Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 26, 2001PICKERING AGENDA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AGENDA EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2001 7:30 P.M. CHAIRMAN: Councillor Holland ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of March 19, 2001 (II} PRESENTATION Jean Keary, representing the Parkinson's Foundation - Durham Region Support Group, will present Mayor Arthurs with a bouquet of tulips as the symbol of the Parkinson's Foundation. Terry James, representing the City of Pickering, Volunteer Recognition Committee 2001, will present Mayor Arthurs and Members of Council with the first Volunteer Recognition Award. · (III} MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION PAGE PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 11-01 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 15/00 DR. P.D. GOODMAN ET AL LOTS 69 AND 70, PLAN M-14 (EAST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD, SOUTH OF BAYLY STREET AND NORTH OF TATRA DRIVE) 1-23 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 09-01 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 3/00 24-56 o PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 10-01 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 21/00 1201262 ONTARIO INC. PART OF LOT 15, RANGE 3, B.F.C. NOW PARTS 1 & 5, PLAN 40R-6080 (2000 CLEMENTS ROAD, EAST OF SQUIRES BEACH ROAD) 57-94 o PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 04-01 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 11/99 PINE RIDGE LAND ASSEMBLY LOT 28 AND PART OF LOTS 29 AND 30, PLAN 350 (SOUTH-EAST CORNER OF TOYNEVALE ROAD AND WINETTE ROAD) 95-137 o CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REPORT CAO 01-01 REVIEW OF THE GREATER TORONTO SERVICES BOARD DELOITTE CONSULTING - FINAL REPORT 138-146 o CLERKS REPORT CL 13-01 APPOINTMENTS TO ENFORCE THE PARKING BY-LAW AT DCC #106 & #93, 1880 & 1890 VALLEY FARM ROAD AND 1822 WHITES ROAD 147-152 CLERKS REPORT CL 14-01 APPOINTMENTS TO JOINT POLICE/COUNCIL/COMMUNITY LIAISON COMMITTEE 153-156 o PROCLAMATIONS '~IATIONAL EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK" 157-164 (IV) CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION To consider a Financial Matter 165-181 2. To consider a Property. Matter 182-201 001 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendmem Application A 15/00, submitted by Mr. Don Polzin, on behalf of Dr. P. D. Goodman et al., on lands being Lots 69 and 70, Plan M-14, City of Picketing, to amend the zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a maximum two-storey, 900 square metre building capable of supporting both professional and business offices with associated on-site and off-site parking, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 11-01. That Council authorize City Staff to commence negotiations with Dr. P. D. Goodman et al. regarding the construction of a parking area on a portion of the East Shore Community Centre lands, a portion of which is intended to be leased by Dr. P. D. Goodman et al. as off-site parking to serve the proposed development to be constructed on Lots 69 and 70, Plan M-14, as outlined in Appendix II to Report Number PD 11-01. 0O2 PICKERING REPORT TO COUN'CIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: March 15, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 11-01 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 Dr. P. D. Goodman et al. Lots 69 and 70, Plan M-14 (East side of Liverpool Road, south of Bayly Street and north of Tatra Drive) City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00, submitted by Mr. Don Polzin, on behalf of Dr. P. D. Goodman et al., on lands being Lots 69 and 70, Plan M-14, City of Picketing, to amend the zoning on the subject lands to permit the establishment of a maximum two-storey, 900 square metre building capable of supporting both professional and business offices with associated on-site and off-site parking,, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 11-01. That Council authorize City Staff to commence negotiations with Dr. P. D. Goodman et al. regarding the construction of a parking area on a portion of the East Shore Community Centre lands, a portion of which is intended to be leased by Dr. P. D. Goodman et al. as off-site parking to serve the proposed development to be constructed on Lots 69 and 70, Plan M-14, as outlined in Appendix [[ to Report Number PD 11-01. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 submitted to the City of Pickering. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Future Report to Council PD 11-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 Date: March 15, 2001 Page 2 OO3 On-site parking supply is extremely restricted and falls significantly short of recommended minimum zoning requirements. However, the proposal can be supported if Council sanctions the use of off-site parking within close proximity to the subject lands. It is recommended that Council sanction the use of a vacant portion of the East Shore Community Centre lands owned by the City for off-site parking serving the proposed development. Through preliminary review of these lands, staff recommend that a minimum of 55 parking spaces be constructed on the vacant East Shore Community Centre lands, 27 of which could serve the proposed development through a negotiated lease arrangement, and the remaining minimum 28 spaces could serve patrons of the Community Centre (a preliminary parking plan provided by the applicant indicates the potential for 67 parking spaces to be constructed on the East Shore Community Centre lands). The construction of the proposed parking area is intended to be at the expense of Goodman et al.. Approval of this application will allow the owner to relocate and modestly expand an existing dental practice, and provide limited additional office space for other users, within a new building on the subject lands in a manner that is sensitive to surrounding land uses. The resultant development would be constructed at an appropriate scale to serve the broader neighbourhood, and would encourage appropriate development envisioned within the Liverpool Road "Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridor". BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting for this development proposal was held on June 15, 2000. Information Report No. 14-00, which 'summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues and comments identified to that date through circulation of the application, was prepared for that meeting. The text of that Information Report and Minutes of that meeting are provided for reference (see Attachment #5 and #6 respectively). No written comments were received from surrounding landowners or agencies at the time of writing of the Information Report. At the Public Information Meeting, Ms. Jaqueline Smart of 829 Fairview Avenue, questioned the type of businesses that would be permitted under the professional and business office definitions, and the anticipated height limitations and minimum on-site parking requirements applicable to the proposed development. Ms. Smart also expressed concern with the limited on-site parking proposed, and how off-site parking could be appropriately secured to serve the subject lands. 2.0 Additional Information Since the preparation of Information Report No. 14-00, the following comments have been received: Veridian Connections noted that the applicant should forward to them the size and voltage of the services required, and upon review of that information, a servicing proposal can then be OO4 Report to Council PD 11-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 [)ate: March 15, 2001 Page 3 Pickering East Shore Community Association, through E-Mail correspondence authored by Mr. Paul Kelland (PESCA president), noted they are taking a neutral position on the application, and stated their preference for a one-storey building if constructed. They further noted that the zoning should be restricted to professional offices only, and that the basement of the proposed building be used only for storage purposes (not active floor space). They also noted that landscaping should be installed around the proposed building (particularly within the front yard) to improve the entrance into the Bay Ridges area (see Attachment #9). The Region of Durham Planning Department noted that the subject ].ands are designated "Living Area" within the Durham Region Official Plan, which permits limited office development and limited retailing of goods and services, in appropriate locations, and as components of mixed use developments. These limited uses are permitted provided that Community and Local Central Areas are designated in the area municipal official plan, and the functions and characteristics of such Central Areas are not adversely affbcted. They further noted that the subject property is currently on full municipal services, and that servicing requirements will be reviewed through a future site plan submission (see Attachment #10). 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Permitted Uses The subject lands consist of two separate lots (Lots 69 and 70, Plan M-14) that are both owned by Goodman et al. and intended to be developed together. A property location map, a site plan outlining the applicant's proposal and proposed building elevations are included as Attachments #1 to #3 respectively, to this Report. The existing zoning applicable to the subject lands permits one detached dwelling unit per lot, and allows as an exception, only certain professional office uses to be established within buildings that provide the external appearance of a detached dwelling. Currently only the offices of a physician, dentist, lawyer, architect, engineer, chartered accountant, :real estate agent or insurance agent are permitted on all of the subject lands, and a chiropractor is. also permitted only on Lot 70, Plan M-14. It is recommended that the future implementing zoning by-law permit all business and/or professional office uses on the subject lands, and not require buildings to maintain the appearance of a detached dwelling (see Appendix iD. Applying the standard office definitions to the subject lands will allow a broader range of business and/or professional office uses to be permitted on the subject lands,, while updating the applicable use definitions to more current standards. The resultant office uses are appropriate, will be sensitive and compatible with surrounding established land uses, and in keeping with the City's "Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridor" Official Plan designation applicable to the subject lands, that encourages mixed uses to serve a broader area at a community scale and intensity. 3.2 Coordinated Development It is recommended that one set of performance standards apply to all of the subject lands in the future implementing zoning by-law. It is further recommended that the owners satisfy the City that both subject lots are in the same ownership and/or capable of merging into one single owner~qhin nrlnr tn an imnltam~antlno 7nnlnrr hxr_lo,,, 1.,.~;.,,-. I:' ...... 4~4 +~ t-~ ...... :~ z' ...... :a .... :___ Report to Council PD I 1-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 Date: March 15, 2001 Page 4 005 3.3 Building Size Limitations It is recommended that a maximum building gross floor area of 900 square metres and a maximum two-storey building height be established in the future implementing zoning by-law (see Appendix 1). These recommended size limitations would ensure that resultant development is constructed at an appropriate scale, while not negatively impacting abutting properties (particularly existing residential properties immediately east of the subject lands). Due to the existing grade of the subject lands, the proposed building would provide a walk-out basement condition at the rear, providing the appearance of a three-storey building when viewed from the east, and maintaining a two-storey appearance when viewed from Liverpool Road. The zoning by-law requires that building height be measured at the front elevation of a building. The recommended maximum two-storey building height and maximum floor area limitation would allow the owner to construct the office building as proposed, providing office space on two proposed main floors and within the proposed basement. A south elevation of the proposed building that shows the proposed basement walk-out condition is included (see Attachment #3). 3.4 Parking Requirements The current zoning applicable to the subject lands establishes two differing parking standards, both of which are intended to allow minimal parking for independent, small-scale single office users. It is recommended that the future implementing zoning by-law establish one new parking standard for all of the subject lands, and require a minimum number of parking spaces appropriate to serve the proposed development (which is larger in scale than the current office use) both on-site and off-site. It is recommended that a minimum of 5.0 parking spaces per 100 square metres of building gross leasable floor area be required for this development (see Appendix I). This standard should ensure an adequate supply of parking. It is further recommended that a minimum of 8 parking spaces be located on-site (see Appendix I), ensuring that some parking is available in close proximity to the proposed office building fOr patrons (particularly ensuring that appropriate barrier-free parking and related access is maintained on-site). The applicant's submitted plan indicates a minimum of 10 parking spaces serving the proposed development. However, through staff's review of this application, it appears that a minimum of 8 functional parking spaces could be provided on the subject lands. Through the site plan review process, the specific on-site parking space amount and layout will be determined. 3.5 Off-Site Parking Although some on-site parking currently exists on the subject lands supporting the existing dental practice, additional off-site parking serving the dental practice has occurred through informal arrangements on lands immediately west of the subject lands across Liverpool Road (the Peace Lutheran Church property). Through preliminary talks with the Church, Goodman et al. were unsuccessful in securing a long-term, formal parking arrangement to serve the proposed development. Through a preliminary review of the applicant's proposal, staff have determined that approximately 27 off-site parking spaces are needed (together with the proposed m~nlnanrn ~ an-elta narkina ~nae. e.q~ to adeauatelv serve the ~)roDosed develm)ment. 006 Report to Council PD 11-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 [}ate: March 15, 2001 Page 5 A portion of the East Shore Community Centre lands owned by the City awe undeveloped, and could support an appropriate parking area serving both Community Centre patrons and the proposed development on the Goodman lands. The applicant's agent has submitted a preliminary parking lot plan which indicates that 67 vehicles could be accommodated on the East Shore lands, with independent vehicular access to Liverpool Road and a pedestrian connection from the parking azea to the existing Liverpool Road/Tatra Drive crosswalk (see Attachment #4). City Staff have conducted site visits, reviewed the proposed parking lot plan, and conclude that the proposed parking area is viable. It is recommended that Council authorize City Staff to enter into negotiations with Goodman et al. to discuss a mutually acceptable parking arrangement on the East Shore Community Centre lands. An outline of recommended required terms that should' be addressed through negotiations between Goodman et al. and the City regarding off..site parking on the East Shore Community Centre lands is provided in Appendix II to this Report. Many of the recommended terms to consider through discussions between 'the City and Goodman et al. were suggested by the Solicitor for the City. It is intended that the construction and installation of the parking area and related infrastructure (i.e. required guard rails, curbing, lighting, landscaping, etc.) would be at no cost to the City. It is anticipated however, that through lease negotiations the initial installation and construction costs incurred by Goodman et al. would be considered and factored into a long-term lease arrangement. The parking area would remain under the jurisdiction and ownership of the City. It is recommended that the City explore the opportunity to establish a formal lease arrangement with Goodman et al. for a minimum 20-year time period to provide the required number of off-site parking spaces for their proposed development. It :is further recommended that the off-site parking area established on the East Shore Community Centre lands provide a minimum of 55 parking spaces (see Appendix II). This will ensure that an appropriate minimum number of parking spaces are unencumbered for East Shore Community Centre patrons (at least 28), while maximizing the development potential of the vacant East Shore Comraunity Centre lands for parking purposes. 3.6 Site Plan Matters The subject lands are located within a "detailed review area" of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood. Council could require that a detailed review of the subject property and surrounding lands be undertaken prior to development. However, as the proposed development is considered to represent "minor development" that is modest in scale and which maintains the same general land use arrangement as presently exists on the subject lands, it is not recommended that a detailed review be undertaken as a prerequisite to this application. Through review of the associated site plan application, staff will assess the proposed development based on the detailed design considerations outlined in Chapters nine and thirteen of the Picketing Official Plan. It is recommended that the nwnar nhtnin Report to Council PD 11-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 Date: March 15, 2001 Page 6 0O7 To-date, the following matters have been identified for implementation through the site plan review of this development proposal (see Appendix I): the maintenance of one main vehicular access to the subject lands (there are currently two access points on Liverpool Road serving the subject lands); siting the proposed building close to Liverpool Road (to maintain a prominent building presence) while encouraging parking to be located within the side and rear yard of the subject lands (parking is currently almost exclusively within the front yard of the subject lands); providing visible landscaped areas along the Liverpool Road street edge; the maintenance of appropriate building setbacks and buffering measures (fencing and/or vegetation) between the proposed building and abutting land uses (particularly between the proposed development and residential properties immediately to the east); providing appropriate safety barriers and landscaped areas around the proposed off-site parking area; and, establishing a pedestrian connection from the proposed parking area to the Liverpool Road/Tatra Drive crosswalk (where stairs providing a pedestrian route to the rear of East Shore Community Centre are also located). 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant has reviewed and concurs with the recommendations outlined in this Report. 008 Report to Council PD 11-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 Date: March 15, 2001 Page 7 ATTACHMENTS: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7, 8. 9. 10. Property Location Map Proposed Site Plan Proposed Building Elevations Proposed Off-Site Parking Plan Information Report No. 14-00 Minutes of June 15, 2000 Statutory Public Meeting Agency Comment - Veridian Connections Agency Comment - Canada Post Comment - Picketing East Shore Community Association Agency Comment - Region of Durham Planning Department Prepared By: R6n Taylor / 7/---- Planner 2 Approved / Endorsed by: DI~i~cCt~ra~, ;ll~D ew~lopm eat Lynd~t/~aylor, MCIP~P Manager, Current, Operations RST/LDT/pr Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Picketing City Council .. ,f ".... ... ,..,(_ t q/ , . T~s J. Quinn, ~]nief XdministTra'~l~~ APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 11-01 009 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 15/00 That the implementing zoning by-law: (a) permit business and professional offices to be established within the proposed building to be constructed on the subject lands. (b) not require buildings to maintain the appearance of a detached dwelling as currently required in the applicable zoning by-law. (c) establish one comprehensive set of performance standards applicable to all of the subject lands including, but not be limited to, the following provisions: (i) a maximum two-storey building height; (ii) a maximum building gross floor area of 900 square metres; and, (iii)a minimum parking standard of 5.0 parking spaces per 100 square metres of building gross leasable floor area to serve the proposed development, of which a minimum of 8 parking spaces must be located on-site. That prior to the forwarding of an implementing zoning by-law to City Council for consideration: (a) the owner obtain conceptual site plan approval from the City's Director, Planning & Development to address matters including, but not limited to: (i) building location and site design matters; (ii) enhanced landscaping; (iii)vehicular access and traffic circulation (including the elimination of one existing vehicular access onto Liverpool Road currently serving the subject lands); and, (iv) the location, capacity, treatment and design of both on-site and off-site parking areas. (b) the owners satisfy the City that both subject lots are in the same Ownership and/or merged into single ownership. (c) the owners secure a minimum of 27 off-site parking spaces within close proximity to the subject lands for a minimum time period of 20 years for the exclusive use of the owners and their patrons during typical operating hours of the proposed office building. 010 APPENDIX II TO REPORT NUMBER PD 11-01 RECOMMENDED REQUIRED TERMS OF OFF-SITE PARKING ARRANGEMENT ON EAST SHORE COMMUNITY CENTRE LAND~ That Council authorize staff to negotiate with Dr. P. D. Goodman et al. a mutually acceptable parking arrangement on a portion of the East Shore Community Centre lands, in which: (a) any resultant parking arrangement is secured through a formal agreement to be registered on title of both the Dr. P. D. Goodman et al. lands .and the East Shore Community Centre lands; (b) the same agreement must be entered into by any subsequent owners of the said lands during 'the agreed upon time period for the remainder of the established lease arrangement; (c) a minimum of 25 parking spaces are provided for the use of Dr. P. D. Goodman et al., for a minimum time period of 20 years through a formal lease arrartgement; (d) a minimum of 55 parking spaces are constructed; (e) the days and times for parking of vehicles associated with the Dr. P. D. Goodman et al. development are stipulated; and, (f) the City does not incur any initial construction cost associated with the new parking area. ATTACHMENT f I TO REPORT~PD 'll'-OI 011 GLENANNA BAYLY STREE-I' PROPER; WAYFARER LANE RADOM HALLER STREET AVENUE POPRAD TATRA GRENOBLE BOULEVARD AVENUE DR~E FORDON STREET 012 ATTACHMENT#,, ~- REPORT ~ PD II - t2 t APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED SITE PLAN-STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN A 15/00 P. D. GOODMAN et al. TWO-STOIREY OFFICE BUILDING LOT 69 LOT 70 ATTACHMENT i~ ~ TO REPORT ~ PD ll-OI 013 PROPOSED WEST BUILDING ELEVATION-TWO-STOREY OFFICE BUILDING A 15100 P. D. GOODMAN et al. PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION - TWO-STOREY ~lil'll I~lli II II~ll ~ IIIlfl IIII Il illr'il~ ~,ddTl[ll lill IIIlll lllll illin UIlll UIIn Illill Ir[~ ~,pql"Rllll 'llilil lilt Ii Iliill Illin Ilill illill ilill illlfl Illll ~ IIIll IIIT8 IIITI Illin IIITll IIITI Illin Illin II1[I IIIlfl IJJil IIIlfl II1~ -.d"lr'll If I IIIlfl IIIII Ililli illll Jill II IIII I! Ill[I llllfl II![! lilll IIIIX Illill III! Il llI[ll ~.,,d'lrlfl Illll] Ill]Il IIil I Illlg Illlil fllll [[lip IIlli illin UHII IIIlfl lllJll fifth Illlg IIIlll fill1 Uti# Illi~ ~-d'~lrllll fl lllll Illll IIITB Illll IIl[I IIITII Illll IIii# Illin IIIIII I[I[ll Illll Iltlli HII il Iilll Illi]l IIIll Illlli lilT! II II ! Tl~]~,...._ 014 ATTACHMENT dL. L~ TO REPORT ~ PD._ II - p, ~ APPLICANT'S PROPOSED OFF-SITE PARKING PLAN A 15100 P. D. GOODMAN et al. IAPPLICANT HAS EXISTING PARKiNGI ARRANGEMENT WITH CHURCH FOR ACCESSI TO 25 SPACES (VVITHOUT REG. ON TITLE)J IPROPOSED OFF-SITE PARKING FOR DENTAL CLINIC (66 SPACES PLUS 1 HANDICAP) AND EAST SHORE COMMUNITY CENTREJ PEACE LUTHERAN CHURCH i EASTSHORE COMMUNITY CENfRE VACANTPARCEL (MUNICIPALLY OWNED) 0 0 0 0 .J PARKING (10 SPACES) TA'I'RA DRIVE SPECIFICATIONS I AISLE WIDTH 6.6 METRES I PARKING SPACES 2.6 METRES X 5.3 METRESI HANDICAPPED sPaCE 4 METRES VVIDE ~ I ATTACHMENT REPORT # PO TO 015 Ox,?OF INFORMATION REPORT NO. 14-00 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF June 15, 2000 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, ILS.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 Dr. P.D. Goodman et al. Lots 69 and 70, Plan M-14 (East side of Liverpool Road, south of Bayly Street) City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject lands are located on the east side of Liverpool Road, south of Bayly Street and north of Tatra Drive; a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1); the subject lands currently support two detached dwellings, both of which have been converted internally to support existing dental and medical practices; detached dwellings are located directly north and east of the subject lands, the property to the south supports an existing hair salon established within a converted dwelling, and a church and the East Shore Community Centre are located west of the subject lands across Liverpool Road; the subject lands currently provide two access points onto Liverpool Road, one fi:om each lot. 2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL - the applicant proposes to expand the existing dental practice currently operating within the converted detached dwelling located on Lot 70, Plan M-14 (927 Liverpool Road, the southerly of the two subject properties); - the proposed development would consist of a newly constructed, maximum two- storey building located on Lot 69, Plan M-14 (the northerly of the two subject properties), providing a maximum floor area of approximately 900 square metres (including floor space located within the proposed basement); - a parking area to serve the proposed building would be located to the south, with additional parking serving the proposed building provided off-site (within a portion of the existing parking area serving the church located directly west of the subject lands 016 Information Report No. 14-00 ATTACHMENT #__ ~ _TO REPORT ~ PD_~.__ Page 2 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan - the subject lands fall within the "Living Area" designation, where development is intended to be predominantly for housing purposes; in addition, limited office development is permitted in appropriate locations, as components of mixed use developments, provided that Community and Local Central Areas are designated in the area municipal official plan, and the functions and characteristics of such Central Areas are not adversely affected; - the application appears to conform; Pickerine Official Plan designates the subject lands "Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridor" within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood; permissible uses within this designation include residential, the retailing of goods and services, offices, restaurants, community, cultural and recreational uses, and special purpose commercial uses; this designation encourages uses to serve a broader area at a community scale and intensity; when establishing performance standards, restrictions, and provisions for Mixed Use Areas, City Council shall have particular regard to encouraging development in an integrated manner for a wide variety of uses and purposes, and encourage intensification over time, up to the maximum floorspace indices owIlined in the Plan; the Plan establishes a maximum floor space index: (FSI) for development located within Mixed Corridors of up to, and including, 2.5 (FSI is the total building floor space divided by the total lot area); Council shall ensure that Mixed Use Areas are designed and developed consistent with the community design provisions of the Official Plan (Chapters Nine and Thirteen), and any development guidelines that may be established in the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood; the subject property falls within a "Detailed Review .Area" that ide:atifies areas within a specific neighbourhood as priorities for the preparation of detailed land use, transportation, design or other development guidelines; in undertaking a review, City Council may, among other things, examine the specific land use mix and arrangement, the scale and intensity of use, the transportation network, community design requirements, and any other matters Council deems necessary; Liverpool Road is identified as a "Collector Road", generally providing access to individual properties, to local roads, to other collector roads and to Type - C arterial roads, and generally carrying greater volumes of traffic than local roads, including automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and transit; Zoning By-law 3036 - the subject lands are currently zoned "RMI" - Multiple Residential Dwelling Zone, Information Report No. 14-00 ATTACHMENT REPOR'[ # PD TO Page 3 017 an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to: establish one set of performance standards on the subject lands to allow the proposed office building to be constructed; · to permit any business and/or professional offices to be established within that proposed building; and, · to allow a reduction in required on-site parking to serve the proposed building, and recognize, and permit, additional parking serving the proposed building to be located off-site. 4.0 4.1 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments - no resident comments have been received to-date; 4.2 4.3 Agency Comments no agency comments have been received to-date; Staff Comments - in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: · ensuring that the proposed development will not negatively impact on abutting properties, traffic conditions, or on the viability of other established office areas within the neighbourhood; · reviewing the appropriateness of permitting a broad range of business and/or professional offices on the subject lands; · reviewing site plan matters and property improvements, including the existing lot layout, parking areas, ingress/egress, pedestrian accessibility, traffic generation and patterns, landscaped areas and features, and grading and drainage considerations; · examining the proposed off-site parking situation, to determine its suitability in serving the proposed resultant development; and, · determining the appropriate size and scale of development on the subject lands in relation to existing and furore development within the surrounding neighbourhood, particularly maximum building height and resultant maximum office floor area. 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning and Development Department; 018 ATTACHMENT#.. REPORT ~ PD Information Report No. 14-00 Page 4 6.0 6.1 6.2 ...OTHER INFORMATION Information Received - full-scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plans are 'available for viewing at the offices of the City of Picketing Planning and Development Department; .Comoanv Principal the applicant, Mr. Don Polzin, advises that the owners of the subject lands are Drs. Goodman, Weiner and Aleinikov. Ron Taylor Planner 1 RST/pr Copy: Neil Carroll, Director, Planning and DeVelopment Lynda ~. Taylor z Manager, Current Operations. ATTACHMENTtI' ~ _TO REPORT # PD I I - 0 1 019 Excerpts of StatUtory Public Information Meeting Minutes of Thursday, June 15, 2000 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, June 15, 2000 at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers. PRESENT: L. Taylor - Manager, Current Operations Division V. Rodrigues - Senior Planner R. Taylor - Planner I G. McKnight - Planner II D. Keams - Committee Coordinator The Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. (IV) o ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 15-00 DR. P. D. GOODMAN ET AL LOTS 69 AND 70, PLAN M-14 (EAST SIDE OF LIVERPOOL ROAD~ SOUTH OF BAYLY STREET) Ron Taylor, Planner 1, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #14-00. Jacqueline Smart, 829 Fairview Ave., questioned the type of business which would be allowed under this zoning and requested a copy of the proper wording for the zoning. She asked what the height limitation is and how many parking spaces will be on site. She stated her concern with limiting on-site parking and allowing off-site parking. The applicant stated that they are attempting to make the site as aesthetically pleasing as possible and that it will be a barrier-free facility. 020.- ATTACHMENT#_ '"'7 REPORT# PD_ !1-() _TO VERIDIAN CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW Il.,. PROJECT NAME: .. ADDRESS/PLAN: ,. MUNICIPALITY: NO.: A 15/00 Dr. P. D. Goodman et. al. East side of Liverpool Road, south of Bayly Street Picketing SUBMISSION DATE: May 24, 2(~)0 Other; Applicant is requested to fotwazd to Vetidian Connections the size and voltage of the se~wice requited. This information xvill then be reviewed and a servicing proposal will then be forw'&tded. Technical Representative - Fred Raininge~ Telephone 427-9870 Ext. 3255 F:\Word Dacumenlz \ V efidi~n \ Di~ ~lrm~im~ De~,elo~ mm t\D~.~.,elop mc. mi: ~plic~lion R~,rL--w\Pic~ mlng\ ZODO\ Dr. P.D. Goooh~m et. al, - rlverpool Rind.doc ATTACHMENT f ~ ,.TO 021 DELIVERY PLANNING 1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGH ON M1P 5Al (416)285-S385(T) (416)285-7624(F) JUNE 9, 2000 Mr. Ron Taylor Planner City of Picketing 1 The Esplanade Picketing On L 1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Taylor, Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 15/00 Dr. P.D.Goodman et. al. Lots 69 and 70, Plan M-14 (East side of Liverpool Rd, South of Bayly St) City of Picketing CITY OF PICKERIN PICKERING, ONTARIO G RECEIVED JUN '1 2 2000 We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above noted application If this building is a multiple unit development of three or more units sharing a common indoor area such as, but not limited to, a lobby; the developer/owner will be responsible to supply, install and maintain the mail delivery equipment to Canada Post specifications. Further information concerning centralized mailboxes may be obtained by calling Debbie Greenwood at 416-285-5385. Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planning Officer 022 ATTACHMENT REPORT # P0_ ,,Ta}/Ior, Ron From: Sent: To: Subject: Healey, Phyllis Friday, June 23, 2000 8:44 AM Taylor, Ron FW: Comment from Paul Kelland on Behalf of PESCA for A15/00 Lot 69 & 70 Plan M14 Dr P. D. Goodman ..... Original Message ..... From: Paul Kelland [mailto:pkelland@home.com] Sent: June 22, 2000 11:02 PM To: Healey, Phyllis Cc: Holland, Mark, Councillor; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor Subject: Comment from Paul Kelland on Behalf of PESCA for Al5/00 Lot (19 & 70 Plan M14 Dr P. D. Goodman Pickering East Shore Community Association (P.E.S.C.A) is taking a neutral position on this particular application. -Our preference is that if approved the one story configuration is what is built. We would like the zoning to be restrictive on this site for professional offices and that the basement of new building is utilized for storage only. Final approval should include landscaping around the building (in particular the front) that improves the entrance to the Bay Ridges area. Thanks Paul Kelland President PESCA email pkelland@home.com 905-831-5772 ATTACHMENT~ \ (~ TO .REPORT ~ PD It- 0 [ 023 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department Box 623 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor Lang Tower West Building Whitby, Ontario Canada LIN 6A3 Tel: (905) 728-7731 Pax: '(905) 436-6612 -.-,, L Georgieff, ~, R~ Commissioner of Planning June 26,2000 'Ron Taylor, planner City of Pickering Planning.Department . Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Taylor: RE: Zoning Amendment Application A15/00 Applicant: Dr. P.D..Goodman .- Location: ' Eastside of Liverpool Road, south of Bayly Street Part of Lot 22, BFC Municipality: City of Pickering In accordance with your request, we wish to provide the following, comments with respect' to compliance with the Region of Durham Official. Plan, the proposed method of servicing and delegated provincial plan review, responsibilities. The purpose of the application is to permit business and/or professional offices within a newly constructed building. Tlie subject lands are designated as "Living Area" within the Region of Durham Official Plan.' This designation permits limited office development' and limited retailing Of goods and services, in .appropriate locations, as components of mixed use developments, .provided that Community and Local Central Areas 'are. designated in the area municipal official plan, and the functions and characteristics of such Central 'Areas are not adversely affected. The subject lands are designated "Mixed.Use Area - Mixed.Corridor" in the Pickering Official Plan. The subject property is currently on full municipal services. The applicant should be advised that the servicing requirements will be reviewed upon the subsequent site plan submission. Provincial ihterests do not appear to be affected by the application. If you have any questions or require additional 'information, please call me. Yours truly, : 024 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00, submitted by Mr. Glen Hayes, on lands being Part of Lot 19, Concession 8 and Block 22, Plan 40M-1538 and Part 3, Plan 40R-9493, City of Pickering, to amend the existing zoning to permit the establishment of an accessory dwelling unit, approximately 90 square :metres in area, on the second floor of the existing detached garage on the subject lands, be APPROVED AS REVISED to permit the establishment of an accessory dwelling unit, approximately 65 .square metres in area, on the second floor of the existing detached garage located in the north side yard with a maximum height of 9.0 metres, and; o That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendmem Application A 3/00, as set out in draft in Appendix I to Report Number PD 09-01, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. REPORT TO COUNCIL 025 FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: March 13, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 09-01 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00 Glen Hayes Part of Lot 19, Concession 8 Block 22, Plan 40M-1538 Part 3, Plan 40R-9493 (4996 Canso Drive) City of Pickering RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00, submitted by Mr. Glen Hayes, on lands being Part of Lot 19, Concession 8 and Block 22, Plan 40M-1538, and Part 3, Plan40R-9493, City of Picketing, to amend the existing zoning to permit the establishment of an accessory dwelling unit, approximately 90 square metres in area, on the second floor of the existing detached garage on the subject lands, be APPROVED AS REVISED to permit the establishment of an accessory dwelling unit, approximately 65 square metres in area, on the second floor of the existing detached garage located in the north side yard with a maximum height of 9.0 metres, and; That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00, as set out in draft in Appendix I to Report Number PD 09-01, be forwarded to City Council for enactment. ORIGIN: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00 submitted to the City of Picketing. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 026 Report to Council PD 09-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00 Date: March 13, 2001 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes to amend the zoning by-law to permit an accessory dwelling unit (referred to as a granny flat in the rezoning application form) approximately 90 square metres in size, on the second storey of the existing detached garage. The existing detached garage with second storey dwelling unit was constructed contrary to a building permit issued by the Planning & Development Department. A location map and a reduction of the applicant's site plan are included as Attachments #1 and #2 to this Report. Staff recommend approval of the application provided limitations are placed on the floor area of the accessory dwelling unit. The gross floor area of the accessory dwelling unit should be reduced from the proposed (existing) 90 square metres to 65 square metre, s to ensure that it remains as accessory and incidental to the main dwelling on the subject property. Approval of this recommended revision will require significant alterations to the existing accessory dwelling unit. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting was held on February 15, 2001, to discuss the applicant's proposal. Information Report No. 03-01, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues identified through circulation of the application, was prepared for the meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #3). At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff gave an explanation of the application. Mr. Glen Hayes was present to answer questions regarding the application. Mr. Don Bennett, of 5258 Old Brock Road, was present at the meeting citing his support for the application and that alternate forms of housing such as this are needed within Claremont. A copy of the Minutes of the Public Meeting is included as Attachment #4 to this Report. 2.0 Additional Information Since the preparation of Information Report No. 03-01, the following agency comments have been received: The Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that the proposed amendment to the zoning by-law conforms to the Regional Official Plan and that the Regional Health Department has no objections to the further processing of the application. The Region confirmed that provincial interests do not appear to be affected (see Attachment #5). Veridian Corporation has advised that they do not have any specific objections to the application (see Attachment #6). Report to Council PD 09-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00 Date: March 13, 2001 Page 3 027 3.0 3.1 Resident Comments in Support - The City has received ten letters in support of the application. The letters of support indicate that the existing detached garage and second dwelling unit have been constructed to match the existing main dwelling and is appealing from an Architectural and landscape perspective. A number of the residents have indicated that the existing second dwelling unit has not resulted in increased traffic or parking problems. In addition, a couple of the comment letters indicated that they were encouraged to see the establishment of alternate forms of housing within the Hamlet of Claremont (see Attachments #9 to #19). Discussion Background The applicant applied for and received approval of a building permit for an attached garage with a second storey loft, for storage purposes. The garage was to be attached to the main dwelling, which complied with applicable zoning provisions. The applicant has not completed construction in accordance with the approved permit drawings. The breezeway attachment has not been constructed resulting in non-compliance with the zoning by-law as detached garages are not permitted to be located in the side yard and cannot exceed 3.5 metres in height. These non-compliances do not exist when the garage is attached to the main dwelling (as originally proposed) as the by-law provisions deem this construction to be part of the main dwelling. The applicant commenced construction of an accessory dwelling unit within the detached garage without obtaining approval from the City. Subsequently, the applicant submitted an additional building permit application to authorize the accessory/dwelling unit and garage as constructed. This additional permit remains on hold pending completion of this Zoning By-law Amendment Application. 3.2 Appropriateness of Use The Picketing Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being located within a "Hamlet Residential - Rural Hamlet" designation within the Claremont and Area Settlement which permits the establishment of residential uses. The Plan encourages the establishment of a wider variety of 'housing forms to accommodate the needs of young people and senior citizens. The existing detached garage and accessory/dwelling unit has been constructed and sited in a fashion, which appears to have little visual impact on the surrounding neighbourhood. The applicant has made efforts to construct the detached garage in a complimentary architectural style to the main dwelling. The topography of the lot has been graded and landscaped to minimize the height and visual impact of the detached garage. The subject property appears capable of providing a sufficiently sized parking area to accommodate the main dwelling and accessory dwelling unit. An accessory dwelling unit is intended to provide an alternative housing option within the Hamlet, potentially providing oppommity for existing residents to remain within the Hamlet if their housing needs change. An accessory dwelling unit is not intended to meet the same housing needs/function as a main dwelling unit, and considered desirable provided it O28 Report to Council PD 09-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00 Date: March 13, 2001 Page 4 3.3 Existing Garden Suite Zoning in Claremont The City of Picketing recently passed Zoning By-law 5464/99 on lands located to the south of the subject property to permit the establishment of detached dwelli!ngs with accessory garden suites. The section of the by-law respecting the establishment of garden suites contains a provision that restricts the garden suite to maximum floor area of 65 square metres. The limitation on the floor area was included to clearly define the nature and function of the accessory dwelling unit and to ensure it remained accessory and incidental to the main dwelling. The lands affected by Zoning By-law 5464/99 have the potential to be developed for 12 garden suite units plus an additional 11 garden suite units based upon the submission of draft plan of subdivision SP-2000-02 which is already zoned to permit garden suites. This would result in the potential construction of 23 garden suites. To date, nc. garden suites have been constructed as separate and detached units. 3.4 Recommend Restrictions Accessory dwelling units or garden suites are intended to serve a specific housing purpose and to remain accessory and incidental to the main dwelling located on the property. The applicant has requested an accessory dwelling unit of approximately 91) square metres in size. A 65 square metre floor area limit provides for a "bachelor" or small one-bedroom unit, which is clearly incidental to the main dwelling, and serves a specific and limited accommodation need, and applies minimal pressure on the septic system. The 90 square metre floor area requested by the applicant is significantly larger than the "garden suite" unit approved by Council for other areas in the Hamlet, and is representative of a larger and more accommodating residential trait (two bedroom apartment). This size of unit is considered representative of a second main dwelling unit on the lot and may exert additional pressure on the septic system. The draft by-law prepared for Council's consideration permits the establishment of an accessory dwelling unit provided the gross floor area does not exceed 6:5 square metres in area to ensure that the proposed unit remains accessory and incidental to 'the main dwelling. In addition, the draft by-law includes provisions to permit a detached garage, at a maximum height of 9 metres, to be located in the side and rear yards of the subject property. The by-law refers to a 'Garden Suite - Type I' to be consistent with other accessory unit zoning in the Hamlet. The provisions of the draft by-law will result in the requirement for the applicant to undertake significant alterations to the existing second dwelling unit. It is recommended that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 as revised, as set out in draft in Appendix I to Report Number PD 09-01. Further, it is recommended that the draft by-law be forwarded to City Council for enactment. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant does not agree with the revised provision for a 65 square metres unit. The applicant believes that the proposed 90 square metre garden suite/granny flat maintains the Report to Council PD 09-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00 Date: March 13, 2001 Page 5 029 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Property Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan 3. Information Report 4. Minutes of the Public Information Meeting 5. Region of Durham Planning Department 6. Veridian Corporation 7. Correspondence - L. & L. Becker, 1647 Acorn Lane 8. Correspondence - D. & B. Snell, 1674 Central Street 9. Correspondence- I. Beverly 10. Correspondence - B. Brown, 4994 Canso Drive 11. Correspondence - T. & R. Donaghey, 4997 Canso Drive 12. Correspondence - D. Bennett 13. Correspondence - R. & S. Shaban, 4991 Canso Drive 14. Correspondence - G. Gannon, 1643 Acorn Lane 15. Correspondence - R. Hamilton, 4999 Canso Drive 16. Correspondence - Drs. N. & C. H. Eyles, 4993 Canso Drive 17. Correspondence - R. & C. Watson, 5014 William Street 18. Correspondence - D. Wideman, 1661 Henry Street 19. Correspondence - J. Booth, 1638 Central Street Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Lynda D. Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager, Current Operations Ne Director, l~la~a~ng & Development LDT/pr Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Picketing City Council · (~, ehi ef A'~k~s~ 030 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 09-01 DRAFT BY-LAW ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/00 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING_ BY-LAW NO. DP. AI:T 031 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2209/86, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Picketing District Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Lot 19, Concession 8, and Block 22, Plan 40M-1538, and Part 3, Plan 40R-9493, in the City ofPickering. (A 3/00) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing deems it desirable to rezone the subject lands, being Part of Lot 19, Concession 8, and Block 22, Plan 40M-1538, and Part 3, Plan 40R-9493, in the City of Picketing, for the development of a garden suite on the second floor of a detached garage; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3037, as amended by By-law 2209/86, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: TEXT AMENDMENT (1) Section 4. of amending By-law 2209/86 is hereby further amended by renumbering Subsections (I) to (5) and by adding thereto the following subsection: (3) "Garden Suite - Type 1" shall mean a dwelling unit which is detached from, but accessory to and sharing the same water and sanitary services as, a main detached dwelling located on the same lot; (2) Section 5.(1)(a) of amending By-law 2209/86 is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following subsection: (ii) garden suite - type 1 subject to the provisions of Section 5.(1)(d) below. (3) Section 5.(1) of amending By-law 2209/86 is hereby further amended by adding thereto the following subsection: (d) SPECIAL REGULATIONS - DETACHED GARAGE AND GARDEN SUITE - TYPE 1' (i) Despite Section 5.(1)(b)(ix)(A) and (B) above, a maximum of one garden suite - type 1 may be established on the lands cross hatched on Schedule I, where a detached dwelling exists on the lot. (ii) Despite the accessory building and use provisions of Section 5.18 of By-law 3037, a maximum of one garden suite - type 1 may be erected on the second floor of a detached garage located in any side yard or rear yard of the lands cross hatched on Schedule I, subject 032 2 D Vehicle Parking: SCHEDULE "I" AMENDMENT a minimmn of one parking space shall be provided and maintained on the lot to serve a garden suite - type 1 (a) Schedule 'T' to By-law 2209/86 is hereby amended by adding cross hatching thereto those lands being Part of Lot 19, Concession 8, and Block 22, Plan 40M-1538, and Part 3, Plan 40R-9493, and extending thereon cross hatching. Accordingly, Schedule "I" to By-law 2209/86 is replaced with Schedule 'T' attached hereto. 3. BY-LAW 2209/86 By-law 2209/86 is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as set out in Sections 1 and 2 above,, and as set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matter not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 3037, as amended. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect fi.om the day of passing hereof subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 2001. day of Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Brace Taylor, Clerk AS AMENDED BY BY-LAW 2315/86 CENTRAL ~0.5 ""19.4- R6 STREET 63.8 23 '0,~ . 24.9 R6 ~ 13.0~ ~ PART 4- I o PART ,3 TRANS 16.6 ~ '-'- CANADA R6 55.7 174.0 PART PART ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE IN METRES N SCHEDULE T TO BY-LAW 2209/86 PASSED THIS 5th DaY OF Mey 1986 AS AMENDED BY BY-LAW (D 033 034 ATTAi:HMENT # ~.-,.~T0 REPORT#PD_ Oq-~} STREET CLAREMONT CENTRAL STREET LANE ?RANS-- ATTACHMENT # ~, ,, TO REPOR'r # PD 0 c~_ (')1 035 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN A 3~00 GLEN HAYES ROAD ALLOWANCE BETWEEN ~ CONCESSIONS $ AND 9 'KNOWN AS ii' CENTRAL STREET I / CONCESSION~ ATTACHMENT#,,, ~ TO REPORT# PD Oc~-~l 036 INFORMATION REPORT NO. 03-01 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OJF February 15, 2001 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter ]['.13 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00 Glen Hayes Part of Lot 19, Concession 8 Block 22, Plan 40M-1538 Part 3, Plan 40R-9493 (4996 Canso Drive) City of Picketing 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION - the subject property is located at the south-west comer of Canso Drive and Central Street; (see location map - Attachment/ti); the subject property currentl)r supports a detached dwelling and a detached accessory garage located in the north siqe yard; - an elementary school is located directly west of the subject property and residential uses surround the remainder of the property. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the owner proposes to permit a second dwelling unit, appmxirnately 90 square metres in size, on the second floor of the existing detached garage; the application includes additional amendments to the existing zoning by-law to recognize the side yard location and height of the existing detached accessory building (garage); a reduction of the applicant's proposal is included as Attachment #2 to this report. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan "Rural Hamlet" designation;. the application appears to conf, arm. identifies the subject lands as being within a Information Report No. 03-01 ATTACHMENT # S TO REPORT # PD ~.q ~O I Page 2 4.0 4.1 - Zoning By-law 3037, as amended by By-laws 2209/86 and 2315/86, identifies the subject lands as 'R6' - Detached Dwelling Residential Zone, which permits the establishment of one residential dwelling per lot; - Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, requires all accessory buildings to be located in the rear yard and that all accessory structures shall not exceed 3.5 metres in height; an amendment to the by-law is required to allow the applicant's proposal to proceed. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments - no resident comments received to date; 037 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.0 Agency Comments No Objections or Concerns: - The Durham District School Board (See Attachment #3); a building permit was approved for a garage with a second storey loft, for storage purposes. The garage was to be attached by a breezeway to the main dwelling, which complied with applicable zoning provisions; the applicant has not completed construction in accordance with the approved permit drawings. Subsequently, the applicant has submitted an additional building permit application to authorize the second dwelling unit and garage as constructed. Staff Comments - in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: - assessment of the compatibility of the proposed development with the existing built form; - determination of the impacts o£ a second dwelling unit on private servicing; - examination of the existing parking situation on-site to determine its suitability in serving the proposed second dwelling unit. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning & Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; - if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; 038 Information Report No. 03-01 ATTACHMENT d_ REPORT # Pi:)_ _TO Page 3 6.2 Information Received full scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Picketing Planning & Development Department; TB/pr Lynda Taylor,~Rl~ Manager, Cmmit-'Opera~ons Copy: Director, Planning & Development ATTACHMENT# ~ ,.TO REPORT ~ PO 0~) ~ t 039 APPENDIX I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 03-01 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) no comments received to date COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) The Durham District School Board COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) Planning & Development O4O ATTACHMENT#_ k{ TO REPORT,¢ PO_ Oq-OI Excerpts from Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes of Thursday, February 15, 2001 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING M][NUTES The Manager, Current Operations Division, provided an overview of t]~e requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Mtmicipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. (II) ' ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 3-00 GLEN HAYES PART OF LOT 19, CONCESSION 8 BLOCK 22, PL.AN 40M-1538 PART 3, PLAN 40R-9493 Tyler Barnett, Planner 1, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #03-01. Glen Hayes, applicant, stated that the complaint is concerning landscape equipment parked on the road. He admitted that periodically over the past three years this has been .the case but he owns a landscape business and has spent a good sum of money landscaping his property. He provided a package of information to Planning staff for their files. Don Bennett, 5258 Old Brock Road, stated his support for this application adding that Mr. Hayes has built an addition to the septic system and has received approval from the Health Department. Alternate forms of housing are needed in Claremont. ATTACHMENT R£PORT # PD TO 041 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department Box 623 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor Lang Tower West Building Whitby, Ontario Canada LIN 6A3 February 19, 2001 Tyler Barnett, Planner Planning Department Pickering Civic'Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V'6K7 Dear Mr. Barnett: Re: Zoning Amendment Application A 3/00 Applicant: Glen Hayes Location: Part of Lot 3, Concession 8 4996 Canso Drive Municipality: Cityof Pickering (Claremont) --RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2001 CAT'¥ OF PICKERING DEPARTMENT Tel: (905) 728-7731 Fax: (905) 436-6612 A. L. Georgleff, MClP, RPP Commissioner of Planning We have reviewed this application and the following comments are offered with respect to compliance with the Durham Regional Official Plan, the proposed method of .servicing and delegated provincial plan review responsibilities. The purpose of the application is to permit a self-contained apartment above an. existing detached garage. The subject area is designated as a hamlet in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Limited infilling or'expansion to existing development is permitted in areas with private drilled wells and septic systems. The proposed amendment is in conformity with the Durham Regional Official Plan. The Regional Health Department has no objections to the further processing of this apPlication. This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial .plan review responsibilities and no provincial interests wodld appear to be affected, -If you .have any questions or require additional information, please call me. Yours truly, 042 ATTACHMENT REPOR3' # PO_ NU, U lO 02/02 'VERIDIAN CONNECTIONS DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION RENEW Part o£Lot 19, Concession 8, Block 22, Plan 40M-1538, Part 3 Plan 40R 9493 1. T~e following standard/xed fee costs ~ apply ('~I1 figures a-re appw~mgtc): Se~cc Co~cc6on Fcc ~130,00 per u~t 2. ~e e~g se~ce to ~s ~te ma~ be ~deq~te. De~s rc~ a se~ce upgrade c~ be obeyed from o~ Offices. Prior to ene:gizing any new service, the Applicant shall apply tO the Corporation's Customer Cam Department to open sa e~e:gy accost. · An enezgy deposit must be posted and maintained oa account at a~ times Amount to be detemah~ed, - Prio~ to obt',fining a buildbg p:.tmit, thc Applicant shall, by.agreement, co=f_tem accepr~mee of the terms and conditions of providing electcical sexvice. ~le:e cta~es or m~tetid ha~d]~g eciuipment or work.s must work in pmxi~fit7 to exis~g overhead wires, with the capability of con'ct or coming within thc l/mits of approach, the developer/b~tilder sh~ pay a~ casts for ~e t~po~ rclocadon, bu~L or mtecfion o de--ed nece~a~ by 'Vefidian to nro~dc fo ...... u ...... ...... ~x ~a/e~ ~a ~e sec~ of~e ~ec~c~ system. ~dscap~g ~pe~e~ (~ees, s~bs, o&e~) ~o~d be relocated a~y fi:om ~e Co~o~fion's (~nsfonnet, ~t~ge~, pole~e, o&e~) to a~id inteffe~ce ~ (eq~pment access, ~e ~o~). ~opfided appeg~ce o~ees fwm ~g may O~ec · AddJtonal d~elling to be eupplicd from the existing service at this location. Only 0ne (1) se~iee shah bc provided to a tealdential site. Technical Representative - Ken Gallon Telephone 427-9870 .F~xt. 5262 /,4 MF/sd ~ ~ I-k_u 3 ZOOl DEVC-LOPM~i~ ~ D~zPA~TMENT ATTACHMENT # ""] REPORT# PD (~C~.~! TO 043 To: City of Pickering - Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attn: Tyler Barnett - Planning and Development Dept., 905-420-4617 x 2042 CC Bruce Taylor - City Clerk RE: Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 3/00 Glen Hayes Part of Lot 19, Concession 8 Block 22, Plan 40 M-1538 Part 3, Plan 40R-9493 (4996 Canso Dr.) City of Pickering February 19, 2001 FEB 2 0 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO RECEIVED FEB 2 O 2001 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT..._ Dear Mr. Barnett: Re the above noted application for a By-law Amendment to permit the establishment of a second dwelling unit within the existing detached garage on the subject property. We have a concern regarding the establishment of any secondary residential detached dwelling unit(s) in areas of Claremont that could conceivably and more likely be used as rental property, either now or in the future. We feel the construction of detached secondary residential units, as above, other detached "granny suites" and or "garden suites - Type 1" on Canso Dr. and the rest of southwestern Claremont, including Acorn Lane and Nuthatch Street would be unsuitable. At the same time, it seems that Mr. Hayes has already built the rental unit above his garage and that making him conform to the current Bylaw would cost him time, money and effort. The structure is quite pleasing to look at, seems well built and is very nicely landscaped in a way that makes it fit in from an architectural point of view. Whether or not this was done showing any due regard for the existing Bylaw (IE: realizing that 044 ATTACHMENT # -~ TO REPORT # PD Oc~ - 0 t density. Had we wished to live in a more densely populated urban area with much smaller lots and a proliferation of rental units, we would have remained in the Bay Ridges area and not gone out of our way to move to Claremont. As such, though Mr. Hayes detached dwelling unit overall is pleasi[ng to look at and probably will not impact much on its own, we have serious reservations about the above zoning By-law amendment, mainly because we feel that it opens up tile possibility of the establishment of many more rental units in areas of Claremont that we feel are unsuitable, for reasons as stated above. It is the potential for these changes that concern us. Certainly if this amendment were allowed by the City of Picketing, we realize that would only be one secondary dwelling. However we very strongly and vigorously object to the amended By-law number 5464/99 which permits the establishment of' detached "Garden Suites Type 1" in Claremont and would request that this By-law be Changed as soon as possible as it does in fact seem to encourage the development of potential rental units in a part of Claremont that we feel are unsuitable. However, it should be noted that we have no objection to the construction of attached living quarters that would most likely be used for immediate family members, (IE: NOT built and rented for purposes of income) having thus a shared and com.mon entrance, but clearly being a part of the main dwelling unit. We request that we be advised in writing about all future meetings, decisions and any By- law amendments concerning this matter. Yours truly, Leigh and Laurie Becker 1647 Acorn Lane Claremont, Ontario L1Y lA7 ATTACHMENT ~ ~ TO REPORT#P0 0q-el 045 Picketing Civic Complex One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario. L1V-6K7 Attention: Planning & Development Department Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 3/00 Subject Property: 4996 Canso Drive, Claremont, Ont. Owner & Resident: Mr. Glen Hayes February 6, 2001 Dear Sir or Madam: As a resident and property owner in Claremont, and as a neighbour of the above subject property, I wish to object to the proposed amendment with the following comments. The so-called "Granny Flat" zoning in Claremont, whereby an additional structure may be erected on a property with an existing principal dwelling was not designed to create rental units in the hamlet of Claremont. This ( second structure ) was proposed to accommodate various uses such as a garage, shop, additional living space for the principal residence and most importantly for extended family members such as seniors and children. In fact the original plans submitted by Mr. Hayes, and the Pickering Planning Departments subsequent circulation of this plan to the neighbours for comments, illustrated the proposed second structure at 4996 Canso was to be attached to the existing structure. Tho second structure, as it now exists, deviates from the proposed plans as it stands as a freestanding garage and upper living quarters detached from the · primary residence. In addition, Mr. Hayes continues to operate a portion of his business ( Hayes Landscaping ) from his home, often interfering with roadways around his property by servicing his heavy vehicles and equipment. He has designed his "residential" one car Garage to accommodate his large dump trucks for service, when he could have modified his business property at the north end of town for this purpose. In each case Mr. Hayes has stretched the limits of his property and I see no cause for this amendment to be approved. Claremont is a residential community of families. It is a community without public transit service thereby increasing vehicular activity with each "Granny Flat" that gets built and rented should this amendment be approved. Mr. Hayes plans for this property were never fully revealed to the community, and at times have been misleading. What, for example, does the term "second dwelling" legally mean? I strongly oppose any Zoning change that would allow for residential lots to be turned into income properties by virtue of allowing for secondary dwellings to be rented. There needs to be more study relating to this proposed change with regards to traffic flow and pedestrian safety, density, 046 ATTACHMENT ~' q REPORT#PD_ ~-01 TO ATTACHMENT #. tO TO REPORT#PD ~-~I 047 January 23, 2000 Glen Hayes: 4996 Canso Drive, Claremont, Ontario. Dear Sir Or. Madam: Please let this letter serve as written notificatiOn that the author, owner of the property immediately adjacent'to the property noted above, has no concerns or objections to any or all of the additionS, landsCaping or betterment done on the property as of this date. not grant the.owner of 4996 Canso Drive, Claremont, and any on future additions, renovations, landscaping, or betterment, be brought before Council. O48 ATTACHMENT # !1 TO REPORT#PD ~-(')1 4997 Camo Drive 'Claremom, Ontario L1Y lA8 (905) 649-1918 January 6, 2000 Zoning Commission Town of Picketing ' 1 The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario To Whom It May Concern: -' We are owners of property directly across the street from 4996 Canso Drive, Claremom. The owner has in the past year had a two-storey building erected on the property. The main level is a garage used for storage and inside parking. The second floor is a lovely two-bedroom apartment, which has been occupied for the past six momhs. The building is a well-built structure that is attractively clad and the grounds are beautifully landscaped and eomplimem the property. The owner Mr. Glen Hayes has made strict roles regarding parking. He ensures that no tumecessary vehicles are parked on the property or on the roadway in front of the property over night or for any extended period of time. Since this building was built and the apartment occupied ,are have had no complaints. 'Mr. Hayes has be, on a eomiderate homeowner and has kept an open communication with his neighbours. He has always made it clear t]ha~ if we have a problem with the appearance of the property or are unhappy with the number of vehicles on the property that he will rectify the situation. ...... He approached us on Several oe,,6asions to advice us of his plems regarding the building and landscaping. He answered all questions and addressed the conCei:hs w~'- ..... expressed. He has ~one to m-ea~ lenoth~ mitl ,~v,.~.o,. , ........ ,u~, ,t.~ ATTACHMENT# ('D~_ TO REPORT # PD (")q - C.,) ~ 049 050 ATTACHMENT ~ [ ~ TO REPORT # PO OC~- O l RICK AND CA THY ,~HABAN 4991 CANSO DRIVE CLAREMONT, ONTARIO. LI Y lA8 905-649-5467 January 23,2001 To Whom It May Concern: We have known Joyce and Glenn Hayes for approximately five years. We find them to be excellent neighbors. The property around their new apartment is always kep~C in immaculate condition, additional traffic has been nonexistent. As far as we are concerned, there is no valid reason why anyone should oppose this perfectly maintained dwelling. We know that we speak for quite a few people who live in this area regarding this small apartment. We look forward to the meeting, on the eve of February 15, 2001. Respectfully yours, Rick and Cathy Shaban ~ -/ REPORT # PD (~Q- O{ TO 051 January 23,2001 Mr~ Glen Hayes 49:96 Canso Drive Claremont, Ontario Re: By Law Amendment A 3/00 to establish second dwelling unit within detached garage at above address. Dear Glen: As a resident of Claremont living at 1643 Acorn Lane I hereby support your application for the By Law Amendment. The position and construction of the second dwelling has good street appeal and enhances the value of your property. 052 ATTACHMENT REPORT ,f' , Jan. 31,2001. To: City of Picketing Admi~ Dept. Cterk'z Div. Alta: Tyler Barn~, Planner 1, Planning & Developing Dept. Fm:lLHan~on 4999CansoDr. ~R.~: Zoning Bv-I~w Amen0mem Application A 3/06 We are not against the applicants ];ax~po~ to establish a second dwelling unit within 'file exiSt/og clela~ garage. Since the dwelling has been established, it has onhan~ the appearance of ~.~ owners property & has blocked the view ofthe sclmol parkinglot & portable (an improvem~t of scenery in our opinion.) The building is U~stofully lands~l~xi & is situated wh~m the only inconvenience (ic: shared driveway) is to thiropexty owner & doesnt, seem to impose on tho_neigh~uring homes. ATTACHMENT ,f ~C~~ TO REPORT # PD - © I- 053 3-2-2000 From: Drs. N. & C.H. Eyles 4993 Canso Drive Claremont ;, ON L1Y 1A$ 905-649-2544 eyles~scar.utoronto.ca To: Whom It May Concern Planning Department CitY of picketing Esplanade Re: Mr. Glen Hayes · '. "4996 Canso. Dfive,..Claremont .i;'!'i?';i¢.i;?: :'.: ;::,? ~i .:.. : :'}7 .!'. ~.} .i' :'ii.:'": :... ':". :. ;:.;:. '. ¥~...'.,~;~'!~:~:~?-<-.,:.> ... ~". :,: . ,. ~<"' "~ ':" We ar, wdting i~o~n~aon wire the ~ropos~~~a~,~m'qf:)h*'re~d-*nce:°f ~. Hayes, our neighbour, ~ ~ye~ ~s r~ently m~e an addi~on to his property ~ th~ fern of a large garage and rooms above. The work'has b~n ~mpl~ed in k~ping ~th the s~le of the m~n bulldog and other ~esid~ces on the street; it h~'gen~ated no extra noise or traffic and much of th, addition'is ~dden ~Om the str~ by lmdscaping ~d tr~es. The l~dscaping has e~anced th, appear~ce of the prope~ ~d adjacem pa~'0f)he s~eet. We have absolutely no objection to the requested zoning change being made by Mr. Hayes. Please do not hesitate to contact us if further information or clarification is required. Sincerely, 054 REPORT # PO_ ~C~- ~ I Cynthia WatSon. Rob Watson 5014 William St. Claremont, Ontario L1YB2 ~ March 15, 2000 The Town of Picl<ering, .,As .r,,esidents of Claremont for almost eight veers we have w,,+,,~'.--~ .... .---.-~ withirl tTle Villa O It is im - ,. ~,,,.,,,,~u ~v[~,~ ~uw[n growth, g · portant to us that Claremont keep ~ts character and charm ~v~l~ this Recently the HaYes family has built an addition on to their properb~. The apartment/ garage fits well with the architecture of the area Glen Hayes took the time to iandsc the · n. ew building with large evemreen trees which 2o,*,,-,~-,~,,, .... ,_,___ ,~. ......... ap~... trteir existing home. ° ,~o,. ~,L~a.x ~ll~[u~ ~ [ne flew DUilOing with A.s the school crossing guard, I stand at the school behind his house. I am very aware et the daily traffic flow and since the Hayes family has added this addition I have seen no change in ~ha traffic. · For the eight years we have lived in Claremont, the Hayes' family h,a,s always taken pride in their home and surrounding landscape, We feel confident that the~ will carefully screen their tenant to uphold the same care of their property. We feel the Hayes addition is well suited to the town of Claremont and we do not feel it will bring any future problems. Sincerely,.. : Rob and CYnthia Watson AT'rACHMEN'I'~ 1 ~ _TO REPOR'I' # PD ~c~_ 055 Town of Picketing Planning Department 03 February, 2000 Della Wideman 1661 Henry St. Claremont, ON L1Y 2B1 To Whom it may concern. I have only good things to say in regards to the second building' built on the Hayes property. I admire the way Mr. Hayes has been able to blend the building with the landscape of his property. I have not noticed any additional volume of traffic since the workshop was built. I know Mr. Hayes has utilized the space above his workshop for an apartment. I have seen this apartment and personally I would like to see more apartments of this quality built in Claremont. · Thank you for allowing me to voice my thoughts on this subject. Della Wideman. 056 ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD (")(~- ~ Mr. Bruce Taylor, A.M.C.T. Administration Department City of Pickering City Clerk February 12,2001 Dear Mr. Taylor,' Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A3/00 Glen Hayes Part of Lot 19,Concession 8 Block 22,Plan 40M-1538 Part 3, Plan 40R-9493 4996 Canso Drive City of Pickering I am writing in response to your letter of January 19,2001. Approximately two years ago, a structure was erected at the above named site. Since then I have noted no increase in traffic as a result of this structure. I can attest to this fact as I walk each morning and evening, at peak traffic times, and have not noted any change in traffic flow. I have personally admired the structure, in design, landscaping and placement on the property (partlY concealed by somewhat of an elevation on property) that would afford privacy to a tenant. The structure is attractive, and well maintained, as is the property. The design of the structure is in keeping with the home, and also with the other homes on Canso Drive and the Hamlet of Claremont. I am actually encouraged to see another rental accommodation possibly ava:liable in the Hamlet of Claremont where unfortunately, there exists, a major shortage of rental accommodation for singles, families and seniors. In closing I fully support Mr. Hayes application for re- zoning, to allow a rental accommodation on his oror)ertv 057 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00, submitted by 1201262 Ontario Inc., on lands being Part of Lot 15, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, Plan 40R-6080, City of Picketing, to amend the existing zoning to permit the establishment of restaurant, retail/convenience sales, and personal service uses on the subject lands, be APPROVED, and That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning by-law Amendment Application A 21/00, as set out in draft in Appendix I to Report Number PD 10-01, be ENDORSED, and That staff be authorized to present Council's APPROVAL of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00, as the City's position at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, and further authorize staff to make minor adjustments to the endorsed zoning by-law should minor technical revisions be necessary. REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development DATE: March 14, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 10-01 SUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 1201262 Ontario Inc. Part of Lot 15, Range 3, B.F.C. Now Parts 1 & 5, Plan 40R-6080 (2000 Clements Road, east of Squires Beach Road) City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00, submitted by 1201262 Ontario Inc., on lands being Part of Lot 15, Range 3, B.F.C., Part 1, Plan 40R-6080,C"~ty of Picketing, to amend the existing zoning to permit the establishment of restaurant, retail/convenience sales, and personal service uses on the subject lands, be APPROVED, and; That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00, as set out in draft in Appendix I to Report Number PD 10-0]i, be ENDORSED, and; That Staff be authorized to present Council's APPROVAL of Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00, as the City's position at the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing, and further authorize Staff to make minor adjustments to the endorsed zoning by-law should minor technical revisions be necessary. O~G~: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 submitted to the City of Pickering. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P. 13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs are anticipated to the City as a result of the proposed development. Report to Council PD 10-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 Date: March 14, 2001 Page 2 059 A previous application for a general full service track stop facility (A 2/98) was approved by Council in April 1998. This application is similar to that previous application with regard to the proposed uses, however, the applicant has specifically excluded the eastern portion of the subject property from this application. The eastern portion of the subject lands were zoned "OS-HL" Open Space Hazard Land through the previous application, however, that by-law was repealed by Council at the applicant's request. A draft By-law has been prepared to permit the additional uses requested by the applicant. The draft By-law contains provisions which limit the floor areas of the additional uses to ensure they remain as accessory and incidental components of the overall general full service truck stop operation. It is recommended that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00, and that the draft amending zoning by-law set out in Appendix I to Report Number PD 10-01, be endorsed by City Council as the City's position before the Ontario Municipal Board. It is further recommended that Council authorize Staff to make minor adjustments to the implementing zoning by-law, if necessary, as technical issues are fine-tuned for the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing. BACKGROUND: 1.0 Information Meeting A Public Information Meeting was held on August 10, 2000, to discuss the applicant's proposal. Information Report No. 26-00, which summarizes the applicant's proposal and outlines the issues identified through circulation of the application, was prepared for the meeting. The text of the Information Report is provided for reference (see Attachment #3). At the Public Information Meeting, Planning staff gave an explanation of the application. Mr. Sagar Aggarwal of 1201262 Ontario Inc. was present to answer questions regarding the application. Michael Goldberg, representing Runnymede Development Corporation Limited (abutting and area landowners), expressed that his client has maintained objection to the proposal and requested that no further action be taken with this file until the courts had dealt with the matter of the building permit issuance. A copy of the Minutes of the Public Meeting is included as Attachment #4 to this Report. 2.0 Additional Information Since the preparation of Information Report No. 26-00, the following agency comments have been received: The Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that the proposed amendment · to the zoning by-law conforms to the Regional Official Plan and that provincial interests do not appear to be affected by the apPlication provided the zoning by-law contains appropriate provisions to restrict the scale and type of retail uses. The Region added that the subject Report to Council PD 10-01 0 6 0 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 Date: March 14, 2001 Page 3 3.0 Runnymede Development Corporation Limited has submitted correspondence restating their objection to the prOposal due to concerns about the suitability of the function, type and image of the operation as it does not fit in with the character of the neighbourhood. In addition, they have requested that no further decisions respecting land use permissions tbr this property be granted until the Court's have dealt with their appeal. The attachment includes statements made on the previous Zoning By-law Amendmem Application A 2/98 (see Attachment #7). The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority initially advised that the east half of the site (known as Part 5, Plan 40R-6080) is located within the Duffins M~a'sh Environmentally Significant Area. The TRCA indicated that they have no objection to the approval of the application provided the zoning by-law zones the portion of the lands containing the E.S.A. as "OS-HL" - Open Space Hazard Land Zone. The T.R.C.A. has provided further correspondence, regarding the application, which confirms their intent and understanding that the issues related to the Environmentally Significant Area will be dealt with through an exchange of land with the applicant which will be pursued through future development applications on adjacent lands owned by the applicant. The T.R.C.A. has acknowledged that the eastern portion of l:he lands (known as Part 5, Plan 40R-6080) are not subject of this Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 (see Attachments #8 & #9). Discussion The applicant proposes to develop the site as a "General Truck Stop" for the trucking industry. This facility presently provides long distance track drivers with a place to purchase fuel at a "truck stop price". The enhanced facility will provide amenities to the track drivers such as repair facilities, a truck wash, a weigh scale, a restaurant, laundry and shower facilities, cable connections for fax machines, a truck parking area and retail sales of convenience items. 3.1 Background The applicant submitted a similar application (Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 2/98) for a "General Truck Stop" and other retail uses in January 1998. The application and by-law were considered and approved by Council in April 1998. By-law 5344/98 zoned both the eastern and western portions of the subject property with the western portion supporting the "General Truck Stop" while the eastern portion was zoned "OS-HL" - Open Space Hazard Lands. Runnymede, an abutting and area landowner, appealed the approval of By-law 5344/98 to the Ontario Municipal Board. The applicant proceeded with his application for site plan approval for a truck stop, under the current "M2S" - Industrial zoning provisions. The City granted approval to the site plan and building permit based on the current "M2S" Yard storage and Heavy Industrial Zoning provisions. The applicant subsequently withdrew his application and requested that Council repeal By-law 5344/98. City Council repealed the By-law on Februaql 7, 2000, and the Report to Council PD 10-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 Date: March 14, 2001 Page 4 061 3.2 3.3 The applicant submitted Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00, in May 2000, to permit the addition of a restaurant, retail/convenience sales, and personal service uses to the zoning by-law for the western porti°n of the site only (known as Part 1, Plan 40R-6080). The applicant appealed the application to the Ontario Municipal Board based on the absence of a decision by City Council within ninety days of submission. Runnymede will likely appear in opposition to this application. The hearing is scheduled for April 24th to the 27th, 2001. Appropriateness of Use The Pickering Official Plan Schedule I - Land Uses Structure designates the site as "Employment Area - General Employment". This designation permits the establishment of, among other uses, service industries; transportation facilities; vehicle repair; storage of goods and materials; and the establishment of offices, retail sales as a minor component of an industrial operation, and restaurants and limited personal service uses serving the area. The additional uses requested to be added by this application are considered appropriate for the industrial area, provided restrictions are imposed to address the scale and extent of these uses to ensure they remain accessory and incidental to the primary truck stop facility. Recommended Provisions and Restrictions A draft implementing by-law has been prepared which accommodates the uses sought by the applicant with specific restrictions to be imposed to address the scale and extent of the uses; the proposed accessory retail sales shall be restricted to a maximum floor area of 270 square metres; · a restaurant use shall be restricted to a maximum area of 120 square metres, and is only permitted in conjunction with a General Truck Stop; · no drive through facility shall be permitted with any of the permitted uses; · the accessory dwelling unit area shall be limited to 120 square metres; · a games arcade shall be limited to a maximum floor area of 50 square metres, and is to be used by the drivers and occupants of the commercial vehicles using the truck stop facility only; · no video lottery terminals shall be permitted; The draft amending by-law provides a greater range of uses for the subject property, and incorporates appropriate provisions which implement the Official Plan's General Employment designation. Accordingly, staff recommend that Council approve Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00, as set out in draft in Appendix I to Report Number PD 10-01. Further, staff recommend that the draft by-law be endorsed by City Council as the City's position before the Ontario Municipal Board. 3.4 Environmentally Significant Area (ESA)//96 -"The Duffins Marsh" The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (T.R.C.A.) advised that the east half of the site (known as Part 5, Plan 40R-6080) is located within the Duffins Marsh Environmentally 062 Report to Council PD 10-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 Date: March 14, 2001 Page 5 The T.R.C.A. had initially indicated that they do not object to the approval of the application provided the zoning by-law recognizes and zones the portion of the ][ands that contain the Environmentally Significant Area as "OS-HL" - Open Space/Hazard Land to protect these environmentally significant lands by preventing new development from occurring on these lands. Since the submission of the above noted comments, T.R.C.A. staff and City Staff have conducted a field review of the subject lands in order to identify the limits of the Environmentally Significant Area. The site inspection clarified that the eastern half of the site is not subject to this rezoning and that an opportunity exists to discuss an exchange of land between the applicant and the T.R.C.A. which will assist in the protection of the Environmentally Significant Area. The exchange of land may be affected by the opportunity to realign the Clements Road extension northward from its current terminus. The realignment would curve away from areas of concern as highlighted by T.R.C.A. staff and will allow the applicant to maintain development potential on a majority of the eastern portion of the subject lands (see Attachment #10 - Clements Road Extension Concept Plan). This issue will continue to be negotiated and dealt with upon the submission of future development applications on adjacent lands owned by the applicant. Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 was submitted on the westem portion of the subject lands only (known as Part 1, Plan 40R-6080) and the discussions regarding the potential realignment of Clements Road is not required to be completed prior to finalizing this application. The discussion regarding the potential realignmen:t will be reviewed through future development applications. The applicant has continued to express his desire to complete the extension of Clements Road to Church Street for business and traffic reasons. 3.5 Clements Road Extension Schedule 1/- Transportation Network to the Pickering Official Plan illustrates a future easterly extension of Clements Road to the unopened Church Street road allowance, which is planned to connect with Bayly Street to the north. The Region of Durham is currently in the process of undertaking the "Durham Mobility Study" which is intended to review proposed road network connections within the Region of Durham. The future easterly extension of Clements Road from Church Street, over the Duffin Creek, east to Westney Road in the Town of Ajax is being reviewed. The completion of this study will provide further clarification of the need to extend Clements Road to Wes'tney Road. Clements Road and Church Street are designated as Type C arterial roads, which are designed to carry lower volumes of traffic, compared to other arterials and to provide access to property and have a right of way ranging from 26 to 30 metres. ']:he industrial road network and road classifications were established in anticipation of significant industrial truck traffic. 3.6 Site Plan Report to Council PD 10-01 Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 Date: March 14, 2001 Page 6 063 ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. Property Location Map Applicant's Submitted Plan Information Report Minutes of the Public Information Meeting Region of Durham Planning Department Durham District School Board Runnymede Development Corporation Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Clements Road Extension Concept Plan Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Neil C , RPP Director, Plarm~ng & Development Lynda-IS~./T~ylor, MCIP,~. V Manager, Current Ope~rations JTB/pr Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tl~s J. Quinn,~hief Admini~e Offit/er 064 APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 10-01 DRAFT BY-LAW ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 21/00 THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NUMBER /01 DRAI:T 065 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Picketing District Planning Area, Region of Durham, in Part of Lot 15, Range 3, B.F.C. (Part 1, Plan 40R-6080), in the City ofPickering. (A 21/00) WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing deems it desirable to permit the development of a General Truck Stop for the trucking industry on the subject lands being South Part of Lot 15, Range 3, B.F.C., more specifically Part 1, Plan 40R-6080, in the City of Picketing; AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2511, as amended, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULE I Schedule I attached to this By-law with notations and references shown thereon is hereby declared to be part of this By-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in the South Part of Lot 15, Range 3, B.F.C., more specifically Part 1, Plan 40R-6080, in the City of Pickering, designated "M2S-1" on Schedule I attached to this By-law. o GENERAL PROVISIONS No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law. DEFINITIONS In this By-law, 1)' "Adult Entertainment Parlour" shall mean a building or part of a building in which is provided, in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, services appealing or designed to appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations. 066 4) 5) 6) 7) 8) 9) 10) 11) DRA/: "Commercial Vehicle" shall mean a vehicle for commercial purposes, and shall include ambulances, hearses, motor buses, and fire apparatu~. "~" shall mean one or more habitable rooms t>ccupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and sanitary facilities. emng Unit Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all habitable rooms of a dwelling unit. Games Arcade shall mean any building, room or area :in which are offered facilities for the play of: a) three or more games of chance; b) three or more games of mixed chance and skill; or c) a combination of three or more games of chance and games of mixed chance and skill; for the amusement of the public, which games are not contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, but shall not include a room or an area used for any video lottery terminal use as governed by the Gaming Services Act or premises in which the only amusement facilities offered are pool tables, billiard tables or bowling alleys. "General Truck Stop" shall mean land or premises upon whic]h a business, service or industry involving the maintenance, servicing, storage or repair of commercial vehicles is conducted or rendered including the dispensing of motor fuel or petroleum products and may include, as ancillary uses, a business office, one (1) accessory dwelling unit, the retail sale of accessories or equipment for trucks and similar commercial vehicles, the retail sale of convenience items, shower and laundry facilities, a personal service shop, and a games a:rcade but shall not include an Adult Entertainment Parlour as defined herein. "Gross Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor area. of all the storeys of a building or structure, or a part thereof as the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic or a cellar. "Gross Leasable Floor Area." shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas of all storeys above or below established grade, designed for owner or tenant occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding storage areas below established grade. (a) "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used or intended to be used as the site of a building, or group of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structm-es, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (b) "Lot Coverage" shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all buildings on the lot; D FT 15) "Restaurant - Type A" shall mean a building or part of a building where food is prepared and offered or kept for retail sale to the public for immediate consumption on the premises or off the premises, or both on and off the premises but shall not include an Adult Entertainment parlour as defined herein. "Waste Transfer and Management FaciliW': shall mean a building or part of a building which is used primarily for the storage, handling or processing of household, institutional, commercial or industrial waste; (a) "Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and unoccupied above ~round except for such accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon; (b) "Front Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (c) "Front Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a front yard of a lot between the front lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (d) "Rear Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (e) "Rear Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a rear yard of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; 067 (f) "Side Yard" shall mean a yard of a lot extending from the front yard to the rear yard, and from the side lot line to the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (g) "Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a side yard of a lot between the side lot line and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; (h) "Flankage Side Yard" shall mean a side yard immediately adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street; (i) "Flankage Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a flankage side yard of a lot between the lot line adjoining a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot; and (j) "Interior Side Yard" shall mean a side yard other than a flankage side yard. (2) (b) (c) (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (0 General Truck Stop Restaurant - Type A Games Arcade 4 Uses permitted under Section 16.1.1 of By-law 2511.. as amended Uses permitted under Section 16.1.3 of By-law 25111 as amended Uses permitted under Section 17.1.3 of By-law 2511, as amended Zone Requirements ("M2S- 1" Zone) No person shall within the lands zoned "M2S-I" on Schedule I attached to this By-law use any lot or erect, alter or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) BUILDING RESTRICTIONS: (i) Building Location and Setbacks: A LOT FRONTAGE: Minimurn 140 metres B C FRONT YARD DEPTH: REAR YARD DEPTH: Minimum 15 metres Minimum 7.5 metres D SIDE YARD WIDTH: Minimum 7.5 metres E BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximun:t 13.0 metres PARKING REQUIREMENTS: (i) Parking shall be provided on the subject lm~ds at a ratio of a minimum of 30 spaces for the first 1000 square metres of gross floor area plus 1 space per 250 square metres or part thereof of gross floor area beyond 1000 square metres; (ii) Clauses 5.21.2.a) to 5.21.2.c), inclusive, Clause 5.21.2.j) and 5.21.2.k) of By-law 2511, as amended shall not apply to the lands designated "M2S-1" on Schedule I attached hereto; and (iii) Despite Clause 5.21.2.g) of BY-law 2511, as art. tended, all entrance and exits to parking areas and all parking areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt, or concrete, or' any combination thereof; SPECIAL REGULATIONS: (i) The Gross Leasable Floor Area of accessory retail sales shall not exceed 270 square meters; (ii) The Gross Leasable Floor Area ot" a Restaurant - Type A shall not exceed 120 square meters and such Restaurant - Type A shall only be permitted in conjunction with a General TruCk Store (v) (vi) (vii) The Gross Leasable Floor Area of a Games Arcade shall not exceed 50 square metres and such Games Arcade shall only be permitted in conjunction with a General Track Stop and shall be patronized only by the drivers and occupants of commercial vehicles; 069 No video lottery terminals shall be permitted; Notwithstanding any other provision in this By-law, a waste transfer and management facility shall not be permitted on lands designated "M2S-1" on Schedule I attached hereto; o BY-LAW 2511 By-law 2511, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached to this By-law. Definitions and subject matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. o EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall take effect from the date of the order of the Municipal Board. Wayne Arthurs, Mayor Brace Taylor, Clerk 070 Part 1, 40R-6080 M2S-1 N SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS DaY OF 2001 ATTACHMENT # REPORT ~ PD ,TO 071 ROA~ -i DRIVE: ROAD 072 ATTACHMENT#_ ~ TO ~POI:IT ~' PD I0 - C) I ..... A 21/00 1201262 ONTARIO INC. EXISTING SITE PLAN r o :%. ATTACHMENT f ~ P,F. POm~ P~ IO-OI '1'o 073 INFORMATION REPORT NO. 26-00 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF TItURSDAY AUGUST 10, 2000 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS · OF THE PLANNING ACT, ILS.O, 1990, chapter P.13 sUBJECT: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 1201262 Ontario Inc. Part of Lot 15, Range 3, B.F.C. Parts 1 & 5, Plan 40R-60g0 (2000 Clements Road, east of Squires Beach Road) City of Picketing 1.0 2.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION - the subject property is located on the north side of Clements Road at its current terminus, east of Coppertone Drive (see Attachment #1 for the location map); - a truck stop is being constructed; on the west half of the subject property as shown on the existing site plan, included as Attachment #2; - a one-storey building has been constructed; weigh scales, fuel pumps and underground tanks have been installed; - the east half of the property remains in its natural vegetated condition (trees and sehrubs), and slopes gradUally east to the Duffins Creek; - vacant land surrounds the site to the north and east, and an industrial building is located directly to the west; . - lands on the south side of Clements Road, are also owned by the applicant; on these lands to the south, the applicant has submitted a site plan application to the City' for a new multi-tenant industrial building. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL - the applicant proposes to add restaurant, retail/convenience sales, and personal service uses to the zoning for the western portion of the site only, to enable conversion of the · existing truck stop under construction into a general full-service tmek stop; - the applicant has not included the eastern portion of the subject property in this application; ,t. .... ~:..,..-,, ,.1.,-. ,,,,-,-,nc~.,~. tn ndd a second storev to the existing building to 074 ATTACHMENT f "~ TO REPORT ~ PD I (~ -01 Information Report 26-00 Page 2 4.0 4.1 4.2 the track stop facility under construction is permitted u~nder the existing (M2S) zoning; - Council subsequently repealed By-law 5344/98 (at the owner's request), which had not come into effect (because of the appeal); - the abutting owners (Runnymede Developments) appealed[ the City's issuance of a building permit for the construction of the track stop to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, contending that the use does not conform to the current zoning by-law; subsequent to the Court Hearing held in February of this ye~, the Court confirmed that the use was permitted, and upheld the City's issuance of the related building permit; - Runnymede has appealed the Court decision. OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Regional Official Plan the western portion of the property is designated "Employment Area"; - permissible uses within this designation include: service industries; transportation facilities; vehicle repair; storage of goods and materials; limited personal service uses; and offices and retail sales, where these act as minor components of an industrial ' operation; - the eastern portion of the prOPerty is designated "Major' Open Space" with .an indication of an "Environmentally sensitive Area" associated with the Duff.ms Marsh Environmentally Sensitive Area; the predominant use of lands designated as "Major Open Space" shall be conservation, recreation, reforestation, agriculture and farm-related uses, except that the latter are not permitted in valleylands; - the general locations of environmentally sensitive areas are to be detailed in the municipal official plan and/or zoning by-laws; the Durham Regional Official Plan also shows the extem~ion of Clements Road (which is designated a Type C medal road) east to connect with a future extension of Church Street in Ajax, and the further extension of Clements Road east to connect with Westney Road (Regional Road 31); - the proposal appears to conform to the Regional policies; Pickering Official Plan Schedule I - Land Uses Structure to the Picketing Official Plan designates the site "Employment Area - General Employment"; permissible uses within this designation include, among other uses: service industries; transportation facilities; vehicle repair; storage of goods and materials; and the establishment of offices, retail sales, limited personal service uses, and where these uses act as a minor component of an industrial operation; Schedule II - Transportation Network to the Official Plan desi~nate.u a &TTACHMEN,TtP ~ .,TO REPORT ~ PD IQ -O'l ...... 075 Information Report 26-00- Page 3 4.3 5.0 5.1 Zoning By-law 2511 the western portion of the property site is zoned "M2S" Yard Storage & Heavy Manufacturing and the eastern portion of the property "MI" - Storage & Light Manufacturing in By-law 2511, as mended; -. these zones generally permit industrial manufacturing/assembly uses, open storage uses on the portion of the land zoned "M2S", recreational uses integrated within an industrial subdivision, the retail sale of primary products (such'as coal, wood, fuel oil), a business or professional office, open air market, public parking lot, yard storage, railway facilities, one dwelling unit for a caretaker employed on the premises, and other similar uses not specifically prohibited in the by-law; - amendment of the zoning by-law is required in order to permit the restaurant, retail/convenience sales, and personal service uses. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments_ - none received at time of writing; 5.2 5.3 5.3.1 Agency Comments Veridian Connections (see Attachment #3); - proposal may require upgrade to existing servicing Staff Comments Appropriateness of Uses Proposed staff will review the proposal considering such matters as: whether the building can accommodate a second storey; whether the site layout design will function with the additional traffic generated by these uses; and whether restrictions are required on the mix and size of additional Uses to ensure they remain minor components of the track stop facility; - 'the amending Zoning By-law 5344/98 previously approved by City Council for a full service truck stop included the following res .tricfions: · the proposed accessory retail sales was restricted to a maximum floor area of 270 square metres; · a restaurant use was restricted to a maximum area of 120 square metres, and is only permitted in conjunction with a General Truck Stop; · no drive through facility was permitted with any of the permitted uses; · the dwelling unit area was limited to 120 square metres; · n oarneg arcade was limited to a maximum floor area of 50 square metres, 076 ATTACHMENT#_ ~ TO REPORT ~ PD_ I(~ - 0 1 Information Report 26-00 Page 4 6.0 staff must determine whether this development application is considered major or "minor", and subsequently whether the submission of an Environmental Report is required; the previous Zoning By-law (5344/98) passed by City Council designated the eastern portion of the subject property as "OS-HL" in response to comments and concerns expressed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) and City staff; staff need to determine, in consultation with the TRCA, whether the implementing zoning by-law should also rezone the eastern portion of the lands to "os-HL' Open Space Hazard Lands. PROCEDURAL INFORMATION - written comments regarding this proposal should . be directedto the Planni.'ng & Development Department; - oral comments may be marie 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 reserve the option .to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for tlfis proposal; - if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk. 7.0 OTHER INFORMATION 7.1 Appendix I those whose comments on the proposal were received at time of writing are listed; 7.2 Information Received - full:scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are avai[lable for viewing'at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department; 7.3 ,Company Prineipa! - the principal of 1201262 Ontario Inc. is V. Sagar Aggarwal, president. Lvnda Tavlnr ATTACHMENT f ~ TO FEPORT ~ PD 10-01 Excerpts of Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes of Thursday, August 10, 2000 STATUTORY PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING MINUTES 077 A Statutory Public Information Meeting was held on Thursday, August 10, 2000 at 7:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 21-00 1201262 ONTARIO INC. PART OF LOT 15, RANGE 3 BFC (2000 CI,EMENTS ROAD~ EAST OF SQUIRES BEACH ROAD) Tyler Barnett, Planner 1, provided an explanation of the application, as outlined in Information Report #26-00. Michael Goldberg, Solicitor representing Runnymede, expressed their objection to the application. He requested that no further action be taken on this application until the court action is resolved. 078 ATTACHMENT f_ 5' T0 REPORT# PD_ I O-O[ The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department . · Box 623 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th FloOr Lang T.ower West BuDding · "hitby, Ontario ~nada L1N 6A3 tel: (905) 728-7731 Fax: (905) 436-6612 A. L Georgieff, ~, Commissioner of Planning August 9, 2000 Tyler Barnett, Planner City of'Pickering Planning DePartment Pickering Civic Complex. One The Esplanade Pickering~ ON 1'1V 6K7 Dear Mr; Barnett': Re: Zoning By-laW Amendment Application .A21/00 Applicant: .1201262 Ontario Inc. " Location: North' of the 'terminus of' Clements. Road, east of Squires Beach Road Part of Lot 15, Range 3, Broken Front Concession Municipality: ~City of piCkering In ~esponse to your request, we wish to provide the'following comments with reSpect to Regional Official Plan conformity, the proposed method of servicing and delegated provincial Plan ·review responsibilities.. The purpose of ~the proposed zoning by-law amendment is to rezone the'wes{erly half of the subject lands to add a restaurant, retail/convenience sales and perSonal service uses to the exis.ling truck stop. There is n° f~rther development proposed for the si'te at this time. We underStand that the easterly half of the subject lands will be rezoned to an open space zone due to · significant enVironmental constraintS. ' The subject lands are designated .Employment Area" in the Region of Durham official Plan. -The policies', of the Employment Area designation permit such uses as manufacturing, assemblY and Processing of goods, service industries, research and development faCilities, Warehousing, business parks, 'limited personal service uses,' hotels, storage of goods and 'materials,. retail warehouses, freight transfer and. tranSportation facilities.. We note'that the 'implementing zoning by-law shoUld place restrictions on the scale' and type' of retail uses permitted. The proposed uses' appear to.conform to th'e policies Ofthe' Regi0.n of Durham Official Plan,. .. It should be noted that the .subject lands' are shown in the. Region of Durham Official Plan in proximity to an Enwronmentally Sensitive Area" associated with the Duffin's" Marsh.' If any'further development of the 'site oCcurs, the 'ESA should be adequately protected from impacts:of develOpment. ' - · ATTACHMENT REPORT 4' PD TO 079 · .No provincial interests appear to be affected by this' application. questions or require any information, please call me. Yours'truly, Cherie Mills, MCIP, RPP Planner : Current Operations Branch · cc R. .ROY,- Region Of Durham Worlds Department N:~PIM\OAM~ZoNING(PIOKERING.~.I-00 ' If you ..have any O8O ATTACHMENT t~ ..... ~' TO REPORT # PD_ I b - C) I THE DURHA DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Fadlities Services 400 Taunton Road East i "/hitb¥, Ontado LtR 2K6 Telephone: (905] 666-$500 1 ~800-265-3968 Fax: J905) 666-64.39 .Aumlst 14, 2000 The Corporation of the City of Picketing Planning Department Picketing Civic Centre One The Esplanade' Picketing Ontario L1V 6K7 CiTY OF PICKERIN PICKERING, ONTARIO RECEi'VED Attention: Ms. Valerie Rodrigues Dear Ms. Roddgure% Zoning By-law Amendment ApPlication A21/00 1201262 Ontario Inc. Part of Lot 15, Range 3, B.F.C. (2000 aemeats Road, east of Squires Beach Road) City of Picketing, Staff has reviewed the information on the above noted application and under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, has no objecfion:~.. Yours truly, ChrL,3i-.e'Nance~ve% . Planner C/~:em ATTACHMENT# ''~ ,,,TO REPORT # PD 081 RUNNYMEDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED August 10, 2000 Direct Line: 416 298-0066 ext. 352 The Town of Pickering Planning Department One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario LIV 6X7 Attention: Ms. Valerie R. Rodrigues. MCIP, RPP Senior Planner AU6 15 CITY OF PICKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO Dear Ms. Rodrigues: Re: Public Meeting, August 10, 2000 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 21/00 1201262 Ontario Inc. 2000 Clements Road North Side of Clements Roads, East of Cooperstone Drive Town of Pickering We are the owners of developed and Undeveloped lands in the immediate area of the captioned application, including the 42.18 ha (104 ac) of undeveloped Employment lands abutting the application lands to the north. For the last two and one half (2 ½) years, our firm-has actively maintained an interest in, and objected to the development and rezoning of the subject site for a track stop of any kind. In this regard, we attach our previous correspondence of February 19, 1998, April 14, 1998, and that of our solicitor's letter (Aird & Berlis) dated July 13, 1998. For all the valid land use planning reasons previously stated, we submit this correspondence as our formal objection to the current rezoning application, which is identical to a previous rezoning application (A 2/98), that was withdrawn by the same applicant approximately one (1) year ago. 082 ATTACHMENT#_ '7 REPORT ~, PD_ I 0 -01 Page 2 August 10, 2000 The use being requested by the subject application and the use upheld by the court are out of keeping with the development of, and investment in this area as a more prestige business park environment. While the broader Industrial area contains heavier types of Industrial uses, the area east of Squires Beach Road, surrounding the subject site and the lands of our firm, has developed differently, without the heavier uses and with uses that are more prestige in form, site planning and corporate images. The truck stop simply does not fit with tlfis character and will be deleterious to maintaining and further attracting the cleaner, more prestige corporations to this neighbourhood. In our view, the truck stop is simply a quick fix for one (1) property which will deleteriously impact the short and long term development of the broader Employment neighbourhood, within which the subject site is located. For these reasons, we object to the subject application and request that the Town take no action on this until the matters before the court are resolved. Yours truly, "q~l~gdelopment and Planning · 3:RM:cc attachment ATTACHMENT# ~ .TO REPOR'I' # PD 1 0 ~0 1 083 · RUNNYMEDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED February19,1998 Direct Line: 416 298-0066 ext. 352 Town of Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade South Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Valerie 1L Rodrigues, MCIP, RPP Senior pl_nnner Dear Ms. Rodrigues: Public Meeting February 19, 1998 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A1/98 London Mall Ltd. (1:101262 Ontario Inc.) North Side of Clements Road, East of Cooperstone Drive Town of Picketing, Our File No. 25.4-20.9 We are the owners of developed and undeveloped lands in the immediate area of the captioned application, including the 42.18 ha ( 104 ac) of undeveloped Employment lands abutting the applicati°n lands to the north. As long ~me owners in this area, together with the amount of Employment lands we still have to develop, we are profoundly concerned about this application for the following reasons:' We question and we request that St~ff and Council question the suitability of the function of this type of operation for this location. The area east of Squires Beach Road and north of Clements Road has developed into a much higher quality "business park" environment compared to the "industrial park" character west of Squires Beach Road and at the O84 ATTACHMENT ~. -7 TO REPORT ~ PD_ l 0 '0 1 Page 2 February 19, 1998 The type of facility proposed sets a tone or projects a negative image which we believe is deleterious to the successful long term development of this business park type area. These types of facilities are predomin,ufly asphalt covered with a prominent presence of tmek storage, fuel tanks and pumps, and small nondescript buildings. In these types of facilities very little attention, if any, needs t° be paid to more prestige elements such as building massing, landscaping, and corporate image. This use projects a "Heavy Industrial" image which is more appropriately located in areas intended for that type of visual and functional intensity. The scale of this proposal is very large and will undoubtedly negatively influence future investment decisions for this area. Proposed initially at 3.3 ha (8.2 ac), and then expanded at some unspecified point to as large as 6.7 ha (16.5 ac),, this facility will be similarly sealed to a Secondary School site, without any redeeming corporate presence. Very little, if any, detail has been submitted concerning how the important design , elements of the site will be configured to assist in mitigating this visually offensive use. Notwithstanding, it is unlikely that the offensive visual presence of this Heavy Industrial type of use eau be mitigated to the extent needed for this Business Park type of industrial location. In summary, ~ve share with the Town the long term interest of seeing this business park area successfully develop. The proposal will significantly diminish the business park amenity of this area by attracting heavy, more obnoxious type uses to this location, as Opl~sed to the more appropriate corporate type uses within fully enclosed environments that l~cve developed so far in this area and are desirable over the long term. For the above reasons, we object to the approval oi'this application and req.uest that Start'and Council direct this applicant to a more appropriate locafior~ · Yours truly, DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED ATTACHMENT~ ~ ,TO REPORT ~ PD lC) --01 085 April 14, 1998 I i ' ! RUNNYMEDE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED Direct Line: 416 298-0066 ext. 352 DELIVERED BY FAX 905 420-6064 Town of Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade South Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Attention: Mayor gathurs and Members of Council Dear Mayor Arthurs and Members of Council: Zoning By-law Amendment Application 3.2/98 London Mall Ltd. (1201262 Ontario Inc.) North Side of Clements Road, East of Cooperstone Drive Town of Pickering, Our File No. 2~~ We are the owners of developed and undeveloped lands in the immediate area of the captioned application, including the 42.1 $ ha (104 ac) of undeveloped Employment lands abutting the application lands m the north. On February 19, 1998, we submitted correspondence and our planning consultant, Mr. Michael Goldberg, spoke at the statutory Public Information Meeting. Our correspondence and the minutes of the public meeting are Attachments 4 and $ respectively of the Recommendation Report No. 10-9g. Our concerns and objections now remain the same as those expressed earlier. This part of Picketing has been developing and hopefully, will continue to develop as a "business park" setting, as opposed to an "industrial subdivision". Those developed properties east of Squires ~,_ _z. t-,, ...... 'n ~.t ,~.,,-h;k;, o ~-nmk;n~tlnn nf' land,cane features, buildin~ 086 ATTACHMENT ~_ -7 TO REPORT # PD_ I(') -0 I Page 2 April 14, 1998 It appears in the Recommendation Report that in recommending this application for approval in principle, there is some degree of planning reliance placed on the components of this proposal, already permitted in the Zoning By-law. This is shown in Appendix II o:fthe Recommendation Report. Of great significance, however, are the uses requiring the rezonijag shown in the right column. It appears that the uses requiring a re, zoning (this application) are the very elements which drive the scale and attraction of this complex which, at 3.36 ha (8.3 ac) or more, is very large and will command a noticeable presence. In our opinion it is clear that the zoning never contemplated these types of uses at this location. Without the rezoning elements, there would not be this large 3.36 ha (83 ac) compleX, p~edominanfly dominated by paved (or gravelled) area, devoted to track parking and fuelling areas. Also, once established, there would be little basis to prevent a further expansion of this complex onto this applicant's other lands to the south (mentioned in Section 3.5 of the Recommendation Report) or to the east, on to remaining lands that may not get dedicated to a Public Authority for environmental reasons. For all of the above stated and earlier stated reasons, this application should be directed to a location more conducive to its appearance, image, and function. The application is located adjacent to a "business park" setting, and therefore we object to this application. We must advise that we may have further and other concerns regarding thiis application, once we have had an oppotamity to review this matter in greater detail. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and we respectfully request that this application be denied. Yours truly, EVELOPMHNT C~ DRPORATION LIMITED ATTAOHM£NT # 'J ,,TO REPORT # PO / 0 ' 0 t O87 ~ Pl&o~ Suite 1800, Box ~ 181 Bay St~t Toromo, Canada Telephone: (416) p~c (416) _VII li'ACi~;l~ t~0~ 420-0Sl~ANI) C_OIIIR ~u~y ~3,19~s Mr. Bruc~ Taylor Clerk's Department The Town of Picketing 1 .The F..splanade Picketing, Ontario LIV.6K? Our File #65350 Dear Mr. Taylor: Appeal by Runnymede Development Corporation Limited Zoning By-law 5344/98 Town ,of piekeri~e We a~t on behalf of l~unnymede D~,clopmeni Corporation t.imlted with resp¢~ to the above-noted maI~. Our client owns &-v¢Ioped and und~velop~.xt lands iu the inv~ediate area ofthos~ lands encompassed by the abow-noted application. Our client' s lands include 42. i 8 he,ares (104 acres) ofund~¢loped employment lands abutth~g the subject lands to the north. On February 19, 1998 our client providod comments with respcct to this applicalion, and our client's planning consultant, Mr. Michael Goldbcrg, spoke at the Statutory PubUo Informafioa Meeting. In addition to the foregoing, our clieai wrote on April 14, 1998 reitcn, ing its earlier conccms. Despite Our olient'$ conccms, tho Town of Picketing .Council adopted Zoning 088 ATTACHMENT#_ '-I TO REPORT ~ PO_ 1 (')-01 3]-I.-IB-~BgB ~6:2i July 13, 1991~ Page 2 The d~veloped industrial properties cast o£ Squires Beach Road and north of Clements Road have been developed with a combination of landscaped features, building massing, architectural &'tailing, and corporate signage which projects a prestige corporate setting. TI~ subjeot application is i~consistent with this setting and will hav~ a negative impact on thc/nzage of our client's Busk~ess Park. The proposed use is more consisterit with a l~s prestige ~ ofinduslrial use in other loe. afions within the Town. The beaning and screening attempts along thc boundaries of this propony, as show~ on the concept plan, will nol S~l¥ mitigate this undesirable image; Oacjusfifica~ion for approving the proposed development is the components of the Pr°posal Which are alreadylx:nmitted in the Z°ning BY'law. This ignores that some elemcntz ar~ not already permitted and that the proposed usc cannot exist as a whole without the proposed re. zoning, i rnor~ critical r~vi~w shmzld have been undertak~ of the proposed us~ in its entirety as opposed ~o breaking it into its componemt parts and d~rmining which are already pamitted and which are not; The proposed rezoning is b=ing permiued without du~ r~gard to the l~)Iicies of the Official Pla~ that require Clements Road to be extended to the bm~dary of the Town o£Pickering with the Town of Ajax, and to strat~ll~g lhis boundar~ alii.known connect to th~ north/south street as Church Street. By allowing thc proposal to proceed without requir~g these future road coanections i~ inconsistent with the Official Plan and would require an am~dment thereto in order to proceed. Street and Clements Road will, together withBayly Stmc-t and Squires complct~ the boundary of this prestig-, hdustrial area and allow an ~.'flicient and proper conveyance ofvetdcles throughout the area. Our client has inv~..d a gmat d~al ofresourc~ in designing its subdivision assuming that these two :roads would be constructed as s~t out in the Official Plan. Any proposal which would plac~ in jeopardy the furore construction of these .roads is prejudicial to our client's interests; Our client, in order to demonstrate its concern with the fuhaz development of this area, will be appl.yi~, to amend thc Zooming By-law to restrict the of uses perm/t~ed lnthe area ,n~.~ k.. ~ ..... range and types ATTACHMENT ~ ~ TO REPORT ~ PD 1 ~) - O I 089 -, AIRD ~BERLIB 3 86~1515 p.04 July 13, 1998 Page $ Plan and reliance based on the Zoning By-law to achieve the same. The fact that the Official Plan permits a wide range of industrial uses does not permit these uses to be placed indiscriminately throughout all industrial land use designations. Our client will be applying in the very near future for a Zoning By-law Amendment which it will ~eek to have consolidated with the hearing of the above-noted By-law in order to place squarely before the Board the fuQ plazming context of this area. In addition to the £oresoin~ fimdame~al concerns, we have additional concerns with ~ By-law as adopted. It contains no standards for buffering, lwadscaping or fencin~ and will no! ensure that the proposed site plan (whioh is hadequate to ~.~dress our client's conoerns) will be implemented. I~in~ly confirm receipt of this letter arut of our fmu's cheque in thc mount of $125.00 made payable to the Minister of I~n~ in satisfaction of the appeal fee. Yours very truly, ~ & BERLIS Rodger MiLler Michael Goldberg 090 ATTACHMENT REPORT ~ PD_ ~THE TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsvlew, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661'6898 http://ww~.trca.on.ca August 14, 2000 Mr. Tyler Barnett Planning & Development Department City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V6K7 Dear Mr. Barnett: Re: File No. A 21/00 Zoning By-law Amendment Application 1201262 Ontario Inc. Part of Lot 15, Range 3, B.F.C. 2000 Clements Road, east of Squires Beach Road City of Pickering' CFN 29358.02 This will acknowledge receipt of the above noted application. AuthOrity staff have now completed their review and offer the following comments: ' Enclosed please find a part print of Ontario Base Map, sheet no. 61 on which was have plotted the subject.property in red and the Authority's proposed fill regulation lines in green. As you will note, the. east half of the subject property is traverSed by a watercourse. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 158 a permit is required, from the Authority prior to any of the following works taking place: straighten, change, divert or' interfere in any way with the existing.ch~mnel of a river, creek, stream or watercourse. It is oUr understanding that the applicant is seeking an amendment to the by-law to add restaurant, retail/convenience sales, and personal service uses to the zoning of this site, to enable conversion of the existing facility into a general full-serVice truck stop. The existing facility includes a one storey building With a ground floor area of 600 m2, and 161 parking spaces, and is developed over the western half of the site. Mr...~.E~_~/ler Barnett .2¸- Based on the above, we would have no Objections to the approval of this application provided that the ESA portion (eastern half) of the property is recognized and zoned appropriately (eg. Hazard Land or Open Space). The OS-HL-1 zoning code applied to the eastern portion of the lands in the repealed By'law 5344/98 would be acceptable. We trust this is satisfactory; however, should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truly, Plans .Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 MH/fa Encl. 092 ATTACHMENT,9_ ~ TO ATTACHMENT l onservatto March 7, 2001 093 CFN 31086.03 Mr. Sagar Aggarwal Aggarwal 5809 Shawson Drive Mississauga, Ontario L4W 3Y2 Dear Mr. Aggarwal: Re; .Zoning By. law Amendment and Site Plan Application Part of Lot 15, Range 3 BFC City of Picketing (1201262 On. rio In.c_:) ._. Further to our meeting of March 2, 2001 TRCA staff wish to confirm our interest in arranging a land transfer in order to ensure the protection of the Environmentally Significant Area on your property holdings. We note that this matter does not relate directly to your recent request for rezoning on the adjacent Part 1 lands and that 'I'RCA interest regarding the use of the Part 1 lands can be addressed in the context of the site plan application. We request that you contact Mike Fenning of the Authority's Property Section at extension 5223 to make suitable meeting arrangements. We trust that this is satisfactory. Yours truly, Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 RW/fa cc: Lynda Taylor, City of Piokering Mike Fenning, TRCA Healthy Rivers * ~iodiver~i~' and Oreenspace , Education For Sustainable 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www. trca,on.ca 094 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD_ BAYLY STREET COPPERS'TONE DRIVE SILICONE DRIVE CLEMENTS EXISTING CLEMENTS 27.0m R.O.W. 11.Om PAVEMENT WIDTH PART EXISTING CHURCH 20.Om R.O.W. OF TION A 211O0 6080 · PART 5 PART 7 095 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY 1. That City Council recommend to the Region of Durham, that Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 submitted by the Pine Ridge Land Assembly, on lands known as Lot 28 and Part of Lots 29 and 30, Plan 350, City of Pickering, be APPROVED AS REVISED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report Number PD 04- 01. 2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/99, to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 as revised, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix II to Report Number PD 04-01. 096 REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development ELATE: March 9, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: PD 04-01 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/99 Pine Ridge Land Assembly Lot 28 and Part of Lots 29 and 30, Plan 350 (South-east comer of Toynevale Road and Winette Road) City of Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That City Council recommend to the Region of Durham, that Draft: Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 submitted by the Pine Ridge Land Assembly, on lands k~nown as Lot 28 and Part of Lots 29 and 30, Plan 350, City of Picketing, be APPROVED AS REVISED, subject to the conditions outlined in. Appendix I to Report Number PD 04-01. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/99, to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 as revised, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix 11 to Report Number PD 04-01. ORIGIN: Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011, and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/99, were submitted to the Region of Durham and City of Picketing respectively, 'by Pine Ridge Land Assembly, comprised of 9 property owners. AUTHORITY: The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed developm.ent. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/99 propose to develop the subject lands for a residential subdivision consisting of 25 detached dwellings on lots with minimum frontages of 15.0 metres on Pine Ridge Road. Winatte. l~cmd Date: March 9, 2001 Report to Council PD 04-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 Page 2 Residential subdivision development of the subject lands includes a new road extending south The proposed subdivision, with a reduction to 23 lots and the from Toynevale Road. frontages and "R3" zoning on two lots and other minor revisions as constitutes an continuation of 18 metre illustrated on the Staff Recommended Plan (Attachment #3 to this report), appropriate infill residential development. A number of conditions are recommended (as detailed in Appendix I and Appendix II to this Report) to ensure efficient and orderly development of the subject lands and compatibility with the existing surrounding development, and to address a number of issues identified by staff and surrounding residents. 097 BACKGROUND: A Public Information Meeting for this application was held on November 18, 1999. At the meeting, Information Report No. 26-99 was presented, which summarizes the applicant's original proposal and outlines the issues and comments identified through circulation of the application to that date. The text of Information Report No. 26-99 is provided for reference (see Attachment #5). At the Public Information Meeting, four area residents made comments about the proposed development. Concerns expressed included preservation of trees, impact on traffic, the effect on the character of the community of reducing the minimum lot frontage from 18metres to 15 metres, the impact on sanitary sewage services and stormwater management, impact of noise on the proposed homes, the size of the proposed homes, noise and dust from construction, adequacy of school capacity, impact on the water table, fencing for adjacent properties and whether one developer will build the homes. The Minutes of the meeting are attached (see Attachment #6). 2.0 Additional Information 2.1 Comments Received From City Departments The Director of Operations & Emergency Services has advised that parkland is not required in this location and even if it were required, Block 26 of the Applicant's Submitted Plan is not of adequate size to serve as a suitable play space. The Development Control area of the Planning & Development Department has advised that a functional servicing permit and stormwater modeling report has been submitted which prOvides an acceptable servicing proposal pending review of detailed engineering plans. The Development Control area has further advised that conditions should be imposed in the draft plan approval to address tree removal/preservation, pre-grading and other construction activity on the site. Storm, sanitary and water services will be required for all existing and proposed lots fronting Toynevale, Winette and Pine Ridge Roads adjacent to the site. Urbanization, including sidewalks, of the portions of Toynevale, Winette and Pine Ridge Roads adjacent to the plan will be required or a cash-in-lieu contribution to cover these 098 Report to Council PD 04~01 Subject: Drag Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 Date: March 9, 2001 Page 3 2.2 Comments Received From Other Agencies The Durham Catholic District School Board indicated that the projected student y/eld of five students from this development can be accommodated within existing schools and has no objection to this proposed development (see Attachment #7). The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has advised that they have no objection to the proposed development provided proper stormwater management teclmiques and erosion and sedimentation measures are employed on-site both during and after construction (see Attachment #8). The Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that the policies of the Regional Official Plan support this application, that there may be some noise impacts on some proposed lots due to the proximity of Highway 401. Sanitary sewer and water supply facilities can be provided to the proposed subdivision (see Attachment #9). The Region of Durham Planning Department has further advised that 'the review of the Noise Control Study has concluded that the proposed lots in this plan of subdivision do not require shielding attenuation from Highway 401 because of the existing embankment. However, since outdoor sound levels in the daytime are expected to be above acceptable levels to a minor degree, some lots should have central air conditioni~:tg, all must have adequate ducts to accommodate central air conditioning and warning clauses must be included in the sales agreements to warn the future occupants of the affected homes of these requirements (see Attachment #10). Although it was noted in the Information Report that Canada Post Corporation required the developer to provide facilities for community mailboxes in this subdivision, Canada Post has since changed their service intentions for this development. Canada Post now intends to provide door-to-door delivery service to this development and has not requested imposition of any conditions (see Attachment #11). Veridian Corporation has commented that electrical service can be provided to the proposed subdivision provided a new transformer is accommodated underground, fees are paid, work is done with proper approvals by qualified people, a servicing agreement between the applicant and Veridian Corporation is executed prior to building permit iss'.uance and other technical requirements (see Attachment #12). 2.3 Comments Received From Area Residents A resident living south of the subject site on Pine Ridge Road expressed at broad range of concerns including the impact of large houses on lots with reduced widths on the neighbourhood character, the impact of new development on traffic, piped services, the water table, stormwater, vegetation, the monetary gain to be attained by obtaining new zoning, the precedence of changing the zoning to permit smaller lots, noise, dust and parking problems during construction and the lower road width for the new road. The resident reserved the right to appeal an approval to the Ontario Municipal Board (see Attachment # 13). Report to Council PD 04-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 Date: March 9, 2001 Page 40~ 2.4 Supporting Documentation Tree Preservation Plan · Noise Control Study · Preliminary Grading Plan · Stormwater Management Report Copies of the above-noted documents are available for viewing in the City's Planning & Development Department. 3.0 Discussion 3.1 Lotting Pattern Block 26 (Applicant's Submitted Plan) Since Block 26 is not suitable as a play space and is not recommended as park space by the Director of Operations & Emergency Services, an alternate use for this land must be considered. Planning & Development staff have spoken to the owner of the abutting property to the west which is not part of this subdivision proposal. The home on this property is located close to Winette Road allowing a rear yard with enough depth to permit the severance of the rear portion of the lot to join it to Block 26 to create a new lot. The owner of the property, Mr. Maltese, has indicated that he would like to add Block 26 to the back part of his lot (through a future application for land division) to create another lot fronting onto the proposed new street with a lot frontage of approximately 18 metres. His intention is to construct a modest home on the new lot for his own use. It is recommended that Block 26 be approved as a future development block. In order to ensure that City requirements for such matters as grading, driveway location, tree planting and architectural design can be enforced for this future lot, it is recommended that a one-foot reserve across the front of Block 26 be required. Lots 15 and 16 (Applicant's Submitted Plan) Whereas Lot 16 has adequate size and dimensions to serve as a suitable site for a dwelling, Lot 15 does not. Lot 15, located on the west side of the road bulb of the proposed cul-de-sac, has a functional depth of less than 18 metres, which is insufficient depth to accommodate a reasonably sized dwelling while respecting the front and rear yard depths proposed for other lots in the subdivision. Staff recommend that Lots 15 and 16 be combined to form one building lot. The resultant larger lot is not out of character with the area and could accommodate an attractive custom designed home which can take advantage of the irregular lot configuration. Lots Fronting On Toynevale The subject lands, within the Rosebank Neighbourhood in the Picketing Official Plan, are subject to the detailed Rosebank Neighbourhood Develonmo. nt ~,t,~l;,,,~o ;~ ,uA 100 Report to Council PD 04-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 ][)ate: March 9, 2001 Page 5 The lot fronting onto Toynevale immediately to the east of the subject lands has a lot frontage of 18.3 metres and a lot depth of 30 metres. It would be reasonable to continue this pattern of 30 metre lot depths along the Toynevale lot frontages in the draft plan as a continuation of the existing character of lots on this street and to require a similar 18 metre frontage for Lot 6 of the draft plan. The Staff Recommended Plan increases the lot frontage for lot 6 to 18 metres. To the east of the subject property is located Lytton Court which is developed with lots of 15 metre frontages with "R4" zoning, developed with detached houses. Lots Fronting on Pine Ridge Road The lands fronting onto Winette and Pine Ridge Roads within the proposed subdivision are broken up by two properties not within this subdivision, resulting in a mixed pattern of lot frontages. Immediately south of Toynevale Road is #571 Winette Road, which is proposed to be split into two 15 metre lots and rezoned to "R'4" (Lot #19 and Lot #20 on the Applicant's Submitted Plan). The neighbour to the north is one of the proponents of this subdivision and the neighbour to the south is in favour of the subdivision. The two homes on the west side of Winette Road are screened by high and full cedar hedges, and the', front of these two lots will be partially screened by an existing row of trees. Accordingly, the creation of two 15 metre lots at this location would be compatible with surrounding development. At the south end of the subdivision, the proposal is to rezone the property at # 559 Pine Ridge Road to "R4" and split it into three 15 metre lots (Lots #23, #24 and #25 of the Applicant's Submitted Plan). However, the lots both north and. south of #559 on the same side of the street all have frontages in excess of 18 metres (minim~xm requirement for the existing "R3" zoning). Although #559 has a number of impressive "character" trees that should be preserved, they do not provide a continuous vegetation screen for the frontages of these lots. In order to ensure that new development is generally reflective of the frontages of existing neighbouring lots, and to preserve more of these "character" trees, it is recommended that the 559 Pine Ridge property be split into two lots. not three (Lot # 22 and Lot # 23 on the Staff Recommended Plan). Upon consideration of the Staff recommendation to reduce the number of lots at this location, the applicant has requested that the depth of Lots # 22 and #23 be increased by five metres in order to accommodate swimming pools on these two lots. The applicant also requested that the proposed road be shortened so that the existing swimming pool will be contained on one lot. These requests have been incorporated in the Staff Recommended Plan (see Attachment #3). 3.2 Amendments to the Zoning By-law The majority of the land subject to this draft plan is zoned "R3" wtfich requires a minimum lot frontage of 18 metres and lot area of 550 square metres. A sector of"R4" zoned lands t'tnlnlrnnrn 1 ~ metre frontaee and 460 square metre area) exists at the north-east area of the Report to Council PD 04-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 Date: March 9, 2001 Page 6 At the south-east comer of Toynevale and Winette Roads, the applicant's proposal is to create a new lot (Lot #2) on the land currently occupied by the garage to the existing house located on new Lot #1 and introduce a new driveway for Lot #1. The owner of Lot #1 also wishes to construct an addition on the north side of the existing house that will project into the normally required 7.5 metre front yard by approximately 3.0 metres. As no houses directly face this dwelling and the front is screened by an almost continuous line of trees that should be preserved, it is considered that a front yard of 4.5 metres for Lot #1 would be compatible with the proposed and existing surrounding development and is recommended for approval. In order to maintain the existing character of the developed area, it is recommended that a maximum height of 9 metres be established in the zoning by-law. 3.3 Traffic on Toynevale Road A number of neighbourhood residents expressed concem that the proposed development of approximately 25 new homes on the subject lands would have a negative impact on traffic in the area. Toynevale Road, west of Rougemount Drive is designated as a Local Road in the Picketing Official Plan. The City's Traffic Co-ordinator has advised that the proposed development on the subject lands will not have a significant traffic impact. 3.4 Grading, Drainage and Tree Preservation It is the City's standard practice to preserve as many trees as possible through the consideration of subdivision plans. However, in many cases grading requirements necessary to achieve proper drainage and servicing necessitate fairly substantial removal of existing vegetation. The applicant's tree preservation consultant has prepared a tree preservation plan for the subdivision which identifies significant rows of trees along the lot frontages on Toynevale and Winette Roads and a number of significant specimen trees in the front of proposed lots fronting onto Pine Ridge Road that should be preserved if possible. Staff will request a revised tree preservation plan that identifies the type and location of individual trees in these two areas more precisely. Staffwill give careful consideration to preserving as many of the hedgerow and character trees along the frontage of the proposed lots as possible. Final approval of the tree preservation plans, and adherence to them will be addressed in a subdivision agreement as a condition of approval of the proposed development. The recommended conditions of approval contain a requirement that the applicant submit a tree preservation plan to the satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of building permits. 3.5 Demolition of Existing Structures Demolition of those buildings and structures that occupy the location of the new road or that straddle the lot lines of the new lots will be required prior to registration of the Plan. This will include the existing inground swimming pool on proposed Lot 14. It is recommended that demolition of all buildings and structures within the draft plan except for houses on Lots #1 and #20 (on the Staff Recommended Plan) be required. 102 Report to Council PD 04-01 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 ]Date: March 9, 2001 Page 7 3.7 Noise Control The noise control report prepared by the applicant's consultant indicates that the subdivision design of the proposed development will not be constrained by the traffic-generated noise from Highway 401. The noise control report sets out a number of required noise attenuation measures for the control of outdoor and indoor environment sound levels in the new dwelling units within the subject development. These include window, wall and air conditioning requirements for most of the lots, noise warning clauses, for the purchasers of new dwelling units and certification that the homes to be built will meet the required standards. These conditions are recommended to be included in the subdivision agreement. 3.8 Construction Management A number of surrounding residents have expressed concerns with the impact of construction of the new development on the enjoyment of their properties. It is recommended that the applicant be required to provide a construction management plan for the approval of the City's Planning & Development Department which must address access during construction, dust suppression, sediment and erosion control, road cleaning, soil and building material storage, parking of construction and workers vehicles and compliance, with the City's Noise By-law. 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant concurs with the Staff Recommended Plan, except :[or two items. He is strongly opposed to the combination of Lots 15 and 16 (in Applicant's Submitted Plan) as one lot. The applicant considers that, despite the lot depth, an adequate dwelling can be designed for Lot 15 provided some specific variations to "R4" zoning standards can be made. In addition, the applicant is in agreement with the deletion of Lot 24 from the Applicant's Submitted Plan provided the depth of Lots 22 and 23 are increased by five metres and the south end of the cul-de-sac is moved north by one or' two metres so that the swimming pool is contained on one lot. In addition, the applicant advises that all lots in the draft plan may not be developed by one builder and that all parts of the draft plan may not be registered at the same time. Report to Council PD 04-01 Subject:, Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 Date: March 9, 2001 Page 8 103 ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Property Location Map Applicant's Submitted Plan StaffRecommended Plan Existing and Staff Recommended Zoning Information Report Minutes of Statutory Meeting Durham Catholic District School Board Comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority Comments Region of Durham Planning Department General Comments Region of Durham Planning Department Comments on Noise Control Canada Post Corporation Comments Veridian Corporation Comments Comments of Mr. Foxall & Ms. McKenzie (residents) Residents' Petition Comments of Mr. & Mrs. McCormick (residents) Comments of Mr. Cafik (former resident) Prepared By: Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP Planner 2 Approved / Endorsed by: DN~cCtor~', porn g' 7~) evelopm ent Lynda~aylor, MC~d/Rpp Manager, Current Operations SG/pr Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickeringl City Council. J. 120 Ms. Valerie Flodri~ues ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD -2- November 23, 1999 2) We trust this is satisfactory. (iii) stormwater management techniques which may be required to control minor or major flows; and (iv) proposed methods for controlling or minimizing erosion and siltation on-site and n downstream areas during and after construction. (b) overall grading plans for the lands within this plan. The owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement, in wording satisfac'Iory to The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the area municipality: (a) to carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority, the recommendations set out in any and all. reports referred to in Condition 1; (b) to obtain all necessary permits for works referred to in Condition 1; and (c) a copy of the fully executed subdivision agreement shall be forwarded to The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Should you have any questions please contact the undersigned at this office. Yours truly, Russel White Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 RW/fa APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 04-01 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAIq' PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 18T-9011 1.0 1.1 1.2 GENERAL CONDITIONS That this recommendation apply to the plan as identified as the Staff Recommended Plan included in Recommendation Report PD 04-01, and bearing the City's recommendation stamp; That the owner submit a draft 40M plan to the satisfaction of the City which reflects the Staff Recommended Plan. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE PLAN That the associated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/99 be approved and become final and binding; That the owner enter into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Storm Drainag_~. (a) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development, in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easementsi' Grading Control and Soils (a) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan, with special emphasis on co-ordinating grades with the adjacent properties and the preservation of existing trees where possible; and, (b) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis. Road Allowances (a) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting construction of internal roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks (on the south side of Toynevale Road and on one side of Street 'A'), and boulevards; (b) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting urbanization, including sidewalks, of the r~ortions 120 ATTACHMENT# ~ TO REPORT # PD 0~-0 I_ Ms. Valerie Rodri~ues -2- November 23, 1999 (iv) stormwater manacjement techniques which may be required to control minor or major flows; and proposed methods for controlling or minimizing erosion and siltation on-site and in aownstream areas during and after construction. 2) (b) overall grading plans for the lands within this plan. The owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement, in wording satisfactory to The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the area municipality: (a) to carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority, the recommendations set out in any and all. reports referred to in Condition 1; (b) to obtain all necessary permits for works referred to in Conditicn 1; and (c) a copy of the fully executed subdivision agreement shall be fo rwarded to The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. We trust this is satisfactory. Should you have any questions please contact the undersigned at this office. Yours truly, Russel White Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 RW/fa APPENDIX I TO REPORT NUMBER PD 04-01 105 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 18T-9011 1.0 1.1 1.2 GENERAL CONDITIONS That this recommendation apply to the plan as identified as the Staff Recommended Plan included in Recommendation Report PD 04-01, and bearing the City's recommendation stamp; That the owner submit a draft 40M plan to the satisfaction of the City which reflects the Staff Recommended Plan. 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE PLAN That the associated Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/99 be approved and become final and binding; That the owner enter into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Storm Drainage (a) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development, in consultation with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easementsi Grading Control and Soils (a) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan, with special emphasis on co-ordinating grades with the adjacent properties and the preservation of existing trees where possible; and, (b) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis. Road Allowances (a) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting construction of internal roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks (on the south side of Toynevale Road and on one side of Street 'A'), and boulevards; (b) satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development respecting urbanization, including sidewalks, of the portions of Toynevale, Winette and Pine Ridge Roads adjacent to the plan. 106 -2- (c) satisfaction of the Director of Plaaming & Development respecting submission and approval of a construction management plan addressing such matters as sediment controls, road cleaning,, and mud and dust control during all phases of development, building material and soil storage areas, parking areas for construction workers, and working hours according to City By-laws; 2.2.5 Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances (a) (b) (c) (d) the dedication of all road allowances with proper comer roundings and sight triangles to the City of Picketing; comer roundings; transfer of a 0.3 metre reserve at the street frontage of Block 24 to the City of Pickering; any other easements/dedications/transfers/conveyances that may be required; 2.2.6 Tree Preservation/Planting (a) The submission of a tree preservation and street tree planting program to the satisfaction of the City; 2.2.7 Design Planning (a) (b) the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Dew;lopment respecting a report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development, and the submission of site plans and architectural drawings identifying how each unit meets the objectives of the report, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of a residential unit on the lands; and, the report outlining siting and architectural desifi~ objectives for the development must address building envelopes, house design, including special architectural features on the tankage side of dwellings on comer lots, siting, and streetscapes, as well as garage designs, locations, massing, and projection from the main dwelling. 2.2.8 Parkland Dedication (a) the satisfaction of the City regarding required cash-in-lieu of parkland; 2.2.9 Development Charges (a) satisfaction of the City financially, with respect to the Development Charges Act; 2.2.10 Noise Control (a) satisfaction of the City of Picketing and the Region of Durham that appropriate methods of noise control will be implemented in the development of the subject lands. -2- 107 APPENDIX I1 TO REPORT NUMBER PD 04-01 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 11/99 1.0 2.0 That prior to the forwarding of an implementing zoning by-law to City Council, Draft Plan of Subdivision 18T-99011 receive draft approval from the Region of Durham, and that a Draft 40M-Plan and surveyor's certificate be submitted to the satisfaction of the City Planning & Development Department. That the implementing zoning by-law shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: (a) rezoning of all "R3" lands, except for lots #20, #21, #22, and #23 to "R4", (b) permit a minimum fi'ont yard depth for Lot #1 of 4.5 metres and, (c) impose a maximum height of 9 metres for all buildings within the draft plan. 108 AI'I'ACHMENT# ~ TO INFORMATION REPORT# City 9f Pickering TOYN E"VA~.E DRIVE ROAD II DRIV[ @ Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF LOTS 28, 29 AND 30, PLAN 350 APPUCANT PINE RIDGE LAND ASSEMBLY DATE JAN 17, 2001 DRAWN BY Re APPLICATION No. 18T-99011; A 11/99 SCALE 1:7500 CHECKED BY S(~ FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-1 PA- ATTACHMEN'r f ~ TO REPORT # PD ~ L/,,-' 0 1 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN PINE RIDGE LAND ASSEMBLY 18T-99011 A 11199 SCHEDULE OF LAND USE TOTAL AREA OF LAND TO BE SUBDIVIDED = 1.7989 he SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESiDENTiAL LOTS '1 '1'0 25 STREETS TOTAL 1.5105 he 0.0500 ho 0.2586 ha 1.7989 ho I- I \ \ 24.384 2 ~  19 LOT 2O PART 2 3 TOYNEVALE ROAD 130. g72 I I I ~1 I ~s~.GI 17 I q m 1 BLOCK I.-'2 ~2 \ \ \ ,\ PART 51.677 I 25 PART 14 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ 109 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION OF LOT 28 AND PART OF LOTS 29 AND 50 REGISTERED PLAN ,350 TOWN OF PICKERING REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM 1 I LOT I I I T L_; PLAN 40R-1~ m Z ~ BLO~ 1 BLO0< 3 LOT 4 13 40R-14010 LOT 6 110 ATTACHMENT#/~, TO INFORMATION REPORT# ~' LI - (~ I STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN 18T-99011 TOYNEVALE ROAD 2 5 4 LOT N 72'59°00'E PART 2 44.701 21 N72'5~'35'E 51.677 PART 1 \ \ 17 58.684 SEE DETAIL I I '- BLOCK 24 PART PLAN 7 28 56.636 RESIDENI1AL "~ 8 3~.~:~7 40R-3644 34.olo 13 LOT 1 ~0 0 PLAN ~'15856 ~ BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 PLAN 40R-15453 BLOCK ,3 -7-- LOT 4 z 8,. LOT 5 ~n lal PLAN LOT 14 40R - 140110 30 LOT 6 ATTACHMENT # /'~ ,, .TO REPOR'I' Cf PD 4) ~'- o ! EXISTING ZONING 18T-99011 I I TOYNEVALE ROAD 18 17 19 16 9 10. 11 2O 21 3 15 12 22 14 13 23 STAFF RECOMMENDED ZONING 18T-99011 REZO TO R4 18 TOYNEVALE ROAD 19 16 I BLOCK 24 REZONE TO 25 RE AS 7 9 C) 0 114 Information Report No. 26-99 ATTACHMENT# ,~ TO INFORMATION REPORT# Page 3 4.3 Staff Comments 4.3.1 Preliminary Draft Plan Review - similar redevelopment occurred directly to the east of this proposal along Lytton Court; and other similar developments have occurred in the neighbourhood over the past few years; review of the draft plan must ensure that orderly development may occur that is compatible with the character of the area; the use and disposition of Block 26 needs to be addressed; the possibility of incorporating it as a tot lot will be reviewed; - Lots 15, 16, and Block 26 will be reviewed to determine whether a revised design is possible to allow for more orderly lotting; - the applicable Design Pre, cinct within the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines requires minimam lot depths ranging between 33 and 60 metres unless the character of the area is such that smaller lot depths are desirable; as the lots intended to fronl: along Toynevale Road have been proposed at a 30+ metre depth, similar to those new lots located directly east, it must be determined whether the shorter lot depths would also be suitable in this location, or whether these lots should be redesigned to flank onto Toynevale Road, in order to provide greater lot depths; 4.3.2 Technical Matters the applicant indicates that the noise report requested by the Region is being prepared; any effect of noise attenuation measures on the design of the draft plan will be reviewed following receipt .of the noise attenuation report; a vegetation and tree inventory, and preliminary preselwation plan including a preliminary grading plan is required prior to staffs preparation of a recommendation for Council's consideration. 5.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning and Development Department; oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting; all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Recommendation Report prepared by the Planning and Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council; if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must provide comments to the Town before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal; if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you must request such in writing to the Town Clerk. I~formation Report No. 26-99 ATTACHMENT # TO Page 4 115 6.3 Site Landowners the applicant indicates that the landowners represented by the "Pine Ridge Land Assembly" include M. Kish & J. Wolff, M. Tripp, D. Newmarch, L.A. & B. Woodbine, G. & G. Donnelly, E. Bekus-Pitmlli, E. Cholette, and N. & C. Butt. ~RPP Senior Planner Lynda D/Taylor Manager - Current Operations Division VRR/ph cc: Director, Planning and Development Department 120 Ms. Valerie Rodri¢ues ATTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT # PD o z./z. 0 / _ -2- November 23, 1999 stormwater management techniques which may be, required to control m~nor or major flows; and (iv) proposed methods for controlling or minimizing erosion and siltation on-site and in downstream areas during and after construction. 2) (b) overall grading plans for the lands within this plan. The owner shall agree in the subdivision agreement, in wording satisfactory to The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the area municipality: (b) (c) to carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the Conservation Authority, the recommendations .~;et out in any and all reports referred to in Condition 1; to obtain all necessary permits for works referred to in Condition 1; and a copy of the fully executed subdivision agreement shall be forwarded to The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. We tru st this is satisfactory. Should you have any questions please contact 'the undersigned at this office. Yours trul y, Russel White Plans Analyst Development Services Section Ext. 5306 RW/fa The Region,=, I Municipality of Durham Planning Department Box 623 1615 Dundas ..~t. E. 4th Floor Lan~;;I To~er West Building Whitby, Ontario Canada L1N 5A3 Tel: (905) 72B-'7731 Fax: (905) 43~-6612 _ Georgleff, ~lP, R~ Commissioner of Planning ATTACHMENT #--q TO REPORT # PD 0 ~- 0 / December 6, 1999 Ms. Valerie Rodrigues Senior Planner Planning Department. Town of Pickering One the Esplanade Pickering On L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Rodrigues: Re: Rezoning Application A11/99 Cross Ref.: 18T-99011 Applicants: Pine Ridge Land Assembly' Location: Part Lot 32, Broken Front Concession 2 Municipality: Town of Pickering 121 Celebrc~t~ the ~uture/ DURHAM 1974' q~ ! 999 TOWN OF' PICKERh",.~G PLANNING DEPARTMENT In response to your request for comments, we have reviewed the sabject application and have the following comments with respect to compliance with the Regional Official Plan, delegated provincial plan review responsibilities. and the proposed method of servicing. The. purpose of this application is to implement draft plan .of subdivision 18T- 99011. The application proposes to rezone the subject lands to permit the development of 25 single detached dwellings. The subject property, is designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Lands within this designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes. The policies of the Plan would support the proposed residential uses. This application has been screened in accordance with the terms.of the provincial plan rewew responsibilities. Potential road noise impacts may be present on some of the proposed lots because of their proximity to Highway 401. Sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are available to the subject lands. It is anticipated that the Region's requirements for the prOvision of Regional services will be satisfied through appropriate conditiOns of draft approval for the subdivision plan, Please call me should you have any questions. Yours. truly, Richard Szarek Planner Current Operations Branch a 1199.1et 10096 Post Consumer The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department Box 623 1615 Dundas St. E. 4th Floor Lang Tower West Building' VVhitby, Ontario Canada LIN 6A3 Tel: (905) 728-7731 Fax:.(905) 436-6612 A. L. Georgieff, Commissioner of Planning !22 March 1, 2001 ATTACHMENT# I0 TO . O.MAT o. PO.T# 0"1- 01 ,,,' Alex Artuchov Urban L'Attitude 789 Don Mills Road, Suite 500 Don'Mills, Ontario M3C 1T5 RECEIVED MAR 2 2.001 CITY OF PICKERING . 'PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT · Dear Mr. Artuchov: Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision · Durham Regi.on File No.: .18T-99011 Owners:'Urban L'Attitude Location: Part of Lot .32 Broken Front Concession Municipality: City of Pickerin9 We have reviewed the Noise Control.Study conducted by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd.'dated' NOvember 1999 and find it generally.to be. acceptable. The analytical techniques are consistent with the Ministry'of Environment recommended procedures for the analys,s of noise impact. The calculations and resulting recommendations, hbwever, remain the .sole responsibility of the consultant. ' The Noise Control Study suggests that the sound level's for the Outdoor- Living Areas' (OLAs)of the' proposed lots in this plan olf subdivision will be under 60 dBA Leq. 'This is a result of shielding attenuation provided by the existing topography (highway embank~ment) from Highway 401.and by the dWelling units themselves. As a result, the development will not'- require acoustic fences pursuant to the MOE guidelineS. The outdoor facade sound levels, however, will be in excess of the Ministry of Environment criteria. Daytime sound levels are in excess of.55 dBA Leq, and in some inStances, in excess of 65 dBA Leq. ApproPriate warning Clauses are required for the affected dwellings, The .report indicates that Lots 1 to 8 and 17 to21 require central air conditiOning. All 'of the other dwelling units in this subdivision are to be equipped with a forced air heating system sized to. accommodate the installation of a central air conditioning system. The appropriate warning claUses are.recommended in the rePor~ to make future occupants of the affected lots aware of noise levels from Highway 401 and. of the requirements 'for central air Conditioning' or.forced air heating and ducting sizedto accommodate a central air conditioning unit. .1 oo~ Po~t Cmsum~r ATTACHMENT# ! 0 .TO INFORMATION REPORT ':123 Page Prior.to final aPproval'of the SUbject'p!an of.subdivision, we would .. appreciate' receiving, a copy of the City of Pickering Subdivision Agreement, which should include provisions that will implement th~ 'rbcommendations O[ the Noise Control Study. Please d° not hesitate t° contact me if ~,ou have any.questions. Yours. truly, .., ..-. Richard Szarek . · "Planner ..:L' '.'....... Current operafions BranCh. ' :'-' · cc:' City of Pickering Planning Deparfment '.. . : -' Marsh'ail MaCklin.Mbnaghan.. . Ltdl . "-""' ' r:~rs~noise32.1et 124 DEC £1 '00 11:44 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD DELIVERY PLANN~G 1860 MIDLAND AVE 2ND FL. SCARBOROUGH ON M1P $A1 TO PRGE.001 (416)285-5355(T) (416)28~-7624(F) DECEMBER 21, 2000 TO: FROM: STEVE GAUNT PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT Dt~PAKTMENT CITY OF PICKERING DEBBIE GREENWOOD DELWERy PLANNING CANADA POST CORPORATION APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL OF A PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICANT: URBAN L'ATTITUDE 18T-99011 (S/E CORNER OF TOYNEVALE & WINETI~ CITY OF PICKEI~rNG We reviewed this Plan of Subdivision. This area will be extended dc,vt to door mail delivery service, therefore, Community Mailboxes will not required for this subdivision. If you have any questions, please call me at 416.285-5385. Sincerely, Debbie Greenwood Delivery Planner DEC 2 1 2000 CITy OF PICKERING PLANNING AND ATTACHMENT #... i,~ TO REPORT#PD 0~-01 125 VERIDIAN CORPORATION DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW i[,,-pROjECT NAME: MUNICIPALITY: I R.EF. NO.: Draft Plan of Subdivision - Pine Ridge l.,and Assembly Lot 28 & Part of Lots 29 & 30, Plm 350 (Southeast comer of Toynevale and ~Vinerte Roads Picketing 18T-99011 & All/99 SUBMISSION DATE: October 18, 1999 '7, Electric Service is available on the road allow',mce(s) touchhag this propertT. Servicing will be from Tosmevale Road, W'merte Road and Pine Ridge Road. An extension of the Corporation's plant is required on the road allowance in order to se~qce this project. * Owner's cost- Amotmt to be determined. All such extensions are underground. ]he apphcant mt,st provide accommodation on site for the Corporation's transformer(s). Individual metering for each unit is required. The following standard fixed fcc costs will apply (all figures are approximate): SexMce Connection Fee $100.00 plus GST per unit. A ~ in the amount of $2,000.00 is required to he applicd agxinst cmgi~zeering legal and inspection costs associated with this project. Existing Corporation plant may require relocation. 126 ATTACHMENT # REPORT # PD .... I ,'q-, ~ TO Page 2 XFER/DIAN CO1LPOi%kTION DEVELOPNLENT APPI. I CATI ON REVIEW 12. 13. · ' d Landscaping, specifically trees and shrub~, should be relocated away from file Corporation s propose phmt to avoid interference. Other , A loop primary distribution voltage system will be required. Technical Representative - Rita Tmdeau Telephone 427-9870 Ext. 3256 PP/df I~\Wt~ Doc, \ Veddian\l)e~elopre~m A pplicadon R~"x'w\ PickeJi~g\ I ~9\ ~a fl P[~ °£ Sub~vhion pine Ridge J.aml A~*emhty-doc 551 Pine Ridge Road Pickering, Ontario. L1W 2M6 November 22, 1999. ATTACHMEI~T #._~__ TO REPOR'f..~ PD..__I~,'O / , R. Foxall & P. McKenzie Te~phone905.509-3~7 FaxgOS-50B-3097 127 Mr. A. Georgieff Commissioner of Planning Region of Durham Planning Department 1615 Dundas Street East 4th Floor, Lang Tower, West Building Whitby, Ontario L1N 6A3 IRECEIVED NOV 2 2 lggg TOWN OF PIOKERtNG Attention: Mr. A. Georgieff and to Ms. V. Rodrigues, Senior Planner, The Town of Pickering Planning Department, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario. LIC 6K7 Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 18T-99011 Zoning Bylaw Ammendment Application A 11/99 "Pine Ridge Land Assembly" Lot 28 & Part of Lots 29 & 30, Plan 350 (South-east corner ot Toynevale, Winette & Pine Ridge Roads) Town of Pickering Dear Sir and Madam: It is submitted that this letter will serve as good, and sufficient notice that the undersigned objects to the aforementioned applications. Obviously, without a pre-hearing conference or clear Statute authority to cross-examine the applicant and the Town Planning staff, at the public meeting of November 18, 1999. It is impossible at this stage of the process, to anticipate all of the issues that could be raised, either by, the applicant or the Town of Pickering staff. Therefore, and in consideration thereof, reasons for our objections are enumerated hereinafter, to include, however and not limited to the following. 128 ATTACHMENT #..._.L.3 TO REPORT# PD, 0¥7 0 / 1. This development will have an impact on the existing properties, in our area, and would not be consistant with the established character of the area. 2. This development will specifically impact the neighborhood with existing large lots, as the ne'w lots would be significantly reduced in frontage, and square footage. 3. This development will impact existing road and intersections with increased velficle traffic and congestion, 4. Ths development will impact the existing services, i.e. Sanitary, Storm, Hydro, and Water services. 5. This devlopment may impact or impede the existing water table. 6. There has not been submitted for review, a Storm Water lnanagement report, to ascertain, what degree of impact may occur in this area. 7. This development will affect the existing Built Environment, to include The Rouge Valley Conservation Area, vegetation, trees and grading. 8. This is not practical difficulties that make it necessary to reduce th elot frontage from sixty foot (60) to fifty foot (50), accordingly, in a designated R3' Zoning area. 9. The applicants can clearly comply with the existing Bylaws and make reasonable use of the property without a zoning bylaw change, when in effect, according to their proposal, the remaining R4 zoning has been kept in place. 10. We would suggest that this application is one of convenience and monetary gain, because compliance with existing bylaws is possible, reasonable, and attainable. 11. The applicant has created this circumstance by way of Application, and there is nothing to prevent the applicant from complying with the strict terms of the existing zoning bylaws. Page Three ATTACHMENT# /.~ TO REPORT # PO 0 ~-:--'~ / 129 12. If approved, this application would have sufficient merits of its own to create a precedent for similar request form others, to reduce the sixty feet (60') frontages to fifty feet (50') frontages on Pine Ridge Road, and adjacent areas. 13. Tlfis area has always been Single Family Dwellings, with large lots, thus, development will reverse that characteristic, with small lots and large monster homes, therefore, being out of character with the neighborhood norm on Pine Ridge Road. 14. Iftlfis development is approved, we the area residents will have to bear the brunt of noise, dust, parking, traffic increase and other inconveniences associated with construction, that may take over a year to complete. 15. The proposed road, as shown on the Plan, submitted by the applicant, indicates eighteen meters (18m)/sixty feet (60'). We suggest that the minimum width of the road must be sixty-six feet (66') or twenty meters (20m), which would make this road system in keeping with the accepted neighborhood standard. It is further submitted that we wish to be notified of the decision of The Region of Durham, and The Twon of Pickering, with respect to the aforementioned Applications and further, we submit that we have reserved our Right to Appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board, with respect to this matter. Should you have any questions or queries, please contact the undersigned at your earliest convenience. Yours truly, Robert I. B. Foxall and Paulette E. Foxall (Nee McKenzie) 130 23 November, 1999 ATTACHMENT REPO~'f ~' PE:,. Mr. Neil Carroll Director of Planning Pickering Civil Complex One the Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V6K7 Dear Sir: This is in response to your letter of 18 October, 1999 regarding the Draft Plan of Subdivision Application 18T-99011, Zoning By-Law Amendment Application All/9!) "Pine Ridge Assembly". Unfortunately this letter had a very limited distribution which resulted in a small turnout at the public meeting held last Thursday evening. The level of interest remains high in the Rosebank area when changes are proposed in the zoning By-Laws. As you indicate in your letter, the present application conforms to the net residential density of up to 30 dwellings per net hectare and the site also falls within Design Precinct No. 1 of the Neighbourhood Development Guidelines, where all lots newly created shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 15 meters and minimum lot depths of Ibetween 33 and 60 meters unless the character of the area is such that a smaller lot frontage or smaller lot depth is desirable. However this application does not conform to the present zoning By-Law with regard to all existing lots fronting on Winette and Pine Ridge Road which are zoned as Residential Third Density in By- Law 2511 (as amended). As you are aware Rosebank residents have vigorously and successfully opposed many prior attempts to tamper with this By-Law and have always resisted attempts to re-zone our area in a piecemeal fashion. It would have been more informative if you had included the boundary between the R3 and R4 zoned areas on the draft plan submitted with your letter. This would have indicated that lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are in an area zoned R4 and conform to this zoning. Five of the remaining lots have frontages of 18.28 metres or more and hence conform to the frontage requirements of R3 zoning. The remainder of the lots do not conform to the frontage requirements of R3 zoning. Naturally, more lots mean more money and R4 zoning can be assailed in the same fashion as R3. ATTACHMENT # ~.~_~' inTO REPORT#PD ~)q~,o I 131 Mr. Neil Carroll Director of Planning Town of Pickering November 22, 1999 page 2 - We do not feel that the message should go out that a zoning By-Law can be ignored when subdivision plans are being prepared. This present effort by a developer was rewarded by two or three extra lots and once this precedent was set would occur again and again as we have experienced. Pickering passed the By-Law with input from the people of Rosebank and all parts of our local governing organization should support it. Let us obey our own laws passed for our benefit rather than encourage attempts to squeeze a little more profit out of every building enterprise. Respectfully submitted, 510 Pineridge Road 13 2 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD Mr. Neill Carroll, Director of Planning Town of Pickering November 21, 1999 page 2 We do not feel that the message should go out that a zoning By-Law can be ignored when subdivision plans are being prepared. This present effort by a developer was rewarded by ~a. extra lot and once this precedent was set would occur again and again as we have experienced. Pickering passed the By-Law with input from the people of Rosebank and all parts of our local governing organization should support it. Let us obey our own laws passed for our benefit rather than encourage attempts to squeeze a little more profit out of every building enterprise. Respectfully submitted, 510 Pineridge Road Mr. Neill Carroll, Director of Planning Town of Pickering November 21, 1999 page 2 ATTACHMENT REPORT # PD TO 133 We do not feel that the message should go out that a zoning By-Law can be ignored when subdivision plans are being prepared. This present effort by a developer was rewarded by an extra lot and once this precedent was set would occur again and again as we have experienced. Pickering passed the By-Law with input from the people of Rosebank and all parts of our local governing organization should support it. Let us obey our own laws passed for our benefit rather than encourage attempts to squeeze a little more profit out of every building enterprise. Respectfully submitted, 510 Pineridge Road 134 Mr. Neill Carroll, Director of Planning Town of Pickering November 21, 1999 page 2 ATTACHMENT#_ / ~ TO REPORT# PD_ o~- o/ .... We do not feel that the message should go out that a zoning By-Law can be ignored when subdivision plans are being prepared. This present effort by a developer was rewarded by an extra lot and once this precedent was set would occur again and again as we have experienced. Pickering passed the By-Law with input from the people of Rosebank and all parts of our local governing organization should support it. Let us obey our own laws passed for our benefit rather than encourage attempts to squeeze a little more profit out of every building enterprise. Respectfully submitted, 510 Pineridge Road gr. Mr. Neill Carroll, Director of Planning Town of Pickering November 21, 1999 page 2 / To We do not feel that the message should go out that a zoning By-Law can be ignored when subdivision plans are being prepared. This present effort by a developer was rewarded by one extra lot and once this precedent was set would occur again and again as we have experienced. Pickering passed the By-Law with input from the people of Rosebank and all parts of our local governing organization should support it. Let us obey our own laws passed for our benefit rather than encourage attempts to squeeze a little more profit out of every building enterprise. Respectfully submitted, 510 Pineridge Road · B 136 ATTACHMENT R£POR'I' # PD TO o~f-o I, 'FROH 555 P/nc R, idgc Rd. Picketing, On L1W 2M6 F'HI_-.II'.IE I10. November 25, ! 999. Mr. Ne]Il Carroll Director of Planning Picketing Civil Complex One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario LIV 6K7 Dear Sir, This is in response to your letter of' October 18, 1999 regarding the Draft Plan of subdivision application 18T-99011, Zoning By Law Amen. dment Application At 1/99" Pine Ridge Assembly". I } We are absolutely against an amendment to the By-Law which wou]id change the zoning of" R3". This would totally change Itc character and charm of our homes on Pine Ridge Road. These laws were set to protect our environment az~d community and now we are being asked to change for the sake of profit.. Our home, 555 Pine Ridge Road., would be surrounded by 3 homes -Io the North side on which the con,,~truction is purposed We fear the value of our home and that of our neighbours would depreciate_ We have spent considerable amounts of money in renovation and in upkeep of our home and we feel we are being treated unfairly We have lived in this community for 25 years and we enjoyed the quiet and stately atmosphere of our street. We Ix:tition thai the By Laws be honoured m~d that there be no mnendment made. Sincerely~ Norm anti Pat Cafik Ph. 1¢50.655-42g0 ATTACHMENT# /6 TO REPORT # PD 10199 Wildflowcr Place, Sidney B.C. VSL 3R3 Fax. 1-250-655-1333 137 N~verabex 30, 199) Din~or o1'Planning,. Pit.r/hi Civic Complex, &ae the Esplanade. L 1V 6K? RECEIVED TOWN OF PICKERING PLANNING DEPARTMENT Dear Sir. Zoning Amendmm~ Appllcadoa.~ff~'~ West Pa~ of Lot 101, Plan 350 ,165 R~gen~m D~ive. Town of Pick~riag It has be~n b~nighl to my a#emi.'on that the above ai~llcgiton has been made stat alllmugh I am nO longex a te~Ment aflhe Town of Picker/ag lhaw had a lifetime amociation with ~ ccmmmdb~ ~ a pr~atc and as a foxmex Member of~'aaxliamenL I wish to state fiat the recordflml I am very much oppnsexi to above-n~nl/onexl appticatbu for the reasons tlmt have aIrea~'bc~ ~t ou{ I~ a numt~ of rOs/~nts and In addition I have a very special xea,son for concern in that the project will involve the desmlction nf my farmer home on 10tee Ridge Road, It seems lo m~ that there is ma slmrmge of ~evel~inent that has tak, n place w~thin Hcl~ring and ti~ th~ pre, scm bylaws ottght to I~ uphcht I would appr~ate )'om forwarding a copy ot this fax lo the individ,~l~ listed below.. With ~ ltmnks for your consid~raIion ia rids ma.er, Yom-s sincerely, Com~e. lor '~cc Brenner Mayor Wayne Attburs TOTPl. P. 01 138 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE C'OMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Council receive for information, Report to Council CAO 01-0 t summarizing the Final Report of Deloitte Consulting entitled "Getting Starte,'d- A Review of the Greater Toronto Services Board" 2. That a copy of Report to Council CAO 01-01 be forwarded 'to the Greater Toromo Services Board. PICKERiNG REPORT TO COUNCIL 139 FROM: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer DATE: March 8, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: CAO 0 I-01 SUBJECT: Review of the Greater Toronto Services Board - Deloitte Consulting - Final Report - File: IG 3114 RECOMMENDATION: That Council receive for information, Report to Council CAO 01-01 summarizing the Final Report of Deloitte Consulting entitled "Getting Started- A Review of the Greater Toronto Services Board." That a copy of Report to Council CAO 01-01 be forwarded to the Greater Toronto Services Board. ORIGIN: On February 23rd, 2001, Deloitte Consulting presented its Final Report to the GTSB's Strategic Planning & Review Committee. Around the same time, the Report was circulated to member municipalities for their information and comment. Comments are requested prior to the March 30th meeting of the GTSB's Strategic Planning & Review Committee. AUTHORITY: The Municipal Act, R.S. O. 1990 Greater Toronto Services Board Act, 1998 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Not applicable EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Deloitte Consulting has completed its Final Report on the review of the GTSB. Comments are requested to be forwarded to the Strategic Planning & Review Committee of the GTSB before the end of March. 140 Report to Council CAO 01-01 Subject: Deloitte Consulting Date: March 8, 2001 Review of the GTSB, Final Report Page 2 terms of their ability to respond to the GTA challenges, the relative operational characteristics of each, and their ease of implementation. The four options that were considered were: · Planning Authority · Planning & Services Board · GTA Council · Provincial Ministry The establishment of a GTA Council would be contrary to Pickering Council's previously stated opposition to the creation of another level of government. The establishment of a Provincial Ministry would also appear to be inconsistent with Pickering's position on the GTSB, in that the City has supported the need for a GTSB (as a policy coordinating body) in place of having the Province play a greater role in coordinating planning and service delivery in the GTA. Of the remaining two options, the creation of a Planning & Services Board would appear to give the GTSB greater service delivery powers than Council may have envisioned, at least in the early stages of the Board's evolution. The creation of a Planning Authority, however, would appear to be in keeping with Pickering Counc![l's past positions on the GTSB. As a Planning Authority, the GTSB would develop planning policies and guidelines on GTA growth, land use pattems, transportation networks and related development. These policies mid guidelines would then inform local and regional official plans. BACKGROUND: Early last year, the GTSB hired Deloitte Consulting to undertake a review of the Board, pursuant to the requirements of the Greater Toronto Services Board Act. In June 2000, Deloitte's Phase 1 Report entitled "Review of the GTSB - Phase ! Report, Addressing GTA-Wide Challenges" was circulated for review and comment. Staff reviewed the Phase 1 Report, and a Report to Council was prepared (see CAO Report 16-00). On October 16th, 2000, City Council passed the following resolution (Council Resolution #141/00 item 2): That Council receive Report to Council CAO 16-00 concerning the report prepared by Deloitte Consulting entitled "Review of the GTSB- Phase I Report, Addressing GTA -Wide Challenges. "; and That Council recognizes the c,pportunity for serVice coordination by the GTSB but expresses it's opposition to the GTSB becoming another level of government; and That Council endorse Attacl~ment No. 1 to Report to Council CAO 16-00 as the City of Pickering's comments on Deloitte Consulting's Phase I Report; save and except where it may be interpreted to support the creation (ff another level of government; and 4. That Report to Council CAO 16-00, including Attachment No. 1, be forwarded to Report to Council CAO 01-01 Subject: Deloitte Consulting Review of the GTSB, Final Report Date: March 8, 2001 Page 3 14: SUMMARY OF DELOITTE CONSULTING'S F1NAL REPORT The Greater Toronto Services Act requires the GTSB to report to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing on various issues, including the Board's size and composition, the number of votes for each Board member, the powers of the Board, and the municipalities to be included under the GTSB legislation. The GTSB hired Deloitte Consulting to undertake this Review. The scope of the Review included the principal activities of the GTSB, but did not include the operations of GO Transit. During the Review, a Phase 1 Report on the challenges facing the GTA was distributed for comment. Based on responses, it was generally acknowledged that the major challenges in the GTA are: · growth management; · transportation and transit; · environmental infrastructure (water, waste water treatment, etc.); · economic development and tourism; and · social issues (e.g., social services and housing). Growth management and transportation were seen as the highest priorities. The necessity for the GTA to have a united voice with both the provincial and federal governments was also placed high on the priority list. Some member municipalities expressed the view that the GTSB has not yet shown demonstrated results, has been too slow in starting initiatives, and has encountered numerous delays in its deCision-making. Others felt that the GTSB was experiencing normal start-up or "teething" problems of a new organization. This frustration indicates some of the weaknesses in the governance, operations and authority of the GTSB. If not addressed, these weaknesses could exacerbate the situation. Equally important, a concern was noted regarding the ability of the GTSB to ensure that its strategies and decisions will be implemented. Also, given the wide range of challenges in the GTA, there are beliefs that the GTSB should focus on two or three critical areas and not diffuse its efforts. While there appears to be a general consensus on the challenges facing the GTSB, there are diverse views on the ability of the GTSB and the existing GTA municipal arrangements to deal with these challenges. There are three different "Views" of the situation, each with a degree of support from member municipalities. The three Views are: View 1 There is no real demonstrated need for an organization like the GTSB. Instead, forums for coordination that pre-date the GTSB (such as the large urban mayors' caucus, the GT Transit Board and various working groups) could be relied upon to deal with specific issues as they arise. Or as an alternative, the GTSB as currently conceived could remain as a coordinatine body. with Derhat~s some modifications to imnrove the effectivene.q~ of Report to Council CAO 01-01 Subject: Deloitte Consulting Review of the GTSB, Final Report Date: March 8, 2001 Page 4 municipalities). Under this View, the GTSB should also focus on issues related to hard infrastructure coordination (water, waste water and sewers). Improvements and changes to the GTSB should be directed at improving the ability of the Board to act in these areas. View 3 This View characterizes the siituation differently from View 1 or 2. It takes the following perspective: · the GTA infrastructure is poor and deteriorating; · the GTA faces transportation gridlock; · there is a lack of understanding or acknowledgement about the integrated nature of the GTA; and · there is a problematic political dynamic of"area code politics," because those residing in different parts of the GTA become inclined to advocate their particular interests. Thus, the balance within the total GTA becomes difficult to achieve. In this third View, it is argued that municipalities need a mechanism to address these issues fast and in a coordinated manner. The implication is that the GTSB must have a broader mandate, an increasecl role, faster decision-making and increased authority to act. It is concluded that regardless of the View taken, there is not a great deal of support for disbanding the GTSB. However, the status quo should not prevail; there does appear to be a desire for some changes in the GTSB. · A number of changes are recornmended that are independent of the Board's mandate and that would not require structural adjustments to the GTSB. These are: · enshrine the duties of the Chair in legislation; · consider an Executive Committee, with authority commensurate with the GTSB mandate, nominated by the Chair; · broaden the participation on the Committees; · re-examine the use of alternates; · strengthen the dispute resolution process; · establish anMOU between the GO Transit Board and the GTSB; · clarify and define the terminology in the Act for greater certainty on the mandate of the GTSB; and · provide increased resources and staff to the GTSB to carry out its existing workload. However, it is also recognized lhat the GTSB has limited ability to facilitate change and ensure strategies are implemented. The current legislation requires that the GTSB generally act only in agreement with, and through the existing municipalities. COnsequently, for consideration, four potential options involving significant changes in the GTSB's authority are proposed. Report to Council CAO 01-01 Subject: Deloitte Consulting Review of the GTSB, Final Report Date: March 8, 2001 Page 5 143 OPTION 2 A Planning & Services Board that would have authority in both planning and services. This Board would be required to develop a growth management plan for the GTA, and would have a number of levers to ensure implementation of the Plan, including the ability to set out service levels, a role as the borrowing agent for all municipalities in the GTA, and the legislated mandate to become involved, if appropriate, in service delivery. The Planning & Services Board would not operate services. Rather, it would influence service delivery by establishing planning direction in the municipalities and by allocating any provincial or federal funding (which would flow through the GTSB) to projects, services or initiatives that are agreed priorities of the GTSB. OPTION 3 A GTA Council that is directly accountable to the public. Under this option, a directly elected upper tier government would be established covering the entire GTA. It would replace services currently delivered by existing tiers of government, and assume the authority and responsibility for planning, and the delivery of services of a GTA-wide nature. OPTION 4 A GTA Ministry of the Provincial Government, established to bring the authority, the funding resources, and the provincial government decision-making to the GTA. In this option, a Minister for the GTA, with a supporting Ministry, would be appointed to focus on and coordinate provincial government interests, policies and priorities for the GTA. The GTSB would disappear, and the existing GTA two-tier municipal structure could remain or change over time. Each of the Options has its particular advantages and complexity. They can be compared in terms of their ability to respond to the economic, social and environmental challenges facing the GTA, the relative operational characteristics of each and the degree of ease of implementation. Ability to Address GTA Challenges Capacity to address GTA-wide policy challenges Ability to achieve appropriate and workable solutions C, anae, itv tn make ancl 0 ® · 0 · ® 144 Report to Council CAO 01-01 Subject: Deloitte Consulting Review of the GTSB, Final Report Date: March 8, 2001 Page 6 Each option would also be different in its ability to be efficient and act in a timely manner, to be accessible, transparent and open to the GTA public, and to identify GTA-wide interests by understanding the diverse needs and context of the GTA. Operational Relative Comparison Efficiency Low ~ A D C B ..--~ High Local Accessibility and Accountability Low ~ D A B C '--~ High Balance Needs and Interests Low ~-- A B D C .--..~ High Key: A: Planning Authority B: Planning & Services Board C: GTA Council D: GTA Ministry of Provincial Government Implementation is also an important consideration because it takes into account such factors as the speed with which the option can be put into place; the disruption that could be caused; the simplicity in the transition; and the potential distraction or loss of focus from other priority items. To a great extent, a trade-off has to be made between the implementation issues and the potential benefits of each Option. Implementation Comparison Timelines for Results Avoidance of Disruption · ® © ® Simplicity · ® © ® Maintenance of Focus · ® 0 · Legend: · high / favorable ® average O low / unfavorable The recommendations with respect to section 33.1 of the GTSB Ac:t, which requires that four topics be addressed (size and composition of the Board, number of votes, powers, and municipalities to be included) are as follows: · The Board size and composition remain unchanged; it would only be changed if the GTA Council or GTA Ministry option were acted upon. · The. nnmhar r~fvote,~ re. main~ nne. han~ad igna ~truetural c. han~e, oe. anr~ Arraln Report to Council CAO 01-01 Subject: Deloitte Consulting Review of the GTSB, Final Report Date: March 8, 2001 Page 7 145 In summary, addressing the GTA challenges and the role of the GTSB will be an evolutionary process. The current GTSB has been in existence for only two years. The next steps and the decisions of the Board and the Minister will become part of the evolution. STAFF COMMENTS In its Final Report, Deloitte Consulting identified four possible options for the GTSB (Planning Authority, Planning & Services Board, GTA Council, and Provincial' Ministry), but did not recommend a preferred option. Instead, Deloitte suggested that Board members consider these options in light of their "view" of the GTSB. To assist in the discussion of options, Deloitte provided three main categories against which the desirabilitY of the four options could be compared: · The ability of each option to address the GTA challenges; · The relative strengths of the operational characteristics inherent in each option; and · The degree of difficulty and complexity in implementing the option. If it is assumed that each criteria is considered equally important (i.e. that they are all given the same weight), using the results of Deloitte's evaluation, under each category the four options would be ranked as follows: GTA Plan. & Serv. Board, Planning Challenges GTA Council, Authority Provincial Ministry (tied) Operational GTA Council Planning & Provincial Planning Characteristics Services Board Ministry Authority Ease of Planning Authority Provincial Planning & GTA Council Implementation Ministry Services Board Establishing a 'GTA Council' would be inconsistent with Pickering Council's previous position (or "view") on the GTSB. Council has clearly stated on more than one occasion that it is not in favour of the GTA becoming another level of government. As well, in previous discussions on the issue, the City has not embraced the idea of having the Province play a stronger role in planning and infrastructure decisions in the GTA. This would suggest that the creation of a 'Provincial Ministry' would also not be a preferred option for the City. Concerning the establishment of a 'Planning & Services Board' the City has not expressed a strong interest to date in having the GTSB assume increased responsibility for service delivery. It would therefore not appear to be avvrovriate to r)ursue this or)tion at this early ~ta~e in the 146 Report to Council CAO 01-01 Subject: Deloitte Consulting Review of the GTSB, Final Repo~ Date: March 8, 2001 Page 8 GTA growth, land use pattems, transportation networks and related development. These policies and guidelines would inform local and regional official plans. Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Thomas E. Mely(rnuk/ k,,,,. Division Head, Corl/orate Projects"&-~.~. TM: Tho~nas J. Quinn (j Chief Administrative Officer Attachment Copy: All Directors Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tl~6"~a~ J//t~ui~Chief A~inistrativ~ ~ffi~r la. 7 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By-law at DCC//106 & #93, 1880 & 1890 Valley Farm Road and 1822 Whites Road, in Pickering. REPORT TO CO'UNCIL FROM: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk DATE: March 20, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: CL 13/01 SUBJECT: Appointments to enforce the Parking By-law at DCC ~i!106 & #93, 1880 & 1890 Valley Farm Road and 1822 Whites Road, in Picketing RECOMMENDATION: That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By-law at DCC #106 & #93, 1880 & 1890 Valley Farm Road and 1822 Whites Road, be forwarded to Council for approval. ORIGIN: Letters from Intertec Security & Investigation Ltd. dated March 13, 212101 and Burns Internatiomal Security Services dated March 19, 2001. AUTHORITY: Section 15(I) of the Police Services Act. R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND: Correspondence has been received from Imertec Security & Investigation Ltd. requesting the appointment of three persons as By-law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at DCC #106 & 93, 1880 & 1890 Valley Faxm Road and from Bums International Security Services for one person to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 White's Road. ATT A t'-~U]~ .4~[;'XlT~ · Report to Council CL 13/01 Subject: Appointmem of By-law Enforcement Officers Date: March 20, 2001 Page 2 14,0 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Debbie Kearns BT:dk Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council · Uniformed Security · Mobile Patrol Services · Alarm Response Team · Security and Investigation Consultants · Executive Protection · Electronic Debugging · U.L.C. Approved Monitored Alarm Systems* · I.I.L.C. Approved Monitoring Station* · C.C.T.V. and Card Access Systems · General Investigation * lntertec Alarms Inc. 100% subsidiary 939 Eglinton Ave. East Suite 119 Toronto, Ontario M4G 4E8 Tel: (416) 424-2002 Fax (416) 424-4695 INTERTEC SECURITY &., INVESTIGATION LIMITED Tuesday, March t 3,200 ! The City Of Pickering I The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario LIV 6K7 Attention: Debbie Kerns Clerk:; Division Dear Ms. Kerns, I would like to add the officers listed below to our listing 0fofficers for Bylaw Enforcement at Discovery Place Condominiums. The information you will need is as follows: Additional Officers to be listed as Tagging Officers: 1. Victor Collaku 2, Jarek Tabaczewski 3. Sajjad Khawaja Mobile Patrol Officer Mobile Patrol Officer Mobile Patrol Officer Site Information: Discovery Place DCC #106 and #93 1880 and 1890 Valley Farm Road Pickering, Ontario L1V 6B3 Mrs. Frances Pozer, Property Manager Menkes Property Management (905) 837-9251 I hope this information is sufficient and look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Debra LaRush Account Executive I'~AR-19--01 Fdl :58 Pt'~ ~:l_~Rtq.'-D *~E'DURITY 9~B55?lF_*~61~ P. 0 [ ~TO REPORT #~--~1 1,51 Burns Security International Services Dear sir/madam Altn By-law Please add our security officer Mark Kleinczmit to the by-law enforcernenl list for the Amberlea Plaza at 1822 Whites Rd, Picketing Ont. Best regards William Hanna March 19, 2001 152 I ATTACHMENT THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING · TO REPORT# , /ot BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain purposes (Parking Regulation DCC #106 & #93, 1880 & 1890 Valley Farm Road and 1822 Whites Road) WHEREAS pursuant to section 15.(I) of the Police Services Act.,. R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the municipality and WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(2) of the said Act, municipal by-la:~v enforcement officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The following officers be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement officers in and for the City of Picketing in order to ascertain whether the provisions of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law and is hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands municipally known as: Durham Condominium Corporation #106 &//93, 1880 & 1890 Valley Farm Road: Victor Collaku Janet Tabaczewski Sajjad Khawaja b) 1822 Whites Road: Mark Kleinczmit The authority granted in section 1 hereto is specifically limited to that set out in section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authority set out in section 1. These appointmems shall expire upon the persons listed in Section l(a) ceasing to be employees of Intertec Security & Investigation Limited or upon Intertec Security & Investigation Limited ceasing to be an agent of DCC #106 & #93, 1880 & 1890 Valley Farm Road, in section l(b). ceasing to be an employee of Bums International Security Services or upon Bums International Security Services ceasing to be an agent of Amberlea Plaza, 1822 Whites Road, or upon whichever shall occur first. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 2nd day of April, 2001. 153 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Clerk's Report CL 14-01 regarding appointmems to the Joint Police/Council/Community Liaison Committee be received; and That Councillors and be appointed to the Joint Police/Council/Community Liaison Committee for a term to expire on November 30, 2003. REPORT TO COUNCIL FROM: Brace Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk DATE: March 21, 2001 REPOKT NUMBER: CL 14-01 SUBJECT: Appointments to Joim iPolice/Council/Community Liaison Committee RECOMMENDATION: 1. That Clerk's Report CL 14-01 regarding appointments Police/Council/Community Liaison Committee be received; and to the Joint That Councillors Police/Council/Community Liaison 2003. and 'be appointed to the Joint Committee for a term to expire on November 30, ORIGIN: Letter from Durham Regional Police Service dated February 26, 2001 AUTHORITY: Section 201.1(1) of the Municipal Ac~t FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Not Applicable EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: To appoim two Members of Council 'to the Joim Police/Council/Community Liaison Committee BACKGROUND: Report to Council CL 14-01 Date: Subject: Appointments to Joint Police/Council/Community Liaison Committee March 21,2001 Page 2 155 ATTACHMENTS: Letter fi.om Durham Regional Police Service Attachments Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Th~as j.'~uinn,~~-----~ Chief Administrative Officer ^TTACHMENT # J TO REPORT# " Durham Regional Police Service * K. McAIpine - Chief of Police · D. Denton - Deputy Chief- Administratlon · J. Adams - Deputy Chief - Operations Thomas J Quinn R.D.M.1L, C.M.M. C.A.O. City Of Picketing, Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 OAO RECEIVED'I MAR .,, ~ ~-"~-~¢~v"rn. jFILE F4!o.= i m ~.~;' '"" ' ~ i' FWDI(~OP:~'/CI.E{CUL_AT,-TO: ~ >-, .... ....., ., ¥ '-:.-5-:-=,-~,..~- 't . . . '~, · - q-,-,-,-,-,-,-,-~f_. ............................ ' "- '~ : ~, '-; .,,, ,% j .... ,.,.!,. ........ ; ..... .: ' ~.. . . .... ... '-. '..:. ':" '"' , '~- *i " :. .... ; ' ".:," .! : :."':'". .... ~ . ,... %..~, · ',,.< : . -, I am requesting that you have council' or the Mayor propose that two colmcilors partidpate in our joint police/council/cgmmunity .h.'aison comttee, The committee met a number of time in the year. ;2000 and discussed community problems and policing response. I would like to continue this committee as it was productive and created good working partnerships between the'police, commun, ity, and the councils of both Picketing and Ajax. The members from the City of Picketing that participated last year were Councilors Pickles and Ryan. Would you please advise as to continuation in this committee and your representative. I would like to set up a meeting to discuss local issues and problem solving especially for the coming summer. I will be sending a request to Ajax Council seeking their continued involvement. Sincerely Inspector J Morrison O.I.C/] 19 Division 77 Centre St. North, Oshawa, Ont. L1G 4B7 Oshawa (905J 579-1520 Toronlo j905) 683-9100 oRP a2a REV oem? Toll Free (905 - 705J 1-888-579-1520 Web Site www.polk:e.durham.on.ca Fax (905) 433-5053 157 RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That Mayor Arthurs be authorized to make the following proclamation: "National Emergency Preparedness Week" - May 7-13, 2001 1'58 Ministry of the R , MI 'el ~ '- - - - ' / r Office of ~e ~BEy TO' / ' Bu eau au Minister i L ~=L'~ , · [ ~ F~ ~D/COPY'ro: -- 11~ Flor [c~;[ 11 ~t~g~E ' '1 Toronto ON M7A I~GA~ Torontd~~6 I c~ ~7~J,~ .... .T "-"~T ;~ ~ ~,~ / , ~ORP. PROM,~,L , '. · · ~:~ , ' + '3, DEV. O~Fh. March 7, 20( T' ...... Dear Head of Council: National Emergency Preparedness Week'is held each year in the first week of May and runs this year from May 7-13, 2001. I would like to invite your cC.mmunity to participate in this important event. During Emergency'preparedness 'Week, many communities in viirtuaily every province and territory will be participating in activities aimed at increasing awareness of emergency management. The slogan for Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 is: "Reducing the Risk...Toward Safer Communities in the 21st Century." This theme, builds on last year's theme "Together We Prepare: The Family, The Community". As part of the promotion for Emergency Preparedness Week,. a Natural Hazards Map for Canada has been prepared and enclosed for your information. The 1998 Eastern Ontario ice storm taught us that communities' and individuals need to plan for emergencies and know how best to respond to protect both health and property. Being- prepared means acknowledging that events can happen at the most unexpected times, and the best response is a prepared response. The Ministry of the Solicitor General will be marking Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 'by applauding those communities that have successfully reached one of the three achievement levels of emergency management in the Partnerships Toward Safer Communities Program. This program is an initiative designed to improve public safety in Ontario. It promotes joint community/industry mitigation (prevention), preparedness, response and recovery at the community level to deal with emergency situations involving hazardous products. Certificates of Achievement will be presented to those communities for successful implementation of one of the achievement levels. To make Emergency Preparedness Week a success in your Cornmunity, it is important to involve some key groups. The support of local first responders, such as fire, police and ambulance, as well as schooils and the local media, is-important. For example, encouraging partnerships between private businesses and community groups is another way of getting the Emergency Preparedness Week message out. Establishing community working groups or Emergency Preparedness Week committees that include representatives from these 'areas will facilitate the planning and implementation of activities. .../2 Head of council page tw° Emergency Preparedness Week is now a few months away and planning for this event must begin. The activities to be undert~Ebn in your community need not be time or labour intensive. Choose events that you believe will best promote the week according to the resources available. You need not undertake all the activities we have listed to have a successful Emergency Preparedness Week. if you have other ideas about promoting preparedness activities, by ali means, try them out! To assist in the launch of Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 in your community, a resource kit has been assembled. It includes: · Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 backgrounder; · Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 poster, . National Hazards Map; · A sample news release; · A Set of brochures, including.Be Prepared Not Scared and other, self-help advice information, and order form.to request,copies;, and · .Web addresses.,where..you.can, access: ...... · Backgrounders on emergency management in Ontario at www.solicitor.qenerai.ms.q:.qov.on.caten.qlishlpubliclem°:html; and · A nation-wide link to National Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 events at .-- www.emergencypreparednessweek.ca. Emergency management is'everyone's responsibility;' I believe that if communities ..... participate in some of the suggested Emergency PreParedness Week'activities, the overall level of emergency management will be increased from coast-to-coast. I do hope that your community will participate in Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 and that it proves to be a successful and productive experience! ~erely, ~ David Turnbull ~ Solicitor General Enclosures "160 Backgrounder FIc ,' . · ' he d nformat on · Ontano Ministry of the Miriist~re du · . . Solicitor Genera/ - $olliciteur g6n~ral s,s Week is ~E_rn_.erge. n. ey Preparedness Wee ~"~ ~ all provinces and territories will be participating in act/v/t/es aimed at increasing awareness ofemergeacy preparedness nationwide. ~..e slogan for Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 is: "Reducing the Risk... Toward Safer 21st Century-.. Communities in the To make Emergency Preparedness Week a success in your community, it is important to involve some key groups. The support of lOcal fire, police and ambulance, as well as schools, hospitals and local media, is important. Encouraging partnersMps, for example, 'between business and community groups, is another way of getting the Emergency Preparedness Week message ' out. Estab/ishing c°~nmunity.working groups, or Emergency Preparedness Week committees th~ include representatives from these areas, will facilJ[tate the planning and implementation of activities. Although Emergency 2~reparedness Week is a few months away, the activities in your egmmunities do not need to be time or labour intensive. · Choose events that you feel will best promote the week, according to the s~uei~UjeeeS available. You need not carry out a_ctiv~ties.listed h.ere to have essful Emergency ][Yeparedness Week If you have other ideas about promoting preparedness activities, by all means try them out! Emergency Measures Ontario 25 Gmsvenor Street, 19th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M7A 1Y6 Telephone: (416) 314-3723 Facsimile: (416) 3.14-3758 Toll Free: 1-877-314-3723 Emall: jus.g.psd.emo@jus.gov, on.ca Webslte: htlp://www, solicltorgenemLmsg.gov, on.ca/english/public/emo.hbrrd http://www's°licit°rgeneral'msg'g°v.on-ca/french/fpublic/muo.hl~nl As the Head of Local Make a Community Proclamation Sham Information on Your Local Community Emergency Plan Profile your EmergenCy Measures Organization and Mutual Assistance Arrangements Promote the "Partnerships Toward Safer Communities Program" Council, we encourage ;you to: ~' Proclzim Emergency Preparedness W~k at a local council meeting. 1~ Ask families to look at ways to reduce risks in homes. )~ Sha~e backgrounders with local mectia and invite them to cover gmergeacy Preparedaess Week 2001 eveats: ~ Display Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 posters in high trat~c areas, such as h'braries, commtmity centres, community offices, ho~itals, health clinics, etc. )~ Inform the community about your local Emergency Plan: ~ its preparation and status; and )~ where it can be reviewed by the public.: )~ Outline the i-yPes of emergencies, both natural and human- caused, that pose risks to the community. ~ Highlight the efforts of your emergency measures organization. and how it is ready to respond. )- Describe community exercises that are used to e~;aluate the community emergency plan. )~ Describe past emergencies and measures taken by the comm~mity/emergency measures organization to prevent or minimize the impact ora recurrence. )~ ' Highlight mutual assistance arrangements with neighbouring communities and the benefits that these bring to the community. ~' Establish a local Coordinating Committee. for Joint Communityflndustry Emergency Management, and descn'be the arrangements your commtmity has to deal with hazardous facilities, ~ P, ecoE'ni?e industry and emergency measures officials in achieving the goals of the Prol~'am. .. 161 For mom information, please contact the Emergency Measures Office nearest you, or the Emergency Management Information Coordinator, at (416) 314-8623. EMO Head Office: Emergency Measures Ontario Greater Toronto Area Office 25 Grosvenor Street 19~ Floor Toronto ON M7A 1Y6 (416) 314-3723 Fax (416) 314-3758 Emergency Measures Ontario Northwestem Area Office 640 Mountdale Avenue Thunder Bay ON P7E 6G8 (807) 473-3191 Fax (807) 473-3199 EMO Area Offices: Emergency Measures Ontario Southwestern Area Office 80 Dundas Street Unit L, Suite 1-068 London, ON N6A 6A8 1519) 679-7055 Fax (519) 675-7691 Emergency Measures Ontario Central Area Office 25 Grosvenor Street 19a Floor Toronto ON M7A 1Y6 (416) 314-3723 Fax (416) 314-3758 Ce document est aussi disponible en fran~ais. Emergency Measures Ontario Northeastern Area Office 3767 Highway 69 South, SudburyON P3G 1E4 (705) 564-4474 Fax (705) 564-4555 Emergency Measures Ontario Southeastem Area Office 260 Fenerty Court, Unit 1 Kanata, ON K2L 3A7 (613) 286-3369 2 Backgrounder - Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 162 :~:.. %': ;.':::~..::/:.: .~:~:.':~ "~:,'~,~"' ::':~':'. ::. ~.~:::~ : ? ::~ ~.: ~..'~~: ~. ,:~.' ~~I~~ . .... , ,...... .~ ,.~'...:~.~'~,~:.:~,::::;~:"., '::..: . ;-:: ::.-. ... . : .-: ~ ..'~}}.~, ~*~ :~.~ Pear visioanef Ia cade ou pour obteair arm copie grah~ile, veailiez Protection ci'ale Canada T~il~phone: 1-880-830-3118 1'~ eank St, 2e ~tage T~[~opieur: (613) 998-95~ Ottaw;~ O~ t(1A OW6' Courdel: communicatJons~c.ccc.gc.c~ Ir~emet: ~¢e~.epc-pcc. gc. ca 163 Sample Local Government News Release FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Sample Headline: (HEAD OF COUNCIL/MAYOR) PROCLAIMS EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WEEK IN (LOCAL COMMUNITY) LOCAL COMMUNITY, Ontario, May 7, 2001 - The week of May 7 -13 marks National Emergency Preparedness Week 2001 and its theme "Reducing the Risk...Toward Safer Communities in the 21~t Century". During Emergency Preparedness Week, Canadians across the country will identify and learn about risks in their communities. Knowing the potential risks you face, planning ahead and being prepared are the best steps to en~ufing that you and your family survive an emergency or disaster. Activities in our community to mark Emergency Preparedness Week 2000 include: Emergency management is everyone's responsibility· Be~n today to reduce the risk together for a safer tomorrow! - 30 - For more information contact: Local Mayor Emergency Measures Officer and/or Communications Officer 165 CONFIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Confidential Report to Council CL 12-01 regarding a request for a grant from the West Pickering Community Garden Committee be received; and That a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 be made to the West Pickering Community Garden Committee; and 2. That this grant be charged to Account 2195 (Grants to Organizations & Individuals). That the Clerk be directed to inform the West Pickering Community Garden Committee that their request dated March 7, 2001 for a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 was denied. 184 Report to Council CAO 02-01 Subject: Disposition of Rouge Hill'Library Branch Property Date: March 12, 2001 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Rouge Hill Library branch is soon to be replaced by the new Petticoat Creek Library and Community Centre, and was recently closed due to the poor condition of the building. With the closing of the branch, it is now appropriate to initiate procedures to sell the property. Under Council Resolution No. 183/99 the property must be sold to offset some of the costs of the new Petticoat Creek facility. This report seeks Council direction for Staff to corr~mence the process of formally declaring the site surplus to the City's needs, and to sell the property. Council direction is also requested as to whether or not the City should demolish the existing 'A-frame' building on the property, prior to sale. Two opinions of value obtained by the City both indicate that the property will bring a higher financial return if the existing building is retained. However, retention of the building may not serve to implement the City's urban design objectives and may delay initiatives for comprehensive redevelopment of the broader area. BACKGROUND: The Rouge Hill Library. is located on the west side of Rougemount Drive, 'between Highway 401 and Kingston Road. The property comprises an area of approximately 0.2'S hectares (0.69 acres) with approximately 41 metres frontage on Rougemount Drive. The site contains an 'A-frame' one-storey structure with basement of approximately 200 square metres., together with a one- storey office structure of approximately 150 square metres. The building is in poor condition and was closed to the public on January 16, 2001. A location map of 'the City property and surrounding lands is attached. In October, 1997 the City undertook a zoning review of lands in the southwest sector of Rougemount Drive and Kingston Road. On May 4, 1998, Council passed zoning by-law 5299/98 which rezoned these lands to 'MU-9', being a mixed use zoning that reflects the broader land use and urban design objectives of the Picketing Official Plan. The new zoning by-law permits a range of residential uses, business and professional offices, community uses, and retail commercial uses such as retail stores, personal service shops, financial institutions, commercial schools, and restaurants. It was intended that this new zoning would serve to attract redevelopment interests for the broader area, including lands owned by the City, Bell Canada and De La Torre. Sale of Rouge Hill Library Branch Property City Council, in April, 2000 approved the construction of a neW western library branch in the East Woodlands Park 'adjacent to the Petticoat Creek, as a component of a larger facility comprising both a library and a community centre. The Petticoat Creek Library and Community Centre is currently nearing completion and will replace the recently closed Rouge Hill Librm'y T. · .......... ,,,,,-;~te m commence l~roceedings to sell the Rouge Hill branch property. 185 CONFIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDEDBY That the Confidential Report to Council CL 12-01 regarding a request for a grant fi.om the West Pickering Community Garden Committee be received; and That a grant in the amoum of $1,000.00 be made to the West Pickering Community Garden Committee; and 2. That this grant be charged to Account 2195 (Grants to Organizations & Individuals). That the Clerk be directed to inform the West Pickering Community Garden Committee that their request dated March 7, 2001 for a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 was denied. 184 Report to Council CAO 02-01 Subject: Disposition of Rouge Hill Library Branch Property Date: March 12, 2001 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Rouge Hill Library branch is soon to be replaced by the new Petticoat Creek Library and Community Centre, and was recently closed due to the poor condition of the building. With the closing of the branch, it is now appropriate to initiate procedures to sell the property. Under Council Resolution No. 183/99 the property must be sold to offset some of the costs of the new Petticoat Creek facility. This report seeks Council direction for Staff to comrnence the process of formally declaring the site surplus to the City's needs, and to sell the property. Council direction is also requested as to whether or not the City should demolish the existing 'A-frame' building on the property, prior to sale. Two opinions of value obtained by the City both indicate that the property will bring a higher financial return if the existing building is retained. However, retention of the building may not serve to implement the City's urban design objectives and may delay initiatives for comprehensive redevelopment of the broader area. BACKGROUND: The Rouge Hill Library. is located on the west side of Rougemount Drive, be'tween Highway 401 and Kingston Road. The property comprises an area of approximately 0.28 hectares (0.69 acres) with approximately 41 metres frontage on Rougemount Drive. The site contains an 'A-frame' one-storey structure with basement of approximately 200 square metres, together with a one- storey office structure of approximately 150 square metres. The building is in poor condition and was closed to the public on January 16, 2001. A location map of the City property and surrounding lands is attached. In October, 1997 the City undertook a zoning review of lands in the :southwest sector of Rougemount Drive and Kingston Road. On May 4, 1998, Council passed zoning by-law 5299/98 which rezoned these lands to 'MU-9', being a mixed use zoning that reflects the broader land use and urban design objectives of the Pickering Official Plan. The new zoning by-law permits a range of residential uses, business and professional offices, community uses, and retail commercial uses such as retail stores, personal service shops, financial institutions, commercial schools, and restaurants. It was intended that this new zoning would serve to attract redevelopment interests for the broader area, including lands owned by the C, ity, Bell Canada and De La Torre. Sale of Rouge Hill Library Branch Property City Council, in April, 2000 approved the construction of a neW western library branch in the East Woodlands Park 'adjacent to the Petticoat Creek, as a component of a larger facility comprising both a library and a community centre. The Petticoat Creek Library and Community Centre is currently nearing completion and will replace the recently closed Rouge Hill Library Branch. It is now appropriate to commence proceedings to sell the Rouge Hill branch property. , __ ,_ .....,~,4,,o~,,~ ~,,r ~everal years, with revenue from the sale . CONFIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Confidential Report to Council CL 12-01 regarding a request for a grant from the West Picketing Community Garden Committee be received; and That a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 be made to the West Pickering Community Garden Committee; and 2. That this grant be charged to Account 2195 (Grants to Organizations & Individuals). That the Clerk be directed to inform the West Pickering Community Garden Committee that their request dated March 7, 2001 for a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 was denied. 166 CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO couNCIL FROM: Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM City Clerk DATE: March 9, 2001 REPORT N~dBER: CL 12-01 SUBJECT: Request for Grant from West Pickering Community Garden Committee RECOMMENDATION: That Confidential Report to Council CL 12-01 regarding a request for a grant from the West · Pickering Community Garden Committee be received; and 1. That a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 be made to the West Pickering Community Garden Committee 2. That this grant be charged to Account 2195 (Grants to Organizations & Individuals). --OR-- 1. That the Clerk be directed to inform the West Pickering Community Garden Committee that their request dated March 7, 2001 for a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 was denied. ORIGIN: Letter from the West Pickering Community Garden Committee dated March 7, 2001 AUTHORITY: Section 113(1) of the Municipal Act FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: If the request for a grant is approved, the 2001 Current Budget will provide a one-time allocation in the amount of $1,000.00 in Account 2195 (Grants to Organizations and Individuals). Report to Council CL 12-01 Date: March 9, 2001' Subject: Grant Request from West Picketing Community Garden Committee Page 2 167 BACKGROUND: Please find attached to this Report a request from the West Pickering Garden Committee dated March 7, 2001 for a grant in the amount of $1,000.00 to help offset expenditures totalling $6,157.00 in the Year 2001. Council passed the following resolution at its regular meeting of February 19, 2001: 1. That Council endorse Report OES 002-01 concerning Community Gardens; and 2. Staff facilitate the introduction of a community garden in the Petticoat Creek valley adjacent to East Woodlands Park. In Report OES 002-01, the Director, Operations & Emergency Services made particular note that "the City will incur no capital costs for this initiative and our role will be as a resource for information and facilitation of some implementation issues." In the detailed proposal submitted by the Garden Committee that was attached to Report OES 002-01, the City of Picketing is identified as a potential funding source but only as part of a "Millennium Project". ATTACHMENTS. 1. Letter from the West Picketing Community Garden Committee dated March 7, 2001 Attachments Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency Services Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thomas JQ~ A~lministrative~-,O,fficer 168 West Picketing Community Garden Committee 502-400 Kingston Rd. Picketing ON L 1V 6S 1 March 7,2001 Mr. Bruce Taylor, Clerk City of Picketing One The Esplanade Picketing ON L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Taylor: I am writing to request the City of Picketing approve our community garden project for a $1,000 grant. Last month the West Picketing Community Garden Committee received approval from the City for use of land near the new Western branch of the ]?ickering library, just west of Rosebank Rd. on Kingston Rd. Now we begin in earnest our efforts to make the garden a reality this spring. The Organic Community Garden will give first priority to gardeners who have no access to land to grow their own vegetables and herbs. There will be approximately 35 plots ranging in size from 4' x 6' to 4' x 30' (See enclosed Garden Layout - Appendix lIof Proposal). SOme plots will be used by school groups for teaching and at least one plot will.be, dedicated for donation to the Picketing Food Bank, but most will be used by individuals and families. There is a demonstrated need for this garden - a survey was done which showed many families and individuals living at nearby Rougemount HoUsing Co-op would participate. The project is sponsored by the Social Development Council of Ajax-Picketing and therefore has charitable status (donations are tax-deductible). Other groups who have shown supPort or a willingness to participate include: Picketing Horticultural SOciety; Canadian Organic Growers - Durham Chapter; Picketing Food Bank; The Youth Centre; and Picketing Ajax Citizens Together (PACT) for the Environment. Teachers at local schools are interested in bringing their students to the garden to learn about organic gardening. The community garden will meet these objectives: benefit the health of participants; to save money on food budgets; to improve the ellvironmellt by regaining a connection to t he land and the cycles of nature; building a sense of community due to many opportunities for interaction among gardeners and various community groups. We have a plan for accomplishing our objectives - see section. 7 of enclosed Proposal. As you can see from the enclosed Budget (Appendix V of Proposal) and Donor List we have received donations totaling over $500 from several funding sources. We will also charge a rental fee of $9 to $25 (depending on plot size) which will amount to about $200 to cover some of our Ongoing Costs. We are seeking donations from local businesses and organizations (See enclosed Donor List for groups approached) to cover the remaining items in our Budget (Composters, Fencing, Security, Tools, Water Management, etc.), which amounts to $4,746 (before taxes) in capital costs, and approximately $400 in annual (ongoing) costs. If the City of Pickering agrees to assist in the funding of our project it will receive a tax receipt for the value of the donation. The City of Picketing's name will be given prominence as a major supporter in our garden's on-site signage, future editions of our brochures (enclosed), prepared media releases and mentions in media, interviews. This community garden will be a pilot project that, if successful, will be repeated throughout Picketing and possibly Durham Region. We also plan to have a Grand Opening and a Supporters and Sponsors Recognition Day. If you can think of other ways we might provide recognition we are open to those ideas as well. For more details please consult the enclosed material or call me at (905) 509~5418. Please let me know at your earliest convenience if our request for a grant has been approved. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, k?John Doleweerd, Coordinator West Picketing Community Garden Committee (enclosures: newspaper clipping, brochure, Proposal including Layout, Budget and Donor List.) 170 THE WEST PICKERING COMMUNITY GARDEN BUDGET, *All numbers rounded to the nearest dollar C:APITAL EXPENDITURES: QTY ITEM Composters: COST_ Plastic 3 1 Vermicomposting bin Wooden Bin: Hardware cloth Screws TOTAL TOTAL COS____[T 48 '48 6 6 DONATIONS City Of Picketing Marg Gruener Volunteer-built from recycled wood Fencing: Braces, cedar (2x2) 50 Brackets, .metal 100 Cement, 30 kg 26 Posts, cedar (4x4x8') 52 Rails, cedar (6x8) 16 (6x10') 34 Gates Bracket 2 Hinges 4 Latches 2 Wood,Spruce 2x4x8' 4 1 x6x8' 8 Screws, galvanized Tubes 8"x8' 26 Labour TOTAL 2 100 0.5 50 5 130 20 1040 13 208 13 442 20 40 7 28 3 6 3 12 4 32 24 48 8 208 2 344 City of Picketing and Garden Committee Plot Setup Border Stakes 2x2x42" Plot Stakes 2x2x42" String 525 ft. Wood Chips TOTAL 1 15 15 I 34 34 4 6 24 73 City of Picketing and Skyline Tree Services Plants: Fruit Shrubs Plants Roses Seeds TOTAL 20 8 10 15 300 10 80 380 Pine Ridge Richters p. 1 of 4 Security: Keys Locks, waterproof Metal Chain Shed 4'x8' TOTAL 4ft 34 2 2 7 1 547 68 14 4 547 633 Tools: Cultivator 1 25 25 Digging Fork I 23 23 Hoe 1 28 28 Rake, Garden 2 14 28 Rake, Lawn 1 15 15 Pruners 1 17 17 Spade 6 12 72 Trowel, hand 6 5 30 U-bar I 119 119 Wheelbarrow 1 35 35 TOTAL 392 Water Management: Barrel Connectors 5 Hose 100 ff 1 Hose Hanger 1 Rain barrels 6 Watering Cans; 6 TOTAL 9 55 4 95 4 Insurance/Legal Liability Insurance 45 55 4 570 674 Miscellaneous Capital Costs Measuring spoons 1 3 3 Spray bottles 2 2 4 Dust masks 1 10 10 Safety glasses 2 5 10 Kneeling pads 5 4 20 First Aid Kit I 20 20 Garbage Pail 1 15 15 Row cover 3 18 54 Tomato cages 30 2 60 Sponsor signs Picnic table TOTAL 196 SUB TOTAL#1 4 746 Pine Ridge Nurseries City of Pickering Sponsors (hoped-for) Pickering residents p.2 of 4 171 172 ONGOING EXPENDITURES: ADMINISTRATION qTY. Envelopes Laminating Paper: computer Letterhead Photocopy lng Stamps 2000 100 TOTAL FIVE EVENT DAYS: Food for Volunteers (4 days) + One Sponsor Appreciation Day: Beverages Coke 5 Sprite 5 Water 20 Buns Hot dog 14 Sausage 10 Condiment Ketchup 2 Mustard 5 Relish 5 Meat Hot dog 9 Sausages 12 TOTAL General Supplies: Garbage bags 1 Gloves men's 5 women's 5 TOTAL ITEM COST TOTAL COST 2 4 11 11 5 5 8 8 Fertilizers and Conditioners: Bone Meal Blood Meal Buckwheat 1 Compost Epsom salts 1 Fish Fertilizers 10 Kelp 1 Manure TOTAL 0.5 50 78 8 40 8 40 3 60 2 28 2 20 4 8 2 10 1 5 3 27 3 36 274 15 15 4 2O 6 3O 65 45 45 40 40 3 3 9 9O 27 27 t60 DONATIONS City of Picketing Pine Ridge Nurseries Pine Ridge Nurseries Region of Durham, ,gardeners Brenner Farm p. 3of4 PEST CONTROL Cayenne pepper Garlic Ivory bar soap Irish Spring bars Masking tape Onions 5 lb, TOTAL SUB TOTAL#2 SUB TOTAL#1 GST PST GRAND TOTAL 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 6 3 6 4 2 31 608 4 746 5354 375 4,28 6 157 173 p. 4of4 174 City of Pickering Brenner Farm City of Picketing, Waste Management Lee Valley Tools Limited Marg Gruener, Rosebank Rd. Pine Ridge Garden Gallery Richters, the Herb specialists Rougemount Co-op Skyline Tree Services White Rose Picketing resident TOTAL TO DATE Donor List Use of land and support to start garden Manure 3 composters $ 50 gi~ certificate I composter $ 203.82 in items $102.04 in items Use of Meeting Room ~Wood Chips $ 200.00 gift cert. ipicnic table $ 556.64 The Youth Centre, Ajax Pickering Nurseries Tentative Donors Shed and Tools Sponsors Approached Canadian Tire, Picketing; Home Depot, Scarborough; Home Hardware, Picketing; Natural Insect Control, Stevensville;' Whittamore's Berry Farm, Markham; William Dam Seeds, Dundas. Grants Being Aoolied for Ontario Power Generation - Picketing Nuclear; Canada Trust Friends of the Environment Foundation; Durham Lives - Access to Healthy Foods Working Group; Enbridge Pipelines - Environmental Initiative Program; City of Picketing Grant. Proposal£ora WEST PICKERING COMMUNITY GARDEN 1) Project Description The West Picketing Community Garden Committee is planning to use a piece of land approximately 6,000 square feet for 30-35 garden plots to grow mostly vegetables and herbs organically. These plots will range in size from 4' x 9' to 4' x 30'. (See attached Appendix II: Layout for Community Garden for a preliminavj draft of the garden design.) As well, the Committee proposes that approximately six raised plots be created on the upper portion of the new Western library property for use by those gardeners who have difficulty working at ground level. This may include those in wheelchairs or with back ailments. 2) Purpose of Community. Gardens Community gardem offer people who have no access to land a chance to grow their own vegetables and herbs. Community gardens also provide an opportunity for people of all ages to learn about natural cycles, organic gardening techniques and more. Community gardens provide many ways for people to get to know each other and share things like tools, recipes and gardening tips. There are many other proven' health and environmental benefits of community gardening. Community gardens are a good way to build that ever-elusive feeling of belonging to a "community". 3) Sponsor The sponsoring agency is the Social Development Council of Ajax-Pickering, which has offered its charitable status to the project. This means that donors to the community garden will receive tax deductions for the value of their contributions. The Council will also offer any needed advice on writing proposals to obtain grant money. The Social Development Council recognizes the benefits of this project which they have stated in their letter of support: "Aside from complementing both the principles of our Childhood Nutrition Project, and the recommendations of our Community Wellness Survey, the establishment of an organic garden will not only provide healthy food but will also benefit the food bank, and the community generally by leading by example." 4) O _rganizafional Structure: The West Picketing Community Gard__en Comml~ec This Committee has been meeting monthly since November 1999: It is made up of members and Board members of Rougemount Housing Co-op, a member of Canadian Organic Growers - Durham Chapter, two members of Picketing Horticultural Society and a resident of the local community. Because the Priority group for this project is Apartment dwellers, the Committee has recognized the importance of involving them in decisions. Thc Committee is also aware of thc importance of involving as many stakeholders as possible and is recruiting more members from such groups as thc Picketing Horticultural Society, Picketing Food Bank, Picketing Naturalists, and Sarah McDonald's Place (a local apartment. 175 176 building), Picketing Ajax Citizens Together (PACT) for the Environment, and the Youth Centre. After the garden is established, this Committee will evolve into a Steering Committee to deal with arising issues in the operation and enhancement of the garden, such as garden maintenance. 5) How do we know this Initiative is Important to our Community? The Committee has received letters and expressions of support from the following community groups and leaders: Picketing Hortic~altural Society, Canad~ian Organic Growers - Durham Chapter, Ajax-Picketing Social Development Coum~, local and Regional Picketing CounciLlors. Residents of Rougemount Co-op - a local apartment building - have expressed interest in the community garden by participating in the planning committee and responding to a survey (see Appendix I: Survey Results). In similar projects elsewhere increasing numbers of potential gardeners began to express their interest after the garden was started because it was more visible to the community. 6) What are the Long-term Objectives the Committee is aiming for? · Children and adults will learn about organic gardening and the cycles of nature and (hopefully) learn that gardening is enjoyable. · Everyone will benefit from interacting with others which leads to a stronger community. · The health of participants will benefit from improved nutrition, increased physical activity and relief of stress (proven from recent studies of people-plant interactions). · Gardeners will save money on food budgets - over $100 is one estimate. · Members of participating local non-profit groups such as Picketing Horticultural Society, Canadian Organic Growers and the Picketing Food Bank will benefit and these groups will raise awareness about their activities. · Community gardens help sustain the environment because participants regain a connection to the land and nature which has largely been lost in our culture. This may lead participants to take further actions to protect the environment - reduce their waste, use their cars less, help protect sensitive local areas, etc. · Community gardens will improve the City of Pickering's image on environmental matters. Gardens are an ideal way to put into practice the first principle of Pickering's 1997 Official Plan - "To meet people's needs while ensuring environmentally appropriate actions". This garden in the Rougemount neighbourhood can serve as a pilot project that could be even more successful in other higher-density neighbourhoods. 7) What are the Steps the Committee will take to achieve our Objectives? i) Gain Picketing Council's approval for use of the site at the new Western Branch Library location - aeht'eredFebntary2001. 177 Establish subcommittees and recruit members to join the following: Site Committee; Fundraising Committee; Education/Public Relations Committee; Newsletter Committee; and Social Committee. Plan in detail the activities of each subcommittee, using Laura Berman's How does O~r Garden Grow: A Guide to CommuniE¢ Garden Success as a guide. At this time we will start a process to decide on a Volunteer Coordinator for the garden. The Committee will execute a campaign to solicit donations of money, equipment and gardening supplies from foundations, service clubs, garden centres, building centres and other sources. (See Appendix IV; Method for Obtaining Garden Equipment and Supplies.) Assistance will be sought from the media to gain support for this campaign. A "Name the Garden" Contest will raise awareness. iv) We -will till or plough the garden and apply compost or other amendments as needed. The site will be prepared with a fence and gate, composters, and rain barrels or other water source. v) Gardeners will be recruited and asked to sign agreements (guidelines for maintenance, security, etc. - see Appendix III: Gardener's Agreement.). Payment will be from $ 9 to $25 per plot, depending on plot size. Gardeners will be encouraged to plant extra food for people they know or to give some produce to the Picketing Food Bank. At least one plot will be dedicated to the Food Bank. vi) Workshops will be planned to teach organic gardening methods. These will be held at appropriate times: late winter (planning); early spring (planting and maintaining); fall (harvesting and seed-saving). vii) GARDENING BEGINS! 8) Who will be permitted to use the Garden plots? Apartment dwellers (the priority group) will be given first opportunity to use plots. Community groups will be next (one plot each), followed by homeowners. The process will be first-come, first-served, and a list of application dates (waiting lis0 will be maintained. If there is no waiting list, extra plots will be offered to current gardeners who have expressed a preference for more than one plot. 9) HOW will' we Evaluate ~o~ess towards our Objectives? A Garden is a very visible project. Gardeners and all visitors will be encouraged to offer suggestions and report problems as soon as possible to the Coordinator, who will act as the main contact person for any concerns. The Coordinator will liaise with the Steering Committee. Experts in organic gardening will inspect the garden regularly and be available for advice when problems arise (such as diseases, pests, and weeds). A Comment book will provide feedback from gardeners and other visitors. Steering Committee members will consult with the Toronto Community Garden Network and Coordinator of a Scarborough garden to prevent problems. Aooendix I: Survey Results Appendix II: Layout for Community Garden Appendix Ill: GardenePs A~eement (Sample) Ap_L)endi~r P4': Method for Obtaining Garden Equipment and Supplies Appendig V: The West Picketing Community Garden Budget and Donor List APpendix I; Survey Results Twenty-one residents of Rougemount Co-op were surveyed in 1998. (If the numbers do not always total 21, it is because some did not give a clear answer to a particular question.) When asked if they were interested in being a community gardener, four said "very", 10 "somewhat", five expressed interest but needed more information, and two were not. Most respondents said they were willing to invest at least two hours per week to maintain their plot. Sixteen out of twenty-one were willing to share a plot with others, three wanted their own plot and two were unsure. In regards to the location of the garden, two of those surveyed stated distance was not an issue, three said it could be up to fifteen minutes' walk away, six said it should be no more than 10 minutes' walk, and five stated that it should be no further than a five minute walk away. When surveyed on willingness to pay, four said they would each pay as much as $40 for a season of gardening, four said no more than $30, six would be willing to pay as much as $20 per year, while five said they would pay up to $10 each. Some of this last g~roup were basing their figures on the fact that they wanted to share their plot. Most of those surveyed were willing to help others in various ways, including teaching organic methods of gardening, assisting with child care or in fundraising. Other potential features of the community garden that respondents stated were important to them were: ensuring garden was ~cttre (eg. fencing and locks) - all respondents; tool~ available on site - most respondents; raised beds for those (such as physically disabled) who required them - most respondents; transportation to the site would be needed for one-third of those surveyed if the garden was not within walking distance. / _/ 179 180 Appendix III: Gardener's Agreement (draft) * I will use only ORGANIC fertilizers, insecticides and weed repellents and ensure that my use of them does not affect other plots. · I will make every effor~ to pay a fee of $ to help cover garden expenses. I understand that 25% of this will be refunded to me for each of two work days (Spring and Fall) that I participate in. (No person(s) will be denied access to a community garden plot because of inability to pay.) · I will have something planted in the garden by ( date__) and keep it planted all summer long. · If I must abandon my plot for any reason, I will notify the Garden Coordinator or a member of the garden commit~e. · I will keep weeds down and maintain the areas immedia~ly SmTom~ding my plot. · If my plot becomes unkempt, I understand that I will be given two week's notice to clean it up. After that time, it will be reassigned or tilled in.' · I will keep trash and litter cleaned from the plot, as well as from adjacent pathways and fences. · I will plant tall crops only where they do not shade neighbouring plo~s. · I will pick only my own crops unless given permission by the plot user. · If a problem arises that I cannot solve, I will inform the Garden Coordinator and work with him/her towards a solution. · I will not bring pets to the garden. · I understand that neither the garden group nor the owners of the land are responsible for my actions. I THEREFORE'AGREE TO HOLD HARMLESS THE GARDEN COMMITTEE AND OWNERS OF THE LAND FOR ANY LIABILITY; LOSS OR CLAIM THAT OCCURS IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OF TI-tE GARDEN BY ME OR ANY OF MY GUESTS.. I have read, understood and agree to abide with the above. signature and date Appendix If; Method for O~ainin~ Garden F4u_ !pment and Su_o_olie~ 1 ~ l It is the intention of the West Picketing Community Garden Committee to first "scrounge" for free items on the following list and the Budget. For example we will approach a hardware store to donate items in exchange for free publidty on our brochures, newspaper articles, etc. If a free source cannot be found we will raise money from various sources to purchase the items. To enhance the "community" aspect of the project we will first approach local suppliers for donations. It is also hoped many items will be made by volunteers from scrounged materials. These may include: trellises, composters and picnic tables which may be built from donated wood; rain barrels which may be scrounged from brew-your-own outlets; borrowing a roto-filler from a friendly neighbour, etc. We will also work with other local community garden organizers and the Toronto Community Garden Network to find sources of free materials and sUpplies. Potential Funding Sources: Service Clubs; Environmental Foundations (eg. Canada Trust 'Friends of the Earth'); City of Pickering (eg. Millenium Project); In-kind donations from Local Businesses; Ontario Power Generation - Pickering Nuclear, other foundations. Items/Services to be supplied by Gardeners or Committee members Seeds and Plants Spray bottles Pails Hand Trowels Cloches (plastic jugs) Expertise for Workshops Watering Cam Seedling trays & peat pots Insecticidal Soaps & Sprays Trellises (For Budget see the £ollowing 4 p~ges) CONFIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY o That Council authorize staffto bring forward appropriate reports and by-laws, in accordance with City policies and procedures, to declare the Rouge Hill Library site lands as surplus to the City's needs and to sell the property. That Council approve the demolition of the existing building (either prior to, or as a condition of sale of the property), for reasons of urban design and an incentive to redevelopment. b) That Council approve the sale of the property based on the best offer received, either with or without the building. a) That staff obtain an up-to-date survey of the property at an estimated cost of $1,000 - $1,500, to be financed from the proceeds of the sale of the property. b) That staff obtain a professional appraisal of the property at an estimated cost of $2,500, to be financed from the proceeds of the sale of the property. ! PICKERING CONFIDENTIAL REPORT TO COUNCIL 183 FROM: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer DATE: March 12, 2001 REPORT NUMBER: CAO 02-01 SUBJECT: Disposition of Rouge Hill Library Branch Property 1340 Rougemount Drive Part Lots 1 & 2, Plan 350 City of Pickering RECOMMENDATION: That Council authorize Staff to bring forward appropriate reports and by-laws, in accordance with City policies and procedures, to declare the Rouge Hill Library site lands as surplus to the City's needs and to sell the property. 2. a) That Council approve the demolition of the existing building (either prior to, or as a condition of sale of the property), for reasons Of urban design and an incentive to redevelopment, oR b) That Council approve the sale of the property based on the best offer received, either with or without the building. 3. a) That Staff obtain an up-to-date survey of the property at an estimated cost of $1,000 - $1,500, to be financed from the proceeds of the sale of the property. b) That Staff obtain a professional appraisal of the property at an estimated cost of $2,500, to be financed frOm the proceeds of the sale of the property. ORIGIN: Closing of Rouge Hill Library Branch. AUTHORITY: N/A FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 184 Report to Council CAO 02-01 Subject: Disposition of Rouge Hill Library Branch Property Date: March 12, 2001 Page 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Rouge Hill Library branch is soon to be replaced by the new Petticoat 'Creek Library and Community Centre, and was recently closed due to the poor condition of the building. With the closing of the branch, it is now appropriate to initiate procedures to sell the property. Under Council Resolution No. 183/99 the property must be sold to offset some of th.e costs of the new Petticoat Creek facility. This report seeks Council direction for Staff to commence the process of formally declaring the site surplus to the City's needs, and to sell the property. Council direction is also requested as to whether or not the City should demolish the existing 'A-frame' building on the property, prior to sale. Two opinions of value obtained by the City both indicate that the property will bring a higher financial return if the existing building is retained. However, retention of the building may not serve to implement the City's urban design objectives and may delay initiatives for comprehensive redevelopment of the broader area. BACKGROUND: The Rouge Hill Library. is located on the west side of Rougemount Drive, betxveen Highway 401 and Kingston Road. The property comprises an area of approximately 0.28 hectares (0.69 acres) with approximately 41 metres frontage on Rougemount Drive. The site contains an 'A-frame' one-storey structure with basement of approximately 200 square metres, together with a one- storey office structure of approximately 150 square metres. The building is in poor condition and was closed to the public on January 16, 2001. A location map of the ,City property and surrounding lands is attached. In October, 1997 the City undertook a zoning review of lands in the southwest sector of Rougemount Drive and Kingston Road. On iMay 4, 1998, Council passed zoning by-law 5299/98 which rezoned these lands to 'MU-9', being a mixed use zoning that reflects the broader land use and urban design objectives of the Pickering Official Plan. The new zoning by-law permits a range of residential uses, business and professional offices, community uses, and retail commercial uses such as retail stores, personal service shops, financial institutions, commercial schools, and restaurants. It was intended that this new zoning would serve to attract redevelopment interests for the broader area, including lands owned by the City, Bell Canada and De La Torre. Sale of Rouge Hill Library Branch Property City Council, in April, 2000 approved the construction of a new western library branch in the East Woodlands Park adjacent to the Petticoat Creek, as a component of a larger facility comprising both a library and a community centre. The Petticoat Creek Libra:fy and Community Centre is currently nearing completion and will replace the recently closed Rouge Hill Library Branch. It is now appropriate to commence proceedings to sell the Rouge Hill branch property. The sale of this property has been anticipated for several years, with revenue from the sale · already identified in the 1999 report to Council, and in the 2000 Budget in the amount of Report to Council CAO 02-01 Subject: Disposition of Rouge Hill Library Branch Property Date: March 12, 2001 Page 3 185 Retention / Demolition of Existing Building Two independent 'opinions of value' secured by the City indicate that the property will bring a higher financial return if it is sold 'as-is' and the building is retained. However, retention of the existing building will not serve to implement the City's urban design objectives and may delay initiatives for comprehensive redevelopment of the broader area. An estimate obtained by the City indicates that demolition and disposal of the building on the property will cost approximately $77,000. The 'opinions' establish a value for the property ranging from $275,000 - $450,000 if the building is retained, to $150,000 - $225,000 if the building is demolished. If the building is not demolished, Council must be prepared to accept a use that retains the existing building in its present form and general appearance. The new zoning for the land provides a broad range of use options. Demolition of the building will not guarantee redevelopment of the land or comprehensive redevelopment of the broader southwest sector of Kingston Road and Rougemount Drive. Demolition will, however, make it more likely that these lands will be incorporated into a broader redevelopment scheme. Council's direction on this matter is requested. Council should note that the two opinions of value were provided without an internal inspection of the building on the property. The building is in very poor condition internally, and this may reduce the value of the property with the building retained. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Location Map Resolution No. 183/99 Two Opinions of Value Applicable Zoning By-law Prepared By:~,~ ~il C~ t Everett B Director, O ~erations & Emergency SerVices Gillis Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Approved / Endorsed By: .o~as J. 9u. id~. / Chief Adm~mstra~tive Officer 186 · ATTACHMENT # I TO P, EPOP, T #.~Oo~' 0 1 188 ATTACHMENT # ~ TO REPORT # ~ ~;;);~ ~01 -2- That financing in the mount of $1,257,900 be. approved with the source of financing to be reported on by the Director of Finance and Treasurer at the time .of the 2000 Budget deliberations but-not later than when the tender for this project is submitted to Council for cor~sidemtion. That the appropriate officials of the Town of Pickering be given authority to give effect thereto. This resolu~J~is sent to you for your information.. Brace Taylor, Town Clerk '~ cc. T.J. Quinn~ Chief Administrative Officer Report to Council CAO 02-01 Subject: Disposition of Rouge Hill Library Branch Property Date: March 12, 2001 Page 3 185 Retention / Demolition of Existing Building Two independent 'opinions of value' secured by the City indicate that the property will bring a higher financial return if it is sold 'as-is' and the building is retained. However, retention of the existing building will not serve to implement the City's urban design objectives and may delay initiatives for comprehensive redevelopment of the broader area. An estimate obtained by the City indicates that demolition and disposal of the building on the property will cost approximately $77,000. The 'opinions' establish a value for the property ranging from $275,000 - $450,000 if the building is retained, to $150,000 - $225,000 if the building is demolished. If the building is not demolished, Council must be prepared to accept a use that retains the existing building in its present form and general appearance. The new zoning for the land provides a broad range of use options. Demolition of the building will not guarantee redevelopment of the land or comprehensive redevelopment of the broader southwest sector of Kingston Road and Rougemount Drive. Demolition will, however, make it more likely that these lands will be incorporated into a broader redevelopment scheme. Council's direction on this matter is requested. Council should note that the two opinions of value were provided without an internal inspection of the building on the property. The building is in very poor condition internally, and this may reduce the value of the property with the building retained. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Location Map Resolution No. 183/99 Two Opinions of Value Applicable Zoning By-law Prepared~/~By~ Neil Car~ Direc/tdr,/p~m~in~g ~: t Everett BOj~tsma Director, Operations & Emergency SerVices Gillis Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Approved / Endorsed By: ;t~o~as_~..Qu. in~. _ _~ Chief Administrgtive Officer 188 ATTACHMENT# ,~ TO REPORT#~ O~~01 -2- That financing in the mount of $1,257,900 be. approved with the source of financing to be reported on by the Director of Finance and Treasurer at the time .of the 2000 Budget deliberations but not later than when the tender for this project is submitted to Council for consideration. That the appropriate officials of the Town of Pickering be given authority to give effect thereto. This resolu~Y~is sent to you for your information.. Brace Taylor, Town Clerk " cc. T.J. Quinn: Chief Admini~qtrative Officer Report to Council CAO 02-01 Subject: Disposition of Rouge Hill Library Branch Property Date: March 12, 2001 Page 3 185 Retention / Demolition of Existing Building Two independent 'opinions of value' secured by the City indicate that the property will bring a higher financial return if it is sold 'as-is' and the building is retained. However, retention of the existing building will not serve to implement the City's urban design objectives and may delay initiatives for comprehensive redevelopment of the broader area. An estimate obtained by the City indicates that demolition and disposal of the building on the property will cost approximately $77,000. The 'opinions' establish a value for the property ranging from $275,000 - $450,000 if the building is retained, to $150,000 - $225,000 if the building is demolished. If the building is not demolished, Council must be prepared to accept a use that retains the existing building in its present form and general appearance. The new zoning for the land provides a broad range of use options. Demolition of the building will not guarantee redevelopment of the land or comprehensive redevelopment of the broader southwest sector of Kingston Road and Rougemount Drive. Demolition will, however, make it more likely that these lands will be incorporated into a broader redevelopment scheme. Council's direction on this matter is requested. Council should note that the two opinions of value were provided without an internal inspection of the building on the property. The building is in very poor condition internally, and this may reduce the value of the property with the building retained. ATTACHMENTS: 2. 3. 4. Location Map Resolution No. 183/99 Two Opinions of Value Applicable Zoning By-law Prepared By:~,,--~ Di~nt Everett B~l{sma ~ Director, Operations & Emergency SerVices Giltis Paterson Director, Corporate SerVices & Treasurer Approved / Endorsed By: 2~o~as J. Quim{]- j' Chief Administra~i"-ve Officer T.lO:kh 186 , ATTACHHENT # I TO I:LEPOET #~~' 0 i GATE 'Elm ROUGE D HILL_ TOYN EVAL E ATTACHMENT #..~ _TO REPORT #(~D O~ .0! INTER-DEPARTMENTAl, MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: CLERK'S DEPARTME ' Steve Reynolds, Director of C~e ~ R~r~tion L~ L~to~ (Act~g) C~ef Exeemive Officer G~ Pmerso~ D~ector ofF~ce & Tre~er October 7, 1999 · · FROM: Bruce Taylor, Town Clerk Please be advised that the Council of the Town of Pickering passed Resolution #183/99, Item #2 at the Council Meeting of October 4th, 1999, as follows: That Report IDT 04-99 be received by Council and that: 1. That the presentation by Stephen TeePle, Architect on the Western Library and Community Centre be received. That staffbe directed to proceed with design and construction drawings for 10,000 sq. ft. h'brary, plus 1,500 sq. ft. community room plus 6,100 sq. ft. community cemre (total 17,'600 sq. ft.) 3. That the following sources of financing be approved: (a) the proceeds from the sale of the Rouge Hill Library, currently estimated at $350,000, be applied to the financing ofthe'total cost of the Western Library and Community Centre; (b) transfers from the Development Charges Reserve Funds: Library .Facilities Major Recreation Facilities Seniors Community Centres Parkland Development $ 36,000 50,000 220,000 162,000 ATTACHHENT# ,~ TO REPORT#~{) 188 -2- That financing in the amount of $1,257,900 be. approved with the source of financing to be reported on by the Director of Finance and Treasurer at the time .of the 2000 Budget deh'berations but'not later than when the tender fo'r this project is submitted to Council for consideration. That the appropriate officials of the Town of Pickering be given authority to give effect thereto. This resolu~0~is sent to you for your information.. Brace Taylor, Town Clerk " cc. T.J. Quinn> ChiefAdmini~rative Officer Prudential Achievers Realty, Broker ATTACHP, ENT #~ __TO P, EPOP, T #~ ~ -0 / 189 ,Tanuary 24, 2001 Tom Quinn, City of Picketing Dear Tom: As per our discussion of ,Tanuary 22"~, 2001, the following a~e my thoughts concerning the issue of the city's former library. Vacant Site: The Fair Market value of the site with all structures removed, would be in the range of SZZS,000.O0 You should consider the cost of dem°lition and refuse/recycling of the existing structure estimated to be $75,000.00. 5ale with Existinq Buildi~: The Fair Market Value of the Prope~h/and building in an "AS TS" conditiOn, would be in the range of $450,000.00 You should consider conducting o comprehensive building inspection documenting all structural and building code requirements. The City would be "prepared to entertain' all offers and give consideration based on the information gained from these inspections, however, they would not be required to disclose such information to the purchase~. It may be a requirement to repair any violation to building code or settle municipal work orders that might result, but you can take that into consideration at the time. It would be the responsibility of the Buye~ or their representatives to arrange for their own inspection of the prope~y and not to rely on the City for this information. The values estimated should be subject to a formal appraisal of the properS, with the highest and best use unde~ your current zoning. 643 Kingston Road Pickering, Ont. LIV 3N7 Off'me: (905) 831-7677 Fax: (905) 831-3482 A Subeldimy of The Pn~ ,G~ Irmurance Compar~ of Amedca 335 Bayly Street West Ajax, Ont~ L1S 6M2 Office: (905) 428-7677 Fax: (905) 428-7680 190 ~TTACHNENT ::~ ~ "FC' (~,E?O~'~ ~..~ O~ -0 / The structure appears to need major capital investment to rehabilitate it, however, there appears to be significant value in the current structure. ]: have left information of a comParable sale at Altona and Highway ~Z for your review. This building also requires significant and simila~ repairs. WhiJe your location is inferior, the e~)! visibility of your building offers potential for signage, the value of which should be considered. . RoEe~t-~. ~ldman ' Broker RPO/eb ATTACHMENT 19.1 January 26th, 2001 John Reble c/o Reble, Ritchie, Green, Ketcheson Barristers and Solicitors 1 EYa Road, Suite 160 Etobicoke, Ontario M4C 4Z5 Subject: Picketing Library_ Site Rougemont Rd. & Kingston' Rd. Opinion of value and marketing options The site is part of a larger parcel of land Owned by J. De La Torre and Bell canada. Site is .69 of' an acre or approximately 30,360 sq. ft. with 126 frontage on Rougemont Rd. Site is located on North side of Hwy 401. On the site is an A frame, 2- storey structure of approximately 2000 sq. ft. with a one storey 1500 sq. ft. attached structure of offices with asphalt parking, of approximately 5000 sq. ft. See Picture attached. The value of the site is in large part due to the structure on the site.' It is my Opinion even though the structure is in poor repair, it does have value and could be marketed as a church, schools club, business offices if eXposed to the market on the M. L. S system with full knowledge of the use allowed due to new zoning granted by the city of Pickering. In my opinion, if the property is demolished at a cost of $77,000 it would at that time only be of value to the adjacent land owner J. De La Torte, as part of a development site when the south west comer of Rougement & Kingston Rd. are developed. The opposite comer of this location are both developed with new strip malls which seem to be fully leased and successful. ~,~~k Ultimate Realty Inc., REALTOR' '739 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4G 3C1 Phone: (416) 487-5131 intended to sollcit Prop~rtle~ cutr*mtly llsted for sale. utepetutently Owned and Operated Fax: (416) 487-1750 ATTACHt'IENT #--~._ TO REPORT 0,¢ .-0 / it is to be expected th~it eventually this comer site, Which is controlled'by De La Torte who owns the comer location, will be developed into another mall, theater, site offices or restaurants etc. In my opinion the site has a market value of $275,000 to $325,000 with the structure in place. If the structure is removed then it is a stand alone site on the,Hwy 401 and really only of value to J. De La Torrewho controls the c6mer site. The value without structure would be $150,000: I would recommend if the.site is sold as is or part of a development location that the existing building removai cost be passed on to the purchaser. ' Please see attached land sales on the Pickering area as comparable prices for evaluation estimate comparison. Regards, .~-.~D Dick Martin, Re/Max Ultimate Realty Inc. ~,~~ Ultimate Realty InC.,.REALTOR* 1739 Bayview Avenue, Toronto, Ontario M4G 3CI Phone: (4.I6) 487-5131 Not intended to solicit proper~es curr.ntly listod for sal~. Independently Owned and Operated Fax: (416) 487-1750 TIlE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNOF I'ICKERING BY-LAW NUMBER 5299/9~ 193 Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended by By-laWs 2622/87, and 4646/95, to. implement the Official Plan of the Town of Picketing District Planning Area, Region of Durham, in Part of Lot 32, Range 3, · B.F.C., bei!!g Part of Lots i, and 2, Plan 350, in the Town of Picketing. · (A 5/97). 'WliEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Picketing passed By-law 2622/87, amending By-laTM .3036, to permit the development of restricted light industrial uses, home improvement centres, furniture and major appliance sales, restaurants, and business and professional offices on the subject lands in Part of Lot 32, Range 3,'B.F.C., being Part of Lots :1, and 2, Plan 350, in the Town of Picketing; ' AiND %VI'IEREAS the Council of tile Corporation of the Town of Picketing passed By-law 4646/95, amending By-law 3036, to permit the establishment of retail comntercial, personal service uses, and a private school for a temporary period of three years on the subj.ect lands in Part ot' Lot 32, Range 3, B.F.C., being Part of Lots 1, and-2, Plan 350, in the Town of Picketing; AND 'WlIEREAS the Council o[ the COrporation .of the Town of Picketing now deems it desirable to further amend By-law 3036,. as amended by By-laws 4646/95, to permit on a permanent basis,' retail commercial, personal service, office, residential, and community uses on thesubject lands in Part of Lot 32,~Range 3, B.F.C., being Part of Lots 1', and 2, Plan 350, in the Town of Picketing; 'NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE I~ORPOIDkTION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING IIEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: SCHEDULES I &.Ii Schedules I & II attached-hereto with n6tations and references shown thereon is hereby . declared to be part of this By-law. AREA RESTRICTED The provisions of this By-law shall apply· to those ·lands in Part .of Lot 32, Range 3, B.F.C., being Part of Lots I, and 2, Plan 3'50, in the Town of Picketing, designated "MU-9" on Schedule I attached' hereto. .i 194 . (2) (3) (4) (5)' (6) ATTACHNENT #.,:,,~ TO REPORT #.~ _ mid-lo-Lone slmll ~nean an area of land within which all or. part of a building or buildings are lo be located; '_'Business. Offices" shall mean a building'or part of a building in which the . management or direction of business, a public or private agency, a brokerage or. a labour or fraternal organization is carried on and which may include a lelegraph office, a data-processing establishment, a newspaper publishing office, the premises of a real estate or insurance agent, or a radio' Or'television broadcasling station and related studios or theaters, but shall not include a retail store; · "Commercial Club" shall mean an athletic or recreational club operated for gain or profit and having public or private membership; ~'Commercial Recreational Establishment. shall mean a commercial establislm~ent in which indoor recreatiOnal facilities such as bowling ·alleys, mini'.a~ure golf courses, roller skating rinks, sqh~sh courts, swimming pools and other similar indoor recreation facililies are provided and operated for gain or profit, and which ' may include an arena or Sladium bul shall not include a place of amusement or enlertainment, or games arcade as defined herein; '_'Commercial School'! shall mean a school which is operated lbr gain or protit and may include the studio of a. dancing leacher or music teacher, or an. art school, a golf school or any olher such school operated for gain or profit, but shall not iuclude any other school defined herein; (7) ' "D_~a¥ Nursery" shall mean lands and premises duly licensed pUrsuanl to the provisions of lhe Day Nurseries Act, Or any successor thereto, for use as a facility for the daytime care of children; ~ (8) (9) (10) la) ;i. Dwe!ling,. shall mean a building or part of a building contai,fing one or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile 'home or trailer; lb) "Dwelling Unit"_ shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied or capable of being occupied as a single, independent and separate housekeeping unit C ' * ontammg a separatekitcl!en and sanitary facilities; ~'.Drv Cleaning Depo!" shall mean a' building or part of a building Used for purpose of'receiving articles, goods, or fabrics to be subjected to dry cleaning and related pro. cesses elsewhere, and of dislrib~ling articles, goods or fabrics which have been. subjected, to any such' processes; "Financial ' '; ' " .... Insl~tutmn shall mean a building or part. ora building in which money is deposiled, kept, lent or exchanged; (!1) la) ?lo°r Area-Residential" Shall mean the area of the floor surface contained within the outside walls 0fa storey or part of a.storey; "Gros.s Floor Area-Residential~ shall mean the aggregate of the floor areas 0f (13) (15) (16) . (17) .(19) _,-:~"~'"i':~:HMENT# i ~I TO REPORT#~'Jc~ O0 ' ' "Games Arcade"~' shall mean any building, room, or area in which facilities are Offered for the play of .' (a) three-or more games of chance, (b) three-or more games of mixed chance and skill, -(c) a.combination of three or more games of chance and games of mixed chance and skill, for the amusement of the public, which games are not contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada, but does not include premises in which the amusement facilities offered are pool tables, billiard tables, or bowling alleys; "Lot" shall mean an area ofland fronting on a street which is used or intended (a) . io be'used as the site of a building, or group :of buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area, regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot 'or block on a registered plan of subdivision; (b) ~ shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all buildings on the lot; (c) :'Lot ~ shall mcan thc width of a lot between thc side lot linos measured along a line parallel to.and 7.5 metres distant from the fiont lot line; "Multiple Dwelling" shall· mean a building.containing three or more dwelling unils attached horizonlally, or vertically, or both, by an above grade wall or wallS; "Personal Service Shop'_' Sb~ll mean an establishment in which a personal service is performed and wliich may include a barber' shop,, a beauty' salon, a.shoe repair shop, a tailor or a dressmaking shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in section 224 (9)(b) of the Municipal Act, R,S.O. !990, Chapter M.45, as amended from time to lime, or any successor thereto; "Place' of Amusement or Entertainment" shall mean a building or part of a b0ilding in which facilities are provided for amusement or entertainment Imrposes, and which may include a billiard or pool room, a dance hall, a music hall, or theatre, but shall not include a games arcade; "Place of Assembly" shall mean a building or part of a building iu which facilities are Provided for 'civic, educational, political, recreational, religious or social meeting .purposes and may include facilities for entertainment purposes such as musical and theatrical performances, but shall not include a place of amusement or entertainment~ or g.ames arcade as defined herein; "Private Club" shall mean an athletic, recreational, or social club not operated for gain or profit .and having private membership, and includes the. premises.of a fraternal orga,fization, but shall n°t include 'an adult entertainment parlour as. defined herein: or a body mb parlour as defined in 'section 224(9)(b) of Ihe MuniCipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.45, as amended form time to time, or any successor thereto; 195 196 (21) (22) (23) (24) ATTACHMENT #~/-~ TO :' = .... a'~ ' "Public Club" si]all mean an athletic, recreational or .social club not operated for gain or profit and having public membership, bul: shall not include' an adult enler!aimnenl parlour as defined' herein or a body rub p~riour as defined in seclion 224(9)(b) of tim MUnicipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, Chapter M.45, as amended froth lime to time, or any successor thereto; · (a) _"'Private School"_shait' mean a school wMch is maintained for educational or religious purposes but shall not include any other school defined herein; (b) "__Private Residentia! School" shall mean a school which is maintained for educalionai or religious purposes and which includes accessory residential facilities but shall· not include any other school defined herein; (c) "Public School" si]all mean, (i) a school under the jurisdiction of a board 'of education which board is established pursuant to the Education Act, R.S.O. 1980, or any successor 'theretO; . (ii) a college of applied arts and technology established pursuant to Ministry of Education, Colleges and Universities, .pursuant Io the Ministry of Colleges 'and Universities Act, R.S.O. 1980, or any. successor .thereto; · (iii) a university eligible to receive provincial funding.from the Minister~of Education, Colleges and Universities, pursuant to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities Act, R.S.O. 1980, or any successor theretO; ~Restaurant - Type A" shall mean a building or part of a building where Ibod is prepared and offered or kept for retail sale Io the public for immediate consumption on the premises or off lhe premises, or both; but shall not include an adult entertaimnent parlour as defined herein; "Retail 'Slore" shall' mean a building or parl of a bnilding in which goods, wares, merchandise, substances, article's or things are stored, kept and offered for retail sale to file public. PROVISIONS (!) Uses'PermittedCMU-9" Zone) Nd person, shall, within tile lands designated. "MU-9" 6n Schedule I attached hereto use any 'lot or erect, alter or use any building or structure for any purpose except the following: business Office commercial club commercial school 'commercial recreatlor/al establishment . (2) ATTACH H ENT #._'~,_. ':;':; .... RETORT #~ -5- 03 o l 197 Zone Requirements ("MU-9 "Zone) .No person shall within the lands &signaled "MU-9" on Schedule 1' attaChe'cl, hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building except in accordance with the following provisions: (a) BUILDING RESTRICTIONS: (i) Building Location and Setbacks: A Buildings and structures on the southerly portion of the lands shal.! be located entirely within the building envelope illustrated on Schedule II attached hereto; B C On the northerly portion of the lands, buildings shall 'be located in such a manner-that the minimum percentage of the lenglh of the build-to-zone, as indicated on Schedule II attached hereto, contains all or part ora building or buildings; Despite'subclause B above, a deck, Patio, or any building addition having a gross floor area less than 10 square metres shall not he considered to be a building, or part ora building, for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of that clause, only; (ii) Building Height (minimum)z (maximum): two functional floors and 7.0 metres; 'i'our Functional floors and 14 metres for buildings located outside of Ihe maximum building envelope illustrated on'Schedule il attached hereto, and six functional floors and 21 metres for buildings located within the maximum building envelope illustrated on Schedule !i attached hereto; . (iii) Floor Space Index (maximum): up to and including 2.5;. · (b) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: (i) For the purpose'o~' tiffs subsection, "density" shall mean the number of dwelling units on a lot, divided by the area of the lot, in hectares, of that (ii). Minimum: On 'any lot within-tile lands, the density of residential' units shall not be less than 80 units per net hectare; 2OO REPORT #._._._~ O~ N SCHEDULE Z TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS 4th DAY oF MAY ,1998' 5299~98 · (2) ATTACHMENT ' gone Retluiremenls ("MU-9 "Zone) .No person shall wilhin lhe lands &signaled "MU-9" on Schedule I allaChe), hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building except in accordance with Ihe following provisions: 197 (a) BUILDING RESTRICTIONS: (i) Building Location and Setbacks: A Buildings and structur~:s on Ihe southerly portion of lhe lands shall be located entirely within the building envelope illustrated on Schedule II attached hereto; B C On tile nOrtherly portion of the lands, buildings shall 'be located in such a manner flint the minimum percentage of the length of the .build-to-zone, as indicated on Schedule II attached hereto, contains all or part of a building or buildings; Despite subclause B above, a deck, patio, or any building addition having a gross floor area less than 10' square metres shall not he considered to be a building, or part ora building, for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of that clause, only; (ii) Building Height (minimum)i (maximum): two functional floors and 7.0 metres; '.~bur functional floors and 14 melres for buildings located outside of the maximum building envelope illnstrated on 'Schedule il attached hereto, and six functional floors and 21 metres for buildings located within the maximum building envelope illustrated on Schedule Il attached hereto; (iii) Floor Space Index (maximum): up to and .including 2.5; (b) RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: (i) For the purpose'013 tiffs subsection, "density" shall mean the nulnber of dwelling units on a tot, divided by the area of the lot, in hectares, of that lot; (ii). Minimum: On 'any lot within 'the lands," tile density of residential' units slmii not be less than 80 units per net hectare; (Jill L4nvl,v,,,,~,. ~ ..... · , 198 (ii) Despite'. clause (i) above, for a private non-residential school or day nursery, a minimum of 5..0 parking spa. c. es shall' be .provided and' mainlained on each lot for every 100 square metres of activity room area or part thereof;. (iii) Despite clause (i) above, for a ~:ommercial club, commercial recreation establishment, place of assembly; private club, public club, or restaurant-type A,' a minimum of 8.0 parking spaces shall be.provided and maintained on each lot for every 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area or part.tliereof; (iv). Despite clause .(i) above, when parking is provided for residential development in either belo~ grade Or in a surface Parking. lot, a minimum of i,2 parking spaces .per dwelling unit shall be provided and' maintained on each lot, arid a minimum of 0.3 parking spaces per dwelling.unit shall be provided and maintaihed for visitors on each lot; (v) Despite clause (i) above, for-development that provides resident · parking in a private garage, there shall be provided .and maintained on each Iot one private garage attached to each dwelling unit, one parking space located between the vehicular entrance of the private garage and. the nearest traffic aisle, and a: minimum of 0.3 parking spaces, per dwelling unit .for visitors; (vi) Clauses 5.21.2a) to 5.21..2e), inclusive, of By-law 3036, as amended, shall not apply to the lands designated "MU;9'' on Schedule I attached hereto; (vii) Despite clauses 5.21.2g) and 5.21.2k) of By-law 3036, as amended, .all entrance' and exists t° parking areas and ali parking areas slml/be surfaced With brick., asphalt, or concrete, or any combination Ihereofi (d) SPECIAL REGULATIONS: (i) Despite the provisions of subsections (a), (b), and (c) above, the buildings existing on the lands zoned "MU-9' on Schedule ! attached hereto, on'the date of passing of this by-daw, as illustrated on a plan of survey prepared' by. Horton, Wallace & Davies Ltd., dated No~;ember 5, 1995. ('Referenced as project 19544), trod on the lands as described in Instrument No. 261556, save and except Part 4 on Plan 40Ri5425, shall be deemed to comply with the provisions of'By-law '3036, as amended. Any alterations, additions, or new development on the lands.shall comply with the provisions set out h~.r/fin; (ii) A For the purpose of this clause, the term "drive-through facility" shall mean a'facility at Milch good, products, or' sentices are provided directly to customers in vehicles; (iv) .~i'T/~CHNENT ~__~TO REPORT #~ '7- · ' 199 On each lot, an ouldoor area not exceeding 60 square melres used for the display .or sales of seasonal produc, e, new merchandise, or supply of services shall be allowed-in 'conjunction wilh a permilled use, provided that the produce, merchandise, or serVice is removed - from [he outdoor area at the close of business each day. BY'LAW 3036 By-law 3036, as amended, is hereby furtl~er amended by repealing By-law 2622/87 and By-law 4646/95, only 'to the extent necessary to .give effect to lhe provisions of this By-law.as it applies 1o the area set out in Schedule I atlached hereto. Definitions and 'subject matters-not specifically dealt with in Ihis By-law shall be governed by relevant provisions of By-law 3036, as amended. 7. EFFECTIVE DATE This Bylaw shall.take effect from the day of passing hereof subject to Ihe approval of the Ontario Municipal Board, if required. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 4th day of May. ,1998. MAYOR WAYNE ARTHURS CLERK BRUCE J. TAYLOR ~00 SCHEDULE :[ TO BY-LAW PASSED THIS 4th DAY oF MAY 1998 N 5299/98 ~ TO REPORT#, f ~'UM BUiLDiNG. ENvELOpE \ - 1.5m " ; :~ BUILD-TO-ZONE 201 SCHEDULE :]]: TO PASSED THIS DAY OF MAY , BY-LAW 4th 1998 5299/98. 202 CONFIDENTIAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE DATE MOVED BY SECONDED BY That the Confidential Memorandum of the Chief Administrative Officer dated March 12, 2001 concerning the disposal of lands known as Pan of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Pickering, designated as Pans 2, 3, 4 and 5, Plan 40R-15930, be received; and That Council authorize the Chief Administrative Officer to proceed with the disposal of the lands known as Pan of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Pickering, designated as Pans 2, 3, 4 and 5, Plan 40R-15930 OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM OFFICER 2O3 March 12, 2001 To: From: Subject: Mayor Arthurs Members of Council Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Disposal of Lands - GTA Industrial Properties - (Brock-Dillingham Regional Sewer Right of Way lands) Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Pickering - designated as Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5, Plan 40R159-30 File: LS4000 Attached please find a memorandum from the Manager, Legal Services seek3ng direction with respect to the possible sale of the aforementioned lands. You will note in attached information that the subject parcel of land is completely encumbered by easements and could never be developed as a stand-alone parcel of land. This request is similar to the previous sale of the adjacent parcel of land in 1995. For the purposes of land evaluation, GTA Industrial Properties have included an appraisal of this parcel of land in the amount of $19,000. Therefore, I am seeking direction of Council (at its meeting of March 19, 2001) to proceed with the disposal of this land. Respectfully submitted for your consideration. TJQ:jh Attachments Copy: /T~omas J.fQuinn t/ Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Planning & Development Director, Corporate Services &Treasurer City Clerk Solicitor for the City Manager, Legal Services CAO , ' LEGAL SERVICES DIVISION 5~' EL, CONFIDENTIAL MEMO~DUM February 27, 2001 To: From: Subject: Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer Denise Bye Manager, Legal Services Pickering Sale to GTA Industrial Properties Inc. - Part of Lot 19, Range 3, B.F.C., Pickering - designated as Parts 2, 3, 4 and 5, Plan 40R-15930 - File: RE0015 We have received a request fi'om the solicitor for GTA Industrial Properties Inc. ("GTA"), that the above-noted parcel of land be sold to GTA for incorporation into the lands they own immediately to the south (municipally described as 940 Brock Road - mapping attached). Consideration has been given to this matter by the various departments and neither the Director, Planning and Development or the Director, Operations and Emergency Services object to the sale of the subject lands (copies attached), provided that the: (a) appropriate restrictions are put in place to ensure that the present grading of land is maintained; (b) appropriate easements are preserved; and (c) lands merge with 9.40 Brock Road and not be sold as a separate parcel. The subject lands are currently zoned M2 in Zoning By-Law 2511 which is in keeping with the zoning of the lands owned by GTA. Incorporation of this parcel with the land owned by GTA would allow for an orderly and logical pattern of land development in this area. The Legal Services Division will ensure that the sale of this parcel of land complies with the Directors' concerns set out above by having this prospective purchaser enter into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale which sets out all of the conditions in which the City is willing to sell these lands. Thomas J. Quinn Chief Administrative Officer February 27, 2001 Page 2 2O5 __JF~)r the purpose~""9f determining a value of the subject lands, GTA had an Appraisal Report prepared. )Fhe Appraisal Report indicates that the value of the subject property is $19,000.00 w~f2f is in keeping with what Aristocrat Restaurant paid to the City in 1995 forint parcel of land (cross-hatched on the attachment mapping). It should be ~,.~oted that, although the value determined by the Appraisal is considerably lower than w~i~the value would be based on the $150,000.00/acre benchmark used by the City when determining values of land, this parcel of land is completely encumbered by easements and could never be developed as a stand-alone parcel of land. As the City's Sale of Land Policy does not apply to the disposal of this class of land, the enactment of a By-law to declare these lands surplus for the purpose of sale is not required. lands. I am therefore seeking your authorization to proceed with the sale of these DB:lc Attachments Denise~'B~ Copy: Director, Operations & Emergency Services Director, Planning & Development John Reble, Solicitor for the City 206 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORA~N~D UM September 22, 2000 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Denise Bye Manager, Legal Services Neff Carroll Director, Planning & Development Picketing sale of Parts 2-5, Plan 40R-15930 Your File RE0000 SEP 2. 6 2000 CiTY SOLICITOR CITY OF PICKERING We have reviewed the request froTM Alan Sugarman to purchase the above-noted lands currently owned by the City of Picketing. As indicated in your July 28, 2000, memorandum, the subject lands are located directly north of 940 Brock Road. Mr. Sugarman is seeking to.purchase'these lands on behalf of GTA Industrial Properties Inc., who recently purchased' 940 Brock Road. Our records indicate that the property described in Mr. Sugarman's letter dated July 4, 2000, as Part .1, Plan RD-139 is now known as Parts 2 - 5, Plan 40R-15930. The .Planning & Development Department has the following comments: 940 Brock Road is zoned "lVI2 _ Industrial Zone" in Zoning BY-law 2511, as mended, and was developed under site plan application S 6/78. The subject lands, owned by the City of Pickering,. and .located immediately north .of 940 Brock Road, are alSO zOned M2 in Zoning By-law 2511 and are designated as "General Employment Area" in the City of Picketing Official Plan. Incorporation of this strip of land into the property at 940 Brock Road appears to allow for an. orderly and logical pattern of land development. Uses permitted on lands zoned M2 include business and professional offices, manufactttring or .industrial uses with limited outdoor storage and a transport term/nal, among other uses. Permissible uses in. General Employment Areas (if appropriate zoning is in place) include industrial uses, accessory offices, limited personal service uses, restaurants, minor retail uses and community, cultural and recreational uses. ...continued Denise Bye September 22, 2000 Page # 2 207 · The subject lands constitute part of an easement that co=rains a Regional storm sewer and is also used for the surface drainage of lands from Brock Road westerly to Dillingh~m Road. If the City of Picketing were to dispose of the subject lands, an easement should be registered in favour of and to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham to'allow the Region to enter onto the property for purposes .of maintaining the sro.tm sewer. In addition, appropriate restrictions should be imposed' to ensure that any grading reyisions undertaken by the purchaser will maintain the existing' drainage of adjacent properties and continue to provide an overland flow route for drainage to the west. · In order to ensure that necessary easements and drainage works are maintained, the owner should be advised that any-changes to the site layout would require site approval. · The property should only be sold to' merge with abutting property to the' south (940 BroCk Road), and not as a Separate land parceL In conclusion, the Planning & Development Department has no objections to the sale of this property-to the owner of the southerly abutting property. Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to comment on this matter. .SG/cvds Au~mlst 16, 2000 ~I]hrTE~EP~~~ CORRESPONDENCE OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Municipal Property & Engineering Division TO: FROM: Denise Bye Manager, Legal Services Scott Booker Engineering Design and Systems Coordinator ~~_RD-139 GTA Prop.