Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 6, 2013Delegations Planning & Development 1. Tatyana Moro Rogers Communications Re: Report PLN 12 -13 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Petticoat Creek Park, Installation #47 Committee Agenda Monday, May 6, 2013 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson Part "A" Pages Information Reports Information Report No. 06 -13 1 -7 Subject: Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 1/13 J. Micklewright 535 Rougemount Drive Part "B" Planning & Development Reports Director, City Development, Report PLN 08 -13 8 -14 Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Request for Extension of Lease Agreement with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority For Paddling Facility on West Spit of Frenchman's Bay Recommendation That Report PLN 08 -13 of the Director, City Development, regarding the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club's use of the west spit, be received; 2. That the request of the Pickering- Rouge Canoe Club to extend its lease agreement with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for three years on an annual basis commencing with the period November 1, 2012 to October 31, 2013 and expiring October 31, 2015, to accommodate a temporary compound on the west spit of Frenchman's Bay for the storage of Accessible For information related to accessibility requirements please contact ..�- Linda Roberts PICKER N G Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: Irobertsa- r)ickerinq.ca Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, May 6, 2013 PICKERING' Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson canoes and kayaks within trailers, associated with the Club's paddling facility, be supported by Pickering Council; and 3. Further, that the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PLN 08 -13 to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club. 2. Director, City Development, Report PLN 09 -13 15 -39 Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP- 2012 -01 (Revised) Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP- 2012 -02 (Revised) Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/12 (Revised) 2307038 Ontario Inc. 1803, 1807, 1811, 1817 and 1823 Fairport Road Recommendation That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP- 2012 -01 (Revised), submitted by 2307038 Ontario Inc., on lands being Part of Lots 105 and 109 and Lots 106 to 108 on RCP Plan 1051, to establish 3 blocks for residential, open space and road widening uses as shown on Attachment #3, and the implementing conditions as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed; 2. That Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/12, submitted by 2307038 Ontario Inc., to implement the Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2012 -01 (Revised) and to permit the development of 31 lots for detached dwellings on a common element condominium road, be endorsed as outlined in Appendix II, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By -law Amendment to Council for enactment; and 3. Further, that an amendment to the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development & Design Guidelines — Neighbourhood Concept Plan, as generally set out in Appendix III be endorsed, and brought forward for Council approval with the implementing Zoning By -law. 3. Director, City Development, Report PLN 11 -13 40 -74 Duffins Precinct — Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP- 2011 -04 Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 17/11 Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 (2077 & 2095 Brock Road) Recommendation o� Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, May 6, 2013 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson That Council endorse the recommendations of the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update, Final Report dated November 2012, prepared by Sernas Associates (now GHD), summarized in Attachment #3 to Report PLN 11 -13; 2. a) That Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 submitted by Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation, on lands being Part'of Lot 18, Concession 2, to permit a residential plan of subdivision for 154 dwelling units, and blocks for park, stormwater, open space and road widening uses, as shown on the Staff Recommended Plan on Attachment #6 to Report PLN 11 -13, and the implementing conditions of approval as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed; and b) That Zoning By -law Application A 17/11 submitted by Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation, to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011-04, as outlined in Appendix II to Report PLN 11 -13, be endorsed, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing zoning by -law to Council for enactment; 3. That Council authorize staff to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan and revisions to the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines to reflect updated information and implement land use, transportation and . environmental recommendations of the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update, including the recommendations outlined in section 2.3 of Report PLN 11 -13; and 4. Further, that a copy of Report PLN 11 -13 and Council's resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Durham School Boards and the Duffins Precinct Landowners Group for information. 4. Director, City Development, Report PLN 12 -13 75 -98 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Rogers Communications Inc. Petticoat Creek Park Installation #47 Recommendation That Rogers Communications Inc. be advised that City Council supports the location of the proposed 45 metre high telecommunication tower installation at Petticoat Creek Park; and Cis Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, May 6, 2013 PICKERING Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Dickerson 2. Further, that staff be authorized to work with Rogers Communications Inc. to investigate an alternative architectural design of the telecommunication tower to better camouflage the structure and improve visual harmony with the surrounding natural area. 5. Director, City Development, Report PLN 13 -13 99 -112 Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Public Mobile North side of Highway 401 right -of -way at the south limit of Altona Road Installation #28 Recommendation That Public Mobile be advised that City Council supports the proposed 29.9 metre high telecommunication tower installation on the Highway 401 right -of- way at the south limit of Altona Road based on the design and other details submitted with this request; and 2. Further, that the Director, City Development be authorized to forward a letter to Industry Canada requesting their assistance to encourage Rogers Wireless to relocate their telecommunication equipment from an adjacent tower onto the proposed Public Mobile tower to minimize the presence of the telecommunication structures (II) Other Business (III) Adjournment lY; Information Report to Planning & Development Committee Report Number: 06 -13 Date: May 6, 2013 From: Catherine Rose (Acting) Chief Planner Subject: Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 1/13 J. Micklewright 535 Rougemount Drive 1. 2. Purpose of this Report The purpose of this report is to provide preliminary information on the Zoning By -law Amendment Application, submitted by J. Micklewright, to rezone the subject property in order to facilitate the creation of two new residential lots. This report contains general information on the applicable Official Plan and other related policies, and identifies matters raised to date. This report is intended to assist members of the public and other interested stakeholders to understand the proposal. Planning & Development Committee will hear public delegations on the application, ask questions of clarification and identify any planning issues. This report is for information and no decision on this application is being made at this time. Staff will bring forward a recommendation report for consideration by the Planning & Development Committee upon completion of a comprehensive evaluation of the proposal. Property Location and Description • the subject property is located on the east side of Rougemount Drive, north of the intersection of Rougemount Drive and Pine Ridge Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1) • the subject property has an area of approximately 0.25 hectares, a lot frontage of 30.5 metres along Rougemount Drive and currently supports a detached dwelling with an attached garage • the land uses surrounding the subject property are detached residential with various lot frontages (see Lot Frontages Along Rougemount Drive, Attachment #2) 3. Applicant's Proposal the applicant has requested to amend the existing zoning from "R3(DN)" — Third Density Residential Zone (DN) requiring a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres to "R4" — Fourth Density Residential Zone requiring a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres, to facilitate the creation of two lots with a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres, and to allow for the future development of two new detached dwellings (see Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachment #3) Information Report No. 06 -13 Page,2 the existing detach dwelling will be demolished to allow for the future development a Region of Durham land severance application is required for the severance of the proposed lots 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan • the Durham Regional Official Plan designates the subject property as "Urban Areas — Living Area "; lands in this designation shall be used predominantly for housing purposes • in the General Policies for "Urban Areas — Living Areas ", the Plan indicates that the areas shall comprise communities; each community shall incorporate the widest possible variety of housing types, sizes and tenure to provide living accommodations that address various socioeconomic factors • the proposal appears to conform to the policies of the Durham Region Official Plan 4.2 Pickering Official Plan • the City of Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Urban Residential — Low Density Area" within the Rosebank Neighbourhood; lands with this designation are intended primarily for housing • policies for the Rosebank Neighbourhood restrict lands west of Rosebank Road to the development and infilling of single detached dwellings having a maximum net residential density of 17 units per net hectare (the net residential density of the applicant's proposed is approximately 8 units per net hectare) • to protect and enhance the character of established neighbourhoods, the Official Plan identifies that such matters as building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications should be considered • the proposal complies with the policies of the Official Plan; details of the application will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Official Plan during processing of the application 4.3 Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines the subject property is situated within Design Precinct No. 1 of the "Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines" residential development shall be limited to the provision of single detached dwelling only new lots created in this precinct area shall have a minimum lot frontage of approximately 15.0 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; the application proposes the creation of lots with minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres and lot depth of 82 metres the proposal is consistent with the provisions of the Rosebank Neighbourhood Development Guidelines Information Report No. 06 -13 4.4 Zoning By -law 2511 Page 3 • the subject property is presently zoned "R3(DN)" — Third Density Residential Zone (DN) • the "R3(DN)" zoning permits a detached dwelling on a residential lot and a Day Nursery use with a minimum lot frontage of 18.0 metres and a minimum lot area of 550 square metres • an amendment to the existing zoning by -law is required to allow for a land severance resulting with the creation of two lots with a minimum lot frontage of 15.0 metres 5. Comments Received 5.1 Resident Comments • none received in response to the revised circulation to date 5.2 Agency Comments • none received in response to the revised circulation to date 5.3 City Departments Comments Development Control . no concerns 6. Planning & Design Section Comments The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • establishing other appropriate performance standards, such as maximum building height and maximum garage projection, to ensure the proposed development will be compatible with the existing character of the surrounding area • reviewing the siting of the new detached dwellings to ensure the protection of mature healthy trees • ensuring consistency with the City's urban design objectives 7. Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices of the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Site Plan • Planning Rationale Letter • Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Information Report No. 06 -13 9. Procedural Information 9.1 General Page 4 • written comments regarding this proposal should be directed to the City Development Department • oral comments may be made at the Public Information Meeting • all comments received will be noted and used as input to a Planning Report prepared by the City Development Department for a subsequent meeting of Council or a Committee of Council • any member of the public who wishes to reserve the option to appeal Council's decision must provide comments to the City before Council adopts any by -law for this proposal • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding this proposal must request such in writing to the City Clerk 10. Owner /Applicant Information • J. Micklewright Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Lot Frontages Along Rougemount Drive 3. Applicant's submitted Site Plan Prepared By: 2A_-L 4=� Mila Yeung Planner II N11e,§h\Surt[, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design MY:ld Attachments Date of Report: April 17, 2013 Copy: Director, City Development Approved /Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, M P, RPP (Acting) Chief Planner I "1111111 INI11111 1111111111111i amwl : ■1 �� ��C �� MEN 11 X111 , mm mm ��� • �� TIC �� JII 11111 ���11 ►I . IN ,., BY MY Attachment # to Informat+r,n 14Pnort# 06 °13 1 TOYN EVALE ROAD D Q N W N O In >> N N N Ifl I!7 W 0 N f— U Ui N N In U7 _z N F N D z N z O N N _ Cu N N COURT Ln n NOky ky �O /1 Cu W CU vi In 0 j Cu Cd o Ln N _ U7 N Ln U) Q M (L1 0 M M N z O O N tPRO MTY ° - City of Pickering City Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 535 Rougemount Drive(Part of Lot 43, Plan 430, Part 1, 40R- 18460) OWNER J. Micklewright DATE Mar 27, 2013 DRAWN BY JB 407\ FILE No. A 01/13 SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKED BY MY H era net Enterprises Ine. antl Its suppliers. All rights Reservetl. Not a plan 2012 MPAC and Its a hare. All ri hta Reservetl. Not o Ian of Surve of s„rve,,. . PN-1 Attachment # -3- -to Informatioi Penort# o� Information Compiled from Applicant's Submitted Plan A 01/13 J. Micklewright 11T This map was produced by The City Of Pickering City Development Department, Planning Information Services Mapping And Design, Mar. 7, 2013. Report to Planning & Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 08 -13 Date: May 6, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Request for Extension of Lease Agreement with Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for Paddling Facility on West Spit of Frenchman's Bay Recommendation: That Report PLN 08 -13 of the Director, City Development, regarding the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club's use of the west spit, be received; 2. That the request of the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club to extend its lease agreement with the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for three years on an annual basis commencing with the period November 1, 2012 to October 31, 2013 and expiring October 31, 2015, to accommodate a temporary compound on the west spit of Frenchman's Bay for the storage of canoes and kayaks within trailers, associated with the Club's paddling facility, be supported by Pickering Council; and 3. Further, that the City Clerk forward a copy of Report PLN 08 -13 to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club. Executive Summary: Since the early 1990's, the West Rouge Canoe Club, now known as the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club (PRCC), has leased land from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for a temporary, private paddling facility on the west spit of Frenchman's Bay (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The facility consists of two trailers on wheels for the temporary storage of canoes and kayaks, and a parking area for up to five cars (see Site Detail, Attachment #2). The subject lands are zoned "R4" — Residential and this zoning does not permit the paddling facility. Thus, the TRCA and the PRCC also require, and have received for the last 20 years, concurrence from the City of Pickering to use the lands for the storage compound. The PRCC's present lease agreement with TRCA expired on October 31, 2012, and the PRCC has requested another lease extension (see Letter, Attachment #3). TRCA is proposing a lease extension for a three year period, to be renewed annually, and requests confirmation that the City continues to agree with this arrangement. Report PLN 08 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Page 2 City staff have reviewed the request and find it supportable. Its location does not interfere with the ongoing harbour entrance reconstruction project or the proposed Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Implementation. Further, until such time as a permanent facility can be established (anticipated for the year 2016), the lease allows an active recreational group in Pickering to have parking with immediate access to a secure location for their boat storage and to the Bay. It is recommended Council support the lease extension. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the lease extension; however, future capital costs are anticipated to accommodate public washroom facilities and a parking lot, associated with the paddling facility as identified in the 2014 -2017 Draft Capital Forecast for the Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan. Background City staff have reviewed the request of the PRCC and the TRCA and have no objection to a three year extension to the lease agreement between PRCC and TRCA, ending October 31, 2015. The paddling activity is consistent with environmentally friendly recreation activities, which are suitable for the Bay and current park operations. City staff advise that the facility has operated without complaints from residents or park users. The Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan was updated in 2012, as a joint project by TRCA and the City of Pickering. The Master Plan identifies the location for a permanent PRCC facility approximately 250 metres west of the current temporary location. The new facility is also anticipated to support boat launches, floating docks, public washrooms, equipment storage and change rooms as well as short term vehicular and trailer parking (see Attachment #4). City staff have identified the public washroom component of the permanent facility in the 2014 — 2017 Draft Capital Forecast. Subject to budget approval, staff anticipate the facility will be relocated by 2016. Until the permanent facility is constructed, TRCA expects to keep the road serving the West Spit open in order to provide continued access to the PRCC facility. The Director of City Development, Culture & Recreation and Engineering & Public Works support PRCC's lease extension request and do not anticipate any conflicts with the harbour entrance reconstruction, and operation of the paddling facility. Accordingly, Council is also requested to support the lease extension. Report PLN 08 -13 Subject: Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Attachments May 6, 2013 Page 3 1. Location Map 2. Site Detail 3. Pickering Rouge Canoe Club Letter to Request a Lease Extension 4. Frenchman's Bay Waterfront Master Plan Prepared By: "Lcz� AshlgYea oPlan Nilesh urti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design AY: jf Recommended for the consideration of Pickering CiWouncil Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Approved /Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCI ,RPP (Acting) Chief Planner Tom Melyrnluk, IVCIP, RPP Director, City Development Marisa Carpino, MAA Director, Culture creation Richa/rd Holbor , P.Eng. Director, Engineering & Public Works /9', 2,0 /3 ATTIMMENT#__l.__TO REPORT# - PL A/ 08-/13 PARK 'IWATERP BRUCE = SCOMBE MEMOR /A PAR ST m FRENCHMAN'S BA Y F E pM�NPpE j pR g�PGNPO\N SU Sr LAKE ONTARIO City of Pickering City Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 196 g 1 t -, 96, 213 195 203 209 -214,i'19,223-225,228-230232,244-279,281-315,319-327, OWNER T.R.C.A. DATE APR 17, 2013 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. PLN 08/13 SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKED BY AY H aTera etraEnterprise1 Ine. and its suppliers. 2013 MPAC and its a liera. All 1,1 hta Reservetl. All rights Reservetl. Not a plan of survey. Not o Ian o7 Surve PN_/f 2 ATTACHMENT# TO REPORT!: ; r°LN tI -/3 FRENCHMAN'S BAY /SEE DETAIL'A' LAKE ONTARIO City of Pickering City Development Department KEY MAP FRENCHMAN'S HA Y SUBJECT LAND PARKING ° LOCATION OF ° EXISTING TRAILERS E3EACHPOINT PROMENADE City of Pickering City Development Department Detail 'A' 11 N canoe - nayaK www.Pldcer1n9R0ugeCC.0r9 ATT MENs #fro REPORT# ,—l'L N D E/3 Pickering Rouge Canoe Club P.O. Box 187, 91 September 11, 2012 ander Blvd., Toronto, Ontario M1 B 5M5 (905) 767 -3330 pickering rougecc. org Ms. Lori Colussi Manager, Leases & Risk Management - -- - - Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive Downsview, ON M3N 1S4 Dear Ms. Colussc RE: Former Simpson Property – Paddling Facility Lot 272, Pt. Lots 271 and 273, Frenchman's Bay, Pickering Authority Project WF3A -92 Further to your letter of August 14, 2012 regarding renewal of the lease agreement between West Rouge Canoe Club and TRCA; we confirm that we would like to renew the lease agreement with the TRCA. Please note that West Rouge Canoe Club has changed its name to the Pickering Rouge Canoe Club. If you require confirmation of this change by copy of the approved letters of patent change, please let me know and I will forward a copy for your files. if you require any further information, please contact me at your convenience. Sincerely, Sue Cox Commodore Pickering Rouge Canoe Club (formerly West Rouge Canoe Club) Email: suecoxo41(Whotmail.com Phone: 416 -561 -7490 C SEP 1 7 2012 PROP=ERTY DIVISION TRCA F RE-Pori � L ti a L-13 c h i ! 1 ; e 0 0 N � rn n m v U o E U oa o � L V m � o c a' m a� t`L I d zz f . N !! Uuf r C� �—I Cn C75 O 14� W MM� C7� i--1 U e�--i w (O U r >v°+ na O eve F s o Ji tj 14 Report to _ '' Planning & Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 09 -13 Date: May 6, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP- 2012 -01 (Revised) Draft Plan of Condominium Application CP- 2012 -02 (Revised) Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/12 (Revised) 2307038 Ontario Inc. 1803, 1807, 1811, 1817 and 1823 Fairport Road Recommendation: That Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP- 2012 -01 (Revised), submitted by 2307038 Ontario, Inc., on lands being Part of Lots 105 and 109 and Lots 106 to 108 on RCP Plan 1051, to establish 3 blocks for residential, open space and road widening uses as shown on Attachment #3, and the implementing conditions as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed; 2. That Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/12, submitted by 2307038 Ontario Inc., to implement the Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2012 -01 (Revised) and to permit the development of 31 lots for detached dwellings on a common element condominium road, be endorsed as outlined in Appendix II, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing Zoning By -law Amendment to Council for enactment; and 3. Further, that an amendment to the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development & Design Guidelines — Neighbourhood Concept Plan, as generally set out in Appendix III be endorsed, and brought forward for Council approval with the implementing Zoning By -law. Executive Summary: The subject lands are located on the east side of Fairport Road, north of Goldenridge Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1) The applicant's initial development proposal was to develop the lands municipally known as 1817 Fairport Road for 13 freehold lots for detached dwellings fronting onto a private road (see Applicant's Original Site Plan, Attachment #2). Additional properties immediately to the north and south were purchased by the applicant to create a larger overall development. The revised applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision, Draft Plan of Condominium and Zoning By -law Amendment were submitted to facilitate a common element condominium development consisting of 31 freehold lots for detached dwellings fronting onto a private road (see Applicant's Revised Site Plan, Attachment #3). Report PLN 09 -13 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. May 6, 2013 Page 2 The proposed development demonstrates an appropriate infill design within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood that is in keeping with the established neighbourhood character and implements the policies of the Official Plan. Although, the development proposal includes an amendment to the road pattern currently illustrated in the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development & Design Guidelines, this new road pattern is consistent with a previous Council decision to amend the road pattern currently illustrated in the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. The recommended zoning by -law amendment represents appropriate density and performance standards for this infill development. Required common elements for the condominium plan have been identified and will be secured. Further, site plan approval will address remaining design and technical matters. Staff recommend that the applications be approved, and the implementing zoning by -law and the amendment to the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development & Design Guidelines be finalized and forwarded to Council for adoption. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands comprise of five properties that are located on the east side of Fairport Road, north of Goldenridge Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1) and have a combined area of approximately 2.0 hectares. The proposal includes the entirety of 1803, 1807, 1811 and 1817 Fairport Road, and the rear portion of 1823 Fairport Road. The subject lands currently accommodate four detached dwellings all of which are proposed to be demolished. There is existing mature vegetation along the easterly portion of the properties within the valley lands associated with the Dunbarton Creek and surrounding each of the existing dwellings. Development abutting the subject lands includes established residential areas of detached dwellings on generally deep lots, as well as some newer infill subdivisions to the south and southwest. 1.2 Applicant's Original Proposal The applicant's original development proposal for 1817 Fairport Road was to amend the zoning by -law to implement a draft plan of subdivision and common element condominium for 13 lots for detached dwellings having minimum lot frontage of 12.0 metres fronting onto a private road (see Applicant's Original Site Plan, Attachment #2). Following the July 5, 2012 Information Meeting, the applicant purchased additional lands immediately to the north and south of the original property to create a larger overall developable area. Report PLN 09 -13 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. 1.3 Applicant's Revised Proposal May 6, 2013 Page 3 On December 14, 2012 the applicant submitted revised applications for draft plan of subdivision, draft plan of condominium and zoning by -law amendment for the larger holdings. The revised proposal is for a common element condominium development consisting of 31 lots for detached dwellings. The draft plan of subdivision proposes the creation of 3 blocks to accommodate a 3.0 metre wide road widening block along the entire length of Fairport Road; a 0.4 hectare open space block to convey the Dunbarton Creek and associated valley lands and buffer areas to the City of Pickering; and a 1.6 hectare residential development block for 31 freehold lots (see Applicant's Revised Site Plan, Attachment #3). Access to the 31 lots is from the proposed crescent - shaped private road off Fairport Road. A total of 10 visitor parking spaces have been provided. The draft plan of condominium proposes a common element condominium for private internal roads, visitor parking spaces, mailboxes, internal sidewalks and a water meter room. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Public comments from the July 5, 2012 and February 4, 2013 Public Information Meetings and in written submission At the July 5, 2012 Information Meeting, approximately seventeen area residents /landowners attended the meeting to voice their concerns with respect to the original development proposal. In addition to the concerns raised at the public meeting, written concerns from an area resident were received. The majority of their concerns related to whether the proposal is in keeping with the existing character of the neighbourhood. Specifically, the concerns identified are as follows: • conformity with the Dunbarton Development & Design Neighbourhood Guidelines • stormwater management and drainage • insufficient supply of on -site visitor parking within the development site • traffic impacts • preservation of the Dunbarton Creek and existing trees At the February 4, 2013 Information Meeting regarding the revised development proposal, approximately seven area residents attended the meeting to voice their concerns. Written concerns from three area residents were also received. Report PLN 09 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. Page 4 In addition to the concerns identified with the original proposal the following additional concerns were raised: • conservation of wildlife • connectivity of a dedicated green space in the area • delineation of private property from public green space • the proposed private road pattern does not accommodate for future development to the north • compatibility with existing character on Fairport Road • the visual impacts of the dwellings flanking onto Fairport Road • streetscape improvements and boulevard landscaping required on Fairport Road • pedestrian connectivity on -site within the development and to public sidewalks 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments Region of Durham- • the subject lands are designated "Living Areas" in the Durham Region Official Plan • the Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that the proposal complies with the policies of the Region Official Plan • the submitted Environmental Noise Assessment satisfies the requirements of the Ministry of Environment Noise Guidelines • the submitted Phase I Environmental Site Assessment report indicated that a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment report is not recommended • sanitary and water services are available to the subject lands • municipal garbage and recycling collection will be determined at a later date • the Region of Durham has no objection to the proposal and has provided recommended conditions for draft plan approval for Plans of Subdivision and Condominium Report PLN 09 -13 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. May 6, 2013 Page 5 Toronto and Region • TRCA has advised that an appropriate environmental Conservation buffer has been provided for the protection of the Authority (TRCA) Dunbarton Creek • as a condition of draft plan approval, a Dunbarton Valley Corridor Block Restoration and Enhancement Plan should be prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of TRCA • no objections to the Functional Storm Servicing Report; further details and analysis will be required as per conditions of draft plan approval • the TRCA has no objection to the proposal and has provided recommended conditions for draft plan approval for Plan of Subdivision Engineering & 0 generally satisfied with the lotting pattern and road Public Works configuration • detail drawings regarding landscaping, stormwater management and grading will be reviewed through the site plan approval process • there is sufficient traffic capacity on Fairport Road to accommodate the additional vehicles generated by this development Fire Services • no concerns with the development proposal • details of the emergency vehicle access will be finalized through the site plan review process 3. Planning, Analysis 3.1 The proposal complies with the density provision of the Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" and "Open Space Systems — Natural Areas" within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood. Lands within the "Urban Residential Areas — Low Density Areas" designation are intended primarily for housing at a net residential density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The proposal to create 31 freehold lots for detached dwellings fronting onto a private road represents a net residential density of 20 units per net hectare, which falls within the permitted density range. Lands within the "Open Space Systems — Natural Areas" designation are generally intended for conservation, environmental protection and passive recreational uses. The draft plan of subdivision includes an open space block that will be conveyed to the City for the protection of the Dunbarton Creek. The proposed development conforms to the Pickering Official Plan. Report PLN 09 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. Page 6 3.2 The proposal is consistent with the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development & Design Guidelines and with the character of the established neighbourhood The subject lands are located within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood for which Development & Design Guidelines have been established and adopted by Council. The Guidelines contain provisions about such matters as, lot frontages, dwelling types, park locations and future road patterns, to ensure that development occurs in a manner that is appealing, orderly and consistent with the character of the neighbourhood. The Guidelines identify that the presence of a large number of deep lots results in opportunities for infill development within this area to full urban standards. The proposed development is an infill situation. All of the proposed lots are of a size which will facilitate dwelling designs that are compatible with the established character of the surrounding neighbourhood. The proposed building height and yard setbacks are consistent with the recommended performance standards in the Development & Design Guidelines. The overall development proposal of 31 freehold lots for detached dwellings represents an appealing and orderly lotting pattern that is desirable and would be in keeping with the character of the established neighbourhood. Staff are supportive of the proposed development. 3.3 Previous Decision of Council supported an amended road pattern within the Dunbarton Neighbourhood The applicant is proposing an amendment to the "Conceptual Road Pattern" in the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development & Design Guidelines by deleting the public roads through the subject lands and deleting the northern extension of the road immediately west of the Dunbarton Creek. This amendment is consistent with Council's previous resolution in 2002 that directed staff to complete informational revisions to the Urban Neighbourhood — Neighbourhood 7: Dunbarton, of the Pickering Official Plan and the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Design Guidelines to reflect the revised road network created through the subdivision on Goldenridge Road. The proposed development establishes an appropriate private road pattern that is consistent with Council's previous decision in the neighbourhood. Due to the location of the Dunbarton Creek and the relevant policies of the TRCA, opportunities for infill development to the north of the subject lands may only be feasible provided that future development is accommodated on private roads. The proposed development represents an appropriate private road pattern that facilitate orderly development. Consequently, Staff recommend an amendment to the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development & Design Guidelines — Neighbourhood Concept Plan to illustrate the "Conceptual Road Pattern" with deletion of the northern extension of a proposed road from Dunbarton Road beyond the subject lands (see Appendix III). Report PLN 09 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. Page 7 3.4 Traffic issues are not anticipated as a result of this development Residents raised concerns with respect to the potential for higher traffic levels along Fairport Road as a result of this residential development. Fairport Road is designated as a "Type C Arterial Road ". Typically, on a Type C Arterial Road, the maximum vehicle capacity is between 4,000 and 20,000 vehicles per day. Based on the most recent traffic counts on Fairport Road compiled by the City, a total count of 5,571 vehicles per day was recorded. Engineering staff have advised that Fairport Road operates within the acceptable Type C Arterial Road capacity and that the proposal for 31 lots is expected to generate approximately between 32 and 37 trips during a.m. & p.m. peak hours respectively. No traffic concerns are anticipated as a result of this development. A Type C Arterial Road typically requires a right -of -way width of 26 to 30 metres, and the current width of Fairport Road in front of the subject lands is 20 metres. Therefore, a minimum 3.0 metre wide road widening is required, which will be conveyed to the City at the time of subdivision registration. 3.5 Dunbarton Creek and associated valley lands and vegetation will be protected Residents expressed concerns regarding preservation of the Dunbarton Creek and existing trees on -site to provide appropriate habitat for existing wildlife. As well, residents identified issues with respect to trespassing on other private properties and whether a trail would be provided along the Dunbarton Creek. An Environment Impact Study and a Tree Preservation Plan were submitted and reviewed by the TRCA and the City. The purpose of these studies is to provide for appropriate protection of the environment features in accordance with the policies and regulations of the TRCA and the City. As part of this development proposal a 0.4 hectare open space block has been created. This block contains a section of the Dunbarton Creek and associated valley lands. It also contains a conservation buffer to ensure that the proposed development maintains an appropriate setback from the environmental feature. This block will be conveyed to the City upon the registration of the draft plan. As a condition of draft plan approval, the applicant will be required to prepare and submit a Dunbarton Valley Corridor Block Restoration and Enhancement Plan to the satisfaction of the TRCA. Also as a condition of approval, the applicant will be required to erect a fence between the open space block and the abutting residential lots. The site plan agreement and the condominium declaration will include a provision prohibiting the removal of fences and the installation of gates or other access through the fences along the rear lot lines abutting the open space block. Report PLN 09 -13 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. May 6, 2013 Page 8 The City's 1996 Trails and Bikeway Master Plan identifies the Dunbarton Creek valley as a "Future Hiking Trail Corridor ". Given that the Dunbarton Creek valley presently traverses through numerous private properties, the City does not have any current plans for the construction of a hiking trail along the Dunbarton Creek. Upon review of the environmental impact study and tree preservation plan, TRCA and the City staff conclude that the proposed development meets the requirements of the TRCA and the City. 3.6 Concerns regarding in- sufficient visitor parking spaces, privacy and drainage have been addressed or will be addressed Other concerns that were raised by the area residents included in- sufficient visitor parking spaces, privacy and drainage. There will be sufficient residential parking with each dwelling unit accommodating a minimum of 2 vehicles. Pickering's standard visitor parking ratio for a residential condominium development is 0.25 parking space per dwelling unit. Based on this ratio, the applicant is required to provide a total of 8 visitor parking spaces, whereas the proposal provides for a total of 10 visitor parking spaces. Through the site plan approval process, staff will review whether there is opportunities to provide for additional visitor parking spaces. The abutting residents to the south expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on their privacy. The applicant has indicated a willingness to undertake all reasonable measures to maintain and enhance the privacy of abutting residence. In order to maintain the privacy of the abutting residents to the south, the applicant has agreed to provide additional landscaping within the rear yards abutting the residential properties to the south. Drainage was another concern that was identified by the area residents. The applicant has submitted a Functional Servicing Report that has been reviewed by the TRCA and the City. Proposed Lots 1 to 11 have been designed as walk -out lots, with the rear yards draining to an infiltration swale located within the conservation buffer adjacent to the Dunbarton Creek valley. Lots 12 to 31 have been designed as split draining lots, with rear lot catch basins to capture any runoff. Drainage from the proposed development will be contained on -site and will not negatively impact the abutting properties. 3.7 The Proposal achieves a Level 1 Sustainability Rating The applicant submitted a Sustainability Report that is based on the City's Draft Sustainability Guidelines. Staff have reviewed the report and rated the draft plan as achieving Level 1. The proposed draft plan incorporated many of the elements set out in the Guidelines such as efficient use of land, increased residential density, environmental protection, native species planning, stormwater quality treatment and development design connections. Additional opportunities for element of sustainable development are available at the site plan application and building permit stage. Report PLN 09 -13 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. May 6, 2013 Page 9 3.8 All Technical Matters will be addressed as Conditions of Subdivision and Site Plan Approval Process In order to ensure all technical matters are appropriately addressed by the applicant, City requirements will be imposed as conditions of approval for the subdivision application. Detail design issues will be dealt with through the site plan approval process. A site plan application is yet to be submitted. These requirements will address matters such as, but not limited to: • building massing • fagade designs and upgrades, including the dwellings flanking Fairport Road • building siting • landscaping • drainage and grading • site servicing • stormwater management plan • required fencing between the private property and the publicly owned Dunbarton Creek Valley lands • visitor. parking & on- street parking • emergency vehicle access No further reports are anticipated to be brought before Council if the applications are approved. 3.9 Common Element Condominium application The purpose of this application is to determine whether the common element description is the appropriate form of tenure for this residential development. A common element condominium refers to a development where each dwelling unit is individually owned (freehold ownership), and where amenities or physical features are collectively owned by the unit owners as tenants in common. It is anticipated that a future common element condominium corporation will be established to permit a community of individually owned homes with maintenance of the development's joint services, amenities and physical features provided through a common element condominium corporation. In accordance with Council policy and Delegation By -law 5391/01, the Director, City Development has the authority to grant draft plan of approval for plans of condominium; therefore no further approvals are required from City Council. Report PLN 09 -13 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. May 6, 2013 Page 10 3.10 Zoning By -law to be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment The subject lands are currently zoned "R3" - Third Density Residential. The applicant is proposing to rezone the developable portion of the subject lands to a new "SY residential zone, similar to the Goldridge development to the south. The open space block will be rezoned to Open Space /Hazard Land zone. To ensure compatibility with the surrounding community and an appropriate design, the zoning by -law will include performance standards for minimum lot'frontage and lot area; maximum building height; minimum yard setbacks; maximum garage projects; minimum number of residential and visitor parking spaces; and maximum encouragements for porches and decks within required yards. The recommended zoning conditions are outlined in Appendix II to this report. It is recommended that a draft by -law be prepared and forwarded to Council for enactment. 3.11 Applicant's Comments The applicant has been advised of the recommendations of this report. Appendices Appendix I Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2012 -01 Appendix II Recommended Conditions of Approval for Zoning By -law Amendment Application Appendix III Recommended Amendment to Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development & Design Guidelines — Concept Plan Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Original Site Plan 3. Applicant's Revised Site Plan Report PLN 09 -13 Subject: 2307038 Ontario Inc. Prepared By: Mila Yeung Plannerill Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design MY:NS:Id May 6, 2013 Page 11 Approved /Endorsed By: x 17,;',,' � �-' /ZZ � Catherine Rose, M IP; RPP (Acting) Chief Planner Thom s Melyi6k, CIP, R Director, City Deveiopment Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council )Vaal Ae z4, zoo Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Appendix Ito Report. PLN 09 -13 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2012 -01 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2012 -01 General Conditions That this recommendation apply to the draft plan of subdivision prepared by Brian Moss + Associates Ltd., dated December 2012, project number 95001, on lands being Part of Lots 105 & 109, and Lots 106, 107 & 108, RCP 1051, Part 1, 40R- 24632, City of Pickering to permit a residential subdivision consisting of 31 single detached dwellings, an open space conservation block and a road widening block. Subdivision Agreement 2. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the conditions outlined in this document. Zoning ' 3. That the implementing by -law for Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/12 becomes final and binding. Street Names 4. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the Region and the City. Development Charges & Inspection Fee 5. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. 6. That the Owner satisfy the City financially for the contributions for development review and inspection fees. Phasing 7. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the City. Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP- 2012 -01) Page 2 Dedications /Transfers /Conveyances 8. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost: a) Block 2 for open space; and b) the dedication of a 3.0 metres wide road allowances along Fairport Road Architectural Control 9. That the Owner, prior to the preparation of the subdivision agreement, shall engage a control architect, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development, who will: a) prepare the architectural design objectives for the development that address, but are not limited to: building envelopes, siting, porches, landscaping, building and sustainable designs, streetscape design, front elevations, as well as garage locations, massing, widths, and projection from the main dwelling; and b) prepare specific architectural building design for Lots 19, 20, 28 and 29 to address flankage side yard elevations. Storm Drainage 10. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering & Public Works Department respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision and any provisions regarding easements. 11. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering & Public Works Department for contributions for stormwater management maintenance fee. 12. That the Owner satisfy the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) to maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures operating and in good repair during the construction period. 13. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering & Public Works Department respecting stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the development in accordance with the revised Functional Servicing Plan, dated March 2013, and any provision regarding easements. Grading Control 14. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering & Public Works Department respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan. Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP- 2012 -01) Page 3 15. That the Owner satisfy of the Director, Engineering & Public Works Department respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis. 16. That the Owner satisfy the City respecting the authorization from abutting land owners for all off -site grading. Fill & Topsoil By -law 17. That the City of Pickering's Fill & Topsoil By -law prohibits soil disturbance, removal or importation to the site unless a permit has been issued. No on -site works prior to Draft Plan Approval is permitted. A Fill & Topsoil Permit will be required should grading works proceed prior to a Subdivision Agreement. Road Allowances 18. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering & Public Works Department respecting construction of roads with curbs, sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs along Fairport Road. Construction /installation of City Works & Services 19. That the Owner satisfy the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City. 20. That the Owner satisfy the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services. 21. That the cost of any relocation, extension, alteration or extraordinary maintenance of existing services necessitated by this development shall be the responsibility of the Owner. Easements 22. That the Owner convey to the City, at no cost, any easements or reserves as required by the City. 23. That the Owner include in the purchase and sale agreement of Lot 3 that there is a 3.0 metre wide easement in favour of the public authorities for access and maintenance of the open space conservation block. 24. That the Owner conveys any easements to any utility provider to facilitate the installation of their services in a location(s) to the satisfaction of the City and the utility provider. Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP- 2012 -01) Page 4 25. That the Owner arrange at no costs to the City any easements required on third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in locations as determined by the City and /or the Region and are to be granted upon request at any time after the draft approval. 26. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering & Public Works Department with any required easement for works, facilities or use rights that are required by the City of Pickering. Construction Management Plan 27. 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; (iii) assurance 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; and (vii) details of the temporary construction access. Fencing 28. That the Owner satisfy 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. 29. That the existing boundary fencing remain and be maintained during construction. 30. That the Owner agrees to submit a detail plan identifying the location of all fences to the satisfaction of the City including the provision of permanent fencing along the rear lots lines abutting the open space block and for the lots along Fairport Road. 31. That the Owner agrees to include in the purchase of sales agreement for the lots in this development that gates and fence opening are prohibited along the easterly boundary of Lots 1 to 12 for access into the open space block. Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP- 2012 -01) Page 5 Street Tree Planting 32. That the submission of a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City. 33. That to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering & Public Works Department, the Owner shall plant one tree per lot. If it is determined that the planting of a tree is not possible for each proposed lot, the Owner will be required to pay either cash -in -lieu for the remaining trees or plant the remaining trees in a location within the Plan boundaries. Tree Preservation 34. That the Owner is required to submit a tree preservation plan to the satisfaction of the City which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural features where appropriate prior to the approval of a preliminary grading plan. Engineering Drawings 35. 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. 36. That the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design objectives. Parkland Dedication 37. That the Owner shall pay the City cash -in -lieu to satisfy the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. Utility 38. That the owner, through the approval of the Utility Coordination Plan for the location, is to enter into an agreement with Canada Post Corporation for the provision of a Community Mailbox including technical specifications and financial terms. Model Homes 39. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable for this draft plan. All models homes must satisfy all requirements of the siting and architectural design statement. Other Approval Agencies 40. . That the Owner satisfy all the requirements of the Region of Durham. Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP- 2012 -01) Page 6 41. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham for the development of this plan be obtained by the Owner, and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City of Pickering as verification of these approvals. 42. That the Owner obtain all necessary permits from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended. 43. That any approvals which are required from the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority for the development of this plan be obtained by the Owner and upon request written confirmation be provide to the City of Pickering as verification of these approvals. Appendix II to Report PLN 09 -13 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/12 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 3/12 That the implementing zoning by -law in the "SY zone: (a) permit the establishment of detached dwelling units in accordance with the following provisions: (i) permit detached dwellings to front onto a private road (ii) minimum lot frontage of 12.0 metres (iii) minimum lot frontage of 8.5 metres for Lots 1 and 12 due to the curvature of the private road (iv) minimum lot area of 350 square metres (v) maximum building height of 9.0 metres (vi) minimum front yard depth of 4.5 metres (vii) minimum rear yard depth of 7.5 metres (viii) minimum side yard widths of 1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other (ix) minimum flankage side yard width of 4.5 metres for lots abutting Fairport Road and 2.7 metres for all other lots (x) minimum one private garage per lot attached to the main building and vehicular entrance not less than 6.0 metres (xi) maximum garage projection of 2.0 metres beyond the main entrance to the dwelling unit (xii) Lots 1 and 12 are exempted from the maximum garage projection requirements (xiii) maximum projection of 2.0 metres into required front yard for an unenclosed porch and varandah not exceeding 1.5 metres in height (xiv) maximum projection of 2.0 metres into the required flankage side yard abutting Fairport Road for an unenclosed porch and varandah not exceeding 1.5 metres in height lot (xv) maximum projection of 2.5 metres into require rear yard for decks not exceeding 3.0 metres in height. (xvi) special provisions regarding yard setbacks for Lot 1 and Lot 12 (xvii) setback exemption for the water meter building 2. That the implementing zoning by -law in the "OS -HL" zone: (a) permit the preservation and conservation of the natural environment, soil and wildlife, resource management, and pedestrian trails and walkways. Appendix III to Report PLN 09 -13 Amendment to the Neighbourhood Concept Plan for the Dunbarton Neighbourhood Development & Design Guidelines ATTACHMENT #L�TO REPORT # PAN 001-13 MORE �A PROPERTY NNN I. W. "M fn1P1r2fth1L:SU&1Th1 all) Fill i n oil SUBJECT EVISED We MMI DATE Apr 22, 2013 CHECKED BY MY ATTACHMENT #_in? TO REPORT # PLN o9 -13 APPLICANT'S ORIGINAL SITE PLAN 2307038 ONTARIO INC. SP- 2012 -01 & A 03/12 & CP- 2012 -02 I LOT LOT MON _NTS I� C ] IF E I- U O Im K I M. 104 ----- - - ---IF I 105 P� Q� - -47 i2 - -- OPEN SPACE 40M -XXXX 106 107 I I I- Y IO m I I -TJS7T T I FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR WEW /NG AT THE CITY OF PICKERING COY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, MAY 31, 2012. LOT LOT 104 ----- - - ---IF I 105 P� Q� - -47 i2 - -- OPEN SPACE 40M -XXXX 106 107 I I I- Y IO m I I -TJS7T T I FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR WEW /NG AT THE CITY OF PICKERING COY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, MAY 31, 2012. ATTACHMENT # TO RENORI # PLA 02-13 APPLICANT'S REVISED SITE PLAN 2307038 ONTARIO INC. SP- 2012 -01 & A 03/12 & CP- 2012 -02 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKER /NG CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING CITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, KNFORMATKON d SUPPORT SERVICES, MARCH 27, 20IJ Report to Planning & Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 11 -13 Date: May 6, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Duffins Precinct — Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update and Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP- 2011 -04 Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 17/11 Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation Part of Lot 18, Concession 2 (2077 & 2095 Brock Road) Recommendation: 1. That Council endorse the recommendations of the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update, Final Report dated November 2012, prepared by Sernas Associates (now GHD), summarized in Attachment #3 to Report PLN 11 -13; 2. (a) That Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 submitted by Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation, on lands being Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, to permit a residential plan of subdivision for 154 dwelling units, and blocks for park, stormwater, open space and road widening uses, as shown on the Staff Recommended Plan on Attachment #6 to Report PLN 11 -13, and the implementing conditions of approval as set out in Appendix I, be endorsed; and (b) That Zoning By -law Application A 17/11 submitted by Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation, to implement Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04, as outlined in Appendix II to Report PLN 11 -13, be endorsed, and that staff be authorized to finalize and forward an implementing zoning by -law to Council for enactment; 3. That Council authorize staff to initiate an amendment to the Pickering Official Plan and revisions to the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines to reflect updated information and implement land use, transportation and environmental recommendations of the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update, including the recommendations outlined in section 2.3 of Report PLN 11 -13; and 4. Further, that a copy of Report PLN 11 -13 and Council's resolution be forwarded to the Region of Durham, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Durham School Boards and the Duffins Precinct Landowners Group for information. Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 2 Executive Summary: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation ( Kindwin), as one of the largest land owners in the southern part of Duffins Precinct, front ended the preparation of an update that was required to the 1999 Environmental Master Servicing Plan (EMSP) for the Duffins Precinct (see Duffins Precinct Location Map, Attachment #1, and Duffins Precinct Southern Lands - Landowners Map, Attachment #2). In October 2011, Sernas (now GHD) submitted the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update (ESP Update). In response to comments issued by the City and Toronto Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) in January 2012, GHD submitted a final ESP Update dated November 2012, addressing City and TRCA comments. It is recommended that Council endorse the recommendations of the ESP Update to serve as the basis for the technical review of all development applications in the southern portion of Duffins Precinct. And further, Council is requested to authorize staff to initiate an amendment to the City's Official Plan and revisions to the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines to implement land use, transportation and environmental recommendations of the ESP Update. In November 2011, shortly after the submission of the ESP Update, Kindwin submitted draft plan of subdivision and zoning by -law amendment applications that proposed a residential subdivision of up to 166 dwellings, consisting of detached, semi - detached, street and lane townhouse units. Also proposed were blocks for a park, stormwater management pond, and open space (see Location Map, and Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachments #4 and #5). These applications were circulated for comment while the ESP Update was also under review. Now that the ESP Update is finalized and ready for Council endorsement, staff recommend that the Kindwin applications also be approved. The applications do not require prior approval of the official plan and development guideline amendments referenced above. Minor revisions have been made including increasing the size of the park block and relocating it further south towards the Islamic Centre (see Staff Recommended Plan, Attachment #6). In addition, the stormwater pond block is slightly larger, and while the total maximum number of units is reduced to 154, the plan retains the proposed mix of singles, semi detached, street and lane townhomes. The proposed road pattern provides access to the proposed development to the south and will allow a connection to the north. Technical matters will be dealt with through conditions of draft approval. It is recommended that Council endorse the staff recommended plan subject to the conditions outlined in Appendix I. The recommended zoning performance standards will implement the draft plan, allowing flexibility for single, semi detached and townhome units on Blocks 2 to 6. Council is requested to endorse the zoning standards set out in Appendix II. Staff will finalize the By -law and it bring it back to Council for adoption. Report.PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 3 Financial Implications: No direct costs are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. 1. Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update 1.1 Development in the southern part of the Duffins Precinct could not proceed without an update to the 1999 Environmental Master Servicing Plan The Duffins Precinct development area is located north of Finch Avenue and east of Brock Road. Within Duffins Precinct, the area generally south of Dellbrook Avenue is referred to as the southern lands (see Location Map - Duffins Precinct, Attachment #1). In 1999, the Duffins Precinct Environmental Master Servicing Plan (EMSP) was prepared by The Greer Galloway Group Inc., establishing a servicing management plan for the Duffins Precinct. Since 2005, several landowners in the southern lands of Duffins Precinct submitted development applications to the City. The City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) determined that an update to the EMSP for the southern lands was warranted due to the time lapse between the EMSP and the submission of development applications. 1.2 The final servicing plan for the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands is recommended to Council for endorsement In October 2011, Sernas (now GHD) submitted the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update (ESP Update) on behalf of the Duffins Precinct Landowner Group (DPLG) (see Duffins Precinct Southern Lands — Land Owners, Attachment #2). The City and TRCA issued comments in January 2012, and in December 2012, GHD submitted a final ESP Update addressing City and TRCA comments. A Summary of the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update is provided as Attachment #3. The ESP Update defines current development practices, development boundaries, buffers and protection requirements for the natural features, outlines servicing requirements and phasing, and confirms the location of municipal infrastructure including stormwater management facilities, and roads. More specifically, the ESP Update recommends detailed technical strategies to address water resource issues including protection of wetland features, hydrogeology and water balance, erosion sensitivity, aquatic habitat and headwater conditions, stormwater management strategies, phasing of stormwater facilities if required, preliminary costing for facilities, and required monitoring. Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 201.3 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 4 The recommendations address both area wide strategies applying to all landowners, as well as property specific recommendations that will inform both development design, as well as detailed engineering. The endorsed ESP Update will serve as the basis for the technical review of development applications in the southern portion of Duffins Precinct. Staff recommend that Council endorse the ESP Update as summarized in Attachment #3 to this Report. A cost sharing agreement will be required to cover the cost of the ESP Update and to cover the construction of stormwater facilities shared between landowners. The agreement will be required through conditions of approval and amendments to the policy documents for these lands. 2. Kindwin draft plan of subdivision and zoning by -law amendment applications 2.1 The original applications were submitted in November 2011 Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation ( Kindwin) submitted applications for approval of a draft plan of subdivision, and an amendment to the zoning by -law to implement the proposed residential development on approximately 8.02 hectares located on the east side of Brock Road, south of Major Oaks Road and north of Finch Avenue (see Kindwin Lands Location Map, Attachment #4). The initial development proposed a maximum of 166 units consisting of detached, semi- detached, street and lane townhouse dwelling units (see Applicant's Submitted Plan November 2011, Attachment #5). Also proposed were blocks for a park, stormwater management pond, open space and road widening uses. 2.2 A revised proposal reflects a revised development limit and park location The draft plan of subdivision and by -law amendment applications were circulated for comment while the ESP Update was under review. In response to City staff comments and identification of an updated limit of development (confirmed by a scoped environmental impact statement), a revised draft plan of subdivision was submitted (Staff Recommended Plan, see Attachment #6). The plan reflects the updated limit of development, an increase in size and shifting of the park (village green) block south to the east of the Pickering Islamic Centre, an increase in the size of the stormwater and open space blocks, and an increase in the width of the proposed lane. Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 5 The following chart outlines details of the staff recommended plan of subdivision: ........................ . ......... .............. ....................... ..... ................................. __................_........... ........................... __ ................... . ................ _. ...................................... _ .................... _............................................................................... Land Area (ha) Units ............. _............... _ ... ........................... ..................................._....._..............._........................................_. ............................ _..................................................... Block 18 ( Pa rk) . ..................... _................. 0.33 ....... ........................................__.......... ............................ _ .................. _ ..................................... __ .............. _ ............... _ ....................... _ .............. _ ...................... _. .................................. _ ...................... ................ Block 19 (Stormwater Management ............... ................................. ......._...._ _............._................_..;......................................................... 0.48 .........._...................; Pond) _........... ... ..................................._............................_........................................... ....._......................._. 2 Block 0 (Open Space) 1.24 .................................... .......... ....... _. ........................... ......... _ ..... ............... _ .................. ......... ............................... _ ..................... ,................ Blocks 21 & 22 (Future Development) __ .......... ............... ................. ........._.......... .... .... ..... .............._. 0.05 :,................_............ _......_ .................. _ ..... .... ....; ...... .............. . .............._ ..........._...................................._......................_......................................................_......................;......................................_............................................. Block 2 3 (Road Widening) .............._................ 0.13 ............. _.. ................... .......__............................... ............... ........................................................... _ ..... ................ ... ............... _ ........................ .......................................................................... __ .................... . ................... Municipal Roads and Lane _ ............................... ................ ......... _ .................................. ....._ 2.26 ..................... ........................... .. .............. ....................... ............. ; -- .............._................ ....... ................. .. ...... ......... _ ................... ...................... _ ...................... ............ ................ ......._........................................ _.......... Detached (9.1 -10.5 m frontage) & . .............................................. _................................ .................... 2.01 ... ..................................... ......................................... __ ................. _ 68 (minimum) Semi - Detached ............................................................................................................................ ..................._.........74 (maximum)...' Street Townhouse (7.5 m frontage) 1.22 58 ....................................... ................................................ _......... ..................... .................................... ........................ .................. ......; Lane Townhouse (5.0 m frontage) 0.30 22 ............... _ .................. __ ............. __ ..................................................................... ...... ................................ _... ................................. _._ Total 8.02 .............. . 148 (minimum) ................ _._. ............... _ .............................................................. _ ..... ............ __ ..................................... _. ............... .._ ......... ............................... _.......... ............... .......................................... ... ................................... .. ........ _ ........ 154 (maximum) :............................ ........ .............. .................... ................... .......... 2.3 City Departments & Agency Comments Region of Durham . subject lands are within the "Living Areas" and "Major Open Space" designations in the Durham Region Official Plan and front Regional Road 1 (Brock Road) which is designated as a "Regional Corridor' • the Region of Durham Planning Department has advised that this application complies with the policies of the Regional Official Plan • available water capacity is available in the existing 300m watermain on Brock Road and available sanitary sewer capacity is available in the existing 200mm sanitary sewer on Brock Road • a road widening across the frontage of Brock Road is required • the Region has no objection to the applications and has provided conditions of approval Toronto and prior to grading of the site and registration of the draft Region plan of subdivision, the owner shall submit a revised Conservation functional site servicing report consistent with the Duffins Authority (TRCA) Precinct Southern Lands ESP Update Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 6 TRCA (continued) the owner shall enter into an agreement with the City committing to undertake the monitoring program as required in the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands ESP Update and provide a letter of credit for the full cost of the implementation of the monitoring program • a restrictive covenant shall be placed over the rear yards of all lots created adjacent to the open space block having the effect of prohibiting the removal of fences along the lot line and prohibition of the installation of gates or other access • the draft plan of subdivision shall be red -line revised to reflect an adjustment to the boundary of the development lots and the open space block further west for the purpose of maximizing compensatory plantings • the open space block as revised shall be conveyed to the TRCA for a nominal sum Engineering & . a subdivision agreement and a construction management Public Works plan will be required • the subdivision agreement will address, but not be limited to: road construction, easements, fencing, traffic management, and cost sharing • servicing requirements need to be in accordance with the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands ESP Update and an approved FSSR Durham District . staff has determined that sufficient space will be School Board available within existing schools to accommodate the proposed development in the Brock Ridge neigbourhood • elementary school students will be bused to attend Valley Farm Public School located on Pepperwood Gate in the Brock Ridge neighbourhood Durham Catholic elementary school students will be bused to attend District Board St. Wilfrid Catholic School located on Southcross Road in the Brock Ridge neighbourhood No other agency that provided comment had any objection to the subject applications. Technical issues and requirements can be addressed during the subdivision agreement process, if this application is approved. Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 7 2.4 Planning Analysis 2.4.1 The proposal conforms to the Pickering Official Plan The subject property is designated "Urban Residential Areas — Medium Density Areas" which requires a residential density range of over 30 dwellings per net hectare and up to and including 80 dwellings per net hectare. The density of this proposed development at 41.9 to 43.6 dwellings units per net hectare conforms. Technical and other housekeeping amendments to the Pickering Official Plan and Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines to implement the ESP Update are discussed in section 3. of this Report. Approval of these amendments is not required prior to the approval of the draft plan and zoning by -law. 2.4.2 Street A provides access to the subject property at a signalized intersection Access to the proposed development will be from Brock Road. One access road is proposed opposite the existing signalized T- intersection with Major Oaks Road, and the other access is proposed directly south of the Pickering Islamic Centre. The proposed north -south Street A connects the two access roads for circulation within the proposed plan. An existing development agreement with the Pickering Islamic Centre requires that upon construction of Street A, the existing driveway access to the Centre be relocated from Brock Road to Street A. The relocated access to Street A will assist in improving vehicular access to the Centre. Staff has also had recent preliminary discussions with the Pickering Islamic Centre about their plans to build an addition to the Centre as well as a parking structure. Residents on the west side of Brock Road expressed concern regarding the incidence of overflow parking on local residential streets, and the safety concerns of people crossing Brock Road. A parking structure would assist in addressing this concern. Within the subdivision, sidewalks will be required on both sides of each street except Streets D and Street E, where sidewalks will be only on one side. An enhanced sidewalk along the east side of Brock Road with a landscape buffer separating it from the road edge will be required in keeping with the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines. Resident and landowner concerns were expressed about the need for this draft plan to provide access for future development to both the north and south of the Kindwin lands. The applicant has demonstrated that Street A will provide the necessary access. 2.4.3 The revised location of the village green (park) is desirable, and children will be accommodated at existing schools To address an improved interface with the existing Pickering Islamic Centre adjacent the subject property, the draft plan was revised shifting Block 18 (Park) to the south opposite the Pickering Islamic Centre. Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 8 The park will serve a village green function, as opposed to having active play fields. The City will receive the Planning Act five percent parkland requirement through a combination of the dedication to the City of the 0.33 hectare Block 18 (Park) and the remainder as cash -in -lieu of parkland. Residents expressed concerns regarding the accommodation of children at elementary schools. The Durham District Public Board of Education has confirmed that it does not require a school site in Duffins Precinct, and has advised that children will be accommodated at Valley Farm Public Elementary School. The Durham Catholic District School Board has advised that children will be accommodated at St. Wilfrid Catholic Elementary School. 2.4.4 Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines are addressed by the staff recommended plan and conditions of draft approval , The Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines provide the following design objectives for the neighbourhood, being the provision of: • a range of housing types including detached, semi - detached, townhomes, and multi -unit dwellings • community and cultural facilities creating focal points within the Precinct, through building siting and architectural design • building form adjacent to Brock Road that is sensitive to the potential impacts of the road, but does not turn its back on it • streetscape and architectural designs that are aesthetically pleasing, diverse, encourages social interaction within a neighbourhood, and supports safe environments; and • development that embraces the natural environment The staff recommended plan achieves these design objectives. The lane townhouses will contribute to the urban aesthetic of the streetscape of Brock Road, and will be required to be a minimum of three storeys. The plan proposes a variety of dwelling types consisting of detached, semi - detached, and street and lane townhouses. The proposed development accommodates the open space block providing an opportunity for views into the natural environment. The Development Guidelines require that all developments submit a Siting and Architectural Design Statement. The Statement is to reflect the principles of the Guidelines, provide direction on the design of all dwelling models and elevations, and become a schedule to the subdivision agreement. The siting, massing, and fagade design of all townhouse units will be coordinated. A signature townhome design will be required at the north end of the lane townhomes to create a focal point at the southeast corner of the intersection of the Brock Road, and the northerly end of Street A. Particular attention will be required to the elevation details of the lane townhouse units proposed to front onto Brock Road as well as to the deck/garage condition at the rear lane. Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 9 2.4.5 Duffins Precinct Southern Lands ESP Update requirements will be satisfied as conditions of draft approval The Duffins Precinct Southern Lands ESP Update was completed as discussed earlier in section 1. of this report and sets out certain requirements that must be satisfied prior to development. These include, but are not limited to: completion of a Functional Servicing & Stormwater Report, a monitoring report, and provision of a watershed system monitoring and management fund contribution. The required reports will be reviewed for acceptance by the City and /or TRCA as part of the final subdivision approval process. The required monetary contributions will be secured through the recommended conditions of draft approval. 2.4.6 A cost sharing agreement is required Prior to the registration of the draft plan of subdivision, the City will require that the landowners' cost sharing agreement has been finalized and confirmation from the trustee, Bratty and Associates, that all of Kindwin's financial contribution has been provided. 2:4.7 Street names have been selected At the request of the Pickering Islamic Centre, the name `Usman' was proposed for Street A that will abut the Pickering Islamic Centre on its south side and circle back to Brock Road at the signalized intersection with Major Oaks Road. The background of the proposed name provided by the Pickering Islamic Centre is that `Usman' is the name of third Caliph, one of the most revered figures in Muslim history. The name has been cleared by the Region and has been placed on the reserved street name list for Pickering. Names for the remaining streets will be selected from this list. 2.4.8. The proposal achieves a Level 1 sustainability rating The applicant submitted a Sustainability Report that is based on the City's Draft Sustainability Guidelines. Staff have reviewed the report and rated the draft plan as achieving a Level 1 score. The proposed draft plan incorporated many of the elements set out in the Guidelines such as efficient use of land, increased residential density, environmental protection, native species planting, stormwater quality and quantity control, and community connections. Additional opportunities for element of sustainable development are available at the site plan application and building permit stage. Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 10 2.4.9 Technical matters to be addressed as conditions of subdivision approval To ensure appropriate development, City, Regional and agency requirements will be imposed as conditions of approval for the subdivision application. These conditions will address, matters such as but not limited to, on -site grading, landscaping, tree preservation, fencing, stormwater management and construction management. Council is requested to endorse the conditions of approval as set out in Appendix I to this Report. 2.4.10 Following the approval of draft plan of subdivision conditions, the site - specific zoning by -law will be finalized and forwarded to Council for enactment Staff supports the rezoning application and recommends that the site specific implementing by -law containing the standards attached as Appendix II to this report be brought before Council for enactment following approval by the Director, City Development, of the draft plan of subdivision conditions. The intention of the proposed zoning provisions and categories is to provide some flexibility, in particular areas of the subdivision, permitting a range of dwelling types while ensuring the minimum permitted density of 30 dwellings per net hectare of the "Medium Density Areas" designation is maintained. A range of detached, semi - detached, and street townhouse units will be permitted in Blocks 2 to 6. The zoning of Blocks 7 to 14 will permit street townhouse units only. Block 11 will be zoned to permit street townhouse units with a minimum 7.5 metre frontage to limit the number of driveways accessing Street A in close proximity to the Brock Road intersection. Blocks 15 to 17, which front onto Brock Road, will be zoned to permit lane townhouses. The proposed zoning provisions address building location performance standards to ensure an appropriate design for the neighbourhood including requiring a minimum of three storeys on Brock Road. The recommendations also contain zoning standards permitting a maximum number of model homes, regulating walk -out unit/deck designs, and to ensure that all dwellings have a minimum of two functional parking spaces per unit on private property and that the internal garage space is functional. Standards related to minimum front yard landscaped area are included to ensure a minimum amount of any front yard remains landscaped and will also control the maximum size of a driveway indirectly providing on- street parking opportunities where appropriate. Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 11 3. Official Plan Amendment and Development Guideline revisions 3.1 Revisions to the Regulatory Floodline necessitate changes to the Duffins Precinct development limits and the proposed new road connections Following completion of the 1999 EMSP, the TRCA completed updated hydrological and hydraulic modeling for Duffins Creek and issued new floodplain mapping in 2004.. This new floodplain mapping extended the Regulatory Floodline west almost to Brock Road approximately opposite Dellbrook Avenue, separating the developable land within Duffins Precinct into north and south areas, and making the north -south road connection proposed by Map 23 Neighbourhood 13: Brock Ridge of the Official Plan impractical. Public roads and access easements over private drive aisles will be required through zoning and site plan approval to connect properties in Duffins Precinct instead of the proposed north -south road network. Limited direct vehicular access to Brock Road for the most restricted properties north of Major Oaks Road will be considered by the Region. 3.2 The proposed public elementary school site is not needed The Durham Public School Board has completed an enrolment and school capacity analysis for the neighbourhood to determine the future needs of the Brock Ridge neighbourhood and has determined that sufficient space will be available within existing schools to accommodate the development in the Brock Ridge neighbourhood. Staff recommend the elimination of the Proposed Public Elementary School symbol from Map 23 of the Brock Ridge Neighbourhood policies. 3.3 Official Plan Amendment and revisions to the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines are required to implement the ESP Update Council endorsement of the ESP Update allows staff to prepare the necessary amendments to the City's Official Plan and revisions to the Duffins Precinct' Development Guidelines. To reflect the new information on the location of floodlines, that a school site is no longer required, and implement the ESP Update, staff recommend the following changes to the Official Plan: • Schedule I — Land Use Structure - revise "Natural Areas" designation to reflect an enlarged natural heritage system and revised limits of development; Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 12 • Schedule I I -Transportation System - revise the "Future Collector Road" to reflect a realignment to the west of the southern portion of the road and a deletion of the collector road in the north Brock Ridge Neighbourhood Policies - add monitoring, adaptive management and cost sharing (studies and stormwater management facilities) policies; and - revise Map 23 deleting the "Proposed Park ", "Proposed Public Elementary School" and revise the "New Road Connections (Proposed)" to reflect a realignment to the west of the proposed collector road For the same reasons as above, changes to the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines are required as follows: • insert reference to the ESP Update for the southern lands • delete reference to "school" and revise "park" to "village green" • revise the Net Developable Area, Minimum Permitted Units, and Maximum Permitted Units for Areas 3, 4 and 5 • permit the consideration of permanent vehicular access points to Brock Road subject to approval by the Region of Durham for properties north of Major Oaks Road • introduce "Terminal View" to section M1.4.6 Views and Vistas • revise section M1.4.7 School and Park Sites to address "Village Greens" and access to trail system • remove references to "`school" and "park" on Tertiary Plan • adjust the road network, "Development Areas ", "Top of Bank ", "Major Spink ESA Boundary", "Forested Area ", "Regional Flood Line ", and "Potential Storm Water Management Pond" on Tertiary Plan • revise "Building Focal Point" in Area 4 to "Terminal View" on Tertiary Plan; and • other minor revisions 4.0 Applicant's Comments The applicant is aware of the recommendations of this report and concurs. Report PLN 11 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation (SP- 2011 -04, A 17/11) Page 13 Appendices Appendix I Recommended Conditions of Approval Appendix II Recommended Zoning By -law Provisions Attachments 1. Location Map — Duffins Precinct 2. Duffins Precinct Southern Lands — Land Owners 3. Summary of the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update 4. Location Map — Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation 5. Applicant's Submitted Plan November 2011 6. Staff Recommended Plan Prepared By: 1 Deborah Wylie, YVICIP, RPP Senio Planner — Policy Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design DW:jf Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City,Council _ Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Approved /Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, M61 p, RPP (Acting) Chief Planner Thomas Melymuk� VICIP`,F Director, City Development z4, Zoi3 Appendix I to Report PLN 11 -13 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Recommended Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Part of Lot 18, Concession 2, City of Pickering Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation General Conditions The Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the draft plan of subdivision prepared by GHD, dated April 2013, Project No. 02112, to permit a residential subdivision consisting of 22 lane townhouses fronting onto Brock Road, 58 street townhouses, a range of 68 to 74 single detached and semi detached dwellings, a park block, a stormwater management facility block, an open space block, two future development blocks, and roadways, and that incorporates the following revisions and bearing the City's recommendation stamp: • 0.3 metre reserve across the entire frontage of Brock Road; and • red -line revisions required to accommodate recommendations resulting from technical studies required as conditions of approval. Financial 2. That the Owner implements appropriate measures and financial agreements, such as front - ending agreements, cost sharing agreements and /or development charges to ensure that the approval and development of the plan of subdivision does not cause a financial burden on the City of Pickering. 3. Cost sharing for the construction of the required stormwater management facility and portions of Street A is required and will be addressed in the subdivision agreement. Subdivision Agreement 4. That the Owner enters into a subdivision agreement with and to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering to ensure the fulfillment of the City's requirements, financial and otherwise, which shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the conditions outlined in this document. Zoning 5. That the implementing by -law for Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 17/11 becomes final and binding. Street Names 6. That street names and signage to be provided to the satisfaction of the Region and the City. Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Page 2 Development Charges & Fees 7. That the Owner satisfies the City financially with respect to the Development Charges Act. 8. That the Owner satisfies the City for contributions for development review and inspection fees. Phasing and Development Coordination 9. That if this subdivision is to be developed by more than one registration, the Owner will be required to submit a plan showing the proposed phasing, all to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City. 10. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the disposition of future development Blocks 21 and 22 which are to be developed in conjunction with abutting lands and that these blocks will be maintained to the satisfaction of the City until such time they are disposed of to the satisfaction of the City. 11. That the Owner satisfy 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. Dedications /Transfers /Conveyances 12. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost: (i) Block 18 for park purposes; and (ii) the dedication of all road allowances with the proper corner roundings and sight triangles to the City. 13. That Block 20 (open space) be conveyed to the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) for the nominal sum prior to the registration of the subdivision. 14. That the Owner conveys to the Region of Durham, at no cost: (i) Block 23 for road widening purposes (Brock Road); and (ii) 0.3 metre reserve across the entire frontage of the draft along Brock Road. Siting and Architectural Design 15. That the Owner, prior to the preparation of the subdivision agreement, shall engage a control architect, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development, who will prepare a siting and architectural design statement reflecting the principles of section 4.5 of the Duffins Precinct Development Guidelines to the City's satisfaction, approve all models offered for sale and certify that all building permit plans comply with the City's approved statement. The siting and architectural design statement will become a schedule to the subdivision agreement. Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Page 3 Parks and Village Greens 16. That the Owner convey to the City, Block 18 (park) at no cost and in a physical condition acceptable to the City for parkland dedication, in combination of the payment to the City of cash -in -lieu to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development, in order to satisfy Section 42(1) of the Planning Act. 17. That prior to the City accepting any park block, the Owner shall submit a facility fit plan with full grading information that demonstrates the park block will function to the satisfaction of the City. Sidewalks 18. Construction of the sidewalk on Brock Road adjacent to the site will be required. The City will contribute to this cost and it will be addressed in the subdivision agreement. 19. That the Owner agrees to install, to the satisfaction of the City, sidewalks on both sides of each street except Streets D and E, where sidewalks will be only on one side. Fencing 20. That the Owner satisfies 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. 21. That the Owner agrees to install, to the satisfaction of the City, the following fencing: (i) rear and south side of Lot 1 (Single Detached); (i) north side and rear of Block 2 (Single Detached /Semi - Detached); (ii) north and east sides of Block 5 (Single Detached /Semi- Detached); (iii) rear and east side of Block 6 (Single Detached /Semi - Detached); (iv) south side of Block 15 (Lane Townhouses). (v) south sides of Blocks 7 and 8 adjacent to Block 18 (Park); (vi) adjacent to and along the north and south edges of Block 19 (stormwater management pond); and (vii) adjacent to Block 20 (Open Space); 22. That the Owner satisfy the City respecting the provision of appropriate aesthetic details and design of all boundary fencing. 23. That the Owner provides a fixed payment satisfactory to the City to provide for the long term maintenance and repairs of items such as enhancements to fences, entrance feature walls, medians that exceed the City's normal standards and which are requested by the subdivider. Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Page 4 Noise Attenuation 24. That the Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to implement noise control measures and warning clauses as recommended in the report, Environmental Noise Assessment, prepared by YCA Engineering dated November 2011. Construction Management Plan 25. 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 as per the Erosion & Sediment Control Guideline for Urban Construction; (ii) addressing the parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and house construction, and ensuring that such locations will not impede the flow of traffic or emergency vehicles on either existing streets or the proposed public street; (iii) assurance 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; and (vii) details of the temporary construction access. Landscaping 26. That the Owner submits a street tree planting plan to the satisfaction of the City. 27. That the Owner satisfy the Director, City Development with the submission of a tree preservation plan which will illustrate the protection of trees and other natural features where appropriate, with specific attention to preservation in all pubic open spaces prior to the approval of a preliminary grading plan. Engineering Plans 28. That the Owner ensure that the engineering plans be coordinated with the streetscape /siting and architectural design statement and further that the engineering plans coordinate the driveway, street hardware and street trees to ensure that conflicts do not exist, asphalt is minimized and all objectives of the streetscape/ siting and architectural design statement can be achieved. 29. 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. Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Page 5 30. That the engineering plans be coordinated with the architectural design objectives. Easement 31. That the Owner convey to the City, at no cost, any easements as required; and, any reserves as required by the City. 32. That the Owner 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. 33. That the Owner arrange at no costs to the City any easements required on third party lands for servicing and such easements shall be in a location as determined by the City and /or the Region and are to be granted upon request at any time after the draft approval. 34. That the Owner satisfy to the satisfaction of the Director, Engineering and Public Works Department any required easement for works, facilities or use rights that are required by the City of Pickering. Stormwater 35. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works Department respecting a stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provisions regarding easements. 36. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering and Public Works Department for contributions for downstream stormwater management. 37. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering and Public Works Department for acquisition of land, design and implementation of stormwater facility and easements for outfalls and access to the outfalls. Grading 38. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering and Public Works Department respecting submission and approval of a grading and control plan. 39. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering and Public Works Department respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis. 40. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering and Public Works Department respecting the authorization from abutting land owners for all off -site grading. Fill & Topsoil By -law 41. The City's Fill & Topsoil By -law prohibits soil disturbance, removal or importation to the site unless a permit has been issued. No on -site works prior to draft plan approval is permitted. A Fill and Topsoil Permit will be required should grading works proceed prior to a subdivision agreement. Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Page 6 Services 42. That the Owner satisfy the Director, Engineering and Public Works Department respecting construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs through the submission and approval of a site servicing plan. 43. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City. 44. That the Owner satisfy the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services. 45. 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. 46. The Owner shall provide for the extension of such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities which are external to, as well as within, the limits of this plan that are required to service this plan. In addition, the Owner shall provide for the extension of sanitary sewer and water supply facilities within the limits of the plan which are required to service other developments external to this subdivision. Such sanitary sewer and water supply facilities are to be designed and constructed according to the standards and requirements of the Region of Durham. All arrangements, financial and otherwise for said extensions are to be made to the satisfaction of the Region and are to be completed prior to final approval of this plan. Environmental 47. That the Owner submits a reliance letter pertaining to the Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by Soil Engineers Ltd., to the Region of Durham, or submit a Record of Site Condition to the Ministry of Environment. Other Approvals 48. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham, the TRCA, Ministry of Natural Resources, Ministry of the Environment or any utility for the development of this plan be obtained by the subdivider, and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City as verification of these approvals. Duffins Precinct Southern Lands ESP Update & FSSR 49. That the Owner satisfies the City regarding all matters required by the final Duffins Precinct. Southern Lands Environmental Servicing Plan Update ( Duffins Precinct Southern Lands ESP Update) (Final version, November 2012). Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Page 7 50. That the Owner shall enter into an agreement with the City committing to undertake the monitoring program as required by the Duffins Precinct Southern Lands ESP Update and provide a letter of credit to the City for the full cost of the implementation of the monitoring program. 51. That the Owner shall agree to achieve the water balance targets, through the implementation of appropriate infiltration measures as identified in the final and approved version of Functional Site Servicing Report (FSSR). Traffic - Roads 52. That the Owner satisfies the City that appropriate arrangements have been established for the installation of traffic control signals, including all costs, in a time frame acceptable to the City, which includes installation of signals in advance of warrants. Model Homes 53. That the Owner enters into a model home agreement with the City, if applicable for this draft plan. All model homes must satisfy all requirements of the siting and architectural design statement. Fire 54. That the Owner agrees that no development will proceed on any land until adequate services are available including adequate water pressure to the satisfaction of the City's Fire Services Division. 55. That the Owner provides a fire break plan and other fire prevention measures to the satisfaction of the City of Pickering. Development Blocks 56. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the disposition of future development blocks and acquisition of abutting severed parcels prior to draft plan approval. This may require properties merging on title and that no building permit shall be requested until any land assembling has been completed to the satisfaction of the City. Canada Post 57. That the Owner, through the approval of a Utility Coordination Plan for the location(s), is to enter into an agreement with Canada Post Corporation for the provision of a Community Mailbox(es) including technical specifications, notice requirements and financial terms. Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Page 8 58. That the Owner agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location, if required, to the satisfaction of the City. Plan Revisions 59. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the draft plan of subdivision and associated conditions of approval may require revisions, to the satisfaction of the City to implement or integrate any recommendation resulting from studies required as conditions of approval. 60. That the Owner revise the draft plan, as necessary to the satisfaction of the City to accommodate any technical engineering issues which arise during the review of the final engineering drawings. Required revisions may include revising the number of residential building lots or reconfiguring the roads or lots to the City's satisfaction. 61. That the Owner agrees to implement the requirements of all studies that are required by the City for the development of this draft plan of subdivision to the satisfaction of the City. Timing 62. That the owner, agree in the subdivision agreement that it will not commence any construction works (including site servicing, topsoil stripping and grading) on the subject property until the works required for the construction of the regional services to service the subdivision have commenced. Endangered Species Act 63. That the owner satisfy the Endangered Species Act prior to any site alteration and the City be provided by the Owner with confirmation from the Ministry of Natural Resources of their approval. Agreement Clauses 64. The subdivision agreement between the Owner and the City shall contain, among other matters, the following provisions: (i) That 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. (ii) That the Owner agree not to initiate a marketing campaign or take any offers of sale and purchases or take any reservations of lots until the final Duffins Precinct Southern Lands ESP Update and the FSSR have been approved by the City and the land needs for the stormwater management facilities have been accepted by the City. Conditions of Approval Draft Plan of Subdivision SP- 2011 -04 Page 9 (iii) That the Owner agrees to implement those noise control measures recommended in the noise report required in condition 23. (iv) That the Owner agrees, in wording acceptable to the TRCA, to: (a) carry out, or cause to be carried out, to the satisfaction of the TRCA, the recommendations of the technical reports including a revised FSSR; (b) agree to, and implement, the requirements of the TRCA's conditions in wording acceptable to the TRCA; (c) design and implement on site erosion and sediment control; (d) obtain all necessary permits pursuant to Ontario Regulation 166/06, as amended, from the TRCA; (e) erect a permanent fence, to the satisfaction of the City and TRCA, along the boundary of the development blocks and Block 20 (Open Space); (f) implement all water balance /infiltration measures identified in the approved FSSR; (g) commit to provide appropriate information to all perspective buyers of lots adjacent to Block 20 (Open Space) through all agreements for purchase and sale, sales information, and community maps to ensure that the land owners are well informed that private use and /or access to the open space blocks shall not be permitted, and reflect the intent of the following: "The open space adjacent to the subject property is considered to be part of the publicly owned natural heritage system and will be maintained for environmental protection, and public use purposes. Please note that uses such as private picnics, barbeque or garden areas; and /or the dumping of refuse (e.g. grass /garden clippings household compostable goods, garbage etc.) are not permitted on these lands. In addition, access to the valley corridor such as private rear yard gates and /or ladders is prohibited." (v) That the Owner agrees to, and implements, the requirements of the Region of Durham conditions in wording acceptable to the Region. (vi) That the Owner agrees to maintain all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures operating and in good repair during the construction period, in a manner satisfactory to the City, TRCA and /or the Ministry of Natural Resources. (vii) That the Owner agrees to include provisions whereby all offers of purchase and sale shall include information that for all dwelling units with a single car garage that the City's by -laws require two parking spaces for the dwelling which have been provided, one in the garage and one in the driveway and that the City's by -law restricts the width of the driveway to a maximum size width which does not allow two cars parked side by side. J: \Documents \Development \D -3200 Draft Plans of Subdivision (SP Applications)\2011 \SP- 2011 -04, A 17 -11 Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation 2095 Brock Rd\Conditions \Conditions. doc Appendix II to Report PLN 11 -13 Recommended Zoning By -law Provisions for Zoning By -law Amendment Application A 17/11 r r 4- a CO O'4 .y M O L Q as t C ._ E O N C � O O E �a E m E V m C .O N a) O t C O a) U (0 a) .a 1 E co a) CD U = O a) •�5 O C a C O 4-- c O � O E a) L a) -0 = c cn O U � (a ._ 'a E O a) U CL m �O cn O O C � C =_ N a] :_ a) C cn m � O E� a) c E O a) CU CU -0 cu V- O m (� pr C: c 0 N O O Q O a) O C U U� — O O X O t = E a) — ca ca — cn CU N 3 to L cn a) ui a) O to m�— -ate"= a H a) s O a) a) O m a) c a) N d E cn LO 0 E >, ' -O It E J O O N E 0 c LO N co m U to N O c6 'L L W N O 7 N a% O (6 0� C O U �� O O O N — cn CU co C6 N cn O cn 0 O U m: _ a) � U a) L r � +� a) �+ .L. O = L O +� E N E a) E E( E >,.L O E O O —_ N E �� d LO N co -0 Om �— 2i f0 U cn N cu L r- a) a) Q O N U .a V N O C cu a) tn— >,(p co CD, c^n,, N o a) � c^^n,, ^v^i, .� E cn co � M _a O O0 0 N co ca U -0 N (D Q) ) C cn •— O O O a) c 0 L a " a) 0 a E ca c a= p U) 3 N L ca `� cn a) cn cn -0 o a) E a) ca a) cn m a) a- a) m .� m a) a) ca E N E E E° a) E E (D O N In O c�'a N C y� a) N a) O N N co M O .Q M N O a) N E E E E E OL. E L E d E O E �+ s Y J� J� J� O U- L. L cu L O 3 E O E— L am E ai m E O o m Cs cn Jo cli cn vi CD co Z � a cn O N a) E E cn cn 3 H *+ a) N E O m :3 Q� E a) n U) s. CO V/ O r— co r I 0 Ln LO r cb a) E cn E v a) 1 ai N E U L m •� E E a) a vii Q N O M O O LO � Ln cn N O O CD E CD E N O EL O O Q cn C O a) r 1 L Sri LO r - 0 d Y aL-. U O CU CL c tm :tf E c O a_ O of C D _ c0 4) > C t C s_ �� K �•� C X .E K 2i U -c o) -c a) O N •> M _ J 0Qm,. L. L cu cu m o vi � a 0) E 3 0 L Q� cu E O E cu v E Q X f6 CL E C O � Ln N O CL E O O C O a) N D > - 0 Y aL-. U O CU CL c E :tf E c O C O C C O CAS C O CU 0 O O 2i U -c o) -c a) O N Oc 3: C cu C CA 3 t0 cm C N -0 L N N co O O U _Q -o to CL C 0 > U C •E C N N U m CA N ON-O .L �� OO U CA C O m L �Y �_ O C cu O E a) �, C L Q CA " E L a) Q (D 0 - N Q O v E E E Y N cu U 0EEE -� U - C C cu E E E a • • • • ~ >, N M L. PARK C C�IIIII� "RO CORRIDOR A7, MMEMT- TO REpOr;" -AX Av //-/3 LOCATION MAP DUFFINS PRECINCT T 0 U III M II0 [-,.. U P5� 0 a LANDS I I i THIS WP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PUNNING & DEVEAOPA/£NT DEPARTMENT, INFORAUTiON & SUPPORT SERVICES APR 73, 7013. ROAD • I U O m m ,T, ?,CHME aT #— '-2—To ic-p8w* 3, 4 A,' 1-3 DUFFINS PRECINCT SOUTHERN LANDS LAND OWNERS MAP ANSAR MEDICAL 2185 2143087 ONTARIO LIMITED 2055 Q Q I a FE i (i / I \ T FULL SCALE COP /£S OF TH£ APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, APRIL 17, 2013. ANSAR MEDICAL 2177 MATTACCHIONE VINCENZA I T 2165 � ' E BAPTIST CONVENTION 2 ERP RISES B KINDWIND DEV. CORP. 2095, 2077 PICKERING ISLAMIC CENTER 2109 PICKER! ISLAMIC CENTER I I 2143087 ONTARIO LIMITED 2055 Q Q I a FE i (i / I \ T FULL SCALE COP /£S OF TH£ APPLICANTS SUBMITTED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, APRIL 17, 2013. AT �'I ME T #-a__ -__TO Duffins Precinct — Southern Lands — Final November 2011 Environmental Servicing Plan Update Summary 1.0 New development limits established by individual environmental impact studies Natural heritage conditions were documented in the 1999 EMSP. Individual scoped Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) completed for individual development applications will update the natural heritage conditions, define the development limits for each property and provide recommendations on the protection and enhancement of the natural heritage system. The results of the EISs will be incorporated into the ESP Update. Natural heritage features, associated buffers and development limits were established in the individual EISs for 2177 and 2185 Brock Road (Ansar), 2077 and 2095 Brock Road (Kindwin) and 2055 Brock Road (2143087 Ontario Ltd.). 2.0 Approval of appropriate stormwater management strategies required to address water balance Scoped EISs for development applications identified two features that will be impacted by development: a draw feature on 2177 and 2185 Brock Road (Ansar) and a wetland of approximately 0.74 hectares consisting of two hydraulically connected wetlands (a smaller bulrush mineral marsh and a larger treed swamp) located within the Phase 2 lands at the east property limit of 2055 Brock Road (2143087 Ontario Ltd.). It is recommended that the wetland be retained with a buffer of 15 metres and a 10 metre setback from the Regional floodline. A water balance analysis has identified an infiltration deficit for this wetland which will be mitigated by augmenting the wetland with approximately 1.3 hectares of clean roof runoff from 2055 and 2077 Brock Road. Mitigation of a wetland identified by TRCA at 2095, Brock Road (Kindwin) is not required as the wetland will not be impacted by development. The remaining parcels within the southern lands will be required to complete a scoped EIS and confirm or re- establish the limit of development including top -of- bank, floodlines, erosion setbacks, feature limits and appropriate buffers in support of a development application. 3.0 The stormwater management strategy includes a wet pond providing quality and erosion control for the entire Duffins Precinct southern lands development area Minor and major flows for 2177 and 2185 Brock Road (Ansar) will be handled by on -site stormwater management controls and low impact development measures that meet the quality and erosion control criteria and discharged easterly to the existing Duffins Creek tributary. ANT #....1._ -70 Re�ORi'* PL. N IL-1 3 Storm sewers for the remaining properties will direct minor system flows to a proposed wet stormwater management pond (SWMP) providing quality and erosion control recommended to be located at 2077 Brock Road ( Kindwin) discharging east to Duffins Creek. It is recommended that this facility be constructed at the time of providing underground services to a registered plan of subdivision and be functional prior to the construction of residential dwelling units. ** *The location of this facility was considered in the context of maximizing the limited amount of developable lands and by making use of the natural heritage buffers and corridors, where possible. * ** Major flows up to the 100 year event may be directed to Duffins Creek via internal road systems as overland flow. It is recommended to co- locate minor and major systems together beyond the development limits where grading, permits in order to minimize environmental impacts. The detailed design of the proposed SWMP and local storm sewer systems will be implemented through subsequent functional stormwater and servicing reports that are required in support of development applications. Quality, erosion, quantity controls and water balance criteria will be applied to all developments within the southern lands. Costs for stormwater management facilities will be included in the landowners' cost sharing agreement. 4.0 A cost sharing agreement will ensure up front infrastructure costs are equitably shared The major land owners in Duffins Precinct are required to enter into a cost sharing agreement covering studies, roads, oversizing of services and a stormwater management pond. Presently five landowners (Mattachione, Baptist Convention, Kindwin Development Corporation, Pickering Islamic Centre and 2143087 Ontario Limited) are contributing members to a draft cost sharing agreement. As Ansar's servicing and stormwater will be handle by on -site stormwater management controls and low impact development measures, Ansar is participating in the landowners' agreement to address the required studies. The agreement will be administrated by a trustee (Bratty and Associates), to ensure all landowners pay their proportional share of the cost to develop the neighbourhood. Prior to the registration of any draft plan of subdivision or zoning /site plan approval, the City will require that the cost sharing agreement has been finalized and that confirmation has been received from the trustee that all of a developer's financial contribution has been provided. Page 2 ATT�T'HMENT - TO RI`PDXI-1 ', PL N //-/3 5.0 Primary access will be from Brock Road at the existing signalized intersection opposite Major Oaks Drive Primary access to the southern Duffins Precinct lands will be from Brock Road, a Type A arterial, at the existing signalized T- intersection opposite Major Oaks Drive. A secondary STOP controlled access will be provided approximately 225 metres to the south of the Major Oaks Drive intersection. Access to adjacent developments within the southern lands will be provided by an extension of a north -south collector road or private easements. 6.0 Most of the development will be within a 400m walk of transit stops Duffins Precinct will be served by existing Durham Region Transit Routes 112, 122, and Claremont Community Bus operating on Brock Road by providing transit stops at the two proposed accesses. Most of the development will be within a 400m walk of these proposed transit stops. Currently, there are existing transit stops on Brock Road at Major Oaks Drive and at Brockridge Community Park. Brock Road will become a higher -order transit corridor including bus rapid transit. 7.0 Monitoring is to be divided into a watershed system monitoring and management program, and a mitigation measures and best management practices monitoring program To assess the effectiveness of the stormwater management measures recommended by the ESP Update and to provide further recommendations for adjustments to the measures proposed, the ESP Update recommends that the Duffins Precinct monitoring program be comprised of the following: • a watershed system monitoring and management program undertaken by TRCA; and • a mitigation measures and best management practices monitoring program undertaken by the landowners and /or the City. 7.1 Watershed system monitoring and management program A single monitoring program for the complete Duffins Creek Watershed is being undertaken by the TRCA, in consultation with the City of Pickering and the Town of Ajax. An overall monitoring and management program is to be developed for each community, with input from the respective ESPs. Once the program has been established and the required funding calculated, a per hectare cost for the monitoring program will be applied as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval on a development parcel basis for all of the lands to be developed in Duffins Precinct. Page 3 ATMOMENTO =TO REPOR ii O , , P4 Al &/3 7.2 Adaptive management framework A one -time financial contribution by the Duffins Precinct landowners to a `Duffins Watershed Adaptive Management Fund' is recommended to be maintained by the City and used in consultation with TRCA to identify the need for changes to the watershed management system. The amount of the contribution is to be determined through further consultation between the Duffins Precinct Landowners Group, the City and TRCA. As the watershed program is fully developed, additional funding will be assessed to other benefitting development interests within the Duffins Watershed including Duffins Precinct. 7.3 Mitigation measures and best management practices The purpose of this monitoring program is to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that the stormwater management works, including low impact development measures have been constructed and are operating as per the approved engineering design and the Ministry of the Environment Certificate of Approval. Further discussions between the City and the Duffins Precinct Landowners Group, in consultation with TRCA, are recommended to establish the scope of monitoring taking into consideration the monitoring programs implemented for Duffin Heights and Seaton, who will be responsible for the monitoring, the funding mechanism, frequency /period, and reporting requirements. Based on recommendations of TRCA, a specific monitoring program commenced in September 2012, for the wetland located at the south limit of the study area and will continue through the construction period. The monitoring data will be presented to TRCA. 8.0 Capacity exists for sanitary and watermain services The Region of Durham has confirmed that there is water capacity available on Brock Road. An existing 300mm diameter PVC watermain runs along the east side of Brock Road and continues south to Kingston Road. An existing 200mm diameter sanitary sewer runs south along the Brock Road right -of -way. The Region of Durham has indicated that there is available capacity in the existing 200mm sanitary sewer for the Duffins Precinct southern lands. J: \Documents \Development \D -3200 Draft Plans of Subdivision (SP Applications)\2011 \SP- 2011-04, A 17 -11 Kindwin (Brock) Development Corporation 2095 Brock RMRecommendation report\ESPUpdate summary.doc Page 4 ATTACHMENT # L REPatN0 PG Al Mon ►I \� �� •• 111 �� 7 I�1e j a ~ CHURCH .... ........ ............................... . . . .. ... . . . ..... . . . .. . . . . .. . . .. . . .. . ... . . .... :. . ; . . . . ..... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . go 40 .. . . . . . . . ... .... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . : . . . :......... ........ ......... .......... . ........ ........ ......... ....... IWOR .:.:.; I� KIM .. ,. 000 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN ATTAUNW0 —TO KINDWIN (BROCK) DEVELOPMENT CORP. SP- 2011 -04 & A 17/11 SUBMITTED NOVEMBER 2011 FUT. DEVELOPMENT BLOCK 24 (n03 n,) R/R1E 30 � ­1o,65 R SrREETA c 9.1 m(MIN) Single Detached / 8.7 m Semi - Detached R 6 o.y. 14 Min. Units /15 Max. Units / ea ° o. lo, 7.5 JSI JS1 zs zsl zs ,s5 ae BLOCK 6 SWM BLOCK 21 n I B 4OCKLL 1 ho - ae e<) >5 2io i, SYREtT T.FL P ,ae ° STREETS '. o. u Z = 13 Oq 1� 1 -1 ,a.fi -_ 3e, 29.9 = ''— I SITRE,ET T.7. 36.3 'p 10.35 75 JS 7.5 7.5 >.5 7.5 I ° n Ile — e Ly w �^ a STREET E u �j R• o I o � i.� ,n35 Is 7.s J.sI 5I .5 7,5 ,o.35 I I 5J0 .= o B�1IoCJ14> e1 h S 'I T ITA 16 = o I n y PARK E E I 3J7 m N By °C� BLOCK 20 U m o ro m t ^ fly ul I T7T IT.I{. � S R 7.5 J.5 5 J.5 ta. 10.35 7. U .. \ m x U ._ W ; 'E x fi0 O < .5 .s m o STREET D R° ° - Ile9 28.6 F- p O m U MO y �t,.t F— LLW N N N -E m �� i n FUT. DEVELOPMENT '70 — a3—N36 ,�N '5, 3 BLOCK 25 m E E N a 3 °.° I 8404 I I° III -1. {II E p� 71 ]SIRS SIT 5199 T. DEVELOPMENT R. ° STREET B o BLOCK 26 a 2 56.2 o n ) 9.1m(MIN) Single Detached/ e.7 msemi- Detach, OPEN SPACE 1 ° STREET A 10 Min. Units / 11 . units BLOCK 23 BLOCK 7 0 (0.,o he - 0.3 i i i OPEN SPACE G BLOCK 22 0.09 ha - 2.7 aa) 70 ■ ■ 0 F_ i FUT. DEVELOPMENT ( I BLOCK 27 (a03 ha) ■ 1 UMIT OF COMMERCM - - — - - — - - FOCUS ADVISORY RME1 T FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANTS SUBM/7TED PLAN ARE AVAILABLE FOR KEWING AT THE C17Y OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, FEB 1, 2012. ATT&C" MI EW % TO STAFF RECOMMENDED PLAN KINDWIN (BROCK) DEVELOPMENT CORP. SP- 2011 -04 & A 17/11 SUBMITTED APRIL 2013 too 1 "; R. OPEN SPACE zs 2iO tao uI a6 S RE T .HIH Ita25 _ A °' Sq STREET B BLOCK ; 9 BLOCK 20 U Z . v o � 2].0 2].0 � 2J0 3t.0 IJ la: 11 S-rEfT f.NJe I o = J.5 J.5 J.5 .5 1S5 1J0 ' m� u STREET E a �.o R4 o o 1-1-1-1-17.51T517.5 7-116 In In L L E E I nT NI BB 1 J. - ROAD WIDENING BLOCK 23 TRC S ET T. Q i E FUT. DEVELOPMENT 2 o BLOCK 21 w \ W � � F Y w cYS� Q � -1os -o rs °1120 n x m(MIN) Single Detached / 8,7 m Semi - Detached 1 59.1 STREEfA o [9.1 13 Units R`o ° BLOCK 5 yo R`o 1Q0 a ¢ 7.51765 ].5 ].5 J.5 J.5 BL C 1 ,Jqt SWM too 1 "; R. OPEN SPACE zs 2iO tao uI a6 S RE T .HIH Ita25 _ A °' Sq STREET B BLOCK ; 9 BLOCK 20 U Z . v o � 2].0 2].0 � 2J0 3t.0 IJ la: 11 S-rEfT f.NJe I o = J.5 J.5 J.5 .5 1S5 1J0 ' m� u STREET E a �.o R4 o o 1-1-1-1-17.51T517.5 7-116 In In L L E E I nT NI BB 1 J. - TRC S ET T. Q i E o I 24. s- tao —I o 6BL C 1 ° StREVT IT.q N W � � F Y w cYS� Q � x m� W n x 1 59.1 Y F u STREET D - 261 27.0 °n N o ■ m z d � I (�j zoo PARK 6 0 FUT. DEVELOPMENTR BLOCK 18 E m f+ C 4J BLOCK 22 10.51 n. - ae ac.) m EASnNG YOSWE A 56n 0 — 54.5 J.0 STREET B 0 '1,' 'C5 92 P4 .2 _ BLOCK 6 N o STREETA 9.-( —) Single e.7 S1,n- Detum<d Oet,,h,d/ �. 10 Units J s I I i I Z L0 T z O` 1 FULL SCALE COPIES OF THE APPLICANT'S SUBM PL ITTED AN ARE AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING AT THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS MAP WAS PRODUCED BY THE CITY OF PICKERING PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, INFORMATION & SUPPORT SERVICES, APRIL 17. 2013. city °O Report to _ Planning &Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 12 -13 Date: May 6, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Rogers Communications Inc. Petticoat Creek Park Installation #47 Recommendation: That Rogers Communications Inc. be advised that City Council supports the location of the proposed 45 metre high telecommunication tower installation at Petticoat Creek Park; and 2. Further, that staff be authorized to work with Rogers Communications Inc. to investigate an alternative architectural design of the telecommunication tower to better camouflage the structure and improve visual harmony with the surrounding natural area. Executive Summary: Rogers Communications Inc. originally submitted a proposal for a 35 metre high telecommunications tower installation located at Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) lands (see original location on Location Map, Attachment #1). At the July 17, 2012 Open House Information Session, Rogers and the TRCA proposed an alternate location within Petticoat Creek Park in response to comments and concerns received from area residents (see alternate location on Location Map, Attachment #1). Rogers is now proposing a 45 metre high telecommunication tower installation located approximately 110 metre southwest of the parking lot and splash pad within Petticoat Creek Park. The proposed location of the tower and equipment compound provides a minimum 195 metre separation between the installation and the nearest residential dwelling. A number of residents who attended the Open House Information Meeting Session were in support of the alternative location in Petticoat Creek Park. In view of the public consultation conducted by the applicant, the processing of this application through this report is not considered contrary to Council's resolution respecting cell towers. The proposed location provides an appropriate separation between the installation and the residential properties and the amenity areas of the park. The heavily treed section of Petticoat Creek Park further buffers the residential properties. Report PLN 12 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 2 City staff are supportive of the proposed installation, but will continue to work with Rogers to better camouflage the structure and improve visual harmony with the surrounding natural area. It is recommended that Rogers Communication Inc. be advised that City Council supports the 45 high metre high telecommunication tower location in the Petticoat Creek Park, subject to the applicant improving the design of the tower to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed telecommunication tower installation. 1. Background 1.1 Applicant's Proposal Rogers Communications Inc. submitted an application on June 4, 2012 requesting Council's concurrence for the installation of a 35 metre high telecommunication tower located on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) lands at Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive (see Location Map, Attachment #1). In response to comments and concerns received from area residents, Rogers and the TRCA provided an alternative location in Petticoat Creek Park (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The proposal consists of a 45 metre high tri -pole shrouded telecommunication tower installation and equipment compound including a proposed 1.8 metre high board fence surrounding the compound and proposed planting for screening. The tower is located approximately 110 metres southwest of the parking lot and adjacent splash pad. It provides a minimum 195 metre separation between the installation and the nearest residential dwelling (see Petticoat Creek Park Aerial Plan, Attachment #2). Additionally, the tower was changed from a 35 metre high monopole to a 45 metre high shrouded tri -pole in to order to address the elevation of the new site and to accommodate future co- location on this tower. 1.2 Property Location and Description The site is located in Petticoat Creek Park, which is owned by the TRCA, and is designated "Active Recreational Areas" within the Pickering Official Plan, and is zoned '02'- Public Open Space Zone in By -law 2511, as amended. The installation of a telecommunication tower is permitted under the public utilities exemption in By -law 2511. The Petticoat Creek Park area surrounds the tower and residential uses are located to the south and west. Report PLN 12 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 3 2. Comments Received 2.1 Required Public Notification has been completed City Development Department staff are currently in the process of developing a protocol respecting the installation of telecommunication towers for City Council's consideration. In the absence of a City protocol, applicants must follow Industry Canada's requirements as outlined in the Client Procedures Circular (CPC) 2 -0- 03 Issue 4, entitled "Radio communication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems ". Industry Canada requirements for public consultation require the proponent to consult with the land use authority, and all property owners within a radius of three times the tower height, measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure. For structures 30 metres or more in height, proponents are required to place a notice in a local community newspaper circulating in the area. Based on the original 35 metre tower height, the proposed installation required notification to owners within a 105 metre radius of the base of the tower. Rogers in consultation with TRCA and the City, extended the notification requirements and notified the community of Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive, east and south of the CN Rail train tracks. The applicant provided written notification by regular mail on June 15, 2012 to the property owners in the Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive community, and placed a notice of the proposed installation in the June 20, 2012 edition of the Pickering News Advertiser. Written correspondence was received from 11 members of the public, predominately from the Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive neighbourhood. The comments and concerns received include: Rogers site selection process; siting the tower in close proximity of a residential neighbourhood; loss of property values; locating the tower on TRCA lands; the aesthetics of the cell tower; health concerns related to emissions from a cell tower; and environmental impacts. Given the number of concerns identified by the area residents, Rogers held an Open House Information Session (which is not mandated by Industry Canada) on July 17, 2012 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre to allow the members of the public, the TRCA, the City and Rogers to exchange information on the proposal. A total of 22 members of the public attended. Rogers responded to all comments and concerns that were expressed by the area residents, and presented an alternative location in Petticoat Creek Park, approximately 195 metres away from the nearest residential property. A number of residents expressed support for the alternative location in Petticoat Creek Park (see Public Consultation Written Correspondence and Public Meeting Minutes and Response Report , Attachments #4 and #5). Report PLN 12 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 4 Rogers has advised that the proposed 45 metre high tower; which requires a notification to all owners within 135 metre radius of the base of the tower, does not require further notification to owners (as it is all owned by TRCA) and meets the requirements of Industry Canada. 2.2 Co- location opportunities have been examined The installation and creation of separate, stand alone, radio communication towers and broadcasting facilities is discouraged unless all other co- location options have been explored and are considered unfeasible. The closest telecommunication tower in this area is located at Granite Court, is outside of the search area, and does not provide available space to properly serve their coverage objectives. The applicant has indicated that the proposed tower design will accommodate future co- location requirements. 2.3 Council's Resolutions May 2011, City Council passed Resolution #102/11 requesting Industry Canada to cease consideration of communication towers in any residential area of Pickering in order to establish criteria for all matters pertaining to land use for the installation of these towers (see Council Resolution, Attachment #6). This resolution was a response to a number of cell tower installations that were erected without municipal and \or public consultation, specifically a proposed tower installation under 15 metres at 1820 Whites Road. The Whites Road proposal precipitated an earlier Council resolution in April 2011 requesting that Industry Canada reverse approval of the tower and amend its policies to require municipal consultation on all installations, regardless of height (see Resolution #87/11, Attachment #7). The applicant has provided confirmation that this proposed installation has been publicly circulated in accordance with Industry Canada requirements and the proposal is now before Committee and Council for consideration. In view of the public consultation and Council engagement associated with this proposal, the processing of this application through this report is not considered contrary to Council's resolution. 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 Proposed Tower Location is Acceptable Rogers and TRCA accommodated the request from area residents to locate the tower further away from the Rodd Avenue and Bella Vista Drive area. The proposed tower and equipment compound provides an appropriate separation and buffer between the installation and the residential dwellings in the surrounding area and the amenity areas of the park. Staff support the proposed location of this telecommunication tower installation at Petticoat Creek Park, but will continue to work with Rogers to better camouflage the structure and improve visual harmony with the surrounding natural area. Report PLN 12 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 5 Attachments 1.. Location Map 2. Petticoat Creek Park Aerial Plan 3. Typical 45 metre shrouded Telecommunication Tri -pole Structure 4. Written correspondence list and comments submitted at Public Open House 5. Applicant's Public Meeting minutes and Response Report 6. City Council Resolution #102/11 7. City Council Resolution #87/11 Prepared By: Cristina Celebre Senior Planner — Development Review & Heritaqe. I II Nilesh Surti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design CC: jf Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City Council _ Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Approved /Endorsed By: C/ - -- lzto., Catherine Rose, MC , RPP (Acting) Chief Planner Thomas MelymWk, MCIP, R Director, City Development 17,20(3 ATUMMENU, I TO REPOoRT# ., PL N id -13 MAITLAND DRIVE z z T p a w T p w V) Q w O 00 u z S N W ° Y 0 RT z Q M s Cn STAGHORN ROAD COWAN . CIRCLE O O� O°O GILLMOSS GILLMOSS 3: ROAD Y Q O W ROUGEMOUNT DRIVE � U a °a0 I � PETTICOAT CREEK Ln 0 0 NOMAD RD. �� CONSERVATION AREA O m ALTERNATE w LOCATION OF 0 45m HIGH CELL TOWER R UGE RIGINAL OCATION O ` P K CELL TOWER 1 � o0 RODD AVENUE w Z � ee <<9 ° O VISTA LAKE ONTARIO City of Pickering City Development Department PROPERTY DESCRIPTION B.F.0 RANGE 2 Pt. Lt. 30, 40R -6062 PART 1 Save & Except 40R -24954 Pt. 1 OWNER T.R.C.A DATE April 3, 2013 DRAWN BY JB FILE No. Installation # 47 SCALE 1:5,000 CHECKED BY TB N aTeranet Enterprises In.. and its suppliers. All rights Reserved. Nat a plan of s„rve,.. PN -1 2012 MPAC and its sup liens. All ri hta Reserved. Nat a plan of S.-e . ATTACINMR 2 1O REPORT# . LL IV 12 -13 r _t• +yam _ �h #� iF • � N m m aN N �odcn Diaz° CL m m cV O x£ Q m L c2 OI ca Q Ilk x Q. kiit <� 4 owl • It . 1� . , ca CO Mmw ME Ells! <� 4 owl • It . 1� . , ca CO ATTACHMEW -22 -TO REPORW 666z 12 -13 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN ROGERS MOBILE INSTALLATION (PETTICOAT CREEK PARK) EL&A -nON PLAN NOT o scams r This map was produced by the City Of Pickering City Development Department, Mapping and Design, April 11, 2013. U M1 0 C4 �-i 0 u d' M ATTAMME14T� � TO REPOW 11 . /3 di N � c-1 m rn Clm m m Cl) � m c' 3 75 S o 5 C) C cu -, ec s° a QN O1 41 N N Q) N Ln 3 r_ 7 C =3 j 3 C 3 :3 a) > o � D a°Ji C L v O '6 ha 41 cc c a) c c ra .- o o ° = aE Q C O [O � a) O rn s O c C a) H =vm a) +� u_Q R Ln ai C U ° C ' O �+ `n fa Y Ln ° a-+ ° v c c L Q cu a) .� c .._ _.. i 3 p i•+ ++ al p N ++ Y O +-, .a O_ N O En 'X O U O 0 .,C U 3 C Co v a..+ L v 4,.,' L hD +, L C C 4-- N vim-- -° tw U O v C ° Y U Q C C ° V O C a) `--' O N ° C z °° c° N> N _ o g o° o E° 'u C �' -6 C n ° p O O > O v1 '— QJ a) c6 -O Ln fa bD a., a)) O yL., �n 4) -6 O_ a) 'V C c6 C s-• +� cII U C c0 a) C L a) L U C a) C h a) L L 7 a) M a) "� C cp E C p Ln a) a) v L a) c U w o L +� 41 ° 6 3 w° O' �, ,. L :-' C Ln i a) C N U cn Q i U v� 6• C a) O C *' cII CT C d a) 7 X O a) WC �O U ai U a) O U C U C O a) or a) O w ° (6 c L O > U C c 41 _ L a 3 a! C of ._ a) C Q u U C° C _ ++ ° F- R v 0 7 N v O > 41 + L) of N ° C u C O U C O L- ° •> O U U a) -O C O OC 'C. a) -O Y O y v- Y a) -p +>+ ca '�'' > U U a) L L p tio L v 1- +, C N a) O a) N a) N Y- t L Y C R C J Cr n3 "6 C a1 "6 Oa 'O �, • W a) = O EL w aJ C a) c °' O' C Z 'p a) u .� 0 U a) a) a L y.., a Y 3 Q. �± O +-' N +-' O OL a) S L V1 O L 3 ca S V) u) ca (n N U cn +L V) Ln U a aC rtr; 0 ui L aj J cu m ;y Z Q > Q Q W "O c0 O O a 0 m fe Q z Z N o m m - O Ln Ln Ln Ln Ln LU 7 u LU w c co in ° L Oa y z n cu :w z 2 w v Q o C N O a N ra r o Q w yN G ccL G ccL G Lcc� G acc.. G a) C m N Ch ct N N a) N m O p_ L a C 3—�i C O C 3 O C 3 C 3 Ln -3+ C ri N m d' Ln G Z. i•r O U ,O i-•1 O �•1 Qi Q� e"t 0 44 0 U U V 1� W TM REPORT# , - PG A /.-/3 m m rn 3 3 0 3 N m N N cm{ c^i 75 ` 0 c o � a o v o O 4-- O cu L aaj Z [C6 aJ aJ y ' C C aJ cu U a U O N L Y � aL-+ U fa C O ate+ O O O O cr- O O (D O p O_ .`A O U' a•+ a) ca C U [6 cn N y N n3 0 F-' '6 Ln •E C O ,�'' C O - N .E C O ti .E C O C O a3 E aJ O bD .E •E Y — y V1 — 0 c [a aJ Y U (a U a -�' O Y a� N U (4 U � O.. •� O C L a) a) 0 a) 0 a) Y i O O T L Q O U p O O >• L Q y ,a; O N Ca ++ ++ 4+ 0 o L y cu Ca C ++ >. 3 O C �' C 3 'O O V, "O C p H C C C C O0 O C L 'O O. L C Q aJ C C C U C >> p L C E > U [CO > U > �+ U RS E R d C 'n O N aJ C a) aJ aJ a7 m a! aJ aJ aJ y u ra •Q. CD C al m C O aJ d C a) N 3 aJ C �- aJ N aJ C �- m C 6 C p QJ (� E i� 0 I *' y C N C cr " 3 v� r� aJ H C y aJ QJ E Vf C O N C E E aJ — O U �n ;° c U °' aJ E `m a � `m aJ E L aJ ;° v aJ OC aJ C U m U O U CO a`J c N 3 O C "� > C> 3 O O aJ '� tca C y� ++ p 0 L C Ou c.7 aJ 0 0 U o u w C ca u CL O U 0 w cu N +� cu y ba O 0 i Q *' OL Q to c n> +.� m +. ca N aJ aJ c 3 c 0 3 3 ±• U m wJ cu o 3 Q• 0 aJ a) 3 Y 3 C �n o c U 3 0 S o U U }c— W �--• O N Ca W S S N va)i N (tea (.i S, O_ N U S O_ D_ �O N N L a) R Q a) h > > Q E a m -a i O O p > _0 — QJ 0 O > "•p Z z ns m w m N m �O N � N O Ln Ln z Ln N z c O Y N i M [B aJ .a 3 ba 44- O y > C Y ai c N O m Y v O ar •C aJ to C • z m c N C Q J cu fn G v� vl to Ln 0 N 2 U aJ C N N O Q m m .m-I cN-1 7 3 Ol 7 C 7 LO 1l 00 N c-i r-I it O U O ^O^ N O U 1Kti F� O C� � 1 [A O U M Al ATTACHMENT. � TO as:pnmT-4 Pi n i 1o2 —13 Y N "•' > Y O C fl 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 co 00 OO 00 o 72 c ° °�° ° Ln cu C CL .uhf O u p_ M 'O O 75 7 CL a) = u -+ v v cn 3 cu -C3 a) Y • U 4" L E 0 E �. O O O ° m m m m tO m m Z oc u a bD to 0a On 0n 00 C C C C C C a+ O LO f� .a .O -0 -0 -0 -0 .a N N N C O O O O O O C C C C C C C 0 -p Ln 'O Ln Ln 'D r _ > f6 f0 f6 f6 f6 f6 Ln o 0 C -p C Q C U U U u U U O aJ O O u Ln 0' c m C L O a) F- F- F- F- F- F- ~ a) U C C C C C C o o 0) " O 0 0 0 0 0 n a a) t ° > w O a) L aJ L a) 0 ai a aL J R c J u; O v N w vi ° Y i .. - y cu O Y O Y O O O Y O Y 00 C 0 C O O U O O cu Y Q On C O O O O a) f6 O O O " `A E o ° c C Y Y Y Y Y Y L a) a) — @ � al fa Z N aJ a) >. .N O p C a+ E v v u v E u v E C a` C al O +� ++ }, aJ c -E C O O O O O - O 0 W E C) a) E t0 Ou ° L ,�, Y >. N C Y c 0a E C m _ G V N p m "O m C w d V � m N C C C C Y C C C u C OJ U L a1 N aJ u N a! N> ", O Q -O a1 p �n a a; V) a 'n -0 cn v L in -0 Ln ° -p (6 -0 E a C L L b4 c "J aJ C C m . - +N+ E U N 0 W f0 M C in Ln M CC U u u In fcs cu 'n `° o � Ln= w cr = z a c n c u u v O aJ 0 aJ a) C O_ O .II C n aJ c c U _ — w > > > F- cn F- F- F- F- F- of U U O z :0 Q M M ca O O O O O O �yl Q c al C a) 0 v L E L — W p U C L C L C L Y 0n U Y 00 Y 0n Y 0n a) E Y 0n Y 0n U 'cu 6 E C 0 � Y 0n c Q a .. Y of a) a) aJ C C C C C c C c `� -0 C C C C W _° 0) O E •'j fa c a) f6 U a) ++ O - Y L _Y ±+ Y t0 > ++ p U f6 > + fa > '++ f6 > ++ O 7 [6 1 > '++ (6 > O aJ � a Z O c U w ra 2 d! S W -. p L (O = f0 n3 Y aJ v Y aJ a a) Y Y aJ aJ O. Y aJ Y W n O to f— = a .* O_ >j aJ +,n L p W EJ cn a) aJ cn aJ 0 L ns E ,n y. aJ aJ v7 L aJ N En L p a) W/ F— � Y O O O LA 41 M of 41 �n Y H 4O -° aJ in en •4% m ii i i i i i _ a) L O L O L O C m L L (Q L Ia L C [a L N E N L C f0 L aJ L p - a a a a) a ai cu cu H o ai C z 72 w 0- a a E o ,c Y E o E o E o E o E o >p In� E a E a E a E a s u E CL E a m C _w CL c C c U rya S U raa U U t�O Z U rQa c°i caa = v T Ln o O > > O 0 o O m F— Z Z W c O ; o c u w c N ns z U Y m E a) 'F: O U > m V) =3 `n 0 ° c � o cOC E Q v g ,� 0 Y c L aJ Y E aJ m Ln Y c CL .- C C -O to -0 p cu fCG° .N c a w = m C > a) G Y bD Q oc LI: f0 a aJ " .'E x ai L o L f6 06 .O C O6 b4 O 'O w O N m Q L N m U LA L N c G Z "0 W O � C Q U <C: O_ C Q A _ G 7 O 7 A fl rI :3 =3 :3 = z -1 0 1-1 N m t Ln lO 00 Ol ° �l r4 cmi .�i ATTlkCHMENT § TO REPORT!; ' PL& I a -1 3 ROGE,R.S� Your World Right Now Public Meeting Minutes and Response Report Prepared for: City of Pickering, Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and Industry Canada Rogers Site: C3694 ATTACHMENT# 5 TO Rogers Site: C3694 REPORTi O The purpose of this report is to summarize the process undertaken by Rogers relevant to the site proposed to be located on Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) lands in the City of Pickering. The report will outline the questions which were posed by members of the public as a result of the Public Notification and an Open House Information Session held on Tuesday, July 17, 2012 at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre, 470 Kingston Road in the Franklin Room, Pickering, ON, L1V 1A4. The information in this report will be systematically addressed in the following order; 1. Network Coverage Requirement: identification of a coverage gap in the wireless network and its geographical translation 2. Site Selection History: previously proposed, and considered site locations as part of the site selection analysis 3. Selection of Proposed Site: identification of proposed candidate site and the resulting coverage 4. Public Notification: questions and comments submitted by members of the commenting public 5. Conclusion 1. Network Coverage Requirement The selection of a wireless communications site works similarly to fitting a piece into a puzzle. In this case, the puzzle is a complex radio network, situated in an urban setting. Client demand, radio frequency engineering principles, local topography and land use opportunities working in concert with one another direct the geography of our sites. In order to achieve a reliable wireless network, carriers must provide a seamless transmission signal to alleviate any gaps in coverage. Gaps in coverage are responsible for dropped calls, and unavailable data service to clients. Rogers would utilize the following proposed site location in order to provide high quality wireless network signal for its 3.5G high -speed voice and data network. 2. Site Selection History The currently proposed site location on TRCA lands, in the Petticoat Creek Park, is a documented attempt to site the wireless communication installation necessary to provide the required coverage to the Pickering area. The proposal to install a 45m tall shrouded tripole structure was in consideration of comments /concerns raised during Public Consultation period and the held Information Session. Rogers' original proposed candidate located approximately 42m north of Rodd Ave., just east of the Canadian National Railway tracks, was reconsidered by Rogers and TRCA, and the alternative location in the park area was proposed. The subject property which was alternatively selected is much better suited for the proposed structure as it provides a significant buffer between the residential dwellings located to the west, south as well as the picnic area /splash pad in the park. In February of 2012, Rogers conducted a pre - consultation meeting with the City of Pickering in order to evaluate the wireless communications installation proposal in fulfillment of Federal Guideline's requirements set out in the CPC 2 -0 -03, Issue 4 as they relate to Telecommunications and -Broadcasting Antenna Systems. The consultation process established under Industry Canada's authority is intended to allow local land -use authorities the opportunity to address land -use concerns while respecting the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction in the siting and operation of wireless voice and data systems. 0 ROGERS- ATTAMENU S TO Rogers Site: C3694 REPO�t # � a ��3 3. Selection of Proposed Site Communication systems are considered a fundamental part of basic utilities infrastructure and are important contributors that serve the significant growth and economic development of communities by providing infrastructure connection. Rogers' site selection method is a comprehensive undertaking. The site selection process is a challenging exercise that must meet Rogers' network coverage, while having regard for land use constraints and the obligation to customers to provide a high quality service. Other factors include radio frequency engineering principles and local topography which work in concert with one another to direct the geography and location of our sites. It is important to note that the selection of a site for a telecommunication antenna support structure does not occur randomly. Among the factors considered are: 1. expected usage patterns of service and proximity to users 2. local topography and building types 3. interaction with existing and future sites 4. line of sight requirements for high quality communications 5. opportunities to use existing structures 6. availability of a willing Landlord 7. the industry's commitment to high service standards and customer satisfaction Rogers' proposed site, located in the Petticoat Creek park, will achieve the necessary engineering coverage objectives to enhance much relied upon communication services in the area such as EMS Response, Police and Fire; will significantly improve wireless signal quality for the local residents; those traveling along the major roads as well'provide local subscribers with Rogers' 3.5G wireless network coverage and capacity for products and services such as BlackBerry, iPhone, cellular phone and wireless internet through the Rogers Rocket Stick technology in the surrounding area. The location of the proposed site is shown on below aerial. ATUMENT# -S TO Rogers Site: C3694 gEpa s! , PLti Za -/3 4. Public Notification City of Pickering does not have a developed protocol relevant to establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. Therefore, Rogers followed Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process. Rogers extended its notification requirements as outlined by Industry Canada's CPC- 2 -0 -03, Issue 4 and as a courtesy notified the community of Rodd Ave. and Bella Vista Dr., east and south of the CN Rail train tracks as well as hosted a Drop -In Information Session on July 17th allowing the opportunity for the community to exchange information related to the proposal. The consultation commenced on June 15, 2012. Concurrent to the mailing of this invitation, Rogers placed an ad in the local community newspaper (Pickering News Advertiser), which ran on June 20th. Furthermore, Rogers ensured that the notification provided at least 30 days for written public comment. Public Meeting Attendees and Information Provided: Rogers Communications Inc: 1. Tatyana Moro, Municipal Relations Specialist 2. Michelle Vivar, Municipal Relations Specialist 3. Brent Spence, Site Acquisition Specialist 4. Uwe Richter, Manager of Radio Engineering City of Pickering 1. Isabelle Janton, Planner 11- Site Planning 2. Mark Guinto, Coordinator, Office of the Mayor 3. Mayor Dave Ryan 4. Councillor Kevin Ashe, Ward 1 5. Councillor Peter Rodrigues, Ward 3 6. MPP Tracy MacCharles 7. Safa Khan, Constituency Assistant, MPP's office 8. MP Corneliu Chisu, Pickering- Scarborough East Riding Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1. Tom Campitelli, Senior Property Agent 2. Michael Fenning Senior Manager Members of the Public: (Sign -in record attached) 1. Alex Tsoulis, 543 Mountain Ash Dr. 2. C. Beattie 3. Alexander Morr, 540 Rodd Ave. 4. M. Siragusa, 537 Rodd Ave. 5. Gilds Rousseau, 323 Dyson Rd. 6. Francois Rousseau, 323 Dyson Rd. 7. Frances Rousseau, 323 Dyson Rd. 8. Debbi Sommerville, 531 Rodd Ave. 9. Ed Smith, 531 Rodd Ave. 10. Rob Ristau, 332 Dyson Rd. 11. Angela Rivett, 523 Bella Vista Dr. 12. Nicole Herbert- Sutton, 595 Nomad Rd. 13. Steve and Karen Evans, 340 Dyson Rd. 14. Michelle Rushton, 527 Rodd Ave. 15. Shirley Lippiatt, 527 Rodd Ave. 0 ROGERS" ATTAMM Rogers Site: C3694 REPORTi # ,►�Lni /a'�� Members of the Public — Cont'd: (Sign -in record attached) 16. Kristen Glinlea, 529 Rodd Ave. 17. Greg Sones, 529 Rodd Ave. 18. Jane an Stephen Hiley, 312 Dyson Rd. 19. M. Doweeh, 661 Cowan Circle 20. A. Henderson, 517 Rodd Ave. 21. P. Pipe, 517 Rodd Ave. 22, Carol Mullin, 531 Rodd Ave. Display Materials: The following is a summary of the materials on display at the open house: • Context aerial view; • Proposed structure design; • Consultation requirements in accordance with Federal Regulations; • Land -use authority and Industry Canada roles; • Roger's Safety Code 6 compliance graph; ➢ Additional general information related to telecommunications and the use approval and standards for these types of facilities; ➢ Industry Canada's Brochure "Wireless Communication and Health - An Overview, Safety Code 6 -2009; ➢ Industry Canada - Frequently asked questions on Radio Frequency; ➢ Rogers' Wireless Brochure; ➢ Health Canada Brochure "It's Your Health "; ➢ Safety Code 6 information package Public Comments, Questions and Rogers' Responses: In response to the information package circulation and the Information session meeting held on July 17th, we were in receipt of the following comments sent _to the City and /or to Rogers' office: 1. Two phone inquiries received prior to the Information Session; 2. Written comments received before and after the open house information session; and 3. Questions from members of the public attending the open house information session.. Below is the summary of the questions /comments raised at the meeting and in written comments received (copies submitted to municipality, TRCA and Industry Canada) — attached for further reference: Question: • Health Concerns Answer: At Rogers, we take our obligation to safety very seriously. No matter where we construct a wireless facility, we have to demonstrate to Industry Canada that we meet all radiofrequency emission standards before we are allowed to start. 5 0 ROGERS' NTTACHMENTf— 56'--TO Rogers Site: C3694 REPURi'114r., �_ OL/y -13 Our site located at the Petticoat Creek park will be fully compliant with all the requirements outlined by federal government institutions such as Industry Canada and Health Canada. Electromagnetic radiation is all around us. Much of the communication technology used today depends on radiofrequency transmission — cellular devices, wireless transmission towers /antennas, EMS /Fire /Police communication systems, broadcast TV and FM radio, etc. Furthermore, anything that uses electricity to operate, including everyday household electrical devices such as hair dryers, baby monitors, electrical ovens, microwaves, stereos, cordless phones, computers and Wi -Fi routers, emit EMFs of varying intensities. As reported by Canadian Wireless Telecommunication Association (CWTA), studies have shown that wireless phone emissions represent less than 25% of the ambient RF emissions in an urban area. Wireless communication installations have been in our communities since the early to mid 1980's and so far there has not been any direct scientific (peer- reviewed studies) link between the effects of radio frequency from wireless communication installations. Health Canada, a federal government agency, sets the safety limits for exposure to radio signals and Canadian carriers are required to adhere to these guidelines. Health Canada, in its mandate to protect the health of Canadians, is responsible for research and investigation to determine and recommend the. health protection limits for exposure to radio frequency (RF) electromagnetic energy. Health Canada's guideline documents are not based on a single study; rather, they are based on the bulk of scientific evidence contained in numerous peer reviewed studies evaluated over several decades in relation to effects of RF energy on biological organisms. Furthermore, information published in non -peer- reviewed reports /articles posted on the Internet are difficult to evaluate. These safety limits are defined within a standard known as "Safety -Code 6" and are based on current accepted scientific data. Health Canada works closely with the World Health organization in defining Safety Code 6 guidelines. Scientists at Health Canada continuously update their research in order to ensure that Safety Code 6 guidelines continue to protect public health. According to Health Canada, to date there is no convincing scientific evidence to support any contention of adverse health effects that might be speculated to occur at levels below the exposure limits specified in Safety Code 6. Safety Code 6 is based on an ongoing review of published scientific studies, including both internal and external authoritative reviews of the scientific literature spanning the last 40 years. These statements have been backed by other medical associations and journals to the point where even hospitals and -apartment buildings allow cell phone structures in their buildings. The guidelines specified in Safety Code 6 have been adopted by Industry Canada and are included in their regulatory process for radio communication licensing and operational requirements. Industry Canada requires that all proponents and operators ensure that their radio communication and broadcasting installations comply with its regulatory limits at all times. Rogers attests that our radio antenna systems at all times comply with Health Canada's Safety Code 6 limits. In addition, Safety Code 6 and the specified limits for public exposure apply to all sectors of the public and living organisms, such as animals, birds, and insects. Over and above this, Rogers' site will not only meet the specification, but in fact we are at 0.35% of the specification (285 times below), as we have shared during the Information Session by providing a compliance graph. While Industry Canada's standard (Safety Code 6) remains the benchmark in Canada for the safe operation of radiofrequency transmitters, the levels at the closest residential dwelling, which is at 200m to this installation, are meet the maximum allowable limits by a significant margin (i.e. less than 1% of the allowable limits). 0 ROGERS' Rogers Site: C3694 ATTICHMEM TO REPORTi # Puy 1-2:/3 Question: • Siting and site selection; Esthetics Answer: Rogers continually strives to maintain Canada's fastest and most reliable wireless communication network. Wireless technology has fast become the preferred method of conducting business and personal communication among a large part of the population. The on -going increase in the use of personal cellular phones and other wireless devices as well as broadband internet for personal, business and emergency purposes, requires the development of new communication infrastructure as well as essential upgrades to existing wireless communication networks. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Rogers' site selection method is a comprehensive undertaking it is not taken lightly. Site locations are evaluated through an extensive process of conducting engineering drive -tests for assessment of dropped call rate; bit error rate; failed call attempt statistics; assessment of current antenna structures and customer comments on poor and non - existing wireless services. Based on the statistics of RF studies, Rogers identifies an area which would ensure.that the proposed installation would work with our existing infrastructure and the surrounding terrain. A site is required to be fully evaluated and qualified prior to commencement of consultation which would dictate site particulars such as tower location on a property, tower type and height in agreement with the landlord and in fulfillment of Rogers' requirements. Upon completion of a comprehensive site evaluation, a consultation with the municipality is initiated, followed by public consultation. Rogers and TRCA (Toronto and Region Conservation Authority) worked together in conducting the public consultation process in order to provide the public with information on the proposal and obtain public input in accordance with Federal Regulations. Rogers takes concerns or suggestions expressed by land -use authority and the public as important elements to our proposal. In response to the comments received from the public, staff and local officials to the proposed site on Rodd Ave., Rogers and TRCA operated together in an attempt to obtain workable alternatives that would address public concerns while providing wireless services to the community. Rogers' dilemma revolved around how to best provide adequate coverage for the area while simultaneously avoiding residential areas to the south as well as minimizing the impact on the natural features of the TRCA lands. In recognition of public's comments regarding the location of the site's proximity to the residential dwellings, concessions were made by Rogers and TRCA and the site location was relocated to the park area, located south of the parking lot adjacent to the "splash pad ". Rogers also suggested changing the design of the structure to a shrouded tripole in order to accommodate future co- location requirements as well as provide a structure that will minimize the visual impact of the installation by improving the aesthetic of the project applicable to co- location. In addition, in an attempt to reduce the number of structures in the area, Rogers is currently working with Bell on possible co- location of their equipment on our tower, as well as placement of TRCA's paging /communication equipment. For this new location, Rogers utilize the existing trail for our access road. Some trees may require trimming; however, tree removal will be minimized to the best of our ability. These details will be under direction of TRCA staff to ensure adherence to all applicable environmental requirements. Rogers feels that in consideration of the concerns and comments raised during consultation period, the new site location, in the park area, is a suitable alternative addressing the comments of all interested parties. Furthermore, our site is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Pickering Official Plan, relevant to Economic Development Strategic Plan completed in 1991. The policy identified Telecommunication as one of the potential growth sectors (Section 5.3 (d)). Section 5.7 further references the encouragement through the City's Plan for "establishing high speed internet and broad band telecommunications networks which help to promote home occupations, teleworking, ' telecommuting, and improved community networking and information dissemination ". 0 ROGERS- Rogers Site: C3694 ATTAMMWU � n/ To -/3 REPORT# Question: • Consultation process requirements Answer: Wireless communication installations are exclusively regulated by the Federal Government. The consultation process established under Industry Canada's authority is intended to allow local land -use authorities the opportunity to address land use concerns while respecting the federal government's exclusive jurisdiction in the siting and operation of wireless voice and data systems. As the provisions of the Ontario Planning Act and other municipal by -laws and regulations do not technically apply to federal undertakings, Rogers is however required to follow established and' documented wireless protocols or processes set forth by land -use authorities per Industry Canada protocol. In accordance with Industry Canada's guidelines, Rogers followed all necessary steps in pre - consulting with planning staff and local. officials, advising the public of our proposal and providing the public with a required public comment period. In addition, Rogers feels that the process undertaken relevant to consultation was conducted openly and fairly, and engagement of the community through additional consultation has been effective in obtaining input from the public. The City of Pickering does not have a developed protocol relevant for establishing telecommunication facilities in the City. Therefore, Rogers followed Industry Canada's Default Public Consultation Process. In accordance with Industry Canada's CPC- 2 -0 -03, Issue 4, Rogers must ensure that the local public, the land -use authority and Industry Canada are notified of the proposed antenna system. . As a minimum, proponents must provide a notification package to the local public (including nearby residences, community gathering areas, public institutions, schools, etc.) neighbouring land -use authorities, businesses, and property owners, etc. located within a radius of three times the tower height (105m in this instance), measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure, whichever is greater. It is also the proponent's responsibility to ensure that the notification provides at least 30 days for written public comment. Rogers, in consultation with TRCA and the City of Pickering, extended its notification requirements and as a courtesy notified the community of Rodd Ave. and Bella Vista Dr., east and south of the CN Rail train tracks (increase of the 105m consultation requirement in accordance with Federal Government's guidelines of up to 280m). Furthermore, Rogers held an Open House Information Session on July 17`h at the Petticoat Creek Community Centre to further allow the public, TRCA, the City and Rogers to exchange information on the proposal. The notice was issued by regular mail on Jun.15th to all owners of properties located in the Rodd Ave. & Bella Vista Dr. community, as agreed by Rogers and Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA). Addresses were provided by the municipality. The notice described the proposal and invited comments by mail, electronic mail, phone or fax by the close of business on July 20`h, 2012. An ad was also placed in Pickering News Advertiser, which ran on Jun.20th in notifying the public of the proposal. Copy of the information package was provided to the City of Pickering and Industry Canada as part of the municipal consultation process. In addition to the requirements for consultation with municipal authorities and the public, Rogers must also fulfill other important obligations including: Transport Canada /NAV Canada aeronautical safety responsibilities. Rogers must ensure that our proposals for any antenna system are reviewed by Transport Canada and NAV CANADA. Transport Canada performs an assessment of the proposal with respect to the potential hazard to air navigation and notifies Rogers of any painting and /or lighting requirements for the antenna system. NAV CANADA also provides Rogers on whether the proposal has an impact on the provision of their national air navigation system, facilities and other services located off - airport. Rogers will make all necessary applications to Transport Canada and NAV Canada. It is our experience that a structure of this height and distance away from an existing airfield may require obstruction lighting, however, it is ultimately a decision of Transport Canada /NAV CANADA and Rogers can notify the City, upon request, once our application has been evaluated by the listed agencies. 8 0 ROGERS' AnummIE(dT#-5—To Rogers Site: C3694 REPO l0 PL/V' �a 13 Question: Property values Answer: There is no documented evidence of loss of property value resulting from proximity to wireless communications facilities. Real Estate values. are the product of many factors and in our experience, proximity to an installation is unlikely to be the dominant one. Other market factors that can exert a stronger influence on the price /value and marketability of property are strength of market demand, interest rates; availability of financing; employment/unemployment levels, wage levels, tax levels; quality and aesthetic appeal of the surrounding neighbourhood. There have been many situations across Canada whereby subdivisions and residences have been constructed next to existing wireless facilities. Industry Canada's .CPC- 2 -0 -03 Issue 4 document, http: / /www.ic.gc.ca /eic/ site/ smt- gst.nsf /eng /sf08777.html #sec5, includes a discussion concerning the role of property values under Section 4.2, Public Reply Comments. Question: Other properties for potential structure placement Answer: Rogers Communications Inc. makes every effort to locate cellular sites where they will be the least visually obtrusive. Rogers always makes an initial effort to co- locate on existing structures. Apart from being encouraged by Industry Canada, co- location is one of the cornerstones of Rogers' site development philosophy. Other potential site locations were evaluated and opportunities to co- locate onto existing structures were investigated. However, the wireless communication structures in the surrounding area that were evaluated are all beyond the distance or below the height required in order to address the coverage deficiencies in the area; are not suitable for our network needs and would not improve our existing signal coverage to the expected quality levels. Rogers has a self - support facility located on Granite Crt., west of the train tracks, which was evaluated for possible amendments to the structure in order to address coverage objectives for the Petticoat Creek area as well as the surrounding area of the lake front. This site is co- located with other licensed carriers (Bell and Telus) and could not be modified to further extend our coverage in the above noted area of Pickering. Another structure evaluated was a Roger's tower, located on Altona Road, just north of Hwy. 401. The structure is an 18m monopole and is not of a sufficient height and is beyond the distance required to accommodate the antennas in an attempt to address the coverage gap in the Petticoat Creek park area and the lake front. Since there were no suitable alternative structures readily available for co- location to accommodate our network coverage requirements, Rogers Communications Inc. had to consider the construction of its own installation. The location proposed by Rogers on TRCA property in the Petticoat Creek park will significantly improve our wireless signal quality and data requirements for the local residents, those members of the community that use wireless devices as well as enhance the communications emergency services in the area of the lake front and the park area. Furthermore, Rogers suggested design will accommodate future co- location requirements as well as provide a structure that will lessen the visual profile of the installation by improving the aesthetic of the project applicable to co- location. In addition, in an attempt to reduce the number of structures in the area, Rogers is working with Bell on possible co- location of their equipment on our tower, as well as placement of TRCA's paging /communication equipment. 9 0 ROGERS' Rogers Site: C3694 ATTACHMENT# S M REP®RT,P A N LL-13 Question: Environmental impact Answer: Rogers ensures that the environmental assessment process is applied in the planning stages of any proposal. This enables proponents and other stakeholders to consider environmental factors in any decisions that may be made and makes it possible to introduce measures which permit the project to proceed while protecting the environment. Rogers ensures that our installations meet the requirements to be excluded from assessment under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA). Under Industry Canada's consultation process, Rogers must at all times provide a written confirmation of the project's status under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act and if required will proceed with an environmental assessment under guidance of Industry Canada, identifying that there is the potential for an . adverse environmental effect and describe the effect and propose mitigation measures. Rogers makes every effort in order to avoid disturbance of significant nature features as well as attempt to minimize visual impact of our sites. The proposal for the Petticoat Creek area has been deemed as an expectable use, pending public consultation, by Toronto and Region Conservation Authority staff, as' it produces minimal disruptions to the existing or sensitive conservation lands and is located outside of the regulated lands. Rogers' placement of the site on the subject property maximizes the existing vegetation around the proposed site, providing natural screening and assists in mitigating potential visual impacts of the installation on the community. Rogers will minimize the removal of existing trees to accommodate the proposed installation and the access road by using an existing trail on the property. Installation will be under strict direction of TRCA staff to ensure adherence to all applicable environmental requirements. The following are some of the considerations used by Rogers in development criteria of the proposal outlined in order to minimize the possible changes in the environmental and natural landscape: • Rogers will minimize the removal of existing trees to accommodate the proposed installation and the access road. • The proposed site will have no impact on any water systems or any sensitive features. • No chemicals, pesticides or herbicides, that could potentially have an adverse effect on the environment, will be contained on our structure or the associated walk -in radio equipment cabinet. • During construction precautions will be taken to minimize any disruption to the current site. • Once site is in service, there will be no noise associated with the daily operation of the installation. • Upon completion, the site will be completely trouble free from an operation and maintenance standpoint. Rogers' equipment cabinet is totally self- contained and none of the equipment will cause any vibration or noise. 10 0 ROGERS� Rogers Site: C3694 ATTAP,,4MW#— TO REPORTo -, & iV Z -J-3 5. Conclusion Rogers is constantly improving and expanding its infrastructure to meet the ever - growing demand for high - quality reliable wireless voice and data services. The trend of future telecom is to become truly "wireless ", that is the delivery of the voice and data communications via conventional telephone lines, such as telephone poles along streets and roads. The current wireless infrastructure will be able to meet this trend and still provide a reliable system. Technological upgrades are important factors for communities that continue to grow and strive to attract new business to the area. In addition to meeting consumer needs, technological upgrades are also critical to ensuring the accessibility of emergency services such as fire, police and ambulance. Today, approximately 50% of emergency calls are made on mobile phones and this number will continue to increase. Rogers feels that the proposed installation is well situated to provide and improve wireless communication voice and data services in the targeted area. The proposed installation is also situated and designed to have minimal impact on surrounding land uses as well as will provide for future co- location opportunities by other licensed carriers. Rogers has undertaken a comprehensive public consultation process as it pertains to the proposed new wireless communications in the Petticoat Creek Park on Toronto and Region Conservation property. Should you have any further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me via email at Tatvana.Moro(a)rci.rogers.com, or via phone at (647)747 -2351. Sincerely, Tatyana Moro Municipal Relations Specialist Rogers Communications Inc. Network Implementation 11 0 ROGERS- ATTiMIENT 6 r0 REPORT# . 10/- A/ 11? -13 Excerpt from May 16th, 2011 Council Meeting Minutes Resolution #102/11 Moved by Councillor O'Connell Seconded by Councillor Ashe WHEREAS On April 18, 2011 the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering formally opposed the installation of a communications tower at 1820 Whites Road in the City of Pickering; and WHEREAS hundreds of area residents have signed a petition objecting to the installation of a communications tower at 1820 Whites Road and other City locations; WHEREAS the City of Pickering received a response from Industry Canada in regards to our request to relocate the proposed communications tower at 1820 Whites Road and have ordered all communication tower installations cease on this site until Industry Canada can review this matter; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering requests the Government of Canada cease further consideration of communication towers in any residential area of Pickering in order to commence discussions with the City of Pickering to establish criteria based on mutual respect for all matters pertaining to land use in the City of Pickering for the installation of communication towers throughout our community. AND THAT a copy of this resolution be sent to Durham Regional Council, Corneliu Chisu, MP Elect for Pickering /Scarborough East, Chris Alexander, MP Elect Ajax Pickering, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry and the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology). Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote A Excerot from April 18, 2011 Council__ Minutes ���;��T #,_,� =___Tp ` EPOR 10 -Resolution #87/11 : M©ved by Councillor O'Connell Seconded. by Councillor Ash : WHEREAS. the City of Pickering was recently informed that Industry Canada has" . approved a cell phone, tower a# 1820 Whites Road, Amberlea*Presbyterian Church with out:any:cansultation with the City of Piickering;.and WHEREAS the..Federal G®vernment through Jndustry:Canada, refuses to recognize the-impprtant role that' municipalities play in regards to local land use. matters and specifically. where cell phone towers mny.be situated; .and WHEREAS local residents residing in the Amberlea /Foxhollow. Neighbourhood are outraged, .having become aware.through:3,d party informatidn'that such Vin. intrusioncah be erected in-a-res.1dential community; I46W:THEREFORE'BE IT RESOLVED thaf the Federal Government through In:dustry .Ca�nada'be advised that the-City of Pickering.obje'cts to the installation of a cell phone.tower at-1.820`Whites Road an'd-that they reverse ifs' approval and . enter into diseussionswith the- City of Pickering-in order to find's more appropriate. Iocatiob; AND FURTHER that the.Federal Government be required to amend. 'their policies.-, acid procedures for fihe approval of* ell phone and 'radio towers �to allow for local " rhtinicipalitles consultation on all. applications and to "not approVe._applications " objected to. by fihe local municipality; AND FURTHER that consultation takes place through the Federation of `Municipalities on establishing guidelines to assist Industry Canada in_settiiig criteria,that can be used "by municipalities to assess each application_submi.tted for . Powers;" AND that a copy of this motio.n.be.forwarded to'FCM to.be .included'.for endorsementat its annual meeting AND that copies of this resolution be sent.to Dan McTeague, MP for Pickering /Scarborough. East, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable-Gary Goodyear, Minister of State, (Science and Technology). Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote Cial °o Report to Planning & Development Committee PICKERING Report Number: PLN 13 -13 Date: May 6, 2013 From: Thomas Melymuk Director, City Development Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Public Mobile North side of Highway 401 right -of -way at the south limit of Altona Road Installation #28 Recommendation: That Public Mobile be advised that City Council supports the proposed 29.9 metre high telecommunication tower installation on the Highway 401 right -of -way at the south limit of Altona Road based on the design and other details submitted with this request; and 2. Further, that the Director, City Development be authorized to forward a letter to Industry Canada requesting their assistance to encourage Rogers Wireless to relocate their telecommunication equipment from an adjacent tower onto the proposed Public Mobile tower to minimize the presence of the telecommunication structures. Executive Summary: On January 8, 2013 Public Mobile submitted a proposal to construct a 29.9 metre high monopole telecommunication tower on the Highway 401 right -of -way at the south limit of Altona Road. Since the submission of the initial proposal, Public Mobile completed their public consultation process, in accordance with Industry Canada requirements. Public Mobile has advised that no public comments were received and are requesting that City Council provide a statement of concurrence in support of the installation. City Development staff are supportive of the proposed installation as it is appropriately located and will facilitate the removal of the temporary tower located on an adjacent property municipally known as 1312 Altona Road. There is an existing Rogers Wireless cell tower immediately west of the proposed installation which cannot accommodate Public Mobile's equipment. Public Mobile has approached Rogers Wireless to relocate their equipment on this new tower as it has been designed to accommodate additional carriers. In view of the public consultation, conducted by the applicant and Council engagement associated with this proposal, the processing of this application through this report is not considered contrary to Council's recent resolutions regarding telecommunication towers. Report PLN 13 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 2 It is recommended that Public Mobile be advised that City Council has no objection to the proposed telecommunication tower on the Highway 401 right -of -way at the south limit of Altona Road, based on the design and other details submitted with the request. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the proposed development. 1. Background On January 8, 2013 Public Mobile submitted a letter to the City requesting comments on their proposal to construct a 29.9 metre high telecommunication tower on the north side of the Highway 401 right -of -way at the south limits of Altona Road (see Location Map, Attachment #1). Public Mobile currently operates from a temporary telecommunication tower located on an adjacent property municipally known as 1312 Altona Road. Public Mobile originally proposed to erect a permanent tower in its place and City Development staff expressed concerns with this proposal due to the fact that the permanent cell tower would preclude the development of the lands as contemplated in the City's Official Plan. During our discussions with Public Mobile, it was noted that there is an existing 14.9 metre high cell tower located on the Highway 401 right -of -way that was approved and constructed by Rogers Wireless (Installation #5). It was suggested that this site be examined for potential co- location. Public Mobile has advised that they have examined the existing Rogers tower and it is not tall enough to accommodate Public Mobile's equipment and the existing tower is not capable of being extended in height. 1.1 The Proposal The proposed installation is a 29.9 metre monopole communication tower and related ground cabinet. The tower and equipment compound is proposed to be located on the north side of the Highway 401 corridor at the south limit Altona Road and is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transportation (MTO). Public Mobile has secured a lease agreement and has been issued an encroachment permit from the MTO for this installation. The tower and related ground cabinet will be located in a fenced compound measuring approximately 3.0 metres by 8.0 metres. Access to the compound will from a driveway connecting to Altona Road, by easement, from additional lands owned by the MTO (see Applicant's Submitted Plan and Tower Elevation Plan, Attachments #2 and #3). 1.2 Property Description The subject property is designated as "Freeways and Major Utilities — Controlled Access Corridor" in the Official Plan. The subject property currently supports an existing telecommunication tower and compound owned by Rogers Wireless. Report PLN 13 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 3 Surrounding land uses include residential uses to the north and west, commercial uses to the east and Highway 401 to the south. The closest residential property, (the residential use at 1312 Altona Road), is approximately 40 metres from the proposed tower. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Required Public Notification has been completed City Development staff are currently in the process of developing a protocol respecting the installation of cell towers for City Council's consideration. In the absence of a City protocol, applicants must follow Industry Canada requirements as outlined in the Client Procedures Circular (CPC) 2 -0 -03 Issue 4, entitled "Radiocommunication and Broadcasting Antenna Systems ". The Industry Canada requirements for public consultation require the proponent to consult with the land use authority, and the public within a radius of three times the tower height, measured from the tower base or the outside perimeter of the supporting structure. Based on the proposed 29.9 metre tower height, the installation required notification to 4 adjoining property owners within a 90 metre radius of the base of the tower. The applicant provided written notification to the 4 adjoining property owners. They have confirmed that no public comments were received as a result of the notification process (see Applicant's Summary of Public Consultation, Attachment #4). 2.2 Co- location opportunities have been examined The installation and creation of separate, stand alone,-radio communication towers and broadcasting facilities is discouraged unless all other co- location options have been explored and are considered unfeasible. The closest telecommunication tower in this area is the Rogers Wireless tower located directly west of the proposed installation. Public Mobile has confirmed that this existing tower cannot accommodate their equipment nor can it be extended in height to provide the space required. Public Mobile has advised that the proposed installation is suitable for co- location with other carriers and that Wind Mobile has committed to locate their equipment on this new installation. In addition, Public Mobile has made a formal offer to Rogers Wireless offering the opportunity to relocate their equipment on this new tower. Public Mobile has confirmed that Rogers Wireless has not responded to the formal offer as of the date of this report. To persuade the providers to co- locate their equipment on a single tower, staff request that the Committee authorize the Director, City Development to forward a letter to Industry Canada requesting their assistance to encourage Rogers Wireless to relocate their equipment onto the Public Mobile tower to minimize the presence of the telecommunication structures. Report PLN 13 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 4 2.3 Council Resolutions In May 2011, City Council passed a resolution requesting Industry Canada to cease consideration of communication towers in any residential area of Pickering in order to establish criteria for all matters pertaining to land use for the installation of these towers (see Council Resolution #102/11, Attachment #5). This resolution was a response to a number of cell tower installations that were erected without municipal and /or public consultation, specifically a proposed tower installation under 15.0 metres at 1820 Whites Road. The Whites Road proposal precipitated an earlier Council Resolution in April 2011 requesting that Industry Canada reverse approval of the tower and amend its policies to require municipal consultation on all installations, regardless of height (see Council Resolution #87/11, Attachment #6). Public mobile has provided confirmation that this proposed installation has been publicly circulated in accordance with Industry Canada requirements and the proposal is now before Committee and Council for consideration. In view of the public consultation and Council engagement associated with these proposals, the processing of these applications through this report is not considered contrary to Council's Resolutions. 3. Planning Analysis 3.1 Proposed Tower Location is Acceptable Staff support the proposed location of this telecommunication tower. The proposed tower and equipment compound are sited as close to the north side of the Highway 401 right -of- way as technically feasible. The proposed location of the tower will minimize visual impact on the area as it well screened by existing vegetation to the north and is located next to an existing telecommunication tower. Staff recommend that City Council approve the recommendation in this report as the proposed installation has minimal visual impact on the neighbourhood and facilitates the relocation of an existing temporary tower that is not desirable in its current location on 1312 Altona Road. Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan - Site Layout 3. Applicant's Submitted Plan - Tower Elevation 4. Applicant's Summary of Public Consultation 5. Council Resolution #102/11 6. Council Resolution #87/11 Report PLN 13 -13 May 6, 2013 Subject: Proposed Telecommunication Tower Installation Page 5 Tyler Barne "S anner — Site Planning Nilesh urti, MCIP, RPP Manager, Development Review & Urban Design TB: jf Approved /Endorsed By: Catherine Rose, MCIP, RPP (Acting) Chief Planner Tho as Mel uk, CIP, RPP Director,_City Devblopment Recommended for the consideration of Pickering City uncil Ai J 1 ?, 2013 Tony Prevedel, P.Eng. Chief Administrative Officer Am.itdlem L--To REPORTIf &A/ 3 m VALLEY GATE o BROOKRIDGE GP�F O ROUGE HILL PARK '� Z CHURCH F D w OF THE O o Q NAZARENE W CD F Q O i Z � C O 1 J KING Sj 0� ATTAwCHMENT# = TO REPOR'TQ'V F �.� �3 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN PUBLIC MOBILE INSTALLATION (HIGHWAY 401 ROW) ,X14GS10N ROp,D i 1312 i ALTONA i ROAD / c ------ -------- - - - - -� i — -- - - - - -- i � r -n PROPOSED COMP01 JINf� This map was produced by the City Of Pickering Planning & Development Department, Mapping and Design, APRIL 17, 2013. ATTACHMENT# 3 REPORT# d- A/ /3 INFORMATION COMPILED FROM APPLICANT'S SUBMITTED PLAN PUBLIC MOBILE INSTALLATION (HIGHWAY 401 ROW) ELEVA'nON PLAN NOT TO SCALE PROPOSED COMPOUND LAYOUT PLAN .......................... : .......... ...... ... .......... .................................... . O .......... .... ... ........ ..................... ....... . ......... .......... ....... ... EXISTING GATE :*. -.*.:.:.:.,..:.:.:.:.:. /�- ......... . .............. EXISTNG CT OM .2 NI &00 PROPOSED EXISTING PUBLIC MOBILE ROGERS WIRELESS CELL TOWER CELL TOWER 29.9m 14.9m VTTJ VJ This map was produced by the City Of Pickering Planning & Development Department, Mapping and Design, APRIL 17, 2013. ATTACH ME NT ig-L —TO REPORT# . PL Al / 3 - /3 C� 30 East Beaver Creek, Suite 104 Richmond Hill, ON, L4B 1 J2 FONTUR Phone: (647) 705 -9714 Email: rob.anderson @fonturinternational.com April -12 -13 Tyler Barnett, (MCIP, RPP) Senior Planner —Site Planning City of Pickering One The Esplanade Pickering, ON K1V 6K7 Public MOBILE° Re: Summary of public consultation for the proposed telecommunication tower located on Altona Road, South of Highway 2 Mr. Barnett, Summary of Public Consultation Under the guidelines established by Industry Canada, the public was invited to comment on the proposed telecommunication tower located on MTO lands adjacent highway 401. The 30 day commenting period was initiated - February 14/2013. All property owners within a radius of the proposed tower equal to 3 times the tower height, as defined by the circulation radius illustrated on the survey, were provided with an information package. This information package was mailed from the FONTUR offices in Richmond Hill, Ontario February 11/2013 (to allow for Canada Post delivery times). As of March 18/2013, no members of the public commented on this facility. Conclusion As the 30 day public comment period has expired (March 18/2013), and that no issues were brought forward by the local residents, Public Mobile is formally notifying the City of Pickering that the public consultation process with respect to this tower has been concluded. Should you have any further questions or concerns pertaining to the consultation process associated with this proposal please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Kind Regards, Rob Anderson Consultant for Public Mobile ATUCHMENT# �4 TO REPORT# - -"L N /3 -13 t N c 00 0 p M 04000 o c r c o ® p a O e� C W 80 IN (Ipb W = = W) o `mom a C60ino U o o o v _s c U o ® ® off► °a YNOlt a `n .•`-' u U O C4 �13N� O °o CL 0 LL. a o N u o a O C M o` E c :) .2 c 0 0 CL c E Vi 0 a) Uaf U a c a c U 00 } c -- C a � c C U } o U za E N O O O o a O N• U U 0 U� c O oho ,0 aJ U > �C: m� c �� O a M U 0 c O > �o a i L U c0 O E a U•U_ O a) - . a) o n 'E O i- o O a O > E E CD o U W N 00 '� C .Mp w U o t C^ U U -, V M O O N O 10 C U a s 0 0 0 z o m � O o 4 o o ���¢ vim} oc. ¢- - a.� O o m ° � `_c� h z =o: �o Oo� m C oho om 3 �N � ' 0 o C O o_ c o 15 acUf Y �.c oo.Uo.O'O� o_ !n :.T - o O5N U a) U C O o¢�oo. -v z .. ��_ �� 0 3 0 �� }moo 00� � a Dz X ac. � w� C oN o � a Z) -•c c w c� L c� �� _ o m o 00 a Ez E O u o` o� o a) E O c o a) °-C o" ° p a) Q Q r �w�w0 0 ¢� I -CkfLo ww �UU -�0� ww U- 0 E- !5 =� U° a o_° 3'� - c a 0)z a a °'v �'3 `' • °� U V) '3 N p 3 c a a) c o O c a U o c c x a Y p C Q a) �� C.Y .c O Cy Z) O-0 N co a)o U� 5L �, a0 m0 °•� a c U m U m a >�' c E m �� °-' y �' oa3ca 3 ° -c ca o caZ aaa)�, C: ao c t oU o o aa- �v as C) ._ o. a)O o 0.9 a) o c3�o Ica) c�acio --ate- a)' N o U o u °- 3 U a Z) o o a as a o 'o-` :E ° d c .!Q O a a) U a) 7 U a O O U u_- 'o -a E a C O C .0 U C .a a o� 0 0 ° a a Q6co o U a 5 aU a c D mo_ E 3 Q) a) 3 �_0 o a�� > co }'oU H >t m -0 E U c c c Q a .-- � C.0 c 0 U N c� O c o U z 3 .0 o U a c U a m� �o� o o U °- m � U0U aC f ao c a a) a 3 mY 6 o N a) c N a O N c c a) a) c c U .� C a- O c -C a) `_n n m C a � N .0 O(D a 0 a) p Q) a) o a O O ^ m c a a a a a' C > C o E C c U Q N U O O a) p j U .Q O O p a O O. p U O C) x c "- 'a a) m a) a m. 0 C -a o U 'a 0.0-6 -0 } O o C :-U a) O N c -0 0-0 U n C Q a a j C U 3 a E a C a) a U a) � O V N c U c a U— - o E o'' a o a o- co a5 a o �c -U 0� - �� tt Z, C) o0 0° �° 0)- � m o� o EU m a. U� o U o a -a a 0) O -0 ao� _-0 QOM o o o >> 0 = c a) c- E c �� C) v E a) �� ° o E o a a-) a m ° °)a) a � H c E� c o �� 0'� N C} a` �� o� c �aai Z) - u ao �.c c a N o0 U c w* 3 =:n EU aon ao: ; - -- - a- 2 ; � 3 0 o �a T• o o a)0 �O.X N `o c o�xa,� �3a�: -0 O �Ea)o� ��. ATTACHMENT# f TO REPORT# PG N /3 -13 3 p• p o o Q O a � w 9dl ' a �__ O C O cC> 000� L7 "_ W Qi o mO H T O N o\ p O U N O 3 -- C = a U N• °- O '� H 7 1f a C - - -- _� 33 'S m U a C a sp o ID in U N H t - - - - 6. E ° O o e a N 0-° U _ O O °'U F o N N a) O aor 3 0 o 22o)� -�a 2 o 2 u) c) c X -o c c a p ® gi- o o rno o ooEEo o CL mac) > CL zzzzzzz 6 a, o a) O- c m a a) E 0 y E U O p� U> _0 c° O o U u O c° ; s '1 a C a) `^ N a a) N C O O C Q a) U i & 0 O o o m o ° o° ��-0 ° c 6 3 6 N c "p U= a = p) 6) - ^ O Q U N a a) a) O C N T a) '> 6) -0 p O U C 7Y v _ N O a° 6U g � a U O a) N ° Q- O Q o °° Q :5 W C 6 O ° Q) Q) ° p c o 6 6 Q N U C > a a) -p O a) o a) oO a . O � a C -0 0 O 7 C O H O o U o (D 0 ' j C O N = , ? a 6 C a C a C Q o 6 O a) N Q 3 o a) >-C Q) C - 0 6 O 6 0 `mil > 6t 6 O o o cay- c� a N O c N D o0 -0 U a) p° 6 U U N 6 O �p a) 0 0 0' o Cam O a) N O () Z 3 Q o C U W '� � p U O O i� N C O U = O Q Z > ` C N a) -� O> c t p X! m U o�-0 0 11; 0 a� '�.� ao a� a) o o- C:= Q� U° m->"' ° C m._ a �.9 cU - 6 c o� ° o a o m 3 Q-a) p c c C� 5 EE `mo�o000oca °�O� () c- ��� 20a °> roc C ._ O> U C 6 Q) O C O) o c �Q�o o'� o a) 6 0 o a� a o 3t C= a' •i a •� 6 •V N ,H O Q.- C O U a) O_ - a) In C 70 C) o = "w i .� a C 6 a) 'ni - O c ma c �} °a c c o c 6 u- o�Y 6 C Q o 6Q a! 00 ° N G1 aQ a� m C: 0-0-0.- �� 3 c a 6 o o m °� o C' °- m N .� c m �- i� > u o 0` U a- 6 } a LL Q O o a Q p- O' c.i � ^ O = 6 6 6 a�Q U'� a ° - ° > cam o ° 30 o C-4 c.) ° )o O ai °-o E a) a) , a+ n 'C (� o O Q H O Q o t N n 0-6.9 n L C E o .� N U 0 OC O Q a) Q ° Q ,U � o :aC- C a) Q C ^ D} x° •C O 0-60 �¢ ° ° m C C) o o� 6} c Z N O C° C C.) > m N U >� U 6) -C rA a) H '- a O o O v O } ?« C C O C t O C 6 6 �_ „�, p N „�^, O '- O't E� O ^ C Qj W 6 a O v> a N a a) O N U U 6 C 0- - 6 U M co 2-o a) O_ a) o OC X U 6 T y O C N 6 `- a) _6 C'^ T a) V co N V Q a a) O 'c a) o E C3 c cL Q} 3 p Q Q a) a C S 6 O c a O —_ 6 Z `c Q p Q a) 3 _ a) o '> U o 2- a O- c O 2 o—u 6� oo c v � v ° x a� �' }U o'c aN a.Za.a,� a`°i `� 0 6U' — E >a o ° C u d a�7) o.- () c ° a) m > o N o� >.a7 �� 3� 6 o O m 6 _ O'j p N 6 c �.o Y 3 C° o 0 0 > o.N C Z L' _ O o o a aai� �a o o. nu`m U �� a Dc a O X � o�a°iow��'067.E o o °xo �aa� >�o n�y�'_�QD)dLo N�0 - a) - •o D a U O 2 U E o D E C O a) � '> 9 > rte- ° 2 r ._ U � C3 ONPCK0551- Mailling List *LL ATTACHMFNT #—} TO REPOeRT# -i %'LA/ 2,3-12 Public MOBILE' Appendix 2 — Public Notification Mailing List PIN Mailing Address Property Owner 26300 -0142 1312 Altona Road, Pickering Ontario L1V 1L8 Rule Estate Inc. 26300 -0143 1201 Wilson Ave. Downsview ON M3M 1J8 MTO 26300 -0139 321 Kingston Road, Pickering ON L1V 1A1 Salmon Ernest A.T. 26300 -0138 1341 Kingston Road, Pickering ON L1V 1A1 lRayet Holding Inc. ATTACHMENT# REPORT# . X04 N /3 / Excerpt from May 16th, 2011 Council Meeting Minutes Resolution #102/11 Moved by Councillor O'Connell Seconded by Councillor Ashe WHEREAS On April 18, 2011 the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering formally opposed the installation of a communications tower at 1820 Whites Road in the City of Pickering; and WHEREAS hundreds of area residents have signed a petition objecting to the installation of a communications tower at 1820 Whites Road and other City locations; WHEREAS the City of Pickering received a response from Industry Canada in regards to our request to relocate the proposed communications tower at 1820 Whites Road and have ordered all communication tower installations cease on this site until Industry Canada can review this matter; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED the Council for the Corporation of the City of Pickering requests the Government of Canada cease further consideration of communication towers in any residential area of Pickering in order to commence discussions with the City of Pickering to establish criteria based on mutual respect for all matters pertaining to land use in the City of Pickering for the installation of communication towers throughout our community. AND THAT a copy of this resolution be sent to Durham Regional Council, Corneliu Chisu, MP Elect for Pickering /Scarborough East, Chris Alexander, MP Elect Ajax Pickering, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry and the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology). Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote ATTACHMENT# 1__M REPORT# . -1fLN )3 -)3 Excerpt from April 18, 2011 Council Minutes Resolution #87/11 Moved by Councillor O'Connell Seconded by Councillor Ashe WHEREAS the City of Pickering was recently informed that Industry Canada has approved a cell phone tower at 1820 Whites Road, Amberlea Presbyterian Church without any consultation with the City of Pickering; and WHEREAS the Federal Government through Industry Canada, refuses to recognize the important role that municipalities play in regards to local land use matters and specifically where cell phone towers may be situated; and WHEREAS local residents residing in the Amberlea /Foxhollow Neighbourhood are outraged, having become aware,through 3rd party information that such an intrusion can be erected in a residential community; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Federal Government through Industry Canada be advised that the City of Pickering objects to the installation of a cell phone tower at 1820 Whites Road and that they reverse its approval and enter into discussions with the City of Pickering in order to find a more appropriate location; AND FURTHER that the Federal Government be required to amend their policies and procedures for the approval of cell phone and radio towers to allow for local municipalities consultation on all applications and to not approve applications objected to by the local municipality; AND FURTHER that consultation takes place through the Federation of Municipalities on establishing guidelines to assist Industry Canada in setting criteria that can be used by municipalities to assess each application submitted for towers; AND that a copy of this motion be forwarded to FCM to be included for endorsement at its annual meeting AND that copies of this resolution be sent to Dan McTeague, MP for Pickering /Scarborough East, the Honourable Tony Clement, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of State (Science and Technology). Carried Unanimously on a Recorded Vote