THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING
COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA #9
MONDAY, MAY 7, 2018 - 6:00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
Page
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS Any additional items not listed on the agenda would be identified for approval.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
4. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST
5. MAYOR'S COMMENTS
6. PUBLIC MEETING(S) 5-82 6.1 Planning Department Report Number P-2018-20 King City North-East Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications (Refer to Section 3 for application and file numbers)
Subject Lands: King City East – Phase 2 (North); Part of Lots 5 – 10, Conc. 3
Applicant: King City East Landowners Group (Refer to Section 3 for individual applicants/owners) Date of Notice: April 17, 2018
A. That Planning Report No. P-2018-20 be received;
B. That the matter of the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (refer to section 3 below for application and file numbers) submitted by the King City East Landowners Group (refer to section 3 below for individual applicant/owner information), in relation to the development of the north-east quadrant of King City, for residential uses, be referred back to staff, together with all agency, Applicant, Township department and public comments, for a further report following the completion of the Planning Department’s review;
C. That staff continue the review of the King City North East Functional Servicing/ Development Area Study (FSDAS) and advance the processing and review of the related applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment concurrently with the FSDAS.
Page 1 of 103 Council Agenda - Mon., May 7, 2018 Page
7. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS
7.1. COUNCIL MINUTES 83-88 7.1.1 Minutes of the Council Meeting of April 23, 2018
7.2. COMMITTEE REPORTS 89-90 7.2.1 Committee of the Whole Working Session Report of April 23, 2018
91-97 7.2.2 Committee of the Whole Reports of April 23, 2018
98-99 7.2.3 Committee of the Whole Closed Session Reports of April 23, 2018
8. NOTICE OF MOTION
9. MOTION TO RECESS INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
10. RE-CONVENE COUNCIL MEETING
11. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDATIONS
12. MOTION TO RECESS INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER: Motion to move into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.7(b) of the Procedural By-law Number 2007-76 to consider the items as set out in the Agenda. 12.1 Section 2.7(b), Subsection 3: Proposed or Pending Acquisition or Disposition of Land
Engineering, Public Works and Building Department Report Number EPW- 2018-19 Re: Notice of Commencement of Expropriation Process (Application for Approval to Expropriate) Part of Lot 54 on Registered Plan 590 (30 Midway Court)
12.2 Section 2.7(b), Subsections 5 and 6: Litigation or Potential Litigation Affecting the Municipality
Planning/Solicitor Verbal Report Re: Litigation Update, Various Planning Matters - Ontario Municipal Board (OMB)
Page 2 of 103 Council Agenda - Mon., May 7, 2018 Page
12. MOTION TO RECESS INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, CLOSED SESSION TO CONSIDER: Motion to move into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.7(b) of the Procedural By-law Number 2007-76 to consider the items as set out in the Agenda. 12.3 Section 2.7(b), Subsections 5 and 6: Litigation or Potential Litigation Affecting the Municipality
Township Solicitor Verbal Report Re: Local Planning Appeals Tribunal (LPAT) and Associated Impacts to Appeals
12.4 Section 2.7(b), Subsections 5 and 6: Litigation or Potential Litigation Affecting the Municipality
Planning Department Report Number P-2018-19 Re: Litigation Matter, Direction Required Upcoming Hearing of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) Case Number: PL180041 Committee of Adjustment Minor Variance File No. 75-A-17 Plan M-777; Lot 42, 14 Hazelbury Drive, Nobleton (M. Alonzi)
12.5 Approval of Closed Session, Confidential Reports
Committee Closed Session Confidential Report of April 23, 2018
13. RE-CONVENE COUNCIL MEETING
14. BUSINESS ARISING FROM CLOSED SESSION
15. BY-LAWS 100 By-law #2018-42
A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ACCEPT A TENDER AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT MATERIALS REGISTRY FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING (Ref. Engineering, Public Works and Building Dept. Report No: EPW-2018- 16, C.O.W. May 7/18, Tender 2018-T04, Asphalt Materials Registry)
101 By-law #2018-43
A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ACCEPT A TENDER AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT FOR THE SUPPLY, DELIVERY,
Page 3 of 103 Council Agenda - Mon., May 7, 2018 Page
15. BY-LAWS MIX AND STOCKPILING OF SCREENED WINTER SAND FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING (Ref. Engineering, Public Works and Building Dept. Report No: EPW-2018- 17, C.O.W. May 7/18, Tender 2018-T01, Screened Winter Sand)
102 By-law #2018-44
A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ACCEPT A TENDER AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT FOR NOBLETON SANITARY SEWERS PHASE 2 FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING (Ref. Engineering, Public Works and Building and Finance Dept. Joint Report No: JR-2018-03, C.O.W. May 7/18, Tender 2018-T08, Phase 2 Nobleton Sanitary Sewers)
16. CONFIRMATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY-LAW 103 By-law #2018-45
A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING HELD ON MAY 7, 2018
17. ADJOURNMENT
Page 4 of 103 KING THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING REPORT TO COUNCIL
Monday, May 1, 2018
Planning Department Planning Report No. P-2018-20
RE: Public Meeting King City North-East Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment Applications (Refer to Section 3 for application and file numbers) Subject Lands: King City East - Phase 2 (North); Part ofLots 5 - 10, Cone. 3 Applicant: King City East Landowners Group (Refer to Section 3 for individual applicants/owners)
1. RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Department respectfully submits the following recommendations:
A. That Planning Report No. P-2018-20 be received;
B. That the matter of the applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment (refer to section 3 below for application and file numbers) submitted by the King City East Landowners Group (refer to section 3 below for individual applicant/owner information), in relation to the development of the north-east quadrant of King City, for residential uses, be referred back to staff, together with all agency, Applicant, Township department and public comments, for a further report following the completion of the Planning Department's review;
C. That staff continue the review of the King City North East Functional Servicing/ Development Area Study (FSDAS) and advance the processing and review of the related applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment concurrently with the FSDAS.
2. PURPOSE AND BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to provide information with respect to applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and Zoning By-law Amendment for the various separate lands within the King City North East Functional Servicing/Development Area Study (FSDAS).
The King City Community Plan (KCCP) requires a Functional Servicing/Development Area Study (FSDAS), including various component studies, to be submitted as a basis for the evaluation of the development of the subject lands. The FSDAS provides the foundation for the integration of the development of the new community area with the existing community and natural environment, and is based on a broader planning area.
A land owners group has assembled for the purpose of completing the FSDAS. The King City East land owners group (the "Applicant'VKCELG) is comprised of various participating property owners in the study area. These participating owners represent the individual lands which are the subject of this public meeting.
Planning Department Report Page 5 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 2
The King City North-East FSDAS for the subject lands has been submitted and is under review by Township staff and exgternai agencies, A pubiic meeting of Council for the FSDAS was held on Feburary 26, 2018. Since that time, the review of the FSDAS has advanced sufficientiy to aliow the review of the related individual applications for draft pian of subdivision and zoning by law amendment to proceed at this time. The FSDAS is to be finaiized and approved in advance of and/or concurrentiy with the approval of individual subdivision/development applications.
The subject iands are also subject to the policies of Official Plan Amendment no. 89 (CPA 89). CPA 89 amended the KCCP to, amongst other amendments, increase the permitted residentiai density within the Low Density Residentiai 5 Area (LDR 5) to an average gross density of 7 units per hectare (3 units per acre) and provide minor reductions to the environmental buffers/vegetation protection zones in limited and isoiated "pinch point" locations. Pianning staff is currentiy reviewing the proposed development in reiation to the broader development area within the LDR 5 area to ensure conformity with OPA 89.
3. PROPOSAL
The FSDAS and the subject appiications are effectiveiy the impiementation of the residential development contemplated by OPA 89. The subject applications propose to amend the Township's zoning by-law and seek approval for related applications for Draft Plan of Subdivision and are outiined in more detail below:
,[lEHJiNumbeF- 1t 1•• •-• "• :1 The Acorn Development 19T-18K01 " 55 Detached Residentiai Lots Corporation Z-2018-02 • Open Space, Naturai Heritage, Restoration Part of Lot 6 & 7, Concession 3 Area, and Buffer Area, Storm Water Management Pond • Extension of East Number Drive Remcor King inc. & Bracor 19T-18K02 " 529 Detached Residentiai Lots Developments Inc. Z-2018-03 • 47 Street Townhouses Part of Lots 9 & 10, Concession 3 • School, Park, Natural Heritage, Open Space and Buffer Area, Stormwater Management Pond, Future Development Block Supco Construction Limited 19T-18K03 • 7 Detached Residential Lots Part of Lot 10, Concession 3 Z-2018-04 • Landscape Buffer Kingsfieid Estates Ltd. 19T-18K04 • 43 Detached Residential Lots Part of Lot 10, Concession 3 Z-2018-05 • Woodland and Buffer Area King Green Developments inc. 19T-06K02 " 90 Detached Residential Lots Part of Lot 10, Concession 3 Z-2006-05 • Park, Natural Heritage and Landscape Buffer • Future Development King Rocks Developments CR 19T-06K03 • 74 Detached Residential Lots; Inc. Z-2006-07 • 77 Townhouse units Part of Lot 8, Concession 3 • Park, Naturai Heritage and Buffer Area, Storm Water Management Pond • Future Development Scouii Developments inc. 19T-06K08 • 99 Detached Residential Lots Part of Lot 8, Concession 3 Z-2006-11 • Park, Natural Heritage and Buffer Area, Open Space, Storm Water Management Pond • Future Development
Planning Department Report Page 6 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 3
The above noted applications have been submitted separateiy for each property, however, are related to one another and will be considered jointly through the review process.
The total residential unit count by type and property is outlined in more detaii below.
RESIDENTIAL UNITS Units at Popul^ion Landonvner Gross 0 Twget Based on V) Developable Density of 7uph
Kingsfiekl EstatesUd 5.79 41 126 41 1 1 0 0 0 43
King GreenDevelopments CRinc 9.69 68 210 22 22 46 0 0 0 90
King RocksDevelopments CR Inc. 19.63 137 426 0 31 40 3 0 77 151
BracorDevetopments he. 15.27 107 331 0 21 23 55 5 0 104
Remcof-King he. 64.88 454 1.408 0 56 198 112 57 47 472
Scouli Developments (BT)he. 13.99 98 304 0 2A 51 23 1 0 99
The Acom Development Corpor^kxi 11.12 78 241 0 0 48 7 0 0 55
Siftco Construcfon Linited 0.74 5 16 0 0 6 1 0 0 7 Total Paftic^ating Lands 141.11 988 3,062 63 W: . 413 201 63 124 1,021 Non-Participating Lands 11.18 79 244.9 'Viyi P3niap.!i!y La Mix anJ tmiba roIx^ dammeda Pwc 79
TOTAL of ALL Landowners 15Z29 1,067 3,307 oldaaeftJiea '1,100
Unit Type as a percentoftotal units (Participating Lartds Only) 6.2% 1&f% 405% m7% 62% iai% 100.0%
Notes
1 Most features Kave beenstakedbyTFCA or MNR The Gross Oevebp^ ana exlcudes the Re9nnaJ Roadvdenrtg, the natural features unless otherwise showrt/noled and ndudes envitotmn^albuffers tobe placed hpi^ownersh|) as perOPA 540. FnalDevelopabb Ana wibedelemhed through theFS/OAS approval process
2. GrossOenstyisan averageof7uphappfed to ndhridual properties andfuiifftits areshown foreach Therefore, thetotalnumber of units maybe offdueto lOurtAtg. 3. Developable Ana for Nort^artic^ting laitds isbasedontheKng City Commiaiity Plan Schedule i andissubject tochange.
Source; Wo/one Gtven Persons Ltd.. 2017
4. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject lands are located within the north-east quadrant of King City, north of the raiiway corridor, south of the 15"^ Sideroad, west of Dufferin Street, and east of the existing community boundary. The broader study area which is the subject of the FSDAS is approximately 239 hectares, of which the KCELG controls approximately 205 ha (86%). The lands are generally undeveloped and characterized by mixed topography and traversed by various natural heritage features (eg. watercourses, wetlands, valleylands). The surrounding lands are located within the existing community or outside of the Community Plan boundary of the King City Community Plan and are not designated for future development.
5. PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
On March 29, 2018, a public information session was held to Introduce the subject applications to the community and to provide information and receive and respond to comments from the
Planning Department Report Page 7 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 4 public. Notice of this Public Meeting of Council was mailed to surrounding property owners and other interested parties and agencies. The notice has also been published in the local newspaper. At the time of the writing of this report, Planning staff has received the following comments:
• from the solicitors for 632025 Ontario Ltd. (13330 Dufferin Street) with respect to matters of coordination between the development proposed for 13330 Dufferin Street and the King Rocks property and other KGELG matters; • request to ensure that the proposed pedestrian/cycling route connecting the Scouli Developments Inc. lands to Tawes Trail be prohibited from being used for construction access purposes and that a condition of approval be included to this end; • concerns with respect to the number of lots/units proposed by the Acorn Developments draft plan and support for a maximum of 40 lots/units; • support for the proposed construction access route for the Acorn Developments site to be provided from Dufferin Sreet and support for this route to be retained permanently as a pedestrian/cycling route; and that there not be a permanent road connection between Keele Street and Dufferin Street along East Number Drive; • support for the amount of pedestrian trails and connections to be maximized to the extent possible throughout the new community, with links to existing built area, and that they be implemented early wthin the development process; • concerns with respect to the "Future Development" and "Landscape Buffer" blocks within the draft plans and seeking clarity with respect to the intended use and/or plans for those lands.
6. AGENCY COMMENTS
The draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment applications have been recently determined to be complete submissions. As such, the agency circulation and review of the application is ongoing at this time.
However, the related FSDAS provides the foundation for the review of the applications and includes the vast majority of the required supporting documents and information. The FSDAS has been circulated for comment to internal Township Departments, as well as the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA), the Region of York, the public School Board, the Catholic School Board, and the Provincial Ministry of Natural Resources.
At the time of the writing of this report, the majority of the substantive comments relating to the FSDAS have been received, i.e. the comments of the Region of York, TRCA, Township Engineering (Burnside), and Parks, Recreation and Culture. These comments are attached as Appendices 1 to 3. The KCELG is in receipt of these comments and is in the process of addressing the various matters raised and intends to provide a resubmission to that end.
7. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
7.1 King City Community Plan (KCCP)
As shown on Figure 2, the subject lands are designated as Low Density Residential 5. The policies of CPA 89 include permission for a range of housing types including single detached.
Planning Department Report Page 8 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 5 semi-detached, townhouses, or other similar dweiling types not exceeding 3 storeys, and seniors housing not exceeding 3 storeys, at an average gross density of 7 units per hectare. Other lands within the study area are designated Environmentai Protection Area. Pianning staff is currently undertaking a detailed review of the draft plans in order to ensure conformity with these density provisions of the KCCP/OPA 89.
Prior to any new deveiopment and draft plan approval of subdivisions outside the "existing community", CPA 89 requires a comprehensive development plan to be approved by the Township, together with other public agencies, and address ali lands within the study area. The FSDAS has been submitted by the KCELG for this purpose. The FSDAS comprehensively coordinates the major components (roads/street pattern, open space, areas for environmental protection, parks, schoois, servicing, etc.) of the future new development, amongst the various land ownerships within the study area. In this way, the FSDAS is the foundation for the subject draft pians of subdivision. The framework provided by the FSDAS is intended to be refined and designed in more detaii through its implementation at the draft plan of subdivision stage, foiiowing the approval of the FSDAS.
7.2 King City East Functionai Servicing/Development Area Study
The FSDAS is comprised of various components to address the policies of the Community Pian and the Township's terms of reference. Several of the components are addressed in more detail below. Township staff's review of each component is underway and ongoing. Detaiied comments have been provided to the Applicant with respect to required revisions and/or additionai information.
Land Use Concept/Preiiminarv Deveiopment Pian
The land use concept of the FSDAS is based upon the iand use designations of the King City Community Pian/OPA 89. The FSDAS lays out the basic land use pattern which iays the foundation for the overail deveiopment of the study area. The general land use concept/preliminary development layout is shown on Figure 4 of this report. The FS/DAS proposes the development of the study area for:
• primarily low density residential, approximately 897 single detached dwellings;
• 47 townhouses and 77 lifestyle condominium townhouses;
• a network of open space and environmentally protected lands;
• 1 community scale park, 2 neighbourhood parks, and a future elementary school site;
• a road network which most notably includes a bridge crossing of the environmental lands in the central portion of the study area in order to link the eastern and western portions of the community;
• a network of environmentally protected lands comprised of various key natural heritage features such as wetlands, valleylands, and woodlands;
• a pedestrian and cycling trail and path network.
Planning Department Report Page 9 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 6
The proposed draft plans of subdivisions are consistent with and impiement this iand use concept. Whiie staff's review remains on-going, staff has identified several preliminary comments:
the number of cui-de-sac roads shouid be minimized in order to enhance neighbourhood connectivity and the pedestrian and transit orientation of the new neighbourhoods;
a need to re-design the deveiopment pattern proposed by the FSDAS to avoid reverse frontage iotting (i.e. lots which have double frontage and back on to roads) due to design, aesthetic, engineering and maintenance concerns of noise mitigation features. The pian currently proposes a significant amount of reverse frontage iotting aiong Dufferin Street and 15*^ Sideroad;
potential to increase the amount of townhouses or semi-detached units (OPA 89 permits up to 15% of the units to be townhouses or semi-detached, whiie the current concept pian proposes approximateiy 12%), and to further distribute these units throughout the study area;
further detaii required in regard to the overail phasing of the deveiopment reiative to the timing of the east-west collector road and bridge crossing, and the provision of a temporary emergency access route to the 15*^ sideroad and adjacent to the park and school blocks in order so that the overaii phasing of development is more flexibie relative to the timing of the construction of the bridge crossing;
coordination between the King Rocks draft pian and the deveiopment proposed for the iands iocated at 13330 Dufferin Street shouid be considered with respect to matters relating to external servicing connections and the overaii deveiopment concept and iayout. Pianning staff has and wiii continue to encourgage cooperation between these land owners;
Planning staff notes that some properties within the subject area may be less appropriate and/or capable of supporting the density permitted by OPA 89 while some sites may be more appropriate for higher density, thereby achieving the average of 7 units per hectare as permitted by OPA 89. For example, the Acorn property and portions of the King Rocks property have significant access limitations which may present a challenge to achieve a design with multiple access points and, therefore, more difficult to rationalize a higher number of units within those areas. The Township's typical standard for the number of units allowed on a single access is approximateiy 40 units. OPA 89 includes specific policies which require consideration of these factors when determining the appropriate density/yield for that specific area. Conversely, areas in dose proximity to Regionai/arteriai roads, future transit routes, community amenities such as parks and schools, may be more well suited to higher densities;
the Parks, Recreation and Culture Department has been working with the applicant to identify parkland and facility needs and the size, location and distribution of such parks throughout the future development. Based upon the identification of the land/park requirements in the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan 2013 a requirement for both a Community Park and associated neighbourhood parks has been identified. Comments on
Planning Department Report Page 10 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 7
the approximate sizing and iocation of these parks have been provided. The draft pians have incorporated the proposed parks.
• As an eiement of the review process for OPA 89, the York Region District Schooi Board (YRDSB) advised that they wiii require a future schooi site within the development area. The subject applications have induded a future schooi site. Planning staff has not yet received the comments of YRDSB with respect to the subject appiication and, more specifically, the siting and sizing of the proposed school site.
Environment
The environmentai anaiysis component of the FSDAS includes a natural heritage evaluation Significant Woodiands Assessment, Restoration Strategy, and Wetland Compensation pian. The study area contains severai environmentai features including wetlands, watercourses, woodlands, valley and stream corridors. The proposed draft plans of subdivision identify the boundaries of these features inciuding buffers, and sets them aside as separate biocks for the purpose of environmental protection by way of zoning provisions and conditions of approvai requiring their conveyance to either the Township and/or the TROA.
The boundaries of the environmentai features were established in the field in accordance with the poiicies of the Community Pian, the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Pian and in consuitation with Planning, Ministry of Natural Resources, and TRCA staff. These policies generaily require 30 metre (+/-100 ft.) buffers adjacent to the environmental features. The draft plans incorporate these buffers and maintain the future deveiopment/lots outside their iimits, with the exception of several isolated "pinch points" as permitted by OPA 89.
The TRCA's comments in regard to the FSDAS are attached as Appendix 2.
Design: Urban Design/Landscape and Architecture
Staffs review of the urban design/iandscape pian eiements of the FSDAS and draft pians remains on-going, however, the foiiowing preiiminary comments are identified:
in generai, staff notes that the FSDAS and draft pians provide a significant amount of connectivity throughout the different sections of the study area as weli as between the subject iands and the existing neighbourhoods. In particular, pedestrian connections are proposed to Tawes Traii, as weil as a pedestrian crossing of the East Number River through the Acorn iands and ultimateiy connecting to the lands south of the railway. Overall, through a network of sidewalks, trails, and bike/muiti use paths, the proposed development includes a high level of pedestrian connectivity;
the primary iocation for the trail network will be within the environmental buffers. Staff is generally satisfied in this regard, however, some potential revisions to the traii layout and linkages/connections and additional information regarding the traii design, may be required;
the review of the parkland area calculation details is underway to ensure that the amount of parkland provided is appropriate relative to the parkland requirements of the Planning Act. Any shortfall will be addressed through a cash-in-iieu payment and a related Parkland Dedication Agreement between the KDELG and the Township as a condition of draft plan approval;
Planning Department Report Page 11 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 8
The review of the proposed park sizes, locations, facilities is under review by Township Parks, Recreation and Culture staff;
stormwater management facilities have been sited together with other open space/environmental lands and serve to provide additional public open/"green" road frontage and vistas. Staff is supportive of this approach.
Staffs review of the architectural design guidelines component remains on-going and further comments will be provided at a later date. A condition of draft plan approval will be included to require the submission of detailed architectural control guidelines for each draft plan as well as to ensure the implementation of an architectural control program.
Transportation/Traffic Impacts
A transportation/traffic impact analysis has been submitted and makes detailed recommendations with respect to projected traffic impacts to the existing and proposed roads and necessary improvements to roads and intersections to accommodate the proposed development. The Township's Engineering and Public Works Department (refer to Appendix 3) and Region of York have provided comments in this regard as an element of the FSDAS, which include:
• a requirement for additional information with respect to the proposed cross-section of the collector and local roads in the study area. In particular, concerns have been expressed with respect to the incorporation of multi-use paths rather than dedicated side-walks and bicycle paths;
• a need to minimize the number and length of cul-de-sac roads to facilitate continuity of the local and collector road network between neighbourhoods, efficient roads maintenance, as well as accommodate appropriate servicing; there is also a concern with respect to the length of some of the cul-de-sacs which would result in a significant stretch being served by a single access point;
• as noted above there is a need to re-design the development pattern proposed by the FSDAS to avoid reverse-lotting. This will likely require revisions to the road pattern. This comment has also been provided and reinforced by the Region of York;
• the Acorn development includes a proposed road connection into the existing community at the easterly terminus of East Humber Drive. The extent of development served by a single access point should be minimized. Staff has expressed a concern with respect to the length and number of units proposed to be served by a single access by the extension of East Humber Drive and has requested the applicant to explore possible revisions in this regard;
Staff also notes the need to address construction access with respect to the Acorn lands to ensure construction access is not proposed or provided via East Humber Drive. It is staffs understanding that the Applicant has been pursuing this matter with the TRCA to ensure that a viable construction access route from Dufferin Street can be achieved. Preliminary comments provided to date indicate that such a route will be viable subject to certain design and construction requirements of the TRCA;
Planning Department Report Page 12 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 9
• the alternatives for the main east-west collector road route and location of the bridge crossing of the valley/stream corridor have been considered through a concurrent Environmental Assessment (EA) process together with the FSDAS and planning approval process. Public consultation has taken place as an element of the EA process. The FSDAS and draft plans have incorporated the outcome of that process.
The Region of York has carried out a review of the transportation analysis and provided comments and requested additional information to be provided by the KCELG. The Region's comments area attached as Appendix 1.
Water and Sanitarv Servicina and Stormwater Management
New development is required by the Community Plan to be serviced by full municipal services. The existing municipal water supply and distribution system is proposed to be extended to service the development contemplated by the subject applications. The proposed development will also be serviced by the municipal sanitary sewer system.
The Region has confirmed that there is adequate capacity in the existing water supply system for King City to accommodate the proposed growth including the development proposed by the subject applications.
The Region has also noted that the increase in the overall population of King City as provided by CPA 89 may require upgrades to the Regional sanitary system infrastructure, in particular, the main King City Sewage Pumping Station located south of King Road and west of Keele Street.
Planning staff's review with respect to overall phasing will, amongst other matters, identify the priority and phasing of the developments relative to the availabiilty of servicing capacity allocation and draft plan approval.
The stormwater management scheme for the draft plans is based upon a series of stormwater management ponds. The FSDAS provides the advantage of a broader study area which allows for the most appropriate and efficient locations for these facilities and their shared use amongst multiple properties, thereby minimizing the number of these facilities which will ultimately be assumed by the Township. The stormwater management blocks are also proposed to partially extend into the environmental buffers, but not within the environmental feature itself. The policies of the Community Plan permit this approach subject to the need and no negative impacts to the environmental feature being demonstrated by the FSDAS. Staff and TRCA have indicated general acceptance of this approach.
Timino/Phasing
The review of the subject applications will also address the phasing and staging of the development to detail the location, rate and timing of new development to ensure that the development occurs in a comprehensive and orderly manner. The phasing must address broad considerations such as the servicing capacity allocation, road network and access constraints, and servicing infrastructure connections.
Planning Department Report Page 13 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 10
Noise and Vibration
Township and Regional staff have identified concerns with respect to reverse frontage lotting and the resulting need for noise and vibration mitigation measures (sound barrier/fencing, berming, etc.). Staff has concerns with respect to the design and aesthetic impacts, engineering and maintenance of these measures. The Community Plan includes specific policies to prohibit reverse frontage lotting. The applicants have worked with staff to revise the proposed development to eliminate and/or minimize the reverse frontage lotting and include a series of landscape buffers to ensure that no lots back directly onto a road but, rather, are separated from the road by these landscape buffers.
Planning staff also awaits the comments of Metrolinxwith respect to noise and vibration impacts related to the railway corridor and necessary mitigation measures.
7.3 Zoning By-law
A copy of the draft zoning by-law amendment prepared by the applicants is attached as Appendix 4. The subject applications propose to amend Schedule "A4" of By-law 2017-66 as amended, by changing the zone symbol on the subject lands from Future Use (F) Zone to the following for the subject lands as shown on Schedules 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the draft zoning by-law:
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 12 (R1A-12) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 15 (R1A-15) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 15 (R1A-15(XX)) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 18 (R1A-18) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 21 (R1A-21) ZONE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE - 7.5 (R3-7.5) ZONE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE - XX (R3-XX) ZONE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (EP) ZONE OPEN SPACE (OS) ZONE INSTITUTIONAL (I) ZONE FUTURE USE (F) ZONE
The draft zoning by-law also outlines a series of specific development standards, lot, and building requirements which will apply to the proposed. development, such as minimum requirements for lot area, frontage, front yard, side yard, rear yard, and maximums for height, coverage and other similar requirements. Refer to Appendix 4 for a detailed summary of these provisions.
Planning stafTs review of the draft zoning by-law and proposed development standards is in the early stages and remains on-going. Staff will report back to Committee in more detail in this regard in the subsequent recommendation report.
7.4 Processing of Draft Plan of Subdivision Applications and Zoning By-law Amendment
The FSDAS provides the overall framework for the submission and evaluation of future draft plans of subdivision on the individual properties within the study area. The review of the FSDAS has significantly advanced. There remain some matters which continue to require significant
Planning Department Report Page 14 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 11 attention before the FSDAS can be finalized and the draft plan applications can be advanced to draft plan approval. For example, the collector road cross section, as discussed above, has not yet been resolved. However, Township staff is satisfied that the FSDAS has been sufficiently advanced to enable the processing of the related draft plan of subdivision and zoning by-law amendment applications to proceed. Planning staff will be reporting back to Council with respect to the FSDAS at a later date.
7.5 Region of York Official Plan and Provincial Policy/Plans
The subject lands are designated "Towns and Villages" and "Regional Greenlands System" as shown on Maps 1 and 2 of the York Region Official Plan (2010), and are within the "Settlement Area" designation as per the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan.
The Regional Plan indicates that the Township is required to plan for population growth from 20,300 people in 2006 to 34,900 people in 2031, an increase of 14,600 people. This additional population is to be provided by a combination of development within the existing built up areas (intensification) and development within designated greenfield areas. CPA 89 which provides for the residential development contemplated by the subject applications was approved by the Region on the basis of these population targets.
The Province's "Places to Grow" Plan promotes intensification and sets specific targets for residential intensification. It should be noted that the targets set by the Growth Plan are to be considered in a broader community and regional context. The Growth Plan recognizes that one size does not fit all and that municipalities are to develop their own policies and phasing strategies to achieve the targets in a manner that respects and compliments the community's character. The development proposed by the subject applications will assist in achieving the above noted growth targets set by the Growth plan and the Region of York Official Plan.
The subject lands are also located within the Greenbelt area. However, they are located within a designated settlement area of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) and, therefore, not subject to the Greenbelt Plan, but rather are to be governed by the King City Community Plan and the ORMCP. The subject lands are also designated "settlement" by the ORMCP and, therefore, their development for residential purposes, in accordance with the King City Community Plan is permitted. The subject applications are currently under review by both the Township and the TRCA with respect to the detailed technical requirements of the ORMCP.
8. INTEGRATED SUSTAINABILITY PLAN LINKAGE
The recommendations of this report support the land use planning objectives of the Environmental Pillar, of the Township's Sustainability Plan. However, further analysis in regard to the Township's Sustainability Plan will be addressed in the subsequent recommendation report from Planning staff to Committee on this matter.
9. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Any external costs (peer-review architect, legal, engineering, etc.) incurred by the Township through the processing and review of this application will be recovered from the applicant.
Planning Department Report Page 15 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Planning Department Report P-2018-20 Page 12
Security deposits, levies, development charges, and cash-in-lieu of parkland, if required, will be collected at later stages in the development review process. Further financial implications, if any, will be assessed as the review proceeds.
10. CONCLUSION
The review of the subject applications remains on-going by the Planning Department and other Township Departments and external agencies. Planning staff requires further opportunity to continue to the review and provide comments, and work with the applicants to review and address the various issues raised in this report as well as by the public and Council. In addition, comments have not yet been received from ail departments and agencies. As the review proceeds. Planning staff will report back to Committee of the Whole. It is recommended that this report be received and referred back to staff, together with any public and Council comments, for a future report.
Pre^red and Recommended by: C Reviewed by:
Gaspare Ritacca, MClP, RPP fbi2. Susan Plamondon Manager of Planning and Development' Chief Administrative Officer
ATTACHMENTS
Figures 1. Location Map/FSDAS Study Area (source: Malone Given Parsons Planning Report) 2. CPA 89 Land Use Schedule 3. King City North East Participating Owners 4. King City North East Development Concept 5. Acorn Developments Draft Plan of Subdivision 6. Scouli Developments Draft Plan of Subdivision 7. King Rocks Draft Plan of Subdivision 8. Remcor and Bracor Draft Plan of Subdivision 9. King Green Draft Plan of Subdivision 10. Supco Draft Plan of Subdivision 11. Kingsfield Draft Plan of Subdivision
Appendices 1. Region of York comments, February 15, 2018 2. Toronto and Region Conservation Authority comments, March 16, 2018 3. Township Engineering (Burnside) comments, March 15, 2018 4. Draft Zoning By-law
Planning Department Report Page 16 of 103 Number P-2018-20 FIGURE 1
Planning Department Report Page 17 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Figure 2 Number P Planning Department Report Township of Redesignate to Low Density Residential 5 -
2018 m xina Area Schedule 4 Land Use and - 20 Transportation Strategy
King City Community Plan
Community Plan Boundary Existing Community OAK RIDGES MORAINE PLAN AREA I I Amendment Boundary • Oak Rides Moraine Settlement Area m Oak Rides Moraine Natural Core Area NATURAL ENVIRONMENT'®™ Environmental Protection Area Special Study Area OPEN SPACE AND INSTITUTIONAL Cemetery • Community or Neighbourhood Park Site Elementary School Site BB Institutional m Community Park Area RESIDENTIAL Existirtg Low Density Residential Area Estate Residentiai 1 Area Estate Residentiai 2 Area
Estate Residential 3 Area
Page 18 of 103 ^^B Density Residential 1Area Low Density Residential 2 Area I^B Density Residential 3Area Low Density Residential 4 Area Low Density Residential 5 Area Low Density Residential 6 Area # Medium Density Residential Area MIXED USE C\ Core Area c Station Area Mixed Use Area o*OM(kf Prestige Employment Area m 1000m Existing Commercial Area RURAL Ni Rural Area
20 - 2018 - P Number
Page 19 of 103 of 19 Page Planning Department Report Report Department Planning
ISttSQgRCMkD E
Fandor
SWM1 BMlKi 1) i13ha t 19l« a7Sha
Remcor.Kinalnci
2.60 r«.
COUNTRr OAY SCHOOL
ocks -eRJni;^ ^c-;r
BieAcom-Devetofigw^orporatlon^^;^
Jfe-y-'J-:
LAND OWNERSHIP I JifiH I l«a \ Study Area Boundary Paiticlpattng Lands Non-Parttcipaing Lands
FIGURE 3
20 - 2018 - P Number
Page 20 of 103 of 20 Page Planning Department Report Report Department Planning
KE 3 CAMPUS
15lt)SDER0AD
• j F9nd6r
aWir---w,tn= /#^vv-r t/ H I :1m
n
!'•'/ uSSe
Mf.J "i'« / ' i f i:"'£scr i larrr v?-1 r^-ramif i • ™;-i&i3t,' \\y||^.-f;'^.>-s-.••• . • •-'• 1 • '' - fvS'l/J-
8WM 4 .
6 'I f*'" "- !^ tft
»#«II«HI»
DevelopfT^:^ > mmmrnmr^m boYpors^lbh
5*rMV -f>-4—^ifliifnTlTIT'l •\ ,50 0 SO-IOaiSOtSOOm !I-'^-*\'3*>.- TATTON CT
KING CITY EAST CONCEPT PLAN FOR NORTHERN LANDS RMid«nQi) Unh* g t unM pm ywi hMtirv •n A »]iiHn P«9wlaaong3.t p»n«n»pv«nil(pM 4JM CMMM UnM B«Md BAP0HiK»»A E4^r«M D IlkU* Land Uaa by PaMeipallng Ownaf Nan- Sb^ (MBSMg a.1 fvu EMBM ParOdpadna * ISMliM (Ares* Shotm In Heetam) Ktfig Ramcor. 8
Pol»M*l BantenUry School Slta 2.6 26 CotetarRd** • PubikParta 04 0.1 4.2 0.6 0.6 &9 V^yCfBi^ Landaeape Buffara 0.0 Cc Tmll AelNrsy Unt • namwd lUgMa} O^lAQftMlB SionnwatarWtnagafntni FaelltUat 0.5 3.0 15 3 2 0.6 8.8 PoMM LM Cy«lAg RAMlMlttM Ml
MVPZ Uinhum VagatMonPic(MlDnZ«M 3.0 1,0 3.2 9.0 22 6.S 4.6 286 PrtffttimfltfljWYigBrgfWgMI Ctoca Davalopabli Ana 8.8 0.7 16.3 83.7 14.0 18.6 11.1 0.7 139.9 TBD ejUalMfiTrvU i Matuial Harttaga Pealuraa 4.4 0 1 10 17.1 78 9.7 23.7 00 636 PrepewflTfii fWHCarvMOton Afiarial Road VWdaninsa 0.0 02 0.3 0.7 0:1 1.3 PrcixKqPocuB'jWi Cicmng Padwam CfWiJig Total Araa 10.2 10.0 16.8 81.8 21.8 39.3 34.0 0.7 2020 34.1 Pun«ng SoMmi
FIGURE 4 Number P Planning Department Report - 2018 - 20
BtoekH MgAia) Systai; • A.Tila..
• \ •• StockM••
^ '• HesfCBlcn Ab» Page 21 of103
Pruparud l>y: SCHEDULE OF LAND USE OWNER^S AUTHORIZATION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I haraby auRnnza Uaiona Givan Paraona Ltd to prafara and AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 51(17) OF THE B^iLWF Cr.!\ tAFSOf.: SIL DRAFT PLAN OF aidamVaaOaafl Pton of Sitodmaton to ViaTovmalaporKing PlANNINGACT.CKARTERP13
20 SWM4 !'• -'"/'V' -li'- .' 156ha
X oyN/o#^»^, " '• ••-- ^ \ c6ncessiqm---wX .''•' sr^re:4'\.:"—• uX^. •^-Z^LOCKST-^ tiatuolHentage "• 1' *p-X»pj-.JXp^^ ••• ••.'• .'• '/• i, I0^K.9f yL Zi/ " • £«sWfl .• yteadencs SLOCK 99^
<\"- \-"-"v'""f"': r 8L0CKMu,,; :Xr-QpenSpa<^l',\^/ I'i ) II. \^ -.-Q.2Qfta.'-'" . TR£ASTAKEDTOP^OF^LOPE /,-7--/ -.-/-'iJ 7 JULYaWS • ••;' ,•• ! V ^-^LOCKflfiX. .t ! • -Vv Vt ^ ^:: -NsluralHentage^- ••v. • System MEAWDERaatlNOUnNG MmSUFFtft^ ' "'•• 7.82/>a.,_ VV- ". ••• PARSHG«aKoipneLllSSi^TEMB^»14 VV^AS^EDi^Vri^^lW^ .,BLqCK95 I\, \
•OpenS^ace ," "•s
N;, I : ' A£AM}£RBaTnCLU0WGMm8UFFER PARISHGsoneRiniclU. SEPTEMBERai4
B7jSm^'^BSDaiTiAl Page 22 of103
Prnpft/ed try; SCHEDULE OF LAND USE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION I himby authonzi Maloot C»*n Paraoni LU U pMpara and AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 51(17) OP THE fiSwAiONE(iiYCNPARSONSLTD DRAFT PLAN PLANNING ACT. CHAPTER P 13(R S O. ISM) OF atAml Vaa Draft Plan of SrAdmsion tt ftia To«mah9 OfKmg 140 Renfttw OfTv*. $gil» 201 (B).|a).(n.(S).U).(l) • As Ihmm of tot Draft Plan Uvttum. Onttno. L3R 683 SUBDIVISION (b).(c)-Aa«t>nin on tot Draft and Kay Plan T«l (90S)S1S<0170 (d) • Land to ba uttd to aecordinca vntotot Sdltdult c4 wWfv.mDpe* LtndUtt. (O-Solit City loam Pttj^xdrtKllur SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE (h).(k) - Ful munictoaJ Btrvicta to ba providtd SCOUU DEV£LOPMCNT$ (BT) Ine. Part of Lot 8. Concession 3 I harabi! cartfy fliat«« bourdanoa of fro landa to taaarAidMdod -''~"v'., / y aa atwan on ftaa nan and toairralaaonatap to ftia a^oaM landa Geographic Township of King ara acauraUly and waW afroatn. OMft F*bruvy7.20ie Township of King ••i- --ri]..""^ li — Regional Municipality of York BLOCK 74
Number P Planning Department Report FinWE RESIOENTIAl BLOCK 79 NaturalHeritage BLOCK78 '—BL0CK91 atx-1 BU( System 0.05 ha.
a TRCA STAKED - VECETATiON LIMIT 2018 go jO T.D• Q BLOCK 73 DECEMBER Sttm Water Manage/nent ••StreetA & TSCA BL0CK7S Facdky..' JJLV.aOOE J.57(is.v - 20 BLK-SS __aLOCKifl NaturalHefitage System .V. ^ 4.2lba S/reeJC ^ Jlltt?O0S BLOCK 76 ' ^ -VegetationPmlec^i&v \ L BLOCKTti:"' DVEQCTATION UMIT ^ Park PT.2006 0.57 ha U . I ® I» * '• 5 ^ ^ ^ ° SLOCK 90 FufWB -/-T- SLOCK77 T street U ^VegetationProtecihftZOOB i Sflifha.'"' 2.22tia5 59 ha 1 MNRSTAKEDWET^OUMIT BLOCK 72 OCTOBER 2012 ' StonnWalerManagement Faelity ffiiha TRCAStA^-VEOKTATioN'iWlT. RESID^m L Q it BLOCK-ai VG Mstu^Hentage SysfsnTl.-^-.iV. S.40ha. H MfiF? STAKED WETLAN JULY 2005 V SLOPE / O I y ,'r: JUIY200S HSSWL ' ^ 133« H mrso* ( s* MEANDER BELT ^ INauOING 30m BUHTER PARISH Georporpfvc IV ^gPTEIiQER 2014 & Hf-R/WCpivSTf Page 23 of103 REVISED SCHEDULE OF LAND USE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Pfopared by: I hartby autheri^ Ualon* Givan Paraom LU to pnpart incf AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 51(17) OP THE DRAFT PLAN OF submt Vm Draft PlAn of S y/,OT«ert isJRee7t/|.n' - § 2018 m - 20 sweerwVyf^ i BLOCKS3r £16313 ^>r--sTOCT,o I I23B9 BLOCK 539 m ^ Lj\ [ BLOCKSSa ' L'i'' m. BLOCK 534' EjBwetVaiYScitM m BLOCK 538 , SWM : 127/». -,' m Page 24 of103 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Piopnrtd by: KEY PLAN SCHEDULE OF LAND USE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION DRAFT PLAN OF I hereby •uOwnfe Melorw Given Partone Ltd. to AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION S1(17) OF THE pnpare and iuttmtt tfaa Dmn Ptan of Subdvtoton PLANNINOACT. CHAPTER P 13(R.SO 1900) 140 Renfrew Drive. Surte 201 to toe Townahp of Kaig (i).(t).(f|.(0)4i).|l) - At ihoMi ol tit Draft Plan Meritosm, Ontario. L3R 6B3 SUBDIVISION (6|.(c| - Aa anotm on tw Oiaft and Kty Plan Tel. (m)S1»Cl70 (d) - Land lo bo wood *i oeeordanoo wti tro Si.lwiado wwwmopxs oILand LIto. |i> - Sol la day and aifl loam PrW'vU iQf: SURVEYOR'S CERTlFiCATC ih),(L)-FiilmuncBtiaorvlcoalobapravidod. REMCOR-KING P6VeL0PMENTS Part of Lots 9 & 10, Concession 3 I tmbr cimy tulih* bounOcnn ol th* Itndt B b* uix>v«3*d M thmn on (Tm Mm an) tit* Geographic Township of King itlitontnv B tit atftctt ifiA m BcanMr Dele FetoiMrylS.20ia Prajed Mo. 17-2570 Township of King tnd CDrmtV 0OIMI. Regional Municipality of York Block 93 lNS7mJTI0NAL(SEtJECA COLlEGE} Road Widening 0.20 ha. 15THSIDER0AD E etocfcS?'.^ ^ ^.w--: I—Landscape SWifSf-V- f D.24''/ia,-. •' \ • MNR STAKEITWeTLANO • , Block99\ :;.,• -7 •v'C\v-7-r-AN : LMETOCTOeER2013 Lands to be leieined. .. \ f Is'^I°I -•••..bY aophcant / ,• ^'".j"* aAflu ..^ III II r fi /i7"\ -... -Av'C ••.>-^.^--- sP——-^ • ' I"" I'I" his, \ - '"v (••'[ •'•. ! 1 (^ENSP^deVW ! ;,,• '' •' '• ^ •-"' -t-ru.. r /-*** JiHB i f I'l f f I ^ •'.•-,.r;---; •-/•" sr •..w'^p'Af•7« H Ll]TI 12 I ,, I ->« Br^ I/ ••" / ; / ] :^;•., Jy-i., / ..K^M A L -'k.' kp ?9 I '• I >.y : Y A ' -v, V L /*# • ('I '• ' I Vl"^uji \ P p"/^®a/S® T&9J •' • Vvi: ' ;;.c-. Y i 7 ^° W // 'k-AAAIA; (;)';i.f.. ••'••IhtwHJ''a Li:'/ : \i > V" h'l'i* „-^l "r^'iMi .l_|i(,/ ^ .'• •• V- \ V '» a i Iff ' is --iB/oc/f97 -• - -:• A-••' '''• ' Futura.; '•' • C' ResWerrt/a/ ,. J J •'•• ^O.Wha' •, j' •.',/1" Ifo -^^^0;'A\ •""A'An-;.---A-f•." ° | •{••', \ -• ;:::><•' • CLOthB^/M " -"'♦A'A.k'PUPAi . y'. .••rr- -,. - •.•;-N::. y / • /) \ • .,>•'. A ; B/ock95"' - Fufwa ^ . •• Fufure :i' ^ V • Resideniial-i - Residential^' : 0.06 fia. •f/ j' °fc?fay s5^---/.i*--aN •• <•/o''7'«'7»'«.»/ MNR STAKEO—\ / BiOCk Qfs.' \\\\\ V. y > ••• OCTOeERJOW 1LWaft;ra/ Herrta^^ ^ B/ocft90 ^ Park^ '•u^nmu/.'^ •' l%Y n jIC Um\. - AA.^ ^-iAA'y' 0.76fta:'' "T^-'\ 'i7 nftCASTAKEOVSeETATJONLIMjr— \ I.Y2 5 .. •-, •• Vi '''<----A-/''pp\]\\]]) •: ---•/ .1^ :y FyJ£^^.RFS^£W77A^. [ i /'C--^''^'y/// ('A ' .•• ' (p "T 'XlP-:;--''-// '(l? SCHEDULE OF LAND USE SURVEYOR'S CERTlFtCATE I hftraby Oftrtifyrat dio bcurtdanoftof 9>ftlanda to b* aubdividod ta thown ort trn Ptart and ihftft ralaaontnf) to the adjftcant landftar* aeeumtoly artd oortacfly ahown Part of Lot 10, Concession 3, uiVPf; FAfXONS ITO. Geographic Township of King Township of King &«• ttofwr. to uma/dttTft • 9 Regional Municipality of York FIGURE Q ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Propofffrt fur' AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION S1(17) Of THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZATION Oalft.Pabnary 2ft, 3016 King Green Developments Inc. PLANNINSACT.CHAPTERP.ISIRSO 1990). I haraoy aulhenzB Malona Givart Pamem Ltd to prapar* IPro^ fto.: I7'2rft (•).(*).(O.<0).(i}.O) *A* thown of the OnH Rarv (bi.(c) •Aft «hswn en9mDraft andKay Plan. and ittomrt dfta Draft Plan of Subtovwen to Vw City of (d) - Land to bftuaad to nxuidancft « ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 51(17) OF THE PLANNING ACT NTS'OaOO'E. 59.40 (9)SaPUM mtetfutr— (0)sanAN (f)SaPlAN (P)SaPtAN (01sa FUN HKEYdm BL0GK7 blo/::k 570 34.64 14.38 - - n72-25'55^ FIGURE 10 SCK6XJLEOFLANOUSE APPROVAL LOT/BbOOS LANDuse AftEAOkA.) HI M •M11W«aiMmMCtSI OuOMS IM M HVOH 9«(M)NMW Ut] Mm UI4 r.,nrfrTif uu» DRAFT PLAN OF Ut» um A1 tHl Mat SUBDIVISION MAT »>*<%• mill aem •Ml MMumMNt o.in« •Kfcl MtU SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE 1:300 SUPCO 13630 DUFFERIN STREET UmT laiiM APIM •JHCmCA 1MWWStr UMM «• PARTorurr 10 OONCCS$»N 3 SMHR 1X231 GEOOUMC TDVMSFO or iONO Torjii NMIW IM*M Mm *'y-- /. VER-01 FEB 2018 TOMNSHlPOriaW 20is^2-0a SCSnNAL MMOPAUTY or YORK Planning Department Report Page 26 of 103 Number P-2018-20 SIDE ROAD ISth SECnON 51(17) W.IKE ifflSftsfir saa— -gSeSSeESSS^Ilwsto;j>c*;w/ coofCrtM \8 7 Bhd^45 48&ia43 S/gn/flctftt ffopotta^pmpettSttlM 81!H30 lVoo(fltnd(^n / Atw I flretefefl^ \ ' 3.trftai^ K^RE^ipEhhHA^ '1^/ (^41 ^ \ Pn^Mstd fy' Com^ettstUen thpT Anta Ana \ \ OMSha. PIN 0.to72 ji ( \ <><» «l MNRSTAKEDW^TIIAND LIMIT OCTOBER 2015 O 05 si / \PIN d)3372- 02 PIN 03372-0Z30 nao TREE TRUNK OF \ EGETATION a 0 37 OVEMBER6.2015 MNR STAKED.WETLAND LIMIT OCTOBER 2 Blodta Block ST penuaon Significant Anaa .002 ha Wooilland TECTION Future Reswent/s/ XISIu Block PmposU 0.09 ha. Compens^ttofl Anai 0.0031 BlockSS Proposed I panaaOoo naa 0.i03ha. TREE TRUNK OF VEGETATION STAKED BY TRCA ON Stock 98 NOVEMBERS, 2015 Proposed Compensation Anaa 0.03 ha. ^'TTJ-lST OUW COCRDWAIIS COO AOUTIONAL INFORMATION KEY MAP suRVEYOira certificate AS REQUWEOUNOai SECTIONSt(t7)OF THE I htftby Owl0» boundariM of tfw iKidBto b* l>lANMN0ACT.CKAPTERP.t3(It&a 1M0). ttibdMdtd M ahown tti Ma PliA and 9iaif filiBOAitkp (•M*X(>)48).IIXO-A*diai>aollh*ORtPln. 10ffn tandi «xmWyand ooiTacfirifKMn. (b).(c)- At iMimi cn ««Omand Flan. 999Eijgelsy BM• UNI61VouglunOntario UKK4 (4• Landto b* UMdti •oDOfdnca win Si*Sehadula FEBRUARY 092019 ollindUaa. Td. (908)851-1201Fax(905)761-9G90 * :a-i i i (Q.SollaCliytorSBn. lnlo6&ruttoooRtiiting.ea rt"-7/- j .-4 (li)Xli} - FWnuidpdMivtoM toba pnvMad. QMS J-y'^ — APPROVAL APPROVAL SUBt&CT TO CONOCnONS m AOCOfU DRAFT PLAN OF WnH SECTIONSt(31) OFTHEPLANNINO ACT,RS •' i U, ASAMENDE THS OAVCF SUBDIVISION 2016. FIGURE 11 SCHEDULE OF LAND USE 2015 15th Sideroad LoN/BlacM LandUaa •iMritol US PwiclwdlifclZ;^ . 1.18)7 A1 Part of Lot 10, project: Concession 3, p«KtwdMK (SMa a (UKT* 44 [vtonalBCttw Zana SIMS OWNER'S AUTHORIZAEON KINGSFIELD GeographicTownship of King (uiao 4S66 IPrepoiadCyiiiiMiMBn version: Township of King S74A IsyMBGaiaiWaoNind 4X035 Regional Mimldpallty of York m ; landi TUK by Aapacatt aiaM VER-01 laaatA liasOBAnd usas scola: dote: ) 10 25 SO 75 8MC IzonRoad OMM TOTAL 1 fLM44 1:1000 FEB 2018 ^odudna caotoral Planning Department Report Page 27 of 103 Number P-2018-20 YorkRegion Corporate Services File No. FSDAS-2017-01/BLK.17.K.001 Refer To: Sara Brockman February 15,2018 Mr. Gaspare RItacca, MClP, RPP Manager of Planning and Development Township of King 2075 King Road King City, ON L7B1A1 Dear Mr. RItacca: Re: Request for Comments- Functional Servicing/ Development Area Study (1^Submission) King City East - North Lands The King City East Landowners' Group Township of King Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on the Functional Servicing/ Development Area Study King City East - North Lands, prepared for the King City East Landowners' Group, dated November 2017. The King City East (KCE) - North Lands are approximately 205 hectares (506 acres) in size and aregenerally located south of 15^*^ Sideroad, north of the railway line, east of Keele Street and west of Dufferin Street In the Community of King City. Prior to submitting new and revised subdivision and zoning applications for the various properties on the KCE North lands. King Township required the submission of an updated Functional Servicing/ Development Area Plan (FSDAS). We understand the purpose of the FSDAS is to provide the basis for the successful Integration of this development area with the surrounding existing community and natural/ environmental systems and to set out facility and infrastructure, servicing, drainage, design, open space, heritage, and transportation requirements, as well as implementation, phasing and monitoring requirements. The FSDAS will form the basis of evaluation of future development proposals and plans of subdivision on the KCE North lands. The content of the FSDAS will also tie Into the Joint Class 'C Environmental Assessment for the crossing of the Eaton Hall Creek and/ or Tawes Trail currently in progress. The Regional Municipality of York, 17250 Vonge Street, Newmarket. Ontario LSY 6Z1 Tel: 905-830-4444,1-B77-464-YORK 0-877-464-967 Internet* www.york.ca APPENDIX 1 Planning Department Report Page 28 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Functional Servicing/DevelopmentAreaStudy King City Edst- North Lands (FSDAS-2017-01) Proposed Cortcept The KCE North lands are proposed to be developed as a predominately residential neighbourhood with a focus on environmental protection, the incorporation of public parks and trails, and a potential schoolsite^The Plan consistsof primarily single detached lots (863 units) with some townhouse units (47 units) and lifestyle seniors' units (55 units) on a condominium site, totalling approximately 1020 units. Approximately 91 hectares (225 acres) or 44% of the participating Landowners' lands consists of natural heritage features and minimum vegetation protection zones (vpz). Planning Policy Context The subject lands are within the "Settlement Area" designation as per the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and are designated "Towns and Villages" on Map 1 of the York Region OfRclal Plan- 2010 (YROP-2010). The lands are generally undeveloped oc"greenfieid" and are outside the existing built-up area. Map 2 shows a portion of the subject lands within the Regional Greenlands System. Watercourses, Provlncially Significant Wetlands and wetlands are located the subject site (Map 4), along with woodlands (Map 5) and valley lands. Habitat for several Species at Risk, including Redslde Dace, an endangered species, has also been identified on the subject lands. The site is within Wellhead Protection Area D (WHPA-D) (Map 6), an Area of High Aquifer Vulnerability (Map 7), a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (Map 13), a Highly Vulnerable Aquifer (Map 14), and within Recharge Management Area (WHPA-Q) based on current mapping. 15^ Slderoad, Keele Streetand Dufferin Street are Regional Roads with planned street widths ofup to 36 metres (Map 12). York Region has reviewed the FADAS and provides the following comments: Regional Planning; 1. Recently approved OPA89 permits a density of 7 units per hectare (uph) on.the subject lands. While OPA89 allows a small increase in density up to 15% ofthe units to be semi- detatched or townhouses to meet the equivalent population of 7 uph. Page viii. of the Planning Opinion Report indicates that approximately 3,060 persons and 1,020 residential units are proposed resulting in a density of 7.2 uph on the King City East North Lands. The density proposed appears to be in keeping with the persons equivalent; however, should the proposed concept exceed the density requirements of OPA89, an Official Plan Amendment may be required. 2. OPA89 also permits the reduction ofthe 30m buffer in 5 areas on the plan of up to 20% (or 6m) of the 30m, if supported by an environmental study. Based on the concept provided, reductions are proposed in 2 of the 5 areas identified. A Natural Heritage Evaluation (NHE), Natural Heritage Assessment, and Significant Woodland Assessment was submitted in support of the FSDAS, along with studies prepared by North-South Environmental addressing the site alteration, compensation strategy and ecological function associated with the previous removal a 0.2 hectare area of a PSW located on the Kingsfield property. YorkRegion relies on the TRCA to review and provide comment Planning Department Report Page 29 of 103 Number P-2018-20 FunctionalServicing/Development Area Study King CityEast- North Lands{FSDAS^2017-01) on natural heritage matters related to the Regional Greenlands System and associated applicable provincial plans. We understand that TRCA is still in the process on conducting their review of this submission. We defer to the TRCA and their reviewof the studies addressing Natural Heritage, the determination of the appropriateness of the VPZ intrusions, and the proposed compensation/ wetland restoration. York Region requests that a copy of TRCA comments be provided for our review and further comment. 3. With respect to water and sanitary servicing for the KCR North lands, page 44 of the Planning Opinion Report states that, "York Region had confirmed that there is sufRcient water and sanitary allocation to support the proposed densities". As reflected in comment #4 below, servicing allocation is assigned by the local municipality. Please refer to the Infrastructure Asset Management Section for full detailed comments. 4. Please confirm and provide the density target calculationfor this development area (I.e. • of persons & Jobs per hectare). A number of density calculations are shown in the Planning Opinions Report but it is unclear where this calculation is documented. Infrastructure Asset Management (lAM) lAM has reviewed the King City East North Lands Development Area Plan in conjunction with the FSDAS dated November 10,2017 and provide the following comments: Servicing Allocation 5. All residential development requires servicingcapacity allocation from the Township of King prior to the final approval of the developments proposed within the Development Plan area. Ifthe Township of King does not grant allocation from the existing capacity assignments to date, the build out of the Development Plan area may require additional Regional infrastructure based on conditions of future capacity assignment,which may include: • Duifin Creek WPCP Outfall Modification- 2021 pending the outcome of the Class EA currently underway • Other projects as may be identified in future studies. The timing of the above infrastructure is the current estimate and may change as each infrastructure project progresses and is provided for information purposes only. Potential Impact on Regional Water and Wastewater Systems 6. King City is connected to York Region's York Water System with Lake Ontario based supply from Peel and Toronto. There is adequate capacity In the system to service the Planning Department Report Page 30 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Functional Servicing/Development AreaStudy King City East - North Lands (FSDAS-2017-01) 4 planned growth, including the proposed development subject to the availability of local municipal infrastructure. 7. King Glty ispartofthe Regional Yorfe Durham Sanitary System (YpSS)i York Region's King pty Sanitary Pumping Statiott (SPSj located near Keeie St and King Road was originally designed to service the Community Plan residential population of 12,000 persons and associated employment The additional iiicrease in population from theongoing CPAs in King City, Including the subject development, will have a potential Impact on the capacity of the King City Pump Station and associated linear Infrastructure. Although minor impacts may be manageable through the ongoing water conservation programs and Infiltration and inflow Reduction Strategy,significant Increase in population beyond 12,000 persons mayrequirean upgrade ofthe King City Sewage Pumping Station. S, ATransportation/Traffic Road Pattern Study was prepared in July 2016 to support the related OPA application (OPA 89) for this development area. York Region has reviewed and determined that this Study must be updated to be consistent with the York Region Transportation Mobility Plan Guidelines for Development Applications (November 2016). 9. Thestudyshall also include a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management plan to support active transportation and transit, and to minimize the number of single- occupant-vehicle trips to/from the proposed development. 10. Comments were provided on the Transportation/Traffic Road Pattern Study at the OPA stage in our letter dated July 6> 2016. These comments must be addressed in the updated study. Upon receipt of the updated Transportation Mobility Plan, we will continue our review and provide further comment. Additional preliminary comments have also been provided to assist with subsequent development applications (i.e. future draft plans of subdivision) In the attached memorandum. Development Engineering 11. Section 5.2 should Identify the opportunities for urbanization along King Road and Dufferin Street. 12. Page 18of Section 5.3.2 discusses sub trunk watermains on 15^ SIderoad and Dufferin Street. However, figures for the proposed servicing plan 5.10, 5.11, 5.12 and 5.14 did not include these proposals of boundary watermain on 15^*^ SIderoad and Dufferin Street. Planning Department Report Page 31 of 103 Number P-2018-20 FunctionalServicing/Development Area Study King CityEast- North Lands(FSDAS-2017-01) 5 13. Page 19 of Section 5.3.4 discussesadequate capacityin the water distributionsystem to supply water to non-participating lands;^ however the report did not elaborate on how thewaterconnection to non-participating lands will be achieved. 14* Page 8$ of Section 9il the construction phasingplan only addresses the schedule of spineservices. However^ the plan should also include the infrastructure required to adequately service ail phases of the development including Street C, Street E, Is"* SIderoad and Dufferin Street road works. The phasing plan should also address the impactof non-participating landowners on the overall servicing of the FSDAS area, and what Interimservicing measures will be required. 15. The Transportation / Traffic / Road Pattern Study (July 2016) recommends that the collector road Intersection with Dufferin Street be controlled by a traffic signal. However# the detailed signal warrant and need justification will need to be brought forth during the preparation ofthe detailed Traffic Study for the King City East lands. Regional Council has recently approved the signalizatlon of the Country Day School access. It Is recommended that an Interconnection from the King City East lands to the south lands (non-participating) be protected such that ifa signal Is notwarranted at the proposed collector road and Dufferin Street intersection the development traffic from the King City East lands will have access to a signalized intersection. Additionally, should the Non-Participating Landowners opposite to the Country Day School become part of the King City East Landowners Group, opportunities should be explored to align an access with the existingCountryDay School access on the east side of Dufferin Street. 16.15^ SIderoad between Keele Street and Dufferin Street is a year round load restricted. Evaluation ofthe pavement condition of 15*" SIderoad is required by the Landowners' groupand anytemporaryimprovements, ifnecessary, provided. 17. The SWM section 5.5 ofthe report does notdiscuss thecondition oftheexisting culverts that convey drainage under the Regional road or their capacities. The report needs to include a condition survey and capacity of each cross culverts. Depending on timing of build out, the Landowners' group may be required to replace the culverts that are In poor condition. 18.Any proposed tree removal In the Region's right-of-way is subject to the York Region Tree Removal Policy. No tree removal ispermitted without Regional approval. 19.Based on Figure 27: Noise Barrier Locations of the Planning Opinion Report, 1.8m high barriers are proposed along the 15^ SIderoad, save and except for the identified environmental areas, and a 2.2m high barrier is proposed alongthe entire frontage of Dufferin Street to facilitate the reverse frontage lots proposed. Policy 9.2.4.2 v) of the King City Community Plan generally prohibits reverse lotting on allstreets. York Region supports this policy given the extent of Noise Barrier proposed along both Regional Planning Department Report Page 32 of 103 Number P-2018-20 FunctionalSen/lcihg/ Development Area Study King City East- North Lands (FSDAS-2017-01) 6 Roads. As such, York Region requests KCE to re-examine alternative lot layouts and/ or otheropportunities in an effort to reduce the amount of noise barriers necessary. This approach Is consistent with Section a ofthe York Region Traffic Noise Mitigation Policy for Reglonall^ads (lyiarcli 23; 20l6)ywhich states thatnoise barriers a^ oni^ to be used t ^ as^ a last^fesbrfwhere nor other noise mrtigatibrt measure arefeasible;r Alternative ^^methods ofreducing the noise ImRact shall be consideretf, prior td considering noise barriers (le. alternate alignments, landscape berms etG.T 20. The Noise and Vibration Impact Feasibility Study prepared by J. E. Coulter Associates Limited dated November 10, 2017 has referred to the Newmarket subdivision throughout the document, this should be King Cjty. Please revise the document accordingly^ Water Resources 21. As the property Iswithina Wellhead ProtectionAreaand withinthe OakRidges Moraine Conservation Plan Boundary; under the YROP-2010 please note that there is a prohibition on the following activities, listed below, on the site associated with the storage, manufacture or use ofr • Petroleum-based fuels and or solvents; • Pesticides, herbicides, fungicides or fertilizers; • construction equipment; * Inorganic chemicals; • Road salt and contaminants as identified by the Province; * The generation and storage of hazardous waste or liquidindustrialwaste, and waste disposal sites and facilities; * Organicsoil conditioningsites and the storage and applicationof agricultural and non-agricultural source organic materials; and, * Snow storage and disposal facilities. 22. The property is partially located within a Significant Groundwater Recharge Area (SGRA) and entirely within the WHPA-Q, Assuch the CTG Source Protection Plan water quantity recharge maintenance policy will apply. The proponent will be required to maintain recharge as demonstrated through a hydrogeological study that shows the existing (I.e. pre proposed development) water balance can be maintained in the future (i.e. post proposed development). The CTG Source Protection Plan Water Balance Requirements document and TRSPA Water Balance Tool (httDs://trca.ca/conservation/drinking-water- source-protectlon/trspa-water-balance-tool/i should be consulted. The contact person for the scopingand reviewof the water balancefor Source Protection PlanconformityIs Don Ford at Toronto Region Conservation Authority. 23. The owner is to be advised that Low Impact Development (LID) measures are encouraged to be applied to the site. As per YROP-2010 policy 2.3.37, developments Planning Department Report Page 33 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Functional Servicing/ Development AreaStudy King CityEast- North Unds (FSDAS-2017-01) 7 should maximize infiltration through integrated treatment approach techniques to minimize stormwater volume and contaminant loads. This should include, but not be limited to> techniques such as rainvvater harvesting) phosphorus reduction, constructed wetlands, bioretention swales, green ropfs, permeable surfaces, clean water collection systems; and the preservation and enhancement of nativevegetation cover The use of the fpliowing , resource Is encouraged: Low impact Development Stormwater Management Planning and Design Guide and is available using the following link: httD://www.creditvallevcaxa/low-lmpact-deveioDment/low-impact-develoDment- support/stormwater-management-lld-guidance-documents/low-impact-deveiopment- stormwater>management-planning-and-design-Bulde/. 24.The site is on the Oak Ridges Moraine (CRM), and the prohibition policy takes precedence, the Highly Vulnerable Aquiferpolicy requiring a Contaminant Management Plan shouldthere be bulkfuel or chemicals on site will not be triggered. 25. Should significant dewatering be required, a Dewatering Plan shall be prepared by a qualified person and submitted by the proponent to York Region for approval prior to excavation. Summary Upon receiving the requested information outlined in this letter, we will continue our review and provide further comment on this application. York Region staff is available to provide assistance throughout this application process should it be required. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact myselfor Sara Brockman, Senior Planner, at 1-877-464-9675, ext. 75750 or at [email protected]. Sincerely, Karen Whitney, MOP, RPP Director, Community Planning and DevelopmentServices /sb c. Ms. Coreena Smith, TRCA - by e-mail only Attachments (2) 1. York Region Comment Letter, July 6,2016 2. York Region Memorandum, Preliminary Comments for Subsequent Development Applications YORK-#8173377 Planning Department Report Page 34 of 103 Number P-2018-20 CorporateServices , : FUeNOi:OP-2015-0i , . , r ReferToUason Ezet July 2016 Mr.Stephen Kitchen Director of Planning Township of King 2075; King Road^ KingCity, ON L7B1A1 Attention: Gaspare Ritacca.Manager.Planning& Development Re: UPDATED Preliminary Regional Planning Comments King City East- Phase 2 (North); Part ofLots 7-10, Concession 3 S/W Quadrant ofDufferln Streetand IS'^ Sideroad (King City EastLandowners Group) Township File No. OP-2015.02 In response to updated transportation analysis provided by the applicant's consultant, we have revised our Transportation Planning comments that were previously included in our letter dated June 22, 2016. As recommended in the updated '*KCE Transportation Assessment andJustificationReport by Poulosand ChungLimited, datedJuly^ 2016,the densities beingproposed at 7 units per hectare can be satisfactorily acconunodated by the available and feasible roadway network. As such, the cap of450 dwelling units that were subject to a Holding Provision"H" and tied to a new east/westcollector road, and King Road/KeeleStreet intersectionimprovements,will no longer be necessary^ Transportation and engineering staff has no objection to the proposed OPA application. Updateddetailed comments have been provided in a memo dated July 5,2016 (attached), which also provide preliminary comments for subsequent development applications for this site. Please note that. In addition to the revised comments above, all other comments provided in our letter datedJune 22,2016 remain unchanged. Please contact Jason Ezer, Senior Planner, at 905-830-4444 ext. 71533 or by email at [email protected]. should you have any questions. Sincerely, TheRegional Municipality of York, 17250YongeStreet. Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z1 Tel:905-830-4444,1-877-464-YORK (1-877-464-9675) Internet: www.york.ca Planning Department Report Page 35 of 103 Number P-2018-20 UPDATED; RegionalPrenmtneryContments TcwneNpofKtng OP-201S^2 Karen.Whitney^ MGEpi R?F m Altachmenls (2) 1. UPDATED Memorandum. Trans^rtalion Planning, dated July5,2016 Copy to; DonGiven,MCIP^ RPP,MaloneGivenParsons- by e-mailonly Joan Maclntyre, MCIP,RPP,MaloneGiVen Parsons- by e-mail only YOHK-«0ia»l9^i.Uin)Al1iO_Ek^(wtllOawwaajUtH20i^ Planning Department Report Page 36 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Transportation Services ''VjjnpW' JR5|PfPWlHtA Infrastructure Management andProject Management#90&-89B«0191Office MEMORANDUM '•ft- FROM:? < . iSKahid Matlobl)^^^ DATE: July5i201d RE; Proposed Official Plan Amendment Application ~ OP-2015-02 King City East Landowners Group King City Bast-Phase.2 (North)! PartofLots:7rl0, Concession 3: $outhwest quadrantofpttf&rin Street and15thSideroad — TownshipofKing.-^ As requested. Regional staffhasreviewed theproposed CPA application along with theupdated supporting Transportalion/Traffic/Road Patterning Study (TPS) report dated July2016 prepared by Poulos & Chung. Theproposed CPAapplication is for the King City East (KCE) Lands -Phase2 development. Theproposed OPA application is to increase thedensity from 3.0dwellings units to 7 dwelling unitsperhectare resulting in an increase from 4S0approved dwelling unitsto 989 dwelling units in the area. The KCE lands are bounded by 1S''* Sideroad onthe North, Duflerin Street onthe East, existing development andKeele Street onthc vvest and existing development andKing Road on thesouUi side. The following updated consolidated comments areprovided incoordination with stafffrom Transportation Planning, Traffic Signal Operations, Development Engineering and YRT/Viva. A. OPA Comments York Region staff hasnoobjection to theapproval of the OtTicial PlanAmendment application. B. Preliminary Comments for Subsequent Development Applications for this site 1. Providea basic36 metreright^-ot-way for this sectionof Dufferin Street. As such, all municipal setbacks shall be referenced from a point 18.0 metre from the centerline ofconstruction of DufferinStreetand any additional lands required for turn lanesat the intersections will also be conveyed to York Region forpublic highway purposes, free ofallcosts and encumbrances, to the satisfaction ofthe York Region Solicitor. 2. Provide a basic 36 metre right-ol-way for this section of 15"^ Sideroad. As such, all municipal setbacks shall be referenced from a point 18.0 metre from the centerline ofconstruction of15'" Sideroad andany additional lands required for turn lanes at the intersections will alsobe eOocs# 6725239-V2 Planning Department Report Page 37 of 103 Number P-2018-20 conveyedto York Regionfor public highwaypurposes,Iree ofall costs and encumbrances, to the satisfaction ofthe York Region Solicitor. 3. Access should heprovided via localroadswherepossible. If accesses arc proposed onto RegionalRoads,Ushall the Region's AccessGuidelinesand appropriateanalysismust be providedfor reviewat the site-planstages for the developmentapplications in the KCE lands. 4. Direct sliced pedestriin and cycling connections shall be:provided to the boundary roadways and adjacent developments to supportpublictransit andactivetransportation. A pedestrian and cyciing connection, shall be provided connecting Tawes Trail with the proposed development. $. Address all comments detailed in Section C on the supporting updated Transportation/TrafFic/Road Patterning Study(TPS)report,datedJuly 2016,prepared by Poulos &.Chung. 6. Comprehensivetransportationdemand management implementationplans shall be providedby the individual development applications at the site plan stages tosupport active transportation and transit,andalso to reduce the number ofauto trips to/from the proposed developments. However, thedetailed Transportation/Traffic/Road Patterning Study prepared in support of the KCE Landsshallalso includea comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The TDM Plan shall include: i. Strategies and incentives tliat could be implemented given it will be a car-depcndcnt neighborhood; ii. Tangible transit route suggestions; iii. Pedestrian and cycling facilitiesto encourage walking and cycling; iv. Provide carefully planned, safe, illuminated and convenient pedestrian walkways and sidewalks linking the building to bus stops and transit stations/ terminals; V. Where appropriate, adequate signage for pedestrians, including directions to nearest transit stops and terminals; and vi. High quality pedestrian amenities such as benches and garbage receptacles, where appropriate. vii. A TDM communication strategy, to assist the Region and the Township of King to effectively deliver the Information Packages and pre-loaded PRESTO Cards to residents. This strategy shall also include a physical location for distribution of the Information Packages and pre-loaded PRESTO Cards. C. Comments on the Transportation/Traffic/Road Patterning Study Transnortation Planning No comments Traffic Signal Onerations 1) Section 12 of the TPS report concludes that with the proposed developmentdensity increases on the subject lands, all the intersections are able to provide very good operating conditions with very acceptable levels ofservice and minimal vehicle delay in the future. However, our review indicates that this conclusion is not consistent with the analysis results illustrated in Figure 21. Particularlythe Keele Streetand King Road intersectionoperatingat LOS 'F' and v/c ratio being significantlyover 1.0.As such, clarification is required as to how the acceptable level of Page 2 of 5 Planning Department Report Page 38 of 103 Number P-2018-20 service will beachieved aitd what infrastructure improvements arerequired toachieve the acceptable level of service. 2) The study appliea ahorizon year of2031. However, itis not clear when the proposed develqpmentiS to he fblly buUt-out by 2031. The Study should include tte 3)i There are sonii diserepMcies and erro a) Lape conilguratiQhs shdwtt irt Figure fr atthe King Road and Keele Slr^tintersection and if theincorrect lane confignration is used intheSynchro analysb^ b) Posted speed limits inFigure 6 including King Road, justeast ofKeele Street and Keele Street north of 15*''Sideroad; These errors and discrepancies shouid be checked and the report be revised accordingly. DevcloDment Engineering No Gomments YRTATiva Tkln ninM A cWrkiilH Kri if\ "ntit rwirtActrianc ortri trnnctt I V/A&IW1C4» » IfUt rklllVX4Ul>lWl*l i 044WM.M w.. r .....w first". We have reviewed the Plan referenced above and have the ibllowing transit conditions/comments: Existing & Future Transit Routes Theexisting and future transit roadways within thestudy area arelisted below. The following indicate roadway(s) withexisting YRTTViva services: • Sideroad 15 (limited service) Future transit services will beimplemented ina phased approach based ondevelopment, providing transportation opportunities inthis area. Implementation oftransit should be atanearly stage inthe development inorderto encourage a highmodal split. Transit Routing Standards Transit routes arc located so that 90% ofall residences,employment, secondaryand elementary schools, shopping centres and public facilities inan urban area are within a walking distance ofno more than500 metres of a busstopduring daytime service (from Monday to Saturday) and 1000 metres ofa bus stop for Sunday and holiday service. Inlower density or rural areas, walking distances may be greater than 500 metres. Roadway Considerations Thefollowing conditions arerequired forthestudy area: 1. Road Network - The streetnetwork shall form a gridnetwork andhave appropriate lighting and sidewalks/connections. Collector roads shall be continuous in order to permit the linking of several adjacent developments with direct transit routes. Strcctscaping shall be designed to encourage walking, cyclingand transit use. 2. Roadways - Roads shall be designed toaccommodate transit vehicles to the satisfaction ofthe area municipality and YRT/Viva. Transit-supportive roadways shall be designed with a 3 of5 Planning Department Report Page 39 of 103 Number P-2018-20 minimum pavement width ot 3.S metres anda minimum curbradius of 15metres. These standardsare according to the Canadian Transit Handbookand the Ontario UrbanTransit Association 3^. Sid^walk^ f' Siddvi^alks are reqdired on both sides ofrpadxvays withtransit servicesunlessonly onesideof thestreet lieswithin thelimita of thesubject tands^ Thesidewalks shall meet the Ipcai'municipahi^^a standards; Sidewalk-plans ^alf consider the pedestrian connections tO' transitshipsi Concrete pedestrtaaaccess^ shall be. seamless andat-grade(he.no 4. Illumination^ Illumination to be installedin accordance with the localmunicipality's design standardsalong ail street[s] which have or will have transitservices. Providecontinuous lightingat pedestrian scale alongsidewalk^ bus stop locations and at pedestrian cross-walks (i.e. not exclusively iUuminating the street). 5. dn-Street Parking;- Oh-street parking along roadways with transit shall not interfere with bus stop locationsand turning movements Ofbuses. 6. TrafficCalming- YRT/Viva supportsmunicipal introduction of well-planned trafficcalming measuresinto the municipal landscape. It is^ however,necessary to continueto providebus services while maintaining a safe and comfortableenvironment for the general public, transit customers and bus operators. YRTA/'iva needs to ensure that buses can negotiate traffic calming schemes in a satisfactory manner without damaging the buses. 7. YRT/Vivaopposes the installation ofvertical traffic calming devices on roadswith transit services. YRT/Viva accepts the installation ofhorizontal obstacles where their design takes into account bus type used on that route, includingtheir length,width,and Uirning radius. Development 1. Transit Oriented Development - Transit oriented development (TOD) is an approach to planning and design that recognizes the relationship between how we grow and our ability to provide efficientand effectivetransit services. The goal ofTOD is to shape developmentin a way that responds to the needs oftransit users and the transit service itself. 2. To be a transit supportive development, it requires a mix ofland uses including higher density housing, business and commercial development. Mixed use and higher densities are encouraged along key arterial/collector roads where public transit will operate. 3. If there will be rear elevation lots along roads with transit then there needs to be walkway connections to these roads in order to reduce walking distance to transit. There need to be breaks in the fencing to allow pedestrian movement between the residential areas and streets that have transit services. Transit Facilities Considerations The following transit facilities considerations are required: 1. Bus Stops and Passenger Standing Area - Bus stops are placedat most intersections, trip generators and transferpoints with spacingof approximately 250 metres on roadways where transit will operate. Page 4 of 5 Planning Department Report Page 40 of 103 Number P-2018-20 2. Bus stops and the area leading to the stop should consist with Ontario Disability Act standards inorderto provide universal access< 3. Sightlines totraffic lights should be free ofinterference from posts and columns related tobus stop facilities* 4. P^^g|r^t^dihg. ^Ca^sheitcr pads identified shall be ihstalled to the satisfactibh; of the local ' municipalitj^ and Regipit Tf^stt Region confijnns ih|if all passenger standing aiea^sheltter pads shall he owned and mairitaiiied by the Re^ the local municipality shall haveno responsibility. 5. The passenger standing areas/shelter pads (as per YRT/Viva Accessibility Standards) shall be provided concurrently with construction ofnecessary sidewalks and need to be incorporated into theurban streetscapci public sidewalks and walkway connections to buildings. 6i The locations ofthe passengerstanding areas and shelter pads will bedetermined during the plan ofsubdtvision phasCi Ifyou have any further questions orconcerns inregards to YRT/Viva please contact Erica Springate at 905-762-1282, x75628. Ifyou have any ftirthcr questions orconcerns in regards toTransportation Planning orTraffic Signal Operations conunents, please contactmeat 1-877-464-9675 ext. 75080. Page 5 of5 Planning Department Report Page 41 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Functional Servicing/ Development Area Study King CityEast- North Lands (FSDAS-2017-01) \ • "V- MEMORANDUM- PREUMINARY COMMENTS FORSUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT APPUCATIONS RE: FunctionalServicing/Development Area Study (FSDAS) (1^Submission) King City East^ Nortb Lands' TheKingCity EastLandowners' Group Township of King Regional Staff have reviewed the above noted FSDAS application, as weil as the supporting documents offer the following preliminary comments for subsequent development applications. These comments are not an approval and are subject to modification. It is intended to provide information to the applicant regarding the Regional requirements that have been identified to date. More detailed comments will be provided through the Draft Plan of Subdivision application and/or at the subsequent SitePlan application. Transportation Planning 1. Provide a basic 36 metre right-of-way forthese sectionsof Dufferin Street and 15^** Sideroad. AH municipal setbacks shall be referenced from a point 18.0metre from the centeriine of construction of Dufferin Street and any additional lands required for turn lanes at the intersectionswill alsobe conveyed to York Region for public highway purposes, free of allcosts and encumbrances, to the satisfactionof the York Region Solicitor. 2. Based on the Regional Official Plan Policy 7.2.53, access to Regional roads should be minimized and access should be provided via localroads. Ifaccesses are proposed onto Regional Roads,it shall meet the Region'sAccessGuidelines and appropriate operational and safety analysis must be provided for review. 3. Direct shared pedestrian and cycling connections shall be provided to the boundary roadways and adjacent developments to support public transit and active transportation. A pedestrian and cyclingconnection shall be provided connecting Tawes Trail with the proposed development Planning Department Report Page 42 of 103 Number P-2018-20 FunctionalSeivlcing/ Development Area Study King CityEast- North Lands(FSDAS-2017-01) 4. Address all comments provided in the Comments section on the supporting updated Transportation/Traffic/Road PatterningStudy (TPS) report, dated July2016, prepared by Poulos & Chung. 5. An updated and comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Implementation plans shall be provided at the subdivision/site plan stage to support active transportation and transit, and also to reduce the number of single-occupant- vehicle trips to/from the proposed developments. The TDM Plan shall include but not limited to: * Strategies and incentivesthat could be implemented given it will be a car- dependent neighborhood; * Tangible transit route suggestions; * Pedestrian and cycling facilities to encourage walking and cyding; * Provide carefully planned, safe, illuminated and convenient pedestrian walkwaysand sidewalks linking the buildingto bus stops and transit stations/ terminals; * Where appropriate, adequate signage for pedestrians, including directions to nearest transit stops and terminals; * High quality pedestrian amenities such as benches and garbage receptacles, where appropriate; and, * A TDM communication strategy, to assist the Region and the Township of King to effectively deliver the Information Packages and pre-loaded PRESTO Cards to residents. Thisstrategy shall also include a physical location for distribution ofthe Information Packages and pre-loaded PRESTO Cards. Planning Department Report Page 43 of 103 Number P-2018-20 ^Toronto and Region ^ Conservation /orThelivingCiiy March 16,2018 CFN 59006 BY E-MAIL (gritacca@kingxa) Planning and Development Department TownshipofKing 2075 King Road King City, ON L7B 1A1 Attn: Gaspare Ritacca Manager of Planning and Development Planning Department Re: Functional Servicing/ Development Area Study Update King City East North Lands, Township ofKing This letter acknowledges receipt of the above-noted study, received by the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) on December 1,2017 in support of new development on lands within the Northeast quadrant ofKing City. TRCA staff has worked closely with the City and the Landowners Group to provide guidance and input in the development ofthe Functional Servicing/ Development Area Study (FS/DAS). We appreciate the time and efforts the City and the Landowners Group have undertaken. Asperthe Terms ofReference, "the Functional Servicing/Development Area Study (FS/DAS) istoprovide a basisfor the successful integration of the development of the new community areas with the surrounding existing community and natural/environmental systems andset outfacility and infrastructure, servicing, drainage, design, open space, heritage and transportation requirements, aswell as implementation, phasing and monitoring requirements. This information willform the basis ofevaluation ofdevelopmentproposals andplans ofsubdivision." Background TRCA staff understands the FS/DAS is a comprehensive set of studies supporting and informing the establishment of developable areas of the lands owned by eight properties, with a combined area of 205 ha located south of 15'*' Sideroad and north ofthe railway line, between Keele and Dufferin Streets. The subject lands are within the headwaters of the East Humber River Watershed. The watershed has bwn impacted by urbanization resulting in adegradation ofsurface water quality and loss offorest cover. The subject lands make up part of the headwaters containing high quality significant valley lands which provides ecological/terrestrial habitat and connectivity throu^out King and down to the North shore ofLake Ontario. There areseveral natural features andhazards onand adjacent tothesubject lands (intheir entirety), including but not limited to: TRCA RegulatedFeatures a) East Humber River, Eaton Hall Creek and Monastery Creek Valley Systems (Top of Slope and Long Term Stable Slope Line) b) Headwater Drainage Features APPENDIX 2 Planning Department Report Page 44 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Ritacca 2 March 16.2018 c) Engineered and Estimated Regional Storm Floodplain d) ProvinciallySignificantWetlands,Eaton Hall-Mary-Hackett Lakes Wetland Complex and other wetlands NaturalFeatures e) ORMCP - Key Natural Heritage Features (KNHF) f) ORMCP - Key Hydrologic Features (KHF) Applicable Provincial Policies and Regulations The proposed development is subject to: the Provincial Policy Statement 2014 (PPS), the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan 2017 (ORMCP), King City Community Plan 2000 (Official Han Amendment 54) and subsequent Official Plan Amendment 89. The subject lands are also located within tiie Credit Valley - Toronto & Region - Central Lake Ontario Source Water Protection Plan's (CTC - SPP) vulnerable area referred to as the Wellhead Protection Area Q2 (WHPA- Q2) as well as within a Ifighly VulnerableAqiiiferarea. This area was delineatedto help manage activities that may reduce recharge toan aqi^er (Prescribed Threat No. 20 under the Clean Water Act^ 2006). TRCA staff understand, as per the Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry, that the subject lands contain species at risk and/of thdrhabitat and is subject to the EndangeredSpeciesAct (2007). Portions of the subjectproperty fall widiina Regulated Area of the East Humber RiverWatershed. In accordance with the Ontario Regulation 166/06, development, interference or alteration may be permitted where it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction ofthe TRCA that die control of flooding, erosion, dynamic beaches, pollution, or the conservation ofland will not be affected. In addition, theLiving CityPolicies for Planning andDevelopment in theWatersheds of the Toronto andRegion Conservation Authority (LCP) describes a "Natural System" made up of water resources, natural features and areas, natural hazards, potential natural cover and/or buffers. The LCP and the King City Community Plan recommend that development, infirastructure and site alteration not be pennittedwithin the Natural System and that they be conveyed into public ownership for its long-term protection and enhancement. The LCP also provides policies for developing adjacent to, and in, the Natural System (where permitted), while minimizing impacts to,maintaining, and enhancing thefunctions oftheprotected Natural System. These policies also seek to integrate the natural andbuilt environments, maximizing opportunities for ecosystem services firom across the entire landscape. It is these policies thatguide TRCA's review of the subject application, along with those found in other Provincial and municipalplans,documents and guidelines, some of whichare noted above. Overarching Comments TRCA staff thank the KCE Landowners Group and their consultants for the submission of a high quality FS/DAS. As notedabovethe information provided in the FS/DAS will formthe basis of evaluation and guidance of development proposals and plans of subdivision. The compiled documents making up the FS/DAS are extensive and comprehensive. Given the extent of work which has occurred, TRCA staff wish to ensure the finalized version contains the guiding requirements for the future subdivisions and development. TRCAs conunents whiledetailed are directed to specific sections in orderto ensure that the revisions are comprehensive and complete. The following summarizes TRCA's overarching comments on the FS/DAS: A. A significant number of our comments are directed at providing a rationale andjustification regarding proposed buffer encroachments and feature removals. AsperOPA 89theFunctional Servicing Study is to include a naturalheritageevaluation and/orhydrological evaluation whichdemonstrate that Planning Department Report Page 45 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Ritacca 3 March 16,2018 (1) all feasible options have been considered to avoid reductions in the minimum vegetation protection zones; (2)provide justification forthereductions; (3)outline measures to minimize impacts; and (4) outline compensation measures including robust restoration plantings and/or increased minimum vegetation protection zones in otherareas. B. Confirmation of feature staking occurred fora number of the subject properties onNovember 11,2017. Please provide updated surveys for each property and utilize the updated stakings and associated buffers in the proposedlimits ofdevelopment. C. Kingfields Estates: As previously indicated, Provincially Significant Wetland (PSW) has been impacted and removed. Following discussions with MNRF these wetlands were confirmed as PSW in 1998 and again in2003. As per section 2.1 ofthe Provincial Policy Statement, 2014 natural haitage features shall be protected for the long term. As such, the PSW*s are to be reinstated and a30m MVPZ applied. Please modify theproposed planandprovide anupdated restoration plan. D. TRCA staffhave concerns regarding thelevel of imperviousness applied to the proposed developments. Please refer to the detailed comments provided. TRCA staff will continue to work with the landowners group and anticipate upon addressing the detailed comments provided inAppendix A, TRCA staff will beinaposition tosupport the final FS/DAS. The landowners group is asked to provide TRCA with a letter detailing how each of our comments has been addressed. Four (3) copies ofthe letter and a revised/addendum ofthe FS/DAS are to be submitted to TRCA for ourreview and approvd. Adigital copy ofallmaterials is also requested. TRCA staff reserves any further comments at this time, until we have had an opportunity to review the requested information. Please note thatthis letter is based onTRCA's current policies andregulation, which nray change from timft to time. Any future development proposal would be subject tothe policies and regulation ineffect at the time ofapplication. Fees TRCA staff has received 50% ofthe required fees of$137,650from the landowners group onDecember 12,2017. Thefees arebasedonthe following as per the 2016fee schedule: Master Environmental Servicing Plan(MESP) >25ha $ 15,750 TRCA Project Management Free $ 25,000 Additional Charge of$475 perhectare for comprehensive MESP $ 96.900 Total: $137,650 Paid: $ 68,825 RemainingBalance: $ 68,825 Thebalance is duepriorto finalapproval of the FS/DAS. Planning Department Report Page 46 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Ritacca 4 March 16,2018 Staff are available tomeet and provide further clarity onthe comments provided if desired. Should you have any questions, please contact meatextension 5307 [email protected] Regards, Colleen Bonner, MES, RPP Senior Planner Planning and Development C.C.: JoanMachityre —Malone GivenParsons Ltd. KingCityEast Landowners Group Sarah Brockman - York Region. Planning Department Report Page 47 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr.Rltacca March 16.201B APDtndh A; Detorflcd Commiaiti Comments TROt Comments March 7,2018 Limits of Development a) AstaMngto confirm the features for the fbllowtngsites occurred on November 11,2017 I. Acom Developments II. Scoull Developments tIL KingRodcs Development hr. KingRelds Estates V. KingGreen Developments Pleaseprovideupdated Individual surveysand update allthe relevantdrawingsto reflectthe updated staklngsand associated buffen. Update the Natural Features and Developmentlimits Plan. ThiswillclearlyIndicateallthe staked features, dates of stakingand buffers. b) KingRocks Developments: On November 11,2017 a portion of the SignificantWoodlandswas staked as It had not occurred previously. To be consistent with the rest of the subject lands, the base of trunk on the south side of the Eaton Hall Creekvalleycorridor was staked within the vicinityof the old farmhouse. Please Incorporate the new staked lineand buffers Into the proposed limitsof development. TRCA staff recognizesthis location Isa pinchpoint for a road access to the proposed LifestyleCondominiumarea. Gradingin the buffer is to be minimizedto the greatest extent possible. c) Kingsfield Estates Ltd.: As noted In comment C above, please revised the proposed developable area to recognize the provlnclallysignificant wetland and the required30mMVPZ. d) Baracor Development Inc.:Lotsdo not appear to be Indicated on the triangle of land Inthe North East comer. Please advise what is planned for these lands. These lands would be ideal for restoration and compensation. e) Seoul!Developments tnc: Please providea rationale for the lot fabricwhichIsto contain the existinghome. It appean to contain a number of the natural features and hazards. Adam Is located within tfte watercourse on the lands of Remcor KingInc.resulting in an online pond. TRCA recommends the removal of the dam and any other barriers within the Natural Heritage System prior to assumption by the Township. Additionaldetails for the dam removal plan willbe required at detailed design. TRCA requests confirmation thatthe FS/DAS hasn't precluded development for the adjacent non-partlclpating land owners and that those lands have been considered In this comprehensivereview In areas such as, but not limited to, servicing, road connections, delineation of tlie natural system and restoration opportunities. Planning Opinion Report prepared by MGP Ltd. Policy OPA89 a) As perOPA89 the supporting studies are to reflect that: (1) all feasible options have been considered to avoid reductions in the minimum vegetatlon.protection zones; (2) provide justification for the reductions; (3)outlinemeasuresto minimize Impacts; and Planning Department Report Page 48 of 103 Number P-2018-20 March 16.2018 Mf.Rltacca Comments. TRCAComments March 7.2018 (4) outirno compensation measures Including robust restoratibn planUngs and/or Increased minimum vegetation protectlan zones In other areas. Upon re^ew of the current FS/DAS, the above requirements have not been clearly discussed ordemonstrated. Please revise accordingly. b) As per OPA 89, the extent of the minimum vegetation protection »nes recommended In the natural heritage evaluation and/or hydrologlcal shall not be permitted tobe reduced more than 20X less than would otherwise be required by this Plan. In addition, where any reduction ofthe minimum vegetation orotectlon tone Is oermltted, appropriate compensadpn, restoration, and/or rehabilitation ofequivalent or greater lands elsewhere shall bo required. Pleaserevise the FS/OAS to clearly Indicate this. Seedetailed comments onthe sections below. 5. Section 2.2.2 MVPZ a) Ensure that all MVPZ reductions and potendal encroachments have been minimized tothe extent possible, by using methods such as wallcKJUts, Increasing Reductions and slope angles for grading (2.5:1), minimizing lot depths, etc. Justiflcatton and rationale for all buffer reductions and encroachments Into the MVPZ Is required. Section 2.23 Including anysenrldng. Please provide ananalysts ofallservicing alternatives forreview. Encroachments Into the MVPZs 6. Section 3.2 Natural Include astatement that ageotechnlcal report will berequired for the typo oftrenchless construction chosen for service Installation, toconfirm construction Heritage Evaluation, mettiods, contingency plans, mitigation measures, etc. Impact Assessment Itb recommended that all sanrtclng avoid the NHS. Any proposed grading encroachmantt Into the MVPZ orremoval offeatures for servicing eonstnictlon will beevaluated by TRCA atdetailed design. However, sufficient detail must be provided now to confirm that the anticipated sonrtcing and grading encroachments are appropriately sited. Justified and feasible In principle without negatively Impacting thenatural system 7. Figure 22: Prellmlnaiy a) Features 1,7and 8are proposed tobe removed. Justification for the removal of the features is required, as ItIs not always apparent for all features. Compensation Plan Retention may be possible. For example. Feature 7could be Incorporated Into the proposed SWM scheme? Could portions of Feature 8be retained which are outsideofthe noisebarrier? HasFeature 1 beenevaluated bythe MNRF using the OWES Evaluation? b) Aportion of the proposed compensation areas appear tobe within the future road allowance of the widened Dufferin Street, 15 Stderoad and the noise barrier locations. This will notresult Inmeaningful compensation. Revise the plan using theROW required foreachroadwidening. Some of the compensation areas fall within the proposed NHS. Compensation should bo located outside offeatures and buffers. Compensation ofland area lost should beIncluded, l.o. amount oflost wetland, amount oflost woodland, etc. In addition, noise barriers have been proposed In the same location asa fewofthe compensation areas. This will notprovide meaningful compensation. 8. Section 33 Restoration TRCA recommends that all restoration areas Include native woody species, not just the High and Moderate restoration areas. Whips, bare root stock, potted Strategy stock and live stakes beused tominimize costs. In addition, the High restoration areas should also Include such habitat enhancements asbrush bundles, log tangles,snakehtbemacula, birdboxes,turtle nestingareas,etc. Planning Department Report Page 49 of 103 Number P-2018-20 MfiRitawg- Mareh16.2018 Cofflflients TRCAComments March 7,2018 9. Section 3.4wi Stormvnter a) Consider the use of treatment wetlandsrather than tradttlonai SWM ponds,for greater Integration with the adjacent naturalfeatures. The report Management Strategy Indicated that each SWM facility will extend into the 30 m MVPZ. Mlnlmluthis proposedencroachment as muchas possible, byIncreasing slope grades, shortening lots, etc. All encroachments Intothe MVPZ shouldbe minimized to the extent possible, should maintain TRCA's buffers to the featureand adequate Justification for the encroachmentshould be provided. b)OPA 89statesthat naturalized SWM ponds andLID'S maybe permitted inthe MVPZ ifthe Functional Servicing Study demonstrates that the policies and criteriaofSection4.2.2Iv)havebeen met.TheFS/OAS needsto dearlyIdentify the policies andcriteriaIna summarytable,and dlscuu howthey havebeen met c)OPA 89alsostatesthat UDs may be permitted Inthe MVPZ where theyaredeemed appropriate, as long astheydonotrequire extensive grading and/or structures, and that any IntrusionInto the MVPZ be minimizedto the extent possible.The FS/DAS Isto be updated to demonstrate minimizedIntrusion. d) Please provide an overview ofthe results of the featurebasedwaterbalance (FBWB) forailnatural features. Indicate howeachFBWB will be met,both during and after construction. Thisdiscussion could be added to the StormwaterManagement section, and the NHE. 10. Section 4.6.3 Official Plan This sectionIndicated that reductions to the required 30 m MVPZ has been addressedIndetailwithin the Beacon Environmental study,howeververylittle Amendment No. 89 (CPA detailwas provided. Thestudydoes not provide any rationale for the reduction, merely statingthat it is permitted in OPA 89. This Justification is not 89), Minimum adequate.Adetailedfigure onanair photowithELC Information, preliminary grading plans. Inventory ofvegetatkm/habltat removals, compensation details, Vegetation Protection etc. Thisinformation priorIsneeded to supportingthe proposedencroachmentsIntothe MVPZ. Zones Natural Herltaite Evaluation Drenared bv Beacon Envtronmental 11. Revise the text and Rgures to dearlyIndicate that both HOFl and KDF2 are classified as redslde dacecontributing habitat, as many of the discussions and Rgures do not dearly identify this fact 12. Confirm that the MNRF has approvedthe proposedremovalof both KDF land KDF2, as there isno infomiationInthis regard. 13. Revise the discussions on the Headwaterdrainagefeatures to providegreater emphasison the fact that they providecontributing redsldedace habitat it appears theyare classified as'Protection' using theKDF Assessment, given the SAR contributing habitatPlease update allrelevant discussion 14. Figure 3 Indicates that two wetlandcommunities (Aand 6) withbreedingamphibians have not beenevaluatedaccording to the OWES protocol. TRCA requiresthat thisbecompleted sothatthe statusofthesewetlands isknown. This will assist usIndetermining whether theycanberemoved torn the landscape ornot 15. ngure4 Updateto clearlyIllustratethat both KDFl and KDF2 are contributingredsldedace habitat 16. Section 5.2.1 Wetlandsshould Indude a reviewof each of the criteriafor wetlands (ORMCP TechPaper)and all supportingdata on howthe criteriaare either met or not met Currently, nosupporting Information hasbeen provided (i.e. 3 mofmineral soli with a hydraulic conductivity of10''cm/s or more). As a resultTRCA Planning Department Report Page 50 of 103 Number P-2018-20 ; -v;--; :• • March 16.2018 Mf.RHacca comments TRCA Comments Mardi7.2018 cannot determine wbetfierthe ORMCPcriteriafor wettands has been met or not 17. Section 5.2.6 Significant Sreater emphasis needs tobeplaced onclearly Identifying whether theORMCP criteria have been met or not astheconcluding statement Inthis section WildllfsHabttat- merelystated"noneare likely to meetcriteria^.'. Dotheymeetthe criteria? Provide supporting data. Amohlbtan Bnedlna Habltfit (Wiftlfiiuit— 18. Section 7.1 Vegetation a)Numerous encroachment locations have been referred to In thetext but have notbeen clearly Illustrated onanassociated Rgure. dearly Identify the Protection Zonei locations referred to Inthe discussion. This section should alsoInclude a discussion on whether the MVP?s needto be greaterthanthe minimum of 30m due tothelocation ofproposed trails and LID's within theMVPZ's. ItIsrecommended thatthebuffers beenlarged toaccommodate Infrastructure. As noted previously, ensure thatall MVPZ reductions and potential encroachments have been minimized tothe extent possible, by using methods such aswalk-outs. Increasing slope angles forgrading (2.5:1), minimizing lotdepths, etc. Justification and rationale forall buffer reductions and encroachments Into theMVPZ Isrequired, Including anyseralclng. Please provide ananalysis ofallservicing alternatives forreview b)Provide thedimensions oftheproposed encroachments, In addition tothearea, and whether any fill/grading Is associated with theencroachment c) Acom Lands: Itappears encroachment Into the buffers associated with the 'significant woodlands and top ofbank* Is proposed. Please clarify this section and provideadditionaldepthsofencroachment d) Trails are proposed within the MVPZ. They are tobe located as dose tothe rear lot tines and avoid crossings ofthe NHS were possible. Itshould be noted thatthetrails areconceptual and subject todetailed review. Basic principles tobeconsidered In thesiting ofthefuture trails atdetailed design aretobeprovided. 19. Section 7.2 Stormwater a)Clarification Is required why 'activities such asgrading and filling during construction ofthe SWM ponds aswell asencroachments Into the VPZ could result Management Plan Intheremoval ofsome ofthewetlands andwoodtots located within thenatural heritage system'. TRCA doesnotsupport encroachment Into thefeature. All efforts to minimize Intrusion Into the MVPZ Isrequired, andtheconstruction ofproposed SWM ponds should avoid allnatural features within the NHS, as per the ORMCP. b) The proposed locations ofall UD measures should be clearly Identified on the Rgures. In addition, the footprints oftl» UDs and SWM Ponds should be Included. c) Include a discussion regarding the use ofconstructed wetlands for SWM, rather than traditional ponds. This would enhance the Integration ofthe proposed development withthe NHS. d)Update FIgr'r" 7aand theassociated discussions tocicariy Indicate thata Feature Based Water Balance (FBWB) Istobecompleted forall natural hetluge Planning Department Report Page 51 of 103 Number P-2018-20 My- R'tacea March 16.2018 Comments TRCACommentf March 7,2018 features. Currently,It Isdifficultto tell whichfeatures are associated with a FBWB, due to the linetype used on the Rgure. Reviseaccordingly. e) Asection discussingthe proposed outlet locationsshould be Includedto provideguidanceInthe selection of the final locations. 20. Sections 73 Water supply Providedetails on the feasible options that have been considered for servicingalignments whichavoid the NHS. Justificationfor the proposed alignment Is Servicing and 7.4 required. Inaddition to mitigation measures to minimizepotential ecologicalImpacts. Wastewater and Sanitary Servicing 21. Section 7.5 trading There are a proposed total of 11 gradingencroachments into buffers. Thefollowing Informationfor each of the proposed gradingencroachments Isrequired: summary of options to reduce the encroachment. Justificationfor the encroachment, measures to minimize Impacts, dimensions of encroachments Including any fill,and proposed compensation measures. Providea detailed air photo dearly Illustratingwhere the encroachment Isto occur, and potential vegetation Impacts. 22. Table 6 Update Table 6 to Indude the grading proposed within tite AcornDevelopment lands. 23. Section 7.6 Road Crossing Calculate the losses of each habitat type, assodated with the proposed road crossing, as well as MVPZ losses, so that we may determine compensation requirements. 24. Section 8 Restoration, TRCA willevaluate all proposed restoration, compensation and enhancement opportunities In detail, once the required Information, Identified previously.Is Compensation and provided. Enhancement Opportunities 25. Section 9 Monitoring Adda discussion whichoutlines proposed wetland monitoring for Feature BasedWater Balance,to confirm targets are met contingency measures, etc. 26. Appendix 8 Provide the HDFAnalysis,as only a summary table was Included. Ensure that the analysis Includes the contributing redslde dace habitat for both KDFl and KDF2. 27. Appendix E Ensure the proposed compensation area InformationIncludes ELC data, tree removals, proposed gradlng/flltingInformationas wellas an air photo clearly Indicating the proposed encroachnwnt and corresponding compensation. KIngsfleldEstates: 201515thSIderoad, KingQty Natural Heritage Assessment prepared by North>South Envtronmental Ltd. 28. Section 6.1 Vegetation Indude native woody spedes plantings In all MVPZ areas, as perTRCA's Post-Construction Restoration Guidelines. The use of whips, potted, bare root stock Protection Zone (VPZ) and live stakes Is preferred. Planning Department Report Page 52 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Ma«h1B.201B Mr. RBawa- Commoits- TBCft CommentsMarch7.201» — —— 29;. Soctlon 7.0 Monitoring to The ESC monitoring during construction only Includes sediment controls, please also Include erosion controls, dewatering effluent, etc. Constniction Ensure Protection of' monitoring also needs toInclude natural areas with feature based water balance targets. This Is crucial both during and after construction. Provide an KNKFandHSF. overview onhow feature based water balance Is tobe maintained and monitored during and post-construction and Incorporate Into Table S.Please refer to TRCA's FBWB Guidelinesfor additional Information. 30. TRCA recommends that other types of habitat enhancements be Included, such as snake hlbemacula, brush piles, turtle nesting sites, etc. within the proposed restoration areas. In addition, native woody species plantings should be included in all proposed restoration zones, as previously outlined. 31. Section 2.3 Stormwater Refer to comment 19 above regarding stomnwater nnanagement Management Ponds 32. Section 4.1.2 Scheduling Confirm whether thebuffers/MVPTs and EPA's will beplanted/restored prior tothe disturbances ofthedevelopment, orIf this Is merely arecommendation. of Plantingand Restoration ProposBdWetland Compensatloi preparedbyNorth-South Envlrontnental 33. percomment CIn the opening letter, the removed PSW Is tobe restored and a30m MVPZ Is tobe applied. Please revise the proposed development limits and restoration plansaccordingly. FuniWoilal ServldnK/Development 34. a) All efforts should be made to more dosely emulate the pre-dovelopment wetland water balances, with the exceptions of Wetlands 4,5and 6,as these features are not greatly affected by the development. Afew of the wetlands do not have any mitigation proposed, but will require mitigation tomore closely balance pre-construetlon and post-construction conditions (Wetland 7, and 9). Cunendy, the study only considered directing roofs tothe features, and should Include other possible sources ofclean water aswell, tomore closely match pre-development conditions. The Natural Heritage Evaluation, Impact Assessment should Include discussions on the potential Impacts tothe features and functions ofthe wedands If the pre-development water balance Is not met Impacts of too much water, and ornot enough water need tobe reviewed In terms of seasonallty over both the short-term and long-term timeframes. b) The discussion should also review options far adjusting the quantity of water, post-development If monitoring Indicates changes to the form or function of the wedands. Hydro{[eologlcalInvestigations preparedbyWSP 35. a) The subject lands are located on the Oak Ridges Moraine, and therefore, should be considered tobe in the Oak Ridges Moraine Physiographic Region, not the SouthSlope. Updatethe reportaccordingly. b) There Is evidence that groundwater Is discharging to streams across the Study Area. TRCA requires low flow monitoring and/or temperature monitoring In thesummer of2018 toconfirm thelocations ofgroundwater discharge. This will berequired to confirm the siting oflow Impact development measures Planning Department Report Page 53 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mf.RHaeea JO. Match IB. 2018 Commenta TRCAComments March 7,2018 conceptually through the FS/DAS and In more detail at the subdivision stage. c) Pre^nd post-developmentwater balance have been calculated for the site and a suite of LowImpact Developmentmeasures have been recommended. These measures must be carried forward Into detailed design as this development proceeds. Functional Seivldng/DevelopmentArea Study prepared by Sabourln Ktmble and Associates Ltd. 36. storm Water a) TRCA has concerns vdth the level of Impervlousness used for the various types of development (e.g. Townhouse Impervlousness Is shown as 6SK). All Management calculations and modellingshould be completed using the maximum lot coverage accepted by the town to ensure a conservative development plan. Please revise all associated modelling and calculations. b) Further to the above comment, the level of Impervlousness to the SWM ponds seems very low for the type of development proposed. (E.g. pond 1 drainage area Is 43% and Pond 5 Is 39K). Please revise all calculations using the level of Impervlousness associated with the maximum lot coverage permitted by the Town. c) Please provide a pre-development drainage plan. The dralrtage areas used In the unit flow relationships are to reflect pre-development drainage to the outlet point and this cannot be confirmed until TRCA IsIn receipt of a pre-development drainage plan. d) Please provide a post-developmentdrainage plan Inorderto confirm the drainage areas used Inthe calculations and modellingfor the SWMponds. e) It Is noted tliat Pond 3 requires a 68 mm and Pond 5 a 55 mm orifice Inorderto meet tfre 120 hour detention time. Please provide confirmation from the Townshipthat these orificesizes are acceptable or revise the pond such that the required orificesizes are permissible by the Town. f) It was noted that an Initialabstraction of 2 mm for Impervious areas was used In some of the StandHydcommands. It IsTRCA's common practice to use 1 mm for Initialabstraction. Please revise the modelling or provide Justification for the Increased Initial abstraction value. g) Please provide confirmation that RegionalSWMcontrols do not need to be considered for this site. 37. Low Impact a) Please note that on Page 60 of the FS/DAS It notes that Infiltration galleries willcollect water from split drained lots twice. TRCA suspects this may have Development been Intended to say split drained and reardraining lots. Please Investigate this duplication and revise as necessary. b) On pages 91 and 93 of the FS/DAS It Is noted that additional topsoil depth willbe used on the site to promote on-slte Infiltration. Please specifythe depth assumed such that It can be Implemented at detailed design. Confirm that the depth specified Is consistentwith the depth assumed In the water balance. Planning Department Report Page 54 of 103 Number P-2018-20 'i-^;,:!'..-'., V.7t tftt • ItIf5* ' V- - ; ••'V' 7' Mafeh16.20ia Mf-RKacca Comments TRCACommentsM«rch7,201» « _ — c)Add catchment drainage areas tofigure 7.10 tofadlttate a more detailed review oftheLID calculations. d) In Appendix Lofthe FS/OAS itis unclear how the volume ofthe Infiltration galleries was calculated. Please clarify how deep the Infiltration galleries were assumedto be and ensurethisdepth Isconsistentwiththe detailprovided. 38. Water Balance a) TRCA appreciates the level of effort and detail that was put forth In developing the proposed mitigation plan for water balance/orMlte retention, shown on Rgure 7.10 In the FS/DAS. However, provide the on-stte retention targets used todetermine the UD requirements within the body ofthe FS/OAS report In order to beable to more easily Implement this plan atthedetailed design stage, especially Ifthesite layout changes. Similarly, Include therequirements for supplementing thewetland features within thebody oftheFS/OAS report forease ofImplementation atthedetailed design stage. h) TI« TOCPA uint*r hnianei! tool lhtfps.-//freo.co/cortservotfon/d!r/nWng-w 39. Feature Based Water a) As per comments 36a, band 38c above, revise the feature based water balance calculations when the roof areas have been confirmed tobe the maximum Balance allowedbythe Town. b) Add drainage areas toFigure 75for both the pre-development drainage areas and theproposed supplemental areas for ease ofcomparison with the calculations. c) Itwas noted that an Initial abstraction of 2mm for Impenrtous areas was used In the modelling. Itis TRCA's common practice touse 1mm for Initial abstraction. Revise the modelling or provide justification forthe increased Initial abstraction value. 40. FluvialGeomorphology a) The channel bed substrate Is described In the fluvial geomorphic report as "fine textured consisting of slh, fine sands, and day, typically soft and unconsolldated' onpage 11. The text further speculates thattheloose fines are likely a result ofsiltatlon. The median substrate diameter reported on page Planning Department Report Page 55 of 103 Number P-2018-20 i -}. •>. •::r 32. March 18.2018 ": '." ^ '.a Comments' TROVComments March7.2018-. 13- Table43 Is0.01cmwhich IsIndicative ofsands.Provide clarification ofthe existing channelsubstrateand clarify Ifthe medianand084 grainsize numbers noted InTable43onlyrepresent a specificcross-section. b)Itvras noted thattodetermine erosion threshold flow, thechannel substrate was considered tobefairly compact tocompact daybased onborehole Information. Provide Justlflcaton forthe useofthe borehole Information andexplain howthisrelates tothe channel substrate. c) Based onthephotos presented In Appendix Bofthe geomorphology report. ItIs noted that thechannel appears topredominantly consist offines. If these finesare notdueto slltatlon andare notcompactdays,TRCA recommends the useof bulksampling andsieveanalysis to determinethe grainsize distribution and the Indexsizesfor the erosion threshold assessment Insteadof a Wolman pebblecount d) Further tocomment 40c above, TRCA notes thattheuse of"fairly compact tocompact clay" In the determination oferosion thresholds suggests thatthe substrate governing eroslonal processes In thechannel Is that ofday. Please confirm this premise and provide aJustification for theuse ofday(as opposed to unconsolldated fines such as silts and sands) in.the determination of erosionthreshold. e)Please note ItIs undear astohow thereported value oferosion threshold flows, 0.S1 m3/s, was determined, dartfy If Itwas calculated ataparticular cross section orIfItIsanaverage offlows calculated atvarious cross sections. Provide anexplanation ofthecalculation and therange offlows calculated if applicable. Inaddition, provide a figure showing thelocation ofthecross sections. f) Please note ItIs undear If the reported maximum critical velocity was used todetermine the critical depth. If Itwas derived from the critical depth, orifIt Issimply reported asa characteristic of"fairly compact to compact clay". Provide clarlflcatlaa g) Page 13 ofthe fluvial geomorphic report states that the threshold value calculated should be considered tobe conservative asItdoes not account for added strength ofthevegetation root matrix. However, given thatthechannel Is not vegetated, TRCA does notagree with this statement asthe bed substrates donot appear tobestabilized by vegeUtlon. Consider revising this statement within thefluvial report and references toItwithin theFS/DAS. h) Figures 4.1 and 4.2 ofthemeander belt assessment suggest that between 197B and 2002, there appears tobea meander shift Immediately downstream ofthe proposed bridge location with arecomrtwnded span of34m. We understand that alOO-year erosion assessment was not completed due todifficulties In measuring thebank migration. Please confirm Ifthe recommended span Is expected toaccommodate any future migration ^nthat thelOO-yr assessment could notbecompleted. Inaddition, confirm Iflateral migration Isexpected based onexisting contours and valley configuration. 41. Erosion Assessment a) The SWMHYYMO model flies provided do not Include 031 m3/s threshold flow for existing conditions. The Input file provided shows a038m3/s which Is appears tobe-0.25% value used In thesensitivity analysis. Please provide thecorrect file for TRCA's records and review. b)As perInformation provided InTable 7.6 onpage 4B oftheFS/OAS, TRCA notes thatthe* difference oferosive flow hours for all 6years Is consistently Planning Department Report Page 56 of 103 Number P-2018-20 MBrdi1B.20ia J3_ Comntent* TRCAComments March 7,2018_ positive^ I.O., the erosive flow hours are conststehiiy greater In the propued scenario. Addttlonatty, ItIs also noted that fOr 3ofthe 6years modeiieff, me * difference Is over 10*. Woaso provide dartflcation astoIf this Increase Is {ustifiable. COnflnn If an altered pond design was considered toreduce the Impacts. c) Provide adrainage plan and modelling schematic showing all catchmentt and SWM ponds modelled. TRCA will be In aposition toprovide amore Romprehensiva review of the modelling once the drainage plan and all reoulred supporting flies (model Input file) have been submitted. d) As per comments 36o and 39c above, TRCA typically uses amaximum Initial abstraction of 1mm for Impervious surfaces. It Is noted In Table 7.7 In the FS/DAS that model runs were completed using 7mm, 12 mm, etc. values for lA which was In addition tothe 2mm assumed as baseline lA. TRCA has concerns with this approach asaSmm on-site retention target has been suggested which actually corresponds tothe modelling run using 7mm for lA. Please eWier revise the modelling values for lA orclarify that the on^lte retention target Is an additional 5mm above the 2mm assumption for lA. Hydraulics a) Although TRCA recognizes that the proposed development Is located outside of TRCA sestimated flood plain, flood plain mapping Is required throu^ this 42. development site to Inform decisions for future works that may be proposed within the valley such as trails and pedestrian bridges and to assess whether or not there are flooding/access Issues on ISth SWeroad. TRCA vrtll be updating the mapping In this area vdth an expected completion date of summer 2019. If this development Is to proceed In advance of that timeline, the flood plain mapping will need to be completed as part of this submission. Altemaflvely, the FS/DAS should Incorporate TRCA's mapping once completed. b) TRCA Is currently In receipt of 2geometry files, 2flow files and 15 plan flies. FOr future submissions, please confirm which of the plan and flow files are corrector onlysubmitthe relevantfiles. c) Since the model geometry vras updated to reflect the Eaton Hall Creek topography, the channel roughness should be edited In both the updated existing floodplaln.and proposedPleasegeometryupdatefiles.theThemodellingcross sectionstoreflect(boththe correctpre androughnesspost conditions)valuesasandsubmittedappropriatehavebanknot stationing.been edited to show smoother channel and rougher d) Figure 8.1 In the report suggests that the bridge's low chord elevation ranges from 2893 to 290.0 m. However, the geometry file In HEC-RAS shrw that the bridge's low chord elevations range from 293.35 to 29435. Please confirm the correct elevations and update the bridge geometry In the model or the figure as appropriate. e) Please note lneffect^e flow areas have not been Included In the model. Update the model to Include Ineffective flow areas for the proposed crossing. f) TRCA's standard expansion and contraction coefficients are 03 and 03, respectively at cross sections upstream and downstream of crossings. Please revise the modelling touse these values atcross sections 1337.087 and 1393.122. Alternatively, please provide the rationale for the use of 03and 0.4. Planning Department Report Page 57 of 103 Number P-2018-20 V?,,-,. .•vjv. s Mf-Rlteecn March 18.2018 Comments TRCAcomments Mlarch 7.2018 g) Page 83 of the FS/DAS states that the proposed geometry has no negative Impact on the resulting watersurface elevations of Eaton HallCreek. However, Table 8.2 shows that the three cross sections upstreamof the proposed bridge show Increases In watersurfece elevations ranging from 3 cm to 12 cm. Since this Isa greenfleld development, the Increase Isconsidered acceptable as longas all development is appropriately located outside of the floodplain extents and appropriately buffered from the proposed floodplain. h) Further, TRCA notes that when the model was run different regionalwater surface elevations were obtained than the ones reported. Asstated previously, please ensure the correct plan files are submitted for model comparison. i) The known watersurface elevations used as the boundary conditions for BasinIS 06 are the satiw for all design storm events. Pleue update these elevations to be reflective of the elevations for each design storm. Geotechnlcal SlopeStability InvestiRation prepared by WSP 43. Drawing IS Given the size of the subject lands, blown up drawings reflecting the cross^ectlons, Long-Term Stable Top of Slope (LTSTS) and the setback are required throughout the site. 44. Section 4.1.3 a) It appears that there are some discrepanciesIn this section regardingthe number of sections studied as per the last paragraph. Please clarifythe total numberof the cross-section studied. Arethey thirty-seven or forty^lx? b) Please include a note stating that supplementary stability analysisfor the SWMpond may be required by TRCA at subdivision design stage to confirm stability Inthe long term. c) Please note that berrra higherthan 2 m are consideredas dam as per the OntarioDamSafetyActand the slope stabilityanalysisand geotechnlcaldesign applicable to the dams are required.Pleasecompletethe slope stabilityanalysis for different required loading scenariosas per the MNR Lake and River Improvement Act(LRIA). 45. Section 4.7.: Grading Uponreceiving furtherInformation Inthe formofthe detailedsitegrading plan,TRCA mayrequiresupplementary stability assessment/review Insupportof the proposedgrading(Intothe bufferor elsewhere)to confirmthat a minimumfactorof safetyof 1.50Ismet 46. Section 6 Watercourse At detailed design: Crossing a) Allabutments, wingwalls,foundationsand gradingfor the watercourse crossingare alsoto be located behindthe LTSTS lineto ensure that they are not ImpactedInlong-termbyslope instabilityand erosion hazards. b)TRCA mayrequiresupplementary stability assessments and geotechnlcal designupon receiving furtherInformation on the crossing Including the required grading, earthwork, structures. Planning Department Report Page 58 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mareh16.2018 Mf. Rllacca J£- Commaiti TRCA Commenta March 7,2018 r--j——'-r- d)The proposed embankments should bo studied and designed by geotechhical engineer. The stability assessment Is required for tnaemoanitments to ensure that a minimum safetyfactorof 1.S0Isachieved. e) The proposed cuts should be studied by geotechnlcal engineer. Stability assessment Is required to confirm that the proposed side slopes for the cuts satisfy a minimum safety factor of 1.50. f) The retaining wails, abutments and wing walls should be designed by qualified engineer using geotechnlcal Information. The global stability should be also checked forthe walls to confirm thata minimum safetyfactorof1.S0 ismetagainst global Instability. g) All engineering drawings for the retaining walls, abutments and wing walls, culverts, stabllliatlon works, embankments and cuts should be prepared showing all necessary detetls and specifications and submitted assigned and sealed by Licensed Professional Engineer. 47. Kingaty East Concept The Long-term Stable Top of Slope (LTSTS) line as determined by the geotechnlcal study Is also to be shown on the site plan along with other features to Plan determine the limit of development. Planning Department Report Page 59 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Ritacca 15 March 16.2018 AppcnHiT R! IJst ofMaterials Reviewed Submission received December 1,2017: King City EaseFunctional Servicing / Development Area Study(FS/DAS) update,preparedfor the King City Landowners Group, November 2017. Submission includes the following reports: 1. KCE Concept Plan for Northern Lands, prepared byMalone Given Parsons Ltd. Nov. 2017 2. Planning Opinion Report (includes Park and School needs), prepared by Malone Given Parsons Ltd. Nov. 2017 3. Natural Heritage Evaluation, prepared by Beacon Environmental Ltd. Nov. 2017 4. Natural Heritage Assessment, prepared byNorth-South Environmental Inc. Nov. 2017 5. Significant Woodland Assessment for Entas Property, King City, Ontario, prepared by Dougan & Associates July 31,2015 6. Restoration Strategy,prepared by Aboud & Associated Inc. Nov. 27,2017 7. Wetland Compensation,preparedby North-SouthEnvironmentalInc. Sept 11,2017 . 8. Functional Internal Traffic Study, prepared by Poulos and Chung Nov. 2017 9. TransportationAssessmentReview, preparedby Poulos and Chung Sept. 21,2017 10. Transportation / Traffic / Road Pattern Study, prepared by^Poulos and Chung July 2016 11. Design Strategy: Urban Design/Landscape Guidelines NAK Design Strategies, prepared by Nov. 10, 2017 12. Design Strategy: Urban Design/Architectural Guidelines, prepared by John G. Williams Ltd. Nov. 7, 2017 13. Noise & Vibration Impact Feasibility Study, prepared by J.E. Coulter Associates Ltd. Sept. 24,2017 14. Archeological Assessments, prepared by The Archaeologists Inc. Various 15. Class *C* Environmental Assessment Public Information Centre Notices & Boards, prepared by Malone Given Parsons Ltd. 2017 16. Functional Servicing/Development Area Study, prepared by Sabourin Kimble & Associates Nov. 10, 2017 a. AppendixB: Fluvial GeomorphologyUpdate,prepared by Matrix SolutionsInc. Sept 2016 b. Appendix C: WaterDistribution Model, prepared by Cole Engineering Nov 2017 c. AppendixD: ProposedSanitary Pumping, prepared byRai EngineeringLtd. Nov 2017 d. Station Design 17. Slope Stability Investigation, prepared by WSP Canada Inc. Oct. 12,2017 18. Hydrogeological Investigations, prepared by WSP Canada Inc. Nov. 2017 Planning Department Report Page 60 of 103 Number P-2018-20 R.J. Bumsida & Associates Limited 17345 Leslie Street, Suite 200 Newmarket ON L3Y0A4 CANADA teiephcne (905) 953-8967 fax (905) 953-8945 webwww.nbumside.com BurnsIde [Thc OiFFEnENce IS OUR People] March 15,2018 Via: Email Mr. Gaspare Ritacca Manager of Planning and Development Township of King 2075 King Road King City ON L7B 1A1 Dear Mr. Ritacca: Re: King City East - Review of FSDAS Report First Submission Township of King Township File No.: FSDAS-2017-01 Project No.: 300036471.0000 We have reviewed the material relatingto the Functional Servicing Development Area Study (FSDAS) as circulated bythe proponent (Malone Given ParsonsLimited) on or about December 1,2017. This document is deemed to be submitted to providesupport to the future planning applications for the King City East (North Lands) area, which are not specifically part of this application and review. The subject landsare located in the northeast quadrant ofthe King City urban area, having a land mass of 204.9 ha. The subject application proposes to seek approval forthe FSDAS as it relates to future applications for Draft PlanofSubdivision permit for 1021 residential dwelling unitsinthisarea, consisting ofa range oflotsizes, including townhouse blocks. The anticipated population yield will be 3,060 persons. It is necessary to have somedialogue (and consensus with Township staff) regarding the level of detailto be included as part ofthe FSDAS documentation. Specifically, to ask ifthe documents provided are sufficient to support the future Draft Plan applications and the completion ofthe detailed design. We suggest the reports may not contain adequate details (particularly regarding roads,stormwater and underground services). Therefore, itis necessary to improve oncertain details (such as would betypical ofan FSR document) orto agree todefer this work to a future submission in conjunction with the proposed Draft Plans. Our comments, based on a reviewof the FSDASdocuments, are provided below. These comments are brief (in somecases) andare expected to be refined as the materials arefurther developed and discussed, and more information becomesavailable. These comments are intended to assistthe Developers' consulting group Infinalizing these documents. appendix 3 Planning Department Report Page 61 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Gaspare RItacca Page 2 of 9 March 15,2018 Project No.:300036471.0000 General Comments 1.1 The planningdocuments Indicatethe proposal Is for 1021 units, whilethe FSR (Cole, page 5) suggests 989 units. The inconsistencyshould be confirmed and/or corrected. (Any modelling should be updated as necessary based on the housing types inthe current proposal.) 1.2 Geotechnical Reports have not been submitted in these documents, it is recommended they will be requiredconcurrentwith the individual Draft Plan applications. Phase One ESA's have not been provided at this time. We anticipate these would be also be provided as part of the Draft Plan applications. 1.3 Several red-lined plans are attached for reference and further consideration. a) The plan includes five cul-de-sacs which should be avoided Unless absolutely required (which has not been demonstrated). Street W is to be modified as shown in red on the attached sketch. b) Street names should be reconciled to name individual streets uniquely (i.e..where separated by other streets - such as Street C). c) Itis our understandingthat the rear-facing lots and noise barriers along Dufferin Street are not desirable and that further revisions to the plans will be provided for consideration. d) itwould be helpful ifall plans were generated from the same base information. e) Details should be updated based on the red-lined notationsas indicated. 1.4 We request copies of ailcorrespondence and/or approvals, including any conditions as may be imposed, as may be provided from TRCA and MNR, which may affectthe manner of servicingthe development lands. Itis necessary to receive confirmation of the staked limits and buffer areas from TRCA to establish the final limits of development. Also, confirmation that intrusions (such a storm ponds and other grading) intothe buffer areas are permitted. 1.5 We note that the Notice of Completion of the EAfor the bridge crossing has not been filed. We would ask ifthere is a reason not to proceed with this as soon as possible. 1.6 We do not see evidence of detailed discussions with Metroiinx and the possible impacts due to the track improvements(and timing for same) on these development lands. This should be particularly addressed as part of the traffic review. 1.7 There are a number of landscaping items that would potentially require consideration of the Township's policy regarding longterm maintenance. These wouldinclude noise fences, mail kiosks (if permitted), entryfeatures, etc. Acopyofthe policy is included for future reference. Planning Department Report Page 62 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Gaspare Ritacca Page3 of9 March 15,2018 Project No.: 300036471.0000 Servicing 1.8 Watermains: a) Proposed watermain sizes are not discussed inthe FSR reportand onlyshown on the Servicing Plan. Some watermain sizes, especially along the spine, are not constantly sized. Watermain size labels on plans are missing for some legs and this needs to be completed/cianfied. Some pipe labels appear to conflict with the water model layout (Figure F-2). b) Some watermain sizes at cui-de-sacs are seemingly large (at 250 mm diameter) which may impact on water quality, due to insufficient flows. Some streets do not have satisfactory looping which will require further review and adjustments. Consider that copper loops for cul-de-sacs) should be avoided unless necessary. (This may be reviewed further during detailed designs.) c) The watermain connection through the Acorn site is circuitous and long and leaves long sections without looping. Consideration should be made for a shorter route at the east end (opposite Street BB). d) The watermain connection through the King Rocks (Lifestyle) site is quite long and without security looping. Consideration should be made for a connection at the east end to Dufferin Street along an existing drive way and easement. (This route can also serve as a location for any required forcemain for the adjacent Gougouiias lands.) e) Potential issues with existing water system that are indicated should be explored further and not left to speculation (Cole, page 4). This may require coordination with waterworks staff. f) Water Model i. Water modelling was completed using Watercadand not Infowater (which is current standard), input tables should be provided to the Township. ii. Model should exclude requirements for Seneca lands and apply flows to the future Recreation Complex instead. (We note that it appears the model does not include for any other commercial/industrial flows.) ill. A "water age" analysis should be completed and submitted. iv. See attached memo from Jennifer Georges, P.Eng. for a detailed review and comments. Some revisions/updates are required. 1.9 Sanitary Sewer a) Need to address how the sanitary sewer system would operate and be self-sustainabie in interim conditions with only partial dwelling buiid-out (flushing, odour issues, etc.). May require a phasing plan. b) The servicing plans should include top of cover and pipe invert elevations at key locations to indicate potential sewer depths. Show the Alex Campbell PS on Drawing 5.14. c) Sewer calculations are to indicate minimum velocityat actual (not full pipe) flows. Planning Department Report Page 63 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Gaspare Ritacca PaQQ 4 of9 March 15,2018 Project No.: 300036471.0000 d) While the design has included flow/capacity forCountry Day School, the connection isto be provided southalong Dufferin Street to a point opposite the main facility (to be shown on Drawing 5.12). e) Wesuggestthe FSR shouid discuss use ofwaterefficient fixtures. (This may mitigate the issues with the deficient capacity at the Aiex Campbell PS.) 1.10 Storm Sewer: a) On theStorm SewerDesign Sheet, ail pipes are shown with a slope of0.5%; however, the Sen/icing Plan figures show some pipes with slopes less than 0.5%. The lower slope mayresultinan increased pipesize from that shownon the drawings. b) Thecurrent Township standard 5-yearIDF data should be used for storm sewer sizing; c) Theservicing plans should Include topofcover and pipe invert elevations at key locations to indicate potential sewer depths. d) 100-year captureareas and conveyance pipesare to be identified. e) A100-year hydraulic gradeline analysis will be required at detailed design to confirm the vertical separation between basements and the 100-yearHGL is no less than 0.6 m. 1.11 Roads: a) Add street namesto Drawing 4.1. Street Names should be reconciled to name individual streets uniquely (i.e., where separated byother streets, such as Street C), as streets will have different characteristics (six streets to be renamed). Naming is to be consistent throughout to assist with reporting. b) The number ofcul-de-sacs isto be minimized. Upon review, while some are deemed reasonable and/or necessary. Street W should be retumed to the Collector as a "crescenf. (This improves circulation ofwaterand traffic and negates the need for direct drivewayaccess to the collector in this area.) c) Emergency access routes shouid be provided for theAcorn and King Rocks (Lifestyle Block) lands. The"Lifestyle" site includes a single laneway thatextends approx. 500 mwhich is not deemed desirable. In order to mitigate concems with the single access, an option should be pursued to provide a trail link from the easterly limit, through the buffer area, tothe existing farm lanewhich connects to Dufferin Street. d) Ail roads to be constructed with an "urban" section. No "rural" section is permitted on StreetAA (Acorn). (Consider gutter outlets as required; see attached Typical Detail.) e) The design oftheCoiiector Road (Streets Aand 0) shouid be revised to reflect the cross-sectional elements as indicated on the Township's current standard for a 26 m roadallowance (being KS-210). We do notsupportthe proposed multi-use path (MUP) being located in the boulevard. Such a MUP will interfere with the use and enjoyment ofthe lot frontages forthe many dwellings located along these streets. Further, the expected traffic volumes should notbe a hindrance to the use and function of on-street bike lanes. (The MUP configuration is better suited to use along the regional road network.) Planning Department Report Page 64 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Gaspare Ritacca Page5 of9 March 15,2018 Project No.; 300036471.0000 f) Furtherto the above, the dimensions of the bridge deck needed to accommodate the bike ianes and the sidewaiks should be clarified (andindicated on Drawing 5.15). g) Furtherreview ofthe road geometryand trafFic control measures (ail-way stops, sidewalklocations, cul-de-sacs, etc.) will be requiredduring detaileddesign. We note sidewalks should be provided on ail streets, with some exceptions on short cul-de-sacs. Sidewalks are to be-1.5 m wide on all local streets and 1.8 m wide on collector roads or those with high traffic. (To be noted throughout.) h) There appears to be a possible trail head connecting to the Collector Road. This may present issues with traffic and pedestrian safety at this mid-block location, particularly in proximity to the school site. This should be reviewed. i) The Traffle Report should consider the use of traffic calming features such as traffic circles/roundabouts. All-way stops should not be proposed without meeting warrants. j) Expand discussions regarding YRT Transit. k) The requirement to construct sidewaiks along regional roads adjacent to the development lands requires clarity. It is recommended the sidewaiks be shown on the various concept plans, specifically Figure 11 by Pouios and Chung. It is a requirement to have a continuous pedestrian pathway from the existing development at Tatton Court to a connection with the streets in the KCE North lands. The details and locations of the sidewaiks and MUP need to be coordinated between KCE Group, Township and York Region. i) A request has been made to reduce the road allowance width for the crescent on the Remcor King site (adjacent to the environmental buffer lands). The Township does not support the use of a reduced standard, particularly since the street is to support 40+ townhouse dwellings is and also providing a connection for a trail network. m) A request has been made to reduce the road allowance width for window streets to have 15.5 m width. After discussions (and subject to the final designs and identification of the infrastructure as may be present at these locations), the Township will consider a reduction from 20 m to 16 m width for said locations. (See attached example from Town of Bradford.) 1.12 Stormwater (comments from Harold Faulkner, P.Eng.): a) Additionaldetails should be provided for the bio-retention swales. (Length, slope of sub-drain, etc.) b) Several SWM ponds intrude beyond the limitsof development and into the buffer areas. This is to be confirmed by TRCA. c) A Storm Drainage Area Plan should be provided. d) Some ponds do not meet minimumTownship criteria, with respect to; access road (10 m tuming radius); minimum 75 mm orifice diameter; 3 m buffer along adjacent lots; some do not meet length-to-width ratios. e) SWM pond design should confirm the ponds can provide a minimum 0.3 m freeboard above the Regional storm. Planning Department Report Page 65 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr.Gaspare Ritacca Page 6 of 9 March 15.2018 Project No.:300036471.0000 f) The following should be shown orpond Preliminary Grading Plan figures:- watercourse flow direction arrows; watercourse fioodplain limits; pond overflow outlet locations; darker existing contours. ^ g)r, The groundwaterelevations provided on some ofthe pond Preliminary Grading Plan figures are hlglr^ with some exceed the top of pond elevatiorh^ This condition should be reviewed/confirmed as it may affect the pond deslgmf ^ h) Redside Dace Requirements (Section6.4) states stormwater managementfacilities adjacent to Redside Dace habitatshould be designed as hybrid extended detention wetlands/wet ponds; however,the proposed facilities are strictly wet ponds. We understand that TRCA has requested some ponds be designed with"^vetland" elements and this needs further discussion and review. i) The Report indicates a SWMHYMO hydrologic model; however, OTTHYMO software was used? 1.13 Sewage Pumping Station: a) The RAL report isdeemed to be preliminary (containing intemal mark-up comments) and requires numerous corrections. The storage caicuiations should be confirmed as the numbers are not consistent. Cost summaries are also erroneous/inconsistent. The report should be revised and finalized. b) RAL's report has not spoken todetaiis/layout/appurtenances thatwould be required for the recommended solution (storage of sewage in an oversized 1350 mm diameter pipe). c) Use ofover-sized storage pipe is notdeemed desirable. Asolution using an attenuation tank should be provided. d) Examination ofresident times for effluent (within thewet well and forcemain) should be considered such that no odour issues are experienced. This situation is likely to occurparticularly during initial occupancies. Consider multiple pumps, sizes of pumps and discharges, and dualforcemains. e) An overall concept plan illustrating the layout ofthe block ofland with the pumping station, access road and sewage attenuation should be provided. f) The FSR by SKA (page 26) indicates theaverage sanitary flow is365 L/c/day, while the Township guidelines state the base rate should be 370 L/c/day. 1.14 Grading: a) It would be beneficial to apply the "lot types" colour scheme (Fig. 5.2) tothe Lot Grading plans. Itis preferable to minimize the use of RLCB's and easements. b) Aplan should be provided that shows "contours" for cut/fill depths across thesite. Urban Design/Landscape Guidelines(comments from Mark Scholien) 1.15 See attached memo from MarkScholien. There are a number of inconsistencies identified which need to be clarified. An annotated copy of the report is also provided. Planning Department Report Page 66 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. GaspareRitacca Page 7 of9 March 15,2018 Project No.: 300036471.0000 1.16 Urban Design comments: a) Fig. 2.1 - show infiitrationtrenches in section view. b)' Fig. 2.3 - requires various corrections to sidewalk locations. (Bothside of Street A? Check Kingsfieid?) c) 8.2.4 Parks - Indicate types of sen/ices required (water, hydro, etc.). d)' 8.3.2 Sidewalks - to be 1.8 m wide on collectors. e) 8.3.3 Streetscape - no "lighting boxes"; breakers in poles only. The use of mailbox kiosks (including enhance fencing and landscaping) should be discouraged. Preliminary NoiseAfibration Report (comments from Krlstlna Zeromskiene, Ph.D.) 1.17 See attached memo from Kristina Zeromskiene. There are a number of inconsistencies identified which need to be clarified. 1.18 The report states that existing rail traffic was monitored for vibration and none was detected, it is expected roadway traffic noise will be mitigated using customary berm/barrier standards. Acoustic controls ate required due to noise source(s) atAipa Lumber. 1.19 Any proposed noise barriers are subject to Township policyfor future, ongoing maintenance. Gectechnlcal/Slope Stability/Pond Construction 1.20 Geotechnical Reports have not been submitted in these documents and are required for review. 1.21 The review of the LT8T08 report by W8P is deferred to TRCA staff. It is noted that some slopes do not appearto be stable (those greaterthan 2.5:1). 1.22 We note there does not appearto be any issues for the construction of 8WM ponds; however, the detailed review is deferred to a later date, when designs are being finalized. 1.23 We note the Fluvial Geomorphology has not been reviewed as we defer this topic to the TRCA and/or MNR. Hydrogeology Investigations (comments from Kim Hawkes) 1.24 8ee attached memo from Kim Hawkes which requires a response. Comments should be addressed and explanations provided accordingly. 1.25 The Hydrogeological Report has not considered the implication of the proposed earth grading (cut-fill) on the lands. Itis requiredto confirm that the observations and recommendations providedalso account for significant cut and fill operations whichwill potentially result in proposed changes to the surficial materials on this site. Planning Department Report Page 67 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Gaspare Ritacca Page 8 of 9 March 15.2018 Project No.: 300036471.0000 1.26 An inventory of the existing wells in the vicinity, and for future monitoring of same, has not been provided. Transportation Impact Assessment (comments from Henry Centen, P.Eng.) 1.27 See attached memo from Henry Centen. Comments should be addressed and explanations provided accordingly. 1.28 It Is not clear why Cityof Brampton criteria has been used. Please refer to King's Design Criteria (Section 3). 1.29 Posted speeds of 40 kph have been indicated (Section11),while the Township standard is 50 kph. These lowerspeeds require justification within the study. 1.30 Schematic intersection designs? The use of centre medians at intersections with arterial roadsrequires further review. (Thesemay be integrated with proposed entry features.) The ultimate road allowance widths at these intersections will be determined during detailed design. 1.31 Adiscussion should be provided regarding the matter of signal optimization at the KIng/Keeie intersection. (Beinga Region matter.) Miscellaneous 1.32 Bridge - Thereis no supporting Information or calculations, norsufficient details, provided for the basicconfiguration ofthe bridge and theassociated services along the road. There should be sufficient description/details provided to indicate the overall section ofthe bridge platform, at a minimum, to facilitate a transition to the detailed design to follow. 1.33 Utilities - the FSDAS reportshould include confirming correspondence from affected utilities that there are no issues or shortfallswiththe provision of these services, and if they are availablealong the frontage ofthe lands. 1.34 Archeological Assessment- did notreveal any areas ofconcern. No further action is anticipated subject to the Ministry's acceptance ofthe report conclusions. 1.35 Natural Heritage Evaluation - we have not reviewed the reportin detail; however, we anticipate a condition ofapproval ofthe Draft Planwill include an item for tree compensation foranysuch removals. Afinancial calculation should be proposed byan arborist based on the current policies of the Township. Itis hoped the abovecomments will assist inrevisions to the FSDAS inorderto ensure a complete andcomprehensive document is produced. Upon completion ofthe revisions, itis anticipated thefinal FSDAS will be sufficient to provide input and support tothefuture Draft Plan applications, without the need for additional extensive reporting. Planning Department Report Page 68 of 103 Number P-2018-20 Mr. Gaspare Ritacca Page 9 of9 March 15.2018 Project No.: 300036471.0000 Should you have any questions In this regard, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly,. R.J. Burnside & Associates Limited Michael 8. Dutschek, C.E.T. Senior Project Manager MDibs Enclosure(s) Five Various Technical Memos Revised Conceptfor Street W Water- Appendix F-2 Typical Section for 26 m Collector (KS-210) Typical Section for 16 m Window Street Detail for roadside blo-retentlon trench Long Term Maintenance Policy Various red-lined FSR drawings Mark-up of Urban Design Guideline cc: Mr. Andrzej Drzewleckl Township Via: Email Mr. Mike Cole Township Via: Email 036471_Ritacca_FSDAS 1st Submlssion_180315 15/03/2018 9:07 AM Planning Department Report Page 69 of 103 Number P-2018-20 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING BY-LAW NUMBER 2017-XX A BY-LAW TO AMEND ZONING BY-LAW NUMBER 2017-66. AS AMENDED WHEREAS Zoning By-law Number 20107-66, being a By-law to regulate the use of land and the character, location and use of buildings and structures inthe Township of King, adopted by Council onthe 26"* day ofJune, 2017 and currently under appeal totheOntario Municipal Board; ANDWHEREAS it is deemed necessary to further amend By-lawNumber 2017-66, as amended, where such amendment conforms to Official Plan Amendment No. 54 (King City Community Plan), as amended; AND WHEREAS authorityis granted pursuant to Section 34 of the Planning Act, R.S.0.1990, Chapter P. 13, to the Councilof the Corporationof the Townshipof King to exercise such powers; NOWTHEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King HEREBYENACTS AS FOLLOWS: That Zoning By-law Number 2017-66, as amended, be amended as follows: THAT the lands subject to this By-law consist of the lands shown outlined on Schedules "1" and attached to this by-law. 1) THATSchedules "1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9" attached hereto form a part of this By-law. 2) THAT for the subject lands shown on Schedules "1.2, 3. 4, 5. 6, 7, 8, and 9" attached hereto, Zoning By-law 2017-66 be amended as follows: a. For the purposes of this by-law, the following definitionshall apply: Lot Coverage: means the percentage of the lot area, covered by all buildings and structures above grade, excluding decks, porches and loggias, and shall not include the portion of such lot area which is occupied by a structure or portion thereof which is completely below grade, and for the purposes of this definition, the lot coverage in each zone shall be deemed to apply only to that portion of such lot which is located within said zone. APPENDIX 4 Planning Department Report Page 70 of 103 Number P-2018-20 b. Forthe purposes ofthis by-law, the portion oftheTownship ofKing shown on Schedule "1" attached hereto shall be subjectto the following zone boundaries which are shown on Schedule "2. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9" attached hereto: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 12 (R1A-12) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 15 (R1A-15) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 15 (R1A-15(XX)) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 18 (R1A-18) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 21 (R1A-21) ZONE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE- 7.5 (R3-7.5) ZONE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE- XX (R3-XX) ZONE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (EP) ZONE OPEN SPACE (OS) ZONE INSTITUTIONAL (I) ZONE FUTURE USE (F) ZONE c. Schedule "A4" of By-law 2017-66 as amended, is hereby further amended by changing the zone symbol on the lands described in Section 1 above from Future Use (F) Zone to the following for the subject lands as shown on Schedule "2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9" attached hereto and described in this By-law: RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED"A" - 12 (R1A-12) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 15 (R1A-15) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 15 (R1A-15(XX)) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED"A" - 18 (R1A-18) ZONE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE DETACHED "A" - 21 (R1A-21) ZONE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE - 7.5 (R3-7.5) ZONE RESIDENTIAL TOWNHOUSE - XX(R3-XX)ZONE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (EP) ZONE OPEN SPACE (OS) ZONE INSTITUTIONAL (I) ZONE FUTURE USE (F) ZONE Planning Department Report Page 71 of 103 Number P-2018-20 d. Notwithstanding Table 6.3a and Table 6.3c of By-law 2017-66, as amended,the following Lotand Building requirements shall apply: TABLE A Requirement R1A-21 R1A-18 R1A-1S R1A-12 R3-7.6 Minimum Lot Area 630.0 m' 540.0 m' 450.0 m' 360.0 m' 225.0 m^ 1 1 : Minimum Lot Frontage 21.0 m 18.0 m 15.0 m 12.0 m 7.5 m 5 m to house 4.5 m to house 4.5 m to house 4.5 m to house 4.5 m to house Minimum Front Yard m to garage i^S.Om to garage 6.0 m to garage 6.0 m to garage 6.0 m to garage Minimum Rear Yard 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 7.5 m 6.0 m Minimum Interior Side Yard 1.5 m 1 1.5m 1.2 m 1.2 m 1.2 m /O m Minimum Exterior Side Yard 4.5 m 4.5 m 3.0 m 3.0 m 3.0 m f - j Maximum Lot Coverage 45% 45% 45% 45% 50% Maximum Height 11.5m 11.5m 11.0m 11.0 m 11.0m e. Notwithstanding Section 2.c (Table A)where identified by an asterisk (*) on Schedules 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 the maximum lot coverage shall be 50%. f. NotwithstandingTable 6.3c of By-law 2017-66 lands shown as R3-(XX) on Schedule 5 of this by-law, the following lot requirements shall apply; i. Minimum Lot Area shall be 3.0 hectares ii. Minimum Lot Frontage shall be 14.0 metres iii. Maximum Height willbe 11.0 metres iv. Maximum units shall be 77 g. Notwithstanding Section 2.c (Table A) of this by-law, lands shown as R1A-15(XX) on Schedule 6 of this by-law, shall have a Minimum Rear Yard and building setback of 30.0m from the current property line. h. Notwithstanding Table 3.42.1 (vi) of By-law 2017-66 lands shown on Schedule 6, excluding lands shown as R1A-15(XX), the following permitted Yard and Setback Encroachment shall apply: i. Decks with a height greater than 0.6m from grade shall be permitted to encroach 2.4m into the rear yard. Planning Department Report Page 72 of 103 Number P-2018-20 i. Notwithstanding Section 6.4,1 ofBy-law 2017-66, the attached garage requirements shall be in accordance with the following Table 8. Table B Vd• ijil-• TdUiomiliB ittsGarage i)12.0mlo lessthan1B-0m RlA-12. R1A-15 I 6.25mmax I I 9.15mmax providing the front of ii) 18-0 morgreater i R1A-18. R1A-21 ' thethird garagebayissetback 6.25mmax ! 0.6mmin. 3.75mforsingle-car garage' 3.75mmax forsingle-car' and iii) 7.5 m or greater R3 - 7.5 and 5.5mfordouble-car garage^ 5.5 mmaxfordouble-car^ 1. Requimd tor a minimum 33% of duelling units in a townhouse block 2. Permitted for up to 67% of dwelling units withina lownhouse block 3) THAT this By-law shall come into force on the day it was passed where no notice of appeal has been filed with the Township Clerk in accordance with the requirements and within the time prescribed under Section 34 (19) of the Planning Act. Planning Department Report Page 73 of 103 Number P-2018-20 READ a FIRST and SECOND timethis day of , 2017 READ a THIRD timearid FINALLY PASSED this day of , 2017 Steve Peiligrini, Mayor Kathryn Moyle, Clerk Planning Department Report Page 74 of 103 Number P-2018-20 15th S DEROAD THIS IS SCHEDULE J_ TO Number P Planning Department Report BY-LAW NO. Township of King, Regional Municipality ofYork - 2018 }00^//\ Lands Subject totheAmendment - 20 O^le:Febfuaiy 9,2018 ProjectNo.:04-1348 Pre{»redby: fiG'MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 140 RenfrewDrive,Suite 201 Maililiani,Ontario,L3R6B3 Tel: (905)513-0170 Fax (905)513-0177 Page 75 of 103 Number P Planning Department Report - 2018 - 20 ' ^ -FJ R1A-15 _1_± J_ j ' ' J 1 Page 76 of 103 Dae: Fel>niafy2B. 2018 ProjeclNo.:17-2576 Prcpaitdby; ISmaldne given parsons ltd, 140 Ronlrow Drive, Suite 201 Mvkham. Ontario.LOR663 let: (905)51341170 fa: (905)5134)177 Number P Planning Department Report THIS IS SCHEDULE 3 TO - 2018 BY-LAWNO. Part of Lot10, Concession 3 - 20 TownshipofKing,RegionalMunicipalityofYork i R1A-12 * Maximum lot coverage of 50% RtA)<15 Date:Febtuaiy9.2018 ProiectNo.:17-2570 Preparedl>y: W1A-1 MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LID 140 Renbew Drive,Suite 201 MaiUtara Ontario,LOn6B3 Tel:(905)513-0170Fax:(905)51341177 RWIS R1A-2 R4IAL«2 Page 77 of103 Number P Planning Department Report THIS IS SCHEDULE 4 TO - 2018 BY-LAW NO. Part ofLot8, Concession 3 - 20 Township ofKing, Regional Municipaiity ofYork Maximum lot coverage of 50% Date: Febiuaiy 9,2018 ProjeelNo.: 17-2659 Preparedby: MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 140 RenfrewDrive,Suite 201 MarKtiam, Ontario,L3R6B3 Tel: (905)5134)170 Fac (905) 5134)177 Rm-21 Page 78 of 103 Number P Planning Department Report THIS IS SCHEDULE 5 TO - BY-LAW NO. 2018 - Part of Lot8, Concession 3 20 R1A-15 Township ofKing, Regional Municipality ofYork R1A-12 19T-06K03 R3-(XX *Maximum lot coverage of 50% Page 79 of 103 Dale:Februaiy 28.2016 PfojeeiNo.:17-2575 Preoaredby: 60MALONE GIVEN PARSONS LTO 140 Renfrew Drive. Suite 201 Markham. Ontario. 1.916B3 Tel: (905)513-0170 Fax: (905)513-0177 Number P Planning Department Report THIS IS SCHEDULE 6 TO BY-LAW NO. Part of Lot 7, Concession 3 - 2018 Township ofKing, Regional Municipality ofYork • Maximum lot coverage of 50% - 19T- K 20 SyQJKT TC F>6eMeNT AS . CO 1* IN !NSTR. KI2987D ' 30in building Page 80 of 103 setback from rear lot line Date;Febiuiuy9,2016 Protect No.: 17-2571 Preparedby: fi@MALCNE GIVEN PARSONS LTD. 140 RenfrewDrive,Suite 201 Maridiain,Ontario.LSR6B3 Tet (905)513-0170Fax: (905)513-0177 Number P Planning Department Report CO THIS IS SCHEDULE J_ TO 15th SIDEROAD - 2018 BY-LAW NO. - 20 Part ofLot10, Concession3 Township ofKing, Regional Municipality ofYork * Maximum lot coverage of 50% Oste Fcbrusry 20,2018 Prewedby: SStsiMiy 999EdseteyBtvtl.lM6 VsiiQhttn, (^uno, L4X SZ4 M; (903)761-M97 Page 81 of 103 Number P Planning Department Report CO - 2018 THIS IS SCHEDULE ^10 BY-LAW NO. - 20 Part ofLot 10,Concession 3 Township ofKing, Regional Municipality ofYork Chite; Ftbnitty 12.^18 Pitpewdby. 999Ede«l»yB!«ti.Unjl6 Vtughan, OntaHo, UK SZ4 Trt:(509)761-5497 R1A-15 Page 82 of 103 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING COUNCIL MEETING #8 – MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018 Township Council met at 6:02 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Township of King Municipal Building, 2075 King Road, King City, with Mayor Pellegrini presiding. The following were present at this Meeting: Council Staff Mayor Steve Pellegrini Kathryn Moyle – Director of Clerks/By-law Enforcement Councillor Cleve Mortelliti and Township Clerk Councillor David Boyd Allan Evelyn – Director of Finance and Treasurer Councillor Linda Pabst Andrzej Drzewiecki– Director of Engineering, Public Works and Councillor Bill Cober Building Councillor Debbie Schaefer Chris Fasciano – Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture Councillor Avia Eek Gaspare Ritacca – Manager of Planning and Development Jim Wall – Fire Chief/CEMC Diane Moratto – Admin Clerk – Council/Committee Nancy Cronsberry – Deputy Clerk Jason Ballantyne – Communications Officer Jamie Smyth – Economic Development Officer 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Pellegrini called the meeting to order. A quorum was present. 2. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS The Clerk advised that administrative corrections have been made to; Council Agenda Item #6 6.1 – Adoption of Minutes of Council Meetings and Committee Reports – Draft Council Minutes of April 9, 2018, under Mayor’s Comments, correction to the spelling of Bill Rea’s name; and Committee of the Whole Item #7 – Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018-12 – Arts Society King (ASK) Partnership Agreement. In the Partnership Agreement attachment to the report, Appendix “B” – ASK Stream #2 Funding, (page 107 of 142 on the COW Agenda), the third paragraph that states: “ASK may submit multiple applications for stream two funding, however, the Township will only fund up to $8000 (per year)”, the $8000 should actually read $4000. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA A motion was made by Councillor Eek, seconded by Councillor Schaefer and carried that the Agenda for the Council Meeting of April 23rd 2018 be adopted, as amended. 4. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of pecuniary interest. The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Minutes of the Council Page 83 of 103 Meeting of April 23, 2018 Council Minutes – April 23, 2018 5. MAYOR’S COMMENTS Mayor Pellegrini, on behalf of King Township, extended thoughts and prayers to those families that have been affected by today’s deadly attack in Toronto and asked that everyone take a moment of silence to honour those who have been touched by today’s event. Council and the audience participated in a one minute moment of silence. Mayor Pellegrini highlighted the recently held and upcoming community events in the Township of King, being; the King Volunteer Appreciation Night, 2018 Run or Walk for Southlake Regional Health Centre, and Spring Clean-Up Day. 6. ADOPTION OF MINUTES OF COUNCIL MEETINGS AND COMMITTEE REPORTS 6.1 Council Minutes 1. Minutes of the Council Meeting of April 9, 2018 A motion was made by Councillor Cober, seconded by Councillor Pabst and carried that the Minutes of the Council Meeting of April 9, 2018 be adopted, as amended. 6.2 Committee Reports 1. Committee of the Whole Reports of April 9, 2018 A motion was made by Councillor Cober, seconded by Councillor Pabst and carried that the Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting of April 9, 2018 be adopted. 7. NOTICE OF MOTION There was no Notice of Motion. 8. RECESS INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE A motion was made by Councillor Boyd, seconded by Councillor Mortelliti and carried that the Council Meeting recess into Committee of the Whole. The Council Meeting recessed at 6:08 p.m. 9. RE-CONVENE COUNCIL MEETING A motion was made by Councillor Eek, seconded by Councillor Schaefer and carried that the Council Meeting re-convene. The Council Meeting re-convened at 6:44 p.m. 10. ADOPTION OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE RECOMMENDATIONS OF APRIL 23RD, 2018 (a) Committee of the Whole A motion was made by Councillor Cober, seconded by Councillor Pabst and carried that the recommendations of the Committee of the Whole meeting of April 23rd, 2018 be adopted. The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Minutes of the Council Page 84 of 103 Meeting of April 23, 2018 Council Minutes – April 23, 2018 11. MOTION TO RECESS INTO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CLOSED SESSION A motion was made by Councillor Boyd, seconded by Councillor Mortelliti and carried that the Council Meeting recess into Committee of the Whole, Closed Session, to consider the following items: Motion to move into Closed Session pursuant to Section 2.7 of the Procedural By-law Number 2007-76 to consider the items as set out in the Agenda. 11.1 Section 2.7(b), Subsections 5 and 6: Litigation or Potential Litigation Affecting the Municipality Planning Department Report Number P-2018-16 Re: Litigation Matter, Direction Required Planning Files: Z-2014-07 and 19T-14K01; Nobleton Estates Inc. (Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Hearing (LPAT)) 11.2 Approval of Closed Session, Confidential Reports Committee Closed Session Confidential Report of March 19th, 2018 The Council Meeting recessed into Closed Session at 6:45 p.m. 12. RE-CONVENE COUNCIL MEETING A motion was made by Councillor Eek, seconded by Councillor Schaefer and carried that the Council Meeting re-convene. The Council Meeting re-convened at 7:24 p.m. 13. BUSINESS ARISING FROM CLOSED SESSION 13.1 Section 2.7(b), Subsections 5 and 6: Litigation or Potential Litigation Affecting the Municipality Planning Department Report Number P-2018-16 Re: Litigation Matter, Direction Required Planning Files: Z-2014-07 and 19T-14K01; Nobleton Estates Inc. (Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Hearing (LPAT)) (To obtain a copy of Planning Department Report No.: P-2018-16, please contact the Clerks or Planning Department) A motion was made by Councillor Cober, seconded by Councillor Pabst and carried that Planning Department Report Number P-2018-16, be received and the following recommendations therein be approved as follows: A. That Planning Report No. P-2018-16 be received; B. That Council support the zoning amendment application submitted by Nobleton Estates (File No. Z-2014-07) and the associated draft plan of subdivision prepared by KLM Planning Partners Inc., dated June 12, 2015, contingent upon The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Minutes of the Council Page 85 of 103 Meeting of April 23, 2018 Council Minutes – April 23, 2018 revisions to the draft zoning by-law and conditions of draft plan of subdivision to incorporate the revisions and/or address matters identified in this report or during any further review in advance of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal (LPAT) hearing, all subject to the satisfaction of the Township: i. The inclusion of Holding (H) zoning provisions in the draft by-law to ensure that the proposed development does not proceed in advance of servicing allocation being assigned to the development by Council; ii. The owner enter into a No Pre-Sale Agreement with the Township as a pre-condition to Draft Plan Approval; iii. A condition of Draft Plan Approval requiring servicing allocation prior to registration of the Plan; and iv. A 3-year lapsing provision for the Draft Plan Approval; C. That Township staff work with the Applicant to incorporate the above revisions in advance of and/or during the LPAT hearing, and that the Applicant be required to complete any supporting work necessary to address the revisions noted in Recommendation ‘B’ above, to the satisfaction of the Township; D. That until such time as the revisions noted in Recommendation ‘B’ above have been provided, Council direct the Township solicitor and staff to continue to identify those matters as issues to be addressed as part of the LPAT hearing; E. That Council endorse the proposed pre-conditions and conditions of Draft Plan Approval, attached as Figures 6 and 7, in relation to File No. 19T-14K01 and the draft Zoning By-law, attached as Figure 3, in relation to File No. Z-2014-07, which shall be revised and further refined in accordance with Recommendation ‘B’ and that staff and the Township Solicitor be directed to seek approval for the pre- conditions, draft conditions and draft zoning by-law, in substantial conformity with Figure 3, 6, and 7, by the LPAT; F. That Council authorize staff and the Township solicitor to continue to refine and respond to any proposed changes to the draft plan and to complete revisions to the proposed conditions of Draft Plan Approval and the draft Zoning By-law in consultation with the relevant Township departments and other agencies, as may be necessary and appropriate as a result of working with the Applicant to address the revisions noted in Recommendation ‘B’ and in preparation for and during the course of the LPAT hearing; G. That at the LPAT hearing of this matter, staff and the Township solicitor request that the Tribunal withhold its Order granting Draft Plan Approval until it is advised by the Township that the pre-conditions to Draft Plan Approval attached as Figure 6 have been satisfied; H. That upon an approval of the draft plan by the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal and the Township being advised by the Region that additional servicing capacity for Nobleton is available and/or will be available in accordance with an approved Environmental Assessment, Council reserve servicing allocation of five (5) single detached residential units for subdivision plan 19T-14K01, to be The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Minutes of the Council Page 86 of 103 Meeting of April 23, 2018 Council Minutes – April 23, 2018 formally allocated, in whole or in part, prior to registration and prior to Council enacting a by-law to lift any applicable “H” Holding zone. I. That following the adoption of the above noted recommendations, that the report be released to the public. 13.2 Approval of Closed Session, Confidential Reports Committee Closed Session Confidential Report of March 19, 2018 A motion was made by Councillor Cober, seconded by Councillor Pabst and carried that the Closed Session Confidential Report of March 19, 2018, be approved. 14. BY-LAWS Mayor Pellegrini asked that By-law #2018-40 be voted on separately, as the Clerk advised of an amendment to the By-law to reflect the intention of maintaining a 2 m strip for public access. A motion was made by Councillor Boyd, seconded by Councillor Cober and carried that the following By-law be taken as read a first, second and third time and passed: By-law #2018-40 A BY-LAW TO STOP UP, CLOSE, DECLARE AS SURPLUS LAND AND CONVEY CERTAIN MUNICIPAL ROAD ALLOWANCES IN THE HAMLET OF LASKAY IN THE TOWNSHIP OF KING, as amended (Ref. Parks, Recreation and Culture Dept. Report No: PRC-2018-06, C.O.W. Feb. 26/18, Part 1, Ref. Plan 65R-36766, Second Street, Laskay) A motion was made by Councillor Boyd, seconded by Councillor Mortelliti and carried that the remainder of the following By-laws be taken as read a first, second and third time and passed: By-law #2018-33 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSFER OF MAIN STREET REVITALIZATION INITIATIVES FUNDS BETWEEN THE ASSOCIATION OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OF ONTARIO AND THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING (Ref. Administration Department Report No: ED-2018-05, C.O.W. Apr. 23/18 – Ontario Main Street Revitalization Initiative) By-law #2018-34 A BY-LAW TO APPOINT A JOINT COMPLIANCE AUDIT COMMITTEE (Ref. Clerks Dept. Report No.: CL-2018-07, C.O.W. Apr. 23/18, Appoint Joint Compliance Audit Committee – 2018 - 2022) By-law #2018-35 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO A FOURTH LEASE AMENDING AND EXTENDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF YORK AND THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING (Ref. Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report No. PRC-2018-15, C.O.W. Apr. 23/18 – EMS Station - 15 Old King Road, Nobleton) By-law #2018-36 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN AND THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING (Ref. Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report No. PRC-2018-13, C.O.W. Apr. 23/18 – Elections Canada – Holland Marsh District Christian School) The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Minutes of the Council Page 87 of 103 Meeting of April 23, 2018 Council Minutes – April 23, 2018 By-law #2018-37 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ENTER INTO A PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT BETWEEN ARTS SOCIETY KING AND THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING (Ref. Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report No. PRC-2018-12, C.O.W. Apr. 23/18 – Arts Society King (ASK)) By-law #2018-38 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ACCEPT A TENDER AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT FOR 19TH SIDEROAD ASPHALT RESURFACING FROM HWY 27 TO REBELLION WAY FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING (Ref. Engineering, Public Works and Building Dept. Report No: EPW-2018-14, C.O.W. Apr. 23/18, 19th Sideroad Resurfacing) By-law #2018-39 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ACCEPT A TENDER AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT FOR CULVERT 311 AND 216 REPLACEMENT FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING (Ref. Engineering, Public Works and Building Dept. Report No: EPW-2018-15, C.O.W. Apr. 23/18, Culvert 311 and 216) 15. CONFIRMATION OF PROCEEDINGS BY-LAW By-law #2018-41 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING HELD ON APRIL 23, 2018 A motion was made by Councillor Eek, seconded by Councillor Schaefer and carried that By- law Number 2018-41 be taken as read a first, second and third time and passed. 16. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Pellegrini declared the meeting to be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 7:25 p.m. ______Steve Pellegrini Mayor ______Kathryn Moyle Director of Clerks/By-law Enforcement Township Clerk The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Minutes of the Council Page 88 of 103 Meeting of April 23, 2018 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE WORKING SESSION MEETING – MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018 Township Committee of the Whole, Working Session met at 4:05 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Township of King Municipal Building, 2075 King Road, King City with Councillor Mortelliti presiding. The following were present at this Meeting: Council Staff Mayor Steve Pellegrini Kathryn Moyle – Director of Clerks/By-law Enforcement Councillor Cleve Mortelliti and Township Clerk Councillor David Boyd Allan Evelyn – Director of Finance and Treasurer Councillor Linda Pabst Andrzej Drzewiecki – Director of Engineering, Public Councillor Debbie Schaefer Works and Building Councillor Avia Eek Gaspare Ritacca – Manager of Planning and Development Chris Fasciano – Director of Parks, Recreation and Culture Jim Wall – Fire Chief/CEMC Diane Moratto – Administrative Clerk – Council/Committee Nancy Cronsberry – Deputy Clerk Jason Ballantyne – Communications Officer Jamie Smyth – Economic Development Officer Kristen Harrison – Planner II Kelly Earley – Zoning/Plans Examiner Jennifer Caietta – Manager of Building Services Paul Kulyk - Planner II Peter Lavrench – Chief Building Official David Van Veen – Senior Project Manager 1. CALL TO ORDER Councillor Mortelliti called the meeting to order. A quorum was present. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Committee recommended and carried that the Agenda for the Committee of the Whole, Working Session Meeting of April 23, 2018 be approved. 3. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There was no declaration of interest. The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 89 of 103 Working Session Report of - 2 - C.O.W. Working Session – April 23, 2018 4. PRESENTATIONS C.O.W. #1 Planning Department Re: Overview – Zoning for Cannabis Kristen Harrison, Planner II, provided a slide presentation overview on Zoning for Cannabis and commented on the following: background on Regulations for medical cannabis, Proposed Regulations for recreational cannabis, approaches to addressing cannabis in the zoning by-law, how a patient obtains cannabis for medical purposes, registering with Health Canada, types of cannabis production facilities, status in King regarding zoning and current activities, developing approaches, cannabis for non-medical (recreational) purposes, and outlined next steps in the process. Ms. Harrison and staff responded to questions and received comments from members of Committee. Committee recommends that the presentation by Ms. Harrison be received. 5. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Committee and carried that the Committee of the Whole, Working Session Meeting of April 23, 2018 be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 5:01 p.m. At the meeting of May 7, 2018, a motion was made by Councillor xx, seconded by Councillor xx and carried that the Committee of the Whole, Working Session Report for the Meeting of April 23, 2018 be adopted. The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 90 of 103 Working Session Report of THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018 Township Committee of the Whole met at 6:08 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Township of King Municipal Building, 2075 King Road, King City with Councillor Mortelliti presiding. The following were present at this Meeting: Council Staff Mayor Steve Pellegrini Kathryn Moyle – Director of Clerks/By-law Enforcement Councillor Cleve Mortelliti and Township Clerk Councillor David Boyd Allan Evelyn – Director of Finance & Treasurer Councillor Linda Pabst Andrzej Drzewiecki – Director of Engineering, Public Councillor Bill Cober Works & Building Councillor Debbie Schaefer Gaspare Ritacca – Manager of Planning and Development Councillor Avia Eek Chris Fasciano – Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture Jim Wall – Fire Chief/CEMC Diane Moratto – Admin. Clerk – Council/Committee Nancy Cronsberry – Deputy Clerk Jason Ballantyne – Communications Officer Jamie Smyth – Economic Development Officer 1. INTRODUCTION OF ADDENDUM ITEMS The Clerk noted that Committee of the Whole Item #7 – Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018-12 – Arts Society King (ASK) Partnership Agreement was amended to correct the Partnership Agreement attachment to the report, Appendix “B” – ASK Stream #2 Funding, (page 107 of 142 on the COW Agenda), the third paragraph that states: “ASK may submit multiple applications for stream two funding, however, the Township will only fund up to $8000 (per year)”, the $8000 should actually read $4000. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Committee recommended and carried that the Agenda for the Committee of the Whole Meeting of April 23, 2018 be approved, as amended. 3. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of pecuniary interest. 4. DETERMINATION OF COMMITTEE ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION 4.1 Items # 1, 9 The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 91 of 103 Reports of April 23, 2018 - 2 - C.O.W. Minutes – April 23, 2018 5. APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION 5.1 Items # 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 6. DEPUTATION(S) 6.1 Daniele Zanotti, President and CEO United Way Toronto & York Region Re: Update on United Way’s Work in the Community Mr. Zanotti, President and CEO, United Way Toronto and York Region, introduced Ms Jane Wedlock, in attendance with him this evening. Mr. Zanotti provided an overview of United Way’s work in the community and the newly created partnership between the City of Toronto, the Region of Peel and York Region. Mr. Zanotti outlined social infrastructure; community connection; strength investments projects; the ‘Empowers IT Support’ program; local solutions; and investment in community initiatives. He thanked Council, staff and the residents of the Township of King for their commitment to the United Way Toronto and York Region. Committee recommends that the deputation by Mr. Zanotti be received. 7. AGENDA ITEMS C.O.W. #1 Administration Department Report ED-2018-05 Re: Ontario’s Main Street Revitalization Initiative - Contribution Agreement Committee considered Administration Department Report Number ED-2018-05 to provide information on the Main Street Revitalization Initiatives funding recently announced by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food & Rural Affairs (OMAFRA), and to enact a by-law for a municipal funding agreement for the transfer of said funds, being administered through the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO). Committee recommends that Administration Department Report Number ED-2018-05 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: 1. THAT Administration Report No. ED-2018-05 be received; 2. AND THAT staff accept Council feedback this evening on the type of eligible projects Council wishes to undertake and direct staff to prepare a further report with project recommendations for Council’s consideration; 3. AND THAT Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enter into a Municipal Funding Agreement for the Main Street Revitalization Initiatives fund between the Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) and the Corporation of the Township of King (Attached as Appendix “A” to this report); 4. AND THAT Council approves and enacts By-law 2018-33 to execute the Funding Agreement at the April 23rd meeting of Township Council. The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 92 of 103 Reports of April 23, 2018 - 3 - C.O.W. Minutes – April 23, 2018 C.O.W. #2 Clerks Department Report Number CL-2018-07 Re: Appointment of Joint Compliance Audit Committee Committee considered Clerks Department Report Number CL-2018-07 to appoint the 2018 – 2022 Joint Compliance Audit Committee. Committee recommends that Clerks Department Report Number CL-2018-07 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: a) Report Number CL-2018-07 be received as information; and b) That the By-law to appoint a Joint Compliance Audit Committee for 2018-2022, be enacted at this evening’s meeting of Council. C.O.W. #3 Engineering, Public Works and Building Department Report Number EPW-2018-14 Re: Award of Tender 2018-T15 – Engineering Services for 19th Sideroad Asphalt Resurfacing Project from Hwy 27 to Rebellion Way Committee considered Engineering, Public Works and Building Department Report Number EPW-2018-14 to obtain approval to award the contract for the 19th Sideroad Asphalt Resurfacing Project from Highway 27 to Rebellion Way, as specified in Tender 2018-T15. Committee recommends that Engineering, Public Works and Building Department Report Number EPW-2018-14 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: a) That C. Valley Paving Ltd, with a total bid in the amount of $665,348.68 (including H.S.T.), being the lowest qualified bidder with respect to Tender 2018-T15, be awarded the Contract for 19th Sideroad Asphalt Resurfacing Project from Hwy 27 to Rebellion Way and; b) That a by-law be passed at the April 23, 2018 Council meeting authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute an agreement between C. Valley Paving Ltd, and the Township of King. C.O.W. #4 Engineering, Public Works and Building Department Report Number EPW-2018-15 Re: Award of Tender 2018-T14 – Culvert 311 and 216 Replacement Project Committee considered Engineering, Public Works and Building Department Report Number EPW-2018-15 to obtain approval to award the contract for Culvert 311 and 216 Replacement Project, as specified in Tender 2018-T14. Committee recommends that Engineering, Public Works and Building Department Report Number EPW- 2018-15 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 93 of 103 Reports of April 23, 2018 - 4 - C.O.W. Minutes – April 23, 2018 a) That Trisan Construction, with a total bid in the amount of $513,522.32 (including H.S.T.), being the lowest qualified bidder with respect to Tender 2018-T14, be awarded the Contract for the Culvert 311 and 216 Replacement Project and; b) That a by-law be passed at the April 23, 2018 Council meeting authorizing the Mayor and Clerk to execute an agreement between Trisan, and the Township of King. C.O.W. #5 Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018-15 Re: Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Lease – Nobleton Arena Committee considered Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018- 15 to provide information on the request to extend the lease agreement with the Region of York to provide EMS services in the Dr. William Laceby Nobleton Community Centre and Arena. Committee recommends that Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC- 2018-15 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: a) That report PRC-2018-15 be received as information; and b) That Committee authorize the Mayor and Clerk to execute the agreement between the Township of King and Region of York as presented in Appendix ‘A’; and c) That Council pass the necessary by-law at the April 23, 2018 meeting. C.O.W. #6 Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018-13 Re: Property Lease Agreement with Elections Ontario – Former Holland Marsh District Christian School Committee considered Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018- 13 to advise of a request to use a portion of the facility at 18955 Dufferin Street (former Holland Marsh District Christian School) through a leasing agreement with Elections Ontario. Committee recommends that Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC- 2018-13 be received, and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: a) That report PRC-2018-13 be received as information; b) That the Mayor and Clerk be authorized to execute an agreement with Elections Ontario and the Township of King substantially similar to the document attached as Appendix ‘A’ subject to minor revisions, if required, to be approved by the Township Solicitor and Director of Parks, Recreation & Culture; c) That Council pass the necessary by-law at the April 23, 2018 meeting of Township Council The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 94 of 103 Reports of April 23, 2018 - 5 - C.O.W. Minutes – April 23, 2018 C.O.W. #7 Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018-12 Re: Arts Society King (ASK) Partnership Agreement Committee considered Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018- 12 to seek endorsement and authorization of the Arts Society King (ASK) Partnership Agreement. Committee recommends that Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC- 2018-12 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: a) That report PRC-2018-12 be received as information; and b) That Council authorize the Mayor and Clerk to enact the Partnership Agreement with Arts Society King; and c) That Council approves the necessary By-Law at the April 23, 2018 meeting of Township Council. C.O.W. #8 Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018-11 Re: Amendment/Addition to the 2018 Capital Program, Museum Interior Renovations Committee considered Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018- 11 to provide information on amending the 2018 Capital Budget to include the Museum Interior Renovations as an additional project. Committee recommends that Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC- 2018-11 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: a) That report PRC-2018-11 be received as information; b) That Committee authorizes an amendment to the 2018 Capital Budget to include the interior renovation of the King Township Museum in the amount of $300,000, with funding sources identified within this report. C.O.W. #9 Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018-14 Re: Ice Allocation Policy Biannual Update Committee considered Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018- 14 to provide the recently updated version of the Ice Allocation Policy for approval. Committee recommends that Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC- 2018-14 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 95 of 103 Reports of April 23, 2018 - 6 - C.O.W. Minutes – April 23, 2018 a) That report PRC-2018-14 be received as information; b) That Council approves the updated Ice Allocation Policy as presented in Appendix ‘A’. C.O.W. #10 Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018-16 Re: Park Re-naming - Nobleton Community Sports Park Committee considered Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC-2018- 16 regarding approving the re-naming of the Nobleton Community Sports Park to the Nobleton Lions Community Park. Committee recommends that Parks, Recreation and Culture Department Report Number PRC- 2018-16 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: a) That report PRC-2018-16 be received as information; b) That Committee approves the re-naming of the Nobleton Community Sports Park to the Nobleton Lions Community Park. C.O.W. #11 Planning Department Report Number P-2018-17 Re: Application for Heritage Permit and Grant File No.: HP-2018-02 Part of Lot 9, Concession 3 13456 Dufferin Street; St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church (Eversley) Owner: Campoli Investments Inc. Applicant: Frank Campoli Committee considered Planning Department Report Number P-2018-17 regarding assessing the merits of Heritage Permit Application HP-2018-02 for property located at 134556 Dufferin Street. The property is designated under Part IV of the Ontario Heritage Act and as per Section 33 of the Act, no owner of property designated under the Act shall alter the property if the alteration is likely to affect the property’s heritage attributes unless the owner applies to the Council of the Municipality and received consent in writing to the alteration. The applicant has further applied for the Township’s Heritage Property Grant Program to receive matching funds for the costs associated with alterations to the property ad defined in By-law #2014-100. Committee recommends that Planning Department Report Number P- 2018-17 be received and the recommendations therein be approved, as follows: a. That Planning Report P-2018-17 be received as information. b. That it is recommended to Council that alterations to a designated property located at 13456 Dufferin Street, St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church BE APPROVED in accordance with the details described in Heritage Permit Application HP-18-02, which was deemed complete on April 9, 2018, with said alterations to: The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 96 of 103 Reports of April 23, 2018 - 7 - C.O.W. Minutes – April 23, 2018 i) Replace the front (eastern facing) door, trim, transom window and muntins above the door to match the existing size, shape and style that currently exists, in wood and, ii) Install the window mentioned above using True Divided Lights (TDLs) c. That it is recommended to Council that the application for a Heritage Grant, totaling a matching contribution of $6,000.00 for the above referenced works, BE APPROVED subject to: i) An inspection being carried out by Township staff to verify that the above mentioned works are fulfilled; ii) All invoices for the works described being provided to the Director of Planning upon completion of the work; iii) All works described being completed within two (2) years of approval of the Grant. 8. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 9. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Committee and carried that the Committee of the Whole Meeting of April 23, 2018 be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 6:44 p.m. At the meeting of May 7, 2018, a motion was made by Councillor xx, seconded by Councillor xx and carried that the Committee of the Whole Report for the Meeting of April 23, 2018 be adopted. The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 97 of 103 Reports of April 23, 2018 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE CLOSED SESSION MEETING – MINUTES (DRAFT) MONDAY, APRIL 23, 2018 Committee of the Whole, Closed Session met at 7:50 p.m. in the Council Chambers, Township of King Municipal Building, 2075 King Road, King City with Councillor Mortelliti presiding. The following were present at this Meeting: Council Staff Mayor Steve Pellegrini Kathryn Moyle – Director of Clerks/By-law Enforcement Councillor Cleve Mortelliti and Township Clerk Councillor David Boyd Gaspare Ritacca – Manager of Planning and Development Councillor Linda Pabst Tom Halinski – Township Solicitor Councillor Bill Cober Councillor Debbie Schaefer Councillor Avia Eek 1. CALL TO ORDER Councillor Mortelliti called the meeting to order. A quorum was present. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Committee recommended and carried that the Agenda for the Committee of the Whole Closed Session Meeting of April 23rd 2018 be approved. 3. DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST There were no declarations of pecuniary interest. 4. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION 4.1 Section 2.7(b), Subsections 5 and 6: Litigation or Potential Litigation Affecting the Municipality Planning Department Report Number P-2018-16 Re: Litigation Matter, Direction Required Planning Files: Z-2014-07 and 19T-14K01; Nobleton Estates Inc. (Local Planning Appeal Tribunal Hearing (LPAT)) The Manager of Planning and Development and Township solicitor, Tom Halinski, reviewed the planning department staff report regarding a litigation matter pertaining to an upcoming hearing of the Local Planning Appeal Tribunal in the Township. The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 98 of 103 Closed Session Reports of - 2 - COW Closed Session Minutes – April 23, 2018 Committee reviewed and discussed the status of the file with staff. It was noted that there should be limits on any marketing of the lots consistent with the proposed pre-condition to Draft Plan Approval for the owner to enter into a No Pre-Sale Agreement with the Township. Mr. Halinski indicated he will ensure provisions are included within the No Pre-Sale Agreement to restrict any marketing of the lots. Committee recommends that the planning department’s staff report be received and that its recommendations be adopted within the Open Session of Council. Carried. 5. APPROVAL OF CLOSED SESSION CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS 5.1 Committee Closed Session Confidential Report of March 19, 2018 Committee reviewed the Closed Session Confidential Report of March 19, 2018 and referred to the Council Meeting for adoption. 6. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Committee and carried that the Committee of the Whole Closed Session Meeting of April 23, 2018 be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 7:22 p.m. At the meeting of May 7th, 2018, a motion was made by Councillor xx, seconded by Councillor xx and carried that the Committee of the Whole Closed Session Report for the Meeting of April 23rd, 2018 be adopted. The Corporation of the Township of King, 2075 King Road, King City, ON Committee of the Whole Page 99 of 103 Closed Session Reports of THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING BY-LAW NUMBER 2018-42 A BYLAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ACCEPT A TENDER AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT FOR ASPHALT MATERIALS REGISTRY FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING WHEREAS Tenders were received for 2018-T04 for Asphalt Materials Registry; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King deems it advisable to enter into a contract with Fermar Paving Limited and Lisbon Asphalt Products; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Tenders from Fermar Paving Limited., in the amount of $58.76 per Tonne (including H.S.T.) and Lisbon Asphalt Products Limited, in the amount of $62.15 per Tonne (including H.S.T.), dated April 20th, 2018, be accepted for Asphalt Materials Registry, as specified under Contract Number 2018-T04. 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation any necessary contracts, forms or other documents forming part of Contract Number 2018-T04. READ a FIRST and SECOND time this 7th day of May, 2018. READ a THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this 7th day of May, 2018. ______Steve Pellegrini Mayor ______Kathryn Moyle Director of Clerks/By-law Enforcement Township Clerk (Ref. Engineering, Public Works & Building Dept. Report No.: EPW 2018-16 C.O.W. May 7/18) By-law #2018-42 Page 100 of 103 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING BY-LAW NUMBER 2018-43 A BY-LAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ACCEPT A TENDER AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT FOR SUPPLY, DELIVERY, MIX AND STOCKPILING OF SCREENED WINTER SAND FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING WHEREAS Tenders were received for 2018-T01 for the Supply, Delivery, Mix and Stockpiling of Screened Winter Sand.; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King deems it advisable to enter into a contract with James Dick Construction Limited; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Tender from James Dick Construction Limited for a three term, be accepted for, supply, delivery, mix and stockpiling of screened winter sand, based on unit prices as follows • 2018 @ $14.07 (+ HST) per Tonne • 2019 @ $14.42 (+ HST) per Tonne • 2020 @ $14.77 (+ HST) per Tonne as specified within the response for Tender Number 2018-T01. 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation any necessary contracts, forms or other documents forming part of Contract Number 2018-T01. READ a FIRST and SECOND time this 7th day of May, 2018. READ a THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this 7th day of May, 2018. ______Steve Pellegrini Mayor ______Kathryn Moyle Director of Clerks/By-law Enforcement Township Clerk (Ref. Engineering, Public Works & Building Dept. Report No.: EPWB 2018-17 C.O.W. May 7/18) By-law #2018-43 Page 101 of 103 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING BY-LAW NUMBER 2018-44 A BYLAW TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO ACCEPT A TENDER AND AUTHORIZE A CONTRACT FOR NOBLETON SANITARY SEWERS PHASE 2 FOR THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING WHEREAS Tenders were received for 2018-T08 for Phase 2 Nobleton Sanitary Sewers; AND WHEREAS the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King deems it advisable to enter into a contract with North Rock Group Ltd.; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Corporation of the Township of King HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. THAT the Tender from North Rock Group Ltd., dated May 2nd, 2018, be accepted in the sum amount of $7,169,585 (including H.S.T.) for Phase 2 Nobleton Sanitary Sewers, as specified under Contract Number 2018-T08. 2. THAT the Tender from North Rock Group Ltd., dated May 2nd, 2018, be accepted for a Provisional Item related to the installation of a conduit at $34,691 (including H.S.T.) under the Phase 2 Nobleton Sanitary Sewers, under Contract Number 2018- T08; subject to the cost recovery from a third party provider. 3. THAT appropriations from Reserves and Reserve Funds be authorized as follows: I. Infrastructure Reserve in the amount of $2,000,000 II. Tribute Maidenstone (Nobleton) Reserve in the amount of $1,106,582 III. Water Reserve Fund (Pre-1997) in the amount of $987,891 2. THAT the Mayor and Clerk are hereby authorized to sign on behalf of the Corporation any necessary contracts, forms or other documents forming part of Contract Number 2018-T08. READ a FIRST and SECOND time this 7rd day of May, 2018. READ a THIRD time and FINALLY PASSED this 7th day of May, 2018. ______Steve Pellegrini Mayor ______Kathryn Moyle Director of Clerks/By-law Enforcement Township Clerk (Ref. Engineering, Public Works & Building and Finance Dept. Joint Report No.: JR 2018-03 C.O.W. May 7/2018) By-law #2018-44 Page 102 of 103 THE CORPORATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF KING BY-LAW NUMBER 2018-45 A BY-LAW TO CONFIRM THE PROCEEDINGS OF COUNCIL AT ITS MEETING HELD ON MAY 7, 2018 The Council of the Corporation of the Township of King HEREBY ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The action of Council in respect of each motion, resolution and other action passed and taken by the Council at its said meeting is, except where the prior approval of the Ontario Municipal Board is required, hereby adopted, ratified and confirmed. 2. The Mayor and the proper officers of the Municipality are hereby authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to the said action or to obtain approvals where required, and, except where otherwise provided, the Mayor and Clerk are hereby directed to execute all documents necessary in that behalf, and the said Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to affix the corporate seal of the Municipality to all such documents. READ a FIRST and SECOND time this 7th day of May, 2018. READ a THIRD time AND FINALLY PASSED this 7th day of May, 2018. ______Steve Pellegrini Mayor ______Kathryn Moyle Director of Clerks/By-law Enforcement Township Clerk By-law #2018-45 Page 103 of 103 9>aSdto4Aa of Vaighan Land Um. (i) • Soil it Clay loam. Planning Department(h).(k) Report • Ful mundpftl aorvicfta to b* previdod. King Oraan OavalopmBnta inc. Page 25 of 103 Number P-2018-20 METTUC