HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD 05-09
Cilq o~
REPORT TO
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
Report Number: PD 05-09
Date: January 5, 2009
,) 1
From:
Neil Carroll
Director, Planning & Development
Subject:
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Part of Lots 79 to 85, 108 to 111, Plan 350
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/07
Part of Lots 79 to 85,110 and 111, Plan 350
Rosebank Properties Inc.
Lands located west of Rosebank Road, east of Oakwood Drive
and south of Maitland Drive
City of Pickering
Recommendation:
1. That Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007 -01 submitted by Rosebank Properties
Inc., to permit a residential plan of subdivision on lands being on Part of Lots 79
to 85, 108 to 111, Plan 350 (save and except Part of Lots 108 & 109, Plan 350)
be, as shown on Attachment #3, to Report PD 05-09, be endorsed;
2. That the proposed conditions of draft plan of subdivision to implement Draft Plan
of Subdivision SP-2007 -01 as set out in Appendix I to Report PD 05-09 be.
endorsed;
3. That Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/07 submitted by Rosebank
Properties Inc., to amend the zoning of the subject property to implement Draft
Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01, as outlined in Appendix II to Report PD 05-09
be endorsed; and
4. Further, that the City Solicitor be authorized to attend to the Ontario Municipal
Board Hearing of February 9, 2009 to support Draft Plan of Subdivision
SP-2007 -01 and Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/07 as endorsed by
Council.
Executive Summary: The applicant's submitted plan proposes to develop a draft
plan of subdivision consisting of 23 lots, with frontages ranging from 13.0 metres to
15.2 metres, for detached dwelling units. The plan proposes to construct the road on
the Milton Road Allowance between Rosebank Road and Oakwood Drive, and
introduces new roads extending north and south from Milton Road (see Location Map
and Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachments #1 & #2).
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject:
32
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 2
The draft plan is adjacent to the City owned road allowance known as Milton Road.
Development of the lands as proposed represents an infill situation providing the
internal road network to accommodate a future connection to Maitland Drive,
implementing the Rosebank Neighbourhood Plan.
In July 2008 the applicant acquired additional lands adjacent .to the south limit of the
Plan. Staff recommend that these lands be added to the draft plan and that lot line
adjustments occur, resulting in the potential for 25 lots with frontages ranging from
14.0 metres to 15.0 metres for detached dwellings and one future development block.
The additional lands are not subject to the applicant's zoning by-law amendment
application as they will be developed in compliance with the existing R4 residential zone
applicable to the properties (see Staff Recommended Plan, Attachment #3).
The draft plan addresses protection opportunities for existing vegetation and provides a
lotting pattern that will allow for the development of a housing form in character with the
existing neighbourhood, and in compliance with the City's Official Plan.
The applications were appealed by Rosebank Properties Inc. to the Ontario Municipal
Board as the municipality failed to make a decision on either application within the time
frame established in the Planning Act.
It is recommended that the applications be endorsed by Council, and that the City
Solicitor be authorized to attend to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing of
February 9,2009 to support Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01 and Zoning By-law
Amendment Application A 13/07 as endorsed by Council.
The City's requirements respecting development of the subject property will be
addressed through conditions of Draft Plan of Subdivision Approval and site-specific
zoning provisions, to be presented to the OMB.
Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the
proposed development.
Sustainability Implications: This development proposal is an infill project that
provides the opportunity to develop the rear portions of existing lots between
Oakwood Drive and Rosebank Road, and further establishes the tertiary road structure
reflected in the Rosebank Neighbourhood Plan, including an important mid-block
connector (Milton Road).
The proposed development will take advantage of existing infrastructure within the
City's urban area and provides for road connectivity to facilitate future infill development
of abutting lands. The proposal further assists in the diversion of growth pressures
away from non-urban designated lands. Existing vegetation will be protected, to the
greatest extent possible, in the rear yards of lots situated on the west side of the new
north/south road (Maitland Drive), north of Milton Road.
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 3
Z 3
J,-
Background:
1.0 Introduction
Rosebank Properties Inc., submitted applications for a draft plan of subdivision
and an amendment to the zoning by-law in order to implement a draft plan of
subdivision on the subject lands (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The draft
plan of subdivision proposed the creation of 23 lots for detached dwellings with
frontages ranging from 13.0 to 15.2 metres (see Applicant's Submitted Pan,
Attachment #2). Since the Statutory Public Information Meeting held on
February 4, 2008, the applicant acquired additional lands adjacent to the south
limit of the Plan through the severance of the rear portions of 473 & 477
Oakwood Drive (Part of Lots 108 & 109, Plan 350). Staff recommend that these
lands be added to the draft plan to achieve density compliance and to ensure all
proposed lots are subject to a subdivision agreement which establishes
appropriate conditions of development. The additional lands are not part of the
rezoning application as they will be developed in compliance with existing "R4"
residential zone applicable to the properties.
The subject lands are designated "Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area",
within the Rosebank Neighbourhood, in the Pickering Official Plan. The policies
of the Official Plan restrict development of these lands to a maximum density of
17 units per hectare. Prior to the inclusion of additional lands in the draft plan,
the density of the plan was 17.3 units per hectare. With the additional lands, the
Staff Recommended Plan is at a density of 16 units per hectare.
Staff comments in this report pertain to a draft plan of subdivision that proposes
the development of 25 lots for detached dwellings and one future development
block for a detached dwelling unit (see Staff Recommended Plan, Attachment #3).
2.0 Comments Received
2.1 At the February 4, 2008 Information Meeting
Several area residents spoke at the Information Meeting to voice their objections
and concerns respecting the applications. Concerns were raised respecting
traffic, safety for school children, compatibility of th~ proposed lot frontages with
the surrounding area, grading and drainage issues, tree preservation and
possible servicing constraints related to the Rosebank Sanitary Sewage
Pumping Station (SSPS) on Rodd Avenue (see Text of the Information Report,
Attachment #5 and Meeting Minutes, Attachment #6).
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject:
34
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 4
2.2 Following the Information Meeting
Written submissions were received from area residents expressing concerns
similar to those voiced at the Public Information Meeting (see Attachments #14
to #21).
Following the Statutory Information Meeting a Rosebank Resident Meeting was
held on February 20, 2008 to discuss the proposal further. As a result of the
resident meeting, a Resident's Community Working Group was established by
area residents to address their concerns and provide comments to the City.
The Community Working Group submitted a series of questions to the
Planning & Development Department, to which staff subsequently responded
(see Attachment #13).
2.3 City Department and Agency Comments
Region of Durham Planning & Works
March 26. 2008 (see Attachment #22)
property is designated "Living Area";
a portion of the property is designated "Key Natural Heritage Feature";
- development and site alteration is not permitted in key natural heritage
features;
- an Environmental Impact Study is required to determine the exact boundaries
and its minimum vegetation protection zones;
- a Reliance Agreement Letter is required respecting the Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment report prepared by MMM Group;
an Archaeological Assessment should be submitted to the Ministry of Culture
for their review;
April 28, 2008 (see Attachment #23)
municipal water supply can be provided to the site;
municipal sanitary sewers can be provided; foundation drains from the
houses will not be permitted to discharge to the sanitary system;
- the receiving sanitary sewers for this development discharges to the
Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) on Ross Avenue;
- this facility occasionally experiences failures due to age and poor condition of
mechanical, electrical and structural components;
- the Region is planning a replacement of the Rosebank SSPS in 2009-10
(pending budget funding);
although providing capacity for the proposed development is not a concern,
the Region would prefer to coordinate the building permit approvals to closely
match the completion of the upgraded SSPS;
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 5
I II t
35
Mav 21. 2008
- the Region of Durham Works Department reviewed the Traffic Impact Study
prepared by MMM Group and has no comments on the document;
October 7,2008 (see Attachment #24)
an addendum to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Study and the
Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment should be undertaken to address
the additional land now subject of the application;
- a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared;
Regional Staff would be pleased to be involved in any further discussions
between the City and TRCA staff and the applicant in regards to the
protection of the woodland;
December 15, 2008 (see Attachment #25)
it is our understanding that the TRCA and applicant have reached an
agreement regarding the provision of off-site woodland compensation;
- the Region continues to require a revised Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological
assessment (for the additional lands) and a Reliance Agreement letter for the
Environmental Site Assessment study; the Region shall require these matters
to be addressed as conditions of draft plan approval;
Regional comments respecting servicing (April 28, 2008) are still applicable;
- the Region has no objection to draft approval of this plan.
Toronto and Region Conservation
September 30. 2008 (see Attachment #26)
- TRCA was requested by the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering to
provide technical comments with respect to the existing woodland and the
proposed water management scheme;
- the woodland on site does not meet the criteria for a significant woodland in
the provincial Policy Statement 2005 and the Region of Durham Official Plan
with respect to species composition and age of tree criteria;
- the woodland may be functionally important;
at a local scale the lands are located in a highly urbanized portion;
- the woodlands provides an ecological function;
- an erosion and sediment control plan should be prepared;
- strongly recommends the protection of the woodland along with the creation
of a planted buffer and/or edge management plan;
applicant to address the comments;
- several meetings and discussions occurred during October, November and
early December 2008;
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject:
I I! I. 36
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 6
December 10 &12.2008 (see Attachments #28 & #29)
- the issue of off-site woodland compensation has been resolved to the
Authority's satisfaction and conditions of approval are provided;
Street "A" skews eastward north from the intersection with Milton Road; this
alignment provides greater flexibility in preserving an undisturbed portion of
the woodland within the rear yards of Lots 11 -14; TRCA are in support of the
proposed alignment of Street "A" as shown on the plan;
- conditions of approval pertain to the requirement for an edge management
plan, engineering report, erosion and sedimentation control plan, and a
grading plan;
- the owner is to provide TRCA $17,500 for the purpose of off-site plantings on
publically owned lands.
Development Control & Municipal Property & Engineering
(Memos dated June 9,2008; August 18, 2008; August 20,2008; & September 16,2008)
(see Attachments #29 to #32)
both Divisions (Stormwater & Environmental Engineer, Supervisor,
Development Control and Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works) reviewed
and commented on the acceptability of storm water and site servicing issues;
- a subdivision agreement and a construction management plan will be
required to address development of the site;
no concerns with the findings of the Traffic Impact Study;
- am aggressive tree planting will be required to accommodate significant loss
of trees;
- the City Arborist is reviewing the proposed preservation of tress adjacent to
482 Rosebank Road.
Municipal Property & Engineering Division
(Memos dated June 10, 2008 & October 29, 2008)
(see Attachments #33 & #34)
Coordinator, Transportation Engineering
MP&E Division have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study prepared by the
MMM Group, dated May 2008;
- the traffic generated by the proposed development would not significantly
impact the surrounding road/street network;
- the limited number of vehicles expected to use the off set intersection
mitigates any concern with its alignment.
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007 -01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 7
Z 7
~) I
Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Department
(Memo, December 15, 2008)
(see Attachment #35)
- the proposed off-site compensation agreed to by the developer and TRCA
seems reasonable;
- would like to see the compensation plantings located on City parkland within
the local neighbourhood.
Durham District School Board
(see Attachment #36)
no objections;
approximately 12 elementary pupils will be generated by the application;
is it intended that an pupils; .
- will be accommodated within an existing school facility.
Durham Catholic District School Board
(see Attachment #37)
no objections;
- students generated from the development will attend Our Lady of the Bay
Catholic Elementary School.
Ministry of Culture
(see Attachment #38)
- the reviewed meets the requirements of the Ministry Archaeological
Assessment Technical Guidelines;
no further archeological investigations are required at this time;
- development and site alterations may occur (for the Applicant's Submitted
Plan)
(City Staff are recommending an archaeological impact assessment
report for the additional lands)
Canada Post (see Attachment #39)
no objections;
- subdivision will have community mail boxes;
- conditions of approval requested.
Bell Canada (see Attachment #40)
no objection;
- conditions of drat approval requested.
Report PO 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007 -01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 8
38
Enbridge Gas (see Attachment #41)
no objection.
Veridian Connection (see Attachment #42)
no objection.
City of Toronto (see Attachment #43)
no concerns.
Resident Comments
Mark Mitchell & Karen Johnson-Mitchell (see Attachment #14)
514 Rosebank Road
- the shift in the road unfairly prejudices the Rosebank owners in that homes
will be built on lots that are shorter in depth than on the Oakwood side;
Peter CraiQ (see Attachment #15) .
480 Oakwood Drive
against the applications and supports resident comments made at the
Information Meeting respecting concerns of tree preservation, taffic issues,
services, degradation of the neighbourhood character and schooling issues;
- the wildlife in the neighbourhood will lose the road allowance conduit they use
to access this area;
Robert Chittenden (see Attachment #16)
504 Rosebank Road South
objects to lot frontages less than 15.0 metres as it will change the character
of the area and affect property values;
- the plan will allow smaller lots with oversized homes like the one situated at
500 Rosebank Road;
- concern for tree preservation, and traffic control is a major concern;
Norma Chittenden (see Attachment #17)
504 Rosebank Road South
- does not approve of the applications;
- frontages are actually less than 13.0 metres;
- consideration must be given to increased traffic and its impact on the
neighbourhood;
Robert & Sharon Van Shaik (see Attachment #18)
478 Oakwood Drive
- strongly voice their dissatisfaction with the proposal;
- environmental, traffic, school and community integrity concerns;
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 9
39
Ravi Shah (see Attachment #19)
521 Oakwood Drive
back onto the proposed future road and are in favour of the development of
the adjacent properties, however the road should not circumnavigate Lot 78
or 515 Oakwood Drive;
properties should be kept to a minimum 50 foot frontages;
Kate & Bruce Cherrett (see Attachment #20)
518 Rosebank Road South
- very concerned respecting increased traffic, school capacity, change in
semi-rural character to densely packed subdivision, houses too big for the
plot of land they are on, the internal road alignment is not straight and its
impact on the future development of her property;
Doreen Brown (see Attachment #21)
475 Oakwood Drive
- against the proposal;
- the Rosebank area is unique and over the years they have worked hard to
keep the lot sizes at an optimum;
- fast becoming an area where very large homes may be built on very small lots;
- concern with the amount of traffic and its impact on the community and the
safety of children attending the school;
3.0 Discussion:
3.1 The Applicant has appealed the Draft Plan of Subdivision and Rezoning
applications to the Ontario Municipal Board
Rosebank Properties Inc. has appealed both the Zoning By-law Amendment and
Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications to the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB).
The applicant's appeal is submitted under Subsection 34 (11) and, Subsection
51 (34) of the Ontario Planning Act due to the municipality failing to make a
decision on either application within 120 and 180 days respectively (see
Attachment #9). The OMB has scheduled a five day hearing commencing
February 9, 2009.
As the applications have been appealed, the OMB is now the approval authority
and could approve a lotting and/or road pattern different from what Council
endorses. It is our expectation that the applicant will introduce professional
opinion evidence to support the Staff position set out in this report, however, the
City should be represented by legal counsel at the hearing in order to protect the
City's interests.
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject:
40
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 10
As the hearing is scheduled for February 9, 2009, Staff must seek Council's
direction regarding staff's role at the hearing at this time as the only Council
Meeting prior to the hearing is January 19, 2009. It is recommended that the City
Solicitor be authorized to attend the hearing to support the Draft Plan of
Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment Application endorsed by Council.
3.2 Traffic in the Community will operate at an acceptable level and the
Proposed internal roads will provide opportunity for additional
Neighbourhood connectivity
A Traffic Impact Study was prepared for the proposed development by
MMM Group. The study also took into consideration a proposed plan in the area
of Cowan Circle (W & N & B Trapper - Land Pro Engineering SP-2008-02).
Amongst other matters, the consultant concluded that the existing intersections at
Rosebank Road / Toynevale, Rosebank Road / Cowan Circle North,
Rosebank Road / Cowan Circle South and Rosebank Road / Gilmoss Road, are
operating at an acceptable Level of Service and are expected to operate at an
acceptable Level of service under the studied 2013 future conditions. The study
concluded that, given the excess capacity at the existing study intersections,
additional road network improvements are not required (see extract from the
Traffic Impact Study, Attachment #10).
The report was reviewed by the City's Municipal Property & Engineering Division
and the Planning & Development Department's Development Control Section
who both concur with the consultant's conclusions and recommendations.
It is staff's understanding that the property owner immediately north of proposed
Lot 14 does not desire to participate in the road extension at this time. Shifting
the road easterly is a concern to the resident immediately north of proposed Lot
15, (518 Rosebank Road South). The owners of 518 Rosebank Road, (Kate &
Bruce Cherret) do not consider the proposed road alignment to be in
compliance with the City's guidelines and note that the "shifted" alignment is not
equitable as it does not reflect a 50/50 shared road allowance between abutting
land owners. The Cherret's have also requested the construction of a wood
privacy fence along their south lot line, adjacent to proposed Lot 15. A condition
of draft plan approval is recommended to require the installation of a wood
privacy fence as requested (see Appendix I).
It is recommended that Maitland Drive be extended as far north as possible
within, this plan to encourage the future connection to the existing north leg of
Maitland Drive. Due to environmental constraints the proposed extension of
Maitland Drive has been shifted eastward, which will provide opportunities for
residents living north of the proposed subdivision on the west side of Rosebank
Road to control any future northerly road extension.
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 11
4 1
This shift also accommodates potential for additional rear yard tree preservation
within th.e proposed lots on the west side of Maitland Drive. When the road is
extended north, Maitland Road is proposed to have a right-of-way of 18.5 metres
which will minimize the land requirements from adjacent land owners when they
develop.
The internal roads are to be accessed from a City owned road allowance known
as Milton Road. This road will be required to be constructed between Rosebank
Road and Oakwood drive, to full municipal standards, as a condition of draft plan
approval.
3.3 Municipal Water Supply and Sanitary Sewers can be provided
Both water supply and sanitary sewers can be provided to the site by the
extension of an existing water main and sanitary sewer. The Region advises that
the receiving sanitary sewers for this development discharge to the Rosebank
Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) on Rodd Avenue.
The Region of Durham is currently concluding a Class Environmental
Assessment for upgrades at the pumping station and force main. This facility
occasionally experiences failures due to age and poor condition of mechanical,
electrical and structural components. The Region of Durham is planning
replacement of the Rosebank SSPS in 2009-2010 pending Regional Council
approval for budget funding (see Attachment #23).
The Region has acknowledged that providing capacity for the proposed
development is not a concern and have provided standard conditions of draft
plan approval (see Attachment #25).
3.4 The Natural Heritage Feature identified on the site will be protected to the
satisfaction of TRCA, and compensation for tree loss will be provided
through off site plantings on Public Lands
The City's Official Plan identifies the lands subject of these applications as
"Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area", and the Rosebank Neighbourhood
Plan identifies a road network through this site. The Region of Durham Official
Plan, through its recent Plan update, now identifies a Key Natural Feature on the
lands.
Key Natural Features are identified by the Region in consultation with the
Ministry of Natural Resources. TRCA is responsible for addressing the impacts
of development on an identified feature. A Regional Official Plan Amendment is
not required to permit development near, within, or adjacent to a Key Natural
Feature provide technical agencies (TRCA) support the proposal.
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
4 2 Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 12
The applicant provided a Scoped Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by
Aboud & Associates Inc. (consulting arborists, ecologists and landscape
designers). The consultant identified the Key Natural Feature within the
boundaries of the draft plan (see Attachment #11) and recommended that
strategies to reduce impacts to preserved trees, as documented in the report, be
followed.
TRCA reviewed the report and worked with the City and applicant in an attempt
to achieve consensus on how the lands may be developed for residential
dwellings and still preserve the integrity of the identified feature. They
recognized the need for neighbourhood road connectivity and the residential
designation of the lands.
The applicant, TRCA and City Staff, entered into discussions respecting
compensation for the loss of trees within the identified Key Natural Feature and
have come to an agreement respecting a compensation plan that will involve
planting of trees elsewhere in the Neighbourhood. The trees must be planted in
an area that will not be disturbed and will have an opportunity to regenerate and
over time re-establish an area of natural cover commensurate with the area lost
on the subject lands.
The City has recommended that opportunity for planting exists within this
neighbourhood as part of the Western Gateway of the First Nations trail or the
Rosebank South Park. The exact location of the plantings will be determined
between the City and the Authority. TRCA requested that the funds be provided
to and administered by the Authority. However, it is recommended that the funds
be provided to the City for its use, in consultation with TRCA, respecting
plantings on public owned land within the Rosebank Neighbourhood. This
revised approach is acceptable to the Authority.
The lots in the draft plan impacted by the identified Key Natural Feature include Lots
11, 12, 13, and 14. The applicant has proposed depths of approximately 58.0 - 63.0
metres for these lots to provide an area for tree preservation in the rear yards, while
still providing an adequate space for rear yard activity beyond the treed area.
The Authority's desire for preservation of tree cover and habitat areas is
understood and it is recommended that the rear portion of Lots 11-14 be zoned
Open Space-Hazard Land (OS-HL) which will only permit the preservation of the
natural environment. No buildings or structures associated with the residential
use will be permitted in the OS-HL zone (see Appendix I, Implementing Zoning
By-law).
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 13
43
3.5 The Proposed Lot Frontages and Yard Requirements are Appropriate and
will provide for a Built Form Compatible with the Neighbourhood
The Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines identify the subject
lands as being situated within Design Precinct NO.1 which limits development to
detached dwellings and states that all new lots shall have a minimum lot frontage
of approximately 15.0 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between
approximately 33.0 metres and 60.0 metres, unless the character of the area is
such that a smaller lot frontage or smaller lot depth is desirable (see Rosebank
Neighbourhood Development Guidelines, Attachment #8).
The Applicant's Submitted Plan proposed lot frontages ranging from 13.0 to
15.2 metres. Area residents have expressed objection to lot frontages less than
15.0 metres. H.owever, the inclusion of the word 'approximately' in the
Development Guidelines provides for the consideration of minor deviations from
the standards expressed in the guideline, provided the character of the
neighbourhood is maintained.
Neighbourhood character is a combination of the distinct features that exist in
the community, such as lot frontage, yard widths and building heights. The
applicant has agreed to side yard widths of 1.5 metres and 0.6 metres with a
building separation of 2.1 metres, a maximum building height of 9.5 metres and
increased rear yard depths of 12.0 metres for Lots 15 to 20. When these
provisions are taken together, the resultant development is a built form
compatible with the exiting neighbourhood.
With the yard depths and widths proposed, a similar building envelope is
available to a.builder on a 14.0 metre frontage lot as a 15.0 meter frontage lot
(see Sketch of Lotting/Building Envelope, Attachment #4).
A few of the lots within the proposed plan will provide a frontage of 14.0 metres,
however there is no need for rigid uniformity in lot frontage to achieve a
compatible character, especially when the guidelines state "approximately"
15.0 metres. The resultant streetscape based on the Staff recommended lotting
pattern, frontage and zoning provisions will not depart fundamentally from the
traditional streetscape of the area.
It is recommended that the depth of the lots fronting Milton Road be reduced
slightly in order to increase the frontages along the north portion of the proposed
road (Maitland Road extension). The staff recommended plan does not achieve
a lot frontage of 15.0 metres for all lots within the draft plan, however lot
frontages will range from 14.0 metres to 15.2 metres. A minimum lot frontage of
14.0 metres is considered to conform with the provisions of the Guideline.
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject:
44
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 14
The draft implementing zoning by-law contains development requirements to
address lot frontage, side yards, building height and other building location
requirements similar to provisions within recent development in the
neighbourhood and provides for development compatible with the area (see
Appendix II).
3.6 The Proposed Density is Appropriate
The subject lands are located within an area of the Rosebank Neighbourhood
that has neighbourhood polices that restrict the development to a maximum of
17 units per hectare (see Rosebank Neighbourhood Plan, Attachment #7). This
is a special provision for the Rosebank Neighbourhood that is more restrictive
than the 30 unit per hectare maximum permitted in low density designations
elsewhere in the City.
The draft plan of subdivision submitted by the applicant proposed the creation of
23 lots for detached dwellings. Since the Statutory Public Information Meeting
held on February 4, 2008, the applicant acquired additional lands through the
severance of the rear portions of 473 & 477 Oakwood Drive (Part of Lots 108 &
109, Plan 350). It is recommended that these lands be added to the draft plan to
accommodate density compliance. With the additional lands and lots the density
is now 16 units per hectare (see Staff Recommended Plan, Attachment #3).
3.7 By-law to implement the Staff Recommended Plan
The attached by-law schedule included as Appendix II to this report, implements
Staff's recommendation to approve the applicant's proposed draft plan of
subdivision and implementing zoning by-law.
4.0 Applicant's Comments
The owner is aware of and supports the recommendations of this Report
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 15
45
APPENDIX:
Appendix I Recommended Conditions of Draft Approval
Appendix II Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Requirements and Schedule
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Applicant's Submitted Plan
3.. Staff Recommended Plan
4. Sketch of Lotting/Building Envelope
5. Text of Information Report No. 05-08
6. Minutes from February 4, 2008 Statutory Public Information Meeting
7. Rosebank Neighbourhood Plan
8. Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
9. Applicant's OMB Appeal Letter
10. MMM Group Limited -Traffic Impact Study (extract)
11. Aboud & Associates Inc. - Scoped Environmental Impact Statement (extract)
12. Archaeological Consultants and Contractors, Stage 1 and Stage 2 Assessment
( extract)
13. South Rosebank Community Working Group
14. Resident Comment - Mark Mitchell & Karen Johnson-Mitchell (514 Rosebank Road)
15. Resident Comment - Peter Craig (480 Oakwood Drive)
16. Resident Comment - Robert Chittenden (504 Rosebank Road South)
17. Resident Comment - Norma Chittenden (504 Rosebank Road South)
18. Resident Comment - Robert & Sharon Van Shaik (478 Oakwood Drive)
19. Resident Comment - Sejal Parikh-Shah (521 Oakwood Drive)
20. Resident Comment - Kate Cherrett (518 Rosebank Road South)
21. Resident Comment - Doreen Brown (475 Oakwood Drive)
22. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department..,.. March 26, 2008
23. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department - April 28, 2008
24. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department - October 7,2008
25. Agency Comments - Region of Durham Planning Department-December 15, 2008
26. Agency Comments - TRCA - dated September 30, 2008
27. Agency Comments - TRCA - dated December 10, 2008
28. Agency Comments - TRCA - dated December 12, 2008
29. City Comments - Supervisor, Development Control- June 9,2008
30. City Comments - Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works - August 18, 2008
31 City Comments - Stormwater & Environmental Engineer - August 20, 2008
32. City Comments - Supervisor, Development Control - September 16, 2008
33. City Comments - Coordinator, Transportation Engineering - June 10, 2008
34. City Comments - Coordinator, Transportation Engineering - October 29,2008
35. City Comments - Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development - December 15, 2008
36. Agency Comments - Durham District School Board
Report PD 05-09
January 5, 2009
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007 -01
4 6 Zoning Amendment Application A 13/07
Page 16
37. Agency Comments - Durham Catholic District School Board
38. Agency Comments - Ministry of Culture
39. Agency Comments - Canada Post
40. Agency Comments - Bell Canada
41. Agency Comments - Enbridge Gas
42. Agency Comments - Veridian Connection.
43. Agency Comments - City of Toronto
Prepared By:
Approved I Endorsed By:
Lyn Taylor, MCII3, RPP
Manager, Devel pment Review
L Tjf
Copy: Chief Administrative Officer
Recommended for the consideration of
Pickering City C ncil
APPENDIX I TO
REPORT PD 05-09 4 7
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL FOR
DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SP-2007 -01
4 gPROPOSED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT APPROVAL
January 5, 2009
Plan of Subdivision: SP-2007 -01
Part of Lots 79 to 85 and 108 to 111, Plan 350
City of Pickering
1. The Owner shall prepare the final plan on the basis of draft plan of subdivision SP-2007 01
as identified on Attachment #3 to Planning & Development Report No PO 05-09 which
illustrates 25 lots for detached dwellings, one proposed future lot identified as Block 26,
temporary turning circle blocks and 0.3 metre reserve blocks, and two new municipal
roads.
2. The Owner shall name the Street "A" road allowance Maitland Drive and Street "B" shall
be named to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham and the City of
Pickering.
3. The Owner shall submit plans showing any proposed phasing to the Region and the City
for review and approval, if this plan is to be developed by more than one registration.
4. The Owner shall grant to the Region of Durham, any easements required to provide
Regional services for this development and these easements shall be in locations and of
such widths as determined by the Region.
5. The owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply
facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to
service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer
and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other
developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water facilities are to
be designed and constru<?ted according to the standards and requirements of the Regional
Municipality of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise, for said extensions, are
to be made to the satisfaction of the Regional Municipality of Durham, and are to be
completed prior to final approval of this plan.
6. Prior to entering into a subdivision agreement, the Regional Municipality of Durham shall be
satisfied that adequate water pollution control plant and water supply plant capacities are
available for the proposed subdivision.
7. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the
Regional Municipality of Durham. This shall include, among others, the execution of a
subdivision agreement between the Owner and the Region concerning the provision and
installation of sanitary sewers, water supply, roads and other regional services.
8. Prior to final approval, the proponent shall engage a qualified professional to carry out, to
the satisfaction of the Ministry of Culture, an amended archaeological assessment to
address development on proposed Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24, and mitigate, through
preservation or resource removal and documentation, adverse impacts to any significant
archaeological resource found. No demolition, grading or other soil disturbance shall take
place on Lots 21, 22, 23, and 24 prior to the Ministry of Culture confirming that all
archaeological resource concerns have been met including licensing and resource
conservation requirements.
9.
Prior to final approval, the Owner is required to submit a signed Record of Site Condtion
(RSC) to the Regional Municipality of Durham, the City of Pickering and the Ministry of
Environment (MOE). This RSC must be to the satisfaction of the Region, including an
Acknowledgement of Receipt of the RSC by the MOE.
49
10. That prior to any grading, development, pre-servicing or site alteration, or registration of
this plan or phase thereof, the Owner submit for the review and approval of the TRCA:
(a) An edge management plan for Lots 11 to 14, which comprehensively addresses
each of the recommendations contained within Section 4.2 of the Scoped
Environmental Impact Statement, Milton Road Infill Development, prepared by
Aboud & Associates Inc., dated July 4,2008;
(b) A detailed engineering report and plans that provide for groundwater infiltration and
storm water quality treatment. The report and plans must examine ways of
complementing the water quality treatment achieved by an Oil/Grit separator with at-
source controls to achieve a treatment train for water quality control.
(c) An erosion and sediment control plan;
(d) Overall grading plans for the subjects lands.
11. That the Owner agrees to carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority the recommendations and provisions of the
reports and plans referenced in Condition 10.
12. That the Owner agree to and implement the requirements of the TRCA's conditions in
wording acceptable to the TRCA.
13. That the Owner design and implement on-site erosion and sediment control to the
satisfaction of the TRCA.
14. That prior to Final Approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof, the Owner provide an
amount of $17,500 to the City of Pickering for the purposes of off-site planting of native,
self-sustaining vegetation. Such planting shall be on lands owned held by either the City
of Pickering or the TRCA.
15. The municipality's restricted area zoning by-law shall contain provisions which will have
the effect of prohibiting all building and structures of any kind or the placement of fill,
other than as required for flood or erosion control or resource management on the rear
portion of Lots 11 to 14.
16. The Owner shall satisfy all requirements, financial and otherwise, of the City of Pickering.
This shall include, among other matters, the execution of a subdivision agreement
between the Owner and the City of Pickering concerning the provision and installation of
roads, services, grading, drainage, and other local services.
17. The Owner shall pay the City cash-in-Iieu to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements
of the Planning Act.
18. That the implementing by-law for zoning by-law amendment application be approved by
the OMB.
,., 50
19. The owner shall not undertake any pre-development, topsoil removal and lor
earthworks prior to the execution of a subdivision agreement with the City of Pickering,
except through compliance with the City's topsoil disturbance By-law 6060-02.
20. Prior to the registration of the plan the owner shall submit a Draft 40M-Plan to the
satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development.
21. The Owner shall satisfy the City respecting stormwater management and prepare a
functional servicing report to address the anticipated connection of the storm drainage to
the existing sewer on Rosebank Road and address water quality and quantity and major
overland flow.
22. The Owner shall satisfy the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act.
23. The Owner agrees to include provisions whereby all offers of purchase and sale shall
include information that satisfies Subsection 59(4) of the Development Charges Act,
1997.
24. The owner shall enter into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City
of Pickering to ensure fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which
shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:
24.1 Storm Drainaoe
(a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting a
storm water drainage and management system to service all the lands in the
subdivision, and any provisions regarding easements;
(b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department for contributions
for downstream storm water management;
(c) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department for contributions
for downstream cost sharing.
24.2 Gradino Control and Soils
(a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting
submission and approval of a grading and control plan;
(b) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting the
submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis
24.3 Road Allowances
(a) satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development Department respecting
construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs;
24.4 Construction I Installation of City Works & Services
(a) satisfaction of the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services
required by the City;
(b) satisfaction of the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the 5 1
provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and
other similar services;
(c) that the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary
maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the
responsibility of the subdivider;
24.5 Dedications I Transfers I Conveyances
(a) that the owner convey to the City, at no costs:
(i) any easements as required;
(ii) Blocks 27, 28, 29, and 30 as 0.3 meter reserves;
(iii) Blocks 31, 32, 33, and 34 for temporary turning circles, such
land to be conveyed to the abutting land owner upon
determination by the City's Director, Planning & Development
that the turning circles are no longer required
(b) that the subdivider conveys any easement to any utility to facilitate the installation
of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility;
24.6 Construction ManaQement Plan
(a) that the owner make satisfactory arrangements with the City respecting a
construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other things:
(i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction
and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls;
(ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building
materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring that such
locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either
existing streets or the proposed public street;
(iif) insurance that the City's Noise By-law will be adhered to and that all
contractors, trades and suppliers are advised of this By-law;
(iv) the provision of mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the
site;
(v) type and timing of construction fencing;
(vi) location of construction trailers;
24.7 Coordinated Development
(a) satisfaction of the. City with respect to arrangements necessary to provide for
coordination of services and roads with adjacent lands and any phasing of
development that may be required;
(b) satisfaction of the City with respect to Block 26, which may only receive a building permit
for a detached dwelling unit upon satisfying the Director, Planning & Development
respecting appropriate grading and servicing of the subject Block;
r- i1
1-"\ /
J L..
24.8 Fencinq
(a) satisfaction of the City with respect to the provision of temporary fencing around
the entire perimeter of the subject lands during construction, prior to the
commencement of any works;
(b) existing boundary fencing to remain and be maintained during construction;
(c) the owner agrees to install a wood privacy fence along the north lot line of
proposed Lot 15.
24.9 Street Tree Plantinq
(a) the submission of a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City;
24.10 Desiqn Planninq
(a) satisfy the Director, Planning & Development respecting a report outlining siting
and architectural design objectives for the development, and the submission of site
plans and architectural drawings identifying how each unit meets the objectives of
the report, prior to the issuance of any building permit for the construction of a
residential unit on the lands;
(b) the report outlining siting and architectural design objectives for the development
must address building envelopes, building designs, siting, and streetscapes as well
as garage designs, locations, massing, width, and projection from the main
dwelling;
24.11 Enqineerinq Drawinqs
(a) that the owner satisfy the City respecting the submission of appropriate
engineering drawings that detail, among other things, City services, roads, storm
sewers, sidewalks, lot grading, streetlights, fencing and tree planting, and
financially-secure such works;
(b) that the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design objectives;
24.12
Endeavour to Collect
~ "~
'--' v
In the event lots adjacent to Part 2, 40R-25227 and Blocks 27, 28, 29 and 30; lands
east of Lot 5, Lot 25 and Block 26; lands west of Lot 1, Lot 10 and Block 26 of the Staff
Recommended Plan in Planning & Development Report PO 05-09 are severed to
provide for an additional building lot, the City shall endeavor to ensure that any future
development of these lots shall pay their appropriate portion of the costs incurred by
Rosebank Properties Inc.
25. The owner shall design and construct Milton Road, to full municipal standards within the
plan of subdivision, to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development.
26. The'owner/developer will consult with Canada Post Corporation to determine suitable
locations for the placement of Community Mailbox and to indicate these locations on
the appropriate serving plans.
27. The owner/developer agrees to include on all offers of purchase and sale, a
statement that advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a
designated Community Mailbox.
28. Owner/developer will be responsible for notifying the purchasers of the exact
community mailbox locations prior to closing any home.
29. Prior to final approval of this plan for registration, the Director, Planning & Development
for the City of Pickering shall be advised in writing by:
(a) The Region of Durham how Conditions 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, have been satisfied;
(b) The Toronto Region Conservation Authority how Conditions 10,11,12, and 13 have
been satisfied.
NOTES TO DRAFT APPROVAL
1. As the Owner of the proposed subdivision, it is your responsibility to satisfy all conditions
of draft approval in an expeditious manner. The conditions of draft approval will be
reviewed periodically and may be amended at any time prior to final approval. The
Planning Act provides that draft approval, may be withdrawn at any time prior to final
approval.
2. All plans of subdivision must be registered in the Land Titles system within the Regional
Municipality of Durham.
3. Where agencies' requirements are required to be included in the City of Pickering
subdivision agreement, a copy of the agreement should be sent to the agencies in order to
facilitate their clearance of conditions for final approval of this plan. The addresses and
telephone numbers of these agencies are:
a) Commissioner of Planning, Planning Department, Regional Municipality of Durham,
605 Rossland Road East, P.O. Box 623, Whitby, Ontario, L 1 N 6A3.
b) The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Plan Review Section,
5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario, M3N 1S4. (416) 661-6600.
54
APPENDIX II TO
REPORT PO 05-09
DRAFT BY-LAW
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/07
THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PICKERIN
55
...:.:.olo--' ~'
,....:, ~r"tl
. "~i\ ,',
Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 2511, as
amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering District
Planning Area, Region of Durham in Part of Road Allowance between Part .
of Lots 79 to 85, 110 and 111, Plan 350, in the City of Pickering
(SP-2007-01 & A 13/07)
WHEREAS the Cou'ncil of The Corporation of the City of Pickering deems it desirable to
permit the development of lots for detached dwellings with minimum frontages of
14.0 metres on the subject lands, being Part of Road Allowance between Part of Lots
79 to 85, 110 and 111, Plan 350, City of Pickering;
AND WHEREAS an amendment to By-law 2511, as amended, is therefore deemed
necessary;
NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL OF THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF
PICKERING HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. SCHEDULE I
Schedule I attached hereto with notations and references shown thereon is
hereby declared to be part of this By-law.
2. AREA RESTRICTED
The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Part of Lots 79 to 85,
110 and 111, Plan 350, in the City of Pickering, designated "S2-16" on Schedule
I attached hereto.
3. GENERAL PROVISIONS
No building, land or part thereof shall hereafter be used, occupied, erected, moved,
or structurally altered except in conformity with the provisions of this By-law.
, ~:
~) 6
DEFINITIONS
2
DR
"'T""'''''
F
4.
In this By-law,
(1) (a) "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;
(b) "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;
(c) "Dwellinq, Sinqle or Single Dwellinq" shall mean a single dwelling
containing one dwelling unit and uses accessory hereto;
(d) "Dwellinq, Detached or Detached Dwelling" shall mean a single
dwelling which is freestanding, separate, and detached from other
main buildings or structures;
(2) (a) "Floor Area - Residential" shall mean the area of the floor surface
contained within the outside walls of a storey or part of a storey;
(b) "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;
(3) (a) "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;
(b) "Lot Coveraqe" shall mean the percentage of lot area covered by all
buildings on the lot;
(c) "Lot Frontaqe" shall mean the width of a lot between the side lot lines
measured along a line parallel to and 7.5 metres distant from the front
lot line;
(4) "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;
(5)
o
3
~... "7
,~. 'pe.,;;,' -.' I....,
.& . J
. , S ...... e ,an area of land which is appurtenant to and located
~ot 'a building or structure and is open, uncovered, and
u ~'e ~bove ground except for such accessory buildings,
s ructures, or other uses as are specifically permitted thereon;
(b) "Front Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot
between the front lot line of the lot and the nearest wall of the nearest
main building or structure on the lot;
(c) "Front Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a
front yard of a lot between the front lot line and the nearest wall of the
nearest main building or structure on the lot;
(d) "Rear Yard" shall mean a yard extending across the full width of a lot
between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is no rear lot line, the
junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest wall of the nearest
main building or structure on the lot;
(e) "Rear Yard Depth" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a
rear yard of a lot between the rear lot line of the lot, or where there is
no rear lot line, the junction point of the side lot lines, and the nearest
wall of the nearest main building or structure on the lot;
(f) "Side Yard" shall mean a yard of a lot extending from the front yard to
the rear yard, and from the side lot line to the nearest wall of the
nearest main building or structure on the lot;
(g) "Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal dimension of a
side yard of a lot between the side lot line and the nearest wall of the
nearest main building or structure on the lot;
(h) "Flankaqe Side Yard" shall mean a side yard immediately adjoining a
street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which is a street;
(i) "Flankaqe Side Yard Width" shall mean the shortest horizontal
dimension of a flankage side yard of a lot between the lot line adjoining
a street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which isa
street, and the nearest wall of the nearest main building or structure on
the lot;
U) "Interior Side Yard" shall mean a side yard other than a flankage side
yard.
~) 8
4
5. PROVISIONS
(1 )
,ermitted ("S2-16" Zone)
,!,,,. p on shall within the lands designated IS2-16" on Schedule I
< ~< llached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building or
," d ,r ructure for any purpose except the followln~:
O~ (i) detached dwelling residential use <
(b) Zone Requirements (IS2-16" Zone)
No person shall within the lands designated IS2-16" on Schedule I
attached hereto, use any lot or erect, alter, or use any building except
in accordance with the following provisions:
(i) LOT AREA (minimum):
(ii) LOT FRONTAGE (minimum):
(iii) FRONT YARD DEPTH (minimum):
430 square metres;
14.0 metres;
4.5 metres;
(iv) INTERIOR SIDE YARD WIDTH (minimum):
1.5 metres one side, 0.6 metres other side;
(v) FLANKAGE SIDE YARD WIDTH (minimum):
2.7 metres;
(vi) REAR YARD DEPTH (minimum):
7. 5 metres;
A on lots dual zoned OS-HI and S2-16 a minimum rear yard
depth of 7.5 metres shall be provided from the OS-HL zone;
B on lots cross hatched on schedule I attached hereto, a
minimum rear yard depth of 12 metres shall be proved;
(vii) BUILDING HEIGHT (maximum):
9.5 metres;
(viii) DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS:
maximum one dwelling unit per lot and
minimum gross floor area residential of
100 square metres;
5
~ '9
~) ~
(ix) PARKING REQUIREMENTS:
A minimum one private garage per lot attached to the main
~' uilding; any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not
ss than 6,0 metres from the front lot line, and not less than
~ metres from any side lot line immediately adjoining a
I street or abutting on a reserve on the opposite side of which
~ is a street; and,
~t. _T - B maximum projection of the garage front entrance from the
, wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit shall
Q. . not exceed 2.5 metres in length, whether or not such garage
has a second storey, except where a covered and
unenclosed porch or veranda extends a minimum of
1.8 metres from the wall containing the main entrance to the
dwelling unit, in which case no part of any attached private
garage shall extend more than 3.0 metres beyond the wall
containing the main entrance to the dwelling unit;
(x) SPECIAL REGULA liONS:
A the horizontal distance between buildings on adjacent lots
shall not be less than 2.1 metres;
B notwithstanding clause 5.8(b) of By-law 2511, as amended,
for Lots 15 to 20, uncovered steps and platforms exceeding
1.0 metre in height above grade may project a maximum of
2.5 metres in-depth into the required rear yard of a lot
provided no part thereof exceeds 6.0 metres in width.
6. PROVISIONS
(1) (a) Uses Permitted ("OS-HL" Zone)
No person shall, within the lands zoned "OS-HL" on Schedule I
attached to this By-law, use any lot or erect, alter or use any building
or structure for any purpose except the following:
(i) Preservation and Conservation of the natural environment, soil
and wildlife;
(ii) Resource Management;
(iii) Pedestrian Trails and Walkways;
6
, ill 60
(b) Zone Requirements ("OS-HL" Zone)
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.
7. BY-LAW
By-law 2511, 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 2511, as amended.
8. EFFECTIVE DATE
This By-law shall t
Board
1
----------------------------------------t---------------------------------------
1
I
LOT 77 i LOT 86 6 1
I
I
1 65,lM
---------------------------------
LOT
w
0
'"
3
W
.:>
40,3M -
0::
CO 0
.,...... 0 .)< )CO
E ~ ~.,......
c :z:
oj ,><'x :x I
111
~ ,><'x f)j
(/j 1t '><x
'><x
'><
)( "
:2 VV'"
51,BM
78
20,3M
LOT 79
1~
: I
5 M I
en
o
w
>
CL
o
o
o
o
5
':{
<r:
o
E
LOT 80:;;
C\J
- - - - - - - - - - -1--- - -I-
I I
I I
I I
I I
------~---~----l
LOT 81 I
25,2M
E
C"l
C'i
C"l
-lB,5M_
24,lM
54 ,2M
MILTON ROAD
(NOT TRAVELLED)
55,6M
43,B
E
LOT 110 ~
-----------1--- ru
82-16
-lB,O~
82-16 ~
I
I
I
1
-----______1_-
51,lM
46,2M
"
m
LOT
f-
W
W
0:::
f-
(f)
LOT
85
LOT 84
E
111
;1--=--=--=-:::::::-=-::::-:
LOT 83
E
Ii1
o
I')
LOT 82
112
---------------------------------------
LOT 113
SCHEDULE, I TO By-~f
APPROVED ,TH'Dt! I"r
DAY OF f1 2009
BY THE O.M.B.
l'
IV
o
<(
o
0:::
~
Z
<(
CD
W
U)
o
0:::
..
i II ,. 62
V l-----
~~~~
V ~
f----1 C pL R .....Jr--
.....J
f= '---
II I 2 f---
:2-
0
D
lIT p,CHMENT tJ,-L_TO
REPORT II PO b"') - 09
n
~l
)
TOYNEVALE
ROAD
-~LL
0:::
of----
~
I
-I-
-~-~
- f--~
I-- 1--(5
f----
~
~~
_~iIT - I
- COURTY--
I IF
I
I
<{
.....J
I
<{
o
\
--D
~
.->--
D
o
)7.->--
/
RICK
HULL
ROSEBANK
PUBLIC
SCHOOL
\ c-<'c L
~
o ~MEMORIAL/ PA\\K
~ c'RelIt: ""
co"""~ -
II ::-::= ::="- d A T.
- - ~~
I-
2
w
o
Vl
w
0:::
o
w
~~
DRIVE
~
I-
_2
-6
-2
-t5
::J
r~
-
o
o
w
~~t)l
c- I
I MAITLAND D~E
I f-=
I
Vl
<{
-
-
I
-
f--- ~ -
<{
l-
f--- 2
::J
o
f-- 2
q
~
522
'\.
;y
\
\
\
\
~\
e-\
~\
~\
~\
\ 0
\ g
! \ 3:
, ~
@Oml'i , \ f-- 0 ADp~: in ~ I
'~l I\tIIT T
/~ D7I\~~ F~
City of Pickering
I
I
521
518
514
/
SUBJ~< Tf----.....J
Vv1ILTON ROAD NOT
~
~ I--V
m
~1-- /
504 ~ ~ I
TRAVELLE)) COWAN
:=\
I
4._....~
I
\ 480
\ 478
I
I---
I--
47S
,
~
GILLMOSS
ROAD
l
o y
CO
Vl
o
2
<{
.....J f---
W
0:::
o
o
2
-I-
3-_
f--- 0
r-- Vl
w
0:::
_0
r--
Ffc TW t
'-'--'--"-" v-
z~
~ ~s;6tt
8 \GOOR
"\,,t= ~
I
-
CIRCLE
\
-
I--
\\
~
\~
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PART LOTS 79-85, 110, 111, PLAN 350
Planning & Development Department
OWNER ROSEBANK PROPERTIES INC.
FILE No. SP-2007-01 & A13/07
DATE DEC. 10,2008 DRAWN BY JB
SCALE 1 :5000 CHECKED BY A Y
l'
o 0 :::.ource.:
8- Teronet Enterprises Ino. and its al.lppliers. All ri~hta Reserved. Not 0 pion of survey.
ei 2005 MPAC and its suppliers. All richts Reserved. Not 0 pion of Survey.
PN-1
.
lTf ACHMENT I ~ TO
REPORl # PO 06-09
INFORMATION COMlili..ED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN
ROSEBANK PROPERTIES INC.
SP-2007-01 & A 13/07
6 ,3
LOT 87 I
I LOT 76 I I
I I I
~----------------T--------~-------~
I I I
I LOT 77 I LOT 86 I
I I I
r- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65.99 _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ ~
!-'
I 16:;; I
I 47.69 LOT 85 I
LOT 78 !-'
I 17 :;; --------1
r - - - - - - 65.44 _ _ 46.62_ _ !-' _ _ _ 55.9~ _ _ _:
I t;: 15 47.95 18 :;; LOT 84 I
I '"
I LOT 79 - - - - - - - l
'" 14 19 !-'
~ If- ~ - ~ - - ~ ~ 13 "'''20 ~ -=---~~l::"'- 8' ~~ "II
o LOT 80 ~ 58.04 53.10
o I <;: --------=1
o ~;::: 12 21 :..,-------
~ I _ _ _ _ ,. _ Jij; '5~24 251'~~32 ~ 55.51 ... 55.931 I
:::s:: r I 15.30 15.24 I
6 I I I ! 11 -LOT - -8;- - ----II
f- - - LOT -L B1l · c ~ 1 ~ ~ 8 ~ 7 ~ 6 ~
I ~ m ~ !
L~~~~~~L ~ '''' ..." 10.74 13.7 13.7 1.40 - - - - - -_--;t
66.12
o
<C
o
cr:::
Y:
Z
<C
CD
w,
U)
o
cr:::
P5
...
'"
22 ~
N
...
MIL TON ROAD (NOT mA~LLED)
I
_ _ _ _ ~O~ _ -.l..1L-J
I
----------1
I
I I I
I LOT 109 I LOT 112 . I
L __~________________~
1-------------- I I
I LOT 108 I LOT 11.3 I
I
b-.:- LOT_ _ 1J-Q
I I
f-----L
I
P 1
~
N
~2 ~3 ~4
Q) 0 0
33.67
23 :;;:
io
(Xl
13.72
13.72 13.72 13.72
33.66
FULl SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANT'S
SUBMITTEO PLAN ARE A VAILABLE FOR VlEWINC AT
THE CITY OF PICKERINC PLANNINC '" DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY or PICKERINC
...... J........... . ...,..,,~,.............._ ~...~.~_......._
i Ii .
o
)>
^
:E
o
o
<:]
<:]
::0
<
JTJ
64
A"8MENT #~_. 10
REPORT # ~ 05-09
STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN
ROSEBANK PROPERTIES INC.
SP-2007-01 & A 13/07
MAITLAND DRIVE
LOT
75
LOT
76
LOT
77
PART 4
PLAN 4O!t-l2465
LOT 78
60.93
14
LOT 79
58.27
~
"
'"
13
5553
LOT
'" 9
o
:,.
'"
15.0
PART I, 4OR-25og9
7.90
PART 1
14.76 15.42
LOT
'",10
"
. ..
. '"
14.5
14.53
PART J
4DR
15.0
14.53
2.' MIL TON ROAD
(NOT TRAVELLED)
..1) "
LOT
m
- u;
- '"
..
42.91
25 ifl 5
PART J, 4Oft-2496~ ~
PART I, 4OR-24967
14.34 14.34 15.0
~2 ~3 '" "
~4 '"
'" '"
0 '" '"
..
'"
..
46.0
BLOCK 26
PART 4, 4QR-24967
~...., I, PlAN <IOR-8lUJ
.. ~
'" "
..
PART 1
P1H2e3Ol-OJ14(LT)
14..34 14.34 15.16
46.07 ...
'" 21 N
'" .0
.. 47.
'"
'" 22
.. 47.84
~ U; ...
0 '" N
en .. 23 .0
47.86
U; ...
24 '"
u .0
..
107
BLOCK 28
o.JOM IlllESUt'ot:
LOT 109
BLOCK 27
o.JOMII(~'oIE
.
1
g
.
LOT
108
LOT
LOT
88
LOT
87
LOT
86
15
PART 2
16
17
18
19
20
~5
..
'"
LOT 82
PART 2, 4OR-24780
'"
o
~ S
PART J
14.52
PART 5
.....2I.3OI-OJ7I(L.T)
;!1
PART 7
PART J, 4OR-24626 PART 6
LOT 111
.:.,
PART 5. 4OR-24626
LOT
112
LOT
113
PART 2
PlolH_-22741
IV
FULL SCAlE COPIES OF THE APPLlCANT's
SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT
THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING ct OEYEWPMENT DEPARTMENT.
THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING dr DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT,
INFORMATION &c SUPPORT SERVICES.
DECEMBER 17, 2008.
o
o
~::o
!~
~rn
~)>
22
o^
"
~::o
.0
Ii)>
~o
.
.
A
SKETCH OF LOTTING/BUILDING
ENVELOPE
A"'-'fIIMem # :f.- 10
REKm' PI) -09-
, ,
E
L()
j---____________L_____,
I t I
I I
I EI
I 01
I E .1
I L() E L()I
I 0 ~I
I n 1
I I
r------- ------ I
I -----1
I I
I E I
1 L() EI
I 01
I u-jl
I E ~I
I L() I
I I
II
r---- ------ I
I ---I
I I
1 1
I E'
1 01
I E .1
I E L() L()I
I L() ~ I
I ~ I
r------- _________J
: --~ :
I I I
I E EI
I E 001
I . .1
I L() 0-jL()1
I ~~I
L mmmJ :
---------r-----------~
(!)
Z
~
o
....J
"'"
a:
E
CO
r------l------------
I -.
I I
I I
I EI
I E 01
I E .1
I E L() :!I
I CO I
1 I
r------ I
-----1
I I
l I
I EI
I E 01
I .1
I E L() ~I
CO ~,
l I
~______ I
I --------~
I 1
I I
I Cl
I c 01
I .1
I E L() ~I
I CO ~I
I I
~------ I
l 1-~
1 I
I c cl
I c OJ 01
I L' .
I L() ~ ~I
~ ----------~ ~i
-----------f--------~
(!)
z
~
o
....J
o
W
(f)
o
a..
o
a:
a..
65
co
o
o
N
oi'
U
w
C
Uj
I-
<(
o
-
C
Q)
E
t
~
0..
Q)
o
-
C
Q)
E
0..
o
Q)
>
Q)
o
~
0>
C
C
C
~
a..
0>
C
';:
Q)
~
u
a..
-
o
.?:-
<.)
i I. .
66
tTTtICHrJ:ENT # ~ 5" TO
REPORT # PO ()S- -oCf
Citl{ 01
INFORMATION REPORT NO. 05-08
FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION MEETING OF
February 4, 2008
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PUBLIC MEETING REQUIREMENTS
OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, chapter P.13
SUBJECT: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007 -01
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/07
Rosebank Properties Inc.
Part of Lots 79 to 85, 110, 111, Plan 350
Lands located west of Rosebank Road, east of Oakwood Drive and south
of Maitland Drive
City of Pickering
1.0 PROPERTY LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION
- the subject lands are located west of Rosebank Road, east of Oakwood Drive
and south of Maitland Drive;
- a property location map is provided for reference (see Attachment #1);
- the subject lands have been/are being assembled through the land severance
process and are land-locked as they do not have frontage onto a public road;
- the City-owned Milton Road allowance runs through the subject lands, and
will provide access to both Oakwood Drive and Rosebank Road;
- the lands are currently vacant and contain mature vegetation;
- the surrounding land uses are detached dwellings.
2.0 APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL
- the applicant has submitted an application for approval of a draft plan of
subdivision and an application to amend the zoning by-law in order to
implement the proposed draft plan;
- the draft plan of subdivision proposes to create 23 lots for detached dwellings,
with lot frontages ranging from 13.0 metres to 15.2 metres (see Attachment #2 -
Submitted Plan);
- frontage will be provided through the construction of a municipal road along
the City-owned Milton Road allowance and the creation of two new roads
(which will terminate in temporary cul-de-sacs) extending north and south
from Milton Road;
Information Report No. 05-08
--
HT t\CHP!.EI\lT II _.:) TO
RE~'ORT # PO 0:)--69
Page 2
67
- the following chart outlines the proposed development detail:
Details of the Application
Total area of draft plan 1.6 hectares
Residential lots 1.3 hectares
Municipal road 0.2 hectares
Reserves 19.4 square metres
Number of detached dwelling lots 23
Net residential density (units per hectare) 17.3
- the applicant has indicated that a minor revision to the north western
boundary of the proposed plan of subdivision will be required to reflect a
reduction in the amount of land that is to be severed and acquired by the
applicant through an associated land severance application.
3.0 OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING
3.1 Durham Regional Official Plan
- the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as Living
Areas, which are intended to be used predominantly for housing purposes;
- the proposal appears to conform to the Durham Regional Official Plan;
3.2 Pickering Official Plan
- the Pickering Official Plan designates the subject lands as Urban Residential
Area - Low Density Area;
permissible uses within the Urban Residential Area - Low Density Area
designation include, among others, residential uses and home occupations;
- the subject lands are within the Rosebank Neighbourhood of the Official Plan (see
Attachment #3 - Map 11);
- the policies for this neighbourhood restrict the development of these lands to
the infilling of detached dwelling units and establish a maximum residential
density of 17 units per net hectare;
- the proposed development provides a net density of approximately 17.3 units
per hectare, which is over the required maximum density;
- the City has adopted the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
that apply to the subject lands (see Section 3.3);
- the applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the
Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications;
3.3 Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines
- the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines state that new
development shall be limited to detached dwellings only and that all new lots
shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 15.0 metres unless the
character of the area is such that smaller lot frontages are desirable (see
Attachment #4 - Development Guidelines);
- the applications will be assessed against the Rosebank Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines during the further processing of the applications;
Information Report No. 05-08
.. . 6 8
~,TTACHMENT # 5 TO
RE~JRT # PO 6-S'-O?, .
Page 3
3.4 Zonina By-law 2511
- the subject lands are currently zoned "R4" - Detached Dwelling Zone by
Zoning By-law 2511;
- the existing zoning permits one detached dwelling per lot on a lot having a
minimum lot area of 460 square metres and a lot frontage of 15.0 metres;
an amendment to the zoning by-law is required to implement the applicant's
proposed development.
4.0 RESULTS OF CIRCULATION
4.1 Resident Comments
- no resident comments have been received to date;
4.2 Aaency Comments
several agency comments have been received with no objections;
4.3 Staff Comments
in reviewing the applications to date, the following matters have been
identified by staff for further review and consideration:
· ensuring that the proposed development is compatible with, and sensitive
to, existing surrounding development and provides appropriate tree
preservation;
· compatibility with the Rosebank Neighbourhood policies, specifically the
maximum density requirement of 17 dwelling units per net hectare of land;
· required revisions to the plan to address ownership of abutting lands and
to reflect any changes in land acquisition;
· compatibility with the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines;
· ensuring the proposed road design and lotting pattern do not impact on the
ability of abutting properties to the north and south to develop in the future;
· reviewing supporting technical submissions and reports to ensure that
adequate information is provided, that technical requirements are met and
that the proposed development design does not impact on the ability of
abutting properties to develop in an appropriate fashion;
· reviewing the applications in terms of its level of sustainable development
components;
- the Planning & Development Department will conclude its position on the
applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated
departments, agencies and public.
Information Report No. 05-08
.-
ATTACHMENT I.:':> TO
r::F"C!.R1 II PO ~- 69
Page 4
69
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 Councilor a Committee of Council;
if you wish to be notified of Council's decision regarding either the proposed plan
of subdivision or zoning by-law amendment application, you must request such in
writing to the City Clerk;
if a person or public body that files an appeal of a decision of the City of
Pickering in respect of the proposed draft plan of subdivision and/or zoning
by-law amendment, does not make oral submissions at the public meeting or
make written submissions to the City of Pickering before the draft plan of
subdivision application is considered for approval, or before 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 plan and reports are available for
viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering Planning & Development
Department including:
. the draft plan of subdivision;
· Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by MMM Group Limited,
dated November 2007;
. Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment, prepared by Archaeological
Consultants and Contractors, dated May 2007;
· Preliminary site servicing assessment and grading plan, prepared by
MMM Group Limited, dated November 30,2007;
- the need for additional information and/or addendums to submitted reports
will be determined through the review and circulation of the applicant's current
proposal;
Information Report No. 05-08
70
-
:::,
'==.,=_TO
PD~_.Qs:=Q2.,___. ...._
Page 5
6.3 Owner I Applicant Information
- the owners of the subject lands are Rosebank Properties Inc., Allan &
Suzanne Barless, Mark & Karen Mitchell, and Harold & Carol Ferguson;
- Rosebank Properties Inc. is the authorized agent for the subdivision and
rezoning applications.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY
Carla Pierini
Planner II
Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
Manager, Development Review
CP:ld
Attachments
Copy: Director, Planning & Development
/l ~
;,,_Q{i~~Qq- Excerpts from
Planning & Development Committee
Meeting Minutes
Monday, February 4,2008
7:30 pm - Council Chambers
7 1
Chair: Councillor O'Connell
(I) PART 'A' - PLANNING INFORMATION MEETING
1. Information Report 05-08
Draft Plan of Subdvision SP-2007-01
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/07
Rosebank Properties Inc.
Part of Lots 79 to 85, 110, 111, Plan 350
Lands located west of Rosebank Road, east of
Oakwood Drive and south of Maitland Drive
City of Pickerinq
A public information meeting was held under the Planning Act, for the purpose
of informing the public with respect to an application submitted by Rosebank
Properties Inc. for property being composed of Part of Lots 79 to 85, 110, 111,
Plan 350.
Lynda Taylor, Manager, Development Review gave an outline of the
requirements for a Statutory Meeting under the Planning Act. She also noted
that if a person or public body does not make oral or written submissions to the
City before a by-law is passed, that person or public body are not entitled to
appeal the decision of City Council to the Ontario Municipal Board, and may
not be entitled to be added as a party to the hearing unless, in the opinion of the
Board, there are reasonable grounds to do so.
Carla Pierini, Planner II, gave an overview of zoning amendment application
A 13/07.
Dan Drummond, 482 Oakwood Drive, appeared in opposition to the application.
Mr. Drummond stated that the Rosebank Community had a unique character
within it and that all development should adhere to the 50 foot lot frontages to
match the existing homes in the area. He questioned whether an environmental
assessment had been completed on the property and if so when it was done. He
noted that he was concerned with the additional traffic the development would
create and construction traffic and noise while the development was being built.
Steve Hann, 479 Rougemount Drive, appeared in opposition to the application.
He noted that he had chose this neighbourhood for the maturity of it and wanted
all future development to be low in density and also stated that the development
must adhere to the 50 foot lot frontages. He also had concerns with the
additional traffic and the speed of it.
1
; 'I ..
~
o.S-DC; Excerpts from
Planning & Development Committee
Meeting Minutes
Monday, February 4, 2008
7:30 pm - Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor O'Connell
Andy Emmink, 385 Toynevale Road, appeared in opposition to the application
and noted that the Rosebank Guidelines state that any new development has to
follow these guidelines. He stated that the Rosebank area had a unique
character and all new development must complement this character. He also
had concerns with the additional traffic and reiterated the fact that there are only
two roads in and out of the area and he was concerned with emergency vehicles
accessing the area.
Maurice Brenner, 711 Sunbird Trail, representing the Rosebank Community
appeared in opposition to the application. Mr. Brenner noted that the new
development did not blend with the character of the existing community. He also
noted that another application was coming forward at the next Planning meeting
within the Rosebank Community and felt all developments should be looked at
together in order to see the full affect they would have on the Community. Mr.
Brenner stated that the Community would like to create a working group so that
they can work with the Municipality and Developers to help create development
that fits with the character of the area.
Taiwo Rainford, 1061 Moorelands Cresent, appeared in opposition to the
application and noted that he had chosen this area for its uniqueness. He
questioned whether the plan before them tonight was etched in stone or whether
the Community could make recommendations. Mr. Rainford questioned how the
development would affect taxes in the area and asked whether they could be
given assurance that traffic would not affect the safety of the residents. He also
questioned whether the development would include upgrading of utilities and
roads.
John McArthur, 545 Dahlia Cresent, appeared in opposition to the application.
Mr. McArthur questioned what the traffic study said about the development
creating additional traffic in the area and how it would affect the area. He also
questioned how accurate the student ratio numbers were and how the next
development would affect those counts. He also questioned how the additional
houses would affect power, water, pumping stations and drainage in the area
and whether the area would be able to handle this.
Councillor Johnson left the Council Chambers.
Robert Carriere, 444 Toynevale Road, appeared in opposition to the application.
Mr. Carriere questioned why the developer was proposing houses out of the R4
zoning and stated that he wanted the lot sizes increased. Mr. Carrier also
questioned what the tree preservation plan was.
2
ATTACHMENT I (0 TO
REPORT It PD 05-09 Excerpts from
Planning & Development Committee
Meeting Minutes '7 3
Monday, February 4,2008
7:30 pm - Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor O'Connell
Alexander Keith, 448 Toynevale Road, appeared in opposition to the application.
Mr. Keith stated that he wanted both development applications dealt with at the
same time so they could see the whole picture and how it would affect the
Community. He also noted that the Community wanted 50 foot lots and stated
he would like to meet with the developer to discuss their concerns.
Paul Krawczyk, 547 Oakwood Drive, appeared in opposition to the application.
Mr. Krawczyk noted his concerns with construction traffic and how it would
access the development. He stated he was concerned with the safety of the
children in the area during construction. Mr. Krawczyk wanted to know why he
did not receive notification of the meeting.
Don Mackeracher, 501 Rosebank Road, appeared in opposition to the
application. Mr. Mackeracher questioned when the Rosebank Guidelines were
adopted and also noted that the school in the area was already using portables
so 12 more children would affect the area.
Doug Paul, 512 Oakwood Drive, appeared in opposition to the application. Mr.
Paul noted that they already had a traffic and speeding problem in the area and
that the additional development would make it worse. He stated that traffic
calming devices should be looked at and more stop signs added if additional
houses were going to be built.
Norma Chittendem, 504 Rosebank Road, appeared in opposition to the
application. He noted his concerns with the impact the two developments would
have on the area and future development in the area. He stated traffic density
and speeds were already a problem in the area. He also stated that there was a
lot of wildlife in the area and was concerned with where it would go.
Astrid Schyvenaars, 472 Rosebank Road, appeared in opposition to the
application. She also noted the traffic concerns in the area and felt that traffic
calming devices were needed. Ms. Schyvenaars stated that in the Spring the
area had a drainage problem and that a small river flowed in her backyard and
questioned what was going to be done about the drainage situation. She also
noted her concerns with what would happen to the wildlife in the area.
John Vonk, 460 Rosebank Road, appeared in opposition to the application and
stated that they needed to make sure the proper infrastructure was in place
before they continued to build more houses. He felt the density was already too
high and noted that storm sewers need to be increased.
3
, I i I
~
... .. OS~O 7. Excerpts from
Planning & Development Committee
Meeting Minutes
Monday, February 4,2008
7:30 pm - Council Chambers
Chair: Councillor O'Connell
Richard Fraser, 540 Rougemount Drive, appeared in opposition to the
application and questioned whether there was pressure from the Province to infill
areas. Mr. Fraser questioned whether any semi's would be built and stated he
did not want to see semi's.
Geraldine Goudie, 572 Rougemount Drive, appeared before the Committee and
noted that the Community had worked hard to make sure the right type of
housing goes into the area so that they complement the existing housing. Ms.
Goudie questioned what bridge the construction traffic would be using and did
not want to see construction traffic during peak hours.
Cheryl Breckon, 711 Cowan Circle, appeared before the Committee and noted
her concerns with regards to increased traffic and the safety of children. He
noted that proper sidewalks were needed in the area and that road
improvements needed to be done also.
Allan Barless, 513 Oakwood Drive, appeared in opposition to the application and
noted that traffic speeds in the area were incredible. Mr. Barless questioned how
the process worked and how the City determined who was for or against the
development.
Norah Bates, 603 Cowan Circle, appeared in opposition to the application. She
questioned what plan had been put in place for the preservation of trees and
noted that the previous development still hadn't replaced the trees that were
taken out when it was built. She stated that the watershed had to be taken into
consideration and that additional green space was needed in the area if
development was to continue.
Debbie Carkner, 515 Oakwood Drive, appeared before the Committee and
stated that she wasn't there to stop the development but she was there to make
sure it was done right. She stated that there was lots of wildlife in the area, that
the trees needed to be preserved and that the lots must be 50 foot frontages.
Ms. Carkner also noted that all development proposed in the area should be
looked at together so the big picture could be seen.
Philip David, 507 Rougemont, appeared in opposition to the lot sizes.
Debbie Krupa, 567 Oakwood Drive, appeared before the Committee and stated
that her concerns were with the development of the area and the construction
4
JI ACHiVif:j~l ,i '7 . .1
~PORT , PD..cOS-o;;
I,
7S
. ....
NEIGHBOURHOOD 1: ROSEBANK
N eighbourhood
Population Projection
i 1996 Population
! Projected Growth
i Percent Increase
CITY POLICY
Rosebank Neighbourhood Polities
Description
· Is bounded by the Rouge River, Highway 401,
Petticoat Creek, and Lake Ontario
· Includes a portion of the Rouge Park, and most of the
Petticoat Creek Conservation Area within its boundaries
· Iroquois village existed near the mouth of the Rouge River
· Initial housing development occurred between 1900 and
1940; ~ore recent subdivision activity began in the 1970s
· Consists of primarily detached dwellings on large lots; also
includes an elementary school, neighbourhood park and
seniors' apartments (on Rodd Avenue); does not contain
any neighbourhood shopping facilities
. Has environmentally sensitive areas associated with the
Rouge River, Petticoat Creek and the Lake Ontario
Waterfront
· Is traversed from south-west to north-east by the CN. rail
line (along which GO Rail Transit service runs)
. Has two Detailed Review Areas within its boundary:
(i) residential lands north and west of the CN. rail line;
and (ii) lands in the Rodd Avenue - Bella Vista Drive area
. City Council has adopted development guidelines as
follows:
* The "Rosebank Neighbourhood Development
Guidelines" (for lands north and west of the CN. rail
line)
11.3
City Council shall,
(a) in the established residential areas along Bella
Vista Drive, Dyson Road, Pine Ridge Road,
Rodd Avenue, Rosebank Road, Rougemount
Drive, Toynevale Road and Woodgrange
Avenue, encourage and where possible require
new development to be compatible with the
character of existing development;
(b) restrict lands west of Rosebank Road and lands
along Rodd Avenue to the development and
infilling of single detached dwellings, and
despite Table 10 of Chapter Three, establish a
maximum residential density for these lands of
17 units per net hectare;
144PlCKERING OFFICIAL P LAN EDITION 5: Chapter Eleven -- Jrban Neighbourhoods
144
76
, '
~TTACHMENl#~7 __ .-TO
'!=?OAT I PD--.QS':07-'
CITY POLICY
RosebaJlk Neighbourhood
PO/ides (&,()Jlt d)
(c) despite 11.3(a), permit the convalescent home
on the north side of Rodd Avenue;
(d) for developments east of Rosebank Road and
west of the C.N. rail line, permit a maximum of
approximately 500/0 of the lots proposed for
residential development to be used for
semi-detached dwellings' and require the
remaining lots proposed to be used for single
detached dwellings;
(e) establish another neighbourhood park in an
appropriate location to serve development
generally west of Rosebank Road;
(f) prohibit vehicular access from the
neighbourhood to the Petticoat Creek
Conservation Area, and discourage vehicular
parking within the neighbourhood for users of
the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area;
(g) encourage the use and operation of the Lake
Ontario Waterfront Trail in a manner sensitive
to the interests of the neighbouring residents,
and provide local trail connections with the
Waterfront Trail in appropriate locations;
(h) encourage the conservation authority and other
interest groups to enhance the vegetative
linkages between Petticoat Creek Conservation
Area and the Rouge Park; and
(i) require new development to have regard for the
Rouge Park Management Plan.
PICKERiNG OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 5: Chapter Eleven -- Urban Neighbourhoods
146
i.\TTACHMENT # 7 -Al0
)9'OOT' PD---C!:5~9
77
MAP 11
NEIGHBOURHOOD 1: ROSEBANK
o
I
OICLAHOw!
ROUGE: PARK
ARE:A
LEGEND
LAKE ONTARIO
l'
N
SYMBOLS
- NEIGf;lBOURHOOD lIJ
BOUNDARY PARK
.- PUBLIC ELEMENTARY @
SCHOOL PROPOSED PARK
6 SEPARATE ELEMENTARY ... PLACE
SCHOOL OF WORSHIP
[gJ COMMUNITY CENTRE lEJ FIREHALL
~ LIBRARY Isel SENIOR CENTRE
----
NEW ROAD CONNECTIONS (PROPOSED)
DETAILED REVIEW AREA
LANDS FOR WHICH COUNCIL HAS
ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
(REFER TO COMPENDIUM DOCUMENT)
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING. & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
JUNE, 2008
~f"~~~L ~~o~~ :~:~ ~~ ~~~o~ 5cg:.JJ~~TI~~K;~i~CTHE
OTHER SCHEOULES ....ND THE TEXT.
NOTE: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
APPEAR ON SCHEDULE I
PICKERING OFFICIAL PLAN EDITION 5: Chapter Eleven - Urban Neighbourhoods
145
//
y
'7B
ATTACHMENT # ~ TO
REPORT , PD~-Q.2.,..,.
Rosebank Neighbourhood
Section A1
Rosebank Neighbourhood
DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES
ROUGE
PARK
AREA
c;.
:A)..
0",
:A
o"?
01-
:A
o
LAKE
ONTARIO
l'
tv
LEGEND
E2ZjDESIGN PRECINCT No. 1
lSSSJ DESIGN PRECINCT No. 2
f22SI DESIGN PRECINCT No. 3
ATTACHMENT I ~ TO
RtPOR'T I PD--'2.S:-Q2'
, !
79
Rosebank Neighbourhood
Development Guidelines
The following Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines were adopted by Pickering
Council on January 22, 1979, and amended four times: No.1 on February 4, 1985; NO.2 on October
15, 1991; NO.3 on May 4, 1992; and NO.4 on October 19,1992.
Section Al.l
As indicated on the map, the Neighbourhood comprises three design precincts. The following
provides detailed guidelines for each of these precincts.
Al.l.l Design Precinct No. 1
Within Precinct No.1, residential development shall be limited to the provision of single
detached dwellings only. All new lots created in this precinct shall have minimum lot frontages
of approximately 15 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between approximately 33
metres and 60 metres, unless the character of the area is such that a smaller lot frontage
or smaller lot depth is desirable.
Al.l.2 Design Precinct No.2
Within Precinct No.2, residential development shall be limited to the provision of single
detached dwellings only. All new lots created in this precinct shall have minimum lot frontages
of approximately 15 metres and minimum lot depths ranging between approximately 30 metres
and 36 metres.
Al.l.3 Design Precinct No.3
Within Precinct No.3, residential development shall be limited to the prOVISions of single
detached and semi-detached dwellings. All new lots created in this precinct for semi-
detached dwellings shall have minimum lot frontages of approximately 10.5 metres and
minimum lot depths of approximately 30 metres. New lots for single detached dwellings shall
have the same minimum lot dimensions as new lots in Precinct No.2.
i I! ,
SORDEN.
LADNER
GERVAIS
gO
ATTACHMENT I CJ TO
REPORT I PO ()5-:-D9
I
.'
J. PITMAN PATTERSON
direct tel.: 416-367.6109
direct fax: 416-361.2459
e-mail: ppallerson@blgcanllda.c:om
I Borden Ladner Gervais lUS>
LalNYers ' Paterrt & Trade-mark Agents
Scotia Plata, 40 King SIreeI West
Toromo. Omario. Canada M5H 3Y4
tel.: (416) 367-6000 fax: (416) 367-6749
wwwblgcanada.com
October 2, 2008
Delivered by Facsimile and by Overnight Courier
The City Clerk
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario, Canada
Ll V 6K7
Dear Sirs:
Re: Subdivision Appli~ation SP-2007-01
Zoning By-Jaw Amendment Application A13/07
473,477,481,503,507 and 513 Oakwood Drive and 480, 482,500 and 514
Roschank Road, City of Pickering
Appeal to Ontario Municipal Board under sections 34(11) and 51(34) of
the Planning Act
Our Client/Matter No.: 022588/000001
We are the solicitors for Rosebank Properties Inc. ('~Rosebank Properties"), Owner ot:
generally, the rear half of above-noted properties (collectively, the IfSuhject Property")
located in the Rosebank neighbourhood in the City of Pickering, On December 6, 2007,
Rosebank Properties filed with the City an application to amend the City's Zoning By-
law and an application to obtain approval of a draft plan of subdivision for the Subject
Property. On December 18, 2007, the City deemed both applications to be complete. To
date, City COW1CiJ has not made a decision in respect of either the zoning by-law
amendment application or the subdivision application. Accordingly, we write to you to
file an appeal in respect of the zoning by-law amendment application, pursuant to section
34(11) of the Planning Act, due to the City's failure to make a decision within the
prescribed time period. Similarly,. please consider this letter our notice of appeal,
pursuant to section 5 I (34) of the Planning Act, in respect of the subdivision application,
due to the City's failure to make a decision within the prescribed time period.
The Subject Property is located in the Rosebank neighbourhood in the City of Pickering.
The Subject Property is surrounded by single detached dwellings on large lots. An
unopened City road allowcmce, kllOwn as Milton Road, divides the Subject Property, such
that 503, 507 and 513 Oakwood Drive and 500 and 514 Rosebank Road are to the north
. of Milton Road, while 473, 477 and 481 Oakwood Drive and 480 and 482 Rosebank
Road are to the south of Milton Road, Rosebank Properties has received approvals from
<
::
01;
...
I-
o
..
<
oW
'"
I-
Z
o
.::e
>
'"
c(
..,
..
<<
u.
, '
2
0
u
...
II:
0
0
....
Q:
...
...
'"
3: ."
II:
....
>
::)
0
u
Z
<
>
o
...
z
o
..
o
~
...".
ATTACHMENT' t; .' TO
REPORT' PO 05>-{) 9
.
~
B 1
.. "-,'"
the Committee of Adjustment to sever various portions of the rear yards of the above.
noted properties, which when assembled together constitute the proposed area for
dev~lopmellt.
The Subject Property is designated Living Area in the Durham Region Official Plan,
which permits a wide variety of housing densities and types subject to local municipal
policies. The City of Pickering Official Plan designates the Subject Property as Urban
Residential - Low Density. It restricts the maximum density for this particular site to 17
units per net hectare, which the proposed development meets. The Subj~1 Property is
also subject to development guidelines for the Rosebank neighbourhood (Design Precinct
No.1) which are found in the appendices of the Official Plan, which limits development
to single detached lots with frontages and depths of-approximately 15 metres and 33 to 60
metres, respectively. Variation. from this range is permitted if appropriate. in the local
context.
The Subject Property is zoned R4 in the City's Zoning By-law, which permits single
detached dwellings. A number of performance standards apply, including minin'lUin lot
frontage (15.24 metres), minimum lot area (464.5 square metres) and maximum lot
coverage.
e' Not all of the lots on the proposed plan of subdivision satisfy the existing R4
perfonnance standards. Accordingly, the application to amend the zoning by-law is tOT a
site speci fic by-law which would establish the performance standards for the lots in the
plan of subdivision, save and except for the lots on 473 and 477 Oakwood Drive, which
meet the R4 standards.
e
The draft plan of subdivision that Rosebank Properties seeks to have approved contains
26 residential lots. Six lots have frontage on the north side of Milton Road and four lots
have frontage on the south side of Milton Road. A new street, Street "A" will extend
north of Milton Road, and provide frontage for ten lots. Street "A" curves slightly to the
northeast, to minimize tree loss, avoid properties not available for development and
create an attractive streetscape, while still pennitting future extension ofthe street. Street
"B" extents south from Milton Road and provides frontage for 4 lots.
In support of the applications, Rosebank Properties has submitted extensive supporting
documentation. These reports include:
. Traffic Impact Study (MMM Group);
. Stonnwater Management Report (MMM Group);
. Geotechnical Investigation (Shaheen & Peaker)j
. Functional S~IVicing Plan (MMM Group);
. Environmental hnpactStatcmcnt (Aboud & Associates);
. Arbonst Report (Aboud & Associates); and
2
! II I
82
, .
ATTACHMENT ,_ CJ TO
REPORT I PO (j~-()q
.
, .
.
· Stage 1 and 2 Archeological Assessment (Archaeological Consultants and
Contractors) .
These reports indicate that the proposed zoning by-taw amendment and plan of
subdivision constitute good planning. Of note, no traffic concerns arise, which has been
con finned by the City. Further, the EIS has demonstrated that the woodlot which extends
into the northwest comer of the Subject Property, is not a significant woodland or a key
natural heritage feature. Rosebank Properties has proposed tree preservation and planting
strategies as part of its applications.
Rosebank Properties has also engaged in additional consultation with ncighbourhood
groups and the review agencies. A public meeting was held at the City of Pickering in
February 2008.
The proposed zoning by-law amendment conforms to the City's Official Plan and is
consistent with the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. It is also
consistent with the Durham Region Official Plan. The by-law will preserve the character
of the existing residential area, being spacious lots with single detached dwellil1gs. Lot
frontages are generally consistent with lots fronting on neighbouring streets.
The subdivision application is consistent with, and necessary for, the orderly
development of the area. The draft plan of subdivision has been prepared with regard to
the criteria listed in subsection 51(24) of the Planning Act, and represents good planning
as measured by those criteria. For example, the proposed subdivision is not premature, is
in thc public interest, confonns to the Official Plan and is consistent with the surrounding
development fabric. The plan of subdivision shows appropriately dimensioned lots and is
situated on land which is suitable for development. Adequate services and amenities are
available.
e
Both applications confonn with the residential, natural heritage~ serviCing and other
applicable provisions of the City and Region Official Plans. Both applications are
consistent with applicable Provincial policy, including the Provincial Policy Statement
and the Growth Plan.
In conclusion, it is our client's position that the zoning by-law amendl11ent and proposed
plan of subdivision would allow development which is compatible with surrounding
development, consistent with the Official Plan, and will promote intensification and infill
development.
We respectfully request that these appeals be dealt with together by the Ontario
Municipal Board. We have attached a completed Appellant FOlm (Al) for each of the
appeals. We have also enclosed two chequest each in the amount of $125.00, being the
filing fee for each appeal.
e
If you have any questions or require any additional infonnationt please do not hesitate to
contact the undersigned.
3
-
e
~ -
"
Yours very truly,
Borden Ladner Gervais, LLP
,qp
J. PItman atterson
IPP:sm
Enclosures Appellant Fonns (2)
Cheques (2)
cc: Aaron Knight, Rosebank Properties Jnc.
Lorelei Jones, Lorelei Jones & Associates
::ODMA\PCDOCS\TORO 1\3905496\1
ATTACHMENT' 9 TO
R8'ORT I PO 6S:tl!1.--
83
4
'i
I
I'
~4
,)
~ifACHMENT" 10.... TO
'::PORT tI PD ~--Q ;?_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Traffic Impact Study
Rosebank South Neighbourhood 1 Pickering
Prepared For:
Rosebank Properties Inc. and
Land-Pro Engineering Consultants Inc.
.lA" MMM GROUP
May 2008 116-08060
Traffic Impact Study
Rosebank South Neighbourhood, Pickering
May 2008
ATTACHMENT I""LD_=,",lO
\9'0Rl fJ PDc,,;,,~O.:s ~Q 9
Page 12 r'
8,' '1
, '-'
5.2 Recommendations
The following actions are recommended:
1. Milton Road should be constructed as a two lane road connecting Oakwood Drive and
Rosebank Road
2. Milton Road should be stop controlled at its intersections with Rosebank Road and
Oakwood Drive
3. Cowan Circle should be completed as a two lane local road. No changes are required at its
existing intersections with Rosebank Road.
4. Both site plans for the Pickering Shores at Rosebank development were considered. No road
network improvements are expected to be required to support either scenario. Given the
minimal volumes on Gilmoss Road, no improvements are required should a connection to
the proposed development be provided.
5. Even with the full build-out of the Milton Road area no road network improvements are
expected to be required in order to accommodate the proposed developments. Given the
excess capacity at the existing study area intersections, minor changes in terms of adding
units or converting single units to semi-detached units are not expected to require additional
road network improvements.
6. The recommended future road network is shown in Figure 5.1.
i)..'-' MMM GROUP
.1
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I,
I
I
I
I
. I' .
() t.
() lJ
+rrA(~HMENr ,~==L~liJ
":pmn # PO.M,_0.5-:;J;>9
Page 11
Traffic Impact Study
Rosebank South Neighbourhood, Pickering
May 2008
5.0
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA liONS
5.1
Conclusions
Based on this report, the following conclusions have been drawn:
· The current Rosebank Properties Inc. development was assumed to include approximately
30 single detached units. Full build-out of the Milton Road area includes an additional 30
potential units;
· The Pickering Shores at Rosebank development has two potential plans, one includes
approximately 40 single detached units and the other 36. The slight reduction in units is a
result of the Canadian National Railway requirements. Under full build-out of the Pickering
Shores at Rosebank development, there are approximately 65 single detached units. For the
purpose of this study, 75 units were assumed to ensure a conservatively high estimate in
terms of traffic;
· Traffic operations have been assessed at two horizons including: existing conditions and
Horizon 20 13 (expected full build-out);
· The existing intersections at Rosebank Road and Toynevale Road, Rosebank Road and
Cowan Circle North, Rosebank Road and Cowan Circle South, and Rosebank Road and
Gillmoss Road are operating at an acceptable Level of Service;
· Future background traffic was developed based on an annual growth rate of one-percent per
annum;
· There are no planned road network improvements for the study area;
· The examined intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable Levels of Service
under Horizon 2013 background conditions;
· The trip generation rates for the development were obtained from the Institute of
Transportation Engineers' (ITE) Trip Generation (ih Edition);
· The distribution of trips within the study area was determined based on historical traffic
flow data;
· Future site trips were assigned to the future road network based on historical traffic flow
data;
· The examined intersections are expected to operate at an acceptable Levels of Service
under Horizon 2013 total future conditions.
MMM GROUP
"jl H!II'!-., .' 1/ ,.
J~I,f.::_Ll\i .t_ ~,,"",'
,::POH'j # PO O<i-D9
,
-. - '_".__"'-~'''M_''
_ _ _ - ~ 1~;\ '._
r')',
7 i
Milton Road Infill
Development
Seoped Environmentallmpaet Statement
City of Pickering
Prepared for:
Rosebank Properties Inc,
Project Number:
AA08-04B
Date:
July 4, 2008
~U~i~~~riS~E~~~i~.~~~!a~~D~~~r; ...
591 Woolwich Street. Guetph. Ontario. N1H 3Y5. 1:519.822.6839. F:519.822.4052. info@aboudtng.com. www.aboudtng.com
r
\..
I.
I' Ii ,.
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
,
,
I
Ii
~
~
~
~
~
~
/\TTACHMENTI, 1/ 10
r~EPORT I PO OS- - ()?
88
Rosebank Properties Inc.
Scaped EnvironmentallmDact Statement, Milton Road Infill Development, City of PickerinQ
July 4, 2008
6.0 Summary
It is our opinion that no significant vegetation communities or significant wildlife habitat are
present on the site based on our field reconnaissance, research and review of the studies by the
project team, It is recommended that the strategies to reduce impacts to preserved trees and offsite
resources be followed as documented in this plan and the arborist report. The information (including
the appendices and drawing), findings and recommendations in this report provide an accurate
assessment of the conditions on the subject site and the impacts of the development.
---
Kevin Butt, B.Sc. (Env.), Eco. Rest. Cert.
Certified Arborist (I.S.A.) & Terrestrial Ecologist
S:\A+A Projects\2008lAA08-048 Milton Road Environmental Overview ReportIReportlAA08-048 Seeped EIS 04-Jul-08.doc
ABOUD &; ASSOCIATES INC:
1E
L ......
--m----mu----mu----m-m---r-u"r-~I~~~~~:I~~~~~~r:=
LOT 75 ATTACHMENT I I / TO 8 9 mh'"
REPORT # PO 115- -() <)
______________________~.;::;:;;:;;;::;;::;,:;,;;:;;;;;;;;:;:;;;;:;;;.;;,;;ri<;;;-;;;;;;'f,--L--'--m---'-um-,______m
.. :\
~ i ~
1 i.
!~{ FOD 5-3 i ,~
"~ ~:/~~g,~J~~~~R^:ii I t
.____.~_____..__ ____.________________.________._.._._.. _____ ____________________________________ _.__________________________h -.-----------t------'-----------------.; .-.---. ----------------------- h____ .-----.------.-.- ou ---- ------.-". __________.ono_________. -------.--
LOT
LOT
76
OFFSITE pdRTION
"C>" OF WOODLOT TO BE
PRESER~ED
LOT 77 i~27 LOT
~ LOJ~~~~~~K ---v~J/;,:~ \ \n,\~ --
u_____\ - +tW ~ , · Y:\P\~-\ r~,--c,
,~' ~ \ I) r~. ;; ~~';'~I'-K\\ -~~~--~
~ I~....b,>- _ I POOl '\ OECK .
~ 0 Ir...--.-,.".\,:.....I A96. :
~_~ \ \ \.~..iA~~\," ! \\\ ~. ~.. ~~-F
~ ] \1\ '\ '\ 1 \ ~.,,~, :' \ \, ~c ~,~\ ~~
" : Lei; ~/ T i ~ ~ l'werI~' 111 r .,.' . ) 7 6 -----r------ 5. I t--! No 500 .<, 2 S.~O:';
?~~~;;lA ~A4~:~~~~!~:,lj r~~" ~,,~..~,..-2~~~
~...w:;...v."....~..... ".. . ...."...,..,I"o""',...........(,.,....l,_...."'. .....x... V. ~......,,~~........,.. ..,.........M.~"" .......,,.,...,,......,... .."..,...~' .25~.
j,";/j /' IJ:'IEQG~ROW I ~., (.~~,;:___~...., - / / if ~*. \L.'~" ..;:.~/ ::::::-./ .._____.''C' ~~ ../., ",~,/\,
tOol II ""..:,' ~~T I ~ .~rw~~/"[~'C"'.. JHe~
r'.~ _....~~\D:.-)f.- ~;yrtr!:..... f r~~..:. -- I-~.',......,....=~' =Ft:X'jI:.>:.....~....,- .....~. .. .... ......... .;.: .il..........'==:=. mn...........\~~}:J~.....,:~~~
No '.'.F ~ . ,.......:';~~JlJ"! ., ..; I c: .,' .. , . I;.. \\~ -----T 9,00 No'
q .~/ I i eJ.:' ~" - L. L
L 0 1 O'~., . . " ; .' I .' pO...". .. -:::- , .
--"';"/ i ; /. ~~ / ';, ~.. __ ... .'.__. I._~, '. ~ ~L-~~_. .~_~n..._-
~_________ n ......... ..".,~..;., / / r .0' ;.. _--v>. ml V~ --'O(oo..j ..m__
Iii .c.J- ~".. ~ I, ---\; "I'--
---." / I ro.l ITTCDf\l1 IT I
11:,-
,~,t
! j! .
90
j j/J.liHIVltlH J___/acccOi
']'OHl' j PD..05...Q9'.
Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of
10606 Milton Road Project (part of lots 82, 83, 84, 110 & 111 -
registered plan 350), City of Pickering
Submitted to:
Honeywood Developments Inc.
106 Scarboro Avenue,
Toronto, Ontario M1 C 1 M4
Tel.: (416) 283-3156
Fax: (416) 283.0350
Prepared by:
ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS AND CONTRACTORS
501-394 Avenue Road
Toronto, Ontario M4V 2H4
Tel.: (416) 894-7145
Fax: (416) 661-4807 (Attn: G.Clark)
Email: george@archaeologicalcontractors.com
Website: www.archaeologicalcontractors.com
Archaeological Consulting Licence # P120
MCL CIF #: P120-018-2007
May 2007
'-A 'H" 'iEJ\\"', .J J I) ','
\1 I Ij IV. it==<;~~JU
HEPom' # PD_,QG:- <2-.Z
9 '1
Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of
10606 Milton Road Project (part of lots 82, 83, 84, 110 & 111 - registered plan 350), City of Pickering
8
Figure 4: Aerial photo showing subject property (supplied by client)
4.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Stage 1 archaeological assessment of 10606 Milton Road Project (part of lots
82, 83, 84, 110 & 111 - registered plan 350),City of Pickering did not identify any
previously registered archaeological sites on the subject lands.
! fl'
92
i ffAGHMENT Il~".!r.2--~~'H,)
HEPOFIT # PO~:D+_
Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment of
10606 Milton Road Project (part of lots 82, 83, 84, 110 & 111 - registered plan 350), City of Pickering
9
The Stage 2 field assessment, consisting of test pitting at five metre intervals, did
not result in any new archaeological sites being registered with the MCL or the
recovery of any isolated finds.
In light of these results, the following recommendations are made:
1. The entire study area should be considered free from further archaeological
concern.
2. Should deeply buried archaeological remains be found on the property during
construction activities, the MCL must be notified immediately.
3. In the event that human remains are encountered during construction, the
proponent must immediately contact both the MCL, and the Registrar or Deputy
Registrar of the Cemeteries Regulation Unit of the Ministry of Consumer and
Business Services, (416) 326-8392.
The above recommendations are subject to Ministry approval and it is an offence
to alter any archaeological site without Ministry of Culture (MCL) concurrence. No
grading or other activities that may result in the destruction or disturbance of any
archaeological sites are permitted until notice of MCL approval has been received.
Any documentation or artifacts related to any Clrchaeological assessment performed by
Archaeological Consultants and Contractors on the subject property shall be curated by
Archaeological Consultants and Contractors until such a time that arrangements for
their ultimate transfer to Her Majesty the Queen in right of Ontario, or other public
institution, can be made to the satisfaction of the landowner, the MCL, and any other
legitimate interest groups.
.~J.\i;t.-;l\iE~!\(;
/3
DG -09
II I q 7
,/ '-
':':.A,~ .
South Rosebank Commuity Working Group
~*~ntl:';!'i"mW1:lAAlttafWJ!m;?1W#\'f;gimm:lAA1Wm~;Wm~tf1'%t:~t:~WWfr~.Mflrfl%_t'i**it~;'&h~~MW;r;,ki.'~~~<t_tm:%r4N%1;i%~jm:th1;&+*-M'm;~Jm?$>(t.;t2tiiM~iW.mt"mWf~1M%'1#;.W.;till';A't~~},,~$W~~
June 4, 2008
Ashley Yearwood
Planner I, Planning & Development Department
City of Pickering
ayearwood@city.pickering.on.ca
Dear Ashley,
RE: Environmental List
As requested please see below a list of the South Rosebank Working Group's list of
environmental concerns. As the proposed applications proceed, should any additional
environmental concerns arise we respectfully request that we have the ability to add or alter this
list should it be necessary.
1. Drainage and Grading Plan - South Rosebank i.s a unique neighbourhood in Pickering and
essentially this neighbourhood is a peninsula and therefore a specific focus to maintain natural
drainage should be paid including how the grading will impact natural flows to Lake Ontario,
Petticoat Creek and/or the Rouge River. Keeping in mind lot coverage to maintain natural
drainage and avoid asphalt jungle effect.
2. Wildlife Corridor - Both proposed developments will directly impact the wildlife corridor
which will have significant effects not only in this portion of Pickering. How will this corridor be
maintained or re-routed to protect wildlife from the infringement of population. We would
request that both applicants produce a drawing to demonstrate the corridor with the proposed
development to specifically indicate how this corridor will be maintained despite new
development.
3. Tree Preservation Study and Review of Environmental Refuge/Bird Habitat Protection - For
example, this area is a last "environmental refuge" for turkey vultures who nest there (quite
unusual), grey owls, red tailed hawks, fox and deer-who are migrating to this area from Petticoat
Creek Conservation area-where some of the "busy elements" in the park are driving wildlife to
this refuge.
4. Tree Incorporation Plan - What is the protection strategy to ensure existing trees in our urban
envelope are protected and incorporated into these applications. This concept differs from the
Urban Forest Strategy in that the community would like to see the mature trees incorporated into
the plans and not simply removed and plantings d,one elsewhere as per Urban Forest Strategy.
5. Tree Protection Plan - During construction what will be done to ensure the existing trees will
not be damaged. For example, ensuring watering, feeding, soil maintenance and/or temporary
fencing to ensure protection from construction equipment.
6. Natural Noise Barriers - How will the increased noise impact habitats and the wildlife corridor.
94
/,n'AGHMENT I. /3' 10
t:EPOfff I PO Q;S~~O'~_F
7. Aquifers - The community is well aware that because of the uniqueness of this area attention
must be paid to any impact on the aquifer system to ensure the natural watercourse is not
interrupted.
8. Environmental Impact of the Pumping Station - The Region of Durham has acknowledged
that the failing pumping station has resulted in numerous occasions where sewage has flowed
directly into the nearby stream and into Lake Ontario. Additional residences will mean an
increase in sewage being dumped into Lake Ontario, what are the environmental impacts of this.
9. Archeology Study - There are known First Nations settlements in this area (First Nations
Trail) will an archeology study be completed.
Should you have any questions or require further information please feel free to contact us
through Councillor Jennifer O'Connell's office or Community Advocate, Maurice Brenner.
Councillor Jennifer O'Connell
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering ON L 1 V 6K 7
i enni feroconnell (alsym pati co .ca
Or through our Community Advocate
Maurice Brenner
711 Sunbird Trail
Pickering LlX-2X5
Maurice. brenner@rogers.com
Sincerely,
South Rosebank Community Working Group
(Gail Middleton, Barbara Provis, Jennifer O'Connell, John McArthur, Norma Chittenden, Jerry
Goudie, Pat Kelly, Maurice Brenner, Marilyn Doweck, Andy Wood Gaines, Sharon Vanshaik,
Kate Cherrett, Mary Ann Monroe, Don Mackeracher, Geoff Darby, David Doweck, Jim
Chaikalis, Nora Bates, Pam Spence, Charlie Newman, Helen Newman, Dan Drummond.)
tl.~AI;;iVtEj~r ic_~L~='J L!
"C:' Off, ;1 Pf)<.~..Q~ :Q<:!.<
9[
.' ...)
Mark Mitchell and Karen Johnson-Mitchell
514 Rosebank Rd.
Pickering, Ontario
LIW 2N5
RECEIVED
Ms. Lynda Taylor
City of Pickering
Planning Department
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario L 1 V 6K7
MAY 0 7 2008
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Dear Ms. Taylor:
Re: Development in the Rosebank Road/Oakwood Drive Area
We are the owners of 514 Rosebank Rd., Pickering. When we purchased the property in
2006, it was subject to an option agreement in favour of the Bureau's (owners before our
vendor) in respect of the westerly portion (at the rear of our property between Rosebank
and Oakwood. A condition of that option was that we would not oppose any severance
upon exercise of the option.
As you are aware, the Bureaus have exercised that option as part of the development in
this area. Accordingly, this letter is not in any way an opposition to the severance.
Rather, it is to express our concern about the inequitable alteration to the Official Plan
being proposed as a result of the inability of the developer to acquire the property
abutting the rear portion of our land on the Oakwood side. The proposal would cause the
road allowance, including provisions for a cul-de-sac, to curve eastward resulting in it
being shifted entirely to the Rosebank side of the line when it reaches directly behind our
property. This change unfairly prejudices the Rosebank owners in that the new houses
will, of necessity, be built on lots that are shorter in depth than on the Oakwood side.
This will adversely impact the property values on the Rosebank side disproportionately to
the effect on the Oakwood side. Based on the drawings we have seen, this effect is
greatest on our property.
When we purchased the property, we investigated the option, checking with the City of
Pickering Planning department and the Official Plan to determine the impact on our
property if the option was exercised. We understood that this development could take
place only if the abutting owners of both Rosebank and Oakwood agreed to sell with the
result that the road allowance would be equally shared along the existing property line
centered between the two existing roads. That result would be fair to all property owners.
The proposed change to the road is however, as explained above, unfair and prejudicial to
our legitimate property interests. We urge the Planning Department not to allow this
alteration of the road allowance, but to ensure that it remains as 33' on each side of the
dividing line as specified in the City of Pickering Official Plan.
96
/L'ITACHMENT I=-J.'-j '40
P!:POfIT fJ PD~-...aS-99' .
Please feel free to contact either of us at the numbers on our business cards (enclosed) or
at our home number after business hours.
Mark Mitchel
Karen Johnson-Mitchell
905 509-5890
CC - Debbie Wilcox
Pierini, Carla
WTACHMENT iI
:EPOR1 , PO
./"
IS TO
()6--0:; ~__
<17
-"
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Peter Craig [peter.craig@rogers.com]
February 8, 20084:38 PM
Pierini, Carla
Littley, Bonnie, Councillor; O'Connell, Jennifer, Councillor; Council Web Email
A 13/07 and A02/08
Carla,
For the record, I am totally against the above mentioned Applications and I am in agreement with most of the arguments
against these developments raised at the recent meeting in Council Chambers.
Besides being slightly dumbfounded by the attitude of council that seemed to be pro these developments in spite of the
large turnout of concerned citizens, and assuming that they work for their constituents, I do have a concern that was not
covered well in the meeting.
The concern revolves around the fact that the unopened road allowance used in A 13/07 appears to be a conduit for larger
animals (deer, fox etc.) between Petticoat Creek and the Rouge River Park. I think that this issue warrants further
discussion with experts in the field and potentially further study. Without this conduit, the wildlife that many of us enjoy in
our neighborhood would have no reason to come here, and as a result would disappear. On top of this, this conduit
allows for mixing of gene pools from both parks, and without this the population of Petticoat Creek would potentially
weaken and disappear due to a restricted gene pool. I was referred to the TRCA and their approval of the A 13/07 site,
but in reviewing their mandate it does not mention wildlife. I volunteer to personally pursue this issue with the proper
authorities on behalf of concerned parties if I knew who the proper authorities were.
This allowance is part of the neighborhood plan, but if the experts agree on this issue, I would propose that this road
allowance be closed and left in its current state, there by maintaining the presence of wildlife in our neighborhood and
ensuring the healthy continuation of animals in the Petticoat Creek area.
.up of this issue, and as mentioned before, I am in total agreement and seriously concerned about these
developments for the following reasons that were well covered in the meeting.....
-tree preservation issues
-we don't really know what kind of houses will be built
-traffic issues
-services issues
-degradation of the character of our neighborhood
-reduced lot sizes
-potential negative effect on property values
-schooling issues as they already have portables
Thank you in advance for your attention,
Peter Craig
480 Oakwood Drive
9n&l-509-2775
1
, I i I
98
:'t'IlI'UUI"CjW'f J) J 1- _H;
~ ~t\VIlIVr.;;,l 11'(~:..~~
. .':POrH ;I PO~5::.6~H
January 30th, 2008
504 Rosebank Rd. S.
Pickering, Ontario
Ll W2N5
fl'", e, C lIr~ !I '}:; ~ 0
, ",'P\k,J\IV~
City of Pickering
Corporate Services Department
Clerk's Division
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
LIV6K7
FE8 0 4
C1TY OF P!C~~m~G
Pl.ANNi!\iG.& DE\ll:;,L~PMd"T
DEPARTMENl
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision # SP-2007-01
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application # A 13/07
I object to the changing of the zoning by-law to allow a reduction in the size of the lot
frontages in the Rosebank area from the current 15.0 metres to 13.0 metres. I believe
this change would affect the character of the area in allowing smaller lots with oversized
houses to be built. I believe this would affect property values in a negative way. I have
lived at my present residence for over 30 years and have paid substantial tax revenues to
keep the neighbourhood unchanged. Please keep me informed of any decisions.
The proposed change of density to allow 17.3 units per hectare as opposed to the present
17.0 units is also distressing. At present, the home situated at #500 Rosebank, to the
immediate south of my residence, takes up approximately 70% of the footprint of the lot
SIze.
Another prime example is the house standing at the comer of Rose bank Rd. S. and
Maitland Ave., where the dwelling takes up approximately 80% of the footprint of the
lot.
What guarantee is available from the Planning and Development D
Rosebank Properties Inc. to keep this from happening again with t
new subdivision?
,...-.- ...
ORIGIf\lll.L DW
TO: ""..~
COpy
er mtrnent and D. Cl1b OiL
his proposed
( ""'::'-':~::~:';;;-",.-~--. .
CORR) ~) FILE
, TAKE APPR. ACTION
~
~AI;HIVIEN( ilcjf~,~uJ
':':POfU i PD--.J2~~~_
99
I have noticed that the developers proposal for a change from 15.0 metres to just 13.0
metres is already being ignored in the developers draft plan with the following examples.
Lot #12 shows a frontage of 12.97 meters, Lot #18 shows a frontage of 12.93 metres
and again with Lot # 17 showing a frontage of 13.80 metres with half of that particular
frontage being used up in a roadway turning circle effectively reducing it to just 6.90
metres.
In addition I noticed that the Lot Schedule of the draft plan does not coincide accurately
with the previously mentioned measurements stated on Block 26 and Block 27 where
Lots # 12, 17 and 18 front onto Street "A".
Is this an honest mistake or meant to intentionally confuse the proposed application?
These may be quibbling amounts for the Planning and Development Department to
consider but I view them as the thin edge of the wedge.
In Section 4.3 (Staff Comments) of the Official Plan And Zoning document it is stated
that in reviewing the applications it must be ensured that the proposed development
provides appropriate tree preservation. My cause for concern in this instance stems from
the former neighbour at #500 Rosebank Rd. S. cutting down all the mature trees,
including 30 foot spruces, so that he could put up his addition.
What assurance will Rosebank Properties Inc. provide the current neighbours that this
will remain effective and the mature trees preserved?
Finally, I object to the proposed change in the current by-laws because traffic control
resulting from the proposed density of housing is a major concern and will affect the
present Rosebank Neighbourhood in a negative manner.
There are only two points of travel into and out of the Rosebank Rd. area. These
roadways are Rougemount Dr. and Granite Crt. There is already major traffic density
during rush hours through the Rosebank Rd. area. This is due to the overwhelming
number ofvehic1es using our roadways as a short cut between Whites Rd. and Hwy. 2.
Thank you for affording me the opportunity of voicing my concerns and stating my
objections to the proposal of Rose bank Properties Inc.
Yours truly,
Robert Chittenden
1
~-:I , ~'
.~);t::/ -'., ,. '.' ?
/~,.' /' ~~, .-' A'""'. /..r#'" . ......../
. . .. ,.<<""7 d:.Jvl ~
~ .,: .-~'. ; /; V
[".;;.
~ !.
'1 DO
:N..:ril'JH:i\l r c/..l.2.....n' ;)
.u~(jm:! PD~~.a.~"=6j,,,
504 Rosebank Rd. South
Pickering, Ontario
L1W2N5
January 30th, 2008
City of Pickering
Corporate Services Department
Clerk's Division
1 The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario
L 1 V 6K7
Dear Sirs:
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007 -01
Zoning By-Law Amendment Application A 13/07
Please be advised that I DO NOT approve of the application to amend the
Zoning By-law in regard to the above mentioned subdivision plan - or any
other subdivision plan for the Rosebank area.
Signs have been posted on the road allowance to be known as Milton Road
and state the developer proposes to build homes with 13m and 15m
FRONTAGES. However, on closer examination of the plan (a magnifying
glass was needed!), not all the lots meet the 13m proposal. In fact some of
them are only 10.7 4m. My question is this, if the developer has submitted
plans for homes with 10.7 4m frontage, why isn't this posted at the sites for
people in the community to see? It is misleading residents of the Rosebank
community who drive past these signs and read the amendment proposal of
13m. People live very busy lives and do not always have time to read the
small print and it is only when checking further that the reduced size lots
come to light.
ORIGI~!i\L ....i....\ -'1
'TO: :->'-'e-/
Speaking of misleading residents, I recently spoke directly t . omeowner
who has sold to the developer, he said "I'm sorry to hear ab T . _ ' ,1'-"
Amendment because when the developer spoke to me, he
the lots would have 50 foot frontage". If the developer 'ass red'landowners
that homes would have 50 foot frontage, shouldn't his word. aunt for
something?
~....,,-::::..:~>'
. CORR..-J FILE
~P~~~CTION
l~~I=.~,.~""",="",,~.,"'.I::I):I~"'":
'laAi;i1IVIl:l~'ril -LZ----jiJ
,~:POffl' Ii PO" tlS-=D.~._, . ,,,,,
1 0 1
Another major concern I have is the proposed Precinct NO.3. I understand
this area will accommodate 40 homes, some with frontages of 10.5m! Has
anyone given any thought to the increase in volume of traffic in this area from
Precincts 1 & 3? Most homeowners have at least 2 vehicles, also each home
generates added traffic with visiting family and friends. This proposal, (if all 3
Precincts are approved) will have a major impact on the area, particularly
when there are only two roads that lead in and out of Rosebank. This needs
to be given careful consideration - has anyone really thought this through? If
so, I would appreciate hearing how the present roads are expected to cope
with the additional volume of traffic.
I am also of the belief that because of the limited access to this area, that ALL
residents should be notified of this development proposal. The increase In
traffic volume will impact ALL Rosebank residents, as everyone has only two
(2) choices as to which road they take to leave the neighbourhood.
Therefore, this does involve everyone in the area and as taxpayers, we have
the right to be informed.
I trust the Planning Department will give the developer's application for
rezoning careful consideration before making a decision. Rosebank is a
unique, one of a kind community and is readily sought after as a premium
area in which to live. Precedence was set in this area many years ago and
for the most part that standard has been maintained. This is what keeps
Rosebank so special, let's keep it that way. I have no objections to new
homes being built, it would be selfish to think otherwise. However, I do not
wish to see homes built at the expense of the existing community, especially
residents like myself who have lived here for over 30 years. If you have never
seen this area, I strongly urge you to visit and understand why Rosebank is
so important to its residents.
I would appreciate being kept up to date on any and all decisions or proposals
pertaining to the Rosebank area.
Yours truly,
1~ Q:,k~~<k:-
. ~.~.-....-~--
Norma Chittenden (Mrs)
905-509-0111
l "
'1 D 2
/8
'i;1 ~: ,'j~()'5- o~
Pierini, Carla
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Michaud, Renee on behalf of Council Web Email
February 19, 2008 10:03 AM
Taylor, Lynda; Pierini, Carla; 'Bonnie Littley'
FW: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP 2007-01
Rosebank.JPG; Dyson.JPG
FYI.
From: Rob.VanShaik@bmwgroup.ca [mailto:Rob.VanShaik@bmwgroup.ca]
Sent: February 16, 2008 3:34 PM
To: Littley, Bonnie, Councillor; jconnell@city.pickering.on.ca; Council Web Email;aemmink385@rogers.com;
gu usje4l3@rogers.com; terrya4 7@rogers.com; completepms@sympatico.ca; peter .craig@rogers.com
Cc: john.gerretsen@ontario.ca
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP 2007-01
Re: Information Report No. - 05-08
Planning Act, RSO 1990, chapter P.13
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP 2007-01
Amend Zoning by-law to allow 23 lots
At a recent Council Meeting on February 6, 2008, regarding the request to amend the frontage by-law in the Rougemount
neighbourhood. There are a number of areas of concern with this proposal:
Environmental:
It was mentioned the area is deemed 'residential', therefore no environmental assessment is required. We would like to
suggest and request an independent environmental assessment is carried out as there is a significant natural
LJl1rlerground water system evident. There is an abundance of wildlife in the area, including; deer, rabbits, fox, raccoons
Nild birds. There is also significant old-growth tress that will be impacted by this development. The developer has
stoted that they will save as many trees as possible. Does this mean 20% or 50% of the tress will be saved? Is there any
consideration to the root systems of the old-growth trees that will be impacted, which will not become evident until year(s)
later?
Traffic:
It appears that there will be over 100 homes built if all the proposals are approved. There will be a significant impact to
traffic volume, pollution and safety. As all are aware, there are only two entrances to the Rougemount neighbourhood, of
which only one can be utilized for emergency purposes. With additional residences and traffic, how will emergency
response times be affected? The neighbourhood is already adversely affected by significant traffic volumes from the
numerous businesses located on Granite Court, and from the large number of parents dropping off and picking up
children at the Blasisdale Montessori School located on Toynevale Road.
School:
If these issues are not enough, what affect does the addition of 100 homes have on Rosebank Road School, which
already has 3 portables located in its parking lot?
,munity value integrity:
L... .,t1y, what affect will there be on our homes value with the additional homes and traffic? What protection do we have
against the building of homes that do not 'fit' into the community as it stands? Two recent homes built on Rosebank Road
at Maitland Drive and Dyson Road at Rougemount Drive (pictures attached) simply are 'eye-sores' in the neighbourhood.
Who is looking out for us, the residents and tax-payers of this neighbourhood?
For the above reasons, we wish to strongly voice our dissatisfaction with this proposal to amend the frontage by-law and
request our City Councilors and Planners to further investigate all aspects of this or any other request that will affect our
neighbourhood.
Sincerely,
1
Robert and Sharon Van Shaik
478 Oakwood Drive,
Pickering
i! j~!n
u(--:-:~~ ... u.. 1.'<..1
,} ~'r] . ~
" L, .',ceo, ,0.5" ",~',._'"
1 0 3
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any documents accompanying it contain information from R. Van Shaik which is confidential and/or legally privileged The
information is intended only for the use ,)fthe individual or entity named on the transmission, If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or the taking of any action In reliance on the contents of this e-mail and attachments are strictly prohibited, In this regard, if you have received this e-mail and
any accompanying documents in error, please contact the sender by using the phone number above and delete the material from your computer
J; Does this e-mail need to be printed?
2
1 In 4
' l' I ,J
Pierini, Carla
, ,~HlVIl:11I1 , /9 10
<PORT I PO os -{)9
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sejal Parikh-Shah N.D. [sejal@naturopath4u.com]
February 11, 2008 9:41 PM
'Ravi'; Pierini, Carla
RE: sp-2007-01
Hello Carla,
Please note that our house number is 523 Oakwood Drive.
Thanks,
Upper Canada Naturopathic Clinic
Sejal Parikh-Shah N.D., B.Se.
53 Ladyslipper Court
Thornhill L3T 256
416-720-9670
From: Ravi [mailto:ravi@vegewax.com]
Sent: February 11, 2008 3:11 PM
To: cpierini@city.pickering.on.ca
Cc: 'Ravi'; 'Sejal Parikh-Shah'
Subject: sp-2007~Ol
Dear Carla;
I ."auld like t9 add the following comment regarding zoning by-law amendment application "a 13/07"
on this the last day to submit comment.
VVe are the owners of 521 Oakwood Dr, Pickering Ontario. Lot 76.
We are directly affected by the application by Rosebank Properties Inc. (RPI) as we back onto the
proposed future roadway that"is proposed by RPI.
We have no issue with having this roadway go through our backyard and are in favour of
development in the adjacent properties.
We would however like to see properties kept to minimum 50 foot frontages to maintain the prestige
of the neighbourhood.
.rther we do not believe having the roadway (Street "A") follow a different path to Circumnavigate
Lot 78 or 515 Oakwood is wise as it will then cause Street A to be halted until Lot 86 is prepared to
have a roadway on its property instead of having more options available by ending at two properties.
Should RPI be able to secure the necessary property to make street A go all the way to Maitland Dr,
then we do not have any issue with the roadway going around any necessary property.
Could you please reply to this email to verify that it arrived within the last date for comment of Feb 11,
2008.
1
Ti~anKing you,
Ravi Shah
:,.-TACHMENTI (J 10.
~r:PORT # PO t) -b9
,
1 D 5
Ravi Shah
Scents Alive / Vegewax Candleworx Ltd
18-1300 Alness Street,
Vaughan, Ontario Canada L4K 2W6
905.760.7942 ext 5#
~ww.scentsalive.com
r.avi@veqewax.com
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by A VG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485/ Virus Database: 269.13.15/1 003 - Release Date: 12/09/2007 10:56 AM
2
Page 10f2
I .. 'j 0 6
'\ii"iilill:l~ i if ~dJ2~C"=.'
TJ'RT Ii PD_~=~2:.~,
Kate Cherrett
From:
To:
Sent:
Subject:
"Kate Cherrett" <kmc22@sympatico.ca>
<cpierin i@city.pickering.ca>
February-09-08 3:34 PM
Fw: Rosebamk Development
Hello again Carla,
I sent my first note on Friday and completely forgot to mention one item that very much concerns us.
Reviewing the plan (SP-2007-01 the proposed location of 23 new homes off Milton Rd between Rosebank and
Oakwood) we notice that the new road (Street "A") does NOT run in a straight line along the existing lot lines
between Rosebank and Oakwood. The proposed turning circle stops completely at our Lot (86). No allowance for
this turning circle infringes on the back of the Lot (78) off Oakwood. Why is this?
It is our understanding that SHOULD Street"A" ever be extended to join up with Maitland we would have to cede
to the Town of Pickering (at fair marketvalue) 33 or so feet for road allowance. Looking at the plan outline it
appears the entire road allowance would be taken from the back of our lot(86) and none from the Lot off
Oakwood. This is completely unacceptable.
It would seem to us the only rationale for Street"A" not running in a straight line along the existing Lot division
between Lot 86 on Rosebank and Lot 78 on Oakwood is to allow Rosebank Properties Inc to build on the
proposed lots 16 and 17. ,
If the owners of Lot 78 on Oakwood have no wish to sell some or any of their property to allow for Street "A" to be
constructed in a straight line then Rosebank Properites Inc should forgo building on proposed lots 16 and 17 and
use this for their temporary turning circle or have the turning circle between proposed lots 15 and 18.
Please do whatever is necessary to ensure our opposition is noted.
Thankyou. '
Kate and Bruce Cherrett
518 Rosebank Road South.
Pickering
----- Original Message -----
From: Kate CherreU
To: cpierini@city,pickerinqca
Cc: Norma Chittenden
Sent: Friday, February 08,20083:13 PM
Subject: Rosebamk Development
Hello Carla,
Thankyou for coming out to speak to me on Tuesday. As you suggested I'm documenting my concerns regarding
all the development in the Rosebank Rd area.
1. ('m very concerned about the increased amount of traffic which will result from both of the proposed
d,evelopments. We already have a very high volume of traffic, not only from the number of residences already in
this area but also from the Montosori school and the factories along Granite COWl. We only have 2 access roads
in and out of the Rosebank Rd South area, both only 2 lane roads, and both roads are over bridges. The small
bridge over Petticoat Creek to Granite Court, while recently updated is not adequate for high volume traffic. While
the bridge via Rougemount Drive is more substantial it is already very conjested at certain times of day. In the
event of an emergency in this area I truly believe saftey would be severley compromised.
2. It is my understanding that Rosebank school is currently not filled to capacity but with an influx of more families
with young children this may not be the case for long. Are we in this area then looking at higher residential taxes
to pay for school improvements.
3. Some of us have been residents of this community for over 40 years. We have seen the area changed from
semi rural to densely packed sub-divisions. I did not choose to live in a sub-division, to live cheek by jowl with my
neighbours, that's why we moved here. I enjoy having deer and other wildlife visit my garden.
4. We have lived through the mess, dirt and disruptions associated with the building of several sub-developments
and all it has resulted in is higher property taxes for those already living here. To say that the development has
meant an increase in the value of my property means nothing to me. Like anything, it's not worth a dime until I
sell it and I've no wish to do that.
There has already been much development along both Rosebank and Oakwood. I have found it hard to believe
09/02/2008
,ilhIVIi':i~1 i1.~D. W
'lFf(! , PD.., .. QS- 0 9 __
that Pickering Council could approve some of these eyesores. Houses that are far too big for the plots of land
they ar~,on. ft is my opini~n, and I'm not ~Io~e that all of this h~s lowered the tone of the area. Th~s,~ new, 0 7
proposed'\fevefopments will only add to this jamed packed envloroment. . \,
["age 1. or L
I' willlookrorward to attending futher meetings on this issue.
Kat~ Cherrett
51'S' ~sebsM Road S. Pickering
09/02/2008
i t I
1 08
,Ai _0<
po".~= Q~- 0 ~ ~.J ·
475 Oakwood Drive,
Pickering,
Ontario L 1W 2M8,
30th January, 2008.
."""'-:r~
'k",,~); ,
FL/\N{\)1 " E:~C:'F';:v;EJ\rr
c'r ,--:,'j,"'\;:~ 'T-\icl\JT
City of Pickering,
Re Public Meeting February 4th 2008,
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007 -01
Zoning By-law Amendments Application A 13/07
Rosebank Properties Inc.,
Part of Lots 79 to 85, 110, 111, Plan 350
Lands Located west of Rosebank Road, east of
Oakwood Drive and south of Maitland Drive.
Asa 25 year resident of the Rosebank area, I cannot express strongly enough
that I am against the proposal of Rosebank Properties Inc to amend the existing
'R4' zoning in the draft plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01. The Rosebank area is
a unique, sought after prime area that, over the years has worked hard to keep
lot sizes at an optimum. This pertains to all new homes proposed in the three
(3) precincts proposed in the Rosebank area.
I have always known that in time, vacant property would be sold and new homes
built but have always been confident that Pickering Planning Dept. and
developers would strive to keep the area at the precedent it currently maintains.
This is fast becoming an area where very large homes are being built on very
small lots! This could not be more evident than where existing homes have
been allowed to add additions, where the house 'footprint' appears to exceed the
allowed area, ruining the charm of the neighbourhood.
Another concern is the amount of traffic precincts 1 & 2 will impact on the
community. The proposed twenty three (23) houses in Design Precinct NO.1 and
forty (40) proposed in Design Precinct NO.3 will generate a substantial increase
in traffic. Keep in mind, (most family homes have two vehicles, others have three
or more), iflwhen further development takes place south of Milton Road this will
only add further to the already increased volume of traffic in an area with only
two (2) roads leading to the highways. This needs to be given careful
consideration before a final decision is reached.
, i ii\JHlViEi~T #. r!2 / 'f0
,::VOAT I PO ()5- C>9 '
109
The volume of traffic traveling through Granite Court & Toynevale Road during
rush hour is already a problem for the residents of this area. Applying for zoning
amendment to build homes on smaller lots will only add to further congestion, as
well as be a detriment to the neighbourhood.
The increase in traffic causes concern for the safety of the children attending
Rosebank Public School, especially in the mornings when people are leaving the
area for work. My next concern is, does Rosebank Public School have the
space to accommodate the increased number of students generated into the
area? At what point will this issue be considered?
I trust that these valid points will be addressed before a decision is met. It would
be sad to see the unique community known as "Rosebank" lose its appeal due to
over development. Leave the area at the existing "R4" zoning, if the developer
has any consideration for the area and existing taxpayers and residents, he will
understand and respect this request.
At this time I request copies of all comments and decisions and further meetings
on this matter.
Yours sincerely,
L~) ~~/
Doreen Brown.
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning Department
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E
4TH FLOOR
PO BOX 623
WHITBY ON L 1 N 6A3
CANADA
905-668-7711
Fax: 905-666-6208
E-mail: planning@
region.durham.on.ca
www.region.durham.on.ca
A.L. Georgieff, MCIP, RPP
'";ommissioner of Planning
"Service Excellence
for our Communities"
1 1 D
rf~
""1'-' /'\.<:- -AQ.' 0 '0'
r '!J=~,~..,
March 26, 2008
Mr. Ross Pym
Principal Planner
Planning & Development Department
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L 1V 6K7
Dear Mr. Pym:
Re: Regional Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision
File No,: S-P-2007-01
Cross Ref: A 13/07
Applicant: Rosebank Properties Inc.
Location: Lot 31, B.F. Concession
Municipality: City of Pickering
This application has been reviewed by the Region and the following comments
are offered. .
The application proposes the development of 23 unit plan of subdivision,
comprised of single detached units.
Durham ReQional Official Plan
The subject propert'y is designated "Living Area" in the Durham Regional
Official Plan. Lands within this designation are to be used predominantly for
housing purposes.
A portion of the subject property is designated a Key Natural Heritage Feature
on Schedule 'B', Map 'B 1 d' of the Regional Official Plan (RaP). Section 2.3.14
of the ROP states that development and site alteration is not permitted in key
natural heritage and/or key hydrologic features, including any associated
vegetation protection zone. Consistent with Regional policies, an
Environmental Impact Study is required to determine the exact boundaries of
the Key Natural Heritage Feature and its minimum vegetation protection zone.
Provincial Interests and DeleQated Review Responsibilities
This application has been screened in accordance with the terms of the
provincial plan review responsibilities.
.
Both the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) and Provincial Growth Plan
encourage the intensification of built-up areas, in locations that are
appropriate and consider the existing building stock. Both documents also
recognize the importance of protecting natural features for the long term.
The PPS does not permit development or site alteration in significant
@
100% Post Consumer
I !\GHIVIENTI.___ I~__ 10
,HiR1' PO tJ5'-OCX'
Page 2 of 2
woodlands, unless it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative I 1 1
impacts on the t"!atural features or their ecological functions.
. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment, prepared by MMM Group dated
November, 2007, was submitted in support of. the application. The report
stated that the potential for adverse impacts on the subject property is
considered to be low and that no further environmental investigation is
required. A Reliance Agreement Letter has also been provided by MMM
Group and is being reviewed by Regional Staff.
. Information regarding stormwater management was included in a letter from
MMM Group that was submitted with the application. Any possible issues
concerning stormwater management are to be addressed to the satisfaction
of the Conservation Authority.
. Due to the subject site's proximity to the Rouge River and Petticoat Creek,
the archaeological assessment should be submitted to the Ministry of
Culture for their review. This requirement will be included as a condition of
draft approval.
There are no further provincial interests or delegated review responsibilities
applicable to this application.
Municipal Services .and Transportation
Our comments with respect to water supply, sanitary sewer services, and
transportation will be provided to the City of Pickering as soon as these issues
have been properly addressed.
Please call Lori Riviere, Project Planner, at 905-668-4113 extension 2572 if you
have any questions.
Yours truly,
-ilvA~ ~
Richard Szarek
Project Planner
c.c: Pete Castellan, Regional Works Department
Aaron Knight, Rosebank Properties Inc.
R:\LAR\Subdivisions\Pickering\S-P-2007 -01.doc
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning Department
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E
4TH FLOOR
PO BOX 623
WHITBY ON L 1 N 6A3
CANADA
905-668-7711
'ax: 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
for Qur Communities"
1 1 2
rrrl\CHMENT ,,~d;3=,J 0
'r'''','",,,, 'PD ...as;"Q2
~":::',l.,\}M,' ~" ,,', -
-''''''''~''''''<'''' '-. > ',,' .."""',IW .""",.
RECEI\IED
April 28, 2008
APR 3 0 2008
Mr. Ross Pym
Principal Planner
Planning & Development De'partment
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L 1 V 6K7
CITYOF PICKERING
PU\NNING 8. DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Pym:
Re: Regional Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision
File No.: S-P-2007 -01
Cross Ref: A 13/07
Applicant: Rosebank Properties Inc.
Location: Lot 31, B.F. Concession
Municipality: City of Pickering
Further to the Region's letter of March 26, 2008 on the above-noted
application, the following comments related to municipal water supply
and sanitary sewer are offered.
Municipal water supply can be provided by the extension of a 200 mm
Zone 1 watermain on proposed Milton Road from Rosebank to Oakwood
Road. The static water pressure from the zone 1 system is approximately
490 kpa (70 psi).
Municipal sanitary sewers can be provided by the extension of sanitary
sewers on Milton Road from Rosebank Road westerly. Foundation
drains from houses 'vvill not be permitted to discharge to the sanitary
sewer system. External drainage shall be incorporated through the
proposed plan for part lots 76,77,86,87 to the north.
The receiving sanitary sewers for this development discharges to the
Rosebank Sanitary Sewage Pumping Station (SSPS) on Rodd Avenue.
The Region of Durham is currently concluding a Class Environmental
Assessment for upgrades at the pumping station and forcemain. This
facility occasionally experiences failures due to age and poor condition of
mechanical, electrical and structural components. The Region of
Durham is planning replacement of the Rosebank SSPS in 2009-2010
pending Regional Council approval for budget funding. Although
providing capacity for the proposed development application at the
existing Rosebank SSPS is not a concern, the Region of Durham would
@
100% Post Consumer
:~..r"~CHMEN7/~3 ..
htP,iBll PD~:i5JO __
prefer to co-ordinate the proposed building permit approvals of the
development, with the City of Pickering, to closely match the completion
of the upgraded Rosebank SSPS and minimize sewage flow and risk of
failures.
Page 2 of 2
'1 1 ~
I ...j
As noted in our March 26, 2008 letter, an Environmental Impact Study is
required in support of this application. As such, the Region is currently
not in the position to provide conditions of draft approval.
Please contact the undersigned, at 905-668-4113 extension 2572 if you
have any questions.
Yours truly,
ri~aR~~
Lori Riviere, MES, MCIP, RPP
Project Planner
c.c: Pete Castellan, Regional Works Department
Aaron Knight, Rosebank Properties Inc.
R:\LAR\Subdivisions\Pickering\S-P,2007 -0 1-works.doc
The Regional
Municipality
of Durham
Planning Department
605 ROSSLAND ROAD E
4TH FLOOR
PO BOX 623
WHITBY ON L 1 N 6A3
CANADA
105-668-7711
ax: 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
for out Communities"
1 1 4
ATTAClMENT # &71./ TO
REPORT # PO ()S' -0 9'
October 7, 2008
Mr. Ashley Yearwood
Planner 1
Planning & Development Department
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L 1V 6K7
C e ~\j. te:~ f"'"':,
RE.. C it f ~.~);
n (' T .(\ 20n8'
u\vl ".J v
err.., OF PiCKERING
PLANNING & DEVEt.oPt-.J]f:J~T
DEPARTMENT
Dear Mr. Yearwood:
Re: Regional Review of an Application for Plan of Subdivision
File No.: S-P-2007-01 (Revision 1)
Cross Ref: A 13/07
Applicant: Rosebank Properties Inc.
Location: Lot 31, B.F. Concession
Municipality: City of Pickering
The Region has reviewed the revision to the above noted application and
the following comments are being provided.
The revised application for a plan of subdivision is proposing the
development of a 26 unit plan of subdivision. This is an additional three
lots from the original submission.
Since this revised application includes land that was not included in the
original submission, an addendum to the submitted Phase 1
Environmental Site Assessment Study (MMM Group, November 2007)
and the Stage 1 and 2 Archaeological Assessment (Archaeological
Consultants and Contractors, May 2007) should be undertaken that
includes the additional land. Although it is recognized that the Ministry of
Culture (MCL) has advised that they are satisfied with the original
archaeological assessment, the Region shall require that the addendum
be submitted to MCL for their review.
Regional comments regarding servicing for the proposed plan of
subdivision were provided in a letter dated April 28th, 2008 and are still
applicable to the revised application.
As requested, a scoped Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was
prepared by Aboud & Associates Inc. (July 2008). This study was
reviewed by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).
TRCA staff are of the opinion that the woodland may be functionally
@
100% Post Consumer
ATTArMMENT # ~ Lf TO
REPORT # PO._ ()s:...o 9
,
Page 2 of 2
important based on the amount of forest cover in the planning area and
feel that every effort should be made to preserve the woodland. hi' 1 1 5
particular, it was noted that the Durham Regional Official Plan provides
for a woodland covertarget of 30%. Based on 2006 data, the woodland
coverage for the City of Pickering is approximately 17%. Regional staff
would be pleased to be involved in any future discussions between City
staff, TRCA staff and the applicant in regards to the protection of the
woodland.
Please contact the undersigned, at 905-668-4113 extension 2572 if you
have any questions.
Yours truly,
. ') -0 <-
~{,~ a ~~3--
Lori Riviere, MES, MCIP, RPP
Project Planner
c.c: Pete Castellan, Regional Works Department
Aaron Knight, Rosebank Properties Inc.
Chris Jones, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
R:\LAR\Subdivisions\Pickering\S-P-2007 -01 \S.P-2007 -01-revised plan .doc
~~"~"'DEC::j5-2008 13: 45
The Regional
Municipality .
of Durham
. 'Plannirig '/Depsr:mel')t .
. .
..' '60S,'ROSSLAND. ROADE' .
4'IM FLO~R ,".
PO 60.X623.' , "
WHrrtlVON, tlNM3
CANADA.q . '. .
905-668-7711
Fax: 905-6~6208
E-mail:pJannjng~ .
~ion~dL.lrham.on\ca .
WW'W.regio~.durham.,on,ca '.
A.L Georgieff, Melfi; RP9.
Com",lssi.o,ne~Qf planning. .
'" .
DURHAM REGION
9056666208
P.002
,11 6.. . ,
. December 15, 200'8 '. .. '
AUACNMENT ,. ~5 TO
REPORT I PO (}s- () 9.
Mr. Ashley Yearwood'
.' . 'Planner 1 '. . . .'
. . ,.Planning & Development "Department .
. .: .' City of Pickering. , . .' . .
'...One The Esplanade. .
Pickering,ON L 1V6K7
. "
o"ear 'Mr. . Yea'rWood:
. " .
Re: ,... Regional Review of an Application for Plm~'of S.ubdivision
. FileNo;': . .,' S-P-20 07;.0 1 (Revision1)' .
. Cross Ref: ,:';A 13/07' .' . ..
. Applicant:: . Rosebank Properties Inc~
',Locatiqn:.' .... .Lot31.B.F'Co~cession: .'
Munici~lity: City'o.f Pickering'
.'
,
. . '.... . . . '. I , ..
.,The .applicati6nprop~ses the'de~elopmEmt of ~26 dnit plan,of. .' .
subdivision,on a 2~d04 ha site. This application h<:lsibeen reviewed by
" .the Region an.d qomments have also' been provide:d Ito the CitY" in letters
'. dated .Marctl2~, 2008;. AprH28, 2008,' tvlay 21 , 2001~:' and-.Oct()ber 7.
2008. . . .' . . ..... '. .' . I' '.
. ' .
, . .
. . .. '.' ..' '::' .'. ....,. '. I .
AsnotE.:jd.inthe .Regic>n's previous correspondencEL ~he p,i'oposed .
.. developmeiitw6uldresult inthe!ossof a woodlamil ~rea and its .
.' asSociated ecological funCtions.' It is our understan~ing that the'
applipant'and the, Torontc;>al1d, Region Conservationl Authority have..
,reached.an'agreement regarding.the provision of'oll-site woodland
. .. " . . . ".' I
'" compensati()n..:.'" '. '"'.' .' .' ; ';'.
.. , . . .
, ,
The,revi~ed' appli~tion'.inclUd~siand that was' not i~clu'ded:in the origi,nal
, submission... As such. and"as noted' in our October 7th letter. an .
. . '. .. . . '. I .'
..' . addendum totheSt~ge.t and 2 Archaeological As::~essment should be'. .
, p'repared" fo'r the review cif the' Ministry of Culture... Tris requirement shall .'
bf3 inciuded as a' condi~ion .ofdraft approval.
/ .
. ,
',,:The Region has',requ~stedinletters d?t.acfJanuary fl. 20Q8:and .... '.
November 28,' 200~ thatthe .appli~rit's environ me rlta I site assessment.
.' ~orisultant (MMM: Group) provid'e the: R~gion with ;:llsigned Reliance .
. : Agreement Letle(.lri thEr absenC'e of suc;h a letter a~dsjnce ~n.. ,
" adq~ndum.Phase1 :~nvironme~taISite~ssessmenrStudy:i.~~I$o ".
. 'reqUlredfor ~he acjdltlon.allands..the.Reglon~hall., r~s a condition of draft
. . .' . . . !
. ", .
. .
.'~'.' . '<i'"'
. " .',..
'. .'100% P~t Con$umer
~~,. 4;_'_,
DEC-15-2008
. .....~..'
..' ...... ' .'.
13:45
DURHAM REGION
P.003
9056666208
/'
ATTACHMENT H o?b TO
REPOR1/l. PD. tJ &--IJ;; . .
, "'.
P~ge 2. of 2
.. - "" 117
, . apprOval;:. require thata 'Recofd'of Slt~ Conditlqn bf~ filed for: the subJ~ct
.... '.site.. .. ...... ,. , ... . i". .
! ..
, . . . . . . r
.:Re9i.o'nalcommentsi~9arding servidn:gfortheproposed plan of. . .. ..,.
.:.subdivi~on we!~p,,?Viged!nthe~pril28~ letter:~nd lare:stilrapplicable to.
. therevlsed.apphcatl.on... The.Reglon of Durham Is.pllanmng.the .
. .replacem~nt of the ~Rosebank :Sanitary ,s.ewage f'Qn1Ping Station .., ..
... ... (pending'.C,ouncll 3-ppi"ovci'lfor budget funqing.), and 111~ouldpreferto
. .. ,coordinateth~ pro.p~s,ed ~ui\ding permit approvals of th~ development.
.' withthe City to closelY'.matchthecc;>mple,tio.nof the qpgrad~s;.
... ... . ." . .,.: ' '., " .<. .. ,'~ ... '.'. ..':,.'. ..' . ' ....1 .... ,
.' Based onlhe'foregoing~:subje~to t~e conditionSI:irovided, ttteRegioh
. ..... . ... I,
. .. . . '.. .. has. no.objeetion to draft approval.of.thisplan. The attached. conditions .
. .. .::.:. .of approv~l.shall.b~ cqmp'liedwith:prio~to de~ranC/:1iby .the ~egion for.,
..': :.'u r~gi$ti6nofthisplan'.:',:..... ..' .'...,'.. .. .. I . .;.:.. ...
..,.. . . , .... .., . . '...: ,. ',...... .. . . ..... I .. , .
. In add'ition to sending the Region 'copies of the dra'f13pprov~d plan and
. " ?OnditiQos o~ ~pp~o~t.'at:~~e~.~.~i':1e.a~}he draft a!~proval:i~ in effe~,
.... please..~:.~alla?191.~1 C:O~Y ofthe condltlonso~ drarlti~PPrOvalt~the ....
. planner responsible for tnlS. file. ..: '! .
.. .. ..... .'.,.' ;.... ". :. '. ,. '..... ....! . ,
. . piease:contad:myself.o,~, L6ri: Riviere~DoerSam~.Pn:l jl~ctPlanner, if.you
have any,questi~ri~: ,~rc6nceIils.'! .
., . . .
!
I..
I
I
!
.. You~ tnJly, ....: ...
. ..
,,' ..
,.
.,
I '"." ....;. ,
.; ".~'Ij'.:/J' ~'.""'" ." ,.
"'~
,. , ".' ,
. Richard .szar~~'. .
p'~~ject, P.I~r:tner. ',:' .... .... '
..... .. ,". \' : . .. ... '.,.'... .... .'. . i.
:~:'. .' '.c.c:.' P~te~,C~stenan" RegionalWorks'Departmenjt i ..
. .' Aa'ron Knight,. R"osebank Properties' Inc. '.,.; :
Chris Jorie$., To~6nto and. Region Cohser:vatK)n Authority .
, .. . .. I
. . . , . . . I .
. ' . ..' I. .
R:~R\~ubdivi:Jions\Pi~eiingIS;P~2007.cii~P.~2Q07.01.:revised pJ~n_doc i .
. ;
. ..
. .
" "
i
1
I.
""
: I"
.. ~, . .' "
, . '.
'." "1',,"
,
i
I
I....
..,.... .:. ....
: :.
I.
i
I
1
I
I, ' .' .' ...
" ." "".'
. '.
,. .
. ,
.J
",. ..'
. .
" ,....:., ,..'
I
I
I. .
~.
..
, '..
'., ,
...
",.. .
" .
,'.' :f'
, ~ ..'
'f"N""'-':'DEC-l5-2008 13: 46
DURHAM REGION
9056666208
P.004
. . \ .
,.';".:,.'1"l8. ". . ...... ..' .... . .'. .... . .ATTACHMENT'{I ~ TO '.
. . ...., REPoR.l'..PO. :1;' (JS'.~f'., l Q. .... .
. .:Attachment t~ letterdatedbecember15, 2008 . :' of-
To:
.. .
." Plan.of Subdivision. S-P-2007~of:
Roseb~n,k Properties: Inc. :.
CitY,of Pickering'
. .
. .
,1 .1 .
.' .
, .'
':' "-, ..:.... . ,',:..' ,,"... ".' .:. '. ,.... . ..... :"," ",', I'. '. . .[.' I : "'. " ':
;1.; 'The'OWnershall:prepare the.:final'plan on 'the basis ofthe: approved draft.. '. .
.'.':'. p'lan~of:subdivisi()ri,.p~~pare~ byOrriari:Mwinyi. SurveyingUtd, iden:tified as .
project /"lumbet'06-021-P, dated~uly:1,1, 2008:, whichillus'riates 26 single' .
: fa~i1yresid~ntiar lotsI' roadway~ar,1d reserves.:" ..' .' '!..' . .....' ".:... .' . .
" :" ':. :', .', " "'. I "'" . . f. .
:~'2..: '!he~ershall..nai'ne road'allowance.s included in this dr,aft plan .to the'
.'. . '.:' :.satisfactionoftheRegionaI:Munrcipal,ityofDurham.and tb!~:City of ..., .
.. ,.Picker~ng. . ,:..:., .' '" . ", . ...... . ':'" .,'.', . i.' ,,: .
."'3~ .' _Th~~:6~~~r .shai<su~~it PI.ans':~~ovvi~9:,the'propo~~d'.Pha,sjln'~~~. .thi~:. R~g'ion'"
.,' .' ..andtheCltyof Plckenng,for ~evlewandapprov.al.lfthIS'Srut:?dlvlslonIS to be
. . develop~d.'by, ~orethanon~.registra.tio~.:'" ..' '.' > .... i..... .: .' .
", .,' '. '. '.' .. '. '. ....: .' .... '. , '. '. I . " ,. . .
'.4... ::' 'Th~-' ~Wne.r~hailg'~nt to the Regj,6ri,any e~ser:n~nt~~ requ~red.to ~rovid~' ".
. .,:' Regional.seniicesJorthis developmentand:.thes~easeirIl3nts shall' be in '
':. Ipcati6~~andof$uch width~.as.d~telT!"ined byt~e'Resion,l: '"..' '.' .'
. . . . .' . . I'
5,. 'The:OWner:sh~II'provid~dor.th~extension of such sanitalrvlsewer and watef
. ~:up'ply'faCiliti~~' '/Jh~ch'~'~~ e~~'rriar to~'as .w~II. a~ wit~in, th'(~ iirpits of th~s.~lan
. ..tha~ ate required .t~servlcethls plan.lnaddl~lon, the. Own'!~lrshall.provlde for
: 'the:extension 'of~nitary'-seWerand'wat~r supp~y fadlitie~; within t~e limitS of '.
':' ~hEf'planwhich' 'arerequked.to',' s~r:vice othe'rdevelopmen1:s: lexternal tcfthis "':. .
.' .. ." - "','" -., . I , .
'. su'bdivision.. Such sanitary sewer-and wate-r supply facmtit.~s are to:be
.. I' . . . I '
" designed'~nd constructed according to the standards .and requirements of
'.' .. .the Regional-Municipalityof.Du-rham:Alla'rtangements, financial and: . .
. otherwise; forsaid'extensions'.are-to. be~made to the sati:s1action of the
. " ,'. . ........ . . . I .'
Regional Municipality o(Durh~m1. and.are to.becompleteidjpnor to:finar
. ".approvaLof this' plan. ":." .. . ,.'.:'.... ": '. . . ......! : . ~."
'. :',:' ,'., ....: .... . " . . . . !, ,., :
. 6." . Prio~'io efltering into a subdivisib'n agreement,' the Region,~1 MuniCipality of
.... ''Odrl:1amshall be: satisfied t~at ~dequatEi. water pollutionCol~trOl: plant and
. . water'supply plant capaciti~ ar~.a\failablet~ .the . p.roposE:!d '.s.ubdivision:'
. .. ...... .... I.,.
. I' .
1.. .Theb~~~rshall satisfY, ai'lrequjfementS;',finaridal.and otherWis~))fthe : . .
'. ..' , " ':".. . Regiona!'Muni<?ipaHty ofDurham~.this shal! ihclud.e"amolllQ othe~ matters,
.p"". ;. '.,' ,'.. the;executiori'of:a subdivision ,agreer:nent. betWe~n the'Ov.~er.ar'ldith~
" 'I ..
, .
I
. I
I
DRAF'r.CONDITIONS bF':DRAFT,ApPROVAL: .
", ,(
. ~ ," N',',
, ': '.
", .' ,
I
, .
",'
-, .
,. " ", .
, ~ '
I
. I..'
I' '"
J .
. ~ :'"
, '.'
: ' ' . '.
".' .'.
. I '. '
,',.
:, " .
" ,~ ' ' '
'. .
, ,":,' , .'
w.-- :"-'~":~
DEC-l.5-2008
13:46
DURHAM REGION
9056666208
P.005
,
ATTACHMHJT # c2s...10 ,
,RE~ORJ I PO . t1~-i- () :1
,'... ., :... . , ...... . .:' .
" " 'Region Concerning the pr:Ovision and installation ,of $anitGlI)~ sewers, water .
. .' ., I
. S.UPply', rpad~ ,and .other servlc.es. . . . '. .'. ., i . . .
" , . ." ",., ,'.. ,.' '. ,'. .., I ,.' . ,
..',' .,' 8.' , The OwnershaU carry out a culturalheritage,,resource assessment of the :.
.' '. . .,... .. s~bject property and. mitigationand/or 'salvage e~cavatiol1 or anysignifieant'
"heritage' resources to the', satisfaction of the Regulatory and Operations' ;
. Group. of the' M~nistry.pf:Culture.'Nogradi,f1g.or other soil (~istiJrbar:lceshall
.., . " '. .,. .. t . "
,takepl~e,of:rthe"subject'propertY prior to., a 'letter ofcleaJ";:lnce from the '.
Regulatory andOperation$ 'G.roup' ofthe.M"iriistry ,of Cultu r~3;,' .:: .
. ". : '. . ' "". . " I '
'. "..' .,"". ' ". . ,":' .:,. ....'. .. . j'.; :,'
" .....9: ::. Prior:tofinal ~'pprQval,.the.Owner:is required tQsubmita. signed Record. of .
. .:.'.', .:Sjte,ponqitio.n(R~C}~~:th~Min.istry '~f~l1vir~n~ent ('~'OE~. This RSC.rrlust
. ..:....be.t(;)'the:satl~actlono~thef~~gJ~:m.ofpurham, l~cludlOgr:I~. .,' ,....
: . .:: ACkn~~le~ger.n~r1t ofRece~pt ~f the~S:C.bY ~he' MCJ~'. i:.' .'
. '. ."'. . ". ". .. . .,. . . '.. J i
.. " I' .
I
!,
.. ; ..
. "
'119
. ' ,
, '.
I
'.,
'. . .
..... '.'
.,. .:
. .
'. ,
'. I.~. '. '.
. I' .' .. .'.
. i
I,
I'
,
!. .
. .....{ .'
, '." .
. . .. .~ .
. '.;
, .
.;
, ,
,'.' ". ,.
\ ;,
. . .,': ,.
'. , .
..,' .
..',
.,', ,
".,\ .
. . ., '. .
, ,.
"
.: .', ......
.... ....... "', t..
. ,
I
I
I
I
I
!
i
,,'
','
...... .
. .' .. .
. . ,'.
"
" .
'".' .
, "'.
.,
.' ,'.'
" . '.' ..
,. . . .
.,' .
i ' .
I
. ..t.
.;:
. . ...
, "
. .
, .'
.... ,.'
'. '...,
. .,.
, .
:., .'
.. .'
','
'. '..'
, .'
, .'
....
I'
I .
1 '
....
,. .
" '
, ,
. . ...'
". ..
.;
. . " . .
"
.. t. ."
" .
, "
....". t. ..'.
, .
, '
, '. '.
". :
!
'"'.
onserRvaNffon
1 20(or The Living City
An'ACHMENT #' ,.,1h TO
REPORT #' PO 05'-09
D""'''
~'1.'{%' ;j;
, J'~.. t,~
n
.w
I to
CIC'T "~ _
September 30,2008
C 1 T\l () ;;:':'-~1 r-" " .i~, ...
FLAN[\;: [\;';:;;' .'-! FL' ~'~\I':"".L i.:'. RiGIGJ 40318
U ,r ,... ."p' .1;-
DEPARTIvlENT Iv cNr
VIA E-MAIL AND MAIL
Ashley Yearwood, Planner 1
Planning and Development Department
City of Pickering
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L 1V 6K7
Dear Mr. Yearwood:
Re: Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. A 13/07
Draft Plan of Subdivision Application No. SP 2007-01
Rosebank Road and Milton Road
City of Pickering
Rosebank Properties Inc.
Thank you for the opportunity to review the following second submission documents submitted in
support of the above referenced Zoning By-law Amendment and Draft Plan of Subdivision
Applications and received on July 22, 2008:
. Draft Plan of Subdivision, prepared by Omari Mwinyi Surveying Ltd., dated July 11,2008;
. Functional Servicing Plan, prepared by MMM, dated April 2008;
. Draft Stormwater Management Report, prepared by MMM, dated May 2008;
. Geotechnical Investigation, prepared by Shaheen and Peaker, dated May 2008;
. Scoped Environmental Impact Statement, prepared by Aboud and Associates, dated July'
4, 2008.
TRCA has been requested by the City of Pickering and Region of Durham to provide technical
comments with respect to the existing woodland and the proposed water management scheme.
We offer the following comments:
Woodland Significance and Forest Cover Considerations
1. TRCA staff concur that the woodland on site does not meet the criterion for a significant
woodland in the Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS) and Region of Durham Official
Plan with respect to species composition and age of trees criteria. However, we are of
the opinion that the woodland may be functionally important, and therefore significant
pursuant to the PPS, based upon the amount of forest cover in the planning area.
criterion.
In considering the relevant forest cover target for this area, we note that Section 2.3.18 of
the Durham Official Plan provides for a woodland cover target of 30% at a regional scale:
"the Region will, in cooperation with the area municipalities, conservation
authorities and other agencies..., participate in managing the woodlands
in the Region by.. .b) encouraging expanding sustainable woodlands
F:\HOME\PUBLlC\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\DURHAM REGION\PICKERING\MIL TON ROAD SUBD 1.DOC
Member of Conservation Ontario -
5 5horeham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ;@<
"'lIM.~ .
ATTACHMENT #
REPORT II PO
@T01/1_)1
(J~~-() 9 . I
September 30,2006
Ashlev Yearwood
- 2 -
throughout the Region to improve woodland functions.. .[and] f)
establishing an overall woodland cover target of a minimum 30% of
Durham's total land area... Watershed plans will be utilized to assist in
establishing woodland targets for a watershed or smaller geographical
area that is in keeping with the Regional target. "
At a local scale, we note that the subject lands are located in a highly urbanized portion
of the Waterfront where there is little natural cover. The percentage of natural cover
remaining in the adjacent Petticoat Creek Watershed is approximately 18%.
Given the regional woodland cover target and the location of the subject woodland within
an area with minimal natural cover locally, we are of the opinion that every effort should
be made to preserve the woodland on the subject property.
2. Separate from the issue of significance pl,Jrsuant to the PPS, we wish to note that the
woodland provides ecological function for the following reasons:
a. The woodland contains a number of L-ranked (locally significant) tree species.
b. The woodland is mature and providing a 'stepping stone' function for wildlife
between the two established valley corridors, Rouge and Petticoat.
c. The proposed development would create a pinch point between the larger section
of woodland north of the site, and the remaining woodland fragment on the
subject site, resulting in not only an overall loss of size, but a clear decline in
shape and configuration.
d. The new woodland edge would result in additional and prolonged impacts to the
remaining woodland, increasing the risk of the spread and establishment of
invasive species into the woodland, and likely the dieback of preserved trees.
e. Finally, the loss of the woodland would represent an incremental loss to forest
cover in this part of the City of Pickering and there is no proposal to compensate
for the lost features and functions.
As such, we highly recommend that the woodland be preserved based upon the
ecological functions described above.
Water Management
3. Oil Grit Separators (OGS) employed independently do not typically achieve Level 1 water
quality. As such, we recommend a combination of source controls and treatment
measures (i.e. a treatment train approach) in addition to the OGS. The proposed Draft
Stormwater Management Report identifies potential measures to address water balance
by reducing rear lot grades, providing soakway pits on areas of imported fill. During
detail design stage, please provide further details and the extent of these measures and
other innovative measures (if feasible) to address water balance and water quality
objectives.
4. Further to the above, review of all details regarding minor system flow, storm sewer
capacity and site orifice control, major flow route analysis, is deferred to the City of
Pickering.
5. An Erosion and Sediment Control Plan should be prepared for detailed design consistent
F:\HOME\PUBLlC\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\DURHAM REGION\PICKERING\MIL TON ROAD SUBD _1.DOC
I I' 1 '22
Ashley Yearwood
- 3 -
ATTACHMENT # 0<./; TO
REPORT II PO t1~- () 9
September 30, 2006
with the Erosion and Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction, December
2006. Appropriate drawings to demonstrate erosion and sediment control during
construction, site stripping and grading, catch-basin, manholes and stormwater pipes
must be submitted. Adequate notes as to construction staging, monitoring and
maintenance of controls, and good site practices are to be provided as appropriate on
the drawings. The construction notes should include the record keeping procedure and
Emergency contacts during construction. A copy of the Guideline can be downloaded
from www.sustainabletechnoloqies.ca.
Recommendations
Given there is no apparent countervailing public interest that would override the public interest in
preserving the woodland in this location, and given the ecological function associated with the
woodland, TRCA staff strongly recommends the protection of this woodland in its current
condition along with the creation of a planted buffer and/or edge management plan to protect the
woodland from the impacts of new development. The area of proposed Lot Nos. 9 through 14
and the western terminus of the proposed cul-de-sac should be converted into an Open Space
Block on a revised draft plan. This could be accommodated through a "low impact development
approach" to planning this subdivision. A low impact approach may include smaller lots (such as
those on the adjacent Moorelands Crescent), limitations on tree removals through rear-yard
restrictive covenants, a revised grading approach, and/or alternative road widths and cul-de-sac
design/location, among others.
We recommend that the applicant address the above referenced comments with a revised
submission to include a cover letter outlining how each numbered comment has been
addressed.
We trust this letter clearly articulates the recommendations of TRCA staff with respect to the
subject applications. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
~~
Chris Jones B.U.R.PI.
Senior Planner
Planning and Development
Extension 5718
cc: Kevin Butt, Aboud & Associates Inc. (via e-mail)
Regional Councilor Bonnie Littley (via e-mail)
Lori Riviere, Region of Durham Planning (via e-mail)
Marilee Gadzovski, City of Pickering (via e-mail)
F:\HOME\PUBLlC\DEVELOPMENT SERVICES\DURHAM REGION\PICKERING\MIL TON ROAD SUBD_1.DOC
v-"rORONTO AND REGIONt:V--
^-,onserva Ion
for The Living City
December 10. 2008
AnACHMENT' cJ1- TO
REPORT I PO 05-~9-
1 23
CFN 40318
VIA MAIL AND EMAIL (aaron.knight@hayesline.com)
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Mr. Aaron Knight, MCIP, RPP
Hayes Line Group of Companies
106 Scarboro Ave
Toronto ON M1C 1M4
Dear Aaron:
Re: Off-Site Woodland Compensation Related to
Zoning By-law Amendment Application No. A 13/07
Draft Plan of Subdivision Application No. SP 2007-01
Rosebank Road and Milton Road
City of Pickering
(Rosebank Properties Inc.)
We write further to your emailed response date stamped November 26, 2008. We appreciate
and welcome your efforts to respond to our compensation proposal made to you during a
meeting held at the City of Pickering municipal offices on November 14, 2008. We have
carefully reviewed your response and.wishto respond as follows:
Ecological Goods and Services
. First. we wish to address the concept of ecological goods and services. As described in our
compensation recommendation memo presented at the November 14. 2008 meeting, there will
be a loss of ecological goods and services as result of the removal of the existing woodlands
through development. The concept of ecological goods and services, and the economic
valuation of those goods and services, is an emerging theme in ecology. We included it in our
initial compensation recommendation in order to address, in a comprehensive manner, the
ecological impacts associated with the proposed woodland removal.
Duffins Heights Restoration
Wbilatbe-Ie[[8st[ial_Gomp_ensationJ~lan..approacb_agr.e.e_dJo_fOLtbe_D..uffinsJ:leJgbts__________________-_______
neighbourhood may seem applicable in this situation, the provisions of that agreement differ in
a fundamental way from the opportunities. for compensation for the subject lands.
The main difference between the Duffins Heights agreement and the proposed compensation
for the Milton Road development is land base. In addition to the financial contribution for
restoration works, an area of land was included in the compensation approach. The restoration
costs were lower in the Duffins Heights approach because an area of land on which to provide
permanent environmental restoration was contributed.
In this instance, restoration is to take place on land that is presently publicly owned. This is
land that should, over time, be restored to natural cover by public bodies (or others) in the
F:\Home\Public\Development ServiceslDurham RegionlPickering\Milton Road Subd_2.wpd
Member of Conservation Ontario
5 5horeham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca ~~\
-.
. .
1 24
ATTACHMENT # ~If lO
REPORT II PO O~-'--O 9'
Mr. Aaron Knight
-2-
December 10, 2008
absence of a compensation agreement for the subject development. The net result, on a
landscape and ecological basis, is a loss of natural cover as a result of the proposed
development.
Our proposal for compensation for the Milton Road development did not include a request to
provide 0.24 ha of land for the purpose of providing permanent natural cover. The restoration
compensation ratio of 2: 1 proposed to you, rather then the 1: 1 that was applied in the Duffin
Hights approach, accounts for this difference.
Onsite Replacement Planting .
Your proposal to plant trees onsite, in certain rear lots will not replicate the ecological functions
lost by the removal of a portion of the woodlands through development, as these trees would
not maintain natural cover. Further, these new rear yard trees will not be protected (ie.
Residents may remove trees). Given this, we are unable to accept this portion of your proposal
as part of the compensation approach.
Restor~tion Planting Within Preserved Onsite Woodlands
Onsite restoration is required to mitigate the impacts of the creation of the new woodland edge,
and thus would fall under the requirements of an edge management plan. Please refer to the
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's (TRCA) Edge Management Guidelines for
information on requirements for edge management. This restoration, however, serves as
mitigation rather then compensation and is necessary to protect the retained portion of the
woodland from further impacts. Consequently, this work and the associated costs should not
be included as part of a compensation package.
Off site Replacement Planting
The offsite replacement section of your response lists the total number of trees to be removed
at 27. Given the fact that the land base (area of woodland 'natural cover) is not being replaced,
we maintain that a minimum 2: 1 ratio should be applied as an appropriate offsite compensation
approach.
Conclusion and Revised Proposal
It is the opinion of TRCA staff that both of the onsite plantings serve to mitigate impacts to
residents and the retained portion of the woodland edge, but that they do not offset the loss of
the portion of the woodland to be removed. As such, they do not constitute compensation.
This leaves only your proposed 1:1 offsite replacement planting of 27 trees at a cost of $9513.
It is our opinion that this does not adequately address the loss of woodland natural cover and
the potential significant wildlife habitat, given the numerous impacts previously described in our
compensation recommendation memo presented at the November 14, 2008 meeting.
The calculations and totals in the table on the following page represent the minimum acceptable
compensation for the woodland removal in our opinion (Tree replacement costs taken from the
calculations contained in your response. We count 33 trees to be removed to accommodate
lots, thus, we have averaged the product of 27 and 33 trees):
F:\Home\Public\Development Services\Durham Region\Pickering\Milton Road Subd_2.wpd
ATTACHMErVT #_...d.!}-'f'1
REPORT # PD_ n::::--o1i;
, -~
1 25
Mr. Aaron Knight
-3-
December 10, 2008
Total Number of Trees to Average Cost of TOTAL COST
be Removed in Woodland Replacement Tree (2:1)
27 to 33 $345 X (27 - 33 X 2) $20,000 (rounded average)
It is our desire to reach an agreement with you on this basis. Should you accept our proposed
amount, we would be in a position to recommend draft approval and provide conditions to the
City of Pickering immediately.
Yours truly,
~~P/1
Chris Jon~u~:r-
Senior Planner
Planning and Development
Extension 5718
cc: Lynda Taylor, City of Pickering (Itaylor@city.pickering.on.ca)
Lori Riviere-Doersam, Region of Durham Planning
(Lori. Riviere-Doersam@region.durham.on.ca)
Steve Heuchert, TRCA (sheuchert@trca.on.ca)
Lisa Roberti, TRCA (Iroberti@trca.on.ca)
F:\Home\Public\Development Services\Durham Reglon\Pickering\Milton Road Subd_2.wpd
". 1 2 6
~TORONTO AND RfG/ONt;V--
^-,onserva Ion
for The Living City
December 12, 2008
ATTAC'HMENT II /~A ..~ TO
REPORT # PO 0 S--C 9
/
CFN 40318
VIA MAIL AND EMAIL (Itavlor@citv.pickerina.on.ca)
Ms. Lynda Taylor, MCIP, RPP
City of Pickering
Pickering Civic Centre
One The Esplanade
Pickering ON L 1 V 6K7
Dear Lynda:
Re: TRCA Conditions to Draft Plan Approval
Draft Plan of Subdivision Application No. SP 2007-01
Rosebank and Milton Road
City of Pickering
(Rosebank Properties Inc.)
We wish to advise that Toronto and Region Conservation Authority(TRCA) staff have come to an
agreement with the Owner of the application captioned above with respect to the provision of off-site
woodland compensation.
The agreement between the owner and ourselves follows an original off-site woodland compensation
proposal made by TRCA staff to the Owner on November 14, 2008 and subsequent negotiations.
The purpose of the off-site woodland compensation is to mitigate the ecological impacts associated with
the removal of a portion of the woodland that exists on the subject lands by proving replacement plantings
of trees and shrubs on publicly owned lands nearby. These replacement plantings should, over time, re-
establish an area of natural cover commensurate with the area lost on the subject lands.
Now that this issue has been resolved to our satisfaction, we wish to provide implementing conditions to
draft plan approval herein.
Alignment of Street 'A'
As you are aware, Street 'A' skews eastward moving north from the intersection with Milton Road towards
the temporary turning circle at the northern boundary of the draft plan. It is our understanding that this
alignment provides for greater flexibility in preserving an undisturbed portion of the woodland within the
rear yards of lots 11 to 14. For this reason, TRCA staff are in support of the proposed alignment of Street
'A,' as shown on the draft plan.
Conditions to Draft Plan Approval
The following proposed conditions to draft plan approval relate to revised draft plan of subdivision, Project
Number 06-021-0, prepared by Omari Mwinyi Surveying Ltd., dated July 11,2008 and received by TRCA
on July 22,2008:
1. That prior to any grading, development, pre-servicing or site alteration, or registration of this plan
or any phase thereof, the Owner submit for the review and approval of the TRCA:
a. An edge management plan for Lots 11 to 14, which comprehensively addresses each of
the recommendations contained within Section 4.2 of the Seoped Environmental Impact
Statement, Milton Road Infif/ Development, prepared by Aboud & Associates Inc., dated
July 4, 2008;
F:\Home\Publlc\Development Services\Durham Region\Pickering\Milton Road Subd_3.wpd
Member of Conservation Ontario
5 5horeham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 154 (416) 661-6600 FAX 661-6898 www.trca.on.ca
rm\
'-'
ATTACHMENT # i-;>l8 TO
REPORT II PO nS-'-oq
1 27
Ms. Lynda Taylor
- 2 -
December 12, 2008
b. A detailed engineering report and plans that provide for groundwater infiltration and
stormwater quality treatment. The report and plans must examine ways of
complementing the water quality treatment achieved by an Oil/Grit separator with at-
source controls to achieve a treatment train for water quality control;
c. An erosion and sediment control plan;
d. Overall grading plans for the subject lands.
2. That prior to Final Approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof, the Owner provide an amount
of $17,500 to TRCA for the purposes of off-site planting of native, self-sustaining vegetation.
Such planting shall be on publicly owned lands held by either the City of Pickering or the TRCA.
3. That the owner agree in the Subdivision Agreement, in wording acceptable to the TRCA:
a. To carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the TRCA, the
recommendations and provisions of the reports and plans referenced in Condition 1;
b. To agree to, and implement, the requirements of the TRCA's conditions in wording
acceptable to the TRCA;
c. To design and implement on-site erosion and sediment control;
d. To provide an amount of $17,500 to TRCA for the purposes of off-site planting of native,
self-sustaining vegetation.
We request that the Notice of Decision, copy of the Conditions to Draft Approval, the executed Subdivision
Agreement, and the implementing Zoning By-Iaw(s) be provided to the TRCA when available in order to
expedite the clearance of the conditions of draft plan approval. The owner will be required to pay a TRCA
clearance fee prior to issuance of any TRCA clearance letters.
We trust that this is of assistance. Please contact the undersigned for questions or clarification.
Yours truly,
~~
Senior Planner,
Planning and Development,
Extension 5718
cc: Aaron Knight, Hayes Line Group of Companies (aaron.knight@hayesline.com)
Lori Riviere-Doersam, Region of Durham Planning (LorLRiviere-Doersam@region.durham.on.ca)
Steve Heuchert, TRCA (sheuchert@trca.on.ca)
Lisa Roberti, TRCA (Iroberti@trca.on.ca)
F:\Home\Public\Development Services\Durham Region\Pickering\Milton Road Subd_3.wpd
Citlf o~
j I'
ATTACHi\,';ErsT # c29 I Ii
REPORllt PO Ci~ ~ 9 v
MEMO
June 9, 2008
To:
Ashley Yearwood
Planner I
From: Robert Starr
Supervisor, Development Control
Subject: Draft Plan Applications
SP-2007-01 & SP-2008-02
Traffic Impact Study
Rosebank Neighbourhood
City of Pickering
Copy: Development Control Inspector
We have reviewed the Traffic Impact Study for the Rosebank Neighbourhood completed by MMM
Group and have no concerns at this time.
x
J:lDocuments/Oevelooment ControVBOBSTARRlmemos/aoolicationsJdraft olanfTraooer SP-2008-02
CiuJ o~
ATTACH/van # ,'St) lO
REPORl # PO 11 ~ -6C}
,
Ashley Yearwood
Planner I
J.N3V11.lI:ftl d30
J.tSWd013^30 '8 9NINN\f1d
eNI1:I:J>fOld ::10 A.LIO
900l 0 Z 9n\:J
03AI3031:1
MEMO
1 29
To:
August 18, 2008
From: Darrell Selsky
Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works
Copy: Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision - 2nd Submission
A 13/07 & SP-2007-01
File: 0-4020
The Site Plan Review Committee has met to review the above application and provides the
following comments:
1. Provide Street plan and profile drawings & site grading plan.
2. Provide explanation of proposed removal of trees from development perimeter and number
of trees on private lands (e.g. tree numbers, T522, T421, T600, T601, T472A, T474A,
T480A, T482D, T503F, T625, T638, & T649). A number of these trees could be preserved
through modified site grading and pruning as required.
3. The City Arborist is reviewing the proposed preservation of the trees adjacent to 482
Rosebank Road. Many are Siberian Elm trees that are overhanging the existing house.
They will be pruned by the City and reassessed again prior to construction.
4. An aggressive tree planting plan will be required to accommodate for the significant loss of
trees. This includes larger calliper street trees and perimeter (backyard) tree plantings to
buffer the existing residences.
/----'--
(. , J
.. J\
DS:nw m
Citq a~
ATTACH:V:UJT #_ ~) _,. I U
REPORT # PD . 05"-09'
MEMO
i It
To:
Ashley Yearwood
Planner I
August20,2008
From: Marilee Gadzovski
Stormwater & Environmental Engineer
Copy: Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision - 2nd Submission
A 13/07 & SP-2007 -01
File: 0-4020
I have reviewed the submitted reports and plans forthe above-noted property and have a few
minor comments:
1. At the top of Page 8 of the SWM report it states that Table 3.1 shows the area-weighted
runoff coefficient for the posf.development condition as 0.36, which resulted in an
imperviousness of 23%.' However, Table 3.1 actually states the area-weighted runoff
coefficient as 0.45 and an imperviousness of 36%.' All the other calculations, text and
tables state that the total imperviousness is 36%. Please review and revise accordingly.
2. The City will be interested in the possibility of cost-sharing with the developer to put in a
larger Stormceptor to treat a larger upstream area. Further discussions should be made
with Bob Starr on this issue.
MG:mg
. ,
, ~~
i ;
CilLJ o~
ATTACHMENT II ,'SQ. TO
REPORT II PO ()~ -l5 9
M.EMO
., '131-
To:
Ashley Yearwood
Planner I
September 16, 2008
From:
Robert Starr
Supervisor, Development Control
Copy:
N/A
Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision - 2nd Submission
A 13/07 & SP-2007 -01
City of Pickering
We have reviewed the 2nd submission for the above-mentioned application and our comments are
as follows:
General Comments
1. The developer will be required to enter into a Subdivision Agreement to satisfy
requirements for the provision of engineering drawings for City services, including but not
limited to, roads, storm sewers, easements, sidewalks, streetlighting, fencing and lot
grading to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development. Financial obligations
with respect to downstream cost sharing, City fees, securities, insurance, etc. shall be to
the satisfaction of the Director, Planning & Development.
2. Any pre-grading of the site would need to be in compliance with the City's Fill and Topsoil
Disturbance By-law, Tree Protection By-law and with approval from any other governing
agencies.
3. A Construction Management Plan will be required for this site. A copy of the requirements
is attached and should be forwarded to the applicant. All erosion and sediment controls
can also be incorporated onto this plan.
Draft Plan of Subdivision
1. The lot numbering on both the east and west side of Street 'B' in Detail 'A' does not match
the plan.
2. Street 'A' should be named Maitland Drive.
3. Blocks will be required to be conveyed to the City for the temporary turning circles in lots
15, 16, 25 and 26. These blocks will be reconveyed to the owners of these lots upon
extension of Maitland Drive to the north and Street 'B' to the south.
. Draft Plan of Subdivision cont'd.
ATTACHMENT # '--~ _TO
REPORT # PO ()~ - 0 9-
1 32 .
Block 29 should be conveyed to the City of Pickering as part of the road allowance.
I II
4.
Functional Servicing Plan
1. The draft plan labels the south leg of the proposed road as Street 'B', not Street 'A'.
2. A catch basin will be required at the north end of Street 'A' (Maitland Drive) to intercept the
existing drainage from the north.
3. The Preliminary Grading Plan indicates reverse grade boulevards to preserve existing
trees. The Tree Preservation Plan does not indicate those trees to be preserved. No
reverse grade boulevards will be accepted west of Street 'A', on either the north or south
side of Milton Road.
4. Lot 22 should be shown as a Future Development Block due to the proposed sloping on the
property.
5. Additional existing topographic information is required on Lots 77 and 78 to the north of the
development, and Lots 112 and 113 to the east.
6. The proposed retaining wall south of Lot 22 should be moved to the property line. Also, if
the height of the wall is greater than 1.0m, certification, will be required.
7. Due to the amount of drainage from the existing lots, a catch basin will be required at the
rear of lot 20/lot 5.
8. Ensure that all drainage north of Lot 14 is entering the catch basin in the boulevard, and not
coming through Lot 14.
9. At the south limit of Street 'B', indicate how the overland flow will be conveyed to Rosebank
Road via the existing drainage swales.
10. The first leg of the storm sewers must be at a minimum of 1.0%. The storm sewer south of
Milton Road is only at 0.5%.
11. Provide the anticipated basement elevation of Lots 25 and 26. Ensure that the storm sewer
service connections for these two lots will be possible. The City does not want these
homes perched out of the ground just to accommodate this plan. If proper lot grading
and/or servicing cannot be accomplished, these lots may be Future Development Blocks
until servicing is available from the south.
Draft Stormwater Management Report
1. The City of Pickering would be interested in the possibility of cost sharing with the
developer to put in a larger Stormceptor to treat a larger upstream area.
September 16, 2008
Draft Plan SP-2007 -01
Page 2
Scoped Environmental Impact Statement
ATTACHMErJT # ,3~, TO
REPORT # PO t?~- r'9 '1 3 3
1. The Tree Preservation Plan indicates some tree removal to occur on adjacent lands.
Permission in writing from the adjacent land owner's must be given for any tree removal not
on the subject lands.
Geotechnical Report
1. No specific comments.
Traffic Impact Study
1. No specific comments.
J:\Oocuments\Development Control\BOBSTARRlJnemos\applications\draft plan\Rosebank Properties SP.2007.01 ,doc
September 16, 2008
Draft Plan SP-2007-01
Page 3
CluJ o~
ATTACHMENT ,_ ~~ TO
R E C E IV eB'RT # PD_ t)~-- (J 9
JUN 1 0 2008
MEMO
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMl=f\IT
i II
To:
Ashley Yearwood
Planner I
June 10, 2008
From: Kashif Shaikh, M.Eng.
Coordinator, Transportation Engineering
Copy: Division Head, MP&E
Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works
Coordinator, Traffic Operations
Subject: Traffic Impact Study
Rosebank South
Neig hbourhood
SP-2007-01 & SP-2008:.02
Please be advised that, the Municipal Property & Engineering Division have reviewed the Traffic
, Impact Study prepared by the MMM Group, dated May 2008. The comments are as follows:-
Based on the conclusions illustrated on Page 11, the traffic v.olumes generated by the proposed'
development would not significantly impact the surrounding road/street network.
Construction of Milton Road and Cowan Circle should take place in accordance with City of
Pickedng standards and the City of Pickering will be permitted to make any corrections and
interpretations as deemed necessary.
CiUI (J~
i-\TTACh:V.ErJT #~ j7' TO
i:,[f'ORT # PD. 11S'- (\ 9
MEMO
To:
Ashley Yearwood
, Planner I
October 29,2008
From: Kashif Shaikh, M.Eng.
Coordinator, Transportation Engineering
Copy: Supervisor, Engineering & Capital Works
Coordinator, Traffic Operations
Subject: Rosebank Properties (A 13/07 & SP-2007 -01)
In addition to the comments already floated for the captioned project via Inter Office Memo dated:
June 10, 2008; enclosed please find a copy of an email which is self explanatory, received today
by Brian Titherington of the MMM Group Limited (Engineering Consultants for this Project). The
email reflects clarification on the concerns raised by staff pertaining to the alignment of North and
South portions of the proposed road as shown in the Milton Road Draft Plan for the Proposed 26
Lot Residential Subdivision.
The offset intersections are generally not preferred from a transportation perspective, but I would
concur with the comments received by Brian Titherington of the MMM Group Limited via email,
dated: October 29, 2008 on the subject cited above (Copy Attached-Self Explanatory).
I trust that the information enclosed will clarify the concerns pertaining to proposed North-South
jog, as requested.
Should you require further clarifications, please call me at extension 2213.
KS
Attachment(s)
ATTACHMENT #
F;EPCiRl # PO
,7/1 TO
IJS-- D9
Shaikh, Kashif
'1 ?) 6
Brian Titherington [TitheringtonB@mmm.ca]
October 29,2008 12:09 PM
Shaikh, Kashif
Nemanja Radakovic; Nixon Chan
RE: Traffic Study (Rosebank Properties)
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Kashif,
The Client is constrained in terms of property acquisition and cannot align the north and south portions of the road and
still maintain reasonable lots. I agree that offset intersections are generally not preferred from a transportation
perspective; however, the limited number of potential vehicles expected to use the intersection mitigates any real
concern. There are only 21 lots proposed on the south leg (which terminates in a cul-de-sac) and 10 lots on the north leg
which also terminates in a cul-de-sac for the near-term. Over the longer term there would be atotal of 22 lots (12
additional) on the north leg which would also have a connection to Maitland. Most of the trips in this area are destined to
the north. Therefore a number of the trips originating from the 22 lots to the north of Milton Road would likely utilize
Maitland Road over the longer term.
Our client contacted Bob Starr of the City in advance of creating the site plan (with the o.ffset intersection) and Bob did not
have any issues with the plan as proposed.
I trust this clarifies your concern. Please do not hesitate to contact us with any further questions or comments.
Note that for future communications, please include my colleague Nixon Chan (channCCD.mmm.ca). He will be looking
after the project as of November 10th.
Regards,
Brian Titherington, P.Eng., PTOE
MMM GROUP LIMITED
Tel: (905) 882-4211 ext. 6561
From: Shaikh, Kashif [mailto:kshaikh@cityofpickering.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 11:48 AM
To: Brian Titherington
Subject: Traffic Study (Rosebank Properties)
Please be advised that Staff reviewed the Traffic Study prepared by your office dated: May 2008 along with the Milton
Road Draft Plan for the Proposed 26 Lot Residential Subdivision.
The findings and recommendations of the Traffic Report are found to be satisfactory, however it is requested that the staff
would like to have some additional clarification on any significant concern pertaining to traffic operation and/or any other
traffic related issue which could arise due to the proposed jog between the Street 'A' and Street 'B' at Milton Road.
Aiming to hear from you soon, should you have any concerns, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Thanks & Regards,
Kashif Shaikh, M.Eng.
Coordinator; Transportation Engineering'
Municipal Property & Engineering Dvision
Operations & Emergency Services Department
City of Pickering
Direct Access: 905.420.4660 (2213)
Division: 905.420.4630
Toll Free: 1.866.683.2760
Fax: 905.420.2650
1
Citq o~
~ ,-
ATTACHr!:an #~. ~ __TO
REPORT # PO 6~-:""1)9.
-1 7.. 7
I .-' ,
MEMO
To:
Lynda Taylor, Manager, Development Review
Ashley Yearwood, Planner 1
December 15, 2008
From: Arnold Mostert
Coordinator, Landscape & Parks Development
Copy: Division Head, Municipal Property & Engineering
Subject: Milton Road Infill Development
Woodland Compensation
I have reviewed the TRCA Conditions to Draft Plan Approval for compensation for loss of
woodland for the Milton Road Infill Development as outlined in the letter from Chris Jones, Senior
Planner, dated December 12th, 2008.
The proposed value of $17,500 for off-site woodlot compensation that the developer and TRCA
have agreed to seems reasonable. As discussed with yourself and Chris Jones, we would like to
see the compensation plantings located on City of Pickering parkland within the local
neighbourhood. Possible sites include Rosebank South Park and the Western Gateway of the
First Nations Trail which are yet to be developed. As such, the local residents could benefit from
tree plantings in these locations. I have sent a location plan of these sites to Chris Jones for
TRCA review and consideration.
In addition to the compensation plantings, please confirm that the developer is still committed to
restoration planting along the edge of the preserved woodlot area as well as proposed rear yard
plantings as per Aaron Knight's email of November 26th, 2008.
Please forward the proposed tree planting plans and any future correspondence regarding this
matter to myself for review and approval.
1 38
:,\~\CT selt,
<$-C:> 00
~ ("
<( tP
:J: 0
" }:.
~o ~
ef?J , C(?du " ~ c:r - J
,,^<!taCt/lf "" caMM'" \2U<1.a';f-
IIY" "6O'1W/f/W~
Facilities Services
400 Taunton Road East
Whitby, Ontario
L1 R 2K6
Telephone: (905) 666-5500
1-800-265-3968
Fax: (905) 666-6439
ATTACHMEPH #~." ."
.__..I..J
REPOR1 # PD_ . 0'5,,-- 09
January 15,2008
~ ",""" C.
/i;.~ l';t,:"" '\'I
,11 iil..,""", ,...
.',1
fi
The City of Pickering
Planning Dept., Pickering Civic Centre
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON
L1 V 6K7
-j '"' "
CITY OF PICl<
FL4NN~t'JCl 8t DE\/ELOP1\'IENT
DEP/-\HTMENT
Attention: Ms. Carla Pierini
Dear Ms. Pierini,
RE:
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/07
Roscbank Propeftit:~ Inc.
Part of Lots 79 to 85, 110 and 111, Plan 350
(Lands west of Rosebank Road, east of Oakwood Drive & south
of Maitland Drive)
City of Pickering
Staff has reviewed the information on the above noted application and has
the following comments...
1. Approximately 12 elementary pupils could be generated by the
above noted application.
2. It is intended that any pupils generated by the above noted plan be
accommodated within an existing school facility.
3. Under the mandate of the Durham District School Board, staff has
no objections.
Yours truly,
r'JC0f1CL~~)~)
'-" .
Christine Nancekivell,
Planner
1:' PROPLAN\DATA\PLNG-SUB\SP2007-0 I.DOC
ATTACHMENT # j 9-
REPORT # PO ~ - TO
- ~
Durham Catholic District School Board
February 12, 2008
City of Pickering
Planning & Development Department
One The Esplanade
Pickering, ON L 1V 6K7
Attention: Carla Pierini
RE: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2007-01
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/07
Rosebank Properties Inc.
Part of Lots 79 to 85, 110 and 111, Plan 350
City of Pickering
Please be advised that at the regular Board Meeting of Monday, February 11,
2008, the following motion was approved:
''THAT the Durham Catholic District School Board indicate in its
comments to the City of Pickering that the Board has no
objection to Plan of Subdivision Application S-P-2007-01 or
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/07."
The students generated from this development will attend Our Lady of the Bay
Catholic Elementary School located at 795 Eyer Drive in Pickering.
Should you have any questions or concerns, please contact me.
Sincerely yours,
O/j-yV~
Ger 0'
Manager Plannl
d Admissions .
AD
650 Rossland Road West, Oshawa, Ontario L 1 J 7C4
Tel 905 576-6150 Toll Free 1 877 482-0722
www.dcdsb.ca
Paul Pulla B. Sc., B. Ed., MSc. Ed. Director of Education I Secretary I Treasurer
09/25/2007 lG:38
4156514887
SEi':ECA
ATTACHi"~[m # .:3 ~ ,-. ,,):f-l
!i'''-:_A/"'')'''' ,,'It!
rIPURl fJ PD _ _2.: ~y
r
D'2./U2
MlnlMry of Culture
Mlnlttere des AffalrM c1vlquen,
de la Culture et des LolsJrs
~ Ontario
400 UnIversity Av\;, 4'" FI.
Torontu, ON M7A 21'19
1 4 .~; (416) 314-7147
'100 Ave, UniversHy. 4. Gitage
Toronto, ON M7A 2R9
Fax; (410) 314-7175
September 20, 2007
\ Attn: Arclllleologklll Consultants nud Contractor:\;
501 - 39,S A vcnue ROlld
Toronto, ON
M4V 2H4
Fax~ (416) 661-(j8117
Denr Mr. G Clark
Rc; Stage 1-2 A.n;hllcologlcal AI,sessmcnt of the
111(;06 Miltnn ROlld ProJect (pa.rt (lOots 82, 83, !l4, 110 &111
Regj~tel"cd plan 350- City of Pickering
License \ f'IF If. P1Z()-018-2007 RrMS #; 181lil063
This i~ to advise that we have reviewed the Stage {.2 archll.c,)k)gical resource impact llsseSf,mcnt report under PIP ~ P120-018-
2007 regnrding the above Milton Road project located iu the City ofPickeling. The archaeological nsscssmenf meet
requirements under the },{inistly Archaeological Ass(!ssment Tltchnica! GI/idolilles, and complies with the archaeological
licensing provisiOIls under the 011t.1rio Heritage Act.
Since the Held assessment did not identify uny significant archaeological areas or heritage remains, 110 fwther ilrch"co],.lgical
investigmioni! are required at this time. The area for t.ll€: Milt(lrJ Road project is therdbrc cleared 'Jf any further archaeologj,~al
heritage resource concerns an.d development ar site alterations may occur on the subject properlY.
In the event of identifying llrclmeological rcmain$ or lwman burials unex.per:tedly during subdivision development activities, il
licensed an:hae()logist !lball be retained for further M~c~sme!Jt unci monitoring. Staff of the Cult11ral Programs Unil oft.he Mi11igrry
of Culture should 31$0 be cotllRcted ifthi:>; OCCllTS.
Yours truly,
~~
Winston Wong ;'vreIf'
Heritage Pl~nncr
cc: Roseb:utk Pt'operties
""......_ ..;p........s... ....::1
...~v.....o,J...,vv'-"
.Ii. ~ ~ "A.... ,,-
I'
I'
i
iT (':,H #-..:1.2___10
('-:1 PD~....05-09
1 4 1
Delivery Planning PH (416) 285-5385
1860 Midland Ave FX (416) 755-9800
Sc;:arborough On M 1 P 5A 1
I
. ecember 24, 2007
i
ity of Pickering
lanning & Development Department
The Esplanade
ickering On L 1 V 6K7
Re: Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007-01
Zoning By-law Amendment Applieation A 13/07
Rosebank Properties Inc.
Part of lots 79 to 85 , 110 and 111, Plan 350 (Lands west of
Rosebank Rd, east of Oakwood Dr & south of Maitland Dr
City of Pickering ,
ar Carla,
ank you for the opportunity to comment on the above noted plan.
a condition of draft approval) Canada Post requires that the owner/developer
c mply with the following conditions:
I
- . he owner/developer agrees to include on all offers of purchase and sale, a
s tement that advises the prospective purchaser that mail delivery will be from a
d signated Community Mailbox.
I
1
- he owner/developer will be responsible for notifying the purchaser of the exact
C mmunity Mailbox locations prior to the closing of any home sale.
I
- he owner/developer will consult with Canada Post Corporation to determine
s itable locations for the placement of Community Mailbox and to indicate these
I I ations on the appropriate servicing plans.
I
T e owner/developer will provide the following for each Community Mailbox site
a d include these requirements on the appropriate servicing plans:
I
I
- n appropriately sized sidewalk section (concrete pad) as per municipal
st ndards, to place the Community Mailboxes on.
- I ny required walkway across the boulevard, as per municipal standards.
EdX sen~ D~ . ~A~(~~~b~O
r
lZt.Z4....tj-1 El9 : 35
Pg : 2/2
:1 Ll ')
,I ,,-..
,
,6. TT ACHMENT # ~ 9 TO
'--~)CiR1 # PD_ OS-OC)'
-, ny required curb depressions for wheelchair access.
i
i
- he owner/developer further agrees to determine and provide a suitable
t mporary Community Mailbox location(s), which may be utilized by Canada Post
til the curbs, sidewalks and final grading have been completed at the
rmanent Community Mailbox locations. This will enable Canada Post to
rovidemail delivery to the new residences as soon as the homes are occupied.
!
hould you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
t e above mailing address or telephone number.
ebbie Greenwood
elivery Planner
anada Post
I
I
I
I
i
2.
.
-
.,
vancouver 2010
Q%)
PREMIER NATIONAL
PARTNER
Bell
;-1' , I'i,' (", ," t..I h ,-
, Itv,il'F~.'\'iif ~.,,_I~\.,f,'
':>URT" PD. 05-0;1
1 4 3
Development & Municipal Services Control Centre
Floor 5, 100 Borough Drive
Scarborough, Ontario
ttllP 4W2
Tel: 416-296-6291 Toll-Free: 1-800-748-6284
Fax: 416-296-0520
January 18, 2008
Town of Pickering
Planning Department
1 The Esplande
Pickering, Ontario
L1V 6K7
Attention: Carla pierini
Dear Sir/Madam:
RE: Draft Plan of Subdivision
Milton Rd
Your File No: SP-2007-01
Bell File No: 42257
Further to our comments of January 15, 2008 Bell Canada is pleased to provide
the following additional comments.
A detailed review of the Draft Plan of Subdivision has been completed.
The following paragraph(s) are to be included as Conditions of Draft Plan of
Subdivision Approval:
1.
The Developer is hereby advised that prior to commencing any work within
the Plan, the Developer must confirm that sufficient wire-line
communication/telecommunication infrastructure is currently available
within the proposed development to provide communication/telecommunication
service to the proposed development. In the event that such infrastructure
is not available, the Developer is hereby advised that the Developer may
be required to pay for the connection to and/or extension of the existing
communication/telecommunication infrastructure. If the Developer elects
not to pay for such connection to and/or extension of the existing
communication/telecommunication infrastructure, the Developer shall be
required to demonstrate to the municipality that sufficient alternative
communication/telecommunication facilities are available within the
proposed development to enable, at a minimum, the effective delivery of
communication/telecommunication services for emergency management services
(i.e., 911 Emergency Services).
The Owner shall agree in the Agreement, in words satisfactory to Bell
Canada, to grant to Bell Canada any easements that may be required for
telecommunication services. Easements may be required subject to
final servicing decisions. In the event of any conflict with existing
Bell Canada facilities or easements, the owner/developer shall be
responsible for the relocation of such facilities or easements.
_ #~O"O
y(:;n 1/ PO 0 ,- _-:-- H
-- ~ 69
.
1 44
Should you have any questions please contact Rosita Giles at 416-296-6599.
Yours truly
,- K'C~
.~ 1.,-1 John La Chapelle, MCIP, RPP
~ Manager - Development & Municipal Services, Ontario
ATTf\Cr:;/,~in #_ 4/....10
r:ZF'ORl # PD.. ()S'-69
ENBR'DGE 1 4:3
ENBRIDGE GAS DISTRIBUTION INC.
.""",,'i'!"l;Ven
- C. - . C ,}.." ilI'~, J 't'~: U
11"1 ~ . .~,1;", '.1 v ...... <
500 Consumers Road
North York ON M2J 1P8
JANUARY 15, 2008
/\. ) 1~:';
'.1 l D
.....".. ""'t""Kr-''R1NG
CiTY ,:~.d~'~~\"FLOPN1ENT
p~ L\NNh"tt.A & 1";':' },~ T
." ' DEP/},F\l !\H::N
Mailing Address
P,O. Box 650
Scarborough ON M1 K 5E3
CARLA PIERINI
PLANNER II
CITY OF PICKERING
PICKERING CIVIC COMPLEX
ONE THE ESPLANADE
PICKERING ON L 1V 6K7
Dear Sirs:
RE: DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SP-2007-01
ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATION A 13/07
ROSEBANK PROPERTIES INC.
PART OF LOTS 79 TO 85,110 & 111, PLAN 350
(LANDS WEST OF ROSEBANK ROAD, EAST OF OAKWOOD DR
& SOUTH OF MAITLAND DR)
CITY OF PICKERING
Enbridge Gas Distribution has no objections to the development as proposed.
However, should the applicant consider the use of natural gas for this
development, Enbridge requests the developer contact us at their earliest
convenience to discuss installation and clearance requirements for service and
metering facilities.
Yours truly,
/-~
Tony Ciccone
Manager, Network Analysis
Distribution Planning
(416) 758-7966
(416) 758-4374- FAX
TC:
.._.!~N-2_2-.?008_JUE 04:18 P~l VERIDIAN
FAX NO, 9056190210
p, 02/03'
· :,T
-"T LJ. /)
/I,t~ iO
pi;. /):.~--o -9.
'146
~
VERI D LAN
CONNECTIONS
DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REVIEW
PROJECT NAME.
Ro~t:b\\l1k Propertics be. - Drafr Plan of s~bdivision & Zoning By-law Amendment
ADDRESS/PLAN:
PUtt of Lots 79 to 85, 110 and 111, l)hm 350 (Lands west of Roseban.k road, ca~;I. of
Oakwood Drive ane.! south nf Maitland Drive
i MUN~CIPAL~:Y:
Pickcrillg
l
REF NO.:
SP-2007-01 & A 13/07
SUBMISSION DATE:
Deccmb~r 19,2007
The following i~ ~n ovclvit:w of the: general rt:gu.ll:eml:nts the Applicant is likely to mct::t in order to obtaiI~ a comple.te
d.::ctric<ll p()wer supply syst~m to this site and within tnt: ~ite wht:re subtJivision in. somc form is involvcd. The
comments bdoW' arc b}~sed on ptelimimn)' infolTI1>illon.only and :1ft: subject to rcvision. III all C',lSf.:~ Veridian.'.s st~me.!';J.rd
COl1ditiCllls of Service dC.KlIment ~.::[S out the requt>l::melltS, terms and condil:ions for Il~e pf()visioll uf electrk ~ervkc.
Thi~ revil.:w does not constitute ,m Offt:r to COnJlect.
l.t:<:lectric s~,\7icc. is cmrelltly available;: nn the road ~\llo"',Uln~(~) directly adjacent to thJo properly.
Servicing wilt be from Roseb:u~k Road ~\Ild Oakwood Drivc.
2. Individuallllctcrillg fo.r. t::ach unit is requu:.::d.
3.,-\ hij:\h volta~e direct burie!.l dueted loop i.mdergrr.l~llld cablt: systc.m is rcq1.ured fro~l1 snpt'ly poirH(s) at Rnsebank
Road aud O:ll~wood Drive to ;i tramformcr location(n) all th.:: propr;:IlY, alllH the ,A,pplicant's co~t.
4. Veridian.'s existing distriblltion f'ICilitic, located on Ro,.::ballk \)rive :md Oakwood I).i"e may haw to be
rclm:ated ;~t the Applic,ll1t'~ cost to accommodate: the proposed rOlld.
5. .1'he Applicant must make dirr.:CI applic',llioll to VeridhUl for d.::ct1'ic:~l selvicing as SOOll ~lS possibk. .c\ written,
f}~xed or em,lil Tl::'!uest win permil. V CliJiml to begin the work n.eces5a.y to ic.kntify specific regl1in:rnents .wd
arml1gemc,nl:s ~Itld rdated wad. for rhis project, anil to m~ll'e. all Offer tc) COllllt:et. Tn.:: <If'pliCllllt i~ cautioned'
that tenders, c()ntra(.t~. or wo.k they may jl,ili,lte prinr to obt,linil1g <Ill Offer to Connect. ftom Veridhm may
create cop-tucts with tht: to\ltc of and c.ktails of.the eltctrical serviciflg set (l1.1t in the Offe~ to Connect for whidl
Veridian can bt::;1f no responsibilily.
6. A Servicing .-\g.eemellllllllst he sig1,ed with Veridi;,nl in o.der to obtain servicing for this site.
7: Thl: e.lcctdc<ll imt'lllation(s) froln the. p\lblic ro,~d alJc)w\\ncc up to the scrviL:e en t:r\\nct. and Illl cnetcJ:ing
~l1:rllngemeTlt~ must comply with Veridilll1's req\.lirelm~nts ',Uld spec.ific:l.lions ~nd may ',llso he suhject to the
requh:ements of the: Electrical Safet.y Authority.
8. Prior to obtaining a h~lding permit, the Mlttucip\dity m,\y reqw.re the Applicant tf.l provirle evir.lence of having
obt\\incr.l and :u;cepted an Off(;:! to Cmll1cc.:t.
9. Where emnes o. rnatcrial hamilli~g eqlupmt:l1t or worker, must work in prox.imity to eXiSt1Ilg overhead wire:s,
whe.e thert: is risk of contact c)r coming within th,~ limits of,lpproach. Ihe .Applicant shall pay all cost~ for tht:
tempOX\l1'Y rdocannn, burial, or other protection or the wites, 01' whateve~ other action is e.!eemed nect:ssary by
VeriJian to provide for worker ,<lfety ~lnd the secl.lrlt.y of the electrical ~ystern.
~AN-??-2008 rUE 04:18 PM VERIDIAN
FAX NO. 9056190210
p, 03/03
,E'JT #
11 PO
4- ~_ TO
6~-o9
: t
1 4 7
..
10. Lall(hcaping, specifically trees and shrubs, should he locateu/l:docatcd ;~umy from Vendian" rransformer to
\1V'oid intc,(erence with tquipm.entaCCcS5,
11. V nidi\\U will mIl: artend sd1c::d\:lled City of Pickering DART Meeting fo. [his Devdopment.
12. Veridian has 110 obi~ctiOll to the propo,ed development. Please direct the: Applicant [Q contact V eridian \l~ soon
as servicing t, contcmplal.ed. Municip\\lity, ple\\se fOI:ward It copy of first submission c;ivil design 1.0 V cridbn.
Pk:\SI: notc th:H alt Offer to COlll1l~ct must he completed alltast six (6) month~ pl10r te) th.e required electric';ll
servicing d,tte,
T c.chnical Rcp.t:seJHativc;
Telephone:
Fred Rainingc\:
E.xt. 3255
I
Fp!df
F:\dfriz7.d\\Devc1opme1lt Appliclltiot1 Re\1iew\Picke.ring\2008\1~c.)$eballk Propcrties Inc. - Milton Ro,~d.doc
Page 20f2
V",ridi;tn Conl1~ctions Developmcnt Applicaricn Revi(,:w
Form #EC0002
Rev. D:ite - Octob~r 3, 2007
Ted Tyndorf, Chief Planner & Executive Director
City Planning Division
1 48
Scarborough District
Scarborough Civic Centre
3" Floor
150 Borough Drive
Toronto ON M1 P 4N7
~!._T,0,CHfTrH #_ L1:3 _TO
;.'URT /I ~~n I\pp1811'( ns--o 9
Director, Community Planning
Tel: 14161396-7006
Fax: 14161396-4265
Refer to: Joe Nanos at 14161396-7692
E-mail: jnanos@toronto.ca
www.toronto.ca/plann ing
~ TORONIO
January 4,2008
RECEIVED
City of Pickering, Planning & Development Department
Attention: Carla Pierini
Pickering Civic Complex
One The Esplanade
Pickering, Ontario L1 V 6K7
Canada
JAN 0 8 2008
CITY OF PICKERING
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
Re:
Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2007 -01
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 13/07
Rosebank Properties Inc.
Part of Lots 79 to 85, 110 and 111, Plan 350
(Lands west of Rosebank Road, east of Oakwood Drive & south of
Maitland Drive)
City of Pickering
In response to your letter dated on December 19,2007, be advised that we have reviewed the
above-noted application details and are pleased to inform you that we have no concerns regarding this
application.
If you require further information, please contact me at: (416)396-7692.
Yours truly,
:l\~
oe Nanos
Manager, Community Planning
Waterfront Section