Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 42-04PICKERING REPORT TO 003 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 42-04 Date: November 16, 2004 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Official Plan Amendment CPA 04-002/P Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan City Initiated: Growth Management Study Area Implementation Part of Lots 24-35, Concession 2 Part of Lots 17-24, Lots 25-35, Concession 3 Lots 17-35, Concession 4 Lots 17-35, Concession 5 Part of Lots 31-35, Concession 6 City of Pickering Recommendations: o That Pickering Council RECEIVE Report PD 42-04 on Official Plan Amendment Application CPA 04-002/P (now Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan), City initiated: Growth Management Study Area Implementation; (a) That Official Plan Amendment Application CPA 04-002/P, initiated by the City of Pickering, to implement the Council endorsed Structure Plan of the Growth Management Study Area, be APPROVED, as set out in Exhibit "A" to Appendices I and II to Report PD 42-04; (b) That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan, as it relates to the Seaton lands only, be FORWARDED FOR ENACTMENT to Council as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 42-04; (c) That the draft by-law to adopt Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan, as it relates to the Agricultural Assembly lands only, be FORWARDED FOR ENACTMENT to Council as set out in Appendix II to Report PD 42-04; (d) That Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan be FORWARDED FOR APPROVAL by the City Clerk to the Region of Durham; That Pickering Council request the Region of Durham to RESOLVE Deferrals 3, 8, 14, 24, 38, 42 and 48, and the remaining parts of Deferrals 11, 31 and 39 to the Pickering Official Plan; That Pickering Council AUTHORIZE staff to initiate the appropriate amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan to implement Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan, and undertake any other required work to secure regional approval; 004 Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 2 That (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 42-04 to: The provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs for incorporation in completing a Greenbelt Plan for the Golden Horseshoe; The provincial Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal for incorporation in completing a Growth Management Plan for the Golden Horseshoe area; The Chair and members of Regional Council for incorporation in the Durham Regional Official Plan review; The provincial Minister of the Environment, and the President and CEO of the Ontario Realty Corporation for incorporation in completing the environmental assessment for Oak Ridges Moraine / Seaton land swap; The provincial Minister of Transportation, and the President and CEO of the 407 ETR for incorporation in finalizing the two identified freeway interchange locations on Highway 407 in Seaton; The federal Minister of Transport and the President and CEO of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority for consideration in undertaking a federal environmental assessment for the Pickering Airport Lands; and The City of Toronto, the Town of Markham, the Town of Ajax, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and other appropriate interested groups, agencies or individuals for their information and action if necessary. Executive Summary: Staff has re-examined all of the work undertaken through the Growth Management Study (GMS) and again conclude that the findings and recommendations of our consulting team are fair, reasonable and appropriate. A compelling argument can be made that Amendment 13 should be adopted by Council for many reasons, including the following: · The City has the right and the responsibility under the Planning Act to plan its future growth and development. · A comprehensive growth management study was completed for the City by a professional consulting team, under the direction of a multi-stakeholder steering committee. · The City's growth management plan embodies the principals of smart growth. · After careful review, it has been concluded that the lands around Cherrywood are better suited for urban development than for long-term agriculture protection. · Agricultural easements were put in place not only to protect lands for agricultural uses but also to protect the interests of the City in controlling the rate and extent of future development following the completion of an appropriate planning study. Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 3 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan is the culmination of a comprehensive study that began in early 2002 when Council initiated a three-phased Growth Management Study (GMS) to identify future urban growth options in central Pickering. The Amendment boundaries are the C.P. Rail line to the south, the York-Durham Townline Road to the west, Highway 7 including the Provincial lands north of the Hamlet of Green River, and Sideline 16/Pickering-Ajax boundary to the east (see Attachment #1). A statutory public meeting was held on October 14, 2004. Various comments were provided at the meeting, but there were no substantive changes proposed to the Amendment. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the Amendment (subject to some technical amendments recommended by staff), through the adoption of two by-laws: one for the Seaton lands, which will come into force upon its approval; and one for the Agricultural Assembly lands, which can only come into force after December 16, 2004, (which is the expiry date for the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004, unless new legislation is put in place through Bill 135, the proposed Greenbelt Act). Staff is monitoring Bill 135, and the draft Greenbelt Plan for their potential affect on Amendment 13. Furthermore, it is recommended that Council authorize staff to initiate appropriate amendments to the Durham Regional Official Plan, and work with the Region in completing any required work to secure regional approval. It is also recommended that Report PD 42-04 be forwarded to various provincial and federal ministries, agencies and organizations undertaking planning-related projects affecting Pickering for incorporation and/or consideration, including: the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Ministry of Public Infrastructure Renewal, the Region of Durham, the Ontario Realty Corporation, the Highway 407/ETR, the Greater Toronto Airport Authority and other interested agencies and individuals such as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. This report is presented in two parts. Part One deals with the broad issues being raised about the GMS during consideration of Amendment 13. Part Two deals with the specific details of the Amendment. Financial Implications: Phases 1 and 2 of the Growth Management Study, including the preparation and processing of the Official Plan Amendment, was undertaken within the approved operating budget for the Planning & Development Department. Approximately $110,000 remains for the completion of Phase 3 of the Growth Management Study. 006 Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 4 PART ON E 1.0 ISSUES RAISED DURING THE GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY During the Growth Management Study (GMS) and the preparation of Amendment 13, staff has repeatedly been questioned on five broad issues as outlined below: · The effect of the Ontario Planning and Development Act on the City's right to plan; · The professional and technical merits of the City's GMS; · Whether the City's GMS constitutes "smart growth"; · Protection of farmland in central Pickering; · The purpose and intent of the agricultural easements. Staff would like to provide some clarification with respect to each of these five issues. Firstly, the establishment by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing of a "development planning area" under the Ontario Planning and Development Act (OPDA) does not prevent the City from undertaking land use planning on the same lands under the Planning Act. In fact, until a development plan under the OPDA is approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, both the City's Official Plan and the Region's Official Plan remain in full force and effect. Furthermore, the Minister may choose not to complete a development plan for certain lands within a development planning area, as was done in April 2004 when the Minister excluded the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood from the OPDA "in view of the already-completed land use planning process that was undertaken for these lands." Using similar logic, the opportunity exists for the Minister to further amend the boundary of the development planning area after Pickering and Durham Councils deal with Amendment 13. Secondly, with respect to the professional and technical merits of the GMS, it must be reiterated that a comprehensive study was completed for the City by a highly qualified, professional consulting team using best planning practices. The study was conducted under the direction of a Steering Committee that had representation from City staff, City Council, Regional planning staff, landowners, and the public. Although significant, but not all, funding was provided by landowners in the GMS Area, these landowners had absolutely no control or influence over the study recommendations. The City's consulting team conducted an independent, arms-length review and their recommendations are fair, reasonable and appropriate, and have not been professionally or technically disputed. Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 5 00,' Thirdly, the City's GMS balanced social, economic and environmental objectives in a manner that exemplifies "smart growth". The plan provides for a logical and orderly extension of development, takes advantage of existing and proposed road and servicing infrastructure, establishes transit-supportive densities and land use arrangements, and establishes significant employment lands while at the same time retaining a substantial countryside area, significant regional open space connections between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine, and a healthy open space system within the urban area. It should also be pointed out that the lands around Cherrywood that are proposed for development lie to the SOUTH of most of Seaton, and indeed that if these lands are not part of the new urban area in central Pickering, than Seaton by itself would essentially be leapfrog development. Fourthly, with respect to protecting farmland, the conclusions reached by the City's GMS respecting the (non)viability of the south part of Agricultural Assembly lands (the Cherrywood community) for agriculture have not been professionally disputed. The agricultural analysis for the Cherrywood community revealed a number of constraints for economically viable farming including: reduced investment in agricultural infrastructure; lack of agricultural support businesses; extensive urban interlace with south Pickering; and existing and proposed fragmentation by servicing infrastructure such as hydro corridors, roads, and pipelines. The GMS concluded that the Cherrywood community is more appropriately used for urban purposes, than for long-term agriculture. Lastly, agricultural easements were the subject of much review and research prior to their use on lands in the Agricultural Assembly. Many parties involved in the discussions noted that the agricultural easements served various purposes, and not just the protection of lands for agricultural uses. Another stated benefit of having agricultural easements was that these easements would provide the City with the ability to protect its interests in controlling the rate and extent of future development in the area, in the event a land use change was contemplated at some point in the future. It was also understood and acknowledged that certain value could accrue to the City in the event it agreed to lift these easements to enable appropriate development. Indeed, provision was made within an Agreement that was signed in 1999 by the City, the Region and the Province that makes it clear that the severance or subdivision of land is not allowed where agricultural easements are in place "except with the prior written approval of the Town" (now City). 0 0 8 Report PD 42-O4 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 6 2.0 2.1 2.2 PART TWO BACKGROUND TO AMENDMENT In February 2004, the Consulting Team completed Phase 2 of the Growth Management Study, and recommended a Structure Plan that established new urban areas, enhanced environmental systems and protected countryside areas. Last February, the Consulting Team recommended a Structure Plan for central Pickering proposing urban development to accommodate about 77,000 people and 33,000 jobs, on about 40% of the land within the Study Area, including lands in both the Seaton and Cherrywood communities. The structure plan was based on balancing environmental protection with the need to provide living space and employment lands, as well as protect a viable countryside area, in accordance with the principles and ground rules set out by Council. The Plan accommodates Pickering's projected 20-year population growth to 2026 and is consistent with the time frames allowed under the Provincial Policy Statement. In considering the amount of growth to be accommodated in the Study Area, the Consulting Team assumed about one-third of new population growth projected for Pickering would be accommodated through intensification and infill in south Pickering. The Consulting Team concluded that the Structure Plan represents a logical addition to Pickering's urban area, contributes toward a balanced live-work relationship, provides opportunities to create a compact, transit-supportive community integrated with a transit network linking south Pickering with the Cherrywood and Seaton communities, makes efficient and economic use of existing and proposed infrastructure, and maintains the environmental integrity of the area. Following the Council's endorsement of the Recommended Structure Plan in June 2004, staff prepared an Amendment to the Pickering Official Plan to implement the Council endorsed Structure Plan. Last June, Pickering Council passed Resolution #100/04 to endorse the Structure Plan prepared by the Growth Management Study (GMS) consulting team as the basis for preparing official plan amendments. Over the summer, staff prepared a draft Official Plan Amendment (OPA) that incorporated the concepts from the Council endorsed Structure Plan. The OPA document included new land use polices and designations for the Seaton and Cherrywood communities. The document was circulated as part of the City's OPA process in early September. Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 7 009 2,3 2.4 2.5 Staff has been working with the consulting team to finalize Phase 3 - Neighbourhood Plans work program to reflect the Federation of Canadian Municipalities Green Municipal Funds grant program. In June, staff was also authorized, with the assistance of the consulting team, to examine a work program for Phase 3 of the GMS with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities 'Green Municipal Enabling Fund' for the preparation of a Sustainable Neighbourhood Plan. Staff has been working with the consulting team and others to finalize the Phase 3 work program to create a sustainable neighborhood by incorporating green infrastructure, landscaping and building design technologies. As well, employment strategies are included as part of the neighbourhood work program in order to provide opportunities for jobs closer to home. It is expected that future amendments to the Pickering Official Plan will be required to implement the results of Phase 3. Staff will be reporting on the work program later this year. Although the Amendment proposes urban development on one-third of the Agricultural Assembly lands, most of submissions preferred the area remain agricultural. only about the public Approximately, 40 people attended the Statutory Public Information Meeting on the draft Official Plan Amendment (OPA) held on October 14, 2004. Information Report No. 15-04 provided the background and overview of the proposed OPA (see Attachment #2). Verbal comments provided at the meeting were opposed to the inclusion of the Agricultural Assembly lands in the proposed Amendment (see Attachment #3). The City received a total of 15 submissions from the public on the proposed Amendment through letters and emaiis (see Summary Table of Written Public Comments - Attachment #5, and individual submissions - Attachments #6 to #22). Generally, the. comments opposed the inclusion of the Agricultural Assembly lands in the Amendment and supported a permanent agricultural designation for the Agricultural Assembly lands. Agencies have indicated no objection to the proposed Amendment. On October 25, 2004, staff held a meeting with representatives from the Province, the Region, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), and the major landowners to discuss any issues or concerns with the OPA. Staff presented an overview of the proposed OPA, discussed matters requiring further review, and provided clarification to items raised. Agency submissions indicated no objections to the proposed Amendment and noted that they can work with the City at further stages of development to address specific issues (see Summary Table of Agency Comments - Attachment #23, and individual letters - Attachments #24 to #27). 010 Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 8 3.0 3.1 The TRCA commented that the proposed "natural heritage corridors" designated as Open Space - Recreational Areas be changed to a stricter Natural Areas designation with allowance for only passive recreational uses. In addition, the TRCA requested that the overall roadway system be designed to minimize the number of crossings over highly sensitive areas. In their comments, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) proposed a policy to recognize the GTAA's proposed Interim Airport Protection Area within which the development of noise sensitive land uses would be restricted. The Region of Durham commented that: the costs and fiscal implications of providing regional services is required; the financial impacts of staging and timing of development on the Region prior to development is required; and the future servicing status of the Hamlets of Brougham, Green River and Whitevale is not addressed. The Region noted the differences between the road network on Schedule B of the Amendment and the Regional Official Plan, and proposed technical/editorial changes to the Amendment. DISCUSSION: The recommended amendments to the policies, land use and transportation schedules of the Official Plan implement the Council endorsed Structure Plan of the Growth Management Study. The Amendment, detailed in Exhibit 'A' to Appendices I and II, incorporates the elements of the Council endorsed Structure Plan through appropriate policies and land use designations for the Cherrywood and Seaton communities. The recommended policies promote the development of a livable, transit-supportive community while maintaining the environmental integrity of the area. In this regard, the recommended policies require residential neighbourhoods to be designed for sustainability while protecting and enhancing the area's natural heritage features. The recommended policies promote enhanced opportunities for live-work relationships in the community. This is accomplished by designating significant areas for Mixed Use and Prestige Employment. The Mixed Use areas permit a broad range of office, commercial and institutional as well as higher density residential development. The draft version of the Amendment identified a Major Institutional Node at the intersection of Whites Road and Taunton Road. Instead of prescribing a specific location, staff is now recommending that a policy encouraging major institutional uses along Taunton Road would be appropriate, together with a policy requiring the City to actively work with the Durham College/University of Ontario Institute of Technology, with the Province and the Rouge Valley Hospital to secure lands for these purposes in the community. There are other accessible gateway locations along Taunton Road that could potentially accommodate these uses. A Mixed Use Areas - Mixed Corridor designation replaces the Major Institutional Node designation. Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 9 01 .i 3.2 3.3 Lands adjacent to Highway 407 are designated Prestige Employment given their visibility and accessibility to the highway and the possible future Pickering airport. The Amendment area has been enlarged to include the Provincially-owned lands north of Green River. The developable portions of these lands have been designated Prestige Employment in light of their proximity to the future Pickering airport site and to restrict the establishment of land uses sensitive to future airport noise. To protect and maintain the environmental integrity of the area, the recommended policies require studies at the neighbourhood planning level to delineate the open space boundaries with the understanding that the open space system will be rounded/squared off where necessary. Policy revisions are recommended to require environmental reports prior to permitting uses within the Active Recreational Areas designation. The recommended policies require a Master Environmental Servicing Plan (MESP) to determine the precise location and extent of the Open Space boundaries conceptually shown on Schedule I. The natural heritage corridors in the Recommended Structure Plan are represented by the Active Recreational Areas designation in the Amendment. These lands serve as wildlife linkages, groundwater infiltration areas, run-off protection areas for the area. The designation also permits active recreational, community and cultural uses, and other related open space uses. In response to TRCA's concern of designating much of the east-west corridor between the employment and living areas as Active Recreational Areas, staff is recommending that a Natural Areas designation be placed along the entire length of the corridor to connect the Natural Areas designation. This will ensure the corridor's continuity and quality by supporting links between the natural features and by providing wildlife connectivity through the area. In response to TRCA's concern with the range of uses permissible 'as of right' in the Open Space System - Active Recreational Areas designation, staff is recommending that environmental studies be required prior to permitting community, cultural or recreational uses in the Active Recreational Areas. This will also ensure that the natural heritage corridor features and functions are maintained. Policy revision is recommended to protect the City and Region's financial interests relating to the development of the Seaton and Cherrywood Communities. In the draft Amendment, one of the policies required land owners to enter into satisfactory arrangements to ensure there is "no undue financial burden on the City or Region respecting the provision of water, sewer and road, together with storm drainage works". Both the City's Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, and the Region of Durham expressed a concern with the use of "undue" financial burden rather than simply "financial burden" as used in Section 2.13 of the current Official Plan. 012 Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 10 3.4 The Region commented that referencing "undue" introduces a test, which is difficult to define, and may be difficult to apply in protecting the Region's financial interests. In addition, the policy limits the financial burden to defined services ("hard" services) thereby excluding all others. Staff agrees and is recommending that the reference to "undue" be removed and the range of financial interests be broadened to include facilities, services, and infrastructure. The Region is requiring a study of the staging and timing of development to assess the financial impact of development on the Region prior to development occurring. The GMS did contain an estimate of the infrastructure costs related to the Recommended Structure Plan and suggested an approach to phase development by developing the eastern area of Seaton and the eastern area of the northern business/employment lands first. In this way, residential development would help pay for some of the costs of extending services to the Highway 407 employment areas. The specific implications of phasing development in this manner were to be determined. While a phasing plan has not yet been selected, the Amendment includes a policy requiring a phasing strategy to be prepared, to the City's satisfaction, prior to residential development occurring. In addition, staff is recommending that Council authorize City staff to work with the Region through the finalizing of the required local and regional official plan amendments to deal with these matters. Policy revisions are recommended to establish appropriate buffers between the Hamlets of Green River and Brougham and the Prestige Employment Area designation, and to establish a new Study Area on the southeast side of Brougham in recognition of the Brock Road by-pass. Although the Hamlets of Brougham and Green River were not part of the original Study Area, comments have been received requesting staff to examine the interface between these hamlets and the future employment areas along Highway 407. In reviewing this matter, staff has determined that it would be appropriate to have a more extensive open space buffer between the hamlet boundary and the Prestige Employment areas. Besides widening the Natural Areas boundary on Schedule I, staff is recommending that policies be added to ensure that appropriate performance standards are in place to minimize any conflict between the proposed employment use and existing hamlet development. Further, the smaller Prestige Employment area on the east of the Brougham community would be impacted by the proposed Brock Road by-pass and future Brock Road/Highway 407 interchange. Staff is recommending that this area also be part of the Urban Study Area in order to determine the appropriate designation for these lands. Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 11 013 3.5 3.6 3.7 Policy revisions are recommended to respect the significance of the lands to the First Nations. One of the issues identified for further review was the potential need to recognize the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood of Seaton as a 'special archaeological policy area' respecting First Nations resources. In reviewing this issue, staff is recommending that the First Nations cultural and spiritual connection to all of the lands covered by the Amendment be recognized, and that development processes be undertaken in a respectful manner. Further, it is recommended that archaeological assessments be undertaken in consultation with First Nations early in the neighbourhood planning process rather than at the end of the development approval process. Several transportation changes were made including adding a new Type C arterial road from the Whites Road and Taunton Road intersection to connect with the Fourth Concession Road. The recommended Schedule II - Transportation implements the Structure Plan's modified grid network of Type A, B and C arterial roads. Taunton Road, Brock Road, Highway 7 and Whites Road/Sideline 26 are shown as Type A arterial roads serving the two communities. The Whitevale Road by-pass to 14th Avenue in Markham, the Rossland Road extension, Altona Road and the York-Durham Townline Road are shown as Type B arterial roads. The remaining roads shown on the schedule will provide neighbourhood level service through Type C arterial road or collector road functions. The arterial road system recommended by the Consulting Team minimizes natural heritage feature crossings wherever possible. An additional Type C arterial road connecting the Whites Road and Taunton Road intersection with the Fourth Concession Road has been added to Schedule II. This new arterial road will provide an alternate route for westbound traffic to connect with Townline Road, 14th Avenue, and Townline Road/Highway 407 interchange. Due to the deletion of the proposed Highway 7 by-pass around the Hamlet of Brougham and the realignment of the proposed Brock Road by-pass on Schedule II, staff has also made corresponding changes to Schedule IV- 4, Settlement 4: Brougham. Policy revisions are recommended to recognize the Greater Toronto Airport Authority's (GTTA) proposed Interim Airport Protection Area for the future Pickering airport. At the request of the GTAA, a policy has been added acknowledging the intent of the GTAA to establish an Interim Airport Protection Area generally surrounding the 25 Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) contour as part of their planning for a possible future regional airport. New residential development and other sensitive lands uses would be prevented from locating in areas near the future airport above the 25 NEF in order to avoid conflicts with aircraft noise. 014 Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 12 4.0 MINOR REFINEMENTS ARE RECOMMENDED TO REFLECT THE RESULTS OF THE REVIEW OF OTHER MATTERS IDENTIFIEn $.0 All comments received have been carefully reviewed. In addition, a review of the matters previously identified for consideration (see Appendix III) has been completed. Main changes have been discussed in the preceding sections of the report. The remaining refinements are considered minor and have been incorporated in the Amendment relating to: · adding a policy requiring a planning/design study that addresses the interface of the Cherrywood Community with the Rouge Park; · adding a policy relating to the Third Concession Road crossing West Duffins Creek; · adding a policy requiring building and site designs to be compatible with the heron rookery located on the north side of Taunton Road; · adding a GO Transit Station symbol on the west side of Whites Road, north of the C.P. Railway track, and adding new policies related to the GO Transit Station including location and land uses; · adjusting the Mixed Use designation along the major arterial roads and the utility corridors to be approximately the same depth on each side of the road; deleting the proposed Type C arterial road connecting from Taunton Road north along Sideline 16 (the Pickering Ajax boundary) to the first east-west collector road; adding a policy investigating the appropriateness of solar and wind farms in the Countryside Area designation; and deleting small remnants of Prestige Employment Areas and Active Recreational Areas located within the Natural Areas designation. NEXT STEPS IN THE OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS Provided Council adopts the Amendment, it will be forwarded to the Region for their approval. Concurrently, staff will be initiating an application to amend the Durham Regional Official Plan to implement the City's OPA. Seaton is designated an urban area in the Regional Official Plan. The Greenbelt Protection Act does not preclude the Region from approving the City's OPA as it relates to the Seaton lands. However, Regional staff has indicated that the City's OPA to permit urban uses on the Cherrywood lands would not be approved as these lands are not designated for urban growth in the Regional Official Plan and any urban area expansions would not be permitted under the Greenbelt Protection Act. Given that the Greenbelt Protection Act is to be repealed on December 16, 2004, staff is recommending that Council passed two by-laws to adopt the OPA. One by-law for the Seaton lands and the second by-law for the Agricultural Assembly lands. The difference is that the by-law as it affects the Cherrywood community would not come into force and effect until December 17, 2004. Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 0.1. 5 Page 13 6.0 THE NEW GREENBELT LEGISLATION AND DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN AFFECT THE AGRICULTURAL ASSEMBLY LANDS AND OTHER LANDS IN PICKERING 7.0 On October 28, 2004, the Province introduced Bill 135, An Act to establish a Greenbelt Area, in the Legislature. The Act authorizes cabinet to establish a Greenbelt Plan for all or part of the greenbelt area. In this regard, the Province also released its draft Greenbelt Plan for review. The proposed Greenbelt Plan designates all of the Agricultural Assembly lands within a Protected Countryside designation. Within the Protected Countryside designation, lands are either part of the Agricultural System or Natural System or settlement; and in the Agricultural System, the lands are either prime agricultural or rural. The lands in Pickering's Agricultural System would be prime agricultural as they are designated Permanent Agricultural Reserve in the Regional Official Plan. The proposed Greenbelt legislation would require Regional decisions on amendments to conform to the policies of the Greenbelt Plan. If the Act comes into force by December 17, 2004, the Region would be unable to approve the City's proposal for urban uses on the Cherrywood lands. Previously, the City in Report PD 28-04 provided comments to the Greenbelt Task Force on its Discussion Paper. The City supported the use of comprehensive planning studies to support urban areas expansions and requested the Task Force to incorporate the results of the Phase 2 of the Growth Management Study into its final recommendations. Despite the City's sound rationale for accommodating urban growth on the southerly portion of the Agricultural Assembly lands, the Province has chosen to ignore Pickering's comments (see Attachment #4 - Council Resolution #101/04). Staff is preparing a report on the Greenbelt Plan for Council's consideration on December 6, 20.04. At this time, staff recommends that a copy of this Report PD 42-04 be forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Minster of Public Infrastructure Renewal for incorporation in finalizing their Greenbelt and Places to Grow plans. CONCLUSIONS: With Council's adoption of Amendment 13, a comprehensive policy framework for the development of a sustainable, transit-oriented community on the Seaton and Cherrywood lands would be established. As well, the framework provides further direction and guidance to protecting and enhancing the environmental resources of the area and providing an important greenspace connection to the Rouge Park and Federal greenspace lands. Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 14 Appendices: Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan for the Seaton lands included as Exhibit "A" to by-law (Exhibit "A" follows Draft By-law contained in Appendix II) Draft By-law to adopt Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan for the Agricultural Assembly lands included as Exhibit "A" to by-law Official Plan Amendment Matters Reviewed by Staff and Consulting Team Attachments: Context Map and Detailed Information 1. Context Map for Amendment 13 2. Text of Information Report PD 15-04 3. Statutory Public Information Meeting Minutes held on October 14, 2004 4. Pickering Council Resolution #101/04 Resident Comments 5. Summary of Written Public Comments 6. Jim Thompson (received September 29, 2004) 7. Bonnie Littley (received October 19, 2004) 8. Larry Noonan (received October 19, 2004) 9. Rosemary Speirs (received October 19, 2004) 10. Denise Taylor (received October 19, 2004) 11. Wendell Samaroo (received October 19, 2004) 12. Maggie Mahaney, (received October 21,2004) 13. Valerie Morris (received October 22, 2004) 14. Mauro Campagna (2 - received October 22, 2004 and November 12, 2004) 15. Lorne D. Almack (received October 22, 2004) 16. Dr. Paul Thompson (received October 22, 2004) 17. Don Price & lan Attridge (received October 22, 2004) 18. Betty and Merna Burkholder (received October 25, 2004) 19. Isobel and Tommy Thompson (received October 25, 2004) 20. Mike Wilfer (received October 25, 2004) 21. Rob Lyon (received November 1,2004) 22. Sylvia Holloway (received November 3, 2004) Agency Comments 23. Summary of Agency Comments 24. Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (received October 14, 2004) 25. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (received November 15, 2004) 26. Greater Toronto Airports Authority (received November 9, 2004) 27. Region of Durham (received November 15, 2004) Report PD 42-04 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Date: November 16, 2004 Page 15 Prepared By: Grant-~C(~regor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner- Policy Approved / Endorsed By: Neil Carroll, ~IC-[P,.,~P Director, Plan'Trirr~ & Development Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy GM:ld:jf Copy: Chief Administrative Officer (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy Solicitor for the C~ity f Recom mend~:~e, ~'~{Ji'~ C~nsideration of Pickering C'~C '°'~lncJl~ Thomas J.LE)'ui[?j';Chi f A~inistrativo Officer 018 APPENDIX I TO REPORT PD 42-04 DRAFT BY-LAW TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 13 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AS IT RELATES TO THE SEATON LANDS THE CORPORATION OF THE C, ITJI~PICKERING Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 13 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering as it relates to the Seaton lands. (OPA 04-002/P) 01'3 WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, and submit them to the Region of Durham for approval; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Amendment 13 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", as it relates to the Seaton lands is hereby adopted; That Amendment 13 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering as it relates to the Seaton lands shall not come into effect until the related Regional Official Plan Amendment is approved and has come into effect; That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments; This By-law shall come into force and take effect on the day of the final passing hereof. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this __ day of 2004. David Ryan~i~¢ Bruce '~'Ylor, Clerk 0, 0 Exhibit "A" to this By-law is printed only once in this Report and it follows the Draft By-law contained in Appendix II. 021 APPENDIX II TO REPORT PD 42-04 DRAFT BY-LAW TO ADOPT OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT 13 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ASSEMBLY LANDS 022 Being a By-law to adopt Amendment 13 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering as it relates to the A9ricultural Assembly lands. (OPA 04-002/P) WHEREAS pursuant to the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p. 13, subsections 17(22) and 21(1), the Council of the Corporation of the City of Picketing may by by-law adopt amendments to the Official Plan for the City of Picketing, and submit them to the Region of Durham for approval; and WHEREAS the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004 prohibits municipalities from expanding their urban boundaries while it is in force; and WHEREAS the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004 will be repealed on December 16, 2004; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Amendment 13 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", as it relates to the Agricultural Assembly lands is hereby adopted; That Amendment 13 to the Official Plan for the City of Pickering as it relates to the Agricultural Assembly lands shall not come into effect until the related Regional Official Plan Amendment is approved and has come into effect; That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward to the Regional Municipality of Durham the documentation required by Procedure: Area Municipal Official Plans and Amendments; 4. This By-law shall come into force and take effect on December 17, 2004. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this __ day of 2004. David Ryan, Mayor Bruce T~~o r,~'~l~r~k Exhibit "A" to By-laws 023 AMENDMENT 13 TO THE CITY OF PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN O24 AMENDMENT 13 TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN PURPOSE: LOCATION: BASIS: The purpose of Amendment 13 is to implement the Recommended Structure Plan for the Growth Management Study Area. In addition, the proposed land use and transportation changes in the amendment will resolve Deferrals 3, 8, 14, 24, 38, 42 and 48 and remaining parts of Deferrals 11, 31, and 39 to the Pickering Official Plan. These Deferrals generally relate to the various road and transit spine designations within the study area with the exception of Deferral 3, which relates to deferred Regional Node polices. The Amendment affects an area bounded by the C.P. Rail line to the south, the York-Durham Townline Road to the west, Highway7 including the Provincially-owned lands north of the Hamlet of Green River to the north, and Sideline 16/Pickering-Ajax boundary to the east. In May 2002, Council initiated a Growth Management Study (GMS) to identify future urban growth options in central Pickering. In December 2002, Council approved a Terms of Reference, which were prepared with the assistance of a Working Group made up of staff and Council from the City, staff from other organizations, affected landowners (including the Province of Ontario) and members of the public. In February 2003, Council selected a multidisciplinary consulting team, led by Dillon Consulting Limited, to complete the 3-phase Study. The Consulting Team completed Phase 1 in June 2003, and Phase 2 in February 2004. On March 1, 2004, Council endorsed for consultation the Phase 2 Reports and directed staff to circulate the Reports to appropriate agencies and the public, for review and comment. At its meeting of June 29, 2004, Council passed Resolution #100/04, which in part included: receiving Phase 2 of the Growth Management Study, endorsing the Structure Plan as the basis for preparing official plan amendments, and adopting a number of other policy recommendations. The Structure Plan proposes urban development to accommodate about 77,000 people and 33,000 jobs including lands in both the Seaton and Cherrywood communities. Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 2 0 2 5 AMENDMENT: The Pickering Official Plan is hereby amended by: Amending Schedule I- Land Use Structure for the lands subject to the proposed amendment by · replacing the "Seaton Urban Study Area" designation with the designations of "Local Nodes, Community Nodes~ Mixed Corridors, Prestige Employment, Low Density Areas, Medium Density Areas, Active Recreational Areas, and Countryside Areas" for the Seaton lands; · increasing the amount and revising the pattern of the "Natural Areas" designation for the Seaton lands; · replacing the "Agricultural Area" designation with the designations of "Local Nodes, Community Nodes, Mixed Corridors, Low Density Areas, Medium Density Areas and Active Recreational Areas" for the Cherrywood lands; · increasing the amount and revising the pattern of the "Natural Areas" designation for the Cherrywood lands; · replacing the "Agricultural Areas" designation with the "Prestige Employment Areas" designation and revising the "Natural Areas" boundary for lands northeast of the Hamlet of Green River; · increasing the amount of the "Natural Areas" designation for lands southeast of the Hamlet of Green River and southwest of the Hamlet of Brougham; · replacing the "Agricultural Areas" designation with the "Countryside Areas" designation for lands surrounding the Hamlet of Whitevale and for the area generally west of the Hamlet of Whitevale to the Picketing/Markham boundary; · replacing the "Rural Hamlet" designation for the Hamlet of Cherrywood and the "Rural Cluster" designation for Cherrywood East and Cherrywood West with "Urban Study Areas" designations; · adding an "Urban Study Areas" designation for lands south and east of the Hamlet of Brougham; and · replacing the words "Seaton Urban Study Area" with the words "Countryside Areas" under Other Designations and deleting the words "Regional Nodes" and "Regional Node 1" in the Land Use Structure legend; · correct the labeling of the Highway 407/Transitway to distinguish between existing and proposed; Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 3 028 as illustrated on Schedule 'A' attached to this Amendment. Amending Schedule H- Ttansj~ortatJo~] System for the roads subject to the proposed amendment by revising the pattern of Type A, B and C arterial roads deleting 3 Highway 407 overpasses, and adding a collector road pattern, changing the Highway 407/Townline Road Interchange from "proposed" to "existing", changing the Highway 407/Transitway between Townline Road and Highway 7 from "proposed" to "existing" as illustrated on Schedule 'B' attached to this Amendment. Amending Schedule IV- g, Settlement 4: Brotxgfiam by deleting the proposed Highway 7 By-pass and realigning the proposed Brock Road By-pass as illustrated on Schedule 'C' attached to this Amendment. Amending the text of the Official Plan by: 4.1 Revising Section 2.8 (b) so that it now reads as follows: For planning purposes, City Council shall consider the following areas as Pickering's urban system: (a) ...; ~+...-1.. A ...... (b) lands between the C.P. (Belleville) rail line and up to the Federal Airport lands (generally Highway 7), west of Sideline 16/Ajax-Pickering boundary, east of the Pickering/Markham boundary, generally known as the Central Picketing Urban Area - Seaton Community and Cherrywood Community; and" (c) 4.2 Delete the existing Section 2.12 referencing the undertaking of a planning exercise for the Seaton Urban Area Study. "2.12 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 4 027 4.3 4.4 Delete the existing Section 2.13, which identifies interim and ultimate population and employment targets for the Seaton Urban Study Area, and replacing it with a new section renumbered as 2.12, so that it now reads as follows: City Council supports a population target for the Central Pickering Urban Area of 77,000 people and an employment target of 33,000 jobs for the year 2026." Delete the existing Section 2.14, which identifies a planning exercise for the Seaton Urban Study Area, and replacing it with a new section renumbered as 2.13, so that it now reads as follows: 0'2 8 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 5 2.13 For the Central Picketing Urban Area, City Council shall, (a) recognize the First Nations' cultural and spiritual connection to the area and to this end, shall require development processes to be undertaken in a respectful manner; (b) require the development of a livable, transit-oriented community; (c) acknowledge the intent of the Greater Toronto Airports Authority (GTAA) to establish an Interim Airport Protection Area (IAPA): (i) as part of the planning for the development and operation of a possible future regional, reliever airport in Picketing; (ii) to restrict the development of noise sensitive land uses within the IAPA until such time as a decision is made to proceed with the development of a possible future Pickering Airport; and (iii) generally following the 25 Noise Exposure Forecast contour as defined on mapping prox4ded by the GTAA; (d) promote a live-work relationship by accommodating employment opportunities as follows, (i) primarily in Mixed Use Areas and Employment Areas as designated on Schedule I to this Plan; and (ii) as home occupations in Urban Residential Areas; (e) create residential neighbourhoods, which incorporate the best community planning and sustainable design practices while protecting and enhancing the area's natural heritage features; Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 6 02,3 (f) collaborate with Durham College/University of Ontario Institute of Technology to secure a campus site that is highly accessible by roads and transit, provides a prominent focal point readily visible from Taunton Road, and acts as a gateway to the surrounding community; (g) collaborate with the Province and the Rouge Valley Hospital to address health care needs in the City including securing a hospital site; (h) require the establishment of appropriate neighbourhood phasing strategies to the satisfaction of the City prior to permitting residential development; (i) require the landowners to enter into satisfactory financial arrangements to ensure that there is no financial burden on the City or Region with respect to facilities, services, and infrastructure; (j) establish and maintain an open space system, which includes both significant natural heritage features and other lands providing required corridor, linkage and buffer functions; (k) require the boundaries and extent of the open space system generally delineated on Schedule I to be further detailed as part of the neighbourhood planning process to reflect the results of a Master Environmental Servicing Plan; (1) through the neighbourhood planning process require: (i) an environmental report demonstrating how the proposed development that protects and enhances the natural heritage features where possible; (ii) an archaeological assessment of heritage resources in consultation with the Province, the Region, the City and the First Nations; and (iii) a planning/design review that addresses the interface of the Cherrywood Community with the Rouge Park; (m) require, prior to permitting active recreational, community, and cultural uses and other related uses within the Active Recreational Areas, an environmental report to demonstrate that the proposed use would maintain the features and functions of the natural heritage corridor; Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 7 03O (n) recognize the heritage character of the Whitevale Road Corridor, and to this end require the design of new development to be compatible with existing heritage structures, features and sites; (o) require an Environmental Assessment to determine the appropriate bridge design and intersection spacing for: (i) the Third Concession Road westerly extension over the C.P. Rail line and West Duffins Creek; (ii) the Dixie Road northerly extension over the C.P. Rail line; and (iii)the Sideline Road 22 extension north of the C.P. Railway; (p) require an Environmental Assessment (EA) to determine the precise location of two future GO Transit Stations, conceptually located on the west side of Whites Road, north of C.P. Railway, and on the west side of Brock Road, north of the C.P. Railway, on Schedule II; and (i) should the EA result in the identification of .'~n alternate location, the station locations may be moved without amendment to this Plan; and (ii) upon identifying the station location(s), Council shall re-examine the abutting land uses to ensure an appropriate mix and intensity of land uses is permitted; (q) require the design of' sites, buildings and facilities in proximity to the Heron Rookery located north of Taunton Road, east of York/Durham Townline Road, to demonstrate compatibility including the consideration for fencing, buffering, lighting, and any other matters identified by Council; (r) require new development adjacent to the Hamlet of Cherrywood and to the clusters of Cherrywood West and Cherrywood East to demonstrate appropriate transitional design and compatibility with the area's existing character; (s) require high performance standards for development and site design in the Prestige Employment Areas especially for locations in proximity to the Hamlet boundaries of Green River and Brougham; and Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 8 4.5 4.6 (t) require the community to be built in such a way that adequate flexibility is provided to accommodate on-going evolution and innovation." Deleting existing Sections 2.15 and 2.'16 in their entirety as follows: 2.1,6 Revising Table 2 by deleting the "Regional Node" row and replacing the "Seaton Urban Study Area" row with a new "Countryside Areas" row so that lable 2 now reads as follows: Open Space ! The area's ability to withstand System i activity without impairing significant i ecological functions or endangering human i life/property Mixed Use Areas Rcglcnal The location, scale and relative number of people served by the Mixed Use Area Natural Areas Active Recreational Areas .... ........................................ Local Nodes Community Nodes Mixed Corridors Downtown Core Rcglcnal Ncdc 1 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 9 032 Employment The intended mix of uses, operational General Employment Areas requirements, and design/performance Prestige Employment standards of the area Mixed Employment Urban The minimum and maximum number of Low Density Areas Residential residential dwellings permissible in the area Medium Density Areas Areas Hirsh Density Areas Rural The relative size, mix of uses, and character Country Residential Settlements of the settlement Rural Clusters Rural Hamlets .... i~';;;';;~2~; ..................... ~i:;;;";;~;i;~;;;;;;~;i~";'E';;;;';;~;g'~E~;;i';;;&'"2'~'~i;~'&'2¥'" "'t~;¥;E'h';~';;i"~'~ih':~;; ................... and Major uses or activities in the area Are:as Utilities Controlled Access Areas "~g';~'~'i'~t~t'~i .......... ~'~'~ "~'~'~ ~'~'i'~ ..................................................................................... no subcategories Areas Countryside not applicable no subcategories Areas Potential not applicable no subcategories Airport Site ..... g~;;~i~;".~'~;;~' ............. ¥'fi',;"i~;;;';;;;~';;';;';;i:;i;~;'";~;'~;,;~",;'~'i'~;~"~; ...................... ~J';i;';;;;'§;';;';i~;"~;;';;;; ........................ rural Rural Study Areas 4.7 Deleting Section 3.7 in its entirely as follows: "3.7 Cl,D' Cc, uncil, Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 11 ,'q34 4.10 Deleting Section 3.13 and Table 14 in their entirety. agricultural 4.11 Adding a new Section 3.17 as follows: "3.17 City Council shall recognize as an Urban Study Area on Schedule I, lands located south of the Hamlet of Brougham, north of Highway 407, and (a) shall consider eliminating the Study Area designation following completion of a land use study that addresses, (i) the ownership of lands; (ii) long term compatibility of uses with the possible future Picketing Airport; (iii) future servicing potential; and (iv) the impact of the Highway 407 and the Brock Road interchange; and (b) considering the results of the above study, shall establish, by amendment to this Plan, appropriate land use designations and policies." Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 12 O35 4.12 4.13 Adding a new Section 3.18 and renumber the remaining sections 3.18 as 3.19 and 3.20 as 3.21 as follows: "3.18 City Council shall recognize as Urban Study Areas on Schedule I, the Hamlet of Cherry-wood at Rosebank Road, the larger Cherrywood West Cluster on the west side of Altona Road, and the smaller Cherry-wood East Cluster east of Whites Road, and, (a) shall consider eliminating the Study Area designation following completion of a land use and design study that, (i) identifies an appropriate means of integrating redevelopment with the existing character of Cherrywood and area, following the extension of full municipal servicing to these areas; and (b) considering the results of the above study, shall establish, by amendment to this Plan, appropriate land use designations and policies." Revising Section 4.15 by deleting subsections (a)(i), (ii), (iv), and (b) and renumber the remaining subsections a(iii), a(v), a(vi) and (c) as a(i), a(ii), a(iii) and (b) respectively so that it now reads as follows: "4.15 City Council requests the Region of Durham to implement the following, (a) re-examination of its proposed arterial road system as shown in the Durham Regional Official Plan, (i)...; Road; ~(iifl...; and ~) (iii)..4 Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan Page 13 036 4.14 4.15 ....................... City ~'~d Revising Section 7.4 by replacing the words "Seaton Urban Study A~ea" with the words "Central Picketing Urban Area" so that it now reads as follows: To help ensure community services planning is properly integrated and co-ordinated with municipal land use planning, City Council, when preparing Development Guidelines for Detailed Review Areas, and/or as part of the detailed planning for the Central Pickering Urban Area, shall consider,..." Deleting Section 12.6(0 in its entirety and renumber the remaining sections so that it now reads as follows: (-g-) (0 encourage the appropriate and timely disposition of Federa~y and Prodncial~-o~ed lands ~in the rural se~lement boundaw. IMPLEMENTATION: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the implementation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. INTERPRETATION: The provisions set forth in the City of Pickering Official Plan, as amended, regarding the interpretation of the Plan shall apply in regard to this Amendment. t¢44 l)12,~4,1)I5 D'cPcrr~2 3: Pcrm':;;'zib!c land 'dsc',; fr;z P.c~,qcn"J Nc'Jc ! 'JcPcrr'cd ?cnding further ccn'zidczation and Rckq~n~ rwa_:~ .,~ ~ ...... ~ ....... ~]:~:"~m' n~ 019 I)ckrrals 12, M and 15: Policics 4.15(a)(~)(fi), and 4.1~w; and ¢)¢)d~k~d ~o~ further study ~,c,...~ o~. Policy ~0 SCHEDULE 'C' SCHEDULE IV-4 SETTLEMENT 4: BROUGHAM 037 HIGHWAY 40' 0 n- m ST. ! ! · LEGEND HAMLET RESIDENTIAL HAMLET COMMERCIAL HAMLET EMPLOYMENT OPEN SPACE SYSTEM-- NATURAL AREAS NEW ROAD CONNECTIONS (PROPOSED) RURAL SETTLEMENT BOUNDARY SYMBOLS PLACE OF WORSHIP PARK COMMUNITY CENTRE FIREHALL CEMETERY CItY Of PIGKERING PLANNING ~ DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOVEMBER, 2004 038 APPENDIX III TO REPORT PD 42-04 RECOMMENDATIONS ON OUTSTANDING MATTERS RECOMMENDATIONS ON OUTSTANDING MATTERS Land Use and Urban Boundary Details consider relocating the Major Institutional Node from Whites Road and Taunton Road to the north-east and south-east corners of Taunton Road and Townline Road and replacing it with Mixed Use Corridors: consider switching locations of Mixed Use, Local Nodes and Community Nodes; examine need for increased floor areas compared with current official plan; consider converting Mixed Use Areas along Brock Road, south of Fifth Concession Road, to employment uses; consider redesignating narrow strips of land between hydro corridor and pipeline from Mixed Use Areas to Natural Heritage Corridor;, consider increasing open space or adding other buffer land use between both the existing residential in Hamlets of Green River and Brougham, and the proposed Employment Areas; consider precise list of permissible uses in Countryside, including wind and solar energy farms; establish precise location of urban boundary following refinements to land use. Staff Recommendations Change by replacing the Major Institutional Node with Mixed Corridor and adding new polices encouraging major institutional uses such as a university, college campus, or hospital to locate along Taunton Road; No change; No change. designation development; Given small areas, Mixed Use Areas provides greater flexibility for No change. Retain the Mixed Use Areas designation; Change by adding an Open Space buffer between the Hamlets of Green River and Brougham and the proposed Prestige Employment Areas; Change by adding a policy to further review the appropriateness of wind and solar energy farms in the Countryside designation; No change. Urban boundary delineated in Durham Regional Official Plan. 2. Road Linkages and Transportation Details revisit design of Whites Road / Taunton Road / Sideline 26 intersections (conflict between grade separation for continuous vehicular movement and adjacent land use and urban design objectives); consider extension of a road north-west from Whites Road and Taunton Road intersection to link with the Fourth Concession Road, and designation of that connection; design and spacing of intersections between Third Concession Road extension / Sideline 22 northerly extension / rail crossing, and Dixie Road northerly extension intersection with Third Concession extension; precise locations of West Duffins Creek crossing of Third Concession extension; precise locations of rail crossing; consider changing the designation of part of Regional Road 27 (Altona Road, north of proposed Whitevale By-pass, and west to Townline Road) from a Type B to a Type C arterial; consider changing designation of Townline Road south of Taunton Road / Steeles Avenue to a two-lane Type C (instead of Type B) arterial; - consider changing the designation on Sideline 22 (proposed Highway 407 interchange) between Highway 7 and at least the first collector, if not further south, from Type C to a higher level of arterial; consider minor (0.5 km) westerly shift of proposed Sideline 26 / Highway 407 interchange in consultation with the GTAA and Durham Region; consider adding a proposed overpass/underpass between Highway 7 and collector south of Highway 407; - consider shifting entire Type A arterial shown on Sideline 26 west, off the existing sideline, in light of both GTAA's findings and to maintain existing sideline as local road; consider jog elimination for Whitevale By-pass - 14th Avenue connection in Pickering, rather than Markham. Staff Recommendations No change. Durham Region responsible for design and construction; Change by adding new Type C arterial road from Whites Road and Taunton Road intersection to link with Fourth Concession Road; Change by adding a policy relating to intersection design and spacing; No change. Type B arterial road designation consistent with current Regional Official Plan; No change. Type B artedal road designation appropriate for Townline Road and is consistent with current Regional Official Plan; Change by redesignating Sideline 22 to a Type B arterial road between Highway 7 and the first Collector road south of Highway 407; No Change. More recent irfformation from the GTAA reflects interchange location as shown on Schedule; No change; No Change; No change. EA will determine alignment; -2- 04i 3. Natural and Cultural Heritage - review the proposed location of Natural Heritage Corridor between Countryside and urban designations of Cherrywood community; - review mapping of a creek east of the community park and high school showing closer natural heritage connection on Plan than in field; review proximity of corridor connection to Rouge Park and intersection of Townline Road and Steeles Avenue/ Taunton Road; consider possible alternative natural corridor to north and east, also creating possible connection to Rouge Park North; consider adding a "special policy" for the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood to reflect the significance this area has for First Nations; - review specific requirement for 600 metre width corridors in urban area; consider using ecological criteria for determining corridor and buffer widths, rather than minimum standards; -in higher intensity areas, consider reduced buffer widths where ecologically acceptable to achieve intensity of use, urban design objectives, etc.; - consider some rounding out/squaring off within natural heritage system; consider policy on interface of new Cherrywood community with Rouge Park. Staff Recommendations No change; Change by replacing Open Space-Natural Areas designation with Low Density Residential Area; no creek visible on site; No change; No change; Change by adding a new policy respecting the significance of the entire Amendment area to the First Nations; No change. However, proposed OPA designates the corridor as Active Recreation Areas, which permit active recreational, community and cultural uses and other related uses, subject to an environmental report; No change. Proposed OPA incorporates a policy requiring the boundaries and extent of the open space system to be further detailed as part of the neighbourhood planning process. However, the buffer widths associated with natural heritage features will be maintained and enhanced; No change. Proposed OPA incorporates a policy requiring the boundaries and extent of the Open Space system to be further detailed as part of the neighbourhood planning process; No change. Proposed OPA allows flexibility at detailed neighborhood planning stage; Change by adding appropriate policy. -3- O4'2 4. Miscellaneous (examine all other issues that may result from the review of the items outlined above, comments made during discussion or review at public meeting, and other comments received) consider appropriate land use designations for Provincially owned lands north of the Hamlet of Green River; remove 'Proposed Highway 407/ Transitway' from land use schedule; relocate North Road bridge over Highway 407 to its correct location on the transportation schedule; insert the GO Station symbol on the west side of Whites Road, north of the CP railway tracks on the transportation schedule; consider deleting the proposed Type C arterial road from Taunton Road to the first collector road north on Sideline 16; replace the symbol on the Highway 407 / Markham-Pickering Townline Road interchange from proposed to existing on the transportation schedule; add a Type C arterial road designation on Rosebank Road on the transportation schedule; consider deleting small remnants of Prestige Employment Areas and Active Recreational Areas located within the Natural Areas designation; consider designating some portions of the major east west corridor between the employment and living areas to Natural Areas from Active Recreational Areas; consider adding a policy requiring building designs to be compatible with the heron rookery located north of Taunton Road; consider placing a small Prestige Employment area located on the east side of the Brougham in a Urban Study Area; Staff Recommendations Change by redesignating the provincially owned lands to Prestige Employment Area; Change by correcting the labels to distinguish between Existing and Proposed Highway 407/Transitway on the land use and transportation schedules; Change by relocating bridge on transportation schedule; Change by inserting GO Transit Station symbol on transportation schedule and adding policies permitting a location change without the need for an amendment; Change by deleting the Proposed Type C arterial road; Change by replacing the symbol from proposed to existing on the transportation schedule; Change by adding a Type C arterial road designation on Rosebank Road on the transportation schedule. This is consistent with the Council endorsed Structure Plan and Regional Official Plan; Change by deleting small remnants of Prestige Employment Areas and Active Recreational Areas located within the Natural Areas designation, where appropriate; Change by redesignating some portions of the major east west corridor between the employment and living areas to Natural Areas from Active Recreational Areas to protect its function; Change by adding policy requiring the design of sites, buildings and facilities to demonstrate compatibility to the heron rookery; Change by redesignating the smaller parcel to Urban Study Area in order to determine the appropriate land use designation. 4 REPORT t PD ~2.-~q O ~ ,~ City of Pickering Planning & Development Depa~ment PROPER~ DESCRIPTION CON. 2, PT. LOTS 24-35/CON 3 LOTS 25-35, PT LOTS 17-24/CON 4, LOTS 17-35/CO~. ~ LOTS 17-35 OWNER VARIOUS DATE SEPT. 10, 200~ DF~WN BY JB ~/~ FILE No. OPAO4-002P SCALE NTS CHECKED BY GM N FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-RURAL PA- 044 ATTACHUENT~ ~--' 1'0 REPORT # PI) ~2.., INFORMATION REPORT NO. 15-04 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF October 14, 2004 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter' P.13 SUBJECT: Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA 04-002/P City Initiated: Growth Management Study Implementation City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 AREA LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the proposed amendment applies to lands generally bounded by the C.P. Rail line to the south, York-Durham Townline Road to the west, Highway 7 to the north, and Sideline 16/Pickering-Ajax boundary to the east; these lands comprise the Growth Management Study Area and are identified on Attachment #1; the amendment area is divided by the West Duffins Creek, which sits in a wide, deep forested valley; the area is also traversed by a number of smaller stream corridors including the Whitevale, Ganatsekiagon, Urfe and Brougham Creeks in the east (the Seaton lands) and the Petticoat and Altona Creeks in the west (the Cherrywood lands); the area is predominantly rural in character; the rural settlements of Cherrywood and Whitevale are within the subject area while the Hamlets of Brougham and Green River abut the northern boundary of the subject area. BACKGROUND in December 2002, Council approved the Terms of Reference for the Growth Management Study, which focused on 10 Principles that express Pickering's priorities in land use and development decision-making for the subject area; in addition, the Terms of Reference emphasize an 'Environment First' approach to the Growth Management Study; in February 2003, Council selected a multidisciplinary consulting team, led by Dillon Consulting Limited, to complete the 3-phase Study; Information Report No. 15-04 AT?ACHMENT #_ ~.- R£POR~ # PD_ /-/'~ -c7-/ Page 2 045 3.0 3.1 3.2 in June 2003, the Consulting Team completed Phase 1, which focused on developing an Environmental System to form the framework for all future development in the subject area; Phase 2 was competed in February 2004, which analyzed the background reports to develop a Structure Plan to accommodate Pickering's future population and employment growth over the next 20 years; approximately one-third of this new population growth would be accommodated through intensification and infill in south Pickering; the recommended Structure Plan creates a compact transit supportive community capable of accommodating approximately 76,900 persons within 24,800 dwelling units and a broad range of employment opportunities for approximately 33,000 people, while providing an extensive greenspace system; in June 2004, Council endorsed the Structure Plan as the basis for preparing official plan amendments, and authorized staff to examine a work program for Phase 3 - Neighbourhood Plans of the Growth Management Study; this Information Report presents the draft official plan amendment that would incorporate the concepts from the Council endorsed Structure Plan. OFFICIAL PLANS Durham Re.qional Official Plan the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the Seaton portion of the Study Area as Living Area and Employment Area and the Agricultural Assembly portion as Permanent Agricultural Reserve and Major Open Space System; a Regional Node h for a proposed Durham College campus and a Main Central Area designation is also located on the Seaton lands; a network of Type A, B, and C arterial roads are also designated; Pickerinq Official Plan - the Pickering Official Plan designates the Seaton lands as the Seaton Urban Study-Area and Natural Areas, and the Agricultural Assembly lands as Agricultural Areas and Natural Areas, on Schedule I - Land Use Structure; also on Schedule I, the remaining part of Deferral 31 relating to the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood is shown; - the Seaton Urban Study Area policies require the community to be a compact urban area, the preparation of neighbourhood plans and phasing strategies, and other matters relating to community development; - in addition to conservation, passive and similar recreational uses, the Natural Areas designation permits agricultural uses outside of valley and stream corridors, wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, and areas of natural and scientific interest; 040 Information Report No. 15-04 ATTACHMENT~_ ~- 'r0 REPORT # PD. /--/Z -L)q Page 3 3.3 4.0 4.1 in the Agricultural Areas designation, permissible uses include primary agricultural uses and complementary and supportive agricultural uses such as agricultural industries, home businesses; farm-related businesses and other farm-related businesses; the Schedule II- Transportation Network designates an arterial road system within the study area, the arterial road alignments have been deferred pending the results of the Growth Management Study; for reference, copies of Schedules I and II are attached (see Attachments #2 and #3); Greenbelt Protection Act the Act establishes a one-year moratorium that prevents new "urban uses" outside of existing "urban settlement areas" boundaries on rural and agricultural lands within the Greenbelt Study Area; the Act does not preclude the City from initiating an amendment to its Official Plan; however, it would prevent the City from adopting an official plan amendment to permit urban uses on the Cherrywood lands, during the one-year moratorium. CITY INITIATED AMENDMENT TO THE PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN General Overview the City of Pickering proposes to amend the Pickering Official Plan in order to implement the Council endorsed Structure Plan for the Growth Management Study Area; - the attached amendment include the following policy and Schedule revisions to the Official Plan (see Appendix I): 1. revise certain lands on Schedule I- Land Use Structure as follows: · replacing the Seaton Urban Study Area designation with the designations of Local Nodes, Community Nodes, Mixed Corridors, Prestige Employment Areas, Low Density Areas and Medium Density Areas (see Attachment #4 for corresponding Tables 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10); · replacing the Agricultural Area designation with the designations of Local Nodes, Community Nodes, Mixed Corridors, Low Density Areas and Medium Density Areas for the Cherrywood lands; · revising the configuration and extent of the Natural Areas designation; · adding a Major Institutional Node designation and policies to permit a college or university campus; · replacing the Hamlet designation for Cherrywood and the Rural Cluster designation for Cherrywood West and Cherrywood East with new Urban Study Area designations and policies; Information Report No. 15-04 ATTACHMENTS ~-- TO Page 4 0 4 7 5.0 5.1 5,2 6.0 6.1 · replacing the existing Agricultural Area designation around the Hamlet of Whitevale with a new Countryside Area designation that permits non-agricultural related uses; · adding an Urban Study Area designation for the area south of the Hamlet of Brougham; revise Schedule II- Transportation System, to show new arterial road alignments and to delete three Highway 407 overpasses located at Sideline 22, Country Lane, and Brock Road; and o add new policies requiring: · the maintenance and enhancement of the Open Space System; · detailed natural heritage system boundaries for the Seaton and Cherrywood communities as part of the neighbourhood planning process; · the development of new residential neighbourhoods to incorporate sustainable design elements. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments as of the writing of this report one area resident has contacted the City to express opposition to the City initiated official plan amendment (see Attachment #5); A.qency Comments - no agency comments have been received to date. DISCUSSION Vision the proposed official plan amendment provides a framework for the development of a sustainable, transit-oriented community on the Seaton and Cherrywood lands; as well, the amendment maintains and enhances the natural heritage features and allows for a continuous greenspace linkage between Lake Ontario and the Oak Ridges Moraine; and supports a healthy and vibrant countryside by including a broad range of uses beyond traditional agriculture; 048 Information Report No. 15-04 Page 5 6.2 6.3 6.4 Recommended Land Use the proposed land use schedule is consistent with the Structure Plan's features relating to the open space system, mixed use areas, employment and urban residential areas; all of the Park and School sites on the Structure Plan are permitted uses in the Active Recreational Area designations as shown on land use schedule of the proposed official plan amendment; a new Major Institutional Node designation is proposed at the intersection of Whites Road and Taunton Road for a university or college campus; a multitude of mixed use nodes and corridors are designated that provide opportunities for future intensification for the two communities; the boundaries of the open space system are be further detailed as part of the neighbourhood planning process which reflects the results of a Master Environmental Servicing Report; new development is required to be compatible with existing heritage structures, features and sites along Whitevale Road; the proposed Urban Study Area policy for the Hamlet of Cherrywood and for the Cherrywood West and East rural clusters requires a land use and design study to identify appropriate means to integrate redevelopment to the existing character of these settlements; the proposed land use changes will resolve the remaining part of Deferral 31 to the Pickering Official Plan relating to the Lamoreaux Neighbourhood; Recommended Transportation Network the proposed transportation schedule is consistent with the Structure Plan's grid network of arterial roads; Taunton Road, Brock Road, Highway 7 and Whites Road/Sideline 26 are key Type A arterial roads serving the two communities; the Whitevale Road by-pass, Rossland Road extension, Altona Road and the York-Durham Line are intended to provide Type B arterial road service; the remaining roads shown on the transportation schedule will provide neighbourhood level service through Type C arterial road or collector road function; the proposed arterial road network will resolve Deferrals 8,11,14,38,39,42 and 48 to the Pickering Official Plan relating to road and transit spine designations within the subject area; Other Matters for Consideration - several areas of the Structure Plan were identified for further detailed review in Report PD 22-04, which was received by Council last June; - staff's review of these areas are highlighted in Appendix II, which identifies the areas where no changes, changes, and further review are recommended; - all outstanding matters will continue to be reviewed and any subsequent changes incorporated in the final official plan amendment. Information Report No. 15-04 ATTACHr~Er~T~.__ ~-_.To Page 6 O43 7.0 PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 7.1 Official Plan Amendment Approval Authority the Region of Durham is the approval authority for local official amendments when there is a regional official plan amendment required; 7.2 General plan 8.0 8.1 - 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; if you wish to be notified of Council's adoption of any official plan amendment, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; - if you wish to be notified of the decision of the Region of Durham with respect to the proposed amendment to the official plan, you must make a written request to the Commissioner of Planning, Region of Durham Planning Department. OTHER INFORMATION Appendix I proposed City-initiated Pickering Official Plan Amendment to implement the Council endorsed Structure Plan of the Growth Management Study; 8.2 Appendix II - Council endorsed Structure Plan Matters under Review. OI~IOINAL ~IGNED BY Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner- Policy GM:jf Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development ORIGINAL SIGNND BY Catherine L. Rose, MCIP, RPP Manager, Policy 050 ATTACHMENT ~. ,.~ TO REPORT ~ PO Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:00 P.M. The Director, Planning & Development provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the meeting and introduced staff and Anne Joyner, Dillon Consulting. The Manager, Policy, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT OPA 04-002/'P CITY INITIATED: GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY IMPLEMENTATION Cathy Rose, Manager, Policy, provided an overview of property location, applicant's proposal and City's official plan policies pertaining to this site, as outlined in Information Report #15/04. Bonnie Littley, representing Rouge Duffins Greenspace, stated her concern with regards to the cost to the taxpayers of the Growth Management Study and her further concern with the proposed legal action against the Province. She questioned the legality of the amendment and suggested further consultation with the public advising that this amendment does not conform to the Regional Official Plan, Greenbelt Plan, Growth Plan and Minister's Zoning Order. Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy, advised that it is not illegal for Pickering to put forward an amendment. He further stated that all Growth Management Study costs are known and can be accounted for. Joe Brown, 1205 Halsey Lane, emphasized the need for consideration to be given to a hospital usage due to the new growth and anticipated growth in Pickering. He recommended the City take a pro-active approach and ensure that the Province has a hospital included in their plan. Cathy Rose, Manager, Policy, stated that health care is very necessary and a hospital can be placed anywhere but open space. She further advised that a college has already been considered for the north. Wolf Mueller, Altona Road, south of Whitevale, stated that this plan includes lands north of Taunton Road between Altona Road and the Townline but this area is a major swamp and Heron Rookery. He questioned the environmental knowledge of the Planners and the range of planning authority the Planning Department has over its countryside. Anne Joyner, Dillon Consulting, advised that biologists did field work and the Heron Rookery has been protected. -1- AT1 A{;HMENI Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:00 P.M. 051 Neil Carroll, Director, Planning & Development, advised that the City of Pickering has planning authority within the City boundaries, over to the Townline and up to Uxbridge. lan Attridge, Councel for Ontario Farmland Trust, provided the background and interest of Ontario Farmland Trust. He stated that protecting farmland can be a benefit to Pickering and adds value to the assessment base, increases taxes and adds to tourism. He further stated that the City is fortunate to hold easements and can be a leader in growth. He stated their support of protecting the agricultural lands and the agricultural easements. 10. Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy, spoke of Mr. Attridge's background with the Green Door Alliance, participation with the Committee involved in acquiring the agricultural easements to protect the agricultural lands. He offered to have a meeting with the Ontario Farmland Trust. 11. Carol Kenney, 1760 Forbrock Street, stated her discouragement with the process and questioned why there has been so much energy put into this Study, who will have the final say and how can this process go forward from here peacefully. 12. Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy, advised that Pickering began this plan 2 ¼ years ago under the Planning Act and the Province hired their consultants earlier this year. He further stated that the Minister of Municipal Affairs does not have to approve the plan. 13. Jim Robb, 1 Braeburn Blvd., Scarborough, provided a history of the north Pickering lands. He stated that significant landowners who happen to be developers funded the Growth Management Study. He requested that the Duffin Rouge Ag Preserve be left alone and that the City work with the Province to keep with their promise to only develop one-third of the Seaton lands. 14. Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy, emphasized that the developers had absolutely no influence in the Study, everything was open, and the reports and meeting notes are available for public review. 15. Anne Joyner, Dillon Consulting, advised that her consulting firm have a very strong reputation as environment first team. They sat through many meetings, looked comprehensively at Pickering as a whole to decide where growth should occur and challenged anyone to find developer influence in the study. 16. Mayor Ryan addressed comments of previous speakers and provided of history of the Seaton lands and the servicing and development of Seaton. -2- 052 i ICKE G aT'~ACHMENT #_ ,~ TO REPOR'I # PD~ .......... Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, October 14, 2004 7:00 P.M. 17. Norman Collier, Townline, questioned the legality of one of the developers who funded the study, who started to clear-cut trees on lands north of Taunton Road. 18. Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy, advised that the landowners involved in the land clearing have been charged for removal of trees under the tree cutting by-law. He further advised that this case is in court. 19. Mike Wilfer, 2 Jomar Ave., stated that confusion stems from the multi-levels of government involved in the planning of Pickering. He questioned if all airport lands sit within the jurisdiction of Pickering and requested that Pickering not waste anymore money by fighting with the Province. 20. Tom Melymuk, Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy, advised that the airport lands extend into Uxbridge and Markham and that an airport would be one of the strongest economic builders. 21. Martin Herzog, Director of the Liverpool West Community Association, advised that his experience with the Province is that they don't respond to questions and is not participating with the City. He further suggested that the consultant have ~i high degree of integrity. 22. Councillor McLean stated his desire for a full Environmental Study on the lands. -3- PICKER1NG .~' l'4;a VIE '~ "~'_, .L~T0 ~EPOR'I ,~ PD q 2. -©L~ Excerpts from Council Meeting Minutes Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:10 PM (11) (IV) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of June 21,2004 RESOLUTIONS Resolution #101/04 Moved by Councillor Pickles Seconded by Councillor Brenner That Picketing Council RECEIVE, and ENDORSE as its comments Report PD 28-04 on the Discussion Paper entitled Toward a Golden Horseshoe Greenbelt prepared by the Greenbelt Task Force, dated May 2004, EBR Registry Number: PF 04E0002; and That Pickering Council ADVISE the Chair and members of the Greenbelt Task Force, that: a) Pickering Council supports the concept of a permanent greenbelt in the Golden Horseshoe; b) the Task Force Incorporate the results of Phase 2 of the City of Pickering's Growth Management Study and the comments provided in this Report in completing its final recommendations; and c) the Task Force coordinate its work with the Province's work on a Growth Management Study for the Golden Horseshoe as well as other pertinent provincial initiatives such as the Planning Act reform work prior to making its final recommendations to the Province. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 28-04 to the Chair and members of the Greenbelt Task Force; the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal; the Manager-Planning Policy, Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing; the Region of Durham; and Wayne Arthurs, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge. CARRIED Recorded Vote: Yes: Councillors Brenner, Holland, McLean, Pickles and Mayor Ryan No: Councillor Johnson Conflict: Councillor Ashe -1- 054 ATTACHMENT # ..5' REPORT d' PD. .//,Z - OT/"~/ SUMMARY OF WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS NAME SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Lorne D. Almack · raised a number of concerns regarding: - land use policy planning should not be financed by developers who control property within the study area and stand to gain financially from the recommendation; - the Agricultural Preserve lands should not have been included in the study areas unless limited to planning for agriculture; any valid growth management study would include an evaluation of the potential for growth through redevelopment and intensification; the studies forming the basis for the Official Plan amendment were seriously flawed-based on obsolete planning concepts by failing to recognize the need for smart growth, energy conservation, competitiveness, efficiently, and pollution abatement; - the plan urbanizes far more land and destroys far more greenspace and foodland than other options suggested (Seaton alone); Betty and Merna · raised a number of questions regarding: Burkholder why is it necessary to open Sideline 24? why is it necessary to run an east-west road, north of and parallel to the Third Concession Road through our farm? why are there houses slated to be built on our farmland? Mauro Campagna · supported the inclusion of his property located immediately northeast of Sideline 16, Highway #7 in the study area; Sylvia Holloway · concerned about not being able to construct a home in the proposed Active Recreational Area shown in the OPA for the property; · concerned about the impact of the proposed Iow density area bordering the property; · concerned about the property being surrounded by non-farming uses and their ability to continue leasing their property for farming purposes; · abutting Iow Density Areas will negatively impact their bucolic home setting; · questioned the criteria to determine the boundaries between Low Density Area and Active Recreational Area; NAME SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Bonnie Littley, Rouge · indicated that the majority of people - residents, resident groups, Duffins Greenspace environmental groups of Pickering and neighbours from across the Coalition GTA do not support Pickering's Growth Management Plan and do not want Pickering to do the planning for the area; · indicated that the City's study ignores it's own ground rule to 'recognize the permanent agricultural designations for the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve'; · supported the need for the Preserve to be protected by legislation so that a marketing strategy to promote and enhance agri-business on the preserve can be implemented, which would capitalize on new opportunities presented by "near urban agricultural" markets using examples from all over the world; Rob Lyon · requested that the total area of his property being redesignated to Iow density area to take advantage of the infrastructure that will be available on the Fourth Concession Road; · requested that the Iow density area to the northeast of Altona Road and the Fourth Concession Road be removed and replaced by Countryside to act as a buffer to the Active Recreational Area that was to form a wildlife link; · indicated that the use of the Active Recreational Area as a wildlife link is completely unacceptable as it allows for the placement of a school there; · indicated that the land shown as Low Density Area on the west side of Altona Road and south of the Fourth Concession and north of Taunton Road should be removed and the wildlife area should be expanded to the west side of Altona Road; · indicated that the existing heron rookery should be protected with an additional buffer; · indicated that there should be a public policy implemented for public lands; Maggie Mahaney · questioned why sewer servicing is going to run through 2 ponds along side of Urfe Creek, north of Taunton Road; · indicated that better maps on trails, ponds and streams for this area are needed; Valerie Morris · indicated that the plan amendment should not proceed; · indicated that the development proposed in this plan makes too many assumptions about infrastructure, transportation, road, and protection of the environment and wildlife; Larry Noonan · opposed the Growth Management Plan and would like a plan that includes a permanent agricultural designation for the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve; -2- 056 NAME SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Don Prince & lan · indicated that the Trust supports the protection of the Agricultural Attridge, Ontario Assembly lands under easement for agriculture; Farmland Trust · indicated that references to the agricultural easements in the Study documents were not found; · indicated that details about the City's plans for the agricultural easements and a public process to discuss their future is required; Wendell Samaroo · opposed to the Growth Management Plan; · indicated that it is wrong to change Pickering's urban boundary into the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve; · indicated this change violates the Provincial Zoning Order, Ontario Planning & Development Act, Greenbelt Protection Act and does not conform to the Regional Official Plan; Rosemary Speirs · opposed the City's plan to develop parts of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve; Denise Taylor · opposed the City's Growth Management Plan; Isobel and Tommy · opposed the adoption of a Growth Management Plan which does Thompson not maintain the Agricultural designation on the Agricultural Preserve; Dr. Paul Thompson, · opposed to the Growth Management:Study recommendations; President of Green Door · supported the Provincial Government's position that the Alliance Agricultural Preserve should remain in agriculture; · urged Pickering to abandon their Agricultural Preserve urbanization strategy; Mike Wilfer, President of · recommended that the City work with the Province and the Region the Cherrywood and that Seaton has the support of the Scugog First Nations; Residence Association · recommended that the agricultural assembly lands be preserved. -3- Rose, Catherine ATTACHIVIEITT iI . ~._..~.~TO REPORT # PD~ Page 1 of 3 057 From: Jim Thompson [jimc.thompson@sympatico.ca] Sent: September 29, 2004 4:42 PM To: Clerks Web Email Cc: Rose, Catherine; Melymuk, Thomas; Ryan, David, Mayor; McLean, Bill, Councillor; Johnson, Rick, Councillor; Pickles, David, Councillor; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor Subject: Pickering OPA Thank you for your recent mailing, dated 17th September, 2004, concerning the proposed Pickering Official Plan Amendments, coming as a result of the Growth Management Study, and the Notice of the Public Meeting to be held respecting this proposal on Thursday 14th October, 2004. I regret that I will be unable to attend the Meeting since I am travelling in the USA from the 4th to the 15th October, 2004. Please accept this as my interest in this matter and my wish to be notified of subsequent meetings on this and related matters. I would be grateful if you could either send me a copy of the Information Report, referred to on page 3 of your mailing, by email, fax or mail, or hold a copy for me for pickup by me after I return. My home mailing address is: 437 Churchwin Street, Whitevale, Ontario, L0H 1M0 (fax 905-294-1213). I am copying this to the Plato:ting Department, with additional comments on the GMS and the proposed Amendments below. Thank you James C. Thompson 905-294-8288 To: The Pic. kering P!apmJng and Development Department 30/09/2004 0 Page 2 of 3 A'~CHUEBIT~ ~ TO I have written and spoken several times on the subject of the GMS, so that my views are probably now quite well known. Hence, I will not repeat all the arguments here. Nevertheless, I must restate my opposition to many aspects of the GMS, notably the proposals contained therein for massive development west of the West Duffins Creek. Although you, and the City politicians, have assured the public many times that the GMS is an open, unbiased and independent review, the whole process, being funded by the developers and speculators who will stand to gain most from it, is basically suspect and flawed. Nothing that you can ever say will convince me otherwise! I continue to be most concerned about the stand-off between the Municipal, Regional and Provincial Governments on this matter. Unless there are already deals worked out behind the scenes, of which there are increasing rumours and speculation, the diverging and contradictory paths being taken by the City and the Province are destructive and a waste of time, effort and money. If there are deals in the offing, then all levels of Government should 'come clean' on these and let the public know. While there is a great deal in the GMS to which I am opposed, I have to say that recent announcements by the Province are also very worrying and do not give any greater cause for confidence in a satisfactory outcome to be provided by that level of governance. This whole sordid mess reminds me of two jaded street-walkers (Mesdames Pick and Ont) vying for the favours of one client (the Public). The client does not like the look of or relish the favours of either, but in extremis may be forced into an unpalatable choice. With the announcement of the land swap involving Seaton and the Oak Ridges Moraine, so that Seaton lands will now be in the hands of developers as much as those in the Permanent Agricultural Preserve, both madams now have their pimps to back them up. IfI said sordid mess, I meant it. Since I am unable to support the GMS, it will not surprise you that I cannot therefore support amendments to the Official Plan that will start to put in place the structure of the GMS. I certainly cannot support any of the proposals that relate to the lands west of the West Duffins Creek. Given the unsatisfactory and contradictory nature of both the GMS and Provincial proposals for lands east of the West Duffins Creek, I cannot support amendments relating to Seaton either. When the time comes, I will urge Council to reject all such amendments. The only specific item that I will suggest to you about the proposed amendments is that the proposed new Section 3.17 be modified as follows: (a)(ii) the long term compatibility of uses with "a possible future Picketing A~;rport ". [the text refers to "the future Pickering Airport", giving an impression of certainly that this will happen. The GTAA has not yet released its proposals, and there is a lot o£water to flow through a lot of environmentaiiy sensitive creeks before any fonrt of Pickering Airport becomes a reality. Table 2 refers to the "Potential Airport Site", which is as far as anyone should go at this stage.] 30/09/2004 ~c~t~L~-r~~.ro Page 3 of 3 (a)(iv) the impact of the Highway 407 and the Brock Road interchange, and extension of Highway 407 to the east; and By the way, the two maps, Schedules "A" and "B", illustrating the proposed amendments both show Highway 407 as a dashed line, indicating that it is in the future. Does this mean that it can be removed? Where do I sign up? Is the area marked D35 on your maps indicating where you think the airport might be? Has Pickering already made a behind the scenes deal with the GTAA? c.c. City Council 30/09/2004 Message 060 McGregor, Grant From: Planning Web Email Sent: October 19, 2004 2:27 PM To: Rose, Catherine; McGregor, Grant Subject: FW: Pickering Official Plan Amendment ATTACHMENT#_ REPORI # PD_ Page 1 of 1 ..... Original IVlessage ..... From: Bonnie Littley [mailto:graphitti@rogers.com] Sent: October :[9, 2004 2::[9 plVl To: Rose, Catherine; Hayor Web Email; planning@region.durham.on.ca; cao@region.durham.on.ca; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; Johnson, Rick, Councillor; Picketing Council; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Pickles, David, Councillor; Planning Web Email; aA John van Nostrand; john.mackenzie@mah.gov.on.ca Cc: Steve Parish; Regional Planning Subject: Re: Pickering Official Plan Amendment please forward to all Regional Councillors as well - thanks Please find our comments to Pickering's Plan to change our Official Plan to reflect the Growth Management Study The majority of People - residents, resident groups, environmental groups of Picketing, and neighbours from across the GTA do not support the City of Pickering's Growth Management Plan and do not want Picketing to do the planning for the area. The city's study ignores it's own ground rule to "recognize the permanent agricultural designation for the Duffins Rouge ,,,~,ricultural Preserve. "Although, the city may hold the easements with the land owner and claim they may choose to "swap' .'n~ for development, we do not agree that is their right under the circumstances of the agreement with the province and tax payer or the wisest choice. We appreciate that the provincial government has talcen Pickering's planning rights away a second time with the Ontario Planning and Development Act (1994). Now, we need the Preserve protected by legislation so that we may get on with implementing a marketing strategy to promote and enhance agri-business on the preserve and capitalize on new opportunities presented by "near urban agriculture" markets using examples from all over the world. Food security and local food for the long term being at the forefront of the issue, the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve will be an important first step in farmland conservation and innovation in farming economics and viability. We'd like to give farmers options to selling to developers and set an example for other important farming areas in the GTA. We see this asa long term opportunity to develop an economic goldmine not just a short term opportunity to develop some more farmland into Iow and medium density subdivisions with maintenance and loss of class one.farmland costs attached. This issue is about a lot more than a municipality's planning rights - it's implications reach a much broader and more important content. Thank you Rouge Duffins Greenspace Coalition, 1499 Sandhurst Cres. Pickering, ON L1V 6Y6 c/o Bonnie Littley 905-509- i 930 19/1 O/2004 ATTACHMENT ~__ REPOR'f # PD t-4Z. Page 1 of 1 06.1 _.McGregor, Grant From: Planning Web Email Sent: October 18, 2004 3:51 PM To: Rose, Catherine; McGregor, Grant Subject: FW: Growth Management Plan ..... Original Message ..... From: Larry Noonan [mailto:larynoon@enoreo.on.ca] Sent: October 18, 2004 1:10 PM To: Planning Web Email Subject: Growth Management Plan Dear Planning Dept. I was at the meeting last week and I want to clearly state again that I do not support the city's Growth Management plan. I thought that the mayor's speech was elequant and he made many good points but as he talked I thought more and more that he was making a very good case for the following concluding sentence. "As so for all the reasons that I have outlined here, I want to say that I am against any development in the Agricultural Preserve and in the Seaton lands." No development would address all of his concerns excpet employment and that would be met by the airport and the connected development that will come with that. .~iling that, I would like to see a plan that includes permanent agricultural designation for the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. Thanks for listening to me. Larry Noonan (905) 420 8696 19/10/2004 06© ,..., McGregor, Grant From: Planning Web Email Sent: October 19, 2004 2:25 PM To: Rose, Catherine; McGregor, Grant Subject: FW: agriculture preserve ATTACHMENT ~ ,,~-~-.-TO REPORT # PD_ H Z.- ~ H Page 1 of 1 ..... Original Message ..... From: Rosemary Speirs [mailto:rosespeirs2@sympatico.ca] Sent: October 19, 2004 12:51 PM To: Mayor Web Email; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor; 3ohnson, Rick, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; Pickles, David, Councillor; Planning Web Email Subject: agriculture preserve Dear Sirs: I am writing to you again as a Pickering resident strongly opposed to the City's plans to develop parts of the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. I am amazed that you are proceeding with an Official Plan Amendment that would violate the intent of the original agreements you signed with the Province to set aside the Preserve for agricultural purposes. To do so you will have to break conservation liens, thus calling into question the sanctity of such liens for others of us who ~;;~ight think of using them to protect green spaces. On top of that basic breaking of a public trust, I gather that you think to profit ~m the liens, which were not intended for that purpose. But more is at stake here--and that is proper planning to protect the Rouge, Petticoat Creek and Duffin's watersheds, and to provide wildlife corridors between them. The City seems to believe that green space can be fenced off in small islands surrounded by urban sprawl, as has happened, forinstance, to the AItona Forest. Forests, streams, and wildlife, which are a heritage to be protected for future generations, cannot survive when the bulldozers move in. The Agricultural Preserve is the link between remaining woodlands and watersheds in Pickering. Greenlands are already under too much pressure from the city's rapid growth. Everywhere I walk or drive I see fields and woods being plowed up and paved over. Streams like Petticoat, which runs near my home, are already dwindling, and will be lost if the Preserve is developed. This is a heartfelt plea to you not to continue with your plans to pave large parts of the Preserve. Please honor your commitments and cease the endless assault on the Province's stated determination to keep the Preserve agricultural. Sincerely, Rosemary Speirs, 1815 Altona Road, Pickering, On. L1V 1M6 905-509-2777 19/10/2004 Message McGregor, Grant From: Planning Web Email Sent: October 19, 2004 2:25 PM To: Rose. Catherine; McGregor. Grant Subject: FW: Picketing Official Plan Amendment /ITTACHMENT # i 0 TO REPORT ~ PD L4'2_ -c>q Page 1 of 1 0 6 3 ..... Original Message ..... From: Denise Taylor [mailto:Denise.Taylor@bell.ca] Sent: October 19, 2004 11:55 AM To: 'Wendell Samaroo'; Mayor Web Email; 'planning@region.durham.on.ca'; 'cao@region.durham.on.ca'; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; 3ohnson, Rick, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Pickles, David, Councillor; Planning Web Email Cc: 'Bonnie Littley' Subject: RE: Pickering Official Plan Amendment I too, would like to take this opportunity and time to briefly voice my concerns, regarding the Pickering Official Plan Amendment. I TOO, DO NOT SUPPORT THE city's Growth Management plan and would very much hope that the council or committee heading this up would really consider the implications at an Enviornmental and humanitarian level. Thank you Denise Taylor ..... Original Message ..... From: Wendell Samaroo [mailto:wsamaroo@nexacor.ca] Sent: October 18, 2004 5:40 PM To: 'mayor@city. picketing.on.ca'; 'planning@region.durham.on.ca'; 'cao@region.durham.on.ca'; 'kashe@dty.pickering.on.ca'; 'dohnson@city. pickering.on.ca'; 'bmclean@city.pickering.on,ca'; 'mbrenner@ciW.pickering.on.ca'; 'dpickles@city.pickering.on.ca'; 'planning@cib/.pickering.on.ca' Subject: Pickering Official Plan Amendment All, I take t/lis opportunity to info,vn you all that I do not support the city's Growth Managementplan and I would like instead to see a plan that includes permanent agricultural designation for the Dufj'ins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. I strongly believe H is wrong to change Pickering's urban boundary into the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. Why, despite the city's loss of planning rights and the province's and majority of citizens commitment to an agri-business & long range food security strategy for the preserve, is the city moving forward with it's plan to put housing on both the Preserve and Seaton. This act Violates. Provincial Zoning Order, Ontario Planning & Development Act (OPDA) 1994, Greenbelt Protection Act, and does not conform to the Regional Official Plan. Please preserve what little nature we have left, to show our children and grow a healthy natural life style. Thank you, I+'endell Samaroo ~_ma!lto:wsamaroo@nex:acor. ca 19/10/2004 06, ; McGre[lor, Grant From: Sent: To: Subject: REPOR'I' ~ PD., L~ ~_ Planning Web Email October 19, 2004 8:50 AM Rose, Catherine; McGregor, Grant FW: Pickering Official Plan Amendment ..... Original Message ..... From: Wendell Samaroo [mailto:wsamaroo@nexacor.ca] Sent: October 18, 2004 5:40 PM To: Mayor Web Email; 'planning@region.durham.on.ca'; 'cao@region.durham.on.ca'; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; Johnson, Rick, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Pickles, David, Councillor; Planning Web Email Subject: Picketing Official Plan Amendment To Ail, I take this opportunity to inform you all that I do not support the oity's Growth Management plan and I would like instead to see a plan that includes permanent agricultural designation for the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. I strongly believe it is wrong to change Pickering's urban boundary into the Duffins Rouge Agricultural Preserve. Why, despite the city's loss of planning rights and the province's and majority of citizens commitment to an agri-business & long range food security strategy for the preserve, is the city moving forward with it's plan to put housing on both the Preserve and Seaton. This act Violates - Provincial Zoning Order, Ontario Planning & Development Act (OPDA) 1994, Greenbelt Protection Act, and does not conform to the Regional Official Plan. Please preserve what little nature we have left, to show our children and grow a healthy natural life style. Thank you, Wendell Samaroo * mailto:wsamaroo@nexacor.ca OGG ATTACHMENT #~TO REPOFr~ # PD__ Y,,Z--o'4 Valerie Morris 280 Whitevale Road Whitevale (Pickering), Ontario L0H 1M0 October 20, 2004 City of Pickering ' Planning and Development Dept. Attention: Mr. Grant McGregor One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 OCT 2 2 200& CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 0C~ 2 2 ~00~ CiTY OF PICKERING PICKERING, ONTARIO Dear Mr. McGregor: Having reviewed the Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA-04-002/P and attended various City of Pickering and Provincial meetings on growth in Picketing, I am convinced that the plan amendment should not proceed. I am enclosing a copy of the comments I submitted to Ms. Rose on April 1, 2004. My opinions are unchanged. In fact, I am even more convinced that any decision to proceed with plans to develop the Preserve and lands in Seaton is unwise for the reasons outlined in my earlier letter. I think that the development proposed in this plan makes too many assumptions about infrastructure, transportation, roads, and protection of the environment and wildlife. I am convinced that this plan would just result in continued urban sprawl and further damage to the landscape. Perhaps the Mayor is right and I too should claim the label of "vociferous Whitevalian". But I am a newcomer to Whitevale and have only just joined the 'cause' to protect the unique greenspace in North Pickering. In fact, I suggest that Pickering adopt a novel 'no develop, protect' plan for North Pickering. Like Mayor Ryan, I too have children and I had hoped they would experience this green haven in Pickering for some years to come. There is little beauty in urban sprawl, paved over countryside, and big box stores. My children recognize this and applaud my efforts to object to any plans that bring urbanization to North Picketing. Regards, Valerie Morris Valerie Morris 280 Whitevale Road Whitevale (Pickering), Ontario L0H 1M0 067 April 1, 2004 Ms. Catherine Rose City of Pickering Project Manager One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Rose: I would like to begin my comments regarding Pickering's Growth Management Study by sharing my recent submission to the Pickering New Advertiser that was printed on March 24, 2004. In fact, Cady Foster's article, Where once there were fields.' also published on March 24, 2004 is a telling story of the mistakes we are making in the name of'development and progress'. I hope you had a chance to read it. Here is my submission: March 8, 2004 Pickering New Advertiser 130 Commercial Avenue Ajax, Ontario L1S 2H5 To the editor: Re: "Consultant's report makes sense,' Danielle Milley column, March 5 I find it incomprehensible that anyone could support the desecration of prime farmland in favour of 'accommodating' many thousands of residents to Pickering. There is little to be said for this type of development; it tears down the existing landscape and replaces it with sterile 065 subdivisions. Why is it that this beautiful area can't be left alone? Why can't we appreciate the animal and bird life that shares this area with us? Why do we feel that open fields should be developed and turned into concrete buildings that obscure the sun? Allowing such a staggeringly large number of residents into Cherrywood, for example, would take a heavy toll on any green space that would remain. Development of this magnitude is not a 'necessary sacrifice', rather, it is a choice being made based on greed. Our family moved to Pickering from Scarborough in a bid to escape the permanent blight of suburbia. My teenage daughter agrees that Cherrywood should never come to resemble the example set by the austere subdivisions at the base of J. Clarke Richardson, the high school she will attend in the fall. I challenge Pickering to envision creative and thoughtful ways to house people and, at the same time, leave the existing green space in Seaton and Cherrywood for future generations to enjoy. Valerie Morris Whitevale In response to the Phase 2 report of the Growth Management Study, I can only join the refrain of others who have commented on the fact that developers paid for this study. It would be foolish for anyone to be persuaded that the developers who funded this study had no possible expectation of reaping profit as a result. Given that developers paid for the study, it seems to make sense that a 'study area' was deemed necessary. After all, why conduct a comprehensive study of Pickering in ks entirety when the opportunity for development in the 'study area' is perceived as so lucrative. In fact, I think that the exclusion of the urban area of Pickering nicely sets the stage for the Dillion Consulting group to present their utopian view of the Pickering of the future. However, one has only to look closely at the existing subdivision ugliness at Finch and Altona to clear away the utopian misconception. In fact, Pickering should focus on rectifying the existing urban sprawl problems before considering grand ideas such as those proposed in Phase II. For example, Altona road is in very poor condition from Kingston north to Taunton Road. The sidewalks are either non- existent or are mere paths that merge to the roadway, i have seen many young people walking on poorly lit paths to reach their subdivision communities which are infrequently serviced by 2 bus. Further, the poorly designed homes at Steeles and Altona on the west side of the road are a continuing example of the need to clean up before making a mess somewhere else. For over two years, this subdivision has sat on mud and litter. The tiny, unfenced 'baekyards' of this Subdivision are exposed to two busy roads. Picketing needs to focus on upgrading and providing services first to those in the urban center. 06S Picketing should also focus on transportation issues already problematic to the existing residents of the City. At 7:30 a.m., the parking lot closest to the Go station is full and the alternative, on a cold winter's day or in rain, is a good ten to fifteen minutes walk on a narrrow, exposed uneven path. Further, the 8:05 express train (for those starting work downtown by 9:00 a.m.) is always full and one must stand for the duration of the ride. These are Concerns that must be addressed now. These type of concerns must be addressed before further development should even be allowed in the existing urban area. Comment on the layout, principles, and assumptions of the study. The maps are poorly done. Identifying markers and street names really need to be clear on all maps. These maps are misleading and impossible for one to determine the intent of any given map without reference points. For example, Highway 407 does not appear on all maps. It should be possible to overlay the maps to ensure clarity. 2. The Principles are not clear and seem in direct opposition to one another. Why is employment considered a 'first'? This does not make sense. First above what? The definition of countryside offered in the study is vague. My definition of countryside is what I see of the agricultural preserve in Pickering now. That is countryside and it is beautiful just as it is. The recommendation of the study that pick-your-own, bed and breakfasts, etc. should exist in the 'countryside' seems absurd. Those type of 'countryside' endeavours that exist in Pickering, Markham, Ajax, etc. barely exist today and are being encroached on now. They are not going to survive in this vision of Pickering, particularly ~vhen ou,,o~,nde,~ by ~,, ~,,~,, sprawl. 070 Assumptions: That industrial employment opportunities would not adversely affect existing communities such as Green River or lead to degradation of the 'countwside' a stone's throw away including the Seaton Hiking Trail and Whitevale. Industry attracts noise, traffic, pollution and minimum wage paying employment. What would prevent industrial pollution of Duffins creek? Further, this notion of an educational institution at the intersection (where at this intersection?) of Whites and Taunton is almost absurd. Again, how would this fit with Duffins creek and the hiking trail that traverse that area? What sacrifice would be paid by the environment to build at that location? Not only that, Whites road is a deadly road for drivers given the hairpin curves. As such, I fail to understand the reference to this intersection as being 'highly accessible' (page 10 of study) either by car or transit now or in the future. Further, there is no mention of what is proposed for the existing small horse farms that are located in that area today. These farms fit my definition of countryside. The study makes many assumptions. This is confusing and leads one to believe that ultimately, this plan is flawed. Again, why study an area that has already been studied. Why conduct a study funded by developers? Why assume that the described 'buffers' will protect the waters and sensitive lands? How will these areas be protected? What measures and enforcement will be put in place? What will prevent the building of housing that is prevalent in the urban area of Pickering? Huge virtually identical homes built on small lots or townhouses whose front doors open onto sidewalks at street level are certainly prevalent yet these are far from 'neighbourly'. Why assume that 'parkettes' will attract anything but garbage. Solitary swingsets placed on a patch of grass are a poor excuse for a 'park' and are seldom welcoming to children and families. What appears to be missing from the study: There is no reference to the heron rookery on Taunton Road at the Pickering/Scarborough Townline. Why is this missing from the study? What is the 'plan' for these amazing birds? Protection of these nesting grounds MUST be locked down and certainly this is 'first' above developmer~. .............. There is no specific reference to the Seaton Hiking Trail. Why is that? I have an Ontario brochure (not dated) that raves about the wonders of this hiking trail that includes a "true wilderness, a feature that is becoming increasingly rare in southern Ontario." I would like to point out that this trail is currently surrounded by agricultural land and a golf course which protect it from human influence. Deer, beaver, salmon, ducks, etc. live here. However, the trail is being subject to damage by bikers and it appears that there is no restriction on trail use to curb this destructive use. In my opinion, if this trail is opened up to extensive use by large populations or encroached upon by development and the garbage and pollution that accompany it, this beautiful forested water-side trail will be destroyed. To witness examples of this tragedy, one has only to look at the 'dump' end of the trail at the South end which continues to be subject to polluters. No buffer will protect it like the current buffer and the acts of kindness demonstrated by those who currently remove garbage from the trail. The Rouge trail has succumbed to this type of human influence as evidenced by the garbage littering the roadways and creek banks. This must never be allowed to become the fate of the Seaton Trail. 072 Heritage Corrider: The study uses the term 'considerable effort' to describe the necessity of maintaining the historic area of Whitevale. What does that mean? Who would enforce this once Whitevale is surrounded by urban sprawl? This area is unique today because of the environs that surround it and because of the efforts of Whitevale residents to preserve it. Infill should not be allowed at all. Considering the existing subdivision 'housing character', it would be virtually impossible to build without diminishing the value of Whitevale. Keep in mind, this plan situates employment and industry just to the north of Whitevale. The proposed by-pass will exist to accommodate the traffic that would surely flood the area. Already, the existing frantic pace of traffic along Whitevale that occurs at rush hours and weekend evenings detracts from the beauty of Whitevale. This concept of a 'Heritage Corridor' is sure to fail and Whitevale will become victim to urban sprawl and poor planning. 07 Natural Heritage Corridors: Planning should never proceed without an understanding 'first' of the wildlife. Personally, I don't think wildlife are going to adapt well to Scortidors'? This is an odd notion. The concept of 'naturalizing' Mldlife linkages seems absurd. What does this mean? It sounds 'zoo4ike' to me. Further, how is it that these areas are to co-exist with "District, Community and Neighbourhood Parks, stormwater management ponds, school yards, allotment gardens, compatible-agricultural use-and .other similar open space uses. Coyotes and .rabbits-are usually not compatible with school yards and allotment gardens, t don't comprehend this intent to. share the 'n-atural heritage corridor'. -Community Nodes: Picketing should leave well enough alone here. The Picketing Town Center is fine. The big box concept at Brock is more-than enough. No more 'shopping'areas should be added. These are an unnecessary a-nd wasteful-use-of.land. Just drive over to Sheppard and Markham for a 'fix' and affirmmion that Picketing does not need this. In closing, t would like to state that -the Agricultural Preserve should not be developed. Nor should ,he ~beautiful Seaton lands. Development should and must be contained to t-he-existing urban ar~ regardless of any policy. A broad examination-of the issues ot.'development and urban sprawl i-n t-he Durham region, not just Picketing, should -be studied to ensure that greenspaces that exist today are preserved. This is -my utopian vision. My vision restores the hded images of'countryside' that, ironic-ally, appear.on the cover of your study. Please keep po[lution, noise, traffic, and city lights away. Preserve this greenspace in perpetuky. Regards, Vaterie Morri-s 6 P.S Please-appreciate ~hat t ,,*muld have preferred to include-my.comments directly on the pages of the report forease.of-commenting As such, ! aclmowledge that t have not addressed the full content of the report, 073 7 074 Octobc]- 19, 2004 21 Elias Snider Court Gormley, ON [,OH 1 GO (416) 573-0405 RECEIVED OCT 2 2 2004 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OCT 2 1 CITY OF PICKERIN~ PIOKERING, ONTARIO ©]'ant :.McGregor Planning and Development Deparmqent Piclo=ring Civic Comntex_ = . One the Esplanade Pickering, ON L1V 6K7 Re. Pickerin~ Official Plan Amendment ePA 04-002/P Comment Grant, This comment is witln regards to potentially expanding the growth stucty area to included ~clcctcd or :~d.iac~t propcrt i c:4 to llac nortlz side of Highway ff 7. My f2~mily has owed the property located at 2060 Hwv f¢ 7 EasL Brougham, ON for many years and feel tlnat it should be included due to its relation and proximity to the expansion of tine 407 and [hture employment lands. The property is located immediately north east of sideline 16. Highway ~ 7 is an important and logistically beneficial arterial road connecting the northern municipalities east to west. The benefits are easily visible through municipalities stretching fi'om Markl'mm to the east as far as Brampton and beyond to the wcs4t. Thcr~lbre, I>ickcring should at this time include properties veneering Highway/~! 7 within the Orowth Managenqent Study Area and thus the Official Plan Amendment. Thanks/l' November 11, 2004 Mauro Campagna 21 Elias Snider Court Gormley, Ontario L0H 1G0 (416) 573-0405 075 200 Grant McGregor Planning and Development Department Picketing Civic Complex One the Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 Re. Official Plan Amendment Application OPA 04-002 Grant, Thank-you for taking into consideration the comments raised in my letter dated October 19, 2004 (see attached). I was quite pleased to see the proposed Amended Growth Management Study Area in your last letter dated November 5, 2004. Picketing is definitely on the tight track. However, at this time I would like to expand the comments of my original letter which stressed the need to include our property (2060 HWY# 7 East, Brougham ON. The property is situated between Sideline 16 and 14 on the North side of Highway #7. The current amended area north easterly boarder should include those lands north of Highway # 7 and bordering sideline # 14, which is not clearly shown on the map. This property (2060 Hwy~ 7) is an important and beneficial piece of the entire puzzle due to it proximity to the expansion of the 407 and future interchanges as well as the proposed future employment lands and proximity to neighboring municipalities via a secondary northerly highway source (407). Allowing for this request to further expand the Amended Area to include my families property would solidify a larger area that will help Pickering grow more effectively and efficiently in the next 20 years while still preserving Pickering's valuable yet sensitive resources. Therefore, we ask that our land and a Sideline # 14 easterly border be included within the Amended Area of the Growth Management Area and ultimately the Official Plan Amendment OPA 04-002. 07 October lC), 2()0~ Mauro Campagna 21 Elias Snider Court Gonnley, ON L0H 1 ©0 (416) 573-0405 ECE VED CITY OF PICKE. RING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Att. Grant McGregor Planning and Developlnent Department Picketing Civic Complex One the Esplanade Picketing, ON LI V 6K7 Re. Pickering Official Plan Amendment OPA 04-002/P Comment Grant. This comment is with regards to potentially expanding the growth study area to included selected or adjacent properties to the north side of Highway # 7. My family has owed the property located at 2060 Hwy # 7 East, Brougham, ON for many years and feel that it should be included due to its relation and proximity to the expansion of the 407 and future employment lands. The property is located immediately north east of sideline 16. Highway ~ 7 is an important and logistically beneficial at-terial road connecting the northcrn municipalities east to west. Tlie benefits are easily visible through municipalities stretching fi'om Markham to the east as far as Brampton and beyond to the west. Therefore, Picketing should at this time include properties veneering Highway # 7 within the Growth Management Study Area and tl'ms the Official Plan Amendment. Attachment "A" Cie/of Pickering Planning & Development Depa~ment ' OWNE? VARIOUS ~. DATE SEPT. 1~, 2oo4J DRAWN B~~ J~ , , 078 L0rne D. fllmoci ,'.Eng., c ,c. rrAc,ME,T .... ...... Planning and Development Department REPORT ,~ PD /q z--oH City of Picketing, One The Esplanade Picketing, ON. L1V 6K7 November 20, 2004 Re: OPA 04-002/P I ceased to participate in the Picketing Growth Management Study and Official Plan Amendment after June 29, 2004. I did not attend in the October 6 th meeting. The recommendations submitted before that date by myself, the Green Door Alliance, the Rouge Duffins Greenspace Coalition and other bone-fide citizen groups were never seriously considered. It was obvious that Council had one goal--urbanization of the Agriculture Preserve. I expressed my disillusionment with the process when I addressed the Council on June 29/04 (copy attached) My Concerns remain valid: · Land use policy planning should not be financed by developers who control property within the study area and stand to gain financially from the recommendations.. · The Agriculture Preserve lands should not have been included in the study area unless limited to planning for agriculture. · Any valid growth management study would include an evaluation of the potential to accommodate growth through redevelopment and intensification. ° The consultants hired and paid for with developer money became advocates for the City/developer position. · The studies forming the basis for the Official Plan Amendment were seriously flawed--based on obsolete planning concepts by failing to recognize the need for smart growth, energy conservation, competitiveness, efficiency, and pollution abatement. · The Plan recommended urbanizing far more land and destroys far more greenspace and foodland than other options suggested (Seaton alone). (over) ATTACHMENT # /~ TO REPOR'I' d' PD /:../Z. -o~ ...... · The process appeared to be influenced public office by lavish campaign financing of candidates for 207 Picketing Council failed to appreciate that the Agriculture Preserve easements--a partial taking of the land is a Provincial/GTA asset that can not reasonably be unilaterally abandoned. There was an accord signed by the City, the Region, the Province and the Green Door Alliance Inc., making Picketing custodian of the easements. The accord did not bestow unilateral authority on the City to dispose of this asset. I urge Picketing Council to abandon their Agriculture Preserve development strategy. They should persuade the developers who own/control the Agriculture Preserve to join them in: · Creating a viable, unique, futuristic near urban agricultural community by funding farm infrastructure such as: a farmers market, a meat packing plant, dairy products processing (cheese), a cannery, cold storage plant etc and etc. · Participate actively and encourage Picketing developers to join with the Province in the modern planning of Seaton. · Initiate a Planning for Agriculture initiative as proposed by the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario. Yours very truly Lorne D. Almack. 06O Lorne D. fllmack Address to Pickering Council RR#5, Claremont, ON. Phone: 905 649 2202 FAX: 905 649 3566 E-Mail: lorhoda@allstream.net Comments on: The Picketing Developers -- Growth Management Study Council Chambers: June 29, 2004 Mayor Ryan and Members of Council The Growth Management Study was driven and financed by speculators who also financed the election of supportive politicians. The result--a study without merit, a massive costly exercise in advocacy planning that discredits this Council. Thank God that we can trust the wisdom of the Province of Ontario. It is significant that both Liberal and Conservative governments oppose urban development of the Agriculture Preserve. I will attempt to explain why the Province must refuse removal of the conservation easements. A conservation easement removes development potential from the owner of the land on which it is registered. A conservation easement is a partial taking of an owners interest in his land. Let me explain: I own an 85 acre farm at Claremont, now known as the Claremont Nature Reserve. Because I wanted this property and the 65,000 trees I planted on it, conserved in perpetuity, I donated a conservation easement to Ontario Nature (FON). These 85 acres can never be developed- no houses, no separations, no golf course. The easement removes the development rights. Revenue Canada recognize this partial giving to be a charitable donation because the market value has been reduced. I am trying to explain that an easement has a dollar value. When the Agriculture Preserve tenants bought, because of the easements registered on title, they did not pay full fee simple market value--they were not sold development fights. They or new owners can not speculate on an asset they did not own(the development potential) (over) ATTACHMENT#,, /~ TO REPOR'[ ~f PD,,, q Z.. - ~ ~ The government of Ontario be it Liberal, Conservative or NDP can not walk away from this obligation and allow speculators to reap vast profits at the public's expense. Giving away the publics interest in these lands would be as scandalous as the federal Sponsorship Program. 081 The GMS proposal to urbanize the Agriculture Preserve won't fly. The City of Picketing is custodian and steward of the easements and has no reasonable right to give away an asset owned by the people of Ontario. Council and their developer friends are flogging a dead horse. Recommendations · Table the GMS and resolve to work with the prOvince in the planning of Seaton. · Ask your patriotic developer friends, who fund your elections and lobby so effectively to apply their vast financial resources, technical and management skills to a study of smart growth opportunities. We need to know: · How much vacant, and underutilized building opportunities exist within present urban boundaries? · How many new residents at what densities could be sheltered? · How many taxpayers dollars could be saved by not having to build new infrastructure? Lorne Almack Claremont ON 905 649 2202 Door ocr'2 :I Planning and Development Departmeri"~.-%57--.'~ ~ . ' ~ City of Picketing, One The Esplanade~~~' .~~~~~ Picketing ON L1V 6K7 Affiliated ~ith Re: OPA ~002/P Federation of Ontario Naturalists PATRONS Brian Buckles Businessman 'The Green Door Alliance (GDA) remains firmly opposed to the "Growth Management Study" recommendations. We will not repeat our objections - these have already been outlined in considerable detail in many past submissions to the Growth Management Study Team and to Council. Our Concerns and recommendations can be viewed on our web site: www.greendooralliance.ca Donald Deacon Financier Michael de Pencier Publisher Scott Fennell M.P, Retired We strongly support the Province's position that the Agriculture Preserve should remain in agriculture and, hence, not be developed in the manner suggested in the "Growth Management Study" and as reflected in the "Official Plan Amendment." Council has tried to cast this issue as one in which the Province has autocratically and The Hon. Alastair Gi,espl~-fairly used the Ontario Planning and Development Act to usurp Pickering's role in ,,-- P.C., O.C. planning its own affairs. We believe this characterization is a distortion of reality. The Dr. Charles Godfrey Province was forced, reluctantly, to intervene ONLY because the City refused to accept a C.M., O.Ont., M.D., prior set of commitments to protect the Agriculture Preserve. The prior commitment to F. RC.P. preservation was reflected in the agreement entered into between the Province, the Region, William Lishmanthe City and the GDA in 1999. Based on this agreement, the Province proceeded to ptivatize Sculptor the Agriculture Preserve lands at agricultural values. Paula Lishman Woman Entrepreneur of the year Clark Muirhead Industrialist Dr. John Polanyi Nobel Laureate Joyce Trimmer Former Mayor Of Scarborough William Wilder Financier, Farmer (Silo Hilt Farm) We urge Picketing Council to abandon their Agriculture Preserve urbanization strategy. If this action were taken Pickering would then be in a position to begin to reassume its planning responsibilities and work co-operatively with the Province and all stakeholders in the creation of a model community in Seaton and an adjacent countryside focused on near urban agriculture and natural area protection. The City's early and active involvement in pursuing this objective will add greatly to the quality of life in Picketing and the GTA, and to the credibility of Council by demonstrating that it honours its commitments. Yours sincerely, Dr. Paul Thompson, President GREEN DOOR ALLIANCE INC. RO. Box 97586, 364 Old Kingston Road, Scarbomugh Ontario> MIC 4Z1 ATiACHMENT # ~7 TO .080 RECEIVED University of Guelph, Richards Building, Guelph, ON NIG 2W1 S24-4~,20 md:. 52686 I (fax) (5:t9) 824-S730 I farmland~ue~ueioh,~ www.urmueloh.ca/,,,,farmland/tr,d. - OCT 2 2 2004 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Mr, Neil Carroll Director of Planning City of Pickering BY FAX: 90S-420-6064 SUBMISSION ON THE PICKERING GROWTH MANAGEMENT STUDY BY THE ONTARIO FARMLAND TRUST October 22, 2004 Introduction The City of Picketing has undertaken a Growth Management Study in the north part of the Cib' and is consicladng an Official Plan Amendment (OPA) to implement the Study and other input it has received. The area under consideration includes prime agricultural lands and lands subject to agrJcu~l easements held by the City. This submission presents the ~ Farmland Trust's perspective on the Study and OPA, particulariy the ~..................~ to continue to prole(~ prime agricultural lands and ensure that they remain 084 REPORT # PD_ L~ RECEIVED 0 CT ~. 2 200~ Background on Ontario Farmtand Trust CiTY OF PICKERING . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT The Ontario Farmland Trust (OFT) is a new non-profit corporation and registered charity with a mandate to protect farmlands and assoc/ated rural features in Ontario. OFT considers "farmlands' to be farms ancl the associated mosai~ of agricultural, natural and cultural features in the countryside. OFT works with landowners and other partners to achieve win-win solutions, particularly in acquiring land interests, applying tax incentives and developing related approaches. We are seeking land donations and agricultural easements throughout Ontario, including within the Study's area, in Markham and in While relatively new, the expertise and experience within OFT is extensive. Our Board and staff includes senior members of the University of Guelph, Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Christian Famms Federation Of Ontario, and Ontario Land Trust Alliance, as well as e,v,~mienced farmers and conservationists, among others. OFT maintains an active research partnership with the University of Guelph and connections with the American Farmland Trust (a leader in farmland conservation and funding in the United 'States). The Ontario Farmland Trust is aware ofthe history and context of the Growth · Management Study and OPA lands. Throughout the last decade, members of our team have parlJcipated in various studies and consultations regarding the Study Area, the federal airport, Rouge Park and Markham lands, among others. Nonetheless, our organ~n is relatively new and our Board is now seeking an appropriate role to play within the broader area. Our expertise and .networks allow us to develop innovative and practical approaches to land ownership, including the use of agricultural easements and related financing and tax strategie~ We are also active in research and policy development, thereby bringing solutions from other jurisdictions to, bear on issues hem in Ontado. Need and Benefits of Protecting Pickering's Farmland October'16th was World Food Day, as designated by the United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization. This year, the theme was *Biodiversity and Food Security". It gives us reason to pause to consider the following: the price of oil has risen (in large part due to insecurity of supply) while international markets have been dosed to beef expod, s, lhus leading to increased concern about food security and domestic production the GTA Agricultural Economic Impact Study documented 150,000 farmland acres lost to production in the GTA between 1976 and 1996, and noted that a. large percentage of the farmland still in production is designated for future urban development -.. 2 ATTACHMENT #~TO REPORT # PD~ ....... most of the Study area lands are Class 1.2 for agriculture, a rare capacity in Ontario and Canada. Beyond such concerns, pmtec,~ng farmland has a number of well known social and environmental benefits. ~t also has significant economic benef~ for municipalities: Agriculture contributes local employment opPortunities and economic diversity and stability to the local economy, with the agricultural industry staying put and farms passed down through the generations. Year in and year out, the sale of agricu~ral products provides a net inflow of dollars to the local economy. Farms can save communities money by contributing more in taxes than they demand in tax-suppor~ services~ A net positive tax ratio of taxes raised versus taxes spent has'been dc,:urnented in study after study in the United States, Compared to a net negai~e ratio for housing developments. Farmland's open spaoe nature adds value to the assessment base of nearby properties, such as those within and beyond the Study Area. Agriculture contributes to the tOurism and other industries, and associated 085 Support for Retaining Agricultural'Assembly and Easements ' The background facts leading to the establishment of the Agricultural Assembly and the agricultural easements are well known. Through the sale of provincially-owned lands in north Picketing and the resolution of land use planning issues, some 5000 acres of agricultural lands in the Study Area are now under agricuLtural easements, held by the City of Picketing. Farmers and other landowners who acquired title to these lands were fully aware of the easements before they pu~ed their proPerties. They paid less than market value for the lands because they were subject to the easements. References in the various documents at the time note ttmt the easements were intended by all parties to be kept: in place in perpetuity. We could not find references to lhese easements in the Study documents, ye~ ~ am an important consideration in the proposed OPA Given that the OPA proposes some development in the area under easements, we would like to see details ~bout the Gity:s plans for the easements and a public process to discuss their futura. Ideally, this would occur at the same time as the OPA is being considered by the public, staff and Council. The City can consider itself fortunate to hold such easements. While Pickering already' has acquired easements, many communities in lhe United States are investing millions of dollars to purchase agricultura;l easements to protect their local economies and prevent urban sprawl. Most local programs are found in the suburban and semi-rural parts of major metropolitan areas, with populations of more than lO0,000 and rapid 08G ATTACHMENT #~TO population growth. Of 46 programs recently studied~, 30 were established by County governments, 4 by t(x,a~hips, and one by an urban municipar~. Together, the 46 programs have spent a total of U851.8 billion to protect 887,000 acres on 5,800 farms. Them are a diversity of ways that farm c~r~servafion easement programs are conceived, managed and funded. Some examples of projects receiving matching federal funds are · located in Dane County, Wisconsin ($340,000) and Kane County, Illinois ($8881000). Howard County, Maryland, spent $193 million on such programs. In 2002, Ohio's Agricultural Easement Purchase Program received applications from 442 interested landowners, representing over 60,000 acres in 49 counties ec~ss the state. Twenty- four farms were accepted into the program, representing 4586 acres from 13 counties. The City of Picketing has a unique opportunity and agricultural asset in its hands. It can be a leader in agricultural protect~n and growth management, attracting interest, visitors and investment from across the continent, it can capitalize on the new economic engine- namely, quality of life. It can help consor~ate agricultural areas, create stability, and foster the resulting investment that has been missing for so long in the area. Given this opportunity, the significance of these lands for agriculture, their contrition to the economic health of the CEy, and the previous commitments by various governments, the Ontario Farmland Trust's position is to support the protection of the Agricultural Assembly lands under easement, for agriculture. Conclusion In conclusion, while the Ontario Farmland Trust is a new organization, we have considerable expederrce and expertise to offer. OFT is developing creative solutions to foster the prese~on of farmland and related features in various locations across Ontario. We support the retention of the Agricultural Assembly lands in agriculture, with agricultural easements remaining in place. We appreciated the opportunity to make a presentation at the public meeting of October 14, 2004, and the invitation to discuss our concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact O.FT should you have further questions on this submission. We look forward to further discussion of these issues with the City of Pickering and other participants in the process. t Alvin D. Sokolow and Anita Zurbrugg, A National View of Agtfcuitural Easement Programs: Profiles and Maps- Report 1 (DeKalb, Illinois, 2003: American Farmland Trust and Agricultural Issues Centre). See: ht~o://www, fa.~rm,!and.or.,~research/assessme .nt.h .tm., /~TTACHME~T #~TO REPORt' # PD,~ ........... 087 Yours Sincerely, lan Attridge Counsel Ontario Farmland Trust Univem~ of Guelph Richards Building Guelph, Ontario NIG 2W1 Tel: (519) 824-4120 ext. 52686 Fax: (5t9) 624-5730 www. u~lph.~rmland 5 088 October 22, 2004 RR #2 Pickering Ontario, LIV 2P9 REPORT ~ PD ~?__-OL{ RECEIVED OCT 2 5 200~ TY OF PICKERING Cm~NN NG & DEVELOPMENT r .... IOEPARTMENT This letter is written in response to the recent proposed amendment to the Pickering Official Plan. Our farm is located Lot 35 Concession 3 in Pickering. We own and operate this 101 acre property and we are proud to say that this parcel of farmland first came into the Burkholder family name in 1833. This farm was expropriated in the 1970's for the Cedarwood project and we are certain that you must realize ( knowing that the farm had been in our family name since the early 1800's) that the mental anguish and turmoil associated with the expropriation process were significant,. The joy of being able to regain title of the family farm in 1997 was beyond words. We were very pleased that the Province realized that the "right" thing to do was allow the original owners to purchase back these properties. The pride associated with regaining ownership of the family farm was and is very special to us. The ongoing discussions at the Provincial and Municipal level have continued. Ontario seems to intend to maintain agriculture in the area west of Seaton. This amended official Plan for Pickering presents other initiatives and this raises a number of questions and concerns for us. According to the proposed plan, there are considerations to run a continuation of Dixie Road parallel and north of the third concession. Please take our questions, concerns and comments into consideration as Pickering plans our future and fate. Sincerely 08.5 Betty Burkholder Merna Burkholder Cc MAYOR RYAN Councillor Rick Johnson 050 ~'FI'ACHMENT REPOR? # PD ~ Z_ ~0 q The third is the southern boundary of the farm. Taunton is the northern boundary. This proposed extension of Dixie Road traverses the farm east to west in entirety. In addition, it appears that the plan is to extend sideline 34 north thru our farm to connect with Taunton Road. This sideline will enter onto Taunton between Altona Road and the Pickering Scarborough Town line directly at the "base of the Heron Rookery" There has been ongoing concern for preservation of farm land and natural heritage lands. Prior to expropriation, the remarkable heron rookery that the environmentalists appear to treasure was actually a part of our then 120 acre farm. When Taunton Road was built in the 90's it bi-ssected our north corn field and Taunton Road then became the divide between the remainder of the farm and the rookery. There has been much interest in this rookery and we wonder what disruption to their natural habitat could this extension of sideline 34 cause? People seem to be cognizant of the plight of Canada's farming community. Many, many factors and obstacles are adding to the loss of working farms and the farm family. These two roads will effectively fracture our 101 Acre parcel of land into 4 segements and we ask you "What impact will this division and loss of acreage haVe on the viability of our working farm?" How can we be expected to operate a viable farm operation with these roads running from north to south and east to west? Why is it necessary to open Sideline 34 ? Why is it necessary to run an east west road, north and parallel to the third through our farm? Why are there houses slated to be built on our farmland? ,'4TfACHMENT #~ REPORT ~ PD RECEIVED The Mayor and Councillors, The City of Pickering, One, The Esplanade,Picketing ON. L1V 6K7 Re OPA 04-002/P, 3181,Byron St., Whitevale,ON,LOH 1M0 Oct,21 st. 04 0 CT 2 5 2004 CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Sirs, We have spoken at Council on several occasions, and we wish it to be known and noted that we continue to oppose the adoption ora Growth Management Plan which does not maintain the Agricultural Designation on the Agricultural Preserve. By_pushing for the Growth Management Study Picketing has turned over control to the developers and lost the opportunity to have a voice in the development of Seaton and retaining good farm fund, a scarcer commodity every day. IfPickering allowed half the agricultural preserve to be developed now, it is inevitable that when this was done they could then be persuaded to allow the balance to go too. The result would be sprawl right across Scarborough and Markham would continue to the eastern boundaries of Durham Region. This is not Smart Growth! When the G.T.A.A. persuade the Federal Government to adopt their no doubt grandiose plans for the North Picketing lands-in a few years it will be hard to find an u~tpaved portion of- Picketing, and we will hold you responsible for allowing urban sprawl over some of the last available agricultural land around the G.T.A., which shows the lack of farsightedness in Picketing Council~s decisions. Yours truly,/ Isobel and Tommy Thom,pson. Phone 905-294-5720 cc. Pickering Planning Council Durham Region Planning Council. 09£ McGre~lor, Grant .--.-.~ From: Sent: To: Subject: Planning Web Email October 25, 2004 11:42 AM Rose, Catherine; McGregor, Grant FW: AGAINST DEVELOPMENT ..... Original Message ..... From: centralsecurity@sympatico.ca [mailto:centralsecurity@sympatico.ca] Sent: October 22, 2004 5:20 PM To: Mayor Web Email Cc: Planning Web Email Subject: AGAINST DEVELOPMENT POINT OF FACT: I SPOKE TO DOYLE REESOR TODAY, IN FACT, HE WAS AT MY HOUSE AND HE HOPES THAT DEVELOPERS ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DEVELOP THE AG PRESERVED. HE ELUDED TO THE FACT THAT HE ENJOYS WALKING AND LIVING ON THE PRESERVED. MAYBE OUR MAYOR AND OUR COUNCIL AND OUR CITY PLANNERS SHOULD LOOK AT THE BIGGER PICTURE. SOME COUNCILLORS ASSUME THAT 90,000 ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE CITY OF PICKERINGS PLAN . WHERE DO THEY GET THAT FIGURE AS STATED BY DAVID PICKLES IN COUNCIL JUNE/04. i THINK THAT TOO MUCH POLITICS IS ATTACHED TO TOO MUCH BUSINESS AND NO RESPECT IS GIVEN TO THE PROVINCE TO WHOM OUR CITY PRECIDES IN. MANY PEOPLE IN PICKERING AND OUT CAN SEE THE VIRTUES OF THE AG PRESERVE BUT SOME OF YOU ARE TO ARROGANT TO SEE. I RECOMMEND YOU STOP WASTING OUR TAX DOLLARS AND START DISCOURCES WITH THE PROVINCE AND THE REGION THAT HAVE THE SUPPORT OF CHIEF KRIS NAHRGANG AND THE SCUGOG FIRST NATION WITH THE PLANS FOR SEATON THAT THE PROVINCE HAS PROPOSED AND I BELIEVE IN THE PRESERVATION OF THE PRESERVE AS AN ECOLOGICAL NECESSITY THAT WORKS AS PART OF THEIR PLAN. THE CITY ON THE OTHER HAND PROPOSES TO DEVELOP ON TWO AREAS OF ECOLOGICALLY IMPORTANT LAND. PRESERVATION OF URBAN AG LANDS DOES NOT INDULGE IN SPRAWL WHEN WE LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT TO ONE AREA AND PRESERVE ANOTHER THAT LIES BETWEEN THE ROUGE AND DUFFINS CREEK VALEY SYSTEM. IT'S UNIQUE AND WE PROPOSE WE KEEP IT THIS WAY. GIVEN A FULL EXPLANATION I'M SURE MOST PEOPLE WOULD AGREE. I HAVE SPOKEN TO MANY PEOPLE ON THE PRESERVE AND A LOT OF THEM SHARE MY SEMTIMENTS SINCERELY MIKE WILFER PRESIDENT CHERRYWOOD RESIDENCE ASSOCIATION October 31, 2004. 478 Concession #4 Pickering ON L1V2P9 093 Ms. Catherine Rose City of Pickering Project Manager One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 RE;, RECEIVED NOV - 1 2004 CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Comments Pickering Official Plan Amendment: Dear Ms. Rose: As you know, I am a homeowner in the in the Agricultural Assembly lands. I have participated in all the planning activities and provided comments regarding the area in which I live. I will restrict my comments to the area of the Agricultural Assembly that I am intimately familiar with. I wish to make the following comments on the proposed Official Plan Amendment (OPA): I am a resident, not a 'developer' and purchased my property at fair market value ($290,000) on the open market in 2001. The size of my property is 9.67 acres. I am spending countless hours and great expense upgrading my house and property; I intend to live here on a very long-term basis at least until well beyond retirement. I therefore believe I have a true interest in the planning aspects of The City Of Pickering and of the Agricultural Assembly in particular, because it impacts me very directly. I believe I can reasonably competently comment on the ecological aspects of the report as my undergraduate degree in Biology that includes environmental studies. I live at 478 Concession 4just east of the north west of the northern end of Rosebank Road. The north side of Concession 4 between Altona Road and Rosebank Road simply dose not have a creek. I have commented on has been all the maps. Mr. Howard Burkholder who farms this land and therefore knows its contours even more intimately than I, confirmed this fact in his comments to the Phase 2 of the Growth Management study. I note that the area of land which I own has been converted to "Active Recreational Area" (Green with hash marks) from half "Low Density. Area" (Yellow) and half "Active Recreational Area". I am requesting that you convert the Total area of my Property to "Low Density" to take advantage of the infrastructure that will be available on the 4th Concession if this OPA plan is ever brought into force. This OPA has several errors in fact that may be corrected to the ultimate benefit of the environment. The area immediately west of my property is now half "Low Density Area" (Yellow) and half"Active Recreational Area". This is very poorly thought out as the City of Pickering has issued a Building Permit for the construction of an 11,000 sq ft "concept" house, which is almost built at this time. The use can and will never be a Low density Housing Area a~er this home is completed. 094 The area immediately west of my neighbour will be needed for a Storm Water Management Pond. The field tiles that drain the farm fields on the south side of Concession 4 discharge to field tiles that discharge to the intermittent stream that starts behind the new concept home west of my house. The low density area to the north-east of Altona and Concession 4 that is to be located there should be removed and replaced by "Countryside" to act as a buffer to the to "Active Recreational Area" that was to form the link for wildlife. The band of Active Recreational should be moved north at least 100 meters so as to allow a buffer between the residential area and the wildlife area. To get a more detailed understanding of the log/c please refer to my comments on the Phase 2 GMS. o The use of the "Active Recreational Area" as a wildlife link in completely unacceptable as it allows for the placement ora school there. The placement of a school would negate any value as a link for wildlife to migrate between the Rouge and Duffin s watersheds. The land that is shown as Low Dnsity on the west side of Altona Road and south of the 4th Concession and North of taunton Road should be'removed and the Wildlife area should expand to the west side of Altona Road. The sensitivity of the existing heron rookery cannot be understated. It should be protected with additional buffer. In order to offset the above reduction in of iow density from the north side of Concession 4 and the west side of Altona south of Concession 4 and north of Taunton Road, I suggest the following. Please add the remaining portion of my property to the loTM density and to recoup the remainder; please convert the wood lot that was cut down on the north side of Taunton Road west of Whites and east of Rosebank Road. This was not significant as it was not identified on the most recent City of Pickering tree-cutting bylaw, and as the City is still litigating the owner for not obtaining a permit prior to cutting it down, then it should come as no surprise that it does not exist. Finally, I am interested in seeing the implementation of public policy on public lands and that private lands are at fair market value just as was done in the creation of the Altona Forest. The Province appears to be playing fast and loose with the concept of public policy on private lands without compensation. The net effect of Ministerial Zoning Orders and the proposed Greenbelt Legislation is expropriation without compensation. Further it is a slap in the face for the citizens of Pickering and City Council. The people of Pickering chose change by electing a Liberal representative to Provincial Parliament. Mr. Arthurs telephoned me the night before the Seaton Meeting and tried to explain "political realities" to me, but his absence from the Seaton Meeting when it was a key element in the platform on which he was elected, spoke more to me then he ever will. Pickering's citizens chose change - it's too bad the party they elected changed its mind. Should you wish to discuss my comments or wish clarification please do not hesitate to contact me (905) 472-5291. .~,.~ Yo~stmly, ' ~.~'Rob Lyon November 2, 2004 Ms. Catherine Rose City of Picketing Project Manager One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 RECEIVED NOV 0 3 2004 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 478 Concession #4 Pickering ON L1V 2P9 Ol~ ¢ OF ~ICKERING RE: Comments Pickering Official Plan Amendment (OPA): Dear Ms. Rose: As you may remember, I am a homeowner at the above address in the Agricultural Assembly lands, and have commented in writing to you on Phase I and II of the Growth Management Plan. My parmer, Rob Lyon, has also participated in all the planning activities and provided comments, and has written to you separately. I am unsure whether my concerns are valid, and many of them are raised in question form. Like Rob, I am restricting my comments to the immediate area surrounding where we live. "Active Recreational Area" Some of my concerns arise from the fact that proposed OPA zoning of the property on which my home is located (on the north side of Concession #4, just west of Rosebank Road) has been changed to that of "Active Recreational Area". I was not able to find a definition of"Active Recreational Area" in the OPA, and I wonder whether I will still be able to fall within MPAC's "farm" taxation rate for portion of my home property (8.67 acres) that I lease to be farmed. If not, then this is the first of what I perceive to be negative impact on my home. Second, we had been seriously considering the possibility of replacing our current home with our 'dream' retirement home, but further away from the road. With the "Active Recreational Area" zoning, I wonder whether this will still be possible. If not, this is the second negative impact on the proposed OPA on my home. "Low Density Area" Some of my concerns arise from the potential impact of the proposed "Low Density Area" bordering my home property to the west, across the road to the south, and in parts of the area immediately to the east of the north end of Rosebank Rd. It seems that we will be surrounded by non-farming uses in the future, if the OPA is implemented. This will mean that Burkholder Farms, who farm the land to the south and south-east of me, will have no interest in leasing my acreage: only because they happen to be farming the aforementioned land, have they agreed to lease mine. Bringing their farm machinery to a small, isolated property like mine will simply not be worth it in terms of time and fuel expense, never mind the traffic safety impracticalities of traveling on a road that would pass through the "Low Density Area". Even if farming were allowed on the proposed "Active Recreational Area" zoning of my home property, it seems as though practicalities will prevent this. This is a third negative impact on my home. I had purchased my home because I wanted a rural property: proposing a "Low Density Area" to the west and south will, without doubt, negatively impact the bucolic home setting that I purchased. This is the fourth negative impact on my home. I would like to emphasize the fifth and most negative impact this OPA would have on my property. Our drinking water is obtained from a 17' deep dug well located on the front lawn of my home -just feet away from Concession 4, and down-slope from the "Low Density Area" to the south. What will the impact on the groundwater level be, when the water table is pumped down in order to lay sewer and water mains? Will I have enough drinking water? And what will the impact be of construction and road salting to the water table/aquifer upon which I am dependent? Who will compensate me for water well interference and contamination if these happen? Municipal Benefits Denied From the above, it is clear that I feel that the OPA would negatively impacted my home property in many ways; and at the same time, the benefits of living in the surrounding proposed OPA "Low Density Area", specifically water and sewer servicing, may be denied to me. I feel as though I am being 'singled out' by all the negative things the OPA proposal imposes. Inconsistency in Boundary Criteria To add to this feeling of being negatively singled out, I question what the criteria were to determine the boundaries between "Low Density Areas" and "Active Recreational Area". Why, if the premise of establishing an "Active Recreational Area" is for the protection of natural areas and wildlife corridor, does the boundary of the "Active Recreational Area" of what is my home property not follow natural features, just as other "Active Recreational Areas" do? This further adds to my perception that administration of the OPA is inconsistent. Concluding Comments - Personal Impacts As stated in my Phase II GMS comments to you, my home is my nest-egg for the future. It is a property I purchased solely. The down payment that I placed on my home is the result of many years of hard work and saving, and virtually the only positive end-result of an otherwise bleak previous marriage. I believe I have what is a reasonable expectation that all homeowners do, that '098 my home will appreciate at a rate comparable to other homes, by the time that I retire. This is my home; I pay a sizeable mortgage, and we have made time-consuming upgrades to it to make it livable such as waterproofing the basement, rebuilding the chimney, and 'paving' the formerly muddy drive with reground asphalt. Although Rob has children, I do not, nor do I have any siblings, so again, I am very aware of having to fend for myself even further in the future (i.e. nursing home/care). All the negative impacts on my home and its future value that result from this proposed OPA, have made me uneasy about my retirement future. I have a sizeable mortgage, and I am left feeling 'for what am I paying?' I would like to add that I am in concurrence with the nine (9) itemS raised by my parmer, Rob Lyon, in his October 31, 2004 letter to you. I thank you for your consideration, and if you are able to provide clarifications about any of the above concerns or questions, I would very much appreciate them. Yours sincerely, Sylvia Holloway Tel: 905-472-5291 ATTACHMENT # 2 ~ 'r0 REPORT~PD ~2--OZ~ 099 SUMMARY OF AGENCY COMMENTS Agency Comments Region of Durham · the cost and fiscal implications of providing regional services to the two communities needs to be assessed; · a study of the staging and timing of development to assess the financial impacts of development on the Region prior to development is required; · the future servicing status of the hamlets of Brougham, Green River and Whitevale is not addressed in the proposed Amendment; · the road network in Schedule B of the Amendment is different than the Regional Official Plan transportation map; · a number of technical/editorial changes are recommended; Toronto Region · the environmental system in the Official Plan Amendment Conservation Authority is supported; · the major east west corridors should be identified as a Natural Heritage Corridor instead of Active Recreational Areas in amendment with an allowance for some passive recreational uses; · the overall roadway system should be designed to minimize the number of crossings over highly sensitive areas; Greater Toronto · a policy to recognize the GTAA's proposed Airport Airports Authority Protection Area in order to restrict the development of sensitive land uses is recommended; Enbridge Pipelines Inc. · proposed development near their pipeline are subject to a number of conditions; ATTACHMENT # ~--.'* · Tl~ Enbridge Pipelines Inc. R EPORT ~ PD c/Z.- o '-~ 801 Upper Canada Drive -- P.o. Box R E C E ] V E D Sarnia, Ontario N7T 7H8 (CourierN7W1A3) OCT 1 4 200~ CITY OF PICKERING P~NNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT v~ October 5, 2004 O. ~ File No. 73.11 City of Picketing City of ~ing M~e Taylor, City Clerk ~ne the Esplanade Pcikering ON L1V 6K7 Re: Growth Management Study- City of Pickering Dear Mr. Taylor, Enbridge Pipelines Inc. (Enbridge) operates one 762mm diameter contained in an 18.3m wide right-of-way/easement through the Pickering area as identified in your existing official plan. Enbridge has no objections to proposed development near the pipeline providing the following conditions are adhered to: · No permanent structures are permitted within the right-of-way area. · Enbridge highly recommends not to incorporate lot lines over its right of way. Enbridge must have the ability to access its' right-of-way at all times for maintenance, inspection and alteration of the pipeline(s). Therefore, Enbridge would highly recommends its' right-of-way to be maintained as green space, park belt or open space. Any proposed crossings of the right-of-way by roads, laneways, bike/walking paths, services and utilities are permitted in accordance with the regulations of the National Energy Board (NEB) Act and subject to approval by Enbridge's Crossings Co-ordinator, Ann Newman at (519) 339-0503. The applicant will be required to enter Enbridge's Standard Crossing Agreement. Enbridge is regulated by the National Energy Board (NEB) Act. Section 112 of the Act requires any excavation within 30 meter of Enbridge's right-of-way to be approved by Enbridge. cont'd. . ./2 Direct Line: 519-339-0503 Office: 519-339-0500 e-maih ann.newman@enbridge.com Website: www.enbridge.com Fax: 519-339-0510 /~TTACHMENT #_ '~--.~ TO Page 2REPORT # Pi)_. ~2.. -o~ IOI' October 5, 2004 · No grading or placing fill on Enbridge's right-of-way will be permitted without prior approval of Enbridge. · No work shall take place on Enbridge's right-of-way without the presence of an Enbridge inspector. · No heavy machinery will be permitted to cross Enbridge's right-of-way without prior approval. · No landscaping shall take place on Enbridge's right-of-way without Enbridge's approval. To obtain locates of our facilities please contact (613)966-1955 and Ontario One Call at 1-800- 400-2255. Request to meet "Enbridge Pipelines Inc." onsite at the specified address. Three working days notice is required to arrange for an onsite meeting. Please call if you have any questions. Yours truly, Ann Newman CET Crossings Co-ordinator, Eastern Region Cc: John Blakely onserva tlon for The November 12, 2004 Living City Mr. Nell Carroll City of Pickering Pickeri.ng Civic Centre One The Esplanade pickering., Ontario L1V 6K7 ,CITY OF PiCKERINGi .,~LANNING & DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT REPORT # PD~~,, ×-ref: CFN 34661 (C) Dear Mr. Carro.lh Re: piCketing'Official Plan Amendment OPA 04-002/P CitY Initiated: Growth Management Study City,of Picketing ' . On May 7, 2004. TRCA staff provided 6omments (attached) on the Town of Pickering alternatives for the development of the North Pickering Lands. At' that 'time we expressed that the environmental system 'which accompanied Option 3 Structure Plan of the Growth Management Study (adopted by Council in June 2004) was generally satisl~actory. Option 3 included the protection of the natural features including significant vaileyiands, watercourses, woodlots and wetlands. OptiOn 3 also provided for.major east west corridors which were :to serve .aS. part of the Natural Heritage System and function to increase wildlife connectivity .through the developing landscape. This'option is being furthered through, this Official Plan Amendment Application., however the following issues must be noted. The. Official Plan Amendment Schedule 'A", identifies the major east west corridors as Active. Recreational Areas'. TRCA staff note that the utilization of the entire width of the east'west corridors for 'recreation will not serve the funCtion of securing for east west. natural corridors, :.which is the original intent of the corridors, we would advocate tt~at at a minimUm.the c~rridors be identified as Natural Heritage Corridors with' ah allowance for some :passive recreational uses such as trails Where those uses would not undermine the integrity of the Natural Her.ira:ge "System. We suggest that this wording could be.added to the text of the proposed Official Plan Amendment. Schedule 'B' identifies the proposed transportation system for the North Pickering. Lands. The system shows several crossi'ngs'of the Natural Heri:tage System. While TRCA staff recogn!ze that roadwaYs and other infrastructure must cross the natural system we promote that the. overall roadway system should be designed to minimize the number of crossings and avoid. highly sensitive areas. Where crossings are necessary, the crossings must be 'designed to protect for the.connectivity of the Natural Heritage' System. Given this we suggest that the inclusion of wording in the proposed OPA which considers the objective' of protecting for the con'nectivity of the Natural Heritage System. Finai. ly, T'RCA staff note that we continue to b'e involved in the provincial OPDA process for the ~ development. of the Seaton L~nds and as mentioned in recent, discussions at the Town'of Pickering's Key Stakeholders Meeting, we welcome the opportunity to jointly discuss ~he. Lcqn,.t.',.d... 5 Shoreharn Drive,. Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416/661~6600 FAX 661-6898 www. trca. on.'ca Neill Carroll .' JRussel ~' ' ' · 'Senior. Planner Development Services SectiO. n. 'Ext. 5306 . .Nove.mbe~. ,103 2,,200;1 Natural Heritage System being..develdped by Pickering and the provincial. Natural. Heritage System as both systems'have:merit in. moving the eeo. logical yardsticks in'the development of ' We trust that this is satisfactory. 'If. you have any.questions, please contact the Undersigned RW/dl! ,. Encl., ce: Mark. Christie', MMAH Nestor' ChOmaby, Region of Durham 'Ga. ry Boylen', TRCA '. 1. 5 CITYOF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT F.:\lflome~Publlc\Deve'lopmar~t Services~Dur'ham .Reglon\PIc~'erlng\$eat~n2.wpd ll-Og-04 12:38 FRO~- ATTACHMENT# T-g08 P.002/003 F-?g3 "'34 GTAA Greater Toronto Airports Authority CE VE© Lesler B. Pearson Internaliona[ Airport P,O. Box 8031, 3111 Convair Drive Toronto AMF, Onlario, Canada LSP 1B2 '>nn hOV 0 9 CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Airport Planning Olga Staid Manager Land Use Planning Tel: (416) 776-7355 Fax: (416) 776-4168 Transmitted by Facsimile (905) 420.7648 Novernber 9, 2004 Ms. Catherine Rose, Manager, Policy City of Pickering- Planning & Development Department Picketing Civic Complex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ont'.arJo L1V 6K7 Dear Ms. Rose: RE: City of Piekering Amendment ePA 04-002/P We appreci are the opportunity to comment on the wording of the new sub-clause to the proposed policy for Section 2.13 which provides recognitian of the GTAA's proposed Interim Airport Protection Area. Our proposed rewording of the clause is to highlight that the Interim Airport Area should be in place until a decision is made to proceed with the development of the airport and to indicate and daat the purpose of the protection area is to establish restrictions of the development of sensitive land uses. The suggested wording below 'for your consideration is as ~ol[ows: · 'Acknowledge the intention of the Greater Toronto Airports Autl~oriry to establish restrictions on [he development of sensitive land ~s within an area to be referred to as fl~c Interim Airport Protection Area ("IA.PA") as part of the planning for the development and operation of a future regional, reliever airport in ?iclmring, The restrictions on the development o'f sensitive land uses within the IA,PA would be in place until such time as the decision is made ~o proceed wi~h thc d~velopm~nt ofth~ airport, The IA.PA is ~n ama gcnzrully following the 25 Noise Expa,qure Foreeagt contour as defined on mapping provided by the GTAA." Ms. Rose Novamber 9, 2004 Page 2 T-g06 P. OOa/I)O:it 105 If you have any questions, please call me at (416) 776-7355. Yours truly, GREATER TORONTO AIRPORTS AUTHORITY Olga Staid Manager Land Use Planning cc N. Doshi - OTAA T. Driedger - GTAA L. McKe¢ - OTAA T. Lennox - GTAA 9/I 11134 11;15 ^M OS/plek~ringlan~lus,iapa 106 The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department 1615 DUNDAS ST, E. 4TM FLOOR, LANG TOWER WEST BUILDING PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 CANADA 905-728-7731 Fax: 905-436-6612 Email: planning@ region.durham.on.ca www. region.durham.on.ca A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning "Service Excellence fo~ ~ur Communities" November 10, 2004 Grant McGregor, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. PrinciPal Planner- Policy Planning & Development Department Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 RF_CE.IVED NOV t 5 2004 CiTY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Mr. McGregor: Re: Pre-consultation for Proposed City Initiated Pickering Official Plan Amendment - To Implement City's Growth Management Study Our File: CPA 04-002/P Thank-you for the opportunity to review and comment on the above-noted amendment proposal to the Pickering Official Plan. Notwithstanding the previous comments provided on the City's Growth Management Study (correspondence dated April 23 and April 26, 2004), and the ongoing Provincial planning initiatives foi' seaton and.the Agricultural Preserve, the following additional consolidated comments are provided, without prejudice, to assist the City in its deliberations: Regional Official Plan Conformity Considerations: To enable COnsideration of the City's amendment proposal, an amendment to the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) is required to address a number of areas, including population, employment, roads, the Regional Node, Main Central Area, certain countryside uses in the Permanent Agricultural Reserve, etc. This is acknowledged in the information package. However, you are aware that the submission of an amendment application to expand urban boundaries at this time would not comply with the Greenbelt Protection Act, 2004. Of particular note is the proposal to extend the planning time frame for Seaton to the year 2026. The ROP currently contains a time frame of 2021. Although we are in the process of reviewing the ROP, and one the proposed directions being considered by the Region is extending the ROP's time frame to 2031, the proposed direction has no status. The ROP currently only permits the consideration of amendments to area municipal official plans to designate a supply of land for development up to the 2021 time frame. 100% POST Consumer Financing/Servicing Considerations: 107 There is continued need to adequately assess the costs and fiscal implications of providing Regional sanitary sewer and water supply services and roads, based on the City's Structure Plan. The cost of oversizing municipal services for the Federal Airport Lands must also be considered. The Region therefore requires a study of the staging and timing of development to assess the financial impaCtS of development on the Region prior to development (ROP policy 8.3..5 and Section 6). The need for this Study was brought forward during the City's Growth ManagementStudy, the Region's comments on the Crombie Principles and at the time Amendment 51to the ROP was considered for the East Duffins Study Area (refer to Planning Commission er's Report 1999-P-01). There is concern over the proposal to del ete Section 2.14 of the Pickering Official Plan (POP). The current policy supports "the adoption of appropriate measures, incentives and controls to ensure the community.. ;(vii) does not cause a financial burden on the City or Region". It' is being proposed that Section 2.14 be replaced by a new Section 2.13, which states, among other things: "For the Central Pickering Urban Area, City Council shall, ... (f) require the landowners to enter 'satisfactory financial arrangements to ensure that there is no undUe financial, burden on the City or Region respecting the provision of water, sewer and roads, together with storm drainage works'! (emphasis added) This change is of concern, as it references "Undue" financial burden, rather than simply "finanCial burden". The .former has less complete coverage than the latter, and it introduces a test which is difficult to define, and may be difficult to apply in protecting the Region's financial interest. In addition, the proposed change to this policy limits the financial burden to defined services ("hard" services), thereby excluding all others at both the Regional and City level. The .wording contained in the original/current policy is preferred. The proposed amendment does not appear to address the future servicing status of the Hamlets of Brougham, Green River and 2 108 Whitevale. We are still unclear as to what is intended/planned, in terms of servicing, for these Hamlets. Transportation/Transit Considerations: Our previous comments of April 26, 2004 questioned the ability of the proposed transportation network to support the Land Use Structure, based on the travel demand analysis contained in the Phase 2 Growth Management Study's "Recommended Structure Plan." The proposed road network shown in Schedule B of the proposed amendment has not changed. We note the following differences with the ROP and Transportation Master Plan (TMP): Whites Road jogs at Taunton Road to connect with Sideline 26, in lieu of a continuous Whites Road extension. A continuous Whites Road woUld 'better connect Seaton and the Pickering urban area south of the CPR Belleville line, and help to prevent excessive east-west traffic congestion on Taunton Road; Dixie Road jogs at the proposed 3rd Concession Road extension to connect with the proposed Sideline 22 extension, instead of a continuous Dixie Road extension. Dixie Road and Sideline 22 are both designated ~as Type C arterial roads in the .proposed amendment, instead of a Type B arterial road as designated in the ROP (although the routing is deferred). Finch Avenue (west of Altona Road) and Pickering Townline ROad (between Finch Avenue and Taunton Road) are identified as TYpe B arterial roads. Although this is consistent with the ROP, the TMP recommends that the designations of these sections be changed to Type C arterial roads, as requested by the City; 3rd Concession Road is extended westerly to Pickering Townline Road, whereas the ROP illustrates the future road terminating at Whites Road; and The arterial and collector road system shown within the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood does not correspond to the network adopted by the City of Pickering and approved by Regional Council on July 9, 2003. The ability of arterial roads to serve future transportation requirements will depend largely on their configuration and alignment, particularly at intersections. Some Type A and B arterial road sections appear to have proposed intersections too closely spaced to facilitate safe and efficient traffic movement. Two areas of concern are the spacing of 3 109 intersections on Taunton Road at Whites Road and Sideline 26, and on the proposed 3rd Concession Road extension at Dixie Road and the proposed Side line 22 extension. In particular, the demand forecasting results illustrated that the discontinuity of Whites Road and Sideline 26 would pose significant capacity concerns at their intersections with Taunton Road; Matters pertaining to'the road network (see 1 above), and intersection spacing, Still need to be addressed, The ROP designates Dixie Road as a Type B arterial, while the POP designates Dixie Road as a Type C arterial. Both Official Plans show these designations as deferred. However, designating Dixie Road as. a Type C arterial in the SeatOn Urban Area reduces the effective capacity and ultimate level of service on the road. As such, limiting the primary travel for north-south traffic to only Whites Road and Brock Road will exacerbate traffic on these roads, and ultimately result in more infiltration on other Type'C arterials and collector roads (e.g., Fairport Road and Rosebank ROad). Aisc, as part of the proposed amendment,-the Dixie Road deferral (D44) in'the POP.should also be resolved. Technical/Editorial Considerations: Item 1 of proposed amendment (Schedule I) -"Countryside" should also be included under the first bullet. There are lands east of the "Agricultural Area" designation, proposed to be designated "Countryside" that are located within the current "Seaton Urban Study Area" designation. 2. Item 2 of proposed amendment (Schedule II): It is suggested that the east partial extension of Highway 407 (i.e., from the York-Durham boundary to Highway 7, just east of Brock Road) be shown as existing, rather than future, in the Transportation System. Aisc, the Highway 407/Markham- Pickering Townline interchange should be shown as existing, rather than future. We note that Rosebank Road is shown as a Type C arterial road in the Phase 2 Recommended Structure Plan, but the proposed amendment shows it as a local road between Finch Avenue and 3rd Concession Road. The amendment area boundary on Schedule II (Transportation System) is superimposed on elements of the arterial road network, thereby concealing the designations of roads such as the Markham-Pickering Townline and Sideline 16. You may 4 110 10. 11, wish to provide more clarity. Items 3.2 and 3.5 of proposed' amendment - For consistency, it is suggested that the preamble for the deletion of Section 2.12 be consistent with the preamble for the deletion of Sections 2.15 and 2.16. (i.e. an explanation of what is contained in Section 2.12 is provided, however there is no explanation of what is contained in Sections 2.15 and 2.16). Item 3.3 of proposed amendment- It is suggested that the preamble for the deletion of Section 2.13 read as follows: "De lete the existing Section 2.13, which ..... Area, and replacing it with Item 3.4 of proposed amendment - Similar to above, it is suggested that the preamble for the deletion of Section 2.14 read as follows: "Delete the existing Section 2.14, which. ~.. Area, and replacing it with Item 3.4 of proposed amendment'- PropoSed new policy 2.13'(a) - This policy should be clarified by adding a description/definition of the elements of a "livable, transit oriented community". Item 3.4 of proposed amendment- Proposed new policy 2.13 (c) -It is suggested that this policY be.expanded to elaborate on the typesof planning and design practices that are being encouraged; Item 3.5 of proposed amendment- After deleting Sections 2.15 and 2.16 in their entirety, the remainder of the policies in Section 2 need to be renumbered accordingly. Item 3.6 of proposed amendment- Revisions to Table 2 - It is suggested that the preamble describe'the function of Table 2 in the POP. Item 3.7 of proposed amendment - It is suggested that the proposed changes to Section 3.7 and Table 7 be to "delete and replace" as opposed to "Revising". In this way, it can be seen that Deferral 3 is being addressed, Item 3.11 and 3.12 of proposed amendment - It is suggested that the preamble read as follows: 5 ATTACHMENT#' ~?~-~ TO 111 "Inserting a new Section 3,17 and 3.18 as follows, and renumbering the remaining Sections accordingly". 12. Item 3.13 of proposed amendment- Proposed revisions to policy 4.15 - It would appear that the remainder of policy (a) should also be deleted, as the roads issues will have to be resolved prior to apProval of the amendment. If you haVe any questions, or wiSh to meet to discuss the matters addressed in this communication further, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, ! Dorothy E. Skinner, M.C.I.P, R.P.P. Planner Strategic Planning Branch C,C. Mary' Simpson, Director, Financial Planning, Finance Department John Presta, Director, Environmental Services, Works Department Gene Chartier, Manager, Transportation Planning & Design, Works Department Peter Nundy, Manager, Development Approvals, Works Department Ramesh Jagannathan; Manager, Transportation Planning & Research, Planning Department Doug Lindeblom. Director, Economic DeveloPment & Tourism,. Economic Development and Tourism Department K:\wp~oer_iss~per.:iss/Debbie',letters~Jetter-nc-preco nsultlopa.doc 6