Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 5, 2015 For information related to accessibility requirements please contact Linda Roberts Phone: 905.420.4660 extension 2928 TTY: 905.420.1739 Email: lroberts@pickering.ca Planning & Development Committee Agenda Monday, October 5, 2015 Council Chambers 7:00 pm Chair: Councillor Pickles Anything highlighted denotes an attachment or link. By clicking the links on the agenda page, you can jump directly to that section of the agenda. To manoeuver back to the agenda page use the Ctrl + Home keys simultaneously, or use the “bookmark” icon to the left of your screen to navigate from one report to the next. 2 Information Report No. 06-15 Page 2 2.1.1 Property Description • the-subject lands comprising of eight individual parcels generally located between Sideline 26 and Sideline 34 and on the south side of Highway 7, east of North Road, and on the north and south side of Highway 7 west of North Road • these lands are located in the northwest quadrant of the Seaton Community (see Location Map, Attachment #2) • the subject lands have a total land area of approximately 284 hectares and are bisected by Highway 407/ETR • the lands are currently used for agricultural/rural activities with rural residential properties along Highway 7 • two dwellings alon·g Highway 7 are identified as being of heritage interest • surrounding land uses include: north -on the north side of Highway 7 are the Federal Airport Lands that currently support agricultural activities, open space lands and agricultural lands south -additional lands owned by the Province that are designated Seaton Natural Heritage System east -additional lands owned by the Province that are designated Seaton Natural Heritage System, and further east additional future Employment Lands west -the Hamlet of Green River, and open space and agricultural lands 2.1.2 Application Detail • . the predominate uses in the draft plan are for employment: 134 hectares for Prestige Employment General uses; 17 hectares for Prestige Employment Node uses; and 1 hectare of Employment Services uses (see Submitted Plan, Attachment #3) • the Prestige Employment Node uses are generally located in close proximity to the proposed 407 interchange at Sideline 26 • a 27 hectare district park is proposed at the west end of the draft plan • the draft plan contains 13 hectares. of land to be provided to the Region of Durham for a transit/work depot and waste transfer depot at the west end of the draft plan, immediately south of the district park • two heritage lots are proposed that contain heritage buildings • the draft plan also contains lands for a future transitway station, stormwater management facilities, and open space (Seaton Natural Heritage System lands) • the Employment Lands are separated from the proposed residential lands being developed by others in existing draft approved plans of subdivision by Natural Heritage System land that will act as a buffer between the land uses • see Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-01 details on Attachment #4 Information Report No. 06-15 Page 3 2.2 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-03 and Zoning By-law Amendment A 5/15 Neighbourhood 20 These applications represent the OILC lands in Seaton Neighbourhood 20, Thompson's Corner. The subject draft plan represents all the developable land within this Neighbourhood (see Neighbourhood 20: Thompson's Corner Neighbourhood Plan, Attachment #5). 2.2.1 Property Description • the subject lands consisting of five individual parcels located in the northeast quadrant of the Seaton Community; Brock Road acts as a spine for the neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #6) • the subject lands have a total land area of approximately 191 hectares • the realigned Brock Road at the Highway 407/ETR interchange is reflected in the development plan • the Hamlet of Brougham is not included in the applications • the lands are currently used for agricultural/rural activities and open space lands • surrounding land uses include: north -the Hamlet of Brougham, and on the north side of Highway 7 are the Federal Airport Lands that currently support agricultural/rural activities south -additional lands owned by the Province designated Seaton Natural Heritage System east -north of Whitevale Road are rural/open space lands, and south of Whitevale Road, in the Town of Ajax, there is a pioneer cemetery and rural uses west -additional lands owned by the Province that are designated Seaton Natural Heritage System, and along the Highway 407/ETR corridor are additional future Employment Lands 2.2.2 Application Detail • the proposed draft plan of subdivision is reflective of the land use designations in Neighbourhood 20 of the Official Plan • the Neighbourhood is considered a complete community given the integration of a diversity of land uses that includes employment, commercial, residential, schools and community facilities (see Submitted Plan, Attachment #7) • the draft plan. proposes approximately: 34 hectares of Prestige Employment Node; 14 hectares of Prestige Employment General; 6 hectares of Community Node; 8 hectares of Mixed Corridor; 14 hectares of Medium Density Residential; and, 11 hectares of Low Density Residential • the projected number of dwelling units in the draft plan of subdivision is approximately 2,398 units · • the Community Node is located along Brock Road, central to the neighbourhood; a Pedestrian Predominant Street runs perpendicular to Brock Road, and forms the spine of the Community Node 3 4 Information Report No. 06-15 Page4 • mixed corridor uses are proposed along the west side of Brock Road, south of the Community Node and extending south of Whitevale Road; with possible uses including residential, retail and office • a cluster of blocks for community facilities is located in the area of Brock Road, north of Whitevale Road that are intended for a high school, an elementary school, a neighbourhood park and a recreation centre • see Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-03 details on Attachment #8 2.3 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-04 and Zoning By-law Amendment A 8/15 Neighbourhood 17 These applications represent the OILC lands in Seaton Neighbourhood 17: Brock-Taunton. The subject draft plan represents all of the developable land within this Neighbourhood (see Neighbourhood 17: Brock-Taunton Neighbourhood Plan, Attachment #9). 2.3.1 Property Description • the subject lands consist of six individual parcels located in the southeast quadrant of the Seaton Community; Brock Road and Taunton Road act as spines for the neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1 0) • the subject lands have a total land area of approximately 32 hectares • Neighbourhood 17 is the smallest of all the Seaton Neighbourhoods; the majority of lands within this Neighbourhood are Seaton Natural Heritage System, resulting in the a limited amount of developable land • the lands are currently used for agricultural/rural activities and open space lands • surrounding land uses include: south -the CPR rail lines, and further south, the Duffin Heights Neighbourhood that contains open space, residential and mixed corridor lands north west south -additional rands owned by the Province designated Seaton Natural Heritage System that currently support agricultural and rural/open space lands 2.3.2 Application Detail • the proposed draft plan of subdivision is reflective of the land use designations in Neighbourhood 17 of the Official Plan • the draft plan consist of six development blocks, three large blocks at the intersection of Taunton Road and Brock Road, and three blocks west of Brock Road that are accessed off of Taunton Road and Concession Road 4 (see Submitted Plan, Attachment #11) • the three larger developable blocks, which are clustered around the Taunton Road and Brock Road intersection, are proposed to be the main focus area for the Neighbourhood with the highest concentration of activity and the greatest potential for diversity of residential and commercial uses Information Report No. 06-15 Page 5 • these blocks are all designated as Gateway Sites, and residential development of these lands will be in the form of High Density Residential such as apartment buildings • the lands at the northwest corner of the Brock Road and Taunton Road intersection are proposed to be transferred to the Region of Durham for a police station, subject to the approval of the Region of Durham • the developable blocks located on the south side of Taunton Road and Concession Road 4 are proposed for High and Medium Density Residential in the form of apartment buildings and townhouses • see Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-04 details on Attachment #12 2.4 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-05 and Zoning By-law Amendment A 10/15 Neighbourhood 19 These applications represent the remnant developable lands owned by OILC in Seaton Neighbourhood 19, Wilson Meadows. The majority of developable lands in this Neighbourhood are owned by various Seaton developers and have been rezoned and the subdivisions have been draft approved (see Neighbourhood 19: Wilson Meadows Neighbourhood Plan, Attachment #13). The rezoning application is for the OILC developable lands within this draft plan of subdivision, and also includes the zoning for all the lands in the Seaton Natural Heritage System in all of Seaton that have not been included in previous rezoning applications. This application includes the Provincially owned Natural Heritage System lands as well as some privately owned Open Space Systems lands. 2.4.1 Property Description • the subject lands consisting of nine individual parcels spread across Neighbourhood 19 • some of the lands are small remnant parcels and others are larger developable blocks (see Location Map, Attachment #14) • the subject lands have a total land area of approximately 41 hectares • the subject lands include: Low Density Type 1 Areas; Low Density Type 2 Areas; Medium Density Areas; Stormwater Management Facilities; Heritage Lots; Community Park; Neighbourhood Park; and land for Elementary School use • the lands are currently used for agricultural/rural activities and open space uses • rural detached dwellings, including heritage lots are located along Whitevale Road • the largest developable block in the Provincially owned lands is surrounded by Seaton Natural Heritage System and adjacent to other Low and Medium Residential Density Areas within the Neighbourhood 5 6 Information Report No. 06-15 2.4.2 Application Detail • the proposed draft plan of subdivision is reflective of the land use designations in Neighbourhood 19 of the Official Plan Page 6 • the draft plan for t,he Provincially-owned lands in Neighbourhood 19 supports the overall vision of Neighbourhood 19 and contributes to the completion of development areas (see Submitted Concept Plan, Attachment #15) • the draft plan proposes a total of 550 dwelling units: 317 detached dwellings; 94 semi-detached dwellings; and139 townhouse dwelling units • the draft plan proposes community park blocks on the north side of Whitevale Road, a portion of a neighbourhood park that will be assembled with a park block in an abutting subdivision, and one elementary school block • one heritage lot is also proposed in the draft plan • see Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-05 details on Attachment #16 • the rezoning application includes not only the land within the draft plan of subdivision, but also includes the Provincially owned Seaton Natural Heritage System lands, as well as some privately owned Open Space System lands (see Seaton Natural Heritage Systems Lands, Attachment #17) • the additional private lands included in the rezoning application were requested by the City to ensure all the open space lands within Seaton will be rezoned to an appropriate Open Space System zone 2.5 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-06 and Zoning By-law Amendment A 11/15 Neighbourhoods 18 and 16 These applications represent the remnant developable parcels owned by OILC in Seaton Neighbourhood 18, Mount Pleasant and two small parcels in Neighbourhood 16, Lamoreaux (see Neighbourhood 18: Mount Pleasant Neighbourhood Plan, Attachment #18 and Neighbourhood 16: Lamoreaux Neighbourhood Plan, Attachment #19). The subject draft plan represents the OILC developable lands within these Neighbourhoods. The majority of developable lands in these Neighbourhoods are owned by various Seaton developers that have been rezoned and the subdivisions have been draft approved. 2.5.1 Property Description • the subject lands consisting of eight individual parcels spread across Neighbourhood 18, as well as two parcels in Neighbourhood 16 • some of these parcels of land are small remnant pieces and others are larger developable blocks (see Location Map, Attachment #20) • the subject lands have a total area of approximately 41 hectares • the Provincially owned lands in Neighbourhood 18 are spread across the ·northern portion of Neighbourhood 18, and are generally adjacent to Low Density Type 1 land uses that are held by other landowners and are also adjacent to the Seaton Natural Heritage System and/or the Hamlet of Whitevale Information Report No. 06-15 Page 7 • the subject lands include lands designated as Low Density Area Type 1, Low Density Area Type 2, Village Green, Open Space and Hamlet Heritage Open Space • a Community Park, a Neighbourhood Park and two elementary schools sites are identified within the lands designated Hamlet Heritage Open Space • the Neighbourhood 16 lands include a block designated as a Mixed Corridor Type 2-Gateway Site, and a block for High Density Residential 2.5.2 Application Detail • the proposed draft plan of subdivision is reflective of the land use designations in Neighbourhoods 16 and 18 of the Official Plan (see Submitted Plan, Attachment #21) • the larger development blocks in Neighbourhood 18 are adjacent to the Hamlet of Whitevale • the lands that partially surround the Hamlet of Whitevale, located in the lands designated Hamlet Heritage Open Space, are intended to provide a buffer/transition between new urban development and the Hamlet, while supporting community integration • the Hamlet Heritage Open Space designation allows for institutional and recreational facilities, including two blocks for elementary schools, a Community Park, a Neighbourhood Park and a stormwater management pond • two blocks for elementary school sites are located in the northwestern and southeastern corners of the Hamlet Heritage Open Space • the Hamlet Heritage Open Space designation also has a Neighbourhood Park proposed south of Whitevale Road, and a Community Park north of Whitevale Road; both parks are directly adjacent to new Low Density Area neighbourhoods · • north of the Hamlet Heritage Open Space designation, on the west side of North Road, is a residential development parcel that is proposed for 148 detached dwellings and 24 semi-detached dwellings • the other developable parcel in Neighbourhood 18 is on the south side of Whitevale Road, east of the Whitevale Cemetery • this parcel is proposed for 4 7 detached dwellings • an open space block is proposed on the west side of the cemetery that is designated as Cemetery • the two remnant developable parcel? in Neighbourhood 16 are a Gateway block along Sideline 26 that is anticipated to be developed with adjacent property, and a High Density block along Taunton Road • see Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-06 details on Attachment #22 3. Policy Framework 3.1 Central Pickering Development Plan • the Central Pickering Development Plan (CPDP) sets out the principles and goals that outline the general development vision for the overall Seaton Urban Area, including the integration of new sustainable urbaD development while ensuring the protection, maintenance and enhancement of the natural heritage system 7 8 Information Report No. 06-15 Page 8 • the objectives and policies of the CPDP are designed to achieve the vision of Seaton • the Provincially owned lands that are subject to these applications generally conform to the intent of the CPDP 3.2 Durham Regional Official Plan • the Seaton Neighbourhoods fall under 'Special Policy Area A (Pickering)', in the Durham Regional Official Plan, and these lands shall be developed in accordance with the CPDP and implementing Neighbourhood Plans • the design, structure and uses proposed for the Provincially owned lands within the Neighbourhoods are consistent with those permitted in the CPDP and the Neighbourhood Plans • the applications comply with the Durham Regional Official Plan 3.3 Pickering Official Plan • the subject lands are within the Seaton Urban Area Boundary • the Official Plan contains policies governing various land use designations, such as Residential Areas, Mixed Use Areas, Employment Areas, and Open Space System, all of which are located in the Seaton Neighbourhoods • the Official plan establishes various polices for such matters as density, intensity of land use and sustainability • Official Plan Amendment 22 further defies the land use designations as well as establishes polices for such matters as the Seaton Natural Heritage System, cultural heritage, sustainable development, servicing, and urban design • the applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Pickering Official Plan during the further processing of the applications 3.3.1 Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines • the Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines address the urban design guidelines contained within the CPDP and expands upon the key design elements: • the Guidelines set out minimum standards and benchmarks for plans of subdivision and site plans, and list the range of matters that are to be addressed in the development of the lands · • the Guidelines provide direction on the design of tbe public realm, built form and green infrastructure and buildings • the applications will be assessed against the policies and provisions of the Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines during the further processing of the applicati0ns 3.4 Zoning By-law 3037 • the subject lands are zoned "A"-Rural Agriculturai.Zone under Restricted Area Zoning By-law 3037, as amended, which currently permits a detached dwelling, home occupation, and various agricultural and related uses Information Report No. 06-15 Page 9 • portions of the subject lands are zoned "G"-Greenbelt-Conservation Zone • portions of the subject lands are zoned "Q"-Pit and Quarry Zone • amendments are proposed to delete all of the subject lands from Zoning By-law 3037 and to add these lands to the new Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 in order to facilitate the implementation of the draft plans of subdivision and provide appropriate zoning for the Seaton Open Space System 4. Comments Received 4.1 Resident Comments • no comments received 4.2 Agency Comments • comments received to date from agencies relate to technical implementation matters and no agency that has commented has provided any comments on land use matters 4.3 City Departments Comments Heritage Pickering. Advisory Committee (HPAC) • applications SP-2015-01 & A 2/15 and SP-2015-03 & A 3/15 were considered by HPAC on July 22, 2015 • the applicant should prepare a Heritage Assessment Report for the properties at 575 and 815 Highway 7 and a Heritage Impact Statement for the property at .3440 Brock Road 5. Planning & Design Section Comments The following matters have been identified by staff for further review and consideration: • ensuring the applications will implement the City's Official Plan and the Seaton Neighbourhood policies • ensuring the proposal is consistent with the City's urban design goals and objectives in the Seaton Sustainable Place-Making Guidelines • ensuring that the submitted Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Report is consistent with the Seaton Master Environmental Servicing Plan to the satisfaction of the Region, the City and the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority • ensuring a full heritage assessment for appropriate properties has been undertaken and adverse impacts are appropriately mitigated • ensuring that the proposed development contains appropriate sustainable development components • ensuring that required technical submissions and reports meet City standards • the City Development Department will conclude its position on the applications after it has received and assessed comments from the circulated departments, agencies and the public 9 10 Information Report No. 06-15 Page 10 6. 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: • Archaeological Assessments • Environmental Noise Assessments • Functional Servicing and Stormwater Management Reports • Phase One Environmental Site Assessments • Planning Rationale/Sustainable Development Guidelines Reports Copies of this information will be posted on the City's website. 7. Procedurallnformation 7.1 General • written comments regarding these proposals 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 these proposals or makes a decision on the draft plans of subdivision • any member of the public who wishes to be notified of Council's decision regarding these proposals must request such in writing to the City Clerk 8. Owner/Applicant Information • the owner of the subject lands is Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation on behalf of the Province of Ontario, represented by Graham Martin and Anton Potasok • the applications have been submitted by John van Nostrand and Emma West of planningAIIiance on behalf of Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corporation A~chment#_:i__to 7 __ _ lnfonnatlon Reoort# O'<T/5 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-01 Proposed Development Detail Neighbourhood 21 (Phase 2) Pickering Official Plan Designation -Employment Areas -Prestige Employment -Open Space Systems -Seaton Natural Heritage System -Hamlet Heritage Open Space, District Park Neighbourhood Plan Designation -Seaton Natural Heritage System -Heritage Lot -Prestige Employment General -Prestige Employment Node -Prestige Employment Node -that includes a Future Transitway Station -Hamlet Heritage Open Space that includes a District Park Zoning Existing -A-Agricultural, G -Greenbelt- Conservation in By-law 3037 Proposed -appropriate to permit proposed draft plan in Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 Details of the Draft Plan Total area of draft plan -284.2 hectares Prestige Employment -134.3 hectares Prestige Employment Node -17.1 hectares Employment Service -0.9 hectares Stormwater Management facilities -18.8 hectares Natural Heritage Systems -36.6 hectares Hamlet Heritage Open Space--8.7 hectares Regional Facilities Hamlet Heritage Open Spac~--27.1 hectares District Park Hamlet Heritage Open Space -4.5 hectares Heritage Lots -0.9 hectares . Transitway station -2.2 hectares Non-Developable blocks -0.5 hectares Non Participant blocks -3.7 hectares Municipal roads -28.3 hectares 15 Attachment# S to Information Report# Ofo:---i5 ,. Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-03 Proposed Development Detail Neighbourhood 20 Pickering Official Plan Designation -Employment Areas -Prestige Employment -Mixed Use Areas-Community Nodes -Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridor -Urban Residential Areas-Medium Density Areas -Urban Residential Areas-Low Density Areas -Open Space Systems -Seaton Natural Heritage System -Open Space Systems -Active Recreational Areas Neighbourhood Plan Designation -Seaton Natural Heritage System -Prestige Employment General -Prestige Employment Node -Prestige Employment Node -that includes a Future Transitway Station -Community Node -Mixed Corridor Type 2 -Gateway Site -Medium Density Area -Low Density Area Type 1 -Heritage Lot -High Schools -Elementary Schools -Recreation Centre -Neighbourhood Park -Village Green -District Energy Zoning Existing -A-Agricultural, By-law 3037 Proposed -appropriate to permit proposed draft plan in Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 19 Attachment#. '6_to information Report# Ofo-15 __ Details of the Draft Plan Total area of draft plan -191.6 hectares Prestige Employment -14.2 hectares Prestige Employment Node -34.7 hectares Community Node -6.6 hectares Mixed Corridor Type 2 -8.1 hectares Medium Density Area -14.8 hectares Low Density Area Type 1 -11.5 hectares High School -6.6 hectares Elementary Schools -4.5 hectares Recreation Centre -4.1 hectares Neighbourhood Park -3.0 hectares Village Green -0.9 hectares Trail Head -0.1 hectares Stormwater Management facilities -12.6 hectares Natural Heritage Systems -39.3 hectares Heritage Lots -0.2 hectares Non-Developable blocks -0.2 hectares Municipal roads -29.6 hectares Residential Units Detached Dwelling Units -529 Townhouse Dwelling Units -467 Stacked Townhouse Dwelling Units -198 Low Rise Apartments -801 Mid Rise Apartments -161 High Rise Apartments -241 Total dwelling units -2398 20 24 Attachment# I 2-to tnformation Report# OCo-15 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-04 Proposed Development Detail Neighbourhood 17 Pickering Official Plan Designation -Mixed Use Areas -Mixed Corridor -Urban Residential Areas-High Density Areas -Open Space Systems -Seaton Natural Heritage System -Freeway and Major Utilities-Potential Multi- Use Areas Neighbourhood Plan Designation -Mixed Corridor Type 2 -Gateway Site -High Density Area -Seaton Natural Heritage System -Village Green Zoning Existing -A-Agricultural, By-law 3037 Proposed -appropriate to permit proposed draft plan in Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 Details of the Draft Plan Total area of draft plan -31.8 hectares High Density Blocks -3.2 hectares Mixed Corridor Type 2-Gateway Sites -2. 7 hectares Mixed Corridor Type 2-Apartments -1.2 hectares Mixed Corridor Type 2-Stacked -5.6 hectares Townhouse Mixed Corridor Type 2-Townhouses -4.1 hectares Mixed Corridor Type 2-Regional -4.0 hectares Facility Use (Police Station) Village Green -0.3 hectares Stormwater Management facilities -2.9 hectares Natural Heritage Systems -0.6 hectares Easement blocks -1.9 hectares Municipal roads -4.9 hectares Residential Units Townhouse Dwelling Units -156 Stacked Townhouse Dwelling Units -572 Mid Rise Apartments -147 High Rise Apartments -1021 Total dwelling units -1896 28 Attac!1ment#jj__to .5 tnformation Report# . Of;z:J_ ·=w- Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-05 Proposed Development Detail Neighbourhood 19 Pickering Official Plan Designation -Urban Residential Areas-Medium Density Areas -Urban Residential Areas-:-Low Density Areas -Open Space Systems -Active Recreational Areas that includes a District Park Neighbourhood Plan Designation -Medium Density Area -Low Density Area Type 2 -Low Density Area Type 1 -Community Park -Neighbourhood Park -Village Green -Elementary School -Heritage Lot Zoning Existing -A-Agricultural, By-law 3037 Proposed -appropriate to permit proposed draft plan in Seaton Zoning by-law 7364/14 Details of the Draft Plan Total area of draft plan -41.3 hectares Medium Density Area -0.6 hectares Low Density Area Type 2 -6.5 hectares Low Density Area Type 1 -11.6 hectares Community Park -5. 1 hectares Neighbourhood Park -0.6 hectares Elementary School -2.3 hectares Heritage Lot -0.7 hectares Stormwater Management facilities -3.3 hectares Community Use Block-Transit -1.9 hectares facility Municipal roads -8.2 hectares Residential Units Detached Dwelling Units -317 Semi-Detached Dwelling Units -94 Townhouse Dwelling Units -139 Total dwelling units -550 34 Attachment# '2 L to Information Report# 06-15 Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2015-06 Proposed Development Detail Neighbourhoods 16 and 18 Pickering Official Plan Designation -Urban Residential Areas-High Density Areas -Mixed Use Areas-Mixed Corridor as -Urban Residential Areas-Low Density Are -Hamlet Heritage Open Space -Hamlet Heritage Open Space, that includes a Community Park Neighbourhood Plan Designation -Mixed Corridor Type 2-Gateway Site -High Density Area -Low Density Area Type 2 -Low Density Area Type 1 -Hamlet Heritage Open Space -Hamlet Heritage Open Space that includes a Community Park -Hamlet Heritage Open Space that includes a Neighbourhood Park -Hamlet Heritage Open Space that includes elementary schools -Village Green -Cemetery Zoning Existing -A-Agricultural, Q-Pit and Quarry in By-law 3037 Proposed -appropriate to permit proposed draft plan in Seaton Zoning By-law 7364/14 Details of the Draft Plan Total area of draft plan -39.9 hectares High Density Block -0.3 hectares Mixed Corridor Type 2-Gateway -0.3 hectares Site Low Density Area Type 2 -0.7 hectares Low Density Area Type 1 -7.6 hectares Hamlet Heritage Open Space 9.0 Hamlet Heritage Open Space -6.67 hectares Community Park Attachment# 22-to Information Report# 06-15 Hamlet Heritage Open Space -2.3 hectares Neighbourhood Park Hamlet Heritage Open Space -5.0 hectares Elementary School Village Green -0.1 hectares Stormwater Management facilities -2.3 hectares Open Space Blocks -1.5 hectares Municipal roads -3.4 hectares Residential Units Apartment Dwelling Units -96 Detached Dwelling Units -195 Semi-Detached Dwelling Units -24 Total dwelling units -315 35 Information Report No. 07-15 Page2 3. Applicant's Proposal The applicant has indicated that the building currently tenanted by Home Outfitters will be vacated soon. To increase the marketability of the site and to re-use the building, the applicant is requesting to add a food store use and a commercial fitness centre to the list of permitted uses on the subject property (see Submitted Site Plan, Attachment #2). At this time, no exterior changes to the buildings, additions or site changes are being proposed. Should this change, a Site Plan Application will be required. 4. Policy Framework 4.1 Durham Regional Official Plan The Regional Official Plan designates the subject property as "Regional Centre" and recognizes downtown Pickering (the City Centre) as an Urban Growth Centre in accordance with the Growth Plan of the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Lands within an Urban Growth Centre and Regional Centre shall be planned and developed as the main concentrations of urban activities providing a fully integrated array of institutional, commercial, major commercial, residential, recreational, cultural, entertainment and major office uses. The applicant's proposal to add a food store use and a commercial fitness centre conforms to the policies and provisions of the Durham Regional Official Plan. 4.2 Pickering Official Plan The subject property is designated as "Mixed Use Areas-City Centre", which provides for a range of uses including, but not limited to, commercial and retail uses, offices, restaurants and high density residential uses. This designation permits a maximum floor space index of up to and including 5.7. The applicant's proposal complies with the policies of the Official Plan. 4.3 Zoning By-law 3036 The subject lands are currently zoned "C9" -Commercial Use in Zoning By-law 3036, as amended, which permits a broad range of commercial/retail uses, office, medical office, restaurants, financial institutions and personal service uses. The current zoning does not permit a food store or a commercial fitness centre. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Resident Comments No comments or concerns have been received in response to the circulation of the notice of public meeting. 37 38 Information Report No. 07-15 Page 3 5.2 Agency Comments No comments or concerns have been received in response to the circulation to date. 5.3 City Departments Comments Engineering & Public Works • No concerns or objections with the Zoning By-law Amendment application 6. Planning & Design Section Comments 6.1 Sufficient parking supply is available to accommodate the additional uses and minimum traffic impact is anticipated Parking for the subject property is provided at a rate of 5 parking spaces per 100 square metres of gross leasable floor area (GLA). Based on this parking ratio, a total of 238 spaces are required to be provided on the property; whereas the approved site plan, dated March 29, 2001, provides for a total of 246 spaces. The applicant has submitted a Traffic and Parking Brief, prepared by GHD Limited, dated August 2015, in support of the rezoning application. A parking assessment was completed for the entire Hub Plaza, given that the parking area is shared by the landowners. Based on a survey of the existing on-site parking supply, a total of 550 spaces are currently available to serve the parking requirements for the entire plaza. Parking utilization surveys were undertaken by the consultants to understand the plaza's existing peak parking demand on Friday, July 10, 2015 (between ?am to 9 am and 4 pm to 6 pm) and on Saturday, July 11, 2015 (between 11 am and 2 pm). The peak parking demand occurred on Friday, July 10, 2015 around 4:40 pm to 5 pm with approximately 229 occupied parking spaces. The consultants indicate that food stores tend to be one of the highest trip and parking demand generators, and therefore, to provide a conservative assessment, it was assumed that the entire 3,737 square metre building currently occupied by Home Outfitters would be a food store. Based on this assumption, the consultant concludes that the proposed parking supply will adequately serve the parking needs of the food store, and the rest of the commercial uses on the Hub Plaza lands. The consultant also indicated that the inclusion of a food store as a permitted use to replace the building occupied by Home Outfitters can be .accommodated by the existing road network without any impact. City staff have reviewed this study and are satisfied that the addition of a food store use and a commercial fitness centre will not impact the functionality of the Hub Plaza. Information Report No. 07-15 Page4 6.2 No further issues or concerns have been identified The application has been circulated to all internal departments and external agencies for their review. No significant issues or concerns have been identified through the circulation of this application. Furthermore, the City Development Department has no significant concerns with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment Application. 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: • Planning Rationale prepared by GHD Limited, and dated July 20, 2015 • Traffic and Parking Brief prepared by GHD Limited, and dated August 2015 • Site Screening Questionnaire and Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared by SNC-Lavalin Inc., and dated August 2015 • Site Plan 8. Procedurallnformation 8.1 General • 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 9. Owner/Applicant Information • The owner of the property is Steele Valley Development Limited and is represented by Allen Smoskowitz, Michael Smoskowitz, and Harry A. Kichler 39 44 Report PLN 12-15 Subject: Kingsett Brookdale Centre Inc. (A 9/15) October 5, 201 B Page 2 The text of Information Report No. 04-15 is attached as Appendix II to this Report. It contains the applicable Official Plan policies and existing zoning, the comments from external agencies and internal departments, and the detailed review of the subm"itted Traffic Impact Statement and Parking Assessment. No members of the public attended the September 14, 2015 Public Information Meeting and no comments from the public have been received to date. The Applicant's request to remove the floor area restriction for a food store use, and to permit a seasonal outdoor garden centre accessory to a food store, complies with policies of the Pickering Official Plan, and will complement the existing uses permitted on the subject lands. Staff have reviewed the submitted Traffic Impact Statement and Parking Assessment and are satisfied that the existing parking supply will be adequate to serve the parking needs of the food store with a seasonal outdoor garden centre, as well as the rest of the commercial uses on the subject lands. Furthermore, the proposed uses will not impact the existing road network and the functionality of the site. Staff supports the application and recommends that the site specific amending by-law as set out in Appendix I, be approved and forwarded to Council for enactment. Appendices Appendix I Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Appendix II Text of Information Report No. 04-15 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Applicant's Submitted Plan 46 Draft Implementing Zoning By-law Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 9/15 Appendix I to Report PLN 12-15 ickering Being a By-law to amend Restricted Area (Zoning) By-law 3036, as amended, to implement the Official Plan of the City of Pickering, Region of Durham, in Concession 1, Part Lots 23 and 24, 40R-25448 Parts 1, 2, 4 to 37, 44 to 47 and Parts 3 and 38, 40R-6862 Parts 2 and 3, and 40R-10821 Part 1 except 40R-25266 Parts 1 to 6, in the City of Pickering. (A 9/15) Whereas the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering received an application to. rezone the subject lands being Concession 1, Part Lots 23 and 24, 40R-25448 Parts 1, 2, 4 to 37, 44 to 47 and Parts 3 and 38, 40R-6862 Parts 2 and 3, and 40R-1 0821 Part 1 except 40R-25266 Parts 1 to 6, in the City of Pickering to remove the floor area restriction for a food store use and to permit a seasonal outdoor garden centre accessory to a food store use; And whereas an amendment to By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6778/07, is therefore deemed necessary; Now therefore the Council of The Corporation of the City of Pickering hereby enacts as follows: 1 . Area Restricted The provisions of this By-law shall apply to those lands in Concession 1, Part of Lots 23 and 24, 40R-25448 Parts 1, 2, 4 to 37, 44 to 47 and Parts 3 and 38 40R-6862 Parts 2 and 3, and 40R-10821 Part 1 except 40R-25266 Parts 1 to 6, in the City of Pickering. · 2. Text Amendment 1: Section 4. (1) Uses Permitted by By-law 3036 as amended by By-law 6778/07, is hereby amended by re-alphabetizing this subsection in order to incorporate an additional permitted use: ( q) garden centre accessory to a food store 2. Section 4. (2) Zone Requirements of By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6778/07 subsection U) Special Regulations, of, is hereby amended by deleting Section 4. (2)U)(iii) which reads as follows: "(iii) Maximum floor area for a food store shall be 750 square metres"; 47 Text of Information Report No. 04-15 Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 9/15 Appendix II to Report PLN 12-15 49 Information Report No. 04-15 Page2 3. Applicant's Proposal The applicant is requesting to all!end the zoning by-law to facilitate the reuse of a vacant building formerly occupied by Future Shop (see Building Bon Applicant's Submitted Plan, Attachment #2). The specific amendments include removing the maximum floor area restriction for a food store use, and permitting a seasonal outdoor garden centre accessory to a food store use. The proposed seasonal outdoor garden centre is contemplated to be in operation between the months of May and August. The garden centre will be approximately 460 square me.tres in size and will occupy approximately 15 parking spaces, plus a portion of an aisleway, when in operation. At this time, no exteriorchanges to the building fac;ade, or additions to the vacant commercial building are being proposed. Should this change, a Site Plan Application will be require?. · 4. Policy Framework 4.1 · Pickering Official Plan The CiffiGial Plan designates the subject lands as "Mixed Use Areas-Mixed Use Corridors", which provides for the highest concentration and diversity of uses in the City, including residential, a range of retail uses, offices, restaurants and· community, cultural and recreational uses. This designation permits a maximum floor space index of up to and including 2.5.-The applicant's proposal complies with the policies of the Official Plan. · 4.2 Zoning By-law 3036, as amended by By-law 6778/07 -~--------------------------~ ----- The subject lands are currently zoned "MU-21" Mixed Use, which permits a broad range of office and commercial uses, such as but not limited to, business and professional office, convenience store, day nursery, discount department store, drug store, food store, home improvement. centre, personal service shop, restaurant-Type A, and retail store. The by-law also permits a garden ce~tre accessory to a home improvement centre. By-law 6778/07 restricts the maximum floor area for a food store use to 750 square metres. The intent of this provision was to permit a small scale food store .. The applicant is seeking to is delete the maximum floor area provision for a food store use and to permit a seasonal outdoor garden centre accessory to a food store use. 5. Comments Received 5.1 Resident Comments· No comments or concerns have been received in response to the circulation of the notice of public meeting. 51 Information Report No. 04-15 5.2 Agency Comments Region -of Durham . Page 3 • the subject lands are designated "Living Areas" in the Regional Official Plan with the "Regional Corridor" overlay . • the "Living Areas" designation allows for Major Retail Uses subject to the inclusion of the appropriate · provisions and designations in area municipalities • Corridors are to be planned and developed as mixed use areas, which. include residential; commercial, and service uses with higher densities • the applicant's requested amendments are permitted. by the Regional Official Plan 5.3 . City Departments Comments Engineering & Public Works • no concerns or objections with the Zoning By-law Amendment application 6. Planning & Design Section Comments 6.1 Sufficient parking supply is available on-site to accommodate the additional uses The applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Statement and Parking Assessment, prepared by BA Group, dated July 10, 2015, in support of the rezoning __ applicatiDn. _Bas_e_d_Qn _asurvey of the existing on-site parking supply, a total of 763 spaces are currently available to serve the site's parking requirements. Parking for the site is provided at a rate of 4.5 parking spaces per 1 00 square metres of gross leasable floor area (GLA) for all non-residential uses. Based on . this parking ratio, when the vacant commercial building is occupied with the proposed food store, the site will require a total of 7 45 parking spaces and 766 parking spaces when the outdoor seasonal garden centre is in operation .. Parking utilization surveys were undertaken by the consultant to understand the site's existing peak parking demand on Friday, June 12, 2015 between 12:00 pm to 6:00pm and Saturday, June 13,2015 between 11:00 am to 5:00pm. The peak parking accumulation occurred on Saturday, June 13, 2015 at 12:00 pm with approximately 288 occupied parking spaces. The consultant concludes that the proposed parking supply will adequately serve the parking needs of the food store -with a se~sonal outdoor garden centre, and the rest of the commercial uses on the subject lands. The ultimate build-outof the sub jed lands, as illustrated on the Applicant's Submitted Plan, (see Attachment#2) includes the extension of Walnut Lane and ________ _c_ __ a total parking supply of approximately 902 parking spaces, which exceeds the parking requirements in the current .site specific zoning by-law. 52 Information Report No. 04-15 --Page 4 The ·consultant also indicated that the introduction of the food store use and the optional outdoor seasonal garden centre can be accommodated by the existing road network without undue impact. City and Regional staff have reviewed this. study and are satisfied that the proposed food store with a seasonal outdoor garden centre will not unduly impact the functionality of the site. 6.2 No further issues or concerns have been identified The application has been circulated to all internal departments and external agencies for their review. No significant issues or concerns have been identified . through the circulation of this application. Furthermore, the City Development Department has no significant concerns with respect to the Zoning By-law Amendment J\pplication. · 7. Information Received Full scale copies of the plans and studies listed below are available for viewing at the offices ~f the City of Pickering, City Development Department: • Planning Justification Report prepared by Hunter & Associates, and dated July 8, 2015 • Traffic lnipactStatement and Parking Assessment prepared by BA Group, and dated July, 2015 • Survey, prepared by RPE Surveying Ltd., and dated November 14, 2012 • Conceptual Site Plan, prepared by K & K Architects, and dated June 24, 2015 -8.-----Procedurall_nformation __ 8.1 9. General - • Written comments regarding this prop_osal 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 Owner/Applicant Information • The owner of the property is Kingsett Brookdale Centre Inc. and is represented by Diana Mercier of Hunter & Associates Ltd. 53 58 Report PLN 13-15 October 5, 2015 Subject: ConsetVation Authorities Act Review Discussion Paper Page 2 Financial Implications: Not applicable 1. Background The ConsetVation Authorities Act (CA Act) was passed in 1946 in response to extensive flooding, erosion, deforestation and soil loss resulting from poor land, water and forestry management practices in prior decades. The CA Act outlines the process to establish, fund, dissolve, amalgamate and operate a conservation authority. The CA Act is administered by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry (MNRF) in conjunction with other Provincial Ministries. The purpose of a conservation authority is to deliver a resource management program; including flood and environmental protection, water~hed planning and stewardship measures, addressing both provincial and municipal objectives. The framework and conditions for resource management in Ontario have changed significantly since the approval of the CA Act. The conservation authorities' role has become increasingly complex due to increasing development and population growth, an increasing number of agencies from all levels of government involved in resource management, and new challenges such as climate change. In February 2012, the Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Service (the Drummond Report) recommended that the MNRF undertake a review of the programs and services delivered by the MNRF and the conservation authorities to clarify responsibilities and eliminate any overlap in roles and responsibilities in terms of resource management and environmental protection. In December 2012, Conservation Ontario released a Whitepaper entitled "Watershed Management Futures for Ontario" to stimulate discussion between the conservation authorities an-d the Province on options for a renewed watershed management partnership. In response to this Whitepaper, Council endorsed staff report PLN 15-13 in September 2013, which recommended the need to initiate a discussion about the roles and responsibilities and a new funding formula for conservation authorities. Subsequently, in July 2015, the MNRF issued a discussion paper to engage ministries, municipalities, conservation authorities, stakeholders and the public to initiate a review of the CA Act. A copy of the Discussion Paper is provided as Attachment # 1. 2. Discussion The purpose of the Conservation Authorities Act Review Discussion Paper is to seek feedback on the following three areas: • Governance -the processes, structures and accountability frameworks within the CA Act, which direct conservation authority decision-making and operations Report PLN 13-15 Subject: Consetvation Authorities Act Review Discussion Paper October 5, 2015 Page 3 • Roles and Responsibilities -the roles and associated responsibilities that the CA Act enables conservation authorities to undertake; and • Funding Mechanisms -the mechanisms put in place by the CA Act to fund conservation authorities. 3. Comments 3.1 Governance The governance of conservation authorities is shared between the Province and municipalities. The Province is responsible for establishing a conservation authority, defining the authority's powers, and directing and monitoring provincially approved programs. The direction for an authority's operations is overseen through a board of municipally appointed directors. While municipally appointed boards have effectively directed operations and local service delivery, such operations have become increasingly challenging with the expanding range of provincial and federal legislation and regulations that conservation authorities must consider (see the table below). ~17ecteral Uegislation erovincial l!egislation ~ :; ~~ • Canada Water Act . • Canadian Environmental Protection Act • Environmental Contaminants Act • International River Improvement Act • International Boundary Waters Treaty Act • Fisheries Act • Navigable Waters Protection Act "" 7,{ '""'!,7 • Ontario Water Resources Act • Environmental Assessment Act • Environmental Protection Act • Consetvation Authorities Act • Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act • Lake Simcoe Protection Act • Beds of Navigable Waters Act • Aggregate Resources Act • Clean Water Act • Planning Act • Municipal Act • Public Utilities Act • Drainage Act • Nutrient Management Act • Pesticides Act • Public Lands Act • Safe Drinking Water Act • Water Opportunities Act Recent initiatives for Climate Change, Great Lakes Protection and Source Water Protection have put increasing pressure on conservation authorities to develop integrated approaches to environmental management. While the conservation authorities have embraced implementing provincial programs that the provincial ministries have not been equipped to carry out, such programs cross multiple ministries and numerous statutes. 59 60 Report PLN 13-15 Subject: Conservation Authorities Act Review Discussion Paper October 5, 2015 Page 4 The range of legislation governing resource management has become more complex, confusing and sometimes conflicting, leading to inconsistent application and interpretation of policies, regulations, technical guidelines and provincial programs. Conservation authorities undertake work that supports and implements provincial and municipal objectives. As such, it is recommended that the Province reinforce the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry's role as the "one-window" Ministry for providing a consistent approach and establishing minimum service levels for all conservation authorities in Ontario. 3.2 Roles and Responsibilities The CA Act provides a broad definition of the roles and responsibilities associated with the conservation, restoration, development and management of natural resources (other than gas, oil, coal and minerals). The Province has indicated that the scope of potential programs is intentionally broad, to allow for flexibility in local program development that reflects local geography and priorities. However, the broad mandate provided under sections 20 and 21 of theCA Act has led to situations where some conservation authorities have expanded their mandate beyond their original scope of authority. For example, through the 2012 Conservation Ontario Whitepaper on "Watershed Management Futures in Ontario", it was suggested that the authority for interpreting natural heritage protections under the Planning Act be delegated from municipalities to the conservation authorities. The City did not support this direction since removing the ability to consider the full range of interests could prevent municipal councils from making properly balanced decisions on many land use planning matters. The roles and responsibilities of conservation authorities should be coordinated and consistent between conservation authorities, and not conflict with the authority that is legislatively provided to municipalities. Therefore, it is recommended that the Province establish an integrated approach to watershed management by consolidating legislation that affects conservation authorities, and by clearly defining and articulating the responsibilities of conservation authorities in relation to those of municipalities. 62 Report PLN 13-15 October 5, 2015 Subject: ConsetVation Authorities Act Review Discussion Paper Page 6 In recognition of the increasing role that conservation authorities play, and the tremendous amount of work and value they provide to the Province, the Province should increase its funding commitment to conservation authorities. Accordingly, it is recommended that the Province increase transfer payments to address inequity in funding between conservation authorities, and to reflect the Province's role as an important partner in integrated watershed management. 4. Conclusion City staff appreciates the expertise of the conservation authorities in applying flood hazard and stormwater management regulations, and providing advice on how best to protect natural heritage and hydrologic features in dealing with development applications. In addition, City staff rely on conservation authority input to environmental assessments for major projects proposed by senior governments, master environmental servicing plans to justify new communities, and smaller scale infrastructure initiatives. However, with an increase in the role and responsibilities of conservation authorities through the delegation of new functions, it is evident that there is a need to re-examine the governing model and funding formula for resource management functions in Ontario. This re-examination should address streamlining service delivery and creating greater consistency across jurisdictions. To this end, it is suggested that MNRF reinforce its role as the "one-window" Ministry overseeing resource management activities across Ontario. Any expanded mandate for conservation authorities should not, however, compromise municipalities' authority to make decisions or to interpret policy for natural heritage protection under the Planning Act. 5. Next Steps The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry will consider all comments received on the Environmental Registry posting# 012-4509 entitled "ConsetVation Authorities Act Review Discussion Paper", prior to October 19, 2015. Since Council will not be meeting until October 26, 2015 to consider this Report, staff will provide a copy of the Report and the October 5, 2015 Planning and Development Committee meeting minutes to the MNRF in advance of Council's formal decision on this matter. Attachment 1 . ConsetVation Authorities Act Review Discussion Paper Photo credits: Cover photos (left to right): Grand River Conservation Authority (Caledonia Dam); Otonabee Region Conservation Authority; Otonabee Region Conservation Authority Page 6: Conservation Halton Page 21: Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority Page 27: E. Hartlen; Long Point Region Conservation Authority 65 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Conservation Authorities Act-Overview 3. Governance 4. Funding Mechanisms 5. Roles and Responsibilities 6. Summary and Questions for Discussion 7. How to Provide Input References Appendices CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 66 1 ~ 68 Interest in a review of the Conservation Authorities Act has been building over the last several years. The Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Service recommended that the MNRF undertake a review of the programs and services delivered by the MNRF and conservation authorities to clarify responsibilities and eliminate any overlap in roles and responsibilities for resource management and environmental protection that are currently shared across levels of government. In addition, municipalities, developers, and conservation authorities have all identified their interest in and support for a formal government review. The objective of this review is to identify opportunities to improve the legislative, regulatory and policy framework that currently governs the creation, operation and activities of conservation authorities that may be required in the face of a constantly changing environment. The purpose of this discussion paper is to seek feedback on the following three areas: 1. Governance-the processes, structures, and accountability frameworks within the Act which direct conservation authority decision-making and operations; 2. Funding Mechanisms-the mechanisms put in place by the Act to fund conservation authorities; and 3. Roles and Responsibilities-the roles and associated responsibilities that the Act enables conservation authorities to undertake. These areas are all closely linked and need to be considered in an integrated fashion. We ask that you read this discussion paper and focus on the questions that are provided. This discussion paper represents the first step in the Ministry's review. The feedback received in response to the questions outlined below will help the Ministry identify priority areas for review. If specific changes to the existing legislative, regulatory or policy framework are considered in the future, further public consultation will occur as appropriate, for example through subsequent Environmental Bill of Rights Registry postings. Your opinions and insights are important to us. This discussion paper outlines a number of ways to engage in the review and we encourage everyone to participate. The review of site-specific permit applications and permitting decisions or other local decisions made by conservation authorities are not within the scope of the Ministry's review. CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 3 72 3. Governance Conservation authorities are local public sector organizations similar to public health units, hospitals, libraries or school boards-they are not agencies, boards, or commissions of the province as there are no provincial appointees on the authority boards. Under the Act, every authority is established as a corporation governed by a municipally-appointed board of directors. Incorporation under the Act establishes conservation authorities as a distinct legal entity with a degree of autonomy from the individual municipalities and the province that establish it. Under the Act, the board of directors is the conservation authority. Governance2 of conservation authorities has always been shared between the province and participating municipalities. The province has the primary responsibility for establishing a conservation authority (at the request of two or more municipalities), defining the powers of a conservation authority and directing and monitoring provincially approved programs. Municipalities, through municipally appointed boards of directors, have the primary responsibility for directing and overseeing conservation authority operations. The board is responsible for setting strategic and operational policies, and directing and providing oversight of the Authority's senior management. Oversight of day-to-day operations is typically delegated to a general manager or chief administrative officer who is responsible for directing authority staff. 3.1. Conservation Authority Boards Each conservation authority is governed by a board of directors whose members are appointed by participating municipalities. Board members decide on the programs and policies of the authority, including strategic direction, operational decisions, procurement, staffing and budgets. The Act lays out the composition of the conservation authority board and some general operational rules, and requires that each conservation authority have administrative policies in place to guide board operations. The Act does not establish a minimum or maximum number of board members however a meeting of the board must have at least three members in order to achieve quorum. 2 Governance of public sector organizations involves a set of relationships among an organization's stakeholders, interest groups, citizens, boards, management and the government. These relationships are framed by laws, rules, and requirements, and provide the structure through which the objectives of the organization are defined, operating plans are prepared, performance is monitored, and information is communicated among parties (Institute of Internal Auditors, 2014}. CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 7 ~m As shown in Figure 2, the number of representatives that each municipality can appoint is based on the population of that municipality within the conservation authority's jurisdiction. 3 Alternatively, the total number of board members of the authority and the number of members that each participating authority may appoint may be determined by an agreement that is confirmed by resolutions passed by the councils of all of the participating municipalities. 4 There is significant variability in the size of conservation authority boards with some authority boards having as few as five board members while others have as many as 28.5 Board members must reside in a participating municipality and may be appointed for no more than three years at a time. 6 3.2.. Relationship with Municipalities Figure 2: Municipal Representation on Conservation Authority Boards The number of representatives that each municipality can appoint is based on the population of that municipality within the watershed: Population Number of representatives 10,000 or less 1 10,000-50,000 2 50,000-100,000 3 100,000-250,000 4 250,000-500,000 5 500,000-1,000,000 6 More than1,000,000 7 The creation of a conservation authority must be initiated by two or more municipalities located within a common watershed.7 Municipalities who want to establish a conservation authority must petition the province to establish the authority in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation Authorities Act. Once an authority is created, it can amalgamate with other authorities and more municipalities can join withoutthe involvement of the province. 8 Participating municipalities determine who to appoint to the board as their representative(s). 9 Board members are usually elected municipal councillors; however, any individual may be appointed to the conservation authority board.10 Municipally-appointed representatives have the authority to vote and generally act on behalf of their municipalities.11 Because decisions are made collectively by all the participating municipalities in an authority through the conservation authority board, the amount of control each municipality has over conservation authority decisions varies. For most matters, each representative on the board gets one vote, so that municipalities with a larger number of board representatives (as a result of having larger populations) 3 Conservation Authorities Act Section 2.(2). 4 Conservation Authorities Act Section 14.(2.1} 5 As reported by conservation authorities in 2012 6 Conservation Authorities Act Section 14.(3} and Section 14.(4} 7 Conservation Authorities Act Section 3.(1) 8 Conservation Authorities Act Section 10 and Section 11 9 Conservation Authorities Act Section 14 10 In 2012, over 80% of board members were municipally-elected officials 11 Conservation Authorities Act Section 2.(3) CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 8 73 74 have a larger share in decision-making. For votes on the budget, votes are weighted so that each municipality has the same proportion of the vote as the proportion of the budget it pays. The number of participatfng municipalities within each conservation authority is very diverse-some conservation authorities have more than twenty participating municipalities, while others have only two. In some conservation authorities, one or two municipalities may have the majority of the votes on the board. 3.3. Relationship with the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry The process to create, operate and fund a conservation authority is established under the Conservation Authorities Act and administered by the MNRF. The province approves the creation and dissolution of a conservation authority, the dissolution requiring input from the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry and the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. The province designates the participating municipalities in the authority, and the authority's area of jurisdiction. The Act establishes the powers of the board and requires the authority to establish operational and administrative procedures. The MNRF provides a minimum standard for operational and administrative procedures which each board can further update or build on.12 While the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry is responsible for overseeing the administration of the Act, he or she has limited authority under the Act to intervene in most regular day-to-day conservation authority activities and decisions. Minister's approval is required for projects partially or fully funded by MNRF through provincial grants, for the sale or lease of lands purchased with provincial funding and for the expropriation of land. The Minister cannot intervene in most local resource management or operational decisions. Prior to Act amendments in the 1990's, the province played a more direct role in overseeing conservation authorities. The province directed conservation authorities by approving their budgets and all projects, appointing provincial representatives to authority boards, selecting the chair of the board, appointing provincial staff to authority advisory committees, and, when requested by the authority, appointing provincial field officers to direct and coordinate the authority's work. While oversight of conservation authorities is still shared between the province and the municipalities that form the authority, over time, the province has given conservation authorities greater autonomy to direct their own operations providing municipal representatives with a greater role in overseeing conservation authority activities. 3.4. Relationship with Other Provincial Ministries With an investment of nearly 70 years of public funding in infrastructure, capacity, staffing, skills, resources, local knowledge, and land, in addition to local understandings and connections, conservation authorities have become attractive vehicles for delivery of other provincial initiatives at a local level. 12 Section 30 of the Act requires each conservation authority to develop regulations on board administration. These regulations are approved by the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry. CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 9 76 Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) The OMB hears appeals by municipalities of municipal levies for special projects. Under the Act, the OMB also approves salary, expenses or allowances made to the members of the authority board of directors. 3.6. Relationship with Conservation Ontario Conservation Ontario, formally the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario, is a non-profit, non-governmental organization that represents Ontario's 36 conservation authorities. On behalf of its members, Conservation Ontario builds strategic partnerships, develops programs and champions collective issues/concerns. Conservation Ontario is overseen by a General Manager and directed by a Council made up of two appointed representatives from each conservation authority that elects a six member Board of Directors from among the council members to oversee the association. Conservation Ontario seeks to influence policy that affects conservation authorities and to provide collective services to the authorities including corporate communications, policy and program development, government relations, partnership development, research and information, evaluation and reporting, education and training, and the provision of insurance and benefits for conservation authority employees. Conservation Ontario is funded by dues from each conservation authority supplemented by project funding and contract work. Conservation Ontario is not established through the Conservation Authorities Act, nor is it governed by the Act. The structure, roles and responsibilities and funding of Conservation Ontario are not part of this review. 3.7. Other Accountabilities Conservation authorities are also governed by other legislative requirements that apply to municipalities, such as the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act and parts of the Municipal Act, and laws that apply to corporations and employers. Conservation authorities follow accounting standards for the public sector established by the Public Sector Accounting Board (PSAB). When reviewing permit appeals, the board of an authority reassembles as a Hearing Board under the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. Most conservation authorities are also registered charities under federal law and must follow rules for charitable organizations. )Nhen undertaking infrastructure projects, conservation authorities are also subject to Environmental Assessment Act requirements. Conservation Ontario has developed a Class Environmental Assessment for Remedial Flood and Erosion Control Projects which has been approved by MOECC for conservation authorities to follow when planning remedial flood and erosion control projects. CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 11 t.F'~ 78 Table 1: Diversity of Conservation Authorities' Revenue, Area and Population18 Total Revenue ·Area Population UTRCA ~ -I TRCA ~ ii'h SCRCA !""' SNRCA -I SSMRCA I f SVCA \., r-RVCA """"" RRCA a QCA ·..,.. ~ ORCA m INCA ·,.. 1.. I NBMCA 01 I NOCA I I r NPCA --I MVC F' I MRCA I I I MVCA ," I I LTCA m ' LTVCA I' '~ LPRCA ,"" ~ LRCA I ~ LSRCA ,_ KCCA o I I KRCA 11 I I HRCA -r"" GSCA a I Grand RCA I.-I GRCA 11 I ERCA -[_ CVCA I eve -I HaltonRCA-i: CLOCA ... CCCA 1 L CRCA ,. I ABCA "' I SO.O $40,0 $80. 0 500000 1000000 150000 0 2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 Under the Act, conservation authorities are required to have an annual financial audit with the auditor's report provided to participating municipalities and the MNRF. In terms of expenditures, conservation authorities report spending, in total, roughly 43% on water management, 42% of revenue on land management, 12% on administration and 3% on communications.19 However, expenditures from one conservation authority to another may vary significantly. 4.1. Municipal Levies The Conservation Authorities Act enables conservation authorities to levy the cost of board-approved programs and services against their participating municipalities. In 2013, participating municipalities provided over $140 million to conservation authorities through municipal levies. The levy process is complex. First, a conservation authority budget is established and approved by the board. A portion of the budget is paid for with provincial, federal or self-generated revenue, and the rest 18 Revenues shown in Millions of Dollars, Area shown in Hectares, Population shown in Millions 19 As reported by conservation authorities through annual statistics collected by Conservation Ontario CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 13 80 Fees for Service Subsection 21(m.l) of the Act gives conservation authorities the power to charge fees for services. The Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry determines which services conservation authorities may charge fees for. The Minister has given conservation authorities approval to charge fees for permitting services, plan reviews, extension services (e.g. technical advice/ implementation of erosion control measures, technical studies etc.), education services (e.g., tours, presentations, workshops etc.), and any service under other legislation authorized under agreement with the lead ministry.24 The MNRF's policies and procedures require each conservation authority to have a fees policy in place which includes a fee schedule, a process for public notification about the establishment of or any proposed changes to fee schedules, a clearly defined review and revision proc~ss, and a process for appeals for fees that are proposed or in place. 25 For planning, and compliance-oriented activities such as regulatory or permitting services, the fee structures should be designed to recover but not exceed the costs associated with administering and delivering the services on a program basis.26 While the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry approves the services which conservation authorities may charge fees for, fee amounts are set by individual conservation authorities. Costs vary from authority to authority for the provision of certain services so therefore the fee structures of conservation authorities may vary from one conservation authority to another. Through MNRF policy, conservation authorities are encouraged to review neighbouring conservation authorities' fee structures when developing or updating their own structure. 27 Fundraising Most conservation authorities also receive funding from individuals, corporations and foundations through fund raising, gifts, donations and sponsorship. Additionally, conservation authorities provide many opportunities for in-kind donations to the organization such as volunteer services. 4.3. Provincial Funding Conservation authorities receive and may apply for funding from the province to support provincially- mandated activities and local projects. The province provides conservation authorities with funding for provincially mandated programs- including the hazards management program funded by MNRF and the source water protection program funded by MOECC. The MNRF's hazard management program is funded through two separate transfer payments. 24 Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees {1997}-Section 5.1 25 Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees {1997} Section 5.2 26 Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees (1997} Section 5.3 27 Policies and Procedures for the Charging of Conservation Authority Fees (1997} Section 5.5 CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 15 82 5. Roles and Responsibilities The objects of a conservation authority/ under the Conservation Authorities Act, are to establish and undertake a program to further the conservation/ restoration/ development and management of natural resources other than gas1 oil/ coal and minerals. The Act defines the potential scope of programs and services which may be delivered by a conservation authority within its area of jurisdiction. The scope of potential programs is intentionally broad/ providing each individual conservation authority with flexibility to develop local resource management programs which are tailored to meet local geography/ needs and priorities. Current roles and responsibilities for conservation authorities fall under the five broad headings outlined below. 5.1. Local Resource Management Agency The Conservation Authorities Act provides conservation authorities with the authority to develop local resource management programs or projects that suit local needs and geography. The scope afforded to projects in the Act under S. 20 is broad-anything to "further the conservation/ restoration/ development and management of natural resources other than gas/ oil1 coal and minerals./' The scale of the authority projects and programs is determined at the local level/ decided on by the board. Conservation Area Statistics 73,645 hectares of conservation areas including 2,491 kilometers of trails and 8,442 campsites accessed by 6,898,229 annual visitors including 430,764 students *As reported by conservation authorities Collectively through their local programs/ conservation authorities play an important role in resource management and environmental protection through stewardship, conservation land acquisition and management/ recreation, education/ and science and research. These programs may include tree planting/ habitat rehabilitation and restoration/ water quality improvement and water supply management/ ground water monitoring, education and outreach, heritage conservation/ management of conservation areas1 information management/ data collection and mapping/ monitoring and the development of technical studies, watershed plans and the development of natural heritage strategies. Every conservation authority board-approved local resource management program is unique/ offering a different suite of programs designed to reflect local needs and priorities. Conservation authority local programs are often supported by community volunteers. In 2012 over 371000 people volunteered to support more than CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 17 700 local conservation authority projects. 28 Conservation authorities also have a role in local resource management as land owners. Conservation authorities have accumulated large land holdings within their jurisdictions through property acquisition, eco-gifting and land conveyances. Conservation authority owned land is considered private land under the Planning Act. Some of these lands are operated by the authorities for educational and recreational purposes, for conservation or protection reasons and also for income generation. Conservation authorities may develop their lands to support local programs, or may maintain lands in a natural state in order to protect them and provide ecological and natural hazard management benefits to the public. Conservation authorities may also act as interested parties on development applications near their landholdings. In addition, because of their proximity to watercourses, conservation authorities own or control lands that have a high concentration of cultural heritage resources. Board-approved local resource management programs may be funded by municipal levies, self- generated revenue, or through a contract with another organization. In areas of the province where conservation authorities have not been established, local resource management programs may be developed and administered directly by municipalities. 5.2. MNRF Approved Projects under the Act Section 24 of the Act requires conservation authorities to obtain MNRF approval for projects that are funded by MNRF through the Act. The project that the Minister currently approves under the Act for all conservation authorities is related to public safety and natural hazard management. The increased frequency and severity of extreme weather events associated with climate change has further underscored the importance ofthis role in protecting persons and property from water-related natural hazards including flooding and drought. All conservation authorities implement a shared provincial/municipal program in public safety and natural hazard management. As part of their role in implementing the shared provincial/ municipal program in public safety and natural hazard management, conservation authorities own and or operate over 900 flood control structures including 256 dams, and numerous engineered channels, dykes and erosion control works. Under this shared provincial/ municipal program, conservation authorities also undertake flood forecasting and warning and ice management. To support these and other programs (e.g. hazard input into municipal planning), conservation authorities may also collect and prepare technical data related to natural hazards in their jurisdiction. As part ofthe MNRF natural hazard program, the MNRF has delegated to conservation authorities the responsibility for representing the "Provincial Interest" for natural hazard policies (s.3.1) of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS) (2014) under the Planning Act through a Memorandum of Understanding between the MNRF, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing (MMAH) and Conservation Ontario. This delegation does not occur under the Conservation Authorities Act. Conservation authorities are to comment on municipal planning policy and site plan applications submitted as part of the Provinciai.Qne-Window Plan Review Service to ensure consistency with the natural hazard policies of the PPS (2014). Where MMAH is not the approval authority conservation authorities still perform this role under the Municipal Plan Review. Conservation authority comments 28 As reported by conservation authorities through annual statistics collected by Conservation Ontario CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 18 83 84 are to be made based on MNRF's Natural Hazard Technical Guides {2002) which were developed to support the PPS policies. When undertaking this role conservation authorities are guided by Planning Act definitions (e.g. for development, hazardous sites, etc.) and not by definitions under the Conservation Authorities Act. The natural hazard program is funded by the MNRF through provincial grants and transfer payments, and cost shared with municipalities. In areas of the province without conservation authorities natural hazards are managed by municipalities under the natural hazard policies of the PPS and flood forecasting and warning responsibilities are undertaken by MNRF. 5.3. Regulatory Authority Each conservation authority has a provincially-approved 'Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses' regulation developed under section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. Conservation authorities are responsible for regulating development within the regulatory limits described within their respective regulations. In areas ofthe province without conservation authorities development in hazardous areas is managed by municipalities under the natural hazard policies ofthe PPS. Conservation authorities' regulatory role is primarily funded through the use of permitting fees and municipal levies. Under these regulations, conservation authorities are responsible for regulating development and other activities through a permitting process for purposes of natural hazard management. Regulated activities are: • Development in areas related to water-related natural hazards such as floodplains, shorelines, wetlands and hazardous lands. 29 Under the Act, conservation authorities must consider development applications based on potential impacts to the control of water-related natural hazards which includes flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution or the conservation of land; and, • Interference with or alterations to a watercourse or wetland. In order to the implement the approved regulation, the authority board sets regulatory policies and practices. The Conservation Authorities Act regulation authority was expanded through Act amendments in 1998, and enacted through the 'generic' regulation approved by the province in 2004 and updated individual regulations approved by the Minister in 2006. The updated regulations require conservation authorities to regulate additional water related hazards such as unstable soils and bedrock, erosion and dynamic beaches. MNRF technical support for the regulations is provided through the Guidelines for Developing Schedules of Regulated Areas (2005) and the MNRF Natural Hazards Technical Guides {2002} developed for the PPS natural hazard policies. Under the Act, a person who has been refused a permit or who objects to conditions imposed on a permit by a conservation authority may appeal permit decisions and conditions to the Minister of 29 Hazardous lands is defined in the Conservation Authorities Act under 5.28 (25) as land that could be unsafe for development because of naturally occurring processes associated with flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches or unstable soil or bedrock CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 19 ~~ 6.. Summary and Questions for Discussion The following questions are intended to help focus the discussion. They are organized around the areas of review outlined in Section 1: 1. Governance-the processes, structures, and accountability frameworks within the Act which direct conservation authority decision-making and operations; 2. Funding-the mechanisms put in place by the Act to fund conservation authorities; and 3. Roles and Responsibilities -the roles and associated responsibilities that the Act enables conservation authorities to undertake. The questions are general in nature and intended to prompt discussion on a number offocused areas and are not intended to discourage readers from raising questions or providing comments in other areas. Where possible, please provide specific examples and/ or links to supporting information. 6.1. Governance Conservation authorities are governed by the Conservation Authorities Act and by a board of directors appointed by the municipalities that form the authority. The province, through the Act, defines the objectives to be pursued by the authority and the power granted to the authority to achieve these objectives. The activities undertaken by conservation authorities in the pursuit of their objectives are directed by a municipally appointed board of directors. Municipal representatives to conservation authority boards are directly accountable to the municipalities that appoint them and conservation authorities must abide by provincial legislative, regulatory and policy requirements. In the past, the province played a more direct role in overseeing conservation authorities. The province directed conservation authorities by approving their budgets and programs, appointing provincial representatives to authority boards, selecting the chair of the board and, when requested by the authority, by appointing provincial field officers to direct and coordinate the authority's work. The provincial governmentwas involved in approving projects and activities, and monitoring and reviewing conservation authority programs. While oversight of conservation authorities is still shared between the province and the municipalities that form the authorities, changes to the Act, policy and general practice over time have resulted in less direct provincial oversight. These changes have provided conservation authorities with greater autonomy to direct their own operations and have given municipal representatives who comprise the authority bo~rd a greater role in deciding and overseeing authority activities. It has also afforded conservation authority staff greater freedom to make proposals for programming and research for the board's collective review. Becausedecisions are made collectively by all the participating municipalities in an authority through the board, the amount of control each municipality has over conservation authority decisions varies. At the same time, conservation authorities are developing new, and enhancing existing, relationships with other provincial ministries and other partners. In some cases, these relationships are managed CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 22 87 88 through other legislative frameworks, such as through the Clean Water Act and the Lake Simcoe Protection Act. In other cases these relationships are managed on a project-by-project or authority-by- authority basis by a contract or MOU. There are no processes, standards or tools within the Conservation Authorities Act or supporting framework governing these relationships. It is difficult to generalize or to speak about a generic conservation authority as the result of the Act has been to enable a great diversity of organizations in scale and operations and capacity, with variance in resourcing or funding and funding strategies, board structures and the level of direct accountability to and interest of municipalities varies. QUESTION #1: In your view, how well is the current governance model as provided in the Conservation Authorities Act working? a. What aspects of the current governance model are working well? b. What aspects of the current governance model are in need of improvement? c. In terms of governance, what should be expected of: a. The board and its members? b. The general manager or chief administrative officer? c. Municipalities? d. The Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry? e. Other provincial ministries? f. Others? d. How should the responsibility for oversight of conservation authorities be shared between the province and municipalities? e. Are there other governance practices or tools that could be used to enhance the existing governance model? 6.2. Funding Mechanisms The Conservation Authorities Act establishes a number of mechanisms which conservation authorities can use to fund their activities. The Act allows the MNRF to provide conservation authorities with funding to support Ministry approved programs. As a corporate body, conservation authorities may also receive or apply for funding from the province to deliver programs on its behalf. Local resource management programs and services can be funded through municipal levies and conservation authorities can self-generate revenue through service and user fees, resource development and fund raising. Conservation authority revenue across Ontario's 36 conservation authorities is as varied as the programs and services offered by each authority. While the province provides all conservation authorities with funding towards approved natural hazards activities, the ability of each conservation authority to deliver other programs and services largely depends on the ability of each authority to CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 23 fx"(i~l'ii!;fl 90 regarding conservation authorities' regulatory role and the intention of the regulations, with some key regulatory terms undefined in legislation (e.g. conservation of land and interference with a wetland). QUESTION #3: In your view, what should be the role of conservation authorities in Ontario? a. What resource management programs and activities may be best delivered at the watershed scale? b. Are current roles and responsibilities authorized by the Conservation Authorities Act appropriate? Why or why not? What changes, if any, would you like to see? c. How may the impacts of climate change affect the programs and activities delivered by conservation authorities? Are conservation authorities equipped to deal with these effects? d. Is the variability in conservation authorities' capacity and resourcing to offer a range of programs and services a concern? Should there be a standard program for all authorities to deliver? Why or why not? e. What are some of the challenges facing conservation authorities in balancing their various roles and responsibilities? Are there tools or other changes that would help with this? f, Are there opportunities to improve consistency in service standards, timelines and fee structures? What are the means by which consistency can be improved? What are some of the challenges in achieving greater consistency in these areas? 6.4. Other Areas of Interest Broad input is critically important to ensure that a range of perspectives, opinions and ideas are collected. While we encourage respondents to focus on the discussion questions provided above we welcome feedback on additional areas. QUESTION #4: Are there any other areas, questions or concerns regarding the Conservation Authorities Act or conservation authorities in general that you feel should be considered as part of the review? CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 25 References Commission on the Reform of Ontario's Public Services. (2012). Public Services for Ontarians: A Path to Sustainability and Excellence. Retrieved from http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/ Government of Ontario. (1990). Conservation Authorities Act. (R.S.O. 1990, Chapter C.27) http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws statutes 90c27 e.htm Government of Ontario. (1997). Conservation Authorities Policies and Procedures Manual. Government of Ontario. (2010). Policies and Procedures for Conservation Authority Plan Review and Permitting Activities. Retrieved from http://www.web2.mnr.gov.on.ca/mnr/water erb/CALC Chapter Final Apr23 Final.pdf Government of Ontario. (2014). Provincial Policy Statement. Retrieved from http://www.mah.gov.on.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=10463 Institute of Internal Auditors. (2014). Assessing Organizational Governance in the Public Sector. Retrieved from http://www.ontariocanada.com/registry/downloads/Ontario%20Regulatory%20Policy.pdf Office of the Mining and Lands Commissioner. (2013). Annual Report. Retrieved from https :// d r6j45 jk9xcm k.clo udfront.net/docu ments/42 71/ om le-a nn ua I-re port -2013-2014-en. pdf CONSERVA TJON AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 28 g;i;c;fZ:,'Pi~ 93 Appendices 94 CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 29 IDitic§lcHI 96 list of Conservation Authority Regulations Conservation authority activities are guided by a series of regulations established under the Act. Section 27 (2) 0. Reg. 670/00 Conse~vation Authority levies Regulation. Outlines means for determining apportionment by the conservation authority of the levy payable by a participating municipality for maintenance costs on the basis of the benefit derived each municipality, either by agreement or using 'modified current value assessment' under the Assessment Act. Section 27 (3) 0. Reg. 139/96 Municipal levies Regulation. LGIC regulation that outlines how 'non- matching' municipal levies are decided with a /weighted/ vote at a conservation authority board Meeting convened to do so. Section 28 (6) 0. Reg. 97/04-Content of Conservation Authority Regulations under subsection 28 (1) of the Act Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses. Lieutenant Governor in Council regulation governing the content of regulations made by authorities including flood event standards and other standards that may be used, and setting out what must be included or excluded from regulations made by the authorities and approved by the Minister. Section 28 0. Regs. 42/06, 146/06-182/06, 319/09,-Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Regulation. Regulation enables conservation authorities to regulate development in areas prone to water-based natural hazards (i.e. shorelines, floodplains, wetlands} for impacts to the control of the water-based hazards (i.e. flooding and erosion} or for changing or 'interfering/ with a watercourse or wetland for purposes of public safety and natural hazard prevention .and management. Section 29 0. Regs. 98/90 -136/90-Conservation Areas Regulation. Discretionary regulation applies to conservation areas owned & operated by the conservation authority, outlines prohibited activities or activities requiring.a permit and rules of use (i.e. control of animals, vehicles/ with provisions for enforcement}. Section 30 "Mandatory Regulations'-All conservation authorities were required to make regulations outlining administration functions of the board. Originally Minister approved, these regulations are now 'by-laws' which can be amended without Minister approval if amendments conform to the approved generic template provided to conservation authorities in 1985. Section 40 Regulations. The province may make regulations defining any term that is used in the Conservation Authorities Act and that is not defined in the Act. This regulation making authority has not yet been used. CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 31 CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT DISCUSSION PAPER 32 F'!£Jii2i'+Bl 97 Report PLN 14-15 October 5, 2015 Subject: K. Lazaridis and Louisville Homes Ltd. (SP-2014-04 & A 11/14) Page 2 A number of concerns were identified by area residents including: protecting and maintaining the existing shared driveway access from Finch Avenue by the abutting owner to the west; impacts related to construction activity; and compatibility of the proposed development with the existing residential development to the east. In response to these concerns, the applicant has agreed to rezone Lot 1 with an "(H)" Holding Symbol that will be lifted only once an alternate vehicular access to 450 Finch Avenue is secured and when the easement is relinquished by the abutting property owner. Temporary safety fence and silt fence will be erected prior to construction around the perimeter of the site. To ensure the proposal maintains the character of the existing development within the abutting subdivision to the east, the applicant has requested that the same zoning performance standards with respect to building height, yard setbacks, lot frontage, lot area and lot coverage be extended over their lands. Staff supports the proposed residential development as it is consistent with the established residential subdivision to the east, implements the policies of the Official Plan, and conforms to the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines. Accordingly, staff recommends that Council endorse Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/14, revised Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2014-04 and the related conditions of approval. Financial Implications: No direct costs to the City are anticipated as a result of the recommendations of this report. 1. Background 1.1 Property Description The subject lands are located north of Finch Avenue, west of Rosebank Road, in the Rouge Park Neighbourhood (see Location Map, Attachment #1). The subject lands are approximately 0.33 of a hectare with approximately 58 metres of frontage along the south side of Mahogany Court. Vehicular access is currently provided from Finch Avenue through a right-of-way easement over lands owned by Ontario Hydro. This access also provides vehicular access for the abutting property to the west (450 Finch Avenue). The property currently supports a detached dwelling, which will be demolished in order to facilitate the proposed development. Surrounding land uses include: established low density residential development consisting of detached dwellings and semi-detached dwellings to the east and north fronting Mahogany Court and Rougewalk Drive; existing large residential properties having frontage on the north side of Finch Avenue containing detached dwellings to the west; and a Hydro Corridor to the south. 99 100 Report PLN 14-15 October 5, 2015 Subject: K. Lazaridis and Louisville Homes Ltd. (SP-2014-04 & A 11/14) Page 3 1.2 Applicant's Proposal The applicant's original proposal requested to rezone two properties in order to facilitate a residential development consisting of 4 lots for 8 semi-detached dwellings fronting Mahogany Court and a block for a road widening (see Original Submitted Plan, Attachment #2). Based on comments received by area residents, the applicant has revised their proposal to create one lot for a detached dwelling adjacent to 450 Finch Avenue, and 3 lots for 6 semi-detached dwellings. The applicant has confirmed that the smaller of the two properties, 453 Mahogany Court, (identified as Block 5 on the Original Submitted Plan) has been conveyed to the abutting landowner to the east (see Revised Submitted Plan, Attachment #3). The proposed lot for the detached dwelling will have a minimum lot frontage of 9.0 metres. The minimum lot frontages for the semi-detached dwellings have been increased from 7.0 metres to 8.1 metres to ensure that the proposed lot frontages are generally consistent with the existing lot frontages along Mahogany Court and Rougewalk Drive. 2. Comments Received 2.1 Public comments from the April13, 2015 Public l'nformation Meeting and written submissions At the Public Information Meeting, approximately 15 residents attended the meeting to voice their concerns with respect to the development proposal. Specifically, the concerns identified are as follows: • the abutting owner to the west (450 Finch Avenue) expressed concerns with: the potential elimination of the property's legal right-of-way; the sharing of the right-of-way as a .temporary construction access; the impact on the existing dwelling as a result of construction activity; and potential adverse impacts of grading and drainage • residents along Mahogany Court and Rougewalk Drive identified a number of concerns regarding: • compatibility of the proposed development with the existing neighbourhood with respect to built form, lot frontage, and size and scale of the proposed dwellings • impacts of construction activities including access, parking of construction vehicles, noise ·and dust, and the preference for the construction access to be from Finch Avenue rather than Mahogany Court • the desire for a neighbourhood park Report PLN 14-15 October 5, 2015 Subject: K. Lazaridis and Louisville Homes Ltd. (SP-2014-04 & A 11/14) Page 4 A petition from area residents representing 9 households within the adjacent subdivision to the east was received requesting the applicant consider building detached dwellings instead of semi-detached dwellings, and expressed concerns about the possible impact on property value. A letter was submitted by Pickering Shores Development Inc., who owns a block of land on the north side of Mahogany Court, requested that a clause be included in all Purchase and Sales agreements advising future homeowners that Mahogany Court will be extended further west in the future. 2.2 City Departments & Agency Comments Region of Durham o the Regional Official Plan designates the subject lands as "Living Area", which shall be used predominately for housing purposes Hydro One Networks Inc. Durham Catholic District School Board Durham District School Board Canadian Pacific Railway Engineering & Public Works o sanitary sewer and municipal water supply are available to service the proposed lots • the proposal complies with the policies of the Regional Official Plan and conditions of draft approval have been provided • Hydro One has granted conditional approval of the proposed construction access from Finch Avenue o no objection to the proposal, and conditions of draft approval have been provided • no objection to the proposal • students generated from this development will attend St. Elizabeth Seton Catholic Elementary School and St. Mary Catholic Secondary School • no objection to the proposal • students generated from this development will attend Elizabeth B. Phin Public School and Dunbarton Public School • no objection to the proposal o satisfied with the Environmental Noise Impact Study, as prepared by YCA Engineering Limited, and recommended the insertion of the warning clause in the conditi~ns of draft plan approval • generally satisfied with the development proposal • the subdivision agreement will address matters such as, but not limited to, works external to the site including installation of a storm sewer, sidewalk extensions, pre-condition surveys, construction management plan, cost sharing, fencing, landscaping, noise attenuation, securities, insurance, and lifting the reserve on Mahogany Court to provide access to the proposed lots 101 102 Report PLN 14-15 October 5, 2015 Subject: K. Lazaridis and Louisville Homes Ltd. (SP-2014-04 & A 11/14) Page 5 3.0 Planning Analysis 3.1 The proposal conforms to the density provisions the Pickering Official Plan The Pickering Official Plan designates the subject property as "Urban Residential -Low Density Areas" within the Rouge Park Neighbourhood. Lands within this designation are intended primarily for housing at a net residential density of up to and including 30 units per net hectare. The proposed development will result in a density of approximately 23 units per net hectare, which is within thedensity range for lands designated Residential Low Density in the City's Official Plan. 3.2 The proposed residential development is consistent with the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Development Guidelines, and the recommended performance standards will ensure compatibility with the existing neighbourhood is maintained A number of residents expressed concerns regarding compatibility of the proposed development with the existing residential development to the east along Mahogany Court and Rougewalk Drive. The Official Plan recognizes that in establishing performance standards, restrictions and provisions for residential development, particular regard shall be had to protecting and enhancing the character of established neighbourhoods, considering such matters as lot frontage, building height, yard setbacks, lot coverage, access to sunlight, parking provisions and traffic implications. The applicant is proposing one lot for a detached dwelling with a minimum lot frontage of 9.0 metres, and 3 lots for semi-detached dwellings with minimum lot frontages of 8.1 metres. The applicant has requested that the zoning provide the same minimum lot frontage requirements that exist within the residential subdivision to the east. The zoning for the lands to the east require a minimum lot frontage of 9.0 metres for lots zoned for detached dwellings and 7.0 metres for lots zoned for semi-detached dwellings. The applicant has advised that the proposed dwellings will have building heights of approximately 9.0 metres, which is generally consistent with the existing building heights along Mahogany Court and Rougewalk Drive, and less than the maximum building heights permitted in the zoning by-law for the adjacent subdivision to the east. The applicant will also be maintaining the building setbacks and lot coverage standards established for the abutting subdivision. Appendix II of this report outlines the recommended zoning performance standards for the zoning by-law. The proposed lotting pattern and development standards will ensure an appropriate built form that is compatible with the established residential development along Mahogany Court and Rougewalk Drive. Report PLN 14-15 October 5, 2015 Subject: K. Lazaridis and Louisville Homes Ltd. (SP-2014-04. & A 11/14) Page 6 3.3 Conditions of draft plan approval and the implementing by-law contains provisions to address various concerns identified by the adjacent property owner to the west The abutting owner to the west (450 Finch Avenue) expressed a number of concerns that have been addressed by the applicant. The primary concern was the use and possible removal ofthe abutting owner's legal right-of-way access on the subject lands. A portion of Lot 1 is currently encumbered by an easement in favour of the neighbouring property (450 Finch Avenue) to the west for purposes of a right-of-way access. To protect the existing driveway access for the adjacent property to the west, Lot 1 will be rezoned with an "(H)" Holding Symbol that will be only removed by City Council once an alternate vehicular access to 450 Finch Avenue is secured and when the easement is relinquished by the abutting property owner. Another concern raised was the applicant's proposal to use the vehicular access as a temporary construction access, and the potential parking of construction vehicles on the shared access. The applicant has submitted a preliminary construction management plan, which illustrates a designated parking area for construction vehicles and storage of building materials on the rear of lots 2, 3 and 4. This plan also notes that the shared driveway is to be unencumbered. The applicant has also agreed to ensure the access is maintained in good condition throughout the construction period and into the future. Other concerns expressed by the owner of 450 Finch Avenue include that the proposed grading and drainage from the new development will have an adverse impact on her property, and that construction activity will cause damage to her house. Conditions of final approval will require the applicant to submit detailed grading plans, which will require that drainage from the development not impact adjacent properties. As well, a pre-condition survey, prepared by a qualified professional engineer, will be required for the dwelling at 450 Finch Avenue. The pre-condition survey will evaluate the current status of the foundation wall and the dwelling prior to construction commencing on the Lazaridis property. 3.4 Construction activities are required to comply with the approved Construction Management Plan Residents expressed a concern with the construction activity and impacts on the surrounding area. As noted above, the applicant has submitted a preliminary construction management plan, which addresses the following: details of erosion and sedimentation control during construction; parking of construction vehicles; storage of construction and building materials; location of the construction trailer; type and timing of construction fencing; and mud and dust control on all roads within and adjacent to the site. 103 104 Report PLN 14-15 October 5, 2015 Subject: K. Lazaridis and Louisville Homes Ltd. (SP-2014-04 & A 11/14) Page 7 The preliminary construction management plan notes that the hours of construction activity and work will adhere to the City's Noise By-law (7:00am to 7:00pm Monday through Saturday and no work is permitted on Sundays or Statutory Holidays). Parking of vehicles and the storage of construction and building materials during servicing and construction will be located on the rear of lots 2, 3 and 4. The primary construction access will be from Finch Avenue · (through Lot 1 ). The applicant has also agreed to erect a 1.8 metre high temporary safety fence along Mahogany Court and a 1.2 metre high silt fence on the east, west and south property lines. 3.5 Opportunity for a future public park will be explored as development proceeds to the west The residents along Mahogany Court and Rougewalk Drive requested the City to explore opportunities to provide for a public park for the residents in this area. The Rouge Park Neighbourhood Guidelines identify a neighbourhood park near the northwest corner of Finch Avenue and Altona Road. The lands in this area are currently held in private ownership and by Infrastructure Ontario and Land Development. There are no plans to develop these lands at this time. There may be additional opportunities to provide a public parkette or village green when the lands to the west are developed. 3.6 Other matters have been addressed Pickering Shores Development Inc., who owns a remnant block of land on the north side of Mahogany Court, submitted a letter requesting that a clause be included in all Purchase and Sales agreements between the applicant and purchasers advising them that it is anticipated Mahogany Court be extended further westerly in the future to accommodate future development. The applicant has no objection to including a provision in their purchase and sales agreement to inform future residents regarding the extension of Mahogany Court. In addition, the subdivision agreement will require the applicant to post a sign at the terminus of Mahogany Court advising residents that it is anticipated Mahogany Court be further extended in the future. 4.0 Technical matters are to be addressed as conditions of subdivision approval To ensure appropriate development, the City, Region and agency requirements have been imposed as conditions of approval for the subdivision application. These conditions address matters such as, but not limited to, temporary construction access and construction management plan, stormwater management, archaeological assessment, noise mitigation measures, pre-condition survey, erection of a noise attenuation fence along rear lot lines, noise warning clauses, on-site grading, site servicing, cost sharing obligations, and a holding provision requirement in the zoning. The conditions of approval set out in Appendix I to this Report, address these (and other) matters. It is recommended that Council endorse these conditions. Report PLN 14-15 October 5, 2015 Subject: K. Lazaridis and Louisville Homes Ltd. (SP-2014-04 & A 11/14) Page 8 5.0 Staff recommend that a zoning by-law be finalized using the same zone provisions as the development to the east, and forwarded to Council for enactment The Zoning By-law Amendment seeks to rezone the subject lands from an "A" -Agricultural Zone to the same residential categories used in the existing development on Mahogany Court: "S5-2" -Detached Dwellings Zone; and "SD-7"-Semi-Detached Dwelling Zone. Staff supports the rezoning application and recommends that the site specific implementing by-law, containing the standards outlined in Appendix II, be brought before Council for enactment following approval of the draft plan of subdivision. 6.0 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-2014-04 Appendix II Recommended Performance Standards for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/14 Attachments 1. Location Map 2. Original Submitted Plan 3. Revised Submitted Plan 105 Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2014-04 Appendix I to Report PLN 14-15 107 108 General Conditions Recommended Conditions of Approval for Draft Plan of Subdivision SP-2014-04 1. The Owner shall prepare the final plan generally on the basis of the draft plan of subdivision prepared by H.F. Grander Co. Ltd., dated July 29, 2015, on lands being Part Lot 31, Concession 2, Parts 1 and 2, Plan 40R-28483, City of Pickering, for the creation of 4 lots for 1 detached dwelling, 6 semi-detached dwellings, and a block for road widening (Mahogany Court), and· bearing the City's recommendation stamp. 40M-Pian 2. That the owner submits a Draft 40M-Pian to the satisfaction of the City Development Department. Zoning 3. That the implementing by-law for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/14 becomes final and binding. 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. Pre-Condition Survey 5. That the Owner submits a pre-condition survey for 455 Mahogany Court and 450 Finch Avenue to the satisfaction of the City. The survey must be prepared by a qualified professional and must be undertaken prior to any site works commencing. Street Names 6. That street names and signage be provided to the satisfaction of the Region and the City. Development Charges & Inspection Fee 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. Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-04-Louisville Homes Ltd.) Dedications/Transfers/Conveyances 9. That the Owner conveys to the City at no cost Block 5 for road widening purposes. ·Architectural Control Page 2 10. That the Owner, prior to the preparation 'Of the subdivision agreement, engages a control architect, to the satisfaction of the Director, City Development, who will prepare a siting and architectural design statement 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. Stormwater 11. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting stormwater drainage and management system to service all the lands in the subdivision, and any provision regarding easements. 12. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works for contributions for stormwater management maintenance fees. 13. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works that all stormwater management and erosion and sedimentation control structures are operating and will be maintained and in good repair during the construction period. Grading 14. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the submission and approval of a grading control plan. 15. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the submission and approval of a geotechnical soils analysis. 16. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting authorization from abutting landowners for all off site grading. Cost Sharing 17. The Owner provide, to the City, a certified cheque payable to Vee-An Management in the amount of $11,001.93, being the Owner's pro-rated share of the costs associated with the installation of the storm sewer on Finch Avenue with Plan of Subdivision 40M-2254. 109 110 Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-04-Louisville Homes Ltd.) Page 3 Fill & Topsoil 18. The City's Fill & Topsoil Disturbance 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 Disturbance Permit will be required should grading works proceed prior to the subdivision agreement being executed. Road Allowances 19. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the construction of roads with curbs, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs along Mahogany Court and Finch Avenue. 20. The Owner shall include a clause in all Agreements of Purchase and Sales advising purchasers that it is anticipated Mahogany Court be further extended as part of any future development of the lands to the west. 21. The Owner shall erect a sign, to the satisfaction of the City, at the terminus of Mahogany Court advising residents that it is anticipated Mahogany Court be further extended as part of any future development of the lands to the west. Reserve 22. That the Owner submit a written letter to the City requesting that the reserve along Mahogany Court (being Block 78, Plan 40M-2254) be dedicated as public highway, and submit the required fees associated with lifting the reserVe. Construction/Installation of City Works & Services 23. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works respecting the construction of roads, storm sewers, sidewalks and boulevard designs through a site servicing plan. 24. That the Owner satisfies the City respecting arrangements for the provision of all services required by the City. 25. That the Owner satisfies the appropriate authorities respecting arrangements for the provision of underground wiring, street lighting, cable television, natural gas and other similar services. - 26. 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. Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-04-Louisville Homes Ltd.) Page4 27. 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. Easements 28. That the Owner conveys to the City, at no cost, any easements as required and any reserves as required by the City. 29. That the Owner conveys any easement 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. 30. That the Owner arranges, at no cost 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 draft approval. 31. That the Owner satisfies the Director, Engineering & Public Works with any required easement for works, facilities or use rights that are required by the City. Construction Management Plan 32. That the Owner makes arrangements with the City respecting a construction management plan, such Plan to contain, among other matters: (i) details of erosion and sedimentation controls during all phases of construction and provide maintenance requirements to maintain these controls as per the City's 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 existing streets, proposed public streets, or the right-of-way to 450 Finch Avenue; (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 and existing trees to be retained; (vi) location of construction trailers; and (vii) details of the temporary construction access through the Hydro Corridor, and over Lot 1. 1 1 1 11 2 Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-04-Louisville Homes Ltd.) Page 5 Fencing 33. 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. 34. That Owner satisfies the City with respect to the provision of permanent fencing for lands adjacent to Hydro One lands and as per the Noise Attenuation Report. Landscaping 35. That the Owner submits a boulevard street tree-planting plan to the satisfaction of the City. Tree Compensation 36. That prior to final approval of the draft plan, or any phase thereof, the Owner agrees that compensation for the loss of tree canopy will be required either through cash-in-lieu and/or replanting. Where replanting is considered; the applicant will be required to provide four copies of a Landscape Plan/Replanting Plan to the satisfaction of the Engineering & Public Works Department. Engineering Plans 37. That the Owner ensures that the engineering plans are coordinated with the streetscape/sitjng and architectural control 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 control guidelines can be achieved. 38. That the Owner satisfies 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. Noise Attenuation 39. That the Owner satisfies the requirements of the Ministry of Environment regarding the approval of a noise study recommending noise control features to the satisfaction of the Region of Durham and the City of Pickering. 40. That the Owner agrees in the subdivision agreement to implement noise control measures and warning clauses as recommended in the noise report as approved by the City of Pickering. Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-04-Louisville Homes Ltd.) Page 6 Development Blocks 41. That the Owner agrees that no development will proceed· on Lot 1, until such time as an alternate vehicular access to 450 Finch Avenue is secured to the satisfaction of the City and the easement is relinquished by the owner of 450 Finch Avenue. 42. That until such time as Lot 1 referred to above are developed, the Owner shall keep and maintain Lot 1 in good repair, traversable in all seasons and in a clean and orderly fashion, to the satisfaction of the City, at no expense to the City. Archaeological Assessment 43. Prior to any site alternation, the Owner shall carry out an archaeological assessment of the subject property and any mitigation and/or salvage excavation of any significant heritage resources to the satisfaction of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. No grading or other soil disturbance shall take place on the subject property prior to a letter of clearance from the Regulatory and Operations Group of the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Parkland Dedication 44. That the Owner satisfies the City with respect to the payment of cash-in-lieu in accordance with the parkland dedication requirements of the Planning Act. Fire 45. 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. Hydro One Network Inc. 46. That the Owner shall make arrangements satisfactory to Hydro One Network Inc. for the crossing of the hydro right-of-way for construction access. Canada Post 47. That the Owner, through the approval of the Utility Coordination Plan for the location, enters into an agreement with Canada Post Corporation for the provision of a Community Mailbox including technical specifications, notice requirements and financial terms. 48. That the Owner agrees to determine and provide a suitable temporary Community Mailbox location, if required, to the satisfaction of the City. 113 11 4 Recommended Conditions of Approval (SP-2014-04-Louisville Homes Ltd.) Page 7 Model Homes 49. 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. Plan Revisions 50. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that the draft plan of subdivision and associated conditio tis 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. 51. That the Owner revises 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. 52. 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. Cost Recovery 53. That the Owner agrees to contribute their proportionate share of the Rouge Park Neighbourhood Study. 54. That the Owner agrees to contribute to shared service costs for stormwater management purposes in general conformity with the Rouge Park Master Environmental Servicing Plan. Other Approval Agencies 55. That any approvals which are required from the Region of Durham or any utility for the development of this plan be obtained by the Owner, and upon request written confirmation be provided to the City as verification of these approvals. Recommended Performance Standards for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/14 Appendix II to Report PLN 14-15 115 11 6 Recommended Performance Standards for Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 11/14 That the implementing zoning by-law to permit detached dwelling lots in accordance with the following provisions: 1. Lot 1 -"55-2" site specific zoning a. Permitted Use-Detached Dwelling b.· minimum lot area -250 metres c. minimum lot frontage-9.0 metres d. minimum front yard depth-4.5 metres e. minimum interior side yard width-1.2 metres on one side and 0.6 metres on the other side f. minimum rear yard depth-7.5 metres g. maximum lot coverage-48 percent ·h. maximum building height-12.0 metres i. minimum one private garage per lot attached to the main building, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line j. maximum width of driveway-4.5 metres k. maximum projection of the garage from the front wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling shall not exceed 2.0 metres in length I. covered and unenclosed porch or verandah not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above established grade may encroach a maximum of 2.0 metres into the required minimum front yard m. any uncovered decks, platforms and steps not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above established grade may encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres in to the rear yard 2. Lots 2 to 4-"SD-7'' site specific zone a. Permitted Use-Semi-detached dwelling b. minimum lot area-205 metres c. minimum lot frontage-8.0 metres d. minimum front yard depth-4.5 metres e. minimum interior side yard width of 1.2 metres on one side and on the side where dwellings on adjacent lots are attached, no side yard is required f. minimum rear yard depth-7.0 metres g. maximum lot coverage-50 percent h. maximum building height-12.0 metres i. minimum one private garage per lot attached to the main building, any vehicular entrance of which shall be located not less than 6.0 metres from the front lot line j. maximum driveway width-3.5 metres k. maximum projection of the garage from the front wall containing the main entrance to the dwelling shall not exceed 2.0metres in length I. covered and unenclosed porch or verandah not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above established grade may encroach a maximum of 2.0 metres into the required minimum front yard m. any uncovered decks, platforms and steps not exceeding 1.5 metres in height above established grade may encroach a maximum of 3.0 metres in to the rear yard 3. "(H)" Holding Symbol -Lot 1 a. Subject to an "(H)" Holding Symbol, no development will proceed on Lot 1, until such time as an alternate vehicular access to 450 Finch Avenue is secured to the satisfaction of the City and the easement is relinquished by the owner of 450 Finch Avenue. 4. Model Homes a. a maximum of two model homes together with not fewer than two parking spaces per model home, may be constructed on the .lands set out in Schedule I attached to this By-law prior to the division of those lands by registration of a plan of subdivision b. Model Home shall mean a dwelling unit which in not used for residential purposes pursuant to an agreement with the City of Pickering 117