COUNCIL - Georgina Electronic-records Management System (GEMS)

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA

COUNCIL **AGENDA**

MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2012 (7:00p.m.)


COUNCIL AGENDA

September 24, 2012

(7:00 p.m.)

1. MOMENT OF MEDITATION:

2. ROLL CALL:

3. COMMUNITY SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS:

4. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS AND DEPUTATIONS:

5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA:

6. DECLARATION OF PECUNIARY INTEREST:

7. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES: Pages 1-42

7.1 Minutes of the Council Meeting held on August 20, 2012. Pages 43-67

7.2 Minutes of the Council Meeting held on September 10, 2012.

8. BUSINESS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES:

9. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION:

10. ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION:

10.1 Matters not subject to individual conflicts 10.2 Matters subject to individual conflicts

11. DEPUTATIONS:

11.1 Alyshia Van Veen to provide Council with an update on the York Region Gift of Life Association’s activities over the past four months and requesting support for a region-wide registration drive.

11.2 John De Faveri, Georgina Trades Training Inc., requesting the Town to

sign as guarantor for a loan application renewal with Southlake Community Futures Development Corporation.

C201215AGN 2 2012-09-24

12. PRESENTATIONS:

13. CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION:

14. PUBLIC MEETINGS:

14.1 Statutory Public Meetings: Pages 96-155h (7:30 p.m.)

14.1.1 Application to Amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law No. 500 LINDSAY, Jennifer Part Lots 19 & 20, Concession 8 (NG), Part 2, Plan 65R-10305, 25625 Valley View Drive, Sutton

AGENT: Armstrong Hunter & Associates c/o Michael Rajk

Report No. PB-2012-0082 Recommendation: A. That Report PB-2012-0082 be received . B. That in the event no public or Council concerns are raised at

the public meeting warranting investigation and a f urther public meeting, staff recommend the following:

i. That the application submitted by Jennifer Linds ay to

amend the Official Plan as it relates to Section 14 .2.9 (k) in order to permit the consideration of a propo sed severance on the lands described as Part Lots 19 an d 20, Concession 8 (NG); Part 2, Plan 65R-10305, be approved ;

ii. That the application submitted by Jennifer Lind say to

re-zone lands described as Part Lots 19 and 20, Concession 8 (NG); Part 2, plan 65R-10305, from Rur al (RU) to site-specific Rural (RU) and Open Space (OS ), be approved ;

iii. That the by-laws to adopt the Official Plan an d Zoning

By-law Amendments contain the site-specific policie s and provisions outlined in Report PB-2012-0082.

iv. That prior to the passing of by-laws to adopt t he

Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments, the owner/applicant shall submit a detailed survey sket ch prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor that identifie s the boundaries of the subject property and the limi ts and dimensions of the proposed zones, to the satisfaction of the Town and Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority.

C201215AGN 3 2012-09-24

14. PUBLIC MEETINGS cont’d:

v. That pursuant to Section 34(17) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13, as amended, in the event minor revisions are necessary respecting the proposed amending zoning by-law, further notice shall not be required.

vi. That the Town Clerk forward a copy of Report PB -

2012-0082, Council’s resolution thereon, and the adopted Official Plan Amendment to the York Region Director of the Community Planning branch of the Transportation and Community Planning Department for final approval.

- or, alternatively – C. That in the event public or Council concerns are raised

warranting investigation and a further public meeti ng, staff recommend the following:

i. That staff report further to Council following t he

receipt and assessment of public, Council and agenc y comments and that the applicants undertake to address the concerns, matters and issues raised at the statutory public meeting.

(Advisement: The Agent’s power point presentation has been included as pages 155a – 155h of this agenda) Pages 156-225 (7:30 p.m.)

14.1.2 Application to Amend Zoning By-law No. 500 STEWART, John Lots 62, 63 & 64, Plan 427, 53 Evans Avenue, Sutton AGENT: n/a Report No. PB-2012-0083 Recommendation:

A. That Report PB-2012-0083 be received . B. That the applicant respond to the request for ad ditional

information as set out in Report PB-2012-0083 and a ddress any concerns, matters and issues that may be raised at the statutory public meeting, prior to staff bringing a further report to Council.

15 COMMUNICATIONS: 15.1 Matters for Routine:

C201215AGN 4 2012-09-24

15. COMMUNICATIONS cont’d:

15.2 Matters for Disposition: Page 68

15.2.1 Jim Lockie, President, Sutton Agricultural Society, requesting Council to waive all permits and fees that would be required to replace the sheep and cattle building on the fairgrounds property.

Pages 69-91 15.2.2 Amberley Gavel Ltd. submitting the Report of the

Investigator concerning the request for an investigation into the alleged closed meetings of Council and Committee held on various dates in 2011 and 2012.

Page 93 15.2.3 Georgina Fire Department requesting the week of October

7th to 13th be proclaimed ‘Fire Prevention Week’ throughout the Town of Georgina.

Pages 94-95 15.2.4 Upper York Sewage Solution Notice of Public Information

Forums; Wednesday October 3rd at the Newmarket Community Centre and Lions Hall and Thursday, October 4th, 2012 at the Holland Landing Community Centre.

16 PETITIONS:

17 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS:

17.1 Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole Meeting held on September 17, 2011:

17.1.1 1. THAT REPORT NO. OED-2012-0051 BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

2. THAT THE BID RECEIVED FROM FLOYD PRESTON LIMITED IN THE

AMOUNT OF $143,750 FOR 2012/2013 AND $162,000 FOR 2013/2014 FOR THE SUPPLY, DELIVERY, MANUAL MIXING OR MECHANICAL MIXING AND STOCKPILING OF WINTER SAND IS ACCEPTED AND THAT A BYLAW BE PASSED AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN FLOYD PRESTON LIMITED AND THE TOWN OF GEORGINA.

3. THAT THE BID RECEIVED FROM FLOYD PRESTON LIMITED IN THE

AMOUNT OF $18,500 FOR 2012 AND $19,250 FOR 2013 FOR THE SUPPLY, DELIVERY AND STOCKPILING OF GRANULAR ‘A’ GRAVEL IS ACCEPTED AND THAT A BYLAW BE PASSED AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN FLOYD PRESTON LIMITED AND THE TOWN OF GEORGINA.

C201215AGN 5 2012-09-24

17. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont’d: 17.1.2 THAT COUNCIL RECEIVE REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0051 REGARDING

THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD (OMB) DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING TOWN OF GEORGINA DEVELOPMENT CHARGES BY-LAW NO. 2011-0078 (AD-5) FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES.

17.1.3 1. THAT REPORT NO. OED-2012-0053 BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

2. THAT THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY G.D. JEWEL ENGINEERING

INC. TO PROVIDE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE CONSULTING SERVICES AT A COST OF $73,998 IS ACCEPTED AND THAT A BYLAW BE PASSED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO A CONSULTANT ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN G.D. JEWELL ENGINEERING INC. AND THE TOWN OF GEORGINA.

3. THAT THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING ALONG

WITH THE CONSULTANT GO OUT TO TENDER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE DESIGN AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

17.1.4 A. THAT REPORT PB-2012-0078 BE RECEIVED.

B. THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND

ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL GUIDELINES DATED AUGUST 2012 AND PREPARED BY BOUSFIELDS INC. IN ORDER TO SATISFY CONDITION NOS. 12 TO 14 INCLUSIVE OF THE DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 19T-06G01. AND THAT THE ABILITY TO INCORPORATE SERVICES INVOLVING THE USE OF UTILITY BOXES, VAULTS AND PEDESTALS INTO LIGHT STANDARDS BE EVALUATED BY THE ENGINEERING STAFF.

C. THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLAN ELIMINATE THE ASH TREE AND

MANITOBA MAPLE TREE FROM THE PLANTINGS ON THESE LOTS. 17.1.5 1. THAT COUNCIL RECEIVE REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0052

REGARDING AUDIT SERVICES – JOINT NORTHERN SIX MUNICIPALITIES (N6) REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP).

2. THAT COUNCIL APPOINT BDO CANADA LLP TO PROVIDE

AUDIT SERVICES TO THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA AND IT’S LOCAL BOARDS AND COMMITTEES FOR THE 2012, 2013, AND 2014 FISCAL YEARS, AT A COST OF $36,725 PER YEAR.

C201215AGN 6 2012-09-24

17. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont’d: 3. THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO ENTER

INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH BDO CANADA LLP TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ABOVE-NOTED RECOMMENDATIONS.

4. THAT STAFF BE AUTHORIZED TO PREPARE A BY-LAW TO

GIVE EFFECT TO THE ABOVE-NOTED RECOMMENDATIONS. 17.1.6 1. THAT REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0050 REGARDING A NEW APPOINTEE TO THE KESWICK CEMETERY BOARD – SELECTION PROCESS BE RECEIVED.

2. THAT COUNCIL DIRECT THE PREVIOUSLY APPOINTED COMMITTEE

AND BOARD SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR THE 2010-2014 TERM OF OFFICE TO REVIEW THE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FOR THE KESWICK CEMETERY BOARD AND RECOMMEND A SUITABLE APPOINTMENT FOR COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION.


B. THAT THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MICHAEL SMITH

PLANNING CONSULTANTS; DEVELOPMENT COORDINATORS LTD. ON BEHALF OF SUNRISE ACQUISITIONS (KESWICK) INC., TO DEEM BLOCKS 53 AND 54, PLAN 65M-3332 NOT TO BE WITHIN A REGISTERED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 50(3) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50(4) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990, BE APPROVED.

17.1.8 A. THAT REPORT NO. OED-2012-0052 BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

B. THAT THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) DEPARTMENT PLACE

THE REGION OF YORK’S SPEEDWATCH WEBSITE ON THE TOWN’S WEB PAGE FOR RESIDENTS TO ACCESS INFORMATION ON THE REGION’S SPEED WATCH PROGRAM. THE WEBSITE ADDRESS IS http://www.york.ca/departments/transportation+servi ces/traffic+and+technology/speedwatch.htm

C. THAT STAFF REQUEST YORK REGIONAL POLICE TO IMPLEMENT

RADAR ALONG RAVENSHOE ROAD ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF VICTORIA ROAD AND ON VICTORIA ROAD ITSELF AND REQUEST THE DURHAM REGIONAL POLICE TO IMPLEMENT RADAR FOR TRAFFIC NORTHBOUND INTO THE COMMUNITY OF UDORA AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

C201215AGN 7 2012-09-24

17. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont’d: 17.1.9 1. THAT REPORT ED-2012-0012 BE RECEIVED.

2. THAT THE TOWN OF GEORGINA ENDORSE THE USE OF THE FINAL

REPORT OF THE NORTHERN YORK REGION COMMUNITY LABOUR MARKET STUDY TO SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVES.

3. THAT THE FINAL REPORT OF THE NORTHERN YORK REGION

COMMUNITY LABOUR MARKET STUDY BE CIRCULATED TO MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AS REQUESTED TO SUPPORT INVESTMENT AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT/TRAINING IN THE TOWN OF GEORGINA.

4. THAT THIS REPORT BE PRESENTED TO THE ECONOMIC

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE FOR ENDORSEMENT, TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE FOR DISCUSSION, TO MUNICIPAL STAFF RE STREAMLINING THE PROCESS, TO THE GEORGINA AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR COMMENTS AND CIRCULATED TO AS MANY INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES AS DEEMED APPROPRIATE FOR COMMENTS.


B. THAT BELL MOBILITY INC. BE ADVISED THAT COUNCIL CONCURS

WITH THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF A WIRELESS RADIOCOMMUNICATION TOWER ON LANDS LOCATED AT 28841 HIGHWAY 48, CONCESSION 6, PART LOT 15 AS SHOWN ON SCHEDULE ‘3’ TO REPORT PB-2012-0079.

C. THAT THE TOWN CLERK FORWARD A COPY OF REPORT PB-2012-

0079 AND COUNCIL’S RESOLUTION TO BELL MOBILITY INC. AND INDUSTRY CANADA.

17.1.11 A. THAT REPORT ED-2012-0013 BE RECEIVED.

B. THAT “FARM GEORGINA” BE ADVISED TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION

TO THE TOWN’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE GRANT PROGRAM TO REQUEST FUNDING TO ASSIST WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE REMAINING EVENTS PLANNED FOR 2012.

C. THAT THE TOWN OF GEORGINA GRANT THE USE OF THE SUTTON

KIN HALL ON SEPTEMBER 21, & 22, 2012 FOR THE PREPARATION AND HOSTING OF THE “HARVEST DINNER” AS A SINGLE/ONE DAY EVENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPLYING RENTAL RATES.

C201215AGN 8 2012-09-24

17. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont’d: D. THAT THE TOWN’S MANAGER OF CULTURAL SERVICES AND THE

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER MEET WITH THE FARM GEORGINA BOARD AND DISCUSS THE MOST APPROPRIATE MANNER IN WHICH TO PREPARE FOR THE 2013 SEASON.

E. THAT FARM GEORGINA BE REQUESTED TO DONATE THE

PROCEEDS OF THE HARVEST DINNER EVENT TO THE GEORGINA FOOD PANTRY.

17.1.12 A. THAT REPORT ED-2012-0014 BE RECEIVED.

B. THAT TOWN OF GEORGINA COUNCIL PROVIDE A LETTER TO THE

PARK PLANNER FOR THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND LOCAL MEMBER OF PROVINCIAL PARLIAMENT TO REQUEST THAT ACCESS TO LAKE SIMCOE IS PROVIDED VIA SIBBALD POINT PROVINCIAL PARK DURING THE WINTER MONTHS.

C. THAT THE TOWN’S DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND CULTURE,

MANAGER OF MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICER CONTINUE TO MEET WITH THE SUPERINTENDENT AT SIBBALD POINT PROVINCIAL PARK TO MAINTAIN WINTER ACCESS TO LAKE SIMCOE VIA SIBBALD POINT PROVINCIAL PARK.

17.1.13 1. THAT REPORT NO. RC-2012-0015 BE RECEIVED.

2. THAT MAYOR AND COUNCIL APPROVE THE FIELD ALLOCATION

POLICY ATTACHED HERETO AND RESCIND THE PREVIOUS BALL DIAMOND ALLOCATION POLICY (POLICY #LS-BD-01)

17.1.14 THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS

AND HOUSING, THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL MANAGERS, CLERKS AND TREASURERS OF ONTARIO AND THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO INVITING MUNICIPALITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FIFTH ANNUAL CELEBRATION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT WEEK, OCTOBER 14-20, 2012, BE RECEIVED AND THAT THE LOCAL HIGH SCHOOLS BE ADVISED OF THE WILLINGNESS OF THE MAYOR AND CERTAIN COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ADDRESS THEIR CLASSES TO ENCOURAGE PARTICIPATION IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT IF DESIRED

17.1.15 THAT THE CHIEF MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER PREPARE A

BRIEF REPORT ON THE DETAILS OF JOFF ELLIOT’S REQUEST FOR NOISE RELIEF DURING HIS WEDDING RECEPTION ON MALONE ROAD IN JACKSON’S POINT ON SEPTEMBER 7, 2013.

C201215AGN 9 2012-09-24

17. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont’d: 17.1.16 THAT TOWN COUNCIL GRANT PERMISSION TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE

THE NECESSARY ROADS ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 1ST, 2012, COMMENCING AT 5:00 P.M. DURING THE ANNUAL SUTTON SANTA CLAUS PARADE OF LIGHTS, NAMELY MEADOWLEA BLVD., SUNNIDALE BLVD., GREW BLVD., LORNE AVENUE AND SNOOKS ROAD, AND THAT THE REGION BE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED TO TEMPORARILY CLOSE PORTIONS OF LAKE DRIVE, DALTON ROAD AND HIGH STREET FOR THE EVENT AND THAT THE LOCAL EMERGENCY SERVICES BE SO ADVISED.

17.1.17 THAT TOWN COUNCIL PROCLAM ‘NATIONAL SENIORS DAY’

THROUGHOUT THE TOWN OF GEORGINA AND PUBLICIZE THE DAY IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER AND ON THE TOWN’S WEBSITE

17.2 Report from the Planning and Building Department: Pages 226-232 17.2.1 Application for Part Lot Control Exemption 1580699 Ontario Limited

Blocks 1,2 and 3 on Plan 65M-4337; n/e corner of Old Homestead Road and Metro Road

AGENT: Michael Smith Planning Consultants Report No. PB-2012-0084 Recommendation:

A. That Report PB-2012-0084 be received . B. That the application submitted by Michael Smith Planning

Consultants; Development Coordinators Ltd. on behal f of 1580699 Ontario Limited to exempt lands described a s Blocks 1, 2, 3, Registered Plan 65M-4337 from Part Lot Control in accordance with Section 50 (7) of The Pl anning Act R.S.O. 1990, c. p. 13, be approved .

C. That Council adopt the by-law to remove townhous e blocks

1, 2 and 3 on Registered Plan 65M-4337 from Part Lo t Control.

C201215AGN 10 2012-09-24

17. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont’d:

17.3 Report from the Operations and Engineering Department: Pages 233-239 17.3.1 Award of Tender Desiccant Dehumidifier – Georgina Ice Palace Report No. OED-2012-0054

Recommendation: 1. That Report No. OED-2012-0054 be received for in formation. 2. That the bid received from Canadian Tech Air Sys tems Inc.

in the amount of $282,387.00 plus applicable HST fo r the supply and installation of a roof mounted desiccant dehumidifier for the Georgina Ice Palace be accepte d and that a bylaw be passed authorizing the Mayor and Cl erk to enter into a contract between Canadian Tech Air Sys tems Inc. and the Town of Georgina.

3. That the total project cost of $323,357.00 be fu nded through

a draw from reserves, reflecting an increased draw of $168,000.00 beyond current approvals contained in t he approved 2011 and 2012 budgets.

18 UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

19 REGIONAL BUSINESS:

20 BY-LAWS:

20.1 A By-law to remove certain lands from Part Lot Control, Blocks 1,2 & 3 not to be Blocks on a Registered Plan of Subdivision, 1580699 Ontario Limited, Blocks 1,2 & 3, Plan 65M-4337, n/e corner of Old Homestead Road and Metro Road

(Advisement: Refer to Report No. PB-2012-0084, Item No. 17.2.1 of this agenda) 20.2 A By-law to deem Blocks 53 & 54 not to be Blocks on a Registered Plan of

Subdivision, SUNRISE Acquisitions (Keswick) Inc., (c/o Sajad Hussain), Part Lot 7, Concession 3 (NG), Blocks 53 & 54, Plan 65M-3332, Parts 6-10, Plan 65R-24645

(Advisement: Refer to Report No. PB-23012-0077 considered by Committee of the

Whole on September 17, 2012)

C201215AGN 11 2012-09-24

20. BY-LAWS cont’d: 20.3 A By-law to Amend Zoning By-law 500, GLADEBROOK Developments

Inc., Part Lot 9, Concession 3 (NG), Blocks 18, 80 & 82, Plan 65M-3860; Richmond Park Drive, Keswick

(Advisement: Refer to Report No. PB-2012-0078 considered by Committee of the Whole

on September 17, 2012) 20.4 A By-law to appoint BDO Canada LLP as the Municipal Auditors for the

Corporation of the Town of Georgina for the 2012, 2013 and 2014 fiscal years.

20.5 A By-law to amend Town of Georgina Development Charges By-law No.

2011-0078 (AD-5) as ordered by the Ontario Municipal Board (OMB). 20.6 A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into a consultant

Engineering Services Agreement between G.D. Jewell Engineering Inc. and the Corporation of the Town of Georgina for engineering services for rehabilitation of bridge and culvert repairs.

(Advisement: Refer to Report No. OED-2012-0053 considered by Committee of the

Whole on September 17, 2012) 20.7 A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into a Contract

between Floyd Preston Limited and the Corporation of the Town of Georgina for the supply, delivery and stockpiling of winter sand for 2012/2013 winter seasons and for the supply, delivery and stockpiling of granular ‘A’ gravel for 2012 and 2013.

(Advisement: Refer to Report No. OED-2012-0051 considered by Committee of the

Whole on September 17, 2012) 20.8 A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into a contract

between Canadian Tech Air Systems Inc. and the Corporation of the Town of Georgina for the supply and installation of a desiccant dehumidifier at the Georgina Ice Palace.

(Advisement: Refer to Report No. OED-2012-0054, Item No. 17.3.1 of this agenda)

21 MOTIONS:

22 NOTICES OF MOTION:

23 OTHER BUSINESS:

C201215AGN 12 2012-09-24

24. RECESS COUNCIL AND RESOLVE INTO CLOSED MEETING: Be it resolved that the Council Meeting recess at this time and move into a closed session pursuant to Section 239 of The Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, to consider: i) Employee Negotiations, Section 239(2)(d),MA; Update regarding C.U.P.E. negotiations ii) Potential Acquisition of Land, Section 239(2)(c), MA, Update regarding potential acquisition of land, Lake Drive East, Willow Beach

25. RISE AND REPORT FROM CLOSED MEETING: 26. CONFIRMING BY-LAW 27. ADJOURNMENT:

- 1 -


COUNCIL MINUTES

August 20, 2012 (5:10p.m.)


A moment of meditation was observed.

2. ROLL CALL:

The Deputy Clerk gave the roll call and the following Council members were present:

Mayor Grossi Councillor Davison {arrived at 6:21 p.m.)

Councillor Smockum

Regional Councillor Wheeler Councillor Hackenbrook Councillor Szollosy


The Council Members were made aware of a number of community events taking place.

Councillor Smockum thanked all the residents who have relayed their concerns and offers of help in the aftermath of the Egypt Hall fire. The Egypt Hall is expected to be rebuilt in time for New Year's Eve.

Mayor Grossi introduced the 'painted perch' on display in the Council Chambers, which is one of 62 that were painted and auctioned off at the Splash Festival for which proceeds will go towards establishing a water research centre on Lake Simcoe.


The following addendum items were identified as part of the agenda:

4.1 Item No. 15.2.7 replaced with a new version of the same report plus summary, pages 65 to 72.

4.2 An e-mail message from the Board of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) regarding Infrastructure Funding Priorities to the Federal Government was circulated to Council as information.

4.3 Correspondence from Canadian Solar regarding change of venue for the second public meeting, in conjunction with Item No. 15.2.2.

-2-C201213MIN 2 2012-08-20

4. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS AND DEPUTATIONS cont'd:

4.4 Circulation of Item No. 17.3.1, Report No. CA0-2012-0014 entitled 'Black River Dredging Request'.

4.5 Removal of Item No. 17.1.3, Development Agreement- Partial Release, Lots 53 and 54, Registered Plan 427, Park Road Development.

4.6 Removal of Item 20.2, A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Deputy Clerk to execute a partial release of the Development Agreement registered as Instrument No. YR359212 made between James MacDonald, Norman MacDonald, Darrell Reader, Robert Nijsse and John Stewart, as owners, and the Town of Georgina respecting Lots 53 and 54 on Registered Plan 427.

4.7 Property Acquisition Discussion as Item No. (v) in Closed Session.


Moved by Councillor Szollosy

Seconded by Councillor Smockum

RESOLUTION NO. C-2012-0337

THAT THE AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDENDUM ITEMS, BE APPROVED:

5.1 ITEM NO. 15.2.7 REPLACED WITH A NEW VERSION OF THE SAME REPORT PLUS SUMMARY, PAGES 65 TO 72.

5.2 AN E-MAIL MESSAGE FROM THE BOARD OF THE ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO (AMO) REGARDING INFRASTRUCTURE · FUNDING PRIORITIES TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS CIRCULATED TO COUNCIL AS INFORMATION.

5.3 CORRESPONDENCE FROM CANADIAN SOLAR REGARDING CHANGE OF VENUE FOR THE SECOND PUBLIC MEETING, IN CONJUNCTION WITH ITEM NO. 15.2.2.

5.4 CIRCULATION OF ITEM NO. 17.3.1, REPORT NO. CA0-2012-0014 ENTITLED 'BLACK RIVER DREDGING REQUEST.

5.5 REMOVAL OF ITEM NO. 17.1.3, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT- PARTIAL RELEASE, LOTS 53 AND 54, REGISTERED PLAN 427, PARK ROAD DEVELOPMENT.

5.6 REMOVAL OF ITEM 20.2, A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND DEPUTY CLERK TO EXECUTE A PARTIAL RELEASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REGISTERED AS INSTRUMENT NO. YR359212 MADE BETWEEN JAMES MACDONALD, NORMAN MACDONALD, DARRELL READER, ROBERT NIJSSE AND JOHN STEWART, AS OWNERS, AND THE TOWN OF GEORGINA RESPECTING LOTS 53 AND 54 ON REGISTERED PLAN 427.

-3-

C201213MIN 3 2012-08-20

5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA cont'd:

5.7 PROPERTY ACQUISITION DISCUSSION AS ITEM NO. (V) IN CLOSED SESSION.

Carried ...


None.

7. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES:


Seconded by Councillor Hackenbrook


THAT THE MINUTES OF THE COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON JULY 16TH, 2012, BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.

Carried ...


Council requested that their Executive Assistant determine whether Item 15.2.4 and Resolution No. C-2012-0318 was carried out. If not, Council requested that the Chippewas of Georgina Island First Nation be contacted to set up a meeting in regards to their position on the Upper York Sewage Solution Project.

The Recording Secretary confirmed that correspondence was sent to Peter Van Loan, MP for York Simcoe, requesting the restoration of funding to the Experimental Lakes Science Program.


The following items were identified for separate discussion:

9.1 Item No. 17.1.2, Report No. OED-2012-0047 entitled 'Request for Council to Approve the Allocation of Funds from Capital Reserve to Complete Projects 1-4 as Outlined in the Proceeding Report - ROC Capital'

9.2 Item No. 17.1.4, Report No. OED-2012-0041 entitled 'Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund (CIIF) - Proposed Projects for Funding Application'

9.3 Item No. 17.1.5, Report No. OED-2012-0042 entitled 'Lake Drive and Hedge Road- Community Safety Zone'

-4-

C201213MIN 4 2012-08-20

9. DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION cont'd:

9.4 Item No. 17.2.3, Report No. DAS-2012-0044 entitled 'Establishment of Wireless Broadband Advisory Committee of Council'

9.5 Item No. 17.3.1, Report No. CA0-2012-0014 entitled 'Black River Dredging Request'

9.6 Item No. 17.5.1, Report No. DES-2012-0006 entitled 'Vulnerable Occupancies Inspections'


10.1 Matters not subject to individual conflicts

Moved by Councillor Smockum

Seconded by Councillor Szollosy

Routine:


THAT THE ROUTINE CORRESPONDENCE BE RECEIVED.

Carried ..... Reports:

17.2 Report from the Operations and Engineering Department:

17.1.2 Request for Council to Approve the Allocation of Funds From Capital Reserve to Complete Projects 1-4 as Outlined in the Proceeding Report- ROC Capital.

Report No. OED-2012-0047




1. THAT REPORT NO. OED-2012-047 BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

2. THAT COUNCIL APPROVE ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FROM CAPITAL RESERVE TO COMPLETE PROJECTS 1-4 AS OUTLINED IN PROCEEDING REPORT.

-5-

C201213MIN 5 2012-08-20

10. ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION cont'd:

3. THAT A FIFTH PROJECT BE ADDED FOR COMPLETION WHICH IS TO MOVE THE EXISTING HYDRO POLE AT THE BASE OF THE TOBOGGAN HILL TO A SAFER LOCATION OR TO BURY THE SERVICES UNDERGROUND.

4. THAT A SIXTH PROJECT BE ADDED FOR COMPLETION, WHICH IS TO ADD A FIRE PIT AT THE CHALET.

5. THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO SPEND MONIES FROM THE ROC RESERVE CURRENTLY AT $52,500.

Carried ...


17.1.4 Community Infrastructure Improvement Fund (CIIF)Proposed Projects for Funding Application






2. THAT PROJECT 4 'CIVIC CENTRE CUSTOMER SERVICE' AND PROJECT 6 'OLD SUTION PUBLIC SCHOOL RETROFIT' BE APPROVED AS PRIORITY PROJECTS IN THE APPLICATION TO THE CIIF.

3. THAT COUNCIL APPROVES MOVING FORWARD WITH APPLICATIONS FOR THE COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT FUND (CIIF).

4. THAT THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING PURSUE FUNDING FROM THE GAS TAX REBATE TO FUND PROJECT 1 'REPLACEMENT OF WATER MAINS ON GARRETI DRIVE IN SUTION'.

Carried ...

-6-

C201213MIN e 2012-08-20


17 .1.5 Lake Drive and Hedge Road - Community Safety Zone






2. THAT STAFF BE DIRECTED TO AMEND THE TRAFFIC BY-LAW TO INCLUDE ALL OF LAKE DRIVE AND HEDGE ROAD AS COMMUNITY SAFETY ZONES.

Carried ...

Council recessed at 6:40 p.m. and reconvened at 7:07p.m.

15. COMMUNICATIONS:

15.2 Matters for Disposition:

15.2.1 0 Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services expressing appreciation to this municipality, its fire chief and fire fighters for their willingness to support as required to the northern communities under the Mutual Aid Plan during the forest fires.

Mayor Grossi noted that we were one of the first communities to offer assistance with the fires up north and thanked all the Fire Department staff for their quick response.


Seconded by Councillor Hackenbrook.


THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY SAFETY AND CORRECTIONAL SERVICES EXPRESSING APPRECIATION TO THIS MUNICIPALITY, ITS FIRE CHIEF AND FIRE FIGHTERS FOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE SUPPORT AS REQUIRED TO THE NORTHERN COMMUNITIES UNDER THE MUTUAL AID PLAN DURING THE FOREST FIRES,

-7-

C201213MIN 7 2012-08-20

15. COMMUNICATIONS cont'd:

BE RECEIVED AND THAT APPRECIATION BE EXTENDED TO ALL THE TOWN OF GEORGINA FIRE FIGHTERS IN THEIR RECENT EFFORTS TO COMBAT THE FIRES UP NORTH.

Carried ...

17. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS:

17.2 Report from the Administrative Services Department:

17.2.3 Establishment of Wireless Broadband Advisory Committee of Council

Report No. DAS-2012-0044

Rebecca Mathewson, Director of Administrative Services and Treasurer, provided a brief outline of her report requesting that Council establish a Wireless Broadband Advisory Committee, which she recommended consist of three Council members. As well, she recommended that Council appoint two members of the current Board of Directors of the South Shore Community Broadband (SSCB). The Town of Georgina will be acquiring all of the assets of the SSCB and the proposed committee would assist in that process. She noted that two members of the SSCB Board of Directors would consider sitting on this committee.

Ms. Mathewson explained that following Council's adoption of the recommendations today, she will then approach the two members and bring the appointing by-law forward to Council. She stressed the importance of expediting this process in order to sustain the financial situation of the SSCB.

Regional Councillor Wheeler indicated his interest as being appointed to this Committee once established.

Moved by Councillor Davison



THAT REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0044 ENTITLED 'ESTABLISHMENT OF WIRELESS BROADBAND ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL' BE REFERRED BACK TO THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER TO BRING FORWARD TO A COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.

Carried ...

-8-

C201213MIN 8 2012-08-20

17. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont'd:

17.3 Report from the Chief Administrative Officer:

17 .3.1 Black River Dredging Request

Report No. CA0-2012-0014

Winanne Grant, Chief Administrative Officer, noted that information regarding funding opportunities is included in the final section of her report which criteria includes partnering with community groups which she will be pursuing. Ms. Grant further noted that the Small Craft Harbours engineering team indicated a commitment to undertake a Coastal Process Study.




1. THAT REPORT NO. CA0-2012-0014 BE RECEIVED; AND

2. THAT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS - SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS COASTAL ACCESS STUDY IS UNDERTAKEN, COUNCIL DEFER ANY DECISIONS PERTAINING TO THE DREDGING OF THE MOUTH OF THE BLACK RIVER; AND

3. THAT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BE TASKED WITH PURSUING ANY OPPORTUNITIES AVAILABLE TO ADVANCE THE UNDERTAKING OF THE SMALL CRAFT HARBOURS COASTAL ACCESS STUDY.

Carried unanimously .....

21. MOTIONS:

That the Town of Georgina dredge the Black River at a cost not to exceed $80,000 to be taken from funding provided from the tax levy and that staff investigate whether funding is available through the Lake Simcoe Protection Fund and/or the Federal Gas Tax Fund to cover this cost.

-9-

C201213MIN 9 2012-08-20

21. MOTIONS cont'd:

Moved by Councillor Hackenbrook

Seconded by Councillor Davison

That the Town of Georgina dredge the Black River at a cost not to exceed $80,000 to be taken from funding provided from the tax levy and that staff investigate whether funding is available through the Lake Simcoe Protection Fund and/or the Federal Gas Tax Fund to cover this cost.

Withdrawn .....

Councillor Szollosy suggested to the Chair that until the Small Craft Harbours Coastal Access Study is undertaken, Council refrain from making any decisions.


17.5 Report from the Department of Emergency Services:

17.5.1 Vulnerable Occupancies Inspections

Report No. DES-2012-0006

Jeff Bignell, Fire Prevention Officer, explained that the term 'Vulnerable Occupancies' is a term used by the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs that refers to specific classifications of the Building Code. Specifically, this means care occupancies and care treatment occupancies, which has to do with what activities take place inside the building such as group homes and senior care facilities that have staffing 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This policy will ensure that there is an emergency plan in place, equipment is inspected, that all occupants are evacuated in an emergency and that all information is properly relayed to the Fire Department. Mr. Bignell noted that migrant farm bunkhouses do not fall under this category.




THAT REPORT NO. DES-2012-0006 REGARDING VULNERABLE OCCUPANCY INSPECTIONS BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

Carried ...

-1 0-

C201213MIN 10 2012-08-20

10. ADOTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION:

1 0.2 Matters subject to individual conflicts

None.

11. DEPUTATIONS:

11.1 Brad Smith respecting the Inland Iron & Metals operation and Council's process.

Mr. Brad Smith introduced himself and requested that Council not grant Inland Iron & Metals' request to be exempted from the noise by-law in order for them to load materials onto their trucks between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. on Sundays and statutory holidays. Mr. Smith indicated that Inland has a long history of disregarding the noise by-law in Georgina and quoted five reports to Council dating back to 2010, which outline the Town's correspondence to Inland in which noise associated with weekend work was itemized. The Town sent further correspondence twice to Inland regarding the same issue and yet nothing has changed.

Mr. Smith noted that two complaints were lodged in August of 2005, which indicated that Inland was loading thirty minutes before the 10:00 a.m. curfew set out in the bylaw. Two more complaints were received in February of 2007 for work taking place on weekends between the hours of 4:22a.m. and 4:23a.m. On Monday, May 19, 2008, it was reported that four tractor trailers were being loaded on Sunday, May 18, 2008 outside of curfew hours again.

Mr. Smith indicated he had a short video to show Council depicting the loading taking place at Inland. He believes that this video should finally declare any agreement between the Town and Inland as null and void. Mr. Smith explained that he and his family work very hard and deserve one day off a week that should not be disrupted by this problem.

Winanne Grant, Chief Administrative Officer, noted that the allotted time of five minutes for Mr. Smith's deputation had expired.


Seconded by Regional Councillor Wheeler

That the Rules of Procedure be waived to allow for an additional minute of deputation from Mr. Brad Smith.

Carried ...

- 11 -

C201213MIN 11 2012-08-20

11. DEPUTATIONS cont'd:

The video from Mr. Brad Smith was shown to Council at this time which depicts the Ravenshoe Road entrance of Inland and that there is a truck in the driveway entrance.

Ms. Grant noted she had reviewed this information with the Town's legal advisor who has clearly stated this video does not constitute material handling. Mr. Smith reiterated his comments that the Town's own reports of previous years stated Inland was in contravention of the by-law.

Moved by Regional Councillor Wheeler



THAT THE DEPUTATION FROM BRAD SMITH REQUESTING THAT COUNCIL NOT GRANT THE REQUEST BY INLAND IRON & METALS FOR EXEMPTION FROM THE NOISE BY-LAW IN ORDER FOR THEM TO LOAD MATERIALS ONTO TRUCKS BETWEEN 10:00 A.M. AND 12:00 P.M. ON SUNDAYS AND STATUTORY HOLIDAYS BE RECEIVED.

Carried ...

11.2 Reverend Jim Keenan opposing the Noise By-law and Licensing By-law exemptions requested by Inland Iron & Metals

Reverend Jim Keenan introduced himself and indicated he was here to make a deputation in regards to Inlands' request to load trucks between 10:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. Reverend Keenan noted his understanding is that exemptions to by-laws are made for the purpose of social good or to relieve undue hardship. When Rev. Keenan read the staff report recommending the Inland exemption, he could not identify any social, cultural or undue hardship that the applicant was suffering from. Inland operates the business from Monday to Friday from 8:00a.m. to 10:00 p.m., which equates to 90 hours per week. Rev. Keenan asked why Mayor and Council are finding it necessary to allow this company an exemption from the noise by-law.

Rev. Keenan stated that he is aware of the previous deputant's complaints over the years with evidence regarding the Inland operation and noted that these complaints have not been addressed because the evidence is not legally impactful. Rev. Keenan stated that he trusted his family's right to peace and quiet would be protected by the Town that he pays his taxes to but this does not seem to be the case. Rev. Keenan believes these complaints regarding Inland show merit and requested that Council remember this is an exemption issue, not an enforcement issue. He stated that since the complaints are with merit, the onus lies with Inland to

-12-

C201213MIN 12 2012-08-20


provide arguments that Mr. Smith's complaints are unfounded. Rev. Keenan believes that Town Council owes the residents of Georgina an explanation.




THAT THE DEPUTATION FROM REVEREND JIM KEENAN OPPOSING THE EXEMPTIONS FROM THE NOISE AND LICENSING BY-LAWS GRANTED TO INLAND IRON & METALS BE RECEIVED ..

Carried ...

Mayor Grossi moved forward and dealt with Item No. 20.1 at this time.

20. BY-LAWS:

20.1 A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an agreement with Inland Iron & Metals (Inland), Ravenshoe Road, Part of Lot 1, Concession 6, Sutton, respecting the handling of materials on Sundays and statutory holidays, from June 25, 2012 to June 24, 2013.

Regional Councillor Wheeler noted that the original agreement period of June 25, 2012 to June 24, 2013 needs to be changed to August 26th, 2012 to August 25, 2013.



That the following by-law be given three readings:

20.1 By-law Number 2012-0074 (CON-1) A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into an agreement with Inland Iron & Metals (Inland), Ravenshoe Road, (north side), Part of Lot 1, Concession 6, Sutton, respecting the handling of materials on Sundays and statutory holidays, from August 26th, 2012 to August 25th, 2013.

Carried ...

-13-

C201213MIN 13 2012-08-20

11. DEPUTATIONS:

11.3 John Auger, Farm Georgina Community Market organizer, requesting the waiver of rental fees for the Georgina Ice Palace and for the Kin Community Hall.

Mr. John Auger introduced himself and explained that Farm Georgina currently holds a farmers market at the Ice Palace in Keswick every Sunday. The farmers market was moved to this location in order to take advantage of the larger population and heavier traffic in that area. Mr. Auger noted that Farm Georgina has faced many challenges including a lack of manpower and parking, as well as financial since they are a registered not-for-profit organization.

Mr. Auger stated that because of the fact that the farmer's market is a not-for profit organization and receives no funding from any sources, he is requesting that Council waive the parking lot usage fee and, if necessary, the building rental fee should they need to move the market indoor.

Mr. Auger noted that Farm Georgina is organizing an upcoming local community meal to raise funds which will be held at the Sutton Kin Hall.

Mr. Auger explained that he volunteers for this organization because he believes it is important for the community. He has received assistance from Town staff and hopes he can count on the Town's support in the future.

Mr. Auger explained that currently the fees being charged by the Town to Farm Georgina are $100.00 per week and Farm Georgina charges vendors $50.00 per week who are either local retailers or farmers.

Staff noted that the main reason for nominal fees charged by the Town is to cover costs for clean-up, staffing, etc. and that the Town does not profit from these fees.

Karyn Stone, Economic Development Officer, stated that Farm Georgina has received funding in the past through the Economic Development Committee and that Mr. Auger could apply again for that funding in the fall. The Council members noted that this funding is generally how the Town provides support to local initiatives. Ms. Stone also noted that Town staff has done research with other municipalities regarding their support programs for initiatives like this because of their cultural and economic impact and suggested this topic be brought back to Council through the Recreation and Culture Department for further information.

Mr. Auger noted that as a businessperson he dislikes asking for funding but when he stepped into the role to run Farm Georgina, there were no parameters in place such as budget or an organized board. His goal is to get this project off the ground.

-14-

C201213MIN 14 2012-08-20





THAT THE DEPUTATION FROM JOHN AUGER OF FARM GEORGINA REQUESTING THE WAIVER OF RENTAL FEES FOR THE GEORGINA ICE PALACE PARKING LOT AND, IF NECESSARY, THE BUILDING RENTAL FEE SHOULD FARM GEORGINA NEED TO MOVE THE MARKET INDOORS, BE RECEIVED AND THAT COUNCIL REQUEST THE DIRECTOR OF RECREATION AND CULTURE TO PROVIDE AN INFORMATION REPORT TO COUNCIL AT THE SEPTEMBER 17,2012 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING.

Carried ...

11.4 Michael Smith of Michael Smith Planning Consultants, agent for Christina Homes Ltd., requesting a reduction in the site plan application fee for its sales office use.

Gord Mahoney of Michael Smith Planning Consultants, agent for Christina Homes Ltd., stated that his clients are seeking a reduction in the site plan application fee for the purpose of a sales office installation, which will be situated within a model home that is already constructed. The model home in question, which is one of four, has been noted on the site plan along with parking, all situated on the north side of Baseline Road in Sutton.

Mr. Mahoney stated that the site plan application fee is $6,000.00 and has been paid. He noted that it is reasonable for a full site plan review to include a sales office. He pointed out that, alternatively, an off-site sales trailer or building involves much more detail and work for Town staff and is therefore respectfully requesting that his client's site plan fee be reduced to $2,058.00.

Harold Lenters, Director of Planning and Building, noted that while the site plan review process falls under the jurisdiction of Operations and Engineering, he suggested that this be referred back to staff to investigate the request further in terms of reducing time spent by staff on this site plan and whether the fee reduction request is warranted

Rebecca Mathewson, Director of Administrative Services and Treasurer, noted that while any changes to the Town's fee schedule was not recommended at this time, staff certainly could review our fee structure to address situations like this in the future.

-15-

C201213MIN 15 2012-08-20





THAT THE REQUEST MADE BY GORD MAHONEY OF MICHAEL SMITH PLANNING CONSULTANTS, AGENT FOR CHRISTINA HOMES LTD., FOR A REDUCTION IN THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION FEE FROM $6,174 TO $2,058 FOR ITS SALES OFFICE USE LOCATED WITHIN A MODEL HOME DWELLING WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASELINE ROAD IN SUITON BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO PLANNING STAFF FOR REVIEW.

Carried .....

11.5 Michael Smith of Michael Smith Planning Consultants, agent for Blue Serenity Holdings Ltd. (Gary Foch) regarding whether or not an amendment to the Keswick Secondary Plan is required concerning an increase in the number of dwelling units within an existing building.

Gord Mahoney of Michael Smith Planning Consultants, agent for Blue Serenity Holdings Ltd. (Gary Foch), noted he was representing his clients who own land on the corner of Spring Road and Ley Boulevard in Keswick. Currently this property contains an apartment dwelling with three (3) units, while his client is requesting an allowance for four ( 4) apartments.

Mr. Mahoney suggested that as this is part of the Keswick Secondary Plan, an allowance of one additional unit will comply with the plan and therefore should not require an amendment to the Keswick Secondary Plan, but Town staff believe it would require an amendment to the Plan. He explained that the property is designated Neighbourhood Residential and zoned Medium Density Urban Residential and according to the zoning a maximum of nine (9) bedrooms are permitted. He noted that the lands to the south and west are designated Urban Corridor 1.

Mr. Mahoney stated that Section 9.1.8.1 states land use boundaries are approximate and that minor revisions are permitted if the Keswick Secondary Plan's intent is preserved. He noted that Planning Department staff has indicated its concern that a minor adjustment may set a precedent, but he disagrees due to the fact that his client is endeavouring to provide affordable housing with the introduction of this one additional unit. He stated that the applicant's costs to date total over $10,000.00 for permits, etc. and an additional requirement for the amendment to the Keswick Secondary Plan will cause an extensive and costly delay. He is therefore requesting that no amendment to the Keswick Secondary Plan be required.

-16-

C201213MIN 16 2012-08-20


The Council members agreed that with the limited time allowance for deputations this item should be referred back to staff for a report to Council.




THAT THE DEPUTATION MADE BY GORD MAHONEY OF MICHAEL SMITH PLANNING CONSULTANTS, AGENT FOR BLUE SERENITY HOLDINGS LTD. (GARY FOCH), SUGGESTING THAT AN AMENDMENT IS NOT REQUIRED TO THE KESWICK SECONDARY PLAN CONCERNING AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING, BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR SUBMISSION OF A REPORT FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION.

Carried .....

12. PRESENTATIONS:

12.1 A representative from Canadian Solar respecting its proposed Beamlight Solar Project.

Harold Lenters, Director of Planning and Building, noted that this presentation was not necessary at this time since two more reports will be coming to Council with a presentation at that time. Therefore, no presentation occurred at this time.



14.1 Statutory Public Meeting:

14.1.1 Application to Amend Zoning By-law 500 MINI ELL Y, Edward and Constance Part Lot 5, Concession 1 (G), 6725 Old Shiloh Road

(7:35p.m.)

AGENT: Mary Nordstrom of Walker, Nott, Dragicevic Associates Ltd.

Report No. PB-2012-0064

The Mayor explained the procedure for a public meeting at this time.

-17-

C201213MIN 17 2012-08-20

14. PUBLIC MEETINGS cont'd:

Mr. James J. Feehely introduced himself as the lawyer representing Edward and Constance Minielly and has written permission from them to do so. He outlined a brief history of the subject lot indicating that it was a family farm which had a small lot severed from it several years ago. Several outbuildings were built in the 1970's with some of the buildings sitting over the lot lines of the severed lot. He noted that there is no well on this lot because an artesian well exists.

Mr. Feehely stated that the owners are attempting to organize what they must do in order to comply with the Planning Act. They have submitted a zoning amendment application and severance application, which will amend the boundaries so that all the existing outbuildings will be within the lot lines, and a well can be installed with appropriate setbacks. Once complete, there will no longer be an overlap of any buildings on the adjoining farm property.

Mr. Feehely noted that this property has been used in the past as a 'small occupancy' to accommodate the traveling public during the winter months such as fishermen who travel to Lake Simcoe to fish. While this is a small occupancy in the exterior buildings, it does not comply with the current Official Plan. His clients are requesting a simple zoning by-law amendment to allow for seasonal occupancy. He stated that Town staff, however, is recommending that this would be an Official Plan Amendment, which would be a very complex and costly process to the owners.

Barbara Mugabe, Planner, summarized her report regarding this application, indicating that the subject property is located at 6725 Old Shiloh Road on the south side and west of Park Road and is 0.6 acres in size. The concept plan shows the existing buildings on the property and apart from the single detached dwelling, all the buildings have been constructed without Town approval.

Ms. Mugabe explained that the applicants wish to change two buildings to accommodate a Bed and Breakfast operation with each containing three (3) guestrooms, one (1) kitchen, one (1) full bathroom and one (1) two-piece bathroom, accommodating six (6) guests in each building. The use currently extends into the adjoining farm property.

Ms. Mugabe stated that a Planning Justification Report was completed in May of 2012 and during the public circulation, as required by the Planning Act, comments from three residents were received. Specifically, an owner from across the street of the lot in question had no issues with the application. Another comment received pertained to the existing buildings that were built without Town approvals. The third comment received indicated that the date of construction of the buildings was inaccurate.

-18-

C201213MIN 18 2012-08-20


Ms. Mugabe noted that while bed and breakfasts and other tourism based accommodation are permitted in non-agricultural uses within the rural areas of the Greenbelt Plan, said uses are not defined in the Plan. Based on its scale and operations, the existing/proposed temporary accommodation use does not comply with the Town's definition of a Bed and Breakfast which is "a single family dwelling licensed as a Bed and Breakfast residence, in which a maximum of four guest bedrooms are let by the resident owner, up to a maximum of fifteen consecutive days, to members of the travelling public. Meals may be provided for the temporary residents within the single-family dwelling".

Ms. Mugabe also noted that complaints have been received regarding the subject property, which is outlined in her report and is important to consider.

Ms. Mugabe stated that the subject land is designated Rural Policy Area on Schedule '6' of the York Region Official Plan (1994) which still is in force and effect. Section 5.9.2 only permits limited industrial, commercial and institutional uses subject to an amendment to the area municipal Official Plan and subject to compliance with the various criteria outlined in Section 5.9.2 of the Plan. At a preconsultation meeting held between staff and the applicant's agent and York Region staff, the applicant's agent was advised that notwithstanding whether the proposed use may conform to the Town's Official Plan, in accordance with the Region's Official Plan, an amendment to the Town's Official Plan is required. The applicant's agent has maintained that in their opinion, the local Official Plan permits the proposed use therefore an amendment to the Town's Official Plan should not be required. York Region will no comment on local zoning by-law amendment applications unless there is an associated Official Plan Amendment application and/or a Regional Road is involved. Since Old Shiloh Road is not a Regional Road, the understanding is that unless an Official Plan Amendment is filed and circulated to the Region, the Region will not comment on the subject proposal.

Ms. Mugabe explained that the applicant's Planning Justification Report asserts that since the. rural designation does not specifically address bed and breakfasts, the existing temporary accommodation use on the subject land is permitted by way of the land use permissions for home occupation and/or home industry. Staff disagrees with this assertion and contends that the existing/proposed temporary accommodation buildings and use do not meet the Official Plan's policies for home occupation use/home industry use on the following grounds:

a) Home Occupations are permitted in residences provided the use is carried out entirely within the dwelling unit yet the subject temporary accommodation use is occurring within two detached buildings.

C201213MIN


-19-

19 2012-08-20

b) According to the Official Plan, a home industry use is considered secondary to a residential dwelling on a lot and generally employing family members and shall only be permitted in a building separate from the residential dwelling. The Town has consistently interpreted the term 'home industry' to mean a small-scale industrial type of trade such as metal working shop, plumbing shop, welding shop. Therefore, the proposed temporary accommodation use is outside the parameters of a bed and breakfast use in accordance with the home occupation definition under the Town's Official Plan arid for reasons outlined herein cannot be considered a home industry use under the Town's Official Plan.

Ms. Mugabe indicated that the Fire Department and Building Department indicate that the applicant should be aware that inspections are required in order to ensure compliance with fire and building codes.

Ms. Mugabe stated that the applicants must make application to amend the Town's Official Plan, which will address York Region's requirement, and then it will be reviewed. If this application is not filed within a reasonable time, the Planning Department will prepare a subsequent report.

Darryl Phoenix of R.R. #1 Sunderland stated that this is his father's property. The buildings, stated as being built in the 1970's, is inaccurate since he has an aerial photograph from 1970 which depicts the house and barn in existence but no other buildings.

Harold Lenters, Director of Planning and Building, noted that the current Official Plan is still in effect until it is repealed, which means that the Town would consider this application under the current local Official Plan Amendment.

Bill O'Neill, Fire Chief, noted that while he did have information on hand as to whether these buildings have been inspected, he pointed out that the general rule is that the Fire Department must be granted permission by owners to enter their property for inspection purposes.

Clarification was provided by Councillor Smockum that the applicant's consent application is to readjust the lot line and not to create a new lot.

Mr. Feehely provided additional comments by stating that staff have been notified that they will be granted reasonable access to the subject property to accomplish any requirements of this application and that the intended primary use is a part-time activity and not a year-round activity.

Mr. Lenters noted that a part-time activity is difficult to police or enforce unless there is a very specific by-law to address it.

-20-

C201213MIN 20 2012-08-20


Mr. Feehely also noted that in previous meetings with Town staff and York Region staff, the Regional staff member implied that if a local Official Plan Amendment was applied for, that application would necessitate a Regional Official Plan Amendment.

It was noted that while Town staff tries to be accommodating for local businesses, there are some areas of concern with this application regarding building code compliance, building permits for structures, etc. that need to be determined.

Mr. Lenters stated that he will contact the Region to determine whether or not the applicants will require an Official Plan Amendment at the Regional level.



RESOLUTION NO. C-2012·0352

A. THAT REPORT PB-2012-0064, RESPECTING AN APPLICATION TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW 500 BY EDWARD AND CONSTANCE MINI ELL Y FOR LAND DESCRIBED AS PART LOT 5, CONCESSION 1 (G), 6725 OLD SHILOH ROAD, BE RECEIVED.

B. THAT STAFF REPORT FURTHER TO COUNCIL FOLLOWING: I) THE RECEIPT AND CIRCULATION OF THE REQUIRED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT; AND II) ASSESSMENT OF _ALL PUBLIC, COUNCIL, INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCY COMMENTS.

Carried ...

(8:45p.m.) 14.1.2 Accessory Apartment Policy Review and Update, Proposed

Zoning By-law Amendment and Registration By-law


Mayor Grossi explained the procedure for a public meeting at this time.

Laura Diotte, Senior Planner-Policy, introduced herself and outlined her report regarding the Accessory Apartment Policy Review and the proposed zoning by-law amendment along with the proposed registration by-law. Ms. Diotte noted that staff has made several edits to the proposed amendment based on comments from staff, the public and the Steering Committee.

-21 -

C201213MIN 21 2012-08-20


It was noted that this is a Provincial and Regional policy that the Town is adhering to through this proposed by-law and that the process involved extensive public consultation.

Ms. Diotte explained that this proposed amendment will implement Bill 140 and, if approved by Council, staff will provide a guide to assist residents through the process of registering their accessory apartments through advertisements and the local newspaper. This zoning amendment allows for more affordable housing to be provided as well as a simpler and less costly process for owners. She pointed out that there are still several criteria that owners will have to comply with under the new process, once approved.

During a discussion about the various aspects of compliance with fire codes and safety for accessory apartments, it was noted that the Fire Department has the right to access a property when fire code and safety infractions have occurred, whether an accessory apartment is registered or not. In addition, there are procedures through the court system to gain access to a property.

Karl Goinarov explained that he was part of the Accessory Apartment Steering Committee and believes this is an excellent initiative for builders and owners and finds the new process much easier and less time consuming. Mr. Goinarov also noted his appreciation for being provided the opportunity to participate in the committee.




A. THAT REPORT PB-2012-0065 BE RECEIVED.

B. THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO ZONING BY-LAW 500 RESPECTING CRITERIA FOR THE CREATION OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS ATIACHED AS SCHEDULE '5' TO REPORT NUMBER PB-2012-0065 BE APPROVED.

C. THAT THE PROPOSED REGISTRATION BY-LAW REQUIRING THE REGISTRATION OF ACCESSORY APARTMENTS IN THE TOWN OF GEORGINA ATIACHED AS SCHEDULE '8' TO REPORT NUMBER PB-2012-0065 BE APPROVED.

Carried ...

-22-

C201213MIN 22 2012-08-20




That the Council Meeting recess at this time (8:50 p.m.)

Carried ...

The Council Meeting reconvened at 8:59 p.m.

(8:59p.m.) 14.1.3 Application to Amend Zoning By-law 500

2064322 ONTARIO LTD. c/o Caroline Heo or Dal Ho Heo Lot 13, Plan 177 and Part 2, Plan 65R-28514, 1588 Metro Road North, Willow Beach AGENT: Michael Smith Planning Consultants


Mayor Grossi explained the procedure for a public meeting at this time.

Gord Mahoney of Michael Smith Planning Consultants, agent for the applicants, stated that the owners, Dal Ho Heo and Carolyn Ho Heo, are present.

Mr. Mahoney explained that the property in question is located on the southwest corner of Metro Road and Kennedy Road where a two-storey building currently exists. According to the zoning by-law, this property is zoned Commercial and a refreshment cart is not a permitted use. He stated that a refreshment cart would be complimentary to the existing variety store located in the two-storey building. One of the zoning by-law's stipulations for a refreshment cart is that they only be permitted on non-residential properties, of which the subject property is zoned.

Mr. Mahoney stated that the applicants are seeking a reduced setback of 5 metres rather than the required 9 metres in order that the parking requirement can be accommodated which requires one additional parking space. He stated that if this zoning amendment is approved, the applicant will seek the appropriate license for a refreshment cart. He explained that the existing building is operator-occupied and the proposed cart would be operated on a seasonal basis. None of the internal department or external agencies who were asked for comments is opposed to the application and it complies with the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan, the Regional Official Plan and the Town of Georgina Official Plan.

C201213IVIIN


-23-

23 2012-08-20

Todd Evershed, Planner, noted that the site plan indicates there are accessory structures on the southwest corner of the subject property. With respect to the required parking spot, one additional spot is required and it would have to be located on the site behind these accessory buildings. Therefore, staff has recommended that the accessory building be moved to comply with this requirement.

Dimitrio Stamboultzis introduced himself along with his father Angelo who are requesting support from Council to oppose this application for an amendment to the zoning by-law. They feel allowing this proposed cart, in addition to theirs located at 437 Lake Drive East makes no sense. Their cart on Lake Drive East has been in existence for several years and they have been providing a much appreciated service to the Town and the public by maintaining the property and its surroundings.

Mr. Stamboultzis noted his parents have performed above and beyond as owners of 437 Lake Drive East by cleaning the public park area adjacent to their property for many years. He reiterated that allowing another cart at 1588 Metro Road North would be irresponsible and cause concern for residents as far as traffic and pedestrian accidents are concerned. Mr. Stamboultzis brought petitions signed by many of the local residents indicating they do not wish to have another cart located at the proposed Metro Road North site.

Mr. Evershed noted that Section 5.28 of Zoning By-law No. 500, requires that one ( 1) additional parking space be provided for the proposed refreshment cart, because the proposed use is in a effect a minor extension of the existing permitted non-residential use. Further, the existing on-site parking was calculated based on the floor areas dedicated to both the commercial and residential components of the existing building. He also pointed out that because this was a minor adjustment to the use of the subject lands, staff has not imposed site plan control.

Council noted that the location of the additional parking spot, as suggested, is some distance from the proposed location of the cart. In addition, the traffic flows in the diagram appears to draw traffic to the corner and this could potentially create concerns.

Council discussed whether the applicant would have the right to appeal should Council refuse the application for reasons other than zoning issues. Harold Lenters, Director of Planning and Building, noted that for an applicant to appeal they must do so by basing their appeal on planning grounds. He also noted that while competition plays a factor, there is nothing in the Planning Act that speaks to the competition factor.

-24-

C201 ?13MIN 24 2012-08-20


Mr. Lenters noted Council's concerns with traffic and pedestrian safety and Council could request relocating the cart to a different spot on the site and allow staff to review.

Mr. Mahoney noted that the current proposed location for the cart is mostly to ensure exposure and that due to setbacks put in place by the Region, there is very little choice as to the location of the parking spot and the cart.

Mr. Evershed noted that he has driven from the existing Lake Drive East cart location, south on Kennedy Road, to the subject lands, and notes that these properties appear to be separated by a distance of at least 300 metres.

Mr. Mahoney addressed Council once more and noted he had just conferred with his clients and that, if it pleases Council, they would certainly consider moving the cart as long as it meets the required set-backs.

Mr. Lenters suggested that these concerns could be addressed by moving the proposed cart further to the west where an existing parking spot currently is.



A. That Report PB-2012-0067 be received.

B. (i) That the application submitted by 2064322 Ontario Ltd., to amend the current local Commercial (C3) zone to permit the use of a refreshment cart on the lands described as Lot 13, Plan 177 and Part 2, Plan 65R-28514, be approved.

(ii) That the amending zoning by-law contain the site-specific provisions outlined in section 8 of Report PB-2012-0067.

(iii) That pursuant to Section 34(17) of The Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.p.13, as amended, in the event minor revisions are necessary respecting the proposed amending zoning by-law, further notice shall not be required; and,

-25-

C201213MIN 25 2012-08-20


(iv) That prior to the passing of the amending zoning by-law, the existing accessory buildings and structures that are shown to be removed on Schedule '5' to Report PB-2012-0067, have been removed from the subject land to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Department.

Defeated ...

Winanne Grant, Chief Administrative Officer, explained that should the applicant decide to appeal, then that appeal process will be through the Ontario Municipal Board.

15 COMMUNICATIONS:


15.2.1 Municipality of Grey Highlands requesting support of its position concerning reimbursement by the Province of court costs associated with clarification in the Green Energy Act concerning the loss of Municipal rights over the control of road allowances.

Winanne Grant, Chief Administrative Officer, provided a verbal report regarding the costs associated with clarification of municipal rights over road allowance controls pertaining to the Green Energy Act. Ms. Grant noted that it is their intention to lobby the provincial government




THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE MUNICIPALITY OF GREY HIGHLANDS REQUESTING SUPPORT OF ITS POSITION CONCERNING REIMBURSEMENT BY THE PROVINCE OF COURT COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH CLARIFICATION IN THE GREEN ENERGY ACT CONCERNING THE LOSS OF MUNICIPAL RIGHTS OVER THE CONTROL OF ROAD ALLOWANCES, BE RECEIVED.

Carried ...

-26-

C201213MIN 26 2012-08-20


15.2.2 Canadian Solar Solutions Inc.'s Notice of Second Public· Meeting at the Egypt Hall on September 17th concerning the Gold Light Solar Power Project.

It was noted that the public meeting has been relocated to the Pefferlaw Lions Community Hall located on Pete's Lane in Pefferlaw.




THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM CANADIAN SOLAR SOLUTIONS INC. RESPECTING A NOTICE OF SECOND PUBLIC MEETING AT THE EGYPT HALL ON SEPTEMBER 17TH CONCERNING THE GOLDLIGHT SOLAR POWER PROJECT, WHICH WILL NOW BE HELD AT THE PEFFERLAW LIONS COMMUNITY HALL , BE RECEIVED.

Carried ...

15.2.3 York Regional Police informing Council of the reassignment of Superintendent Bruce West as Officer in Charge of #3 District as of July 161

h.




THAT THE CLERK'S OFFICE INVITE SUPERINTENDENT WEST AND HIS TWO DEPUTIES FROM YORK REGIONAL POLICE TO THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED FOR MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 10, 2012, TO DISCUSS NEW INITIATIVES TO COMBAT THEFT AND VANDALISM.

Carried ...

-27-

C201213MIN 27 2012-08-20


15.204 York Region's Notice of Decision to Official Plan Amendment No. 116, Accessory Apartments Policy Review and Update.


Seconded by Deputy Mayor Wheeler


THAT YORK REGION'S NOTICE OF DECISION TO OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 116, ACCESSORY APARTMENTS POLICY REVIEW AND UPDATE BE RECEIVED.

15.2.5

Carried ...

Monte McNaughton, MPP, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, requesting Council consider drafting a resolution in support of Bill 76, an Act to Amend the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Act of 1999, entitled Ensuring Local Voices in New Casino Gambling Development Act, 2012, to ensure that local communities are given a say prior to the development of any new casino within their municipality.



That correspondence from Monte McNaughton, MPP, Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, requesting Council consider drafting a resolution in support of Bill 76, an Act to amend the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Act of 1999, entitled 'Ensuring Local Voices in New Casino Gambling Development Act, 2012' to ensure that local communities are given a say prior to the development of any new casino within their municipality, be received.

Defeated .....




THAT TOWN COUNCIL SUPPORT BILL 76, AN ACT TO AMEND THE ONTARIO LOTTERY AND GAMING ACT OF 1999, ENTITLED 'ENSURING LOCAL VOICES

-28-

C201213MIN 28 2012-08-20


IN NEW CASINO GAMBLING DEVELOPMENT ACT, 2012' TO ENSURE THAT LOCAL COMMUNITIES ARE GIVEN A SAY PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANY NEW CASINO WITHIN THEIR MUNICIPALITY AND THAT THIS SUPPORT BE FORWARDED TO THE PREMIER DALTON MCGUINTY, THE HONOURABLE DWIGHT DUNCAN, MINISTER OF FINANCE, MONTE MCNAUGHTON, MPP FOR LAMBTON-KENT-MIDDLESEX AND JULIA MUNRO, MPP FOR YORK-SIMCOE

Carried .....

15.2.6 Tasha Corrigan requesting police and Town assistance in the recent increase in vandalism and car thefts in the Keswick community.




THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM TASHA CORRIGAN REQUESTING POLICE AND TOWN ASSISTANCE IN THE RECENT INCREASE IN VANDALISM AND CAR THEFTS IN THE KESWICK COMMUNITY BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO RYAN CRONSBERRY, CHIEF MUNICIPAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER AND TO SUPERINTENDENT WEST OF YORK REGIONAL POLICE FOR A RESPONSE AND PLAN OF ACTION.

Carried .....

15.2. 7 York Regional Police 2011 Annual Report on Georgina Crime Statistics. The lengthy report can be viewed on the police website link at http://www.yrp.ca/statistics.aspx, along with reports from previous years.




THAT THE YORK REGIONAL POLICE 2011 ANNUAL REPORT ON GEORGINA CRIME STATISTICS ALONG WITH REPORTS FROM PREVIOUS YEARS, BE RECEIVED.

Carried .....

Council recessed at 10:04 p.m. and reconvened at 10:10 p.m.

-29-

C201213MIN 29 2012-08-20


15.2.8 Minister of Finance requesting local broader public sector collective agreement bargaining partners to respect the Ontario Government's plan to keep Ontario 'on track to balance the budget by 2017-18' and to enhance the broader public sector pension plans.




THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE MINISTER OF FINANCE REQUESTING LOCAL BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE AGREEMENT BARGAINING PARTNERS TO RESPECT THE ONTARIO GOVERNMENT'S PLAN TO KEEP ONTARIO 'ON TRACK TO BALANCE THE BUDGET BY 2017-18' AND TO ENHANCE THE BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS, BE RECEIVED.

15.2.9

Carried ...

Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing reiterating the Ministry of Finance's proposal that no form of increased compensation should be allowed in all new Broader Public Sector collective agreements and initiatives to improve pension plans.

Winanne Grant, Chief Administrative Officer, noted that items 15.2.8 and 15.2.9 are from different sources relating to the same topic. Essentially each is suggesting there is a way that municipalities can manage their resources and the bargaining units.




THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS AND HOUSING REITERATING THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE'S PROPOSAL THAT NO FORM OF INCREASED COMPENSATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ALL NEW BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS AND INITIATIVES TO IMPROVE PENSION PLANS, BE RECEIVED.

Carried ...

-30-

C201213MIN 30 2012-08-20


15.2.11 Ministry of Transportation providing an update on the Highway 404 extension project.




THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION PROVIDING AN UPDATE ON THE HIGHWAY 404 EXTENSION PROJECT, ADVISING OF UNFORESEEN ISSUES THAT HAVE DELAYED THE ORIGINAL DECEMBER 2012 COMPLETION DATE AND ANTICIPATING A NEW 2014 COMPLETION DATE, BE RECEIVED.

Carried ...

15.2.12 Regional Municipality of York providing information on the Emerald Ash Borer.

Dan Pisani, Director of Operations and Engineering, noted that staff are currently working on a strategy regarding the Emerald Ash Borer and will bring back a report to Council.




THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK PROVIDING INFORMATION ON THE EMERALD ASH BORER BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING TO PREPARE A REPORT FOR SUBMISSION TO COUNCIL AND THAT THIS CORRESPODNENCE BE CIRCULATED TO THE GEORGINA AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE GEORGINA ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

Carried .....

16. PETITIONS:

None.

-31-

C201213MI!\! 31 2012-08-20


17.1 Reports from the Operations and Engineering Department:

17.1.1 Request for Council to Approve the Procurement of Four Storage Bins from Robert B. Somerville Co. Limited for $10,000.00






2. THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE PROCUREMENT OF FOUR STORAGE BINS FROM ROBERT B. SOMERVILLE CO. LIMITED FOR $10,000.00

3. THAT FUNDING BE PROVIDED FROM THE ROC RESERVE FUND, WHICH HAS A CURRENT BALANCE OF $52,500.

17.1.3

Carried .....

Development Agreement- Partial Release Lots 53 and 54, Registered Plan 427 Park Road Development


Item No. 17.1.3 was removed from the agenda at this time as the Chief Administrative Officer would like to conduct further research on this issue.

17.1.6 York-Simcoe Boundary Area Transportation Study Staff Comments


-32-

C201213MIN 32 2012-08-20

17_ COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont'd:




THAT REPORT NO. OED-2012-0044 ENTITLED 'YORK-SIMCOE BOUNDARY AREA TRANSPORTATION STUDY, STAFF COMMENTS' BE RECEIVED.

Carried .....

17.1.7 Rogers Communications Inc.- Lease Agreement





1. THAT REPORT OED-2012-0046 BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

2. THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO A TEN-YEAR LEASE AGREEMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,800 ANNUALLY WITH ROGERS COMMUNICATIONS INC. FOR USE OF THE ANNEX ROOM LOCATED AT 90 WEXFORD DRIVE, KESWICK.

Carried ...

17.2 Reports from the Administrative Services Department:

17.2.1 Proposed Municipal Heritage Register

Report No. DAS-2012-0027A




A. THAT REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0027 BE RECEIVED.

-33-

C201213M!N 33 2012-08-20


B. THAT THE PROPOSED MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER ATTACHED TO REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0027A AS SCHEDULE '2' BE APPROVED.

C. THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE LIST OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REQUIRED TO ACCOMPANY A 'NOTICE TO ALTER' AND 'NOTICE TO DEMOLISH OR REMOVE' FORMS, CONTAINED IN SECTION 4 OF REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0027A.

D. THAT ALL DEPARTMENTS BE CIRCULATED THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER, AND THAT THE COMMITTEE SECRETARY CIRCULATE ANY AMENDMENTS OR UPDATES TO THE MUNICIPAL HERITAGE REGISTER TO EACH DEPARTMENT AS THEY OCCUR.

E. THAT THE 'NOTICE TO ALTER' AND 'NOTICE TO DEMOLISH OR REMOVE' FORMS CONSTITUTE THE NOTICE IN WRITING AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT, AND THAT THE CLERK'S DEPARTMENT ADMINISTER THE FORMS.

F. THAT COUNCIL ENDORSE THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES FROM THE GEORGINA HERITAGE COMMITTEE OUTLINED IN SECTION 4.1 OF REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0027A.

Carried .....

17.2.2 Tile Drainage Loan Applications - Donald Chapman and Don Chapman Farms Limited





THAT REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0043 ENTITLED 'TILE DRAINAGE LOAN APPLICATIONS -DONALD CHAPMAN AND DON CHAPMAN FARMS LIMITED' BE RECEIVED.

1. THAT COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVE THREE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED FROM DONALD CHAPMAN AND DON CHAPMAN FARMS LIMITED FOR TILE DRAINAGE LOANS UP TO MAXIMUM TOTAL LOAN OF $50,000 IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVINCIAL POLICY.

-34-

C201213MIN 34 2012-08-20


2. THAT COUNCIL ADOPT A BY-LAW IMPOSING SPECIAL ANNUAL DRAINAGE RATES UPON THOSE LANDS IDENTIFIED IN THIS REPORT IN RESPECT OF WHICH MONEY IS BORROWED UNDER THE TILE DRAINAGE ACT.

Carried .....

17.2.4 Budget Analysis to June 30, 2012


Ms. Rebecca Mathewson, Director of Administra:tive Services/Treasurer, provided a brief overview of her report on the budget analysis to June 30, 2012, which was completed in conjunction with Darlene Carson-Hildebrand, Manager of Finance/Deputy Treasurer.

Page 143 of the report indicates a list of capital expenditures, which show a budget excess of $50,000.00 under the Animal Shelter, an excess of approximately $283,000 under Community Parks as well as the expenditure for the Pefferlaw Ice Pad and ball diamonds at the ROC. Each of these projects was completed in the previous year and are being funded through internal borrowings, as noted in the approved 2012 budget. If they were to be removed, then the total capital spent would be $2.4 Million and not $3.72 Million.

Winanne Grant, Chief Administrative Officer, noted that the upcoming 'visioning' session, being held on Monday, August 2ih, 2012, will include this information and outline a work plan for the next several years.




THAT REPORT NO. DAS-2012-0047 DETAILING THE OPERATING RESULTS TO JUNE 30,2012 BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

. Carried .....

-35-

C201213M!N 35 2012-08-20


17.4 Reports from the Planning and Building Department:

17.4.1 Application to Extend Draft Plan Approval, Draft Plan of Subdivision 19T-95070 DAYCORNET (KESWICK) INC. Part Lot 14, Concession 3 (NG) AGENT: Michael Smith Planning Consultants





1. THAT REPORT PB-2012-0059 BE RECEIVED.

2. THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 51(33) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, AN EXTENSION TO THE APPROVAL OF DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 19T-95070 BE GRANTED TO AUGUST 31,2015.

3. THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 51(44) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, C.P.13, AS AMENDED, THE LAPSING PROVISION APPLIED TO THE CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE PLAN OF SUBDIVISION BE AMENDED TO READ "PURSUANT TO THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, C.P.13, AS AMENDED, APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN OF SUBDIVISION SHALL LAPSE IF FINAL APPROVAL FOR REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY AUGUST 31, 2015, UNLESS APPROVAL HAS BEEN SOONER WITHDRAWN OR THE TOWN OF GEORGINA HAS EXTENDED THE DURATION OF THE APPROVAL".

4. THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 51(44) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, C.P.13, AS AMENDED, COUNCIL APPROVE THE REVISED DRAFT PLAN ATTACHED AS SCHEDULE '5' AND THE REVISED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL APPLIED TO DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 19T-95070, ATTACHED AS SCHEDULE '10' TO REPORT PB-2012-0059.

5. THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 51(47) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, WRITTEN NOTICE SHALL NOT BE GIVEN AS THE CHANGES TO THE CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL ARE CONSIDERED TO BE MINOR.

-36-

C201213MIN 36 2012-08-20


6. THAT PLANNING STAFF FORWARD THE REVISED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL TO THE APPLICANT, THEIR AGENT, THE YORK REGION DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING BRANCH OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND TO ALL OTHER AGENCIES WHICH HAVE IMPOSED THEIR RESPECTIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

Carried .....

17 .4.2 Proposed Beam light Solar Project - Municipal Consultation Form Proponent: Canadian Solar






B. THAT COUNCIL ENDORSE STAFF COMMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION FORM CONTAINED IN SCHEDULE '9' TO REPORT PB-2012-0066 FOR THE BEAMLIGHT SOLAR PROJECT.

C. THAT CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE TOWN WHICH ADDRESS COMMENTS/CONCERNS OUTLINED IN THE MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION FORM, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

CANADIAN SOLAR BE ADVISED THAT THE SITE WOULD BE BETTER SERVICED STRICTLY BY ACCESS FROM PARK ROAD YORK REGION ROAD N0.18.

II CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE REASONS AS TO WHY A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT REA DOCUMENTS.

Ill CANADIAN SOLAR SUBMIT MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPE DESIGNS TO THE TOWN OF GEORGINA FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, ALONG WITH RENDERINGS SHOWING WHAT THE PROJECT WILL LOOK LIKE FROM PUBLIC VIEWS (!.E. - STREET OR NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES).

-37-

C201213MI~! 37 2012-08-20


IV CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO THE GEORGINA FIRE DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO BEAMLIGHT.

V CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A FIRE SAFETY PLAN FOR BEAMLIGHT.

VI CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND AFTER.

VII CANADIAN SOLAR MUST OBTAIN OCCUPANCY AND ACCESS TO FROG STREET BY APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING.

VIII A BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PLUMBING, ALL BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 10M SQ AND ALL BUILDINGS LESS THAN 10M SO THAT CONTAIN PLUMBING AS REGULATED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE ACT AND ONTARIO BUILDING CODE.

IX CANADIAN SOLAR CIRCULATE THE STAGE 1 AND 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT, STAGE 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL (WHEN COMPLETED), AND THE CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT TO THE GEORGINA HERITAGE COMMITTEE PRIOR TO ANY SITE ALTERATION OR CONSTRUCTION TAKING PLACE ON THE SITE.

X CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE THE GEORGINA HERITAGE COMMITTEE COPIES OF THE ALL DOCUMENTATION OF BUlL T FEATURE#2.

D. THAT CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE A WRITIEN RESPONSE TO THE GEORGINA ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, THE GEORGINA AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE, AND WENDALL AND DOROTHY GOODWIN REGARDING THE COMMENTS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULES '10' ,'11' AND '12' RESPECTIVELY TO REPORT PB-2012-0066.

E. THAT THE TOWN CLERK FORWARD A COPY OF REPORT PB-2012-0066 TO CANADIAN SOLAR FOR INCLUSION IN THEIR CONSULTATION REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AS PART OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL APPLICATION.

Carried ...

18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

None.

-38-

C201213MIN 38 2012-08-20

19. REGIONAL BUSINESS:

None.

20. BY-LAWS:

20.2 A By-law to authorize the Mayor and Deputy Clerk to execute a partial release of the Development Agreement registered as Instrument No. YR359212 made between James MacDonald, Norman MacDonald, Darrell Reader, Robert Nijsse and John Stewart, as owners, and the Town of Georgina respecting Lots 53 and 54 on Registered Plan 427.

Item No. 20.2 was removed from the agenda at this time as the Chief Administrative Officer would like to conduct further research on this issue.




20.3 By-law Number 2012-0075 (TA-1)




20.4 By-Law Number 500-2012-0009

Being a By-law to impose a special charge upon business properties located in the Jackson's Point Village Association and to provide for its collection.

Carried ...

Being a By-law to Amend Zoning By-law 500 respecting Accessory Apartments, Town initiated.

Carried .....

-39-

C201213MIN 39 2012-08-20

20. BY-LAWS cont'd:




20.5 By-LawNumber2012-0076(PWE-1) Being a By-law to adopt a Registration System respecting Accessory Apartments, Town initiated.




20.6 By-Law Number 2012-0077 (LA-1)

22. NOTICES OF MOTION:

None.

23. OTHER BUSINESS:

23.1 Outdoor Wood Furnaces

Carried .....

Being a By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into a lease agreement between Rogers Communications Inc. and the Corporation of the Town of Georgina.

Carried .....

Councillor Smockum noted concerns have been raised that properties containing outdoor furnaces cause excessive smoke to neighbouring properties. Since this subject has been discussed in the past, Councillor Smockum requested a staff prepare a report to be submitted to Council regarding the concerns that have been raised and suggested resolutions to those concerns, including the potential imposition of setback requirements, etc.

-40-

C201213MIN 40 2012-0B-2C

23. OTHER BUSINESS cont'd:




THAT THE PLANNING AND BUILDING STAFF PREPARE A REPORT FOR SUBMISSION TO COUNCIL REGARDING OUTDOOR WOOD FURNACES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THE CONCERNS RAISED AND SUGGESTED RESOLUTIONS TO THOSE CONCERNS, INCLUDING THE POTENTIAL IMPOSITION OF SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, ETC.

Carried .....

24. RECESS COUNCIL AND RESOLVE INTO CLOSED MEETING:



That the Council Meeting recess at this time (1 0:25 p.m.) and move into a closed meeting pursuant to Section 239 of The Municipal Act, 2001, as amended, to consider:

i) Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality; Section 239 (2) (e), MA; appeal to OMB regarding Development Charge By-law and Single Lots of Record.

ii) Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality; Section 239 (2) (e), MA; appeal to OMB regarding Area Specific Development Charge By-law and the North West Sutton Development Area Plan No. 3.

iii) Proposed or pending disposition of land by municipality- Section 239 (2) (c), MA; joint municipal initiative

iv) Labour relations or employee negotiations, Section 239 (2) (d), MA; retention of personnel consulting services.

v) Proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, Section 239 (2) (c), MA;

Carried .....

-41-

C201213MIN 41 2012-08-20

25. RISE AND REPORT FROM CLOSED MEETING:

The Council Members rose from the Closed Meeting at this time (12:15 p.m.) with the following direction:

Councillors Szollosy, Davison and Deputy Mayor Wheeler declared a pecuniary interest with respect to development charges.

i) Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality; Section 239 (2) (e), MA; appeal to OMB regarding Development Charge By-law and Single Lots of Record.

The Director of Administrative Services and Treasurer reported on the outcome of the litigation and OMB hearing.

vi) Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose; Section 239 (2) (f), MA;

Discussion took place regarding this additional closed session item

ii) Litigation or potential litigation including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality; Section 239 (2) (e), MA; appeal to OMB regarding Area Specific Development Charge By-law and the North West Sutton Development Area Plan No. 3.

The Director of Administrative Services and Treasurer provided an update on this issue.

iii) Proposed or pending disposition of land by municipality- Section 239 (2) (c), MA; joint municipal initiative

Staff was directed to pursue Option #3.

v) Proposed or pending acquisition of land by the municipality, Section 239 (2) (c), MA;

No direction was given to proceed with this request.

iv) Labour relations or employee negotiations, Section 239 (2) (d), MA; retention of personnel consulting services.

The Chief Administrative Officer was requested to obtain personnel services and report back to Council

-42-

C201213MIN 42

26. CONFIRMING BY-LAW




By-law Number 2012-0078 (COU-2)

27. ADJOURNMENT:



Being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council

Carried .....

That the meeting adjourn at this time (12:19 p.m.).

Carried .....

Robert Grossi, Mayor

Winanne Grant, Deputy Clerk

2012-08-20

-43-


COUNCIL MINUTES

September 10, 2012 (7:06p.m.)


A moment of meditation was observed.

Town Council recognized the passing of Don Smith, the father of Michael Smith, a local planner and former employee of the Town of Georgina.

2. ROLL CALL:

The Council Services Coordinator gave the roll call and the following Council members were present:

Mayor Grossi Councillor Craig Councillor Hackenbrook Councillor Szollosy

Regional Councillor Wheeler Councillor Davison Councillor Smockum


The Council members were made aware of a number of community events taking place.

Councillor Smockum provided an update on the reconstruction of the Egypt Community Hall since the fire, indicating that the new hall will be built on the original footprint and will be basically identical to the original hall other than attempting to provide more storage space and accessibility updates that are required to be added to the building. It is hoped that construction will begin shortly.

The Skateboard Park in Sutton is under construction as of today.


The following addendum items were identified as part of the agenda:

4.1 Amend wording of Item No. 17.2.2, Report No. PB-2012-0076 entitled 'Implications of Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) 2.0 Program', Recommendation 'C', change "50kw" to read "1 Okw".

-44-

C201214MIN 2 2012-09-10


Moved by Councillor Craig



THAT THE AGENDA WITH THE FOLLOWING ADDENDUM ITEMS BE APPROVED:

5.1 RECOMMENDATION 'C' OF ITEM NO. 17.2.2, REPORT NO. PB-2012-0076 ENTITLED 'IMPLICATIONS OF FEED-IN-TARIFF (FIT) 2.0 PROGRAM' TO READ "10KW" RATHER THAN "50KW".

Carried .....


None.

7. ADOPTION OF THE MINUTES:




THAT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 12, 2012, BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED


THAT THE MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON APRIL 16, 2012, BE ADOPTED AS PRESENTED.

Carried .....


None.

-45-

C201214MIN 3 2012-09-10


The following items were identified for separate discussion:

9.1 Item No. 12.1, presentation by Superintendent Bruce West an Detective Sergeant Peter Heard of York Regional Police 3 District providing an update on the vandalism and car theft situations in the community of Keswick

9.2 Item No. 12.2, presentation by a representative of Canadian Solar respecting its proposed solar projects in Georgina

9.3 Item No. 15.2, various matters for disposition 9.4 Item No. 17.2.1, Report No. PB-2012-0075 entitled 'Proposed Goldlight and

Earthlight Solar Projects, Municipal Consultation Forms' 9.5 Item No. 17.2.2, Report No. PB-2012-0076 entitled 'Implications of Feed-In

Tariff (FIT) 2.0 Program' 9.6 Item No. 20, various by-laws


10.1 Matters not subject to individual conflicts



That the following recommendations respecting the matters listed as 'Items Not Requiring Separate Discussion' be adopted as submitted to Council and staff be authorized to take all necessary action required to give effect to same:

Recommendations from the Committee of the Whole Meeting held on August 27, 2012:


17.1.1 THAT CONSIDERATION OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING HELD ON JUNE 18, 2012, BE DEFERRED TO THE SEPTEMBER 17TH COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING PENDING THE INCLUSION OF THE MISSING LAST PAGE OF THE JUNE 18TH MINUTES ON THE SEPTEMBER 17TH AGENDA.


17.1.2A. THAT REPORT NO. PB-2012-0069 BE RECEIVED.

-46-

C201214MIN 4 2012-09-10


B. THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO DEEM LOT 1 AND BLOCK 208, PLAN 65Mc3421, NOT TO BE A LOT AND A BLOCK ON A REGISTERED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 50(3) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50(4) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990.

C. THAT APPROVAL BE GRANTED TO DEEM LOT 145 AND BLOCK 209, PLAN 65M-3421, NOT TO BE A LOT AND A BLOCK ON A REGISTERED PLAN OF SUBDIVISION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 50(3) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50(4) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O. 1990.


17.1.31. THAT REPORT OED-2012-0043 BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

2. THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO EXECUTE A PRE-SERVICING AGREEMENT BETWEEN 2151028 ONTARIO LIMITED, AS OWNER, AND THE TOWN OF GEORGINA

3. THAT A BY-LAW BE PASSED DEDICATING BLOCKS 105 AND 108, PLAN 65M-4268 AS PUBLIC HIGHWAY AND FORMING PART OF WYNDHAM CIRCLE.


17.1.41. THAT REPORT NO. OED-2012-0049 BE RECEIVED FOR INFORMATION.

2. THAT THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL DENY THE REQUEST MADE BY MICHAEL SMITH PLANNING CONSULTANTS ON BEHALF OF CHRISTINA HOMES L TO. TO REDUCE OR WAIVE THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION FEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF A SALES OFFICE SITE IN SUTION.

-47-

C201214MIN 5 2012-09-10



17.1.5THAT THE DEPUTATION MADE BY MAX LEGACE OF WATCHORN ARCHITECT INC. DETAILING THE URBAN DESIGN REPORT AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR 711371 ONTARIO CORP. (OXFORD HOMES), PART LOT 3, CONCESSION 7 (G). BE RECEIVED.


17.1.6A. THAT REPORT PB-2012-0068 BE RECEIVED.

B. THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 51(33) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, C.P.13, AS AMENDED, AN EXTENSION TO THE APPROVAL OF DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 19T-90033 BE GRANTED TO OCTOBER 6, 2013.

C. THAT P~RSUANT TO SECTION 51(44) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, C.P.13, AS AMENDED, THE LAPSING PROVISION CONTAINED IN THE CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL BE AMENDED TO READ "PURSUANT TO THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, C.P.13, AS AMENDED, APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN OF SUBDIVISION . SHALL LAPSE IF FINAL APPROVAL FOR REGISTRATION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY OCTOBER 6, 2013, UNLESS APPROVAL HAS BEEN SOONER WITHDRAWN OR THE TOWN OF GEORGINA HAS EXTENDED THE DURATION OF THE APPROVAL."

D. THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 51(44) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, C.P.13, AS AMENDED, COUNCIL APPROVE THE REVISED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL APPLIED TO DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 19T-90033, ATIACHED AS SCHEDULE '4' TO REPORT PB-2012-0068.

E. THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 51(47) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.O., 1990, C.P.13, AS AMENDED, WRITTEN NOTICE SHALL NOT BE GIVEN AS THE CHANGE TO THE CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL, AS NOTED IN D. ABOVE, ARE CONSIDERED TO BE MINOR.

-48-

C201214MIN 6 2012-09-10


F THAT PLANNING STAFF FORWARD THE REVISED CONDITIONS OF DRAFT PLAN APPROVAL TO THE APPLICANT, THEIR AGENT, THE YORK REGION DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING BRANCH OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND TO ALL OTHER AGENCIES WHICH HAVE IMPOSED THEIR RESPECTIVE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; AND,

G. THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE URBAN DESIGN REPORT & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES PREPARED BY THE MBTW GROUP & WATCHORN ARCHITECT INC. ENTITLED "URBAN DESIGN, OPEN SPACE & ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES" DATED AUGUST 2012, IN ORDER TO SATISFY DRAFT CONDITION NOS. 24 & 25 OF THE DRAFT PLAN OF SUBDIVISION 19T-90033.


17.1.7THAT REPORT NO. CA0-2012-0015 ENTITLED 'APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY 2064322 ONTARIO LTD. TO AMEND THE CURRENT LOCAL COMMERCIAL (C3) ZONE TO PERMIT THE USE OF A REFRESHMENT CART ON THE LANDS DESCRIBED AS LOT 13, PLAN 177 AND PART 2, PLAN 65R-28514' BE RECEIVED, THEREBY CONFIRMING COUNCIL'S INTENT AT THE AUGUST 20TH COUNCIL MEETING TO REFUSE THE APPLICATION.


17.1.8A. THAT REPORT PB-2012-0070 BE RECEIVED.

B. THAT COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF TO LODGE AN APPEAL TO THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD REGARDING A CHANGE OF TERM FOR MINOR VARIANCE APPLICATION P411124, AS SET OUT IN THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT DECISION ATTACHED AS ATTACHMENT 'A' TO REPORT NO. PB-2012-0070.

C. THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE THE TOWN SOLICITOR AND STAFF TO PARTICIPATE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPEAL AT THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD HEARING.

-49-

C201214MIN 7 2012-09-10



17.1.91. THAT REPORT NO. CA0-2012-0016 BE RECEIVED; AND

II. THAT THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR AN ENGINEERING SERVICES REVIEW AND TO REPORT BACK WITH THE RECOMMENDED CONSULTANT; AND

Ill. THAT THE FUNDS FOR THE REVIEW BE TAKEN FROM UNEXPENDED FUNDS IN THE 2012 ENGINEERING CAPITAL PROGRAM- STORMWATER MASTER PLAN.

Reports:

17.3 Report from the Emergency Services Department:

17.3.1 Red Cross 1st Aid Provider Agreement

Report No. DES-2012-0007


1. THAT REPORT NO. DES-2012-0007 RED CROSS 15r AID PROVIDER AGREEMENT BE RECEIVED.

2. THAT THE MAYOR AND CLERK BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE PROVIDER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CANADIAN RED CROSS SOCIETY AND THE GEORGINA FIRE DEPARTMENT.

3. THAT A NEW BY-LAW BE PREPARED AND SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 10, 2012.


17.4.1 Award ofTender Commercial Bulk Water Fill Station




-50-

C201214MIN 8 2012-09-10


2. THAT THE BID RECEIVED FROM THE BIRKS COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,030 (INCLUDING HST) FOR A BULK FILL STATION IS ACCEPTED AND THAT THE PURCHASING MANAGER IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE A PURCHASE ORDER TO THE BIRKS COMPANY.

17.5 Report from the Economic Development Division:

17 .5.1 Grant Application Program - Approval of Funding as recommended by the Economic Development Committee

Report No. ED-2012-0011


A. THAT REPORT NO. ED-2012-0011 BE RECEIVED.

B. THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE DISBURSEMENT OF THE FOLLOWING GRANT:

UPTOWN KESWICK BUSINESS AREA $2,500.00

Carried .....

10.2 Matters subject to individual conflicts

None.

11. DEPUTATIONS:

None.

12. PRESENTATIONS:

12.1 Superintendent Bruce West and Detective Sergeant Peter Heard of York Regional Police 3 District, providing an update on the vandalism and car theft situations in the community of Keswick as well as any action plan that York Regional Police have established and implemented.

Superintendent West stated that he has been a senior officer for five years and started his career in Georgina with most of his career spent in investigative services. Detective Sergeant Peter Heard has been an officer for twenty-five years and has been involved in criminal investigations for ten years. Officer Dana Cuff is also in attendance and has been an officer for twelve years and is involved with crime prevention and the community service bureau.

-51 -

C201214MIN 9 2012-09-10

12. PRESENTATIONS cont'd:

Superintendent West stated that Georgina has grown considerably since he joined the force 28 years ago and it will continue to grow as the Region grows. Some challenges the police force is experiencing include factors such as the cost of policing, the population growth and immigration, an aging population as well as intensification and urbanization. Criminal activity is more organized and more technology-related where protests can grow from 100 people to 10,000 people in a short amount of time.

Superintendent West explained that York Region's cost per capital in 2011 was $243 vs. $357 in Toronto and York Regional Police anticipates being the third lowest cost per capital in 2012. Costs are well below the average across the Province as well as across neighbouring regions. He advised that in 2011, each officer in York Region serviced 741 citizens compared to 491 in Toronto, 662 in Peel and 667 in Ottawa, noting that an additional 34 staff were hired in 2012, with 19 in the integrated domestic violence unit, 11 in support services, 3 in investigative services and 1 in executive services.

Superintendent West stated that the crime rate continues to trend downwards while the clearance rate is trending upwards. York Region continues to have one of the safest communities in all of Canada and in 2011 our region was first across the nation.

Superintendent West stated that the top 5 citizen concerns are crimes against property, traffic safety, crime prevention programs, guns and gangs and drug control and enforcement and the three top traffic concerns are aggressive driving, speeding or racing and impaired driving.

York Regional Police are responsible for Georgina, parts of Lake Simcoe and the waters of Georgina Island, managing borders with the Ontario Provincial Police and South Simcoe, noting that York Region has the best marine unit in the province, if not in the country. 3 District has 83 uniformed officers with a total of 1 07 officers covering six patrol areas day and night. He advised that in 2010, a community survey indicated that the top 5 community priorities were crimes against property, child abuse, traffic safety, drug control and crime prevention programs.

Superintendent West stated that there were quite a few crimes against property during the summer months with the warm weather. He stressed that Georgina is a safe community and that property crimes are trending downward. He advised that crime tends to migrate to areas containing older citizens. The crime rate, violent crime and property crime all decreased and Georgina's clearance rate is the highest in all of York Region at 72.5%.

-52-

C201214MIN 10 2012-09-10


Superintendent West mentioned the concerns raised in the Keswick area respecting vandalism and theft, for which they have been successful in arresting quite a number of individuals for graffiti and theft from vehicles. He explained that thefts occur late at night during the warm weather when youth walk the streets and check vehicles for loose change as a crime of opportunity. Typically during the winter months, this type of crime decreases as it is colder outside and the youth don't tend to stay outdoors as long. The police are not aware of a lot of theft from vehicles in the Keswick area, but a lot of this type of crime is not reported. Despite the fact that there is not a lot of activity, the police started a Lock It or Lose It campaign that has been very successful in other areas for which Constable Cuff is responsible. Doorknockers are hung on citizen's doors and notices are placed at the entrances into the communities reminding residents to lock their vehicles.

Superintendent West advised that 3 District is hosting an information session this weekend regarding the Neighbourhood Watch Program as they are always interested to work with groups such as this. He stated that crime prevention has always been a large factor for them. They have officers out on A TV's, snowmobiles, foot patrols, bicycles and fight and prevent crime through detective work. He directed the public to visit their website at www.yrp.ca, and go to 'crime mapping' which indicates the locations for crimes have occurred in your community or anywhere within the Region and will indicate the type of crime that has occurred.

Superintendent West stated that the public can report a crime to the police by telephone, online or by speaking directly with an officer in attendance. For a theft from vehicle crime officers do not always attend but if it is reported online or by telephone, an officer will return the call and generate a report and if a report is generated, to is directed to a detective and is investigated. He noted that actual incidents could be higher than what is reported, but if the police do not receive a report, they cannot investigate it.

Superintendent West advised that he has no figures concerning the Road Watch Program but he can obtain them and forward them to Council.

Superintendent West stated that it is very frustrating to take cases to court and watch the court system act too leniently.

Detective Sergeant Heard explained that their investigators do advocate for the victims of crime at the court level to ensure that the crown attorney or prosecutors realize how serious the crime is. He advised that the crime against the ROC Chalet earlier this year is still before the court system and they are asking for restitution to be considered due to the high cost of damages, but the decision is still pending.

-53-

C201214MIN 11 2012-09-10


Constable Cuff stated that she is involved with crime prevention through the Neighbourhood Watch and Road Watch programs, among others. She stated that if there are meetings that a police officer should attend, she would be the one to contact. She explained that through a robbery prevention initiative, she visits each variety story and provides lips on what they could be doing to prevent robberies. The Neighbourhood Watch program is a program through which residents get involved in their community and advise police of what is happening. She noted that there have been several websites set up by residents for information purposes, telling individuals to contact the police when necessary. The police force has the resources to deal with specific issues in certain areas.

Constable Cuff stated that the flashing electronic speed limit sign is shared between different districts and Detective Shoniker is the officer who schedules its placement.


Seconded by Councillor Craig


THAT THE PRESENTATION MADE BY SUPERINTENDENT BRUCE WEST, DETECTIVE SERGEANT PETER HEARD AND OFFICER DANA CUFF OF YORK REGIONAL POLICE 3 DISTRICT, PROVIDING AN UPDATE ON THE VANDALISM AND CAR THEFT SITUATIONS IN THE COMMUNITY OF KESWICK AS WELL AS THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS THAT YORK REGIONAL POLICE HAVE ESTABLISHED AND IMPLEMENTED TO ASSIST RESIDENTS AND PREVENT CRIME, BE RECEIVED.

Carried .....

Mayor Grossi moved forward and dealt with Item No. 17.2.1 to be heard in conjunction with Item No. 12.2 at this time.

17.2 Reports from the Planning and Building Department:

17.2.1 Proposed Goldlight and Earthlight Solar Projects- Municipal Consultation Forms


-54-

C201214MIN 12 2012-09-10


12.2 A representative from Canadian Solar respecting its proposed Earthlight and Gold light Solar Projects.

Mark Feenstra, Project Manager, Solar Farms, Canadian Solar Solutions Inc. made a brief presentation concerning Canadian Solar's proposed Beamlight, Earthlight and Gold light solar projects.

Mr. Feenstra explained that in mid-April, Canadian Solar announced that it would be acquiring 16 solar projects, three of which are located in Georgina, namely Earthlight, Goldlight and Beamlight. Canadian Solar's strengths lie in project engineering and construction. He stated that Canadian Solar is leading the permitting, engineering and construction of the three solar projects in Georgina and several SkyPower staff members have transitioned to Canadian Solar and continue to work with the Town of Georgina.

Mr. Feenstra stated that Canadian Solar is a Canadian manufacturer established in 2001 and currently operates in thirteen countries and territories, employing over 10,000 employees globally. In Ontario they saw a unique opportunity to complement its manufacturing operations with project development made possible by the Renewable Energy Standard offer Program and the Green Energy Act and are now offering its project development internationally. They use a manufacturing facility located in Guelph that manufactures solar panels and noted that all of the panels for the Georgina projects will be manufactured at the Guelph plant.

Mr. Feenstra stated that the Beamlight project is to be located at Frog Street and Park Road, the Earthlight project will be on the south side of Old Homestead Road and the Goldlight project will be on the north side of Old Homestead Road and all are 10 mw of annual capacity.

Mr. Feenstra stated that there were some concerns raised about using Agricultural land for these solar projects, but the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs indicates the subject areas are not prime agricultural land. The Earthlight project will be bordered on the south by Smith Blvd with soil mapping Class 3 and 4, noting that Class 1 and 2 are prime agricultural land with no significant limitations or moderate limitations in use for crops, while Class 3 has moderately severe limitations that reduce the choice of crops and Class 4 has severe limitations that restrict the choice of crops.

Mr. Feenstra noted that the Gold light project will use less land and will be located on soil class 3 to 5, Class 5 having very severe limitations that restrict capability to produce crops. He showed pictures of other solar projects to provide examples to

-55-

C201214MIN 13 2012-09-10


Council Members of what the projects will look like. He advised that the Beamlight project application has been submitted to the Ministry of the Environment and if approved, construction will not begin until the spring of 2013. The Earthlight and Goldlight project applications will be submitted shortly, with the same type of timeframe.

Harold Lenters, Director of Planning and Building, stated that the approval authority for these projects does not rest with the municipality, but with the province. The Town is part of the process where Council is required to complete a municipal consultation form which has resulted in the recommendations before Council today. He noted that staff was concerned about the subject lands being designated Class 1 or prime agricultural farmland and being proposed for a solar project, but that is not the case.

Mr. Lenters stated that the Town is supportive of ·renewable and supportable alternative energy and the recommendations of the report request Canadian Solar to address a few concerns which they have agreed to do.

Mr. Feenstra confirmed that Canadian Solar will address all of the Town's concerns. He explained that once a solar project is getting close to being operational, they contact the Director of Operations and invite the local fire department for a tour of the facility and training programs are set up. He noted that most systems have lightning protection on them. He also noted that the Napanee solar project is 8.5 MW and covers 85-90 acres of land which is a fairly typical size, depending on the topography.

Mr. Feenstra explained that the process starts with numerous small wafers or squares which are assembled or streamed together into larger panels. The small wafers are manufactured overseas rather than in Canada and then assembled in Canada. He noted that there are no plants in Ontario that manufacture these small wafers.

Mr. Feenstra advised that no complaints of glare have been received from the Thunder Bay airport regarding the solar field located in close proximity to it. He noted that it is a requirement of the electrical safety authority that the entire area be fenced.

Mr. Lenters advised that another soil test could be requested to ensure that the results of the soil testing is correct, but he does not believe another test would be different.

-56-

C201214MIN 14 2012-09-10


Mr. Feenstra stated that they have held at least three public meetings for each project and they go door-to-door inquiring what the neighbouring property owners think about the projects and if they have questions or concerns. He stated that he recently took over the projects and has been attempting to visit the neighbouring property owners. They choose the properties and they are aware of the technology being proposed, but they do not have any details to share with neighbours until later on in the process.

Mr. Feenstra stated that following the completion of construction, residents don't usually have many concerns. It is a relatively benign, low profile technology and the process does not generate a lot of noise.




THAT THE PRESENTATION MADE BY MARK FEENSTRA, PROJECT MANAGER, SOLAR FARMS, CANADIAN SOLAR SOLUTIONS INC., RESPECTING ITS PROPOSED EARTHLIGHT, BEAMLIGHT AND GOLDLIGHT SOLAR PROJECTS WITHIN GEORGINA, BE RECEIVED.


B. THAT COUNCIL ENDORSE STAFF COMMENTS CONTAINED WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION FORMS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULES '3' AND '4' TO REPORT PB-2012-0075 FOR THE GOLDLIGHT SOLAR PROJECT AND THE EAR.THLIGHT SOLAR PROJECT RESPECTIVELY.

C. THAT CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE A WRITIEN RESPONSE TO THE TOWN WHICH ADDRESS COMMENTS/CONCERNS OUTLINED IN THE MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION FORM FOR GOLDLIGHT SOLAR PROJECT, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

I. CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE REASONS AS TO WHY A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT REA DOCUMENTS.

II. CANADIAN SOLAR SUBMIT MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPE DESIGNS TO THE TOWN OF GEORGINA FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, ALONG WITH RENDERINGS SHOWING WHAT THE PROJECT WILL LOOK LIKE FROM PUBLIC VIEWS (I.E. - STREET OR NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES).

-57-

C201214MIN 15 2012-09-10


Ill. CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO THE GEORGINA FIRE DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO GOLDLIGHT.

IV. CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A FIRE SAFETY PLAN FOR GOLDLIGHT.

V. CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND AFTER.

VI. A BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PLUMBING, ALL BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 10M. SQ. AND ALL BUILDINGS LESS THAN 10 M. SQ. THAT CONTAIN PLUMBING AS REGULATED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE ACT AND ONTARIO BUILDING CODE.

VII. CANADIAN SOLAR CIRCULATE THE STAGE 1 AND 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT, STAGE 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT (WHEN COMPLETED), AND THE CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT TO THE GEORGINA HERITAGE COMMITIEE PRIOR TO ANY SITE ALTERATION OR CONSTRUCTION TAKING PLACE ON THE SITE.

D. THAT CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE A WRITIEN RESPONSE TO THE TOWN WHICH ADDRESS COMMENTS/CONCERNS OUTLINED IN THE MUNICIPAL CONSULTATION FORM FOR EARTHLIGHT SOLAR PROJECT, INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING:

I. CANADIAN SOLAR BE ADVISED THAT THE SITE WOULD BE BEITER SERVICED STRICTLY BY ACCESS FROM OLD HOMESTEAD ROAD YORK REGION RD. NO. 79.

II. CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE REASONS AS TO WHY A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DRAFT REA DOCUMENTS.

Ill. CANADIAN SOLAR SUBMIT MORE DETAILED LANDSCAPE DESIGNS TO THE TOWN OF GEORGINA FOR REVIEW AND COMMENT, ALONG WITH RENDERINGS SHOWING WHAT THE PROJECT WILL LOOK LIKE FROM PUBLIC VIEWS (I.E. - STREET OR NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES).

IV. CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE INFORMATION, EDUCATION AND TRAINING TO THE GEORGINA FIRE DEPARTMENT IN REGARDS TO EARTHLIGHT.

V. CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A FIRE SAFETY PLAN FOR EARTHLIGHT.

VI. CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION AND AFTER.

-58-

C201214MIN 16 2012-09-10


VII. A BUILDING PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PLUMBING, ALL BUILDINGS GREATER THAN 10M. SQ. AND ALL BUILDINGS LESS THAN 10 M. SQ. THAT CONTAIN PLUMBING AS REGULATED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE ACT AND ONTARIO BUILDING CODE.

VIII. CANADIAN SOLAR CIRCULATE THE STAGE 1 AND 2 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT, STAGE 3 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT (WHEN COMPLETED), AND THE CULTURAL HERITAGE SCREENING AND CULTURAL HERITAGE ASSESSMENT TO THE GEORGINA HERITAGE COMMITIEE PRIOR TO ANY SITE ALTERATION OR CONSTRUCTION TAKING PLACE ON THE SITE.

E. THAT CANADIAN SOLAR PROVIDE A WRITIEN RESPONSE TO THE GEORGINA ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND THE GEORGINA AGRICULTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING THE COMMENTS CONTAINED IN SCHEDULES '6' AND '7' RESPECTIVELY TO REPORT PB-2012-0075.

F. THAT THE TOWN CLERK FORWARD A COPY OF REPORT PB-2012-0075 TO CANADIAN SOLAR FOR INCLUSION IN THEIR CONSULTATION REPORT SUBMITIED TO THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT AS PART OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY APPROVAL APPLICATION.

Carried .....

Mayor Grossi moved ,forward and dealt with Item No. 17 .2.2 at this time.

17 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS:

17.2 Report from the Planning and Building Department:

17.2.2 Implications of Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) 2.0 Program Rules and Version 2 of the Micro FIT Program Rules


Harold Lenters, Director of Planning and Building, explained that individuals obtain points if the local Council is supportive of their project and several requests have been received to date. He explained that rather than taking individual requests to Council, other communities have taken the approach to adopt a general approval for rooftop proposals of a certain size and staff believes that this would be an appropriate approach for Council to take. He suggested that Council should deal with larger projects and non-rooftop projects on an individual basis.

-59-

C201214MIN 17 2012-09-10

17 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont'd:

Mr. Lenters advised that staff had raised concerns to Council earlier of the rules for solar panels and wind generating devices and that those devices under the power range of 3KW did not need to comply with any rules. Through a review of the process, the Province of Ontario produced new guidelines and have gone from one extreme to the other as it is now next to impossible to locate a solar panel on any property.

Chief O'Neill stated that the fire department has concerns with the solar panels, especially on residential roofs. The roofs need to be constructed in order to carry the weight of the panels. The department's largest concern is the energy that is created by the panels, that there is no way of turning that energy off. The only way to stop the panels from being energized is to cover them up. This is a relatively new technology and more issues are coming to light. He stated that he has requested training and education on rooftop solar panels as they have concerns from a fire standpoint.





B. THAT COUNCIL ENDORSE THE PROCEDURES FOR REVIEWING REQUESTS FOR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SUPPORT RESOLUTIONS, FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT ROOFTOP SOLAR PROJECTS, AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 4.1.1 OF REPORT PB-2012-0076.

C. THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE FOLLOWING MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BLANKET SUPPORT RESOLUTION:

"WHEREAS THE PROVINCE'S FIT PROGRAM ENCOURAGES THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF ROOFTOP SOLAR PROJECTS OF NAMEPLATE CAPACITIES GREATER THAN 10KW AND LESS THAN 500KW;

AND WHEREAS ONE OR MORE PROJECT MAY BE CONSTRUCTED AND OPERATED IN THE TOWN OF GEORGINA;

-60-

C201214MIN 18 2012-09-10

17 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS AND STAFF REPORTS cont'd:

AND WHEREAS, PURSUANT TO THE RULES GOVERNING THE FIT PROGRAM (THE "FIT RULES"), APPLICATIONS WHOSE PROJECTS RECEIVE THE FORMAL SUPPORT OF LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES WILL BE AWARDED PRIORITY POINTS, WHICH MAY RESULT IN THESE APPLICANTS BEING OFFERED A FIT CONTRACT PRIOR TO OTHER PERSONS APPLYING FOR FIT CONTRACTS;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA SUPPORTS ROOFTOP SOLAR PROJECTS OF NAMEPLATE CAPACITIES GREATER THAN 10KW AND LESS THAN 500KW, WITHOUT RESERVATION THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF THE SAID PROJECTS ON ROOFTOPS ANYWHERE IN THE TOWN OF GEORGINA.

THIS RESOLUTION'S SOLE PURPOSE IS TO ENABLE THE PARTICIPANTS IN THE FIT PROGRAM TO RECEIVE PRIORITY POINTS UNDER THE FIT PROGRAM AND MAY NOT BE USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY OTHER FORM OF MUNICIPAL APPROVAL IN RELATION TO THE APPLICATION OR PROJECT OF ANY OTHER PURPOSE.

THIS RESOLUTION SHALL EXPIRE TWELVE (12) MONTHS AFTER ITS ADOPTION BY COUNCIL."

D. THAT COUNCIL AUTHORIZE STAFF TO PROVIDE LETTERS TO APPLICANTS REQUESTING ZONING OPINION FORMS FOR A PROPOSED GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PANEL ON A PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN A RURAL ZONE AS OUTLINED IN SECTION 4.2 OF STAFF REPORT PB-2012-0076.

Carried .....



15. COMMUNICATIONS:

15.1 Matters for Routine:

None.

-61-

C201214MIN 19 2012-09-10



15.2.1 Robert Bailey requesting perm1ss1on to hold the annual Keswick Santa Claus Parade on Saturday, November 1 ih commencing at 1:30 p.m. along the annual route and to use a P.A. System during the parade.




THAT TOWN COUNCIL GRANT PERMISSION TO ROBERT BAILEY TO HOST THE ANNUAL KESWICK SANTA CLAUS PARADE ON SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 17TH COMMENCING AT 1:30 P.M. ALONG THE TRADITIONAL ROUTE ALONG THE QUEENSWAY SOUTH FROM R.L. GRAHAM PUBLIC SCHOOL TO THE INTERSECTION OF THE QUEENSWAY AND CHURCH STREET, AND TO USE A P.A. SYSTEM DURING THE PARADE, THAT THE NECESSARY ROADS BE TEMPORARILY CLOSED DURING THE EVENT, AND THAT THE LOCAL EMERGENCY SERVICES BE SO ADVISED

15.2.2

Carried .....

Municipal Property Assessment Corporation updating municipalities on its activities for the first and second quarters of 2012.

Rebecca Mathewson, Director of Administrative Services and Treasurer, explained that if a residential property is subject to an decrease in property taxes due to a reassessment, that decrease will be processed immediately, while if the property is subject to an increase, the increase would be phased in over a four year period in an attempt to ease the additional or unanticipated burden upon taxpayers. She stated that MPAC also has a program in place where anyone with concerns about reassessment notices can call their office and speak to a staff member for reconsideration and staff will review it. Residents can look at assessments on the 'about my property' website and can compare their assessments to similar properties in their neighbourhood to ensure assessments are fair.

Ms. Mathewson stated that residents should be clear on the fact that the Town has nothing to do with the assessments and should contact MPAC rather than the Town if they have questions or concerns.

-62-

C201214MIN 20 2012-09-10





THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE MUNICIPAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT CORPORATION UPDATING MUNICIPALITIES ON ITS ACTIVITIES FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND QUARTERS OF 2012 BE RECEIVED

Carried .....

15.2.3 Royal Canadian Legion requesting permission to host its annual Remembrance Day Parades and Service on Sunday, November 11th at 10:30 a.m. in Sutton along High Street to the cenotaph followed by a service at the Legion, and at 10:30 a.m. in Keswick from the Keswick Public School to the cenotaph.




THAT TOWN COUNCIL GRANT PERMISSION TO THE ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION TO HOST ITS ANNUAL REMEMBRANCE DAY PARADE AND SERVICE ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11TH IN SUTTON COMMENCING AT 10:30 A.M. FROM THEi BELL CANADA BUILDING AT HIGH STREET AND DALTON ROAD, ALONG HIGH STREET TO THE CENOTAPH FOR A SERVICE AT 11:00 A.M. FOLLOWED BY A SERVICE AT THE LEGION, AS WELL AS IN KESWICK COMMENCING AT 10:30 A.M. FROM THE KESWICK PUBLIC SCHOOL ALONG THE QUEENSWAY NORTH TO THE CENOTAPH AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE QUEENSWAY NORTH AND CHURCH STREET FOR A SERVICE AT 11:00 A.M., THAT THE LOCAL EMERGENCY SERVICES BE SO ADVISED AND THAT THE PARADE EVENTS AND RESPECTIVE ROAD CLOSURES BE POSTED ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE.

Carried .....

The Director of Recreation and Culture and the Director of Operations and Engineering were requested to ensure that both cenotaph parks are we!! maintained prior to these events taking place, including landscaping and new flags.

-63-

C201214MIN 21 2012-09-10


15.2.4 Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority concerning the second formal consultation on Draft Proposed Source Protection Plan and Explanatory Document with a deadline for comments of October 5, 2012 at 4:30p.m.




THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY CONCERNING THE SECOND FORMAL CONSULTATION ON DRAFT PROPOSED SOURCE PROTECTION PLAN AND EXPLANATORY DOCUMENT WITH A DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS OF OCTOBER 5, 2012 AT 4:30P.M., BE RECEIVED.

Carried .....

15.2.5 Association of Municipalities of Ontario requesting a Council resolution of support for any member of Council interested in putting their name forward for a Director Vacancy, Regional and Single Tier Caucus, 2012-2014 AMO Board of Directors, by September 25th.




THAT TOWN COUNCIL NOMINATE ROBERT GROSSI FOR THE POSITION OF DIRECTOR, REGIONAL AND SINGLE TIER CAUCUS, 2012-2014 AMO BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND THAT THE REGION OF YORK BE REQUESTED TO INCLUDE IT ON THE REGIONAL AGENDA OF SEPTEMBER 25TH FOR ENDORSEMENT.

Carried unanimously .....

-64-

C201214MIN 22 2012-09-10


15.2.6 Ministry of Infrastructure concerning the launch of its Municipal Infrastructure Strategy beginning with the new Municipal Infrastructure Investment Initiative (Mill) of $60 Million over the next three years.




THAT CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNING THE LAUNCH OF ITS MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE STRATEGY BEGINNING WITH THE NEW MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT INITIATIVE (Mill} OF $60 MILLION OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS BE RECEIVED AND REFERRED TO THE DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS AND ENGINEERING FOR INCLUSION IN HIS ASSET MANAGEMENT STRATEGY AND REPORT BACK TO COUNCIL ON AN AS-NEEDED BASIS

Carried .....

16. PETITIONS:

None.

18. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:

None.

19. REGIONAL BUSINESS:

None.

-65-

C201214MIN 23 2012-09-1 0

20. BY-LAWS:


Seconded by Councillor Wheeler

That the following by-laws be given three readings:

20.1 By-law Number 2012-0079 (FI-2 ) Being a By-law to authorize the Georgina Fire Department to enter into a Red Cross 151 Aid Provider Agreement to provide for the participation of the Georgina Fire Department in the Red Cross 1st Responder Program.

Carried .....




20.2 By-law Number 2012-0080 (PW0-2) Being a By-law to dedicate certain lands as public highway and forming part of Wyndham Circle.

Carried .....


Seconded by Councillor Wheeler


20.3 By-law Number 2012-0081 (PW0-3) Being a By-law to authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute a Pre-Servicing Agreement between 2151028 Ontario Limited, as owner, and the Corporation of the Town of Georgina respecting the development of Part Lots 18 and 19, Concession 9.

Carried .....

-66-

C201214MIN 24 2012-09-10

20. BY-LAWS cont'd:




20.4 By-law Number 2012-0082 (PL-1) Being a By-law to deem a lot not to be a lot on a Registered Plan of Subdivision, Block 208 and Lot 1, Plan 65M-3421, 2 Highcastle Avenue.

Carried .....




20.5 By-law Number 2012-0083 (PL-1) Being a By-law to deem a lot not to be a lot on a Registered Plan of Subdivision, Block 209, Lot 145, Plan 65M-3421, 1 Highcastle Avenue.

Carried .....

21. MOTIONS:

None.

22. NOTICES OF MOTION:

None.

23. OTHER BUSINESS:

23.1 Streetlights along Woodbine Avenue

Dan Pisani, Director of Operations and Engineering, indicated that he has no recent update on this issue but has been advised by the Region that the lights are to be operational in the early part of September.

-67-

25

24. CONFIRMING BY-LAW



That the following by-laws be given three readings:

By-law Number 2012-0084 (COU-2)

25. ADJOURNMENT:


Seconded y Councillor Smockum

Being a by-law to confirm the proceedings of Council.

Carried .....

That the meeting adjourn at this time (8:40p.m.).

Robert Grossi, Mayor

Winanne Grant, Deputy Clerk

2012-09-10

-68-

Honourable Mayor Robert Grossi, Council Members and Town Staff,

The Sutton Fair is a not for profit, volunteer run, agricultural corporation, with charitable status. We have been in existence since 1855 and have continuously been one ofthe largest events in the Town of Georgina for 157 years.

The fair grounds are open to the public all year, as well as there are many other events taking place on the the fair grounds other than the fair. Many groups using the grounds have their rental fees waived, while other groups are charged a very reasonable rate.

The Sutton Agricultural Society is in desperate need to replace the sheep and cattle buildings on the east side of the fair grounds. They are old and in bad shape. The Society applied for a grant with the Ontario trillium foundation this spring. The grant was to construct one building to replace the sheep and cattle buildings. Near the end of July, the Society received information that it would get partial funding to construct this building. The trillium fund advised that they would pay for the building and the society was responsible for the grading, foundation, base, lane way, electrical and permits.

The break down of the funding for the building is Trillium- 48,000.00, Sutton Ag Soc.- 40,000.00. Much of our share of the work will be carried out by the volunteer members ofthe fair to keep our costs down.

The building will be very similar to the pavilion that we have now behind the Kin Hall. 60 feet wide, by 120

feet long. A roof but no side walls. Once the building is erect, it could be used by one of the many organizations that use the fair grounds through out the year.

The Sutton Agricultural Society members have committed a lot of volunteer time to raise the necessary funds to make this project possible. This year was not a very profitable year for the fair as we had rain all four days with Thursday and Friday being a total washout.

The Sutton Agricultural Society is asking ifthe Town of Georgina would consider waiving all necessary permits and fees that would normally be applied to a project such as this. It would be greatly be appreciated. I would like to thank the Town of Georgina, Council and Staff for all of your great support and dedication to our local fair. Without the great support from many ofthe local business's and from the Town of Georgina, this yearly event would not be possible.

Thank You, Jim Lockie President Sutton Agricultural Society

Winanne Grant CAO Georgina Civic Centre 26557 Civic Centre Road R.R. #2 Keswick, Ontario L4P 3GJ

-69-

Amberley Gavel Ltd.

Re: Complaints re Closed Meetings Various Dates 2011 and 2012

Dear Ms. Grant:

Enclosed please find the Report of the Investigator into the request for an investigation into the alleged closed meetings of Council and Committee held as noted above.

In accordance with our established procedure, this report was prepared by one of our Review Officers and then subsequently peer reviewed, not only for quality assurance and consistency with the meeting investigation process we are following across Ontario, but also with respect to the findings and interpretations arising from this relatively new process.

Please ensure that this report is made available to the public in accordance with the Municipal Act, 200 I.

Sincerely yours,

Amberley Gavel Ltd.

35 _-,mbleside Drive, London, ON N6G 4M3 Toll free 1-866-535-8079/ 519-434-8079/ 'V\'~v.agavel.eom/ info@•gavel.com

-71 -

REPORT TO THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA

REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CLOSED MEETINGS OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE OF THE

WHOLE HELD ON VARIOUS DATES IN 2011 AND 2012

1

-72-


REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CLOSED t>1EETINGS OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE OF THE


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page Number

I. Complaints 3

II. Jurisdiction 4

III. Background 4

(a) The Municipal Act and Closed Meetings (b) Investigations under the Municipal Act

IV. Investigation 5

(a) The Town's Procedure By-Law (b) General Application of the Municipal Act to the Complaints

(i) Listing All of the Exceptions in the Act (ii) Disclosing the Nature of the Matter Under Consideration (iii) The Ambit of the Exceptions

V. Analysis and Findings 10

VI. Conclusions 20

VII. Recommendations 20

VIII. Public Report 21

2

-73-


REGARDING THE INVESTIGATION OF THE CLOSED MEETINGS OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA COUNCIL AND COMMITTEE OF THE


I. COMPbAINTS

The Corporation of the Town of Georgina ("Town") received three complaints about in-camera ("closed") meetings held by:

(a) Town of Georgina Council ("Council'') on October 11, 2011, November 15, 2011, December 12, 2011, and January 23, 2012;

(b) Council at a special meeting on February 2, 2012; and (c) Committee of the Whole of Council on November 7, 2011 and November

21, 2011.

The complainant requested an investigation into whether the Council breached the provisions of the Municipal Act 200i ("Municipal Act" or "Act'') because it did not cite the most appropriate exception(s) to the open meetings provisions of the Act. The complainant alleged that the matters discussed also related to other exceptions within the Act. The primary concern was that the public would not be aware of the general nature of the matters being discussed at the closed meeting unless the exception to the open meetings provision of the Act was properly cited. More specifically, the complainant indicated:

As you are aware, the public is not privy to the exact matters that were discussed during any in-camera meeting of Town Council and only receives a brief description of the matter on the agenda. I cannot be certain that the matters that were discussed should not have been discussed during the in-camera session.

I requested the investigation to ensure that the matters discussed during the incamera sessions were allowed to be discussed in accordance with the provisions set out in the Municipal Act, 2001 and that the exception applied for the item being discussed during the in-camera session be reviewed to determine if the correct exception was noted in the public agenda and if additional exceptions should have been set out in the public agenda.

This request was sent to the offices of Amberley Gavel Ltd. for investigation.

1 s.o. 2001, c. 25 (hereinafter "Municipal Act'' or "Ad'). 3

-74-

II. JURISDICTION

The Town appointed Local Authority Services (LAS) as its closed meeting Investigator pursuant to section 239.2 of the Municipal Act LAS has delegated its powers and duties to Amberley Gavel Ltd. to undertake the investigation and report to the Town.

III. BACKGROUND

(a) The MuniciPal Act and Closed Meetings

Section 238(2) of the Municipal Act provides that every municipality and local board shall pass a procedure by-law for governing the calling, place and proceedings of meetings.

Section 239 of the Act provides that all meetings of a municipal council, local board or a committee of either of them shall be open to the public. This requirement is one of the elements of transparent local government

The section sets forth exceptions to this open meeting rule. It lists the reasons for which a meeting, or a portion of a meeting, may be closed to the public ("open meeting exceptions'').

Section 239 reads in part as follows:

Meetings open to public 239. (1) Except as provided in this section, all meetings shall be open to the public. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (1).

Exceptions ill A meeting or part of a meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered is,

(a) the security of the property of the municipality or local board;

(b) personal matters about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;

(c) a proposed or pending acquisition or disposition of land by the municipality or local board;

(d) labour relations or employee negotiations;

(e) litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board;

(f) advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose;

(g) a matter in respect of which a council, board, committee or other body may hold a closed meeting under another Act. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (2).

4

-75-

Section 239 also requires that before a council, local board or committee move into a closed meeting, it shall pass a resolution at a public meeting indicating that there is to be a closed meeting. The resolution also must include the general nature of the matter(s) to be deliberated at the closed meeting.

Subsections 239 (5) & (6) limit the actions that may be taken by the council, local board or committee at the closed session. Votes may only be taken at a closed meeting for procedural matters, or giving direction or instructions to staff or persons retained by the municipality such as a lawyer or planner. It provides as follows:

Open meeting ill Subject to subsection (6), a meeting shall not be closed to the public during the taking of a vote. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (5).

Exception ,{§} Despite section 244, a meeting may be closed to the public during a vote if,

(a) subsection (2) or (3) permits or requires the meeting to be closed to the public; and

(b) the vote is for a procedural matter or for giving directions or instructions to officers, employees or agents of the municipality, local board or committee of either of them or persons retained by or under a contract with the municipality or local board. 2001, c. 25, s. 239 (6).

(b) Investigations under the Municipal Act

Section 239.1 of the Municipal Act provides that a person may request that an investigation be undertaken on whether a municipality or local board has complied with section 239 or a procedure by-law under subsection 238 (2) in respect of a meeting or part of a meeting that was closed to the public.

IV. INVESTIGATION

The investigation into the complaint began on May 1, 2012.

The Complainant, the Town CAO, and the Town Clerk were consulted during the course of the investigation. Documents provided by the Town and reviewed for the investigation included Agendas and Minutes of Meetings of Council (including the Feb. 2, 2011 Special Council Meeting) and Committee of the Whole, documents related to the matters under consideration, the Procedure By-law, and applicable legislation.

5

-76-

(a) The Town's Procedure By-Law

In accordance with section 238 of the Municipal Act, the Town has a Procedure By-law that governs the calling, place and proceedings of meetings. The Procedure By-law2 provides for closed sessions of Council or its Committees if the subject matter being considered falls within those matters set out in Section 239(2) or Section 239(3) of the Act. 3

The Procedure By-law allows for introduction of new business without notice through a provision for "Introduction of Addendum Items and Deputations". 4

(b) General Application of the Municipal Act to the Complaints

Prior to considering each individual meeting of Council or Committee of the Whole, it would be useful to consider the general application of the open meetings exceptions of the Municipal Act at least to the extent they are engaged in this complaint.

(i) Listing All of the Exceptions in the Act

The Municipal Act does not require the agenda or minutes to list g)[ the possible exceptions to the open meetings provisions that might apply to the subject matter under consideration. There are many matters that might properly fall within several exceptions. It is our opinion that the agenda or resolution should establish the most appropriate exception under the Act that applies to the subject matter under consideration. Using the most appropriate exception will allow for greater openness and transparency while balancing a municipal council's need to sometimes consider confidential issues in closed meetings.

Therefore, in assessing the complaints, we will consider whether Council or Committee of the Whole used the most appropriate exception under the Act which would apply to the subject matter under consideration at each individual meeting referenced in the complaints.

(ii) Disclosing the General Nature of the Matter under Consideration

The Municipal Act also requires that prior to moving into closed session a resolution must be passed at a public meeting indicating that there is to be a closed meeting. The resolution also must include the general nature of the subject matter(s) to be deliberated at the closed meeting.

2 A By-Law to govern the calling, place and proceedings of meetings for the Town of Georgina. By-Law No. 2002-0134 (COU-2), as amended by By-Law No. 2004-0016 (COU-2), and as further amended by By-Law 2007-0017 (COU-s), dated March 5, 2007 \'Procedure By-law"). 3 ibid, s.3.S.2. The Procedure By-law lists all of the exceptions from section 239 of the Municipal Act 4 ibid, s.6.1.

6

-77-

The Act does not provide guidance as to what language to use to convey "the general nature of the matter(s) to be deliberated at the closed meeting", other than by necessary reference to one of the exceptions found in s. 239(2) of the Act.

Thus, the Clerk of a municipality, who is usually the individual charged with preparing the agenda, often must use some discretion when titling an agenda item that is the subject of a closed meeting. That discretion involves a tension between inadvertently disclosing too much and disclosing too little. Nevertheless, the title of the agenda item must be phrased in a way that "maximizes the information available to the public while not undermining the reason for excluding the public". 5

In the interest of disclosing enough information, one might title the agenda item such that members of the public know the essence of the item under consideration without disclosing the potential substance of the ensuing deliberations. This might also provide Members of Council (or a committee or board) with sufficient information to prepare for the discussion or, most importantly, to disclose pecuniary or other interests at the appropriate time.

In this case, the complaint alleges that the titling of the certain items was not descriptive enough, such that the public could know the general nature of the subject matter that was to be considered at the meeting. Without inadvertently divulging the precise substances of the discussions under consideration at the impugned meeting(s), this report will address the titling issue.

(iii) The Ambit of the Exceptions

The complaint indicates that the matters discussed at the various meetings may have been covered by the following Municipal Act exceptions:

239(2) (b) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees;

239(2)(e) Litigation or potential litigation, including matters before administrative tribunals, affecting the municipality or local board; and/or

239(2)(f) Advice that was subject to solicitor/client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose;

5 See Farber V. Kingston (City) (2007), 279 D.L.R. (4'") 409 (Ont. C.A.), at para. 21 ("Farbel'). 7

-78-

The Act does not provide guidance to determine precisely when a matter is one that is properly the subject matter of a closed meeting. For example, it does not provide any guidance on what expressly is a "personal matter". In order to characterize the items that were discussed at the various meetings that are the subject matter of this complaint, it is important therefore to understand what each exception may cover.

a. Personal Matters About an Identifiable Individual (Section 239(2)(b))

The Municipal Act does not define "personal matters". However, the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario (''IPC Commissioner'') has considered the definition of "personal matters" under the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act(''MFIPPA'').6 In our opinion, a parallel can be drawn between the concepts of "personal information" in MFIPA and "personal matters" in the Municipal Act.

A definition of personal information can be found in MFIPPA:

"personal information" means recorded information about an identifiable individual, including,

(a) information relating to the race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation or marital or family status of the individual,

(b) information relating to the education or the medical, psychiatric, psychological, criminal or employment history of the individual information relating to financial transactions in which the individual has been involved,

(d) the address, telephone number, fingerprints or blood type of the individual,

(e) the personal opinions or views of the individual except where they relate to another individual,

(f) correspondence sent to an institution by the individual that is implicitly or explicitly of a private or confidential nature, and replies to that correspondence that would reveal the contents of the original correspondence,

(g) the views or opinions of another individual about the individuals .. ?

For the matter to be personal under s.239.(2)(b) of the Municipal Act, therefore, it would appear that the matter under consideration must concern personal

6 R.S.O. 1990, c. M.56. 7 MFIPPA s.2(1).

8

-79-

characteristics or information .

b. Litigation or Potential Litigation (Section 239(2)(e))

This exception is designed to protect which is known as "litigation privilege". Litigation privilege seeks to ensure the efficacy of the adversarial litigation process. While solicitor-client privilege protects communications between solicitor and client, this is not the focus or rationale of litigation privilege. As the Supreme Court of Canada recently explained:

Litigation privilege, on the other hand, is not directed at, still less, restricted to, communications between solicitor and client. It contemplates, as well, communications between a solicitor and third parties or, in the case of an unrepresented litigant, between the litigant and third parties. Its object is to ensure the efficacy of the adversarial process and not to promote the solicitor-client relationship. And to achieve this purpose, parties to litigation, represented or not, must be left to prepare their contending positions in private, without adversarial interference and without fear of premature disclosure.8

The purpose of litigation privilege is to create a "zone of privacy", based upon the need for a protected area to facilitate investigation and preparation of a case for trial by the adversarial advocate.9 That zone of privacy extends to meetings of municipal councils, committees, or boards wherein the actual or potential litigation is considered.

However, in order to invoke litigation privilege, litigation must be pending or contemplated, in a realistic sense, before a discussion or a document can attract litigation privilege. It is not enough to speculate that an adversarial party may contemplate litigation if a decision is not made in their favour. Many decisions of a municipal council can be challenged through the courts. That fact alone is not enough to attract litigation privilege and the Municipal Act exception.

As the Ontario Court of Appeal has cautioned in RSJ Holdings Inc. v. London (City) 10:

The fact that there might be, or even inevitably would be, litigation arising [from the by-law] does not make the "subject matter under consideration" potential litigation.

8 Blank v. Canada (Minister of Justice}, 2006 SCC 39 at para. 27 ("BlanK}. 9 ibid. at para. 34. 10 [200S] OJ. 5037, 2005 CanLII 43895 (ON CA), at para. 22, aff'd on other grounds [2007] sec 29, [2007] 2 SCR 588 \'RSJ).

9

-80-

In our opinion, the exception under the open meetings provision dealing with "potential or pending litigation" should only be invoked when there is tangible evidence of current or pending litigation.

c. Advice Subject to Solicitor/Client Privilege (Section 239(2)(e))

Where legal advice of any kind is sought from a legal adviser in his or her capacity as such, the communications made in confidence by or to the client are permanently protected from disclosure by either the client or the legal adviser, except if the protection against disclosure is waived by the client. As a result, when a municipal council, committee, or board seeks or receives legal advice on a matter, whether orally or in writing, that advice is protected by solicitor/client privilege unless the municipal council, committee, or board permits disclosure of the advice or of any communication dealing with the advice. Absent a waiver of solicitor/client privilege, the Municipal Act exception allows a council, committee, or board to receive or discuss legal advice in a closed meeting.

Each meeting addressed under the complaint will now be reviewed in light of the above information and legal principles.

V. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

Meeting of Council. October 11. 2011

(a) Agenda for the Meeting of Council

The Agenda for the Meeting of Council of October 11, 2011 provided that Council was expected to go into closed session to consider two items:

i) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; Section 239(2){b), MA11

; Employment Agreement for the new Chief Administrative Officer

il) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; Section 239(2)(b), MA;

Item (ii) is the matter which is the subject of the complaint.

(b) Minutes of the Council Meeting

The Minutes for the Council Meeting show that an additional "closed session item" was added by resolution of Council "regarding an identifiable individual, legal services" as Item No. 24(iii).

Council moved into closed session to consider:

11 "MA" is reference to the Municipal Act; 2001. 10

-81 -

i) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; Section 239(2)(b), MA; Employment Agreement for the new Chief Administrative Officer

ii) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; Section 239(2)(b), MA;

iii) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, including municipal or local board employees; Section 239(2)(b), MA;

After the closed meeting, Council rose and reported out various directions to staff relating to the items which were considered .. With respect to item (ii) it was noted that "The Chief Administrative Officer was directed to confirm the situation and to send a letter to the individual". Council then adopted that direction by resolution.

(c) Agenda for the Closed Session of Council

The same two items are listed on the Confidential Closed Meeting Agenda for October 11, 2011 along with the other agenda item that was added at the Council meeting with respect to "an identifiable individual, legal services, Item 24(iii)".

(d) Record of the Closed Meeting of Council

From the Record, it would appear that Council reviewed a particular letter that had been drafted by the Town's solicitor. The letter was directed to an identifiable individual. The Record indicates that Council provided a direction to staff that is substantially, although not exactly, similar in wording to what is noted in (b) above.

(e) Conclusion on the MuniciPal Act Exception

There was personal information in the draft letter, including the person's name and address to which the letter was to be sent. The contents of the letter, even without the name and address, clearly would have identified a particular individual. Moreover, it was our opinion that the letter would have otherwise been protected by solicitor/client privilege since it contained underlying advice by the Town's solicitor as to the recommended approach to the subject matter. Hence, it would have been more accurate to invoke the exception of solicitor/client privilege rather than the broader and somewhat ambiguous exception dealing with "personal matters".

Nevertheless, when solicitor/client privilege is listed as an exception under the Municipal Act, the agenda does not have to list precisely what advice is being sought or what communication is being discussed. Council, a committee, or a board can provide limited information about the nature of the advice being sought in order to comply with the Municipal Act provision that the resolution to move into closed session should indicate "the general nature of the matter to be

11

-82-

considered". Whether or not the amplification is provided, beyond citing the legislative wording for the particular exception, will depend on the unique facts and circumstances of each situation in which they are receiving advice. As the Court held in Farber.

Where the exception to the presumptive openness of Council meetings is that of privileged solicitor-client advice, there may be drcumstances where the need for confidentially encompasses even the information that such advice has been obtained on a specific issueY

It is difficult to conceive what additional information could have been provided to supplement the solicitor/client privilege exception given the nature of the item under consideration at this particular meeting of Council.

Hence, in the end result, it doesn't really matter than Council invoked section 239(2)(b) or 239(2)(f) for this particular matter; the public still would not have known what was being considered.

Meeting of Committee of the Whole. November 7. 2011

(f) Agenda for the Meeting of Committee of the Whole

The Agenda for the Meeting of Committee of the Whole of November 7, 2011 did not list any closed session items.

(g) Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting

The Minutes for the Committee of the Whole Meeting show that a "closed session item" was added "regarding a personal matter about an identifiable individual" as Item No. 5.1, by resolution.

Committee of the Whole moved into closed session to consider:

i) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, Section 239(2)(b), MA;

After the closed meeting, Council rose and reported out a direction: "That staff be directed to contact the Town Solicitor and report back". Council then adopted that direction by resolution.

12 Farber; supra note 5 at para 21. 12

-83-

(h) Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Committee of the Whole

There was no agenda for the Closed Session of Committee of the Whole as the item had just been added to the order of business at the commencement of the Committee of the Whole meeting.

(i) Record of the Closed Meeting of Committee to the Whole

Staff provided a verbal report to Committee of the Whole, explaining what had transpired on the matter since October 11. The Record indicates that Committee of the Whole provided a direction to staff that is substantially, although not exactly, similar in intent to what is noted in (g) above.

(j) Conclusion on the Municipal Act Exception

It is clear that the matter being discussed dealt with a continuation of the matter discussed on October 11, 2011. Committee of the Whole was dealing with a "personal matter" involving an identifiable individual. They did not receive legal advice at this meeting, nor were they making a decision with respect to litigation or potential litigation. Hence, the only exception under the Municipal Act that applied to the subject matter under consideration was Section 239(2)(b).

Meeting of Council. November 15, 2011

(k) Agenda for the Meeting of Council

The Agenda for the Meeting of Council of November 15, 20111isted two closed session items.

i) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, Section 239(2)(b), MA; ii) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, Section 239(2)(b); MA; Report No.

RPC-2001-0042 entitled Former Sutton Public School -Steering Committee', appointment of members of the public to the Committee

The item listed as (i) of the Agenda is the subject matter of the complaint.

(I) Minutes of the Council Meeting

The Minutes for the Council Meeting show that that Council moved into closed session to discuss the two closed session items.

13

-84-

After the closed meeting, Council rose and reported out a direction: "That the Chief Administrative Officer obtain more information from the solicitor and report back to Council at a closed session to be held on Monday, November 21". Council then adopted that direction by resolution.

(m) Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Council

The Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Council listed the two closed meeting items, providing more specificity with respect to item (i).

(n) Record of the Closed Meeting of Council

During the closed meeting of Council staff provided a letter containing legal advice from the Town's solicitor and it was reviewed by Council. Council then provided the direction to staff as indicated in (I) above.

(o) Conclusion on the Municipal Act Exception

It is clear that the matter being discussed dealt with a continuation of the matter discussed at earlier meetings of Council and Committee of the Whole. Although, they were continuing to discuss a "personal matter" involving an identifiable individual, they were indeed receiving advice that is subject to solicitor/client privilege. Hence, the more appropriate exception under the Municipal Act that applied to the subject matter under consideration at this meeting was Section 239(2)(f).

For reasons already discussed in this report, in the end result, it doesn't really matter than Council invoked section 239(2)(b) or 239(2)(f) for this particular matter; the public still would not have known what was being considered.

Meeting of Committee of the Whole, November 21, 2011

(p) Agenda for the Meeting of Committee of the Whole

The Agenda for the Meeting of Committee of the Whole held on November 21, 2011 listed one closed session item.

i) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, Section 239(2)(b), MA;

This item is the subject matter of the complaint.

( q) Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting

The Minutes for the Committee of the Whole Meeting show that that Council

14

-85-

moved into closed session to discuss the closed session item

After the closed meeting, Council rose and reported out a direction: "That the Chief Administrative Officer be requested to follow legal advice on a personal matter". Committee of the Whole then adopted that direction by resolution.

(r) Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Committee of the Whole

The Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Committee of the Whole listed the closed meeting item, providing more specificity with respect to item (i).

(s) Record of the Closed Meeting of Committee of the Whole

During the closed meeting of Committee of the Whole staff provided a letter containing legal advice from the Town's solicitor and it was reviewed by Committee of the Whole. Committee of the Whole then provided a direction to staff as indicated in ( q) above. However, the direction from Committee of the Whole goes much further than the words of the direction cited above, including but not limited to a conclusion that litigation would be commenced. Although the Committee did not take a formal vote of the matter, effectively they were making decisions that exceeded a mere direction that the staff "follow legal advice".

Council, a committee, or a local board is not permitted under the Municipal Act make substantive decisions "behind closed doors". They are merely permitted to vote on a procedural matter or to give directions to staff or others listed in the Act. Although the Municipal Act does not provide guidance on what is a "direction" to staff or others, the intention is not that a substantive decision be couched in a direction to staff. Even though Committee of the Whole did not take a formal vote on their conclusions resulting from the review of the solicitor's advice, they effectively breached section 238(5) by making substantive conclusions. Moreover, their decision was not one which would have been permitted as an exception to the restrictions which are listed in section 238(6) of the Act. It was, in our opinion, not merely "directions to staff" and others.

In addition, it is important to note that Councils when in Committee of the Whole should be wary of providing direction that is more properly within the purview of Council to provide, in open or in closed session. The primary function of a discretionary committee of Council is to provide advice to Council, not to act on its behalf.

15

-86-

(t) Conclusion on the Municipal Act Exception

It is clear that the matter being discussed dealt with a continuation of the matter discussed at earlier meetings of Council and Committee of the Whole. Although, they were continuing to discuss a "personal matter" involving an identifiable individual, they were indeed receiving advice that is subject to solicitor/client privilege. Further, at this meeting it was clear that they were contemplating litigation in a realistic sense. Hence, the more accurate exception under the Municipal Act that applied to the subject matter under consideration at this meeting was Section 239(2)(e).

For reasons already discussed in this report, in the end result, it doesn't really matter than Council invoked section 239(2)(b), 239(2)(e), or 239(2)(f) for this particular matter; the public still would not have known what was being considered given the way the matter was ultimately handled in the closed session.

Meeting of Council, December 12, 2011

(u) Agenda for the Council Meeting

The Agenda for the Meeting of Council of December 12, 20111ists two closed session items:

i) Labour relations or employee negotiations; Section 239(2)(d); Fire Fighter Arbitration Update

ii) Litigation or Potential Litigation; Section 239(2)(e); Town Facility

Neither of these two items are the subject matter of the complaint.

(v) Minutes for the Council Meeting

The Minutes for the Council Meeting show that that an additional item had been added at the beginning of the Council Meeting to the closed session agenda. The third item was:

ill) Personal matter about an identifiable individual; Section 239(2)(b)

This item is the subject matter of this complaint.

After the closed meeting, Council rose and reported out a direction: "The Chief Administrative Officer was requested to investigate all three closed session items". Council adopted that direction by resolution.

16

-87-

(w) Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Council

The Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Council listed the two closed meeting items and adds the third item, providing more specificity with respect to this item.

(x) Record of the Closed Meeting of Council

During the closed meeting of Council staff provided an update on the litigation which had been commenced. Staff was directed to report back on the item.

(y) Conclusion on the Municipal Act Exception

It is clear that the matter being discussed dealt with a continuation of the matter discussed at earlier meetings of Council and Committee of the Whole. Although, they were continuing to discuss a "personal matter" involving an identifiable individual, they were discussing the progress of litigation. Hence, the more accurate exception under the Municipal Act that applied to the subject matter under consideration at this meeting was Section 239(2)(e).

Since a statement of claim had already been issued in the matter, the issue was now a matter that was in the public domain. Hence, the item should have been listed with more specificity commencing with the Agenda of the Council Meeting of December 12, 2011. To conform to the Municipal Act, the item should have been listed as:

iii) Litigation; Section 239(2)(e); John Mclean.

Meeting of Council, January 23, 2012

(z) Agenda for the Council Meeting

The Agenda for the Meeting of Council of December 12, 20111ists three closed session items:

i) Labour relations or employee negotiations; Section 239(2)(d), MA; Fire fighter Arbitration

ii) Personal matter about an identifiable individual, Section 239(2)(b), MA iii) Proposed or pending disposition of land by the municipality, Section 239(2)(c);

property on Baseline Road, Keswick

The item listed as (ii) is the subject matter of this complaint.

17

-88-

(aa) Minutes for the Council Meeting

The Minutes for the Council Meeting show the three items listed in the agenda for the closed meeting.

After the closed meeting, Council rose and reported out certain directions. The direction with respect to the personal matter was: "That the update from the Chief Administrative Officer regarding a personal matter about an identifable [sic] individual be received". In open session, Council adopted that direction by resolution.

(bb) Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Council

The Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Council listed the three closed meeting items, providing more specificity with respect to items (ii) and (iii).

(cc) Record of the Closed Meeting of Council

During the closed meeting of Council staff indicated that nothing had progressed in the litigation and no further update was required at that time. ·

(dd) Conclusion on the Municipal Act Exception

It is clear that the matter being discussed dealt with a continuation of the matter discussed at earlier meetings of Council and Committee of the Whole. Although, they were continuing to discuss a "personal matter" involving an identifiable individual, they were also discussing the progress of litigation. Hence, the more accurate exception under the Municipal Act that applied to the subject matter under consideration at this meeting was Section 239(2)(e).

Since a statement of claim had already been issued in the matter, the issue was now a matter that was in the public domain. Hence, the item should have been listed with more specificity. To conform to the Municipal Act, the item could have been listed as:

iii) Litigation or Potential Litigation; Section 239(2)(e); John McLean.

However, given the fact that litigation progresses in the public domain, there was no apparent reason why this item had to be discussed in closed session.

18

-89-

Special Meeting of Council. February 2. 2012

(ee) Agenda for the Special Council Meeting

The Agenda for the Special Meeting of Council of February 2, 2012 listed one closed meeting item:

i) Advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege; Section 239(2)(f), MA;

This item is the subject matter of this complaint.

(ff) Minutes for the Special Council Meeting

The Minutes for the Council Meeting show that, apart from procedural issues, this was the only matter discussed at the meeting.

After the closed meeting, Council rose and resolved: "That in the matter of Robert Grossi vs. John McLean, Council direct that Cassels Brock serve a notice of discontinuance under Rule 23.01(1)(a) of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure". Mayor Grossi then read out a statement with respect to the lawsuit.

(gg) Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Council

The Agenda for the Closed Meeting of Council listed the one closed meeting item, providing more specificity with respect to the item.

(hh) Record of the Closed Meeting of Council

During the closed meeting legal information was provided by the Town's solicitor. A direction was given to staff to present the resolution cited above in (ff) in open session.

(ii) Conclusion on the Municipal Act Exception

It is clear that the matter being discussed dealt with a continuation of the matter discussed at earlier meetings of Council and Committee of the Whole. Although, they were discussing the litigation, which would have invoked section 239(2)(e) of the Municipal Act, they used the exception provided by section 239(2)(f) of the Act.

While it is true that Council was receiving legal information on the matter, it would have been more accurate to continue using the litigation privilege exception under section 239(2)(e). This would lead to openness and transparency of the "general nature of the matter to be considered" during the closed session, while preserving confidentiality over the substance of Council's deliberations.

19

-90-

VI. CONCLUSION

We have made conclusions with respect to each meeting that was indicated in the complaint. While it may have been better to cite the more appropriate or more accurate exception under the Municipal Act for many of the meetings at issue, it is our opinion that these procedural inaccuracies would not render any decisions made at those meeting as illegal. Indeed, we do not think there was any intention of the Town or of Council to shield the overall matter from openness and transparency by assigning the broader, more ambiguous Municipal Act exception dealing with "personal matters", even if it was not the more relevant or accurate exception. It would appear that the matter started off as a "personal matter about an identifiable individual" and that just carried over from each agenda to the next until the final meeting in February 2012.

It is clear that the Town generally aims for a higher level of specificity when disclosing the "general nature of the matters to be considered" because there were other items on the relevant meeting agendas that did have specificity. The fact that the Town was not more specific in this matter seems to be a bona fide attempt to not inappropriately divulge personal information about the individual.

We note that the Town does add specificity to the Municipal Act exception wording when placing the item on the closed meeting agendas circulated to members of Council and that is a good practice. By doing so, Members of Council can know before they move into closed session what they will be considering and, more importantly, whether or not they have a pecuniary interest in the matter.

We have concluded that at one meeting, Committee of the Whole went beyond the intentions of the Municipal Act when it made a substantive decision in closed session, a substantive decision that was couched in a direction to staff. That was a breach of the Municipal Act, in our opinion.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

Although we have concluded that the personal matter was properly before the Closed Meetings of Council and Committee of the Whole in accordance with the Municipal Act, and that the breach of the Municipal Act was either a procedural irregularity or did not affect the legality of Council's ultimate decisions, the following recommendations with respect to procedural aspects of meetings are offered:

(a) Using the Appropriate Municipal Act Exceptions

20

-91-

Staff and Council should invoke the exceptions to the open meetings provisions in the Municipal Act in a manner that most accurately reflects the anticipated essence of the deliberations. In addition, to the extent that it is possible without divulging the actual substance of the anticipated deliberations, the resolution to go in closed session on an item of business should include some level of specificity in order to respect the fact that the public have a right to know "the general nature of the matters to be considered".

(b) Making Decisions in Closed Session

Council and Committees should be very diligent in ensuring that the way a matter is handled In closed session does not breach the Municipal Act. More specifically, a Council cannot make substantive decisions (even if they don't vote on them) and then characterize the decision as a mere direction to staff or others when indeed It is not merely directional in nature. Committees have even less authority to direct staff in either open or closed session.

(c) Reporting out after a Closed Session

It is a best practice to report out whether progress was made in matters for which the closed session was held, but there is no need for a direction properly voted on in closed session to be voted on again in open session with a vague wording with respect to the direction. It has been argued that the process of repeating that direction in open session may in fact make the substance of the issue public, an undesirable result unless that is Council's intention.

:VIII. PUBLIC REPORT

We received full co-operation from all parties that we contacted and we thank them.

This report is forwarded to the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Georgina. The Municipal Act provides that this report be made public. It is suggested that the report be included on the agenda of the next regular meeting of Council or at a special meeting called for the purpose of receiving this report prior to the next regular meeting.

September 2012

Closed Meeting Investigator AMBERLEYGAVEL LTD.

Per:

21

-93-

GEORGINA FIRE DEPARTMENT INTER OFFICE MEMORANDUM

to:

from:

subject:

date:

Rebecca Mathewson, Director of Administrative Services/Treasurer

Taunya Zabielski, Public Educator/Fire Prevention Inspector

Fire Prevention Week Proclamation

September 17, 2012

The Fire Marshal's Office, along with the National Fire Protection Association has announced the theme for this year's Fire Prevention Week from Sunday October 7th to Saturday October 13th, 2012 as, "Have Two Ways Out!" This year's theme focuses on the importance of fire escape planning and practice.

The reality is that when fire strikes, your home could be engulfed in smoke and flames in just a few minutes. It is important to have a home fire escape plan that prepares your family to think fast and get out quickly when the smoke alarm sounds. What if your first escape route is blocked by smoke or flames? That's why having two ways out is such a key part of your plan.

This year's campaign is an ideal opportunity to educate the public about the importance of home fire escape planning and can serve as a powerful tool for motivating people to prepare a home escape plan and practice it with their families. Accordingly, I would like to request that Sunday October ih to Saturday October 13th, 2012 be proclaimed Fire Prevention Week in the Town of Georgina.

Yours truly, I

Taunya Zabielski Public Educator/Fire Prevention Inspector Town of Georgina Fire Department

-94-

From: Robert Grossi Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 09:09AM To: Fisch, Bill <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Danny Wheeler Subject: RE: Upper York Sewage Solutions - Notice of Public Information Forum October 3rd and 4th 2012

Why no PIF iri Georgina if the outfall is into Lake Simcoe?

From: Fisch, Bill [[email protected]] Sent: September 14, 2012 1:14PM To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Robert Grossi; [email protected]; Danny Wheeler Subject: Upper York Sewage Solutions - Notice of Public Information Forum October 3rd and 4th 2012

Good Afternoon: Attached, please find a copy of a notice related to upcoming Public Information Forums that will be appearing in the Era Banner and Georgina Advocate publications on Thursday, September 201h and Sunday, September 301

h. .

Public Information Forums will be held on Wednesday October 3'd at the Newmarket Community Centre and Lions Hall and on Thursday October 41

h at the Holland Landing Community Centre. The purpose of this notice is to advise local area residents, business owners and interested stakeholders of the opportunity to attend a Public Information Forum to learn and ask questions about the recommended water reclamation centre site, recommended sewage conveyance and outfall discharge routes, recommended outfall location, and recommended YDSS modifications route (additional forcemains between Aurora Sewage Pumping Station and Newmarket and Bogart Creek Sewage Pumping Stations) along with next steps in the Upper York Sewage Solutions Individual Environmental Assessment. This notice will be e-mailed to all stakeholders on the project stakeholder mailing list including the Ministry of the Environment and the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, along with a cover letter signed by the Region's Project Manager. It will also be posted on York Region's website and the project website www.uyssolutions.ca. As part of the notification of key stakeholders and as the study area crosses or borders several municipalities, it may be appropriate for the Chairman and CAO's Office to forward this notice and information package to the following officials: If you have any questions about this project, please call the Project Manager, Adrian Coombs at extension 5098. Thank you Bill Fisch Chairman & CEO «12-10-3 UYSS-PIF Notice.pdf»

1

-95-I-----~-------- ··------ ----- -----:. -

1"'~,-------··-·-~

NOTICE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION FORUM The Regional Municipality of York (York Region) is undertaking the Upper

York Servicing Solutions (UYSS) Environmental Assessment (EA), in accordance with the Ontario Environmental Assessment Act, to determine

wastewater servicing for the Towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury and Newmarket to meet provincially approved growth to 2031.

As a result of extensive consultation, York Region has identified a recommended site for the proposed Water Reclamation Centre on 2nd

Concession one kilometre north of Oueensville Sideroad in East Gwillimbury along with trunk sewer pipes to transport sewage to the Water Reclamation Centre for treatment and a pipe to carry treated water to the outfall. This is to accommodate wastewater from provincially-approved growth in East Gwi//imbury and a portion of Newmarket (see map). The proposed Water Reclamation Centre will employ environmentally-sustainable wastewater purification and water recycling technologies.

Wastewater from provincially-approved growth to 2031 in Aurora and the remainder of Newmarket would be conveyed to the existing York Durham Sewage System (YDSS) for treatment and discharge to Lake Ontario. This growth would require an additional wastewater sewage pipe. York Region has identified a recommended route for this additional sewer close to the existing YDSS forcemain alignment principally following the Tom Taylor Trail (see map).

PLEASE JOIN US! Please join us at either one of the two Public Information Forums to hear about and provide your comments on these recommendations. These recommendations will be finalized considering your comments and further developed during the Impact Assessment stage of the UYSS EA.

FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT

ADRIAN COOMBS, P. ENG., SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER

TEL: 905-830-4444 EXT. 5098 FAX: 905-830-6927

EMAIL: ADRIAN.COOMBS@YORKCA

\A/W\IV.UYSSOLUTIONS.CA

c::::J UYSS = Conveyance lnlrastruclure * Proposed Oulfall

- Recommended Water ReclarnatiOil Centre Site (WH1)

C:=J Existing Approved Holland LartdinQ Water Pollution Control Plant {Lagoons)

Recommended Wastewater

-96-


REPORT NO. PB-2012-0082

FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL

SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

SUBJECT: APPLICATIONS TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW 500 JENNIFER LINDSAY 25625 VALLEY VIEW DRIVE, SUTTON PART LOTS 19 & 20, CONCESSION 8 (NG) PART 2, PLAN SSR-10305

1. RECOMMENDATIONS:


B. THAT IN THE EVENT NO PUBLIC OR COUNCIL CONCERNS ARE RAISED AT THE PUBLIC MEETING WARRANTING INVESTIGATION AND A FURTHER PUBLIC MEETING, STAFF RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING:

i. THAT THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY JENNIFER LINDSAY TO AMEND THE OFFICIAL PLAN AS IT RELATES TO SECTION 14.2.9 K) IN ORDER TO PERMIT THE CONSIDERATION OF A PROPOSED SEVERANCE ON THE LANDS DESCRIBED AS PART LOTS 19 AND 20, CONCESSION 8 (NG); PART 2, PLAN 65R-10305, BE APPROVED;

ii. THAT THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY JENNIFER LINDSAY TO RE-ZONE LANDS DESCRIBED AS PART LOTS 19 AND 20, CONCESSION 8 (NG); PART 2, PLAN 65R-10305, FROM RURAL (RU) TO SITE-SPECIFIC RURAL (RU) AND OPEN SPACE (OS), BE APPROVED;

iii. THAT THE BY-LAWS TO ADOPT THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENTS CONTAIN THE SITE-SPECIFIC POLICIES AND PROVISIONS OUTLINED IN REPORT PB-2012-0082.

iv. THAT PRIOR TO THE PASSING OF BY-LAWS TO ADOPT THE OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENTS, THE OWNER/APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A DETAILED SURVEY SKETCH PREPARED BY .AN ONTARIO LAND SURVEYOR THAT IDENTIFIES THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE LIMITS AND DIMENSIONS OF THE PROPOSED ZONES, TO THE

-97-

-Page 2 of Report No. PB-2012-0082-

SATISFACTION OF THE TOWN AND LAKE SIMCOE REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY.

v. THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 34(17) OF THE PLANNING ACT, R.S.0.1990, C.P.13, AS AMENDED, IN THE EVENT MINOR REVISIONS ARE NECESSARY RESPECTING THE PROPOSED AMENDING ZONING BY-LAW, FURTHER NOTICE SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED.

vi. THAT THE TOWN CLERK FORWARD A COPY OF REPORT PB-2012-0082, COUNCIL'S RESOLUTION THEREON, AND THE ADOPTED OFFICIAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO THE YORK REGION DIRECTOR OF THE COMMUNITY PLANNING BRANCH OF THE TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR FINAL APPROVAL.

- OR, ALTERNATIVELY-

C. THAT IN THE EVENT PUBLIC OR COUNCIL CONCERNS ARE RAISED WARRANTING INVESTIGATION AND A FURTHER PUBLIC MEETING, STAFF RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING:

i. THAT STAFF REPORT FURTHER TO COUNCIL FOLLOWING THE RECEIPT AND ASSESSMENT OF PUBLIC, COUNCIL AND AGENCY COMMENTS AND THAT THE APPLICANTS UNDERTAKE TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS, MATTERS AND ISSUES RAISED AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC MEETING.

2. INFORMATION:

OWNER I APPLICANT:

AGENT:

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:

FILE NUMBERS:

Jennifer Lindsay

Armstrong Hunter & Associates c/o Michael Rajk

(Refer to Schedules '1' to '4') Part Lots 19 & 20, Concession 8 (NG) Part 2, Plan 65R-10305 25625 Valley View Drive Roll No. 119-750 Ward4

02.176 (Official Plan Amendment) 03.1058 (Zoning By-law Amendment)

-98-


3. PROPOSAL:

Armstrong Hunter & Associates have submitted applications on behalf of Jennifer Lindsay to amend the Sutton Secondary Plan and Zoning By-law Number 500. These applications are required to facilitate the consideration of a proposed severance of the subject property in order to create one new rural residential lot (refer to Schedule '4').

In support of the applications, the applicants retained consultants also submitted a Planning Rationale Report and a draft Official Plan Amendment, both attached hereto as Schedules '5' and '6'.

4. SUBJECT PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS:

The subject property is located at 25625 Valley View Drive, north-east of Highway 48 and Old Homestead Road, in the community of Sutton. The owner's total landholding is approximately 2.99 hectares (7.38 acres) in area and has a lot frontage of 136.55 metres (448 feet) along Valley View Drive (refer to Schedule '2'). The proposed severed lot would be approximately 0.81 hectares (2 acres) in area, with a lot frontage of 60 metres (197 feet) (refer to Schedule '4').

The property contains an existing single detached house, a shed, is heavily treed at the rear, and has a small linkage connection to the Black River to the north (refer to Schedule '3').

The following uses surround the subject property:

North: An existing rural residential lot of record beyond which is the Black River.

East: Bounded by the (unopened/untraveled) road allowance between the former geographic Townships of Georgina and North Gwillimbury, beyond which is a tributary of the Black River.

South: Rural residential uses.

West: Rural residential uses.

5. BACKGROUND I HISTORY:

Consent Application No. P4211 04 was submitted on May 25, 2011, seeking to sever a new lot from the subject property. On July 11, 2011, the Committee of Adjustment deferred the application at the request of planning staff, as the application did not conform to the policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan and, therefore, necessitated the submission of Official Plan and Zoning By-law

-99-


Amendment applications. A copy of staff report PB-2011-0061 and the Committee's decision theron is attached as Schedules '7' and '8', respectively.

6. PUBLIC CIRCULATION:

In accordance with the Planning Act, a notice of public meeting was sent to all assessed property owners within 120 metres of the subject property and a notice sign was posted on the property. Further, notices of application and public meeting were posted on the Town's website.

As of the date of writing this report, no formal comments have been received from members of the public.

7. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS:

Administrative Services Department:

Municipal Law Enforcement Office: No comments or concerns. Tax Division: No taxation issues. Fire Department: No objections.

Building Division:

Chief Building Officer: No comments. On-site Sewage Inspection: No objection.

Operations & Engineering Department: No objection.

Recreation and Culture: No comments.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA): Refer to Schedule '9'.

York Region: No written comments received as of the date of this report. Verbal comments discussed in Section 8.4 of this report.

Enbridge Gas Distribution: No objections.

Hydro One: Free and clear of Hydro One interests.

-100-


8.0 POLICY FRAMEWORK:

8.1 Provincial Policy Statement (2005) and the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (2006)

The Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS) provides policy direction on matters of provincial interest related to land use planning and development. The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe provides a framework for managing growth in the Greater Golden Horseshoe including: directions for where and how to grow; the provision of infrastructure to support growth; and protecting natural systems and cultivating a culture of conservation.

In accordance with Section 3 of the Planning Act, a decision of the Council of the Town of Georgina that affects a planning matter shall be consistent with the PPS and conform to the Growth Plan.

The subject property falls within a settlement area (Sutton), as defined in the Growth Plan, and is therefore subject to the policies therein.

Given the above, and having reviewed the submitted Planning Rationale Report (refer to Schedule '5') and agency comments, staff are satisfied that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment to permit the consideration of the proposed rural residential lot is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the Growth Plan.

8.2 Greenbelt Plan

As the subject property is located within the boundary of the Sutton Secondary Plan Area, the property falls within the 'Towns and Villages' policy area of the Protected Countryside designation, on Map 7 to the Greenbelt Plan (GBP). In accordance with Section 3.4.2, the TownNillage Policies of the GBP, the subject property continues to be governed by applicable municipal official plans (i.e. the Sutton Secondary Plan) and therefore is not subject to the policies of the GBP, save and except for the external connections policies set out in Section 3.2.5.

In this case, the external connections policies apply to a portion of the subject property adjacent to the Black River's valley system. However, in light of the applicant's proposal to re-zone the entirety of this portion of the subject property, including an additional 15 metre buffer area, to protect the natural features of the valley river, staff are of the opinion that the proposal conforms to the Greenbelt Plan.

-1 01 -


8.3 York Region Official Plan

As the property is within the Sutton Secondary Plan Area (as noted above) the subject property is designated 'Towns and Villages' under both the 1994 and new 2010 York Region Official Plan (YROP), and further identified as being wholly within or portions directly adjacent to the 'Regional Greenlands System'.

With respect to the Greenlands System policies, the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required to determine the impact that development will have or is expected to have on the environmental functions, attributes or linkages of the Green lands System. However, given the intent of the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment to protect and buffer the forested area at the rear of the property (as explained in Sections 8 and 9 below) an EIS was not deemed necessary by the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority.

As of the date of writing this report, staff have not received written comments from York Region. However, Regional planning staff verbally indicated that they have no objection to the applications, as proposed. It should also be noted, that Regional planning staff have confirmed that York Region will be the approval authority with respect to the submitted local Official Plan Amendment application.

8.4 Sutton Secondary Plan (1997)

The Sutton Secondary Plan was approved on July 8, 1997. A new Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan was adopted and approved, with modifications, by York Region Council on March 24, 2011. However, the new Secondary Plan was subsequently appealed (in its entirety) to the Ontario Municipal Board (the "Board"). This appeal is currently before the Board, and therefore the existing Sutton Secondary Plan remains legally in force and effect at this time.

Under the Sutton Secondary Plan, the subject property is designated 'Rural' on Schedule 'G 1' (Land Use Plan) and the western portion of the property is identified as an 'Agricultural Priority 2 Area' while the eastern portion of the property is identified as containing a 'Water Course' and 'Warm Water Fisheries Migratory Run' as shown on Schedule 'G4' (Environmental Resources).

An application has been submitted to amend the criteria with respect to rural residential severances under Section 14.2.9 k) of the Sutton Secondary Plan, in order to permit the consideration of a proposed severance of the subject property into two (2) rural residential lots. The following is an evaluation of the relevant Sutton Secondary Plan policies respecting this amendment.

-102-


8.4.1 Rural Policies

The Rural designation permits a range of agricultural, forestry and conservation uses, including rural residential uses.

In accordance with Section 14.2.9 k), rural residential severances may be permitted where infilling takes place between two dwellings which existed as of the adoption of this Plan (Nov. 3, 1994) and where the two houses are not more than 100 metres (330 feet) apart and are on the same side of an assumed road or around a corner of an intersecting road. The intent of this policy is to allow infill severances within rural areas where there is an established pattern of development and the creation of a new lot would not add to ribbon development.

To staffs knowledge the existing dwelling on the subject property (25625 Valley View Drive) and the dwelling on the property directly to the south (25565 Valley View Drive) both appear to have existed prior to 1994 (built dates of 1982 and 1966, respectively) and based on staff's review are approximately 120 metres apart (refer to Schedule '3'). In Report PB-2011-0061, regarding the proposed consent (refer to Schedule '7'), staff concluded that by exceeding the 100 metre threshold by 20 metres or approximately 20%, the proposal requires an amendment to the policy. Moreover, the adjacent lands along both sides of Valley View Drive consist of existing rural residential developments, the majority of which are larger lots. In this regard, staff were concerned that a liberal interpretation of Section 14.2.9 k) may result in setting a problematic precedent in relation to similar situations in the Town.

During the pre-consultation process with the applicant, staff expressed concerns about the appropriateness of the proposal, particularly with respect to the potential precedent-setting nature of the proposal. Through this process, however, it was agreed that the applicants' situation can be discerned from other rural properties, in that the subject property is (1) located within the boundaries of the Sutton Secondary Plan (refer to Schedule '11 ')and (2) not affected by the general policies of the Greenbelt Plan.

Most other similar-sized lots in the Town fall outside of the Sutton Secondary Plan Area, and thus, are subject to the more restrictive rural residential lot creation policies of the parent Official Plan and the Greenbelt Plan. As a result, the potential implications of the applicants' proposal do not extend beyond the boundaries of the Sutton Secondary Plan. Consequently, the proposal is not expected to set an undesirable precedent. Moreover, the new Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan, does not contain a similar rural residential infill policy.

In terms of compatibility, the majority of lots on Valley View Drive (north of Old Homestead Road) are approximately 4 hectares (1 0 acres) in size, with several smaller lots (i.e. 1 to 2 hectares) interspersed along the street.

-103-


As shown on Schedule '4', the applicant is proposing to create a new building lot to the south of the existing house. The proposed severed lands would have a lot frontage of approximately 60 metres (196.85 feet) along Valley View Drive and a depth of only metres 155 (508.5 feet), resulting in a lot area of approximately 0.81 hectares (2 acres). The retained parcel would have a frontage of approximately 76.55 metres (251.15 feet) and a lot area of 2.18 hectares (5.38 acres).

By contrast, as illustrated on Schedule '7', page '9', the consent application proposed a severance to create a new rural residential lot with approximately 41.99 metres (137.76 feet) of frontage, a depth equal to that of the retained parcel and a lot area of 0.81 hectares (2 acres). The retained parcel would have a frontage of approximately 94.56 metres (310.24 feet) and a lot area of 2.18 hectares (5.38 acres).

The Town's planning rationale behind the revised severance proposal is that by increasing the frontage of the proposed severed lot the resulting lots would be more compatible with existing lot frontages of the lots to the north and south at the north end of Valley View Drive. In addition, the depth of the proposed lot was changed to in order to direct the proposed development from the natural heritage features, and thus, preclude the applicant from having to submit an Environmental Impact Statement. Although the applicants' proposal results in a parcel that is smaller than the majority of lots on Valley View Drive, there are no current policies or zoning provisions that prevent the creation of smaller rural lots in this location. Staff note that in 2006, Council approved an Official Plan Amendment that resulted in the severing the Wolf property to create a new rural residential lot with 79.78 metres (261.75 feet) offrontage and a lot area of 1.57 hectares (3.9 acres) (refer to Schedule '10'). Given the above, the applicants' proposal has merit in terms of providing lot frontages that are generally compatible with the remainder of the street that falls within the Sutton Secondary Plan Area (refer to Schedule '1 0').

In accordance with Section 14.2.9 g), the Rural Policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan, new residential development by severance generally shall not be permitted within 150 metres (500 feet) of an area of aggregate potential to ensure that the possible future extraction of the resource will not be compromised. The subject property appears to be greater than 150 metres from the nearest aggregate resource area, which is shown to be east of the subject property and west of Highway 48, on Schedule G4 to the Secondary Plan. The applicant is proposing to only permit development on the western portion of the subject property. The back eastern portion on the other hand, a depth of approximately 130 metres from the rear lot line, would be re-zoned Open Space (OS) .. Moreover, the area of aggregate resources is separated from the subject property by the Black River valley system. In this regard, staff are of the opinion that the possible future extraction of the identified resource area (Schedule G4) is not compromised by the proposed new residential development by severance of the subject property.

-104-


Given all of the above, staff are of the opinion that the Official Plan Amendment application would not contribute to scattered or ribbon development, but represents an appropriate infill development and therefore maintains the general intent and purpose of the goals, objectives and policies in the Sutton Secondary Plan. Furthermore, the proposal conforms to the other relevant rural policies, namely Sections 14.2.9 e), f), g), i), n), and o).

8.4.2 Environmental Policies

In accordance with Section 14.3.2 (b) (i) the Town of Georgina, in consultation with the LSRCA. .. shall have regard for the following matters in the review of development applications within the Sutton Secondary Plan Area:

'The protection and enhancement of environmental features, functions, attributes and linkages which area part of, and perform in concert with, the existing ecosystem"

In this regard, the Town, in consultation with the LSRCA, agreed during the pre-consultation process prior to the submission of the Official Plan and Zoning Amendment applications, that the submission of an Environmental Impact Statement would not be necessary based on the applicants proposal to re-zone a significant portion of the subject property Open Space (OS). As discussed in Section 9 below, the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application serves to protect the existing forested area and natural environmental features, functions, and implements environmental policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan.

Further, comments received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority, with respect to the proposed amendment to Section 14.2.9 k), state that they have no objection to the proposed Official Plan Amendment application on the basis that the relevant environmental policies would not be offended. Furthermore, from a watershed management perspective, LSRCA staff are satisfied that the application is consistent with the intent of the PPS, and is in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (refer to Schedule '9').

Given the above, staff are of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment application conforms to the environmental policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan and provincial plans and policy documents.

8.4.3 Consent Policies

In accordance with Section 14.10 c), the consent policies allow for the creation of a new lot, subject to satisfying a number of criteria, including: adequate services (i.e. roads, sanitary sewage disposal, water supply, and storm drainage facilities), not restricting the ultimate development of adjacent lands, the size and shape of the lot

-105-

- Page 10 of Report No. PB-2012-0082-

complying with the Zoning By-law, and the lot being appropriate for the use proposed and compatible with adjacent lots.

Since the aforementioned Committee of Adjustment meeting, staff have worked with the applicant and their consultants to revise the proposed severance to achieve a lot configuration that is more compatible with the adjacent properties along Valley View Drive (as discussed in Section 8.4.1 above).

Should Council approve the applications for Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendment, staff are of the opinion that the proposed lot creation would comply with the consent policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan.

8.5 Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan (2010)

As noted above, the Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan was approved by York Region Council on March 24, 2011. It is, however, currently under appeal at the Board. Nevertheless, the Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan represents Council's current intentions for the community, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005).

In the new Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan all lands on Valley View Drive located within the Plan boundary area, including the subject property in its entirety, are designated 'Environmental Protection Area' on Schedule 'B' (Land Use Plan). In accordance with Section 9.2.2.2 (d), development, which includes the creation of a new lot, is not permitted within the Environmental Protection Area designation. Although it is the current Sutton Secondary Plan that applies, staff note that the new policies of the Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan are more restrictive as they apply to the subject property. Notwithstanding, staff must evaluate the proposal based on the current applicable planning documents, as the new Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan has not yet legally come into force.

9.0 ZONING BY-LAW:

The subject property is currently zoned Rural (RU) on Map 1 in Zoning By-law 500, which permits a number of residential and non-residential uses as listed in Schedule '12'.

The applicant is proposing to re-zone the subject property from Rural (RU) to Rural (RU) and Open Space (OS) zones with site-specific provisions (refer to Schedule '13'). The proposed zoning would recognize the existing utilized area of the subject property, permit the development of a single detached house on the proposed severed lands, and protect the balance of the natural features and forested areas.

-106-


9.1 Proposed Site-Specific Rural (RU) Zones

The applicant is proposing a site-specific Rural (RU) zoning on the proposed severed lands, which would implement the following site-specific provisions:

(i) Restricting the permitted uses to a single family dwelling, a bed and breakfast residence, a private home daycare, a home occupation, and accessory buildings, structures and uses to any permitted use. The purpose of this recommendation is to eliminate a number of inappropriate non-residential uses that are presently permitted (i.e. agriculture, cemetery, church, bus or truck terminal).

(ii) Requiring all buildings and structures to maintain a minimum setback of 6 metres from the proposed Open Space (OS) zones. The purpose of this recommendation is to provide an adequate buffer between the protected natural areas and any buildings or structures.

Although no special provisions have actually been requested for the retained lands in the Zoning By-law Amendment application, staff have requested that the proposed retained lands also include the above-noted site-specific provision restricting the permitted uses to a single family dwelling, a bed and breakfast residence, a private home daycare, a home occupation, and accessory buildings, structures and uses to any permitted use. Staff note that the applicant has agreed to this request.

9.2 Proposed Site-Specific Open Space (OS) Zones

The applicant proposes to re-zone the majority of the subject property to site-specific Open Space (OS) zones in order to recognize and protect existing forested areas and natural features.

Comments received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) with respect to its review of the proposed applications are attached hereto as Schedule '9'. As stated therein, the LSRCA has no objection to the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment application subject to the implementation of a 15 metre buffer from the limit of the proposed Open Space (OS) zone. As noted above and in the LSRCA comments, the applicant is proposing a building setback of 6 metres from the proposed OS zone. Following the receipt of these comments, planning staff received confirmation from the applicant's planning consultants that the applicant has no objection to an increase in the buffer area from 6 to 15 metres. Further in this regard, staff are recommending that this 15 metre buffer area be incorporated into the proposed OS zones. We believe this approach is more transparent and thus serves to strengthen the intention and application of the restrictive OS zoning.

-107-


Staff note that there is adequate area on the remaining portion of the proposed severed lands to accommodate a single detached dwelling and accessory structures, and support a private well and septic system, in compliance with the relevant provisions of the Rural (RU) zone.

Staff request that the owner/applicant submit a detailed survey sketch prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor that identifies the boundaries of the subject property, dimensions of the proposed severed and retained lands, and the limits and dimensions of the proposed zones, to the satisfaction of the Town and LSRCA. This will be required to delineate the boundary of the existing woodland and in order to implement the proposed OS zone, together with the recommended buffer.

The proposed zoning amendments serve to implement provincial, regional, and local planning policies by delineating an area that protects the balance of the natural features from development. Given all of the above, staff are of the opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendment application is appropriate and conforms to the Sutton Secondary Plan.

10. CONCLUSION:

Staff are of the opinion that the proposed Official Plan Amendment and Zoning By-law Amendment maintains the general intent and purpose of the goals, objectives and policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan. Furthermore, these applications are consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement and conform to the Greenbelt Plan, the Growth Plan, the York Region Official Plan and the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan.

If these applications are approved, the by-laws to adopt the Official Plan Amendment and to amend Zoning By-law 500 will be brought forward to a future Council meeting for adoption. In this regard, staff are requesting that prior to the passing of the amending zoning by-law, the owner/applicant must submit a detailed survey sketch prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor that identifies the boundaries of the subject property, dimensions of the proposed severed and retained lands, and the limits and dimensions of the proposed zones, to the satisfaction of the Town and LSRCA.

As of the date of this report, none of the circulated residents, internal departments or external agencies have indicated any objections or concerns with these applications. In consideration of the above, staff have no objection to Council's approval of the applications as recommended at this time. However, should any concerns be raised by the public or Council that require further investigation, staff would alternatively recommend that a second public meeting be scheduled in the future after those concerns have been addressed.

-108-


Prepared by:

Todd Evershed Planner

Recommended by:

Har I . enters, M.Sc.PI, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Building

19 September 2012

Reviewed by:

Velvet L. Ross, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning

Approved by:

Win~nne Grant, B.A., AMCT, CEMC Chief Administrative Officer

VI n :X: m 0 c • m ~

~f•land

£r

CONTEXT MAP

lake Simcoe

~ I I iMetef>t 0 1.250 2.~ 5,000 7.500 10,000

N

~

eo,..,,

0 c.o

Vl n :r: m 0 c ,.... m N

~·· ·

..

-;-;r-- ..

·,:. .. ? ~-~=

....

. -...

.. '.~

\,Jt,IZ, ,. :

f( ,,(!• .. ,<j69

t/.1 ~: ' . (.>

t·'!

I.OT

PART 1 Afi A • 1'1•,,' ~ ..

~ ' ~ . ~

~

~ ... , .. ·

. .. , . . ::~ ~J

J.OT

'-

19

---=-·

I,

.... ,_ ..

.. ·. ~· ~.

20

, ... . ",~ ' II .. I •

CJ)

c Ill C'm () -I

.·-

...

~ t::>

lo. ,.... ,... t::> ~ ~ "i

~ ~ ~ ~ C")

... : ·

f ~GUJI'f ~~ '1."'- .,r, ft. f.U,,..tlf.G l ":oot ncr •LI\ : ~· .t.!'· f

·- 1--- . -:-... ~~~ :-. ' , ... - ·:~·-\

Pi.alr:e$.::to3os .·i.i ..

~ .M,CCMD .fM;_ OWJieltD ', ' ft :.

~ - . ~'>. ·/'?.. ~ -. ·- . - . .... . . ,. ' . ·' -~ . Jl ... !"' . -~ •In

~A~ nON: lHIS PLAN IS NOT A PUN .. · · '~ . .• . 7. · :· ' . ~-·· . OF SVBOIVISION WllHIN "HE MEANiNG . . .. ~;' · . . .. : q TH£ PLANNING· ACT. ' . ·. ·· ::. .~; .• , . ,

1/f 'i ;:

f.ttllltCi ." OOSTNicCS ·~ ON lftS I'I.AI( A)lt. -~ · ~.,..~ • • Ill METR£S ANO CAN 8£ COII'i£11TrO lO .• ' ... : .....r~ts:~Y• · , .'. ··, . f"['[T Ill' OC\101HC 8 Y' 0..)04ei ·~. . . • . • r: . .... \ ... ' c~~ .. · . .' .• : . ·: ··.:·.·.r: ... ·· : ,.", ·:.: . ,.,.. ,.,, ••••• ~~t10 t:. ... u .... ·r .. ~.:..r~ ~.~.'·· .,,.,, _ •ll""\.~ .. <h ,• •to ~ .......... , · ,.,., .. ,.,,...~ ·· . lot: .,.~, .• ,...., ~ ' ... ":.',4 . • •

• • " • • • • t • . :: . · .. · : ·· • · " • • • ;£ -.- •• ......

. PLAN OF SURvEY. OF PART OF' ... : .:. ".: / :; •... :··LoTS 1 ~r:·· aii4 .;zo., ._; c'Cn¢:$$.Sif)N : ai ·roWN-:or ·'GiiiQtcmA· . ··. < '" r·. : ~ :; =--, · REGroNAL MtiNiciP:AuT.Y·.or YORK · : -~ :. formerly 10\I'~SIIIP OF l'i?RTII CII!Wltl!l!RY • "'''· .:

COl!f'(l'Y nr \'Oill<

O!.S tall7

, .· ... (f GEORC:~ l ; :;~{'' ·~:;::1ti; .. ' -="'~

...,.,.,.,=n ' ! l !

0

SCHEDULE '3'

(/')

n :X: m 0 c r m

~

~

~ \.:".:)

113

JUN 0 7.1012

Prepared For:

25625 Valley View Drive

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 1

11~

Introduction & History

Page I of9 Armstrong Hunter & Associates

On behalf of our clients Jennifer Lindsay & Brian Barnett we are pleased to submit this Planning

Justification Report prepared in support of applications of Official Plan Amendment and Zoning

By-law Amendment for the lands municipally known as 25625 Valley View Drive within the

Town of Georgina.

In the summer of 2011, the landowners submitted Consent Application (P421104) seeking to

sever the subject property in order to create one new residential property. The Consent

Application was before the Committee of Adjustment on July 11 2011 however a deferral was

obtained to give the applicant the opportunity to submit an Official Plan Amendment to amend

a policy within the Sutton Secondary Plan to permit the consent application to be in conformity

with the Official Plan .

On November 9 2011, a pre-consultation meeting was held with municipal staff and the

applicant. At that time and in subsequent conversations, staff indicated that in addition to the

Official Plan Amendment, they would require an amendment to the zoning by-law in order to

protect and reduce any impact to the natural features on the subject lands.

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 2

-115-

Severed & Retained Portions of Property

Page 2 of9 Armstrong Hunter & Associates

The proposed development of the subject lands will be a severance of the subject property in

order to create one (1) new residential property.

The retained portion will maintain an existing single family detached residential dwelling with

approximately 88.5 metres (290 feet) of frontage on Valley View Drive.

The severed parcel will be sold for the future development of one (1) single family detached

home with approximately 60 metres (196 feet) of frontage on Valley View Drive.

Site Description & Location

The lands are legally described as Part Lot 19 & 20, Concession 8 on Registered Plan 65R-10305

and are known municipally as 25625 Valley View Drive.

The subject lands are located on the east side of Valley View Road, north of Old Homestead

Road and south of the Black River and are within the Sutton Secondary Plan area ofthe Town of

Georgina, within the Region of York. (see Figure 1)

The subject property has approximately 148.5 metres (487 feet) of road frontage along Valley

View Road, a depth of approximately 192.8 metres (632 feet) and is irregular in shape.

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 3

-116-


The western portion of the property is the landscaped front, back and sides yards to the

residential dwelling. The eastern portion of the site contains a woodlot and naturalized open

space and has a connection to the Black River that is proposed to be preserved in their current

natural state.

To the North: To the immediate north is a single detached dwelling fronting onto Valley View

Road and further north is the Black River.

To the South: To the south are single detached dwellings fronting onto Valley View Road and

further south is Old Homestead Road.

To the East: To the immediate east are open space and agricultural farmed fields.

To the West: To the immediate west there is a woodlot and single detached dwellings fronting

onto Valley View Road.

Planning Policy and Regulation

The proposed development has regard to the Planning Act and is consistent with the Provincial

Policy Statement. It conforms to the applicable policies of the Growth Plan for the Greater

Golden Horseshoe and the Greenbelt Plan. In our opinion the proposed development conforms

to the Regional Municipality of York Official Plan , the Town of Georgina Official Plan and the

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 4

-117-

Page 4 of9 Annstrong Hunter & Associates

Sutton Secondary Plan save and except the Official Plan Amendment that is the subject ofthis

application.

Provincial Policy Statement and Provincial Growth Plan

The Provincial Policy Statement 2005 (PPS) provides direction on matters of provincial interest

in land use planning and development. The PPS sets the policy foundation for regulating the

development and use if land across the Province. Its key objectives are broad as they apply to

many different planning contexts. Key objectives include: building strong communities, wise

use and management of resources and protecting public health and safety.

In our opinion, the proposed development is consistent with the PPS policies including:

• Promoting healthy, safe and livable communities;

• Promoting a range of residential housing opportunities and densities in communities;

• Development that is compatible with the rural landscape and can be sustained by rural

service levels; and

• Natural features and area shall be protected for the long term.

The Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe (GGH) (2006) provides a framework for

managing growth in the GGH region including directions for where and how to grow. It builds

on and complements the PPS by providing a growth strategy that supports residential

development in rural areas with approved zoning or designations that permit this type of

development in the municipal official plan.

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 5

-11 8-


Municipal Official Plans and all planning decisions must be consistent with the PPS and conform

to the Growth Plan. In our opinion the proposed is consistent with the PPS and conforms to the

Growth Plan for the GGH. The key planning tools for implementing Provincial planning interests

and policies is the municipal Official Plan. And it is our opinion that the proposal confirms to

the general objections and policies of the municipal Official Plan as is highlighted and evaluated

further in this report.

Greenbelt Plan

The subject land are identified as "Town and Villages" within the "Protected Countryside" on

Schedule 1 of the Greenbelt Plan. (see Figure 3) The Town/Village Policies (Section 3.4.2}

indicate that the subject lands be governed by local Official Plans and is not subject to the

policies of the Greenbelt Plan, save and except for Section 3.2.5 (External Connections).

In this case, the external connection policies (Section 3.2.5) would apply to a small portion of

the subject property, as a small portion of the subject lands are adjacent to the Black River

urban river valley system. The zoning by-law amendment proposes to redesignate the eastern

portion of the property, which includes the entirety of the section of land that is adjacent to the

Black River, to Open Space thus protecting and reducing the impact to the natural features and

will therefore conform to the policies of the Greenbelt Plan.

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 6

-11 9-

York Region Official Plan


Currently the York Region Official Plan (1994) is the in force document. The subject lands are

designated Towns and Villages within the Regional Official Plan. The Regional Official Plan

policies directs grow of the towns and villages to be governed by the Secondary Plans of the

local Official Plans. The subject site is within the Sutton Secondary Plan area and it is our

opinion that it confirms to all the secondary plan polices save and except the Official Plan

Amendment that is the subject of this application. (see below Sutton Secondary Plan section

for further details)

It is our opinion that the proposed development conforms to the general intent of the Regional

Official Plan and it is our opinion that no amendment to the Regional Official Plan is required to

permit this development.

Town of Georgina Official Plan & Sutton Secondary Plan

Proposed Official Plan Amendment

The subject lands are identified as being within the Sutton Secondary Plan Area and as such the

Town of Georgina's Official Plan relies upon the more detailed land use policies of the Sutton

Secondary Plan Area.

Currently the Sutton Secondary Plan (Official Plan Amendment No. 72) is the in force

document. Within the Sutton Secondary Plan the subject lands are designated Rural on

schedule Gl (Land Use Plan), which permits a range of uses including rural residential uses.

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 7

-120-

Page 7 cf9 Armstrong Hunter & Associates

The proposed severance complies with all the policies of secondary plan of except for policy

14.2.9(k).

Policy 14.2.9 (k) "Rural Residential Severances may be permitted where infilling takes

place between two dwellings which existed as of the adoption ofthis Plan and where

the two houses are not more that 100 metres (330 feet) apart and are on the same side

of an assumed road or around a corner of an intersecting road."

The existing dwellings on the subject lands and the property to the south are approximately

120 metres (393 feet) apart and both have existed prior to 1994. An Official Plan Amendment

is required to permit the rural residential severance because it is approximately 20 metres (65

feet) further apart than what is permitted under the Sutton Secondary Plan.

Despite this requirement, Sutton Secondary Plan policy 14.13(c) does allow for minor variations

to the numbers referred to within the secondary plan provided that the intent ofthe plan is

maintained. It is our opinion that the creation of one new rural residential lot that is

approximately 120 metres (393 feet) apart does maintain the intent ofthe secondary plan.

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 8

-121 -

Town of Georgina Zoning By-Law Number 500

Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment


The subject lands are zoned Rural (RU) Zone on Map 1 of Zoning By-law 500. Within the rural

zone, single family detached dwellings are a permitted use therefore the proposed use

complies with municipal zoning.

Notwithstanding, the eastern portion of the site contains a woodlot and naturalized open space

and has a small linkage connection to the Black River. The zoning by-law amendment proposes

to redesignate this portion of the property from Rural (RU) zone to Open Space (OS) to ensure

the preservation ofthe woods and naturalized open space in their current natural state. (see

Figure 2 for reference)

Within the western portion of the property the proposed zoning by-law amendment proposes

to retain the Rural Residential (RU) and proposes the additional site specific provisions: (see

Figure 2 for reference)

• Include for a 6 metre building set-back from the OS zone within the RU zoned lands.

This will further ensure an adequate buffer for the preservation of the woods and

naturalized open space in their current natural state.

• Restrict the permitted uses on the proposed newly created lot (RU-XX) to a single family

dwelling, a bed and breakfast residence, a private home daycare, a home occupation

and accessory buildings, structures and uses to any permitted uses. This will eliminate

incompatible non-residential uses that are presently permitted.

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 9

-122-


It is our opinion that the proposed Zoning By-law Amendments are appropriate, represent good

planning and are in the interest of the public good.

General Conclusion

T.he subject applications have been reviewed in relation to the existing approved land use and

policy context of the Province, Region and Town.

It is our opinion that the subject applications positively contribute to the overall development

of the Town of Georgina and provide for the preservation of the woods and naturalized open

space. In view of the above, the subject applications represent good planning, are in the public

interest, are meritorious from a planning perspective and therefore warrant the support of

both Staff and Council.

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 10

\ \ I~.

~ ..-~

~ .... ~

I

t'l

~ { -. 0. ro ~

\

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 11

Q) ~ ·-V')

~ u Q) ·~ ..c ::::J

V')

VI c: .Q ..... ..2 0 II)

(1) VI nl

I. co

·-u..

nl ::;E :l > (1) u ..... :l 0 II)

1 24.

SCHEDULE '5' Pg 12

.... Cl

3: CIJ

> >

..9:! ltl

> Ll'l N 1.0 Ll'l N

Q) ._, ·-U') ._, u Q) ·~ ..0 :::::J

U')

c:

·-u..

•• •• • • . . • • • • . . •••

VI n :I: m 0 c rm ui -o

O'Q

..... w

LOi' ) 8 CONe

~ 7 / LCT.'~.; ' I' ~ CONti / " , ~

.• . / ..- f /

LO.T'1e CONe

LOT~~ COH.tl

Figure 3- Greenbelt Mapping

Source: Greenbelt Plan, Map 7.

LOT 1~ CON~

:::::::: Subject Site (25625 valley View Dr)

\ \

LOTi CON e

\

l079 CONti

\ LOT P co•1 e

Greenbelt Area'

LD- ,C CONd

Nlo~ro Es<nrpmenl Pi<>n Areo

c:J Oak AlCIQeo Moraine Area ~

Senlement AreM Outolde II>< Greenbelt l\.?

Natural Herttaoe SY'tem

I River V<ll ley ConneebOns

Upper-tier Municipal 8oun<bn~

Lo" and Conees•ton•

Major/Minor Roodo

Geognopnte TO'Mion1p

'Ne.tt:r

e..n

~~~~~~o.F-.a-y~ ~ ~'1:.,.~~~~=~~-F-. M,.....,or""~ -..Dous-et.m~"'

e:a.~~:~l:l•~-=a=~,...~.r~~~~ ltD.idl»~

n..~='oi:;."'.,~~"":~~·="ND~~r"' :Xcn~&l»"'t~Pf'KtUir'ld'Oi"of'droe;'cm~ Ff&ft', ot~rc,.u.l9' · '"'~ I\JIIigoacn

·Quno~l>lloo !9.~

o_s o.2s .. o OS H

' Rionle!Teo 1 0

.(), ARMSTRONG HUNTER

& Awx:tolcl

12 f

Certif icate of Approval

AMENDMENT NO.<>

TO THE

OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE

TOWN OF GEORGINA PLANNING AREA

This official plan document which was adopted by the Council of the Corporation of the Town of Georgina is approved pursuant to Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act and came into force on<>, 2012.

Date: --------------------Heather Konefat, M.C.I.P., R.P.P. Director of Community Planning The Regional Municipality of York

SCHEDULE '6' Pg 1

-127-

AMENDMENT NO. <>

TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE

TOWN OF GEORGINA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART A· THE CERTIFICATION

1. The Certification Page

2. By-law No. 2012- <> (PL- <>)adopting Amendment No.<>

PART B ·THE PREAMBLE

1. Title

2. Components of Amendment

3. Purpose

4. Location

5. Basis 3

PART C- THE AMENDMENT

1. Introduction

2. Changes to the Plan

3. Implementation

4. Interpretation

LOCATION MAP

PAGES

1

2

3

3

3

3

4

4

4

4

SCHEDUlE '6' Pg 2

-128-

PART A- THE CERTIFICATION

AMENDMENT NO.<>

TO THE

OFFICIAL PLAN OF THE

TOWN OF GEORGINA PLANNING AREA

The attached explanatory text and location map, constituting Amendment No. <> to the Official Plan of the Town of Georgina, was adopted by the Council of The Corporation of the Town of Georgina by By-law No. 2012- <> (PL- <>)pursuant to Sections 17 and 21 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, on the<> day of<>, 2012.

Robert A. Grossi, Mayor

Winanne Grant, Acting Town Clerk

SCHEDULE '6' Pg 3

-129-


IN THE

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

BY-LAW NUMBER 2012- <> (PL- <>)

BEING A BY-LAW TO ADOPT AMENDMENT NO. <> TO THE OFFICIAL PLAN OF

THE TOWN OF GEORGINA.

The Council of the Corporation of the Town of Georgina, pursuant to Sections 17 and

21 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:

1. That Amendment No. <>to the Official Plan of the Town of Georgina, constituting the attached explanatory text and location map, is hereby adopted.

2. That the Corporation of the Town of Georgina make application to the Region of York for approval of said Amendment.

3. That the Clerk of the Corporation of the Town of Georgina is hereby authorized and directed to make such application on behalf of the Corporation and to execute under the Corporate Seal such documents as may be required for the above purposes.

By-law read a First and Second and Third time and finally passed this <> day of <>, 2012.

Robert A. Grossi, Mayor

Winanne Grant, Acting Town Clerk

SCHEDULE '6' Pg 4

-130-

PART B- THE PREAMBLE

1. TITLE

This Amendment shall be known as:

Amendment No. <> to the Official Plan of the Town of Georgina

being an Amendment to the Official Plan of the Town of Georgina.

2. COMPONENTS OF AMENDMENT

Only that part of this document entitled "Part C - The Amendment", comprising the attached explanatory text and location map, constitutes Amendment No. <> to the Official Plan of the Town of Georgina.

3. PURPOSE

The subject lands are designated 'Rural' in accordance with Schedule 'G1' to the Sutton Secondary Plan, being Amendment No. 72 to the Official Plan of the Town of Georgina. The purpose of Amendment No. is: to implement a site specific provision to allow a rural residential severance where infilling takes places between two dwellings and where two houses are not more than approximately 125 metres apart and are on the same side of an assumed road or around a corner of an intersecting road.

4. LOCATION

The subject lands are legally described as Part Lot 19 & 20, Concession 8 on Registered Plan 65R-10305 and are known municipally as 25625 Valley View Drive.

5. BASIS

The goals, objectives and policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan encourage rural residential uses. In this regard, the proposed Official Plan Amendment maintains the intent and purpose of the applicable goals, objectives and policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan.

SCHEDULE '6' Pg 5

-131-

PART C ·THE AMENDMENT

1. INTRODUCTION

The whole of that part of the Amendment entitled "Part C - The Amendment", which consists of the following explanatory text and location map, constitutes Amendment No. <>to the Official Plan of the Town of Georgina.

2. CHANGES TO THE PLAN

a) That Section 14.2.9 RURAL POLICIES of the Sutton Secondary Plan is hereby amended by adding after Subsection r) ii) the following:

iii) On lands described as Part Lots 19 & 20, Concession 8 (NG); Part 2, Plan 65R-10305, and shown as Item <> on Schedule G6 - Special Provisions, notwithstanding Section 14.2.9 k), a severance to permit a rural residential lot may be permitted where infilling takes place between two dwellings which existed as of the adoption of this Plan and where two houses are approximately 125 metres (410 feet) apart and are on the same side of an assumed road or around a corner of an intersecting road.

b) That Schedule 'G6' SPECIAL PROVISIONS of the Sutton Secondary Plan is hereby amended by adding "<> Section 14.2.9 r) iii)" in the legend thereof. Furthermore, lands described as Part Lot 19 & 20, Concession 8 (NG); Part 2, Plan 65R-10305, and shown on the location map attached hereto shall be identified as"<>" within Schedule 'G6'.

3. IMPLEMENTATION

The Official Plan Amendment will be implemented by a Zoning By-law Amendment, pursuant to the Planning Act of Ontario.

4. INTERPRETATION

The provisions set forth in the Official Plan of the Town of Georgina, as amended from time to time regarding the interpretation of that plan, shall apply in regard to this Amendment.

SCHEDULE '6' Pg 6

SUBJECT:

-132-



FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT

JULY 11,2011

CONSENT APPLICATION P421104

1. COMMENTS:

STAFF RECOMMEND:

A. THAT CONSENT APPLICATION P421104, AS SUBMITTED, BE DEFERRED, IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE APPLICANT WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT THE RECOMMENDED OFFICIAL PLAN AND ZONING BY-LAW AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS.

2. INFORMTAION:

APPLICANT I OWNER:

SUBJECT PROPERTY:

3. PROPOSAL I BACKGROUND:

Jennifer Lindsay

(Refer to Schedules '1' to '3') Part Lots 19 & 20, Concession 8 Part 2, Plan 65R-10305 25625 Valley View Drive Roll No. 119-750

An application has been submitted to sever lands marked as 'Subject Land 'A" from the owner's total landholding in order to create one new rural residential building lot (refer to Schedule '2'). The lands to be severed would result in a lot area of approximately 8,094 square metres (2 acres) with frontage of approximately 41.99 metres (137.76 ft) on Valley View Drive. The resulting retained lands identified as 'Remainder Land '8", shown on Schedule '2' attached hereto, would be Irregular in shape with a lot area of approximately 21,776 square metres (5.38 acres) and approximately 94.56 metres (31 0.24 ft) of lot frontage on Valley VIew Drive.

In 1986, the Committee of Adjustment approved Consent Application (File No. 81/86) to sever the northerly portion of the subject property abutting the Black River to permit a single family dwelling thereon, 'shown as Part 1' on Schedule '2' attached hereto. The 1~86 severance was evaluated and approved in accordance with the policies of the 1982 Official Plan for the Town of Georgina,

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 1

-133-

-Page 2 of Report No. PB-2011-0061 -

and more particularly, in accordance with the policy of Section 6.1.2.1.5 (b) (iii) which permitted severance of parcels possessing particularly outstanding natural qualities (i.e. the parcel backed onto the Black River).

4. SUBJECT LAND CHARACTERISTICS:

The subject land is approximately 2.987 hectares (7.38 acres) In area with 136.55 metres (448 feet) of frontage on the east side of Valley View Drive, north of Old Homestead Road. The property contains a single detached dwelling and shed, and is heavily treed at the rear.

5. GREENBELT PLAN:

The subject property falls within the 'TownsNillages' policy area of the Protected Countryside designation on Map 7 to the Greenbelt Plan (GBP). In accordance with Section 3.4.2, the town/villa9e policies of the GBP, the subject property continues to be governed by applicable municipal official plan(s) (i.e. the Sutton Secondary Plan) and therefore is not subject to the policies of the GBP, save and except for the external connections policies set out in Section 3.2.5. As a result, Staff are of the opinion that the proposal conforms to the Greenbelt Plan.

6. YORK REGION OFFICIAL PLAN:

As the Committee is aware, an updated York Region Official Plan was adopted and approved (with modifications) by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in September 2010. However, the new Regional Plan is currently under appeal to the OMB and accordingly the existing York Region Official Plan (1994) remains in force and effect at this time.

Under the current Regional Official Plan (1994) the subject property is designated 'Towns and Villages' on Map 5 (Regional Structure) and further appears to be within, however if not, than directly adjacent to the 'Regional Greenlands System' on Map 4 (Regional Greenlands System). In this regard, the greenlands system policies require the submission of an environmental evaluation to determine the impact that development will have or is expected to have on the environmental functions, attributes or linkages of the Greenlands System.

In the new Regional Official Plan the subject property is designated 'Regional Greenlands System' on Map 1 (Regional Structure). Generally, the policies of this designation strive to identify, protect and enhance the Regional Greenlands System and its functions to ensure a healthy system rich in native biodiversity. In accordance with Policy 2.1.1, new development and site alteration is directed away from the Greenlands System. However, where development is proposed

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 2

-134-


within 120 metres of the Regional Greenlands System, Policy 2.1.8, requires the submission of an environmental impact statement.

As of the date of writing this report, Staff have not received comments from York Region with respect to the proposal's conformity with the Regional Plans. Nevertheless, given the poliCies of both Regional Plans, Staff are of the opinion that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Is required for any further consideration of the proposal.

7. SUTTON SECONDARY PLAN:

The subject property is currently designated "Rural" on Schedule 'G1' (Land Use Plan) to the Sutton Secondary Plan, which permits a range of agricultural, forestry and conservation uses, including rural residential uses. An application has been submitted to permit a severance of the subject property into two rural residential lots.

The following is an evaluation of the applicable policies in the Sutton Secondary Plan respecting this proposal.

Rural Policies

In accordance with Section 14.2.9 (k), the Rural Policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan, rural residential severances may be permitted where infilling takes place between two dwellings which existed as of the adoption of this Plan (Nov. 3, 1994) and where the two houses are not more than 100 metres (330 feet) apart and are on the same side of an assumed road or around a corner of an intersecting road. The intent of this policy is to allow infill severances within rural areas where there is an established pattern of development and the creation of a new lot would not add to ribbon I strip development.

The existing dwelling on the subject property (25625 Valley VIew Drive) and the property directly to the south (25565 Valley View Drive) .both appear to have existed prior to 1994 (built dates of 1982 and 1966, respectively) and based on Staffs review are approximately 120 metres apart (refer to Schedule '3'). Notwithstanding the Interpretation policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan, which allow for minor variations to figures and measurements Where the intent of the Plan Is maintained, Staff are of the opinion the Intent of the Official Plan in protecting the larger lots from severance into several smatler residential lots is not maintained by the proposal because the distance between residences exceeds the 1 00 metre threshold to an extent that no longer qualifies as a minor variation. In this regard, Staff advise that an application to amend this Official Plan policy is required to be submitted and evaluated by Town Council prior to the consideration of the proposed severance.

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 3

-135-

- Page 4 of Report No. PB-2011-0061 -

Environmental Policies

The subject property is identified as an 'Agricultural Priority 2 Area' and directly adjacent to a 'Water Course' and 'Warm Water Fisheries Migratory Run' as shown on Schedule 'G4' (Environmental Resources) to the Sutton Secondary Plan. In accordance with Section 14.3.2 (b) (i) the Town of Georgina, in consultation with the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority ... shall have regard for the following matters in the review of development applications within the Sutton Secondary Plan Area:

"The protection and enhancement of environmental features, functions, attributes and linkages which area part of, and perform in concert with, the existing ecosystem"

In this regard, and as further noted below, Staff have received comments from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA}, that require the owner of the subject property to obtain a permit from the LSRCA prior to any development, because the subject property is traversed by a tributary of the Black River and contains an area identified as a Regionally Significant Woodland.

Given the environmental policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan and the requirements outlined in the comments received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority above, Staff are of the opinion that the best approach to establishing conformity with the environmental policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan is through the submission of the recommended development applications and an EIS in support of the development proposal in order to ensure the proposal will not have any adverse impacts on the identified environmental features/functions.

Consent Policies

In accordance with Section 14.10 c) the Consent Policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan, the consent policies allow for the creation of a new lot, subject to satisfying a number of criteria including adequate services (i.e. roads, sanitary sewage disposal, water supply, and storm drainage facilities), not restricting the ultimate development of adjacent lands, the size and shape of the lot complying with the Zoning By-law, and the lot being appropriate for the use proposed and compatible with adjacent lots.

The adjacent lands along both sides of Valley View Drive consist of existing rural residential developments, the majority of which are larger lots. In this regard, Staff have concerns with respect to the possibility of setting a precedent in relation to similar situations in the Town. This issue Is particularly relevant given the current local, Regional and Provincial policy framework, not to mention the

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 4

-136-


new Sutton I Jackson's Point Secondary Plan, which severely restricts residential lot creation in rural areas in order to preserve their character and function.

In terms of compatibility, the proposed severance would result in an undersized rural lot that would be inconsistent with respect to the existing lot areas and frontages of the properties along Valley View Drive. The majority of lots on Valley View Drive (north of Old Homestead Road) are approximately 4 hectares (10 acres) in size, with several smaller lots (i.e. 1 to 2 hectares) interspersed along the street, whereas the proposed severance would result in a 0.81 hectare (2 acre) lot. In this regard, the applicants' proposal would Rot necessarily preserve the larger lots and rural residential character of Valley View Drive. Notwithstanding, Section 14.2.9 o) of the Sutton Secondary Plan, permits the creation of lots with a minimum area of 0.6 hectares (1.5 acres}.

Based on the foregoing, Staff area of the opinion that the proposed severance does not conform to the relevant policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan and therefore recommend the applicant make application to amend the Plan prior to any further consideration of this consent application.

A detailed analysis of the applicable consent policy criteria will be addressed should the recommended planning applications be submitted and approved by Council.

8. SUTTON I JACKSON'S POINT SECONDARY PLAN:

As the Committee is aware, the new Sutton I Jackson's Point Secondary Plan was adopted and approved (with modifications) by Regional Council on March 30, 2011, however, the new Plan was subsequently appealed to the OMB. As such, the existing Sutton Secondary Plan (1997) remains in force and effect at this time.

Nevertheless, Staff would be remised not to refer to the relevant policies of the Plan as they apply to the subject property.

In the new Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan the subject property is designated 'Environmental Protection Area' on Schedule 'B' (land Use Plan). In accordance with Section 9.2.2.2 (d), development, which includes the creation of a new lot, is not permitted within the Environmental Protection Area designation. Although It is the current Sutton Secondary Plan that applies, Staff note that the new policies of the Sutton I Jackson's Point Secondary Plan are much more restrictive as they apply to the subject property. Notw~hstandlng, staff must evaluate the proposal based on the current applicable planning documents, as the new Sutton i Jackson's Point Secondary Plan has not yet legally come into fOrce. In this regard, Staff recommend that this consent application be deferred.

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 5

-137-


9. ZONING BY-LAW:

The subject property is zoned Rural (RU) on Map 1 in Zoning By-law No. 500, as amended. The current zoning permits the existing single family dwelling and accessory buildings and structures. Should the Committee approve consent application it appears that the proposed severed lot will conform to the general zoning requirements of Zoning By-law No. 500, as amended, with respect to lot area, lot frontage, and required yard setbacks. Regardless, Staff are of the opinion that the appropriate development of the proposed new lot should be implemented through a site-specific amendment to the Zoning By-law in order to recognize and protect the natural environmental features, as discussed above in relation to the environmental policies of the Town and Regional Official Plans and the comments from the Lake Simcoe Region conservation Authority. This would allow for the establishment of a building envelope to accommodate any future development.

In this regard, Staff recommend that an application to amend the Zoning By-law be submitted and evaluated by Town Council prior to the consideration of the proposed severance.

10. COMMENTS RECEIVED:

Comments received from Engineering and Public Works request that the owner be required to provide a detailed lot grading and drainage plan prepared by a Professional Engineer skilled and competent in such works as a condition of approval.

Comments received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) request that the owner shall obtain a permit from the LSRCA under Ontario Regulation 179/06 prior to any development on the subject lands as a condition of approval. In addition, the LSRCA suggest that the requested condition be registered on title against the proposed severed parcel through a consent agreement in order to ensure any potential purchaser of the new lot is aware of the development constraints (see SchedUle '4'). In this regard, Staff are of the opinion that It Is more appropriate to address these concerns through conditions and the implementation of a site-specific zoning by-law amendment.

None of the other circulated internal departments and external agencies have indicated any objections or expressed concerns with this application.

11. CONCLUSION:

The proposed severance of the subject property does not conform to the Sutton Secondary Plan with respect to meeting the intent of the infill policy and therefore Staff recommend that this consent application be deferred. A deferral provides

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 6

-138-

- Page 7 of Report No. PB-2011-0061 -

the applicant time to consider proceeding with the necessary applications to amend the Official Plan and Zoning By-law, as recommended above by Staff, as a reasonable alternative to a refusal recommendation. However, as the approval of the new Sutton I Jackson's Point Secondary Plan is pending approval, should the applicant wish to proceed, she would be required to submit said application prior to the approval of the new Secondary Plan.

Based on the foregoing, approval of the consent application is not recommended at this time.

Prepared by:


Recommended by:

Harold W. Lenters, M.Sc. Pl., MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Building

8 July 2011

Reviewed & Recommended by:

t)o9~~~ Velvet L. Ross, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 7

-139-

------ ------------------- -----

I

~.1 ' --~

,. '

' h'!

' !--: !

r- I .). :~--i ! r: ~ i

, I I r-. 1 \j

! I [ I '

:1 ~; i ,• I

I \: ' '

iJ : ... ;

:'--!

' ' < SCHEDULE '7' Pg 8

······

.,·

I ( .. I I I f j

f.<

r.· . :1<. · ........ IDil•''·· I. /:· I

-140-

I

SCHEDUlE '7' Pg 9

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 10

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority

Sent by email: [email protected]

June 30, 2011

Ms. Mamata Baykar, Secretary-Treasurer Town of Georgina, Committee of Adjustment 26557 Clvlc Centre Road Keswick, ON L4P 3Gl

Dear Ms. Baykar:

Re: Proposed Consent Application

14 2

Concession 8, Lots 19 & 20, 25625 Vallev View Drive Town of Georgina, Regional Munlclpaltty of York

File No.: P42U04 IMS No.: PLDC1094c2

The Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) has reviewed the above-noted consent application for confom1ity with the Provincial Polley Statement (PPS) Greenbelt Plan, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP) and in accordance with Ontario Regulation 179/06 made under the Conservation Authorities Act. The proposed consent would result in the creation of a new building lot within the Sutton Secondary Plan area, a settlement area under the Greenbelt Plan.

The subject property is traversed by the Black River as well as one of its tributaries and the associated erosion hazards, as well as conta ining an area identified as York Significant Woodland. Given that required setbacks from the watercourses and woodland can be achieved, the l.SRCA has no objection to the approval· of this consent application subject to the following condition;

• That the owner shall obtain a permit from the LSRCA under Ontario Regulation 179/06 prior to any development.

Through the permit process a site plan will be required showing that all new sewage disposal systems will be located greater than 100 metres from any permanent watercourse In accordance with the LSPP. In addition, all development shou ld be located outside of the woodland feature In accordance with the PPS.

To ensure that any potential purchaser of the new lot Is aware of the development constraints, this permit condition can form part of any consent or development agreement ratified between the Town and landowner in accordance with Subsection 51(26) of the Planning Act.

If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact Ash lea Rabideau at 905-895-12.81, extension 318. Please provide us with your notice of decision.

?J'Jlti;t_ f 4r Charles F. Burgess, MCIP, RPP

Senior Planning Coordinator

AR/ph s:\ashlear\plannlng files\geo\pldc1094 25625valleyviewdrive june30 11 ar.docx

120 Bayview Parkway Box 282, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 Tel: 905.895.1281 1.800.465.0437 Fax: 905.853.5881 1=-Moil · lnf,-,11'r\l<:rr<> ,-,n "'' \1\/<>tv \IJVJ\Ail<:rrt:> nn r::>

' SCHEDULE '7' Pg 11

'""' ....

-143-

4.2 Application P421104 JENNIFER LINDSAY

Moved by Karen Whitney

Seconded by Donald Rae

25625 VALLEY VIEW DRIVE CONCESSION 8, LOTS 19 & 20 PLAN 65R10305, PART 2 ROLL NO. 119-750

THAT CONSENT APPLICATION P421104, AS SUBMITTED BY JENNIFER LINDSAY BE DEFERRED INDEFINITELY AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT'S AGENT PENDING DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING STAFF.

4.3 --.A(:lplication P4211os - DAvfoFirci:tAR.osoN -162 WOODFIELD DRIVE PLAN 321, LOT 15 ROLL NO. 042-771

Moved by Chris Burns

Seconded by Denis Perks

THAT CONSENT APPLICATION P421105, AS SUBMITTED BY DAVID RICHARDSON BE DEFERRED TO THE COMMITTEE OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING ON AUGUST 15, 2011, AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE LETTER DATED JULY 7, 2011.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR MINOR VARIANCE:

5.1 Application P411122 MICHAEL MENDREK THE QUEENSWAY NORTH REG. PLAN 536, LOT 11 ROLL NO. 099-514

Carried ...

Chris Burns, Member declared an interest in the Application number P411122 and left the meeting at this time.

Wally Metherall and Cole Metherall, agents for the applicant presented the applicant's proposal for the construction of a bungalow with attached garage with a reduced interior sideyard setback of 1.2 metres on both sides.

Mr. Wally Metherall, submitted pictures of the neighbouring property and details of their proposal along with details of the height and width of the typical backhoe loader which is usually used to install or repair/replace the septic systems in support of their proposal.

SCHEDULE '8'

-144-

Lake Simcoe Region conservation authority ·-----·----·

Sent by £-mail: [email protected]

August 16, 2012

Mr. Todd Evershed, Planner Town of Georgina 26557 Civic Centre Road Keswick, ON L4P 3G1

Dear Mr. Evershed:

Re: Official Plan and Zoning By-law Amendments 25625 Valley View Drive, Part lots 19 & 20, Concession 8

Armstrong Hunter & Associates (c/o Michael Rajk) Town of Georgina, Regional Municipality of York

A Watershed for Life

File No.: 02.176 & 03.1058 IMS No.: POFC591C2 & PZOC1164

Thank you for circulating the above-mentioned Official Plan Amendment anct Zoning By-law Amendment applications to the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) for our review. The LSRCA has reviewed these applications in accordance with the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the Greenbelt Plan, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP), and Ontario Regulation 179/06 under the Conserval'ion Authorities Act. We understand the purpose of these amendments is to allow the creation of a new rural residential lot on the above-mentioned property. It is also our understanding an application for consent (P421104) has been submitted in relation to the proposed lot creation and is being held in abeyance until the subject applications have been completed.

Official Plan Amendment We understand the purpose of this amendment is in relation to Policy 14.2.9(k) regarding separation distances between existing dwellings. Based on our review, we are satisfied from a watershed management perspective that this application is consistent with the intent of the PPS, is in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan and the LSPP, and that the relevant environmental policies would not be offended. On this basis, the LSRCA has no objection to the approval of the proposed Official Plan amendment..

Zoning By-law Amendment It is our undNstandlng the subject property is currently zoned Rural (RU) on Map 1 of the Town of Georgina Zoning Bylaw 500. We understand the purpose of this amendment is to rezone the portion of the subject land containing a woodland feature and open space linkage connection to the Black River to Open Space (OS) and remaining area a site specific rural residential wne which outlined specific setback and limits the permitted uses.

Upon review of the site-specific zoning requirements, a building setback of 6m from the OS zone is being proposed. Policy 14.3.2. b) iv. of the current Sutton Secondary Plan indicates that "adequate buffers and setbacks in accordance with the guidelines of the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation At1thority and the Ministry of Natural Resow·ces shall be provided adjacent to sensitive areas/features such as natural corridors, wetlands, defined environmentally significant areas, watercourses, forested ar~as1'.

Page 1 of 2

120 Bayview Parkway, Box 282 I Tel: 905.895.1281 1.800.465.0437 I Web: Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 Fax: 905.853.5881 E-Ma

Proud winner of the lnternal:ional Thiess Riverprize f"lember of Con

www.l SRr.A.nn.rr.t

SCHEDULE '9' Pg 1

August 16, 2012 File No.: 02.176 & 03.1058 IMS No.: POFC591C2 & PZOC1164 Mr. Todd Evershed, Planner Page 2 of2

-145-

Lake Simcoe Region conservation ;;utflor!ty

Given the configuration of the proposed severed lot in relation to the significant woodland feature and that the proposed developable area appears to be disturbed, in order to ensure consistency with other environmental policies, the LSRCA has no objection to the proposed Zoning By-Jaw amendment subject to the following:

o That the building and site alteration setback provision from the OS zone within the site-specific Rural zone be changed from 6m as proposed in the Planning Rationale Report prepared by Armstrong Hunter & Associates to 15m.

Alternatively, an Environmental impact Statement (EIS} could be undertaken to confirm the setback distance.

We note the subject property falls within an area currently governed under Ontario Regulation 179/06. Written approval will be required from this office prior to any development or site alteration occurring on the subject lands. In addition, confirmation of the erosion hazard limit will be required as part of the consent process or the LSRCA permit process,

If you have questions with regard to the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Please advise us of your decision in this matter. Please reference the above file numbers in future correspondence.

Sara Brockman Development Planner

SB/ht

S;\£nv pIt~ n \PiilH AJl"fils\Off.kaJ 'Phl h Amendnn·f~l5 \G corg·in ll \2012\ POfC5 ~n P ZO t"U tit!_ 0?. .17 603 .1 trs 8 __ fl.a)k_ 2 5 G 25 V aJ lcyVi(:W Dr_ G £0. do ex

SCHEDULE '9' Pg 2

( 2. 77P.C.)

_ .. , [ji'.f<.ii'r f;i l4.j9 ~~-

11-972100 0 ... ...

- WOLF PROPERTY T --r BAC.)

Q

"' ::! a. ::! 0 ~

.., ..

11-971500

10.186 AC·

11-971200

10.070 AC.

6SR-10305

11-975000 m:J'

'1,!1111-&C.

' z.t·•

11-974700

IPARTU 10·066 AC.

1-974400

1-974100 IPARt21

10·920 AC.

LOT 20 LOT 19

SECONDARY PLAN AREA BOUNDARY

LOTI9 LOT IS

LOT 18 LOT n·

!

SCHEDULE '10'

"' n :I: m 0 c r m ,_: ~ "0

"" ...

-~--

SUTTON SECONDARY PLAN

Schedule Gl

LAND USE PLAN

DATE: OCTOBER 27, 1994 (Revised Jonuary 11,2002)

LEGEND B SECONDARY PLAN AREA

[::::;:::d LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL

-~ D --l'r.~to.rJ a 1®1®1 [}[] [illiliilll ~ ~ ~

B E3

[§j·

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE

RURAL GENERAL I TOURIST COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PARK OPEN SPACE PUBLIC SCHOOL Elementary / Secondary SEPARATE SCHOOL INSTITUTIONAL ~~N~L MODULAR HOME

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

URBAN SERVICE BOUNDARY ~~~J.RONMENTAL SERVICE

SCALE 1:12,500 SOURCE: TOliN OF GEORGINA '

"""' ~ -.....!

Sutton/ Jackson's Point Secondary Plan

Schedule B - land Use Plan

- Environmental Protection Area - Major Public Parks/ Open Space

r~~HN ... ,% Major Recreation Area

I -_ Rural/Agricultural Area

D Stable Residential Area - Redevelopment Opportunity Area

P,::.i·;(,~'d New Residential Area - Institutional/ Community Area - Existing Elementary School

El Existing Secondary School

G Proposed Elementary Schools

ED Rural Modular Home Park ...... - High Street Historic Centre """ 00 - High Street Centre Extension - Jackson's Point /Lake Drive Centre - Dalton Road North Corridor

c Dalton Road South Corridor - Tourist Commercial Area - General Commercial Area

R Sewage Treatment Plant .

Secondary Plan Area Boundary

Urban Service Boundary

"' • n Proposed Hwy 404 Extension :r ,.,

Aelopted by Council 0 c: June 30,201 o

.... N m ' i I .... ~--J.---~--' "' .. "

,_

'-t Latimer Road S~U~Ie 1:20,000

"" .. N

-149-

Page 28-1

SECTION 28 - RURAL (RU) ZONE (cont.)

SECTION 28 - RURAL (RU) ZONE

28.1

(500-2007-0017)

(500-2004-0013)

28.2

PERMITTED RESIDENTIAL USES

dwelling legally existing prior to September 10, 2008. single .family dwelling temporary accommodations for seasonal farm workers

PERMITTED NON-RESIDENTIAL USES

aerodrome (private) agricultural/aquacultural, conservation or forestry use, excluding mushroom farms and Adventure Games provided that such forestry or agricultural use does not include any recreational or athletic activity for which a membership or admission fee or donation is received or solicited or for which a fee is charged for participation in the activity bed and breakfast residence clinic, veterinary (animal hospital) day care, private home day nursery within a church farm produce storage area home industry home occupation kennel tourist information centre accessory buildings, structures and uses to any permitted use

(500-2007-0017) Notwithstanding the permitted non-residential uses listed above, a cemetery, church, and police station shall be permitted uses on lands zoned Rural (RU) and designated 'Rural' in the Sutton Secondary Plan Area or the Pefferlaw Secondary Plan Area.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the permitted nonresidential uses listed above, any cemetery, church, parking lot for school buses and commercial vehicles, police station, and bus or truck terminal legally existing prior to September 10, 2007 shall be a permitted use.

SCHEDULE '12' Pg 1

-150-

Page 28-2

SECTION 28 -RURAL (RU) ZONE (cont.)

28.3 ZONE REQUIREMENTS - RESIDENTIAL USES

In accordance with the provisions of Section 6 hereof for a Rural Zone.

28.3.1 ZONE REQUIREMENTS - TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATIONS FOR (500-2004-0013) SEASONAL FARM WORKERS

No person shall use any land or erect, alter or use any building or structure for the purpose of temporary accommodations for seasonal farm workers, as defined in this by-law, except in accordance with the following provisions:

a) Minimum Lot Area

i) 20 hectares if no single detached dwelling exists on the lot;

ii) 10 hectares if a single detached dwelling exists on the lot.

b) Temporary accommodations for seasonal farm workers shall:

i) use the same entrance to the street as a principal residence;

ii) be separated from the principal dwelling by a minimum of 30 metres;

iii) comply with Sections 6.1 c, d, e, f, i, j and 1 hereof.

c) Temporary accommodations for seasonal farm workers shall only be used between the first day of April and the last day of November per calendar year. Notwithstanding these provisions, a maximum of 2 farm workers may be housed within the temporary accommodations between the first day of December and the last day of March.

d) Temporary accommodations for a maximum of 40 seasonal farm workers is permitted on the lot at any given time if no other single detached

SCHEDULE '12' Pg 2

-151 -

Page 28-3


28.4

dwelling exists on the lot. If the lot contains an existing single detached dwelling, temporary accommodations for a maximum of 30 seasonal farm workers is permitted on the lot at any given time.

e) A minimum floor area of 3.72 sq. m. shall be provided for each seasonal farm worker in every room used for sleeping purposes.

f) Temporary accommodations for seasonal farm workers will be subject to obtaining a building permit, which will ensure that all accommodations conform to the Ontario Building Code and all applicable laws.

ZONE REQUIREMENTS - NON-RESIDENTIAL USES

(a) LOT FRONTAGE (MINIMUM) 60 metres

(b) LOT AREA (MINIMUM) 8 000 sq metres

(c) FRONT YARD (MINIMUM) 15 metres

provided that a portable seasonal farm produce sales outlet is permitted in the front yard during the season of its produce.

{d) EXTERIOR SIDE YARD (MINIMUM) 15 metres

provided that a portable seasonal farm produce sales outlet is permitted in the exterior side yard during the season of its produce.

(e) REAR YARD (MINIMUM) 9 metres

(f) INTERIOR SIDE YARD (MINIMUM) 9 metres

(g) EXCEPTIONS TO NON-RESIDENTIAL PROVISIONS

notwithstanding Sections 28.4 (a) to (f) inclusive, a bed and breakfast residence, a private home day care, and a home occupation shall be subject to the same lot frontage, lot area, and yard provisions as the dwelling in

SCHEDULE '12' Pg 3

-152-

Page 28-4


which the use is located.

(h) LIVESTOCK OPERATION SETBACK

No livestock building or manure storage facility shall be located closer than the distances as follows:

i) Distance from the Front or Exterior side lot line

ii) Distance from the Interior side or Rear lot line

iii) Distance from an area zoned Residential, Institutional, Transitional or Open Space

iv) Distance from an area zoned Commercial or Industrial 'M1 1 or 'M2'

v) Distance from any neighbouring

30 metres

15 metres

120 metres

60 metres

residence or church 60 metres

(i) SETBACK OF CHURCHES FROM LIVESTOCK OPERATIONS

In an 'RU' Zone any new chubch shall be located a minimum distance of 60 metres from any livestock building or manure storage facility.

(j) OPEN STORAGE OF SCHOOL BUSES OR COMMERCIAL VEHICLES

Minimum distance from the Front or Exterior side lot line 30 metres

- provided that in no case shall such vehicles be stored closer to the street than the rear limit of any residential building on the lot.

Minimum distance from the Interior Side or Rear lot line 15 metres

SCHEDULE '12' Pg 4

-153-

Page 26-5

SECTION 26 - RURAL {RU) ZONE {cont.)

{k) REQUIREMENTS FOR KENNELS

No person shall use any land or erect, alter or use any building or structure for the purpose of a kennel, as defined in this by-law, except in accordance with the following provisions:

LOT AREA {MINIMUM) 2 hectares

LOT FRONTAGE {MINIMUM) 90 metres

YARDS {MINIMUM) 15 metres

- except, on a lot where an abutting lot or a lot across the street and opposite thereto contains a dwelling, then a kennel may not be erected within 120 metres of the said residence.

{l) AERODROME

No person shall use any land or erect, alter or use any building or structure for the purpose of an aerodrome as defined in this by-law, except in accordance with the following provisions:

i) no lot having less area than 20 hectares shall be used for a private aerodrome;

ii) no person shall maintain or store more than two aircraft on any lot;

iii) one accessory building for the purpose of parking or storing an aircraft shall be permitted on a lot, but shall be located not less that 3 metres from any building used for residential purposes;

iv) no runway, hanger, or parking/storage of aircraft shall be located closer than 180 metres to any residential dwelling located on an adjacent lot, nor 100 metres to any lot line; and,

v) no person shall use any land or erect, alter or use any building or structure for the purposes of facilitating or permitting the

SCHEDULE '12' Pg 5

-154-

Page 28-6


arrival, departure, movement, servicing or storage of ultra-light aircraft.

ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, STRUCTURES, USES, PARKING, PLANNED WIDTH OF STREET ALLOWANCE AND ALL OTHER GENERAL PROVISIONS

In accordance with the provisions of Section 5 hereof.

SCHEDULE '12' Pg 6

-·---155-

'2 0

"' QJ

> >-j!

"' > U) N U) U)

2!. .:::.::. QJ u

of-' ro V1 ...0

of-' of-' QJ u Vl QJ ·~ E ..0 :J L.()

V1 rl

SCH:touu: '13'

t·· ,.,

~~

.t .':J,dllf·''--

.. ;. :·.'\:.tf._· r

figure 1 -Air Photo

Source: pt Base Solutions.

;.:.".".".".":Subject Site (25625 valley View Dr)

Key Map '!',\"

r :-

' ":

.:.._·

.-·''"'

''·

·' ,,

~-<

~'>· !1··,:, .:;-.::1

* ~ !.1.

~ >1

~-'-1 ~

.. '

Figure 2- Greenbelt Mapping

Source: Greenbelt Plan. Mao 7.

••••••• . . .. .. . ... Subject Site (25625 valley View or)

LOTI I C?ON7

LOT 1C COh"

~ldenlent Aren.o Ou~Je the Greenl>e!t

Upper. tle< Munlc: lp:>l Soundor~o

Sin9fe-t~er Lfunlcip;lf Bound.lno~

l ofD .l l'\d C~th.e,~lon!:j

I.IJ)orl t.llnor ROJdo

~':!r~~~~:_,~~~~·:}~ ~~~ Jm Fo!'d .Mn"JdMJt"c~ .bf-..onlf Q.)u : CU'CK Cl.f, ~.,) he , ..... ~~~~~0~!1Ji!f~JI;=:~Tr.f:1'.1t1[~\.ta!~~:lt~~ ~Nc:o--rw~

Th• ~~~~~~tf~~J:.~~' ~?"'~~\= ~)t'~"'t~~~a :::.1'f: ::JO"'.ItMI'IQ.JP'e.:W~ I1dc.ltO'(f~tm~~'"ft>)Jt,.._.~1 3~-CttO n•.•v..on

0

·6· ARMSTRONG HUNTER .

&Auoclalos s

("\

Regional Official Plan

·~"'t

REGIONAL STRUCTURE (]'\ Q Region<JI Centre ~

+* •• a- Regional Corridor

Subway Extension

Urban Area

~~l Towns and Vi llages

~- Regional Greenlands System (Scl1ema tic, See Map 2 for deta ils)

Oak Ridges Morai ne Conservation Plan

Oak Ridges Moraine Boundary

Natura l Core Area Designation

Natural Linkage Area Designation

Figure 3 - Regional Official Plan- Regional Structure I . . I N

Source: York Region Official Plan (2010) Map 1. * SubjeCt S1te (25625 Valley View Dr) w-{)e s

ARMSTRONG ' ' HUNTER

& Auoclates

Official Plan - land Use Plan

?' JACKSDI4' 'S S l M C IJ E

I!•!~ to

--SUTTON

SECONDARY PLAN Scheduie G!

LAND tlSE PLAN

!lATE: OCTODI!R. 27, 1004 (F<c.i:led .:Jo11"'uy i\,7002:

B filll]jj

~ d ~ /If \ §1- ~ I II~ ff::J 1Ht-hrl/r :: 1 TlTfr~l;,r;~~~~ D !mJfiD

LEG~J~ll

SECONDARY PLAN AREA

LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE

RURAL GENERAL I TOURIST COMMERCIAL COMMERCIAL

-r=·l l.f~

M 1®/t=JI 00 Emmm ~ Pl.""' ~'W

El c-:-::1 c;::..-,

INDUSTRIAL PAR!(

OPEN SPACE PUBLIC SCHOOL Elementary I Secondaty SEPARATE SCHOOL INSTITUTIONAL ~~NftL MODUUR HOME

PRIVATE OPEN SPACE

URBAN SERVICE DOUNDARYI Jii'!,I,'!RONMENTI SERVICE

N Figure 4- Official Plan I* Subject Site (25625ValleyViewDrd w()-E Source: Sutton Secondary Plan, Schedule Gl. Sutton/Jackson's Point. ARMSTRONG

HUNTER &. Associates

s ---------

U\ l)', ['

Figure 5 - P1roposed Zoning ;:::::.:Subject Site (25625 valley view Dr) w(>E Source: Armstrong Hunter & Associates s

ARMSTRONG HUNTER

&. Associate$ '

lJ\ i)\ -1)

'2 0

~ > ~ "' > "' N

"' "' ~~ Q) u .~ ro V').D. ..... ..... Q) UU) Q)

EE :::;Ll') U) rl

' . . :··: t • • • • . . •••

c c 0

N "C a; lh 0

0 ... Q.

I 1.0 QJ ... ::s LL

SUBJECT:

-156-




SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

APPLICATION TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW500 JOHN STEWART 53 EVANS AVENUE, SUTTON LOTS 62, 63, & 64, PLAN 427

1. RECOMMENDATIONS:


B. THAT THE APPLICANT RESPOND TO THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS SET OUT IN REPORT PB-2012-0083 AND ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS, MATTERS AND ISSUES THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THE STATUTORY PUBLIC MEETING, PRIOR TO STAFF BRINGING A FURTHER REPORT TO COUNCIL.

2. INFORMATION:

OWNER I APPLICANT:


FILE NUMBER:

3. PROPOSAL:

John Stewart

(Refer to Schedules '1' to '2') Lots 62, 63 & 64, Plan 427 53 Evans Avenue, Sutton Roll No. 034-110

03.1061

A Zoning By-Law Amendment application has been submitted to amend Zoning By-law Number 500, in order to re-zone a portion of the subject property from Residential (R) and Open Space (OS-42) to a site-specific Residential (R) zone to facilitate the construction of a detached garage and an in-ground swimming pool thereon (refer to Schedules '2' to '5'). The applicant is also seeking approval for the height of the proposed garage. In accordance with Section 5.1 (f) of Zoning By-law 500, the maximum permitted height of a garage is 3 metres to the eaves and 4.5 metres to the peak. The applicant is proposing a height of 3.8 metres to the eaves and 8.3 metres to the peak (refer to Schedule '6').

-157-


4. SUBJECT LAND CHARACTERISTICS:

The subject property is located at 53 Evans Avenue, north-west of the intersection of Park Road (Y.R. 18) and Black River Road (Y.R. 80), in the community of Sutton. The property is approximately 0.47 hectares (1.16 acres) in area and has a lot frontage along Evans Avenue of 49.98 metres (163.98 feet).

The property contains an existing single detached house with attached garage, equipment shed, and several other accessory structures (refer to Schedule '3').

The following uses surround the subject property:

North: Low density residential uses.

East: Vacant lots (forested and wooded area) and low density residential uses, beyond which is Sibbald Point Provincial Park.

South: Vacant lots (forested and wooded area), beyond which are low density residential uses.

West: Low density residential uses.

Planning staff note that the applicant also owns the lands that abut the subject property to the south (i.e. Lots 55- 59, Plan 427 refer to Schedule '2'). These lands front onto an unopened portion of the Lynn Street road allowance and are currently zoned Transitional (T-1) and Open Space (OS-42). The intent of the site specific Transitional (T-1) zone is to recognize that these lots may be developed in the future for low density residential purposes, provided that the applicants construct the unopened road allowance and receive the required approvals (i.e. zoning by-law amendment, deeming by-law, development agreement).

In reviewing the air photo (attached hereto as Schedule '3'), it appears the owner has been utilizing these lands as additional amenity area in conjunction with the subject properly.

5. BACKGROUND I HISTORY:

The subject property was originally comprised of three (3) separate lots within a registered plan of subdivision (i.e. Lots 62, 63, & 64, Plan 427). Plan 427 was registered in 1954.

Planning staff note that the subject property and adjacent lots were originally zoned Rural (RU) under the Town's first comprehensive zoning by-law, passed in 1977. A Rural zoning category was applied to these lands because the existing lot sizes (approximately 55' x 300') were inadequate to support individual private

-158-


septic systems. A Rural zoning category ensured that any future development of these lands would require a zoning by-law amendment, given that the lots would be considered "rural undersized" in terms of the minimum lot area and frontage requirements under the applicable zoning by-law.

In 1989, the previous owner of the subject property, and the adjacent lands -comprising a total of thirty (30) lots - submitted a zoning by-law amendment application to collectively re-zone the subject lands to permit the residential development of these properties. Moreover, the applicant proposed to deem certain lots, thus merging them together, in order to address the private servicing issue by reducing the overall number of building lots from thirty (30) to fourteen (14).

Subsequent to the approval of the zoning by-law application (1989), the subject lands were conveyed to a number of distinct owners.

In 2000, the new owners, collectively, submitted a deeming by-law application in order to proceed with the creation of twelve (12) lots- rather than fourteen (14). The Town, however, held the deeming by-law application in abeyance and did not pass an amending zoning by-law for the lands until the applicants addressed various matters relating to the approved zoning by-law amendment application.

Through the consideration of a Tree Preservation Study which identified the areas of the subject lands that would be cleared for development and the treed areas that would remain preserved in a natural state, the amending by-law re-zoned the subject lands to Residential (R), Open Space (OS-42), and Transitional (T-1 ). A copy of the 2002 Tree Preservation Study, prepared by SAAR Environment Limited is attached hereto as Schedule '10'.

The site-specific OS-42 zoning was imposed to the areas containing existing tree and vegetation cover (identified as early sucessional growth) as the tree retention areas, which could, over time, create a habitat linkage across road networks and with Sibbald Point Provincial Park and beyond.

The amending by-law and deeming by-law were both passed on April 14, 2003. The site-specific Schedule 'B-39' (attached hereto as Schedule '4', page '1') provided delineation of the various zones applied to the subject lands.

Pursuant to consideration of the zoning amendment and deeming applications noted above, the individual owners, including Mr. John Stewart, were required to enter into a Development Agreement with the Town, regarding certain obligations and duties imposed thereon to allow for the development of the twelve (12) lots. A copy of the development agreement, executed in September 2003, is attached hereto as Schedule '11 '.

-159-


6. PUBLIC CIRCULATION:

In accordance with the Planning Act, a notice of public meeting was sent to all assessed property owners within 120 metres of the subject property and a notice sign was posted on the property. Further, notice of application together with a notice of public meeting was posted on the Town's website.

As of the date of writing this report, no comments have been received from members of the public.

7. DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS:

Administrative Services:

Municipal Law Enforcement Office: No comments or concerns. Tax Division: No taxation issues. Fire Department: No objections.

Building Division: No objections.

Operations & Engineering: No objection to the application provided that the owner will be required to obtain the requisite site alteration permit prior to undertaking any development as proposed (refer to Schedule '9').

Recreation and Culture: No comments.

Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority: Refer to Schedule '8'.

York Region: No comments received as of the date of this report.

8. SUTTON SECONDARY PLAN (1997):

The Sutton Secondary Plan was approved on July 8, 1997.

In accordance with Schedule 'G1' (Land Use Plan) to the Sutton Secondary Plan, the subject property is designated 'Low Density Residential' and portions thereof are also identified as a 'Forest and Wooded Area' on Schedule 'G4' (Environmental Resources).

While the new Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan was approved by York Region Council on March 24, 2011, the Plan was subsequently appealed (in its entirety) to the Ontario Municipal Board (the "Board"). This appeal is currently before the Board, and therefore the existing Sutton Secondary Plan remains legally in force and effect at this time.

-160-


In accordance with Section 14.3 b) of the in-force Secondary Plan, "the use or development of land within or near those lands designated on Schedule G4 -Environmental Resource Plan shall not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that such development will not have an adverse effect on the overall function of the resource". In this regard, the applicant has submitted an Environmental Impact Study (EIS), in support of the subject application. A copy of the scoped EIS letter/report, prepared by Niblett Environmental Associates Inc., dated June 12, 2012, is attached as Schedule '7'.

As noted in the EIS, the rear yard of the subject property is identified as containing a small woodland that extends into a larger forest further to the south. The small woodland would be considered a young forested successional community. The report notes that the site has been disturbed from the use of the property with trails, brush, and other disturbances. The biologist states that the area planned for the proposed in-ground swimming pool is maintained lawn. With the proposed pool to be located approximately 8 metres from the edge of the woodland, no live trees or groundcover is to be removed as part of the construction. The report concludes that there will be no negative impacts on the identified woodland or its functions as a result of the proposed development. Furthermore, the report recommends that three (3) dead aspen trees be removed, eight (8) trees be planted (4 red oak, 2 white pine. and 2 alternate leaved dogwood), and further, to prevent sediment laden runoff from entering into the woodland, silt fencing be placed along its outer edge.

Comments received from the Lake Simcoe Region Conservation Authority (LSRCA) with respect to its review of the proposed application and submitted EIS are attached as Schedule '8'. As stated therein and further to verbal discussions therewith, the LSRCA has no objection to the proposed Zoning By-Law Amendment application subject to the implementation of the EIS findings. This includes the recommendation that an 8 metre buffer, from the edge of the identified woodland, be incorporated into the site-specific Open Space (OS-42) zone. Further in this regard, planning staff recommend that the buffer also apply to the proposed location of the detached garage. Should additional information be made available, the LSRCA reserves the right to comment further.

Given the above, planning staff are of the opinion that the application conforms to the environmental policies of the Sutton Secondary Plan. Notwithstanding, staff note that Section 14.1.2 (Housing) of the Sutton Secondary Plan, speaks to protecting the physical character of existing residential areas and encourages built forms which conserve land and are compatible with adjacent forms of development. A further review of this policy will be considered upon receipt of the information requested in Section 10. below.

-161 -


9. SUTTON/JACKSON'S POINT SECONDARY PLAN (2010):

As noted above, the Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan is currently under appeal at the Board. Nevertheless, the Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan represents Council's current intentions for the community, conforms to the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe and is consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement (2005).

The subject property is designated 'Stable Residential Area' on Schedule 'B' (Land Use Plan) to the Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan, which would permit low density residential uses, such as single detached houses, and buildings, structures and uses that are accessory to any permitted use. Furthermore, the lands are not identified as containing any key natural heritage features (i.e. Environmentally Sensitive Areas or woodlands) on Appendix I, Map 1 to the Plan, but may be within 120 metres of same which would necessitate consideration of an EIS when considering a development application on the subject property, in accordance with Section 9.2.2.3, the General Environmental Protection policies of the Plan.

As discussed above, both Town staff and the LSRCA are satisfied with the findings and recommendations outlined in the submitted EIS of June 12, 2012. In this regard, planning staff are also of the opinion that the application conforms to the environmental policies of the Sutton/Jackson's Point Secondary Plan.

10. ZONING BY-LAW 500:

The subject property is zoned Residential (R) and Open Space (OS-42), on Map 8 of Schedule 'A', and further illustrated on Schedule 'B-39' to Zoning By-law 500, as amended (refer to Schedule '4'). As shown on Schedules '4' and '5', the OS-42 zoning applies to the subject property, as follows: 10 metres from the front lot line, 7.5 metres from the easterly lot line and 20 metres from the rear lot line (measured at a horizontal distance from each lot line). The balance of the subject property is zoned R.

The Residential (R) zone permits a single family dwelling, home occupation, bed and breakfast residence, private home daycare and accessory buildings, structures and uses to any permitted use.

The Open Space (OS-42) zone is a site-specific provision that only permits forestry and conservation uses, and driveways providing access to land designated R. Additionally, the site-specific OS-42 zone prohibits buildings or structures. As discussed above, the intent of the OS-42 zone is to preserve existing treed and vegetated areas.

-162-


The proposed Zoning By-law Amendment would amend the current zoning on the subject property in two ways. The first would see a portion of the rear yard, currently zoned Open Space (OS-42), re-zoned to Residential (R) to facilitate the construction of the proposed detached garage and in-ground swimming pool. The second would see the zoning on the balance of the R zoned lands, including the lands proposed for re-zoning, amended to include site-specific height provisions to permit the construction of the proposed detached garage.

10.1 In-ground Swimming Pool

Section 5.37 of the Zoning By-law 500, provides the following criteria with respect to the provision of swimming pools:

"A swimming pool, as an accessory use to a permitted residential, shall be permitted in the rear or interior side yard of any lot, provided that:

(a) no unenclosed water circulation or treatment equipment, such as pumps or filters, shall be located closer than 3 metres to any interior side or rear lot line; any water circulation or treatment equipment that is fully enclosed within a building or structure shall be subject to the yard requirements for accessory buildings and structures for the respective zone;

(b) the maximum height of such pool shall be 1.5 metres above the average finished grade level of the ground adjoining and within 5 metres of such pool."

As shown on Schedule '5', the proposed swimming pool is located 8.2 metres from the rear lot line, 16.2 metres from the west lot line and 19.3 metres from the east lot line. The surrounding pool deck is also located 8.2 metres from the rear lot line. Staff note, however, that the location of the edge of woodland, as noted in the EIS, is not shown on the submitted site plan. Furthermore, with respect to Section 5.37 (a), the site plan does not indicate whether any enclosed/unenclosed pool equipment is to be located on the subject property. Notwithstanding, there appears to be adequate space in the rear yard to accommodate the proposed pool and any required accessory equipment thereto, while respecting the recommended 8 metre buffer and complying with Sections 5.1 and 5.37 of Zoning By-law 500.

Given the above, staff have no objection to the proposed re-zoning of a portion of the current OS-42 zone to permit the pool, surrounding deck and accessory equipment on the subject property in principle. However, with regard to the findings of the EIS and in order to implement the recommendations of the LSRCA, staff are requesting that the applicant submit a revised site plan showing the location of the edge of the woodland. The site plan must accurately delineate the limit of all existing treed areas on the subject property, and the limit of the 8 metre buffer, to the satisfaction of the Town and LSRCA.

-163-


10.2 Detached Garage- Height

In accordance with Section 5.1 (f) of Zoning By-law No. 500, the height of an accessory building or structure in a residential zone which is of peaked roof design shall not exceed 3 metres measured from average grade to the eaves and the height measured from average grade to the top of the peak shall not exceed 4.5 metres. The applicant is proposing to construct a detached garage of approximately 167.3 square metres (1800 sq. ft.) of ground floor area with a height of 3.4 metres (11.2 feet) to the eaves and 7.9 metres (25.9 feet) to the peak at the front elevation, and 4.16 metres (13.7 feet) to the eaves and 8.65 metres (28.4 feet) to the peak at the rear elevation.

As the garage has a higher elevation at the front vs. the rear, in accordance with the provisions of Zoning By-law 500, the maximum height permissions are calculated on the basis of the average finished grade. The applicant has indicated that the proposed garage would have a peaked roof of 8.3 metres (27.2 feet) measured from the averaged finished grade (refer to Schedule '6'). Staff have reviewed same, with respect to height to eaves, and note that the proposed garage is approximately 3.8 metres (12.5 feet) measured from the averaged finished grade.

The intent of the maximum height provisions to the eaves and to the peak is to limit visual and physical impacts on adjacent properties, to discourage accessory structures from being converted into accessory apartments, or being utilized for other uses not permitted, and to ensure that accessory structures are secondary in nature and function to the primary residential use of the property.

In terms of justification, the applicant has indicated that the proposed height to the eaves is required in order to store a wakeboard boat, on 'rts trailer, without having to remove the wakeboard tower from the boat. With respect to the proposed height to the peak, the applicant indicates the proposed garage is intended to complement the architectural design of the existing house. Moreover, the applicant his indicated that the proposed garage will not include a floor above the ground floor, such that the garage is of an open ceiling design.

As mentioned above, height restrictions are intended to prevent/discourage the establishment of habitable living space in the upper levels of accessory buildings and structures. Although the applicant has verbally communicated his reasons for the increased height and intention to construct an open ceiling garage, staff are concerned that detached garage could potentially be used and/or converted into a dwelling unit(s), or for a use that is not permitted, if not by applicant, potentially a future owner. Furthermore, detailed building/floor plans were not submitted as part of this application, as the applicant's decision to include the proposed garage was not conveyed to staff during the pre-consultation process. Ultimately, the request

-164-


for an increased height to the eaves and to the peak is substantial in nature. Given these concerns, staff are requesting the applicant submit a letter of justification outlining the reason for the increased height, together with detailed elevation drawings, cross section drawings and floor plans, that clearly illustrate how the proposed garage is intended to be used is required for the further consideration of this portion of the application.

11. ISSUES AND MATTERS TO BE DEAlT WITH:

In consideration of the above, staff request the following:

• With respect to the proposed re-zoning of the Open Space (OS-42) zone, the submission of a revised site plan, prepared by an Ontario Land Surveyor (OLS), showing the location of the edge of the woodland, and the proposed buffer to same, as identified in the above referenced EIS. Furthermore, the revised site plan must accurately delineate the limit of all existing treed areas on the subject property in relation to the rear and easterly lot lines.

• With respect to the proposed detached garage, the submission of a letter of justification from the applicant outlining the reason(s) for the requested height relief to both the eaves and the peak, together with revised elevation drawings, including cross section drawings and floor plans, that depicts how the proposed garage is intended to be used; and,

• Staff's further consideration with respect to the implementation of the recommendations of the EIS report (e.g. plantings) and the recommendations of the LSRCA (e.g. restrictions regarding the proposed permanent fence along the property boundary).

Further, the applicant should undertake to address and/or respond to any concerns or matters raised at the public meeting.

Prepared by:


Reviewed by:

Manager of Planning

-165-


Recommended by: Approved by:

c ____ -__;;::..., Harol W. Lenters, M.Sc.PI, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning and Building

19 September 2012

Winanne Grant, B.A., AMCT, CEMC Chief Administrative Officer

a.. <(

~

~ UJ 1-z 0 u

,./'"---~·~ 4 I ,_____ ~

w D..

~ D.. 1-(J w O:l ::l U)

-1 6 6-

• •

•

SCHEDULE '1'

"' n J: m 0 c ,.... m

~

I

I

J SEE BLOC!< MAP

~-----i ' I

' 9800

" •700

'

;oo

JO

)0

0

61.19

217

0 0 2 N ,._ ~ "' .. ' "' 0

6 0. Bl

:

I I I I

" '

' I I

' . : 240 I 241 242 243 I

I 0 I

0 I; 0 I 0 0 0 :. "' I ,._

"' N ..- . N 8 N

5 .. I ..-~ ..

I • .. .. ~ ' ,!, ' "' ' "' :i 0

I 0 0

I I . I

146-!IZ ;t 74,2.~ 74.!G 'T4.'i1.G 74.!50

. . 0 0 0 0 ;t 0 0 0 0 N "' .. "' • ;;: ~ ;;: . ;;; 0 ;; 0 . 0 .... ;S ..- a .. g .. e .. • '" ' ,!, ,!, ' : 8 "' 0 0 0

. 232 231 230 229 . ;i

7~1.112 '79;82 r~.at 74.!50

STREET

lli,I!J 61.]9 61.19 Ill .... 'Ill. II> ~·- 19

216 215 214 213 212 211

0 8 § 8 8 . 0 0

~ ~ . 0

"' .. 6 "' "' ~ .. ,._ ... ~- ~

6 ,._ ~ "' "' • "' • • • "' ~ "' .. ..

' ' ' ' ' ' "' "' "' "' " " 0 0 0 0 0 0

60.81 60.91 50.91 60.81 EO. HI 60, I

' . 244

0 0

0 0> ~ 0 N • .. • ~ ..

' "' 0

74-~0

0 0

"' ;; 0 0 .. -~

8 228

74.!50

61,1"

210

0 0

' "' "' ci

"' ' " "' .,., 0

60.81

720 ~ 9 FOR THIS AREA

' ' I I I I I I I I

' I I ___________ _, __ , I I I

SUBJECT PROPERTY I

<D: I I I ~ --cos ()('.

1--: ___ Q;

_jl I

~ EVANSAVEN

0 • ~ 74.50

245 246

0 0 0 0 0 0

~ "' ~ ;;; ..- • .. .. .. ' ' f'i 1'1

74.50 74.50

0 0 0 0

"' 0

;;: 0 N 0 0 .. ~-.. E ..

' ' "' "' 0 0

<:..., 0 > z "-l

~

. ~

45

------------------~ 46 g

47

'250.0'2.

48 03-41\200 . 49 "

l!.llQ.O:Z z,-o.oz

50

I I ro.oo

I I I 65 I I ' 60 I 6\ 62 I 63 64 I -------------------I I ·' I I ' 66 I I I

I

' ' I I I 67 I I I

I I I ' I I I ------------------I ' I I

' 68 I I I

I I I

I I I I I I

I I I 69

' I : --------------~-----

CJ..,,o I I 70 I I

,, . I I

I 0 I.

I I I

227 226 51 OTHER LANDS OWNED BY 71

l;fj

""' 74,1SO 74.!50

11.2,311

' ' 209 : 208

' ' ' 0 ' 0 ' 0 I " "' 6

"' ' • ..- I

' ' "' ' 0

' ' I I

IZI".IS2 60,81 ! 60.!11

l ~ '1

-------------------0 . 52 0 ~

53

-----------------54 55

I

LYNN STREET 61.-44 61.44 61.4 61.44 61.44

91 90 89 88 87

"

APPLICANT ' i

1 I

--------------------I I ' I .I I 72 I. I ' I I I I I I I I I I I I I 73 I I

I I I I ' I I I ' I ------------------: "56 I 57 [ 58 I 59 74 I

' ' ' I

' I on_""

UNOPENED ROAD ALLOWANCE ·----

61.44 61.44 61-+4 61·49 2~0·00

03-415500 75 86. 85 84 83 -------------- -----

76 Q Q 0 8 0 . ~ • ----------

~( 0

~J > :;t::l ~ :;t::l 0 > 1:'

~ '-1

SCHEDULE '3'

...

1-w w ~ IV)

z <( D

""")

.- ,/ c~- '-

.:::: \ '._;;· j

TOWN OF GEORGINA THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK

FORMERLY TOWNSHIP OF GEORGINA COUNTY OF YORK

EVANS AVENUE 1\)m 1 1"":"17.5m . 12.5m

L~~--~~~~~=-~·L--~--56.2m 73.30m 56.2m

73.30m , R' ; OS-42' I~ , R'

... ·- ..... ..... .. ·-··

56. 2m

II I 91.45m

10m~

LYNN ST.

0 15 30

I I I 90 h,

56 ..2m

1Dm....J

· SCHEDULE 'B- 3 9 '

Cl <( 0 o::·

I

I

SCHEDULE '4' Pg 1

V> <"> :I: m 0 c ,... m

~ , "" N

\

--i r---- Zoning Boundaries

- Open Space (OS)

Transitional (T)

Residential (R)

T-1 ---· ··-- ---- ----, ..

!

Revised: 08 13 12

TOWN OF

GEORGINfo. Schedule 'A'

To By- law 50C

AS AMENDEr MA.P No.8 (pc ·n

~ .._, 0

171

SCHEDULE '4' Pg 3

r-

~ w .....J ;:) 0 w ::t: u Vl - .

~ ! ~~ VICJIII lDT DVIO IY N'l'liNIT VICJIII lDT IMO IY lfiUMT

I EXlSTNi lmlllR'S I{SIJOO:

I ~11111141 91.45rl [NI6 '00'1/1 .._.. 0~ -• ... .! r/ -~~~ /-r=///= / '.L..L/7~

' PRCPOSamc/ h# 8.01'1

Cto1tr~ ,_: ~,:; 1 r; ~ -=me/ ~ .... ___.nrr. 0 :J. s - -!O.OM 1 3M I 7.5 'W I

w Q., T~:f~ I

~ / Lot&4 c c Q.,

0 > EXISTING BUNGALO~ / I

VICJIIIlDT IM£D BY N'l'l!Nfl N <C fll V1

. J' t c

~ ~ \06H I 38M

Ins Pri'g!XXX -----e.21+--c

I ll ~ :t TM 1-- 1-f--U.19

m .5M----

~ jq

1- EXISTING M a [ll!lli Ql \Ill EXISTING ,.._ --~

SEPTIC SYSTEM PATIO 16. 5H = _, ............ w ~~ ""~ J Lot 63

.§

~ i>j

{."(:! ___,-. 70.<40 l ~ " /-

...... r- c I'CII. W1: IIOtiCTO f1JiCX Ttl IDD

~~ f-4.571+- !--7.3 3.65

a... ~ t-vr aJrQl CIM

~ M...L. G.IITD CPOI INMI TU'II- f'CIL u .-..:JIC UICW.AILL mT c...aaG1\..41Ta.G.

~ jq - .46H-M.L roa: .. r..ra Ttl • -. ., ..,. ,_.~TD..:rT~c:mL

EXISTING (JCLJI ,.... 'It/mill .... Ulll .. AIO"Yt

& M

GARAGE @

"'* .......... 3 ~~~ <4. ~H

UJ'T ICA • 4.67'to.7 .....C: IC'1'DS

~ ----· ----GMiiiiiiK ICA • "'' IIII.WK C'TDtS

"' v -"" TOTM. liMA • ""'-!CDS

! ..... '"11:!~ ~ PAOPOS£D FENC~ 9.29 3.65 t..Dr ~·~

16.< ~5H ...... IO.OM EXISTING ~ CltMD aGW YlTM X MK DIJ'T'DCi c: 9. <4 H caMD ..,... Yml -..acET1 ,. ti£'W

DRIVE'WAY s: I£V fJiJlL AU. np -._ M1 M'IDIIM. D£11'1/ATD

l Ttl .... Cll an: ,._ L.::l nil .eNS

30' X 60' --....--. -....__ 9 .4 .tiLl.. CJICAVATD MEAl ¥'LL I[ I"IIJT'IrTD .,..

L L L [/7 ...... .,L..~,

Jf 1&.T F'DCIC

0 == . . c::::L.../ / / ~,(cN16(ooVf / / 4....L./ / / .L...C../ / /~<· /< .. =..//// ~ h.,.c. .... L7/ /_ ~ V/CJIIT lDT DVIO IT li!'UCNfl

0 PROPOS£~~;~ / / /-LJ / ""'--LJ 23M-EXISTJI(j I£IGOO.R'S !IESOOO: • ·

VICJIIIlDT !MD IT N'!'UCNf! Lot 61 PROPOSED F

- Project Scale Drawn By

~--of<:SS ,·~ STEWART RESIDENCE

~~% LOTS 62, 63 & 64, PLAN 427 1 : :300 J STEWART

("' ~ ) EVANS AVENUE

0 c ~~ ~ TOWN OF GEORGINA Drawing Number , I; •.

~~ Tide VRMSI-1 MECHANICAL SOLUTIONS INC. 1 JULY 31/12 ISSUED FOR REVIEW

SITE PLAN No. 021e Issued

'--

' '

' "' ['-~

'

<226.309) I <225.918)11 I II <226.68)

9·l

4M (225,918) ~ (226.68)

l_____li:J::l.:iJl!lj!==.-------=='==============!.1 (226.68)

B.E:iSM

4.f&M

(2251318

<225.918) 8.31

TOP OF ROOF 234.58 AVG. GRADE 226.253

ROOF ELEVA TJON ABOVE AVERAGE GRADE = 8.327H

(225.9!8) '------~7.3 LDIH--------...J

7.9H

3.~H

(225.918) <225.918) <225.918) <225.918) (226.68) <226.68) (226.68) (226.309)

(1810.021)

(1810.021) ~ = 226.253

AVERAGE GRADE IS 226.253

3.4M

(226.68)

0

IJ

'-------9.14M-------'

~ w --' ::::> c w :I: u Vl

7.1JM

1---+----+---------l Project '"'' Drawn By

' -

STEWART RESIDENCE LOTS 62, 63 & 64, PLAN 427 EVANS AVENUE

1 : 100

TOWN OF GEORGINA """'"' NombM

J STEWART

MECHANICAL SOLUTIONS INC. 1 JULY 31/12 ISSU~ F"OR REVIEW Tille VR·M 5 I 2 No.

0,. ,_ PROPOSED GARAGE . •

'" I"> :>: m 0 c:: r

"' al

-174-

Nibiett Erwironmema~ Assodates Inc Biological Consultants

June 12, 2012

Mr. John Stewart 53 Evans Avenue Georgina, Ontario LOE 1LO

Subject: John Stewart Zoning by-law Amendment 53 Evans Avenue Lots 62, 63 and 64, Plan 427 Township of Georgina Town File No.: 07.12.07

1.0 Introduction

The Township and the Lake Simcoe Conservation Authority had requested an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be submitted as part of the rezoning application to permit the construction of an in-ground swimming pool on this property. A pre-consultation meeting was held on Apri/18, 2012. The conservation authority was consulted regarding the scope of the study. In a letter dated May 9, 2012, they recommended the scope of the EIS include:

• Species At Risk screening • Verification of any buffer (existing or proposed) from the existing woodland feature • Preparation of a landscape plan comprised of native non-native species to assist with

the restoration of an interface (buffer) between the proposed pool and the existing treed area

They also recommended that any buffer as identified in the findings of the EIS be incorporated into the site-specific Open Space zone.

The Township Official plan includes an outline of the content of an EIS for planning applications (section 6.3.4, especially 6.3.4.4). This was used as a guide to our report, although the scope is limited to the items listed by the conservation authority.

55 MARY STREET SUITE #112, LINDSAY, ONTARIO K9V 5Z6 Tel (705) 878-9399 Fax (705) 878-9390 email : [email protected]

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 1

175 Stewart zoning amendment-Evans Avenue EIS report

2.0 Methodology

Our approach to the preparation of the EIS consisted of three distinct phases. The first phase was to review available literature on the study area. This included the Ministry of Natural Resources (MNR) GIS data layers (2011), aerial photography and Natural Heritage Information Centre (NHIC, 2010) for Species at Risk information.

Detailed inventories were conducted in the second phase within the study area. The site visit on May 23, 2012 consisted of a survey of the entire property. Vegetation communities, plants and incidental observations of birds and other wildlife were noted. The vegetation within the Open Space zone was the focus of our inventories. The woodland edge, condition of the trees, groundcover vegetation and wildlife use were also noted as part of our work. The proximity of the proposed swimming pool was also examined. The footprint had been marked on the ground prior to our visits to assist with determining the separation distance between the woodland/open space and the lot lines and the pool.

The final phase was an analysis of both the field and literature data and preparation of the EIS report.

3.0 Resource Inventory

3.1 Property Description

The property is located within a developed area with cottages and homes on the adjacent properties. The subject property includes a house, driveway and forested areas to the south. Overall the topography was flat to slightly rolling with sandy soils.

3.2 Vegetation

The rear of the property includes a small woodland with a larger forest further to the south. The woodland closest to the house is shown as OS-42 in the zoning schedules, a narrow band of open space between lots. This community is classified as a fresh-moist poplar deciduous forest (FODB-1) as per the MNR Ecological Land Classification system, Southern Ontario manual (MNR, 1998). The community was dominated by trembling aspen (Populus tremuloides)(B-15 em in diameter(dbh)) with white birch (Betula papyrifera)(4-1 0 em dbh) and green ash (Fraxinus pensylvanica). The groundcover consisted of high-bush cranberry, red-osier dogwood and tartarian honeysuckle with some buffaloberry. Other species included wild grape, variegated horsetail, common fleabane, field mustard, heal all, tall buttercup and Virginia creeper. Regeneration was 40-60% of the forest floor. The site had been disturbed from use of this property with trails, brush and other disturbances. Several of the ash and aspen along the edge were either dead or in poor condition.

Niblett Environmental Associates 2 SCHEDULE '7' Pg 2

176 Stewart zoning amendment-Evans Avenue EJS report

Photo 1. i i area. Photo 2. View of pool area (outlined in orange paint) and woodland, facing southeast.

The area of the proposed pool is maintained lawn and was mowed at the time of our site visits. The lawn included typical species including Kentucky blue grass, perennial rye grass, white clover, Rugal's plantain, queen anne's lace, common dandelion and spiny sow thistle.

3.3 Wildlife

Wildlife observed during the field visit included great-crested flycatcher, downy woodpecker, red-winged blackbird, blue jay, Baltimore oriole, common grackle, cedar waxwing, red-eyed vireo and American redstart. Mammal species included grey squirrel, eastern chipmunk and raccoon. No reptiles or amphibians were found on site. There were no stick nests in the trees or cavities.


-177-

Stewart zoning amendment-Evans Avenue EIS report

4.0 Resource Significance

No rare species or Species at Risk were found during our surveys. There were no butternut on the subject property or within 25 metres of the proposed pool footprint.

A review of the NHIC database for provincial and federal Species at Risk found there are four element occurrences in the vicinity of the property. They are red-shouldered hawk, milk snake, Blanding's turtle and common snapping turtle.

The red-shouldered hawk nests in mature forests with large nesting trees and near water. There is no suitable habitat for this species in the woodlands on or adjacent to the property.

The milk snake occupies a variety of habitats including fields, woodland edges, wetland edges and areas around farm buildings. There is suitable habitat for this species in the area but the residential nature of the neighbourhood would limit the presence on this property.

The Blanding's turtles lives in wetland areas with shallow marshes, ponds and connecting rivers or channels. There is no habitat in the study area for this species.

The snapping turtle is an aquatic species living in ponds, lakes, rivers and wetlands. There is no suitable habitat within the study area.

5.0 Impact of Proposed development

The rezoning of part of the Open Space (OS) to residential, is to permit the construction of an in-ground pool. The pool footprint is shown on photo 3 outlined in orange survey paint. The pool is located approximately 8 m from the woodland edge, at the closest point. The pool averages from 7-11 metres from the nearest individual tree or the woodland edge.

The open space zoning on the 20 m swath through this lotted development was likely in place to protect the remnant forest belt across this property. The rationale for the location and limited size of the OS between four residential zoned lots is not clear. The lots to the east and west include residences with fences and active uses of the property including maintenance and landscaping. The woodland within the OS zoning is a young forest (<25 years old) based on the diameter of the trees and would be considered a young forested successional community.

The proposed swimming pool will not be located within the woodland feature that is partly within the OS zoned area and partly on the existing residential zoning of this property. The pool will be outside the tree line and no live trees or groundcover is to be removed as part of the construction. There are 3 dead aspen that are recommended for removal. These trees pose a hazard to the residents and construction crews.

The pool construction will not have a negative impact on the woodland or its functions. Placement of silt fencing along the outer edge is recommended to prevent sediment laden runoff from entering the woodland.

The buffer from the woodland will be approximately 8 metres. This area has and will continue to be maintained as part of the landscape of the property. It is recommended that several additional trees be planted to improve the diversity. This includes planting 4 red oak, 2 white Niblett Environmental Ass~JC.iates 4

SCHEDULE '7' Pg 4

-178-

Stewart zoning amendment-Evans Avenue EIS report

pine and two alternate leaved dogwood. This will add to the edge of the wooded feature and provide additional trees that act as food sources. The exact location of the plantings can be anywhere along the edge of the woodland feature, where there is an opening.

Conclusion

There will be no negative impacts on the woodland on the property from the proposed rezoning to permit the construction of an in-ground pool. The pool will be located approximately 8 metres from the forest edge and will not include removal of any live trees.

If you require further details on my findings or recommendations, please feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Chris Ellingwood President and Sr. Terrestrial and Wetland Biologist


Lake Simcoe Region conservation authority

E-mail: [email protected]

September 10, 2012

Mr. Todd Evershed, Planner Town of Georgina 26557 Civic Centre Road Keswick, ON L4P 3G1

Dear Mr. Evershed:

Re: Proposed Zoning By-law Amendment 53 Evans Avenue Lots 62, 63 & 64, Plan 427 (Roll # 034-110)

-179-

Town of Georgina, Regional Municipality of York Owner: Mr. John Stewart

A Watershed for Life

File No.: 03.1061 IMS No.: PZOA287C2

Thank you for circulating the above-mentioned Zoning By-law Amendment application to the Lake Simcoe Region conservation Authority (LSRCA) for our review. The LSRCA has reviewed these applications in accordance with the Natural Heritage and Natural Hazard policies of the Provincial Policy Statement (PPS), the Greenbelt Plan, the Lake Simcoe Protection Plan (LSPP), and ontario Regulation 179/06 under the Conservation Authorities Act. We understand the Owner is looking to rezone a portion of the abovenoted property from Open Space (OS-42) to Residential (R) to permit the construction of a detached garage and an in-ground swimming pool. Based on the information provided, we understand the locations of the proposed garage and in-ground pool are in an area that is grassed which is adjacent to a treed area; however, no trees are proposed to be removed as part of this construction.

we understand a woodland area is located along the southern property line. An Environmental Impact Study (EIS) was prepared by Niblett Environmental Association Inc. dated June 12, 2012 in support of this application. Given the proposed development is located in a previously disturbed area and no trees are proposed to be removed, and in order to ensure consistency with other environmental policies, the LSRCA has no objection to the proposed Zoning By-law amendment subject to the implementation of

the EIS findings:

• That the recommended 8 m treed buffer be incorporated from the site-specific Open Space zone;

• That the proposed permanent fence be relocated at least 6 m from the edge of the OS zone/ woodland feature; and,

• That the application for Building Permit be accompanied by the following: • A planting plan that includes the plantings recommended in the EIS • The Inclusion of Tree Protection Fencing be installed and maintained prior and during construction • Grading information to ensure that local drainage patterns are maintained.

If you have questions with regard to the above, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned. Please advise us of your decision in this matter. Please reference the above file numbers in future correspondence.

Sa Development Planner

SB/cn

S:\Env Pliln\Pian Appl!i\Zoning Amendments\Georsina\2012\03.1061_PZOA287 _Stewart_53EVANSAVE_GEO.docx

120 Bayview Parkway, Box 282 I Tel: 905.895.1281 1.800.465.0437 Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 4X1 Fax: 905.853.5881 I

Web: www.LSRCA.on.ca E-Mail: [email protected]

Proud winner of the International Thiess Riverp,-ize Member of Cor SCHEDULE '8'

Todd Evershed

From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

-180-

Michael Baskerville Saturday, September 15, 2012 2:25 PM Todd Evershed Velvet Ross Application for Zoning By-law Amendment 03.1061

This will confirm that the Department of Operations and Engineering has no objection to the application provided that the owner will be required to obtain the requisite site alteration permit prior to undertaking any development as proposed.

Michael E. Baskerville C.E.T., CMM Engineering Manager Operations and Engineering Department !Town of Georgina T: 905- 476-4305 Ext 225 C: 905- 955-3331 F: 905- 476-6902 E: [email protected]

www.georgina.ca www.gtti.ca

1 SCHEDULE '9'

-181 -

ECOLOGICAL DESIGN PLAN OF SUBDIVISION

LOTS 45 TO 74, R.P. 427 PARK ROAD,

TOWN OF GEORGINA REGION OF YORK

PREPARED FOR:

MR. J. MACDONALD

PREPARED BY:

SAAR ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED

FEBRUARY 13, 2002

6-133 Highway #60 Huntsville, ON., P1H 1C2

Phone: (705) 788-2218 Fax: (705) 789-1097 email: [email protected]

SAAR Environmental Limited

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 1

-182-


GLOSSARY

Adjacent lands means those lands, contiguous to a specific natural heritage feature or area, where it is likely that development or site alteration would have a negative impact on the feature or area. The extent of the adjacent lands may be recommended by the Province or based on municipal approaches which achieve the same objectives.

Areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSI) means areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having values related to protection, natural heritage, scientific study or education. ANS!s may vary in level of significance. The most significant of these, Candidate Nature Reserves in the site district reports, may contribute to the achievement of the Ministry's protection objective. Those which do not contribute to the Provincial protection objective are referred to as significant sites in the site district report.

Candidate nature reserve means sites selected on a systematic basis to represent the natural features and landscapes of Ontario and to complement other protected zones in the provincial park system. Candidate nature reserves contain the best examples of the landform and vegetation features of each site district; features that may be of widespread or restricted occurrence within the site district. They are selected after comparison and evaluation of significant sites sharing similar features. Each candidate nature reserve possesses sufficient ecological integrity, buffering capacity and size that protection appears to be a viable management strategy.

Development means the creation of a new lot, a change in land use, or the construction of buildings and structures, requiring approval under the Planning Act; but does not include activities that create or maintain infrastructure authorized under an environmental assessment process; or works subject to the Drainage Act.

Ecological functions means the natural processes, products or services that living and nonliving environments provide or perform within or between species, ecosystems and landscapes. These may include biological, physical and socio-economic interactions.

Endangered species means any native species, as listed in the Regulations . under the Endangered Species Act, that is at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its Ontario range if the limiting factors are not reversed.

Fish habitat means the spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.

Natural heritage features and areas means features and areas, such as significant wetlands, fish habitats, significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield, significant va/leylands south and east of the Canadian Shield, significant portions of the habitat of endangered and threatened species, significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest, which are important for their environmental and social values as a legacy of the natural landscapes of an area.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 2

-183-


Negative impact a) means in regard to fish habitat, the harmful alteration, disruption or destruction of

fish habitat, except where it has been authorized under the Fisheries Act. using the guiding principle of no net loss of productive capacity

b) in regard to other natural heritage features and areas, the loss of the natural features or ecological functions for which an area is identified

Physiographic region - Chapman and Putnam (1984) described and mapped fifty-two minor physiographic regions within southern Ontario. These physiographic regions are areas with recognizable local landform patterns.

Significant l' means in regard to wetlands and areas of natural and scientific interest, an area

identified as provincially significant by the Ministry of Natural Resources using evaluation procedures established by the Province, as amended from time to time

l' in regard to other features and areas in Policy 2. 3, ecologically important in terms of features, junctions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system. Criteria for determining significance may be recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve the same objective may also be used

l' in regard to other matters, important in terms of amount, content, representation or effect

Significant site means a site of at least regional significance and representative of the landform and vegetation features of the site district. Chosen after reviewing the background information available on sites of biological importance, air-photo analysis and field checking of selected areas. After final evaluation and comparison of similar significant sites, some were chosen as candidate nature reserves. However, all significant sites are recommended for protection through the land use planning process.

Site district means a subdivision of a site region, with a characteristic pattern of physiographic features (Hills, 1959). Site districts are small-scale map units that segregate substantial areas from each other on the basis of broad landform patterns.

Site region means an area of land within which the response of the vegetation to the features of the landform follows a consistent pattern (Hills, 1959).

Threatened species means any native species that is at risk of becoming endangered through all or a portion of its Ontario range if the limiting factors are not reversed.

Va/ley/ands means a natural area that occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 3

-184-


Wetlands means lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favout·ed the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands are swamps, marshes, bogs and fens. Periodically soaked or wet lands being used for agricultural purposes which no longer exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to be wetlands for the purposes of this defil)ition.

Wildlife habitat means areas where plants, animals and other organisms live, and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space needed to sustain their populations. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual or life cycle; and areas which are important to migratory or non-migratory species.

Woodlands means treed areas that provide environmental and economic benefits such as erosion prevention, water retention, provision of habitat, recreation and the sustainable harvest of woodland products. Woodlands include treed areas, woodlots or forested areas and vary in their level of significance.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 4

-185-


Basal Area Measurement

Unless otherwise stated, all basal area measurements are cumulative for trees 9. 6 inches · in diameter at breast height (dbh).

The Management Survey of Tolerant Hardwood and Hemlock Working Groups in Algonquin Park, 1977, showed the average stocking 3. 6 inches - 9. 5 inches dbh for the hard maple working group to be 21.5 square feet made up of 126.5 trees (1 0% of basal area and stems were cull).

Crown Position

Trees must produce food from solar energy in order to grow. ClassifYing trees by crown position gives an indication of the amount of direct sunlight received by the crown and thus indicates the rate at which the conversion (photosynthesis) will take place. While dominant crown positions are usually held by the larger trees in the stand, harvesting often exposes the crowns of shorter trees to more direct light and thus faster growth.

Crown Size

Crown size, which reflects the leaf surface area available for photosynthesis, directly qffects growth rate. Generally the basal area growth increases with crown size; however, the growth of intermediate trees is not directly proportional to crown size. This is due to the fact that large crowns do not totally compensate for the reduced light available to trees occupying an inferior crown canopy position.

A rule of thumb, for satisfactory growth, is that 20ft. of crown diameter is required for each foot ofdbh. The length of the live crown should be approximately 40% of the total tree height.

Stand Growth, Stocking and Structure

Stand growth is dependent on a number of factors, including individual tree characteristics, mortality, site, stocking, species composition and stand structure. Thus a stand on a good site, stocked with high-vigor, low-risk trees and having a range of diameters to fully utilize the growing space, would grow at the maximum rate. Conversely, a stand lacking in any or all of the above ideal characteristics would have an accordingly lower rate of growth.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 5

-186-


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SAAR Environmental Limited was retained by Mr. Jim MacDonald to provide ecological input to an approved plan of subdivision; addressing how best to situate approved subdivision development in relation to existing forest cover values. Partly due to our ecological design suggestions, the approved 30 lot subdivision has been revised to 14 larger lots with provision for specific tree retention areas based upon wildlife function.

Our study approach involved site specific fieldwork and a broader landscape perspective to assess ecological features and functions.

Although the parcel appears to be prior farmland CUT (cultural thickets) with respective low coefficients of conservatism, high weediness index and invasive species counts within the early succession mixed forest (FOM), parts of the habitat do function at a local level for:

Local small mammal travel function Local avifauna linkage across into Sibbald Point Provincial Park

Therefore we feel it prudent to recommend conservation of specific tree retention areas to maintain local functions. Final decisions on open space within the subdivision were also guided by adjacent lands observations querying whether the MacDonald parcel articulates with adjacent Sibbald Point, Mossington Park Wetlands and Black River ecology. Low linkage but observed site ecology guided our final mitigation comments for tree retention areas to maintain small mammal travel flow paths across the site.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 6

-187-


1.0 INTRODUCTION

The Town of Georgina requested a tree study be undertaken on the 4.5-hectare parcel on Park Road in Georgina (Figure 1) to determine the best way to preserve the existing vegetation during development. The Region of York also requested ecological detail be submitted.

The existing 30 lot development (lots 47-74, Plan 427) was considered too dense with respect to septic systems, therefore the client decided to combine lots to produce larger and more viable sizes. Five lots will be created on the west and east sides of the parcel, with two lots to the north and south.

The Provincial Policy Statement, Section 2.3 Natural Heritage, permits development in and adjacent to the natural areas noted below if it has been demonstrated that there will be no negative impacts on the natural features or the ecological functions for which the area is identified:

fish habitat significant wetlands in the Canadian Shield significant woodlands south and east of the Canadian Shield significant valleylands south and east of the Canadian Shield significant wildlife habitat, and significant areas of natural and scientific interest

Although none of the above are supported on the MacDonald parcel, our evaluation considered subsection 2.3.3 as outlined below to maintain local wildlife linkage across this parcel:

2.3.3 The diversity of natural features in an area, and the natural connections between them, should be maintained and improved where possible.

This document, lower-level regional and municipal official plans and natural heritage reference manuals written for Section 2.3 guide our assessment.

Our final recommended tree retention areas integrate existing local ecology values with the proposed subdivision design, given the existing condition of adjacent land fragmentation due to existing roads, fences and homes.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 7

-188-


1.1 APPROACH

Our initial discussions with the Region of York Forestry Department and the Town of Georgina Planning Department determined the scope of our study. Before fieldwork began, our team reviewed all known ~ources of environmental information on and near the study area. This "pre-consultation" included contacting environmental review agencies to obtain environmental mapping and data for the study site and surrounding landscape. These data were collected for an area within five kilometres for landscape level linkages. This approach as noted earlier, is consistent with the Natural Heritage Policy subsection 2.3.3 of the Provincial Policy Statement and Section 2 of the Planning Act, which both promote maintaining natural links between wildlife areas.

Pre-consultation included obtaining significant area mapping from the following sources:

~ OMNR Aerial Photography for Forest Extent and Connectivity ~ OMNR Rare Species Occurrence Report Mapping (NHIC) ~ Ecological Life Science Inventory Reporting ~ Town of Georgina Planning $taff ~ Town of Georgina Official Plan Schedules ~ Region of York Greenland Mapping ~ Regional Ecology Studies (Mossington Park

Wetlands, Virginia Beach Relict, Sibbald Point ProvinCial Park

~ OMNR Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest (ANSI) ~ OMNR Fisheries Stream and Lake Survey ~ Current science reporting (e.g. Breeding Bird Atlas,

Herpetofaunal Record, Mammal Atlas, Rare Species Mapping)

Given the relatively small size of parcel, our vegetation typing was done at a lot level of resolution by listing the species we observed. Tree codes are accompanied by a legend for planning review. Respective ELC (ecological land use) classification types for this parcel are CUT for the numerous low bramble cultural thickets and the FOM mixed forest designator for early successional growth over what appeared to be fallow agricultural lands based on old grasses.

Site observations guided our recommended locations to retain mixed forest strips and situate driveways and building envelopes outside of local wildlife travel flow paths.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 8

-189-


1.2 HISTORICAL LAND USE

Based on the age of the existing trees and the remnant meadow portions of the parcel it is probable that the subject lands were once used for agricultural purposes. There appears to be some evidence of old selective tree cutting as well, given the pattern of existing tree growth and a few old stumps.

1.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES

RESIDENTIAL

There is residential land use bordering the parcel on three sides (Evans Street, Joan Street and Lynn Street). The eastern portion of Lynn Street (to the south) is an unopened easement. To the east of Park Road is Sibbald Point Provincial Park.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 9

-190-

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 10

-1 91-


REGIONAL NATURALAREAS

Figure 2 (following page) illustrates these regional values with respect to the location of the MacDonald subject property.

MOSSINGTON PARK WETLANDS

UTM:

Status:

17632100N, 4908400E (OBM Map# 310/6)

Local Wetland and ESA A24 Remnant Upland Hardwood between residential land use. The hardwoods retain a rich floral diversity.

This Black Ash-Speckled Alder-Cattail swamp and marsh wetland type exhibits lacustrine soils and organics at the rivermouth of Pefferlaw Brook. These ELC vegetation communities (Types MAS, SWD) are not supported on the subject parcel. The study site exhibits a high weediness index rating, likely reflecting incursion of weed species following past agricultural clearing.

Eastern limits of ESA A24 do support similar flora including Aspen-White Birch. The LSCA (1982) ESA Study notes that this portion of the ESA lacks vegetation diversity, also true of the subject parcel.

VIRGINIA BEACH RELICT

UTM: 17634600N,4908100E

Status: ESA 32 Old Lake Simcoe Shoreline glacial till with exposed rock

The subject site was inventoried for any potential shoreline terracing such as that occurring along the numerous different epoch shoreline strands of ancient Lake Algonquin. No cobble or strand landform was located on the study site.

LAKE SIMCOE SHORELAND RARE SPECIES (NHIC)

The Natural Heritage Information Centre documents rare species on shoreland and Lake Simcoe. Both herpetofaunal (i.e. a snake record) and avifauna (birds) were recorded.

Most of the older records (1962) are sightings bird species that are not at risk, and one indeterminant record. No rare, threatened or endangered species fell within this study site. Adjacent lands within five kilometres supported (1989) vulnerable avifauna. We reviewed all potential breeding birds using the ESA study (LSCA, 1982) and the Breeding Bird Atlas to investigate potential on the subject site in order to guide subdivision design and tree retention areas.

SCHEDUlE '10' Pg 11

FIGURE 2: REGIONAL NATURAL AREAS

'"I .. _ ... ). 30

' ··t

.. .!..

. !· ...... ····-· .. ______ .A23.

!lOUTH LA!< E SIMCO!! C~IIVATION AUTHOfUTY

-192-

31

; ! !

.... L

](.

PV 1~ r·

32 .33

14

- -- -- 13 -

- 11 ------- i·-· ----------- .. .!. ______________ ; ...

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 12

-193-


BLACK RIVER

Status: Western limit of the Mossington Park ESA

Organic soils in riparian corridors require our attention for a number of physical and biological reasons. One concern is the potential for a supersaturation effect that can occur as a result of individual leaching beds within a residential development. If the development is supersaturated, nutrients cannot be sufficiently adsorbed in high water table or flood fringe conditions.

The subject subdivision is proposed for private servicing, however, it is not located on organic muck (Hoffman & Richards designation, 1955 in: LSCA, op cit), therefore it meets water quality objectives.

The White-Cedar Black Ash-Speckled Alder-Red-ozier Dogwood (ROD) assemblages (ELC types SWD5) are more extensive and supported on wetter soils than the subject parcel. Upland gradations onto the subject site reveal the change in tree assemblage to White Ash, with ROD supported in tiny occlusions of detritus amidst mineral soils.

POTENTIAL LINKAGES TO MACDONALD SITE

Our field inspection of adjacent lands confirmed no significant linkages to the above potential regional ecology sites. We did observe avifauna and small mammal dispersal across the site, some of which is under existing pressure of road kill mortality when crossing to forested portions of Sibbald Point Provincial Park.

Large mammal sign (pellets, rubs, bedding sites, travel corridors) for species such as White-tailed deer was not significant on this parcel, and may have been depressed over time due to the combined effects of road kill mortality when attempting crossings of road 18, and the existing barrier chain link fencing around the perimeter of Sibbald Point Provincial Park.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 13

-194-


1.4 PROPOSED LAND USE

Fourteen residential dwellings with individual driveway accesses are proposed for this parcel. The lots will be serviced by individual wells and on-site sewage treatment systems.

1.5 SITE CHARACTER

The parcel contains early succession tree cover on mineral soils. The Aspen, White Birch, White Pine, White Spruce and Elm early succession growth dominate the vegetation. Lesser numbers of Hard Maple also occur on the site.

Slightly higher elevations on site support White Ash, White Birch, White Cedar and Basswood tree assemblages. There is no significant definition to the distribution of species on the parcel except that there are somewhat larger trees on the periphery of the parcel adjacent to the roads. This better growth results from the open nature of the road allowances.

Beneath the tree supercanopy, we found a shrub subcanopy of Pincherry, Redozier Dogwood and Willow with forb layers dominated by White Aster, Goldenrod and Honeysuckle. A few Highbush Cranberry shrubs also occur on the site amidst the White Spruce sapling growth.

The site is also characterized by high weediness of invasive species such as Buckthorn shrubs, which are scattered throughout the parcel. Other common weeds found include: Asparagus, Wild Carrot, Birds foot Trefoil, Poison Ivy, Cow-Vetch, Milkweed and Wild Grape trailers throughout.

The dominant forb on the dry early succession cultural thickets is the Scouring Rush horsetail (E. arvense) also in meadows of the parcel.

Lower elevations support Horsetail (Equisetum fluviatile) in micro-depressions. Moss (Mnium spp.) was sampled in places beneath Red-ozier Dogwood. The rush and sedge layer becomes evident in this area, supporting Carex bursina and Scirpus rubrotinctus. Because these local level dry swales transport rain events, and also transport small mammals, they were identified and recommended for rear lot line conservation and tree cut restriction.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 14

-195-


1.6 LOCATION

1.6.1 ECOLOGICAL LOCATION

Ecological land units were designated by Professor Angus Hills in 1959. They follow the main landform units of Ontario and repeat patterns of vegetation and ecology. The land units are a tool that assist us in measuring the relative conservation value of natural areas.

The subject site falls within ecological site district 6-6 (Figure 3). The primary landform features and supported ecology that characterize this type of site district include shoreland coastal influence floral and avifauna! significant species, riparian forested. creek path rare species support and wetland functionparticularly because wetland areas are often more biologically productive.

1.6.2 PHYSIOGRAPHIC LOCATION

The site falls within the Sand Plains physiographic land unit with a lobe of drumlins and till immediately south (Chapman & Putnum, 1984). Our team applied the soils test as per ELC (Lee, 1998) checklist to determine that soils were loamy sands with weak cast and no handling, grainy due to some mineral content.

. ' SCHEDULE '10' Pg 15

-196-

FIGURE 3 SAAR Environmental Limited

ECOLOGICAL SITE o·ISTRICT

Region 2W

1

Region 35

Region 45

Region SS

- SHe Region Boundary Site Dlslrlcl Boundary

Region lE

Region 3E

(Adapted from Nat. 1-tertlagl! Ttllllnlng Manual, oMNR. 1997)

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 16

-197-


2.0 FIELD INVESTIGATION

2.1 SIGNIFICANT HABITAT

Significant habitat: means ecologically important in terms offeatures,functions, representation or amount, and contributing to the quality and diversity of an identifiable geographic area or natural heritage system. Criteria for determining significance may be recommended by the Province, but municipal approaches that achieve the same objective may also be used.

Wildlife habitat: means areas where plants, animals and other organisms live, and find adequate amounts of food, water, shelter and space needed to sustain their populations. Specific wildlife habitats of concern may include areas where species concentrate at a vulnerable point in their annual or life cycle; and areas which are important to migratory or non-migratory species.

2.1.1 MIGRATORY PASSERINE AND/OR SHOREBIRD STOPOVER

No suitable habitat.

2.1.2 FISH HABITAT

Fish habitat: means the spawning grounds and nursery, rearing, food supply, and migration areas on which fish depend directly or indirectly in order to carry out their life processes.

No surtacewater features on site.

2.1.3 SIGNIFICANT BREEDING OR FEEDING HABITAT FOR THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES

Threatened species: means any native species that is at risk of becoming endangered through all or a portion of its Ontario range if the limiting factors are not reversed.

Endangered species: means any native species, as listed in the Regulations under the Endangered Species Act, that is at risk of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its Ontario range if the limiting factors are not reversed.

No endangered or threatened species were located by our team or documented on the internet search of NHIC database.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 17

-198-


Vulnerable avifauna were documented by the NHIC for shoreland within one kilometre. We evaluated the potential for the species listed below.

NHIC Vulnerable Avifauna Province List

Red-headed Woodpecker Cerulean Warbler Least Bittern Louisiana Waterthrush Yellow-breasted Chat Black Tern Red-shouldered Hawk Yellow Rail

In our opinion, the subject site does not support optimal habitat or landscape position given the parcel size for the above species. Many of the above are birds of Ontario wetlands and riparian edges, requiring both open water and large forest given their area sensitivities. No such features are available on this parcel.

One example of there being no suitable breeding habitat is the woodpecker requirement; 100 of 145 inventoried Red-headed Woodpecker nests in Ontario were in dead standing hardwoods (Peck & James, 1983) that do not occur on this site. Tree species used for cavities by the Red-headed Woodpecker are typically Elm, Maple, Oak and Birch in descending order (Peck & James, 1983). We assessed trees on the subject site both for cavities and larger diameter at breast height (dbh) and did not find any suitable nest trees or adequate vegetated buffers. Instead on this site, we would expect Common Flickers in the canopy and Gray Catbirds in shrub thickets as both species are more flexible to noise disturbance.

Other vulnerable bird species of potential in southern Ontario include· the Redshouldered Hawk. Based on our previous nest records from other sites (17), this bird nests under greater canopy closure than what is found on this site; 70-80% vs. the existing 10-20% maximums here. The Red-shouldered hawk also preferred American Beech and Yellow Birch during our four spring intense inventories conducted for the OMNR.

POTENTIAL LOCAL VALUES

Due to the small size of the site and it's location within a residential area, edge predators, such as the Brown-headed Cowbird, are evident. The size of the parcel and large gaps in the forest cover prevent interior forest species from occurring; our field measurements suggest any opening wider than 22m fosters incursion of predators such as Raccoons and Gray squirrels (Black phase).

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 18

-199-


The cultural thickets display some local small mammal flow paths that did support the Black-and-White Warbler (migrant) in moist Salix edges. This bird is not rare, threatened or endangered, however, we feel it is possible to design for maintenance. The bird can inhabit small territories (<1 ha, Peck & James, 1985) but demonstrates a need for vegetated buffers.

Our guide for recommended zones for no cut can mitigate and retain their potential habitat linkages east-westerly from Sibbald Point Provincial Park to Black River and the Mossington Park Wetlands.

Our appendices list the potential breeding birds within roughly a 1 0-kilometre block for this assessment.

2.1.4 SIGNIFICANT WETLAND HABITAT

Wetlands: means lands that are seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as well as lands where the water table is close to or at the surface. In either case the presence of abundant water has caused the formation of hydric soils and has favoured the dominance of either hydrophytic plants or water tolerant plants. The four major types of wetlands are swamps, marshes. bogs and fens.

Periodically soaked or wet lands being used for agricultural purposes which no longer exhibit wetland characteristics are not considered to be wetlands for the purposes of this definition.

The subject parcel does not alter or degrade the below activities in the Mossington Park Wetlands. The Provincial Wetland Policy Statement states that if the wetland is provincial, proposed land use cannot result in:

);> alteration or degradation of wetland habitat );> precedent for cumulative impact due to future land use application

approvals for the same type of land use (this speaks to demand and availability of surrounding parcels to support permanent residences

~ disruption of established resource management activities

2.1.5 SIGNIFICANT WOODLANDS

Woodlands: means treed areas that provide environmental and economic benefits such as erosion prevention, water retention, provision of habitat, recreation and the sustainable harvest of woodland products. Woodlands include treed areas, woodlots or forested areas and vary in their level of significance.

The forest cover on site does not attain Provincial size standards for significance. It does offer an avian link across established road networks and we therefore recommended some tree retention to maintain a linkage.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 19

-200-


2.1.6 SIGNIFICANT VALLEYLANDS Val/ey/ands: means a natural area that occurs in a valley or other landform depression that has water flowing through or standing for some period of the year.

There are no valleylands on site.

2.1.7 AREAS OF NATURAL AND SCIENTIFIC INTEREST (ANSI) Areas of natural and scientific interest (ANSi): means areas of land and water containing natural landscapes or features that have been identified as having life science or earth science values related to protection, scientific study, or education.

There is no ANSI on site.

3.0 LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT

3.1 INTRODUCTION Natural heritage systems generally provide one or more of the following functions:

>- wildlife habitat >- safe passage for migrating wildlife through forested corridors >- transition habitat used by wildlife in seasonal concentrations >- wetland habitat for wildlife use for a portion or all of their life cycle >- coldwater stream and associated riparian habitat to wildlife >- wildlife refuges of early succession field and woodland

Natural heritage systems, ecosystems and greenlands are terms that have been used interchangeably to describe the natural areas that stand out on our landscape. These include the inter-connected winding rivers, wooded corridors, meadows and wetlands. Linkages between the larger wildlife core areas and wooded corridors are especially important because of the need for animals and plants to continue mixing for biological diversity. These linkages allow plant seed dispersal on animal fur, by wind and water connections, and animal movement across land corridors. We have applied these landscape ecology tools to the study site and summarized the significance of greenland content in Table 1.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 20

-201-


3.2 BLACK RIVER GREENLAND UNIT

The river and adjacent hardwood block of Mossington Park ESA (See attached LSCA Environmentally Significant Areas map) do not exhibit significant greenland linkage through the subject site.

This is largely because the lands surrounding the ESAs noted above have been previously fragmented by an arterial highway, internal road fabric and existing residential land use upgraded often from historical cottaging.

A local avifauna and small mammal route does exist on the parcel and can be retained to serve as an east-westerly linkage across the landscape from the Mossington Park ESA to the Sibbald Point Provincial Park forested land. Maintenance of this linkage would, given the established and approved growth and settlement area realities, provide continued use of the successional vegetation on a local level. This goal is consistent with the PPS aim in subsection 2.3.3 to maintain wildlife linkages (and thus ecological integrity) where possible in Ontario.

Ecological integrity is defined as:

"A community dominated by native species, relatively stable and showing signs of health (Noss, 1990) where the wildlife species composition and functional organization is comparable to that of natural habitat in the region (Karr and Dudley, 1981)."

3.3 NUTRIENT EFFECTS ON GREENLAND FUNCTION

PHOSPHORUS

Fisheries resources have traditionally been impacted by sedimentation and thermal pollution; caused by both natural events and poor development design and practice. Here the form of deleterious substance entry we are reviewing is the increase of a naturally occurring nutrient to the environment post development: phosphorus.

The subject site does not support any surfacewater features, and the shallow groundwater aquifer is unlikely to be a flow path for phosphorus off this site because of the attenuation capacity of the on-site soils to adsorb this type of nutrient relatively close to the ground surface.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 21

-202-


NITRATES

Recent field studies show that the dilution mixing potential of septic plumes with sand and gravel aquifers is much less than previously believed. Robertson (et al, 1990) followed a septic plume in groundwater with piezometers and found nitrates traveled from tableland over hundreds of metres through well drained soil, and were attenuated only two metres before their potential entry to a river. Nitrates were then adsorbed in the carbon based organic sediments. The following recommendations are made to reduce nitrate impacts.

1. Leaching beds should be sited outside of any high groundwater table or seasonally wet area because saturated soil ·cannot function to adsorb phosphorous and nitrogen.

2. Leaching bed locations and buffers should be staked out before construction to integrate hydrologic and ecologic goals. We have observed root invasion from vegetation buffers placed too near distribution pipe, impairing rather than enhancing leaching bed function .

. Waterloo Biofilter tertiary treatment systems with nitrate reduction and stone area beds are being proposed for this site.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 22

-203-


4.0 TREE RETENTION AREAS

1. An overall site plan should be prepared to maximize the distance between homes over some lot lines and to minimize the setbacks on intervening lots. This will create larger blocks of trees on every other side and rear lot line in the spirit of clustering design.

2. Provide information to the new purchasers regarding conservation of the natural areas so they become a feature for owners rather than a perceived restriction.

3. Minimize the tree clearing in the front 10 metre portions of the lots where some of the larger and healthier trees are located while situating rear lot line seams across the central treed area for maximum conservation.

4. In areas where tree clearing is not necessary, preserve the larger dead trees. This would create, over time, greater numbers of snag trees (>20') used by small mammals as dens, passerines for perching, and stumps (<20') used by raptors for plucking posts and hawking perches

5. Seed disturbed lands for stability and sediment control with native plants

6. Retain exterior woodland edge trees already exposed to sun and wind as a buffer for the travel paths areas we selected.

7. Select only young trees with healthy crowns and little to no epicormic branching to retain on building envelope

The attached Site Plan (Map 1) illustrates areas we have recommended for vegetation retention based on observed function for wildlife use.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 23

'!.~--~-- ~.,.-~ ..

,~,---~

VI n :z:: m 0 c rm ,.... ~

~ .... ... ~';~~}:"·

-~--~-,

--~--·'"

·."t'~-

MAP 1:: FIELD OBSERVATIO.NS

:t ... ~

--w " --~ ::;J;

)--·"' ~- ~ -... ·•· ccih•..i •

c· r---, __

/

~~OD

~- --.

.,,

_,. 1.

,.·;

·--

,US.60 \

'\ Bi

/ /

PoBwCwAw·

dbh 6" cc 10%

/' [1]-- --~-rn~ ----

~ i! . . . . .

67

\ ~-Ltl~-/ fluviatilP. 68

----~rn. \I ~ -- _, -\ i

·Higher Cano.P,Y Closure ~ 5 )~ - .

1 1- 72 SMALL MAMMA\: vv"'"~-" ~

./ / /-;-- / ,p"''/1 ~ £.jluvi4file l 3

· '·- - JJa _..~ ·-- ~z- altcsJ?p. - -_../

56 57

~ PoECwSw 1-w

58 ::::>'~ a:: 59

''"·'-';'::.·if::.--.

LEGEND.

RETENTION AREAS

AlL LOTS TO CONSERVE REAR AND FRONT YARD NATIVE VEGETATION WHERE POSSIBLE

SPECIFIC RETENTION ZONES -- _... ----- . - --

1. CENTRAL TREED ZONE (HIGHER CANOPY Cl.OS\ ...- 2. NORTH SOUTH WILDLIFE CORRIDOR

3. EASTERLY LINKED CORRIDOR

MAP NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO RETENTION ZOI\

,.

..

Production Protr.ctintl

(i) White pine .. (ii) Red pine . (Hi) Jack pine. (iv) Spruce.

Forest Pw ,, ~-

Sb Ot Sw orS

(v) Balsam 13 (vi) Other conifers. C (vii) Hemlock. He

(viii)Hard maple ..... Mh (ix) Yellow birch. 13y (x) Poplar. . . Po (xi) White birch Bw (xii)Other hardwoods. H

Forest~ PP Pw o rr: l'r ~ PF l'j pp Sb M

Sw (Jr S rr-' fl

PI' C rr· l·lc

rr· Mh

Pr' Fly Pf: Po rr: flw

PF If

I'{OD AW cw E BUCK

RED OZIER i)C)GWOO!l WHITE ASH ~t:EcEPA.F.!

0

BUC.Kl:i'IORN

. ...

""' ~

-205-


8.0 SUMMARY

Given the location of the subdivision amidst residential land use, and the condition of vegetation measured by weediness, invasives, age and linkage, we propose that the ecological design for tree retention areas represents a working solution to maintaining the local flow paths for wildlife within and across the study site. Retaining vertical structure (ground cover through shrub and tree layer canopies) of vegetation will also provide support for edge avifauna.

MITIGATION SUMMARY

Where possible, we would recommend that heavy equipment and the associated noise disturbance to wildlife be reduced by avoiding construction during the dawn and dusk times most sensitive to wildlife. This suggests construction no earlier than 7 am and no later than 7 pm in the summer growing season. Key times to avoid where possible for breeding bird pairs spans from May through June.

Mitigation to conserve local ecology values is recommended for the subdivision Site Plan, outlined as direct constraint of vegetation zones with observed ecological function:

Maximize tree retention along the front ten (1 0) metres of proposed lots as this is where we located larger healthier trees on north and east parcel limits

Use cluster elements on the southeast parcel corner to maximize forest cover on the small mamma.! corridor (Map 1)

Locate buildings and tile beds outside of the north-south mapped corridor. Tools to conserve this zone include straddling rear lot lines to meet at the feature with reasonable depths for retention (standards quoted in greenland strategies include 50m corridor widths, Gartner Lee).

If the fourteen lots are sited with these recommendations in mind, we are satisfied that no identified local natural heritage can persist. To strengthen this landowner action we also recommend Sibbald Point Provincial park consider replacing chain link fencing with more wildlife friendly rail fences to facilitate wildlife flow in the already challenging built out road situation.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 25

-206-


Please direct any comments or questions regarding this Environmental Impact Assessment to the undersigned, at your convenience.

Respectfully submitted,

JJaJ:sa~_J Ltnda Liisa Sober, H.B.Sc. Biologist SAAR Environmental Limited LLS:IIs

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 26

-207-


LITERATURE SUPPORT

Arora, D. 1979. Mushrooms Demystified: A comprehensive guide to the fleshy fungi. II Ed. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley.

Askins, R.A. 1992. Factors affecting changes in migratory songbird populations. Bring Back the Birds Symposium Conservation International Canada. ROM. Toronto.

Bastedo, J.D. 1986. An ABC Resource Survey Method for Environmentally Significant Areas with Special Reference to Biotic Surveys in . Canada's North. .

Blake, J., G. Niemi, and J. Hanowski. 1992. Drought and annual variation in bird populations. Pages 419-430 in J. Hagan and D. Johnston (eds). Ecology and Conservation of Neo-tropical Migrant Landbirds. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Brittingham, M.C. and S.A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds contributed to songbird nest parasitism at forest edge? Bioscience. 33: 31-35.

Cadman, M. 1987. Atlas of Breeding Birds of Ontario. F.O.N. and Long Point Bird Observatory.

Chapman, L.J. and D.F. Putman (1984). The Physiography of Southern Ontario, Third Edition, Ontario Geological Survey Special Volume 2, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources.

Cheskey, E.D. 1991. Planning for the Birds: An Approach to Ecologically Based Strategic Planning in the Grand River Forests. Thesis, M.A. at University of Waterloo. 306 pp.

DeGraff, R.M. and J.M. Wentworth. 1986. Avian guild structure and habitat associations in suburban bird communities. Urban Ecology. 9: 399-412.

Friesen, L.E. 1991. Effects of Fragmentation and Urbanization of Forest Bird Communities in the Region of Waterloo, 1990-1991. M.A. Thesis Department of Geography, University of Waterloo, Ontario. in: Friesen. 1995. op cit.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 27

-208-

SAAR . Environmental Limited

·Hounsell, S. 1994. Biodiversity conservation and forest fragmentation -an emerging issue in Southern Ontario landscapes. Published seminar presented to the Norfolk Field Naturalists, Simcoe, Ontario. April 12, 1994.

Hussell, D. 1991. What do LPBO data tell us about population declines in migrant birds? Long Point Bird Observatory Newsletter. 23(3): 12-15. Long Point, Ontario.

Lee, H., W. Bakowsky, J. Riley, J. Bowles, M. Puddister, P. Uhlig, and S. McMurry. 1998. Ecological Land Classification for Southern Ontario. SCSS Field Guide. Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, Southcentral Science Section, Science Development and Transfer Branch.

Peck, G.K. and R.D. James. 1983. Breeding Birds of Ontario: Nidiology and Distribution. Volume 1: Nonpasserines. Royal Ontario Museum.

Riley, J.L. 1989. Distribution and Status of the Vascular Plants of Central Region. OMNR, Parks and Recreational Areas Section, Central Region, Richmond Hill. OFER SR 8902. 110 pp.

Roth, R.R. and R.K. Johnson. 1993. Long-term dynamics of a Wood Thrush population breeding iri a forest fragment. Auk. 110:37-48.

Soper and Heimburger. 1982. Shrubs of Ontario. Royal Ontario Museum Publication.

Voigt, D., T. Bellhouse, J. Broadfoot, F. McKay, and P. Smith. 1989. Winter Feeding of Deer in Ontario. A Cooperative Deer Study Update. M.N.R. Maple Wildlife Branch Unpubl. Report. 24 pp.

Zug, G.R. 1993. Herpteology. Department of Vertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Academic Press, Inc. 524 pp.

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 28

-209-


Breeding Bird Atlas Search

Obvious atlas blocks falling on water features such as the Black River and Lake Simcoe are not reproduced herein. Aquatic species that can demonstrate a significant upland adjacent use for courtship or breeding are transferred below.

Atlas Block Potential

Pied-Billed Grebe Green-backed Heron Canada Goose Northern Harrier Blue-winged Teal Red-shouldered Hawk Red-tailed Hawk American Kestrel Ruffed Grouse Killdeer Spotted Sandpiper Upland Sandpiper Common Snipe American Woodcock Rock Dove Mourning Dove Common Nighthawk Chimney Swift Ruby-Throated Hummingbird Belted Kingfisher Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Pileated Woodpecker Eastern Wood-Pewee Alder Flycatcher Eastern Phoebe Great-crested Flycatcher Eastern Kingbird Purple Martin Tree Swallow Northern Rough-winged Swallow Bank, Cliff and Barn Swallows Blue Jay American Crow

X X

X

X X X X

X

X

X Barn X X

Observed (August, October 2001)

X

X

X

X X

SCHEDUlE '10' Pg 29

-210-


Atlas Block Potential Observed

Black-capped Chickadee X X White-breasted Nuthatch House Wren X Winter Wren Golden-crowned Kinglet Ruby-crowned Kinglet Veery Wood Thrush American Robin X Gray Catbird X Brown Thrasher Cedar Waxwing European Starling Yellow Warbler X Common Yellowthroat X X Northern Cardinal Rose-breasted Grosbeak Indigo Bunting Chipping Sparrow X X Savannah Sparrow X Song Sparrow X Red-winged Blackbird Eastern Meadowlark X X Common Grackle Brown-headed Cowbird X X American Goldfinch X XM Evening Grosbeak X House Sparrow X

M=Migrant

SCHEDULE '10' Pg 30

-211- 111 l!O ~m HH F GWCI( f-m

THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGII\IA

PART I

PART II

PART Ill

PART IV

PARTV

PARTVl

PART VII

PART VIII

PART IX

PART X

PARK ROAD DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

INDI':X TO THE AGREEMENT

SCOPEOFTHEAGREEMENT

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

2.1 Paymente to the Town 2.2 T ~x Arrears 2.3 D~signated Charges & Imposed Rate$ 2.4 Lawful Levie$ and Rates 2.6 Developmenl Charves

PERFORMANCE AHD MAINTENANCE GUARANTEES I SECURITIES

3.1 Performance Guerantee 3.2 Relum ofMalnlenance Guarantee 3.3 F111al Acceptance

UABILITY INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION

4.1 Liabillty Insurance 4.2 Indemnification

CONSULTANT

WORKS

6.1 Maintenance artd Repair of Works 6.2 Driveway Surfacing 6.3 Repair of Damaged Public Work$ on AQJoinlng

Lands 6.4 Clearance of Debris fmm Vaoant Public and

Privllte Lands 6.5 Cleaning and Sweeping of Str.e~s 6.6 Inspection of Worlc$

DAAINAGE- SODDING

7.1 Grad• Central Plan 7.2 Design and SpeclllcatiQns 7.3 t.:nnslruction A=rdlng to Grade Control Plan 7.4 Individual Lot/Siod< Grading Plans

CONSTRUcnON UE!N ACT

DEIIIiLOPMENT SERVICES REQUIREMENTs

9.1 Eluftdlng Requiraments 9.2 Acc;;~ssory BuMdlngs, AddUions & Swimming

PDOis 9.3 Building Permits

OCCUPANCY PROVISIONS

10.1 Occupancy of Buildings

o. .. _,...,._,d(Ro:I'M<-Dovotopmont);Filo:S.9.146 ~m; R. Ng.t$<1, /). rt<iader, J, lbcD11nDid, H. MBeDDnakl, J. ~OW.rt

!'agel

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 1

PAATl(l

PART XII

PART XIII

PART XIV

-212- m ;;e ill?

GENERAL PROVISIONS

11.1 Topsoil and Sodding of Oocupied Homes 11.2 Approvals

ADMINISTRATION

12.1 Regisntion on TiUe 12.2 Director of Engineering and Public Wor11s

ADDRESS OF TOWN, OWNER & CONSULTING ENGINEER

UST OF SCiiEDULES

14.1 Schedule 'A'; Oescliption of the lands to be developed.

14.2 Schedule 'B': Worlcs to be constructed by the owner.

14.3 Sr.tledule'C': A list of the items in thiS agreement for which Letters of Credit are to be deposited wnh the Di'ector of Engineering and F'ubllc Works purvuantlo this agreement

~l Oraned: lwg!.r,t 21. 3XlL Revlae¢ 9ll)1!!1'1'1bDr9, ~D02 Pl'nal; iiCIJ."Iwnb&r 17, 200:2

Fllo•--""""""'-·--m,.,.ParkRoed.dev.agr.doc

Do .. l<!pmonl-ui (Ro; p.,. Roo~ C>a,.lopmont}; Fio: $.Q.146 Ownera: R. Nj-.. b. R~adar, J. Uor:DMaJd, N. MscD<mald. J. Slewt~tt

JIJl 1' \o

,. ... SCHEDULE '11' Pg 2

-213-l-Oll f 006/0IG Hi5

THIS AGRE!':MENT made in duplicate, on the 9" day of September, 2003

BETWEEN:

and-

ROBERT NIJSSE. or the City of Toronto, Province of Ontario

DARRELL BeAPER. of the Town Of Whttby, in the Regional MuniCipality or Durham, ProVince or Omario

J/!MEiS MACDONA!..D, of 1he Town or Georgina, in the Regional Municipality or York, Proltince of Onlario

NORMAN MACDONALD, of the Town of Georgina, in the Regional Munldpallty of York, PR!vlnce of Ontario

JOHN STEWAfti, or the Town of Qeorgine, in the Regional Municipality of York, Pmvlnoe of Ontario

hereinafter called the 'OWNERS" OF THE; FIRST PART~

THE CORPOftATION OF THE TOWN OF !i!!OQGINA In the Reglcnal Municipality of YOI1<

hereinafter caled !he 'TOWN' OF TH~SECOND PART:

WHEREAS th• Owner~ wanant M they a"' the reg~ Owner» of 1he lllnds 1110111 parliaJiany de$c::ltJed In Schedule 'A' hereto:

AND WHEREAS the OWners have requ8$tlld the rezcnii'Q or 1lle Sllbjed; lands and reQUesloellhe repeel of the deeming b)'law affecting !he sublect lands which are listed n Sd'edule 'A';

AND WHEREAS tha Tcom sees fit to IICCOMmldate tha req.oest of tho owners;

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WrTNESSETH that in OOIIS!detaliln of tile premiseG and Olher valuable oonsjjeratiJn and or mutual COINlanls and agrwmn tllllelnconlalned, the partill9 hereto agree wl1h aadt witt\ lhe ether as fellows:

PART! SCOPE OF JHE AGftE!iM!!NT

1.1 Thill agreement lhah delinO the obliga!lons illd duties Of lhe Owners wili1 ,..pGCt to the devGiopmenl of the lillbjeotlllnde.

1.2 The <Mnel& ~gree ID I'Oillpiele a'l lhlllr own ellpenSe and in good worlanantike manner. all of lhe ~ and the 1111e seMc.a • hen~ nailer set forth all to !he satiSfac:tion at tile onctor or El'l glllfi!ing arol Public WO!b.

PART II

2.1

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS

E!lw•nt• to th~..l!!rm

The Owners covenant and agree to pay the Town the sum of One Thousand ($1.000.00):Dollars u a conlrfbutlon UrN&Ids the Town's legal and engineering expe11ses upon execution of this agreement.

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 3

-214- m m !ill

2.~ Tax Arrearn

The Owner coveMnts and agrees to pay all arrears of taxes outstanding against the propelty herein described. prior to the exeoution ot this agreement by the Town.

2.3 Daslg!!ated Cha!l!86 & !moose<! Rates

The Owner agrees to commute end pey fOIIhwith, prior to lha exeoution of this agreement by the Town. designated charges and imposed rates now or to be a-.d and levied upon the lands Within lhe said plan, Including, but not Jhniled to. levies under the Lor:a/ Improvement Act, the Ontario Wlfer Resoun;os Act, the PubliC Utilities Act. the Municipal Drafnoge Act and the Municipal Act.

2.4 Lawful bevies ilnd Rates

The Owner further undertakes and agrees to pay all taxes levied, or to be levied, on lhe said lands on the basis end In acton~ance with the assess111ent 8!1d c:ol!ec:tol's roll entries unlll tu1:h time as the land herein being subdivided has been assll$$ed end enterea on the collecto(s rolla=rding to the Registered Plan.

Nolwilhslandiny !he worlao to be constructed and lnlll&fted by the OWner, lhe services to be performed end the paymonts to be made pun!Uant to this agt.emenl, the land$ in the oald subdivision shall nmwoln liable In common with all other -ssable property in the Town to all lawt\JI rates and levies of the Town.

Interest Shall be payable by the Owner to the Town on all $urn& of money payable under this agreement, which are not paid within thirty (30) daY~~ fwm the due dale. The rate of Interest payeble shall be fifteen percent (15%) per annum.

2.5 Devt!ooment Charges

The Owner acknowledges !hat a Development Charge ahall be payable on eac:h lot and/or blOCk within the subjeCt lands. prior to the Issuance of a bufldlng perm~ for nld lot and/or block. lbe Development Charge shell be calculated •t the time of payment In ae<oroance with ell applicable by-laws p&Med pursuant to !he OovsPopment Chetpes Aot, 1997, and any amendments thereto.

PART Ill

3.1 Performanca Gu•rantee

Tha OWner agr- to provide 1 oaah dePQ!k or a Letlar of Ctedit from a Canadian Chane red Bank In form and content saiiSfactory to the Town solicitor in an altloun\ of tan lhoueand dollars (SIO.OOO.OO) as a road fouling deposit, and to guarantee the gonstruction lrld malntananee of all WO!ts to hP. ~ted by the OWner. Without limilllg the 9_,.\ity of tile fOregoing, this ahalll~cludt ll)e cleaning of a~ municipal or regional rced or other public land fouled dunng oanstsuctlon, mstal~on of cUlverts asphalt rvlnataternent, ditch and boulevard sodding, and loi grading 1~ acoordanca with the specitk:l.tions prcvlded herein.

In the event that 1he Town draws upon any security it hOlds the OWner shaiii!Miediataly replace the same in Its full amounL Failure t~ do 50 shall result In the Town revoking all building permit$ iss!Jad for this sHe. Should b!Jildlng pennlls be revoked. tile Town shall only reinstate same upon replacement of the necessary &ee~~rily.

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 4

tfr. " ••

-215-Hll p OOE/01! H&l

3.2 Return OfPerfowance @uarantee!Road Fouliog Qemh

The Town shall retum tile securities deposhed with the Town upon Final ~plan~:~~ ot lhe Worl<s and servioas In acc:ordance with Paragraph ~-3 of thl$ Agreement. Said stculity shall be held by !he Town to guarantee the WO!Ianenship and materials until Final Aa:eptance of Work& lorttlis development has been issued.

3.3 fin.al illl!"M!!ru'§

Foi!Qwing the compl$\ion cl alllhe Worils and services on ell of lhe lots and abulling road allowance$, the cartwltan\ llhall submh his 'Cerlfflcale of Completion'to the Director of Englnell!ing and PubliC Wo!U. The Dlroctor of Engineering and Public Wolb shlP, wilhin sixty (60) days flom 1he receipt of the certlliC81e, either advise. !he COI\WIIant in wrfUng lttat such works have been satlsfaelorily completed, or set fottlllrt writing particulars 1\ttereln th& WQrk Ills not been completed. Jn the event !hat the Dlrec\or of Sngineedng and Pltbllc WC!ks subml\s a list of requirements, the conl\lltant sllatl submit his certlflcate as Ia !he completion of such reqult6ments and llle Ol~ctor Of Engineering and Public WorkS shall similarly advlow as to his :~~~lisfaolian or olherwlae in rwp&cl to such requirement&. The acx:eplenoa by the Dlre<:lor of EngineeNng and Public Works of lhe ccnsu~s 'Celti/it;ale of Comptelioo' and ~eipt of the 'as buill' drelrNtgs shall constitute Flnallloaeptanr.e of the Y/011($ by the Town.

PART IV !:J!.BIL!l'YINSUftANCE AND INDE,MN!!Y

4.1 J.l!bi!ty lnAYiliiJte

Prior to the commencement of any worlc whll$oever on the subieot lands or the applic~llon far any building permit on the subject lands, the Owner shall supply the Town with a 'Liability Insurance Cerli/icare' in the amount or one million (S1,000,000.00) della~ In a fo'"' nUsfactory to the Town sclioi\Ot, inaemnlfylng the Town ~m any loss arising 11om c::talma tor damages, Injury or olhelwlae by any party Including the Town, In connection will> the work donel:ly or on behalf of the Own&111 ol the development. The OWners c:ovenant and agree that sui:IJ LlabBity lnsuranoa shill! remain In effel;t until Final Aocaplance ot tlte workS pu18Uant to Paragraph 3.3 abOVe- In the event any ranewat premium is not paill. lhe Town, In order to pNWnt the lapse of such ~ insurance policy, may pay the ~t~~ewal premium or premiums and lhe tlwmKs agree to pay cost of such renewal or rwnewats within rourtaen (14) days ollhe aCCOIIIlt lherafora being rendered by tile Tawo. If this Is not done, the amount will be dravm fronllhe securities.

4.2 lm!emnfficat!on

The Own•~ covenant and agnoe to ind-ily and save harmless and defend the Town, 1\s seMints, 1111enta and e~oyeee fn:lm all claims, aetlons. CllllM of aclions, suits. and demands whatse&ver which may arise dlred!y or Indirectly by reason af oon&INCIIng all)' Bnd all oflha work& and services In lhe development or by mason of the tnalrtenance or laok of tllllintenan<:e of such services by 11M! OWners pursua~ IQ the terms of 1hls agreement from the date of oommancement of any 11\lrk and fo.- a period of two (2) years from the date of Final Aeoe~nce of lhe development

PARTY CONSULTANT

The Owners 99ree to retain as !hair Consultant a Professional Engineer. This sllkt Consullant snail c:;rry outallt~ell8SS81)1 design, supervision, laycul and inspection required for tile <lt!e\Qpment or all loiS asset out in SChedUle "A' hell!lto and shaH provide ;'C.tt/lfoafe of COmplet/Ofl' Of all wolt(s to the DirectOr Q( Engineering and PllbKe Wori<s.

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 5

- 216 - m lGO em

PART VI WORKS

6.1 .1!1aintenance ~nd Repair of Worlg;

Upon construction of the works and serviCE>s, Ule Owners covenant end agree to malnlaln all worlg; and S&l\lices as pJOVided for in this agreement free fJQm defeels and to repair or rectify any defeds Which may occur when required by lhe Direelor of Engineering alld Public Works until Final Atx;eptance of the development Without limlllng the generaf/ly of !he foregoing, the owners covenant and agree as follows:

(a)

(b)

6.2

10 maintain the roadway, swales end wad dllche$ and to Clean and remove such mat.ial and power sweep roadway surfaees as required by the Oireelor of Engineering and Public Wortcs In wlillng unlll1he Final Acceptance of the develOpment;

to cany out oontinuous maintenance to the satisfaction of Ule Town all Yl!cant lots or blocks within lhe Plan. Such maintenance will Include weed ggnbol. grns and weed cutting to mainteln a height not exceedktg one huntlred and f1fty (160mm) millrnetel8.

Driveway Surfacing

The Ownen. covenent and agl'8e to place asphalt or other appwved hard sulfaee from the existing edge of pavement at the road to lhe front face of lhe house or garage in accordance \lill, the Town's 'Development Lleslgn Criteria', as amended,

6.3 Reoalr of pamli!Uid Public W$ on M!o!nlng Lands

The Owners covenant and agree that ~I ltn!ets abutting lands, as so desCribed In the regletered plan of survey, and to be used for access during lhc contlructlon of any houSe or buUding and/or fur the COOIINCiion of JlUbl~ wolks, shall be maintained In UIIOd and usable condition Oiring tile fJIIriod of the said c:onstructlon. H any adjoining land or pubUc works is damagetl by the Ownen;, or parties Bl!lployeti by the Owners, In ggnS\rudlon of the 1111d wms, or by buaders so employed, !he OWnet'S will repair and restoro immediately. AU truc:l<s ma\ing defiVery(s] to or tal<ing materials to or from the $Ub]ect lands, &hall be adequetely oo~~en~d and not unreasonabl)' loaded so liS to scatter refuse, rubbish or debns on the said $1reU1s ebutlilg.

6.4 Clearance of Q»bt'a fmm Vppant and Private lAnd•

The Owners oov•nant and agree to dear detxia and garbage originating from the works in !he d!liYIIDpment and dapoal!ed on vacant and private lands within or outefde the Hmlts of lha development n so n:queslbd in writing by the Dlrec!or of Engineering and Public Works. If \he Owners taU to do so In aE>Venly·two (72) hours, the Tov.n YAII remove au on debris and garbage at the ~ of !he Ownen;.

6.5 C)paning and 5wpeplna td Stmels

The Owner oovanants and agreea \C maintain aU roads in a clean and reasonable oon~~t«on lhrougllout · tile fJIIriod of house conmcllon and sh11i prtWide the neo11sary labour and l!'lllipment to do so on a daly basia, or as required by the Director of Engineering and Public Works. If, in !he opinion or the Director of Englneelillg •nd Public Works such roads do not meet with those requirements, 1\en lhe work may be done by tho TOWn at the Owne~1r expense. ·

6.6 lns!!!!otlon ofW011!§

~l Ag19B/Jl8hr (Re: P41k Road ]')waJapmotJt): 1ile: .S.~. t.ffi """""' ll. Njsso, o. Ro:•cler, J. MacDon!ld. N. MacDoMid, J. SJ....,.

lit! Jlrll

,.... SCHEDULE '11' Pg 6

-217- H1l HiD/Oil H!l

Tne Town. by its officels. A~Vants, employees and agents, may enter on the said lands or pa~s lheteel and any building(s) arected lhen!On to ensure lhe proper oompllance of any workS ~Ired to be corAucted by lhe OM\er.

If at anytime lhe CX111!111\lclion of 1he Worl(a Is, in lhe opiniQl\ or the Director of Engineering and Pu!llic Worl<s, not being callied cut in acoocdenoe with good ~~ practioe, 1hen lhe Dk'ec:1.or of Englneerihg and Pubic WorKs may stop furlher Cllt1$lrUdicn of all or any part olll1e mll<s for any JeiiSOilable lsnglh of time until SIH;"h Wool< ha\le beet! placed in satisfadol')l c:ondilion.

PART VII DRA!Nj\§E- SopPING

7.1 Gr•Jie Ccn!lp! P.!!!!t

The Owners agree to provide the Town, prior to the execulion of this agreement, a Grading Control Plan prepared by lhe Owners' c:on&UIIing engineer est.bllshi>g the proposed grading of the lands 10 proVide for proper drainage ~hereof end dnlinage of all adjacent lands whiCh drain through the said development

The Grading Control Plan Is to be prepared in accordance with lilt Town's ~ot Grading SpecifiCtllians in effect 811he date of fills agreement. The gn;dJng of the l$nds shell be csnied out in genlill"al aOOO!dance witt\ such Grading ConiiOI Pl~n. If. in the opinion of lhe Dim<:tor of Engineering and PubliC Works, drainage piOblii<TJs ocwr prior to Final Acceptance of !he development by the Town, tile Own"" agree to correct tnem by neglllding or by conslnlei!On of catch-basins, swales. retaining walls, break well• or other slnlctures as may be n~ to correct such problem$.

The Owners agree to topsoil IUld sod the ditches and bOulevards and to topiiOII and sod eath of the Jots or blocks excep1 lor paved, treed or planted ah!laa upon completion of the oon~to~ction of buildings thefeon. A minimum of 150mm of topsoH shall be placed on all disturbed areas.

· ff, in the opinion of the Dii"$CII>r of Engirleering and Public WO!Ius. the eJdsting vegetetlon gl'llWih on the roadside ditches and bouleval't1a is a<:ceplable, !hen the OWners will not be ~ired to f'050d said ditches and boulevardS across the fromage of lhe particular lot where growth Is deemed adequat\1.

The Town, wllltln the disol8lion of the Oir&clorot Engineering and Public Wotlls, •gAleS to penn~ the Owners to revlae a portion of the submit\1!<1 Grading Control Plan if, In the eplnion of the Owners, the grading can be improved lo ecoommodate housing 1ypeS.

7.2 Qu!on gmd Soeclfic!!!ion•

i' .3 Construc!j:>n Ar£9odinp !i> ~rade Qpnlrol Plan

1boJ OWners r.ovenanl and agree that no buildins construction shall be oommenoed en the land$ deliCII"Detl in the sal<! development except in Close conformity wit!1 tlte elevations and spot levels shown on Grade Control Plan ~fl!IIOYed by the Director of En~lleering and Public Worb. De\tlapmMt A~ t~: Pert Roat1 Dovelopmenr); Fila: $.9.140 OWn•r.t: R. "*'-· 0, Rudtr, J. MleDan&.tr. N. Mat::Drmt}ld. J. Stfwrarl

ffll 11111

P1190 7

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 7

-218-1-m Hii/Oii e-m

7.4 Individual Lot/Bloc!< Grading Plans

In addi1lon to lhe requirements of Pa111graph 1 0.3 ('Building Permils') of this agreernonl. no building permH shan be issued for the construetion of a buadlng 011 •ny 101 or blod< until en indlvlduallot or bloclt grading plan prepared by a professional engineer hB$ been approved by the Ownero' consulting engmeer and aubmitted to the Olreclor of Engineering ar;i Public Wor1<s. Tl'le Individual grading plan shall indicate the proposed sHing of the building, its design and main floor elevation and its grading and sodding and private water and septic service Information.

PART VIII CONS!RUCDON LIEN ACT

8.1 · Upon rec:eNing notiCe or upon any liens beiflll fiiKI pur8Uant 1o the Construc:tlon Lien Ad wilich may all'ect any of tha subject land• in this agreement In which the Town may have an lntsAI&I. 111is agraemen~ ehall be deemed 1D be In deraull by the Ownem. Upon cf"ooverlng SUCh d..r.uK lhe Town mey forthwilh the Ownel'll ootice In wrili1g of the $11kl Hen or claim anc1 the OwnEn shell be allowed to all'e or lel11edy svd1 defau~ by di&chalgilg or vaca11ng the wicl lien to the sstisfaltlon of the Town Ylilhin Ill\ (10) days of IIUCil notice.

rr sudl defallt Is not remedied or wred as abwe, the Town may, notwithstanding any Qlher n!l'lledles R msy have, dl'li\V u~ any securily or Latter of C111dlt whiCh may be held pursuent ID this agreement 1o :secure ils inlerest8 and may pey Into oourt any holdback and oost Provided by 1he ConsiUdiOn Lien Ad as may be nac:essary 1herafore.

PART IX DeyELOP!4iNT SEfMCES REQ!JIREMENTS

9.1 Building RAii!!!!!!!!llS

The Oviner6 coverwont and 1986 that all buildings &hall be designed, located and IJliiS\nded 1D ensure a -able mlx of sl)les, material& and colon; for &$tent hoi.IIIN, and only houses wilh attadled or dlllad'ed garages "111 be erected.

The Owners tur#1<li' c:ovenant ;md agre. not to perm~ ooaJpBncy of any building except In conformity to Part X fOca.lpancy Provisions') of lhls agreernenL

9.2 Atr:eemr BUildings. Additions & SwinJnino Ppo!s

The OMiel8 andlor subl;equertt ~K~R:ilsSel' shall not construct or apply for a buidlng p8nrit to tonslrud an aCC8SSOI}' buldlng 0< addition to an exisllflQ buii:ilng or a twimmlng pool untl the Individual let !(Tidi-tg pllin puAJuanl to Part VII ('Drahage - Sodding') has been ap~ emended and apprcwd by the Oinlctor of Eng._ ring and Public Worl<s.

9,9 Bl.it!djng Pamits

Prior to the Issuance of a building permit on lltlf lot or block Wilhlo the proposed deielopment, the Own Iiiii or sua;essiVe let Oll!lel(s) shall:

(a) pn:wide the TOYI!IIIflh s cash deposit or Leiter of Credtt ~the amount of tHanly five lllnd!ed dolaro ($2,500.00) pet sl!9e farnly <t.Yelling lot rJ g~IIIBnlee <lOll .... I of the gmdilg of saki bl In DtUiidad: 1\flh the Grade Conlrol Plan: . .

(b) the d~n afOftlmentionod In Clause 10.3(a) Is 1o be reluOO&d upgn the satisfactory completion of 1111 WDrl<s, lndllding the l'rlal .m-ay surfacing, on said lot to the person making the deposa urless 1he Town Is direded otherwise by the depositor.

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 8

lrli ~I' I

. ' : ~t

(C)

-219-Hll P 011/0H Hi\

the Owner, or suC!lBSSive Owner(s) shallllilain a p!OfS$$Jona! engineer to enaure that 1he grading and sodding is completed to the sa1lsfaclbn orthe OiredorofEngineering and P~WOII<s, wilhin one vearofdate of Issuance Of !he buik:!ing penrit. The Oilne111 hereby ~wledge the Tcwn's right, nol'Mihstallding any olher remedies ~ may have, to d!lrll' upon any5eCUiity k my hOld and to enleron101he lot ~pon d&fauu alii perform lillY YIDii< it deems neoes$81'y, all at lhe cnst of1he C>Nne111.

PART X

10.1

OCCUPANCY PROVISIONS

Qw.!Oi!!IC'! of BUilding&

The OWnenl 1lMII'I8I'It and agree that once buik!ing pem~Hs have beGI'Iisaued, nat ID permll ~cy of any bUilding, or pert thereof, until 1he following raqut- have been fUlfilled, all 1D the Balisfa®n of 1he Ditedor of Engineering arul Public WOII<s:

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

the work for 1\itlch the buikiing !*mit was ISsU8CI Is ~eled In aooOidiii'ICe ..til the requlrume'IIS of 1he <ln!llrio Building Code Act (iatssl f1111lslons !hereof), Suldir.g By-laws, as &mended, end in acoonlance tD the oonditiont set out by the Tcwm:

all lot s~•ding far seicl lot is cornplele and 1ho consuttaors nterim gladlng certificate, issued by 1118 t>.o«lers' 00!\llllllant, has been submitled and accepted by the Dlredcr of ~ and Putllio Walls;

tile Q1811ular base !hall be n.nec1 and~ on 1he driveway and IICCIISII ID 1he dwer1ng by way of patlo slanes, has been pmvided in aca:ndanoe wllh the latest IIMsiorl of lila TOWil's 'Dewllopment DeWJn Criteria', as •mended;

all dwellings llhall ba Nm\shed wilh a rrtlnldpal house rv.mbtr, as assi~Jl!~d to 111e dwelling by lhe Town, and same hall been peomanent!y affiMd on !he fnlnl of thB dWelling and illumi1ated In Wth a maooer as to be v\sllle from the street.

PART XJ GENERAL PROVISIONS

11.1 Womim Clause: TooogH. §odd!MgfOcwp!ed Hcmu Whore oacupancy OCCISIS ~ November t• IU1d June 1•.

topsail and sodding ahaU be oompleled prior fD July 1• naxl ti_1IUilg. Provided that the Ownels ~I ncl permit such occupancy ur'IIJ1 lhelr ecnw~tant 1111$ submltled an ill'.elim gl8ding te!lltlcate end liUCh ~ has-. accapfed byfhe OiredorafE~ end Public Works.

Whera oocupancy OCCIJrs ~ June 2!" alii! Oclober s1•, 1op1o11 ad &adding ahall be completed within ll*ty (30) days or OCCUP'JIIC)', provldad, hovJIMir, "'-! aocupancy shall petuitled anty upon teollpt arwJ II(>Oeplanae offhe interim grading oerlificrdll as eftnmentionad,

Whore occupancy OCQIII prior 1D fQp&OI lllld sOdding, the ()wnerS or GUblequenl builder sl\s\1 obtain from 1he purdi&Ser and provicle to the Town an a<*nowfedgGmellt 11\at &18*11he folk1Mng:

.20 .

~·}

oo.alopc'*''t ~JN/bMI (IU~ Pork Alwad DeWJtopmanf); Rio; S.1il. TftJ ~·If, Nfaa, D. Fttt~tJJor, J. ~,llltl, N. MBc:ClooaltJ, J, Stw91t

IIJ! IIIII

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 9

-220- m ,;o gm

11.2 Aporovals

Notwilhsiandi:tg anylhing hervin conlailed, the Town shall not be obligated under lhls agreement until the Town or the Owne!>l has oblainecl any and al apprcYels requin!d to be obtained from 1he Rsgklnal Municlpallty o1 Yori<, Milisl!y of Na\ulal Resoui'OIIS, Ministry of Citilenship, CUllum and Ret!loalion and the Lalle Slrncae Resk>n ConseMltion Auttlority and nothing herein shal relieve lhe Owners flom obtaining all appmvels and consents requi~ by any govemmental aulhorily.

PART XII AQMINISIBAT!ON

12.1 ReQistra!ion on TJ!Ie

The Owners hlll8by IXl'l8nlllt and agree that this agmement and the S<lledules hereiD or any parts lhenlof may be regillnd upon the title 11> !he lends within the said development. SUch regislrallon shall be at 1he ins1anceof1heTown and at Hs ode and absolutedise!edon.

12.2 DirectqQfEMir).mg and PvbficWorks

k Is und11181ood and agJMd 1hat whiii8VVr tile tenn 'Oireclor of Engneenng and Publi:: Works' is l1lfened to In tills agmementorlha sdledules .u.:hed hntg, ij ihal mean lhe Dln!CIDI' of Engineering and Public Worils 11>r the Corpora1iln a/the Ta.Nn of Geolgln8 or persons so designated to acton his behaW.

PART XIII

K any notice is requinld to be glwn by \he TOY.!l to lhe Owners and/or lhelr consvlting engineer will\ ~ to 1his agreemem, sllCh l'dioo shell be maled or delivered 1lr

(a) Town:

Corporation of the TOWn ofGecllgina 26557 CMc Conn Road, R.R. 2 Koswlck. Ontartl, I.4P 3G1

Attention: Roland Chenier, TOWTI Clelk Phone: (905) 476-4301 Fax: (905)47~1 00

(b) Ownors:

RcbertNijHI> 2~ Norway Avenue Toronto, Ontario, M4L 1PB

Phone: (905) 252.-5951 Fax: (905) 952.0765

Darrell Reader 93 Ardwick Street Whitby, Ontario, L1N 91<7

Phone: (416)451-8699 Fax: (705)434-3094

James MacDonald 102 Riverglen Drive .. Kcswid<, Onla rio, l4P 2R2

Phone: (905)478-4111 Fax: (905)47~08

Norm~~n MacDonald 16 Patricia Plaoe KesWick, Ontario, L4P 3T9

Phone: (905) 47&4111 Fax: (905) 478.8608

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 10

:'. ~ -221 -

John Stewart 301 Tampa Drive Keswick, Ontarto, L4P 3A3

Phooo: (905) 698-3400 ext 228

(c) ConsUltant:

LGI Consullanling Engineers Inc. 588 Edward Avenue, Unit 49 Richmond Hill, Ontario, L3L 9Y6

Attention: Keith Lathem

Hll

Phone: (905) 884-0911 Fax: (905} 884..0790

f UIUOif Hll

or such other lddl"e$$el of which the Owners and/or consulting eng1neer has notifted the Director of Engineering and Public Works ·,n writing and any &<~ch notice maNed or delivered shall be deemed good and sulfteient notice under the terms of this ag,.rnant, All flDtices, demands or requests shall be deemed to have been properly given " delivered per!IOnally or sent by prepaid mall. If no lice Is given by man, !he same shall be effedive five (6} bll$iness deye after being depo&iled wHh lhe posl office.

PART XV LIST OF SCHEDULES

15.1 Schedule 'A' being a descri~lion of the lends to be develoPBd.

15.2 Schedule 'B' being a sdledule of wOiks to be constructed by lhe Owners.

15.3 Schedule 'C' boing a Sllhedule of the financial pnovislons.

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that lh';s agreement ond tho covenants, prov•sos, QOndltions and schedula. herein IXilllained shall be binding upon and ensure benefit of ll'le parties he.eto, their succassors and assigns.

WHENEVER the singular and mast~~llle are used !hroughou! this agreement. the same shall be oonstroed as meaning the plur"al or feminine or neuter where 1he cootext oflhe parties hereto require.

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 11

II :It' ''

Pro~k [ ~l~cktf!! -222-

I

I

WfTWES$ IlK• hand.l and corpormo &«~!:;. d lha putkta Nlrclo, ahe11ted to ~ lh1 handa of tleir piTJper lignlng offiaer&. ou!)' IIUthOP1toU In lhl!ll bel\elf, ~.:,y fim ~ WJ\1\8/l,

Wle have V'lo :a1.11hority to bind 11'11 Corpordon.

IIi II I',\

Hi I

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 12

-223- 11! 1<0 m1

SCHEDULE 'A'

BEING A BOUNDARY {LEGAL) DESCRIPTION OF THE LANDS TO BE DEVELOPED ------

THOSE CERTAIN LANDS siluate in the Town of Georgina, in lhe Regional Municipality of York (former geographic Township of Georgina) and being composed of the following:

OWNER Ptoperty OescrlD'don Pin Numl!!J:

Dattell Reader Lens 45 and 46, Plan 427 03527-11874 Lota 49 and 50, Plan 427 03527-11875 Lots 53 and 54, Plin 427 03527-QB?B lois rn and 8&, Plan 427 0352NJBn Lois 71 and 72, Plan 427 03527-o878

Robe~ Nijsse Lots 47 and 46. Pia11427 03527-Q879 lots 51 and 52, Plan 427 03527-o8BO LoiJ 65 and 66, Plan 427 03527~1 LoiS 89 ancl 70, Plan 427 03527-oBB2 Loti 73 and 74, Plan 427 03527-4)883

0. Reader & R. Nrlsse Lots 55, 56 and fiT, Pian 427 03527-Q886 Norman MacDonald Lots 58 and 59, Plan 427 03ll27o{}884 James MacDonald Lois 60 and 61 Plan 427 03527-11873 John Srewart Lots 62, 6S and 64, Plan 427 03527-4)885

Roll Numbers: 034-110 and 01>4-1 12

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 13

-224-H1i HliiOI! f-bi~

SCHEDULE 'B'

WORKS TO BE CONSTRUCTED ___ __,B:<.eY, "Tii"""-E-"OWN=~R OR OWNER'S CONSULTANT

ConstNclion of the WOII<s shoYm on 1he Site Pian, Site Gradklg and SeMc:tng Plan and Landscape Plan, prepared by LGI Consulting Engineers Inc., Ptojecl No. 02011gned by the Olredot of El>glneering and Public Worl<s on August 14, 2003, IE!Spec:tlvely, irducfing the folloWing:

(a) GRADING & DRIVEWAY'S:

ConsiNclion of1he grading of aH lots ao indicated on the Site Plan -and to the satisfaction of the Director of Engineering and Public Works.

Thtl ONner covenants and agrees to place aspilett or other approved hard !IUrface from the edge of the existing paved road to the front fica of the housoe or garage haccordanc:e whh the T I>WI!'s 'I:Jeveloprnem Design Criteria', as emended.

Prior iD ocwpancy Of any d~ing, the granUlar base shall be inSialled and fX)Illpacl9d on the driveway In IICCOIIII!Moe wi1h the TDVtTl'S 'De>e/opnlfltl! Design Crit$rie', .. amended.

(b) SODDING:

Cons1Ncllon ot soddng Of all lois where lha twf has been diifurbed and/or v.11ere there Is no IU!f With the exoepliln of those ereas1hat are herd Slllfaced or &in!a~y finished by lanc18C8Ping.

(c) RESXOBATION:

All dlslulbcd areas Within the tronk;ipal right-of-way shal be~ 1o the 1181isfacti:)n of Ito& Director of Engineering and Pub!'~<: Works.

(d) SILT AND SEDIMENT CONJROLS:

All sut and sedlmenl c.ontrols !!hall be Installed as per lhe Jeviewed plws and shill be i1 place prior 1o 1he stert of construdi>n. Al•l~ and ...almem COIIirols ohal1 remain 'n place and be mainta~ ~nb1 all dlstubed areas hiM been $13billzed.

~ This schedule Is IIUbjeclto revisiOn upon completion or 1he revi- of "nglneering plans and desi n.

IJ~ Ago~eemanr tRe: Parte Roao' OttWJIOpmenf)l F1T.: S.P. '46 Ownii\S'I R. Nllae. 0. Rfll .. a'ar, J. M8cllnniltl, N. MlicDonsld, J. St.waft

lit d ,.,

...... SCHEDULE '11' Pg 14

-225-

SCHEDULE 'C'

FINANCIAL PAYMENTS

Forthwith ~pon execution of this Agreemen~ the OWner agrees to pay to the Town:

1. An amounl of $1,000.00 as a oontributlon towards legal end engineenng c:orls of the Town.

The Town acknovAedges payment of $1,000.00 on September 30, 2002

2. An amount of $10,000.00 as a road foullllg depoth and 1o guarantee the constn.rctlon and matnlenanoe Of all wor1cs to be completed by the Owner.

The TQwn acknowledges pa~'lnent of$10.000.00 o~ May :Z, 200S.

SCHEDULE '11' Pg 15

-226-

CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA



SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR PART LOT CONTROL EXEMPTION 1580699 ONTARIO LIMITED N/E CORNER OF OLD HOMESTEAD ROAD AND METRO ROAD

1. RECOMMENDATIONS:


B. THAT THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY MICHAEL SMITH PLANNING CONSULTANTS; DEVELOPMENT COORDINATORS LTD. ON BEHALF OF 1580699 ONTARIO LIMITED TO EXEMPT LANDS DESCRIBED AS BLOCKS 1, 2, 3, REGISTERED PLAN 65M-4337 FROM PART LOT CONTROL IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 50 (7) OF THE PLANNING ACT R.S.O. 1990, c. P. 13, BE APPROVED.

C. THAT COUNCIL ADOPT THE BY-LAW TO REMOVE TOWNHOUSE BLOCKS 1, 2 AND 3 ON REGISTERED PLAN 65M-4337 FROM PART LOT CONTROL.

2. INFORMATION:

OWNER/APPLICANT:

AGENT:


FILE NUMBER:

1580699 Ontario Limited

Michael Smith Planning Consultants Development Coordinators Ltd.

(Refer to Schedules '1' and '2') Blocks 1, 2 and 3 on Plan 65MA337 Roll No.: 096-29150

04.46

-227-

Page No.2 of Report PB-2012-0084

3. PROPOSAL:

An application has been submitted seeking part lot control exemption respecting Blocks 1, 2 and 3 on Registered Plan 65M-4337 which was registered on August 29, 2012 (refer to Schedule '2'). The plan of subdivision has a total of 20 townh0use units, 7 of which are model homes and currently under construction on Block 1 (refer to Schedule '3'). The subject land is situated at the northeast intersection of Old Homestead Road and Metro Road in Keswick.

4. DISCUSSION:

Once a plan of subdivision has been approved under Section 50 of the Planning Act and registered, a landowner may convey only a complete lot or block on a registered plan even though they may own abutting lots or blocks. Approval of this application would enable the owner to convey parts of each block on the registered plan of subdivision to separate landowners.

The passing of a By-law under Section 50 (7) of the Planning Act enables a Municipal Council to pass a by-law to remove part lot control from all or part of a registered plan of subdivision. In this instance the proponent is requesting that part lot control exemption be applied specifically to Blocks 1, 2 and 3 on the Registered Plan.

In accordance with Section 50 (7.3) of the Act, a by-law passed under Section 50 (7) may provide that the By-law lapses at the expiration of the time specified in the By-law. The Town therefore can impose an expiration date to the By-law. In accordance with Section 50 (7.4), of the Act, the Town may also amend the Bylaw to extend the time period specified for the expiration of the By-law, at any time before the actual expiration date. When the time period for expiration of the By-law lapses, part lot control will again apply to the blocks. Alternatively, part lot control would again apply to the blocks if Council repeals the By-law.

It is the practice of the Town to include a one year expiry date on the part lot control exemption by-laws. A one year expiry date provides adequate time for parcels to be conveyed and saves staff and Council from having to deal with repealing by-laws in the future.

Building permits respecting the townhouse units on Block 1 were issued on March 8, 2012 in accordance with Zoning By-law permissions respecting "pre-

-228-

Page No.3 of Report PB-2012-0084

registration" homes, and construction of the dwellings is almost complete. Building permits for the remaining 13 units on Blocks 2 and 3 were issued on August 29, 2012 and it is anticipated that the foundations for same will be poured this week.

Normally, part lot control exemption is requested after the foundation has been poured and the surveyor's certificate confirms that the dwelling units are in accordance with both the R-Pian and the Zoning By-law. In this instance, the applicant's agent is under time constraints and has requested part lot control exemption for Blocks 2 and 3 before the foundation has been poured. To that end, staff have advised the applicant's agent that their surveyor will be required to be onsite as the foundations are poured to ensure compliance with the draft RPian and the amending zoning by-law. Based on the draft R-Pian submitted by the applicant's agent, all 20 units will comply with Zoning By-law 500 in terms of the lot area and lot frontage (see Schedule '3'). The applicant's agent has indicated that a surveyor's certificate confirming the details of each of the units (i.e. the lot frontage and lot area of each unit) will be submitted to the Town after the foundation has been poured for Blocks 2 and 3. In the event that the units do not comply with Zoning By-law 500, the applicant will be required to file a minor variance application in order to comply with the Zoning By-law.

Should this application be approved at tonight's meeting, staff is requesting that the part lot control exemption by-law also be adopted at the same meeting. A copy of said by-law is attached as Schedule '4'.

Prepared by:

~abe, MCIP, RPP Planner

Recommended by:

Reviewed by:

Velvet L. Ross, MCIP, RPP Manager of Planning

Ham ;iff~ A~proved by: ---

Director of Planning and Building

10 September 2012

!AJhvwtJ( Winanne Grant, B.A. AMCT, C~MC Chief Administrative Officer

-229-

-72-

BOYERS

SUBJECT LANDS

DEER PA~K DRIVE

ROAD

Schedule 1

~· i

-230-

0 _J

0

' I

Schedule 2

<~·-- .,_ v

', '•

-231-

!"""-~·"~" lttt-~~~ ···~

I W1

Schedule 3

'.l u

-232-


IN THE


BY·LAW NUMBER 2012-

A BY-LAW TO REMOVE CERTAIN LANDS FROM PART LOT CONTROL

The Council of the Corporation of the Town of Georgina, pursuant to

Section 50 Subsection (7) of the Planning Act, R.S.0.1990, c. P.13 ENACTS

AS FOLLOWS:

1. That Subsection (5) of Section 50 of the Planning Act. R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13 does not apply to Blocks 1, 2 and 3 on Registered Plan 65M-4337.

2. This By-law shall be deemed to expire on September 24, 2013 unless otherwise extended in accordance wilh Subsection (7.4) of Section 50 of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13.

READ a First, Second and Third time and Finally passed this 241h day of

September 2012.

Mayor Robert Grossi

Acting Clerk, Winnane Grant

Schedule 4

233: THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA

REPORT NO. OED-2012-0054


SEPTEMBER 24, 2012

SUBJECT: AWARD OF TENDER DESICCANT DEHUMIDIFIER- GEORGINA ICE PALACE

RECOMMENDATION:

REPORT:


2. THAT THE BID RECEIVED FROM CANADIAN TECH AIR SYSTEMS INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $282,387.00 PLUS APPLICABLE HST FOR THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF A ROOF MOUNTED DESICCANT DEHUMIDIFIER FOR THE GEORGINA ICE PALACE BE ACCEPTED AND THAT A BYLAW BE PASSED AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN CANADIAN TECH AIR SYSTEMS INC. AND THE TOWN OF GEORGINA.

3. THAT THE TOTAL PROJECT COST OF $323,357.00 BE FUNDED THROUGH A DRAW FROM RESERVES, REFLECTiNG AN INCREASED DRAW OF $168,000.00 BEYOND CURRENT APPROVALS CONTAINED IN THE APPROVED 2011 AND 2012 BUDGETS.

Tender OED2012-030 was called for the supply and installation of a roof mounted desiccant dehumidifier for the Georgina Ice Palace.

As set out in the attached report from the Purchasing Manager two bids were received for this tender and the low bid was submitted by Canadian Tech Air Systems Inc. in the amount of $282,387.00 inclusive of HST.

BACKGROUND:

The new desiccant system will deal with the moisture issue that accumulates on the ceiling and falling on the ice surface creating poor ice conditions, see pictures. There is also significant sweating on the concrete walls. The moisture issues will create premature decay of surfaces and was a contributor to early replacement of the rink boards on both pads.

The original budget of 2011 did not include the type of installation that is now being proposed. 2011 monies were for a removal and replacement. Based on the new 2012 design calculations, a larger unit is now required for the desired dew/humidity point levels. Additional controls are required to control the fresh air based on Co2 levels. The new design has the unit on the roof, with additional structural steel and a natural gas train. The location where the refrigerant units are currently located will not support the size or the weight of the new system proposed. There

234 2

was an engineering design and study to make sure that we had a complete solution, and through this analysis we discovered emissivity curtain replacement and removal of the inside sheet metal ceiling cladding per pad is also required. In 2013 we need additional funds for an approximate cost of $120,000 and a report will be forthcoming with supporting detail.

Operating costs overall will go down marginally. The hydro costs will go down due to dryer environmental conditions and therefore the ice making machines will have less load. There will also be a savings from converting from electricity to natural gas. Annual natural gas consumption will increase due to the re-generative "drying" cycle of the desiccant system.

The total project cost of $323,357.00 is comprised of $287,357.00 for the desiccant unit, $16,000 for contingency fees and $20,000 for engineering services.

The approved budget for this project in 2011 was $135,000.00. The 2012 approved budget included an amount of $20,000.00 for engineering services which allowed us to develop and determine the root cause of the issue and determine the best solution. The Engineering fee also assisted us in drawings and specifications for this project.

The reserve fund has a total of $1,300,143.00. After this project the balance remaining in the reserve will be $997,143.00.

It is therefore recommended that monies from the reserve fund in the amount $168,000.00 be transferred in order to fund this necessary project.

References have been verified and staff believes Canadian Tech Air Systems Inc. is competent to complete the project.

This report has been reviewed by the Director of Administration Services/Treasurer and she concurs with the proposed funding sources described in this report.

Dan Pisani, p: Eng. Director oy6p~rations and Engineering

I '

Winanne Grant, BA, AMCT, CEIVlC Chief Administrative Officer

/hay Encl.

interoffice MEMORANDUM

237

To:

C.C.:

From:

Subject:

Date:

Dan Pisani, Director of Operations and Engineering

Dan Murnaghan, Manager of Parks and Open Spaces Darrell O'Neill. Facility Supervisor

Brian Jordan, Purchasing Manager

REQUEST FOR TENDER OED2012-030 ROOF MOUNTED DESICCANT DEHUMIDIFIER GEORGINA ICE PALACE

September 10, 2012

OF OPERATIONS AND

1,___E_N_,.G~:INEERING

Sff' 1 0 2012

Tenders for the Supply and Installation of a Roof Mounted Desiccant Dehumidifier for the Georgina Ice Palace, Contract OED2012-030, closed at 2:00 p.m., local time, Friday September 7, 2012 as per the Tender Bid Document. Those Tenders received were opened at 2:15p.m., local time, Friday September 7, 2012 in the Board Room, located on the second floor of the Civic Centre. Those present during the opening were as follows:

1. Brian Jordan, Purchasing Manager 2. Mysti Hamilton, Administrative Services Department 3. Carolyn Lance Clerks Division 5. Vic Vincent, Canadian Tech Air Systems

Two (2) bids were received for the Work to be completed under Tender Contract OED2012-030, results were as follows:

1. 2.

Canadian Tech Air Systems Inc., Toronto Mach Mechanical Solutions Inc., Aurora

$ 282,387.00 $317,812.50

The Tender Documents were prepared by the Doherty Engineering Inc. and the Purchasing Division. The documents were made available to the public August 17, 2012. This Tender was advertised in the Georgina Advocate on Aug 30, 2012 and all possible editions until the closing date. The project was also advertised on the Town's website as well as that of the Ontario Public Buyers and Biddingo. A total of five document sets were distributed.

No addendums were issued with respect to this project. The Tender closed at the scheduled date and time as indicated in Bid Document.

238 Tender Evaluation Memo- OED2012-030

The Purchasing Division has completed a preliminary analysis of the Tenders and has found them to be acceptable with respect to the basic terms and conditions as set out within the Tender Document and the Purchasing By-Law. Copies of all the tenders received have been forwarded to the Operations and Engineering Department for further evaluation and final recommendation. Final approval of the preferred Contractor will remain the responsibility of the Operations and Engineering Department.

In order to comply with the terms and conditions as setout in the Town of Georgina Purchasing By-law# 2004-0120, Section 6.0, Reports to Council, it may be necessary for the Department Head to submit the awarding of this contact of Council for approval.

n, CPPB, AMCT g Manager

39 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA IN THE


BY-LAW NUMBER 2012-00 (CON-1)

BEING A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT BETWEEN CANADIAN TECH AIR SYSTEMS INC. AND THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWN

· OF GEORGINA FOR THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF A DESICCANT DEHUMDIFIER AT THE GEORGINA ICE PALACE

WHEREAS it is deemed advisable to enter into a contract between Canadian Tech Air Systems Inc. and The Corporation of the Town of Georgina in the amount of $282,387.00 plus applicable HST with respect to tender OED2012-030 with regard to the supply and installation of a roof mounted desiccant dehumidifier at the Georgina Ice Palace.

BE IT THEREFORE ENACTED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF GEORGINA THAT The Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to execute a contract between Canadian Tech Air Systems Inc. in the amount of $282,387.00 plus applicable HST with respect to tender OED2012-030.

Read a first, second and third time and finally passed this September 2012.

Robert A. Grossi, Ma'yor

Roland Chenier, Town Clerk

day of

PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS PLANNING APPLICATIONS:

.,. Presentation: 1. Applicant summarizes proposal. 2. Staff member presents report. 3. Public/Council may ask questions or make

comments on the proposal.

.,.Reply: 4. Applicant/staffrespoud to questions raised by the

public. 5. Council may ask questions of staff, the applicant

and/or the public. 6. Public has a second opportunity to make further

submissions to present new information, to clarify an issue, or to ask questions.

.,.Council Debate: 7. The merits of the proposal are debated by

Council.

.,. Recommendations: 8. Council decides to Adopt, Amend, Refuse or

Defer the application with or without conditions.

FOUR GENERAL TYPES OF MOTIONS:

1. Main Motions introduce subjects to the assembly for its consideration. They cannot be made when another motion is before the assembly. They yield to privileged, subsidiary and incidental motions. i.e.: "I move that we purchase ... "

2. Subsidiary Motions change or affect how the main motion is handled. (They are voted on before the main motion) i.e.: "I move the question before the assembly be amended by striking out ... "

3. Privileged Motions are most urgent. They concern special or important matters not related to pending business. i.e.: "I move we aqjourn"

4. Incidental Motions are questions ofprocednre that arise out of other motions. They must be considered before the other motion. i.e.: "I move to suspend the rules for the purpose of .. "

EXCERPTS FROM THE PROCEDURAL BY-LAW

... Rules of Procedure: To suspend the rules of procedure requires the consent of not less than twothirds of the Members present.

... Delegation: A person shall not speak for longer than five minutes except a delegation of three or more persons may have more than one speaker but may speak no longer than ten minutes in total.

... In Camera Meeting: Before a meeting is closed to the public, the Members shall state by resolution the general natnre of the matter to be considered.

.,. Notices of Motion: A motion presented at a meeting which is not printed in the agenda is to be dealt with as a notice of motion.

.,. Agenda Items: All items for the agenda are to be in the hands of the Town Clerk not later than 4:30 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding the meeting.

... Point of Order: May be called by a member to bring attention to any breach of Rules ofProcednre or any other informality or irregularity in the proceedings . .,.Debate: 1. No member shall speak more than twice or for

longer than ten minutes to the same question except in reply.

2. No debate is permitted on Committee of the Whole recommendations unless based upon the introduction of new information • An amendment is made • Motion to table, refer or defer

3. Motion to table is debatable, not amendable and may be reconsidered .

4. Motion to refer is debatable and may be amended. 5. Motion to defer is debatable as to advisability,

postponement, and amendable as to time and date .

.,. Reconsideration: Council may not reconsider or rescind a motion for a period of six months, unless a member gives notice of motion to reconsider or rescind under the Other Business section of the meeting and may relate to resolution/by-law enacted dnring that meeting or at a prior meeting.

COUNCIL - Georgina Electronic-records Management System (GEMS)

Documents

Transcript of COUNCIL - Georgina Electronic-records Management System (GEMS)