HomeMy WebLinkAboutWater and Related Land Management Advisory Board Appendices 1991
W~. ,
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
TOMMY THOMPSON PARK
1990-91 COMMON TERN MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #1/91
March 1, 1991
.
--r:. u:u.-4-d II :~.(,1-"'~f J';7/
tAlR. ~
SEHD PROOF TO: CAROLID DUItLOP
CAIlADIAI WILDLIFB SERVICS. OBTARIO UGlOW
49 CAHBLOT DRIVE
liBPEAB. OIlTAlUO
KlA OH3
NESTING RAFTS AS A HAHAGEKEllT TOOL FOR A
DECLINING COHHON TERN (STERBA HIRUVDO)
COLOHY.
CAROLINE L. DUNLOP
CANADIAN WILDLIFE SERVICE, ONTARIO REGIOIJ
49 CAMELOT DRIVE
NEPEAH. OIlTARIO
KU OH3
HAllS BLOICPOEL
CANADIAll WILDLIFE SERVICE. ONTARIO REGIOIJ
49 CAMELOT DRIVE
NEPEAH. ONTARIO
1ClA OH3
SCOTT JARVIE
METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
5 SHOREHAH DRIVE
DOWHSVIEW. OIlTARIO
!ON IS4
~.D - 2 -
Abstract - A colony of Common Terns (sterna hirundo) at the Eastern
Headland. Toronto Outer Harbour. has been declining since 1982 due to
loss of habitat by natural succession and erosion, competition with
Ring-billed Gulls (Larus delawarensis) for nesting habitat, and
disturbances by predators and people. Four wooden rafts were installed
in the spring of 1990 as a management tool to provide artificial nesting
~ites~ Installation occurred when most ring-bills were already ~ommitted
to other nesting sites and while the Common Terns began arriving in the
area The rafts were covered with sand and gravel and were provided with
tern decoys, driftwood, chick shelters and ramps Common Terns readily
occupied the rafts and defended them against ring-bills and Canada Geese
(Branta canadensis). Incubation began by mid-Kay There was a total of
115 nests and 356 eggs on the four rafts between 23 Kay to 1 June A
storm on 3 June destroyed 23 nests. Between 7 June and 5 July we
recorded a total of 128 nests and 361 eggs, this total included nests
which survived the storm of 3 June and all new nest attempts Chicks
were first present on 7 June and 170 fledglings (~ 20 days post-hatch)
were produced from the 128 nests by 27 July A total of 1 3 fledglings
were produced per nest The effects of storms upon the tern colonies and
the resulting predation by Ruddy Turnstones (Arenaria interpres) are
described No predation by Black-crowned Night-Herons (Nycticorax
nycticorax), a species nesting nearby, was evident Improvements to raft
design are suggested
~
-:~~.. - - ~~.-..~
_ _, ...... 7- _ _, _.".~
_ ... J~ ;!-.._ ~ ~ .._
.-:~; ~~~;t :-t:: ~, -
- 3 - . t\)-R,:q. -
Keywords: Common tern, sterna hirundo, nestins raft, management tool,
predation, reproductive success.
Running head: Nestins rafts for terns
~ ... .- - ~.,
-. .~ :"';' - -~.
,~;:.'\ -.... -
~ .<6" - 4 -
IllTRODUCTIOV
A Common Tern (sterna hirundo) colony requires a site which has
sparse, low vegetation and is isolated from predators (Palmer 1941.
Courtney & Blokpoel 1983) Since Common Terns prefer to nest in areas in
the early stages of vegetative succession (Soots & Parnell 1975), habitat
can be lost due to the natural progression of vegetation towards a
d~nser. taller comft1nity. The preferred b~hitat tends to be eoncentrated
along beaches and is susceptible to wave damage and erosion
.c -
In the lower Great Lakes, Ring-billed Gulls (Larus delawarensis)
compete with Common Terns for nesting habitat The Great Lakes
population of ring-bills has increased since 1976 (Blokpoel & Tessier
1986) Ring-bills can exclude Common Terns from preferred habitat since
they return to the breeding grounds earlier (Korris & Hunter 1976,
Courtney & Blokpoel 1983)
Common Tern colonies located on headlands (Courtney & Blokpoel 1983)
.
are accessible to ground predators and people (Morris et al in press)
Such disturbances decrease the reproductive success and may cause a
decline in the size of the colony
Attempts have been made to manage a declining colony of Common Terns
on the Eastern Headland. Toronto Outer Harbour, by: (1) reduc ing
vegetative cover and halting succession (Korris et al in press), (2)
excluding the ring-bills from the habitat using monofilament lines
(Blokpoel & Tessier 1983), and (3) discouraging people from entering the
colony by posting signs. Despite these efforts, numbers of breeding
pairs at the Headland have declined (Korris et al in press)
- 5 -
-
...- - ... - ~
The use of rafts as artificial nesting habitat has been described for
Common Terns (Eades 1970. Turrian 1980, Landenbergue & Hangelli 1987,
Norman 1987) and Forster's Terns (Sterna forsteri) (Techlow 1983). The
advantages of rafts at the Eastern Headland are: (1) provision of
suitable habitat which is not susceptible to erosion, (2) installation
after most ring-bills are already committed to nesting elsewhere, and (3)
iso.lation from grntlnd P1:Adetot's and human distllrbAn("es.
The Ketropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (HTRCA)
"
and Canadian Wildlife Service installed four rafts in early Kay 1990 at
the Headland and monitored them to document their use by Common Terns
This paper reports the results of that study
STUDY AREA
The Eastern Headland, Toronto outer Harbour, is a man-made spit of
land which extends approximately 5 km into Lake Ontario and has been
constructed from rough fill and dredged spoil The Headland includes two
areas' Tommy Thompson Park (TTP) and the Endikement Area (Fig 1). TTP
was mainly constructed during 1972-75 and includes peninsulas (Areas B-D)
and Embayments a-d. It has been operated by the KTRCA since 1985. The
peninsulas have become vegetated due to natural colonization and
succession; the tallest vegetation is cottonwood and willow The
Endikement Area has been under construction since 1980 and is built of
rubble and scattered rocks. The "cells" contain contaminated dredge from
the Toronto Inner Harbour.
())~ .1
- 6 -
Larids exploited the new habitat at the Headland There were 30-40
nests of CoJlllDOn Terns in 1971. Ring-bills first nested in 1973 with 21
nests The size of the Common Tern colony increased until it peaked in
1982 with 1,694 nests, it has been decreasing ever since despite
management efforts Loss of habitat, competition with ring-bills and
predation have all contributed towards its decline Only 108 clutches
were present on the- Headland 5 June 1989 A total of 86 of these 108
f clutches occurred in the Endikement Area where the gull control program
(Blokpoel & Tessier 1987) has been operated by the KTRCA, since 1985, to
prevent nesting gulls from interfering with construction operations The
ring-bills are permitted to nest in Areas A-C with almost 62,000 nests in
1989
METHODS
Construction of the raft sections
Since a completed raft (5 m X 5 m) is awkward to maneuver it was
composed of four sections (25m X 25m) (Fig 2) Each section was
made of a 6-mm plywood platform supported by a wooden frame (4 em X 13
cm) Cross supports were positioned so that four 200-litre plastic
barrels would fit snugly into the spaces underneath the platform and
serve as floatation devices. The corks of the barrels were caulked with
silicone to prevent leaking. Four holes were drilled in opposite sides
of the supporting frame and the parallel crossbars through which a 9 m
length of rope (9.5-rom diameter) could be threaded to strap the barrels
into position Four holes for the 15-cm bolts which were to attach two
~-- . <
"' _f"
- ....
- 7 - WI< .t:g
sections together were drilled through both supporting frames
simultaneously so that they would be aligned. Shared edges were marked
to aid assembly. Four rectangular holes (8 cm X 15 em) were cut in the
platform along the centre line so that the bolts could be installed from
above. An 8-cm eye bolt was attached to each outer side approximately 30
em from the corner to be used as the site of attachment for the anchor
line.
The walls of the raft (2.5 m X 20 cm) were constructed of 6-mm
plywood and attached by three hinges. Therefore, once the walls were
screwed to the assembled raft they could be initially lowered to make the
raft a more attractive habitat for the terns and later raised to prevent
the chicks from falling off
The upper surface of the platform, the sides of the frame, and the
hinged walls were stained to protect the wood The sections were
constructed in the HTRCA workshop and then transported by truck to TTP
for on-site assembly
Assembly of the four sections of each raft
We placed two neighbouring sections upside down in shallow water to
align the drilled holes and then bolted them together and installed the
barrels . This procedure was repeated to connect the other two sections
of the raft, thus forming two halves. We turned each half over so that
the pla~form of the raft was now facing up, 30 cm above the surface of
the water.
~ --"
~.q ...~--- ~
- 8 -
The halves were bolted together with eight l5-cm bolts which were
tightened from above via the pre-cut holes in the platform These holes
were covered with clear plastic sheeting (5-mil) which was stapled in
place A l-m wide skirting of black plastic snow fencing was stapled to
the side of the support frame (21 m length) encircling the raft, the ends
overlapped by approximately 1 m The skirting hid the barrels to
camouflage the rafts and prevented chicks from swimming underneath We
attached the hinges of the walls using 4-cm wood screws, the walls could
be raised and secured by 6-cm gate hooks at each corner
The surface of the platform was covered with sand and smooth-edged
gravel (l-cm diameter) since these substrates provide drainage Drainage
holes (5-mm diameter) were also randomly drilled in the platform. We
placed driftwood and rocks on the rafts since terns prefer a habitat with
relief objects if there is no vegetation (Blokpoel et al 1978), these
objects provided shelter for the chicks Three to six wooden decoys were
installed on the rafts and held upright by wooden dowels inserted into
holes drilled into the platforms It required four adults wearing chest
waders 3-4 h to assemble one raft
Installation of the rafts
The four rafts were installed when most ring-bills were already
committed to other nesting sites and while Common Terns began arriving in
the area The assembled rafts were moved to the desired locations either
by being pulled by two adults wearing chest waders or being towed by a
motor boat (l35 hp). Two concrete blocks ("0 cm X 20 em X 25 cm) were
I
W~. to
- 9 -
roped together and used as an anchor (40 kg). Anchors were attached to
two opposite corners of each raft using a polypropylene rope (12-mm
diameter); its length was at least two times the depth of the water.
After a storm on 3 June, additional anchors were installed to the other
two corners of each raft.
To prevent winter damage. we removed the rafts on 13-14 September
w'to..en the terns had c.omple.te4 their br"'e<Jing season
Protection against waves and spray
After observing the rafts during near gale force winds (48 kmJh) on
17 Kay, we raised the walls that faced the prevailing winds to prevent
spray from hitting the platform and to minimize substrate loss. The
walls were secured with 20-cm angle irons. Those facing the shore
remained down to provide an unobstructed view for monitoring the raft
Protection of chicks
Once the chicks were present, we stapled a hardware cloth fence (1 cm
X 3 cm mesh, 15 cm high) across the open side to create a barrier to
prevent chicks from falling off the raft while permitting the raft to be
monitored. We added three to four chick shelters to each raft at this
time. They were either clay drainage pipes (15-cm diameter, 50 cm long)
or rectangular clay blocks (hole was 8 em X l3 cm, 50 cm long).
When the chicks began excercising their wings (approximately 20 days
post-hatch), we installed a ramp at each raft to provide a resting
station for chicks which were unable to fly from the water to the raft.
lNR.l\
- 10 -
The 3-mm plywood ramp (13m X 5 m) was bolted to a reclining wall and
had a styrofoam float attached approximately 1.5 m from the end so that
it was slightly below the surface of the water A chick shelter was
placed on each ramp
Driftwood was placed near the rafts as loafing areas since fledglings
were sometimes prevented from using the ramp or landing within the colony
by a~ults, therefore, they were ferced to swiM near the raft A 8 ~ rope
..r (9 5-mm diameter) was nailed to three flat pieces of driftwood (1 m
lengths) We positioned the driftwood below the side with the ramp and
the ends of the rope were tied to the eye bolts
Observations of colonies
The rafts were observed using either binoculars (7 X 26) or a 20 X
telescope between 0700 and 1900 (3 Kay - 27 July, total time 110 h)
Colonization of the rafts by various species, behaviour of the Common
Terns, interspecific interactions and weather conditions (temperature,
wind, cloud cover) were recorded for each session.
The start of nesting was indicated by the presence of incubating
birds After nine days of incubation (23 Kay) we decided that it was
possible to visit the rafts by canoe without causing desertion Nest
locations relative to landmarks (e g driftwood, chick shelters) were
recorded on maps so that the fate of each nest could be followed During
each visit we also recorded the sizes of clutches, presence of abandoned
nests, number of eggs not within a nest, presence of chicks and evidence
of predation (length of visit per raft was 15 min) Loose eggs and dead
WR · l'l-
- 11 -
chicks were removed. During each visit we added substrate and driftwood
if required. We visited the rafts two or three times a week until the
chicks were at least 20 days post-hatch (5 July) and our visits caused a
few chicks to jump into the water. After 5 July, two additional visits
were made (24, 27 July).
The rafts were observed on 20 June between 2100-2230 using a night
viewing device to d.etet"!ai.ne if Black-crowned !light-Herons (!lycticorax
nycticorax) were preying upon eggs or chicks.
-'
Reproductive success
The fate of all nests present between 23 Kay to 5 July was followed
until 27 July The total number of nests is a cumulative sum of all
nests. both successful and abandoned. present on a raft during the
designated period Hatching success was defined as the total number of
eggs hatched divided by the total number of eggs on a raft (including
loose eggs) Hatching was determined by the presence of chicks ~ 2 days
post-hatch associated with a nest. Fledgling success was defined as the
number of juveniles ~ 20 days post-hatch divided by the number of eggs
hatched. Since chicks ~ 20 days post-hatch were no longer confined on
the rafts w~considered them to be fledged Overall reproductive success
was defined as hatching success multiplied by fledgling success.
Chick mortality
We monitored chick mortality by banding a total of 104 chicks: 89
chicks on 15 June. and lS chicks on 20 June. We visited the rafts on 29
Wfl- I~
- 12 -
June to determine if any banded chicks were missing. Chicks were
caught, temporarily confined in cardboard boxes, and their band number
recorded
RESULTS
Colonization of rafts
Alth011gh the rafts were initially visit~., by C~n::Ida Ge.esa (Branta
canadensis) and ring-bills, the terns colonized all four rafts The rate
~
depended upon the location of each raft
The rafts were first installed in three locations. One raft was
installed in Embayment d on 4 Kay approximately 60 m offshore and 100 m
from a chain of islands which were occupied by a small ring-bill colony
(340 nests) Common Terns had also been observed loafing at this site
These islands protected the raft from large waves by decreasing the
fetch Two rafts in Embayment a were installed on 3 Kay approximately
30 m from a ring-bill colony (almost 19,OOO nests) The fourth raft was
installed on 8 Kay in Cell 3, approximately 800 m northeast of the site
of the 1989 Common Tern colony on the Endikement Area
Raft 1 in Embayment d was occupied by Common Terns within 24 h of
installation and they began courtship behaviour, territorial defense and
defended the raft against other species Rafts 2 and 3 in Embayment a
were not colonized by terns and a single pair of ring-bills continued to
occupy Raft 2 and delivered nesting material Due to the presence of
"floaters" in Embayment d which were unable to secure a territory on Raft
1. Rafts 2 and 3 were moved to this location on 8 and 15 Kay
- l3 - ~.I4--
respectivelYi they were colonized by terns within 1 h of installation.
Raft . in Cell 3 was not colonized until 48 h after installation even
though terns had performed earlier courtship flights above it.
There were near gale force winds on the 10 Kay at midnight. Raft 4
was dragged 30 m, blown against a rocky shore and damaged; it was fixed
and re-located to a more sheltered location in CellI on 18 Kay. A tern
landed wi thin 30 m.in of inst::l 1 h t i on.. Col nn; '7.l::IUon was 1.at..e.r than that
in Embayment d and courtship behaviour and territorial defense began
r
after 36 h.
Well-established colonies developed on all four rafts Incubation
began by mid-Kay We recorded a total of ll5 nests and 356 eggs on the
four rafts between 23 Kay to 1 June (Table 1) There was a storm on 3
June and near gale force winds dragged the rafts to shore. Rafts 1 and 2
were grounded beneath overhanging trees; there were only eight terns per
raft on 4 June. Rafts 3 and 4 were grounded in open areas; there were 25
terns per raft All rafts may have been deserted during the storm, which
destroyed 23 nests. We pushed the rafts 10 m offshore to minimize the
risk of predation by red foxes (Vulpes vulpes). On 5 June, we attached
additional anchors and re-installed the rafts 30 m offshore
Defence of rafts against other species and egg predation
The terns defended the rafts against other species after colonization
(Raft 1: 1 day, Raft 2 and 3: 2 days, Raft 4: 13 days). Canada Geese
were chased off the rafts. Due to the close proximity of a gull colony
-
(ring-bills and Herring Gulls (Larus ar~entatus)) there were hundreds of
W(l, ,I ~
- 14 -
gulls flying within 100 m of the rafts Only individuals which
approacl1ed within approximately 15 m of the rafts were chased
Black-crowns fishing 100 m from the raft were not harassed unless a
juvenile tern was swimming within 15 m of the heron.
Before the storm on 3 June the terns allowed Ruddy Turnstones
(Arenaria interpres) to stand at the edge of the raft during three
encounters We noted no eviden-ce of esg predation Or. 7 June we found
eggs pecked, or broken (Raft 1 3 eggs, Raft 2: 7 eggs, Raft 3: 0 eggs,
Raft 4: 2l eggs). Turnstones were able to prey upon the eggs when the
colony was disrupted after the storm. The colony of Raft 4 was greatly
disrupted since the raft had been dragged 150 m and accidentally turned
90. counterclockwise during re-installation The terns seemed to have
difficulty locating their nests Consequently, ten nests were abandoned
and egg predation occurred
Reproductive success
We recorded a total of 128 nests and 361 eggs on the four rafts
between 7 June to 5 July, this total consisted of the nests which
survived the storm of 3 June and all new nest attempts Raft 3 had the
highest density of territories and supported a maximum of 38 concurrent
nests Hatching success for these 361 eggs was 82~ (Table 2)
Chicks were first present on 7 June The fledging success of the 296
chicks was 57~ (Table 2) Three fledglings were observed on 3 July in
Embayment d They could fly from the water and fly between the rafts
One fledgling was observed in Cell 1 on 5 July If they were unable to
return to the raft they used the ramp and driftwood to rest, to sit in
- 15 - wte .1 '=
the chick shelters and to be fed by their parents Three of the four
::'amps were someti!lles defended by adults and chicks were prevented from
using them. The chicks had difficulty returning to the raft by crossing
the hardware cloth barrier.
The fledglings began dispersing from the rafts and by 23 July none of
the 162 banded juveniles were observed on the raft (ages ~24 days
;>est-hatch). We observed CoIl!OOn Terns loafing on the islands in
Embayment d. 10 juveniles and 50 adults on 23 July.
Causes of chick mortality
We found a total of 6l of the 296 chicks dead on the rafts. Kost of
the dead chicks had died between the ages of 0-4 days post-hatch (9~).
r
The cause of death was usually unknown Three dead chicks were found
with head injuries caused by being pecked by an adult. Two dead chicks
were found with a fish tail protruding from their mouth, cause of death
was probably asphyxiation. The number of chicks dying increased at the
age of ~18 days post-hatch. Four dead chicks were found trapped between
the raised walls and logs used as relief objects. Approximately 10
chicks were rescued from these spacesi they probably would have been
unable to escape by themselves.
Chicks <20 days post-hatch were susceptible to predation by
Black-crowned Night-Heronsi there were heronries in Areas A,B,C (almost
1,000 nests). When the chicks were counted on the 29 June there were:
86 out of 89, 18-24 days post-hatch chicks banded on 15 June, and 15 out
of 15, 13-17 days post-hatch chicks banded on 20 June. Therefore, the
ftJl2 -l7 - 16 -
black-crowns were not preying upon the chicks even though one to six
individuals were seen daily since 15 June standing on the shore,
approximately 30 m from Raft 4 No black-crowns were seen on the rafts
at dusk on 20 June
Nests initiated after 5 July
The final visit to the rafts was on 27 July Hi.ne juveniles (~2-0
days post-hatch), 64 juveniles (<20 days post-hatch) and 36 active nests
..
were present These juveniles were produced from nests present on 5 July
since the incubation period is 21-30 days (Palmer 1941) The fate of the
juveniles <20 days post-hatch and the new nests was not followed
DISCUSSIOV
Raft design
Natural Common Tern colonie~ occur along beaches and nests may be
destroyed by rising water levels in the Great Lakes (Korris & Hunter
1976). Conversely, rafts were not effected by changing water levels, the
platform remained above the surface of the water
Spray caused substrate erosion during storms Damage was minimized
by raisins the walls on the windward side of the raft Kodifying the
design by nailing a wooden board (5 cm X 10 em) along the perimeter of
the raft to fill the gap between the wall and the platform would further
reduce substrate erosion, and would also prevent chicks from becoming
trapped in this space
- 17 - /))~.l~
Smooth-edged gravel is the preferred substrate since it is less
susceptible to erosion than sand. It was also incorporated into nest
bowls which might have helped prevent eggs from rolling when the rafts
rocked in the waves.
A ramp was provided for swimming fledglings to return to the raft.
Unfortunately, three of the four ramps were defended by courting adults
and swimmin! Chicks were sometimes prevented from climbing out of the
water. If a chick reached the top of the ramp it was often unable to
#-
,
cross the hardware cloth barrier. The ramp should be attached to the top
of the wall so a chick could jump down on to the raft. The pieces of
driftwood were more successful resting stations for the fledglings since
they were not defended by adults.
Colonization of the rafts
The rafts were installed after most ring-bills had begun nesting
elsewhere and the terns were arriving The timing of installation was
successful and the rafts were not colonized by gulls. The close
proximity of a large gull colony in Areas A and B seemed to prevent the
colonization of Rafts 2 and 3. However, colonization occurred within 1 h
after relocating thea to Embayment d. The thriving colony on Raft 1
attracted terns to the area and the additional rafts provided available
habitat for the "floaters" which could not secure a territory on Raft 1.
. Raft 4 in Cell ~ was colonized 36 h after installation. It was in
>-
acoustic contact wi~ the rafts in Embayment d but there was no visual
contact. Its rate of colonization was apparently not accelerated by the
social stimulus of the neighbouring colony.
~~ - l8 -
We do not know if decoys were an essential social stimulus to attract
the terns to the artificial nesting site We did not have to play calls
as described by Kress (1983) who attempted to re-establish a colony at
its traditional site We were manasing a declining colony, terns were
present at our site but required suitable nesting habitat
Defense of rafts ~g~;n~t other species and predation
Terns were apparently habituated to the ring-bill and Black-cro~ ed
Night-Herons which nested near the colony (KcNicholl 1973, Courtney &
Blokpoel 1980a) and only reacted if an individual approached within
approximately 15 m of a raft or a free-swimming juvenile Potential
predators of eggs and/or chicks which were mobbed included: ring-bills.
Herring Gulls (Hatch 1970), and Canada Geese (Courtney & Blokpoel 1980b)
The rafts were isolated from ground predators and people We
observed no evidence of predation before the storm of 3 June Since we
did not mark the eggs we could not follow the fate of individuals An
egg might have been predated and replaced between visits We did not
want to disturb the rafts daily since it might have had a detrimental
effect on colonization.
Incubating terns failed to recognize Ruddy Turnstones as predators
(Parkes et al. 1971) and individuals were observed standing at the edge
of the raft unharassed Turnstones eat eggs from undefended nests
(Farraway et al 1986) The colony on Raft 4 was disrupted after the
storm. Turnstones were able to prey upon unattended nests
lJ.J(( . 2. 0
- 19 -
There was no evidence of predation by black-crowns, a known predator
of eggs and chicks (e.g. Horris et ale 1976). A raft might have an
antipredator advantage since a black-crown would be forced to land
virtually at the centre of the colony. it cannot land at the periphery
and walk into the colony.
In 1989 Common Terns nested unsuccessfully in the Endikement Area.
We obse~~ed C~n Terns in courtship rituals on 19 May at this site a~
found,five abandoned nests and broken eggs on 25 Hay. Two subsequent
-
nesting attempts (4 and 18 June) also failed. Ruddy Turnstones were the
suspected predator.
Reproductive SUccess
Raft 3, the last raft installed in Embayment d, supported a maximum
of 38 concurrent nests, it was expected that a raft would only support 20
territories (1.4 m2) Raft 3 had the greatest overall reproductive
success It was least adversely affected by the storm of 3 June since it
was not grounded beneath overhanging -trees and it was not rotated during
re-installation.
The total production of the four rafts was 1.3 fledglings per nest
This is a minimal estimate since the fledgling success of chicks <20 days
post-hatch which were present on 27 July was unknown. However, late
nesters are less successful (Morris et ale 1976) and fewer individuals
were expected to fledge. Hatching success and fledgling success vary
considerably between years and colonies. Courtney and Blokpoel (l983)
calculated the weighted mean fledgling success for different colonies on
1)j{L .'2, \ - 20 -
the lower Great Lakes and for different years, it was 0.89 fledglings per
nest. The colonies ranged from 0.13 fledglings per nest (Hamilton
Harbour, 1977) to 1 7l fledglings per nest (Eastern Headland, 1977)
Chick mortality
Kost chicks which died on the rafts were ~4 days post-hatch During
this critical period they are susceptible to cold, wetness. and
starvation (Hatch 1970) Older chicks (~l8 days post-hatch) were found
1"
trapped between walls and pieces of driftwood and in the gap between the
lower edge of the walls and the platform The placement of the relief
objects should be arranged to provide a safer environment.
ACKNOWLEDGEKEllTS
We are grateful for the field assistance provided by MTRCA wildlife
technicians S Johnson and G. Sadowski E. Christens and J Gedir were
volunteer helpers S Bradford typed the manuscript G D Tessier and
T Rochrict drafted the figures The Keteorological Office, Toronto
Island Airport, provided their weather records The project was funded
by the Ketropolitan Toronto Remedial Action Plan S G CUrtis and R.
Pratt reviewed the draft manuscript.
- 21 - tAR. 22-
LITERATURE CITED
Blokpoel, H., P. H. Catling, and G. T. Haymes. 1978. Relationship
between nest sites of Common Terns and vegetation on the Eastern
Headland, Toronto OUter Harbour. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56.
2057-2061
Blckpoel. H., ~&d P. H. Fette~cff. 1978. Colo~i:aticn by g~lls and
terns of the Eastern Headland, Toronto OUter Harbour. Bird-Banding
.(
49 59-65
Blokpoel, H , and G D Tessier 1983. Konofi1ament lines exclude
Ring-billed Gulls from traditional nesting areas. pp. 15-20 In
Proceedings Ninth Bird Control Seminar. Bowling Green, Ohio, USA
Blokpoel, H., and G D. Tessier. 1986. The Ring-billed Gull in Ontario
a review of a new problem species. Canadian Wildlife Service
Occasional Paper, Humber 57. Ottawa, Canada
Blokpoel. H , and G D. Tessier 1987. Control of Ring-billed Gull
colonies at urban and industrial sites in southern Ontario, Canada
pp 8-17. In Proceedings Third Eastern Wildlife Damage Control
Conference. Gulf Shores, Alabama, U.S.A.
Courtney, P. A., and H. Blokpoel. 1980a. Behaviour of Common Terns
nesting near Ring-billed Gulls. Canadian Field-Naturalist 94: 336-338.
Courtney, P. A., and H. B10kpoel. 1980b. Canada Goose predation on eggs
of Common Terns. Ontario Field Waturalist 34: "0-"2.
Courtney, P. A., and H. Blokpoel. 1983. Distribution and numbers of
Common Terns on the lower Great Lakes during 1900-1980: a review.
Colonial Waterbirds 6: 107-120.
\Art. ~3 - 22 -
Eades, R. 1970. An artificial raft as a nesting site for terns on the
Dee pp 45 In Seabird Report Henry Burt & Son Ltd , Bedford,
United Kingdom.
Farraway, A., K. Thomas, and H Blokpoel 1986 Co~n Tern egg
predation by Ruddy Turnstones. The Condor 88: 52l-522.
Hatch, J. J 1970. Predation and piracy by gulls at a ternery in Kaine
Auk. a7. 244-254
Kress, S W. 1983 The use of decoys, sound recordings, and gull control
for re-establishing a tern colony in Kaine. Colonial Waterbirds 6
185-l96.
Landenbergue, D., and J C Hangelli 1987. Information on the building
of a raft for terns pp. 19l-l93 In D Kuselet (ed.) Continental
terns in France Acta of first "French Working Group on Continental
Terns" meeting, 20-2l June on Sterna hirundo and ~ albifrons in
France. FRAPEC, 7l Av C peguy, 45800 st.-Jean-de-Braye, France
KcHicholl, K K 1973 Habituation of aggressive responses to avian
predators by terns Auk 90. 902-90..
Korris, R D., H. Blokpoel, and G D. Tessier (in press) Management
efforts for the conservation of Common Tern colonies two case
histories. EnvironMental Conservation
Korris, R. D., and R A Hunter 1976 Factors influencing desertion of
colony sites by Common Terns (sterna hirundo). Canadian
Field-Naturalist 90. 137-l"3
Morris, R. D., R. A Hunter, and J. F KcElman. 1976. Factor affecting
the reproductive success of Common Tern colonies on the lower Great
Lakes during the summer of 1972 Canadian Journal of Zoology 54
l850-1862
- 23 - wt< ,24
Norman, D. 1987. Are Common Terns successful at a man-made nesting site?
R.i.n&in& and Hisration 8: 7-10.
Palmer, R. S. 1941. A behavioural study of the Common Tern. Proceedings
. Boston Society Natural History 42: 1-119.
Parkes, IC. C., A. Poole, and H. Lapham. 1971. The Ruddy Turnstone as an
egg predator. Wilson Bulletin 83: 306-308.
Soots, R. F., and J. F. Parnell. 1975. ~logical succession of
breeding birds in relation to plant succession on dredge islands in
;
North Carolina. UllC-SG-75-27. Sea Grant Program, 1235 Burlington
Laboratories, North Carolina state University. Raleigh, North
Carolina, U.S.A.
Techlow, A F 1983. Forster's Tern nesting platform study Department
of Natural Resources, Progress Report Madison, Wisconsins, U.S.A
Turrian, F. 1980. Notes breves et faits divers. Nos Oiseux 35 34l-343.
W1t~ '2~ - 24 -
List of Tables
Table 1 The effect of the storm of 3 June 1990 on the nests of
the Common Terns initiated during 23 Kay - 1 June 1990 on the
four rafts
Table 2 The hatching success, fledgling success, and overall
reproductive success of the nests of the Common Terns initiated
during 23 Kay - 5 July 1990 on the four rafts.
- 25 - ~~R..:2.b
Tabl.e 1
Date Raft 1 Raft 2 Raft 3 Raft 4 Total
23 May - 1 June
Total nests 26 27 38 24 115
Total eggs 81 89 il7 69 3.56
3 June STORH or
4 June
Total nests 19 22 31 20 92
Total nests
destroyed 7 5 7 4 23
VJtL.27 - 26 -
Table 2
Date Raft 1 Raft 2 Raft 3 Raft 4 Total
Nests 27 33 42 26 128
Eggs 78 79 123 8l 361
Hatchlings 67 66 101 62 296
Hatchlings per o 86 o 84 o 82 0.77 o 82
egg laid
... -
Fledglings 34 37 64 35 l70
Fledglings per o 5l o 56 o 63 o 56 o 57
hatchling
Overall repro- o 44 o 47 0.52 0.43 0.47
ductive success
Fledglings per 1.3 1.l 1.5 1.3 1 3
nest
- 27 - WRr2-~
List of Figures
Figure 1. The initial (1,2,3.4) and final (!t~t~,!) locations of the
four nesting rafts at t.b.e Easte.rn H~l'It11::lndt T.aranto Outer
Harbour, spring 1990 Raft 1 was not moved after installation.
i'
Figure 2. Schematic diagrams of a nesting raft.
Wf<..2q
~
~
Tommy Thompson ~
Park N
r
I('
Endikement
Area
Cell 3
-
LAKE ONTARIO
0 lkm
I I
Fl juY"e 1
(jJ/( . '?~
II 250c:111 -1-1 @ PLYWOOD DECKING 6mm THICK
TWO SHEETS (125em x 250em)
20a11 PER SECTI ON
------jT---'f <ID 4em x 15em (2Mx6")
,I @'
II C RAFT FRAME MEMBER
@" j @ 200 LITRE BARREL
, ~ .. ~ '1
I , ,I @ ,I (FOUR BARRELS PER SECTION)
S II I
~ ,--- ------@------~----~' 15l (Q) ROPE TO LASH BARRELS
TO RAFT FRAME MEMBERS
l " '"
.. .~..... @.ll.... S <E) RAFT SIDES AFFIXED
I I, I, I ~ TO EACH SECTION BY
I @ I, "@ 1 THREE HINGES PER SIDE
1 I, I, 1 ON OUTSIDE EDGES ONLY
_ 1 J::l IL -D- _ _ 1. _ , _
J 61an L12san-J (t) 40mm x 100mm (2"x4")
RAFT FRAME MEMBER
ONE SECTION TOP VIEW @ BOLT ACCESS HOLES
150mm x 80mm REQUIRED
FOR RAFT ASSEMBLY
@ PLASTIC SK IRT
(1m WIDE. 21m LENGTH)
CD WATER LEVEL (APPROX.)
Q) TWO SECTIONS BOLTED TOGETHER
--I"~ TO FORM ONE HALF OF RAFT
@ EYE BOLT (8 em)
(1 AT EACH CORNER)
ONE SECTION END VIEW
<0 TWO HALVES BOLTED TOGETHER
TO FORM ASSEMBLED RAFT
Q)
(b) 0
Q)
ASSEMBLY OF
FOUR SECTIONS (TOP VIEW)
F\ ~ \Are ;;2..
wR . "3,
THB METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND RBGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ENCROACHMENT POLICY
Correspqndence from Metro Councillor Joan King
re Seneca Heights Encroachment Problems
Water , Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #1/91
March 1, 1991
LVI2.~
I of( ME1, 'VA
JOAN I.QOv
KING ~ B-Q ~
COUNCILLOR Z {90
~ ~
SENECA ,y~ if
HEIGHTS '.{ /953 0
November 12, 1990 AECE1VE~
Mr W.A. Mclean
General Manager NOY 15 1990
MetropolItan Toronto and RegIOn
Conservation Authonty M.T.R.C.A.
5 Shoreham Drive
DownsvIew, Ontario
M3N IS4.
.
Dear Bill,
Thank you very much for all your help m trymg to get a good
resolution to the encroachment problems we have in Seneca Heights.
As I see it, the problem stems from the fact that there was no
defmItive policy for establishing boundary lInes at the time that most of
Metro was developed. Consequently on some streets the property line WIll
be part way down the bank and on others it will be across the table land
some thirty to fifty feet from the top of bank. I appreCIate the importance
of clearly demarkmg thIS lme so that the abutting neighbours do not build
on publIc land. However, it is also Important that we be good neighbours
and not destroy the beauty of these ravine properties.
To this end I appreciate your efforts on the review panel which
dIscussed the encroachment problems with residents from Brucedale and
Pmeway. At the tIme, I thought that the decision to place wooden stakes
along the property line was a good compromise The line would be clearly
marked but people would still be able to mow the lawn and generally keep
up the maintenance of the property. However, the results are anything but
attractive.
... ../2
-^
METRO COUNCIL ...
, 390 Bay Street. Toronto. Ontario. Canada M5H 3Y7 Tel (416) 392-4038 Fax. (416) 392-4120 '-.. I
w~. ~~
- 2 -
Mr. Bill McLean
M T.R.C.A. November 12, 1990
I keep asking myself why we are spendmg all thiS money to alienate
our residents? Is It wrong that they cut the grass and look after the
property? Certainly we mow the grass in many parks which are on
conservation land. Are we trymg to encourage the publIc to use thIS strip
of land? For secunty reasons I thmk thIS would be Irresponsible Are \ve
SImply bemg stubborn? If this is so I think we should re-thmk the policy
.
It would be helpful to diSCUSS this Issue WIth members of the
ConservatIOn AuthOrIty. I would apprecIate hearmg their OpInIOns.
Would you please advise me as to how thIS could be done.
Yours sincerely,
.
C CILLOR JOAN KING
Seneca HeIghts
cc R. Bundy, Metro CommissIOner of Parks
R. Biggart, Deput CommIssioner - OperatIOns
Ivor Oram, Pineway Ravine Property Committee
Peter DaVIes, President, Pmeway Ratepayers Association
JK/hm
.
tr I
,
/
w~. 3q..
PARKS, RECREATION & PROPERTY
COMMITTEE REPORT No. 11
Passed on July 5 & 6, 1989
S
ENCllOACIIMENT POLICY - METROPOLITAN PARKLAND.
The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee reco.nmends the adoption or the
f ollowlnl report (June 2, 1989) from the Commissioner of Parks and ItropertYi and
further recommends that the ruptcthe Metropolitan Councillor retain the rleht to
r.tquest the Parks, Recreation and Property Committee to reconsider the decision olthe
Encroachment Rulew Commiuee.
Recommendations: .
I recommend that the revised encro:lchment policy :lnd procedures as set out below
be 11 pproved.
Dackground.
. The Parks, Recreation and ProperlY Committee on April 19, 1989, again had before
II t1!e matter of encroachments Gn Metropolitan Parkland, and referred the following
mOllons to the Commissioner of Parks and Properly for a report to Committee.
Motions by Councillor Howard Moscoe, North York Spadina.
- That the encroachment policy be re-affirmed, subject to amending
Recommendation No. I of the policy by delcting the word .aU- so that the
recommendation shall rcad as follows:
.the policy of aiming to remove existing encroachments from pukl:lnd
be re-affirmed and thlll I (Che Commissioner of Parks and Property) be
directed to proceed with this exercise as soon as possible;.
- Thlll the Commissioner of Parks and Property be requested to develop an
internal mechanism to adjudicate minor encroachments with the participation
of the respectivc Metropolitan Councillor, the sizc of such minor
encroachment to be determined by the Commissioncr; and that encroachments
of a specified size be reported to the Parks, Recreation :lnd Propcrty
Committee.
Motion by Mayor Joyce Trimmer, City of Scarboroulh.
- That Recommendation No.2 of the policy be amcnded by adding the words
.or permission be granted for a land exchan,c. so that the recommend:uion
shall read as follows:
I
N"" :;:J ,,~
W~. 35"
.where:u structures are involved. and it is impossible to remove such
encroachments without considera ble expense and disruption,
consideration be given to permitting a licence of occupation for the
lifetime of the structure at an appropriate rental provided that such
Iiccnce is registered on title, or permission be sranted for a land
exchange;.
Motion by Councillor Brian Harrison, Scarborough City Centre.
- That Recomnlendation No.3 of the policy ~e amended by deleting the word
.is- and inserting in lieu thereof the words -may be considered-; and by
adding the words .or the leasinl of- follow ins the words -disposal of., so that
the recommendation shall read as (allows:
.where land may be considered surplus to the requirements o( both The
MuniCipality of Metropolit3n Toronto 3nd the Metropolitan Toronto 3nd
Region Conscrvation Authority, consideration be given to disposinS or
le3sing o( such properry, subject ro the specific authoriution o(
Metropolil3n Council Ihrough rhe Parks, Recreation 3nd Property
Comlluttee;.
Motion by Mr AI3n Tonks, Chaifman, Mctro,?olitan Toronto Council.
- Th3t crireri3 (or the judicious :applic3tion of the Metropolit3n encroachment
policy be developed ro serve :as a guide in determinins those circumstances
undcr which encro3chments would be allowed; such criteria to consider
clements such as security, safety; environmental and recreational integrity;
and the cost of maintenance.
It rcmains the view of this Department that encroachments onto public parklands
should not be permitted except in the most unusual of circumstances. While there may
be instances in which an encr03chment agreement may be desirable, it is more likely that
where lands arc not needed for parks or conservation purposes, either a sale or transfer
of lands should be recommended.
The recommendations that follow, then. attempt to adhere to this policy, while at
!he same tim~ establishing a mechuism for review They also establish the policy that.
m the fcw Instances where it is 3nticip:ued encroachments would be 311owed. the
benefittins parties should pay market rent for their encroachments. as well as the full
cost of surveys and registution.
It is thereforc recommended that:
(I) the policy of removing encr03chmcntl from Metropolitan P:uklands be re3ffirmed.
and that I be directed to implement this policy;
(2) 3D Encroachment Review Committee' be established. composed of one staff
representative each of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, the Metropolitan Plannina Department, and the Metropolitan Parks and
Property Dep3rtmcnt,
(3) no~ic.cs of encro3chment requesting abuttins owners to remove their encroachments
eXlsllng :IS of the d3te of 3doption by Council of this policy also contain a c~py
of this policy with notific3tion of the existence of the Encroachment ReView
I
1A1f{ .3b
Commillee and of a riSht to have individual encroachments reviewed by the
Committee;
(4) the Encroachment Review Committee operate under the follow ins terms of
reference:
(a) It is 8eneral policy that encroachments be removed.
(b) Where structures arc involved, and it is impossible to remove the
encroachment without considerable expense and disruption, consideration may
be liven to permitting a licence of occupation for as long as the abullins
landowner owns his land. The licence of occupation terminates upon the sale
of the abutting lands, but may be renewed upon the request of the new
landowner
(c) Licenccs of occupation will be registered on title. and the encroaching person
must pay :llJ costs, inClUding survey :lnd rcgistration costs. The rent will be
market rent lIS determined by the Real Est:ate Division of the P:arks llnd
Property Department.
(d) Where it is demonstrated conclusively by the encroaching person that for
reasons of security, safety, environmcntal, conservation and recreational
intelrity and the cost of maintenance the lands should not remain as
parkland, the Encroachment Review Committee may consider reeommendin.
. to the M.T.R.C.A. and the Mctropolitan Councilthroulh the Parks, Recre:uioD
and Property Comnfittce that thc propcrty be disposed of.
(e) The Encroachment Review Commillee ma y receive either written or oral
submissions, and the Metropolitan Councillor representinl the 3fea under
revicw is to be notified as to when and where the review will take place.
(5) the present policy of providing for s:ale or exch:ange to straighten boundary lines
and for similar purposes be maintained,
(6) in order to limit and/or eliminate future encroachments, I be directed to continue
to install boundary fencinl on our property at our cost and to take all llction
deemed necessary to enforce the removal of future encroachments;
(7) the Area Municipali~ies be requested to require legal surveys when considerinl the
issuinl o( buildins permits for structures adjacent to Metropolitan parklands;
(8) a copy or this report be forwarded to the M.T.R.C.A. and to the Area Municipalities
for tbeir information and support; and
(9) the appropriate Metropolit:an Officials be authorized and directed to take all
necessary action to live ~ffect to the fqreloinl.
~he f~llowinl persons appeared before the Parks, Recreation and Property
CommlUee In connection with the foregoinl mailer:
Mr Ivor Oram, President, Pineway Ravine Property Commiuee: and
Metropolitan Councillor Joan Kine, North York - Seneca fleiahts.
....-,
. -
.~.
"
o ....:.p__
~
W~.~7 I
Extract and summllry of Clause Five of Report II of the Parks, Recreation and
Property Committee, adopted by Metropolitan COuncil on July 5 and 8, 1989.
\
Encroachments onto public parklands should not be permitted except In the most
unusual of circumstances. While there may be Instances In which an encrolJchment
agreement may be desirable, It is more likely that where lands are not needed for
parkS or conservation purposes, eltner a sale or trlfnsfer of lands should be
recommended.
The recommendations that follow, then, attempt to adhere to this policy, while lit tll"
same time establishing a mechanism for review. They also establish the policy thllt,
In the few Instances where It Is anticipated encroachments would be allowed, the
benefitting parties should pay market rent for their encroachments, as well as the
full cost of surveys and registration.
It is therefore recommended that:
.
/. The policy of removing existing encroachments from Metropolitan Parklands
be reaffirmed, and that the CommissIoner of Pa.rks and Property be directed
to Implement this pollcy,,-
.
2. an Encroachment Review Committee be established, composed of one stlfff
representative each of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, the Metropolitan Planning Department, and the Metropolitan Parks
and Property Department;'
3. the Encroachment Review Committee operate under the following terms of
reference:
a) It Is general policy that encroachments be removed.
b) Where structures are involved, and It Is Impossible to remove the
encroachment without considerable expense and disruption,
consideration may be given to permitting a license of occupation for
as long as the abuttln$ landowner owns his land. The license of
occupation terminates upon the sal. of the abutting lands. but may be
renewed upon the request of the new I~ndowner.
c) Llc.tnae. of occupation will be registered on title, and the encroaching
"eraon must pay all costs, Including survey lJnd r_g/stratlon CO$ts.
The rent will be market rent as determined by the RelJl Estate Division
of the Parks and Property D.partment.
.
d) Where It Is demonstrated conclusively by the encroaching per69n thlJt
for reasons of security, Bafety, f'n vlronmen tal, conservation and
recreational Integrity and the cost of malntenanca that the lands
should not remain as parkland, the Encroachment Review Committee may
consider r9COtnmending to the M. T.R.C.A. and the Metropolitan COuncil
through the Parks, Recr.~tlon and Property Committee that the
property be disposed of.
I
,
UI~.3&'
e) The Encroachment Review Committee may receive either written or or~1
submissions, and the Metropolitan Councillor representing the area
under revIew Is to be notified as to when and where the revIew will
tlJke plllce.
4. the present policy of providIng for s~/e or exchange to str~/ghten boundary
lines IJnd for similar purposes be mlJintained.
5. in order to limit future encroachments, the Commissioner of Parks and
Property be directed to continue to install bound~ry fencing on our
property.
.
.
.
.
-
I
wlt.3Q
Authority Meeting No. 3/77 - April 22, 1977 - Res. #40
Executive Committee Meeting No. 4/77 - March 23, 1977 - Res. #75
.
.
-- ----- -- --- --- - -- - -
ENCROACHMENTS ONTO AUTHORITY-
OWNED LANDS
.
The staff presented a report outlining a policy for dealing with
encroachments on Autho~ity-owned lands.
Res. '75 Moved by: M.W.H. Biggar
Seconded by: J.A. Bryson
RESOLVED THAT: The staff report respecting Encroachments onto
Authority-Owned Lands be received and appended as Schedule "A" of
these Minutes, and that the recommendations contained therein be
adopted. CARRIED;
.
I
.
,
I
.
B-84 w~.u~
I SCHEDULE "A" ,<
. j
...
ENCROACIIHENTS ONTO AUTHORITY-O\olNED LANDS
I GENERAL
In areas where the Authority owns valley lands or sections
of the Lake Ontario shoreline, problems can result from encroach-
, ment by adjacent land-owners onto Authority-owned land In most
, instances, these encroachments are in isolated locations and con-
sist of owners attempting to extend their lot onto adjacent table
land or to relatively unused slopes Land adjacent to private
property along valleys and the shoreline is often not fenced, is
used as passive open space and is difficult to maintain
The areas where the most intensive residential development
has taken place adjacent to Authority lands are situated within
the boundaries of Metropolitan Toronto These lands are under
agreement with The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and, under
the terms of the agreement, maintenance and development are the
responsibility of the Metropolitan Toronto Parks Department, once
having received Authority approval Metro Parks has the
responsibility for supervision on these lands; however, no
specific statements in the agreement identify the need to inform
the Authority in the event of encroachment by adjacent owners In
practice, Metro Parks has notified the Authority if they are aware
of such activity
The remainder of Authority property is located within The
Regional Municipalities of Durham, Pee 1 and York. These lands,
for the most part, are large blocks within generally rural areas
and are developed and maintained by the Authority Certain
exceptions are found wherein a municipality has assumed
responsibility for an area under an agreement similar to that with
Metropolitan Toronto Where these lands are adjacent to built-up
areas, prOblems of encroachment can occur, as within Metropolitan
Toronto
TITLE
:
The Authority's ownership of land falls into two categories
(a) lands acquired under the Land Titles system - this
system affords a reasonably absolute title;
(b) lands acquired under the Registry Office system -
lands acquired under this system are susceptible
to claims by adjacent owners and it is possible for
an adjacent owner to establish legal rights to
ownership through possession
A large portion of Authority lands have been purchased
under the Registry Office system and can, therefore, be
subject to claims of possession should an encroachment ,
be unchecked for an extended periOd of time - usually, I
I
over 10 years.
tu(l.4-1 D-85
ENCHOACmlEN'l'S 2
PRODLEMS
The degree and type of encroachment can vary considerably
Often, the adjacent owner simply extends his grass cutting onto
Authority property In some instances, this can be followed by
the owner including Authority land in his landscaping, planting
trees, shrubs or flower beds beyond his own boundary This type
of use, as long as it does not cut off public access across the
property, is not too serious and is probably, in part, the result
of little or no maintenance of the land by the Authority or the
municipality, where a management agreement exists
More serious problems can arise, however, if the adjacent
owner develops a feeling of proprietorship towards the land he
has been managing and includes Authority lands within his fenced
aTea or builds structures, i e , sheds, swimming pools, etc ,
upon Authority lands As the Authority purchases land for flood
control, erosion control, open space and othp.r conservation uses,
intrusion of fences and other permanent structures onto Authority-
owned land can have the effect of negating the purposes for which
the lands ~ere acquired
RECOMMENDATIONS
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT As a matter of policy, the Authority not
permit encroachments onto its lanes and, in thlS connection, that
the following action be taken
(a) The staff be directed to locate and correct existing
instances of encroachment onto Authority land;
(b) Where management agreements are in effect with
municipalities or other agencies, their assist-
ance be requested in locating existing encroach-
ments and preventing future occurrences;
(c) As additional lands are acquired, Authority
Enforcement Officers be notified as to the
location and extent of the property and a site
visit be made; and
THAT as additional lands are acquired, the need
to fence these lands be determined and, if
required, the responsibility for providing
fencing be established;
(d) Where unfenced Authority lands do not form an
integral part of a used and maintained area and
do abut private lands, the possibility of allow-
ing minor maintenance by the adjacent owner,
under agreement or permit, be investigated
Where this land is covered by an existing
I
-- --- .,..- .--
wR. 4~
3. .
ENCnO^CIIMENTS ...
management agreement, the managing agency
or municipality will be consulted;
(e) Where structures encroach upon Authority
land, their immediate removal be requested.
Failure to comply will result in the
Authority seeking a legal opinion and
proceeding to prudently exercise its rights
through proper legal process
W A McLean
Director of Planning & Policy
ACD/KC
16 3 77.
.
I
1Ne.. 4-3
THE HETROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
METRO PARKS, RECREATION AND PROPERTY COMMITTEE
REPORTS ON
"LIVEABOARDS" AT YACHT CLUBS AND MARINAS
JUNE, 1990
Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 11/91
March 1, 1991
~'-e;' ;;.J .t." c" ",,;; Y. _~ 12. 4- tr
~-\.~
Parks and Property Department ~..... -~
June 11, 1990
- . ..
To: -_Parks, Recreation and property Committee
From: Commissioner of Parks and Property
subject: "Liveaboards" at Yacht Clubs and Marinas
On March 7, 1990, the Parks, Recreation and Property
committee had before it a request from two citizens who live
aboard their boat at Toronto Island Marina for permission to use
a vehicle to transport them back and forth between Ward's Island
ferry dock and the Marina during the winter season.
The c.ommittee refused the request and requested me to
ascertain the number of Itliveaboards" who are present on a year-
round basis, or during the winter season at each of the yacht
clubs on Toronto Island and to report thereon to the Committee.
The Metropolitan Solicitor was also requested to submit a
report on the legal status ot Itliveaboards" on the Toronto
Islands.
A survey of all" fifteen yacht clubs as well as the two
Marinas which rent space from Metropolitan Toronto indicates the
following results:
1. Toronto Island Yacht Clubs
(a) Island Yacht Club - None
(b) Royal Canadian Yacht Club - None
(c) Queen City Yacht Club - None
2. Ashbridge' s Bay Yacht Club
(d) Ashbridge's Bay Yacht Clubs - None
(e) Boy Scouts of Canada - None
(f) Navy League of Canada - None
(g) Toronto Hydroplane and
Sailing Club - 1 boat (1 person) *
*Note - This person lives on board the boat in the
winter while the vessel is stored on the ground in its
cradle.
3. Humber Bay Yacht Clubs
(h) Mimico cruising Club - 3 boats (4 persons)
(i) Etobicoke Yacht Club - 2 boats (4 persons)
(j) Humber college sailing Centre - None
(k) Toronto Humber Yacht Club - None
W~. b-5
4 . Bluffer's Park Yacht Clubs
(1) Highland Yacht Clubs - None
(m) Scarborough Bluffs Sailing Club - None
(n) Bluffer's Park Yacht Club - None
(0) Cathedral Bluffs Yacht Club - 4 boats (5 persons)
5. Marinas
(p) Toronto Island Marina - 7 boats (11 persons)
(q) Bluffer's Park Marina - 45 boats (80 persons)
,
COMMISSIONER OF PARKS AND PROPERXY.
I
\" VP: jp
~NO. .
5520
, I ":: '~=\.fl .cH' - I' ... : ;;" 6l'" Wk' · ij.f,
Metropolitan legal Department ~(JH-
~"i-h t>?~~
., .'- -
- - . .
--
June 12. 1990
To: Parks, Recreation and Property Committee I
From: Metropolitan Solicitor
Subject: "Liveaboards" at Toronto Island Marina
Recommendation:
I recommend that this Report be received for information.
Background:
.
.
At your ,meeting on March 7, 1990 your Committee had before you a request from two
citizens who live aboard their boats at Toronto Island Marina for permission to use a vehicle
to transport them back an9 forth between Ward's Island ferry dock and the manna dunng the
winter season. Your Committee denied that request and, among other things. requested me
to report on the legal status of "liveaboards" on the Toronto Islands.
Discussion: .
I understand from information gathered by staff of the Parks and Property Department
that there are no persons living year-r9und on boats at any of the Toronto Island yacht clubs.
There are, however, a number of people living aboard boats at the Toronto Island Manna.
My diSCUSSions with staff of the City of Toronto Planning and Development Department
reveal that the zoning for the Toronto Island Marina is park With a manne component. there
being no intention in the zoning to permit residential use. However, it is also recogOlzed that
there may be difficulty in enforCing the zoning by-law as against the individual boat
occupants.
The Metropolitan Risk Manager has advised of her serious concerns about Increased
liability exposure in situations where people are setting up year-round housekeeping on boats
in an area not Intended nor regulated for year-round dwelling use. Unlike short-term
recreational use where users will often "make do" without the comforts of home, the use of the
boats as year-round residences probably means a greater number and use of conveOlences and
appliances creating greater load on electrical hook-ups primarily designed for short-term use.
Also of concern during the winter season would be the use of electrical and propane heaters
on the vessels not designed for winter living and therefore not properly equipped with wlnter-
grade insulation and heating units.
My discussions with the City of Toronto Fire Depar.tment reveal concerns about its
ability to respond to situations of fires occurring on - board boats at the Toronto Island Manna
in relatlon to appropriate methods for the alarm to be raised, especially since the boats may
or may not be equipped with radio equipment: and also as to identifiable information as to the
exact location of the fire. Another concern relates to whether the fire-boat could gain access
to the appropriate mooring area. The Fire Department also advises that slOce boats are not
covered under Ontario's Fire Code, the Fire Department has no jurisdiction to set any
standards or requirements in relation to, for instance, materials of construction, spallal
separation between boats. etc. nor to make any inspections as to fire safety. Consequently. all
of the normal rules and regulations applicable to dwelling units have no applicability
\
,
. W~. ~7
- 2 -
The Toronto Harbour Commissioners and the Ship Safety Branch of the Canadian Coast
Guard advise that pleasure yachts are only subject to the very basic provisions of the Small
Vessel Regulations Gilder the CAnada Shipping Act which. apart from Items geared to
navigational accidents such as lights. flares. life jackets. etc.. only impose requirements as to
fire extinguishers. their type and number These requirements are not geared to the boats
being permanent residences as the Regulations were only set with the pleasure or recreational
use of the boats in mind.
The Public Health Department of the City of Toronto advises that if the on - board
samtation facilities are being utilized during the winter Without pump-out services being
provided, it may be that the provincial authorities operating under the auspIces of the
EnVironmental Protection Act would become involved
A review of the documentation entered into between the Metropolitan Corporation and
Toronto Island Marina (412237 Ontario Limited) reveals that one of the lessee's contractual
obligations is to anOl..ally submit, for the ipprC"Jal of the Metropohtan Corporation, a tan ff
of charges showlOg rates for daily, weekly, monthly and seasonal rentals for mooring spaces
... together with a similar tanff for winter storage includlOg such conditions or rules as may
be imposed by the lessee with respect to the use of the Marina. My review of the annual
tariff submissions reveals lhat although rates for haul-out, winter storage and spring launch
have been included, no charges for any type of winter on - board living or services 10 relation
thereto have been submitted and/or approved. Consequently, if the lessee IS. Indeed, charging
fees or rates which have not been submitted and approved by Metro. same may constitute a
contravention of the lease document.
It is clear from the lease documentation (initially entered into In 1967 and eventually
assumed by 412237 Ontario limited) that the parties Intended the mooring slips to be used on
a (summer) seasonal basis only There are many references in the documentation to: "seasonal
use", "haul out of boats for winter storage", and certain types of activities to be carried on by
the lessee in relation to winterizing services for the boats. The wording of the agreement In
relation to the tenant's hours of operation reads that the marina shall be kept open at all
reasonable hours "required to service seasonal or short -term mooring requirements" A further
provision stipulates requirements in relation to the prOVision of supervisory staff "during the
winter lay-up period" The lease agreement provides that the Commissioner of Parks and
Property is to be the sole judge as to the adequacy of the service being provided by the
operator. in relation to a consideration of which the Commissioner is entitled to use the
provisions of the original Proposal for the operation of the marina. A review of the original
Proposal in this matter clearly Indicates in the section entitled ''Winter Operations" that no
moonng or berthing fees were contemplated. Rather, the winter operations were limited to
the storage of boats during the winter season, and maintenance and repair preparatory to
spring launches. The proposed Marina Rules lOcluded with the Proposal concluded with a
regulation reading that "th~ us~ of the Marina for pcrmaneOl. living a~commodati<m is
prohiblted.- Consequently, having entered into the lease documentation including these
representations, taken together With the non -submiSSion of any tariff rates in relation thereto.
the Metropolitan Corporation may certainly argue that the operator should not be sanctlontng
or allOWing persons to hve aboard boats at the manna on a year- round baSIS. Should the
operator determine to submit tanffs for approval in relation to winter Iive-aboards. all of the
contractual provisions and the vanous other regulatory issues would be taken into account to
determine the reasonableness of the decision of Metro in relation thereto.
In relation to the occupants of the boats themselves, Metropolitan By -law No. 103 -78
prohibits, unless authorized by Council, the moonng of watercraft in any area without the
payment of the fee therefor authorized by Council. Accordingly, If the appropriate fees for
the winter mooring have not been approved by Council, then the boaters themselves might be
in contravention of the Metropolitan Parks by-law
- 3 - WR.lI6
Discussions with other owners and operators of lands or facilities on the Toronto
waterfront including Ontario Place. The Toronto Harbour Commissioners and Harbourfronl.
reveal that ye~_-roun-cf "liveaboards" are generally not permitted.
Although it does not now specifically so provide, the MetroPQlitan Parks By-law could
prohibit moorings in metropohtan parks during the winter season except if same relate .
exclusively to the in -water storage of boats.
I i It' ()I
~ . '- ,":
MAF:g k. W. O. Doyle.
Metropolitan SoliCItor
, .
.
"
.
.
.
WR .49
M T R C A
SPECIAL POLICY AREA
FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING GUIDELINES
February 1991
.
wR-. 50
MTRCA FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING GUIDELINES
FOR
SPECIAL POLICY AREAS
1.0 Introduction
The Metropolltan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
(MTRCA) implements a One-Zone approach to flood plain planning,
based on the Regulatory Flood (Hurricane Hazel), in accordance
w~th Pol~cy ( 4 ) and ( 2 ) respectively of the Provinc~al Flood
Pla~n Planning Policy statement, 1988 (see Appendix A).
The Two-Zone and Special Policy Area Concepts, Policy ( 5 ) and
Pol~cy ( 6 ) respectively of the Prov~ncial Flood Plain Planning
Policy Statement, prov~de for exceptions to the One-Zone
approach.
The purpose of this document is to outline the guidelines which
the Authority shall use ~n its review and approval of requests
for Special Policy Area status as well as for the review and
approval of development applicat~ons w~thin approved Spec~al
Policy Areas.
2.0 The Special Policy Area Concept
Policy ( 6 ) Spec~al Pol~cy Area Concept of the Provincial Flood
Pla~n Planning Policy Statement states
It is the policy of Ontario that.
6.1 Where strict adherence to policies (4) and/or (5)
is not feas~ble, the concept of Special Policy
Area status is recogn~zed as a possible option for
flood prone communit~es or portions thereof.
Municipalit~es may apply for Special Policy Area
status, in accordance with established procedures,
and controlled development may be permitted once
such status is obtained.
6.2 Municipalities delineate Special Policy Areas in
their Official Plans and ~nclude policies
indicating the circumstances under which new
development may be permitted and identify~ng the
minimum acceptable level of protection required
for new development.
A Special Policy Area is an area of land, located within a flood
plain, on which there is exist~ng development that forms an
lntegral part of an existing flood prone community. In most
lnstances the continued viabllity of these areas depends on a
reasoned application of the Provincial Standards for flood plain
management. When strict adherence to a One-Zone or Two-Zone
approach to flood plain planning is not feasible, the concept of
Special POllCY Area status is recognized as a poss~ble option for
existing f.lood prone communities or portions thereof.
VJ~ .51
- 2 -
3.0 Flood Plain Plannlng Objectives
In ltS consideration of proposed Speclal POllCY Area designations
and/or subsequent development applications wlthin designated
Special Policy Areas, the Authority's objectlves shall coinClde
wlth those of the PrOVlnce for flood plaln management.
(1) to prevent loss of 11fe;
( 2 ) to mlnimize property damage and soclal dlsruptlon.
To meet these objectlves within Special Policy Areas, the
Authority shall manage flood risk through ltS conslderatlon of
the following
. Existing flood risk (Frequency of flooding/Depths and
velocities/Ice jams)
. Minimum level of acceptable flood risk (Buildings/
Accessory structures/Access)
. Type of development/redevelopment
(Resldential/Habltable; Non-Resldential/Non-Habitable;
Public Safety)
. Extent of development/redevelopment (New multi-lot
development and redevelopment; Additions, Replacement,
Infilling, Rehabilitation/Accessory structures)
. Flood Damage Reduction Measures (Remedial
works/Floodproofing/Land use locations/Emergency
response)
. Off-site impacts associated w1th development and
redevelopment
. Other Authority program and POllCY interests
4.0 Implementation and Approval Process for Special Policy Areas
4.1 The implementation and approval process for proposed Special
Policy Area designatlons shall be ln accordance with
Provincial Implementation GUldellnes and Ministry of Natural
Resources Central Region GUldellnes for the Special Policy
Area Process (see Appendix B and Appendix C respectively).
4.2 The Officlal Plan pollcies ~nd Rezonlng/By-law Amendment
documents that are required to lmplement a proposed Special
Policy Area designation shall form part of the municipal
request for final approval of the Special Policy Area
designation.
.
wI<. 5~
- 3 -
The Official Plan Special Policy Area policies shall
include specific lmplementation gUldelines for
municipal and Authority reVlew and approval of
development applications within the deslgnated Special
Policy Area.
4.3 A program for emergency response, ln the event of a
flood, shall be developed and implemented in accordance
with the Provlncial/Conservation Authority/Municipal
Flood Warning and Forecasting System and shall form
part of the municlpal request for final approval of a
Speclal Policy Area deslgnation.
4.4 When a Special POllCY Area designation has been
approved, the Authority shall review appllcatlons
pursuant to ltS Fill, Construction and Alteration to
Waterways Regulatlons on the basls of the approved
Special Policy Area policles.
5.0 Development Guidellnes .
In addition to the guidelines contained within the Provincial
documents listed as appendlces A, Band C, the Autho~lty shall
ensure that the Speclal Policy Area policies develop~d within
Municipal Official Plans shall comply with the Authorlty's
requirements for development/redevelopment within approved
Special Policy Areas.
The Authority's requirements for development/redevelopment within
approved Special Policy Areas are presented withln:
Section 5.1 Additions, Infilling, Replacement, Rehabilitation
Section 5.2 New Multi-lot Development and Redevelopment
Section 5.3 Public Safety
Section 5.4 Accessory Buildings
Section 5.5 Prohibition of Development
5.1 Additions, Infilllng, Replacement, Rehabilltation
(a) Additions, rehabilitation and/or replacement of existing
structures, and infilllng of new structures may be permitted
within Special Policy Areas.
(b) This type of development must be flood protected to the
level of the Regulatory Flood as defined within the
Conservation Authority's Fill, Construction and Alteration
to Waterways Regulations.
Where it is technically not feasible or it is impractical to
flood protect this development to the level of the
Regulatory Flood, then a lower level of flood protection may
be permitted.
.
LVR · g
- 4 -
The speciflc level of flood protectlon to be imposed,
and any flood protectlon measures to be lmplemented
relative to lndividual development applicatlons shall
be determlned by The Metropolltan Toronto and Reglon
Conservation Authorlty in consultatlon with the local
munlclpality.
The level of protection to be required shall be the
hlghest level determlned to be technlcally feasible or
practical.
In no instance shall the level of protection requlred
be less than the 1 350 flood event.
(c) In all lnstances, ingress and egress shall be "safe"
pursuant to Provinclal floodprooflng standards. In
addition, the maximum level of flood protection
determined to be feasible shall be consldered.
(d) Flood damage reduct10n measures for this type of
development/redevelopment shall be carr led out by the
proponent to achieve the required level of flood protection.
The selectlon of flood damage reductlon measures shall be
based on the following alternatives, listed in order of
prlorlty
( 1) Flood control remedial works shall be completed in
accordance wlth the approved Speclal POllCY Area
designation.
( il ) Dry, passive floodproofing measures shall be
lmplemented to the extent technlcally and/or
practically feasible.
(iii)Wet floodproofing measures may be permissible to
minimize flood risk and/or to meet the minimum level of
flood protectlon requlred.
(iv) Dry, active floodproofing measures may be permissible
to mlnimize flood risk.
(e) All applications for development approval on lands
deslgnated Special Policy Area shall be accompanied by
englneerlng studies, prepared by a qualified professional,
detailing such matters as flood frequency, depth and
velocity of flow, soil conditions, proposed flood damage
reduction measures lncluding structural design details,
stormwater management techniques, and other necessary
information and studles as may be required by The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authorlty and
the local municipallty.
.
WR..54-
- 5 -
5.2 New Multi-lot Development and Redevelopment
(a) New multi-lot development and redevelopment may be permitted
wIthin SpecIal Policy Areas.
(b) This type of development must be flood protected to the
level of the Regulatory Flood as defined wIthIn the
Conservation Authority's FIll, ConstructIon and AlteratIon
to Waterways RegulatIons.
(c) In all instances ingress and egress shall be "safe" pursuant
to ProvIncIal floodproofing standards.
(d) Flood damage reduction measures for this type of
development/redevelopment shall be carried out by the
proponent to achieve the requIred level of flood protection.
The select10n of flood damage reductIon measures shall be
based on the following alternatIves, listed in order of
prIority:
( i ) Flood control remedial works shall be completed In
accordance with the approved SpecIal POlICY Area
designation.
If a flood control remed1al works program has not
been approved, the proponent shall carry out such
prelimInary desIgn studIes as deemed necessary by
the AuthorIty and the local munIcIpality for theIr
review and approval.
( Ii) Dry, passive floodproofIng measures shall be
implemented to the extent technIcally and/or
practically feasIble.
(iii)Wet floodproofing measures may be permissible.
(iv) Dry, active floodproof1ng measures shall not be
permissible as a means of achIevIng Regulatory Flood
Protection.
(e) All applications for development approval on lands
desIgnated Special POlICY Area shall be accompanIed by
engineering studies, prepared by a qualified professional,
detailing such matters as flood frequency, depth and
velocity of flow, soil condItIons, proposed flood damage
reductIon measures includIng structural design details,
stormwater management techn1gues, and other necessary
InformatIon and studIes as may be requIred by The
Metropolitan Toronto and RegIon Conservation Authority and
the local municIpality.
,
(
fJ.J(l. s~
- 6 -
5.3 Public Safety
(a) Policy ( 8 ) Public Safety of the Provincial Flood Pla1n
Plann1ng Policy Statement, 1988 states that notwithstanding
Pol1cies ( 3 ) to (7) 1nclus1ve:
8.1 New development not be perm~tted to locate ~n the
flood pla~n where the use is
(a) assoc~ated w~th the manufacture, storage,
disposal and/or consumpt~on of hazardous
substances or the treatment, collect~on and
disposal of sewage, wh~ch would pose an
unacceptable threat to publ~c safety ~f they
were to escape the~r normal conta~nment/use
as a result of flood~ng or failure of
floodproofing measures;
(b) assoc~ated w~th ~nst~tut~onal serv~ces, such
as hosp~tals, nurs~ng homes and schools,
wh~ch would pose a signif~cant threat to the
safety of the inhabitants (e.g. the s~ck, the
elderly, the disabled or the young), ~f
~nvolved ~n an emergency evacuat~on situation
as a result of flooding or fa~lure of flood-
proofing measures; and
(c) associated w~th serv~ces such as those
prov~ded by f~re, police and ambulance
stations and electrical substat~ons, wh~ch
would be ~mpa~red dur~ng a flood emergency as
a result of flooding or fa~lure of
floodproofing measures.
8.2 Where new development identif~ed ~n 8.1 is not
considered to pose an unacceptable risk to public
safety, a higher level of flood protect~on and/or
addit~onal floodproof~ng precaut~ons above the
regulatory flood level, may st~ll be requ~red due
to the sensitive nature of the development.
Notwithstand1ng Section 5.1 and 5.2 above, the Authority
shall advocate the prohibition of the above-noted uses
associated with Publ1c Safety; however, th1s type of
development may be permitted based on Provincial Policy.
(b) This type of development must be protected to the level of
the Regulatory Flood as defined within the Conservation
Author1ty's F111, Construct1on and Alteration to Waterways
Regulations.
(c) In all instances ingress and egress shall be "safe" pursuant
to Provincial floodproofing standards.
.
.
LUR.Sb
- 7 -
(d) Flood damage reduction measures for this type of
development/redevelopment shall be carr~ed out by the
proponent to achieve the requ~red level of flood protection.
The selection of flood damage reduction measures shall be
based on the follow~ng alternat~ves, l~sted ~n order of
priority'
(i) Flood control remedial works shall be completed in
accordance with the approved Special Policy Area
designation.
If a flood control remedial works program has not
been approved, the proponent shall carry out such
preliminary design studies as deemed necessary by
the Authority and the local municipality for their
reView and approval.
(ii) Dry, passive floodproofing measures shall be
implemented to the extent technically and/or
pract~cally feasible.
(iii)Wet floodproofing measures may be permissible.
(iv) Dry, active floodproofing measures shall not be
permissible as a means of achieving Regulatory Flood
Protection.
(e) All applications for development approval on lands
designated Special Policy Area shall be accompanied by
engineering studies, prepared by a qualified professional,
detailing such matters as flood frequency, depth and
velocity of flow, soil conditions, proposed flood damage
reduction measures including structural design details,
stormwater management techniques, and other necessary
information and studies as may be required by The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and
the local munic~pal~ty.
5.4 Accessory structures
(a) Accessory structures such as garden sheds, parking lots,
etc. associated with development/redevelopment described in
Sections 5.1 and 5.3 above shall be permitted within
designated Special Policy Areas.
(b) This type of development shall be flood protected to the
extent technically and/or practically feasible as determined
on a site specific analysis of flood risk.
.
wR. · ~7
- 8 -
(c) Flood damage reduction measures for this type of
development/redevelopment shall be carried out by the
proponent to achieve the specif1ed level of flood
protection.
The selection of flood damage reduction measures shall be
based on the following alternatives, listed in order of
priority:
(i) Dry, passive and/or wet floodproofing measures
shall be implemented to achieve the specified
level of flood protection.
( ii) Dry, active floodproofing measures may be
permissible to minimize flood risk.
(d) All applications for development approval on lands
designated Special Policy Area shall be accompanied by
engineer1ng studies, prepared by a qualified professional,
detailing such matters as flood frequency, depth and
velocity of flow, soil conditions, proposed flood damage
reduction measures including structural design details,
stormwater management techniques, and other necessary
information and studies as may be required by the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and
the local municipality.
5.5 Prohibition of Development
(a) Notwithstanding Sections 5.1 - 5.4 inclusive, no new
development or redevelopment shall be permitted on any
parcel of land which is wholly or partly designated Special
Policy Area if:
(i) the development would be subjected to a water
velocity or depth which would create an
unacceptable hazard to life; or
( ii> the development would be susceptible to major
structural damage as a result of a flood less than
or equal to the Regulatory Flood; or
(iii)the necessary flood protection measures would have a
negative impact on adjacent properties; or
(1V) the development would impact negatively on any
other Program and/or Policy objective of the
Authority.
.
WI<. 6~
APPENDIX A
PROVINCIAL FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT
1988
.
.
THE'
PLANNING --'.
. ACT
Wf( · S9
~ POLl~Y ST A TEM-ENT
:"'''''0
-.
Flood Plain
Planning ,
A statement of On:ario Government
policy issued under the authority of
Section 3 of the Planning Act 1983
Approved by the
Lieutenant Governor in Council
Order in Council No. 1946/88
August 11, 1988
W//~~- ~ cyd '~
Vincent G. KerrIo John Eakins
Minister of Minister of
Natural Resources Municipal Affairs
,
IAJIZ . (GO
The Planning Act, 1983, Section 3
.... -
Polo" 3.-{ I) The Minister or the \1inlSter together with am other minIster of
SlllemenlS the Crown: may from time to time Issue policy statements that ha\e been
approved by the Lieutenant Go...ernor In Council on matters relating to
mUnlC1pal planning that m the opinion of the MinISter are of pro\ mClal
Interest.
""nISler to (2) Before Issumg a policy statement. the Minister shall confer wIth such
confer mUniCipal. provmclal. federal or other offiCials and bodies or persons as the
Minister considers have an mterest In the proposed statement.
'\ OIlC: ()) Where a pohc\ statement IS Issued under subsection (I). the M mister
shall cause It to be published m The Ontario Gaulle and he shall give or cause
to be g1ven such further notice thereof In such manner as he conSiders
appropnate. to all members of the Assemb!\ to all muruclpalitles and to such
other agencies. orgamzatlons or persons as he conSiders have an Interest In
the statement.
I . I
Idem (4) Each muruclpahty that receives notice of a pohc~ statement under
.
subsection (3) shall In turn g1\e notice of the statement to each local board of
the mUnlclpahty that It conSiders has an Interest In the statement.
R :~lrd 10 (5) In exercising any authorit~ that affects any planning matter. the council
~ nld 1(\ of every municipality. even local board. even minister of the Crown and
"','UC\
:.~e."tn:,. every ministry. board. commission or agenc~ of the government. including
the Municipal Board and Ontario Hvdro. shall' have regard to poticy
statements issued under subsection (1). 1983. c. 1, s. 3. f
.
.
Purpose WR.b'
This ,document ~s prepared un,d~r the ~uthority of section 3 of the Planning Act 1983
and lS the Province of Ontano ~ pollcy statement on planning for t100d plain lands
-
Interpretation
This provincial policy statement. -
.. -
. is ISSUed jointly by the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Municipal
Affairs under the Planning Act. 1983.
. does not supersede or take priority over other policy statements Issued under sectlon
3 of the Planning Act. 1983. or any other policy approved by the Lieutenant Gover-
nor in Council. and
. replaces the "Flood Plain Criteria-A Policy Statement of the Government of On-
tarlO on Planning for Flood Plain Lands issued in September 1982
,
Background
The need to manage flood plain lands was emphasized in 19S4 when Hurricane Hazel
strUck the Metropolitan Toronto area resulting in the loss of SIUves and approximately
S7S million in property and other damages.
Since that time, many flood prone areas have been protected throughout Ontario by
remedial measures and effons have been made to minimize the intrUSion of new develop-
ment into the more hazardous ponions of flood plains.
Although flood plains have been actively managed for more than 30 years. problem
areas still exist. Since the mid-1970s, major floods resulting in millions of dollars of
damales have occumd in Cambridge (1974), Dover Township (1979), Field T ownshlp
(1979), Nipissing River/french River area (1979), Pon Hope (1980), Windsor (1981). .
Cbath..m. Dover, Dresden. Huntsville. and Fon Albany (1985), and Winisk (1986)
In 1985. Ontario experienced a record number of floods for a given year Province
wide. approxiDwely 2.000 homes were flooded or made inaccessible by high water
levels and 11,000 hectares of agricultural land were flooded.
In addition to the loss of life. an immeasurable cost. and direct costs from damages
to buildings and stlUctureS. indirect costs and social disruption have also been exten-
sive in certain areas. for example. after the 1979 flood in the Township of Field. many
of the local residents had to be relocated because of the severe damage and destrUction
to their homes. The mental anguish of being flooded and the resulting social disruption
of relocation are real but often overlooked aspec:ts of flood suscepubility
1
.
wR- .'~A
Therefore In the planrung a,nd management of flood plain lands there is a government
role which can be sumrnanzed as follows
. to provide order and equity In the use/non-use of flood plain lands and
. to protect sOCiety. Including all levels of government from being forced to bear
unreasonable social and economic burdens of unWIse individual choices
In Ontario. flood plain management consIsts of a combination of 3 components
. prevention
. land use planrung and regulation of develop~eJ1t
. protection
. structural/acquiSition measures
. emergency response
. flood warning and combat/disaster rehef
-- - a) Prevention
I The orderly planmng of land use and the regulation of development represent the
preventative approach to flood plain management and provide the focus for this policy
statement. This approach is the most cost effective in helping to ensure new bUildings
and structures are not flood suscepuble and that upstream and downstream problems
do not occur as a result of new development.
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs. and the murucipaliues of Ontario. through the
Planning Act. 1983. are responsible for land use planning In the Province The
Ministry of Natural Resources and the Conservation Authorities of Ontario act In
an advisory capacity to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the municipalities on
land use matters related to flooding
The Ministry of Natural Resources. through the administration of the Conservation
Authorities Act. R.S.O 1980. together with the Conservation Authorities. have tradi-
tionally played the foremost role in the overall management of flood plains and will
comiDue in tbis regard. Through regulations. Conservation Authorities review develop-
ment proposals from the teChnical viewpoint of flood susceptibility and
upstream/downstream implications Where Conservation Authorities do not exist.
the MiDisUy of N~ ResourceS is responsible for the implementation of flood plam
manigement policies and practices.
-
The preventative approach may include the acquisition of undeveloped flood plain
lands in certain situations. Such acquisition is usually only considered. however. if
other resource management objectives are to be achieved.
b) Protecdoo
.
The proteCtion approa<:h involves the constrUction of dams. dykes. channels. diver-
sions aDd other flood conttOl works. These works are designed to provide protection
to auring development located in the flood plain.
In some instanCes though. a cost-benefit analysis may indicate that acquisition and
the removal of buildings from the flood plain is more appropriate than the construc-
tion of protective works.
.
2
c) Emergency Responses , WR. ~~
. The Ministry of Natural Resources. in cCKlperation with the Conservation Authorities
of Ontario, maintains a streamflow forecast centre which is linked to a network of
weather stations. stream gauges. and rain gauges throughout the Province Advance
warning of an impending flood enables municIpalities and other government agen-
cIes to put into operation theIr emergency action plans for evacuating people and
moveable property from flood susceptible areas
Various levels of goven'nent have historically provided disaster relief and assistance
to flood victims after major flood events However government subSIdies do not
cover all losses They specifically exclude such Items as secondary residences. land-
scaping. recreational vehicles. and non~ssential furniture/appliances. Also flood
insurance on private properties in flood nsk areas is not readily available at econorrucal
rates -
Although this approach assists in reducing the threat of life and some property losses
it does not prevent flooding and the bulk of related damages from recumng
Each of the three components is designed to address different aspects of flood plain
management. Over the long tenn. however. the preventative approach is the preferred
approach to flood plain management. By effective land use planning and regulation of
development. problems relating to flooding can be prevented or minimlZed before they
occur It is in this context that this paltcy statement takes effect.
"
Definitions
For the purpose of this policy statement.
. Development means the cODStrUction. erection or placing of a building or strucrure
of any kind or the making of an additIon or alteration to a building or structure that
has the effect of increasing the size or usability thereof. and includes such related
activities as site grading and the placing or dumping of ftll
. FBI, COllllltr'DCtioa, and Altendon to Waterways ReauJation means a regulation
passed pursuant to Section 28 of the Conservation Authorities Act. R.S 0 1980. or
its suc:ees.1Ol'S, whereby a Conservation Authority may, among other matters, regulate:
. the straightening, changing, divening or interfering in any way with the existing
channel of a river, creek. stream or watercourse,
4 -. the constrUCtion of any building or structure in or on a pond or swamp or in any
area susceptible to flooding. and
. the placing or dump~g of fill of any kind 10 any ~f~ part of.~e area over which
the Conservation Authority has Junsdicuon m which. 111 the opwon of the Conser-
vation Authority, the control of flooding or pollution or the conservation of land.
may be affected.
. Flood means a temporary rise in the water level resulting in the inundation of areas
adjacent to a watercourse not ordinarily covered by water
3
.
~'Islf-. F1~ ~ringe means the outer portion of the flood plain between the floodway and
~e l1I1Ut of the .regulatory flood Flood depths and velocities are generally less severe
In the flood fringe than those expenenced In the floodway
· Flood Plain means the area. usually low lands. adjoining a watercourse which has
been. or may be covered by flood water
· F100dprooftng means a combination of structural changes and/or adjustments incor-
porated into the basic design and/or constructlon or alteration of individual buildings
structures or properties subject to flooding so as to reduce or eluninate flood damages
· Floodway means the channel of a watercourse and that iMer portion of the flood
plain where flood depths and velocities are generally higheF than those expenenced
In the flood fringe. The floodway represents that area required for the safe passage
of flood flow and/or that area where flood depths and/or velocities are conSidered
to be such that they pose a potential thre<&t to life and/or property damage
· Hazardous Substances means substances which individually. or in combination with
other substances are nonnally considered to pose a danger to public health. safety
and the environment. These substances generally include a Wide range of matenals
that are toxic, ignitable. corrosive. reactive. radioactive or pathological
.
· Level or Protection means a specified level. elevation and/or flow velocity to which
new development must not be susceptible to flood related damage.
. .
· Local CooditioDS means the physical and hydrologic characteristics of an area as
they input to and may affect 'flood pla..m management.
· Observed Flood Event means a flood actually experienced in a particular watershed
or portion thereof
Subject to the policies contained in this document. and the availability of sufficient
docwnentation. an observed flood event may be used for regulatory purposes as follows:
-to defme flood plain limits for that specific area where ice jams have historically
occurred,
f ,
or
.
-to define flood plain limits for an entire watershed by transposing or extending
data derived from the observed flood event with reference to the physical and
land use characteristics of the entire watershed. The transposing of data is con-
sidered acceptable- where the evidence suggests that the flood event could have
potentially occured over other portions of the watershed.
....
· 100 Year Flood means that flood. based on analysis of precipitation. snow melt. or
a combination thereof. having a return period of 100 years on average. or having
a 1 % chance of occurring or being exceeded in any given year
.
· One Zone Coucept means the approach whereby the entire .flood plain. as defined
by the regulatory flood, is treated as one unit. and all development is prohibited or
restricted
· Rep1atory Flood means the approved standard(s) used In a particular watershed to
define the limit of the flood plain for regulatory purposes
4
.
:
· Restricted means that new development is limited to W R. bb
· flood andJor erosion control structures
· facilities which by thelf nature must locate near Water or traverse watercourses
· ancillary factliues of an adjacent land use which are of a passIve. non-structural
nature and do not adversely affect the abihty of the flood plain to pass flood waters
· Special PoUcy Area means an area within a community that has historically existed
in the flood plaIn and where strict adherence to cenain Province-wide poliCies con-
cerning new development would result in SOCial and economic hardships for the com-
munity As a result, sne specific policies are formulated and applied WIthin the de-
fined limits of the special policy area
· Storm Centred Event means a major storm of record used for regulatory purposes
The rainfall actually experienced during a major storm event can be transposed over
another watershed and when combined with the local conditions, flood plain hmits
can be established. This centering concept IS considered acceptable where the evidence
suggests that the stonn event could have potentially occurred over other watersheds
in the general area.
In Ontario, two stonn centred events are used for regulatory purposes
. the Hurricane Hazel storm (1954). and
. the Timmins stonn (1961)
. Two Zone Concept means the approach whereby cenain areas of the flood plain are
considered to be less hazardous than others such that development potentially could
safely occur The flood fringe defines that portion of the flood plain where develop-
ment may be permitted, subject to appropriate floodprooflJlg The floodway defines
that portion of the flood plain wherein development is prohibited or restricted.
. Watersbed means all lands drained by a river or stream and its tributaries (Conser-
vation Authorities Act. R.S 0 1980)
Basis of Policy
The provincial policies contained in this document have been developed based on the
following objectives and principles. .
Objectives
(1) to prevent loss of life;
(2) to minimize property damage and social dIsruption; and
(3) to encourage a co-ordinated approach to the use of the land and the management
. of water.
w(l# ~Prlnciples
(1) effective flood plam management can only occur on a watershed basis WIth due
consideration given to the upstream/downstream and cumulauve effects of
development.
(2) local conditions (physical. enVIronmental. econonuc. and social characteristics) vary
from watershed to watershed and. accordingly. must be taken into account for the
planning and managing of flood plalO lands.
(3) the degree of risk (threat of life and property damage) can vary within the flood
plain of a watershed and from watershed to watershed. -some portions may be too
hazardous for development while the potential for development to safely occur may
exist for other portions.
(4) new development susceptible to flood damages or which will cause or increase flood
related damages to existing uses and land must not be permitted to occur: however.
some communities have historically located in the flood plain and as a result. special
consideration may be required to provide for their continued viability, and
(5) flood plain management and land use planning are distinct yet related processes
that require overall co-ordination on the part of municipalities. Conservation
Authorities, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
.
Policies
(1) ~Dera1
It is the policy of the Province of Ontario that:
1 1 All land use planning and resource management bodies within the Province
have regard to the implications of their actions respecting the creation of new
or the aggravation of existing flood plain management problems.
1.2 Municipalities aDd planning boardsl recognize flood susceptibility at the various
stages of the land use planning process for which they have jurisdiction.
(2) RepIatory F100cl Standard
It is the policy of the Province of Ontario that:
2 1 The flood standards used to define flood plain limits for regulatory purposes are:
(a) the flood resulting from one of the following storm centred events.
. Hurricane Hazel storm (1954)
. Timmins storm (1961),
.
I "pWuiin. boerd" refers to tbote pluuWl. bouda escablisbed by the MiDis&er of Municipal Alfain. in accor
dance ""iell sectioa (9) or (10) of the PWuWs. Act. 1913
-
) -
REGULATORY FLOOD-Figure 1 W~. ~ 7
;
ZONE I-Flood Produced by Hurricane Hazel Stonn or the 100 Year Flood. wruchever
is greater. ,
, i
ZONE 2- The 100 Year Flood ,
I
ZONE 3-Flood Produced by the Tinunins Storm or the 100 Year Flood. whichever I
IS greater
Approximate boundaries of the Regulatory Floods
- 1
". '0' U' 10# 1S'
I - "l" g S (J /II I
I
,AY I
,
, ". \
i
S,,"---, /
:l / I
(" ,
/
. .
::1
-'
.
~ I
..... I
~ I i
I
I I
~r.. i
I
~.4 ..
!..~4'1'O !
( ZONE 3 -
SAul.r ,no .uo.u",
"""'1 .
U S A
4"
-
.cALI U S A
.. . to ," It.
I .....
I I
I
.0' ".
.0' .,'
~
.
...
~b-~ (c) an observed flood event subject to the approval of the Minister of Natural
R.esources ' . , ,
-- - -.. -
2 2 The 100 year flood is the minimum acceptable regulatory flood standard
2 3 For those watersheds with a regulatory flood sWldard greater than the nunimum
acceptable (See Figure 1). the option eXIsts for murucipalities and planning
boards to apply to the Mimster of Natural Resources, in accordance with pro-
cedures established. to change the standard. subject to the following overriding
conditions
(a) changes to the existing regulatory flood standard will only be considered
with the suppo" of a significant majonty of murucipalIties and/or planning
boards within the watershed, in consultatioh with the local ConservatIon
Authority or Mirustry of Nannal Resources, where Conservation Authonties
do not exist; and
(b) the lowering of the existing regulatory flood standard where the past history
of flooding reveals a higher level IS more appropriate will not be considered
2 4 Where flooding is experienced In excess of the eXIsting regulatory flood stan-
dard. the Minister of Natural Resources may require the regulatory flood stan-
dard to be modified to reflect the observed flood event.
(3) Offkial Plans
It is the policy of the Province of Ontano that.
r
3 I Municipalities and planning boards show and/or describe flood pl3.ll1lands in
their official plans and incorporate poliCies to address new development con-
sistent with this policy statement
3 2 MunicIpalities and planning boards. In consultation With the local Conserva-
tion Authority or Ministry of Natural Resources. where no Conservation
Authority exists, include in their official plans.
1_
(a) policies whereby uses pemuaed in flood plains are cogmzant of flood suscep-
tibility and flood risk, J
(b) policies whereby no new buildings or structures are permitted which are
susceptible to flood related damages or will cause adverse impacts to ex-
isting upstream or downstream development or lands.
-
(c) policies addressing additIons or alterations to existing buildings or struc-
- ___tures and replacement of buildings or structUres located in flood plains, and
(d) policies addressing such public and pnvate works that must locate in flood
plains by nature of their use -
3 3 Municipalities and planning boards Identify iJ;1 th~ir o~cial.plans, ~e planning
controls required to give effect to the pohcles Idenufied m secuon 3.2.
3 4 Where no official plan exists. the zorung document affecting the area contain
provisions to reflect this policy statement.
8
.
(4) One Zone Concept ' \ " . WR. ~q
It is the poltcy of the Province of Ontano that subject to policies (5) and (6)
4 1 The flood plam will consist of one lone, defined by the regulatory flood stan-
dard (see Figure 2)
4 2 New development in the flood plain is to be prohibited or restricted
4.3 Where the one zone concept is applied. murncipalities and planrung boards in-
clude policies in thel! official plans that explain the mtent of the one zone con~pt.
44 Where the one zone concept is applied. the flood plam be appropriately zoned
in c~nf?rmity with the official plan deSignation. to reflect Its prolubiuve or
restnctlve use
(5) Two Zone Concept
It is the polIcy of the Province of Ontario that.
5 I For portions of flood plains that could potentially be safely developed with no
adverse unpacts, the Conservation Authonties in Ontario, or where no Con-
servation Authorities exist, the Ministry of Natural Resources. in co-operation
with the watershed municipalities have the option of selective application of
the two zone (floodway-flood fringe) concept (see Figure 3)
5 2 New development in the floodway IS to be prohibited or restricted.
5 3 The extent of the floodway is to be determined based on local watershed con-
ditions. such as critical flood depth and velocity, existing and proposed develop-
ment, and the potential for upstream and downstream impacts
, . ,
5 4 New development that may be permitted in the flood fringe be protected to
the level of the regulatory flood.
S S Where the two zone concept is proposed to be applied or is considered to be
a plausible option, municipalities include policies in their official plans that
explain the intent of the two zone concept and development potential of
the flood fringe versus the floodway
_ S.6 Where the two zone concept is applied, the flood fringe be zoned in confonn-
it)' with the official plan designation, and the flood hazard and requirements
.for floodprooting be recognized in the zoning document.
S 7 Where the two zone concept is applied, the floodway be appropriately zoned
to reflect its prohibitive or restrictive use.
-
(6) Special Polky Ana Coocept
It is the policy of the Province of Ontario that:
6 1 Where strict adherence to policies (4) and/or (S) is not feasible, the concept
of special policy area StatUS is recognized as a possible option for fl~ pr~ne
conununities or ponions thereof MuniCipalities may apply for Special polIcy
area status. in accordance with establIshed procedures, and controlled develop-
. ment may be permitted once such status 15 obtained.
-
wa~ 70 ONE-ZONE CONCEPT -. ~. "
.( Fl 000 P\.JJN
J(vn()OO.ot~f~f'fO~"IS"",'IO ).
REGULA TORY FlOOO !.E:VEL
-----------------------------------------------
., -
...
Figure 2
(
TWO-ZONE FLOOOWAY-FLOOD FRINGE CONCEPT
( - FlOOO P\.JJN -- )
, .
i "-OOOW" ·
( 1'1.000 FRINGE ( OC'<tLOOOootNf ""04rtO ()OI "Is"",rtO .( FlOOO FJ:lINGE >-
~ :000I'0'>OI.
Cl('<(I._' Ol'<tLooo-t..,
! REGULA TORY FlOOO LEVEL
-----------,-------------------------------------
I
I
Ftpre 3
10
.
- 6 2 - MU.ni~lp~it~es ~elineate s~ia1 policy areas in their official plans and mclude Wt2..71
poliCies mdlcatlng the. clrcums~nces under which new development may be
pemutted and Identlfymg the nununum acceptable level of protection required
for new development. _-
(7) Floodprooflng
It is the policy of the Province of Ontario that.
-
7 1 Any new development permitted in the flood plain. in accordance with this policy
statement. be protected by acceptable floodprQ9fing actions or measures
-j
7 2 Ingress/egress for n~w buildings be such that vehicular and pedestnan move-
! ment is not prevented during tunes of flooding
(8) PubUc Safety
It is the policy of the Province of Ontano that. notwithstanding Policies (3) to (7)
inclusive !
8 1 New development not be pennitted to locate m the flood plain where the use is
(a) associated with the manufacture. storage. disposal and/or consumption of
hazardous substances or the treatment. collection and disposal of sewage.
which would pose an unacceptable threat to public safety if they were to
escape their normal contammentluse as a result of flooding or failure of
floodproofmg measures,
(b) associated with institutional services. such as hospitals. nursing homes and
schools, which would pose a significant threat to the safety of the mhabitants
(e g the sick, the elderly, the disabled or the young), if involved 10 an
emergency evacuation situation as a result of flooding or failure of flood-
proofing measures. and -- -
(c) associated with services such as those provided by tire; police and ambulance
stations and electrical substations, which would be impaired during a flood
emergency as a result of flooding or failure of floodproofing measures
8.2 Where new development identified in 8 I is not considered to pose an unac-
ceptable risk to public safety, a higher level of flOod protection and/or addi-
tional floodproofing precautions above the regulatory flood level, may still be
required due to the sensitive nature of the development.
~
Implementation
. In exercising any authority that affectS any planning matter, the councll of every
municipality. every local board. every Minister of the Crown and every ministry
board, commission or agency of the government, including the Ontario MUnICipal
Board and Ontario Hydro. shall have regard to th.1s policy statement as required under
seCtion 3 of the Planning Act, 1983.
lJ.J~; 7?- _ · The M,inistry of N~tural Resou~ces and ~e M~stry of Municipal Affairs will develop -
~ldelIDes for the, unplementauon of, this pollcy statement. including the adnumstra-
uon of the Planmng Act. 1983. as It relates to flood plain lands
. The Ministry of Natural Resources will develop techrucal gUidelines for the calcula-
tion of flood hnes and the mapping of flood plains
. The Ministry of Natural Resources in co~peration with the Ministry of MUnicipal
Affairs. will develop procedures to be followed for applying to change the regulatory
flood standard for a watershed.
. The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Murucipal Affam wtll develop
procedures to be followed in applying for SPecIal policy area status
. The Ministry of Natural Resources. in co~peration with the Mirustry of Muruclpal
Affairs and the Ministry of Housmg and other appropriate agencies. will identify ac-
ceptable rypes of floodproofing and thelC application to different types of land use
. The Conservation Authorities. where they exist. are responsible for plan Input and
review related to flood plain matters and in this regard will
. make available any existing mapping. flood data or studies and provide technical
assistanCe to any government body or planning authority, in particular municipalities
and planning boards. and assist municipalities and planning boards to Incorporate
the intent of the provincial policy statement for flood pl3.1n management into the
land use planning process and appropriate planning documents.
. provide comments to review and approval agencies on proposed plaruung actions
that may have implications on flood plain management;
. make representation or provide technical expertise to the Ontario MuniCIpal Board
or other appeal bodies, where a matter related to this policy statement may be an Issue
. consult with ministries, public agencies, boards, authonties, and mumcipallties on
matters pertaining to flood plain management, as may be appropriate. and
. inform and educlte the general public on the principles and practices of flood plain
management and provide information on the characteristics and consequences of
a flood.
Where Conservation Authorities do not exist, the Ministry of Natural Resources
is responsible for plan input and review related to flood plain matters
. The Cooservatioo Authorities will :aclmini~r the provisions of the Conservation
Authorities Act, R.S 0 . 1980, and Fill, Construction1 and Alteration to Waterways
Regulations passed pursuant to Section 28 of the Act, or successors thereto to assist
in the implementation of this policy statement.
2 lbe .COQIINCtioa ~ Q 1M:1Il ot COftICrvwoa AUIbority rqu1IIioas is applied to areas draWn, 125 hecwes
or parer AIeu leu IbID 12$ bec:wa are c:oasadcrcd 'lcxa.I draiAqe aad thus are the responsibility of the
local ~.
12
.
-
· The Ministry of Narural Resources. in conjunction with the Federal government will 1A)(J..73
continue to administer the Canada-Ontario Flood Damage Reduction Program
through the Conservation Authorities and the murucipalities This includes the carry-
mg out of flood plain mapping and flood studies. and the preparation of infonnation
maps geared to the general public depicting flood susceptible areas
. The Ministry of MuniCipal Affaus and municipalIties with delegated approval authority
from the Minister will ensure that all municipal planning documents to be reviewed
or approved. have had regard to this policy statement.
· When an existing official plan or zoning by-law/order comes up for review, regard
will be had for this policy statement. -
· Municipalities, with input from Conservation Authorities. or the Ministry of Natural
Resources where Conservation Authorities do not exist. will put in place planning
controls necessary to implement flood plain provisions in official plans (such as zon-
ing, site plan control)
· The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Mirustry of Municipal Affairs will under-
take periodic research programs to investlgate and update planning implementauon
and flood plain management techniques
· The Ministry of Natural Resources and the Mirustry of MuniCipal Affairs. in co-
operation WIth the Conservation AuthontJes. will administer this policy statement,
as well as advise and explain its content and application to muniCipalities, planning
boards, and other agencies.
~
.
t WI IUllllt::1 IlIIWI/ Ilcl.llUl1 contact any of the following oHlces
LVR. lIlt MINISTR Y OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS:
--
Community Plann1n& Advisory BnDCh
Ceatral Recioa SouthEastRecioa South West Redoa
.7 Sbeppud Aveaue East 244 Rideau Street 49S Richmond Street
2ad Floor 3rd Floor 7th Floor
WiJlowdale. Ontario Ottawa. Ontario London. OntariO
M2N 2Z8 KIN 5Y3 N6A SA9
Telephone: (.16) 224-7635 Telephone: (613) 566-3801 Telephone: (SI9) 673-1611
TOLL FREE 1-800-668-0230 TOLL FREE 1.800-267~SS. TOLL FREE 1.800-26S-4736
North East Recioa North West Redoa
850 Barrydowne Road 43S lames Street South
3rd Floor Thunder Bay. OntariO
Sudbury OntariO P7C 5G6
PJA 3T7 Telephone- (807) 47S-1651 -
,
Telephone: (70S) S60-0120 TOLL FREE 1-800-465.5027
TOLL FREE 1.800-461-1193
,.... AcImbaiIcndoe PWII AcImIaIItndoa 0fIb of Local
Bruch-North ud Brucb-CeatnJ ud PWuUac PolIcy
EMt Soutbwest m Bay Street
777 Bay Street 777 Bay Street 13th Floor
14th Floor 14th Floor Toromo. Onwio
Toroato. Oowio Toronto. OntariO MSG 2E5
MSG 2E5 M5G 2E5 Telepbooe (416) 58S~22j
Telephone (416) S85-6014 Telephone (416) 58S-6014
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES:
CODNnadoa Aatbortty qd
Water Maaapmeat Brauch
WbitDey Block. Room S620
99 WeUes1ey Street West
Torooto. Oawio
M7A IW3
Telepbooe (416) 96j~2S6
NortIIwestml Recioa Soutbwtltenl RePoa
POBox SI60 P O. Box ~3
810 Robensoo Street 659 Exeter Road
KeOOf'l. Ontario Loodoa. Ontario
P9N 3X9 N6A 41.6
RecIoDal 0fIkes Telepbooe (807) 468-3111 Telepbooe (519) 661.2800
North Ceatni JtaPoe NortIItMtma RePoa Ceatnl R.eIkMI
POBox ~ 199 ~b Street 10670 Yoaac Street
Ontario Go\'emmeat BuiIdiDa Sudbury. Ontario R.icluDoDd Hill. Ontario
.35 James Street Soudl PJE 5P9 UC 3C9
ThUDder Bay. Oawio TelepboDe (7Oj) 675....120 Telepboae (.16) 88-4-9203
P7C 506
Telepboae (107) ."-1261 AJao-q. JttcIoa EMten Rtcioa
P O. Box 9000 POBox 2002
N..... ..... BreDda1e Square Coocessioa Road
1~ Aveaue (M&DOCIUIICIe Street) Ke1Dpn'ille. Ontario
Cocbrme. Onwio HWlUvillc. 0aw10 KOO 110
POL I CO POA IKO Telepbooe (613) 2j8-3413
Telephone~) 272.701. Telepbooe (7Oj) 789-9611
. 14
Conservation Authorities ~.76
AUSABLE-BA YFIELD-Box 2410 MAlTAGAMI REGION-In Cedar South.
17S Thames Rd. W Timnuns P4N 2G9
Exeter ~OM ISO Telephone (705) 264-5309
Telephone (519) 23S-2610 METROPOLff AN TORONTO" REGION
CATARAQUl REGION-R.R.I Glenbumie eM T.R.C.A.)
KOH ISO S Shoreham Dnve. Downsvlew M3N 154
Telephone (613) 546-4228 Telephooe (416) 661-0600
CATFISH CREEK-R.R. S. AJymcr NSH 2R4 MISSISSIPPI V ALLEY -Bo~ 268 Unarlc KOG 1 KO
Telephone (519) 173-9605 Telephone (613) 259-2421
CEN11UL LAKE ONT AJUo-I 00 Whitinl Ave.. ~OIRA RIVER-217 North Front SI. Belleville
Oshawl LI H 3D K8P 3C3
Telephone (416) S79..()411 Telephone (613) 968-3434
CREDIT VALLEY-Meadowva.le LOJ IKO ~APANEE REGION-lS OnWlO St. W
Telephone (416) 4S1 1615 Napance K7R 356
CROWE VALLEY-Bo~ 416. Telepbooe (613) 3S..3312
Marmon KOK 2MO II(lAGARA PENINSULA~enue SI. Allanburl
Telepbooe (613) 472 3137 LOS lAD
ESSEX REGION-360 Fairview Ave. W Telephooe (416) 227 1013
Usex N8M I Y6 NICKEL DlSTJUCT-
Telephooe (519) 77~S209 West Tower CiVIC: Cenere Square.
GANAltASK..A REGION-P 0 Box 328. 200 Brady St. Sudbury PJE 5IG
Pon Hope LIA 3W4 Telephone (70S) 674-5249
T elepbooc (416) 88S-8173 ~OR1lf BAY.MATTAWA-80x I2lS. 348 Fraser St.
GItAND RIVER-Box 729 400 Clyde Rd.. North Bay P1B 8K4
Cambndle N1R SW6 Telephooc (70S) 47"5420
Telepbooe ('19) 621-2761 NO'ITAWASAGA VALLEY-R.R. 1.
HALTON REGION-P 0 Bo~ 1091. Swioc '8 . AnIUS LOM 1 BO
Burlincwa L 7P 359 Telepbooe (70') 424-1419
Telepbooe (416) 878-4131 OTONABEE REGION-127 Lansdowne St. W
HAMIL TON REGION-Box 7C1/9 Peterbo('O\,\&b K9J lZ2
838 Mineral 5prmlS Rd.. Telepbooe (70S) 74'-5191
A.Dc:.aMr L9G 3U PRINCE [OW AJU) REGION-Box 310.
TelepboDe (416) S2j-2181 Pic:toG KOK 2TO
KAWAllTBA REGION-Box 819. Feoe1oc Falls TelepboDe (613) 47~7408
KOM lNO RAISIN REGION-Box 10.
Telepbooc (705) 817.3112 MIttUIIOW1J KOC ISO
D:1TLE ~-R.R. 8. Telepbooc (613) '2&-4'&4
St. 1bomu NSP 3n RIDEAU VALLEY-Box '99. Mill St.. Manotick
TelepboDe ('19) 631.1210 KOA 21'010
LAD SIMCO& REGION-Box 282. Telepboae (613) 692-3511
120 Bayview Ave.. GREY -SAUBLE-R.R. 4. 1D&lls Falls Roed.
Newmutet UY 4Xl Owen SouDd N4K SN6
Telcpboal (416) m-1211 Telepbooe (5 19) 37~3016
~1rW'IIW.6J) IlKGJON-Iox 3476. 1136 Oliver Rd.. SAUGEEN VALLEY-R.R. I.
lbUDdct Bay P7B 'J9 HlDO'Ver 1'0141'01 381
Telepboae (107) 344-S." Telepboae ('19) J64..12j'
LONG POINI' OGlON-Box '2j. SAULT STL MAJlJE UGION-99 FOlICI' Or.
Simcoe N3Y 4N' CivIC Cese. Sault Ste. Mane P6A 'X6
TcJcpbooe (S 19) 426--4623 Telepbooe (70s) "9-S342
LOWEll 11IAM!S V ALLEY-l00 1'bamca St.. SOUIll NATION IUVD-Box 69.
CbadwD N7l. 2ya Benrt1c:k KOC 1 GO
Te1cpbooe ('19) 3~7310 Telepbooc (613) 984-2400
LOWEll TllENI' JtEGION-441 Froac St.. ST CLAJJl UGION-~ MiJI Pood CresaDl.
Treuoa KaV 6Cl Stnlhroy N1G 3P9
Telepbooc (613) 3~9 T elepbooe ('19) 24'-3110
MAm..AND VAJ.Ln'-Box 127. UPPfJl11lAMES JUVEll-80x 6278. Swsoc O'
W I'OUW NOO 2XO Loodoa NSW 'SI
Tdepbooe (SI9) 335-3"7 Telepboae (SI9) 4'1-2100
wR..7b
APPENDIX B
PROVINCIAL IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
FOR
FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT, 1988
.
* Excerpts detailing Special Policy Area guidelines only.
These must be read together with the Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policy Statement and complete Implementation
Guideline document.
.
Wf(. 7 ~
FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING
POLICY STATEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
OCTOBER, 1988
.
THESE GUIDELINES MUST BE READ TOGETHER
WITH THE PROVINCIAL POLICY STATEMENT - FLOOD
PLAIN PLANNING
ORDER IN COUNCIL NO. 1946-88
AUGUST 11,1988
Prepared by
Ministry of Natural Resources and the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs
.-
-
.
1
26
.
WfZ.1g l
,
3.6 Special Polley Area Concept
-It Is the polley of the Government of Ontario that:
Where strict adherence to policies (4) and/or (5)
Is not feasible, the concept of special polley
area status Is recognized as a possible option
for flood prone communities or portions thereof.
Municipalities may apply for special polley area
status, In accordance with established
procedures, and controlled development may be
permitted once such status Is obtained.
Municipalities delineate special polley areas In
their official plans and Include policies \
Indicating the circumstances under which new
development may be permitted and Identifying
the minimum acceptable level of protection
required for new development.-
3.6.1 Explanation
While the provincial flood plain management objectives are
clear, their achievement necessitates flexibility in some
situations. Historic development of. many villages, towns and
cities on the flood plains of streams and rivers means their
viability depends on a reasoned application of provincial
standards. In certain cases, even the application of the two-
zone concept to allow development of the flood fringe will not
provide sufficient development capability to maintain
community viability
r
27 W~. 7q
The concept ot the special policy area provides additional
flexibility in flood plain management. Spe,cial policy areas are
those in which provincial standards for flood plain
management are relaxed to recognize certain exceptional
situations. Where no suitable alternative exists, a council may
consider major development or redevelopment in a f100dway
or flood proofing that is below the regulatory flood level so as
to provide sufficient development capability with a view to
maintaining the community's social and economic viability
However, it must be stressed, the two-zone concept option is
intended to provide flexibility in flood plain management and,
therefore, special policy areas will be approved QDly in
circumstances where the two-zone concept cannot
reasonably be applied and all other requirements for special
policy area designation can be met.
Although a community may qualify for special policy area
status, not all ot its flood plain lands would necessarily be
subject to special policy provisions. Special policy area
status provides for additions, alterations and replacement of
existing buildings and structures and infilling (previously
undeveloped lots within developed areas) In addition, it is
recognized that peripheral areas, presently undeveloped, may
be considered to be an integral part ot a community That is,
a logical extension of the community to be developed in the
near future Such areas would tend to be small in size and
may be included within the limits of the special policy area.
Special policy areas are intended to provide for the continued
viability of existing uses, generally on a small scale (i e lot by
lot) basis. This is in recognition of standard flood plain criteria
physically not being achievable for an individual building or
structure or the application of standard criteria would put the
building, structure, addition, etc. out of character with the
,
.
28
Wf< .'~O .
surrounding However, where large scale,
area.
comprehensive redevelopment is proposed, more opportunity
exists for achieving flood protection. Where such situations
exist, standard flood plain requirements may be applied (I.e
development in the floodway restricted, flood proofing to the
regulatory flood level), regardless of the special policy area
status As well, proposed changes in land use within a
special policy area that require an official plan amendment
may also require that standard flood plain requirements be
met.
For special policy area status, a municipality must have an
official plan which adequately discusses and addresses the
special policy area situation Engineered flood plain mapping
and flood plain data is also required in sufficient detail to
graphically display and describe precisely the area and the
effects.
In all situations. special policy area statements in official olans
must identify a minimum acceotable level of orotection for new
development. Although a minimum level of flood protection
I has not been established Province-wide, the 100 year flood
I
I level has been established as the minimum acceptable flood
standard.
A proposed special policy area which establishes a minimum
level of flood protection lower than the 100 year flood level will
require the inclusion of the rationale{justiflcatlon in the
appendices of the proposed official pian/official plan
I amendment.
!
The adverse Impacts on the municipality (social, economic,
environmental etc.) of adopting a flood proofing level less than
the 100 year flood level as the minimum level of flood
protection shall be addressed for each of the floodproofing
alternatives outlined in Appendix 0, .. Floodproofing in
Ontario" In addition, a detailed rationale/Justification will be
required to support the minimum level of flood protection
being proposed
,
29
WR... C21
The Canada Mortgage and Housing' Corporation has
indicated that they will also require a detailed
rationalenustification prior to reviewing funding applications
for development proposals which Include a minimum level of
flood protection lower than the 100 year flood level. Each
application will be reviewed individually, based on the
Information presented in support of a lower level of flood
protection
In determining whether or not a community or portion thereof
potentially qualifies for special polley area status, the following
factors, among others. are taken Into account:
community related
municipal commitment to area maintenance
area designated in official plan to continued growth
significant Investment In Infrastructure, i.e. services
alternative opportunities for development
--
technical
appropriateness of other flood plain management
measures. Le remedial works, two-zone approach
depth of flooding and velocity of flow
. frequency of flooding
feasibility of flood proofing measures
. upstream and downstream effects
frequency of ice jams and other obstructions
\ These factors are discussed in detail in AppendiX C of this
! document.
}
.
,
-
,
30
WR.g~ .
Municipalities should note that by permitting development in
the floodway or where protection is not provided to the level
of the regulatory flood, the special policy area concept places
a greater level of risk upon land owners and increases the
potential for loss of life and property damage
36.2 Procedures
Procedures for approval of a special polley area have been
developed. They consist of three major phases
Phase
I identification of need and preliminary approval in
principle
IIa background data collection and information for official
plan policy
lib preparation and formal submission of the official plan
document.
III implementation and review/update. ,
,
I
All steps Involved in seeking special policy area status are
explained In Appendix C
3.7 Floodprooflng
-It Is the polley of the Province of Ontario that:
Any new development permitted In the flood
plain, In accordance with this polley statement,
be protected by acceptable floodprooflng
actions or measures.
Ingress/egress for new buildings be such that
vehicular and pedestrian movement Is not
prevented during times of floodlng.-
,
31
WI< .g3
3.7 1 Exolanation
The term 'flood proofing' is used to ,describe structural
changes and/or adjustments incorporated into the basic
design and/or construction or alteration of individual
buildings, structures or properties to protect them from flood
damage. However, it should be noted that this term can be
somewhat misleading since total orotection of buildings and
structures from flood damaQe cannot always be assured.
It may be technically feasible to incorporate floodproofing
measures into structures to any depth of water However, in
practice, the cost of flood proofing increases with depth and
therefore may become the limiting factor in the construction of
buildings where the potential of flood damage cannot be
economically reduced or eliminated. Also, some
floodprooflng approaches involve contingency items which
must be kept In a perfect state of readiness and be easily
accessible at all times They should undergo periodic
inspections, testings and continual maintenance The roles.
responsibilities and schedule of timing should be established
in a formal agreement between the Conservation Authority or
where one has not been established, the Ministry of Natural
Resources and the municipality Furthermore, floodproofing
should not be considered a panacea for all flooding problems,
other approaches may be more appropriate under certain
conditlons.1
1
Ontario Regulation 374/81 under the Ontario Water Resources Act states.
"No person shall locate or cause or permit the location of the leachmg bed
(of a subsurface sewage disposal system) m or on an area subject to floodmg
that may be expected to cause damage to the leaching bed or a public health
nuisance by imhairing the operation of the leaching bed" Where a local
health unit or t e Mimstry of Environment has determined that a subsurface
sewage disposal system can locate 10 an area subject to flooding without
causing damage to the leachmg bed nor creating a public health nuisance.
flood plain management conSiderations would be hmited to the effects of the
placing of any necessary fill ill the flood plain. To avoid conflicts with the
secarate pieces of legislation It is recommended that a close working
re ationship be established and maintamed between a Conservation
Authority or the Ministry of Natural Resources and a health unit or the
Ministry of Environment.
,
32
.
~.~
Floodproofing is applicable with certain limitations and only
after certain prerequisite information Is given to verify its
feasibility Since there are various types of f1oodproofing
measures, selection of the most appropriate approach
depends on the following conditions
nature of the development and adjoining property under
consideration, i.e. existing structure or proposed new
structure, type of land use, impact on neighbouring
properties,
physical characteristics of the river system, in order to
evaluate the potential for upstream or downstream impacts,
.
local flood conditions and the level of the regulatory flood,
in order to evaluate the type or degree of floodprooflng
required and the requirements for ingress and egress, and
.
.
,
cost-effectiveness of floodprooflng
--
There are two basic approaches to floodprooflng which may be
described as follows.
. dry flood proofing
the use of fill, columns, or design modifications to elevate
openings In buildings or structures above the regulatory
flood level
or
. the use of water tight doors, seals, berms/floodwalls to
i prevent water from entering openings below the
regulatory flood level 2
2
,
Wlule dry tloodproofing by closures and seals IS an acceptable fonn of flood proofing. the
average building is not water tight. Unless very special techniques are employed. in addition
to seals. water tight doors. leakage into a bu1lding can st1l1 occur. Where such techniques are
not proposed. wet tloodproofing measures should also be considered.
33 (j)R,. g6
wet floodproofing ,
the use of materials, methods and design measures to
maintain structural integrity and minimize water damage
. buildings or structures are designed to intentionally allow
flood waters to enter
There are two basic techniques to floodproofing which may be
described as follows
active f1oodproofing
floodproofing techniques which require some action prior to
any impending flood in order to make the flood protection
operational, i e closing of water tight doors, Installation of
waterproof protective coverings over windows, etc.
passive f1oodproofing
. flood proofing techniques which are permanently In place
and do not require advance warning and action In order
to make the flood protection effective
There are a number of technical factors to be considered in
determining the most suitable flood proofing measures for individual
situations. These are discussed in Appendix 0 In addition, land use
considerations could also influence the type of floodproofing
measures to be applied. New development can be grouped Into
three major categories, as described in the following
. new multi-lot or large lot development
structures proposed for previously undeveloped areas
(large-scale)
. infilling, replacement, major additions
infilling - development on previously undeveloped lots,
generally bounded by existing development on adjacent
sides,
replacement - e)(isting structure removed and new
structure erected.
.
,
34
,
(N~.~
major additions/alterations . construction is equal to or
exceeds 50% of the market value or floor area of the
existing structure or work.
minor additions/alterations
construction that is less than 50% of the market value or
floor area of the existing structure or work.
For these various development scenarios, different land use factors
will influence each scenario to varying degrees. For example, the
height of surrounding buildings will be a primary consideration in
examining possible f1oodproofing measures for infilling, replacement
buildings, and major additions/alterations. As a result, f1oodproofing
through the use of fill or columns may be deemed undesirable in
certain situations However, for a large, multi-lot subdivision,
conformity with surrounding areas is not necessarily as critical.
In keeping with the flood plain management objective of minimizing
threat to life. certain f1oodproofing approaches may be less desirable
.... for some land uses than others For example, special consideration
un
should be given to land uses such as residential where overniQht
accommodation exists. Wherever possible f1oodprooflng should be
to the Regulatory Flood level, however, lower levels of protection may
be considered providing there is adequate rationalellustification
(See Section 3.6.1 bottom of page 28)
Based on all of the foregoing. the following will serve to guide
floodproofing in Ontario
I
In general. dry passive flood protection is the most desirable
approach for all types of development:
,
35 ~.87
. new multi-lot or large lot residential development and the
habitable portlons3 of any other ne~ buildings should
incorporate dry passive f1oodproofing measures. Wet
f1oodproofing should not be considered acceptable;
. it is recognized that the proximity to water is a key
consideration in the use and enjoyment of recreational
facilities such as marinas, campgrounds, cottages, etc. Dry
passive f1oodproofing may not be achievable or practical in all
instances but should, however, be implemented to the fullest
extent possible,
Wet ftoodproofing could be considered for new development
earmarked for non-residentlal/non-habitable use and for
buildings accessory to residential/habitable uses (i e
garages) Dry active f1oodproofing could also be considered
where a minimum of six (6) hours flood warning is available,
. minor additions/alterations to an existing building is the only
development permitting flood proofing to less than the
regulatory flood level,
minor additions/alterations should Incorporate f1oodproofing
measures to the extent and level possible, based on site-
specific conditions. As a minimum, the addition/alteration
should not be more flood vulnerable than the existing
structure
3
Habitable portion of a building means rooms or spaces required and intended for
overnight occupancy, and includes facilities for storage, heating, air-conditionmg. electncal.
hot water supplies. plumbing. waste connections, etc. which are necessary to main tam the
habitable condition. In addition to residential, habitable buildings include. hotels/motels.
hospita1s. nursing homes. and any other building involving overnight occupancy
.
I
i
36
~,~ .
infilling, replacement or major additions for
residential/habitable use, should require dry passive
floodproofing to the regulatory flood level However, where
such a requirement impacts on or is significantly out of
context with neighbouring properties, other flood reduction
approaches, such as dry active or wet flood proofing may
have to be considered. Any acceptable flood proofing
approach could be considered for infilling, replacement or
major additions for non-residential/non-habitable use.
as a minimum, ingress and egress should be considered
1 "safe" for all new buildings, such that velocities and depths do
not hinder safe pedestrian and vehicular movement during
I times of flooding Ingress and egress should remain "dry" at
J
all times for new institutional buildings servicing the sick, the
elderly, the disabled or the young. It is however recognized
that in some situations this may be difficult if not Impossible to
I achieve. Therefore. some exceptions may be permitted in
I special situations. As well, ingress and egress should remain
1 "dry" at all times for new buildings housing essential services
such as police, fire and ambulance,
With increases in flood depths and velocities, design considerations
for floodproofing buildings and structures generally become more
complex and costly Also increasing flood depths and velocities pose
greater risks to loss of life Further, different buildings and structures
can withstand flooding and associated loadings better than others
and will thus influence the selection of appropriate floodproofing
measures.
The following criteria will also assist in addressing floodproofing
matters.
Qmth (Threat to Ufe)
in stagnant backwater areas (zero velocity), depths in excess
of about 1 m (3.3 ft.) are sufficient to float young children, and
depths above 14m (4.5 ft.) are sufficient to float teenage
children and many adults,
,
37 ~R... S?1
Velocity (Threat to Ufe)
,
. in shallow areas, velocities In excess of about 1.8 m/s (6 ft./s)
pose a threat to the stability of many individuals;
Oeoth and Velocity (Threat to Ute)
the hazards of depth and velocity are closely linked as they
combine to effect Instability through an upward buoyant force
and a lateral force. A reasonable approximatIon of the
combined hazard of depth and flood velocity can be made
with the product of depth and velocity A product of depth
and velocity less than or equal to o 4 m2/s (4 ft.2/s)
defines a low risk hazard providIng that the depth does not
exceed 0.8 m (2.6 ft.) and the velocity does not exceed
1.7 m/s (5.5 ft./s) ,
Vehicular Access
ingress and egress from a floodproofed area by most
"typical" automobiles will be halted by flood depths above
0.3 - 0.5 m (1 - 1.5 ft.) A maximum flood velocity of 3 m/s
(10 ft./s) would be permissible, providing that flood depths are
-'
less than 0.3 m (1 foot),
. a depth In the range of 0.9 - 1.2 m (3 - 4 ft.) is the approximate
maximum depth for rapid access of large emergency vehicles,
StructurallnteQrity (Above Ground)
0.8 m depth (2.6 ft.) is the safe upper limit for f1oodprooflng the
above ground/superstructure of conventional brick, brick
veneer and concrete block buildings using closures and
seals. Beyond this, structural Integrity Is threatened/certain,
. the structural Integrity of elevated-structures Is more a function
of flood velocities (which may erode foundations, or footings
or fill) rather than depth. The maximum permissible velocity
depends on soil type, vegetation cover and slope but ranges
between 0.8 - 1.5 m/s (2.6 - 5 ftJs) ,
,
.
tN~ · qv 38
.
llinE sub-surface conditions can also pose a threat to
structural integrity The build up of groundwater
(hydrostatic pressure) around the foundation of a
building may cause basement floors to uplift and walls
to buckle. In addition, surcharging may cause the
back up of water into basements through floor drains.
Standards that may exist in local building by-laws
should be consulted in addressing such matters
Eill
floodprooflng by elevation on fill is less complex than
techniques Involving piles, columns and posts. However,
complexity does Increase at flood depths beyond about
1 8 - 2.4 m (6 - 8 ft.),
Berms and Floodwalls
floodprooflng by berms and floodwaJls is considerably more
complex than would first appear Complexity is as much
related to foundation, seepage and drainage conditions, as it
- is to height.
y
It is suoQested that desiQns for the followinQ be carried out by a
professional enQineer or architect skilled in f1oodprooflnQ measures.4
where the product of flood depth and velocity is equal to or
greater than 04 m2/s (4 ft.2/s) or where depth exceeds 0.8 m
(2.6 ft.) or where velocity exceeds 1 7 m/s (5.5 ft/s),
. where wet f1oodprooflng is proposed,
where flood depth is in excess of 0.8 m (2.6 ft.) and
f1oodproofing involves the use of closures and seals,
4
The Ontario BUildinJ Code (Ontario Regulation 419186) contains provisions
for requiring "speci investigations" to assess such matters as, dynamic
, loading (Article 4.2.4.9), hydrostatic uplift (Article 4.2.4.10) and
waterproofl1lg (Article 5.5.21).
39 WR .C::; I
. where floodproofing through the use of fill, exceeds depths of
1.8 m (6 ft.) or velocities between 08- 1.5 m/s (2.6 - 5 ft./s),
depending on soil type, vegetation cover and slope,
. where berms and f100dwalls in excess of 1 m (3.3 ft.) in height
are proposed,
where piles, columns and posts are proposed.
Where the two-zone concept, the special policy area concept, or
minor additions, Infilling, replacement or major additions In the flood
plain are contemplated, flood proofing should be addressed in the
land use planning documents Such policies would identify the types
of flood proofing deemed acceptable for various land uses, Le dry
passive f1oodproofing for new residential buildings and the habitable
portions of other new buildings As well, the policies would Indicate
the planning mechanisms that would implement f1oodproofing
requirements, Le zoning by-laws/zoning orders, subdivision
agreements, site plan control by-laws, etc.
3.8 Public Safety
-It Is the polley of the Province of Ontario that,
notwithstanding Policies (3) to (7) Inclusive:
New development not be permitted to locate In the
flood plain where the use Is:
. associated with the manufacture, storage,
disposal and/or consumption of hazardous
substances or the treatment, collection and
disposal of sewage, which would pose an
unacceptable threat to public safety If they
were to escape their normal containment/use
as a result of flooding or failure of
flood proofing measures;
. .
~rt. <1 :2. 40
.
. associated with institutional services, such
as hospitals, nursing homes and schools, i
which would pose a significant threat to the
safety of the Inhabitants (e.g. the sick, the
elderly, the disabled or the young), If Involved
In an emergency evacuation situation as a
result of flooding or failure of flood proofing
measures; and
. associated with services such as those
provided by fire, pollee and ambulance
I stations and electrical sub-stations, which
would be Impaired during a flood emergency
as a result of flooding or failure of
flood proofing measures.
Where new development Identified In Polley 8.1 Is
not considered to pose an unacceptable risk to
public safety, a higher level of flood protection
- and/or additional floodprooflng precautions above
~ the regulatory flood level, may stili be required
due to the sensitive nature of the development.
i
! 3.8.1 Exolanatlon
;
There are some types of development which could pose an
unacceptable threat to public safety if damaged by flooding
and, as such, should generally not be permitted to locate in
I the flood plain. Throughout the land use planning process,
municipalities and planning boards should be cognizant of
development associated with hazardous or toxic substances,
Institutions or essential services.
41 W R .q~
Hazardous Substances/Sewage Disposal
The threat to life could escalate to a critical level if the
containment of hazardous substances or sewage is
undermined as a result of flood damage or the failure of
flood proofing measures. As a result, development, including
the manufacture, storage, disposal or consumption of
hazardous substances or the treatment, collection or disposal
of sewage, is to be prohibited in the flood plain where the
threat Is considered to be unacceptable.
There are no established criteria which can be applied
province-wide to specifically define the types of development
or the levels of hazardous substances to be prohibited since
the degree of hazard is influenced by local conditions. In the
absence of such criteria. if there is uncertainty as to whether a
proposed development falls within this classIfIcation, a
decision will be made on a case by case basis through
discussion between the Conservation Authority or the Ministry
of Natural Resources. where no Conservation Authority exists,
\ and the municipality or planning board
J
The decision should be made with consideration of such
factors as the nature of the development, local conditions.
and the potential effects of flooding on the containment of
hazardous substances and the threat to public safety if
released. Examples of hazardous substances would include
but are not limited to chemical manufacturing, and/or
formulating, fertilizer manufacturing and/or formulating, waste
processing; storage and/or disposal.
.
42
.
~e, *C14- Institutional Uses
In the case of new development associated with institutional (
uses. the intent of the policy is to prevent placing unnecessary
risk on the inhabitants of institutions such as hospitals,
nursing homes. pre-schools/nurseries. day care centres and
primary schools. The threat to life could be particularly severe
for these inhabitants (e.g. sick. elderly. young) if a flooding
event necessitates an emergency evacuation. Ancillary
facilities such as parking lots. playing fields. etc. may be
permitted in the flood plain providing they are not subject to
flood damage and will not exacerbate flood related damages
to existing development.
Portable classrooms associated with school facilities should
not be permitted to locate within the flood plain. If after due
consideration of the implications, portable classrooms are not
considered to pose an unacceptable risk to public safety,
these structures should. as a minimum be provided with anti-
flotation devices and dry land access.
(
I Emergency Services
Finally, the restriction on new development associated with
emergency services may be necessary to ensure that the
delivery of these services Is not impaired in the event of
flooding. Services provided by facilities such as police. fire
and ambulance stations may be required to respond in a flood
emergency, while these and other service facilities such as
electrical sub-stations are relied upon for uninterrupted
service on a continual basis.
Circumstances may arise where a proposed new
development. as described in policy 8.1 may be permitted to
locate in the flood plain, provided it is proven that public
safety would not be compromised. It may be necessary to
clarify whether a proposed new development falls within one
of the three classifications outlined. or local conditions may be
such that the new development Is not expected to pose an
43 WR,Q6
unacceptable threat to public safety In these cases, an
assessment of the implications of the proposed development
would be necessary. It is recommended that this be carried
out through discussion between the municipality or planning
board, the Conservation Authority or the Ministry of Natural
Resources, where no Conservation Authority exists, and any
other ministry or agency which could assist in the decision-
making process, depending upon the nature of the proposed
development (e.g. Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of
Health).
There are a number of factors which should be considered in
assessing new development proposals in the interest of
public safety and local need, which may include the following
the nature of the development
local need
flood susceptibility
. degree of flood risk
implications of flooding on
the proposed development and its inhabitants
the containment of hazardous/toxic substances
the provision of essential services
the creation of off-site problems (e g contamination of
water supplies/health hazard, restriction of flow etc.)
. ability of enhanced floodproofing measures to reduce risk
to acceptable levels
. feasibility of higher level of flood protection.
If after due consideration of the implications, such a
development is deemed acceptable in principle, a higher level
of flood protection and/or extra f1oodprooflng measures may
be considered appropriate. In such Instances, consideration
should be given to establishing a minimum level of flood
protection. Over an assumed life of 75 . 100 years for a
structure. The probability of the 100 year flood occurring or
being exceeded should not be greater than 53 . 63%
respectively. .
,
44
lJj ~ #qb .
Where development associated with hazardous or toxic
substances, institutional uses or essential services is
permitted, the zoning document and other planning tools
should clearly specify the level of flood protection required
and any additional floodproofing measures that may be
required. It Is also advised that municipalities and planning
boards identify the details and criteria for this enhanced level
of floodproofing, to the extent possible, in zoning by-laws and
other planning tools.
--
.
~
W~.~l
I
I
APPENDIX C
SPECIAL POLICY AREAS
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
.
AND
PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL
,.
,
APPENDIX IIC. I W,e.qg
Special Polley Areas - Factors ,
To Be Considered and Procedures for Approval
~ ~
A - Factors to be Considered
1) Community Related 113
(a) Municipal Commitment
(b) Designated Growth Centre
(c) Infrastructure Investment
(d) Umited Alternatives
2) Technical Criteria 114
(a) Appropriateness of Other Measures
(b) Flow Characteristics
(c) Frequency of Flooding
(d) Floodprooflng Measures
(e) Upstream and Downstream Effects
(f) Frequency of Ice James
(g) Berms and Floodwalls
(h) Reduced Regulatory Flood Levels
(i) Evaluation
3) Types of Special Policy Areas 118
(a) Floodproofing to Regulatory Not Provided
(b) Development Proposed in the Floodway
,
I
.
W~ .qq lnQ.u ~ ,
l
B - Procedures for Approval
.
1) Phase I - Identification of Need and Preliminary
Approval as a Special Policy Area 119
(a) Request for Special Policy Area Status
(b) Provincial Review of Municipal Request
for Approval in Principle
(c) Approval in Principle to Consider Special
Policy Area Status
(d) Refusal of Approval in Principle for
Special Policy Area Status
2) Phase lI(a) - Data Collection and Preparation (
of Draft Official Plan Policies 121
(a) Municipal Data Collection
(b) Evaluation of Alternatives
(c) Policy Formation
3) Phase II(b) - Review and Formal Approval
of OffIcial Plan Policies 124
(a) Public Involvement
(b) Review of Draft Official Plan Policies
(c) Municipal Adoption
(d) Conservation Authority Adoption
(e) Formal Submission for Approval
,
/):j((.lOO
~ , ~
I
4) Phase III . Implementation and
Review/Update 126
a) Implementation
b) Review/Update
.
113
W~ · to,
SPECIAL POLICY AREAS
A - FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED I
In determining whether or not an area potentially qualifies for special policy area
status, the factors to be considered can be grouped into two major categories ..
community related and technical.
(1) Community Related
The characteristics of the community itself are important considerations in
identifying eligibility for special policy area status To potentially qualify,
an area should
have a municipal commitment to area maintenance,
be an area designated in the official plan for continued growth,
have significant investment in infrastructure, I e services,
limited opportunities tor development elsewhere
(a) Municipal Commitment
To qualify for special policy area status a municipality must have a
commitment, reflected in its official plan policies, to the continued
upkeep of the area, such as an active program to revitalize
(b) Designated Growth Centre
To qualify for special policy area status, a community must be
recognized as a centre for urban growth and development. This
would be reflected in planning documents. regional municipality,
county, joint planning area or local municipality plan. This criterion
attempts to ensure there is a desire and commitment to further
development on the community's part.
,
.
w r<., I f)~ 114
.
(C) Infrastructure Investment
(
A further measure of commitment to continued growth is the extent of
investment in community infrastructure Practical indicators include
the extent of servicing that exists, Le water and sewage.
(d) Umited Alternatives
A community with feasible alternatives for expansion or
redevelopment outside the flood plain area would not necessarily
qualify for special policy area status.
(2) Technical Criteria
To determine If a community qualifies for special policy area status,
various technical criteria relating to the flood hazard must also be
considered
appropriateness of other flood plain management measures, Le
remedial works, two-zone approach, I
depth of flooding and velocity of flow;
frequency of flooding I
feasibility of flood proofing measures,
upstream and downstream effects.
frequency of ice jams and other obstructions,
berms and flood walls,
reduced regulatory flood standard.
,
,
I
115 W~. LOo
I
(a) Appropriateness of Other Measures
I
In order to contemplate eligibility for special policy status, other
measures such as remedial works and the two.zone approach must
be proven to be unworkable.
In situations where remedial measures to permanently reduce flood
levels may not be implemented in the immediate future, a special
policy area might be considered as a water management option,
until the remedial measures have been completed
(b) Flow Characteristics
The depth of flooding and velocity of flow within a flood plain will
have a bearing on the extent and location of a special policy area.
No matter how strong the arguments relating to other criteria, an
area susceptible to severe flooding may not be appropriate for
special consideration.
(c) Frequency of Flooding
The frequency of flooding relative to the depth and velocity criteria
also determines if special policy area status is appropriate Potential
special policy areas will be individually evaluated relative to flood
frequency, both past and future
(d) Floodproofing Measures
The feasibility of floodprooting new deveropment, in general, within
the special policy area must be examined. Based on flood
characteristics, local conditions and type of land use proposed,
alternative floodproofing measures can be examined as to their
individual feasibility and desirability Key in examining alternative
f1oodproofing measures is the level of flood protection that can be
afforded.
.
116
tN~. tOlf .
(e) Upstream and Downstream Effects
(
The effects on upstream and downstream areas caused by
increased development In the flood plain must be taken into account.
Normally, this is determined through the watershed planning
process of the Conservation Authority or other special water
management studies co.ordinated by the Province. These effects
may be only minor in some instances. In others, because of the land
use patterns and topography, the effects, though significant, may be
acceptable. To determine upstream and downstream effects, all
special policy area proposals will be evaluated on a case by case
basis.
(f) Frequency of Ice Jams
Ice jams are a natural phenomena caused by topographic, hydraulic
and meteorological factors Resultant flooding has long been a
problem and must be considered in the decision making process
regarding development In a flood plain.
t It is almost impossible to predict in advance whether an Ice Jam will
form or if any resultant flooding will occur and to what extent it will
occur
With Ice generated floods, river flows are generally much below a
regional flood (winter conditions), but due to ice constriction, levels
may rise above the regulatory flood level. Due to the unpredictable
nature of Ice jams, a conservative approach to development Is
needed where ice jams are known to have caused problems.
,
117
{AR."1C5
(g) Berms and Flood Walts .
Where a berm or flood wall has been properly designed to the
regulatory flood level and constructed, and a suitable maintenance
program is in place. the f100dway would be considered to be
contained within the berm or flood wall area. The area behind the
berm or flood wall can be considered flood fringe. As such, a new
development would be required to be floodproofed to the regulatory
flood level. If new development can not be floodproofed to the
regulatory flood level, then special policy area status may be
requested.
If there are any openings in the berm or flood wall (e g road
crossings, watercourse confluence etc.) which would require human
intervention to complete the dyke during an impending flood through
sand bagging, placing of stop logs etc., the berm or flood wall shall
not be considered to contain the floodway
The establishment of no or limited development zones behind a
berm or flood wall will be dependent on local conditions (e g flood
depth and velocity) and local approaches to flood plain
management. As a precaution, certain areas immediately behind a
berm or flood wall may be considered too hazardous for any or
certain types of uses, if through ice jams, debris jams etc., failure of
the berm or flood wall was ever to occur.
(h) Reduced Regulatory Flood Levels
For watersheds where reduced regulatory flood levels have received
approval by the Minister of Natural Resources in accordance with
the provisions of Appendix "A", the option still exists tor a
municipality to apply for preliminary approval In principle for Special
Policy Area status. However, if for example, the new regulatory flood
level for a watershed is the 100 year and a floodway has been
defined using the product of depth and velocity, it may be difficult to
provide justification for the two-zone concept being too stringent.
.
wit · lOb 118
.
Existing Special Policy Area policies may require revision once a (
reduced regulatory flood level has been approved by the Minister or
alternatively, the need for a special policy area may no longer exist.
(i) Evaluation
All criteria must be balanced against one another and a decision
reached as to whether the community will qualify for special policy
area status. The weighing of these factors will depend on the
complexity and relative nature of the criteria. Before such weighing is
undertaken, as much factual data as possible should be assembled
(3) Tyoes of Soecial Policy Areas
Each special policy area is unique. but there are two identifiable types
(a) special policy areas where floodproofing to the regulatory flood level (
is not provided, and
(b) special policy areas where development is proposed in the
floodway
Both types of special policy areas run counter to basic concepts within the
provincial policy statement, namely; new development within the flood
plain should be protected from flooding to the level of the regulatory flood
and new development within the f1oodway, the more hazardous portion of
the flood plain, should be prohibited or restricted to non-structural uses
such as open space.
Therefore, great care must be exercised in proposing and approving
special policy areas as susceptibility to flooding and damage are much
greater In such areas.
,
119 l.A tt · \ 07
B. PROCEDURES FOR APPROVAL I
Procedures for seeking approval of a special policy area designation will
generally consist of three phases (See Figure 15, page 128)
Phase
I identification of need and preliminary approval in principle,
II (a) data collection and preparation of draft official plan policies.
II (b) review and formal approval of official plan policies.
III implementation and review/update
(1) Phase I . Identification of Need and Preliminary Aporoval as SoeciaJ
Policy Area
(a) Request for Special Policy Area Status
Phase I (preliminary approval in principle) is designed to establish
special policy area status In principle, and to lay the framework for
further technical evaluation It will prevent unnecessary
expenditures prior to the approval agencies' acceptance of the
request as being consistent with the principles of flood plain
management. This phase will also identify the nature and extent of
further studies necessary to accurately evaluate the limits and/or
scope of the special policy area.
A special policy area is a flood plain planning option based on
water management principles. It is necessary to consider poliCies
for all land uses within the special policy area as policy depisions
regarding one land use may adversely affect or limit the
alternatives for other land use policies. Separate special policy
area proposals for each land use within an overall special policy
area is not appropriate.
It must be noted, approval in principle does not signify final
approval of the proposed designated, nor is it an assurance the
special policy area will be approved. The latter will depend largely
on the conclusions and results of studies under Phase lI(a)
.
120
\t)~ ~t()g ,
The initial request for special policy area status, having regard to
(
the criteria outlined, ~ come from the municipality The
municipality should be satisfied it meets the criteria and that it has
suitable expertise and financial capability to deal with the
establishment of a special policy area. The request for special
policy area status should be accompanied by a brief report
addressing the criteria for special policy area eligibility In this
regard, the municipality should contact the local Conservation
Authority where one exists, as an initial step to determine the type
of flood related information that may exist. The Conservation
Authority or Ministry of Natural Resources shall also provide
detailed flood related information in report form indicating the
rationale and justification why the provisions of the two-zone
concept are too onerous.
The municipality should then approach the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs, the local Conservation Authority and the Ministry of Natural
Resources to obtain approval in principle of its request for special
policy area status Until it has been notified of approval in
principle, the municipality should not proceed with any additional L
studies
(b) Provincial Review of Municipal Request for Approval In Principle
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs will co-ordinate the review of
material prepared by the municipality to decide whether it meets
the criteria and if acceptance in principle can be given. Where the
municioality seekinQ aooroval in prlnciole for soecial oolicy area
. status Is within a 'deleQated' reQlonal municipality. the reQlon will
be Involved in the review. (Ottawa-Carleton, Hamilton-Wentworth
and Waterloo). Regional municipal representatives may co-
ordinate the review of all materials relating to a special policy area
designation once the municipality has been given approval in
principle and direction has been provided as to the additional
studies required to support an approval of a specific special policy
area.
I
121 WR..1O~
If more information Is required, the municipality will be advised
what is required in support of its request for approval in principle
,
and the agencies will reconsider the application when the
additional material is available.
(c) Approval in Principle to Consider Special Policy Area Status
The municipality will receive written approval in principle jointly
issued by representatives of the Ministries of Municipal Affairs,
Natural Resources and, where one exists, the local Conservation
Authority
Upon acceptance in principle, the municipality will be advised
regarding detailed studies required to support development of
official plan policies for the special policy area.
(d) Refusal of Approval In Principle for Special Policy Ar!3a Status
If a municipality is ineligible under the criteria outlined, it will be
notified and given reasons
(2) Phase IIla) - Data Collection and Preoaration of Draft Official Plan Policies
A municipality granted approval in principle for consideration of special
policy area status, will be expected to collect appropriate data according
to the approval in principle letter, and to produce policies meeting the
guideline requirements While data collection is the responsibility of the
municipality requesting special policy area status, provincial agencies will
assist as much as possible in providing information and In endeavoring
to provide the municipality with guidance, technical advice, etc. A
working group may ba established to liaise with the municipality and
monitor the study progress.
.
122
LAJfG. ,to .
The municipality should carry out the following steps under the guidance
of the working group composed of representatives of the Ministry of
Natural Resources, the local Conservation Authority, the Ministry of
Municipal Affairs, and possibly other Ministries such as the Ministry of the
Environment and the Ministry of Northern Development. Municipal
representation should include both planning and engineering staff If
there is a regional municipality, its' representative should also be
included.
(a) Municipal Data Collection
Before policies are developed, the municipality should collect data
I
and demonstrate adequate consideration of alternatives. This
stage should be monitored by the working group who will provide
technical assistance to the municipality as needed and wherever
possible
, (b) Evaluation of Alternatives
I The municipality should consider alternative approaches to
handling the problems of the flood prone area including upstream
and downstream effects of the alternatives.
(c) Policy Formation
Once the data collection is completed, the municipality can
prepare proposed policies. The policies should include and be
supported by, but not necessarily limited to, the following
I information which shall be subject to the approval of the
I Conservation Authority, where one exists and the Ministries of
Municipal Affairs and Natural Resources.
an introductory statement containing an explanation of
provincial policy, a brief description of the area proposed
for a special policy area, and a justification for the proposal
(Including an evaluation of risk factors involved in permitting
development in the flood plain).
123 Laa ~/11
1
. the boundaries of the special policy area shall extend to the
regulatory floodlines on each side of the watercourse (if
appropriate) and be closed at both the upstream and
downstream limits The policies will then address all land
uses, additions, renovations and replacements within these
boundaries
. the regulatory flood levels must be defined by flood plain
mapping studies for the area(s) under consideration Such
studies should consider both pre and post-development
situations,
the minimum acceptable level of protection (floodproofing)
for development within the special policy area, 7
the land use policies and designations tor the prop0sed
special policy area,
. detailed implementation policies identifying the mechanisms
(Le zoning, site plan control) and means to be applied to
ensure flood susceptibility and floodprooflng are addressed
by new development,
. policies for new buildings, additions, renovations, infilling
and replacements witl .hi the proposed special policy area,
7 A minimum acceptable level of protection has not been included In the
Provincial Policy for Flood Plain Planmng due to the extent of variation In
flood glain charactenstlcs which eXists province-wide. However, the 100 year
flood as been used almost exclusively as the minimum acceptable regulatory
flood standard and the CMHC lending policy is also based on this level
(See Section 5 4, Federal LegIslatIon) SPAs which include a minimum
acceptable level of protection whIch is less than the 100 year flood will
re~ulCe substantial Justification. In thiS regard It should not be Interpreted as
eit er the regulatory flood elevatIOn or the 100 year flood elevation. In all
situations as much of floodproofing as possible should be Incorporated In the
policies.
,
~R~ I~" 124
.
the roles of council, Conservation Authority(ies) and the
Ministries of Municipal Affairs, Natural Resources and any
other appropriate agency with respect to the circulation and
review of development proposals including subdivision
plans, consents, minor variances, and building permits,
the delineation of the boundaries of the special policy area,
as an overlay, on the land use schedule.
an appendix which Includes background reports and
studies supporting the policies proposed
The municipality in preparing an appendix to its official plan
document would include background papers addressing the
special policy area guidelines and how the draft official plan
policies reflect them. It would outline various alternatives
considered and studies carried out to support the proposed
policies. Exceptions to the provincial policy statement on flood
plain planning are considered on their own merits, and the
Province will want to ensure there is a clear outline of the basis of
" these exceptions for the benefit of the public and others.
I Agreement to the general policy proposals should be given in
writing by representatives of Ministries of Municipal Affairs, Natural
Resources and the local Conservation Authority, preferably before
any public meeting, so as to avoid raising false expectations.
(3) Phase IIlb) - Review and Formal Aooroval of Official Plan Policies
Processing the documentation for review and approval would comply
with the requirements of the Planning Act, and the standard procedures
established by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for the review of all official
plans and amendments would be followed.
I
,
,
I
125
W,e .1':;
(a) Public Involvement I
t
The municipality has a responsibility to involve the pUblic in
considering proposed policies as they will form a component of
the official plan. The municipality may request technical backup
and support from the provincial ministries for presentation
purposes at any public meetings.
(b) Review of Draft Official Plan Policies
Following public meetings, the official plan policies, including
appendix material, should be finalized in Qmf1 form by the
municipality and copies forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal
Affairs, whose responsibility is to co-ordinate a response from the
provincial agencies and the local Conservation Authority on all
draft documents This response should be received by the
municipality within 30 days or other agreed to period If
necessary, meetings may be held to discuss the response
(c) Municipal Adoption
Based on comments received, the municipality would make
appropriate modifications and formally adopt the official plan
policies.
(d) Conservation Authority Adoption
The special policy area provisions will determine the basis by
which a Conservation Authority will administer applications
pursuant to their Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways
Regulation. Therefore, the agreed upon policies require a
resolution of acceptance by either the Executive Committee or the
Full Authority, whichever has been vested with the decision
making authority
,
.
126 .
\Aft · I Ill-
(e) Formal Submission for Approval (
Once finalized at the local level, the municipality would then submit
the policies to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for approval, unless
a regional municipality has the authority to receive them.
As the draft official plan policies request approval for special policy
area status, they will also be forwarded to the appropriate
Regional Office of the Ministry of Natural Resources to initiate the
approval process by the Minister of Natural Resources. The
Minister would then inform the Minister of Municipal Affairs ot
his/her support or objection to the official plan policies.
In all other respects, normal official plan policy circulation and
approval procedures would be followed, as specified under the
Planning Act, 1983 or by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs.
(4) Phase III - Imclementation and Review/Uodate
... (a) Implementation
-,
The official plan/official plan amendment policies for a special
policy area are implemented by a municipality and the Ministry of
Natural Resources outside the area of Conservation Authority
jurisdiction through the zoning by-law process. (See Section 5,
Implementation Guidelines)
The policies developed for the special policy area will have no
legislative basis for enforcement under the Planning Act unless
they are addressed in the zoning by-law It is therefore important
that close ongoing liaison among the agencies that developed the
policies, be maintained after the approval of the official plan/official
plan amendment to ensure that the proposed zoning by-law
provisions adequately address all of the special policy area
policies.
,
127 ,..
VJYl_tl~
Ideally, the alternative implementation mechanisms will have been
previously discussed or outlined in the implen;1entation section of
the official pian/official plan amendment. However, if additional
information is required or unforeseen problems arise at the time
the implementing zoning by-law is being prepared, it may be
necessary to reconvene the special policy area technical
committee As a minimum, the implementing zoning by-law should
be circulated in draft form to the agencies represented on the
technical committee prior to public meetings and/or prior to the by-
law receiving three readings by council
Special policy area policies are also implemented by Conservation
Authorities where they exist, through the issuance of permits
under Section 28(1) of the Conservation Authorities Act where
such regulations have been adopted It is therefore important to
establish and maintain a close working relationship between the
Conservation Authority and the municipality to ensure that any
necessary approvals under the Planning Act and the Conservation
Authorities Act are coordinated and mutually supportive
(b) Review and Update
As flood plain information/works or reduced regulatory flood levels
are approved and/or completed the Special Policy Area policies
should be reviewed by the respective participants and the
municipal documents amended as necessary.
Where no changes to the Special Policy Area policies, land use
designations or boundaries are necessary and the
pOlicies/schedules are being transferred to another municipal
document, further approvals of the Minister of Natural Resources
are not required.
.
SPA FLOWCHART PROCESS
PHASE I
CA/MNR DISTRICT
IDENTIFICATION OF NEED
FOR AN SPA REFUSAL OF
PRELIMINARY APPROVAL MNR/MMA REQUEST
- Communlt y Related I N P R I N C I P LEO F SPA REVIEW OF
- Municipal Commitment REQUEST FOR
- Designated Growth Centre - Formal request by PRELIMINARY
- Infrastruclure Investment municipality submitted APPROVAL FORMAL
to MNR/MMA APPROVAL
TECHNICAL CRITERIA/ IN PRINCI PL E
ESTABLISHMENT OF
BOUNDARIES
MUNICIPALITY SEE PHASE II
PHASE II( a) I PHASE lI(b) ......
I APPROVAL N
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN OF SPA 00
FORMAL
SPA WORKING GROUP DATA COLLECTION I ~ SUBMISSION ~ BY MINISTER
AND PREPARATION 1 PUBLIC TO MNR OF NR
- Municipality OF DR AF T OP /OPA 1
- Delegated Regional --0 POLICIES AND I REVIEW-
Municipality If IMPLEMEN TAT ION FORMAL APPROVAL
established MECHANISMS I ~ SUBMISSION ~ OF OP/OPA
- MNR - Region I TO MMA BY MINISTER
- M M A - PA B OF MA
- CA / M N R D 1St r I C t I ~
SEE PH AS E III
.
- IMPLEMENTATION PHASE III
- REVIEW AND UPDATE
,.S) FIGURE 15
-
-
.
~
:2 r\
r- t .....
. ~.e. ll7
APPENDIX C
INTERNAL PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
FOR THE
SPECIAL POLICY AREA PROCESS
IN CENTRAL REGION
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
>I: THESE PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES MUST BE READ TOGETHER WITH THE
PROVINCIAL FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING POLICY STATEMENT AND
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES.
.
,
.
,
'~f<..ll g
, INTERNAL PROCEDURAL GUIDELINES
FOR THE
SPECIAL POLIC'{ AREA PROCESS
IN CENI'RAL RroICN .
MINISTRY or NA'lURAL RESCURCES
, ,.. ., - ~
.
.
.
-
"THESE PROCEOORAL GUIDELINES MUST BE READ 'J.\.GJ:;lliER WITH THE
PRCIIJINCIAL FLCXlD PLAIN PlNHIN:; POLICY STA'l'EMENl' AND
IMPI.EMl!NrATICN GUIDELINES "
.
.
.
- RM,IJAR
OC'lOOER 1988
1
,
--....
,
:
WR..llq .
TABLE OF CCNI'ENl'S
PAGE
1.0 INl."P.CJOOCTI CN . . . . . . . . . 1
2 0 SPECIAL POLICY AREA PF.QCESS - AN 0VERV1 Dol . . . 1
3.0 ROLES .......... . . . . . 5
.
,
3.1 MUNICIPALITY . . . . . . . . . 5
3.2 CCNSERVATICN AI1l'HORIT'l ........... 5
3.3 MINISTRY or NA'IURAL RESOORCES . . . . . 6
3.3.1 REGIONAL OFFICE . . . . 6
3.3.2 DISTRICT OFFICE - . . . . . . . - 6
3.3 3 CCNSERVATICN 1J1mQRITIES AND
WATER ~ Bma . . . . . 7
3.4 MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS . . . . . . . . 7
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . e. . . a
4.1 I'I.NICIPALIT'l ................ a
4.2 a:NSERVATICN AIJl'B)IUT'l .......... 10
4.3 KINISTRY OF NAnmAL RESCURCES . ...... 12
4.3.1 Jm:;ICtW. OFFICE . . . - . . . . . 12
4.3.2 DISTRICT orFICE . . · . . - . . . 14
I
4.3.3 c:c:NSERVATICN Al1IBJIUTI!S , WM'!R
~Bma....... 15
4.4 MINISTRY OF MlNICIPAL AFFAIRS ........ 16
F!aJRES
I ,
! SPA n.a<<:HART PROCESS . . . . ......... 4
i .
,
I
I
I
I
i
I
I
.
I .
,
, - 1 - LAJIt. 120
1.0 INl'ROCUCTIOO -
-- . - . ~ - - . --
Responsibilities for the implementation of the SPA concept lie with several
agencies and ministries. 'Ibese include: the initiating Municipality; the
Regional Municipality where they exist; the local Conservation Authority
\ (CA); the Regional Office of the Ministry of Natoral Resources (MNR) and
the District Office of the MNR; the Plans Administration Branch (PAS) of
the Ministry of Municipal Affairs (MMA); and, the Conservation Authorities
_. .', and Water Management Branch (CAWMB) of the MNR.
;-
An objective of all involved agencies is to participate in an effective,
- yet streamlined process. A coordinated and cooperative approach will
assist in achieving these results_ 'I1le participants/partners IlllIt be
willing to meet, to discuss and to negotiate, if the process is to have a
chance to be shortened and streamlined. 'I1le process will only become
. lengthy if the partners do not fulfill their responsibilities, or, if they
are not fully prepared to ensure that all SPA requirements have been dealt
with effectively. - -
;
- It is therefore essential that the lines of communication be established at
the onse~ of the process and be maintained throughout on a proactive basis.
Each agencyjpartner must also be aware of its role and responsibilities
during this process, and in the iq>ortance of fulfilling these obligations.
Only in this way will it be possible to minimize or to avoid future
problems or lengthy hold-ups during the SPA approval process.
- -
To date, these individual responsibilities have never been clearly outlined
nor been integrated into a step-by-step guideline~ 'Ihis report is intended
to define, the re.ponaibilitiea of each agency and ministry within Central
Region, and will illustrate the steps required to take an SPA frem its
inception to its final approval. 'Ibis report will serve as a guide to
staff at ~~tral Region involved in the SPA process.
-.
2.0 SPECIAL POLICY AREA PROCESS - AN OVERVIEH
\
-
'l11e concept of the SPA was developed to recognize areas of historic flood
plain developaent and perJll.it limited developnent and redevelopD!l1t on the
basis of exceptions to Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy. It also I
allows for agreement on acceptance of a higher degree of risk where
adherence- to the levels of protection specified in the Provincial Policy
- ~
are not feasible.
.
. .
.
I
~
Wre..l~1 .
- 2 -
I
The SPA designation identifies certain exceptional situations based on
local watershed conditions. SPA status is based primarily on two premises:
firstly, technical justification must be provided to demonstrate that both
the Two Zone Concept for floodplain management and structural remedial
measures cannot be achieved either technically, reasonably or economically;
and secondly, the municipality must demonstrate the social and economic
justification, that without further development-opportunities, the
- , continued viability of the cOOlllUllity would ~ threatened.
.
The SPA process is illustrated simply in chart form. at the end of this
section (Figure - Page 4)_ The Province has established procedures for
approval of an SPA as follows:
J
PHASE 1 - Identification for need and approval-in-principle"
, PHASE 2 - Data co_llection, preparation and approval of SPA,IOPA.
I
- '" -
These phases have also been incorporated in the chart to help illustrate
the overall process.
." - I
The concensus of many of the involved agencies is that the SPA process is
~too lengthy and cumbersc:me, with particular reference to the identification
ot need in Phase l. The intent of this phase is primarily to ensure that
the Municipality and the CA cOlllllJnicate and evaluate all of the available
alternatives and. assess the implications. Close liaisoo wi th the
r Municipali ty dud09 this phase will ensure that appropriate documentation
is prepared to support the request for approval-in-principle, and to
provide adequate justification for the SPA. 'I'hese preliminary meetings
will serve to open the door to discussions on floodplain and water
management, with particular eqilasis on the feasibility of provincial Flood
plain piannlnq Policies, and whether the, benefit-cost warrants a program of
structural works designed to eliminate or alleviate the flood risk, or
whether a ccabination of structural works and policy Uiplementation might
sufficiently reduce the flood hazard. \ - - -
J . .
It is necessary to have accurate up-to-date mappinq and the floodway flood
fringe areas identified pr~or to requesting approval-in-principle for an
SPA. If the mapping is completed as part of the SPA process, it can greatly
lengthen the process, (one to two years) and perpetuate the i~ression that
the process is onerous.
.
,
'!be key phase to streamlining the SPA process would be phase 1. '!be
, groundwork developed. and the data cpllected during this phase will serve to
expedite the time required by the working group during Phase 2. Phase 1
would also be the time to develop an appreciation of the technical aspects,
in order to assist in the policy develOpDent aspects of Phase 2. CAa might:.
be able to short circuit Phase 1 of the process, through data available in
association with their Watershed Plans or other stu:Ues such as Flood
Damage Reduction Studies, etc_
.
_ ".4 "1
t
- 3 - wR... t 22.
.
One of the JOOst important aspects of the SPA process, yet essentially
overlooked to date, is the actual administration and implementation of the
- SPA policies, once they form part 9f the Municipality's Official Plan. 'Ihe
next step usually results in the preparation and approval of an
implementing zoning By-law. Some mu.nicipalities will also have site plan
controls to cover the SPA.
_ .... _1" t
However, a question arises regarding the impl~mentation of these policies
- in consideration that two agencies have jurisdiction over the SPA. 'Ihe
jointly approved policies will require cooperation and continued proactive
~ , liaison between the l1Unicipali ty and the local Conservation Author! ty to
,-ensure their effective implementation. .A good working relationship at the
staff level will assist in the realization of long-ter.a benefits from the
SPA process.
In addition to Phases 1 and 2, it is appropriate to consider a third phase
to fully complete the SPA process. 'Phase 3' should address the importance
of the administration and implementation of the approved OP Policy. It
should provide the opportuni ty for the Municipali ty and the Conservation
Authority to develop and maintain a mutually beneficial relationship, and,
__an additional safeguard for future compliance to Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policies. '!his third phase will encourage mellbers of the -
Technical Ccmnittee to meet subsequent to formal approval of the SPl\IOP
Policy, in order to discuss and prepare staff guidelines for administration
that consider the local situation at both the municipal and CA levels.
~
.
,-
,
. 1
.- ,
.. .... .... .
.
. .
.
!
-- ----- - - -
~
1 iO
,
, ..
.
, 1 , -
, . t.I
.
, \.)I
.
. I
1 ' "
PHASE I
~
, r
I
CA/MNR DISTRICT ~
I
~
IDENTIFICATION OF NEED.- ' J
FOR AN SPA . REFUSAL OF
PRELI.....INARY APPROVAL r-- REQUEST
MNR/.....MA
- communltv Related IN PRINCIPLE OF SPA REVIEW OF
_ Municipal Commitment - - Formal requeat' by ~ REQUEST FOR
_ Deelon.ted Growth Centre PRELI.....INARy
_ In'restrUoture Inve.tment munlolpallty .ubmlued APPROVAL FORMAL
I to MNR/MMA APPROw-.L
.....
TECHNICAL CRITERIAI IN PRINCIPLE
.ESTA8L1SHMEN T OF 1
BOUNDARIES I
, -
I l:-
MUNICIPALITY , , SEE PHASE II I
I
I
PHASE II I
.
;
\ , APPROVAL
.
ESTABLISHMENT OF AN I FORMAL OP' SPA
-
SPA WORKING GROUP DATA COLLECTION ~ SUBMISSION ~ BY MINISTER
AND PREPARATION PUBLlO TO MNR O~R
- .....unlolp.llty OF DRAFT OP/OPA ~ REVIEW - 1 -
_ OeleOlted Reolonal - POLICIES AND ~
Munlclp.llty If I MPlE.....ENTATI ON . FORMAL APPROVAL
.at.bllshed MECHANISMS ~ SUBMISSION ~ OF OP IOPA
- MNR - Reo Ion TO MMA BY MINISTER
- MMA - PAB OF .....AA
-
- CA/MHR Dlstrlot FIGURE
,
.
, ,.,
"'\
- 5 - lA)(< .12.4-
"
3.0 ROL1!'.S
, ,
'Ibis section prescribes the role of each of the agencies included in the
SPA process as well as the composition of the Technical Commlttee.
3.1 MUNICIPALITY' - -
- . . ~. - .
.
'rt1e Municipality is one of the key partners in the SPA process. 'l1le .
~ Municipality's primary role is to initiate the request for designation,
with the supporting background report(s). 'l1le request should only be
initiated after" a thorough discussion and review with the CA on the flood
plain management options. 'l1le Municipality DlJst be ca.itted to the I
continued growth and development of the area requested for SPA designation.
'I1le Municipality IIlUst also: assist the PAS of l1MA in setting up the
Technical Committee; prepare the SPA/OP Policy document in a fo~t
suitable to meet the Planning Act requirements; prepare the background
data and justification material for the" SPA; and, ensure future compliance
" . to the approved SPA/OP Policy through the implementatioo of the necessary
zoning bylaws and site plan controls and through administrative
coordination of the CA regulations and the bylaw.
3.2 CCNSERVATICN AIn'HORITY'
~ . - .., ~ -
I . " .
'rt1e Conservation Authority is the lead agency for flood plain. management,
having been delegated the author! ty by the Province. Boweve r, the SPA
process provides for accepting a higher degree of risk than is normally
provided for in Provincial Policy and, therefore, the Province is a full
partner in this process. 'l1le resultant policies must be acceptable to all
of the partners. As lead implementing agency for Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policies, the CA must ensure that the Province, both I'tm and MMA
are notified when the concept of SPAs are seriously being considered.
Principal amongst CA responsibilities will be:
i) to assist member municipalities in understanding the floodplain
management options available for incorporation into Official
plan doc:uIDenta;
, .
Hl to identify the technical info~tion requirements, i.e. flood
, . - plain IIlApping, depth and veloci ty calculations as it relates to
floodproofing, structural remedial solutions, flood forecasting and
- warning, etc.;
I
Hi) to provide major input into the development of the technical .
policies for SPAs as a member of the Technical CoaIDittee; and,
iv) to ensure that their Regulations and Resource Planning progr~ are
adjusted accordingly in areas subject to SPA policies, in order to
ensure compliance with Provincial Flood plain Planning Policy.
-
.
I
~.IAS - 6 -
3.3 MINISTRY OF NA'lURAL RESOORCES
3.3.1 REGIOOAL OFFICE
~
- The CA Section at central Region have the staff responsibility on
all matters relating to SPAs. The CA Section will recoomend
approval-tn-principle for an SPA by the Regional Director and,
ultimately, approval of the OP/OPA by ,the Minister. The CA section
will ensure that sufficient staff time is available to effectively
deal with SPAS in Central Region on a proactive basis. Staff will
., 0- coordinate input from both the Engineering and Lands Sections, and -
the appropriate District Office, as required.
-
-
The CA Section wili. also ensure that staff is available with the
required expertise to provide an adequate resource bale for problem
solving to CAs, Districts and the MMA, regarding the intent of
provincial Flood Plain Policies. This will be an iqlOrtant aspect
in the monitoring of the delegated authority for the i~lementation
of provincial policies
___..I ...~ --
The designated staff at the Region should also be certain to keep
the Districts advised of matters regarding SPAs in their area..
Districts should also be involved in training sessions or works~
regarding this matter. This will be especially critical for those -
Districts where no CA exists, to be certain that the Districts
adequately fulfill their implementation responsibilities as it
relates to Provincial Flood plain Planning Policies.
'rt1e Region shall also ensure that the o.WMB is kept apprised of the
r _ r progress and status of an SPA throughout the Technical ccmdttee
phase of the process. One method of achieving this is to provide
the CAWMB with copies of the SPA Technical. Cclaittee minutes and
drafts of the OPA policies as they are being developed.
- ,
3.3.2 DISTRICT OFFICE
The role of the District Office in the SPA process must be separated
into the differing responsibilities that result in areas where no CA
exi8t8~ and in those where CAs have jurisdiction over floodplain
management matters.
I'
,
-
.
I
I
I .
I
,
l \
- 7 - wtl..t2.1o
The role of the Districts in Central Region is as follows:
,
i) Where no CA exists, the District Office assumes the responsibility
for flood plain management which should be reflected in DLUP.
Areas requiring flood plain mapping are to be identified.
Possible SPA where adequate justification exists should also be
identified. In consultation with the Regiooal Engineer, the
District should ensure ~ter management initiatives are
included in the appropriate WOrk Plan and budgeted separately.
Where a potential SPA has'been identified and the municipality
is interested in proceeding with a reques~, the District Office
I shall actively partiCipate in the SPA process and shall work
closely with Regional staff and rely on the Region to provide
the technical expertise; the District will assume similar
responsibilities to that of the CA in this case (Sect!on 4.2)
, ii) Where a District Office is within an area where a CA bas
been delegated jurisdiction over floodplain management mattera,
the District's role will be comparatively alnor and limited to
an initial review, to determine whether other Kinistry programs
or resource objectives will be affected by the SPA.
-
. A primary role of the District,> however, whether a CA exists or
not, will be to review official planning docu.enta through the
normal plan input and review functions and ensure that designated
staff at the Region are notified of any SPA possibUi ty. In this
regard, it will be necessa~ that. the appropriate District staff
understand and appreciate the intent of Provincial Flood Plain
Plann~ng Policies.
3.3.3 CCNSERVATICN AImJORITIES AND WATER ~ BRANCa
.
The - role of. the CAHMB in. the SPA process in Central Region is
primarily to review requests for SPA approval and to recommend
approval to the Minister. Since approval-in-principle has been
delegated to the Regional Director, it is critical that the Region:
(a) keep the aJtlKB advised of the progress' of an SPA, (b) ensure
that when approval of the SPA by' the. Kinister of Natural Resources
is requested, it adequately represents the intent of Provincial
Flood Plain Planning Policies.
I
3.4 MINISTRY or KMCIPAL AFFAIRS t
I .
As a full partner in the SPA process, the primary role of the t1MA, through
its Plans Administration Branch (PAS), is to assist and to provide
direction to the Municipality in the coordination of the Technical
.. Ccmnittee and, to actively participate as a member of same to ensure that
provincial interests are addressed and proper land use planning procedures
pursuant to the Planning Act are followed. '!be Call1lJnity Planning Advisory
Branch (CPAB) may also beccme involved in providinq advisory and financial
assistance to the municipalitf in terms of assembling background
information in support of the SPA,IOP initiative.
!
WR-~ 11.-7 - 8 -
"-
4.0 RESPONSIBILITIES
._ The specific responsibilities of each of the agencies involved in the ,
special Policy Area process are outlined below
4.1 -
MUNICIPALITY
. ." "
4.1.1 The Municipality shall identify the area where the requirements of
the one-zone or two-zone policies are too onerous and shall contact
the local CA or, where no CA exists, the local District Office of
the MNR, to discuss the alternatives and the appropriate course of
-, action.
\ . . h -
4.1. 2 _ The Municipali ty shall assess, in conjunction with the local CA, the
PAB of the'MHA and the MNR Regional Office, the floodplain
management options that are available, to deteraine whether the SPA
is technically justified. . \ . ,
4.1.3 The Municipality shall also assess various community-related
factors, in order to ascertain whether the area potentially
qualifies for SPA designation, based on the social and economic
circumstances in the cOlllJl,U1ity (see APPENDIX C of the I~lementation
, Guidelines for. the Flood plain Pl~i~g Pol!cy Statement).
4.1.4 The Municipality shall request PAS of the MHA to organize a
preliminary meeting of the' involved partners (Le. - the CA, the
PAB of the MHA and the MNR Regional Office), to discuss and confirlll
the merits of an SPA request. Where appropriate, a representative
of the regional lIIJIlicipality should also attend the meeting.
4.1.5 The Municipality shall prepare, in conjunction with the local CA,
the required documentation to support the request for approval-in
principle. A council resolution shall accompany the request to the
Director of the pAS at the MHA (NB - an approval-in principle
request will not be processed without the- required documentation).
. - . ' , - -
4.1.6 The Municipality shall participate on the Technical CalDittee. '111e
Technical Cc:aaittee shall consist of representatives frem the local
and/or r89ional lIIJIlicipality where appropriate; the CA, or, Were
no CA.exilts, the District Office'of the MNR; the Regional Office ./
of the JIIm; the PAS of the HHA; and others as deemed necessary or
- appropriate. --. . ,.
,..:
4.1.7 The Municipality shall ensure that its elected representatives/ .
councillors are aware of the future implications of the SPA process,
in order to avoid possible delays in the process at a later date.
In this regard, the Municipanty is encouraged to select an elected
representative to sit on the Technical committee, to promote
Council's awareness throughout the process.
l ~
,
, 'WI( · r2~
- 9 -
4.1.8 The Municipality, as determined by the Chairperson, may be
responsible for the administration of the Technical Camdttee
including the minutes of meetings, and the circulation of same to
the coamittee members.
-
4.1.9 The Municipality shall prepare the necessary draft SPA/OP Policy
document for the review and approval of the Techni,cal Camdttee. 'It1e
Regional Office of MNR, or the CA, will provide assistance when requested.
I · I 4,
4.1.10 Subsequent to the approval of the final SPA/OP Policy document by all
, of' the representatives of the Technical committee, the Municipality
~shall obtain municipal support through council resolution.
4.1.11 The Municipality shall then undertake a public review of the SPA,IOP
Policy document in accordance with the requirements of the Planning
Act. 'n1e Municipal! ty shall ensure that the CA ba. endorsed the
SPA/OP Policy document through resolution prior to the date of the
public meeting. -. I _ , . .. -
4.1.12 Subsequent to the public review process, the Municipality shall
.- formally scl:mi t the final document for approval of the Minister of
Municipal Affairs, via the Director of the PAS and the Mini.ter of
Natural Resources, via the Regional Director. All background data
- , .. reports, official Council resolutions, as well as recorda
identifying the public review process, shall-accompany the request
for final approval
4.1.13 Subsequent to the formal approval of the OP'Policy by the Director
of the PAS, the Municipality shall reconvene the. Technical CaIIlLittee
to develop and prepare a plan for the effective and succe..tul
administration of the policies from both a municipal and conaervation
authority perspective. 'n1is plan may be in the form of staff
guidelines that the Municipality and CA may focally wish to endorse.
4.1.14 The Municipality shall inform """ or the delegated Reqion of Mrf
proposed OPA to change the approved SPA boundaries or policies prior
to a public ..eting or adoption by COuncil. -
NB - ~ere the municipality-seeking approval-in-principle for special
policy area status is within a 'delegated' regionallllJOi.cipality, the
Region will be involved in the review. Regional representatives may
coordinate the review of all materials relating to a special policy area
designation, once the municipality has been given approval-in-principle and
direction has Peen provided as to the additional studies required to
support an approval of a specific special policy area.. (!xcerpt frea ,
Iq?lemen~tion Guidelines, dated July 1986 - page 89(b).)
- ,
The Regional Municipality, as directed by !1l1A,. may as~ the coordinating
and review responsibilities for the TechnicaL committee as well as the
SP.\IOP Policy document developDent and preparation in the cirCUlllStance
previously noted. 'lhe Regional ttunicipality would be asSUlling laDe of the
responsibilities of both the Municipality and the PAS of the MM.
,
I
I
we.IlCf
oJ - 10 -
,
4.2 COOSERVATIOO Al11'HORITY
- - - -
-
4.2.1 The CA shall take the lead role in ensuring conformity to provincial
flood Plain Planning Policies in any SPA designation. As the
Municipality's main contact in floodplain mana~nt matters, the CA
is expected to explain the-floodplain management options that are
available during the formative stages of devel~nt of Official
Planning documents. Where sufficient justification for an SPA
~Zft.ol exists and the Municipality is interested in pursuing same, then the
CA, as the technical expert, should facilitate the initiation of the
SPA process. In many cases, the technical_justification for SPAs _
,- , - is already completed as a result of other studies canpleted by the CA
4.2.2 The CA shall info~ the MNR Regional Office and the PAS of the MMA
of the potential for an SPA, once initial contact has been made by
the Municipality.
I - ,-
- ..
4.2.3 The CA shall also notify the MNR Regional Office and the PAS of the
MMA of any preliminary meetings regarding potential SPAs and, shall
-, request their attendance at same to as ascertain any provincial
-
" implications. --
4.2.4 The CA shall confirm,- in conjunction with the Municipality, that
other floodplain management alternatives are not feasible. It is
essential for the CA to analyze the technical and econc:mic
feasibility of the Two Zone Concept and structural flood damaqe
reduction alternatives. If, after this analysis; there is still
justification to allow development in the floodway or to accept a
level of protection below the Regulatory flood level, then the
request for SPA designation should proceed.
.
4.2.5 <:nee the CA has detemined that the SPA concept is the only
reasonable alternative, a request for approval-in-principle shall be
forwarded to. the Directors at the MNR Reqional office and at the PAS
of the HHA. '!be request for SPA status IIIJSt be supported by the
appropriate technical information and, cannot proceed without
,- floodplain mapping that identifies the floodway and flood fringe.
~ without this information, it would be impossible to determine the
,
... , l applicability of any Provincial Flood p~ain Planning Policies.
I
4.2.6 The CA shall actively participate on the Technical committee and,
, shall provide major input into the developll8nt of the technical
I policies. required to address the unusual circumstances in the SPA
based on the local Watershed conditioos.
I
1
,
I
1
I ,
.
,
,
. Wit ../~C
-11-
-
. ,
4.2.7 'lbe CA shall ensure that its Executive CcmD.i.ttee and/or rull
Authority are aware of the future implications of the SPA process,
in relation to the rill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways
Regulation. once the CA approves and supports the SPA designation
and its relevant policies, the admdnistration of its Regulations
within the SPA must then comply with the special, IOOre flexible
policies approved in the OP Policy document.
,
, 4.2.8 Subsequent" to the approval of the SPA document by the Technical
I I ~ommittee, the CA shall obtain formal. endorsement of the SPA/OP
, .. -
. Policy document through a resolution from the Executive Committee
and/or rull Author! ty prior to lIl.U1icipal council's approval. .,
: .
4.2.9 'lbe CA shall forward the approval resolution(s) to the Municipality
and copy the Regional Director of the l'im, the Director of the PAB
.. . at the MHA, and all Technical Committee members. . -
I 4.2.10 'lbe CA shall ensure that permits issued pursuant to their rill,
I
Construction and waterways Regulation, and com.ents in the municipal
plan review program conform to the approved SPA policies.
. \
- "
,
. 4.2.11 The CA shall ensure that the !'Nt Regional Office is notified
regarding the circulation of applications by municipalities to CPAB
of MMA for grants to update an Official Plan document. Thia may
initiate early liaison in areas that might have the potential for
SPA status, and may avoid future problems and delays through an
awareness of provin?ial Flood Plain Planning Policy requirements.
4.2.12 The CA shall contact the JoHt Regional Office and the PAS of the MMA
should aIrf changes to the SPA be proposed by the mnicipali ty at a
future date, a. a result of updated floodplain ~ing studie. or
other circumstances.
.
4.2.13 As a IlleJllber of the Technical CCGIIittee, the CA shall participate in
.. the development and preparation of procedures for the administration
of the policies, &Ubsequent to the formal approval of the 01' Policy
, 'i by the Director of the PAS. .'
4.2.14 The CA shall, in its Municipal Plan Review program, monitor all
planning documents, zoning by-laws and developllellt proposals to ,
ensure caapliance with SPA,IOP policies. _
. .
-
I
#.
.
.
(fl (( · l~ I
- 12 -
4.3 MINISTRY OF NA'IURAL RESOORCES
- ~.
. -
4.3.1 REGICNAL OFFICE
4.3.1.1 The Region shall rely on its Districts and local CAs to notify the
- appropriate Regional staff of the potential for an SPA.
~- _ _, J - J ~... .
. -
4.3.1.2 The CA Section of the Regional Office (hereinafter referred to as
- . . the Region) shall assume the lead role in matters relating to
-- J..!.. ..... Provincial flood Plain Planning Policies, and in particular, to
. - SPAs . The CA Section shall coordinate involvement in the SPA
,. - -process between the other sections at the Region (Le. -.
Engineering and Lands), and also the District Office.
4.3.1.3 The Region shall closely liaise with District Offices, where no CAs
exist, to provide the Districts with the technical expertise required
to evaluate an SPA designation and to assist with policy development.
, . ,
- - --
4.3.1.4 The Region shall prepare current contact lists for Regional staff
I . responsible for-SPAs in central Region, and circulate same to MNR
. District Offices, CAHMB of MNR, all CAs in the Region, and to the
PAS of the MMA.
4.3.1.5 The Region shall attend all preliminary SPA meetings, and shall activP1y
participate on the Technical committee as HNR's representative, to
monitor conformity to the provincial flood Plain Planning Policy,
, / _ to identify other Ministry resource concerns and provincial i~lications
4.3.1.6 SUbsequent to the receipt of a request t~ the Regional Director
for approval-in-principle of an SPA, the Regioo shall ensure:
(a) that the CA, by executive resoluti~, has granted
approval-in-principle for an SPA designation; (b) that all support
documentation has been sutDitted with the request, (c) that the
. .' technical information available has been evaluated and provides
... ........ justification for the SPA designation (1.e:"- the Two Zone concept
, , is neither feasible, nor are structural flood damage reduction
measures viable or econaDical, frCGl a benefit-cost perspective).
.
-- . 'rtle ltegion will consult with the e>>mB regarding the granting of
approval-in-principle. Regional staff will then prepare, for th.e
signature of the Regional Director, a letter to the Director of
the PAS at the MMA recallllending that approval-in-principle be
granted. Copies of same will be forwarded to all Technical
COaadttee members, tha District Office of MNR and the ~ of
MNR, PAS of MKA, the CA, the Mlmicipality and ltegional
lUlicipali ty . 'Ihe letter should reCQlllDend the establishment of a
formalized SPA Technical ccmDittee and identify the HNR
representative(s) to that committee.
,
- I .
,- . - ,
. W~ .'/3"2-
- 13 -
.
-
.
4.3.1. 7 The Region shall be the key MNR liaison during the SPA process,
and shall keep the CAWMB advised on the progress and details of
- .- - the SPA at intervals throughout the Camaittee level phase.
4.3.1.8 The Region shall ensure that SPAs are maintained on-track and
processed expeditiously. Sufficient staff time must be available
to properly handle the SPA from MNR's perspective and, to complete
all associated tasks and follow-up wsrk. -
?-
I
4.3.1.9 The Region, as a member of the Technical Committee, shall ensure
. . . . J
the efficient relay of information regarding the developing SPA
document. . This will be achieved through the preparation and
- circulation of mefOOrandums to other Technical committee members. '
4.3.1.10 The Region shall be responsible for ensuring that the appropriate
District staff are notified, should a District program be
potentially affected ,(i.e. fisheries, mineral or forest resource,
. ANSI, etc.).
4.3.1.11 The Region shall ensure that the Regional Engineer and the
,.. .' ; _ appropriate District Manager are kept apprised of , the .tatu. of an
: SPA through the ci rculation of copies of all incoming and outgoing
correspondence and minutes.
- -
4.3.1.12 The Region shall circulate a copy of the draft SPA/OP Policy
document, that is proposed to be approved by the Technical
Committee, to the Regional Engineer, District Manager, and CAHMB
for review and information purposes. This would allow the
opportunity for any outstanding major c~cerns to be identified
and dealt ~th prior to public revi~ and Council's approval.
4.3.1.13 The Region shall provide comments on SP~ Policy documents
directly to the PAS of the HHA as the official- ~ respopae.
Copies of the memorandum will be forwarded to the District Office
for their records and to all of the Technical Committee members.
~ J
- .......... - I
- -
.
I
.
,
1
::
wR. ~ 133 -
- 14 -
4.3.1.14 Subsequent to the adoption of the SPA/OP Policy document by the
Municipality and the CA, and suJ:mission to MHA for approval, the
Regional Director of the MNR shall advise the Director of the
CAWHB of same and forward the following info~tion:
i) municipal endorsement resolution;
'" ii). CA endorsement resolution ( s) ; ~ . -
iii) confirmation of the public review process for the SPA/OP
Policy;
- ._,,-- _ ~ ._"_ iv) District support for areas outside CA jurisdiction;
. v) Regional support; ~ , .- -
.- vi) a copy of the'final version of the docu.ent (N,B.- should be
confirmed that version forwarded to ~ is the same ~
version that is before the Director of the PAa at the MMA);
vii) justification for SPA Policy outlining the basis, the SPA.
boundary and future land use; and, -,
- -
viii) an indication that all background data has been completed
and is available (i.e - engineering or planning studies etc.).
4.3.1.15 The Region shall be responsible for the continued monitoring of
, . ... ... '" .~1~ ! CAs to ensure that approved SPA,/OP Policies are being implemented
- in accordance- with-the intent of provincial Policy.
4.3.1.16 The Region shall be responsible for ensuring that effective
training and development programs are established for Districts
and CAs for both the SPA process and Provincial rlood Plaln
Planning Policies.
I .' - ~
4.3.1.17 The Region shall, in its role as member of the Technical
. , .. committee, participate in developing and preparing procedure. for
the effective administration of the policies, subsequent to their
, formal approval by'the MMA. -
, "" t.... .
4.3.2 DIS'11Ucr OFFICE
- 4.3.2.1 The District Office shall advise the Region of the potential for
an SPA, as part of its lIJJIlicipal plan input and review program.
4.3.2.2 Where no CA exists, the District shall fulfill the responsibilities
of the CA as outlined in sections 3.2 and 4.2. In this instance,
however, the District will.rely on the technical expertise of the
Region.
,
I
I
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
~
. -
.- ~
. W(l..I04-
- 15 -
4.3.2.3 The District Manager, where a CA exists, shall have the
discretionary option to become directly involved in the SPA
process through participation as a member of the Technical
Coumi ttee. The District's involvement on the Technical Committee
, would be to ensure that Ministry program concerns were adequately
addressed in the SPA/OP policy document.
,
4.3.2.4 The District shall continue to coordinate the preparation of the
0' MNR official position on the OP Poli~ document, exclusive of the
section relating to the SPA. The District will merely advise MMA
in their comments that "SPA policies in OP documents require ' ~
approval by the Minister of Natural'Resources in accordance with
, .. - the Provincial Flood plain Planning Policy. In this regard, they
. should contact - - ( ) ,
of the MNR Central Region office as to the status of any specific
SPA approval." The District shall forward a copy of the OP
document and a copy of their coaments to the Regional Conservation
Authorities program Coordinator. 'l1le Regional Office will be
responsible for informing MMA of MNR's position on the SPA/OP
Policy, the status of the Minister's Approval, and will copy the
District on any correspondence in this regard.
.' ,
- .'
" . r
" -. ".. -
4.3.3 ~SERVATICN AUTHORITIES AND WATER MANAGEKENl' BRANCH
4.3.3.1 '!he ~ shall be available to Region staff for consultation
purposes with respect to SPA designation and policy developDent.
4.3.3.2 '!he ~ shall be responsible for verifying conformity to
Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policies and, shall rely on the
Region, the Districts and the CAs to ensure that appropriate
policies are developed and that they are implemented.
.
-
.. I ;
. " .
.
.
,
; .
-
.
.
I
!
l)j/? · 1-"3 '5
- 16 -
-
4.3.3.3 The CAHMB shall have the opportunity to review the final draft
SPA/OP Policy document approved by the Technical Committee. This
will allow the CAHMB to provide the Region with any comment. prior
to the public review process and Municipal Council's approval,
should any changes be necessary
4.3.3.4 The o.MiB shall ensure that all required information has been
subnitted with the Region'S request for Minister'S approval of an
SPA (see Section 4.3.1 14)
-4.3.3.5 The CAHMB shall then prepare a covering memorindum to the Minister
of Natural Resources reconmending approval of the SPA, as well as
a draft letter to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, indicating -
MNR's approval of the proposed SPA Policies. Should the C>>I1B
have any problems or concerns with the policies, they will direct
the HNR Region to resolve same wi th PAS of MHA (1. e. - normally
this would be accomplished by obtaining agreement from the
Municipality, the CA, and PAa of MHA to a Minister's modification).
- -. I " .~ .... , . '- - -
4.3.3.6 The CAHMB shall provide staff support to the Region for
educational and training programs for CA, District and Region
staff to ensure that any changes in staff do not necessarily
jeopardize the process due to lack of familiarity or understanding
of the SPA process.
\
4.4 MINISTRY OF lUfiCIPAL AFFAIRS
.
4.4.1 The MMA shall be responsible for ensuring that amicipal staff and
elected officials are aware of the SPA process, its implications and
the Municipality'. obligations further to the requirement. of the
Planning Act, and the provincial Policy for flood plain planning.
4.4.2 The CPAB Regional Office shall ensure that the CA receives copies of
correspondence regarding applications for grants to update an
Official plan document. This may initiate early liaison in areas
that might have the potential for SPA status, and may avoid future
problems and delays through an awareness of Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policy requirements.
,
4.4.3 The MMA shall serve as an advisor to the l1lmicipality and
participate in preliminary meetings to assess potential SPAs.
.
4.4.4 The MMA shall ensure that HNR Regional Office and the local CA receive
all requests for approval-in-principle of an SPA for their review,
cClllDent and approval. The MMA shall coordinate the approval-in-
principle with the Regional Director of HNR.
,
- 17 - . WR.'~b
j
4.4.5 SUbsequent to the receipt and review of comments for
approval-in-principle of an SPA from the Regional Director of MNR,
the PAa of the MHA shall issue an approval letter to the
- Municipality and forward copies to all partners. 'Itle letter will
recommend the establishment of a SPA Technical Committee to develop
the SPA policies and prepare the OP document. 'Itle Coamittee will
have representation from the Municipality, CA, MHA, MNR, and the
Regional Municipality, if appropriate. 'A representive from muncipal
council will 'also be encouraged.
4.4.6 The MMA shall co-chair and/or chair the Technical Coam1ttee and
shall assist the Municipality in coordinating same, to ensure the
development of an acceptable document further to the require~nts of
the Planning Act and Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy.
4.4.7 The MMA shall ensure that minutes are' taken at the SPA Technical
Committee meeting and distributed to commdttee members in advance
of the next meeting. ,
4.4.8 The MMA shall ensure that all Technical Committee members have a
copy of the final version of the SPA/OP Policy document which ia
subnitted to HMA by the Municipality for approval. (N.B.- the
Minister of Municipal Affairs has delegated the authority to approve
OP documents to the Director of the PAB).
4.4.9 Subsequent to the receipt of the approval letters from the Minister
of Natural Resources, and the local CA, MI1A shall proceed with the
final approval of the OP document.
4.4.10 'l1le HMA shall provide the Regional Director of l'Im with a copy of
the OPjOPA certified that it has been approved by the Minister,
including all Minister's modifications.
4.4.11 The MMA shall be encouraged to take a more proactive and lead role
in the education, of not only municipal staff and elected officials,
but also, for PAS and CPAB staff to promote continued appreciation
of the SPA process and provincial Flood Plain Planning Policies.
4.4.12 The 11MA shall inform the CA and MNR Region of any future OP documents
which change the SPA boundaries or policies and convene an SPA I
Technical Committee meeting, as necessary.
.
- I
j
-
"lR. J 31
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
Letter from the City of Toronto Housing Department
to the Chairman and Meabers of the
Water & Related Land Manage~nt Advisory Board
dated April 11, 1991
Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 12/91
April 12, 1991
wf<, ,,'
- City of Toronto
Housing Department
Daniel Bums
Commissioner
112 Elizabeth Street,
Toronto. Ontario
M5G 1 P5
File SLS 6 9
11 April 1991 ,..
Councillor Don Jackson
Chairman
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Dear Councillor Jackson
We are commenting on the two staff reports dealing with matters related to the Lower Don River
Special Policy Area which will be considered by your Board at its 12 April 1991 meeting We
recommend that consideration of these reports be deferred Our specific concerns are listed
below We would appreciate the opportunity to resolve these issues with staff before any policy
decisions are made by your Board or the Authority
LOWER DON RIVER FLOOD PLAIN - INTERIM FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING PROCEDURES
Principle 3
It is recognized that there are a variety of long range planning proposals for the area whIch
may limit the location and type of development (Le Royal Commission on the Future of the
Toronto Waterfront, The Task Force to Bring Back the Don) Certain development proposals
may have to be considered premature in light of these concepts.
We recommend tbat this principle be .odified to refer to only those aspects of long range
planning proposals for the area that relate directly to flood protection. Broader aspects of land
use planning in the lower Don River involving economic, social and urban design issues may not
be relevant to the SPA process.
Development Guideline 7 (Iv)
Notwithstanding the above, no new development or redevelopment shall be @
permitted if the development would impact negatively on any other Program
and/or Policy objective of the Authority
Prinled on Recycled Paper
~..... .~ It 2
We recommend that this development guideline either be deleted or qualified so as to restrict its
application to flood-related matters. Other issues within the mandate of the Conservation
Authority may not be relevant to the SPA process
General comment reaardina the City's role
Many of the proposed development guidelines are beyond the authority of the City to enforce
and, consequently, can only be enforced by the Conservation Authority at the time of building
permit application. The Planning Act does not provide the City with the same scope of authority
that the Conservation Authorities Act provides the MTRCA for flood-related issues For example,
the City has no choice but to consider a Section 40 development review application for a
property irrespective of its location within the flood plain. provided the proposed use conforms
with the zoning The first development guideline suggests that only proposals subject to less
than 1 0 metre of flooding under regulatory flood conditions be conSidered. Similarly, if the uses
listed in development guideline 6 are permitted by the zoning, a development application can
not be refused by the City on those grounds alone
ATARATIRI - DRAn ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION STUDY REPORT
Point 1. second oaraaraph
It appears that the Ataratiri fill only option would increase the flood risk to the east of the Don
River to an unacceptable level.
We recommend that this point be amended to read:
It appears that the Ataratiri fill only option would result in a modest increase in flood risk to
the east of the Don River while greatly reducing the flood risk to the west.
We have attached a memorandum addressed to the SPA technical committee that describes the
results of a detailed land use survey of flood prone properties The survey clearly demonstrates
that the Ataratiri fill option will have a dramatic beneficial effect on the west side of the Don River
and only impact slightly on the east side
Point 4. first sentence
Ataratiri fill (i.e. flood protection) will be in place prior to the issuance of any residential
occupancy permits on the site
We recommend that this point be amended to read:
An equivalent level of flood protecUon to the Ataratirl fill option, whlcb can be provided by
temporary dyking, will be In place prior to the Issuance of any residential occupancy permits
for the first phase of development. Permanent Ataratiri fill will be in place prior to the
issuance of any residential occupancy permits for all development east of the first phase of
development
~R. 110
The Ataratiri fill can not be put in place until the underlying soil has been remediated Soil
remediation is intended to be phased across the site as detailed bench and field testing of the
selected remediation options occurs. Due to the large volumes of soil which will require
treatment, the actual process of remediation may take a fairly long time to complete Witholding
residential occupancy permits for the first phase of development until virtually all of the soil on
the site is remediated may delay initial occupancy of Ataratiri for several years.
Point 5
Any lands within the lower Don flood plain required for potential flood mitigation works will
be appropriately zoned so as to reserve these lands for this purpose
We recommend that this point be amended to read:
An, lands within Ataratirl required for potential flood mitigation works will be appropriately
zoned so as to reserve these lands for this purpose.
The Final Recommendations report for Ataratiri (which will include the Environmental Evaluation
Study recommendations) will recommend Official Plan and Zoning By-law designations only for
Ataratiri. Recommendations for new land use designations for properties outside of Ataratiri, if
necessary, will be made as a result of the SPA process currently underway and will be submitted
independently of the Ataratiri proposal
Point 6. first sentence
The minimum flood protection package (153 million) will be constructed within 5 years of
the placement of the Ataratiri fill
We recommend that this point be amended to read:
The appropriate agencies and lovern.ents will seek to bave the minimum flood protection
package (15.3 mUll on) constructed within a target 5 year timeframe froll the placement of
the Ataratlrl fill.
Neither the City nor the Conservation Authority can ensure with certainty that the proposed flood
protection package will be constructed in the time suggested. Unless an exemption is granted,
a lengthy environmental assessment process is inevitable Further, the proposed protection
package includes properties and structures that are not owned by the City or the Conservation
Authority We have no reason to believe, for example. that the owners of the CNR bridge will
necessarily cooperate promptly with plans to change their structure Since we do not control the
approval process and will be requiring the cooperation of other parties, we can not establish a
firm deadline for project completion.
wI(. ,&I' 4
Point 7 (discussion of possible fundina arranaements)
We reco..ead lbat polat 7 be deleted.
We are of the opinion that any discussion of funding responsibilities for the proposed flood
protection options is premature at this time Clearly, this will have to be determined at the
earliest possible time in order to ensure the implementation of appropriate remedial works, but
such a determination should be made within the context of the SPA technical committee, not
unilaterally by one of its members. On the specific matter of the Keating Channel dredging, we
would recommend to our Council that any agreement by the City to participate would be under
the terms approved for the Keating Channel Environmental Assessment and would be subject
to renewal and renegotiation after fixed time periods. It would be irresponsible for Council to
commit the City financially to a dredging programme in perpetuity over which it has no control
Point 8
The project manager for the flood protection scheme excluding the Ataratiri fill should be the
MTRCA.
We recommend this point be lIodified to Indicate that the City has Joint management responsibility
for any remedial works outside of Ataratirl for wblcb the City Is providing funds. It is only
reasonable that the City be in a position to exercise cost controls over projects it is expected to
fund
CONCLUSION
We look forward to continuing cooperation with the Conservation Authority as more detailed
flood plain planning policies are developed for Ataratiri and the rest of the lower Don River flood
plain It would be premature for tbe Authority to adopt a policy position with respect to the lower
Don flood plaia at this time. We feel that the current SPA process is the appropriate forum for
policy development. We are confident that the issues raised in this letter can be largely resolved
by the SPA technical committee
'Yours truly j(
\
[ ,
leI Burns Robert E. Millward
Commissioner of Housing Commissioner of Planning and Development
ON [wrlm let]
w~,ltIl
File: SLS 6. 9
MEMORANDUM
Date: 02 April 1991
From: David Allester, Ataratiri Land Use Planning Coordinator
'1'0: Lower Don Flood Plain SPA Technical Committee
Subject: Land Use Implications of Flooding During the Regional
storm
1. BACKGROUND
On 11 March 1991, representatives of some of the agencies that
comprise the Lower Don Flood Plain SPA Technical Committee met to
discuss the latest findings of the City's consultant ( "Flood
Protection Options for the Ataratiri Development", Marshall Macklin
Monaghan, January 1991). The consultant's report contains maps
showing the extent of flooding during a Regional storm event under
various conditions. Among other information requests, attendees
at the meeting requested more complete data on the properties that
would be flooded under two scenarios: existing conditions; and the
"Ataratiri fill option" , which involves the placement of the
maximum level of fill on the Ataratiri site with no additional off-
site flood works constructed. The concern of the representatives
at the meeting seemed to be the need for an accurate
characterization of the extent of flood damage and possible flood
relief under the two flooding scenarios. This information could
assist in weighing the potential advantages and disadvantages of
proceeding with the Ataratiri fill option.
2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
Attached to this memo are two tables that summarize land use and
employment data for properties that would be flooded during a
Regional Storm for the two scenarios chosen.
To identify properties subject to flooding, the flood lines shown
on Figures 4.4 and 4.5 of the consultant's report were superimposed
on 1:2000 scale property data maps. In addition to indicating
property lines, these maps show the outlines of any structures on
the properties. By specifying tax ledger numbers associated with
each block within the flooded areas, a listing of all properties
on all the identified blocks was obtained from the City'S
computerized Central Property Register. Additional properties were
included in the data set through manually identifying each affected
property on all partially flooded blocks. For individual
properties that were partially flooded, the land use data was
apportioned accordingly. The resultant complete listing of all
flooded properties was then confirmed for accuracy by checking each
wR.' q 3
2
address on the list against each property on the flood maps. A
total of 1450 properties were analyzed.
The land use data contained in the attached tables were retrieved
from the Land Use File of the Central Property Register. The Land
Use File is maintained by the Planning and Development Department
and is continuously updated to reflect changes due to demolitions,
new development and redevelopment. Assuming the flood lines were
precisely drawn in the consultant's report, this information should
be considered highly accurate.
The employment data (number of businesses and number of employees)
contained in the attached tables should be considered less
reliable. These data were obtained from employment surveys
conducted annually by Metro Toronto. Since this information is not
organized in the same manner for retrieval purposes, there may be
some businesses included that are located just outside of the
flooded areas, and some businesses that are just inside the flooded
areas may be excluded. Survey data also rely on the accuracy of
the respondent and, in the case of employment information, may
become dated as economic vicissitudes affect business activity.
Notwithstanding these qualifications, the employment data shown
here yields a fairly good general impression of the flood impacts
under the chosen scenarios.
The land use and employment data are aggregated for different
geographical areas and for different levels of flooding. A
distinction is made between areas flooded less than one metre and
areas flooded more than one metre, as depicted in the consultant's
report. The flood plain west of the Don (essentially spill zone
3) is differentiated from the flood plain east of the Don and south
of the Keating Channel (spill zones 1 and 2). The east Don area
is further differentiated, in the case of the land use data,
between the triangle of land located to the north and west of the
CNR Kingston subdivision and the balance of the flood plain. This
latter distinction was made because the consultant predicts that
aggravated flooding caused by the Ataratiri fill proposal will
increase flood levels to a maxi.WI of 0.5 metres in the area
between the CNR line and the river, but only to a maximum of 0.2
metres in the remaining areas east of the Don.
No data are included for properties located north of Queen Street
East that may be subject to flooding. The maps contained in the
consultant's report do not cover this area.
For the Ataratiri fill option, no modifications are made to the
data set to account for intended future land use changes. In
particular, the information related to the flooded area west of the
Don does not anticipate the redevelopment of Ataratiri. If the
Ataratiri proposal was included, the dwelling unit count for this
portion of the flood plain would be increased by several thousand
units. However, as currently planned, none of these units would
wA. )"'~
3
be in areas subjected to more than one metre of flooding and almost
all would be in locations affected by 0.2 metres or less of
flooding.
3. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
3.1 Existing conditions
Under a Regional Storm, severe flooding would occur in the East
Downtown, South Riverdale and Port areas of the city. In total,
290 hectares (716 acres) of land would be flooded. Almost 3800
dwelling units would be affected, the majority located west of the
Don (2981 units). The bulk of the housing that would be flooded
is located in the st. Lawrence Neighbourhood, where flood depths
are predicted generally to exceed one metre. Over 2700 dwelling
units are in areas subject to this more severe level of flooding.
This translates into a residential population of approximately 5400
(the average household size for the Central Area is 2.0). About
one third of the affected households would contain families with
children (based on the st. Lawrence population profile). It might
be added that two elementary schools and several housing projects
containing physically disabled and developmentally handicapped
residents, as well as senior citizens housing, are located in the
area that is subject to more than one metre of flooding.
On the east side of the Don, most flooding would be less than one
metre in depth. None of the properties affected by more than one
metre of flooding are residential. Most of the properties in the
east flood plain are industrial. Although this accounts for
sUbstantially more land area than on the west side, the land is
generally less intensively used. Thus, the amount of affected non-
residential gross floor area would be greater west of the Don
(approximately 900,000 m2 versus 590,000 m2 on the east side). In
total, about 23,000 workers would be affected by flooding, with
roughly equal numbers on the two sides of the river.
3.2 Ataratiri fill oDtion
Under the Ataratiri fill option, the total flooded area would be
reduced by 30\ due to the fact that the majority of flood prone
area on the west side of the river is now removed from the flood
plain. The number of dwelling units subject to severe flooding
(more than one metre) would be almost eliminated, dropping from
2708 to 38. The total number of dwelling units affected would be
lessened by 70\. The number of flooded businesses would be halved,
as would the number of affected employees.
The impacts clearly would be different on either side of the river.
A drastic reduction of flooding on the west side would be countered
by a modicum of increased flooding on the east side. Most of the
expanded flood area would occur on the fringe of the flood plain,
north of Eastern Avenue. The flooded portions of the Port area
~~. 'liS
4
would remain virtually the same. The total land area east of the
Don subject to flooding would increase by approximately one percent
(representing an additional 1.7 hectares). Within this flood prone
area, the portion affected by more than one metre of flooding would
increase by 1. 9 hectares (a 9.5% increase). Overall, 361 more
dwelling units would be affected by flooding east of the Don (a 45%
increase). Of these, 38 units would be subject to flood depths
exceeding one metre.
In the area east of the Don and north of the CNR line, which is
subject to the largest increases in flood depths, 38 additional
dwelling units would be flooded with the Ataratiri fill in place.
There is virtually no change in the one metre flood depth line in
this area. In the area east of the Don south and east of the CNR
line, expansion of the flooded area north of Eastern Avenue would
account for the an additional 323 dwelling units being flooded, the
maximum increase in flood depths being less than 0.2 metres. The
38 east of Don residential properties subject to more than one
metre of flooding with the Ataratiri fill in place would be mostly
located on a block of Logan Avenue and Morse street, north of Lake
Shore Boulevard East.
4. CONCLUSIONS
The detailed land use and employment data on flood prone properties
in the lower Don flood plain make a strong case for prompt action.
Without the Ataratiri fill in place, approximately 5400 lives are
potentially threatened by severe depths of flooding. If the
Ataratiri fill option is implemented, virtually all residential
uni ts would be removed from the risk of severe flooding. The
number of businesses and the number of employees associated with
flood prone properties would be halved. The total area of the
flood plain would be contracted by 30%.
The negative off-site effect of the Ataratiri fill option would be
a 1% increase in the area subject to flooding east of the Don. A
reduction of 2980 in the number of dwelling units subject to
flooding west of the Don would be partially countered by an
increase of 361 flood prone dwelling units east of the Don. Over
2700 dwelling units west of the Don would be "saved" from flood
depths exceeding one metre at the "expense" of 38 units east of the
Don that would then be subject to this greater depth of flooding.
The remediation measures necessary to counter the modest increase
of flooding east of the Don due to the Ataratiri fill proposal are
relatively costly, involve overlapping jurisdictions and require
a lengthy environmental approval process. Consequently, it would
appear reasonable to proceed with the Ataratiri fill at the
earliest possible time, independent of these more ambitious
undertakings.
OAf [flood.mem]
TABLE 1: EXISTING CONDITIONS
NO. OF LOT AREA NO. OF DIoIELLlNG RES. GFA NON'RES GFA NO. OF NO. OF
PROPERTIES (SO METRES) BUILDINGS UNITS (SO METRES) (SO. METRES) BUSINESSES EMPLOYEES
AREAS FLOODED LESS THAN ONE METRE
West of Don 113 680708 118 273 34 786 599099 321 9695
East of Don (total) 79S 1601336 795 809 75667 471016 361 10366
(East of Don, Sf of CNR) 696 1559636 696 693 64473 448697
(East of Don, NY of eMR) 102 41700 99 116 11194 22319
Total 911 2282044 913 1082 110453 1070115 682 20061
AREAS FLOODED MORE THAN ONE METRE
West of Don 222 418689 262 2708 260818 300588 214 2421
fait of Don (total) 18 197'912 23 0 0 1 17729 13 554
(Ealt of Don. II of tII) 9 1'S4031 17 0 0 70622
(Ealt of Don, MY of tII) 9 43881 6 0 0 47107
Tota' 240 616601 285 2708 2608 111 418317 227 2975
TOTAL AREAS FLOODED
West of Don 335 1099397 380 2981 295604 899687 535 12116
fast of Don (total) 816 17'9924a ala 809 75667 588745 374 10920
(fait of Don, Sf of CNR) 70S 1713667 713 693 64473 519319
(Ealt of Don, NY of CNR) 111 85581 105 116 11194 69426
Total 1151 2898645 1198 37'90 371271 1488432 909 23036
1
.
-
~
c-
~
.
%
TAlLE 2 ATARATIRI FILL OPTION ..J
NO. OF LOT AREA NO OF D\lELLlNG RES GFA NON-RES GFA NO OF NO OF
PROPERTIES (SQ METRES) BUilDINGS UNITS (SQ METRES) (SQ. METRES) BUSINESSES EMPLOYEES
AREAS FLOODED LESS TIWt ONE METRE
Weat of Don 41 199119 46 1 n7 84044 63 730
Ealt of Don (total) 1049 1599484 1046 1132 102286 466543 350 10202
(E.lt of Don, SE of CNR) 913 1543034 914 978 87030 438883
(E..t of Don, NY of CMR) 136 56450 132 154 15256 27660
.
Total 1090 1798603 1092 1133 103013 55OS87 413 10932
AREAS FLOODED MORE THAN ONE METRE
Weat of Don 6 22970 13 0 0 26451 1 80
E..t of Don (tot.l) 66 216736 67 38 3569 120904 38 7'98
(E..t of Don, SE of CMR) 58 176254 62 38 3569 75871
(E.st of Don, NY of CNR) 8 40482 5 0 0 45033
Total n 239706 80 38 3569 147355 39 878
TOTAL AREAS flOODED
Weat of Don 47 222089 59 1 n7 110495 64 810
Eeat of Don (total) 1115 1816220 1113 1170 105855 587447 388 11000
(E.lt of Don, SE of CMR) 971 1719288 976 1016 90599 514754
(E.lt of Don, NY of CMR) 144 96932 137 154 15256 72693
Total 1162 2038309 11n 1171 106582 697'942 452 11810
wi{. ,L.\ &
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ATARATIRI
-Draft Environmental Evaluation Study Report
Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting 12/91
April 12, 1991
w~. 14 ~
ATARATrRI
Ataratiri is the name given by the City of Toronto to the proposed
redevelopment of 32 5 hectares of formerly industrial lands as shown on
Map 1 7,300 housing units, 60\ of which would be Affordable Housing, are
proposed in addition to industrial and commercial uses that could employ
1.500 people
PURPOSE OF THE DRAFT EES REPORT
Ataratiri was granted an exemption under the Environmental Assessment Act
in 1988 subject to 11 conditions One of the principle conditions of the
exemption order is that an Environmental Overview Study (retitled an
Environmental Eval 'Jiiti on Study l shall be undertaken by the proponent and
submitted to the Minister of the Environment for approval This study
shall idtlntify key environmental concerns on and off the site
EES Re90rt ~pproval Process
The ~ EES Report is not being made public at this time It is being
circulated to public agencies on the MOE Ataratiri EES Report Study Team
Based on comments received this draft will be revised and made public
After public consultation, the final version of the EES Report will be
submitted Lo the Minister for approval It will then be recirculated for
final review
Relationship of the Draft EES Report and Background Studies
Six background studies forlD the basis for the Draft EES Report These
include
- Noise and Vibration;
- Air Quality;
- Transportation and Fixed Facilities Risk;
- Flood Protection Options;
- Soil and Groundwater Management; and
- Health Risk Issues.
The Draft EES Report is based on the technical information, assumptions and
conclusions drawn from the six background studies. These studies were
circulated for comment in advance of the Draft EES Report; howeve r , the
Report was prepared in parallel with this circulation
Relationshic of the Draft EES Report and the SPA Designation Process
At Meeting '4/89, June 23,1989, the Authority resolved
"R~R. nI8
THAT the request by the City of Toronto for an approval-in-principle
of a Special Policy Area (SPA) designation for the lower Don River
flood plain be approved, subject to the following conditions
1 that the impact of flood mitigation on all surrounding areas
be examined thoroughly;
2 that environmental issues be considered, including the issue of
the effect of storm sewer systems on Lake Ontario;
3 that all methods to mitigate flooding, including non-structural
alternatives such as the restoration of marsh land. be
considered;
4 that methods of mitigating flooding that do not necessitate the
perpetual dredging of the Keating Channel be considered
THAT the City of Toronto's pruposed scheduling of the SPA approval
process, which expedites the planning and remedial works program for
St Lawrence Square, be accepted;
w~ \~
THAT staff report on the progress, conclusions and recommendations of
the studies being carried out by the City of Toronto in support of the
SPA request;
THAT staff further report to the Authority on what action will be
required to eliminate the necessity of dredging the Keating Channel in
the future;
AND FURTHER THAT the Province, the City of Toronto and the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto be advised that the Authority's
approval of a final SPA designation - either in whole or in part -
will be subsequent to the Authority being satisfied that an acceptable
level of flood protection will be achieved through specified flood
control remedial works, flood proofing measures, emergency response
measures and land use planning and controls
THE MAIN MOTION, AS AMENDED \'lAS, . CARRIED"
The background study, Flood Prote~tion Options, addresses most of the
conditions established by the Authority The Authority's comments on this
report shall form the basis of the development of the proposed SPA for the
Atal"atiri site as well as tt.e.: l"cmainder of the lower Don River flood plain
RATIONALE
Comments 0/1 the Draft EES Report are presented on the basis of the six
background studies
Noise and Vibration/Air Ouality
Staff previously advised the MOE Environmental Assessment Branch that there
were no Authority programs nor policies affected by these studies
Transp.ortation and Fixed Facilities Risk
Staff previously advised the MOE Environmental Assessment Branch that there
were no direct Authority program and policies affected by this study;
howeve r , we noted
1 The risk analyses appeared to be based on existing site conditions
which may require further assessment based on the recommended flood
protection options (filling of the site); and,
2 The existing utilities ~hat currently cross the Don River, including
gas and telecommunication utilities, may be considered a fixed risk if
in the event of a flood there is the potential for damage. Risk
associated with these utilities were requested to be addressed within
this report or the Flood Protection Options Report.
3. The need to cross-examine the recommendations of the individual
background studies for consistency and compatibility
Soil and Groundwater Manaaement/Hea I th Risk Is.lU.~
Staff has not commented to date on this report; howeve r , our review has
been completed and the following is noted
1 There are no direct programs nor policies of the Authority affected by
these background studies Disposal of contaminated soils off-site has
not been proposed; however, if contemplated within the Lake Ontario
shoreline, the disposal would have to mc::et the guidelines of the
Authority's Improved Lake Fil~ Quality Program.
2. The Soil and Groundwater Management Report is inconclusive to date and
notes the need for further study and analyses
- one third of the site has still to be tested and won't be until
after building demolition
- it is anticipated that there are several underground storage
tanks that have yet to be found
- study blocks adjacent Lo the rivc::r have levels which exceed
industrial clean-up guidelines
WR I~'
The report recommenus
- 9 recommended remedial options for further study
- A strategy to determine an appropriate remedial action plan for
each block
- recommendations for additional work before remediation plans can
be finalized eg bench scale treatability tests, environmental
specs for demolition
- the report has general recommendations on staging of clean-up but
indicates that although priority should be given to the dirtiest
sites first. that the priority may be driven by other
considerations such as the "need for flood protection"
3 The Health Risks study has recommendations on the clean up levels that
should be used (ie) which guidelines For soils it is recommended
that petroleum site guidelines (Shell/Texaco) be used This appears
reasonable
The study also recommends more work to develop protection plans for
workers and more treatability tests to ensure contaminants won't be
mobile
Staff recommend that MaE be advised of the Authority's interest in
monitoring the Soils and Groundwater Management and Health Risk Issues
reports as they progress; p~rticularly as related to staging of clean-up
and disposal and/or on-site storage of contaminated soil in light of the
Authority's programs and policies related to flood plain management and
Lake Fill Quality ~nd the compatibility with the proposed flood remedial
works option.
Flood Protection Ootions
Staff comment on this background study forms the bulk of the recommendation
on the draft EES Report and has not yet been forwarded to the MaE
Environmental Assessment Branch
The review of flood protection options for the Ataratiri site has been
extensive and has b~en largely developed under the auspices of the SPA
Technical Committee chaired by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The
analyses of flood protectiQn options had to expand to include a review of
the lower Don River flood plain as opposed to just the Ataratiri site
There are still details to be resQlved both for the Ataratiri component of
the lower Don River flood protection options and the lower Don River flood
protection strategy itself
The Flood Protection Options background study can be summarized as follows
. Hydrologic Review - Th~ Authority reassessed the hydrology for the
lower Don River which resulted in a peak flow reduction for the
regulatory flood from 2100 cms to 1460 ems The reduced flow was used
in the subsequent design work
. Hydraulic Review - A revised hydraulic model was used to calculate
flood levels in the lower Don River. Staff is satisfied with the
technical aspects and results of this model
. Keating Channel Dredging - Continued "full dredging" in perpetuity has
been assumed in this study in computing water levels.
A preliminary sensitivicy analysis indicating the reduction in
protection caused by abandoning the dredging program was carried out
and other alternatives were considered; howeve r , none was considered
practical. environmentally acceptable or cost-effective The
consultant states that historical evidence from the period prior to
the construction of the Keating Channel, suggests that even with
structural modifications (e g removing the right angle bend in the
channel), dredgillg will be needed to maintain channel capacity.
Concerns as to continuing funding of the dredging have been raised
It has been aSHumed that some new funding mechanism will be found
should the existing one end
wR IS'2.
At present, the dredging is jointly funded by MTRCA, The Toronto
Harbour Commission and Transport Canada and is projected to be carried
out at least every two years The dredgate is presently deposited at
containment areas on the Leslie Street Spit whicll have received
appropriate environmental approvals A capacity for about 40 years of
dredgate at current ra~es has been estimated
Seven flood protection optiQns/scenarios have been presented within the
report See ~Jap 2
Ootions
1 Existing conditions.
2 Filling of the Ataratiri Site
3 Option 2 plus removal of utility bridges
4. Option 2 plus 20 metre widening of CNR bridge and a 2U metre floodway
to the Keating Channel
5 Option 4 plus a berm alnng the eastern limit of the Don Valley Parkway
IDVPl from the CNR to the Keating Channel
6 Option 4 except a 60 metre wide CNR opening and floodway
7 Option 6 plus a berm alony the eastern limit of the DVP from the CNR
to the Keating Channel plus an 80 metre wide floodway from the Keating
Channel to the Ship Channel
Ootion 1 - Existina Conditions - See Mao 3
Based on existing conditions. a considerable area east and west of the
River would be at risk during the Regional Flood. A substantial part of
the spill zone north of the CNR embankment was found to have peak flood
depths greater than I metre, including the area whp.re Ataratiri will be
located The spill zone was fqund to extend west of the River as far as
Bay Street and almost as far as Ashbridges Bay to the east The majority
of the spill zone south of t.he CNR embankment would be flooded to depths
less thdn 1 metre The entire flood plain is the subject of the SPA
review
Ootion 2 - Ataratiri Fill - s@~ Fiaure 4.5
Filling of the Ataratiri site to its maximum depth as defined by maximum
tie-off elevations at the CNR to the south and Queen Street to the north,
plus construction of a five metre wide culvert through the north-south GO-
train/CN railway embankment This is to be constructed in order to permit
the area behind the embankment to drain while creating access from
Ataratiri to the Don River.
The results of this option indicated an off site impact of 0 5 m in Regional
flood levels upstream of th~ CNR and a 0 2m increase downstream. A portion
of the Ataratiri site still floods although depths are not excessive
These results are still being reviewed to confirm the shallow depths of
flooding on the Ataratiri site and to better document the increased flood
risk off-site.
COST ESTIMATE lexcluding 5 metre culvertl is $2,800,000 00
Ootion 3
Ataratiri fill plus rp.moval of the utility bridge to the north of the CNR
bridge and the Old Eastern Avenue bridge
Backwater simulations of the river using HEC-2 and OHM indicated that there
would be negligible change in peak flood level if the utility bridge and
the old Eastern Avenu~ bridge were removed These simulations included the
Ataratiri fill placed along the west bank uf the River
There are other reasons for removal of the utility bridge in terms of
protecting these vital services themselves from damage in case of a severe
flood Staff identified th~ need for this issue to be addressed within the
EES Report, possibly the Fixed Facilities Risk Study
This additional work was not costed.
wR 15~
Option 4 - See Figure 4 6
Filling of the Ataratiri site and increasing the width of the CNR bridge by
20m plus constructing a 20m !loodway along the west bank of the Don River
to the Keating Channel The floodway requires the widening of the Ontario
Hydro bridge. a second railway bridge and the Lakeshore Boulevard bridge.
These works result in the water levels upstreAm of the CNR being returned
to their original levels prior to the Ataratiri site being filled and
regional protection through the Ataratiri site itself
Cost Estimate is $15,300,000
Ootion 5 - Ataratiri Fill plus 20m CNR widening/floodway plus the
construction of a berm along the east side of the Don River from the CNR to
the Keating Channel
The addition of the berm would prcvide increased protection to the spill
zone east of the r~ver anrl south of the CNR embankment The area of this
spill zone would be significantly reduced from existing conditions and
flood depths would be leps than 1 metre Ataratiri would still be
completely protected from t~e Regional Flood; however, water levels
upstream of the CNR would increase by U 3 metres reducing the benefits of
the 20m CNR widening
Cost Estimate is $15,900,OUO
Option 6 - Ataratiri fill plus 60 metre CNR widening and floodway
This work results in decreased peak flood levels upstream of the CNR bridge
by approximately 0.9 from existing levels Ataratiri would be completely
protected from the Regional Flood although no additional protection would
be provided to the Ataratir~ site over that given by Option 4 (fill plus
20 m opening) Flood depths in the eastern spill zone north of the CNR
embankment would be less than 1 metre. A substAntial spill zone would
still occur south of the CNR e~bankment east of the river; however, most of
this zone would have flood depths of less than 1 metre
Cost Estimate is $34,200.00
Option 7 - See Figure 4.Y
The final option investigated involved a comprehensive package of remedial
works which would result in the containment of flooding in the lower Don
River This option was similar to Option 4 but included an extended
floodway west of the river, downstream of the increased opening of the CNR
A dyke is also modelled along the East side of the Don River (similar to
Option 5) and an 80 m floodway is shown from south of the Keating Channel
to the Ship Channel to convey spill
This flood protection scheme, developed from the physical model tests
conducted by MNR. would provide the greatest level of protection for the
entire lower Don River flood plain No additional protection would be
provided to the Ataratiri site over that given by Option 4 (fill plus 20 m
opening) The only area remaining at risk from the Regional Flood would be
protected because it contains access roads for the Don Valley Parkway
Cost Estimate is $60,000,000
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
It is recognized that a master plan for flood protection options is
required for the lower Don River The City of Toronto is currently
preparing a report that will further refine the flood protection options
for Spill Zones 1 and 2 which are south and east of ~he Ataratiri site
There are many plans and strategies currently under discussion that will
effect the finalization of d master plan for flood protection of the lower
Don River These include the reports and recommendations of the Royal
Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront headed by Commissioner
David Crombie and the Lower Don Task Force proposals.
wR. l<i~
To this end, staff has presented a l"ecommended strategy for flood
protection that will allow AtaraLiri to proceed while maintaining the
future options for the lower Don River flood protection master plan
The staff recommendation outlined above is based on a preliminary analysis
of flood control options available for the lower Don River that could. if
implemented. provide various levels of flood protection to the lower Don
These options have been estimated to range in cost from $15.300.000 to
$60,000,00 , excluding costs associated with dredging of the Keating
Channel and the relocation of utilities that cross the Don River.
Future land use, including options to naturalize the lower Don River, will
be important to consider before finalizing the lower Don flood protection
strategy This is currently under review
The success of the Ataratiri development proposal relies heavily on an
expeditious review, approval and construction process The Ataratiri flood
protection option package, recommended for discussion with the City. the
Province and Metropolitan Toronto, ensures that regulatory flood protection
for this new development will be achieved. that off-site impacts will be
mitigated and that the lower Don flood protection strategy, once
determined, will not be compro~ised. The recommended package is not
currently being considered by the City of Toronto
To this end, it is jmportant that the City be advised of the Authority's
recommendations regarding flood protection and of its concerns relating to
the staging of works, the soil decommissioning and the phasing of the
development itself.
RJ jb
APR 2/91
ENCL
..... ..- .... .... .... .... - - - - - - - - - - - -
~tJddb" " " ~ ILjLjL-
] ".". 'ODDv
DO'[]O[]Q
DOl'" I
0:0"0.. I" , I; "0" " ,
~ [:Ei:
. ..
.. .
~ ' HI f l
I II I
; BDBD
,,"~'ll"~"~"~'"~
1...1.11 I 1111111111111111111111111111111111 I 11'111"1""'"
, III Dillie" O&IIOINIII I. ~III ".a, ~
.
-
'"
"\
T,'.. JJN\ Marshall Macklin Monaghen LJmIted
CITY OF TORONTO Consulting Engineer., PlanMr.
275 Dun<<*'! Mill ~. Don Mill., Ont. ....2500
LOCATION PLAN ~ BC.A Dale FEB 89 JoONo.I4-88070-10L
0.- P J H ... NT S "....No. 1.1
MAP .1
j . r / M ._' ~ . .' ~. - ~iiiiK~;!~~' "~'~'_II~H~'
l .., ~ I~ 1/1.'f.i. " '-1' "'f. CiIlY/ ~..7.7\~/"'lI/Ji: .!. . iCll ~. ~~ ~
__ ~ ~ '1M - ~\.! . 'Sil':::,;'
~ "~ l~l /. W-f - r ~,~' "", . - . .::::: ~ - .
IlL- ~ y.' . ~ r; - 'i7_~
~ .... ~. ....,.<' ~ ~, ,~ y' ~ '. .... ~ ~. . t':l ~ ~:~ . -. _;' ~
~\U 'r2.~/- l\\\~ \~ . . \, - ( ~
\ ~ 1>\l,:': . .' . I II . _ iq,)?i uv,;' _ . ~ D~ ",. - . ~ J".. \ . / "
,J.~ ....-: - _ ~~. \' ~ -;;;::;i ~ - ,\1 \~ '\ \ '(, ~:;.,:: .
~ l1 \I ' \~ \ 1\ \\ ~, . '~ .
, ~ "';'-\ \'. / '\1 " .' l\ ~\~ ~ \\.' ~ ~ ~~ .~', = . ~ '\ \ ~
~ ' ~~ ~ ~~ . ,L\\ ~ ' \~,1 -- ,- ,
1'- ... ""'~~~ ."? "~! I I ~ '. \1~, '~',,~ \~. ~~~\~ _.'::#~_ >--:::.. '" \' I
,. ;s ._.-1\ ~.--:' ...... ~ " l\ ,-\~ ~ ~\ ' . ~ -. , I~
!l . ~~ ' l~' '\ ~~~\ ~ ~ \' :w =' ~
ii '.' ~ I l!"'~ - ~ _4Il.\" ~:\ Q \ - = = '\ l'.
~"" I . ;oil'! I \ = =
~ ",,_ , d 1\ ~ '
1\ /. " '. ~. ' ~ ~. ~ \ ~ ~.. - ~ ~ '= :;;.-::
" ", ...... r-. = ~ ~ '\.~ =...........--: ~
. ' fl . .O.""l ~ ,\1 , ~............. =
~ . , . .. \1 \ ~ 1\ =
. ... ~ - ~ - ~\ \ =
.._, . /".... :;......--:: ~
~ ~ ~~J1' ! . , ~ = -- , , ""'" ~
~~:;:.. '-"3.' . = - ~ =
~ r .~. \ _ \ .~;11" = ~ ~ ~. \~
~ .~'!JiIl""___" '.\1 \, \1 'i\ .
L-" . . I - ,= \1 \1 U U'" "'" ~\..
. . . p'....-: '. ~\ .\ ,\ . .
_' . ,.' q =' - " \ . .--11 -~ .. \1
~ ~_ ::;;.0",','. ~~. ~ ;\
--.' ~ ( : ..-:~" '. \ ~\ ~ .."" ,; l' ~ \ ~ fo -
:~.. = ~_~' ,"" \, "" ',' O'-o~'~;\" ~ .
~~ ' \ \',' " .....~ ~:\' ~
~ -- l... \ " ' ~~, ...., ,
.. ',.:; tI ..., , . .' ..' ~ ~;",. ., .
,;,;,(, ~O() ,. '. ~ ~. -., ~ I . ~
, :';1:1- J. ' .\~ 0:::'" ~~ - , \' "'. '. ~\.... 'I o'~~' ,,0.
A ~ \'f04u,-' ' -----'" . ,'.....l, \\1L\ .11"
:~ '"'F; rP~ " \ "'" . '. = \ ' . ~ \', }\ . \.
-~ :i!.'" \ :.!:\~ Ii \ --.' ,. Q -:~ r;:'"'" iliA ~ ~~~. ..... ," ~ ~
__ " '.', _-" :::-!.: ._'~'~;-~ . , ,rI ~
ii:' ., . - ..'I~~ ' \: .V
,\).... \ .~... ".,." ~ \: \ \, . I
. , , .' , . , \ I
, .';i::l!.~'-' .....' ,. I:i
.0, .~ ,1.. ..... ~....~ [\ .e' I ' 'i
~., . . .... (\\.; \ ...
,~~ ""0 ." -0' '" ::;";>, ~.1 -
c:; ~ \:::;...a::-: ~ ~ . . ,"
..-' \\ \1l;; I'll '.40.../ \ ~:'A' ~. . (m 'r\ - .:.. -\ \ ='j
.. 'to.': . ~~~ ~ ,~~' I . .-.,-.
_ ...'.1 . , ,..... r-Lt\ I
_~ .. - \ '\ '0 ':'I~, ; \'
,/\ll'.\W.\~,' ,1.ll.~ ~\ '
~ . 1I , rJ. _ ' ... \ ,",,-, . 7> ~.~
... ~ . ~ ,.~, r' t:l ' u.or- '\Ill' ~
,.... r-~.~ . , , ~rDI'
o a . : \,~-,..., .,.. .','.. . .. \
.... . ,. ." . , . .
.. ~~ _'." ~ \, ~ J'" \ r-~ "~ ~ ~: ' '.. J. '\ I
-'" , " ~ '. o' \...~ \ ..
" ,\ . '.I . '. e' :>-::.. 0 ~
, '~ " ~ ~; .-.. ~
. , ' . \' ' . I\J
'. ' '. .. .. \ '\. ...\ ." . -.....
j , \ ,~ " .' ~. -
~ ; 4.-: ,\' .~~ ...~\~~~....,~ '"\ ..~ ff ~ ~
_ "-": ;~\~ ~ 0;;..(' ~\; ~. ~
" ~ , " \ .~ ~ 1 ,'fI'.A~ - Co I. ~ 1'("
~' \~.. " I.'" I ~ ~., ,'-,0) \":: .Y"~ - .".p' ~.
. .,', ~.(f\'(l' /..~.' or,'.....~ .
,.... '1I.M\ '; ':. ;.. . I ,'~T'~<,j}j}~'f.. ~~~
.1. ~\~\ . 0 ~ .. ...: '
I II ," .... 0......... 0 ·
. l""" ,.. 9~
Ii, ..:..~ I!Iii (.,/.... I ' . '.p ....::;. ,,' ')
I \ ;..+. .':f1 . ' '4 -... \,
i \ ,~'4 . : . :.... .,~ ~Yel' 0; .
: l:I . . . - o.~y.
! ~ ~ _' ~O~ .'
; \_.z"l~ ., . :x ,~~ - o~'"'.~~....-
I .; 0 " - ...t.'" ~
." . 0 ',.. "'.r ~
l' L L . ~''d(,'' 0 OC to L ,....
~ ' v. 0 '.~< :E:.& ~l
. ~ ;." ~ - ~ ~f'- 0" - ~~ -.,:; ~
~N~' ," V" . 1-~o:t"1- JiZ~y
." ~ SJI"".A""'1l .J"'. - '>,. -~Rf/'
:c.'" ..,. . .~:;,-,
. :i'"/ '/' I" '/ X "
,\' ~ \ . .....~ o,~. "'(' M~7-' '"y
. , ., -. .. - /. -.;:~
/A - ~ '" ~."
;r'1.T\1~ ,- I "":~. : (/.~ - ' ./
~~~~ /! .'.~ 0 '-- }.'.
J;.(\?:.r o. ~~': "-'--r; Al\&A-ii.N.-;;'~ --Il.~1) " ' -. - -.;;.77 .
~I V \ ,,,,III. o,ttJr"'"... I ". y ~.r I
~OOo...."y "-0 o'A
I;;; oPUltO< of c...1Il I Kl.J\n.... CO ,".......ok.o ..... ~ ,=-" I M l\P 2. .r
.00;04( <.z0..1oO...) . V"\
~ ('_!'LEn; F'OOO " \:,h\ y
P_ll..-eCrTON) .
...""",,^nAJ: 'FILL I '\, ~~}l fl.OOb c.o"'~L Op-r,O~,
.- ..- I ~~~'Y 1/ ·
-- I ' '- ~' ~
- . I'
!Jr:... ~', / -
~~ - /
___.1 _... -_~____ 'f:.;....~~f7 - - -. T'- -(/ I ~. f~ ~ ...-- ~--
. I .
iI, ~., f: .
1I~ . f'. $
. I
;;; . ~
1_ ~ ~ ~~ ' ," .}~L7fO/;~'" '-/.~}' '.~="-' ~;.r:".,..r.:--....~.
, ) ~ w-! '?r 1t~~~ '.J ., , ,~~~
, ' ~ y.: . "".~. ~' _ '""',,1~. -- v-
_ aaa . ~ :\''1,4 , S0 .' = ::=J:; 'VJ . _:....... ::!;"j;.
'. ...., ' 1\, ~. .... .~ [(I ~~
, . ""r' a ~,- ~l;
~h:' ~ ~ .' . " ,\ " ,,; . .D. .
. " ,~ ,) ,"37l C? ~ ~ . \1 l' .-=-- ~ {Nl'
;.:..J(" , _ - , ~J \ ~\ '"
~ ...- ~ - . ~ ~~ - ~ - ~ ~ ,'\..' , ""
_, ;;;~,.,,'. .,'. i .'~ .I~~~ ..i~'i~\ ,,'" ~ \.)',' . . ~ " 1~1
= ' 1 I _: . ~ . ~\\ ~~ :;..,::~ X ~ l\
!~ _~ #...: 'I \ ~ ", ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \1~: ~ ~ "'. ~~G"'-= " ~I~
r//. ,~J- .~~. -\\i~ 1\ ,~\ '~\
, , ~,; , ~. ~ . \ ~ ~~\ ,\~ \1 ~ ' '
... ' :.;:;-- __ - \1 llb.,\" ~ ~ Q 1\ = \
:::;; I I '" . ~ ~.: ... ~~ ~\\\~ ~~: ~V \ \ ' ~
~\ ~ " ~ ~ . 0'-. ij\,~\'l'~' ~\,~ ,- ~ ~ ."" ~, t
~ . \ ....... " .\ U\\\' II 'L. ....., ~ = ""'" r
1 " ~: (>'1 ' .0 ~ ~ \ ~ ~~~ :::;;:::;; ~ = =
l:~ ' - - ~ I ~ = = ;;.,:::
,~ ,~!' I ~~~;--::~ :;.:::::;; '"
, ~~' '. .
I ;~~", - ~ ~ ~
\\\~~/..~ \ - \ .~ . , ' = ~
1 ~ ~ ~ ';J' ll; a' - = l\\l \' 'U\\ " ;;.-< ~. . ~ ~~ \ "t
.... .-~ ,... .. - ~\\ " ~~ ~,), . .\ . ~~
~ ' _ ~ =' .~, b' ~\, \, ..' "<2 \ ~ X
..,. ~ . , '. l\~'\'~~'\ ' '. . ~
-.. : ,-- \ \, \'. ~ \ \ ..." \ \ ~ -
. . = r~-~' '. \ " " ",' ~",.a -- '.1,~, !\, -,' ~
,_~ ?' ~~ \ \, \ \ \ . .; ~., ~t " ' 1 '
tI ' . . . . -,~..< X
~,_"'., . __ , ; , ..... .,.., ~ ~ ['I. .
., . ~ t.\- .':' ~ '. . '
. . 0 J~ ..' . - .-.,
~~. '. rY:1 . \, -.-,; =' '. ',;....&':;'X .: . " i", yo
:.:. Luft~\\." \ ,:.' .... ~ ..' ....~, ~,'~, \' \ \ , .~,
. ~I ~,'~ q t,. "" ~ .' ,,~ . ' !:\ \ ~
~... . . ~::.\.,"\. ""'.! r:: II.:: .' __ ~;~." ...... . cs:! \ ~ '
\11.... ',<:. ~ ..,. -..-: .\'!I .
a ' - . . ~,'3 \
, _ ,.t,." . ~. ~ \ . ' I
a' ,,'~'- ,. .....' l.)
I ,.' P::":: I~
. ~. ~" . ,... ~.' , . , J!
-. '=' "~' . Z V'
~I e .... -0 ~.., rd; \Ull".u't- ===~a \ -
\~ '& ~.M . . .'~ ~ ,,-~7c \.~. fIilIl~ ~\~.. ,'., \
.. ..' 'w. ~, '.; ~ :;;.-,: - ~. , " \,- " \ :;;::::; /
t:.:l ..._ "-J--JJ, (1'. ,-' lIi,J ' . ,,"t ,! '
I '. .. . " '. \ \ ...., " ~
.. CO ~. . .' . . ~~ -
I ,t::l . 'Q . I' 'II.~-' ... \ '. ~ , '::I') ~&
o ~ . . ~ ' \ " ' . ~.
.. ' . . \ - ~;J:" , '
-- ." \' ....." :' .'. \
I I . \ /I. ~ ~. ',~ ... ~ ~ \. ' a.' . 3. ~..\ I
I ,." l':J ~ ~ ~
.. . .' .. , '
, \ \" :A \ ' '. t;' :. ::..
'\' I ~ \ . " . ~ '113 ...G
, 4 .... \. '.' :i~' -~
~ , . ~ . '. .I) . '- ','.. ...
, ~,_ '. , . I~\ . ~.J!'
. l\ ... ' . \ ....,) ~ "'rh, - -~-~ ~.
I . ~ I " ..' ,\.. ~~~ - .tf-Vl~
I\,... ~. . ",r~~ "''''IlI~' ~~~"Z:~
~ ~ \. ' _ . ~ r....: .A~
. ~.~ .~ l!ll:i\ ""..... \ ' .. -" (i , , ... ~)\O~
(, 9 " i:;. ~..,~.."
.. !j.:.. ~ ,1
\) \( , n\'-"".~' .,,;'., -. \,VO~~- . ~ "
- .~ : - . ~.,.
~ .... \,.. .. ~ Yf'" _ . ..-
~ - '1.'- ~ ~- .....
, ~ _ 'e.4\. &r "
~. . 00. ..' ~. i
_ ~ ..ij?5/'J~O ~C ~ ~ ~., " t
- .' ~~~. - ;::..'
.. ~ .!>c . ' · --- ---, " -1-,
\ . a' ~ .." I I
, aaa, .. _ g ~? ')~-9",.. .~' -. i
. . _ it ~~ 'V.x.~-:."jV . .,: ~ .
, ~ ~V ("/' . ~~~;/ ~ - '''~.Aff/
. ....... " l.?IQ.K ...1.... 0 -,',V
. ~ _I ' '71'->
_ - - _/. 1
~ ~.I I ~ .,... ~ aaa I
;tY: ~ ~=",".I ".; "':!- ,0 l,.{ ,
~ ~.. U~i " . -- ,~ ~;:. I ~!
M^P!3 '~~7 I
r_ __ "' ,~J"4: !
-_- . .:.. l' "-fj 1./ ...~ t
r~~ ,/ -
.....~l " / -~
~_. __ ___.__a..-.l- ~ / Ir~ '!:J
J . '1 if " -, - -'Y- - -~ I... ...-------
: r I. I ; .. . '~..l I ' ~ ~ I :
_; , :~ .' ~ t I I' '
. t .,I .I.,......' . f
, ' . . ~:. ~ "I
~
.
-
\/\ -
(:S:)
r) .8f~~i! 'W~~;,~; ~r 1 ~~~~ij~r': I i.1f'n~! ~ ~ J l~ 'I:~!IH i~~~ i I~rn
~~"i~L 1 0 :~~ .-- :11 i'i . I \\~~ , \.:'In ~ .' ','''; I 1 '=I1..~~ I i, \,.' .~ o~~ :::Jill~ .
\l ",'0 D " o' C:l 1 llD,.-, ~~ ~ I!I lie; l, ""=1 I~ ~
c;; ;..,.. ~ =II~ tlf ~b<= I 'llJ . ~ \;
I'"'~ DlJl~]CDI] ~ 11",-- '7 FIr v: , 'r"0 I : !I' I'.C . --, . Q
~r--t=d .l:i.: ~~ i , ,..~ ~1J..i', J~ J r:,J Q : I: ~. : I .~. ~ .r .~' ':: -,.,~L~~
1= ~ · " . 2.-,.t'r:T1 i';'lr~ s;r: I (I :: I f'l .. l hi ,~" ~ 111,., "
. '" ~ ~ ';' i ~l . ~ , ': I. . ...... III ;r.';[t~ ....II~I" _,~
jrn~ ~ . '" .~. .,. . . ... ~:I?' ..1 _,_ I ~ - '. Il~ ~ '. I ~ "',." ~ir.- ~:.. I..,.... :lr.r :i 0;:/..,
~~, II\. ~'" ~ -. f. I.!. I 1" V!, . If' f"'..... .'" I
II . , . . ~ ~ 01 '. ,... "01 I
] '- . , '. . , - 'I~ i"-' : ,.,. .. V"'" I
~r.. .,' - -, ' ,.,., '" ' '. , ~'t::. \, "".~, al-fcr, I _ _ _ ...._..fit1\' I
;.or, ~.~ " l!l~ 1i;~ . ~, - .' ~. . --- .tl\' V.'L' ~_' ~<t., ". , I;.~~, [1j\l<.!~: . , . J ,~......--_ - .,. 0 '" I
'I~ I .. ~!Cl~ ~..- '. ' .. :1,... .t l~ " J. .. ., t., .;t'~= HWY
~ ,..r-\,''''ol: . ~""=i.~",:, ':'" !i'll ~, '\ 101, '~~ :",1.... < ; ~1~~~.' ~ ____ ~I
:2.J ATARATIRI.,.. "';.-. ..,~~ __. .' ~. ..1"',; ., . .. _ '....-,-;-' , ..,~~
~ .n' ' ',:::,', f;'~~ ~.. ~": ,. t ~-11"'-:;'~1~1 tw:,!I'. . "~~~' ."t~ ~~.........~ e
b' '[,J -.... ~. '''-4~'''- 'I U":l1,;;~' _... , <..!'~~~ - ~ ~_...;:::;, ~ _ ,..)
o -.. ~':::.:.... ' -. r ' ... ....... .,'.~ .. ,"',;~ ,~ ~ ~,:",;., I.~'I.~ . r.;- ". _ ~.:>=,_
- ~ In ' ..-iol>~" '0.: · . ,., .,"!\-.. 'Y~ ..;..-:;;' .,~\~_~....~~~,,:.,.~~~ ~9::::1 ~~--;~D'~O\
- , "'l': ".',. _1..1~~ 'i ~ni.L<..l~ t. t:. "\H::l~ ,-----=--:::~'~' I+-:G' >:'t:P ~-\~\
'" . - , ~ \':'" 'L'" #=~, ;,,, , ....: t,..:.. ../:::'f.;</ '~ .. It,'\.
~~~ .~. ~ I ~. \~l -- (.=~~, 0 ,;,~~\. Wt" \~ \i~~,~ --\~:: (' \ ~.- ~~ o\c&O\,-.;:..tJ'
~ , I,., ~ ,-' -.1 :: 0 0" .,.. ;\,'\~~ ~_\ \ _........., ,'o;~
- .,. 0 ... -, ',.. " 0 :;s~~'.. ~\:;\' ,~ '~I ",....;i, . . ~ j
I,. -', ~.. ' " .---\'1~ .'tl,./. ~ ~.
n' ',... " . . ',,, , " ~~t, ~, r.. ___~ c.--;.,;:' .. \ . \'SI~ c/ro~ ~_ ~ ,
........ - ..-"'\ ......... . - .\' ,,,,,,~l .. ~. " f'II$ tv t'..~
=-=--0'--- ,'-' ,'-"" , ,,''(\ ' ~''''''~ LH. ~~ .. 1. \ ,u.. '0 ..:;:;:<,~c:'''''''-=::''
I ~'~o .~~..~., , '" \ t~~ \...- 0 ~!! ~ It... ,.., ~~'{.P:'~ . \ () I '~Gl'. -~\~ \ -.;;!:;:j// I
,"/ ~ '3 -...:.' -- -'" 10'1::'-':. 'n '.',,,", \ ~ 1'>~' ,,:,J , 4\.lo. .......> ..~_,-
,\ n...... . ,"-..Ie -~,,~'v .;:..........-.-:. 'f:" ~T~ I' ,. ......~;: _, ,,'
. ." .-,~~. _~-_1~ '~C~"f:J ':0::; 'J , i'.....~'.. '3 '...." .~ I' -\"t; _ _ \. ,,$;:-,'- ~ <
I. ''='''.' "W::_ . ; "!:'. ' . -. '~- '~.' ~ Il-.8lo~\i't. '''I..l!f '... ',' !l'__,' _,-.
_ -1l""~O_' = _ \ ;l~ T, .. ~ . '"';.. .. ~~.~. ~; "WI,,, __ \ '~',,' ,,_
._0 .. . ')'.=-.. _ ... ..~ ... \ .... \ ,. '"
I, ~ lL! b ,......" ~\> ....-;.. .' r.' J' a ,~...,..\~~ .,_ ___ [;~ \1 . ". _.._~ /
.-.:.. .\ ":'to :.r..f;.... ';"i I . J". jiP ____ _ _ ~
.- -'I. "\, .' !!!!;'j. . I', 0 ~ \ . ~.. __~-- 'I. \I I
_.....:-- , ~_.a. ..!: . ,:! --=:\-t't:. ~., · ---- - ~ --b: ;0 \ ~ ~ /
- -0 _0" . '\~'_ ~\~ ____ . p-
.' --?::";' li ' . 0 ~~_ .~\\, ..~~~\,~,...... ~~ ,,'
'. \! - "".. I.- , . (i\' ~!M;:~ -----~~l' /
U '\ ....-~ '" -- "....~- "1 ~ -o_rS'" ...... .. ...-- ,I "7.
\O~ '* (;/ ......-c ..
,.- tt);f,\ () .......,.--- .. .~~ '.- ......... I I
I. 0 ....;;' ~,t" 1'1 ~ ,~ ...........;:.. I,. ~ '0. /
. \ ~ ;' . .r'" /t ".,
. - II. -""'000 00 l,() 0, ,- ..............." \':'.. .. ~ /' ,
.. .u 0 ~ 1,- .........-:. \ '.. . /
- \\~ ~I 0<1 J , ""'A"'l." -<\.0 ,,___ " / I
. \.2.J,; ; :\-/ -"'0 ,;,U\uo ,.... r\.. .....0 '\ _'" .' ...._., I
-~=1~O~ .{Y ~' 000/"\1 ~f, **~ ~~\. _,- f.. '_..__~
~D '-;::::-..n '. , 0 ~ '- ~,- ,I
~',. ~ -~/ . I., c~ \ ~~ 9-Q).sr-- ol': _<.\...r/~" ',_ . ) ,
.~ p ". 4 '0\ 0' :;" "~I __A / '
o S.'" -' _ .... ~.., /_~ 'x-~::-r ......
....... - \, < / ~- / .
-; \.) "'" ~ I
o ?' } '"'W"...... ,Ii
II FLOODOEP1liS~THAN 1.0M ,-~ ~"'_~ ,( . ),
"" - . I' 4 5
\ ,~. ~~.
" .
, ' /
,/. <- .
N~ (m ROOD """'" ....."" n<A" "M \(...;:/^ I .J ./ REGIONAL FLOOD WITH ATARATIRI F'-L _
- - .
i - -
J' cmE' ~/;-~~~..~)\ tDJ.. \\J~ Jt7' I ~.r~ )L'T:~~ M~W' I /~: tJdl el~~~;: II: 11'1 tJ-~' I ~~; ~'I'?lIl!]~L!191\lt~ !lll! ~: ,I
0.. tit ~-V'J!!P1 . ~ ~ '~t ~ ~ , LS '~~ I · I I ! (. I I II 5 r-:' : ~ B ~ - ~~ II ~
~. - l'=>1 -', UI f'E:J, P ~1n."i! : JI~r ,; I ~~ II!d~~ D~ I ':J!:: 1, :~~l~ u', ( :- 1\ ,@HO~ d"1.... '" I r I" ti l
J!I~:~ ! 0 :R' I ~ J>-u . tIL r ~ . d l..o. I.! · ,i I i I' \ ~- ~ ,'. ':1-' ~.
!J :.. _ _ .~ ' I ,. I. ~ '.. t J . P I ~ . t ,1.-_ .
".\a- 0 _ill .&. !;:... .' . ~",., lL, I ,~ ..,.~, ~ Or. -.. _ar" lon.
~~, " v '
\_ ...-..,..-(\ ro Uo '1,..1'1. .:fl., .-n' ..., '0 ~JI.". d] I\.. _,-~...., r Zl I I !\~
j' 1:~1r~!;~\D~~.., 'f.;=:." TV!:..J r L Q: ',i c: : :.! . ~t.J.:t - ~..;~~ ~.~
~~ """' ~~' ;. ~.;.' . r::Jc' I I I I T~'" ;. '".L:", "':-i", 'l
,. ") \>'~ .'. ,..... . ~ ' e. I I, I I .:... \I~ .. ,I ... . r1
~ _' . .....0 .. . '. I ..., I, I I '~'I 'I. . ~ , -, - I L
;;;;"'" rl\ ~~ ,-". , r '.. t' .~ l'=- - .. . I "J'"
~I nl <:;:> " Va ..J _1- I I . I ~, ~~ ..i"~ ;.~!!(;f", '':;~i ,(">,-i''''
~...J.. @.l1 ~- '.,... ' '..' .,"\ ~ ~~!; n-.~~-" \1..,;'.....,
-) ~~~ . ____.: . ~~ \U ,<JIft" ~u. I'-o~i o;;c. ;::;',.-;;tr><' .~. - "'J- -. : l} .~I"~:,'~ \;; I
~, \ ...., _. ~ - . ~t~ fnlr'''' .. ._ __. I - - ~Hf',........... I
n ~~~" .\'\. ~ '" ," ',- .. ~.~... ~!' ~ ~ · ~~t It ~ ~[~. R' ~ ' 'ff~"'-' "",';;' "1 ._J I"---::~'---=- 0 '
;, _ ,~., ...... . c=o /,', ;M~' ~''''" ~ Hi "".: ~ ..r'. ' . II' ~;" 4 ~ I ,..~ ,....." -, ':_3:-- "" I
~ ~ ,'= , ) 'il" -Vi,!:' - . .! '~j I. ~: ""~)' \ ~ . t ~.. '=" ......",
': D' vi ~~AT1R1 ~ ~, -~ .. i:lii!i~~t~i~a' r; ,JI'i;~~~ I~;,:~~..-i!l" . '--~~;'~ _ -_ ,~ ~r "'~I'/.:>
-u_-, . .. ..,'-"'\ . .::z,..........u. ..II': -~.. .. -.,. l"~ -...".." ----
_ "j'~~ ". ^' ~ _. 1f~1!i1l~. - ~ -'~'~~~~~-<:,~~~~.."~., ~ L~ ._, ~S';~:i.... 8.
0:::::>:: ...., . 'i. 1:- ' 51" . ~\t !:;l. t'~.. _I... ..--:::-.\," ,
'., ~ .~.,... .. "". \'~ ~...' _ . _\,_ '.. ~::_ _-1' _ vo~
i .' _ ,'" '" '.' \ 0.... ; - ,', .. ~)j'; .\r-\'~"<?- \.~ ....;:'1<:' :' -~c:<' ~CJO.. \ ,,~'}-
_ ....- ~ _'~ ....~~ ...~ .. . l" f.....W \,
"f-=il.~- _ 0 ... ~ . ". \., ~. 0 0 - l:,~\ -:. ~i'.1:-. ; ~',." \ '--\~t~~" ....~
......,' '" ._, . . "I, ~o ~'~_.,. ::';"\' ~'" II . ,'l~ ~_~
~ __.., -,,_'. ..N"--J~"" ." .I...to ~ 0 ~=" ____~.. ~ -~ ~ .~. .:""" \. i.~ ;\ - ~
....... ._ 0 ~,".""- -- .'. , ..-. .'!" \ " - 'r \ . \l ~ ~,,-"""
~_O~ ~~O-- ~~'" ~" ' ~~ ~- \;\~~~ :11',~, \ j ),~~c:: _/ o~AJr9..;~~f;jf..~
~ \' <5 JI n. ,.,.., . . ..... .:r;..\:~~. ~~==-- .... .' "...~. . ~ \\ .....~~~-,;."'- I,
~ "'./' '''M"Q !.}/"~". "" n~~-"'" "", ,,,,.,..~...,,. j..~_::'!~~ ' /'
~... ~~ ~, ill ' .. .... ,... . ..:: ~ "''''" ,- \ t,,; -r- "....~ ~ ~~-...- ~"
\\ , 1C"tl _ \. \." " ...s -. .)~~., r. p ,i<,. - --:.a,. . \t- .,'" ..../~.
I l....,..,.- tl ..i,,,~' ~~ - . Q..O . '40r,....::...!.J d'! 8.~,., - - 'I r--.... \ .........
~ - .. - . .~~.,.. ~...., ............ \: ",' '"
_" / ~. .\",---=-: " 0 ~ pO"l , -,;:- -- \ II, -~-'" -
. ( I. , . 'to. ~-. 0 c .' ..---::. - - \ ,\
, ~., . \' , .. ~ . \' .' lAP'" ' . :- ' - ", \ II
"0 I ..~... ,~ __ -.. . \,4'
:;-~~: , 0\ ,)~ ;tI(;)-'9-\~~~ $.: , _,,--- ./ J~~ \~.-
". ... """ I :\'i;': \;...,l~~ ~ "\ ....- ",...-- ;
'D ~>\:..u~ '\;'i1~ ~~~ ~ 7 I '
. \ O-i!J~ ,;).: ". ........... ~~,"'].. ....' ~ _",-0'" <:!i'" "'" ~ I .''^
o ,..;. ~'." ~I'""\ -.'#-". ~ o' _-- I
I, .... .... ~~.r'\ ~ ... ,,~ 0_ I.. #0- /
. ~;.........., ,,~ 4- 'P". II I
\__.- "!, -(")Io~,_'O I,() 0,' . ~ ./ i~', ~,/
.~ l~o~,O~Q 1,,- ,"" I., \',' ;\ ~ I ...
. ..- --o~o ~ \..""'" \\ ~..." '..- J~
n o~~ ~'...o'" ~ 0 00 ,\~o: \~~c:::>"o .~/' '-",,,-,,<.,./ /
~,.. ~) _ ~~..... "'. ....' ,-..,...... 0 00 ,~ \~.~~~. .../;-' ", -7--r'" ),
c::::q _ _...""""" 'I. C" ~ ~O.....~ ..-:..-\~......... " J I /I
. S." ..,. '0 0 ~ -::... ..,"~. I , - --j f
" '" .,," _-3' .;..r-~..-. ~ I
_./ \ : ,r" _./ . ,
~;;;;.~ R.OOO 0EP1lfS LESS THAN 1.0 M ^ -" '... v~ ' /':) .
.1000""'. ' ~_ .... ,III
. ,:::;- /~ " , AGURE 4.6
/ //
& a \/:..-- ,
R.OOO 0EP1lfS GREATER THAN 10M - ., (
,NA L;::"" . \ /)'-<. /^ REGIONAL FLOOD WITH 20 M WIDENING OF CNR BRIDGE
- -, .- - ----- E.
~
.
~
- c..
~
-
C!-
o -
j
~
i
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. ,~
....", '~
, '.,/"
. !..
1
l
.
. S." " ,
.
1 R.OOD DEPTHS LESS lltAH 1.0 M
]
i NA
---- -- -- - -- - -- -- - --- -
W~ \ to I
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
OAK RIDGES MORAINE
-Private Land Stewardship Program
Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #2/91
April 12, 1991
6) R. HoI
GREENSPACE INITIATIVE: PRIVATE LAND STEWARDSHIP
1- PROPOSAL SUMMARY
This report provides the background, benefits, and financial
implications regarding the development of a private land
stewardship program for the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) designed to
conserve the remaining natural diversity as represented by
provincially, regionally and locally designated natural areas.
The program proposal is based on the Southern ontario model
developed by the Natural Heritage League in conjunction with the
university of Guelph. The program has been developed as a
complement to traditional acquisition, land use planning, and
extension service programs in recognition that most of the
remaining natural areas are in private ownership.
It is proposed that a private land stewardship program be
developed by the MTRCA:
. to initiate a landowner contact and natural heritage award
program for the Oak Ridges Moraine incorporating into one
award all provincially, regionally, and locally designated
natural areas;
. in consultation with and with the support of the Ministry of
Natural Resources, the Natural Heritage League, other
conservation authorities, and other non governmental
organizations; and
. to provide support, and encouragement for the implementation
of similar programs by other conservation authorities across
the Moraine concurrent with the MTRCA program or in
subsequent years.
2. INTRODUCTION
Directly involving private landowners in the resource management
of private lands is not a new approach to land management in
Southern ontario. The provincial ministries, conservation
authorities and other public and private organizations have long
encouraged private landowners to recognize and wisely manage
their lands through a variety of approaches. In recent years,
however, there has been a movement to identify specific natural
heritage areas at the provincial, regional and local levels. The
private land stewardship program is designed to link this
scientific identification and assessment of natural heritage
features to subsequent efforts to protect them where they occur
on private land by the landowners.
,
WR ,~~ I
Private land stewardship is an important initiative in Southern
Ontario, if the natural dive~sity existing as we enter the 1990's
is to be conserved. Land acquisition addresses only to a limited
degree, the conservation of wetlands, areas of natural and
scientific interest and environmentally significant areas. Land
use planning policies and regulations address land use changes
primarily during development and redevelopment applications.
On the Oak Ridges Moraine, as elsewhere in Southern ontario,
private landowners make most of the important land use decisions
that will affect these natural heritage areas. At present, most
of the remaining natural areas on the Moraine are in private
ownership.
Private land stewardship does not replace acquisition, land use
planning or extension programs. It is a new tool which can
complement these efforts and can serve to build the conservation
ethic amongst rural landowne~s and others.
Private land stewardship programs recognize and respect the
rights of the landowner to be involved in decisions which
encourage conservation.
3 . MTRCA DIRECTION
The Authority, in it's 1989 Greenspace Strategy, identified the
need to:
"establish long-term cooperation with private landowners
through an expanded stewardship initiative"
for the headwaters. The Interim Environmental Planning
Guidelines for the Oak Ridges Moraine (1990) reiterated the
Authority's three initiatives for the conservation of Greenspace
resources on the Oak Ridges Moraine Complex being:
. the preparation of environmental planning guidelines to
assist municipalities in the review of development
proposals;
. the development of a private land stewardship program
to encourage and recognize good land management
practices; and
. the identification ot critical resource lands suitable
for public ownership and management.
The Authority has consistently identified the need for
recognition of the Moraine as a provincial resource and for the
need for inter-agency cooperation in its management and
conservation. The development of a private land stewardship
program for the ORM should reflect both the significance of the
resource and the objective of inter-agency cooperation.
I
wR 1(03
The development pressure on the ORM, within the Authority's
jurisdiction, is intense and will continue. To be effective, a
private land stewardship initiative should not be delayed. The
MTRCA can provide leadership in the development of this program
which will be a benefit across the breadth of the ORM.
4. NATURAL AREAS WITHIN MTRCA'S JURISDICTION
The Oak Ridges Moraine, within Authority jurisdiction, contains
37 Environmentally Significant Areas, 20 potential Areas of
Natural and Scientific Interest (MNR, ANSI designation), and 26
wetlands (MNR designations, 2 Class 2, 4 Class 3, 3 Class 5, 4
Class 6, and 13 Class 7). Most of these areas are wholly or
partly in private ownership.
5. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE MORAINE AWARD
A landowner contact and award program addresses the protection of
natural areas by informing landowners of the significance of the
resources located on their property and by them to agree:
. to maintain and protect the property to the best of
their ability;
. to notify the (lead agency) of any planned land use
change that might threaten the natural features;
. to notify the (lead agency) of any other threats to the
area which may impact the natural features;
. to notify the (lead agency) of any intent to sell or
transfer ownership of the property.
In the past, private stewardship programs in Southern ontario
have been primarily directed at one category of resources, for
example, Carolinian Forests.
In some areas, such as the Escarpment, one landowner could be
contacted by more than one lead agency and eligible for more than
one award. This potential also exists on the ORM where one
parcel of land may be designated as a wetland by the Ministry of
Natural Resources and an ESA by the Authority.
The potential duplication of effort and costs could be eliminated
by the development of one Natural Heritage Award for the ORM
which can be presented for a provincial, regional, or locally
significant area. To further enhance the significance of this
one award, it could be developed jointly by the Natural Heritage
League, the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Association of
conservation Authorities, and the specific conservation
authorities with juriSdiction on the Moraine.
,
. I
UJ~ l~n government organizations which have identified an interest in I
natural area protection could be kept informed and their support
sought for the development and implementation of this program.
6. BENEFITS
6.1 The Natural Heritaqe Leaque Model
MTRCA and the other Authorities with an interest in the
conservation of natural area diversity of the Moraine can
benefit from the experience gained, in Southern ontario, by
the Natural Heritage League. Specifically, extensive work
has been done by the Natural Heritage League and the
University of Guelph in developing, implementing, evaluating
and adjusting an approach to private land stewardship. This
will ensure that the program development costs are kept to a
minimum.
The Landowner Contact Manual (1990), which was developed in
connection with their program, is directly applicable to a
Moraine program. Annual training courses are offered
through the University of Guelph which would be available to
the Authority and would further enhance the effectiveness of
the program.
6.2 One Moraine Awarg
The development of a single award program across the Moraine
will:
. reduce initial program development costs;
. eliminate duplication of landowner contact
effort and duplicate awards;
. reinforce the Authority'S policy for the need
for inter-agency cooperation for the planning
and management of the Moraine and provincial
support and leadership;
. reduce ongoing costs for newsletters,
brochures, etc.; and
. present a clear picture of inter-agency
cooperation to landowners.
The incorporation of provincially as well as regionally,
designated natural areas provides a basis for negotiating a
cost sharing formula with senior levels of government.
,
other Benefits ~ liPS
6.3
The educational process, which is central to the private
stewardship approach, provides for the development of an
ongoing relationship with landowners. The staff
representative has a significant opportunity to provide
information on other Ministry and Authority programs which
can enhance the private landowners ability to conserve
natural areas. Landowners benefit from information on
programs which they may be eligible for, such as the
conservation Land Tax rebate, but may be unaware of.
7. IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS
In the past, landowner contact programs have been implemented
directly through the University of Guelph or by staff hired by
the lead agencies. The Natural Heritage League is currently
promoting the development of private land stewardship programs on
a regional basis. The development of the Oak Ridges Moraine
stewardship Program is consistent with that initiative.
The further development of the program is envisioned to be
primarily by the MTRCA with the direct support of the Natural
Heritage League and in close consultation with the other
interests noted above. The advantages of having Authority staff
refine, manage, and implement the program include:
. reduction in travel costs as staff already
works within the area;
. development of an in house data base
accessible to other staff for use in plan
review and other applications;
. ease of integration of data base into other
initiatives;
. facilitated promotion and coordination of
conservation extension programs;
. development of · ownership' , knowledge and
interest in the program by Authority members
and staff which will enhance subsequent
follow-up.
8. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
The projected costs for the first three years of this progra~ are
based on the expense categories identified in similar projects by
the Natural Heritage League, staffing estimates, and the
anticipated time required to make the initial landowner contacts.
Confirmation of the second and third year costs ~equire the
,
, I .
'\ \ lC\~
lU""
development of detailed landownership maps. Experience gained
within the first year will define the requirements for subsequent
years. Costs are shown in 1991 dollars and summarized in Table 1.
Following the first three-year period, expenses should be
significantly reduced and related to changes in ownership and
follow-up activities.
The budget provides for the hiring of one experienced staff person
for a three-year period and part time staff to assist in the
development of the land ownership maps and data base development.
Having one staff person to contact landowners, negotiate
agreements, and assist in developing natural area protection
initiatives (such as conservation easements and land trusts) is
important to the success of the program. In the first year, this
person would also play a substantial role in providing the liaison
with the other agencies and CAs.
The effectiveness of a private land stewardship initiative depends
on the ability of the agency to follow-up on ownership changes and
to negotiate more formal agreements for long-term conservation of
the natural areas. A commitment to ensuring the continuation of
the program, must be in place prior to its start.
,
~
lOR I {o 1-
PRIVATE LAXDS STE~AADSKIP
-
THREE-YEAR IUOCET PROJECTION
.
Activity Tur 1 Tnr Z Tur 3
(+ 6X) (+ 6X)
Proje<:t Stiff
. level. fulltlne contr.ct, sal.ry (IP4) $.40,000 $42,400 $.44,950
.beneflts ; ZOX 8,000 8,480 8,990
. lummer staff (Z), 16 weeks (TP2) 18,000 19,0&0 20,225
.beneflts a 10ll: 1,&00 1,908 2,020
:
Travel. 1 vehicle or equivalent 7,200 7,632 8,090
Se<:retarfal TIM. Including btnefl ts ~ 8,000 8,480 8,990
,
Computer Support
. data ~It pr09rlll development (option to 5,0001 .- ..
rtduce cost by iettlng Carollne.n Setup) .. -
. Includes Il&OOIl.devel~ or ienerlc bu. .
for all CAs
. hardware cOltl 7,000 .. ..
Printing and COCIIlU'Ilcatlons and .rochure 2,000 1,000 1,000
. office supplies
Award Pl~s
. 200 (~ It 11) (S35?) 7,000 .. . .
Off Ice Spece (10 It 10) 7 7 7
Telephone , ,000 1,060 1,12S
.Consul t lno TIne" (10 It $.400) 4,000 2,000 2,000
Hospitality 1,000 1,000 1,000
.
St.ff Tr.lnlng/SeGlnerl ~ ~ J...QQ2
113.000 9S.040 100.390
'.
.
.
.
. ,
.
wR llog
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
EXISTING PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
FOR THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #2/91
April 12, 1991
\ua. /Iog
EXISTING PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
FOR THE PROTECTION AND MANAGEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
INTRODUCTION
The Authority's Environmentally Significant Areas (ESAs) Study was
conducted over a 4 year period in order to identify areas of
environmental significance and to suggest direction for their
recognition and management.
The study area comprised three distinct physical resource areas:
the Oak Ridges Moraine, the primary valley systems, and the Lake
Ontario waterfront.
Seven criteria were developed and applied. As a result, 126 ESAs
were identified. Approximately 40% occured in urban areas and 60%
in rural areas.
The 1982 ESA Study proposed, as a management strategy, that all
ESAs be protected to the extent possible and, where site specific
conditions and potential uses warrant, they be preserved.
Staff does not support development within ESAs; however, certain
activities (eg; trails) have been interpreted under certain
conditions to be compatible within an ESA. Any proposed use must
be evaluated against the unique features/functions of the
individual ESA.
To assist in the management and protection of ESAs, the Authority
has asked its member municipalities to recognize ESAs within Open
Space/Hazard Land or other environmental designation (such as
environmental protection) within planning documents as they are up-
dated.
CURRENT REVIEW PROCEDURES
The review of proposals on or adjacent to ESAs and staff's comments
on them is affected by a number of factors. These are:
1) Whether or not the ESA is owned by the Authority and whether
or not the Authority owns the entire ESA or just a portion of
it.
2) If the ESA is wholly or partly owned by the Authority, whether
or not it is also managed by the Authority.
3) Whether or not the ESA falls within an area already regulated
by the Authority.
4) How the ESA has been designated within the municipal planning
documents.
I
w~ ,{cC\
If the ESA is owned and managed by the Authority it can be
protected from direct dist~rbance. In many cases, however, the
Authority only owns a portion of the ESA or the responsibility for
management lies with another agency. No specific management plans
are in place for these ESAs except where they lie within areas that
have had forest management plans prepared (Conservation Areas,
Forestry and Wildlife Areas) .
If the ESA lies within the area regulated by the Authority, review
comments can be made in conjunction with the permitting process
For ESAs not owned by the Authority, the chief avenue for comment
I ies in the Authority I s role as a commenting agency under the
Planning Act. At the level of official plans, secondary plans, and
master drainage plans the objective is to ensure that the ESAs are
recognized and the boundaries are delineated. The inclusion of
appropriate environmental policies for ESA protection in these
documents is also encouraged.
It should be noted that designations such as open space or
environmental protection can encompass or allow uses that may not
be compatible with certain ESAs. For example, such designations
could include recreational uses such as golf courses that could
severely impact an ESA.
During the review of draft plans, site plans, etc. staff endeavour
to keep development out of the ESA. When it is noted that an ESA
is on or adjacent to the site under review, staff evaluate the
potential for impact. Usually, the evaluation is made using the
original data collected during the 1982 study.
In addition, the proponent may be asked to provide information
relating to the potential off-site impacts of the proposal that may
affect the ESA.
The unique characteristics of each ESA requires that an individual
approach must be used when evaluating impacts.
The general factors that are considered are:
o the natural function of the ESA and the potential
consequences of changes in that function;
o the possibility of fragmentation, reduction, or
loss of the ESA;
o susceptibility or vulnerability of the ESA to
direct, indirect, on-site and off-site impacts;
o susceptibility or vulnerability of the ESA to short
term (only during construction) verses long term
(ongoing) i~pacts;
I
WR )70
o the degree which the site may have changed/evolved
since the original inventory; and
o whether or not the ESA could be considered under
the Authority's acquisition program.
If a proponent is requested to prepare reports or undertake special
studies related to their proposal, the terms of reference for these
are developed based on the unique characteristics of the ESA in
question.
In order to effectively evaluate the potential impacts of a
proposal on or adj acent to an ESA there has to be a sound
understanding of the resource to be protected. The base line or
"existing conditions" information that is necessary to facilitate
the evaluation is outlined below. It should be noted that some of
this information is already available and, in some cases, the
original data from the 1982 study is used.
ESA BASELINE INFORMATION
Physical Features (general)
o all natural physical features on or near the ESA
such as valleys, ravines, lakes, watercourses,
springs, wetlands, etc.
o man-made features such as roads, utility corridors,
trails, etc.
o soils by texture and drainage characteristics.
o regulated areas under fill and flood regulations
These features should be described and mapped at a scale of 1.2000
which is the scale of the 1982 ESA study maps.
ESA Features (specific)
o Site inventory that delineates the areal extent of
the ESA including:
- Vegetation Community Inventory
overstorey and understorey including some
judgement on community status and health
,
wR \1 \
- Habita~ Evaluation
evaluation of habitat provided by the
communities (terrestrial, riparian)
evaluation of aquatic habitat
(these evaluations may require specific
inventories of fish, birds, and other
wildlife).
0 Confirmatio~/documentation of significant features
as identified in the 1982 ESA study. For example,
rare plants and animals, high quality, exceptional
diversity, etc.
There may be additional information required for ESAs specific to
certain criteria. For example:
- Hydrogeologic Evaluation (for those ESAs
fulfilling criteria 2(a))
description of the groundwater flow
system
description of the groundwater quality
description of groundwater quantity
(contribution to baseflow, current and
potential groundwater use).
- Gathering of information on a larger area
outside the ESA if it has been described as an
important corridor or linkage.
with solid understanding of the resource features an evaluation of
potential impacts can be undertaken. This is usually done in the
following format:
0 An assessment of the potential impacts of the proposal on
the features described initially.
0 Mitigative techniques that will be employed to reduce the
impacts.
0 Evaluation of residual impacts after mitigation.
CONCLUSIONS
To date, the Authority has had some success in protecting ESAs,
however decisions relating to their protection are based on the
original inventory data that may no longer be pertinent.
I
wR \72-
The support of Municipalities in designating ESAs in appropriate
environmental protection zones is essential to ensure that ESAs are
protected. Having these environmental zones delineated and
supported with environmental policies in the broad planning
documents provides support to staff when reviewing development
proposals.
I
-
GJA 11 '?J
CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS RELATED TO ESAS
1982 - The MTRCA approved the Environmentally Significant Areas
(ESA) Study.
1987 - Staff was requested to review the ESA study and prepare
a report on the status of the ESA within the jurisdiction
of the member municipalities.
1987 - A questionnaire was sent to member municipalities to
determine if and how ESAs were incorporated into their
Official Plans.
The majority of municipalities indicated they believed
that existing hazard land/open space designations
provided adequate protection for ESAs identified in
planning documents.
1988 - Staff was directed to request local and regional
municipalities to recognize ESA within open space/hazard
lands or other environmental designation within any
future planning documents.
1988 - Staff surveyed municipalities to determine what action
had been taken with respect to ESA information. (This
was reported to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board #4/88 and is attached again for
information) .
1990 - Staff was directed to prepare a report outlining existing
procedures and guidelines related to the protection and
management of ESA.
I
K
- ,
.
QL
.3 ESA IJlJE..::i [UtitlHI ~:E
. .~~.~..~.~~~~.~.+'t..~~.*.~~~.~~~.~...~ft~..*t~,~~~.+~.+.~~~~.~~*.~J.'....~..~++..~+.4....~'~~+....+.~~**.'..*..*.4....~..~....4.~....+~........~~4~
. .
,
tlllm I T PAL! f',' : r:C::pnt-t~,E I ttrraRPop.AfEO HRHAljEHEtlT ESR ESA
. F:EI~EIVEn . I tHO lIFFI CI nL PLAN BflUN(lAR'r' f1l-ltIH:SHI F'
. ('''./ln PLANS P~:EPAREO CHAI~I3E 0 CHAI1GE
. , . , ..,.~~~~~~~~~~Y~~f'+~~S~y~~,~~~~.~~y'~~~~..+.~4~~~~~~YY4~..Yf~.~~4Y'~.Y~.+Y~'Y~Y~~.~~~~Y~'+~.~Yf~~~.~~+~~+~~~.~~~~~~~..~.~Y~.~Y.~.~'~~~4~~~+~.~._..~~~.~~~
. :
7 . .
'I I, L l.Itl (IF OUF:HAH . 'r'ES ,HUT IHLORPORATED ItlrO 0 P. HO tlO . tlO
. , . ,
. :COULO BE REQUESTED : , 0
, 0
r rn.lli IJr F'I CI.'EP.I NG , 'r'ES :URBAN ESA-NAJOR OPEN SPACE , NO . tW , NO
. . .
. P.URAL E.SA- . . -
. , . .
JlI~H uF RJAX , NO . . , .
. . , , .
, . , . ,
. , 0 ,
) rl~tl IIF 1J:-:eF:IIJGE . YES :EITHEP HAZARD LANDS OR , NO , NO 0 NO
, . ,
. : EINI RnllHEIlfAL PP.OTECTI nil znHE , .
. , , ,
<.+'~~~~~~~+.Y~~~~Y~~.)Y~~~~y'~~y'~~~Y~~~:~Y~~"~.Y~~+.~~~.~~~~~~,~~....~.~,.~~~~~~.'1.~~.~~~~~~~~~.~..~~~.~~~4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~.~~~~~.~.
. . . 0
.. , , . ,
'F.G r m~ OF' 'r'tJRf!, . tlO . , , .
. . . ,
. . . . .
. . , . ,
; f1l-1tl IIF H~IP.~:HAH . NO . , : .
. . 0 ,
. , , , .
, . . . .
I rrl-ltl OF I-lHIfC.IlUP.tH-SroUFfI,'l LLE: NO . , .
, . .
, "\ , : .
. . ,
r rr~ll IJF P.I LHHONO HI LL . YES .TOI-lN I-lILL ATTEHPT TO INCLUDE IN 'r'ES-PIOllEEP PARK ~ ,\'ES-ESA GO. '3011'31 : 'r'ES-ESA 71
,
. :SECDllOAR~ PLAtI UllOER npEN SPACE ESA 71(I-lEBSTEP PARK) :URBAtl OEVELOPHEHT . OHtlED B'" Tmm
,
'Cll-ltl IIF l'fllIGHflN , ','IOS : ORAl HRbE rm BUTftP,',', I)ALLE\'LAHO, OA\I' , tlO , NO . HO
, . .
, :RIDGES NORAIHE npA'S , .
, .
n Il-ltlqlI P OF ~:Itlli . NO , , . ,
, , . ,
. , , :
. , .
'~.~Y'~~~E'~~4~Y~+fYY~~~.~~~~'.~~~~')~Y~.~~~'~~~~~~~~Y'~~~+~.~~.~~Y,Y4Y~..~~.~.Y..~~Y~~).~~Y~..~Y~~~.~~~Y~Y~..~~~~~~.~~~~~~~Y~~Y~~~Y.Y~...y'~~~y,~~y~~~.y.~y,
, . . . .
. . . , .
t..' tOil UF PEEL . tlO . .
. 0 0
. . , ,
. 0 .
, I r',' OF HI s'SI 55flUGA . tlO . . ,
. , .
. . .
. , . ,
I I I 'r' OF 8P.flHF'TOH . 'r'ES : HEARr LflKE ::;.PECIAL A~:EA HO . NO NO
. ,
. . ,
. , .
rlll-ltl OF C~llE(lI)N . tlO . .
, , , .
. . , .
. , ,
'+'f.~..yy~,~~~y.~v.~~'~~~'~.~~'1~'~~~):Y~y.y~.~~,).~~y~~Yy'.~.Y~Y~14,~~~.,'Y.~~~~~:I~,~~~~~y~~~y~,~~.y.~y'~~~~'.~.~~Y.1~1Y.Y..~Y~"Y~~~y.~y~~~.~~,~y"y'~~~~~y'~~y'y'y'~Y'
. . , : ,
. , . ,
'1ErPOPOLI rAN TOROlno . llO . . .
. . , . .
, , . : :
, , ,
I I Pr' IJF SCA'S::E10ROUGH . 'r'ES : F'RI HA~:I L'r' HAI)E OPEH SPACE OE51 GHAT! ON HO . 110 . NO
. 0 . .
. . EIWI ROlIHEtUAL I HPACf zOt~E . : ,
. 0 ,
I1IJROUGH OF EAST ','OR~: . YES : HAI.JE NOT ElEEN I NCORPCiRATEO 0 NO : 110 :YES DON VALLEY
. ,
. , ElRJ CK','ARO
. .
I Iry lIF HORrH YORK . ~'ES ' OES1 GHAT EO I)ALLE\' OPEN SPACE (1,'05"1 :YES-ESfl €.7 , 1m , NO
, , .
, . I.JI LL E1E REZQtlEO GREEHBEL r ZOtlE o tlATURALI ZATOti PROGRAH : .
, .
I I T'r' OF ir'ORK , YES :PlIBLIC OPEH SPACE . tW . tlO : NO
, , .
. 0 , .
, . , .
, I f'rO nF TOP-ONTI) . NO , . , :
,
, . 0 . ,
. , .
I f'r' OF ETOBICOKE , 'r'ES ' NOSTL \' OPEN SPAtE. HFt\'BE COtlSIOERED FOR . NO ,HIHOR FILLIHG I :ESA 10 rRAtlSFE~:RED
,
, :IllCLUSIOtl OF SPECIFIC REFEREllCE TO 01' REI,'IEJ./ . fREE CIJTrItlG ESA '3 :TO HfReA FRaN CITY
. , .~~f~~~~~~~~'~~~~~~~,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~y~~~~~~~y~~~~~~~~yy'~~~~~~~~~~~~.~~~~~~.~,y~~~~~~~y~,,~~~~,,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~y.~~~~~~,~~~~~~~y.~~y.~7.~~~~~~~~~~y.Y~~~~~~~~~~1.~~
. . , . ,
, . . .
rQI-IHSHIP OF ADJALfl . tlO , . , ,
, . ,
,
wR 175
MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT
1992-1996
nil METAOI'OLITAN TORONTO AND REGION COHURVATlON AUTHORITY
- ~-_...
-
March 1991
~ r d" "Ih "I
, the metropo Itan toronto an regIon conservatIon au on y
5 shoreham drive, downsview, ontario. m3n 1s4 (416) 661-6600
wR 176
MISSION STATEMENT
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
is a provinciaVmunicipal partnership established in 1957, under the
Conservation Authorities Act, to manage the renewable natural
resources of the region's watersheds.
Metro Region Conservation, with one-third of Ontario's population
within its area of jurisdiction, acts in the community's interest through
advocating and implementing watershed management programs
that
. maintain and improve the quality of the region's lands and waters,
. contribute to public safety from flooding and erosion;
-
. provide for the acquisition of conservation and hazard lands. and
. enhance the quality and variety of life In the comrrunity by using
its lards for inter-regional outdoor recreation, heritage preservation,
and conservation education.
Metro Region Conservation shall seek to fulfil Its mission and serve
the needs of its constituency in accordance with the highest stan-
dards of ethics and integrity
OUR PARTNERS
(@ The Conservation Authorities Act, passed In 1946, provided the Y1.=
urh
means by which the Province of Ontane and the municipalities on
4yJ wg ?J Ontario watersheds could join together as a conservation authority (i)
@ to undertake programs for natural resource management.
Since 1957, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Ontario Authority has undertaken a comprehellSNe program of resource <"hIP of "'"
. management on the watersheds under its JUrisdiction. ",o~ ! 0.0
The Authority has had strong support from the Province of Ontario
llU'lWoM and the member rTlJnicipalities - The MunICipality of Metropolitan
, Toronto, the Regional Municipalities of Durham, Peel and York, and ~ The_aI
the Townships of Adjala and Mono. along with the School Boards of c---
aI 0.-
the region, in the achievement of common conservation objectives.
-..-
Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspsce
.
wR \11 WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE
Since 1957, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has
been responsible for developing and irTl>lementing a program tor renewable resource
management. A comprehensive statement of this program was adopted by the Authof'iy
in its 1980 Watershed Plan, and updated in 1986. At that time, the Authority recognized
that its trad'ltional preventative and remecrl3l programs were not keeping pace wih the
pressure of development across its watersheds and that urger-. action was required to
ensure the Mure environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area. The Greenspace
Strategy (1988189) was proposed as the Authoriy's conservation vision for the future of
the GTA.
In 1990, Watershed, the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Future of
Toronto's Waterfront and Space for AU. a report to the Province identifying options for a
Greenlands Strategy for the Greater Toronto Area, made recommendations to conserve
and enhance the natural resources of the Greater Toronto Area.
The Greenspace Strategy, Watershed. and Space for An are consistent intheir proposals
for an ecosystem approach to planning the Mure of the Greater Toronto Area;
recognition of the Oak Ridges Moraine and The Niagara Escarpment, river valleys and
the Lake Ontario Waterfront as the principal physical resources of the GT A, reconvnen-
dations for ensuring an interconnected physical resource system, with access and use
for inter-regional trails, and the need for co~ative partners~ to in1>lemert long-
tenn greenspace conservation.
Since 1957, Authority programs have pursued ob;ectives which have provided the basis
of an inter-regional greenspace system and conserved and enhanced the renewable r.
sources of the GT A. Capital projects for the regeneration of vaDeys and the Lake Ontario
waterfront have enabled the Authority to achieve Is greenspace objectives and make a
positive contn'bution to the quality of life across the GT A-
The continuation of these proiects. at an accelerated rate, is essential to achieve the
~trategies proposed by the Authority, Watershed and Space for Alto balance the pres.
sures for development in the GT A-
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority seeks the support
of lts partners to continue "Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace."
WR 11g
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO
WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE
1 ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 1
2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 2
3 DESIGN PRINCIPLES 3
4 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 4
5 BACKGROUND AND ACHIEVEMENTS 13
6. FUNDING 18
7 APPROVALS REQUIRED 19
wh 11~
1
1. ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The, "Municipality of MetropolItan Toronto, Valley and Shoreline RegeneratIOn Project,
1992-1996" represents only one project and one part of two larger Authonty Imnanves. The
Erosion and Sediment Control and the ShorelIne Management Programs, WhICh are
components of The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authonty 1980
Watershed Plan, set the context of this Project.
The Erosion and Sediment Control and the Lake Ontario Shorelme Programs achieve theIr
eroSIOn control goals through both prevention and protection programming The preventIon
part of the programs IS mtended to ensure that new development will be safe from erosion
hazards through the application of appropriate development controls and that the receIvmg
waters are protected through the implementatIOn of storm water management. The
prevention programs are carried out through pamcipanon in the municIpal plan input and
reVIew process and through the admmIstratIon of the Authonty's regulanon (Ontano
Regulation 293/86)
The RegeneratIon Projects are the parts of the EroSIon and SedIment Control and the Lake
Ontano ShorelIne Management Programs which address eXIstmg problems. Where homes or
pnvate property are at nsk from eroSIOn (publIc safety) or where the natural valley and
shorelme features, and associated aquanc and terrestnal resources, are bemg undermmed
from erosion (conservation of land), remedial works are proposed In both cases the deSIgn
of erosion control works required to correct the existing problem not only reflects the
protection issue but also will serve to Improve or enhance the degraded eXIstmg condition
through the creation of aquatic and terrestrial habItats.
The, " MumcIpalIty of MetropolItan Toronto, Valley and Shorelme RegeneratIOn Project",
together with the three other Regeneration Projects in our Regional Municipalities, and the
preventanve programming, provide a comprehensive erosion control program for the water
basins and shorelines WIthin the MTRCA's jurisdiction. As the Regeneranon Projects are
only one part of the Erosion and Sediment Control Programs and the Shorelme Management
Program, they in turn are part of the larger 1980 Watershed Plan
The Plan comprises ten (10) programs which have been structured as groups of resource
management activities serving a common goal, but each can be implemented separately No
smgle program by itself is whole. Each is complementary to the others. Nor is the Plan
itself whole. It must be considered as contributing to a resource management package m
WhICh many publIc jurisdictions have a part. These programs when combmed reflect a
comprehensive approach to the management of the three major natural resources defined by
the Authonty as the Oak Ridges Moraine, the River Valleys and the Lake Ontano Shorelme
The Plan IS complementary to the planmng and management responsibIlItIes of mumcIpalItIeS
and several provinCIal ministries.
wR ,go
2
2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL
The purpose of this project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority to exercise the powers afforded by The Conservation Authorities Act, R.S 0
1970, Chap 78, as amended The Authonty may establish and undertake, ill the area over
which it has jurisdIction, a program designed to further the conservation, restoration,
development and management of natural resources. ThIS Project IS in accordance with that
portion of the ErOSIon Control and the Lake Ontano ShorelIne Programs of the Watershed
Plan which addresses protection of existing problems through a valley and shoreline remedIal
erOSIon control works program The project covers a 5-year period, from 1992 to 1996
The goal of the Authonty through this Project IS to
"minimize the hazards to life and property that result from eroSIOn of nver
banks, valley walls and shorelines, and to protect and enhance the natural
attributes of the valley and lakefront settings"
within the Municipality of MetropolItan Toronto .
OBJECTIVES .
To achieve Its goal, the Authonty has defined the follOWing objectives.
(1) To implement a program of erosion control works on a priority basis to protect publIc
and private lands where public safety and property are endangered by erosion.
(2) To implement a program of erosion control works on public and private lands to
protect the natural valleys and shoreline features and associated aquatic and terrestnal
habitats adversely affected by the eroSIon
(3) To ,design remedial works, on a deSIgn block baSIS, as part of an ecosystem approach
for the entire watercourse or shorelIne which will, lmut erosion, enable public access
adjacent to the water's edge wherever feasible, be condUCIve to maintenance, and
enhance aquatic and terrestrial resources.
(4) To acquire those properties where the erosion hazard is severe and where the cost of
remedial works is excessive in comparison to the value of the property
wR I~ \
3
(5) To secure tItle to the lands where erosIOn control measures are to be constructed and
where the lands are valuable addItions to the greenspace systems.
(6) To protect and enhance the natural valley and shoreline features and aSSOCIated
terrestrial and aquatic habitats
(7) To comply WIth the requirements of the EnVIronmental Assessment Act and any other
envlfonmental protection legislation.
(8) To investigate and secure addItional funding from other levels of government for
selected erosion control actIVItIes.
(9) To provIde valley and shorel1Oe regeneration servIceS on private or public lands where
the owners or agencies are willing to pay the entire cost.
(10) To implement an effectiveness monitoring program.
(11) To construct or upgrade storm water management facilitIes 10 areas developed pnor to
the Implementation of our storm water management program or where the opportumty
exists to make eXlst10g storm water management faclllties more effectIve 10
reducing/preventing erosion and/or improv1Og water quality
~)f\ Ig2
4
3. DESIGN PRINCIPLES
The policies and operational cntena of the Authority governing erosion control remedial
works are as follows.
(a) Remedial works will be carried out in two general areas. Watercourses which
generally drain in excess of 1300 hectares will be considered as will the Lake Ontario
shorelme, excluding the north shore of the inner harbour between Ontario Place and
Leslie Street.
(b) For the purposes of eroSIOn protection works, deSIgn blocks shall be established and
works undertaken on a design block basis. DeSIgn blocks shall be of a size to be
environmentally responsible, technically and economically feasible.
(c) Erosion protection for public safety will be installed on a techmcal pnority baSIS
related to the safety of property and structures within the hmitations of fundmg,
approvals, construction access and property acqUIsition Prionties shall be based on
technical criteria including, but not necessarily limited to, the following'
- distance from top of bank to structure,
- rate of slope retreat;
- extent of ground water seepage;
- height and steepness of slope,
- evidence of preVIOUS movement;
- condition of toe or slope,
- existing habItat resources,
(d) Priorities for protection will be reviewed and approved by the Authority on an annual
basis.
(e) Where erosion protection works are proposed on private land, the Authonty shall
require title to the land or an easement where applicable and/or require a suitable
financial contribution from the benefiting owner(s)
(t) Erosion protection works will be analyzed on the basis of fmancIal and environmental
cost/benefit, and acquisition will be conSIdered as a viable alternative to remedIal
works, where the proposed works exceed the value of the property
\~ (3~
5
(g) Design criteria for erosion protection works on the designated watercourses are
dependent upon the nature of each specific problem Generally, two types of
problems eXiSt. The first and less common type, involves a bank or valley wall
rnstabihty in which slumping or major rotational faIlure is involved due to inherent
soil conditions or overloading of the slope. The more common type of problem
involves the river in coincidence with the valley wall. Wherever possible, erosion
control work shall be deSIgned to
- accommodate the 100 year flood for the "corncident case"
- accommodate the low flow channel in all other cases as a minimum
- permit channel overtopping with mrnimal danger to the remedial work
- decrease the velocity of the stream by flattemng the hydrauhc gradIent and
minimizing the flow energy - by incorporatrng meanders and natural channel
design
- enhance aquatlc habitat by Incorporatlng natural channel deSIgn such as pools
and nffles features, deep channels and overhangs on outsIde bends
- enhance terrestrial habitat through the plantlng of riparian vegetation (10 m
from river edge) and through the Introductlon of native plants and trees on the
valley slopes and other floodplain lands.
(h) The major emphasis in shoreline erosion SItes will be to control eroSIOn due to wave
action and will be designed In conSIderation of'
- maximum expected lake levels
- peak storm conditions
- aquatic and terrestrial habItat enhancement
Consideration will be given to slope stabilization techmques to be combined with toe
protection in areas where additional protectlon is required to retaln slope angles at
steeper than natural angles.
(i) EXIsting waterfront public lands provIde valuable recreational and greenspace
opportumties and, in many cases, serve as buffer zones between the shoreline and
pnvate lands. Therefore, the balance between funding allocated for protection of
public and private lands IS an important relatlonship which should be approved
annually by the Authority
L~JR '6 L}
6
(j) The Authonty will assist in developing technology and distributIng information wluch
wIll aid property owners in limiting the erosion of the slope after the toe protectIOn is
installed.
(k) In the desIgn of all protection works, the Authonty shall be cognizant of the natural
features, and resources and will use the opportunity to enhance the aquatic and
terrestnal habitats.
(1) Works shall be carried out in accordance with the requirements of the Envlfonmental
Assessment Act and addressed in the "Class Environmental Assessment for Water
Control Structures".
vJ~ \~S 7
4. LOCATION AND DESCRIYfION
LOCATION
This project addresses itself to
(a) those watercourses within the MUnICIpahty of Metropohtan Toronto which generally
drain in excess of 1300 hectares,
(b) those shoreline areas contaIned wIthIn the MUniCipality of Metropohtan Toronto
excluding the north shore of the Inner harbour between Ontano Place and LeslIe
Street;
(c) where it will be the policy of the Authonty to carry out eroSIOn control works.
On watercourses draIning less than 1300 hectares the provIsion of such works will be the
responsibility of the municipality ExceptIons to thIS may occur where It is determined by
the Authonty and the municipality that specIfic watercourses, or sections thereof, due to therr
physical characteristics, warrant inclUSIon WIthm the Authonty's responsibIlities. Figure 1
Indicates the location of those watercourses generaJly drainIng In excess of BOO hectares
where the Authority will be involved in erosion control works under thIS project. FollOWIng
is a lIst of watercourses or portions thereof which are generally In excess of 1300 hectares.
Etobicoke Creek - (east bank)
MimIco Creek
Humber River - Main Branch
- West Branch
- Black Creek
- Emery Creek
Don River - Mam Branch
- West Branch
- East Branch
- Wilket Creek
- Newtonbrook Creek
- Rosedale Ravine
- Massey Creek
- German Mills Creek
- Dufferin Creek
-.9
cO
.
e:C
:3
I . . . DESIGNATED WATERCOURSES
GENERALLY 1300 HECTARES OR GREATER
AND SHORELINE AREAS
~ the metropolitan toronto and region MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
V ALLEY AN) SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 1
conservation authority 1992 -1996
w~ 137
8
Highland Creek - MalO Branch
- East Branch
- West Branch
- Malvern Creek
- Centenmal Creek
Rouge River - Main Branch
- Little Rouge
- Morningside Tributary
ErOSIOn control works wIll contmue to be carried out along the MetropolItan Toronto
shoreline from the mouth of Etobicoke Creek, east to the mouth of the Rouge River WIth the
exclusion of the north shore of the lOner harbour between Ontario Place and LeslIe Street
(See Figure 1)
Recently there have been significant changes along the City of Etobicoke shoreline
particularly adjacent to Humber Bay Park. Developments along this section of shoreline
have provided the Authonty with more greenspace and waterfront access along the shorelIne
The developments incorporated protectIon along this section of shorelme. Most of the
remainder of the property along the City of Etobicoke's shoreline IS pnvately owned. The
extent of the protection that the landowners have proVIded, combmed WIth the natural
characteristics of the shorelIne have led to a relatIvely stable sectIon of shoreline Few
senous hazards eXIst along the City of EtobIcoke's waterfront, and the Authonty's role has
primanly centred on the protection of publIcly owned land, such as small parks and
waterfront pathways. This role is expected to contmue WIth the next 5-year project. The
privately owned lands will continue to be elIgible for shoreline protectIon prOVIded that the
operational criteria established in the program can be met.
In the City of Toronto, the outer shoreline of Toronto Island WIll contmue to be monitored
and works proposed when the need arises. The project would include a coastal engineenng
study which will review alternatIve options for protectIon such as offshore breakwaters,
beach/T -groyne or hardpoint schemes. Erosion areas along the Eastern Beaches sectIon of
shoreline in the City of Toronto have been Identified in an engineering report. The report
also identified a future decrease in the ~iment supply along the eastern beaches where an
ongoing momtoring program of shoreline erosion/accretIon was recommended
As 10 the past, most of the shoreline works contInue to be located along the Scarborough
Bluffs in the City of Scarborough. This will continue with works already in progress along
Kingsbury Crescent, Fishleigh Drive and Guildwood Parkway (See Figure 6)
wR lEg
9
DESCRIPTION
In VIew of the number of sites requmng erOSIOn control protection works throughout the
MumcIpahty of Metropolitan Toronto, and in order to falrly assess which sites should be
considered for work in any given year, the Authonty carnes out its remedial works program
on a techmcal priority basis. Therefore the sites which appear on the erosIOn inventory list
and whIch are deemed to be the most hazardous are considered for remedial works first.
The Authority currently main tams information on active erosion sites on those watercourses
10 Metropolitan Toronto draining generally in excess of 1300 hectares and along the
designated shorelme areas. From this information, the Authority has formulated a "Pool of
Erosion Priority Sites" (see Table 1) for the purpose of developing its remedial works
program
In preparing for the erosion protection work program, contmued momtonng and updating of
the data base is important 10 order to keep abreast of changmg site conditions. Because
erosion is dynamic, priorities can change from year to year and sometimes even after a
smgle storm. The process of reviewing and updating priorities must be contmued not only to
make the system eqUitable but also to adjust annual funding requirements.
In evaluating and assigmng priontIes for erosion control works, three major factors are
considered potential effect to structures, valley wall/ shoreline conditions, river and/or
wave action. The potential effect on structures is deemed the most important and
accordingly given more weight than the physical and geological conditIOns associated WIth
the other two factors. Determining the potential effect on structures mvolves a number of
parameters including the rate of erosion, distance to structures and the number, size and type
of structure(s) affected. Valley wall or shoreline conditions considered include; the height,
slope angle, vegetative cover, ground water characteristics and the soil type and compositIOn
RIver or wave action, as a factor, considers the present nver/lakeshore alignment as well as
the potential cutting action
Erosion control protection works will also be considered for those areas where significant
amounts of natural valley or shorelme and associated habitat resources are bemg lost and
where no structures are 10 Immediate danger on both pubhc and pnvate lands. Through this
component of the project the Authonty can maintain the natural valley and shoreline features.
By providing protection to valuable green space , parklands, and ESA's on a 'stitch in time'
basis, a softer, less expensive approach can be used
The nature of the remedial works at specific sites along the deSignated watercourses will
depend on the degree of protection needed for the structure or feature. Therefore, the work
could vary from armouring of the riverbank at the toe of the slope to major slope
rehabilitation, or a portion thereof. Along the waterfront, shorelme remedial measures are
required to protect homes and to reduce the rate at which valuable shorelme property IS lost.
L0~ \1> ~
10
TABLE I
POOL OF V ALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERA nON SITES
IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO ...
LOCATION WATERSHED LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
Lakehurst Lake Ontario Scarborough
Crescentwood Lake Ontario Scarborough
Kingsbury Crescent Lake Ontario Scarborough
Fishleigh Orive Lake Ontario Scarborough
Guildwood Parkway Lake Ontario Scarborough
Sylvan Avenue Phase II Lake Ontario Scarborough
Guild Inn Lake Ontario Scarborough
Sunnypoint Ravine Lake Ontario Scarborough
Springbank Avenue Lake Ontario Scarborough
Meadowcliffe Drive Lake Ontario Scarborough
Greyabbey Trail Lake Ontario Scarborough
East Pomt Lak~ Ontano Scarborough
Chesterton Shores Lake Ontano Scarborough
Eastern Beaches Lake Ontano Toronto
Toronto Islands Lake Ontario Toronto
Burgundy Court Humber River North York
90-92 Carmel Court East Don River North York
3030-3068 Weston Road Humber River North York
180-188 Parkview Hill Crescent Don River North York
1220 Access Rd. at Sheppard Av E East Don River North York
31-33 Cherryhill Avenue Centenmal Creek Scarborough
8 Alder Road Massey Creek East York
42-44 Royal Rouge Trail Rouge Scarborough
Burnhamthorpe Road at
Mattice Road (south of
Islington Golf Club) Mimico Creek Etoblcoke
91 Forest Grove Drive Don River North York
Humber Valley Yacht Club Humber River Etobicoke
93-113 Weir Crescent Highland Creek Scarborough
221 Martin Grove Road Mimico Creek Etobicoke
14-21 Stanwood Crescent Humber River North York
Sewell's Road at Finch Rouge River Scarborough
Serena Gundy Parle Don River North York
Eccleston Drive Don River North York
Celeste Drive Highland Creek Scarborough
3967 Lawrence Avenue Highland Creek Scarborough
18-20 Skipton Court Humber River North York
Fernwood Gardens Don River East York
8-12 Leland Avenue Mimico Creek Etobicoke
Gwendolen Park Tennis Crts. Don River North York
4173 Dundas Street Humber River Etobicoke
wR \~D
11
TABLE I
POOL OF V ALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION SITES
IN METROPOLITAN TORONTO ...
(page 2)
LOCATION WATERSHED LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
West Mall Crescent Etobicoke Creek Etobicoke
Verobeach Boulevard Humber River North York
86-88 Holmcrest Trail Highland Creek Scarborough
Opposite 232 Martin Grove Mimico Creek Etobicoke
Eccleston Drive (CNR) Don RIver North York
539 Rouge Hills Drive Rouge River Scarborough
Galaxy Boulevard Mimico Creek Etobicoke
Queensway Hospital Etobicoke Creek Etoblcoke
... Subject to annual review
-.,.,
~ \ql
uJ 12
Armoured revetments, groynes and beaches have been used to provide protection from the
effects of lake action. Where further remedIal actIOn IS reqUired, slope stabIlIzation
measures would be carried out in the form of buttressing from the base, top filhng WIth
select material, or other engmeenng works.
In all cases, the design of erosion control works WIll provide protection to the required level
and technIcal criteria and where appropnate Improve or enhance the aquatic and terrestnal
habItats, through natural channel and shorelme deSIgns. In the case of nvers, the natural
pool/riffle systems will either be mamtained or created. The deep channels WhICh often
occur on the outside bend will be simulated and by creative positioning of the stone
protection shadmg and opportumtIes for riparian plantIngs WIll be provided Offshore fish
habitat will be created along with the shoreline protection Riparian and slope plantmgs WIll
generally conSIst of native plant matenal.
Examples of tYPICal erosion problems and solutions are shown m Figure 2, 3, 4 and 5
These figures also serve to graphically illustrate some of the precedmg cntena.
Many areas within the municipality were developed pnor to the ImplementatIOn of The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority's preventative storm water
management program. As a result, many reaches of the watercourses are subject to
increased channel erosion associated WIth urbanization. Where it can be demonstrated that
retrofitting storm water management would reduce channel erosion and where the opportumty
exists, The Metropolitan Toronto and RegIon Conservation Authonty will consider
constructing the appropriate facility Also, recent hterature and research indicate that the
tradItional approach to storm water management for erosion control could be made more
effective through overcontrol. Therefore, if an opportumty eXIsts, we may upgrade the outlet
structure of existing facilities to Improve theIr erosion reduction effiCIency
The Authority will develop a yearly program of erosion control works utilizing the "Pool of
Erosion Priority Sites", conservation of land sites, and storm water management sites to the
limits of the approved annual funding allocation and m accordance WIth the criteria
developed for such work. Specific sites will be reVIewed on an annual basis. To permIt
changes in priorities, work will not be projected beyond a one-year period In any year,
protection will be provided to those SItes in hIghest pnority, to the hmIt of the $1 5 milhon
Identified as the annual funding reqUired wIthm the MuniCIpalIty of Metropolitan Toronto
rJ
c-
c:c
.3
TILTING TREES
AFFECTED AND ENDANGERED
STRUCTURE
PERCHED WATERTABLE
SEEPAGE
. . .-
IMPERVIOUS SOIL
EXPOSED SLOPE
(Sheet Erosion)
TENSION CRACKS ~
\ ,L BARED SLOPE
(Rill and Gully Erosion)
c&. VALLEY REGENERATION PROJECT TYPICAL V ALLEY EROSION PROBLEM
(t:7 the metropolitan toronto and region
conservation authority 1992-1996 FIG. 2
Not to scale
WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
REVEGETATED SLOPE -
dli.
SAFE STRUCTURE
PERCHED WATERTABLE
IMPERVIOUS SOIL
10- YEAR FLOW
RELOCATED RIVER
~
C
-
d
3
~ the metropolitan toronto and region VALLEY REGENERATION PROJECT TYPICAL VALLEY EROSION SOLUTION
conservation authority 1992-1996 FIG. 3
Not to scale
~
<3"""
--
~
.:s
PLANTINGS I SHRUBS I WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
/
WATER LEVEL
PARTIALLY FILLED SLOPE
CONCRETE RUBBLE I CLEAN EARTH CORE
~ tho motropolhan toronto and region V ALLEY & SHORELINE TYACALREVE~ENT&
REGENERATION PROJECT SELF STABILIZATION SOLUTION FIG. 4
conservation authority 1992-1996 Not to scale
1 I PLAN VIEW
I I
-- -++- .
I I
I I ---- ----I I
II +--
c(~ II II
I , I I
~" II
~ I:
. ~/I
,< ~
~. .
.... ..:."
. .. .r:p ~
c(~ is ~ ~~
FISH HABITAT / ~"':''''
ARMOURED T -GROYNE \
NEW COBBLE BEACH SHORELINE
CROSS SECTION A-A
ARMOUR STONE
\
/ DESIGN W ER LEVEL
NEW COBBLE BEACH
_ FISH HABITAT
/
RIP RAP STONE CONCRETE RUBBLE OR QUARRY STONE
\f\
<S
-
~
~ the metropolitan toronto and region V ALLEY & SHORELINE TYPICAL BEACH I T -GROYNE SOLUTION
REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 5
conservation authority 1992-1996 Not to scale
lNR /qio
13
5. BACKGROUND AND ACIllEVEMENTS
Pnor to the approval of the Watershed Plan, the Authonty had been responsible for the
implementatIon of the Waterfront Plan for the MetropolItan Toronto region since 1970
Shoreline management measures were a component of that responsibIlIty and were addressed
in three Five Year Projects, 1972-1976, 1977-1981 and 1987-1991. Shoreline Management
works have been undertaken in the designated areas along the waterfront 1Ovolv1Og total
expenditures of approximately $7,810,000 to the end of 1991 These works are illustrated 10
Figure 6 and listed in Table II.
The Authority has also been responsible for the Implementation of a remedial erosion control
works program on the designated watercourses 10 MetropolItan Toronto since 1974 Erosion
control remedial works were initially carned out under the 5-year "W C 60 - Erosion
Control and Bank StabilizatIon Project in Metropolitan Toronto" and cont1Oued under the
"Interim Water and Related Land Management Project 1977-1981" and the more recent
"Erosion Control and Slope StabilizatIon Projects. 1982-1984, 1985-1986 and 1987-1991"
A total of 63 major and 53 minor erOSIOn SItes on the deSIgnated watercourses in
Metropolitan Toronto have been addressed to date. involVing a total expenditure of
approximately $7 3 milhon. These projects are summanzed 10 Table III.
w~ tq1
14
T ABLE II
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
Crescentwood Lake Ontario 1970-1986
Springbank . 1980-1984
Kingsbury . 1981-Present
Fallingbrook . 1983-1989
Lakehurst . 1983-1989
South Marine Drive . 1983-Present
Toronto Island - Gibraltar Point . 1984
Wynnview Court . 1986-1990
Sunnypoint Ravine . 1987-1988
Sylvan - Phase I . 1987-1990
FishIeigh . 1987-Present
Sylvan - Phase II . 1988-1990
Crescentwood Mamtenance . 1988-1990
GUlldwood Parkway . 1988-Present
Eastern Beaches . 1989
Greyabbey Trail . 1989
T otaI Expenditure $7,810, ()()()
~)R I~Z
15
TABLE III
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS
90 Forestgrove Drive East Don River 1974
20-30 Islay Court Humber River 1974
39-41 Storer Dove Humber River 1974-1975
99-103 Burbank Drive Newtonhrook Creek 1974-1975
Hi Mount Drive Newtonbrook Creek 1974-1975
8-10 King Maple Place Newtonbrook Creek 1974-1975
113 Burbank Drive Newtonbrook Creek 1975
14-22 Archway Crescent Humber River 1975
6 Wooden Heights Humber River 1975
45 Riverbank Drive and Vicinity Miffilco Creek 1975
32-38 Bonnyview Drive Mimico Creek 1975-1976
37-43 Lakeland Drive West Humber 1976
Yvonne Public School Black Creek 1976
30-56 Grovetree Road West Humber 1976
95-97 PortiCO Drive East Branch Highland Creek 1976
197-205 Sweeney Dove East Don River 1976
24 Stonegate Road Humber River 1976-1977
24-36 Westleigh Crescent Etobicoke Creek 1976-1977
158-168 & 190-212 Three Valleys Dr East Don River 1976-1977
6-14 SuIkara Court East Don River 1978
Don Valley Drive Don River 1978
50-58 Stanwood Crescent Humber River 1978-1979
Enfield/Sunset/JeIIicoe Vicinity Etobicoke Creek 1979
17-53 Riverview Heights Humber River 1979
10 Codeco Court - Phase I Don River 1980
35 Canyon Avenue Don River 1979
31-39 Rivercove Dove MiffilCO Creek 1980
25-31 AIamosa Drive Don River 1980
Don Valley Parkway & Lawrence Don River 1980
10-14 Bruce Farm Drive Don River 1980-1981
39-47 Presley Avenue Don River 1980-1981
Grenview Boulevard Mimico Creek 1981
Rainbow Creekway I Dev Newtonbrook Creek 1981
9 & 11 Sulkara Court Don River 1981
Denison Road Vicinity Humber River 1981
146-168 Humbervale Blvd. & Miffilco Creek 1982
835 Royal York Road
45-55 Wynford Heights Cres. Don River 1982-1983
12-30 Beaucourt Road Mimico Creek 1983
Delroy Drive & Bed Ave. Vie. Mimico Creek 1983
Raymore Dove Humber River 1984
Moorevale Park Don River 1984
1()()"104 Gwendolen Crescent Don River 1984
Fairglen & Weston Road Humber River 1985
Duncan Mills Road Don River 1985-1986
Riverside Crescent Humber River 1985-1986
w~ ,~~
16
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
Rainbow Creekway II Newtonbrook Creek 1986
(East Don River)
14 Neilson Drive Etoblcoke Creek 1986
Chipping Road Bridge East Don River 1986
6 Burnhamthorpe Crescent Mimico Creek 1986
Maple Creek Farms Highland Creek 1986
Warden Woods Park Massey Creek 1986
14 Forest Path Humber River 1987
P U C. Lands Highland Creek 1987
Scarborough College Highland Creek 1987
Lawrence A venue Bridge Highland Creek 1987
The Queensway + The West Mall Etobicoke Creek 1988
Highland Creek - Confluence Highland Creek 1988
10 Glenorchy Place West Don River 1988
Leslie Street & Steeles Ave. East Don River 1988
(German Mills Creek)
5201 Dufferin Street West Don River 1989
6-10 Saddletree East Don River 1990
(German Mills Creek)
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS
520 Markham Road Vicinity
(Cedarbrook Retirement Home) Highland Creek 1975
84-89 Greenbrook Drive Black Creek 1975
Kirkbradden Road Mimico Creek 1975
West Hill Collegiate Highland Creek 1975
Shoreham Court Black Creek 1975
27-31 Ladysbridge Drive West Branch Highland Creek 1975-1976
N W of 56 Grovetree Road West Humber River 1975-1976
37-43 Mayall Avenue Black Creek 1976
79 Clearview Heights Black Creek 1976
S. W of Shoreham Drive Bridge Black Creek 1976
Driftwood Court Black Creek 1976
75 Decarie Circle Mimico Creek 1976
4 Woodhaven Heights Humber River 1977
73 Van Dusen Boulevard Miffilco Creek 1977
Donalda Club (8th Fwy ) Don River 1978
Westleigh Crescent Vieinity Etoblcoke Creek 1978
Scarlett Woods Golf Club Humber River 1978
22-26 Dunning Crescent Etoblcoke Creek 1978
Kennedy Road Shoppmg Mall Don River 1978
Sheppard and Leslie Nursery Don River 1978
Leslie Street at Sheppard Don River 1978
Meadowvale Road Rouge River 1978
Zoo (Z-15) Rouge River 1978
Orchard Crescent Mimico Creek 1978
wR 200
17
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
Forest Valley Dam Camp Don River 1978
Beechgrove Drive Highland Creek 1979
RestwelI Crescent Don River 1979
Deanewood Crescent Vicinity Miffilco Creek 1979
Dawes Road - 2 Sites Don River 1979
Twyn River Bridge Rouge River 1979
Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1979
Beechgrove Dove - II Highland Creek 1980
Jason and Riverdale Humber River 1980
Warden & St. Clair - 2 sites Don River 1980
Zoo -II Rouge River 1980
Glendon College Don River 1980
Scarlett Road & Eglinton Humber River 1980
WiIket Creek Don River 1980
Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1980
Sunnybrook Park Don River 1981
Donalda Golf Club Don River 1981
Glendon College Don River 1981
Bonnyview Drive II Mimico Creek 1981
West Side of Markham Rd. (W Branch) Highland Creek 1981
AIderbrook Drive Don River 1981
West Dean Park (2 sites) Miffilco Creek 1982
Royal York Road Miffilco Creek 1982
Waulron Street Etobicoke Creek 1982
Colonel Danforth Park Highland Creek 1982
Upwood Greenbelt Vicinity Black Creek 1982
55 & 73 Vandusen Blvd. Mimico Creek 1986
Royal York Road II Mimico Creek 1986
14 Brian Cliff Drive Wilket Creek 1987
Summary
Major Works 63
Minor Works S3
Total Expenditure $7,300,000
lA-lh 101
18
6. FUNDING
The principle funding sources for this Project will be grants from the Province of Ontario
and levies from the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto In addition, where other revenues
are realized, the Authority may chose to allocate these funds to the Regeneration Project.
Provmcial and Municipal approvals of this Project WIll also apply to these additional
undertakings subject to the proposed measures conformmg to the poliCIes and descnptions
contained WIthin this ProJect.
The expendItures required to Implement this Project are based on the best mformatlon
currently available for works to be undertaken The costs stated shall be understood to
mclude, legal and survey fees, land acquisition, engineenng and other studies, site
supervision and all materials, labour, equipment, etc. associated with the constructIon.
The proposed allocatIOn of fundmg for these works on an annual baSIS for the Five Year
Project is as follows.
~
5 YEAR PROJECT
~ Amount
1992 $1,500,000
1993 $1,500,000
1994 $1,500,000
1995 $1,500,000
1996 $1.500.000
TOTAL $7.500.000
Financin~
The total cost of the Five Year Project is $7 5 mIllion and the yearly costs will be funded as
follows.
Total Annual Cost $1,500,000
MUnICIpaltty of
Metropolitan Toronto Share $ 675,000
Province of Ontario Share $ 825,000
The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto is designated as the benefiting municipality
wR 102
19
7. APPROVALS REQUIRED
(1) AUTHORITY
(2) THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
(3) THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
(4) THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
wR. 20'3
GREENSPACE
PROTECTION AND ACQUISITION PROJECT
,
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
.
.
.
,
.
.
- . I lA1I Extlllng AUlhortty lMId,
1991
. the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
5 shoreham drive, downsview. ontario. m3n 154 (416) 661-6600
lAIR . 204
MISSION STATEMENT
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
Is a provinciaVmun~1 partnership established in 1957, under the
Conservation Authorities Act, to manage the renewable natural
resources of the region's watersheds.
Metro Region Conservation, with one-third of Ontario's population
within its area of jurisdiction, acts in the community's interest through
advocating and implementing watershed management programs
that
. maintain and improve the quality of the region's lands and waters,
. contribute to public safety from flooding and erosion;
. provide for the acquisition of conservation and hazard lands; and
. enhance the quality and variety of Ufe in the community by using -
its lands for iller-regional outdoor recreation, herlage preservation,
and conservation education.
Metro Region Conservation shan seek to kJlfd its mission and serve -
the needs of its constituency in accordance with the highest stan-
dards of ethics and integrity
OUR PARTNERS
(ij' The Conservation Authorities AD., passed in 1946, provided the
means by which the Province of Ontario and the municipalities on nill
Ontario watersheds could join together as a conservation authority
~ .. 'J) to undertake programs for natural resource management. (I
CT) Since 1957, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority has undertaken a comprehensive program of resource
Ontario management on the watersheds under its jurisdiction.
I ..".,-" ., At.
The Authority has had strong support from the Province of Ontario ~. I '
- and the member municipalities - The Municiparlty of Metropolitan
, Toronto, the Regional Municipalities of Durham, Peel and York, and
the Townships of Adjala and Mono - along with the School Boards of ~ n._"
~-
the region, in the achievement of common conservation obiectives. --
-..-
.
-
ooR.l~ WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE
Since 1957, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has
been responsiJle tor developing and irT1>lementing a program for renewable resource
management. A comprehensive statement of this program was adopted by the Authority
in its 1980 Watershed Plan, and updated in 1986. At that time, the Authority recognized
that its traditional preventat:ve and remedial programs were not keeping pace with the
pressure of development across its watersheds and that urgent action was required to
ensure the future environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area. The Greenspace
Strategy (1988189) was proposed as the Authority's conservation vision for the future of
the GT A.
In 1990, Watershed, the interim report of the Royal Convnission on the Future of
Toronto's Waterfront and Space for All, a report to the Province identifying options for a
Greenlands Strategy tor the Greater Toronto Area, made recommendations to conserve
and enhance the natural resources of the Greater Toronto Area.
The Greenspace Strategy, Watershed, and Space for All are consistent in their proposals
for an ecosystem approach to planning the future of the Greater T aromo Area;
recognition of the Oak Ridges Moraine and The Niagara Escarpment, river valleys and
the Lake Ontario Waterfront as the principal physical resources of the GT A, recommen-
dations for ensuring an interconnected physical resource system, with access and use
for inter-regional trails; and the need for co~perative partnerships to implement long-
tenn greenspace conservation.
Since 1957, Authority programs have pursued objectives which have provided the basis
of an inter-regional greenspace system and conserved and enhanced the renewable
resources of the GTA. Capital projects for the acquisition of land have enabled the
Authority to achieve its greenspace objectives and make a positive contribution to the
quality of life across the GT A.
The continuation of this work is essential to achieve the strategies proposed by the
Authority, Watershed and Space for All to balance the pressures for development in
the GT A.
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority seekl the support
of It I partners to continue "Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace."
wA. Lob
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
l. ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 1
2. PURPOSE AND GOAL 3
3. LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION 5
4. BACKGROUND AND ACHIEVEMENTS 9
5. COSTS AND FINANCING 10
.
w~. '2.0'1
1- ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT:
The Authority has identified its watersheds, comprised of the
headwaters, river valleys and waterfront, as the basis of an
ecosystem approach to planning. Recent recommendations in "Space
for All" and "Watershed" support this approach and the importance
of maintaining a linked system of Greenspace. The resource lands
which are a part of the linked ecosystem, the waterfront, river
valleys and headwaters are considered, for the purposes of this
project, to benefit all member municipalities in proportion to
their equalized assessment. Figure 1 illustratres this ecosystem
concept.
The greens pace system can be protected by a combination of measures
including planning controls, stewardship and acquisition.
Acquisition is an important tool where the nature of the resource
land is such that it is critical to the ecosystem and must remain
unaltered in order to perform its natural functions. In these
circumstances, regUlation, planning controls and landowner
stewardship cannot be relied upon in the long term. Acquisition is
also appropriate where public use and appreciation of the resource
is an objective.
"The Greenspace Protection and Acquisition Project 1992-96" is one
component of the Authority's effort to ensure the future of
greenspace resources.
The Authority will continue to recommend improvements to the
current land use planning process to encourage both provincial and
municipal planning documents to designate a permanent greenspace
system within the GTA.
The Authority will also work toward the establishment and
implementation of a private land stewardship program, particularly,
in the Oak Ridges Moraine.
These initiatives will greatly assist in the long-term protection
of greenspace.
Land acquisition has proven to be an effective means to ensure
important resource management lands. An ancillary benefit of
greenspace protection and acquisition will be the potential for a
regional trail system for public access and use.
wf< O? 08
Headwater Kettle lake Woodland
- storage - infiltration
Ripanan Habitat - infiltration to - run off control
- water' qual ity aquifers - soli conservatij Wetland
- temperature control - water storage &
-fish & wildlife qual ity control
habitat - habitat
River Mouth Marsh Riparian Habitat -5 ~
-water qUalllJ
- fish & wit life Waterfront - fish & wildlife habitat Fill Regulation
habitat ~ ~-- - public safety
C ----- L ==----- ~'-
~-.J. _ _
-
-~ the metropolitan toronto and region An Ecosystem Approach to Watershed Management Fig. 1
conservat ion authority
w~. 20~
- 3 -
2. PURPOSE AND GOAL:
The purpose of this project is to permit The Metropolitan Toronto
and Region Conservation Authority to exercise the powers afforded
by the Conservation Authorities Act, R.S.O. 1980, Chap. 85, as
amended, to establish and undertake, in the area over which it has
jurisdiction, a program designed to further the conservation,
restoration, development and management of natural resources in
accordance with the Land Acquisition Program of the Watershed Plan.
The project covers a five-year period, from 1992 to 1996.
The goal of the Authority, through this project, is:
To acquire hazard and conservation land in order to
protect it against unwise land use which would affect
its ability to perform its natural functions and to
conserve significant land for the benefit of the people
within the region.
Acquisition can be achieved through:
A] The Planning Process:
In reviewing proposed plans for development, the Authority
determines whether there are floodplain or valley lands which
should be set aside for conveyance to (legal transfer of
property for a nominal amount) or purchase by the Authority
and includes this in its comments.
B] Project Requirements:
When lands form part of an approved project, they may be
purchased directly from the owner for full market value.
Where individual benefit can be identified, landowners may be
required to deed property rights to the Authority, ensuring
access for maintenance.
w~. "'0
- 4 -
C] Donation:
Especially along the Niagara Escarpment and headwaters areas,
the Authority encourages donations of land. These gifts
qualify as charitable donations under the Income Tax Act, at
appraised value. Landowners who will their property to the
Ontario Heritage Foundation may specify that, although the
land remains the Foundation's property, it is to be used by
the Authority for conservation. Some of Glen Major Forest and
wildlife Area, lands at Albion Hills Conservation Area, and
the Glassco Park property came under Authority management in
this way. These donations may also qualify for favorable
treatment under the Income Tax Act.
D] Land Exchanges:
People who own land in a river valley, adjacent to Authority
property sometimes trade their land for parcels of tableland
the Authority owns. These arrangements may bring the
Authority funds which can be used to acquire additional
conservation lands.
E] Municipal Lands:
The Authority may acquire municipal lands, at a nominal cost,
when they are located wi thin the boundaries of approved
Authority acquisition projects.
F] Expropriation:
The Authority has the right to expropriate lands if they are
required for an approved project, but prefers, whenever
possible, to deal with a willing vendor.
LOR.. 11 \
- 5 -
3 . LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
In order to achieve its goal, the Authority recognizes the
following categories of land as suitable for protection as
described in Section 2.
(a) those hazard lands which are susceptible to flooding under the
regional storm.
(b) those lands required for the construction of remedial works.
(c) those lands which, due to physical hazards of slope
instability and/or unstable soils, are not suitable for
development.
(d) those lands of natural and/or environmental significance
which, in order to perform their natural functions, must
remain unaltered and, to ensure their conservation and
protection, should be in public ownership.
(e) those lands which are identified by the Authority in
cooperation with its member municipalities and/or Province of
Ontario as being complementary to hazard and conservation land
acquisitions.
In its Greenspace Strategy, the Authority has defined the
components of the Greenspace system which it seeks to protect to
include:
.river valleys and the Lake ontario waterfront plus a 10 metre
buffer beyond the crest of slope;
.Environmentally Significant Areas;
.provincial Wetlands (Classes 1-7);
.Areas of Natural and Scientific Interest;
.Kettle Lakes;
.Recharge/Discharge Areas;
.Significant Woodlot/Vegetation/Habitat Linkages;
.Carolinian Forest;
W~. '1l"L
- 6 -
.Riparian Habitat Zones;
.Waterfront and Reservoir Project Lands;
.Niagara Escarpment Park Extensions.
.Links for the Regional Trail System.
These lands are shown on Figure 2.
It is not possible to acquire all of the resource lands which have
been mapped as suitable for acquisition. Annual funding limits may
require that the most suitable lands which may be on the market
each year, will be the lands which are acquired.
In determining where acquisition is to be used to protect
greens pace lands, the following will be taken into consideration:
(A) the availability of long term alternatives to acquisition
including existing regulatory and/or planning mechanisms;
landowner stewardship; conservation easements.
(B) the ability of other agencies to protect the lands;
(C) the nature and immediacy of the threat to the lands;
(D) the significance of the lands to the greenspace system;
(E) the relationship of a specific property to those already in
public ownership;
(F) the need for the lands to achieve adopted project
requirements;
(G) the willingness of the owner to enter into negotiations;
(H) the ability to achieve an equitable geographic distribution of
greenspace;
(I) the specific interests of the funding partners/sources;
(J) the costs involved both for purchase and long term management
and the availability of funding;
- WK. ol 1--
~EGENO
AUTHOAITY LAND!
au RIDG!S 1IfOltllH.!
...---- -.....-. HIAQAftA !SCAJt,..l.NT
BAT
GREENSPACE LANDS SUITABlE FOR ACQUISITION
"".. WflUHIlS
I * I AIIJU,S OP' N4TUItAL a !Cl!HT\P'tC rNTtftUT
Ii.U.AHD L4HD!
I l COIIU"..nON c..-
. MARI[ CURTI!
VI F PARK
--
- I PROJECT FOR THE PROTECTION l' I I rF1G. 2-1
- 1992 1996
--
-- 0 2 4 6 B 10
the metropohtan toronta .nd regIOn AND ACQUISITION OF GREENSPACE KILOMETRES
conservation authority tv
MARCH :991
~. 2.lli
TABLE 1
Authority-OWned
GREEHSPACE LANDS
[December 31, 1990]
Watershed Hectares
Etobicoke 353
Mimico 40
Humber (inc. Black Creek & Niagara Escarpment) 6,549
Don 872
Highland (inc. Centennial Creek) 388
Rouge 1,091
Petticoat 81
Duffin 1,626
Carruthers 17
Waterfront 1,239
TOTAL 12,256
w~. 1 It;
- 9 -
4. BACKGROUND AND ACHIEVEMENTS:
Since its formation in 1957, the Authority has used land
acquisition to provide relief from flood and erosion hazard; to
carry out remedial measures; to protect significant conservation
lands; and to provide rehabilitation on degraded areas.
Over the years, the Authority has acquired ~12,000 ha (~30,000
acres) of land throughout its watersheds. Authority owned valley
lands within Metropolitan Toronto are the backbone of the
Metropolitan Parks system. outside Metro, large areas for flood
control works were purchased as a part of the Authority's 1959 Plan
for Flood Control. On the buffer lands, around the future
reservoirs, the Authority, as a part of the Plan's approval, was
required to provide public recreation benefits to the community to,
in part, compensate for the cost of flood protection. While the
success of downstream acquisition and regulation; changes in the
methods of dealing with flood risk; increased costs for
construction; and environmental concerns resulted in amendments to
the flood control program, these conservation lands are now
valuable open space resources within the developing Greater Toronto
Area.
Valleylands outside Metro have generally been set aside for public
acquisi tion as a part of the planning process. Lands in the
headwaters Escarpment and Moraine have been purchased through
special projects adopted to conserve these areas.
The property acquired to December 31, 1990 is summarized on Table
1. These lands were purchased under the following:
. the "Plan for Flood Control and Water Conservation";
. the "Interim Water and Related Land Management Project";
. the Waterfront Projects 1972-76, 1977-81, 1982-86 and 1987-91;
. the Land Acquisition Projects 1982-86 and 1987-91;
. the "Hazard and Conservation Land Acquisition Project within the
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto" 1987-91; and
. the "Project for the Acquisition of Land Within the Niagara
Escarpment Park System".
The lands acquired under these projects are the nucleus around
which future acquisitions will be built.
us f\. Z JlI
- 10 -
5. COSTS AND FINANCING:
The costs associated with this project include land acquisition,
legal, appraisal and survey fees, demolition and property clean up,
interest charges, fencing and other related costs.
Costs
Greenspace Protection/Acquisition
1992 $ 5,000,000*
1993 $ 5,000,000*
1994 $ 5,000,000
1995 $ 5,000,000
1996 $ 5,000,000
Total $25,000,000
*Funding for the acquisition of the Walker property is included in
these years.
Financing
The protection of greenspace lands is of benefit to all
municipalities within the jurisdiction of the Authority, not only
in maintaining their ability to accommodate the natural functions
of the ecosystem, but also in providing open space for the
enjoyment of all residents. The preservation of environmentally
significant and sensitive areas is also of benefit to the people of
the entire region and will contribute positively to the quality of
life for generations to come.
Therefore, the Authority proposes that the five-year Greenspace
Protection/Acquisition Project 1992-1996, be a generally benefiting
project with all member municipalities contributing to the
Authority's share based on equalized assessment.
The total cost of the five-year project is $25,000,000 as shown
above. The annual funding requirement will be $5,000,000 and will
be raised as follows:
Authority $2,500,000
Province of Ontario $2,500,000
TOTAL $5,000,000
w~. 111
- 11 -
The Authority's share represents 50% of the total where the
Province of ontario will contribute 50% of the total funds. The
municipal share based on the 1991 equalized assessment values will
be as shown on Table 2.
The Conservation Foundation of Greater Toronto has been requested
to assist in the acquisition of Greenspace by soliciting
acquisition funds and donations of property from the private
sector. Their assistance will be over and above this project.
Where revenues are realized through the sale of any surplus lands,
or from other sources, and where the Authority receives the
necessary approvals to allocate the funds to acquisition, these
moneys will be applied to properties identified as suitable for
acquisition by this project. These funds wi 11 be additional to
those raised through this project.
riCJUre 2
ca......AC. .1IO'I'.C'l'IOM AlII) ACQUI8I'l'IOM .ROJBC'l', 1991-1996
UYY A.lOftIO......, BY NOIIICI.ALI'l'Y
.reotor 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 'l'O'l'AL
, . . . . . $
Adjala o 000064 160 160 160 160 160 800
Durhaa o 020356 50,890 50,890 50,890 50,890 50,890 254,450
Metro o 758190 1,895,475 1,895,475 1,895,475 1,895,475 1,895,475 9,477,375
Mono o 000064 160 160 160 160 160 800
Peel o 087341 218,352 218,352 218,352 218,352 218,352 1,091,760
'York o 133985 334,963 334,963 334,963 334,963 334,963 1,674,815
1 000000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 12,500,000
*8ased on 1991 Discounted Equalized Assessaent
E
~
.
N
-
Q)
WR. ~ lcr
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT
REGENERATION PROJECT
1992.1994
TME METROPOUTAH TOIlOHTO AHD REGION COHSERVA T10II AUTHORITY
-
- ~-_....
-
--
March 1991
~h r d' ,'h' .
, t e metropo Itan toronto an region conservation aut onty
5 shoreham drive, downsview, ontario. m3n 1s4 (416) 661-6600
vJ ~ ;ut
MISSION STATEMENT
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
is a provinciaVmunicipal partnership established in 1957, under the
Conservation Authorities Act, to manage the renewable natural
resources of the region's watersheds.
Metro Region Conservation, with one-third of Ontario's population
within its area of jurisdiction, acts in the community's interest through
advocating and implementing watershed management programs ,
that
. maintain and improve the quality of the region's lands and waters,
. contribute to public safety from flooding and erosion;
-
. provide for the acquisition of conservation and hazard lands, and
. enhance the quality and variety of life in the comrn.mity by using
~s lands for inter-regional outdoor recreation, heritage preservation,
and conservation education.
Metro Region Conservation shall seek to fulfil its mission and serve
the needs of its constituency in accordance with the highest stan-
dards of ethics and integrity
OUR PARTNERS
G~ The Conservation Authorities Act, passed in 1946, provided the !A=
ark
~) means by which the Province of Ontario and the municipalities on
Ontario watersheds could join together as a conservation authority (6)
@ to undertake programs for natural resource management.
Since 1957, The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Ontario Authority has undertaken a comprehensive program of resource ..,hip 01 .\f.
I) management on the watersheds under its jurisdiction. ..o~ 10"
The Authority has had strong support from the Province of Ontario
~ and the member mmicipalities - The Municiparrty of Metropolitan
, Toronto, the Regional Municipalities of Durham, Peel and York, and ~",._..
the Townships of Adjala and Mono - along with the School Boards of c:o.---
II 0....
the region, in the achievement of common conservation objectives.
-..-
Working Together for tomorrow's GreenspaCB .
oJ R. ~\
WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE
Since 1957, The Metropolitan Toronto and RegIon Conservation Authorfty has
been responsible for developulg and il1lllementing a program for renewable resource
management. A comprehensive statement of this program was adopted by the Authorny
in ns 1980 Watershed Plan, and updated in 1986. At that time, the Authorny recognized
that its traditional preventative and remedial programs were not keeping pace with the
pressure of development across its watersheds and that urgent action was required to
ensure the future environmental health of the Greater Toronto Area. The Greenspace
Strategy (1988189) was proposed as the Authority's conservation vision for the future of
the GT A.
In 1990, Watershed, the interim report of the Royal Commission on the Future of
Toronto's Waterfront and Space for An, a report to the Province identifying options for a
Greenlands Strategy for the Greater Toronto Area, made recommendations to conserve
and enhance the natural resources of the Greater Toronto Area.
The Greenspace Slrategy, Watershed, and Space for All are consistent in their proposals
for an ecosystem approach to planning the future of the Greater Toronto Area,
recognition of the Oak Ridges Moraine and The Niagara Escarpment, river valleys and
the Lake Ontario Waterfront as the principal physical resources of the GT A, recommen-
dations for ensuring an interconnected physical resource system, with access and use
for inter-regional trails: and the need fO( co-operative partnerships to implement long-
tenn greenspace conservation.
Since 1957, Authority programs have pursued objectives which have provided the basis
of an inter-regional greenspace system and conserved and enhanced the renewable re-
sources of the GT A. Capital projects for the regeneration of vaJJeys and the Lake Ontario
waterfront have enabled the Authority to achieve its greenspace objectives and make a
positive contribution to the quality of life across the GTA.
The continuation of these projects. at an accelerated rate, is essential to achieve the
strategies proposed by the Authority, Watershed and Space fO( All to balance the pres-
sures for development in the GT A.
The Metropolitan Toronto and RegIon Conservation Authority seeks the support
of Its partners to continue "Working Together for Tomorrow's Greenspace.-
.
.
-
,
uJ <<.. '" '2... -z..."
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
WORKING TOGETHER FOR TOMORROW'S GREENSPACE
1. ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT 1
.
2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES 3
3. SPECIFIC PROJECf OBJECTIVES 5
4. FUNDING 13
5. APPROVALS 16
. .
-
~~7,..7-~
1
1. ECOSYSTEM CONTEXT
The "Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project, 1992-1994" represents one project and
one part of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program which IS a component of the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 1980 Watershed Plan.
The Authority's waterfront resource management activities are one component of the 1980
Watershed Plan. The Plan comprises 10 programs, which have been structured as groups of
resource management activities serving a common goal, but each can be Implemented
separately In addinon to the Waterfront Program, the Plan also identifies programs for
flood control, storm water management, recreation, land acquisition, erosion control,
conservation land management, heritage conservation and community relations. No single
program by itself is whole. Each is complementary to the others. Nor is the Plan itself
whole. It must be considered as contributing to a resource management package m which
many public jurisdictions have a part. These programs when combined reflect a
comprehensive approach to the management of the three major natural resources defined by
the Authority as the Oak Ridges Moraine, the River Valleys and the Lake Ontario Shoreline.
The Plan is complementary to the planning and management responsibilities of municipalities
and several Provincial ministries.
The recent "Watershed" report of the Royal Commission of the Future on the Toronto
Waterfront outlined the following key characteristics of an ecosystem approach.
. includes the whole system, not just the parts of it;
. focuses on inter-relationships among the elements;
. understands that humans are part of nature, not separate from it;
. recognizes the dynamic nature of the ecosystem - a moving picture
rather than a still photograph;
. incorporates the concepts of carrying capacity, resilience and
sustainability - suggesting that there are limits to human activity;
. uses a broad definition of the environments - natural, physical,
economic, social, and cultural;
. encompasses both urban and rural activities;
. is based on natural geographic units such as watersheds - rather than on
political boundaries; -
wiG "2.. 7- Y
2
. embraces all levels of activity - local, regional, national and
internanonal;
. emphasizes the importance of livmg species other than humans and of
generations other than our own;
. is based on an ethic in which progress is measured by the quality, well-
being, integnty t and dignity it accords natural, social and economic
systems.
To manage the waterfront and provide the basis of future policies and planmng, the
"Watershed" report outlined the following principles:
. clean
. green
. useable
. diverse
. open
. accessible
. connected
. affordable
. attractive
This Project of the Authority is developed in accordance with these principles.
.
-
W~ 7-~5
3
2. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL
The purpose of the Lake Ontario Waterfront RegeneratIon Project is to permit The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority to exercise its powers under the
Conservation Authorities Act R.S 0 1980 as amended, to establish and undertake, m the
area over which It has jurisdiction, a program deSIgned to conserve, restore, develop and
manage the natural resources of the waterfront in accordance with the Lake Ontario
Waterfront Development Program of the Watershed Plan
The goal of the Authority through this project is.
TO CREATE A HANDSOME WATERFRONT, BALANCED IN ITS LAND
USES, WHICH WILL COMPLEMENT ADJACENT AREAS, TAKING
COGNIZANCE OF EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND
MAKING ACCESSffiLE, WHEREVER POSSIBLE, FEATURES WHICH
WARRANT PUBLIC USE.
OBJECfIVES
\-
In order to achieve the above goal, the Authority has established the following objectives.
(a) to provide open space areas at regular mtervals across the waterfront through
acquisition, land creation and/or agreements wtth other agencies.
(b) to regularly review and update a long-term Waterfront Plan and to prepare and
implement Concept Plans for specific Waterfront areas which will ensure:
i. the protection and enhancement of environmentally significant areas, heritage
resources and wildlife and fisheries habitat,
ii. the provision of regional access and facilities for water-oriented recreation,
ill. the linking of specific areas both along the shoreline and with valley land open
space corridors;
iv. consultation with the relevant funding and approval agencies and with public
interest groups.
(c) to augment the present state of knowledge With respect to waterfront recreation needs,
lake processes, and urban waterfront deSign techmques. -
uJ (2.. " -z.- ~
4
(d) to monitor and assess the effects of developments undertaken by the Authonty and use
these findings in the planning of future developments.
(e) to cooperate WIth all municipalities and agencies having pohcies or programs specific
to the Lake Ontario Waterfront.
(f) to enter into agreements with the appropriate mumcipalities for the operation and
maintenance of Authority waterfront projects other than conservatIon areas.
The Waterfront Program and thIS implementing Project reflects many of the principles
outlined in the "Watershed" report as follows:
. handsome waterfront - attractive;
. balanced In its land uses - diverse;
. public use - useable;
. linked system - connected,
. protecuon of EnvIronmentally Sigmficant Areas and habitat - clean,
green.
On March 28, 1990, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Council approved the
preparation of a new Metropolitan Waterfront Plan. This Plan would recognize the
waterfront's regional significance and be premised upon an ecosystem approach to planning
and development. It must address the waterfront as an ecosystem with interdependent
environmental, economic and social components. The new Waterfront Plan will provide the
long-term direction for the Authority's Lake Ontario Waterfront Development Program and
subsequent Lake Ontario Waterfront Regeneration Project.
The Authority has therefore proposed an Interim Project for the period 1992-1994.
The Project will provide for staff assistance, planning and design studies, environmental data
collection and mapping in support of Metro's planning efforts over the next 3 years in
preparing a new Metropolitan Waterfront Plan and Official Plan policies. This Interim
Project also recognizes that the development of potentially new Partnership Agreements will
occur over a similar time frame and as such allows the Authority and Metro the flexibility to
recognize any new agreements in subsequent projects.
This period will also provide the Authority with an opportunity to review waterfront plans m
the Region of Durham (Town of Pickering and Town of Ajax) and develop any new
Partnership Agreements. -
w(t ~1-1
5
Therefore, it is proposed dunng this Interim period that the Authonty's Project should
concentrate on activities which 1) have been approved and initiated; 2) support the new
waterfront plan imtiatives, 3) are consistent with the "ecosystem approach and princlples; and
4) support Pro\1incial and Metropohtan Toronto lOltlatives (eg Waterfront Trail).
3. SPECIFIC PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The implementation objectives related to planning, acquisItion and regeneration are presented
for the project period 1992-1994, in accordance with the goal and objectives section.
3.1 ETOBICOKE SECTOR
Twenty years of Authority development along the EtobIcoke waterfront have produced maJor
new facilities at Humber Bay and provided the imtiation of a new waterfront focal point for
the City The Authority also adopted a separate proJect for the Motel Strip Public Amemty
Scheme and completed a small craft harbour and negotiations for two boat clubs and the
Humber College Sailing Centre at Colonel Samuel SmIth Park.
MARIE CURTIS PARK (Figure 2)
With the major components of the development complete, the further development of the
park is expected to include the following elements as outlined on Figure 2.
. Complete under separate project, acquisition of the Canada Post property;
. Complete the Waterfront Trail linkage to Lakefront Promenade Park (Credit Valley
Conservation Authority) through the South Peel Pollution Control Plant and Lakeview
Generating Station;
. Prepare park plan for Marie Curtis to include Canada Post Property.
COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH PARK (Figure 3)
.
With the lakeftlling and negotiations with the Sam Smith Boating Federation completed
during the 1987-1991 Project, the following are specific implementation objectives for this
Project:
. complete park development by 1994;
.
. complete waterfront trail linkage;
. habitat enhancement. -
UJ~ ~S
6
HUMBER BAY W A TERFRONT AREA (Figures 4 and 5)
The majority of the Master Plan components were completed within the 1982-1986 projects.
The planning and development program may also include the following components for the
1992-1994 project period
Humber Bay West (Figure 4)
. complete waterfront trail linkage;
. complete final armouring;
. construct footbridge to connect Humber Bay East and West.
Humber Bay East (Figure 5)
. habitat enhancement;
. waterfront trail linkage across Motel Strip subject to separate project;
. bird watching opportunities.
3.2 CITY OF TORONTO SECTOR
The fIrst 20 years of Authority development of the portion of the City of Toronto waterfront
under Authority jurisdiction produced major new facilities at Ashbridge's Bay, as well as
major planning initiatives for Tommy Thompson Park and the Western Beaches.
WESTERN BEACHES (Figures 6 and 1)
The major planning and development objectives of the 1992-1994 Project at the Western
Beaches include the following:
. habitat enhancement;
. complete waterfront trail linkage and achieve trail linkage to the Humber River
Valley .
TOMMY TIIOMPSON PARK (Figure 8)
The major objectives of the 1992-1994 Project with respect to Tommy Thompson Park are:
. initiate concept plan implementation,
. continuation of the interim management program until the concept plan is
approved and implemented; -
. complete Cell 1 wetland capping (under Keating Channel project)
WR- 2.1-'1
7
ASHBRIDGE'S BAY (Figure 9)
The Authority proposes relatively minor works at the Ashbridge's Bay Waterfront Area in
the 1992-1994 Project, to consist of:
. complete waterfrolJt trail linkage;
. completion of entrance improvements to Coatsworth Cut;
. habitat enhancement;
. bird watching opportumties.
.
EASTERN BEACHES (Figure 10)
The objectives of the 1992-1994 Project for the Eastern Beaches are:
. complete shoreline management plan,
. complete waterfront trail linkage.
3.3 SCARBOROUGH SECTOR
The first 20 years of Authority development of the shoreline in the City of Scarborough
resulted in the development of major new recreational facilities in Bluffers Park, as well as
the acquisition of significant waterfront open space areas including the Guild Inn and East
Point Park.
BLUFFERS WEST (Figure 11)
The major objectives of the 1992-1994 Project for the Bluffers West Area are as follows:
. complete waterfront trail linkage;
. habitat enhancement.
BLUFFERS PARK (Figure 12)
The major implementation objectives of the 1992-1994 Project at the Bluffers Waterfront
area are:
. complete access improvements including Bluffers Topiands; .
. complete waterfront trail linkage. -
we ?3c
8
BELLAMY RA VINE (Figure 13)
The implementation objective of the 1992-1994 Project at the Bellamy Ravine is:
. complete waterfront trail linkage.
SOUTH MARINE DRIVE (Figure 14)
The implementation objectives of the 1992-1994 Project at South Marine Drive are:
. complete waterfront linkage;
. fish habitat enhancement;
. wetland creation.
GUILD INN (Figure 15)
The objectives proposed for the Guild Inn as part of the 1992-1994 Project are as follows.
. final shoreline protecnon,
. complete waterfront trail linkage.
EAST POINT PARK (Figure 16)
The major objectives of the 1992-1994 Project for the East Point Park include:
. obtain environmental assessment approval for master plan;
. initiate master plan implementation;
. initiate waterfront trail linkage;
. habitat management plan.
PORT UNION ROAD (Figure 17)
The implementation objectives for the Im-1994 ProJect include:
. complete waterfront trail linkage;
. review of waterfront opportunities with Scarborough and Metropolitan
Toronto. .
-
WR-?-~(
9
CHESTERTON SHORES (Figure 18)
The implementation objective for the 1992-1994 Project IS.
. complete waterfront trail linkage.
ROUGFJROSEBANK AREA (Figure 19)
The implementation objectives for the Rouge portion of the 1992-1994 Project mclude:
. fish habitat enhancement;
. wetland creation,
. complete waterfront trail linkage
3.4 PICKERING/AJAX SECTOR
.
The first 20 years of Authority waterfront development in this sector concentrated on
acquisition of substantial sections of the shoreline and for future use of shoreline areas for
recreational purposes. The Petticoat Creek Conservation Area, which was completed m
1975, was the first in a series of parks to be developed on a land base that has been secured
or is identified for acquisition by the Authority. The 1987-1991 Project provided a
continuation development of acquisition in key remaining areas along the waterfront in the
Town of Ajax and the Town of Pickering and the completion of a concept plan for
Frenchman's Bay West (Town of Pickering).
ROUGFJROSEBANK AREA (Figure 19)
The implementation objectives for the Rosebank Area for the 1992-1994 Project are:
. complete waterfront trail linkage;
. complete acquisition/surplus land proposal.
PETTICOAT CREEK PARK (Figure 20)
The implementation objectives for the 1992-1994 Project are:
. construct foot bridge across Petticoat Creek;
. complete waterfront trail linkage; -
. complete acquisition/surplus land proposal (Fairport Beach).
L0R ~7-
10
FRENCHMAN'S BAY (Figure 21)
The implementation objectives for the 1992-1994 Project are as follows:
. implementation of Frenchman's Bay West Concept Plan;
. imtiate Frenchman's Bay Land Use Study in conjunction with Pickering;
. complete acquisition/surplus land proposal;
. initiate resource management plan;
. initiate shoreline management plan;
. complete waterfront trail-linkage.
DUFFIN CREEK W A TERFRONT AREA (Figure 22)
The Authority has not prepared a detailed Master Plan for this area. The general concept in
the Waterfront Program identifies the use of this area as a protected marsh, valley hiking
trails, wildlife observation and fish habitat and beach development at the Creek's mouth.
The implementation objectives of the 1992-1994 Project for the Duffin Creek Waterfront
Area include the following:
. complete implementation of master plan;
. initiate shoreline management plans;
. fish habitat enhancement;
. complete waterfront trail linkage.
AJAX WATERFRONT AREA (Figures 23 and 24)
The implementation objectives of the 1992-1994 Projects for the Ajax Waterfront Area
include the following:
Ajax Waterfront Area (Figure 23)
. land acquisition;
. waterfront trail linkage;
. complete implementation of master plan with emphasis on tree and
shrub planting.
. .
-
\)J~ J-~~
11
Carruther's Creek (Figure 24)
. complete waterfront trail hnkage and connection to Central Lake
Ontario Waterfront TraIl,
. fish habitat enhancement,
. land acquisitIon
3.5 ENVIRONMENfAL MONITORING
The environmental monitoring program, as part of the Authority's ongomg commitment to
the preservation and enhancement of the natural qualities of the waterfront, will mclude:
- momtoring new sites prior to commencement of construction to establish
background conditions
- monitoring projects under construction or recently completed to IdentIfy and
minimize any short term impacts as well as document the environmental
benefits
- monitoring of any potential long term impacts relating particulary to
sedimentation and its effects on the bIOlogIcal community This informatIon
will be particularly useful in the fisheries enhancement and shoreline
management aspects of the Authority's work
- carrying out the Improved Lakefill Quality Assurance Program on behalf of
the Ministry of the Environment.
The Authority's waterfront environmental monitoring program has been in place since 1975
and has proven to be a valuable component of the waterfront work. As the period of record
and amount of data increases, the value of the program identifying long-term trends becomes
more apparent. This information will be provided to Metropolitan Toronto in preparing the
new waterfront plan and waterfront policies in the Official Plan.
The Authority's environmental interests have been expanded with the involvement in the
T A WMS Committee and carrying out beach improvement works for the Metro Toronto
Pollution Committee. It is intended to maintain the Authority's activity in water quality
along the Lake Ontario waterfront. In addition, the Authority's waterfront efforts are
augmented by the watershed studies recently completed or initiated (Rouge River and Don
River Watershed Studies). The Authority has also worked closely in the preparation of
Remedial Action Plans for the Metropolitan Waterfront and continues to participate with
Citizens Advisory Committee.
-
~R. 1-3'1
12
3.6 LAND ACQUISITION
A key component of this Project to achieve public access to the Metropolitan Waterfront is
acquisition. The Authority will continue to acqui~e key properties within the waterfront
project boundaries.
3.7 METROPOLITAN WATERFRONT TRAIL
At the meeting held on January 18, 1991, the Authority adopted the following resolution.
"The Authority supports the proposals of the reports "Watershed" and "Space
For All" with respect for the establtshment of a linked trail system for the
Greater Toronto Area.
THAT the staff be directed to review and revise the program for the
waterfront trail system so that it can be incorporated in the (1992-1996)
Waterfront Project as a part of the inter-regional trail system and completed
within the nmetable (1993) suggested by the Royal Commission."
The Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Committee was advIsed on February 8, 1991 that the
Waterfront Trail is being pursued as a high priority component of the Metropolitan
Waterfront Plan, to emphasize the need for appropriate public involvement, and consultation
and to indicate the steps being taken to promote implementation of the Waterfront Trail.
The Waterfront Trail has also been endorsed by the Provincial Government in a statement in
the legislature by the Minister of the Environment.
This project will implement significant portions of the waterfront trail as outlined on Figure 1
in accordance with the Metropolitan Toronto Waterfront Plan and initiatives in the Town of
Pickering and Ajax.
.
-
WR 1-~?
13
4. FUNDING
CQill .
In Implemennng the 1987-1991 Lake Ontano Waterfront Development, the followmg table
provIdes a summary of the gross expenditures. The table also mcludes a summary of
additional land acquisition of waterfront open space.
Year Lake Ontario Waterfront Land Acquisition Project
Development Project - Waterfront Open Space"
- Gross Expenditures
1987 $2,018,699
1988 2,098,800
1989 1,462,819 $1,019,780
1990 1,729,628 1,386,043
1991 1,949,810 1,000,000
TOTAL $9,259,756 $3,405,823
*Funded by land sales.
-
W~ J3b
14
Implementation of the 1992-1994 Lake Ontario Waterfront RegeneratIon Project is estimated
to require expenditures of $3,100,000 annually for a total cost over the term of the Project
of: .
1992 $3,100,000
1993 3,100,000
1994 3.100.000
TOTAL $9.300.000
.
The costs associated with this Project include administration (prorated on basis of annual
expenditures in each municipality), land acquiSItion, legal and survey fees, design fees,
development costs, demolition and property restoration, interest and pre-development
property maintenance.
Financine
A reVIew of the Authority's operations by Metropolitan Toronto In 1984 resulted in a change
in the funding formula for waterfront development projects. The municipal share of the
funding will now be paid entirely by Metropolitan Toronto and the Region of Durham. ThIs
replaces the previous formula whereby Metro and Durham paid 95 % of the municipal portion
based on equalized assessment and the other member municipalities paid the remaining 5 %
also based on equalized assessment.
Under the new formula, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto will match the proposed
expenditures by the Regional Municipality of Durham for projects in Durham. Metropolitan
Toronto will pay the entire municipal portion for works within Metro.
The Province of Ontario is required to provide a grant of 50% of the cost of the work in
both municipalities.
Based on a total annual expenditure of $3,100,000 and the limit of $300,000 for works in
Durham, the annual funding schedule would be as follows:
Province of Ontario $1,550,000
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto 1,475,000
Region of Durham 75.000
TOTAL 53.100.000
,
-
WQ. 1-~1
15
The actual annual level of funding wIll vary from year to year based on the agreed annual
allocations by each funding agency
If other sourceS of funding are available from the proceeds of lands sales or other revenues,
actual expendItures may exceed the project total.
Where other sources of revenues are avatlable, they will be matched by municIpal levy
within the limits of the Project. Similarly, if available grants exceed matchIng levy, the
revenues will be used to supplement the levy withm the limits of the Project.
-
w(2. 1,3'6
16
6. AFPROV ALS
1 AUTHORITY
2. THE MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
3. THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
4. THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF DURHAM
5. THE ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
.
'it
,
--_l4K<!1 ---~
E/o;Ct
SArL\'
------~
tGLllvro",
Frenchman's
Bay
.~- I
Petticoat Creek .
I
---- Port
Duffin .
. Humber Bay Union I
\ Royal West Park r! Road Creek Ajax
. Rouge / Rosebank
Marie Curtis York East Point Waterfront .
Park Bellamy Guild Inn I
\ Colonel Humber Bay Ravine Park Carruthers
. Sam Smith Park East Park / Chesterton Shores Creek I
\ Motel Strip .
. Bluffers Park South Marine Drive I
\ .
C.v.CA" M.T.R.CA I
Bluffers West M.T.R.CA i C.L.O.CA
Ashbridges Eastern
Bay Park Beaches
Tommy Thompson LEGEND
Park LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT
REGENERATION PROJECT B Trail FIG. 1
Waterfront
~ 1992 - 1994 0 1 2 3 4 5
, ,
V the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority B
Valley Trail SCALE KILOMETRES
LEGEND
~EDlT ....LLEY UUIlOI'Ol.ITAIl lORCJNlO IH1
COHKllVATIOH AlfNOIltTY Jl[GII)H CONSDNlTlON .....THOIIITY 1.....1 MAIN
--.-.< .. WATERFRONT Tf\AIL
a SECONDARY
.-JI WATERFRONT TRAIL
1.....1
~ VALLEY TRAIL
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNrT'V
I " t I FISH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
I. -. -1 PROJECT BOUNDARY
,
OBJECTIVES
--..
': COMPLETE TRAIL LINKAGE
IOUTH PIn . :" .
I'OU.U'nOH COHTItOl.. PLAtft.;' TO LAKEFRONT PROMENADE
. ~;'I . PARK JOINTL V WITH
CREDIT VALLEY C.....
, .... f ..
'" .. . INTEGRATION OF CANADA
" ' POST LANDS WITH tMAlE
CURTIS PARK ASSUMING
ACOUISlTION IS
COMPLETED UNDER
SEPARATE PROJECT
- HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
.
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT MARIE CURTIS PARK
~ the metropolitan toronlo and raglon REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 2
conservation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF ETOBICOKE SECTOR
LEGEND CC
-
_ I- ~=-.:.a.L 1'J
I. · · · ., MAIN
WATERFRONT TRAil ~
B SECONOAAY
1!, WATERFRONT TRAIL ..--
1.....1
, : L
VAlLEY TRAIL
If ~ BIRD WATCHING
,t \ (~l: ~ OPPORTUNITY
.. . ..,
- : ,. : I ....., I FISH HABIT A T
r I.,
~ I e fl f ENHANCEMENT
~. \ 'l;;I!' . m
..... Me:. WETlAND CREATION
t1 '-" ":_ ~
-- . . ' \
! I. -. -I PROJECT BOlJNDAAY
OBJECTIVES
-.-
,
, COMPLETE PAAK
, -- .
, - DEVELOPMENT BY 1994
,
, - - ..-......
,
- COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT COLONEL SAMUEL SMITH PARK
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 3
conMrvation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF ETOBICOKE SECTOR
LEGEND
I. · · · ., MAIN
WATERFRONT TRAIL
B SECONDARY
WATERFRONT TRAIL
1.....1
VALLEY TRAIL
BOAAOWMJ< ~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
I ,. t I FISH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
~~:~:1
..... .oIL WETlAND CREATION
en
5w I. -. -I PROJECT BQI.JNOARY
II
OBJECTIVES
- COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
. COMPLETE FINAL AAMOURlNG
. CONSTRUCT FOOTBRIDGE
\
\
, \--
\
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT HUMBER BAY WEST PARK
~ Ihe met"'polilen to",nlo end re.ion REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 4
conservetion 8uthority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF ETOBICOKE SECTOR
.. ..,. LEGEND t,
~ .
- \ 1.....1 MAIN TO
- WATERFRONT TRAIL
./ t.l
I I /
I ~/ , \ ..c
! Ie... B SECONDARY
I ,\ ,// WATERFRONT TRAI' ~
\ , , ;# 1.....1
~ VAlLEY TRAIL
~ ~ BIRO WATCHING
. OPPORTUNITY
\
,
I I ~ I ASH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
\
m
ok .oIL
WETLAND CREATION
1----1 PROJECT BOUNOARV
OBJECTIVES
. TRAIL UNKAGE TO MOTEL
STRIP SUBJECT TO SEPARATE
PROJECT
. HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT HUMBER BAY EAST PARK/
~ lhe ",""opa'itan 10lonlo and ,..ion REGENERATION PROJECT ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP FIG 5
con..rvation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF ETOBICOKE SECTOR
LEGEND
I. · · · ., MAIN
. WATERFRONT TRAIL
HUt.t8EA AIIIEA
B SECONDARY
l\ WATERFRONT TRAIL
t 1.....1
VAlLEY TRAIL
. ~ . ~ BIRD WATCHING
. , OPPORTUNITY
----.
.......- I ....., I FISH HABIT A T
...........
-.
ENHANCEMENT
'""
'" I- -. - I PROJECT BOUNDARY
(
\
\
\
,
OBJECTIVES
. COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
. HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
,
\
E
10
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT WESTERN BEACHES tJ
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 6 -+
con..rvation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF TORONTO SECTOR ~
f,
LEGEND 10
I.....' MAIN !t
WATERFRONT TRAIL
B SECONDARY '"
.... It., .
.;.;\, - - - - ~. ';;i. :\ WATERFRONT TRAIL
,,' _ _.l.~tl. _ __....). 1.....1
. ---
VAlLEY TRAIL
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
I ....., I ASH HABIT A T
ENHANCEMENT
I. -. -I PROJECT BOUNDARY
OBJECTIVES
L~
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT WESTERN BEACHES
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 7
conservation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF TORONTO SECTOR
LEGEND
,.....( MAIN
WATERFRONT TRAIL
:::="... cu'" 4Dli) .....- -
Laa..81M<< ~
=:- i ...AKl:/.....
......- B SECONDARY
.., "MIIM
IiIIIMIIDWCI D(fIOT a<<JRI\.M'fIIII:IIIe WATERFRONT TFWL
........ "Oll'..... ,...... .1iICM ,.....
tBDDM'f P[DU'..... l1UI.
K1Q.[ ....," ....1 _.lOt
"""1 'tCHD.I .tCCISt COt' IOIIMOOD ,...... I WlLl.OlIf'
..".no \'I1Cl.1 MXf.IS 1.....1
VALLEY TFWL
~ BIRO WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
I "~I I FISH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
~::::1 WETLAND CREATION
EJ PROJECT BOUNDARY
\ OBJECTIVES
LAICE ONTNlIO
. INITIATE CONCEPT
PLAN IMPlEMENTATION
,
\ . CONTINUE INTERIM
MANAGEMENT UNTIL
\ \ CONCepT PLAN APPROVED
\ AND IMPLEMENTED
-"- ---
-- ,
\
lMT ~ ~ UNDPTAIONG ~ --..cr 10
POll BMROHMINrAl ~wen N'f'tIOIAl ~AL ANeIlMl!N1' N'f'tIOIAL
E-
fJ
rJ
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT TOMMY THOMPSON PARK .,J:
~ the met,_'it.n to,on,o .00 'oglon REGENERA nON PROJECT FIG. 8 -0
con..rvation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF TORONTO SECTOR
, anrnl "~"L. ~, ---"~ - '-- t
-
(11\, II LEGEND ~
11:~r::~~j' IF' - __ I ~\.
-. ...... .... .... ---- ~ 1.....1 MAIN
- ~ WATERFRONT TRAIL ~
.~IJI . \
I' ..C...aa:l IIWIIlX ..... I
~i'I\1 ,~ ~ , a
\' 1 B SECONDARY ....J
WATERFRONT TRAIL
co 8
Il f1"~~~f1 ~J 11111][1 D /1~: 1.....1
VALLEY TRAIL
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
I ....., I ASH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
m
...... .. WETLAND CREATION
,. 1'---1 ~~
OBJECTIVES
INITIATE ENTRANCE
IMPROVEMENTS TO
COA TSWORTH CUT
. COMPLETE TRAIL LINKAGE
. HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
~
lAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT ASHBRIDGES BAY PARK
~ the m.tropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 9
conMrvatlon authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF TORONTO SECTOR
LEGEND
I..... f MAIN
WATERFRONT TRAIL
B SECONDARY
WATERFRONT TRAIL
.
1.....1
VALLEY 'TRAIL
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
" :H _ _ -. -ill
. i'l f-- , '.'::
. I ,. :t I ASH HABITAT
Ii ' " I. ENHANCEMENT
! i .'" ~~:--::1
' : I ,
. "0. 01_10. .-.... WETUND CREATION
,,:--.,~ ...
. . , I- -. -I PROJECT BOUNDARY
I
I
I
I
[.t.ST{AN lllACI€S ~
~,.. ~ OBJECTIVES
I
. COMPLETE SHOAEUNE
MANAGEMENT PlAN
. COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
E
~
\'.l
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT EASTERN BEACHES ~
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 10
con..rvation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF TORONTO SECTOR
LEGEND E
1.....1 MAIN ~
WATERFRONT TRAIl ~
B SECONDARY ~
WATERFRONT TRAIl
1.....1
VAllEY TRAIL
"
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
I ~ I ASH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
I- -. -I PROJECT BOllNOM'(
OBJECTIVES
COMPlETE TRAIL LINKAGE
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
- ~. b1STINQ SHOAeLINi ~
/
/
/
/
~ the metropolit.n toronto ~nd region LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT BLUFFERS WEST FIG. 11
REGENERATION PROJECT
con..rvation authority 1992 - 1994 CllY OF SCARBOROUGH SECTOR
.
. LEGEND
lONOSTON ROAD
- - . :5= f.. · .. r MAIN
.
r. ~. WATERFRONT TRAIL
s' , . I I I Jt 11 ~:JJ.'(
G SECONDARY
~,~ WATERFRONT TRAIL
"
t.....1
VAllEY TRAIL
, ~ BIRD WATCHING
.
OPPORTUNITY
If ,
~ , I "' I I ASH HABITAT
,
., s, ENHANCEMENT
,.
..... ,
...... , m
. .. .. .oIL WETlAND CREATION
. ..
. .
. 1'---1 PfnET ~
. .
"..~
OBJECTIVES
- COMPLETE ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS
INCLUDING BLUFFERS TOPlANDS
. COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
.
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT BLUFFERS PARK
~ the m.tropolltan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 12
conMrVetion authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF SCARBOROUGH SECTOR
- .. - , - <2-
LEGEND ~
,
,.
'." 1.....1 MAIN 7j
WATERFRONT TRAIL
,-
B SECONDARY
WATERFRONT TRAIL
1.....1
VALLEY TRAIL
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
I "' ,/ I ASH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
I. -. -I PROJECT BOUNOAIff
OBJECTIVES
. COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
''',PROPOSED SHOREUHE
PROTECTION
PROPOSED SHORELINE PROTECTION
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT BELLAMY RAVINE
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 13
con.ervation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF SCARBOROUGH SECTOR
LEGEND
I..... ( MAIN
WATERFRONT TRAIL
B SECONDARY
WATERFRONT TRAIL
1.....1
VAlLEY TRAIL
~ B1RO WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
1~1 ASH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
I. -. -) PROJECT BQUNOAR'(
OBJECTIVES
~
EXISTING SHORELINE PAOTECTlON COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
.
C-
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT SOUTH MARINE DRIVE l"
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 14
conservation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF SCARBOROUGH SECTOR
~
LEGEND F
I..... J MAIN ~
WATERFRONT T~L
B SECONDARY
,.- WATERFRONT T~L
,
"
... 1.....1
VALLEY T~l
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
.
I ~ I ASH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
m
.... ... WETLAND CREATION
I. -. -I PROJECT BQlJNDAA'(
OBJECTIVES
- FINAl.. SHQREUNE PROTECTION
TO BE COMPlETED
PRoPoSED SHORELINE PROTECTION COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT GUILD INN
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 15
con..rvatlon authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF SCARBOROUGH SECTOR
LEGEND
I. · · .. ( MAIN
WATERFRONT TRAIL
B SECONDARY
__ Parlllftg WATERFRONT TRAIL
~_IoI""" 1.....1
....- 0_ -.-
t__","", VAlLEY TRAIL
. Perk Maintenance FllClllty .'('" ~ BIRD WATCHING
_ - -PwklnQ ~I':~~\:
~\\\. --
, OPPORTUNITY
-/ I ,- t I ASH HABITAT
~
Lookout ENHANCEMENT
~_-. ~
..... A. WETLAND CREATION
F~ Centre I- ---I PROJECT 9OUNOARV
'\
L~~
ay U.e \
Harbour OBJECTIVES
PatklnQ /
Harbour Centre - - - \. . OBTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL
PatIdng \ ASSESSMENT APPPOVAL
FOR MASTER PlAN
Patklftg
. INITIATE MASTER PLAN
- Srn" eraft Harbour IMPLEMENTATION
800 ....,.
--
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT EAST POINT PARK
~ tho motmpoliton tomnlO ond region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 16
con..Nation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF SCARBOROUGH SECTOR
HIGHLANO CREEK f,
LEGEND ~
1.....1 MAIN ~
WATERFRONT TRAIL tJ\
EJ SECONDARY
WATERFRONT TRAIL
1.....1
VALLEY TRAIL
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
I ~ I ASH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
, ._ L ;, 1----\ PAO.ECr.-
.
OBJECTIVES
. COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
. REVIEW OF WATERFRONT
OPPORTUNfTIES WITH
SCARBOROUGH N<<) METRO
TOAONTO
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT PORT UNION ROAD
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 17
conservation authority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF SCARBOROUGH SECTOR
LEGEND
I. · · · .1 MAIN
WATERFRONT TRAIL
B SECONDARY
WATERFRONT TRAIL
. 1.....1
I VALLEY TRAIL
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
(~\ I "" t I FISH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
(----1 PfnET~
tJ;-
OBJECTIVES
. COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
~.~
t-
. . \~
..-- '
. .8. 0 . .
E:
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT CHESTERTON SHORES
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 18
conMrvetion euthority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF SCARBOROUGH SECTOR
t
LEGEND r
MITRO DURt tM.4 1.....( MAIN ~
(SCA~Jr,HI I PICKf RtNf; WATERFRONT TRAIL
-1
B SECONDARY
I 'l~ WATERFRONT TRAIl
I ~-'r~l
1':J'Ll~I) l}\R VAllEY TRAIL
BIRD WATCHING
0
II 0 OPPORTUNITY
0 0
\) <:)
" 0
r., 0 ASH HABIT AT
ENHANCEMENT
~
..... ......
..... .. WETLAND CREATION
r~ I J
~ftIt ~-'
},' I- - - -I PROJECT BOt.HWf(
"
\/ (I
\./' ~ OBJECTIVES
HABITAT ENHANCEMENT
COMPLETE TAAllllNKAGE
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT ROUGE/ROSEBANK AREA
~ .ho metropolitan 'o,on'o and ...... REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 19
conservation authority 1992 - 1994 TOWN OF PICKERING SECTOR
LEGEND
/ I '. I
I 1.....1 MAIN
, WATERFRONT TRAIL
;
I
I . ~, B SECONDARY
WATERFRONT TRAIL
MSUNTIAl ) I 1.....1
I O(V(\.()Pt.Il(~' ",// VAlLEY TRAIL
I
" I
I i ~ BIRO WATCHING
I I
; OPPORTUNITY
I ' ,/ I ASH HABITAT
ENHANCEMENT
m
.... .......
..... AIL WETLAND CREATION
1----1 POOJECT~
OBJECTIVES
1.\ , - CONSTRUCT FOOTBRIDGE
I~' COMPLETE TRAIL UNKAGE
1 ,:
.,
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT PETIICOAT CREEK PARK
~ the ..."opollten .o..n.o end '...... REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 20
con..rvltlon luthorlty 1992 - 1994 TOWN OF PICKERING SECTOR
CD
LEGEND f-
l. · · .. f MAIN fJ
WATERFRONT TRAIL
B SECONDARY ~
WATERFRONT TRAIL
1.....1 .,J)
VALLEY TRAIL
-,
\
\ ~ BIRD WATCHING
,....,... 1 OPPORTUNITY
I~I FISH HABIT A T
ENHANCEMENT
I- - - -I PROJECT BCJlJHONf(
- OBJECTIVES
':.t~Q . IMPLEMENTATION OF
-... -. FRENCHMAN'S BAY weST
~ -(~ ,- CONCEPT PlAN
,. .lll"~)
""';' (- INITIATE FRENCHMAN'S BAY
,~ LAND USE STUDY
'/- INITIATE RESOURCE
MANAGEMENT PlAN
! ; COMPLETE ACQUISITION/
, ; SURPLUS lAND PROPOSAL
INITIATE SHORELINE
MANAGEMENT PlAN
COMPLETE TRAIL LINKAGE
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT FRENCHMAN'S BAY
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 21
conservation authority 1992 - 1994 TOWN OF PICKERING SECTOR
.
LEGEND
1.....( MAIN
WATERFRONT TRAIL
~~ tIt :~4\ B SECONDARY,
)l, 11'\ '- WATERFRONT TRAIL
I .~... '"
-. -' ( +--, '\, )\ ,\ \ 1.....1
. .\ , -)) VAlLEY TRAIL
, \', '
,r "
I( , \ . ~ BIRD WATCHING
.\ ,\ , - OPPORTUNITY
" I '-1 I ASH HABIT A T
, ;7:; ENHANCEMENT
Ir"
'11
... I \' I. -. -l PROJECT BOUNDARY
I ~ ) f
~, . '\
~ ,
- t }' ~ "
. .......
...
I
1 f --.
r ~, ~'
-.
f \ \ _... LOT
'.... - OBJECTIVES
I \ ... I, \ ::=:. ...... .u,_
,. 0, , ), '8 j,.
I '\ · ~ r. .. ~ \~ \ 'V ViJ '\\ ,. COMPlETE IMPLEMENTATION
!t '\i\,::t<\?l' ~ \~t% Dt"~\\. ~~.
\~ \ OF MASTER PUN
....... .M" ('~I ~ ~~ {Ii, ~ 0 I,) ~ (,' ''''1 . .
IlCITARV ~All. \~ /,\ \~ t. \ - ~.... . INITIATE SHORELINE
l \ . ..
1M...... 1." I, . J MANAGEMENT p~
~\""l'--'
_LOT
.-.n...........
.-' .---
.
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT DUFFIN CREEK
~ the metroJ>Olitan toronto end region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 22
con..rvation authority 1992 - 1994 TOWN OF AJAX SECTOR
0
LEGEND ~
I. · · .. J MAIN ?
WATERFRONT TRAIL
B SECONDARY t
WATERFRONT TRAIL ....-
1.....1
VALLEY TRAIL
~ BIRD WATCHING
OPPORTUNITY
I~) ASH HABIT A T
ENHANCEMENT
, EJ
d' "\11 1\' PROJECT 80UNDMY
"
"
."
"
~,\' "
I"~
.....1( Of'IN tMCf II.
"
,,~. OBJECTIVES
";
1I ~ I
I.'
" ,"
. -..- LAND ACOUISITION
~E · . OOM~ET~LUNKAGE
PAOPER'tY
~
..-...-
-..--
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT AJAX WATERFRONT
~ the metropolitan toronto and region REGENERATION PROJECT FIG 23
conservation authority 1992 - 1994 TOWN OF AJAX SECTOR
LEGEND
L- I. · · .. J MAIN
WATERFRONT TRAIL
B SECONDARY
I WATERFRONT TRAIL
I
/ ,.....1
VALLEY TRAIL
. C
~ BIRD WATCHING
~::S OPPORTUNITY
~.1('- I ....., I ASH HABIT AT
'n
~ ENHANCEMENT
lITa ~
\Oil I- - --I PROJECT BOUNDARY
t.) (J
0
G
IJ
no " '~\
\ . ".\ I
, . \...-r
.
, ...
. , . OBJECTIVES
. '.
.
.
, ,
.
.
/
WiUHIIOOMS I
SHun" -
f'UlLlC Cll'IM IMC(_\
.......1". ~ . __
'-....,_ MIf_'"
i
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT CARRUTHERS CREEK E,
~ ,he me"opoman 'o,onlo and ,agion REGENERATION PROJECT FIG. 24
conservation authority 1992 - 1994 TOWN OF AJAX SECTOR
~
WR ,('3
PROJECT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF
THE CANADA POST CORPORATION PROPERTY
1400 LAKESHORE ROAD EAST
CITY OF MISSISSAUGA
MAY 1991
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
.
~~ :J;,.'"
INTRODUCTION
This is a Project of the Metropolitan Toronto and RegIOn Conservation Authonty m
accordance wIth SectIon 24 of the ConservatIOn Authonttes Act to acquue approximately
15 7 ha of land known as the Canada Post Property, 1400 Lakeshore Road East,
Mississauga, Ontano This Project outlInes the location and descnptIOn of the property
together WIth the ratIonale for the purchase, the estImated costs and the proposed funding
arrangements
LOCATION
The property IS located on the shore of Lake Ontano in the souih east corner of the City of
MIssIssauga (Fig 1) The property has a frontage of approxImately 440 m on Lakeshore
Road It is bounded on the east and south by Mane CurtIS Park. To the west IS the
LakevIew Water Pollution Control Plant, and the LakevIew Generatmg Station Shghtly
further west IS Lakefront Promenade Park, a project of the Credit Valley ConservatIOn
Authority and the South Peel Water Supply Plant.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The ProJect IS for the acqUIsIlIon of the property owned by Canada Post Corporation and
known mUnIcIpally as 1352-1400 Lakeshore Road m the CIty of MissIssauga. The property
conSIsts of approxImately 15 7 ha of land containIng a total of approxImately 30,000 square
metres of eXIstmg bUIldmgs The eXIstmg main bUIldIngs are used by Canada Post as a
sortIng and distributlOn centre. A separate buIldIng on the west SIde of the property IS used
as a Hydro tramIng facihty and a polIce cadet school
The property IS zon~ M 1 Industnal but the exisnng DIxie Shorefront Secondary Plan
(1980) WhICh Includes this area states as follows.
"The Canadian Arsenals LImIted Property IS a 20 ha. site located m the south-
east corner of the Planning DIStrict and IS bounded by Lakeshore Road East on
the north, Marie Curtis Park on the east, Lake Ontario on the south and the
property line of the Lakeview Water Pollution Plant on the west. The site was
formerly designated Industnal. The site is now deSIgnated for Park and Open
Space as part of the Waterfront Park. However, this designanon wIll not
prevent the continued use of the property for industnal purposes untIl such
I
wR ~ G.S
- 2 -
nme as the CIty may acqUIre the land for Park and Open Space Uses. If In
response to a development applIcanon the CIty or other publIc authonty does
not wIsh or IS unable to purchase the lands, an appltcatIOn for redesIgnation
will be given due consIderation, consistent wIth the policIes of thIS Plan The
follOWIng gUIdelInes apply to future uses
a. Have regard for the buffer zone reqUIrements of Provincial Mimstry of
the EnvIronment,
b PublIc access of the waterfront;
c Encourage a Jomt effort between the CIty, the Borough of EtobIcoke
and the Metropolttan Toronto and RegIOn ConservatIon Authonty to
produce a major recreational node In thIS area,
d Where poSSIble, retain the existing structures and encourage renovation
of the buildmgs for indoor recreational and commumty service
facIlItIes. "
RATIONALE FOR THE PROJECT
The site has a number of attributes as a potential regional waterfront park. It contains a
portion of an existing woodlot whIch extends on to the adJacent Mimstry of the EnVIronment
and Metropolitan Toronto and RegIOn ConservatIon Authonty lands. Access to the SIte IS
very good for regional park users by road and tranSIt. It proVIdes a logical and needed
extension to the eXistmg Mane CurtIS Park. It would support an important pIece of the
proposed waterfront tratl between Mane Curtis Park and Lakefront Promenade Park. It can
benefit from the buffer lands around the Mimstry of the EnVIronment plant as addItIonal
WIldlIfe habitat atld open space. It IS ideally SItuated WIth respect to the overall waterfront
plans for both Missl~sauga and Metro as a maJor acnvity node The large land base presents
many opportumtIes tor envIronmental enhancements and shoreline regeneratIon imtIatIves.
The report by the Royal CommiSSIOn, "Watershed", In October 1990, In recommendatIon 42
G) supported
"transferring the Canadian Arsenals property from Canada Post
Corporation to an appropriate conservation agency, by means of a land
exchange so it can be managed as part of Marie Curtis Park."
The Royal CommISSIOn's recommendatIOns have been endorsed by all levels of government.
with partIcular support from the ProvInce of Ontano
wR. .2.~~
- 3 -.
The proposed draft plan for the MissIssauga Waterfront issued by the City of MissIssauga in
June 1990 and titled "VislOn 2020" contained the following statement on page 93
"The Canada Post property should be acquIred by the City or the
MTRCA The 15 ha site has no lake frontage, but combmed wIth
Mane Curtis Park west of EtobIcoke Creek and parts of the Lakeview
Sewage Treatment Plant property, represents an opportumty to create a
maJor waterfront park of regIOnal sIgmficance "
ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY
A 3-phased audIt of the property has been done by a consultant for Canada Post. The audIt
confirmed that the surface of the site is comprised of fill ranging m depths from
approxImately 1 to 2 m ChemIcal samplIng has shown that most of the matenal meets
current Mimstry of the EnVIronment decommIssIomng gUIdelmes for residential
redevelopment. There are, however, some pockets of matenal identIfied WhICh may need to
be treated or removed It IS also lIkely that some addItIonal momtonng WIll be required and
could IdentIfy other pockets of poor material. There IS no eVIdence from the testmg to date
of any off site migration of contammants. The soil and groundwater generally meet the
guidelines for resIdential/parkland with the exceptIon of isolated pockets of material Some
asbestos and PCB contai:1ing materials are present in the buildings.
The Authority proposes to have an mdependent consultant review the results of the audit
prepared for Canada Post and to undertake any addItional work which may be requIred to
ensure that the SIte IS clean
ESTIMATED COSTS
The total cost of the ProJect IS estImated to be $18,000,000 mcludmg purchase pnce, taxes,
fees and other ancillary costs asSOCIated with the transactIon
Tr.e estimated costs of the ProJect in addItion to the purchase pnce include G S T , Land
Transfer Tax, legal, survey and appratsal fees, enVIronmental audIt and other fees for
services related to the purchase, decommissIOmng and future planning of the SIte, including
any labour, equipment, and matenals associated with these activItIes.
I
W~ "- \D I
- 4 -
FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS
ThIS Project proposes that the fundIng of the acqUiSItion and related costs be raised as
follows.
ProvInce of Ontano $ 9,000,000
MUnIcipality of Metro Toronto 4,500,000
RegIonal MUnICIpalIty of Peel 4.500.000
Total $18,000,000
APPRO V ALS REQillRED
1 Metropolttan Toronto and RegIon ConservatIon Authority
2 ProvInce of Ontano
3 RegIOnal MunicIpaltty of Peel
4 Metropolttan Toronto
5 Ontano MUnICIpal Board If reqUIred, In relatIon to the amounts to be levIed by the
Metropolttan Toronto and RegIon ConservatIon Authonty on the RegIon of Peel and
the MUnICIpalIty of Metropohtan Toronto
BD/gds
.
LEGEND
CIItIDlT IIll.L.lY 1II('-OL.1lUl 'OIlCIN1O ...
COMIIIlWoTlOM ~ "eoON CIllNIIIftaTlOM ...TMMlTY
I..... f MAIN
WATERFRONT TfWl.
B SECOHOAAV
WATEAflAONT TMIL
0 I. · · · .1 VAU.EV TMIL
B
~ BIRD WATCHI<<l
OPPORTUNITY
I ...., I ~k
1----( ~ BOOfC)MV
CITY OF
MISSlSSAuGA
OBJECTIVES
... '" .. '.... ........ "t COMPlETE TRAIL LINKAGE
eount ,.., . .~. ..... ...~, ) .
.owmo.. 0GImI0I.~ ...... ..... / I TO LAKEFRONT PROMENADE
~", PARK JOINTLY WITH
~ ....,... CREDIT VAU.EV CA
S' . INTEGRATION OF CAHJ.DA
, POST LANDS WITH MARIE
CURTIS PARK ASSUMING
ACQUISITION IS
COMPlETED UNDER
SEPARATE PROJECT
- HABITAT ENHANCEMENT ~
~
5l>
LAKE ONTARIO WATERFRONT MARIE CURTIS PARK 1"
~ .... __ _ ond....... REGENERATION PROJECT FIG.
conMIV8tion euthority 1992 - 1994 CITY OF ETOBICOKE SECTOR
I - - II
,-~ - - - :: :;.
- .- "~. . ~ ..,
._"2 ~__,.'. ~n- ; t-
. . .. "':;0):'......... '~I..t Hi.'::e. j ; ..
-~. !.. J "II':!!!'
- .,' -, . ~.i 1b4~; - - . ,
_ ~ ,. ..... t4. .. ", . . I ~
- I .. ... .... . ,~ ...,::.: If"C.~.. ~ J. f \ -- ....__ ~..... '---
-..-- -.. - - .--.. ,- - - -, -.,
.-. - . - .' u -..L'_. __ r..c .......'-_ .
_ - --..,. , ....... . ',J :- --.,. I. .. .. '..,... I " .., r '-.
.. . '''''.........~.............,''-.... .... \...~._. .~
~ .... ....' .r.. __.__ ~...... .... _
...... :=:'....,... .. '" r---' -:.~- .-:......ili...._
~... ____.. .. ...... . 'I.
- ....A. '~'.' .
~~~....-.., .' f~~I' ~
- ...., ._ _. _. . ....__-___~:''-_. ....~.A~-........ -
~~.. ---., --"'-;'P
-".~~- - -- -. ....-. -
--- ..
,
~ .~
.....'
-.:.....:-. .
r- -
, 'T
..
I. ....".
~ . -
.,
~~
_..,.~
,
\ -
wR 210
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
.
DRAFI'
INTERIM FLOODPLAIN PLANNING PROCEDURES
- LOWER DON RIVER, CITY OF TORONTO
APRIL 3, 1991
Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #2/91
April 12, 1991
'W~ 21 \
Draft
Interim Flood Plain Planning Procedures
Lower Don River, City of Toronto
April 3 1991
OBJECTIVE
1'0 provide a set of interim floodproofing policies to evaluate development
applications in the lower Don River flood plain The approach 1S
necessary, prior to the approval of SPA policies for the area, because of
the number and magnitude of development proposals 1n the area
Principles
1 Approvals pursuant to the Authority's fill, Construction and
Alteration to Waterways Regulations are granted at the discretion of
the Authority's Executive Committee
2 Approvals will not jeopardi<:e any of the proposed flood protection
option packages being contemplated for the lower Don River
Development will not be approved where it may conflict with the
implementat10n of any of the City of Toronto Flood Protection Options
3 It is recognized that there are a variety of long range planning
proposals for ~he area whic, may limit the location and type of
development (ie Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto
Waterftont, The Task Force to Bring Back. the Don) C~l.ta i n
development proposals may have to be considered premature 1n light of
these concepts
4 The highest level of floodproofing practical will be achieved
Development Guidelines
1 Development proposals will only be considered in those portions of the
lower Don flood plain where depths under regulatory flood conditions
are less than 1 o metre Development shall not be considered in land
required for the implementation of flood protection options for the
lower Don River
See Map 1 and Map 2 attached
2 Development/redevelopment must be flood protected to the level of the
Regulatory Flood as defined within the "Flood Protection Options"
report prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd , January 1991
Where it is technically not feasible or it is impractical to flood
protect this development to the level of t.he Regulatory Flood. then a
lower level of flood protection may be permitted
The spec if ic level of flood protection to be imposed. and any
flood protection measures to be implemented relative to
individual development applications. sha 11 be determined by The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in
consultation with the City of Toronto
The level of protection to be required shall be the highest level
determined to be technically feasible or practical
In no instance shall the level of protection required be less
than the 1 350 flood event
3 In all instances. ingress and egress shall be "safe" pursuant to
Provincial floodproofing standards In addition, the maximum
level of flood protection determined to be feasible shall be
considered
4 Flood damage reduction measures for this type of
development/redevelopment shall be carried out by the proponent to
achieve the required level of flood protection
w(\ 171
The selection of flood damage reduction measures shall be based on the
following alternative3, lis'::ed in order of priority
(i) Dry, passive floodproofing measures shall be implemented to the
extent technically and/or practically feasible
( i i) Wet f loodproofing measures may be permissible to minimize flood
risk and/or to meet the minimum level of flood
protection required
(iiilDry, active floodproofing measures may be permissible to minimize
flood risk
5 All applications for development/redevelopment approval shall be
accompanied by engineering studies, prepared by a qua 1 ified
professional, detailing such matters as flood frequency, depth and
velocity of flow, soil conditions, proposed flood damage reduction
measures including structural design details stormwater management
techniques, and other necessary information and studies as may be
required by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
and the City of Toronto
6 New development shall not be permitted to locate in the flood plain
where the use 1S
(a) associated with the manufacture, storage, disposal
and/or consumption of hazarrlC'us substances or the
treatment, .::ollection and disposal of sewage, which
would pose an unacceptable threat to public safety if
they were to escape their normal containment/use as a
result of flooding or failure of floodproofing
measures;
(bl associated with institutional serV1ces, such as
hospitals, nursing homes and schools, which would pose
a significant threat to the safety of the inhabitants
(e g the sick, the elderly, the disabled or the
young l , if involved in an emergency evacuation
situation as a result of flooding or fa il ure of flood-
proofing measures; and
(c) associated with services such as those provided by
fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical
substations, which would be impaired during a flood
emergency as a resu 1. t of flooding or failure of
floodproofing measures
7 Notwithstanding the above, no new development or redevelopment shall
be permitted if
(i) the development would be subjected to a water velocity or
depth which would create an unacceptable hazard to life; or
(ii) the development would be susceptible to major structural
damage as a result of a flood less than or equal to the
Regulatory Flood; or
(iii)the necessary flood protection measures would have a
negative impact on adjacent properties or
(iv l the development would impact negatively On any other Program
and/or Policy objective of the Authority
Implementation
1 In addition to required municipal approvals, all
development/redevelopment applications within the flood plain shall be
considered by the Authority's Executive Committee pursuant to its
Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulations Staff
recommendations will be based on the above-noted interim procedures
w?< 2 7~
2 Major development/redevelop~ent proposals s ha l 1 be evaluated and must
be endorsed by the SPA Technical Committee pr or to the consideration
of Fi 11 Construction or Alterations to Waterways applications by the
Executive Committee
Further, th.e SPA Te::hnical Committee shall lnterpret the Interim
Procedures if/as required
3 The Interim Procedures sha 11 be superseded by approved Special Policy
Area policies or be re-evaluated by December 1992
RJ jb
APR 2/91
ATTACH
"\\l\'~, ".,.. ~'J '-- O~
L l\:.kA\l";:s..-~ ~ 'f .-",j ~. - '),,:J
I' 21Jc ~~~ ~~ ".'d ~{,/~'Y;~~ ..../. ~ r"/.,/.-PL ~'- '" ~ - .-;:::'1- '\.""~- --~--
1\ \ ~ M'l I' ~ ". ,:iO::<..P\...~'
~ IJt- ~~~ ~. ~ ~".' -;,. -- ~ r~ ~
~~~..S" ~ l'~ ,. '~', ~/ . . = ~:. . . r. .1 ~- \\: .' tl' . I - i
.' ~~ ~'~I ~ \1 \ 0 \~ ' ''I
, -: _ '~J ~ "" ~\ . ~.. \ ~ ~\ .""" ~
;. ,. _ _ _ . ~ ~ - &;i \ - ~ ~ \ ;\ ,"'. ,., , "" ' ~
0, :...::_ \ . ,',../ "~~'~ .~~~( ~~~\~~.'\\'~ ~ "'~~",' ,--. ~~ ~\
'= ( -: .. \ . . II' \ ~,\~, :;..::: \ ~ 1.. ~
:' """~ ,- '. . \ ~ ", ~ ~' ~ . \~. ~~ ~.... ~ -- ;;..-:: . \,
'1'/" . ~ . .~ ,-\~ \1 " ~\ 0 ~ \
;!!i!!iI'\\' ,~. .~. ~ ~ \ ~?'~\ ,\ ~\ ~ ~ ' = \
kl\.. . '~~ \1, \' ~ Q = \ \\
I'" ..-_~ ;!: C::!! ~\ \ ~\ \ , ,\
. ~\ '. ~. \. ~ 0 \ \' ~. =,
, .-' \ ~' ~ . ..... --' ,\ \,,," ~ ~ :-. =..-.:: ~
.~ \" ;'\ ." ~ .. = = :;;.-:
L" " ~ ' X.I =
,.;: / : - _~. - ~ - \~ 0 \ = =
. .' U ~~-~ = ~
I ~ :~,. . ~ ~.;:, .~~ :;;.-: ;..e: ~ r
...l!!!l~..:'~ I~ \ _ \ .~. ~. =;:;;;;; . u.
:; ,.... . ~ I '. -. . =! i 1"\;, - . . '. ! ~ ' :
~ ~. _ q~'~' [1.' \~. .., J~ "i:;! " ~ \
~ . :::;:;". ~ r \ ~ . ~\:J' ~- '1 ~ . ~
~ .., \ \ \ . . '" . . "'" ,,". =
',., ..... = lid \' '. \ ~ \ '.' ~,-' ~ ..i'~ ~ \ ~:
.... ..... ? III ~~ '. \ . ~\ . r' ~ ~ IA r.
. . 'i) \ ; \ . ..... .,'~ \,. \ .
.. ~-<> I ....., . .--:- ~ . ~ ~ No.. \'
o .. '" F"'. . ~ \' .' :-. ,\.~ .. . \
e> ." ~o:\'''...:.. ~, '. .
1\'1\,"'1~1~ .,. - - '\\\\l~:::-'~' .~., .,..... ~::< \ \~
\ \\. \~~I._ " \1Il:.. ~.-l.Y:~ ~\\'. ,,... . . 1.0<: i\ ,. ~
. \ ,'- ., rr ' ~,r- . ~ \\ Ie ... . . . \ .' " I .\ .' ~
~:. ~ ,. "="'.:,&4 . <z;; r~l . .' \, , \
. ~ ~\~ I \ -, Q -~51 ~..I).,'.-b~'~ - ..., ,~ ' '. 0 ~ .' \ ~
~ . ..\ 'lt~ ~ . .' ~~ ~., ~\ . ~ ~ ~
I~" \ .,;. r::i1.l ....AK".;i ~ .' '.~ \ 0
.. ' L-' :.:... . ," :.. \ \
_. ' ";' . ~ \ \ 'I
.. __ . I .. I
0'-- ,.' <3 ..- :t
'. . ';.>00 . 't'..oI 0 -: \ " \ ! I
~ '4:1 . ~ '.f'" . . ~
~ 0 '-, -0 '~",\!~::J' >- \ ~ -
1l\ ,~,\ _::;::~ '.' p.. \ f<
\~_ , ~ ~t ;;.-: ~'/ 'i " 'r\ . . '. \ ~ = .
_ .,. v ~ ~.y,~' .......\. I
, '" . ~ J ~_10).\~\ ~:. ...... " . ,
, '" t . \ - . \0 . .
I \ . . 'I . . \ . 'vt::.~ ... \ ,'. , :;<:> ~.(
o ;:: .' '1', \ . .', ~
0" ,::;, .\- ~.\. 0 \
I \ \ 0...' . · '
, . . ~. ~ ~\ ~'t :.' '~~>>1'\ I
I \ ,\ \ \'~ .~!! ~, . .' . \'!... ..
I . , ., \ \ .. ~ .\ . '.'. .' : ~ ~
. . . ~ \. '.. '. ....... . ..,\4 -...
',~ _ ,\ 0 \~...\:\\'...,~ .o~,~'l~ - \(
. \ \ ~\D' U~ A- ~ "
. . \ \ :I\-~-~ - ...... ,y
. .. . : .,_' ~ \ .Y~. \) - .,.~~?'" '.
6\ \U~" L ' . . ,:i:f\\. u. \I ...,.. ">J:/'V\. ,'~
.."-"~'._ \ \~ :.\\'l: ~
. " ,'.~ iI-' ~ : . ~ '/\'
. ..,fI\ Jr. ...- ~ \0.
~ ( ,_ \..~ . l",;;" - \
., _ . VJ . )
- :..~. '\, .
" . . .' -, \:0 ,. - ,
\J . - Y.4>'l: :.\.' ~v.
..~- \: .. ~ '< W - :.
- ~ ~ "...~. - .......
, -- - ~. p- (- . .
. IP' oo~ " .
. . 0'" ,~i
," - ~~~~. _ _ _ r,:~:.' ",~_I
., _ ~.,. . ... 'lWo...- '9', . P... i
\ ~ .'. ~~- ,J<o~A~ :~W
~~~ -I' ~. ~o '~~~'~~X7l'
.. I ~,~.UJ\ . ..~... ~2'1 ..-
<~~"' _ ellUT1N<; .. ~- - '''''! . l,t
~~_ ~'. ,,_.... .J.... .._..~ .:-. ,t'ii&l:.' . ~
~\)V , ~~w.:;J I
M"P1 :; ~~.. ! -
,___ ...,,~= I
~ I
- - ,.
_ . " , ,/ ' i
~.:-' . 1/ ~'
r ,4~~~ ~ ·
......., .. ~-
~---,..l _' _. _. ...---i-_,_ _i~ _ _ __ _ _~.! .~ '''l
I I ' . i i . 1 - -." or-- --' ~-
OJ ! '~l'''; I ;I~ i
\ .. t( , ..
" . . 1% i
-
~ I
I Mf\f> 2.
1m f'l..COb (.ON~L.
-- 1/
- v
/
1 r---.. ___-,:,,_1 ... - - -
___......... _. - ..... t .;
. t \ ~' c:
I - ' f":
I'
WR. J.. 7 fa
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PETITION PRESENTED TO THE
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING 13/91, APRIL 17, 1991
re Frenchman's Bay West Park Concept Plan and the Lake ontario
Waterfront Acquisition Boundary Amendment
patricia Marr
Peter Wood, Canadian Yachting Association
Peter Gooch
John Darling, Toronto Boardsailing Club
Hazen Marr, Frenchman's By Yacht Club
J Wiersma, General Manager, Pickering Hydro
Margaret Hilpert
Frank wick, ontario Federation of Anglers & Hunters
Geo Hardsand
Zpyg Nowski
Petition with 200 names submitted by Greg Foster
Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #4/91
May 24, 1991
-
/0 /// E /1T /P c ;:::l vJR ~17
J-1 . ~/L~~~~/ d ~A'-L
Y EJ~.ff~../!..& (~ - ,-~'7'-:J
yuz ~ ~~ :f~f~/ ~~- --V?/YvO, ~JD
(U~ --e26 /7'~ A/~~ ~_oJ~ d J
~~ /P~~ ~rO~''O~/~ _h, N--LL/ Ta:?-~
~ ~ A/<-<..., ~ ~~--L</~O
~ aD ~ a.~ ~~~~~~~
a., ~~/Q W ~ ~ad ~
- ~/~
( ~ ~/7J-LJ/7 aurc~ ~J ~.JO
~~~ ~ ~-o ~~~/(>d<-4'- ~ ~~
Uu:Z ~ ~~~--0~~
(/ ~ /'~.)/ ~~ A /2LL<f'?r...tL ~-LoLfj
~ ~J ~~Jf ~~ J-t"'!AA_G~U ~ (1"
~ ~ 7 ~ JU-ur-OC'<2LL//-UW
~f ~ ~-V'~~~ rd~-07- LL-./
~ ~ ~~ ~.LjG7'
~~ ~MJ
fo-,y 1fouxJheJ
/~u77
w,R H, i<-Jl 15,46 TO M M M 416 8820055 FROM CAt'l T ACHT I NG ASSOO, 7-783 P 0~
~~' April 17, 1991
Mr. Larry Field, M.C.I.P.
- - Manager Waterfront Planning
MTRCA
z 5 Shoreham Drive
i5 Oownsview, Ontario
..l
3
! Dear Mr. Field,
,.
i
Subject. Frenchman'5 Bay West Master Plan
.
~ This letter i8 to formally acknowledge the support of the
~
Q' Canadian Yachting Association to permit private vehicle
l!- acceas to Frenchmana Bay and the w.st Shore Sand Bar
I
'" Spit. Vehicle access i8 vital to the area for the
" "l:
...
. following reasona:
Z ~
-
I- = * It ie the beet site for launching windsurfers and
~ <<
~
\,,) r other ema" sail boat8
~ :
.
&.&.I ~ * It allows windsurfera to .ail safely i n on .hore
0 ~ Northwesterly winds in F renchmana Bay .specially
...
~
&.&.I .. durin; the early and late .ea.on period.
Z w
Z ~
\J * It provides for equitable treatment of the exi.ting
&.&.I I
- I park u.er..
Q
< i
z I Frenchmana Bay i8 the only aite on the north shore of
< Lake Ontario between Burlington and Oshawe that allows
\,,) .
Z i sailors the opportun i ty to .a i 1 in th. safety of "On
0 ! Shor." conditions in a north-weat wind. Becau8e of this
- it is frequented by sa; lore and windsurfers from the
~ ~
:!. entire Qr.ater Toronto region. Thi. natural recreational
- i fac111 ty is of a truly regional nature in it. pre.ent
~~ atate and aeee.. to thia bOdy of water for
..
(I'j~ OIl environmentally aafe recreational pursuita should be
..
<s . maint.ained at. all costa. It 1a one of three . i te. in
l
-15 . Ontario which allow. sailors to aail in any wind
Zl!j ~ direction in .afety. Because of the unique configuration
~I I of Frenchman. Say/we.t Shore Spit, and ita recreational
opportunities the Canadian Yachting A.aociatiori strongly
-~
U! i recommends that private vehicle acce.s to the Frenchman.
il Bay /We.t Shore Spi t be guaranteed in any Park Concept.
! Plan.
t
(J~ ~ uly
l;f '1$Z$~
~:) I
:cc
~~
i
...~ Peter Wood
~i Technical Director
I Training Division
~i 5.
zi I
~~ I
uJ R 'J...,q
RE: MTRCA PLANS FOR FRENCHMAN'S BAY WEST AND ADJACENT LAKESHORE
Three concerns:
1. Access to waterfront
- Deeds to property in Fairport Beach area contain
provision for access to waterfront.
- Will proposed park allow pedestrian access to
beach/park year round?
- will deeds be altered?
2. Staging of development
- MTRCA plan calls for disposition of so.. lots, and
acquisition of others.
- I understand that MTRCA does not expropriate land,
so lots slated for acquisition must be acquired
only when available.
- will lots slated for disposition be sold
immediately or soon?
- If so, along the lakeshore between the bay and
Petticoat Creek, housing development will occur and
open space will be lost before any park development
will occur.
3. Fairport Beach ratepayers' proposed community centre
- I am told that MTRCA is considerinq "trading"
ratepayers' property for land at the corner of Park
Crescent and Cliffview and for resource. to build a
community centre.
- The ratepayers' association is well-~tivated.
Since 1975, however, the association baa not had
sufficient membership or resource. to coaplete
their building or maintain their property.
- There are other community centres and recreational
resources in the area.
- I am concerned that the only viable way tor the
association to meet the maintenance co.t. of the
building will be to find commercial uae. tor it--
renting it for social functions.
uJR ~80
- The lot at the corner of Park Crescent and
Cliffview is in the middle of a residential area.
A hall for social functions is not a land use
compatible with the existing use.
- Already we have problems with traffic and noise
from impromptu parties at the beach. Residents
near the proposed lot are concerned that a
community hall would adversely affect them in
similar ways.
- It is my view that the ratepayers should pass on to
MTRCA what was given them by a benefactor in the
same spirit, to benefit all of us in the area.
- If the ratepayers insist on a community centre in
return for this transfer, a lot should be provided
as far from residences as possible.
April 17, 1991
Prepared by: Peter Gooch
520 Park Crescent
Pickering, Ontario L1W 2C9
839 7452
wI< 1-<31
TORONTO BOIRDSAILING CLUB
01 Chern: Beach. DOK I/10K 1/ Torolllo '
318 Richmond St. West, Toronto, Ont. M5V 1 X2
Office: 596-8015/ Beach: 461-7078
April 13, 1991
TO: Members of the Metro Toronto & Region Conservation Auth.
(Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board)
Mayor and Council Members
Town of Pickering, Onto
Concerned Citizens of Pickering
Windsurfing community
Members of our Club, based in Toronto's Outer Harbour, are
alarmed by, and opposed to, versions of the Concept Plan for
Frenchman's Bay West Park which effectively ban our sport from
continued useful participation on this unique launch site.
Because windsurfers have been ignored in the initial stages
of this project (we presume by mischance), the fact that the
major active users of the bay's Spit stand to be effectively ex-
cluded because of lack of automobile access and parking has
received inadequate consideration.
This site is important for all area windsurfers because of
prevailing high winds from the north-west and north which create
dangerous offshore sailing conditions elsewhere on Lake Ontario.
Even in Toronto, where emergency landing on the Leslie Street
Spit provides insurance against life-threatening conditions,
north-wind conditions do not match the on-shore quality at
Pickering, where many of us travel to sail.
For novice sailors, low to medium winds are also safely
enjoyed in this Bay -- the only secure, on-shore North-wind wind-
surfing launch location along the whole of Lake Ontario as far as
the Bay of Quinte.
For 10 years at least we sailors have seen our active sport,
the most publicly accessible (all ages and budgets) grow --
"participaction" in practice -- only to face extinction in the
face of banned access. At a time when the philosophy of active
sports is being promoted, how you reconcile a Park Plan which
makes the most popular watersport in Canada all but impossible?
All of you must know that our totally portable sport is
carried by auto-top, and absolutely all of our many sails, masts
and accessories are packed in our auto trunks and vans. We do
not require extensive, expensive storage space, clubhouses,
restaurants or bars -- our autos are our "lockers," the outdoors
is our "lounge." Beach car access is not a luxury; it is an
integral part of our sport, as important as the water itself.
We bring some food occasionally, but the impact of our sport
upon the environment is nil -- the sport itself being totally
silent and non-polluting. None of the alleged degradation of the
Spit, its dunes or fauna and flora, is due to our sport.
Nor has our auto access in any way interfered with the
natural balance of the Spit, or public enjoyment. Most of our
high-wind sailing is done on days when naturalists (and the
public in general) are absent (sensibly indoors).
As a neighbouring windsurfer, I object to the summary manner
in which I, and my Pickering fellow-sailors, are about to be
(continued over)
wR ;l~~
deprived of our legitimate and necessary recreation resource. We
have established our sport on this beach over a lO-year period,
and deserve to be given priority in future use consideration. We
cannot accept otherwise: if this plan or any other which
inhibits our use of the Spit is adopted, we can only continue to
lobby and protest until it is restored.
Yesterday, a handicapped mate of my in our Club, who uses a
cane but looks forward to sailing this season, pointed out that
unless he has car access to within a few yards of a beach, he
cannot physically get his board and rig to the water. A trolley
buffetted by high wind is not a viable answer either -- besides,
a trolley cannot carry both board and sail, and l5-foot mast!
The option of a windsurfing beach, with a building, is not
real unless it provides parking, which is the only means of
access for this particular sport (like rowing, like canoeing,
like even passive nature appreciation, especially as it pertains
to elderly citizens or citizens with children.)
If parking is not provided close to this launch site, my
handicapped sailor friend will have to use another more crowded
site (at Cherry Beach, or Kew Beach, the latter a long tow from
the parking lot). Only these three sites are available for
windsurfer launching on the whole of Lake Ontario!
In conclusion, we ask that we windsurfers be accommodated in
this park in a meaningful way. We ask also that we be consulted
in a meaningful way, as well, in the planning process. No non-
sailor consultant can intelligently plan for windsurfing needs or
facilities without consulting practictioners of the sport.
In Toronto, we sailors argued successfully that we should
have a launch site on the Leslie Street Spit because our sport
was compatible with the environment theme of Tommy Thompson Park,
and because the mandate of the MTRCA was to provide a mixture of
active sports along with passive enjoyment of nature.
We gained this recognition in spite of the fact that we were
never able to establish prior use of the Spit, because it was
always closed as a "contruction site."
But here at Frenchman's Bay, windsurfers have long estab-
lished prior use rights, and proven their responsibility in
keeping the area clean and respecting the natural beauty of the
Spit. We should therefore be the primary source of consultation
and planning of the future of the new Plan, not relegated to the
background, ignored, and then included at the last stage as an
afterthought.
We of the Toronto Boardsailing Club wholly support our
sailor friends in the Pickering area, not only in their fight for
their rights as local enthusiasts, but because we still regard
the Bay as a primary launch site in northerly winds, as long as
we are prevented from similar prime beaches on our own local Spit.
We urge members of the HTRCA and Pickering Town Council to
re-consider these proposed Plans, and allow the sailing citizens
. of this fine Town continued access for this vital watersport.
Yours truly,
.
John Darling, for the Executive Committee
Toronto Boardsailing Club
~.Ubilll:::;~.lun tel the M':RCA W3.ter and Re 1 ited Lilld Man:tqefilelWR ~ 8'~
Advisory Board by Frenchma.n's Bay Yacht Club April 17, 1991
-------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fr e nc 1"111"1.3. n ' :3 Bay Y3.cht club hiB been ictlve on Frenchlll.in I B B.3Y
since 1938, with some interruption during the years of World
War I I It received its Provincial charter in 1962 and has
operated at its present location on Frenchman's Bay west
since 1965
The object of the Club, as stated in its Constitution, is to
3.dvdnce the sport of yachting in its broadest sense It is
primarily a sailing club although a few members own cruising
type power craft The Club competes actively in sail racing
in the Toronto area and to a lesser extent in the broader
Great Lakes area It has a thriving internal racing program
catering to members and members of other local clubs During
July and August, its burgee can be found from Lake Champlain
to Lake Huron In mid August the Club hosts an increasingly
popular reg3.tta which attracts boats from many parts of Lake
Ontario and also from as far away as Ottawa and the Bruce
Peninsula During the winter season the Club hosts seminars
on boating and safety related matters for its members and
those of other yacht clubs in the area The Club, itself,
spends $100,000 anually on goods and services purchased in
Pickering Its members, together, spend more than $300,000
anually on outfitting, maintenance,and storage of their
vessels. The regatta, alone, injects more than $50,000 into
the Pickering economy.
The Club's physical facilities consist of about 100,000
square feet of land and water lots, about 1/3 owned and 2/3
leased from MTRCA; one main club building and 124 boat slips,
87 of which are located on MTRCA's "Block S" and 37 of which
are on water lots rented from Pickering Harbour Co , east of
"Block S"
The club has long involvement in its community. In addition
to its work with Big Brothers, it sponsors young people for
cruises with Toronto Brigantine, provides sailing outings for
handicapped children and with 20 years, is among the first of
the supporters of the West Pickering Softball Association.
The Club also has operated for the past 20 years a successful
sailing school which is open to the public. 60 to 70 young
people a year are taught to sail to the Canadian Yachting
Association's White Sail and Bronze Sail standards. This
school is approved by the CIA and operates without public
funding.
Associated with the Club is the Frenchman's Bay Junior Yacht
Club, made up in part of graduates of the sailing school
This Junior Club operates an active program of dinghy sailing
and racing A member of this Club was the first Canadian to
win the World Youth Sailing Championship held a few years ago
in Australia The attached clipping from the pickering News
Advertiser of April 3, 1991 shows its continuing activity in
world class events, this time the Pan American Games, where
both the Canadian contender and his alternate are from FBYC.
f)J~ ~~4 - ) -
~
Thf' Yacht Club has lonq been involved in the search -and--
rescue and safety 3~pect () f b03ting Ever s i n('e the
formation of the Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, the Club has
been an official search and rescue post, 3- provider of crew
for the Auxiliary, and the provider of a vessel Club
members have participated in the operation of Pickering'3
rescue boat "PARU" since the inauguration of that service,
and since 1971, the Club has provided PARU's backup SAR
vessel Since lQ90, PARU has been a member of the Club Its
costs have been reduced and its rescue operations improved as
a result of this change The Club also operates fund drives
for PARU and, at present, various navigational aids on the
vessel were provided through this activity
The Club believes that Pickering benefits from these and
other Cluh activities Not only do potential business and
industrial residents learn of Pickering's reputation as a
c()mpt-'titive and rerreational sailing centre but also
Pickerinq qains credibility as the site of watersport
components of any major sporting event which may be attracted
to Toronto in the future The Club is committed to full
support of the Town of Pickering in any such enterprise
Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club is unique 3mong Lake Ontario yacht
club::5 in that it does not at present provide winter boat
storage for its members It was probably assumed when this
decision was made that the presence of several marinas on the
Bay made Club storage unnecessary
For many years this assumption appeared to be valid However
it is true and always has been true that the summer customers
of the marinas have first call on their winter berths. This
fact was academic in the past when the supply of winter
berths exceeded the supply of summer berths.
Within the past three years, however, Moore Haven Marina has
abandoned its Kingston Road yard, Port Pickering Marina
has converted many of its winter berths to parking lot in
connection with its restaurant development. Winter berths
have been reduced by about 200 through these changes
Similar though smaller scale changes have occurred at Swan's
Marina. The general effect is to leave East Shore Marina
much closer to a monopoly position as a supplier of winter
berths on Frenchman's Bay Moreover, it appears that only
moderate growth of its summer business will create pressure
on East Shore's capacity to provide winter berths for boats
other than those of its summer customers.
As FBYC members are wintering further and further away from
Frenchman's Bay due to price and availability constraints
within the Bay, other Y3cht Clubs are letting it be known
that they can offer a complete service to their members,
including winter storage, at a total cost with which we
cannot compete
-3- wR ~~5
The effect on FBYC i~, , 3 i flip 1 I , de ( 11111 n '-4 rile llIb~ r s hip. Ollt
upper limit, by agreement with MTRCA 1:3 1 So lIlelflbers At
present we :ue 3.t 1 ) ~ Look illq 3.t the trend
<. l
1975 - 1988 150
1989 147
1990 136
1991 123
At about 90 ffif~mbers, w~ would find that dues would cover only
fixed costs with nothing left to maintain property or operate
the Club If we do not move now to at least offer what all
other yacht clubs offer, there is no assurance that the
membership trend can be reversed
We have had to think about the unthinkable and consider what
we would do if the Club were to become non-viable We
believe at the present time that the best course would be to
sell our owned parcel of land and to wind up the Club with a
distribution of assets to the then existing members This
would provide sufficient funds for each member to pay the
costs 3.ssociated with ioining other clubs. Probably the
whitby Yacht Club would be the main beneficiary. We think
this would be ~n unfortun~te development. Not only would the
only facilities-based yacht club disappear from Frenchman's
Bay but also the re-establishment of such a facility at some
time in the future would be achievable only at very large
cost if it were possible at all
With these considerations in mind, the club approached MTRCA
in 1989 with a view to securing an arrangement whereby some
of the Authority's land south of Sunrise ll.ve. could be made
to serve as a winter boat yard The proposed parking loti
boat yard component of the Frenchman's Bay West Park Concept
Plan thus evolved
This proposed dual use of the public parking lot of the
Frenchman's Bay West Park fully accords with the MTRCA
Mission Statement: " . .advocating and implementing watershed
management programs that enhance the quality and variety of
life in the community by using its lands for inter-regional
outdoor recreation.. .". Moreover, it maximizes the
utilization of scarce land resources by meshing two needs -
each to be met by the same resource in its own season.
In addition, the proposal is so akin to other examples of
MTRCA land utiliz~tion throughout the Metro Toronto
waterfront that one would think of it as a quite typical case
of the application of the principles which govern MTRCA
However, there have arisen a number of objections to its
implementation which should perhaps be addressed
~~~~ -4-
1 Public llnd 2hould nnt be made 1v3.1llble tClr priv3.te use
when priv~tE" storage is aVni13bl~ elsewhere
The principle is already well establ i3hed that public land is
made available for private bo.,t stor3ge (and paid for by the
private u3er) It has alre1dy been noted that the
availability of commercial storaqe in Frenchman's Bay is
uncert3in Boaters generally e~pect (and find) clubs which
provide for all their needs
2 The environment will be cont~minated by bottom paint
Seriously toxic. buttom paints are no longer used. Tin
fluoride has been replaced by copper oxide in antifouling
paints However, whether it is copper oxide sanded off a
boat or titanium dioxide leached off a house, paint pigment3
are being released into the environment House paints are
probably the greater problem given the greater numbers and
size If paint pigments in the environment are a problem,
the problem is certainly not confined to boaters Therefore,
let us all contribute to its solution, not just boaters In
the meantime Club members will continue to use
environmentally approved paints for their boats wherever
paint maintenance is to be carried out The Club might
consider doing bottom maintenance in its own yard, if tht~
seems preferable However, the residue ends in the Lake,
along with house paint residues, whether bottom maintenance
is done in the winter yard, the Club's property, a mar ina or
a local driveway
Water contamination around the Club's facilities,
incidentally, comes mostly from the storm sewer outlet at the
foot of Sunrise Ave Judging from smell and appearance,
contaminants include gasoline, lube oil, liquid paint, foam
plastic particles, diesel fuel, antifreeze, detergent foam
and paint thinners Club members usually have pollution and
polluters on their minds when they regard the black coating
on hulls produced by this mixture
3. The winter storage yard will have an undesirable visual
impact
MTRCA's consultant supports the location of the boat yard as
not compromising the park concept including visual impact
4 The Yacht Club will not allow public storage of boats
The club does not object in principle to the stor3ge of non
member boats in the proposed yard. However, the Club does
not want to be put in the position of llndlord to non
members The Club wonld expect MTRCA to enforce rules with
respect to such boats similar to those anticipated to form
part of the lease agreement respecting this storage yard
between MTRCA and the Club Additionally, the Club, having
invested in the yard, would expect to benefit in fair
proportion from the revenue generated from such boats
- 5-- wi( ~&1
I) . The 5tor3.ge prupns3.1 will incre3.se tr3.ffic un Sunrise Ave.
The storage pruposal doe:: not contemplate the use of 3.ny
public road for the movement of boats, 50 there would be a
decrease of road traftic from that cause, albeit not on
Sunrise Ave The Club related summer traffic on Sunrise Ave
will remain as it is now There would be some increase of
winter traffic clused by people visiting their boats,
althouqh it is not cledr that it would be on Sunrise Ave In
:iny C:ise, the Club questions the right of property owners to
limit traftic volume increases on streets provided for public
use If such a riqht exists, the Club, as :i property owner,
presumably has a right to :!. imi t the much greater traffic
volume incre3se L.:iused by the construction of the house::>
alung Sunrise Ave ,
6 . The proposal will rpsult in storage uf ugly boat cradles
The Club expects to be required each year to vacate the
storage yard entirely, leaving nothing behind, when the yard
is turned over to summer parking This means that members
will have to buy foldup steel cradles which can be stored on
the Club's land in summer or will have to make their own
arrangements for the summer storage of wooden cradles away
from either the winter yard or the Club property.
7. "We strongly object to any other (than conservation park
and beach f:icillty) use of this land by any priviledged (sic)
minority group comprising mainly of non residents "
A proposal so clearly conson3.nt with the stated objectives
and purpose and mission of MTRCA, which are ut least
implicitly ratified by the four million people who live in
MTRCA's sphere of responsibility, and which MTRCA has
implemented in nearly identical forms on numerous occasions
along the Metro Toronto waterfront, cannot be defeated by the
objections of a handful of people without c3lling into
question the objectives, purpose and mission of MTRCA as well
as the many existing expressions of these principles
The Club does not expect to obtain anything it does not pay
for It is not, therefore, privileged I t may indeed be a
minority. 24 of the Club's members live in the West Shore
area, 65 live in Pickering We are not mainly non residents.
8 "The proposed storage facility will increase traffic
along local roads, possibly it might de-value our properties,
and become an unsightly, neglected site as can be evidenced
by the boat storage areas located on Liverpool Road south "
There will undoubtedly be a small increase of winter traffic.
There will be no boat traffic and no increase of summer
traffic. The proposed location of the storage yard in the
centre of the park will have a very small effect on property
values beci'luse of its small visual impact In contrast, the
park, itself, should enormously increase property values in
its vicinity.
~..1g~
tI-
It lv nnt r e ~ :3 () n ~ b 1 e to ~-=,'3Urlle tint the club will dlJ what thl":'
-'
marinas have done thp Club is not a marina Also, the
marinas miqht l)n5sibly nbiect to beinq called unsiqhtly,
neqlected sites The lease aqreement is ~xpected to provide
controls on care of the yard The annual clean-out proposed
for the yard wi 11 keep debris from collecting.
9 Even if the b03.ts cannot be seen in the winter yard, the
uqly masts will stick up above any hushes which might be
planted and be an eyesore
A boat hull in a cradle is subjected to unnatural
concentrated forces and is subject to damage by wind if the
mast is left in place No one who cares about his boat would
allow this The Club therefore would not object to being
required to remove masts prior to storage, which it will do
in any case The Club now owns and uses facilities for
removal and storage of masts
The Club would characterize objections such as these as
representing an exceedingly parochial point of view. Surely
a larger public interest deserves attention by MTRCA in this
matter. The Club is confident that if this larger interest
is given due consideration, the boat yard
proposal will be approved as it has been in earlier s imi lar
circumstances
Frenchman's Bay Yacht club offers lts th~nks to the staff
people at MTRCA and the Town of Pickering for the unbiassed
and businesslike way they have put together the Frenchman's
Bay West Park Plan and for the ample opportunities they have
provided for public input and discussion
wR~ S9
PICKERING - A Pickering Florida.
sailor has qualified for the Pan- The Lazer-class races in
American Games in Cuba in Florida were held over three
August, days from March 15 to 17 with
Rod Davies. 21. a member of each race lasting two hours in
the Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club duration.
in Pickering. qualified for the Davies admitted he was a lit-
Pan Am Games from Aug. 6 to tIe out of practise going into tht
17 after placing second at the Mid-Winter Championships with
recent Laser boat Mid-Winter little opportunity to train OIJ
I Championships in Miami. See AIlEA.:.Paae A15
0, FAX 683-7363
dd111Qfl cfsefSCiit f<oil- - l
~ ~......)' ~... ..., w.. ""'~ .... "" . _ _ _+t.-......
~ -1...."o(~ '^>.i;..':!1t::11I ~ .,.. ' :-"f ..,. ~H/I1>".. <<'t- >>Y".....' ~ +"'~ ... ,-
Cuba" e~o-Am. Games
J1:. y..., or'" ,'" ....x.~,.. . <: N
FROM PAGE An preparation for the Pan Am At Kingston, Rod will race in
water. The wiDDer, Sam Kerner of Games. the Flying Dutchman class which
Hawaii, had been training on the In July, the Davies will travel is an Olympic class of sailing.
water right up to the time of the to Europe to compete in Europa However, Rod says he's racing
championships. Cup Iller races in Holland, in the Flying Dutchman class at
Davies was the deCending Norway and Denmark. Kingston just for experience. His
More tbaa 200 boats will COIJl.
champion of the Mid-Winter pete in each of these Europa Cup concentration is solely on the Pan
Championshipl. regauu. Am Games this year and he's not
Two other Metering sailors Following Rod's return from overly concerned about qualifying
also compe&e4 ill Miami. Rod's the Pan Am Games in Cuba, the for the Olympig.
brother Ray o.nes, 20, wu 11 th Davies will set sail at the "I've put a lot of training into
in Laser efau, while Jamie Canadian Olympic Trainio, the Pan Am Games; I've really got
Boyden also competed. Regatta in Kingston in August, good traiDing partners (in brother
In May, Rod Davies win besin which also serves II the first Ray and -BeydeR). .. says Rod. "I'll
Cull-time training at the Olympic sailing trials for the 1992 race the trials just to get the expe-
Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club in Olympics in Barcelona, Spain. rience. ..
uJ~ ~ q 0
1920 BAYLY STREET J Wiersma. P Eng General Manager
PICKERING, ONTARIO CommiSSioners
L1 W 3R6 M D Stroud. Chairman
416-427-0791 J Mason. Vlce-Chamnan
416-427-4998 (Fax) W Arthurs. Mayor
M Brenner Councillor
M Griffiths
April 15, 1991
; '!he Metrop::lli tan Toronto and Region
COnservation Authority
5 Sboreham Drive
Downsvi.ew, <iltario
M3N 154
Attention: Mr Don Jackson, Cha.iJ:man
Water and Related !and Manaqement Advisory Board
Dear Mr Jackson:
Re: Frenchman I S Bay West Park
Concept Plan Town of Pickering
Please accept my ap:>logies for being unable to attend your meeting of
April 17, 1991, due to cooflictinq CCIIII1i. tments
'n1e :p1qX)se of my delegation was to offer my camnents regardinq the developnent
of the above reference park
My ccmnents are as follows:
. '!he electric p:lWer services should. be installed underground, and
padmounted transfoz:mers and switchgear should be suitably placed in low
visibility areas;
. Vehicular areas should be maintained to transfOJ:merS and switchgear
units ;
. Existing services must be maintained and continue to be accessible, until
all residential properties have been acquired and demolished;
. Requirements of the Coast Guard for the future supply of electric power to
the west side of the channel must be assessed,
. Re1oova1. costs of the existing p:lWer lines and the installatioo of new
services will be carried out at the expense of the authority. Details
will be available fran our office,
RECEIVED
APR 18 1991 /2
M.T.R.C.A
wR JCJI
-2-
. In the interest of recycling, we would gladly make used utility p:>les
available, to the authority, for ~ses other than p:JWer distribution,
at a naninal cost.
I hope these ccmnents are helpful, and I look forward to participating in the
developnent of this pranisinq new park
Sincerely,
U!:~:::--
General Manager
JW/sd
c: W. A. McLean r
secretary-Treasurer
wRJ!1 ~
i\pril 16, 1991.
.r. Larry Field,
l';a!lager, .aterfront Planning
The :~etropoli tan Toronto and
qe~io~ Conservation Authority
5 Sh~reham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
t13., 1 S4
Dear :'!r. Field,
Re: FRENCH.:'..AI,'S BAY w"EST CONCC:PT PLAN.
As recuested by you on the 5th of April 1991, I am enclosing a copy
of the wording from my Deed of Land. This is regarding the beach rights
which I have in COmMon with other prooerty owners in this area.
These rights go back to the 1920's although I have not seen the original
Grant from the Crown.
I am also enclosing a copy of my verbal comments, which I will present
at the public meeting on April 17th, 1991.
The placing of the Fish gabitat Structures on the bottom of the 3ay is
not only a very hazardous location for windsurfers and other s, but it
may require permission being granted by the owners of Frenchman's 3ay,
(The Pickering Harbour Company Limited).
I have lived here since 1973, and I am well aware of the needs and
environmental impact of some of the changes that may be necessary to
develop this park.
Yours troly,
'"' \-~\~' /\\0 ~
r;argaret Hilpert.
Encl. (2)
*. MARGARET HILPERT
*' * 624 WESTSHORE BL
PICKERING ONT
** L1W 21'8
wR o1'1S
ALL SINGULAR that certain parcel of land and premises in the 70Va of
S-iu~.~ln\l in the ..,lODal HunlclpAlit.y of Dub.. and
Province of Ontario, being composed of the who1. ot Lot nultCer 15 lIla shown on rian )11,
r.~iutGl'Q~ 151 th~ Mlof11.try Ctt1c:u for t.h4I "viatcy Dlvl.ion of l.hu;h&1& (Ho.40)
TOCET~.a WITU a ~lvht-of-way over an4 the rltbt to ua. for PArk ~urpo..a
.a a recr.ation 9X'OUD4 &Ad for bathiug pUl'Pms~c: (in COr.:'l)Or. "i~b Cahttli:'
~r.on. .n\i~l.d thereto) the whGle ot tho lo11ovlo9 lAD4a, that 1. to
..ya Block. -A- and -a- .. ahovn un Plan 115 .. ...n~J by 'Ian 212,
~.91.ter.4 la the ..1d Re91atcy Office &Ad aloek .C. .ocor4inv to ~1&n ~70,
.. U1lIIIl"c1 by Plana 213 and 172 and the .ho~. liu bet'WdeA the .aid blook.
and w. waur'. e~9. Iro. ti- to t1.... of lAke Ont.rio,
^"O TOG~&R WITH a r19h~-of-v.r 1n ~n vltb otber per.oft. .ft~ltle4
th.reto. oYer Block -D- a. abowft Oft ..14 Plan 210, .. ...nded by .lana
27) and 212 .na Blodk. -.-, a,. and wO- .. .boVft Oft ..14 'Ian 175 ..
...n4e4 by .1aa 212.
AND ~~aR W17M . ri,b~-of-w.y in oo.-oa wltb other ve~aoft. eftt1tled
thereto oYer .look. -L- aDd -M- .. .bOvD Oft ..i4 .1an !11 ~tl.ter.4 in
the ..14 Retl.try Offloe, '
^~O TOO~HB~ "ITD . r1,h~-of-v.y 1n CO.R~. with other per.ona eft~ltled
th~r.to ~r Dloe_. -.., .0., "p. .n4 .0. .. .hewn Oft PlaD 331,
r.91.t.~4 1n ..1d Rotl.try Ollice.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD unto the said Grantee, his heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns to and for their sole and only use forever;
SUBJECT i:SVERTHELESS to the reservations, limitations provisioes and conditions
expressed in the original grant thereof from the Crown.
uJ/{)R 4 _ · ! '3U ~FI '3 I\CC S2 TO rH:-' ::?EACH- ?IT
1 () vehicle 'lccess to tr'lP. bfl->..;:1.-c;-d. is cn"/')LPt,'l' liTl'lCr:A t."\.)l(~. i. t "1)1]] he
extre~,p.lv ,jifficult for t.:in'3uri:!"s t,l l.r' n~"'o'l"'t") ri 01" ,,11 f)f tfl"ir
eClulpment every time they s:'lil on Frencn"l::Jn's ., . Ti1is s ,ort c.1!:lDlf:[1ds
entirr'ly on th,.. weather, ~~nd ' irnc~ion ~ ~ '/P1.nci t'{. '.,in' surfim' t:.1n 'Je
done at any time of the year, within reason, e..,rl.'! s!)rin~ 'l!~(1 l.."V' 1';:)1]
is: th(.: 'r.1.jor ~,;il:i"I! 5(,1<1':")1".
French'r.~"'l'S :h',f is the only s.,fe w"lter for \o1i.ncsurfirg in t''H' ertire re!.Tion
in cold we.'lther, \<1hen the northerly winds :)rHlo"'in?te. S"fety is ;) f:lctnr.
T11i-nor iniuries, -Ji !1~ ,.c h '\.11, 'i'0 '.,'1)'I]13n 'hI" :;"i1 ~ill'^i.r' the - 11 tAr, Ill'::Serteu
ti'nes, need -'.l c!>r h;mdy for securi.ty, (incidpnts of vioh.r'cp "r,;:linst WOH]en
fir!' ir~"''3.,si.n!'). T'1~ c.,!:,~ t~l "!"p.cllirwl ~r~ thp ~~Dr"~io-": cnsts of a beach
fac:ilitv on the suit RS oro:JOsPc in the Pl ar', is 1..1(1'{ oe'!ond the 1"\geO and
fin:mc'l1l SCCl':'P. of :mv ~oprrl~..,jl ~JW club. 1 '10 , :)C'O , ~. .J C;. C;O
,
BOA.T STORAGE 9Y FnE~'\.;H kiltS B)\Y H.CRT CLUB
ThRt boat stor~~e -1i 11 not e an evesore or ~n.lut~ the r H!'ile ~j"rsh, ~"t,ich
is a w', torfo' 1. nes tin~ "l.ro:!., amJ th'l t the eco1.0E"ic:"11 ilOo~Ct of cle.<ming .100
spring (3Dinten'lnce of 100 oo"ts bfl :nonitorF.t) ?'y toe Le>:;"'rtm~nt 0" the
Env:lronment. Also the effect of Zeor~ iUsspl Cl~'1}'1110, l.v~'i.('h i ~ j1.' S t. now
s:1owin17 U""'l on tho Toronto w.'1teri'ront. Will ~ufficient onr~i~ for vehicles
still be ~v:~il,qbIe durin~ the 7 to R :"l.onths th~t the~"" 100 bc'?ts .rUI
occupv chis c-'lr~"r k.
~ICAP PARKING
Ve,icle .?ccess i"nd O~l'" 1"g sn"ce sl,"'lld I-,P 'lllo~::Jt,~" ')tl t.h" ~e"'r.:1-s:::it ,
prpf'''ll.'!tbly with f.l ~"I'!tp.rfront Ol'" 1:l,v1"l"'lmt 'riP-',' ~..!" t'1"'5~ ,,,I-t~ .,,..,; nldnr"{
or ul1f.lble to walk. The existin'T PI"'n shmJs vehicle ~r~in~ surrou~ -~ oy
treel; <)m] bushFls. wl,icl, is too f"'r fl"'orl! t-r'l~' l'i~t. r-f"'o!1t, v.;nw :-~r t."o:':C'
...Ioto ~Iro le!:i~ .nobil.e.
~:~G - G8~"ERAL
In view of the 1i::li tet' p1rkin" s.."'ce :1l1oc'l r.E-" in t.ds Pbn, I .,,'1 concernna
tn'lt LrH-, surrounding rr-siop.p.ti.,l str p.ets ~butti!,j - 1..10 ",.,rl( Fill ~Fl llsl-d
for t~o overflow, ."me.! the 5 f('ty of' c; li.ldre", -If c clist 1.1~t "l! 'o.'si,11 rE:ld.
IJ\
CJ
ci
~
"3
I ~--
I --.-
:::... "=....-
--.
I IHvur.OH"INTAU ... l.-oend I
(I~I"I"'NTAlION ~--
O'''OfIfn".Tlvl ZONE
:='.:::--..-.- =--
_'-""c- t22l --
_ tI'I'IIIC&'''___
--. --
I c:::J --
-, a-
--
,c;:::)-.......
't~......____ F--
7 -----
- =;=-.I
i -
IT iJIlUTOAAnoN JONI
" i ':~CA...':'" I
_.
--
,
"
I :? ~
, . ~"'" ....v
! I
- FO~"""'" B<--< ~
,
~I~ I
I
Wl"l"..... ~-Jl!" -r","R-
Sl~ Ct::1J'-l;) ...~~ ~~ \
- ~ ~~ '1"'~'" c.'-v~
I R~~
I I ~ . I
I -p",* Scnoc. ~ I I
-.-.....-' ~T..ll ~T.~I
I o.oo-.l__OoliIIIIor.
1_-
! ,____rw_ -.. E.-r--,6 ~ v.Ndq
--,
I _1-'--- I 'l '
i "'---TO "!TTICOAt efl,IK I ~"'"-=-- -
I CONIl!"VAT1OH .....l... I
NIW wnLANtI - I
I_-~ o..-___~ :::=-- v...::-'- "'" ~
---.... -...... ~o.--""""'" I
1_1_ I'~ II......
---...~...... I __/S."_~a.
I ----
Frenchman's Bay I.~__- s-,.c, T. ~ 0Gtp s..., I ;c...-;:n::,~- /
West I -~ I
It~._ / ,
~.'I I
Metropoht.n Toronto and Region Cons.rvltlon Authority -- /
,- --- lAKI!Of(lANO I ~.:~.---
Park Plan Concept .._..IIIQAI" I
I I w~o........ '-
I,~ -: I....... -- I
( ReVISed Apnl 5. 1991 ) -- , I
:-:i --
I .. ........~ / ....' I
.- ..... / - I
............... /
....
~" '" I TT=-t::> 'R. ~ ~--.s1C...... \,:J Ic..k
ONT~O -.=-~ "TlQ..:l c:!l~ ~~L.t:trlU ~ ~~cr7Z-~
, \..l.<:)\J"'A-.-t~ OF ~HA-U....... ~c!)p.\ C>V:lN~ ~l:.c.~ po.. P u,c..C
~o R>~ \""~ ~flo.~ l--.l -r~l~ WO(jL~ ~€ A
-:=, ""~€ ~"o,.. "Rc.~ I~ (QWN HA-'b r=RcM\S~ A
'RA1oV.. P -ro ':SfbR.T $ "-'\~ ~f' F\ Ib::-t:>... ~ l.M~\J ::je"'ARJ ..
.-
uJR ~qt,
11/E5C' h5/1 s1R.J):1UeE~ /filE" /JI.!P
A rr\lt3"<1( (b'>vC 61t.N. - {r !IcY Itllt=~ RJs.
ro~( VI(JlUfl2 Tllt: StJlF/1ct/ of {tiE W.-978)
1i1 t4' stbJLb Be- /--..OCAfCfJ IN ,cK'uI-Vr of 7//t.
rr}fes;1 AWf/y' rR~h'r ;!C,&""-SS r/!~ 1 fJ if
~f/ } /-1s /rJoIlG'" OA1JliGt" Jt/1L '- /1/:;'-'
/:)()-ru( 70 5~JMII1~ A~~ r~T AJlIlCtl
C~Ukl) ce~(f; /I lviw 50,1 (fiNO IF 7Jf!/
po a~ II ~ FAG 11../11 1 rr -e-oU,....
C eGtr c Fl Bet 0 PAAC~ af- fist! fh817;f$
~- ,~ - ~ ------"
Qe6.~1l
.H6 6251743 6253045
FROM POUTRONICS E~~G pk 416 6257840 PHONE NO 416 6251743 6253045 WI< =0_
~q1 ~
.
Apr1l 18, 1991
At'tn: L&rr~ Field
M.n&~er Watertront P11'I.\"Inine
D.ar S1r:
As I w.. unat>le to IICleak at ~h~ m..tinc ye.te~d~, 3: would like
to express my oppo.1tion to the :roemovaJ o~ park!.nc ~rom the
s&nd.pi~.
AS a birdwatcher. T otten CO a1: varioua t:1m.. o~ t:ha. day and
sea.on to watch t:rto.. 10vel~ or...tu:roea in the Ba,y .nd on tha.
lake. (I'm not SU3:>. i~ ~OIJ ."('. awax-a. 'that th.x-. a~e .wan" in the
b~)
Remov!nc p.:rokinc trom the ..nd.pit will mean that" I w:111 be
unable to CO and bt,..l1wlltch .n~mo1"e (o~ at 1...t not aa o~1:a.n) a.
I don't re11ah the 1/2 m1'.. w.lk TO .1t O\l~ in bad wea'ther to
wait for 'the birda.
A~'t.r the meet1n~ ve.t.x-dav. I do not ... any lo.!eal J:'...on wh~
park!ne .hoIJ'd not" ba. p.~mi't:~.d in 'the api ~. The onlv 'two voica.a
in tavoul' of the p'..n ~..t.rd~ w.~. f:room . man who ha. h1. own
bo&t .lip anc1 .. repr..entat1ve o~ the Vaoht Club. !ver~ona. al..
..ems to b. opposed.
S1ncarel~.
oj, IO~
U
Zp~& Nowak1
181 Church!ll Ave.
W111.owdale. Ontario
M2K 2B8
wR ~~~ ~ ~uu
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
~/ ') -4Cc12
Name A/E1l.... HDz>s'~,..J Signature ~/ '. " .J J:.m--- '
Address 4 -:SCN~ 0....J wu/2.) l
CitylTown Rc=~ I-=::>;.)t t- O ,.::)\
Phone # (h) 742-84(,4-
(b) 725 - /J 44-
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
Name (/cTc,l( (}oK tECk I Signature 4k~r
"
Address 2/2 (' €~;::~ (II 19/ ,c A t/ ~
CitylTown 7tJ/toltlro 6tlc:;r ~~K
Phone #. (h) qLI-jlJtjLl
(b) e
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? ~ s. No 0
Name 'ltk. f1 d.;J 11 k Il..h/~ Signature...{jZ......a:...m..m
Address /0 Gtt&VOSLE IJl t:t- \'/ 'I
CitylTown ?1JJe ()/f/Td tJl1
Phone #. (h) &f2t-'1l- J-(t.;
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0
Name
,
CitylTown
Phone #
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? 0 No 0
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHW~.?~AY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 991.
Name ~ [JAil i/llh2/<fl Y' Signature- _
t, ':
Address I} \.,I
CityfTown ' oTJ,~::~;- &J.t
Phone # (h) 70")-. 7 h b - .1,tJ- </9,
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No' ~
Name I!~ _Tv4,t... Signature ..~/
Address (:1" LJI'9'~1f t&rtlrw I/I;/c/..
CityfTown (;;~~J t__ ~
Phone #. (h) ~ ~/-;"Of.{
(b) ;;fi.'~-\1{)9 ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? ~ooo'ooo::'ooo:oooooooooo..
Name. 1/\/1. ~r'/'lh.. 11I-~-B{_ Signature /L--- ,I/"'~-A-
/
Address' ? 4 p" (1. / V C-. I ^~ -'L
CityfTown i C ~
Phone # (h) ~ < / 7'10C
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991?
Name-j.. ~~ Signature:
Address ~, 8'"1 \~~ ~
CityfTown ~<;.:.~~~~ 0....). \-16{~l2-l
Phone #. (h) 2..UJ ?.h2r~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? No_ 0
tJJ~ ~OO
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name ~(') [:o~ ~f\\l Signature t~ \~ ~ ^
Address :l \ "1.\ (~~~tU.~ ~kuD
CityITown CA- ,~) \L.ll-
Phone # (h) P~lt~ - 6ctos
- ..
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
r-\.
Name \\.,~ ~ '" \L,,~ 'c~~--",- Signature ~~4:-H~J
.
Address \~\\ C;~\-~ca.y.~ ~'\.. ,
CityITown Q', ~Cl.~ _n ~
,;
Phone #. (h) ~ --s ~ - s ~ 0... -,
(b) ~ ~ u... - ~~ %'t. va@
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? No 0
Name --;en M 4G /( r:t " / Signature ~ /Y1~/~/f/
/
Address z;.'~ -~~- /
CityITown /)n~'/-r ~/I:I/"~/ 10
Phone # (h) 7c ~ 76h 'z..-'-I3G-
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name ~~ '-;S\.l~lC. Signature fi~fP
Address .- ~K ~,
CityITown ~~\ ~-l~~(e ~'0
Phone # (h) Y.K~ 2.<.1 %
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12. 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
(.,U~ ~ (
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN' BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
,..- (" I -
\ \ ' f J
Name \ " \ '( ~ I !r, r\ ( ,.....\ - , { r- Signature " , \
\ ~h -S+-.I, ( (
Address >: 1"-) \ ")(? ~ \-
CityfTown \~t' I \.\-n (' '" . ' ,~
Phone # (h) r-- .,",,", . I ~ -:> ')
__J r"l, ( ,-, r--
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0-
.~. r- r~' SignaIU~~of---
"- , \
'I,,,
Name \ -' 1')((. ( r \}.:- f) (, '-.
..... n _ ----
Address _1)Lf . ---, ( ()
l. r- rc"l - .-J ,,'\,' \\ ~\ ',\J ' \\\\ '( \-
CityfTown ()< I - 'r (\ L- ' \ i ~ \ '\. ~J _
( r t ~...' r' ?y'" \~ '1 \)" -.
. I .! -.) - I ~ :;._-=,- ,'-"" ( ....
, ,
Phone # (h) . --<.:A ., 'l \. \ '.) -) l \
\
(b) R<; \ - ~ F~ l -(. - ves:)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? No 0
,0 l~~mmmommoo
Name l \ "'1. r;:- r- Signature
Address ~ t.c '1 (.:\ U Al (;-IJ: ,.J Qi') . ..
CityfTown _CJA V-J ~
Phone # (h) ~'--l ,- $. C;, AJ ~
(b) ~- 6~&1,
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No I!i"
Nameo ~(~ i0o;~m Signature bY~
Address // 13RMw/JU J/7
CityfTown ltl /;?)'~CmI fJA/-;-
Phone # (h) l. t.j 1 -- t... 7 :J S'
(b) S9y- 2060
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No p(
u.)~30?--
Peti Ion of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name {;Ao/ ,J!n/4,:~ Signature -<::( ~~ ~
Address ~-n,' L/ / /t' "7 / '
Cityrrown G< t. /I,J~ ~, ,0 (~ 1---7-
Phone # (h) /6)r iI' Y' (-- .;-~ --2/
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 NO~
Name I( I M "pY-;(Tr, Signature i!/.IAdillt/(
Address zlv5 ^V~ Uf/ ~eA:9
Cityrrown f'f~AA;~tA~iL~
. (h)~ 0'4to-1Cf/Q
Phone #
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No. 0
......................................................................... .d;......~~~.............
Nameo Cd'hfl rl1L A}.R..ii(r(udJ Signature /' r I /-"-
Address if. 0 ~ f rf ~ k C,<-c-) ,
Cityrrown >C(J..-{it;WttLl L
I
Phone # (h) t/-rc(-/c/o7
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. ~ No 0
Name. b;.jfi'\ + YAAA/Vl; ~ Signature ~,1
L' .I u"VIfY (;/
Address 4~ 6J I h,lWA 11 5;) I
~VbO(~l~' v
Cityrrown
Phone #. (h) 445~1 ~ I
(b) .---/
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. ~ No 0
()J~ ~3
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name VJ.c, lJ[ 1!J),e 0 C~,eL~:"-Signature C ~~~
Address 2,')- 4~c' .6)..--ic:.
CityfTown .vv ICg't~
Phone # (h) [<I' c,o -27:7?
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0 No 0
g';'''~~ r
Name ,1DC:I(~ fY)co~C: Signature 2t ('1 /i (/
Address 10 - fir? ( () IT" nA ) ~ tI
CityfTown nCj Ii} (I \ ,-l
Phone #. (h) If Ih 13;)- - C; 1 ~9
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name v)[I II ( P t'0pG^/ Signature W tut) "I C" /2.~
I I (" I I (
Address \ \ {~-) ...-OUV' 'i ~
CityfTown T (JY(f. 'b
Phone #. (h) '18'"627 /~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 NO'~
........................
Name JI,., J3() Vy~ tr Signature /#~;., lJa--v>~
Address 7], C-j,~ t-P, e/oI l)v. I.---
CityfTown A j C( ')C. ,OIA-I-
Phone # (h) 4-17 - 1.f-7J.S-
(b) LfLff - 2) ( I Yes. ~ No 0
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991?
~~ of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name .. ~. ., ;t.6> ) M ,4"1./ ~. ~
Signature/ ~ ~ -
(' ...----'-
Address ~ ')-/ '2 Df.l r''';.I') ( h r~ r - '3.05-
CityfTown i/~ aY\. +v,R ~( 10 0
Phone # (h) )/'1 r;( t,/ S? -- q Ii' 2 l.(
(b) , :;t;- )( .- k()60
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12. 1991? Yes. 0
Name r;~ A 1c.d-1V Signature
Address ,ait-s- ~ks~ -
CityfTown (7tvf
. Phone # 7!?~~ - Y3)-- (3-/5'
(h)
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
Name. Signature
Address.
CityfTown
Phone # (h)
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name Signature
Address
CityfTown
Phone # (h)
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
W(30S
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name t/ 6o,Yt:-5" Signature ~~
Address '/8'" CtJ~"tf~ 1/'L-- Z--
Cityrrown ~;~ ~~ 4:S /0
Phone # (h) ~ V~ -2-.$ yo
(b) f-? j - 5'-y. '-L
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No~
Name...... A f--J -::L//Fl 7 tr Signature j L ~ -
Address /~.JJ-~o/l/IJ...JIII"'?I/~ *' ~ L '/ZL,/U'
Cityrrown /l/IJJI-f..Jn c/~ r
Phone #. (h) Nt; ~Lf-cJ-r
(b) 3 f ~ ;- '-II ~)..- No t/
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0
Name. j E tV v'I{ tj ar:: 1/ J{,1 Signature ~lA(=::c.. -
Address r.) b KIIV C t-, Y.) -v /) (J /~ 1.- ~
I ,
Cityrrown rP ILL- & Vv 7) A L 1,-
Phone #. (h) q-f3> L r; q b
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12. 1991? Yes. 0 No 0 ~
Name" Awlt1tLWrtJ(t..:t:- Signature -/bcfjJ(,/ "-
Address 15~ 0or}W!NG M~ ~.
Cityrrown .JJ, t.l6W.1)At.?
Phone #. (h) 210 O~&O
(b) )9(. 1~9
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No fJ
w~ 30b
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 19~1. I
~t""k) ;:;-rr'/.{ /,~ Signature rU /---
Name ~
1 f:-l' I I J-
Address / 1/ .:.-,' I )V \ L
.........
CityfTown /5 J-)/~1/\/--F'{;J IC (7
Phone # (h) 7S:b- / 772--
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0 NOP
Name~.:f~ ~iv-a Signature ~C
~?
Address 620~ tJ,V\~L~~(2
CityfTown 1<'12- l8vrV\0 "-'I c)vJt-, LDf'(fO
. Phone # (h) (4'/(') 62.L{J-\7GO
(b) (Lf/b) 560 -l5?~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No ip/
Name -:1JV\- J~rvh ~ Signature ;1 (n GI11f vt{ 1 ~
" V
Address 2 f1-v (.~ { GcJY'. (1-.
CityfTown N o(fh \(,,(v
I
Phone #. (h) ? S()..- oC;
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No Dt'
Name ~ J ~ \~~t'/pJ.L_ Signature O(~#s-~-
Address (0 x-c1 R ^~ '.A ~.I ,-&).t::-~
CityfTown ()( I ! ~...L, A () 0" "r-
,.. .,) . ,,/"'") ( .) , ~,
Phone # (h) , l -,. ( <__
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
wI< ~7
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
---- ~,L___ d1-
Name / L//~ /j,t-~ ( Signature .
Address ! 7 /-/, 61-1 v.4LL /fLJ
Cityrrown ..>c.. ~ A(.1,e C (...' G II . (.'-r-'
Phone # (h) 7)-'-)-/ L.C'
(b) S/~,L
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0-
Name A Q~( r. Ci-y DrJ /)IIA D" r"~ Signature rJ#~O.~-- r/t7
~. I L..--" /
Address I (i I~ M ()()'1...:'\ r; 1/\ d "S rrf~
CityfTown <:FIr\.1' VI \ VI ?,
Phone # (h) CJ.. R I", - I ~ '1
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
......................
C-- L \ rS\' HI e-R.LI H~ -7
Name Signature w
Address --J &. ~ ~ tv':;-#=--b
Cityrrown --Toe lJ tJT7'\
Phone #. (h) 6.q~ o~~~
(b) 93)-b 3 S ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
.........................
3..,:.-" \ B''"'l<')~'1 '/
Name Signature "
, .. -'" I,,) f,.Jr ,-
Address ")
Cityrrown -: ~ J j")" J
Phone # (h) r-_..J"(( o "'--'
..... ":"l ,
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No' B
LU~=C~
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name ,{'IJFtVT~PK #/~PE;e....,- Signature ~"v: #~U-, /-
Address h?4 VVp.rr~//~RF /
CitylTown ?/cKE p///,<
Phone #. (h) cr ? 9 -- q- r;z-o
(b) 4/(8- J/Zh
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0 No.K
Name ~(? r ~C"c r ; l-1 (',. Signature ~\ ~........- -:-~--->
~ ...:.to.
Address t/..;-IIL((./lL. (' C/c,/r \J 7!lv/~~/~-
CitylTown c; C(:. r (, 0 ';-0 l.--t Q1L
-
. Phone # (h) Y (} t.;- f./ r'-- 7
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0 No ~
Name. !J /()- :)L)L-/fJ Signature ~- c::)..,V./~
t--, q ~ ,1 (f.:.. ;:. .I) 17 r ' f " I)
Address / ...) '- -r-- 1'-. ~ /V - .-... ___ <.
CitylTown 1, () ;.J Do )() L) /~) -
Phone # (h) :11~ - 0y 'b :')
(b) (,'/ l., <::: / <.. - ·
, ) - ~ (p _,) .J
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes' 0 No ~
Name 1) if)" (J, :)j~~~mm Signature ~)J' "".r}
Address / I F J-A1 CV ~r-L /
c- ~ ~- '. ...; L
CitylTown ~ \... ~. ~ tV- ~..,- I \\
Phone #. (h) 751 42 <t- 3
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
uJr<.. 3o<=(
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name CJlr: f'~ dl-..LL Signature /1/ifl
Address Lf-? N ("(,7 PAT I-! C12-1.
Cityrrown /jC~ T I, I L- L-
Phone #. (h) 284 - 2/01 .
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name Eb S4~J^lD~.5 Sig natu re-:<""€'" ,-- Q -i t I I._ I '" ~
Address .~C" c~/JtAJeU( /^Jf: tlz-
--
Cityrrown ~1r;./~u C(~ ~ JJ;. 7 -
Phone # (h) '../'1' J. ?r: ~Y-
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No ~
.......................... Signature J&:==-i.
Name L ?pE1\J~8\ '
Address ~~4- - vr-::r 'A.wJ(Q;f:.. ~O:?
Cityrrown {~./\..(~\.J ~C(\D~
Phone #. (h) l?77." t6 ~ 7..0
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No' 0
\--\ ('"",\ Signatur~, "- ~~
Name- .....0 ' ., . .!
Address 5~ H (. \' hovV,\ ~ n 1f::- I ? I \
Cityrrown ~ , .~ ~ n I
Phone # (h) ">?(,;-" 8:" ,.2-
(b) 5 Ci I - I I (.J ~,
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No' ~/
{)J((~IO
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENC
PARK PLAN as it exists March 2 , ~
Name (jns tv ri, A I- Signature
Address , JV~ Odl1~~'
Cityrrown vZ<Y1t~/J a, l'
Phone # (h) 0b1 ')11;}-
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No 0
Name ~~ -"\ Signature ~~~-;~
L:J/~ -~-~s .-
Address /rr- ~..H~ '-~-,~/ ~~
-' ;.....-'
Cityrrown ~/L4~--:7
.
Phone #. (h) ~'72. i77.c:
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 NO.j-
~.........................
Name. N d~~ -S. M kL------. Signature ~
Address ..y 'f , U~/utJ ~/
Cityrrown D~ ~R r c9.J-
..
Phone # (h) 57' -)6 l S
(b) 'I S '2... - /1{ 57
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No p(
N am e !l, fN..J \:! Mc...lf.:-~/~ Signature ~ /Jv..-1U-1~~.,1 _
Address tf,! ~-- 'vtv {L..-t.-I #;J
Cityrrown I~I ~
.
Phone #. (h) 97r~nbV
(b) -6110 - .3 7J1
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0 No ~
wR3>f/
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
. PARK PLAN as it exists March ~8, 1991R
Name fj f1~ Signature ~~ fv
Address J'I lJt.... ie ~f( ( Jive.. '
~
CitylTown M, 'f {, 5 )" t4A.'j '^
Phone # (h) 822 - S-;G7 ]
(b) 822 - <};g7 '3
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No s---
Name Ve:n::R /-/--th1152. Signature CZ1: ~
Address .;(26 "J 7A rftrol. :t1 3, 'i .V 0 -
CityfTown 1"1, ~ ~ I S .s ~"<.
Phone #. (h) S- b '7 :;- 4 9 ~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No.~
~:::~s ~~~~"~I......m__...~;~~:;:;:.~
CityfTown k~ W\ L.. '" 'f uJr /
Phone #. (h) ~ If~ c.f -
(b) No I
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0
Name -A AJDJ.EVJ (;&1AJ Signature ~r&
Address 5L{~ LrCflTRXJ, fL-
CityfTown ftCK.--a<f,J G
Phone # (h) 1I2-0 -307f
(b) Lf7Lf-7o i( NO~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0
UJR ~ I~
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name 5~te~('cfJs Signature ~~,~
Address <f~ Fctl-r-Pa , : r;1 NrL I
City/Town 1; .0'"'. I 1;:;
Phone # (h) /0~'-/~8~
(b) Z5S- 5'5:2/
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
h2 ';.>f\ ('/. < , --_.~- r 5" /-" A I
Name r./ 0,0 , (' /, '> c' ~_.J . / Signature / L . ...",1 !~ I i'('
Address Ii? ::;-r~'Tll- s tf LIE, r.
City/Town -;:.)/ c )1 rV ~/-J I ( I. -
I (1/-1../ I
Phone # (h) ; :::-g- h ~- ('/ ('" {" -,.-.L
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No. 0
~ r7 t I ~1 (l)fJld~[( I 7 /
Name. Signature -. /
Address /) (I t) If)!'1 . ()~. I
City/Town f I
Phone # (h) I-in /?, Il,
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No' l2:I
Name VA ~)L~'~ 11)- t/II ) /7/ II( ;,;r~:, /.
I _ I ~ I.. r,/~ Signature
q (j,I,L'fifPS 0 1
Address
City/Town A r 7 ).//.;./-;1 ,,? /
(-- J \-
_~ I (~ /
Phone #. (h) - 'I (r r _
. -
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
we. 3/3
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name I'>"",,'\', E~,o.J Signatu!!!.~,rr/dlr,---
Address ,'::). ';;). \-\ AD'hl"1('..,O",,/ All?
.----
CitylTown _I o'R () t-JT 0
Phone # (h)~~O -O\~lo
(b) l()~~ -~O~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No )s(
1.........
Name H~W C-l-L:>/f..-rr Signature
Address '3.to ~c~ DfZ.-)CJ"1U2.. f L
CitylTown t---f ~-+A-Iv\
Phone #. (h) '-172 - 2 90 I
(b) 889'- ~'IZ-
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name. hi /f;v /J-1fi~~ ~,/V r- Signature ~ ,/II- /Lr_, -' -vJ-
Address ~.1 edC/J ,.d//VG- ~c/e
CitylTown Aou)fr1n/ltv/( ~ .wr
.
Phone #. (h) u.~ - 16:1. 6
(b) '1'-11 - /1 tJ u
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No l;tl
.........
Name r0tS~ L Pf-t:pps Signature -.A"~/ ~f
Address .J 33 ~~ 6 lex-il ~t-
CitylTown tvl(SS(ssJ\O(",A
Phone #. (h) ~"J02- - (;C3S:-
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 NO'yt
W'" ~l4
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
,
Name Jrc;z'#'~/t/ ~//V~~6- Signature~~ ;~ . - r:::L ;;;7'
Address '2. Z. S'/,.<,y #/V"..
City/Town /?tJ(:(Jft'?#/V~/LL~
Phone # (h) t!f2~ -:? /9' 7.
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991 1 Yes. 0 No 43""
Name R~ AlDY ~1i~"~";r'1 c P Signature 1?4 ~fJr/Jt>1 ~
Addres~ ~ 19 Irl! II fltffJJ C~ {'~
CilylTown Om
Phone # (h) _ 2.'; 7?5?
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 19911 Yes. 0 No ~
...........................
Name /30/3 J"Z-=rr,{>t5jS Signature
Address 3~ 13 0 u,erJ cJ I LLtE .01<
CityfTown S~I<.R:d)'<O V1 ~H
Phone #. (h) (~/to;) 2 'I, S-2.S /
(b) (11-1 i;) 2-.;) b . 'l-b 4-'2-
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 19911 Yes 0 NO~
Name. flJA! :;:cfFR~ J Signature
Address ~, &o~ll~ (/1 (. (. ~ ~
CityfTown S .c4R CJ I'.rr.
Phone # (h) t)h I 5~51 (~/6~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 19911 Yes. 0 No e'"
we 51 S
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name :)eJ\/v:, \I/\AA-t Signature ) (J!. ;{
I , " ( {., /
Address () It~ ~/ If'~ ( "\"\c~ (I ('.l- / (/
CitylTown \ \' ~.-(~,.... ~l
\.J
Phone # o ~l "'<.""7tf
(h) j (v' '/
(b) .
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No IX!
Name -\..f" J f! \ C- O ()f-_P~ ,() ('V Signature NM~~~
Address" ~OR ~,,':'\..O ('...()s, 1'-,1) R-\\..'J A,~ ·
CitylTown \" nRI)l\')\(\ \ n,,-'IT
Phone # (h)
(b)(~(h) l~,' -?<yg I ~X\ \~~ N~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0
.~l".................,.....,..,....,...,..........,..,...,..........,.....,...,....
Name. ~ {L \ A t \ /f)M. (LQ..J r( I
. "")
Signature 0', (~ -' '
\ --
Address 72-(l~ \
CitylTown ----f\ A (L \( ~A t-'\
Phone # (h) 1';.{1-:';"': I
. '--, ~ r,! - ~...)
(b) l ,~, j"
I
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
r.... -~/,................
/-1.// cA ,hlp;I"v") '-:. ) (' ,,"\
Name S' ~/.
Ignature" ,-_. '
I
-'-I ... I ..~ ../
Address ...-" '..I .. ., ./ , "
~
CitylTown ~ (('O/ ,.< I
(h) ~~,g \.... "-.. I .-
Phone # ~ , '"J T
(b) ""1 r r.-
-:: ~_ I - I 7 ,
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 NO'Q..
wf( ~l(o
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name VALE A\\.\ OE- c<. 'So ~ Signature /f)~~l./lfif""" .
Address I SI ;v\t..>>'2 0 E I\J fZD
Cityffown 6^~\J"LLC c!) <,,-l r
Phone #. (h) 6'?\Q 0034
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0'"
Name ~fAc-A ~~d Signature S~ {)c----
Address orL\ NO~/A~ <:> '( f;:>1- \J 0
'CityfTown 1b~CNW ~
. <;11)
Phone #. (h) lfb \
q22 /'
(b) ~~oO
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
Name. ~o~ r\ () rx\Q~ Signature
Address ~-,c.. \ S ,?'1-
CityfTown ~\evl\\c
Phone # (h) Q6t-6Cto L.. .
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No lp/'
Name rn~~ST1WJ~ Signature -lvdl. SJw.~
Address $DG SuNV lEvU ST
CityfTown _UJ I4-TE K L- ~o
Phone # (h) -::rq7 - -:'465
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No g
Wf!. 5/7
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March ~8, 1991. /
Name' C /7' ,- ---u.J ~'VJQJ Signalur~) ~~ t,ff.
Address' '13 /'-IC;;:- (' ~/-
CityfTown pfv e~/r-J6 c}v (-
J
Phone # (h) 1- Lflb-6~O" J 5'C) I
(b) ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No if
Name' .4?r] G;;;~;;;;-""""" Signature I(i"r:;. ,
Address '7 J:; Hct~ G-+ .
CilyfTown I c.J:::. e (" \ If'.-? ,
Phone #. (h) L/~o'-- L 5"00
(b) ~/lrX -- Lf 750
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name r---...._........~i~~:;:.;:m.....1lf~-r)::;;. i
i
rP ~\Jrr; / , ~' ~ !
Address.
CityfTown ./ , C k.fLr ; A.
Phone #. (h) <::Z'S Cf )L/~I
(, )
,D
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12 . 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
...............................................................__..n....................................
Name Signature'
Address
CityfTown
Phone # (h)
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April,12, 1991? Yes: 0 No 0
c
vJ~~\<t
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
~ PA~K PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991. ; ~
Name '':'...:,..' f)../o..?.-vJ7J Signatur~)to..-Q "h
Address '13 /o.{td- r -e./-
CityfTown .,01 v ~,rJ6 c}v ,-
~' ..J
Phone # (h) 1- LI/ G - 6 S/o ,. J 5'C) I
(b) ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No. r:("
Name -;::f,J.JJ./ Ct:Jct:BtJRll./ Signature~2f;f/
Address /<679 8lECR'bblr Lt 0
CityfTown AL~RJ//JG
. qsq-OOi q
Phone #. (h)
(b) ,sc;4 - 55 c; 7
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 19911 Yes. 0 No ~
Name. hail 0I'k-G/~/1 Signature 4/71i<?;iJ:~
Address IX' 7v !1/Jec:ree..k Lr
CityfTown P cler//\~ Gill
Phone # (h) ~.<C; 0019
(b) 9:)0.3:5 76
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name 1)lil1iJ Lo..I6f'C~ Signature (;)~~
Address :38 5 M{).T,^~l- Cr\
CityfTown J1cJLr\ J
Phone # (h) A~ 0 -892.4
(b) 47 0 3'3 03
- ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 19911 Yes. 0 No 0"
vJ ~ "3 l~
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
KALPI-/ Gt5.1<!O;.J1 M 0 Signature? r ..
Name
Address 3o~c OI'U.~t.lS" f2...c , ":fPL-..
CitylTown H-;ss l 6-+~~
Phone # (h) ('-41 C> -c;- <c ""- - "Z-c \...., ...,
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0
Name p~ ~'\T Signature
Address I ~t- ~QX\< <\~
CitylTown (j~(V\(J ~(J{l>O
Phone #. (h) 1-0 (- h ~, - 1.,;O~l
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0 No ~
Name. r\ ~ \.~ -l ~
\ ,\(ev-.s Signature
Address IS' ~ \ II 0..- c-{ ~ V'i? T,,..., -! Lucrk (' 4 I" L., ve.... fO'" ( ~ 0{ ,.1',
CitylTown \~...- P , 'c k ~ r , '''9
Phone #. (h) ~~l-gCS-6
(b) 0'$ '\ - 5" Lf 0 ~,
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0--
Name. -S()\-\~ ~L~Q Signature
Address. 1 ~ AL ()fE AiZL'- (' RIC>
CitylTown W~\T6'f t ONT.
Phone #. (h) (-'-//6) 436 - ({7/7
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No d
\JJ~3~
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name ~1iEN~t5L ~we/'4: Signature
Address 22- ~L.L./f.JeL ~
CitylTown 6-z.A-"", ,4 c.. ~ q
Phone # (h) "7'3" ~f~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 N~
Name ~TI, _Jt7-'~f Signature x:fJiJ1-"1!
Address c/eJ..., ~Jj.L-J-l2-/ Ch-.
CitylTown ~
.
Phone #. (h) 1- c; () - J (0 ., 8
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No lZl-
Name. ....-;?C>~s ~ rK-,,...J Signature' ~(Q? J
.
Address #706. / 95 t,VY^,Fo~ bIZ
,
CitylTown A (oll::nl ~ OlVT"o M3C 3f3
Phone #. (h) 4Z.:~- ,SoB
(b) ee'2..- - 5844-
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No IH
Nameo Signature.
Address
CitylTown
Phone # (h)
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0 No 0
wg ~;2.1
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name t1/~ 1:/ ~r.t ()ti~,~ V Signature ;W)R~L
Address if> P - ~
.
Cityrrown ~ 70~ ~ ~ V I ).. '- I~
Phone #. (h)!, KK - J I~ ~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
Name t:= f.l. €L. Y. t16'O? Iv Signature e~ /' (fiJ, J.. .
Address. ~ If!. 4./ .
Cityrrown ~ rJ~L IC.~
Phone # (h) ~~ -lICe
(b) ~ I - G, I? :>
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
Name. <: X ~/J ,jJ~:t~'[;:j""""""~i~~:;:;:;"'ci~.m.
Address .9 .lTlf~\-f <;b. rJ\ -0((
Cityrrown fZ rZ-~S ~U"?(\JlllC, oM
Phone #. (h) (p% -~l.-0)
(b) -
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No. f
~L-' 6L /Z ~~ 1
Name / 0. /~., / Ii - Signature. \ ' / ~,
Address L~) X\" If)L)l..Jn j~<;' ~ T I..A/ .
Cityrrown 7() R I ).v f?) C"),~-'~- - \
Phone # (h) t;;'3? - 7 C'> 1 ,
(b) r;;: ~:; . r;; oct ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 Nov-W
vJ~ ?-'-
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
~
Name 6 ir/ftVVA/ d1 NY' Jo Signature ,& ~b?:!'V-~ .#//;V'~<J
/ --
,...
Address C'X- (Jj1,:nW.1 ~ jt-
.f-,
CitylTown ~~~) @"f: my-X 1M!
Phone #. (h) (t//6 ) 3d:S -96t, /
(b) dd-2>- - pgS-1
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0
Name ~/Mti 11J7.JJ{/LJIl:::~6 Signature
Address ,7/'6 OIl/lll;1t/{J r7.
CitylTown 7 {Y! 1/"1(}/ fyZ7
. (h) ~7'4 -?(/~/
Phone #. ~ JJ5>~
(b) 4 i/~X #- 4 h 2-U ~
<-
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No. 0
Name Signature
Address
CitylTown
Phone # (h)
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name Signature
Address
CitylTown
Phone # (h)
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
UJ~ 3>;2.'3
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLA~ as it exists March , 191
Name _(0 ~~ FoS-(GIl Signature
Address \ -ZlO Lt Ll:;ToweLL Ctu.
CitylTown p, ~..~
Phone # (h) 4-10 - "103
(b)
Will you speak at the park. hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No 0
Name rr/o<-( STDfH cK.. -I-t-ifE- Signature c-O ~
Address .:s L; q (0 ~l Lb I (.{ L+ ~ VV)
CityfTown "-D<;L~,^,~ f1 iL tV/ fL~
Phone #. (h) 4/ G 7 P ~ (" L G 2.
(b) Jli G Cf 7 7 '3 '7? 9
Will you speak at the park. hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
?m.m.
Name .k!d tb~~ v~uJA-11 Signature J (/~ <<-
Address ) ~tZ'7 JZ(lL(Oc~()U aJT ""J?/l ,
CityfTown PI C/iC:.G:';1...;AJf, J ",;J7
Phone #. (h) :2'6(;, - 12 i 7
(b) ~Arl./~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No ~
NamelAt/J\. t1~lf '- Signature
Address '^ 7 b I
,
CitylTown 13-.- ~~\ E ~ vV I'
Phone #. (h) _ 16 \ Sc) - s"h() 0
(b) (70S- ) 7eX I - l.jL(11
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No. 0
Wf\3t-Cf
PetItion of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 19
l' 3€- Y'~\,^S
Name ___ ') (',\.Ie- Signature
Address J D 5" 3 W cc;;-J- ~
Cityrrown -k ~ \ '\ r C\. vJ...\~ CJIJ b
Phone # (h) 5 I <-[ ;S<t~ e-{(,)"(j
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
Name;')1 /!/O~I( I E Signature ~
a;t'2 ~
Address /!>--:J '/ tow Jf~.J ~l';""-
Cityrrown f, c. \I~
Phone #. (h) If~()'- (J r--7
(b) '110 r 'to I~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991?
Name V A wi OCtf(.-r.2.l-0
Address 22-~ 1-1'0 "'~rsn-"1'4-1> L/2..
Cityrrown LONDo ~
Phone #. (h) f;19) cr7 Z. -9 )2- q.
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 NO~
Name'~6MJ O{'~Y2 LO Signa'~~6~
Address ctJlJ1:" #rnl.~~ /}J.
Cityrrown ~.?Y1t1pn OrA+
Phone #. (h) .!J-t9 ;j1!L-tJ~~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0 ~
~-- c).Jt<~~
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name --J:r / j ~ <Ii <1 v If. ~J Signature UC7 ~L.
Address C, I G It ~ "N ..J' ~ h l\. r c l~
CityfTown 61.. ~....- r t NJ
Phone # (h) 1L.t ~ 1 Z <J 8
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No r:r
Name I11I/L Ac-JA.\rosrl Signature ~~
iY
Address r;,. Ca ~~K lE2;?'
_ CityfTown K/ESI ~/LL
Phone #. (h) Ze4- T 1!3 70
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? ye@ No 0
Name. A-)6 Sl1ufl/eworH1 Signature ~4zi!b=:;_.m..__m
~:~~::n~ ~j~1 ;;~J:/; f(!
Phone #. (h)~.-Cf1S3
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
Name' h<€tVlt'e<<.y; "J"c-eLy"l Signature'k.~~
Address ?j [; UJA-ft Ch cA eN kO" 1)
CityfTown ~"Ad(!/lI (!)N~
Phone #. (h) 70S- J#iI ? i :2'7'"
(b) 10r 1-/:1- 3 ;t-~L~ lJ
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No:~
W~3;Lb
~o<-J~ ' I
. ~ j:JzG
IC(! ~
~~/~ t 3r:' :;c j .
-j~
. L~u'\> ,'"e5'
- G 9 '-I LA Y'To,J c IT
g)7- ol{1~
. '(>,<. lee, ~~
. !f.~(~
f1. t-iE,e1fAJ~TEIN
-
. J'i& iJE/lN /' A-~I'('
. (
_ 285- 7525
- Kl\1tl (~cet~IJS(LI tJ ~~a 1l~
/1f> 't>~ ~ '""P'tl ~ K,~
:; 65- 752-5
$YY'C'L..ovY tyll /7/;....f f~4
/t;.- ~u "r#tf'/~ ~~t'"s
&0/.1-/ / "7 tS ~7 VI\/'..,.
-1<svtss-se
.
t;4-,,'IN Fece,.olllJ ~-
.
( 2... 32.. haD5TtJN€- 4e{.LE
. f/CJ:...C4 iVCr
(!)/JT
-- - .
--- ~--- 'f 1...0 - ~36Lf
- - .
G/E6Rc;E- fJ;.W\ ~ 7/~
K( wtSERDA\..E CR
- ""2::2 ,/0.
ACtNcc,uRT oJ...Jr If,uv..JI'{--o-
1(u1t(E. ft7-o~"37-
~(L5 7.:30 '-}J BB
uJR .3~7
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name 4NA/r:; &117 I~Ll v Signature ~ 4~_ay
Address j" Wo 1(' I", At) A-. L~
Cityffown eFtS A~..L-- /-();11 , Co
Phone # (h) IO.r- fZtf 3/2 iJ
I
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes 0 No ~
Name CY/ANE ,::;Z C"}...". C r:=:: Signature ,~ E)~_, 7A-'
Address /'? 'I Rnx rs?'>.K!n U~~rt <S.T \IV
,
Cityffown TO~(:)NT0
Phone #. (h) q -z. 7-./ Yn "2
.
(b) -
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0-
Name. }AhJro CLu-m:A.I Signature ~~..............
Address g~~~
Cityffown -prc..~ A....G ~
Phone #. (h) (Ylb) ~-(;8~~
(b) (4(') W'2-({(:D Yes: ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? No' 0
Name AI 0 Lv'iJ /LV t' > lij Signature ~~~ )
,
Address 'if;> tf' 4-~ ,L) c/ ('
Cityffown Iv' uo' J- t. Vo IC. b
Phone #. (h) t"? (" ZeJ to
(b) 6?f" 17 7' J
.. Yes. tJ
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? No: 0
rP~8~6
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name 4:~ p~"vQ Signature ~
Address *,11- yo II~ ~
CitylTown .~~. ;-ur-/1f/r.va
,
Phone # (h) 9Vlaj//
(b) ltff ~{,/lIlf
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. [3" No 0
Name 8D~ ~QNlvE/Z_ ~-::- -- / "
Signature (~--;;;;) J/7/ &./J~
Address ~ (" ,;;LA,(')\...vr-~ 0 e
CitylTown s.... c.. I~ C>~OD \,.) <0 ~-\
.
Phone #. (h) ::~b <.0 - crC~L...I_
(b) "2.~ ~ -- I <6'1LL
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 NO~
Name. ~v. k.i ~ Signature ~""iJl.
Address 440 ():J vv.,J,1/ 4;. ~
CitylTown -1:l.)\t,^.\-'n'J
Phone #. (h) L\;o - ~6'6'"3
(b) <i<'~\ - ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
~ Name . Signatur~
Address 'JO? - 1l2l ~'j".{ w
CitylTown ~ 6z.t)/D , f)jJ --7 n 5 V ~ 'N7
~ ,
Phone #. (h) ;'(q9~ 96'Z2.- (---~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? y[~ No 0
i
r;,tle. IW/ Q c.Lte (
~
u..J f< "3 ;2.. <:j
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name ~ rv\.{illiahp-s Signature ~
~}1j I ,
I
Address.::zJ.b ~e\oh\ f (' QJ('L ,
City/Town -t:r,L \L e r\ ng
Phone #. (h) ~ ?) Ll..='1 ~ 2 3
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No. 0
.......... f1rrk fdbJ~N Signature _~.....-
Name.
Address I--D L '( 8.1 U cR 10 &C L~~
City/Town Pi LIt'I'72INu
Phone #. (h) (5/-/657
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No' cJ
Name..l:f ,iQ'rUINu'Le Signature ~ I,~ ~_
Address:...ff\5 RaEf"IELD ~
City/Town ~€:-((1}J6 om
Phone #. (h) 531-b 4 D\
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No: GJ t
II ~j.e's ex........
Name Signature ~~~
11;; 13QflJJQI-~ /Jr
Address
City/Town W~~,t. HIli. D,,/
Phone #. (h) / -'1'/~.. ,l., ii'-/.3 9~
(b) No: ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0
.
L)J~o30
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
"
Name G /tH,f/1 J); It I AJ re... .) 4t.--\ tt\... - Signature 1- () (,J~
Address 3/ ?(~.c,1 ,.,
.., I
Cityrrown t/"t~v. J Lr rl~
Phone # (h) <:6<<- 9./ (1
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name. -1- :l Signature ~~~
"1?v"- Il.E-~
Address cJl ,2"tCA".e. Ave.
Cityrrown ~J 0-." ).J.
Phone # (h) ~J1- tl13
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No 0
Name. Ycv..&. ~~ Signature ~~~.
Address C;5."'lB {L>N\.llC~ t1lJl'
Cityrrown 7,rlc.U\tL'-J
Phone #. (h)...B-2.G-~
(b)_~J-D-~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No' 0
Name ~('o.o,l~~ Wa~ Signature.~1A~
Address 70~ Er1. Ot(t~ 0 0 ~
Cityrrown ?.- (" l~ Q r : /\ 5
Phone #. (h) ~~<::) -q '-f ~ (f)
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No' 0
LOR 5-'31~j
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name (;111.,/ (2t'{)Ot./~ - Signature .?J/2$
Address C( I't A IJR / ,LJ
Cityrrown SQ~,
Phone #. (h) ~r.3/'~Y~r7
(b) ~~~ -77Cl /
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No:~
Name. f&/:.Y 11171 It Hi) VC S ~
Signature I
Address /ZZ9 6~/OC....E l'v.4r~ w(ES,
Cityrrown YIC-i,(c; t,ttI~
Phone #. (h) ~~ q 5''1 q<J
(b) ~,g -/33'
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. ff No: 0
.......~._...._..-
Name. " H{(J/4";';; />oN Signatu~L/~~ ~
.
Address. 'tt€'5' J-oJes-lI-l,,7 Rb -
Cityrrown ~ f1~e-1Z/~e::r-- ·
Phone #. (h) f'r-1 - :z- 7 6 J.t- ..
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No: ~
Name: b.e:-.....-< ~.JJ----. Signature:
Address. $~ sbc~Le ~
Cityrrown ;L\j c-,?- 0 J
Phone #. (h) ~ ~~ - I C; ~~
(b) 4L~- ~1.. (~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No. PI::.
WR ~~~
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN _as it exists March ~ 9~
Name \) 0 \oJ S tA..... \ \ ~ Signature ~
Address .3~ H,/~ :D,.., - - - ~
CityfTown A j a.. x
Phone #. (h) Lfl.6-/lb1
(b) -.So..v1'- t' .
-
Will you speak at the park hearing on April1f. 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
)'1-
Name 1:::\1\((( (L ~TEJI\i(\ Signature ~ - ~
Address 73'3 ( EA..<:::.p1t: ST
'"
CityfTown ~Etl !\..Jb
Phone #. (h) ~3{ -7 ol3
(b) ~3~SSO\
Will you speak at the park hearing on April., 1991? Yes. 0 No:;Q
)1-
Name. f1 kilL 1~L.vr Signature )(:).;!i;j..-..............
Address C/() v{/. D ft.t~h'-I (;~;?yv
16
CityfTown' Il * f" J
Phone #. (h) ~ 'lit ~/; q
(b) 37~ (l5' 70
Will you speak at the park hearing on April.. 1991? Yes. 0 No. ~
I~
Name d~'''~c.kS' Signat ,
Address d-6 7 ~.::;:X> I.J.
CityfTown ~Sw/J2
Phone #. (h) 4/76 -c) /0 /
(b) C/ A; .- ~3c,o-
Will you speak at the park hearing on April ., 1991? Yes. 0 No'~
(1'
uJf< 33s
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
r":' /1 c;. Y - I~~ /fit?
Name .J~ h'\ j ~ Signature
Address 52- L.UJ <- C/"~f
CitylTown A ~ 0.. ~
Phone # (h) C,{3 - ~ n~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No ~
.-........
Name ~ke. Oar-I" IlOtJ- Signature. ~4 y~
Address Q.. 0 ~.s.J. ~ ",.J Crt' S
CitylTown ~"'X
Phone #" (h) 4- J.. 1 - G J.. 0 l
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No ~
Name.--AOOm rit2~\rn~S Signature fI:t~VlLV~
Address ~'" r- ~ -f"e & .
CitylTown ~
Phone # (h) 06f-,- Zf){c4.-
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No. rn/'
......... Signatur~ J~
Name' ~~ J~I'IJAI t/"'
Address. 7 to S'7F..J>1J.1Z IV 'DR.
CitylTown i)"A.-V:; N -
" .v~
Phone #. (h) ~s 7 -;J~ I J'"
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April ", 1991? Yes. 0 No. ~
\1--
_a) fc\3:3 Lf
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRE~CHMAN'S BAY
P P AN as it exists March 2~ 91
eck L~Tcl~ #", ..
- 7 -
Name Signature
Address Ar'-l
Cityrrown o;~~ ~
Phone #
(h) I 1~-~~71-
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 19917 Yes. 0 No 01
~ Ef/'e.rf~ ~ IIjg~ -
Name :.J-fL V\ Signature -
Address gO?- 75 e Nt. fJ- fe.-
Cityrrown r;c-f er( r1$
Phone # (h) g]'l-.1oJ ~
(b) 1- '-1/6 -Ib~ - 0 77..)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 19917 Yes. 0 NO.~
---- - bit) f ..J.rv, 0-, Signature 117 ~Jii1z;.:;:5..m
Name. -lcJ() Y
Address a-o", e:t~ A()e {J
D. LIUr/"d \
Cityrrown ON
Phone #. (h) F~C;- <"c1~8
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991 7 Yes. 0 No. [B-
Name -- E,/o r ~ rrAv.. Signature .:Par:> (L!t~,
( i.l U t't,
Address ~f)'f R~ A II Q..
Cityrrown (:d~I~;~] ?~N
Phone #
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 19917 Yes. 0 No IB'
-
W~ ~~S
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name' JJIZArTHErL 'DEwlWl Signature ~2f~~
.
Address I 3fS7 /2t'ur.~ HtJUAlT ])/1 ,
City/Town PI c-/~12-1 AI&- 1"/ AiT .
,
Phone # (h) :;lJ6fa - J Z/ 7
(b) ~r
Will you speak at the park hearing on April., 1991? Yes: 0 No~
\)-
Name ~~ ~dA Signature. ~#::.
. /
Address. l g- 9(., "&wt r l>-
City/Town: (j c': e~ ..t ~. "~
Phone #. (h) <:6 '3 ( - L 3 ~
(b) &39-7/&3
Will you speak at the park hearing on April If, 1991? Yes: 0 No: r::r-
11-
Name. H OLac><'lk~r p...........................
Signature' . ~ C--
Address IOt'b l'ut!J~d L~'I ciCtJf
City/Town f'/~r~v- !"r<'/
Phone #. (h)~. U' ....It tf'l
(b) J"j(.... 6f '). t.-
Will you speak at the park hearing on April U!, 1991? Yes: 0 No: lB'
I~
............. Signature ~m&J.:l ~
Name. ~4$. \11'f.";~
~ress.~tr.,'CD~~
.
.
Clty/Town L ."..t
Phone#' (h) &...~9.-''"1631
(b) '1Q( -93 20
Will you speak at the park hearing on Aprile!, 1991? Yes. 0 No: 0
l~
.
W R 3~ (p
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name ~ j J <p... - Signature ~!2-----
Address 3-d \rQ{1~/
v I
CitylTown A-jes {. ~
Phone #. (h).ija f -LfLl~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April ~, 1991? Yes. 0 No fil
14
Name s:~ b>Ic- Signature ~<<-)cfu
Address J 5 8/1 ,rl-I (-11-
CitylTown -AJ f1 X' 0 (\ t-
Phone #. (h).-fUJ - 2JJf)6
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April., 1991? Yes: 0 No: ~
l:t
Name. ()pc.-:k Kpr( Signature ~ oJ.-~~
~
Address. (~A-.,. 1'"4 Ie 1- "'" ~ R
CitylTown I-Jrot. v ~~r
Phone # (h) '-t? /-?-Q<=; 5
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April ., 1991? Yes. 0 No ~
1+
::~?'~~ ~:~:~:; Signature ~~0
CitylTown ;;C'-O-~
Phone # (h) ~~L..\- .<6~o~
(b) %~'\ - Hc'45
Will you speak at the park hearing on Aprile, 1991? Yes. 0 No [!J
Il
wR 337
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY .
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name - ~ ~~ ~-t-o\/.e..J Signature':=j ~
Address ~ R, U~W(.L.{ ^ ~
CityITown LJ k, ~lov
Phone I' (h)3{(, - f tG ~
(b)..AJ6 - :$.3 S ~
Will you speak at the park hearing on April sa, 1991? Yes. 0 No. c./
(1- ,.
A'':' .L
Name It1'ch--..l \.~,(,........{'-2l-'J Signature '-~
f
Address. <6 \'1- ~c."'''' ~~-"-
CityITown --or. ( Il o<.~ \ r- j :. N '\
Phone I' (h) ~ ~<'1 ~ L I~P, ~ i
(b) ~ ;c1 6l t,
Will you speak at the park hearing on April ~, 1991? Yes. [iJ-' No' 0
'r
. /' t...............................;.................................................
--, "" (" ."
Name. 5) e IIC -es l71 f I Signature....z; ~"~-'7 ,,;(;J-:
Address. 7 q ~ 2 A -f s.r tl/ P
J( l ' I
CitylTown. ) \ C-. c..... e-r I 1\ j ,
Phone I' (h) .s)~ - c S- ~ ( I
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April t.i'; 1991 ? Yes. 0 No. r:r-
\:t
-- Name: Signature: fL;If~ 1If/
Address. ~;:)... r> (<" C r,- <, (J
CityITown .4 j ,-" Jl.. , () rJ .., .
/
Phone I' (h) tbY-.h - {> ~ h~
(b) ((")~b - 4 J 4 tJ
.
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 11, 1991? Yes. 0 No' J:2(.
11-
vJrz ~~~
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name Y ,~ Signmure ff12J :) ~)
Address
City/Town
Phone #'
Will you speak at the park hearing on April., 1991? Yes. 811 No' 0
1'1-
Name $~L.. J"V1 "- Signmure ~ ~
o C t!J l'1'" r>.-
Address 73 uJ fA I?r ('y
City/Town A\J~V
Phone #' (h)~4 ]:t - ~ ~ ) t~
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April., 1991? Yes.~ No: 0
\1-
Name .-E:j.......~:.:::~......._..............~;~~:~;~-Il"]N;~~.,:=._~.._.....
Address C9 0 'Ce Ii C..,.. I
City/Town --4j It I(
Phone #. (h) h~~ &J4 3 X-
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April., 1991? Yes rt No' 0
l'"t
Name v-; .eve 'fl1:h7f1 ~ 7 ( Signature" )/tiJe a~
Address 34 VC'P'PJF 1J'l? ~
City/Town .ftt'/9 'i? hoKOuCtf
Phone # (h) ~qJ - CSCf!J
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April ., 1991? Yes. 0 No' 0
r}
I W~3~~
Petition of those who are opposed to the FRENCHMAN'S BAY
PARK PLAN as it exists March 28, 1991.
Name ' ((1/1/ ~tf?LE /7~ Signature' tf? fl.~,
Address :AOu E.4fT AvE I
CitylTown tv E>7 d/~ '- C/f./7
Phone #. (h) 'l Y -2Y3 /1
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes: 0 No: ~-
Name. Lf) l. I t21 ~ L el-r ~~ Signature.
Address 10"57 VI C -r()~( tJ P r A/<E *
CitYlTowrr1fjR.o~ O~
Phone #. (h) ')5;2- L/d3~ .
I
I
,
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes:~ No: 0
Name: U", f"\. Q \ \J ~ r .5 Signature: t
Address. f< i2 -JJ:- ~ C ~Jc..r U~ \.Q
CitylTown S "'0 '- Q J \ l \.e {~ " -\
Phone #. (h) G'IO -).tf,y
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No: 0
.......
Name: Signature"
Address.
CitylTown
Phone #" (h)
(b)
Will you speak at the park hearing on April 12, 1991? Yes. 0 No: 0
1
WR 3'+0
FRENCHMAN'S BAY WEST - PARK CONCEPT PLAN
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MAY 1991
WR ~~\
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 0 INTRODUCTION
20 THE PLANNING PROCESS
30 THE RECOMMENDED PARK CONCEPT PLAN - ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT APPROACH
3 1 PLANNING PRINCIPLES
32 PUBLIC COMMENTS - FEBRUARY 13, 1991
33 PUBLIC COMMENTS - APRIL 17, 1991
34 THE RECOMMENDED PLAN
35 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
36 IMPLEMENTATION PHASING
37 FUNDING
w~ 3C1~
1
FRENCHMAN'S BAY WEST - PARK CONCEPT PLAN
EXECUfIVE SUMMARY
1.0 Introduction
In August of 1990, the MetropolItan Toronto and Region ConservatIOn
Authonty authonzed Moore George AssocIates Inc. to prepare a park concept
plan for Frenchman's Bay West. The purpose of prepanng the plan was to
gUIde the Authonty m deCISIOn makmg for the long term management of the
SIte. A LIaIson Group, compnsed of members representmg the Authonty and
the Town of PIckermg, was establIshed to dIrect the study Terms of Reference
prepared for the project were consIstent WIth the goal and ObjectIves outlIned In
the Authonty's "Lake Ontano Waterfront Development Program"
SpecIfically, the dIrectIon for Frenchman's Bay West emphaSIzed passIve open
space actIvItIes, water-onented recreatIon and the preservation of
envIronmentally sensItive lands The Park Plan Concept (ReVIsed AprIl 5,
1991) when approved by the Authonty WIll be submItted to the Town of
PIckenng as part of an OffiCIal Plan Amendment for these lands WhICh are
presently deSIgnated "SpecIal Study Area" m the FaIrport CommunIty Plan and
an amendment to the correspondmg ZOnIng by-law
2.0 The Planning Process
A three phased plannIng study was undertaken to prepare the park plan. The
inItIal phase mcluded data collectIOn and analysIs, the second mvolved
generation of alternative concepts, and the final phase mcluded preparatIOn of
the park concept plan. A senes of meetmgs were held WIth the LIaIson Group
throughout the study. At the conclusIon of the first phase, Workmg Paper No.
1, dated October 28, 1990 was subInltted.
PublIc input opportunities were provided at an open house held November 14,
1990, a deSIgn workshop conducted November 21, 1990 and an open house on
February 13, 1991 The Water and Related Land Management AdVIsory Board
of the Authonty also held a meetmg at the Pickering Council Chambers on
\AJ~ ~q~
2
Apnll?, 1991 to receIve publIc comments on the Frenchman's Bay West Park
Concept Plan Dunng the study, a number of drawmgs were prepared to
document and Illustrate the work undertaken
Throughout the planmng process, publIc concern over envIronmental Issues and
water-onented recreation related to Frenchman's Bay were very clearly
expressed Protection and preservatIOn of sensItIve areas were consIdered to be
of upmost Importance
The plan that IS put forward m thIS report we belIeve reflects the thoughts,
concerns, and Ideas that are supported by the commumty at large and the
envIronmental management approach
3.0 The Recommended Park Concept Plan - Environmental Management
Approach
PublIc concern for the enVIronment IS havmg a profound Impact on our
tradItional park planmng approaches and concepts of 11 development. 11 ThIS
mcreased envIronmental awareness suggests that urban park, waterfront areas
and green spaces must be more than recreational areas that are aesthetIcally
appealIng. They must be ecologIcally sound and bIOlogIcally productive ThIS
dIctates that a comprehensIve approach must be taken that preserves sensItIve
landscapes, recogmzes ecologIcal systems and natural processes, and effectively
balances publIc use WIth the abIlIty of the land to support It. ThIS means
creatmg parks and green spaces WhICh are planned, deSIgned and bUIlt on the
prmcIples of sustamable development.
WhIle thIS phrase IS often used, there are few examples WhICh comprehensIvely
mcorporate these prmcIples and Ideas The recommended plan for Frenchman's
Bay West therefore represents an opportumty to demonstrate and determme
effective envIronmental management applIcatIOns and techmques OpportumtIes
for research, mvestIgatIOn and expenmentatIOn have been bUIlt mto the plan
Although the plan reflects a new envIronmental approach towards waterfront
park and open space management, many tradItional planmng pnncIples have
been mcorporated The concept IS strongly based on mvolvmg, mformmg and
enhancmg the publIc's awareness of the enVIronment Many formal and
mformal envIronmental educatIOn opportumtles have been developed
W R 3c.t~
3
The pnnciples upon whIch the plan IS based and the major features and
components of the plan have been summarIzed In the follOWIng sectIons.
Attached drawing MGA. IDS-Park Plan Concept (ReVIsed May 15, 1991)
illustrates the recommended environmental management approach and
prIncIples.
3.1 Planning Principles
The plan that IS recommended IS based on a number of prinCIples whIch have
been IdentIfied durIng the planmng process They relate to the objectives
outlIned In the Terms of Reference and the potentIals and constraInts of the
study area IdentIfied dunng the analYSIS phase PublIc Input and dIscussions
WIth the LIaIson Group also provIded a baSIS for the key planmng pnnciples
wluch are outlIned below
. EnvIronmental management of Frenchman's Bay West shall be predicated
on the pnncIples of sustaInable development.
. Create an envIronmental centre for the dIsplay and dIstributIOn of
enVIronmental InformatIOn ThIS centre WIll become the focus of the park
and WIll be used to convey to the publIc the prInCIples of sustaInable
development, both at the global scale, regIOnal scale, and local scale.
. Develop experImental/demonstratIve "plots" for AuthOrIty research and
InvestIgatIon and publIc educatIOn.
. Employ throughout the planmng, deSIgn and constructIon of the park
practical applIcations of energy conservatIOn, recyclIng, protection of bIO-
phYSIcal resources, pollutIon control, environmental research and
experimentatIOn.
. Implement measures to protect and enhance the sensitive landscape of the
SIte - ie. marsh, beach spit.
. Respond to the need for improved commumty access to the waterfront.
wR. 3'-f.5
4
. Development an Internal pedestnan system lmkmg the mam features of
the sIte Incorporatmg an envlfonmental education program along the
system The system should respond to the Royal CommIssIon on the
Future of the Toronto Waterfront recommendatIOns for a "waterfront
traIl", as well as the Town of PIckenng's support for a contmuous traIl
system around Frenchman's Bay
. MInImIZe vehIcular access mto the sIte and car access to the beach SpIt.
. Naturahze, manage and Improve the forested areas of the sIte to enhance
vegetative quahty and wIldhfe habItat
. If feasible, create a new wetland as an educational feature and to assist m
the storm water management of the sIte and area
3.2 Public Comments (February 13, 1991
On February 13, 1991, the Authonty held an "open house" to present a
preferred "Park Concept Plan" for Frenchman's Bay West and obtam pubhc
comment.
ApprOXimately 225-250 people attended the "open house" With 58 comment
sheets returned as of Apnl 5, 1991
The followmg presents a summary of the comments receIved on the Park
Concept Plan as presented on February 13, 1991
Comments m Support
- park parkmg and location
- Greater Toronto Waterfront Trail ConnectIOn
- hmlted access of vehIcles to park and no pnvate vehIcle access to Spit
- exclUSIOn of power craft and launchmg area
- enJoy semi-wIld enVlfonment
- wetland concept
- forest restoration, beach use, park traIl, and overall concept
- focus on enVlfonment awareness
w~ 3'1 b
5
- pedestrian access/publIc access
- no access for jet skis
- winter boat storage for Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club to remam viable
entity
- re-establishing dune formation and vegetation
- chIldren's play area
- picmc zones on beach
- year round use of faCIlIties
- acqUisItIOn of remaming homes on SpIt
- capItal cost shanng for public parkIng/WInter boat storage concept
Comments In OppOSItion
- no prOVISIOn of formal publIc boat ramp
- no vehIcle access to park
- car access and parkIng reqUired on SpIt for windsurfers, canoeIst and
kayakers
- WInter boat storage for FBYC
- current parkIng lot capacIty Inadequate
- lack of vehIcle access to SpIt creatIng safety rIsk
- experImental plots could be problem If experIment pollutes the natural
flora (eg loosestrIfe)
- addItIOnal vehIcular traffic on Westshore Blvd
- no recogmtIOn of FaIrport Beach Ratepayers ASSOCIatIOn existmg buIldmg
foundatIOn and future aSSOCIatIOn buIldIng surrounded by MTRCA lands
- contamInatIOn from boat pamtIng and cleamng on parkmg lot
- boat storage hghtmg, fencIng and securIty
- too many bUIldIngs - beach faCIlIty and washrooms (should be part of
envIronmental park centre)
- the proposed dIsposition of some properties along FaIrport Beach
Other Comments
- pay market value for eXIstmg pnvate propertIes
- leave park the way it IS today
- try to keep area a local rather than regIonal facilIty
- plan doesn't conSIder needs of sportsman
- keep water skiers and Jet SkIS out
WR 3'1-1
6
- need for a drop-off area or turn-around for wmdsurfers
- more allowance for cyclIng
- envIronmental park plan and waterfront access are not mcompatible
concepts - address real recreatIOnal needs
- provIde for handIcapped parkmg needs
- provIde bubble - topped sWImmmg pool for year-round use
- allow qualIty restaurant at end of SpIt
- mclude "bandshell" for local amateur talent
- Imtlate waterfront traIl all around the Bay
3.3 Public Comments - APRIL 17, 1991
On ApnI1?, 1991, the Water and Related Land Management AdvISOry Board
held a meetmg m the Plckenng CouncIl Chambers wIth approxImately 125
publIc m attendance The Board heard 26 delegatIOns on the Frenchman's Bay
West Park Concept Plan (revIsed Apnl 5, 1991) and the Lake Ontano
Waterfront AcqUISItIOn Boundary Amendment
The wntten comments submItted to the Authonty can be summanzed as
follows.
. conflIct between pnvate vehIcles and walkmg on beach SpIt
. vehIcle access to beach SpIt for 1) launchmg of wmdsurfers, 2) safety
saIlmg WIth on shore northwesterly wmds and 3) eqUItable treatment of
the eXlstmg park users
. support for the multi-use parkmg area for publIc parkmg and
Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club wmter storage
. vehIcle access on the beach SpIt for the elderly, handicapped and for bIrd
watchmg
. momtonng of the ecologIcal Impact of the proposed wmter boat storage
t#~ ~Cf8
7
. provision for a formal boat ramp on the beach spit
. OpposItion to boat storage m the public parkmg area
3.4 Park Concept Plan (revised May 15, 1991)
The recommended plan mcorporates the planmng pnncIples dIscussed above
mto a comprehenSIve plan whIch concentrates Improvements m a number of
specIfic areas of the SIte Each area remforces the other by VIrtue of the fact
they all contribute to the envIronmental qualIty of the SIte and enhance
education and awareness The followmg section outlInes the key components of
the plan and modIficatIOns that have been mcorporated m response to the publIc
comments from the February 13, 1991 open house and AprIl 17, 1991 Water
and Related Land Management AdVIsory Board meetmg
Environmental Park Service Centre
A park serVIce centre IS proposed to prOVIde a focus and onentatIOn for the
park. It wIll function as a welcome/informatIOn centre and wIll serve as the
mam facIlIty for the dIstributIOn, exhibItIon and dIsplay of envIronmental
mformatIOn. It has been located m the central portion of the SIte in close
prOXImIty to the use areas
Beach Use Zone
The beach SpIt IS a senSItive and umque landform In VIew of thIS, It WIll be an
area WIth pedestnan access only WIth no motonzed vehIcles. PreservatIOn and
re-establIshment of the dune formatIOns and beach vegetatIon IS proposed, as
well as enhancmg fish habItats. It wIll be used for beach actIvities,
wmdsurfing, anglIng, and recreatIOn. Improvements to the SpIt mclude a
lookout(s), fishmg areas, and a beach faCIlIty ThIS beach faCIlIty could prOVIde
publIc washrooms, storage and a conceSSIOn for the beach users.
As dISCUSSed below under Velucular CIrCUlatIOn and Parkmg, the park entry
road has been extended along the beach SpIt to provide dIrect car access and
wR 3'-1Cf
8
parkIng for the pubhc and beach users The parkmg areas and the roadway wIll
be Integrated Into the revegetatIOn of the SpIt WIth clearly defined pedestnan
access pOInts to the dry beach and the Bay
Waterfront Picnic Zone
An Informal pIcmc area IS proposed for the western waterfront area of the sIte
Small pIcmc nodes would be carved out of the re-naturalIzed area NatIve
grasses and woody specIes would be Introduced to transform thIS modIfied
landscape back to a more natural waterfront area
Environmental Experimentation/Demonstrative Zone
A sectIOn of the park In the northwest part has been dedIcated to pursumg
envIronmental research and expenmentatIon SpecIfic research projects could
be undertaken and a vanety of envIronmental, landscape or garden technIques
could be demonstrated to the publIc
Proposed Wetland
A newly created wetland IS proposed to provIde an educatIOnal expenence,
enhance wIldhfe habItat In the park and to manage storm water on the sIte The
new wetland has been sItuated to take advantage of eXIstmg topography and
would faCIlItate captunng a large volume of sIte storm water WIth mInor
modIficatIOns to the sIte
Forest Restoration Zone
RestoratIon of the backshore areas of the sIte IS proposed to create for the
future a quahty urban forest, to enhance wIldlIfe habItat In the park, and to
provIde InterpretatIve opportumtIes The forest would extend eastward to
provIde a sIgmficant natural buffer zone for the eXIstIng marsh
Pedestrian Circulation
Pedestnan cIrculatIon wIthm the sIte serves to hnk use areas, provIdes
connectIOns to the neIghbourhood, and to allow for umque envIronmental
educatIonal expenence Respondmg to the Royal CommIssIon's
wR 350
9
recommendation for a "waterfront traIl", It IS proposed that a pedestnan lInk be
established across FaIrport Beach to connect Petticoat Creek Conservatlon Area
with Frenchman's Bay West.
The park trail on the Spit beyond the park road cul-de-sac wIll be designed to
accommodate emergency and mamtenance vehicles for access to the end of the
beach SpIt.
Vehicular Circulation and Parking
A new access road alIgned with Tullo Road extends into the park and serves the
park service centre Parkmg adjacent to the centre has been situated to the
advantage of eXlstmg vegetation and topography It IS proposed that the
parkmg areas be divided mto smaller lots to allow for a better "fit" with the
site As well, It IS recommended that only a small portIOn of the parkmg area
be granular surfaced. The remammg areas would be deSIgnated overflow
parkmg and could be constructed wIth a "turf stone" product, provIdmg for a
more soft landscape appearance These overflow areas would be mtegrated mto
the reforestatIOn program dIscussed above
As a result of the locatIOn, recommended layout and screenmg, the overflow
parkmg areas could accommodate wmter boat storage up to maxImum of 100
boats as requested by the Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club The proposed boat
storage wIll be subject to a detaIled deSIgn study to address such Items as
number of boats and storage layout, secunty, fencmg IIghtmg, buffermg and
operational activIties.
The park road IS extended beyond the park serVIce centre to the beach SpIt WIth
two parlang areas of 20-25 spaces each for public use. Dunng the peak use
days the Authonty could lImIt or restrIct vehicular access to the beach SpIt at
the park access/velucular control pomt which IS m close proxImIty to the park
service centre.
3.4 Preliminary Cost Estimates
The consultants have prepared the followmg preliminary cost estimates on the
basis of 1990 construction pnces. These estImates will have to be adjusted to
reflect the final concept plan approved by the AuthorIty.
w~ 351
10
1. EnvIronmental Management
. Natural Forest RestoratIon 300,000
. Wetland/Marsh 210,000
. Meadow 40,000
. SpIt N aturahzatIon 40,000
. Park Edge (Westshore and Sunnse) 300,000
. SIte PreparatIon 145.000
Sub-Total 1.035.000
2 EnvIronmental Centre Complex
. BUIldIng Complex 215,000
. SIte SerVICIng 105,000
Sub-Total 320.000
3. Beach FacIhty
. BUIldIng 40,000
. SIte SerVICIng 10.000
Sub-Total 50.000
4. SIte CIrculatIOn
. ParkIng 200,000
. Park Access Road and Park TraIl 175,000
. RegIOnal Waterfront TraIl 140,000
Sub-Total 515.000
WR $S~
11
5. Community N ode
. Children's Play Area 20,000
. Site improvements (signage,
planting, benches, information kiosk) 30.000
Sub-Total 50,000
Total $1,970,000
3.5 IMPLEMENTATION PHASING
PhasIng In the ImplementatIOn of the Frenchman's Bay West Concept Plan wIll
occur over a ten year penod ThIs phasmg IS subject to the followmg
consideratIOns.
. completIon of property acqUlstIOn
. fundmg
PHASE 1 1992-1996
. native grasses/wIldflowers
. complete property acqUlstIOn and dIsposal
of Authonty lands outSide project boundary
. waterfront traIl
. parkmg
. beach access and parkmg
. park traIl (Beach Spit)
. waterfront pIcnic actIvitIes
. beach faCIlIty
. dune restoratIon
. fish hatItat creation
. forest restoratIon
PHASE 2 1997-2001
tAl ({ 353
12
. enVIronmental park centre
. forest restoration
. envIronmental demonstratIon plots
. new vehIcular park entrance and road
. waterfront lookout
. resIdentIal street edge
. commumty entrance node
. park traIls
3.6 FUNDING
The baSIC fundIng for waterfront development IS raIsed from 50 % grant from
the MInIstry of Natural Resources and 50 % representIng the mumcIpal share
from the RegIon of Durham and the MumcIpalIty of MetropolItan Toronto
In ImplementIng the plan the Authonty would assume partIcIpatIOn by
envIronmental commumty groups through corporate fundIng InItiatives, Boards
of EducatIOn, Town of PIckenng and the ProvInce of Ontano (e g Waterfront
TraIl) The Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club would also be reqUIred, as part of
the WInter boat storage proposal, to partICIpate In the capItal costs of the publIc
parkIng areas.
Other fundIng sources for components of the proposed Concept Plan could
Include the follOWIng
1) ProvIncIal funds from fishIng lIcences revenues to develop fishIng
opportumtIes and habItat Improvements
Ii) OpportumtIes for speCIal Interest group fundIng through partICIpatIOn
In corporate envIronmental ImtIatIves
ni) School boards for Interpretive faCIlIties and programs
WR.3SL{.
.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ACQUISITION BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
FRENCHMAN'S BAY WEST AREA
.
Dated April 5, 1991
Authority Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #4/91
May 24, 1991
I I. .
--..., ,
. .
-
-
~
LEGEND lNiZ ~S~ I
--
( -
....
, B
"- EXISTING PROJECT BOUNDARY
- -
, EJ
9. I AMENDED PROJECT BOUNDARY
"
.~. .: "-
AUTHORITY LANDS
AUTHORITY LAN
PROJECT BOUNg;R~UTSIDE AMENDED
& PRIVATE LA
PROJECT B~S~~AURTiIDE AMENDED
MUNICIPAL LANDS
REQUIRED
.\...1'....1""
FRE . PRIVATE
NCHMAN'S BAY LANDS REQUIRED
LAKE ONTARIO
I
.~ I
I I
I I I
I ' I
I
! II I
I
I
I I ! I !
I j I
I I i I I I
I
I I I I
- - I I
I I I '
. I
I
I I I )'
~ th I ,1
e metropol'
conservation Itan toronto and '
authorit) regIon ACQUISITION BOUND .
I
FRENCHMAN'S B ARY AMENDMENT /
A Y WEST ARE
I A
APRH::.. _ 5, 1'9S1
FIG 1
WR ~5Co
.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
.
CORRESPONDENCE FROM:
Royal Commission for the Future of the Toronto Waterfront
Task Force to Bring Back the Don
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting t4/91
May 24, 1991
- w~ ~Sl
.
Hoyal CUIfIIJl,SSIOI1 on the . Commission royalA sur
Fulu/<; ul the l'uver'1lr dll
lorulIlO Waterfront secteur IIvernln tie 101 onto
. CANAOA
t UW"!" '"l~.'~'f (.4Hll1l,.......11".
Tllti ,~\)r"loUri.\t.l'~ CMv.1'1 <:rllllltlll:1 "I.. I hll"lIJ ,lhlr: LJaVIl.l C, (jfnble. , 0
, .,~ III l'.J I ',I." .'''(1 \~(~I 1',,"'1 t).t ,\ "'" "'4i'f'lJ1.f ul GUt''I'.'u.., jlllll"lll1."
I"lO"ollrl I UOt;rlfl~ nOMic L. LlOI:lll1q
A Wilt" ,1r.lhn AIlI''''''',I..,''''''
Mary Arm Ant-II Mary Alln AliA"
Mr J C. Mather, Director
Water Resources Divi"ion
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Con5Crvation Authorhy
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview
Onlario M3N 154
23 May 1991
.
Dear Mr Mather:
. ,
Lower Don River Flood Plain . Interim "'uod Plain Plopolnt Pl'ocedures
I have reviewed the repon on inlerim nood plain planning pnxedures for the Lower Don River
Flood Plain and I conclude that the)' represent a sensible llpproach to address f100d protC<..1ion of
proposed development or redevelopmentln lhe floodplain pending .pJ>roval of SPA policies tor the
area.
These interim procedures should be used to allow development 10 occur, with appropriate
protective mc~surcs. in 1Ift".n~:
(i) that will nOI be needed for implc:mematJon of flood prota:tiOJl oplions in the Lower Don
floodplain,
(ii) that would not be included In the restorcltion of the mouth of'the Don and wetland
development beiu8 propo~ by the Task r'Orcc to Drinl BACk the Don.
Sincerely,
l4-.~ a gCt~)
,
David Cartc:t .
Senior Director of Special Projcc..1S.
I,. 1.111', C'tf 11111 t t'\." J I' ,t,,~,. ~'\I1 I)......" r ()'.'y Wu,.1IOuw51 lillo' 10.<0 If,' rl:>!l"
J' J 1\.... << ~' JlI,' PO n,,~:cl' ~lll
"ll.IIUlI ~ "W.I" I' ~1"ttl~", ~lwf'll'!1:IIc' ^
d.I.....' al1.",.1 I'U. 1,1 I 10'''''11(> t..IlMrtn MI.\I\I '\I~
r ""_ 11 h 4.'111....,. ,t 'I )'1n "\CJr. r ~"'I Nt"', I"', "',' fC'It'r,f'Ulr'H' I , 1 (;) ~ 1::]. /1 U~
. , I ! 'll.'" .. '4 '."I... 1l~(I ....,. oc "~1"Ullt '4' ~ j '11" " 0 ~
LoR 558
City of lbronto
ill Department of the City CI. Telephone: (418) 392-7020
City Hall Fax: (416) 392-6990
Toronto, Ontario JI TOO: (4'6) 392-7354
Canada M5H 2N2
.
Barbar8 O. Ceplan
City Clerk
Sydn.yl(. Ru....
Deputy City Clerk
Frances Pritchard - 392-0476
Ref:donreply425:566
May 22, 1991
The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 154 -
Attn: J. Crail Mather
Director, Water Resource Division
Dear Mr. Mather:
At its meeting held on May 21, 1991, the Task Force to Bring Back the Don had
before it your communication (April 29, 1991) addressed to the Chair respecting
the Lower Don River Flood PlaIn - Interim Flood Plain Planning Procedures
(City of Toronto).
The Task Force:
- advises the Metropolitan Toronto and Relion Conservation Authority that
it suppons, in seneral, the report (April 12, 1991) on the Lower Don River
Flood Plain . Interim Flood Plain Plannins Procedures;
- requests the Authority to exclude the area of the delta marsh in the port
lands from the interim procedures;
- requests the Authority to exclude from the interim procedures the area 60
metres on either side of the river to take into account the futUre plans' of
the Task Force;
(I Contain. po~-con.urner rtCYc'-d peper
-,
: vJR 3>5'
.2.
.
.
. offers, with its consultants, to meet with representatives from the Authority
should the Authority have COncerns about the Task. Force's requests;
. requests that the Task Force be involved in any discussion of process
towards the creation of a permanent special policy'designation or
development approvals in that area.
Yours truly,
t,~ f4
Acting Administrator
Task Force To Brinl Back the Don
.
. FP/cv
Enclosure
cc: Commissioner of Plannina and Development
Commissioner of Parks and Recreation
Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront
Metropolitan Commissioner of Parks and Property
Toronto Harbourfront Commission
City of Toronto Waterfront Commission
.
WR 3lo0
.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
.
MTRCA FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING GUIDELINES
FOR
SPECIAL POLICY AREAS
MAY 1991
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #4/91
May 24, 1991
uJR 3<0 J
.
SCHEDULE 1
MUNICIPAL/PROVINCIAL COMMENTS RECEIVED
AGENCY COMMENTS ACTION
\
1. council had no comment ~
ADJALA -
(Written)
2. MONO . do not anticipate need -
(Written) for SPA designation
. question approval of
new multi-lot develo~nt
or redevelopment under
any circumstances
3. PICItERING . do not anticipate -
(Written additional SPA .
and designations
Workshop)
. current SPA policies
are in general coapliance
with proposed guidelines
. will consult with HTRCA
further at time of OP
review
4. ETOBICOlB . recent OP review did -
(written not identify need for SPA
and designation
Itorksbop)
. no objection
5. PBBL . no coaaents at this -
(Written ti..
and
Itorkahop) .foresee Regional
involveaent at site-
specific approval stage
6. AJAX .no objections to Recoaaend
(counc i1 proposed SPA guideline. funding of 1992
report and SPA Project
Workshop) .requect regular review
of SPA boundaries bJ
HTRCA and MNR
7. CALEDON . no objections -
(Workshop)
WR ~b~
AGENCY COHHENTS ACTION
8. HNR e minor revisions to March 1991
(Written) working; definitions; report revised
noted that senior \
(provincial) documents
prevail in case of ~
conflicts with MTRCA
Guidelines
9. MARKHAM eidentified need to March 1991
(Verbal) define -New Multi-lot report revised
Development and
Redevelopment-, Section
5.2 of March 1991 SPA
report, so that multiple
severances, etc. are
excluded fro. this
section
.
WR 3b=
HTRCA FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING GUIDELINES ,
FOR
SPECIAL POLICY AREAS
HAY 1991
1.0 Introduction
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation ~thority (HTRCA)
implements a One-Zone approach to flood plain plan ing, based on the
Regulatory Flood (Hurricane Hazel), in accordance ~th Policy (4) and (2)
respectively of the Provincial Flood Plain Plannin Policy Statement, 1988
(see Appendix A).
The Two-Zone and Special Policy Area Concepts, Policy (5) and Policy (6)
respectively of the Provincial Flood Plain Planning Policy Statement,
provide for exceptions to the One-Zone approach.
The purpose of this document is to outline the guidelines which the
Authority shall use in its review and approval of requests for Special
Policy Area status (Policy 6) as well as for the review and approval of
development applications within approved Special Policy Areas.
2.0 The Special Policy Area Concept
Policy (6) Special Policy Area Concept of the Provincial Flood Plain
Planning Policy Statement states
.
It is the policy of ontario that:
6.1 Nhere strict adherence to policies (4) and/or (5) is not
feasible, the concept of Special Policy Area status is
I recognized as a possible option for flood prone co..unitie.
or portions thereof. HUnici~lities may apply for Special
Policy Area status, in accordance with established
procedures, and controlled development aay be per.itted once
such status is obtained.
6.2 HUnici~lities delineate Special Policy Area. in their
Official Plans and include policies indicating the
circ~stance. under which new development "7 be per.itted
and identifying the .ini.o. acceptable level of protection
required for new developraent.
A Special Policy Area is an area of land, located within a flood plain, on
which there is existing develo~nt that for.s an integral part of an
existing floodprone co..unity. In aost instances the continued viability
of these areas depends on a reasoned application of the Provincial
standards for flood plain management. When strict adherence to a One-Zone
or Two-Zone approach to flood plain planning is not feasible, the concept
of Special Policy Area status is recognized as a possible option for
existing floodprone communities or portions thereof.
3.0 Plood Plain Planning Objectives
In its consideration of proposed Special Policy Area designations and/or
subsequent development applications within designated Special Policy Areas,
the Authority's objective. shall coincide with tho.e of the Province for
flood plain manag~ment.
(1) to prevent los. of lifel
(2 ) to .inimize property damage and social di.ruption.
To meet these objective. within Special Policy Area., the Authority .hall
manage flood risk through it. consideration of the following:
. Existing flood risk (Frequency of flooding/Depths and
velocities/Ice ja..)
. Minimum level of acceptable flood risk (Building./ Accessory
structures/Access)
~R ~~4
. Type of development/redevelopment (Residential/Habitable; Non-
Residential/Non-Habitable; Public Safety)
. Extent of development/redevelopment (Major redevelopment;
Additions, Replacement, Infilling, Rehabilitation/Accessory
structures)
. Flood Damage Reduction Measures (Remed~
works/Floodproofing/proposed land use/ rgency response)
. Off-site impacts associated with develo~nt and redevelopment
. other Authority program and policy interest.
4.0 IapleDentation and Approval Process for Special Policy Area.
4.1 The implementation and approval process for proposed Special Policy
Area designations shall be in accordance with Provincial
Implementation Guidelines and Ministry of Natural Resources Central
Region Guidelines for the Special Policy Area Process (see Appendiz B
and Appendix C respectively).
4.2 The Official Plan policies and Rezoning/By-law Amendment docu.ents
that are required to iaplement a proposed Special Policy Area
designation shall form part of the municipal request for final
approval of a Special Policy Area designation.
.
The Official Plan Special Policy Area policies shall include
specific implementation guidelines for municipal and Authority
review and approval of development application. within the
designated Special Policy Area.
4.3 When requesting an SPA designation, the municipality, in
accordance with provincial policy and guidelines, .ust address
various co..unity related factors, including existing and
proposed land use within the floodprone cogaunity.
If in the opinion of the Authority the proposed land use will resQlt
in significant intensification of development within the flood plain,
the development guideline. described within Section 5.2 shall be used
to evaluate the request for SPA designation. The SPA Technical
Co..ittee may be consulted in this regard.
4.4 When considering land use changes within an approved SPA, the
.unicipality shall prepare a report describing the existing and
proposed land use within the floodprone c~nity.
If in the opinion of the Authority the proposed land use will result
in .ignificant intensification of developnent within the flood plain,
the develo~nt guidelines described within Section 5.2 shall be used
in the review and developaent of revised SPA policies before final
approval is granted by the Authority.
The SPA Technical Co..ittee shall be consulted, as required, in this
regard.
4.5 A program for emergency response, in the event of a flood, shall be
developed and implemented in accordance with the
Provincial/Conservation Authority/Municipal Flood Warning and
Forecasting System and shall form part of the .unicipal Tequest for
final approval of a Special Policy Area designation. A 6 hour
evacuation timefraae is the minimua acceptable li.it by the Province.
4.6 When a Special Policy Area designation has been approved, the \
Authority shall review applications pursuant to its Fill, Construction
and Alteration to Waterways Regulations on the ba.is of the approved
Special Policy Area policies, outlined within the municipal planning
documents.
WR~S
4.7 Where any conflict/differing interpretation occurs or appears to occur
between the Authority's SPA Guideline. and those of the Province, the
senior document shall prevail.
5.0 Development Guideline.
The Authority's flood plain planning guidelines for
development/redevelopment within approved special~olicy Area. are
presented within ~
Section 5.1 Addition., Infilling, RePlacement/R~abilitation,
Redevelopment
Section 5.2 Kajor Redevelopment
Section 5.3 Public Safety
Section 5.4 Accessory Buildingc
Section 5.5 Prohibition of Development
5.1 Additions, Infilling, Replacement/Rehabilitation, Redevelo~nt
(a) Addition., rehabilitation and/or replacement of existing structure.,
infilling and redevelopment may be per.itted within Special Policy
Area..
(b) Thi. type of development must be flood protected to the level of the
Regulatory Flood a. defined within the Conservation Authority'. Fill,
Construction and Alteration to Waterway. Regulation..
-
Where it i. technically not feasible or it i. impractical to flood
protect this development to the level of the Regulatory Flood, then a
lower level of flood protection aay be permitted.
The .pecific level of flood protection to be impo.ed, and any
flood protection measure. to be imple~nted relative to
individual development applications, .hall be determined by The
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in
con.ultation with the local municipality. I
The level of protection to be required shall be the highest level
determined to be technically fea.ible or practical.
In no in.tance .hall the level of protection required be Ie..
than the 1:350 flood event.
(c) In all in.tance. pede.trian and vehicular ingre.. and egre..
.hall be w.afew pur.uant to Provincial floodproofing .tandard..
In addition, the ..xiaua level of flood protection dete~ined to
be fea.ible .hall be con.idered.
(d) Flood daaage reduction measure. for this type of
development/redevelopment .hall be carried out by the proponent to
achieve the required level of flood protection.
The .election of flood damage reduction ~a.ure. .hall be ba.ed on the
following alternative., listed in order of priority:
(i) Flood control remedial work. shall be completed in
accordance with the approved Special Policy Area
designation.
(ii) Dry, pas.ive floodproofing measure. shill be implemented to the
extent technically and/or
practically fea.ible.
(iiilWet floodproofing mea.ure. may be pe~i..ible to minimize
flood risk and/or to meet the minimum level of flood protection
required.
(iv) Dry, active floodproofing measure. .ay be permi..ible to minimize
flood risk.
WR 3~~
J
(e) All applications for development approval on lands designated Special
Policy Area shall be accompanied by engineering studies, prepared by a
qualified professional, detailing such matter. a. flood frequency,
depth and velocity of flow, soil condition., propo.ed flood daaage
reduction measure. including structural deaign detail., .tormwater
management techniques, and other necessary information and atudie. a.
may be required by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and the local municipality. \
5.2 Major Redevelopaent \
(a) Major redevelopment may be permitted within Special Policy Areaa.
(b) This type of development must be flood protected to the level of the
Regulatory Flood as defined within the Conaervation Authority'a Fill,
Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation..
(c) In all instances pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress ahall be
"safe" pursuant to Provincial floodproofing standards.
(d) Flood damage reduction measures for this type of
development/redevelopaent shall be carried out by the proponent to
achieve the required level of flood protection.
The selection of flood damage reduction measure. sball be based on the
fo)lowing alternatives, listed in order of priority: .
(i) Flood control remedial work. shall be coapleted in
accordance with the approved Special Policy Area
designation.
If a flood control remedial work. prograa has not been
approved, the proponent shall carry out .ucb preliminary
design studies a. deemed necessary by the Authority and the
local municipality for their review and approval.
(ii) Dry, pa.sive floodproofing measure. shall be implemented to the
extent technically and/or practically feasible.
(iii)Wet floodproofing mea.ure. aay be peraissible.
(iv) Dry, active floodproofing mea.ures .hall not be permis.ible a. a
mean. of achieving Regulatory Flood Protection.
(e) All application. for developaent approval on land. de.ignated Special
. Policy Area .hall be accoapanied by engineering .tudie., prepared by ·
qualified profe..ional, detailing .uch matter. a. flood frequency,
depth and velocity of flow, .oil condition., propo.ed flood daaage
reduction measure. including .tructural de.ign detail., storavater
management technique., and other necessary inforaation and .tudie. a.
may be required by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and the local aunicipality.
5.3 Public Safety
(a) Development application. a.sociated with public safety interest. of
the province shall comply with Provincial Policy (8) Public Safety:
Notwithstanding (Provincial) Policy (3) to (1) inclusive.
8.1 New development not be per.itted to locate in the flood plain where
the use is:
(a' associated with the manufacture, storage, disposal
and/or consumption of hazardous substances or the
treatment, collection and disposal of sewage, which
would pose an unacceptable threat to public safety if
they were to escape their nor..l containment/use as a
result of flooding or failure of floodproofing
measures;
w,~ 3G -,
(b) associated with institutional services, such as
hospitals, nursing homes and schools, which would pose
a significant threat to the safety of the inhabitant.
(e.g. the sick, the elderly, the disabled or the
young) , if involved in an emergency evacuation
situation as a result of flooding or failure of flood-
proofing measures; and
(c) associated with services such as tSpse provided by
fire, police and ambulance station.~nd electrical
substations, which would be im~ire during a flood
emergency as a result of flooding or failure of
floodproofing measures~
8.2 Where new development identified in 8.1 is not considered to
pose an unacceptable risk to public safety, a higher level
of flood protection and/or additional floodproofing
precautions above the regulatory flood level, may .till be
required due to the sensitive nature of the development.
(b) This type of development must be protected as a minimua to the level
of the Regulatory Flood as defined within the Conservation Authority'.
Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulation..
(c) In all instances pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress shall be
wsafew pursuant to Provincial floodproofing standards. .
(d) Flood damage reduction .easures for this type of
development/redevelopgent shall be carried out by the proponent to
achieve the required level of flood protection.
The selection of flood damage reduction aeasures .hall be based on the
following alternatives, listed in order of priority:
(i) Flood control remedial works shall be completed in
accordance with the approved Special Policy Area
designation.
If a flood control reRedial worke prograa has not been
approved, the proponent shall carry out such studies as
deemed necessary by the Authority and the local .unicipality
for their review and approval.
(ii) Dry, passive floodproofing .easure. shall be i.pleaented to the
eKtent technically and/or practically fea.ible.
(iii)Wet floodproofing aeaeures nay be peraissible for uses described
within 8.1 (a) and (c).
(iv) Dry, active floodproofing measures shall not be per.issible a. a
means of achieving the specified level of flood protection. \
(e) All applications for development approval on land. designated Special
Policy Area shall be accompanied by engineering .tudies, prepared by a
qualified professional, detailing such aatters as flood frequency,
depth and velocity of flow, soil conditions, propo.ed flood daaage
reduction measure. including structural deeign details, storawater
management techniques, and other necessary inforaation and studies as
may be required by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and the local .unicipality.
5.4 Accessory Structures
(a) Accessory structures such as garden sheds, parking lot., etc.
associated with development/redevelopment within a designated Special
Policy Area shall be permitted.
(b) Thi. type of development shall be flood protected to the eKtent
technically and/or practically feasible as dete~ined on a .ite
specific analysis of flood risk.
wR ~e
Cc) Flood damage reduction aeaaurea for thia type of
developnent/redevelopment ahall be carried out by the proponent to
achieve the apecified level of flood protection.
The aelection of flood damage reduction aeaaure. .hall be baaed on the
following alternativea, liated in order of prioritYI
Ci) Dry, paa.ive and/or wet floodproofing -,.aure. aball be
imple.ented to achieve the apecified level of flood
protection. ~
(ii) Dry, active floodproofing ..a.urea aay be pec.daaible to
.ini.iae flood risk.
Cd) Application. for approval may require engineering .tudie., prepared by
a qualified profesaional, detailing such aattera .. flood frequency,
depth and velocity of flow, .oil condition., propo.ed flood damage
reduction aeasurea including .tructural de.ign detail., .to~ater
aanageaent techniquee, and/or other neceasary info~tion and atudiea
aa may be required by the Metropolitan Toronte and Region Conservation
Authority and the local aunicipality.
5.5 Prohibition of Develo~nt
Ca) Notwithatanding Sectiona 5.1 - 5.4 incluaive, no new developaent or
redevelopaent ahall be per.itted on any parcel of land which i. whelly .
or partly deaignated Special Policy Area if I
Ci) the developaent would be aubjected to a water velocity or
depth which would create an unacceptable hazard to life, or
(ii) the developaent would be auaceptible to ..jor atructural
da..ge a. a r~eult of a flood Ie.. than or equal to the
Regulatory rlood, or
(iii)the nece..ary flood protection ..aaurea would have a negative
i.pact on adjacent propertiea, or
(iv) the developaent would i.pact negatively en any other progr..
and'or Policy objective of the Authority.
~.~
MAt 15/91
--
Pleaae refer to Agenda ite. "Special Policy Area - MTRCA Flood plain
Planning Guidelinea" of Meeting 11/91, March 1, 1991 of the "ater and
Related Land Management Advi80ry Board for Appendix A, Band C to the
"MTRCA Flood Plain Planning Policy Guidelinea for Special Policy Area."
report.
\
~
UJR 3bGJ
.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
INTERIM FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING PROCEDURES
LOWER DON RIVER, CITY OF TORONTO
HAY 1991
.
Authority Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #4/91
May 24, 1991
WR ~10
INTERIM FLOOD PLAIN PLANNING PROCEDURES
Lower Don River, City of Toronto
I'lay 1991
)NTRODUCTION
Interim Flood Plain Planning Procedures have been approved by the SPA
Technical Committee for the lower Don River, City ~f Toronto These
procedures provide a set of interim floodproofing eolicies that will be
used to evaluate development applications pursuant '~o the Authority's Fill,
Construction and Alteration to Waterways Regulations (Ontario Regulation
'193/86) This approach is necessary, prior to the approval of SPA policies
for the area, because of the number and magnitude of development proposals
in the area
It is recognized that there are a variety of long range planning proposals
being developed for the area which may limit the location and type of
llevelopment These include the flood protection strategy for the lower Don
River, the Royal Commission on the Future of the Ontario waterfront and the
Task Force to Bring Back the Don Certain development proposals may have
to be considered premature in light of these concepts
PRINCIPLES:
(1) Development/redevelopment will be restricted to areas of the flood
plain where the depths of flooding and velocities are non life .
threatening and property damage can be minimized
(2 ) The highest level of floodproofing technically and economically
feasible will be achieved
\ 3) Approvals will not jeopardize any of the proposed flood protection
option packages being contemplated for the lower Don River
All agencies responsible for flood plain planning and land use
planning shall identify and agree to implement the development control
mechanisms required to achieve this purpose
(4 ) Approvals pursuant to the Authority's Fill, Construction and
Alteration to Waterways Regulations are granted at the discretion of
the Authority's Executive Committee
~;TUDY AREA:
The interim procedures shall apply to those lands within the regulatory
flood plain which have received Approval-in-Principle for SPA designation
~ihere depths under regulatory flood conditions are less than 1 0 metre
Any lands within the study area which are required for potential flood
protection works shall be reserved for this purpose
nefer to Map 1 and Map 2, attached
PEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES:
1 Development/redevelopment must be flood protected to the level of the
Regulatory Flood as defined within the "Flood Protection Options"
report prepared by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Ltd , January 1991
Where it is technically not feasible or it is impractical to flood
protect this development to the level of the Regulatory Flood, then a
lower level of flood protection may be permitted
The specific level of flood protection to be imposed, and any flood
protection measures to be implemented relative to individual
development applications, shall be determined by The Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in consultation with the
City of Toronto
The level of protection to be required shall be the highest level
determined to be technically feasible or practical
W~ 011
In no instance shall the level of protection required be less than the
1 350 flood event
') In all instances, ingress and egress shall be "safe" pursuant to
Provincial floodproofing standards In addition, the maximum level of
flood protection determined to be feasible shall be considered
3 Flood damage reduction measures shall be car~ied out by the proponent
of development to achieve the required level bf flood protection
The selection of flood damage \0 be based on the
reduction measures shall
following alternatives, listed in order of priority
(i) Dry, passive floodproofing measures shall be implemented to the
extent technically and/or practically feasible
( ii) Wet floodproofing measures may be permissible to minimize flood
risk and/or to meet the minimum level of flood
protection required
(iUIDry, active floodproofing measures may be permissible to minimize
flood risk
4 All applications for development/redevelopment approval shall be
accompanied by engineering studies, prepared by a qualified
professional, detailing such matters as flood frequency, depth and .
velocity of flow, soil conditions, proposed flood damage reduction
measures including structural design details, stormwater management
techniques, and/or other necessary information and studies as may be
required by The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
and the City of Toronto
5 New development shall not be permitted to locate in the flood plain
where the use is
(a I associated with the manufacture, storage, disposal
and/or consumption of hazardous substances or the
treatment, collection and disposal of sewage, which
would pose an unacceptable threat to public safety if
they were to escape their normal containment/use as a
result of flooding or failure of floodproofing
measures;
\
(bl associated with institutional services, such as
hospitals, nursing homes and schools, which would pose
a significant threat to the safety of the inhabitants
(e g. the sick, the elderly, the disabled or the
young I" if involved in an emergency evacuation
situation as a result of flooding or failure of flood-
proofing measures; and
(cl associated with services such as those provided by
fire, police and ambulance stations and electrical
substations, which would be impaired during a flood
emergency as a result of flooding or failure of
floodproofing measures
6 Notwithstanding the above, no new development or redevelopment shall
be permitted if
(i) the development would be subjected to a water velocity or
depth which would create an unacceptable hazard to life; or
(ii I the development would be susceptible to major structural
damage as a result of a flood less than or equal to the
Regulatory Flood; or
(iiilthe necessary flood protection measures would have a
negative impact on adjacent properties;
WR "&1~
INPLE~lENTAT]:.QH
1 Pursuant to Ontario Regulation 293/86, written permission from the
MTRCA Executive Committee must be received ~ to
(a) the construction of any building or structure within the regional
storm (regulatory flood) flood plain;
(b) the placement or dumping of fill within~the fill regulation area,
\\'hether such fill is already located in ~ upon such area, or
brought to or on such area from some oth place or places;
(c) the straightening, changing, diversion or interference in any way
Nith the existing channel of a river, creek, stream or
watercourse
Applications sha 11 be evaluated in accordance with the Interim
Procedures described above
2 All development applications shall be circulated to the MTRCA for
review and comment by the City of Toronto, Netropolitan Toronto, and
the Ninistry of Municipal Affairs
3 Najor development/redevelopment proposals shall be evaluated and must
be endorsed by the SPA Technical Committee prior to the consideration
of Fill , Construction or Alterations to Waterways applications by the .
MTRCA Executive Committee
Further, the SPA Technical Committee shall interpret the Interim
Procedures if/as required
4 The Interim Procedures shall be superseded by approved Special Policy
Are.:1 policies or be re-evaluated by December 1993
RJ jb
~Iay 15, 1991
attach.
E.
~
~
-- 'I; 1"Ilfl1" L1:U~J,I3', ';\
-oa-:I ~]. , Ui ~ , ~
---':...- J~-.i-.llJ____. ---.1 I - - r-r J' ' 0, I' .
\ ~ .~~-- _11....:a. n I ...... f':rl I
-' - d", " , -'.' -~ .- __ ._-_ ~r j G)i
- u - - .-. -=-.::..' _.~~ ~U' - - '~OCI "!J:ji~'\"'-"~-',- . l.n~i \~o\\~':) ~. _ ~ ~ a ~. :D ~ I _
~ 1t~~'~'~J~:..l!I!IrL . I.i ~ " {I, "'-/I' '\,~- .~- \....- "'On ail = m
I ,(Ie o~ ='.;:. - - I . ""'. ' , '\,~)',Jr .__ . '''' '. m '2c
r "-"" F.:iif,i ., FVlij m '. " '- f/11" _,. _ ~ '-: I 'T . '___0.. Z ,
L Q -.... . _ _ell:: Z ~.,,?_. "s.... . . _~ : 0 _... 0 .
. u =,-,.. ~ . ,,'7T , ~ . . .' 0 __ ...
Jr l\] ,,Ill ~ .~, :=.. ~ "" "&[11' .'" '(;>1">: : ~~'" · . - , - p ~ > ..... . 10 I " ,.
.", I II lIr ..... . .... ~ 'A~_ , t'-.J . < ,,_ ~'_ 10 l
,- ... V' ~ -f , " . . '" p . c. . il
~ .., I" , · ~'" '" '.j'. m.__. ': ;; 'I r-<. ~
/) :;r=; r-....~. A . ,j'iruU,i ilIr.;.. ~" '~'" ...- .; I oJ ~ ~: 11 Q : IW lh ~ t F.:
m~ p.~' "~~,, !!l'~~ ~ iiR",: I~ -. ~'m.__ ~ ~ rfI- --- m I ~
"' , ." · ) ~ '" .... ,It ". . ~. . I z . ,_
J ", '.,~' ". '_'. 1~ . '" I: , c: . r
t '0 u L ~ J ~~ tUN~~S'STREETJ~~.:fj ~~ ~; m l' E" ! l tv", :.1:! : Ib~, I m;Ui::! ~
!2" -~l:?..~\1 \~ I 1-. =:r=; e n1.' ~n~ I, , : L .,. i :, 'I . , "" "I"~ ~
-, ~ I...... ~ ..:....~:f1I1~ ~,.. -:~..", ~ '" ~ I r; r-.t\.\ r- In,; __ I r ~~
=> -. " ~, '"" , . , ".~ .
tJjQ; P.~ If :.t~lU~' a = O'!.. . - . J ~ : ' . I _U . ::J~. C _
'1[ '" .co. " . .., .:. _ .
-'. ~ ":S[~C t" .\ !t.. --, un --- -.....E2~E.T". "." . I,. .:" " 'I l~/ln u ~ _' ~i [
~~ . I I al .. \.l::1E~....!..EN STR " . ., " I p " = e. ... J I' . /
· 0" au , ., :'. , "._ .' . '.;
~ ;rr . ~ . . ", . .. .,~" . _ r '"
· "0 ~m Fm\ I ~ ~"II"'" .' · .... .. '~'-'I:'1..1; '0= , ~ ,_ J C";;; ~ ~
=-. ~~== I ~ ,,. . . . '_. t ....n ''"' ,- , , _\J: ... r
"" 1",,- III - ~ , ;li!:... '". . .. ~ "".Ifr'''-". _ ~ ~... ~ '
-4 ~- ~ ,n. ~ .~ ~ ..a .= . .., ...'~ '1~~ ^ ., ~
~ :11..-.. ... · ',,,... .~"'- _ '_', yo ,
~I~r'mg~ /17i~ JIm. ~..- ,. ~'':..,. ~.;.,~___~~~ . !~. '~'''';t.~~\~~
1l m ,"~'~LDJ. .... .,~. ~. ~ ;~~"~,~
,.. ,,!, ~ ~ ..'. '. '"'. -"~~., \ \0. d\ I~", ...."/'_.
;;:tl In' '~,. '.x,"'.: 'f'o.~ .~. ." -<-;~ "~~:t\'~, ___
IrrODo_Y- m ,.- . . . - " -", . '. ";'r~ \ \\ '"_! c
itfllc- ~ ~ _' .. , . ~"" _
11 , . _. . '. .-: ,. I ~...- " ..-;;
~,=r",r!.JLI n - _ P.'. _' . 'q .1>", ...._ . !. ~~" _ '
~I .' '" 'G" .. o. .f" '... _. lM , '. . /
- - .?' - -. ~. . 00 . =- ....\... - . " / /
----.-l -- .' v." P.O;. ,~. . . _ 1 "'" \\_ '_~__ .
,.. . :- ~- . ~'- - ,
--- '.- --.- - - '-r..._ . "" . ." 0 ". w..... _'" I,
-- . , . . -, '-'.. ~ .' ". ", ,
:- ~~ -.,.., , ,,' r 'm~ _ :- :::"',-" . ,-<,.~, -:;,,_. ''''~ ~~.. / _'. \' I
-c -.. ". /A ,.' >.'. ~ ..-. ~'" > ~~ ,,_ 'Ni'~ <::",.' ,
~ 0 lC 'L li:L . --d"_._~ ~a<ll~< Il> ....... . """,.- ,.. '" "
- .----!- - - '-. ~ ." ,.~...-o, ",
. .,., -~-- - .~ . ,tA., ,'. '. . ......
~ . .~..,..,~ I ./ ,~i't l. r".,- ~" ...:.o~..,--,<:: _..J ~-t-. .
~.=l.. ') -= '.lE~ - . '.l\~~i'( ).-A.C 1,- 6~" ....~ ~, .,.. _ , 'I I,
'--- . , '. ..,~.~ "- /0 >,-,Iii '_,:"._ ,
- , ..- ""~ "-''-- ,- 0 0 . '... , ' '__
'D'~ '. '. '~/. '. it' ~, ~5\' ClQ..~/ '. ' ,
c ~- _ "~ .. 0". d,
o "., ~ " co' . '"' U...., LEGEND
".. - ...,:C\ .o" _ v v./
D ' <~'r~"'" J.C c:> -, .,~ (. ~~ noN u..-
. ...... 0'"'' .~ .. , . ",- '_ ..... _ .,_....._
:'f .. '*
~ \ . ., 0, ," DON I'l.OOllI'I.AIH e
- - o..::.-t'. , '~.. ~ D_ LOWell
'0 .-.v-.... .\' "'" __. ~
. ". ,,'., - . : \ ;,.'. -. - -
'''~ ,. 0""'.', .' ~_ ~~ ~ ~n'
'...... . Cl.~!>l' D~"""} c,R.."'~,z, r.o~~ \ ~~ ..Q66~-\_,~. / e "'TARA'":'l~~~~TOAOHTO
· -... .. '" "': 1J '/h~'\"- ~, ~ ~ ,
... -- '" .... / '.~
-. , ....;..-.
.-
I ' ,i1J1, U:ll...~': -W-,d : .
---. . ----, L~UH . - I I' ' "\l "
,~-- ~'" . o 'hL. , , . r::!"l " (I '
. -. - ..'"'- - '-": ,--~ ~ ..-. ., 'Jf' ~ Gl ~
- ~.-' ~ ~N- I" -II'" =- [iL~~\, .. !n~7)!:,\~il)~".- -- ~_.. n !' - 0-0= :zl' r I '~
I ' .- r;;;; '/, r. · / I ,"'. - ." OJ !;; m I
!.- ;;;mo.. IUD "h -~ " \.l L/'" ,,--.;, .:-'" J>" m ~ 'I'
· ' ~' - D ~ m r.7~ = - r /..... _ ." ': .~____ Z, , ,
- . ="' ".. U Ii Z. IN "'or!" ~, .' ,,..... . m I' _ '" .
~ .' - ~ .1I111.=.W-f" . - 'F"'w. _ ./-~ , _" <: 'I
" ~. i II II :; J ~-~I(I) 11' '-1 :. " ~ -~..:.;t "..:l> ."~' '~:" r--- 18... I l' li
I .rl · , ~[jf.Jb ~"" ~ ~m.. I I ~ F a Ie: I ~ ~
JIIlf111':a t ~ ~ I I - I . ,..t' C:o~~
-. I IW:IJI.'~ m~ j, \.~ . I:j~ .. Z I _I: I _ t .....'l:illt
. " , ".. . " "'--. -
~ ,,' r ",;if '. '....1 '" '" 11'( "., I~ 0 - ,-' < ::0<(
IV,.. · . 1>0. _ 'rr-J.., '- m. ~
'. . r, _. , ..
'r. · . I . "', : " " . Z .' ,
:n .c. j:j \! 1 · () ~EE/m 1 m ~ i'" <> 1 ~'; . ~ i ~ Iii ' II
.........., ~'~. - J. ~, l.\ '.:f!:... - · I : L , . 'm ~~_ ~
. - · ,-, .J . 1.. . .
p. r1 '" \ ~ " ; . _ .. I '. . _ .. I
b:i <>. 'Q1Il · ~,n: J__..,,: · :.. , , I I ,~III , : ;. --~. -J~!,;'_l
I~ Q1l'r 1l0Ue"ENSTREET . · . . : , i! :', II !' lmi~:r l j,:j~ t;'j [1
- (1.111 !lm I 'I' , I '.I:H:IU..L , t b _ j _
-_2 "' t ::;L - il"'~ ',r' I ~ '/"/'JI'II"I _ ~ -' ~ _
~ . '""":= -' r , , , ~ . ~.o
'I'1!1&.I~ "-. '" . ~~ " 'R XS~';A -, \,; t ~; ':'if a 'Q~ , _ .. - :;:'~_ --:;..: c{
.~. 1(J)~i!:D"'''' - ." .~1 ;~E; I F l~"~~ ~~-. _, _ ~__ . ~
~'-4 m ~'" / F.in... .. m .., , " ~....J"'- 1 ,~" ....-=--::\ . ....... "r'c ~....,....
. . W R:a !!I j"'o:; /:. as r1 oc!Jl '" *."~:J:i~'.. i ~\ -\] ---i I "'J.jk' ,S,' -".\""X~ \ :
'='-llm "" = . " J: I ..,.;.... \Q',Q ~\ Vi'~, . t ~
. .J.:: I ".' 1 ,v' ~ \ "
o .. _.'.o , .. <K, ,p ... ,'~ _"
-~ ~~i-:: ro. .. __~t 5' --~ i G ,...~~~ ~..\ ", r")'. \~~~ r~.~"
JIll 4'7 . . ~tk-\".-::-;~.. ~ ~ '\ \~
.. ~ ~ ...... ;' ~ , · 0 ' .% '-II .__ \ '", ~,...... .
. - '- . ,0' -y<:: 0 -.'01~_ ," ~\ ....... ..... \.'::---": -'l ~
~ ... ~ ~~~~~~. : \~~Q~\ ~(;1 ~~\.... ~ ~ '" / / _
. . ~ 'c...__ ~,\ ". · _. ". h
~ '.JI.., ~ . ,_"'In...../ ..-<'".' ~ .
...,. " - . " ~ , - '.' 0
-Inl "". j;;; .~.~ " - ~~ .o, 0 '...? .5\,. iji,~:.....,;;- ", '7
~ A1 ;-.._L; ;p:-, c::s::.. ',,..- '~r, .,'.oO\',:~I'" / _'., ! f1
~ r=r LL In. ~ \ -- '--.1 ~~I,-... 1\ ~... ''k<i{i\'' ~. .1\ /.. V' I
"J~-';- ',r .. . . :Ii,". ~t:.. / ';;#-s' ---:?: ". ~\ _I.. \ /,
) \' "'-1 ~ ~" CI",' < ", , .D _''', ,__ t--
- .. 0 .-<:: -, " _ , _ ". ......... _, .. I I
-- "~ '- loO I,' ..... (j\ ,\ ~ ro \. .. I "'r
' , -. '" '-" .' " .," 'I , '. .
\.. " . . . ...... :;..t .~ 0 0 <,-:;. _ , .
~ ."M.,.,O ~-. tnU..P,~........... - . 'Q.!'~ '~2b'2 I _ _ I C
J ~ V~ '''oa< ~"'-=---".. ... ~:q"Q', .~ ~ ' C
~:O~5.::lM~ ~. ~." ..""', ,....., '-"\f , 1
- ",'" ...... .......""';, \ \ " ) 'V I __
- -'". ',,,0 .,r
AT!'o~_/1t.1 . :-' '. ~.\_ ......
I':/I..L "'. # .
AIt-.A It. , F~~ A"\l ~..,_~ 0 ,- .:. . .
OVof(", \.7" , u.sr." '.1:?,,' ,\...., .f
C.VA FI..o)OO...,,. , ".:0.-' '.J!.d I ~~.':\' I I V'
. \'. .p",. \ · <) 'lI:
,_. '''''''0 ,'" ". ,...... I<l. . \ .. ,
- - /,....,~ ~ - ,- .' ~ t..,!' . ....
...... .... ...... Pl?l)t.(,./~ ) . ," \ '.~-r.g1fo~. , ...., .. LOvJ~t Do t-J ,..
- . \'./.~ ,. -
" .... . /." '. .. ~ n.,. ,
" .. .~,-'- . Or "0,,
- ..A . V L. ODD CO to.:J-r Co L
- -
~" 5'~
.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND PETITION PRESENTED TO THE
WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT ADVISORY BOARD
MEETING #4/91, MAY 24, 1991
.
re Frenchman's Bay West Park Concept Plan and the Lake Ontario
Waterfront Acquisition Boundary Amendment
Mr. Brian Barrow
Mr. and Mrs. Brian Craig
Mr. B. D. McCormack
Mr. Eric Morton
Mr. Zbig Noworolski
Petition submitted to Mr. H.A. Marr, Commodore, FBYC
Authority Water & Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #4/91
May 24, 1991
- , '7' WR ens
. n\2 ~
~.,-. y, ~
(........ .....,. \ ',. 11
t'""':'.,r~;.l f~,!...__ "I t.'\
\ \' '.\ .., - \ \
. \ 1'1 I \ \~ t;,' ~\j
~. ,',I. . l5 f~Y 3d-err
' l' '-'1'
. .._,-; j \..
~~g-)\ ~
~ ..",~""
. 0- ;,.~,.,. 'b;.: 'Q/>'L;g'a./'~
,~..
Pi L.L- rl c.LE.JJ ..,."
12 .#:=-(
ali~~(Ltt.. t1A-V~fl. l1f?cf J1~J(Jf~ tf1tI
s 6HoIli. '111M bR.. I-sP &/2-
/)trW1l5.jfW opt 281-;jlG1-[{
113 rJ IS,! \
.
)EA-Q. SII?. ~
-:r ai'W1.t(,f.t~I~1- et Scurh~o~ ~ 33 ~ OA-J. ~
k(or' n-~5 'Ed s,~a ~t rHt, ~ ~ ~J jtvAIJ
woujJ Ivke. At1-l tU-A.,.~ /(w~, f s~ -I- /WIow'1 af/.ul\.~s 011.. -/-i..R be~A.. .
wM ~ 1N IA'.t.-J. ~ fA. cy~ (')~ t-n't-h a.. f/-4r fkL b-io..c,h. ~.{'(
WM -t'AALt tJ..Ut/1, 'h /l. {4Je J~.fIu h w;} de. kA/'fo.-k 0 ~ -f(( I ifAI{
fwe. ~~s / 1: tal r/u.. blCvn4.L ;5 0")1. fu k.LeI, (~y a".td -Kit Ilfc.d(
o~ ~~~~,
1 "-~ ~ ~"c PI~ COkUf"- <HtJ. ~ c/~d C~UJA'K.lJ7
cibw f{...e. kc.k.. ,,(! ~ /br /IJ,Vsc.vVtivs. r kiD/( '-'-F fiv.5 .L...1I'{rIl~
...5tt.lt s~ r -1"0-<<..- ~s ~1C o.J. /M1P- fYl-.t-/...~ (s- b~ Pl'~ 11~ Iv
~~f#.r ~ tV-U~Ja ~/ w~~r> kli-t-~ fu ~,SkdL -li.t2
rl(,J-wvt 6~ JD.<-.......fo ~C/~ ~ .....4.M.d sw.~'( 6.eCA.lMO #
f!e ?:t.k~7":
fv..~ Ie (01. CbwJs f~ fD /u.!M. 'fy o?l ~It. '-c.s~
Je,;/.w1.. 1/..v.e. '5 v'Lr't Hw ~fl..ks ~ /'€UJL."*........f' .sr-r.ls .%4...d..
M liD I~ ~a.1f fH'" l"sJ;u;.t, tilt k<!s~f.ll.<.5 .I>> ~ 6" K. 5 dp~1I.:I
rl- IIv. 6~ ~p/ ~J12-(fl P'T oliks f ~ b.L~.d /r)
W~ 31(.0
.
/vwt- ~ ~j (levY (~{e~/-t~ (fY s,ck~( ~Jk.t I~
tn\.R. ~/~ .c ~ 1~;rAulc-l (]Ad 4ad tk ~/~~~
~ fi.L /~ It ha.vl'd/~ ir F/~/q ~~.-J
~f F cJJ ~~~ ~ ~~ hd 1-0 S~,~
/;p<~ of. {ecJ c~, 'f: M Jl -liJ. p>-<'c '.I;ta-- ~ Ad p-rof""l-,ef
if- w,'t { M.ecrWJ... /: lee. lJ "f.fus 7........ k. / uJ u..,....I!.!~ fLa...re r"'&...~
(JAr) -fuJ h 6,y.t/o J CaAA4 ~ #-l ~o..d., tN~../-o L~
!If II ,J~J / ~ fI...r.. r~ v:Ao ......... -!i...t. 6~ k-r w .l..pI Swor f-A--y
{M.,J. r5"tJ/4'(,,",-'O sc-A..o "Is ()H'I! fu. at- ~df{ r:s ~ _ 1/.L ICJef/~ N"-U(
1\ ~ 1J0<ft.. b~ /1 ~Jkv 6u/ -flew- /;,rcIs I\.Yh~ ~ ,,4~~
tJy\. a..~~'e.. tre 1Jt.S+e~/ ~ C/MCUM/M tff ?f'cMA't- ~/.d
,4 &0 ()J~ ~ ~ ~ ~ wa.JJ -t1v-rJ- ;::. w~ I'-t./IA./Y.L. ef
41- ~tI /
C/)'-f1- b,o 1c~c!J,~cA. ,k ~ t:yr~). oJ~~A~~ 4Jk ~ ~;L
h W- AAf;7t'/tl.J.) .
r CtJ. fu yt>J s~J. s~ M II- -"1sI's.h ~ +l..L ~ cU.I
~ c'f t'W1C&t-. YItt- tAXAl cjlit. CL ~J i!t,.J.tP.s oxJj ~ JM~e/
()A c:... ~~ ~ sl1e. (}.;>v.! f''cMA''- ~..LM I t.feaAl.ft~ IV. ~'Y'
~ hRA.tA I~ ~ ~~ h~~ 4- ~ Gb{O .A.y~
a. ~ a-,/ CAJoA-lA' tA..4-Q . :t !1t.A:...../l. #.L ~ i ~~ ~h.JJ-e,..... ( ) &-
(is-l-t'l'c,/-d 10 ~ ~~ ~* ~I- 5frP- f)c) f4y~ ,4~~
REC;~J~,'ED ~S r:~
MAY 6 1991 ~~~
M.T.R.C.A.
WR 317
.....
--'
Aplo.ll 23, 1991
.
Picker~ng Mun~cipal Off1.ce,
One The Esplanade,
Picker1.ng, Ontal"1.o
Ll V 6K7
ATTENTION: Mr. Maurice Brenner
Councillor Ward 1
Dear Mr. Brenner,
As Councillor for the Ward 1 District, I am sure you are aware
of the Conserva t~on Area Plan for Durham West.
As a Pickel"1.ng resident all my l1.feT I was bl"ought up on what
was then, Bay Street, now Annland and L1.verpool Road. I,now reside
on Sunr1.se Avenue directly across from where t~ "Enviironmentallx
Safe Park" is s1.tuated. - .
I must tell you that I am totally In favour of the park
concept as descl"1.bed in Plan B, which has been adopted as the most
acceptable to the residents of the area.
However, I am very, very distressed at the idea of a "Winter
Boat Storage" in that area for a number of reasons. They are as
follows
1/ Property Value: As previously mentioned, I was raised on the
east side of the Bay. What was once a very n1.ce cottage area has
turned into something less than attractive on South Li verpool,
Front Street, Wharf Street and st. Martins Road. The reason for
this is obvious. Boats everywhere!! This is not cottage country
anymore. People like myself have worked all their 1 i ves to
purchase and pay for their homes. Why would anyone jeopard~ze that
for 150 boat owners who could not care less about what we have
invested in our property.
2/ Who in their right m~nd would want to look out their w1.ndows
l.n the winter and see 100 boats star1.ng back at them? Nobody!!
3/ If this boat storage goes in, I am sure that you are g01.ng to
draw the wrong element like a magnet to the area. Th1.eves and
vandals aloe not my idea or ideal guests.
4/ To combat this element, we both know what is going to happen.
A 12 foot fence with barbed W1.re at the top and 60 foot light
standards every 20 feet to comba t the theft and vandal ism. Who
needs tha t!! And furthermore r how are they g01.ng to be removed l.n
the summer months?
WR 2>18 ~
....
- 2 -
5/ How can we have an "Environmentally Safe Park" when the
people attached to these boats will be c1ean1.ng their boats with
tOX1.C chemicals, paint1.ng the1.r boats with toX1.C mater1.a1s and
working on their boats all winter long 1eav1.ng wha tever residue
lying around.
6/ Why are we putting more pressure on an already overworked
Police, Fire Department and Ambulance Service 1.n case of
emergencies and/or after robberies or vanda11.sm. I am sure if
these agencies were asked, they would decline the extra workload.
7/ Finally, who 1.S g01.ng to pay for all these services we are
providing to people, the majority of which do not eveQ l1.ve in the
a rea? As a taxpayer, I am!!! And I damn well refuse to do it!-/!
.
At a meeting on Wednesday April 17, 1991, Councillor Mitchell
was one of the keynote speakers. He is fully supporting us in our
cause. As residents, we wou1 d be very interested in your views and
suggestions.
Regards,
.
Brian Craig
c.c. Mr. Bob Mitchell
__--4
,. WR ~19
'1 ] I :! (1 , 1991
.
The C,-'rpnrat Lon of the TOh'n of P1.cker1.n9,
Pu:kering C1.t-]C Centre,
One The Esplanade,
PJ.cker1.ng, Onta l'_lO
Ll V 6K7
ATTENTION: Mr. T.E. Melymuk
Deputy Director of Planning i
I
I
Dear Nr. Ne1ymuk,
Thank you fo l' you r letter date~ April 15th, 1991 addressing
our concerns regalrllng tile l"Intel boat storage pi an. .
After attend1.ng a meeting on Apr1.1 17th, 1991, forwarded !
t"e ,
a letter to Na1.lr1.ce Brenner, a copy of I~'hich 1.S enclosed for your i
perusal.
Mr. Me1ymuk, we are certainly not opposed in any which way to I
the "Entdronmentally Safe" park proposed by MTRCA, in fact ,"e think
1.t 1.S g01.ng to be quite an asset and definitely a feather 1.n
P1.cker1.ng's cap when "En\--ironmentally Safe" 1.S on e\Tel"yone' s minds
today.
Our main concern is the boat storage. Last rear the Commodore
of the lacht Club br-d d a meeting to adl'ise llS of the first
happenings rdth NTRC.rl. To say the least it I"as not olle of your
more pleasant meet1.ngc; as t hel'e '''ere approxima te 11' 100 \Tery angry
res1.dents verbally attacking this man. So we are lvi th out doubt
not at all alone 1.n 0111" fee hogs of discontentment Ol-er this
matter.
Ny husband and I persQoa 11y ha \Te 1 J.'.;ed in this area a 11 of our
l1.\--es, I in the s..'ime house Oil SIJnr1.Se A\-enlle back Iy.hen 1. t I~"as knOl"n
as Dunbal"ton Shores, and en?o as h!e '''ere grow_i ng up a 1 r,rays referred
to the e,'ist slde of the bay as the "boat slde".
ftle ha \'e 1.nvested a lot of our llFes dnd money 1.0 tiHs hOlJse
and rve r.;ould l1.ke to see the a rea remain as t l"angui 1 and refined
as poss1.ble.
w~ 380 ....
--
- - -
Mr. Nelj-muk, hI" certaInly ti,) nnt ha~e -'inJ till ng 19lIllSt the
Yach t Club, as a m.l t ter of fart mJ f'''Irents h'er e one of the fIrst
to SIgn a petitIon to 3 11 0 Iv them to begIn Oper"ltIOll. But he
persona I 1J knolv nne perSOll h ho has been a mpmber SJnce It opened.
and they aloe opposIng the IVlnter boat stolage Idea for a number of
reasons, but one III partIcular IS that the majori tJ of the members
do not e"-en 1 i ~-e 111 our a rea, It/iuch h'e feel IS rea lly not beIng
fall' to the peoplp that do
It IS all \-,0 I .} [1 n," 3nd prope r to send a letter indicatIng
"temporarJ use h J - I a I,' S " and ZOJl]llg InfolmatIon, but reall]-, once
you have all nlt/ed somethIllq lIke thIS to commence, it IS ~'-e ry
diffIcult to re~-prse that .cntuatlnn and really It/hen TOU think about
it, a lot of detriment can occur In a three year period. -
RelYIng on past e'lperIence relating to the east SIde of the
bay, In realItj- It/e can on1J- St'!e negatIt,.-es In the future surroundIng
tIns bO<1t storage concept Ion hI" tlullk you really have to honestly
agree I'll . "'Ie 1 ]:muk, t i}a t it IS rea 11T not In our best interest to
comnll t oursel n~s In fa ~-ou 1 of tillS hInter boat storage proposal and
do not feel it IS re1 eFant to an "Envlronmentallj- Safe" park.
S,n, pl'plr, .
Mr. & Nrs. B. CraIg
416 238 1~
'91 '5/23 15'''' Z "16 238 1986 UNA S'ANTEe LT' WR ~
;no UMA Spantec II ' .~,
~-~~~--=......... Project Milll;JgCrs & engineering Cont[:lctOfS
5000 r"ommefC;O 'I/Yd.. MI~$IS$lIug.. Ontario. Canada l4W "P2
Telephone (416) 230.()OO7. F'K (41G) 230-1988
.,CSIMILE TFtANSMlrr Al .
MTI< ( II FAX. No. {,6 / - 68'18
;N MR., /...M~Y ftEi-v VA re M Ir"f '2 '2;, 1'1 I
.
.~~.~ENTS .
.
~e; f.reA-d-,,^,,:~s.~~ wed ~k_,.fl~ ,
,
J.: ~.It"'- 'i ovA" ,...,.k<.e. ....600- .ft..,. Ai ay 'M I~I , '
~&. 4 0'\,... M"r .',,1.. :r (A.w- ~\ ol J Eo~""; (t.. , . .
:Xt>Wr.. -h.J- 0- ~~ ~+ hA. rQu.:l!'e & d.()~r:~ -
.
ll. ~e. L ~J~! 1k\ vlo..5. ob>J 1'l>".':.('1 i ....,O'i><."~ , ,
~ -\-MD-. .:..... 'i,....' LUls.f.1l, .p \e~ d.. '(OV- ~ -fh- ~~o..... .., .
\ rJ~'1.~' bJ :1:. wLl\ '~ (j~ .!:p.~ 4- .. ,:' "
_~:~~ D~ ~. ,~ ~~, wwk/(". ~ di~"( :
'-'_~ 4 QA.. J.. ..fu-v e~- ~ (, k I, '
~t.k. (dfov ~ !.~M- .(<.> ~ ..;.f/ ~(b".. of ·
~ ~wr~. 'r ~ r-a:k a.. c.o~l~ (D-;S ~
~~ l-V~ ~. ~ I~d... hA.t ket,-
",bk J-.. :r ~o;..-\ ~ ov- C' <fA-. SI? ~ I yi> ~ i .f, '"tI1.-.
J h.o~ ~ \c;.. g--~ \-q \ ,
1
b~ rJc-6>v~
-- -
,TOR'S use
.Joh No f'RQ<! ) 01;_
'91 85/23 15141 Z 416 238 1986 UMA SPAHTEC l TD 82
oJ~ 3~ 1-
---
-
726 Breezy Drive
Plckenna. Ontario
May 23. 1991
Mr. Lany Field, M.C.I.P,
Manaaer. Waterfront pJanntn&
Enalneertna and Development SeeUon
Water Rcaource Division
Dear Mr. Field:
The Frenchman's BayWcet Park Plan Concept (Revised May 115. 1991) tneorporates
spec1flc changes which evidently haYe come about through public parUcJpauon an a
meeting on Ap11111. 1991. It 18 completely ludicrous that th18 watcrf'ront park would be
developed wtthout boat launch facJlltlcs but yet car park1ng has been introduced along
the beach spit. One would expect .uch a park to lOCU8 on water oriented recreaUOn
rather than automob!1e parking along its moat Important feature. .
El1m1nation or the pruent natural beach boat launch!n& wiD come 88 a disappointment .
and tnconven1ence to the ID8I11 that ute It.
The neareet pubUc boat launch fae1llUea are at Blu1J'era Park In Scarborough or Wh1tby
harbour: both many mJJea away and already over crowded.
Both ot the park concept opUona presented by the AuthorJty's consultants In November of
last year lDcluded boat launchCll. The)' obvSouaJy recogntzed the Importance olsucb .
facility!
The small boat owners have no or&anJzcd I88OCIaUon under whICh they can lobby aga1n8t
thla amendment (18 the yacht club members have been able to coDecUvcJy IICCUJ'C winter
boat 8toraae wUhtn the ~ but J am conCident that J apeak for all U&el'l or the present
. launch In ur,sna the ConeervaUon Authority to reconsider th18 fundamental omlnlon
tram the cunent park tcheme.
Yours very truly.
gd(~~1.
B.D. McCormack
00: HoD. W. ArthW'l- Mayor ofP1ckeJ1ng
:4 w~ 383
.
May 22, 1991
Mr Don Jackson
CHAIRMAN OF WATER AND RELATED LAND
Management AdvIsory Board
M T R.C.A.
Dear Mr Jackson:
I am writing this letter to you on behalf of the concerned residents of West Shore.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the Board for taking the time
to hold the last Board Meeting at Pickering Town Hall and to listen to all of the .
Delegates
But I must confess that I was very disturbed and upset when I had the opportunity
to read the minutes and the final proposal from that meeting. To find that after all of
the opposition given to the Board and Town Counsellors and Consultants that the
Proposal for winter boat storage is still a viable item according to the Consultant. I
do not believe that the Consultant has given much thought to all of the Pros and
Cons concerned with boat storage.
. Our first opposing view to this idea was to say that it would endanger the
Environment from run-off of cleaning chemicals and also that we as residents
did not want to see a great big ugly fence around a parking lot. The
Consultant's answer was to move the parking area from the original Plan "B"
in the North West Corner of the Park to the most Environmental Sensitive Area
in the centre of the park were the most mature trees happen to be, the area
now proposed is a very wet and unstable ground, especially in the late fall and
early Spring.
. There has been no discussion or any plans put forward by of FBYC or the
Consultant on how these 100 boats are going to be removed from and
replaced into the water The FBye has 11Q. facilities on their property to
preform this function. If they propose to use the Mobile Crane as they did
last year all this has to be placed on public property less than 100 feet from
the nearest residences on Sunrise and Breezy Drive. I don't think this is a
reasonable thing to do and it literally not safe.
Administrative Office
w~ 3~ L\
-
-2-
. The next step is how do you move 100 boats in a 1 or 2 day period. If as I am
led to believe that Commadore Marr has stated that they would not use public
roads. He only has one(1) option left to him and that is he proposes to use
the so called Lake Shore Trail being provided by the Authority, This Trail would
normally only have to be 8 feet to 10 feet wide for Hiking, Bicyling and
Emergency Vehicles, but if I am right and this is what of FBYC proposes to do
then we again loose more of the wet land and mature trees that we are trying
to preserve to provide a much larger roadway for the FBYC to move their
boats.
. Once these boats arrive at Said parking lots, has anybody thought on the
amount of space that is required to accommodate 100 boats By simple
mathematics if you take 100 boats - approximately 30 to 40 feet in length and
from 1 0 to 12 feet wide and try to put it into an area designed to
accommodate approximately 15 foot length and 8 feet wide CAR? - we are .
going to require 2 to 3 times the area to accommodate the boats.
I could go on forever with a multitude of reasons why we should not allow winter boat
storage but the Board has most likey heard about most of them. The one item that
the residents of West Shore is certainly going to protest is the changing of the Zoning
By Law #2511 to accommodate winter boat storage. If the general public does not
benefit in anyway what so ever from the change of a By Law then a select few who
are not necessarily residents should not benefit to the difference of the general public
and the local residents.
.
I will be requesting an opportunity to speak at both Board & Authority Meeting.
Yours truly,
~~
Eric Morton
cc. Mayor Athurs - Town of Pickering
All Council Members & Planning Department
Regional Municipality of Durham
The Royal Commissions of the Future of the Toronto Water Front
The Ministry of Municipal Affairs
The Premiers Advisor - Toronto Water Front Development
Ministry of the Environment - environmental Assessment Branch
WR ~8S
...
To' Mr H.A Marr,
Conrnodore
Date June II, 1990
.
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, WiSH ft) LUOGE STRONG OBJECTONS TO THE PROPOSED
WINTER S fORAGE FACILIty rUk ~UAfS AND YACHTS OWNED HY MeMBERS OF
FRENCHMANS' BAY YACHf CLU~
METRO TORONTO, USING FUktSi~HI ~EGAN TO ASSEM~LE LANU UN THE SHORE U~
LAKE ONTARIO
IN THE 1960'S THE LAND KNOWN AS ~AIRPORT BtACH WAS tSfA~LISHED AS A
CONSERVATION PARK AND BEACH FACILITY FOR USe OF THE GENERAL PUHLIC.
WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY OTHER USEAGE OF THIS LAND BY ANY PRIVILEUGtU
MINORITY GROUP COMPRISING MAINLY OF NON-RESIDENfS
THE PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY WILL INCREASE fRA~~lC ALONG LOCAL ROADS,
POSSIBLY IT MIGHT DE-VALUt OUR PROPERTIES, AND ~ECOME AN UNSIGHTLY
NEGLECTED SITE AS CAN ~E EVIOtNCEU ~Y IHE ~OAl SfORAGt AREASLOCAIED UN
LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUfH
COpy. COUNCILLOR ROBERT MITCHELL .
COUNCILLOR MAURICE BRENNER
?G.l> ~p ~
~~o S~~Jl; ll&:L \
!
I
I
i
I
,
CJ12.... S~ 'I { ~ ::> e
._~~ 6~b ..
I
To Mr H A. Marr,
Commoaore
Date June I I, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, WISH TO LODGe SfRONG OBJECTONS TO THE PROPOSED
WINTER STORAGE FACILITY FOR BOATS AND YACHTS OWNED BY MEMBERS OF
FRENCHMANS' BAY YACHT CLUB
METRO TORONTO, USING FORESIGHT BeGAN TO ASSeMBle LANU ON (Ht SHURE U~
LAKE ONTARIO.
IN THE 1960'S THE LAND KNOWN AS rAIRPOHT BeACH WAS eSTABLISHtU A~ A
CONSERVATION PARK AND BEACH FA~!LITY FOR USe O~ THe ueNEHAl PUBLIC.
WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY OTHeR UStAGE Or THIS LAND BY ANY PR!V!Le~tD
MINORITY GROUP COMPRISING MAINLY OF NUN-HESIDtNrS
THE PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY WILL IN~REASt rHAFF!C ALUNG LOCAL ROADS,
POSSIBLY IT MIGHT DE-VALUE OUR PROPeRTIeS; AND BeCOMe AN UNSIGHTLY
NEGLECTED SITE AS CAN BE EV lI)eN~t:U IjY f He IjUA I ~HORAut: AR~ LU~A I eD UN
LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH.
-
COPY- COUNCILLOR ROBERT MITCHELL
'JCOUN~ILLOR MAU~~E BRE,NN~R
/ - ~ ~(
/- _/;-J c.-~/ (.
-
ltg :)c.... ....
6s~
to~
t:'f ()
'JdY
1 UfJ{< 5,
.
r'ckCZ C+; / P)'1-] J tUlc cSt-
till OJ R 381
I
To: Mr. H.A. Marr,
Commodore
Date. June II, 1990.
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, WiSH TO LODGE STRONG CBJECrONS TO THE PROPOSED
WINTER STORAGE FACILny FOR BOArS AND YACHTS OWNED tJY MEMBERS OF
FRENCHMANS' BAY YACHf CLU~
-
HETRO TORONTO, USING FORESiGHr BEGAN TO ASSEMBL~ LANU ON fH~ SHORE O~
LAKE ONTARIO.
IN THE 1960'S THE LAND ~NOWN A~ ~AIRPOHT B~ACH WAS ~SrABLiSH~U A~ A
CONSERVATION PARK AND BEACH FA~ILITY FOR US~ O~ rH~ u~NEHAL PUBLiC.
WE STRONGLY OBJECf TO ANY OTH~R US~AGE OF fHiS LANU BY ANY PHiVIL~UU~U
MINORITY GROUP COMPRISING MAINLY OF NON-RESID~NrS.
THE PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY WiLL IN~HEAS~ IHAF~lC ALONG LOCAL HOADS,
POSSIBLY IT MIGHT DE-VALUE OUR PROP~RTIES; AND BECOME AN UNSIGHfLY
NEGLECTED SITE AS CAN BE EVIU~NC~U BY IHE BOA 1 SfOHAu~ AHEA LO~AIEU ON
LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUfH.
.
COpy
1l[c
~.
)j!.
,
W~ ~~c:g ....
~-
To_ Mr _ H A Marr, I
Commoaore
Date- June II, 1990
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, WISH TO LOOG~ STRONG OBJECrONS ro THE PROPOSED
WINTER STORAGE FACILITY ~OR BOATS AND YACHTS OWNED HY M~MBERS OF
FRENCHMANS' BAY YACHT CLUB
METRO TORONTO, USING FORESIGHT BEGAN TO ASSEMHL~ LANU ON rHt SHORE O~
LAKE ONT ARLO.
IN THE 1900'S THE LAND ~NOWN AS rAIRPOHT BeACH WAS EsrAHLISHtO AS A
CONSERVATION PARK AND BEACH FA~lLITY FOR US~ O~ THE GeNeRAL ~UHL!C.
WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY OrHtR USEAGE O~ rHIS LANU HY ANY PR!VILeUUtU
MINORITY GROUP COM~RISING MAINLY OF NON-RESIDENTS.
THE PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY WILL INCREASt rRAF~IC ALONG LOCAL ROADS,
POSSIBLY IT MIGHT DE-VALUe OUR PROPtRTIES; AND HtCOHt AN UNSIGHTLY
NEGLECTED SITE AS CAN HE EVIUtNCtU HY IH~ HUAr SrORAGe AREA LOCAI~U UN
LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH.
.
COPY- COUNCILLOR ROBERT MITCHELL
COUNCILLOR MAURICE BRENNER
r;;, /UZr( N rvll:: E J< Dt74 MINk Ave.
le.t / /-1//(- q 7 c;;- HI/lt live
r (t fI-f:-LL F-
.
~ --< <' /~/L/~.A/J/....-\ / 972~ /y{/A/~ A/~
/! ~:Llv.tkvCcv CJ7V' A-ve.-
a ~.
~
7J
C(13 ~ I.
971 ~~
97J7;6.~~
9 7
~(2 f l' ~
,
\
... WR 3~or I
I
I I
To Mr. H A Marr, :
Coovnoaore I I
Date: June , I, /990 I
WE THE UNDERSIGNED, WISH TO LODGE STRONG OBJECTONS TO THE PROPOSED
WINTER STORAGE FACILnV FOR BOATS AND YACHTS OWNED HY ME:HBERS OF
FRENCHMANS' BAY YACHT CLUB.
HETRO TORONTO, USING FORESIGHT HEGAN TO ASSEMBLE LAND ON THE SHORE O~
LAKE ONTARIO.
IN THE 1960'S THE LAND KNOWN AS ~AIR~ORT BeACH WAS eSTAHLISHeD A~ A
CONSERVATION PARK AND BEACH FA~lLITY FOR USE: O~ THE GeNERAL ~UBLIC.
WE STRONGLY OBJECT TO ANY OTHeR USEAGE O~ THIS LAND HY ANY ~RIVILeUUeD
MINORITY GROUP COMPRISING MAINLY OF NON-RESIDeNTS.
THE PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY WILL IN~REASe rRAF~lC ALONG LOCAL ROADS, i
POSSIBLY IT MIGHT DE-VALUE OUR PROPERTIES; AND HECOME AN UNSIGHTLY I
NEGLECTED SITE AS CAN BE EVIDeNCED HY IHE BOAT STORAGe AREA LOCAl ED ON
LIVERPOOL ROAD SOUTH.
.
COpy
&11
liB 2-
.Lt?A~; I r-'~ ~31 ~"l 3 f
I
:;64- uJJ..~-rq;lUF W-u I
--4 ,-v(I/- ~ c AJ ( I.,LS-C) I
\.. n A}
I
,
~
,
,
oJ~ ~~Q
87 Paa:e Avenue
Willowdale, Ontario
M2K 2B8
April 15, 1991
The Metropolitan Toronto
and Reeion Conservation Authority .
.
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario ,
.~
M3N 1SlI.
TO ALL CONCERNED:
RaL FRENCHMAN'S BAY ~ ~ eaRK CONCEPT ~
I am opposed to the Plan as proposed for the tollowina: reasons:
The Plan does not respond to the need for improved community
access to the waterfront (Plannina: Principles, paraeraph 3.1) . If
the Plan is accepted as proposed, the access to the waterfront
will be WORSENED and LESS PEOPLE will be able to enjoy nature
than today.
EXPLANATIONS
At present more than 250 cars can be parked alone the sandspit
area. The proposed plan allows for a total of only 150 spaces
which will be further limited to less than 50(!) for more than
half the year due to the permission of boat storaee at the pUblic
parkina: (that for countin~ 1 boat - 1 c ar! ) .
I do not understand why for the convenience of a few rich, many
ordinar~ citizens should suffer. I also do not understand why so
much consultina: attention and explanations were directed towards
the idea of this boat storina: proposal and almost no explanation
a:iven why private vehicle access to the spit area would be re-
moved. A simple statement is not enoueh.
I alwa~s believed that improvement ot existina: parks should
accommodate the need of man~ ordinar~ pf'!ople and not onl~ just a
few privilea:ed.
I am writin~ on behalf of' those, who at present, are comina: down
to the spit area to watch the waves, relax and maybe take a nap
in their cars The pUblic wants to come in their car (with any
leisure equipment the~ have) as close to the beach as possible
In support of this statement, I say that on the weekend of' April
6th, I counted 87 cars parked in the spit I also counted 27
board sailors. The remainina: 50 cars were people like me - come
to relax, watch the spectacular windsurfers and breathe the f'resh
air. If' the public wished to behave differently, 50 of those 87
cars would be parked outside the spit area Why should these
-11 I"""~ l ." .. ,. .. ., . .. 1'......,... . . I')
U) ~ 3~ l
"
.
Please bear in mind that these people will use the parks that way
YEAR ROUND. not only during the hot summer weekends. It is m~
understandine that everyone agrees that year round use of the
park should be supported.
The argument that "no private vehicular access in support of
restoring the environment Qualities of the road" does not make
much sense. Parked cars dO not pollute. As the road is ~oine to
be built anyway for eme3:>gency use, park1ne might as well be
permitted. .
I ~
propose:
1) parking along the spit be permitted for at least 200 cars
and
2) boat storaee in the pUblic parking area be banned.
.
If for some reason, Frenchman's Bay Yacht Club must store 100
boats ( which is the equivalent of more than 100 cars) in the
public parking area, they should build facilities closer to their
own premises and not occupy pUblic spaces for most of the year.
Yours truly,
0/'<-,
Zbie Noworolski .
w~ ~<11- - ' ..
,
.. .
REI FRENCHttAN'S BAY ~ €8BK CONCEPT PLAM
I had the privil.9. of pre.enting .y .ubmi..ion at.. the lASt
m..ting at which I oppo.ed the removal of parking from the spit
.-r.a and permi..ion for FrenchmAn'. Bay V.-cht Club to us. the
public parking for boat .torage.
A. I can ... from the amended May Plan, there were some step..
made in the right direction, howev...., I have decided to make this
submi..ion for two rea.on..
l)in the proposed plan, there are a total 01 200 .pac.. for
parking out of which 1~0 will be u..d by the yacht club leaving
only 50 for ordinary u.er..
2) I under.tand that acce.. to the parking lot on the .pit
will b. controlled by a gat. and the will of a park caretaker.
- ,
A. I .tated previou.ly <and .till maintain), it i. beyond my
comprehen.ion why .- public parking lot i. to b. de.ignated for .
private u.e for a ..all member of the Fr.nchman'. Say Yacht Club.
At pre.ent, there are ",ore than 200 .pac.. for parking.-- approxi-
mately 120 located in the .and.pit and more than eo in the over-
flow parking. When I made this .tatement at the la.t meeting, I
was counter-.tat.d by the con.ultant who clai..d th.r. are only
120 .pace. total. I want to the Bay again and now I challeng. the
con.ultant'. ability to count. THERE ARE MORE THAN 200 PARKING
SPOTS AVAILABLE NOW.
I have vi.ited the Say many tim.. in many di fferent ~ype. of
weather and 1 maintain th.-t even on the faO.t beautiful long
.....k.nd., the pl.-c. i. Ju.t u..d up without cong..tion or ov.r-
crowding. Therefore, I do not under.tand why the numb.r of park-
ing space. should b. r.duced. I al.o do not under.tand why the
entrance to the.. liMited .pac.. should be controlled by the will
of a caret.-k.r.
It i. quit. obvious that the gate, 1 f one e)( i st., will .-1 ways be
clo.ed .1nc. this .ean. Ie.. trouble and 1... re.pon.ibility.
e..ide., who i. going to .it at this gate and MOre importantly,
who i. going to PAY this per.on to .it at the gate? 1. gate open
or clo.ed after hour.? Why do we need to go to such trouble? Why
can.t th~ gate be left open?
WR ~93
~ ,
.
In consider~tion of the ~bov., I propose the following.
- th~t the. of p~rking sp.ces on the spit be incre~..d
- th~t the 9~te .nd restriction 01 the acce.. to the spit be
removed 1ro. the propos.1
- th.t bo.t storage in the public sp~ce not be permitted
(
~
Zbig Noworolski
87 P~9. Avenue
Willowdale, Ont~rio
H2K 298
OS/23/91
.
.
WA ~q~
THB JIB'1'ROPOLITAJf TOROIlTO UD UGIOlf COlfSDVATIOlf AU'l'BORI'l'Y
CLIWf 11P RURAL BDCHU nOGRAX (CURB)
LOCATIOlf OW STUDY AREAS
WIG. 1
Target Are.. - Bruce creek .
- ...t BUaber River
- Centreville Creek
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board
Meeting #5/91
June 28, 1991
Centreville Creek Watershed
East Humber Watershed Bruce Creek Watershed
II Conservation Areas
I Albion Hills C.A .
Boyd C A. A
Bruce's Mill C.A. . f
0._
0 I 4 .... 1i'
l . I
I
0 . ..-- ()J
.
~ ,he ...,._ _......_ Location of Study Areas FIG. 1 ..0
Ul
\.. C~.. -.rvatlOl\ authotlty
'-
WR.39b
THB METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
THE VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECTS
IN THE MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO
AND
THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES OF PEEL, YORK AND DURHAM
1992 - 1997
PROGRESS REPORT AND POOL OF EROSION SITES
Water and Related Land Manage.ent Advisory Board
Meeting 16/91
August 30, 1991
WI(. 3Cf1
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO VALLEY
AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT
1992-1997
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER, 1991
wR~e
PROGRESS REPORT
The following is a list at which major or minor remedial work was
carried out between the inception of Project W.C.-60 - 'Erosion
Control and Bank Stabilization in Metropolitan Toronto' in
September, 1974, through to the end of the 1985-1986 Erosion
project and the 1987-1991 Project for Erosion Control and Slope
Stabilization.
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS
90 Forestgrove Drive East Don River 1974
20-30 Islay Court Humber River 1974
39-41 Storer Drive Humber River 1974-1975
99-103 Burbank Drive Newtonbrook Ck. 1974-1975
Hi Mount Drive Newtonbrook Ck. 1974-1975
8-10 King Maple Place Newtonbrook Ck. 1974-1975
113 Burbank Drive Newtonbrook Ck. 1975
14-22 Archway Crescent Humber River 1975
6 Wooden Heights Humber River 1975
45 Riverbank Drive and Vicinity Mimico Creek 1975
32-38 Bonnyview Drive Mimico Creek 1975-1976
37-43 Lakeland Drive West Humber 1976
Yvonne Public School Black Creek 1976
30-56 Grovetree Road West Humber 1976
95-97 Portico Drive East Branch 1976
Highland Creek
197-205 Sweeney Drive East Don River 1976
24 Stonegate Road Humber River 1976-1977
24-36 Westleigh Crescent Etobicoke Creek 1976-1977
158-168 & 190-212 Three Valleys Dr. East Don River 1976-1977
6-14 Sulkara Court East Don River 1978
Don Valley Drive Don River 1978
50-58 Stanwood Crescent Humber River 1978-1979
Enfield/Sunset/Jellicoe Vicinity Etobicoke Creek 1979
w~~~
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
17-53 Riverview Heights Humber River 1979
10 Codeco Court - Phase I Don River 1980
35 Canyon Avenue Don River 1979
31-39 Rivercove Drive Mimico Creek 1980
25-31 Alamosa Drive Don River 1980
Don Valley Parkway & Lawrence Don River 1980
10-14 Bruce Farm Drive Don River 1980-1981
39-47 Presley Avenue Don River 1980-1981
Grenview Boulevard Mimico Creek 1981
Rainbow Creekway I Development Newtonbrook Creek 1981
9 & 11 sulkara Court Don River 1981
Denison Road Vicinity Humber River 1981
146-168 Humbervale Blvd. & Mimico Creek 1982
835 Royal York Road
45-55 Wynford Heights Crescent Don River 1982-1983
12-30 Beaucourt Road Mimico Creek 1983
Delroy Drive & Berl Ave. Vicinity Mimico Creek 1983
Raymore Drive Humber River 1984
Moorevale Park Dor. River 1984
100-104 Gwendolen Crescent Dc iver 1984
Fairglen & Weston Road He.. :r River 1985
Duncan Mills Road Dc ~iver 1985-1986
Riverside Crescent Humber River 1985-1986
Rainbow Creekway II Newtonbrook Creek 1986
(East Don River)
14 Neilson Drive Etobicoke Creek 1986
Chipping Road Bridge East Don River 1986
6 Burnhamthorpe Crescent Mimico Creek 1986
Maple Creek Farms Highland Creek 1986
Warden Woods Park Massey Creek 1986
14 Forest Path Humber River 1987
P.U.C. Lands Highland Creek 1987
Scarborough College Highland Creek 1987
Lawrence Avenue Bridge Highland Creek 1987
WR '-100
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MAJOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
The Queensway + The West Mall Etobicoke Creek 1988
Highland Creek - Confluence Highland Creek 1988
10 Glenorchy Place West Don River 1988
Leslie Street & Steeles Avenue East Don River 1988
(German Mills Ck.)
5201 Dufferin Street West Don River 1989
6-10 Saddletree East Don River 1991
(German Mills Ck.)
.
Carmel Court East Don River In Prog.
(German Mills Ck.)
~~ 401
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS
520 Markham Road Vicinity
(Cedarbrook Retirement Home) Highland Creek 1975
84-89 Greenbrook Drive Black Creek 1975
Kirkbradden Road Mimico Creek 1975
West Hill collegiate Highland Creek 1975
Shoreham Court Black Creek 1975
27-31 Ladysbridge Drive West Branch 1975-1976
Highland Creek
N.W. of 56 Grovetree Road West Humber River 1975-1976
37-43 Mayall Avenue Black Creek 1976
79 Clearview Heights Black Creek 1976
S. W. of Shoreham Drive Bridge Black Creek 1976
Driftwood Court Black Creek 1976
75 Decarie Circle Mimico Creek 1976
4 Woodhaven Heights Humber River 1977
73 Van Dusen Boulevard Mimico Creek 1977
Donalda Club ( 8 th Fwy.) Don River 1978
Westleigh Crescent Vicinity Etobicoke Creek 1978
Scarlett Woods Golf Club Humber River 1978
22-26 Dunning Crescent Etobicoke Creek 1978
Kennedy Road Shopping Mall Don River 1978
Sheppard and Leslie Nursery Don River 1978
Leslie Street at Sheppard Don River 1978
Meadowvale Road Rouge River 1978
Zoo (Z-15) Rouge River 1978
Orchard Crescent Mimico Creek 1978
Forest Valley Dam Camp Don River 1978
Beechgrove Drive Highland Creek 1979
Restwell Crescent Don River 1979
Deanewood Crescent Vicinity Mimico Creek 1979
Dawes Road - 2 sites Don River 1979
Twyn River Bridge Rouge River 1979
I
w~ &fo;l,
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
MINOR REMEDIAL WORKS (Continued)
Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1979
Beechgrove Drive - II Highland Creek 1980
Jason and Riverdale Humber River 1980
Warden & st. Clair - 2 sites Don River 1980
Zoo -II Rouge River 1980
Glendon College Don River 1980
Scarlett Road & Eglinton Humber River 1980
Wilket Creek Don River 1980
Glen Rouge Trailer Camp Rouge River 1980
sunnybrook Park Don River 1981
Donalda Golf Club Don River 1981
Glendon College Don River 1981
Bonnyview Drive II Mimico Creek 1981
West Side of Markham Rd. (W. Branch) Highland Creek 1981
Alderbrook Drive Don River 1981
West Dean Park (2 sites) Mimico Creek 1982
Royal York Road Mimico Creek 1982
Waulron Street Etobicoke Creek 1982
Colonel Danforth Park Highland Creek 1982
Upwood Greenbelt Vicinity Black Creek 1982
55 & 73 Vandusen Blvd. Mimico Creek 1986
Royal York Road II Mimico Creek 1986
14 Brian Cliff Drive wilket Creek 1987
Summary: Major Works 63
Minor Works 53
Total Expenditure $7,450,000
w~ 40~
The following table lists the top fifteen (15) valley land
erosion sites in order of their technical priority. The current
pool of priorities will be reviewed regularly during 1992 to
accommodate any significant changes and the possible inclusion of
new sites.
,
METROPOLITAN TORONTO REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1992
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
1 Burgundy Court Humber River North York Problem Slope failure
Structures Affected 5 Homes
Height of Bank: 17m
Length of Bank: 80m
2 3030-3068 Weston Humber River North York Problem. Slope failure & nverbank erosion
Road Structures Affected 2 Homes
Height of Bank: 14m
Length of Bank. 210m
3 180-188 Parkview Don River East York Problem Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Hill Crescent Structures Affected. 4 residential house lots
Height of Bank. 35m
Length of Bank: 100m
4 1220 Access Road at East Don River North York Problem Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Sheppard A venue East Structures Affected Office buildmg
Height of Bank: 17m
Length of Bank: 50m
5 31- 33 Cherryhill Ave. Centennial Crk. Scarborough Problem Valleywall erosion
Structures Affected 2 Homes
Height of Bank: 9m
Length of Bank. 20m
E,
~
J:
0
-I:.
E.
~
..
()
d'
METROPOLITAN TORONTO REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1992
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
6 8 Alder Road Massey Creek East York Problem. Slope failure
Structures Affected One roadway & services
HeIght of Bank: 20m
Length of Bank: 16m
7 42-44 Royal Rouge Rouge RIver Scarborough Problem. Valley wall faIlure
Trail Structures Affected. One home & One pool
Height of Bank: 30m
Length of Bank: 20m
8 Burhamthorpe Road at Mimlco Creek Etoblcoke Problem. Riverbank erosion
Mattice Road (south of Structures Affected Roadway
Ishngton Golf Club) Height of Bank: 11 m
Length of Bank: 50m
9 91 Forest Grove Drive Don River North York Problem Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected. One home
Height of Bank: 8m
Length of Bank. 23m
10 Humber Valley Yacht Humber River Etoblcoke Problem. RIverbank erosion
Club Structures Affected Yacht Club, Gas Pumps,
Hydro & Water Services, Docks
Height of Bank: 1 5m
Length of Bank: 300m
,
METROPOLITAN TORONTO REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1992
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
*11 93-113 Weir Crescent Highland Creek Scarborough Problem Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Structures Affected One residence, One pool
and 9 pnvate properties
HeIght of Bank: 35m
Length of Bank. 105m
12 221 Martin Grove Mimico Creek Etoblcoke Problem Slope failure & riverbank erosion
Road Structures Affected One resIdence
Height of Bank: 12m
Length of Bank. 24m
*13 14-21 Stanwood Humber River North York Problem Slope failure
Crescent Structures Affected 4 Residences
HeIght of Bank: 21 m
Length of Bank: 60m
14 Sewell's Road at Finch Rouge River Scarborough Problem Slope failure & nverbank erosion
Structures Affected One roadway
Height of Bank: 14m
Length of Bank. 88m
15 Loney Avenue Black Creek North York Problem Coincident valley wall erosIOn
Structures Affected 5 Homes
Height of Bank: 7m
Length of Bank. 45m
* Sites conSidered for remedial work 10 prevIous years, but for vanous reasons have been deferred mdefimtely (these sites have
been included for your information and will be reconsidered for remedial w,?rk upon the resolution of outstandmg Issues)
E
7\"
.c
0
6""
WR, \,(01
THE REGION OF PEEL VALLEY REGENERATION PROJECT
1992 - 1997
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER, 1991
WR~08
PROGRESS REPORT
The following is a list of sites at which remedial work was
carried out from the inception of the Interim Water and Related
Land Management Project 1979-1981, through the 1982-1984 Erosion
control and Slope Stabilization Project, the 1985-1986 Erosion
Project and the 1987-1991 Project for Erosion Control and Slope
Stabilization.
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
138 King Street Vicinity - Bolton Humber River 1979
(Caledon)
Sherway Drive, (Mississauga) Etobicoke Creek 1979
wildwood Park, (Mississauga) Mimico Creek 1979
Mill Street, (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1980
Pony trail Drive & Steepbank Cres. Etobicoke Creek 1980-1981
(Mississauga)
10 Beamish, Wildfield (Brampton) West Humber River 1980
(Lindsay Creek)
Centennial Road - Bolton Humber River 1981
(Caledon)
Legion Street near Derry Road Mimico Creek 1982
(Mississauga)
Charolais Blvd., (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1982
Glasgow Road (Caledon) Humber River 1983
93 Scott Street (Brampton) Etobicoke Creek 1984
2130 Dundas Street East Etobicoke Creek 1987
(Mississauga)
Summary: Major Sites Completed 12
Total Expenditure $363,500.00
~R~~
The following table lists the top seven (7) erosion sites in
order of their technical priority. The current pool of
priorities will be reviewed regularly during 1992 to accommodate
any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites.
I
PEEL REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1992
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
1 302 King Street East Humber River Caledon Problem. RIverbank erosion
Bolton Structures Affected Two homes
Height of Bank: 7m
Length of Bank. 80m
2 1726 Lmcolnshire Etobicoke Mississauga Problem Riverbank erosion
Blvd Creek Structures Affected One home
Height of Bank: 20m
Length of Bank: 30m
3 4424-4434 Pahsades Etobicoke Mississauga Problem Valley wall erosion
Lane & Beechknoll Creek Structures Affected Three homes
Court Height of Bank: 16m
Length of Bank: 70m
4 6469 Netherhart Road Etobicoke Misslssauga Problem Slope failure & riverbank erOSiOn
Creek Structures Affected Storage area behind
industnal bUlldmg
Height of Bank: 12m
Length of Bank: 40m
5 12 Beamish Court West Humber Brampton Problem. Slope failure & nverbank erosion
(W H - 142) River Structures Affected Private property
Height of Bank. 6m
Length of Bank. 20m
f:
,0
,&.
-
0
E
~
..s:.
-
"...
PEEL REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1992
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
6 Riverspray Crescent Little Etobicoke Mississauga Problem Minor riverbank erosion
(Site #1) Creek Structures Affected Public parkland and
I pnvate property
Height of Bank. 5m
Length of Bank: 30m
7 Riverspray Crescent Little Etobicoke Mlssissauga Problem Mmor riverbank erosion
(Site #2) Creek Structures Affected Public parkland
Height of Bank: 4m
Length of Bank: 35m
uJR If '2.
THE REGION OF YORK VALLEY REGENERATION PROJECT
1992-1997
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER, 1991
wR Ltl~
PROGRESS REPORT
I
The following is a list of sites at which remedial work was
carried out from the inception of the Interim Water and Related
Land Management Project, 1979-1981, through the 1982-1984 Erosion
Control and Slope Stabilization Project, 1985-1986 Erosion
Project and the 1987-1991 Project for Erosion Control and Slope
Stabilization.
7374 Kipling Avenue, Woodbridge Humber River 1979
7440 Kipling Avenue, Woodbridge Humber River 1979
(Rainbow Creek)
8254 pine Valley Drive, Woodbridge Humber River 1979-1980
14th Avenue, Markham Rouge River 1979-1980
19th Avenue, Markham Rouge River 1979
King Township and Humber River 1979
Town of Caledon (Cold Creek)
Cedar Grove Community Centre Rouge River 1980
146 Riverside Drive, Woodbridge Humber River 1980
Postwood Lane, Markham Don River 1980
Pine Grove Vicinity Humber River 1980
North Don Sewage Treatment Plant Don River 1981
Kennedy Road West, Markham Don River 1981
Nobleton, Lot 5, Conc.8 (Cole Farm) Humber River 1982
5760 Kirby Sideroad Humber River 1982-1983
Buttonville Rouge River 1984
Klein's Crescent Humber River 1985-1986
36 Prince Edward Boulevard Little Don River 1987
Markham Channel Rouge River 1987
14-16 Cividale Court Don River 1988
Swinton Crescent Don River 1988
8-10 Cachet Parkway Rouge River 1989
73 Birch Avenue Little Don River 1991 ........ ~~~
Summary: Major sites Completed 22
Total Expenditure $330,500
uJ~4\l\
The following table lists the top ten (10) erosion sites in order
of their technical priority. The current pool of priorities will
be reviewed regularly during 1992 to accommodate any significant
changes and the possible inclusion of new sites.
YORK REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1992
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
1 Bakerdale & Southdale Tributary of Markham Problem Slope faIlure & nver bank erosIon
Rouge River Structures Affected 2 reSidence and one pool
(Markham Height of Bank: 3m
Channel) Length of Bank 50m
2 10151 Highway #27 Humber River Vaughan Problem. RIverbank erosIOn
Structures Affected One tenms court &
pnvate property
Height of Bank: 3m
Length of Bank: 80m
3 21-25 Carolwood Rouge River Markham Problem Slope faIlure & nverbank erosIon
Crescent Structures Affected. Pnvate property, pool
and shed
Height of Bank: 18m
Length of Bank: 250m
4 IBM Golf Course Rouge River Markham Problem Slope failure & nverbank erosion
Structures Affected Tee & pnvate property
Height of Bank: 16m
Length of Bank: 70m
5 16 Ravenchffe Road Don River Markham Problem Slope failure
Structures Affected. 1 reSidence & 1 pool
Height of Bank: 18m
Length of Bank: 10 5m
e.
~
.&.
-
lA
-
<(,
~
~
-
C
YORK REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1992
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
6 20 Deanbank East Don River Markham Problem Toe erosion and slumpmg of slope
Structures Affected one residence
Height of Bank. 13m
Length of Bank. 40m
7 9854 Highway #27 Humber River Vaughan Problem Riverbank erosion
Kleinburg Structures Affected. One reSidence
Height of Bank: 2m
Length of Bank. 37m
8 9961 Warden Avenue Rouge River Markham Problem Slope fallure
(Berczy Creek) Structures Affected One residence
Height of Bank: 3m
Length of Bank: 75m
9 22 Frammgham Dnve Don River Markham Problem Undercuttmg of slope due to
seepage and surface runoff
Structures Affected One resldence
Helght of Bank. 20m
Length of Bank: 40m
10 Fiddlehead Farm Humber River King Problem Toe erosion and slumping
Structures Affected Pnvate property
Helght of Bank. 10m
Length of Bank: 30m
-""
/' WR411
,
t
THE REGION OF DURHAM VALLEY AND SHORELINE REGENERATION PROJECT
1992-1997
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
SEPTEMBER 1991
WR 41'
I PROGRESS REPORT
The following is a list of sites at which remedial work was
carried out from the inception of the Interim Water and Related
Land Management Project, 1979-1981, through the 1982-1984 Erosion
Control and Slope Stabilization Project, the 1985-1986 Erosion
Project and the 1987-1991 Erosion Control Project.
LOCATION WATERSHED WORK YEAR
16 Elizabeth Street, Ajax Duffin Creek 1979
558 Pine Ridge Rd, Pickering Rouge River 1979
Hockey Ranch, Pickering Duffin Creek 1980
Woodgrange Avenue, Pickering Rouge River 1981
Altona Road, Pickering Petticoat Creek 1981
Sideroad 30 (Whitevale) Duffin Creek 1982
8-10 Elizabeth Street Duffin Creek 1987
3555 Greenwood Road Duffin Creek 1988
Summary: Major Works completed 8
Total Expenditures $82,200
\})~ '" l"
The following table lists the top nine (9) valley land erosion
sites in order of their technical priority. The current pool of
priorities will be reviewed regularly during 1992 to accommodate
any significant changes and the possible inclusion of new sites.
DURHAM REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1992
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIPALITY COMMENTS
1 Greenwood C A. Duffin Creek Ajax Problem Slope failure & valleywall erosion
(Lookout Tower Site) Structures Affected Lookout tower - base
structure
Height of Bank. 23m
Length of Bank. 50m
2 5th Concession - Duffin Creek Plckenngl Ajax Problem Riverbank erosion
Greenwood C A Structures Affected Bndge abutment
Height of Bank: 3m
Length of Bank. 50m
3 1404 Ravenscroft Road Duffin Creek Ajax Problem Riverbank & valley wall erosion
Structures Affected Fence & pnvate
property
Height of Bank: 13m
Length of Bank: 40m
4 1789 Altona Road Petticoat Creek Plckenng Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected Garage & pnvate
property
Height of Bank. 7m
Length of Bank. 15m
5 Altona Road, R-5 Petticoat Creek Pickenng Problem Riverbank erosion
(West Side, across Structures Affected Roadway & hydro pole
from Height of Bank. 1 5m
# 1800 Altona Road) Length of Bank 30m
Eo
.^>
~
~
e,
~
J:.
t
DURHAM REGION EROSION PRIORITY - 1992
PRIORITY LOCATION WATERSHED MUNICIP ALlTY COMMENTS
6 1840 Altona Road Petticoat Creek Pickering Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected House & pnvate
property
Height of Bank. 3m
Length of Bank. 40m
7 Valley Farm Road Duffin Creek Pickering Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected Farm bulldmg
Height of Bank: 2m
Length of Bank: 89m
8 1436 Hlghbush Trail Petticoat Creek Pickering Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected Garage
Height of Bank. 6m
Length of Bank. 16m
9 Ravenscroft Road Duffin Creek Ajax Problem Riverbank erosion
Structures Affected MTRCA land
Height of Bank. 2m
Length of Bank. 133m
wR 4~~
.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ENVIRONMENTALLY SIGNIFICANT AREAS
-
October 19 91
Water and Related Land Management Advisory Board Meeting
#7 /91
October 11, 1991
-
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#1 silverthorn NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN - needs to be
reviewed as it was
designated on only one
criteria
#2 Etobicoke YES proposed roadway YES
Twinleaf crossing and adjacent
development
#3 Heart Lake YES Forest Management YES - boundaries may have
Woodlands changed
#4 Sassafras NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Site
#5 Humber River YES NOT KNOWN YES - Boundaries may have
Marsh changed
Class 3
Wetland (MNR)
#6 Home Smith NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Area
417 Lambton Park NO Adjacent crossing for NOT KNOWN
servicinq
i8 Lambton Woods NO Adjacent park system YES - Boundaries may have
chanqed
41 9 Chapman Valley NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
~
;t)
. L
1 ~
(Jl
E
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991 70
L..
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN ~
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA? ....c.
#10 Garland Park YES Trail system through UNKNOWN
area
#11 Humber NO Storm sewer NOT KNOWN
College
Arboretum
#12 Blue Haven YES Adjacent development NOT KNOWN
Area
#13 Thistledown NO NOT KNOWN YES
Oxbow
#14 Rowntree Mill NO Trail development NOT KNOWN
Swamp
#15 Woodbrige Cut NO Road construction NOT KNOWN
#16 Clarence NO Trunk sewer NOT KNOWN
Street Forest
#17 Elder Mills NO Adjacent development NOT KNOWN
Forest
#18 Smith's Beech NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Forest
#19 Pine Grove NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Forest
.
2
-
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#20 Boyd'S Rock NO Recreation NOT KNOWN
Cress
#21 pine Valley NO storm sewer outfall YES
Forest Road widening
Electrical Service to
homes
Forest manaqement
#22 Carex peckii NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
No. 1
#23 Carex Peckii NO Adjacent development NOT KNOWN
No. 2
#24 Graham's YES Adjacent housing YES - reduced in size
Forest development
#25 Graham's YES Forest management YES
Forest
Complex
#26 McLeans NO Road widening YES
Forest
#27 Graham's YES Forest Management YES
Woods
#28 Kortright YES Trail development and YES
Area heavy recreational use
Forest manaqement
. E
'A>
-C.
3 ~
C
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991 7J
,.C.
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN ~
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#29 Boyd Forest YES Forest management YES
#30 McFayden YES Forest management YES
Forest
#31 Sprengel's YES Forest management NOT KNOWN
Area
#32 Glassco NO Hydro corridor YES
#33 Hanna- NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Donaldson
Area
#34 Vance- NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Donaldson
Area
#35 Centreville YES NOT KNOWN YES
Creek Area Class 3
wetland (MNR)
#36 Caledon East YES NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Complex Class 7
wetland (MNR)
#37 Caledon East NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Forest
.
4
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#38 McCarthy Area NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
4139 Evans-Miburn NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Area
#40 Caledon Hills NO Forest management MOST LIKELY
Complex
4141 Sleswick YES Ducks Unlimited YES .
Complex Class 3 wetland creation
Wetland (MNR) project
Forest management
#42 O'Laughlin NO Forest management YES
Area
#43 Canada NO NOT KNOWN KNOWN
Company
Forest
4144 Lee Area NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
4145 Simcoe-Albion YES Fish habitat MOST LIKELY
Forest rehabilitaiton
(planting and fencing)
4146 Coolaghan's NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Forest
I E
N
..J:::
5 .:tl
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991 C
. 70
.c
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN ~
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#47 Palgrave YES Sediment control NOT KNOWN
Cedar Forest Plantinq
#48 Lonicera site NO Riparian plantinq NOT KNOWN
#49 Tuckerman's NO Bottomdraw outlet at NOT KNOWN
site pond
#50 Centreville NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Creek Complex
#51 Walton's NO Adjacent estate NOT KNOWN
Forest residential
#52 Castlederq NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
#53 Callay- NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Monkman Area
#54 Cold Creek YES Boardwalk YES - may be reduced
Swamp Class 4 Berm for the archery
Wetland (MNR) ranqe
#55 Pogonia Fen YES NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Class 7
Wetland (MNR)
.
6
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#56 King-Vaughan NO NOT KNOWN MOST LIKELY
Forest
#57 Kinq Forest NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
#58 Spiranthes NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Site
#59 Bond Lake Bog YES NOT KNOWN MOST LIKELY .
Class 7
Wetland (MNR)
#60 Forester YES Sanitary sewer NOT KNOWN
Marsh Class 7 Road extension
Wetland (MNR)
#61 Don Valley YES NOT KNOWN YES - geological features
Brickyard would not chanqe
#62 Taylor Creek NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
site
#63 wilket Creek NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Forest
#64 Burke Brook NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Forest
E
. iO
J::.
7 ~
E
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991 A>
..r::.
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN U).
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA? C)
#65 Glendon NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Forest
#66 Earl Bales NO Upstream erosion NOT KNOWN
Woods Adiacent development
#67 Bell's NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Woodlot
#68 Black Grass NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Site
#69 East Don YES Trails and YES
Valley Swamp Class 5 recreational use
Wetland (MNR) adiacent
#70 William's NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Area
#71 Richvale YES Erosion control works NOT KNOWN
Forest Adiacent development
#72 Cook's Area YES Estate Residential UNLIKELY -greatly reduced
development and disturbed
#73 McGill Area NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
.
8
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#74 Stephenson's YES NOT KNOWN MOST LIKELY - boundaries
Swamp Class 6 may have changed
Wetland (MNR)
#75 Highland NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Forest
#76 Haque Park NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
#77 Morningside NO sanitary sewer NOT KNOWN
Park Forest crossing
#78 Rouge NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Lakeshore
Swale
#79 Rouge Marsh YES NOT KNOWN YES
Class 2
Wetland (MNR)
Rouge
Strategy
(fish
assessment)
Rouge Park
Study
#80 Rouge River - NO NOT KNOWN LIKELY - geological feature
.Whi tby would not change
Formation
Section
#81 Little Rouge NO Residential YES - reduced in size
Forest developments
#82 Morningside NO Erosion protection LIKELY
Creek Forest works
E
. it>
~
9 l>>
-
E
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991 7V
.]:.
~
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN ~
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#83 Tabor's NO Hydro Corridor NOT KNOWN
Horsetail Uncontrolled
Meadow recreational use
#84 Core Woods NO Adjacent recreational NOT KNOWN
use
#85 Pearce Woods NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
#86 Diller Woods NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
#87 Milne's NO Adjacent Development YES - boundaries may have
Forest changed
#88 Woodlands NO Adjacent campinq area NOT KNOWN
#89 Unionville YES Trail system YES - boundaries may have
Marsh Class 3 changed
Wetland (MNR)
#90 Jefferson YES Storm water pond NOT KNOWN
Forest Class 7 Adjacent development
Wetland (MNR)
#91 wilcox Lake YES NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Bog Class 5
Wetland (MNR)
.
10
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#92 Simeon Lake YES Adjacent residential YES - reduced in size
Forest Class 7 Recreational use
Complex Wetland (MNR) Roadway
#93 Bloomington YES Roadways YES - reduced in size
Wetlands Class 3
Wetland (MNR)
#94 Petticoat NO Adjacent residential NOT KNOWN .
Creek Forest Storm water facilities
Sanitary sewer
#95 Altona Forest YES Adjacent development YES -boundaries may have
Drainage ditches cut changed
through forest
#96 Duffin Marsh YES Storm sewer outfall YES
Class 3 Adjacent development
Wetland (MNR) Trail development
#97 Major Spink YES Storm sewer outfall YES - recommendation for
Area Sanitary sewer boundary changes
crossing
Flood control berm
#98 Whitevale YES Bridge crossing YES - may be reduced
Corridor Trail system
#99 Haiqht Area NO ~ NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
#100 Boone Woods NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
E
. 70
-t::
11 W.
\.>>
E
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991 IV
.+:
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN 0-)
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA? ..t:
#101 Hartick Area YES NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
#102 Greenwood YES Erosion protection NOT KNOWN
Richweed site
#103 Byer-Saddler NO Pond and house NOT KNOWN
Area construciton
#104 Birrel-Boyer YES Recreational use NOT KNOWN
Area
#105 Pugh Holdon NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Area
#106 Puqh Forest NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
#107 Stouffville YES Trail development YES
Forest Forest manaqement
#108 Uxbridge YES Approved golf course YES - will be reduced in
Forest Class 7 development size
Wetland (MNR)
#109 Brown-Shaw NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Area
.
12
-
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA?
#110 North Glasgow YES Some intrusions for YES
Area farm roads
#111 Uxbridge YES NOT KNOWN YES
Kames Forest
#112 Carruther's YES Adjacent residential YES - boundaries were
Creek Marsh Class 3 development changed based on the
Wetland (MNR) results of the Runnymede
Study for the inventories
proposed
Runnymede
development
#113 Carruther's NO Residential YES - reduced in size
Creek Forest development and storm
water facilities
#114 High Park YES Recreational use YES
Area
#115 Hanlan Area YES Recreational use NOT KNOWN
#116 Muggs Island YES Gull control proqramme NOT KNOWN
#117 wildlife YES Communication Tower YES
Sanctuary
#118 Snake Island NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
. E.
/\)
13 ..c
~
V\
ESA STATUS - OCTOBER 1991 E
.A>
-F:
ENVIRONMENTALLY NEW CHANGES OR IMPACTS IS IT STILL AN Vl
SIGNIFICANT AREA INFORMATION SINCE 1982 ESA? cr-
#119 East Ward's YES NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Island
#120 Aquatic Park YES Recreational use YES
#121 Glen stewart NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Ravine
#122 Fallingbrook NO NOT KNOWN NOT KNOWN
Woods
#123 Scarborough YES Shoreline protection YES
Bluffs
Sequence
#124 Guild Woods YES Adjacent development YES
#125 Eastpoint YES Recreational use YES - boundaries may have
expanded
#126 Frenchman's YES Adjacent development YES - boundaries were
Bay Marsh Class 2 Recreation reduced in size based on
Wetland (MNR) new inventory information
.
14
...
WR. ~31
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
I
VISUAL ARTS ONTARIO
POINTS OF VIEW PROJECT
SCARBOROUGH BLUFFS
Re Visual Arts Ontario Proposal for Project Collaboration .-
Water and Related Land Management Meeting #9/91
January 17, 1992
~
'N R 4~B
POINTS OF VIEW: PROJECT PROPOSAL
Visual Arts Ontario is Canada's largest association of professional visual
artists. Visual Arts Ontario 01 AO) offers a number of benefits and services essential
to working professional artists. The organization provides information on art to the
general public and endeavours to heighten the awareness of and appreciation for art
to new audiences. V AO's newsletter, AGENDA, is a prime example by which the
organization disseminates information to artists on opportunities on a national and
international basis. Visual Arts Ontario conducts seminars and workshops,
organizes regional conferences, publishes directories and resource guides, and
maintains a resource centre and slide registry for public use. Many VAO projects
have become models for other Canadian cultural centres.
Visual Arts Ontario initiates special projects that introduce arts and cultural
issues to the public forum and provide an opportunity for the entire community to
participate in and experience contemporary visual art. Past V AO projects, such as
Waterworks (Scarborough, Ontario, 1988), have extended the boundaries and
common understanding of visual art by removing art from an institutional context.
Through collaboration between artists and creators in other disciplines, V AO has
broadened the range and understanding of contemporary visual art. V AO has also
initiated projects that give artists the opportunity to work in collaboration with public
agencies and non-art related organizations.
Visual Arts Ontario's proposed public art initiative for the Scarborough Bluffs
is a model community access waterfront project. This proposal is timely given the
concerns of Metro Toronto and area municipalities to adopt official waterfront plans
and develop waterfront trails. The origins of this initiative, titled Points of View, are
firmly rooted in V AO's mandate to provide innovative programs that foster
professional opportunities for working artists while providing exposure for and
garnering interest in their work. Complementary to this objective is V AO's
commitment to raising the profile of artists in Ontario, Canada and abroad, and to
facilitate community involvement in the arts for an increasingly larger art interested
public.
The Citysite Sculpture Project (Toronto, Ontario 1982) and Sans
Demarcation (Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, 1987) are examples of other V AO Art In
Architecture/Public Art projects. Points of View continues VAO's exploration of
the integration of art into the environment. As well, it will engage a larger public
audience beyond the traditional arts commuf'lity, address key environmental issues,
introduce art features that facilitate passive recreational opportunities, integrate
interpretive historical material in artworks, and establish a model for other waterfront
communities in Ontario.
~R '--\~~
Project Description and Rationale
Points of View is a project of temporary and permanent art installations on
the Scarborough Bluffs, specifically on the waterfront and tablelands. The
Scarborough waterfront stretches for 20 kilometers from R.C Harris to the Rouge
River Valley It is a geographically distinct waterfront in the Metro Toronto area
because it features two shorelines a newly-created wide strip along the water's
edge, and the tablelands above the Bluffs. This sensitive geological formation is host
to a variety of unique flora and fauna. Furthermore, this virtually unspoiled area has
its own unique cultural history in terms of archaeological sites in the Rouge Valley,
shipbuilding in Port Union and the well established communities along its constantly
eroding edge. This erosion and the preventive land stabilization/revetment work
being done by the Metro Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (MTRCA)
contributes to the interest in this area. Geological, environmental and ecological
changes make this an extremely interesting area to study
The MTRCA revetment work has created new parkland that presents excellent
opportunities for interactive artworks. As well, the revetment work offers the
opportunity for artists to collaborate on the design This already distinctively unusual
area, the perspectives and sensibilities of the creative professionals to be invited to
address key issues, the collaboration between individuals of various disciplines and
perspectives, the proposed locations to be used, as well as the unique combinations
of water and landforms, and the scope of individuals and communities to be
involved give this project its title - Points of View
Points of View will involve artists, architects, designers and landscape
architects collaborating with engineers, geologists, ecologists, environmentalists and
community interest groups to interpret the history and changing patterns of this area.
Artworks (a combination of permanent and temporary works, invitational inclusions
and those selected through open competition) will be specific to chosen sites. Each
will relate to existing features such as beaches, cliffs, ravines, and parklands and
environmental conditions that shape them Light and sound works, sculpture,
waterpieces, stairways and bridges will be complemented by street furniture
including banners, benches, chairs and interpretive materials. Other works will be a
direct result of artists collaborating on conservation projects, such as filtration
devices and revetment work. The artworks and this project will provide access to
cyclists, hikers and all those seeking passive recreational refuge while not
compromising the preservation of undeveloped parkland areas or environmental
sensitive areas.
Process for Selection of Artists
.
Part of the complexity of this undertaking is the necessity to give voice to all
concerned parties. While artistic standards underpin the project's thesis, community
consultation and public discussion at all levels will be sensitively addressed. This will
not be at the e~pense of the project's artistic integrity or the calibre of the works
included. V AO plans to take two approaches. These are
w~ 4t.fO
1 ) To develop an independent curatorial team responsible for developing
guidelines and selection procedures for participants from Canada and
abroad. This team must be apprised of creative developments in all
areas (art, architecture, design etc.) and be able to intelligently consult
with specialists (civil and hydraulic engineers, soils specialists,
geologists, environmentalists etc.) as required.
2) To develop a group including community representatives and public
officials to formulate guidelines that address the existing relationship
between the community and the sites and the community's interests in
aesthetic and functional improvements to the parklands.
Points of View will consist of two phases. A program of ancillary and
educational activities will be developed to maximize the potential of this exciting
project. V AD is extremely excited about the possibility of working with the MTRCA
and Scarborough Works to initiate artist collaboration for projects currently being
planned.
Planning for Phase II will begin in the fall of 1992 for projects created in the
summer of 1993. These will include, in addition to ancillary programs and
temporary installations like those in Phase I, installation of permanent works.
Visual Arts Ontario is seeking the approval of public agencies who have
jurisdiction over the sites for the proposed projects. V AD is sensitive to the
importance of this area as a public resource and recognizes that many levels of
government have a significant interest in the Scarborough waterfront. V AD will
ensure that all levels of government are consulted and kept informed and community
groups consulted on all aspects of this proposal. V AO will seek all necessary
approvals for each element of the project.
Phase I
In conjunction with artwork installations, V AO will launch the project with
ancillary programs such as sandcastle competitions, birdhouse competitions, water
activities, tours, billboard projects, banner competitions, lectures, etc. that involve the
whole community These programs will generate interest in the project as well as
draw attention to the work being done by the MTRCA, Metro Parks, Scarborough
Parks and Scarborough Works. In addition, ancillary programs including
performance works will address issues of ecological and environmental conservation
central to the activity and objectives of work currently being done on the Bluffs. All
of the elements of the Points of View project will be accompanied by appropriate
explanatory and interpretive information, including descriptions of art pieces, maps,
background information, historical details, etc. to ensure that the works are fully
appreciated by the public.
Projects currently being planned by the MTRCA for conservation offer an
excellent opportunity for collaboration between staff designers; engineers and
professional artists. Numerous projects around the world demonstrate the success
lAJR 44 ,
of these collaborations in inspiring innovative and aesthetically pleasing
improvements to functional projects. The functionality of the project is not
compromised Rather, the artists often create a level of interest in the community
that draws attention to and informs the public of the important worK being done
Completion of revetment and groyne work, construction of fish habitats and bird
sanctuaries, planting of wetland areas, development of water filtration devices, etc.
offer excellent opportunities for this type of collaboration.
Visual Arts Ontario would facilitate the collaboration by coordinating the
selection of the artist and acting as a liaison with the artist throughout the project.
Through public programs, including educational and interpretive information, that will
accompany the Points of View project, V AO will publicize and promote the projects
undertaken. Overall, the project has the potential to be a rewarding experience for
the sponsor
Points of View offers a unique opportunity to create an exciting waterfront
public resource to be enjoyed by the whole community Points of View is enriched
by the remarkable geographical and social history of the Bluffs and enlivened by the
public's interest in maintaining this area as a natural resource. The introduction of
site-sensitive art to complement the rich environment will make this a truly dynamic
area.
.