2000-005 (#2000-P-61)
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
ATTACHMENT tf....~TO
INFORMATION REPORT# [")?..- 0 I
Ontario
Municipal
Board
655 Bay Street.. Suite 1500
Toronto On MSG 1 E5
Telephone: (416) 3~6.6B00
Facsimile: (416) 326-5370
August 8, 2000
nffnlzes muni¢lpnle~
de I'Ontar[o ~L~
655 rue Bay, bureau
Toronto On MSG 1 E5
T~l~phonn: {416) 3~6~8~ r~.
T~l&~pieut: (416) 32~5370
B__Y REGULAR MAIL
To: All Solicitors, Parties and Participants
Dear Sir/Madam:
Re:
O.M.B. Case No.: PL000037 ,
O.M.B. File No.: 00000138
Appeal by Sandhill Aggregates Ltd., Cougs Investments Limited and Cherry Downs
Co-Venture .Ltd.
Proposed Amendment No. 60 to the Durham Regional Official Plan
Regional Municipality of Durham
please be advised that the Board has now reserved two days for the next pre-hearing
conference on the above mention~ed matter, if necessary., commencing at 10:00 a.m. on
Tuesday, August 29, 2000 at the Region of Durham----- ............. . .... ..
· ~ ~,!....'.,, · , - ,
Yours truly, i '.~': :-'m ~;'' -' ...........
Louis Bitonti
Planning Assistant
[4,~ ~] '~')~ ~'~a7
p-11
ATTACHMENT# ~ TO
INFORMATION REPORT# ~"~- (~ I
0~-2~-20~ 11:44 I 905 428 8074
RRMC
Via Fax: 905-436-6~,12
August 2~, 2000
Ms. Barb Hodgins
Senior Planner
Durham Region
AUG 2 3 2000
Re: ClubLinl~ Appl!cntion
Dear Ms. Hodgins, '
It is my understanding that ClubLinl~ has submitted a development application to the
Region - apparently for housing the be built on the Cherry Downs property in North
Picketing..I have alsP learned that there will be a meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday,
August 29* to discusls this matter. I am sending this letter since ! am not available to
attend this meeting. ~,nd 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
ClubLink, is ¢l~rly in conflict with policies of both the Region and the Town of
Pickering.
I would appreciate receiving any relevant information regarding this matter. And I would
ask for the right to b~ heard on this matter, prior to any action being taken by the Region.
Thank you for you c~operation and assistance in this regard.
Jack McGinnis
2S85 8th Concesslm
Claremont, L1Y
Home phone - 905
Work phone- 905,
Fax 905
~2
649-2278
;42%0009
,428-8074
ATTACHMENT# ~ TO
INFORIV[ATION REPORT #~
~ WU~:II 000~ £~ '6nu ~£PP6~90S : 'ON X'dJ SNU~03 : !~]
ATTACHMENT# I~ TO
INFORMATION REPORT# 0 ~.- O l
28t~
ATTACHMENT# I(-) TO
~NI:ORMATION REPORT #~
ATTACHMENT# I(~ TO
INFORMATION REPORT# (~'~- (~ J
28~
A'I"FACHMENT# I~ TO
INIFORMATION REPORT# (~- 0 1
ATTACHMENT#' i I TO
INFORMATION REPORT# ~ 9.. ~ I
Ifathryn j. Dean
15~ Montgomery Avenue
Toronto, Ontario
phone / tel.(416) 486-6192 fax/telecopi,
-kaydean~sympatico.cn
FAX
Date: Augus~ 26, 2000 ..
To lA: Barb ~:~odgircs, Senibr ~lanner~ Durham
From/De:' .~athr~ln Deafl~ Ontario Citizen/l~esident of the GTA
Re/Au ~-'ujet de: Cherrg Downs Co-Venture Ltd. Application to
Amend Durham Region OP 60; Regional File A~mber OPA 2000.005
No. of pages (incl. this cooer sheet) /
~Vo. de pages (incluant la couverture): 4
As a c!tizen of .the Greater Toronto Area, who is experienm g .
taxation and t ' _ 'n_ thc adverse
r~.e.s.J~onzzble land stewardship e ecf;s o
spra~ I am wnti . ~ __,.~ .... _ '.ff' ,f urban
above mentioned !~. ~ ,w~ ou o m ~rm o ositlon to the
course lands.
A. Re~sons for 02~posing This Development
1. Cherry Downs Co-Venture Ltd. has applied to be exempted from OPA
60/n order to circumvent Durham Reg/on's wise prohibition of
commune ser~.icing in rural areas except for health or env/ronmental
reasons - but the proposed 125-home development w/Il do extreme
heal. th au'id environmental damage and there are no exisiln h
en~ro~ment~l r eal~h or
develo merit wo~ t this
Suburban housing developments of the kind Cherry Downs plans to
build are of tI~e "sprawl" type - a community planted in the middle of a
rural region, but close enough to the metropolitan region of Toronto that
AITACHMENT# il TO
INFORMATION REPORT# ~."1 - C~ I
Cherry Downs 2
it will multipl!l car use as re~ident~ drive to a~rom Toronto,
pol~ting air and wate~a~s ~ th~ go,
These vehicles are Ontario's number one source of smog-causing
pollution, accounting for approximately 3.0 percent of smog precursors -
nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds. I
2. Increased deraand4~er roadways. Increased cai' use results in
increased demand for roadways and hi§hways - and highways multiply
private vehicle use, r~sull~ng in a vicious circle of increased car use,
more roads, and even more car use and higher and higher levels of air
and water and soil pollutJon ('including run-off from heavily salted winter
roads). How would you be planning to stop this c~cle by acceding
to Cherr~ Downs' reque.st? Any acquiescence on this would make
no se~.~e.
3. The increased road building and sprawling housing developments
that would result from bowing to Cherr~ Downs' appeal lirill des'troy
acres ofprirae farralan¢~, which is becoming a scarce commodity in
the GTA.
Between 1976 and 1996, 150,000 acres of farmland were lost in the GTA.
:At that rate (almost one acre every houri), we will lose another
265,000 acres in the GTA (most of the rest) by the year 2021.2 In an
era of climate change, when international food sources are threatened bit
extreme weather conditions and countries ail over the world are paving
farmland at breakneck speed, it ts foolish to destroy Canada's verdi
best.
4. The Cost of Urban Sprawl. According to the Report of the GTA Task
Force (the Golden Report);3 urban sprawl of the outdated Cherry
Downs' variety will cost GTA taxpayers $12 billion EXTRA in initial
infrastructure costs over tJ~e next 25 years~ and WILL COST GTA
TAXPAYERS ONE BILLION DOL£AR$ EXTRA EVERY FEAR FOREVER
in maintenance and service costs.
~ O£¢,Door~' (Report of lite Eltviroim~e,l.~l Commissioner of 0nl~io) (Toreato: ~a's Par~ 199~.
~ GTA F~emlio~ of A~/~gt~. OD~ ~ricWmml Eeo. omit lmpnc~ ,S~d~, 19 November 1999, pp. ~
a,d iv.
~ Re~u~l oft~e G~A T~.~k Force (Goi&:n Rc~), Toroalo: Pt~bli~lioas Ontario. Jama~ 1996. p. 111.
a Dalcd ~om J991.
ATTACHMENT #.,,I I TO
INFORMATION REPORT#
Cherr~,j Downs 3
Sprawling housing deoetoprnents are a~o a drain on the coffe~ of
local gove~n~, co~g more to se~ice ~d m~ntain ~h~ prope~
owners con~ibute to the municipally. U.S. studies have indicated
"for each doll~ of f~ml~d proper~ t~es Co~ected' the mu~cip~
spent from 21 to 77 cents on se~ices for f~~d properties" ,. ~ net
gain, The picture for r~iden~al d~e~o me
r eec., =ux~ collec~e~ 1~ ~es, ~ average
$1.14 was spent on se~ices."~ of
Prese~n~a~n~ for loc~ly grown, fresh food is a fin~ci~
5.__F~__rtherrnore the rooosed develo-ment is u. qt
PERMANENT.A__GRiCULTURi~ RE .... htn the ~orders o
eaZconcernin a __ SER.~... An ~ royal o an ildin~
6. The lands also contain an Environmentall Si ni ~eant Area
7. An important RTiIdH. fe Area and cOldwater f'tshertj eXiStS/n
Du/fins Creek and its tributaries (e.g., Mitchell Creek, Spring Creek).
8. There will be detr~menta! effects on surrounding wells and
ground Water through (a) water talcing and (b) spewing out treated
sewage on the golf course, to irrigate the course.
9. The proposed development is to be an exclusive community, w/th no
benej/~gs to the rural communities of Claremont or Greenwood.
10. The.development would ute up most of the remaining rural
population growth targets to the year 2016 set in Hckering's Official
Plan.
1 1. There are eight rare plant species in the area, as well as habitat for
the red-shouldered hawk (nationally vulnerable, uncommon to rare
provincially and scarce in Durham Region).
GTA Fcdcralmas of Agriculture., GT.4 ~4grlctt]lural Economic I;;tpa¢l ,$?ut~, 19 Nov~:mbcr 19')9, p 7.3.
ATTACHMENT# II TO
INFORMATION REPORT#
C'h~hj Downs 4
12. What guarantees can the developers and Durham Region give
residents of Durham and the GTA that this is not]ust the beginning
a m~ive development, tn the ~zrea?
13. Why should Durham be so uncreative an~ bZind ~ ~ /oZZow the
ou~ated approach that has ruled ~e aesthetic, ~cultu~, long-
term franciS, ~d environment~ he~th potenti~ of so m~y
municip~ities in the Greater Toronto Area ~d elsewhere in Ont~o ~d
North ~erica? :
Durham has the opportuni~l to set GTA precedents to foster "smart
gromth", more compact blzt .~'4i[! em/nent~ Zlueabte - in faCt more
liveable - developments that require tess maintenance and servtcin~
co~s and promote walldng, commuter train service, close-knit, mixed-
use neighbourhoods and better health for all - instead of smog-spewing
roads and suburban sprawll
B, Future inFut regarding this appeal, I would like to be notified of
any meetings, discussions, and/or hearings pertaining to this appeal.
Yours truly,
287- ,
-- ;. ATTACHMENT# i O~ TO
, ,i . 6 -01 ·
Mr. Alex Oeorgieff
Commissioner of Planning
Region of Durham
Box 623
Whitby, Ontario
LIN6A3
Dear Alex,
I am writing in response to the notice of public meeting regarding file number OPA 2000-005, the application
submitted by Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd to permit a Country residential development of I25 units using private
communal services in the Municipality of Pick~ring.
There are several points Which must be made in regard to this public meeting and application, including the
following:
1. Although the guidelines required by the Planning 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 d~reet confhct oftimin,, with the OMB
~at exactl~,-~e same time ina different locatlon and directl affecfino the
sa.me members of the u~c. i only discovered about this meeting because one of the abutting
nelghbours received his notification. For these reasons alone, I request another public hearing be
held, after consultation with stakeholder groups and individuals who have expressed and
continue to express their concerns over thil proposed development (eg., Conservation Durham,
Green Door Alliance, Durham Action Network, Durham & Picketing Naturalists, etc.)
2. The Permanent Agriculture Reserve is exactly that: permanent. It is hardly the time for the
Region to be considering lowering its standards and letting the floodgates-open to the developers
- please see the attached GTSB (August 2000) "A GTA Countryside Strategy", wherein the facts
speak for themselves. This land represents the perfect case study of why our Official Plan has
prohibited development on it - it is rural, it is part of the Duffins C~:eek 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 belief. Protect it now from
rampant urban sprawl - if ever allowed, this development would be the end of protecting any
land in rural Durham from development. In addition it is unwanted (see attached copy of petition
signed mainly by residents in the area, although as a "test" we began to ask for signatures in
South Pickering, only to discover that well over 90 % of those residents were also opposed to the
Pickering resolution mentioned below.) Correct ' , ·
me ~f [ m wrong, but ~sn'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 profit on anything under 1007 Even
if the application were reduced to 501 we should oppose it because the next step would be to
apply for 100, or 200, or ... we simply can't afford to let the camel into the tent - ever!
---- 2 8_L-
'.P,.5 Claremt~rl, Otzt L I F' IA2 Attention.. A~tg-ie Jot~,.s Tel/Fax: 90.5-649-5480 e-nrgl: cotz.vervationc~v.hi~rg;~co, ca
ATTACHMENT # ~.~_._TO
o
After reading the Early R~lease of Report, I noticed missing information: S_uch as Section 3.
"Previous Applications and Approvals" where it is stated that" In 1996, the applicant revised the
proposal ..." where in fact the applicant's housing proposal _was defeated by overwhelming
public opposition_- this information is every bit as important as the applications made! In tact the
earlier attempt in 1993 was also defeated. Their subsequent application for an expansion to the
were approved, ho___w_ever, another important missing piece o_f
golf course and club house . , ork wa~x and the.. __o,1~ _f.c.o~,ur~soe,,o~r, .
· ' ' that since that trine, no w. ---~nlv ameans of
informauon ts ....... ;,,*ention to ex anti metr oot~t;uuL~,, -,
furtherino vet another development proposal'?.. Has work already begun on the well to service the
proposed development7 How deep will the well be? How much water will it take? What methods
will be used to "discourage" birds from using the ponds? Another point raised in the Cherry
Downs documentltion is how compact the proposed subdivision would be (thereby implying that
it wouldn'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 I11, 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. Surely'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!
4. Given the outbreak of information about O, ntario'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 ability 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 use? Is this monitored? As I'm certain you are aware,
there is still a request to take water on the EBR registry for the additional golf course and
clubhouse for which ClubLink was given approval in 1996 although never acted on: presumably
this is now invalid as the intended use of the water taking has changed. Does the Region have
any information on this request to take water? Will we be informed in time to oppose any such
request at the Ministry? Was a request for permission to take water ever made for the present
golf club & course on the lands?
5. Attached is a copy of the Pickering 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 Region's OPA 60 had__been decided by overwhelming majority of fu.l!
council. This "creative" approach to the Planning Act should certainly not be encouragea 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 accomplis".
The story 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
Pickering'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 slough.ed off as an OMB decision!
ATTACHMENT #.j_~TO
INFORMATION REPORT#_~'~- ~ J
6. The TRCA Glen Major complex of properties (1 am a member °ftheirMat~agement Advisory
Board) includes the' Claremont Field Centre & Durham Environmental Education Centre
property adjacent to the Cherry Downs lands. Attached is a copy of the TRCA response to the
proposed 125-home development on the golf course property, voicing its opposition. Good -
there should be opposition by the body responsible for conserving 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 very 10-metre top of bank 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 Dufl'Jns-Carruthers Creek Watershed Task Force publicly stated that the TRCA is itself
looking into the lO-metre rule, how can there be any rush at ail to hurry this application along?.
7. The Durham Region Environmental Education Centre is another good reason to halt this '
application ~ to bring children out to this truly conserved natural setting ifa private urban-style
development were permitted right next door would make a mockery of the "education" centre -
the traffic increases alone on the 7~' concession and 12tn sideline and related noise and air
pollution would render it more like a municipal park in an urban subdivision! .
8. The rural character wbuld be irrevocably damaged by any alien development in this pristine,
natural setting: the hamlets of Greenwood and Claremont would not benefit, in fact, history has
shown that the local farmers would suffer as Soon as the new residents began to complain about
the farm activity (such as the subdivision dweller in Whitby who complained about the flies
because of the dairy farm next door). These residents will not become a living, organic part of
the commun?es which already exist here, and will continue to exist as a separate restyle
"Ii" '
community. When will they want a 24-hour store on the corner? A Walmart? A shopping mail9
This area of Durham already has a community lifestyle - it does ~ot need to be disenfranchised
by a private, "lifestyle community"! It will ruin not only the nature of our life in this countrysidel
but permanently damage the picturesque view 0fthe valley.
7. The Procter & Redfern study commissioned by the Region determined that privately owned and
operated communal services would encourage urban sprawl and was not recommended for rural
areas. These conclusions are exactly as valid today as when they were drawn - nothing has
changedl
~ 0. The property is the habitat of the Red Shouldered Hawk, a species which is nationally vulnerable
an.d provincially uncommon to rare as well as home to at least 8 rare /ant s ecie
1.5tth respect to the fact that the Ma,,or .---~ ": ~. · ~ .. P p s.
me ClubLinks 1995 housino dew,~2- "'-~ r~c,.~er!.ng ~oun?! promised after the public dele ed
vomed their opposition would be notified in future of any ClubLinks applications for housing on
· , ~,upmen[ apptmatlon that the members of the public who ha~
the Cherry Downs lands: last year, during the famous Resolution fiasco, Mayor Arthurs said that
since there was no application, just a "status report", the public had not been contacted. Since
Cherry Downs Co-Venture Ltd began its application on 21 June, 2000 at the municipality of
Pickering (the day before the OMB pre-hearing on OPA 60 which Cherry Downs is appealing,
and somehow is allowed to be at that hearing despite the 90-day rule) we are wondering why
Pickering has not yet notified those persons? Or at least notified the Region that such a promise
was made, especially given that one of Pickering's Regional Councillors, Doug Dickerson, sits
on the Planning Committee.
acre are many o~:her reasons to just say no to this application at the Region, not the least of which is
at this developer is already at the OMB appealin~6 the Region's wise decision to forbid communal
2 8y.:_
ATTACHMENT #.~--TO
INFORMATION REPORT#_ 0 .r~. 0 1
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,
Angie Jones
Executive Director - Conservation Durham Inc~.
GTSB publication "A Greater GTA Countryside Strategy" (revised June & August
Attachments:
2000)
Copy or' petition vs. ClubLink non-application in June, 1999
Copies of' letters (only those included in the December 1995 Picketing Release of
Report) from residents who opposed the development
Copy o~' Pickering Resolution #131/99, Item #5 passed on 21 June, 1999
Copy of' Durham Business News. article (August 2000)
Copy of TKCA response to application by Cherry Downs Co-Venture Ltd.
Copy o£ EBK Registry Notification t'or Water Taking Permission by ClubLink for
Cherry Downs Golf Course & Clubhouse expansion
_ 28L
ATTACHMENT #?.L~TO
INFORMATION REPORT#.
24 August 2000
Hr. Alex Georgieff, H.C. LP
Commissioner of Planning
Durham Region · ..
C/o Barbara Hodgins, Senior P/anner
Box 62.3. '
Wh/tby, Ontado LIN 6A3
Re: REGZONAL ~LE NO. OPA2000-O05'
Dear Mr, Georgieff:
Z would like to register my strong objection to the proposed country,
residential development on lands designated Permanent Agricu/tura!
Reserve in the CKy of Pickedn~l.
As you mu~ know there is -* ,----,- - -- ·
inter~c =-,~ ;......, ........ ...-.- ,=~L e /-year history of Comm.nif-u
L _. -.,,- ,-vu~v=mern: In trlis and reln,,~
oerore the Pickedna Co--~, --~ ~-~" '~..~" z nave appeared
appeared h,~,~,,. ,... ,, ......_ trees. ! have also
-..,,,,~ u,~ ~,--gmna~ Comm~ and the rst OHB
hear/rig. Unfortunately ! cannot be presen~ for th/sfi~earing. ~ee
decision to hold a public meeting on August 29~h wil ... "'
_co?~e.d residents. Quite apart from the short n~r°~en.d .ma.,
pt:naa or summ r ti ~ce aurln a
· e vaca ons th · . g
o. ea,n ?
ATTACHMENT #_~TO
INFORMATION REPORT #~
Page 2
Mr. Alex Georgieff
24 August 2000
! strongly oppose the Cherry Downs application to amend the
Durham Region Offidai Plan and permit 125 homes on their golf
course lands. '~.
Yours since.rely,
ALASTAIR W. GILLESPIE
AWG/sk
2045 Uxbddge/Pi~edng Townline
Cla,r~nont, Ontario 1.1Y l~t
2 8 -/-/-
ATTACHMENT# iH TO
!NFORMATION REPORT# G ~.- (~ I
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 coJdwater 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# ~_~TO
INFORMA~rlON REPORT
ATT~'qTION; COMMI$..~IO'N'ER OF PLANNING
do Barb Hodgins, SeniorPlaan~r
FA.X: (905) 436~6612
Commissioner of'Pla~ming
Box 623. Whitby. Ontario LIN 6A3
Re :- ~GION~ ~ NO. OPA 2000-005
~ a co~ r~id~ of No~ Pick--s I am resist~n~ my o~os~ to ~y ~d all ~it~ to
D~bam K~o~l Plan ~endm~t ~0, ~tly pro.biting ~e uso ofs~ wat~l ~w~e s~
tur~ ~ exco~ for ~r~ r~o~. It is f~t ~t ~Y opted ~~ w~ su~ly and
loc sewa~ ~ent facili~s ~ ~ ~8h ~ o~ c~ ~t~d~ hr~th [~ds, ~ot o~y
u~rs or.ch fa~tifi~ ~t aim to neighing ~sldents. Any deviation ~m the O~ci~ PI~ ~ once
t am l~h~ op~sed to ~e ~r~ R~ion Offtcial Plan ~ich would pe~it C~ Dow~ C~Vml~
L~, to d~op ~ propos~ "satellite co~uniW" ~e p~iic m~t~$ ~r w~ch is ~h~ul~ for 29~
My mmn ~ns, (not n~iy ~ ord~ ofpdo~). ~r op~tion to xhe pm~ ~el~ment
[~pid d~lction of"Prlmc, Pe~nent, ~rimslP~ ~e Lands"
2. The ~i population Broth t~g~s of~ Picketing 0~ Plan up m y~ 2016 ~
set lovels.
3. Possible in--se in tm~ d~ty i~ough G~nwood mid No~h W~ney Road
~his point ~ would add i~t 1 ~ve ~ly ~n ~ by "d~elo~r- p~d~,
~eys ~nd ~dies. They ~ iuv~ably, bi~ ~ la.ur ofth~ sppli~'~d ~y d~pi~t
Yours truly, J~
Barrie& Marion Thomas
33'I~ Westney Road
K.~ ff I Locust Hill,
Omm'io, LOft IJO .
Tel. (905) 6S3~4577
28F'.
ATTACHMENT#.~2_.TO
INFORMATION REPORT#_ 00~.- ~ I
j ll I,.TUL 2z7~ ~0. 8.1.: 4'FPM DUR'H'~'I',f PERNNING DEPT
UL. ~ I. ' I , v~,,,, .............
Ontado Region
Transports Canada
R~ion de I'Ont~rio
AgO0 Yon~e S~eet
S~t= 400
Toronto, Ontario
M2N 6^5
'Tel: 416-952.051 ]
Fax: 416-952-3328
FR. ~/3
July 27,2000
1~. Barbara Hodgins, MCI. P, P, lip
Senior Planner
The Regional Municipality ofDu, rham
Box 623, 1615 Dundas St. E.
Whitby, Ontario
LIN 6A3
RECEIVED -
JUL 2 7 2000
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING AND
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Dear M~- Hodgins:
Re: Appfication to Amend the Durham Regional O~cinl Plan, File OPA 2000-005
Ch~err~ Downs C~Ven~
Reference is made tn your July 4 and July 7, 2000 letters regardin~ the application by
Cherry Downs CoVenture Ltd. to designate a 125 unit residential subdi,~sion in
association with the existing Cherry Downs golf course.
As you axe aware the proposed development is adjacaat to the eastern borcWr of the
federal lands being retained for a possible ~t~e airport in Pickcring. Accordingly, we
remain concerned with any proposed development that would be considered incompatible
with airport operations.
Tra~po~ ~ Publication TP1247 "Land Use in the Vicinity of Airlifts", provides
guidelines for land uses wki=h would be incompatible with airport opcrations.
Thc Official Noise Contours for aposslblo ~uture airport at Picketing remain to be based
on the original 1986 conceptual runway layout and traffic mix,
Canad
...2
~i~UL 27 '00 0~:48PM
ATTACHMENT #-~'1'0 (~ ~L
INFORMA~tOH REPOR~~-
DU.'R.'.~.~ 'P~ANNING DEPT
I" "
P. 3/.3
For thc proposed C, hawy DoWns res~dcmtial subdivision, the location ofth~ develo?mem
/'lanning,4natys/s, pr~:~t~d by Bousfi¢ld, Dal~-Hanis,
as clepicted in the ~Iune 2000 'be borclerJz~ the Noise Exposur~ Forecast (NI~F)
Cutler & Smith Inc., would appear to
30. TP 1247 provides that:
Annoyance caused by aircraft noise, may begin as Iow as NF~F 25. It is
recommended that d~velop~rs' be mad~ awar~ of this fact and that tl~y undertake
to so inform ail proSpeafive tenants or purchasers of residential units. In addition,
it is suggested that development should not proceed until the.responsibl~
authority is satisfied that acoustic ln.~ulation features. ~f reguired, have been
considered in the building design.
Furt~etnuom, xne shoulC~ caution that ~tue to its proximity, any new rtmway layou1
reconfigumtioa could potentially place the subject property at higher NEF cor~tours.
~azar_~
aizcaaft zoning regulations prohibit the U~e of laud ou~si~ airport Nopert~ boom.ties
wt~r¢ such la~d uses are haz~dous to aircraft operations, Tzeated efflt~nt and
smrm~vale~r r¢~ntion ponds such as ~e ones proposed aze identified ~ bkd alt~actauts.
TP 1247 provides that remedi-1 anion may b~ a viable altexnative to the ~clusion of a
particular land use fiom an arcs around the aii~rt, Therefore, the proponent should be
r~uir~d to identify mitigating measures designed m reduce th~ a~a~tiver~sa ~o hixO.
As you are awar~ the Cherry DownS property i~ subject ~o Ontario Kegulafion 102/72
(Minister's Zoning Order), as amc~aded, which applies to lands sut~oundi~ a potential
furore airport at Picketing. The Depaxtment contirmes to support tho application of lhis
Order a.s it relates to th~ subject pl, operty.
In addition to thc above, we genially view the development of reside.~tial commtmities
in close proximity, and potentially under the airczai~ approach path. to be inconsistent
with good planning pra~dc~.
if you have any qucstion~ or ~equiiz further information, please do not hesitate to con,act
this. office.
Yours sincerely
Patricia Short-Gall6
Regional Manag~
C-reat~ Toronto Area Programs
c_c.: Mr. Joe Muto, Community planner, Ministary of Municipal Affairs and Housing-
RUG 04
The Regional
Municipality .
of Durham
HEALTH
DEPARTMENT
Head Office
76'l~ Dundas Street Easl
Suite 210'
Whitby;, Ontario'
.Canada L'IN
(905)
Fax: (905) 723-6026
Tot: (905)' 686-2740
ATTACHMENT#J~To
IN FORMATJO_~N _REPORT #
04:0'9PH DURHRM PLRNN.!NG DF'PT
~uly24,20o0
o,F-O I_
P. 5/'6
Durham Region Planning Department
Box 623 .. ' '
1615 Dundas.St. E.
4th Floor
· Whitby, Ont.
LIN 6A3
Attention: Barbara Hod~ihs ,
Dear Madam:
Re;
O-P.A. 2000-005
Cl.ubLink Co. rporaion
Lot 13 - ~ 5 Conc. 7 Pickerin
The above-noted apphcati~n has been investigated.by.tfiis Depar~ent and we
offer the.following for your consideration':
(i) the prop0sed.private sewage disposal sy,stem will be. sized'for >10,000
lit, res/day which w/Il require the review and approval of the 1vr_mistry of
Environment for a large onsite sewage works/qommunal system.
Feel free to contact the undersigned if more information is' needed. ·
'Yours truf ~.~__
· Xad Kiproff,, B.A.&, (E.H), ¢[P.~.I.(C) "
Public Health Inspector ' '
KK/do
100~ lao~t Coi~$umer
ATTACHMENT #.L..~__TO
INFORMATION REPORT#_0 9,7 C) i _
AND
THE TORONTO REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
~5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontano M3N 1S4 .(4161 661..6600 FAX 661-6898 http://www, tma.on.ca
August 18, 2000
Ms. Barb Hodgins
Planning Department
The Regional. Municipality of Durham
1615 Dundas Street East
4th Floor Lang 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
(Clublink Corporation)
CFN 31539
AUG 2 4 ZOOt
CiTY OF PIC.KE[:
PICKERING, ONTAI:
REC[=JVED
We acknowledge receipt of the above nOted application and cannot recommend approval at
this time.
The proposal is .40 provide policies for the use of communal services and to designate a 125
unit residential community in associaLtion with the expandedCherry 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 Picketing Officiat
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 (TR¢;A). 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 g01f 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 t. reated 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
throuah the subject site.
ATTACHMENT# I~ TO
INFORMATION REPORT#
Ms. Barb Hod~ins
-2-
August18,2000
The planning analysis-report provided suggests that a Corn munal Servicing Feasibility study is
being prepared. At a minimum, the report should provide the necessary information to Support'
the proposal for combined commu nal'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), the impacts on water quality
and quantity and, impactS .on base_ flow of the adja'.cent 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 thisdevelopment.' We
identify that regional Control 'may be required given the outcome of this update.
We Provide the following specific cbmments on the development proposal based'on the plans
provided'with the application and. contained Within the planning analysis report.
The ,residential development, is proposed on tableland and for the most part is separated from
the natural systems by the, existi ng and proposed golf course expansion. :The exception is with
the larger .residential pod which abuts a tableland woodlot and,a portion of th e Spring Creek
Valley. The woodlot is part of the Environmentally'Significant Area and the dripline of the
Woodlot has not. been staked; Sufficient ecological buffers wou Id be' required to protect the'
sensitive species within the w0°dlot(ie..Red Shouldered Hawk). An Environmental Impact Study
would be required to determine the extent to which the residential pod may have to be revised
to maintain the features and fUn Ctions of th e woodlot. Further, ap propriate ecological buffers
have not been determined from the Spring Creek Valley in accordance with theAuthOrity's
Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. This policy document requrres a minimum
buffer of 10 metres from the greater of the stable top of bank and/or the Environmentally
Significant Areas.
The smaller residential pod containing larger lots 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 corridor
needs, to. be confirmed and the road sufficiently Set back in accordance with the Authority's
Valley a~d Stream CorridorManagement 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 confirmed in the field to ensure that the final
alignment would' not have a nega!ive impact on the Spring Creek Corridor.
Ms. Barb' Hodgins
ATTACHMENT #~TO
INFORMATION REPORT#
- 3 - August 18, 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, there may be impacts to portions Of Spring Creek. staff will
requi.re a'preliminary'stormwater management rePort for the subject proposal.
As noted prior, the golf course expansion was 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 also
addressing irrigation, stormwater management and the resulting environmental impacts of that
activity. The planning analysis presented 'for the residential compohent provides a general
indication ortho changes'to the water budget.scheme related tO communal but does not
providesufficient 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 Section
Ext. 5306
RW/fa
CC;
Planning'Department, Town of Pickering
Jane CIohecy, TRCA
. Janet Foster, TRCA.
AU~_!4_~O~__!li~TAM DURHAM PLAMMIMG ~E~'?':RIR 90~767593 TO ~i~1~543656i2
Greater Toronto Airports Authority
Lester B. P~aJ'son InternaUoflal Airport
P.O. Box 8031, 3111 Convair Orive
Toronlo AMI-, Orlll~l'JO, C~,rlal~a LSP 1B2
GT A
Augustl4,2000
Ms. Barbie Hodgins, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
The Regional Municipality of Durham
Box 623, 1615 Dundas Street East
Whitby, Ontario
LIN 6A3
Dear Mr. Hodgins'.
Re: Application to Amend the Durham Region~ Official Plan, File OPA 2000-005
Cherry Downs Co. Venture Limited
I am writing in response to your letter of .lul¥ 4~ re. quesdng the Greater Toronto Akports
Authority (GTAA) to comment on thc above-noted Official Plan Amendment application.
Background
The GTAA is a private not-fot,-profi[ corporation mandate, ri ~o operate and develop L~ster 1~,
Pearson International Airport CPcarson Airport) and to work toward an efficient sysmm of
airports throughout south-ccntral Ontario. Pa't of this mandat~ includes an obligation to
communicate regularly with communities and government on matters pertaining to thi~ system of
airporu,
As the operator of Peanon Airport, the 0TAA is obligated to establish a noise management
program, which includes, among other initiatives, the co..ordination of .noise mitigation
procedures for aircraft operating to and from Pearson AirpOrt within a tgn nautical mil~ distance
from the airport. Az part of thia program, the OTAA has worked diligently to ensure that the
importance of Pearson Airport is recognized within the planning framework of applicable
Official Plaits in neighbouring communid~.
Cherry Down; Application
Thc proposed ~velopm~nt is adjacent to the eastern bor&r of the f~d$ral lands (th= Picketing
Lands) being i'ataincd for a possibl~ future airport,
ATTACHMENT# 1C~ TO
INFORMATION REPORT# ~-' ~ t
RU, C]..~4, j0_~___~l.'_58_R~ .DURHRM PLRNNI~'G-'-DE-P-T'=RIR ~S$767593 TO 91S~5435561~
Ms. Barbara Hodgins
Regional Municipality of Durham
Re: Cherry Downs co. Vcrl[ure Limited
Autust Ii, 2000
Page 2
However, in ligb,~ of ~he numbor of sit;nificant outsmr~ding issues rclate, d to the design and
operation of a possible airpor[ on the Picketing Lands, and the degree to which these furore
clex:isions would influence tho aircraft noise impact at the subject property, it is [he view of the
GTAA [ha the proposed d~velopment is pr~rnatu.m and would not bo consismnt with good
planning practioes.
Thc OTAA would be plea~ed to discuss this submission and/or the noise management progr,~m az
Pearson with you or other officials from 0~e Region at your convenience.
Yours truly,
ORt~ATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY
Stove Shaw
Vice Presiden[, Corporate Affai~ and Cm:m-nunications
TOTAL PREiE, 03
ATTACHMENT # ,..~..TO
INFORMATION REPORT
· DELIVERY PLANNING
1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL.
SCARBOROUGH ON M1P 5Al
(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
OCT 2 2000
CITY OF PICKERING
PICKERING, ONTARIO
APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION
DURHAM REGION FILE: S-P-2000-03 CROSSREF.NO.: OPA2000-05
APPLICANT: CHERRY DOWNS COVENTURE INC.
LOTS: 13-15 REF. NO.: 65261
CITY OF PICKERIiNG ..........................................
Dear Mr.C~/z/~e ~--)
Thank pportunity 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.
ATTACHMENT #_~...TO
INFORI~IATION REPORT~(~ '~ - ~ I
-2-
The owner/developer will provide the following for each Community Mailbox site and include
these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans:
- An appropriately sized sidewalk section (concrete pad) as per municipal standards, to place the
Community Mailboxes on.
- Any required walkway across the boulevard, as per municipal standards.
- Any required curb depressions for wheelchair access.
The owner/developer further agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community
Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada Post until the curbs, sidewalks and final
grading have been completed at the permanent Community Mailbox locations. This will enable
Canada Post to provide mail delivery to new residence as soon as the homes are occupied.
I trust that this information is sufficient, however, should you require further information, please
do not hesitate to contact me the above number or mailing address.
Sincerely,
Debbie Greenwood
Delivery Planning Officer
c.c. Barbara Hodgins, Durham Region
A:UTILDRAW.SAM