DOCSLIB.ORG

Rouge River Rouge River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Rouge River Rouge River Rouge River State of the Watershed Report Land and Resource Use Goal: A healthy watershed with a mosaic of land and resource uses (at watershed and community scales) that are compatible with the protection and improvement of ecological health. Land and resource uses include: Rouge Park, urban and rural settlements, agriculture, golf courses, aggregate extraction, and transportation and utility corridors. Land and Resource Use Key Findings The population of municipalities within the Rouge River watershed has increased substantially between 1996 and 2001, and municipal and provincial forecasts for Rouge River watershed municipalities indicate that their populations will continue to grow in the next twenty years. Approximately 40% of the Rouge River watershed is in agricultural use, 35% is used for urban settlements, natural cover makes up 24% and 1% is in watercourses and other water bodies. Over 12% of the watershed is protected in Rouge Park, while significant areas of land in the upper watershed are protected under the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and the Greenbelt Plan . The majority of urban growth in the Rouge River watershed over the next ten to twenty years will occur in the Upper Rouge River, Berczy, Bruce and Robinson Creeks, and Little Rouge River subwatersheds. Valley slopes and watercourses that are not well defined are common in these parts of the watershed where many small headwater streams are located. This makes them less likely to be perceived as natural features warranting protection, despite being integral to the health of the watershed. Public transit options are limited for the urbanizing area of the watershed, so that commuters rely heavily on private automobile usage. Expansion and increase in connections to the GO Transit, TTC, and “905” community transit services are helpful, but this in combination with designing transit friendly urban development, would constitute a more comprehensive approach to reducing reliance on automobiles and associated fossil fuel usage. Most of the Rouge River watershed’s agricultural lands are used for cash crops. Land ownership, policy designations and changing markets are factors affecting agricultural vitality in the watershed. Municipalities are endeavouring to address unsustainable rates of water use within their jurisdictions as evidenced by their ongoing programs and studies to increase efficiency. In order to reduce the negative impacts of waste disposal in landfills, municipalities within the Rouge River watershed are attempting to increase the amount of waste diverted from landfill sites through reuse, recycling, and composting of waste materials. Due to a growing base of accepted scientific knowledge and updated, corresponding policies, new development and redevelopment is beginning to take place in a more sustainable way. Examples of sustainable communities have been designed and implemented in jurisdictions around the world, and they are beginning to be employed locally, using new technologies for water and sewer infrastructure, stormwater management, and energy use that are all less resource consumptive. Summary of Current CondCondiiiitionstions Ratings: Objective: Overall Rating Practice sustainable resource use by individuals, households, and Fair businesses. Improve sustainability in urban form at building site and community Fair scales. Protect agricultural lands for food and crop production and as a vital component of the watershed landscape, by sustaining a viable Fair agricultural industry. TABLTABLEE OF CONTENTS 13.0 LAND AND RESOURCE USE................................................................................ 13-1 13.1 Introduction................................................................................................................ 13-1 13.2 Watershed Location and Demographics .................................................................. 13-1 13.3 Planning Policy Context............................................................................................. 13-5 13.3.1 Flood Vulnerable Areas and Special Policy Areas ....................................... 13-5 13.3.2 Rouge Park Management Plan and Rouge North Management Plan ....... 13-11 13.4 Current Conditions, Emerging Trends, and Key Issues ......................................... 13-12 13.4.1 Land Use...................................................................................................... 13-12 13.4.2 Transportation ............................................................................................. 13-21 13.4.3 Water............................................................................................................ 13-24 13.4.4 Solid Waste.................................................................................................. 13-27 13.4.5 Energy.......................................................................................................... 13-29 13.5 Moving Toward Sustainable Land and Resource Use ........................................... 13-30 13.5.1 Development Limits..................................................................................... 13-31 13.5.2 Development Design................................................................................... 13-31 13.5.3 Infrastructure................................................................................................ 13-33 13.5.4 Stormwater Management............................................................................ 13-34 13.6 Summary and Management Considerations .......................................................... 13-37 13.7 Objectives for Sustainable Land and Resource Use .............................................. 13-41 13.8 References ............................................................................................................... 13-46 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 13-1: General Land Use within the Rouge River Watershed........................................ 13-2 Figure 13-2: Municipal Share of the Rouge River Watershed ................................................. 13-3 Figure 13-3: Special Land Use Policy Areas in the Rouge River Watershed .......................... 13-6 Figure 13-4: 2002 Land Use/Land Cover and Approved Official Plan Land Use in the Rouge River watershed................................................................................................... 13-13 Figure 13-5: Existing and Proposed High Order Transit Network in the Rouge River watershed ............................................................................................................................. 13-25 Figure 13-6: Stormwater Management Controlled Areas...................................................... 13-35 LIST OF TABLES Table 13-1: Distribution of Population and Employment for Rouge River watershed Municipalities in the Greater Golden Horseshoe 2001-2031 ............................... 13-4 Table 13-2: Policy Documents Affecting Land and Resource Use in the Rouge River Watershed ............................................................................................................................... 13-7 Table 13-3: Residential solid waste diversion rates 2001-2006............................................. 13-42 Table 13-4: Number of transit passenger trips per person 2001-2006. ................................ 13-44 Table 13-5: Mode of transportation to work based on Statistics Canada 2001 Census of Population data. .................................................................................................. 13-44 Unique Rouge River Watershed Feature The cccommitmentcommitment ttoooo environmental protection, already expressed by manmanyy watershed stakeholders, represents an opportunity to shape sustainable communities that can be an international model. CHAPTER LAND AND RESOURCE USE 1313 1133 13.0 LAND AND RESOURCE USUSEEEE 13.1 Introduction The use of land and its resources is directly relevant to a watershed’s health. As new urban development extends northward in the Rouge River watershed and nodes of redevelopment arise in existing urban areas, the natural environment rarely goes unaffected. Nonetheless, the legislative framework governing land and resource use is, more and more, striving to maintain and enhance natural systems in cases of new development, and seeking to rehabilitate and restore these systems in instances of redevelopment. This chapter of the State of the Watershed Report provides an overview of current conditions, emerging trends, and key issues for land and resource use in the Rouge River watershed. It also provides an overview of more sustainable use of land and resources. Finally, management considerations are offered to address key issues that will be considered for inclusion in the integrated watershed management plan. Many of the land and resource use issues raised this chapter have already been addressed in previous chapters of this State of the Watershed Report in the context of specific watershed goals and objectives. Therefore, this chapter also serves as a summary of key issues and directions associated with land and resource use decisions. 13.2 Watershed Location and Demographics The Rouge River watershed is one of the larger watersheds in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA) and in TRCA’s jurisdiction. Traversing portions of six GTA municipalities, the Rouge’s 336 square kilometres span from the Oak Ridges Moraine in the north, to the Lake Ontario shoreline in the south (see Figure 13-1 and Figure 13-2). 13-1 Figure 131313-13 ---1111:: General
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Great Clips, Inc
    FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE DOCUMENT BLACKLINED GREAT CLIPS, INC. A Minnesota Corporation 4400 West 78th Street, Suite 425 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435 (952) 893-9088 greatclipsfi-anchise.com Great Clips A franchised GREAT CLIPS® Salon offers a required line of haircare services and products from a designated location, customarily in a shopping center, identified by trademarks licensed by the franchisor ("Great Clips") and using distinctive trade dress and business methods prescribed by Great Clips. The total investment necessary to begin operation of a Great Clips franchise is from $•139114,150 to $208.300216.000. This includes $25,000 to $40,000 that must be paid to Great Clips or an affiliate. This disclosure document summarizes certain provisions of your franchise agreement and other information in plain English. Read this disclosure document and all accompanying agreements carefully. You must receive this disclosure document at least 14 calendar days before you sign a binding agreement with, or make any payment to, Great Clips or an affiliate in connection with the proposed franchise sale. Note, however, that no governmental agency has verified the information contained in this document. You may wish to receive your disclosure document in another format that is more convenient for you. To discuss the availability of disclosures in different formats, contact the Franchise Administration Department at 4400 West 78th Street, Suite 700, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55435, (952) 893-9088. The terms of your contract will govem your franchise relationship. Don't rely on the disclosure document alone to understand your contract. Read all of your contract carefully. Show your contract and this disclosure document to an advisor, like a lawyer or an accountant.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontario Municipal Board Commission Des Affaires Municipales De L’Ontario
    Ontario Municipal Board Commission des affaires municipales de l’Ontario ISSUE DATE: May 26, 2016 CASE NO(S).: PL140743 PROCEEDING COMMENCED UNDER subsection 17(36) of the Planning Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. P.13, as amended Appellant (jointly): Angus Glen Holdings Inc., Angus Glen North West Inc. & North Markham Landowners Group Appellant (jointly): Beechgrove Estates Inc., Minotar Holdings Inc., Cor- Lots Developments, Cherokee Holdings & Halvan 5.5 Investments Ltd. Appellant (jointly): Brentwood Estates Inc., Colebay Investments Inc., Highcove Investments Inc., Firewood Holdings Inc., Major McCowan Developments Ltd. & Summerlane Realty Corp. Appellant: And others (See Attachment 1) Subject: Proposed New Official Plan – Part 1 (December 2013) - for the City of Markham Municipality: City of Markham OMB Case No.: PL140743 OMB File No.: PL140743 OMB Case Name: Angus Glen Holdings Inc. v. Markham (City) Heard: April 29, 2016 in Markham, Ontario APPEARANCES: Parties Counsel City of Markham C. Barnett L. Bisset B. Ketcheson For others see Attachment 2 2 PL140743 MEMORANDUM OF ORAL DECISION DELIVERED BY M. CARTER-WHITNEY ON APRIL 29, 2016 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD [1] This was the fourth prehearing conference (“PHC”) in relation to numerous appeals of the new Official Plan (“OP”) of the City of Markham (“City”). [2] Chris Barnett, counsel for the City, provided an update on the status of a number of matters in relation to these appeals. The City has been engaged in discussions with different groups of appellants, divided in relation to common thematic issues, in an attempt to narrow and resolve those issues. As a result, a number of issues have been resolved and some appeals have been resolved and withdrawn.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H Stage 1 Archeological Report 1 of 2
    Appendix H – Stage 1 Archaeological Report McCowan Road Environmental Assessment between Steeles Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive 24 May 2018 STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT McCowan Road Class EA from Steeles Avenue to Major MacKenzie Drive, Part of Lots 1-21, Concessions 6, and Part of Lots 1-21, Concession 7, Geographic Township of Markham, former County of York, now City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario Submitted to: Merlin Yuen HDR 100 York Boulevard, Suite 300 Richmond Hill, ON L4B 1J8 Licensee: Jamie Lemon, Golder Associates Ltd. License Number: 1056 PIF: P1056-0097-2017 REPORT Report Number: 1662269-7000-R01 Distribution: HDR - 1 PDF Copy MTCS - 1 PDF Copy REVISED Golder Associates Ltd. - 1 PDF Copy STAGE 1 ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT - MCCOWAN ROAD CLASS EA Executive Summary A Stage 1 archaeological assessment was conducted on behalf of the Regional Municipality of York through HDR by Golder Associates Ltd. (Golder), on part of Lots 1-21, Concessions 6, and part of Lots 1-21, Concession 7, Geographic Township of Markham, former County of York, now City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario (Map 1). The Stage 1 archaeological assessment was conducted in support of a Municipal Class EA for improvements to McCowan Road from Steeles Avenue to Major MacKenzie Drive. The objective of the Stage 1 archaeological assessment was to compile available information about the known and potential archaeological resources within the Project Area and to determine if a field survey (Stage 2 and/or 3) is required, as well as to recommended Stage 2 and/or Stage 3 strategies if required.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix I Stage 1 Archaeology
    Schedule ‘C’ Environmental Assessment for 16th Avenue between Woodbine Avenue and York/Durham Line Appendix I Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment Report Accessible formats are available upon request. Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 16th Avenue Woodbine Avenue to York/Durham Line Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concessions 4-10 East of Yonge Street (Former Township of Markham, County of York) City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario ORIGINAL REPORT Prepared for: HDR 255 Adelaide Street West Toronto, ON M5H 1X9 Archaeological Licence #P128 (Hull) Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport PIF# P128-0157-2016 ASI File: 16EA-175 28 September 2017 Archaeological & Cultural ASI H e r i t a g e Se r v i c es 528 Bathurst Street Toronto, ONTARIO M5S 2P9 416-966-1069 F 416-966-9723 asiheritage.ca Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment 16th Avenue Woodbine Avenue to York/Durham Line Part of Lots 15 and 16, Concessions 4-10 (Former Township of Markham, County of York) City of Markham, Regional Municipality of York, Ontario EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ASI was contracted by HDR to conduct a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment (Background Research and Property Inspection) as part of the 16th Avenue Environmental Assessment. The EA will identify possible improvements to 16th Avenue to accommodate the current and future transportation needs of pedestrians, cyclists, transit users and motorists along this corridor. The project involves a study segment from Yonge Street to Woodbine Avenue and a study segment from Woodbine Avenue to York/Durham Line. ASI has previously undertaken work for this study area under a cancelled EA.
    [Show full text]
  • Offering Memorandum for Non-Qualifying Issuers For
    FORM 45-106F2 - OFFERING MEMORANDUM FOR NON-QUALIFYING ISSUERS FOR PURCHASERS IN ALBERTA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, MANITOBA, NEW BRUNSWICK, NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR, NOVA SCOTIA, ONTARIO, PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND AND SASKATCHEWAN Date: May 15, 2017 The Issuer Name: The Greybrook Markham V Trust (the “Trust”) Head office: 890 Yonge Street, 7th Floor, Toronto, Ontario, M4W 3P4 Phone #: (416) 322-9700 E-mail address: [email protected] Fax #: (416) 322-7527 Currently listed or quoted? No. These securities do not trade on any exchange or market. Reporting issuer? No. SEDAR filer? No. The Offering Securities offered: Units of the Trust (“Trust Units”). Price per security: $100. Minimum/Maximum Minimum: $4,000,000 (40,000 Trust Units), subject to the setting of a lower offering: minimum by Greybrook Realty Partners Inc., the administrator of the Trust (“Greybrook Realty” and, in its capacity as the administrator of the Trust, the “Administrator”), acting in its sole discretion. Maximum: $23,575,000 (235,750 Trust Units). Funds available under the Trust Units Offering may not be sufficient to accomplish our proposed objectives. Minimum subscription $25,000 (250 Trust Units), subject to the Agent’s right, at its sole discretion, to amount: accept a subscription which is for less than the minimum subscription amount. Payment terms: Certified cheque, bank draft or wire transfer. Proposed closing date(s): June 6, 2017. The closing of the offering of Trust Units (the “Trust Units Offering”) is subject to, and must take place concurrently with the closing of the offering (the “Offering”) of units of limited partnership interest (“LP Units”) in Greybrook Markham V Limited Partnership (the “Partnership”) (or in the event that there should occur more than one closing of the Offering, concurrently with each such closing).
    [Show full text]
  • Section Ii Geographical List / Liste Géographique 1
    SECTION II GEOGRAPHICAL LIST / LISTE GÉOGRAPHIQUE 1 Routing Numbers / Numéros d'acheminement Electronic Paper(MICR) Électronique Papier(MICR) Postal Address - Addresse postale 100 MILE HOUSE, BC 000108270 08270-001 BANK OF MONTREAL Cariboo Mall, P.O. Box 10, 100 Mile House, BC V0K 2E0 001000550 00550-010 CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE 100 Mile House Banking Centre, 1-325 Birch Ave, Box 98, 100 Mile House, BC V0K 2E0 000304120 04120-003 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA 100 Mile House Branch, 200 Birch Ave-PO Box 700, 200 Birch Ave, 100 Mile House, BC V0K 2E0 ABBEY, SK 000300118 00778-003 ROYAL BANK OF CANADA Abbey Branch, Wayne & Cathedral, c/o 120 Centre St, Abbey, SK S0N 0A0 (Sub to 00778) ABBOTSFORD, BC 000107090 07090-001 BANK OF MONTREAL Abbotsford Main, 101-32988 South Fraser Way, Abbotsford, BC V2S 2A8 000107490 07490-001 Highstreet Branch, 3122 Mt.Leham Rd, Abbotsford, BC V2T 0C5 000120660 20660-001 Lower Sumas Mountain, 1920 North Parallell Road, Abbotsford, BC V3G 2C6 000200240 00240-002 THE BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA Abbotsford, #100-2777 Gladwin Road, Abbotsford, BC V2T 4V1 (Sub to 11460) 000211460 11460-002 Clearbrook, PO Box 2151, Clearbrook Station, Abbotsford, BC V2T 3X8 000280960 80960-002 Ellwood Centre, #1-31205 Maclure Road, Abbotsford, BC V2T 5E5 (Sub to 11460) 000251680 51680-002 Glenn Mountain Village, Unit 106 2618 McMillan Road, Abbotsford, BC V3G 1C4 001000420 00420-010 CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF COMMERCE Abbotsford, 2420 McCallum Rd, Abbotsford, BC V2S 6R9 (Sub to 08820) 001001720 01720-010 McCallum Centre, Box 188, Abbotsford,
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of MARKHAM DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN PART I Chapter 11 – Area and Site Specific Policies
    CITY OF MARKHAM DRAFT OFFICIAL PLAN PART I Chapter 11 – Area and Site Specific Policies February 2013 Area and Site Specific Policies Chapter 11 11.0 Area and Site Specific Policies Throughout Markham there are areas and sites that require special policies that vary from one or more provisions of this Plan. These policies generally reflect unique historic conditions for approval that must be recognized for specific development sites, or provide a further layer of local policy direction for an area. In most cases, the area and site specific policies provide direction on land use. The Plan policies apply to these lands except where the area and site specific policies vary from the Plan. The area and site specific policies contained in this Chapter are generally categorized into districts containing policies that may apply to a specific area or group of properties or a specific site. These districts are shown on Map 14 – Area and Site Specific Policies. The area and site specific policies include interim policy provisions for the secondary plan areas shown in Appendix F – Secondary Plan Areas where the provisions of the Official Plan (Revised 1987) and relevant secondary plans shall continue to apply until an update of the existing secondary plan or a new secondary plan is completed and approved to be consistent with the provisions of this Plan. Once completed these secondary plans will form Part II of this Official Plan. Some of the area specific policies contain provisions for study or phasing requirements to be completed prior to development approvals on the lands such as local area studies and traffic impact assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Natural' Channel Design Projects
    Evaluating the Effectiveness of ‘Natural’ Channel Design Projects: An Introduction and Preliminary Assessment of Sites in TRCA’s Jurisdiction Prepared by: Final Report 2009 Geomorphic Solutions, Sernas Group Inc. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority LGL Limited EVALUATING THE EFFECTIVENESS OF ‘NATURAL’ CHANNEL DESIGN PROJECTS: AN INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF SITES IN TRCA’s JURISDICTION Final Report Prepared by: Geomorphic Solutions, Sernas Group Inc. The Toronto and Region Conservation Authority LGL Limited February 2009 © Toronto and Region Conservation Authority A Literature Review and Preliminary Assessment of ‘Natural’ Channel Design Projects NOTICE The contents of this report do not necessarily represent the policies of the supporting agencies. Although every reasonable effort has been made to ensure the integrity of the report, the supporting agencies do not make any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the information contained herein. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of those products. PUBLICATION INFORMATION Reports conducted under the Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) are available at www.sustainabletechnologies.ca. For more information about this report and other STEP studies, please contact: Tim Van Seters Manager, Sustainable Technologies Toronto and Region Conservation Authority 5 Shoreham Drive, Downsview, Ontario M3N 1S4 Tel: 416-661-6600, Ext. 5337 Fax: 416-661-6898 E-mail: [email protected] Final Report Page i A Literature Review and Preliminary Assessment of ‘Natural’ Channel Design Projects THE SUSTAINABLE TECHNOLOGIES EVALUATION PROGRAM The Sustainable Technologies Evaluation Program (STEP) is a multi-agency program, led by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA).
    [Show full text]
  • Selling the Suburbs: Exploring Representations of Social Diversity in Marketing Media in Markham, Ontario
    Selling the Suburbs: Exploring Representations of Social Diversity in Marketing Media in Markham, Ontario Independent Project By: Katherine Perrott PLAN 6000 For Instructor: Michael Poulton & Advisor: Jill Grant December 2007 Acknowledgements Generous funding support for this project was provided by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, through a Canada Graduate Scholarship - Master’s. This project stems from a larger research project called “Theory and practice in planning the suburbs”. The principal investigator is Dr. Jill Grant, Dalhousie University. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada also provides funding for this project. I thank my advisor, Jill Grant, for providing guidance on this project and feedback on earlier drafts. Thank you also to Michael Poulton and my fellow graduate students for offering useful comments following my presentations throughout the semester. Finally, heartfelt thanks to Justin, my supportive husband, and my family who have always believed in me. Executive Summary The southern Ontario landscape is dotted with outdoor billboards and sales centres promoting new residential developments. As farms are converted to suburbia, developers and builders prepare the infrastructure, create detailed plans and begin to shape the look and feel of a future community through marketing material. Advertisements for a new residential development function as a prologue in the story of what a future community will be like: they offer pictures of who will live there, what they will own, what their houses will look like and what the quality of their amenity space will be. Planners on the other hand, also produce visions of what a future community will be like in policy documents such as Official and Secondary Plans.
    [Show full text]
  • Markham Road Mount Joy
    Appendix 'A' MARKHAM ROAD MOUNT JOY SECONDARY PLAN STUDY Interim Report April 2021 ADFDF Prepared by: SvN Architects + Planners Inc., in partnership with HDR Inc., Counterpoint Engineering and Jonathan Tinney Submitted to: City of Markham INTERIM REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS MARKHAM ROAD - MOUNT JOY SECONDARY PLAN STUDY INTERIM REPORT Executive Summary 1.0 Introduction 1 1.1 Study Purpose and Overview 1 1.2 Study Process 3 1.3 Study Area 4 1.4 Report Purpose and Structure 6 2.0 Policy Context 8 2.1 Provincial Policy Statement, 2020 8 2.2 Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe, 2019 8 2.3 Greenbelt Plan, 2017 9 2.4 Ministerial Zoning Order (MZO) (O. Reg. 104/72) 11 2.5 York Region Official Plan, 2010 12 2.6 City of Markham Official Plan, 2014 16 2.7 Other Relevant Plans, Programs and Studies 19 3.0 Existing Conditions Assessment 22 3.1 Overview 22 3.2 Land Use and Urban Design 22 3.3 Transportation 43 3.4 Municipal Servicing 50 4.0 Consultation and Engagement 53 4.1 Overview 53 4.2 What We Heard - Key Themes 55 Contents INTERIM REPORT i TABLE OF CONTENTS MARKHAM ROAD - MOUNT JOY SECONDARY PLAN STUDY INTERIM REPORT 5.0 Vision and Guiding Principles 58 5.1 Overview 58 5.2 Vision 58 5.3 Guiding Principles 59 6.0 Draft Demonstration Plan 64 6.1 Overview 64 6.2 Population and Employment 66 6.3 Framework Elements 68 6.4 Other Planning and Design Considerations 80 7.0 Key Policy Guidance and Recommendations 92 7.1 Land Use and Urban Design 92 7.2 Transportation 106 7.3 Municipal Servicing 108 7.4 Phasing and Implementation 108 8.0 Next Steps 112 ii INTERIM REPORT Contents Executive Summary Study Purpose and Overview SvN Architects and Planners (SvN) was retained by the complete transit-oriented community.
    [Show full text]
  • COUNCIL MINUTES June 17, 2013, 7:00 P.M
    COUNCIL MINUTES June 17, 2013, 7:00 p.m. Council Chamber, Anthony Roman Markham Civic Centre Meeting No. 14 Alternate formats for this document are available upon request ROLL CALL Mayor Frank Scarpitti, Deputy Mayor Jack Heath, Regional Councillor Jim Jones, Regional Councillor Gord Landon, Regional Councillor Joe Li, Councillor Valerie Burke, Councillor Howard Shore, Councillor Don Hamilton, Councillor Carolina Moretti, Councillor Colin Campbell, Councillor Alan Ho, Councillor Alex Chiu. REGRETS Councillor Logan Kanapathi. STAFF Andy Taylor, Chief Administrative Officer Catherine Conrad, City Solicitor Brenda Librecz, Commissioner of Community and Fire Services Trinela Cane, Commissioner of Corporate Services Jim Baird, Commissioner of Development Services Joel Lustig, Treasurer John Wong, Technology Support Specialist Dennis Flaherty, Director of Communications and Community Relations Kimberley Kitteringham, City Clerk Martha Pettit, Deputy Clerk Linda Irvine, Manager, Parks and Open Space Planning Tom Villella, Senior Project Coordinator The regular meeting of Council convened at 7:22 p.m. on June 17, 2013 in the Council Chamber. Mayor Frank Scarpitti presided. At 11:47 p.m. on June 17, 2013, Council passed a motion to waive Section 3.28 of Procedural By-law 2001-1 allowing the meeting to continue further than 12:01 a.m. on June 18, 2013. The motion moved by Councillor Alex Chiu and Councillor Don Hamilton was carried by a two- thirds vote of the Members present. Council Minutes No. 14 June 17, 2013 Page 2 1. DISCLOSURE OF PECUNIARY INTEREST (1) Councillor Colin Campbell disclosed an interest with respect to Item No. 1, Report No. 28 titled “Request for Proposal 310-R-12 National Brand Food & Beverage Franchise Service for Cornell Community Centre and Library” as he may have financial interest in the National food company awarded with the contract for Cornell Community Centre and Library, and did not take part in the consideration or discussion of or vote on the question of the approval of such matter.
    [Show full text]
  • City of MARKHAM Task 12: Infill Zoning Standards and Interface Between Residential and Non-Residential Uses Comprehensive Zoning By-Law Project
    City of MARKHAM Task 12: Infill Zoning Standards and Interface between Residential and Non-Residential Uses Comprehensive Zoning By-law Project Draft Markham Zoning By-law Consultant Team Gladki Planning Associates, R. E. Millward and Associates, Woodfield Consulting, Clarion Associates and Anthony Usher Planning Consultant August 17, 2015 Draft CONTENTS 1. Introduction 1 2. Infill Zoning 2 2.1 Markham Official Plan 3 2.2 Existing Markham By-laws 5 2.3 Other Municipal Infill Zoning By-laws 8 2.4 Recent Markham Studies on Infill Development 10 2.5 Conclusions and Options Regarding Infill Zoning 11 3. Interface Between Residential and Non-Residential Uses 14 3.1 Ministry of the Environment D1 and D6 Guidelines—Land use Compatibility 14 3.2 Provincial Policy Statement 2014 15 3.3 Markham Official Plan Policies Regarding Residential and Non-Residential Interface 15 3.4 Markham Existing Zoning By-laws Regarding Standards for Compatibility Between Residential and Non-Residential Uses 17 3.5 Other Municipal Zoning By-law Standards Regarding the Interface Between Non-Residential and Residential Uses 19 3.6 Conclusions Regarding the Interface Between Residential and Non-Residential Uses 22 APPENDIX 1. Markham Official Plan Policies Regarding Infill Development 27 2. Markham Infill Zoning By-law Provisions 31 3. Infill Zoning By-law ProvisionsDraft from other Ontario Municipalities 34 4. Ministry of the Environment D1 and D6 Guidelines—Land use Compatibility 42 5. Markham Official Plan Policies Relating to Interface between Residential and Non-Residential Uses 44 6. Existing Markham Zoning By-law Provisions Relating to Interface Between Residential and Non-Residential Uses 48 7.
    [Show full text]