HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 47-08
Ciilf o~
Resolution No. 242108
Dated November 17, 2008
REPORT TO
COUNCIL
Report Number: PD 47-08
Date: November 17,2008
1 48
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
Addendum to Report Number PD 36-08
- Parkland Conveyance
- File: S 2/07
Recommendation:
1. That Report PD 36-08 of the Director, Planning & Development be received; and
2. Further, that Council confirm the requirement that S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. pay
the sum of $533,250 in lieu of the conveyance of parkland in relation to the
redevelopment of the lands in the former Bay Ridges Plaza.
Executive Summary: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. ("SR&R") disputes the amount that
City staff have calculated to be payable in lieu of the conveyance of parkland.
Report #PD 36-08 was considered by the Planning & Development Committee on
October 6, 2008 and was referred back to staff for further discussion with the applicant,
with direction to the report to Council on October 20, 2008. At the October 20, 2008
Council meeting, Report #PD 36-08 was referred to the November 17, 2008 meeting of
Council at the request of SR&R. This report is an addendum to Report #PD 36-08 that
set out the positions of both SR&R and staff. Staff continue to support the
recommendation contained in Report #PD 36-08 that SR&R pay the sum of $533,250 in
lieu of the conveyance of parkland for this project.
Financial Implications: If Council adopts the recommendation contained in this
addendum report, the City will collect a total of $533,250 as payment in lieu of parkland
conveyance for the redevelopment of the property. If Council accepts the offer
contained in a letter from SR&R's lawyer (William Friedman) dated June 18, 2008, the
City will only collect a total of $150,000.
Sustainability Implications: Other than the financial implications set out above,
there are no sustainability implications.
Report PD 47-08
November 17, 2008
. Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
I I' '149
Page 2
1.0 Background:
At the October 6, 2008 meeting of the Planning & Development Committee, Report
#PD 36-08 was referred back to staff for further discussion with the applicant, with
direction to bring it back to Council on October 20, 2008. At the October 20, 2008
Council meeting, Report #PD 36-08 was referred to the November 17,2008 meeting of
Council at the request of SR&R.
Prior to the October 6,2008 Planning & Development Committee meeting, the Director,
Planning & Development and the City Solicitor met with representatives of SR&R
(William Friedman and Steven Warsh) on two separate occasions to discuss parkland
issues. At the conclusion of the second meeting (July 7, 2008), the Director, Planning
& Development and the City Solicitor advised Mr. Warsh and Mr. Friedman that staff
could not accept any of SR&R's arguments in relation to parkland dedication except to
the extent set out in Report #PD 36-08.
On October 24, 2008, the Chief Administrative Officer, City Solicitor and the Mayor met
with representatives of SR&R (David Friedman, William Friedman and Steven Warsh).
At the conclusion of this meeting, the Chief Administrative Officer and the City Solicitor
advised the representatives of SR&R that none of the information that had been
provided by SR&R either at the October 6, 2008 meeting of Planning & Development
Committee or subsequent to that meeting had persuaded staff to alter any of the
professional opinions set out in Report #PD 36-08. However, subsequent to the
October 24, 2008 meeting, SR&R was advised that staff could support a phased
approach to the parkland payments-in-lieu.
This addendum report identifies and provides staff responses to some of the issues
raised since Report #PD 36-08 was prepared.
2.0 Discussion/Issues
Set out below are some of the issues that were raised during the October 6, 2008
Planning & Development Committee meeting, the October 24, 2008 meeting described
above, and several telephone conversations with representatives of SR&R subsequent
to the October 6 Planning & Development Committee meeting, along with staff's
response to each of them.
1. Were the buffer lands "conveyed to the municipality for park or other public
recreational purposes" as per subsection 42(1) of the Planning Act?
Report PD 47-08
November 17, 2008
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
Page 3
1 SO
Subsection 42(1) of the Planning Act provides the authority for the City to require the
conveyance of land "for park or other public recreational purposes". It reads as follows:
42(1) As a condition of development or redevelopment of land, the council of a
local municipality may, by by-law applicable to the whole municipality or to any
defined area or areas thereof, require that land in an amount not exceeding, in
the case of land proposed for development or redevelopment for commercial or
industrial purposes, 2 per cent and in all other cases 5 per cent of the land be
conveyed to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes.
There are numerous memoranda, letters and reports to and from representatives of
SR&R, including Watershed Management Ecology (SR&R's environmental
consultants), in the records of the Planning & Development Department referencing the
fact that the buffer lands are an integral component of the natural heritage system and
that SR&R would be required to convey them for the purpose of protectinq the
ecoloqical function of the vallevlands. Prior to the letter from Mr. Friedman dated June
18, 2008, there was no documentation in these same records stating that the buffer
lands were conveyed "for park or other public recreational purposes". At no time prior
to SR&R executing the development agreement (which created the obligation to convey
the buffer lands without any credit for parkland contribution) did anyone from SR&R
ever allege that the buffer lands were conveyed "for park or other public recreational
purposes" .
It was never intended that the buffer lands were to be conveyed "for park or other public
recreational purposes". The purpose of the conveyance of the buffer land was always
to protect the natural heritage features in the valley as required by the Provincial Policy
Statement, TRCA policy, and City Official Plan policy.
The applicable Natural Heritage sections of the Provincial Policy Statement are set out
in the Scoped Environmental Impact Statement dated May 2006 prepared for SR&R by
Watershed Management Ecology.
TRCA policies for defining valley corridor boundaries are set out in its "Valley and
Stream Corridor Management Program". As set out in its initial letter to the City dated
September 6, 2006 (see Attachment #1 to this Addendum Report) commenting on
SR&R's rezoning application, these policies require protection to the top of valley bank
"plus a minimum 10 metre buffer". This buffer requirement is set out in all of TRCA's
subsequent letters to the City. Watershed Management Ecology confirmed this TRCA
requirement in their Scoped Environmental Impact Statement.
City Official Plan Policy 10.5 states that "City Council recognizes the importance of its
stream corridors, and acknowledges the health of its valley and corridors can be
affected by uses and activities anywhere in the watershed; accordingly, Council shall, ...
c) require conveyance of the valleylands and associated vegetation, and/or buffers to
the City or other public agency as a condition of development approval, where
appropriate" .
Report PD 47-08
November 17, 2008
S~lbjr-c1t: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
iI' 1:J
Page 4
2. Does the fact that the TRCA permitted SR&R to install a walkway within the
buffer lands mean that the purpose of the conveyance of the buffer lands was
"for park or other public recreational purposes"?
SR&R was required to convey lands for walkway purposes in order to comply with the
site plan control provisions (section 41) of Planning Act and the Bay Ridges Plaza
Redevelopment Development Guidelines.
Subsection 41 (7) of the Planning Act reads as follows:
41 (7) As a condition to the approval of the plans and drawings referred to in
subsection (4), a municipality may require the owner of the land to,
(a) provide to the satisfaction of and at no expense to the municipality any
or all of the following:
4. Walkwavs and walkwav ramps, includinG the surfacinG thereof.
and all other means of pedestrian access.
5. Facilities for the liGhtinG, including floodlighting, of the land or of
any buildings or structures thereon.
This requirement for the conveyance of land for the purpose of a walkway is separate
and distinct from SR&R's obligation to convey lands for the purpose of protecting the
valleylands. However, in order to maximize its developable footprint, SR&R sought
permission from TRCA to locate the required walkway within the buffer lands and City
staff supported the request. TRCA agreed to permit the construction of the walkway
within the buffer lands, in part because walkways can enhance the protection of natural
heritage features by controlling where people walk. To now characterize the buffer
lands as having been conveyed for "park or other public recreational purposes"
because the walkway was allowed to be located in the buffer area is a
mischaracterization of the purpose of the conveyance of the buffer land and the
construction of the walkway.
The applicable City policies are set out in the Bay Ridges Plaza Redevelopment
Development Guidelines which were approved by Council on October 3, 2006
concurrently with Council's approval of SR&R's rezoning application. The Guidelines
explicitly obligate SR&R to provide "a pedestrian walkway ... 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" (Section C3.2). The purpose of the walkway is to ensure that the
development is truly transit-oriented and pedestrian friendly. The Guidelines also
require lighting "to enhance [the] development's attractiveness and safety of the built
environment" (Section C3.8). Attachment #2 to this Addendum Report shows that all
existing and future lighting is or will be located outside of the buffer lands on private
property. Attachment #2 also shows that the walkway extends only as far as the tot lot
within the development and that it only occupies a very small percentage (13.8%) of the
buffer lands.
Report PO 47-08
November 17,2008
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
Page 5
1 ~) 2
The extent of the walkway was minimized to reduce impacts in the natural heritage
system and to provide a pedestrian transit connection focused on serving the residents
of the development. The lands covered by the walkway only constitute 0.7% of the net
developable area of the site. The balance of the buffer lands (i.e. all of the land other
than the walkway) cannot be used for any purpose other than as a buffer.
Neither the Guidelines nor any other policy document of the City requires SR&R to
convey the buffer lands or any part of the development lands to provide a connection to
a recreational trail system. In other words, the purpose of the walkway is not
recreational; it is intended to provide connectivity to transit.
Even if all of the buffer lands were conveyed to the City at the request of the City and
for the sole purpose of creating a walkway, staff's opinion would still be that these lands
are not lands conveyed "for park or other public recreational purposes". Lands are
required to be conveyed to municipalities for sidewalks and walkways primarily for the
purpose of ingress and egress. The City requires the construction and conveyance of
sidewalks and walkways in all major developments and it would be wrong to suggest
that these conveyances are "for park or other public recreational purposes". Simply put,
installing a walkway and related features (e.g. lighting) on a piece of land cannot mean
that the land is converted for a recreational purpose. Trails, on the other hand, can
serve a recreational purpose. However, as stated above, the walkway on this site does
not serve such purpose. There is a distinctive difference in the use of the words
"pedestrian pathway", "walkway", and "parkland" in the Planning Act. They are not
synonymous.
3. Does the fact that the buffer lands were conveyed to the City and not TRCA
mean that they were conveyed for purposes other than protection of the valley
system?
Staff do not agree with SR&R's suggestion that the buffer lands should be treated as
lands that were conveyed "for park or other public recreational purposes" simply
because they were conveyed to the City and not to TRCA.
TRCA repeatedly requested that the buffer lands be conveyed into public ownership
(see, for example, their letter to the City dated July 3, 2007). The buffer lands and the
valleylands were put into City ownership in order to be consistent with adjoining valley
system lands which are in City ownership. City Official Plan Policy 10.5 makes it clear
that lands conveyed for the purpose of environmental protection can be held by the City
or another public agency. It reads as follows:
City Council recognizes the importance of its stream corridors, and
acknowledges the health of its valley and corridors can be affected by uses and
activities anywhere in the watershed; accordingly, Council shall, ... c) require
conveyance of the valleylands and associated vegetation, and/or buffers to the
Citv or other public aqencv as a condition of development approval, where
appropriate".
Report PD 47-08
November 17,2008
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
: .' AI 53
Official Plan Policy 15.28 reads as follows:
Page 6
City Council, ... (c) shall not accept as parkland conveyance lands required for
drainage; valley and stream corridor or shoreline protection purposes; lands
susceptible to flooding; steep valley slopes; hazard lands; lands required to be
conveyed to a public agency other than the City of Pickering; and any other
lands unsuitable for park development.
Policy 15.28( c) prohibits the City from accepting any lands required for "valley and
stream corridor or shoreline protection purposes" and "lands unsuitable for park
development" irrespective of whether the lands are conveyed to another public agency.
In the opinion of staff, because the buffer lands were conveyed for environmental
protection purposes and because none of the buffer land is capable of being
programmed for any parkland use by the City's Culture & Recreation Division, Policy
15.28 (c) prohibits the City from accepting such land for parkland conveyance.
In the opinion of staff, to suggest that who owns the buffer lands is determinative of the
purpose of the conveyance of such lands is inconsistent with Policies 10.5 and 15.28
(c) of the City's Official Plan.
4. What are the correct figures to be used when calculating the amount of the
parkland payment?
SR&R claims that it has exceeded its statutory parkland obligations because the buffer
lands represent approximately 6% of the net developable area of the site. Area
calculations based on the final approved site plan are set out in Attachment #3 to this
Addendum Report. Staff do not qualify the buffer lands as parklands and have
requested cash-in-lieu of parkland for this development. The net site area of this
development is 3.174 ha. The cash-in-lieu value is calculated at 5% of the value of the
land the day before the issuance of a building permit. Based on the appraisals
provided by SR&R, the parkland payment is 5% of $10,665,00, being $533,250.
5. Is it appropriate to reduce the parkland amount by an amount equal to SR&R's
cost of constructing the walkway within the buffer area?
The opinion of staff on this issue was set out on page 5 of Report #PD 36-08.
Requiring a developer to pay for the construction of a walkway and related lighting
(whether on the developable footprint or on lands conveyed from the developer into
public ownership) is a standard City requirement in accordance with Section 41 of the
Planning Act (see question 2 above) and staff therefore feel that no reduction should be
given.
6. Who bears the onus of proving that a developer is entitled to a credit for prior
parkland conveyances?
Report PD 47-08
November 17,2008
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
Page 7
'1 54
The issue of credits for previous parkland conveyances or payments-in-Iieu was
discussed at the October 6, 2008 Planning & Development Committee meeting.
Notwithstanding the fact that the onus is on an applicant to establish that there has
been a previous conveyance of parkland in order to be entitled to a credit, City staff
diligently tried to determine if there had been any previous conveyances of payments-
in-lieu relating to the Bay Ridges Plaza lands. Significant staff resources were spent
searching through City and Registry Office records. Staff could not locate any
documentation and SR&R has not provided any documentation to show that there was
any such parkland conveyance or payment-in-lieu.
7. Is it appropriate to phase the payment of the parkland levy to coincide with what
is in essence a development with three phases - the first being the construction
of 110 townhouses, the second being the construction of Building/Tower A
(236 units), and the third being the construction of Building/Tower B (141 units)
and the remaining 10 townhouses.
Staff would not have any objection to phasing the payments based on building permit
issuance for each phase, provided the total parkland payment remain at $533,250.
SR&R was advised of this position. SR&R was also advised that staff could support
payment of the parkland payments upon the issuance of the building permits for above
ground works on Building/Tower A and Building/Tower B. In other words, the issuance
of a demolition permit, a shoring permit and a permit for construction of the
underground parking garage would not trigger a parkland payment. Finally, SR&R was
advised that, consistent with a phased approach, staff could support the return of a
portion (approximately $82,000) of the monies already paid in relation to the first phase.
SR&R indicated that it could not accept these terms.
8. If it is appropriate to phase the parkland payments, should the payments be
triggered by the issuance of a building permit for the phase to be constructed or
by the registration of the plans of condominium?
In the opinion of staff, a parkland payment-in-lieu is most appropriately triggered by the
issuance of a building permit. This is consistent with subsection 8(2) of the Building
Code Act which states that a chief building official must issue a building permit unless
the proposed building, structure or demolition will contravene the Building Code Act, the
building code or any other "applicable law", and "applicable law" is defined in the
building code (section 1.4.1.3) to include payments-in-lieu of parkland conveyances
required by subsection 42(6) of the Planning Act.
The registration of a condominium plan establishes tenure - it does not by itself
constitute development. Residents could be occupying their dwelling units for months
or in some cases years prior to the registration of a condominium plan. In the opinion
of staff, it would be inappropriate to delay the collection of parkland payments-in-lieu for
an uncertain period of time when the new residents who will be placing demands on the
City's park services have already moved into their units.
Report PO 47-08
November 17, 2008
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
it! '1SS
Page 8
9. Is the City's approach to parkland levies on this development consistent with the
City's approach to the Tridel development at Kingston Road and Valley Farm?
The original 1987 development agreement for the Tridel project required Tridel to pay a
5% of the appraised value of the property. The parkland payment-in-lieu amounted to
$1,225 per unit (as compared to SR&R's $1,073 per unit). Tridel was permitted to pay
the total parkland amount in phases as the project was built out, but any deferred
payments were increased by 10% each year. In 1998, Council agreed to amend the
escalation provision in the development agreement, as a result of which Tridel paid a
total of $1,598,738.48 or an average of $1,406 per unit in lieu of parkland conveyance.
None of the walkways or the pedestrian rest areas in the project were counted as
parkland dedication.
3.0 Concluding Comments
None of the information that SR&R has provided subsequent to the preparation of
Report #PO 36-08, including case law supplied by SR&R's solicitor, has caused staff to
alter any of the professional opinions set out in that report. In the opinion of staff,
SR&R's position on the issue of parkland conveyance (a) is contrary to subsection
42(1) of the Planning Act; (b) is inconsistent with the City's Official Plan policies; (c) is
inconsistent with City practices; and (d) would set an undesirable precedent with
serious long-term City parkland program implications.
Attachments:
1. TRCA letter to the City dated September 6, 2006
2. Extract from SR&R's Approved Landscape Plan
3. Area Calculations
4. Report PO 36-08
Report PD 47-08
November 17, 2008
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
Page 9
"156
Prepared By:
Approved/Endorsed By:
II-
Ross Pym, MCIP,
Principal Planner - evelopment Review
Approved/Endorsed By:
~
~ri ~/
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Approved/Endorsed By:
~.""""'-~'::"--"
.-" .,-:;--::; ,."""~
~.., '~..."....,....
~
Gillis Paterson
Director, Corporate S rvices & Treasurer
-"
Approved/Endorsed By:
~
/ '
Andrew C. Allison
City Solicitor
RP:ks
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering Ci u 'I
, I
,.,
~
onserRvaNiiOn
'I 57 for The Living City
Attachment #1 to Report #PD 47-08
; tl
September 6, 2006
ReCE,~ lf~O' - CFN 37347.06
~. r;: .
SEP 1 2 2006
CITY OF .-~-,
PLANNING & bb~~gAING
DEPAF1TMENTPMENT
VIA E-MAIL AND MAIL
Ross Pym, MCIP, RPP
Planning and Development Department
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
----------piekering-;-eN---t-1-V-6Kl-----
Re: Zoning By-Law Amendment Application No. A 06/06
1215-1235 Bayly Street (gay Ridges Plaza)
City of Pickering
S. R. & R. Bay Ridges Limited
Dear Mr. Pym:
Thank you for the opportunity to review Zoning By-Law Amendment Application No. A 06/06 for
the redevelopment of the BayHidges Plaza. We have reviewed the following documents:
. Survey, prepared by R. G. McKibbon Limited, signed October 13, 2004, received June
23,2006 from the applicant; .
. Scoped Environmenta.llmpact Statememt, prepared by Watershed ManagementEcology, .
dated May 2006, receivedJune12,2006; .'
. . Preliminary Report - Slope Stability Assessment, prepared byJaques Whitford, dated
August 16, 2006, received August 23, 2006 from the applicant.
. Master Plan, prepared by Kirkor Architects, dated August 17, 2006, received on August
30,2006 in a meeting with the applicant
We offer the followin~ comments:
TRCA Permit Requirements .
The subject property is partially within a TRCA Regulated Area. In accordance with Ontario
Regulation 166/06 (Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and
Watercourses), a permit is required from the TRCA prior to any of the following works taking
place,: .
1. straightening, changing, diverting or interfering in any way with the existing channel of a
river, creek, stream orwatercourse, or for changing or interfering in any way with a
wetland;
2. development, if inthe opinion of the authority, the control of flooding, erosion, dynamic
beaches or pollution or the conservation of land may be affected by the development.
Development is defined as:
1. the construction, reconstruction, erection or placing of a building or structure of any kind;
2. any change to a building or structure that would have the effect of altering the use or
F:\HOME\PUBLlC\OEVELOPMENT SERVICES\OURHAM REGION\PICKERING\ 1215 - 1235 BA YL Y _2.00C
~~"'.."" ........--.&~~..-.....-,:;~""'""""",.... ...- ~-- --=0-.............__..-.., ----..,....., _____ 1<:0
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1 S4 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ;~l;
""_1.'
Attachment #1 to Report #PD 47-08
Ross Pym
- 2 -
158
September 6, 2006
potential use of the building or structure, increasing the size of the building or structure or
increasing the number of dwelling units in the building or structure;
3. site grading;
4. the temporary or permanent placing, dumping or removal of any material, originating on
the site or elsewhere.
The applicant should contact TRCA staff to obtain permit approval prior to the issuance of any
municipal grading or building permits.
TRCA Policy and Program Interests .
Notwithstanding permit requirements, the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's policies
for defining valley. corridor boundaries are guided byour "Valley and Stream Corridor
Management Program" (VSCMP). The VSCMP guides our review of development proposals'
and permit and planning applications. The overali objectives ofthese 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. Forthe subjectproperty, the VSCMP policies
define the valley corridor boundary .as follows: .
1. If the valley slope is stable, a minimum of ~ 0 metres inland from the top of the valley
bank; or
2..lf the valley slope is not stable, a minimum of 10 metres from the predicted long term
stable slope projected from the existing stable/stabilized toe (base) of slope, or the
predicted location of the toe of the slope as shifted as a result of stream erosion over a
100 year period;' or
3. If there is significant vegetation, thelimitof this vegetation plus ten metres.
In summary, the limits of the valley corridorwill be defined by'the greater of the top of bank, the
predicted long term stable slope 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 development limits on the subject property have been identified, as follows:
1. The top of bank as staked in 2004 has been accurately illustratedas "TRCAstaked top
of bank - staked September 2004" on the Survey signed October 13, 2004. The top of
bank is valid for a period of five years, at which time if development is not substantially'
underway then a new top of bank staking will be required.
2. The Preliminary. Report - Slope Stability Assessment dated August 16,2006 is
appropriate and we concur with the process for identifying and locating the stable top of
bank in the Assessment. As such, the stable top of bank is considered to be the same
as the staked top of bank. We do note, however, that in the extreme southeast of the
site, the existing drain or stormwater sewer pipe is broken and its discharge has caused
an erosion gully descending to the creek. This should be remediated as part of any
future development application.
F:\HOME\PUBLlC\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\DURHAM REGION\PICKERING\ 1215 - 1235 BA YL Y _2.DOC
I I'
'\ 59
Attachment #1 to Report #PD 47-08
Ross Pym
- 3 -
September 6, 2006
3. The limit of vegetation associated with the valley is approximately coincident with the top
of bank.
As such, the valley corridor includes the top of bank plus 10 metres. This area 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. Please note that the Master Plan dated August 17,2006
does not respect a .10 metre buffer from top of bank. In addition, we request that the Regional
-~--_.---Storm anCflmJVear storm tlood elevatlon5l5EfPlolted onlnesltePlanmanyfutured~lopm-gnt----,---_.. ._-
applications. \ .
Enl/ironmentaJ Impact Study
We did not requestto review an Environmental Impact Study, provided the appropriate buffer
was'achieved. However, our Ecologist has reviewed the Study and has significant concerns
with the section entitled Opporturiities and Constraints, including: 1) the recommendation for a
10 metre buffer is inconsistent with the Figure 7, Development Concept; 2) a planting plan for
the buffer should be recommended; 3) stormwater should not be directed to a new outfall to the
valley, if at all possible; and 4) the study should identify best management practices for
stormwater management and groundwater infiltration. .. .
Recommendation
In light of the above, we have no objection to the approval of the Zoning Amendment subject to
the valley corridor (including 10 metres from the illustrated top of bank) being re-zoned in an
open space category that would have the effect of prohibiting development, including rear yards,
roads, and accessory structures, etc.
We request that the valley corridor be renaturalized and transferred into public ownership as part
this or any future planning application. .
We trust this is satisfactory. Please feeLfree to contact me if you have any further questions. ..
Sine ely, II ~
Steven H. Heuchert, MCIP, RPP, MRTPI
Manager, Development Planning and Regulation
Planning and Development
Extension 5311
cc: Steven M. Warsh, Partner, S & R Developm"ent Group Limited (bye-mail)
Stephen\. Fagyas, Commercial Focus Advisory Services Inc. (bye-mail)
F:\HOME\PUBLlC\OEVELOPMENT SERVICES\DURHAM REGION\PICKERING\1215 - 1235 SA YL Y _2.DOC
Attachment #2 to Report #PO 47-08
~,~_....... ,'"
N7JTJO'
---
,'"
'\ '
\, '
\, '
\, \ ~
\,'-
'"
\~
\~
\~
\
\
/\\
.l
I
I
h
"j
I
I
,~/
,f I
j ----~'
lTi
:;'
~I
til
,,'
~I
~I
I:
\~
I",
Ii
..
\~
,'"
I
I
I~
<\;
I
I
I
)
LEG~ND
ti.r2;~~~,"'~: ;~~[::]
,,c.,, t-" ':'.~-"'':<' > '>~: ,.-<, ~':" i
-,;",~"~"',::,:,:;..~j
\
I~
"
I ~.
<>
I""
I
'I 60
--
------
----
I
I
)
LIMITS OF
BUFFER AREA
WALKWA Y FROM
TOT LOT TO BA YL Y ST,
5, LIGHT STANDARD
Extract from Approved Landscape plan
Attachment #3 to Report #PD 47-08
'1 f. 1
I ~)
Area Calculations*
Net Developable Area of the Site
3.174 ha (7.840 ac)
0.199 ha (0.494 ac)
0.609 ha (1.505 ac)
Buffer Lands
Valleylands
Walkway
277 sq. m.
Buffer Lands as a % of Net Developable Area
6.27%
Walkway as a % of Buffer Lands
13.8%
Walkway as a % of Net Developable Area
0.7%
* Based on Final Approved Site Plan SP-01 last revised September 27,2007
Attachment #4 to Report #PO 47-08 REPORT TO
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
.COMMITTEE
r{eport Number: PO 36-08
Date: October 6, 2008
From: Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd.
. - Parkland Conveyance
File: S 2/07 .
Recommendation:
1. That Council confirm the requirement that S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. pay the sum
of $533,250 in lieu of the c.onveyance of parkland in relation to the
redevelopment of the lands in the former Bay Ridges Plaza shown on
Attachment #1 to Report PO 36-08.
Executive Summary: S. R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. ("SR&R") disputes the amount that
City staff have calculated to be payable in lieu of the conveyance of parkland. This
report sets out the positions of both SR&R and staff, and recommends that Council
confirm the $533,250 parkland payment calculated by staff.
Financial Implications: If Council adopts the recommendation contained in this
report, the City will collect a total of $533,250 as payment in lieu of parkland
conveyance for the redevelopment of the property. If Council accepts the offer
contained in a letter from SR&R's lawyer (William Friedman) dated June 18, 2008, ~he
City will only collect a total of $150,000. ..
Sustainability Implications: Other than the financial implications set out above,
there are no sustainability implications.
1.0 Background:
The relevant background information is as follows:
1. On October 3, 2006, Council approved SR&R's zoning by-law amendment
application to permit a mixed use development on the lands in the former Bay
Ridges Plaza site, shown in Attachment #1 and Attachment #2 (the "Lands"). The
issue of parkland was addressed in the recommendations report (PO 45-06) as
follows:
Report PO 36-08
October 6, 2008
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
'I 63
Page 2
T-<--
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.
If Council had chosen to use the second option, SR&R's payment in lieu of
parkland conveyance would have been up to approximately $5,578,000 based on
the current zoning for 497 units and the most recent appraisals that show that the
market value of the residential portion of the Lands is $10,665,000. Even if
SR&R's payment was calculated based on the price SR&R paid to purchase the
Lands prior to rezoning ($6,333,000), this second option would have. required
SR&R to pay up to approximately $3,312,000 in lieu of parkland conveyance
based on the current zoning for 497 units.
2. Section 5 of Schedule C to the Development Agreement signed by SR&R and
registered against title to the Lands on February 14, 2008 provides as follows:
CALCULA T/ON OF AMOUNT PA Y ABLE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND CONVEYANCE
Prior to the issuance of the first permit for the construction of any building on the Lands, the
Owner shall:
(1) Obtain a written appraisal, prepared by a professional land appraiser acceptable to the
City, of the value of the Lands, as of the day before the issuance of the permit; and
(2) Pay the sum equal to 5% of the appraised value, which sum shall be provided in the
form of cash or certified cheque, and which sum the City shall accept in full satisfaction
of the Owner's obligation to provide parkland.
3. SR&R disputes the amount that staff have calculated to be payable in lieu of
parkland conveyance (the "parkland amount") in relation to the redevelopment of
the Lands. Pending a resolution of the issue, staff agreed to process up to 110
building permits for the townhouse units on the Lands (areas zoned SA-8, SA-LW
and MD-H6 on Attachment #2) on the condition that SR&R paid $200,000 to the
City to be applied against whatever amount Council determines should be paid.
SR&R also agreed to provide the City with an appraisal showing the current
market value of both the commercial and residential components of the Lands.
Attachment #3 to this report is a copy of a letter dated February 29, 2008
confirming this agreement.
I ..
~egoti PD 36-08
I,) q
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
October 6,2008
Page 3
4. SR&R has provided two appraisals dated March 17, 2008 and July 24,2008. The
March 17, 2008 appraisal indicates that the market value of the Lands is
$12,765,000. The July 24, 2008 appraisal indicates that the market value of the
commercial portion of the Lands is $2,100,000. Therefore the residential portion
of the Lands is $10,665,000.
5. The first building permits were issued on March 13, 2008.
6. By letter dated June 18, 2008 from SR&R's lawyer (William Friedman) to the
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer (see Attachment #4), SR&R has set out
its position on the issue of parkland dedication. SR&R has clarified that its offer is
to pay the City a total of $150,000 in lieu of parkland; in addition to the costs it will
incur to implement improvements in the buffer lands and the ravine stewardship
plan. Consequently, SR&R requests that it be reimbursed $50,000 of the
$200,000 payment already made to the City.
7. The laws, by-laws and policies relevant to the calculation of the parkland amount
are as follows:
(a) Section 42 of the Planning Act (extracts in Attachment #5);
(b) Section 15.28 of the Pickering Official Plan (Attachment #6); and
(c) City Parkland By-law 5373/98 (Attachment #7).
8. The City has recently received applications from SR&R to amend the City's Official
Plan and zoning by-laws to facilitate the redevelopment of the former 'Square Boy
Plaza' lands. If these applications are approved, SR&R will be required to pay a
further parkland amount.
2.0 Discussion:
Staff's responses to each of the points raised in Mr. Friedman's letter dated
June 18, 2008 as well as two other arguments that SR&R has previously put forward in
relation to this issue are set out below.
Vallev Land and Buffer Land Contributions
SR&R Position
1. "Bay Ridges has conveyed to the City 4.94 acres, the Buffer Lands, for park or
public recreation purposes. This represents the entire 5% required to be conveyed
for Parkland. "
2. "In addition Bay Ridges has been required to convey an area equal to 1.505 acres.
This area is known as the valley lands."
Report PD 36-08
October 6, 2008
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
165
Page 4
Staff Response
In accordance with the registered Development Agreement, SR&R conveyed Part 2
(517.88 m2), Part 3 (139.50 m\ Part 4 (48.44 m2) and Part 6 (1,287.41 m2) on Plan
40R-25170 for Buffer Lands. These parts total 0.1993 hectares or 0.492 acres, not
4.94 acres. The valley lands total 1.505 acres. Therefore, SR&R has conveyed just
under two acres of land for such purposes. The buffer lands and valley lands are shown
separately on Attachment #1. They are shown together as the area zoned OS-HL in
Attachment #2.
The conveyance of the buffer lands into public ownership is a requirement of the TRCA
and is necessary for the protection of the natural, heritage system. Buffer lands
constitute an integral component of the natural heritage system. They provide space
for the protection and ecological function of valley lands. The City does not accept
valley lands, environmental buffer areas, or other lands unsuitable for park
development as parkland dedication. This policy is outlined in the City's Official Plan
(section 15.28(c)) and this approach has been upheld by the Ontario Municipal Board
(K.P. Isberg Construction v. Toronto (City) (2007), 56 O.M.B.R. 418).
Conveyance of environmental buffer areas to public authorities has become common in
development approval processes. For example, the Environmental Servicing Plan for
the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood has identified significant buffer areas beyond the
physical top-of-bank of the Ganatsekiagon Creek that must be conveyed to an
appropriate public authority through the development approvals process. While these
buffers are beyond the physical top-of-bank of valley systems, they are considered part
of the ecological function of the natural heritage system and are therefore contained
outside of the development area. These buffer lands will not be considered as parkland
conveyance or as any amount payable in lieu of such conveyance. If they were to be
accepted as parkland in fulfillment of Planning Act dedication requirements, the City
would not be able to secure sufficient lands for its active neighbourhood parks without
purchasing such lands at market value and passing this cost on to the taxpayer.
Consequently, qualifying buffer lands as parkland conveyance in fulfillment of Planning
Act requirements would have serious implications on the City's parks program.
Ravine Stewardship Plan
SR&R Position
3. "Bay Ridges has also agreed to provide a three year Ravine Stewardship Plan for
the Valley lands at a cost of $50, 000. 00"
RepQrtPD 36-08
'\ 6 (:)
Subject: S.R.&R..Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
October 6, 2008
Page 5
Staff Response
The Development Agreement requires that SR&R secure $36,000.00 (not $50,000.00),
which represents 100% of the anticipated cost of preparing and implementing the
Ravine Stewardship Plan. TRCA required that SR&R fund the cost of the Plan as a
condition of site plan approval (see letter from TRCA dated July 3, 2007 -
Attachment #8). The value' of the Ravine Stewardship Plan ($36,000.00) was
determined by TRCA. This TRCA requirement has nothing whatsoever to do with the
City's requirements for parkland dedication. While the Stewardship Plan is an initiative
in support of environmental responsibility and is commendable, the cost of such
program initiatives should not be credited against parkland amounts.
Site Plan Improvements
SR&R Position
4. "Bay Ridges has agreed to make certain improvements to the Buffer Lands
conveyed to the City at a cost of $46, 000, 00."
Staff Response. .
SR&R has agreed to make certain improvements to the buffer lands as a condition of
site plan approval. Staff cannot determine if the cost estimate of $46,000 is accurate
without more detailed information from SR&R.
Site improvements are a standard requirement for any major development in the City of
Pickering. They can be on private property and/or on public property (Le. boulevard
planting; pedestrian connections to existing sidewalks). As a condition of the City's
approval of the site plan for this redevelopment and with the approval of TRCA, SR&R
was required to construct a walkway within a section of the Douglas Ravine buffer area.
Certain landscaping features have been incorporated into the walkway design. The
costs associated with these site improvements are part of the overall site development
requirements. The City does not credit the cost of improvements like these against
parkland dedication requirements.
Previous Parkland Dedications
SR&R Position
5. "Bay Ridges is entitled to (sic) pursuant to Section 42(9) of the Planning Act to a
credit for any amounts previously conveyed with respect to the Lands for park or
other recreational purposes or paid in lieu thereof"
Report PD 36-08
October 6, 2008
. h '7
'I ~)
Subiect: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
Page 6
Staff Response
Staff have reviewed all development agreements and subdivision agreements relating
to the Lands and most of the lands that make up the communities of Bay Ridges and
West Shore. We did not find any evidence of any parkland dedications in relation to
the Lands. In fact, staff did not find any parkland dedications relating to any
commercial lands in either the Bay Ridges community or the West Shore community.
Staff did, however, locate seyeral parkland dedications and cash-in-lieu contributions in
relation to residential development in these communities. For example, a combination
of parkland and cash-in-lieu was given to the City to facilitate the construction of the
East Shore Community Centre as a condition of the development of all three of the
residential condominium projects located immediately south of the Bay Ridges Plaza
(agreements were dated February 12, 1969 and December 30, 1970). Consistent with
the City's current parkland policy, staff are not aware of any situation in which the City
has taken parkland or cash-in-lieu for any commercial development (including the Bay
Ridges Plaza).
Based on the foregoing, it is staffs opinion that no credit is available to SR&R pursuant
to subsection 42(9) of the Planning Act.
Commercial Component Credit
SR&R Position
6. "Bay Ridges is entitled to a credit for the value of the commercial component of the
development. This is estimated as follows:
a) Total commerciallretail space is 24,721 sq. ft and ass.uming a typical yield
from commercial land of 27%, then the total acreage required to develop and
build this amount of commercial/retail space would be 89,892 sq. ft or 2.063
acres. .
b) Land for commercial purposes in Pickering is worth $800,000 to $1,100,000,
And by taking the mid-point of say 950,000 the land required to build this
amount of commercial/retail would be $1,959,850.
c) Therefore (sic) the residual land value of the commerciallretail space that will
be built amounts to $1,959,850 and should be deducted from any values
before calculating the 5% in lieu. "
Repp1; PEP 36-08
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
October 6,2008
Page 7
Staff Response
Staff agree that the base figure used to calculate the parkland amount should be
reduced to reflect the fact that a portion of the development is commercial. In fact, City
staff made SR&R aware of the need to make this adjustment to the parkland amount at
a meeting held on February 27, 2008 and committed in writing to make the adjustment
based on an appraisal from a qualified land appraiser (see Attachment #3). This
approach ensures that SR&R's parkland amount is calculated in a manner consistent
with Section 3 of the City's Parkland By-law (see Attachment #7) which provides that
parkland conveyance is not required as a condition of any development or
redevelopment of land for commercial or industrial purposes.
In the opinion of staff, the City should not rely upon the calculations in Mr. Freidman's
letter dated June 18, 2008. Instead, the proper figure to use is the appraiser's estimate
of the value of the commercial portion of the Lands ($2,100,000). Accordingly, the
figure used to calculate the parkland amount is $10,665,000 which represents the
difference between the appraised value of the Lands ($12,765,000) less the appraised
value of the commercial portion of the Lands ($2,100,000).
Purchase Price v. Market Value
SR&R Position
In discussions with staff, SR&R representatives have repeatedly argued that the
parkland amount should be calculated based on the price it paid to purchase the Lands.
They feel that City staff previously advised them of this. SR&R purchased the Lands on
July 29, 2005 for $6,333,000. If the initial purchase price was accepted as representing
land value, SR&R would be required to pay 5% of $6,333,000 or $316,650 as its
parkland dedication.
Staff Response
In the opinion of staff, for the purpose of calculating the parkland amount, the value of
the Lands should be determined as of the day before the first permit was issued (March
13, 2008) and not as of ~fle date that SR&R purchased the Lands. This is what is
explicitly provided for in subsection 42(6.4) of the' Planning Act and section 5 of
Schedule C of the Development Agreement between SR&R and the City. In fact. it is
only as a result of the rezoninq of the Lands (which happened' after the Lands were
purchased) that the City acquired the leqal authority to collect a parkland amount (see
subsection 42(7) of the Planninq Act).
Report PD 36-08
October 6,2008
P 8'169
age
Subject: S,R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
Staff have previously used a developer's purchase price as the basis to calculate a
parkland amount, but only where (a) the payment was made within 1 year of the date
that the property being developed or redeveloped was purchased and there was no
reason to believe that the property value had materially increased; and (b) there had not
been any intervening change in land use or increase in the density for the site. This is
done to save the developer an unnecessary expense, The City does not use a
developer's purchase price to calculate a parkland amount where there has been an
intervening change in land use or increase in density.
Tot Lot
SR&R Position
In discussions with staff, SR&R representatives have argued that the parkland amount
should be reduced because they are providing a tot lot on the Lands.
Staff Response
A tot lot is being constructed on the Lands. It is an important component of the
condominium project. With developments that produce the density that is planned at
this site, there is always a need for outdoor amenity space, and specifically an area for
children's play facilities. This is a common City requirement for any residential
development of this nature and it represents an important site design component. The
tot lot is located on private property for the use of the residents of the condominium
project. The City does not credit the cost of a site improvement like this against
parkland dedication requirements.
3.0 Conclusion:
As discussed above, SR&R already received the benefit of a significantly lower
parkland amount when Council elected not to require land or cash-in-Iieu of land at a
rate of up to 1 hectare for each 300 dwelling units in the development. SR&R will also
receive the benefit of a deduction in the amount payable to reflect the fact that a portion
of the redevelopment is commercial. In the opinion of staff, there are no other
reduction options or credits available under the Planning Act, the City's Official Plan or
the Parkland By-law. Accordingly, it is staff's position that the proper parkland amount
in relation to the redevelopment of the Lands is 5% of the appraised market value of the
residential portion of the Lands as of the day before the first permit was issued. The
amount payable should therefore be 5% of $10,665,000 or $533,250.
Reporttf a6-08
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
October 6,2008
Page 9
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Schedule" to By-law 6705/06 as amended by By-law 6786/07
3. Letter dated February 29, 2008 from City Solicitor to William Friedman
4. Letter dated June 18, 2008 from William Friedman to the Director, Corporate
Services & Treasurer
5. Extracts from Section 42 of the Planning Act
6. Section 15.28 of the Pickering Official Plan
7. City Parkland By-law 5373/98
8. Letter dated July 3, 2007 from TRCA to Tyler Barnett
Report PD 36-08
October 6, 2008
Subject: S.R.&R. Bay Ridges Ltd. - Parkland Conveyance
Page 10
'I 7 1
Prepared By:
Approved/Endorsed By:
R~~CI~
Principal Planner - Development Review
Approved/Endorsed By:
Neil Carr
Director, Panning & Development
Approved/Endorsed By:
~"".'''''_..
~-'''-'''''''', - ~~-""'\
-- ' ).-
-Gillis Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
Evere" unts
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Approved/Endorsed By:
AA(4L-
Andrew C. Allison
City Solicitor
RP:jf
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration
of Pickering Cit~ Cou cil
NY
172
J~TTACHMENT #~~,,~."L===l(}
AEP(JRl ;# I?D.~=~~;:!)8._""",.".".",,.~
40~
H\GH'/'JAY
w
>
er
o
[f)
Z
I-
er
<{
2
I-
[f)
RADOM STREET
City of Pickering
Planning & Development Department
D
~
lm
DEVELOPMENT SITE-7.823 acres (3.166 ha)
VALLEY LAND BUFFER-0.492 acres (0.1993 ha)
VALLEY LAND-1.505 acres (0.6091 ha)
DATE: AUG. 26,2008
1
Dote Sources;
e Teronet Enterprisea Inc. one! its Suppli4!l...a.
Ali. ri9Mts Reserved. Not a pion of :IIurvey.
C 2005 MPAC cnd its supp',ers.
,All ri9ht8 Reaerved. Not 0 pion of Survey.
\-IIG\-I'Nf>-'<
WAYFARER
LANE
, .. ,', 'I "1", I" '"
:~ ..' :'h.}!~. Ja:iV, 7fr>; ~.;!~_r(:
hEr'URl # PD,,~~~_~_.
'173
I .
AOi
c.i'\.B- .
-,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
RH-MU-2 \
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
J-------
r::~___________________-
I
I
~J
~,
I
/
,.
I
~/bS-HL
0/
!
I
I
)
E
o
<<i
on
4.0m
w
~
0:::
o
MD-H6
3:
..J
I
<C
en
r
I
I
I
I
~
SA-a
(fJ
z
i= BUILD- TO-ZONE I /
0::: rzza
<( /
~ ENVELdPE
BUILDING (
r' ~. I
(fJ
--
"- I
'\ "'- RADOM STREET I
'\ -
SCHEDULE n TO BY-LAW 6705/06
AMENDED BY BY-LAW 6786/07
PASSED THIS 23 rd
DAY OF JU LY 2007
l'
N
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
MAYOR - DAVID RYAN
ORIGINAL SIONED BY
CITY CLERK - DEBI A. BENTLEY
Cif.l 0#
'1 7 4
'""'\
5>
~~ i:,:_'
,,-"'_ c--
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
Canada L1 V 6K7
Direct Access 905.420.4660
Toll Free 1.866,683.2760
cityofpickering.com
PICKERING
ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT
Legal Services
Division 905.420.4626
Facsimile 905.420.3534
legal@city.pickering.on.ca
February 29,2008
William Friedman
Barrister & Solicitor
3550 Victoria Park Avenue
Suite 110
Toronto, ON M2H 2N5
Subject:
SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd.
- File: L-3210-001-06
I can confirm that the City is prepared to issue up to 110 building permits for single
attached units on lands zoned' SA-LW, MD-H6 and SA-8 within the property legally
described as Parts.1, 5 and 7 on Plan 40R-25170 (the "Property") provided,
(a) all requirements relating to the issuance of building permits of the City's
Chief Building Official are met; and
(b) SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd. ("SR&R) pays $200,000.00 to the City to be
applied towards the amount owed by SR&R in lieu of parkland dedication.
I can also confirm that City staff, if requested by SR&R, will prepare a report for
consideration by Council at its meeting on March 25, 2008 seeking direction on the total
amount payable in lieu of parkland dedication provided,'
(a) SR&R has conveyed the valley lands legally described as Parts 12, 13, 14
(save and except Part 3 on Plan 40R-25170), 15 and 16 on Plan 40R-
24800 to the City free and clear of all encumbrances save and except the
encumbrances set out in Schedule A attached;
(b) SR&R has provided a certified appraisal showing the current market value
of both the commercial and residential components of the Property; and
(c) SR&R agrees to remit whatever amount Council determines to be the
appropriate amount payable in lieu of parkland dedication (less the
SR&R Bay Ridges ltd.
February 29, 2008
'175 .
?
,-;)
.? f;-08
Page 2
, ,I
. $200,000.00 already paid) forthwilh after Council's decision subject
however to any rights of appeal 10 !he OMB.
Finally, I can confirm that Ihe commercial component of the. market value of the
Property will be deducted from the overall marke! value for the purpose of calculating
the amount owed in lieu of parkland dedication.
If lhese condilions are acceptable 10 your client, please sign and forward to my office
lhe enclosed copy of this Jeffer.
Yours truly
44(.~
Andrew C. Allison
City Solicitor
ACA:ks
Altachment
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Director, Operations & Emergency Services
Director. Planning & Development
Manager, Development Review
Supervisor, Property & Development Services
Senior Planner - Site Planning
SR&R Bay Ridges Ltd. agrees to the conditions set out in this lelter.
r/ 7J,Jp9
Dated: /< b~ 7f!,
'1 7 6
~
A"rTACHMENl/. :::; TO
"!=PonT!J on .-::-~ ~ "rJ <), .
~ [., ,n "' =::;~ " _."" _ ..~ '.: . _ ,._
Schedule "A"
I. The reservations, limitations, provisions and conditions expressed in the original
grant from the Crown and all unregistered rights, interests and privileges in favour of
the Crown under or pursuant 10 any applicable statute or regulation.
2. Liens for taxes, local improvements, assessments or governmental charges or levies
not at the time due or delinquent.
3. Zoning restrictions, restrictions on the use of the Lands.
4. Any unregistered right-of-way, watercourse, rights-of.water or other casements nol
disclosed by the registered title ilJld the survey, if any, provided 10 us and any defects
in or omissions disclosed by the survey.
5. Any subdivision, servicing, development, engineering, site plan, perfonnance
agreement or other similar agreement with a municipal or other public authority.
6. All applicable governmental orders, laws, by-laws and regulations.
7. The reservations, limitations, conditions and exceptions to title set out in the Land
Titles Act (Ontario).
8. Part Lot Control By-Law registered March 7, 1961 as Instrument No. LTC 2527;
',"'{'! '" ",' '1' ''I I.~ "0 '
r--.I i\l;I'IiVu..:il! 1..:=-"'-","-r~;::~'.:'~'1
~:FOfn ;(1 [Ji) ~"..3.~1= '::J/~':,,==
1 77
WILLIAM FRIEDMAN D,CL., L.L.D
Barrister & Solicitor
150 Ferrand Drive, Suite 802
Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
M3C 3E5
Tel: 416-496.3340
Fax: 416.497-3809
E-mail: ~!l).I:Qia
By Email 2patel.son(iUcity.pickerin2.on.ca
By Courier
June 18,2008
Gillis A. Paterson
Director, Corporate Services & Treasurer
The Corporation of the City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario, Canada
LlV 6K7
Dear Sir:
Re: Parkland Dedication - SR & R Bay Ridges-Mixed Use Development
1215.1235 Bayly Stree~ Pickering, Ontario
Pursuant to Section 42(1) of the Planning Act (the "Act"), the council of the City of
Pickering as a condition of development or redevelopment of land may require that land
in an amount not exceeding 2%, in case of a commercial or industrial development or
redevelopment and in all other cases 5% of land be conveyed to the municipality for park
or other recreational purposes.
Section 42(6) of the Act pennits the City to require payment of money to the value of the
land otherwise required to be conveyed in lieu of a conveyance.
DETERMINATION OF V AWE
Pursuant to the Planning Act the value of the land shall be detennined as of the day
before the day the building pennit is issued in respect of the development or
redevelopment or if more than one pennit is required on the day before the day the first
pennit is issued.
Section 42(9) of the Act then provides that in the case where land has been previously
conveyed for park or recreational purposes or a payment of money has previously been
made in lieu a conveyance and the land was originally proposed for commercial or
'1 7 8
AnACHlV1Ef~l ~(-~c.L~"(o .,
HEPORT I PD~_ .?" (-:..::-1.:n__:..
2
industrial purpose and has now been proposed for another purpose then the land
previously conveyed or money previously paid shall be included in determining the
amount of land or money required to be conveyed or paid in connection with the new
development or redevelopment. Accordingly this section requires the City to credit the
amount of previous payment or conveyance against what is now to be paid or conveyed.
If there is a dispute as to value of the land or as to the credit for previous payment then
the matter can be brought before the OMB.
POSITION OF SR & R BAY RIDGES LTD.
Bay Ridges takes the position that:
I. Bay Ridges has conveyed to the City 4.94 acres, the Buffer Lands, for park or public
recreational purposes. This represents almost the entire 5% required to be conveyed for
Parkland.
2. In addition Bay Ridges has been required to convey an area equal tol.505 acres. This
area known as the valley lands.
3. Bay Ridges has also agreed to provide a three (3) year Ravine Stewardship Plan for the
Valley lands at a cost of$50,000.00
4. Bay Ridges has agreed to make certain improvements to the Buffer Lands conveyed to
the City at a cost of$46,000.
5. Bay Ridges is entitled to pursuant to Section 42(9) of the Planning Act to a credit for
any amounts previously conveyed with respect to the Lands for park or other recreational
purposes or paid in lieu thereof.
6. Bay Ridges is entitled to a credit for the value of the commercial component of the
development. This is estimated as follows:
a) Total commerciaVretail space is 24,271 and assuming a typical
yield from commercial land of27%, then the total acreage required to develop and build
this amount of commerciaVretail space would be 89,892 sq. ft. or 2.063 acres.
b) Land for commercial purposes in Pickering is worth $800,000 to
$1,100,000. and by taking the mid-point of say $950,000 the land required to build Ihis
amount of commerciaVretail would be $1,959,850
c) Therefor the residual land value of the commerciaVretail space that
will be built amounts to $1,959,850 and should be deducted from any values before
calculating the 5% in lieu.
The value of the lands as at the issue of the first building permit was determined by
appraisal to be $12,800,000. Five (5%) percent thereof is $640,000.00. Based on the
foregoing it would appear that no further sum is owed or needs to be conveyed to the
I II I
;\.., 1'/,~""ot/='iD
',',.(,rn .1< ,~.",~:, ~o
'"If''''' "(V,
- . ~~".-' <:~c__:""-,o",""";~~~>,-:. c'~_-_.(\
3
179
City. Moreover an argument can be made that Bay Ridges has conveyed and/or paid an
amount in excess of what it is required to conveyor pay under the Planning Act.
Rather than enter into a prolonged dispute resolution process, Bay Ridges is prepared to
resolve the issue relating to the parkland conveyance by pa~ng an additional amount of
$] 50,000,00. It is more than a reasonable amount given the various credits noted above to
which Bay Ridges believes it would otherwise be entitled.
cc. Mayor Dave Ryan
Councillors Bonnie LittIey, Bill Mclean, Rick Johnson, Jennifer O'Connell, Doug
Dickerson, David Pickles
'1 >~l";
I ~h_.l _
,.....
~'rrAC""Hr-"li' '"-,. TO
t\. - rHVlcl\J lI'~~~~"-'.~ ,
'TnrH;? f.'D..u.....:ttL:-cLLKu.
Conveyance of land for park purposes
42. (1) As a condition of development or redevelopment of land, the council of a
local municipality may, by by-law applicable to the whole municipality or to any defined
area or areas thereof, require that land in an amount not exceeding, in the case of land
proposed for development or redevelopment for commercial or industrial purposes, 2
per cent and in all other cases 5 per cent of the land be conveyed to the municipality for
park or other public recreational purposes,"
Alternative requirement
ill Subject to subsection (4), as an alternative to requiring the conveyance
provided for in subsection (1), in the case of land proposed for development or
redevelopment for residential purposes, the by-law may require that land be conveyed
to the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes at a rate of one hectare
for each 300 dwelling units proposed or at such lesser rate as may be specified in the
by-law, .
Official plan requirement
. ill The alternative requirement authorized by subsection (3) may not be provided
for in a by-law passed under this section unless there is an official plan in effect in the
local municipality that contains specific policies dealing with the provision of lands for
park or other public recreational purposes and the use of the alternative requirement.
Payment instead of conveyance
@ The council of a local municipality may require the payment of money to the
value of the land otherwise required to be conveyed under this section in lieu of the
conveyance.
No building without payment"
@Jl If a payment is required under subsection (6), no person shall construct a
building on the land proposed for development or redevelopment unless the payment
has been made or arrangements for the payment that are satisfactory to the council
have been made. "
Determination of value
(6.4) For the purposes of subsections (6) and (6.2), the value of the land shall be
determined as of the day before the day the building permit is issued in respect of the
development or redevelopment or, if more than one building permit is required for the
development or redevelopment, as of the day before the day the first permit is issued.
Where land conveyed
ill If land has been conveyed or is required to be conveyed to a municipality for
park or other public purposes or a payment of money in lieu of such conveyance has
been received by the municipality or is owing to it under this section or a condition
imposed under section 51.1 or 53, no additional conveyance or payment in respect of
the land subject to the earlier conveyance or payment may be required by a
municipality in respect of subsequent development or redevelopment unless,
AnACHMENTI ~ TO
REPORT' PO ;~ f, 'Q.d~~~<
(a) there is a change 'in the proposed development or redevelopment which
would increase the density of development; or
(b) land originally proposed for development or redevelopment for commercial or
industrial purposes is now proposed for development or redevelopment for
other purposes.
'1 8 1
Changes
fill If there is a change under clause (7) (a) or (b), the land that has been
conveyed or is required to be conveyed or the payment of money that has been
received or that is owing, as the case may be, shall be included in determining the
amount'of land or payment of money in lieu of it that may subsequently be required
under this section on the development, further development or redevelopment of the
lands or part of them in respect of which the original conveyance 'or payment was
made. ' .
Disputes
llQ} In the event of a dispute between a municipality and an owner of land on the
value of land determined under subsection (6.4), either party may apply to the Municipal
Board to have the value determined and the Board shall, in accordance as nearly as
may be with the Expropriations Act, determine the value of the land and, if a payment
has been made under protest under subsection (12), the Board may order that a refund
be made to the owner.
Same
ll1l In the event of a dispute between a municipality and an owner of land as to
the amount of land or payment of money that may be required under subsection (9),
either party may apply to the Municipal Board and the Board shall make a final
determination of the matter.
Payment under protest
@ If there is a dispute between a municipality and the owner of land under
subsection (10), the owner may pay the amount required by the municipality under
protest and shall make an application to the Municipal Board under subsection (10)
within 30 days of the payment of the amount. '
Notice
.cru If an owner of land makes a payment under protest and an application to the
Mu'nicipal Board under subsection (12), the owner shall give notice of the application to
the municipality within 15 days after the application is made.
'1 82
AlTACHMENT ,_ l;
~EPom I PD~ :i<<> d"-W_~"C'~"
Enablin~ Policies
This section of the Plan provides policies that outline
how the City will obtain its park land tl1!ough
development applications, and how road widenings will
be secured.
15.28 City Council,
(a) shall as a condition of residential
development, and may as a condition of
other development, except for the uses
described in (b),
(i) require the conveyance of land to
the municipality for park or other
public recreational purposes in an
amount not exceeding 5% of the
proposed land to be developedj
(ii) may, as an alternative to requiring
conveyance of land as provided for
in (i) above, in 'the High Density
Residential Areas and Mixed Use
Areas, require land to be conveyed
for park or other public recreational
purposes at a rate of up to one
hectare for each 300 dwelIing units
proposed, whichever is greaterj and
(iii) may, in lieu of a portion or all of the
land conveyance stipulated ~y (i) or
(ii) above, require the payment of
money to the value of the land that
would otherwise be required to be
conveyed for park purposes;
(b) may, as a condition of commercial or
industrial development,
(i) require the conveyance of land to
the municipality for park or other
public recreational purposes in an
amount not exceeding 2% of the
proposed land to be developedj and
(ii) may, in lieu of a portion or all of the
land conveyance' stipulate~ by
(i) above, require the payment of
money to the value of the land that
would otherwise be required to be
conveyed for p~rk purposes; and
"";
CITY POLICY
Parkland: Conveyance of
Landfor Park or Other
Public Recreational PupoteS
ATT ACri~;fJH #,,~~,~~=~=~~~!~
c. .. ...,,_~ 0~U C'
'183
CITY POLICY
Parkland: Conveym1ce of Landfor
Park. or Other Public Recreational
PurpoJeJ (cont'd)
(c) shall not accept as parkland conveyance
lands required for drainage; valley and
stream corridor or shoreline protection
purposes; lands susceptible to flooding;
. steep valley slopes; hazard lands; lands
required to be. conveyed to a public
agency other than the City of Pickering;
and other lands unsuitable for park
development.
CITY POLICY
Road Widening!
15.29 City Council shall secure, at no charge to the
municipality, the right-of-way widths in
accordance with section 4.10 for roads
shown on Schedule II, through the
subdivision, land severance and! onite plan
control process, and/or through development
agreements, and/ or by dedication or
conveyance, subject to,
(a) exact right-oC-way widths being
determined at the time of
development, considering the
proposed land use, intensity of
development, road function, cultural
and heritage features of the area, and
development guidelines prepared for
Detailed Review Areas; and
(b) road widenings being taken equally
from both sides of the road measured
from the centreline, except in areas
where special circumstances exist (such
as areas containing unusual soil,
topographic or other environmental
. features; 'areas where existing buildings
or structures warrant protection; and
where jog-eliminations are proposed at
intersections), which circumstances
require that more of the required road
widening is taken from one side than
the other.
........-..............L ,_ '-"''-1'''1'-''1 J. I nl I. ..1 r~rTII"""\h.t A' rh__tor' ~iftot3n __ n~vplnnmpnf Rpvipv/
301
'J 84
AT1ACHMENT ,- -, TO
REPORT I PD_ .3~: 08
THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF PICKERING
BY-LAW NO, 5373/98
Being a by-law to require the conveyance of land
for park or other public recreational purposes as a
condition of development or redevelopment, or
the subdivision of lands.
WHEREAS sections 42, 5U, 51(25) and 53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.l3
provide that the Council of a local municipality may by by-law require that land be conveyed to
the municipality for park or other public recreational purposes as a condition of development or
redevelopment or the subdivision of lands;
WHEREAS sections 42 and 51.1 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.l3, provide for an
alternate parkland rate of one hectare for each 300 dwelling units proposed for development
provided the municipality has an official. plan that contains specific policies dealing with the
provision of lands for park or other public recreational purposes at such a rate;
WHEREAS the Official Plan of the Town of Pickering contains specific policies dealing with the
provision oflands for park or other public recreation purposes at the conveyance rates referred to
in the Planning Act;
WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Pickering wishes to use these
provisions to further the acquisition of lands for parks or other public recreational purposes.
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. For the purposes of interpretation of this by-law, the following definitions shall apply:
(a) "Development" means the construction, erection or placing of one or more
buildings or structures on land or the making of an addition or alteration to a
building or structure that has the effect of substantially increasing the size or
usability thereof; and
(b) "Redevelopment" has the same meaning as Development.
(c) "Subdivision" means the process referred to in section 50 of the Planning Act,
R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.B.
2. This By-law shall apply to the whole of the Town of Pickering.
3. As a condition of development or redevelopment of lands for any purpose other than
commercial or industrial purposes, Council shall. require that land be conveyed to the
Town, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, for park or other public recreational
purposes in the amount of five percent (5%) of the land proposed for such development.
4. As a condition of subdivision of lands for any purPose other than commercial or
industrial purposes, Council shall require that land be conveyed to the Town, free and
clear of all liens and encumbrances, for park or other public recreational purposes in the
amount of five percent (5%) of the land proposed for such development.
5. As an alternative to sections 3 and 4 above, as a condition of development or
redevelopment or in the case of subdivision of land as a condition of approval of
AnACHMEN1'~L,= TO
F:Y'Hl ~ PO ~~ g
. It! "" ,,', , "~>=~...,.:.Q.~~~,....,,..~.,
'185
sudivision of lands for development in the High Density Residential Areas and Mixed
Use Areas in accordance with the To\W of Pickering Official Plan, Council may require
that land be conveyed to the Town for park or other public recreational purposes at a rate
of one hectare for each 300 dwelling units proposed. However, in no case shall the
parkland dedication be less than that required in sections 3 and 4 above.
6. As an alternative to sections 3, 4 and 5 above, Council may require the payment of money
equal to the value of any land otherwise to be conveyed under this by-law, or such
combination of land and money as Council may require.
7. This By-law shall at all times be subject to the provisions of sections 42, 51.1, 51 (25) and
53 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.l3, as amended from time to time, or any
successor thereto.
8. By-Law No: 4152193 of The Corporation of the Town of Pickering being a by-law "To
require that land be conveyed to the To\W for park or other public recreations purposes as
a condition of development or redevelopment anywhere in the Town", is hereby repealed.
BY-LAW read a fITst, second and third time and finally passed this; 8th day of Septanber, 1998.
~~
waY7~ ...
Bruce Taylor, Clerk
TOWN OF'
PlCKErm~G
~~. . .
~?>":i' . , ' '1 8 6 ,) .,.:.::; '-'.
:-__" . \ ,..". .. . ., c~"""L='~,c>J_10J
'i, )Conservliuf;;; c'1""e>b?iL
for The living City
July 3, 2007' RECEIVED
CFN 38686.01
XREF CFN 39234
VIA E-MAIL AND MAIL
JUl 1 0 2007 .
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Tyler Barnett
Planning and Development Department
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
. Pickering, ON ,L 1V 6K7
Re: Site Plan Application No. 502/07
1215 -1235 Bayly Street (San Francisco by the Bay, Bay Ridges Fiaza) .
City of Pickering
S.R. &. R. Bay Ridges Limited
Dear Mr. Barnett:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the second Site 'Plan application submission. We have
. reviewe,d the foll,owing documents: . .'
. Drawing Nos. SP-01 to SP-04, prepared by' Kirkor Architects, dated Apri/4, 2007, Revision
No. 3, r~vised April 9, 2007, receivedon May 8,2007; .
. . 5WM Report;, prepared by Sernas, dated May 8, 2007, received May 14, 2007;
. Drawing No. GEO-1, Pine Creek Bank Stabilization and outfall Channel Design, prepared by
. 5ernas, dated May 2007;
.' Drawing No. 5D-1, Site Drainage Area Plan, prepared by Sernas, dated October 2006;
. Drawing No. SG-1,Site Grading Plan, prepared by Sernas, dated October 2006;
. Drawing No. SS-1, Site Servicing Plan, prepared by Sernas, dated October 2006; .
. Drawing No. ERS-1, Erosion/Sediment Control Plan. prepared by Sernas,dated October
2006; and .
. ' Drawing Nos. L-1 to L-7, prepared by James McWilliam Land$cape Architect; datedMarch .
2007;,~evision 3. revised Apri/5, 2007, receiv~d on May 8,2007.' .
Wa offei' the following comments..
Slope Sta'bility
. , .
1. The'proposed outfall and limits of development are satisfactory with respect to slope stability. .
Stormwater Management
, ..,. ... ." .
2. Please provide confirmation whether the proposed future development was taken into account
for total imperviousness calculation E1nd Visual Otthymo calculation for total contribution from
. Catchment 116. Please provide a summary of the total area and percent imperviousness of
the existing, proposed and future development. Please. provide an electronic copy of the . .'
modified V02 model. Review of all details r~garding minorsysteni flow, flow capacity al}d
conveyance of on site flows through minor systems, and major overland flow conveyanc"e is .
deferred to City staff. . Confirmation should be provided via a copy of City comments that City
staff has no concerns in this regard. .
F:\HOME\PUBLlC\DEVELOPMENT SERV1CES\DURHAM REGlON\P1CKERING\1215 - 1235 BA YL Y _ 4.DOC
Member of Conservation Ontario
r ..'.C."'.
~'~\
/---7
Co,
7-';"(""
,J., ..'i
'18 T
Tyler Barnett
~ 2 ~
July 3. 2007
3. Figure 50-1 shows that major overland flow is directed towards the valley wall on the east
side of the property. Please be advised that TRCA policy does not support discharge of
unattenuated concentrated major .f1ow into the valley as shown in Drawing No. 5G~ 1.
Acceptable alternatives to the current proposal would include grading of the southeast corner
of the site to provide temporary attenuation of flow and dispersal of flow into the valley wall
through a level spread~r or curb acting as a weir, or conveyance of major system flows via a
pipe to af! outfall located at the bottom of the valley wall. '
4. Please describe the implications of site construction phasing on the function of the temporary
pond and stormwater flow patterns on site, and confirm that the function of the pond will be
maintained through all phases. '. .
5. Please provide appropriate proposed contours of the pond and volume calculation on Drawing
No. ERS-1. '
6. The outlet of the pond is very close to the inlet of proposed temporary swale for proposed
ponds on the east and west side, as shown on Drawing No. ERS-1. This will reduce retention
time and therefore affect the performance of the pond to effectively settle sediment'. Please
change the location of the inlf3t of the temporary 5wale or orient the temporary pond 50 that
there is sufficient trav~1 time provided to the outlet of the pond. .
7. Please note that the TRCA Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline require a minimum 48
hour drawdown time witli minimum 75 mm orifice. Please provide calculation of the
drawdown time. Further, an emergency spillway must be provided to safely pass the 100 year
storm event and supporting calculations must be provided. Please provide a note on the plan
stating sediment basin must be constructed prior to any construction activities except for'
topsoil stripping and grading operations associated with the construction of the ESC pond. All
details and calculations regarding to the pond should confirm,to the TRCA Erosion.and .
Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction, December 2006. The Guideline can be
downloaded from www.sustainabletechnoloQies.ca.
8. Please provide appropriate drawings to demonstrate erosion and sediment control measures
that will be provided during construction of the temporary pond, site stripping and grading,
outlet structures, stormwater pipes, sanitary sewer and manhole. 'Appropriate notes on
construction staging, phasing, maintenance and good site practice should be provided.
Additionally, erosion control and site stabilization wHi be required during and after construction
, of the. 250 mm sanitary sewer in the valley. . . . "
.' .
. '
9. Please provide some spot elevations for the swale on Drawing No: ESC-1, and provide.
rational for temporary interceptor swale sizing calculation. It is preferred the swale conveys
the "first flush" with majority of the sediment laden water directed to the temporary sediment
control pond. A preliminary hydrologic calculation (rational method or V02) for an estimate of
flows from a 15-25 mm storm event to confirm the flow that can.be conveyed through the
temporary interceptor channel.
10. Please provide the location of topsoil stockpile on Drawing No. ERS-1 or a separate drawing
and provide heavy duty sediment fence at the perimeter of topsoil stockpile. Please provide
details of the seeding or other stabilization measure for the topsoif stockpile.
11. The proposed outfall should join the watercourse at a flat angle and avoid the outside bend if
possible. Pleas~ I~ok into opportunities to orient the outfall, if possible, so that the outfall is
F;IHOMEIPUSLlCIOEVELOPMENT SERVICES\OURHAM REGIONIPICKERINGI1215. 1235 SA YL Y _ 4.DOC
'1 8 8
", ..,
:; 6
J6'()6' ,
Tyler Barnett
.3-
Julv 3. 2007
south of the proposed rocation and intercepts the watercourse af a' flatter angle. Please
provide velocity calculations of all proposed erosion control treatment types. Please provide a
note on Drawing No. GEO-1 to avoid disturbance to the low flow channel of the watercourse.
Further, please indicate sediment control fence around the perimeter of the proposed
cascade pool and modify "construction phasing" on Drawing No. GEO.1. .
12. Page 2 of the Stormwater Management Report states the infiltration trench will be able to
handle all runoff to the 25 year design storm event and refers to an attached spreadsheet.
Please forward this spreadsheet to TRCA staff Shahzad Khan bye-mail atskhan@trca.on.ca.
The approximate 25 year storm runoff from a 600 sq. m roof is 22 cU.m where as the volume
of the infiltration tre/,!ch is '14 cu m. It would appear that for a 25 year runoff capture the size of
the infiltration trench should be larger; please explain this discrepancy. Further, please
confirm' whether roof flow control device will be provided for the building in front of Stre~t G.
13.' Further to the previous comment, it would appear that the infiltration facility could capture a
greate"total volume of rainfall if it received drainage from other parts of the site. For '
example, if the trench volume provided could capture runoff from up to the 25 mm storm over
, the entire site instead of the 25 year storm 'runoff from a small portion, a much greater
proportion of the total annual runoff from the site could be managed in this facility. '
14. Please provide appropriate drawings and details to describe the configuration of the infiltr?tion
facility, including a typical cross-section. '
, '
, 15. It is not typical for an infiltration basin design to allow excess flows to surcharge to the ground
through a catch basin and discharge overland. Typically, the overflow system is directly
connected to the storm sewer if feasible; we recommend investigation of this alternative as
most proponents have found this to be an improved design. Further the catch basin
connected to the infiltration basin will ~Uow runoff from the paved area to enter the basin
which, If not the intent of the design, will decrease the lifespan and the performance of the
facility due to poor water quality. ' ' ,
16. The City of Pickering has identified. in its ongoing Frenchmanis Bay Stormwater Management
Master Plan, that Pine Creek and Frenchman's Bay are highly degraded and will require
'dramatic water quality improvements to restore their ecological function. While the proponent
should be recognized for providing an innovative infiltration facility as a component of their
stormwater management strategy, this treats only a small portion of the site and additional
measures should be provided to maximize erosion control and water quality treatment. While
we note that oil/grit separators have b~en provided, it is our opirlion th~t these typically do not
achieve Level 1 water quality control in real-world conditions, which is supported by fecent
research and the evolving position of other municipalities such as the City of Toronto qn OGS
,use. Please revise the stormwatermanagement strategy to include other measures in
addition to OGS that will provide an additional degree of erosion control and water'quality
treatment. Pot~ntial measur~s include parking lot bios.wales and enh.anced drainage swales
" plus enhanced capture from the proposed infiltration facility, although there are many other
measures that could be applied. '
, Landscape Plans
17. A Ravine Stewardship Plan should be prepared for the valley slopes. The plan 'should be
prepared by a qualified Ecologist Dr Forestry specialist and include a plan and costing for
staged removal of invasive species and replacement with native species over an appropriate
time period. We recommend that the City hold a Letter of Credit for this work. .
F:\HOME\PUBlIC\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\OURHAM REGIONIPICKERING\1215 -1235 BAYL Y_ 4.DOC
-,--,J
7)
() is .
'189
Tvlli!{ Barnett
- 4 -
Jul'l 3, 2007
18. Please replace sod in the majority of the 10 metre buffer with a native seed mix. A small strip
of sod along the edge of the visitor parking area may be appropriate. We may have some
minor adjustments to the species list and will respond shortly. We apologize for the delay.
Conveyance of Valley Lands
19. The valley lands including the buffer should be conveyed to public ownership. This
requirement may be included in the Site Plan Agreement.
Sewer Connection
20. We are currently reviewing preliminary design for .the proposed sanitary sewer crossing of the
Pine Creek south of Radom Street, west of Douglas Avenue in Douglas Park. We
understand this sewer connection is required to service the San Francisco by the Bay
development,.. '
The existing sewer crossing. to be replaced, is located within an earthen embankment as it
crosses the creek. The embankment itself is located on top of five corrugated steel pipe
culverts. The culverts convey the Pine Creek and are perched at the downstream end. A
pedestrian trail is located on the top of the embankment which connects Douglas Park to the
. townhouse complex at Radom Street. 'As currently proposed in the preliminary drawings. the
new sewer line is to be constructed within the embankment, leaving the five culverts in place.
Based upon our observations during a site visit on March 16, 2007, we note that the pres ent
preliminary proposal for the crossing (with the five culverts and embankment) has several
significant ecological drawbacks:
a. Hydraulics. Based upon our 'review of the profile of the Regional Storm Floodplain at
this location, it is evident that there is a Significant backwater behind the crossing due
to the high embankment of this crossing as well as the Radom Street crossing. A
more open crossing at this location could help to reduce the larger problem of the .
Pine Creek Floodplain up'stream north of Highway 401. ,
b. Fish Passage, The perched culverts are a barrier to fish p[;'lssage and prevent any
movement of fish upstream of this location. , , .
c. Erosion. The location of the culverts is causing significant undercutting of the
embankment and erosion of the downstream banks of the Pine Creek. The culverts
have created a large plunge pool downstream and have constrained the natural
meander of the watercourse, preventing it from continuing toform naturally.
d. Wildlife Passage. The culverts and embankment /TIay impair ~ildlife passage along
the Pine Creek valleylands.
e. Maintenance/Replacement. It appears that the upstream end of the culverts regularly
becomes blocked with detritus flowing down the creek. . A larger opening may reduce
this: The GSP culverts will eventually require repair or replacement. In addition, the
new sewer infrastructure ma'y be at -risk from storm events. Therefore, it may be
advantageous to avoid a future need to repair or replace the culverts with an improved
design now.
The proposed sanitary sewer improvements continue to utilize the present culvert! ,
embankment configuration of the crossing and do not resolve the issues identified above.
New sewer infrastructure at this location using the present configuration precludes any
improvement to the present situation in the near-term. Given this, we strongly encourage an
alternate design be considered which would not utilize the culvert/embankment configuration
F:\HOME\PUBLlCIDEVELOPMENT SERVICESIDURHAM REGION\PICKERING\ 1215. 1235 SA YL Y _ 4.DOC
'1 90
ATTACHMENT I~TO
m:pom ,. PD~ (\ -Z =~'"
Tyler Barnett
- 5 ~
Julv3.2007
but would allow for improvements to the watercourse and valleylands. For example. it may be
possible to provide for a siphon underneath the creek or a new, wider, open-footed culvert.
TRCA staff is more than willing to discuss this matter further with the Region. City and'
proponent in order to arrive at a satisfactory solution. '
, TRCA Permit Requirements,
. 21. The applicant has applied for an Ontario Regulation 166/06 permit for the development and
new outfall. Upon final Site Plan approval. the applicant should submit three sets of the
following drawings, revised as necessary, to TRCA: Drawing Nos. L-1. L-4 and L-7; Drawing
Nos. GEQ-1; ERS-1, 55.1, and SG-1. In addition, a permit application will be required for the
, sewer crossing downstream.
Recommendation
In light of the above, we have no objection to th~ approval of the Site Plan application subject to the
owner addressing Comment Nos. 2 to 16, above, to TRCA satisfaction, and the Owner agreeing in
the Site Plan Agreement to the following: '. ' '
1. Owner to gratuitously convey the valleyl~nds and buffer to the City of Pickering.' ,
2. Owner to prepare and Implement a Ravine ,Stewardship Plan for the valley slopes, to TRCA
satisfaction. The Plan shall be prepared by a qualif.ied Ecologist or Forestry specialist and,
include a plan and costing for staged removal of invasive species and replacement with native
species over an appropriate time period. ' ' '
3., OWner shall provide a Letter of Credit to the City of Pickering for 100% of the cost of the
Ravine Stewardship Plan. . "
4. Owner shall 'revise the Landscaping Plans to TRCA satisfaction.
5. Owner shall app~y for and receiv~ a TRCA permit under Ontario Regulation 166/06.
We request that the applicant respond in a cover letter addressing each comment above by number.
We trust this is satisfactory. PI~ase feel free to contact me if youhave any further questions.
Sincerely)
!(~r
Steven H. Heuchert, MeIP, RPP, MRTPI
Manager,' Development Planning and Regulation
Planning and Development
Extension 5311
cc: Steven M. W arsh, Partner, S & R Developm'ent Group Limited (bye-mail)
Stephen J. Fagyas, Commercial Focus Advisory Services Inc. (bye-mail)
Bob Starr, City of Pickering (bye-mail)
Peter Castellan. Region of Durham (bye-mail)
F;\HOME\PUBLlC\OEVElOPMENT SERVICES\OURHAM REGION\PICKERING\1215 -1235 BAYl Y_ 4,DOC