HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 11, 2006
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, September 11, 2006
7:30 pm
Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Johnson
PRE-MEETING HAS BEEN SCHEDULED FOR 6:30 PM
(I)
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
PAGES
1.
Director, Planning & Development, Report PO 44-06
Zoning By-law Amendment Application, A25/05
974735 Ontario Inc. (Robert Lennox)
3880 Kinsale Road
Part of Lot 3, Concession 6 (40R-23226 Parts 1, 2 & 3)
City of Pickerinq
1-27
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 25/05 be approved, as set
out in the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Report PO 44-06, to
amend the existing zoning from "An Rural Agricultural zone to:
(i) "CLR7" Cluster Residential zone to permit the establishment of ten lots
for residential dwellings on the subject property, being Part of Lot 3,
Concession 6 (40R-23226 Parts 2 & 3), City of Pickering, and
(ii) "EP (NO)" Environmentally Protected Area Nitrate Dilution zone, and
"OS-HL-EP (NO)" Open Space Hazard Lands - Environmentally
Protected Area Nitrate Dilution zone, to acknowledge a portion of the
property for nitrate dilution purposes serving the proposed new
residential development and to protect and maintain a portion of the
property as open space, on lands being Part of Lot 3, Concession 6
(40R-23226 Part 1), City of Pickering;
2. That in accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, while the
zoning amendment proposed in Report PO 44-06 differs slightly from the
information contained in the public meeting notice, and Information
Report No. 26-05 presented at the January 19, 2006 Information
Meeting, such difference is not considered substantial enough to require
further notice and another public meeting; and
3. That the zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 25/05, as set out in Appendix I to Report PO 44-06, be
forwarded to City Council for enactment.
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, September 11, 2006
7:30 pm
Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Johnson
2.
Director, Planning & Development, Report PO 45-06
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A06/06
S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
1215-1235 Bayly Street
Part of Block Y, Plan M-16
City of Pickerinq
28-163
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Council adopt the Development Guidelines for the Bay Ridges Plaza
area, as set out in Appendix III to Planning Report PO 45-06;
2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A06/06 submitted by
S.R.& R. Bay Ridges Ltd., on lands being Part of Block Y, Plan M-16, City
of Pickering, to amend the zoning to permit a mixed use development
consisting of apartment buildings containing commercial/retail uses and
townhouse dwelling units, be approved, with an U(H)" holding provision
subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I to Planning Report
PO 45-06;
3. That the amending zoning by-law, to implement Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A06/06, as set out in Appendix II to Planning
Report PO 45-06, be forwarded to City Council for enactment; and
4. That traffic signals be installed at the intersection of Bayly Street and St.
Martins Drive, in consultation with the Region of Durham and the City of
Pickering, as a condition of proceeding with development and that the full
cost of design and construction be the responsibility of the owner.
3.
Director, Planning & Development, Report PO 43-06
704858 Ontario Limited
Plan of Subdivision 40M-1956
Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision
164-168
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Council pass the following resolution:
a) That the highway being Amaretto Avenue within Plan 40M-1956 be
assumed for public use;
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, September 11, 2006
7:30 pm
Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Johnson
b) That the services required by the Subdivision Agreement relating to
Plan 40M-1956, which are constructed, installed or located on
lands dedicated to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying
immediately adjacent thereto, including lands that are subject to
easements transferred to the City, be accepted and assumed for
maintenance, save and except from Blocks 21,22 and 24, Plan
40M-1956;
c) That the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto
relating to Plan 40M-1956 be released and removed from title;
d) That By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) be amended to
include the road being Amaretto Avenue within Plan 40M-1956; and
2. That Council enact a by-law to dedicate Block 23, Plan 40M-1956 as
public highway.
4. Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 27-06 169-183
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters, Bayly Street
Tender No. T-14-2006
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Report OES 27-06 regarding the Addition to Fire Services Division
Headquarters be received;
2. That Tender No. T-14-2006, low bid submitted by W.S. Morgan
Construction Ltd. for the addition to Pickering Fire Services Division
Headquarters in the amount of $1 ,227,000 (GST extra), be accepted and
the company be so advised;
3. That the total gross project cost of $1,427,820 and a net project cost of
$1,347,000, be approved;
4. That $417,000 be financed from the Development Charges Reserve Fund
and the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to transfer
the funds;
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, September 11, 2006
7:30 pm
Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Johnson
5. That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to
finance the project as follows:
a) Debt financing through the Region of Durham not to exceed the
amount of $930,000 for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years at
a rate to be determined;
b) That annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately
$75,000 be included in the annual current budget for the City of
Pickering commencing in 2007 and continuing thereafter until the
loan is repaid;
c) That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that
this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's debt and
financial obligations approved annual repayment limit for debt and
other financial obligations for 2006 as established by the Province
for municipalities in Ontario;
d) That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to
take any actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and,
6. That staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect
thereto.
5.
Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 29-06
No Parking By-law - Park Crescent
Amendment to By-law 6604/05
184-189
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Report OES 29-06 regarding a proposed amendment to the
municipal traffic by-law 6604/05 be received; and
2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule 'B' to By-
law 6604/05 to provide for the regulating of parking on highways or parts
of highways under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of
Pickering and on private and municipal property.
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, September 11, 2006
7:30 pm
Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Johnson
6.
Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 30-06
Tender T-7-2006 Helen Crescent, Brands Court, Trellis Court
Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works
190-199
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Report OES-30-06 regarding Helen Crescent, Brands Court, Trellis
Court Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works be received;
2. That portion of Tender T-7-2006 submitted by Hollingworth Construction
Company for Helen Crescent and Brands Court excluding (Trellis Court)
Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works at a cost of $372,022 plus
GST be accepted;
3. That the total gross project cost of $644,684.96 (plus GST) including the
tender amount, the Region of Durham's portion and other associated
costs and a net total cost of $375,000.00 after recoveries identified in this
report be approved;
4. That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to
finance the project through the issuance of debentures through the Region
of Durham; and
a) That debt financing not exceeding the amount of $310,000 for a
period not exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined;
b) That annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately
$42,000 be included in the annual Current Budget for the City of
Pickering commencing in 2007 continuing thereafter until the loan is
repaid; and any financing cost be paid out of the 2006 Current
Budget;
c) That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that
this loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt
Financial Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt
and other financial obligations for 2006 as established by the
Province for municipalities in Ontario;
d) That the Treasurer is authorized to take any actions necessary in
order to effect the foregoing; and
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, September 11, 2006
7:30 pm
Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Johnson
5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take
necessary action to give effect thereto.
7.
Director, Operations & Emergency Services, Report OES 31-06
Glendale Tennis Club
Ontario Trillium Foundation Grant Application Requirement
Lease Aqreement
200-202
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Report OES 31-06 of the Director, Operations & Emergency
Services be received;
2. That Council acknowledges to the Ontario Trillium Foundation that the
Glendale Tennis Club Project for upgrading existing tennis facilities will
be permitted at David Farr Memorial Park; and
3. That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute a lease agreement
to permit the newly incorporated Glendale Tennis Club the use of the
Tennis Facilities for club purposes at David Farr Memorial Park from
October 1, 2006 to September 21, 2012 that is in the form and
substance acceptable to the Director, Operations & Emergency
Services and the City Solicitor.
8.
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 27-06
Confirmation of Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2006
203-205
RECOMMENDATION
That Report CS 27-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be
received for information.
9.
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 44-06
Cash Position Report as at June 30. 2006
206-216
RECOMMENDATION
That Report CS 44-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be
received for information.
Executive Committee Meeting
Agenda
Monday, Septem ber 11, 2006
7:30 pm
Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor Johnson
10. Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 45-06
2006 Final Tax Due Dates for Commercial, Industrial and
Multi-Residential Realty Tax Classes
217-222
RECOMMENDATION
1. That Report CS 45-06 of the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
be received;
2. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to
issue the Final 2006 Tax Bills for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-
residential properties with a due date of October 13th, 2006;
3. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to
make any changes or undertake any actions necessary, including
altering the due date, in order to ensure the tax billing process is
completed and in order to comply with Provincial Regulations;
4. That the necessary by-law attached to this report be read three times
and approved; and
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority
to give effect thereto.
11.
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Report CS 48-06
Establishment of Appleview-Spartan Neiqhbourhood Watch
223-227
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the letter from the Durham Regional Police Service dated July 31,
2006 endorsing the establishment of the Appleview-Spartan
Neighbourhood Watch, be received; and
2. That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby
endorse the Appleview-Spartan Neighbourhood Watch and approves
the installation of Neighbourhood Watch signs at the entrances to the
subject area.
(II) OTHER BUSINESS
(III) ADJOURNMENT
CitI¡ (J~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
,'j O'ð
,.....1 ,J
Report Number: PO 44-06
Date: September 11, 2006
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 25/05
974735 Ontario Inc. (Robert Lennox)
3880 Kinsale Road
Part of Lot 3, Concession 6 (40R-23226 Parts 1,2 & 3)
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 25/05 be APPROVED, as set out
in the draft by-law attached as Appendix I to Report PO 44-06, to amend the
existing zoning from "An Rural Agricultural zone to:
(i) "CLR7" Cluster Residential zone to permit the establishment of ten lots
for residential dwellings on the subject property, being Part of Lot 3,
Concession 6 (40R-23226 Parts 2 & 3), City of Pickering, and
(ii) "EP (NO)" Environmentally Protected Area Nitrate Dilution zone, and
"OS-HL-EP (NO)" Open Space Hazard Lands - Environmentally Protected
Area Nitrate Dilution zone, to acknowledge a portion of the property for
nitrate dilution purposes serving the proposed new residential
development and to protect and maintain a portion of the property as
open space, on lands being Part of Lot 3, Concession 6 (40R-23226
Part 1), City of Pickering.
2. That in accordance with Section 34(17) of the Planning Act, while the zoning
amendment proposed in Report PO 44-06 differs slightly from the information
contained in the public meeting notice, and Information Report No. 26-05
presented at the January 19, 2006 Information Meeting, such difference is not
considered substantial enough to require further notice and another public
meeting.
3. That the zoning by-law to implement Zoning By-law Amendment Application
A 25/05, as set out in Appendix I to Report PO 44-06, be FORWARDED to City
Council for enactment.
Executive Summary: The applicant requests a zoning by-law amendment to
permit the establishment of ten Hamlet residential lots for detached dwellings fronting
Kinsale Road (see Location Map, and Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachments #1 and #2),
and to permit the establishment of a nitrate dilution area, on the abutting lands to the
west, to serve the proposed residential development.
'·~~rt PO 44-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Subject: 974735 Ontario Inc. (A 25/05)
Page 2
The Kinsale Settlement Policies identify the property as being within a priority area for
new growth and development. The proposed zoning amendment would implement the
City of Pickering Official Plan. The proposed lotting pattern is consistent with the
character and scale of existing development within the Hamlet of Kinsale.
It is recommended that this application be approved for cluster residential development,
that an environmentally protected area and an open space area be established for
nitrate dilution, conservation of the natural environment and resource management, and
that the draft by-law be enacted by City Council.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
proposed development.
Background:
1.0 Comments Received
1.1 At the January 19,2006 Public Information Meeting
(see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #4 and #5
· Valerie Cranmer of Valerie Cranmer Associates, authorized agent;
attended to explain the proposal as outlined in the Information
Report No. 26-05 and also stated that, in response to the Region of
Durham Planning Department's comments on this application, a peer
review of the associated Rural Servicing Study prepared by Jagger Hims
was in process;
1.2 Following the Information Meeting
· A letter was received from the Town of Whitby Public Works Department
on January 23, 2006 which identified the subject lands as being located
within the Lynde Creek Watershed, and recommended that this
development be designed to minimize the potential for erosion and
flooding problems downstream through the maximization of ground water
recharge (see Attachment #8);
· A peer review of the Supplementary Rural Servicing Study (June 2006)
was completed July 5th, 2006, on behalf of the Region of Durham, and
supported the applicant's proposal of ten hamlet residential lots, subject to
compliance with Ministry of Environment (MOE) Guidelines;
Report PO 44-06
Subject: 974735 Ontario Inc. (A 25/05)
Date: September 11, 2006
1"/0"')
\. ~ t
Page 3
1.3 City Department and Agency Comments
Region of Durham
Planning Department
no objection to the applicant's proposal subject to
the following:
1. an area of at least 6.17 hectares of this
property is designated as an Environmental
Protection Zone for nitrate dilution lands;
2. lawn watering from the drilled wells water
supply is prohibited;
3. an updated site plan indicating lot
configuration, building footprint, location of
private services and the reserved nitrate
dilution area along with a draft zoning
by-law will be required for review by the
Region of Durham Planning Department
and Health Department as well as the
Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
(see Attachment #6).
Central Lake Ontario
Conservation Authority
(CLOCA)
- no objection subject to CLOCA's Development,
Interference with Wetlands, and Alterations to
Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation;
- written permission from CLOCA is required prior
to any development of the site (see Attachment
#7).
2.0 Discussion
2.1 Proposal
The applicant requests that the current "An Agricultural zoning be amended to an
appropriate Residential Zone to allow the establishment of ten residential lots
having frontages ranging from 35 metres to 50 metres and areas ranging from
0.23 hectares to 0.30 hectares, and to establish a nitrate dilution area on the
abutting lands to the west to serve this development. All of the proposed lots
would front Kinsale Road. All lots are to utilize private drilled wells for drinking
water and private disposal systems for sewage.
(! 0 li1eport PO 44-06
Subject: 974735 Ontario Inc. (A 25/05)
Date: September 11, 2006
Page 4
2.2 The proposed residential use and proposed nitrate dilution area on the
abutting lands comply with the Pickering Official Plan designations, are
appropriate and compatible uses within the Kinsale Settlement Area
The subject property is designated Rural Settlements - Rural Hamlets and Hamlet
Residential in the City of Pickering Official Plan. This designation permits the
establishment of residential uses within the Kinsale Settlement Area. The Rural
Settlements Policies of the Official Plan require development to occur along
existing roads. Further, the Kinsale Settlement Area policies of the Official Plan
identify Rural Hamlets as the primary focus areas for new growth and
development. The applicant's proposal is consistent with these policies (see
Attachment #3 - Schedule IV - 9, Pickering Official Plan).
An existing cluster of residential dwellings is located immediately south of the
property, and east of the property on the opposite side of Kinsale Road. The
proposed lotting pattern is compatible with the existing adjacent residential
development and the proposed use is appropriate on the subject lands.
The abutting lands to the west are designated Agricultural Areas and Open
Space system - Natural Areas in the City of Pickering Official Plan. These
designations permit, among others uses, conservation, environmental protection
and agricultural uses. The applicant's proposal to permit a nitrate dilution area
on these lands is in compliance with the above-noted policies.
2.3 Council granted permission to permit lot creation through the land
severance process
The applicant received permission from City Council to allow the division of the
subject lands by land severance rather than by Draft Plan of Subdivision by
resolution on May 3, 2004. The Region of Durham Land Division Committee, on
August 24, 2006, conditionally granted approval of land severance applications
LD 258/05 to LD 265/05 to permit the establishment of ten residential lots fronting
Kinsale Road.
The City's interests will be addressed through this rezoning application and
conditions of land severance approval. The Town of Whitby's concerns for
erosion and flooding problems and the Region of Durham's requirements will also
be addressed through satisfying the conditions of land severance approval.
2.4 Zoning By-law Performance Standards
2.4.1 The proposed development will be subject to the same cluster residential zone
requirements that currently apply to other lands in the immediate area
Report PO 44-06
Date: September 11, 2006
i' ,_.
t"",-
1,"
.~. ',;,
Subject: 974735 Ontario Inc. (A 25/05)
Page 5
It is recommended that the subject lands be developed in accordance with the
following zone requirements for a "CLR7" Cluster Residential zone established in
amending By-law 2623/87 pertaining to other lands in the immediate area:
minimum lot area of 3000 square metres;
minimum lot frontage of 30 metres;
minimum front yard depth of 12 metres;
minimum side yard width of 3 metres;
minimum rear yard depth of 12 metres;
maximum lot coverage of 20 percent;
maximum building height of 12 metres;
maximum of one dwelling unit per lot; and
minimum gross floor area-residential of 95 square metres
2.4.2 Environmentally Protected Area and Open Space Area to be established on
abuttinq lands
Based on the findings of the rural servicing feasibility study submitted in support
of the zoning amendment application, it is necessary to establish and zone a
nitrate dilution area for the ten lots on other abutting lands owned by Robert
Lennox. Further, it is appropriate at this time to rezone lands associated with the
Lynde Creek, immediately west of the ten lots, to an open space category.
Information presented at the Public Information Meeting did not identify the intent
to rezone lands west of the ten lots for open space and nitrate dilution, as these
requirements were not known at the time. While the zoning of these lands will
change through approval of this application, the additional lands will not be
developed but will remain in their natural state. Development will continue to be
limited to the area of the ten lots fronting Kinsale Road, as identified in the initial
notices and reports. Consequently, the intent of the zoning amendment
application has not changed, and an additional notice and public meeting are not
considered necessary. Section 34(17) of the Planning Act requires that this
conclusion be formally stated by Council.
It is therefore recommended that the implementing by-law permit an "EP (NO)"
Environmental Protected Area Nitrate Dilution zone and "OS-HL-EP (NO)" Open
Space Hazard Lands, Environmental Protected Area Nitrate Dilution zone on the
abutting lands to the west. This amendment will establish a 6.17 hectare nitrate
dilution area to serve the residential development (see Appendix I: proposed
amending by-law, and Attachment #2A: recommended zoning details). This
nitrate dilution area is required to meet the Ministry of Environment's (MOE)
minimum drinking water standard for nitrate.
'::OG
Report PO 44-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Subject: 974735 Ontario Inc. (A 25/05)
Page 6
3.0 Applicant's Comments
The applicant is aware of the content of this report, has reviewed the draft zoning
by-law, and is in agreement with the recommendations.
APPENDIX:
Appendix I: Draft Text and Schedule Amending By-law
Report PO 44-06
Date: September 11 2006
t~O'7
.. j
Subject: 974735 Ontario Inc. (A 25/05)
Page 7
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Applicant's Submitted Site Plan
2A. Recommended Zoning Details
3. Schedule IV - 9 of Pickering Official Plan: Kinsale Settlement Area
4. Text of Information Report
5. Minutes from Statutory Public Meeting
6. Comments from the Durham Region Planning Department
7. Comments from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority
8. Comments from the Town of Whitby Public Works Department
Prepared By:
Approved / Endorsed By:
~__ø
Rick cefara~
Planner II
Neil Carroll, IP, P
Director, Planning & Development
~.
Lynda Taylo , P, RPP
Manager, Development Review
RC:jf
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering cit Council
"
t,08
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT PD 44-06
DRAFT BY-LAW
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 25/05
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
(,OB
BY-LAW NO.
DRAFT
Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3037, as
amended by By-laws 2623/87 and 3450/90, to implement the Official Plan
of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham on lands being Part of Lot 3,
Concession 6 (40R-23226 Parts 1,2 & 3), City of Pickering.
(A 25/05 and Region of Durham Land Divisions LD 258/05 to LD 265/05)
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
permit the development of detached dwellings, acknowledge certain lands for nitrate
dilution purposes serving abutting residential development and to protect and maintain
lands as open space on the subject lands, being Part of Lot 3, Concession 6
(40R-23226 Parts1, 2 & 3) in the Hamlet of Kinsale, City of Pickering.
AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 3037, as amended, is therefore deemed
necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. TEXT AMENDMENT
(1) Section 5 of By-law 2623/87, is hereby further amended by adding
thereto the following:
(4) (a) Uses Permitted ("EP (NO)" Zone)
No person shall within lands designated "EP (NO)" on Schedule "I"
attached hereto use any land for any purpose except for the
following:
(i) conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife,
resource management; and
(ii) nitrate dilution
(b) Zone Requirements ("EP (NO)" Zone)
No buildings or structures shall be permitted, nor any existing
buildings or structures be modified or changed, nor shall the placing
or removal of fill be permitted, except where buildings or structures
are used for resource management.
t J Ü
- 2 -
. ":"'>UFT
(5) (a) Uses Permitted ("OS-HL-EP (NO)" Zone)
No person shall within lands designated "OS-HL-EP (NO)" on
Schedule "I" attached hereto use any land for any purpose except
for the following:
(i) preservation or conservation of the natural environment, soil
and wildlife, resource management; and
(ii) nitrate dilution
(b) Zone Requirements ("OS-HL-EP (ND)n Zone)
No buildings or structures shall be permitted, nor any existing
buildings or structures be modified or changed, nor shall the placing
or removal of fill be permitted, except where buildings or structures
are used for flood and erosion control, or resource management.
2. SCHEDULE "I" AMENDMENT
Schedule "I" to By-law 2623/87, as amended by By-law 3450/90, is hereby
revoked and replaced with Schedule "In attached hereto.
3. AREA RESTRICTED
By-law 3037, as amended by By-laws 2623/87 and 3450/90, is hereby further
amended only to the extent necessary to give effect to the provisions of this
By-law as set out in Section 1 above, and as set out in Schedule I attached
hereto. Definitions and subject matter not specifically dealt with in this By-law
shall be governed by the relevant provisions of By-law 3037.
4. 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
2006.
day of
~
Debi A. Bentley, Clerk
230.2m
~
..;
t· 1 I.
1----
1
1
1
I
I
I REGIONAL FLOOO LINE'
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
I
1
,----,--
1 1
I 1
I 1
1 I
: ~EGIONAL FLOOO LINE'
I
1
1
I
1
i2.0m
138.2m
EP
(ND)
Ii:
!
1.5m _________-L--_____
75.5m
LOT 3
CLR5
..
'"
!i2.5m
~
~
BO.1m
83.1m
CONCESSION 6
LOT 2
CONCESSION 6
---I
1
I . AS ESTABLISHED BY THE
1 CENTRAL LAKE ONTARIO
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
1
I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
1
---
.,
~
--------
.ä
~
HIGHWAY 7
HIGHWAY 7
2.4m
I
I
1
I
I
I CONCESSION 5
l_____________
CLR8
.!i
2
40
~--
QS-HL 1
I LOT 2 I
CO~CESSION f
I 1
I 1
I 1
-----I I
1
I
I
1
I
I
I
11'
II\¡
I
\
I
I
I
I
I
\
I
LOT 3
SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW 2623/87
AMENDEDBYBY-LAW 3450/90
FURTHER AMENDED BY BY-LAW
PASSED THIS 1 1 t h
DAY OF .January
1988
CITY CLERK
,;-
f,
n~~
~ ,ì
þ'
MAYOR
\' ¡ 1 <!
" ....
A TT ACHMEMT I I TO
REPORT tI PO '-fit· 0 (..,
I I \ ~
0
«
0
0::
SUBJECT
¿ ')
W
..J
«
UJ
I ) z
~
r--
\ -
L--
"- -
(
\
\ I---
r
J
HIGHWAY 7 I
I 0
«
0
0::
>-
W
..J
0
:;)
«
City of Pickering Planning & Development Department
PROPERlY DESCRIPTION CONCESSION 6, PART LOT 3, 40R-23226, PARTS 1, 2, & 3 l'
OWNER 974735 ONTARIO INC. DATE OCT. 13,2005 DRAWN BY JB
FILE No. A 25/05 SCALE 1 :5000 CHECKED BY RC
Q!.CI ~OI."·C.S: PN-RUR
~ -1õ'~;·~J=An¿·~:~·~~s 1~~pp~~~s:t~ s':r~~~"sÅ.~~",=~Ç d~t·N~e~o"~7ad~ ~:,ts~r~I:." of survey.
i ".., 'J'H'rnIT # :) TO
k .I'h} 1'o_t..,V _
REPORT if PO L¡. 'I, 0 (,
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN'
A 25/05 - 974735 ONTARIO INC.
clO R. LENNOX
------------
----
70.6m I
E I I ----
0
~I I
I I ----
72.4m
E I I
0
~I I ----
BOAm I I
8 ----
.,; I I
M
I I ----
BUm I I
CONCESSION 6 E
LOT 3 C! Ie I ----
~ <
PART 1 40R-23226 10 I
70.5m c::
E ¡ W I ----
o ..J
~ < I
en I ----
Z
606m ,::2
I
~ I ----
I
I I
----
I
I ----
I
E ----
IX)
c:i
"'
55.9m
E
N
cri
"
47.Bm
8
m
M
--------
77 Am
, ,:11}·:
. "
~. .l1o,oo"
~
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING &
DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PLANNING INFORMATION SERVICES
DIVISION MAPPING AND DESIGN. OCTOBER 13, 2005.
of t
t..' 1. '1'
ATTACHMENT 2A
TO REPORT #PD 44-06
RECOMMENDED ZONING DETAILS
A 25/05- 974735 ONTARIO INC.
C/O R. LENNOX
LOT 3
LYNDE CREEK
TRIBUTARY
¡-;ITRATE DILUTION AREA
(LANDS OWNED BY
I APPLICANT)
I
I
I REGIONAL FLOOD LINE'
I
I
I
I
I
r---T-
I
t
92.0m
EP
(ND)
CLR7
92.5m
CONCESSION 6
I * AS ESTABLISHED Y THE
CENTRAL LAKE ONT.Ai 10
t CONSERVATION AUTH RI1'\'
HIGHWAY 7
10 PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
LOTS
-¡--
~
~
~
~
~
~
W
.-J
<{
(f)
Z
~
LOT 2
CONCESSION 6
-¡-
I
I
\
\
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
\ r
l
J
S.W. ANGLE OF LOT 2. CON. 6
HIGHWAY 7
l'
FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANT'S
SUBMITTED PlAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT
THE CITY OF PICKERING PlANNING &- DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING
PlANNING &- DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
INFORMATION &- SUPPORT SERVICES,
AUGUST, 2006.
//
-/
/~
A
..¡-
/
HIGHWAY
·~1. l,ri·j~·o::rIT..o ?) TO
·<'"1,v· .,ilL. Ii tt ~
,)i' I ~' PD -.!:L Lf . D ~
SCHEDULE IV - 9
SETTLEMENT 9: KINSALE
PROPOSED
TRANSITWAY
()
---ii'
,.
~
"
PI
n
"
PI
PI
'"
~,()O
~~,s-I&
..,~
4t .... '-UGH",
..... 4t ,,'\y
LEGEND
HAMLET
RESIDENTIAL
"',
\....
SPECIAL INTEREST SITE
o
œ
~
~
---
HAMLET
COMMERCIAL
OPEN SPACE SYSTEM-
NATURAL AREAS
RURAL SETTLEMENT
BOUNDARY (PROPOSED)
NEW ROAD
CONNECTIONS
(PROPOSED)
CITY OF" PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOpMENT DEPARTMENT
DECeMBER. 2005
~~~~ %~O:~~ M~~ ~~ ~~O~ ACg~.II~~¿TI~~K~~~GTHE
OTHER SCHEDULES AND THE TEXT.
t, 1 ::)
". ~^
y
~
~
~
~
~
I':'S
@
~
~
@
þ
l'
tv
PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 4: Chaoter Twelve - Rural Settlem[=mt~
?.dn
1.'16
!;TTACHfV:ENT # If TO
HG'()Rl # PD....!::L'::L..Q...£......
CUt¡ a#
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 26-05
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
January 19, 2006
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 25/05
974735 Ontario Inc.
3880 Kinsale Road
Part of Lot 3, Concession 6
(Now RP 40R-23226 Parts 2 & 3)
City of Pickering
1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
_ the subject lands are approximately 2.64 hectares in size, and located on the
west side of Kinsale Road, north of Highway NO.7 in the Rural Hamlet of
Kinsale (see Attachment #1 - Location Map);
- the site is surrounded by agricultural land uses to the north and west, and is
adjacent to residential land uses to the south and to the east;
- a tributary of Lynde Creek abuts the subject lands to the west;
_ a conceptual plan showing the proposed future division of the subject property
is provided for reference, (see Attachment #2 - Applicant's Submitted Conceptual
Plan).
2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
- the applicant proposes to amend the existing agricultural zoning of the subject
lands to an appropriate hamlet residential zoning to permit the development
of ten future residential lots fronting on to Kinsale Road;
- the following chart outlines the frontage and area of the proposed residential
lots:
Information Report No. 26-05
¡,:>::~ ft, 1.f ~ TO
.-'in ./ iI L/ L" /-
..~:._,_:......:..,~ ._--
Page 2
t'17
Lot FrontaQe Area
Severed Lot - LD 258/05 39.1 metres 0.30 hectares
(Lot 1)
Severed Lot - LD 259/05 35.0 metres 0.25 hectares
(Lot 2)
Severed Lot - LD 260/05 35.0 metres 0.26 hectares
(Lot 3)
Severed Lot - LD 261/05 35.0 metres 0.29 hectares
(Lot 4)
Severed Lot - LD 262/05 35.0 metres 0.26 hectares
(Lot 5)
Severed Lot - LD 263/05 38.0 metres 0.25 hectares
(Lot 6)
Retained Lot (Lot 7) 47.1 metres 0.26 hectares
Severed Lot - LD 264/05 50.8 metres 0.27 hectares
(Lot 8)
Severed Lot - LD 265/05 49.2 metres 0.24 hectares
(Lot 9)
Retained Lot (Lot 10) 50.8 metres 0.23 hectares
- a conceptual plan showing the proposed future division of the subject
property is provided for reference (see Attachment #2 - Applicant's Submitted
Conceptual Plan).
3.0 BACKGROUND
- this application is the second component within a two-staged approach that
the applicant has pursued for the purposes of creating ten lots for hamlet
residential development on the subject lands;
- Stage 1 consisted of three planning processes:
· the applicant received permission from City Council to allow the division of
the subject lands by land severance rather than by Draft Plan of Subdivision
for future hamlet residential development by resolution on May 3, 2004 in
accordance with Section 15.26(b) of the City's Official Plan;
· approval of land severances were obtained from the Land Division
Committee on April 19, 2004, to sever two vacant hamlet lots from a
retained lot (LD 11/04 to LD 12/04); the requested zoning amendment is
for these two parcels;
· approval of a minor variance was granted by the City of Pickering's
Committee of Adjustment to permit the establishment of a minimum
20 metres lot frontage for the retained parcel of the above-mentioned
severance applications (P/CA 4/04);
\.,-18
Information Report No. 26-05
,..,t"._ TO
_,:i.':L.J2. ~.
Page 3
Stage 2 consists of two planning processes:
· land severance applications were submitted to the Durham Region Land
Division Committee for the further division of the subject lands (Region of
Durham files LD 258/05 to LD 265/05); these applications were TABLED
by the Land Division Committee on November 14, 2005, until outstanding
issues have been resolved with the Central Lake Ontario Conservation
Authority;
· the enactment of a zoning by-law changing the existing rural agricultural
zoning to an appropriate hamlet residential zoning category.
4.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING
4.1 Durham ReÇlional Official Plan
identifies the subject property as being designated Rural Settlements - Hamlet;
identifies hamlets as the predominant location for Rural Settlement;
Rural Settlement areas permit the establishment of commercial, residential,
community and recreational uses;
the proposal appears to conform to the Durham Region Official Plan;
4.2 PickerinÇl Official Plan
identifies the subject lands as being designated Rural Settlements - Rural
Hamlets and Hamlet Residential within the Kinsale Settlement Area;
- this designation permits residential, employment, commercial, community,
cultural and recreational;
identifies rural hamlets as the primary focus for new growth and development
in rural areas (both for residential and other complementary and support
facilities );
City Policy for Rural Settlements:
· states that Council shall zone lands designated Rural Settlements in
accordance with the provisions specified in the Rural Settlement Plan;
· encourages new development to enhance a range of housing choice in
the settlement and to be innovative in relation to compact form, water
usage and sewage disposal;
· requires all new development, whether on individual or communal water
and sanitary services, to be based on appropriate technical services,
protection of the natural environment, the protection of nearby property
owners, and compliance with Provincial and Regional standards;
- the proposal appears to conform to the Pickering Official Plan;
Information Report No. 26-05
.,.5L
'/'1 'c)' f,'
Page 4
t!l~)
4.3 Kinsale Settlement Area
Kinsale is recognized as a priority area for rural growth and development;
4.4 Zonina Bv-Iaw 3037
the subject property is zoned "A" - Rural Agricultural Zone which permits
agricultural uses, including a detached dwelling;
the minimum required lot area and frontage in this zone are 0.8 hectares and
60 metres, respectively; a zoning by-law amendment is required to permit the
development on smaller lots than the agricultural zoning of up to ten residential
dwellings on the subject lands;
- the applicant has requested an appropriate zoning designation that would
permit hamlet residential development.
5.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
5.1 Resident Comments
residents' comments received to date outlined the following concerns:
. whether the quality and level of existing well water will be adversely
affected as a result of introducing ten additional dwelling units;
. the adequacy of access and egress onto Highway No. 7 from additional
southbound movements generated by potential new traffic; (see
Attachment #3);
5.2 Aaencv Comments
Regional Municipality of Durham
Planning Department
Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.
- requests permission to obtain
additional information from the
applicant's geotechnical consulting
engineer and the submission of a
Record of Site Condition to the
Ministry of the Environment to the
satisfaction of the Region (see
Attachment #4);
- no easements are required as all of
the natural gas distribution will be
installed within the proposed road
allowance request that conditions
be imposed in a development
agreement in accordance with their
letter dated November 17, 2005,
(see Attachment #5);
t Arifbrmation Report No. 26-05
if
t.f '-I . C {~,
Page 5
5.3 Staff Comments
in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified
by staff for further review and consideration:
· the compatibility and the appropriateness of the proposed use with the
surrounding area;
· the determination of the appropriate zoning standards for hamlet
residential;
· the evaluation of the effect of establishing up to ten residential dwellings
on the abutting Natural Areas of the City's Open Space System;
· the evaluation of the hydrological report submitted with the application;
· the examination of this application to ensure that it is consistent with the
polices of the 2005 Provincial Policy Statement;
- this Department will conclude its position on the application after it has
received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies
and the public.
6.0 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.
7.0 OTHER INFORMATION
7.1 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;
7.2 Information Received
copies of the Applicant's Submitted Plans and Reports are available for
viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development
Department, including:
Information Report No. 26-05
if
LI'f . c' 1..,
Page 6 L.21
· Plan of Survey of the subject property, prepared by H.F. Grander Co. Ltd.,
Ontario Land Surveyor, dated December 22, 2004, which shows the
dimensions and elevations;
· Construction Sketch Plan, by H.F. Grander Co. Ltd., Ontario Land
Surveyor, dated December 22, 2004 showing ten proposed building lots
with lot area calculations included;
· Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Jagger Hims
Limited Environmental Consulting Engineers, dated June 2002;
· Rural Servicing Feasibility Study Proposed Residential Development
Severance prepared by Jagger Hims Limited Environmental Consulting
Engineers, dated July 2005;
· Rural Servicing Study Proposed Residential Subdivision, prepared by
Jagger Hims Limited Environmental Consulting Engineers, dated
September 2005;
_ the need for additional information will be determined through the review and
circulation of the applicant's current proposal;
7.3 Property Owner
The owner of 3880 Kinsale Road is 974735 Ontario Inc. The Principal of
974735 Ontario Inc. is Robert Lennox. The agent for this application is
Valerie Cranmer from Valerie Cranmer & Associates.
;:~ TGrNAL SIGNED BY
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Rick Cefaratti
Planner II
Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
RC:jf
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
, I)'
L ,'.., ,-
if
;,..";i l~. , . L/ it () (,
'" "~'L'-::.,,~~.,
APPENDIX NO. I TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 26-05
COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
(1) John R. Ward, 3297 Highway NO.7
COMMENTING AGENCIES
(1) The Regional Municipality of Durham Planning Department
(2) Enbridge Gas Distribution Inc.
COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS
(1 ) none received to date
~ . ') r\
5 _~J
LjiJ .() b Excerpts from
4. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 25/05
974735 ONTARIO INC.
3880 KINSALE ROAD
PART OF LOT 3, CONCESSION 6
(NOW RP 40R-23226 PARTS 2&3)
CITY OF PICKERING
1. Planner Comments
Rick Cefaratti, Planner II provided an overview of the application and comments
provided so far. Concerns from residents have been received with respect to access
from Highway 7 and the potential increase in traffic, along with the impact on the
quality of the well water in the area. Staff advised that the Region of Durham's
Planning Department and other agencies require more information on the proposal.
2. Applicant Comments
Valerie Cranmer, of Cranmer Associates, Applicant Representative ,LO clt
Ms. Cranmer stated that the applicant is working closely with ~ and the City of
Pickering to provide required information. Additionally, a hydro-geological study had
been prepared determining that there should not be any implications to health and an
independent study was being completed and will be provided to the City along with
area residents.
3. Comments from Members of the Public
No comments from members of the public.
Page 1
CORP0228-2/02
I) I
t ! ,j
'.' ....,
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning Department
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E
4TH FLOOR
P.O. BOX 623
WHITBY, ON L 1 N 6A3
(905) 668-7711
Fax: (905) 666-6208
E-mail: planning@
region.durham.on.ca
www.region.durham.on.ca
A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner of Planning
., Service Excellence
ler our Communities"
August2,2006
(.,
, .!i.'L.,Q6.._.~.
Rick Cefaratti, Planner II
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplande
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
SENT VIA EMAIL TO:
rcefaratti@city.pickering.on.ca
Mr. Cefaratti:
Re: Zoning Amendment Application A25/05
Owner: 974735 Ontario Incorporated - Lennox
Location: 3880 Kinsale Road
Part Lot 3, Concession 6
Municipality: Pickering
Further to my comments offered on November 21 and 22 of 2005, the peer review
of the hydrogeological report submitted in support of this application has been
completed. The following revised comments are offered.
The purpose of this application is to amend the zoning of the subject property to
permit ten single-detached residential dwellings fronting onto Kinsale Road.
Reaional Official Plan
The lands subject to this application are designated "Rural Settlement - Hamlet" in
the Durham Regional Official Plan. Hamlets are to be developed in harmony with
surrounding uses and may consist of a variety of housing types. The proposal may
be permitted within Hamlets.
Reaional Services
The hydrogeological report, prepared by Jagger Hims Limited, indicates that private
drilled wells and private sewage disposal systems are able to service the proposed
10-lot development provided that an area of at least 6.17 hectares is reserved for
nitrate dilution. The report further recommends that lawn watering from drilled-wells
be prohibited on the proposed ten lots to reduce domestic-water demands.
The peer review of the hydrogeological report, undertaken by Hydraterra Limited,
concurs with the recommendations in the report and indicates that the proposal
meets the MOE Guidelines for privately serviced developments.
As a condition of rezoning the following criteria, as recommended in the
hydrogeological report and conformed by the peer review, are to be included in the
zoning by-law:
· that an area of at least 6.17 hectares is to be designated undevelopable as
an Environmental Protection zone for dilution lands;
· that lawn watering from the drilled wells water-supply is prohibited.
Furthermore, quality and quantity testing of drilled wells is to be undertaken by a
qualified engineer (hydrogeologist) prior to the issuance of any building permits.
c-o,' , ~,
, ft~,·
illf' () (>
'r"!)
f) ...
f' ,-
, ¡..., ,)
Page 2
An updated site-plan showing the lot configuration, building footprint, location of
private services and the reserved nitrate dilution area/block along with a draft
zoning by-law will be required for review by this department, the Health Department
and CLOCA.
Provincial Policies and Deleaated Review Responsibilities
This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the provincial
plan review responsibilities. A Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment by
Jagger Hims Limited indicates that on-site soil, surface water and groundwater
quality complies with the Ministry of Environment Guidelines. The MOE has
acknowledged that a Record of Site Condition has been filed on the Environmental
Site Registry for the subject property.
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
""<-^"'"
//,1
( ;'./ , ¡I/
~~(: ¡J ;1 A /IV I
__ VlYl1(1 VV! \,
Dwayne Campbell, Planner
Current Planning
Cc via email: Regional Health Department - Karl Kiproff
Regional Works Department - John Molica
N:\pim\dc\Zoning\Comments\Pickering\A2S.05_revised.doc
'. t) rtr
;'i;7
.r~£
f~ l~:~.,f~t~:i
Cen tral
Lake Ontario
Conservation
'--7
/
'IV c G
~~M
100 Whiting Avenue
Oshawa, Ontario
L 1 H 3T3
Tel: (905) 579-0411
Fax: (905) 579-0994
Web: www.cloca.com
Email: mail@cloca.com
Member of Conservation Ontario
July 27, 2006
~~ EO" . C·~ E"'·.'"." ~.~ '\ g E D"
n. .... .' ~ foi ~ At .'
Ii ii:¡'! ') II Of,'
v U ,... '., ' L., U
City of Pickering
Planning & Development Department
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON Ll V 6K7
CITY OF PiCKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Attention:
Rick Cefaratti. Planner II
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application - File: A 25/05
Owner: 974735 Ontario Inc. (Robert Lennox)
Location: 3880 Kinsale Road, City of Pickering, Ontario
Part of Lot 3, Concession 6, Pickering
CLOCA File No.: A 25/05 - CLOCA IMS No.: PVOG115
X·REF.: LD 258/2005 to LD 265/2005 and LD 011/2004 & LD 012/2004
Purpose of Application: To amend the zoning to permit the future development of single detached
residential dwellings fronting on Kinsale Road.
Authority staff has reviewed the above noted application and most recent submission dated June 12,
2006 (in response to our January 4,2006 comments) and no longer have any objections to the approval
of this application.
Staff also request that the applicant be infonned that all of the lands represented by this application are
currently subject to Ontario Regulation 42/06, the Authority's Development, Interference with
Wetlands, and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation. Therefore, written pennission
from the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority is required prior to any development on site.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application. If you have any questions regarding this
matter, please contact the undersigned.
~~IY' ...
t1....DanHOpe ~
I Provincial Offences Officer/Planner
DH/klt
cc V. Cranmer, Valerie Cranmer & Associates, Port Perry
g:\planning\planning\comments\Lennox.ZoningAmend.A25-05 .b. pick
'What we do on the land is mirrored in the water
@
THE CORPORATION. OF THE TOWN. OF WHITBY
In the Regional Municipality of Durham
. cç. t¡,2 7
'1$1-06
Telephone
905·668-5803
Toronto
905-686-2621
Fax
905-686- 7005
MUNICIPAL BUILDING
575 Rossland Road East
Whitby, Ontario
Canada
LIN 2M8
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Engineering Section
(905) 430-4307
File: B-2400
January 6, 2006
< ., ~ Wi"}
R E eEl" Ci.: ¡q..j.
Ms. Debi A. Bentley, City Clerk
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario LI V 6K7
7- 3
C\TY Of
""'LANNINI.;: &,."".
¡- D~PÞ-·!~·7r\!iC;\' ,
i_ '_ '
Dear Ms. Bentley:
RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A25/05
3880 Kinsale Road, Pickering
We note that the subject lands are located in the Lynde Creek watershed. Although, we expect
that this proposed development will have little impact on the creek flows, it would be advisable
to encourage ground water recharge to the maximum extent in order to minimize possible
erosion and flooding problems downstream.
Yours truly,
~~~_.¿.j /¿~..
C fat.
dm
pc: Paul Jones, Clerk
Wm. (Bill) Watson, Manager of Engineering & Development Se
Ed Be1sey, Planner
LEONARD WELCH, C.E.
Engineering Technologist (
CORR
TAKE APPR ACTION
.......
~
.'~h'~
fJ .'2d5/D,:5
~
~
"..-~
· ("\:'""
t ,<i:?ú/ 0#
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PO 45-06
Date: September 11,2006
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06
S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
1215 - 1235 Bayly Street
Part of Block Y, Plan M-16
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1. That Council ADOPT the Development Guidelines for the Bay Ridges Plaza
area, as set out in Appendix III to Planning Report PO 45-06.
2. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06 submitted by S. R. & R. Bay
Ridges Ltd., on lands being Part of Block Y, Plan M-16, City of Pickering, to
amend the zoning to permit a mixed use development consisting of apartment
buildings containing commercial/retail uses and townhouse dwelling units, be
APPROVED, with an "(H)" holding provision subject to the conditions outlined in
Appendix I to Planning Report PO 45-06.
3. That the amending zoning by-law, to implement Zoning By-law Amendment
Application A 06/06, as set out in Appendix II to Planning Report PO 45-06, be
FORWARDED to City Council for enactment.
4. That traffic signals be installed at the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins
Drive, in consultation with the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering, as a
condition of proceeding with development and that the full cost of design and
construction be the responsibility of the owner.
Executive Summary: The applicant proposes to redevelop the Bay Ridges Plaza
for a mixed use condominium development consisting of apartment buildings that
contain ground floor commercial/retail uses, and townhouse dwelling units, including
some live-work units. The mixed use proposal will contain approximately 2,100 square
metres of commercial/retail floor area and a total of 473 dwelling units (347 apartment
units and 126 townhouses). The proposed mixed use development is aligned with the
principles of intensification and transit oriented development.
The subject land is in a detailed review area, which requires development guidelines to
be prepared. Design guidelines to guide development of the property have been
prepared and are presented for adoption. The application has been assessed against
the guidelines.
Report PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
t, ?Cl
~. ,.... t~
Page 2
The recommended provisions to be included in the implementing zoning by-law provide
for an appropriate density for an infill site, resulting in transit supportive intensification
next to a transit spine. The recommended guidelines and zoning conditions require and
encourage the incorporation of elements of sustainability in both the site plan and
building design. Retail floor space of 2000 square metres is recommended to be
required to be introduced in the first phase of development to ensure continuity of
commercial services to the neighbourhood. The mixed use development will also
provide protection to the natural environment associated with the Douglas Ravine.
The design, as modified in accordance with this report, is considered compatible with
the surrounding land uses. It is recommended that the implementing by-law contain an
"(H)" holding provision to ensure that the City, Region of Durham and Toronto Region
Conservation Authority interests are addressed through the execution of appropriate
agreements. The recommended implementing by-law is appropriate as it implements
the Official Plan, is in accordance with existing and emerging Provincial policy,
continues to provide substantial commercial services to the neighbourhood, and
constitutes appropriate land use planning.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
proposed development.
Background:
1.0 Introduction
S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd., submitted an application to amend the zoning by-law
to implement proposed redevelopment of the subject lands (see Location Map,
Attachment #1). The redevelopment plan proposes to create a mixed use
development on a 3.38 hectare site, consisting of townhouses, back-to-back
townhouses, and a mixed use building consisting of ground related
retail/commercial uses, office uses and two apartment buildings (see Attachment
#2). It is anticipated that a condominium proposal for the townhouses will be a
common element condominium for private internal roads, visitor parking areas, a
parkette and playground, a walkway and perimeter landscaping elements. A
portion of the property contains lands associated with the Douglas Ravine which
will be conveyed to a public authority.
Since the June 1, 2006 public meeting the applicant has submitted a revised
development plan. The revised plan is provided for reference as Attachment # 3.
Changes include:
· the removal of development from a portion of the lands in the north-east
portion of the property;
· a reduction in the number of dwelling units;
· the establishment of a 10 metre development buffer from the top-of-bank of
the Douglas Ravine;
· a reconfiguration of the proposed park/parkette space; and,
Report PO 45-06
t' J èubject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11,2006
Page 3
. the removal of townhouse dwelling units backing onto Douglas Ravine.
The concept site plan does not propose the creation of new municipal streets,
rather the creation of private roads/laneways. All of the freehold townhouse
dwelling units will front onto private roads with the exception of those units
proposed to have direct access onto St. Martins Drive.
The statistical information/development detail and comparison of the original plan
and the revised plan are outlined in the Applicant's Development Detail chart
(see Attachment #5).
2.0 Comments Received
2.1 At the June 1 2006, Public Information Meeting
A large number of residents appeared at the Public Information Meeting to voice
their opposition to the proposed development and to raise concerns related to:
· density/too many dwelling units;
· proposed development not compatible with the neighbourhood;
· loss of the commercial retail uses;
· traffic and parking impacts on neighbouring properties;
· the need for traffic signals at St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street;
· height of the apartment buildings;
· impacts on the Douglas Ravine;
· impacts on schools;
· the application not in compliance with the Official Plan;
· poor business practices with dealing with the plaza tenants;
· some residents acknowledged the need for redevelopment of the site.
(see text of Information Report and Meeting Minutes, Attachments #7 and #8).
2.2 Written Public Submissions on the application
Prior to and immediately following the Public Information Meeting on
June 1, 2006, numerous area residents expressed written objection and concern
with the initial application. Approximately 30 letters or emails have been received
expressing opposition to the application. Issues identified in the correspondence
are similar to those expressed at the Information Meeting (outlined above) with
the following additional concerns:
· accessibility of services for the numerous seniors who live in the area and
depend on the existing plaza for personal needs;
· an evacuation plan for the area needs to be considered given the proposed
increase in traffic;
· a community that is predominately residential cannot possibly be sustainable;
· the residents need to be able to work and shop in their community, preferably
without needing to use cars;
· the proposal will have a negative impact on property values in the area;
Report PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
Page 4
t'31
. the impact of the development on green space in the area, and not enough
parkland space for the number of proposed dwelling units;
. with the loss of the grocery store from the plaza there is no grocery store
south of Highway 401, which makes it expensive for people to get groceries
by taxi (see Attachments #9 to #37).
The Pickering East Shore Community Association (PESCA) provided written
comments on the original application (see Attachment #38). They are opposed
to the initial proposal, however, they are not opposed to the redevelopment of the
Bay Ridges Plaza in general. Their specific concerns include:
· apartment towers are too high; any building on the site should not exceed
seven storeys;
· concern with off-site traffic and on-site parking;
· the additional dwelling units will increase the already congested roads in the
area;
· the parking requirements for the dwelling units should be increased;
· the environmental impact the proposed development will have on the
Douglas Ravine and Frenchman's Bay;
· a viable community commercial plaza, of similar size to the existing plaza
should be incorporated into the redevelopment of the site;
· further demolition should not occur until the plaza is completely vacant;
· the impact of the application on the Emergency Evacuation Plan needs to be
examined.
A letter from the Bayshore Towers Board of Directors was received advising that
the redevelopment of the plaza has generally been well received and supported
(see Attachment #39).
2.3 Agency Comments
Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
- TRCA provided preliminary comments advising the
subject property is within the TRCA Regulated area
and all applicable requirement and polices will need
to be satisfied;
- TRCA has verbally advised that their detail
requirements can be addressed in the site plan
approval process and this will include but not be
limited to the conveyance of the portion of the
Douglas Ravine and the buffer strip to a public
authority;
(see Attachment #40).
t' 3 ~,Report PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
Page 5
Region of Durham
GO Transit
CN Rail
- the proposal is permitted by the policies of the
Durham Region Official Plan;
- municipal water supply is available from the existing
utilities;
- sanitary sewer service can be provided subject to
the replacement of the sanitary sewer from
Radom Street to Wart Street at the applicant's
expense;
- driveway access onto Bayly Street will be restricted
to a right-in right-out only and road improvements
for the intersection of Bayly Street and St. Martins
Drive will be required;
- the application has been screened in accordance
with Provincial Interests and Delegated Review and
there is no concern;
- the application is consistent with the Region of
Durham Community Strategic Plan;
- the Region has no objection to the approval of the
application (see Attachment #41).
- requires a noise and vibration study to their
satisfaction and the entering into an agreement with
GO transit (see Attachment #42).
- requires a noise and vibration study to their
satisfaction and the inclusion of warning clauses in
all development and purchase agreements (see
Attachment #43).
No other agency that provided comment has objection to the applications.
Certain technical issues and requirements related to the proposed use of the site
can be addressed during the site plan/condominium process, should this
application be approved.
2.4 City Departments
Development Control
- will require a stormwater management report and
various other detailed engineering information (at site
plan review stage) (see Attachment #44).
Report PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
"3'''''
..' t)
Page 6
3.0 Discussion
3.1 Development Guidelines are recommended for approval; proposed
redevelopment generally reflective of the guidelines and supported subject
to certain revisions
The subject land is within a Detailed Review Area of the City's Official Plan,
which requires development guidelines to be established for major development.
The preparation of the development guidelines were undertaken with initial
assistance of a consultant. City staff revised and finalized the draft development
guidelines. An Urban Design Workshop/Charrette was held in December 2005 to
obtain input on the guiding principle for redevelopment of the Bay Ridges Plaza
and the abutting plaza.
The objective of the development guidelines is to articulate urban design
guidelines for the redevelopment of the site. The guidelines for these lands have
been prepared within the context of Provincial policy, City of Pickering and
Region of Durham Official Plans, as well as Transit Oriented Development and
Sustainable Development principles. The guidelines will help ensure that
development will be designed appropriately and will assist in the review of this
rezoning application.
Attached as Appendix III to this report are the recommended guidelines. The
principles of the guidelines are:
· to create a higher intensity of development and to provide a mix of uses to
create a vibrant development;
· to provide for a range of housing choices for residents;
· identify, protect and enhance the public realm and open space features;
· to promote the development of the site with sustainable development
principles;
· to provide retail commercial uses at a scale to serve the surrounding
community.
The application has been assessed against the proposed Development
Guidelines and generally the application complies. There are a few elements of
the application that will need to be modified to comply with the guidelines.
Conditions are being recommended to ensure full compliance with the guidelines.
Generally, the following is recommended:
· permit the redevelopment of the subject lands for a mixed use development;
· allow for the maximum density permitted by current Official Plan Policy;
· allow for apartment buildings having the proposed height of 16 and
18 storeys;
t' 3\eport PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
Page 7
· restrict development within ten metres of the top-of-back of the Douglas
Creek;
· require that the commercial component of the proposal be constructed in the
first phase of development;
· require all independent vehicular access to dwelling units be provided by
internal private roads other than the primary internal road system (especially
the east-west road which should be designed and enhanced as a pedestrian
friendly area with wider sidewalks);
· require that the intersection of St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street be
signalized at the owner's expense; and,
· require a walkway for public use be incorporated into the Douglas Ravine
buffer area site design,
3.2 The Proposed Density/Number of Dwelling Units is Supportable and
Complies with the Official Plan
The subject land 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
and apartment buildings, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants.
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 subject land is considered an appropriate
location for intensification and this type of mixed use/higher density development
near a transit corridor is supported by the recently approved Provincial Places to
Grow Plan. This Provincial policy identifies various growth centres, of which
Pickering is one of two growth centres in Durham Region. It is anticipated that
this location will be within Pickering's growth centre due to its proximity to the GO
Station, lending further support to allowing the maximum density permitted by the
current Official Plan.
A maximum of 473 dwelling units are permitted on the site based on a net
designated area of 3.38 hectares. The revised application proposes the
maximum permitted number of dwelling units, being 473. The current plan has
347 apartment units (240 units in building "A" and 107 in building "B") and 126
townhouses (38 traditional design townhouse units, 76 back-to-back townhouse
units and 12 live-work townhouse units). It is anticipated that the allocation of the
dwelling units may be modified slightly in order to incorporate the staff
recommended changes, however the maximum number of dwelling units over
the total site will not exceed 473.
Report PO 45-06
Date: September 11, 2006
~ ·3 ':-
-.' ,)
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Page 8
3.3 Proposed Mixed Use Development is Compatible with Existing
Neighbourhood
The subject land currently contains a commercial plaza of approximately
5,500 square metres which has been serving the surrounding neighbourhood for
years (original plaza built in the mid 1960's). The neighbourhood is primarily a
mix of detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, townhouses and an
apartment building in the immediate area.
The subject land is located in an evolving part of the City. Recent development
(Canoe Landing townhouses at Bayly/Begley, Captain's Walk and Frenchman's Bay
Village on Liverpool Road South) is indicative of the change occurring in the
neighbourhood. The site's proximity to the GO station (approximately a five minute
walk) makes it a suitable and desirable location for a mix of uses as proposed by
the applicant.
The existing commercial plaza has historically played an important role in
servicing the neighbourhood. Residents advise of their need to walk to
commercial facilities, especially the seniors living in area. Therefore, in order to
meet the needs of residents, it is appropriate to retain substantial commercial
floor space within the project. While it is unlikely a food store will locate within
the mixed use building, it is anticipated that other appropriate retail uses serving
the day-to-day needs of the neighbourhood will locate in the project.
Currently an 18 storey apartment tower exists directly south of the subject lands.
The proposed 18 and 16 storey apartment buildings will provide noise buffer to
the remainder of the site and the area to south, frame the street and provide a
focal point to the area. The proposed townhouses are also very compatible with
the neighbourhood, considering part of the subject site abuts an existing
townhouse complex. Therefore, the proposed land uses are considered
compatible with the surrounding area.
3.4 Site Access and Traffic Movements on Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive
are Acceptable with the Installation of a Traffic Signal at the intersection
Bayly Street, where it abuts the subject property, is designated as a Type A
Arterial Road in the Region of Durham Official Plan. Type A Arterial Roads are
the highest order arterial roads and are designed to carry large volumes of traffic
at moderate to high speeds. Bayly Street is a four-lane cross-section in the
vicinity of the subject property. St. Martins Drive, where it abuts the subject site,
is designated as a Collector Road in the Pickering Official Plan which is designed
to provide access to individual properties, to local roads, and to other collector
and arterial roads. St Martins Drive is currently a two-lane cross section adjacent
to the subject lands.
3· .,Report PO 45-06
~. 0
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
Page 9
The applicant's traffic consultant has submitted a traffic report that recommends
that intersection improvements be undertaken, including the incorporation of
turning lanes and the installation of traffic signals at the intersection. The study
identifies that with the proposed development, turning movement characteristics
of Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive will function at a poor level of service in
morning and evening peak hours. With the suggested recommendations and
improvements, the intersection would then have an acceptable level of service
function.
The Region of Durham has advised that a road widening and eastbound right
turn lane is required for Bayly Street, and that vehicular access to the site from
Bayly Street will be restricted to a right-in/right-out only.
Intersection improvements will be required on Bayly Street at St. Martins Drive,
including the construction of a westbound left turn lane. It is noted that the
Region of Durham is not recommending the installation of traffic signals at the
intersection, as traffic warrants have not been met. City staff recommend that full
signalization of the intersection be required coincidental with development, to
ensure the intersection operates at an appropriate level.
As part of the conditions of approval, it is recommended that the intersection
improvements be undertaken coincidental with development and that the
applicant be responsible for all costs related to these improvements.
3.5 Provision of Commercial/Retail Opportunities Required in Initial Phase of
Development
One of the major concerns expressed by area residents is the loss of retail floor
space from the site (especially the food store) that will result with redevelopment.
The Bay Ridges Plaza has provided an important retail commercial resource for
the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood since the late 1960's. The Plaza contains
approximately 5,500 square metres of retail space, which until recently included
a food store of 1, 280 square metres.
The applicant's proposal introduces approximately 2,133 square metres of retail
commercial floor space, primarily within the ground floor of the mixed use
buildings (apartments). However, as the timing of construction of the mixed use
element of the project is subject to market conditions, there is no guarantee as to
when this 'replacement' commercial floor space will be introduced. The loss of
commercial services to this neighbourhood will have significant impacts which
will only be increased with the early introduction of 126 new townhouse units.
Clearly it is important to minimize the duration of the loss of retail commercial
services to area residents.
Report PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
Page 10
tl3 i
To address this matter, the applicant is working to relocate some of the important
retail commercial services (such as pharmacy) to the adjacent small plaza (525
square metres) at 1261 Bayly Street, which they recently purchased. While
some existing tenants at 1261 Bayly will be displaced, the opportunity will be
provided for certain tenants of the Bay Ridges Plaza to relocate so that service
can be continued now and during the construction of the project. Staff commend
the applicant for the initiative they have taken in this matter.
However, while this action will provide for the interim and proximate supply of
limited retail services to the neighbourhood during the construction period, there
is no assurance that this floor space will continue to be provided.
It is still considered essential that permanent new replacement commercial floor
space be introduced in the first phase of the project, within the mixed use
buildings adjacent to the St. Martins Drive/Bayly Street intersection. This will
ensure commercial services are provided as an integral component of the
project, and at as early a stage in development as possible. It will serve to
maintain some of the commercial facilities that the neighbourhood has come to
rely upon.
A commercial component of a minimum 2,000 square metres is recommended to
be required in the first phase of development, in a true mixed use fashion. This
requirement will be included in the site plan/development agreement and the
zoning by-law.
3.6 Parkland
The City will be requiring cash-in-lieu of parkland from the applicant in order to
satisfy the full provisions of Section 42(1) of the Planning Act. Further, the
applicant will be required to design and construct certain amenity areas, including
a 'parkette' within the development in order to provide outdoor amenity space for
residents of the project.
For development of this nature, and in accordance with the Planning Act, the City
of Pickering Official Plan provides two options for the calculation of required
parkland dedication. The first is the conveyance of land or cash-in-lieu of land at
an amount of five percent of the proposed land to be developed. The second
option, as an alternative for High Density Residential Area or Mixed use Areas,
requires land or cash-in-lieu of land at a rate of up to one hectare for each
300 dwelling units proposed. It is recognized that the second option may have
significant financial impact on the viability of the project. The first option, being
the five percent calculation, is recommended as this may assist the economics of
site development, especially when considering the significant costs associated
with sanitary sewer upgrades and installation.
t' 3 ¡Report PO 45-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Page 11
3.7 Sustainable Principles are being addressed
The City of Pickering is undertaking a number of initiatives to promote and
encourage sustainable development. Staff are evolving criteria to help measure
the level of sustainability of development proposals. Applications are now
reviewed with consideration given to environmental, social, and economic
sustainability.
Elements of sustainability have been included in the Development Guidelines
and provide direction in both application and site plan review. These elements
include:
· mix of housing types to provide diversity;
· walk to GO Station;
· protection of natural environment, enhancement of public open space;
· providing commercial/retail floor space to serve the neighbourhood;
· intensification / compact urban form;
· reduction of reliance on the automobile;
· enhanced pedestrian environment;
· employment opportunities;
· recycling encouraged;
· walkway and connection to a transit spine with public access through the site;
· energy and resource efficiency;
· LEED or green technology building design.
The applicant's current site plan incorporates many of these elements, others will
be introduced and considered as the design progresses and the site plan is
finalized.
3.8 Some areas of the application will need revision in order to meet the intent
of the recommended Development Guidelines
The applicant's revised concept plan reflects general compliance with the
recommended development guidelines. However, there are areas of the
applicant's concept plan and requested zoning standards that are not in
compliance and where modifications are recommended by staff, as outlined
below.
A staff concept plan illustrating recommended areas of revision to the applicant's
plan is attached (see Attachment # 4).
3.8.1 Parkinq Ratio to be increased to provide residential visitor parkinq and adequate
commercial parkinq
The applicant and staff have agreed on a parking ratio (including visitor
provision) of 1.25 spaces per unit for the apartment units, and 2.2 spaces per unit
for the townhouse units. These requirements are considered appropriate
considering the project's close proximity to the Pickering GO Station and the
applicant's stated intent to market a transit oriented project.
Report PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
ti 3 ~1
Page 12
Resident parking for the apartment buildings will be provided in underground
garages, while parking for the townhouses and retail/commercial floor space will
be surface parking. The location for visitor parking will be determined through
the site plan process (see applicant's parking rationale letter - Attachment #6).
For the commercial component of the project, the applicant proposes a parking
ratio of 3 parking spaces per 100 square metres of floor space. The most
common by-law standard for commercial development in the City is 5.5 parking
spaces per 100 square metres of floor space. While a significant component of
retail business will be through walk-to traffic, this commercial floor space will also
serve the broader Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and will attract considerable
automobile traffic.
Staff recommend that a commercial parking requirement of 4.5 spaces per
100 square metres of floor space be imposed. This requirement recognizes that
there will be a degree of shared parking in the mixed use component of the
project, with residential visitor parking and some commercial parking being
shared on a regular basis.
3.8.2 Direct Driveway Access onto the primary road system identified in the
Development Guidelines is not supported
The recommended Development Guidelines place a special prominence on the
'primary internal road system', which includes both the east/west road from
St. Martins Drive and the north/south road from Bayly Street. This road system
links St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street and provides for continuous pedestrian
movement both to and through the site. Direct vehicle access (driveways and
aisles) to the primary internal road system should be minimized to support priority
to the pedestrian environment and maximize opportunities for on-street parking.
With the elimination of driveways, garages, and aisles, the streetscape will be
improved and a better framing for views to Douglas Ravine will be provided.
This access restriction will help create a high quality pedestrian environment that
is not disrupted by driveways and aisles, creating a safer and more pleasant
walking environment. The elimination of garages from the front of these
townhouse units will allow for a more attractive streetscape, and assist in the
creation of an attractive internal pedestrian promenade.
3.8.3 Live/Work townhouse require improvements to streetscape throuqh the
elimination of direct driveway access from St. Martins Drive
The driveways that are proposed to access onto St. Martins Drive for the
live/work units should be eliminated. The live work units should be ground
oriented and present a pleasant streetscape that is not encumbered by
driveways and garages. These live/work units should have their vehicle access
from an internal road at the rear of the unit. Therefore, the back-to-back form of
townhouses is not appropriate at this location.
,.
\ . ,t 0
. .. Report PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
Page 13
The opportunity for enhanced on-street parking in front of the live/work units (on
the east boulevard of St. Martins Drive) will be explored through the site plan
process.
3.9 Technical Matters
3.9.1 Site Plan Aqreement will be required to address the importance of Site Desiqn
A site plan 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 and the
design of the site achieves compliance with the Development Guidelines.
Matters to be addressed included, but are not limited to, ensuring the site can
accommodate recycling/3-stream refuse, noise attenuation, stormwater
management, sustainable building designs, and the opportunity to introduce
some at-grade accessible units for the physically challenged. 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.
3.9.2 Proposed Zoninq By-law to Include a "(H)" Holdinq Provision to address City and
Aqency requirements
The draft implementing zoning by-law recommends that the subject property be
rezoned to permit the proposed mixed use development containing a maximum
of 473 dwelling units. The by-law proposes permitting townhouses in the
southern portion and the apartments and commercial uses in the northern
portion. The remaining portion, being the valley lands and the buffer area, are
recommended to be zoned open space. The amending zoning by-law
incorporates an "(H)" holding provision that will require the owner to satisfy
certain conditions prior to the lifting of the holding provision. These conditions
will include entering into a site plan/development agreement with the City to
address matters listed in Appendix I to this report. These matters include
requirements of the City, Region, and Toronto Region Conservation Authority
and will require the construction of 2,000 square metres of commercial/retail floor
space in the initial phase of development.
The draft zoning by-law contains performance standards that would permit
development in accordance with the recommendations of this report. This
includes, amongst others, a minimum commercial/retail floor space of
2,000 square metres, a maximum height of 18 storeys for the apartment
buildings, 2.2 parking spaces for all townhouse units, and a minimum parking
ratio of 1.25 spaces per apartment dwelling unit and a minimum commercial
parking ratio of 4.5 spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area.
Report PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
1'4 J
Page 14
The lifting of the "(H)" holding provision will occur promptly after all the required
conditions have been met. The lifting process is within the control of Council and
there is no public notice required, nor can the public appeal the lifting of the "H".
The City has used "Hn holding provisions in its zoning by-laws on several
occasions, where project complexity and associated development conditions of
both the City and agencies warrant a higher level of control.
The utilization of the holding provision also allows the City the opportunity to
advance rezoning applications prior to the applicant satisfying all requirements of
other agencies such as the Region of Durham and Toronto Region Conservation
Authority. Utilization of the ("H") holding provision allows the zoning to advance
and become final, while ensuring that appropriate development conditions are
secu red.
3.9.3 Sanitary Sewer replacement required
As noted by the Region of Durham the sanitary sewer that services the subject
land does not have the capacity for the number of proposed dwelling units. The
Region requires the replacement of the sewer from the subject lands to
Wart Street at the applicant's expense. This replacement will alleviate certain
problems that currently exist downstream along the run of the sewer.
4.0 Applicant's Comments
The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report. The
applicant does not agree with the recommended parking ratio for commercial
floor space, the requirement to prohibit direct driveway access onto the primary
internal road system, the requirement to build commercial floor space in the first
phase of construction, and the placement of an ("H") holding provision on the
amending zoning by-law.
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX II:
APPENDIX III:
Recommended Conditions of Approval for A 06/06
Draft Implementing Zoning By-law
Recommended Development Guidelines
t4¿
Report PO 45-06
Subject: S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. (A 06/06)
Date: September 11, 2006
Page 15
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Original Development Plan
3. Revised Development Plan
4. Staff Concept Plan
5. Applicant's Development Detail Chart
6. Applicant's Parking Rationale Letter
7. Text of Information Meeting Report
8. Minutes from June 1, 2006 Statutory Public Information Meeting
9. Resident Comments (Attachments #9 - #37)
38. Pickering East Shore Community Association
39. Bay Shore Towers
40. Agency Comments - TRCA
41. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department
42. Agency Comments - GO Transit
43. Agency Comments - CN Rail
44. City Department Comment - Development Control
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
RP:jf
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consid~ration of
Pickering City cou
þ'"
J
Thomas J. Quinn, RDMR., CMM III ""...
Chief Administrative Officer
~~
avO;;l
100d:?JaA11
a
LJ
¡1'
1/
~
!/3
ú)
:J
o
::r:
z
:5:
o
I-
!/3
ú)
:J
o
::r:
z
:5:
~
on
\-
~
~
~
Õ
«'
~
\
gSnOI-lNMO.L
aAW ~NU<NW
u.J
(f)
::)
o
u.J
~X
Z¿
~
\3
1U
.....1
(f)
u.J
(f) u.J
::) U
o «
I: 0...
Z (f)
s GJ
o 0...
I- 0
'JG
Ð.!
~~
~
J2I1O:J ;;IazNVJ.
z
« ( r. (f)
f.IL '.:10
u.J I- Zz
Z (f)~I-O
> ~::) (f)-!
~ ~~íðf5
to
t'7a
ï.
~
~
11\
~
~
j
::5
<
~
\3
}.L
t 30
# I TO
L¡ 5'0 b
\y I~\ /¡>-0
Y I ~ \..,../ <2-0
v /. ",0"""
-" 0'0
// ý..'''''''
/V
l\O~
I
-'J
o
o
OJ.
r Q:t
. ~
-J
~n~
IV,,'}
I \ J ~O~
~ \-\\G\-\\['J~'{
.\ \
~
c.N.fI.· ccí
Sí8. t:- t:- rt
~
I--
, ~
-
~~
~ ¡~~\~®\\\~ w ~
,- ____ If- \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \€.R (:::: ~
L-- I tJ ~í p..~1~ r== CJ
1!,.-t f:=~
~ 11: '---- ;::;;
E:::=~1j ~ Q:
~ [::::; ~~r f- 8 == ~
~~¡§~~
~C= ~l
/ I
SUBJECT
PROPERTY
:=v/
r-I
POPR
~
I
-
/
TATRA
I
I
GRE~
-
'-------'
\
~~
CJ
<C -
III I I I ~== f-_
f---.-- _
STREET -.J r-- - _
I Or---z--t-
~ & !=-=~
w -
> -
==::J
- PATMORE -
~~'v = lNE =~
<::)q;. - -
--
l: _f--- - _
^"~ f--- _
Planning & Development Department
)
~
'[
.vi--
1/7;?
,,~
;)'v
~
~
City of Pickering
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART OF BLOCK Y, PLAN M-16
OWNER S. R. & R. BAY RIDGES LTD.
FILE No. A 006/06
DATE MAY 8,2006 DRAWN BY JB
SCALE 1 :5000 CHECKED BY RP
l'
I,::,!oto ::iQun:..:
!Çõ1 Teranet Enterprises Inc. and its .up~lier., All riQhh Reserved. Not a plan of survey.
2005 MPAC and ita suppliers. All riahts Reserved. Not 0 pion of Survey.
PN-3
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 45-06
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
APPLICATION TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW A 06/06
t '4·-)
.}
t 4·~
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 06/06 to be Included within the
Proposed Zoning By-law "(H)" Holding Requirements
1. That the amending zoning by-law include an "(H)" holding provision that requires
matters to be addressed to the City's satisfaction prior to the lifting of the "(H)"
holding provision. Prior to the lifting of the "(H)" the owner shall execute and
register a site plan/development agreement, satisfy the Region of Durham,
financially and otherwise and satisfy the Toronto Region Conservation Authority,
financially and otherwise.
2. That the owner enter into an site plan/development agreement with the City to
reflect the comments of the report of the Director, Planning & Development report
number PO 45-06. The agreement shall ensure the fulfillment of the City's
requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be
limited to:
(a) the construction of a walkway within the Douglas Ravine buffer area;
(b) providing any required easements;
(c) parkland dedication;
(d) noise attenuation;
(e) satisfaction of the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act;
(f) construction management plan;
(g) stormwater drainage and management system;
(h) design of some units to meet accessibility requirements;
(i) design the development for 3-stream refuse handling
U) that all buildings address LEED components
3. That the site plan/development agreement include a clause that the owner shall
provide to the City of Pickering a clearance letter from the Region of Durham that
advises that all of the Regional matters, financial and otherwise, have been
addressed including, but not limited to, satisfactory arrangements for the sanitary
sewer services to the subject lands, satisfying all requirements of Regional
delegated review responsibilities and the installation of traffic signals at the
intersection of St, Martins Drive and Bayly Street.
4. That the site plan/development agreement include a clause that the owner shall
provide to the City of Pickering a clearance letter from the Toronto Region
Conservation Authority that advises that all of TRCA matters have been
addressed.
5. That the site plan/development agreement and zoning by-law include the requirement
for 2000 square metres of newly constructed retail floor space to be constructed in
the first phase of development.
APPENDIX II TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 45-06
DRAFT IMPLEMENTING ZONING BY-LAW
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 06/06
1.'4,)
4G
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2520,
as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of
Pickering, Region of Durham in Part of Block V, Plan M16, in
the City of Pickering. (A 06/06)
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of The City of Pickering deems it
desirable to permit a mixed use development of apartment buildings that
contained commercial uses and townhouse dwelling units on the subject lands,
being Block V, Plan M16, in The City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2520, as amended, is therefore
deemed necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. SCHEDULES I and II
Schedules I and II attached hereto with notations and references shown
thereon are hereby declared to be part of this By-law.
2. AREA RESTRICTED
The provisions of this By-law shall only apply to those lands in Part of
Block V, Plan M16, Pickering, designated "RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8",
"MD-H6", and "OS-HLn on Schedule I attached hereto.
3. DEFINITIONS
In this By-law,
(1) "Adult Entertainment Parlour" shall mean a building or part of a
building in which is provided, in pursuance of a trade, calling,
business or occupation, services appealing to or designed to
appeal to erotic or sexual appetites or inclinations.
(2) "Bakery" shall mean a building or part of a building in which food
products are baked, prepared and offered for retail sale, or in which
food products baked and prepared elsewhere are offered for retail
sale.
- 2 -
!t~"'i ~"AFT
c4i
(3) "Body Rub Parlourn includes 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.
(4) "Build-to-zone" shall mean an area of land in which all or part of a
building elevation of one or more buildings is to be located.
(5) "Business Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in
which the management or direction of a business, a public or
private agency, a brokerage or a labour or fraternal organization is
carried on and which may include a telegraph office, a data
processing establishment, a newspaper publishing office, the
premises of a real estate or insurance agent, or a radio or television
broadcasting station and related studios or theatres, but shall not
include a retail store.
(6) "Convenience Store" shall mean a retail store in which food, drugs,
periodicals or similar items of day-to-day household necessities are
kept for retail sale primarily to residents of, or persons employed in,
the immediate neighbourhood.
(7) "Day Nursery" shall mean lands and premises duly licensed
pursuant to the provisions of The Day Nurseries Act, or any
successor thereto, and for the use as a facility for the daytime care
of children.
(8) "Dry Cleaninq Depot" shall mean a building or part of a building
used for the purpose of receiving articles, goods, or fabrics to be
subjected to dry cleaning and related processes elsewhere, and of
distributing articles, goods or fabrics which have been subjected to
any such processes.
(9) "Dwellinq" shall mean a building or part of a building containing one
or more dwelling units, but does not include a mobile home or
trailer.
(10) "Dwellinq Unit" shall mean one or more habitable rooms occupied
or capable of being occupied as a single, independent, and
separate housekeeping unit containing a separate kitchen and
sanitary facilities.
t 4.j -3-
(11) "Dwellinq, Sinqle Attached or Sinqle Attached Dwellinq" shall mean
one of a group of not less than three adjacent dwellings attached
together horizontally by an above grade common wall.
(12) "Financial Institution" shall mean a building or part of a building in
which money is deposited, kept, lent or exchanged.
(13) "Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the area of the floor surface
contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey.
(14) "Food Store" shall mean a building or part of a building in which
food, produce, and other items or merchandise of day-to-day
household necessity are stored, offered or kept for retail sale to the
public.
(15) "Gross Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the aggregate of the
floor areas of all storeys of a building or structure, or part thereof as
the case may be, other than a private garage, an attic, or a cellar.
(16) "Gross Leasable Floor Area" shall mean the aggregate of the floor
areas of all storeys above or below established grade, designed for
owner or tenant occupancy or exclusive use only, but excluding
storage areas below established grade.
(17) "Laundromat" shall mean a self-serve clothes washing
establishment containing washing, drying, ironing, finishing or other
incidental equipment.
(18) "Lot" shall mean an area of land fronting on a street which is used
or intended to be used as the site of a building, or group of
buildings, as the case may be, together with any accessory
buildings or structures, or a public park or open space area,
regardless of whether or not such lot constitutes the whole of a lot
or block on a registered plan of subdivision.
(19) "Multiple Dwellinq-Horizontal" shall mean a building containing
three or more dwelling units attached horizontally, not vertically, by
an above-grade wall or walls.
(20) "Multiple Dwellinq-Vertical" shall mean a building containing three
or more dwelling units attached horizontally and vertically by an
above-grade wall or walls, or an above-grade floor or floors, or
both.
- 4-
('49
(21) "Personal Service Shop" shall mean an establishment in which a
personal service is performed and which may include a barber
shop, a beauty salon, a shoe repair shop, a tailor or dressmaking
shop or a photographic studio, but shall not include a body-rub
parlour as defined in the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302,
as amended from time to time, or any successor thereto.
(22) "Private Garaqe" shall mean an enclosed or partially enclosed
structure for the storage of one or more vehicles, in which structure
no business or service is conducted for profit or otherwise.
(23) "Professional Office" shall mean a building or part of a building in
which medical, legal or other professional service is performed or
consultation given, and which may include a clinic, the offices of an
architect, a chartered accountant, an engineer, a lawyer or a
physician, but shall not include a body-rub parlour as defined in the
Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chapter 302, as amended from time to
time, or any successor thereto.
(24) "Restaurant - Type A" shall mean a building or part of a building
where food is prepared and offered or kept for retail sale to the
public for immediate consumption on the premises or off the
premises, or both, but shall not include an adult entertainment
parlour as defined herein.
(25) "Retail Store" shall mean a building or part of a building in which
goods; wares, merchandise, substances, articles or things are
stored, kept and offered for retail sale to the public.
(26) "Storey" shall mean that portion of a building other than a
basement, cellar or attic, included between the surface of any floor
and the surface of the floor, roof deck or ridge next above it.
(27) "Yard" shall mean an area of land which is appurtenant to and
located on the same lot as a building or structure and is open,
uncovered, and unoccupied above ground except for such
accessory buildings, structures, or other uses as are specifically
permitted thereon.
4. PROVISIONS ("RH/MU-2" Zone)
(1) Uses Permitted ("RH/MU-2" Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on
Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any
building or structure for any purpose except the following:
\. d 0 - 5 -
(a) bakery
(b) business office
(c) convenience store
(d) commercial club
(e) day nursery
(f) dry cleaning depot
(g) financial institution
(h) food store
(i) laundromat
U) multiple dwelling-horizontal
(k) multiple dwelling-vertical
(I) personal service shop
(m) professional office
(n) retail store
(2) Zone Requirements ("RH/MU-2" Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated "RH/MU-2" on
Schedule I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any
building except in accordance with the following provisions:
(a) BUILDING HEIGHT:
(i) For Multiple Dwelling Vertical uses:
Minimum
Maximum
5 Storeys and 15 metres
18 Storeys and 60 metres
(ii) For Multiple Dwelling Horizontal uses:
Maximum
12 metres
(b) BUILDING LOCATION AND SETBACKS:
(i) Buildings and structures shall be located entirely within
the building envelope shown on Schedule II attached
hereto;
(ii) No multiple dwelling-horizontal shall be permitted within
60 metres from the lot line that abuts Bayly Street;
(Hi) No building, part of a building, or structure shall be
erected within the "RH/MU-2" Zone, unless a minimum of
70% of the length of the build-to-zone, contains a building
or part of a building;
- 6 -
(,51
(iv) Despite Section 4.(2)(a)(i) above, a 2 storey, 6.5 metre,
building height may be permitted at the north-west corner
of the property, adjacent to the intersection of St. Martins
Drive and Bayly Street, as a component of the minimum
five storey building;
(v) No multiple dwelling horizontal uses shall be erected,
unless a minimum of 70% of the length of the build-to-
zone, as illustrated on Schedule II attached hereto,
contains a building or part of a building;
(vi) For multiple dwelling-vertical buildings located within the
"RH/MU-2" Zone, and within the build-to-zone, any
portion of a building or structure in excess of 13.0 metres
in height, shall be set back a minimum of 3.0 metres from
the main wall of the building or structure;
(vii) Notwithstanding clause A above, below grade parking
structures shall be permitted beyond the limits of the
building envelope identified on Schedule I attached
hereto, but no closer than 0.5 metres from the limits of
the lands;
(viii) The horizontal distance between multiple dwelling-
horizontal buildings shall be a minimum of 1.8 metres;
(ix) Despite the provisions of Section 5.6 of By-law 2520, the
requirement for frontage on a public street shall be
satisfied by establishing frontage on a common elements
condominium street.
(c) PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
(i) There shall be provided and maintained a minimum of
4.5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross floor
area for all permitted uses listed in Section 5(1) of this
by-law, except for multiple dwelling-vertical, multiple
dwelling-horizontal uses. Non-resident parking shall be
provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both;
(ii) For multiple dwelling-vertical uses, there shall be
provided and maintained a minimum of 1.0 parking space
per dwelling unit for residents, and 0.25 of a parking
space per dwelling unit for visitors. Parking spaces for
residents shall be provided in a below grade structure;
... ,"'I - 7 -
, ."" /
..._ v"..,
(iii) For multiple dwelling-horizontal, there shall be provided
and maintained a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces per
dwelling unit for residents, and 0.2 of a parking space per
dwelling unit for visitors. Parking spaces shall be
provided at grade, in a below grade structure, or both.
Parking spaces may also be provided in a private garage
attached to the rear of the dwelling unit it serves;
(iv) All entrances and exits to parking areas and all parking
areas shall be surfaced with brick, asphalt or concrete, or
any combination thereof;
(v) At grade parking lots shall be permitted no closer than
3.0 metres from the limits of the IRH/MU-2" Zone
identified on Schedule I attached hereto, or any road.
(d) SPECIAL REGULATIONS:
(i) Non-residential uses shall only be permitted within a
building containing dwelling units. The non-residential
uses shall be limited to the first two storeys of a building;
(ii) The minimum aggregate gross leasable floor area for all
non-residential uses shall be 2,000 square metres;
(iii) The maximum aggregate gross leasable floor area for all
restaurant type "A" uses shall be 500 square metres;
(iv) No drive through facilities are permitted on the lands
designated "RH/MU-2" as illustrated on Schedule I of this
by-law;
(v) Despite Section 4(2)(b)(i) of this By-law, outdoor patios
associated with a restaurant type "A" are permitted to
encroach beyond the building envelope as illustrated on
Schedule II of this by-law;
(vi) Despite Section 4(2)(d)(ii) outdoor patios associated with
a restaurant type "A" will not be included within the
aggregate gross leasable floor area requirements of
subclause (ii) above;
(vii) Clauses 5.21.2(a), 5.21.2(b), 5.21.2(e), 5.21.2(f),
5.21.2(g), and 5.21.2(k) of By-law 2520, as amended,
shall not apply to lands designated IRH/MU-2" on
Schedule I attached hereto.
- 8-
t'53
5. PROVISIONS (UMD_H6n Zone)
(1) Uses Permitted (IMD-H6" Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated II MD-H6 II on Schedule
I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or
structure for any purpose except the following:
(a) Multiple dwelling horizontal
(2) Zone Requirements (UMD-H6 Zone)
(a) Lot Area (minimum): 70 square metres
(b) Lot Frontage (minimum): 6.0 metres
(c) Front Yard Depth (minimum): 3.0 metres
(d) Side Yard Width (minimum): 1.2 metres except that no
interior side yard shall be
provided on the side where
dwellings on adjacent lots are
attached together
(e) Building Height (maximum): 12.0 metres
(f) Gross floor area (minimum):
100 square metres per
dwelling unit
(g) Building Separation:
Despite section 5(2)( e) a
minimum 1.8 metre separation
between blocks of multiple
dwelling horizontal shall be
permitted
(h) Parking Requirements:
(i) For each dwelling unit there shall be provided and
maintained a minimum of 2 parking spaces, one of
which may not be located within a driveway, and one
of which must be provided within an attached garage
of the dwelling, any vehicular entrance of which shall
be located not less than 6.0 metres from any street or
drive aisle providing access to those lots, plus a
minimum of 0.2 visitor parking spaces per unit.
I. r; ,:
.. v Lr
- 9-
6.
PROVISIONS ("SA-8n Zone)
(1) Uses Permitted (ISA-8" Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated "SA-8" on Schedule I
attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or
structure for any purpose except the following:
(a) Single attached dwelling residential use;
(2) Zone Requirements ("SA-8" Zone)
(a) Lot Area (minimum):
(b) Lot Frontage (minimum):
(c) Front Yard Depth (minimum):
(d) Rear Yard Depth (minimum):
(e) Side Yard Width (minimum):
(f) Building Height (maximum):
(g) Gross floor area (minimum):
(h) Obstruction Of Yards:
1 00 square metres
4.8 metres
3.0 metres
5.0 metres
1 .2 metres except that no
interior side yard shall be
provided on the side where
dwellings on adjacent lots are
attached together
12.0 metres
100 square metres per
dwelling unit
(i) Despite section 5.8(b) of By-law 2520, covered
and unenclosed porches, verandahs and flankage
entrance features not exceeding 1.5 metres in
height above the established grade may project no
more than:
A 1.5 metres into any required front or rear
yard
B 0.6 metres into any required side yard
- 10 -
t'55
(i) Parking Requirements:
(i) for each dwelling unit there shall be provided and
maintained a minimum of 2 parking spaces, one of
which may not be located within a driveway, and
one of which must be provided within an attached
garage of the dwelling, any vehicular entrance of
which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres
from any street or drive aisle providing access to
those lots, plus a minimum of 0.2 visitor parking
spaces per unit
U) Special Regulations:
(i) No more than 8 units shall be attached horizontally
(ii) Despite section 6(2)(e) a minimum 1.8 metre
separation between blocks of single attached
dwellings shall be permitted.
7. PROVISIONS ("SA-LW" Zone)
(1) Uses Permitted ("SA-LW" Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated "SA-LW II on Schedule
I attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or
structure for any purpose except the following:
Residential Uses:
(a) single attached dwelling
Commercial Uses:
(a) business office
(b) commercial school
(c) personal service shop
(d) professional office
(e) retail store
(2) Zone Requirements ("SA-LW" Zone)
(a) Lot Area (minimum):
(b) Lot Frontage (minimum):
(c) Unit Width (minimum):
(d) Front Yard Depth (minimum):
(e) Rear Yard Depth (minimum):
180 square metres
5.0 metres
5.0 metres
3.0 metres
6.0 metres
r.: I".
t0U
- 11 -
(i)
Despite clause (d) and (e) above, front yard balconies,
verandahs and decks, both uncovered and covered, may
project fully into any required front or side yard;
(f) Side Yard Width (minimum):
1.2 metres except that no
interior side yard shall be
provided on the side where
dwellings on adjacent lots
are attached together
(g) Building Height (maximum):
12.0 metres
(h) Gross floor area (minimum):
100 square metres per
dwelling unit
(i) Parking Requirements:
(i) For each dwelling unit there shall be provided and
maintained a minimum of 2 parking spaces, one of which
may not be located within a rear yard, and one of which
must be provided within an attached garage located to
the rear of the dwelling, any vehicular entrance of which
shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from any street
or drive aisle providing access to those lots, plus a
minimum of 0.2 visitor parking spaces per unit;
(ii) Clauses 5.21.1 a) to 5.21.2 f), inclusive of By-law 2520,
as amended, shall not apply to the lands designated "SA-
LW" on Schedule I attached hereto;
U) Special Regulations:
(i) Despite section 7 (1) of this by-law, non-residential uses
permitted within the "SA-LW" zone designation may be
established only within the ground floor of a dwelling unit;
(ii) No driveway access from St. Martins Drive for individual
dwelling units shall be permitted;
(iii) Despite Section 2.46 of By-law 2520, St. Martins Drive
shall be considered as the front lot line;
(iv) Despite section 7(2)(f) a minimum 1.8 metre separation
between blocks of single attached dwellings shall be
permitted.
- 12 -
t'5/
8. GENERAL PROVISIONS ("RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", "MD-H6" Zones)
(1) For residential uses, the lands designated "RH/MU-2", "SA-LW",
"SA-8", "MD-H6"" on Schedule I attached hereto, shall be
developed at a density of over 30 units per net hectare and up to
and including 140 units per net hectare up to a maximum of 473
dwelling units;
(2) Despite Section 5.6 of By-law 2520 and Clause 3(18) of this By-
law, the requirement for frontage on a public street shall be
satisfied by establishing frontage on a common elements
condominium street;
(3) All visitor parking spaces that are required for multiple dwelling-
horizontal for each zone may be provided within any of the lands
designated "RH/MU-2", "SA-LW", "SA-8", and "MD-H6";
(4) That the internal zone lines separating the residential zone
categories shall be deemed to be the center line of the internal
private road.
9. PROVISIONS ("OS-HLn Zone)
(1) Uses Permitted ("OS-HL" Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated "OS-HL" on Schedule I
attached hereto use any lot or erect, alter or use any building or
structure for any purpose except the following:
(a) preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil
and wildlife;
(b) resource management;
(c) pedestrian trails & walkways.
(2) Zone Requirements ("OS-HL" Zone)
(a) No buildings or structures shall be permitted to be erected, nor
shall the placing or removal of fill be permitted, except where
buildings or structures are used only for purposes of flood and
erosion control, resource management, or pedestrian trail and
walkway purposes;
(b) Despite Clause (a) above, tot lots, visitor parking spaces and
associated traffic aisles are permitted within the "OS-HL" Zone
as illustrated on Schedule I attached hereto.
t 5 i)
- 13 -
~T
10. PROVISIONS ("H" Zone)
(1) Uses Permitted Zone Requirements ("H" Zone)
Until such time as the "H" Holding provision is lifted, the lands shall
not be used for any purpose other than any use permitted by the
General Commercial Zone "C2n of Zoning By-law 2520, subject to
the provisions of Section 11 of By-law 2520.
(2) Removal of the "H" Holdinq Symbol
The "H" Holding Symbol shall not be removed from any zone until
such time as a Site Plan Agreement and/or a Development
Agreement has been executed with the City of Pickering and
registered that provides for:
(a) Appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction
of the City of Pickering that all the requirements for the
development of the mixed use have been complied with,
including but not limited to, environmental and engineering
requirements, building designs, phasing of construction
including the requirement for a minimum of 2000 square
metres of new commercial floor space in the first phase of
development, easements, urbanization of the boulevard,
installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Bayly Street.
and St. Martins Drive and all financial matters;
(b) Appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction
of the Region of Durham for the provision of sanitary, water
and transportation services and environmental and
engineering requirements;
(c) Appropriate arrangements have been made to the satisfaction
of the Toronto Region Conservation Authority for the provision
of environmental, engineering and land conveyance
requirements.
11. BY-LAW 2520
By-law 2520, as amended, is hereby further amended only to the extent
necessary to give effect to the provisions of this by-law as it applies to the
area set out in Schedule I attached hereto. Definitions and subject
matters not specifically dealt with in this By-law shall be governed by
relevant provisions of by-law 2520, as amended.
- 14 -
C'59
12. 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
2006.
day of
David Ryan,
Debi Bentley, City Clerk
~
\ üU
AOÎ
\-\ \G\-\'-N ~'{
C.~·R.
{H)RH-MU-2
I
I
~¡--1O.0m
~I
I
/
i)S-HL~
01
I
!--IO.Om
E I
re
E
~
¡;:
PLAN M16 NORTH PART OF BLOCK Y
40R-3151 PART 2 TO 5
157.7m
W ~
~ E
cr <D
I ...: {H)MD-H6
0 <C on
E
... en PLAN M16 NORTH PART OF BLOCK Y
.ø
ID 40R-3151 PART 2 TO 5
.--...
WAYFARER J: 14D.8m
""-'" E {H)SA-8
LANE <-
cD
N
138.1m
(f)
Z
¡:::
cr
«
:::;!!
L ¡....:
(J)
-
"'-
'\ "'-.. RADOM STREET
'\ -
E
'"
<0
N
/
/
(
I
I
l'
tv
SCHEDULE I TO BY-LAW
PASSED THIS
DAY OF 2006
MAYOR - DAVID RYAN
CITY CLERK - DEB I A. BENTLEY
E
"!
;;;
t· f~ ')
~ v...""
APPENDIX III TO
REPORT NUMBER PD 45-06
Recommended Development Guidelines
- ~ ,-
. U,J
Bay Ridges Neighbourhood
Section C2
Bav Ridges Plaza Redevelopment
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
~
2
~
u
z
3
õ
o
«
o
Ir
WILLOWSID
CRT.
~
m
~
1
lie
U
I ~
I
I
ALEX ROBERTSON
PARK
MONTGOMERY
PARK
LAKE
ONTARIO
/
PICKERING GENERATING STA$.
N
1,6·1
Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment
Development Guidelines - Table of Contents
Section
Page
C1.0 General Description
2
C1.1 Guiding Principles for Redevelopment
2
C2.0 Land Use Objectives
3
C2.1 Urban Design Objectives
C2.2 Urban Design Concept
3
4
C3.0 Urban Design Guidelines
4
C3.1 Site Context: views, street
edges, intersections,
adjacent public transportation
and the ravine
C3.2 Site Organization: street and
blocks, major open spaces and
linkages, service areas
C3.3 Built Form
C3.4 Streetscaping and Landscaping
C3.5 Parking, Parking Locations and Treatment
C3.6 Sustainable Design Practices
C3.7 Signage
C3.8 Lighting
4
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
C4.0 Phasing of Development
14
Figures
Figure A - Urban Design Concept Plan
Figure B - Build to Zone, Vistas and Views Plan
The Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Guidelines were adopted by Pickering City
Council on
Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Paqe 2
c1.0 General Description
t' 6 ;:)
The Bay Ridges Plaza is located at the north limit of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood.
The Neighbourhood lies generally on the east side of Frenchman's Bay and extends
from Highway 401 to Lake Ontario.
The site subject of these development guidelines comprises an area of
approximately 4.3 hectares and supports two commercial plazas located on
the south side of Bayly Street between St. Martins Drive and Douglas
Ravine. These plazas are municipally known as 1215-1235 Bayly Street and 1261
Bayly Street, and currently contain retail and office uses. These commercial plazas
serve the surrounding neighbourhood. Vehicular access to the site is from St.
Martins Drive and from Bayly Street. Highway 401 and The Canadian National
Railway (CNR) mainline are located immediately north of Bayly Street.
The site is bounded by:
· the CNR mainline and Highway 401, located immediately north of Bayly
Street, are major transportation corridors that are readily visible from the north
side of the site.
· Douglas Ravine provides a major open space feature for the area generally,
and for the subject site specifically on the east side of the site.
· detached homes with reversed lot frontages are located on the west side of
St. Martins Drive.
· a residential development south of the subject site includes an 18-storey
apartment building and townhouses.
c1.1 Guiding Principles for Redevelopment
The site is located in an evolving area of Pickering. The Bay Ridges Neighbourhood
is primarily a mix of 1960's and 70's detached, semi-detached, townhouse and
apartment dwellings developed over the 1950's, 60's and 70's which can be
described as a neighbourhood in a zone of revitalization and transition. Further west
of the site, off Bayly Street, a townhouse development was constructed in 2003,
while south on Liverpool Road a nautical village has evolved by Lake Ontario with
the Captain's Walk and Frenchman's Bay Village, The Millennium Square and the
Waterfront boardwalk. These developments are indicative of intensification that is
helping to revitalize the housing stock and rejuvenate the area.
The guidelines for these lands have been prepared within the context of Provincial
policy, City of Pickering and Region of Durham Official Plans, as well as Transit
Oriented Development and Sustainable Development principles.
Transit Oriented Developments (TOO) are pedestrian-friendly, mixed use
communities that encourage residents and workers to drive their cars less and ride
transit more.
Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
'.'6ß
The major principles of TOO include:
Paqe 3
- A grid network instead of a discontinuous road network
Street-oriented uses along arterial roads
- A mix of higher density uses
Improved access between arterials and the interior of blocks
Reducing reliance on automobile use and parking
Sustainable Development and Building is generally defined as: "The use of design
and construction methods and materials that are resource efficient and that will not
compromise the health of the environment or the associated health and well-being of
the building's occupants, builders, the general public, or future generations. JJ
As a background for the preparation of development guidelines, an urban design
workshop was conducted on December 13, 2005 to obtain stakeholder input for the
redevelopment of this site. There was general agreement at the workshop that the
site is a good candidate for redevelopment with a mix of uses, including high density
housing particularly in light of its proximity to the Pickering GO Station. The site's
proximity to the Pickering GO Station is approximately 400m or a 5 minute walk
away, which makes it a very suitable location within the City of Pickering for
redevelopment and intensification with a mix of residential and commercial uses.
c2.0 Land Use Objectives
The objective of this document is to articulate urban design guidelines for the
redevelopment of the site. The guidelines will help ensure that development is
designed appropriately and will assist the municipality in the review of applications
for redevelopment.
c2.1 Urban Design Objectives
These Development Guidelines utilize the urban design objectives of Chapter 9
"Community Design" and Chapter 13 - "Detailed Design Considerations" of the
Pickering Official Plan as a foundation. It is the intent of these guidelines to further
those objectives and introduce and augment those listed below:
· to create a higher intensity of development and to provide a mix of uses to
create a vibrant urban community
. to provide for a range of housing choices
· to identify, protect and enhance the public realm and open space features
. to promote development of the site based on sustainable development
principles
· to retain retail commercial uses at a scale that serves the surrounding
community.
Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Paqe 4
..\
tbi'
An Urban Design Concept has been prepared to graphically illustrate the basis for
the guidelines. This concept incorporates input gathered at the public workshop, as
well as coordination meetings with the Planning & Development Department and the
planning and design team preparing the development master plan for the site. (See
Figure A - Bay Ridges Urban Design Concept).
The primary elements of the concept (as shown on Figure A - Urban Concept Plan)
include:
· an area for high density mixed use buildings along the frontage of Bayly
Street
· surface parking for mixed use development behind the Bayly Street buildings
· a primary internal road system comprised of two main roads
running east-west through the site and a north-south road that connects to
Bayly Street.
· the primary access road from St. Martins Drive, which becomes a
main east-west connection for the site will provide pedestrian access and
views to Douglas Ravine
· the north-south road, which connects the east-west road to Bayly Street will
provide additional access to the site
· an area for townhouses south of the east-west road, including traditional
townhouses with backyards, back-to-back townhouses and stacked
townhouses
· an amenity area/parkette and a pedestrian walkway adjacent to the edge of
Douglas Ravine
c3.0 Urban Design Guidelines
These guidelines have been prepared in keeping with the City of Pickering Official
Plan objectives, site-specific development and design parameters, discussions with
City of Pickering officials, and the findings of the urban design workshop regarding
this site.
c3.1 Site Context: views, street edges, intersections, adjacent public
transportation, and the ravine
Basis
Higher density and compact urban forms are more able to support public transit than
traditional development. This site's strategic location, adjacent to Bayly Street and in
very close proximity to the Pickering Go Station, provides a significant opportunity to
introduce a more compact and dense built form. Municipal policies encourage and
require more sustainable development densities along key transit corridors and/or in
close proximity to transportation nodes.
Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment Paqe 5
\ '-'.
t'bö
There is no possibility of development on the north side of Bayly Street, across from
the site, as it is dominated by the CNR mainline and Highway 401. Therefore, it is
important to provide a strong built form along the south side of Bayly Street. A built
form edge should be aligned with the Bayly Street right of way, which would act as a
buffer to any development on the interior of the site. Any widening of the Bayly
Street right of way adjacent to the site should be kept to a minimum width to support
a pedestrian environment.
The site should be landscaped along the street frontages and building siting and
massing should provide presence to the street and appropriate interfaces with
existing developments and the Douglas Ravine.
Guidelines
1. Recognize the prominent location of the site at the intersection of an arterial
corridor (Bayly Street) and a collector road (St. Martins Drive). Design the
development to have an enhanced presence along the two public roads with
generous and appropriately placed landscaping to help create the pedestrian
environment, and prominent building massing and articulation.
2. Provide architectural design that is well articulated and reflective of the
prominence of the site location at the intersection of St. Martins Drive and Bayly
Street.
3. Create a strong built form along the Bayly Street frontage of the site by
providing for a continuous street edge of buildings with height and massing
emphasis to help "frame" the street.
4. Ensure a widened right of way for Bayly Street is minimized to support a
compact built form, and a pedestrian street environment.
5. Organize the site layout of buildings, roads, laneways and open spaces to take
advantage of the Douglas Ravine as a protected and enhanced natural feature.
No residential rear yards are to be located adjacent to the ravine.
6. Configure the site to provide convenient pedestrian access, both from and
through the site, to the nearby Pickering GO Station.
7. Provide traffic signals at the intersection of St. Martins Drive and Bayly Street,
in consultation with the Region of Durham.
Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Paqe 6
c.'C
to,)
I flC1URf B I Build to zone, Vistas and Views Plan
L-E"(Æ~Jc) i
.~ VIEWS AND VISTAS
- BUILD TO ZONE
AO\
~
~:
'0
()
~
(¡;
r,''Ar)()\~,
c3.2 Site Organization: street and blocks, major open spaces and linkages,
service areas
Basis
The site is rectangular in shape with street frontages on its north and west sides.
Bayly Street is an arterial corridor and is uniquely positioned to provide for high
density buildings containing mixed uses such as residential and commercial. The
potential building footprints, associated service spaces and parking for the high
density development along Bayly Street significantly influence the layout of the full
site. Development with lower densities should be considered mainly for the
southerly sections of the site to take advantage of the noise attenuation provided by
the high density development along Bayly Street.
St. Martins Drive is a collector road capable of carrying greater traffic volumes than
local roads. Vehicular access to the site shall be provided from both Bayly Street
and St. Martins Drive. Full signalization is recommended at the Bayly Street/St. Martins
Drive intersection. The primary internal road system should link with St. Martins Drive
and Bayly Street and provide for continuous pedestrian movement both to and
through the site. The east-west road section from St. Martins Drive should provide a
vista to the Douglas Ravine, provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the interior
of the site, and link with the north/south road section from Bayly Street. Direct
vehicular access (driveways/aisles) to the primary internal road system should be
minimized to support priority to the pedestrian environment and maximize
opportunity for on-street parking.
,,' ," Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
t'/U
Paqe 7
The presence of Douglas Ravine at the site's easterly periphery is a major asset. A
parkette to serve residents of the site shall be required adjacent to the ravine top-of-bank
to take advantage of the views into the Douglas Ravine, and assist in integrating the
development with the ravine feature. A pedestrian walkway shall be introduced on
public lands along or near the top of bank of the ravine to provide a link to the Bayly
Street sidewalk and the Pickering GO Station. This pedestrian link is an important
part of the larger pedestrian network which is also intended to connect the Pickering
GO Station to the north side of Highway 401 through a future pedestrian bridge.
A landscaped focal point should also be considered centrally on the site, preferably
at the intersection of the two primary internal roads.
Currently, there is a pedestrian connection between the site and the residential
buildings south of the site. This connection should be reviewed in light of the layout
of the site and maintained if feasible.
To create an attractive public streetscape, service areas should not be visible from
the streets and should be designed as an integral part of the buildings. Landscaping
should be used to provide buffering of service areas on the site where required.
Guidelines
1. Place high density mixed use development along the Bayly Street frontage,
with particular emphasis at the intersection of St. Martins Drive and Bayly
Street.
2. Provide commercial uses, which are visually and physically accessible to
pedestrians from Bayly Street, and from the northerly section of St.
Martins Drive.
3. Situate medium density residential development south of the high density
residential and commercial developments along Bayly Street.
4. Locate a main east-west entry point and access road/laneway from a central
location along St. Martins Drive. Ensure that this access provides, and suitably
frames, views into Douglas Ravine and provides for a pedestrian walkway that
connects to the parkette at the terminus of the east-west road.
5. Provide a primary internal road system comprised of two linking main roads;
one running east-west through the site from St. Martins Drive, and the other
running north-south from Bayly Street.
6. Design the east-west road to provide for two-way traffic with on-street parking and
an ample pedestrian sidewalk on both sides.
7. Design the primary north-south road to provide for two-way traffic, with access
controls to and from Bayly Street in consultation with the Region of Durham.
This road is to provide for an ample pedestrian sidewalk on both sides.
Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Paqe 8
'. ~7 ~
t: .ì
8. Ensure a high quality pedestrian environment by limiting the number of north-south
streets, to ensure that vehicular access will not disrupt the pedestrian walkway
along the east-west road. Furthermore, no residential driveways are to access
directly onto the main internal east-west road.
9. Locate a parkette at the edge of the ravine and ensure that it is linked to the
rest of the site visually and physically.
10. Place a walkway on public lands along or near the top of bank of Douglas
Ravine, which provides a continuous link between the Bayly Street sidewalk, so
as to enable connection to the Liverpool Road and Bayly Street intersection as
a means to create a strong link between the existing neighbourhood, the site,
and the Pickering GO Station.
11. Locate a landscape area centrally on the site that provides for a landscape
amenity.
12. Provide a pedestrian walkway between the subject site and residential
community located to the south either by maintaining the current location or by
a new connection, if feasible.
13. Incorporate storage and garbage areas into the buildings they serve and locate
them away from public streets. Ensure that the internal layout of mixed use
buildings are designed to accommodate recycling programs.
14. Use landscaping to buffer service and parking areas, particularly to shield views
from public roads.
15. All mechanical equipment must be adequately
screened and all commercial buildings should
contain their rooftop mechanical equipment
either in small roof top elements or under roof
profiles.
16. Attractive exterior seating areas or courtyards
that include benches, bicycle lock-ups and
garbage receptacles, and are safely removed
from vehicular routes will be encouraged.
17. For all restaurant uses, restaurant cooking
ventilation systems shall incorporate ecologizer
water wash, ultraviolet or other equivalent odour
extraction mechanisms sufficient enough to ensure that the resulting exhaust is
substantially odour free and will not affect the surrounding residents.
18. No drive-thru facilitates are permitted for any use.
c3.3 Built Form
Basis
Buildings should be located in groupings that enable the efficient movement of
vehicles and pedestrians on the site.
t· 7 .¿Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Paqe 9
Attention should be paid to the Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive intersection, where
buildings should be located in close proximity to the corner, appropriately massed
and articulated to take into account their prominent location to both public street
frontages and to provide a landmark.
Building heights for high-rise buildings should respect a pedestrian scale. In this
regard, a layered building approach should be considered, which expresses a base,
or podium, upon which the high-rise component of the building would be placed.
Further massing measures should be considered depending on the proposed
heights of high-rise buildings.
Medium density buildings, such as traditional townhouses or back-to-back
townhouses, should be designed to provide a variety of rooflines, massing features
and articulated façades. Reverse lot frontages should be avoided along existing
public streets or any new internal streets.
Building façades must be designed to provide an attractive presence. Particular
design emphasis should be placed on all building façades adjacent to public streets.
As well, development adjacent to the primary road system should have buildings
oriented to compliment the street, with main entrances facing this main axis. Having
main entrances on these streets will support an active streetscape and promote the
principle of "eyes on the streetn.
Guidelines
1. Locate the highest buildings along the Bayly Street frontage. A "landmark"
presence should be provided at the intersection of Bayly Street
and St. Martins Drive.
2. For high-rise buildings, provide a minimum two-storey base building, or podium,
above which the high-rise portion of the building would be placed, using set
backs to maintain the pedestrian scale of the base.
T~
~1¿,D11'
Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Paqe 10
7····
f...~ . ,')
3. Require a sunshade analysis to ensure that impacts of building heights to the
existing neighbourhood are mitigated.
4. Consider massing or building façade treatment measures to express the upper
floors (top) of high-rise buildings.
5. Use architectural elements such as cornices, entry features and upgraded
material treatments to add visual interest to all buildings on the site.
6. Promote an active streetscape, commercial building façades using ample
glazing facing the public streets. Place commercial building entrances to be
visible and accessible to pedestrians.
7. Avoid monotonous rows of townhouses by providing appropriate breaks
between rows of townhouses. Design a dynamic façade for a block of
townhouses by occasionally varying the front yard depths, using large windows,
and by providing a varied roofline.
8. Create a strong built form edge along the main primary internal road system,
with main entrances facing the street, porches, and visible living areas on the
ground floor.
9. Avoid reverse lot frontages for townhouses along the public streets and any
internal streets or laneways.
c3.4 Streetscaping and Landscaping
Basis
Architectural and landscaping design elements should be complimentary to create a
distinctive development. The public streetscape must integrate with the private
development to form a high quality urban environment.
The Bayly Street frontage is the main arterial frontage of the site. While a strong
built form image is recommended along this frontage, street tree plantings on both
the north and south sides of the street would further enhance the area. The
plantings on the north side of Bayly Street are intended to provide a visual buffer to
the CNR mainline and Highway 401.
Street trees, and other landscaping using trees and shrubs, should be used
extensively within the site to delineate internal streets and laneways, major access
points into the site, and accentuate open spaces.
To provide for a more immediate landscaping impact on the site, the use of larger
caliper deciduous trees and taller coniferous trees is recommended.
t' 74 Bav Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Guidelines
Paqe 11
1. City of Pickering and Region of Durham
public streetscape initiatives are to be ~ftÛ"
implemented in concert with the l-IGHí
landscaping on the subject site to create a
pedestrian supportive and pleasant urban
environment.
2. Plant street trees on both sides of Bayly
Street. Plantings on the north side of
Bayly Street, in consultation with the
Region of Durham, shall contain
deciduous and coniferous trees to provide
year-round visual buffering.
3. Design the public sidewalk, street
furniture and plantings on the south side
of Bayly Street to promote pedestrian use
by providing a minimum 2m sidewalk
width, decorative paving, pedestrian-
scaled street light fixtures and other
pedestrian amenities.
4. Provide a minimum width of 3m in the
front yard of buildings along St. Martins
Drive for landscaping.
5. Delineate internal streets and laneways . "
by using trees and shrubs. Provide a .> '----f ~~ L-I~\INc5,
variety of native plantings on the parkette ~~~~ I
and open spaces. ~T fì.( e./Jl~
6. Require decorative features such as gazebos for the parkette adjacent to the
Douglas Ravine.
7. Require a minimum caliper of 70mm trees for deciduous trees and a minimum
height of 2m for coniferous trees in landscaped areas.
8. Refer to Arterial Corridor Guidelines prepared by the Region of Durham when
selecting street tree species for the Bayly Street frontage.
c3.5 Parking, Parking Locations and Treatment
Basis
The City's desire to create a transit oriented and sustainable development is
accomplished with higher densities and more compact urban forms with a reduced
reliance on the number of car trips and demand for parking spaces. Parking
requirements for the site should take into consideration the close proximity of the
Pickering GO Station and the greater "walk to" opportunity provided by higher
residential density.
Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Paqe 12
!, 7 :~;)<
'-<. ,~
An abundance of surface parking often creates environments that are desolate and
not supportive of pedestrian activity. Where they have to be used, measures such
as perimeter landscape screening and landscape islands, assist in creating a more
satisfactory design for surface parking areas. To create a site design that is
dominated by well-designed buildings and landscaping, particularly for high density
mixed use buildings, parking should be located underground. In certain instances,
such as for retailing and for townhouses, parking may have to be placed at grade.
Along public street frontages parking will not be placed in front of buildings.
Guidelines
1. Consider reduced parking ratios for residential and commercial developments
on the site.
2. Use underground parking, particularly for high density mixed use buildings.
3. Where surface parking lots are used, provide generous landscape screening
along the perimeter of the lot. In addition, place landscape islands within the
parking lot to reduce the amount of hard paved surfaces.
4. Delineate the major pedestrian routes within a surface parking lot, which lead to
adjacent buildings, with decorative paving or similar treatments.
5. If surface parking is used for townhouses, particularly if located in the front
yard, provide landscaping on the adjacent areas.
Consider the use of decorative paving for hard
surfaces.
6. There shall be no surface parking in the front yard
of buildings along St. Martins Drive.
7. Encourage on-street parking on the primary
internal road system.
8. Consider providing on-street parking on the east
side of St. Martins Drive, south of the entrance to
the site subject to boulevard improvements to
help set out and delineate the parking area.
c3.6 Sustainable Design Practices
1t
Basis
The City of Pickering is currently undertaking an initiative that seeks to achieve long-
term environmentally, socially and economically sustainable communities through
design principles such as:
· creating socially cohesive and diverse communities through a mix of housing
types and employment opportunities
· promoting alternative transportation and energy
· promoting efficient use of resources
· locating residential areas close to recreational and commercial services with
pedestrian and cycling connections
F-"'f 1°'
t ., (JBay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Paqe 13
These design principles should be followed in the development of this site in support
of creating a sustainable neighbourhood.
While several rating systems are available to measure environmental performance
of buildings and sites, proponents are encouraged to use LEED (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) as the rating system. LEED measures and ranks
a building's environmental performance under six general categories: Sustainable
sites; Water efficiency; Energy and atmosphere; Materials and resources; Indoor
environmental quality; Innovation and design.
Benefits of employing sustainable building technologies include measurable
reductions of waste, decreased water use, energy savings, reduced operating and
maintenance costs and improved indoor air quality.
Guidelines
1. Encourage, as a minimUm, the achievement of LEED - Silver to ensure
sustainable building practices are achieved on the site by considering the
following:
energy saving windows, construction materials, fixtures and systems
greenroofs building design
innovative stormwater management techniques, such as porous surface
paving materials
water conservation measures
recycling and composting arrangements
use of native tree species in landscaping
maximizing the natural irrigation of trees
recycling trash chute for metal, paper and mixed trash for apartment
buildings
smart meters, which record the time of day that electricity is used so
customers can use electricity at less expensive times of day
c3.7 Signage
Basis
Signs are an important element of commercial activity. Types of signage regularly
used for commercial uses include: fascia signs; rooftop signs; and free standing
ground signs.
Signage should be part of the overall development design and work in concert with
buildings and landscaping on the site. In placing signs on a site or a building,
proponents should be mindful of impacts on the public streetscape.
Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
Paqe 14
t.. '7 {
Signage can also be used as a creative tool. In certain instances, a coordinated
sign system, which utilizes up-to-date display technologies, lighting and other
means, can contribute to a vibrant and animated streetscape. In this regard, Bayly
Street should be considered a prime candidate for any such creative expressions.
Guidelines
1. Incorporate all signage into the design considerations for buildings and
landscaping.
2. No freestanding roof-mounted billboard signs shall be permitted.
3. Fascia signs that are in proportion and architecturally coordinated with the
building façade will be encouraged.
4. Limit the use of ground signs, except when incorporated into the landscaping.
c3.8 Lighting
Basis
The use of lighting to enhance a developments attractiveness and safety of the built
environment is accomplished by promoting the use of lighting that is of appropriate
quality, intensity and design. The City of Pickering promotes limiting the effects of
unwanted light on people, property and the natural environment.
Guidelines
1. Lighting design should complement the design of the development.
2. Promote the use of lighting to enhance and define the aesthetic and functional
quality of the public spaces such the pedestrian walkway and parkette.
3. Promote the use of lighting fixtures that are compatible with the scale of
pedestrian activity.
4. Exterior lighting shall not spill over onto adjacent properties or streets.
5. Lighting shall be downcast through the use of full cut off fixtures to avoid light
pollution.
6. Lighting and light standards in public areas including parking lots should relate
to the pedestrian and be limited to a height of 6 metres.
7. Promote the use of lighting that is environmentally friendly in terms of
generated light levels and energy conservation.
C4.0 Phasing of Development
Basis
The Bay Ridges Plaza, built in the 1960's provided 5,500m2 of retail, personal
service, office and food store service to the neighbourhood. Commercial retail uses
Bay Ridqes Plaza Redevelopment
u78
Paqe 15
comprise an important aspect of the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood and must be
provided in any redevelopment of the site.
Guidelines
. encourage efforts to provide continuity of service during the construction
phases in the commercial areas of significant relevance, through business
relocation and phasing incentives
. require the inclusion of significant replacement service commercial floor
space (new construction) in the first phase of redevelopment of the site
(approximately 2,OOOm2).
n
T ¡, ,," 'r . ç¡t.
(: . T .,0 ",.}.IT If' TO
r:~'Jfn t PD if 5 - 0 b
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S
SUBMITTED PLAN
S. R. & R. BAY RIDGES LTD.
A 06/06
From Information Report No. 07-06
204.423
1,'81
I r
. ,
~
~
.~
-II.
....
l'
Fl/LL SCAl£ COPfES OF 1Ht: N'PUCANrS
SII8JI1TTEO PlAN ARE AÞiI44ABtE ItJR W£ f M; AT
1Ht: CITY OF PlCKERINC PiANNING .. OE:YELOPIrIENT OEPiMTllENr.
THIS U4P WAS Pf1()(){JC£/} BY 1Ht: CITY OF PIC/ŒRING
PUINN/N(; ok 0E:YEL0PUENr D£PARTIkN7;
/NFI:JRIMTION .. SVPPORT SERIfC£S.
Ufy 4 2006.
I,g')
, ~
INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S
REVISED
SUBMITTED PLAN
S. R. & R. BAY RIDGES LTD.
A 06/06
..,ª-___._I Ü
r'lI ,,,!l 5 - q,~."._",_
~ I
I
I
l'
FUll. SCN.£ COPIES ~ l1I£ APPI./CANrs
SlJ8M/TTE1) PLAN ARE AII4f£A8Œ FOR ~G AT
THE CITY OF PICKERING PtANNlNG .. DEVELOPItI£NT lJEPART/IENT.
THIS NAP ~ PRODLICED SY l1I£ CITY ~ PICKERING
PI.ANNING .. OEVELOPV£NT lJEPARTllENr.
INFORMATION.. SJJPPORT ~
AUG/lST 18. 2006.
, :',-!~":¡'!1 # 'i. TO
~" .' , ,.. , .. ',"'-' " .
!:':,~¡¡:rl t{ PD_ L/ 5 - 0 (" ,_,,_,
c"8°
.' oJ
STAFF CONCEPT PLAN
SCALE: 1 :1500
AYLY STRBBT.....=:.:..-...
rtWII: 2 mNII: s
_3 _4
¡
I
¡
i
A
a
t84
Attachment # 5
APPLICANT'S DEVELOPMENT DETAIL
Details of Application Oriqinal Plan Revised Plan
(Attachment #2) (Attachment #3)
Total gross lot area - 4.067 ha - 4.308 ha
Valley lands (land below top of bank) - 0.609 ha - 0.609 ha
Road Widening - 0.007 ha - 0.09 ha
10 metre buffer from top of bank - - 0.223 ha
Net lot area - 3.38 ha - 3.38 ha
Number of Traditional Townhouses - 71 - 38
Number of Back-to-Back Townhouses - 78 - 76
Number of live-work Townhouses - 12 - 12
Total Number of Townhouses - 161 - 126
Number of Apartment Units Buildinq "An - 243 - 240
No. of One bedroom Units in BuildinQ "A" - 140 - 150
No. of Two bedroom Units in Buildinq "A" - 103 - 90
Number of Apartment Units BuildinQ "B" - 168 - 107
No. of One bedroom Units in Buildinq "B" - 101 - 60
No. of Two bedroom Units in BuildinQ "Bn - 67 - 47
Total Number of Apartment Units - 411 - 347
Total Number of One bedroom Units - 241 - 210
Total Number of Two bedroom Units - 170 - 137
Total Number of Dwelling Units - 572 - 473
Apartment BuildinQ "A" HeiQht - 16 storeys - 16 storeys
Apartment Building "B" Height - 18 storeys - 18 storeys
Commercial - Gross floor Area - 2,062 m2 - 2,133 mL
Surface Parking for - 60 spaces - 58 spaces
apartment/commercial buildinQ
Underground parking for - 462 spaces - 546
apartment/commercial buildinQ
Total parking for apartment/commercial - 522 Spaces - 604
buildinQ
Parking per townhouse - 2 spaces - 2 spaces
Townhouse Visitors ParkinQ - 9 spaces - None designated
Total townhouse parking - 331 spaces - 252 spaces
Total ParkinQ on the site - 853 spaces - 856 spaces
to
'15 (
t'85
Commercial Facus Advisory Services Inc.
Affiliated with RE#1ÞK Commerdal f'ÖCUs Inc.
69 Yorkville Ave., Toronto, Ont. M5R 188
Tel: 416712-9309 Fax: 416972-9588
EMail: CFAServices((j)aol.com
August 18, 2006
Mr. Neil Carroll, M.C.I.P. RPP
Director,
Plaming and Development Department
City of Pickering, Ont.
L1V 6K7
Att: Ms. Lynda Taylor
Delivered by E Mail
Dear Ms. Taylor:
Re: Parking Standards Rationale
As per our meeting August 10, 2006, we agreed to provide for your consideration our parking
standards rationale for the subject rezoning application.
In our planning report supporting the rezoning application, the theme of a "New Paradigm" of Land Use
Planning in Ontario and that of Transit Supportive Redevelopment principles were put forward
throughout the planning justification document.
At the risk of being repetitive, in Attachment C (Transit Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines of the
Province) we took guidelines 4.5.1 on reducing parking requirements, and applied it to the subject site.
As well, with Attachment D in the planning report, we applied some of our experiences in other
jurisdictions on the key ingredients of Transit Oriented Development. Specifically, these experiences
all point to a reduced parking standard near transit nodes with similar characteristics as the Liverpool
GO Station surrounding area.
Lastly, we examined the MBPD prepared February 2006 Draft Urban Design Guidelines. On page 4 of
the report, it is stated that a major principle of Transit Oriented Development is the need to put limits on
parking. On page 24 of the report it is stated that" A significant corollary to the desire to create more
sustainable, higher density and compact urban forms is the reduced reliance on the number of car trips
and a reduced demand for parking spaces. Therefore, given the close proximity of the plaza site to the
Pickering GO station, any development proposal should consider reduced parking ratios for the
residential as well as commercial buildings." The report, in addition, provided additional guidance
with guidelines 35, 36 and 370n page 25.
Lastly, and most importantly, we examined the approaches of suburban municipalities in the GTA to
determine their approaches to transit oriented development and sustainable redevelopment.
The Region of York passed Official Plan Amendment 43 in response to changes in terms of
sustainable development and in order to implement the York Region Rapid Transit Plan. As a result,
the plan permits 2.5 FSI at Regional Centres and encourages the local municipalities to encourage
transit oriented development by addressing "appropriate parking design and standards". As a result of
this policy initiative, the following are representative examples of how the municipalities have adopted
new standards:
The Town of Markham in their Markham City Centre By law (2004-196) applies parking standards of
1.2 spaces for apartments as a maximum. One spot per apartment unit with .2 for visitors. For
townhouses they require one spot within the structure and one spot on the driveway. The secondary
cSb
6;,
if 5' (.: (-
. Page 2
August 18,2006
plan calls for on street parking: "It is intended that on street parking will be encouraged at appropriate
locations on all roads, except Regional roads, busways alleys and lanes, in order to provide some of
the parking required for adjacent development to assist in calming traffic movement and thereby
enhance pedestrian safety. The Markham City Centre By law applies to an area that can be compared
to the Bay Ridges area and the subject application.
The Town of Richmond Hill has implemented the Regional Policy by adopting a graduated scale for
parking standards for higher density transit oriented development at the Langstaff GO Station, ranging
from 1.5 parking spaces/ unit for un~s greater than 1,000 sq. ft, 1.2 parking spaces for under 1,000 sq.
ft. 1.0 spaces for under 800 sq. feet to.9 parking spaces/unit for units under 500 square feet plus .25
spaces for visitors parking. For Block town housing such as back to back units, 2 spaces plus .25 for
visitors standards are applied. The site attributes of this Langstaff Go Station development are very
comparable to the Liverpool Go Station area and the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment application. .
The City of Vaughan applies 1.5 parking spaces per unit for multiple family units and 2 spaces for town
housing.
The City of Mississauga is implementing a new zoning by law in the fall of 2006 and the proposed by
law proposes the following standards:
Condominium Apartment Dwellings: 1 space per bachelor unit, 1.25 per one bedroom unit, and 1.40
for two bedroom units. For Condominium townhousing 2.0 spaces and .25 visitors spaces per unit.
In summary, this application represents Transit Oriented Redevelopment within the greater City Centre,
within a short walking distance of the Liverpool GO Station. As well, the site is serviced by Durham
Transit The redevelopment of the subject site has been designed to reflect the latest sustainable
planning design standards for parking. The standard of 1.1 parking spaces per residential unit with .15
for visitors for the high rise residential units, mostly accommodated underground, represents good
transit supportive planning. In addition, additional surface parking spaces are provided for the
commercial components at 1 space per 34 sq m. of retail area reflects current planning standards in the
GTA. As well for the townhousing, 1 parking space per unit in the garage, and 1 parking space per
unit in the driveway, supplemented by surface visitor parking at strategic locations throughout the site.
represents good planning and in conformity with provincial policy guidelines and the recommendations
of the draft urban design guidelines prepared for the area by MBPD.
Please contact us should your require further clarification on the planning approaches taken on this
exciting transit oriented redevelopment application.
Yours sincerely,
Stephen I. Fagyas, M.A., M.C.I.P.
Commercial Focus Advisory Services
¡ -, i r'p" ''i'IT II::¿ TO
,,' "- . -'I 5· oC
l' 8 '7
CifL¡ 0#
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 07-06
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
June 1st, 2006
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 06/06
S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
1215 - 1235 Bayly Street
Part of Block Y, Plan M-16
City of Pickering
1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
- the subject lands are located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Bayly Street and St. Martins Drive;
- a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1);
- the property is currently occupied with the Bay Ridges Plaza that contains a
variety of commercial uses including retail, personal services, office uses and
a car wash;
- the vast majority of the property not occupied by the building is paved for
parking purposes with the exception of the portion of the property along the
eastern side which is sloped and forms part of the Douglas Ravine;
- the site's topography, other than the Douglas Ravine portion is relatively flat;
- the property is encumbered by an existing easement in the eastern portion of
the property for sewer purposes;
- access to the existing site is provided by a driveway off of Bayly Street and
two driveways off of St. Martins Drive;
- the subject application does not include the lands associated with the smaller
plaza at 1259 Bayly Street:
- surrounding land uses are:
north - on the opposite side of Bayly Street is the CN rail line and
Highway 401 ;
- townhouses and apartment building;
- open space lands being the Douglas Ravine;
- on the opposite side of St. Martins Drive are detached dwelling
lots that front onto Tanzer Court.
south
east
west
~ ~'
t· 8 ~formation Report No. 07-06
'7 ,':
"'---, '~__n'.;"~,,,,._,~_ ''''
'1.· ./. 'J;, L/ C'., ,r /
, r LJ --:./............J \,..,' '=".1
Page 2
2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. have submitted an application to amend the
zoning by-law in order permit a mixed use development consisting of
townhouses, back-to-back townhouses, and a mixed use building consisting
of ground related retail/commercial uses and office uses and two apartment
buildings;
- the applicant also proposes to create some live-work units that will front onto
St. Martins Drive;
- the applicant's proposed site plan is provided for reference (see Attachment #2);
- the proposed apartment towers on top of the commercial units are located at
the north-west corner of the property with the rest of the development being
occupied by grade related residential development in the form of freehold
townhouses and back-to back townhouses;
- the proposed site plan does not propose the creation of any new municipal
streets, rather the creation of private roads/laneways;
it is anticipated that the individual townhouse dwelling units will be created by
means of an application for a common element condominium;
- the condominium proposal will be a common element condominium for
private internal roads, visitor parking area, parkette and possibly some
perimeter landscaping elements;
it is anticipated that the apartment building will be subject to a traditional
condominium application in order to create the individual dwelling units;
- the apartment building complex with the commercial component will have
underground parking for the residents and surface parking for commercial
users;
the proposal is intended to be developed in phases, the first phase being the
freehold and back-to-back townhouses in the southern portion of the site, with
the commercial component and the apartment buildings being built as later
phases;
- the following chart outlines the existing site details:
Details of Proposed Development
Total gross lot area
Valley lands (land below top of bank)
Road Widening
Net lot area
Number of Traditional Townhouses
Number of Back-to-Back Townhouses
Number of live-work Townhouses
Total Number of Townhouses
Building "A"
Building "B"
Number of Apartment Units
Total number of Dwelling Units
4.067 ha
6,089.4 m2
750 m2
3.383 ha
71
78
12
161
243
168
411
572
Information Report No. 07-06
£'qþ,GH',~nn #_.1 TO
, pr, t.¡ 5· .~, 6
Page 3
l'8D
Apartment Building "A" Height
Apartment Building "Bn Height
Office - Gross floor Area
Retail - Gross floor Area
Commercial - Gross floor Area
Surface Parking for apartment/commercial building
Underground parking for apartment/commercial building
Total parking for apartment/commercial building
3.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING
16 storeys
18 store¥s
1,021 m
1,041 m2
2,062 m2
60 spaces
462 spaces
522 Spaces
3.1 Durham Reç¡ional Official Plan
designates the subject lands as Living Areas;
areas designated as Living Areas are intended to be predominantly used for
housing purposes, and may include limited office, retail and personal service
uses;
in consideration of development applications in Living Areas the intent of the
Plan is to achieve a compact urban form, including intensive residential,
office, retail and service and mixed uses along arterial roads and in
conjunction with present and potential transit facilities;
Bayly Street where it abuts the subject lands is designated as a Type A
Arterial Road;
- the proposal appears to conform to the Durham Region Official Plan;
3.2 Pickerinç¡ Official Plan
the Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as Mixed Use Area -
Mixed Corridors Area and Open Space Systems - Natural Areas;
permissible uses within Mixed Use Area - Mixed Corridors Area include,
amongst others, a variety of residential uses including townhouses and
apartment buildings, retailing of goods and services, offices and restaurants;
- 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 proposed application is proposing 572 dwelling units to be located on a
net designated area of 3.38 hectares resulting in a net density of 169 dwelling
units per hectare;
the current number of dwelling units does not comply with the density
provisions of the Official Plan, maximum density of 140 dwelling units per
hectare;
Mixed Use Areas are intended to have the widest variety of uses and highest
level of activities in the City when compared to other designations;
- the lands that are designated Open Space - Natural Area represent lands
that are in proximity to the Douglas Ravine;
Information Report No. 07-06
l'80
7
¥s- c ,.
Page 4
permissible uses within land designated Open Space - Natural Area include
conservation, environmental protection, restoration and passive recreation;
_ the subject lands are within the Bay Ridges Neighbourhood of the Official Plan;
_ the subject lands are within a Detailed Review Area which requires
development guidelines for major development and no development
guidelines currently exist in the Official Plan Compendium for this area of the
Bay Ridges Neighbourhood (see Section 3.3);
in conjunction with this application staff are preparing development
guidelines;
Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation System designates
Bayly Street where it abuts the subject site as a Type A Arterial Road;
Type A Arterial Roads are the highest order arterial road and are designed to
carry large volumes of traffic at moderate to high speed;
Bayly Street is designated as a Transit Spine where a higher level of transit
service is to be encouraged;
Schedule II of the Pickering Official Plan - Transportation System designates
St. Martins Drive where it abuts the subject site as a Collector Road;
Collector Roads are designed to provide access to individual properties, to
local roads, and to other collector and arterial roads;
Schedule 11/ of the Pickering Official Plan - Resource Management designates
a portion of the subject lands associated with the Douglas Ravine as
Shorelines and Stream Corridors;
Shorelines and Stream Corridors identify lands that may be prone to water
impacts, such as flooding, erosion and slope instability, and requires an
environmental report to be submitted that appropriately addresses any
environmental constraints on the subject property;
_ the subject application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of
the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications;
3.3 Development Guidelines for the Bav Ridaes Neiahbourhood
- with the submission of the subject application the need for development
guidelines for the subject lands was identified;
Development Guidelines will examine the land use mix and arrangement, the
scale and intensity of use the transportation network and community design
requirements;
- the preparation of the development guidelines has been initiated by the City
with the assistance of a consultant;
- the preparation of the development guidelines included an urban design
workshop that included representatives of the area residents, applicant, City
staff, Regional staff and TRCA staff;
a draft of the Development Guidelines was prepared by the consultant and is
currently being reviewed;
- the development guidelines will address the mix of land use, development
layout, open space distribution, built form, street presence, building
height/massing and articulation, view corridors and sustainability practices;
Information Report No. 07-06
7
.;, ¿/ s-· () f:,
Page 5
t'91
a copy of the Draft Urban Design Concept is provided for general reference
(see Attachment #3);
preliminary review of the draft guidelines indicates that certain design matters
will need further investigation resulting in refinements and enhancements;
it is anticipated that the Development Guidelines will be finalized by staff and
brought before City Council for consideration;
3.4 Zoninq Bv-Iaw 3036
- the subject lands are currently zoned "C2" - General Commercial Zone by
Zoning By-law 2511, as amended;
- the existing zoning permits a variety of commercial uses including retail
stores, restaurants, service stores, business and professional offices, car
wash, dry cleaning and laundry and automobile service station;
an amendment to the zoning by-law has been requested by the applicant in
order to permit the proposed mixed use development;
- the applicant has requested an appropriate zone that would permit the
proposed uses.
4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
4.1 Resident Comments
- written comments have been received from numerous residents providing
comments and concerns/opposition with the application;
comments included concerns with:
· loss of commercial facilities/grocery store, specifically to the number of
seniors living in the immediate neighbourhood;
· site density/number of units;
· increased traffic in the area;
· access locations to the site;
· impacts on schools/capacity for students;
· on-site traffic movements;
· construction activity, phasing of development, timing of demolition of the
existing plaza and impacts on the remaining businesses;
· impact on the ravine/environmentally sensitive lands;
· dangers to pedestrian traffic;
· urban design;
4.2 AQency Comments
no formal agency comments have been received to date;
9' ",
t ' ,
.' ....
Information Report No. 07-06
""''f l",(',~ 1"
if .7.... Ii,¡
r' ''-Ì 5: 0 (."
Page 6
4.3 Staff Comments
in reviewing the application to date, the following matters have been identified
by staff for further review and consideration:
· concluding/reducing on the number of dwelling units to ensure compliance
with the Official Plan density maximum of 140 units per hectare;
· reviewing the traffic report to determine the impact of the proposed
development on the existing traffic in the area;
· comparing the application to the final version of the development
guidelines to ensure general compliance to the guidelines which will
include development layout, building locations, massing, height and lotting
fabric, streetscapes, vista, compatibility and integration to surroundings;
· ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive
to, surrounding land uses including shadowing, noise, pedestrian linkages,
scale and intensity of the uses;
· reviewing the site servicing and down stream constraints and the related
financial impacts on the site development will have to be addressed;
· ensuring adequate parking is provided on the property in appropriate
locations;
· need to analyze the constraints and benefits the application will have on
both the subject property and on the surrounding community, given the
role of the existing use provide to the community;
· need to consider the environmental impacts on the Douglas Ravine, the
limit of development associated with the top-of-bank, and trail
locations/connections with the open space system;
· stormwater management matters as they relate to the Frenchman's Bay
Stormwater Management Master Plan;
· reviewing the lotting pattern of the townhouses to ensure an appropriate
urban design in terms of the need to front onto primary roads and to avoid
backing onto the ravine;
· reviewing the proposed development to ensure that adequate information
is provided, that technical requirements are met and that the proposed site
design is appropriate;
· reviewing the emerging Provincial Policies related to urban growth such as
the Places to Grow Policy which has identified Pickering as a growth
centre (therefore the need to achieve certain intensification requirements
at appropriate locations that will exhibit a high quality urban design based
on appropriate development design guidelines);
· ensuring the application can achieve a high level of sustainable
components;
- the Planning & Development Department will conclude its position on the
application and its design after it has received and assessed comments from
the circulated departments, agencies and public.
Information Report No. 07-06
':Tl ¡WH~ 'r-~Jl' If 7 Tn
. ',' .', t...· ."'. _ .,..'. .. ,,_.,. "~"'^' .., .
t./ 5 - 0 (-::<
Page 7
,'. n '}
_ J oJ
5.0 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
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 zoning by-law amendment, does not
make oral submissions at the public meeting or make written submissions to
the City of Pickering before the 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.
6.0 OTHER INFORMATION
6.1 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;
6.2 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:
. proposed development plan;
· Traffic Impact Study, prepared by Javar Consultants Inc., dated
February 2006;
· Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Jacques Whitford
Engineering, dated August 13, 2004;
· Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by Jacques Whitford
Engineering, dated August 30,2004;
· Planning Report, prepared by Commercial Focus Advisory Services Inc.,
dated February 23, 2006;
· Shadow Study, Prepared by Kirkor Architects & Planners, dated
February 3, 2006;
the need for additional information will be determined through the review and
circulation of the applicant's current proposal;
· ." 19formation Report No. 07-06
l: ~ it
7
if 5·' o{-::>
Page 8
- also available is the draft design guidelines that is currently being reviewed
with an expectation it will be refined prior to being finalized for Council's
consideration (a copy of the draft guidelines is available on the City' website
cityofpickering.com or from the Planning & Development Department.
6.3 Company Principal
- the owner of the subject lands is S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.;
- Stephen Warsh is a principal of S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Principal Planner - Development Review
Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
RP:ld
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
7
.j!' , <-l; .,"~ ~- (.") Go
(,95
APPENDIX NO. I TO
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 07-06
COMMENTING RESIDENTS AND LANDOWNERS
(1 ) Ekkehard Zorn
(2) Joyce Harkness
(3) Margaret Sutton
(4) Mary Jeffery
(5) Jean Taylor
(6) Brenda Wessely
(7) Meredith Clark
(8) John Smith
(9) Maureen St. Jean
(10) George Kolesnikovs
(11) Pasquale Malandrino
(12) Patricia Elson
(13) Mike Danischewsky
COMMENTING AGENCIES
(1 ) none received to date
COMMENTING CITY DEPARTMENTS
(1 ) none received to date
t9b
CiiJ¡ c~
t.TTACHrJ:ErJT # X TO
REPORT If PO iI f;·~ ,". t-
Minutes I Meeting Summary
Statutory Public Information Meeting
Council Chambers
Thursday, June 1,2006
7:05 pm.
PRESENT:
Councillor Ashe - Chair
Councillor McLean
Councillor Dickerson
Councillor Pickles
Councillor Brenner (8:30 pm)
STAFF:
Ross Pym
Neil Carroll
Birgit Wilson -
- Principal Planner, Development Review
- Director, Planning & Development
- Recording Secretary
GUEST:
- Stephen I. Fagyas
- Lead Consultant for S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
Councillor Ashe provided a brief explanation of the purpose of the meeting and introduced staff.
Ross Pym, 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 there at.
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion
Ref # (summary of discussion)
1. ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 06/06
S.R. & R. BAY RIDGES LTD.
1215 -1235 BAYLY STREET
PART OF BLOCK Y, PLAN M-16
CITY OF PICKERING
1. Planner Comments
I Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, provided an overview of the
property location, applicant's proposal and City's Official Plan policies pertaining to
this site, as outlined in Information Report No. 07-06. He confirmed that the subject
application did not include the lands associated with the smaller plaza at 1259 Bayly
Street.
Page 1
CORP0228-2/02
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion
Ref # (summary of discussion)
T. 'I ,., "H'~ ,"C~~IT # 0 TO
- "";\.) ¡.'Il.. \ ()
RE?ORl # PO 1/5- 0 (0
1.'97
2. Applicants Comments
Stephen I. Fagyas, Lead Consultant for S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. provided an
overview of the proposed development using a PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Fagyas
stated that this presentation will be made available to the public on their website.
He further stated that this proposal has a high level of sustainability and they had
conducted a comprehensive planning analysis, considered all the possible impacts
and concluded the application complies with all relevant policies. He concluded his
presentation by introducing the architect and landscape personnel who worked on the
design of this proposal.
3. Comments from Members of the Public
Robert & Marlene Gardner
1890 Vallev Farm Rd..
Mr. & Mrs. Gardner purchased a unit on Radom Street for their physically challenged
son 3 weeks ago. Mrs. Gardner stated that the prime reason for purchasing in the
area was that their son could have safe access to essential services, Le. grocery
store, pharmacy, dry cleaners. She asked the Chair why potential homeowners were
not informed of this proposal. Mr. & Mrs. Gardner also stated that this proposal
lacked consideration for all seniors living in this area as their essential services would
be taken away and that the increased density of the area would cause major traffic
problems, making this a very unsafe area for pedestrians.
Jim Dobney
Radom Street.
Mr. Dobney expressed concern about the boutique style stores that are proposed for
the area, should the re-zoning be accepted. He stated these stores would not reflect
the fact that senior citizens are on a fixed income and need to have access to stores,
and services that reflect price points for their limited income.
Ed Fulton
705-1210 Radom Street.
Mr. Fulton objected to statements made that the Price Chopper store was in financial
difficulty. He noted that this statement was made by a 17 year old employee of the
store and that no one in management would have discussed serious financial matters
with this employee. He disagreed with the statements made.
Letitia Wise
31-1230 Radom St.
Ms. Wise expressed concerns with the parking spaces in the proposal. She noted
that the proposal allowed for 532 spaces, however, there would be 582 units.. She
also had concerns that essential services, Le. grocery store, pharmacy, dry cleaners,
would no longer be available to seniors and that the proposed "little shops" would be
too expensive for people on a fixed income. Also, that the proposed towers are too
Page 2
CORP0228-2/02
l'93
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion
Ref # (summary of discussion)
"
..)',
"';'1'1 II "'~
," , ,~. ",_,_TO
LL5~,_,QJt:?
high for this neighbourhood. She stated her objection to the fact that no additional
traffic lights being proposed.
Doris Hopper
204-1210 Radom Street
Ms. Hopper stated that the community did not agree with any of the proposed plans
and that the plaza should not be torn down as it is a fully sustainable plaza. She
further expressed concern that the proposed 16-18 storey condominium/apartment
complex as this conflicts with the city's own zoning guidelines. She stated that these
lands are the gateway to the beautiful waterfront of Pickering, and it should be
developed to attract tourism. She asked the City Planners, Councillors and the Mayor
to have a vision that promotes development of cultural components for this area,
looking at the example of the GTA. She proposed that instead of another townhouse,
condominium complex the city partners with private, corporate sponsorship to build a
Concert Hall, Museum or Theatre. She concluded that any plans which displaces
current storeowners should include fair compensation, which to date has not been
addressed.
Paul Crawford
867 Antonio Sf.
Mr. Crawford noted the Official Plan is Mixed Corridor, therefore there needs to be a
mix of uses and the need for jobs. Does not support the application as the area is a
stable neighbourhood. His opinion the application does not comply with the Region or
City Official Plan.
Carmen Montgomery
239 Lupin Drive
She is also concerned with losing the essential services the plaza now provides and
that no fair compensation has been offered to the business owners to vacate their
current leases if the plaza is torn down. She spoke of the environmental issues with
this proposal. She stated that the proposed high-rise building contravenes the current
height restrictions of the area. The high density will require more ambulances, police,
etc., and this cost will not be incurred by S.R.& R. Bay Ridges Ltd., rather the
taxpayers. She stated that the traffic study, which Mr. Fagyas reported on, was not
correct and that if traffic patterns are observed at 5:00 pm instead of 6:30 pm the
conclusion will be a lot different. Lastly, she reiterated that the residents of this area
are vehemently opposed to this proposal and the city should listen and look for a
more sustainable plan for the residents/taxpayers of the Bay Ridges area.
Tim Dobson
1310 Broadview Street
Mr. Dobson is the President of the Pickering East Short Community Association
(PESCA). He represented the membership at the meeting and voiced the following
concerns for this proposal:
. PESCA should have been properly informed Le.: a formal presentation. Only a
Page 3
CORP0228-2/02
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion
Ref # (summary of discussion)
u,_ <¡¡
F"··,rw II p", U 5-0 ~
\:::.r U' u._.l._____~,;~..._..
t 9H
brief mention was made at a general meeting. The Councillor provided little or
no information.
· April 2006 members of PESCA voiced strong objections to proposal.
· Any re-zoning requires extensive public meetings, one meeting is not enough.
· Traffic concerns - more congestion to the surrounding area - unsafe for
children, seniors.
· Estimates 250% more traffic in the area.
· Object to proposed building heights-no taller than 5 storeys.
· Proposed parking spaces are not enough.
· Negative waterfront enjoyment.
· Environmental impact needs to be addressed.
· Health and safety issues.
· Demolition of phase 1 - how will this impact tenants/store owners who will
remain during this phase.
· New retail spaces are at risk.
· No Emergency Evacuation Plan has been put forward.
· PESCA is not opposed to the Bay Ridges area development, however, much
more discussion, alternative proposals, and consultation with all concerned
must take place.
Mr. & Mrs. Rozenfals
816 Helen Crescent
Mrs. & Mrs. Rozenfals questioned why the developer was only interested in building
residential units. They stated the need for the growth of local business development
and commercial space.
Pasquale Malandrino
Chiaue Hairstylinq, 1215-1235 Bayly Sf. Unit 450
Mr. Malandrino explained the difficulties that are being encountered by the plaza
business people when trying to contact S.R & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. First a wrong
telephone number was printed on a flyer and then when the correct number was
obtained, messages are not returned. He stated there is a high level of frustration
among the business owners, as there seems to be no accountability by the developer
to tenants or the public for their safety or any financial restitution being offered to
vacate leases early. He concluded by stating that negotiations must take place and
that business owners must receive compensation for vacating their leases early.
Eillen Higdon
852 Fairview Ave..
Ms. Higdon is opposed to this development. She is concerned that not enough in-
depth studies have been done to sustain this development. In particular she is not
happy with the environmental impact, traffic impact. She concluded by stating that
tenants must be dealt with fairly if they are being asked to vacate their leases early.
She feels more clarification on the lease issue is required and that to date the
approach by the developer in this area has been "draconiann.
Page 4
CORP0228-2/02
d ,- r
.L\JU
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion
Ref # (summary of discussion)
g
Hb'JH r if PL <.,.~'i'S'=L~? <9.
Dave Mathews
714 Annlands Street
He also opposes this development. He cited environmental issues as well as traffic
issues. When the existing tower on Radom Street was built it was recognized as a
mistake and should not be repeated. He further stated that the citizens of this area
would not let this project happen without a fight.
John Blue
4730 Thornton Road
Mr. Blue stated that they own and operate a Laundromat and Car Wash business.
Over the past 10 years they have been able to grow their businesses significantly and
wonder why S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd. has not been able to sustain the plaza. Their
issue with this development is also the lack of negotiations and fair compensation for
vacating their lease.
Ken Devine
1210 Radom Street. Apt. 506
Mr. Devine stated that the Bay Ridges area does not need more residential units but
rather affordable shopping for seniors south of the 401. He noted that a Hasty Market
grocery store is not affordable for people on a fixed income.
Jacqueline Smart
829 Fairview Ave.
Ms. Smart made the following comments in stating his objections to this development:
· Price Choppers did not want to close; however their rent increased 85%.
· Traffic lights on St. Martins Drive are required.
· The entire traffic flow in this area needs to be studied further.
· What is the timeframe for Phase 1, 2, & 3; 5 years apart?
· Not enough parking spaces are allotted to each unit at present.
· Even though this plan is in accordance with the Durham Region Plan, it is not
acceptable to the residents of this area.
· The proposed high-rise units should be limited to 5 storeys.
· Will there be more medical services provided to sustain the increased
population, Le.: doctors.
She concluded that all opposition to this project should be directed in writing to the
Ministry of the Environment, The Region of Durham and their elected officials.
Carolyn Huston
898 Antonio Street
She stated her objections to the fact that in both the Durham Regional and Pickering
Official Plan there was no projection of the population growth for this project.
Page 5
CORP0228-2/02
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion
Ref # (summary of discussion)
'<';!J# g TO
"..~.'" -_. -
, ¡Irf if PD ,L?_ - () 0,
; {) 1
-
Bonnie Littley
1499 Sandhurst Crescent
She is with the Ontario Smart Growth Network. She stated that this proposal had
merit, the Site Plan looks good, but not for the Bay Ridges area. The Site Plan shows
no schools, sidewalks, only driveways, and the proposed playground/parkette is
extremely small. She concluded by stating that more than one meeting needs to take
place to find a more suitable solution to re-building the Bay Ridges area.
Bianca D'Souza
1117 Tanzer Court
She stated her opposition to this proposal, as she is concerned for the safety of the
children in this area. She fears that Radom Street will become a speedway if no
traffic lights are installed.
Pedro Gonzales
875 Chapleau Drive
Mr. Gonzales shares the concern of the previous resident and in addition questions
whether there is a budget for more schools, police and medical facilities to sustain the
increase in population. He also stated that if there is a nuclear accident, the limited
exit routes from this area would cause a bottleneck, thus prohibiting speedy
evacuation.
Tom Rock
961 Mount Castle Crescent
Mr. Rock is concerned that there are too many grey areas with this development. He
feels there is non-compliance with regard to the wetlands. He also noted his
disappointment with the public information process as he feels the public are not
given all the facts. He also stated that the applicant/developer is not listening to the
community and questions whether the development will actually be built as proposed
or will there be changes made along the way without notifying the public, once the
developer has all the approvals. Lastly, he stated that there should be height
restrictions on any highrise proposal for this area.
Mark Willis
1866 Faimort
Mr. Willis owns the dance studio in the plaza and is now the largest tenant. Initially
had many concerns with the application, however have had very professional
discussions with the new owners and feel he has been treated fairly.
, Paul A vis
931 Livemool Rd.
Mr. Avis stated that to date the OMB has turned down all appeals of this nature. He
suggested that the best solution is for the City of Pickering to negotiate with
developers for the best, most suitable development that addresses all the concerns
by residents thus far. Lastly, he noted that written comments against this proposal
are the best way to ç¡et action.
Page 6
CORP0228-2/02
"
~ I) ,)
__ i. (_
Item / Details & Discussion & Conclusion
Ref # (summary of discussion)
iTl
:'I "<,,<?f
tl5-0,"-
Angelina Moore
1235 Random Street
She stated that if this development goes through, the schools in the area would be
overpopulated. The student/teacher ratio will result in teachers being over worked.
She also expressed concern with the increased traffic for the area and that the
parking on Radom Street will also become an issue.
Christopher Dean
1155 Tanzer Court
Mr. Dean questioned the accuracy of the Traffic Impact Study, as he believes that this
development will cause major traffic problems, increased street parking and generally
unsafe conditions for pedestrians.
Abdul Prenji
1011 Sherman Street
Mr. Prenji stated that he is the owner of the local Pharmacy and wanted to express
thanks to all the residents of the area for their support by coming to this meeting.
4. Response from Applicant
Mr. Fagyas encouraged the public to visit their website in order to view the
PowerPoint presentation of this project. He stated that all technical documents are
available for review and that this application complies with all the required elements.
He also explained that the Plaza is financial difficulty and will be torn down. Lastly he
stated that the application is for a zoning change and this is the right of the owners.
5. Staff Response
Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, stated that there is some
misinformation in regard to this application and encouraged all interested parties to
come to the Planning & Development Department at the City Hall to look over all the
documentation that is available. An example of the misinformation is the parking
spaces being provided on the site and many people have been referring to the wrong
number of total spaces available.
6. Comments from the Chair
Councillor Ashe advised that the Planning and Development Staff would be available
for a short eriod of time after the meetin for an one who wished to s eak with them.
The meeting adjourned at 10:30 pm
Page 7
CORP0228-2/02
Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment
Page 1 of 1
i"'"-: /,c¡..¡:r,un # 9 TO
r;::';'0R1 /í Pp 'I 5 - () b ~
ì I') ';
_I. ",J
Pym, Ross
From: Elaine Cote [emc@gzlegal.com]
Sent: April 26, 2006 10:56 AM
To: Pym, Ross
Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment
Mr. Pym: I have received the notice forwarded by Councillors Dickerson and McLean with respect to the above
noted redevelopment. I have concerns about this redevelopment proposal with respect to the environment,
population density, availability of services and vehicle access. I would appreciate receipt of information regarding
the proposal as it is available and look forward to the opportunity to attend public meetings in this matter.
Elaine Côté
emc@gzlegal.com
telephone: 416-642-5415
fax: 416-512-9992
This e-mail message is privileged, confidential and subject to copyright. Any unauthorized use or disclosure is prohibited.
01/09/2006
Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Proposal
Page 1 of 1
¡ ,') {I,'
_... \., t
/D
. v I i, 'r'u--.!i 5 - '-' ~"....._ ""
Pym, Ross
From: Drapeau, Deborah [Deborah.Drapeau@tdsb.on.ca]
Sent: April 26, 2006 12:51 PM
To: Pym, Ross
Cc: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor
Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Proposal
When will the public meeting be held? I am getting the impression that this is a done deal and there is no chance
that the people of Pickering will be able to halt this development if it is something they do not desire.
Surely the meeting at the East Shore Community Centre is not intended to be "the public meeting" indicated on
your flyer?
Deborah Drapeau
01/09/2006
'""'I p ¿/ in
, ""'~i5>ëï¿'
, ¡) C):'
-' ,
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Georgs Kolesnikovs [waterworld@rogers.com]
April 27, 2006 7:46 AM
Pym, Ross
Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment
Sir--
I am most concerned about the negative effect such a development will
have on my neighborhood and would like to request that you add my
name to your emaillist for updates.
I'd also like a my own copy of any notification that is sent to my
condominium board.
We need stores, banks and other services south of the 401, not 560
additional households with the resulting problems for traffic,
education and other municipal services.
--Georgs
Georgs Kolesnikovs
1210 Radom Street #707
Pickering, Ontario L 1W 2Z3
Telephone: 905.837.0102
Facsimile: 905.837.9253
E-mail: waterworld@rogers.com
1
lOG
/¡) ,
" (""
,'-I?~:e'c;?
From: Johnny [mailto:bayridges6@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Thu 27/04/2006 10:18 PM
To: McLean, Bill, Councillor
Subject: Bay Ridges Devolpment
Dear Mr McLean There was a very good turn out at the PESCA meeting April 26th. Myself I think most residents will
settle for the townhouses but cannot accept the building of high-rises. You may remember several times it was mentioned
that the City of Pickering had promised and I think put into writing, that no high-rises would be built on the south side of
the 401 and that all high-rises would be built around the town centre area where the Tridel apartments are now. May I
suggest that you and the other councillors or the planning department search the archives, because I really believe that
this statement was made and it's only fair for the council to be faithful to the residents. Regards John Smith
Page 1 of2
/3
L/5-(..,t:,
107
Pym, Ross
From: Ekkehard Zorn [ekkehard@sympatico.ca]
Sent: April 29, 2006 9:00 AM
To: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor; Pym, Ross
Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Development Proposal
Gentlemen
As a long time resident of the City of Pickering, I am somewhat concerned about the recently announced plans for
the Bay Ridges Plaza. It is my understanding that the plaza is to be re-developed with, according to the flyer sent
out by Mr. Dickerson and Mr. McLean, some business development, as well as 161 townhouses and two
apartment buildings having a total of some 400 units. By my calculations, this would amount to approximately
561 units, exclusive of the commercial development.
Please do not misunderstand, I am not against the development. On the contrary, I suggest that some form of
overhaul of the plaza is long overdue. This should have occurred some time ago. From a business point of view,
this would create numerous jobs and other sources of business opportunity. It would help the City grow and
prosper.
Having said that, my concerns involve, firstly, the loss of the last real shopping facility south of the 401 and,
secondly and most importantly, the traffic chaos that a proposal such as this will no doubt create. Concerns such
as the proximity to the ravine will, no doubt be handled appropriately by the Toronto Conservation Authority.
With respect to the first point, while inconvenient, I am sure that some alternatives will appear, possibly from the
proposed commercial component on the main floor of the development. People will adapt and find new
alternatives once the existing ones disappear.
My main concern is one that has been growing over the past number of years. It involves that the fact that the
existing intersection of Liverpool Road and Bayly and the current plaza entrance, including the St. Martins Road
alternative, are extremely dangerous places to be, whether on foot or in a vehicle. On almost a daily basis,
accidents occur in this area due to the ever increasing traffic flow and the lack of changes over the years. I have
witnessed near misses, both vehicle against vehicle and vehicle against pedestrian at the Liverpool/Bayly
intersection. In addition, leaving the existing plaza, whether by the existing access / egress point or from St.
Martins Road, is, to say the least, an adventure, even during times of slower traffic.
As a pedestrian, I have witnessed and been involved in near misses involving vehicles and pedestrians resulting,
as a general rule, from the fact that drivers are seeking to gain a slight advantage over on-coming traffic and, in
doing so, tend to forget pedestrians using the Liverpool Road / Bayly Street crossings in accordance with the
existing lights. Once again, with the increased traffic flow, this situation will undoubtedly increase in frequency.
While I am not a planner and cannot offer solutions to this obvious problem, I merely wish to state that, as a user
of this intersection and the existing commercial development, I am concerned that, with the increase in traffic flow
caused by this development, this entire intersection will become a much more dangerous place to be, unless
remedial action is taken during the planning stages. To attempt to correct the problem after the fact would, at
best, be most difficult.
Logically speaking, one must assume that, of the total of 561 proposed units, at least an additional 561 vehicles
would use the existing traffic arteries, many during peak times. Realistically, the actual number of cars added
during the peak periods could be considerably higher. If one assumes that each home will have two cars, the
numbers become much more unnerving. The thought of this increased traffic volume using this intersection in its
present state is truly frightening.
Once again, please let me re-iterate that I am not against the development of this land. In fact, I look forward to
the increased population base since it will undoubtedly increase the taxes coming in, thereby allowing the City to
offer a greater range of services and facilities. I only wish to voice my concerns about the traffic problems that
have existed for a number of years and were aggravated by the opening of Tim Hortons and will, undoubtedly, be
01/09/2006
108
Page 2 of2
ATTACHMENT #_~_ TO
II PD _e.¥5 :.9 b
further aggravated by this development.
Thank you for taking the time to read this letter.
Ekkehard Zorn, MCI, FRI, CST
Zorn Appraisal Services Limited,
P.O. Box 184, PICKERING, Ontario L 1V 2R2
Phone: 905-831-6780 - Fax: 905-831-9209
Email: Business-zornapps@sympatico.ca
(Personal - ekkehard@sympatico.ca - for all non-business matters only)
NOTE: This email communication and any attachments to it are intended solely as a private and privileged
communication between the sender and the party or parties specifically named in the original message and is for
the sole use of such party or parties.
If this email was sent to you in error or if you are not an intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any
attachments immediately without making any form of copy or placing any reliance upon any information or
comments herein contained and notify the sender by return email of the error and our records will be amended
accordingly to prevent any further occurrences of this error.
At the time of sending, this email and any attachments thereto are thought to be free of any known virus or any
other form of harmful defect that might affect any computer system receiving same. It is the sole responsibility of
the recipient to ensure that it is, in fact, virus free and the sender accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage
arising in any way from its use.
01/09/2006
/'1
.35 '"i) ~
HJ9
From: Georgs Kolesnikovs [mailto:waterworld@rogers.com]
Sent: Sat 4/29/20069:21 AM
To: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor
Cc: *****Mayor; McLean, Bill, Councillor
Subject: RE: Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment
>After listening to our reasons why we believed there ought to be a
>commercial/retail component in any redevelopment, they eventually
>presented a plan to our Planning Dept. including some 40,000 sq ft for
>just those purposes.
Many of us in the neighborhood are grateful for the action you and
your colleagues have taken so far.
>However, the process is just getting underway and there is much
>negotiating to be completed before arriving at a Council meeting - and
>even then the plan is subject to changes before being voted upon. What
>we do not particularly wish to see is for the proposal to go off to the
>Ontario Municipal Board for a decision.
I would suggest that right now you, we, everyone concerned, start
planning on how to keep the OMB out of this matter--or all municipal
and neighborhood concerns will be for naught.
--Georgs
Georgs Kolesnikovs
1210 Radom Street #707
Pickering, Ontario L I W 2Z3
l iJ
'c
/.../
t.f 5-(.) b
From: Maureen St. Jean [mailto:mstjean7@rogers,com]
Sent: Tue 5/2/2006 4:37 PM
To: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor
Subject: RE: PESCA Meeting, April 26th/2006
Hello Mr. Dickerson,
Thank you for your detailed response to my very angry e-mail.
Please understand my complete frustration and sadness about the closing of
the Bay Ridges plaza.
I moved to Bay Ridges in 1969 and have lived in two locations.
My three children attended Holy Redeemer School from 1975 to 1985.
I was a volunteer with the PTA, Boy Scouts, Block Parents, Red Cross Blood
Donor Clinic and a baseball coach.
During this time, I have done my best to support local merchants. I have
purchased my groceries, required prescriptions, t10wers and hair cuts at
this plaza. It was convenient, friendly and provided a perfect alternative
to the Mega stores.
My biggest concern about the closing is the many seniors or folks that
don't drive and living south of Highway 401. They are now forced to take a
cab or the Flag Bus. However, this was a daily walk and kept them active.
Special Note: The Flag Bus is a wonderful concept and the drivers are
exceptionally kind.
You are correct that any business needs to make a profit. Plus, a business
or new development needs to be a good fit for the community. I am not
opposed to new homes in the area.
I do think that South Bay Ridges needs a better focal point better than the
Shell station and the Tim Horton's.
I honestly thought that Pickering council had more power. You did explain
this in detail. Thank you.
I am sure you know all of the following information:
The Plaza stores have no basements.
The townhouses on Bayly Street have sump pumps in their basements.
The condo building on Radom Street has redone their underground garage
twice.
Thanks for listening to my comments,
Maureen StJean
Mstjean7@rogers.com
905-831-5187
/10
. I HJ "~",,"'fí:_Q.Š2,,,,. ..,
III
From: Maureen St. Jean (mailto:mstiean7rZù.rogers.com]
Sent: Thu 4/27/2006 1: 13 AM
To: newspaper; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor
Subject: PESCA Meeting, April 26th/2006
Gentlemen,
How dare you think that Bay-Ridges residents are so stupid?
Why did you put Linda Taylor in the hot seat? She was just the
messenger of your plans.
Please pass this on to Dave Ryan. Sorry, I don't have his e-mail
address.
All three of you had very weak responses. All of you were not aware of the
Bay Ridges Plaza closing
would affect many people. Please wake up and smell the coffee.
None of you live south of Liverpool Road, I assume.
This development plan has been "in the works", for a couple of years.
CIBC closed in July, 2004 and no leases were granted unless on a monthly
basis.
Price Choppers was not allowed to renew their lease. You guys know this and
do you care?
When does a non-resident owner dictate his rules to the community?
This owner is systematically forcing small business' owners out.
He raises their monthly payments or forecloses. He must pay you a lot of
money for this destruction.
I am disgusted that you sent a stupid letter before the meeting. You were
just trying to cover your asses.
You don't have to respond,
I honestly can't believe that elected officials turn a blind eye to insane
developments that do not nurture or care for the community.
Please rethink this entire revamping of the Plaza.
Thank You,
Maureen StJean
905-831-5187
'1 I)
1 '-
/7
'c, . '",
;'. ,'{,$ -qJ:?_
From: Johnny [mailto:bayridges6@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Sat 06/05/20068:52 PM
To: McLean, Bill, Councillor
Cc: DCC#19 Office; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor
Subject: Bayridges Re-Development
Mr McLean Are you or any body in planning aware of what seems to me an improper
statement on the, Application to Amend Zoning By-Law submitted by the owner of the
plaza. On page 2 section 10 they have answered no to the question of a right of way, well
there is a right of way that runs from the rear of the Condominium 1210 Radom st, it runs
from the rear drive way up too the start of the bayridges property. People have used this
right of way for many years to get through to the plaza and Bayley street. It was my
understanding having lived here for many years that the right of way path could not be
closed to the public. John Smith Apt 410 905-839-8524
Page 1 of 1
i8
LlS-ob
113
Pym, Ross
From: joyce harkness [houston1937@hotmail.com]
Sent: May 12, 2006 6:12 PM
To: Pym, Ross
Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza
Dear Mr. Pym,
Weare planning to be at the meeting of June 1, 2006 if I can make it, but in case I can't I would like the
city to know why the plaza meant so much to many residents in this area.
We live in the 1235 Radom St. townhouses and I am not able to get out a lot of the time due to illness.
My husband who is blind and had a stroke cannot walk too far any more. Price Choppers was just
within what he could mannage.
Now, I know there are many older or disabled people within the houses and appartment and seniors
building who cannot go too far either and some probably cannot drive, so how are they to get their food
to eat? Many are probably alone and maybe do not have family to help them.
My two kids work in Richmond Hill and 400 north of Hwy. #7. By the time they get home they are
very tired and have families and lives of their own to look after. They do what they can, but with the
stores up the steet we can do for ourselves.
A lot use Radom to short cut to south Liverpool now, can you imagine what it will be like with more
traffic on BaIley?
People do not know what a white cane stands for anymore, my husband has nearly been hit a couple of
times crossing Liverpool and BaIley, by left turning cars. Think what is going to happen when slow
walking seinors try crossing to get to Loblaws.
I do hope we will be able to attend the meeting as we are interested in what happens in our area.
Thank you
Joyce Harkness
1235 Radom St. #95
Pickering
01/09/2006
, 1,
1- it
19
Lf5-ot:.
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jean Taylor Üeansilver16@hotmail.com]
May 12, 2006 9:49 PM
Pym, Ross
Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor
Bay Ridges Plaza
Hello Mr. Pym
Having finally found out what the proposed use for the Bay Ridges Plaza is
in the note Councillors Brenner and Ashe sent out I felt it necessary to
contact you to find out a little more as well as voice my concerns.
Having lived in the area for thirty years, this year, 24 of them in the
townhouses at 1235 Radorn St. and most recently for the last 6 just off Bayly
on Vistula Drive, I feel I am representative of the Community.
When the proposed plan a number of years ago was to demolish the Bay Ridges
plaza and put in Low rental Highrises, I and my neighbours were vehemently
opposed to it for the same reasons I am now opposed to this new proposal.
DENSITY!!! TRAFFIC!!! CONGESTION!!!
The Town thoughtfully took away the Eastbound Exit/Entrance ramp to the 401
from Liverpool about 20 years ago which continues to affect the traffic and
congestion on Bayly street, with commuters trying to get to & from the 401
daily having to exit at Whites & travelling at breakneck speeds along bayly
St.
With over 661 townhouses and condos proposed, this could easily equate to a
minimum of an additional 700 cars (in actuallity, the number will most
likely be more than 1000) using Bayly St. daily to try and get to & from the
401.
I would like to ask if you have ever tried to get anywhere on Bayly
eastbound or westbound in the morning or evening, with the volume of traffic
we currently experience? I drive to Markham daily, using Bayly both ways,
and my husband takes our youngest son to school daily (Pickering High) & we
both experience traffic congestion.
If this proposal is in consideration, I would like to add a few things to
consider at the same time.
What is going to be done about Bayly Street?
What is going to be done about the sidewalk on Bayly which is mere feet from
the road that cars travel at speeds of 80-100 km on (even though the speed
limit is 60kph)?
What is going to be done about the continual speeding?
What is going to be done about giving the St. Martins Seniors a place to
shop?
What is going to be done to protect the creek and surrounding area for the
wildlife? It's a mess now and there was only a plaza there.
What consideration is going to be given to the current residents of this
community and the havoc that this added congestion will wreak on them?
I understand that this is a prime peice of land and always has been due to
its' proximity to the Go Train, but the only issue here should not be how
much money the developer can make or share with his advocates, it should be
1
"Is this really the best use of this land for the residents of this
Community?
My vote is a STRONG NO!
I hope you get thousands of emails with these sentiments and that someone
actually listens to them!
Thank you for your time.
Jean Taylor
970 Vistula Drive,
Picketing, Ontario
L 1W 2L5
905-839-1454
Designer Mail isn't just fun to send, it's fun to receive. Use special
stationery, fonts and colors.
http://join .msn .com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPI D= 1994&D 1= 1034
&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSN IS _ T aglines
Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the
first two months FREE*.
2
{2...._ TO
i./ 5 ,ob
11 ~J
,; '1 "
J_ .l b
Pym, Ross
;(0
L/5-()t:;,
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
WILLIAM SUTTON [tylersutton@rogers.com]
May 15, 2006 2:44 PM
Pym, Ross
New Development (Bay Ridges Plaza)
To Mr. Ross Pym;
Mr. Pym I have been a residence of Pickering for the
past 30 years. I live in the VVestshore area.
My main concern about the future development replacing
the Bay Ridges Plaza is the additional traffic in that
area.
Presently I try to avoid going to the area of The
Pickering Town Centre, as the amount of traffic and
accidents have substantially increased along Bayly.
What is the plan for street lights on Bayly?
I know that they have radar set up on Bayly on the
weekends, as I spend many times going back in forth to
Don Beer Arena, but try setting one up during rush
hour between 4:30 and 7:00 PM and I am sure that your
police will hit their quota on speeding tickets very
quickly.
This is a very dangerous road and now adding to the
amount of people using the corner of Liverpool and
Bayly sounds rediculous and I cannot believe this
project was passed.
Nevertheless, it has been passed and it will be very
interesting to see your plan for traffic conjestion.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Mrs. Margaret Sutton
1
c;ll
¿¡S-ot:,.
11'7
From: Meredith C. [mailto:nurse_mere@hotmail.com]
Sent: Mon 15/05/20065:23 PM
To: McLean¡ Bill¡ Councillor
Subject: New Development in Bay Ridges
Hi Bill,
This is Meredith Clark, Jim Clarks daughter. I thought I would email you with my concerns about the
new town homes going in at St.Martins and Bayly. I recently moved in to this area because Iiked the
fact that I could run up to the store if I needed somthing. My Grandmother used to also live in the
aprartment building right behind the plaza, and would go to the plaza daily for groceries. I think
putting this new develpment in this area is a bad idea for many reasons.
1. There are so many eldery people who depend on the convience of the grocery store.
2. There is not one Grocery store south of the 401, which makes it expensive for people to get
groceries by taxi.
3. I have three friends who have already lost their only income with the recent closure of Price
Choppers, and are now forced to travel by bus to Scarborough or Whites road for employment.
4. Town homes are ugly, and expensive, and have a tendency to become slums. Also my generation
doesn't want houses that have no land. And the baby boomers don't want them because they can't do
the stairs with thier weakening bones and muscles.
5. These new homes will bring more crime to our area.
6. The traffic in this area is horrible, and to put in homes and Appartment buildings, with buisness
under them on Bayly is a very bad idea. It is hard enough to get out of Begley from 8am - 8pm what
do you think adding 300+ more cars to the problem will do?
7. I have four kids in school right now, and they are forced to be in split classes due to the high
volume of children. The average home has 1 - 3 children in it that attend school. I'm tired of my kids
being in split classes, and this is only going to get worse. Plus they take the bus, and now there will
have to be more buses on route to the local schools
118
:.2/
'S-D"
8. I think that Pickering is more concerned about bringing up the volume of people living here, and not
thinking about the visual effects that town homes and buildings have on everyone. Where did our
pretty Pickering go?
9. I know for a fact that since my Mom and Dad moved to pickering 30 years ago, my Dad has gone
to that Barber. Now he has to go somewhere else. There are so many people in this world who don't
like change, how many other people have to find a new barber now
Ok so I'm stretching out my concerns a bit, but if you lived in this area you would be fighting too. As
you know having a nice big house is comfortable and gives a feeling of pride. Being able to send my
kids in to a backyard where they're safe is important. I remember growing up with Shannon and
playing in your backyard all the time. These new town homes won't have the same safe feel. I agree
with occuping some of the space for some nice detached homes, but there should be a grocery store
facing Bayly with the homes all around it, much like Finch and Dixi plaza. Thank you for taking time to
read my concerns. I hope they will be taken seriously.
Meredith Clark (905) 421-9388
I () 16 Albacore Manor
Pickering
~;<
,/s-()¡(,
119
From: Brenda Wessely [mailto:Bwessely@eol.ca]
Sent: Mon 15/05/20064:39 PM
To: McLean, Bill, Councillor
Subject: development in Bay Ridges
Dear Mr McLean;
While it is possible that I will attend the meeting on June 1 st, I wanted to let you know of my many concerns regarding
development in and around Bay Ridges. It was very disappointing to read the recent newspaper article, especially after
having received your letter that you as counselors have not taken a position. If this is so, then why did the News
Advertiser state that the development was seen by the city as "not a bad thing for Pickering"? This sounds like a position
to me, but as usual I'm not surprised. As many noted at the PESCA meeting, there seems to be no concern on the part of
ANY elected official in Pickering for the people of Bay Ridges. We say this because EVERY development that we as rate
payers have opposed over the years has gone through anyway. Let me enumerate: Radom Tower, Canoe Landing,
Liverpool Road Townhouses, all built and all hindering the community in one way or another. The waterfront development
of which the city is so proud cannot be easily enjoyed by the very ratepayers who helped foot the bill. There is completely
inadequate parking and the road allowance was narrowed making access difficult. Canoe Landing is far too close to the
road and that back row of townhouses is constantly having new owners as people realize their proximity to the highway
and traintracks. Some lovely old trees were cut down to build these homes and some of the view of the bay has been
impeded. As for Radom Tower, it was supposed to be the ONLY tall structure EVER allowed south of the highway and will
now be used as justification for building more. The cities development plan Doug spoke of is, I thought, meant to
encourage development in the downtown core. This would be located north of the highway in proximity to the Pickering
Town Centre and the city hall, not in Bay Ridges.
It is little wonder that we are skeptical of any meaningful dialogue or resistance to whatever changes developers want and
have already planned. The Rose Coperation, who has purchased both the Plaza and Art Thompson Arena has 2
developments listed on their website and both are listed as high density. In saying that you would address concerns
regarding traffic, local schools etc, did you know that the Catholic School Board has plans to close Holy Redeemer
School? I would think this would seriously jeopardize easy accessibility to schools for planned new residents. As well,
should the school close that property would be sold and also likey be developed. Additionally I have concerns about the
Krosno Plaza as it seems if there are empty stores (Which there are) we run the risk of this happenning all over again in
another year or two at two more locations in Bay Ridges. Both of those sites would afford views of the lake and the bay if
a builder built high enough and believe me they would if allowed to do so.
Do you live in Bay Ridges? I know that our homes are the oldest in the community and most likey the lowest valued.
Believe me, that's definitely the message I get every time council approves yet another development that I don't want and
that is not, in my view, to the betterment of my community. Of course those new developments provide a larger tax base
of more expensive homes, so why not go for it and forget the needs and concerns of those already here? If city hall and
the counselors truly haven't taken a position, why did the paper report otherwise? Sounds like just another case of
crocodile tears to me.
Sincerely,
Brenda Wessely
905-839-4081
\ "tU'"
-""- I...
From: Mike Danischewsky [mailto:danischm@nflcanada.com]
Sent: Thu 5/25/2006 10: 13 AM
To: pym, Ross
Cc: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill, Councillor
Subject: RE: Bay Ridges Development
23
'/5 - 0 b
Ross,
I recently received the memo from the City of Pickering Councillors' Office regarding the proposed re-development of the
Bay Ridges Plaza. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the meeting on June 1. I would like to receive any
minutes/notes from the meeting if there are any.
After studying the proposed plan from the applicants in the newsletter, I have some concerns relating to the proposed
development:
1. # of units (density). I believe that there are too many units in the proposal that will lead to overcrowding in the
area. Many complexes that are constructed to fit in "as many people as possible" lead to a general downward
spiral in conditioning of the units.
2. Size of condominiums. The two buildings are too tall for the area. The current apartment building just south of
the proposal sticks out like a sore thumb in the neighborhood. Two more buildings would make it worse.
3. Traffic. I understand a traffic impact study will be undertaken. It is a fairly quiet neighborhood currently and I
believe the number of units will lead to increased traffic congestion. This is a residential neighborhood, quite
different than the townhouses located near the Pickering Town Centre which is a higher traffic area
4. Green Area - Similar to many condominium developments in Toronto, this proposal has one tiny parkette in the
plan. This has made Toronto a concrete jungle. Pickering has many parks but I believe any proposal should
address the lack of green space on the property. I believe Vancouver has a by-law that addressed this issue with
condo developers and I believe a similar condition should be applied to this plan
I am not against the re-development in this space, however, I do not believe the current plan is satisfactory. I would be
much more prone to support a development similar to the one on the waterfront on Liverpool (by the marina) - higher
priced low-rise condos/town homes with retail involved. This would keep this quiet, residential area in tact, address the
traffic congestion issue (fewer units) while also increase local property values. The location is excellent for commuters
given the proximity to the 401 and GO Station. If the developers could sell fewer properties at a higher price and make the
same amount of money they would be pleased.
I appreciate you taking the time to read my comments and, again, would appreciate any updates, feedback or more
information on this.
Regards,
Mike Danischewsky
Coordinator, Events & Football Development
NFL Canada
50 Wellington Street East, 3rd Floor
Toronto, ON
M3C 2A9
(416) 322-6214 - ph
(416) 322-6725 - fax
Page 1 of 1
'in 'f 6) if y,
",,,. 1'___~..t,
\.:.,O,:, P[¡_!i2::_qJ~~
í ().~
~.....1
Pym, Ross
From: NoraleaPicont@aol.com
Sent: May 28, 2006 11 :32 AM
To: Pym, Ross
Cc: Dickerson, Doug, Councillor
Subject: Bay Ridgs plaza
Sir: This is to register a complaint against the proposed redevelopment of Bay Ridges plaza. Much of the
information being circulated is to say the least suspect. Other than Price Chopper, the busineses that have left
were forced out by the strong arm tactics of the present owner! There is no indication on the proposed plan for
any retail space. Nor is there any indication where the existing retailers who wish to remain will be located during
redevelopment. The phases proposed seem to preclude this. There are many seniors in the area whom rely on
the pharmacy for their necessary prescriptions, as well many do not own cars so have to walk!!! theother shops
such as the barber and beauty outlets provide much needed services. Further more the adition of a
minimum of 500 cars will cause many problems on baily street. This in my opinion is nothing but a get rich
scheme by the developers. Please do not let it go forward in it's present form.
01/0912006
Page 10f2
i .') ~J
__ ..... f-
Þ'J¿/2...,~._. TO
.'i ~.- .Q~b~.~.
Pym, Ross
From: Jennifer Dempsey [Dempsey.J@sympatico.ca]
June 4,2006 11 :11 AM
Pym, Ross
info@dougdickerson.ca; McLean, Bill, Councillor; Mayor Web Email; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor;
Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Pickles, David, Councillor; Johnson, Rick, Councillor
Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Zoning By-law Amendment Application - A 06/06
Sent:
To:
Cc:
To: Ross Pym, Principal Planner - Development Review
From: Jennifer Dempsey
1152 Tanzer Court
Pickering On L 1 W 3S6
phone: (905) 420-4236
RE: Zoning By-law Amendment Application - A 06/06
I do not support the above Zoning By-law Amendment Application. I attended the Public Meeting on June 1,
2006. Many residents spoke out against this amendment, and I can honesty say I did not disagree with any point
any of these speakers presented. The uniformity of public opinion on this application is truly remarkable. There is
indeed something wrong with the democratic process in Pickering if the town staff and politicians support this
application.
Below are a few of the reasons I cannot support this application.
- Sustainable communities - Pickering claims to be embarking on the sustainable community process. A
community that is predominately residential cannot possibly be sustainable. The residents need to be able to
work and shop in their community, preferably without needing to use cars. As someone at the meeting pointed
out, the sole purpose of this huge residential development is to allow commuters to Toronto close access to the
GO station, perpetuating the town's role as nothing more than a bedroom community of Toronto. If I were to see
an application to build 2 office towers instead of 2 residential towers I would be supportive. I might actually be
able to get a good-paying job in Pickering and not have to commute to Toronto every day!
- precious green space - when the transformer spill polluted the waters of Pine Creek, the town expressed great
outrage and pressed the offender to clean up and restore the creek. (Indeed much of the landscaping currently in
and around Bay Ridges Plaza is due to this remediation, not to the previous or current owners of the plaza.) If
Pine Creek and Douglas Ravine are indeed so important to the town, then the town planners and politicians need
to be particularly vigilant in protecting them from further degradation. The application to build to 'top of bank' is
truly alarming. The short term construction damage and the longer term damage from runoff and people activities
would doom the creek and ravine, and the downstream Frenchman's Bay.
- There is no doubt Bay Ridges Plaza is in trouble and requires investment to become viable again. I do not know
how much effort the previous owner put into trying to keep the Plaza vital, but I did not see any signs of
investment. I saw many 'to lease' notices, but few businesses would be attracted to a site that is clearly being
allowed to be run down by the owner. This situation reminds me of a previous application in the town to turn
agricultural land into a cemetary. The new owner deliberately allowed the land to become overgrown, etc. then
argued it was not profitable to farm it. This application was approved. A few years later, the proponent went
bankrupt, the land went up for sale, and guess what it is being used for now - agriculture! Similiarly, did the
previous Bay Ridges Plaza owner deliberately let the plaza degenerate so that it could be sold to a residential
developer for a higher price than if it was sold commercially? Possibly yes, or possibly the previous owner did
not know how to revitalize the plaza or was unwilling to take on the investment. Most businesses require
continual improvement and investment to remain profitable - it is part of doing business.
- There is no doubt the current owner is deliberately letting the Plaza run down so that an argument can be made
01/0912006
;{.5
,/5-6(.;,
Page 2 of2
'j ~) j'-~
- >-
for this rezoning. If the town allows this rezoning to go through, the few smaller commercial hubs in Pickering are
at risk of the same fate. The town should make it clear to developers that if they buy a commercially zoned site,
they will have to develop a commercial property.
- I could go on and on about this application. One final comment I will make is that I do not believe this applicant
has any intention of either building any commercial properties, or of building the apartment towers. Once most of
the site has townhouses on it, the applicant would announce it is not viable to build the commercial buildings or
the apartments, and apply to build more townhouses. If this site is ever deemed mixed-use, it should be
stipulated and enforced that the commercial is built first, before any residential development is allowed.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Dempsey
01/09/2006
· .) /1.
-~,...... ..,
~6 ,LJ
if 5 :0 b
Crawford, Paul
Subject:
summary or presentation June 1/06
CLARIFY: PKG OP Map: Does it show present zoning or planned zoning? Is it
NOW Mixed Corridor? OR is it intended to be Mixed Corridor?'- eð/VJ/'1C,ee/fJ-i---
It is noted (page 62) that Mixed is Retailing, Offices, Restaurants,
Community and Recreational uses, and Residential........Similar to Table 2 Land Use
Category/Criteria/and Sub-Categories. This being a Mixed Use Area.
(Note: Keeping this property as is and making the present Plaza viable keeps the Job
Component PLUS property remains available (open) for future expansion to preferred
uses that are outlined in Regional Plan and other policies relative to Jobs and
Population Ratios.) Once use for Residential its gone!!!
I DO NOT SUPPORT THIS APPLICATION FOR REZONING. WE NEED TO LOOK
AT SOMETHING THAT IS IN KEEPING WITH OPs AND POLICIES/
Pickering's OP (page 59, 3.6) says City Council SHALL encourage widest variety of
uses on Mixed Use areas. but seems to limit the highest intensification to Kingston Rd
and The Downtown area. AND refers to The Durham Regional Plan.
THE DURHAM REGIONAL PLAN: Section 1 Goals and Directions, Item 1.1.1. C)
"employment opportunities are important"
& 1.2.1 Goals of this Plan, Item C) in part "increase job opportunities for its
residents"
/
AND 1.3.1 E) "increasing employment opportunities and balancing growth in
population with growth in employment.
C)ection 2.2 all about environment and protection of waterways and sensitive areas.
and Section 3 Economic Development. Item 3.1 GOALS, item 3.1.2 "To match
population growth with an adequate increase in employment opportunities.
Item 3.2.2 Regional Council shall adopt a ratio of jobs to population of 500/0.
3.3 Policies, Item 3.3.1 "in consultation with municipalities, develop and economic
strategy"
.....3.3.1 D) "means to achieve the ratio of jobs to population at 500/0; 3.3.2 ..."the need
to balance population growth with employment opportunities...." and 3.3.4....to monitor
Regions progress in achieving employment target..." and goes on to describe various
ways of encouraging employment and growth.......and ENDS with Item 3.3.10 (page
15 of ROP):
"In the preparation of Municipal OPs, Coucils shall ensure the inclusion of Policies and
Designations to implement the intent of the Plan (ROP) and the provision of this
Section"
1
II. .;.¿~, í . .
.. i!__..._,.",~......,...., 1..1'
r;c ,Y:ì 1 PL __':I 5 -.£"b..
~ () C'
--.:... ;)
This brings us back to the Pickering Plan which refers to the Regional Plan and these
sections. And back to this application for rezoning and this proposal. Does it conform
to these expectations? AND if it doesn't, why are we allowing this preferred area be
changed???
) / Å ?¿;¡J
// 'Þ/'~'
-ø --l ~ F/, 23 I' ? &&?--
¡ {ì~ 105
~& 1 /iJ- . .
J-(úJ}~,~
t~e
fP
/
'i ') ,',
~ ...;. t,
--,I i
'''[J, ."') 7
j! C'f "j","
;'J,;' l' pC! -lf~ Î:;
.~.,.___~--!:~J:2,
. ¡ c:}, ( e (.
,,,.;'
/, .'\ ,..)
:/ "cI'-.t lL ' ,,"¿)
- ..; . ....~ ..:,
I} -1. ,x. 1 '.,J ("'..
'"
9£) .~ ¡¿~¡
lr1 (~).<..J ( )'. ,. C þ// ' .' ý . a·~ /) li
.. ì' J." A"~··ð_,..../~· 5' 4l/v"t.-¡."\..J~.
(0.'-'-'-j £u-.Æ¿~~~, '-- '~Á.v"Ú..~4v,-u2V
, I I .
>::;>,-'1 ) f.' /.,'
,r--'\;. Cl I ,-"';"'L-. /... }.l.( -" / / "Ì A.J,· '
". / / .''-C'' ......¡: ·l..···¿·) ....:~
/ 'J
'J
zj';.w. ( I :;¿....
J ,'1
..=2 é (.> C.:;·
RECEIVED
.JUN 0 1 2006
CITY OF PICKER
PLANNING & DEvELOPJ~N~
OEPARTMENT
,:.<....""....../' ;/
;/L-/V~' . j .../, "\' L 1/
.. ,,~_ / L L Ý C< 1..0 '¡ ,:..;? / /l ' p., ."" · ..2' L
/ :J,DtLc;'-C I: c'jJY"'c ,,''¿( r .' ~. L 4~¿5;J~"'/ J~-:>(L-
"""~\..~-,.,,, rX ~. . '¡ '-" ,:;7 ¿¡
'J¡..tií. _/{u.d"'ð-,d ~_"IO/ db:. ÚVl..-L /J.,A~>-c/~.£o/
/oc..'J...0/..Y ~'¿.G~..71/CVLd'-.ßd. /i/.!A>f- ,ðu~¿é ~ ·
/~ .¿de/Ú'f?~-ú2,2:f-ß1~4V .('~~;ž1>tR//tJ
J. J'E'. .'c..Á--~./L.€. - Æ/.,~' ¿;.~,..:¿h./ /('. Á-; ~ r/,
_--C...¿'---U-,..-rv<:'~ßH..d 0-" u2A.ò-á4....- ,r9/~'-
~/-t/t/_. ,~/d:û~L ~ ~
~ ~ .~d~~g .~ ei!fj~~
~.<.~g- k~~ ~~~~¿
~ ~-~~~-'. ,~ ~
, _ /, __ ,~. jA..J/'J 4. ,?7"2d A v.~'
~~~~~~~~~-
..¿~~ ~~~ .~~
~, -L¿j;~~. .---:~ ~-:. ~'
~ 0t~-:o',~.:.<,~J!4/ - /ä~. /c~
..-2: ~":i ~ fio4>l ;:;a-- ~ ~~R.
9é~~:;:Y~' .. '~.' ~ .~~. " --~"; {ß-~, ,,.ðÓ
~// /~./l.L--£X.éA/if~-cr~~'~ Z/LJ(...,
~~ ¿' k~ .~.cv .~
~~4.' /. ~ /V<-~ /..:; tJA~4
c:::t./"--.d ~ ~/;d. . ~ V~/' ~......# "'.
~ __ ./ ...F~ /......-<:Y ...A.-~
';;7
..6 -, / ~ £/..' /J 7' 5 -, (1 G /;7 ,
~~ ~ r ./Ur'- j~ /chÆreÆ~~
,/7Cj~ /~-- _",?/u2..e.---é~¿d -~ .~~ ~~
¡:;~ ---C~vÓ-- r~ /Y2Ü-Jh:v
¥~ ~'-- 4-. /¿J.~ Þ-'Y~
~xoL.~~~~4
p~A./ ~ ~ zð:.-~~
/' ~. ~ ' /,~A'~ø4-
____/0~~ ~dë;;;~~ Á~ ,~~
~ ~.~..u-v.fiC?U ~~
~~~~dfiY. .
r~:;;~ ~~~~
v~,¿/J~' "~_ /-'.:,) Á _ ßu,. /. U
. ~~~~L
4~ .~ ~ /:hY 1f~ .q--vr ·
40-. ~ ~ ~ ~::t:L
~~¿y c9 ~/'~~~
A'- ;;duv ~ r
/V~¿t=' ~~. ~ bd ~/P¿ Þ?!
='2 ~I. _ve- ~:;; ~ ~~~
;¿ v f/~}X'::j;;¡-: ,~~
'r~ "~ 'C~ ~
~~
C~~
~ c~ 0(::- '-~ (y..;)(; .
i .>' '1
-... I
Page 1 of 1
í q;"
_~ .::.Ö
ó7~
'-I5-ob
Pym, Ross
From: FRED ARCHER [fredarcher@rogers.com]
Sent: June 1, 2006 9:49 AM
To: Pym, Ross
Cc: Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin, Councillor; Dickerson, Doug, Councillor; McLean, Bill,
Councillor
Subject: bay ridges plaza
Mr.Pym,
As a resident of 1100 Begley St. I am very concerned about the above "proposal" to add "high density"
structures and ruin the "landscape" of this area.
As a Member of the Board of Directors of D.S.C.C. 176, I request to be added to the mailing list for any
information.
Our residents are concerned about traffic t10w and a perceived decline in the value of their home
investments if the proposal includes high rise buildings and I know there are concerns from the South
Liverpool Condo owners, MANYof whom purchased these Homes with no knowledge of this
POSSIBLE POTENTIAL EYESORE & PERCEIVED DECLINE IN THEIR INVESTMENT.
I would like to think that there are many options and a tremendous opportunity for a DEVELOPER who
is innovative and wOïking with the Planners can devise a "UNIQUE", "PLEASING" addition to the area
rather than striving to load in as many tenants/owners as possible.
Let's pray that the CITY AND DEVELOPERS take a long term approach and DEVISE AN AWARD
WINNING REDEVELOPMENT
Fred Archer
D.S.C.C.176 TREASURER
9058396912
01/09/2006
;;( c¡".~
t./5-c b
'; f) 9
I '
-- ¡,... \..
Sent: Monday, June 05, 2006 9:48 AM
To: 'rpym@city.pickeirng.on.ca'
Cc: 'bmclean@city.pickering.on.ca'; 'info@dougdickerson.ca'
Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza Rezoning and Development proposal
Mr. R. Pym
Planning Department
City of Pickering
Re: Bay Ridges Plaza Re-zoning/Proposed Development
Monday, June 05,2006
Dear Mr. Pym
I attended the meeting on Thursday June 1 as well as the previous meeting held at the East Shore
Community Bldg. on May 10th regarding the above development.
I realize that this site needs to be developed and wish to put forth my comments on the proposed
changes.
1) 1) Traffic - I live just south of Radom. Radom is used by the local residents as a means to
get to their homes from Bayly and the plaza. There are also people who use Radom as a
means to access Liverpool Rd. during busy times on Bayly. As you know, Bayly can become
quite congested, particularly in the left hand turn lane during rush hour as people are trying to
either get over the bridge or get onto the 401 Westbound. If the residents on the new
development have trouble getting into the left hand turn lane or the wait is overly long, they can
take Radom over to Liverpool Rd., turn left and go from there. The problem with this is that
there are already wait times for people at Radom and Liverpool (and Haller and Liverpool) to
turn. I know, I do it every day. And the wait times are not only during rush hour. For instance
last night I was going to Kinsman Park at 8:55 p.m. I sat at Haller and counted 21 cars going
south. The 17th car slowed down to let me turn right. Adding more cars (and they will use
Radom [& Haller if Radom get too congested]) will just cause more problems. And additional
traffic in the residential area south of Radom. (P.S. The stop sign at Douglas and Chapleau
doesn't work - it slows some people down but many ignore it altogether). Added to this mix is
the amount of parking allowed on Radom. Having more traffic will cause huge problems and
potentially more accidents.
2) 2) Parking - There is absolutely not enough parking allowed in the proposed development.
Notwithstanding the provincial encouragement to use public transit (as was so kindly pointed
out by one of the presenters at the May 10th meeting), if sufficient parking is not provided, there
will be no fix for this problem. There is no other land that can be made available for
parking. Cars will be illegally parked, tempers will flare, there will be discord among the locals
and the problem will not go away. This is not to be taken lightly. You can't ban cars from the
development or put a limit on how may cars per unit (Le. only 1 car). Any businesses that are
in the development won't have sufficient parking to keep customers and we will then be left
with unused units. What will you do to fix a parking problem in this area? The only solution I
can see is to pave behind the homes backing on to Bayly, just west of St. Martin's. Wouldn't
they love that! Of course you could always rent the northwest corner of Bayly & Liverpool and
put parking there.
.r ",) ,',
_'. d U
~7
t..f 5 - c.' (t:)
3) 3) Density - Lowering the density will help with both the parking, traffic, & schooling
problems. Also I think that the size of the buildings (two condo towers) is far too high. The
people on the west side of St. Martin's will have zero privacy. I would prefer to see buildings
less that 8 stories - this would look a lot nicer too.
4) 4) Schooling - With the current density proposed, where are the children to go to school?
know Sir John A. Macdonald takes the children from the current condo building. With the
potential loss of Holy Redeemer, there could be a real problem with schooling even divided
between Bayview Heights and Sir John A. Also, kids will be walking on Bayly to go to school.
Right now there are not a lot of elementary kids who use Bayly. With the Tim Horton's traffic,
the development traffic, the Shell Stn traffic, there could be a lot of problems. If the kids cross
Bayly at Liverpool, is there going to be a school crossing guard? That would certainly not help
traffic at the intersection during rush hour. I know there is a crossing guard at Tatra but you
can't force kids to not cross Bayly at Liverpool.
5) 5) Loss of amenities to South Pickering - many people in south Pickering are feeling
abandoned. We lost the library, then the hardware store, post office (although the variety store
at Krosno has now picked that up), the banks (Royal and CIBC) and now our grocery store.
The closest store is Loblaws. Although a great store for quality and variety, it is also expensive
and you have to cross the bridge to get to it. Have you ever walked that bridge? In the middle
of winter? Anyone who did walk to Price Chopper and wants those products and prices now
must drive (or take ~ to % of an hour by bus) to get to another low price store. Remember the
comment under parking about using public transit? Well, everyone now uses their car to get
groceries. This makes the bridge even more congested more of the time. This includes our
summer residents at the marina of course. We will certainly see that this year.
6) 6) Evacuation - At the May meeting, the developer was not aware that there was an official
evacuation plan for the area. Has this been taken into consideration with the amount of people
being added to the area? It must be noted that many single family dwellings in Bay Ridges are
not single families. There are multi generational families and many basement apartments -
not all legal and therefore not on the tax rolls. When I first moved into my home nearly 26
years ago, there was not a lot of street parking and certainly not the number of basement
apartments. Now, all streets have parking all night, basement apartments on every street and
there is a lot more traffic in the residential areas. Evacuation is limited to access of the bridges
at Whites, Liverpool and Brock. Should there be a problem with 1 of those access points, 1/3
of the population must go to the other points. We have very limited ways of going north and
adding a lot of people will just make it that much harder.
I can't emphasize enough the problem I have with the traffic that will be generated from this
development. Please do not approve this without having a full plan in place to contain the traffic and
parking. Once done, it can't be undone.
Respectfully,
Valerie and Randy Blyth
863 Chapleau Drive
Pickering, Ontario
L 1 W 1 P6
(905) 839-7441
rdvrs863@rogers.com
cc B. Mclean Regional Councillor Ward 2 & D. Dickerson City Councillor Ward 2
3et
Bø~sJaöre Towers
131
Durham Condominium Corporation No. 19
1210 Radom Street Pickering, Ontario L1W 2Z3
Tel: 905-839-1246 Fax: 905-839-7714
June 9, 2006
RECEIVED
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1V 6K7
JUN <J 6 2005:
CITY OF P¡C~(ERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Attention:
Planning and Development
Dear Sirs:
Re: Bay Ride:es Re-Development Plans
The Board of Directors of Durham Condominium Corporation No. 19 (DCC 19) has
concerns with regard to the redevelopment of Bayridges Plaza (the Plaza).
DCC 19 has invested significant physical and financial resources attempting to ascertain
the source and repair leaks in the underground parking garage. The Board of Directors is
concerned the ongoing problems we have experienced may largely be due to the volume
of water draining from the adjacent Plaza lands. The notable difference in the elevation
between the two properties results in significant run-off toward our building. In addition,
the car wash located at the south east comer of the "Plaza" may be compounding the
problem. We also have concerns about the condition of the buried services discharging
water from the premises.
On Wednesday, June 7, 2006, an owner in the building reported seeing soap bubbles
coming from several areas in the lower level of our underground parking garage. On
Thursday, June 8th, 2006, Guardian Property Management Services contacted the City of
Pickering to report this problem. We were pleased to have Mr. Mike Hillis, City of
Pickering, Foreperson, Skilled Shop, Municipal Property & Engineering Division,
Operations & Emergency Services Department, attend 1210 Radom Street, Pickering,
that morning to observe first-hand, our complaint. He visually inspected the car wash
and reported that all of its bays' catch basins were full of water and bubbles.
As the development of the Plaza continues, DCC 19 respectfully requests that the City of
Pickering takes all necessary steps to ensure the Plaza property is adequatley drained. We
., 3('
, .'
~. '-
30
If 5 - <..'J f"
ask that a "Water Shed" study or an appropriate alternative be commissioned to ensure
that the new development does not adversely affect our property in any way.
Please be advised that we will be monitoring the redevelopment of the plaza very closely
to ensure that we do not experience any "side effects" such as cracking in the foundation
walls of the building. We would appreciate this matter being tabled for discussion in the
near future. Representative from our Corporation are available to discuss this matter at
any time. As the plans for development evolve, the Board of Directors for DCC 19
would also like an opportunity to meet privately with all parties involved.
We thank you in advance for your consideration. If you have further questions or
concerns, please contact Mr. Andrew Slater, R.C.M., Property Manager, Guardian
Property Management Services Ltd. at (905) 427-8535, extension 27.
Sincerely,
;yt~
an Stainton,
Building Administrator, DCC 19.
cc: Mayor, David Ryan
City Councillor, Ward 2, Doug Dickerson
Regional Councillor, Ward 2, Bill McLean
City of Pickering, Bylaw Department, Brad Suckling
Board of Directors, DCC 19
Page I of I
31
'I 5 (..) (-::;>
Pym, Ross
133
From: PAUL CRAWFORD [paulc6@rogers.com]
Sent: June 10, 2006 2:50 PM
To: Pym, Ross
Subject: BayRidges Plaza
you may further this to Bill McLean and Doug Dickerson.
Our concerns are: Why the loss of the plaza in particular a grocery outlet? What caused Price Chopper to
leave? Why can't we have grocery service during change to Plaza? We would like to see the services
kept as is or up-graded and for services to remain where they are. Marilyn Crawford, Sharon Crawford,
867 Antonio S1.
01/0912006
Page 1 of 1
" 'J i.
1.. J't
3;<
L/ 5 -0 b
Pym, Ross
From: Rourke, Heather on behalf of Planning Web Email
Sent: June 16, 2006 8:48 AM
To: 'Hotmail'
Cc: Pym, Ross
Subject: RE: Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment - parking
Good morning, Mr. Fages, and thank you for using the City of Pickering's Planning Web Email.
By copy of this message to Mr. Ross Pym, Principal Planner, Development Review, your comments below will be
placed accordingly within the Application file. Thank you for providing your input into this Development
Application.
Regards,
Heather Rourke
Planning & Development Clerk
Planning & Development Dept.
The City of Pickering
905.420.4660 ext 2022
hrQurke@city.pickering,on.çª
-----Original Message-----
From: Hotmail [mailto:patfages@hotmail.com]
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 7:36 AM
To: Planning Web Email
Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment - parking
To whom this may concern,
I would like to comment on the Bay Ridges Plaza redevelopment. I live in the Bayshore towers just south of
the proposed redevelopement site. Since we have already lost most of our retail stores in the Bay Ridges
plaza, every time you need to buy something you now have to take the car.
I was suprised to hear in the new initial proposal, that parking allocation was not very generous. You
currently can not park on St-Martin or Bayly. Parking north of Bayly will not even be option to consider
because of the train track. That would mean that all additional parking requirements (created by insufficient
parking allocation in the new project) would have to spill out south towards Radom street which is already
fully used most of the time.
I am in favor of a quick approval & redevelopment of the plaza site, but please consider adequate parking
requirements. Even if people go to work using the GO trains, you still need cars for shopping & visitors.
Thanks
Patrick Fages
1210 Radom, apartments # 1708 - # 1709
Pickering
1 r:./{)r:./')oor:.
23 rr>
~-~...__.._,......" . '..
¥~. c) <0
( J)
135
RECEiveD
Input and Appeal from the Tenants of Bay Ridges Plaza JUN 0 5 2006
_ Delivered June 1 st, 2006, at the Pickering Council Chamber CITY OF PICKERING
. ., . PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
- re: Bay Pndges Plaza Rezonmg ApplicatIOn DEPARTMENT
I will be speaking today, on behalf of the majority of existing tenants at Bay
Ridges Plaza ....
Given that the rezoning under discussion today is the last barrier of major of
significance to the execution of the Master Plan ....... we, as tenants and
citizens of Pickering. .. feel it is the right thing to do, to pass on an
indication of what our experience has been in dealing with the developers /
owners / landlords over the past 10 months.
This may serve to provide insight into the nature of future interactions with
these people as they proceed to establish themselves in your community.
--------------------------------------------------
This Public Relations Bulletin is a typical example of the type of approach
we've come to know from the developers, which often involves hiring an
arms length, third party to act as a face or front for their strategies.
In this case, they have hired Public Relations firm to re-frame reality in their
favour.
This document, which we have already responded to in print:
.. firstly... Claims that tenants plan to vacate as their own leases conclude.
this is not, at all, a true representation of the overall picture. In fact, the
developers intend to start executing their re-construction based plans long
before our leases are actually up.
... secondly this document claims the plaza will continue to languish.
If the plaza is languishing, it is a direct result of their own actions.
Actions such as .... locking tenants out..... actually turning off tenants'
electricity. . ... and otherwise attempt to scare them into leaving ... while
not allowing any of the empty units to be rented out.
'¡ ,1;)
...J__ ..L
3$i
'15-0'-
As a resident of the Bay Ridges area, I am extremely disappointed regarding the proposed
amendment application to change the Bay Ridges Plaza to a residential/commercial area.
I have many concerns on many issues which will affect the area in which we live.
· Existing businesses-As someone who continues to support the businesses that
remain in the Bay Ridges Plaza, what will become of those business owners who
do not wish to leave?
· Traffic Flow- There is a strong concern for safety with regards to speeding on
Bayly Street. The erection of a light at the comer of St Martin and Bayly is
fundamental to the well-being of everyone who lives and drives in the area. With
the construction of over 500 units, the traffic flow will increase radically in an
area that is already flooded with constant speeding cars. There will also be a large
increase in the volume of cars that will use Tanzer Court as a shortcut to Bayly
Street. Speeding traffic on our residential street full of children is not welcome.
· Lack of parking on residential streets-If residents of the new proposed
townhomes/condominiums are assigned only one parking spot, St Martin's St.,
and Radom St do not have the space to support additional parking
· Accessibility to services-When my husband and I chose our home, two of the
major reasons that we selected this location was safety, proximity to basic
services, and also environmentally protected area. Now all 3 of these factors are
being slowly eradicated. Too many homes in a small area is cause for concern,
and the land itself is a commercially zoned area. Why the change? Why the
existence of by-laws if they are so easily altered?
Thank you in advance for allowing me to share my comments. I look forward to updates
on any changes that will affect me, and my young family.
Best Regards,
Bianca D'Souza
1179 Tanzer Court
905-831-2893
35
¿¡5'-Ob
1.41
-----Original Message-m-
From: Hazel Daubeny [mailto:hazel.daubeny@sympatico.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 7:38 PM
To: Planning Web Email
Cc: tdoyle@durhamregion.com
Subject: Bay Ridges Plaza
Gentlemen
Surely it is time for common sense to prevail! Instead of greed. Bay Ridges is a
residential community very much in need of revitalizing by a new "modern" plaza.
As residents since 1964, we have lived in a house now as retirees we have moved into
Bayshore Towers, like many other residents we are dependant on having a GROCERY
store and DRUG store at least.
Traffic congestion on Bayly Street is severe at present and the addition of a High Rise
building makes no sense at all. Should there ever be an emergency requiring evacuation
(Hydro Plant) there would be no chance of leaving the area.
Congestion in local schools is also another reason to re-consider the re-zoning. Let alone
the parking problems.
We are asked constantly NOT to use cars in hot weather in particular due to air
pollution, fat chance for seniors that have chosen to live in our peaceful community.
The Developer is not doing us any favours, their interest is to make money for
themselves (understandable) however: We need consideration, this land will be lost
forever and more thought must be given.
At worst scenario a low rise (5 story) building AFTER the shopping area has been
completed. As one person at the meeting stated, if they build the housing first they can
just up-roots and leave without the shopping facility ever being completed.
Surely we have been manipulated by "Big Business" enough, listen to the residents.
Jim and Hazel Daubeny
905-837-8216
.¡ (If ;>
_w_ -t .-
3b
t¡50b
-----Original Message-----
From: Anna & Sylvain [mailto:Anna.Sylvain@mail.com]
Sent: Sunday, July 09,20069:10 PM
To: info@bayridgesplazainfocentre.ca
Cc: ddickerson@city.pickering.on.ca; bmclean@city.pickering.on.ca; rpym@city.pickering.on.ca
Subject: Recycling...
In Durham Region, more than 22,000 residents are serviced by the weekly Apartment Building
and Townhouse Complex Blue Box Recycling Program. To be eligible for this service, the
buildings and townhouses must receive municipal garbage collection services.
Will the new complex be serviced by this Recycling Program?
Also, Pickering has now a new Green Bin Program. However, Apartment Building and
Townhouse Complex are excluded from this program as they have not been constructed to
accommodate it. Will the new St. Martins Square be constructed to accommodate such
program for all its residents?
Regards,
Sylvain Trépanier
Email: Anna.Sylvain(a)mai1.com
.page 1 or 1
'l1 3 ·1 ~'.,
" '."""....... .'ß'e<..'.~'''''' ~ I, .
L/5-'Ob
:: 4 r).
, .
__ - .....1
Pym, Ross
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Jennifer Dempsey [Dempsey.J@sympatico.ca]
July 9,20064:23 PM
Pym, Ross
Johnson, Rick, Councillor; Pickles, David, Councillor; Brenner, Maurice, Councillor; Ashe, Kevin,
Councillor; Mayor Web Email;McLean.Bill.Councillor;info@dougdickerson.ca
Subject: Re: Bay Ridges Plaza Zoning By-law Amendment Application - A 06/06
July 9, 2006
To: Ross Pym
From: Jennifer Dempsey
Dear Mr. pym:
I received a phone call from the development company that bought Bay Ridges Plaza. They indicated they got
my name and phone number from the sheet I signed at the June 1, 2006 public meeting. I did indeed provide this
information. However, I assumed this information would be used by the City of Pickering.
I admit I do not remember if there was any notification on the form that the information would be shared with the
developer. In future, I will be much more careful before I provide such information at any city function. I would
not have provided the information if I had known it would be given to the developer. I have signed such lists
before at previous Town meetings and was never contacted by developers or interested parties.
If there was no notification on the form that the information would be shared with the developer, then I believe
the City of Pickering has violated privacy laws by sharing this list with the developer.
I request that the City inform the developer I DO NOT want to be contacted by them again. I want my name and
phone number removed from all their records, and I refuse the City of Pickering permission to share it with any
other party.
Unfortunately, this incident has increased my concerns about the too-friendly relationship between the City of
Pickering and developers.
Sincerely, Jennifer Dempsey
1 G/07/2006
~. 4 'Î
J. '-t
¡'Ij/OAE COMMU.\lÜ
~.I
..~....~i
-- -
PESCA
, c
3~
'I 5- û ,",
Pickering East Shore Community Association
June 1,2006
Subject: Redevelopment of Bay Ridges Plaza (BRP)
The Pickering East Shore Community Association (PESCA) has established an
Ad Hoc Committee to review the Bay Ridges Plaza (BRP) redevelopment
proposal and to establish the PESCA position on this proposal. The Committee
consists of a cross-section of members of the PESCA Board of Directors, and the
Board has authorized and supports the position taken by the Committee and the
recommendations included in this briefing.
PESCA welcomes the opportunity to summarize the concerns of the citizens of
Bay Ridges at the Public Meeting of June 1, 2006. However, it is PESCA's
position that any changes to the existing zoniflg and approval of any
Development Plan should be preceded by extensive public consultations.
A. PEScA 2006 Annual General Meeting
PESCA members are the residents of the Bay Ridges neighborhoods. At the
2006 Annual General Meeting, held on April 26, 2006, PESCA members were
very vocal with respect to the proposed redevelopment of BRP. Many residents
rose to express their concerns at the meeting, and in fact the vast majority
expressed opposition to the proposal. Some of the issues which emerged at the
AGM included the following:
· very little information had been distributed in the area to explain the nature
and timing of the Developer's proposal;
· the project included excessive density in a small area;
· the condominium towers were viewed as being too tall;
· the local residents oppose the loss of retail facilities on the south side of
Highway 401 ;
· there were many concerns about additional parking and traffic congestion;
· the Developers' tactics to remove the existing retail tenants came into
question;
· the health of Douglas Ravine and Frenchman's Bay were a concern;
. the impact on the emergency evacuation plan was questioned.
i<PŒCOMMIifl;0.
!£.~
S ~
..~~2
- ~
PESCA
3f
95 (':1 t::,
i 4~)
Pickering East Shore Community Association
B. Specific Concerns
PESCA is opposed to the Developer's current proposal. However, PESCA is not
opposed to the redevelopment of the Bay Ridges Plaza in general. Specific
concerns we have with the current proposal include the following:
1. Condominium tower height
2. Traffic and parking
3. Environmental impact
4. Loss of retail businesses and
5. Impact on the Emergency Evacuation Plan
These concerns are examined in more detail below.
1. Building Height and Dwelling Unit Density
PESCA is concerned about the proliferation of very tall buildings at this location.
We acknowledge the presence of an existing 18- story building, but we feel very
strongly that this is a trend which should not be encouraged. There are many
who regret the proliferation of tall condominium buildings along the waterfront in
the city of Toronto, for example, and we believe that policies which promote the
same trend in Pickering are misguided and short-sighted.
With regard to density, the Pickering Official Plan calls for a range of 30 up to
140 dwelling units per hectare. The proposal, at 169 units per hectare,
significantly exceeds even the highest density specified in the Official Plan.
PESCA proposes that the Developer examine options which incorporate
buildings that are a maximum of seven storeys tall.
2. Traffic and Parking:
The existing traffic study has been examined, and the results were found to be
unsatisfactory. We have the following concerns:
· the current proposal allocates only 1.1 parking spaces per living unit.
According to a University of Toronto study, the average household in this
area has 1.9 vehicles. It can be expected that many new families will seek
parking elsewhere, causing further congestion on surrounding streets
· based on internal vehicle counts, a traffic increase of 250% can be
expected on St. Martin's Street
}4G
~~RE COMMU.w~
~.~
~ ' ª
~.......~
.-.
PESCA
38'
'I S ( ~,
Pickering East Shore Community Association
· the Liverpool Rd/ Radom St/ St. Martin's St/ Bayly St corner is already
heavily congested. We believe the addition of approximately 600 new
dwellings will contribute substantially to this congestion. This congestion
will threaten vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian safety, have an overall
negative impact on the quality of life in our community and adversely
affect the enjoyment of the Waterfront Trail for all.
It is proposed that the City of Pickering conduct more detailed traffic impact
studies to determine the true impact on road safety and congestion at a very
early stage in the approvals process.
3. Environmental Impact:
PESCA is concerned about the long- term health of the Douglas Ravine and
Frenchman's Bay, especially in view of Pickering's stated commitment to
environmental sustainability and the work conducted as part of the Frenchman's
Bay Watershed Rehabilitation Project. Specifically, the proposal so far is very
short on detail with respect to the potential impact that demolition, construction
and dense habitation patterns will have on the ravine, the watershed and the
Bay.
It is proposed that the Developer work with PESCA and knowledgeable local
citizens on an Environmental Impact Plan for this project.
4. commercial/ Residential Mix
The loss of significant retail facilities is seen as a major concern, and PESCA
lacks confidence that the Developer will provide adequate retail services to
compensate for the loss. To quote Ms Doris Hopper of Bayshore Towers, in
Danielle Milley's article in the News Advertiser on May 8, the plaza is a "lifeline."
Ms Hopper and other area residents, especially older residents at Bayshore and
the St Martin's seniors' residence are losing critical amenities such as a
supermarket and pharmacy. The Developer's current proposal increases
residential units in Bay Ridges by approximately 20% while decreasing the
commercial amenities by 80%.
There are additional concerns regarding the existing tenants. It has been
suggested by the Developer that demolition of some of the plaza could
commence while the remaining tenants continue to operate their businesses.
This raises significant issues, including the viability of the businesses trying to
operate on a demolition/ construction site and the threat to public safety on the
site.
~'1j'(JfIf COMMW,¡.~
~.~
~ ~
.. _-_~ i
. ~
PESCA
3q
'15-(' (.
~ 4 t'1
1_ (
Pickering East Shore Community Association
PESCA proposes that any new development on the site include increased
commercial space, more closely approximating the facilities to be lost. Further, it
is PESCA's position that no demolition should occur on the site until all existing
tenants have vacated.
5. Emergency Evacuation Plan
Bay Ridges neighborhoods co-exist with the world's largest nuclear plant. Most
residents are very aware that emergency evacuation from the area, while only a
remote possibility is a contingency which must be addressed. Liverpool Road
and Bayly Street are major evacuation routes and to date, no information has
been collected to indicate the potential impact of the redevelopment project on
the local emergency evacuation plan.
It is PESCA's position that this impact should be carefully examined before any
redevelopment is approved.
In conclusion, PESCA favours a cooperative approach as the future unfolds for
the Bay Ridges Plaza site. We seek the support of Pickering City and Regional
Councillors, the Planning Department and the Developer to address all of these
important concerns, and we urge area residents to provide their input at every
opportunity.
Tim Dobson
Chair, BRP Redevelopment Committee
Pickering East Shore Community Association
143
fP .f.C~!I.
~.~
~ ~
1è~~2
~ -
PESCA
325
it'S (\ (".
Pickering East Shore Community Association
Summary: PEScA's Official Position on the Bay Ridges Plaza
Redevelopment
PESCA is opposed to the current proposal to redevelop the Bay Ridges Plaza.
We are in favour of redeveloping the Bay Ridges Plaza in general, but feel the
following concerns need to be addressed:
1. Building Height
Any buildings on the site should not exceed seven storeys.
2. Traffic and Parking
A more comprehensive and up-to-date traffic study is needed and the
parking allocation should be increased from 1. 1 vehicles per dwelling
to more closely reflect the City average of 1.9 vehicles per dwelling.
3. Environmental Impact
An environmental Impact Plan should be developed with input from
PESCA and knowledgeable local citizens and environmental groups.
4. Commercial/Residential Mix
Our residents need a viable community commercial plaza of similar
size to the existing plaza, especially with the proposed increase of
residences. As well, there should be no demolition of the existing
plaza until such time as it is completely vacant so as not to infringe on
the rights of the remaining tenants to conduct their business and
protect the safety of the members of our community who still frequent
these businesses.
5. Emergency Evacuation Plan
The impact of the additional residences on the existing evacuation plan
should be carefully examined before any redevelopment is approved.
.3'7
if 5 ~ £.> f:,
p.1/114H
r-1U(3-1-2006 09:25A FROt'I:
TO: 4169729588
Bø~shore Towers
Durham Condominium Corporation No. 19
1210 Radom Street Pickering, Ontario LIW 2Z3
Tel: 905-839-1246 Fax: 905-839-7714
July 31, 2006
S R & R Bay Ridges Ltd.
69 Y orlcville Avenue
Suite 400
Toronto, ON
M5R IB8
Attention: Mr. Steven Warsh
Dear Sir:
Redevelopment of Bay Ridges Plaza
The Board of Directors of Durham Condominium Corporation No. 19 would like to
extend their appreciation for your assistance with alternative temporary parking
arrangements for our residents.
Many of our residents have participated in the information seminars that your firm has
provided. They have commented that the meetings were very informative. Although
there are always hurdles to overcome in a project of this nature, the redevelopment of the
plaza has generally been well received and supported. Should you require any additional
support or assistance in this regard, please feel free to contact us.
We would like to welcome you to our neighbourhood and we anticipate a long and
mutually beneficial relationship.
Sincerely,
?
-zfj/~
Board of Direct OJ
Durham Condom urn Corporation No. 19
JUI'i-I:::.J~-':::I:::.JI:::.JO t:JO·......,J
r . ~J.". t:J-.I
~~Ju
~TORONTO AND REGIONt:Y-
^-,onserva Ion
for The Living City
. May 30 J 2006
VIA MAIL AND FAX (fax. 416..972.~588)
RECEIVED
JUN 0 1 2006
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
. DEPARTMENT
# _.~()-__ TO
j¡ po_¥5 - () b
CFN 37347.06
Steven M.Warsh .
Partner
S & R Development Group Lirnïted
69 Yorkville Avenue, Suite 400
Toronto, ON M5R lB8
É!
1!P3-
~ ~7g{€1\1 'r'''~ Æd;$ f'tt1YJ /
)¡t"PHeN (5.'1 A-s
mJ05~~e1J~~¡-' ,.-
~
DATE: -;:ruN::r1 2ðQb,
Re: . Zoning. By.Law Amendment Application. No. A 06/06
1215 -,1-235 Bayly, Street' (Bay Ridg'es Plaza) .
City of Pickering ,
S. R..&·R.,Bay Ridges'Limited
Dear Mr. Warsh:
Thank you for meeting with TRCA staff on May 29, 200'6 to discussed your proposal for the
redevelopment of the Bay Ridges Plaza in the City of Pickering. Attendance at this meeting at
our head office included Mr. Steven M. Warsh, S & R Development Group Limited, 'Mr. Stephen
I. Fagyas; Commercial Focus Advisory Services, Inc., and Steven Heuchert, Senior Planner,
TRCA. During this meeting we referred to Drawing No. RZ-02, Site Plan ProjectStatistics,
prepared by Kirkor Arct)itects, dated March 27, 2006, received by City of Pickering Planning and
Development on April 5, 2006, and received by TRCA staff on May 11, 2006.
Although we have not recei~ep a complete application from S & R Development GroÙp or the
City of Pickering, we would like to 'clarify the TRCA's program and policy interests relating to your
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application, as follows:
TRCA Permit Requirem,ents
The subject property is partially within a TRCA Regulated Area. In accordance with Ontarío
Regulation 166/06 (Development, Interf~rence with W~tlandsand Alteråtions to Shorelines and
Watercourses), a permit is required from ,the TRCA prior to any of the following works t'aking
place: '
1. straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in anyway with the existing channel of a
river, creek, stream or watercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a
. wetland; ,
2. development, if in the opinion of the authority, the control of flooding¡ erosiqn, dynamic
beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development.
Dev~lopment is defined as:
1. the construction, reconstruction, erection or, placing of a building, or structure of any kind:
2. any change to a ·buîlding or structure that would have the effect of altering the 'use or ,
potential,use of tlie building or structure, increasing the' size òf the building or structure or
increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or structure;
3. site grading;
F'\I::iOMEIPUBLlCIDE:VE:LOI"MENT SERVICES\OURHAM REGION\ÞICKE~ING\121¡;;' 12$6 $p,yl."" 1.DOC
Steven M. Warsh
"I ìnF
JUN 0 1 ,t.!,d)
2 ' OF DICKE81NG
- - r.['(Y '¡,t:' 'Clg¡;>MI=Ni
PLANNI~~PÃRTMENT
the temporary or P?rmanenìplacing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on
the site or elsewhere.
'-It.?
·1
RECE.iV t:U
~ h6
-- ~l
(' (.
May 30. 2006
4.
Please contact TRCA staff to obtain permit approval prior to the issu~nce of any municipal
,gtading or building permits.
TRCA Policy and Program Interests
Notwithstanding permitrequirements, the Toronto and Regi,on Conservation Authority's policies
for defining valley corridor boundaries are guided by our IIV;¡¡lIey and stream Corridor
Management Program" (VSCMP). The VSCMP guides our review of development-proposals
and p~rmit and planning applications. The overall objectives of these policies is 'to prevent new
development from occurring within areas that may introduce a risk to life and property assOciated
with flooding, erosion and slope instability, or is not compatible with the protection or
rehabilitation of these areas in their natural state. For the subject property, the VSCMP ,policies
define the valley corridor boundary as follows:
1. If the valley slope is stable, a minimum of 10 metres,inland from the top of the valley
. bank; or '
2. 'If the valley slope is not stable; a minimum of 10 metres ,from the predicted long term
stablè slope projected from the existing stable/ståbilized toe (base) of .slope, or the
predicted location of the toe of the slope a5 shifted a5 a result 'of stream erosion over a
100 yearperiod; or
3. If there is, signifi'cemt vegetatiçn, the limit of-this vegetation plus ten metres,.
¡nsummary. the limits of the valley corridor will be défined by the greater of the top of bank, the
predicted long term s'table slape line or the limit of vegetation, plus a minimum 10 metre buffer.
No development is permitted within the valley corridor. '
Identification of Development Limits
. The,devèlopmentlimits on the subje~t property need to be identified;,as follows:
1. The top ofb~;mk a~ staked in 2004 has not b~en identified to our,satisfaction..The top of
. bank should be illustrated ana full size Plan 'of SUlVey, provided to TRCA. and confirmed
in writing by TRCA staff. The top of bank is valid for a period qf five years, at which time
if development is not substantially undelWay then a new top of bank 'staking will ,be '
required. . ' ,
2. The long term stable slope line has not'been identified. Therefore. a detailed
. Geotechnical Slope Stability Study is required ìn areas where the slope factor at safety is
les$ than 1.5. The Study should'be bàsed on a 'subsurface investigatíon. and crosS-
sectiónsidentifYing the long term stable slope line, 'along witt! the location of the line o'n
the Plan of Survey,' should be provided to TRCA and confirmed in wriUng by TRCA staff.
3. The lîmitof vegetation associated with the valley (the dripline) has not been identified.
This c~m be approached in one of two ways: 1} TRCA staff can visit the site with your
Surveyor and stake the dripline of vegetation; or 2) your environmental consultant can
F:\HOME\PUBLIC\O¡::VELOPMENT SERVICES\DURHAM REGION\PICKERING\1 ~1 S - 1235 SA YL. Y _ 1.00C
'-''-'11 0:...1..1. !:-o;..J't...IV
.t:J'-'... t:J'-'
L¡.o
" 1;)
__ \oJ ...
L¡l 5 <."' G~
Steven M. Warsh
-3-
May 30, 2006
identify the dripline, stake the feature on the ground. and TRCA staff will visit the site to
confirm the location is accurate" The dripline should then be illustrated on the Plan of
Survey, provided to TRCA, and confirmed in writing by TRCA staff.
Once identified, the valley corridor (including the 10 metre buffer) should be renaturalized with
native trees and shrubs appropriate for the soil conditions, re-zoned to an Open Space
designation and transferred to public ownership. Development, including rear yards, roads, and
accessory structures, etc. are not permitted in the buffer. We are willing to discuss the
appropriate location for a public access'trail relative to the buffer zone if such access is required
by the City of Pickering.
Clarification
At our môeting of M@y '~I ,OQ6) you represented that the proposal illustrated on Drawing RZ-02
referenced above was substantially "approved" by Carolyn Woodland of our elllce'at a previous
meeting'on February 10, 2006. Please be advised that this representation is false and, rather,
the importance of providing a 10 metre, buffer from the various features identified above was
expressed by our staff at that meeting.
Application and ,Clearance Fee
Please be advised that the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has implemented a
revised fee schedule for our planning application review services. This application is subject to
a $8,650 minor multi:.unit application fee. ~n additio,nal $2.875 clearance fee wiil become due
upon final clearance. The applicant is responsible for fee payment and should provide the fee,
made payable to Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to the City of Pick,ering upon
acceptance of a complete application. Otherwise, you can forward the application fee directly to
this office as soon as possible in order to ensure timely review. If convenient, the clearance fee
may also be provided at this time. Please disregard if the fee has already been sent.
We trust this letter clarifies the public interest relative to natural heritage and hazard land
management. We support the principal of this important urban regeneration project and we look
forward to working with you. ' Please feel free'to contact me if you have any, ,further questions.
%/¡~~
, Steven H. Heuchert, MCIP~ RPP, MRTPI
Senior Planner '
Planning and Development
Extension 5311 '
cc: Stephen I. Fagyas, Commercial' Fqcus Advisory SeÎvices Inc. (fax. 416.972.9588)
Ross Pym, City of Pickering (fax. 905.420.7648) , ,
F:\I-IOt.AEIPUBLlC\OEVE.LOPMENT SERVICES\DURHAM REGIONIPfCKERING\121S - 1235 SA YL Y _1.DOC
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning Department
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E
4TH FLOOR
P.O. BOX 623
WHITBY, ON L 1N 6A3
(905) 668-7711
Fax: (905) 666-6208
E-mail: planning@
region .durham.on.ca
www.region.durham.on.ca
A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP
Commissioner of Planning
"Service Excellence
tor CiX Communities"
August 24, 2006
.,.;r¡
'1-1
'-I!:J ( \
" L-··
J. J ,)
Ross Pym, Principal Planner
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplande
Pickering, Ontario
l1V 6K7
Mr. Pym:
Re: Zoning Amendment Application A 06/06
Applicant: S.R. & R. Bay Ridges limited
location: 1215-1235 Bayly Street
South side of Bayly Street, west of Liverpool Road
Municipality: City of Pickering
This application has been reviewed and the following comments are offered.
The purpose of this application is to amend the zoning of the subject property to
permit a range of residential, retail and office uses in the redevelopment of the
Bay Ridges Plaza site. The site plan includes streetfront and back-to-back
townhouses, including live/work units, and two apartment condominium
buildings with ground floor commercial office and retail uses.
Reaional Official Plan
The lands subject to this application are designated "Living Area" in the Durham
Regional Official Plan. Living Areas are to be developed in a compact urban
form through high densities and by intensifying and redeveloping existing areas,
particularly along arterial roads. Living Areas are predominantly for housing
purposes. Limited retailing of goods and services in appropriate locations as
components of mixed use developments may be permitted within Living Areas
provided that the functions and characteristics of the Central Areas are not
adversely affected.
Provincial Policies & Deleaated Review Responsibilities
This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the
provincial plan review responsibilities. Phase 1 and Phase II Environmental Site
Assessments (ESA), prepared by Jacques Whitford Limited, have been
submitted in support of the application. A subsurface investigation of the site
indicated that measured concentrations were below the Ministry of Environment
(MOE) criteria and that no further environmental investigation of the subject
property is considered to be warranted at this time. As a Phase II ESA was
completed for the subject property and as a more sensitive land use is being
proposed, Regional policy requires that a Record of Site Condition be submitted
to the MOE and filed electronically on the Province's Environmental Site
Registry.
J.54
l¡./
Lj'b C (>.
Page 2
An Environmental Impact Study (EIS), prepared by Watershed Management
Ecology, was submitted in support of the application. As the subject property is
adjacent to a stream tributary of Frenchman's Bay, comments from the Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) are required upon review of the EIS
indicating that the proposal addresses the Natural Heritage policies (Section 2.1)
of the Provincial Policy Statement. TRCA is to ensure that the
recommendations as outlined in the report, including the mitigation methods and
the setback from the valley top of bank, are sufficient protection from adverse
impacts from development.
A Noise and Vibration Study, prepared by Semas Associates, has been
submitted in support of the application to address traffic noise generated from
Highway 401, Bayly Street and the CN and Go-Transit Railways. The study
has been reviewed by this department and provides calculations and
recommendations that would meet the requirements of the Region of Durham
and the guidelines of the MOE. An agreement between the City of Pickering
and the applicant should contain the necessary provisions to ensure the
implementation of the noise attenuation measures, including warning clauses,
as recommended in the report.
The City of Pickering is encouraged to use a holding symbol"H" in conjunction
with the required zone category, and indicate the uses permitted at such time in
the future as the holding symbol is removed by amendment to the by-law. Prior
to the removal of the holding symbol, all requirements of the Region's delegated
review responsibilities including; the completion of the Region's reliance
agreement letter, the submission of a Record of Site Condition, confirmation
from TRCA regarding the EIS recommendations, and the inclusion of noise
provisions in a City of Pickering agreement, are to be completed to the
satisfaction of the Region.
Reaional Services
Municipal water supply is available to the subject property from existing utilities
on Bayly Street and S1. Martins Drive.
Sanitary sewer services are available; however, upgrades are required to
adequately service the proposed density.
Please see the attached Works Department review of this application for further
details on water supply and sanitary sewer services.
Transportation. Access and Intersection Improvements
Bayly Street, Regional Road 22 is designated as a Type "A" arterial road in the
Durham Regional Official Plan. Type "A" arterial roads are to have a right-of-
way width ranging from 36 to 50 metres. The Region will require a minimum
road width of 18.0 metres from the centerline of Bayly Street across the entire
frontage of the property.
~ r-. '",.
I ""\ L.,
-vd
~-/I
'0 5', c L-,
Page 3
A right tum lane and raised centre median are required for the Bayly Street
access to the site. Access to Bayly Street will be restricted to right-in/right-out
movements only.
A left tum lane on Bayly Street is required at the Bayly Street and St. Martins
Drive intersection. The left tum lane should be designed to incorporate the
centre raised median on Bayly Street.
Please see the attached Works Department review of this application for further
details regarding transportation requirements.
The use of a holding "H" symbol is further encouraged and should not be lifted
until the requirements of the Works Department, including servicing and
transportation improvements, have been identified in agreements through the
site plan approval process.
Community Strateaic Plan
The proposal is consistent with a number of Community Strategic Plan (CSP)
actions including developing a viable, affordable and integrated transit plan by
promoting higher density land uses. The proposed intensive development
supports the revitalization and development of the urban area and implements
effective land use planning that supports compact development.
A primary objective of the CSP is to ensure balanced growth and livable
communities by encouraging development that enables an improved live-work
relationship. The development would appear to achieve this objective by
contributing to the mix of residential, office and commercial development being
proposed.
If you have any questions or require further information, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
/1 ..,1
ï ;'! (/ "
;' / !1L 11,/
~~o-~/Ct Wl (/ YW V'
Dwayne Campbell, Planner
Current Planning
Attach: Works Department review comments
cc: Peter Castellan, Regional Works Department (no attachment)
605 ROSSLAND RO. E. :.
P.O, BOX. 623
. ~:~~ ON L1 N 6A3 . T~e .Region . .of Durham Works Departme'nt has revie~ed' 'the abçvf;!-noted
905·668-771' . '. '. rezoning application and .off~rs th~.following comm.. ents. . .
Fax: SOS-S66.6206 : ,
.;-mail: General' . ,'.' . .
wor!<.s@region.durham.Qn,c:a.· ......, '.' . . . '. '. '. . '.: . '. ...... '.
": . ..... .' .The· subject proþ~rty. is. cUrrently serviced ..with·municipal wàtermains and
. wv.:w.re9ion,durtærn.on.~a san.itary sewers. . Any ~xisting services not utilize.d must be aban~oned. at the . .
·c. R. Curtis. P. Eng.. MBA ma,ihlines, at the applicants expense. .'. '. . _ . '.' . . .'
Commi5síoñer of Works· ": . S . <' . "'~"" . .:.... ..' .
. ". ...:., S~~it~ry. e~er Se(Vu:e ..... . .. .' .
. '. .,: ". The subje~t. property is part of the ~ariita'rŸ' drainage area .thåt Îs. tri,bu~arY to the' ". . . .
.' " ': ,...~. Liverpoql Road 'Sa,n ita ry. S~wage·.p:urJ1pÎllg Statio.n.. $anitary flc;>ws from' the .'
.' .' . subject property 'are conveyed to .~he L,iverpoor Road· S.S.P.S.. through 'a
..... . . ". ·re.siden1ial areß,.alC?ryg·Douglas.AVentj,e, Front Roåd, W.harf street ånd Liverpool:
. . ': :': Road. :Based on a sa~itary sewer analysis of.the existing ~anitary sewer system· .
. ',': (U~ing'an Infiltration ~te' ofO,52 I/s .due to found.ation dràjn coririections), the.
: '.: th~or~ticar flows ih~ t/1e sanitary 'sewer~ ï'nçficate. that sever!3J'1egs of s'anitary .
.. . sewér arè presently operating in'.a surcharged condition... There, have' beèn
. .... instances of basement flooding Which has occ~rred 9uring significant rafnfålls . .' '
. .... ". with the· most recent bt;Jsement fl09dingresulting from: the significant -rainfålÎ
. . .. event on,A~gU:st 1.9, 2005. With the re-devèlop'm~ritofthé'subj~ct properly from
.' acOmn:Jerd~1 compon~nt to.a· residentia,l. comp.pne,nt; an iflCreé)Se 'in sanit~,ry:
. :". søwer f1øws and 't~~refo:re,. sùrchargiryg wit~in the existing ~anitary sewer sy~tem .
. , . ise)Çpected¡" There is no sanitary ~eWer C~pac.ity· available. .within· the existing· .'
. sanìtaly' sewer..systerr! fo'r·the .,þ"roposed dens!ty'of the s¡jbj.ect-d~velopn'1ent.
. There 'is capacity for apprqximately 70 un,its based qncalçulated flows from the'.
. ·exi.sting Iç¡od use. To.próvide ad~quate's~nitary sewer capacity for the prOþo$~d
, . . .' . devel~pment. the...existing s~nitary. s~wer·~íll· requi~e replace.ment· between.
.... R~dom Streèt~nd Liverpool-Road atWharfStree~with å'pipe ofhigherc~paGity
.' . . - . and at a. lower ~I~vation to increa$~..the safety factor ågainst ·the. potential of '.
: ~ase~~n~ f1oC?din~ occurrences.: ..' .' . . , .
j,,5b
Th~ Regional.
Municipality .
. ·of Durham" .
Works Cåpartment .
" .
'll
Lfl.~ ('" (c'
--.-...............-.....-
/'____..._. ,;::::. ',. ' "', .... ..'.", ...:;..' .......-'.., ,,;; ì
I~~~·,.,~ 0:" :-;. ,..... .. . ...' ,,'. ..' '. .,'i ..' . . I
. j:,'¿~..~_~_. .... '. .... _:'>. .',~,...:.--.;,,~:::,;.;þ ./'1 .
., ._'....... ·,I,J;....,
JUt 2ð ZiJ~;~"-C~l.
---..f'i]'~!'." I ¡-,. .., . sJ
~ /"'''15:'(' ...:'~-:~-.._.. ":''':'~':'II~~ü_
'-'-_~u . I .
-'L~# . ...".---.-"-""-.. ....-
ï~,' .. -...-.---
. .
. .
. - .
IN·TEROFFICE MEMORANDUM .'
To: Dwayne' Campbell
. . Current Operaüon,s Branch'
From: Pète Cast.ellan' .
I?~\lelopme~t. Approvals Division· '.'
. .
,·Date: . July 25. 2006
. . .
'Re:" ·Zoning B'y-I¡;¡w Amendment Appliçation A06/06
.' ". 'Appl.icant: S·:R & R.' Bay Ridges Plaz~ '.
1215~1235 B,ayly Street:·. : . .
" 'City of' Pickering' ,
'Our File:' RZ·; OS4>6,.¡P '. . .
.' "
. ,.
, .
. .
. .
.'
.. .'
'.' ..
. .
. .
'.
. ..
. .
. ·..·,.2
m·
. "<V'
'.
. .'
'. Muriici~ai W~ter Supply . . . ..' ' . . ..'
. .the s~bject·prop~~ls .Io.c;ated- wi~hin th~ Zon.e 1.Wat~r ?iéss~.re District of the'
.' . wate(~uppIYsY$tem fer. ~ickering~The esti~ate.~ static water.þre~sure forthjs
.' " .,.... area ranges. betyJeenBÖ psi to as pSi: Sinë~'the'estimatedstatiëwater pressure'
exceeds the . IT)aximum'aUowance.'of 80 psi, pressure reducing valves· will be
.: '. ï~eq~ired to be loca~ed.w.ithinthe.subjec~:develóP,"?en.t~ .' .". .' . .
, .... .' ~. ·.W~ter $apply to the su.bji:)d,proper~y' is ?,vailable frome,itherthe ~xi$ti'ng 350 mrn .'
'. . w~tërmaïn' 9.0': S·aYIYStreet.or. the éxisting:20.o mm waterrnåin·on. St..M~rtins' "
. '.' : ':',. .' ' : '. qr.ive~ :.',' ..... ." .. . . .." . ..
'. . ·trc.ns~~rtåtion·.· .'. .... . .' ", .
.: " .:...... T~¢ Règionpl'WorkS Dep~rtrri,e~twilÚeqüire the.Oym~r:to··conveY sufficieriÙo·ad.
. . . .al'o~ance·. widen.ing to provide:..a·: minimurr(.oF1 6.0 m· mea~ured' from ·the'
'. '. . . centreline of the dghf of way tó the 'south- street line across thé total Bayly 'Stre~t
",' ····frøntage.·· .,' ....' ". ........:..., -. .,'. ....
: T~~ .De~el.o~~r· Will b~ ~es~onsib'í~ '~or all·.cost~. asso'ciated with p~ovidihg :'safe ..
'. aCÇ:ess ~o' ~he development.. Thjs shall include the..¢onsb'l.ictiol1 of an- eastbound ,
. .... . right ·.t~.rn làne ·fpr the 'propo$~d ·entrance·.tq. BfJyly Street. T~.e·· Bayly ~trèer' '.
.. ": .a.ccess will þ~' r~strict~d ·to c(right~iri!ríght-out operatiohby means ota center" . .....
.' 'raised ñ)edian.· .' . . '.: . . , .: . ....
. ':.' Åaditi'onally:~ r~at,i i~ptovements are r~quiredat ~h~ ¡nt~rsect¡oh of Baýly str~et -. ...'.
. ',·and. St. Martins Drive'. Th'is requirés the 'construction ôf a westbound' left 'turn .:' . '.'
. " . ..:' . :.'·I~ne ån. ~ayly:·Street. . The left turn 'Iáne sho~~d be desig'ned to incorporate t~~' .'
. .. .c~rite(rái~ed median 'on Bayly·~treet: n'ote~ ·above. This will.result in rnedi~ri .
" .... '." : constructIon' from thè inteÌ"$ectionof StMa·rt¡ns Drive td:2S}netres east -Of the:
: .' . .. '. .p¡,op~.se~ entranè~~ '. .... . .. ..' .,'.' ..... . '. .... .
.... '. '. . ,..... .··.AU' :rq~d 'irrípr~~~'ril~rìts ~re. to be:. :designed ':.11 åcçordånce.with the"TAC'
. . :guidèlines: , :.....,. '. .... .: ..' . ...' . .
- -............... _._~. --.
...Ju.....vvu\J"-Juv
.L . UUIJ
. -,
.... 'I·"~
.' .vs: b,.
.' .
. .
. . .
. ~ . .
'. - 2 ~
" .
, .'
. .
.'
. . ".. ,"
" .
!"'. ..'
. .,'. .
. . ." . .. ''',: . . .',", . '. ,.'
SI.Únmary . . ....
,'" ..;. ,," ,.'.',. ·.·.0,· ',.. ,.' '.' '. . .,.., :. . . .. '. .....'..:
. Th.e Regíoo>s Works Department h~s' no objection to the. further processing 'of'
··this· z6níng·am~ndm~nt. appHcatiQn.· The·.·applicanf..shall .S"ubmi~· detai.lad
'eRgíneering': drawi'ngs 'for th~ $anitary sewer . improvements' and '···road .
~mprovs'ment~ ·in. ~l!·þport. ofthe $ubseqyerit site plan applicatio.~:··· . .........;
" . .
,.j ,
. .""
. .
..
.......~>.....
'. . Pete· CasteJlan . . .
. ..' Ó~veI6pment:~8provaISDjViSiØri ':.:.
. .
'.
. .
..'
.' .
. .
..' .
. .
.. .
. .
. . ,..
. .
'.
. c.'· . E·~ginè.~ri~g Plarin-íl19'&'$tudi~~ :..... .'
. ." ". Tr'ðnsportation. ·Ilifra~tru.ctu.r~ . . .
'. .
¡ 5··'}·
-~ . { .
. .
. .
. ,
. . .
" Transit
j
20 Bay Street · Suite 600
. '-/.2 Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5J 2W3
tI S - C {> Phone: (416) 869-3600 · www.gotransit.com
May 23, 2006
Phone: (416) 869-3600 ext. 5408
Fax: (416) 869-1563
Email: adams@gotransit.com
Ross Pym
Principal Planner - Development Review
Planning and Development Department
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
Ll V 6K7
RECEIVED
Dear Mr. Pym:
MAY 262006' ~t2"
e'TYOF PICK .' ," ~
PlANNING. DEVEL~m~ a ." ~L&
DEPARTMENT A~1.c).'" v ~
,o~ < ~
~G'~C ~~~~
"Q~ 6
'V~
~~~
~o~
Subject: Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06
Proposed Mixed Use Development - S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
1215-1235 Bayly Street, Pickering
GO Transit Comments
This letter is in response to your May 10, 2006 notice regarding the above-noted application.
GO Transit operates commuter rail service on the GO Subdivision, located north of the CN
Kingston Subdivision and the subject site. Given the close proximity of the rail corridor, this
development will be expected to comply with GO Transit's Principal Main Line Requirements.
Key factors to be considered are identified below. Specific details relating to each can be
clarified once formal development plans are circulated. Ultimately these matters should be
addressed in the Conditions of Draft Approval for these lands, to be cleared by GO Transit.
1. Appropriate building setbacks (up to 30 metres) and safety measures (berm structure or
equivalent) will be required for residential development with exposure to the rail
corridor. Specific requirements and design parameters will be dictated by the nature of
the land uses and the site development configuration proposed.
2. The Owner will be required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and
vibration in order to recommend abatement measures necessary to achieve acceptable
conditions for the proposed residential land use. A warning clause will be required for
residential uses within 300 metres of the rail corridor. Subject to the review of the noise
report, GO Transit may consider other measures recommended by an approved Noise
Consultant. In addition, the Owner shall, through restrictive covenants to be registered
on title and all agreements of purchase and sale or lease, provide notice to the public that
the subject mitigation measures are not to be tampered with or altered and further that the
Owner shall have sole responsibility for and shall maintain these measures to the
satisfaction of GO Transit.
'-::>·'.~L·.·.:.,·"··",;.",,,·..1 ·,·"··:.,>"·~~,."..·,,.·,,,-_w"Y' ,'.'-"'...'"-'"...--.·,."',......,,,·......""'_'"',·..,,"'..''''....c ......,-',~. .,.: ':....._~.~,_"oc....'"'.~.e,=,.""..."":.,.'....~"."'~.,'......·:."..., -",',',<,' -, ',' '-.' .,-,'- ,...........:~,>.,..;' "'-.- .:.'" ,:",,,,,·,'i".""'''''',·''.''''''"'''."
,"'-..""~".,...-.=-=,..--~=..,,,....."''''',T.~..''''''.~,,....=,,.,,=..,.'''.=."""'.=~·,.·,.,··,~"""'_........·.....""O',"'="""'=,.,.~"...''''·=.........~''''.-'''....",..,..-""~.-c".-,~,"','=""""""".-.."'.=.:o<~;~'""".-~";..
GREATER TORONTO TRANSIT AUTHORITY
15B
~'I. ~ ..
/¿ c:;. ('J G-
I", ...".....!:"~',",,.\,.._~,,;:.....,...~:.~'-..
Page 2 of2
3. A three-party agreement should be established to stipulate how GO's and CN's concerns
will be addressed. This agreement should be registered on title prior to the passing of the
By-law.
We trust that the City will have regard for the above-noted requirements in their decision
regarding this application, and we request notice of any further developments related to these
lands.
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned should you have and comments or questions
regarding this letter.
Sincerely,
i~~~
.Ndam Sn~
Transportation Planner
cc: GeoffWoods - CN
Dan Francey - GO Transit
Page 1 of 1
1- tJ U
113-
7. rr
if 5 () G
Pym, Ross
From: Geoff.Woods@cn.ca
Sent: June 15, 2006 5:00 PM
To: Pym, Ross
Subject: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment, File No. A 06/06,1215-1235 Bayly Street
Ross, CN has reviewed the above noted application and has the following comments:
1. The Owner is required to insert the following warning clause in all development agreements, offers to
purchase, agreements of Purchase and Sale or Lease and include in a Noise Impact Statement:
"Warning: Canadian National Railway Company or its assigns or successors in interest has or have a right-of-
way within 300 metres from the land the subject hereof. There may be alterations to or expansions of the rail
facilities on such right-of-way in the future including the possibility that the railway or its assigns or successors as
aforesaid may expand its operations, which expansion may affect the living environment of the residents in the
vicinity, notwithstanding the inclusion of any noise and vibration attenuating measures in the design of the
development and individual dwelling(s}. CN will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from use
of such facilities and/or operations on, over or under the aforesaid right-of-way."
2. The Owner is required to engage a consultant to undertake an analysis of noise and vibration and provide
abatement measures necessary to achieve the maximum level limits set by the Ministry of Environment and
Canadian National.
We request notice of Council's decision.
Regards,
1tf:tf:tftftl:t1:f N;';' ¡¡'J:I.I:I.J:I.I:I.J:I.I:I.##########################
Geoft Woods, BES, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Community Planning and Development
CN Business Development & Real Estate
1 Administration Road
Concord ON L4K 1 B9
Tel.: 905-760-5007, Fax: 905-760-5010
Email: geoff.woods@cn.ca
##############;'/ /í if Ii Ii!f ft#iftt f:l.J:I.I:I.¡¡'¡¡'J:I.I:I.###########
15/08/2006
') fi,_. L.f t¡.
L! 3~ (:-
161
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
June 23, 2006
To:
Ross Pym
Principal Planner- Development Review
From:
Robert Starr
Supervisor, Development Control
Subject:
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 06/06
S.R. & R Bay Ridges Ltd.
1215 - 1235 Bayly Street
Part of Block Y, Plan M-16
City of Pickering
Development Plan
Phase 1 and Limited Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessments by Jacques
Whitford
- Scoped Environmental Impact Study by Watershed Management Ecology
- Traffic Impact Study by Javar Consultants Inc.
Noise & Vibration Impact Study by Sernas Associates
- Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment Planning Report
- Shadow Study
We have reviewed the above noted reports and Plans in support of the application and
provide the following comments:
General Comments
1. The City of Pickering's Fill & Topsoil By-law prohibits soil disturbance, removal or
importation to the site unless a permit has been issued. No on-site works prior to
Site Plan Approval is permitted without a permit. A copy of the By-law and Permit
Application is attached and should be forwarded to the applicant.
2. All off-site works may require the applicant/owner to enter into a Development
Agreement with the City.
3. We will require a Stormwater Management Report to be submitted. The report
must address quality and quantity controls. As well, the report should minimize
any discharge of stormwater to the valley & stream corridor.
..J~pss Pym
1- bA06/06 - S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
1215-1235 Bayly Street
'ILl
~..._._.__ TO
Lf 5....[
June 23,2006
Page 2
4. We will require a grading and drainage plan which indicates that redevelopment
of the site can be completed without adversely affecting the neighbouring
properties and without affecting the adjacent stream corridor to the east of the
site.
5. We will require a Construction Management! Erosion & Sediment Control Plan to
be submitted which clearly shows how the applicant will ensure that no silt will
leave the site and contaminate the adjacent valley & stream corridor. As well, the
plan must address mud and dust control.
6. We will require a Tree Preservation Plan. The plan must ensure protection of the
valley wall.
7. Relocation of any utilities in the road allowance will be the responsibility of the
applicant.
Site Plan
1. The applicant is to provide documentation from TRCA indicating approval of a
5.0m setback from the staked top of bank on the east side of the proposed
development.
2. The Site Plan should address any proposed offsite works such as, but not limited
to, sidewalk installation, road widening and lane realignment on Bayly and St.
Martins Drive.
Noise & Vibration Impact Study
1. The Vibration Study (Appendix 4) references CP Rail guidelines. The Rail tracks
adjacent to the site are owned by CN Rail and GO Transit. The report should be
revised to reflect the proper guidelines.
Phase 1 & Phase 2 Environmental Site Assessment
1. No specific comments.
Scoped Environmental Impact Statement
1. Ensure that the Construction Management and Erosion & Sediment Control Plan
addresses the concerns detailed in the report with respect to silt control measures
to prevent sediment loading of the valley and stream corridor.
Ross Pym
A06/06 - S.R. & R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
1215-1235 Bayly Street
'1""{ .~, r·'
J lfy
'i5cc..o
June 23, 2006
, ,"' ,"
;. h I
l.uJ
Page 3
Planning Report
1. No specific comments.
Shadow Study
1. No specific comments.
Traffic Impact Study
1. We will require a more detailed conceptual design of the Bayly St./St. Martin's Rd.
intersection and left turn lane to identify the works required on St. Martin's and to
determine if additional road allowance is required. The design is to ensure
pedestrian safety is accommodated.
Should there be any questions or concerns regarding the above comments please
contact the undersigned or Paal Helgesen at 905.420.4617.
~
Robert Starr
Supervisor, Development Control
RS:ph
l:\Developmen(\ Zoning By-law Amendment Application A06/06 - S. R & R. Bay Ridges Lid
Copy: Coordinator, Development Approvals
Technician, Development Approvals
, (' ~
1 0 'iCiú/ o~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: PO 43-06
Date: September 11 , 2006
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
704858 Ontario Limited
- Plan of Subdivision 40M-1956
Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision
Recommendation:
1. That Council pass the following Resolution:
(a) That the highway being Amaretto Avenue within Plan 40M-1956 be
assumed for public use.
(b) That the services required by the Subdivision Agreement relating to Plan
40M-1956, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated
to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto,
including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be
accepted and assumed for maintenance, save and except from Blocks 21,
22 and 24, Plan 40M-1956.
(c) That the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to
Plan 40M-1956 be released and removed from title.
(d) That By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) be amended to include the
road being Amaretto Avenue within Plan 40M-1956.
2. That Council enact a By-law to dedicate Block 23, Plan 40M-1956 as public
highway.
Executive Summary:
Not Applicable.
Financial Implications: There are no new financial implications to the City as a
result of this recommendation.
Background: The City entered into a Subdivision Agreement with the above-
noted developer for the development of Plan 40M-1956. As the developer has now
completed all works and services to the satisfaction of City staff, it is appropriate to
assume the roads and services within this Plan, save and except from Blocks 21, 22
and 24, as these Blocks are in the Region's ownership.
Report PO 43-06
Date: September 11, 2006
1 6'~
_ J
Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision
40M-1956
Page 2
Further, it is also appropriate to release the developer from the provisions of the
Agreement with the City, as follows:
(a) Plan 40M-1956
Subdivision Agreement dated March 9, 1998, Instrument No. L T894022.
Accordingly, it is being recommended that:
1. Council pass the following Resolution:
(a) That the highway being Amaretto Avenue, within Plan 40M-1956 be
assumed for public use.
(b) That the services required by the Subdivision Agreement relating to Plan
40M-1956, which are constructed, installed or located on lands dedicated
to, or owned by the City, or on lands lying immediately adjacent thereto,
including lands that are subject to easements transferred to the City, be
accepted and assumed for maintenance, save and except from Blocks 21,
22 and 24, Plan 40M-1956.
(c) That the Subdivision Agreement and any amendments thereto relating to
Plan 40M-1956 be released and removed from title.
(d) That By-law 1416/82 (Places of Amusement) be amended to include the
road being Amaretto Avenue within Plan 40M-1956.
2. Council enact a By-law to dedicate Block 23, Plan 40M-1956 as public highway.
Attachments:
1. Location Map - Plan 40M-1956
2. By-law to dedicate Block 23, Plan 40M-1956 as public highway
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
K.Q· ~¿
Denise Bye, upervlsor
Property & Development Services
~
Tim e OAA
(Acting) Director, Planning & Development
DB:bg
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
" ~ t'
~u)
Report PO 43-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Subject: Final Assumption of Plan of Subdivision
40M-1956
Page 3
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering ou iI
"
(
Recommendation approved:
~
Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director, Planning & Development
City Clerk
¡:, n ACHMENT # I TO
~¡Ei0R1 II PO Lf ~ - 0 L,
.' í^'\'·.f
10/
o
<{
o
~
ç~'
(,.
~~
A<\\f.I'\\'W ;0à
~,\\~ ~~
/\\\\~ \~ ?
~"Y~
~~
"\~~\..
'0\~'0
s'Ù~
~~
0:::
;a
II
_~>~ iE
l..-.
~~-(
'i-a~
~I"
f-
~
\\)0
O~~
C
0'<\)?-O
\
0"" srfK~¡(ßfibN ~ ç
~?-\\) ~ ÆÞ
~ ~~~ IC~
~ Nt.0l RT
~ ,\ ~~\~ I---' V T I--
~~ ~ Ã :=~~ COGNAC ~
~ .~ ~IIIII := ~~/ I 11\ \
FINCH
FINCH AVENUE
0~/
,/'
f--
I--
AVENUE
~ I
C)
c
z
-
~ 11111 ~-
~ 0_
a
f-
a
ð~lIJ~
0:: r---\ ~ '--
r-h-L ~ii: ~
r-6=
'G) ¡---u=
- _ Z- NIPISSING ==
--.- « ~
';!!!ii ~ ~NTIT I; 1II1 III
~ ~ GRA~.IIII Ir"ü
[==
ROAD
~ " ==
o ~ SQUARE
rr =/ TI I liU f-I
I 11II ,TRFl
~ AMBERLEA
§ ~ I II ~ -III ill I
:-25 (}j, '/
_0::_ W ~
-~ -f--- /
=~= ~-I-- D~c:.~~~.t:~GÄ
-;:j rr I \~~ / l17f0-t-
City of Pickering
-
,,\
Planning & Development Department
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 40M-1956
OWNER VARIOUS
FILE No. SUBDIVISION COMPLETION AND ASSUMPTION
DATE AUG 14,2006 DRAWN BY JB "'^'
¡ ~
SCALE 1 :5000 CHECKED BY DB
ota Source.:
Ië-Tet'onet Enterpri.e. Inc. and it. .up~lie,... All rights Reserved. Not 0 ~Ion of survoy.
~ 2005 MPAC and its supplier.. All riahts Reaclrved. Not 0 plan of Sun-ey.
PN-14
168
# ;;L TO
, , i;L _,,_ Lfj-Ð{ p
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO.
b~~?
Being a By-law to dedicate Block 23, Plan 40M-1956,
Pickering as public highway.
WHEREAS The Corporation of the City of Pickering is the owner of Block 23, Plan 40M-1956,
Pickering and wishes to dedicate it as public highway;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering HEREBY
ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Block 23, Plan 40M-1956, Pickering is hereby dedicated as public highway
(Amaretto Avenue).
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 18th day of September,
2006.
David RY~
Debi A. Bentley, City Clerk
Roadded.472
CiÚf (J~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
'¡ ~ C"ì
_ U to,]
Report Number: OES 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
From:
Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters, Bayly Street
- Tender No. T-14-2006
File: A-2130-001-06
Recommendation:
1. That Report DES 27 -06 regarding the Addition to Fire Services Division
Headquarters be received; and
2. That Tender No. T-14-2006, low bid submitted by W.S. Morgan Construction Ltd.
for the addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters in the amount of
$1,227,000 (GST extra), be accepted and the company be so advised; and
3. That the total gross project cost of $1,427,820 and a net project cost of
$1,347,000, be approved; and
4. That $417,000 be financed from the Development Charges Reserve Fund and the
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to transfer the funds; and
5. That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the
project as follows:
a. Debt financing through the Region of Durham not to exceed the amount of
$930,000 for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years at a rate to be
determined; and
b. That annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $75,000 be
included in the annual current budget for the City of Pickering commencing
in 2007 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; and
c. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this
loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's debt and financial
obligations approved annual repayment limit for debt and other financial
obligations for 2006 as established by the Province for municipalities in
Ontario; and
Ciú/ o~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
16;3
Report Number: OES 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
From:
Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters, Bayly Street
- Tender No. T-14-2006
File: A-2130-001-06
Recommendation:
1. That Report OES 27-06 regarding the Addition to Fire Services Division
Headquarters be received; and
2. That Tender No. T-14-2006, low bid submitted by W.S. Morgan Construction Ltd.
for the addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters in the amount of
$1,227,000 (GST extra), be accepted and the company be so advised; and
3. That the total gross project cost of $1,427,820 and a net project cost of
$1,347,000, be approved; and
4. That $417,000 be financed from the Development Charges Reserve Fund and the
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to transfer the funds; and
5. That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance the
project as follows:
a. Debt financing through the Region of Durham not to exceed the amount of
$930,000 for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years at a rate to be
determined; and
b. That annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $75,000 be
included in the annual current budget for the City of Pickering commencing
in 2007 and continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; and
c. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this
loan and the repayment thereof falls within the City's debt and financial
obligations approved annual repayment limit for debt and other financial
obligations for 2006 as established by the Province for municipalities in
Ontario; and
.~. t· , "''''k
1ft)
Report O&ES 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Subject: Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters
Page 2
d. That the Director Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to take any
actions necessary in order to effect the foregoing; and,
6. That staff at the City of Pickering be given the authority to give effect thereto.
Executive Summary: Tender No. T-14-2006 for a 5,200 sq. ft. Administration wing
on the Fire Services Division Headquarters, Bayly Street was issued June 27, 2006 to
nine prequalified bidders and closed on July 14, 2006.
Our consultants, Totten Sims Hubicki recommend acceptance of the low bid received
from W.S. Morgan Construction Ltd. in the amount of $1 ,300,620 GST included.
Council is hereby advised that this bid together with required contingency and consulting
fees, for a total estimated cost, net of GST rebate, of $1 ,347,000, is approximately $250,
000 over the original cost estimate provided in 2005 for construction. This over
expenditure is due to several factors outlined below.
1. The square footage of the original estimate was anticipated at 4,500 sq. ft. The
present design has a square footage of 5,200 sq. ft. to accommodate the entire
Fire Prevention Section, Emergency Planning Coordinator and 2 additional
support staff who work within the Fire Service administrative area (Secretary -
Operations and Emergency Services and Coordinator, Fire Services
Administration). The deployment of these additional staff to this addition will
provide significant additional improvements in service delivery at this location.
This will also allow optimum organizational change within the Civic Complex for
the immediate future without the need to construct an addition on the Civic
Complex to accommodate necessary new staff or space reallocation of existing
staff. This is significant, as the floor space for an appropriately designed Civic
Complex addition would likely cost approximately $300 - $350 per sq. ft. as
opposed to the $232 per sq. ft. cost for the firehall addition due to construction
materials that would be required. There is accommodation as well for a second
Deputy Chief as this has been identified as a need in the very imminent future.
This space of 150 sq. ft. represents a cost of approximately $34,800, which was
also not included in the original estimate.
These additional space requirements account for $162,400 of the recommended
overexpenditure.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report O&ES 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
1t71
Subject: Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters
Page 3
2. The cost of $232 per sq. ft. is a very excellent price in today's market however it is
higher than the estimated $200 per sq. ft. used in preparing the original budget
estimate. This represents an approximate $144,000 increase in the total cost of
the project. In comparison to the recent firehall constructed in a neighbouring
municipality at a cost of $274 per sq. ft. This year tenders and quotes for the City
and our neighbouring municipalities are all coming in much higher than
anticipated. Higher costs appear to be based on two main factors:
any construction requiring the use of petroleum based products is up
substantially.
- with the introduction of COMRIF, the gas tax rebate and other incentives,
project construction and the demand for contractors is high, thereby
pushing up prices substantially.
Delaying the approval of this addition will result in increased costs in future as this
space is necessary for the City and the Fire Service to move forward and prepare
for future growth.
3. Although the space is not required to have a sprinkler fire suppression system City
and Fire Services staff are of the opinion that we should "lead by examplen and as
this is a Fire Service facility it would not be appropriate to construct it without this
life safety feature. This accounts for an approximate cost of $25,000.
4. Lastly, the new cost projection includes a contingency amount of $20,000, which
is relatively low given the cost of this facility but again was not accounted for in our
original estimates in 2005. Also general, cost increases due to inflation and rising
oil prices has significantly impacted today's construction costs.
Alternatively, staff did consult with the architect to reduce the floor space for the addition
to an amount that could be built given the approved budget amount and the cost of $232
per square feet. This resulted in a floor area of approximately 3,500 sq. ft. which would
have prevented the deployment of all necessary administrative staff to this consolidated
addition. This would not have been efficient or effective use of City funds. Also the
inability to accommodate all the Fire Service staff from the Civic Complex would have
resulted in no net benefit to the City in regards to reallocation of Civic Complex space or
the addition of future staff in the Complex for future growth. At present the unavailability
of space has delayed the hiring of an engineer to oversee the numerous EA processes
that are presently ongoing within the City. This is seriously impacting our ability to
complete and respond to not only the City needs but also numerous other agencies
ongoing EA processes. This reduction in floor space was deemed unacceptable by staff
for these aforementioned reasons, however, staff are advising Council of our efforts in
this regard.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
> '7 .....
'.... .1
i .
...... -
Report O&ES 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Subject: Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters
Page 4
Council are also advised that the 2007 Capital budget will include all necessary costs for
furniture, telephones and computers complete with installation. The estimated cost for
these items is $150,000 total.
Staff are recommending the project proceed as originally designed, as the benefits for
both the Fire Administration and for the space distribution in the Civic Complex will
provide for more efficient supervision and reallocation of Civic Complex space in the
future. This office space shortage is having serious impacts on the operations of several
areas adversely affecting our ability to complete necessary projects.
The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has been in contact with the three lowest
bidders as the price guarantee on the bids expires on September 10, 2006.
The lowest bidder is the only one of the three that was willing to extend the price
guarantee for "a few days" beyond the expiry date, therefore final approval must be
obtained today.
Financial Implications:
1.
Approved Source of Funds
2006 Capital Budget
Debt (20 years)
New Chart of Accounts
5340.0607.6181
Amount
$1,100,000
Total Approved Funds
$1.100.000
REVISED FINANCING:
GST Rebate
Development Charges Res. Fund
Debenture Debt
Revised Total Funds Provided
$80,820
417,000
930,000
$1.427,820
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report O&ES 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
"¡ 73·
1. ..
Subject: Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters
Page 5
2.
Estimated Project Costing Summary
Professional Fees
Contingency
Subtotal
GST
Total Gross Project Cost
$1.227.000
$100,000
$20,000
$1,347,000
$80.820
$1,427,820
($80.820)
$1.347, 000
T-14-2006
Addition
GST Rebate
Total Net Project Cost
3.
Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds
($247, 000)
$0
Pro'ect Cost under over with Revised Financin
The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has reviewed the budget implications and
financing of the expenditures contained in this report and has provided the financial
discussion below and the related recommendations above.
Background: In December 2005, Council approved a staff report recommending
an Administration wing addition of approximately 4500 sq. ft. to Hall #5 on Bayly Street
as an interim solution to providing much needed Fire Service Administration space and
to reduce overcrowding at the Civic Complex. This overcrowding, at present, is delaying
the posting and hiring of an Engineer as there is insufficient space to accommodate a
new hire at this time. This vacancy significantly impacts the Operations & Emergency
Services Department's ability to complete necessary EA's and agency reviews, which is
unacceptable. In addition, this will provide additional space for the Corporate Services
Department. As well, both Departments require space for temporary staff and summer
students to assist in undertaking projects. The space is required now.
Staff estimated the cost, with the assistance of a consultant, to be $1,000,000 plus
professional fees of $100,000 bringing the total project cost to $1 1 00,000.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
174
Report O&ES 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Subject: Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters
Page 6
Tender Bids for Tender No. T-14-2006 were received on Wednesday, July 14, 2006.
Nine companies were invited to pick up tendering documents having been prequalified
through the prequalification process of RFP-1-2006. Five companies submitted bids at
the time of closing.
The lowest bid for the project, submitted by W.S. Morgan Construction Ltd., is
$1,227,000 before GST. Taking into account the professional fees of $100,000, and
contingency of $20,000 will bring the total net project cost to $1,347,000. This is
significantly more than anticipated, however, recent cost increases in various building
materials, labour and fuel are negatively impacting construction costs, as well as the
increased space requirement to redeploy additional staff. Due to the urgency of space
requirements, staff recommend that the project proceed and all efforts be made to
reduce the final cost through the construction process.
Financial Considerations
This unforeseen increase of costs has led staff to once again consider leasing space as
an option. However, under Provincial legislation and the City's Council approved Lease
Policy, the Treasurer must verify and confirm as to whether or not leasing is the best
financial means of achieving the use of the asset. Given the need for space for both Fire
Services Administration and in the Civic Complex, it is concluded that ownership best
meets the long-term needs of the City. Expansion at Bayly Street accomplishes both of
these objectives in the short-term. Regardless of the eventual outcome of Duffin Heights
and Seaton it is my understanding there will always be a need for the expansion of
Bayly Street firehall, and similarly there will be a need for more space at the Civic
Complex.
In the Development Charges Studies undertaken earlier by the then Town of Pickering,
funds were collected for the provision of Fire Services including buildings, equipment and
vehicles. Some of these funds were spent on the acquisition of the new vehicles,
however, other than the Finch Avenue Station in 1994, no new facilities were
constructed.
A new fire headquarters is still in the future, however, the expansion under consideration
has been prompted by growth over the last 15 years and therefore qualifies for partial
funding through development charges. Since the City has approximately doubled in size
as these funds were collected, this project is attributable in part to new growth. As
development charges were designed to fund, under previous studies, approximately 31%
of the costs of a new facility, then 31% of the total costs could come from development
charges.
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Report O&ES 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
, '>7"
,> '..,
-'- ~.l
Subject: Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters
Page 7
Therefore, financing will be as follows:
Total Project Cost
Less 100% GST Rebate
Net Project Cost
$1,427,820
80.820
1,347,000
DC at 31 % of Net Project Cost
$417,000
$930,000
Amount of Construction Costs to be Debt Financed
As a result of the revised financing, debt financing will be less than that anticipated in the
2006 Capital Budget of $1,100,000 thereby reducing future annual debt charges by
approximately $15,000 per annum for a total savings to the taxpayers of almost
$300,000.
The Manager, Supply & Services advises that the Health & Safety Policy, a copy of the
NEER Firm Summary Statement issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board (in lieu
of the Cost & Frequency document) and a copy of the current Certificate of Clearance
issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board have been reviewed by the (Acting)
Coordinator, Safety & Employee Development.
Upon careful examination of all tenders and relevant documents received, the
Operations & Emergency Services Department recommends the acceptance of Tender
No. T-14-2006, low bid, W.S. Morgan Construction in the total amount of $1,300,620
including GST. This report has been prepared in conjunction with the Manager, Supply
& Services who concurs with the foregoing.
Attachments:
1. Supply & Services Memorandum dated July 11, 2006
2. Totten Sims Hubicki Recommendation
CORP0227-07/01 revised
· '7' -
~_. 0
Report O&ES 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Subject: Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters
Page 8
Prepared I ~ved I ~ndorsed By:
/ /":) -.,/;./
Lr ,/ II
/
/ ¡
EB:djb
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
,v.:'
Pickering City councL .
¡'.
Thomas J. Quinn, RDMR., CMM Ifr",,-,.
Chief Administrative Officer "-
CORP0227-07/01 revised
Prepared I Approved I Endorsed By:
---"
~
.:=-r .... -~ -
Vera A. Felgemacher
Manager, Supply & Services
~:tJ.., 'I'
....
ATTACHMENT #./...-- TO REPORT#f)¿;s :Þ7~í,.
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT I?¡:¡e¿ )t¡:"'Ç
MEMORANDUM
17,"
July 11, 2006
fõi'
f't
!
JUl 1 32008
To:
Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
i
!
_,o'-¡-1"
. '::-r'Î
,,;,-,":;':iJ~:J-~
From:
Vera A. Felgemacher
Manager, Supply & Services
,~.,... ".... ... ("
Subject:
Tender - Addition to Pickering Fire Services Division, Bayly Street
Tender No. T-14-2006
Tenders have been received for the above project. General contractors were invited to
prequalify for this project under Request for Proposal RFP-1-2006. Nine (9) companies
were prequalified and invited to bid on this tender call. An advertisement was placed in
the Daily Commercial News, News Advertiser and on the City's website. Nine (9)
bidders picked up tendering documents for a non-refundable fee of $100.00 per set. A
copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and Checked used at the public tender opening
is attached. Tenders shall be irrevocable for 60 days after the official closing date and
time.
A mandatory site visit was held on Wednesday, June 2ih, 2006 at 12:00 noon at the
Fire Hall. A copy of the sign-in Attendance Sheet is attached.
Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 10.03 (r) provides checking tendered
unit prices and extensions, unit prices shall govern and extensions will be corrected
accordingly.
Although all deposits other than the low three bidders may be returned to the applicable
bidders as provided for by Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 10.03(w), the
five bids received are attached for review.
'¡ 17°
1- ð
i\TTACHMEl\n I
/íþ tt -:."/ cJ¡;; S
O£5'27-c(,
Everett Buntsma
T -14-2006 Addition to Fire Services Division Headquarters
Page 2
Summary
(PST included, GST included)
Company
After
Cheo
1,312,890.00 1,300,620.00
1,377,682.00 1,377,682.00
1,449,034.00 1,449,033.78
1,479,760.00 1,479,760.00
1,507,115.10 1,507,115.10
Tendering deposit not sufficient, automatic
rejection. Reference: Purchasing By-law
No. 5900-01, Procedure No. PUR 010-
001,10.04, Item 9(d); IB 18, 19, and 20;
TS 1 and 2.
W.S. Mor an Construction Limited
Garritano Bros. Ltd.
Struct-Con Construction Ltd.
J.J. McGuire General Contractors Inc.
D.J. McRae Contractin Ltd.
Gerr Construction Limited
Unable to bid
Unable to bid
Received Late
Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 22, the following will be requested of the low
bidder for your review during the evaluation stage of this tender call. Please advise as
soon as possible if we are to proceed in this direction.
(b) a copy of the current Cost and Frequency Report issued by Workplace Safety &
Insurance Board (in lieu of the Cost and Frequency document, a copy of the
current CAD 7, NEER, or MAP report may be submitted);
(c) a copy of the current Certificate of Clearance issued by Workplace Safety &
Insurance Board;
(d) City's certificate of insurance completed by the bidder's agent, broker or insurer;
(e) List of Subcontractors (page FT-2)
(f) further information as the City may require, as requested in writing
*Health & Safety Policy has already been reviewed in RFP-1-2006 evaluation by the
Safety & Training Co-ordinator.
ATTACHMENT#.~·. (f k' tioES J1-6(;
,{'4G¿ -3 CF s-
Everett Buntsma
T-14-2006 Addition to Fire Services Division Headquarters
Page 3
1;19
Please review the copies of the bids. Include the following items in your Report to
Council:
(a) if items (a) through (c) noted above, are acceptable to the Safety & Training
Co-ordinator;
(b) the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged;
(c) the budget amount(s) assigned thereto;
(d) Treasurer's confirmation of funding;
(e) related departmental approvals;
(f) any reason(s) why the low bid of W.S. Morgan Construction Limited is not
acceptable; and
(g) related comments specific to the project.
Totten Sims Hubicki as the consultants on this project will be reviewing submissions
and making recommendations to you. The consultant should also review carefully all
submittal information based on tendering instructions. If the consultant notices any
infractions or information missing during the evaluation, please contact me or a member
of Supply & Services as soon as possible. Duplicate copies of the bids are attached for
the consultant's use.
If you require further information, please feel free to cont?ct me.
t
¡
C/Í \~
Vera A. FelgE?rííacher
/bt
Attachments
Copy for: Fire Chief
l:jÜ
E ~
c.
I(') <:
't"'" ~
N CI)
X ~
e ffi
CI a.
W a. Q
~ « e
co
0 Q)
w E
J: ï=
0
CI co
0
Z 0
<.9« N
Ñ
ZCI 't"'" ....
-w ~ §
O::z 0'tl
Ww ::I
~a. '"') ~e
00 >; -~
!'IS ,sc:.:
a.CI) "C ~~
/I
1.J..0:: G>
Ow c
"C 'tI
秣 ~ QI
"'-8'
'l:l:QI
-W ~~
01- à)
.... c:.: °
I.J.. ro ~~
0 Q 'tIIJ
q:q:
CI co
0
0:: 0 ....
0 ~ c:.:
0 ~ QI'tI
't"'" e c:.:
W . QI 0
0:: t- eco
ó ClO
Z q:....
~ ....
Q) ....
"'C II)
0
c: 2-
Q)
I- Q
O'tl
0) J: iXi
c c
.¡: 0
G> .- ~
~ .!!l 'tI 0 ~ (/)
(.) > QI.... ...
.- .- 'tI (II ~ W
D.. C c:.: 'tI >-
ocQlc:.:QI
- 0 :t::~~
c .- q: CI)
o1ii
.- -
:!::ø
"C
"C ~
« .-
u.
c:
0 "'CÏ
:¡::¡ ::í
0-
ï:: cñ
U e
rJ) QI
Q) e a:¡
Q ~ 0
~ c:
Q) ... ]!
"'C .g .¡::
c: ~
Q) ~ ro
I- CO c.9
~
~
~
o
o
'\. ~"') '>~
9
a::¡ ~
e :5
lLJ @
::::.;
-J i:U
IX)
~ ü
:::> ~
(/) (/) (/) (/) (/) 0 (/) (/)
W W W W W W W
>- >- >- >- >- Z >- >-
"C
,$
'Ë
:.J
c:
.Q
ê3
:J
...
(¡j
c:
o
()
~
...
Q)
c.9
"C
::í
0>
c:
:g
~
ë
o
ü
~ rJ) Q)
,- ... ro
:JOe:::
c.9 ê3 U
Uro"""
~.þO::::
. c: -;
..., 0 .
-;()Q
œ
Q)
c:
Q)
c.9
"'CÏ
ð ::í
:g §
2 :g
(¡j :J
c: .þ
o rJ)
Ü §
æ ü
0> c:
... 0
~"Cü
. JB U
~ 1~ 2
~:.Jëi5
u
c:
c:
.Q
ê3
oð :J
~ ~
o c:
.~ rJ) 0
-c:()
EOQ)
+:;CJ)
zro~
o~_
üc:Q)
WQ),$
«C:::(/)
"C
,$
'Ë
:::;
>.
c:
ro
0-
E
o
()
>.
ro
c.9
f
/0æ if or '5
(£5214
181
ATT. CH EN1 If j ðES;ì1~c?
f;J..¿¿- :;- ð ç ::;
,..
--.
\
<- :;-
~ ? :tf- "./""
, ... )(
i'
~ ~ t1 rJ'. ,I
\~
> ~ '::t
e (I) '~ ....
E G' .~ ,£ to ~~
0 a: { ~ -
10.. 0 ;; ~ r ..,..
(I) 0 Cã .......- "- '.;.
t: ~ ~ -c; ~ it.!
ctS w 0 " [\\ --
::] a: .2 -.5 \S" \J ,"';
0- W c: ~ "" ) c- 1.."::'
"C r'¿ ~ "p ¥
0 0 l -.-....
ctS Z 0 <0 k '\S L
<.9 (I) <0 0 \~~ V) ~ Ù '~ l·J
0 J: 0 « c: 0 ~ ~ \, ';1
Z - 0 e C\I \...J ¡ ...
c: 0 'J
c: C\I Z 0 ,~
a: 0 0 I W " CIO
w E 0 o::t C\I C\I .;.) "'1 ª £i
~ ~
~ "C :~ ~ I (I) ~ r;- ~
Ü "C C I « C) c '^ '\t ,~ ~
« ::] \ \I \'
r- I c: ~ '-í,
Cl. 0 '¡: ~ .~ "f',
10.. (I) , r- ~ rn
0 0 ~ > r- '¡,:.)
LL 0 Cñ €I ~- \f\ , N°'"
- Z ctS rs
0 '- 's; :> .5:! "C .::r ¡:.:
(I) 10.. '- 0 !/> I",
"C Q) (I) e. Q V""\ "B ~ z
>- c (f) "C W Q) D .<:::> ù" ~ cR, W
~ r- ...;' c ~~
Q) Q) C (I) "C (f)
r- Q) Cñ
Ü 10.. r- (I) Q) W
¡¡ > '- 3: ~ a:
- ç,l)
C) a: (f) 4) ~ .~ 0..
c 0>- ~ " (f)
.¡: r-- ë$ "'~ a:
~ «i;' r~ W
.5:! em ~. fV', ...b \:..ð "-,) J:
Z <0 l :).J r-'- N ~.~ l-
e. « ~ "'-b \J' "::t- O
~ \J\ .~ \1""
:æ: <0 Q t~ "... ~
~ - ,..,,- ~ ~ ~ ~ -~
~, ''-.J ~
"0 en
~
( ) 0
+-' +-' en
'Ë 0 c
"0 m 0 ¡:.:
:.:J ~ c.S
::¡ +-' ''¡::;
C C c m Z
0 c 0 > w
+:; 0 ü c 0 c: (f)
0 +:; "0 "@ 0 C
:J 0 ( ) +:; ( ) ëñ w
+-' ~ 0 a:
'- :J 'Ë "0 a:
+-' ~ ( ) :J
en - c ::¡ ~ c oð "'C e. -
c en :.:J ( ) +-' 0 ëñ
0 c CD en en t5 en c: u.. 51
Ü 0 >. c ~ as LL
Ü c 0 0 :J 0 2
c m ( ) ~ ü ~ .¡:: (I) «
~ CJ:I ü5
m c 0.. +-' ( ) E ....
:J ( ) en - --
0> 0 E CD 0 en c c as en (!)
~ ü c 0 , 0
0 0 m Z
I Ü 0 m 0 Ü c > 0
~ ü ~ - C\J
.¡:: ( ) ~ 0 - .... -.:t
(f) :J >. ~ ( ) '- 0 c: Õ ...-
~ m J m ( ) ( ) .¡:
~ - +-' t
(f) CD J CD (f) CD « e.
-¡
, J
JUL-11-2006 MON 04:55 PM TSH
¡Q~
-\:>,.,..,.
FAX NO. 905 668 0221
p, 02
.
IIH
ATTACHMEI\J"f #'J ~."1 ., 013' -1'7
~._ Ii " ...;) "" - () (;
';;,4C:£"' ,/ ()..¡::
c2
TuUtn Silns lublcki Associates
3iJU Water Stn:~1
Whitby. Ontario. Can:¡();¡ 1.1 N 9.12
(90S) C168-9353 Fax: (905) 66R-022I
1}-ITI£lil: tsh@tsh.C:I WIVW,ISh,CII
engineers
architects
planners
July] 7,2006
Mr. Everett Buntsma,
Director of Operations and Emergency Services
The City of Pickering
One tl1e Esplanade
Pickering, ON L1V 6K7
VIA FAX; to 905-420-4650
Dear Mr. Bunt~ma;
Re: TENDER REPORT
ADDITION TO FDΠSERVICES DIVISION HEADQUARTERS (FIRE HALL NO.5)
TENDER T -14-2006
TSH FILE NO. 22-32108
We submit herein our tender report for the General Contract Tender #T-14-2006 for the Addition to Fire
Services Division Headquartcrs (Fire Hall No.5) in Pickering.
The project was tendered to nine pre-qualified bidders.
Tenders were received from six bidders prior to the specified tender closing time of 2:00:00PM on July
12, 2006.
The tenders were publicly opened in the main committee room at the Pickering Civic Complex at around
2:30pm on July 12, 2006 in the presence of Supply and Services department staff, the Pickering Fire
Chief, representatives from the various bidders and Laurenoe Cud lip of TSH.
TSH was requested by the City to review the received tenders and prepare this report. Copies of five of
the received tenders were provided to TSH by the City. It was noted by the City in tJ1C package of bids
provided to TSI-I that one of the bidders had not provided the sufficient tendering deposit. This likely
constitutes material non-compliance with the terms of the tender, which would render the bid incapable of
acceptance. In any event, the insufticient tender deposit requires automatic bid rejection, according to
City of Pickering's Purchasing By-Law. This Bid was not provided to TSH for further review..
The City has provided cheoking of all bids received pursuant to their Purchasing By-Law.
The summary of received bids is as follows:
W.S. Moran Construction Ltd.
Garritano Bros. Ltd.
Struct-Con Construction Ltd.
J.J. McGuire General Contractors Inc.
DJ. McRae Contractin Ltd.
Gerr Construction Limited
1,3] 2,890.00
],377,682.00
1,499,034.00
1,4 79, 760.00
],507,] 15.10
I Tender deposit not sufficient
-bid rejected b . Ci
.' ~~~~I,c r\ck:' $, '::~:!
1,300.620.00
1,377,682.00
1.499,033.78
1,479,760.00
1,507,115.10
JUL 17 '06 17:20
91/1r::; F;F;R 1/1::>::>1
PQr:;1= I/\?
JUL-17-2006 MON 04:55 PM TSH
FAX NO. 905 668 0221
P. 03
Expansion to Pickering Fire Services Division Headquarters
July 17,2006
,""1 "" Ei\!T # ~ TO REPORT # CIt::) c27-{)C
/:J") -....- .'1 /"
f' PC;'::: ~ 7Jr :2
183
All Bidders attended the mandatory Site Visit.
An Bidders acknowledged receipt of Addendum no. 1.
AU Bidders included the specified Cash Allowance of $69,000.00
All Bidders included the specified Tender deposit and Surety's Consent letter.
Requested Unit Prices were provided by W.S. Morgan, Strut-Con and DJ. McRae. They were not
complete for Garritano and J.J. McGuire
The tenders of all Bidders were appropriately signed and sealed as required.
The low bid tender was submitted by W.S. Morgan Construction Limited in the amount of $ ],312,890
G.S.T. is included. Following mathematical checking, their corrected bid amount is $ 1,300,620.00 as the
GST had been incorrectly applied at 7% instead of 6%. Otherwise, this tcnder submission was completc
in an respects.
The low bidder neither qualified their tender nor offered any Proposal for Alternatives.
In summary, the tender submitted by W.S. Morgan Construction Ltd is compliant with the requirements
of the Bid Documents.
On the basis that all contractors were pre-qualified and that the accepted tenders which were reviewed in
detail were compliant with the requirements of the Bid Documents, we recommend that the City of
Pickering give consideration to awarding the contract for the Expansion of the Fire Services Division
Headquarters, Contract Number T-14-2006 to W.S. Morgan Construction Ltd. The basis of this
recommendation is the Jow Total Stipulated Price quoted by W.S. Morgan Construction Ltd. corrected to
$1,300,620.00 COST included).
Jf YOll have any questions regarding this Tender Report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
Yours very truly,
TSlI
/!£Jh4
A~aurence Cudlip. B.Arch., OAA
¡ / ~roject Architect
LC/glc
TIM
JUL 17 '06 17:21
905 668 0221
PAGE. 03
184
CitJ¡ c~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTE
Report Number:
OES 29-06
Date: September 11,2006
From:
Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations and Emergency Services
Subject:
No Parking By-law - Park Crescent
- Amendment to By-law 6604/05
- File: A 2130
Recommendations:
1. That Report OES 29-06 regarding a proposed amendment to the municipal
traffic by-law 6604/05 be received; and
2. That the attached draft by-law be enacted to amend Schedule 'B' to By-law
6604/05 to provide for the regulating of parking on highways or parts of highways
under the jurisdiction of the Corporation of the City of Pickering and on private
and municipal property.
Executive Summary: In response to area resident concerns with respect to traffic
flow on Park Crescent and public safety in the general area, staff propose to amend the
existing traffic by-law in order to establish permitted and restricted on-street parking
areas. The by-law amendment if passed would formally establish a 10 space (1
disabled permit only) parking area on the south side of Park Crescent adjacent to Lake
Ontario and the Petticoat Creek Conservation area for daytime use only. The scheme
as proposed would convert the current perpendicular parking to parallel parking thereby
addressing public roadway and resident driveway use conflicts and helping deter
nighttime vandalism and loitering by permitting parking only between 6:00 am and 9:00
pm.
Finanéiallmplications: The acquisition and installation of various no parking signs,
and proposed line painting scheme is estimated to cost approximately $1500 and can
be accommodated within the Roads current budget account 2320-2409.
Background: Recently staff investigated neighbourhood concerns regarding the
difficulties caused by the presence of on-street parking at the west end of Park
Crescent. Given the proximity of both the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area and Lake
Ontario, Park Crescent currently serves as a recognized waterfront access and parking
Report OES 29-06
Subject: Parking By-law Amendment
Date: September 11,2006
Page 2
'1 8-
1.. J
area. Consequently, vehicular traffic and nighttime vandalism / loitering continues to
concern and disrupt area residents.
Therefore, in order to improve area traffic flow, eliminate vehicular conflicts, aid
enforcement and deter night time activities, staff are proposing to implement on-street
parking controls. The amending by-law if passed, will prohibit on-street parking on the
north side of Park Crescent (anytime) and permit on street parking on the south side
only during daylight hours between 6:00 am and 9:00 pm. The Cul-de-sac (bulb) portion
of Park Crescent is currently and would remain parking prohibited to allow for vehicular
turn around.
To further improve area use, staff have generated a parallel parking scheme which
formally recognizes the existing public roadway use as a staging area for both
waterfront access and the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area. The scheme creates a
10 space (1 disabled permit only) parking area via regulatory signs and pavement
markings thereby providing enforcement capabilities which benefits the public, the
municipality and adjacent residents. A copy of the parking scheme is attached.
If approved, this by-law must receive regular enforcement to be effective.
Attachments:
1.
2.
Parking scheme diagram
Draft By-law Amendments
/
~red By
.,(.p-. Mike Pelzowski, CET
{J Coordinator, Traffic Operations
MP
Attachments
18G
Report OES 29-06
Subject: Parking By-law Amendment
Date: September 11, 2006
Page 3
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Manager, By-law Services
Superintendent, Municipal Operations
Coordinator, Traffic operations
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering ci Council
p
M
OPERATIONS & EMERGENCY
SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MUNICIPAl PROPERTY &
ENGINEERING DIYISION
DRAINN DATE:
N,T,S, August 14, 2006
Attachment #1 to Report OES 29-06
1 of 1
On-street Parking Scheme
PARK CRESCENT
0.'\2006 OES Records\O-2400 Traffic\O-2400-001·05 Concems\Pork. Cre5 parking\On streef parking SCheme,cdr
~8"'j
!:.. t
LEGEND
New
Sched.2
By'-Law
Aéfdition
No Parking
north side
Park Cres.
from
Cliffview Rd
to the
west limit
anytime
No Parking
south side
Park Cres.
from 20m
west of
Cliffview Rd
to the west
limit
9:00pm to
6:00am
Existing
General
Provision
No Parking
Section 15
(a)
within the
turning circle
of a
Cul-de-sac
(b)
within 15
metres of the
end of the
roadway on
a dead end
road
Proposed
sign 1-.
Existing
Hp/Lp ()
183
Attachment #2 to Report OES 29-06
1 of2
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO. /06
Being a By-law to amend By-law 6604/05
providing for the regulating of parking,
standing and stopping on highways or parts
of highways under the jurisdiction of the City
of Pickering and on private and municipal
property.
WHEREAS, By-law 6604/05, as amended, provides for the regulating of parking,
standing and stopping on highways or parts of highways under the jurisdiction of the
City of Pickering and on private and municipal property; and
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend By-law 6604/05 to establish "no parking"
zones along Park Crescent.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. Schedule 2 to By-Law 6604/05, as amended, is hereby further amended thereto
by the following:
SCHEDULE 2
NO PARKING
COLUMN 1 COLUMN 2 COLUMN 3 COLUMN 4
HIGHWAY SIDE LIMITS (FROM/TO) PROHIBITED TIMES
OR DAYS
ADD
Park Crescent North Cliffview Road to Anytime
the west limit
Park Crescent South 20m west of Cliffview
Road to the west limit 9:00 pm to 6:00 am
Attachment #2 to Report OES 29-06
20f2
2. This By-Law shall come into force on the date that it is approved by the Council
of The City of Pickering and when signs to the effect are erected.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this
2006.
day of
David Ryan, Mayor
Debi Bentley, City Clerk
~ 8· :-
-*- ~J
'1 "()
Y. .) -
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 30-06
Date: September 11, 2006
From:
Everett Buntsma
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Subject:
Tender T-7-2006 - Helen Crescent, Brands Court, Trellis Court
- Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works
- File: A-2130
Recommendation:
1. That Report OES-30-06 regarding Helen Crescent, Brands Court, Trellis Court
Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works be received;
2. That portion of Tender T-7-2006 submitted by Hollingworth Construction
Company for Helen Crescent and Brands Court excluding (Trellis Court) Road
Reconstruction and Watermain Works at a cost of $372,022 plus GST be
accepted;
3. That the total gross project cost of $ 644,684.96 (plus GST) including the tender
amount, the Region of Durham's portion and other associated costs and a net
total cost of $375,000.00 after recoveries identified in this report be approved;
4. That Council authorize the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer to finance
the project through the issuance of debentures through the Region of Durham;
(a) debt financing not exceeding the amount of $310,000 for a period not
exceeding 10 years, at a rate to be determined;
(b) annual repayment charges in the amount of approximately $42,000 be
included in the annual Current Budget for the City of Pickering
commencing in 2007 continuing thereafter until the loan is repaid; and any
financing cost be paid out of the 2006 Current Budget;
(c) the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has certified that this loan
and the repayment thereof falls within the City's Debt Financial
Obligations approved Annual Repayment Limit for debt and other financial
obligations for 2006 as established by the Province for municipalities in
Ontario;
(d) the Treasurer is authorized to take any actions necessary in order to
effect the foregoing;
J 91
Report OES 30-06
September 11, 2006
Subject: Tender T-72006
Tender for Helen CrescenUBrands Court/Trellis Court
Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works
Page 2
5. That the appropriate City of Pickering officials be authorized to take necessary
action to give effect thereto.
Executive Summary: As part of the 2006 Roads Capital Budget, Helen Crescent,
Brands Court and Trellis Court Road Reconstruction was approved as a construction
project. Tender T-7-2006 was issued on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 and closed on
Wednesday, August 16, 2006 with four (4) bidders responding. The total cost of the
tender and other costs for the City's portion of the work is $469,181.50 and the 2006
Budget provided $375,000 in funding. By removing Trellis Court ($73,159.25) and
utilizing the project administration fee ($21,324.45) from the Region for their portion of
the work. The City cost is reduced to the $375,000 available funding. Presently there
exists a current trend of high pricing in the construction industry which is related to the
fast rising cost of petroleum products such as asphalt cement. In order to bring this
project within budget staff are recommending that we defer the works proposed on
Trellis Court for 2007 budget submissions for Council consideration. Staff also
recommend the use of the approved 2006 Tax Levy funds from Trellis Court in the
amount of $65,000 to offset the cost of Helen Crescent and Brands Court. These
projects also include Region of Durham watermain works. The total revised project cost
is estimated to be $644,684.96 with a portion to be recovered from the Region of
Durham for an estimated net cost to the City of $375,000 (net of GST rebate).
The City's purchasing policy requires staff to report to Council on results of the tender
and financing in order to proceed with this project in a timely manner.
Financial Implications:
1.
TENDER AMOUNT
T-7-2006
Less Trellis Court
GST
Sub-Total
GST Rebate
Total
$658,426.00
73.159.25
585,266.75
35.116.01
620,382.76
(35.116.01)
$585,266.75
·~ 9o
. .
-- ..
Report DES 30-06
Subject: Tender T-72006
Tender for Helen Crescent/Brands Court/Trellis Court
Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works
September 11, 2006
Page 3
2.
APPROVED SOURCE OF FUNDS
Roads Ca ital Bud et
Location Project Code
Helen Crescent 06-2320-008-09
Brands Court 06-2320-008-06
Trellis Court 06-2320-008-03
Source of Funds
Debt (10 Year)
Debt (10 Year)
Property Taxes)
FUNDS AVAILABLE
3.
ESTIMATED PROJECT COSTING SUMMARY
T-7-2006 - Tender for Helen Crescent, Brands Court, Trellis
Court Road Reconstruction and watermain Works
City of Pickering Portion
Section 1, City Excavation / Removals And Roadworks
Minus Trellis Court Value of Works
Revised City Portion
Region of Durham Portion
Section 2, Region Watermain and Appurtenances / Valves
Section 3, Region Hydrants / Services / Test Points
Total T-7-2006 - Revised
GST
Associated Costs
Materials Testing
Miscellaneous Costs
Construction Contingency
Total Gross Project Cost
Recoveries to be received from the Region of Durham for
Contract Administration & field Inspection for their portion of
this tender (10% of their contract value)
GST Rebate
I Less - Recovery from Region of Durham
I
Budqet
130,000
180,000
65000
375,000
Required
130,000
180,000
65,000
375,000
$445,181.50
73,159.25
372,022.25
$105,492.00
107,752.50
$585,266.75
35,116.01
620,382.76
2,500.00
1,500.00
20,320.20
$644,684.96
($21,324.45)
(35,116.01)
($213,244.50
$269,684.96
193
Report OES 30-06
September 11, 2006
Subject: Tender T-72006
Tender for Helen Crescent/Brands Court/Trellis Court
Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works
Page 4
Total Net City of Pickering Project Cost
$375,000.00
4.
Project Cost under (over) Approved Funds
$(0)
The Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer has reviewed the budgetary implications
and the financing of the expenditures contained in this report and concurs.
Background: As part of the Roads Capital 2006 Budget, Helen Crescent, Brands
Court and Trellis Court Road Reconstruction was identified as a construction project.
Tender T-7-2006 was issued on Wednesday, July 26,2006 and closed on Wednesday,
August 16, 2006 with four bidders (4) bidders responding. In order to bring this project
within budget, staff are recommending that we defer the works proposed on Trellis
Court for 2007 budget submissions for Council consideration. Staff also recommend
the use of the approved 2006 Tax Levy funds from Trellis Court in the amount of
$65,000 to offset the cost of Helen Crescent and Brands Court. The total gross project
cost is estimated to be $644,684.96 for an estimated net cost to the City of $375,000
(net of GST rebate). Hollingworth Construction Company references have been
checked and are deemed acceptable by the Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works.
The Health & Safety Policy, current Cost and Frequency Record, Certificate of
Clearance issued by Workplace Safety & Insurance Board, and Certificate of Insurance
as submitted by Hollingworth Construction Company have been reviewed by the
(Acting) Coordinator, Safety & Employee Development and are deemed acceptable. In
conjunction with staff's review of the contractor's previous work experience and the
bonding available on this project, the tender is deemed acceptable.
Upon careful examination of all quotations, and relevant documents received, the
Operations & Emergency Services Department, Municipal Property & Engineering
Division recommends the acceptance of the low bid submitted by Hollingworth
Construction Company for Tender T-7-2006 in the amount of $620,382.76 (GST
included) excluding the works proposed for Trellis Court and that the total net project
cost of $375,000 be approved.
<j 9 If
1 If
Report OES 30-06
September 11, 2006
Subject: Tender T -72006
Tender for Helen Crescent/Brands Court/Trellis Court
Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works
Page 5
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Supply & Services Memorandum
3. Record of Tenders Opened and Checked
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
Evere unts
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
rfRichafi . Holbo ,P. Eng.
/'. Division Head
(. Municipal Property & Engineering
. ~--~~ -7-, _
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
DS:nw
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering ci ou
"
t
T
/\CHMENT#_L, REPORT# ðES ?O-O(o
1.01_",.1-
19-
.1 ~)
MUNICIPAL PROPERTY & ENGINEERING
Attachment For Tender T -7-2006
Brands Court, Trellis Court & Helen Crescent
~l' 0
rr ;u
u f'1
(I)
o
f'1
'5
w
-'
«
a
z
w
-'
(j
~ \ ¡-CRES .~>~y \ ~~IELD
æ:::J ì§ ROAD
~ i /~.j0l!J ... ROAD
29 L-J ( "
\.
¿
a:
«
u.
w
~
'"
a
~
BRANDS CRT.
~I
~l
j
ROAD _~_._
---~-_..~
~ - 611 ~\" // //
a ~IL \)"-./ /,'
w 5 //
~ 2 ~~/ O(
Z -.J / ~0 \ / ~1.<
w /,\"0.0 / <11.-
o '1-\ // 1.<<1
w
>
o
rr
ü
z
I~
-'
Ü
/
/
COURT
--- ~:--- rj_!~ J GAYLY L-l_!] ~?:r~E~T
:~~~.~~/~.t:J:~~~.~. ; C'>">;^~~";;;~':'I.===:ì~. - 't-\ l\) \\. ~-.··.···~.)ìnì I ~- ,-,
,-i I' . I ~ ~ lANE I '_ TATR^ L':"~_f)~'''~ _~ \"'0\ \ \ / U 0
~r,jj t / rn I. r - [..------1 r,~~D~~--:;j ~\ \~-í)R.tfll ~
~ ^1¡ . ~ . ~ i I I~::! ~1DJ ~ ..~- ···~0~\\; . I
SiJBJE.c.'.1'-c'(,. ::_.f..-.~~R E._~~~I.', 'I' ! I~ I. ~ :;;!~¥J l-.l .. ~\\~\. .\\~ % I
AFŒA /1 '0'! ! I ·I~ l:n . ~ \ ~G" 1
" II Ie? 1 ! I 'I 1m: o-L--~E ( ) I \ ¿PI- I
rh~··~~.~;) ~I F~~í )..T!l ~ l~\:~J-:~_/\\\~\ \~\ '. j
) ) I ~ /~.Q / "II 'j 'I" '\~:--- '\ \ ~l \~
J r--l! ..) - l'~ \9 i u m q r---- ~ \ 0 - c
, '~? 0'( '(( ,u i 0 \ 0 j (~ AI_ \ !:-
_J// / I ~ ('~0 </ ',~ II~ -'I (.j I,> ì 1m \. j, ~~ONvY~N\ . ì<
-7 - /'1 ~,i "'rl;' li7 ~ \ \\~ \ ~ \ n,",·, \II~I
(~, ~ ~ (f--- ~! L.YJ L"~'c~':J :!~--==iL . ·i~\\øì\" \ \'1, \I¡ \=~~~' ~
\..f"L ~:J_: «: 5¡ " ""~~ _ \ \'~\\"Y ~1 ~ j-_~__. V)
"_.J ~" " Oi. . Î'::::,i-" ['1 f, \'\' '{- J ,,' 'r ".ST!
l ~ ~.: ¡ i __ _ _ ------ I ">~,s' ~n M \ \ \. (~._-- 2! I
~J~ - ~I \ I f-·-"-ÃVEN-~-F ~ _ ~<~~., 7. \ '---'. f1i i ¡'~\
C~~ll ,~rtSrMONICê;~;(~ i>UI3i¡0: ¡-J--:~::~~}~~IL~~SH} Pc. I~ ~'\
,- L ----------.. ~ - __ _ 't3ALATON AVE:NU¡:: I
LOCATION MAP
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES:
Proposed works to include storm sewer improvements, Regional
watermain improvements & Road Reconstruction (granular base,
asphalt, and curb/gutter).
-"
...--
9- ,-,
1_ 0
ATTACHMENT#_~ TOREPORT# O£S 3ö-oG:,
J 0' _, L
CORPORATE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
August 18,2006
To: Richard Holborn
Division Head
Municipal Property & Engineering
Darrell Selsky
Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works
From:
Barbara Tran
Buyer
Subject:
Tender No. T -7 -2006
Tender for Helen Crescent / Brands Court I Trellis Court
Road Reconstruction and Watermain Works
CLOSING: Wednesday, August 16, 2006, before 2:00 pm
Tenders have been received for the ,above project. A total of 12 companies
were invited to participate of which 12 companies picked up tendering
packages for a non-refundable fee of $50.00 per set. Four (4) bidders
responded and submitted a tender for this project.
An advertisement was placed in the Daily Commercial News, News Advertiser
and on the City's Website. A copy of the Record of Tenders Opened and
Checked used at the public tender opening is attached. Tenders shall be
irrevocable for 60 days after the official closing date and time.
Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item 10.03 (r) provides checking
tendered unit prices and extensions; unit prices shall govern and extensions
will be corrected accordingly, which has been done.
All deposits other than the low three bidders may be returned to the applicable
bidders as provided for by Purchasing Procedure No. PUR 010-001, Item
10.03(w). Therefore, the tenders of the low three (3) bidders are attached for
review.
t~
~ \"0 REPORT#
<) "" , "!:II
",...~,,,,,"(;,,,.~.<-;...,-~.
QES 50-06
August 18,2006
Page 2
j tì7
..... \)
Richard Holborn
Darrell Selsky
Summary
(PST included, GST included)
Bidder Total Tendered After Calculation
Amount $ Check $
616183 Ontario Inc. o/a 697,931.56 697,931.56
Hollinqworth Const. Co.
Montgomery MacEwen 785,235.15 787,575.63
Contracting
Elirpa Construction & Materials 797,089.22 797,089.22
Ltd.
Dig-Con International Limited 799,271.20 799,324.22
Pursuant to Information to Bidders Item 21, the following are being requested of the low
bidder for your review during the evaluation stage of this tender call:
(a) a copy of the Confined Space Entry Procedure document to be used on this
project;
(b) a list of employees trained in the Confined Space Entry Procedure who will be
working on this project
(c) a copy of the Health and Safety Policy to be used on this project;
(d) a copy of the current Cost and Frequency Report issued by Workplace Safety &
Insurance Board (in lieu of the Cost and Frequency document, a copy of the
current CAD 7, NEER, or MAP reports may be submitted);
(e) a copy of the current Certificate of Clearance issued by Workplace Safety &
Insurance Board;
(f) the City's certificate of insurance shall be completed by the bidder's agent, broker
or insurer;
Please review the copies of the bids. Include the following items in your Report to
Council:
(a) if items (a) through (f) noted above, are acceptable to the Safety & Training Co-
ordinator;
(b) any past work experience 616183 Ontario Inc. o/a Hollingworth Const. Co.
including work location;
(c) without past work experience, if reference information is acceptable;
(d) the appropriate account number(s) to which this work is to be charged;
(e) the budget amount(s) assigned thereto;
(f) Treasurer's confirmation of funding;
(g) related departmental approvals;
(h) any reason(s) why the low bid of 616183 Ontario Inc. o/a Hollingworth Const. Co.
is not acceptable; and
(i) related comments specific to the project.
~~'~::::..'.
198
Richard Holborn
Darrell Selsky
1+_.¿ TOREPoRr#~.) 30-0(0
:3 01 - 3 August 18, 2006
Page 3
If you require further information, please feel free to contact me.
CÑ~
Barbara Tran
/bt
Attachments
Copy for: Director, Operations & Emergency Services
~~??~',-:y;r:VJil,ç'}::~M~'~#
:«.O~~'.~,4~".:-·
o
w
~
Ü
W
J:
Ü
o
z
(!)«
ZO
-W
C:::z
Ww
~a..
Üo
a..
LL.C/)
off]
~O
_Z
üW
l-
LL.
o
o
C:::
o
Ü
W
C:::
E
a.
LO
.....
N
x
e
a.
a.
«
Qj
E
¡::
(C
o
o
N
cD
.....
-
rn
::¡
0)
::¡
«
>.
CtI
"
en
( ,)
c
"
( ,)
~
~
ns
C
ATIACHMENT#.__.:?,. TOREPORT# OéS Þ-o<,
..-1-.ot I
,
19B
CI)
I-
Z
W
:æ
:æ
o
o
~
Z
C)
èñ
CI)
õ:
w
c
c
iD
"',
. ~..-,.
.. ~~~
c t\1~~~
::s
0
(C ~ ~i~\¡\
0
0
N "
I GI ~ ~~ ...
"- ~ ' ø
I GI £
I- " ~ \()
c 0
0 GI
I- ('~~~
Z -æ
... Õ
( ,) I- ~~~ ~
'tJ
c
~
en
.::,(.
...
o
~
c
'm
...;E
Ü'"
rn2
=CtI
ã)~
Ë"
.s:::
-CtI
Üc
en 0
" :¡:¡
CU
e!2
ca-
_en
.C
en 0
~ U
ü&
c"
~CtI
( ,) 0
:r:cr::
ë
0
;:
C-
.;:
to)
1/1
( ,) GI
C E
... CQ
Z
( ,) ~
" GI
C "
( ,) "
I- m
"
c
o
!XI
o
....
....
C
GI
E
GI
~
:
~
....
ïii
o
c.
GI
C
"
m
~
0> U
,;;
rJJ t) .g
~ c:i ~ "C
a; u ë Q
c
-ò 1ií c 0 Q
u c.
:::¡ :¡;: ,2 0
ïii t) c: f!!
oð C])
c: :J :: C])
c: -= "C
0 .12 rJJ UJ c
:æ c <.) .S!
c: t) 0 ro
.... 2 u :¡;: Õ
C]) 1ií .c ~ "E!
:5 c 1:: 0
c 0 ~ E <.)
0 u C> 0 ~
U ro ,§ C> f!!
Ô1 .g- ë Q
is õ 0 "C
¡¡:¡ c
J: :¡;: .S!
.:..;
~¡\ <"""7)
· ,')
¡.. "'ribl o~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: OES 31-06
Date: September 11,2006
From:
Stephen Reynolds
Division Head, Culture & Recreation
Subject:
Glendale Tennis Club
- Ontario Trillium Foundation Grant Application Requirement
Lease Agreement
File: A-2130-001-06
Recommendation:
1. That Report OES 31-06 be received by Council, and;
2. That Council acknowledges to the Ontario Trillium Foundation that the Glendale
Tennis Club Project for upgrading existing tennis facilities will be permitted at
David Farr Memorial Park, and;
3. That the Mayor and the Clerk be authorized to execute a lease agreement to
permit the newly incorporated Glendale Tennis Club the use of the Tennis
Facilities for club purposes at David Farr Memorial Park from October 1, 2006 to
September 21, 2012 that is in the form and substance acceptable to the Director,
Operations & Emergency Services and the City Solicitor.
Executive Summary:
The Glendale Tennis Club is preparing an Ontario Trillium Foundation Grant Application
for funding to upgrade existing tennis facilities at David Farr Memorial Park with new
fencing, practice pad, patio area, walkways and improved lighting.
One of the conditions of the grant requires the Glendale Tennis Club to enter into a 5-
year lease agreement with the City of Pickering for use of these tennis facilities.
The Operations & Emergency Services Department recommends that a lease
agreement be initiated with the new incorporated Glendale Tennis Club.
Financial Implications:
2006-2007 The Glendale Tennis will be applying for a $75,000 grant from the
Ontario Trillium Foundation
Ciú¡ 0#
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
',' ,) 3"
;"", \.
Report Number: CS 27-06
Date: September 11 , 2006
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Confirmation of Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2006
Recommendation:
1. It is recommended that Report CS 27-06 of the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer be received and forwarded to Council for information.
Executive Summary:
Not applicable
Financial Implications: The purchase of Comprehensive Crime Insurance is
approved by Council each year at the time of renewal on June 30. The cost is included
in the City's Annual Current Budget.
Background: Under the Municipal Act, S.D. 2001, as amended, it is directed that
the following information be reported to Council.
Section 287 of the Municipal Act, S.D. 2001, as amended, states in part:
"( 1) Bonding requirement. - A municipality may require its treasurer, deputy
treasurer and any other person designated by the municipality, as a
condition of acting or continuing to act on behalf of the municipality,
(a) to be bonded in the manner and to the extent designated by the
municipality; and
(b) to provide the municipality with proof of the designated bonding at the
times and in the manner the municipality requires.
(2) Interpretation. - For the purposes of subsection (1), a person is bonded ~f
there exists a bond, policy or guarantee contract which protects the
municipality in the manner and to the extent designated by the
municipality ~f the person does not faithfully perform his or her duties.
',1 I) .J.;
t'. \. Report CS 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2006
Page 2
(3) Proof of bonding. - The council of a municipality shall require proof of the
designated bonding to be produced for all persons who are required to be
bonded under this section,
(a) at a council meeting at least once each calendar year; and
(b) with respect to a person who is newly appointed, at the jïrst council
meeting following the appointment.
(4) Costs. - The municipality shall pay the costs of the required bonding out of
its general fund.
(5) Other entities. - This section applies with necessary modijïcations to a local
board and a board, body or local authority established or exercising any
power or authority "l-vith respect to municipal affairs under any Act in
unorganized territory, other than a school board. "
The policy covers all employees, elected officials and Council appointees of the City of
Pickering and the Public Library Board to the limits indicated below. The coverage
includes bond, burglary, monetary loss, money orders and depositors forgery. This
bond insures the loss of money, securities and other property sustained through the
fraudulent or dishonest acts of any of the City's employees, members of Council,
Members of all Boards, Commissions and Committees appointed by and under the
jurisdiction of Council.
· Commercial blanket bond, including money orders, counterfeit paper, currency
and depositors forgery - $2,000,000 limit
· Broad form money and securities - $100,000 limit
· Excess coverage on securities - $100,000
· Broad form money and securities insures the loss of monies and securities
sustained by the City by the actual destruction, disappearance or wrongful
abstraction thereof.
In addition, the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer, Manager, Accounting
Services and Manager, Finance & Taxation, when acting with respect to any agency or
board are bonded in the same amount and manner as when acting in the capacity of
officers of the City of Pickering.
This report confirms that the above mentioned coverage with a limit of $2,000,000 is
currently in place with The Guarantee Company of North America and Lombard
General Insurance Company of Canada for the period July 1, 2005 to July 1, 2006,
inclusive at a premium of $5,630 plus applicable taxes. The terms, conditions are
unchanged from previous terms and premiums are unchanged.
Report CS 27-06
Date: September 11, 2006
'.J .0' .~
#'6 U
Comprehensive Crime Insurance for 2006
Page 3
Attachments: Not applicable
Prepared I Approved / Endorsed By:
~ /-*~
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
GAP:vw
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Cou cil
./ ~ ~
/
"
=< V06'
;:.~OH
Ciú¡ o~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 44-06
Date: September 11, 2006
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Cash Position Report as at June 30,2006
Recommendation:
It is recommended that report CS 44-06 from the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer be received for information.
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
June 30,2006.
Financial Implications: The cash position of the Corporation for three months
ended June 30, 2006 was a net decrease in cash of $1,418,463 to $3,879,809.
Sources of Funds totalled $51,923,184 and Use of Funds totalled $53,341,647.
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 second quarter of 2006. Subcategories have been identified to highlight those cash
transactions that are significant in nature or large dollar value transactions for the City
of Pickering. This schedule summarizes the decrease in cash of $1,418,463 over last
quarter. Year to year periodical comparisons may not be useful due to timing.
Continuity of Taxes Receivable: Attachment 2 summarizes the tax related transactions
from April 1 to June 30, 2006 and provides the outstanding taxes receivable as at June
30, 2006. This balance represents all three levels of taxes billed, such as City, Region
and School Boards. Taxes receivable are relatively high as taxes due on July ih are
reflected as a receivable 21 days before the actual due date. 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 44-06
Date: September 11, 2006
!) I) "
{" ~
Subject: Cash Position Report as at June 30, 2006
Page 2
Outstandinq Investments: Attachment 3 reflects the short-term and long-term
investments for both the Current Fund and the Reserve Funds outstanding as at June
30, 2006. There has been a steady increase in investments over the past few years,
approximately $9 million higher than one year ago. This is primarily a result of using
funds that are on hand due to pending assessment appeal and timing of collection and
remittance of development charges.
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 $1,700,766 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.
Other Development Contributions: Attachment 5 is provided to show other significant
development contributions that have been received.
Attachments:
1 . Statement of Cash Position
2. Continuity of Taxes Receivable
3. Outstanding Investments
4. Statement of Development Charges Collected
5. Other Development Contributions
6. City Portion of Development Charges Collected 2003 - June 30, 2006
7. Building Permits Issued 2000 - June 30, 2006
8. City Portion of Development Charges Collected 1991-2005
')OR
1_.. _ u
Report CS 44-06
Date: September 11 , 2006
Subject: Cash Position Report as at June 30,2006
Page 3
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
c--?~">
Avril Payne
Audit Analyst
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
:ap
Attachments
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City Council
~ 4
;;
,-
f1ACHMENT#_L TOREPORT#Q41 'o¿' '.Il) 0
¡.~ \ "I
City of Pickering
Cash Position Statement
for three months ending June 30, 2006
Sources of Funds:
Accounts Receivable collected $ 206,843
Development charges collected 1,700,766
Operating 12,995,966
Grants-in-lieu:
Federal 358,014
Provincial -
Ontario enterprises 1 ,684,745
Municipal enterprises 320,653
Linear Properties -
Federal specific grants 3,173
Ontario specific grants 7,596
Interest Income 524,146
Sale of land -
Tax payments received 34,121,282
POA Revenue -
Total $ 51,923,184
Use of Funds:
Operating and Capital Expenditures $ 15,674,529
Payroll 8,186,402
Region Levy 17,430,260
Regional portion of Dev. Charges 1,432,222
School Board Levies 10,394,718
School Board portion of Dev. Charges 104,895
Debenture payment to Region 118,621
APTA Funding -
Total $ 53,341,647
Net Cash Increase (Decrease) $ (1,418,463)
FINANCIAL POSITION
Bank Balance Net Cash Bank Balance
April 1 , 2006 Provided (Used) June 30, 2006
Current Fund $ 5,298,272 $ (1,418,463) $ 3,879,809
TOTAL $ 5,298,272 $ (1,418,463) $ 3,879,809
Note: Includes City, Region and School Boards
Cash Position second quarter 2006.xlsNET CHANGES
¡. to
0') .! co
e: .c 0
'C 0
cu N
Q) .~
~
.~ Q) Ô
U M
Q. Q)
.... ~ Q)
0 (/) e:
~ ='
Q) ~
=:: ><
() CU C)
l- e:
.-
.... "0
0 e:
~ Q)
=:: (/)
=' .c:
e: -
+i e:
e: 0
0 E
() Q)
Q)
~
.c:
-
~
.e
i....TTAC ~
..- <.0 "" """ """ C") N 0 CD
""" C") N <.0 ..- "" 0 0 In
q q "". """. ..- ..- 0""" CIO
<Ø G) 0> L() N ..- C") C'"i c.!ioo a)
00 0 0 N 00 N ""'00 In
S2 12 L() ..- <'1 C") <.0. N OO.N C")
0 ns ..- C") ..- ..- a)
C") > Cß- L() In
G) '3)
C CJ
:s G)
"") 0::
-- - ..-.. - - -- -
"tJ <.0 0> C") """ <.0 00 NOO ....
II) 00 N C") 0 <.0 0> <.0 00 <Ø
C .... N. 00 ""'. C") "'" C"l ""'<.0 CIO
ns C <.0 C") 00 ~ Ñ "'" ~a) u)
II) G) """ 0> 00 N C") "" ""'L() <Ø
- E "': - L() ..- N - ..- - 0
C - Cß- - ....... - - ~
G) II) N
E :s C") ~
~ -
>-
ns
Q,
- :;;¡:- - - -
..- "" 0> 'r""
~ 00 L() C") 0 CIO
..- """. <'1 N 'r""
0 - ...:
>< N M ..-
ns G) Cß- M ..- - "'"
I- - - ..- 'r""
.¡: - -
;:
0
~ "tJ
nI
- ~
C
G) iñ
E II) Cß-
G)
õ.. G)
><
a. nI
:s l-
e/)
00 CIO
0
0 'r""
..- a)
II) "tJ 0>
G) .!! 0 0
>< Cß- 'r""
ns ..- N
iñ Ñ
I- L() It)
"tJ M "" <.0 0> "'"
"tJ G) <.0 00 <.0 ..- C")
C "tJ <.0 q L() "'" ....
nI ~ t.Ô ..- ..- t.Ô M
~ f'-. L() <.0 "'" C")
.... Cß- ..- ..- "'"
ñi II)
c G)
s-
G) G)
Q, ....
.5
0 M """ ..- "" L() MO> N
0 ..- ..-
<Ø G) M. 0 ~ 00 0>. 0 "" <.0 <Ø
12 N <.0. 0 <.0<.0 q
0 0> ri """ <.0 c.!i OÑ
- ns L() 0 "" ..- 'r""
'r"" > N. N 0 0> 0> M 0>0 C")
M '3) Cß- ~ N N qC") q
s- N ..-
ns CJ M ..- 'r""
:e G) "'"
0::
- -<-' - -<-'
I/) I/) I/) I/)
Q) Q) Q) Q)
.... .... .... ....
Q) Q) Q) Q)
-<-' -<-' - -
.s .s c c
-0 -0 -0 -0
.... C C C C
(IJ (IJ (IJ CO I/) (IJ
Q) þ þ þ .... þ
>- (IJ
-<-' I/) ïü I/) ïü I/) ïü Q) I/) ïü <l
c: Q) c: Q) c: Q) c >- Q) c
~ X Q) LO X Q) '<t X Q) .... X Q)
.... (IJ D- O CO D- O CO D- O ~ D- I-
:J I- 0 I- 0 I- ï:: 0
0 N N D- I-
MENT#-2- TO REPORT#Q:..i~h;)&
s-
G)
"tJ
C
:s
II)
-
c
G)
E
-
II)
:s
.....
"tJ
ns
"tJ
G)
>
0
s-
a.
a.
ns
'u
<Ø <Ø C
0 0 :s
O<Ø0 0
NoN 0
~ 0 ~ "tJ
f'-.Nf'-.
N ~N C
=¡:re=¡: ns
II)
a.s-a. c
M «G)« 0
f'-. oðJ:loð ëñ
.n .....E..... 'u
It) N'sN G)
CIO ~g.~ c
&ri' 'E
0 nse/)nI
<'l 2oð2 ns
'r"" J:I....J:I 0
N to
'r"" G) >- ¡f ~
Cß- L&._
_:s - G)
II) E"") .§ '>
'E .-........ .... G)
ns æñiS 0::
0 ë.s c -
m _L&.::::' c
-- G)
Õ .:.:.:.:¡;j E
0 nI ns .- II)
.c .- .- CJ II)
--s- G)
CJ C C G) II)
e/) G)G)E ~
"tJ "tJ"tJ
C ëñëñE ~
ns G) G) 0 ~
C 0::0::0 Z C
0 G)-
's, Eg
Q) .!!N
0:: _ ft
- ....
OJ ~~
C iñ
=ä --
Q) o n:s
:s - II) .a-
u iñ n:s
"tJ Q) CJ
.S Q) .... .-
.... G) :s c
<Ø n:s :s C ::J
0 -0 "tJ .- :e
0 Q) >< ~ Q)
N :s n:s
C "tJ I- 1I).c
....-
- ~ CJ-
"tJ C Q) 0
Q) Q) n:s ¡¡:CIO
'> § -
C Q)1t)
Q) ¡;j Q) s-C")
..J .... E ~oð
II) II) Q)
Q) C õ.. 0.....
>< It)
ns >< a. SM
I- n:s :J .¡: c
ñi l- (/) 3:.2
- <Ø <Ø ....
0 0 0 >< CJ
I- 0 0 n:s G)
N N I-(/)
œ,æ
.= c
~ ( )
~ E
u -
.- III
0.. ( )
.... >
o .5
~œ
.- c
o .-
"C
C
CIS
-
III
-
:::I
o
CD
o
o
N
Ò
M
( )
C
:::I
'"')
-
CIS
III
CIS
1û~
CÞ"¡:
:I :I
¡¡1û
>:E
1/1
>-
caf/)
0-
_0
o
'II:
.... QI
1/1-
QI.Q
... ca
s>-
c ca
_a..
l~
._ :I
U 0
.5 E
0:<
....
1/1 QI
fãí
Sa::
.E
~
"¡: .s
:I ca
1ûo
:E
QI
1/1
ca QI
,C....
U ca
...0
:I
a..
_c
ca 0
"t:) ;3
C :I
C\'I:!:::
c....
._ 1/1
LL.E
õ~
CÞo¡:
E ~
ca QI
Zf/)
00000000
00000000
c::ic::ic::ic::ic::ic::ic::ic::i
00000000
00000000
"":aiaiaiaiöÑai
I'--<DMOOIO'<tNIO
00 <DO...... 001'--00
riri«ilI'iriririr--:
~~a;¡g¡e~~a;
...... ............
(O'<t'<tOO<DOON
MOI'--ONO......(O
¡--:cri<ÓC'\Ïc::i~<Ó~
O>M......N......OOO'<t
NOOIOOIO'<t(O
ö«iail'---aiör--:....:
I'--MM'<tIO'<tMOO
'<t<D<DN'<tOOOO
(00)''1 0> 1'--0 0> M
C'\Ïc::il"i¡--:cri<ól"iLt'Ï
O<D 00 1'--00...... 0> LO
1'--000>'<t0>'<tIOM
öriaiöaiai«i<ó
OMO>'<tO>O>OOI'--
OO<D 0>...... 0> 0> <D I'--
riririlI'iÑÑrir--:
?fl.?ft?ft.?ft.'#.'#.?ft.~
OO~C\lT'""LONr-
0>000>0>00>......"1
1"i1"i1"i1"i~1"i~~
(o<D <D<D<D<D <D<D
00000000
I I I I I I I I
5}~ g>g>~ 5}5}5}
U?JJ 4= 4= "tU?U?U?
OONO>MMI'--O>
"I 000......0"1
<D<D<D<D<D<D<D(o
00000000
I I I I I I I I
'-'->'>.>.>.cc
co Q..co co co CO::J::J
:24=:2:2:2:2"
~c.ol I I 'd>o
C")o8~~~oCt)
;¡§;¡§ ;¡§
~ ~ ~
.I!! Z Z Z
cc:(;¡§ ;¡§c:(c:(c:(;¡§
QlCCI-c:(I-CCCCcc -
.süwccU)üU)üU)
f/)I- I/ICC~C~!;Qz!;Q~
~a::LLI-LLüCCÜLL
Bj .E
:E "
I- C
f/) :I
W LL
> QI
~ ~ 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1
QI C C C C C C C C
~ 0 '- '- '- '- '- '- '- "-
a:: &!~~ci5t~~~~~
~ o¡sE.EEEEEEE
I- ~.g.g.g.g.g.g.g.g
a:: QI ø ø ø ø ø ø ø ø
o tZZZZZZZZ
:t :I
f/) 0
CI
CI
o
CI
CI
t
..¡
C")
~
CI
N
o
N
II)
rÞ
CI
.....
~
CI
eo
g)
....
.....
iii'
C")
CI
..¡
C")
~
f/)
I-
Z
w
:E
l-
f/)
W
>
~
:E
a::
w
l-
I-
0::
o
:t
f/)
..J
~
o
I-
f/)
I-
Z
w
:E
l-
f/)
W
>
~
:E
a::
w
l-
e!
Z
o
..J
0000
0000
c::ic::ic::ic::i
0000
0000
öölI'iri
IOOOMO>
"I 10_ M_
...... ......
~
~ rororo
ü 1-1-1-
w a.. a.. a..
O~~~~
cð~cðcðcð
[:::¡¡::: 00 00 00
ZNa::a::o::
::>øc:(c:(c:(
::;'5555
...J3...J..J...J
c:(z-c:(c:(c:(
::> .;:: ::> ::> ::>
z::Jzzz
z1iÎzzz
4=:24=4=4=
:Ë~:Ë:Ë:Ë
w:!::www
U)'::U)U)U)
0000
000>"1
c::icöc::i"
O......I'--<D
0.....00>
öaiairi
101'--'<t0>
"I IO_~
...... ......
~
?ft.?ft.'èf!.?ft.
0000
00 10 10 10
I"il"il"il"i
M<D<D<D
......000
I I I
CQ..Q..Q..
::J ø ø ø
,U)U)U)
I 1 I I
1'--000000
Noaa
MMIOIO
0000
c!: >- ~ ~
::J 0 co co
'Z:2:2
I I I
1'--'<t'<t1O
Noaa
.I!!
c
QI
.s
1/1
QI
>
.E
"
C
:I
LL
QI
~
QI
1/1
&!
oð
....
c
I!!
...
:I
o
000
a:: a:: a::
~~~~
ozzz
üOOO
I-LLLLLL
15000
wwww
a::üüü
üZZZ
:2»>
0::000
c:(o:: 0:: a::
LLa. a. a.
1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1
E E E E
::J ::J ::J ::J
CCCCCCCC
: : : : : : : :
:ë:ë:ë:ë
1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1
ø ø ø ø
ZZZZ
ATTACHMEt\; tl 3
00
DO
c::ic::i
DO
00
ö«i
o I'--
1O'<t
ri
00000
00000
c::ic::ic::ic::ic::i
00000
00000
ööö«iai
OOO<D..-
MOO 0> (0
«iÑÑ"":
-;:'6ï:O õ)
CO('\lT'""N ~
l-üC)1- >
a.w::>ü 0
~cc:(O Z
~cðcðcðcð cð
_<D T'"" 0 LO 0')
>-!200N......N ......
c:(o>a::Zcca:: >-
O::!c:(::>wa.~c:(
J:u:2,LLc:(I'--:2
0------.,.--
!;:;~...J...J...J...Ja::...J
NZ-c:(c:(c:(c:(a.c:(
;:-'§ ž ž ž ž ~ Ž
:E1iÎZZZZ...JZ
!z~::E::E::E::E:§::E
D.!!! :2 :2 :2 :2 Z :2
:!::wwwwzw
:2'::U)U)U)U)c:(U)
000000'<t
OMOOO'<t~
g~ggg~;(j
0......0000"1
öriöööÑ<ó
00>0001'--......
IO.....MOOO>(O
ri '<t-ÑÑ"":
'#.cfl.'#.?f!.?ft.?ft.?f!.
00100000
"1"10"110100
~..ol"i~~~~
.....1'--
...... 0
13 ¿
o co
,:2
o>cb
No
OT'""T'""com
T"""T'""T'""OO
c.c¿¿>.-
::JQ)Q..Q..co
7LL4=4=:2
T'""OLOf'...1
NT'""NT'""~
'<t101O<D
~~~~
o ::J ::J Q)
m~7lt
NON~
<D<D(o
000
, I ,
o.fô'~
4=:2:2
~<.Om
...... 0
000 00
a:: a:: a:: a:: a::
~~~ ~~
ZZZ ZZ
000 00
LLLLLL LLu...
000 00
www ww
üüü üü
ZZZ zz
»> »
OOOá5üOO
a:: o::o::_CC a:: 0::
a. a. a.üo:: a. a.
1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1
E E E E E E E
::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J ::J
CCCCCCCCCCCCCC
: : : : : : : : : : : : : :
:ë:ë:ë:ë:ë:ë:ë
1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1 1/1
Q) Q) Q) Q) ø ø ø
ZZZZZZZ
CI
CI
o
CI
CI
iii'
...
...
rÞ
...
~
~
C"Ï
C")
en
M
II)
...
rÞ
...
~
f/)
I-
Z
W
:æ
l-
f/)
W
>
~
:E
a::
w
l-
e!
Z
o
..J
..J
~
o
I-
;;IC~. 4'1 -ö G
;¿ll
CI
CI
o
CI
CI
ø;
II)
II)
Ñ
II)
~
~
co
Q)
>.
o
......
,
M
g
Q)
I-
.....
N
C"Ï
...
.....
ø;
eo
...
Ñ
II)
CI
CI
g)
N
.....
ui
II)
II)
iii'
~
~
'*
I'--
M
~
I'--
(0
I"i
Ü
õi
>=
.I!!
u
QI
"e-
a..
Ii
'Q.
ca
o
o
....
f/)
I-
Z
W
:æ
l-
f/)
W
>
~
..J
~
o
I-
.I!!
c
QI
.s
1/1
QI
>
.E
¡¡
c
...
S
.E
U)
w
¡:::
a::
::>
ü
w
U)
1/1
X
<ó
o
o
"I
~
co
::J
I:T
"
C
8
Q)
1/1
C
o
""
ïñ
o
a.
.s::
1/1
co
Ü
· i 1'"'
':. ...
,\TTACH¡Vltr,1 ¡~ "Lj
, p,:C); <-14 - 0'
en"C U)
C Q) 0
.- - 0
&.. 0 N
Q) Q) ( )
,:¡c:- I"- "'" L() ( )
0- 0 ¡¡; 0 "'" ...... l"-
._ 0 M õ~ L() 0> M Ô
0.0 Q) I"- M 0> <:)
I- 0> CD M .....ft
~ U) C 00 "'" M
0 Q) ~ ....
~~""')
.- cu en
O.cc
O:C u
- C =~
C Q) o ~
Q) .c CI:I
E~ - 0 0> 00 It)
CI:Im M to ~
e,- o_~ 00 00 ...... ( )
o c 0 I"-
- 0 E 0 Iii to ..,f oô
~ E CI:I 0 ...... N
.c.c
~ u
Q) Q) ::1m
C ~ 0
.c -
-
&.. .g 'E
~ - CI:I
.!!! 0 CD N N <:)
om N 0> ...... CO?
Eõ~ 0 0> "'". -.:t
Iii N M ....
CI:I 0 "'" N ...... co
.c.c
~ u
::1m
0
E
CI:I
.c
~
::I N 0 ...... CO?
0 0 CD 00 ;
õ~ M I"- M
...... "'" 00 ..;
c 0 N 00 ....
0 L() N ...... en
'æ
Q)
D::
c
0
:e 0 "'" "<t co
0 "<t 0 0 ~
M ...... 00 N
o.~ L() to N "'
!/) M 0 M .....
~ M N ...... ( )
õ
0
W
I-
0
W
-'
-'
0
0
I- -'
Z Q) e:(
::::I '¡;: » I-
0 ('( c: 0
0- ::J
::E « :2 '"'") l-
e:(
en U) CD
C C 0
'¡:: 0 0
C» +:= N
.:.:: ::s 0
C) JJ
ë: '¡:: C'?
.... C»
... C C
0 0 ::s
~ 0 ..,
.... en
0 c c
C»
E "C
C. C
0 C»
C» U)
.c
> ....
C» C
C 0
L. E
C»
.c C»
.... C»
0 L.
.c
....
L.
.2
0 0
LO U')
I'- ....
I'- ~
C") C"?
..- ~
EfT ~
\J C
c:: Z
CO <C
~ ...J
'- ::s:
CO
a.. a::
"- <C
e c..
::J La.
Q) 0
::J
I ::)
E w
:J
(J) , I
Z J:: Z
en -¡
0 co :I:
~ Ü (J)
::) <C
In ()
æ ...J
I- <C
Z I-
0 0
() I-
,> ., ,~
t....,j
ATTACHMENT # ~.. TC, REPORT #....'-£; '-('f - ð'-
N N
ex> CIO
'<t. ~t
..- ~
..- ~
EfT ~
C
Z
<C
en ...J
Q) ::s:
() a::
.~ <C
Q) c..
(j) La.
en 0
~ ::)
....
e W
S :J
(J) .!:? I
Z 15 Z
0 I
::J :I:
~ a.. (J)
::) <C
In ()
æ ...J
I- <C
Z I-
0 0
() I-
~¿ 14
~. ~ f·,\'~~...t·". ~Vi l'.l\
¡., __'_Ie; KEPORT # C-s '1'1-0 (,
"0 I. I,C)
= ......=
N 0=
= N
Q
.- I. I,C)
1:: ......
rIl ......=
Q ~ 0=
~ N
è -= I. tn
.- ......=
"'0 u ......
~ 0=
t N
0) I. tn
~ "E ......=
U ~ 0=
N
0) "0 I. tn
~ \0 = ......=
~ N 0=
0 0 N
I.tn
U 0 ......
~ rIl ......=
~ 0=
0 N N
r.rJ.
-= I. ~
0) f'\ ......=
~ ...... 0=
b1)0 ~ N
0
~('f "E I. ~
.~ ......=
t cd 0) ~ 0=
N
0 ~ ~ "0 I. ~
U ~ = ......=
~ N 0=
N
Þ ~~ ...... I. ~
~ I rIl ......=
~ 0=
0) N
.~
U S('f -= I.~
......=
...... 0=
~O ~ N
00 "E I. ~
......=
~N ~ 0=
N
0) "0 I. ~
;> = ......=
N 0=
0) N
C ...... I. ~
rIl ......=
~ 01=
N
= = = = = = = =
= = = = = = = =
. d d d d d d d
=
= = = = = = =
= = = = = = =
'" '" '" '" '" '" '"
= = = = = = =
= = = = = = =
~ N = QO I,C) ~ N
'" '" '"
~ ~ ~
~
Q)
~
rJJ.
rJJ.
~
rJJ.
~
.~
ê
Q)
~
00
~
.~
~
~
.~
~
~
\0
o
o
C'1
r-.
o
~
Q)
~
~
~
I
o
o
o
C'1
ATTACHMEN<' ff _1....
rI}
.....
.....
S
I.
Qì
~
c.,.
o
.
o
z
f
.
\
...---- \
v ...--
----
...---- ...----
V v
/ ----
//
/
I~
,
Ì\
\
'"
'"
~
[ì
1/ I-
/
QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ
Q~Q~Q~Q~Q~Q~Q~Q~Q~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~NN~~
'<;1 ~
(, ,,)
c~ t.f'f -û¿
I.
5~
"OQ
= N
N
I.
5~
.....Q
rI'l N
~
~
Q
Q
N
~
Q
Q
N
~
Q
Q
N
N
Q
Q
M
~
Q
Q
M
Q
Q
Q
M
'/ If)
$,.
,"\TTACHIViEI\j ff _~.
= ttì
0 Q
... Q
1:: M
0
~ ~ ~
Q
Þ Q
Q.) ... M
....¡..J U M
U t Q
Q
Q.) M
~ M
~ Q
Q
0 M
U ~
~ Q
Q
0 M
r.n l() Q
~ 0)0 Q
Q
0 b1}0 M
0'\
.~ ~N 0'\
t 0'\
~
~ QO
0 U 0'\
~ ~ 0'\
~
....¡..J 0\ t--
Þ 0'\
~ 0\ 0'\
~
.~ 0) ~ \Q
U S 0'\
0'\
~
~ ttì
0'\
0 0'\
~
~
Q.) ~
0'\
;> 0'\
~
Q.) M
0'\
Q 0'\
~
M
0'\
0'\
~
~
0'\
0'\
~
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
'" '" '" = "' "' "' "'
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q ttì Q ttì Q ttì Q ttì
'" ~ '" "' "' '" "'
~ M M M ~ ~
; #.f;) f-/<.¡ -OC
'," 1 '""
I. -L ,
Ciú/ (J~
REPORT TO
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 45-06
Date: September 11, 2006
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
2006 Final Tax Due Dates for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-
Residential Realty Tax Classes
Recommendation:
1. It is recommended that report CS 45-06 of the Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer be received and:
2. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to issue the
FINAL 2006 Tax Bills for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-residential properties
with a due date of October 13th, 2006;
3. That the Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer be authorized to make any
changes or undertake any actions necessary, including altering the due date, in
order to ensure the tax billing process is completed and in order to comply with
Provincial Regulations;
4. That the necessary By-law attached to this report be read three times and
approved; and,
5. That the appropriate officials of the City of Pickering be given authority to give
effect hereto.
Executive Summary: Adoption of the above recommendations and passing the
attached By-law provides for the final 2006 tax billing for non-residential tax classes
(commercial, industrial and multi-residential). During the last few years, the City has
billed the final non-residential taxes separately mainly due to the additional steps that
are required as a result of the capping legislation.
Financial Implications: The attached By-law is for the FINAL billing of 2006 property
taxes for commercial, industrial and multi-residential properties. This billing of final
property taxes will raise approximately $20.8 million for the City, Durham Region and
School Boards. Tax bills for the Residential tax classes were mailed on June 16, 2006
with due dates of July 7th and September 28th.
;) 18
Report CS 45-06
Date: September 11 , 2006
Subject: 2006 Final Tax Due Dates for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-
Residential Realty Tax Classes
Page 2
Background: In 1998, the Province introduced Current Value Assessment or
CV A on a Province wide basis to replace the old patch quilt system (throughout the
Province) where each municipality used a different base year for assessment purposes.
The end result of CV A was the fact that some business were experiencing property tax
increases well above 100%. To reduce the property tax increases, the Province
introduced capping legislation in 1998.
The City of Pickering will soon be in a position to issue the final 2006 property tax bills
in accordance with the capping provisions of Bill 140, Continued Protection For
Property Taxpayers Act, passed by the Province on December 4, 2000 and
implemented through various Regulations. (Bill 140 replaced the original capping
legislation of Bill 79 introduced and approved in 1998). This legislation was put in place
to limit assessment reform related increases to 5% per year on commercial, industrial
and multi-residential properties. Under this legislation, property owners facing
increases due to property assessment reform had their increases "cappedn (reduced).
Conversely, those properties experiencing decreases were limited to that permitted
under the legislation. This meant that taxes have to be "clawed back" from those
experiencing decreases to fund the loss of revenue resulting from the capped
increases.
The funding of the capping protection is "paid for" on a Region wide basis. The Region
of Durham acts like a banker in this process. In other words, the total cost of the
capping protection for example, the commercial tax class is paid for by the other
commercial properties throughout the Region by having a portion of their related
property tax decrease withheld (clawed back). As part of the Region wide process, the
City of Pickering uses a Provincial database program called "Online Property Tax
Analysis" (OPT A) to verify non-residential assessment data. Every municipality within
Durham Region uses the OPTA system. Assessment Review Board decisions and
Minutes of Settlement decisions have been incorporated into the capping calculations
up to the cut-off date of May 15, 2006.
Bill 83 - Le~lislative Changes to Capping Legislation
In 2004, the Province passed Bill 83 (An Act to Implement Budget Measures), which
provided for various optional tax tools that could be used for the non-residential tax
class. In a two tier municipal government structure, the upper tier has the option to
select all or some of the tax tools. These tax tools consisted of the following options:
1. The assessment related increase cap was increased from 5% to 10%.
2. Minimum annual threshold increase of 5% of total CV A property taxation.
3. A "billing" threshold be established whereby a property who is within the $250 of its
CV A based taxation would be required to pay its full CV A property taxes.
4. Properties that fall within the "New Construction" category will now have their
property taxes phased-in to full CV A BY 2008. For 2006, the minimum rate for New
Construction properties is 80%.
Report CS 45-06
Date: September 11 , 2006
.') 1 (ì
::., .~1
Subject: 2006 Final Tax Due Dates for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-
Residential Realty Tax Classes
Page 3
The purpose of these tax tools is to accelerate the movement of non-residential
taxpayers to full CV A taxes (where taxes are calculated using Current Value
Assessment multiplied by the corresponding tax rate). The Region of Durham adopted
all of the tax tools referenced above.
In 2006, the City of Pickering issued an interim tax bill to to all property owners in all tax
classes with two instalment dates of February 27th and April 27th. Final Residential
tax bills were mailed on June 16, 2006. The proposed final instalment due date of
October 13th for all properties in the Non-Residential tax classes, provides these tax
classes with some additional time to pay their tax bill. Table One below illustrates the
final billing due dates for the non-residential tax classes from 2000 to 2006.
Table One
Non-Residential Final Billing Dates
Year
Number of
Instalments
One
One
One
One
One
One
One
Date
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
October 13, 2000
October 29,2001
October 29,2002
October 15, 2003
October 15, 2004
October 14, 2005
October 13, 2006
As Table One indicates, the proposed 2006 final due date closely follows the pattern
established since 2000. The one instalment due date will assist the City in managing its
cash flow.
Attachments:
1. By-law to Establish the 2006 Final Tax Instalments and Due Date for the
Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Residential Tax Classes
~< :~. 0
Report CS 45-06
Date: September 11 , 2006
Subject: 2006 Final Tax Due Dates for Commercial, Industrial and Multi-
Residential Realty Tax Classes
Page 4
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
~--=.
L . -. ---::::;..
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
usan Aitken 8ad
Coordinator, Taxation Services
GAP:vw
Attachment
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering CiW Council
;1/
,..TTACHr1ENT # -L- TO REPORT#~- -ö ~
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERING
:) I) 1
_' It,.
BY-LAW NO.
Being a By-law of The Corporation of the City of Pickering to
Establish the 2006 Final Property Taxes and Due Date for
the Commercial, Industrial and Multi-Residential Tax Classes.
WHEREAS it is necessary for the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering,
pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25 as amended, to pass a By-law to
levy a separate tax rate on the assessment in each property class; and,
WHEREAS the property classes have been prescribed by the Minister of Finance under
the Assessment Act, R.S.O. 1990, ch.A.31, as amended and its Regulations; and,
WHEREAS it is necessary for the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering,
pursuant to the Municipal Act, 2001, S.O. 2001, c.25, to levy on the whole rateable
property according to the last revised assessment roll for The Corporation of the City of
Pickering.
WHEREAS the Regional Municipality of Durham has passed By-law No. 26-2006 to
establish tax ratios and By-law No. 24-2006 to adopt estimates of all sums required by
The Regional Municipality of Durham for the purposes of the Durham Region Transit
Commission and By-law No. 25-2006 to set and levy rates of taxation for Regional Solid
Waste Management and By-law No. 23-2006 to set and levy rates of taxation for
Regional General Purposes and set tax rates on Area Municipalities; and,
WHEREAS it is necessary for the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering
pursuant to the Municipal Act, to levy on the whole rateable property according to the
last revised assessment roll for The Corporation of the City of Pickering for the current
year; and,
WHEREAS an interim levy was made by the Council of The Corporation of the City of
Pickering (pursuant to By-law No. 6615-06) before the adoption of the estimates for the
current year; and,
WHEREAS sub section 342 (2) of the Municipal Act, 2001, S.D. 2001, c.25 as
amended, permits the issuance of separate tax bills for separate classes of real
property for year 2006.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1 . For the year 2006, The Corporation of the City of Pickering (the "City") shall levy
upon all Property Classes (Residential, Commercial, Industrial and Multi-
residential) as set out in By-law No. 6676/06 of Schedule A, the rates of taxation,
for the City of Pickering, the Region of Durham and for Education purposes on
the current value assessment as also set out in Schedule A of By-law No.
;".. ~
t,... I oJ ¡'~,i
2. 6676/06. Where applicable, taxes shall be adjusted in accordance with Bill 140,
as amended and its Regulations.
3. The levy provided for shall be reduced by the amount of the interim levy for
2006.
4. The 2006 final tax calculations for the industrial, commercial and multi-residential
realty tax classes is based on the "cut-off" date of May 15, 2006.
5. The decrease retained percentage for the realty class is outlined below:
Multi residential
Commercial
Industrial
98.15%
40.52%
61 .79%
6. The 2006 taxes owed for the commercial, industrial and multi-residential
assessed properties shall be due in one instalment on October 13 2006, or as
adjusted by the Treasurer.
7. Except in the case of taxes payable under Section 33 and 34 of the Assessment
Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.A31, as amended, the percentage charge as a penalty for
non-payment of taxes and monies payable as taxes shall be added to every tax
or assessment, rent or rate of any installment or part thereof remaining unpaid
on the first day of default and on the first day of each calendar month thereafter
in which such default continues pursuant to subsections 345 (1), (2) and (3) of
the Municipal Act 2001, S.D. c.25 as amended. The Treasurer shall collect by
distress or otherwise under the provisions of the applicable statutes all such
taxes, assessments, rents, rates or installments or parts thereof as shall not
have been paid on or before the several dates named as aforesaid, together with
the said percentage charges as they are incurred pursuant to sections 349, 350
and 351 of the Municipal Act 2001, S.D. c.25 as amended.
8. If any section or portion of this By-law is found by a court of competent
jurisdiction to be invalid, it is the intent of Council for The Corporation of the City
of Pickering that all remaining sections and portions of this By-law continue in
force and effect.
9. Taxes shall be payable to the Treasurer, City of Pickering.
10. This By-law comes into force on the date of its final passing.
BY-LAW read a first, second and third time and finally passed this 18th day of
September 2006.
David Ryan, Mayor
Oebi Bentley, City Clerk
REPORT TO 223
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Report Number: CS 48-06
Date: September 11, 2006
From:
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Subject:
Establishment of Appleview-Spartan Neighbourhood Watch.
Recommendation:
1. That the letter from the Durham Regional Police Service dated July 31,2006
endorsing the establishment of the Appleview-Spartan Neighbourhood Watch, be
received; and
2. That the Council of the Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby endorse the
Appleview-Spartan Neighbourhood Watch and approves the installation of
Neighbourhood Watch signs at the entrances to the subject area.
Executive Summary:
To endorse the establishment of the Appleview-Spartan Neighbourhood Watch and to
direct staff to erect the Neighbourhood Watch signs at the entrances to the subject
areas.
Financial Implications: None
Background: Please find attached to this report a letter from the Durham
Regional Police Service dated July 31, 2006 advising of their endorsement of the
Appleview-Spartan Area Neighbourhood Watch. A map of the areas served for this
Neighbourhood Watch location is attached to the letter from the Durham Regional
Police Service.
By endorsing this Neighbourhood Watch request, Council is giving permission to the
installation of three signs to be placed at the entrances to the subject area. The
Neighbourhood Watch will purchase the signs, however, City staff will undertake the
installation.
i) ') ,1
I...,...., "T
Report CS 48-06
Date: September 11, 2006
Subject: Establishment of Appleview-Spartan Neighbourhood
Watch
Page 2
Attachment:
1. Correspondence from Durham Regional Police Service
Prepared By:
Approved/Endorsed By:
i
Debi A. Bentley
City Clerk
~
.. ~~)~
I IS . aterson
Director, Corporate Services &
Treasurer
DB:lb
Attachment
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City coun it \"
,/
~ REPORT # C6~a-O"
DURHAM REGIONAL~ ..
Leaders in Community Safety ? 25
P.O. BOX 911, 650 ROSSLAND ROAD WEST, WHITBY, ONTARIO, L 1N OB8
Oshawa (905) 579-1520 1-888-579-1520 Toronto (905) 683-9100 Fax (905) 721-4291
. Vern White - Chief of Police · Chuck Mercier - Deputy Chief of Police · Mike Ewles - Deputy Chief of Police
Monday, July 31, 2006
"
Ms. Debi Bentley, Clerk
City of Pickering,
I The Esplanade
PICKERING, Ontario
LlV 6K7
To the Governing Municipal Body:
RE: THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A COMMUNITY NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH
"Appleview-Spartan Nei2hbourhood Watch. Pickerin2"
Through the implementation of Crime Prevention Programs, dedicated community volunteers work with police to
help reduce crime in their communities.
One such "Citizen Involved" Crime Prevention Program is Neighbourhood Watch. It is a program that employs an
elegantly simple technique of "neighbours looking out for neighbours" to reduce threats of crime against potential
victims.
This letter is to introduce you to a group of concerned citizens who want to be involved in this program. Through
persistence, devotion and hard work, these people have made an honourable effort to fonn a Neighbourhood Watch
within their community. They have met all criteria as set out in the Durham Regional Police Service
"Neighbourhood Watch Guidelines" and have received a commitment trom their fellow neighbours of75%
participation. In so doing, they have demonstrated their understanding that Crime Prevention is not just ajob for a
few professionals. Rather, the attitude and involvement of these citizens proves their genuine concern to work
together to make our community a better place to live.
The Durham Regional Police Service endorses this new organization as an official Community Neighbourhood
Watch. It is recommended that they be granted pennission to erect approved Neighbourhood Watch signs in their
area as a crime deterrent.
;~~q-
P.C. Dave Morton
Regional Community Services & Crime Prevention Coordinator
Cc: Councillors Doug Dickerson & Bill McLean, Ward 2
Ms. Shawna Mutton, Coordinator, Community Capacity Building
Mr. John Hannah, Supt Municipal Operations
Insp. Jim Douglass & S/Sgt Mitch Colling, DRPS Ajax-Pickering
í..~~ ',zg ~ ~,~ t> ~\ \~k;8!H I. IH~I
.~ /~ ~ fl r f ~\ ~ '188(ß N303 G>,
/,- ~,/ ~ ~ ~
! co crp'v'08 +- HI' ~ õ-
';,1- ~ ~ 77~'C') \g ~ -l J¡ :)/ ~~ ~ 1--0-(
r-I ß ~ ~~~~ ö . q.,j¡ 'J(/Q ____',:.. ~ I.Î'~
1 I r~~ I -n:= 0 .1. í"'¡ ,,.2 / /î'--\ ~J.
r ..... ~O/'£V ___ -r
!8 1'-' ".. ì"
I ~1 _Wîb: "';;~~ ' 0
¡ 'I I;:: r;¡¡ g ---;::;-. ~ ~ -1 .....
I 'Ð 'Q W ::: ;:., 5: + ~ ..-s-.---¡~!
LQ 0 ~ ~ ,- $: .... o.¡..--;:;- 0' 0
r: ~ ~ g t3 ~:-~ a: ,-
;.... ;:::: «;-' « ~ 0: ~r:>
I T-..... ..- "" W -;:-~ Ü --=-
"- ..... ~ --=---, 0
t-G-~ 3^180 J.s38óN001'v';:! /^, N018'v'8NnO
~~ "
¡~ ~ § I ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ I · ~ êl ê ~
'rIo1.... 0 I II~
¡j¡ ~~ g; ~ É ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ @ I~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 3nN3^'v' A8838318~'v'8
'-...J~il 2? b ~ I þ¡ \ ~
¡ e x>, P>! P' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2
o i¡J~~: / 10:; ~: If;; ~ I ~i"" 0) LO
;;:! I _ LO LO LO LO LO ro ..... 0) I'- LO
$' \. -j ,.- .,... ..-.,.- (j) co '"
I'-
r--, ~ '<t C\J 'º m '<t ~ 838318~'v' )--............ 0)
'0 LO ~ 0) 0) co co \ -..... ---
r--J .....1..... .... LO LO LO ......
:--L T"""T-""-Y- 0 ~
~ 0) OCOD'<t ~~
N ..- I'- LO ,- 0) 0) ~ ~ b
.1 00 109 g CD I'-
,- ......... rr- .....\..- CD I 0)
3nN3^'v' co,.. 0) LO ,- CD
..... ~ ~ CD CDLO
..... t'- ....- ~ I'- I'-
..... Ir- ,.......-
.- --
v........
Ë / ~~ ~
..... CD I'- LO C') .,- L-- ./ ~
..... 000000) ~ ,.-..- a: C\J
~. :: ~ ~ co ~ CD ,- C') 0) -
~_ ,:"" , ....., 0) O)I'-.;;¡>- ~
or- T- !;::: ~ ,..... ~ 'u. ~~
0'v'08 ~L.- ~t
I I co LV'CD
lcogg ~ ~ ~~
g co .... .... _
'<t C\J 0 '<t C\J 0 ..... ..... .Y
~ ~ ~ § § § ~~ C') ~ ~ ~ Þ~2
/"~ LO LO .....
I __ -- LO CD lo C') ..- ! fry ¡:;,
~ _¡...---- CD ,- zg ~ '<t I' c.o CD
~ .,.-.,.-~~.,.-
"'" ~
LO LJ
CD «~.
o CD
"" o:~
CD ..... co '<t C\J
<g.- wY5- ~ ~ ;g
.... I'- C') ~u__ g I ~ .........,-
§ § § '--~ 5:1 R ~
-:=- z ~
~:: w..... I'- ,-
0) ~:I+ fe fe
0) H@-¡ 0 c.$-.... .....
~ ~ ð,--
') I) C,
; ...0
CD LO
,- ....
co co
,- .....
~ ;?,~~~~¿gg
~ ~~~~~~
<"
I'-
,-
co
....
COURT
l'<t 0 co
CD c.o LO
I'- ~ I'-
~........
o
,-
\
\
\
0'v'08 31)(/0
\ 7'B.- 'G ~
~~
<560
'<t 1> v ~ '"
o Ú ..... '"
....
0),
o 0
.... ....
::::
20
a: ::
~~
::::~
~ ,-
a
'<t
It)
LO
LO
,-
m
~ ~ c.o
0)
LO C')
LO LO
I'-
rC
I
C\JO c.o '<t ê co
1'-1'- c.o CD LO
1"-1'- l"- I'- I'-
..... .... ,... ..... ~ ....
C\J
CD
'<t
¡........-V
-----
~
.... 0)
c.o LO
~ ~ I'-
.....
--.
.....
CD I
C') i
CD ,
..... I
..... ! LO ..... I'- C')
I'- I"- CD c.o LO LO
I'- I'- I'- l"- I'- I'-
..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ,-
co
C')
c.o
.....
I
I I I I
I
0'v'08 180&1I'v'=I
/1 (r11T
I
I
I
r
T T
§h~lQ
j <r ( .;,.I"
CD--- :::1 ~1:
g cnCP\-Õ
.... CJW
z~
-w
ffia:
~c -
oc~~
ä:<Ca.~
...J <I: ,
u. <C:: 'q>
o a. "..¡ j~
I Ë I ~ If~ 1-> 2 (1--~.\'
I~ I ~ _ Z v. '?f
~ ) 0 ~ ~ ¿S,
~~/-;¡. J2
~I ~ '<
~~
~Q.,¡ 1\ ...../
fa>,..... \2
11:--- Ë
CJ:' ( g 0) co l"-
I ~ ~li" LO IJ,') It)
::) I'- I'-
a ..... .....
c.o
o
,-
:r:
ü
a:
~
:r:
ü
Lõ
o
C\J
CD
o
Q\
~ LO
~ ....
~
Y'~
~
~
'?()
o
....
a
o
LO C\
,- 0
co
C')
o
.....
,-
o
,-
ro \.~
I'- .....\co
.... LO 0)
I'-
,--..... ~
LO ~ CD
~ I'- '<t f
..- ..... .-,~ ~
(X) lë
M3/^31dd'v'
'<t
LO
I"-
.....
LO
o
CD
....
~, ~"
I
I I
I
g
,¿ £::I
'""< ~
c
o
1.~
(¡)
>
~I
~I
'ti
GI
.. C >-
:: ~ ~-[
~~ ê ~~
.5! c: g f.J '"
-oc ~.;
¡Sc; ëõ
Co..2.c QJ tJ
õfó~ E~
OEO ~~
fU 0 Q,I GJ_
J: - U tit.....
J-..5 CillO
,:¿ en.! : ~
~:"! ::I,a
~~g ~~
~ ra.:: a:-
CðQCt-~
...~.5 0:.;::
~g~ ~~
:ä: .~;
=~& :ig
~:!e g:J
cnË~ ~ gs
~.=è) -g~
-8g; ;.5
..!! u:ã Qi ~
Ol:g~ ~c
_GJo CJOI
jQj5 Co ..,';
E~= ;=
~~j .E¡
- -..
~ rg~ § :
- u =~ 0 II
. 5 tii.! :s u
G) ~ "CI'D III -g
~ õ ;:2 ~ !
~ ~ ~~ :g ~
a:ü E~<3:
~
\
(
C\J ' ;.
~\
,.
,'"'-...-,
¡-;\
u
l ~ ,/ /~ f I FI f I ~I frñFfTnfTnfrT~\;\-ç- 1~ @- )
..-
\
I
II ~'k r
111Û
œ!~~0~8~33a ð
I . Cé
10 «
~...~g ~
CO (j ,.,.., «
z
:0 -'"-- t:; LU
~ ¡-;:- ~
¡ .J'ç~f-- (9
I I'- \.::: N
i or- ~.. f-S
10 ...
! .... I ,.,..,
lv: '-þ ~
I'-- f'. ¡-..,;;--
k- \-:o:t:-
CO
:J:y
N ,CO
~ _ or-
.... I.{)
2f}/" \1.() -0
f6 0
o
./ Ìb
I.()
:¡". "~
~
t;
Æ.... ~
,..,
o
or-
I-=-
~
-Q
or-
I
N1
õ
OJ
CO
Ø)
"
O\fOtJ 31XIO
:J\~~ m~
~ ",'"\1- r ¡....
,-,.-- -..t- . y
- i.o-
01
-g -
-F- C")
--L!?- --r
~ ~
~ ~ ~
~ .~ ~ ~
~ ... ~ r
',-
~ I~
. ~ I~
(f)
W 01
Cé ;:::
Ü or-
30ISH1\f3H
I
Lf! fr
~
...
r ....
l;:: I
or-
.j "... (
" ,>1 (
¿ ~
\~< ¿
(
(
.
~
~
3^I~O
Ii ill
CO .~ ~
~ ... z
¡ k I§ ~~ ð ~
~ I~ ~ -õ- Cé ~
1-1.0- ~ or-
".... ~A
~ ~ ~ 8\~"'v~" ~~ ~p
~ ~ ~ ~\ '\ /~/ 1;:.
- '\~\J~ T ~~
I'- I (D 0 F-
a '"\ .... .--
~~~ ,Ý
o ~
CO
co
I.()
...
~
0
.....,
I.()
0
;.,..
0
N
0
3^lèJO
$5 g t;
... ~ f?
t $ fg g1~ ;g ¡g
I.() I.() I.{) I.() I.() I.()
~T-~T-~"-
;:::
or-
CO
;...,
...
g
o N 1'<1" co
I'- I'-- I'- I'-
I.() I.() I.() I.()
T- "(- .,.- ~
~I
~I ~ ~
~ ~ ~ k 0
~ ~ ~ f ~I
,;
"
" c '"
:5 ß iii i
. ~ ~ ê ~ s'
,9 ¡:.E ~.!!!
~ DE ::'E
[.§ ~ g 8
~ - - E"
8Ëg ~~
IV 0 ( J C1J J:
.c- (J ~-
l-.5c :õ
.;;. ~:P1 IV '-
~ GI ~ =' ~
~ ~ ¡¡ E
I: "C E >::J
~~.g ~5
In 0 en - ~
.~ ~.~ ~;
~ g'~ ¡¡;-=
.£ ~ = :ª-E
_ tU OJ ::E 0
~~Ë g~
en - rc: '- OJ
IV E"O ~ c:
c ...... 'tJ It!'
o~.E ~~
"0 0 QI ~.-
~Ë~ ~~
o fU c CD C1
::: - 0 ",'Vi
rei .0 Co to I/)
E ~: ~..
.E :I'" c: ~
v .E~~~:
~ ~.Eg.5Ë~
_ "" QI '- II)
5 ~ ¡~ ~ ~
~ ä: -g"g ~ -g
.; ~ ~~ ~ ~
~5Ë~~~
~
N \ ~.~ ~
S ~ ( ~ ~,
rJJ ~jç; \
i:.~
~ I, ",Íß)¡
co '" \J t/) 0 '
or- I~ ~ æ'"9
ffi~¡,
~ C ...-, tJ
~ ~ m1Y
a. ..J a. "2
~~~~'ì
- ~~.
>- U .I,;
'<I"N 1-- 'If
~~ U5 ~ft
~ ·f
f-
---:7r
o
01
I.()
.....
N-
..-0
~IW (0 co
I.().....~/ / ~
;g;-g /0
T-~ / (ò
lN38S3èJ8 301SH1\f3H
'<I" N co (0 co '<I" 0
co co r--. r--. ~ N 0 co co '<I"N 0 co CD '<I" 0 '<I" ;g 0 co CD NC")
co CD co CD I'- I'- I'- CD co coco co I.() L.'J I.() '1.() co '<I" C") C") MCO
... ..-- ..-- or- CD (0 (0 CD co CD co co co CD (!) CD ... .... CD CD co ~~
or- or- or- ..-- ... or- ..... ... ... .- ... ..-- .... ... or- I'- .,....
OJ N N
... co co
'<I" ~ or- .... ....
co
... 01 I.() ... ....
01 co co 01 I.{) M ... I'- C") ... 01 I.() or- I.() ... ~ I'-
co co co I'- I'- I'- I'-- CD co co I.() I.() I.() '<I" '<I" C")
... or- or- co co co co co co co co co co co co co co
or- or- .... ..... ... ..... .... ... ..... ... ... or- .... ....
/'~ OVOt M31^31ddV
"'--
i 0 F'-.
g^,~~
Y .....
r (¥"
l- Zð
~.....
$-
-
~
~
@,,:.:- N co
1"-- OJ ': )< ~ ~
I '~""N"-- ~
1'/ N ~ ...J:1'<I" ~ N ¡co ~ ~ ;'l g
~ co co co II'- co co co co
- co ro co co ~ ~ 't'- ~
i \'ì -¡- "t- or- or-
!ï1 .- 01.~ 01 "~. I h,;: ~ il'- ..,
r-¡-' r· 01 W ""~ ~ I~ I t:: C) lco I~ ¿g
.- ::J S5 r'" ...- ¡ ~ '.-1"'1- ..-
Z I I I I.
,~I !§I_..I ~. ~ 00:' ¡CD 1'<1" IN i ~:M i~~O~:~~f~i!ml _,__/
-. -- 01 '. S. " CO I CO I CO I Ir--. t'-. I· ¡,.... 1<.0 " CD ICD. I 1m I.CD /
I' "00' '_'CilOH co Ie.. ,co ,co CO CO ::0 ICC~CO CO Ie;) lco I /
/i ("'..... ~ 1"-¡"t- ~ I~ ¡ IT- r- I-r- ~ ,.- j~.~ ¡ 1"'- L_
~_.~ -~.,~~~~¡~-:... !._~
,þJl ''7! þ:;' I .~-::: /.
,01",:-, 01«1 "j').-J.(/
LaEIßl ~ ~-~ ;
I ~') .'.'- .k.,., 0 0 c..SI './
'0 ~-:J Ir- f.D C!j I'
J ~Ico ,
- ;- ,- I I
C") I.() 1'-/101 .... ('1: IiI.() I'- 01 ....
I'-I'-I'-I'-CO coco coco 01
I.() I.() I.() I.() I.() I.() I.() I.() I.{) I.()
or- ,- ~ ¡or- T""'" ~ -r- ,- ~ ~
I
....
..--"-.
Q ....,
...
~'~ ¢2 r:-
1.()µ.5$
: ..- ~ ~ I ...~
l / ..... .....- ...
lN38S3tJ8
I[)
CO
I.()
01
CO
I.()
..--
-
S8NIlM\fèJ
~ ~ ~I I.()
..-- i!2 """"..-- ~ ~
;; 00 Cé:=
or- l\ 0 Ü ;....
I.() ~ (0 or-
i--.. ~ ti. \ ~ l-L
- ~..::: - ./~ ~ ~--<~~>z:
' ~'''-. ~ :'/T !2 ,., 1 "
or- "~" ~ß/~I ~ ~ S 0 l~
to 8!1 q:J ~ ~ t! ~I
. f f ~ .-}:/ t.
M088NOl ~
~ ~I
Wco =~
01 01 CO
~
t
E,
I
CO N CO '<I" N CO '<I" N 0 CO CO
I.() I.{) '<I" '<I" '<I" C") M ("") C") N N
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
... or- .... or- .... ..- or- .,.... ..-- ..-- ....
O\fOè:! lèJOdtJl'd::l
OJ
I.()
I
I
I J..--~'-
...---!......- I
/ I I
: .--:~:;--- I I
/':/ c~ ~ ! .:; j ~ ~ ¡m
CO ¡ "»' CO
... I ,-
,
,
i
..-- /"/
II
I'--I~IM
~.~
or- ,..--
!
¡
'01
'<I"
CO
r~ i~ èð
..- lor- '.,...
I
o
~
i--
1-
y
f\
1'--1\
wi \
"'1
o
I'-
¡ ;
I i
/ ,
/ .
o
CD
Cf
I.{)
::0
I.()
I ;
I¡-;:\I