HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive Committee Appendices 1991
EX. (
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
REPLACEMENT OF PRINTING PRESS
FOR ADMINISTRATION PRINTING OPERATIONS
STAFF REPORT ON EQUIPMENT TENDERED FOR
TWO COLOUR HEAD PRINTING PRESS
Executive Committee
Meeting #2/91
April 5, 1991
-
- --
\<
.
Q PRESS SIZE DOUBLE POSH SPRAY COMMENTS PRICB
SHEET B11T'1'ON POWDER
DETECTOR INCHING ATTACH.
A B Dick 9810 12 1/2 X 17 1/4 no no yes T 51 head, perfing & nUmbering $35,765
$5325 extra - does Dot aeet specs
A B Dick 9870 12 1/2 X 17 1/4 yes no yes as above - does Dot aeet specs $38,433
Itek 975XLD CPD 13 3/8 X 17 3/4 yes no yes T 51 head - does Dot aeet specs $32,191
Ryobi 3300MR 13 39 X 17 72 yes yes yes sliding stationary head, perfing $42,550
& numbering $8700 extra
Ryobi 3200CD 13 3/8 X 17 3/4 yes N/A yes T-51 head, perfing N/A $31,101 50
-does Dot meet specs
.
Ryobi J200MCD 13 3/8 X 11 3/4 yes N/A yes as above -does Dot aeet specs $32,832.50
.-t Ryobi 500N 13 9/l6 X 18 1/2 yes yes yes T51 head $43,100
Q) Ryobi 3302M 13 3/8 X 17 3/4 yes yes yes True 2 colour press but pricey $62,094
.-t
;j Hamada 175CDNP 13 9/16 X l7 7/8 yes N/A yes stationary head, numbering $51,150
'"Cl
Q) included in price
.!:
C)
CJ') Hamada 775 CD 13 9/16 X 17 7/8 yes N/A yes stationary head $40,020
Hamada 775CDXNP 13 9/16 X 17 7/8 yes yes yes numbering included in price, $62,100
stationary head
Heidelburg GTO 13 3/8 X 19 7/8 yes yes yes static eliminators $1340 extra, $206,425
numbering $18,500 extra
Toko 4750 PM 13 X 17 1/2 yes N/A yes T 51 head $44,410 50
Multi 1962MC/CD 13 1/4 X l7 1/2 yes yes yes numbering & perfing $20,000 $45,994.25
extra, stationary head
Multi 1652 MC/CD 12 1/2 X 16 5/8 yes yes yes - does Dot meet specs $39,272.50
Multi 1850M 13 X l1 l/2 yes yes yes - does Dot meet specs $25,242
~
HAMADA 770 - ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES UJ
- landscape feeding system - no rear blowers
- skip feed feature - minimum size 5 1/2 X 5 1/2, means
we cannot run envelopes
- pull guide registration - small 2 man servicing dept.
- no tracking through rear feed wheels - no electronic counter
- excellent static eliminator - fully manual press
- 4 sucker feed, easy to move
- double sheets fall to area below feed belt
- 125 volt
- 2nd head made by manufacturer, very sturdy and (J)
()
easily moved - sliding head ~
CD
Po
- print quality (1-10 scale) -8 c
I-'
CD
- registration (1-10 scale) -8
N
RYOBI ~300MR - ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
- centralized lubication system
- 2nd head made by manufacturer, very sturdy and - molleton covers have to be kept
sliding head easily moves into place very clean and changed on every
colour change
- auto impression, easily change from different
weight stocks.
- auto inChing to start of plate
- 2 tray feeder
- no need to clean blanket after image change
- electronic sheet detector Ul
0
- digital counter for preset # of copies :J
CD
0.
- numbering & perfing unit can easily be added at c
f--'
a later date CD
- print quality (1 -10 scale) -9 IV
- registration (1-10 scale) -10 After 4 passes
through the press, registration was bang on.
- rear blowers for larger sheets
~
.
-1=
~
,
TOKO 4750 PRINTERS MODEL - ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES U\
- dial type adjustment for different paper stocks - portrait feed
- large rear feed assembly - easy to see copy - smaller ink form rollers
- star wheels can be adjusted to areas where no - T-51 head is a swing away, takes
copy falls more time to engage and not as
solid as a sliding head
- water rollers can be adjusted side to side
- easy to use and adjust sheet detector
- proof button for sample copy
- electronic digital counter (Jl
()
::T
- easiest to use and setup of all machines seen CD
0..
C
- no need to clean blanket after image change .....
~
- skewing can be easily done I\J
- air blow down at rear feed
- print quality (1-10 scale) -7
- registration (1-10 scale) -8
MULTI 1960 - ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
- landscape feeding system, larger ink rollers - 220 volt
- rear blowers for larger sheets - some tracking through rear feed
wheels
- form rollers gear driven, not friction fed - fully manual press
- inching control
- minimium size 3 X 5
- blow down fans with IR dryer
- fully manual machine
- heavy duty pump and drive motor tf)
0
- 2nd head made by manufacturer, very sturdy and ::r
(1)
easily moving sliding head 0..
c
I--'
- print quality (1 -10 scale) -8 (1)
tv
- registration (1-10 scale) -8
-
~
.
"It
E-x 7
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
STAFF REPORT ON MTRCA PERMIT #C-0699
ISSUED TO ANGUS GLEN FARM, TOWN OF MARKHAM
Executive Committee
Meeting #2/91
April 5, 1991
e)(.~
KEY ISSUE
At its Meeting #2/91 held on March 22, 1991, the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority resolved under
Resolution #73
"THAT the matter of the renewal of Authority permits to
Angus Glen Farm (Bruce Creek - part of the Rouge Park,
announced by the Premier on March 26, 1990) , be
referred to the Executive Committee meeting to be held
on Friday, April 5, 1991 II
BACKGROUND
The following is provided for the information of the Executive
At its meeting No 4/88 held on April 29, 1988 the Executive
Committee of the Authority resolved by Resolution #69, that the
Angus Glen Farm application for a permit under OntarlO Regulatlon
293/86 - Fill, Construction and Alteration to Waterways, be
approved subject to the conditions contained in the staff report
(APPENDIX "A")
A copy of Permit No C-0699 issued on May 17, 1988 is attached as
APPENDIX liB"
The permit was issued on May 17, 1988 and was due to expire on
May 17, 1989 Since no work had commenced on the project, Angus
Glen Farm requested, in writing, dated October 4, 1989, an
extension to the permit They then requested a second extension
to the permit and this was granted for the period of October 6,
1989 to October 6, 1990
On November 20, 1990 Angus Glen Farm requested in writing, a
third extension to Permit No C-0699 for one year commencing from
October 6, 1990 On December 12, 1990 the Staff of the Authority
received a letter and attachments in support of a renewal of the
existing fill permit This material was forwarded to the
Authority by Marshall Macklin Monaghan Limited Consulting
Engineers for the applicant
The request for approval of the revisions to the original permit
stated that
1 There would be no change to the location and design of
the original Pond No 3
2 Pond No 1 is in its original proposed location but
would be reduced in size by 2/3 of its intended size
3 Pond No 3 is also in the original location but
slightly reduced in size
staff determined that these revisions were minor in nature and
hence approval was granted
It is staff's procedure to grant revisions to permits if they
were minor in nature and do not deviate from the original intent
of the permit
Any revisions to an original permit that are deemed to be major
in nature must be submitted as a new application in accordance
with Ontario Regulation 293/86
In order to monitor the activity and keep track of all permits
issued by the Authority, the Staff adopted an administrative
procedure whereby all permits were issued for a time frame of 12
months This device allows the staff to monitor any changes in
land ownership and/or proposed minor modifications to the
original permit
~x.~
-2-
It should be noted that the Conservation Authorities Act does not
specify any time limit nor expiry date to any permit issued in
accordance with the Regulation nor is there reference to
revisions and/or renewals
With respect to the Conservation Authority having jurisdiction to
revoke a fill permit previously issued, the Staff of the
Authority requested such advice from our solicitors, Gardiner
Roberts This opinion was received by the Authority on December
24, 1982 (APPENDIX "C")
It should be noted that ontario Regulation 170 (R R 0 1980) as
noted in Appendix "C" is now ontario Regulation 293/86 There
has been a minor change in the wording of the paragraph in
Section 7 of Regulation 170 and paragraph 7, Ontario Regulation
293/86
APPE'NO)K'A'
€X. ,()
TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE "EXECUTIVE COMMI TTEE
- M T R C A 14/88
FROM JOHN W MALET ICH, MANAGER, REGULATIONS ADMINISTRATION
RE App1 icatfon for a permit , under Ontad 0 Regulation 293/86, by
ANGUS GLEN FARM for permission to alter a watercourse, p 1 ac e
f 111 , and construct a structure on Lots 21 , 22, and 23,
Concession 5, in the Town of Markham, Rouge River Watershed
ANGUS GLEN FARM has applied for permission to construct 3
off-line ponds adjacent to the Beaver Creek Rip-rap protection
will be introduced in various areas of the ponds
Sed1ment controls will be practised during construction
activity
THIS PROPOSAL CONSTITUTES AN APPLICATION TO
X Alter A Watercourse
~ Place Fill Within A Regulated Area
~ Erect A Structure Within The Regional Flood Plain
IN THE MEANING OF ONTARIO REGULATIO~ 293/86
THE STAFF OF THE AUTHORITY HAS EXAMINED THE PROPOSAL AND
RECOMMENDS IT FOR APPROVAL
RECOMMENDATl ONS
In accordance with Ontarf 0 Regulation 293/86, permission is
granted to
ANGUS GLEN FARM
FOR THE PURPOSE OF altering a watercourse, placing f 111 , and
constructing a structure
LOCATED ON Lots 20, 21, and 23, Concession 5, in the Town of
Markha~, Rouge River Watershed
FOR THE PERIOD OF April 29,1988 to April 29, 1989
In accordance with the following documents and plans which
for. part of this permit
( 1 ) Project 86327, Drawing Numbers 1, 2, and 3, dated
November 1987, as prepared by Cosburn Patterson
Wardlllan Limited, Consulting Engineers
J WM j c
ENCL
APR 19/88
.
I
I
~,ll~ A I;}PE:t-J U\~
, the metropolitan toronto and region conservation authority
5 stnehcrn c:il\€ c!oM'eteN CX1tCro m3n 154 (416) 661 6600
PERMIT NO. e 0699 DATE J'V 1 7 , 19_
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ONTARIO REGULATION 2 0 3 / ~, h , PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO'
I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"< !:. ~ C LL' T I( I' (' t (/ - ,. 'J 1 1_ ~ (' \
- . ,
, " , , II ~ (, ,_ l ' ~ r" - " ['tt.'LTi\l L('i,ITitl C't i .
I ----------------------------------
F LJ L' Ti-t: ~ ' .... ~c. L.,f olt211ff1 J I, c1 t (- r c (, lJ r S e , rl~:l~l~ f 1 I : ,)
cC\nstructlr:n " <;trtlrtllr'"
I
I U1 U\ T E [' f.l ~I Lots 2l' , ? i , ? ""i ~on((,5siolJ " t il ~ 10 'r () f
al1r - , , 1 n
harkhaf!1, I~ 0 U C e f' 1 V e r ~~ d t e r s 11 e ~
,
, FfbruNl: 28 ii92
FOf\ THE P 0: 1 L (~r KXX XXXXX xlXxxxxxxxi5txxxxxx
- ~f{X}{9'a{9CXS~~
I I 11 ac(("rdance Ii 1 t h tie t r 1 I o~: ) 11 0 r' 0 C L' rr, r n t s a r1 C " 1 d n S I, P 1 ::: I
form Pdrt ('l t till S Dl'rr.)lt
( 1 ) PrUJect ~(327, ;-ra\~lnq r'UII,hl..'rs 1 , 2. anri ') rater
- ,
" 0 ve'" ~ C' r 1 q R 7 , as rr€~ared bv l..('lst'Jr'1 fJ a T t E' r 5 i' p'
/'ldrrn:an L 1 ;11 1 t e tl , c.onsultlnl" Enr.l"lC'E-'rs
I J ~~ t', i c
I
! E t~ L L .
A P I{ . 1 a / 8 ~
r C - - t.:. ~' P - ~, a ') 1 e
. .
ivl " ~ - 1<1 r h r', 0 r: d H 1 1 I (Lf>ntr",l ~eCll0n) :.l r ten. \) l. c S 1 ) 1 1
I . I
To\~n l"t 1 ark ;1 a If. , ( 1 ) Er.r;nC-frlJ1r. ,ppt. ( 1 ) r' I c1 rl n 1 n (" : 2 ~ t
Lnsbllrn Patterso" r' a r (' 'i' a 1 :... I IT; 1 t f ~
Revised Plans "Redline Revision, Future Retention Ponds Design
I Angus Glen Farms, ~~rshal1 Macklin ~lonaghan Ltd. Revised Feb.
22/91, Porod 11 (Drawing t 1) Pond !\2 (Drawing ~2)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
N.I.: - FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS PERMIT MAY RESULT IN FURTHER ACTION BY THE AUTHORITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH
THE CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES ACT
- THIS PERMIT, OR A COpy THEREOF, MUST BE POSTED ON THE SITE AND AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION.
- THIS PERMIT DOES NOT PRECLUDE ANY APPROVALS REQUIRED BY ANY OTHER EXISTING LAWS AND REGULATIONS.
J L'IlI: I AlEl1 LH, ""If ,/.II, t ~ , I~ ll, U LA r ! ! I ~
,j
, tL(_ ~~<l~.e
I
f ENF RCEM NTOFFICER
. " - . - .
~ "
.
GARDINER, ROBERTS 6. Yl.
BARRISTERS AND SOLICITORS
- ------.------..--.
HAIl." 0 Il1O.("".0 c. ..lOMN . CONU".O c. M'\.TON .J ...oweaA".O c. TUI:....ONI: 367-06Z0
.10M" 0 P'lUtlUHSOH. 0 C HTtJI we... o.c. W1U,tAM L1eCIt,O c.. Tuo GARROB 06-23656
..IOHN It Mlula ...,.,lIe w. we... 0 Co .ocKAtCa It MACOOUGAu.
....y G GOOOWlN _e., __ CAll\. eAIM" T.utSHIS
DAVID l "INE J .._ CAscr aoe<<ltT 0 OOU....... IZO AOELAIOE STREET WEST
....,. ~~s lO'IO J 00._ _CHIN A c........n GWco TORONTO, CANADA
.JC)NAY""," H WIOLC'I' .._ A. ,AM,JNGtJI DA"'O C f'OtNfON
_s_...... 1'01:.' ..... WOUOCNHIOG M5H 'TS
22 December 1982
The Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority,
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, Ontario
M3N IS4
Attention: W. E. Jones, Esq. ,
Secretary
Dear Sirs:
Re: Regulations - Fill Permits - Revocation
OUR FILE: 31,176
This letter will follow our letter of 29th
November, 1982, which was delivered by our Mr. Parkinson
on the 30th of November, at the time of a meeting held with
Messrs. Mather and Maletich. At the conclusion of that
meeting we were asked to confirm to you our advice concerning
the revocation of a fill permit previously issued by the
Authority.
For the purposes of this opinion we will make the
following assumptions:
l. That a fill permit has been properly
issued by the Authority under Regulation
170 (R.R.O., 1980);
2. That subsequently to the issuing of the
permit there has been a breach by the
permit holder of some or more of the
matters included in the permit application
as required by paragraph 6 of the
Regulations;
f:)l. I~ 'he Metropolitan Toronto and
- Region Conservation Authority 22 December 1982
- 2 -
3. That the permit by incorporation includes
the matters provided for in paragraph 6
of the Regulation. In this regard we were
assured at the meeting that a permit
incorporates by reference the matters set
out in the application.
The question is, can the permit be revoked and,
if so, by whom?
The statutory authority with respect to fill
permits is found in section 28(1) (e) and section 28 (1) (f)
of the Conservation Authorities Act (R.S.O. 1980, chapter 85).
You will note that the operative words of those sections are
as follows,
"prohibiting or regulating or requiring
the permission of the Authority ...11
You will note that the power of the Authority to make
regulations does not extend to and include the power to
revoke such a permit once it is issued.
Section 7 of Regulation 170 reads as follows:
"The Authority may, at any time,
withdraw any permission given under
this Regulation if, in the opinion
of the Authority, the conditions of
the permit are not complied with."
It would seem to us, therefore, that the Regulation
made by the Authority seems to include a power not specifically
provided for in the governing legislation. It was with reference
to a similar matter that our Mr. Conlin wrote to Mr. Jones on the
13th of April, 1977 dealing with a regulation which was proposed
at that time. In that letter Mr. Conlin, after discussing the
nature of the power contained in the Act went on to say as
follows:
"A review of case law illustrates that
in the absence of express words
authorizing "prohibitionll or IIrevocation",
generally the Courts have held that this
power is not to be implied, and this is
particularly so when the Statute contains
a section providing for a penalty, as in
this case Section 28(2).11
\
. f~. , lI-
.
The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority 22 December 1982
- 3 -
Although this letter dealt with a different part
of the Conservation Authorities Act the principle stated applies
to this issue.
We are of the opinion that, notwithstanding paragraph
7 of the Regulation, the Authority does not have the power to
revoke a permit previously issued. We are concerned that if the
Authority attempts to do so and the permit holder suffers serious
damage an action could be taken against the Authority alleging
that the power contained in the Regulation is illegal and,
accordingly, any actions taken thereunder have not the proper
legal foundation.
If there is such power to revoke a permit then such
revocation would have to be done by the Executive Committee and
not by staff. The power to issue a permit lies with the
Executive Committee and, accordingly, the power to revoke would
lie with the same body unless the legislation made it clear
otherwise. The Executive Committee in moving to revoke a permit
would have to afford the permit holder a full and complete hearing
and the procedure would be taken by analogy to the procedure
involved in the issuing of a permit. There would have to be
proper and reasonable notice and the Executive Committee would
have to hear all parties and make its decision based on the
evidence presented to it at that time. However, out of an
abundance of caution, we repeat that we do not believe that the
Authority either through the Executive Committee t ough staff
has the power to revoke such a permit.
(
JGP/o
C.c. J. Maletich, Esq.,
Head, Development Control,
Planning and Policy
C.c. J. C. Mather, Esq. , P. Eng.
Administrator,
Water Resource Division
E)<.I5'
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
STAFF REPORT ON
MTRCA PERMIT #C-0660
ISSUED TO KING RANCH HEALTH SPA, TOWNSHIP OF KING
Executive Committee
Meeting #2/91
April 5, 1991
-EX. I ~
KEY ISSUE
At its Meeting #2/91 held on March 22, 1991, the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservat1on Authority resolved under
Resolution #73
"THAT the permit issued to the King Ranch Corporation
be referred to the Executive Committee meeting to be
held on Friday, April 5, 1991 "
BACKGROUND
The following is provided for the information of the Executive
At its meeting No 1/88 held on February 26, 1988 the Executive
Committee of the Authority resolved by Resolution #5, thirteen
applications for permit under ontario Regulation 293/86 - Fill,
Construction and Alteration to Waterways
The Staff communication on the King Ranch corporation was
designated as Item 6A (18) on the agenda The King Ranch
corporation permit was granted subject to the following
conditions which formed part of the permit
1 Project No 86007, Drawing No A-1, dated March 26,
1987, and titled "Site Plan" and Drawing No S-13,
dated April 16, 1987 and titled "Spa Running Track", as
prepared by Arthur Erickson Architects;
2 Project No 2650, Drawing No SS-2, dated January 1987,
titled "Storm & Sanitary Outfall & Details", as
prepared by R V Anderson & Associates, Consulting
Engineers & Planners;
3 Project No 1311, titled "King Ranch Health Spa Private
Water System Design", dated May 1987, as prepared by
Bruce A Brown Associates Limited, Consultants in
Environmental & Applied Earth Sciences
The aforementioned conditions were submitted and formed part of
the Staff Communication to the Executive Committee for its
deliberations on February 26, 1988 (APPENDIX "A")
It should be noted that there were two typographical errors on
the Staff Communication The first one is the reference to the
Executive Committee Meeting MTRCA #19/88 It should have been
indicated as Executive Committee Meeting MTRCA #1/88 The second
error is noted in Condition No 3 of the staff recommendation
This conditions states
"(J) Project No 1311, titled "King Ranch Health Spa
Private Wates System Design", dated May 1987, as
prepared by Bruce A Brown Associates Limited,
Consultants in Environmentl and Applied Earth
Sciences"
The error is in the word "Wates" This should have read
"Waste"
For the information of the Executive Committee the King Ranch
Permit process commenced in three phases The first phase
involved the installation of the private waste disposal system,
the second the construction of the storm water detention pond in
the valley and the third stage was the construction of the Spa
running track
The Authority Staff has been monitoring all of the construction
activities
The Authority file {Permit No C-0660} issued March 2, 1988 is
still open There were some modifications to the running track
which required revisions to the drawing
Appendices "B" and "C" indicate the subject property and the
location of the tile bed and detention pond
APto'LN"v'\
E~. '1 TO THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE,
- M T R C A '19/88
FROM JOHN Ii MALETICH, MANAGER OF REGULATIONS ADMINISTRATION
RE Application for a permit, under Ontad 0 Regulation 293/86, by
KING RANCH CORPORATION for permission to place fill and alter a
watercourse on Lots 3, 4, and 5, ConcessIon V, Township of King,
Humber River Watershed
KING RANCH CORPORA 11 ON has applied for perlllission to alter a
watercourse in order to construct an off-line storm water
detention pond A raIsed t i 1 e bed is proposed a 1 so This
facility has been approved by the Public Health Department of the
Region of York
The above-noted works are necessary to accommodate a proposed
health spa
Sediment controls will be practised during construction activity
THIS PROPOSAL CONSTITUTES AN APPLICATION TO
X Alter a Watercourse
-!- Place Fill Within A Regulated Area
___ Erect A Structure Within The Regional Flood Plain,
in the meaning of Ontario Regulation 293/86
The staff of the Authority has exami ned the proposal and
recommends it for approval
RECOMMENDATIONS
. In accordance with Ontario Regulation 293/86, permiSSion i s
granted to
KING RANCH CORPORATION
FOR THE PURPOSE OF altering a watercourse and placing fill.
LOCATED ON Lots 3, 4, and 5, Concession V, The Township of King,
Hu.ber River Watershed
FOR THE PERIOD OF February 26, 1988 to February 26, 1989
1 n accordance wi th the following documents and plans which form
part of this permit
(1 ) Project No 86007, Drawing No A-I, dated March 26,
1987 and titled NSite P1anN and Drawing No. S-13,
dated April 16, 1987 and titled .Spa Running Track"
as prepared by Arthur Erickson Architects
(2 I Project No 2650, Drawing No ~S-2, dated January
1987, titled NStorm & Sanitary Outfall & Details",
as prepared by R V. Anderson & Associates, Consulting
Engineers and Planners
(3 I Project No 1311, titled NKing Ranch Health Spa
Private Wates System Design., dated May 1987, as
prepared by Bruce A Brown Associates Limited,
Consultants in Environmentl and Applied Earth
Sciences
J WM j c
Enc 1.
FEB 25/88
\:P __ I __
...... ~ '.
Q ~
~--- W~~~IVA--:\ U
I( ~. ... J.' II ';;>" ~r:'\ 2 ~ i
_ I l / .u. I I L
I J , 1 \ . ~
~ -. .....-:i-" j- 'I[(ffi JI' /I ~)~ - C AI "'.= I
l I,~ 'f ';J /~ ~ ~. ell; ..! ..-.!
lf~::,~ ; ~ ~~~~ r .1. II - !
tI ilr ~ '.. . '. ',:~ . ; ~ ~ - " 1.1 ' .
l f;~1I ~~f.. ~ . , ~. ''-/ ZO- '\' \. I
;; I -1J0' " <f t.~ /rJi I ~ ~ \ \
L " ~~ /) ~~'~ . \,~ t' C)....~.. ; I
~ r-fd&~ ~~ ~", ~"-;-" ~' 1\ ~ .A~~ ~ ?J I '-/ l'~ .. I. :\: !\~
... ID ~ I' 'lL/. J_... \\ ), .. ; .
- . ~ ( i! _ ""I' '" ~. .;\ ~ I 'l~ .(~?~ if. :-("'-i~' , ,\ ~~,I'...~~ t~.A ........ 2\~"
;:~ . .....-,' y.... -- ~---,;,~. .~. ~.,},..._,,-- .. .II'
III \ I 'J - , e I \ 1 ' i\ .'. _ ....:?~, In
'WI ( Y),I',"II/ {:' (',i,',~\~ .~~~ . '" r:: . 1'\: !i;' '.':~. ~ ,.I;';; I~'~~~(til'~\, fI \,p Sj.i: 1':; - ;1~- ~l: t,-r:\~;~(-;~:::--?~ _A~~\~'~~' ,~..,,:
~ S ' .II{ (i.! '\\[ ','~ ~ 11/ ~ ,\1\ ., ., ~ W9J:~~d" Ill// I :;,'\'\ ~~ )~'P_ '-../1') ,,:::;: I '
1:-1 ".// (;.K; ,.~~l, ;..:.\~, j ,. '\, ,;I~~/ ~~ ,_" ~ l \~flrJ):. t'l " roo,~ /, / O/I'\(((:t.
:\, 111f.' ~,~ ~(A '--! I /~'i~"~' ?':r,~~-_ _",I,\.;,,~ _"_,,~~__/- /'11\\
: //f.-=.',,'j' ")~,,,~)~\ l~15~ . I >-r-/~::IA~r "~~ :t;; ",-~,~- ;-'~'h~~~' " i,," ~91 ,i - """'.:: hi" i' \' ~.!f) I '-..,' ~
: "" ~ = '1/-- dYk/~'~ "Ai. " '~/I;j(,~:'.' \ .~,""--"": -. ,~,". \ Iii '\ I\\\~ '/\\, :" ,
.'- '-=;/:,........... ~~ - ~.),,-.... - . / ., J Y ~ ; '\ \ \ I \-1 \ ~ '\\\\ _ \ ~ :\~~ ' ~lj I ' ,
Yj1fi~~<if~~~'" "~i'l ~'5~~~"--:C::;--~I:'~\!I~![:~\~"" ~~~t?;~/l': q~~~
'rJ. ~/:...:h\ ~ if ><' :i~~~"~'h'\ I ~--.... 'el,' ~ ~~ " I ~ ,-;;"'f I U\ ~\~.:::; ~:~J'" '--'-~' ~:S\ / r; ~
? 7/ ){~: ~~I~ ,-~= ,~lf~~~.' , _ "~_ ,"'v~~L~ ~ _r~~ \~::v~~,~ '~-;~f!ffr;, ~ .'~\'::!~'I':'
, (01"~ -~clJ~v-' )'C'I~,I\~\' ~ - . .riA f};;. ") s....J~l~~~~ ~'t\l~ Ic<\ (' "?i~: ' .. 7~
~ ~: ~_"~-IIi ~~I~~/, 11~11\\!\I~I~l ' - -, ., L~f 1< ~ ~~. r '~/'-..,~ ~ r ')'~ t~tl{~\ / -\ ~~ ~Jr~' I, '~."~;:~~
, u..1 IL \:--.. J'~ 'K:~" ,,~ .1 . - <:-~ V.I' \",., (',...s' --.;.. l
.' -\~ I; /G -( ~I\\.~-'i; , " I. ,~'.J" 1\ r) J -, ''::::: I, /), - :';-\ ~_, ~'l,1 . '" ) / I ri......)\ r,p ,
~-'r'\. 'I r. ,r.;:,-~ \ '.1 . "'(,~;-. .l/:':'I't'7" .' I' \", '!('-",/' \( I
-J \,../ ~L \'. _.- t'. \-r::-~ ~(lI'~); ...s'ii'?l.... , ' ,.' . " ~ tF,;,-~, ........ I
(j ~ -- II \ '~,,-::::\: vy~ II , ,5,J-I///ff' / ",..u -- =-1'-: .;;,;;.~ -;-"1-.:,.. r=:::-- /-.~
/ \ ' ; \0 . " -' '/--, / ' ,lV. ~,~ ....,^ I
\ ~.r~ " , If. i) \;,t~ ~~ ~.. ,~f ~~'.~~C] .~. , /1, \" ~ ,,:. _ ) /~~ i ~~ { ;~/:,
\ j \L,': It 'I ". \. ,,,' : . "~1~ ..}-. Y..., ,~\~ '("':.R"&. I
L..-l/ ".-.' 1r7' .---~~,""~ :"- , '-. .' ~ \\~~ ~ ~~\ ('B \ .\XiI ~
I ( "Ill": ~;--I 1'-'[ " / ' _.- ').'. ~~ ~~\~, ~~t~~ \\\\' /'" h~
, " '~~::1~-l~-' .,;~ ." ,.., \\.~' , 1(~\~~ I~'(~-
(' \ I c:to."'/ / '.l!- " ':......'... ~-m'~ ~ I~' v
, o.J { '" 0-
...... - -- e 1 ~ U \\ ~'~ " ~ D
'-/ ' ,,oM 1/ 'I.... . , . 1/ I ~ \ ///;" V
., '.. , & -..., I - 8nCI......... CEI'IT'f'CAT!
___ ._ _ _ __ ~~ L:S ... ....r~ en Of'IIIiiJIJ"O r....-, __ _ _ _ -=- =
=.:.-:._-- - ~ ~~ - -'-----~ @ flOOD PLAIN AND I'1U. M----l!ii' ~ > c_1Ion ~ .~. _ .
__~_ - o. =.-- --=- _..~:: IIIEOll.ATIOH L>>IE IIiI.APPI'IIJO ..----- . ___ ..... ......... __ - ---
_ iI! _. - ~_~ _ .. _ _
- =- -- ~ =---=-=-.--::-- ~ ------
- - =--- - - ::: c,; ----.- ~ --- HUMIHR RIVER
--- -.- - ~ -- - ::=: ~.::::--...:..~=-..- ...-......... 6 -- . .. --
== ,-- ---- ~,. =..., ---.= ===~.'.- cwr.-- ~~ - 11____ . ~ .'" -....o.......r-.-~........ -.
=- ..~~ _::='::=::=-.::- ~ ---- -- - _____ IHUT No. ...
_.. --- .-. --.------
~ '"
'"
'"
-
'"
QI
...
~ ,
'" ,
'"
...
to
'"
'"
...
'"
N
N
....
....
-
I
IV
....
0>
II>
I c:::.. --
6-18
~ Z zaz
_....J^_____ I
Ex ;W
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
PROPOSED LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING AMONG PUBLIC AGENCIES
REGARDING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT
FOR ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP WATERFRONT PARK
Executive Committee Meeting #10/91
September 13, 1991
I
;;:,c;.r . ..;l .:J . o ....;..;l 11'0....111 lie I 1'\ V I ~11"'" v~1
~x ;t\
1
September 12, 1991
Etobicoke Motel Strip Public Amenity Ar..:
PropoHCl Lettef of Understanding among Public Agencies with Respect to Implementailon.
1 The implementation of the Public Amenity Area wAf be based upon the MTRCA Project Proposal
for the Etoblcoke Motel Strip Waterfront Park with the understan<flng that:
(i) the $40 million figure is a proposed budget based on OMS approval of 21 00 residential
units and associated commercial and fetal development;
00 implementation of the Public Amenity Area by the PubliC Agencies Is conditional upon
approval being given to the project by the MNR and an exemption granta:J from an
Environmental Assessment;
OH) all necessary lands for the Public Amenity Area as shown on SchechH MA- hereto wi be
acquired (i.e. title vested in MTRCA) by the later of December 31, 1993, or 18 months after
all approvals are recefved for the Etoblcoke Motel Strip Secondary Plan and MTRCA
project Including Cabinet confirmation of the upfront recoverable grant;
(rI) design and construction of facllltIM In Phase III may vary from the MTRCA Protect
Proposal by three-party agreement and " conditional upon the avaIabllty d fund.;
(v) Metro and the Province will enter into a Funding Agreement with respect to Phase I . &
b. subfect to Cabinet confinnation of the upfront provtne'" recoverabfe grant;
(Vll Metro, MTRCA and the City d EtobIcoke wit enter Into a -PartnerShIp. Agreement
governing all four phases of the PubliC Amenity Area Implementation.
2. The Public Amenity Area wi be impiemented In four phases:
Phase I. a) acqui8ition of the neceasary land base In public ownership (MTRCA) for the
Public Amenity Alea, the Waterfront DrIve rfght-d--way and the storm water
management facllty by MTACA as ldenUfied on $Chedue -A.;
b) Cf98tion through JandfiIIing of the land base for same Including design and
I construction of the shoreline, lakeside TraI, fish habitat compensation and
810rmwater management facility by MTRCA,
Phase II. design and construction of the waterfront drtve and storm water sewers by the City
of Etoblcoke;
Phase III. construction of the public amenities In accordance with the Terms of the PartnerShIp
Agreement referred to in clause 1 (vi),
Phase IV ongoing maintenance, repair and replacement of these public amenitieG wil occur
In accordance with the aforementioned PartneraNp Agreement.
i
::>~ r- .1..::1 :l 1 I::l 54 ~~UM M~TRU PLNb 0~Pj
E ~ 2.'-.
2
3. WIth respect to Phatel:
(I) The Province wII provide to Metro an upfront recoYet'able grant for the costs of Phase I,
disbursement of funds not to begin before AprI1, 1992. and to be available ther88fter .s
cost. are Incurred. The 10M II to be paid beck by Metro, upon receipt of funds from the
City of Etobk::oke, to the Province over a 10 yesr period to be calcUated from the
COI'TlIHtion of Phase I and at no COM to Metro.
QI) MMr'o will pus a by-law 8S required under the ConNrvatIon AuthorIties Act dealgn8ting
the CIty of Etoblcoke 8S the beneflltfng ar.. wlh regild to the Public Amenity Area and
providing for payment to Melro by the City of Etoblcoke: the City of Etoblcokl wit also
pus a by__ providing for peyment to Mitro of the full amount of the I'8COY8I'abfe grant
r8ferred to in clause 3(1) above In accordance wlth a repayment echedlH not to exceed
a 10 year period and which oorresponds to the peyment period between Metro and the
ProvInee In order that the transaction is completed at no cost to Metro.
("iii) As a conIIqUInCe of the fact that the Public Agencfn wit be conhibuting lands and/or
watel10ta to the Public Amenity Aree, waterfront drive and Itonnwater management fadlty
thereby benefitting thllandownerI and developera In the Motel Strip, It is agreed that In
exchange, dedications of pt1vatIlands by the 1anck:Mnera and dMopers to the Public
AmenIty Area wi be eoughl
4. WIth reepect 10 Phne II the MTRCA wII oonwy to the CIty of Etoblcoke necUI.ry larm to
aooommodate the Watertmnt Drive and piped servioeI which will be conItNcted and rn8Intafned
by the CIty: the City d Etobicoke wlllevy the ~ for the COlt of ame ~in(h.
5. WIth respeot to Phae 10:
9 the undertaking of PhallIl. contingent upon the ar1'IOlft of mor... collectable through
deveIopmert levtes or ctwges by the CIy of Etobicoke being established, and may have
to be JRMd accordfr9y;
I) deIign d the public amenIlJeI wi be based upon the MTRCA Project Proposal generally
as expreSl8d In Sched_ ,.. hereto. Modlllcatlona to the public amenItIn wi be agreed
to by MTRCA, Metro and the CIty of Etobiooke in contUtatIon with the Province, ~ed
IancIownn and reeidenta, subject to the avalabllty of fund.. the nature and design of the
abutting prMde developmentS, and In aooordance with the termf of the Partnership
Agreement ...,erred to in dat,IIe 1 (vi).
8. WIth reaped to the tlrNng of private devel~ In rwlatIon to the ImpIemenIation of the Public
AmenIty Ana
~ zoning by-law amendments wi not be approved, norfurtMr d9veIoprnent approvals given,
nor buldtng p.nnb iasued untI Phase l(a) hat been completed which ... be evidenced
by tide 10 theM lands being held by MTRCA.
II) prtvate development may proceed sInUtaneoueIy wfth tekeflllng, shortUne stabIizadon.
and the constructiOn of the storm water managemn faclly, the Waterfront Drive and the
lakeside 1ral.
09-12-91 01 29 PM FRO~ ETOBICOIE PLANNING P02
Ex ~3
~ ~
"-- /'
1ft
g
J;;
~
I
i ..
==
r
t d
?1 Rt
I
-
2J
~
.
.
.. . I
.
II I
SEP 1 Z ' S 1 13 Z' PAGE 0e2
EX. JLf
.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
POLICY STATEMENT
WETLANDS
A Draft Policy for Consultation under section 3 of the Planning Act
NoveJlll)er 1991
Executive Committee Meeting
#12/91
October 25, 1991
II u:; E..xr
PLANNING
ACT
~ POLICY STATEMENT
~-" ~
Onlano
Wetlands
A Draft Policy for Consultation
under Section 3 of the Planning Act
-
~~~4.5I
E.~. ~(o
-
WE WANT YOUR VIEWS
We would like to know what you think about this draft Policy Statement on Wetlands. It is being
circulated for public consultation because the proposed policy is quite different from the earlier
draft sent out for review and comment in 1989
~
This government 11(;s listened to input from across the province and as a result has made substan-
tive changes, which are part of the current draft Wltile we want to move quickly to release afinal
government policy for the protection of Wetlands, we believe the people of Ontario must first have
the opportunity to review and comment on this revised Policy Statement.
Prior to releasing afinal Wetlands policy, the government has set aside 60 days for public consulta-
tion. We expect the policy to be released as a Provincial Policy Statement under tile Planning Act
This means that allfuture land use planning policies alld development applications. as well as other
projects affecting Wetlands in Ontario, will need to be cOllSidered in light of these policies
We strongly encourage you to carefully review this draft Policy Statement as soon as possible and
to send your comments in writing by November 8, 1991 to
Director Manager
Municipal Planning Wildlife Policy Branch
Policy Branch Ministry ofNawral Resources
Ministry of MuniCipal Affairs ICI House
13th Floor, 777 Bay Street 90 Sheppard Avenue East
Toronto, Ontario Nortlt York, Ontario
M5G 2E5 M2N 3A1
Wetlands are a valuable natural resource They Itelp maintain the quality of life for the people of
Ontario This draft provincial policy is an important component of the government's overall
approach for protecting Wetlands Therefore, we lookforward to receiving your comments as
soon as possible.
~ ~ ~ ~ d{jill~
Dave Cooke Bud Wildman
Minister Minister
Municipal Affairs Natural Resources
eX ~7
~ r ~ .1&'.: ' .'1' ..~- ~~...-.- ~~-:.-,.-- - -~ -, ~ - -r- -.-- -------.-------'-..---.--~- ~-.---- ~-----~
.~ ' ~~.J:.c:_ .l.,i -ll'1t l - - " .' ~
'C, ,'" ~::/iLA-.&'i':'!\\1~' "1' :'b i ~. 1
/~/~"" J/~. ;(f;.."':: ~ c ..-..-:-rj,;..~~).. T- - ( .....~. >(.~ ,....1.;. \v~ ' ,t., &..; J
I I \ . ' ..,>fOF<t'~t~ t " ' ,"" "c- 'Iy, 'te' "c"!.t~:.. ~, .J "'i~":' -'"
f') ~~'~fHEJ)LAN ING Ac~ 198~t~ sEtfI6N~' ~;1
\;.: ,t~.. .Jo"~'J ' oJ ~~lr"': ,'1 ~ -/'''1 -;<:'1 c~41 '
\ ...... ~~h , . lit. ~ l
l- 'It'. ' '~ ' r '''.. ~ . J.;;: JJ:."" "'. I
I 'OJ ......., ';1"'" \. J....~ T _ 'j 1
J"c '1 ~(i7'ih~ \flnister \jr the \1JnI\ter tli2ether II lth Jm other mlnI<;(e-r u{ ,
~, 'ii' rhftro~ifm'l-( tTo~i time- to tln1~ l~\ue p~l1C\ \t3terTJentf tk1t ~';\ e h/e~ 1 . ~
: r ipr~\~'d ~rlhe Lltt.t~nant Gill em-()r In Councll on matterS relJung to \1~? :.
V:,t~ rtrcrnicliS'~T"pfuJ11T1~ :1'1&"t In the "plnIl In lit the \ r lnISrer ire o'f[m)\ ;ncIJI<~ iJ
.\- 1'~~r '",,>,,< 1\ (~1:1~ L - j
i' ..,. mterest ,~;:'" .' ;' - .... . ~
.,.~:,! ~- ")oJ'> ....
~;...JL. ~ . ~:!~ ..~ f I.. ;- -(l - )'1
! #..;'\;'~f( 2)' 13rtore lc,SUln~ 3. pllilC\ c,ldlement, the \11nJ\ter c,h311 CI)nter I, lth :
, ' 1. "....""ilx-'Wh '.y.. ~"f ,~ ,~- \. - '[ , - d';" ~ ~,', I
t-"'4~h:rn~ru,C~Y!,1 ,pr,~\)n'-131 tedera ,or ()t~er ()ttlCl~2\ 3J\,~~dles or persof1' J: ,,~j
let 'tl1e ~11nJ~r cl'inSlders ha e ,10 mten:',t In the prc'p(lsed qat~ment "'I: '<; '.1
, ...~ _1.~~'Wn- J""O t ,.., J, ~ ..I.r ::r '!" r'.J
"'f...";~~ ~"'. /
: ,;.,c . . ~~~f~~p 311~cr~")i ';; h'lic~ undei"uB~~boriill tM^KkA1<i41
;,.t;te ;n~se Lt}~be p,~bl: ,hed In TIle OntJIIO G17eTIe ~a. he _sn~ll ,~\~(~:>;~~~
~~~r..~,bf11\,:n sG~h t~,~her notIce thereclt If1 such ~~cllfrl~r arhe/on$lJert:~_~ 1
~. ;". 5'i5P.'[op:l1a~!tt al:,.ili"e'~r:, ot ~he \ s\ :rnhl to cill mLinJ~;pal1t1es :ind to Sed) ~
Jfr'~~6r~Z3.tlOns or person' c1'o he cunslders ha\e an mtere"t 10
~. ~ ~1.lm1- CS':>~W'~ \ tit. . ~ '
_::, ~~ r'l~Z'{~~ ';.~;r. ,_.1 , _. _ '" ~ _' ;'1'\ ::...;J~~1i,1~.' ..,J '.t 'l,~
'J _, - _ - '11';1,' .' " I, ,'I::'1L...,.,. 1_ c ~.>-
'. 'I -~.'."'1't'~ .,.....,~."~J<;;" -'~'''''''I ,r
. .' _.. .,'. -'~$:...~ .. t f-';'{ .,i.O' ~t- ,..~).c..."t,.~, '
~.: J...~.2,s~~., c', ,~Jhf~.~~t~.:~I.: \~J.~.';!::.;lt~~1~h~;~!.;~t6~e.l.h~Je~(. 'i . j~
!~ ~u Impalf(~ con~slderS.h1s :lr1 mtetest uf,tptlt3tement 1~'d~l~ l \;:~T~'
~._': . <t:'J' ~~'l~ ""'l~ ;:l." ,.... ~.;t"1:..T ',lS: "" ".'~ ,,;C - "}, ~
~'1 ' , <';","" . F j 1 ~~ ~.~ t,,' 'h-. yr-li.!:" ~-t ' .,......
;.<', ' ,,. ,'4~ ..'...... _ . ~t.> . _.t.:", < ~ 'r -. .1'..-''''
_ ' " " " ~ w~, ':'lt', '.. ~',. . J..., ~, . , ., - l' ~'
~'\ '. . ~)' ~"rCIS . hny llit1ioht( tliai o~cts i\W'~1Ing m:httlil 'f ;'
~: u~cl1i'~. )~~"~ '. ~~a11t~:rftr' I,ll ell QllJId 1t..'etf;.".ttiK;~f.~rot w." eft~\~ n;~ ~,
,"r- 'lr:J' ......\-. \' !r:i -} ,:"u;',~ ,,"Ii' ,1l ',(
t mQ t:,'. 101 .;ilO~ commISSIon or ,1"Cnl. \ of the gD,'t'mmenl lnclud-" ;
~;, ~ci . 'a. 31}d Jb@~u H( ~ll; :>h3J!}t\.c ~~arJ 10 po~~c\~! .~{ i
,~ub$etii6ti I 1 : 11~\3 c I, s 3 r~~, '-: ~;....~r;O;'\' .' _ ~ .
'., .?~. (, ..f " ~ ~~~ t ~l.,;.. l ~ ~~. . -- j
, ' fi diii ' -.,' .
....c. oJ- ~~.. f ~,..""+.,...~,"" 1
. r3~r~ed tEY~ubsedlc>n (5< nWni. .this ~ectlomect~..ii
, 1 ok'd - " > ''-:'~l<:'" '\'.". xf . .. - I' J
~'.:',j" srer ,Ii'i the C31n In)? I,ut of the \f1h1sret \ gu les irid~-~'~ :;.....-~
r..: rl'f-" ,...,. >I< ';' ,/ ~,} J. "* ,~ .J "..
~. - . . .1 lues an" lither stctlOn (\t tIll' .\Cf tWc111~Q: biraethm: nthg ~,;.; ~
~J}~ ~Uri0g~ftn~\ mat[~'f to be'>-a rnane~ M pro~, l~l~l)nrfud!rftthep~~J,~' i
ti~:;'iju~12ft6k,\~"d i~l?Odefli1funlng or decl~m; I Q39 c 5jf 3 .('i1.~;.~ ~;r '" . - 1
r'(~if~-.-f&-t.r '{,.~ \~~~-'W.;'~, rt. ii.:<{ ~ , .. .~( .~-.ll""f'~""'~~~"""~
f~l'ct.~' ;",";,1 I"", I "'r, '-'.t ..." 1
t: "'. .,"~4i "". 'Or. ('~ ..... .1"4
I
EXJ.8
PURPOSE:
TIlls document 1S the Provmce of Ontano's Policy Statement on
planrung for the protecuon of Wetlands It 1S 1ssued jointly by the
Mimster of MumcIpal Affarrs and the MinIster of Natural
Regources under Section 3 of the Planmng Act.
INTERPRETATION:
TIlls Provincial Policy Statement:
:~ replaces the "Guidelmes for Wetland Management m Ontano" 1ssued by the Mm1s-
",
ter of Natural Resources m the Provmclal LegIslature In Apnl1984
-" does not supersede or take pnonty over other POlICY Statements 1ssued under Sec-
-
",
tIon 3 of the Plannmg Act or any other policy approved by the LIeutenant Governor
m Council,
The PolIcy Statement applIes to Provincially Significant Wetlands throughout Ontano
In add1tion, pla..nnmg junsdictions, mcludmg mumcIpalmes and plannmg boards, may
protect other Wetlands
BACKGROUND:
Wetlands are essenual ecosystems The Provmce 1S comrmtted to the protectIon of
Provincially Significant Wetlands as part of 1ts ecosystem approach to the management
of natural resources. All planrung junsdictions, mcluding mUnICIpalities and plannmg
boards, share in the responsibility for wetland protection. TIus Policy Statement 1S con-
Sistent wlth and an integral part of other efforts of the ProvUlce to protect Wetlands and
to'
* sustam mmnsic ecologIcal values
* protect heritage features
* conserve high quality ground water
* manage fish and wildlife habitat
.
* maintam surface water quality and quanuty
* encourage the maintenance of an adequate supply of both public and pnvate open
space.
2
~x J'1
Wetland Benefits
Wetlands provide envlfonmental, econOffilC and SOCial benefits that contribute to the
quahty of life in Ontano. Wetlands throughout the provmce can contam ecological,
hydrologIcal, recreational, agricultural and wildlife/fishenes habitat values.
~
Wetland Loss
Over 75% of the original Wetlands in southern Ontano have been lost. 11us loss is
conunumg as pressure escalates from compeung land uses and other actiVIties such as
dredging, fil1mg, dramage and land cleanng. In northern Ontario, where Wetlands are
relatively abundant, losses are also becommg SIgnificant particularly near urban areas
and along the Great Lakes shorelmes.
Evaluation System
Evaluanon systems are used to rate the values of Wetlands and to determme thelT rela-
tive importance by measuring a number of indicative features, such as bIOlOgIcal,
hydrological, social and special features. In 1984 an evaluation system was developed
by the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment Canada. ThIs system apphes
generally to the area of Ontario outside the Canadian Shield. ThIs system was used m
the 1984 "Wetlands GUidelines" to protect Slgmficant Wetlands in Ontario
DEFINITIONS:
For the purposes of this policy statement:
* Adjacent Lands are those lands withm 120 metres of the boundary of Provincial-
ly Significant Wetlands.
* Boreal Region is the area of Ontario north of the hne shown on Figure 3 (see Note 1).
* Compatible Land Uses or Development are those which do not:
a) result in a loss of Wetlands Functions, and
b) create a subsequent demand for measures which will negatively unpact on
existing Wetlands Functions, and
c) conflict with existing site-spec1fic wetland management practices.
3
~~ 30
* Development means.
a) the construction, erection or placmg of a building or structure of any land, or
b) the makmg of an addition or alterauon to a bulldmg or structure that has the
effect of changmg the size or usabilIty of It; or
c) such activIues as SIte gradmg and the placmg or removal of fill.
* Environmental Impact Study means a study carried out by a proponent and
approved by the Ministry of Natural Resources, to Identify and assess the Impacts
of land uses or Development on Provincially Sigmficant Wetlands.
," Great Lakes-St.Lawrence Region IS that area of Ontano south of the hne shown
#T:
on Figure 3 (see Note 1)
* Wetland IS land that IS seasonally or permanently covered by shallow water, as
well as land where the water table IS close to or at the surface. In eIther case, the
presence of abundant water has caused the formatIon of hydnc soIls and has
favoured the dommance of eIther hydrophytlc or water tolerant plants (See Note 2)
Wetland includes Wetland Area and Wetland Complex.
There are four mam types of Wetlands swamps, marshes, fens and bogs.
For the purposes of this Policy Statement, lands bemg used for agncultural purpos-
es, that are penodically "soaked" or "wet", are not consIdered to-be Wetland.
* Wetland Area means a smgle, contiguous Wetland whIch may be composed of one
or more Wetland types (see Figure 2)
* Wetland Complex means two or more individual Wetland Areas which are related
in a functional manner, and are grouped WIthm a Wetland Comple:c (see Figure 2
and Note 3).
* Provincially Significant Wetland means.
a) Class I, II and ill Wetland in that part of the Great Lakes-StLawrence Region
below the line approximating the south edge of the Canadian Shield (see Figure 4),
identified in "An Evaluation System for Wetlands of Southern Ontario,
South of the Precambrian Slueld, Second Ediuon, 1984", as amended from time
to time; and
b) those Wetlands identified as Provincially Significant Wetlands by the Ministry
of Natural Resources through an evaluation system(s) developed specifically
for other areas of Ontario. -
* Wetland Functions means the blOlogIcal, hydrological, physical, SOCIal/economic
interactions that occur in Wetlands
4
Ex 31
~
~i
POLICY ~
~
It is the polIcy of the ProvInce of Ontano that.
'l
1 All planmng jurisdictions, mcluding mumcipalitles and plan- ~...
f ~
ning boards, consider the lmplzcatzons of their actions on the ~ .
1':.'<
protection of Provincially Significant Wetlands I "
l;;}l
~~
2 Development is prohibited within Provincially Significant Wetlands in the Great ~
Lakes - St. Lawrence Region New land uses are prohibited withzn Provincially ~ !
~...
Significant Wetlands zn the Great Lakes - St. Lawrence Region unless they do not ~....
~
a) result in a loss of Wetland Functions, and
t"l
';C:J
b) create a subsequent demandfor measures which will negatively impact on ~-
existing Wetland Functions, and tr
c) conflict with existing site specific wetland management practices, and E'
d) result m a loss of area of Wetland. Vi
. ,
3 New land uses and Development are generally prohibited within Provincially Sig- f
nificant Wetlands in the Boreal Region However, provided that an Environmen-
tal Impact Study is carned out by a proponent and approved by the Mimstry of
Natural Resources, new Compatible Land Uses or Development may be permitted. . -
t',J
l,~
Despzte Policy 2, on lands separating Wetland Areas within a Wetland Complex in ~'!t-
4 ~
'. .,.
Provincially Significant Wetlands . f
a) new Compatible Land Uses or Development may be permitted in the Great ~,~
~a.'
Lakes-St.Lawrence Region if they do not result in a loss of area of Wetland. ~
b) new Compatible Land Uses or Development may be permitted in the Boreal ~
Region
;.t:~'
~~
~,
5 On Adjacent Lands ~~
.'
11"
a) in the Great Lakes-St.Lawrence Region, new Compatible Land Uses or 1Jf.~
,~-
Development which do not result m a loss of area of Wetland may be )} ...
! ~.
permitted. f..
"",'
b) in the Boreal Region, new Compatible Land Uses or Development may be f;:T.'"
~
permitted.
~:
6 New public utilities/facilities be located outside Provincially Significant Wetlands. ~
.,:
wherever possible ~~
When proposals to construct transportation, communication, sanitation and other ~
~
such public utilzties/facilities zn Provincially Significant Wetlands are bemg con- ~ '
r'
sidered under the provisions of the EnVironmental Assessment Act, the Ontario '",
Energy Board Act and other applicable legislation, the approval authorities shall ~-
~..
..
have regard to the policies of this Policy Statement and det.ermine what measures ~-~
are to be taken to mznimize negative Impacts on Wetland Functions. i
fr';>
5 H<;t
f.:
f
~x. 3dJ
IMPLEMENTATION
All plamring junsdictions, 10cluding mumclpalitIeS and planmng boards, shall have
regard to this Policy Statement 10 their decisions affecting any planrung matter. In thIS
way, the Policy Statement will be implemented through official plans, plans of subdi-
ViSIon, consents, zoning by-laws, mmor vanances and other planrung applIcations.
Fill, Construction and Alteration of Waterways Regulations issued by Conservation
Authonties under the Conservation Authorities Act will be used to asSiSt 10 the imple-
mentation of thIs Policy Statement, where Provincially Significant Wetlands are con-
tained in such regulated areas.
Exisnng plannmg documents shall be revised to reflect thiS Pohcy Statement, as evalu-
ation 1Ofonnanon becomes aVaIlable and at the tune of scheduled reVIews.
The Mirustry of Natural Resources (MNR) and the Mirustry of Mumclpal Affarrs
(MMA) will jointly admID1ster this Policy Statement and explam ltS content and give
advice on its application.
MNR is developing an evaluation system(s) for Wetlands for the area of Ontano north
of the line approximating the south edge of the Canadian Shield (see Figure 4) Until
this has been completed, Wetlands Will be evaluated by MNR on a case-by-case basIS.
The determination of which are Provinczally Szgnificant Wetlands will be based on the
critical nature of the Wetlands' features.
MNR and MMA will issue "Wetlands Implementation GUIdelines" to asSiSt plann10g
junsdictions, including municipalities and plannmg boards, in unplemennng thiS Poh-
cy Statement. The guidelines will contain recommended approaches for protecnng
Wetlands in official plans, zoning by-laws and other plamring documents.
NOTES
1 The line between the Boreal and the Great Lakes-StLawrence Regions approxi-
mates the established boundaries between.
a) Ecodistricts 22 and 23 withm the Chapleau PlaIDS Site Ecoregion, described by
Wickware, G.M. and Rubec, C.D.A., 1989 ECOREGIONS OF ONTARIO, Envi-
ronment Canada, Ecological Land OassUication Series, No.26, 37 pp.
b) the Boreal and Great Lakes-St.Lawrence forest regions, described by Rowe,
I.S., 1972. FOREST REGIONS OF CANADA, Canadian Forestry Service, Ottawa,
Ontario. Publication 1300, 172 pp.
6
EX 03.
2. "Hydnc soils" are characterized by an abundance of mOisture, to the extent that the
soils are either mundated or dommated by water-tolerant vegetatIon.
"Hydrophytic plants" (hydrophytes) commonly grow in water or m water-logged
soil and are water-tolerant.
3 In Wetland Complexes, It is the whole complex that is evaluated and classified, not
the mdividual Wetland Areas.
Additional copies are available from:
PublIcatIons Ontario, 880 Bay Street, Toronto for personal shoppmg. Out-of-town cus-
tomers wnte to PublIcations Ontano, 5th Floor, 880 Bay Street, Toronto M7 A 1N8
Telephone (416) 326-5300 Toll free long dIstance 1-800-668-9938 Heanng impaired
call (416) 325-3408 or toll free 1-800-268-7095 MasterCard and Visa accepted.
Cheques and money orders payable to the Treasurer of Ontano Prepayment reqUITed.
ISBN 0-7729-8812-9
For further mfonnatIon contact any of the followmg offices.
MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Doug Hagan, Manager
WildlIfe Policy Branch
6th floor, ICI House
90 Sheppard Ave East
North York, Ontano
M2N 3Al
(416) 314-1051
MINISTRY OF MUNICIPAL AFFAIRS
Municipal Planning Policy Branch Plans AdmmistratIon Branch - North and
777 Bay Street East
13th floor 777 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario 14th floor
MSG 2E5 Toronto, Ontario
(416) 585-7130 MSG 2E5
(416) 585-6014
Plans Administration Branch - Central and Southwest
777 Bay Street
14th floor
Toronto, Ontario
MSG 2E5
(416) 585-6014
.,
EX3 Lt.
REGIONAL OFFICES
CAMBRIDGE CENTRAL
150 Mam Street 47 Sheppard Ave. E
Cambridge, Ontario Suite 207
NIR 6P9 Willowdale, Ontano
(519) 622-1500 M2N 2Z8
Toll Free #. 1-800-265-3574 (416) 250-1251
Toll Free #" 1-800-668-0230
GUELPH KINGSTON
147 Wyndham Street North 1055 Pnncess Street
Guelph, Ontano Kingston, Ontano
NIH 4E9 K7L 5T3
(519) 836-2531 (613) 545-4310
Toll free #. 1-800-265-7236 Toll Free #. 1-800-267-9438
LONDON NORTH BAY
495 Richmond Street 126 Lakeshore Drive
London, Ontano North Bay, Ontario
N6A 5A9 PIA 2A8
(519) 673-1611 (705) 476-4300
Toll Free #. 1-800-265-4736 Toll Free #. 1-800-461-9528
ORILLlA OTIAWA
200 Memorial Avenue 244 Rideau Street
Unit 117 Ottawa, Ontario
Orillia, Ontario KIN 5Y3
L3V 7R3 (613) 239-1296
(705) 325-6144 Toll Free #. 1-800-267-0460
Toll Free #" 1-800-461-0279
SUDBURY TIiUNDER BAY
850 Barrydowne Road 435 James Street South -
Sudbury, Ontario Thunder Bay, Ontario
P3A 3T7 P7C 5G6
(705) 560-0120 (807) 475-1651
Toll Free #" 1-800-461-1193 Toll Free #" 1-800-465-5027
8
~ EX 35
,
Figure 1
MAP ILLUSTRATING LOCATION OF THE
BOUNDARY BETWEEN KEY REGIONS OF ONTARIO
Hudson Bay \
James
Bay
~
Ketlor. {J ~.raldtOn
· Dryden
.
H..r.'
d · Cochr.n.
.
BOREAL REGION
.
Timm...
Wa.. .
. Chaol.au K,rkland Lake
".I. .
:. . ~"I :..
. GOQIIma...
...., . Tem.Qalltl APPROXIMATE NORTHERN
....I. BO
............ UNDARY OF SOUTHERN
Sault ONTARIO WETLAND
.Ste.Ma,le ~ SudIlury Non" Ba., EVALUATION SYSTEM
Blind RI..... ~.. ~
GREAT LAKES
~ ST. LAWRENCE
(, q REGION Cornwalr
+6' _ / CJn.l~n Place
~ araeellridQe Bancroft \. K.mOIv,1I
Go .. ~'
_, eylnden ..... BrockY1l1e
___......Twe<<l
. .L _-' Haoan_
MldIIur.t ,....MY
. Aurora
Toronto
1
N
o 200
I I I
K'"
----- ----
EJ 3~
Figure 2
WETLAND TERMINOLOGY
..... -- - .-.,
..........---- --......._---......---......,
/~ ,
// \
/ \
/
I I J
I ~ /
,./ /
/ (
/ WETLAND AREA \
/
/ I
/ .. I
/ /
/ : I
/
/ 1/
I Q~-""
~~# "I]; /-------- .~
~ ~/ \
# , ,/
__.,~--~::- -- ::a--:'~ / ~~
~ ~ --- ......
/ --~ ~
/' # - -- ---- ~
/ # ...... ~-- -- ~
I ,/- --~
/ \ /" ~-
"" 1 / ~~ ............
/"" / ~ "
/ WETLAND AREA ../ / ~ \
I ",-- ",,/"" ( ,/ ,
\ I _ I
I ...... I
,_ / // WETLAND AREA ~
- - - - / /'"
\ - ", I .
, --~ , /
, /-----, ~
___-- ~'MARSH" SWAMP
,., )
,~, ../
, -
\ /
, ""
" .,..-- ~,;
.....--.,,- ........ ~ ......----~
------------
~
Boundary of Wetland Complex ......
Boundary of Wetland Area
Boundary of Wetland Type -----
Boundary of Adjacent Land -------
- Ex 31
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
HUMBER WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP: A PROTOTYPE
MECHANISM FOR RAP IMPLEMENTATION
Study Terms-Of-Reference
Executive Committee Meeting
112/91
October 25, 1991
EX 38
HUMBER WATERSHED PARTNERSHIP: A PROTOTYPE
MECHANISM FOR RAP IMPLEMENT AnON
The Action to Restore a Clean Humber (ARCH) group has submitted to the Metro Toronto
RAP team an unsolicited proposal to carty out the above noted study. The following Study
Tenns~f-Reference were developed from the proposal dated 12 June 1991. The Tcnns~(.
Refe:eoce were developed by a study Steering Committee which contains representatives
from the Ministry of the Environment, Environment Canada, Metro TorontO and the Metro
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The study Steeri.o& Commiuee reports to the
RAP team.
STUDY TERMS-OP-REFERENCE
1. GOALS &. OBJECTIVES
The Overall &oa! is to reach consensus at a conceptual level amongst implementors and other
interested parties on an effective watershed based m~ni~m to support implementation of
the Metro Toronto Remedial Action Plan (RAP), particularly in relation to actions in the
Humber River Watershed.
The major Objecti~ are to:
1. Develop a conceptual prototype of a RAP implementation mechanism based on the
'Watershed Partnership. model for coordinated action. The prototype will assign
likely remedial actions to clearly identified parties judged most suitable for possessing
the required willingness, legislated mandate and the technical and financial capability
to implement the action.
t
2. Determine the institutional feasibility and viability of the conceptual prototype,
including consideration of appropriate roles and responsibilities at al11evels of
government.
3. Generate awareness and support for the prototype &monest all other interested parties.
2. HUMBER AS A PROTOTYPE
The Humber Watershed has the size, complexity and variety to be a most suitable prototype
for developina the implementation mechanism and testing it's practicality and effectiveness.
The working model will be developed in four lo&ica1, interrelated sections reflecting the local
conditions in the watershed as descnOed in the Appendix.
I '~X.39
:'
\ PHASE 2
Objective: Evaluate conceptual model(s) at the a&ency staff level and select preferred
prototype(s)
Milestone Products:
Interim Report Including:
- Tested menus based 00 initial acceptance by key · working , stJ1ff.
- Evaluation of conceptual mode1(s) - pro's and con's.
. Proposed prototype(s).
Tasks: - Identify the players and their key staff.
. Meet with staff of each player to evaluate the partnership model(s), discuss in
depth the dewls of proposed roles,
- Update the model(s) to reflect the interaction with the players.
Timing: 3 Months - Interim report to be reviewed and approved by the RAP team,
PHASE 3
Objective: Get feedback on the prototype partnership and ot the roles defined therein.
Milestone Products:
Workshop report.
Tasks: - Hold an intensive workshop for aU players - mix of staff, public and
politicians - to review the draft:
- to ensure that all significant role$ are adequately filled,
- have players agree on the concept of the model,
- obtain feedback on political viability including concerns and
qualifications.
- Lead-in wode (or the workshop will include the development of a letter of
invitation to all participants identifying the availability o( a pre-briefing
presentation to be delivered by the project steering committee (RAP
coordinator) with assistance from the consultant.
Timing: 2 Months
EX 40
3. APPROACH, TASKS
A practical. empirical approach will be used in establishing a Humber Watershed Partnership
as the basic structure for an effective RAP implementation mechanism, The principle is to
"fInd what works first, then fine-tune it and make sure that it is sound and will continue to
work" .
The tasks in this project are:
0 Organize the problems and required actions Into logical groups and match them to
apparently suitable players as a first fit.
0 Explore with eacb player their interpretation and response to the partnership concept,
the workability of the tentatively assigned fole and any alternatives put forward.
0 Bring all players together to jointly view the roles from a team perspective, to ensure
there is maximum consensus on the conceptual prototype.
The prototype will be developed mostly by applying and evaluating completed and ongoing
studies carried out under various water quality initiatives such as TAWMS. MISA and the
RAP. Current related work on legislation and funding and models from other jurisdictions
will be utilized in developing the prototype.
4. PHASES, OBJECTIVES AND MILESTONES
PHASE 1
Objective: Develop Conceptual Mode1(s) for a Watershed Partnership.
Milestone Products:
Interim Report Including:
. Backgrounder on Partnership as a suitable structure.
. Initial -menus of problems/actions/roles. for key players.
. Initial conceptual model(s).
Tasks: . Describe background and potential value of a partnership.
- Divide the model into lo&ically manageable &eovaphic and operational
components. essentially four r-eaches of the watershed with distinct
characteristics.
. Consult with key informants.
. For each component oreanize the problems and required actions and match
them as a first tit to apparently suitable pla.yen.
Timing: 2 Months.
.
Ei< 4 ,
PHASE 4
Objective: Prepare Final Project Report
Milestone Produce
Report defining the framework of a Humber Watershed Partnership.
Tasks: - Update the model(s) based on workshop responses.
- Prepare a report with recommended terms of reference for the Humber
Watershed Partnership and a recommended plan of action for the
implementation of the partne~hip.
Timing: 1 Month
Budget: Total cost not to excted $45,000.
';'X J.f-;( .
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
DISPOSAL OF REPLACEMENT AND SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
1992 DISPOSAL PROGRAM
-
Executive Committee Meeting
#13/91
November 15, 1991
E.X 43.
1992 DISPOSAL PROGRAM
SCHEDULE "A": (Trade-In)
Vehicle/EauiDment Estimated Value
#15 - 1985 GMC 1-Ton Truck $ 3,000
#28 - 1988 Chev Celebrity Sedan 4,500
#33 - 1987 Chev Rio Pickup 3,000
#38 - 1987 GMC Passenger Van 4,000
#50 - 1988 Chev Caprice Sedan 7,000
PT#17- 1984 Tico Crane L...2QQ
Estimated Total $ 25,000
SCHEDULE "B": (Auction)
ReDlacement EauiDment Estimated Value
A1006 - 1982 Ford 3600 Tractor $ 5,000
A1007 - 1981 Ford 30B Indutrial Loader 6,000
C1006 - 1981 Ford 3600 Tractor 4,000
C8041 - 8' ATCO Snowplow 50
NC - Dump Trailer 50
D1004 - 1982 Ford 3600 Tractor 5,000
D8041 - 1983 ATCO Snowplow 500
FlO02 - 1984 Ford 3910 Tractor 6,500
H5036 - 1983 4 5 HP Outboard Motor 200
K9070 - Canon Welder 200
NC - Kawasaki Line Trimmer 25
NC - Lawnmower 25
- M6038 - 1986 pioneer P42 Chainsaw 50
M6039 - 1986 pioneer P42 Chainsaw 50
S9043 - 1975 Gehrig Tiller 50
Subtotal $ 27,700
SurDlus EauiDment
A3002 - 1988 Ford 8' Flail $ 1,000
B3014 - 1983 Mott 88 500
NC - Propane Heater 10
NC - 1 - 14' Boats 150
NC - 4 - 14' Boats 300
NC - 1985 Lawnmower 20
NC - 1985 Kawaski Timmer 40
H9100 - Sand Spreader 100
H5049 - 7 5 HP Mercury O/B 200
E1001 - 1979 MF245 Tractor 4,000
E8041 - Altco Snowplow 100
G1003 - 1982 Ford 3600 5,000
56030 - 1987 pioneer P51 Chainsaw 25
D3012 - Mott Mower - 6' 450
NC - 3 Kawaski Weed Trimmers 150
NC - Air Compressor 150
NC - 1 Double Bed 25
NC - 1 Dining Table and 6 Chairs 25
NC - 2 Night Tables 25
NC - 12" Fan 10
NC - International Pushmower 20" 30
NC - Wallmount Drill Press 30
NC - Propane Heater .lQ
Subtotal $ 12,850
Totals: Schedule A $ 25,000
Schedule B 40.550
$ 65,550
f
E.X 44
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING SCHEDULE
1992 - 1993
Executive Committee Meeting #13/91
November 15, 1991
EX %
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
MEETING SCHEDULE 1992 - 1993
EXCERPTS FROM THE RULES FOR THE CONDUCT OF THE AUTHORITY
"CALLING OF MEETINGS
"32 Meetings of the Authority:
"(b) shall be held at such date, time and place, within a participating
municipality, as the Executive Committee shall recommend and the
Authority shall adopt by resolution each year
Res. #208 AUTHORITY MEETING #7/91
3 THAT Option D of the Discussion Paper (AM 58), which states
"This option would have all reports and recommendations of all three
Advisory Boards going directly to the Authority Composition and structure
would otherwise not change
The Finance and Administration Advisory Board would have its
responsibilities narrowed to financial issues such as budgets, accounting
policies, financial statements, progress reports, etc The Executive
Committee would continue to deal with regulations, purchasing, personnel
matters, legal services and property The Finance Advisory Board would
report directly to the Authority
The Advisory Boards would meet as they do now Only the Executive
Committee would have delegated decision-making responsibilities Advisory
Board reports would not have to go through Executive Committee to get to
the Authority II
be recommended but amended to provide:
. THAT agenda cover pages be faxed to all Authority members
. THAT the full Authority meet monthly
. THAT the above recommendations should be reviewed on a yearly basis by
the Evaluation and Review Committee
FEBRUARY 1992
Feb 21 10 00 a m Authority Annual Meeting #1/92
28 10 00 a m Conservation and Related Land Management A B #1/92
MARCH 1992
Mar 6 8 30 a m. Finance and Administration Advisory Board #1/92
6 10 00 a m Water and Related Land Management A B. #1/92
13 10 00 a m Executive Committee #1/92
15-21 Mar c h B rea k
27 10 00 a m Authority #2/92 (Final 1992 Budget)
APRIL 1992
Apr 3 10 00 a m Water and Related Land Management A B #2/92
3 10 00 a m Conservation and Related Land Management A B #2/92
10 10 00 a m Executive Committee #2/92
17 Good Friday
24 10 00 a m Authority #3/92
...../2
~1Lt~
-2-
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AOTHORITY
MEETING SCHEDULE - 1992 - 1993
MAY 1992
May 1 10 00 a m Water and Related Land Management A B #3/92
8 10 00 a m Executive #3/92
15 10 00 a m Finance and Administration A B #2/92
22 10 00 a m Authority #4/92
JUNE 1992
June 5 10 00 a m Conservation and Related Land Management A B #3/92
12 10 00 a m Executive #4/92
19 8 30 a m Finance and Administration A B 13/92
19 10 00 a m Water and Related Land Management A B #4/92
26 10 00 a m Authority #5/92
JULY 1992
July 10 10 00 a m Executive Committee #5/92
24 10 00 a m Authority #6/92
AOGUST 1992
Aug 7 10 00 a m Executive Committee #6/92
14 10 00 a m Finance and Administration A B #4/92
21 10 00 a m Authority #7/92
28* 10 00 a m Water and Related Land Management A B #5/92
SEPTEMBER 1992
Sep 11* 10 00 a m Executive Committee #7/92
18* 10 00 a m Conservation and Related Land Management A B /4/92
25 10 00 a m Authority #8/92
OCTOBER 1992
Oct. 2* 10 00 a m Finance and Administration #5/92
9 10 00 a m Executive #8/92
16 10 00 a m Water and Related Land Management A B #6/92
23* 10 00 a m Authority #9/92
NOVEMBER 1992
Nov 6 10 00 a m Conservation and Related Land Management A B #5/92
13 10 00 a m Executive Committee #9/92
20 8:30 a m Finance and Administration A B. 16/92
20 10 00 a m Water and Related Land Management A B #7/92
27 10 00 a m Authority #10/92
DECEMBER 1992
Dec. 4 10 00 a m Executive Committee #10/92
18 10 00 a m Authority #11/92
JANUARY 1993
Jan 8 10 00 a m Executive Committee #11/92
15 10 00 a m Water and Related Land Management A B #8/92
15 10 00 a.m Conservation and Related Land Management A B 16/92
22 8:30 a m Finance and Administration A B #7 /92
22 10 00 a.m Authority #12/92
FEBRUARY 1993
Feb 12 10 00 a m Executive Committee #12/92
26 10 00 a m Authority Annual Meeting 11/93
* 1992 Preliminary Estimates will be presented at these meetings
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 1992 -1993 SCHEDULE OF MEETINGS
JANUARY 1992 FEBRUARY 1992 MARCH 1992 APRIL 1992
IH_ , ~'5 , 4 I , , . . . ., ..u. 7 , . .:z, .7C~" .
Y.~ "'EC #1 W.1U4 "'.b W......
. . , . . ~'" I. II 2 . . . . 7 . . . ,. II 12 " .. . . , . . s.2- ,. II
AlITH -'1 EXEC ~l "'EC EXEC
12 " .. .. .. 17 " . ,. II 12 " .. .. .. .. 17 .. .. ,. " 12 ""'CAD .. .. .. 1l0Nd ..
~'1 W...... - - ...... - ..... - - - fn
I> 2. " 22 " all, 24 .. .. 17 I> I> 2. " 22 22 2> 24 .. .. 27 .. .. ,., " 22 2> >1:.3 24AlITH ..
EXEC #, AlITH -1., AlITH E.... H........
.. 27 .. :n ,. .. 2> 24 .. .. 27 .. .. .. .. 31 .. 27 .. .. ..
"'5 c...... -, C ......
MAY 1992 JUNE 1992 JULY 1992 AUGUST 1992
, 2 I 2 . . . . IC~ 2 . . ,
"'3 W.N..M "'3 c....... 0...
. . . . 7 . . 7 . . ,. II 12 " . . 7 . . I. II 2 .7CM' . . . 7 .
""3 "'EC "'4 EXEC "S EXEC H.nd.y ~b EXEC
I. II 12 " .. .. .. .. .. .. 17 .. "3 "FAA 2. 12 " .. .. .. 17 .. . ,. II 12 " .. ..
ot.;L ,u. "01.,\ w."'" ffi.\ '.A
17 " VIe: I> ,., " 22 22 2J 22 2> 24 .. "'5 2l1AlJTH 27 I> 2. 2J 22 2> .. .. .. 17 .. I> 2. " U
0" ~ ,.." fO_den 'orty' ~" AlITH *1 AlITH
~ .. .. 27 .. .. ,. .. .. .. .. " .. .. ,. .. il- l! AA10 25AMO nAAlo " .. :to
" .. .. -5 w......
SEPTEMBER 1992 OCTOBER 1992 NOVEMBER 1992 DECEMBER 1992
I , . . . I "'5 2fU. . , , , . . . , , , . 4 .
...., ....S c..l'I:I..... U'O EXEC
. 7\.-. . . ,. II 12 . . . , . ~8 . I. . . I. II 12 " .. . 7 . . ,. II 12
0... -.., EXEC EXEC -q EXEC
12 .. .. .. 17 .. I> II 12 Tko " .. .. ,. 17 .. .. 17 " I> ~b ,."u. 2J " .. .. ,. 17 ~" ,. I>
- ACAO ......... - ~ C...... ....... ~ w...... "-7 W.1U4 AlITH
,. 2J 2> 2> .. .. .. .. I> ,., " 22 110" 2.JAUTli .. 22 2> .. .. .. 27 .. ,., 2J 22 2> .. 26 ;(In_ n
218 AlITH ...., '*'0 AlITH 0.,
" .. .. ,. .. n " .. .. ,. 31 .. .. 27 "a... .. .. "
0.,
JANUARY 1993 FEBRUARY 1993 MARCH 1993
'H_ , 1 2 3 . . . 1 , 3 . . .
Y.~ ~I 'u.
, . . . 7 . . 7 . . ,. II 12 12 7 . . ,. II 12 "
.11 EXEC slj).. EXEC *'1 EXEC
,. II 12 12 .. -*b lIe." .. .. .. .. 17 .. I> 2. .. .. .. 17 I> I> ,.
<toe W......
" 11 ,. 20 " 111 22'~ 22 2J 22 22 24 .. #/ 2t:AlJTH " 2J 22 2> .. .. ..z, "'''AVTH "
..,), AlITH ..........., -'
~ .. .. 27 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. "
..
E:X. "'1
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND CORRESPONDENCE
IN RESPONSE TO PUBLIC INFORMATION SESSIONS
HELD NOVEMBER 27 AND 28, 1991
PICKERING CIVIC COMPLEX
RE POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS AUTHORITY LANDS
-Fairport Beach Area, Town of Pickering
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING #16/91
held January 24, 1992
I
EX~8
Margaret and Peter Gooch Mel and Betty Parkinson
520 Park Crescent 502 Park Crescent
Pickering, Ontario Pickering, Ontario
L1W 2C9 L1W 2C5
January 8, 1992
Chief Administrative Officer
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, ontario
M3N 1S4
Dear Madam or Sir:
We write to comment on the proposed disposition of Authority
lands in connection with the proposed park development of the
Fairport Beach area.
Please let us re-iterate our strong support for the park
development in general.
We have some comments to make, however, concerning the proposed
disposition of the lands deemed not necessary for the park
development. In broad strokes, our position is as follows. The
"surplus" land should be integrated into the park development.
If this is not possible, (1) some of the lots should be
transferred to the Town of Pickering for use as a neighbourhood
park, and (2) significant controls should be placed on any
residential development on the lots sold. Please let us expand
on these points.
One significant part of the lands now deemed surplus was
purchased from our family in the 1970s. At that time, virtually
all land sold in the Fairport Beach area was sold to the
Authority. While it was not mandatory to sell to the Authority,
its obvious policy of purchase in a long term plan of park
development affected the market, and few purchasers seemed
willing to risk new residential development. Though we cannot
prove it, we suspect that the market value of the lots was then
depressed, and sellers helped to subsidize the long term plans
for park development. with the present plans of the Authority,
the market value of these lots will be increased because of their
proximity to an attractive park development (and because of the
shrinking supply of such land in the Greater Metropolitan Toronto
Area). It does not seem fair that lands once bought at a low
price for park development should now be sold for residential
development. This would allow for windfall profit for any
~x ~~
- 2 -
developer, in part at the expense of those who once sold the
lands to the Authority.
For this reason, and because much of the vacant lands could
readily become part of the park development, the ideal policy is
not to dispose of them at all, but to use them for the very
purpose for which the were once purchased by the Authority: to
create a park.
If this is not possible, the Authority should offer a clear and
persuasive rationale for the disposition policy.
Also, if disposition is truly necessary, we would urge some
conditions.
First, some of the land should be used by the Town of Pickering
for a neighbourhood park, of the sort commonly found in
subdivisions in Pickering, with playground equipment and playing
fields. There is no such park in the Fairport Beach area, and
this is anomalous.
Second, there should be meaningful limits on the character of any
residential development on any lots disposed of, to preserve to a
reasonable extent the character of the neighbourhood. The lots
in the neighbourhood once were developed as summer cottages,
often with considerable space around them. Lot clearances and
building heights permitted in new development in Pickering would
result in development completely out of character of the
neighbourhood. We have already seen some infill housing in the
neighbourhood, with two 4000 or 5000 square foot houses built on
a lot that once held a 900 square foot cottage. This is
undesirable, and a clear risk, especially given the size and lay
out of the lots to be sold. We know it is possible to build new
residential development with more reasonable lot clearances, and
more in character with the original wood-frame houses, since we
have done this ourselves. Such limits might affect potential
profits of developers, but would protect the interests of those
who have chosen to live in this neighbourhood because of its
character.
Also, limits should be placed on new development to protect the
views of the lake and the green space now enjoyed by present
owners.
Third, the process of disposition, including selling prices of
the lots, should be open and public.
.- EXSc
- 3 -
In closing, we would re-iterate our main position: the land
should be used for the purpose for which it was originally
purchased, for the benefit of everyone rather than a developer or
individuals who would purchase the lots. We hope that these
comments are helpful to the Authority.
Sincerely,
\
~~
?71 (--CL~
f1(f,~
Peter and Margaret Gooch Mel and Betty Parkinson
RECE!VE[)
I ~ 10 1992
~, T ~ ~ ~
I.. .. . oJ." ..
e.~S\
Peter H. Schlag, B.Se., D.C. Sunderland Chiropractic Centre
P O. Box 99
Doctor of Chiropractic .f~....:3 t '& ~ ~ U' Sunderland. Ontario LOe 1 HO
n"" ~'; ". ..\ Tel. (705) 357-3139
r. iJ ~ ~. ... .'0
..... to .
11" .. - ..
, - ~ sa \99\ j
\ .. I - - J 0'\" - jN
r"";'..i" .
Co' ii ~ ..-_
\ t~ ."_.;-~...-
r.
Dee ~6. 1991
The Metropolitan Toron~o & Re~ion
~onservation Authorit~
5 5horeham Drive
:}ownsview Ont
M3N 154
Attn Chief Administra~ion Office
Dear Sir/Madame
I am writing to ~ou in reference to the decision of the
N! T.R C A to dispose of propert~ in the town of Pickering
.specifically at the cor'1er of ~a~k Road and Cliffview Road !
am deeply concernea and upset with your intentions of selling
this invaluable piece of our comm~nity and allowing the
development of what little ~reenspace remains
The justification of increased revenue and capital
should not even be considered as tnis land could nevej" be
replaced and with it's passing t~~ ~uite enjoyment and beauty
of this area will be lost for a ~ i times
In the sprin~ of 1990 I ~cc~l/ed assurance +rom the
Conservation Authority that thIs p-ooerty ~as p~rchased many
/ears a~o to preserve a ::;ritica! .i:l"ea of .:'1e la ,(sf-ont . and
this obje::;tive remained unchange~ This was a majcr factor 1:1
~y decision to move my faml:y irr:.o the aloes
CA~
C2J
,.JeT ENe L.OSE".o
Please find closed a Detition of my immediate
neighbors who feel as I do that this land ...s entrust.ed to
the Conservation authority to preserve and maintair for our
future Qenerations
Thanl< YOU for YOU)- cons1deration 1n this matt.er - 1001<
-
forward to hearing from YOU
Yours Sincerely
.
- \
! . ,;," "1.:)
!
. . /
-- .1 ,')' '- ~':"'.~,
.
; I
n '\:. f"\ r- ': 11 1''''' 0 Peter H Schlag
N: !.c ~.. V r_ l'
& l~. f.J t.... ill E:...r ""
DEe ~f) i%:
....: ,('; . . ., ..... 1=
.
C I
~~5~ ClifTcrest Chiropractic Centre
Peter H. Schlag, B.Sc., D.C. 3013 Kingston Road
Doctor of Chiropractic Scarborough, Ontario M1 M 1 P1
Tel.. (416) 269-5249
.
Dec 30. 1991
The Metropolitan Toronto & Region
Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview. Cnt
M3i'l lS~
Attn Chief Administratlon Office
!Jaa. Sir/Madame
As per our previous correspondence regarding the
dis~C~3l of th~ ~.T.R C.A land~ ~~ ~~e ccrner of Cliffview
Road and Park Road in Pickering please find anclosed a
petition signed by the immediate neighbors in opposition of
:.he disposal ..: the said lands
o.
Sincerely,
"1
""'~........
.
Peter H Schlag
..,
Q ""~~.VED'
.~ 01 . I -
; ;; .("'4 ~:;. Ca .
.
I A ~r 10 J992
?;, ~ ::."" ._~ A
"if' a n /J. j,
.... III i.""". .";,
EXS
WE, THE RESIDENTS LIVING IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF PARK
ROAD AND CLIFFVIEW ROAD, IN THE TOWN OF PICKERING DO HEREBY .
AFFIX OUR SIGNATURE TO THIS PETITION OPPOSING THE DISPOSAL OF
THE GREENLAND UNDER QUESTION, BY THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND
REGIONAL CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
~ ADDRESS COMMENTS
-
( ) . ~ .<1.
--",' ~<-<"" '-(.; i L~ .5- / g (; L I r' ,cUll=- (..J
PH ~h~ 3?a ;I '~b
C- A'P" rV,'&W
)L1~ WdQ 5/& 02ff.Lv<J Rei
Y 1Jt!M "~ ~()q 02;/1 f.9w i2d
''l -j' '-I "'., ;-'(7 ..- J: ( r
,,-- p~ 1.-vt...,
l i .'vJJ
=Jf(2.~ 1 }, ~ <:. ~ /' ,--I/. r-t-t... ~lJ
vh~a.-J ~ s-ao Pork (r(. 'J
~y &(H~ ~ '> -~ -'{ V<r'\ L.i ~
~LL,r l~\.d't l~ [It' (f cj-/fi~'" ~ iJ2c(
,
~ LA. /,(
1 ~II {}!//;:;'/ff::.1J .I!]~
/<:;;. 7 fl-/ It e)
I
E.X55
NAME ADDRESS COMMENTS
~~~ ~ O{ (1/,,?{y/cuJ Pd.
f ·
. - 1;-) .,,) LUF'F\,',E~ RD.
I
/, 1,,-,
A., I
. '---'
. \
\
,
-
. Exs"
. ,..ov Z7 jot j
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS LAl'lDS
FAIRPORT BEACH AREA
TOWN OF PICKERING
COMMENT SHEET
~~ WYc E:
- e':b
Sib LCIFFUII~W
4r:-O S-806
--- '- ,
L At'/\. t N I ~S(,U) I~
~u~;fhor€ (~ A t-.J',-< 0 F r If,;' LA-Nl~
~fi -
.,If .:2- Y\ L-rttf~\l 'T (~N<1 .
I Pf"\
E l. 51 f.UV Z7 f
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS LANDS
FAIRPORT BEACH AREA
TOWN OF PICKERING
COMMENT SHEET
-.N \t~ ~, b(otJ/
So~ ell r~u, f~ (20
P. <. t,< (:~ ,rj 6 " o I\..J (h /l (' ~
T W 00 L 0 ^E ..IN T"F1l Ej fFa
----
1t0 fUll c I~A $trJG ANY LoT -pi1r
-
Cul'1E5 Au,A I ( A ~ ( ~ . ( (~ "1
--
I'lL E 5 f:,.J TL Y A0 O~NEt<. Ac~s ~
(JJ.R- <; mF~( fIAlII\ L-o'( "3 orJ
--(t..L\ FF VIEw IIA/f.K)
/1
NJ~-
~(C.v( f3 , b t"cY'J ,
L/2c r 82 ~7
E)(58
Y~ 24 1991 J
Re: AQUISITION BOUNDARY AMENDHENT - Fig. 1 NOv' 27F'1/
I
I would ask that the Boar d carefully r e-consider
arv plans to dispose of the additional lands adjacient to the
Park.
The Park will never have the chance again to acquire these properties
once they have been built on.
We should not consider the short-term need for selling this
land but look to the distant future and I am thinking of 50 to 100
years from now, when the desperate need for parkland a~here close
to the Metropolitan city, MUst be thought of ~
In ~:or th AMerica during the last century, parkland "'as acquired with
this long-term view, and we, in this 20th century Can have the for. sit e
of doing the same. Fut ure generations in the 21st century will
appr eciate our tenacity in hanging on to what land we pr esently own.
I beg you to have the patience to hold this extra land now, and take
the additional time to raise funds presently required to purchase the
lots left in the Park. Some of these may not come onto the market
for several years.
The erosion of the shoreline has to be allowed for. The geography will
change in the future and this land may be required.
*** (This is a copy of my speech to the .'I.T..:t.C.A. liat er and Related
Land l'.anagement advisory Board !'leeting on ,''.ay 24, 1991).
Y.ar gar et Hilpert
~X5' Nd\! Z
POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS LANDS
FAIRPORT BEACH AREA
TOWN OF PICKERING
COMMENT SHEET
L()\ ltD, S-?-r- fJ Ij-R- (L evt PI CfLr;16t1JS_
ltvtv't: v1-L- ttJ'f-fJ 1- \. I
I H ri- fJ IT f)eV&LD~&~ II
D FA;R wt6 $f0-q 000 e-lIt& M- FO r2- vfIt 1 ff-tr fJ 6'
V-) s 1+ G "\ w-r r;-tA) ~ $ ....-co is U ( L-..O 4 w10 NS. r~
It()US~ OlU 'ltt& ~ lO S 4CEjtJ'( 'If f,R-f) p') GeT '1 l{) tt-e-~
---.J+6 1 el..) - I'
l \.
IF A- 11-OU.s (; (S 13 UlL-\ 0 tV T"lq-L) P ~~rr
\\ W\ LL 7 ~If-( L-y ILe flu LE 'll-t t3 V YJ- ~u /}
OF M'~6 Y1 tV.!D ( S TR..e IJ..t O~iL'1 ~ 6~ e-c T
~.
(/ -S- c ~C9 c:ro;V
. ~Q
( ~ ~~~.~ .......-. --
~ -.: r'" ~~. .f - ~
'<--./ POTENTIAL DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS LANDS ~) ~ ::lo- r - ~~; ~
FAIRPORT BEACH AREA . ,~:
TOWN OF PICKERING 'Jfe 1 J /9il I
PROPERTY D;VI(" /-.. f
COMMENT SHEET M. T R. (' '.:: vN .
>'1. f
-..--...,
-$r~~ h~ : 4~ ~ ~ &~~~
~' ~ /L .;4-7r4cri ~/.~~ rt" ~ _t"~ e.....-.,L
~.-L/ ,~_ ~J..L/ ~--d/ ~ ~
~../ /.V~j r~ ~~ ~ ~
yf---- ~~ ~___.J_ ~:." ~~ ~ zL ~-.-.-
/'
/~ '
6 ~~1~7~ ~ ~_L_ ~/~
~~~L ~ c-?/ ~~ ~ ~~~
~~ C.AJ- ..v-Zi ~'1' I ~J~L- '/vov hi
, I
(J) L:vJI L~ A '//tCA ~1~ .eAtd ~
VL- -r;.../J!' /?~~ ~~~ ~ ~
~,." -r'~ J .~~ x~ c( ~
{tJ bJ~ --,~ 7~ ~:L/ ~ d~~
~ ~ --L ~ ~ ~~ ~/ ,.-/~---
/.....;/~ zL ~ ~. ~ ~~L:-6 c--t-- ~-<-
~/J~~~/ /? 7~ L~ L"-,, ~L c~"-.
.1ECEiVED ?~4'~ 'i~
DEe 13 1991 /?"7/K<.. S-~/7 2 r: ~z
.f'" ,;- __ ~ A 12 I~ C. ,.. r
l\'~.T.R..C.A. /;(<-t'.c~.".,~ ~~1-.