HomeMy WebLinkAboutExecutive Committee Appendices 1990
EX. I
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
CLEANING CONTRACT TENDERS
for the
KORTRIGHT CENTRE FOR CONSERVATION
.
Executive Committee Meeting *1/90
March 9, 1990
EX. ~
CLEANING CONTRACT - KORTRIGHT CENTRE
Letters were sent to the following companies and a large number
of them made on-site visits. The dollar amount in the quote
column is the monthly charge proposed by these companies for
cleaning Kortright Centre to our specifications:
Monthly
Company Name Quote
Cleanrite Inc. 1795.
Pacman Maintenance 1845.
J-Team Janitorial 2250.
Cleaning Unlimited 2388.
Kanco Janitorial Services 2400.
Arsenal Cleaning Services 2475.
Maple Office Cleaning 2650.
Yorkville Office Cleaning 2700.
Viva Building Maintenance Ltd. 2729.
Universal Building Services 2870.
Owl Maintenance & Janitorial 3000.
Fresa Cleaning Services Inc. 3065.
Interclean System 3066.
Kleenway Karpet Kleaners 3400.
Jani-King Toronto 3599.
H & R Cleaners 3650,
Four Seasons Maint. Janitorial Serv, 3750,
Acadia Floor Maintenance 4333.
E & E Cleaning Services 6750.
Nova Housekeeping Systems Ltd. 6890.
February 26, 1990
Ids
EX.3
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
REVIEW
OF THE
CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES PROGRAM
1. Minister of Natural Resources' letter, February 9, 1990
2. ACAO recommendations and MTRCA comments.
Executive Committee
Meeting 11 /90
March 9, 1990
.
~t] M i n is try 0 f V1 .... 5t~,. Ministere des '.1 ,.... s,'~ 1::)(. Y-
Natural Richesses APP~l'~D\ Y-- I~
Resources naturelles
.~..
Onlino
Februarv 9, 1990
.
R --::: r --: -~' - -:- -:"
. . - ~-- -----
U
l.-\\ , . I.r~
, ;-r-~ '. 1~...1
~, ,....... ,
, , '
Mr. John A. McGinnis \ ~ - ~ -==--=--~=--~/
Acting Chairman ~-----------_..-------
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
5 5horeham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 154
Dear Mr. McGinnis:
Re: Review of the Conservation Authorities Pr02ram
I have received letters dated November 9 and December 18, 1989, from
the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario, concerning the
review of the conservation authorities program. I appreciate the support
of the ACAO in moving towards a decision on the changes to the
conservation authorities program which we are currently considering.
I understand that the Board of Directors of the Association of
Conservation Authorities of Ontario will meet on April 9. 1990. I have
indicated to Mr. Morton that I would be pleased to attend your meeting to
discuss the new directions of the authorities program.
I know that there is a high degree of expectation among the authorities
and their member municipalities concerning the final decisions on the
program changes. I am also aware of the uncertainty that prevails in the
absence of an announcement of those program changes and which is
frustrating the ability of some authorities to make staffmg and other
important program decisions.
....2
~)(.5
Mr. John McGinnis
Page 2
Since becoming the Minister of Natural Resources in August 1989, I have
taken some time to familiarize myself with the conservation authorities
program and the recommendations of both the interrnmisterial committee
report entitled "A Review of the Conservation AuthorIties Program" and of
the ACAO/AMO/MNR Committee which reported at the end of June
1989 to my predecessor, Mr. Vincent G. Kerrio. r am convinced that
changes to the conservation authorities program are necessary in order to
revitalize the authorities and to equip them to fulfil their existing
responsibilities and to meet the challenges which lie ahead. Concern for
the environment and the appropriate management of resources loom
larger in the public conscience than ever before and the challenges for the
authorities are thus even more critical.
Given the importance of the changes to the conservation authorities
program and the strong interest in the future direction of the authorities, I
think it is important to share with you and the municipal sector, some of
the issues I am considering in moving to fmal recommendations for
consideration with my Cabinet colleagues.
I attach an outline of those issues as they are currently under
consideration. I am writing to each of the authorities to share these issues
and to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
I believe the changes to the conservation authorities mandate provide a
basis of clarifying the conservation authorities' responsibilities in relation
to those of provincial ministries and the municipalities. The core and non-
core concept will enable us to delineate those programs which are to be
delivered by the authorities and those which may be delivered by the
authorities on behalf of the responsible agency should those agencies and
the individual authorities arrive at suitable arrangements.
I am of the opinion. as are a number of the conservation authorities
themselves, that many of the existing conservation authority units are too
small to be effective in either the delivery of their current or future
mandate~ Even if unlimited provincial funding were available, many of the
units could not hire and utilize staff appropriately to carry out the
necessary functions. As a consequence, we must be realistic about the
need to 'reorganize, restructure and strengthen the authorities.
.,
....-'
~
EX.k,
Mr. John McGinnis
Page 3
Many of the respondents to the original review of the conservation
authorities program agreed that membership reduction was necessary and
appropriate. I believe that the proposals currently under consideration
provide for a reasonable compromise between the original
recommendations, which many considered too drastic, and the current
situation. The proposal to establish an upper limit will provide the
authorities and restructured authorities with the opportunity to arrive at
appropriate local arrangements. It will ensure a greater degree of local
flexibility, while enhancing responsiveness and accountability of the
authority members to the member municipalities and to the province.
As well, I am sure that the funding arrangements under consideration will
be of interest to many of the authorities and member municipalities.
Rationalization of the funding arrangements must be considered an
integral part of the renewal of the provincial/municipal partnership. The
funding of core mandate of the authorities is a joint responsibility of both
the member municipalities and the province. As a consequence, the
current proposals call for an increase In provincial grant for conservation
authority operations to ensure the core programs are consistently
delivered.
The local ability to pay. is also an issue of primary concern. The proposals
under consideration provide for additional provincial funding to
restructured authorities which would have to exceed a pre-established mill
rate against the assessment within the watershed in order to raise the local
share for core operations.
It is important to place the cost of conservation authorities in the context
of each individual tax bill. Analysis indicates that the average cost per
household across the province for conservation authorities is about five
dollars. The range, however, is broad. In some authorities the cost per
household is less than one dollar, while In others, it ranges to about 10
dollars. The funding proposals under conSIderation create a greater
degree of fairness in the distribution of the available funding and in the
local contribution which would be reqUired. The result would be a much
more "narrow range of per household costs across the province from about
three dollars to nine dollars.
....4
f.~17
Mr. John McGinnis
Page 4
Analysis indicates that under the current funding formula, the cost of the
conservation authorities in the larger more urban authorities to the
average taxpayer is somewhat more than the provincial average and
significantly more than it is for the individual taxpayer in some other
authorities. The average per household cost, for example, in some
authorities reaches as high as $10. The effect of the funding proposals,
which are currently under consideration, would be to establish a better
balance in the distribution of available funding for the core mandate. The
per household impact would consequently be adjusted to effect a closer
comparison with the provincial average.
As part of the effort to ensure that the funding proposals in particular
provide for a fair and equitable approach to the conservation authorities
program, I shall look forward to discussing this issue with you.
I shall very much look forward to attending the Board of Directors of the
Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario meeting on April 9,
1990, and to discussing these complex issues with the members of the
association.
Yours truly,
c4,n1'rt ~J.
Lyn McLeod
Minister
cc A Holder, Regional Director, Central Region
Ex, S"
Conservation Program Issues
Introduction:
The report entitled "Review of the Conservation Authorities Program" prepared bv an
interministerial committee was released for wide-ranging public review in June 1988.
Issues of conservation authority mandate, amalgamation, membership reduction and
funding, which remained outstanding following the review of the interrninisterial
committee report, were referred to a second committee, chaired by the then
Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Natural Resources, Mr. Bill Ballinger. and
with representation from the Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario. the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and the Ministry of Natural Resources. That
committee was asked to consider further, the four major areas in the program revie',l,
where consensus had not yet been achieved. It was also asked to identify other issues
which seemed relevant through its investigations.
That committee reviewed the more than 300 responses submitted to the interrninisterial
committee report and undertook consultation with ministries having an interest in the
conservatio~ authorities program and with many conservation authority and municipal
representatives.
Conservation Authority Mandate:
The Association of Municipalities of Ontario in its response to the interrninisterial
committee report, suggested that distinguishing conservation authority mandate as core
or non.core might alleviate some of the confusion which had arisen over the concept of
limited and shared responsibilities as outlined in the interrninisterial report.
Consequently, the basis for distinguishing conservation authority mandate core or non-
core has been developed. It is proposed that transfer payments would be available only
for core activities.
Specifically, core functions would be those which are integral to the function and
operation of any conservation authority. On the other hand, non.core mandate would
encompass those functions which fall into the mandate of another body, such as a
provincial ministry or a municipality. However, conservation authorities, generally or
individually, may have a particular expertise or there may be a particular local
advantage to having the conservation authority deliver the program or service on behalf
of the mandated agency. In such cases, the initiating agency, ministry or municipality
would arrive at its own arrangements with specific conservation authorities concerning
the extent of the delivery of the service and necessary funding arrangements.
Table 1 provides an overview of conservation authority mandate and possible funding
arrangements.
f~.~ Conservation Authority Mandate Table 1
Type Funding
Mandate User Other
Core Non~re T.Pymt Levy Contract Fees Rev.
Flood Control X X X
ErosIon Control X X X
:\on-pr. PollutIon X X
Low Flow Aug. X X X
Water Taktng
Permits X X X
l'rban DraInage ReVlew X X X
Urban Drainage-design, X X X
construction. maInt.
Rural Drainage Review X X X
Rural DraInage-desIgn. X X X
construction, maInt.
Nat. Areas (prov.) X X X
Nar. Areas (reg.) X X X X
Nat. Areas (local) X X X X
Water Sampling X X X
Water Supply X X X
Recreation Areas (reg.) X X X X X
Recreation Areas (loc.) X X X X X
Niagara Ese. Parks X X X X X
HerItage Conservation X X X X X
Forest ~1gmt.
Own Land X X X X
Forest ~gmt.
Other Land X X X X X
AgrIcultural
Soil ErosIon/
Sediment Control X X X X
Con. Ed. X X X X X
Conservation Info.
and Ad..isory
Services X X X X X
2
Ex./O
3
Amalgamation:
The interministerial committee recommended that some of the 33 conservation
authorities in Southern Ontario be amalgamated, resulting in a total of 18, as the basis
for establishing a structure of authorities with the ability to consistently and equitably
deliver the conservation authorities program. Since that report was issued for public
review, significant discussion related to the issue of amalgamation has ensued although
little movement towards amalgamations has taken place.
The need to restructure conservation authorities in order to revitalize them, to equip the
authorities to deliver the core mandate and to realize the efficiencies of larger and more
focused organizations was recognized by many of the respondents to the interministerial
committee report. Many authorities, as they currently exist, are simply too small and
lack the resources to hire and utilize the necessary technical and administrative staff.
However, it is also likely that some combinations other than those originally proposed by
the interministerial committee report may be appropriate on the basis of watershed
integrity, geography, similarity of programs, community of interest, among other issues:
There remain a number of areas ill southern Ontario partly or wholly outside the
conservation authority structure. The clarified mandate, revitalized funding
arrangements and clear focus Qf the conservation authorities program, including greater
representation flexibility, greatly enhance the service which the authorities are capable of
delivering to these municipalities. As a consequence, these areas should be brought into
the conservation authorities as part of the overall restructuring.
The amalgamation scenario currently under consideration would see a reduction in the
number of conservation authorities in southern Ontario from 33 to 19 and is shown on
the attached map. The areas currently outside the authority structure are shown in
hatching on that same map.
Membership:
The issue of representation on conservation authorities was the single most frequently
commented upon recommendation of the interministerial committee report. Most
respondents agreed that some measure of membership reduction is necessary.
Most respondents also held the view that the appointment of representatives to the
conservation authorities on behalf of the local municipalities, is not an appropriate
function for counties, given the current organization and funding.
Tf\
"><.
.
-
-
"
.
...
0
.,.
.
,..
..
c-
~
'7'
eft
:c
c:.
:111
Q
at
ONTARIO
.
..
.'
(We ~o ~o
lW.$e &e
~ _ E f II I E RESTRUCTURED
CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES
1.
SOUTHERN ONTARIO
E'X. I~
5
Given the diversity and individual characteristics of the conservation authorities and
restructured authorities, it is anticipated that no one representation formula could be
sensitive enough to accommodate the needs and diverse interests of all the individual
authorities. Consequently, it has been suggested that the best approach to a fair and
equitable system is to establish an upper limit and enable each authority/restructured
authority to arrive at its own arrangements, within that upper limit.
An appropriate upper limit is suggested at 25 members, consisting of no more than 2::
members appointed by the municipalities of the watershed and a maximum of three
members appointed by the province in the ratio of one member per 10 or part thereof
municipally appointed representatives.
All authorities, existing and restructured, should undertake to carefully review their
representation needs and arrive at a level appropriate to the characteristics of the
watershed and the needs of the participating municipalities.
Funding:
The proposal of the interministerial committee to eliminate supplementary grants was
universally accepted. There was, h'owever, scepticism that the proposed flat rate grants
would provide a fair and equitable system.
The ACAO/AMO/MNR Committee examined a number of provincial/local funding
models, such as those operated by other ministries.
The primary objective should be an approach which reaffirms the principal of
provincial/municipal partnership in funding for the conservation authorities, but is
sensitive to the local ability to pay. All conservation authorities must be adequately
funded to undertake their core programs. As a consequence, the operating budget for
the authorities program should be augmented by some $3 million to ensure delivery of
the core program.
Consequently, a provincial grant of 50% would be provided for the approved operating
budgets of all conservation authorities related to their core mandate. Those few
conservation authorities which would be required to apply in excess of a pre-established
maximum mill rate against the discounted equalized assessment within their watersheds
in order to raise the local share, would be provided with an adjustment at 100%
provincial cost to cover the difference bet'Neen the mill rate yield and the local share of
the operating budget for core purposes.
Grants for conservation authority capital projects would also be provided at 50%.
However, in exceptional circumstances where high priority capital projects might be
jeopardized because of the limited financial capability of the benefitting municipality,
there is obviously an obligation on the part of both the member municipalities of the
watershed and the province to evaluate the funding needs of the project.
~~.13
6
I mplemen/ation:
It is recognized that a measure of transition funding is necessary to assist amalgamated
and restructured authorities to establish an appropriate organizational structure,
rationalize staffing and to implement procedural change. Given the significant benefits
to be derived from such improvements, it is reasonable that the costs of transition be
borne equally by the province and the benefitting municipalities.
It is also recognized that in order to appropriately fund the core mandate of
conservation authorities, an increase in the operating component of the conservation
authority budgets would be required. It is suggested that funding freed up through
changes in the capital budget be reallocated to meet these operating shortfalls. It is
obvious that the changes contemplated to the conservation authorities themselves, their
programs, boundaries and the clarification of authority mandate, will necessitate
significant deliberation within each authority on the formulation of a new direction. As
a consequence, an updated watershed plan will need to be prepared in accordance with
guidelines to be developed by the Ministry of Natural Resources.
Finally, a number of administrative issues require clarification and resolution. Both
financial and administrative procedures applicable to the authorities should be reviewed
with the objective of ensuring greater consistency in operation, record keeping and
reporting to enhance the understandability of conservation authority operations to the
member municipalities, the province and the public. Similarly, need for legislative
change have been identified from time to time and it is appropriate that these changes
be reviewed and pursued in conjunction with the rationalization of authorities and their
operation.
~x. J Lf
RECOMMENDATIONS AND M T ReA COMM;''l,!,S
R~comm~ndation ~1
7HAT Conse~vatlon Autho~itles should cc~ :~ue to :;e~at~ on !
wate~shed basls wlth st~ong local inlt:3 lye and ~~~ sha~ing of
p~oject costs between the P~ovlnce and: e m~mber ~unic:palltle5.
COMMENT: Agreed. This affi~ms the p~esent =~tuatlon.
R~comm~ndation .2
THAT once specific ~esponsibilities have been ase:gned to C A.s,
individual C.A.s cannot decide to opt l~ or out cf various
programs or components thereof.
COMMENT: Support for this recommec~atlon wculd depend on
which new r~sponsibilities were bein~ assigned and
whether accompanYin~ new funding was to be
provided. Since C.A. programs depend on
watershed resourc~ managem~nt n~ecs. there should
be differences between C.!.s in terms of which
programs they adopt.
R~comm~ndation .3
THAT the number of C.A.s in Southern On:ario sho~ld be ~educed
from 33 to approximately L8 through ama:~amation. This reduction
in the number of C.A.s should occur withln two years of the
adoption of this Report by the Province.
COMMRNT: While this do~s not directly affect the
M.T.R.C.A. . it may free up Provincial funds which
were previously needed as "euppleaentary" by the
smaller authorities.
Recommendation .4
THAT the speCific responsibilities of Conservation Authorities
should be as follows:
Water Mana.ement Pro.ram
Recommendation .4(a)
THAT C.A.s be responsible for all aspects of flood control
to protect lives and prevent property damace in both
riverine locations and lakeshore areas includin~ the Great
Lakes.
COMMRNT: Affirms and clarifies present
responsibilities of M.T.R.C.!.
Recommendation .4(h)
THAT C.A.s be responsible for all aspects of erosion
control to protect lives and pr~vent property dama~e in both
riverine locations and lakeshore areas including the Great
Lakes.
COMMRNT: Affirms p~esent ~esponsibilities of
M.T.R.C.A
Recommendation .4(c)
THAT C.A.s not be responsible for point pollution (i.e.
sewage treatment facilities. discharges fro. industrial
plants. etc. ).
COMMRNT: Agreed. M.T.R.C.A. currently not responsible
for these activities.
'E'/.., IS
R~comm~ndation .4ldl
THAT C.A.s ha':e l:all ted r-esponsibllities for- non-point
pollutlon ( i . e sur-face r-unoff fr-om pr-lmarlly agrlcultur3l
and urbanlzed areas).
r;OMMENT' Support would depend on th~ definition of
llmlted" . H.T.R.C.A. currently is lnvo l':~d
in both sediment control and extenslon
services (eg. tree and shrub plantlng,
fisherles habitat improvement) which
contrlbute to "non-pOint" control.
R~comm~ndation '4(~1
THAT C.A.s be responsible for low flow aUimentation.
COMHKNT: This is currently a part of dam operation.
Additional future requirements have not been
identified and would require fundini.
R~commendation .4If)
THAT C.A.s not be responsible for water takini permits.
COMHRNT: This reflects the current situation in
M.T.R.C.A. area. If we are to be responsible
for low flow augmentation, we should have
some role in water takini permits.
RecommendAtion '41~)
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for urban
drainaie.
COHHIi:NT: Airee insofar as implementation of related
works and facilities are concerned.
M.T.R.C.A. currently prOVides a watershed
perspective for drainaie plannini and this
should continue. A better definition of
"limi ted" is required.
RecommendAtion .4(h)
THAT C. A. shave 11mited responsibil1 ties for rural
drainaie.
COMHRNT: Response depends on the definition of
"11mi ted" . Our work in extension prOirams
and sediment control is related to rural
drainaie.
Reco..AndAtion .4(i)
THAT C.A.s be responsible for wetlands that act as
siinificant natural flood storaie and flow aUimentation
areas.
COMMRNT: H.T.R.C.A. has identified E.S.A.s. We would
have to clarify the definition of "wetlands"
and the relationShip of these lands to
E.S.A.s. The nature of our responsibility
and the mechanisms we are to use for wetland
protection need to be clarified.
Recom.endAtion .4(1)
THAT C.A.s be responsible for collectini water samples for
the Provincial Water Quality Honitor1ni Network.
't:)(.lb
'-I-'HHF~T . Thu:: is "h~ :llrr~nt pr.,!<::1",ir::~ In H.T.B.G.A.
'!r~"-. There should be funds made av,,-ilabl~,
t,hrough H O. E to share ln thlS actlvl':y
R~comm~ndation ~4Ik}
THAT C.A.s have limited responaibilitles for water supply.
COHMF.NT: This reflects the current situation in
M.T.R.C.A. area.
Outdoor Re~reation Pro~ram
Recommendation .4Il}
THAT C.A.s not be responsible for provincially significant
parks.
COMMENT: This should not change the present situatlon.
however there should be a definition of
"provincially significant parlts".
Recommendation .4Im}
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for the Niagara
Escarpment Parks System.
COMMRNT: Th1e depends on the definition of "limited".
H.T.R.C.A. is lnvolved in the Niagara
Escarpment Area as a land owner and manager.
At the request of the Province. we have
identified and purchased lands suitable for
acquisition for Niagara Escarpment purposes.
Clarification of any potential chanae is
required.
Recommendation .4(n}
THAT C.A.s be responsible for reaionally sianificant parlts.
COMMRNT: H.T.R.C.A. has provided reaional and
"interreaional" parks for many years and will
continue to do so.
RecommendAtion .4(o}
THAT C.A.s not be responsible for locally sianificant
parks.
COMMRNT: Aaree that we should not be providina this
level of pro.ram. We should clarify whether
this has any lmpact on our ability to enter
into a.reements with local municipalities for
their development and manaaement of
facilities on our land.
Recommendation '4(~}
THAT C.A.s have limited r~sponsibilities for heritaae
conservation.
COMMHNT: The H.T.R.C.A. proaram at Blaclt Creek Pioneer
Villaae is supported by user fees. municipal
levies and a .rant from the Hinistry of
Culture and Communications. The text
accompanyina this recommendation does not
propose any chanae to this situation. C.A.s
do have a further responsibility for any
heritaae sites which occur on their lands.
E1<,'7
R~comm~ndation .4(Q)
BAT C A.s have liml~e~ ~egpcnglbllltles fo~ ::;~ee-:
management..
COMMENT: The d~finition of . limited" ne~dg
~la~ification. N~w funding would be ~eq~l~ed
fo~ the M.T.R.C.A. to assume g~eate~
responsibllities.
R~comm~ndation ~4Ir)
THAT C.A.s have limited responSibilities for fish and
wildlife manag~ment.
COMHRNT: While the word "limited" should be clarlfied,
no major change in the current situatlon is
anticipated.
Recommendation .4(8)
THAT C.A.s have limited responSibilities for soil erosion
and sediment control.
-
COHHRNT: This applies to agricultural lands and
municipal drains. See comments re 14(d) and
U(h).
Recommendation .4It)
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for wetlar.ds that
protect significant areas of flora and fauna.
COHHRNT: See also comment re '4(i). Wetlands llith
water management functions Illay also be
important for Significant flora and fauna.
This recommendatlon needs further
clarification.
Recommenda~ion .4(u)
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for areas of
natural and scientific interest ( A . H. S. I. . s) as we 11 as
significant areae of Carolinian flora and fauna.
COMMKNT: Where these areas are aleo M.T.R.C.!.
designated E.S.A.s, we would be concerned.
Again. a definltlon of "lilllited" in this
context 1s required.
Recommenda~ion .4(v)
THAT C.A.e not be responsible for any aspect of waste
lIIanagelllent.
COMMKNT: While authorities should not be operating
waste management facilities, ve are involved
as a cOlllmenting and review agency with
respect to the location of propoeed sites and
do not want to abandon or be deleted from
this process.
Recommendation 14(w)
THAT C.A.s have limited responsibilities for cons~rvation
education.
COHMKNT: This refers specifically to schools.
Authorities do have a responsibility for
working with school boards and for providing
E)(.I ~
~onserv3tlon ~:uc3t1on to net only scheol
g r<?'J ps , but 31150 to the publ1C Define
. llllll ted . 10 t:\:s inst3nce.
R~comm~ndation #4(x)
THAT C.A.s be responsible for providing 1nformatlon to the
public on specific natural resource management programs.
COMMF.NT: M.T.R.C.A. currently implem~nts such a
program, as well as providlng a broad range
<?f informatlon regarding public safety,
public recreation opportunities, watershed
management and Authority organizatlon and
management.
R~commendation .S
THAT. the five (5 ) C.A.s in Northern Ontario be retained as
distinct, separate units. The boundaries of some of these C.A.s
should be adjusted to concentrate their attention and effort on
the organized municipalities and h~nce privately-owned property
in the local area.
COMHRNT: While this recommendation does not directly affect
M.T.R.C.A. . it is not consistent with
Recommendation #1.
Recomm~ndation .8
THAT the membership of C.A.s be reduced from 937 to
approximately 337. The municipal members will be appointed by
the Reaional Municipalities. Restructured County of Oxford,
Counties (in conjunction with Separated Towns and Townships) and
Cities.
COMH1\NT: While this recommendation would have the effect of
increasina M.T.R.C.A. membership - contrary to its
objective - a footnote identifies that M.T.R.C.A.
will continue to use its current representation.
Recommendation .7
THAT C.A.s should levy the local share of costs on the Reaional
Municipal1 ties, Restructured County of Oxford, Counties, Cities.
Separated Towns and Townships.
COMM1\NT: This is an administrative chan,e to consistently
levy the upper tier municipality rather than
directly to sOlDe local Municipalities. It wou ld
affect H.T.R.C.A. in the case of Hono and Adjala
and only insofar as where the levy letter was
sent. Presumably . the upper tier municipality
would pass alona the responsibility for costs to
the local level.
Re~ommenda~ion .8
THAT supplelDentary ,rants should be eliminated and re,ular ,rants
of 40~. 50~ or 70~ should be provided for all pro,rams of a C.A.
The applicable ,rant rate for each C.A. would be a function of
the total assessment and populaton in its watershed(s).
COMMiNT: This recommendation is totally unacceptable to the
Authority. H.T.R.C.A. would be the only Authority
in the Province receivin, a 40~ ,rant. all others
would receive at least 50~. Based on our 1988
bud,et. reducina the existin, ,rant rates (50-55~)
to 40~ would shift to the municipalities. an
additional ,736.509.00, an increase of 11.6~ in
operatina costs. and '694,339.00, an increase of
22.2~ in capital costs.
~)(. J ~
?r~m 3 ~r~VlnC131 perSpeC~lVe, tne ,=~a~s ';, tho:
Prov1n:~ for H T fl.C A. woul~ be r~1uced by
3pproXl~3tely 25%.
It 15 ~h~ Aythorlty's P051tion that a stror.g~r,
not a weaker, provinclal flnancial pre~ence is
requlr~d ln the area of the Provinc~ wh~re 1/3 of
the population lives and 95% of the economic
growth takes place. It is thes~ two factor~ that
are placing a strain on the r~source base which
the Authority manages and create the need for
enhanced conservation effort.
Member municipalities should jOin with the
Authorlty in petitioning the governm~nt of Ontario
to not only maintain the minimum grant rate at
50%. but increase the volume of the funding
available to enable the Province to.meet its
commitments.
B~comm~ndatton .9
THAT the $5 million in funding freed up through the changes to
the grant rates should remain in the program and the total grant
allocation be increased by an additional $5 million to meet the
funding requirements of C.A.s.
COMMRNT: This recommendation sounds positive and promising.
Certainly any .. freed-up" funds should stay in the
program and new funds be added. We have some
concerns as to where they may be "freed-up" from
and subsequently allocated to.
The above-noted comments have been reviewed with other
Conservation Authorities in the Central Region and with the
Association of Conservation Authorities of Ontario. The A.C.A.O.
has prepared a brief dealing with the ambiguities which our staff
review identified in the report and making firm recommendations
to the Minister with respect to the Burger Report
recommendations.
In sUllllary, the A.C.A.O. brief recommends that the term
"shared" be used in place of the word "limited" when dealing with
responsibilities which are shared among various agencies and
affirms this Authority"s belief that a complete package of water
management tools should be assigned to Conservation Authorities
in order that they can properly pursue a mandate of integrated
resource lIanagement on a watershed basis.
The final version of the A.C.A.O. brief was not available at
the time of preparing this a,enda. However. excerpts from the
draft A.C.A.O. response are included in this report in order that
the Bxecutive COllllittee can be aware of the tone and stance of
the A.C.A.O. with respect to the major issues. Staff has
concluded that the A.C.A.O. briet represents an appropriate
position for Authorities to taKe and are recommending the
endorsement of the A.C.A.O. briet by The Metropolitan Toronto and
Recion Conservation Authority.
Ex .;(0
EXCERPTS FROM DRAF7 OF ACAO RESPONSE
ACAO believes 'A Revl~w of :ne Conservatlon Authorlties
Program' is a good start in dea::ng with a wlde range of complex
lssues While many areas requlre more deflnition, th~ report
provides a good basis for n~got:3tions to commence among the
Conservation Authoritles, munlclpalities and th~ various
Provlnclal ag~nci~s. The maln ~~iticlsm ACAO has of the report
is tha~ it doesn't go far enough ln addresslng certain
fundamental issues.
1. Is the Province prepared over a reasonable period of
time to make Conservatlon Authorities responsible for
truly integrated resource management on the watershed
under their jurisdiction? In lIlany areas. the report
perpetuates the current fra~mented system and
subsequent lack of accountability.
2. Is the Province prepar~d to designate Conservation
Authorities as the lead agency for coordinating and
delivering private and extension programs in Ontario?
3. Is the Province prepared to rationalize program
delivery by Conservation Authorities vis a vis the
field offices of Natural Resources. Environment and
A~riculture and Food?
ACAO believes the answers to the above three questions can
only come from the Cabinet.
ACAO believes that within the context of the fore~oin~
questions. ne~otiations should commence as soon as possible on a
program by pro~ram basis amon~ ACAO. AHO and the Province to
finalize the followin~ matters 1n the order listed.
l. The mandate of the Conservation Authorities.
2. The fundin~ levels and ~rant rates necessary to
properly implement that lIlandate.
3. The administrative and or~anizational structures - both
Conservation Authority and Province - necessary to
properly implement that mandate. As a final
recommendation. ACAO recommends Cabinet appoint an
independent commissioner/commission with the following
responsibilities:
(1) recommendation to Cabinet re~ardin~ what items
should be subject to negotiation;
( 11) responsibility tc Cabinet for insuring the
negotiations take place and the inevitable
differences of opinion are arbitrated.
ACAO Draft R~A~onA~ to S~~cific ~~comm~ndationA:
. (Refer to previous attachment giving H.T.R.C.A. staff
comment for the recommendation of the review)
R~coam~ndAtion 11
Complete a~reement. The t~rm "project costs" should be
contracted to read only "ccsts". There is a lot more to
Conservation Authorities - administration. program support,
operations and maintenance - than just projects.
R~collllll~ndAtion I.CAl
ACAO is in general agreement with this recommendation
subject to the followinc qualifiers:
Ex.~
I, '~.'(l,~~r'l!l"'l')n .~'Jthf)ri" i~e eh:::qld tJl~ d~e:g !l~fll:rj ~~
~ne le~d agency for flood protectlon ~~r ~ along the
~reat ~akes shoreline 0nce provlnclal a~ federal
negotlatlons on the program are complete
(11 ) the Provlnce ~lll contlnue to be respor.~:~le for
declarlng a flood emergency and the MUr.171palit:e~
~lll continue to be responsible for fl~~~ em~rgency
Jleasures;
( 1 i i) the t~rm "re~poneible" be replaced by ';::~ lead
agency
R@commendation .4lbl
ACAO h in general agreement with thie recomm~odation
subject to the following qualifiers:
--
( i) the recommendation ehould be expanded to include ~
eroeion control programs - rural and urban. surface
and riverine and lakeshore;
( 11) the term "responsible" be replaced by "the lead
agency" ;
(iii) Conservation Authoritiee ehould be deeig=ated ae the
lead agency for eroeion protection works alona the
Great Lakes shoreline once prOVinCial and federal
negotiations on the program are completed.
Recomm@ndAtion .4lil
ACAO cannot accept this Recommendation nor that of ~4(t)
when they are read toaether. Wetlands are resource
manaaement units and their function for flood storaae and
floR auamentation cannot be separated from their
sianificance for flora and fauna. ACAO would be aareeable
to a revision and combination of recommendations .4(i) and
'4(t) which would read:
"That Conservation Authorities be the lead aaency for
acquiei tion. protection and manaaement of wetlands in
Ontario, exclusive of Crown Lands".
Recommendation .4In)
Aareed, subject to some consensus on what cooetitutee a
"reaionally sianificant park". The report fails to draw the
distinction between parks and conservation areas, the
latter of which may have a host of other resource
manacement objectives besides recreation.
RecommendAtion .4(0)
ACAO cannot support the recommendation in its present form
as it would seriously fragment the private land forestry
proaram in Ontario. ACAO believes the Province should make
a committment that Conservation Authorities. subject to
satisfactory neaotiation and a reasonable time frame, will
be responsible for all forest manaaement on private,
municipal and Conservation Authorities lands in Ontario.
within their jurisdiction.
Recommendation .8
ACAO cannot accept the proposed grant formula for the
followina reasons:
( i) the rationale for adoptinl this systee is no better
than that used to reject options ( i 11) and (i v) ;
EX .~~
l 11 I 1': :i,~~s n ~t 3.,jar~.ag tl'l~ iBeu~ ,='t th~ n':'Ir":~~:"!l
~:~servat:?n A~~nor1tl~s havlng to imp l-==~:-. ~ progr-9.rne
1~ unorganlzed rnynic:palitles;
I II i) - . :liscrim1nates -9.galnst the Metropolita~ 7:ronto and
P~glon Conservation Authority.
ACAO believes the Province, AMO and ACAO shoul:l r.egotl8te a
grant system whlch reflects Certa1n basic princ:p~es
1. A minimum provincial grant of 50% for quaiifY1ng
programs.
2. Provincial grant levels that reflect the benefit
received by the Province from havin~ the program
implemented at the local level.
3. A supplementary grant formula that recognizes ability
to pay.
The present system should remain in place until an
acc~ptable replacement has be~n design~d.
Recommendation .9
ACAO agrees that any funding - provlncial or munlclpal -
freed up throu~h changes in th~ grant rates should remain
in the program. ACAO strongly supports the addltion of new
provincial funds to the program but notes that the amount
required will be determlned by the followin~ factors:
(i) the mandate assign~d to Conservation Authorlties;
( 11) the provinCial grant rates established for each
pro~ram in that mandate.
( i11) the existin~ shortfall in provinCial fundin~.
.
EX.~3
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ROUGE VALLEY PARK
INVITATION
to
PARTICIPATE IN PLAN
for
PHASE I
Executive Committee
Meeting #3/90
April 20, 1990
, .
ltj Ministry of Minister Ministere des Minlstre Queen's Park
Natural Richesses Toronto. Ontario
M7A lW3
Resources naturelles 416/965-1301
~E::II" EX., ~Lf
Ontano . .---"\
~2@~D~]
\\ (1 -; I.~~~ lD
\ [- n!l 0 ' l... .
"\ . \ . \ ....
APR 4 1990 ~lS'3L:J u u IS
...ra--'----
..._,,"''' 1'Ol.....-..-...... ~
Mr. W. A. McLean
General Manager
Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 1S4
Dear Mr. McLean:
On March 26, 1990, I announced provincial support for the
establishment of a major urban park in the Rouge River Valley.
I am writing to you to seek the participation of the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority in the preparation of a
plan for the first phase of the park.
The province will coordinate the planning process for the first
phase of the park because of the wide range of agencies or groups
which either currently manage lands in the park area, or are
concerned about the future of the park lands.
I recognize that your agency has played the central role in
acquiring most of the significant natural lands in the lower
Rouge Valley. In addition, much of the proposed park north of
Steeles Avenue is in areas which MTRCA is seeking to acquire. I
anticipate that MTRCA will be a vital part of the cooperative
approach that will be necessary to establish a comprehensive
Rouge Valley Park system.
The Province of Ontario will contribute approximately 650 ha
(1600 acres) of land in ~ortheast Scarborough to the proposed
park area. When this land is combined with lands owned by other
public agencies, the resulting park will contain a tremendous
variety of natural, historic, architectural and recreational
values. It is essential to ensure that both the values which are
present in the park, and the interests of potential park users
are carefully considered in the planning process. Accordingly,
the Province of Ontario will be establishing a broadly-based
Rouge Valley Park Advisory Committee.
... 2
E~, 9~
Page 2
Mr. W. A. Mclean
The Advisory Committee will be responsible for developing a
recommended park plan and management structure for the Phase I
park planning area outlined on the attached map. The attached
Draft Terms of Reference for the Rouge Valley Park Planning
Project elaborates on the role of the committee, the anticipated
planning process, and the policy framework within which the plan
should be prepared. The Advisory Committee will be asked to
submit their recommendations to me within one year.
I am inviting your executive to appoint one representative to sit
as a member of the Advisory Committee. When you are selecting
your representative you should be aware that the members of the
Advisory Committee will be asked to devote a substantial amount
of time to the project over the next year.
In order that the planning process can be initiated as soon as
possible, please submit the name of your representative on the
Advisory Committee to me by April 27, 1990. Your response should
indicate whether participation on the Advisory Committee is part
of the representative's normal salaried duties or whether the
person should be eligible for a per diem payment.
If you have any questions regarding the proposed planning project
or the role of the Advisory Committee, please contact Bruce King,
324-7230.
With wise planning the Rouge Valley Park will make a major
contribution to enhancing the quality of life in the Greater
Toronto Area. I hope you will nominate a representative to
participate in this exciting project.
Yours truly,
~ /t(fo/d/
Lyn Mcleod
Minister
Attachment
Region: Central
Prepared by: Bruce King, (416)841-9332, Aurora
, .
EX,;2b
..................Avenu I MAR K HAM ::::
;.:.:.:.:..-:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:-:.: e.:::.:::::;: ::;: ::::::::::"::'. ":::;:'::: St eel es :::::-:;:;':. .;::::';:;:;';:;:;:::;.;:;':::';';:;:;::: Ave n u e ::;:.::.::::;:::;:;:;:;:;:..;:;..:....::;:;. ...;:.;";:.::.-:. \
. ..
"0 "0 ::::
1lI :::::
1lI & (/
0
cr
al (I) :;:;:
... c: ::::
1lI .- ','
al c: ';';
al. ~ '.'
.E . ~H
E Cl ::;:
Cll . c: .::;
.(;; 'C .:::
t) ~ )
tl ",:
ii:/ PICKERING
.~ Iii:
I ~ :!::
"~, '.;.
"""'" ~:!",--, CP, \
"""'" .':: -, ,-,....-
"'" ~"':=:: Avenue
.. Metro Toronto's
Proposed Landfill Site
Decharge proposee dans
la comm. urb. de Toronto
s:
0
..,
:J
5"
ce
CIl
a:
(1)
Avenue Sheppard Avenue
SCA RBOROUGH
l
Proposed Rouge Valley Park l
(southern portion) "0 :/
1lI
0 .{ . ~
Pare propose - Rouge Valley a:
c:
.Q
(partie sud) c:
::J
t: #"
- o ~
D Proposed Park/Pare propose ~ ,// Lake Ontario
~ ~v~ Lac Ontario
~ Phase 1 Park Planning Area B ~
~~o 1 2
Zone de planifieation - phase 1 ,~I I I
Kilometres Kilometres
~
, .
.r;: x . ;;;, 7
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
ROUGE VALLEY PARK PLANNING PROJECT
DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION:
SUBJECT TO REVISION AND APPROVAL BY THE
ROUGE VALLEY PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE
,
MARCH 28, 1990
~)(,ji'
CONTENTS
PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. ROUGE VALLEY PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE 4
3. PLANNING PROCESS 8
4. SCOPE OF THE PLAN 11
5. PUBLIC CONSULTATION 15
6. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 16
7. FUNDING 19
MAP
1 PROPOSED ROUGE VALLEY PARK 2
FIGURES
1 PROPOSED TIME LINE FOR PREPARATION OF 12
ROUGE VALLEY RECOMMENDED PARK PLAN
2 ORGANIZATION CHART 18
(i)
'-
.
EX.~~
DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
ROUGE VALLEY PARK PLANNING PROJECT
1. INTRODUCTION
This document outlines a draft Terms of Reference for a planning
program which will develop a recommended park plan and management
structure for a key portion of the Rouge River Valley. The specific
elements of the planning process may be modified by agreement between
the Advisory Committee and the Minister of Natural Resources.
The area which the plan will cover is outlined on Map 1. It is
intended that additional planning programs will be conducted, over
time, to develop comparable park plans for other portions of the Rouge
Valley Park.
The planning process will be coordinated by an Advisory
Committee which will report to the Minister of Natural Resources. The
Committee will be assisted by staff seconded from the Ministry of
Natural Resources, staff hired specifically for the project and by
consultants. The Committee will be requested to submit its
recommendations to the Minister of Natural Resources within one year
from the time the Committee is established.
After the Committee's recommendations are reviewed, the Minister
will present to Cabinet recommendations on the land use policy and
management structure for the park area.
The park planning program will be carried out within the
following policy framework:
a) with the exception of existing uses, the valleylands will be
managed primarily to protect natural, historical and
1
i2x. 3'()
"0
aI
0
a:
CD
...
ell
CD
aJ
.S
E
CD
~
<.>
PICKERING
1\/
~/
Avenue \
, -' ,..,...
" Metro Toronto's
Proposed Landfill Sit.e
Oecharge proposee dans
la comm. urb. de Toronto
~
0
..,
:J
5.
ee
(Jl
a:
(l)
Avenue Sheppard Avenue I-'CN-,
SCA RBOROUGH
Proposed Rouge Valley Park
(southern portion) "0
aI
0
Pare propose - Rouge Valley a:
c:
.Q
(partie sud) c:
:J
5 ~"
kit-H~.I Proposed Park/Pare propose ~ ~ Lake Ontan'o
~ ~v~ Lac Ontario
~ Phase 1 Park Planning Area t3 //
~~o 1 2
Zone de planifieation - phase 1 ,~I I I
Kilometres Kilomelres
2
i
Ex.3}
archaeological values, and to permit compatible low intensity
recreation
b} subject to the protection of natural, historical and
archaeological values, the tablelands can be considered for a
variety of recreational and open space uses. All
recreational development must be compatible with the
maintenance of a general open space character.
c} throughout the entire park there will be a major emphasis on
the appreciation and interpretation of natural, historical,
architectural and archaeological values
d} the plan should maximize the opportunities for the
involvement of a wide variety of groups and agencies in the
management of the area
e} the plan should facilitate cost sharing among the
participating agencies and groups.
The policies for the park should ensure that the plan itself and
subsequent park operations, demonstrate high environmental standards.
This can be done in a variety of ways including giving the highest
priority to the protection of natural and cultural values in all
planning decisions~ incorporating measures which will improve degraded
environments, constructing or renovating facilities so as to
demonstrate environmentally sound building practices, and interpreting
these initiatives.
3
E'~. 3:2
2. ROUGE VALLEY PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Membership
The Advisory Committee will be established under the authority
of the Ministry of Natural Resources Act. The following agencies or
groups will be asked to nominate a representative to the Advisory
Committee:
. City of Scarborough
. Metropolitan Toronto
. Town of Markham
. Town of Pickering
. Federal Government (Canadian Parks Service)
. Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
. Ontario Government
. Save the Rouge Valley group
. Coalition of Scarborough Community Associations
. Metropolitan Toronto Zoo
. Ontario Archaeological Society
. Architectural Conservancy of Ontario
. Native Organization.
In addition, the Minister of Natural Resources will select an
independent chairperson.
Role and Responsibility
The Advisory Committee will provide the policy direction for
planning the Rouge Valley Park, within the policy framework outlined
in Section 1. The Advisory Committee will consider all views
presented by the general public, interest groups and agencies, and
will seek to develop a consensus on key issues.
4
EX.33
The Advisory Committee will be responsible for:
. approving a terms of reference for the planning process,
subject to confirmation by the Minister of Natural Resources
reviewing existing information to ensure accuracy and
completeness and identifying recommended additional data
collection requirements, if needed
. developing goals and objectives to guide the planning process
. reviewing planning proposals to ensure that they are
environmentally sound, publicly acceptable and provide the
appropriate recreation and education opportunities
directing the public consultation program to ensure that there
is a full and informed discussion of all major issues, and
directly participating in specific consultation programs
. submitting a recommended plan to the Minister of Natural
Resources
. reviewing detailed cost estimates for the implementation of
the recommended park plan to ensure they are accurate and
realistic
. recommending a management structure for the park that would
effectively implement the recommended plan
. recommending the scope of, and priorities for, land
acquisition within the park to meet stated objectives
developing a strategy for implementing cost-sharing in land
acquisition, park development and operations
5
!~~.~1
. recommending a strategy for ongoing public consultation during
the development and operation of the park, including the
possible use of an Advisory Committee
. recommending a program for monitoring plan implementation.
Relationship to Staff and Consultants
Clerical, technical, administrative and professional support
shall be provided to the Committee by contract staff and consultants
hired by the Ministry of Natural Resources in consultation with the
Committee, and by staff of the Ministry of Natural Resources.
The Ministry of Natural Resources will appoint a Project Manager
who will be responsible for providing procedural and administrative
direction to the consultants. All policy and program direction to the
consultants will be the responsibility of the Advisory Committee. The
Project Manager or alternate should attend all Advisory Committee
meetings to provide ongoing liaison with other project staff and
consultants.
Operational Procedures
The Chair shall preside at all Advisory Committee meetings. The
Chair's objective shall be to seek a fair and effective discussion of
all issues, and to strive for the development of a consensus on
recommended policies.
The Committee, from among its members, may select a Vice-Chair,
who will preside at meetings in the absence of the Chai~.
Reimbursement of the Chair, Vice-Chair and members of the
Committee excluding the Ontario Government representative, for
6
.
E'x.3s
expenses incurred in carrying out the Terms of Reference, shall be in
accordance with Management Board of Cabinet Directives. The per diem
rates are $225 for the Chair, $175 for the Vice Chair and $150 for
other eligible members. Reimbursement for expenses incurred in
preparation for Committee meetings shall not be made except with prior
consent of the Minister of Natural Resources.
The groups and agencies who are nominating representatives will
be asked to identify whether participation on the Committee is part of
the representatives' normal salaried duties, or whether the
representative should be eligible for a per diem payment.
The Committee should determine the frequency of meetings,
although it is anticipated that the Committee will normally meet at
least once every two weeks throughout its one-year term. During some
periods, the Committee members will be expected to attend both
committee meetings and public consultation programs. The Advisory
Committee can meet as often as necessary during the day, evening or on
weekends as determined by the membership.
Committee meetings will normally be open for anyone to attend as
an observer. The Committee shall determine procedures for hearing
submissions from the public at its regular meetings. The Committee
may hold private sessions to discuss confidential matters such as land
acqu is it ion.
The Advisory Committee may appoint sub-committees to address
specific issues. Members of the sub-committee need not be members of
the Advisory Committee, however, only Advisory Committee member~ would
be eligible for per diem payments.
Committee members must be aware of the potential for conflicts of
interest. The definition of "conflict of interest" and the
7
"E:X .3 to
appropriate actions in response to a potential conflict of interest
shall be as outlined in the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act.
Tenn
All members-of the Committee will be appointed for a one year
term. The Advisory Committee will be disbanded when its
recommendations are submitted to the Minister at the completion of the
one year term. Consideration will be given to the establishment of a
permanent Advisory Committee, or other consultative forum, in the
approval of the park plan.
3. PLANNING PROCESS
In general, the park planning process will follow the procedures
outlined in "Ontario Provincial Parks Management Planning Reference"
(MNR, April, 1988). Because of the unusual nature of the planning
process it will be necessary to modify some elements of the standard
provincial park planning process. (The use of the provincial park
planning process does not imply that any decisions have been made to
designate part or all of the park as a provincial park.)
It is anticipated that the process will include at a minimum, the
following elements:
Tenns of Reference
The Committee should review, revise and approve the Terms of
Reference. The revised Terms of Reference will then be reviewed and
approved by the Minister of Natural Resources.
8
....
. .
E:){. 37
Invitation to Participate
As soon as the Terms of Reference have all necessary approvals,
there will be formal notification to the public of how the planning
process will be carried out, and what the opportunities for
public involvement will be. The public wjll be invited to identify
any initial interests or concerns.
Background Information
Information necessary for plan preparation should be collected
and/or collated. Because of the extensive research which has been
carried out in this area the emphasis should be on collating existing
information, and identifying any key topics where the existing
information must be supplemented.
Public Review of Background Information
A series of technical background information reports should be
prepared and circulated for review. The technical reports will
primarily be of interest to experts in the subjects and some special
interest groups. In addition, this information should be made
available in a summary form for general public review. The public,
through the Advisory Committee, will be asked to comment on the
accuracy and completeness of the information. Any collection of
additional inventory information must be clearly demonstrated as
necessary for planning purposes.
.
Planning Principles and Options
Principles should be developed which will guide all planning for
the park. Based on these principles, a number of options should be
9
~~.~
developed. The options will relate to both land use and possible
managing agency structures.
Public Review of Planning Principles and Options
This is probably the most crucial stage of public involvement.
The public, through the Advi'sory Committee, will be asked to review,
evaluate and comment on the principles and options.
Prepare Draft Plan
Based on the public input and other evaluation, a draft plan for
the area will be prepared. The plan will address both land use and a
possible managing agency structure.
Public Review of the Draft Plan
The public, through the Advisory Committee, will be asked to
review, evaluate and comment on the Draft Plan.
Prepare and Approve Plan
Based on the public input and other evaluation, the Committee
will approve a recommended plan.
Public Inspection of Recommended Plan
The public will be given an opportunity to submit comments and
concerns regarding the Recommended Plan to the Minister of Natural
Resources.
Review and Approval by Minister of Natural Resources and Cabinet
The recommended plan will be reviewed by Ontario Government
10
-
~
staff. Cabinet will be requested to approve the key elements of the Ex,3~
recommended land use policy and management structure.
Release of Approved Plan
Based on direction received from Cabinet, any necessary
modifications will be made to the recommended plan, and it will be
released as the official policy for the Rouge Valley Park.
A suggested timetable is outlined in Figure 1.
4. SCOPE OF THE PLAN
The plan to be prepared by the Advisory Committee should address,
at a minimum, the following topics:
. Goal and Objectives
. Park Boundary, including any recommended land acquisition,
and a strategy for dealing with lands which may remain in
private ownership or in the ownership of public non-park
agencies.
. Zoning - Zoning will provide a geographic framework for
policies.
. Management Policies covering
- Vegetation
- Terrestrial Fauna
- Water and Fisheries
- Landforms
- Archaeological Resources
- Architectural Resources
- Other Historical Resources
11
m
')(.
4=
- --- -. - --- 0
FIGURE 1
PROPOSED TIME lINE FOR PREPARATION OF
ROUGE VAllEY RECOMMENDED PARK PlAN
Weeks Elapsed from first Advisory Committee Meeting
(-6) (-5) (-4)( -3)( -Z) (-1)0 1 Z 3 4 5 6 789 10 11 lZ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO ZI ZZ Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7 Z8 Z9 30 31 3Z 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 4Z 43 << 45 46 47 4lI 49 50 51 5Z
Invitations to _I....te )
RVPAC
Mot Ice of first Meeting ~
Review/Approve Tenas of )
Reference
Consu ltants Reports )
Prepa re/Produce )
8.1. Report
Pub IIc Review of )
8.1. Report
Prepare P lann Ing )
Principles + Options
(extensive consultation)
Pub lic Rev tew >
Prepare Draft Pl.on )
Pub lic Rev lew >
Prepare R- .dt..d Plan )
Sulalsslon of
Reco...e..dt.i Plan '*
to Illnlster
(-6)( -5)( -4)( -3) (-Z)( -1)0 1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 lZ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO ZI ZZ Z3 Z4 Z5 Z6 Z7 Z8 Z9 30 31 3Z 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 4Z 43 << 45 46 47 4lI 49 50 51 5Z
12
, .
E~.~l
. Park Operations Policies covering
- Information
- Interpretation
- Recreation
- .Research
- Marketing
- Visitor Services
- Public Safety
. Proposed Development including
- roads and parking
- trails
- commercial services such as concessions
- visitor services and educational facilities
- other recreational facilities
- administrative and operational facilities.
The management plan will provide the general policies to guide
park development and operations. In some instances it will be
necessary to prepare more detailed plans to address specific issues
which are either very complex or require further research. The park
management plan should establish the policy framework for the detailed
plans, including an indication of what public consultation should
occur during plan preparation. The preparation of the detailed plans
is not part of the responsibility of the Advisory Committee.
The plan should also contain a recommended implementation
strategy which would outline:
. a management structure for the park, including which agency or
agencies should be assigned lead management responsibility for
part or all of the park
the agencies/groups which should participate in implementing
specific elements of the plan
13
't2i< ,Lf;L
. an estimated cost for implementing the plan, including land
\
acquisition, park development and operations
. a strategy for facilitating cost sharing in the implementation of
the plan
. recommendations as to which facilities should or should not have
user charges
. strategies which should be pursued to ensure compatible
management of lands which other agencies (e.g., Ontario Hydro,
railroads) may continue to own within the park
planning controls which the province, municipality or other
agency may need to adopt in order to facilitate park development
and management or to ensure compatible development in the
adjacent area
regional implications of the plan, e.g., transit and
transportation improvements outside the park, which may be needed
to serve visitors to the park
. implementation priorities.
The time horizon for the plan should be 20 years. It shoul d be
assumed that the plan will undergo a comprehensive review within 10
years from its adoption. If conditions warrant (e.g., need to
incorporate other areas of the Rouge Valley into the park plan,
substantially changed user patterns or preferences, new knowledge
regarding the park and its resources) the plan or parts of the plan
will be reviewed before the end of the ten year period. Any plan
review will provide for extensive public involvement.
14
, .
~)( . 4- 3
5. PUBLIC CONSULTATION
A major consultation and communication program will be required.
A comprehensive consultation and communications plan should be
prepared at the initiation of the planning process. A consultant
should be hired to assist with the development of the consultation
plan.
The following consultati.on mechanisms will probably be used in
the planning process:
Planning Publications
.
. Leaflets/Brochures which summarize the process
. Technical documents at each stage in the process
. Summary versions of reports (possibly in tabloid form)
. Questionnaires.
Workshops and Tours
Workshops where the general public is invited
Workshops with invited representatives of groups and agencies
. Tours of the park could be used as an opportunity for discussion
of specific issues with members of the public.
Public Meetings
. Open Houses - informal opportunities for public input
. Public Meetings - formal public input.
Ongoing Communications
. News releases
. Newsletter
15
B.~
. Displays (shopping malls, community facilities, etc.)
. Presentations to interested groups
. Videos (for use at displays, meetings, presentation on cable
channels, etc.)
. Status reports to key agencies.
At a minimum, a full time communications person will be required
to operate a program of this nature (see section on staffing
requirements). A consultant should be hired to help in planning the
consultation process, and to serve as a facilitator at some of the
public consultation sessions.
It will be essential to maintain a careful record of the public
consultation in order to ensure that all concerns are considered, and
to be able to indicate the responses to any concerns that have been
raised.
6. ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The Rouge Valley Park Advisory Committee will provide the policy
direction for all stages of the planning process, up to the submission
of the recommended plan to the Minister of Natural Resources.
The staff who are assigned to the project, or who are hired
specifically, will be directed to assist the Advisory Committee in
meeting its assigned responsibilities. If staff are seconded from
other agencies, they will not be expected to act as representatives of
their agencies' interests.
Project Manager
A Project Manager will be seconded from the Ontario Government.
16
~ .
. .
~X.~
The Project Manager will direct the staff who are employed or seconded
to the project. The Project Manager will be responsible for obtaining
the required consultants, and providing procedural and administrative
direction to the consultants. In addition, the Project Manager will
coordinate the liaison with other agencies which are providing
services to .the ~lanning project.
The Project Manager is not intended to serve as a representative
of the Ontario Government, since there is an Ontario Government
representative on the Advisory Committee.
The relationship of the Advisory Committee, Project Manager,
Staff and Consultants is illustrated in Figure 2, Organization Chart.
Staff Requirements
A combination of full time staff and consultants should be used
for the project. Consultants should be used where particular
expertise is required and where independent advice is desirable.
It is anticipated that consultants would be used for some
background information collection, preparation of most planning
materials, design of the public consultation program and facilitation
of some public consultation sessions.
Technical Support
Technical support services such as cartography and preparation of
displays should be provided by consultants/contractors.
Project staff requirements include:
. Project Manager
. Communications Officer
. Secretary
17
n":'\'
x
'f;
FIGURE Z
ORGANIZATION CHART
MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES
I
ROUGE VALLEY PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE
~
POLICY
DIRECTION
PROJECT MANAGER Ir-:
I I I J I *
INFORMATION SECRETARY CONTRACT FACILITATOR! PLANNING
OFFICER TECHNICAL PROGRAM DESIGN CONSULTANTS
SERVICES CONSULTANT
(CARTOGRAPHY,
GRAPHICS, ETC.)
* THE PROGRAM DESIGN CONSULTANT AND PLANNING CONSULTANTS RECEIVE PROCEDURAL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTION FROM THE PROJECT MANAGER. THE ADVISORY
COMMITTEE WILL PROVIDE THE POLICY DIRECTION FOR ALL STAGES OF THE PLANNING
PROCESS.
18
-
- .
.
With the required start-up and completion periods, it is Ex. 4-7
estimated that most of these staff would be required for at least 18
months.
In addition to the full-time staff, other government agencies
should contribute 'as.sistance in the form of staff time and support
services. For example all personnel, payroll and accounts payable
services would be provided by MNR, Central Region.
It will probably be desirable to hire some short term/summer
staff to assist with projects such as an assessment of the current use
of the area.
Location of Project Staff
In order to have effective communication links with the key
agencies and groups, and the interested public, project staff should
be based at an office in or near the Rouge River Valley Park.
7. FUNDING
The Ministry of Natural Resources will provide funding for the
work of the Advisory Committee, subject to the approval of an overall
budget for the project, and prior authorization of any variations from
the budget.
,
19
E'X. Ltg
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
.
EQUIPMENT RENTAL QUOTATIONS
1990
for the
WATER RESOURCB DIVISION
Executive Committee
Meeting '3/90 .
April 20, 1990
Ex. 4-~
EOUIPMENT RENTAL OUOTATIONS
1 9 9 0
MACHINE DESCRIPTION HOURLY
BAn
CARWELL CONSTRUCTION LTD.
Backhoes
5800 Linkbelt $115.00
230 Hydromac 100.00
25A American 90.00
Bucyrus Erie 85.00
Blades
D8K Blade 110.00
D6C Blade 90.00
champion Grader (730A) 85.00
926 Cat Rubbertine Loader 85.00
Loaders/Dozers
966C Wheel Loader 95.00
977L, H & K Front End Loaders 90.00
955H & L Front Loaders 80.00
510JD Rubbertire 75.00
JCB Rubbertire 75.00
450E Crawler Dozer 70.00
455E Crawler Loader 70.00
Bobcat 40.00
Compaction Eauipment
84" Smoothdrum 80.00
84" Sheep foot 80.00
Miscellaneous
Tandems 45.00
Labour
Local 506 31. 47
Local 183 28.77
EAGLE CONTRACTING
JD 401 Rubber Tire Loaders $40.00
JD 310 4x4 Rubber Tire Backhoes 45.~0
JD 450 E 6 Way Blades 50.00
CAT D-3B 6 Way Blades 50.00 .
CAT 931 Track Loaders 50.00
E;(- 'So
MACHINE DESCRIPTION HOURLY
RATE
KAY EOUIPMENT CONTRACTING AND EOUIPMENT RENTAL
Dozers
Cat D8H 104.00
Int'l HarYes~er 500c 46.00
Komatsu 65E 105.00
Cat D3B 64.00
Track Loaders
John Deere 455E 64.00
John Deere 555 64.00
Cat 963 64.00
Wheel Loaders
Case Uniloader 1835 64.00
Ayeling Barford 125 64.00
Back Hoes
Koehring 66 114.00
Cat 235 114.00
Komatsu 200LC3 104.00
Case 580C 58.00
Case 580B 58.00
Dump Trucks
Big Mac 69.00
Terex (Flotation) 99.00
-
MAR DAVE CONSTRUCTION LIMITED
HYdraulic Backhoes
Cat 235 - 1.75m cubic capacity (50,000kg Hin Weight) $110.00
Cat 225 - 1.35m cubic capacity (35,000kg Hin Weight) 85.00
HYdraulic Concrete Breaker
Cat 225 - 35,000kg Hin Weight 125,00
HYdraulic Hoe-Pac Compactor
Cat 225 - 35,000kg Hin Weight 90.00
Dump Trucks
Tandem Rear Axile('88) - 26,000kg Hin Weight 45,00 .
Dozers
Cat D8K - Hin Flyweel Power - 200kn 14 0.00
Cat D7G - Hin Flyweeh Power - 140kn 100.00
Scraper
single Engine - Cat 621B - Hin Heap Capacity 18m cubic 119.00
Loaders (Front End)
Cat 977L - 3.5m cubic Capacity - 23,000kg Hin Weight 80.00
Cat 955 - 2.5m cubic Capacity - 14,000kg Hin Weight 65.00
Front End Loader C/W R/Tire Cat 930 - 2.5m cubic 75.00
EX ,S}
MACHINE DESCRIPTION HOURLY
~
Float
King Size Detachable Gooseneck Capacity 50,000kg Min Weight120.00
Grader
Motor Type 85.00
Gradall 95.00
Compactor
Sheeps Foot (84" Wide) - BW 217 - PO - 12,OOOkg Min Weight 60.00
Smooth Drum (84" Wide) - BW 213 - 0 - 11,000kg Min Weight 60.00
R/Tire Backhoe/Loader Combination - Case 580E 48.00
Pitman 30.00
SARTOR AND BUS IN LTD.
580D/580E Extendahoe 43.00
955H Cat. Crawler 48.50
955L Cat. Crawler 56.00
D5J Cat. Dozer 56.00
977L Cat. Crawler 68.50
Fiat FR 15 Loader 67.50
225 Cat. Backhoe 73.00
D7G Cat. Dozer 74.00
6644 Koehring Backhoe 108'.00
Cat. 235 Hydraulic Excavator 108.00
Tandem Truck (Sartor & Susin) 40.00
Tandem Truck (Outside Firms) 43.50
Volvo 861 Dump Truck 78.00
Float Moves on 5800, 580E, 955H, 955L, D5J 135.00
Float Moves on all other Equipment 180.00
MARK O'CONNOR DISPOSAL DEMOLITION LTD.
R.T.B.H. 580K 4x4 20.00
R.T.B.H. 580 K 20.00
R.T.B.H. 580 K with Concrete Breaker 70.00
R.T.B.H. 580 K with Packer/or Pile Driver 60.00
Komatsu 220 Excavator 55.00
Warner Swayze 700 Hopto 200 55.00
UH09 Hitachi Backhoe 55.00
450 Case Dozer/6 Way Blade .60 28.00
D-31A Komatsu Dozer/6 Way Blade .70 28.00
D-53A Komatsu Dozer 121 Blade . 13 5 40.00
D-6 Cat Dozer/Angle Blade 160 45.00 .
850 Case Dozer 90 34.00
D-55S Komatsu Loader 125 38.00
D-57S Komatsu Loader 165 38.00
D-75S Komatsu Loader 180 47.00
W-20 Case Wheel Loader 125 37.00
4400 Volvo Loader 160 40.00
1150B Case Loader 125 40.00
1455 Case Loader 165 40.00
977 Cat Loader 190 45.00
0-8 Cat Dozer 280 85.00
502 Korening Crane 52.00
Uniloader 1845 20.00
Euclid Dump Truck 37.00
Volvo Dump Truck 60.00
Mack Dump Truck Tandem 250 22.00
;
E1< I 52
I
MACHINE HOURLY
~
VIC PRIESTLY CONTRACTING LTD.
Cat 426 Rubber Tire Backhoe
Four Wheel Drive - 85 h.p'. 54.85
JCB Rubber Tire BAckhoe 4WD 25h.p. 54.85
Cat 955L Track Loader
130 h.p. 2 cubic yards 77.05
International 175 Track Loader
130 h.p. 2 cubic yards 74.35
Cat D8H Dozer 170 h.p. 121. 45
Dresser TD15 Dozer 140 h.p. 82.35
Dresser TD12 Dozer 110 h.p. 80.20
Dresser TD7G Dozer 70 h.p. 53.30
Linkbelt LS5800 Excavator 2 3/4 yd. Capacity 127.15
Linkbelt LS3400 Excavator 1 1/4 capacity 101.10
Linkbelt LS4300 Excavator 2 yd. capacity 124.45
Linkbelt LS2650 Excavator 3/4 yd. Capacity 87.10
Linkbelt LS2650 with Hydraulic
Rock Breaker/Demolition Hammer 110.50
Tandem Excavator Dump Trucks 47.20
Hamm 84" Pad foot Roller 75.40
Raygo 84" Smooth Drum Roller 69.90
Cat D8H with 18 yard Pull Scraper 170 h.p. 128.00
Champion 600 Motor Grader 165 h.p. 69.05
Fiat Allis 645 - 3 yd. Wheel Loader 77 . 05
Cat 950 - 3 yd. Wheel Loader 77 .05
Float Moves - Extra
1
I
1990.04.01
C:\jim\QUOTATION.90
: JT/gds
EX. 53
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
REMARKS
by
THE HONOURABLE LYN McLEOD
MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES
at the
BOARD OF DIRECTORS' MEETINGS
of the
ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES OF ONTARIO
on
APRIL 9, 1990
regarding the
BURGAR REPORT ON CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES
Executive Committee
Meeting #3/90
April 20, 1990
(w) Ministry of Ministere des
Natural Richesses E'X. 5lj-
Resources naturelles
Ontario
NOTES FOR REMARKS BY
THE HONOURABLE LYN MCLEOD
MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES
AT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS' MEETING
OF THE ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES OF ONTARIO
DAYS INN
6257 AlRPORT ROAD
TORONTO, ONTARIO
APRIL 9, 1990
1:30 P.M.
CHECK AGAINST DELIVERY
Thank-you for inviting me to address your meeting.
This is an important time in the 40-year history of conservation authorities in Ontario.
Over the last 10 years, the authorities, the province and the municipalities have
participated in a co-operative process of study and exchange. We have carefully examined
and discussed the operation and mandate of the conservation authorities.
I now find that I have the opportunity and privilege of taking that process forward. I want
to talk to you about where it has brought us today, and where we are going from here.
There's an old saying: "Times change, and we change with them." I think that is an
excellent description of the process we have been going through.
Several reviews of the conservation authorities program have been carried out during the
last decade. These reviews, particularly those since 1986, have all had a common goal.
That goal is the revitalization of Ontario's conservation authorities. We want to ensure
that the authorities maintain a leading role in conservation and water management in
Ontario in the 1990s and into the 21st century.
When the first conservation authorities were formed in the 1940s, their founders were
pioneers in conservation in Ontario. At that time, poor land-use practices and lack of
flood control measures led to frequent and damaging floods, extensive soil erosion, and
insecure water supplies for wells and streams.
E")C 5S-
- 2 -
Forty years later, we live in a different world.
Thanks in large measure to conservation authorities, land-use planning and flood
prevention and protection measures are now incorporated into development plans and
proposals. The principle of organizing authorities on a watershed basis has been an
essential factor in providing effective water management.
We live in a world now, too, in which public concern for the environment has never been
greater. Opinion polls consistently show that the environment is the number one public
issue across North America and Europe.
Even the meaning of the word "conservation" has changed. In the 1940s, we defined
conservation as the "wise use" of our resources. Today conservation has come in the
public mind to mean the protection of our natural world.
That change reflects our new understanding of the pressures on the natural environment.
We realize that, on a local and a global level, our natural resources are approaching the
limit of their sustainable use.
We are running out of time to adapt the way we live and the way we manage our natural
resources. Some observers have predicted that we will stand or fall on the actions we take
over the next 10 years.
We must make our choices and allocate our efforts and resources carefully.
Those of us responsible for managing Ontario's natural resources must ensure that we an~
operating with maximum efficiency and with minimum duplication of effort. We must also
be accountable for our decisions. Good sense dictates it, and the public demands it.
The conservation authorities have a critically important role to play in effective iand use
planning and wise management of our resources. And you are clearly in a position to be.
directly accountable within your own regions. You know your own areas, and you bring
personal commitment to your responses to specific regional concerns.
It is perhaps because your role is so essential that review of the authorities takes on a
greater sense of urgency. In the course of the reviews, your association, the Association
of Municipalities of Ontario, and my ministry have all expressed concerns about aspects
of the mandate and operation of the conservation authorities.
- 3 - EX ,5~
I think we agree that the lack of a core mandate in the current conservation authority
program has led to inconsistent delivery of programs and services across the province. The
relatively small size and limited local financial base of many authorities do not enhance
their ability to deliver services as efficiently and effectively as possible. Widely varying
provincial grant rates and funding for programs also skew local priorities. And the large
number of members in some authorities leads to an over-reliance on executive committees,
with a resulting loss of involvement and accountability of the full membership.
These are some of the problems we have been addressing in our reviews and discussions
over the last few years. I think those discussions have brought us all to an understanding
that times have changed, and that now we must change with them.
My letters to you of February 9 outlined the main reforms I have been considering in
responding to the Ballinger Committee review of the Burgar Report. These proposed
reforms include a move to the core and non-core program concept to clarify responsibility
for program delivery; the reorganization of authorities to enable them to effectively deliver
their mandate; membership reductions to enhance responsiveness and accountability; and
rationalization of funding arrangements, while remaining sensitive to the local ability to pay.
I am convinced that changes to the conservation authorities program are necessary and I
am committed to proceeding with them as expeditiously as possible. I believe they will
ensure, for the conservation authorities, a leading role in conservation and water
management in the future.
I do, however, want to be sure that the next steps we take are, indeed, in the right
direction. That is why I want to hear a little more from you before finalizing our position.
I understand that several local chapters of your association have passed resolutions which
accept in principle the mandate and funding proposals. But I know many of you still have
concerns about some aspects of the proposed reforms.
I particularly want to address the issue of funding. A number of you have sUbgested that
the review of the conservation authorities program is being used as an opportunity for
over-all reductions in funding to the program.
You are not alone in your budget concerns. Other publicly funded groups, including
schools, universities and hospitals, believe that they need and deserve increased funding.
This is an era of increasing demand on government budgets. Conservation authorities have
received funding increases similar to those given to other government transfer agencies.
But there is no question that there is, and likely always will be, more to do in conservation,
as in health or education, than there are funds to meet all the needs.
f)(.67
- 4 -
The identification of a core mandate for the authorities does focus transfer funds on fewer
areas. But it may be that the introduction of the concept of core and non-core mandates
will actually enhance the potential scope of your work.
There will no longer be an MNR grant to continue with or take on non-core
responsibilities, and you will have to obtain separate funding for those programs through
contracts with the province or the municipalities, user-fees, local levies, or other revenues.
It's a new way of managing, but it needs to be tried. And I believe it can work. I am
certain that concentrating MNR's grants to conservation authorities on the more limited
scope of the core program will ensure greater effectiveness in those essential areas of
involvement.
In the funding proposals we are considering, we are seeking to create greater fairness in
the distribution of funds and in the level of local contribution throughout the province.
I believe this is an important step in providing for consistent delivery of the core mandate
across Ontario.
The proposals call for additional provincial funding to restructured authorities that find
their ability to raise the local share is still unreasonably constrained by a limited assessment
base. Nonetheless, we need to assure ourselves that the proposed funding formula does
provide for the fairest, most equitable distribution of the available resources.
I am sure many of you feel that, after all the study that has been done, it is time to get
on with implementation of reforms to the conservation authorities program.
At the same time, I want to acknowledge that many of you feel that you require a clearer
understanding of the proposed reforms in the areas of mandate and funding before you
will be able to assess the full implications of all program changes.
My ministry staff and I appreciate those concerns. I certainly recognize that the people
who deliver the conservation authorities program on a daily basis can see most accurately
the implications of program changes.
I believe we must work together to ensure that all of us fully understand the changes to
come in the areas of mandate, funding, amalgamation and membership reduction. We will
also have an opportunity to refine the d~tails of implementation of the proposals.
I have asked my staff to work with you to agree upon the detailed definition of specific
items in the mandate of the authorities, and to jointly analyse the impact of the funding
formula.
- 5 - fx .:sg-
I also intend to appoint immediately an implementation steering group headed by one of
my legislative colleagues, and including representatives from your association, the
Association of Municipalities of Ontario, and the ministries of Natural Resources and
Municipal Affairs.
This group will operate as a conflict-resolution mechanism in refining the mandate
definition, resolving issues in the funding impact analysis, and facilitating the restructuring
of the authorities. I expect to receive recommendations from this group by the end of this
calendar year and to take forward a reform program shortly thereafter. We will then have
the better part of 1991 to ready ourselves to begin operating as a renewed program from
January 1, 1992.
I do believe that the authorities must be restructured to ensure they remain ready and able
to make their vital contribution to water management and conservation in Ontario.
I also believe that individual authorities can play an important role in the restructuring
process. Local representatives may decide that the best new structure for their authority
diverges somewhat from the proposals of the Burgar Committee, or those outlined in my
letter of February 9th.
However, I have had the benefit of the recommendations regarding amalgamations from
both the Burgar and the Ballinger committees. Their conclusions on this subject are very
similar. I would therefore be reluctant to consider proposals for significantly more
conservation authorities in southern Ontario than the 18 or 19 they have recommended.
I believe the changes we are considering offer an exciting future for conservation
authorities. Certainly, the proposed restructuring and the identification of a core mandate
provide a greater opportunity for effective involvement in land-use planning at the local
level.
The government continues to be concerned about the efficiency of the land-use planning
process, and we know that if we are to achieve greater effectiveness, with full ~egard to
values that must be addressed, co-ordination of our approach is absolutely n';cessary.
';x.5?
- 6 -
Resource management concerns will have to be identified and considered early in the
planning process, and the conservation authorities must be a key part of that process.
The expanded role of the authorities in areas such as land-use planning, as well as the
potential of the non-core concept, suggests to me that, beyond the implementation steering
group, the conservation authorities program would be well served by a broadly based
liaison committee. The committee could include myself, your executive, and
representatives of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario.
This committee would allow us to talk together on a regular basis about program issues,
both before and after implementation of the current program changes. It would help us
to explore the implications of your broader role, and facilitate the possibilities for non-
core programs.
It would also allow us to invite the participation from time to time of other ministers
whose programs and policies affect the activities of the authorities -- for example, the
Minister of Municipal Affairs, or the Minister of the Environment.
A similar arrangement between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the
Ministry of Municipal Affairs has served its members well.
I therefore plan to establish the terms of reference for such a committee as soon as
possible.
I am strongly committed to the conservation authorities program, and to its strengthening
and improvement through the reforms I have discussed.
Your organizations are the longest and most successful resource management partnershifi
between the province and the municipalities.
The sooner we can finalize our review process and proceed with changes that are seen as
necessary to your future effectiveness, the sooner you will be able get on with your
essential, front-line role in conservation and water management in Ontario. And it's a role
that is now more important than ever.
Earlier I said: "Times change, and we change with them." As we move into a new
decade, I welcome the changes we are making. I consider them, above all, a reaffirmation
of your valuable work. I look forward to the renewal of a long and productive partnership.
- end -
Ex.bo
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
WILD WATER KINGDOM
USE OF RESERVOIR
Executive Committee Meeting #4/90
May 11, 1990
~x.bl
CLAIREVILLE CONSERVATION AREA
Wild Water Kingdom, Use of Reservoir
BACKGROUND
In the initial plan for wild Water Kingdom, it was envisaged that the
Claireville Reservoir was an important feature of the park and could be
utilized for a variety of water oriented activities, other than swimming.
Wild Water Kingdom proposes to introduce the following new activities for
1990:
Paddle Boats
Peddle Boats
Bumper Boats
Canoes
Wind Surfers
The activities will be supervised by individuals with lifesaving training
and operate Monday to Sunday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Each activity would operate in its own section as defined by buoys or
similar markers. A motorized rescue boat will be available at all times.
The activities in the reservoir will conform to all Aquatic and Boating
Safety Standards set forth within Ontario Guidelines and Provincial
legislation.
The use of the Reservoir is permitted through the Licence Agreement between
wild Water Kingdom and the Authority.
The windsurfing will be dependent on water testing and meeting Ministry of
Health Guidelines.
Wild Water Kingdom has an "annual" lease agreement to utilize the reservoir
subject to Authority approval of the activities
The Executive Committee at Meeting #3/90, held on April 20, 1990, adopted
the following resolution #55:
THAT staff be directed to report on the water quality at the
Claireville Reservoir and request Wild Water Kingdom to submit precise
and detailed plans for the use of the reservoir before the request by
Wild Water Kingdom to use Claireville Reservoir for a variety of
boating and windsurfing activities is approved.
Staff has now done bacteriological Analysis of Water in the Claireville
Reservoir between the C.N. Tracks and Steeles Avenue. Test results
indicate the water is safe for swimming at this time, thus permitting
windsurfing. Regular testing will be continued and should the quality
deteriorate below the safe swimming level, windsurfing will be stopped.
The detailed plans of the use of the reservoir, as prepared by Wild Water
Kingdom, are included in the appendix.
RATIONALE
Staff is satisfied that the plans submitted by Wild Water Kingdom to
utilize the Reservoir add an important dimension to the services offered to
the public at Claireville and are consistent with the theme of the water
park.
FINANCIAL
All capital and operating costs are provided by wild Water Kingdom, with
the Authority receiving 8% of the gross revenues, as provided for in the
agreement between The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority and wild Water Kingdom.
TEB/csk
1990.05.08
'-, .... \--' l._} \_1 U \:,\ \..1 . , i._i .) . "-) ..J ) ..)
..... ~. ..
EX. b;l. ,,-
-. -
@ FOR OFFICIAL AGENCY USE ONLY Bacteriological Analysis of Water
Ministry Laboralory For Multiple Sample Submission
of Services From A Single Source
Branch
Ontario Health Dale '.c.I...~. Check all approprtate bo..a
DrInkIng Wato, Hon--drlnlrlng Wat... Comments:
Source of Samples Claireville Reservoir o Treated
[X] Recreatlonll o Swimming
Pool-Indoor
Dale Sampled qn/nd/'d Collected by o Non-lreBted o Hydrotherapy
Repo" 10 M.T.R.C.A. Spa WhirlpOOl 0 ~~~~O~~SOO(
o Municipal Supply o WOdlng Pool 0
Address Peel Reqion o Olhe, public .upply Sewage
o Single Household OOlher
5 Shore ham Drive
w Ontario M3N lS4 Bacterial Counts Sued On l00ml. Vol.
Coliform!! APC
F lecal Based on
Sample IdanUltcallon or Labor.lory Number Sick. Ps. leru. S lureUI Strapla- lml Vol
No. COllecllon Sue ground glnou
Tolal FaecII cocci
.
Clv 040 Steeles Bridge 10
Boat Ramp Area/Railway
Clv 041 Tracks at Wild Water 40
Clv 042 ILC Campground 10
Clv 043 Claireville Dam <10
Acceptable Swir Iming Results: up to 100 Faeea Count
Swimming not rl commended, but, allowed: 100- 00 Pae -a 1 Co nt
" .~ ..... uwt::d. GLt:.ClLt::L Llldll :lUll rae~ ,-ount:
---
-
- - j
Sampling Precautions: For L.ooratory Use
- ArranQe sampling programs and schedules beforehand wllh
receiVing laboralory.
- Transport all samples to laboralory wllhln 8 hours aile,
collecllon or wllhln 24 hours It kept relrlgeraled (~).
- Use a separale submIssion form lor each type and source of
waler sample submllled lor analYSIS.
E um.._... ('-....... I DIIO reponed I
95-...181.051 0/1111
f)( . b3
" Park Address: R.R.#8. (7855 Finch Ave. w.).
BRAMPTON, Ontario L6T 3Y7
Tel: (416) 794-0565
Head Office: 4 Wellington Street East,
({II 4th Floor.
TORONTO. Ontario M5E 1C5
Tel: (416) 369-0774
WATER Fax: (416) 369-0998
'KINGDOM
WILD WATEH KINGDOM
1990 RESERVOIR ATTRACTIONS
-------------------------
-------------------------
ACTIVITIES NUMBER OF CRAFTS
Paddle boats 6
Kiddie Canoes 6
Windsurfers 12
Durnp(~ r Boats 6
Canoes 6
OPERATING SCIIEDULE
: Easter Weekend to Thanksgiving Week~nd - annually
-
: Easter t.o Mid June - weekends only
: Mid June to Labour Day - daily
: Lahour Day Weekend t.o Thanksglvln9 - Iveekends only
Hours
: During weekend only schedule 11 : 00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. lor dusk)
: During open daily schedule 10;()() d.m. to 7:00 p.m.
"
PRICING SCHEDULE
: Paddle Boat~ $ 2.50 f () ,. S min.
: Kiddie Canoes $ .75 pl'I' I' I (j,~
: Bumper Boats $ ~.OO [01' S mill.
: Windsurfers $15.00 I Jf' I' hUlll'
- 11::8son5' $12.50 l" . ,. liulIt"
: CCinocs S10.00 ~I/.' I' Ii (Ill t'
E. ~ .f, l.J-
Page 2
ACTIVITY LIMITATIONS/RESTRICTIONS
: Use of life jackets will be mand~'ttory for all reserVOir
attractions
: A trained lifeguard will be positioned at the site at all
times during operating hours
: The following attractions would operate only within a
specific area as defined by buoys 1. e.
- Kiddie Canoes approximately 800 sq. ft. section
- Bumper Boats approximately 1000 sq. ft. section
: Paddle Boats would operate In a larger defined section
- apPl"oximately 9000 sq. ft.
: Windsurfers and canoes could use most of the reservoir with
exceptions as defined by buoys and slgnage
: A motorized rescue control craft would be present at all
times, staffed by a qualified lifeguard and would, at
intervals, tour the windsurfer and canoe use area.
: A small building would be constructed to be used as supply
storage and attendants station. The small wood
frame building would be no more: than 100 sq. ft.
: The floating dock facility constructed would be of a
temporary nature arid could be easily removed and replaced
when necessary. There would be safety railings. attached
to the deck.
"
: Under no circumstance would any other power boats, other
than the rescue craft be allowed In the reservoir
: Absolutely no swimming would be permitted In the reservoir
E)( .(,s-
" ,q e, ,
. . oH
/o;'/\'g@ . '..~
:-<>((~~.'~ ~ ) Rf3l..--:--:7." ....
//~\ /tie ~.. I
. ,o.:.J. 0 . . I
/ ~. . . 0.:.:.
I rt~____ . /. 0.. ,
il/ 9.''':-.....:. /'. Q. ~. '.' i .
. . . 0 . . ~
/ \.:.~ ,.Q"'<"
f. !.. '.......:..~ .C:"l,' .............. ________ .':
. . ~!f.J . '., W ~'. .
! fgi .19 l-i':~'81;~! ~~"
, . IJ ~. . . tI\ . I 0 I
I (-.--..-.-.: '. I' i)-f. O. ~ I
\i . ----~j ~i.~ '.' 8 .' .' .' I .' '.' I'
,...-.- . d .
If . ~j;'.w. 8 .' .' .' . , '. _ DOCK
,~ Vd ,"0-. C .. ",\
II., --...---------r:--... ~.. I.
I .-----.... ~ D d ' "
1'1 ! (80'00'0 0 o.SB5~-;'~ j .~ i '. s ..... \. '-\
; ^ u/ '"'.1/ ~. l, ".1. ~
. M" . """""', v.. I ~~
.\; '. u '\'1 /)' .~~;;~~ . . Ily~;.. 8 '\..
: (r""'"\' 1,'_ It,..~. '.'~. '':~
I, Q-~. "".6 1:\, . '. \ . ..
';1. "<:"';''''''-'''.. '< ." .:'
I r....'-....-J:;-\~.,..:J/)O j. . ._ 0 <) ..._
II -':'. 'Lr-l' "\ {t\ {) -,\:"~'l17l
I "'--' " }-.. , l"" \ CO':..v . ~ . ,
ill \" \.~)~ ')~'~'I- J ~. './"~'O.~ . .
I:. u j,' ,.~\..." ,_ I ' 'W /~
': '" .\ - t ....., 6) _ CJ I .
'" "<...1'",. '. . "0 .
ljl...../ (!P~';;,~ C _" ~ .
\\ 'f .~\\ Mfij::;75:~~' . \, ,.0 · ..: <' "" . Site Pie n
" '\ ?J/cr . ~-.JII ". "'.. '. j Wator KIn
,,,.!, I . . . "'--,",~ r h, / . Wild
i I: I.~f -fi'/": '>ir>-~ . .. . I """0"
\ \~--'V.1, : (ijf ,). '~:;r ~ '.::, '. ~. \ H.tWm." Cot\ .
" .' I), C8 (( d.D' · . .~'!- ~ s..pt.~. ~6Q
1:~..: ",t;f'~~<.!.~', .."'..... /" .
",i---:". .' LJJ'tl ~,. '.' .
\ '. . 'r;p<J' . ~'. . ,'. 'FI
,:~,' \::: '. o.,~' );fi~~ GJ'8J. · _~___~
\~:--. \ C>BJ #'\9!P I/" ~\
,~, if __::-~~~
~o=-- __J
-.--
-.---.--...-- --- -.--..
@
~x.fo~
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CORSERVATION AUTHORITY
APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRMAN
Letter from
PIlEItIER DAVID PETERSON
May 8, 1990
Executive Committee Meeting #5/90
June 1, 1990
Ex. (p7
The Premier Le Premier ministre Legislative Building HOtel du gouvernement
of Ontario de l'Ontario Queen's Park Queen's Park
Toronto. Ontario Toronto (Ontario)
M7A lAl M7A lAl
965-1941
May 8, 1990
Mr. W.A. McLean RECEIVED
General Manager
Metropoli tan: ,Toronto and Region MAY 22 t990
Conservatipn~~uthority
5 Shoreham Drive M. T.R.C!A!
Downsview, Ontario
M3N lS4
Dear Mr. McLean:
Thank you for your letter of February 27, 1990,
concerning a delay in the appointment of the Chairman
of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority (MTRCA).
As you now know, , John McGinnis was recently appointed
Chairman by Orde+-in-Council for a one year term.
r have noted your request that, in future, the MTRCA be
permitted to elect its own Chairman from among its
members. The MTRCA has jurisdiction throughout much of
the Greater Toronto Area, where there is a strong
interrelationship between conservation, planning and
development issues. r am sure that the members of the
Authority appreciate the significant role which the
Authority plays in ensuring that development proceeds
in an environmentally compatible manner. As a result
of these considerations, the Province will continue to
appoint the Chairman of the MTRCA.
Once again, thank you for writing.
Sincerely,
'"\,
Ex, 199
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
PEARSE HOUSE
AGREEMENT TO LEASE
Executive Commitee Meetinq #7/90
July 13, 1990
.
.-" OT METRO A
The Municipality of ." I o.'Q0
, Metropolitan Toronto
Metropolitan Clerk's Department (j z
z t't9 0
390 Bay Street, 5th Floor 1, ~
Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5H 3Y7 ~~ 'if
Telex: 06-23472 Fax: (416) 392-2980 .' ~ . /951 . 0 (g. q
Telephone: (416) 392-8012
Daniel Crombie, Metropolitan Toronto Clerk
Novlna Wong, Deputy Metropolitan Clerk
,.
July 5, 1990. ~~ .
~
Mr. W. A. McLean, + ~ ~k
General Manager, .?~ ...." ~
Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conserva tion Authority,
5 Shore ham Drive, .C\
Downsview, Ontario .-t/
M3N IS4
Dear Mr. McLean: .
I am enclosing for your information and any attention deemed necessary, the
appended Clause No.4 contained in Report No. 12 of The Parks, Recreation and
Property Committee which was adopted, as amended, by the Council of The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting held on July 4, 1990.
May I draw your attention to the amendment by Council found at the end of
the Cia use. .
Yours truly,
N.Wongjcsb Metropolitan Toronto Clerk.
Enc!.
Sent to: General Manager, Metropolitan Toronto & Region Conservation Authority
General Manager, Metropolitan Toronto Zoo
0 70
. Clause embodied in Report No. 12 of The Parks, Recreation and Property' Committee
adopted, as amended, by the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Torontc? at Its
meeting held on July 4; 1990.
4
AGREEMENT TO LEASE PEARSE HOUSE.
The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee recommends that, subject to the
approval of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, Council approve
the actions of The Board of Management of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo respecting the
Pearse House, as set out in the folio wing report (June 11, 1990) from the General
Manager, Metropolitan Toronto Zoo; and that the appropriate Metropolitan Officials be
authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
,-
The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee submits the (ollowlng report
(June 11, 1990) from the General Manager, Metropolitan Toronto Zoo:
Recommenda tion:
Approval is requested to enter into agreements with the Rouge Valley Foundation
for the renovation, relocation and lease of the Pearse House located on the Metropolitan
Toronto Zoo site, subject to approval of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority.
Background:
The proposed lease arose from a motion (Attachment A) of The Board of
Management of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo on December 18, 1989, to enter into a
Relocation/Renovation Agreement (Attachment B) and, upon the completion of this
agreement, a Lease Agreement (Schedule B of Attachment B). Both agreements are
between the Board of Management, the Rouge Valley Foundation, and the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority:
The Pearse House is a smail farm house located on Zoo property east on Meadowvale
Road, north of the main access route to the Zoo. It has been reported that the original
house was constructed in the 1880's, and that the exterior was later bricked in 1893. The
building was last occupied in 1971 by Zoo staff.
The deteriorating condition of the building was brought to the attention of the
Board of Management"on October 21,1986. Metropolitan Council approved the demolition
of the Pearse House on November 21, 1986.
In May, 1987, a written proposal on Pearse House was received by the Zoo from the
Rouge Valley Foundation outlining planned renovations, operating and capital"costs and
a list of requirements from the Zoo. After a series of protracted discussions with the
Rouge Valley Foundation, the approval to proceed with the demolition of the Pearse
House was rescinded and consideration was given to moving the Pearse House (see minutes
and other material as Attachment C). The Board of Management directed staff to report
back at their December, 1989, meeting on details of a lease arrangement, and on the
,
. 2 if
requirements of the City of Scarborough associated with the moving and relocation of the
Pearse House (Attachment D). The motion of December 18, 1989, (Attachment A), is the
result of these meetings. -
The recommendation of the Board of Management, in support of the proposed use
of the Pearse House by the Rouge Valley Foundation, is not to be construed as forming
part of the regular activities of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo, but should be viewed as
a separate entity operating with its own distinct but somewhat related objectives.
Upon the advice of the Metropolitan Solicitor in his letter to the General Manager
dated November 15, 1989, (Attachment D included in material su bmi tted to the
December 18, 1989, Board of Management meeting), any long term lease of land would
have to be vetted through the Land Management Committee. On January 23, 1990, this
approval was sought from the Land Management Committee.
In their reply of May 7, 1990, (Attachment E), the Secretary indicated that the
matter was not within the mandate of the Committee and suggested that it be considered
by Metropolitan Council. We ask, therefore, for inclusion on the Parks, Recreation and
Property Committee's agenda, and recommend to the Committee approval of the two
attached agreements. .
Determination of the ownership of lands was investigated by the Parks and Property
Department and their report is attached (Attachment F). The lands are owned by the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority and thus will require their
approval.
The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee also submits the following report
(June 14, 1990) from the Deputy Commissioner - Operations:
Recommenda tion:
It is recommended that, subject to the approval of the Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority, Council approve the actions of the Board of Management
of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo respecting the Pearse House, as described in the report
from the General Manager dated June 11, 1990.
Background:
The structure known as the Pearse House is a century old farm house, located on
the east side of Meadowvale Road and north of the main access route to the Metropolitan
Toronto Zoo. The property consists of a 260.541 acre parcel of land acquired in 1962 by
the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. The Pearse House has been
vacant since 1971, and in 1986 authority was granted to demolish the structure.
Prior to the demolition, the Rouge Valley Foundation submitted a proposal to The
Board of Management of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo for its use of the Pearse House.
Protracted negotiations have subsequently occurred, and the Board of Management is
now recommending to Council that a Relocation and Restoration Agreement be entered
into with the Foundation, which would see the relocation of the Pearse House to another
site, on the same parcel, and the restoration of the structure. All costs will be borne by
the Rouge Valley Foundation.
The Board of Management is also recommending that a lease be entered into with
the Foundation for a term expiring on December 17, 1999, at an annual rent of $1.00 per
year, with the Foundation being responsible for its share of taxes, utilities, etc.
--
,
."
, 71-.
3
Recognizing the deteriorated state of the structure and the capital being committed by
- the Foundation to relocate and restore the building, it is my opinion that the nominal
sum lease with a term expiring on December 17, 1999, is fair and reasonable.
(Copies of the attachments referred to in the foregoing Clause were forwarded to
each Member of Council with the Parks, Recreation and Property Committee Agenda for
its meeting held on June 19,1990, and copies are on file in the office of the Metropolitan
Toronto 'Clerk.)
(The Metropolitan Council on July 4. 1990. amended the foregoing Clause by inserting
after the words "the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority" in the
recommendation of the Parks. Recreation and Property Committee. the following words:
"and also subject to the Board of Ma~lagement of the Metropolitan
Toronto Zoo ensuring that the Rouge Valley Foundation will undertake
no sales ancillary to the approved uses without the specific approval
of the Board of Management of the Metropolitan Toronto Zoo and the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority".)
EX. 73
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
THE TORONTO SPORTSMEN'S ASSOCIATION
RENEWAL OF LEASE
17 MILL STREET, NORTH YORK
Executive Commitee Meeting #7/90
July 13, 1990
:c,
$
?j
.~
-- -- - ------ ~ ----- -- .-- ... --- - ----
.
The Municipality of . /;.;. . Ofl"'IETROA
~.. ~ Q 0
Metropolitan Toronto !;b' ~ 0- ~
Metropolitan Clerk's Department - ~y' ~ ~ Z
390 Bay Street, 5th Floor .J~~/'J, t Q -Y"t o-f
Toronto. Ontario, Canada M5H 3Y7
Telex: 06-23472 Fax: (416) 392-2980 . ~7 ~ . 195) .
Telephon,e; (416) 392-8012 .... '.... tOto r
Daniel Crombie, Metropolitan Toronto Clerk .....:'q. i' ry ... '-r-
.....-. .of? ~/~
Novlna Wong, Deputy Metropolitan Clerk '-~~
"-,
.
June 22, 1990. RECEIVED
JUN 26 1990
Mr. W. A. McLean, M.T.R.C.A.
General Manager,
Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conserva tion Au thori ty,
5 Shoreham Drive,
Downsview, Ontario
M3N IS4
Dear Mr. McLean:
I am enclosing for your information and any attention deemed necessary, the
appended Clause No.3 contained in Report No. 11 of The Parks, Recreation and
Property Committee which was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The
Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at its meeting held on June 20 and 21, 1990.
Yours truly,
...
N.Wong/csb Metropolitan Toronto Clerk.
Enc!.
Sen t to: Commissioner of Parks and Property
General Manager, Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conserva tion Au thori ty
~
~
~
-.-...._--- -.._- ________________. ____~_...:a.:::...._..._.__ ----~.- - - . ---- ="'"=---
0
.
,
75
Clause embodied in Report No. 11 of The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee, as
adopted by the Council of The Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto at Its meeting held
on June 20 and 21, 1990.
3
RENEWAL OF LEASE WITH THE TORONTO SPORTSMEN'S
ASSOCIATION - 17 MILL STREET, NORTH YORK.'
The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee recommends that, subject to the
approval of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region. Conservation Authority, the leasing
agreement with the Toronto Sportsmen's Assoclatlon for a two storey former dwelling
located at 17 Mill Street, North York, be renewed for a five-year term commencing
July 1, 1990, at a rent of $1,050.00 per month, and such other terms and conditions as
may be deemed necessary by the Metropolitan Solicitor; and that the appropriate
Metropolitan Officials be authorized to take the necessary action to give effect thereto.
The Parks, Recreation and Property Committee submits the following report
(May 30, 1990) from the Deputy Commissioner - Operations:
Background:
Your Committee on April 18, 1990, had before it the Commissioner of Parks and
Property's report (March 26, 1990) recommending, subject to the approval of the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, that the leasing agreement
with the Toronto Sportsmen's Association for a two (2) storey former dwelling located
at 17 Mill Street, North York, be renewed for a five (5) year term commencing
July 1, 1990, at a rent of $1,050.00 per month.
Your Committee referred back the aforementioned report to the Commissioner, with
a request that he submit a further report on the prevailing residential and business rents
for comparable facilities in the area. Accordingly, the following data is submitted for
your information.
The subject is a two (2) storey, seven (7) room former residential dwelling
approximately 2,000 square feet in size, and is located adjacent to the Don River in a
portion of York Mills Park.
Comparable Residential Rental Rates:
Address. Brief Description. Unadjusted Monthly
Ren tal.
2095 A venue Road 2 storey brick detached $ 1 ,600.00.
(near Wilson A venue) 6 room dwelling.
218 York Mills Road 2 storey brick detached $2,000.00.
(near Bayview A venue) 7 room dwelling.
697 Oriole Parkway 2 storey brick. detached $2,000.00.
(near Eglinton A venue) 7 room dwelling.
212 Yonge Boulevard 2 storey brick detached Asking
(near Wilson A venue) 6 room dwelling. $2,200.00.
~
r:.,:,
~
-.....---... ..-------- a:
----~ ---.-.--.--.- -~ ------=
.
.
2 7(p
Comparable Commercial Rental Rates:
Address. Brief Description. Unadjusted Monthly
Rental.
223 Sheppard A venue West 1 storey, 2,000 square feet $2,267.00.
(near Y onge Street) brick detached former
dwelling converted to office.
666 Moun t Pleasant A ven ue 2 storey, 2,000 square feet $2,267.00.
(near Hillsdale A venue) semi-detached former
dwelling converted to office.
183 Avenue Road 3 storey, 2,000 square feet $2,583.00.
(near Davenport Road) semi-detached former
dwelling converted to office.
290 St. Clair Avenue West 2 storey, 2,000 square feet $1,977.00.
(near Spadina A venue) detached former
dwelling converted to office.
The Toronto Sportsmen's Association is a non-profit, volunteer conservation and
outdoor recreation organization, in business mainly to educate the public on how to enjoy
the outdoors safely. Revenues are mainly generated by membership money, courses run
in Hunter Safety Education and Wilderness Survival, and grants.
Prior to 1985, the Association occupied a portion of the Metropolitan-owned property
located at 61 Edgehill Drive'in the City of Etobicoke. The rent was $1.:.. :' per year, with
the Association being responsible for realty taxes.
At that time, the Parks Western District Office occupied the residence located at
17 Mill Street. In order to provide a more central location for the Western District
Headquarters, the Sportsmen's Association vacated the Edgehill property and commenced
its occupation at 17 Mill Street. They entered into a five-year lease with the Metropolitan
Corporation, paying $950.00 per month. The lease provided for a further five-year
renewal at a rent to be negotiated.
17 Mill Street is situated within the one hundred year regional floodline, as defined
by the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, and, in my opinion, it
is inappropriate to compare commercial or residential market rents to this property.
EX.. 17
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
RESPONSE FROM THE HON. LYN McLEOD,
MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES
TO THE REPORT ENTITLED
"A COMPREHENSIVE BASIN MANAGEMENT STRATEGY FOR THE ROUGE RIVER WATERSHED"
AUGUST 8, 1990
Executive Committee
Meeting #9/90
August 24, 1990
.
~~~ Ministry of Minister Ministere des Mlnlstre Queen's Park
~~L Toronto, Ontario
Natural Richesses M7A lW3
Resources naturelles 416/965.1301
"-=-"
Ontano
RECEIVED tX.7&
-
AUt; 9 1990
AUG 8 1990 M.T.R.C.A. 90-01449-MIN
Mr. W. A. McLean
General Manager
The Metropolitan Toront~ and Region
Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 1S4
Dear Mr. McLean:
Thank you for your letter of April 10, 1990, and the
enclosed report entitled "A Comprehensive Basin Management
strategy for the Rouge River Watershed."
I appreciate your sharing with me a copy of this report.
Your Authority is to be commended on its efforts. As the
recent announcement of the creation of an urban park on the
lower section of the Rouge River has focused increased
attention on this watershed,' the strategy is most timely.
The incorporation of an ecosystem approach as the basis for
developing this strategy, and the utilization of the concept
of sustainable development for directing policies to be
implemented, are important steps. The intent of the
strategy, as defined in the Vision section, certainly
coincides with current public concern for the environment.
I agree wholeheartedly with the watershed approach to
planning, and applaud your efforts at bringing the
stakeholders with an interest in the Rouge together to
develop this strategy. The Ministry of Natural Resources
appreciates the opportunity to participate in the
formulation of this document. I recognize the difficulties
which are inherent in involving so many different parties
with differing objectives and agendas, and appreciate that
the r.esulting document may not be c9mpletely acceptable in
all areas to all parties.
.../2
E:~ 1CJ
- 2 -
While there are parts of the strategy which may be somewhat
ambiguous, I am confident that outstanding issues can be
addressed in consultation with Ministry District staff. For
example, the preparation of a Fisheries Management Plan for
the Rouge River, which is being undertaken by Maple
District, in close cooperation with your Authority, will
assist in the resolution of fisheries management issues and
other concerns, such as the application of development
setbacks in the various watershed zones.
rhe Ministry of Natural Resources is pleased to accept its
lead agency role as identified in the strategy, and will
work towards implementation of the appropriate strategies
and other measures within the timeframe set out in the
document.
Again, thank you for giving Ministry staff the opportunity
to participate in this process.
Yours truly,
*711t4r/
Lyn McLeod
Minister
E")( &>0
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP
OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. C-6S-86
REVISED MAY 1990
Executive Committee
Meeting #9/90
August 24, 1990
c')l. ~ I
I
THE
. CORPORATION
OFTHE
CITY OF
. ETOBICOKE
OFFICIAL PLAN OF TH E
ETOBICOKE PLANNING
AREA.
the motel strip
secondary AMENDMENT
plan N9 C-65-86
Revised May 1990
E)l. <82-
. Part One:
Preamble
PURPOSE OF THE AMENDMENT
This amendment relates to lands south of Lake Shore Boulevard
between Park Lawn Road and Palace Pier Court, known as the Motel
Strip. The purpose of the amendment is to incorporate policies
governing existing uses and future redevelopment on the Motel
Strip into the Official Plan for the City of Etobicoke.
BACKGROUND
The 1948 Township of Etobicoke Official Plan designated the Motel
Strip for Residential-Third Density use 50-75 uph' (20-30 upa) .
In recognition of the high accessibility of the area to downtown
Toronto, development in accord with the R4 Zoning provisions took
the form of motels, as well as single-family homes and a service
station.
In 1967 a comprehensive review of the Official Plan was
undertaken. The Motel Strip area was redesignated for
Residential High Density use 272 uph (110 upa) with ancillary
Institutional, Open Space and Commercial areas by the District 7
Plan, which was approved by Council on April 24, 1972.
Recognizing the desirability of consolidating the large number of
properties in the area, the Plan proposed that each designated
area be developed as part of an integrated development
application under conunon land assembly. The proposed amendment
was referred to the Ontario Municipal Board and on May 30, 1973,
Council withdrew the proposed Residential High Density
E",~~3
- 2 -
designation, replacing it with a designation permitting 87 uph
( 35 upa).
Staff were directed to undertake a comprehensive study of the
area and the recommendations of that study were ultimately
adopted, as Official Plan Amendment D7.3.74, on June 24, 1974.
The amendment permitted either residential development at an
average density of 87 uph ( Le. 2 blocks of medium density at 62
uph and 1 block of high density at 173 uph) or the continuance of
the existing motel and' single family homes. The amendment was
referred to the Ontario Municipal Board with other outstanding
issues relating to the Motel Strip.
Among the items referred was an application by S.B. McLaughlin
Ltd. for a comprehensive residential development comprising 3150
apartment units. In its decision, the Ontario Municipal Board
directed that the Official Plan be amended to permit an average
density of 227 uph (92 upa) on a net development area of 11.9 ha
(29.4 acres) thereby yielding 2700 units. These provisions were
incorporated in Official Plan Amendment D7.3.74 (revised) ,
approved by Council on February 19, 1979 and by the Ontario
Municipal Board on October 3, 1980.
In 1980, the municipality reviewed an application from S.B.
McLaughlin (Mascan) which conformed to the approved policies for
residential development with respect to number of units, density,
uses, site boundaries, design, etc. The proposal consisted of
two large residential blocks of 725 condominium units and 1,975
€..}(. g
- 3 -
ren ta 1. units, totalling 3.2 hectares and 8.4 hectares in area
respectively. Conditional approval for this development was
granted by Council in 1981, and extended by 2 years in 1982, but
none of the required conditions to approval were fulfilled.
On April 6, 1984, Council refu:.1ed a request for a further
extension to the conditions to approval for this project and in a
separate resolution directed the Planning Department to initiate
a study of the Motel Strip area.
The conclusions of the Motel Strip Study were presented at public
information centres and workshop sessions with affected property
owners and members of Council. The Study was considered at a
public meeting of Development Committee on June 11, 1986 and was
adopted in principle by Council on June 16, 1986.
PLANNING CONTEXT'
The Motel Strip Study Area comprises 20.2 ha (,:t 50 acres)
currently developed with motels, scattered single-family homes, a
tavern, a restaurant and a service station. While the Official
Plan framework has been in place for some time, the area has not
attracted significant redevelopment activity. Continued
uncertainty regarding the future of the Motel Strip has
contributed to emerging social problems and the physical decline
of some buildings within the Study Area.
f1'
The Motel Strip Study identified the potential for a variety of
activities within the area including hotels, high-density
.
I
e11~ - 4 -
residential, office, specialty retail, public institutional and
open space uses. The Study concludes that the Motel Strip has
the potential to emerge as a significant concentration of urban
uses acting as a focal point for the Etobicoke waterfront, and as
an "anchor" for the western Metropolitan 'roronto waterfront park
system.
This amendment provides ,for mixed use development and establishes
the location of a future waterfront park linking the Humber Bay
Parks to the Motel Strip and the Palace Pier Park. Also provided
for by the amendment is a public road extending between Park Lawn
Road and Palace Pier Court, generally adjacent to the water's
edge.
The proposed amendment represents a basic framework to guide
initial renovation or redevelopment activity in the area. The
Plan may be subject to further refinement as more specific
development concepts emerge over time.
- 5 - Ex.8l,
Part Two:
The Amendment
All of this part of the Amendment, consisting of the following
text and schedules, constitutes Amendment C-65-86 to the
Consolidated Official P I an 0 f the Etobicoke Planning Area. The
Consolidated Official Plan is hereby amended by:
i) amendin~ Section .2.4 \special Site Policies: Sub-district
7d) by eleting Specia Site Policies 6, 7, 8 and 9;
ii) amending Sub-District 7d land use schedule by:
b~ outlining the Motel Strip Study Area;
deleting the designations w~thin that boundary and
replacing them with the designations shown on Schedule
Ai and
c) indicating that the area within the boundary is
"subject to the Policies of Section 3.3, Motel Strip
Secondary Plan" of the Official Plan.
iii) inserting Part 3.0 of this Amendment as Section 3.3, Motel
Strip Secondary Plan within the Consolidated Official Plan.
E1< ., 87 - 6 -
Part Three:
The following principles and policies shall apply to the area
outlined on Schedule A attached hereto and known as the Motel
Strip.
This Amendment establishes a basic planning framework for a
waterfront community on Lake Ontario, lying between the Mimico
Creek and the Humber River, and supports the development of an
interrelated mix of uses which in their function and design not
only take advantage of, but also contribute to the exceptional
qualities of this location. It is recognized that, as
development occurs and decisions affecting this area are made at
the Federal, Provincial, Metropolitan, and Municipal levels, this
Plan may be subject to further refinement and evolution.
1.0 OBJECTIVES
The City of Etobicoke shall seek to achieve the following
objectives in this waterfront area:
1.1 To transform development options from a narrow residential
focus to a broadened range and mix of land uses. An
increase in the overall potential of the area to attract
redevelopment is supported, while maintaining development
parameters comparable to those set out in prior Official
Plan policies, as established by Ontario Municipal Board
and Provincial Cabinet decisions.
E'~~
- 7 -
1.2 To create an urban entity within the area shown on
Schedule A, incorporating a mix of residential,
commercial, institutional, recreational, and open space
uses.
1.3 To encourage the emergence of high quality development
through the revitalization of existing properties, or the
redevelopment of adequate sites, consistent with this
highly visible and exposed waterfront location.
1.4 To endorse public sector investment in the Motel Strip as
a means of assisting implementation of this Plan and
accomplishing desirable objectives not otherwise
attainable.
1.5 To forge physical connections between this waterfront
community and the Humber Bay parks to the south and west,
residential areas north of the Queen Elizabeth Way, and
the Sunnyside park system to the east.
1.6 To establish a continuous public linkage, near the water's
edge, between the Humber Bay Parks and Palace Pier Park.
1.7 To improve accessibility within the Motel Strip through
road and transportation improvements and provision of
public roads and appropriate public pedestrian linkages.
In particular, Council shall seek greater public access to
the water's edge.
E1,SCJ - 8 -
1.8 To secure public amenities within the Motel Strip, and
improve existinq environmental conditions and the
relationship of the area to the Etobicoke and Metropolitan
waterfront park systems.
2.0 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
2.1 Area Configuration: The confiquration of the development
area shown on Schedules A and C reflects the intention of
this Plan to limit private development to the existing
land area. Density presently assiqned to the submerqed
'waterlot areas, as shown on Schedule C, may be transferred
to the existinq land area in accord with Section 2.3 of
this Plan. The remainder of the area is subject to the
policies of the "Waterfront" (W) designation in the
Official Plan. It is recognized that filling of a portion
of the submerged waterlot areas may be necessary to
achieve acceptable development sites and the waterfront
public amenity. area. The designations shown on Schedule A
generally reflect this potential shoreline. Minor
alterations to the extent of these designations due to
filling or other factors including property consolidation,
new roads or infrastructure improvements shall not
necessitate amendment to the Plan, provided that the
proposal is otherwise consistent with the principles of
the Plan.
- 9 - f)C.q
2.2 Accessibility: The Motel Strip occupies a relatively
isolated position on the Etobicoke waterfront. In order
to facilitate access to this area, and improve its
relationship to the southern portion of the City, Council
shall examine options for improving vehicular and
pedestrian linkages to the area, particularly to the areas
north of the Queen Elizabeth Way and east in the City of
Toronto.
2.3 Density Transfer: Density transfers may be considered
where lands are dedicated for the proposed internal public
roads (includinq lands dedicated for the widening of Lake
Shore Boulevard ) , or where Council considers it
appropriate to accept the dedication of all or part of a
property for. parks or other public facilities. In
addition, a density transfer from the designated portion
of a submerged patented waterlot (within the development
site configuration referred to in Section 2.1) may only be
considered if all of the following criteria are met:
1. The waterlot area from which density is to be
transferred lies within the development limit shown on
Schedule 'C' to the Plan; and,
2. The transfer is to the abutting existing land area;
and,
3. The entire waterlot is dedicated to the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
It is also recognized that the size and configuration of
certain properties make them unsuitable for high density
development, and that it may be appropriate to transfer
.
~-ql - 10 -
density between properties to achieve desirable public
elements of this Plan (e.g. view corridors or public open
space etc. ) . A transfer of density between two or more
individual properties may therefore be permitted where the
resulting development on the receiving lot is otherwise
consistent with the objectives of this Plan, and where the
donor lots are dedicated to the City for public use.
2.4 Property Consolidation: While it is recognized that the
comprehensive assembly requirement of prior Official Plan
policies may have limited redevelopment options within the
Motel Strip, the consolidation of key properties to
achieve sites physically capable of acconunodating
redevelopment activities remains a desirable objective.
While renovation or expansion of existing structures will
be permitted wi thin a maximum height limit of 14 metres
(45 feet) on existing properties, redevelopment beyond
that level may require property consolidation. Within the
Motel Strip, such redevelopment sites should comprise a
minimum frontage on Lake Shore Boulevard of approximately
70 metres (230 feet) . Development on parcels with less
frontage shall be subject to detailed review wi thin the
development standards set out in Section 7.0. Appropriate
minimum site areas for specific uses may be set out in
future zoning requirements.
2.5 Subdivision of lots: The long narrow configuration of
~
,
.
E:)(.. q~
- 11 -
many properties in the area indicates a potential for the
creation of new lots to the rear of existing development
fronting Lake Shore Boulevard. Such new development
parcels will be permitted where adequate development sites
remain adjacent to Lake Shore Boulevard, and where new
frontage is created through the construction of a public
road.
2.6 Access for the Handicapped: All development projects on
the Motel Strip shall incorporate facilities to ensure
safe and convenient access for handicapped persons.
2.7 Acquisition of Lands: In accord with Section 25 of the
Planning act (1983), Council may acquire or hold land on
the Motel Strip for the purpose of developing appropriate
features of this Plan. Lands so acquired or held may be
sold, leased or otherwise disposed of when no longer
required. In co-operation with the Metropolitan Toronto
and Reqion Conservation Authority, the Metropolitan Parks
Department, and other agencies, Council shall endeavour to
acquire sufficient lands at the water's edge to provide
continuous public access between the Humber Bay Park and
the Humber River, in advance of, or concurrent with
private redevelopment activity.
2.8 Parking: Parking shall generally be provided below grade.
Above grade parking may be permitted where parking
structures are integrated into the design of the
~x. q~ - 12 -
development or adequately screened by berming and
landscaping. To supplement required parking for public
institutional or park uses, Council may consider the
shared use of underutilized parking facilities during off-
peak hours, or on weekends. Public parking shall be
provided at convenient locations to facilitate pedestrian
access to the waterfront amenity area.
2.9 Environmental Quality: An Environmental Manaqement Master
Plan was prepared to address environmental issues related
to the development in this area. As such, all development
applications shall include documentation that they are in
conformity with the Environmental Manaqement Master Plan.
All development applications shall also include an
analysis of potential noise and air quality.
2.10 Internal Roads: Council shall endeavour to implement the
roads system shown on Schedule B as a means of providinq
strateqic access points to Lake Shore Boulevard: assistinq
in the definition of future development parcels and public
areas within the development area and at the water's edge;
providing additional exposure for future activities within
the area: and allowinq for view co::ridors from Lake Shore
Boulevard throuqh the development area to the water and
downtown Toronto.
Access to the Aquarium in Humber Bay Park shall be
provided by the extension of Park Lawn Road southerly from
6( .q 4-
- 13 -
Lake Shore Boulevard West. Alternative B is the preferred
alignment; however, Alternative A is acceptable should
Alternative B not be implemented. Council shall seek the
provision of pedestrian access from the Motel Strip to the
Aquarium.
Council shall require the construction of functional
sections of the road system as related development
proceeds, or in advance of development occurring, if such
need is demonstrated by the moni tor inq proqram described
below. In no case shall Council permit development to
proceed until it is satisfied that lands required for the
functional elements of the road system related to that
development have been acquired, or secured by bindinq
commitments.
To ensure the adequacy of existing and committed elements
of the internal road system to accommodate development,
and to minimize the impact of traffic destined for the
development area on surroundinq neighbourhoods, Council
shall develop and implement a formal program to monitor
traffic generation, parkinq and travel characteristics
related to the development area, including its impacts on
relevant elements of the reqional road system. In its
review, Council shall have reqard for the actual level of
committed and approved development, transit modal split
and possible impacts on the transit system, and occupancy,
.
~. qS- - 14 -
parking and trip qeneration patterns related to existinq
development projects.
In preparing this monitoring proqram, Council shall
consult with appropriate Metropolitan Departments.
Renovation and expansion of existing structures within a
maximum height limit of 14 metres (45 feet) may be
exempted from the required dedication for the internal
road system.
2.11 Pedestrian Access: In addition to the waterfront public
amenity area provided for in Section 6.2 (Parks and Open
Space) , Council shall seek the provision of appropriate
pedestrian access routes between Lake Shore Boulevard and
the waterfront park link. Pedestrian routes linking
adjacent properties are also desirable and shall be
supported by Council. Future internal road alignments may
be used to augment the pedestrian system, however,
exclusive use pedestrian routes shall be accessible to the
handicapped and available on a-24 hour basis.
2.12 Public Lands: Publicly held land wi thin the Motel Strip
shall be regarded as significant opportunities "to
accomplish the public objectives of this Plan
notwithstanding their applicable land use designation.
Land exchanges, purchase of adjacent lands, sale of
portions of the properties or other negotiations may be
E)(..q t.
- 15 -
considered in order to change the shape and configuration
of these parcels, provided public access to the water's
edge is maintained.
2.13 Temporary Uses: Notwithstanding the provisions of this
Amendment, uses which do not conform to this Amendment may
be permitted on a temporary basis during the site
redevelopment period. Such uses shall be detailed in a
by-law passed under Section 38 of the Planning Act.
2.14 Aquarium: An aquarium shall be a permitted use in all
desiqnations. Prior to considerinq the approval of an
aquarium Council shall require the preparation of reports
which evaluate traffic, access and parkinq impacts;
conformity of the facility with the Environmental
Manaqement Master Plan, and the provisions of Section 7.0
Development Standards.
In considering these reports, Council shall consult with
the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority
and appropriate Metropolitan Departments.
3.0 MIXED USED DESIGNATION
..
3.1 General: Within the Mixed Use designation, a diversity of
waterfront recreational, commercial, residential,
institutional, cultural, entertainment and open space uses
may be permitted individual~y or in combination. It is
~)(.97 - 16 -
intended that su~h uses will generate year round activity
in the waterfront area. In recoqnition of potential
traffic generation and its potential impacts on the
development area, retail projects with a floor area larqer
than 4 700 m2, and ma jor office buildings, shall not be
permitted on lands desiqnated as Mixed Use. The range of
permitted uses may include such facilities as a sports
centre including a swimming pool complex, skating rink,
tennis courts, hotel, motel, specialty and convenience
retail, food hall, farmers' markets, restaurants, cinemas,
housing, craft or art galleries, marine museum, aquarium,
and amphitheatre. Other uses may be detailed through
amendment to the Zoning Code. In accord with Section
2.14, the Aquarium may be permitted in all desiqnations.
Notwithstandinq the above limitation, Council may permit a
sinqle retail focus, havinq a n .aximum floor area of
15 000 m2, in conformity with Section 5.3 of this Plan.
Within Mixed Use projects, the City shall ensure that uses
are complementary through such features as physical
separation, building orientation or other appropriate
means. The City shall be satisfied that an appropriate
environment can be achieved for residential units in. mixed
use projects.
In mixed use projects in proximity to the waterfront, the
grade level uses shall generally be activity oriented and
€)<.q,
- 17 -
should act as an anchor to draw people to the waterfront.
Retail and service commercial uses in such projects shall
be sited and designed to facilitate maximum views of the
waterfront amenity area. Developments shall not be
permitted to prevent access to the waterfront.
3.2 Density: Subject to the provisions of Section 7.0
(Development Standards) the maximum gross density for
mixed use projects shall be 3.0 times lot area and the
maximum total net density of mixed use projects including
any transfers of density permitted by this Plan shall be
4.0 times lot area.
Where the mixed use project contains a residential
component, the maximum residential density shall be 165
units per hectare on a gross basis and 3.5 times lot area
net.
Net developable lot area shall be exclusive of dedicated
submerged waterlot areas, lands dedicated for the
construction of the public internal road system, and lands
dedicated for parks purposes or the waterfront public
amenity area.
4.0 RESIDENTIAL POLICIES
4.1 The prior Official Plan policies related to the Motel
~. ctC} - 18 -
Strip permitted redevelopment for 2700 units subject to
certain conditions including the comprehensive assembly of
a 16.2 ha development site. Traffic analysis has
concluded that 2700 residential units is the maximum that
may be permitted within the Mixed Use area.
4.2 Density: Subject to the provisions of Section 7.0
(Development Standards) , the maximum gross residential
density in projects developed for residential uses only
shall be 2.0 times lot area and 165 units per hectare.
Council may permit increases in density beyond this level
for projects which utilize available density transfers,
however, the maximum net density for residential projects
shall be 3.5 times lot area.
Net developable lot area shall be exclusive of dedicated
submerged waterlot areas, lands dedicated for the
construction of. the public internal road system, and lands
dedicated for parks purposes or the waterfront public
amenity area.
4.3 Built Form: Recognizing the desirability of achieving a
variety of housing forms within the area, the Mixed Use
designation permits all housing forms presently included
in both the Medium and High Density Residential
designations in the Official Plan. It is recognized that
E)<.IOO
- 19 -
it may be desirable to redevelop portions of the area at a
density less than the maximum of IuS units per hectare in
order to achieve a particular type of housing, and that
density transfers will affect the overall distribution of
density. Portions of each site may therefore be developed
at a density higher or lower than the permitted maximum
provided an average net residential density of 3.5 times
lot area is not exceeded.
4.4 Social Housing: As provided in previous Official Plan
policies, social housing provided through Provincial or
Federal Government programs may be permitted on lands
designated for Mi~ed Use General, to a maximum of 15% of
the total number of permitted units.
Where affordable housing cannot be realized within the
development area, Council may consider alternative
locations within the District which provide an effective
contribution to satisfying the intent of the Provincial
Land Use Planning for Housing Policy Statement.
4.5 Senior Citizens Housing: As provided in previous Official
Plan policies, a maximum of 350 units of senior citizen
hous ing may be permi t ted wi thin the Mixed Use area. For
purposes of density calculation, three senior citizen
units shall be considered as the equivalent of one regular
market unit.
.
ej.IO' - 20 -
4.6 School Facilities: The need for school facilities servinq
this area is related to the form and occupancy patterns
associated with the ultimate number of units approved. If
the area develops substantially for residential uses with
hiqh pupil generation, a school site will be required at a
suitable location in, or near the development area.
In reviewinq development applications, Council shall have
reqard for the need to provide school facilities. In the
event that a school site becomes necessary, Council shall
investiqate the development alternatives available to
secure their implementation.
5.0 COMMERCIAL POLICIES
5.1 General: The properties designated Conunercial include
those which were previously designated Conunercial through
prior Official Plan policies as well as those with
potential for commercial redevelopment. In recognition of
the nature of existing uses in this area and the potential
for future conunercial redevelopment, this area will
continue to be reserved for conunercial use.
It is estimated that the existinq road system, and roads
developed in accord with Section 2.10, can acconunodate up
to 62 000 m2 of commercial qross floor area. This
.
.
-E~ .101-
- 21 -
development limit applies to retail projects with a qross
floor area larger that 4 700 m2 and office buildinqs.
5.2 Hotel/Motel Use: Hotel and motel uses continue to be a
primary activity within the Motel Strip. Council shall
support renovation or rehabilitation of existing motels
where necessary, subject to the provisions of Section 2.4.
New hotel or motel uses will be permitted to locate in
Mixed Use General or Commercial areas.
5.3 Retail and Service Commercial Uses: Commercial facilities
shall be provided to serve the convenience shopping needs
of future residents and workers. In addition, specialty
retail facilities such as boutiques, specialty food
stores, food hall, farmer's market, and cinemas,
commercial recreation facilities and restaurants shall
also be permitted.
Retail development, havinq a floor area qreater than 4 700
m2, shall only be permitted on lands designated for
Commercial use' and shall be sub1ect to the submission of a
market impact study to the satisfaction of the City of
Etobicoke, and the submission of a comprehensive traffic
study to the satisfaction of the City of Etobicoke and
Metropolitan Toronto.
To assist in the creation of an active and interestinq
waterfront environment, ancillary convenience or specialty
e,c.., lD~ - 22 -
retail uses are encouraqed to locate adjacent to the
waterfront public amenity area.
In addition to the above, a commercial focus having a
maximum floor area of 15 000 m2, will be permitted at a
central location within the Mixed Use desiqnation. This
concentration of uses is intended to provide a ranqe of
year round activities which should act as an attraction or
focal point for the area.
Grade-related retail uses may be developed individually or
in combination with other non-retail uses. Within the
Amendment area, free standing, drive-in commercial plazas
shall not be permitted.
In commercial developments near the waterfront, grade
level uses shall generally include a mix of retail and tor
service uses. Views of the waterfront promenade shall be
maintained.
5.4 Office Use: In recoqnition of existing and future office
uses in the vicinity of the Park Lawn/Lake Shore Boulevard
intersection, office uses shall be required to locate on
lands desiqnated for Commercial use.
It is estimated that the current road system, and
additional roads developed in accord with Section 2.10,
can accommodate a maximum of 47 000 m2 qross floor area of
E')C.lOlf
- 23 -
office development. Office uses shall only be permitted
subject to the completion of a comprehensive traffic study
to the satisfaction of Metropolitan Toronto and the Ci ty
of Etobicoke.
5.5 Density: Subject to the provisions of Section 7.0
(Development Standards) the maximum gross commercial
density shall be 3.0 times lot area and the maximum net
commercial densi~y including any transfers of density
permitted by this Plan shall be 4.0 times lot area.
Grade related retail/service floor area, developed in
combination with any other use having an equal or larger
floor area in the same building, shall not be considered
part of the total project floor area when calculating
density in accord with Section 3.2.
Net developable lot area shall be exclusive of dedicated
submerged waterlot areas, lands dedicated for the
construction of the public internal road system, and lands
dedicated for parks purposes or the waterfront public
amenity area.
6.0 PARKS AND OPEN SPACE
6.1 General: The waterfront location is a primary amenity of
the Motel Strip area. Council shall therefore support the
creation of public open spaces, activities or parks which
.
E~. ItJ' - 24 -
maximize the amenity value of this feature for the general
public.
In reviewing development applications, Council shall
endeavour to secure approximately 1.5 ha of local park
space, and approximately 7.6 ha within the Waterfront
Public Amenity Area, both as qenerally shown on Schedule
A.
To assist in securinq these ob1ectives, Council shall also
endeavour to secure the use of approximately' 1.2 ha of
Crown lands within the Amendment area for public amenity
uses.
6.2 Waterfront Public Amenity Area: A primary objective of
this Plan is the creation of a public link, generally
developed along the . .~ ter ' s edge, tying together public
open space areas, recreation facilities or other activity
centres. The link shall extend from the Humber Bay Parks
to the Palace Pier Park, and may be comprised of such
elements as a public walkway, bicycle path, boardwalk,
pier, pedestrian square or terrace. Council shall support
the provision of additional public amenity areas north of
the internal road within private redevelopment sites.
Where the amenity area forms an integral part of a
development project, Council shall ensure that public
access is available on a 24 hour basis.
- 25 - E)(.l~
Within the Waterfront Amenity Area , Council may permit
uses havinq an educational or recreational orientation
such as a sports centre includinq a swimminq pool complex,
skatinq rinks, a fishing centre, public washrooms or
changing facilities, limited specialty retail uses,
restaurants, interpretive displays or facilities, or an
amphitheatre. Similar uses may be permitted throuqh
,
amendment to the Zoning Code.
The minimum width of the waterfront promenade shall
generally be 50 metres. In limited cases where Council
wishes to permit a more direct relationship to the lake,
intrusions into this amenity area may be considered where
the activity will satisfy the general objectives of the
Amendmen t .
The waterfront public amenity area between the road and
the water's edge may be expanded in key locations to a
maximum of 80 metres to permit the construction of low-
scale, activity-oriented development where public access
and views to the water's edge are maintained, and where
such proposals are shown to be otherwise consistent with
the provisions of this Plan.
Expansion of the Waterfront Public Ameni ty Area to this
level through lakefilling shall be subject to the approval
of the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of
e/...IOl - 26 -
Natural Resources, and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority.
As an alternative to lakefillinq, Council will support the
provision of public Amenity Areas on piers, docks or
similar elements, or on existing private land areas
adiacent to the Amenity Area.
To facilitate access between the existing elements of the
Metropolitan waterfront parks system, Council shall
examine methods of improving pedestrian access across the
Humber River (to the Sunnyside and Casimir Gzowski parks)
and across Mimico Creek (within the Humber Bay Parks).
Where a direct connection between tne Humber Bay Parks and
the Motel Strip can be provided, Council may take this
into consideration in determining the calculation of the
rate of dedication required in Section 6.3 below.
6.3 Dedication Requirement: As a condition of approval for
development or redevelopment of land for residential
purposes, Council may require the dedication of land to
the City for parks or other public recreation or cultural
uses at a minimum rate of .5 hectare and to a maximum rate
of 1.0 hectare for each 300 units proposed. As a
condition of approval for development or redevelopment of
land for commercial purposes, Council may require the
dedication of land to the City for park or other public
EX.. IO~
- 27 -
recreation or cultural uses at a maximum rate of 2% of the
land proposed for development.
In calculating the rate of parkland dedication required,
Council may consider a reduced rate where a development
provides a needed public facility which is deemed to be of
benefit to the larger community, or where a development
makes a significant contribution to the implementation of
the waterfront public amenity area.
The City may require cash-in-lieu of parkland, or a
combination of land and cash were the size, configuration
or location of the site is inappropriate for park
purposes.
Renovation and expansion of existing structures within a
maximum height limit of 14 metres (45 feet) may be
exempted from the required parks dedication, and the
dedication of waterlot areas which may otherwise be
required as part of this Plan.
6.4 Parks Acquisition: Council shall attempt to secure needed
local park areas within the Motel Strip. In accord with
Section 2.7, Council may consider the direct acquisition
of an appropriate property or properties for use as a park
or the site of a recreational facility.
The future location of this park is shown schematically on
e-.,...IOCf - 28 -
Schedule A. The precise location and extent of this
feature shall be determined in relation to the need to
secure important views to the downtown Toronto skyline
from the Queen Elizabeth Way, and the desirability of
linking existing or future public lands at the water's
edge to Lake Shore Boulevard.
6.5 Dockinq Facilities: Council may support the provision of
short-term transient dockinq facilities in or adjacent to
the amenity area, subject to the requirements of the
Metropolitan Toronto and Reqion Conservation Authority,
the Ministry of Natural Resources, and Transport Canada.
Council may permit seasonal dockinq to accommodate charter
fishinq vessels or similar vessels, subiect to the further
approval of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority, the Ministry of Natural Resources,
and Transport Canada.
Winter boat storage or facilities for the repair of boats
shall not be permitted.
6.6 Public Attraction: A significant element of the Mixed Use
development concept, and a focus of the public amenity
~, shall be achieved through the development of a year-
round public attraction within the Motel Strip or on the
adjacent Humber Bay Parks, for which appropriate and
-C}<. Il 0
- 29 -
adequate municipal services and transportation facilities
can be provided.
7.0 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
7.1 General: The form, height, bulk and coverage of new
developments shall be controlled in order to provide and
encourage the mergence of a distinctive and amenable urban
area having a direct relationship with the Etobicoke
waterfron't.
The City shall review the design and massing of buildings
in terms of their relationship to existing and possible
future development projects. Such matters as
overshadowing, organization of open spaces, micro-climate
effects and pedestrian accessibility shall be considered
during the development review process.
In supporting the emerqence of a distinctive architectural
style related to this highly visible waterfront location,
and in seeking a distribution of building mass which
respects and enhances the public elements and the
pedestrian scale of the amenity area, Council shall have
regard to the Built Form Guidelines included as Fiqures 1
and 2 in Appendix A to this Plan.
t
~.. " , - 30 -
To assist in this review and prior to rezoninq, Council
shall require the submission of drawings and plans
consistent with the provisions of Section 40 of the
Planning Act, including a computer simulation of the
proposed development proiect in a form compatible with the
City's base model for this area.
7.2 Building Orientation: Buildings within the Motel Strip
area shall generally be oriented to maximize views of Lake
Ontario and downtown Toronto. Buildings in close
. proximity to the Queen Elizabeth Way should also be
oriented to reduce potential noise impacts on the interior
of the site. Council shall encourage a deployment of
building mass which permits maximum solar penetration,
while reducing the potentially adverse impacts of
prevailing winds, particularly during winter months.
7.3 Height: To promote a range of building heights within the
area, and to allow maximum utilization of views to Lake
Ontario and downtown Toronto, buildings shall generally be
constructed with the tallest elements adjacent to Lake
Shore Boulevard and scaling down in height toward the
water's edge.
In this regard, Council shall have regard for the Built
Form Guidelines included as Figure 3 in Appendix A to this
Plan.
t
t
E)( ..11'2.
- 31 -
7.4 Public Open Space: In accord with Section 6.2 (Waterfront
..-
Public Amenity Area) a public link will be developed along
the water's edge linking public open space areas,
buildings and acti vi ty areas. Design and orientation of
buildings or other elements adjacent to the public link
should reinforce the pedestrian scale of this feature and
provide weather protection on a year round basis. In this
regard, the provision of architectural elements, such as
arcades, overhanging roofs or screen walls, and
landscaping features which provi:ie screening, weather
protection or shade, shall be supported by Council.
7.5 View Corridors: The City may consider limiting heights in
some portions of the Motel Strip in order to preserve o'r
enhance significant views of the lake and downtown Toronto
from the Queen Elizabeth Way or Lake Shore Boulevard.
8.0 ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
8.1 General: Council commissioned the preparation of an
Environmental Management Master Plan to address issues
related to lakefill, storm water management, other
discharges, soils management, aguatic habitat, public
access, public use and recreation, desiqn and construction
of the amenity area, and financinq of remedial works. The
conclusions and recommendations of the Environmental
~.lIo - 32 -
)
Manaqement Master Plan form the basis for the policies in
this Section.
8.2 Water Quality: Water quality within the Humber Bay is
impacted by the Humber River, the Humber Water Pollution
Control Plant, and a number of other sources. Council
shall support improvement of water quality within the bay
by exercising powers within its jurisdiction includinq the
review and implementation of development proposals or
municipal initiatives including public works; by ensuring
compliance with appropriate Federal or Provincial
standards; and by supporting improvements on a watershed
basis.
Council shall ensure that implementation of future
elements, including the shoreline lakefill, the wetlands,
and the potential deflector arm, will not cause
deterioration of the existing water quality within the
Humber Bay.
8.3 Shoreline Confiquration: Council supports the elimination
of the existing embavrnents along the shoreline within the
Motel Strip, as generally illustrated on the Preferred
Plan included as Appendix A to this Plan. Lake filling
undertaken to implement this scheme shall conform to the
requirements of the Ministry of the Environment, the
Ministry of Natural Resources, and the Improved Lakefill
- 33 - E~.llt.r
Quality Control Program administered by the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
Implementation of the shoreline lakefill elements may
occur in a comprehensive manner, or in functional stages
concurrent with, or in advance of redevelopment.
Construction of the shoreline lakefill areas shall be
subiect to the technical requirements of the Metropolitan
Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the Ministry of
the Environment, and the Minsitry of Natural Resources.
8.4 Deflector Arm: Prior to the implementation of this
feature, Council shall require the completion of an
environemtnal assessment, to the satisfaction of the
Ministry of the Environemnt, the Ministry of Natural
Resources and other relevant agencies, including but not
limited to such aspects as consideration of water
contaminants in addition to fecal coliforms and suspended
sediments that may pose a health risk; a review of the
impacts of the Humber Water Pollution Control Plan on the
amenity area; and consdieration of the impacts of the
deflector arm on off-site areas such as Humber Bay Park
East and Mimi co Creek. Implementation of this feature
shall require an amendment to this Plan.
8.5 Stormwater Management: Council supports the development
of a wetland area adjacent to the Humber Bay Park as a
means of treating storm water emanating from the Motel
t
,.
E)t. II ~ - 34 -
Strip and creatinq natural habitat opportunities.
Prior to implementinq this element, Council shall require
the completion of further studies, to the satisfaction of
the Metropolitan Toronto and Reqion Conservation
Authority, the Ministry of the Environment, Environment
Canada and the Ministry of Natural Resources, which
examine alternative locations, possible configurations and
shoreline treatments, environmental implications includinq
deqree of treatment, pass through time, effects of spring
conditions, potential biomobilization of contaminants,
efficiency in terms of bacteria removal, a program to
monitor the effectiveness of the wetlands as a stormwater
treatment facility, those aspects related to the
protection and establishment of fish habitat, planting and
phasinq, maintenance and management requirements including
funding.
In considering the implementation of the wetland area,
Council shall seek to implement the "No Net Loss"
Fisheries program, administered by the federal Department
of Fisheries and Oceans.
Prior to development, the developer shall provide an
individual stormwater management plan for the development
site which examines how stormwater will be treated on the
site and how this will conform with the Master Drainage
Plan.
€)(...I '"
- 35 -
8.6 Soil Management: Where soil within the amendment area is
excavated for use in grading, landscapinq or on-site
fillinq, the applicant shall submit a soil analysis report
which:
1. describes the proposed soil sampling program;
2 . details the results of the samplinq proqram; and,
3. outlines the on-site and/or off-site soil management
techniques appropriate for the quality of . soil
encountered.
The soil analysis study shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City, and the Ministry of the
Environment. The developer shall provide for an on-site
environmental consultant, to ensure that development and
remedial works, includinq lake fillinq, adheres to
standards approved by the Ministry of the Environment.
9.0 IMPLEMENTATION
The policies established by the Amendment will be
implemented by site specific amendments to the Zoning Code
and full site plan review. This implementation may
requires the signing of Development, Condominium or Site
Plan Control Agreements and any additional agreements
which may be deemed necessary by the municipality to
~t<c II{
- 36 -
achieve the above-noted objectives.
Any aqreements which include environmental warninq and/or
environmental control measures to be constructed and/or
installed shall be entered into under Section 40(10) and
50(6) of the Planning Act.
10.0 INTERPRETATION
The provisions of the Official Plan as they may be'amended
from time to time with respect to the interpretation of
the Plan shall apply with respect to this Amendment.
0
a::
z aL'JO. WEST
::t
<{ SHORE "",-"Q' .:::'. .....
~ ~ l ......... .........
,. .a '" ~ .;;,9 fI. ~ _';' 0 ~ ~." .... .'. .... . ........,.,.......... . . . ._.-.... ........ ........ .......:..... .... ..'~": . ..... ..:.. '.' .... . ..... .:....... '.' ..... 0...
o ~., '~.s . ':>' .00..a :-:-:/:-..... ..... ....~...:..:,...:.......:........:.:..~..~~::.:..:.:::::..:..........~.....::...:....:.~~ ..::.:.:::::::....:::::..
'I.:;'..e.. 0''\$4 t3 ... '~ "':-...'''' ............ ............ ....................................................... ............... .......
O:":J . ~. ~:':.P 0 ~ iJ. ~"Q ~:;~~ ~ \>~{. .' .....:.::.::~~W.::.:.':::..:::::::~:~::::~.:~:;::.;::.~:::::.':\\~~.~:iifii~~~::.:.~:: f:~:[:~}r:':~.::""'" .......~.~~~~::..::::~::~~:..:f?:::.:.:.:.:.
.t-o-" ~ ~. '" . ,.... v - .... . .'. .... ...... . ....... '" .... '. ........... .... .... .... @) ....... . . '" ......
. ~. . ..,. ~ . v. ..' .... . .. ". .... ..... ..' ..... . . ..... . ........... .' .... .... . ............
",:.' . ~':l''';O '~""iJ;'" - .....::.~......:.. .............. - ........... .:........
, '. ~ ~-- ..... .'. ... . .... .... ........... .......
~ lel-!iP' ~ Z ..... ...:... ,::""""'''' · "" " ,."... ....:...,.....:.......
...... . :.. .oO:..::::.,. '. ......... ........:..........
~......:. ..n ~o '::}.~...' ... ................ 9017 ................
.. "CZJ'" .~..,'" o~. ::)..!. ........:~........~::........ . . .....:.:....:.....~
;r~~ '.:>',,':n'~"""~.;:'~~~~.~. .....~~.....:.::..:......~. SCALE I 4000 .:.:.............:.~.
" .". . . ......... / .... ........... '.. .... ..... ""'.'
). '.' ....... ..... ..................
.~...'. '. .::... ':":' LE GENO . ::.. ..: ':'.':.":'
\ ... ....,...... . .... .........
;~: ......... :;:::;:.::.::::::'
.~~ . :::.:.:.:.:.:.::.'
, "..,.. / fE2J :::::::,:::~:'::::
.....it-~ "t}. :.::.:.':':' MIX EO USE .....:......:.-.
"': .> ~";'" . .........
~_ c. Q'.~. .
~'4.' it .c"'-" ~ ~
.~.~:.!,,:..A.. .l~. COMMERCIAL
~. ~ 0.::"'0-
"r; . .. ~'(.
~d ~
:\'. OPEN SPACE
lITill WATERFRONT PUBLIC
-. ..... AMENITY AREA
.......
INT ERNAL ROAD
-------
----- ALTERNATIVE ROAD ALIGNMENTS
................ OPTIONAL ROAD ALIGNMENT
SCHEDULE A ~
.
0 ~ 1 I I~ - -
- -
~
c
a:: ~
z
~
~ .
-
~ aL'JO. ..-
a:: SHORE WEST ~
ct L~KE
0...
~
0
ALTERNAT\VE a a:. .. 0 t-=
.-----.--------- 27'(1\ RO~ ~'O
E ..- ~ u
.. -'
f- ..0 0 a::
..:J a:.
'" .. ~
..
.. E Q.
..
.. r-
_ AL T ERN AT I V E A '" w
__27m ROW u
--- <{
------------
. ~
.' ~ it.
,
,. ..::.<<'
A...'
,.~~
.~
I" @ "" ,ON'-"
,.~
. 90,1 7A
SCALE r
4000
SCHEDULE B
a aL'JO, WEST
0::
z
~ SHORE
...J LAKE
~ ~ ~ ~/ h- -
0:: Z. ~/ "l: ~/ '// '/ '/. '/ ~ 'l ~.....
<{ ~ z. ~u
0... 'l '/
'l:; 1'. '/ ~o::
1'. laJ
K.
'/ Z. ~ ..- .
Z '/ -- -..
~ '/ .-
.....,.. ....... -
.. .... - '/ '/-
..~~.. -
- -
'/ -
'/ .... .,.
-oo.
~ '/ ~ ;1 - .- ~ @) "" ,0,_"_,,
00.:; .' It 90 I 78
.. .." SCALE I 4000
..""'"
.. . .."
( r "--
I
I l LEGENO:
I ~
~-,_.__ -,I \ - - EXISTING SHORELINE
__ . I
L -.----..... \ ----------- WATER LOTS
"--..---
-.....---. . DENSITY TRANSFER LIMITS
- ..... - ..... - 1 -~--------
---
-....................... LIMIT OF DEVELOPMENT AREA
( INCLUDING INTERNAL ROADS)
~
.
SCHEDULE C -
JJ
DEVELOPMENT LIMITS 0
, .., '. ,.... ,~.. ..- -- , ,- --0--- '~~
- -~:---... "'-~-'-- .'- ,.// ."-:::.- ~
---..- .. . -- --- ~-...
~, ..--.:...." /~._, '_n - ..--., \
~~. 1.2. \ ...:> / ~/'- - "'; HUM8E~"
. #" Rll/ER '
, / '
.' ... /' ",' "'.. . 't
., ./ . t'....,,-., \.
.... / /^\ ( ( '.
.- ' . ., '....,,-,
.' .# ,.'- ,\'
~. "',
...- '?" ..../, ' .,',
.' '" , '
,/~;;~~~ ,.<~... '\
.... ~1. ~/,/ /.. / 0
....- ~~ ~\,: -p-/ / ,/ V
O~ /:; d' 0 ...
. . .-. -,' / ,., ~
_..-~. .
- I .
"J , "
. .-J- .
. , . ., , . ,_... --' .~-:._ .\~\ ~9_ftOOd t',
, " .\ /. , l
"'\.':/i-" .:.~.;."... . b_ ..... __
,---- ~ .-......"P.',o'monc. C.M T...... gro.. ........
--- I '> ,~. '). c-..w;.;,." t.n'... .
... . -- , .: /' .: ., -...... ....-.,.
/ I ,I "V \
-- / .... r. '..) ,
. " .' . \
\j "<,', ,
,4 .... ' '"'--- ~ -,.- ~") . ,.::> . ..... TIle Boardwak Cenlre \
~~) , ) :"", ~1O'h, ,,,._,
! '1'/ /'. " " ....a.......... I>iM '1A1..' \
,. .' ,> -..,-........
" , . " , .. . '.," ......k. lu ~nlo." taG \
/' ..u.,.. '''hor
/,. , .."- " fl..",. '0 .0INller.... ",.... \
-# , .".., "0111 Or...
,.jr "'v> 0
, ...
.: , ,
/~ ,'"' . ,
,:t~. " f eto,*,*- ee.:t.
.' " 5.-. .om",," , ..........
'V.
. , . .' '--' ''''lIC... pi.......
'_I 9-"
. , ""-1-
I .
, 1Iel..~. .
~_."C..,.. ,"',...,.;.,_
i
I
"
\
,.-"Il( 0'.,
{ t~ AMENITY AREA
,
\ PREFERRED PLAN
\
.
E1.. rz.2.
Point Block Towers
Street Wall BuildinQs
"-
45:G,
"-
"-
.
Wote~
-
170m +21m .\ 30-~Om I
~
Section Through Site
,
.
3m
e
S9
Section Through Main N.S. Street
fig. I
~'t~ 12~
---.I ""-- J.... -----'
, (-- ~ ,.---. -
, ~
J
"
~
G,_ PIIll Pn:mtnIce
Tr.., .,.... .......
~., cue,.
- ,.,....
TIle &o.ro.ll c:.v,.
~.... ....... ,.. ....
...:....... ... ,.....,:
'''''' ::'..~ .... ...
..11" ...... ......-..
".... .e ,--.
.... ,,.., 01.-.. .. ..,...
, ~10DC0Il. Ihecn \
, '--
..... ,.,.'... ~~ . \
,.... .--.. . \
, ,
\ ,
, ,
,
,
,
I \
I I
I
I
I I
I I
. , I
I I
" I I
,. \ I
I
I \ I
, I
, I
-,
L ~onl~uoul Sir..' Wall
or odium
~~umb.fI Indlc:ot. No 01
oreys tolin-Mo..) ,
Built Form 1
fig,2
--.J / ~
_. '--J'-
--.. ----"
,-----.,
....-.. -
] ' ,
--' -
,
~2.!
"
r
~
,
Gt... Pat
".... ... Pn::Inw\Ide
c--.:.... .....
__.... I, caftf,. ..
.......
TNI Bowca.ua
C...., _ Cen".
:::..::. ~-:.:::.
'M', ...~:-:' .... ....
..".. .......
~_,. I."::.. ' -
.a. If" 0.-. .., ..,...
;} \
~ ElolliCOke B \
. 1_-.,. c..:acn \
VI :::-' ...,.... . I o'.'~
I ....... .........
,
, \
, \
\ ,
\ , -
\ ,
,
\ ,
,
I ,
I
I \
, I
, I
;,
I
I I
, , , I
I
I ,
I ,
\ ,
I I
I I
, I
~, I
Built Form 2
fig.3
6:)(. ('2. S"
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ETOBICOKE MOTEL STRIP
OFFICIAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. C-65-86
REVISED MAY 1990
MTRCA ST~FF REPORT, AUGUST 24, 1990
Executive Committee
Meeting #9/90
August 24, 1990
E~. 12.b
BACKGROUND
On February 22, 1988, the City of Etobicoke passed Bylaw No, 1988-45 to
adopt amendment number C-65-86 to the Official Plan of the Etobicoke
Planning Area (Motel Strip Area), This amendment was subsequently referred
to the Ontario Municipal Board with a pre-hearing held on June 27, 1990,
The pre-hearing established who has interest, the time period required for
the board hearing, and the issues to be considered, The Ontario Municipal
Board Hearing is scheduled to commence November 19, 1990 with all evidence
to be filed by October 5, 1990.
The City has undertaken a comprehensive review of O,P,A, C-65-86 in
conjunction with the Public Amenity Scheme study recommendations, and held
public meetings, On May 28, 1990 the City of Etobicoke adopted
modifications to O,P,A, C-65-86 (Etobicoke Motel Strip) and "directed that
the modifications be forwarded to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for
consideration and request the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to forward the
modifications to the Ontario Municipal Board for consideration as part of
its hearing on the Motel Strip Secondary Plan", (Revised amendment EX,80),
The Etobicoke Development Committee's May 15, 1990 report indicated that
discussions on the Secondary Plan with provincial ministries are
continuing, and may result in further modifications,
At Authority Meeting #4/90 (June 15, 1990) the following resolution on the
Public Amenity Scheme (Motel Strip) was adopted:
"THAT the resolution be reworded as follows:
"THAT the Authority r~iterate its support for the Etobicoke Motel
Strip - Public Amenity Scheme as set out in Resolution #247,
paragraphs 1, 2, 5, and 6 (Authority Meeting #8/89, December 8,
1989) , subject to:
1. the resolution of concerns regarding the location of the
proposed waterfront drive within Humber Bay East Park;
2, satisfactory plans detailing how the requirement by the
Authority of 50-80 metres of public waterfront space,
exclusive of the waterfront drive, is to be achieved;
3, satisfactory implementation strategy for the stormwater
management system ~nd proposed wetlands;
4, inClusion of a satisfactory strategy requiring that,
immediately upon approval of the Motel Strip Secondary Plan,
all land, water lots and riparian rights for the complete
amenity scheme will be negotiated with the individual owners
and acquired at one time, will be achieved,
"THAT the Authority acknowledge the decision of the Minister of
the Environment in his letter, dated January 12, 1990, that an
individual environmental assessment for the deflector arm is
required, and that the Authority agrees to undertake such an
assessment if the deflector arm is proposed in the future;
"THAT the Authority support the wetlands concept on the Public
Amenity Scheme as a test case for stormwater quality control and
habitat enhancement, subject to the inClusion in the Secondary
Plan O,P.A, C-65-86) of specific policies on Stormwater
Management, which address the comments of the Minister of the
Environment (January 12, 1990) as well as the Authority'S
comments on implementation and maintenance of the wetlands;
~.1'1.1
-2-
"THAT these recommendations on the Public Amenity Scheme be
forwarded to the City of Etobicoke, Metropolitan Toronto Parks
and Property Department, Metropolitan Toronto Planning
Department, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of
Natural Resources;
"THAT, since the Authority is now in receipt of a document
outlining modifications to Official Plan Amendment C-65-86 (Motel
Strip) as adopted by Etobicoke Council on May 28, 1990, staff be
directed to bring a further report to the Executive Committee on
June 22, 1990, with an analysis of how the Authority's concerns
with the PUblic Amenity Scheme are addressed within modified
O,P,A. C-65-86, and that the conclusions and recommendations from
this report form the Authority's position before the Ontario
Municipal Board Pre-Hearing scheduled for June 27, 1990;
"THAT the report to the Executive Committee meeting on June 22,
1990, also be circulated to the Water and Related Land Management
Advisory Board for their review, Any comments that the Board
members wish to make would form part of the Executive Committee's
consideration of this matter;
"AND FURTHER THAT, in the report to the Executive Committee,
staff clearly indicate what the original Official Plan Amendment
stated with respect to consolidated purchase of land,"
Paragraphs 1, 2, 5 and 6 of the resolution #247 (Authority Meeting
#8/89, December 8, 1989) set out the following:
1. the Authority supports the general objectives and specific
criteria upon which the recommended Public Amenity Scheme is
based subject to consideration of the Authority's specific
recommendations;
2. the Authority is satisfied that the Environmental Management
Master Plan addresses the environmental interests of the
Authority's programs and those conditions outlined by the
Minister of the Environment;
5, the Authority requests that:
a) the PUblic Amenity Scheme be modified to reflect the
original requirement of 13 acres (50-80 metres in width
along the main land exclusive of the waterfront drive) of
public waterfront lands in accordance with study's shoreline
configuration requirements, and to provide a reasonable
public space for the program elements in relation to the
high density development proposed within the Motel Strip;
b) the waterfront drive within Humber Bay Park East be
relocated immediately north of the proposed wetland in
accordance with the Authority's concerns outlined during
submissions on the Official Plan Amendment (Motel Strip);
and
. c) the parking required to support the Public Amenity Scheme be
located in adjacent areas to the public amenity space and
not in Humber Bay East;
-
e;c..I2.g
-3-
6, the Authority, who has the responsibility for the
impl~mentation of the Lake Ontario Waterfront Development
Program,
a) will act as the Province's agent in any land/water lot
transaction;
.
b) will continue to achieve the public amenity area through the
combination of dedication of patented waterlots, purchase of
private and crown land, and the transfer of the provincial
water lots between the Motel strip and Humber Bay East;
c) will acquire the public amenity area, exclusive of local
park requirements, in the title of The Metropolitan Toronto
and Region Conservation. Authority with-the operational
responsibilities under the Metropolitan Toronto Parks and
Property Department and, where necessary, a sUb-agreement
with the City of Etobicoke on specific components;
d) will attempt to have the cost of acquisition as well as the
capital costs to implement the PUblic Amenity Scheme borne
by the benefiting development in the Motel Strip;
e) supports the recommendation of acquiring, at one time, all
land, waterlots and riparian rights for the complete amenity
scheme immediately upon approval of the Motel Strip
Secondary Plan and the reimbursement of these costs from
levies collected from the development of the adjoining lands
as they proceed,"
At meeting #6/90 (June 22, 1990) , the Executive Committee adopted the
following resolution:
"THAT the staff report on how the Authority's concerns with
regard to the PUblic Amenity Scheme are addressed by the modified
Official Plan Amendment No, C-65-86 (Etobicoke Motel Strip),
originally scheduled to be brought to Executive Committee #6/90
on June 22, 1990, be delayed to a subsequent Executive Committee
meeting,"
ANALYSIS
This section provides a detailed analysis of the four issues outlined in
the Authority resolution from its June 15, 1990 meeting on the Etobicoke
Motel Strip - Public Amenity Scheme,
1. The proposed waterfront drive within Humber Bay East Park
The proposed modifications to Schedule B - Internal PUblic Roads System
include an alternative A and B in the area of Humber Bay East, In
addition, Etobicoke Council has included the following policy statement:
"Access to the Aquarium in Humber Bay Park shall be provided by
the extension of Park Lawn Road southerly from Lakeshore
Boulevard West, 'Alternative B is the preferred alignment,
However, Alternative A is acceptable should Alternative B not be
implemented, Council shall seek the provision of pedestrian
access from the Motel Strip to the aquarium,"
.
e~. ll.q
-4-
In the Metropolitan Parks Committee report on the Aquarium it was
"concluded that the site is well suited to such an undertaking with its
lake edge location and views of downtown. Collectively, we conclude that
working together with the City of Etobicoke, it is possible to develop
detailed plans for the site and its environs and make appropriate
arrangements which can and will:
a) fully integrate the proposed aquarium into the Lakeshore
Waterfront Park contemplated between the Humber River and
the Mimico Creekj
b) finalize the design of the aquarium complex such that it
will form part of and yet, at the same time, be separate
from the Humber Bay Park East complex, -andj .
c) ensure that access and associated parking accommodation for
the casual park user of Humber Bay Park East is not affected
by the development of the Aquarium."
It is Authority staff's position that Alternative B on Schedule B _
Internal Public Roads System be deleted to satisfy our concerns and those
of the Metropolitan Toronto as outlined above. Alternative A on Schedule B
will provide the waterfr~nt drive connection to Park Lawn Road extended.
2. Achievem~nt of the 50-80 metres of Public Waterfront Space Exclusive
of the waterfront drive
The modified Q,P.A. C-65-86 includes the following policy statements:
"6,2 Waterfront PUblic Amenity Area:
"The minimum width of the waterfront promenade shall generally be
50 metres, In limited cases where Council wished to permit a
more direct relationship to the lake, intrusions into this
amenity area may be considered where the activity will satisfy
the general objectives of the amendment,
"The Waterfront Public Amenity Area between the road and the
water's edge may be expanded in key locations to a maximum of 80
metres to permit the construction of low scale, activity-oriented
development where public access and areas to the water's edge are
maintained, and where shown to be otherwise consistent with the
provisions of this plan,
"Expansion of the Waterfront Public Amenity Area to this level
through lakefilling shall be subject to the approval of the
Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources
and the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority.
"As an alternative to lakefilling, Council will support the
provision of public amenity areas on piers, docks or similar
elements, or on existing private land areas adjacent to the
amenity area",
-EX. , ~O
-5-
The Authority recommended 50-SO metres to ensure that the regional public
space would be realized and consistent with:
. a smoothed mainland shoreline with possible extensions beyond the
shoreline built on piles
. the potential for intensive public use given the location of the
Motel Strip and the popularity of the existing waterfront park
system in Metropolitan Toronto
.
. the spatial requirements for the proposed facilities,
Authority staff's position is that limits from the public amenity scheme
space must be defined on Sched~le C - Development Limits.
The revised Schedule C would define the public amenity_ space with a
"development limit" and a "limit of lakefilling" which can be scaled to an
acceptable level to minimize flexibility of interpretation.
Staff would also propose a modification to the policies to secure a minimum
of 50 metres of public amenity space along the waterfront exclusive of the
waterfront drive, In addition, where Council and the Authority considered
it appropriate to allow a more direct relationship to the water's edge, the
minimum width between the waterfront drive and water's edge shall be 30
metres and 20 metres north of the waterfront drive. This more direct
relationship could occur in the boardwalk centre area of the public amenity
scheme.
3, Stormwater Management System and Wetlands
The modified O,P.A. C-65-S6 includes the following policies on Stormwater
Management:
"S,5 Stormwater Management: Council supports the development of
a wetland area adjacent to the Humber Bay Park as a means of
treating stormwater emanating from the Motel Strip and creating
natural habitat opportunities.
"Prior to implementing this element, Council shall require the
completion of further studies, to the sites factor of the
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority,
and the Ministry of the Environment, Environment Canada and the
Ministry of Natural Resources, which examine alternative
locations, possible configurations and shoreline treatments,
environmental implications including degree of treatment, pass
through time, effects of spring conditions, potential
demobilization of contaminants, efficiency in terms of bacteria
removal, a program to monitor the effectiveness of the wetlands
as a stormwater treatment facility, these aspects related to the
protection and establishment of fish habitat, planting and
phasing, maintenance and management requirements, including
funding.
"In considering the implementation of the wetland area, Council
shall seek to implement the "No Net Loss" fisheries program,
administered by the Federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
"Prior to development, the developer sharI provide a stormwater
management plan for the development site which examines how
stormwater will be treated on the site and how this will conform
with the Master Drainage Plan."
~
~.'~I
-6-
The amendment does not indicate how the wetland will be implemented, nor
the timing. Therefore, there is a need for provisions in the plan which
will ensure th~t the wetlands are constructed and operating as the
stormwater treatment facility, in time to accept stormwater flows from the
initial development. Policies should also be written which require that
the developers indicate within their stormwater Management Plan the
mechanisms by which interim controls will be designed and located, to
ensure a level of sediment and water quality control that is satisfactory
to the Authority, Ministry of the Environment and Ministry of Natural
Resources, .
4, Implementation strategy
The following provides a summary of the relevant policies in Q,P,A. C-65-86
currently before the Ontario Municipal Board on "comprehensive assembly" as
requested by the Authority:
". Obj ecti ve 1. 6 - to establish a continuous linkage,
near the water's edge between the
Humber Bay Parks and Palace pier Park,
. Objective 1. 8 - to secure public amenities within the
Motel Strip and improve the relationship
of the area to the Etobicoke and
Metropolitan Waterfront Park systems.
. 2.4 Property Consolidation -
while it is recognized that the
comprehensive assembly requirement of
prior Official Plan pOlicies may have
limited redevelopment options within the
Motel strip, the consolidation of key
properties to achieve sites physically
capable of accommodating redevelopment
activities remains a desirable
objective.
. 4,0 Residential Policies
4.1 General - a maximum of 2,700 residential units
shall be permitted within the Motel
Strip area, subject to the comprehensive
assembly of the 16,2 ha site extending
from the east boundary of the Red Carpet
Inn to the western boundary of the John
Duck Tavern property and the development
concept contained within the previous
plan.
- when approved residential development
reaches a maximum of 1,000 units,
Council shall review the plan to
determine the need to further refine the
development concept or provide a revised
strategy to achieve the essential pUblic
elements (including the road, waterfront
park system and the public attraction).
EX. 102-
-7-
. Section 4.1 (amended May 28/90)
- the prior Official Plan pOlicies related
to the Motel Strip permitted
redevelopment for 2700 units subject to
certain conditions including the
comprehensive assembly of a 16,2 ha,
development site. Traffic analysis has
concluded that 2700 residential units is
the maximum that may be permitted within
the mixed use area,
The modified O.P,A, C-65-86 includes in the "Shoreline Configuration"
section the following provision:
"Implementation of the shoreline lakefilling elements may occur
in a comprehensive manner, or in functional stages concurrent
with, or in advance of redevelopment, Construction of the
shoreline lakefilling areas shall be subject to the technical
requirements of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Authority, the Ministry of the Environment, and the Ministry of
Natural Resources,"
Section 9.0 Implementation includes the following pOlicies:
"The policies established by the amendment will be implemented
by site specific amendments to the zoning code and full site
plan review. This implementation may require the signing of
development condominium or Site Plan Control Agreements and any
additional agreements which may be deemed necessary by the
municipality to achieve the above noted objectives,
"Any agreements which include environmental warning and/or
environmental control measures to be constructed and/or
installed shall be entered into sections 40 (10) and 50 (6) of
the Planning Act".
The Authority supported the Public Amenity Scheme Study recommendation that
"immediately upon approval of the Motel Strip Secondary Plan, all land,
water lots and riparian rights for the complete amenity scheme will be
negotiated with the individual owners and acquired at one time",
The Official Plan Amendment C-65-86 as revised May 28, 1990, does not
achieve the Authority'S position to secure all the lands for the public
amenity space prior to development proceeding, Therefore, in discussion
with the provincial and Metropolitan Toronto staff it has been suggested
that a "Project" be developed as defined under the Conservation Authorities
Act, This project would provide the implementation strategy for the public
amenity space to 1) secure the land interest in pUblic ownership prior to
approval of private development; 2) implement the wetlands concept and 3)
provide a mechanism for project costs recovered from the benefiting area.
The Authority would have to be assured that the O,P,A. C-65-86
Implementation Strategy incorporated the provisions of such a "Project",
and provided the policy support for securing the pUblic amenity space land
interests and recovery of all costs, prior to approval' and finalization of
agreements with the private developments.
~
I
e:~ · r~"?>
-8-
DETAILS OF WORK TO DONE
Staff will continue to work with the Province of Ontario, Metropolitan
Toronto and the City of Etobicoke, to ensure that the further modifications
to O.P,A. C-65-86, as requested by the Authority, are addressed by
Etobicoke Council prior to the Ontario Municipal Board Hearing - November
19, 1990.
Upon adoption of the recommendation, staff will prepare a "Project" for the
"Etobicoke Motel Strip Waterfront Park" for Authority Meeting #6/90 _
September 7, 1990. -Authority staff will obtain staff comments from
Metropolitan Toronto, the City of Etobicoke and the Province of Ontario,
prior to the Authority meeting,
.
I
.
Ex. 1~4-
,
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
LETTER FROM PATRICIA A. IRWIN-CHILDS
14TH AUGUST 1990
Re: SPRAYING OF HERBICIDE
IN PETTICOAT CREEK CONSERVATION' AREA
Executive Committee
Meeting #9/90
August 24, 1990
.
E)l. IOS
Mr. J. McGuiness 451 Broadgreen Street
Chairman PICKERING
Metro Conservation Authority Ontario
5 Shoreham Drive LIW 3H6
DOWNSVIEW
Ontario
M3N IS4
14th August, 1990
Dear Mr. McGuiness and Board Members,
re:- Sprayinl: of Herbicide in Petticoat Creek Conservation Area
I was walking my dogs in the Petticoat Creek Conservation Area early on the
morning of Saturday 4th August and was appalled to find warning notices
advising me that I should stay clear because of recent use of herbicide. These
notices appeared in at least two places in the area but not on the front gate.
One of the functions of a conservation area is to preserve the natural habitat.
The use of herbicide indicates either a disregard for or a lack of knowledge
about the significant impact that these chemicals have on the ecosystem. The
management of a conservation area should be a shining example of the
techniques that can be employed to encourage the natural habitat to survive,
not a lesson in how to eliminate flora and fauna and increase environmental
pollution.
Both animals and humans can receive a dose of these chemicals by skin
absorption from contact through the skin on hands and feet or whatever part
of the body comes into contact with the sprayed herbage. No signs are going
to effectively control wild animals and young children. If I become aware that
my animals or my family are experiencing the symptoms typical of herbicide
contamination, I will be taking legal action. I do not intent to stay out of the
conservation area for three days because of spraying.
I talked to Mr. Andy Wickens, Manager for Petticoat Creek, ,and he did not
authorise the use of herbicide, nor did he know when the spraying had taken
place and what chemicals had been used and the reason for their application.
Mr. Wickens asked his Superintendent to call and provide me with the
infonnation.
The Superintendent of Petticoat Creek, Ms. Lee McGill had authorised the
spraying. The reason stated for using the herbicide was that it was a move
to cut maintenance costs. Ms. McGill said that a meeting would be held to
E)( · l~
discuss the matter and that I would be informed of the outcome. At this time
I have not received any further information.
I have discussed this matter with Norah Stoner and at her suggestion am
bringing this matter to the Boards attention. I have enclosed a number of
copies of this letter for other members of the Board.
I would like to receive a letter that states that it is not the policy of the
Metro Conservation Authority to use herbicide or pesticide in the Petticoat
creek conservation area and that no future use will be authorised.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Yours sincerely,
') ~,( ,,-- { K -l'~ (~' , I L
;"ll\'1(('_ '~, i,,! C J
Patricia A. Irwin-Childs
cc:- Mr. W. Mclean General manager
Board Members
Norah Stoner, M.P.P. - Durham West
Councillor Beverly Morgan Pickering
Councillor Maurice Brenner Pickering
€)(.1~7
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
<;,
REPORT ON AUTHORITY LEGAL SERVICES
AUGUST 20, 1990
Executive Committee
Meeting #10/90
September 14, 1990
.
Ex. 13~
REPORT ON AUTHORITY LEGAL SERVICES
BACKGROUND
At a closed session of the Executive Committee relating to legal-services
and advice to the Authority from the Authority's solicitors, Gardiner,
Roberts, the General Manager was asked to meet with the Chairman, Vice
Chairman and Chairman of the Finance and Administration Advisory Board to
discuss the provision of legal services by the Authority's solicitors. As
a result of discussions at a meeting of this group, the General Manager
instructed the Director, Finance and Administration to report to the
Executive Committee as follows:
1. On the costs of legal services to the Authority and, in particular,
the costs of the Torvalley expropriation;
2. On the hiring of additional legal services where other legal firms
have specialization which is considered superior to that of Gardiner,
Roberts;
3. On the hiring of a law clerk, or related para-legal position, to
assist the Manager, Property and Administrative Services in real
estate and property related matters;
4. On monitoring of all legal services activities undertaken by Gardiner,
Roberts on behalf of the Authority, and to ensure the quality of
advice received and that value for dollar is maintained,
ANALYSIS
Cost ot Leaal Services
Table 1 describes the 1989 actual cost of legal services provided by the
firm of Gardiner, Roberts. The Metro Hazard Land Project represented the
largest single item, which related primarily to the Torvalley expropriation
and ensuing litigation. In 1989, the budget for general legal matters was
$40,000 and actual expenditures were $3~,OOO. 1989 was a typical year.
Legal fees have averaged about $45,000 per year, over the last four years.
Table 2 describes expenditures in the first half of 1990 for general legal
services. The budget in 1990 was $35,000 and will be significantly over-
spent because of development-related litigation. This was outlined in
Financial Progress Report No. 2.
Table 3 describes the expenditures on the Torvalley expropriation over the
five year period ending March 27, 1990.
.
~.l~<=f
-2-
Use ot outside Leaal services
In reviewing the Authority's legal services, it was agreed that it is
appropriate to use law firms other than Gardiner, Roberts, as necessary,
Most recently, the Authority has sought legal opinions from the firm of
Beard, Winter on a development matter and from Fasken, Campbell, Godfrey
with respect to a second opinion on the Torvalley appeal.
Gardiner, Roberts provides a range of services which are used by the
Authority on a regular basis. However, there will certainly be situations
where specialized legal help may be required that can be best secured from
other law firms. certainly, the trend in the legal fraternity is to
increasing specialization within increasingly larger law firms, Staff of
the Authority would have no hesitation in contacting outside legal
services, other than those of Gardiner, Roberts, where appropriate,
provision ot Inside Leaal Services
The provision of in-house legal services was explored by Authority staff
almost 20 years ago. At that time, the special committee constituted to
consider the creation of a legal services section concluded that having in-
house legal services was not appropriate because:
1, The cost would be prohibitive;
2, Outside legal counsel would still be required on frequent occasions;
3. A legal section would frequently be under-employed and just as
frequently overloaded, due to the fluctuating nature of the
Authority's programs;
4, A legal division could not be expected to provide the level of service
enjoyed in the past or at present;
5. It would not result in any overall saving to the Authority,
These conclusions are still true today. There is a case to be made for the
addition of para-legal staff in the Property Section, which could provide
day-to-day support to the Manager of Property and Administration. Such
support would deal with conveyancing normal property purchases, title
searches and similar matters, and certain general administrative functions,
Such a position would require a law clerk with strong experience in the
real estate area and could bring in-house some activity now provided by
Gardiner, Roberts. More importantly, the creation of such a position would
enable the Manager of Property and Administration and the Property Officer
to better fulfill the ever increasing workload demanded of them.
While the details of the position ~o be created have yet to be worked out,
it is estimated that the cost of such a position would be about $40,000 per
year. There would be no significant cost savings associated with the
creation of the position, but there could be some avoidance of future costs
associated with the increasing volume of real estate activity being
undertaken by the Authority, This position will be considered in future
budget estimates.
E)l. IlfO
-3-
CONCLUSION
The existing system of retaining outside solicitors on a fee for service
basis provides the Authority with the following benefits:
1. Advice and assistance of highly qualified aDd experienced legal
specialists in all aspects of the law in which the Authority is
periodically involved. This extends beyond the specific legislation
under the Conservation Authorities Act for which the Authority is
responsible, to include real estate, corporate and commercial, labour
relations, planning law, development agreements, enforcement,
insurance and municipal law;
2, Flexibility and reserve capacity to assure prompt disposition of
legal matters as they occur;
3, Fees paid for services rendered only, with no retainer fee;
4. Costs which are reasonable.
The Authority has established an effective system to monitor all legal
services activities, through the Director of Finance and Administration in
concert with the Senior Partner at Gardiner, Roberts responsible for the
Authority's activities, Mr. John G. Parkinson, Q,C, The monitoring process
ensures that there is prompt attention to the 'Authority's requests, that
fees are reviewed to ensure that they are reasonable and consistent, and
that only necessary activities are referred to the lawyers for their
attention.
~;( . I\.\-' TABLE 1
'.
M.T.R.C.A. LEGAL EXPENDITURES
1989 ACTUAL COSTS
PROJECT NAME $
Guildwood Parkway $ 7,732.
Kingsbury Crescent 2,995.
Lakehurst Crescent 1,656.
Land Sales 15,457.
Metro Hazard Land Acquisition 143,735.
Mimico Co-Op 1, 891.
Motel Strip 7,510.
Niagara Escarpment Land Acquisition 3,500.
Sam Smith 684.
Sylvan Avenue 1,716.
Tommy Thompson Park 1,816.
Waterfront Open Space Land Acquisitio~ 1,206.
Bluffers Park 307.
Claireville Equestrain 475.
Claireville Golf Course 1,105.
Claireville Water Park 15,634.
Flood Control Land Acquisition 27,807.
Frenchman's Bay 3,636.
German Mills Land Acquisition 25,421.
Glen Major Project 2,000.
CAPITAL SUB TOTAL $ 266,238.
.
General Matters $ 35,751.
TOTAL $ 302,034.
,
ex..I'+~
TABLE 2
M.T.R.C.A. - GARDINER, ROBERTS
GENE~L LEGAL EXPENDITURES
1990 ACTUAL TO JUNE 18, 1990
Development Related
Kovari $13,000.
Ronto 7,000.
Waldorf 3,800.
Fill Violations 9,100.
$32,900.
Computer Contract 3,000.
Miscellaneous Property Acquisitions 6,600.
Insurance Related
S & F Excavating 1,300.
Blue Maple 7,900.
Eagle Forest 3,100.
12,300.
Wrongful Dismissals 1, 900.
Retail Sales Tax 3,300.
.
Cold Creek 1,300.
Collection 1,200.
Scarborough Golf Club 1,400.
Salaries and Allowances 2,100.
Miscellaneous 6,000.
$72,000.
e~. t~~
TABLE 3
-
TORVALLEY EXPENDITURES
1985 - MARCH 27, 1990
Lega I :
Gardiner, Roberts $472,435.39
Other 21, 645.00
Sub Total $494,080.39
Other Expenditures:
Court Reporters $ 21,211.60
Appraisers 56,396.46
Engineering 70,173.70
Planning 204,595.10
Auditors 1,500.00
Survey 18,886.00
Miscellaneous 16,319.09
. Grand Total $883,162.34
EX. 14.4-
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
"SPACE FOR ALL - OPTIONS FOR A
GREATER TORONTO AREA GREENLANDS STRATEGY"
Authority response to the proposals
contained in the report entitled
"Space for All - options for a Greater Toronto Area
Greenlands Strategy"
Executive Committee
Meeting #13/90
November 16 1990
~
-
LU "SPACE FOR ALL" RECOMMENDATION AUTHORITY POSITION
(1) The Province provide clear direction through the (i) A provincial position on Greenlands is necessary
endorsement of a Greater Toronto Area Greenlands to ensure a regional system.
strategy with the goal of improving the quality of
life through the establishment of a regional ( ii) Valley systems should be recognized as Greenlands
greenlands system consisting of a variety of as well as the supporting areas necessary to
types of greenlands, accessible to as many people as achieve an ecosystem approach to conservation.
possible, where appropriate, (iii)Kn east-west link between the Moraine and the
waterfront is needed for the regional trail
system, The Parkway Belt review should re-affirm
open space as one of its objectives,
(2) To -guide land 'use planning and development, appropriate (iv) The preparation of Watershed Management strategies
ministries prepare guidelines addressing: (a) urban can contribute to developing guidelines for urban
drainage/storm water management; (b) water conservation drainage and water conservation.
(including groundwater); and (c) how existing tools
under the Planning Act can appropriately address (v) The Authority acts as a Project Manager to
greenlands. develop and implement individual Watershed
Management strategies and can make a significant
contribution to the preparation of land use
planning guidelines.
(vi) The Authority can provide watershed management
information in support of municipal planning
policies to conserve greenlands.
(3) As greenlands serve a variety of functions, the (vii) The Authority can provide watershed, management
provincial resource based ministries review their input to the provincial review of land management
management and land stewardship programs to ensure and stewardship programs.
that they are more widely ecologically based rather
than based primarily on economic yield or being
singular in purpose,
- 2 -
(4) The Province prepare a Greater Toronto Area Greenlands (viii)The adoption of a GTA Greenlands policy statement
policy statement pursuant to section (3) of the Planning under section (3) of the Planning Act would
Act. greatly assist in their conservation.
The overall thrJst of the policy statement would be to (ix)The Strategy for Public Use of Authority lands
limit uses to those which would not reduce'the attributes supports the naturalization of the valley system
of greenlands. and directs more intensive uses to the adjacent
tablelands,
With particular reference to valleys and watercourses,
they should be left in as natural a state as possible. (x) The Authority's plans for a regional trail system
Thus, various uses, including some types of intensive and the development of selected Conservation Areas
recreational endeavours, would be limited, will contribute to linking the regional green 1 and
system and to providing public access.
To help maintain the integrity of such areas as valleys
and watercourses, and to assist in visually separating (xi)The consideration of innovative development
such areas from adjacent development, the establishment concepts to maximize greenland resources is
of riparian (natural) buffer zones of at least la-15m supported by the Authority,
(33-50 ft) would be promoted,
The policy statement would stress the significance of
nodes, such as municipal parks, and of pathways and
corridors i~ linking regional greenland systems. It
would also stress the value of municipal parks and other
areas in providing public access to valley systems.
Further, the policy statement would stress the need for
more inten~ive and clustered forms of develooment,
thereby maximizing the lands available for greenlands
and other uses,
~
.
t
~
....
.
~ - 3 -
(5) Due to the significance and sensitivity of the Oak Comment:
Ridges Moraine Area, the increasing development The province has declared a general expression of
pressure it is under, particularly, for that section provincial interest for the Oak Ridges Moraine,
in the Towns of Richmond Hill and Aurora, and the The Ministry of Natural Resources has been
increasing concerns about the types of development and delegated the responsibility for carrying out a
how development occurs, the Province declare a general two-year comprehensive land use planning study,
expression of provincial interest for the Oak Ridges Planning guidelines are being prepared to ensure
Moraine Area, under section (2) of the Planning Act, the provincial interest during the planning study,
All proposals which have not been approved will be
The objective of declaring provincial interest would be reviewed to ensure they reflect the intent of this
to provide the time required to conduct a comprehensive action,
land use planning study of the Oak Ridges Moraine Area,
In the interim, the province would review all proposed (xii)The Authority supports the province's action with
official plan amendments and rezoning applications within regard to the Oak Ridges Moraine,
the Moraine Area, In the specific instances of the Towns
of Richmond Hill and Aurora, the province would also (xiii)The Authority can provide input to and comments on
review plans of subdivision. the proposed planning study and interim
guidelines,
Where a proposed land use change has not adequately
addressed the sensitivities of the Moraine Area or (xiv)The Authority's position is that the Moraine is
where a proposed land use change is considered premature significant for:
prior to the completion of the comprehensive land use
planning study, the Minister of Municipal Affairs could (a) its functional relationship in an ecosystem-
make a specific statutory declaration of provincial based approach to planning ie. its importance
interest, which would result in the matter going to the as an area of groundwater recharge and as the
ontario Municipal Board and Cabinet making the final source of specific watersheds,
decision, or make use of other powers, as provided for
under the Planning Act, (b) its significance as a unique and distinctive
landform within the GTA contributing to
A two-year comprehensive planning study of the Oak Ridges diversity of landscape and topography,
Moraine Area would be coordinated by the province and
would include upper and lower tier municipalities,
conservation authorities and other interested groups,
- 4 - .
The overall intent of the study would be a more consistent
treatment of development within the Moraine Area from one
municipality to the next. The study would examine the types
of land uses acceptable or not acceptable within the Moraine
Area and the types of background studies and controls that
would be appropriate to help safeguard the sensitivity of
the area,
(6) Through the official plan process, regional municipalities Comment:
more clearly establish develcpnent, greenlands and rural Within the ~RCA area, Metro and Dur~am are
envelopes. reviewing their otticial Plans. Peel and Vork
have yet to adopt plans. Many local municipalities
Development envelopes could be broken down into urban and are currently reviewing their ot!icial Plans.
near urban areas,
The Planning Act (1983) established the require-
Regional municipalities need not designate specific land uses ment for Provincial Policy Statements to address
within each envelope, This would remain the responsibility provincial interests in municipal official plans,
of the local municipalities. However, regional municipalities To date, only a few such statements are in place,
would be responsible for assessing the overall implications Special purpose bodies, such as the Authority, can
of each envelope on a region wide basis from environmental, comment on municipal plans and recommend policies
social and economic perspectives, The limits of the envelopes to ensure their interests. Recognition of these
could not be modified for at least a five-year period and then interests, other than where required by
could only be modified as part of a regional municipality's regulations, is based on the cooperation of the
overall review of its official plan, municipality.
With regards to the greenlands envelopes, each regional The principle of municipal determination of land
municipality would prepere a regional greenlands acti~n plan use is basic to the Planning Act,
to assist in implementation.
(xv)The Authority will provide input to and comments
~A Each respective regional municipality would fine tune the on municipal planning documents to encourage the
~ appropriate sections of a Greater Toronto Are~ Greenlands establishment of greenland envelopes,
~ Strategy and augment it with input from the local conservation
~ authorities and local municipalities.
t
~
~
~ - 5 -
The action plans would also concentrate on linking local (xvi)The Authority supports the concept of
systems to regional greenlands systems through the establishing development and rural envelopes
most appropriate series of pathways and lateral connectors, and their amendment only as a part of a
comprehensive review of the official plan,
Upon completion of the respective action plans, 3-5 year (xvii)The Authority can provide an interregional
implementation packages would be prepared, identifying which perspective to the preparation of greenlands
public body or group was responsible for what aspects, action plans and implementation packages and,
through its Public Use Strategy tor Conservation
Authority Lands, assist in those links ot the
regional trail systeQ on :ts lands: t~e
provision ot access to the valley.: and
recreational nodes at its Conservation Areas.
(7) To minimize the length of time between when a site is (xviii)The Authority strongly supports any amendment to
prepared for development and development actually the Planning Act to ensure that sites are not
commences, amendments to the Planning Act be made such subject to ,vegetation removal and regrading in
that site preparation, eg, removal of vegetation, advance of development or draft approvals.
stockpiling of top soil, etc" cannot occur until the
necessary development approvals or draft approvals (xix) The Authority supports amendments to require
have been obtained, dedication of valley lands, as a part of the
planning process. Such dedications should be to
Amendments to the Planning Act also be made such that either the municipality or to the Authority;
valley lands may be dedicated to the local municipality, should not be limited to any specific percentage;
in addition to lands dedicated for park purposes. and be in addition to those lands required for
park purposes.
- 6 -
(8) To fill the gap between the definition of (xx) The Authority has previously recommended, to the
development under the Planning Act and the province, an expanded interpretation of the term
specific hazard orientation of a conservation "conservation of land" to permit the Authority to
.authority's regulation, amendments be made to serve the community's interest in conserving the
the Conservation Authorities Act such that the valleylands. In strongly supporting this recom-
regulatory powers under section (28) of the Act mendation in "Space for All", the Authority re-
are expanded so that the placing or dumping of affirms its recommendation.
fill, the location of buildings and structures
and the alteration of a waterway, anywhere in a (xxi) The Authority supports the recommendation to
valley system, can be regulated from a conservation/ review and reduce the possible duplication of
protection aspect as well as a hazard aspect, responsibilities between its regulation, as may be
amended, and the Lakes and Rivers Improvement Act,
(9) As part of its responsibility in issuing water taking (xxii)The Authority is concerned that the present water
permits under the ontario Water Resources Act, the taking permit process is separate from the current
Ministry of the Environment investigate ways of comprehensive watershed strategy preparation and
undertaking studies such that the overall extent of endorses the recommendation that the impact of
the water resources of a watershed or acquifer system such permits is an important component in managing
can be assessed. After which, a water budget could be watershed resources and must be part of future
determined for all the various uses, present and future, strategies,
which would include an analysis of the amount ~vailable
for water taking purposes,
The Ministry of the Environment undertake research into (xxiii)The Authority, in addressing the Oak Ridges
more efficient septic system designs and materials for Moraine, identified its concern with privately
use in areas with rapidly draining soils. This research serviced developments and their potential impacts.
could also examine communal type septic systems servicing The Authority supports the recommendation for
two or more dwellings, thus potentially reducing the identification of improvements to septic systems
present space requirements for estate residential lots. and that this be applied not only in the Oak
Also, with the view to clarifying responsibility, Ridges Moraine but throughout the GTA.
~ the Minister of Natural Resources investigate any
possible duplication of responsibilities between
a conservation authority's regulation and the
application of the Lakes and Rivers Improvement
.....
~
....
~
.....
.
~ -'7 -
(10)The province establish a five year, $100 million (xxiv)The Authority supports the establishment of a fund
Greater Toronto Area greenlands acquisition program. to acquire greenlands within the GTA and
The program to be set up on a matching grant basis recommends the provincial share be 75%,
with half the funds provided by the province and
the other half by local or interest groups, other
government bodies, the private sector, etc,
While recognized that total reliance on acquisition (xxv) The Authority agrees that public acquisition
to secure greenlands is not feasible in general, would be used only where planning controls and
acquisition would only be considered where a site land stewardShip programs were unsuccessful or
was threatened and other means to secure it had where the area involved was highly significant
failed or where the site would provide for public to the accomplishment of green~ands objectives.
access and other means to secure the land were
not viable.
(ll)The guidance and monitoring required to assist in the (xxvi)The Authority supports the need for
implementation of a Greater Toronto Area Greenlands coordination to ensure greenlands but that a new
Strategy be provided through a coordinating body, level of government not be created.
A new level of government or a new public body need (xxvii)The Authority recommends that the province,
not be created. through its Office for the GTA, coordinate a plan
and implementation strategy and that the Authority
Representation on the coordinating body would include be represented in respect of its interests and
the province, regional and local municipalities, and expertise in comprehensive watershed management.
local conservation authorities,
(xxviii)The Authority recommends that any plan for the
As greenlands form the framework within which urban GTA ensure that greenland resources are given
development can occur, consideration could be given priority in order to maintain and enhance the
to having the coordinating body responsible for quality and diversity of the community,
overseeing the implementation of the Greater Toronto
Area Greenlands Strategy linked with the body
responsible for overseeing the implementation of
the Greater ~oronto Area Urban structure Strategy,
- 8 -
(12)The existing wording of the Trees Act be reviewed to (xxix)The Authority supports th~ proposal to amend the
determine if the focus could include other factors Trees Act to provide municipalities with improved
more environmental in nature, as well as wood controls over tree cutting,
production,
To reduce the number of instances where wood lots
are eliminated without the knowledge of local
municipalities and thus, the opportunity to
explore other avenues to achieve what is desired,
amendments be made to the Trees Act so that trees
cannot be cut without the prior knowledge of the
municipality. Notwithstanding this proposed
amendment, minimum area size provisions and
exemptions, such as cutting for personal use, as
presently defined in the Act, should be retained.
Also, amendments be made to the Act to include (xxx) The Authority supports the proposal to include
the power to issue stop work orders and to increase stop work orders and increased penalties for
the size of penalties for the contravention of a contravention of by-laws under the Trees Act and
by-law passed under the Act. recommends that its previous requests for similar
amendments to section 28 of the Conservation
Authorities Act be reconsidered.
(13)As a general approach to reducing the amount of land (xxxi) The Authority supports the recommendation for
that is developed, as opposed to reducing the 'amount innovative development layouts to maximize
of development, all levels of government be encouraged greenlands and, further, recommends that limits
to investigate and promote more compact urban forms be established not only for areas to be permitted
(ie. intensive versus extensive forms of development) , to develop with municipal services but also to
Concepts such as cluster development and more creative restrict the proliferation of privately-serviced
layouts sensitive to the surrounding landscape should estate residential development.
be explored.
~ To help facilitate moves in this direction, the province,
through the Ministries of Municipal Affairs, Housing,
Natural Resources and the Environment, would research
the matter and prepare a guideline document.
......
~
~
w
----
.
~
- 9 -
(14)The province establish a Greater Toronto Area (xxxii)The Authority supports the need for a vehicle
Greenlands Foundation to assist in giving a more to receive private and corporate donations toward
coordinated focus to greenlands and to provide a land acquisition and to encourage private land
means for public/private partnerships to protect stewardship: however, recommends that:
greenlands. (a) existing Conservation Foundations be utilized
for fund raising:
The Foundation would be responsible for the (bl provincial acquisition funds be allocated
administration of provincial acquisition funds through local conservation authorities: and
on a matChing grant basis. Local interest groups, (cl land stewardship programs be implemented
other public bodies, or the private sector would through partnerships between local
be responsible for raising the remaining funds, conservation authorities and the Ontario
Heritage Foundation, as is currently the
practice respecting Carolinian Canada sites.
The Foundation would actively encourage the
formation of an Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation
Land Trust or other types of management bodies,
Further, the Foundation would be charged with
exploring landowner incentives including
recognition awards, the expansion of the
Conservation Land Tax Rebate Program to include
all lands identified as regional green lands ,
greater availability or use of personal income
tax deductions for land bequests or easements,
the transfer and/or sale of property development
rights, etc,
- 10 -
(15)More formalized public involvement in securing, (xxxiii)The Authority supports the recommendation to form
managing and enhancing greenlands is to be municipal Ecological and Environmental Advisory
encouraged, Committees and would be available to provide input
to their work.
In particular, it is strongly encouraged that
regional municipalities give consideration to
establishing regionally based Ecological and
Environmental Advisory Committees as exist in
areas such as Halton, Waterloo and Niagara.
Such groups could assist Regional Councils on
a range of environmental matters, including
greenlands,
Also, conservation authorities are to be (xxxiv)The Authority supports the recommendation to
encouraged to establish working groups to assist establish working groups, including
in major endeavours such as the preparation of representatives from public interest groups, to
watershed management strategies. develop comprehensive watershed strategies and is
implementing this effort in the preparation of its
comprehensive watershed management strategies.
(16)The implementation of a-Greater Toronto Area (xxxv)The Authority acknowledges the continuing need
Greenlands Strategy will take the collective for information and education throughout the
effort of many different bodies and groups. community and will continue to implement a'
~ To this end, local groups and special interest communications program to advise and advocate
groups, as well as government bodies, are to be on conservation issues.
encouraged to assist in various ways, including
informing and educating the public on the
.... significance of greenlands in the Greater Toronto
~ Area,
/
EX. lS6
THB METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERV~TION AUTHORITY
LETTER FROM GOODMAN AND CARR
RE: ST. LAWRENCE PARK
PROPOSED SALE FO BELL CANADA
PART OF 324 CHERRY STREET
SEVERANCE APPLICATION
Executive Committee
Meeting #13/90
November 16 1990
I
GOODMAN AND CARR EX .15b
8ARRISTl!RS ANI) SOLICITORS
Douglas Quick
Dtr~t L10e (416) '97-4045
Reply to Toronto Offi'Q
File Number: 90/'i1st
November 15, 1990
Metropolitan Toronto &
Region ConBervation Authority
5 Shoreharn Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N 154
Attention: Chairman J. McGinnis
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Authority:
Re: St. Lawrenoe Park
Proposed Sale to Bell Canada
Part of 324 Cherry Street
Severanoe Application
We are the solicitors for St. Lawrence park (1) Ltd. the owners of
certain lands located at 324 Cherry Street in the City of Toronto.
Our client has entered into an Agreement of Purchase and Sale with
Bell Canada to sell to them a site which forms part' 0 t the 324
Cherry Street lands. This site together with the balance of our
clients holdinqs form part of the Lower Don area of the regulated
floodplain.
Our client applied for a severance of these lands from the balance
of its holdings. That application was heard by the Committee of
Adjustment for the City of Toronto on October 17, 1990. The
application had pr.eviously been a subject of extensive review by
statf at the City of Toronto. They ultimately agreed to the
severance subject to certain conditions which were imposed as part
of the decision. Those conditions had to do primarily with any
necessary alterations which might become evident to the proposed
rights of way for access and servicing purposes. The City also
attempted to ensure that they would receive a park dedication with
respect to this site.
On September 28, 1990, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority wrote to the Committee of Adjustment
indicating that they believed the application was premature. Their
objection was based on the position that these lands form part of
the flood }?lain.
Suit.: 2300.200 KinaStrl:e[W~~t.Toronto.Omilrio,C.lnaJa MSH 3WS Td"phllnc: (416) 595-2300 F3X. (416) 59Hl567
Suit&: 210. 4120 Y\)".:~ Street, North Yurko Ontllnu. Cllnllda MZl'2I1H ' li:lcrhllOl: (~16) 7U-2.300 r:tx, (416) 73".2H61J
MEMBER ell' GOODMAN LAPOlmt: FEI\OUSON
TOI\ONTO/NORTH YORK MO~TREAL VA~(;OUVER
,
6.IS?
2
The subject. lands form part of the old Canron Metals plant.
Adjacent sites which ara also controlled by our client are the
former Canada Malting Site and the Victory Soya site. All of thefle
are industries of very long standing on the sites. In fact, their
situation is typioal for virtually the whole of the Lower Don Area.
AS! you are probably aware, this 'area has been developed for
industrial, commercial and residential uses in various locations
for nearly a century. It includes substantial portions of the Don
Valley Parkway, the Gardiner Expressway and major railway lines.
It was our position before the Committee of Adjustment that the
Conservation Authority's ability to prevent development in the
Flood Plain Area is regulated by the Conservation Authorities Act.
To the extent that Planning Act matters are to be effected by those
matters within the Authority's jurisdiction, it should occur by. the
,implementation of proper Official Plan Amendments for such areas.
The Official Plan presently in effect in this area contains no such
prohibition. In addition,'the Central Water front Official Plan
Amendments contain no such prohibition. Based upon the foregoing
it was the opinion of the Committee that the Floodplain issue would
not be considered by them. Rather they would consider all other
planning issues. The Floodplain control issue would be separately
addressed by the applicant in obtaininq the permissions required
under the Conservation Authoritis8 Act.
Our client'S position continues to be that it acknowledges and
accepts the jurisdiction of the Conservation Authority to deal with
Flood Plain issues. The obtaining ot the severance is not being
treated by our client or Bell Canada a8 an acknowledgement that
the development will be allowed to proceed in this area. What the
severance is, is an acknowledgement that provided that Floodplain
issues can be resolved, this is otherwise an appropriate area for
development and an appropriate confiquration of land for
development.
The Conservation Authorities Act provic1es the Authority wiith ample
power to control development. It also provides for an appeal
process. We believe that that process is the appropriate one for
discussion of these issues, not the severance process.
We would therefore request that the Executive Committee instruct
its Legal Counsel not to appeal the decision of the Committee of
Adjustment dated October 24, 1990.
~ <-
EX./S e
3
If felt necessary by your Counsel, our client and Bell Canada would
be happy to execute any reasonable acknowledgement that the
severance does not in any way prejudice the rights of the
Conservation Authority with respect to the issues of Floodplain
Control, whether or not development should be permitted in the area
on that basis or, if permitted, on what terms or conditions it
should be so permitted. We would be pleased to answer any
questions which you may have.
Yours v~ry truly,
Goodman an
~~ .
DOu~ s Quick
DO/ab
ees C. West
C. Mather
R. MacDougall
Om..'ESS.L Ttl
.
~./S9
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
LETTER FROM MINISTER OF NATURAL RESOURCES
THE HON. C.J. (BUD) WILDMAN
RESPONSE TO AUTHORITY'S RECOMMENDATION
REGARDING PITS AND QUARRIES WITHIN THE
NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PLANNING AREA
Executive Committee
Meeting #13/90
November 16 1990
~~ Ministry of "",,,., Ministere des """". a,,,,', P".
..-::: Toronto, Ontario
, ! Natural Richesses M7A lW3
..l.. ..ol:I::2 Resources naturelles 416/965-1301
,,~,.
Ontano
RECEIVED"
OCT 1 7 1900 .r:::-V l'-O
OCT 18 1990 ,-". ~
lVI.1r.~.c:.~.90-03487-MIN
Mr. W. A. McLean
General Manager
Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority
5 Shoreham Drive
Downsview, Ontario
M3N IS4
Dear Mr. McLean:
Thank you for your letter of August 15, 1990, which was
addressed to my predecessor, Mrs. Lyn McLeod, MPP, regarding
pits and quarries within the Niagara Escarpment Planning
Area.
Section 69 of the Aggregate Resources Act, which is referred
to as the transition section, prescribes the process for
bringing existing pits and quarries under the new Act. In
order for an existing pit or quarry to continue in operation
under the Aggregate Resources Act, the operator had to
submit a licence application prior to March 31, 1990. For
applications made in accordance with Section 69 (3) of the
statute, the former Minister was obligated to issue new
licences by June 30, 1990. This relicensing process was not
intended to include a comprehensive review of existing
sites. Such a review would be a considerable undertaking
given the number of sites involved. This essential first
step simply confirms the status of pit and quarry
operations.
Section 69 also sets out the legal process to be used to
. bring existing site plans into conformity with the new Act
and its regulations. Until this is done, the site plans
under the Pits and Quarries Control Act remain in effect.
Although it would be desirable to revise all existing plans
immediately, this is clearly not possible. In July of this
year, the Min~stry, in accordance with the Act, issued the
first set of demands for the production of revised site
plans. Additional demands will be issued at three month
intervals, and all plans are to be revised by December 31,
1993. The primary criterion in developing the schedule for
these requests is the need for plan revision. In general,
this means that older plans will be revised first.
" .. 2
\
~ ,
e'i-- lb\ - 2 -
I would point out that section 69 is designed to bring
existing licensees under the new statute in the shortest
possible time. Consequently, specific actions under Section
69, such as the licence reissuance process, do not include
provisions for extensive public consultation. Section 17 of
the statute is the s~ction under which this Ministry ,will
ensure ongoing consultation with local government. It
provides for the establishment of a legal framework for both
municipal consultation and the evaluation of pit and quarry
operations. This process provides the opportunity to review
concerns about pit and quarry operations. A further review
,of each site as part of the five year Niagara Escarpment
Plan Review would be a duplication of effort. Your
Authority may wish to contact any existing licensee directly
in order to express concerns which you may have. Ministry
staff will be working closely with the operators to ensure
that if possible, identified concerns 'are considered during
the site plan update process.
Ministry of Natural Resources staff have discussed the
transition process with senior staff of the Niagara
Escarpment Commission, the Regional Municipality of Halton,
as well as the Halton Region Conservation Authority. If you
wish the Ministry to convene a meeting to discuss this
matter further, I encourage you to contact Mr. Jim Barker,
District Manager for Maple, at telephone number (416)
832-2761.
I trust that the foregoing addresses the Authority'S
concerns.
Yours sincerely,
!JrJcJfdltAMl
C. J. (Bud) Wildman
Minister
EX, lb2.
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
EVALUATION AND REVIEW COMMITTEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
OCTOBER 26, 1990
Executive Committee
Meeting #13/90
November 16 1990
,
EX. 163
The Evaluation and Review committee met on Friday, October 26,
1990 immediately fOllowing the Executive Committee meeting to
discuss the 1989 Program Performance Review Report and the Report
of Recreation Use of Authority Lands,
Present: John McGinnis
Gordon Patterson
William Granger (on behalf of Emil Kolb)
Don Jackson
Lois Hancey
Dick O'Brien
Absent: Emil Kolb
1- PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REVIEW
Staff presented the 1989 Program Performance Review to the
members,
The Evaluation and Review Committee reviewed the 1989 Program
Performance Review report which had been circulated to all
Authority members and was received at the three Advisory Boards,
The purpose of the Committee's review was to give detailed
attention to the recommendations and to assess what progress had
been made,
THE COMMITTEE AGREED THAT THE 1989 PROGRAM PERFORMANCE REVIEW
APPROPRIATELY IDENTIFIES AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN ACHIEVING
AUTHORITY OBJECTIVES
AND FURTHER THAT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS BE NOTED BY STAFF FOR
FURTHER CONSIDERATION:
Recommendation on paae AM.35
THAT the update of the Watershed Plan to incorporate Greenspace
objectives and the communication of the Authority's corporate
message clarify the goals and objectives ~elated to public safety
and the exceptions which permit use of a Special Policy Area
designation,
The Evaluation' Review Committee agreed with the above
recommendation and emphasized the need to be clear in respect of
the purpose and restrictiveness ot special policy areas.
Recommendation on paae AM,38
THAT the technical sections achieving p~oq~am objectives through
the Plan Input and Review process ~eVlew and update/prepare the
necessary guidelines/operational criteria and, where appropriate,
resource area mapping, to enable planning staff to effectively
implement the Watershed Plan and suppleaentary Greenspace
initiatives.
The Evaluation and Review Committee reco...nded that the intent
of the above recommendation would be clearer if it were re-worded
as follows:
THAT the technical sections achieving program
objectives through the Plan Input and Review
process ensure the necessary quidelines are
available to planning staft. Where appropriate,
resource area mapping should alac be .ade available.
. . , . . /2
Ex, L~q- - 2 -
Recommendation on paae AM.50
THAT the cost and methods of mapping areas suitable for
acquisition across the Oak Ridges Moraine complex be determined
and the 1990 funding allocations be reviewed to determine
possible sources/re-allocation.
The Evaluation & Review Committee noted that the Kanter report
entitled, Space for All. which makes recommendations concerning
the Oak Ridges Moraine Complex has recommended that a complete
resource inventory of the Oak Ridges Moraine be carried out and
that the Ministry of Natural Resources is undertaking this work.
Any Authority mapping costs may be reduced by this effort.
Recommendation on Page AM,62
THAT the Authority discuss with its local municipalities the
merit of requiring private developers to fund the cost of ongoing
site inspection, by a qualified engineer to be selected by the
municipality, as part of the approval of a development proposal,
to ensure the implementation of all municipal and agency
requirements.
The Evaluation & Review Committee reco..ended that the staff re-
consider this recommendation in light of its practicality and
enforceability and discuss with municipalities, alternative
methods of enforcement.
Recommendation on paae AM,64
THAT the Authority continue to seek solutions to the issue of
fill disposal and to designate sites where suitable material can
be placed,
The Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront will
be undertaking a study concerning the suitability of lakefilling.
The Authority's comments on the Croabie report should address the
problems and opportunities of disposal of fill materials within
the entire region of the Authority's jurisdiction not just within
the lake,
Recommendation on Paae AM,?l
THAT the internal sharing of specific job skills as a part of the
Authority's internal staff develop.ent and training opportunities
be investigated as both a means of skills development and as a
method of improving staff interaction and information transfer.
The Evaluation & Review Committee reco...nded that staff review
the current policy of Authority assistance to employees for
tuition fees.
.
2, RECREATION USE OF AUTHORITY LANDS
The Evaluation & Review Committee reViewed the recreation use
component of the Strategy for Public Use of Authority Lands.
The Evaluation & Review Committee agreed and recommended:
THAT the principles as set out in the Strategy for PUblic Use of
Authority Lands continue to be valid and should be re-affirmed as
follows:
- 3 - E;<. ltb
.prepare and'regularly update an environmental data base;
.continue to manage Authority lands for the long term
conservation of renewable natural resources, and monitor the
environmental impact of recreation;
,establish priorities for the types of recreational opportunities
to be offered on Authority lands, based on sound resource
management;
.develop multi-year concept plans for conservation areas,
educational facilities, and the regional trail system;
.develop and operate regional outdoor recreation, education and
heritage programs on Authority lands, where the landholdings are
large, the activities are compatible with the environment, and
the programs are cost-effective;
.negotiate with provincial ministries and agencies to establish
long term operational and financial support programs;
.encourage The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation
Foundation to establish funds for those projects without
sufficient revenues to meet operating costs;
,place selected lands under management agreements with
municipalities to create parks;
.invite the private sector to develop and operate selected
recreational facilities; and
.seek multi-year funding for the development and re-development
of selected conservation areas,
THAT use of the renewable natural resources for public recreation
is an important component of the strategy;
THAT the present strategy is appropriate and it is important that
it be communicated in specific proposals in their early planning
stages.
AND FURTHER THAT the Authority establish more specific criteria
regarding acceptable recreation development on its lands as a
framework for future proposals;
3. USER PAY POLICY
The Evaluation , Review Committee reviewed the Authority's
approach to user pay in respect of recreation facilities and
recommended that staff be directed to prepare a report
identifying those activities where a user pay policy could
reasonably be applied,
Hew Business
THAT The Evaluation & Review Committee meet in the spring of 1991
to review the 1990 Program Performance Review.
Meeting adjourned at 2:50 p,m,
/L.
1990.11.01
EX. Hob
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
THE COUNTRYSIDE INSTITUTE
JULY 13-20, 1991
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Executive Co..lttee
Meeting Ill/90
November 16 1990
THE COUNTRYSIDE INSTITUTE
-
October 19, 1990 E.~. l~ 7
..- --,~~_... -. ",
William McLean, General Manager ,-" e, i -: . ,-, : ", :' . "\
Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority ~'I"'l"." ..
! ;,---"
5 Shoreham Drive r-' . .-'-1
,,; " ,'" .:,.. I
Downsview, ON, Canada M3N 1S4 ;':i ,~,,_'~,~,_.<:, ..-~~~~~; :,l
. , - \ ", . I..J W ._~ - ........
Dear Mr. McLean, j -, -- .-.... --.
----~--------------_.
In 1987 ~ 40 'land conservationists from New England and the United Kingdom
gathered in New Engla~d for a new, unique collaboration called the U.S. - U.K. " '
Countryside Stewardship Exchange. Working in teams of eight at five' New England "', .
!lites; they delved for a week into specific local land, use ohallengel!l,'meeting ,with '.',:,::"
local 'officials and concerned citizens as they analyzed the situation. :fAt' t~e' e~d of "
the week, each team presented recommendations for addressing the problem situation'
to their host community. In 1989 a similar exchange took place on the other'side of :
t.he Atlantic. Reports from both Exchanges are enclosed.
Next summer, during the week of July 13-20, 1991, the Exchange will once alfain
return to North America. For the ,1991 'Exchange and a new set of teams, we'll be
identifying up to seven case study sites throughout New 'England, New York, arld
eastern Canada. The enclosed Request for Proposals (RFP) gives more' background on
the Countryside Stewardship Exchange Program and lists the five land use issuen
that will be the focus of the 1991 Exchange. Oak Ridges Moraine has been identified
as a site that exhibits one or more of the focus issues and that could benefit from the
Hxchange's, innovative approach to land use issues~
'Case study,sponsor organizations are an important link in the Exchange
partnership, essential to making the Exchange experience beneficial and rewarding ,
for' aU involved. A case study sponsor works with the planning committee to frame
the case study and arrange and oversee the schedule. The RFP outlines the ' ,
opportunity and the responsibilities involved in hosting a case study team.
Bryan Howard, an '89 Exchange team member, mentioned that the AuthoritJ'
might be interested in sponsoring a 1991 Exchange case st.udy. I encourage you to
submit a case study proposal or to talk with other organizations about Joint
sponsorship. Plea,se note that the deadline for submitting a proposal is November 21,
19HO.
If you have questions, please don't hesitate to call me at 802/775-0584 or t.o call
Bryan Howard. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
'JO-cllL -~
Jacquelyn L. Tuxill, Coordinator
1991 Countryside Stewardship Exehange
.
cc: Bryan Howard, Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources
R,R. ~ Box 350 Warren, Vermont 056'/4
~j.lb~ -
u,s. - U.K. Countryside Stewardship Exchange
REQUEST POR PROPOSALS
The Countryside Stewardship Exchange conducts case studies of rural land
conservation issues, involving expert professionals from several countries,
This REQUEST POR PROPOSALS seeks nominations for case study sites from
potential site sponsors in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada
for the 1991 Exchange program, which will take place July 13-20, 1991.
Back2round
In 1986 the U.S. National Park Service and the Countryside Commissio~
for England and Vales signed a memorandum of understanding, providing a
framework of cooperation to enhance the conservatiop of rural landscapes, In
1987, the first Countryside Stewardship Exchange took place in New England,
establishing a model of bringing together land conservation professionals from
both sides of the Atlantic to work on common problems and to share experience
and expertise. The United Kingdom and the no~theastern U.S., as well as other
countries, share many concerns about the future of the countryside and rural
landscapes. Economic and social changes underway in many places affect not
only traditional uses of the land, but also the character of entire rural
regions. As a result, many cherished landscapes face unprecedented threats,
Sharing a regard for rural traditions and a common concern for the
countryside's future, these countries can learn a great deal from each other.
Helping this to happen is the mission of the Countryside S~eva~~s~i? Ex:hange.
The centerpiece of the Exchange is a coordinated program of case study
projects taking place every two years. During a case study, an eight-member
team (four experts from each continent) travels to a specific location, where
team members provide analysis and advice on particular problems of countryside
protection, Each team spends four days intensively exploring the area and its
problems and potential, They meet with local officials, residents and
a=':c::a~es , as well as the local news media, Then the team develops and
presents to the community a package of suggestions and action recommendations,
For areas facing difficult issues of land protection and growth, the
Exchange is a unique opportunity to obtain a concentrated infusion of expert
tecnnical advice that is ordinarily beyo~c :~e ~eac~ 0: 10::a1 stewardship
groups, public or private. The first two Exchanges, in New England (1987) and
tne U.K, (1989), led to valuable recommendations for :te :ase study areas and
provided a professionally rewarding experience for all pa~ticipants, (Reports
on both Exchange programs are available by calling 002/775-0504.)
The third Exchange, scheduled for July 13-20, 1991, will again be held
in North America, with countryside specialists hom the U,K, joining their
American counterparts to collaborate on at least six case study projects,
* A~C)cI..t ;>4P~r'
Goals for the 1991 Exchan2e EX.llc>q
.
The Countryside Stewardship Exchange has five goals, as follows:
1. To increase public awareness and promote efforts to protect the
countryside through meetings among conservation and land use
specialists, landowners, government officials and community leaders from
the U. S . , U.K.. and other countries;
2. To provide direct benefits to communities within case study locations by
providing professional evaluations and recommended strategies;
3. To encourage local officials and citizen groups to act on recommended
strategies by inviting them to participate in'the case studies and by
providing them vith technical assistance through the sponsoring
organizations;
4. To improve the countryside stewardship efforts in each country by
exchanging information on successful techniques and providing a rare
occasion for at least 48 land conservation professionals from Europe and
North America to work together on real problems; and
5, To publicize the need for land conservation and planning through maximum
coverage of the Exchange by the media and through the distribution of
its reports.
1991 Theme and Issues
THEME : THE VO,RKING LANDSCAPE
The countryside of Europe and much of northeastern North America is a
landscape in which people live and work, For many of us, the phrase " life in
the countryside" rings with myriad cultural implications -- about "rural"
values, ways of life and appearances, Much of the reason for this resonance
can be traced to the rural working landscape, where people actively use the
landls rasources t~ adwoutaga. This "~orking. of the landscape has create~
much of the attractiveness we find in rural areas.
Economic and technological change now threatens these traditional
activities as well as the countryside's very character, For most regions,
however, the task is not to a~rest the iorces of change, but rather to
accommodate and direct them, The goal is to reduce the impact of change on
the qualities we have come to value. we do not want to transform our rural
districts into "museums' of bygone ways while we seek to prevent them from
being abandoned and forsaken,
Vorking landscapes must continue to provide a livelihood for the people
who live there while retaining cherished values and needed resources for
present and future generations.
I
I
i
I
d. ~
Vithin this theme. the 1991 Exchange will examine five issues:
-
* RURAL AGRICULTURE: Providing support to agriculture while achieving
public benefits such as protecting landscape values and wildlife
habitat.
* FORESTRY: Providing public access and for public use and enjoyment of
forests along with use of the resource.
* GREEN TOURISM: Achieving environmentally sensitive tourism.
, * COASTAL MANAGEMENT: Sustaining coastal resources and planning for
rising sea levels.
* PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: Citizen involvement and,public participation in
policymaking.
Gettin2 Involved
Participating in the Countryside Exchange' is an excellent opportunity
for communities and organizations to further their land conservation and
growth management efforts, Can your area qualify for selection aS,a case
study site for 19917 Following are the procedures and criteria for site
selection,
Much of the program's success stems from the development of each case
study as a partnership between the Exchange program, local sponsors, and the
locality. Exchange organizers select the consultant team and coordinate the
overall schedule. Together Exchange organizers and local sponsors frame the
case study problem situations. The responsibilities of local sponsors
involve:
* Establishing the case study schedule;
* Arranging site tour(s) and needed transportation;
* Organizing meetings with appropriate officials. landowners. developers,
activists, etc,;
* Providing for lodging and meals for team members;
* Providing a local coordinator to ensure that all local logistics run
smoothly; and
* Covering case study costs through local fundraising or in-kind
contributions,
At this point funding is not available from the Exchange to cover local
costs, Although we will seek lccal a55i5ta~ce f~~ding. we cannot guaLantee
it, First priority for funds raised will be transportation for teams to and
from case study sites from a central staging area where joint Exchange
activities are planned, Local fundraising has played an important role in
previous Exchanges. Locally-generated funds and in-kind contributions extend
available budgets, demonstrate community support and gi.e local i~~eres~s a
greater sta~c in the case study ou~come a~d fol1owup, Total cost to local
sponsors of hosting a case study site (lodging, food, tra~sportation, Deeting
facilities, etc,) can vary quite a bit depending cn the amount of in-kind
services contributed, Ve especially encourage that lodging be provided by
local residents to further the cultural exchange and reduce costs,
Local sponsors in the past have included such diverse parties as state
park agencies and Chambers of Commerce, Ve encourage joint local sponsorship,
although c~e o~ganization should be designated the primary contact,
.The Site Selection Process -EX. 171
-
The Countryside Stewardship Exchange is requ~sting proposals for local
sponsorship of a case study site for the 1991 Exchange from any organization
..... . interested in countryside stewardship in its region, Using no more than two
pages, case study site proposals should address the selection criteria and
include the following specific information:
1. Boundary of the proposed study area shown on a map of appropriate scale.
2. Desc~iption of the issues of concern for the future of the landscape in
the proposed study area. Please rela'te these to the 5 issue categories
outlined above as much as possible. You may also describe the values
inherent in the area that are worthy of protection (e,g., scenery.
community character. historic association, economic potential,
recreation potential, etc.).
3. Name, address and telephone of Drincipal contact person.
4. Financial Dlan for covering local costs.
Additional supporting materials, such as letters from 'local officials, can be
submitted ,in 'addition to the 2~page proposal.
SELECTION CRITERIA -- All case study proposals will be evaluated based on the
Exchange's need for geographic representation within the target region (New
England, New York, and eastern Canada) and on the extent to which they:
A. Address one or more of the five focus issues.
B. Have the demonstrated support of local officials, residents and
institutions.
c. Explain the contribution that external expert consultation can make at
this time in the process of achieving local stewardship objectives.
D. Indicate the ability and likelihood of local interests to follow up on
the observations and suggestions of the Exchange team.
E, Have adequate logistical and financial support,
PROPOSAL DEADLINE -- All materials must be received by November 21, 1990, Ye
will notify you of our decision by December 21, 1990.
FOR MORE INFORMATION or if you have questions about the role and
responsibilities of local sponsors, please contact Jackie Tuxill, 1991
Exchange coordinator, a~ 802/775-0584 or any planning committee member (see
attached list).
* * * * * * * * * * *
The 1991 Countryside Stevardship Exchange is sponsored by:
* The Countryside Institute (Yarren. VT)
* U,S, National Park Service (North Atlantic Regional Office, Boston, MA)
* Countryside Commission of England and Vales
* Appalachian Mountain Club (Boston. MA/Pinkham Notch, NH)
* Atlantic Center for the Environment (Ipsvich, MA)
* Center for Rural Massachusetts (Amherst, MA)
* Regional Plan Association (Nev York City, NY)
* Vermc~t Land Trust (Montpelie::-, 'I":)
THE COUNTRYSIDE INSTITUTE
Ei .l72
u.s. - U,K. COUNTRYSIDE STEVARDSHIP EXCHANGE
The 1991 U.S. - U.K. Countryside Stewardship Exchange is being coordinated,
through a planning committee drawn from th~ sponsoring organizations and past
Exchange participants. Committee members and their affiliation are:
Randall Arendt, Center for Rural Massachusetts
Jessica Brown, Atlantic Center for the Environment
Richard V. Carbin, Countryside Institute
Steven Golden, North Atlantic Regional Office, National Park Service
Valter Graf, Appalachian Mountain Club
Christopher Greene ('87 Exchange Participant)
Stephen C. Harper. Countryside Institute ('87 Exchange Participant)
Edward Holdaway, Countryside Commission of England and Vales
Tom Horn. Atlantic Center for the Environment
Nora Mitchell, North Atlantic Regional Office. National Park Service
Villiam H. Schmidt. Vermont Land Trust ('89 Exchange Participant)
Jackie Tuxill, 1991 Exchange Coordinator
Robert Yaro, Regional Plan Association
The Countryside Institute has assumed lead responsibility for coordinatillg the
1991 Countryside Stewardship F.xchange. Established in June, 1990, the
Institute is a private, nonprofit organization working collaboratively with
others through research, education and grantmaking programs to conserve and
enhance the essential quality of life related to the New England countryside.
RR 1 Box 350 Warren, Vermont 05674
~ .'1~
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
DISPOSAL OF REPLACEMENT AND SURPLUS EQUIPMENT
1991 DISPOSAL PROGRAM
Executive Committee Meeting #15/90
January 4, 1991
E~. l7'-r
1991 DISPOSAL PROGRAM
SCHEDULE "A"
(Trade-In)
Vehic1e/EdUiDment Estimated Value
# 4 - 1988 Chev. celebrity $ 5,000
# 5 - 1987 Chev. Vandura 4,500
# 9 - 1986 3/4 Ton Stake 3,000
#12 - 1985 GMC Rally Van 3,500
#32 - 1988 Pontiac 6000 5,000
M9070 - 1985 Belarus Irrigation Pump 5,000
Estimated Total $26,000
SCHEDULE "B"
(Auction)
ReDlacement EauiDment Estimated Value
N6038 - 1986 pioneer Chainsaw $ 25
M6034 - 1984 pioneer Chainsaw 25
M6037 - 1983 stinl Chainsaw 25
M6060 - 1984 pioneer Chainsaw 25
S9056 - 1973 MF25 Double Disc 50
L8045 - 1985 Vicon Sander 50
B2004 - 1985 Yazoo Walk behind 100
B8044 - 1981 MF277 Blade 100
J1003 - 1986 MF250 Tractor 6,000
C3012 - 1986 Brouwer Gang Mower 2,000
C1007 - 1986 Ford 1710 Tractor 4,500
G1004 - 1981 Ford Tractor 3.500
Subtotal $16,400
SurDluB EuuiDment
S9075 - 1975 Hanson Sprayer 300
J3015 - Rotary Mower 75
NC - Delta Bench Grinder 10
NC - pioneer Chainsaw 25
NC - 7' Dozer Blade 25
NC - Cyclone Spreader 10
NC - Skil Circular Saw 10
NC - 2 Bench Grinders 20
NC - 20" Canadian Lawn Mower 20
NC - 3 PT Hitch Backhoe Attachment 250
NC - 3 PT Hitch Manual Crane 30
Subtotal $ 800
Estimated Total $17,200
Totals: Schedule A $26,000
Schedule B 17,200
$43,200
1990.12.10
-
c)<, l7~
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
RECOGNITION POLICY
Executive Committee
Meeting #17/90
February 8, 1991
ac. \7b
RECOGNITION POLICY
A. Honour Roll Awards
1- Awards on behalf of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Authority will be granted to persons and/or
corporate bodies who have made a significant contribution
to the aims and objectives of the Authority.
2 . Nominations will not be accepted for, nor awards granted
to:
( i) persons serving as Members of the Authority, its
Sub-Committees or Foundation at the time of
nomination;
(ii) staff members of the Authority serving at the time of
nomination.
3. Honour Roll Awards shall consist of:
( i) a citation on an illuminated scroll;
(ii) marked by a tree planted and identified with the
recipient's name;
(iii) trees so identified to be planted in the designated
areas around the Authority office and at Black Creek
pioneer village;
(iv) awards to be recorded in a display at the Authority
office and recipient of an award to be issued a
lifetime pass.
B. Metro Reqion Conservation Award of Excellence
1- The Conservation Award of Excellence will be granted to
organizations and/or individuals making an outstanding
contribution to the direct management of renewable natural
resources through design and implementation of projects
within the Authority's watershed.
. . . 2 . . .
~. \11
Recognition Policy Page 2
2. Applications and/or nominations for the Authority's Award
of Excellence for the design and implementation of a
conservation project(s) will be accepted, for consideration
by a panel of judges, from:
(i) municipalities or other public sector organizations;
(ii) private sector groups;
(iii) 'individuals, who are not currently members or staff
of the Authority, for planning and managing their
properties for conservation purposes.
3. The Awards be limited to one per category per year.
4 . Each Metro Region Conservation Award of Excellence shall:
( i) consist of an engraved plaque;
(ii) be presented by the Authority on a suitable occasion;
(iii) be recorded on a display at the Authority office, and
be given other appropriate recognition.
c. service Recoanition Awards
The Service Recognition Award Program was created to recqgnize
Authority Members, Foundation Members, Authority Committee Members,
Volunteers and staff, on an annual basis, as follows:
1- Authority Members:
(i) with 3 years of service to be recognized with a
silver Authority logo;
(ii) with 6 years of service to be recognized with a
lifetime pass and gold Authority logo;
(iii) with 10 years of service to be recognized with gold
award and to be recorded in a permanent display at
the Authority office.
...3...
~.n~
Recognition Policy Page 3
.
2. Foundation Members. Authoritv Committee Members and
Volunteers:
Persons eligible for awards are those that provide their
services as Members of the Metropolitan Toronto and Region
Conservation Foundation and Authority Committees.
Volunteers eligible for awards are those that provide their
services on a continuinq basis and who provide more than 40
hours of service per year.
(i) with 3 years of service to be recognized with a
silver Authority logo;
(ii) with 6 years of service to be recognized with a
lifetime pass;
(iii) with 10 years of service to be recognized with a gold
Authority logo.
3. Authoritv Staff:
Regular staff is eligible for all the awards listed below.
Supplementary staff eligible for awards (i) and (ii) are
those that provide their services on a continuinq basis and
who provide more than 120 hours of service per year.
(i) staff in all categories of the Authority, with a
minimum of 10 years of service to be recognized with
a silver award;
(ii) staff in all categories of the Authority, with a
minimum of 15 years of service, or on retirement or
when leaving the employ of the Authority with 10
years of service, to be presented with a lifetime
pass;
(iii) regular staff of the Authority, with a minimum of 25
years of service, or'on retirement after 20 years of
service, to be presented a gold award and to be
recorded in a display at the Authority office;
~ (iv) 'staff in all categories, except regular staff, with a
minimum of 25 years of service, or on retirement
after 20 years of service, to be presented a gold
Authority logo.
(v) regular staff of the Authority on retirement to be
presented with a gift at a value equivalent to $25.00
for each year of service.
....4...
~.11q
Recognition Policy Page 4
Presentations
Service Recognition Awards to Authority Members, Authority Committee
Members, Foundation Members, and gold awards to Authority staff and
volunteers are to be presented on a suitable occasion.
Service Recognition Awards to Authority staff and volunteers, other
than gold, are to be presented at an annual Authority staff
function.
TEB/csk
1991,01,25
.
-
€~ .l1?o
THE METROPOLITAN TORONTO AND REGION CONSERVATION AUTHORITY
ADVISORY BOARD APPOINTMENTS
Executive Committee
Meeting #17/90
February 8, 1991
E~. l<8l
.
ADVISORY BOARDS
1991
FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION WATER AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY BOARD ADVISORY BOARD
Abtan, Patrick Bossons, Ila
Augimeri, Maria Griffin, Lois
Harrison, Brian Hancey, Lois
King, Edlred Hollander, Roger
McKechnie, Frank Jackson, Don
O'Brien, Richard Kinahan, ,Blake
Oyler, Peter Moran, Ron
Witty, Jim Prentice, Maja
Salmon, Bev
Trimmer, Joyce
Van Kempen, Kip
CONSERVATION AND RELATED LAND MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY BOARD
Andrews, Frank
Britnell, Margaret
Granger, William
Jackson, Lorna
Kolb, Emil
Moscoe, Howard
Muir, Marie
Patterson, Donna
Porteous-Keohle, Nancy
Ruggero, Al