Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
AGENDA - General Committee - 20040217
TOWN OF AURORA ERAL COMMITTEE AGENDA N0.04-06 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2004 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CNAMBERS AUROBA TOWN NALL PUBLIC RELEASE 13/02/04 TOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA NO. 04-06 Tuesday, February 17, 2004 Councillor Vrancic in the Chair. I DECLARATIONS OF PECUNIARY INTEREST ll APPROVAL OF AGENDA RECOMMENDED: THAT the content of the Agenda as circulated by the Corporate Services Department be approved as presented. Ill DETERMINATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION IV ADOPTION OF ITEMS NOT REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION V DELEGATIONS Ms Lisa DiSera, Executive Director, York Region Food Network (pg. 1) Re: Request for Partnership with Town of Aurora for York Region Food Network's Aurora Community Garden Ms Rosemary Park, Aurora Family Connections -Info Aurora (pg. 10) Re: Request for Base Funding for 2004/2005 Mr. Andrew Campbell, Director Solid Waste Management Branch, (pg. 11) Region of York Re: Overview of Waste Management Business Within York Region General Committee Meeting No. 04-06 Page 2 of 6 Tuesday, February 17, 2004 V1 CONSIDERATION OF ITEMS REQUIRING SEPARATE DISCUSSION Vll OTHER BUSINESS, COUNCILLORS Vlll IN CAMERA None IX ADJOURNMENT General Committee Meeting No. 04-06 Page 3 of 6 Tuesday, February 17, 2004 AGENDA ITEMS 1. PW04-007 - Waste Management Update (pg. 12) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council receive General Committee Report No. PW04-007 dated February 17, 2004 from the Director of Public Works providing a waste management update as information; and THAT the collection of kitchen organic material be undertaken in conjunction with the collection of co -mingled blue box material with a proposed implementation date of July 1, 2005; and THAT staff be requested to report further on the specifics of implementation of kitchen organic material waste collection, co -mingled recycle material collection, a waste bag user pay program, and waste collection from Industrial, Commercial and Institutional sources as soon as practicable; and THAT staff discuss with Miller Waste Systems extending the existing waste and recyclable collection contract at the same terms, conditions and unit prices quoted in their May 18, 1999 tender submission until such time as collection of kitchen organic and co -mingled recyclable materials is implemented and report back to Council on the results of this discussion as soon as practicable; and THAT staff be requested to review the Town's current by-laws regarding waste and property cleanup/refuse dumping and report back to Council on any proposed or required amendments; and THAT plastic bags be eliminated from the collection of yard waste as of January 1, 2005; and THAT Council provide direction to staff with respect to the ffuture management of the Town's waste and recycling collection programs; and THAT the Regional Municipality of York Council be informed of these decisions. Page 4 of 6 General Committee Meeting No. 04-06 Tuesday, February 17, 2004 2. 3 9 5. R PL04-015 - Transitional Provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act RECOMMENDED: (pg. 32) THAT the applicants be advised that the status identified on Schedule A to report PL04-015 represents the Town of Aurora's position respecting the transition provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act as they relate to the applications identified. CSO4-004 - Relocation of Aurora Bingo World to 240 Industrial (pg. 123) Parkway South RECOMMENDED: THAT Council approve the relocation of Aurora Bingo World from 215 Edward Street to 240 Industrial Parkway South; and THAT staff advise the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario and Aurora Bingo World of the approval in order to accommodate the operation of the charity bingo events at the new location commencing on or about March 21, 2004. CSO4-001 - Council and Committee Structure (pg. 139) RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee provide direction on this matter. CSO4-005 - Kennel Inn - Animal Control Services (pg. 153) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council approve on an interim period of 6 months the contract extension with Kennel Inn for animal control services at a cost of $50,000. CSO4-003 - Aurora Family Connections - Info Aurora (pg. 184) RECOMMENDED: THAT this report be received and the request for grant funding support from the Aurora Family Connections/Info Aurora be referred to the future budget meetings for consideration. General Committee Meeting No. 04-06 Page 5 of 6 Tuesday, February 17, 2004 7. BA04-002 - Secondary Dwelling Units (pg. 202) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council determine its position with respect to options set out in this report, to address the issue of secondary dwelling units. 8. PL04-018 - Site Plan Application, York Region District (pg. 217) School Board Part Lot 28, Registered Plan 246, 125 Wellington Street West, File D11-10-03 ka 10. RECOMMENDED: THAT Report PL04-018 be received as information; and THAT, subject to a satisfactory review by the Site Plan Committee and receipt of all fees, the Director of Planning be authorised to execute a site plan agreement between York Region District School Board and the Town of Aurora, respecting site development improvements to the Aurora Senior Public School property. PL04-019 - Planning Applications Status List RECOMMENDED: (pg. 222) THAT the Planning Applications Status List be received as information. PW04-002 - Acceptance of Municipal Services — Bayview Wellington Subdivision — Phase III - Registered Plan 65M-3324 (pg. 259) RECOMMENDED: THAT Council accept the municipal services contained within Registered Plan 65M-3324 being Phase III of the Bayview Wellington Subdivision as detailed in Report No. PW04-002; and THAT Council enact By-law 4505-04.D for the assumption of the subject municipal services; and THAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to issue a Certificate of Acceptance of Public Works for said lands as required under Section 3.12 of the Subdivision Agreement; and THAT the Treasurer be directed to release all municipal servicing securities held in relation to the Bayview Wellington Phase III Subdivision. General Committee Meeting No. 04-06 Page 6 of 6 Tuesday, February 17, 2004 11. ADM04-003 - Strategic Planning Process (pg. 265) RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee determine whether it wishes to accept one of the appended third party proposals to facilitate an update of the Strategic Plan; and THAT the Committee determine whether it wishes to incorporate a formal community research component undertaken by a research firm as background to the review. 12. Correspondence from Canadian Waste Recycling Inc. Re: Recycling Used Asphalt Roof Shingles RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee provided direction on this matter. 13. Memorandum from the Director of Leisure Services Re: Aurora Historical Society - Management Committee RECOMMENDED: (pg. 331) (pg. 338) THAT staff be requested to initiate the process of establishing the Management Committee for the Church Street School. 14. Memorandum from Councillor West (pg. 341) Re: Proposed New Recreation Complex RECOMMENDED: THAT the Committee provided direction on this matter. Friday February 6, 2004 Tim Jones, Mayor, Town of Aurora Box 1000 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Dear Mayor Jones, I am writing on behalf of the York Region Food Network (YRFN) to seek your support for the Aurora Community Gardens. York Region Food Network has operated a community garden in Aurora since 1996. For the past eight years, Avant Imaging and Information Management Inc. (AIIM) has generously donated the use of a vacant plot of land adjacent to Lambert Wilson Park as a site for the community gardens. The Town of Aurora has supported our program with services such as promotion, plowing, provision of water, woodchips, picnic tables, etc. YRFN views our community garden program as a wonderful model for promoting a healthy community through a variety of community partnerships. Over the years, YRFN's Aurora Community Garden has provided up to 47 plots for Aurora residents to grow fresh, nutritious food for themselves and their families. During the 2003 season, 46 families participated in the program, along with a group from Canadian Mental Health Association — York Region (who grew food for their weekly hmch program). The gardeners contributed many volunteer hours towards the overall maintenance of the program, including the tending of a communal plot that grew food for the Aurora Food Pantry. The gardeners also donated any of their surplus produce to the Aurora Food Pantry and local food programs. Last week, AIIM informed us that they will be expanding their building and will no longer be able to offer us the use of their land. YRFN has until March 1 st to clear our two sheds and garden supplies off the site. YRFN and the Aurora gardeners are anxious to secure a new site in Aurora so that this important community project can continue in the 2004 season. 194 Eagle Street Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 1J6 Phone:.905-967-0428 toll free: 1-866-454 YRFN (9736) fax: 905-967-0097 website: www.yrfn.ca Email: yrfn@bellnet.ca Although YRFN plans to explore all possibilities for a new garden site in Aurora, we feel that the best option for a sustainable program would be a partnership with the Town of Aurora, with a site on town owned land. In August 2002, I presented a report to the Town of Aurora Leisure Services Advisory Committee with a request to include community gardens in the Town of Aurora Culture and Recreation Master Plan, with a commitment to advancing the establishment of community gardens in the Town of Aurora. I have attached a copy of this report for your information. I have also enclosed the YRFN Community Gardens Coordinator's Report on the 2003 season. York Region Food Network asks that the Town of Aurora consider the benefits of community gardens to our community, the barriers to their development and maintenance, and the ways that the we can work together to support the community's interest in developing and promoting community gardens. I am available to make a deputation to Council to provide information about the YRFN Community Garden Program, as well as information about current models for municipal partnerships for community gardens (examples from Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, etc.). Thank you for your ongoing support for the Aurora Community Gardens. I look forward to hearing from you and hope that we can work together to ensure that community gardens continue to flourish and nourish in Aurora! Sincerely, Lisa DiSera Executive Director York Region Food Network cc. Allan Downey, Director of Leisure Services Bob Panizza, Town Clerk Jim Tree, Manager of Parks Report to the Town of Aurora Leisure Services Advisory Committee August 22,2002 Leisure Services Department Town of Aurora 100 John West Way, Box No. 1000 Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Attention: Allan D. Downey, Director of Leisure Services SUBJECT: Aurora Community Gardens A Co-operative Venture with York Region Food Network Prepared by: Lisa DiSera, Executive Director, YRFN Nancy Wood, Community Initiatives Coordinator, YRFN INTRODUCTION: The Town of Aurora has been working with the York Region Food Network since 1996 to assist in the provision of garden plots for community use. BACKGROUND: York Region Food Network (YRFN) is an incorporated, non-profit organization with a mandate to work towards improved food security in our community. A community enjoys food security when all people, at all times, have access to nutritious, safe, personally acceptable and culturally appropriate foods, which can be obtained in a manner that maintains human dignity. YRFN is made up of individuals and organizations who work together to raise awareness of food security issues and promote action for change in York Region. YRFN does this through education and advocacy; encouraging the development of public policy that promotes increased food security; and demonstration of and support for community based initiatives aimed at increasing access to affordable nutritious food for all people in York Region. YRFN began their involvement with community gardening in 1993. Currently YRFN coordinates three "model' gardens in Aurora, Newmarket and Markham, and provides opportunities for backyard gardening in the Georgina area. A total of 196 gardeners/families are participating in YRFN garden programs this season. In Aurora, the garden sites are located on land owned by the AHM Corporation, located at 205 Industrial Parkway North. This site is in close proximity to Lambert Willson Park. Garden plots are made available to Aurora residents through an application process. Priority is given to low-income applicants. There is no fee to participate, but gardeners are encouraged to make a monetary donation and to volunteer on a garden committee. Gardeners are also encouraged to donate surplus produce to those in need. Several food banks and hostels in York Region benefit from these donations of fresh vegetables. Partnerships have been made with local businesses that support the community garden with in -kind donations of materials and labour. Volunteer opportunities are provided for local high school students and other community members. Services such as ploughing, grass cutting and provision of water are provided by the Parks Department of the Town of Aurora. Communication with the Town regarding the Aurora Community Garden is currently directed to Jim Tree, Parks Supervisor. Nancy Wood, Community Initiatives Coordinator (a staff position with YRFN) is the contact for the YRFN. For the 2002 season, 41 gardeners/families are gardening on 36 plots at the Aurora Community Garden. Canadian Mental Health Association has a plot at the gardens and has eight clients participating in growing vegetables for their weekly lunch program. This is the first year that YRFN has had a waiting list for garden plots at the Aurora Community Garden. For 2003, YRFN hopes to expand the garden to 42 plots in response to growing interest from the community. As part of their mandate to improve food security in our community, York Region Food Network is committed to: • Providing start-up support, ongoing advice and technical support to community members and groups interested in starting new community gardens within York Region. • Continuing to coordinate the Aurora Community Garden, along with the other model gardens in Markham and Newmarket, as long as the land is available and they can maintain the current level of program funding which comes primarily from individual and corporate donations. REQUEST: 1. York Region Food Network requests that the Town of Aurora Culture and Recreation Master Plan include a commitment to advancing the establishment of community gardens in Town Parks and other Town owned, or privately sponsored land. 2. York Region Food Network requests a Community Partnership Program Agreement between the York Region Food Network and the Town of Aurora to formalize the existing partnership that exists for the purpose of providing services to the Aurora Community Garden. These services currently include: • Plowing the Aurora Community Garden site in the spring and fall. • Provision of water and woodchips to the Aurora Community Garden site. • Cutting the grass surrounding the Aurora Community Garden site. • Provision of garbage cans and regular garbage pick-up. • Provision of picnic tables at the Aurora Community Garden site. • Promotion of the Aurora Community Gardens in the spring edition of the Aurora Leisure Services Guide. • Promotion in the Town of Aurora Community Notice Board published in the Era Banner. • Provision of Aurora Community Garden signage. York Region Food Network requests that the Town of Aurora Culture and Recreation Master Plan include. a provision for a Community Partnership Program to support community groups interested in working with YRFN and the Town of Aurora to start up new community gardens. CONCLUSION: Community gardens promote healthier communities. They provide participants with fresh, nutritious produce at relatively low cost. They provide an enjoyable recreational activity. Community gardens provide a focal point for people to come together in community and build neighbourhood relationships. As such, they are a legitimate community enhancement and recreational project and should. be included in the Town of Aurora Culture and Recreation Master Plan. YRFN requests permission to make a presentation on Community Gardens to the Leisure Services Advisory Committee on September 12, 2002. Respectfully Submitted, Lisa DiSera, Executive Director, YRFN Nancy Wood, Community Initiatives Coordinator, YRFN York Region Food Network Community Gardens Program Report on the 2003 Garden Season York Region Food Network has been coordinating community gardens since 1993, with sites currently located in Aurora, Newmarket and Markham. The program is provided free of charge to local residents who want to grow food for themselves and their families. Participants also share any extra fruit and vegetables with local food banks, agencies or families in need. A Backyard Gardening Program is provided for low-income residents who are referred through local agencies. York Region Food Network also provides resources and support to individuals and groups interested in starting new community gardens in York Region. Aurora Community Gardens: • 46 families and 1 local agency participated during the 2003 season. ■ The number of plots in Aurora was expanded to 47 (36 plots in 2002) • A waiting list this season is evidence of the increasing popularity of community gardening in Aurora. • A group from Canadian Mental Health Association - York Region had a successful growing season; providing fruit and vegetables for their weekly lunch program. • A very successful Open House was held in August, lots of food & recipes were shared. ■ Challenges: weeds and wildlife that continually raided certain plots. • Volunteer Committees included: Measuring & Staking, Start-up, Phoning, Student Supervision, Weeding, Shed & Tool Maintenance, Open House, and Fall Cleanup Markham Community Gardens: • 43 families, 1 school group, 2 group homes participated during the 2003 season. • Spring rains delayed plowing and compost delivery; resulted in a late start to the season. • Landowner, Carmen Lewis, celebrated his 90th birthday and has remained happily involved with the garden again this year: • Challenges: weeds • Volunteer Committees included: Start-up, Phoning, Shed & Tool Maintenance, Open House, and Fall Cleanup Newmarket Community Gardens: • 68 families participated during the 2003 season. • A new initiative for a communal raised herb bed was started; to be completed for 2004. • A successful Open House held in July; many gardeners shared their enthusiasm, food and recipes • Volunteer Committees: Measuring & Staking, Startup, Phoning, Student Supervision, Food Donation and Fall Cleanup • Special thanks to Charlie Schrier, a dedicated gardener in Newmarket who retired early in the season. Backyard Gardening kits: ■ A total of 61 kits distributed ■ This program was under review this year due to budget constraints, but ended up being expanded! ■ New group from Jackson's Point Co-operative Homes (Mom's Klub) received 15 kits • Clients referred from Georgina Food Pantry received 20 kits • Clients referred from the "All Babies Count" prenatal nutrition programs in Newmarket, Sutton and Keswick received 26 kits. Telephone evaluation was conducted at the end of the season; noted that participants had varying results/success. Poor results were usually due to limited gardening knowledge and lack of support. Recommendation: Update instructional gardening resources provided to program participants, sponsor educational workshops for all groups receiving backyard gardening kits. Educational Activities: • "Gardeners Know -How"'/ day workshop was held in June (in Newmarket), and was attended by 30 gardeners from the 3 garden sites. Nick Johannsma, a retired missionary and soil expert to third world community gardens, and 3 volunteer gardeners spoke on the benefits of enriching the soil, mulching, bug control and water efficiency. • Educational resources were researched and provided for the Garden Open House events, and upon request to program participants. • Volunteer Appreciation Event held in October, with master gardener Marie Barnes giving a presentation on Heritage Seeds. ■ Event evaluation/feedback forms noted that gardeners enjoyed the opportunity to share information and give advice at workshops, work'parties', open houses, etc.; these activities are constructive and informative for all. Donations and Services, Community Partnerships: • We are most grateful for the donation of land at no cost by: The AIIM Group (Aurora) Mr. Carmen Lewis (Markham) The Regional Municipality of York (Newmarket) ■ The Regional Municipality of York and the Parks Departments in Aurora, Newmarket and Markham provided in -kind contributions in the way of spring and fall rototilling, water servicing and woodchips for pathways. • The Miller Group donated compost to all 3 garden sites. • Landsource Organix distributed the compost. • The following: companies provided seed and plant donations (for the Backyard Gardening Kit, and for gdrdener's in need): Stokes Seeds Ltd., Ecogenesis, The Composting Council of Canada, Canadian Tire Store (Aurora), White Rose Home & Garden Centre (Newmarket), Mr. & Mrs. Sherman, (Aurora), Holland Valley-Gardenland (Newmarket), E. Bishenden & Lester B. Pearson P.S. • Sherwin Williams Paint Co. -Consumer Division donated paint for a shed at the Newmarket site and for the raised herb bed. ■ Gardening tools and a variety of useful resources were donated by several Aurora gardeners. • Margaret McCleary, Coordinator of the Richmond Hill Community Gardens donated gardening books that were made available to the gardeners. Volunteers: • Gardeners are asked to contributed a minimum of 6 hours per family, volunteering on a 'working committee' (Liason & Problem Solving, Measuring & Staking, Start-up, Student Supervision, Phoning, Shed & Tool Maintenance, Food Bank Delivery, Weeding, Open House, Fall Cleanup). • Volunteerism is supported by approximately 95% of gardeners; it is evident that the program participants are willing and able to collectively assume some significant responsibilities on site. • Two key Liaison volunteers at each garden site acted as local contacts and dealt with many day-to-day concerns, contributing greatly to the success of the program. ■ Approximately 1600 volunteer hours contributed by gardeners during the 2003 season. • More than 100 volunteer hours contributed by student volunteers from several local high schools during the garden start-up. • A successful Volunteer Appreciation event was held in October to recognize the important contributions of the many volunteers. Recommendations for expanding opportunities for volunteerism: 1. Provide initiatives to get and keep youth involved as volunteers through out the season, not just in May and June. Make links with local agencies (ie. Youth Centres, Rose of Sharon, Probation & Aftercare Services, York Support Services Network, Youth in Transition). 2. Provide opportunities for Cubs, Brownies, local Horticultural youth programs, service clubs to participate (together or individually) on specific time limited projects such as: communal herb garden, building a compost site, building butterfly and/or bat houses, adopting a senior with regular weeding/watering activities.... 3. "Seedy Saturdays" to exchange or buy organic heirloom seeds. This is a popular pre- season event, sponsored by Seeds of Diversity and local community garden networks across Canada. This is a good way to profile the program in the community and fundraise. It has also been requested by our gardeners! Community Gardens Coordinator's Networking and New Initiatives: • Speaker at Simcoe County's Food Solutions Forum in March 2003 • Liaised with a group from the Bogart Co-op in Newmarket; recipients of funding from York Region's Heart Health program to start their own community garden. • Liaised with the Richmond Hill Community Gardens coordinator. • Liaised with staff at Seneca College- King Campus who are coordinate several gardening initiatives to grow produce for food banks. • Attended a July tour of gardens & workshops sponsored by the Ottawa Community Gardens Network. • Participated in a Community Garden and Greening Research Survey for the American Community Gardening Association. • Attended a September meeting with staff at the Town of Markham, and representatives from FoodShare, Markham Environmental Alliance and the Ontario Horticultural Society regarding planning for future community gardens in the Town of Markham. • Ongoing resbarch and communication with other Canddian and American community gardeners via several internet listserves; a very rich resource of ideas. Program Recommendations fof the 2004 Season: 1. Develop long term, sustainable partnerships with The Region of York, Town of Aurora, Town of Markham and Town of Newmarket, for the purpose of securing long term tenure of current or new community garden sites. Assist in the development of regional/ municipal policy to promote and maintain 'community garden green space' that supports many of the core values stated the York Region "Vision 2026" report and York Region Greening Strategy. 2. Continue to promote gardener volunteerism, with due recognition at the end of the season. 3. "Cultivate" partnerships with key Liaison volunteers at each site. 4. Provide educational workshops for all garden participants, including the "Backyard Garden" program participants. 5. Explore new possibilities to partner and develop "Plant A Row, Grow A Row" programs in York Region. (to facilitate donations of produce to local food banks or agencies) 6. Continue our membership with The American Community Gardens Association and be involved/ lend our support to their 25'h Annual Conference to be held in Toronto, Ontario, October 1-3, 2004. Some final comments... It continues to amaze me how people find ways to cross 'barriers' of age, disability, gender, language, nationality and level of gardening knowledge to BECOME Gardeners! Each year, York Region Food Network sees an increasing number of families who are keen to participate with their young children for many reasons that could be summed up as "character building" at its' bestl So the next generation of gardeners is very much with us! This year, we had more volunteers helping out at the community gardens than we've ever had before -- and there have been many comments this year by gardeners and visitors alike that the gardens have looked fantastic! I hope that with foresight and planning, York Region Food Network can move ahead to secure long term sustainability for community gardening in York Region. I believe that the continued success of community gardens in York Region depends on a vision of how community gardens support healthy communities. It is hoped that this vision can be shared with all levels of community; from individuals, groups, corporations, municipalities and the Region of York. Community gardening is an infinitely expandable activity, so there's always something meaningful to do for everyone involved! Respectfully submitted, Nancy Wood Community Initiatives (Gardens) Coordinator York Region Food Network January 26, 2004 OR�K REG{ON F0 � D N ;T'WO CommWnii�y ; rdens A happy Markham gardener! Garden donations for the food bank. c.� tie f^Ecd!��cl< ¢ �rii I• �afran� .�3�ticiK:�.. nt". Hard at worW "My children were actively involved. They benefited from growing their own fresh food They also learned the value of giving back to the community. They were excited about harvesting and tasting what they had grown. -an Aurora gardener `9 was amazed at the yield from the amount of plants in a 10' x 10' plot! I would like to be more involved with my child (next year). " -a Markham gardener "It was a great program for our (agency) members ... it built their confidence in trying something new!" Canadian Mental Wealth Assoc. group -----Original Message ----- From: Rosemary Park [mailto:repark@interware.net] Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 12:51 PM To: Panizza, Bob Subject: Deputation status - This email represents AFC's request to present our "Request for base funding for FY04105 to continue the provision of town reception, Information Aurora community information and referral, and Aurora Volnteer Centre recruitment and referral services at the front desk of the Town Hall of Aurora". Thanks Rosemary Park A To: B. Panizza, Director of Corporate Services From: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works CC: L. Allison, C.A.O. Date: February 11, 2004 Re: Presentation at the February 17, 2004 General Committee Meeting Mr. Andrew Campbell, Director Solid Waste Management Branch, York Region will attend the February 17, 2004 General Committee meeting to present an overview of the waste management business within York Region. W. H jaekscn Director of Public Works ,,. ENDA ITEM # TTOWN OF AURORA GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PW04-007 SUBJECT: Waste Management Update FROM: W. H. Jackson, Director of Public Works DATE: February 17, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT Council receive General Committee Report No, PW04-007 dated February 17, 2004 from the Director of Public Works providing a waste management update as information; THAT the collection of kitchen organic material be undertaken in conjunction with the collection of co -mingled blue box material with a proposed implementation date of July 1, 2005; THAT staff be requested to report further on the specifics of implementation of kitchen organic material waste collection, co -mingled recycle material collection, a waste bag user pay program, and waste collection from Industrial, Commercial and Institutional sources as soon as practicable; THAT staff discuss with Miller Waste Systems extending the existing waste and recyclable collection contract at the same terms, conditions and unit prices quoted in their May 18, 1999 tender submission until such time as collection of kitchen organic and co -mingled recyclable materials is implemented and report back to Council on the results of this discussion as soon as practicable; THAT staff be requested to review the Town's current by-laws regarding waste and property cleanup/refuse dumping and report back to Council on any proposed or required amendments; THAT plastic bags be eliminated from the collection of yard waste as of January 1, 2005, THAT Council provide direction to staff with respect to the future management of the Town Is waste and recycling collection programs; and THAT the Regional Municipality of York Council be informed of these decisions. February 17, 2004 - 2 - Report No. PW04-007 BACKGROUND Council is presently faced with the following significant waste management issues all of which will occur within a short time frame and, directly impact each other: York Region will be entering into an agreement with Halton Recycling Ltd. to operate a combination organic/yard waste processing facility in Newmarket commencing operation later this year, and subsequently has requested the area municipalities to: a) Eliminate the collection of yard waste in plastic bags by January 1, 2005; and b) Implement a source separated organics program no later than July 1, 2005. The Bales Drive Waste Recovery and Transfer Facility is expected to open in the first half of 2005; • The matter of litter control is coming to the forefront; and The Town's current waste and recycling collection contract with Miller Waste Systems expires August 31, 2004. COMMENTS As noted above, there are a number of issues that Council needs to consider. Details on these matters are presented below. 1.0 Implementation of a Source Separated Organic and Co -mingled Recyclables Collection Program Source separated organic collection (also known as kitchen organic collection) forms an integral part of the 3-stream waste collection system Council endorsed at its meeting of September 26, 2000. 1.1 Program Details This is a Region wide organic diversion program where household organics (i.e. fruits, vegetables, coffee/tea grounds, etc.) are separated by residents (i.e. source separated) for collection independent from waste and recyclables (i.e. 3--stream), and subsequently processed into marketable composting products. This initiative would be similar to existing programs in Guelph and parts of Toronto. Regional staff has proposed to offer assistance to area municipalities with the development of a co-ordinated system, promotion, and education program. York Region is requesting area municipalities to implement their organic collection program by July 1, 2005. 00001 February 17, 2004 - 3 - Report No. PWV04-007 1.2 Organic Processing Facility York Region will be entering a two-year (plus 3 one-year extensions at the discretion of the Region) contract with Halton Recycling Ltd. to receive and process organics and yard waste at their Newmarket facility starting April 1, 2004. This is considered a short term management approach as York Region has entered into a joint Request for Proposal (RFP) with Toronto and Durham Region to develop a longer term management of a larger organic and yard waste processing capacity. It is anticipated that the results of the RFP will be presented to Regional Council in March 2004. Regional staff is also holding discussions with Durham Region and other private contractors to develop contingency plans to receive and/or process York Region's organic and yard waste should Halton's facility encounter operational problems. 1.3 Discussion 1.3.1 Diversion Rates Although organic collection is considered a program enhancement, the new Provincial government is committed to mandating organic collection within the next five years. It is anticipated that the 2003 Region wide diversion rate of 24% would increase to over 41 %, upon full implementation of the organic collection program. 1.3.2 Costs Based on the Town's current contract costs and the Region's implementation dates, it is anticipated that collection costs would increase from approximately $1.3 million annually in 2004 (no organic collection) to $1.9 million in 2005 (organic collection starting July 2005) and $2.2 million in 2006 (full implementation of organic collection). These costs have been identified in the Public Works 2004-2006 Operating Budget forecast. The costs cannot, of course, be verified until a new contract is tendered. Additional capital costs of approximately $400,000 would also be required if the Town were to supply all residents with a small kitchen bucket to collect organics and a larger curb side collection container, similar to that currently used in Toronto. These costs have not been identified in the Department's forecast, and York Region at this time has not committed to provide any funding towards the purchase of these containers. The decisions that are required before implementation of this collection system (all of which will impact costs) are: February 17, 2004 .4. Report No. PW04-007 • Start date of implementation; • Frequency of collection; • Containers materials will be collected in; and • Necessity or applicability of a three -bag waste limit. 1.3.3 Bales Drive Waste Recovery and Transfer Facility The Region's new Bales Drive (East Gwillimbury) waste recovery facility is not expected to be operational until early 2005. This facility is closer to Aurora than the present Markham transfer site where the Town's waste is taken. Additionally, this site will accept co -mingled recyclable materials. 2.0 Elimination of Yard Waste in Plastic Bags 2.1 Current The Town provides 14 yard waste collections annually, and residents are allowed the use of either clear plastic bags or open containers (i.e. garbage cans and bushel baskets) to dispose of their yard waste. Most residents utilize the plastic bags, however, the use of kraft paper bags is becoming more popular. 2.2 York Region's Request To Eliminate Plastic Bags Plastic contamination in finished compost represents a concern to contractors marketing a usable end product from the yard waste. In addition, the Region's facility operator (Halton Recycling Ltd.) has offered a reduction in processing costs in the order of $200,000 annually if kraft paper bags are used. Inasmuch as the Region is responsible forthe processing costs, no savings to the local municipalities are anticipated to be passed down. York Region is requesting local municipalities to implement the elimination of plastic bags starting January 1, 2005. 2.3 Discussion Elimination of plastic bags would require residents to utilize either kraft paper bags or open containers. Kraft paper bags are smaller than plastic bags, and therefore would result in additional cost and effort from the residents due to the increased number of bags. Regional staff is proposing to offer assistance to area municipalities with developing a co-ordinated promotion and education program to disseminate information on this issue. York Region is currently the only Greater Toronto Area region that allows the use of plastic bags for yard waste. February 17, 2004 - 5 - Report No. PW04-007 3.0 Collection Contract All of the above matters will impact the Town's collection arrangements and ultimately costs. 3.1 Existing Contract Term The Town's current five year contract with Miller Waste Systems of Markham, Ontario -expires on August 31, 2004. There is no allowance in the contract for an extension. 3.2 ExistinclServices Provided The contract includes the collection and disposal of waste, blue box recyclables, yard waste, Christmas trees, and white goods from residential areas (including apartments and condominiums), industrial/commercial/institutional (ICI) addresses, and the Public Works Yard. Collection at other Town owned buildings including the Town Hall and recreational facilities is under a separate contact administered by Leisure Services. The contract also provides unit prices for the collection of organics because this program was anticipated to commence in late 2002 based on best available information from York Region when the tender was issued in early 1998. 3.3 Existing Value Estimated value of the contract based on Miller's current unit prices and the Town's service levels are approximately $1.3 million annually, and are governed primarily by the number of residential and ICI units serviced. There is no provision in the contract for an increase in the unit costs over the life of the contract. 3.4 Discussion As noted in Section 1.1, implementation of an organic collection program is proposed to occur by July 1, 2005 although acceptance of organics at the Halton Recycling Ltd. Newmarket site is expected to occur in April 2004. Additionally, the Bales Drive Facility (see Section 1.3.3), which will accept co -mingled recyclable material, is not expected to be operational until early 2005. Both of these changes will have a significant impact on the Town's collection procedures particularly with respect to collection frequency and type of trucks used. If the existing contract is allowed to lapse, to continue with the existing collection arrangement from September 1, 2004 to July 1, 2005 and then switch over to the new organic and co -mingled recyclable collection would require staff to develop and tender a two -tiered contract: February 17, 2004 - 6 - Report No. PW04-007 Regional staff has suggested that any current contracts expiring prior to the completion of the Bales Drive Waste Recovery Facility and implementation of the organic collection program be extended until 2005. The contract extensions would provide Regional and area municipal staff with sufficient time to discuss logistics, timing, and cost implications. If the existing contract is not extended, and to ensure uninterrupted collection service, a tender call would be required by late April of this year, with the tender results and subsequent recommendations submitted to Council in late June for consideration. It is anticipated that any newly tendered unit prices will be higher than the current costs, as there has been no increase for the past five years under the terms of the present contract. Additionally, Council would need to make some significant decisions related especially to organic collection (see Section 1.3.2) within the next couple of weeks. In exploratory discussions, a Miller representative has indicated interest in extending the present contract. However, comments have been reserved on maintaining current unit prices until an official request has been received from the Town. 4.0 By-laws Recent anti -litter initiatives and upcoming implementation of organics collection will require modification to certain Town by-laws. 4.1 Waste By-law Number 3261-91 of May 15, 1991 (including By-law Number 3643-95.E of June 28, 1995 amending schedules of the afore -mentioned by-law) sets the parameters for residential and ICI waste, recycling, yard waste, and white goods collection, and is included in the current contract. The collection of organics is not identified in the current by-law. 4.2 Cleanup of Property/Dumping of Refuse By-law Number 3354-91 of December 18, 1991 authorizes the Town to enact various by-laws dealing with matters related to debris and refuse on both private and municipal property. Public Works staff uses this current by-law occasionally with respect to the collection contract when dealing with absentee homeowners. 4.3 Discussion As part of any proposed contract extension or new tender call, organics will need to be identified in an updated waste by-law. Council may also choose to review waste container limits and sizes, ICI and apartment/condominium collection, waivers to enter private property, and user fees to better implement a more consistent and cost effective collection program. t February 17, 2004 - 7 - Report No. PW04-007 With respect to the less used by-law pertaining to debris and refuse on both private and municipal property, Council may choose to review this by-law to better provide increased enforcement for both collection and the Town's new anti -litter program. 5.0 Management of Collection Programs 5.1 Current . Public Works manages the Town's waste and recycling collection programs, with advertising and enforcement assisted by the Marketing/Communications Co- ordinator and By-law staff respectively. As there is a desire to better manage the collection programs through one assigned employee (rather than the responsibilities currently spread over several employees), Public Works has included a contract Waste Management Co-ordinator in its proposed 2004 budget for Council's consideration. It is envisioned that this employee in addition to coordinating the current collection and upcoming organic collection programs, would also be utilized to assist with the Town's new anti -litter program. 5.2 Alternative Although York Region assumed responsibility for all disposal and processing costs in 2003, collection responsibility has remained with the area municipalities. As directed by Council at its meeting of September 24, 2002, staff have participated in a number of governance meetings between York Region and the local municipalities regarding collection responsibilities. To date, there has been no resolution to this matter. York Region is currently the only Greater Toronto Area region where collection and disposal/processing responsibilities are assigned to area municipalities and the Region respectively. 5.3 Discussion Maintaining collection responsibilities would allow Aurora to control service delivery levels utilizing current and future staff as required, thereby exercising direct control over the Town's tax rate. Movement of collection responsibilities to York Region would allow flexibility for more Town staff resources, however, it is unclear if there are financial benefits to be gained by the taxpayer under this scenario. OPTIONS Council may choose not to act at this time, refer this report back to staff for further February 17, 2004 - 8 - Report No. PW04-007 information, or provide direction to staff regarding the various issues. CONCLUSIONS Implementation of Kitchen Organic Material and Co -Mingled Recyclable Material Collection It is anticipated that there will be an increase in collection costs when we begin collecting kitchen organic material. On the other hand, we anticipate a decrease in collection costs when we start collecting co -mingled recyclable material. Accordingly, coupled with the fact that the collection trucks we ultimately use will undoubtedly be different than those that are presently used, it would be prudent to delay the collection of organic material until the Region can accept the co -mingled recyclable material. This would, therefore, establish an implementation date in 2005 (July 1, 2005 as requested by the Region) for both organic and co -mingled recyclable collection. Extension of Existing Contract The main point of concern relates to the expiration of the existing collection contract on August 31, 2004. Under normal circumstances, a new tender would be issued well in advance of the expiry date. This would then allow whatever activities were required prior to the start of the new contract (purchase of trucks, notification of residents/businesses of the change, organize contacts etc.) to be completed. Circumstances today however, do not lend themselves to a new contract because a different collection system is expected to be implement by mid 2005. In addition, at that time the Town's waste, recyclable and organic material will be delivered to different locations than at present. In this scenario, the contract would have to be structured to deal with two entirely different arrangements. The distances traveled now versus those traveled with the new collection system will vary. Additionally, the type (and possibly number) of trucks used will change with the new collection system. All of these variables will be reflected in the cost of collection. Normally under the Town's Procurement Policies and Procedures staff would tender this contract shortly so as to be ready for August 31, 2004. However, it is the opinion of staff that extension of the existing contract should be pursued as the first alternative (as noted earlier, preliminary discussions have been held with the Town's collection contractor on this matter). A longer -term contract would then be tendered in 2005 upon confirmation of implementation and facility operation dates to deal solely with the ultimate 3-stream collection system. This is a "cleaner" alternative that will allow the capital costs of the collection trucks to be recovered by the contractor over a reasonable period of time and will ensure that the ultimate collection arrangement has been finalized with the Region as appropriate. The alternative also allows Council sufficient time to deal with the various detailed decisions that need to be made as noted in this report. 00001 February 17, 2004 - 9 - Report No. PW04-007 Update of the Towns' Current By-laws Regarding Waste and Property Cleanup/Refuse Dumping It is apparent that the existing by-laws dealing with waste and recycling as well as debris and refuse on private property need to be updated. All of these matters should also be coordinated with any anti -litter programs the Town may engage in as well as the elimination of plastic bags within the yard waste stream. In consideration of the above, it would be prudent to begin the review and modernization of the appropriate by-laws now in anticipation of the onset of the 3-stream collection system. Management of the Town's Waste and Recycling Collection Program Town Council at its meeting of September 24, 2002 requested: "...staff to report furtherto Council after appropriate consultations have been held with the Region on the matter of the Region assuming responsibility for all collection activities in the Town of Aurora including the cost thereof" As noted in this report, discussions with the Region and all local municipalities have been undertaken in this matter with no resolution to date. Staff believes this is an appropriate time for Council to revisit this matter and provide direction to staff. In essence, there are two choices. Council can inform the Region that they wish to retain responsibility for the collection of waste, recyclable, yard waste and kitchen organics. In this way, the Town can determine the service levels however, the cost will appear on the Town portion of the property tax bill. The second alternative is to request the Region to assume all collection duties. In this regard, the Region will be in a position to dictate: the levels of service. The costs can be applied either directly to the Regional portion of the property tax (assuming all other local municipalities request the Region to assume their collection) orthe Region can invoice the Town. In the latter case, the cost will still appear on the Town portion of the property tax bill. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There has been no recent tender awards in York Region, given that contracts in Vaughan, Newmarket, Whitchurch-Sto uffvi Ile, East Gwillimbury, and King Township also expire in 2004, Markham in 2005, Georgina in 2007, and Richmond Hill in 2009. It is difficult, therefore, to accurately determine at this time what additional expected costs Aurora will face, although efforts in this regard have been made in the 2004-2006 Outlook work. It is anticipated that collection costs will increase, because the current contract prices have remained the same for the past five years. 0' 00/20 February 17, 2004 - 10 - Report No. PW04-007 Based on the Town's current collection contract costs and 2004 proposed budget, it is estimated that with the proposed implementation of organic collection in July 2005, an additional $600,000 in 2005 and $300,000 in 2006 will need to be budgeted for collection. These estimated costs are exclusive of any additional costs as a result of a contract extension or new tender, as directed by Council.. It should be noted the above identified costs also include additional residential units to be serviced as a result of growth. In addition to the above, an estimated start-up cost of $400,000 in capital cost in 2005 (and an estimated $10,000 annually afterwards for growth) for organic containers to be distributed to the residents will also be incurred. Council will need to make a decision on this matter in the near future and accordingly, this cost has not been included in the Outlook estimates. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN Goal A — To Maintain A Well Managed and Fiscally Responsible Municipality ATTACHMENTS York Region Report No. 2 of the Regional Solid Waste Management Committee Meeting of January 14, 2004, adopted by York Region Council on January 22, 2004 PRE -SUBMISSION REVIEW Management Team Meeting - February 11, 2004 Prepared by. Ken Lauppe, Manager of Operations Services, ext. 3442 W. H. Director of Public Works 001i January 28, 2004 Si 1 �.- r e i i Mr. Bob Panizza Director of Corporate Services and Town Clerk Town of Aurora P.O. Box 1000, 100 John West Way Aurora, ON L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Panizza Re: Halton Recycling Limited Contract Office of the Regional Clerk Corporate Services Department CORP. SERVICES DEPT. COPIES CIRCULATED TO: C.A.O. Dir. Of Building Admin. Fire Chief Dir, Of Leisure Services Dir. Of. Plnnning Dir. of Public Works Treasurer Regional Council at its meeting of January 22, 2004 adopted recommendations from the Solid Waste Management Committee to accept a proposal from Halton Recycling Ltd, as follows: 1. Council accept the proposal from Halton Recycling Ltd. (HRL) to receive and process up to 60,000 tonnes/yr. of household source separated organics starting September 1", 2004 and approximately 20,000 tonnes/yr. of yard waste starting April 1st, 2004 at their Newmarket facility, for a term of two years plus three one year extensions at the discretion of the Region as outlined in the staff report and conditional upon approval of the required funding in the 2004 Regional budget. 2. The contract include provisions allowing the Region to terminate the contract should HRL fail to complete the proposed environmental upgrades to the facility or maintain compliance with required operational and environmental standards to the satisfaction of the Region. 3. The Regional Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Transportation and Works, be authorized to prepare the contract documents. 4. The Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the Region conditional upon approval of the required funding in the 2004 Regional budget, 5. Council request the nine local municipalities to commit by May, 2004 to eliminate the collection of yard waste in plastic bags upon renewal and/or extension of their associated collection contracts for implementation January 1, 2005. O /2 N The Regional Municipality of York, 17250 Yonge Street, Newmarket, Ontario L3Y 6Z] Tel: 905-830-4444 Ext, 1320, 1-877-GO4-YORK, Fax: 905-895-3031 Internet: wtuueregion.york.on.ra Mr. Bob Panizza January 28, 2004 Page 2 6. Council request the nine local municipalities to finalize and report back to Regional Council by May, 2004 on the design and proposed implementation date of their collection systems for source separated organics with implementation occurring no later than July l', 2005. The contract with Halton Recycling Ltd. be conditional upon the following: The necessary work be done to correct any operational conditions which may lead to odour problems and that Town of Newmarket staff or its consultants be part of the process; and 2. Halton Recycling Ltd. be required on a pro rata basis to contribute to the extension of Harry Walker Drive to Mulock Drive, 8. The Town of Markham be requested to guarantee that it will provide the minimum tonnage required, which is 2,000 tonnes of Source Separated Organics per year, starting September 2004 for a period of five years, 9. York Region will guarantee to the Town of Markham that the Source Separated Organics Program will continue for at least five years starting in September 2004. 10. Staff be directed to renegotiate the put or pay clause and/or the rate for yard waste. I direct your attention to Recommendation Nos. 5 and 6 requesting action from your municipality by May, 2004. Please find a copy of the referenced report attached. If you require any further information, please contact Andrew Campbell, Director of Solid Waste Management at Ext. 5711. Sincerely Denis Kelly Regional Clerk DK/sn Attach. C. Andrew Campbell, Director of Solid Waste Management Report No. 2 of the Solid Waste Management Committee was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting on January 22, 2004. HALTON RECYCLING LTD. CONTRACT The Solid Waste Management Committee recommends the adoption of the recommendations contained in the following report, December 18, 2003, from the Commissioner of Transportation and Works, with the following additional recommendations: 7. The contract with Halton Recycling Ltd. be conditional upon the following: The necessary work be done to correct any operational conditions which may lead to odour problems and that Town of Newmarket staff or its consultants be part of the process; and 2. Halton Recycling Ltd. be required on a pro rata basis to contribute to the extension of Harry Walker Drive to Mulock Drive. 8. The Town of Markham be requested to guarantee that it will provide the minimum tonnage required, which is 2,000 tonnes of Source Separated Organics per year, starting September 2004 for a period of five years. 9. York Region will guarantee to the Town of Markham that the Source Separated Organics. Program will continue for at least five years starting in September 2004. 10. Staff be directed to renegotiate the put or pay clause and/or the rate for yard waste. RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that: Council accept the proposal from Halton Recycling Ltd. (HRL) to receive and process up to 60,000 tonnes/yr. of household source separated organics starting September 1", 2004 and approximately 20,000 tonnes/yr. of yard waste starting April 151, 2004 at their Newmarket facility for a term of two years plus three one year extensions at the discretion of the Region as outlined in this report and conditional upon approval of the required funding in the 2004 Regional budget. 000024 2 Report No. 2 Solid Waste Management Committee 2. The contract include provisions allowing the Region to terminate the contract should HRL fail to complete the proposed environmental upgrades to the facility or maintain compliance with required operational and environmental standards to the satisfaction of the Region. 3. The Regional Solicitor, in consultation with the Commissioner of Transportation and Works, be authorized to prepare the contract documents. 4. The Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the Region conditional upon approval of the required funding in the 2004 Regional budget. 5. Council request the nine local municipalities to commit by May, 2004 to eliminate the collection of yard waste in plastic bags upon renewal and/or extension of their associated collection contracts for implementation January 1, 2005. 6. Council request the nine local municipalities to finalize and report back to Regional Council by May, 2004 on the design and proposed implementation date of their collection systems for source separated organics with implementation occurring no later than July 1'`, 2005. 2. PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an overview of staff s proposed strategy for the management of household yard waste and source separated organics (SSO) and recommend the award of a processing contract to Halton Recycling Limited. BACKGROUND On April 12`h, 2001, Council adopted Clause 5 of Report No. 4 of the Transportation and Works Committee approving a three -stream waste management system as a step to achieving 50% waste diversion from landfill. On February 131h, 2002, Council adopted Clause 1 of Report No. 2 of the Transportation and Works Committee, as amended by Committee, directing staff to draft a household organic waste processing agreement using Canada Composting Inc.'s facility in Newmarket. Canada Composting Newmarket went into receivership and the Region was unable to conclude the terms of an agreement with the Receiver. The feasibility of purchasing the assets of Canada Composting Newmarket was subsequently explored and rejected (Clause 1 of Report No. 4 of the Transportation and Works Committee adopted by Council June 271h, 2002). In its place, Council directed staff to work with neighbouring municipalities to try and collectively secure local SSO processing capacity. Staff were also asked to hold discussions with the successful purchaser of Canada Composting Newmarket about the possibility of processing the Region's SSO at this facility and report back to Committee on these discussions. Report No. 2 Solid Waste Management Committee 4, ANALYSIS AND OPTIONS In 2001, Council approved the development of a household (SSO) program but the implementation of this program has been delayed to date by the lack of processing capacity in Ontario for this material. This report provides an implementation plan for both SSO and yard waste over the short and long term planning horizons. 4.1 Long Term Management of SSO At Council's direction, Regional staff entered into a joint Request for Proposal (RFP) with the Regions of Peel, Durham and the City of Toronto to develop approximately 300,000 tonnes of new SSO processing capacity throughout the GTA. The RFP was issued in November through the City of Toronto and will close by the end of February 2004. It should be noted that the Region of Peel has since withdrawn from the process due to an internal decision to pursue expansion of their existing composting system. The RFP process will continue but the capacity requirements will be scaled back accordingly. SSO processing capacity obtained through this joint RFP will not, however, be available in the immediate future due to the time required to complete the necessary site selection and approvals process. This process could take from three to five years depending on the approval process required by the Ministry of the Environment. The results of the RFP will, in the long term, provide York Region with sufficient capacity (i.e., estimated to be 60,000 tonnes/year) to permit implementation of a Region -wide SSO collection program. Staff will report the outcome of this RFP process to Committee and Council in March 2004. 4.2 Short-term Management of, SSO In the short term, Regional staff propose to receive and process municipally collected SSO and yard waste at the former CCI Newmarket facility. This facility was recently purchased by Halton Recycling Ltd. (HRL). HRL is in the process of making significant capital improvements to the facility in an attempt to address the odour and operational problems encountered by the previous owners. HRL has plans to expand and enclose the waste receiving area and purchase additional buffer land around the facility to reduce the potential for further odour problems. They also propose to improve house keeping and routine maintenance around and within the facility to minimize potential sources of odours. HRL anticipates being operational by the summer of 2004. The City of Toronto recently signed a contract with HRL to receive a portion of their SSO starting in the fall 2004. Staff have concluded discussions with HRL and are prepared to recommend to Council a contract with the following terms: • A term of two years with the option for three one year extensions at the Region's option. • A minimum put -or -pay of 2,000 tonnes per year. Report No. 2 Solid Waste Management Committee • All yard waste will be received at one or more facilities in York Region and used as a bulking agent in the finished compost at a fixed price of $60 per tonne. • Processing fees will be adjusted annually based on CPI. • HRL will operate the facility to meet all local and provincial regulations including the control of fugitive odour emissions. • HRL has separately agreed with the Town of Newmarket to contribute to the costs of extending Harry Walker Parkway. Staff propose authority be given to conclude an agreement with HRL consistent with the above terms to the satisfaction of the Regional Solicitor and Commissioner of Transportation and Works. In addition, it is recommended that the Regional Chair and Clerk be authorized to execute the agreement contingent upon Council's approval of the proposed SSO program budget for 2004. Regional staff are also holding discussions with the Region of Durham and other private contractors to develop contingency plans to receive and/or process the Region's SSO and yard waste should HRL encounter operational problems with the Newmarket facility. 4.3 Yard Waste Management Currently, over 20,000 tonnes of residential yard waste is collected and composted in the Region. The Region's current contract with Miller Waste Systems has been extended until March 3l't, 2004 to allow time for Council to decide if HRL will be contracted for the processing of yard waste and SSO. HRL is prepared to begin accepting yard waste dropped off at their facility by both municipal contractors and local residents as of April 15`, 2004 to ensure there is no interruption in public service. HRL's proposed price to manage yard waste is $12/tonne lower than the Region's current contractor. Additionally, HRL has agreed to accept, at no charge, yard waste dropped off by Regional residents at their facility. Residents dropping off yard waste at Miller Waste Systems facility, by comparison, are currently charged a fee of $2.00/car up to $40.00/tonne for large loads. Regional staff propose to assist local municipal staff in promoting the new drop off location and improved services to ensure that the public is made aware of the changes. Plastic contamination in finished compost represents a serious barrier to contractors trying to product a usable end product from the Region's yard waste. Recent discussions with various yard waste composting facilities has revealed that they would all be willing to offer the Region a reduction in processing costs if the Region would forego collection in plastic bags. HRL is offering a 10% reduction if kraft bags are used. This reduction in cost represents a savings of over $200,000/year. In 2002, the Region of Halton eliminated collection of yard waste in plastic bags and effective January 1", 2004, the Region of Durham and City of Toronto have also banned the use of plastic bags and require that kraft paper bags or rigid containers be used in their place. These recent changes leave the Regions of Niagara and York as the sole remaining regional governments which support collection of yard waste in plastic bags. 008 d 5 Report No. 2 Solid Waste Management Committee Switching to paper bags and/or reusable containers has been shown to have negligible impact on participation rates. A limited number of residents will, however, be resistant to the proposed change and a reasonable level of complaint calls can be anticipated. Regional staff propose to offer assistance to the local municipalities with the development of a co-ordinated promotion and education campaign to mitigate this issue. Given the success of kraft collection bags in other municipalities in Ontario and the cost savings, it is proposed that the Region request the local municipalities to modify their collection programs to eliminate the use of plastic collection bags starting January 1, 2005. 4.4 Municipal Collection of SSO It is proposed that implementation of a Region -wide SSO diversion program be co- ordinated where possible with the extension of existing, or award of new local municipal collection contracts. Collection contracts for the City of Vaughan, Towns of Aurora, East Gwillimbury, Newmarket, Whitchurch-Stouffville and Township of King will terminate in 2004. The Town of Markham's contract will be up for renewal as of November 3oth 2005. Contracts for the Towns of Georgina and Richmond Hill will expire in 2007 and 2009 respectively. Changes to existing contracts to include SSO collection would in most cases require re- negotiation of the contracts as changes to the design of the associated collection fleet will be required. Moreover, the new Bales Drive waste material recovery facility (MRF) will not be operational until early 2005 and the municipalities may want to change their collection programs to allow for co -collection of blue box material and either garbage or SSO in the same truck. The local municipalities have not identified how they intend to collect waste under the new three -stream system and have been waiting for the Region to identify when SSO processing and the new MRF will be available. If Council is to award a contract to HRL, as proposed in this report, the local municipalities will have sufficient information to complete their collection system planning and develop new contracts. In a meeting with staff from the local municipalities in November, it was suggested that the Regional SSO diversion program begin in the Town of Markham in 2004 given that community's current level of interest in such a program. Regional staff further suggest that the remaining municipalities extend their existing contracts until 2005 in instances where the contracts are terminating prior to completion of the Bales Drive MRF and begin implementation of SSO at that time. The extensions would provide Regional staff and their lower tier counterparts with sufficient time to discuss the logistics, timing and cost implications of this proposed schedule. Development of new contracts and procurement of new collection vehicles, for example, would be expected to take at least six to eight months. Staff also propose to offer assistance to the local municipalities with 008 6 Report No. 2 Solid Waste Management Committee the development of a co-ordinated collection system, promotion and education campaign to facilitate this change. 5. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS The financial implications for the recommendations of this report were reported to Regional Council at its January 22, 2004 meeting In Camera. The Region is currently in a RFP process with the City of Toronto and Region of Durham for a long-term SSO contract as discussed in Section 4.1 of this report. Public release of the contract unit prices with HRL before the closing of that RFP may jeopardize the Regions' and Toronto's ability to have a fair RFP process and HRL's ability to competitively bid on the long-term RFP. The joint York /Durham / Toronto RFP is scheduled to close on March 4, 2004. HRL's contract prices for the short-term SSO contract with York Region will be made public after the successful conclusion of long-term joint RFP. The following financial impacts are projected based on a potential implementation schedule, anticipated participation levels and HRL's proposed pricing. Table 2 Forecasted Net Regional Budget Impact York Region Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Volume (tonnes) 10,000 20,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 Processing Cost Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note l Note 1 Promotion & Ed. $750,000 $200,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Transfer & Haul** $270,000 $540,000 $1,080,000 $1,350,000 $1,620,000 Reduced Landfill ($726,000) ($1,452,000) ($2,904,000) ($3,630,000) ($4,356,000) Costs*** Total Note 1 Note 1 Note 1 Note I Note 1 Note 1 — prices will be released after the conclusion of the joint York / Durham /Toronto RFP as noted above ** Based on a budgeted cost of $27/tonne *** Based on a budgeted cost of $64/tonne At full implementation a mature, Region -wide program is expected to divert up to 60,000 tonnes of SSO annually. The proposed implementation schedule identified in Table 2 above assumes that tonnages received in the first year of the program would be generated primarily by the Town of Markham. Subsequent increases in diversion will be dependent upon the program implementation schedules proposed by the remaining local municipalities and increasing public awareness through ongoing promotion and education. Report No. 2 Solid Waste Management Committee Implementation of a Region wide SSO program would be expected to increase the Region's average cost per tonne of waste diverted from approximately $83/tonne in 2003 to an estimated $119/tonne in 2004. The current waste diversion rate, however, would increase from a year end estimate of 23% to over 41 % bringing the Region within reach of its goal of 50% waste diversion. SSO diversion is considered a program enhancement. It should be recognized, however, that the new Provincial government has committed themselves publicly to mandating SSO collection within the next five years. Program costs are represented as net additional costs since the SSO material would need to be landfilled as garbage if the SSO program is not implemented. Funding for this program would be included in the Regional tax levy. A total of $1,124,000 has been included in the 2004 budget to cover processing costs. An additional $750,000 ($3/household) has been allocated to related promotion and education activities to assist the local municipalities with implementation of this program. An estimated $4 million in capital costs would also be incurred by the local municipalities if they chose to provide residents with re -usable containers to collect SSO. Collection costs for the local municipalities would be expected to be approximately $2,500,000 annually assuming a 10% increase in costs to manage SSO. It is proposed that HRL be paid $60/tonne for processing yard waste. This will result in an annual savings to the Region of approximately $240,000 as of 2005. Elimination of plastic bags from yard waste collection would result in an additional savings of $10/tonne or approximately $200,000 per year. LOCAL MUNICIPAL IMPACT The contents of this report, and in particular, HRL's proposed environmental upgrades and operating plans for the Newmarket facility, have been reviewed with staff from the Town of Newmarket. Representatives from HRL are in discussion with the Town's staff and propose to make a presentation to their council to ensure that any outstanding concerns are addressed. Extensive discussion and possible provision of Regional support will be necessary for local municipalities to successfully integrate SSO collection and the proposed change to yard waste collection into their existing programs. Co -collection opportunities and changes to collection frequency could reduce overall collection costs. The Towns of Georgina, Richmond Hill and Markham will have to negotiate changes to their existing collection contracts if they are to begin SSO collection prior to the end of their collection contracts. All of the municipalities will need to determine if they will provide SSO collection containers for each household. It is expected that the cost for container for all households in the Region to be in excess of $4 million. Annual collection costs for the local municipalities are estimated to be approximately $2,500,000 which represents a 10% increase over current collection costs. (1000a»ttt Report No. 2 Solid Waste Management Committee It is proposed that the local municipalities finalize their collection program changes and report to the Region their schedules and plans by the end of May 2004 so that the Region can properly prepare its 2005 budgets and prepare its promotion and education program for the full implementation of the new three -stream collection system for 2005. 7. CONCLUSION The implementation of a household source separated organic waste program is necessary if the Region is to achieve its 50% waste diversion goal. The program can not be implemented without first acquiring SSO processing capacity. It is anticipated that this required capacity will be secured in the long term through the joint GTA RFP process currently underway. In the interim, it is proposed that the Region contract with Halton Recycling Ltd. to provide the necessary SSO processing capacity so that the local municipalities can begin to roll out their associated collection programs. It is further recommended that the local municipalities finalize their plans to collect SSO by May of 2004, including the elimination of collection of yard waste in plastic bags, to facilitate program implementation and minimize costs. Regional staff propose to provide assistance, where requested, in this process. The Senior Management Group has reviewed this report. Respectfully submitted, January 14, 2004 Newmarket, Ontario D. Wheeler Chair (Report No. 2 of the Solid Waste Management Committee was adopted, without amendment, by the Council of The Regional Municipality of York at its meeting on January 22, 2004.) 000031 'TOWN OF AURORA` GENERAL COMMITTEE REPORT No. PL04-015- SUBJECT: Transitional Provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act FROM: Sue Seibert, Director of Planning DATE: February 17, 2004 RECOMMENDATIONS THAT the applicants be advised that the status identified on Schedule A to report PL04-015 represents the Town of Aurora's position respecting the transition provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act as they relate to the applications identified. BACKGROUND In May of 2001 the Ministry of Municipal Affairs introduced the Oak Ridges Moraine Protection Act establishing a 6-month moratorium on development within the Oak Ridges Moraine (ORM) allowing for consultation on how to protect ORM. This was replaced on November 17, 2001 with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act (ORMCA). Underthat Act Ontario Regulation 140/02 the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) came into effect. Lower tier municipalities with lands within the ORM were given until October 22, 2003 to bring their Official Plan and Zoning documents into conformity with the ORMCP. Only during the 6-month "freeze' were municipalities prevented from dealing with applications. The ORMCA set out transitional provisions that apply to applications that were in the development approval process during the other steps noted above. These policies have been the subject of debate and differing opinions have been given as to what they were intended to mean. The Legislative Assembly has recently given 15t reading to Bill 27 that among other things, provides clarification on the most controversial item. At the Council meeting of January 13, 2004, Council had before it correspondence related to the transitional policies of the ORMCA. (see attachment 4) Since the Town's enactment of its Official Plan and Zoning By-law amendments bringing the Town's documents into conformity with the ORMCP, considerable correspondence has also been received on behalf of landowners with applications in the ORM. (see attachment 5) Council directed staff to report back on these matters at the appropriate time. In conjunction with the Town's external legal counsel, a chart summarizing the status of applications before the ;ONO3Z February 17. 2004 - 2 - Report No. PL04-015 Town relative to the transitional provisions of the ORMCA has been prepared and is attached as Section "A° (attachment 1). COMMENT: Transitional Provisions of ORMCA The ORMCA has three key sections that deal with the transitional applications that were somewhere in the approvals process on November 17, 2001. Section 7 of the ORMCA sets the basic provision by saying that that any decisions made under the Planning Act or Condominium Act must conform with the ORMCP. Sections 15 and 17 go on to set out transitional provisions that would have the effect of exempting applications from the provisions of the ORMCP. In accordance with Section 15, the following provisions apply to all Planning Act applications, • applications made and decided upon before November 17, 2001 - the ORMCP does not apply; • applications made prior to November '17, 2001 but not decided upon in the settlement area - the ORMCP does not apply because there are no prescribed provisions; • applications made prior to November 17, 2001 but not decided upon in the Countryside, Linkage or Core areas - must comply with the prescribed provisions; • applications filed after November 17, 2001 - must conform with the full provisions of the ORMCP. Section 17 of the ORMCA indicates that if a decision under the Planning Act or Condominium Act is conditional on a further approval under these Acts, then such approval shall be made in accordance with the same requirements as the original decision. This section of the Act caused some confusion and led to some Ontario Municipal Board Decisions which indicated that if a decision was made on an Official Plan Amendment prior to November 17, 2001 all further approvals would not be subject to the policies of the ORMCP. In order to clear this up the Province has proposed within Bill 27, The Greenbelt Protection Act, that section 17 be revised to clearly indicate that the "further approvals" applies only to draft approved plans of subdivisions and consent applications that were approved with conditions. Council on October 22, 2003 indicated that Section 17 does not apply to Official Plan Amendments and are therefore being consistent with Bill 27. Excerpts of the legislation as well as a "decision tree" prepared by the Region of York are attached for information. 0,00033 February 17. 2004 - 3 - Report No. PL04-015 Staff in conjunction with the Town's external legal counsel have reviewed each application currently before the Town and have provided an analysis of the application relative to the above noted provisions attached as Schedule "A". OPTIONS N/A CONCLUSIONS In accordance with Council's direction, staff have prepared the attached chart that sets out the status of each application relative to section 15 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. For Council's information, staff are continuing to work with the consultant and Ministry of Municipal Affairs officals to attempt to come to some resolution with respect to the buffer areas around natural heritage features, and incorrectly mapped natural heritage features. We hope to have a report outlining our progress in the near furture. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS There continue to be consulting expenses and staff time devoted to resolving outstanding issues and discussing the complexities of the new by-law with residents and prospective purchasers. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN The Strategic Plan has goals of well planned moderate growth and to conserve our natural heritage. ATTACHMENTS 1. Chart entitled Oak Ridges Moraine — Impacted Properties 2. Excerpt of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act 3. Chart from Region of York Report of November 28, 2001 4. E-mail from Councillor Morris dated January 12, 2004, attaching information from Evelina MacEachern respecting the transition provisions of the ORMCA 5. Extract from the Council Meeting of January 13, 2004, directing staff to report back to Council on the transitional provisions of the ORMCA when appropriate. 6. Correspondence from various legal counsel representing various landowners within the Oak Ridges Moraine. (Note, given the amount of correspondence on this topic not every piece of correspondence has been reproduced as some are making similar or repeat representations about the same property) 00001 PRE -SUBMISSION Management Team Meeting —February 11, 2004. Prepared by: Sue Seibert, ext. 4341, i SG eib M.C.I,P., R.P.P. Director of Planning 000035 � \\K \j .\\\ . f\ ƒd) \®— ®®� .,� §)1 060 00 kea » \ E 3 :2 a (a to %\/\ { \ \ U) E � / . »� &0 ® //\z 7&/ . M_ _ ®®»=/<)7 �����\\C\(§( - \j)\{j \/§\\»®®Gyey ^` n > Z0 § §0a)0)> °§( / \k\33)\}\f}\ e /0U)0 \2\g±a§{Ga3G�§_y\!{§ )/6>¥a))�6®\Ek#aaa§ =e00M0\\\\7\§\&$(§]/ 3zmNm(N /_06»m0<0 0a3 0 /# K%{ \)»�\ 0) �" Af ]&R a) \\ rz \)\\x z z \�{ » { J — \/ to m)\ ))\ } e �\\ , . . . ... / . \■ a] _ -\/mo )\ :_®:!?=a \/]a$\&g gr \j/ /!J\}/k\ ® a a/«E2f/` �� E$\)+:®) \) oo¢§, \{{:J� (/ \\\}{\\\ m§ m� ':> « ': /'az [ C) ® & §/K// N \)�\ ) \\-/a-§kk\o�/\oa) §\j3\§\feE:rpC§EKS:e & ®�(D---mt/®{§Kf/\\#)t(»0 ; =a;{e!+ �- a.Im m��!¥ay ;®*aa§§\%34/{\{222w=c -#\«/\§a()//\�`�tm==/G5[ �_ >EkGr=){&G©f [k/2v2)2[<��E1 0o «a7r®\ )w [Ey0 >0—w/\J[\f= CLa) Jyt»z¥a222Gaze*»/4¥;EEQ§ )�r - 2\= )f J&/ C) . a»\ } t^\ 5 » { k %E / . §f J2 . £ / . \\W;am - �\) � . / <� \| (a§ tea\ g / }\ - ¥) a�\\\( \)� :EZ §zZ:d ;)/ §\f% } §qff - / \ / � LO .- 0 LCO 00 0 0E\�/) t§ 0�{0\/ A)\})` yG ;§ /#=f)� \® 't--Q0 ®/:@/ /<C4 CL ƒ}R\y} /§-_/ f//\z { r. 0 i`aCO /§C) G):2°°b :6«2§ a==(ak\ . 7= ] : /22 e, COC\lE \}a- 0 ! \>0 Em �()z-k(0 ® )\§) \22®[t/ /k`4m° 6§$\3/§ 0G)§(/ %o ) /0 g J$2 / ` \ a »/ \�\ \ } § o » K\ «! § § M Co tz m E]§ = a �\) « LO / � {� :- �k _- \\) § \ C co -0 m2� w:©.0WE �.� ®L ](( \/2/@b \r //) o,e=g»20 // o® . +[)m)±{7 6 0- G,Ee - )) ® \\\(/))\ _ ) Z \ [ = a ° 2®wef0 Q 7 _\C) 0@8&a)c0Itf (U 0>0 ff o)«/JE ®)`E»+\U)(#G,mJg-0 § k)*®-°_!&=�®e©`;e X 0 > � E q (L C'4 Ln 0 *\(\//®J®\`\/\ƒ 4/toG-z/;§+-2C,4 ®»)/Q\±+»\§\®7{2)N /gE§®®f!(E§3/4)}&\ ¥oeal;o2&esSfsR<Ea j�k 0 )0Z ;ƒ « % ' -a o 3 ,!0 0 tax § m .. . .. % k k� ke £ A \ �7z !]§ = e �\) , \ Ri 000W9 \| 0 \\)0 {\ §> / r]{ J 3kk : 2 |/ / 31 \\ ]§§$\ $>±2 LO . ,m ebw° \\ \ \E )-Z00 ƒ % f /: =.x !)/$ co |§ f)§/fit§y)f\\Ef:://� oEj� 9/§e-==°w)[£R7,N \)\\®*Q\\G)§E2=\=\@CL a) Ro- n :)G:/fat©0E§22kgƒ{a(+~\\)&[0 ® (rR1222;3#\[7k\/gR\j`}G:a®�§m rj±®§2)Ea7/af=-!®a=a2:;Qa)«27 -m®)&0cmC:) 7§§)tfw§z22%2ƒo2a: ))`4Qt22\§�w=.c EL°o~m-± w aa) z:` ,-,e =§yo<a:=E\2=e>2e> > ±±[/2\28/f`!\8±7me"a2 0 "o- 02 (U :C\l0o> ,0G&«(G//§i3Es E %\\ \ /0 m - «a2 « -e ° \\\ �\ CA \ gym/ < )�k » o ± CD Ei \\ �. \_ ` , \{ §\ «a . �§{ a�a � §]§ a \) � $ Ev MIM s,0 p m O 0 U O a1 .�, a) N 0 Y : ° nr � � m 0❑.L-� d a 'O-0 a) E�'ON E m o a � N❑w N O 2 0 5 n a N E o E n o d (�6�y a) E o c n o yQ> Y U O .m r O_ N O O D U f2 N V y +L. +L+ a N Y w Y o a g z o L� Q Q 3 a= 3 Q ac ¢ 3 K c:0 c m E o E r.w ? m E0 `.� a) EO O> 0 Q p Q 'N O .0 a) C¢.) s a a) a O U a) "O a) ._ ) L U s p (D ._ Li man .0 o a) O cz E° ° ��a) x 2E E 0 E m o w of 0 4 m o LO -ma >° c Q 0 w �a p �a)(D O o Y m 3 Q o Y 3OD aa) m o -z E �L (a o g E m n @• N > Q E .c _ N a) Y Q 3 N a) Q 3 u -0 LO LO o _ y C o '0 0 oc o m r aa)) ac c 0 0 1° ) aa) c o o m a c o m cn a o> U O N E .4 m v E m ui .n _ E° m .0 C O i m a) m i a) m a) ,N O m m N ,N w~ aNi a o o ui w m Y L -' y QN3n3cm >E�ciio E$u)o'o E V)ao a 0 a o � s c ( SO a ,� v-- o otS E '° m N 3 rn � m o N .0 o O o O a`� ❑ o C = o N m N- U d (� N m Q. a❑ O N C p 'o (6 N •N N 3 E O_ .N m O7 O O O c Z > a) 'C w> O 9 a Y m- >❑ a) N Nan) Ln N W N-0 Q d N 9 O C d 49 Q Q C 2i E > m a O_ C _ CO m O m N N Q O. L . U O a) a) 0. O N N (/J O 'O (Q 'N N U O Y a) m m V- O (n ] T a) m O N O .0 v- N f6 Q❑ O _= N m .'U- N O= -Ea O c Q O N c M N Z E `a p C= U N' = 0_ .^ C O N a)O � = r O -a O p m_ C pa m m 'a �0 0 a a n aim (1 o a '- .N Q m .N — m' _ a (0 m �i E m m a c d m > m '_ > U n._ L) c ¢ w m N p am � o0 0 0 0 m m .n (a ao m m a n °� -oo ❑ O Q c'° o ❑ 'O C) a) ❑ d O O m N J O Wn N w (6 N w V= m N �o O = 0 w Na) N a) LO m cn > m _ Z a Q > m a a N m ❑ �- 'aa M 'm6 N N OM M C9 N M O`o N O 00 O O a) N O a) O 'M a N - = O a) O o O m m N O 8 z o.__ m. ° N Q Y N L C O_'N O L 'O y 0 C O �o. w u)a OU y � O r C y C m (O CO r m �.. Q N a N Q � C O O N a Q 0 0 O � c O O a r @ @ O O O N N U �� O a N C J O- a O- o- a Q ro ro •N E Qc N O- O N ro C @C °U o Z cOf LY E Q�u Q ro0 ac O°O mDo O C py,3, N 0 m LOto a@ yCa @E � O Up . Nrn`c NQ ui (Dv @ L0 N A,! 0 ro o N_ o o Z c Z 0 Z c N p }_ o Z N Y m p @ MO '0 N ca .Oa-p _^ M C O ro fa 0 0 -@p z w 0 c c O O N N m '3 a rn u o ,.- m a f6 g m U o N o.Z QOa Op nc cQ m a) a) o o-aa)) Hai a) �`�'� c c� co a O 0 oo �N �m Q.� `L � as E-u o a) O � � O o a) ++ E @o d > o 3 O O m Y L N N C a N= c t a) @ O c O N a) .O U a cC M N N� a O N D7 @> L� Q 'O cC E (D j O N —+ a) a) c >. 0- ¢ O U C O, N (a -0 E O O >. Q) a) N 6 a -') 9 E w w0 �O E O d 'O 2 U 0 m N N N@ p 2�' 0 a NcNN'O OE O Q ppN O a)E N a .0Q .N0N E @m M @ @>NU p N )� >>N 0- DQ0 E O Qa 0NmOdN Q (D Na(a O?E Q N N@ O ro N @ N= a 0 N O L a) C U o a a) C: ,LF, L O y u m2 N N 3 N O 0 c N 0- a z a m a' a a _ N (O = Q d' O ro N L CC U C N H M O d i# p N Lo a a a a O 42 00 O O @ O o r O O J U 4 N O J Q LL ya S i a y c U c a o O U o.m 2 N N a 0 a @ O d p N a o) c -o o �_ U 5 Q O U c m E 2 E aa)) LL o mJ ((DDJL m J 00 CO W = C J C U to N N M D ilk $ M d u7 co 2 r. \t D . kk jf/ \\ ()/ - ° \\ § ) \ }-0 jea - 0 ~�* /\�\ \/ \/. \ »« 0 0 E m §§ ±�®- }\E #� waw( _ « )[/§ j}\ 200 ] <.fQ)/= / - 0 &f/_)(]G\\// 54\}%?. §RE? ;+�pm,-a& \ 22#{){/ aaa/_/ /ƒ»_§\!a:=a2§�-m]n ° , ��&®0 w:Fcga aks{=)f[ 2 00-C 5{ \)/�§»®/\()� ��(D ko) $ =�\Qa=t [ oa2©§§»eeJ� !a!\}ƒ{\f /};/{/m/@\E\§{)§/j}ƒ/ /& t,00l2fzm±m=#-o§`® ƒ.Q& :. _ �yLs»a®=2�0G.2§\/) «§/�_o�Q f-\fƒ§aff ! a) a) qm2 *�#t©»&C) �ooe\A&\2[e00o0-1<so 0 'a 0E-M C\l 4600w0 ){e$§§E// }�\ . ®�� �0i2 «%2 ® /q )`§ )j) \ \«) o $ o . . E -3 §f . «2 / A Re r §$q ) !\\ - / 00 JgOd4/ o � of '02 E a)4 N aroi a a 0 O of @ aci m m N° 0 C y O N N : Q °: N 3" v o L O U O1 aj o S• c U m m N N Y v o Q •� U a) o m ro°= g N> o c m o m o a � � O c a) O o ° m c o o o ° a 'N O Q m Q p E¢ N a C N 'aa r C_ N 3 aJ O tq to E O a) .S a N C ° m °. Q m ° m E .Nv- ° a a M' U O� L a) UO N c0 a) 'a7 O N a K c } N Z .L...c Z } m O.O c N a N L o m Y o o 2 > 3 a) U p 0 c N U O O O c° -O (O Cn U >, a) N Q v 3 N N ..N. c Z a a a O +N+ c N c N a) a) c O m y o) co a) 0) . c c m -0 3 o a O O o L, E a U E w o a E N m L E o s w o aa) 0) N° O m ;� L a, L, o c o 3 c Co �rnzm u44))�acaEc�n�.4roo a o c m '� o m N a° a v'roi3NUoiaomo m e c m on m E m? @ E m g o 0 E o a`) f E n m as E �p o m e .° h rn a m o .- v E L m E ° d v 9 `o .Q Q p p m C .0 O ,C c U O c m a) o Y ac m N O 9 CL .} c N p O_ C m N c N~ -p O c •N L 3 z -O Q m Q N C U) 0¢ U m(D (D° E Z O L > O E N a O .� 3 o (°n O a m N� as o E c n c� Q ._ .>_ (a a o o D o c O EON a a d U a a' a`Oj Q N O d '°6 a d° N d a O a3) a aa)) (O 'n O N O m •� w 20, T 3 N E O U' m m o 0 o O m L 3 o c m o N o.Z y O °_ 0 a N r a m r. o N E (D o N o y m n o o m ° L 0 w o N a N 0 0 0 Z a N E0 O U N ° °U N N M m o m o m v a�LIZ z z z o a m w O @ o c 0 ' E a Q rod Z m c a o a�i a v o N a>i c L E U U rr- rn o 0 m r./ a Oa, w m Q y Q ° N N Q 0 w 0 _ {E \E \ \ {) Qm-a e > GZ) � f (D 22/ >Z B >0 ® ¥1:£ ©-ro k%» e § 7®0 w% [- �Z C� o;®§ #) %) - 2§ - fE �0 _- \/.\e _ \ km _cq � m ) j \) j \C4>— )$f o 2g /\\k§ - \� \ {\\ \{}/\ J]72:, - o y=&4; \k § j -� -\7 0 §)\:7 (6 { 2e /\« �- §[ E o/\ 0w ) \ 2 co ] 2�[ e &\2 ( - J(2 - _ _:2 \\\ - //) z IL ° ± E tcu \/ . LU + D J> - / \ j\} mrt )k) cat§ <co a �\\ , / � -� all��nOTS y°�n �, 1 j°uMO� cli _ - M o 06Lu i laaaaS aids l .Ol_ 111.• N �I i..-.. I__ _ 1 1 1 1 1_ 1 I�r--�"_I LI - ! fp -• �-1 1 I `...LO ........... an VIM a I • t O O U O U m I � 00 a= c � o _ T N I N - c fro ui 0 �r > 11 rl- .., 'U'N J° aaaa3S sin 8 m diysUM°1 N C zo ¢ 2 mc acp m 0 J vO c n m! o 10 0Ncct� -N Z O- QWd �+ E Q .V N 0 a 3 oL VNu T' �p'd O ,� w rn o m o 'm o ,nrA o d 4J Z a a a O J Co d O m d' 2 U Qi U J O. E E in u I 000046 /e s CL s 0 J a 0 i I I. < ATTACHMENT 2 Protection from personal liability (3) The hearing officer is not personally liable for any- thing done by him or her in good faith in the execution of his or her duty render this Act or for any neglect or default in the execution in good faith of his or her duty. Recommendations (4) The hearing officer shall prepare written recom- mendations, with reasons, recommending what action the Minister should take in accordance with clause 10 (8) (a) or 12 (9) (a), as the case may be, and shall give them to the Minister and to the parties to the hearing, within 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing. Extension of time (5) The Minister may extend the 30-day period at the hearing officer's request. Minister's decision (6) After considering the hearing officer's recommen- dations and, if applicable, the written submissions re- ceived tinder clause 12 (5) (b) and any comments re- ceived under subsection 12 (6), the Minister may act in accordance with clause 10 (8) (a) or 12 (9) (a), as the case may be, and the Minister's decision is final and not sub- ject to appeal. Orders tinder Planning Act, s. 47 14. (1) Nothing in this Act derogates from the Minis- ter's power to make an order under section 47 of the Planning Act with respect to land within the Oak Ridges Moraine Area. Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan and official plan (2) Despite subsection 7 (1), an order referred to in subsection (1) need not conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan or with the relevant official plan. TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS, REGULATIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS Transition, application of s. 7 15. (1) Section 7 applies with respect to all applica- tions, matters or proceedings commenced on or after No- vember 17, 2001. Conformity to proscribed provisions of Plan (2) In making a decision under the Planning Act- or section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998 or in relation. to another prescribed matter, a municipal council, local board, municipal planning authority, minister of the Crown or ministry, board, commission or agency of the Government of Ontario, including the Ontario Municipal Board, shall conform to the prescribed provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan as if the Plan were in force on or before the date the application, matter or proceeding was commenced, if, lmmunite (3) L'agent enqu6teur n'engage aucrmement sa respon- sabilite personnelle pour on acts accompli de bonne foi dans 1'execution des fonctions que lui attribue Is presente loi on pour une negligence on on manquement commis dans 1'execution de bonne foi de ses fonctions. Recommendations (4) L'agent enqu6teur prepare des recommendations ecrites motivees sur les mesures que to ministre devrait prendre confonnement a Palinea 10 (8) a) oil 12 (9) a), selon to cis, et it les remet an ministre of aux parties a ('audience dans les 30jours qui suivent Is fin de ]'audience. Prorogation do delal (5) Le ministre pout proroger le delai de 30 jours a In demande de Pagent enqueteur. D€cision do ministre (6) Apres etude des recommendations de Pagent en- qu6teur of, s'il y a lieu, des observations ecrites rogues en vertu de I'ahrea 12 (5) b) of des commentaires regus on application du paragraphs 12 (6), le ministre peat agir confolmement a Palinea 10 (8) a) on 12 (9) a), selon to cas, et sa decision est definitive or nonsusceptible d'appel. Arrete vise A Part. 47 de In Loi sur Pea inagement dx territoire 14. (1) La presente lot n'a pas pour effet de porter at- teinte an pouvoir du ministre de prendre un arrete on vertu de ]'article 47 de In Loi sur Pamenagement du territoire a Hgard des biens-fonds se trouvant dans to territoire de Is moraine d'Oak Ridges. Plan de conservation de It moraine d'Oak Ridges at plan officki (2) Malgre to paragraphe 7 (1), it nest pas necessaire qu'un arrete vise an paragraphe (1) soit conforme an Plan de conservation de Is moraine d'Oak Ridges on an plan offrciel pertinent. DISPOSITIONSTRANSITOIRES, RAGLEMENTS ET DISPOSITIONS DIVERSES Disposition transitoire : application de Part. 7 15. (1) L'article 7 s'applique a 1'egard de tonics les demandes, affaires oil procedures introduites to 17 no- vettrbre 2001 oil api es colic date. Conformity aux dispositions prescrites du Plan (2) Lorsqu'il prend une decision on application de Is Loi sur l'amenagement dot territoire oil de 1'artiele 9 de Is Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums on relativement a une suite question prescrite, on conseil municipal, on conseil local, fin office d'amenagement municipal, ❑n ministre de is Couronne ou fill ministere, on conseil, une commission oil an organisms du gouvernement de ]'Ontario, y com- pris la Commission des affaires municipales de ]'Ontario, se conforme aux dispositions prescrites du Plan de conservation de la moraine d'Oak Ridges comme A celui- ci emit en vigueur a la date a laquelle la demande, 1'affaire on Is procedure a etc introduite on avant cette, date, si : 00004 PA) 12 Bill 122 OAK RIDGES MORAINE CONSERVXl'ION See./art. 15 (2) (a) the application, matter or proceeding was com- a) d'une part, In demande, 1'affaire ou la procedure a menced before November 17, 2001; and etc introduite avant to 17 novembre 2001; (b) on November 17, 2001, no decision has been made in respect of the application, matter or proceeding. Non -application of s. 7 (3) Section 7 does not apply to an application, matter or proceeding commenced before November 17, 2001 if a deci 'on fias been made in respect of the application, mat- ter or proceeding before that date. Time of commencement (4) For the purposes of subsections (1), (2) and (3), an application, matter or proceeding shall be deemed to have been commenced, (a) in the case of an official plan or Yt$ amendment or repeal, on the day the by-law adopting the plan,- amendment of repeal is passed; (b) in the case of a request for an official plan amend- ment by any person or public body, on the day the request is received, whether the amendment is adopted or not; (c) in the case of a zoning by-law or its amendment, including an interim control by-law, on the day the by-law is passed; (d) in the case of an application for an amendment to a zoning by-law, on the day the application is made; (e) in the case of development in a site plan control area, on the day the application under subsection 41 (4) of the Planning Act is made; (f) in the case of an application for a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act, on the day the application is made; (g) in the case of an application for approval of a plan of subdivision under section 51 of the Planning Act or for approval or exemption from approval for a plan of condominium under section 9 of the Con- dominium Act, 1998, on the day the application is made; (h) in the case of an application for a consent under section 53 of the Planning Act, on the day the ap- plication is made. Time of decision (5) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), a deci- sion shall be deemed to have been made, (a) in the case of an official plan amendment, on the day that the council adopts or refuses to adopt all b) Wardle part, le 17 novembre 2001, aucnne decision n'a etc prise a 1'egard de la demande, de I'affaire oil de Is procedure. Non -application de Part. 7 (3) L'ardcle 7 no s'applique pas a une demande, a tine affaire on a one procedure introduite avant le 17 novem- bre 2001 a I'egard de laquelle une decision it etc prise avant cone date. Date (['introduction (4) Pour Papplication des paiagraphes (1), (2) et (3), une demande, une affaire oil une procedure est reputee avoir etc introduite : a) dans to cas d'un plan officiel on de sa modification on de son abrogation, le jour oii to reglcment mu- nicipal qui adopte le plan, sa modification on son abrogation est adopte; b) dans le cas d'une demande de modification d'un plan officiel presentee par one personne on on or- ganisme public, to jour ou la demande est repue, que la modification snit adoptee on non; c) dans to cas d'un reglcment municipal de zonage on de sa modification, y compris tin reglement muni- cipal d'interdiction provisoire, le jour oil le regle- ment municipal est adopte; d) dans to cas d'une demande de modification d'un reglement municipal de zonage, le jour oil la de- mande est presentee; e) dans le cas d'une exploitation dans une zone de reglementation du plan d'implantation, to jour oil Is demande visee an paragraphe 41 (4) de la Loi sur 1'amenagement du territoire est presentee; f) dans le cas d'une demande de derogation mineure presentee on application de Particle 45 de Is Loi sur 1'amenagement du territoire, to jour ou la de- mande est presentee; g) dans to cas d'une demande d'approbation d'un plan de lotissement presentee on application de Particle 51 de la Lotsur1'amdnagement du territoire, on d'une demande d'approbation on d'exemption d'approbation d'un plan condommial presentee on application de Particle 9 de la Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums, le jour Oula demande est presen- tee; h) dans le cas dime demande d'autorisation presentee on application de Particle 53 de la Loi sur 1'amena- gement A territoire, lejour oh la demande est pre- sentee. Date de In decision - (5) Pour Papplication des paragraphes (2) et (3), one decision est reputee avoir etc prise : a) dans to cas de Is modification d'un plan officiel, le jour mi to consed municipal adopte oil refuse or part of the amendment or on the day that the ap- proval authority approves, modifies and approves or refuses to approve all or part of the amendment, whichever is earlier; (b) in the case of an amendment to a zoning by-law under section 34 of the Planning Act, on the day that the council passes or refuses to pass the amending by-law; (c) in the case of a holding provision by-law under section 36 of the Planning Act, on the day the council passes the by-law applying the holding symbol "H" (or "h"); (d) in the case of an application for a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act, on the day the committee of adjustment makes its decision; (e) in the case of an application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision under subsection 51 (31) of the Planning Act, on the day the approval authority makes its decision; (f) in the case of an application for approval or ex- emption from approval for a plan of condominium under section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998, on the day the approval authority makes its decision to exempt the plan or to approve or refuse to approve it under subsection 51 (31) of the Planning Act; (g) in the case of an application for consent under sec- tion 53 of the Planning Act, on the day the council or the Minister gives or refuses to give a provi- sional consent; (h) in the case of an application for approval under subsection 41 (4) of the Planning Act, on the day the council gives or refuses to give its approval; and (i) in the case of an application, matter or proceeding appealed or referred to the Ontario Municipal Board from the council's neglect, refusal or failure to make a decision, on the day the Ontario Munici- pal Board makes a decision disposing of the appli- cation, matter or proceeding in whole or in part. Deemed 18-month period 16. The one-year period mentioned in subsection 53 (41) of the Planning Act shall be deemed to be 18 months in the case of an application for consent under section 53 of that Act if, (a) the application relates to land described in section I of the former Act; d'adopter tout on partie de In modification on, s'il lid est ant6rieur, le jour ou l'autorite approbatrice approuve, modifie et approuve, on refuse d'ap- prouver tout on partie de Is modification; b) dans le cas de Is modification d'un r6glement mu- nicipal de zonage adopte on vertu de Particle 34 de Is Lot stir l'amenagement du territoire, le jour ou le conseil municipal adopte on refuse d'adopter le r6glement municipal modificatif; c) dans le cas Wan r6glement municipal appliquant le symbole d'utilisation differee aH» (on ah») vise a ]'article 36 de In Lot star l'amdnagement du terri- toire, le jour ou le caused municipal adopte un tel r6glement municipal; d) dans le cas d'une demande de derogation mineure presentee on application de ]'article 45 de In Lot stir I'amMagement du territoire, le jour ou le co- mit6 de derogation prend sa decision; e) dans le cas d'une demande d'approbation de 1'ebauche d'un plan de lotissement presentee en application du paragraphe 51 (31) de Is Loi sur I'amdnagement du territoire, le jour on 1'autoritd approbatrice prend as decision; f) dans le cas rl'une demande d'approbation on d'exemption d'approbation d'un plan condominial presentee on application de ]'article 9 de Is Loi de 1998 sur les condominiums, le jour ou 1'autorite approbatrice decide d'exempter to plan on de 1'approuver on de refuser de 1'approuver on vertu du paragraphe 51 (31) de Is Loi sur 1'am6nagement du territoire; g) dans le cas d'une demande d'autorisation pr€sent6e on application de ]'article 53 de la Loi sur Pamena- gement du territoire, le jour ou to conseil munici- pal on le ministre donne on refuse de dormer uric autorisation provisoire; h) dans le cas d'une demande d'approbation prescmde en application du paragraphe 41 (4) do In Lot sup 1'amenagement der territoire, le jour ou le conseil municipal donne on refuse de dormer son approba- tion; i) dans to cas d'une demande, dune affaire on d'une procedure qui a ere portde en appel devant Is Commission des affaires municipales de ]'Ontario on lui a 60 renvoyee pour cause de negligence, de refits on d'omission du conseil municipal do pren- dre one decision, le jour on la Commission prend true decision statuant sur In demande, I'affaire on Is procedure on tmalite on on partie. Assimilation A un Mai de 18 mois 16, Le delai d'un an mentione6 an paragraphe 53 (41) de Is Loi stir l'amenagement du territoire est repute un d6lai de 18 mois dans le cas d'une deinande d'autorisa- tion presentec on application de Particle 53 de cette lot si les conditions suivantes sont r6unies : a) to demande conceme des biens-fonds vises a ]'article I de In loi antericure; (b) the application is commenced during the 12-mouth period beginning on November 17, 2000; and (c) approval of the application is conditional on a zon- ing by-law amendment being made. Further approvals 17. (1) If a decisionmade under the Planning Act or section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998 with respect to land to which the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan applies is conditional on a further approval colder either of those Acts, the decision on the application for the farther approval shall be made in accordance with the same re- quirements of this Act that applied to the original deci- sion. Application of subs. (1) (2) Subsection (1) applies despite section 15. Matters appealed to Ontario Municipal Board 18. (1) If a matter relating to land to which the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan applies was appealed to the Ontario Municipal Board on or before November 16, 2001, the Minister may do one or both of the follow- ing: 1. Amend the relevant official plan or zoning by-law with respect to the matter, by order. 2. Notify the Board that its consideration of the mat- ter should be deferred. Stay (2) When the Minister gives notice under paragraph 2 of subsection (1), all steps in the appeal are stayed as of the date of the notice, until he or she gives a further notice to the Board that the appeal may be continued. Mon -application of Regulations Act (3) Orders and notices under this section are not regu- lations within the meaning of the Regulations Act. Minister's decision (4) Orders and notices under this section are final and not subject to appeal. Special provisions re prescribed lands 19. (1) Despite their repeal by section 10 of the former Act, the following provisions of the former Act shall be deemed to continue to apply to any lands that may be prescribed: Subsections 2 (1) and (2) Subsections 3 (1) and (2) Section 4 Subsections 5 (1), (2), (3), (5), (6) and (7) b) In demande est introduite au tours de la p6riode de 12 mots commenpant le 17 novembre 2000; c) ('approbation de In demande es( conditiounelle 6 I'adoption d'une modification des r6glements run- nicipaux de zonage. Approbntlons suppl6mentaires 17. (1) Si tine decision prise en application de la Loi stir l'amenagement du territoire oil de Particle 9 de la Loi de 1998 stir les condominiums concernaut des biens-fonds auxquels s'applique to Plan de conservation de In moraine d'Oak Ridges est conditiounelle a tine approbation sup- pl6mentane on application de Tune ou 1'autre de ces Lois, la decision all sujet de Is demande d'approbation supple- mentairc est prise conform6ment aux m8mes exigences de In pr6sente lot quo cellos qui se sont appliqu6es a la deci- sion initiate. Application do par. (1) (2) Le paragraphe (1) s'applique malgrd Varticle 15. Questions on appol dewmt to Commission des affaires munieipales de l'Outario 18. (1) Si une question se rapportant a des biens-fonds auxquels s'applique le Plan de conservation de la moraine d'Oak Ridges a 06 portde enappel deviant la Commission des affaires municipales de l'Ontario le 16 novembre 2001 oil avant cone date, le ministre petit prendre lime des mesures suivantes, on les deux : 1. Modifier, par arrdt6, le plan offciel on ]e r6gle- ment municipal de zonage pertinent en cc qui conceme Is question. 2. Aviser Is Commission que son etude de Is question devrait etre differ6e. Suspension (2) Lorsque le ministre donne Paviapr6vu it In disposi- tion 2 du paragraphe (1), tonics les 6tapes de Pappel sent suspendues A In date de 1'avis jusqu'a ce quit avise In Cominission que Pappel pout se poursuivre. Non -application de to Lai sur les reglemenls (3) Les arret6s pris on vertu du present article et les avis qui y sent pr6vus no constituent pas des r6glements an sens de In Loi sur les reglements. D€ctsion du ministre (4) Les art8t6spris on vertu du present article et les avis qui y sent pr6vus sent d6finitifs of non susceptibles d'appel. Dispositions particulieres applicables aux biens-fonds prescrits 19. (1) Malgr6 leer abrogation par Particle 10 de Is toi ant6rieure, les dispositions suivantes de celle-ci sent r6pu- ides continuer de s'appliquer aux biens-fonds prescrits, to cas ech6ant: Paragraphes 2 (1) of (2) Paragraphes 3 (1) et (2) Article 4 Paragraphes 5 (1), (2), (3), (5), (6) et (7) �'lY'1 1, Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act and Plan Figure 1 — Private Application Decision tree Private applications matters or proceedings under the Planning Act, Condominium Act As of November 16, ORMCPlan 2001, has a decision does not apply YES been made on the application? I NO I Was the application commenced on or before November 16, 2001? I YES I The application shall comply with the prescribed provisions of the ORMCPlan — check Section 5.2 of the Plan What is the ORMCPlan land use designation? Natural Core Area, Natural Linkage Area, Countryside Area? Sections 3.2 b), 3.2 d) 3.3b.1 and 4.13 f) apply and must be satisfied Planning and Economic Development Committee November 28, 2001 Settlement Area'? The ORMCPlan applies —applications must R conform to all provisions ORMCPlan does not apply ATTACHMENT 3 Panizza, Bob ATTACHMENT 4 From: P Morris [p,morris@aci.on.caj Sent: Monday, January 12, 2004 8:16 AM To: Panizza, Bob Subject: FW: Re Letter re Moraine/OPA 34/OPA Dear Bob: Evelina MacEachern has sent me this letter and a request that it be placed onto the upcoming Council agenda of Jan 131h 2003. Did you get a copy and is it already on the agenda? If not, can you please take care of this? Sincerely, Phyllis Morris Councillor Tel: (905) 727.3123, Ext, 4267 Fax: 965) 727-4993 E-mail: Phyllis@phyllismorris.net 100 John West Way Box No. 1000 Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Evellno MacEachern 111 Allenvale Drive Aurora, Ontario L4G 6P8 January 11, 2004 To; Members of Council Re: Agenda Item # 7 Oak Ridges Moraine & OPA 34 I request this correspondence be placed on the Council agenda for the January 13, 2003 meeting. I respectfully request that Council support Staff's recommendation as outlined in item #7 of the Council agenda. 1/12/04 Nn `" -1,1 Page 2 of 4 However, I would like to express a concern with the implied interpretation of section 15 and 17 of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, as indicated in the Staff's memo (page 70 of your agenda). The extract: "Reference to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act transition policies is intended to clarify that some applications in the Secondary Plan Area will be transitional files and therefore not subject to OPA # 48 provided that applications were submitted before November 17, 2001." (bold added) Interpretation of sections 15 and 17 of the ORMCA has no affect on the recommendation outlined above. Nevertheless, determining the sections of the ORMCP applicable to individual properties will be critical to ensure compliance with the Act and to provide the maximum environmental protection available under the ORMCA and Plan. As per Staff's memo the only criteria to be used to determine if future development is subject to OPA #48 is the date the application was filed. I disagree with this interpretation. I believe 2 aspects must be considered. They are as follows: 1) The date the application was filed 2) The type of application and the date the decision was made (definitions provided below as per ORMCA) EXTRACT FROM ORMCA Y. 1 A decision that is made under the Planning Act or the Condominium Act, 1998 or` in relation to a prescribed matter, by a municipal council, local board, municipal planning authority, minister of the Crown or ministry, board, commission or agency of the Government of Ontario, including the Ontario Municipal Board, shall conform with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan. 2001, c. 31, s. 7 (1). Transitional Provisions, Regulations and Miscellaneous Transition, application of s. 7 15. 1j Section 7 applies with respect to all applications, matters or proceedings commenced on or after November 17, 2001. 2001, c. 31, s. 15 (1). Non -application of s. 7 (3) Section 7 does not apply to an application, matter or proceeding commenced before November 17, 2001 if a decision has been made in respect of the application, matter or proceeding before that date. 2001, c. 31, s. 15 (3). (bold added) Time of decision _(5) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (3), a decision shall be deemed to have been made, (a) in the case of an official plan amendment, on the day that the council adopts or refuses to adopt all or part of 1/12/04 Page 3. of 4 the amendment or on the day that the approval authority approves, modifies and approves or refuses to approve all or part of the amendment, whichever is earlier; Sec./art. 15 (5) conservation de la moraine d'oak ridges Projet 122 13 (b) in the case of an amendment to a zoning by-law under section 34 of the Planning Act, on the day that the council passes or refuses to pass the amending bV-law• (c) in the case of a holding provision by-law under section 36 of the Planning Act, on the day the council Passes the by-law a2plylnn the holding symbol "H" (or "h"� (d) in the case of an application for a minor variance under section 45 of the Planning Act, on the day the committee of adjustment makes its decision; (a) in the case of an application for approval of a draft plan of subdivision under subsection 51 (31) of the Planning Act, on the day the approval authority makes its decision, (bold added) (f) in the case of an application for approval or exemption from approval for a plan of condominium under section 9 of the Condominium Act, 1998, on the day the approval authnrity makA� irc o ,� 4-. (g) in the case of an application for consent under section 53 of the Planning Act, on the day the council or the Minister gives or refuses to give a provisional consent; (h) in the case of an application for approval under subsection 41 (4) of the Planning Act, on the day the council gives or refuses to give its approval• and (i) in the case of an application, matter or proceeding appealed or referred to the Ontario Municipal Board from council's neglect, refusal or failure to make a decision, on the day the Ontarin Miinirinai Pz .nr,i ,....i,,... Interpretation of these sections will dictate which policies will apply in order to comply with the ORMCA. As Council moves forward and implements OPA 48 it is crucial that a clear understanding and agreement exists with respect to the application of the above clauses/criteria. I respectively request that Council direct Staff to provide a report that clearly outlines the criteria that will be used when evaluating lands to be exempted from meeting the policies of the ORMCP, as per section 15 and 17 of the ORMCA. Further whether the sites/properties will be exempt from all or part of the policies outlined in the Settlement Area under the ORMCP, including the Loukras lands should the Region be granted their wish and the Province removes the Countryside designation from these lands. On another matter, still related to this same issue, Regional Council at their December 11, 2003 meeting passed a resolution. Part of the resolution reads as follows: 21 Oak Ridges Moraine Litigation It was moved by Mayor Di Blase, seconded by Mayor Grossi, that: 1. Council hereby requests that the Minister of Municipal Affairs take immediate action: a) To approve York Region Official Plan Amendment 41 (ROPA 41), including amendments to 1/12/04 Page 4 of 4 modify ROPA 41 to match Town of Aurora OPA 20, in relation to the Loukras lands only, consistent with: (bold added) i) Clause No. 1 embodied in Report No. 3 of the Planning and Economic Development Committee, adopted without amendment, by the Council of the Regional Municipality of York at its meeting held on March 27, 2063 (and in particular section 4.3.2.1); The resolution appears innocuous. A better understanding of the resolution is gained by reading section 4.3.2.1 of the report referenced above. Having an interest in the matter, I did just that. The resolution passed by Regional Council in March 2003 indicated that should the Province find merit in re -class if in 1 the Loukras Lands from Count r side to Settlement the Province could change the designafiion Question, what has changed in this latest resolution passed by Regional Council December 11, 2003? Regional Council has asked the Province to change the designation of these lands from Countryside to Settlement area. After discussion with several members of our Council, it appears Mayor Jones our Regional representative having voted on this motion, no doubt in favour, did not explain the resolution to our Council. Perhaps some individual members of Council have had the benefit of a one-on- one explanation. Council as a whole has only had the benefit of the "innocuous" resolution. Failure of our Mayor to share this important information with our Council, in light of the Loukras land owner's application to Quash Aurora's OPA 48, is to say the least inappropriate. As part of the Regional report the Mayor could be asked to elaborate on the item. Sincerely, Evelina MacEachern c.c. John Gerretson, Minister, Ministry of Municipal Affairs David Sit, Planning Advisor, Ministry of Municipal Affairs James Stiver, Regional Planner Sue Seibert, Director of Planning 01000 0 1/12/04 ,,,on of,,( TOWN OF AURORA n"I eM'rz �11H H. EXTRACT FROM COUNCIL MEETING NO. 04-02 HELD ON TUESDAY, JANUARY 13, 2004 Correspondence from Councillor Phyllis Morris Re: E-mail from Mrs. E. MacEachern with respect to Item #7 Oak Ridges Moraine & OPA 34 (ADDED ITEM) Moved by Councillor Buck Seconded by Councillor West THAT the E-mail from Mrs. E. MacEachern with respect to Item #7 Oak Ridges Moraine & OPA #34, be referred to the CAO to review and report back to Council when appropriate. :N_1:7:711'a CORRESPONDENCE SENT BY.. ACTION DEPT.: Plan INFO DEPT.: CAO, Legal Svs. PENDING O R ATTACHMENT 5 ATTACHMENT 6 December 11, 2003 By courier Mr. Robert Panizza, Clerk Town of Aurora 100 John West Way Aurora, Ontario L4G 6J1 Dear Mr. Panizza: Please refer to: Mark R.. Flowers e-mail: marlcf@dauieshowe.com RM wad' i� k c",�'Z=I UP . d# � OEC 1 1 2003 Re: F.A.I. Canada Development Corp. NE Corner of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road, Town of Aurora As you know, we are counsel to F.A.I. Canada Development. Corp., the owner of approximately 18 acres of land located northeast of the intersection of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road in the Town of Aurora. Further to our recent exchange of voice -mail messages, we confirm that we wish to appear as a delegation at the `open forum' portion of the Town Council meeting that is scheduled for the evening of Tuesday, December 16, 2003, The purpose of our attendance will be to address Council regarding the inclusion of our client's lands within the Town's recently adopted Oak Ridges Moraine conformity amendments. Specifically, we will be requesting that Council recommend to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that the lands be excluded from the conformity amendments through the approval process. As you requested, we are enclosing documents in support of our request; namely, a letter to the Mayor and Council from our client, our firm's opinion letter and a memo from our client's environmental consultant, Dr. Derek Coleman. We ask that kindly include copies of these documents in the agenda. We trust that this is satisfactory. However, please do not hesitate to contact us if you require anything further. We look forward to the opportunity to address Council next week on this very important matter. M •- Yours very truly, DAVIES HOWE PARTNERS Mark R. Flowers Enclosures copy: Christopher Serrie, F.A.I. Canada Development Corp. M:17001701208\letlerslpanlm.mf,wpd (100000 FAI CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORP ......................... 1. 130................... BloarStreet .. West Suite 1200 Toronto, Ontario, M5S IN5 Phone (416) 928-1400 Fax (416) 963-8786 csorrie@netscape.net December 9"', 2003 Mayor Tim Jones and Members of Council Town of Aurora 100 John West Way Box No. 1000 Aurora Ontario L4G 6J1 Dear Mayor Jones and Members of Council: AavioA Howe partnor3 Re: NE Corner of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road First of all, I wish to congratulate each of you on your victory in the recent municipal election. The reason for this letter is to provide you with background information in support of our request that Council recommend that the Minister of Municipal Affairs exclude our lands from the Town's recently adopted Oak Ridges Moraine conformity amendments. I have lived in Aurora for over 10 years with my family and have followed closely the events of Council during that time. I am sure that most of you will remember the extensive process that COnnell undertook to develop an appropriate growth strategy for the Town. Upon completion, Town Council and others involved in the process were very pleased with the outcome and the future value it meant to our community. One result of that effort was the adoption of the Yonge Street South Secondary Plan (OPA 34) on July 25, 2000. In support of the Town's initiative, we purchased 18 acres of land at the northeast corner of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road, with the intention of developing the land in a manner consistent with the Town's objectives. We retained a number of consultants and together produced what we believe is a very attractive and appropriate development plan for only 2 homes per acre, each having at least 75 feet of frontage, as contemplated in OPA 34. In August of 2002, in order to implement the OPA 34 policies, we filed rezoning and subdivision applications with the Town. During the entire planning process, we have continued to keep Town staff apprised of our progress and plans. In addition, we have asked on numerous occasions for Town staff to review our applications for conformity with OPA 34, since that was our intent from the beginning. Unfortunately, staff have not been willing to meet with us and, to date, they have not provided comments to us regarding the conformity of our applications with OPA 34. f �' Mayor Tim Jones and Members of Council Town of Aurora We understand that the Town's Oak Ridges Moraine conformity amendments have now been forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval. Regrettably, despite staff s recommendation that the OPA 34 lands be excluded, we are aware that our lands were included in the adopted versions of those amendments, threatening our ability to proceed with the development plan and the realization of the Town's objectives. Thus, we are requesting that Council reconsider the previous Council's decision and recommend that the Minister exclude our lands from the conformity amendments in recognition of its transitional status. In support of this request, we, have attached correspondence from our lawyers and our environmental consultant. Thank you for taking the time to review my letter and circumstance. Should you have any questions or comments please feet free to call any of my consultants or myself directly. 130 Bloor Street West, Suite 1200, Toronto, Ontariioo, eMB5S IN5 (416) 928 1400 Fax: (416) 963 8786 Please refer to: Mark R. Flowers e-mail: markf@dauieshowe.com December 4, 2003 By courier Mr. Christopher Serrie, President F.A.I. Canada Development Corp. 130 Bloor Street West Suite 1200 Toronto, Ontario M5S 1N5 Dear Mr. Serrie: Re: NE Corner of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road, Town of Aurora Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan Conformity Amendments Background As you requested, we have reviewed the Town of Aurora's recently adopted Official Plan Amendment No. 48 and Zoning By-law No. 4469-03.D (collectively, "the Conformity Amendments"), which purport to bring the Town's Official Plan and Zoning By-law into conformity with the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORM Plan). In addition, we have considered the relevant provisions of the Oak Ridges Moraine Conseruation Act, 2001 (ORM Act) in determining the proper application of the ORM Plan and the Conformity Amendments to your lands, which are located northeast of the intersection of Yonge Street and Bloomington Road in the Town of Aurora ("the Lands"). For the reasons that follow, it is our view that the Lands should not have been included within the Town's Conformity Amendments. Official Plan Amendment No. 34 We understand that the Lands are located within an area that was the subject of Official Plan Amendment No. 34 (Yonge Street South Secondary Plan), which was adopted by the Town of Aurora on July 25, 2000, but has not yet been approved by the Region of York. OPA 34 designates the Lands as `Cluster Residential', which permits residential uses in the form of single detached dwellings, semi-detached dwellings, linked housing or townhouses. Moreover, OPA 34 expressly contemplates that the Secondary Plan will .be implemented through subsequent Planning Act applications, including zoning by-law amendments and plans of subdivision. Page 2 Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, 2001 Although section 7 of the ORM Act requires that decisions under the Planning Act conform with the ORM Plan, section 15 provides certain transitional provisions for applications that were already within the planning process when the ORM Act came into effect. Of particular note, subsection 15(3) of the ORM Act stipulates that "[s]ection 7 does not apply to an application, matter or proceeding commenced before November 17, 2001 if a decision has been made in respect of the application, matter or proceeding before that date". In the case of an official plan amendment, the matter is deemed to have been commenced on the day the by-law adopting the amendment was passed and, similarly, a decision is deemed to have been made on the day that the council adopted the amendment. Thus, in the case of OPA 34, a decision is deemed to have been made in July 2000, even though the Region of York has not yet approved the amendment. As a result, it is our opinion that OPA 34 is not required to conform to the ORM Plan. Of note, we understand that the York Region Planning and Development Services Department concurs with our view that OPA 34 is subject to the transitional provisions of the ORM Act. Also of importance is section 17 of the ORM Act. This section provides that if a decision made under the Planning Act with respect to land to which the OEM Plan applies is "conditional on a further approval under [the PlanningAct], the decision on the application for the further approval shall be made in accordance with the same requirements of [the ORM Act] that applied to the original decision". Consequently, provided that OPA 34 is "conditional on a further approval(s)", the decision on the application for such further approval(s) shall be made in accordance with the same requirements of the ORM Act that applied to OPA 34 (i.e., not being required to comply with the ORM Plan by virtue of the ORM Act's transitional provisions). Although the ORM Act does not define what is meant by a decision being "conditional" upon a further approval, the Ontario Municipal Board ("the Board") has, in at least three recent decisions, provided some guidance as to the proper interpretation of this term. Most recently, in the Loukros decision concerning OPA 20 in the Town of Aurora, the Board concluded that section 7 of the ORM Act did not apply to the subject lands as a result of the transitional provisions and, more importantly, that "all further steps in the development of [the] lands are governed by the Transitional Provisions and are, therefore, not governed by [the ORM Act]". In our view, this conclusion similarly applies to the development of the OPA 34 area, including the Lands. Page 3 The Conformity Amendments Inclusion of the OPA 34 Area within the Conformity Amendments The staff report that was prepared for the special council meeting on October 21, 2003 recommended that a number of areas within the Town of Aurora, including the OPA 34 lands, be excluded from the Conformity Amendments on the basis that these lands were subject to the ORM Act's transitional provisions and were therefore exempt from conformity with the ORM Plan. In formulating this recommendation, the Town had obtained a legal opinion from Ian Lord of WeirFoulds LLP, which we have reviewed. We concur with Mr. Lord's opinion that OPA 34 is "exempt by virtue of the transitional provisions of the [ORM Act]" and that "such exemption includes any implementing approvals required". In addition, we agree with Mr. Lord's rejection of the narrow interpretation that some staff of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs appear to be adopting of the ORM Act's transitional provisions; namely, that the exemptions apply only until the adoption of the municipatity's conformity amendments. Despite staff's recommendation, which was supported by a legal opinion, we understand that Council of the Town of Aurora directed that the exempted lands, including the OPA 34 area, be included within the Conformity Amendments. In our opinion, this decision by Council was contrary to the ORM Act, as well as recent Board decisions concerning the scope of the transitional provisions. Similarly, we concur with Mr. Lord that the Town had "no authority to include within its compliance instruments' any land use designation reference or text in respect of lands qualifying for the exemption under the [ORM Act]". As we understand that the Conformity Amendments have now been forwarded to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for approval, it is our view that the Town of Aurora should immediately advise the Minister that the OPA 34 lands should not have been included within the Conformity Amendments and that the Minister should modify the amendments accordingly. In the event that the Minister is not prepared to make such modifications, the Minister should be requested to appoint a hearing officerto conduct a hearing and make written recommendations in respect of the Conformity Amendments, as contemplated by the ORM Act. 000063 Page 4 Characterization of the Lands within the Conformity Amendments As noted above, it is our position that the Town of Aurora was wrong to include the Lands and the other portions of the OPA 34 area within the Conformity Amendments. If, however, the Town does not agree with our opinion and refuses to recommend to the Minister that the OPA 34 lands be excluded, we believe it is important that the Town be made aware of what appear to be errors in the Conformity Amendments as they purport to apply to the Lands. The Lands are designated as 'Oak Ridges Moraine Settlement Area' in OPA 48. Moreover, the Lands are shown in OPA 48 as including a woodland feature and are identified as being located within a Category 1 Landform Conservation Area. Meanwhile, the Lands are zoned 'Estate Residential' in Zoning By-law No. 4469-03.D, with similar identification of a woodland feature and a Category 1 complex landform. Based on the identification of the Lands within a Category 1 Landform Conservation Area, section 34.4.1 of Zoning By-law No. 4469-03:D purports to impose the following restrictions on development of the Lands: i) the net developable area of the site that is disturbed shall not exceed 25 per cent of the total site area; and ii) the net developable area of the site that has impervious surfaces shall not exceed 15 per cent of the total site area. In our opinion, these restrictions are not appropriate for development within a Settlement Area and are contrary to both the ORM Plan and OPA 48. More specifically, by virtue of subsection 19(3) of the ORM Plan, rather than imposing the above restrictions on all development within a landform conservation area, for development applications in a Settlement Area the approval authority is simply required to "consider the importance of adopting planning, design and construction practices thatwill keep disturbance to landform character to a minimum... if possible". [emphasis added] Similarly, subsection 3.13.4(f) (xi) of OPA 48 stipulates that within Landform Conservation Areas in the Oak Ridges Moraine Settlement Area, the Town of Aurora shall review and assess applications for development and site alteration on the basis of "employing planning, design and construction practices that will keep disturbance to the landform character to a minimum, if possible". [emphasis added] Thus, in our view, section 34.4.1 of the proposed zoning by-law amendment is not authorized, as it does not conform to the proposed official plan amendment. �A Page 5 49 Similarly, we understand that your environmental consultant, Dr. Derek Coleman, has reviewed the Conformity Amendments and has identified errors with respect to both the mapping of the woodlands and the characterization of the Lands as a Category 1 Landform Conservation Area. A copy of Dr. Coleman's memo is attached. Conclusion In light of the transitional provisions of the ORM Act, we are of the opinion that the Council of the Town of Aurora was wrong to include the OPA 34 lands within the Conformity Amendments and, instead, should have accepted the recommendations of the Town's planning staff to exclude this area. Consequently, the Town should immediately advise the Minister of Municipal Affairs and request that this error be rectified as part of the approval process for the Conformity Amendments. Moreover, given the broad interpretation that the Board has attributed to the scope of the transitional provisions for further Planning Act approvals, it is our view that the rezoning and subdivision applications that have been filed to pennitthe development of the Lands are designed to implement the Town's decision to adopt CPA 34 and; as a result, are also exempt from the ORM Plan. We trust that this is satisfactory. However, please do not hesitate to contact us if you wish to discuss this matter further. Yours truly, DAVIES HOWE PARTNERS Mark R. Flowers M1700170129811etterslserrie2.mLwpd 000065 Cambridge, Ontario N30 1 V6 (519)658-6085 FAX (519) 658-6037 'I"®:. Rosemary Humphries, HPG ®ate: November 28, 2003 Fromm: Derek J. Coleman, PhD. Cc: Mark Flowers, Davies + Howe R®: F.A.I. Property,_ Aurora and ORM Implementing By-law As requested by you, I have reviewed the Aurora By-laws implementing the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Plan (ORMCP) with respect to the F.A.I. property. I am familiar with both the ORMCP and other implementing by-laws and there are two substantial concerns that arise. Woodlands By-Law4469-03.D includes several Schedules attached to it identifying features within the Moraine area of the Town. Map 7 (part attached) shows "Key Natural Heritage Features", including "Woodlands". If this is interpreted to mean "Significant Woodlands" within that meaning in the ORMCP; then, constraints are placed over the southerly part of the property as development cannot occur in a Key Natural Heritage Feature (i.e. Significant Woodland) or its Minimum Vegetation Protection Zone. However, l believe the mapping in the By-law is in error. It is based on information provided by the Ministry of Natural Resources and that mapping was done using aerial photo interpretation methods and was not intended for this (by-law) type of use. It was supposed to be a flag and could be adjusted subject to field studies. I have attached a copy of our field inventory of the F.A.I. lands using the required Ecological Land Classification (ELC) inventory methods. Parts of the area mapped as woodland in the by-law are not woodland as observed on the ground by us. This is, in part, the difference between an air photo and a field study. Some areas shown as woodland on the air photos are landscaped areas on existing lots and are not sustaining vegetation communities. There are two important definitional issues that come into play and are not yet resolved in the application of the ORMCP. First, there will be a minimum size for Significant Woodlands in such Settlement Areas. At present (November 1, 2003 Draft Technical Paper 1), this is suggested by the MNR to be 4 hectares in Settlement Areas. Based on our inventory and measurements, the F.A.I. woodlands would not meet this minimum size. The second definitional issue is what density of trees constitutes a woodland — two definitions are suggested by MNR based on ELC (60% canopy) and Forestry Act (number of stems per acre). Using ELC, there would not be significant woodland on the property. I am uncertain about the Forestry Act definition as there are still discussions on -going about wording and we do not have a stem count for F.A.I. For the time being, the information available suggests that important areas of the site are not woodland both due to the more reliable field mapping and the available definitions and that the woodlands are not significant woodlands. 2.. Landform The second issue relates to the landform conservation policies that the Town has inserted through the by-law. The ORMCP standard (Section.30 (13)) for Settlement Areas would "keep landform disturbance to a minimum The Town's By- law limits landform disturbance to 25% of the property for Landform Conservation Category 1. 1 believe that this would place an undue restriction on the site as residential lots and roads for any reasonable development would exceed this limit even on very large estate lots. This is inconsistent with the ORMCP and the Town's Secondary Plan for the property and unnecessary, as our previous study found. The inventory identifying the very broad landform -conservation categories on the Moraine was completed in the early 1990's for a different purpose than Aurora is using it — i.e. at a site plan control level of detail. The ORMCP itself uses the categories in the rural area to limit major development (i.e. golf courses) or to locate buildings within large lots. The landform policies were not intended for a residential subdivision such as this in a Settlement Area. I trust that this clarifies the situation, as the Town's By-law has exceeded the ORMCP requirements in both cases and unnecessarily limited development of the lands. DJC cc. M. Flowers