Chapter A - Introduction - City of Pickering

Comments in white are satisfied.
Comments in orange background are not satisfied or are new comments.
Comments in blue background can be addressed at the NFSSR stage.
Comments in yellow are deferred due to need for hydrology model.
APPENDIX A. TRCA COMMENTS ON SEATON MESPA DECEMBER 2011; MESPA TEAM RESPONSE FEBRUARY 2013
# Section #
Page # in
PDF TRCA Comment Action Required
41. 6.2 152 Most of the SWMFs will be located either wholly
or partially within the NHS. The cumulative
impact of the type and location of SWM facilities
on the NHS needs to be understood by calculating
the area of NHS land base that will be lost to the
facilities.
42. 6.2 152 SWMFs within the NHS cannot be fenced,
particularly those within the corridors.
43. 6.2 152 The SWMF sizing may need to increase as part of
refined modeling. This could have implications on
natural features where sites are constrained.
44. 6.2 152 SWMFs are proposed within thicket communities
in some instances. During the staking exercise
for Seaton, TRCA and MNR stated that these
communities needed to be included in the NHS.
As a result of further discussions, they were
included without buffers, e.g. in the area of
SWMFs #12 and #16.
Provide an analysis of the total reduction in NHS
area proportionally within Seaton, i.e. it was
originally 53% and what will it be when all of the
infrastructure is in place?
Provide confirmation.
Provide confirmation that any SWMF size increase
resulting from further detailed analysis will respect
the required buffers such that the increases will be
accommodated on the development side, or that
the SWMF will be relocated.
Relocate SMWFs to avoid thicket communities.
Acknowledged.
Consulting Team’s Response
April 27, 2011
The need for and location of fences is sitespecific
and will be determined at the NFSSR
stage.
Acknowledged. Any increased in SWMF block
will occur on development land and there will be
no additional intrusion into the NHS.
The .team is investigating each of these
locations in detail and will confirm the suitability
of each SWMF location.
Action Taken
MESPA December 2011
In principle, we do not accept that up to 50% use of
the NHS linkage is too much, and considering that
this criterion was accepted in Duffin Heights.
Section B6.3 discusses the criteria for SWMFs in
linkages. As noted, each location was considered
individually and, as discussed in Section B6.3,
except for seven SWMFs (18, 20, 22, 35, 44, 49,
50A), the created linkage areas between natural
features (i.e. across agricultural land) and along
stream corridors were affected by a facility by less
than 25% of their width. For two of the seven, the
extent into the linkage/connectivity is either just
slightly greater than 25% (#49) or only greater than
25% for a short distance (#18 and 35). The extent
of the seven SWMFs into the linkage/connectivity
may be reduced through detailed design. In all
locations, the existing and anticipated corridor
linkage/connectivity functions will not be negatively
impacted by the locations of the SWMFs.
Section B6.2 notes that approximately 26% of
required SWMF area is in the NHS, representing
1.3% of the NHS area.
No action required.
In Section B6.2 and Table B6.1 it clearly states
that although modifications can be made to the
configuration of SWMFs, such modification must
take into consideration the policies of the City of
Pickering Seaton Conformity Amendment, and
explicitly the minimum buffer requirements of policy
7.17.
SWMF matrices are revised to address each
location.
There are no SWMFs located in thickets.
TRCA Comment on MESPA
driven by changes in the school block and was
only the result of 1 pond, not 60+. There are
policies in the CPDP that strive to maintain
corridor functions that need to be upheld.
Seaton is striving for something better than what
was intended to be achieved through Duffin
Heights. Based on this, Duffin Heights is not an
appropriate model for Seaton.
SWM ponds are not the only infrastructure
proposed within the NHS. There will be roads,
servicing, municipal infrastructure, utilities,
outfalls, garden plots, etc. TRCA is concerned
about the total cumulative impact on the NHS,
especially given that the municipal SWMF outfall
access road and overland flow requirements.
While we understand that it is difficult to
calculate an area or percentage of NHS that will
be impacted by this infrastructure, we would like
to have further dialog with the City of Pickering
and MNR to determine how to minimize the
impacts and compensate for losses to the NHS.
For example, we would like to solidify scenarios
where access roads are or are not required.
This should be referenced in the MESP.
Action was required, confirming that SWMFs
within the NHS will not be fenced unless where
public safety is paramount. To be addressed at
the NFSSR stage.
Comment addressed through Conformity OP.
Noted.
Team Response
February 2013
that the 25% maximum intrusion requested
by TRCA is not a CPDP mandate, these
seven (of 57) SWMFs continue to extend to
lesser and greater amounts into the
linkage, while maintaining linkage function.
The intrusions into the NHS are those
directed or allowed by the CPDP.
Therefore compensation for these
intrusions is not required. Notwithstanding
this, the MESPA either examined the
locations of these intrusions to minimize
impacts to the NHS or directed that the
design should minimize the impacts to
features and functions of the NHS.
With regard to access roads and overland
flow route requirements, on-going dialogue
is occurring with the City and TRCA.
Chapter B6.4 directs that the access road
and overland flow route locations be
confirmed in the field to minimize impacts
to the NHS. These actions would occur at
NFSSRs and detailed design.
Comment acknowledged. To be addressed
in NFSSRs.
PAGE 11 February 2013