HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 24, 2005PICKF2edNG
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, January 24, 2005
7:30 PM
Chair: Councillor Brenner
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Meeting of January 10, 2005
PAGE
1-8
(11)
1.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 01-05
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 26/03
SEAN REGAN DEVELOPMENTS
1603 FINCH AVENUE
(PART OF LOT 20, CONCESSION 1)
PAGE
9-22
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 06-05
DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
"RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS REPORT, OCTOBER 2004"
RESPECTING THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT,
COMMERCIAL POLICY AND RURAL RESOURCES
23-75
o
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT 02-05
FUTURESIGN MULTIMEDIA DISPLAYS
AMENDING ADVERTISING AGREEMENT
76-80
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT 05-05
GREEN RIVER COMMUNITY CENTRE
LEASE RENEWAL
-HORIZON HOUSE WHERE HEAVEN AND EARTH MEET
81-85
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, January 24, 2005
7:30 PM
Chair: Councillor Brenner
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT 01-05
NWMO DISCUSSION DOCUMENT 2,
UNDERSTANDING THE CHOICES
CITY OF PICKERING'S COMMENTS TO NWMO
86-107
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 06-05
ENDORSEMENT OF BILL 165
- E~FCTED OFF/C/ALS IMMUNITY ACT, 2004
108-114
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 07-05
APPOINTMENT TO ENFORCE THE PARKING BY-LAW AT
WHITES ROAD, 1100 BEGLEY STREET, 1865 KINGSTON
ROAD AND 726 KINGSTON ROAD
115-120
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 59-04
2005 ANIMAL SERVICES BUDGET
121-130
Referred at the December 20th Council AQenda
(111) OTHER BUSINESS
(IV) ADJOURNMENT
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 10, 2004
7:40 PM
Chair: Councillor Ashe
PRESENT:
Mayor Dave Ryan
COUNCILLORS:
K. Ashe
M. Brenner
D. Dickerson
R. Johnson
B. McLean
D. Pickles
ALSO PRESENT:
E. Buntsma - (Acting) Chief Administrative Officer and
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
N. Carroll - Director, Planning & Development
G. Paterson - Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
B. Taylor - City Clerk
S. Reynolds - Division Head, Culture & Recreation
D. Watrous - Committee Coordinator
ABSENT:
T. J. Quinn - Chief Administrative Officer (Medical Leave)
Mayor Ryan commented on the Tsunami Disaster and acknowledged the work of
Councillors Brenner and McLean in aid of the victims.
(I)
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Meeting of December 13, 2004
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 10, 2004
7:40 PM
Chair': Councillor Ashe
(11)
1.
DELEGATION
Gordon Dick, representing the Pickering Rotary Club, addressed the Committee
with respect to Tsunami Relief requesting a grant for the use of the hall at the
Recreation Complex. He advised that this event would be a day of family
activities with an evening buffet. All monies raised at this event would be
deposited into the Durham Community Tsunami Relief Fund, which has been set
up by the Rotary Club. Representatives of the Hindu community presented
$8,513.00 to Mr. Dick for this relief fund advising that a further $2,000 would be
forthcoming.
(111)
1.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 48-04
BRAMALEA LIMTIED
-PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1347
-PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1472
-PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1473
-PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1571
FINAL ASSUMPTION OF PLANS OF SUBDIVISION
By-law Forwarded To Council
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 46-04
BRAMALEA LIMITED/MARSHALL HOMES CORPORATION
-PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1254 (PHASE 1)
BRAMALEA LIMITED
-PLAN OF SUBDIVSION 40M-1418 (PHASE 2)
BRAMALEA LIMITED
-PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 40M-1419 (PHASE 3)
FINAL ASSUMPTION OF PLANS OF SUBDIVISION
By-laws Forwarded To Council
2
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 10, 2004
7:40 PM
Chair: Councillor Ashe
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 01-05
TENDER FOR PICKERING MUSEUM VILLAGE PROGRAM CENTRE
TENDER NO. T-6-2004
Approved
See Recommendation #1
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 40-04
-NO PARKING BY-LAW
-AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 2359/87
-FILE: BEGLEY STREET AND TANZER
By-laws Forwarded To Council
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 41-04
-NO PARKING BY-LAW
-AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 2359/87
FILE: GLENGROVE ROAD
By-law Forwarded To Council
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 43-04
-STOP SIGN BY-LAW
-AMENDMENT TO BY-LAW 2632/88
FILE: COPPERSTONE DRIVE
By-law Forwarded To Council
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 02-05
2005 INTERIM LEVY AND INTERIM INSTALLMENT DUE DATES
Approved
See Recommendation #2
-3-
( KERING
Executive Committee
Meeting Minutes
Monday, January 10, 2004
7:40 PM
Chair: Councillor Ashe
o
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 01-05
CONFIRMATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CRIME INSURANCE FOR 2005
Approved
See Recommendation #3
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 03-05
ESTABLISHMENT ROUGEMOUNT COOPERATIVE HOME-'S
NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH- 400 KINGSTON ROAD
Approved
See Recommendation #4
10.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 05-04
FLAG PROTOCOL
-POLICY/PROCEDURE
Approved As Amended
See Recommendation #5
11.
PROCLAMATIONS
"FAMILY LITERACY WEEK"
"MARRIAGE CHECKUP WEEK"
"RACING AGAINST DRUGS DURHAM WEEK"
Approved
See Recommendation #6
(IV) OTHER BUSINESS
1. Councillor Brenner gave notice of a motion, seconded by Councillor McLean to
proclaim January 29~h as 'Tsunami Relief Day'.
(v)
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 8:45 pm.
-4-
PICKERING
Appendix I
Executive Committee Report
EC 2005-01
0¸5
That the Executive Committee of the City of Pickering having met on January 10, 2005,
presents its first report to Council and recommends:
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY SERVICES REPORT OES 01-05
TENDER FOR PICKERING MUSEUM VILLAGE PROGRAM CENTRE
TENDER NO. T-6-2004
That Report OES 01-05 regarding the Pickering Museum Village Program
Centre, be received; and
That Tender No. T-6-2004 submitted by D. J. McRae Contracting Ltd. for the
construction of a new Program Centre at the Pickering Museum Village in the
amount of $751,236 (CST extra), be accepted; and
That the total gross project cost of $1,002,949.52 and a net project cost of
$937,336 including tender amount and other project costs identified in this
report be approved; and
That Council authorize entering into an agreement between the City and the
Pickering Museum Village Foundation for the shared cost and financing of the
Program Centre Project and the Hotel Restoration Project; and
That pre-budget approval be given in the amount of $547,336 for Program
Centre project including moving of hotel and financing to be included in the
2005 current and capital budgets and Council consider including $250,000 in
the 2006 Capital Budget for its share of the Hotel Restoration project; and
That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to
finance the project as follows:
a) Debt financing through the Region of Durham in the amount of $451,000
for a period not exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined; and
b) Contributions from the Pickering Museum Village Foundation in the
amounts of $60,000 for Program Centre project and $36,000 for moving
the hotel; and
c) The balance of funding in the estimated amount of $336 be included in the
2005 Current Budget; and
-5-
PICKER1NG
Appendix I
Executive Committee Report
EC 2005-01
d) Financing and repayment charges in the amount of approximately $57,700
be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering
commencing in 2006 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; and
e) The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan
and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt and Financial
Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial
obligations for 2004 as established by the Province for municipalities in
Ontario; and
f) The Treasurer be authorized to take any actions necessary in order to
effect the foregoing; and
7. That staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto.
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 02-05
2005 INTERIM LEVY AND INTERIM INSTALLMENT DUE DATES
That Report CS 02-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, be
received; and
That an interim levy be adopted for 2005 for all of the realty property classes;
and
That the interim levy instalment due dates be February 25 and April 28, 2005;
and
That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any
changes or undertake any actions necessary, including altering due dates, in
order to ensure the tax billing process is completed; and
That the attached by-law, providing for the imposition of the taxes, be read
three times and passed by Council; and
That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
-6-
Appendix I
Executive Committee Report
EC 2005-01
07
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 01-05
CONFIRMATION OF COMPREHENSIVE CRIME INSURANCE FOR 2005
That Report CS 01-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
concerning Confirmation of Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2005, be
received and forwarded to Council for information.
CORPORATE SERVICES REPORT CS 03-05
ESTABLISHMENT ROUGEMOUNT COOPERATIVE HOMES
NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH - 400 KINGSTON ROAD
That the letter from the Durham Regional Police Service dated December 7,
2004 endorsing the establishment of the Rougemount Cooperative Homes
Neighbourhood Watch, be received; and
That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses
the Rougemount Cooperative Homes Neighbourhood Watch and approves
the installation of Neighbourhood Watch signs at the entrances to the subject
area.
That the appropriate staff of the City of Pickering be given authority to give
effect thereto.
CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE REPORT CAO 05-04
FLAG PROTOCOL
-POLICY/PROCEDURE
That Report CAO 05-04 regarding the Flag Protocol Policy for The
Corporation of the City of Pickering, be received; and
That Council endorse the Flag Protocol as set out in the Flag Protocol Policy
and Procedure with the following amendment:
a) That upon the death of a spouse, son or daughter of the Mayor or Member
of Council the flags at City properties be flown at half-mast.
-7-
08
PICKER1NIG
Appendix I
Executive Committee Report
EC 2005-01
o
PROCLAMATIONS
"FAMILY LITERACY WEEK"
"MARRIAGE CHECKUP WEEK"
"RACING AGAINST DRUGS DURHAM WEEK"
That Mayor Ryan be authorized to make the following proclamations:
"Family Literacy Week" - January 24 - 31, 2005
"Marriage Checkup Week"- February 14- 18, 2005
"Racing Against Drugs Durham Week" - May 1 - 6, 2005
-8-
09
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/03, be REFUSED to permit the
establishment of two three-storey apartment blocks, each containing six
residential units, submitted by Sean Regan on behalf of Sean Regan
Developments, on the lands being Part of Lot 20, Concession I (1603 Finch
Avenue), City of Pickering.
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 01-05
Date: January 6, 2005
From:
Nell Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/03
Sean Regan Developments
1603 Finch Avenue
(Part of Lot 20, Concession 1)
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/03, be REFUSEDto permit the
establishment of two three-storey apartment blocks, each containing six residential
units, submitted by Sean Regan on behalf of Sean Regan Developments, on the
lands being Part of Lot 20, Concession 1 (1603 Finch Avenue), City of Pickering.
Executive Summary: The applicant requests a change to the zoning by-law to
permit the establishment of two three-storey apartment blocks, each containing
six residential units (for a total of 12 units). The subject property is located on the south
side of Finch Avenue, west of Guild Road and directly east of the hydro corridor
(see Location Map, Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachments #1 & #2).
It is recommended that the application be refused, as it represents over development of
the site and is not compatible with the neighbourhood.
Financial Implications:
proposed development.
No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
Background:
1.0 Comments Received
1.1
At the May 16, 2002 Public Information Meeting
(see text of Information Report, Attachment #3 - no comments received at the
Meeting)
1.2 Comments Received From Agencies
The Durham District School Board - no objections.
Report PD 01-05
Subject: Sean Regan
(A 26~O3)
Date: January 6, 2005
Page 2
2.0
2.1
Veridian Connections - no concerns.
Region of Durham
The proposal conforms to the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan.
A road widening along the Finch Avenue frontage will be required to provide
for a right-of-way width of 18 metres from centerline. Further details at site
plan stage.
- A noise study is required to address the impact of road noise on the proposed
residential units.
Discussion
Housing form and density is consistent with Official Plan Designation,
though inappropriate for the size and configuration of the subject site,
The subject property is within the "Urban Residential Area - Medium Density
Area" designation of the Village East Neighbourhood. This designation permits
medium density residential development at a density of over 30 and up to and
including 80 dwellings per net hectare. When applied to this property this results
in a range of 7 to 18 units. The proposal is consistent with this designation at
12 units, or approximately 50 units per net hectare.
The subject site, however, is a unique shape, and tapers into a long narrow
"strip" of land behind several lots fronting Guild Road (see Location Map,
Attachment #1). Although this long narrow "strip" of land within the site is not
useable for building or parking it does constitute lot area and is included in
determining the unit density range permitted under the Official Plan. Technically
the proposed 12 unit development falls within the density range permitted by the
Official Plan, however, the actual useable land area results in the units being
sited on only a portion of the site. This confinement of the development to a
po. dion of the site results in several site functioning difficulties.
The narrow proportions of this site, and the undevelopable long narrow "strip"
create a challenge for development that is within the range for medium density,
and that is functional and appropriate for the neighbourhood.
Although the Official Plan sets the unit density range within which development
may occur, it is the review of a Zoning By-law Amendment that determines the
density, within that range, that is most appropriate. Due to the irregular
configuration of the site, staff do not believe it is possible to appropriately develop
this site within the Official Plan's designated density.
Staff have considered alternative development options and it appears that the
site may be able to support one block of six units. Staff discussed this alternative
with the applicant, however, the applicant continues to pursue the original
submission. Six units would fall shod of the Official Plan requirements whereby
seven units would be the minimum number of units permissible. However,
Section 14.1(f)(ii) of the Official Plan permits Council to consider a minor
deviation from the Official Plan densities if lower than required.
Report PD 01-05
Subject: Sean Regan (A26/03)
Date:
January 6,2005
Page 3
2.2
2.3
The applicant's current design represents over-development of the site and does
not allow for adequate vehicle flow, safe pedestrian movements or proper site
functioning.
Development within the medium density range may only be possible on this site if
additional land is acquired to achieve a more functional lot configuration. Not
every parcel of land designated for medium density development is capable of
being developed independently. A comprehensive redevelopment involving
additional properties is required.
Area residents and City staff have expressed concerns regarding the safe
functioning of the site and the compatibility of the proposed development with the
neighbourhood.
It was requested at the Statutory Information Meeting that a resident working
group be established to consider the proposed land use. Following the
Information Meeting, staff worked with the applicant, however were unable to
bring the proposal to a level that warranted detail review by a resident working
group. Consequently such a meeting was not held. Prior to the January 24th
meeting date, residents who made comment on the application will be notified of
staff's recommendation for refusal.
Although constrained, the site has future development potential and staff
are willing to work with the applicant if additional land is acquired or an
acceptable alternative design is achieved.
Ideally, this site would be best suited for development at a time when additional
property could be acquired and an appropriate form of medium density could be
achieved. Staff acknowledges that the applicant has approached adjoining
landowners to purchase additional land area, but to date has been unsuccessful.
Density, by itself, does not control housing form. Protection and enhancement of
the character of existing neighbourhoods must also be considered. If additional
designs and/or additional land is acquired Planning & Development staff will
continue to review alternatives and discuss options with the land ownedapplicant.
Applicant's Comments
The applicant is aware of the staff recommendation for refusal of the application.
The applicant advised that he is unable to attend the January 24, 2005 Executive
Committee meeting, however, his agent Dermot James Walsh will attend on his
behalf.
Report PD 01-05
Subject: Sean Regan (A 26/03)
Date: January 6, 2005
Page 4
i2,
Attachments:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Location Map
Applicant's Submitted Plan
Text of Information Report
Region of Durham Comments
Veridian Corporation Comments
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Neil Carroll,
Director, PlamSing & Development
Ly~da~aylor, ~I~IP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
MD:jf
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
(Acting) Chief Administrative Officer
Recommende~
Pickering~ ~C/i~..C~o~
Thomas J. Quir~n.,, Chief ~
,n.p..side~atio n of
,dministrative Officer
_i.,;
ATTACHMENT
REPOR;[ # PD
FINCH
PR( )PERTY
· - AVEN U E
City of Pickering
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION CONCESSION 1, LOT 20
OWNER S, REGAN
FiLE No. A 26/03 '
FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-9
P!an,ning ~ Dev_etePment .Department
JDATE MAR. 9, 2004 DRAWN BY JB '~
ISCALE I:S000 CHECKEDBY MD
PA-
ATTACHMENT !~ TO
~PORT ~ PD ~/2 / - ~'~.~
FINCH AVENUE
!
PICKERING
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 05-04
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
April 15, 2004
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13
SUBJECT:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 26/03
Sean Regan Developments
1603 Finch Avenue
(Part of Lot 20, Concession 1)
City of Pickering
1.0
2.0
PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
1603 Finch Avenue is located on the south side of Finch Avenue, west of
Guild Road (see Attachment #1);
the hydro corridor abuts the subject property on the west side;
existing residential properties back on to 1603 Finch Avenue from Guild Road;
currently existing on the site is a single detached residence.
APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
the applicant proposes to amend the existing "R3" - Residential zoning that
requires 18 metre lot frontages, to a zoning that would permit two, 'three
storey apartment blocks each containing six residential units;
an internal driveway enters the site from Finch Avenue and provides parking
for residents and visitors;
the proposed development has a density of approximately 50 dwelling units
per net hectare (see Attachment #2).
Information Report No. 05-04
ATTACHMENT -- ~...~.~T0
Page 2
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
4.0
4.1
OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING
Durham Reqional Official Plan
identifies the property as being within the 'Living Area' designation;
'Living Areas' should be developed to incorporate the widest possible variety
of housing types, sizes and to provide living accommodations that address
various socio-economic factors;
'Living Areas' shall be developed in compact form through higher densities
and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial
roads;
Pickerinq Official Plan
identifies the subject property as being designated an 'Urban Residential Area
- Medium Density Area' within the Village East Neighbourhood;
this designation permits medium density residential development at a density
of over 30 and up to and including 80 dwellings per net hectare (the proposal
is for approximately 50 units per net hectare);
Zoninq By-law 3036 ('R3' - Detached Dwellings)
the subject property is currently zoned "R3" - Detached Dwellings by
By-law 3036;
this zoning permits detached dwellings only with a minimum of 550 square
metres lot area and lot frontage minimum of 18 metres.
RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
at the time of writing this report no comments or concerns have been received
by residents, City departments or external circulation;
Staff Comments
in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified
by staff for further review and consideration:
· impact of change from existing Iow-density development to the Official
Plan designated medium density. This will include reviewing appropriate
setbacks, height and privacy issues;
· provision of adequate resident and visitor parking within the site
boundaries;
· internal vehicular flow;
· the current draft site plan design appears to represent an over
development. The proposed buildings have a footprint that are too large
for the site and do not take the provision of appropriate on-site vehicular
flow and parking into account;
· potential for future use of the rear section of the subject site.
Information Report No. 05-04
Page 3
5.0
6.0
6.1
PROCEDURAL INFORMATION
written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the Planning
& Development Department;
oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting;
all comments received will be noted and used as input in a Planning Report
prepared by the Planning & Development Department for a subsequent
meeting of Council or a Committee of Council;
if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision, you must
provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this
proposal;
if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal, you
must request such in writing to the City Clerk.
OTHER INFORMATION
Information Received
full scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at
the offices of the City of Picketing Planning & Development Department:
· site plan drawing;
· elevation drawing.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Mike Duff
Planner II
MD:Id
Attachments
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager- Development Review
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
The Regional
Municipality
of. Durham
Planning Department
16t5 DUNDAS ST, E.
4TM FLOOR, LANG TOWER
WEST BUILDING
PO BOX 623
WHITBY ON LIN 6A3
;ANADA
905-728-773;1
Fax: 905~436-6612
Email: planning@
regiOn.durham.oh'.ca
www. region .durham .on.ca
A.L. Georgieff, .MCIP, RPP
Commissioner of Planning
"Servi~e ,E~'~llence
for ~ek,Comrnunities"
May 14, 2004
ATTAOHMErg'f #~_¢~ TO
Mike Duff, Planner II
City of Pickering
Planning & Development Department
One the Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
'LIV 6K7
Dear Mr. Duff:
'Re:
Zoning Amendment Application A 26/03
Applicant: Sean Regan.'Developments
Location.:. Part of Lot' 20, Concession 1
Municipality: City of Pickering
We have reviewed this application and the following comments are
offered with respect to the Durham Regional Official .Plan, the proposed.
method of servicing, and' the delegated provincial' plan review
responsibilities.
The application proposes to rezone.the subject property to permit the
development of two apartment blocks each containing six residential'.
Units. The proposed development would'achieve a density of
approximately 50 dwellingunits per net hectare: Driveway aCcess to the
development woUld be provided from Finch Avenue.
Durham-Regional' Official Plan
The subje.ct lands are designated ,Living'Area'" in the Durham Regional
Official Plan. Lands within this'designation are to' be developed to:
· incorporate the widest possible variety of housing tYPes, sizes and
tenure;
· provide liVing accommodations addressing various socio-
economic 'factors; and
· provide a compact form through higher densities.and by
intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along
arterial.roads.
The proposed amendment conforms to the policies of the Durham
.Regional Official Plan.
100% Post Consumer
t~,~I'ACHMENI #_?~ TO
REPOR1 ~ PD~
Page2
Municipal Servicing
Municipal water supply and Sanitary sewer service are available to the
subject lands.
Transportation
A road widening along the Finch Avenue frontage will be .required to
provide for a right-Of-way width of 18 metres from centerline. Additional
comments respecting th:e proposed access will be provided upon the
submission of a detailed site plan, '
Provincial Pian Review. ResponSibilities
The application has been sCreened in accordance with-the provincial
plan review responsibilities. The subject lands.front onto Finch Avenue,
which is designated as aType-B arterial .road in the Durham Regional
Official Plan. A Noise Study should be completed to address the' impact
of road noise on the prOposed residential units. :No further provincial
interests are.affected by the proposal.
If yo'u have any questions or require additional information, please call
me.
Yours truly,
:RaY Davies, Planner
Plan lm plementation
Current Operations Branch
cc. Pete Castellan, Durham Region Works Department
R:\rd~zoning~pickering a2.6-03.doc
~?R-2E-2004 THU t0:6~ 6N F~× NO, ?, 02
ATTACHMENT ~
~ TO
REPOR~ #
REF. NO.; A 26/03
VERIDIAN CONNECTIONS
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW
Senn Rcgan Develop
1603 Finch Avenue
Picketing
*~LANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
SUBMISSION DATE: Match 26, 2004
11.
12.
Electric Service is available on the road allo~rtnce touching this property,
Servicing will be fi:om rhe north side of Finch Avenue,
The applicant muse provide accm:mno~tion o= aite for thc Cm?o~ation's txamffotmer(s),
* outdoor padmount in a 5m X 6m clear area
A separate room(s) with outside -~cce~ i~ required to accommodate the Corporation's meters.
Indivi&lal me~=ring for each mt is =equi,ed.
The Applicant must provide a con,ere encased underground duct system from a supply point o~the no~th
~ide of Finch Avenue to a u:ansfonner location on the property.
The Applicant must pay the Co~oration's costs to supply and install tmde-tground ,ervice cables algng the
route of 5, above.
l~limamd range of eosl:s -To be determined,
2~e following standard fixed fee co,t, will apply (all fig~tres are approximate):
Service Connection Fcc $130.00 pet unit
The Applicant must make direct application to the Co,potation to obtain upccific approval of r. he decttical
sereice arrangements and related work for thin project The applicant is cautioned that tenderu, contracts,, or
work initiated prior to obtaining specific approval veill be subject to change.
A $cr~ich~g Agreement mus~ be signed with thc COrporation in order to obtain sen, itSmg for th,{s site,
A Multi-Tenan~ Agreement m~st be entered into ;md may be registered on title as p~trt of the ser¢icing
requlrements, Legml costs foe this will be charged to thc Applicant,
3.11 work from th= public road allowance to the service eh=attar and the metering arrangements must comply
with the Corporation's reqtfirements and speci.ficafions.
The Appl/caat w/ll be required ~o grant to the Corporation a standard occupation easememt, regitr, e~ed on titte,
for primary access.
Page 2
~v~i~iDiAN CONNECTIONS
DE VELOPMEN .t APPLICATION ~V.1..~W
13.
14,
15.
Prior to obtaining a building permit, the Applicant shall, by agreement confim~ .~cceptance of the terms amd
conditions of providing electmeal .~ervicz, '
W4=re cranes or material hmadliag equipment or workers must work in proximity ro existing overhrad wires,
with the capability of cot, met or coming v~ithin th: limits of appa:oach, ne develope,/bul].dc£ shall pay all cnut~
for the tempo~aBr relocation, burial, or protect/on of the wkes, or other action deemed necessary by V=ridian to
provide for worker safer? and the semmty of the electrical system. '
Landscaping, specifically r~ees, shrubs, and/os othe~ should be relocated away from the Co~oration'.q
transformer to avoid interference with equipment access. Loprdded appcara.nce of r~ees fi:om tximmhag may
r~sult.
16.
17.
18.
¸i9.
rzchmcal Repze~entattve - Dave
Telephoae 427-9870 Bxt. 3233
W'~ nor artenfl u,'heduled City of Pick,-xing DART Meeting for, this d~velopm~:nt.
Other:
· Further building der. ails ~r~ required before final meterin.g and transforme:~ requ~l:ements cfm be made.
Veridian Connections has no objection to the proposed development. Please fbrwa~d a copy of Lrst
submission ~ivil dedgm so that Veridian Conneedon~ may prepare an elec~¢al design md an Offer re Semce.
All of the above tend Jr/OhS of,qerv~ce arc subject to Ontario Ene,gy Boaxd (OEB) approval.
Fy\Wot0 Docurraa~u\V=idla,~\l~nginuurin$ & ~onstrardan\Dev~lopmanc Appliml'inn l~vtu~tkPmkurin~\~tFt4\Senn 'ge~n DuvMepm~nts. 1~:~3 Iqn'~ Avmuu. ana
Rev. Date: November I: 1999
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report PD 06-05 of the Director, Planning & Development be RECEIVED as
the City's comments on the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004"
dealing with environment, commercial and rural policy components of the Durham
Regional Official Plan Review; and
That Regional Planning staff INCORPORATE the results of the City's Growth
Management Study and related amendment to the Pickering Official Plan
(Amendment 13) in the Durham Regional Official Plan in finalizing the
"Recommended Directions Report" for Population, Employment and Land Supply;
and
3. That in formulating agricultural designations, a vibrant and economically productive
"countryside" vision is more appropriate for Pickering's rural area than the strict
agricultural vision proposed in the "Recommended Directions Report, October
2004", and accordingly;
a) That the Region ESTABLISH a new designation to permit agricultural and
countryside uses (including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism and non-
agricultural countryside uses) that would apply to agricultural lands in Pickering
and other agricultural areas in the Region that are in similar proximity to urban
areas; and
b) That in addition to the above-noted agricultural and countryside uses, to also
INCLUDE the following:
· continue to permit severances for a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm
by amendment to the DROP; and
· continue to permit severance of a farm retirement lot; and
· permit as-of-right stand-alone farm-related commercial uses (such as farm
markets, auction barns) and associated lot-creation; and
· continue to permit consideration of new country residential subdivisions, by
amendment to the Regional Official Plan; and
· continue to permit golf courses by amendment to the Regional or local official
plan on agricultural lands of lower agricultural capability or on open space
lands; and
· continue to permit cemeteries by amendment to the Regional or local official
plan; and
· establish provisions to restrict intensive livestock operations from locating in
proximity to urban areas.
That Pickering Council requests that the Region prepare policy amendments to
CLARIFY that the proposed "Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements Table"
would be used only:
when a regional official plan amendment is required; and
where an area municipal official plan does not provide policy guidance on this
matter; and
That Pickering Council requests the Region to consider and INCORPORATE the
detailed comments and suggestions provided in the table in Appendix I to Report PD
06-05; and
That in light of the incomplete Provincial initiatives relating to the greenbelt, the
golden horseshoe growth plan, and the revised provincial policy statement, that
Regional staff be requested to DELAY release of certain draft policies until such
time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed, thereby
allowing the incorporation of any necessary revisions into the draft policy and
avoiding the need to recirculate the draft policies; and
That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-05 to the Region of Durham
and to local municipalities in Durham Region.
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 06-05
Date: January 11,2005
25
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
DUrham Regional Official Plan Review
"Recommended Directions Report, October 2004" respecting
the Natural Environment, Commercial Policy, and Rural Resources
Recommendations:
That Report PD 06-05 of the Director, Planning & Development be RECEIVED
as the City's comments on the "Recommended Directions Report, October 2004"
dealing with environment, commercial and rural policy components of the
Durham Regional Official Plan Review;
That Regional Planning staff INCORPORATE the results of the City's
Growth Management Study and related amendment to the Pickering Official Plan
(Amendment 13) in the Durham Regional Official Plan in finalizing the
"Recommended Directions Report" for Population, Employment and Land Supply;
In formulating agricultural designations, that a vibrant and econOmically
productive "countryside" vision is more appropriate for Pickering's rural area than
the strict agricultural vision proposed in the "Recommended Directions Report,
October 2004", and accordingly;
a)
that the Region ESTABLISH a new designation to permit agricultural and
countryside uses (including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism and
non-agricultural countryside uses) that would apply to agricultural lands in
Pickering and other agricultural areas in the Region that are in similar
proximity to urban areas; and,
b) in addition to the above-noted agricultural and countryside uses, to also
INCLUDE the following:
· continue to permit severances for a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting
farm by amendment to the DROP;
· continue to permit severance of a farm retirement lot;
· permit as-of-right stand-alone farm-related commercial uses (such as
farm markets, auction barns) and associated lot-creation;
· continue to permit consideration of new country residential subdivisions,
by amendment to the Regional Official Plan;
· continue to permit golf courses by amendment to the Regional or local
official plan on agricultural lands of lower agricultural capability or on
open space lands;
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
January 11, 2005
Page 2
o
· continue to permit cemeteries by amendment to the Regional or local
official plan; and,
° establish provisions to restrict intensive livestock operations from locating
in proximity to urban areas.
That Pickering Council requests that the Region prepare policy amendments to
CLARIFY that the proposed "Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements
Table" would be used only:
when a regional official plan amendment is required; and,
where an area municipal official plan does not provide policy guidance on this
matter;
That Pickering Council requests the Region to consider and INCORPORATE the
detailed comments and suggestions provided in the table in Appendix I to
Report PD 06-05;
That in light of the incomplete Provincial initiatives relating to the greenbelt, the
golden horseshoe growth plan, and the revised provincial policy statement, that
Regional staff be requested to DELAY release of certain draft policies until such
time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is completed,
thereby allowing the incorporation of any necessary revisions into the draft policy
and avoiding the need to recirculate the draft policies;
That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-05 to the Region of
Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region.
Executive Summary: In October 2004, the Region released the "Recommended
Directions Report, October 2004" dealing with environmental, commercial and rural area
components of the Official Plan Review. Revised directions for population, employment
and. land supply are to be addressed later, once the Provincial growth management
directives are confirmed through the "Places to Grow" initiative, to be released in March
2005. In addition, outstanding housing policy issues are to be addressed in a separate
Regional Housing Directions Study.
In October 2004, the Region also provided a "Regional Staff Response" to comments
received from area municipalities and other stakeholders on the four earlier Discussion
Papers (see extract for City of Pickering Attachment #1). City of Pickering comments on
the Discussion Papers were contained in Report PD 06-04, endorsed by City Council
March 1,2004, by Resolution #27/04, Item #2 (see Attachments #2 and #3).
The purpose of the "Recommended Directions Report" is to provide a basis for
amendments to the Regional Official Plan, anticipated in spring 2005. Detailed
comments are set out in Appendix I to PD 06-05: Detailed Staff Comments on Region of
Durham Official Plan Review "Recommended Directions Report, October, 2004".
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date: January 11,2005
Page 3
As noted earlier, the Region has not yet finalized its recommended directions on
population, urban land and employment land policies. The Region has now received
Amendment 13 to the Pickering Official Plan for approval and the City's application to
amend the Regional Official Plan to implement the local amendment. Therefore, it is
recommended that the Region incorporate the results of the City's Growth Management
Study and related amendments to the Pickering Official Plan (Amendment 13) in
finalizing their Recommended Directions Report on population, urban land and
employment policies, and in the implementing amendments to the Durham Regional
Official Plan.
City staff is satisfied that, in general, the recommended directions for commercial policy
provide the basis for appropriate amendments to the Regional Official Plan.
City staff is satisfied with some of the recommended directions on rural resources but
disagrees with a number of the recommended directions including the following:
· to delete the current Regional Official Plan policy permitting severances for
surplus dwellings from a non-abutting farm, severances of farm retirement lots,
country residential subdivisions and cemeteries in the agricultural areas;
· to require amendments to the Regional Official Plan for stand-alone farm-related
commercial uses and associated lot-creation; and
· to merge the Region's two Agricultural Area designations into one land use
designation that would permit only agricultural and farm-related uses. Golf course
proposals would not be permitted in the newly merged Agricultural Area
designation.
City staff recommends that a new rural 'countryside' designation be established
permitting agriculture, agri-tourism, and non-agriculture countryside uses (spas, rural
theaters, etc.)in near-urban areas.
Similarly, City staff is satisfied with most of the recommended directions for achieving a
sustainable and healthy environment but requests that the direction requiring an
Environmental Impact Study (ELS) for development in proximity to natural hedtage features
be clarified. The ElS table, which establishes distances from natural heritage features that
would trigger an ElS, should only be used when regional official plan amendments are
necessary and when local official plans have no rural area policies in place.
The Regional Official Plan Review is proceeding ahead of the Province's finalization of
the Greenbelt Act/Greenbelt Plan, Places to Grow Act~Plan, Ontario Municipal Board
Reforms, and revised Provincial Policy Statement. It is recommended that the Region
delay drafting official plan amendments that would implement the recommended
directions until such time as final consideration of the related provincial initiatives is
completed. This will allow the Region to incorporate any necessary revisions into the
draft amendments and thus avoid the need to recirculate the draft amendments.
Financial Implications: Not Applicable.
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
Januaw 11,2005
Page 4
Background:
1.0 Durham Regional Official Plan {DROP) Review:
1.1 Regional staff releases the "Recommended Directions Report dated
October 2004" for review and comment.
The Regional Report recommends directions for the environment, rural and
commercial components of the Regional Official Plan Review, which will form the
basis for future amendments to the Regional Official Plan. In response to the
submissions that were received, the Region has indicated that a further review of
population forecasts and urban lands needs is being undertaken. The Region
has indicated that the results of that analysis may be further impacted by the
ongoing Provincial Growth Management initiative. Therefore, the recommended
directions relating to population, employment and urban land needs will be
presented to Regional Planning Committee subsequent to the confirmation of
Provincial Growth Management directives at a later date.
2.0 Discussion:
2.1
Staff acknowledges and appreciates that the "Recommended Directions
Report" largely respects the earlier City recommendation that the RegiOn
pursue more strategic policies that do not unduly duplicate policies in local
official plans.
The "Recommended Directions Report" continues to propose that Natural
Heritage Features be shown on a new Schedule of the DROP. However, the
scale of the mapping on the proposed new Regional Official Plan Natural
Heritage Schedule allows for detailed mapping to be provided in local official plan
schedules. This retains an acceptable level of local municipal control over
detailed implementation of natural heritage policies. A number of other directions
have been revised to appropriately remove the duplication with local official plan
policies. The level of policy duplication had been a matter of concern in the
earlier Discussion Papers.
2.2
The "Recommended Directions Report" continues to propose an overly
restrictive policy approach for Pickering's rural area, whereas a
"Countryside" policy approach would be more appropriate.
The recommended directions for "Protecting our Rural Resources" continues to
view Durham's rural area as homogeneous, rather than recognizing that the rural
areas south of the Oak Ridges Moraine have different characteristics, contexts,
and influences than the more "pure" agriculture areas located north and well east
of Pickering. Countryside that is located close to urban areas is more typically
mixed and diverse.
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date: January 11, 2005
Page 5
Rather than build on the differences, the Region is continuing to propose to
collapse the two existing Agricultural designations, "Permanent Aqricultural
Reserve" and "General Agricultural Area", into one designation for agriculture and
farm-related land uses. The designations relate purely to soil capability and do not
consider social or economic influences on rural land.
While not abandoning agriculture, a somewhat more relaxed land use approach
should be considered for these near-urban areas. This is consistent with the
Pickering's Official Plan policy and the City's Growth Management Study to
foster a healthy and vibrant rural economy. In keeping with this approach, a new
Countryside Area designation and associated policies is recommended for
inclusion in the Regional Official Plan that reflects the distinction between the
near-urban countryside and the more pure agricultural areas in north and east
Durham Region. The Countryside designation would permit a broader range of
complementary uses beyond traditional agriculture including retail agricultural
operations, agri-tourism, and non-agricultural countryside uses.
As well, it is appropriate to restrict the location of intensive agricultural operations
adjacent to Pickering's urban areas that are only subject to the minimum
distance separation (MDS) formulae. Instead, staff is recommending that the
Region provide significant buffers for intensive livestock operations thereby
reducing the potential for adverse dust, odour and noise impacts on nearby
urban residents.
Lot Creation Policies
Despite Pickering Council comments in favour of retaining the policy to permit
severance of a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment to the
DROP, the "Recommended Directions Report" proposes to delete this current
provision of the DROP.
Further, despite Pickering Council comments to continue the policy that permits
consideration of one farm retirement lot from a total farm holding, the
"Recommended Directions Report" recommends deletion. Further, despite of
Pickering's support for the earlier Regional position to permit 'stand-alone'
farm-related commercial uses, including severances, for this purpose on an
as-of-right basis, the "Recommended Directions Report" now recommends
continuation of the current policy to permit such uses only by amendment to the
DROP.
Hamlet Growth Policies
The "Recommended Directions Report" proposes a new direction to guide the
growth of hamlets. The earlier Discussion Paper proposed detailed guidelines
for the onerous settlement capacity studies required to justify hamlet growth. The
"Recommended Directions Report" now proposes a firm limit of 25 percent to the
growth of each hamlet and that hamlet development may proceed within this limit
if technical studies (hydrogeological and environmental) conclude that private
services will be sustainable. Staff generally supports this approach.
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date: January 11,2005
Page 6
2.3
3.0
Golf Courses
The "Recommended Directions Report" proposes to prohibit golf courses on all
agricultural lands. While staff agrees that golf courses should not be permitt~-~
on prime agricultural lands (class 1, 2 & 3 soils) that are designated Agricultural
Area or Major Open Space System in the Regional Official Plan, we propose that
golf courses should be permitted on lands with lower capability soils with either
designation, by amendment to the local official plan. This approach is consistent
with the policies in the Province's Draft Greenbelt Plan for 'Rural Area' lands.
Country Residential Subdivisions
Despite Pickering Council recommendations to the contrary, the "Recommended
Directions Report" continues to recommend the prohibition of any new country
residential subdivisions in the rural area. Staff recommends that Pickering
Council request the Region to retain the existing policy to permit consideration of
new country residential subdivisions by amendment to the Regional Official Plan.
Council should request the Region to address the City's comments on the
Recommended Directions prior to initiating amendments to the ROP.
A copy of staff's detailed comments on the recommended directions is provided
for Council's review and endorsement (see Appendix I). Further, as the Table
shows, City staff is satisfied with most of the recommended directions. However,
staff is recommending a number of minor revisions to the recommended
directions and, in some cases, requiring further clarification.
It is recommended that Council request the Region to address the City's
comments raised in this Report on the Recommended Directions of the Durham
Regional Official Plan Review prior to preparing amendments to the ROP.
Council should request that Regional staff incorporate policy changes from
the various proposed Provincial Government policy initiatives in the
proposed amendments to the Durham Region Official Plan before they are
circulated for comment.
The Greenbelt Act, 2004, the Draft Greenbelt Plan, the Places to Grow Act, Plan
and Regulations, Ontario Municipal Board Reform, Planning Act Reform and a
revised Provincial Policy Statement (under the Planning Act) may each include
new directions to govern municipal official plan policy not anticipated by the
recommended directions of the Regional Official Plan Review.
While not proposing that the Region defer further consideration of all aspects of
the DROP Review until details of the emerging policies are available such as the
commercial review, it is recommended that the Region delay drafting official plan
amendments until such time as final consideration of the related provincial
initiatives is completed. Proposed amendments on rural, environmental and
urban policies would be affected. Delaying release of these key draft
amendments would avoid the need to recirculate multiple revisions to the policy.
Report PD 06-05
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date: January 11, 2005
Page 7
APPENDIX
Detailed Comments on the Region of Durham
"Recommended Directions Report" dated October 2004
Official Plan Review
Attachments:
1. Regional Staff Response to Pickering Comments Provided in Report PD 06-04
2. Text of Report PD 06-04
3. City Council Resolution #27/04, Item #2
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
Steve Gaunt, MCIP, RPP
Senior Planner
Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPI¢
Manager, Policy
N[il da~'r~l~', RPP
Director, ¢fanf~ng & Development
SG:Id
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
(Acting) Chief Administrative Officer
Divisio H~orate Projects and Policy
Recommen~tion of
Pickering~~
~homas J. Ouinn, nistrative Officer
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT PD 06-05
DETAILED STAFF COMMENTS
ON
REGION OF DURHAM
OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW
"RECOMMENDED DIRECTIONS REPORT
OCTOBER 2004"
33
Region of Durham
Official Plan Review
Recommended Directions
Towards a
sustainable
and healthy
environment
Protecting Watershed Planning
Water
Resources That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. Staff supports the
clearly support the preparation and recommended direction to not require a
implementation of watershed plans watershed plans as a prerequisite to
as an effective land use planning development. However, previous comment
tool in the protection of the recommending that the Region should also
Region's natural resources, consider existing and future watershed plans
Watershed plans shall be prepared in reviewing development proposals or
in accordance with currently infrastructure projects was not incorporated.
accepted practices.
It is recommended that additional wording be
That the ROP be amended to included as follows:
acknowledge that the
municipalities will work with the "That the ROP be amended to
conservation authorities to ensure acknowledge that the municipalities will
that the appropriate policies to work with the conservation authorities to
~mplement specific watershed ensure that the appropriate policies to
)lans are incorporated into the implement specific watershed plans are
respective official plans, incorporated into the respective official
plans, and that the Region consider
watershed plans and local
implementation strategies in their review
of development proposals and
infrastructure projects."
Water Quantity Protection
That the ROP be amended to Requires clarification.
require that applications for
development (excepting wetland The types of development applications that
restoration projects and domestic requires a study should be specified (e.g. LD,
usage and livestock operations) C orA, OPA, and ZBL). As well, the issue of'
that require a Permit to Take peer reviews and any required monitoring
Water, or that have the potential to imposed, as a condition of approval
impact water quantity, be previously raised by Picketing, has not been
accompanied by a study verifying satisfactorily addressed by Regional staff.
that there is sufficient water supply
to support the proposed use and,
on a cumulative basis, confirm that
there are no impacts on
surrounding water users and the
natural environment.
Page 1
34
Protecting That the ROP be amended to Agree. However, need toreviewRegional
Water include policies that promote and poficy in order to determine how it would be
Resources support water conservation, implemented at the local level.
(continued)
Infiltration (recharge)
That the ROP be amended to Agree. However, need to review Regional
require development in the rural policy in order to determine how it would be
area to maintain and where implemented at the local level.
possible enhance infiltration and
recharge functions. Within urban
areas, the policy should seek to
minimize hard surfaces through the
review of development applications
and the use of alternative
municipal standards where
practical.
Aquifer Vulnerability Areas
That the ROP be amended to: Partially Agree. However, it appears that all
· add a figure in the form of a map development proposals abutting or in
that illustrates high aquifer proximity to a high vulnerability area would
vulnerability areas; be required to carry out a hydro~leological
· require that area municipalities study. The scale/type of development
incorporate high aquifer applications that would be required to
vulnerability area mapping into undertake these studies in the rural and
their respective official plan, and Urban areas requires clarification. Also, it is
that the mapping be refined unclear as to why applications for
through the preparation of more development in high aquifer areas within
detailed studies such as urban areas require a contaminant
watershed studies; management plan while applications within
· require applications for the rural areas do not.
development abutting or in
proximity to a high aquifer
vulnerability area to carry out a
hydrogeological investigation
verifying the degree of
vulnerability of the site;
· require applications for
development in high aquifer
vulnerability areas within urban
areas, be accompanied by a
contaminant management plan
that defines the approach to the
mitigation of impacts;
· restrict land uses in high aquifer
vulnerability areas within the
rural area that have the potential
to contaminate groundwater
unless it can be verified through
an appropriate study that the site
is not considered to be a high
aquifer vulnerability area; and
Page 2
Protecting · encourage existing land uses
Water that have the potential to
Resources contaminate groundwater in
(continued) these areas to develop best
management practices such as:
safe storing/handling waste;
restriction on volumes of
chemicals/material stored on
site;
- routine inspections;
- spill contingencies; and
- road salt management plans.
Abandoned Wells
That the DROP be amended to Agree. However, the policy should require
include a policy that abandoned the landowner to be responsible for
wells and boreholes be properly decommissioning abandoned wells and
decommissioned, boreholes.
Groundwater Discharge Area
That the ROP be amended to add a Agree. However, the scale/type of
general policy requiring development development applications that would be
applications in areas where subject to this policy requires clarification.
groundwater discharge could be
significantly impacted, to
demonstrate that alteration to
groundwater flows will be minimized.
Regional Wellhead P. rotection
Areas
That the ROP be amended to: There are no Regional wells in Pickering.
· illustrate the capture zones and
associated time of travel zones
for the wellhead protection
areas on an appropriate map;
· prohibit the following uses with
respect to land in wellhead
protection areas:
storage, except by an
individual for personal or
family use of:
· petroleum fuels;
· petroleum solvents and
chlorinated solvents;
· pesticides, herbicides
and fungicides;
· construction equipment;
· inorganic fertilizers;
· road salt;
Page 3
;~aper Areas :
Protecting · contaminants listed in
Water Schedule 3 (Severely
Resources Toxic Contaminants) to
(continued) Regulation 347 of the
Revised Regulations of
Ontario, 1990; and
· any other use that could
adversely affect the
quality and quantity of
groundwater reaching a
well;
· prohibit the following uses with
respect to land in the zero to two
year time of travel zone within
every wellhead protection area:
storage of animal manure
except by an individual for
personal or family use;
animal agriculture, except by
an individual for personal or
family use; and
- storage of agricultural
equipment, except by an
individual for personal or
family use;
· require every person who
carries on a restricted use listed
as owner or operator, prepare
and maintain a site
management and contingency
plan that is aimed at reducing or
eliminating the creation of
restricted materials and their
release into the environment;
· require that once a
preferred location for a new
municipal well has been
determined, the ROP should
illustrate the capture zones
and include policies to
protect these zones; and
· require area municipal
official plans to incorporate
wellhead protection areas
and associated time of
travel zones, as well as
policies restricting uses that
have the potential to
negatively impact
groundwater quality and
quantity reaching the well.
Page 4
3?
Protecting Hydrogeological Studies
Water
Resources That the Region develop a Agree. However, the development of the
(continued) hydrogeological study guideline on hydrogeological guidelines should also be
how to hydrogeological studies prepared in consultation with local
should be prepared, study municipalities and conservation authorities.
components and matters that
should be confirmed through the
study to ensure adverse impacts
are minimized.
Enhancing Natural Heritage System
Natural
Heritage That the ROP be amended to: Agree with recognizing a Natural Heritage
Features System consisting of a number of features.
· recognize a Natural Heritage Pickering staff agrees with the Region
System for the Region, identifying only Provincially and/or regionally
consisting of: significant features.
significant wetlands;
significant areas of natural
and scientific interest;
fish habitat (including all
permanent and intermittent
streams);
significant habitat of
endangered and threatened
species;
significant wildlife habitat;
significant valleylands; and
significant woodlands;
· delete the environmentally
sensitive areas illustrated on
Map A and replace it with a
separate map illustrating a
Natural Heritage System;
· require that where environmental
features, such as significant
wildlife habitat and valleylands
have not been identified on the
Natural Heritage System
mapping, these areas be
identified through watershed
plans or through the review of
development applications in
consultation with the appropriate
conservation authority;
· require area municipal official
plans to detail mapping of the
natural heritage system and
allow for the exact boundaries,
or refinements to boundaries, of
the Natural Heritage System to
be determined through
watershed plans or site
investigations prepared for
development applications.
Page 5
Enhancing · in order to provide guidance to
Natural how they are identified, the
Heritage definitions of the natural
Features heritage system components
(continued) should be included in an
appendix of the ROP;
· prohibit development and site
alteration within the Natural
Heritage System, with the
exception of the following
permitted uses, provided the
environmental integrity is
maintained:
- forest, fish and wildlife
management;
conservation and flood or
erosion control projects;
transportation, infrastructure
and utilities;
Iow intensity recreational
uses; and
existing agricultural
operations;
· recognize that, with the
exception of provincially
significant wetlands or
endangered and threatened
species, aggregate extraction
and agricultural related
structures may be permitted in
the Natural Heritage System,
provided the environmental
integrity is maintained; and
, require that in the event that
portions of the Natural Heritage
System are damaged or
destroyed, there should be no
adjustment to the boundary of
these areas, and the Region
should require replacement or
rehabilitation of the ecological
features, functions and/or
landforms.
Vegetative Setbacks
That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. The recommended direction
require that in the consideration of should be clarified to indicate that the ElS
development located in proximity to Requirement Table, which establishes
a Natural Heritage feature, the distances from natural heritage features that
ROP requii'e an Environmental would trigger an Environmental Impact
Impact Study, which shall, among Study, should only be used when
other matters, establish an amendments to the Regional Official Plan
undeveloped vegetative setback, are required and when local official plans
Proximity shall be defined as have no policies for its rural areas in place.
outlined in the table below.
Page 6
Enhancing An ElS may be scoped to suit It should be noted that the Pickering Official
Natural individual circumstances. Plan already includes a chart outlining the
Heritage conditions under which an Environmental
Features Report may be requested for development
(continued) (see Natural Heritage Features ElS applications not requiring an amendment to
Requirements Table in Attachment #1 the Regional Official Plan.
to this Appendix)
It is recommended that additional wording be
added as follows:
"That the ROP be amended to require that in
the consideration of applications for local
official plan, draft plan or zoning
amendments within an area municipality
whose official plan does not contain rural
policies, or applications to amend the
Regional Official Plan proposing
development located in proximity to a
Natural Heritage feature, the ROP require an
Environmental Impact Study, which shall,
among other matters, establish an
undeveloped vegetative setback. Proximity
shall be defined as outlined in the table
below. An ElS may be scoped to suit
individual circumstances."
Woodland Target
That the ROP be amended to Partially agree with increasing woodland
establish a target for woodland coverage. It is more appropriate for the
coverage of 30% of the Region's various watershed plans to establish
land area. Studies such as woodland coverage targets for each
Watershed plans may vary the watershed than establishing a general target
woodland target for a watershed of 30% for the entire Region.
that is in keeping with the overall
target of 30%. The use of It is recommended that the ROP not
indigenous tree species to achieve establish a woodland coverage target of
this target is encouraged. 30% for the entire Region and, instead
require watershed plans to establish
appropriate targets for each watershed.
Corridors and Linkages
That the Major Open Space Agree with protecting linkages and corridors
System designation be examined at the Regional scale. However, need to
to confirm that all corridors and review Regional policy in order to determine
linkages that should be recognized how it would be implemented at the local
at the Regional scale are level.
appropriately designated. Further,
that the existing policies of the
ROP be strengthened to
encourage the protection of
linkages and corridors in the
consideration of development
applications and the formulation of
more detailed policies in the area
municipal official plans.
Page 7
Enhancing Urban Tree Strategy
Natural
Heritage That the ROP be amended to Agree.
Features encourage the preparation of area
(continued) municipal tree strategies that will
advance the implementation of the
woodlands coverage target.
Land Securement Strategy
That the ROP be amended to: Agree. The recommended direction
expands on the previous proposed direction
· require an indication of the in terms of the Region's role in land
Region's support for the use of securement and the tools that may be used
land securement tools such as in securing lands. Pickering had previously
acquisition, stewardship and requested that up to two severances be
conservation easements as a considered for the severance of land for
means of enhancing the natural heritage conservation purposes
Region's natural environment, where acquisition is sought by municipalities,
Securement efforts should focus conservation authorities or non-prefit
on areas identified as part of the entities.
natural heritage system,
including the targeted areas; It is recommended that:
· require the following factors to
be considered when determining "...Two severances may be permitted for
Regional involvement in land this purpose where it adjusts a property
securement efforts, but not boundary or creates a lot, provided that the
limited to: severed parcel is rezoned to permit only
- damaged or degraded lands; natural heritage conservation uses."
- nature and immediacy of
threats to the land;
- proximity to existing property
in public ownership; and
- the overall cost of purchase
and long term management
of the lands; and
permit the acquisition of land
in appropriate locations by
municipalities, conservation
authorities or non-profit
entities for natural heritage
conservation purposes. A
severance may be permitted
for this purpose where it
adjusts a property boundary
or creates a lot, provided that
the severed parcel is rezoned
to permit only natural heritage
conservation uses.
Trails
That the ROP be amended to Agree. It should be noted that Picketing
indicate that the Region will work staff is participating in the Regional Trail
with the area municipalities and Coordinating Committee for the purpose of
other stakeholders to develop a developing a Regional Trail network.
Regional Trail Network.
Page 8
Enhancing Lake Iroquois Shoreline
Natural
Heritage That the ROP be amended to Partially agree. This is a new direction
Features identify the Lake Iroquois Shoreline recommended by Regional staff.. However
(continued) on the Natural Heritage Schedule need to review Regional po/icy in order to
and general policies be added to determine how it would be implemented at
maintain and enhance the the local/eve/. /t should be noted that the
significant landforms and Pickering Official P/an recognizes the former
environmental integrity of the Lake Iroquois Shoreline by both po/icy and
lands, designation.
Improving Air Air Quality
Quality
That appropriate amendments to Agree.
the ROP addressing air quality be
implemented through the
Transportation Master Plan.
That the ROP be amended to:
· acknowledge the potential
implications of climate change,
and indicate an intent to
respond as knowledge and
understanding of what can be
done from a planning
perspective to mitigate impacts
emerges;
· require that in the planning and
development of the Region,
consideration be given to
improving air quality;
· indicate the Region's intent to
reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and other air
pollutants generated by its own
activities and functions; and
· include a policy supporting
alternative renewable, green
energy sources.
Measuring the Health and Sustainability
Health and
Sustainability That the ROP be amended to: Agree.
of the Region's
Communities · add a new goal to encourage
community planning and design
that enhances public health and
safety; and
· encourage the inclusion of
policies in the area municipal
official plans that promote
healthy and safe living
environments.
Page 9
Environmental Contaminated Sites
Policy
Considerations That the ROP be amended to: Agree.
· encourage area municipalities to
include provisions in their
Official Plan to outline the
process that must be satisfied
prior to development proceeding
in areas where soil
contamination is known or
suspected; and
· include a general policy that
prior to considering an approval
for development, proponents
shall ensure that contaminated
sites are cleaned up such that
there will be no adverse effect,
in accordance with provincial
guidelines. It is also
recommended that the ROP
include a provision that the
Region support the remediation
of contaminated sites through
various programs and initiatives
Light Pollution
That the ROP be amended to Agree.
encourage local municipalities to
incorporate policies in their official
plans and to adopt lighting
standards to minimize light
pollution.
Page 10
ape Area~ ~eco mmenaea wreczJons
Commercial
Policy
Review
Planning for Commercial Planning
Future
Commercial That the ROP be amended to Agree. A more general commercial
Development establish criteria to define Regional framework in the ROP is appropriate.
interest in commercial planning as However, the po/icy should be clarified to
follows: indicate that the Region's interest in
commercial planning should be focused on
· any commercial proposal of proposals that would have the potential to
56,000 m2 or larger, on an negatively impact the planned function of
individual or cumulative basis; Main Central Areas/Regional Centres
· any commercial proposal instead of all CentralAreas.
requiring a market population of
75,000 or more; and It is recommended that the wording in the
· any commercial proposal that third point be revised as follows:
would have the potential to
negatively impact the planned "any commercial proposal that would have
function ofCentralAreas, the potential to negatively impact the
planned function of Regional Centres."
Commercial Central Hierarchy
Hierarchy and
Central Area That the ROP be amended to Agree. More general principles relating to
require that Sub-Central Areas will the role, scale and form of Central Areas in
be designated in area municipal the ROPis appropriate.
official plans similar to Community
and Local Central Areas (policy
9.3.1).
Floor Space Floor Space Allocations
Allocations for
Central Areas That the ROP be amended to Agree. The removal of the retail floor space
delete the policy allocating a/locations in the ROP as a means of
floorspace to Central Areas (policy directing and controlling commercial growth
9.3.3). is appropriate.
Requirements Market Studies
for Market
Studies It is recommended that the ROP be Agree. The removal of the retail impact
amended to: study requirement is appropriate. However,
minor expansions to existing regional
· require a retail impact study for 'centres' should be exempt from the
applications which would result in requirements for a reta# impact study.
the expansion of an existing
Central Area that would be of
"Regional Interest" (policy 9.3,6);
· delete the policies directing area
municipal councils to require
i retail impact studies (policies
9.3.7 and 9.3.8); and
· add a new policy to require a
retail impact study for any retail
commercial development proposal
that is of "Regional Interest".
Page 11
paer, Ar ~ecomrnenaea u~rec~ons sta~ ~ommen~
peas
Nodes and Centres and Corridors
Corridors
That the ROP be amended to:
· provide a clear policy framework Agree. However, the policy framework at
for "Centres and Corridors" the Regional level should provide direction to
including policies to establish local municipalities to provide detail policies
Regional corridors as areas of and designations promoting these areas for
intensive mixed-use mixed-use development.
development and to encourage
similar direction for local
corridors;
· amend the Regional Structure
Map 'A' to designate "Regional
Corridors"; and
· delete policies related to Special
Purpose Commercial uses.
Commercial Pending the completion of No comment.
Uses in Employment Lands Study.
Employment
Areas
Urban Form Pending completion of Arterial No comment.
Road Corridor Design Guidelines
Study
Retail Growth Retail Growth
and Location
of New That Policy 9.3.6 be further Agree.
Commercial amended to:
Areas
· delete the requirement for the
Region to require the
preparation of a retail impact
study for the designation of a
new "Centre", unless it is
determined to be of "Regional
Interest";
· specify that area municipalities
shall be responsible for
designating new "Local
Centres", having regard to
Policy 9.3.2; and
· require that the designation of
any new Regional Centres shall
be by amendment to the ROP.
Page 12
Protecting
Our Rural
Resources
Rural Consent Surplus Farm Dwellings (Non- Disagree. There is no need to change the
Policies Abutting Farms) current ROP po/icy.
That the ROP be amended by It is recommended that the Region retain
deleting policy 12.3.12, which policy 12.3.12 that permits consideration
provides for the consideration of of the severance of a surplus dwelling
the severance of a surplus dwelling from a non-abutting farm by amendment.
from a non-abutting farm by
amendment.
Retirement lots
That the ROP be amended to Disagree. There is no need to change the
delete policy 12.3.13, which current ROP, as the po/icy is a/ready
permits the consideration of one restrictive.
farm retirement lot from the total
farm holding. It is recommended that the Region retain
policy 12.3.13 that permits consideration
of one farm retirement lot from the total
farm holding.
Farm-related Industrial Uses Agree.
That the ROP continue to provide
the current general framework for
the consideration of farm-related
industrial uses in Agricultural Areas
and the Major Open Space system,
but be amended to:
· provide policies to guide the
consideration of lot creation for
such uses; and
· require area municipalities to
provide details in their
respective official plans.
Farm-related Commercial Uses Disagree. The ROP should provide genera/
9olicies for these uses and local OP's provide
That the original proposed direction the detailed policies for "stand a/one" farm-
to permit "stand-alone" farm- related comrnercia/ uses. Amendments to
related commercial uses in the local OP's are the most appropriate
Agricultural Areas and Major Open rnechanism to evaluate these uses as
Space System, as-of-right, not be opposed to amending the ROP.
pursued.
It is recornmended that:
"That the ROP be amended to indicate that
"stand-alone" farm-related commercial uses
in the Agricultural Areas and Major Open
Space System may be considered by
amendment to the ROP or an area municipal
official plan where appropriate policies are
in place."
Page 13
, Recommended Directions staff com me
Areas :
Rural Consent Lot Line Adjustments
Policies
(continued) That the ROP be amended to Agree.
clarify policy 12.3.15, wh ich
provides for the consideration of
severances for minor lot line
adjustments.
Rural Hamlets
Settlement Partially agree. The recommended direction
Policies That the ROP be amended to: to limit the scale of ham/et growth to 25% of
existing development is reasonable and
· clarify the policies to reflect the would be consistent with the Oak Rides
form, type and limited scale of Moraine Conservation Plan and draft
development intended for Greenbelt P/an relating to ham/et growth.
Hamlets; However, it should be recognized that, similar
· incorporate policies that to the ORM Conservation Plan and Draft
establish a firm limit to Hamlet Greenbelt Plan, the size limit for any
development of 25% of existing particular hamlet could be reviewed when
development or the current future comprehensive reviews of the Regional
development potential identified Official P/an are undertaken.
in area municipal planning
documents, whichever is
greater; and
· clarify that Hamlet development
may only proceed if required
technical studies conclude that
development on private
individual services will be
sustainable.
Country Residential Subdivisions
Disagree. There is no need to change the
That the ROP be amended to: current ROP po/icy as it permits country
residential subdivisions subject to meeting
· delete the polices that provide stringent criteria.
for the consideration of new
Country Residential It is recommended that the Region retain
Subdivisions; and the current policy that permits
· add policies to clarify that no consideration of country residential
new Country Residential subdivision proposals by amendment to
Subdivisions will be permitted to the ROP,
locate in the rural area.
Rural Clusters
Residential
lnfilling That the ROP be amended by No comment.
deleting those parts of policy
13.3.14 that permit the
identification of new clusters. The
remainder of policy 13.3.14, which
3ermits lot creation within clusters
already identified in planning
documents, will be retained.
Page 14
Rural 10-Acre Lots
Residential
Infilling That the ROP be amended by No comment.
(continued) deleting policy 13.3.16, which
provides for the consideration of
severances for rural residential
infilling within concentrations .of 4
hectare (10 acre)lots.
Rural Rural Employment Areas "'
Settlement That the ROP be amended: No comment.
Policies
· to permit limited Rural
Employment Areas only in the
Townships of Brock, Scugog
and Uxbridge and the
Municipality of Clarington,
subject to the preparation of a
comprehensive industrial study
for the municipality; and
· to provide guidance, by adding
specific study requirements that
must be followed to establish
the need and location of new
Rural Employment Areas.
Rural Golf courses
Non-farm Use
Policies That the ROP be amended to: Partially agree. Pickering had
recommended that golf courses be
· prohibit golf courses in orohibited from prime agricultural areas but
Agricultural Areas; should be permitted by amendment on/ands
· require all proposed new golf of lower agricultural capability. In Pickering,
courses and golf course there are limited opportunities for golf
expansions in the Region be courses in the urban areas due to /and
considered by amendment to constraints and in the open space system
the ROP or an area municipal due to natural heritage features. The
amendment where appropriate Countryside Area designation proposed by
policies are in place; Pickering would permit tourism and
· require that all amendment recreational uses. Golf course proposals
applications for new or would be assessed through the current
expanding golf course be official plan amendment process.
accompanied by the required
technical studies including: It is recommended that:
- a hydrogeological study; and
- a Best Management "Golf courses may be considered by
Practices report that amendment to the Countryside Area
addresses design, designation to the ROP or an area
construction and operational municipal official plan where appropriate
considerations, including policies are in place."
traffic; and
Page 15
Rural In the event that the Countryside Area
Non-farm Use designation is not endorsed by the Regiona/
Policies P/anning Committee, it is recommended
(continued) that the Region permit the consideration
of golf course proposals in the
Agricultural Areas and Major Open Space
System subject to an amendment to the
ROP or an area municipal official plan
where appropriate policies are in place.'
· limit the scale of clubhouses and
other associated uses in rural Agree.
areas to ensure such uses will
be secondary to the primary use
of the golf course.
Regional Nodes
That the ROP be amended by: Agree.
· deleting the policies and
designations as they pertain to
Regional Nodes in Urban Areas;
· deleting policies pertaining to
the consideration and
establishment of new Regional
Nodes in the rural area; and
· adding policies to "grandfather"
existing rural Regional Nodes in
order to allow for their continued
recognition and planning status.
Aggregate Resources Areas
That the ROP policies be amended:
Protection of Si,qn f cant A.q.qre.qate No comment.
Resource Potential Areas
· to reflect new (current)
geological, socio-cultural and
environmental constraint
information and license status of
aggregate resource extraction
areas (Map 'A', Map 'C' and
Schedule 4);to delete the study
requirements contained in
policies 19.2.2 and 19.2.4, but
retain the policy intent of
protecting such
features/resources;
Page 16
Rural Assessment of Potential Impacts
Non-farm Use from A,q,qre.qate Operations
Policies
(continued) · to specify that Site Plans and
technical reports, as required by
the Provincial standards
established under the Aggregate
resources Act and Regulations,
should be submitted, where
appropriate, at the time aggregate
related amendment applications
are being considered, to address
the requirements of the ROP;
· to require an assessment of
operational aspects of pits and
quarries; such as exhaust
emissions and lighting impacts,
and that the Plan require that
mitigation measures be provided
for all potential impacts of the
operation, at the time aggregate
related amendment applications
are being considered;
· to clarify policy 19A.3.9 (b)(v) by
indicating that the required
assessment of potential impacts
on residents in the vicinity of
proposed resource extraction
areas or aggregate-related
industrial uses, should address
the considerations and concerns
identified in the remainder of
policy 19A.3.9:
Rehabilitation of Pits and Quarries
· revise policy 19A.3.7 to require No comment.
that, in addition to the site-by-
site rehabilitation programs,
specified in the Aggregate
Resources Act, that
rehabilitation plans, which are
submitted in support of ROP
amendment applications, be
reviewed in conjunction with the
Environmental Impact Study in
accordance with policy 2.3.17;
and
· that such rehabilitation plans be
considered in conjunction with
adjacent and/or groups of
operations in an area, in order to
provide for a more
comprehensive rehabilitation
program;
Page 17
:~aper Areas
Rural · to provide that the Region take
Non-farm Use the lead role in coordinating
Policies cross-jurisdictional matters and
(continued) identifying opportunities to
provide linkages and corridors
with natural heritage features
when reviewing rehabilitation
plans;
· to require that:
progressive rehabilitation be
undertaken in a timely
manner in accordance with
the approved site plan;
the site be restored to blend
in with land form patterns of
adjacent land; and
rehabilitation sites be
restored to either the same
soil capability as pre-
excavation, or to a vegetative
state using native sPecies;
· to add a policy to encourage
area municipalities to continue to
participate in the Management of
Abandoned Aggregate
Properties (MAAP) Program, to
facilitate the rehabilitation of
abandoned pits; and,
ROP Policy 19A.3.4 and 20.2.6
Conflict
· to resolve the policy conflict
between Policies 19A.3.4 and
20.2.6 by no longer requiring an
amendment in order to make
changes to Map 'C'.
Peat
That the ROP be amended by Agree
deleting policies relating to the
regulation of peat extraction
activities.
Gas Stations and/or Gas Bars
That the ROP be amended by Agree.
deleting policy 16.3.34, which
permits the consideration of gas
stations/gas bars in the Agricultural
Area and Major Open Space
System.
Page 18
5;.'
; Recommended Directions Staff Commen~
aper: Areas:;::;
Rural Other Non-Farm, Non-residential
Non-farm Use uses
Policies
(continued) That the ROP be amended by Agree.
deleting cultural and health
facilities as permitted uses from
policy 5.2.1. Such uses would
continue to be permitted in Urban
Areas and Hamlets.
Cemeteries
That the ROP be amended to Disagree. Pickering had recommended that
prohibit the establishment of .new the establishment of cemeteries be subject
cemeteries in Agricultural Areas. to an amendment to either the ROP or local
OP's.
It is recommended that the Region retain
the current policy that permits
consideration of cemeteries subject to
the amendment process.
Non-Agricultural Uses
That the ROP be amended: See comment on One Agricultural
Designation below.
· to permit non-agricultural uses,
such as riding and boarding
stable, kennels, allotment
gardens and fur and sod farms
in the Permanent Agricultural
Reserve designation on existing
lots; and
· to provide for area municipal
official plans to contain Iocational
criteria for such non-agricultural
uses in Agricultural Areas.
Major Open Spa~;e System
That the ROP be amended to Agree.
require area municipalities, in their
respective Official Plans, to
distinguish between recreational
uses which are compatible with the
character of the open space land in
urban, hamlet and rural areas.
Page 19
;~aper Areas: ;
Agricultural One Agricultural Designation
Areas
That the ROP be amended by: Disagree with the recommended direction to
merge the "Permanent Agricultural Reserve"
· merging the "Permanent and "Genera/Agricultural Area" designations
Agricultural Reserve" and into one designation.
"General Agricultural Area"
designations on Map 'A' into one Pickering had recommended that the Region
land use designation for the consider two types of rural areas - the near-
purpose of agriculture and farm- urban countryside with greater diversity of
related uses; and uses, and the more pure agricultural area in
· revising thetextaccordingly, north and east Durham. A Countryside
designation would permit a wider array of uses
such as retail agricultural operations, agri-
tourism and non-agricultural countryside uses.
The Countryside Area designation would be
consistent with the Rural Area policies of the
draft Greenbelt Plan. These Rural Area
policies support a range of recreational,
tourism, and resource-based commercial
and industrial and would also permit a full
range of agricultural, agricultural-related and
secondary uses
The City's GMS agricultural analysis
concluded that to support the principle of a
vibrant countryside in Pickering that a broad
range of uses beyond traditional agricultural
would be appropriate. The recommended
direction does not reflect the reality that the
near-urban countryside is truly different from
the more pure agricultural areas in north and
east Durham. Further, the consideration of
intensive agricultural operations adjacent to
urban areas, subject only to the minimum
distance separation (MDS) formulae is
wholly inadequate. These operations should
be appropriately buffered from the urban
areas to reduce the potential for adverse
dust, odour and noise impacts on nearby
urban residents.
It is recommended that a new
Countryside Area designation and
associated policies be included in the
Regional Official Plan that reflects the
distinction between the near-urban
countryside and the more pure
agricultural areas of Durham Region.
Further, it is recommended that the
Countryside and Agricultural policies
include provisions to restrict intensive
livestock operations from locating in
proximity to existing and future urban
areas.
Page 20
Agricultural Accessory Farm Uses
Areas
(continued) That the ROP be amended to: Agree.
· provide a general framework to
guide the consideration of
accessory farm uses; and
· direct area municipalities to
include detailed policies in their
official plans to address
accessory farm uses, including
scale, number and potential
impacts on surrounding uses.
Non-Conforming Uses
That the ROP be amended by Agree.
clarifying the non-conforming use
policy 20.4.4 by adding provisions to
prohibit lot creation associated with
non-conforming uses.
Other Rural Basis, Goals and Directions for the
Issues Rural Area
That the ROP be amended by: Agree.
· clarifying the "Basis, Goals and
Directions" (Section 1), to
recognize the distinction
between urban and rural areas;
and
· adding policy to the "Basis"
section, to acknowledge that
natural resources are non-
renewable and limited.
Housing Policies for Rural Area
That the ROP be amended by Agree.
clarifying the "Housing" policies
(Section 4 and policy 3.3.8 d), to
recognize the distinction between
urban and rural settlement areas.
Rural Population Targets
That the ROP be amended by: Partially agree. The rural forecast should
represent the capacity planned for Durham's
· deleting references to rural rural area to 2031. It is appropriate to
population "targets" and consider changes at the next comprehensive
replacing the term with review of the ROP.
"forecasts";
· disassociating the rural forecast
from the ROP's planning time
horizon; and
· clarifying that the rural forecast
represents the maximum
capacity planned for Durham's
rural area.
Page 21
54
Commercial Wind Turbines
That the ROP be amended to: Agree. However, including commercial wind
turbines under Section 5.2. 6 of the ROP that
· include commercial wind relates to public electric power facilities is
turbines as an electric power questionable. A new policy may be more
facility under Section 5.2.6 of appropriate for commercial green energy
the ROP; and enterprises. Commercial solar farms, as a
· encourage area municipalities to form of green energy, should also be
include policies in their official permitted in any designation.
plans, to ensure that commercial
wind turbines are located It is recommended that commercial solar
appropriately, farms be permitted in any designation.
t:\RegionalOPreview~Recommended Directions 2.doc
Page 22
Attachment #1 to
Appendix I
Natural Heritage Features ElS Requirements
Feature
Wetlands (evaluated and
unevaluated)
Endangered & Threatened Habitat
Woodlands
ElS Requirement
120m. from edge of feature as
determined by CA or MNR
50m. from edge of habitat as
determined by CA or MNR
50m. from the edge of the feature
Significant Valleylands 50m. from top of bank
ANSI's 50m. from edge of earth science
120m for life science
Fish Habitat, permanent and
intermittent streams
Significant Wildlife Habitat
Greater of:
- hazardous land limit
- meander belt limit;
- 30m from stable top of
bank, or as otherwise determined
through an ElS
50m from edge of feature as
determined by CA or MNR
5G
E
r-
A. TTACHMEN'f # / TO
r=
.o
E
5;
'ATTACHMENT ~ / TO
0
A~ACHIV[ENT # /
~EPOFFI # PO_ _0.~
0
~'rI'AOHMEN7 #/~TO
~5~'0~, ~~ ~0~~
ATTACHMENT#_ / TO
{:3
o~
.mE
n
.:-<5
m ~>~m
...... REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 06-04
Date: February 5, 2004
From:
Nell Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Discussion Papers- "Proposed Directions"
Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2
Recommendations:
That the comments in Report PD 06-04 of the Director, Planning & Development
be ENDORSED as the City's comments on the "Proposed Directions" of the
Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2 Discussion Papers.
That the Region of Durham be REQUESTED to address the City's comments in
Report PD 06-04 before initiating amendments to the Regional Official Plan,
including revising the "Proposed Directions":
· to identify a 30-year urban land supply for growth in Durham Region;
· to restructure the Durham Plan as a more strategic policy document that
recognizes the comprehensive area municipal official plans and the increased
planning capabilities at the local level;
· to eliminate the duplication of official plan policies on matters addressed in
area municipal official plans; and
· to differentiate between parts of the Region, including using separate rural
policies for near-urban countryside and agricultural areas well-removed from
urban settlements.
That the .Commissioner of Planning be REQUESTED to provide an "early release"
of at least three weeks for the Report to Regional Planning Committee on
"Revised Directions" for the Durham Regional Official Plan Review.
That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-04 to the Region of
Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region.
Executive Summary: In June 2003, the Region's consultation for Phase 2 of the
Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP) Review began with the release of four Discussion
Papers. The papers analyze main policy areas identified through Phase 1, including:
the environment; the commercial structure; population and employment growth; urban
land needs; rural/agriculture areas; and the transportation system. Transportation
issues were dealt with through the Region's recent Transportation Master Plan.
Report PD 06-04
'ATTACHMENT
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 2
The Discussion Papers are simple to read and most of the "Proposed Directions" are
easy to understand. The Papers present data on many facets of development in the
Region. Regional staff met with City staff on several occasions to discuss the
"Proposed Directions". The efforts of Regional staff to produce the Discussion Papers
is acknowledged, and their willingness to meet is appreciated.
City Planning & Development staff support the intent of the "Proposed Directions":
¢' to redefine the Region's role in commercial developments to large centres having
floor areas of greater than 60,000 square metres;
¢' to change the time frame of the Regional Official Plan to 2031, forecasting a
population of about 215,000 persons and employment of about 88,000 jobs for
Pickering;
¢' to require conservation of the natural environment through sustainable land use
and development practices; and
¢' to require conservation of the rural land resource.
However, Planning & Development staff does .not support the general approach of the
"Proposed Directions":
x to wait until at least 2007 to address the identified urban land shortage, in
Pickering, and other area municipalities;
x to increase the detail of policies on the natural environment, thereby duplicating
local official plan policies; and
x to add more restrictions to the use of all rural lands throughout the Region,
despite the near-urban countryside having a different context than north Durham.
The cumulative result of the "Proposed Directions", if pursued, would be greater
regional control in local matters. Increased regional involvement is unnecessary given
the sophistication of local official plans and the increased planning capabilities of area
municipalities. Further, 'the role of local decision-making on planning issues would be
weakened. The "Proposed Directions", if .followed, would duplicate local official plan
policies on matters currently and more appropriately addressed in area municipal plans.
Also, the "Proposed Directions" would complicate local planning roles and
responsibilities, and delay the current planning process in Durham.
The "Proposed Directions" do not provide enough urban land for growth in Durham and
Pickering to the year 2031. Also, the urban land analysis did not take account of the
natural heritage system of the Seaton lands as identified by the City's Growth
Management Study. The effect is a significant shortfall of urban land to accommodate
Pickering's 20-year growth targets. This ROP Review needs to establish an urban
boundary with a 30-year land supply (not wait until the ROP Review in 2007 as
suggested), so area municipalities can complete required secondary plan studies in a
timely manner.
It is recommended that the "Proposed Directions" be revised to address the City's
comments in Report PD 06-04, and that a "Revised Directions" report be prepared, prior
to the Region starting amendments to the ROP.
60
Report PD 06-04
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5,2004
Page 3
Financial Implications: Not Applicable.
BACKGROUND:
1.0 Durham Reqional Official Plan Review:
1.1
Regional Council initiated a two-phased approach to reviewing its Official Plan
with the first phase completed in 2001.
On April 5, 2000, Regional Council endorsed a two-phased approach to reviewing
the Durham Regional Official Plan (ROP). Part of the first phase involved releasing
a background report, which included a summary and status of the ROP changes
that have occurred in the Region since 1991, and an outline of five policy areas
suggested for review in the ROP. The background report was circulated to local
municipal and other interested stakeholders for review and comment.
On December 18, 2000, City Council endorsed Report PD 46-00 (Revised) and
requested that the Region of Durham address the issues raised in the City's
Report in the review of the ROP. The City supported the review of the policy
areas suggested by the Region and identified other issues for review including:
· the review and update of housing policies to reflect changes to Provincial
legislation and programs;
· consideration of removing urban separator designations from the major open
space system;
· specific designations for a future extension of Clements Road in Ajax,
Finch Avenue west of Altona Road and Townline Road north of Finch,
Dixie Road, and the freeway to freeway connector between Highways 401
and 407; and
· a number of technical issues.
Subsequently, Regional Council considered the results of the consultation
process undertaken for Phase 1 of the Official Plan Review and endorsed the
following policy areas for review:
· environment/open space policy;
· commercial structure;
· population and employment growth;
· urban land requirements;
· rural/agriculture policy; and
· transportation system.
Report PD 06-04
' ATTACHMEI~IT
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 4
1.2
1.3
Durham's Planning Committee authorized Regional staff to consult on the
"Proposed Directions" of the Phase 2 ROP Review Discussion Papers.
On June 24, 2003, Regional Planning Committee authorized staff to initiate the
consultation process for Phase 2 of the Official Plan Review. Regional staff
released four Discussion Papers with "Proposed Directions", as follows:
Towards a Sustainable and Healthy Environment
- Directions on environmental issues propose significant detail and
restrictions; main topics focus on water resources, natural heritage
features, air quality and the health and sustainability of the Region's
communities.
Population, Employment and Urban Land
Directions on growth management policies do not address land supply
shortage; main topics include updated population, household, dwelling unit
and employment forecasts to the year 2031, and urban land supply.
Commercial Policy Review
Directions on retailing and commercial issues relax Regional role in
commercial matters; main topics discussed include the commercial
hierarchy and Central Area definition, floor space allocations, nodes and
corridors, and urban form.
Protecting our Rural Resources
- Directions on rural and agricultural issues propose more detail and severe
use restrictions; main topics addressed include the agricultural land base,
fragmentation, incompatible uses, rural settlements and non-farm uses.
These four Discussion Papers were focused on the analysis of the policy areas
identified in Phase 1 of the ROP Review. The transportation system was
reviewed as part of the Region's Transportation Master Plan (TMP). On
December 17, 2003, Regional Council adopted the Transportation Master Plan
(TMP) including specific revisions to address the City's concerns.
Pickering Council received Report PD 29-03 regarding consultation process
underway for Phase 2 of the Regional Official Plan (ROP) Review.
On July 4, 2003, Pickering Council considered Report PD 29-03 regarding the
consultation process for Phase 2 of the ROP Review.
Report PD 06-04
' A~CI'ACHMENT #~T0
RE. POR'r # PD__.O_~_.- O
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 5
1.4
2.0
2.1
At that time, City staff advised that the "Proposed Directions" included major
changes to the natural environment and other policy areas in the ROP, and that
the rationale for these "Proposed Directions" required clarification and discussion
with Regional staff and other agencies. In addition, the implications of
the "Proposed Directions" on the Pickering Official Plan and the
Growth Management Study were being reviewed.
As part of the Region's consultation process, a Public Information Session
was held in Pickering to solicit input on the "Proposed Directions" in the
Region's Discussion Papers.
Public Information Sessions were held across the Region (one for each of the
local municipalities) to solicit input on the "Proposed Directions". Four people
attended the Pickering session, held on September 17, 2003, in the Central
Library auditorium. Also, Regional staff met three times with Pickering staff to
discuss issues.
DISCUSSION:
Staff supported a ROP Review that would result in a more strategic and
visionary document for growth and development in Durham to 2031. The
"Proposed Directions" do not build upon the important role of local
Councils to make decisions on planning issues.
City staff suggested during Phase 1 of the ROP Review that the new Plan set
long-term strategic directions for Durham, as six of the eight local municipalities
now have comprehensive official plans. By focusing on a streamlined Regional
Plan, area municipal official plans would be able to refine the broad long-term
directions into detailed policies and designations that reflect local conditions.
The consultants retained by the Region to undertake the commercial review also
shared this view. They concluded:
The level of detail for retail commercial planning in the current Plan
continues to reflect the Region's historic role as having the primary
responsibility for planning in the Region. Many aspects of this role
are now capably performed by the area municipalities, often
creating a perceived duplication in the work done at the Region.
The Region's continued role in the development approval process
which includes reviewing and commenting on applications for
developments which are not regional in their scale, role or function
is dated and is not in keeping with the objective of downloading
responsibilities to the area municipalities where there is no clear
regional interest.
Report PD 06-04
A~-TAOHMENT ,f~TO
REPOR'i ¢ PD IO_/o - (2
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date: February 5, 2004
Page 6
2.2
Currently, the Region provides only technical comments on local applications
circulated by area municipalities. However, the Region has approval power on
local official plan amendments. The Region should be providing more substantial
comments and analysis on local applications in place of proposing more detail in
their Plan and requiring more uses to be established only by amendment to the
Regional Official Plan. Only fundamental challenges to strategic Regional Plan
matters (such as urban area boundaries) should require a Regional Plan
Amendment. A more strategic Regional Plan would build on the well-developed
local official plans and the increased planning capabilities of area municipalities.
A more strategic Regional Plan could be achieved by removing policies that
duplicate local official plans. Alternately, certain Regional Plan policies could
apply only where no approved local official plan is in place.
The "Proposed Directions" do not reflect differences within the Region,
resulting in an overly detailed and restrictive policy approach for the
environment and the rural area.
The "Proposed Directions" in the Discussion Papers, if pursued, would duplicate
local official plan policies, complicate municipal planning roles and
responsibilities, and impede the quality and efficiency of the current planning
process in Durham. The value of requiring more amendments to the ROP,
especially where comprehensive local official plans are in place, is questionable.
The "Proposed Directions" would effectively remove much of the responsibility for
local planning issues from local Councils to the Region.
Specifically, the Discussion Paper on "Protecting our Rural Resources" considers
Durham's rural area as homogeneous, rather than recognizing the differences
that are reflected in local official plans. The Region is proposing to collapse the
two existing Agricultural designations, "Permanent Agricultural Reserve" and
"General Agricultural Area", into one designation for agriculture and farm-related
land uses. The rural areas south of the Oak Ridges Moraine have different
characteristics, contexts, and influences than the more "pure" agriculture areas
located north and well east of Pickering. Countryside that is located close to
urban areas is more typically mixed and diverse.
While not abandoning agriculture, a somewhat more relaxed land use approach
should be considered for these near-urban areas. This is consistent with
Pickering's Official Plan policy to foster a healthy and vibrant rural economy.
This could be achieved by permitting a broader range of complementary uses
beyond traditional agriculture including retail agricultural operations, agri-tourism,
and non-agricultural countryside uses. It would be appropriate for the
"Proposed Directions" to be revised to establish two different 'rural areas' for
inclusion in the ROP, which better recognizes the diverse rural conditions.
Report PD 06-04
¢,TTAOHMEI~T ~¢~T0
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 7
2.3
Also, Regional staff proposes using the policies contained in the Oak Ridges
Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) as the basis for many of the
"Proposed Directions" on the natural environment. Justification for using an
approach based on the ORMCP is required, given that the Oak Ridges Moraine
is so unique and significant. The proposed Direction to establish 'standard'
setbacks from natural heritage features in the rural area is inappropriate,
Setbacks are typically established through detailed environmental reports at the
local level through site-specific review.
City staff agrees with the importance of conserving the environmental system.
However, the detailed policies are more appropriate in local official plans. The
Region should build on those policies, and local decisions, in a collaborative
manner.
The "Proposed Directions" in the rural discussion paper are proposing that all
new golf course proposals and golf course expansions be considered by
amendment to the ROP. The current ROP policy permits the establishment of
golf courses within urban areas, Major Open Space System and Waterfront
designations, subject to an amendment to either the ROP or local official plans.
There is no value to the planning process by duplicating local planning efforts.
The ROP should provide broad strategic directions for golf course proposals and
rely on local official plans to provide detailed implementation policies.
Regional staff has indicated that many of the "Proposed Directions" are primarily
for the benefit of the Townships of Brock and Uxbridge where there is no local
official plan coverage for the rural areas. The Region should consider a two-tier
planning document that prescribes broader strategic policies for local
municipalities with comprehensive official plans and more detailed policies for the
municipalities without rural official plan coverage. This is in keeping with the
current ROP where some policies are not to be applied where local official plan
policies are in place. It is unnecessary and confusing to include detailed policies
and maps on the same topic in both regional and local official plans.
This Official Plan Review needs to address Pickering's urban land needs in
light of the area of natural heritage features on the Seaton lands,
The "Population, Employment and Urban Land" Discussion Paper identifies most
of Seaton, with the exception of the areas designated Open Space System in the
current Pickering Official Plan (POP), as being developable (see Attachment #1
-Regional Official Plan Designations with POP Open Space Overlay). The
Discussion Paper includes a summary of land surplus or deficit for the period
from 2001 to 2031 for Pickering. The Region estimates a shortfall of urban land
for Pickering of 112 hectares at 2026.
Report PD 06-04
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 8
2.4
A more recent analysis of the Seaton lands, as part of the City's on-going
Growth Management Study (GMS), has found that a significant portion of the
Living Area and Employment Area in the Regional Map is part of a natural
heritage system (see Attachment #2 - Region Designations with Pickering
Growth Management Study Natural Heritage Overlay). Further, the Main Central
Area in the Regional Map is located within the Urfe Environmental Sensitive Area
(ESA), a large core environmental area. It is estimated that approximately
330 hectares of Living Area and 500 hectares of Employment Area would be lost
to this expanded natural heritage system.
The Discussion Paper assumes 50% of the land designated Living Area remains
to be developed as residential. The other 50% is used for roads, schools, parks,
commercial, and stormwater management facilities. By contrast, the City's
Growth Management Study assumes only 35% of the Living Area for residential
development. There is a concern that the assumption in the Discussion Paper
over estimates the number of houses that can be built on the land designated
Living Area.
With updated information on the Seaton lands, and different assumptions about
lands required for other community services and facilities, the urban land shortfall
for Pickering occurs sooner than 2021. Pickering's 20-year growth targets cannot
be accommodated within its current urban area boundary.
The "Proposed Directions" do not provide sufficient lands for growth in
Durham and Pickering. The shortfall of urban land needs to be addressed
now instead of reviewing adjustments to the urban area boundaries as part
of the next comprehensive 5-year ROP Review in 2007.
Despite significant growth in Durham Region projected by 2021 and 2031, the
"Population, Employment and Urban Land" Discussion Paper is proposing to
maintain the current urban boundaries, and to give consideration to adjustments
to the urban area boundaries as part of the next comprehensive 5-year
Regional Official Plan Review in 2007.
According to the Paper, there is no basis for changing Durham's urban area
boundary and there is no need to require additional lands until 2026. However, as
discussed in section 2.3 of this Report, the analysis of Pickering's land inventory
based on new information identifies a land shortfall in less than 20 years.
The Provincial Policy Statement establishes a 30-year time frame for regional
official plans in the Greater Toronto Area. The Policy Statement also provides
local municipalities the opportunity to designate sufficient land for urban uses and
for an appropriate range and mix of housing, to accommodate growth up to a 30-
year planning horizon.
?2
Report PD 06-04
' A~ACHMEIgT #~TO
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 9
2.5
Pickering has insufficient urban land for a 20-year planning horizon (the year
2021). The urban land shortage is more severe for the 30-year planning horizon
(the year 2031). The Region needs to establish an urban boundary framework
for the next 30-years, which would enable local municipalities to undertake their
planning reviews. Waiting until the next review in 2007 (considering that the
current ROP Review has taken over three years so far) could mean that local
municipalities are not in a position to have aPproved secondary plans for nearly
10 years from now.
Regional staff has indicated that if Pickering's 20-year growth forecast cannot be
accommodated within its current urban area boundary, any remaining share
could be transferred to Oshawa and Clarington. Any transfer of Pickering's share
elsewhere potentially impacts the City's long-term finances, derived in part from
growth and development, to support community infrastructure and services. The
shortfall of urban land should be addressed in this comprehensive review.
Council should request Regional staff to revise the "Proposed Directions"
in light of the City's comments on the Discussion Papers, prior to initiating
amendments to the ROP.
A copy of staff's detailed comments on the "Proposed Directions", as set out in
the Discussion Papers, is provided for Council's review and endorsement
(see Attachment #3). Clarification, duplication, and deficiencies relating to the
"Proposed Directions" have been noted. The "Proposed Directions" relating to
the commercial policy review are appropriate.
Further, the issues previously endorsed by City Council in Report PD 46-00
(Revised) on Phase 1 of the Official Plan Review are listed in a chart attached to
this Report (see Attachment #4). As the Chart shows, the Discussion Papers have
not addressed all of the issues raised previously by the City in Report PD 46-00
(Revised).
It is recommended that Council request Regional staff to address the City's
comments raised in Report PD 06-04 on the Durham Regional Official Plan
Review - Phase 2 and issue a "Revised Directions" paper, prior to preparing
amendments to the ROP.
Attachments:
Map 1 - Regional Official Plan Designations with POP Open Space Overlay
Map 2 - Regional Official Designations with Pickering Growth Management Study
Natural Heritage Overlay
Chart 1 - Staff Comments on "Proposed Directions" in Discussion Papers
Chart 2 - Staff Comments on Phase 1 of the ROP Review
Report PD 06-04
;F~ACHMENT
Subject: Durham Regional Official Plan Review
Date:
February 5, 2004
Page 10
73
Prepared By:
ORIGINAL SIGNED ~Y
Grant McGregor, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner- Policy
Approved / Endorsed By:
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Neil Carroll, MCIP, RPP
Director, Planning & Development
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Catherine Rose
Manager, Policy
GM:Id
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Division Head, Corporate Projects and Policy
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Thomas J. Quinn, Chief Administrative Officer
PICKERING
ATTACHMENT #. -~ TO
Appendix I
Executive Committee Report
EC 2004-3
(i)
ADOPTION OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of February 16, 2004
Special Meeting of February 23, 2004
RESOLUTIONS
CARRIED
That the Executive Committee of the City of Pickering having met on February 23, 2004,
presents its third report to Council and recommends:
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT REPORT PD 06-04
DISCUSSION PAPERS -"PROPOSED DIRECTIONS"
DURHAM REGIONAL OFFICIAL PLAN REVIEW, PHASE 2
That the comments in Report PD 06-04 of the Director, Planning &
Development be ENDORSED as the City's comments on the "Proposed
Directions" of the Durham Regional Official Plan Review: Phase 2 Discussion
Papers.
That the Region of Durham be REQUESTED to address the City's comments
in Report PD 06-04 before initiating amendments to the Regional Official
Plan, including revising the "Proposed Directions".
· to identify a 30-year urban land supply for growth in Durham Region;
Resolution #27/04 - Appendix I
Moved by Councillor McLean
Seconded by Councillor Brenner
That the Report of the Executive Committee dated February 16, 2004, be adopted with
the following consideration:
Recorded Vote:
Yes: Councillors Brenner, Holland, McLean, Pickles and Mayor Ryan
No: Councillors Ashe and Johnson
Excerpts from
Council eeting inutes
~onday, ~areh ~, 2004
7:40 PM
75
to differentiate between parts of the Region, including using separate rural
policies for near-urban countryside and agricultural areas well-removed
from urban settlements.
That the Commissioner of Planning be REQUESTED to provide an "early
release" of at least three weeks for the Report to Regional Planning
Committee on "Revised Directions" for the Durham Regional Official Plan
Review.
4. That the City Clerk FORWARD a copy of Report PD 06-04 to the Region of
Durham and to local municipalities in Durham Region.
-2-
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report OES 02-05 regarding the Futuresign Multimedia Displays
Advertising Agreement, be received; and
That the attached by-law, authorizing the execution of an Amending Advertising
Agreement to which Futuresign Multimedia Displays will be permitted to continue
to sell advertising space on the rink boards and other devices at the Pickering
Recreation Complex and Don Beer Arenas until May 30, 2008 be read three
times and passed by Council; and
That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
REPORT TO THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 02-05
Date: January 10, 2005
??
From:
Stephen Reynolds
Division Head, Culture & Recreation
Subject:
Futuresign Multimedia Displays
- Amending Advertising Agreement
- File: CO3000
Recommendation:
1. That Report OES 02-05 regarding the Futuresign Multimedia Displays
Advertising Agreement be received and:
A bylaw be enacted to authorize the execution of an Amending Advertising
Agreement to which Futuresign Multimedia Displays will be permitted to continue
to sell advertising space on the rink boards and other devices at the Pickering
Recreation Complex and Don Beer Arenas until May 30,2008;
3. Staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto.
Executive Summary:
The Pickering Hockey Association Incorporated has requested to enter into a formal
agreement with Futuresign Multimedia Displays to sell rink board advertising on the Don
Beer Arena third ice pad until May 30, 2008. Currently there is no rink board advertising
on the third pad.
Futuresign Multimedia Displays has an existing Advertising Agreement to sell
advertising space on the rink boards and other devices at the Pickering Recreation
Complex Arenas and Don Beer Arenas until December 31, 2005.
The Operations & Emergency Services Department recommend that an Amending
Licence Agreement be initiated with Futuresign Multimedia Displays to extend the
current Advertising Agreement until May 30, 2008.
Report OES 02-05
Subject: Futuresign Multimedia Displays
-Amending Advertising Agreement
Date: January 10, 2005
Page 2
Financial Implications:
Revenues Pickering Recreation Complex and Don Beer Arenas
2005 - 12 Months (minimum)
2006 - 12 Months (minimum)
2007 - 12 Months (minimum)
2008 - 5 Months (minimum)
Total
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
$12,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$41,000.00
Background:
The Pickering Hockey Association Incorporated has requested to enter into a formal
agreement with Futuresign Multimedia Displays to sell rink board advertising on the Don
Beer Arena third ice pad until May 30, 2008. Currently there is no rink board advertising
in the third pad. The City has agreed to provide the Pickering Hockey Association the
opportunity to sell sponsorships and advertising, as part of their fundraising activities,
for the third ice pad at Don Beer Arena. The funds the Pickering Hockey Association
generate from the advertising agreement will assist with their fundraising commitment to
the City of Pickering for the construction of the third ice pad.
Futuresign Multimedia Displays has an existing Advertising Agreement to sell
advertising space on the rink boards and other devices at the Pickering Recreation
Complex Arenas and Don Beer Arenas. This agreement is set to expire on December
31, 2005. To assist with advertising sales, Futuresign Multimedia Displays has
requested that the City's current advertising agreement be extended so that it ends at
the same time as the Pickering Hockey Association advertising agreement.
Enactment of the draft by-law attached will authorize the execution of an Amending
Advertising Agreement to be prepared in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City in
consultation with the appropriate City Departments and existing City practices.
Attachments:
1. Draft Bylaw
CORP0227-07/01
Report OES 02-05
Subject: Futuresign Multimedia Displays
-Amending Advertising Agreement
Date: January 10, 2005
Page 3
Prepared By:
Len Hunter
Supervisor, Facilities Operations
Approved /~r~¢orse~By:,, -,*
Everett-¢ull~;m~'-~
_ji~ative Officer
Division Head, Culture & Recreation
SR:lg
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
(Acting) Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Solicitor for the City
Re co m me n d e~l~,t~h e~-~c~'l~ s i d e ratio n of
Pickering ~
/~/t,~ Thomas J. Ouin~hieff~dministrative Officer
CORP0227-07/01
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to authorize the execution of
an Amending Advertising Agreement
between the City and Futuresign Multimedia
Displays for the right to sell advertising space
at the Pickering Recreation Complex and
Don Beer Arenas.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of paragraph 207.58 and 191 of the Municipal
Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45, as amended, the Council of the C;orporation of the City
of Pickering may pass by-laws for leasing premises owned by the Corporation;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute an Amending Advertising
Agreement, in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City between The
Corporation of the City of Pickering and Futuresign Multimedia Displays for the
purposes of selling advertising space at the Pickering Recreation Complex and
Don Beer Arenas.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of February,
2005.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, City Clerk
CORP0223-07/01
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report OES 05-05 regarding the Hodzon House Where Heaven and Earth
Meet Lease Renewal, be received; and
That the attached by-law, authorizing the execution of a renewal lease
agreement pursuant to which Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet, will
be permitted to continue their use for church purposes of the Green River
Community Centre from February 1, 2005 to January 31,, 2006, be read three
times and passed by Council; and
That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
REPORT TO THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 05-05
Date: January 18, 2005
From:
Stephen Reynolds
Division Head, Culture & Recreation
Subject:
Green River Community Centre
- Lease Renewal - Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet
- File: CO3000
Recommendation:
o
That Report OES 05-05 regarding the Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth
Meet Lease Renewal be received and;
A by-law be enacted to authorize the execution of a renewal lease agreement
pursuant to which Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet will be
permitted to continue their use for church purposes of the Green River
Community Centre from February 1,2005 to January 31, 2006;
3. Staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto..
Executive Summary:
Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet have been leasing the Green River
Community Centre for church purposes over the last six years. They have requested to
continue to renew their lease.
The Operations & Emergency Services Department recommend that a renewal
agreement be initiated with Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet for a one
year term.
Report OES 05-05 Date: January 18, 2005
Subject: Green River Community Centre
Lease Renewal - Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet
Page 2
Financial Implications:
Revenues
2005-11 months@S675.00
2006 - 1 month@S675.00
$7,425.00
$ 675.00
Total: $8,100.00
Background:
On November 5, 2001, Council enacted By-law 5902/01 authorizing the execution of an
Agreement to renew the Lease for Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet to
use the Green River Community Centre for church purposes.
The Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet has requested to continue to use
the Green River Community Centre as it has for the last six years. The Green River
Residents' Association have indicated a possible need for the use of this facility in the
future and have asked that the lease be renewed on a yearly basis only.
The Department recommends that a renewal lease be initiated with Horizon House
Where Heaven and Earth Meet for a one year term.
Enactment of the draft by-law attached will authorize the execution of a renewal lease
agreement to be prepared in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City in
consultation with the appropriate City Departments and existing City practices.
Attachment:
1. Draft By-Law
Report OES 05-05 Date: January 18, 2005
Subject: Green River Community Centre
- Lease Renewal - Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet
Page 3
Prepared By:
L e~.tLi ~.-n~,.~r v
Supervisor, Facilities Operations
SR:lg
Attachment
Everett'Buntsma
(Acting) Chief Administrative Officer
Stepf~..~Reyn~l-~ s '
Division - e/4'6~d, Culture & Recreation
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
(Acting) Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Solicitor for the City
Recom m e n~ e~;)~¢o n~ation of
Plcker~n~
Thomas J.
n, Chief Administrative Officer
~7~'i^CHMEN"i' #_ I TO I~EPOR,T# (~.~ t-~, c,:~ c-
THE CORPORATION OF THE CiTY OF PIOKERING
BY-LAW NO.
85
Being a by-law to authorize the execution of a
Lease Agreement between Horizon House
Where Heaven and Earth Meet and The
Corporation of the City of Picketing
respecting Green River Community Centre
(February 1,2005 to January 31,2006).
WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter M.45,
subsection 191(1), the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering wishes to
lease to Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet the Green River Community
Centre, being that part of Lot 34, Concession 6, Pickering, designated as Part 1, Plan
40R-6910, and the building located thereon, for a one year term while the Green River
Community Centre is not required for municipal purposes;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute a renewal Lease
Agreement, in a form acceptable to the Solicitor for the City, between the
Corporation of the City of Pickering and Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth
Meet respecting the use by Horizon House Where Heaven and Earth Meet of the
Green River Community Centre, being that part of Lot 34, Concession 6,
Pickering designated as Part 1, Plan 40R-6910 and the building located thereon
for a one year period.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of February,
2005.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
C0RP0223-07/01
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Council receive Report CAO 01-05 concerning the Nuclear Waste Management
Organization's (NWMO) Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices; and
That Council confirm as the City's comments on Discussion Document 2, the Acting
CAO's letter of December 20, 2004, including the peer review comments provided
by Acres - Sargent & Lundy (see Attachments I and 2 to this Report), and that the
NWMO make particular note of the following concerns in completing its work:
a. The need to ensure a full and thorough assessment of the social, economic, and
environmental impacts of on-site storage on host communities; and
b. The need to explicitly address issues related to community compensation and
host community benefits; and
c. The need to ensure adequate and effective community dialogue in the remaining
phases of the work; and
That Council acknowledge receipt of the NWMO's letters dated January 10, 2005, to
the Acting CAO and to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities
(CANHC), responding to comments submitted on Discussion Document 2 (see
Attachments 3 and 4).
That Council request NWMO to provide continued peer review funding assistance to
the CANHC to ensure the effective and ongoing participation of CANHC and its
member municipalities in NWMO's remaining process; and
That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the NWMO, the Federal Minister of
Natural Resources, the Ontario Power Generation, member municipalities of
CANHC, M.P. Dan McTeague, M.P. Mark Holland, and M.P.P. Wayne Arthurs.
PICKERING
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: CAO 01-05
Date: January 17, 2005
From:
Everett Buntsma
(Acting) Chief Administrative Officer
Subject:
NWMO Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices
City of Pickering's Comments to NWMO
File: S-5610-011
Recommendation:
That Council receive Report CAO 01-05 concerning the Nuclear Waste
Management Organization's (NWMO) Discussion Document 2, Understanding
the Choices.
That Council confirm as the City's comments on Discussion Document 2, the
Acting CAO's letter of December 20, 2004, including the peer review comments
provided by Acres - Sargent & Lundy (see Attachments 1 and 2 to this Report),
and that the NWMO make particular note of the following concerns in completing
its work:
The need to ensure a full and thorough assessment of the social,
economic, and environmental impacts of on-site storage on host
communities;
b. The need to explicitly address issues related to community compensation
and host community benefits; and
c. The need to ensure adequate and effective community dialogue in the
remaining phases of the work.
That Council acknowledge receipt'of the NWMO's letters dated January 10,
2005, to the Acting CAO and to the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host
Communities (CANHC), responding to comments submitted on Discussion
Document 2 (see Attachments 3 and 4).
That Council request NWMO to provide continued peer review funding
assistance to the CANHC to ensure the effective and ongoing participation of
CANHC and its member municipalities in NWMO's remaining process.
That a copy of this Report be forwarded to the NWMO, the Federal Minister of
Natural Resources, the Ontario Power Generation, member municipalities of
CANHC, M.P. Dan McTeague, M.P. Mark Holland, and M.P.P. Wayne Arthurs.
Report CAO 01-05
Subject: NWMO Discussion Document 2
Date:
January 17, 2005
Page 2
Executive Summary:
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) released its second discussion
document in September 2004. Discussion Document 2 describes the management
options being considered in finding a solution for long-term storage of Canada's high
level nuclear waste. To assist host municipalities in commenting on this document, the
NWMO agreed to provide peer review funding thrOugh the Canadian Association of
Nuclear Host Communities (of which Pickering is a member).
In late November, the consulting team of Acres - Sargent & Lundy (ASL) was selected
by the CANHC to undertake a peer review of Discussion Document 2. The ASL report
was completed in mid December. It highlighted "potential gaps" in the NWMO
Assessment Framework and provided possible ways of addressing these gaps. ASL
also commented on various other issues and provided a set of recommendations.
NWMO had asked for comments on Discussion Document 2 by the end of 2004.
Because of this, the Acting CAO provided a letter to the NWMO in late December,
attaching the ASL report as the City's preliminary comments on the Discussion
Document. NWMO was also advised in the letter that City Council would be in a
position to consider that matter early in 2005 (see Attachments 1 and 2). NWMO
provided a response to the City, and to a letter from the CANHC in early January (see
Attachments 3 and 4).
This Report recommends that Council confirm to the NWMO that the Acting CAO's
letter of December 20, including the ASL peer review comments, is the City's official
position on Discussion Document 2. It also recommends that Council advise NWMO
that in the remaining process, NWMO undertake a full and thorough assessment of the
social, economic and environmental impacts of on-site storage on host communities,
that they explicitly address issues related to community compensation and host
community benefits, that they ensure adequate and effective community dialogue in the
remaining phases of the work, and that they provide continued peer review funding
assistance to the CANHC to ensure the effective and ongoing participation of CANHC
and its member municipalities in NWMO's remaining process.
Financial Implications:
There are no financial implications on the City.
review of DiscusSion Document 2.
NWMO covered the cost of ASL's peer
Report CAO 01-05
Subject: NWMO Discussion Document 2
Date: January 17, 2005
Page 3
Background:
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) was mandated by the Nuclear
Fuel Waste Act to identify and recommend a suitable option for long-term nuclear waste
storage in Canada. The Act required a final report to be submitted to the Minister of
Energy by November 2005. In November 2003, NWMO published Discussion
Document 1: Asking The Right Questions. The City provided comments on Discussion
Document 1.
Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices, was released by the NWMO in
September 2004 (an Executive Summary of this document was forwarded to Mayor and
Council at that time). In October, in response to a previous request of the Canadian
Association of Nuclear Host Communities (CANHC), the NWMO agreed to cover peer
review consulting costs related to Discussion Document 2, to a maximum of $20,000.
NWMO also indicated that subsequent funding might be available to CANHC for the
peer review of reports issued in 2005, but could not make a definitive commitment at
that time.
Staff from the municipalities of Clarington, Kincardine, and Pickering conducted a
selection process for a peer review consultant. The firm, Acres - Sargent & Lundy
(ASL) was chosen in late November and immediately began work. By mid December,
ASL completed its report on Discussion Document 2. Although a December 31
deadline for comments had originally been established, because of scheduling issues,
the NWMO agreed that the member municipalities of CANHC could submit their
preliminary comments in December, and then obtain Council's formal position on the
matter early in 2005. Accordingly, the Acting CAO submitted a letter to NWMO
outlining Pickering's preliminary comments on Discussion Document 2, and attaching
ASL's peer review report (see Attachments 1 and 2).
ASL conducted a comprehensive review of NWMO's Discussion Document 2 and its
reference materials. Their work was very helpful as it assisted with the identification of
key issues and areas that municipalities should focus on at present and in the future.
An Executive Summary of ASL's report is attached.
In early January, the City received a written response from the NWMO as well as a
copy of a similar letter NWMO sent to the CANHC (see Attachments 3 and 4). Both
letters complimented the peer review work done by ASL, and thanked the CANHC, the
City and Clarington for providing comments on NWMO's Discussion Document.
The NWMO letter to the City also provided some assurance that community impact was
a matter the NWMO would be addressing further as work progressed. The NWMO also
commented on the matter of public consultation, and concurred with the importance of
engaging local citizens in the work that they are conducting. The City was invited to
provide input on how to improve the public consultation process in the future.
Arrangements will be made with the NWMO to discuss this matter further.
Report CAO 01-05
Subject: NWMO Discussion Document 2
Date: January 17, 2005
Page 4
Attached to the NWMO letter to CANHC was a table that provided comments on the
key points raised by ASL in their peer review report. Like the comments that were
directed specifically to the City's preliminary submission, NWMO acknowledged the
value of receiving constructive input on Discussion Document 2. Their response
answered some of the ASL questions and provided some of the information that was
requested. In several cases, NWMO concurred with process improvements that were
suggested by ASL.
In summary, it would appear that the peer review activities that were recently completed
have had merit, and that additional peer review funding should be provided by NWMO
to CANHC to ensure the member municipalities can continue to contribute to the
process. The next phase of NWMO's work is critical, in that it will involve the
completion of a number of studies of importance to the City leading up to the release of
· the Draft Final Report in the second quarter of 2005. That work will include issues
associated with impacts on existing host communities and the potential for benefits if
on-site storage is chosen. The NWMO final recommendation on a preferred long-term
storage solution for Canada's nuclear high-level waste is due in November 2005 and
will be forwarded to the Federal Minister of Energy for consideration.
For Council's information, other Durham municipalities have provided comments to the
NWMO with respect to this matter. Many of these comments are consistent with the
positions put forward in this Report. However, City Council should be made aware that
Regional Council has previously advised NWMO that it opposes the long-term storage
of nuclear waste at existing reactor sites. Also, a staff report to Regional Council on
Discussion Document 2 is under preparation, and we understand that it will again
reiterate this position. Council should also be aware that both Clarington and the Town
of Ajax have advised NWMO that they do not support the option of long-term storage at
the existing reactor sites. To our knowledge Kincardine has not yet provided a
response to NWMO.
Attachments:
1. Executive Summary, Peer Review of Discussion Document 2, Understanding the
Choices, prepared by Acres - Sargent & Lundy, December 2004.
2. Letter from Acting CAO to NWMO dated December 20, 2004.
3. Letter from NWMO to the Acting CAO dated January 10, 2005.
4. Letter from NWMO to CANHC dated January 10, 2005.
Report CAO 01-05
Subject: NWMO Discussion Document 2
Date: January 17, 2005
Page 5
Prepared By:
A.L. (Joe) Hunwicks///
Community Emergency Management
Coordinator
Approved / Endorsed By:
Everett Buntsma
(Acting) Chief Administrative Officer
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Pol~c~'y'-~
EB:alh:tem
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended~J_
Picko~
Thomas J.~Quinn
ration of
rative Officer
J ATrACHMENI'#,,, I TO REPORT
Nuclear Waste Management Organization
Independent Peer Review of
NWMO Discussion Document 2,
"Understanding the Choices"
Prepared for
Canadian Association of Nuclear Host Communities
SL-008414
December 2004
Acres-$&L
55 East Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603-5780 USA
SL-OO8414-final.doc Project 1 1769-010
iATTACHMENT#
TO REPORTi
Final
93
2. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2.1 OVERVIEW
The NWMO was established under the Nuclear Fuel Waste Act (NFWA) to investigate approaches for
managing canada's used nuclear fuel. The Nuclear Fuel Waste Act requires the NWMO to recommend a
preferred management approach to the Government of Canada by November 15, 2005. The NWMO will 'then
implement the approach chosen by the Government. In order to provide an overview of used nuclear fuel and
related issues in Canada, Appendix B contains nine fact sheets developed by the NWMO that address topics
such as the NWMO organization, what is "used nuclear fuel," the Canadian nuclear regulatory framework, and
the NWMO study process, among others. As noted in the NWMO's Fact Sheet 9, "The NWMO Study Process,"
the NWMO has committed to "develop collaboratively with Canadians a management apProach that is socially
acceptable, technically sound, environmentally responsible, and economically feasible."
The NFWA requires that the following three main management approaches must be studied: deep geological
disposal, storage at nuclear reactor sites, and centralized storage. Other methods may also be considered. To
undertake the study, the NWMO has "adopted an iterative study process, undertaken in phases to allow
information, analyses, and thinking to be considered in a staged manner." Discussion Document 2 was
developed and issued as part of this iterative and open process to summarize the progress so far and the next
steps the NWMO is taking to arrive at its recommended management approach.
ASL performed a broad review of Discussion Document 2 with the overall objective of identifying questions
that are not currently being asked by either the NWMO or others reviewing the NWMO's process. The intent of
the review was to identify key issues and areas that we recommend CANHC focus on as NWMO continues in
their process.
2.2 RESULTS
Discussion Document 2 is a high level document that contains a broad summary of the NWMO's activities
since Discussion Document 1 was issued. As a summary document, it contains a significant number of
references to other NWMO documents that address the topics and issues related to developing the
recommendation for which management approach the Canadian government should use. These references are
generally located on the N-WMO web site. Appendix C provides the current site map of NVrMO's web site for
SL-008414-final. doc/121304 Project 11769-010
94
JATTACHMENT# ..... TO REPORT# -? I
.............. SL-008414
reference. Appendix D contains a reference table developed by ASL in its review of Discussion Document 2
that lists the web .sites referenced in the document along with the related files posted on the web.
The current assessment framework is derived from the original ten questions discussed in NWMO's Discussion
Document 1, "Asking the Right Questions," and consists of eight objective and associated guiding principles
and influences. The framework was developed by a multi-disciplinary Assessment Team assembled by the
NWMO to develop a comparative analysis of alternate approaches. The NWMO's Assessment Team based
their work on the ten questions posed in Discussion Document 1 and on the NWMO's engagement with
Canadians and ongoing research and analysis activities.
The eight objectives of the NWMO's current assessment framework are as follows:
Fairness
· Public Health and Safety
Worker Health and Safety
· Community Well-Being
· Security
· Environmental Integrity
· Economic Viability
· Adaptability
Based on the updated framework, the NWMO Assessment Team performed a comparative analysis of the three
main management approaches by systematically comparing the approaches against the objectives using a multi-
attribute utility analysis. The NWMO Assessment Team's report was issued in June 2004 and forms a
significant basis for the information presented in Discussion Document 2.
The NWMO has performed significant engagement activities and actively solicited a wide range of input on its
work. The NWMO's engagement activities were designed to establish an informed dialogue with a wide range
of stakeholders, ranging from the Canadian public at large to governments, business interests, and interested
individuals.
The NWMO has developed conceptual designs, cost eStimates, transportation requirements, and preliminary
project timelines for each of the main management approaches; these can be accessed on NWMO's web site as
SL-008414-final.doc/121304 Project 11769-010
J ATTACHMENT #
TO REPORT
SL-008414
Final
95
noted in Appendix D. The conceptual designs and cost estimates are intended to provide sufficient detail to
confirm the engineering feasibility of the management approaches to support the current phase of the NWMO's
study, which is appropriate. The NWMO has arranged for independent reviews of these technical evaluations.
The NWMO noted in Discussion Document 2 that these third-party reviews concluded that the designs are
reasonable and feasible, that the cost estimates have been prepared in accordance with appropriate estimating
methodology, and that the technical information as a whole is suitable for the options review and directional
decision-making requirements of the NWMO.
Based on the conceptual designs and cost estimates, the Assessment Team analyzed each of the three main
management approaches within the current assessment framework. The resulting relative strengths and
weaknesses of each approach is summarized in Figure E-1 (starting on page 7) in Discussion Document 2's
Executive Summary (provided in Appendix F of this report to facilitate reference). The relative strengths and
weaknesses are discussed in more detail in Section 4.3.2 below.
The Assessment Team's report notes that the overall management of spent fuel in Canada is politically
complicated. Under the Canadian constitution, energy policies and land management that involve the
production of spent fuel are responsibilities of the provincial governments, while management of radioactive
materials is the responsibility of the federal government. Discussion Document 2 notes that the NWMO will be
focusing on implementation plans as their study moves forward and that implementation is a critical part of
making a recommendation. The NWMO notes that the development of implementation plans will include, at a
minimum, consideration of the following elements:
Oversight and monitoring systems
· Ongoing societal involvement
· Institutional design, including human resource capacity
· Ownership and liability
· Dispute management
· Principles to guide site selection; and
· Education and information programs.
The NFWA states that the selected management approach will be implemented by the NWMO "subject to all of
the necessary regulatory approvals." Discussion Document 2 contains implementation timelines for each of the
SL-008414-final.doc/121304 Project 11769-010
!ATTAI HMENT# t TO REPORT# I
SL-008414
Final
three main management approaches. Siting and approval for each of the approaches is a critical element of each
of the timelines. The NWMO has started to assess the regulatory framework within which the selected approach
will be implemented.
2.3 KEY ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ASL identified several issues and corresponding recommendations during its independent peer review as
summarized in the table below. The detailed results and discussion of these issues is presented in Section 4.
Table 2-1 -- Issue and Recommendation Summary
Issue ReCOmmendation
Assessment Framework
Although the Assessment Team's report provides alternate
weightings of the different overall objectives, it does not
provide the weightings for the specific influence variables
associated with each objective. As a result, ASL cannot
determine how balanced the assessment framework is.
The Assessment Team report notes that a practical strategy
for implementing an overall management approach must
take the political climate into account, and that this factor is
outside the scope of the Team's assessment.
The Assessment Team notes that "The assessment
suggests it will be necessary to ensure.., that contingency
plans are known and available should they be required, at
least for the period in which active management of the
waste is needed to ensure safety."
The Assessment Team's report presents the results of their
analysis in the form of composite scores, and does not
seem to consider fatal flaws (that is, an issue or problem
that would exclude a particular option from further
consideration).
The NWMO has not systematically engaged with groups
that focus and represent public opinion, such as nuclear
awareness groups or environmental groups. These groups
may have specific agendas that may be counter to the
NWMO's ultimate objective to implement a management
approach once the Canadian government makes a decision
based on the NWMO's recommendation.
The NWMO should provide explanations of
how political climate, contingency planning,
fatal flaws, and relative importance of the
objectives and specific influence variables
were considered, so that it is possible in
future work to confirm and evaluate the
overall balance of the assessment
framework.
The NWMO should specifically solicit input
from groups that focus and represent public
opinion. In addition, or alternatively, the
NWMO should develop an assessment of
the positions of these groups, the influence
they may exert on the process, the impact
this influence could have on the
recommended management approach, and
what can be done to gain their input or
otherwise address their positions.
SL4)08414-final.doc/121304 Project 11769-010
t ATTACHMENT # TO
REPORT
Acres-S&L
2-5
SL-008414
Final
97
There is a conflict between the desire of some stakeholders
to "keep an eye on the waste" versus the scientific
community's general preference for deep geological
disposal. For example, a reactor site storage (or, to a more
limited extent, centralized storage) keeps the issue and
societal costs of nuclear waste more visible, and so
provides an impetus for reducing the generation of this type
of waste. A comparison was made to trash along the side of
a road: if disposed in a landfill and out of sight, there is less
of a constant reminder of the overall costs associated with
creating the trash. This perspective would not necessarily
be addressed by a technically focused comparative analysis
and could significantly affect the current host communities
due to its bias towards reactor site storage.
ReCommendati
on
The NWMO study should ensure (1) that
the conflicting desires of some stakeholders
to keep the issue of used fuel visible versus
the scientific community's general
preference for deep geological disposal are
given proper weight, (2) that the technical
details of the selected management
approach address this issue, and (3) that
broader social values and motives (such as
keeping used fuel disposal highly visible in
order to highlight the issue) are considered.
As part of the engagement process, the
NWMO should consider establishing focus
groups to identify specific concerns that
people may have with "keeping an eye on
The used nuclear fuel is retrievable in the two storage
approaches, butby design is not retrievable in the deep
geological disposal approach after the site is
decommissioned. Discussion Document 2 does not fully
address this issue, nor is it fully addressed in the
Assessment Team's report, "Assessing the Choices."
the waste" (i.e., technical or social) to
support fully addressing this issue.
The NWMO should more fully address the
issue of retrievability as it develops more
detailed comparative analyses.
Management Approaches
Any changes to the weighting of the different objectives and
corresponding factors used in the ongoing comparative
assessment process will affect the relative strengths and
weaknesses.
The site selection process for deep geological disposal
does not include as a limitation the challenges associated
with establishing the geological suitability of potential sites.
This issue is an ongoing concern in the United States with
the Yucca Mountain project.
There appears to be a discrepancy in the advantages and
limitations relative to the objective for Adaptability. For
example, Adaptability was noted as being a weakness of
deep geological disposal. However, the deep geological
disposal approach had the same or higher performance
value score compared to the other approaches in the
analysis of Adaptability.
Potential changes in the relative strengths
and weaknesses should be reviewed as the
comparative analysis process continues.
Consideration should be given to the effect
associated with confirming the technical
suitability of potential sites (such as
schedule delays and cost impacts).
This discrepancy should be clarified or
otherwise resolved as the comparative
analysis process continues.
SL~O08414-final.doc/121304 Pro.~ect 11769-010
REPORT
SL-008414
Acres S&L
Issue
The relative strengths and weaknesses of the different
management approaches as discussed in Discussion
Document 2 do not provide an indication of how they might
be affected by potential technical changes.
Social effects on communities and siting issues are not
mentioned in the limitations for reactor site storage even
though the current host communities were not selected
based on their suitability for extended storage. The analysis
notes technical limitations for at-reactor storage (such as
proximity to large bodies of water), but does not note any
social disadvantages.
Discussion Document 2 does not discretely analyze the
impacts of the separate management approaches on the
current host communities.
The strengths and weaknesses noted by the NWMO in
Discussion Document 2 do not mention or appear to
account for a comparative assessment of the risks related
to the different approaches. The comparative risks include
both technical risks (such as the impact of postulated
accidents) and financial risks (such as changes in the
assumed discount rates used in the financial models).
The sensitivity analyses conducted as part
of the NWMO's ongoing comparative
analysis process should consider changes
in key technical assumptions. (It should be
noted that the Assessment Team's
sensitivity analysis addresses broader
changes in future conditions; this
recommendation is intended to apply at
more of a technical design level.)
The ongoing comparative analysis should
specifically assess the overall impact of the
selected management approach on the
current host communities to ensure that
they are afforded the same considerations
and potential benefits as new host
communities.
Relative technical and financial risks should
be identified and considered during the
ongoing detailed comparative assessments
that the NWMO is currently performing.
Implementation Plan
Background paper 7-8 notes that any proposal to postpone
a decision on a preferred long-term option would itself have
significant implications and may be deemed worthy of a
review panel.
Many of the problems and delays in the implementation of
major projects with significant environmental implications
stem from the failure to correctly identify all the required
permits and permit application requirements associated with
a given project.
The NWMO should ensure that the
implementation plans developed for the
separate management approaches include
comprehensive and specific permitting
schedules that define which permits are
required, when they are required, how long
it takes to apply for and obtain them, and
who has to make the application. Possible
conflicts or uncertainties regarding the legal
jurisdiction of different government
agencies should be identified.
SL-OO8414~final,doc/121304
Project 11769-010
IATTACHMEN'r# I
TO REPORT
2-7
SL-008414
9.9
IsSue
ReCommendation
Problems and delays can also stem from determined
opposition from one or more stakeholders (such as
environmental groups or elected officials) when the EA and
applications are reviewed. It should be noted that technical
issues (engineering, conceptual designs, etc.) or costs are
frequently not the critical parameters that determine a
project's success or failure.
The assessment performed by the Assessment Team is not
specific with respect to the choice of economic region for a
centralized storage facility or geologic repository. The
NWMO's ongoing efforts will focus on developing
characteristics that would be appropriate in choosing
specific economic regions for deep geological disposal and
centralized storage approaches.
As the implementation plans are developed, the resulting
details could affect the comparative assessments of the
different management approaches performed up to that
point.
Although a phased approach is reasonable and has
significant advantages, in ASL's experience, it has the
)otential of negatively affecting the overall effective
implementation of a project.
ASL's earlier recommendation about the
need to engage groups that focus and
represent public opinion should be pursued
in recognition that they may provide
valuable information for the NWMO's
implementation plans in terms of identifying
potential opposition, assessing the primary
concerns of potential opponents, and
developing mitigation measures to address
these concerns.
In addition to supporting site selection, the
NWMO should ensure that site-specific
issues and considerations are identified and
addressed within the associated
implementation plans.
The NWMO should ensure that the
comparative assessments are updated and
re-evaluated as required to be consistent
with the planned implementation details.
The NWMO should ensure that the overall
project implementation plans include key
project milestones where "go - no go"
decisions are made, as well as points where
designs are finalized, or "frozen," to enable
the project to proceed with minimal potential
for design changes. To be able to capitalize
on new technical or other advances, the
design parameters associated with the
selected management approach should be
developed and selected to maximize overall
system flexibility.
Last page of Section 2.
SL-O08414-final.doc/121304 Project 11769-010
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
· Department 905.420.4648
Facsimile 905.420.6064
cao @ci~y. pickering, on ca
December 20, 2004
Picketing Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
Canada
L1V 6K7
Direct Access 905.420.4660
cityofpickering, com
Liz Dowdeswell
President
Nuclear Waste Management Organization
49 Jackes Avenue, First Floor
Toronto, ON M4T 11::2
Subject:
Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices
Preliminary City of Pickering Comments
File: S-5610-011
On behalf of the City of Pickering, I would like to thank you and the Nuclear Waste Management
Organization for providing funding for peer review consulting services to the Canadian
Association of Nuclear HOst Communities (CANHC). The consulting team of Acres-Sargent &
Lundy (ASL) have greatly assisted 'the CANHC member municipalities in developing comments
on Discussion Document 2, Understanding the Choices. '
I am writing to you to provide a set of Picketing preliminary comments' on Document 2 so as to
meet the NWMO December 31, 2004 deadline. Please find enclosed a CD containing the Final
Report and supporting documents that ASL provided to the CANHC.
The following preliminary comments will be incorporated into a report that will be presented at
the Pickering January 17, 2005 Council Meeting. NWMO will be notified, in writing, of the
results of that Meeting.
We agreed with Acres-Sargent & Lundy (ASL) that Document 2 is "reasonable and
appropriate and supported by the reference documents..."
ASL has identified several "potential gaps" in the assessment framework and offered
what seem like reasonable recommendations for NWMO to consider in the future.
ASL recommended, "host communities be afforded the same considerations and
potential benefits as new communities." We support ASL's recommendation and their
comments. NWMO needs to more specifically address issues, related to the potential
negative impact that long-term on-site storage might have on current nuclear host
communities. In addition, NWMO should identify and report on the positive social and
economic impacts that host communities might face.
ASL drew our attention to the following wording in the NWMO Assessing the Options
report: "The siting po/icy may also include benefits to a host community to compensate
that community for taking on the burden associated with used nuclear fuel while a
Under$ andin§ the eh ¢,OI'I ENT # TO FIFI OFIT#o -o_9
-Preliminan/City of PieKenng Uommema
December 20, 2004 ~ 0 J.
Page 2
much wider population shares the benefit." We agree with that statement and will
actively address that matter in future submissions to NWMO.
ASL highlighted the fact that the NWMO background paper 7-8 suggested that "any
proposal to postpone a decision on a preferred long-term option would in itself have
significant implications and may be deemed worthy of a review panel' environmental
assessment (EA). We agree with that suggestion and further suggest that the On-site
Reactor Storage option should also require a panel review EA as is contemplated for
the other two options under consideration for long-term storage. Treating on-site
storage in any other way would simply be inappropriate and unfair to the existing host
communities.
ASL recommended that NWMO specifically "engage nuclear awareness and
environmental groups" as part of the public consultation process. We agree with their
rationale and supporting arguments for that suggestion.
Although ASL has briefly addressed the overall process of public consultation in their
Report to CANHC, we would like to further comment on the Iow attendance count that
NWMO has experienced while recently conducting four sessions in Picketing. Our
observations indicate that more work is needed to inspire Pickering and area residents
to become involved in the work that NWMO is undertaking next year.
Once again, thank you for supporting our efforts to comment on the NWMO Discussion
Document 2. The City of Pickering looks forward to reviewing and commenting.on NWMO's
work during 2005. Being afforded the opportunity to obtain peer review consulting services next
year will again be essential to our success in. providing meaningful input on this very important
topic.
Yours truly.,/,.~-'~)
EB:alh
Enclosure
Copy:
Mayor Ryan
Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
Division Head, Corporate Projects & Policy
City Clerk
Community Emergency Management Coordinator
CANHC member municipalities
J,A ACHMENT #_
NUCLEAR WASTE
MANAGEMENT
10''¢"''' ORGANIZATION
January 10, 2005
Mr. Everett Buntsma
Chief Administrative Officer (Acting)
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1V 6K7
;well PRESIDENT
,4.9814 ext 222
~vdeswell@nwmo.ca
Dear Mr. Buntsma:
RE: Preliminary City of Picketing Comments to Acres-S&L review of the NWMO
Discussion Document 2: "Understanding the Choices"- Letter dated December 20, 2005
Thank you for your timely response with the City of Pickering's preliminary comments to the
Acres-S&L review of Discussion Document 2: "Understanding the Choices."
The viewpoints of the citizens of current host communities are important to the NWMO in its
ongoing study. The attached letter sent to Mayor Glem~ Sutton, Chair of the Canadian
Association of Nuclear Host Communities, and copied to the mayor of each of the member
communities comments generally on their recommendations.. That will, I believe, address a
number of the points raised in your letter. In particular, you will note specific reference to
further work on assessing the costs, risks and benefits to communities affected and the
development of implementation plans. When the government has made a decision, about the
approach, any project would of course be subject to an environmental assessment, during
which there would again be opportunity for citizen engagement.
In regards to the low attendance at the recent Information and Discussion Sessions in
Pickering, we believe that' citizens in nuclear host communities and provinces have unique
insights about nuclear waste n*tanagement. 'We will therefore continue to provide
opportunities for their active involvement in the work of the NWMO. Any suggestions you
have with respect to engagement activities to be implemented following publication of our
Draft Study Report this Spring, would be welcomed.
Fax 416.934,9091
'foil Free 1.866.249,6966
49 Jackes Avenaa First Floor
Toronto Ontario Canada M4T1E2
www. Rwmo.oa
Il A-i--rACHMENi # ~_.~.._ ~
,,, TO REPORT
103
Thank you again for your comments. I look forward to the response of the Pickering City
Council following their meeting on Janum~y 17, 2005.
Yours truly,
Elizabeth. Dowdeswell
President
Enclosure
104
j ATTACHMENT #,
January 10, 2005
Mayor Glen Sutton
Town of Kincardine
1475 Concession #5, RR #5
Kincardine, ON
N2Z 2X6
Dear Mayor Sutton:
RE: Acres-S&L Report for CANHC "Independent Peer Review of NWMO Discussion
Document2, "Understanding the Choices"
I have received a copy of the Acres-S&L Report "Independent Peer Review of NWMO Discussion
Document 2, "Understanding the Choices" prepared for the Canadian Association of Nuclear Host
Communities. I have also received individual comments from the municipalities of Clarington and
Picketing which I understand are in the process of being forwarded to their respective councils in the
next few weeks. Our Discussion Document 2 was intended to spark exactly this kind of thoughtful
commentary and I certainly look forward to any additional comments that may be forthcoming from
CANHC and each member community.
Since we issued Discussion Document 2 we have completed significant additional work.
Consequently, I thought it might be helpful to make a few general comments on the recommendations
of the Acres-S&L Peer Review. (See the attached table.) You might find this of use in assessing
their observations and recommendations.
Please let me know if we can be of further assistance in clarifying points. We will appreciate your
continuing comment and collaboration as we synthesize all of the inputs to our study and prepare our
Draft Study Report for release in the Spring.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Dowdeswell
President
CC.
Maire Maurice Richard, Town of B~cancour
Mayor Norm McFaflane, City of Saint John
Mayor John Mutton, Town of Clarington
Janice Swarz, Municipality of Clarington
Mayor Ann Aikens, Town of Deep River
Mayor David Ryan, City of Pickering
Mayor Len Simpson, Town of Pinawa
Tom Melymuk, City of Pickering
nwmo
JATTACHMEN'r # H
~0 I
TO REPORT
105
1. Assessment Framework
ASL Recommendation Comment
The NWMO should * There are approximately 240 influencing factors that have been considered
provide explanations of under the eight objectives in this assessment, an average of 30 per objective.
how political climate, Reviewing these factors will allow you to assess whether or not all of the
contingency planning, fatal important factors have been considered. The Assessment Team built its
flaws, and relative assessment framework and provided its assessment as an application example,
importance of objectives not as the definitive assessment. In making it public as we have, our desire is
and specific influence that others are able to think through the factors on their own and from that, and
variables were considered, we can learn about the relative importance of the factors. Doing so will
so that it is possible in strengthen the assessment.
future work to confirm and
evaluate the overall balance · The issue of whether there is a threshold of performance below which a
of the assessment management approach becomes unacceptable is not addressed in depth and
framework, directly, per se, in the Assessment Team's work. Conceivably, it is possible
that a management approach may score Iow on an objective but still be
considered a good approach because performance on that objective is not
deemed critical. If an approach scored very highly on all eight objectives the
interpretation would be clear: since the management approach meets all the
objectives which Canadians said is important, the management approach meets
the needs of Canadian society and so is a good approach. However, none of the
management approaches ideally meets all of the objectives. Therefore a
judgement needs to be made, and it is suggested that this is ultimately a societal
judgement, as to whether the mix of advantages and limitations of an approach
is sufficient to warrant implementation.
The NWMO should solicit · From the inception of its study, NWMO has engaged Canadians from a wide
input from groups that variety of citizen and expert based groups. Face to face meetings were held
focus and represent public with many of these groups at the inception of the study as part of our
opinion. (This point is "conversations about expectations." Feedback on NWMO's first discussion
repeated by ASL under "3. document was solicited by engaging many of these groups in a series of
Implementation Plans.") national and regional stakeholder dialogues, a process which is being repeated
to solicit comment on NWMO's second discussion document. The NWMO
continues to meet with many of these groups to brief them on our work and to
solicit comment on an ongoing basis. Several of these groups have also
participated in other NWMO initiatives (such as the Scenarios Exercise, E-
dialogues, Traditional Knowledge workshop, Public Information & Discussion
sessions) or posted submissions. This engagement will continue until our final
report is submitted.
The NWMO should ensure · The NWMO understands that for many Canadians the question of how best to
(1) that the conflicting manage used nuclear fuel in the long term is one which must be viewed within a
desires of some broader context, whether that is support or opposition to nuclear power,
stakeholders to keep the concerns about the environment, or industry jobs. This is in part why NWMO
issue of used fuel visible attempted to engage stakeholders in a discussion of values. We believe that
10G
jATTACHMEN'r # H-
mwmo
TO REPORT
versus the scientific values are instrumental in determining objectives against which the
community's general management approaches would be assessed finding common ground. Since
preference for deep social acceptability is a concem in any recommendation the NWMO will make
geological disposal are all of these perspectives must be considered.
given proper weight, (2)
that the technical details of
the selected management
approach addresses this
issue, and (3) broader
social values and motives
(such as keeping used fuel
disposal highly visible in
order to highlight the issue)
are considered.
Use of focus groups. · The NWMO has used focus groups to explore various issues over the course of
the study to date and appreciates your suggestion on further opportunities to use
this tool as we move forward with the study. We will be addressing ongoing
public engagement in our recommendation to government.
Retrievability. · This is an important issue and will be fully addressed in our recommendation to
government.
2. Management Approaches
ASL Recommendation Comment
Potential changes in the · The sensitivity analysis that has been undertaken by the Assessment Team
relative strengths and suggests that only extreme changes in weightings change the overall results of
weaknesses should be their analysis. Through our ongoing work on the comparative assessment, we
reviewed as the
are continuing to understand the range of strengths and weaknesses of each
comparative analysis approach, however as you suggest, we will be revisiting this issue as our work
process continues, proceeds.
Consideration should be · The possibility of schedule delays and cost overruns has been considered but
given to the effect we will revisit this point. It is an important consideration in the identification
associated with confirming of schedules for implementation, implementation plans and cost estimates
the technical suitability of associated with each approach.
potential sites (such as
schedule delays and cost
impacts).
Adaptability. · This point has caused confusion for a number of people. The Assessment Team
is preparing a clarification note and we will be further dealing with this issue in
our Draft Study Report. The NWMO expects and welcomes further dialogue on
this issue, since it is such an important issue from the public perspective and
A'i'rACHMEN'F #
TO REPORT
107
will be key to the acceptability of any approach which the NWMO
recommends.
Sensitivity analysis · We are considering the issue of variation of fuel volume and will address this
addressing technical issue more thoroughly in our Draft Study Report. The question of how to
changes (cost or design ensure that any recommendation the NWMO makes is robust is a matter of
parameters such as fuel continuing investigation and work.
volume).
Impact on current host · From the inception of our study, citizens and communities alike told us how
communities important the perspective of current host communities is in understanding the
issues and identifying appropriate solutions. The observation made will receive
further consideration in our Draft Study Report.
Relative technical and · As required by the legislation, we are currently undertaking a comprehensive
financial risks, review of costs, benefits and risks as a supplement to the work of the
Assessment Team. The results of this analysis will be reported in our Draft
Study Report.
2. Implementation Plans
ASL Recommendation Comment
Inclusion of permitting · Discussion Document 2 did not articulate detailed implementation plans. These
schedules; possible will form a key component of our Draft Study Report. We appreciate all of the
conflicts or uncertainties suggestions made below and will address them specifically in the next report.
regarding the legal
jurisdiction of different
government agencies
Inclusion of site-specific · It should be reinforced that our study will not select a site. Nevertheless, we
issues and considerations anticipate addressing site specific issues in a generic way in proposing how our
recommendations might be implemented effectively.
Ongoing up-dating of the · This will be addressed in our Draft Study Report.
comparative assessment
Inclusion of key · Such points are essential and will be included in our draft recommendations.
milestones, go-no go
decision points, design
finalization points
Development of design · This point will be addressed in our draft recommendations.
parameters to maximize
overall system flexibility.
IIIIIII II II~[lllll IIIllllll IIIIr'~ll IIIIIrll'll~ I'1 II IIII Illlll' ~1111 Illllll III Ilrllllllrlll I1'1111111111
105
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CS 06-05 regarding the endorsement of Bill 165 being the Elected
Officials Immunity Act, 2004, be received; and
That the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses Bill
165, known as the Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004, to provide elected
members of municipal councils and school boards the same privilege, immunities
and powers presently granted to members of the Legislative Assembly; and
That copies of this resolution be forwarded to:
Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Wayne Arthurs, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 06-05
Date: January 6, 2005
From:
Bruce Taylor, AMCT, CMM
City Clerk
Subject: 'Endorsement of Bill 165 - Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004
Recommendation:
That Report CS 06-05 regarding the endorsement of Bill 165 being the Elected
Officials Immunity Act, 2004, be received.
That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorses Bill
165, known as the Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004, to provide elected
members of municipal councils and school boards the same privilege,
immunities and powers presently granted to members of the Legislative
Assembly; and
That copies of this resolution be forwarded to:
Honourable Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario
Wayne Arthurs, MPP, Pickering-Ajax-Uxbridge
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
Executive Summary:
This Report provides an overview of Bill 165, known as the Elected Officials Immunity
Act, 2004, to provide elected members of municipal councils and school boards the
same privilege, immunities and powers presently granted to members of the Legislative
Assembly.
Report CS 06-05
Endorsement of Bill 165- Elected Officials Immunity Act
January 6,2005
Page 2
Financial Implications: Not applicable
Background:
Please find attached to this Report a letter dated December 14, 2004 from Jerry
Ouellette, MPP, Oshawa, providing a copy of Private Member's Bill 165 being the
Elected Officials Immunity Act, 2004.
As noted in the letter, the purpose of Bill 165 is to provide elected members of
municipal councils and school boards the same privilege, immunities and powers
presently granted to members of the Legislative Assembly. This Bill is designed to
assist elected officials and municipalities by allowing more freedom of speech and
public debate during Council and committee meetings without the fear of court action.
I believe that the intent of Bill 165 is to provide the same privileges as set out in Section
37 of the Legislative Assembly Act, which states as follows:
A member of the Assembly is not liable to any civil action or prosecution,
arrest, imprisonment or damages, by reason of any matter or thing the
member brought by petition, bill, resolution, motion or otherwise, or said
before the Assembly or a committee thereof.
Although there is some common law governing freedom of speech by Members of
Council, it is not clear on how far Members of Council are covered. Also, common law
governing slander is also very unclear and provides an impediment to a full and open
debate by local elected officials of important issues.
Bill 165 proposes to provide legislation that would allow local elected officials to have
the same freedoms of speech granted to members of the Legislative Assembly which
over the years has not been abused by the members of the Legislative Assembly.
Attachments:
1. Letter from Jerry Ouellette dated December 14, 2004
CORP0227-07/01
Report CS 06-05
Endorsement of Bill 165- Elected Officials Immunity Act
January 6, 20051
Page 3
Prepared By:
~'Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
Approved I Endorsed By:
A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Attachments
Recommended~ ~onside~ation of I
P Jckering C~ ~)~~ ~/~ ~ ~L~~//~~ ~
~f
Thomas J. Ql~nn ~:~1~ Administrative OfficerI'
CORP0227-07/01
Ontario
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
JERRY J. OUELLETTE, M.P.P,
Oshawa
December 14, 2004
ATTACHMENT # .... / TO REPORT
RES.
Queen's Park Office:
Rm. 428
Legislative Building
Toronto, Ontario
M7A 1A8
Tel. {416) 325-2147
Fax (416) 325-2169
Constituency Office:
170 Athol St. E.
Oshawa, Ontario
L1H 1K1
Tel. (905) 723-241
Fax (905) 723-1054
E-mail:jeny_ouellette@ontla.ola.org
Website:www. oshawampp.com
Mayor David Ryan & Council
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
Dear Mayor & Council:
I am pleased to be able to provide you with a copy of my Private Member's Bill, the
'Elected Officials Immunity Act 2004', which I introduced in the Legislative Assembly
of Ontario.
This Bill, if passed will provide elected members of municipal councils and school
boards the same privilege, immunities, and powers presently granted to members of the
Legislative Assembly. The legislation is designed to assist elected officials and
municipalities by allowing more freedom of speech and public debate in chamber settings
without the reprise of court action.
Any support or assistance that you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Please
contact your local MPP as well as Premier Dalton McGuinty of your endorsement of this
Bill.
I look forward to your valuable input and appreciate all your support.
Yours Sincerely,
1 ST SESSION, 38TH LEGISLATURE, ONTARIO
53 ELIZABETH II, 2004
1rc SESSION, 38~ LfiGISLATURE, ONTARIO
53 ELIZABETH II, 2004
Bill 165
Projet de loi 165
An Act to provide
elected members of
municipal councils and
school boards with
certain privileges,
immunities and powers
Loi octroyant certains
privil/~ges et pouvoirs
et certaines immunit6s
aux membres 61us
des conseils municipaux
et des conseils scolaires
Mr. Ouellette
M. Ouellette
Private Member's Bill
Projet de loi de d6put6
I st Reading
2nd Reading
3rd Reading
Royal Assent
December 15, 2004
1 re lecture
2c lecture
3~ lecture
Sanction royale
15 d6cembre 2004
Printed by the Legislative Assembly
of Ontario
Imprim6 par l'Assembl6e 16gislative
de l'Ontario
Bill 165
2004 Projet de loi 165
2004
An Act to provide
elected members of
municipal councils and
school boards with
certain privileges,
immunities and powers
Loi octroyant certains
privileges et pouvoirs
et eertaines immunit6s
aux membres 61us
des eonseils municipaux
et des eon seils seolaires
Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the
Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts
as follows:
Grant of privileges, immunities and powers
1. An elected member of a council of a municipality or
of a school board has the same privileges, immunities and
powers as the law confers on a member of the Legislative
Assembly of Ontario.
Commencement
2. This Act comes into force on the day it receives
Royal Assent.
Short title
3. The short title of this Act is the Elected Officials
Immunity Act, 2004.
Sa Majest6, sur l'avis et avec le consentement de
l'Assembl6e 16gislative de la province de l'Ontario,
6dicte:
Octroi de privileges, immunlt6s et pouvotrs
1. Le membre 61u d'un conseil municipal ou d'un
conseil sc. olaire dispose des m~mes privileges, immunit6s
et pouvotrs que ceux que la loi conf~re aux d6put6s ~
l'Assembl6e 16gislative de l'Ontario.
Entr6e en vigueur
2. La pr6sente Ioi entre en vigueur le jour off elle
re~oit la sanction royale.
Titre abr6g6
3. Le titre abr6g6 de la pr6sente loi est Loi de 2004
sur l'immunitd des dlus.
EXPLANATORY NOTE
The purpose of the Bill is to extend to elected members of mu-
nicipal councils and school boards those privileges, immunities
and powers presently enjoyed by members of the Legislative
Assembly of Ontario.
NOTE EXPLICATIVE
L'objet de la pr6sente loi est d'accorder aux membres 61us des
conseils municipaux et des conseils scolaires les privileges,
immunit6s et pouvoirs dont les d6put6s fi l'Assembl6e 16gisla-
rive de l'Ontario sore pr6sentement investis.
115
RECOMMENDATION OF THE
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Report CS 07-05 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal Law
Enforcement Officers for the purposes of enforcing the Parking By-law on private
property be received; and
That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822
Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726 Kingston Road,
be forwarded to Council for approval; and
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the
necessary actions to give effect thereto.
PICKERING
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 07/05
Date: January 10, 2005
From: Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
Subject:
Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road, 1100
Begley Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726 Kingston Road.
Recommendation:
That Report CS 07-05 respecting the appointment of Special Municipal
Law Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law
on private property be received; and
That the draft by-law to appoint persons to enforce the Parking By-law at
1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726
Kingston Road, be forwarded to Council for approval; and
That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take
the necessary actions to give effect thereto.
Executive Summary: Not Applicable
Financial Implications: None
Background: Correspondence has been received from Securitas Canada and
Citiguard Security Services Inc. requesting the appointment of persons as By-law
Enforcement Officers for the purpose of enforcing the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites
Road, 1100 Begley Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726 Kingston Road.
Attachments:
1. Correspondence from Securitas Canada
2. Correspondence from Citiguard Security Services Inc.
3. Draft By-law
Report CS 07-05
Subject: Appointment of By-law Enforcement Officers
Date:
January 10, 2005 J1. _1. ~'
Page 2
Prepared By:
Debbie Watrous
Committee Coordinator
BT:dw
Attachments
Approved By:
Bruce Taylor,
City Clerk
Approved/Endorsed By:
Gillis A. Paterson,
Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer
Recommended for the consideration of ?-
Pickering City ~Council -" ^ ~ '"
-Thor~.-Q ui n ¢~in istrati~'"OT~ ]/
ATTACHMENT #
TO REPORT
26 November 2004
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
Picketing Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Picketing, ON
L1V 6K7
Attention: Debbie Kerns
Dear Ms. Kerns,
Secutitas Canada Ltd. Along with Valiant Property Management, Simerra Property
Management and Newton Trewlaney Property Management requests that the Corporation
of the City of Pickering approve and recognize the following employee of Securitas
Canada Ltd. as Private Property Parking Enforcement Officers.
Munyaradzi Chitengu
This being for the properties located at 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street and 1865
Kingston Road in Picketing.
Please contact me at 905 571 40404 if you should have any questions.
Thanking you in advance for your cooperation in this matter.
/
Sincere?. Y,t~
"-'Todd Martin
Branch Manager
Securitas Canada
265 'kbrkland Boulevard, 5th Floor
NorthYork, Ontario M2J 1S5
Telephone: (416) 774-2500/(800) 268-0545
Fax: (416) 774-2544
CITIGUARD
SECURITY SERVICES INC.
December 3, 2004
The City of Picketing
By-Law Department
Attention: Debbie Kearns, Committee Coordinator
Re: 726 Kingston Ro~Ld.~J"i~keri~g
Please add the fbllowir,.g employee as By-law Enforcement Officer for tagging at the
above location:
- Steven Edward ~_,ee
Thank you,
Yours truly.
~. ,,:..., ~i.'" ;.. . ;.,
Petar Martinovic
i560 Brimley Road, Stoic ~ 2,90, Toronio, Onkano MIP 3G9 Te.l: 4!6-431-6888, Fax: 4i6-431-7402
120
ATTACHMENT
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
Being a by-law to appoint By-law Enforcement Officers for certain
Purposes (Parking Regulation - 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley
Street, 1865 Kingston Road and 726 Kingston Road)
WHEREAS pursuant to section 15(I) of the Police Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.P.15, as
amended, a municipal council may appoint persons to enforce the by-laws of the
municipality; and
WHEREAS pursuant to section' 15(2) of the said Act, municipal by'law enforcement
· officers are peace officers for the purpose of enforcing municipal by-laws;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
That the following person be hereby appointed as municipal law enforcement
officer in and for the City of Picketing in order to ascertain whether the provisions
of By-law 2359/87 are obeyed and to enforce or carry into effect the said By-law
and are hereby authorized to enter at all reasonable times upon lands
municipally knoWn as:
a) 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street and 1865 Kingston Road:
Munyaradzi Chitengu
b) 726 Kingston Road:
Steven Edward Lee
The authority granted in section I hereto is specifically limited to that set out in
section 1, and shall not be deemed, at any time, to exceed the authority set out in
section 1.
These appointments shall expire upon the persons listed in section l(a) ceasing
to be an employee of Securitas Canada or upon Securitas Canada ceasing to be
agents for 1822 Whites Road, 1100 Begley Street or 1865 Kingston Road or
upon the person listed in section l(b) ceasing to be an employee of Citiguard
Security Services Inc. or upon Citiguard Security Services Inc. ceasing to be an
agent for 726 Kingston Road.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 7th day of February,
2005.
David Ryan, Mayor
Bruce Taylor, City Clerk
RESOLUTION OF COUNCIL
DATE
MOVED BY
SECONDED BY
That Corporate Services Report CS 59-04 regarding the proposed 2005
Animal Services Budget, be received; and
That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby
approves the 2005 Animal Services Budget as recommended by the
Pickering-Ajax-Whitby Joint Animal Services Committee at its meeting of
November 30, 2004.
PICKERING
REPORT TO
COUNCIL
Report Number: CS 59-04
Date: December 14, 2004
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject: 2005 Animal Services Budget
Recommendation:
That Corporate Services Report CS 59-04 regarding the proposed 2005 Animal
Services Budget be received.
That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby approves the
2005 Animal Services Budget as recommended by the Pickering-Ajax-Whitby
Joint Animal Services Committee at its meeting of November 30, 2004.
Executive Summary:
The PAW Joint Animal Services Committee is recommending the approval of the Year
2005 Capital and Operating Budget for the Animal Services Centre in the amount of
$744,800.00 of which Pickering's share is $246,455.84.
Financial Implications:
Current
Capital
TOTAL
$236,455.84
10,000.00
$246,455.84
(Pickering's share only)
(Pickering's share only)
Background:
The PAW Joint Animal Services Committee passed the following motion at its meeting
of November 30, 2004:
Report CS 59-04
2005 Animal Services Budget
December 14, 2004
Page 2
12o
That the Pickering-Ajax-Whitby Joint Animal Services
Committee adopt the 2005 animal services budget as set out in
Attachment #2 in the Treasurer's Report, Item 8-04; and
That the budget be submitted to the Council's of Pickering,
Ajax and Whitby for approval.
Attached to this Report is a copy of the PAW Committee Treasurer's Report 8-04 for
your information. It is important to note that the Committee recommends the adoption
of the budget set out in Attachment #2 in the Treasurer's Report and not Attachment #3
which provides for a six percent administration fee.
The City of Pickering entered into an Agreement with Ajax and Whitby respecting the
operation of the Animal Services Centre that allocates operating expenses on a per
capita basis and capital expenses on an equal basis. Therefore, in 2005, Pickering is
responsible for 33.08% of the total operating costs of $714,800 being $236,455.84 and
is responsible for 33.33% of the total capital costs of $30,000 being $10,000 for a total
of $246,455.84.
The 2005 Animal Services budget, including current and capital expenditures is a
decrease of one percent over 2004.
The population figures used in the Committee Treasurer's Report are based on
population data gathered by the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation in 2003 for
the general municipal election. These figures are used to compute the apportionment of
the Animal Services budget for 2004, 2005 and 2006.
Attachments:
1. PAW Committee Treasurer's Report 8-04
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
//Bruce Taylor
City Clerk
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Attachment
CORP0227-07/01
124
Report CS 59-04
2005 Animal Services Budget
December 14, 2004
Page 3
Recommended forthe consEieration of
Pickering C
Thomas J. Odinn';(C, hgf Administrative Officer
CORP0227-07/01
TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE PICKERING-
AJAX-WHITBY JOINT ANIMAL SERVICES COMMITTEF
Item: 8-04
November 30, 2004
Subject:
2005 Animal Services Budget
Recommendation:
That the Pickering-Ajax-Whitby Joint Animal Services Committee
adopt the 2005 animal services budget as set out in the TreaSurer's
Report, Item 8-04; and,
That the budget be submitted to the Council's of Picketing, Ajax, and ·
Whitby for approval.
Origin:
The proposed 2005 animal services budget is set out in AttaChment No.1 to
this report.
Analysis:
The budget provides for an increased'service level. In accordance with the
directions of the Pickering-Ajax-Whitby (P.A.W.) Joint Animal Services
Committee, the budget provides for an extended work schedule and the
implementation of a responsible pet ownership program. The budget also
provides for the replacement of an animal services vehicle.
Alternatives:
N/A
Existing:
N/A
Financial Considerations:
By agreement, operating revenues and expenditures are apportioned on a
per capital basis between the City of Pickering and the Towns of Ajax and
Whitby.' Capital expenses are shared equally by the three municipalities.
The municipal apportionment of the estimates is shown in Attachment No.'s
2 and 3 to this report. As requested by the P.A.W. Committee, municipal
apportionments are provided forthe Committee's consideration both with and
without a 6% administration fee to Cover Ajax's and Pickering's shares
of Whitby's overhead costs.
127
125
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
BUDGET NOTES
..ACCOUNT
Operatin~ Exoenses:
Salaries, Wages, Benefits
Uniforms and Clothing
Water
Advertising, Promotion and Special Projects
Equipment Rental - External '
Pound and Services Fees
Animal Adoption
Vehicle Replacement
.E. XPLANATIO~NN
Replacement of full-time animal services
~position with part-time position.
Based on previous years' experience.
Reflects 2004 experience.
Provision made for the implementation of
a Responsible Pet Ownership Program.
Basedon2003 and 2004 years' experience.
Reflects 2003 and 2004 years' experience.
Reflects 2003 and2004 years' experience.
Replacement of an animal services 1998
vehicle as per recommendation of the
service deparmaent.