Planning Committee Meeting
October 14, 2003

October 24^th, 2003

On October 14^th, the Altona West Community Association attended a City Planning Meeting relating to the property located on the north side of Finch Avenue opposite Woodview Avenue.  The meeting involved the consideration of an application from Nicou Inc. for rezoning of the property for development.

Details on the subject land, previous application, current application, and a summary of the meeting are provided below:

Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SP-2002-02
Zoning By-law Amendment Application A 9/99 (R2)
Nicou Inc. Part 1, 40R-11934
(100 Finch Avenue - North side of Finch Avenue, opposite Woodview Avenue)
City of Pickering

Property Location & Description:

• North side of Finch Avenue, opposite Woodview Avenue.
• 8.7 hectares.
• North-west portion of subject lands occupied by wetland; remainder of northern portion occupied by wooded lands.
• East of Amos Pond, which is within the Rouge Park.
• South of the subject land are a number of dwellings fronting Finch Avenue & Woodview Avenue.
• East side is mostly vacant land with one detached dwelling .
• One the north side are the CP Railway & the York-Durham Sanitary Trunk sewer.

Previous Application:

• Submitted by Map Realty (on behalf of the Beare Estate) in 1999
• Adult lifestyle condominium development including:
  • 70 bungalow townhouses.
  • 160 apartment units plus 188-bed assisted-living complex in 10 and 11-storey buildings.
• Desire to develop entire parcel.
• Rejected by Town of Pickering.
• In 2000, the Ontario Municipal Board denied an appeal by Map Realty & confirmed designation on north-east part of subject lands as Open Space-Natural Area.
• The Board also notes that a 50 metre setback should be maintained from the wetland boundary.

Current Application:

• Submitted by Nicou Inc. (Pierre Boiron is the principal for Nicou).
• 39 lots for detached dwellings.
• Minimum lot frontages ranging from 12 to 16.5 metres & lot depths between 32 and 54.3 metres.
• 29 dwellings fronting the proposed new street & 10 dwellings fronting Finch Avenue.
• Northern 5.82 hectares as an open space block (2/3 of property - conveyed to Toronto Region Conservation Authority at no cost).
• Walkway from the proposed new street to the open space block.
• 0.052 hectare block between lots 14 & 15 conveyed to the City at no cost for use as a park.
• Proposed density of development is 17 dwellings per net hectare; currently permitted up to and including 30 dwellings per net hectare.
• 50 metre setback from wetlands.

Comments from Delegates:

1. Norman Collier, Townline, stated his concern with the possible drainage of Amos Pond and traffic congestion this development may cause.
2. Otto Stock, 1960 Woodview Avenue, advised that this development would help area residents by alleviating the problem of garbage being dumped on this property and would enhance the area.
3. Mrs. McCullough, is concerned if this development may have an affect on her well water stating that they have had no problems for 34 years. She questioned if this development will be on sewers.
4. Bonnie Littley, 1499 Sandhurst Crescent, advised that the area has a shortage of parkland and open space and she stated the need for sustainable development. She concurred that this is a good development but not in this area.
5. Bryce Jordan, Planner representing the applicant, advised that they have spent two years working with staff of the City of Pickering and Toronto & Region Conservation Authority to prepare this proposal which is in full conformity with the Official Plan. He further advised that two thirds of the property would be transferred to public ownership. He requested Committee support of this application.

Comments from Members of the Planning Committee:
Councillor Mark Holland:

• Initial impression would be to reject application.
• Cautioned against this stand as a future applicant could request a higher density within planning guidelines.
• The current proposal is more than within current established guidelines.
• The subject property is within urban boundaries.

Councillor Maurice Brenner:

• Accepts OMB decision, but does not agree with it.
• Doesn't believe adequate environmental assessment has been carried out & that there could be an impact to the abutting property.
  • Response from Catherine Rose (City staff) indicated applicant has satisfied environmental requirements.
  • She conceded that there would be an impact compared to no development.
  • Staff is satisfied with balance between environmental protection and development.
  • There is a known archeological site north of the development that must still be investigated.

Councillor David Pickles:

• Questioned staff if applicant has completed all required studies.
  • Response from Catherine Rose indicated studies are sufficient to proceed with application at this time.
• Questioned staff if item is deferred, what are the implications.
  • Response from Catherine Rose indicated that since it is past 90 days, applicant could take it to the OMB.
• Made note that original application was too dense; hence City was successful with OMB hearing.
• New application is better because of much lower density.
• Voting against the application may send wrong message to the applicant, as he has been working with City staff to develop a suitable plan for the property.
• Stated intent to defer Council decision to another date to allow staff to provide additional information.

Councillor David Ryan:

• Indicated concern over well water on existing properties, and treatment of sewage
  • Response from Catherine Rose indicated that if well water is affected, the Region would provide a supply system along the street in front of the affected property; the resident may have to incur cost from street to residence; possibly, this cost may be incorporated into development charges.

Summary:

• The Planning Committee approved the application.
• During the Council meeting that followed, Councillor Pickles motioned that the application be referred to staff for more information and to be brought back to the November 17^th Council Meeting.
• The motion was seconded by Councillor McLean.
• The motion was carried with a recorded vote.
  • Yes: Coucillors Pickles, McLean, Ryan, Holland, and Interim Mayor Maurice Brenner.
  • No: Councillor Johnson.