Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 16, 1980 (Special) 9/80 - 43 - SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING A Special Meeting of the Pickering Town Council was held on Wednesday, April 16, 1980 at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Mayor J.E. Anderson COUNCILLORS: L. Cahill D. Dickerson G. Fisher D. Kitchen K. Matheson N. Stone r ALSO PRESENT: B. Taylor R. Tsao Town Clerk Director of Planning This Special Meeting of Council was called to consider various requests from the Pickering Development Association and other developers pertaining to development standards and other related matters. 1. Promotion Council discussed the concept of a promotion campaign and felt that a committee working both on its own and in co- operation with the developers could generally promote the Town. Resolution 44/80 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Fisher That a Promotion Committee by established to study and create a general promotion campaign for the Town; and that Counc Illors Cah ill, Stoner, Dickerson and Mayor Anderson be appointed to the said Committee. CARRIED 2. The Equity Development Group Inc. The meeting with The Equity Development Group Inc. on April 8, 1980 was discussed particularly with respect to the development of property on the northeast corner of Brock Road and Highway #401 which would be Equity's Indus- trial requirement In conjunction with its residential sub- division known as Maple Ridges. It was felt that the subdivision agreement pertaining to Maple Ridges should include the standard provision for providing industrial development within two years of the execution of the agreement but with the addition of a clause that Council may review this requirement for the purpose of extending the time for requiring the industrial development. , 9/80 - 44 - The Equi ty Development Group Inc. (conti d.) Council felt that the industrial requirement provision should be extended only if Equity is actively promoting its property on the northeast corner of Brock Road and Highway #401. 2. Resolution 45/80 Moved by Councillor Cahill Seconded by Councillor Fisher That the subdivision agreement pertaining to the Maple Ridges subdivision, which lands are owned by The Equity Development Group Inc., include a clause that Council reserves the right to extend the time for providing the industrial/commercial component. CARRIED Pickering Development Association The meeting with the Pickering Development Association on January 30, 1980 was discussed and the following matters, which were incorporated in P.D.A.ls submissions were con- sidered: 3. a) Development Committee - Counci 1 agreed that a Develop- ment Committee should be established to informally review all aspects of development with developers. Resolution 46/80 Moved by Councillor Dickerson Seconded by Councillor Fisher That a Development Committee be established to review development standards and other related matters; and that Councillors Kitchen, Dickerson, Stoner and Fisher be appointed to this Committee. CARRIED b) Town Policy - Council directed staff to prepare an updated list of pol icies pertaining to development. c) levies - Council indicated that it was not prepared to change the industrial/commercial requirement at this time due to uncertain economic conditions. d) Public Meetings - Delegations speaking to an item pertaining to development will now be heard immediately prior to the particular item being considered; however, Council did not agree to permit a summation by a delega- tion prior to the item being put to a vote. e) Parks - Council was not willing to alter its policies pertaining to park dedication. f) Occupancy Permits - Council agreed that an occupancy permit could be issued prior to the installation of curbs but all other requirements of the subdivision agreement, particularly those relating to servicing . añd safety, must be met, before the occupancy permit is issued. 9/80 - 45 - 3. Pickering Development Association '(cont'd.) g) Securities - Council was not prepared to change its policies regarding securities at this time but asked the Development Committee to study this matter. h) Tree Preservation and Street Tree Planting - Council felt that the Town's tree preservation policy should only extend to those trees on boulevards. i) Building Construction - The Development Committee was asked to study this area further. j) Road Widths and Sidewalks - Council felt there should be no change in pavement widths but with respect to the width of a road allowance, each subdivision proposal would be considered on its merits. The Development Committee was asked to study the feasibility of having boulevards constructed in mid-street. 4. Dunbarton/Highbush/Woodlands Community Plan The Town Manager was directed to arrange a meeting with members of Council and staff on a Saturday to tour the study area and to return to the Municipal Offices to further con- sider the Plan. A copy of the Minutes of the meeting of January 30, 1980 with the Pickering Development Association, the submissions made by the P.D.A. and staff's comments on these submissions are attached hereto. The meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Dated April 21st 1980 : -- - ....... - -- I!\' ':;'~ r.- u::::? J--_R~l.:LI\TÞL l':,::::l':':;r~:':; ;)'C!.1 . . OFFICE OF THE TOi~ ~ffiNAGER . ;, -t March 24th 1980 "~' " To: Mayor Anderson and Members of Council From: Noel C. Marshall Town Manager -------------------------------------------------------- Re: Pickering Development Association - Review of Town Standards On Wednesday, January 20th 1980, Members of Council and representatives of the Pickering Development industry met to review a number of areas of concern that the industry had with existing standards and procedures of the Munici- pality. The industry representatives submitted several papers detailing areas of particular concern and inviting further dialogue with the Municipality. The initial request centred around the creation of a Development Committee consisting of two Members of Council, the Town Manager" the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director, together with representatives of the Development Industry. In order for such a committee to act, the authority of Council to its formation is required, together with-the nomination of Council appointees. A number of items were raised by the industry and some of these have been addressed in detail in the attached reports from the various departments involved. These reports include that of the Director of Parks and Recreation dated February 8th 1980, the Director of Public Works dated February 11th 1980 and the Treasurer-Collector dated March 13th 1980. ~ . '\; -¡ There 'is no doubt that there are areas within the overall Development Industry where the Municipality could show some flexibility. Certainly the procedure of committee meetings as it relates to a particular application is a case in point. .. .j If Council is prepared to meet with the Development Industry and pursue this subject further the recommended committee should be established. At the same time this committee should have an opportunity to discuss the various points raised by the Development Industry with the other Members of Council in order that their guidelines can be established for its consideration of the items before it. Such a meeting could take place In Camera at a future Executive of Council Meeting. Continued......2 - 2 - . -. In the interim, some form of response to the Development Industry is warranted. ~ Ni4 Attd. - . . . ~ Il; TER - DE? AR':'Ì.~El~':'AL ).~E:-10?A..~DUM PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT . . '1'0: N.C. Marshall, Town Manager FROM: Thomas J. Quinn February 8, 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------- RE: PICKERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION JOINT MEETING WITH TOWN STAFF AND COUNCIL' .. Please find attached a memorandum from Everett Buntsma, Parks Co-ordinator-, to myself, dated February 8, 1980 with respect to the above. For your information, I completely concur with the comments contained in Mr. Buntsrna's memorandum and believe that he has adequately outlined the concerns of this department. ~. /-~ . Thom~. QU~R. D . MQ:--, ~ Director of Parks and Recreation . TJQ:eo Attachment .----,--~-:- -- '. . , . '--- I" Copy for: Everett Buntsma, N.P.D., Parks Co-ordinator " - ,- . \- /';"" . .' . . --- . -: ~.~ >/' '-'-.-- n;T:::R - D ==::: .;:::':':-; :::¡; :-AL :.: ~"'OR.~J\DUM PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO: Thomas J. Quinn, R.D.M.R., Director of Parks and Recreation FROM: Everett Buntsma February 8, 1980 --------------------------------------------------------------- RE: PICKERING DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION - JOINT MEETING WITH TOWN STAFF AND COUNCIL Upon reviewing the minutes from the above-mentioned meeting there appears to be two items of concern to the Department of , Parks and Recreation: Item 5, Page 3. It appears that the developers are concerned about the costs incurred by the Municipality in regards to park maintenance due to the present day parkland requirements from developers. It should be realized by all p~rsons concerned that the Town in the past has had very poor parkland requirements. This department now is attempting to create-a parks system which will compliment the Town- and create a more aesthetically pleasing community. It should also be pointed out that large parcels of properly developed tableland are in all cases less costly to maintain than smaller parcels of land which require more travelling to and from different parks. , The department does not feel that "enormous"amounts of parkland are required. The required amount is merely the reflection of the needs of our Municipality and its involved citizens. ... 2/ ........ ~ 2 - Item 8, Page 4. In regards to this item regarding tree preservation. The department would agree on the condition that the trees preserved are on the road allowance. Trees preserved which eventually will be within someone elses property limits cannot be considered. The individual who purchases the home would be able to cut down the tree at his will. Therefore, that tree would no longer be present in the overall landscape of the neighbourhood. It should be noted that if the developer wishes trees preserved on road allowances to be calculated in his street tree quota there should be a reasonable guarantee on those trees preserved. The department f~els that a two (2) year guarantee from date of completion of roads and sidewalks would be fair to all concerned. If the tree should die wihin that period the developer should either a) remove the dead tree and stump it with another approved tree, and replace - or - b) remove the dead tree- and stump and pay to the Town an amount of money- equal~-to the evaluated value of the tree using the Ontario Shade Tree Council's guidelines for "Evaluating Trees In Our Environment in the Province of Ontario". G Everett Bun, N.P.D., Parks Co-ordinator \. EB:eo Attachment INTER-DEPAR~~~NTAL COR?£S?ûNDENCE PUBLIC ì-JORKS DEPÞ.RTHENT '. .. .-' ,. /. .' r' , ... " ". , r ">-- ../ "- .. / i-,. ....... '. , - --',.'./ ':""".\\\/ "'- ~ TO: Noel C. Marshall, Town Manager DATE: 1980 02 11 - . FROM: R.J. Hutchinson, Director of Public Works RE: Subdivisions - General Construction Standards B4l00 Further to your request for comments on the recent submissions made by the Pickering Development Association, the following comments are made. I have only commented,on those items which are rele- vant to the operations of this department. Occupancy Permits It has always been our view that a resident should be provided with certain basic minimum services prior to the builder turning over the house to him. Certainly he should expect to be able to reach his home by vehicular means and be able to enjoy all basic services. The Town presently us~s a two stage curb which retains all road material and provides a definite permanent edge to the travelled portion. In our opinion, anything below this standard would amount to a very real reduction which would not be in the best interests of the new home owner. With curb base and the base course of asphalt in place the Town can provide winter control for its new residents. ,. . Building Construction - Issuance of Permits ... It is my opinion that services should be available on the street. To say that no building can be occupied until facilities are installed may sound quite logical but we are well aware that new owners have moved in without Occupancy permits and the safeguard of availability of services does, at least, remove one of the potential hazards that would other- wise exist. The construction of model homes can be I ¡ - 2 - considered as a special case, where the developer may request it, up to a maximum percentage of lots. Storm Drainage . . The concept that sump pumps could be acceptable for footing drainage is not acceptable. As will be obvious, the point of continuous discharge on to the surface beside a house is a great nuisance par- ticularly in wet soil areas and during freezing Weather. Plugging of outlet pipes with ice and breakdowns of the pumps are common and a needless problem for a home owner. A service connection to the house should be provided. The discharge of roof water on to splash pads and thence to the yard is now an accepted practice provided that it is properly carried out. Design Cri teria These are under review with various bodies including the Ontario Land Corporation and since they are quite technical we feel that we can reach a reasonable accord. Oúr concepts are not at any great variance at this time. Right-of-Way Widths Please refer to recent submissions on this subject. Pavement Width Our current width of 8.5 metres from curb face to curb face should be retained. The problems created by sub- standard width streets and the inherent-restriction to the free flow of traffic past parked vehicles have been documented previously. Mention is made of an 11.5 pave- ment width on eollector roads. The Town has no such standard and we have no idea where the number comes from. We use 9.75 metres on Minor Collectors and 13.4 metres on Collectors. . ! Sanitary and Water Service Connections I.., . Regional jurisdiction and standards apply to these facilities. , ¡f?'J,L-U:= -- -- R.J.~ Director of Public Works. RJH/wd. TREASURY DEPAR'lMENl' /. , f ./ ",' .- . ~}, .~- ./, /" r " .....:", "/'~~:'" , . I .. \ \ :' J ,."" ",,' - -'---" - IN'IERD EP ARIMENr.AL MEM) RAND UM . . '10: MR. N. C. MARSHALL, 'KWN MANAGER DA'lE : March 13th, 1980 FRCM : Mr. J. Walls RE: Developrrent Standards As requested in your neno of February 13th, 1980, we (X)mœnt on the infonnation distributed by the Developænt Industry. SaTe of tie COITITents and suggestions we make nay be wishful thinking but this is the way we see it in Treasury. 3. ævies (Industrial/Ccmœrcial Req1Ests) A) We cannot agree or disagree with tie ccmrent that the Developrrent IndustI:y need not be pushed to produce non- residential buildings; but also canrx:>t help feeling that, without our push, the To,.m of Pickering would sinply end up to be a bedrexxn a:mm.mi i:¥ of Pe tro . B) The 1,000 square feet requirenent in our 60/40 ratio is unrealistic but only because it is too small when one (X)nsiders that we were initially attenpting to bring a 60/40 assessnent balance, mt square fcotage balance. A recent study sha.vs that all rßÑ hones would have to be in the' $18,000 assessrænt range to bring tie prcper assessrrent balance and, with actuals a:::min:J in at over $25,000, the non-residential, or 1,000 square foot require- nent, is far too lCM. C) '!he two year tirre lag nay be unrealistic and could be subject to negotiation if, in fact, it has rot been already, in some cases. '" ! ,~ HONever, if we are to crea te a balanced li ve¡Work cœmuni ty , we cannot allCM the residential developrrent to proceed too far in advance of the other. If urrler today' s conditions, both cannot be acrormodated, then neither should proceed. (X)ntinœd. . . . . - 2- D) Our "build or be p='J1a1ized" policy has saæ dra.,backs and we must recognize that one of them is, as indicated, that SaTe undesirable uses may have been or will be constructed in order to conply. . . . " Hcwever, our ¡:x:>licy is sound and at no tine should we att.enpt to rea:>gnize assessrœnt or errployrrent differences in non- residential construction without also rea>gnizing similar differences in residential construction. (see (B) above). With so many variations in both, a balanced ITatch could never be achieved and we smuld continue to s tick with our present "keep it sinple" approadl. E & F) It must be eIT1fX1asized to this Developrrent Group that the Town does not want their penalty paynents or, as they call them, liquidating damages. Instead, we want the previously agreed upon penna.I'ent non-residential assessrœnt with related enploy- rrent op¡:x:>rtuni ties, in the tine frarres set out in the subdivision papers voluntarily signed by them. As suggested in (C) above, neither residential nor non-resiaential develop:œnt should pr~ed unless both can be accomrodated, and the responsibility and enforcerænt of this. must certainly revert to the TcMn if the Develcprrent IndustIy does not want to accept it. 6. OccupancyPerrnits 'l11e ore prcblem we are always faced within Treasury when occupancy is made prior to reasonable o:mpletion of the surroundings, is that the prcperty is :iJmediately assessed and taxed to the ne.v o.-mer. On receipt of his first tax bill, there is instant confrontation as he feels he should not be fully taxed because he does mt enjoy all the benefits that other established areas enjoy # mt to nention his. ordea1s with nud and dust and caI1?laints with the builder. What a way to greet a nÊw taxpayer! 'n1e 'It:Mn does mt stand a chance and the principle reason for this is in the ne.v mIre sales area where unrealistic pranises of carpletion dates are made. 'Ihe buyer then wakes arrangerrents to lTOve based on that information and the 'It:Mn is caught in the middle bein:J asked to allcw occupancy to inccmplete units. 7. Securities The risk factor should not enter into the taking of security for carrpletion of stbdivisions. We should be fully oovered at all tines. Even the best developer can n.m into financial difficulties. t. JW/da -()- ~ ~,~~- - Treasurer-COllector.