24.05.2014 Views

Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

COMMENT<br />

4. Section 4.0 – Phase 2 Recommendations – page G-4, last paragraph – Neighbourhood<br />

Plans were also endorsed by <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Pickering</strong> Council on September 29, 2011, therefore,<br />

this sentence should also include that date.<br />

Appropriate revisions have been made.<br />

RESPONSE<br />

REPORT CHAPTER<br />

AND SECTION<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> G4<br />

5. Section 5.5 – Regional Works Facilities – page G-6 – It should be noted that Durham<br />

Region Transit recently indicated that they are considering the establishment <strong>of</strong> a transit<br />

transfer station in a location along Taunton Road where, in the fullness <strong>of</strong> time, passengers<br />

will be provided a safe location to transfer between different rapid transit services (e.g. BRT<br />

or LRT) and to local transit routes. As such, it is suggested that this additional information<br />

should be added to this section. It is acknowledged that this facility need is not included in<br />

the CPDP Class EA, and that the determination <strong>of</strong> the need and requirements for this facility<br />

would be subject to a future Study/EA.<br />

Appropriate revisions have been made. <strong>Chapter</strong> G5.5<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> I – Phasing<br />

1. As a general comment, this section needs to be corrected, in terms <strong>of</strong> dates (e.g. <strong>City</strong><br />

Council endorsement <strong>of</strong> <strong>Pickering</strong> CPDP conformity amendment, Neighbourhood Plans and<br />

Sustainable Placemaking Guidelines), and presumably should be updated to reflect the<br />

recently submitted (October 2012) version <strong>of</strong> the SSIS, which we yet to review and<br />

comment on.<br />

2. Section 2.1 – Phasing – page I-1, 1 st paragraph – This paragraph should be updated and<br />

revised to reflect that:<br />

• <strong>Pickering</strong> Council endorsed the <strong>Pickering</strong> OPA on February 7, 2011;<br />

• The private developers’ Neighbourhood Plans 16, 18 & 19 were endorsed by <strong>Pickering</strong><br />

Council on April 26, 2011;<br />

• The Province’s Neighbourhood Plans 17, 20 & 21 were endorsed by <strong>Pickering</strong> Council<br />

on September 19, 2011; and<br />

• Ontario Municipal Board decisions on planning matters related to the Seaton<br />

Community are not final or binding until such time the Lieutenant Governor in Council<br />

confirms, varies or rescinds the decision(s) <strong>of</strong> the Board (e.g. should acknowledge<br />

declaration <strong>of</strong> Provincial interest).<br />

3. Section 1.0 – Phasing – page I-2, 1 st paragraph – Did the phasing strategy also account for<br />

adequate retail/personal service opportunities, and the logical progression <strong>of</strong> a road<br />

network, and a trial and transit system? If so, it is suggested that this section describe how<br />

these matters were taken into consideration.<br />

4. Section 1.0 – Phasing – page I-2 – 1 st paragraph, last sentence – This section should make<br />

it clear that Phase 1 <strong>of</strong> the residential/mixed use lands are to be developed in conjunction<br />

with Phase 1 <strong>of</strong> the employment lands, in order to provide job opportunities at the onset <strong>of</strong><br />

residential development.<br />

5. Section 2.1 – Cost Sharing Agreement – page I-2 – The text states that the limits <strong>of</strong> the<br />

CSA are shown on Figure I1.1, however Figure I1.1 does not illustrate the CSA limits.<br />

Accordingly, Figure I1.1 should be revised to illustrate the limits <strong>of</strong> the CSA.<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> I has been revised to reflect the CPDP conformity amendment etc. and the SSIS.<br />

The section reference does not pertain to the comments presented, it should read Section 1.0. <strong>Chapter</strong> I, Section 1.0 has been revised<br />

accordingly.<br />

Appropriate revisions have been made.<br />

Section I1.0 has been revised accordingly.<br />

Figure I2.1 has been added showing the CSA limits.<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> I<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> I1<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> I1<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> I1<br />

<strong>Chapter</strong> I2<br />

Figure I3.1<br />

6. Section 2.2 – Oversizing <strong>of</strong> Services for Adjacent Lands – page I-2 – This section states:<br />

Section I2.2 has been revised accordingly. <strong>Chapter</strong> I2.2<br />

“…all Regional wastewater and potable water systems will be oversized” to accommodate<br />

future development in the Federal lands north <strong>of</strong> Highway 7 and in Northeast <strong>Pickering</strong>.”<br />

The Sernas Group Inc., Stonybrook Consulting Inc. December 2011, Revised February 2013 Master Environmental Servicing Plan - Amendment<br />

SPL Beatty, Bird and Hale Limited, Earthfx Inc. 07161 Seaton Community, <strong>City</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Pickering</strong><br />

AMEC Earth & Environmental, R.J. Burnside Appendix A7 – Page 32<br />

Amos Environment + Planning

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!