Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
November 28, 2005
Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, November 28, 2005 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson (i) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of November 14, 2005 (11) DELEGATIONS (lU) 1. Nathalie Karvonen, Executive Director, Toronto Wildlife Centre will address the Committee concerning their work within the City of Pickering and explore the possibility of either a fee for service agreement or a grant for providing Wildlife Services. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION Public Meeting -Hearing of a Development Charge Complaint Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 91-05 Development Charges Complaint Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac 1800 Kingston Road, Pickerin.q That Report CS 91-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, be received; That Council confirm the development charge in the amount of $46,671.96 applied to the applicant, Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac, for property municipally known as 1800 Kingston Road, Pickering; and 3. That the applicant be so advised. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 44-05 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2004-05 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the Estate ofA. Tyas 542 Kingston Road Block B, Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C. City of Pickerin,q That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2004-05 submitted by Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the Estate of A. PAGE 1-3 PAGE 4-9 10-68 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, November 28, 2005 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson Tyas, on lands being Block B, Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Pickering, to permit the development of a plan of subdivision, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report PD 44-05; and That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 submitted by Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tyas, on lands being Block B, Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Pickering, to establish performance standards to permit the development of townhouse dwelling units, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix II to Report PD 44-05. Director, Planning & Development, Report PD 46-05 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20~05 Gabriela Kepinski 1895 Clements Road Part of Lot 17, B.F.C., Range 3 (Durham Condominium Plan 112, Level 1, Unit 161) City of Pickerinq That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/05, be APPROVED as set out in the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Report PD 46-05, to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to add a body rub parlour as a permitted use on lands being Part of Lot 17, B.F.C. Range 3, (Durham Condominium Plan 112) City of Pickering; and That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/05, as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 46-05, be FORWARDED to City Council for enactment. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 86-05 Cash Position Report as at September 30, 2005 That Report CS 86-05 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer concerning the Cash Position Report as at September 30, 2005, be received for information. 69-101 102-112 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, November 28, 2005 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson o Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 89-05 2006 Temporary Borrowing By-law That Report CS 89-05 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, be received; That the temporary borrowing limit to meet 2006 current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other revenues be established at $27,000,000 for the period January 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006 inclusive, and $13,500,000 thereafter until December 31, 2006; That the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 2006 be established at $17,000,000; 4. That the attached by-law be read three times and passed; and That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary actions to give effect thereto. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 88-05 Ontario Transit Vehicle Program -2005 Request for Allocation of Funds That Report CS 88-05 be received for information; and That Council approve the application for Provincial subsidy funding as directed in the Ontario Transit Vehicle Program (OTVP) guidelines for 2005; That Council approve the (OTVP) application for the eligible expenditures as approved in 2005 ^PTA Budget and the Director, Corporate Services and Treasurer be authorized to make any changes to the OTVP application or undertake any actions necessary in order to ensure the application process is complete; and That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering and the Ajax Pickering Transit Authority be given authority to give effect thereto. 113-117 118-121 Executive Committee Meeting Agenda Monday, November 28, 2005 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Johnson (IV) OTHER BUSINESS (V) ADJOURNMENT PICKE RING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, November 14, 2005 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson PRESENT: Mayor David Ryan COUNCILLORS: K. Ashe M. Brenner D. Dickerson B. McLean D. Pickles R. Johnson - Absent ALSO PRESENT: T. J. Quinn N. Carroll E. Buntsma D. Bentley - Chief Administrative Officer - Director, Planning & Development - Director, Operations & Emergency Services - Acting Director of Corporate Services/City Clerk (I) ADOPTION OF MINUTES Meeting of October 24, 2005 (11) MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION (1) Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 40-05 Robotic Camera System Installation Agreement - Pickerinq Civic Complex Council Chambers That Report OES 40-05 regarding the Robotic Camera System Installation Agreement be accepted; and That the City of Pickering enter into an agreement with Rogers Television or the installation of a robotic camera system in the Council Chambers at the Pickering Civic Complex with terms and conditions acceptable to the City Solicitor; and 3. That the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to sign such agreement. Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, November 14, 2005 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson (2) (3) (4) Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 81-05 Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act - Adjustment to Taxes That Report CS 81-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; and That the write-offs of taxes as provided under Section 357/358 of the Municipal Act, 2001 be approved; and That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect hereto. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Repod CS 82-05 Appointment to enforce the Parking By-law at 1822 Whites Road, 1775 Valley arm Road, 963 - 979 Brock Road S., 955 Brock Road, 1735 Bayly Street, 1734, 1736, 1738 & 1739 Orangebrook Ct., 1655 Feldspar Court, 1840 & 1842 Clements Road, 885 & 895 Sandy Beach Road That Report CS 82-05 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 Whties Road, 1775 Valley Farm Road, 963 - 979 Brock Road S., 955 Brock Road, 1735 Bayly Street, 1734, 1736, 1738 & 1739 Orangebrook Ct., 1655 Feldspar Court, 1840 & 1842 Clements Road, 885 & 895 Sandy Beach 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 Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 85-05 Application for Minor Variance to Sign By-law 2439/87, as amended 557 Kinqston Road, Pickerin.q That the application for minor variance to Sign By-law 2439/87, as outlined in Clerks Report CS 85-05, submitted by DNS Signs Limited on behalf of Pickering Toyota, for property municipally known as 557 Kingston Road, Pickering, BE APPROVED. -2- PICKERING Executive Committee Meeting Minutes Monday, November 14, 2005 7:30 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson 0O3 (ltl) 1) (IV) OTHER BUSINESS Referendum Question Councillor Dickerson advised Members of Council that he would be presenting a Notice of Motion at the November 21, 2005 meeting of Council with respect a referendum question concerning the Direct Election of the Regional Chair. Discussion ensued on this matter. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 7:42 pm. -3- PICKERING REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: CS 91-05 Date: November 28, 2005 From: Gillis Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Development Charges Complaint Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac 1800 Kingston Road, Pickering Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 91-05 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; That Council confirm the development charge in the amount of $49,671.96 applied to the applicant, Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac, for property municipally known as 1800 Kingston Road, Pickering; and 3. That the applicant be so advised. Executive Summary: To respond to the Development Charge Complaint as filed by Malone Given Parsons Ltd on behalf of Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac on August 25, 2005 with respect to development charges applied to the business expansion for property municipally known as 1800 Kingston Road, Pickering. A notice of hearing of this matter was issued in accordance with Section 20 of the Development Charges Act. Financial Implications: under By-law 6349/04. Development Charges in the amount of $49,671.96 applied Background: Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac, the auto dealership located at 1800 Kingston Road has lodged a development charge complaint in accordance with the Development Charges Act with respect to the development charges applied to an expansion to the existing business. Report CS 91-05 Development Charges Complaint November 28, 2005 Page 2 0O5 Under the Development Charges Act, the complaint must contain and allege, as a reason for the complaint, one or more of the following: a) b) c) d) the amount of the development charge imposed was incorrectly determined; whether a credit is available to be used against a development charge; the amount of the credit or the service with respect to which the credit was given was incorrectly determined; and or there was an error in the application of the City's development charge by-law. The applicant advises that the complaint has been filed on the basis that the amount of the development charge was incorrectly determined as it applies to commercial space expansions, which do not generate new employment or demands on the City services. At the time of the application for the building permit, development charges were calculated and payable in accordance with the City's Development Charges By-law 6349/04, in the amount of $49,671.96. The development charge complaint has been reviewed by the Chief Building Official and the following comments are noted. The automobile sales and service facility addition is subject to a non-residential development charge in the amount of $49,671.96 under By-law 6349/04. The complaint appears to concern the fairness of applying a development charge, since, according to the applicant, this construction may not result in any site specific additional employment or City service needs. The Chief Building Official advises that this is not a consideration in the determination of the amount of any City Development Charge, therefore the development charge applied stands. Based on a review of the development charge complaint by the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer and the Chief Building Official, the development charge applied is correct and applicable in this situation. Attachments: Development Charge appeal as submitted by John P. Genest, Malone Given Parsons Ltd., on behalf of Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Notice of Hearing issued in accordance with the Development Charges Act. CORP0227-07/01 0 0 S Report CS 91-05 November 28, 2005 Development Charges Complaint Page 3 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Debi A. Bentley City Clerk Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services 7 Treasurer Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering Cit7 C~n.c.41 f./Z. :~/, '4Th, jafn$1;~ J. Ou CORP0227-07/01 R E C E V E C~"I'Y OF P,',3h';,ER' 9:005 PARSONS LTD. 007 August=.? 2005 CLERK'S DIVISION 140 Renfrew Drive, Suite 201, Markham Mayor and Members of Counctl The Copporation of the City of Picketing One The Esplanade Pickenng, ON L1V 6K7 Attention: Debi Bentley, City Clerk Dear Mayor Ryan and Members of' Councih Ontario, Canada L3R 6B3 Tel: [905) 513-0170 Fax: (905) 513-0177 E-mail: mgpgen~mgp,ca 05:1476 Re: Development Charges Complaint and Hearing Request Pursuant to Section 20 (1) Ca) of the Development Charges Act Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac Expansion This letter is submitted on behalf of' Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac (:~Sheridan"), the auto dealership located at 1800 Kingston Road in the City of Picketing. Its purpose is to lodge a complaint about, and request a heanng to seek relief from the Development Charges ("DC's") being charged fbr an expansion of the dealership, pursuant to Section 20 (1) Ca) of the Development Charges Act. Background Sheridan has been in business in this location since 1977 and today employs some 60 people. Under the tenths of its dealership agreement with General Motors, Sheridan ~nust build new auto display and service space by October 2005, to a standard defined by Cadillac's "Vision 2000" pro,'am. If not completed by that deadline and to that standard, the dealership will lose the ability to sell the Cadillac line of vehicles. In the absence of that mandatory improvement, Sheridan would have no intention or need to expand its current facility. The expansion will comprise some 20,777 square feet of new display, sales, service and administrative space. We understand creation of this new space is less expensive than retrofitting the existing building, which will be retained to house the used car sales function and the body shop. The new space also preserves 6 jobs that would have been lost under the renovation scenario, which would have replaced the body shop with a service drive-through. The expansion will house no new emploFnent and will generate no new demands upon City roads, yet application fbr a Building Permit (dated June 13th 2005) has triggered a charge for $115,074.21 in DC's, $49,671.96 of which is the City of Picketing portion. 008 Mayor Ryan and Counci! re Sizc~':,i~:r,. DC's Cor,!?Ioirzr Au2ust 23~ 2!)!)5 Page '~ or'" Complaint The Complaint being lodged on Sheridan's behalf is that the amount of the development charge was incorrectly determined as it applies to commercial space expansions which doe not generate new employment or demands on City services. Ret'erence to the City of Pickermg 2004 Development Charge Background Study shows that DC's Ibr non-residential uses are predicated upon employment growth, converted to new non-residential floor space at assumed average conversion factors. The factor for commercial space is 400 sq.fi, per new employee [from Appendix page A-6 in the Background Study]. On this basis, Sheridan is assumed to be generating and housing 52 new jobs from its 20,777 sq.ft, expansion, vs. the zero new jobs actually anticipated. The magnitude of this difference makes it clear that the amount of the DC has been incorrectly determined as it applies to such expansions. It is fundamentally inequitable to be applying a $49,000+ charge in these circumstances. Sheridan is not trying to shirk its obligations to the community, but does want fair treatment. You will recognize that this expansion will also result in an increased property valuation, which will increase the company's taxes payable to the Region and City, again without an increase in demand on capital or operating services. We request a Hearing into this Complaint, with notice of same to be given to the undersigned at the address provided on the first page of this letter. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours very tnlly, !/John P. Genest, BES, MBA ¥ Partner cc: J. Gazarek, Sheridan Chewolet Oldsmobile Cadillac A. Allison, City Solicitor nn q PICKERING IN THE MATTER OF Section 20 of the Development Charges Act; AND IN THE MATTER OF a written complaint by Sheridan Chevrolet Oldsmobile Cadillac dated August 23, 2005, in respect of the development charge imposed by the City of Pickering on property municipally known as 1800 Kingston Road, City of Pickering. NOTICE OF HEARING The Executive Committee hereby appoints Monday, the 28TM day of November, 2005 at the hour of 7:30 pm in the Council Chambers, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade, Pickering, Ontario, for the hearing of the above complaint and to allow the complainant the opportunity to make representations regarding the complaint. If you do not attend or are not represented at this hearing, the committee may proceed in your absence and you will not be entitled to any further notice in the proceeding. A copy of the report will be made available Io you at the Office of the Clerk at least two business days before the hearing of the complaint or at such earlier time as the City may advise. The proceedings of the committee in relation to the complaint shall be governed by the Development Charges Act and upon the conclusion of the hearing conducted by the Executive Committee, it may indicate the recommendation it will make to Council or it may reserve its decision. DATED at Pickering, this 11th day of November, Debi A. Bentley City Clerk Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Director, Planning & Development City Solicitor Chief Building Official City Clerk File Copy 2005. REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 44-05 Date: November 16, 2005 From: Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2004-05 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tyas 542 Kingston Road Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C. City of Pickering Recommendation: That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2004-05 submitted by Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tyas, on lands being Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Pickering, to permit the development of a plan of subdivision, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Report PD 44-05. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 submitted by Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tyas, on lands being Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Pickering, to establish performance standards to permit the development of townhouse dwelling units, be APPROVED, subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix II to Report PD 44-05. Executive Summary: The applicant proposes to develop a draft plan of subdivision consisting of one block. The block is proposed to be developed with a future draft plan of condominium consisting of 37 freehold townhouse dwelling units. The condominium proposal will be a common element condominium. The applicant proposes to amend the current zoning to allow the proposed freehold townhouse development with appropriate performance standards. The proposal represents appropriate density on an infill site resulting in transit supportive intensification next to a transit spine. The design is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses. The proposed development is appropriate as it implements the Official Plan. Financial Implications: proposed development. No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the Report PD 44-05 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Date: November 16, 2005 Page 2 Background: 1.0 Introduction Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the owners, have submitted applications for approval of a draft plan of subdivision and an amendment to the zoning by-law in order to implement the proposed draft plan on the subject lands (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The draft plan of subdivision is proposed to create one block of land for residential development (see Attachment #2). On the residential block the applicant proposes to submit an application for draft plan of condominium for 37 freehold townhouse dwelling units. The condominium proposal will be a common element condominium for private internal roads, visitor parking area, a walkway and some perimeter landscaping elements. Revised Plan Since the public meeting the applicant has submitted a revised development plan. While the plan of subdivision continues to propose one development block, changes have been made to the development plan. Changes include: a reduction in the number of dwelling units; the relocation of the driveway from the easement on the abutting property to the western side of the subject property; a reorientation of buildings in the northwest corner of the subject lands so that the proposed townhouse unit back yards will abut the back yards of the existing dwellings on Rosebank Road; and, the relocation of the visitor parking spaces to a central location within the development. The applicant's initial and revised development plans are provided for reference as Attachments #3 and #4 respectively. The development plan does not propose the creation streets, rather the creation of private roads/laneways. townhouse dwelling units will front onto the private road. proposed to have vehicular access from Kingston Road. of any new municipal All of the freehold The subject lands are The following chart outlines the proposed development detail: Details of the Applications Total area of draft plan Building coverage Private roads, walkways and visitor parking coverage Landscape open area Number of townhouse dwelling lots Net residential density Residential parking provided (2 per unit) Visitors parking provided Total parking provided Building height Original Plan Revised Plan (Attachment #3)(Attachment #4) 0.68 ha -- 0.68 ha 34% -- 32% 31% -- 27 % - 34% - 42 -- 61.2 units/ha -- 84 -- 13 -- 97 -- 3 storeys -- 41% -- 37 -- 54.4 units/ha -- 74 -- 12 -- 86 -- 3 storeys 01 ,? Report PD 44-05 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Date: November 16, 2005 Page 3 2.0 2.1 2.2 Comments Received At the December 16, 2004, Public Information Meeting Numerous residents appeared at the meeting to voice their opposition to the proposed development and to raise concerns related to density, proposed development not in compliance with the Special Policy Area for the neighbourhood, traffic and parking impacts on neighbouring properties, and the type of housing and compatibility with the neighbourhood. Representatives of the abutting church noted their concern with the easement over their property and their opposition to allow access to the subject property by way of the easement (see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #5 and #6). Written Public Submissions on the application Area residents have expressed written objection or concern with the initial applications. A form letter from approximately 30 neighbouring residents has been received expressing opposition to the application. The issues identified in the correspondence are: · The proposed development would not be compatible with the existing neighbourhood. · Lack of buffer between the existing detached dwellings and the proposed townhouses. · Impact on the school system. · Increased traffic in the neighbourhood and access onto Kingston Road will create problem (see Attachments #7). The Rosebank Road Association/Steeple Hill Community has provided written comments on the original application. Their concerns include: · Townhouse development not compatible with existing detached dwellings. · Density is too high and will strain community resources. · Increased traffic on already congested streets will cause safety problems. · Site layout of the proposed townhouses will negatively impact the abutting properties. · Security concerns for the existing neighbourhood. · The proposed development represents piecemeal planning and a comprehensive review is required prior to any redevelopment occurring. · The proposed development represents no net gain to the community (see Attachment #8). Report PD 44-05 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Date: November 16, 2005 Page 4 012 2.3 Neighbourhood Meetings did not achieve consensus February 10, 2005 Meeting A neighbourhood meeting was held on February 10, 2005, in order for representatives of the neighbourhood and the applicant to discuss the application and to explore options for development. Various options and issues were offered and examined as to the future land use of the subject property. No consensus was obtained at the meeting. After the meeting the neighbourhood representatives provided written comments stating that an acceptable design would be for the development of two-storey detached dwellings having lot frontages of 13.7 metres along the north and west side of the property (where the subject property abuts existing detached dwellings) while the rest of the site could be for townhouses. Other matters related to site design (fencing, elimination of the walkway onto Lightfoot Place, visitor parking location and having a representative at the Site Plan Meetings) were also requested (see Attachment #9). November 15, 2005 Meeting A second neighbourhood meeting was held on November 15, 2005 to discuss the revised plan. The meeting concluded with the neighbours stating they would accept two-storey detached dwellings where the subject property abuts existing detached dwellings. The applicant was not present at this meeting, however, he advised that he will consider alternative unit distribution in these areas of the plan. He further requested that staff proceed with the application for the townhouse development. Easement on Church Property no longer being used as access to site The abutting church property to the east, Revivaltime Tabernacle Worldwide Ministries, expressed concern with the original proposal that provided vehicular access to the townhouse development by way of the easement across the church driveway (see Attachment #10). The revised plan provides access to the development at the western edge of the Kingston Road frontage, thereby eliminating the need to use the easement lands over the church property. Agency Comments Toronto and Region Conservation Authority No objections (see Attachment #11 ). 014 Report PD 44-05 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Date: November 16, 2005 Page 5 2.4 3.0 Region of Durham - The proposal is permitted by the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan. - Municipal water supply and sanitary sewer service can be provided. - Driveway access to Kingston Road is acceptable at west limit of property. - The applications haVe been screened in accordance with Provincial Interests and Delegated Review and there is no concern with the applications. -The Region has no objection to the applications and has provided condition of approval (see Attachment #12). No other agency that provided any comments has any objection to the subject applications. Certain technical issues and requirements related to the proposed use of the site can be addressed during any site plan/condominium process, if this application is approved. City Departments Development Control Certain technical matters will have to be addressed during the detailed design if this application is approved (see Attachment #13). Fire Services Discussion No objection on the land use and technical comments are provided, and need to be addressed if this application is approved (see Attachment #14). The Proposed Density and Housing Type are Appropriate The subject property is designated Mixed Use Area -Mixed Corridors Area in the Pickering Official Plan. Permissible uses within Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area includes, amongst others, a variety of residential uses including townhouses. The subject property is within the Woodlands Neighbourhood of the Official Plan. The Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range of over 30 and up to and including 140 dwelling units per hectare for development within a Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area. However, policies for the Woodlands Neighbourhood specify that despite the density range noted above, a maximum residential density restriction of 55 units per hectare applies for lands located on the north side of Kingston Road that are designated Mixed Use Area and abut lands developed as Iow density development. The overall density proposed for the project is 54.4 units per hectare which is at the maximum limit of the permitted density range. The design of the project appropriately distributes the dwelling units evenly over the property, thereby achieving the proposed density requirements of the Official Plan designation throughout the site. Report PD 44-05 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Date: November 16, 2005 Page 6 The applications comply with the Official Plan and represent appropriate development for the subject lands. The proposed number of dwelling units is also in keeping with the principle of intensification corridors. Kingston Road, being one of the major corridors in Pickering, is a corridor where intensification should be encouraged. The subject property is appropriately designated for the proposed development and is considered to meet the spirit and intent of the policies of the Official Plan. The proposed development is considered compatible with the surrounding land uses. Suitable Separation is provided between the Townhouses and the Existing Detached Dwellings Concern has been expressed by area residents that there is insufficient separation between the existing detached dwellings along Rosebank Road/Lightfoot Place and the proposed townhouse development. The applicant's revised plan increases the separation between the western property line and the townhouse dwelling units. The original development plan proposed a townhouse block and visitor parking lot adjacent to the Rosebank Road property rear yards, with a 1.3 metre setback from lot line. The proposed separation is now a rear yard condition, with the municipal standard rear yard depth of 7.5 metres. The applicant has also broken up the run of townhouse dwelling units that abut the western property line in an endeavour to reduce the massing of structures so they would be similar to the massing of a large detached dwelling. As a condition of approval it is recommended that the owner construct a privacy fence where the townhouse development abuts the existing detached dwellings. If two-storey detached units were to be considered in the north and north-west sectors of this development, the unit width and separation between units must be sufficient to accommodate a garage and vehicle parking in front of the garage. Driveway Location and Traffic Movements on Kingston Road are Acceptable Kingston Road, where it abuts the subject property, is designated as a Type B Arterial Road. Type B Arterial Roads are designed to carry moderate volumes of traffic at moderate speeds. Kingston Road is a five-lane cross-section in the vicinity of the subject property. The turning movement characteristics of the Kingston Road access are influenced by the high westbound volume in morning peak hour and high volume eastbound in the evening peak hour. While the high traffic volumes will cause some minor delays to residents of the proposed townhouses, the site access will operate within acceptable standards. Report PD 44-05 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Date: November 16, 2005 Page 7 The applicant's initial development plan proposed that vehicular access to the site be provided over an existing easement across the church property at the east limit of the subject lands. The church expressed objection to this proposal. The revised site layout now has provided an independent driveway onto Kingston Road at the west limit of the property. Access to Vacant Property to west to be from subject site The Region of Durham has advised that it will permit access to the site from the relocated driveway at the west limit of the property. The Region further advises that vacant lands to the west of the subject property that front onto Kingston Road may not be permitted an independent driveway access onto Kingston Road. Access to this abutting property may be restricted to an easement across the driveway of the proposed townhouse development. The applicant has designed the project to provide possible options for the redevelopment of this vacant property. The design of the subject townhouse proposal is such that the abutting vacant property can be redeveloped independently or with some relation to the subject application. As part of the conditions of approval, it is recommended that future right-of-way for access be granted if development is such that it is associated with the proposed development. Easement on abutting Church Property to be used as Emergency Access It is recommended that the easement held by the subject property over the abutting church property be utilized only for emergency access. This means that the north and south private driveway aisles of the townhouse development will terminate with a rolled curb or other engineering design that supports emergency vehicle access. Gates or other suitable control will be required in the design of the fence that will be required along the eastern property line of the development. Walkway Connection will be required from Townhouse Development to Lightfoot Place The proposed walkway from the townhouse development to Lightfoot Place will provide access to Steeple Hill Park and provide a travel path to destinations that are internal to the neighbourhood such as schools. The interconnection of walkways throughout the City is an important feature, specifically when there is a connection to a transit spine. It is therefore recommended that the development of the subject property include a walkway connection from the townhouse development northward to the existing walkway connection to Steeple Hill Park. Report PD 44-05 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Date: November 16, 2005 Page 8 017 3.1 Technical Matters Fencing of the Site is Required The internal perimeter of the development must be fenced. Noise attenuation fences are required for end units that front Kingston Road. The western, northern and eastern perimeter of the residential block will require appropriate fencing. Fencing may be required surrounding the vacant residential lot. Prior to the installation of the permanent fence, a temporary construction fence will be erected and maintained. Conditions of Approval recommended in Appendix I to this Report include provisions to ensure that both temporary and permanent fencing will be installed around the subject lands. Subdivision Agreement will be required to Address Development A future subdivision agreement between the City and the owner of the lands will be required to ensure that all matters of interest to the City are protected. This required agreement, and several other development implementation matters, are incorporated into the recommended conditions of approval for this application and are found in Appendix I to this Report. Cash-in-Lieu of Parkland As no park blocks form part of the draft plan, the City will accept cash-in lieu from the subdivider in order to satisfy Section 42(1 ) of the Planning Act. Interface between Proposed Development and Existing Property The interface between the proposed draft plan and the existing residential lots to the west and north will have to be appropriately designed so that the existing residential properties are not physically impacted by the proposed development construction. This will include addressing matters such as grading, fencing, drainage and vegetation preservation and planting. These matters should be addressed in the detailed design of draft plan and through the site plan approval process. Permanent Turning Circle at Terminus of Lightfoot Place is Required The existing south limit of Lightfoot Place was constructed as a temporary turning circle with the intention that a permanent turning circle would be concluded with the development of the subject property. As part of the development of the subject property a permanent terminus of Lightfoot Place is required. The applicant has demonstrated on their development plan that a permanent turning circle can be achieved. Upon review of the design of the municipal standard for turning circles it is noted that a reduced design needs to be explored to lessen the impact on abutting property owners. These details, including the owner's contribution for this work, will be concluded through the required agreements. Report PD 44-05 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Date: November 16, 2005 Page 9 4.0 Further Processing of the Development The effect of this plan of subdivision will be to create one block of land for the future development of townhouses by plan of condominium. The individual blocks and lots for the townhouse units will be created through the draft plan of condominium process and part lot control. The detail design issues will be dealt with through an application for site plan approval. The detailed design process will include, amongst others, site servicing, grading, parking, landscaping, lighting, three-stream refuse collection, elevations and building sittings, all of which may have an impact on the number of dwelling units that can be achieved. At the request of the neighbours, staff will involve resident representatives in the site plan review process. No fudher reports are anticipated to be brought before Council if the subject applications are approved. The actual zoning by-law amendment (implementing zoning by-law) will come before Council for adoption after design detail is presented to staff on some technical issues. Applicant's Comments The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report. APPENDICES: APPENDIX I: APPENDIX I1: Recommended Conditions of Approval for SP-2004-05 Recommended Conditions of Approval for A 13/04 Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Location Map Draft Plan of Subdivision Original Development Plan Revised Development Plan Text of Information Meeting Report Minutes from December 16, 2004 Statutory Public Information Meeting Resident Comment - Example of Form Letter Resident Comment - Rosebank Road Association/Steeple Hill Community Resident Comment- Rosebank Road Association/Steeple Hill Community Resident Comment - Revivaltime Tabernacle Worldwide Ministries Agency Comments - TRCA Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department City Department Comment- Development Control City Department Comment- Fire Services Report PD 44-05 Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Date: November 16, 2005 Page 10 019 Prepared By: Ross Pym, MCIP, RI:~' Principal Planner - Development Review Approved / Endorsed By: Nell Ca r~ ~LP. ct~PP Director, Planning & Development Lynda 'P~ylor, MCIP, R,,?I5 Manager, Developme!nt Review RP:jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Thofnas J. Oui~, Chie~Administ~ 02O APPENDIX I TO REPORT PD 44-05 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-P-2004-05 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION S-P-2004-05 1.0 1.1 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 GENERAL CONDITIONS That this recommendation apply to the draft plan prepared by David Horwood Ltd., dated October 25, 2004, Project Number 6239, for Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2004-05 submitted by Weldon Lands Inc., on lands being Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C., City of Pickering, to permit a development block for a 37 townhouse dwelling unit development. PRIOR TO THE REGISTRATION OF THE PLAN That the owners submit a Draft 40M-Plan to be approved by the City's Planning & Development Department; That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 become final and binding; That the owner enter into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: Storm Drainaqe (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easements; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department for contributions for down stream stormwater.management, if required. Grading Control and Soils (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan; (b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis. Road Allowances (a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs. 022 -2- 2.3.4 Construction / Installation of City Works & Services (a) satisfaction of the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City; (b) satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services; (c) that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the subdivider. 2.3.5 Dedications / Transfers / Conveyances (a) that the owner convey to the City, at no costs: (i) any easements as required; and (ii) any reserves as required by the City. (b) that the subdivider convey any easement to any utility to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility. 2.3.6 Construction Manaqement Plan (a) that the owners make satisfactory arrangements with the City respecting a construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things: (i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls; (ii)addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public street; (iii) ensurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law; (iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site; (v) type and timing of construction fencing; (vi) location of construction trailers. 3 023 2.3.7 Development Charqes (a) satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. 2.3.8 Coordinated Development (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to arrangements necessary to provide for coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of development that may be required. 2.3.9 Fencinq (a) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the commencement of any works; (b) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of a fence along the north, east and west perimeter of the development to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department. 2.3.10 Street Tree Plantinq (a) the submission of a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City. 2.3.11 Design Planning (a) the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development, and the submission of site plans and architectural drawings identifying how each unit meets the objectives of the report, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of a residential unit on the lands; (b) the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development must address building envelopes, building designs, siting, and streetscapes as well as garage designs, locations, massing, width, and projection from the main dwelling; (c) the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development must place special emphasis on units that will face Kingston Road; (d) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the provision of appropriate aesthetic details and design of all boundary fencing and noise attenuation fencing. 024 4 2.3.12 Noise Attenuation (a) that the owners satisfy the requirements of the Ministry of the Environment regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features satisfactory to the Region of Durham, and the City of Pickering. 2.3.13 En.qineerinq Drawings (a) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing and tree planting, and financially-secure such works; (b) that the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design objectives. 2.3.14 Other Approval Agencies (a) that the subdivider satisfy all the requirements of the Region of Durham; (b) that any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham for the development of this plan be obtained by the subdivider, and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City of Pickering as verification of these approvals. 2.3.15 Parkland Dedication (a) that the subdivider provide to the City cash-in-lieu of parkland dedications, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development, in order to satisfy Section 42(1) of the Planning Act. 2.3.16 Walkway (a) that the owner design and construct a walkway to connect with Lightfoot Place to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development. 2.3.17 Easement (a) that the owner agree in the subdivision agreement, and in future agreements, to grant a right-of-way easement for future development of 526 Kingston Road, if required. APPENDIX II TO REPORT PD 44-05 O25 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/04 1. That the implementing zoning by-law: (a) permit the establishment of townhouse dwelling units in accordance with the following provisions: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) maximum of 37 townhouse dwelling units; maximum building height of 12.0 metres; minimum front yard depth of 2.5 metres from Kingston Road; minimum west side yard width of 7.5 metres that abuts a detached dwelling; mimmum mimmum mimmum minimum east side yard width of 1.5 metres; north yard depth of 3.0 metres for a side yard; north yard depth of 5.0 metres for a rear yard; unit width of 5.0 metres; maximum of one dwelling unit per lot; mimmum two private parking spaces per dwelling unit, which can be provided by either 2 parking spaces within an attached garage or one parking space in an attached garage and one parking space in a drive way immediately in front of the parking garage for that dwelling unit; minimum of 12 visitor parking spaces; uncovered steps and platforms not exceeding 2.0 metres in height shall be permitted to project a maximum of 1.5 metres into a required rear yard; that all townhouse dwelling units shall front onto a private road/driving aisle. 02G ?I'A~HMENT #_ / TO REPORT # PD- ~/'c~~' SHEPPARD DRIVE z SUNDOWN CRESCENT PLACE STEEPLE DAYLIGHT ,CATTAIL RAINY HILL X\ AVENUE ROAD City of Pickering / Planning & Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION BLOCK B, REGISTERED PLAN 473 AND PART LOT 30, RANGE 3 , B.F.C. OWNER ESTATE OF A. TYAS FILE No. SP 2004/05 & A 13/04 DATE NOV. 5, 2004 SCALE 1:5000 DRAWN BY JB CHECKED BY RP FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY PN-6 PA- INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANTS DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION PLAN- SP 2004-04 & A13/04 027 LOT 24 ~ REG'D PLAN 475 z BLOCK B L'3 r 4 7 / BL('CK 1 i5: 30 , [R,tNOE 3 BROKE,J FR()N[ CONCESSION REG'D PLAN 40M-1 [ZON/,% : ~ (c) BLOCK 54 8t.ocK 61 PlO 26306-0202 MAp wA; PROp, UCED OY' THE CIIY /N~2R,¢A!70N ~ SVPPOR[ SERVICES, NOEM¢ER 5, O25 '~ ' ~" T ' TO INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT PLAN SP 2004/05 & A 13/04 - ESTATE OF A. TYAS ORIGINAL PLAN 8030m HIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY l HE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVEL©PMENT DEPARI'MENI~ PLANNING iNFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION MAPPING ANO DESIGN, NOVEMBER 5, 2004. INFORMATION COMPILED FROM .APPLICANTS PLAN OF SUBDIVISION PLAN- SP 2004-04 & A13 '04 O29 REVISED PLAN P/~4~'NiNG ,~. Dk~LOP,~L'Nf DEPA~¢E~ fNf O~ ~'ON .~ ~UP~ON T ~ER/ICES, NOVemBER 17, 2005. 030 ~ACH~vlENT ~ "~ INFORMATION REPORT NO. 18-04 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF December 16, 2004 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13 SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision S-P-2004-05 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 Weldon Lands Ltd. on behalf of the Estate of A. Tyas 542 Kingston Road Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C. City of Pickering 1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION - the subject lands are located on the north side of Kingston Road west of Rosebank Road; a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1); the property is currently occupied with a detached dwelling and accessory buildings; the property has an extensive lawn area surrounding the house and has a variety of mature trees; the site's topography is relatively flat with a gentle slope to the north; the northern portion of the property abuts the Light-foot Place road right-of-way; the subject property benefits from a right-of-way easement over a portion of the property to the east for access purposes; surrounding land uses are: north - detached dwellings that front onto Lightfoot Place and a municipal walkway that provides access to Steep Hill Park; south - on the south side of Kingston Road across from the subject property is a municipal Fire Station and the Comfort Inn Motel; east - a church, the Revivaltime Tabernacle Worldwide Ministries; west - a vacant property that fronts onto Kingston Road and detached dwellings that front onto Rosebank Road; - west of the vacant property is a commercial plaza. Information Report No. 18-04 Page 2 03~L .A~ACHMENT ~ ,?~' TO P, EPOR'f ~ PD /¢/-¢' (-J..~ 2.0 3.0 3.1 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL Weldon Lands Ltd. on behalf of the owners, have submitted an application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision and an application to amend the zoning by-law in order to implement the proposed draft plan; the draft plan of subdivision proposes to create one block of land only, for residential development; on the residential block the applicant proposes to submit an application for draft plan of condominium for 42 townhouse dwelling units; it is anticipated that the condominium proposal will be a common element condominium for private internal roads, visitor parking area and possible perimeter landscaping elements; the applicant's proposed development plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #3); the development plan does not propose the creation of any new municipal streets, rather the creation of private roads/laneways; all of the freehold townhouse dwelling units will front onto one of the private roads; the subject land is proposed to have site access from Kingston Road via the existing right-of-way easement on the property to the east; the following chart outlines the proposed development detail: Details of the Applications Total area of draft plan Residential block Building coverage Private roads, walkways and parking coverage Landscape open area Number of townhouse dwelling lots Net residential density Residential parking provided (2 per unit) Visitors parking provided Total parking provided -- 0.68 hectares -- 0.68 hectares -- 35 percent -- 31 percent -- 34 percent -- 42 -- 61.2 units per hectare -- 84 -- 13 -- 97 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Re.qional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living Areas; areas designated as Living Areas are intended to be predominantly for housing purposes, including townhouses; Living Areas shall be developed in a compact form through higher densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas, particularly along arterial roads; Kingston Road where it abuts the draft plan is designated as a Type B Arterial Road; the proposal appears to conform to the Durham Region Official Plan; 0 3 2 Information Report No. 18-04 Page 3 3.2 3.3 3.4 Pickerinq Official Plan the Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area; - the subject property is within the Woodlands Neighbourhood of the Official Plan; - no development guidelines have been prepared for this area of the Woodlands Neighbourhood; - the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines are applicable as the subject property fronts Kingston Road; permissible uses within Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area include, amongst others, a variety of residential uses including townhouses; the Pickering Official Plan establishes a density range of over 30 and up to and including 140 dwelling units per hectare for development within a Mixed Use Area -Mixed Corridors Area; - the Woodland Neighbourhood policy specify that despite the density range noted above, a maximum residential density of 55 units per hectare for lands located on the north side of Kingston Road that are designated Mixed Use Area and abut lands developed as Iow density development; - the proposed development provides a net density of approximately 61 units per hectare; Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation Systems designates Kingston Road where it abuts the draft plan as a Type B Arterial Road; Type B Arterial Roads are designed to carry moderate volumes of traffic at moderate to high speed and have some access restrictions; the subject applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications. Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines the subject lands are included in the Whites Road Corridor Precinct; - guideline objectives for this area include building being closer to the street; Iow and mid-rise buildings on the north side of Kingston Road; a minimum building height of two storeys; and, consideration for pedestrian and bicycle movements; - the applications will be assessed against the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines during the further processing of the applications. Zoninq By-law 3036 the subject lands are currently zoned "R-3" (Detached Dwelling, Third Density Zone) by Zoning By-law 3036; the existing zoning permits one detached dwelling per lot on a lot having a minimum lot area of 550 square metres and a lot frontage of 18 metres; Information Report No. 18-04 Page 40 3 ,) 4.0 4.1 4¸.2 an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's proposed townhouse development; the applicant has requested an appropriate zone that would permit the proposed development. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments no formal written resident comments have been received to-date. Agency Comments No Objections or Concerns: (see Attachments #4 - #7) Durham District School Board Enbridge Gas Canada Post Bell 4.3 Staff Comments in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: · ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive to, surrounding land uses; · ensuring a coordinated and sensitive approach to development with the surrounding lands; · compatibility with the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines; · compatibility with the Woodland Neighbourhood policies, specifically the maximum density for the property of 55 units per hectare of land; · ensuring that the proposed private streets, lotting pattern and dwelling designs maintain a high quality residential streetscape; · reviewing the appropriateness of the proposed site access by means of the right-of-way across the abutting property to the east; · ensuring adequate parking is provided on the subject property in appropriate locations; · reviewing the proposed development to ensure that adequate information is provided, that technical requirements are met and that the proposed development design does not impact on the ability of abutting properties to function in an appropriate fashion; this Department will conclude its position on the draft plan design after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and public. 034 Information Report No. 18-04 Page 5 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 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 be notified of Council's decision regarding either the proposed plan of subdivision or zoning by-law amendment application, you must request such in writing to the City Clerk; - if a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the City of Pickering in respect of the proposed draft plan of subdivision and/or zoning by-law amendment, does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the draft plan of subdivision application is considered for approval, or before a zoning by-law is passed, the Ontario Municipal Board may dismiss all or part of the appeal; - if you wish to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision of the proposed zoning by-law amendment application, you must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by-law for this proposal. OTHER INFORMATION Appendix No. I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing the report. Information Received full scale copies of the applicant's submitted plans are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department including: · the draft plan of subdivision · proposed development plan the need for additional information and/or addendums to submitted reports will be determined through the review and circulation of the applicant's current proposal. Information Report No. 18-04 Page 6 0 3 5 6.3 Company Principal the owner, of the subject lands is the Estate of A. Tyas, who have entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with Weldon Lands Ltd.; the Weldon Lands Ltd. are the authorized agents for the subdivision and rezoning applications; Richard Weldon is the principle of Weldon Lands Ltd. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP Principal Planner- Development Review ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager- Development Review RP:Id Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development 036 APPENDIX NO. I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 18-04 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) none received to date COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) Durham District School Board (2) Enbridge Gas (3) Canada Post (4) Bell COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) none received to date PICKERING A~'T~CHMEI~,t'r # ~' ............ Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:00 P.M. 037 The Principal Planner, Development Review provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration thereat. DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION APPLICATION SP-2004-05 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/04 WELDON LANDS LTD. ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF A. TYAS 542 KINGSTON ROAD BLOCK B, REGISTERED PLAN 473 AND PART LOT 30, RANGE 3 BFC Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an overview of property location, applicant's proposal and City's Official Plan policies pertaining to this site, as outlined in Information Report #18/04. Richard Weldon, representing the applicant, provided brochures that give an overview of his company and he provided sketches that set out alternatives to the development of the land. He displayed a compromise development that provides for access from Kingston Road in the centre of the property, with singles backing onto properties on Rosebank Road, visitor parking in the centre of the property and townhouses located closer to the church and the discontinuance of the right-of-way on the church property. Ellen Adams, 1411 Rosebank Road, stated that she is a member of the Rosebank Road executive. She opposes the building of townhouses because they are not in character with the existing neighbourhood and the subject lands are located in a Special Policy Area that was established to protect existing properties. The current zoning provides only for single detached dwellings and there should be no compromise on that. The present proposal does not comply With existing zoning requirement or the Special Area Policies. The existing Tyas house should be preserved for historical reasons. The density of the present proposal is too high and will put a strain on local services. Visitors to the proposed townhouses will use the church parking lot or the plaza parking lot. Noise from the proposed development will impact on the existing houses. Bruce Foster, 492 Lightfoot Place, stated that he is representing residents on Lightfoot Place and Steeple Hill. The existing residents have upgraded their homes over the years and the introduction of townhouses in the area would not be appropriate; there is too much existing high density in the area. A high density development will create social and safety problems on the existing neighbourhood. He stated that he is concerned that property values and neighbourhood character will be compromised by the proposed development. 038 PICKERING Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:00 P.M. 10. 11. Denham Grant, representing the Revival Time Tabernacle Church, noted that the senior pastor of the church has sent a letter to the City detailing the church's concerns. He stated that the easement on the church's lands that allows access into the proposed development was meant to be used only for the single detached dwelling and not for a high density development. Problems may occur on the church's lands as a result of a high density development. Darlene Scarfo, 1415 Rosebank Road, stated that she opposes the proposed development. The proposal does not comply with the Special Policy Area or the Official Plan. She asked that the existing zoning be maintained in order to keep the character of the neighbourhood. She does not want infilling of this property by a high density development that will impact on the existing properties. She stated that the townhouses that are proposed to be built are too tall for the area. There are currently too many townhouse and apartment developments in the area. She stated that she is concerned about infill development because this is the gateway to the City and must be carefully planned. G. Hibbert, representing the Revival Time Tabernacle Church, stated that the church has safety and security concerns with respect to future visitor parking on the subject lands and vandalism. Councillor Maurice Brenner stated that he understands the concerns of the community and noted that the Steeple Hill community was developed by neighbourhood input. He noted that the community wants a working group established to discuss this proposed development with the developer and City staff. He noted other properties in the area where developrnent will be considered and stated that through working groups, there can be development that is acceptable to all parties. Joanne Adams, 1420 Rosebank Road, stated that she does not want the subject lands to be developed with townhouses. The density of the proposed development will put pressure on existing services and will not be in character with the existing neighbourhood. She stated that any development on the subject lands should be in conformity with the Kingston Road Corridor Study. Richard Weldon, representing the applicant, stated that the compromise development he is proposing takes the residents' concerns into account. He noted that the Official Plan allows for higher density housing and he welcomes further discussions about this development with the neighbours. Patricia Foster, 492 Lightfoot Place, stated that residents are concerned about development in the overall area. The residents of a high density area could -2- PICKERING ATT4CH~£NT # ~ TO ,~E~OR~ ,~ PD._f'~ .:., 5 Excerpts from the Statutory Public Information Meeting Thursday, December 16, 2004 7:00 P.M. 039 lead to safety problems. She noted that the church could be used for overflow visitor parking. 12. Richard Weldon, representing the applicant, stated that he agrees to participate in a working groups on condition that the development process continues. 3 04O /~TTACHMENT R£PORT Mr. Ross Pym, Principal Planner- Development Review City of Picketing One The Esplanade Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision, SP-2004-05 Zoninq By-Law Amendment Application A13/04 Dear Mr. Pym, We have been made aware of the proposed development on Kingston Road and we just you to be aware that we are opposed to this development. The density proposed is too high and does not reflect the true nature of the Woodlands Special Policy Area. The development is not in keeping with the existing special policy neighbourhood and causes concern on several fronts. · There was a precedent set with the Steeple Hill Community Development to protect the existing homes on Rosebank Road with larger lots abutting on to them and this should be continued in the case of this development and should include protecting the homes on Lightfoot Place as well. · The road access onto Kingston Road is going to cause safety issues. The traffic in this area is already congested and adding another road entrance so close to Rosebank Road and Steeple Hill is going to cause accidents. The entrance is almost directly across from the Firehall. · The density is going to put a strain on our school system. We would like to advise that we are against the townhomes but realize that the development is in keeping with the Official Plan. Therefore we feel that it would be in the best interest of our community that the Planning Department recommend a compromise solution of single family detached dwellings on 40-50 foot lots where the property abuts the existing community along the west and north boundaries of the proposed development. Please keep us informed of future meetings on this matter. Sincerely, Copy: Mayor David Ryan Regional Councillor for Ward 1 Maurice Brenner Local Councillor for Ward 1 Kevin Ashe City Clerk Bruce Taylor Rosebank Road Association 0 4 i December 22, 2004 Mr. Ross Pym, Principal Planner - Development Review Ci~' of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickerh~g, Ontario LIV 6K7 Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision, SP-2004435 Zoning By-Law Amendment Application Al 3/04 Dear Ross, Attached please find the Rosebank Road Association s resl: onse to the Information Meeth~g held on Tlmrsday, December 16, 2004 regarding the above applications. Also included in this envelope are copies of additional letters submitted by residents in the Rosebank Road/Steeple Hill Communities voting against the rezmtin.g of the subject property ~d against the building of townhomes in fids Woodlands Special Policy Area. As was determined at file meeting on December 16 and confirmed by Maurice Brenner's email on December 21 we will work to determh-te who will best represent our communities as move forward with the Commtmity Work Group. We will be fl~ toud~ with you early fl~ the new year to advise the names of our representatives. We look forward to workfl~g with the group in order to determine a feasible, commtmity friendly development for this site that recognizes the Woodlands Special Policy Area and fine earlier precedents set for its protection. We would also like to take this opportunity to wish you and your family a very Merry Chrish~as and a Happy New Year! Kind regards, Mrs. Ellen Adams On behalf of the Rosebank Road Association/Steeple .Hill Commtmity 1411. Rosebank Road Pickering, On ta rio L1V 1P3 042 ROSEBANK ROAD ASSOCIATION 1411 ROSEB ANK ROAD PICKERING, ONTARIO L1V 1P3 DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SP-2004-05 ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A13/04 RESPONSE TO THE INFORMATION MEETING HELD ON THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2004 Rosebank Road Association Prepared by Mrs. E. Adams on behalf of the Rosebank Road Association, Steeple Hill Community and Revival time Tabernacle. TABLE OF CONTENTS ROSEBANK ROAD ASSOCIATION RESPONSE - ELLEN ADAMS ...................................... 3 STEEPLE HILL/LIGHTFOOT RESPONSE - BRUCE FOSTER .............................................. 7 REVIVALTIME TABERNACLE RESPONSE - DENHAM GRANT. ........................................ 9 HIGHWAY 2 CORRIDOR - DARLENE SC -\RFO ............................................................ 11 Housing that Meets Social Needs in Our Area ........................................................... 13 Areas of Possible Development Opportunities .......................................................... 14 SUMMARY - JO-ANNE ADAMS ....................................................................... 16 O43 2 044 ROSEBANK ROAD ASSOCIATION RESPONSE - ELLEN ADAMS Good Evening Councillor Ashe and Planning Department Staff My name is Ellen Adams and my husband Denis and I live at 1411 Rosebank Road - one of the properties that abut the Tyas Proper ,ty. I am a member of the Rosebank Road Association Executive and I am here tonight to speak on behalf of our communit?' and in conjunction with the Steeple Hill Community and Revivaltime Tabernacle. I am the first speaker in our delegation to address the development proposal being put forward by Richard Weldon. We are here to go on record as opposing the rezoning of the property to allow town homes to be built. We realize that the developer's plans are allowable WITH REZONING according to the Town of Pickering's Official Plan; however, the development of the Tyas Property by building town homes is not in keeping with the existing Woodlands Special Policy area. Let me give you a little history about our community where we have lived for 23 years... Our community, is considered a Special Policy area requiring special attention. This was acknowledged in 1988 in the Woodlands Plan when the planning for the Steeple Hill community ensured that all abutting property was consistent in land width resulting in 50ft frontage and rear yards abutting Rosebank Road. This area was designated a special policy area in order to protect the nature of the older existing community. It is meant to ensure that the flavour of the existing community is not adversely affected by progress ,-md change. This area is all single-family dwellings made up of modest to high priced homes on larger more rural lots. We are hopeful that the Town of Pickering will continue to recognize the precedent and protect this unique area by denying the rezoning request. Not only is this proposed development not in keeping with the special policy designation of the area but it requires re-zoning to permit the town homes! The current zoning calls for ONE detached dwelling per lot on a lot having a minilnum lot area of 550 square metres_and a lot frontage of 18 metres!I! Which is precisely what the Rosebank Road Community and much of Steeple Hill consists of. We want the existing zoning left in place! 045 On November 24, 2004 1 met with a member of the Planning Department to review the proposed development. At that time ! was left with the distract impression that the properS' did not require rezonmg in order to allow the building of town homes which lead to some confusion when we initially met with the developer and contacted our neighbours. After meeting with the developer the Executive put together a communication for our community and that of Steeple Hill. Part of that communication was a draft letter for them to use which requested that the Planning Department work to find a compromise of a mix of the single family detached and town homes. However, the Association's stand on the proposed development changed dramatically Upon receipt of the Town Report on December 10 where it was duly noted that rezoning was indeed required and clearly stated the existing zoning as being ONE detached dwelling per lot on a lot having a minimum lot area of 550 square metres and a lot frontage of 18 metres!!! We do not believe that there is room here for a compromise on the zoning of the property - the property zoning should not change! Since then we have cleared the confusion and the neighbourhood is in total support of calling for the existing zoning to remain in place so that NO town homes can be built on this property. We appreciate the contact between ourselves and the developer that was initiated by Richard and Joanne Weldon including a meeting held on November 25, 2004. The meeting was both friendly and informal but very much to the point. The developer stated that they wanted to build 42 town homes on the property and the Association stated that we were against this type of dwelling. Despite our efforts to keep the meeting in line with our desire to ensure that no town homes were built the meeting continued in the form of a discussion about our concerns with the developer's proposal for 42 toyota homes. This was also influenced by our belief at the time that this was allowable under the current conditions. It is nice to see that Richard has taken some of our concerns into consideration with his compromised plan however, it still does not meet the needs of this community, and it does not meet the current zoning requirements, and certainly does not meet the guidelines of the Woodlands special policy area. Once again, we do not believe that there is room here for a compromise on the zoning of the property - the property zoning should not change! 4 This community was here first and the needs of this communi~, should be met first as those needs will set the bar for every other incoming resident. Existing residents in the Rosebank Cornmunil3: and the Steeple Hill Communi~: should only have to accept the impact that would be consistent with our present environments. And that means that any development of this property should adhere to the existing zoning. The Tyas home is over 100 years old and was here long before any of the homes in either area. It would be such a shame to lose a part of our community heritage. We know that we should keep our arguments to those of sound planning, however, when we are talking about our community then we believe that some emotion is allowed. Mr. and Mrs. Tyas were very strong members of this community. They believed strongly in helping each other out and worked tirelessly for several charities. They were members of our Rosebank Road Association when we first formed and All Tyas was our treasurer. He believed in preserving as much of our history as we could and they believed in giving back to the community. Developing this property with town homes does not give anything back to our community'. Rather it will negatively impact our precious community both financially and esthetically. We cannot continue to build in Picketing without clearly taking the impact of the development on the existing community' into consideration - we were here first and have invested a lot of time, effort and money into our homes. We need to ensure that we maintain the integri~ of the existing Rosebank and Steeple Hill Communities. Our community is continually upgrading itself. Just take a look at the recent construction boom on Rosebank Road - over a dozen new homes have been built and each of these homes has sold for between $500,000-$800,000 in the past year alone! The density of this proposal is far too high and is going to put a strain on the community resources - increased traffic, increase noise level, increased safety concerns, increased pressure on our school system, etc. ~II~e road access directly in front of the Fire Hall on the other side of Highway 2 is going to cause safety issues. The traffic in this area is already congested and adding another road entrance so close to Rosebank Road and Steeple Hill is going to cause accidents. Either proposal is going to have an unfair impact on the Revivaltime Tabernacle. This is a very active congregation and the traffic congestion is going to be a huge problem in the evenings and especially on the weekends. Visitors to the proposed development will end up using the Church parking lot, due to convenience, causing parking problems for the congregation - which means that the cars will simply spill over and park along Highway 2 causing serious traffic concerns or move into the Rosebank Plaza causing parking issues for business owners and patrons. · The road pattern is not safe - how would emergency vehicles get in and turn around within the planned site? · The visitor parking is a concern in both plans: · Having vehicles come and go at aH times of the day and night - car lights shining into existing properties. · Increased noise from snow plows late at night, garbage trucks, parties, etc. · Safety concerns - children always utilize these parking spaces for games - which is unsafe because of the vehicle traffic · Increased pollution of having cars running right next to our yards and homes We firmly believe that it would be in the best interest of our Woodlands Special Policy Community that the Planning Department and Town Council DENY THE REZONING REQUEST so that it will afford the existing communi,ty with an impact that would be consistent with our present environment. 047 · Maintain the existing zoning on the property! ONE DETACHED DWELLING PER LOT ON A LOT HAVING A MINIMUM LOT AREA OF 550 SQUARE METRES AND A LOT FRONTAGE OF 18 METRES! · This would afford the existing community with an "over-the-fence" reflection of itself. · It will present a fresh face to the Highway 2 area - why does Pickering continually try to develop this corridor to look like the Scarborough corridors that are such a mess!? We have the option to make things look better and provide a more welcoming face to our community! · This will lower the proposed high density for the area and thereby help to alleviate some of the traffic and parking issues caused by the proposed development. · It will also lessen the affect on the Revivaltime Tabernacle in terms of use of their parking lot for visitor parking and household cars that exceed the number of parking spaces available. Once again we would like to reiterate that WE ARE AGAINST THE TOWN HOMES AND AGAINST THE REZONING REQUIRED. 048 STEEPLE HILI4tLIGHTFOOT RESPONSE - BRUCE FOSTER Good Evening Councilor Ashe and Planning Deparlmaent Staff My name is Bruce Foster and I live at 492 Lightfoot Place, along with my wife Patricia and our two children. Our home is one of the properties at the end of the Lighffoot Place just adjacent to the Tyas land. I am here to represent the views of the residents of Lighffoot and Steeple Hill area. We -The people of the Lightfoot and Steeple Hill area are here to go on record as opposing the rezoning of the property to allow town homes to be built. I would like to begin by describing the Rosebank area. We, as homeowners, have worked very hard to develop this area into a lovely and mature residential community with well-maintained homes that have been recently upgraded. Ellen has just spoken a little about the history of this area. We, the present residents in the Lighffoot and Steeple Hill areas, are the fortunate ones who we have benefited from the plight of those before us. It is apparent that the residents of this community take great pride in their homes. Almost each and every home has improved our neighbourhood by doing additional landscaping, upgrading, exterior finishes, driveways and such. This is about our whole Community... Steeple Hill... Lighffoot and Rosebank. There is a "Unique Flavour" to our habitat. We have done our best to create a safe and comfortable atmosphere, through street parties, neighbourhood watch and such .... A need to keep our homes properly maintained and our families safe is of utmost importance to us, as it would also result in a safe and prosperous Pickering. 'Fo mtroduce this type of development---Town homes---High-density housing is highly inappropriate. We do not believe that there is room here for a compromise on the zoning of the property - the property zoning should not change! We would hke to understand what vision is planned for Pickering. We do not believe that such an addition as is being suggested would enhance our community or the over-all Pickering area. The sub-division currently has co- op housing on both sides. Town homes were introduced a couple of years ago and more are presently being built. We cannot understand the reason for saturating this area with this type of high-density growth. Again I would like to point out that it is important to maintain the integrity of the existing Rosebank and Steeple Hill Communities. IS THIS REALLY "GOOD" GROWTH? We at Lightfoot Place have recently had some incidences regarding "kids" parking at the end of our dead end street late at night. Smoking, drinking, playmg loud music and other activities are involved, and this, as we have seen in the news lately, can lead to very deadly situations... We feel that adding high-density housing would only increase the potential of this sort of situation happening more frequently. Overflow parking-Additional traffic---Potential Litter-Possible vandalism. Infrastructure needs would also be concerns where would the overflow of the parking problem lead? Directly to us. We enjoy our community and its present environment. Quiet, peaceful safe and beautiful. We've worked very hard to get it this way. What reassurances can be given to us that our property value will stay the same and not decrease? That the same community atmosphere will be maintained. SECURITY ISSUES LIFESTYLE ISSUES This is extremely UNFAIR to the type of community that has been developed, as has also been pointed out by Ellen. The neighbourhood is in total support of calling for the existing zoning to remain in place so that NO town homes can be built on this property. IS IT GOOD GROWTH OR JUST GROWFH FOR PROFIT, AT ANY COST? REVIVALTIME TABERNACLE RESPONSE - DENHAM GRANT Denham Grant spoke on behalf of Revivaltime Tabernacle and reviewed the letter sent in by' Rev. Dr. Audley N. James. Rrvivaltlme Tab~'nacle · Worldwide Ministries l~smv, 0,~', December 7, 2004 CA, ~fll~ Revivaltime Tabernacle Durham 550 Kingston Rd. Picketing, ON. Mr. Ross PrincipalP'iamer Development Review City of Picketing One the Esplanade Pickering~ Ont. LIV 6K7 Re: 542 KingstonRoad BEK. B. RP 473+PL LT. 30 R3 Dear Nh'. Pyro: Wo have reviewed the proposed redevelopment plans for the subject property and we are vezy much concerned about the proposal of having the church property sharing its main access with occupants and owners ora development of this size. our reasons are as follows-: (a) This indenture (No. 23815) dated July 19,1943 clearl2~' stated that easemem as ~anted was for the sole use of the Typas family and not for a multi-development project. (b) There is already existing, a. sepaxate main entrance to the subject properly offKis~gston Roadl This should beused for fi~tt~re developments. (c) For the church to be az, ked to share its main entrance wSltt the owners and occupiers o£ a development of this size it is in, possible and inconceivable as this would result in man3' future t~affic problems. ~he church premises are opened seven days a week t'or church related ftmctions and activities and the parking lot is often f'tflly occupied We see tremendous traffic problems developing if a Sub-division~of this size was allowed to share, the ma/n access xdth the chgr~-- ~'e6~i{a: 'Wd-w. rei,Svaltimela_b_eLn_ac_'.~:co~ll! email: infoC.a)~rcvivalfimelabemacb, c~or We do not wish To prevent or delay any future re-development at 542 Kingston Road, we are simply as~ng that the developers be allowed to use the already main access for the new development, which is separate from the church premises. Thank you for this opportuaiq' to respond to this devetopmeut prol~osal. We would be pleased to meet with you for further discussions if necessary. Yours respectfully, ~James Founder/Sr. Minister "Not only a visitation, bula habitation;fret the Ifoly stririt to dwell"_. ~ebsite' w,asv.revivaltimetabemacle.com email: i_n~.~re_,dvahimetabemacle.cor 10 HIGHWAY 2 CORRIDOR - DARLENE SCARFO Good Evening Councillor Ashe and Planning Department Staff My name is Darlene Scarfo. I live at 1415 Rosebank Road - one of the properties adjacent to the Tyas Property. I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak as a member of the Woodlands Community and the Rosebank Road Association regarding the development proposal of the Tyas property. I would also like to thank the members of our community who have come out tonight in support of this concern especially during this busy time of year. We are here to go on record as opposing the REZONING of the property, currently zoned 'R3' permitting detached dwellings with a minimum lot frontage of 18 meters. Rezoning could allow the proposed erecting of (3 story) town houses with less than 5 meter frontage. This is not in keeping with the precedent of the Woodlands Special Policy Area and is in excess of the Pickering Official Plan section 3.2 density range. This property abuts lands designated as LOW density development. The Woodlands Neighborhood policy specifies a maximum density rate of 55 units per one hector, this property is .68 hectors which works out to approximately 37 units per hector. The submitted proposed development provides for a net density of 61 units per hector - this is in excess of 24 units. We want the existing zoning left in place to ensure that we maintain the integrity' of the existing Rosebank and Steeple Hill Communities! 2'he community supports development and the Pickering Growth Management study which is responsible growth management providing: future land use options for growth (Mid Picketing area - Taunton) a range of housing types · an estimated increase in residence (77,000) and job opportunities (33,000). However our Support lends itself to sound, responsible, planned development, and this type of planning along Kingston Road is contrary to good planning. We do not want this area used for in-filling higher density quotas but want a coordinated development compatible with the existing surrounding properties and ensure that it does not negatively impact on the community. 11 Our community properS' continues to increase in dollar value. There have been many new homes built on Rosebank Road in the past year with a real estate price of $500,000-$800,000. 053 The proposed development is on property that falls within the communit5, and will play a major role in the Kingston Road Corridor Development Guidelines - this can not be PIECEMEAL planning! The proposed townhouses (3 storeys) are already in excess of height restriction (max 2 storey) as designated in the guideline. 12 054 Housing that Meets Social Needs in Our Area This community has already participated in social planning. · Co-op Rougemotmt X Hwy 2 · Co-op Whites Road x Hwy 2 · Townhouses Sheppard x Hwy 2 · Townhouses - Steeple Hill x [twy 2 · Towrdnouses - Altona x Hwy 2 Most of those developments do not have road access to Hwy 2 which would result in additional traffic congestion and safety issues. Developing this property with town hoxnes does not give anything back to our community, there is NO NET GAIN. Rather it would negatively impact it with high density, sMety concerns, road congestion, noise, and be esthetically m~appealing. Another issue is the lands to the East mM West of fids area whid~ will be available for development h~ the near future. Housing that Meets Social Needs in Our Area F'oJicy ~ 4 town home complexes in our area 2 Co-Op complexes in our Area 13 Areas of Possible Development Opportunities 1. Two homes sold on [-{wy 2 east side of Co-op 2. Gas Bar and comer on north west comer of Roseb~'mk Rd x Hwv 2 3. Rosebank Plaza - leases not being renewed 4. Balfour property between Rosebank Plaza and Tyas property - sale being negotiated with owner by Developer. 5. Payless Plaza - rumors of viability of store 6. Pickering Nursery - vacant property 7. Two properties for sale - east of Whites Rd on Hwy 2 These lands must also be pl,-umed in conjtmction with use az~d design. Townhouse development would impact lost opporttmities for developing the Hwy 2 corridor between the Petticoat Creek Library and Whites Road. The town is going to lose development potential of this corridor if it is developed piece by piece - PIECE MEAL PLANNING. This section of road is the main gateway into the city of Pickering and should not replicate the 'unappealing' Scarborough corridors. Areas of Possible Development Opportunities I - The two hornes just sold on Highway 2 on the east side of the Co-Op 2004 MapOu¢$t. COm. inc ;~.b 2004 NAV'TEQ O~~300m ?, - The Gas Bar and corner lot on the nodh west corner of Rosebank Road and Hi ghway 2 O - The Rosebank Plaza rumours about leases not bei rig renewed z~. The Old Balfour Property between the Rosebank plaza and the Tyas Property ¢~i - ~[he Payless Plaza turnouts about viability of the store ~13- The Pickering Nursery Property sitting vacant ~- Two homes for sale That are a couple of acres just ea st of Wendy's/Ti m Her[on' s 055 14 We support development but it has to be sound progressive planning. Detailed planning needs to be done to create a VISION for this corridor that has real oppormmties that will benefit all Pickermg. We encourage a working group between these two community groups, the town and the developer to determine what is best for the communitv as a whole. Our holiday wish is to develop opportunities such as church expansion or a seniors' facility or other beneficial projects to the community. Given the demographics of the area we do need senior and transitional facilities. We firmly believe that it would be in the best interest of our Woodlands Special Policy Community that the Planning Department and Town Council DENY THE RE-ZONING REQUEST so that it will afford the exis~g community with an impact that would, at the very least, be consistent with our present environment. 15 SUMMARY - ~O-ANNE ADAMS My name is Jo-Anne Adams and my husband & I have lived on Rosebank Rd. for 16 years. To summarized some of the previous speaker's key points: We don't want this parcel of land to be developed with townhomes. We are afraid of the negative impact of a high concentration of people, the traffic and safety issues and the increased pressure, on our existing community facilities, such as our schools and our law enforcement, fire departments and other support groups within the area. You've heard the some of the history of this area. We don't want to loose the mature, developed look of our neighbourhoods by piece-mealmg, un- planned, highly concentrated, residences within our midst. We have the existing zoning for a reason. This property is just a portion of a much larger picture. We want this proper~ to be included in the City of Pickering development plans for the entrance to Pickering, the Kingston Rd./Hwy 2 corridor. We beheve that time is required to properly develop these plans and that community work groups, with representation from the surrounding communities (Rosebank, Steeple Hill, Lighffoot, Revivaltime Tabernacle and others) need to be assembled and work in conjunction with our council and our city's planning committee. I'm sure that there are many other members of our respective conzrnunities that would be willing to speak which would take up much more time, but it is not our intention to overburden this meeting with speakers. With the Chairman's permission, I would like to ask that all those who oppose the current, proposed plans for the Tyas property to raise their hands. Mr. Chairman, is this acceptable? O57 Mr. Chairman, We thank you for the opportunity to let our concerns be heard. 16 058 Pym, Ross From: Adams,Ellen. Sent: Februac/ 16, 2005 10:54 AM To: Pym, Ross Cc: denella~rogers.com Subject: Response to Community Working Group Meeting Feb. 10-05 Dear Ross, Further to our meeting of Thursday, February 10th 2005, as agreed to, we are responding to the Applicant's offer of providing single family, detached homes on the north and west borders of the proposed development property. Based on discussions we have had with various comrnunily members and our community working group we would like to propose the following' · 45 foot wide lots along the north and west sides of the development property · 2 storey, detached, single family homes built on the 45 foot wide lots · Maximum fence height allowance consisting of board on board along the property lines that abut existing homes on the north and west sides · No pedestrian walkway access to Lightfoot Place · Removal of the two visitor spots in the north west corner · Community representation at the Site Plan Meetings (in order to address such issues as buffering, fencing, garbage storage, area parking, lighting..) In arriving at this we believe that our suggestions are consistent with the intent for the Picketing Official Plan and its recomrnended densities while ensuring a level of compatibility and sensitivity for the abutting property owners. Would you please share the results of our meeting with the Applicant by forwarding this email We again wish to stress that it rernains our desire to work in a co-operative fashion to avoid unnecessary costs to the Applicant associated with an OMB Hearing. Kind regards, Ellen Adams On behalf of the Rosebank Road Association, LightfooffSteeple Hill Community and Revivaltirne Tat)ernacle Ellen Adams 1 4340 Duffcrin Street, Downsview, Ontario, Canada M3H 5R9 ' · (416) 630-9346 t4l~> 030-8~73 FAX (416}630-2547 www.revwalmnetabernac . Mr. Ross Py~n Principal Planner Development Review City of Pickermg One the Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K.7 RE: 542 .Kingston Rd Deal' Mr. Pyro, We were infon'ned that the Rc~ ~on of Durham m a letter to you on Febmdry 14, 200Y requested tirol the ]'own of Picketing consider using the existing shared access with the (:hutch as the main access to the new sub-division and the church. As previously expressed to you in our letter of December -, 2004, the entire church congrega[ion is strongly opposed to the idea of the el'torch having to share it's main access with thc owners and occupiers of a development {of this size. This is grossly trot'air to the Rcvivaltime church congregation, as it would definitely create the following di gicullics. '['raffle congestion - fl~e churcll premises are open seven days a week, lbr church related activities, and the parking lots is often fully occupied. ~.ub-&x lSlO12 will end up using the church The occupiers and visitors m this s ' ,'-' parking lot which :is already fltll. This could create an unsafe access to and from Kingston Rd. There is already existing a separate main entrance tO thc subject property off Kingston Rd, which should bc used for future development. Indenture (No. 2,~ 815_) Date J ely 19, 1940, ckarly stated that tile basement as granted was fbr thc sole use of the Tyas's ihmily. C. 7:$'. We the congregation of Reviw'dtime Tabernacle is asking m~d requested tlnat the developers be allowed to use the alt'eady existing access to the pt'ope~-ty as their main access and not the shared access with the church. for The Living January 31,2005 BY MAIL ONLY City Mr. Ross Pym City of Pickering Pickering Civic Centre One The Esplanade Pickering, ON LlV 6K7 ....... ,., ...... & E EVEL ':bP!',.~ ENT Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2004-05 - 2nd Submission Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 Weldon Lands Inc, on behalf of the Estate of A. Tayas 542 Kingston Road City of Pickering This letter acknowledges receipt of the second submission of development plans for the above-noted applications. As per our previous comments dated November 26, 2004, the subject property is not affected by the TRCA's policies or regulations. The TRCA continues to support any initiatives to manage water quality and quantity on site, and defers the review of the stormwater management design to the City. In light of the above, staff have no objections to the submitted applications. We trust this is of assistance. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Yours truiy, Carla Pierini Plans Analyst Development Services Section Extension 5314 5 Shoreham Drive, l')ownsview, Ontario M3N ]S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 66t-6898 www. trca.on.ca !~',, September 22. 2005 Mr. Ross PBn Planning & Development Department Pickering Civic Complex Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 PLANN qG & DEVELOPMENT DEPg RTMENT The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Deoartmenl 605 ROSSLAND ROAD E 4'' FLOOR PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 Dear Mr. Pyro: Re: Regional Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision File No.: S-P-2004-05 Cross Ref.: Z 13/04 Applicant: Weldon Lands Inc. Location: Block B, Reg. Plan 473 & Part Lot 30, Ramze 3, BFC Municipality: City of Picketing CANADA J05-668-771 t Fax: 905-666-6208 E-mail: planning@ ~egion.durham on.ca www. reg~on.durham.on.ca A.L Georgieff, MCIP, RPP Commissioner of Planning "Service Excellence for otJr Communities" Further to infonnation provided on February 2, 2005 and February 14, 2005, we wish to offer additional comments with respect to delegated provincial plan review responsibilities for the noted subdivision. The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., dated July 2005, concluded no evidence of environn~ental site contamination. No further site investigation is required. The Noise Impact Study prepared by John Swallows Associates., dated August 31, 2005 will need to be revised using the Regional Planning Department's traffic forecasts. We ask that you refer to our letter dated September 22, 2005 for detailed noise comments. Based on the forgoing, the Region has no objection to draft approval of this plan. The attached conditions of approval shall be complied with prior to clearance by the Region for regisu'ation of this plan. In addition to sending the Region copies of the draft approved plan and conditions of ,pp,-av,,q at such time as th,- draft approval is qn effect, .olea*a e-mnil a di2ital cor)v of the conditions of draft approval to the planner responsible for the file. Please call Vannitha Chanthavong at (905) 668-7711, ext. 2543, if you have any questions. Yours truly, P, ichard Szarek, Plan hnplemen tat/on Attach.: Conditions of Draft Approval cc: Peter Castellan, Regional Works Department N:pinVvc/Subd/S-P-2004-05/Regional Review 3 doc 100% Post Consumer Attachment to letter dated September 22. 2005 To: Weldon Lands Inc. S-P-2004-05 City of Pickering o The Owner shall prepare the final plan on the basis of the approved draft plan of subdivision, prepared by W. H. Project No. Al, dated June 6, 2005, which illustrates 37 townhouse units, roads and parking. The Owner shall submit plans showing the proposed phasing to the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering for review and approval if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration. The Owner shall agree that any existing sanitary or water ser¥ices within the plan which are proposed to be relocated shall be maintained in full service until such time as the new ser~'ices have been completed and approved by the Region, and all costs incurred in relocation and abandonment of these services shall be borne by the Owner. The Owner shall submit to the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering, for review and approval, a revised acoustic report(s) prepared by an acoustic engineer based on projected traffic volumes provided b y the Region of Durham Planning Department and recommending noise attenuation measure for the draft plan in accordance with the Ministry of Environment guidelines. The Owner shall agree in the City of Pickering subdivision agreement to implement the recommended noise control measures. The agreement shall contain a full and complete reference to the noise report (i.e. author, title, date and. any revisions/addenda thereto) and shall include any required warning clauses identified in the acoustic report. The Owner shall provide the Region of Durham with a copy of the subdivision agreement containing such provisions prior to final approval of the plan. The Owner shall grant such easements as may be required for utilities, drainage and servicing purposes to the Region of Durham. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such.sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Region of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham. and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. Page l 064 Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Re,on of Durham shall be satisfied that adequate water pollution control plan and water supply capacities are available to the proposed subdivision. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the Region of Durham. This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and installation of sanitarv sewers, water supply, roads and other Regional services. N pim/vc/Subd/S-P-2004-05/Drafl Con&tions.doc Page 2 0 6,.5 PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM Januaw 10,2005 To: From: Subject: Ross Pym Principal Planner- Development Review Robert Starr Supervisor, Development Control Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2004-05 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of the estate of A. Tyas 542 Kingston Road Block B, Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C. City of Pickering We have reviewed the recent submission of the above-noted application, circulation dated January 6, 2005 and provide the following comments: Until preliminary grading plans are submitted for review, we have concerns with the proximity of the units and limits of road to the east property line, Unit 1 and driveway at the west property line, and north property line at Unit 14. 2) The proposed visitor parking spaces at Unit 14 may create egress problems for Unit 14 and grading may not permit them at that proximity to the lot line. 3) The permanent turning circle for Lightfoot Place has not been addressed. We include a copy of our previous comments dated December 6, 2004. RS:bg Copy: Coordinator, Development Approvals Development Control Inspector 06G ATTACFiMENT PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM December 6, 2004 To: Frorn: Subject: Ross Pym Principal Planner- Development Review Robed Starr Supervisor. Development Control Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2004-05 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/04 Weldon Lands Inc. on behalf of Estate of A. Tyas 542 Kingston. Road Block B Registered Plan 473 and Part Lot 30, Range 3, B.F.C. City of Picketing We have reviewed the above-noted application and provide the following comments. The existing south limit of Lighffoot Place within plan 40M-1480 was constructed as a temporary turning circle with the intention of this road continuing south into this property whenever it was to be developed. Extending this road into these lands does not appear to be the proposal for this application, and should that remain to be the intent, then a solution must be proposed that will provide an end to Lightfoot Place. A permanent turning circle having a minimum curb radius of 12.5m and a suitable property line radius will be required. The land conveyance, design and construction of the permanent turning circle, removal of the temporary turning circle, and associated restoration will be the applicant's responsibility, and must be addressed, among other things, in an agreement with the City. 2. A storm water management report will be required for the site, which must address quality' control and quantity ~- ' COFlu O!. sarii;arv s..v',,~, s and vvater' supply for the site. Draft Plan of Subdivision, ,,P-2004-05 Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 13/04 /3 December 6, 2004 Page 2 067 A Conceptual Grading Plan will be required to provide enough detailed information to illustrate the overall grading of the site and how it affects adjacent properties. 5. Installation and/or relocation of any utilities will be the applicant's responsibility. A Utility Coordination Plan will be required with detailed design. 6. A' Construction Management Plan will be required. The requirements for the plan are enclosed and should be forwarded to the applicant. Any earthworks proposed on the site prior to approvals will require a FillFFopsoil Disturbance Permit. A copy is enclosed and should be forwarded to the applicant. 8. A Geotechnical Report will be required for this development. 9. A Noise Report will be required for this development. RS:lmc Copy: Development Control tnspe~:tor (L. Calvelli) Coordinator, Development Approvals Robert Starr Fire Department comments October 24, 2005 Rex i-leath, Fire Prevention OfgCicer, Picker/nE F/re Services Further to our site visit of October 24, 2005 the Pickering fire Service forwards the following comments The drawings should reflect the following A centreline radius not less than 12 m (39 ft 4 in) to accommodate firefighting apparatus and equipment. A change in gradient not more than I in 12.5 over a minimum distance of 15m (49 ft 3 in) which should apply to entire site. Rolled curbs or other engineered designs to support emergency vehicle access on the south and northeast dead ended driveways/private roads. Gates will have to be provided through the proposed 1.8-meter' privacy fence on the lot line to access the property. Location of internal "fire routes" for the site. Site servicing drawings indicating the location of any fire hydrants used to protect the site in the event of fire. The Pickering Fire Service reserves the opportunity to make further comments upon the circulation of any additional drawings. While under construction, properties are to be clearly identified with temporary signage in accordance with the existing municipal by-law 3503 - 90 .... PICKERING REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: PD 46-05 Date: November 9, 2005 069 Neil Carroll Director, Planning & Development Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/05 Gabriela Kepinski 1895 Clements Road Part of Lot 17, B.F.C. Range 3 (Durham Condominium Plan 112, Level 1, Unit 161 ) City of Pickering Recommendation: That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/05, be APPROVED as set out in the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Report PD 46-05, to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to add a body rub parlour as a permitted use on lands being Part of Lot 17, B.F.C. Range 3, (Durham Condominium Plan 112) City of Pickering. That the amending zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/05, as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 46-05, be FORWARDED to City Council for enactment. Executive Summary: The applicant requests a change to the zoning by-law to add a body rub parlour as a permitted use to the lands located at the southwest corner of Clements Road and Squires Beach Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). No alterations are proposed to the multi-tenant industrial condominium to accommodate the requested use (see Applicant's Submitted Plans, Attachment #2). The property is located in the area of the City defined by Municipal By-law 5764/00 as an area where a body rub parlour use may operate, subject to obtaining zoning approval. The applicant has advised that they have operated from this property for the past five years and through discussions with Municipal Law Enforcement Services and Durham Regional Police Services, the City is not aware of any documented complaints respecting the use. It is recommended that the application be approved and that the draft by-law be forwarded to Council for enactment. 070 Report PD 46-05 Subject: Gabriela Kepinski (A 20/05) Date: November 10, 2005 Page 2 Financial Implications: proposed development. No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the Background: 1.0 1.1 Comments Received At the September 15, 2005 Information Meeting (see text of Information Report, Attachment #3 and Meeting Minutes #4) Public Comments - Robert Szo of 1885 Clements Road, Unit 226, had concern with respect to the type of clientele that would be visiting this establishment (see Attachment #5); -lan Polzin submitted a petition signed by owners and tenants of various units within the multi-unit industrial condominium at 1885 & 1895 Clements Road who are in objection of the application; - concerns of the petitioners are of reduced property values, increase in crime, parking, and security (see Attachment #6); - Fred T. Reisman and Associates Limited on behalf of Diamond Swans Ventures Corp., has no objection to the rezoning of the property to allow for the body rub parlour use (see Attachment #7); Applicant's Comments Wayne Buksa represented the applicant and stated that this business has been in place for 5 years; the establishment has been visited by Durham Regional Police, Municipal By-law and the Regional Health Unit; the applicant has a good rapport with her neighbours and landlord; Gabriela Kepinski advised that the ladies that work at this establishment must undergo a Police Check and obtain health tests; *Please note that Diamond Swans Ventures Corporation owns the property and Fred T. Reisman is the President of the Condominium Board for Condominium Corporation 112, due to his ownership of the majority of the units within the building. He also represents Diamond Swans Ventures Corporation and their interests. Report PD 46-05 Subject: Gabriela Kepinski (A 20~05) Date: November 10, 2005 Page 3 07, 1.2 Agencies Durham Region Planning Department Toronto & Region Conservation Authority conforms with Regional Official Plan; municipal water supply and sanitary sewer are available; no Provincial interests identified (see Attachment #8); located outside of the Fill Regulated Area; no permits are required from the authority; no natural features of concern are on the property; no objections to the zoning amendment (see Attachment #9); 1.3 City Departments Pickering Fire Services no objection with the applicant's proposal with the understanding that the building meets the requirements of the Ontario Building and Fire Codes (see Attachment #10). 2.0 2.1 2.1.1 2.1.2 Discussion Use and Compatibility Proposed use conforms to the Pickering Official Plan The applicant is proposing to add a body rub parlour as a permitted use. The subject property is designated "Employment Area - General Employment" in the Pickering Official Plan. This designation permits the proposed use to be considered. Approval of the rezoning would conform with the Pickering Official Plan and the Region of Durham Official Plan. The site is suitable for the proposed use The proposed use is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The industrial condominium building site currently provides a total of 248 parking spaces at 1895 Clements Road. Based on City parking requirements of I space per 56 square metres of gross leasable floor area for industrial uses (1895 Clements Road - 11,052.08 square metres), 198 parking spaces are required. 07 Report PD 46-05 Subject: Gabriela Kepinski (A 20/05) Date: November 10, 2005 Page 4 2.1.3 2.2 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.3 2.3.1 Therefore, due to the surplus of 50 parking spaces and offsetting hours of operation from regular business hours, the ability to share parking is possible. There is also the opportunity to share parking with 1885 Clements Road. Furthermore, Durham Condominium Corporation 112-Diamond Swan Ventures Corp. c/o Fred T. Reisman and Associates Limited, has authorized the submission of Zoning By-law Amendment - A 20/05, and advises that they do not object to the rezoning. The proposed body rub parlour use will have minimal impact The proposed use is located in an area of the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood that has no visual presence along the major transportation corridors of Brock Road, Clements Road or Bayly Street. The unit that this business occupies is internal to the site and the signage for the business is within the existing sign band and is similar to the signage of the other units. Rezoning the property to include a body rub parlour as a permitted use would recognize an existing non-conforming use and bring it into compliance. The applicant has advised that the proposed use has operated from 1895 Clements Road for the past five years and through discussions with Municipal Law Enforcement Services and Durham Regional Police Services, the City is not aware of any documented complaints respecting the use. Zoning By-law Performance Standards The proposed by-law will limit the gross leasable floor area It is recommended that the by-law limit the number of body rub parlours at this site to one and that the gross leasable floor area of the body rub parlour use to a maximum of 110 square metres. The intent of limiting the number and size is to ensure that the proposed use does not occupy a significant amount of floor space within the condominium complex, thus becoming a primary use. A mix of uses will be maintained. The existin.q by-law will .qovern all other zoninq requirements No further amendments to the current 'MC-12' zoning are proposed or required. The current by-law requirements will continue to apply to the property. Municipal By-law 5764/00 - Body Rub Parlours The proposed body rub parlour complies with the Municipal By-law & licensinfl requirements On October 16, 2000, City Council passed Municipal By-law 5764/00, which provides requirements for the licensing and regulating of body rub parlours within the City of Pickering. The by-law includes a provision that restricts the location in which body rub parlours may operate. The restricted area is within the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood, subject to a zoning by-law amendment application being approved by the City. Report PD 46-05 Subject: Gabriela Kepinski (A 20/05) Date: November 10, 2005 Page 5 0 7 ,:3 3.0 The subject property is located within the designated area as per Municipal By-law 5764/00 (see Attachment #11). At the time of passage of Municipal By-law 5764/00 the City provided existing body rub parlours a "grandfather status" which permitted the business to obtain a license even though zoning was not approved. This special status expires December 31, 2005. Consequently the applicant is requesting rezoning of the subject property to permit the continuance of the existing business. Applicant's Comments The applicant is aware of the contents of this report, has reviewed the draft zoning by-law, and concurs with the recommendations. APPENDIX: Appendix I: Draft By-law Attachments: 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plans 3. Information Report 4. Public Information Meeting Minutes 5. Public Comments- Robert Szo 6. Public Comments & Petition - lan Polzin 7. Authorization from Diamond Swans Ventures Corp. c/o Fred T. Reisman 8. Comments from the Region of Durham Planning Department 9. Comments from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 10. Comments from Pickering Fire Services 11. Municipal Body Rub Parlour By-law - 5764/00 074 Report PD 46-05 Subject: Gabriela Kepinski (A 20/05) Date: November10,2005 Page 6 Prepared By: Ge(~f .P~, i~anowski, CPT Pla/nne~l¥ Approved / Endorsed By: Di,ucror, Planning & Development Lynda Taylor, MCIP, R~F~'~ Manager, Development Review GXR:jf Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Couneil-~ ~'-'r-:l-h, cC-~.%a~ J: Qui~ Chief ~ministra~Officer , -- 075 APPENDIX I TO REPORT PD 46-05 DRAFT BY-LAW ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 20/0S 07G THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 5558/99, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, being Part of Lot 17, B.F.C. Range 3, (Durham Condominium Plan 112), in the City of Pickering. (A 20/05) WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to permit an additional use being a Body Rub Parlour, on the subject lands, being Part of Lot 17, B.F.C. Range 3, (Durham Condominium Plan 112), in the City of Pickering. AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 5558/99, is therefore deemed necessary; NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. TEXT AMENDMENT Section 4. DEFINITIONS of By-law 5558/99, is hereby amended by adding the following definitions and re-alphabetizing and renumbering the subsections (1 to (15): (1) "Body Rub" includes the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching, or stimulating, by any means, of a person's body or part thereof but does not include medical or therapeutic treatment given by a person otherwise duly qualified, licensed br registered so to do under the laws of the Province of Ontario; (2) "Body Rub Parlour" includes any premises or part thereof where a body rub is preformed, offered or solicited in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, but does not include any premises or part thereof where the body rubs performed are for the purpose of medical or therapeutic treatment and are preformed or offered by persons otherwise duly qualified, licensed or registered so to do under the laws of the Province of Ontario; Section 5.(1) Uses Permitted of By-law 5558/99, is hereby amended by adding the following subclause and re-alphabetizing the subclauses (a) to (n): (d) body rub parlour; Section 5.(2)(i) of By-law 5558/99, is hereby amended by deleting and replacing the reference to subclauses (d) to (m) with (e) to (n), so that it now reads as follows: (i) The aggregate gross leasable floor area of all uses listed in Section 5.(1 )(e) to (n) of this By-law is limited to 5,000 square metres; Section 5.(2) Zone Requirements of By-law 5558/99, is hereby amended by adding the following subclause after subclause 5.(2)(b)(iii): (iv) Not more than one Body Rub Parlour shall be permitted and the aggregate gross leasable floor area of the Body Rub Parlour shall not exceed 110 square metres; -2- 077 2. BY-LAW 2511 By-law 2511 is hereby further amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this By-law as it applies to the area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject matter not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 2511, as amended. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE This By-law shall come into force in accordance with the provisions of the Planning Act. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 5"~ day of December, 2005. Debi A.~ntley, City Clerk REPORT t PD ~/~ BAYLY STREET BAYLY STREET ~ , ~ , ,SILICONE DRIVE CLEMEi JT! ROAD CLEMENTS ROAD SUB, IECT Gi~ of ~ickorin~ ~l~nnin~ & Dovolopmont Dopa~mont PROPER~ DESCRIPTION DCC 112, LEVEL 1, UNIT 161 OWNER DIAMOND SWAN VENTURES CORP. DATE JUNE 30, 2005 D~WN BY JB FILE No. A 20/05 SCALE 1:10000 CHECKED BY GR 200~ MPAC Grid ;t~ 8uppl;er~. All ri~hte Refereed. Not o plo~ of Survey, PN-4 ATTACHMENT ~ -~ ,TO INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED SITE PLAN A 20/05 079 CLEMENTS ROAD UNIT #161 THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. PLANNING INFORMATION SERVICES DIVISION MAPPINGAND DESIGN SECTION, JUNE 30 2005. 08O -.q rr n 0 nZO u_>~ 0 zz) A~ACHMENT #, -~ TO REPOR7 # PD~ ........ 08i PICKERING INFORMATION REPORT NO. 20-05 FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF September 15, 2005 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 20/05 Gabriela Kepinski 1895 Clements Road (Durham Condo Plan 112, Level 1, Unit 161) City of Pickering 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.1 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION the subject property is approximately 4.9 hectares in size, and located on the south west corner of Clements Road and Squires Beach Road (see Attachment #1 - Location Map); an 80 unit multi-tenant industrial condominium occupies the site; the property is surrounded by industrial-commercial and office uses. APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL the applicant requests to amend the existing zoning on the subject lands to add a Body Rub Parlour as a permitted use; the proposed use will occupy Unit #161 within the existing industrial condominium; total gross floor area of the existing industrial condominium is approximately 11,060 square metres; Unit #161 consumes approximately 110 square metres of the floor area (see Attachments #2 and #3 - Applicant's Submitted Site Plan & Floor Plan). OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING Durham Reqional Official Plan - the Durham Regional Official Plan identifies the subject lands as being designated "Employment Area"; - this designations goal is to establish Employment Areas and efficiently guide their development to obtain the greatest benefit for the Region; - to increase job opportunities for the residents of the Region; 0 8 ~ Information Report No. 20-05 ATTACHMENT ~ k~'~ TO REPORT # PD_.:~ .......... Page 2 3.2 3.3 3.4 Employment Areas shall be used for limited personal service uses; the applicant's proposal appears to comply with this designation; Pickerinq Official Plan the subject property is designated "General Employment" within the Brock Industrial Neighbourhood; this designation permits a wide range of employment uses while allowing for limited personal service uses serving the area; Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan -"Transportation Systems" designates Clements Road and Squires Beach Road as a Type C Arterial Road; Zoninq By-law 2511, as amended by By-law 5558~99 the subject property is currently zoned "MC-12" - Industrial Commercial Zone by By-law 2511/00, as by By-law 5558/99; the current zoning permits the following uses: All industrial uses permitted under "M2S" - Yard Storage & Heavy Manufacturing; Restaurant type A, accessory retail use in association with M2S uses, commercial club, commercial-recreational establishment, commercial school, dry cleaning depot and distribution station, personal service shop, place of amusement and entertainment, place of assembly, and private non-residential school; the applicant is requesting to add a Body Rub Parlour use to the existing zoning; the amendment would only apply to 1895 Clements Road; Municipal By-law Pertaininq to Body Rub Parlours on October 16, 2000, City Council passed Municipal By-law 5764/00, which provides requirements for the licensing and regulation of body rub parlours within the City of Pickering; the by-law includes a provision which restricts the location in which body rub parlours may be considered to operate, to the City's Industrial area, subject to a zoning by-law amendment application to permit the use (see Attachment #4 - Schedule "B" to By-law 5764/00); the definition of a Body Rub Parlour is as follows: a "Body Rub Parlour" is defined as any premises or part thereof where a body rub is performed, offered or solicited in pursuance of a trade, calling, business or occupation, but does not include any premises or part thereof where the body rubs performed are for the purpose of medical or therapeutic treatment and are performed or offered by persons otherwise duly qualified, licensed or registered so to do under the laws of the Province of Ontario; Information Report No. 20-05 ATTACHMENT #~ TO REPORT # PD~ ...... Page 3 0 8 2 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 a "Body Rub" includes the kneading, manipulating, rubbing, massaging, touching, or stimulating, by any means, of a person's body or part thereof but does not include medical or therapeutic treatment given by a person otherwise duly qualified, licensed or registered so to do under the laws of the Province of Ontario. RESULTS OF CIRCULATION Resident Comments no written comments have been received; Agency Comments - Pickering Fire Service has no objection; Staff Comments - in reviewing the application to-date, the following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: Use · the compatibility of the proposed use within the existing industrial condominium; · the examination of the compatibility with existing built form; · the examination of the entire site to ensure that all uses within the industrial condominium conform with the "MC-12" - Industrial Commercial Zone; · this zoning amendment will evaluate the appropriateness of the requested use; Parking · assess the current parking supply on-site and will examine the potential effects that this proposed use may have on the parking supply; Zonin_q · determine whether or not floor-space limitations for the proposed use should be included in any zoning by-law; this Department will conclude its position on the application after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and the public. 0 8 ~ Information Report No. 20-05 Page 4 5.0 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 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 Appendix No. I list of neighbourhood residents, community associations, agencies and City Departments that have commented on the applications at the time of writing report; Information Received - full scale copies of the Applicant's submitted plan are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development Department; Property Principal & Leasee the principal of 1895 Clements Road is Diamond Swans Ventures, the Condominium Board Representative is Fred T. Reisman and Associates Limited and the leasee of 1895 Clements Road, Unit #161 is Gabriela Kepinski. ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Geoff Romanowski, CPT Planner II GXR:Id Attachments Copy: Director, Planning & Development ORIGINAL SIGNED BY Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review O85 APPENDIX NO. I TO INFORMATION REPORT NO. 20-05 COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS (1) no comments received to date COMMENTING AGENCIES (1) no comments received to date COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS (1) Pickering Fire Services P-i-CKERING .:-'~ ¢"i'~'.!!Hit/~S~Z ~...~_ ToExcerpts from · Statutory P- iBF c-liiforrnabon Meeting Pursuant to the Planning Act Minutes Thursday, September 15, 2005 7:00 P.M. The Planner II, provided an overview of the requirements of the Planning Act and the Ontario Municipal Board respecting this meeting and matters under consideration there at. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 20/05 GABRIELA KEPINSKI 1895 CLEMENTS ROAD (DURHAM CONDO PLAN 112, LEVEL 1, UNIT 161) (CITY OF PICKERING) Geoff Romanowski, Planner II, provided an overview of property location, applicant's proposal and City's Official Plan policies pertaining to this site, as outlined in Information Report #20/05. Robert Szo, 1885 Clements Road, Unit 226, representing Scripture Union, advised that he had forwarded a letter of concern to the Planning Department on August 15. He expressed concerns with respect to the type of clientele that would be visiting this establishment. He advised that they run a Christian Children's Ministry and have a number of young girls working at the location. He is concerned that these young people will be intimidated by the users of this facility. Geoff Romanowski, Planner II, acknowledged receipt of Mr. Szo's letter and advised that the report would have been prepared prior to receipt of the letter. Wayne Buksa, 1948 Bowler Drive, representing the applicant, advised that this business has been at this location for five years, has had surprise visits by By- law, Police and the Health Unit and one infraction of the law has been found. The owner insists her clientele are dressed properly when stepping outside. She also has a good rapport with her neighbours and the landlord has no objection to her business. Gabriela Kepinski, 69 13TM Street, Toronto, owner, advised that the ladies who work for her must undergo a Police Check and required health tests. She further stated that she is at the business every day and has complete control of what goes on. ..... SCRIPTURE UNION CAN,&DA August 15, 2005 bis. Debt A. Bentley Cig,' Clerk City of Pickering One The Esplanade Picketing, ON L1V 6K7 hUG'1820t351 Olt,,/ lo CITY OF PICKERING PiCKERING, ONTARIO Re. Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 20/'05 (Body Rub Parlour) SEP "1 f. d v ,) CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Dear Ms. Bentley: Scripture Union's national offices are at 1885 Clements Road, Units 226 and 227. Sharing our offices are three other organizations: The Shan~'men's Christian Association of Canada, Athletes in Action and The Mustard Seed Nlission. Two of these organizations work widl children and youth and employ female staff and volunteers. It is not unusual for these female staff and volunteers to be on tile premises after business hours. My concern is that the presence of a "body rub parlour" in the immediate area may attract clients lhat may intmlidate c)ur female staff and vohmteers. They currently come to the premises and work without any concern for their' safely. I do not believe that it is good public policy to amend the by-law to permit this type of operation in the vicinity'. I urge the City Council to denv the application. You may' be interested to know that in a recent article in tile Toronto Star' the reporter wrote: "75% of 330 ciD'-licensed holistic centres actually operated as brothels or body-rubs" (Toronto Star, July 28, 2005. p. A20). fhe imphcation is clear: body-rub parlours are associated witi~ brothels and prostituuon and often masquerade as legitimate businesses. I am confident that the City of Pickering does not want to encourage this type of activity within its boundaries or be associated with such practices. I will attend the meeting on September 15"' and will be happy ~o answer any questions related to & Sincerely', / The Rex,. Robert Szo President CLERK'S DIVISION FORWARD COPY TO: -~~ __ZpI.ANNING&D~V CUST CARE PRO&& ECON DEVEL. ~BUPPLY& Frae .J...~_~ ...... RES Objections to amendment of existing zoning to allow a body rub parlor at Durham Condo Plan 112 ,Level I Urfit 161 (1895 Clements Road ) To' GeoffRomanowski Planner at the City of Pickering The following signatures represent the Tennants, local businesses or owners of the above location that object to the amendment oflhe zoning at the above location (1895 Clements Rd Plan 112, Level 1 Unit 161 . The parties of such signatures believe that the change of zoning will have a negative impact on the real property values itl the area. hnpact adversely on the commercial attraction of the area to new businesses considering this location. More importantly the increase in the level of crime in the area and especially the increase of the City of Pickering (and ultimately it's tax payers) for the responsibilities of policing and health monitoring of such site. This site is not conducive to such zoning due to the lack of parking facilities, increased security requirements to protect the other tenants and businesses and negatively affect the tax base of the area. Although this site has been zoned for such types of industries the associated costs and negative impact on the area would far outweigh the personal gains of the landlord or the econonfic attractiveness of the area to both small and large businesses. Picketing City Council must recognize that in the event of criminal activity the City incurs the costs to investigate such crime and is a tax burden arid uses up already limited resources of the Police. · According to Durham Regional Police these additional burdens to the Police carl cost the taxpayer anywhere in the excess of $30,000 per investigation. Individual or Tennant location city, phone, email Name__ I Unit/busin~Ci~ Phone Objections to amendment of existing zoning to allow a body rub parlor at Durham Condo Plan 112 ,Level I Unit 161 (1895 Clements Road ) To: GeoffRomanowski Planner at the City of Picketing The following signatures represent the Tennants, local businesses or owners of the above location that object to the amendment of the zoning at the above location (1895 Clements Rd Plan 112, Level ] Unit 16l. The parties of such signatures believe that the change of zoning will have a negative impact on the real property values in the area. Impact adversely on the commercial attraction of the area to new businesses considerin~ this location. More importantly the increase in the level of crime in the area and espec~'ally the increase of the City of Picketing (and ultimately it's tax payers) for the responsibilities of policing and health monitoring of such site. This site is not conducive to such zoning due to the lack of parking facilities, increased security' requirements to protect the other tenants and businesses and negatively affect the tax base of the area. ~ ' Although this site has been zoned for such types of industries the associated costs and negative impact on the area would far outweigh the personal gains of the landlord or the economic attractiveness of the area to both small and large businesses. Picketing City Council must recognize that in the event of criminal activity the City incurs the costs to investigate such crime and is a tax burden and uses up already limited resources of the Police. According to Durham Regional Police these additional burdens to the Police can cost the taxpayer anywhere in the excess of $30,000 per investigatiou. Individual or Tennant __me location city, phone, email Unit/business City Phone Email ~ 080 Objections to amendment of existing zoning to allow a booty rub parlor,at Durham Condo Plan 1 l- ,Level I Unit 161 (1895 Clements Road ) To: Geoff Romanowski Planner at the City of Picketing The following signatures represent the Tennants, local businesses or owners of the above location that object to the amendment of the zoning at tile above location (1895 Clements Rd Plan 112. Level 1 Unit 101 The parties of such s~gnamres believe that the change of zoning will have a negative impact on the real property values in the area. Impact adversely on the commercial attraction of the area to new businesses considering this location More importantly the increase in the level of crime itl the area and especially the increase of the City of Picketing (and ultimately it's tax payers) for the responsibilities of policing and health momtofing of such site This s~te is not conducwe to such zoning due to the lack of parking facilities, increased security requirements to protect the other tenants and businesses and negatively affect the tax base of the area Although this site has been zoned for such types of industries the associated costs and negative impact on the area would far outweigh the personal gains of the landlord or the economm attractiveness of the area to both small and large businesses Pickering City Council must recognize that in the event of criminal activity the Citv ~ncurs the costs to investigate such crime and is a tax burden and uses up already limited resources of the Police. According to Durham Regional Police these additional burdens to the Police can cost the taxpayer anywhere in the excess of $30,000 per investigation Individual or Tennant location city, phone, email Name Unit/business City _ Phone Email Cfi l: LECTRICITY A~ T/k, HIV cNl #__~ 0 ? ~ ~"' T I::iEPORI # PD~ Lynda Reilly-Sinapi ~hone '.905) 686-1040 %x (905) 6864 078 Architect Lnc Morry' Erie[stem '~s. Im ~'~'~ TeL :}05-427-17!8 ]?~IJ · ~ ?1~ 905'a27 738e' EDWARD (ED) POMERC)Y PRESEST ',TiON ~ND ]~g5 Clements Rd Unit ~76, Pickefmg. Onlano LIW ~..o~ '~,,~ ,. Alan Thornton ,, k [~.../ PUR~ WATER CO INC the ~ PRINT gHOP ~ Clay Lewis ~Lr--~lllll~ t ] A~ 8ACKMAN SCRIPTURE UNION CANADA Achievers Cable Gerry Roy Cell: /~,05) 922-3532 Tort Fc~e' (866) 313-0055 Emarl: dtrectsale$ 9ert)'ro}~lro~r~,com TIlE Food Plus COMPANY 1NC. 1885 Clements Road. Unit 237 Picketing. Ontario LIW 3V4 Marlo Tomei q05-427-4202 1 -g66-446-3396 09° O94 ATTACHMENT # ~._,~TO REPORI # PD '/g, - C ~ Mike Hamilton TeL 416984.5800 Toll Free, 1.877,984.5800 FaL 416.2.38.2193 CeL 416.712.5713 I-mail, mike~matranspor t.ca Web. www.matranspor t,ca DURHAM ,~,is .... a,,-~,,~,.,-s or PLASTICS s~or~ FJxt .... & P.O.P. Displays System Fur~t~ture Installation G' ~e~,ice, Reconfiguration, Lock Repmr~, Touch Up ~ Furmture Refinishing 1895 Cicmenrs Road, Unit 149. Picketing. Onratm, LIW 3\:$ Phone: (90il 6~6-t84~ Fax: {90.5 486-0979 Ce~): 416-991-14 Ema~]: lauramcbrde¢~ beHner ca HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING LIMITE COMMERCIAL · INDUSTRIAL Phil Young Benchmark Kitchens & Bath 1895 Clemen[s Rd #145 Picketing ON L1W 3V5 SMee Consaltant Phone: 905-683-7000 Fax: 905-683-1982 IMMEDIATE DELIVERY ROBERT PRICE 1895 Clements Rd., Unit 108 Pic~orir~g. Ontario LIW 3V5 TEL: (4!6) 213-7177 TEL: {905) 427-7733 CELL: (905) 426-0238 EMAIL: ro°ettP @ immediate.oei~very corn TEL 905-683-3477 FAX' 905-683-8t 51 ;895 Clements Rd., Unit 1 Picketing, Ontario L1W: ELECTRONICS 905 428 0200 COLUMBUS · ELECTRICAL. CONTRACTOI BILL DOHERTY P.O. BOX 58067, 500 ROSSi. AND ROAD WEST OSHAWA, ONTARIO L1J 8L6 TEL: (416) 292-2755 FAX: (416) 292-2054 BILL DALY 1895 C;ements Road Unit 140 Pickerinq, Ontario 1.888.426.8111 www. PneumaflcPorls.c~ Jeremy R. Todd, ( jeremy@pneumaticpa d.~ O95 ~ark Coutu ELECT~ONiCS HEATING & A~? CONDmOI~ING WAYNE 8ENNEIT~, ~' 4dO0 $',spoa;d A'O E. Unit Teh ~61 297-66'i3 Fax: (14'I~) 2g7,-0325 May 18, 2005. The Corporation of the City of Pickering, Pickering Civic Complex, One The Esplanade PICKERING, Ontario. L1V 6K7 Dear Sirs: RE: RE-ZONING APPLICATION BY: GABRIELA KEPINSKI c.o.b, as ARISTOCRAT HEALTH SPA 1895 CLEIV1ENTS RD., UNIT 161 - PICKERING, ONTARIO This letter will confim~ that we have no objection to Gabriela Kepinski making application for a re-zoning of the above-noted prenUses to include the use of"Body Rub Parlor". If such re-zoning application is passed, we will make the necessary changes to the lease to include the use of "Body Rub Parlor" and would not hesitate to negottate an extension to her existing lease agreement. Yours truly FRED T. REISMAN AND ASSOCIATES LIMITED ON BEHALF, OF DIAMOND SWAN VENTURES CORP., Per: M. Andrighetti MA/sv The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department 605 ROSSLAND ROAD E ~ FLOOR August 19, 2005 Geoff Romanowski. Planner II Pickering Civic Complex One The Esplande Pickering, Ontario L1V 6K7 Mr. Romanowski: Re: Zoning Amendment Application A2.0/05 Applicant: Gabreila Kepinski Location: Duham Condo Plan 112, Level 1, Unit 161 1895 Clements Road Municipality: City of Pickering 097 PO BOX 623 WHITBY ON L1N 6A3 CANADA 905-668-7711 Fax: 905-666-6208 E-marl: planning@ region .durham.on .ca www. region.durham.on.ca A,L. Georgieff, MClP. RPP Commissioner of Planning This application has been reviewed and the following comments are offered. The purpose of this application is to amend the existing zoning of the subject property from "Industrial Commercial Zone (MC-12)" to add a body rub parlour as a permitted use. Re.qional Official Plan The lands subject to this application, are designated 'Employment Area' in the Durham Regional Official Plan. Limited personal service uses may be permitted within this designation. Re.qional Services Municipal water supply and sanitary sewer services are available to the site. Provincial Policies & Deleqated Review Responsibilities This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial plan review responsibilities. There are no matters of provincial interest applicable to this application. If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Dwayne Campbell, Planner Current Operations Branch cc: Peter Castellan, Regional Works Depadment "Service Excellence for our Communities" N .\pi rn',d ctZ onln g\C omr,qe nts\Pickeri,~g~.A20-05 doc 100~/~ Post Consumer °os for The Living City August 30, 2005 Mr. Geoff Romanowski, Planner It Pickering Civic Cornplex One The Esplanade Picketing, Ontario L1V 6K7 Dear Mr. Romanowski: Re: Zoning Amendment Application - A20/05 Durham Condo Plan 112, Level 1, Unit 161 1895 Clements Road City of Pickering CFN Please note that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) is in receipt of the above-referenced zoning amendment application. Staff has had an opportunity to review the submission and offers the fo!lowing comments. Background The subject property is located at 1895 Clements Road, at tire southwest corner of Squires Beach Road and Clements Road, in tire City of Pickering. It is our understanding that the applicant requests a zoning amendment to permit a body rub parlor as a permitted use. Site-Specific Comments The subject property is located outside the Fill Regulated Area, pursuant to Ontario Regulation 158. Therefore a pernrit is not required from the TRCA as !)art of the approval of this application. Furthermore, the building on the subject property already exists and this application represents a change in use only. Th.,erefore no natural features of concern to the TRCA will be impacted through this zoning amendment application. Recommendations In light of the above, the TRCA has no objections to the zoning amendment application, as submitted. We trust these comments are of assistance. Should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact Susan Ro~ertson, Piannu~g Technician at extensiu~ 5370, oi i. he undersigned. Yours ~ly, Ru~-e/l~.~.W~iteA //(f ~x PE~a 3d~D6~'el°Pnrent RW/sr F '~Home',Pub c'Deveiopment Servicest, Durham Region'.Pickering',,A20-05 1895 Clements Rd PICK 08-29-05.wpd 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, OntarioM3N 1~4 (41 6) 661-660(~ FAX 66t-6898 www. trca.on.ca O99 Notice of a Public Meetin.q to be held Thursday, September 15, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Pickering Civic Complex - Council Chambers One the Esplanade, Pickering, L1V 6K7 for the following Planning Applications File Type & Number Owner / Applicant Property Location Proposal Reports Submitted with the Application Written Information Available Last Date for Comment Planning Contact Pickering Official Plan Designation Zoning By-law 2511/00, as amended by By-law 5558/99 Zoning By-law Amendment Application - A20/05 Gabriela Kepinski Durham Condo Plan 112, Level 1, Unit 161 (1895 Clements Road) City of Pickering. To amend the existing zoning of the subject property to add __ a b_A_b_ECZ rub pa_dour as a permitted use. · No reports required Information Report available from the office of the City Clerk on or after September 9th, 2005 and at the information Meeting September 22nd, 2005 Geoff Romanowski, Planner 11 Tel: 905-420-4617 "Employment Area - General Employment" within the Brock _Industrial N~ei~hbourhood "MC - 12"- Industrial - Commercial Zone I_,_ 0 0 Public Meeting Notice Page 2 Planning Act Requirements Date of this Notice Fire Department comments Dated: ~Fire ~Pre~'ention Officer (Picketing ~ire Seruices If you wish to reserve the option to appeal a decision of the City of Pickering, you must provide oral comments at the public meeting, or written comments to the City before The Pickering Fire Service has no objection with the applicant's proposal with the understanding that the building meets the requirements of the Ontario Building and Fire Codes. Friday, August 12, 2005 August2,2005 Council adopts any zoning by-law for this proposal. SCHEDULE "B" TO BY-LAW NUMBER 5764/00 DEFINED AREAS WHERE A BODY RUB PARLOUR MAY OPERATE SCHEDULE 'B' TO B'r .LAW 5764/00 DEFINED AREAS WHERE A BODY RUB PARLOUR MAY OPEaATE REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: CS 86-05 Date: November 21, 2005 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Cash Position Report as at September 30, 2005 Recommendation: It is recommended that Report CS 86-05 from the Treasurer be received for information. Director, Corporate Services & Executive Summary: The attached schedules provide the City of Pickering's cash position, continuity of taxes receivable, outstanding investments, development charges collected and other development contribution information for the three months ended September 30, 2005. Financial Implications: The cash position of the Corporation for three months ended September 30, 2005 was a net increase in cash of $14,352,679 to $15,684,476. Sources of Funds totalled $58,947,718 and Use of Funds totalled $44,595,039. Background: The discussion below describes the purpose and the information contained in each of the attached schedules. Statement of Cash Position: Attachment 1 reflects the sources and uses of funds for the third quarter of 2005. Subcategories have been identified to highlight those cash transactions that are significant in nature or large dollar value transactions for the City of Pickering. Year to year periodical comparisons may not be useful due to timing. Continuity of Taxes Receivable: Attachment 2 summarizes the tax related transactions from July 1 to September 30, 2005 and provides the outstanding taxes receivable as at September 30, 2005. This balance represents all three levels of taxes billed, such as City, Region and School Boards. This amount has steadily increased for the same period over the past several years but may vary where due dates and amounts for supplementary billings change from year to year. Report CS 86-05 Subject: Cash Position Report as at September 30, 2005 Date: November 21, 2005 Page 2 "0"' Outstandinq Investments: Attachment 3 reflects the short-term and long-term investments for both the Current Fund and the Reserve Funds outstanding as at September 30, 2005. Both short-term and long-term investments have steadily increased for the same period over the last few years. Development Charqes Collected: Attachment 4 indicates the total development charges for the City, Region and School Boards, as the City is responsible for collecting development charges on behalf of all levels of government. The total amount collected of $1,999,756 agrees with the balance indicated under Sources of Funds on Attachment 1. However the remittance of development charges to the Region and School Boards indicated under the Use of Funds is different than the total collected on Attachment 4. This variance is a result of timing differences because payments to the Region and School Boards are due 25 days following the month collected. Development charges collected for the same period are Iow when compared to 2004 ($3,377,132), but measure up to collections in 2002 and 2003. Year to year periodical comparisons may not be useful due to level of development activity and the timing of issuance of building permits. Other Development Contributions: Attachment 5 is provided to show other significant development contributions that have been received. Attachments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Statement of Cash Position Continuity of Taxes Receivable Outstanding Investments Statement of Development Charges Collected Other Development Contributions City Portion of Development Charges Collected 2003 - Sept. 30, 2005 Building Permits Issued 2000 - Sept. 30, 2005 City Portion of Development Charges Collected 1991-2004 i04 Report CS 86-05 Subject: Cash Position Report as at September 30, 2005 Date: November 21, 2005 Page 3 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Attachments Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Tl'x:5'n~s ,J. Qui{'.p/n, Chie~.~dministra"g~Officer ;qTTACHPIENT# J TO REP(:,,,:.: City of Pickedn!~. Cash Position Statement for three months ending September 30, 2005 Sources of Funds: Accounts Receivable collected $ 609,662 Development charges collected 1,999,756 Operating 11,548,620 Grants-in-lieu: Federal 314,968 Provincial 1,025,610 Ontario enterprises Municipal enterprises 37,043 Linear Properties 512,692 Federal specific grants Ontario specific grants 137,488 Interest Income 363,909 Sale of land Tax payments received 42,397,970 P©A Revenue Total $ 58,947,718 Use of Funds: Operating and Capital Expenditures $ 11,033,254 Payroll 6,746,771 Region Levy 14,654,935 Regional portion of Dev. Charges 267,921 School Board Levies 10,354,525 School Board portion of Dev. Charges 20,720 Debenture payment to Region 429,912 APTA Funding 1,087,001 Total $ 44,595,039 Net Cash Increase (Decrease) $ 14,352,679 FINANCIAL POSITION Bank Balance Net Cash Bank Balance July 1, 2005 Provided (Used) Sept. 30, 2005 Current Fund $ 1,331,797 $ 14,352,679 $ 15,684,476 TOTAL $ 1,331,797 $ 14,352,679 $ 15,684,476 Note: Includes City, Region and School Boards Cash Position third quarter 2005.xlsNET CHANGES 0 o OOOOOO0 OOOOOO0 0000000 O000000 ooooo99 z ~9© 0000 OO00 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 0000 W WWW OW~ .... z zzz~zzz Z~ZZZ ZZZ 0000 0~00 00~ 0~0 0~0~ 0~ 0~0 ~~ 0~0 ~~ 0~0 0000 000~ ~000 0 000 0 O0 ozzz ~¢~z oooo o 5000 ~oo WWWW ~WW o EEEE EEEE ZZZZ ZZZZ Z Z Z o -J --I 7 n, 0 0 U' c- © r- I-- 133 0 0 Z 0 u'J 0'~ 0 00 I'~ 0 O0 ~ 0'3 ~ :E ~.C~ ~ 0 .~'-- .to City of Pickering Other Development Contributions For three months ending September 30, 2005 CONTRIBUTIONS: Cash - In - Lieu of Parkland TOTAL CASH-IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND $52,162 $52,162 Cash Position third quarter 2005.xlsOther Dev. Contrbtns .~,zTACHMENT# ~' 'TO REPORT PICKERING REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: CS $9-05 Date: November 21, 2005 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: 2006 Temporary Borrowing By-law Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 89-05 from the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be received; and that: the temporary borrowing limit to meet 2006 current expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other revenues be established at $27,000,000 for the period January 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006 inclusive, and $13,500,000 thereafter until December 31,2006; 3. the temporary borrowing limit for capital purposes for 2006 be established at $17,000,000; 4. the attached By-law be read three times and passed; and, 5. 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: At this time it is difficult to estimate the interest costs as it is uncertain how much temporary financing may be required and for how long. An estimate will be provided at a later date in the 2006 Current Budget. With internal borrowings being undertaken to the maximum advisable, we will be resorting to external borrowing from the Region in 2006 for approved expenditures. For Current purposes, the $25 million limit for 2005 has been increased to $27 million for 2006 and the $12.5 million has been increased to $13.5 million. The limit for Capital purposes has been increased from $15 million for 2005 to $17 million for 2006. This may have to be adjusted once 2006 Capital budget has been approved. 114 Report CS 89-05 Subject: 2006 Temporary Borrowing By-law Date: November21,2005 Page 2 Background: The borrowing of funds for current and capital purposes may become necessary during the normal course of operations during 2006. Under the provisions of Section 407 of the Municipal Act, 2001, (the Act), the Council of the City of Pickering may pass a by-law to provide for the temporary borrowing of funds to meet current operating expenditures pending receipt of taxes and other revenues of the City. Under the Act, the Corporation may also undertake temporary borrowings, under individual project approvals, for capital projects pending permanent financing, including the issuance of debentures by the Region. Current Budqet Financinq: The amount of such temporary borrowing outstanding at any one time is generally limited by the Act, unless otherwise approved by the Ontario Municipal Board, to 50 per cent of the estimated annual revenues from January 1 to September 30 and to 25 per cent thereafter. Until the current year's estimates are adopted, the limitation may be calculated upon the revenues set forth in the estimates adopted for the next preceding year. Based upon the 2005 estimates of the Corporation, the allowable level of temporary borrowing outstanding under legislation is estimated at $27,000,000 from January 1 to September 30 and $13,500,000 thereafter. The requested $27,000,000 should be sufficient to meet the current expenditures of the City until the levies for 2006 are received. It is hoped that this amount will provide a sufficient level of temporary borrowings taking into account the potential effects of Taxation Legislation and its impact on cash f. lows. Capital Budqet Financinq: Borrowing for capital purposes under the Act can only be undertaken on projects approved by Council and will only be undertaken in the event that sufficient funds are not available at the time they are required. Recommendation 3 provides the authority for the Treasurer to obtain additional temporary interim financing (internal or external) for capital projects approved by Council. The $17 million capital borrowing limit would provide sufficient funds to cover the estimated 2006 capital expenditures. Attachments: 1. 2006 Temporary Borrowing By-law Report CS 89-05 Subject: 2006 Temporary Borrowing By-law Date: November21,2005 Page 3 -,15 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Caryn Kong Senior Financial Analyst :ck Attachment Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council Ther~a¥ J.-Qu'h~ Chief~t~r..~tive Officer THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING BY-LAW NO. Being a by-law to authorize the temporary borrowing of moneys to meet the current and capital expenditures of the City of Pickering for the year 2006. WHEREAS Section 407(1) of the Municipal Act, 200I, provides that the Council of the City of Picketing may by by-law authorize the Mayor and Treasurer of the Municipality to borrow from time to time by way of promissory note such sums as the Council may deem necessary to meet, until the taxes for the current year are collected and other revenues are received, the current expenditures of the Municipality for the year, including the amounts required for principal and interest failing due within the year upon any debt of the Municipality, and the sums required by-law to be provided by the Council for any local board of the Municipality; and, WHEREAS Section 407(2) limits the total of such borrowings to not exceed 50 per cent of the estimated annual revenues from January 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006 and 25 per cent thereafter; and, WHEREAS it is deemed necessary by the said Council to borrow the sum of twenty seven million dollars ($27,000,000) to meet, until the taxes for the current year are received, the current expenditures of the Municipality for the year 2006, including the amounts and sums aforesaid; and, WHEREAS the said sum of twenty seven million dollars ($27,000,000) plus any similar borrowings that have not been repaid, is less than 50 per cent of the total amount of the estimated revenues of the Municipality from January 1 to September 30 as set forth in the estimates adopted by the said Council for the year 2005 exclusive of revenues derivable from the sale of assets, borrowings or issues of debentures or from a surplus including arrears of levies and $13,500,000 is less than 25 per cent thereafter; and, WHEREAS the Municipal Act provides that if a municipality has by by-law approved an undertaking to be financed in whole or in part by incurring long-term debt, the council may by by-law authorize temporary borrowing to meet expenditures made in connection with the undertaking; and, WHEREAS it is deemed necessary by the said Council to borrow the sum of seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000) to meet the capital expenditures approved by Council. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: The Mayor and Treasurer of the City of Picketing are hereby authorized to borrow from time to time by way of promissory notes a sum or sums not exceeding twenty seven million dollars ($27,000,000) to meet, until the levies for the year 2006 are received, the current expenditures of the Municipality for such year, including the amounts required for principal and interest falling due within the year upon any debt of the Municipality for the period January 1, 2006 to September 30, 2006 inclusive and $13,500,000 thereafter until December 31,2006. The Mayor and Treasurer of lhe City of Picketing are hereby authorized to borrow from time to time by way of promissory notes a sum or sums not exceeding in all the sum of seventeen million dollars ($17,000,000) to meet the capital expenditures as approved by Council, of the Municipality including the amounts required for principal and interest. :17 Any promissory notes made under the authority of this By-law shall be sealed and signed in accordance with the prows~ons of the Municipal Act 2001 and may be countersigned in writing by the Manager Accounting Services of tt;e Corporation in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. 4. This By-law shall come into eifect on the first day of January 2006. BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 5~h day of December, 2005. David Ryan, Mayor DeN Bentley, City Clerk Cit,~ ,,¢ .~ PICKERING REPORT TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Report Number: CS 88-05 Date: November 22, 2005 From: Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer Subject: Ontario Transit Vehicle Program - 2005 Request for Allocation of Funds Recommendation: 1. That Report CS 88-05 be received for information and: That Council approve the application for Provincial subsidy funding as directed in the Ontario Transit Vehicle Program (OTVP) guidelines for 2005; That Council approve the (OTVP) application for the eligible expenditures as approved in 2005 APTA Budget and the Director, Corporate Services and Treasurer be authorized to make any changes to the OTVP application or undertake any actions necessary in order to ensure the application process is complete; and, That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering and the Ajax Pickering Transit Authority be given authority to give effect thereto. Executive Summary: The Ontario Transit Vehicle Program or OTVP is designed to provide up to one-third subsidy funding for: replacement transit vehicles, major refurbishment of ageing municipal transit vehicles and for fleet expansion. The application must be approved by the municipal Council and the Council of the Town of Ajax will be passing a similar Resolution. Financial Implications: In 2002, 2003 and 2004, APTA had applied to the Province for one-third subsidy funding for the purchase of replacement vehicles and for major transit vehicle refurbishments. Report CS 88-05 Date: November 22, 2005 Subject: Ontario Transit Vehicle Program - 2005 Request for Allocation Page 2 of Funds Under the Ontario Transit Vehicle Program, APTA's eligible renewal expenditures are based on the following APTA Board and Council approved 2005 capital budget items: 2005 APTA Capital Budget Submission for OTVP Funding Rep. - 1997 Ford CTV Bus #9006 $110,000 $36,630 $73,370 Rep. - 1995 ELF 125 Bus #9007 110,000 36,630 73,370 Rep. - 1995 Ford CTV Bus #9010 110,000 36,630 73,370 Mid-life Bus Refurb. 1994 Orion V #2012 80,000 26,640 53,360 Mid-life Bus Refurb. 1994 Orion V #2013 80,000 26,640 53,360 Mid-life Bus Refurb. 1994 Orion V #2014 80,000 26,640 53,360 TOTAL Related to 2005 APTA Budget $570,000 $189,810 $380,190 APTA staff have received price quotes for the above work. The price quotes have exceeded the approved budget and APTA's management has decided to defer mid-life bus refurbishment for bus 2012 in order to stay within the requirements of the approved budget and to provide flexibility for any additional work if it is required for bus refurbishments units 2013 and 2014. APTA's mechanical staff have determined that bus 2012 is the least in need of structural and mechanical refurbishment of the three buses that have been approved in the budget. In 2006, APTA's management plans to re-budget for refurbishment work related to bus 2012. Last year, APTA applied for one-third Provincial funding for several buses. Ministry of Transportation Ontario or (MTO) staff have informed APTA staff that due to the fact that these buses were not received until 2005, APTA needs to re-apply for the Provincial subsidy related to these buses. The table below reflects the re-submission. Report CS 88-05 Subject: Ontario Transit Vehicle of Funds Date: November 22, 2005 Program - 2005 Request for Allocation Page 3 Re-Application Related to 2004 APTA Capital Budget order (Delivered in 2005) Re-application for 2004 order for (2) Replacement Vehicles (Bus #2040 & #2039) $378,000 $125,874 $252,126 Re-application for 2004 order for (4) Replacement Vehicles 756,000 251,748 504,252 Total $1,134,000 $377,622 $756,378 Based upon the above two tables, APTA is asking the Province to provide funding in the amount of $567,432 (which consists of 2005 application $189,810 and 2004 of $377,622). Approval of the above Recommendations will provide the necessary authority for APTA to apply for the Ministry of Transportation subsidy funding. (The remaining net capital costs for the projects listed above are included in APTA's Capital Budgets and are funded equally by the Town of Ajax and City of Pickering). Background: In 2004, the Provincial Government announced, in its 2004 budget, a commitment of providing transit funding to municipalities. Through the OTVP, the Province will provide funding of up to one-third of the eligible capital costs incurred by municipalities to replace or refurbish ageing transit vehicles or to purchase new vehicles to expand their transit fleets to increase ridership and reduce gridlock. APTA staff received notification from MTO to apply for the subsidy in late fall of this year. In APTA's situation, both the Town of Ajax and the City of Picketing Councils must pass resolutions supporting APTA's OTVP application. Attachments: Not applicable Report CS 88-05 Subject: Ontario Transit Vehicle of Funds Date: November 22, 2005 Program - 2005 Request for Allocation Page 4 Prepared By: Approved / Endorsed By: Stan Karwowski Manager, Finance & Taxation Gillis A. Paterson Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer GAP:vw Copy: Chief Administrative Officer Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council 'Tho(n~' J.~Qut~, Chi~dmin~e Officer