FURTHER TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE #3/09 To be held Friday, May 8, 2009

Transcription

1 FURTHER TO EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE #3/09 To be held Friday, May 8, 2009 Pages FURTHER TO: NEW DELEGATIONS 4. DELEGATIONS 4.1 A delegation by Ray Ristich, Ajax Resident, in regard to widening of Rossland Road in Ajax and construction of bridges at Duffins Creek and Urfe Creek. 4.2 A delegation by Christine Charette, resident, City of Toronto, in regard to item Fallingbrook Drive. 8. SECTION II - ITEMS FOR EXECUTIVE ACTION ITEM LISTED ON AGENDA AS REPORT TO FOLLOW 8.6 URBAN FOREST STUDIES Award of Contract APPLICATIONS FOR PERMITS PURSUANT TO ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses ERRATA UPDATE SHEET WITHDRAWN BARKER AVENUE NEW PERMITS CITY OF TORONTO (SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA FALLINGBROOK DRIVE To construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on 42 Fallingbrook Drive, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Waterfront Watershed. The purpose is to replace an existing rear yard deck, implement minor grade changes, and construct one french drain to capture storm drainage from the site and adjacent sites

2 CITY OF VAUGHAN SEVEN ON THE RIDGE DEVELOPMENTS INC. To site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Lot 20, Concession 8, (Clairewood Court/Autumn Grove Court), in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by Seven on the Ridge Developments Inc.. The purpose is to perform grading works associated with the development of a previously approved Plan of Subdivision within a Regulated Area of the Humber River Watershed at Clairewood Court in the City of Vaughan TOWN OF CALEDON CENTREVILLE CREEK ROAD To temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on (15925 Centreville Creek Road), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to undertake grading and site remediation works within a regulated area to facilitate the continuing use of the property as an auto recycling centre

3 TO: Chair and Members of the Executive Committee Item 8.6 Meeting #3/09, May 8, 2009 FROM: Deborah Martin-Downs, Director, Ecology RE: URBAN FOREST STUDIES Award of Contract KEY ISSUE Award of sole source contract to U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, for Urban FORest Effects Modeling analysis services RECOMMENDATION THAT the contract for conducting the analysis of urban forest data from the Town of Ajax and Region of Peel be awarded to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service, at a cost not to exceed $148,000 (Cdn) plus applicable taxes as per agreements with external partners; AND FURTHER THAT authorized Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) officials be directed to take the necessary action to implement the contract including obtaining necessary approvals and signing and execution of documents. BACKGROUND As an implementation activity for the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority (TRCA) Terrestrial Natural Heritage System Strategy in 2007, TRCA staff conducted an inventory of urban forest initiatives within its nine watersheds and partner municipalities. A number of municipalities were either planning or already had funding to conduct studies within their own jurisdictions. In 2007 the Region of Peel engaged TRCA in managing its urban forest study, including managing the study's partnership between the Region of Peel, cities of Mississauga and Brampton, Town of Caledon, Credit Valley Conservation (CVC) and TRCA. The purpose of the study was to determine the condition and ecosystem function of the existing urban forest and to develop an urban forest model strategy for the Region. In 2008, the Town of Ajax also engaged TRCA to manage their study in a partnership between the Town and TRCA. The City of Toronto was undertaking their own study and the Region of York and City of Pickering were planning their studies for TRCA staff took advantage of the coinciding studies by initiating an informal collaborative between the various municipal and conservation authority project managers to standardize data collection, analysis and reporting methods across boundaries. The benefit to TRCA and others would include having a uniform information layer that could be combined or compared across the Greater Toronto Area, including the TRCA watersheds. There was strong agreement for collaboration between managers as long as individual projects timelines and budgets remained discrete. 154

4 RATIONALE The UFORE (Urban FORest Effects) Model was developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. When fed the tree data from sample plots, and weather, pollution and hydrological information, the UFORE Model determines the health of the forest and its role in climate and air quality regulation, water management and energy cost reductions, among other calculations. One other urban forest model, CITYgreen, is available and was considered for our purposes as well as UFORE. The two models are not comparable as they perform different applications. UFORE is an urban forest inventory tool that combines detailed sample plot data specific to the study area with land cover mapping (from aerial photography or satellite imagery). Although CITYgreen is a less costly and more user-friendly desktop application, its calculations are based on land cover data without the detailed ground based data. Therefore, the UFORE Model land cover analysis is more accurate and more applicable to local situations and future management decisions. As well, UFORE's use of ground-level data (e.g. the location of trees relative to buildings) allows for the calculation of more functions (e.g. energy cost reduction) than CITYgreen. Each model has its benefits and must be chosen to fit individual needs. UFORE was selected by project managers in the collaborative as the standard model for the urban forest studies in the Greater Toronto Area essentially because UFORE has been used successfully in city regions worldwide including Toronto and Oakville. Dr. Andrew Kenney, University of Toronto, is an expert in urban forestry who researched the UFORE model before applying it to Toronto's study in As an advisor on the TRCA-managed urban forest studies, Dr. Kenney is confident that the basic science and comparability across municipalities will be maximized by the use of UFORE now and into the future. UFORE and CITYgreen have significant differences in spite of some overlapping objectives. Some of his observations on why UFORE should be used for our studies include: the level of involvement by municipalities and millions of dollars invested by the USDA and arboriculture industry in the U.S. in the development of the model; the transparency of the methodology and science behind UFORE; the fact that pollution removal assessments are based on local hourly data; and the fact that USDA staff provide a high level of technical support in the use of the model. The Peel and Ajax sample plots were set up in 2008 in a manner that would permit long-term monitoring. The USDA has been developing additional applications in the last few years and is working on programs that will allow for their clients to apply UFORE more independently from the USDA, allowing TRCA and partners to conduct studies with more local autonomy in the future. 155

5 The procedure for conducting an urban forest study using UFORE is that the sample plot data are collected in house, in this case by TRCA Ecology Division staff, and are sent to the USDA for analysis using the UFORE model. The USDA then provide a preliminary report on the urban forest structure (species composition, tree health and leaf area), carbon storage and annual sequestration, air pollution removal, building energy use reductions, hydrology (interception, infiltration and evaporation), actual and potential location of trees for the entire study area and by land use types, estimates of future benefits taking into account plantings and mortality rates, and priority areas to plant and benefit distribution. The results are then interpreted (by TRCA) and used (by municipalities) in developing urban forest management strategies or plans. Staff recommends that TRCA award the contract to the USDA to undertake the UFORE analysis component of the Peel and Ajax urban forest studies in The TRCA Purchasing Policy Section allows for non-competitive procurement and for entering into negotiations without formal competitive bids if "the required goods and services are to be supplied by a particular vendor or supplier having special knowledge, skills, expertise or experience that cannot be provided by any other supplier.". The USDA is currently widely recognized as such a supplier of urban forest analytical services. FINANCIAL DETAILS Payment for a sum not to exceed $148,000 (CDN) will be made to the USDA upon completion of the analyses and reports in The Region of Peel, cities of Brampton and Mississauga, CVC and the towns of Caledon and Ajax have provided $148,000 to undertake these analyses. Report prepared by: Lionel Normand, extension s: lnormand@trca.on.ca For Information contact: Lionel Normand, extension s: lnormand@trca.on.ca Date: May 1,

6 10. APPLICATION FOR PERMITS UNDER ONTARIO REGULATION 166/06 Development, Interference with Wetlands and Alterations to Shorelines and Watercourses Information has been received and reviewed by staff for the following Scheduled Errata items. The recommendations within the staff reports should be amended to include the following: BELL CANADA Letter of Undertaking, prepared by Plantec Inc. Consulting Engineering, dated May 6, 2009, to address all outstanding ecology related issues. FORMERLY LISTED AS OURAY DEVELOPMENTS INC. FENY COMPANY INC FENY COMPANY INC./QURAY DEVELOPMENTS INC. Letter of undertaking provided by Diarmuid Horgan, Candevcon Ltd., dated May 6, 2009, to address all outstanding TRCA items prior to the issuance of the permit N.H.D. DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Letter of undertaking provided by Polly Nguyen, Sorbara Development Group, dated May 6, 2009, to address all outstanding TRCA items prior to the issuance of the permit OCEAN SANDS DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED Drawing G-1, Site Servicing Plan, Grading Plan and Stormwater Management Plan, prepared by A.M. Candaras, revised April 20, 2009, stamped received by TRCA Planning and Development May 1, CITY OF TORONTO Letter of Undertaking from City of Toronto - Richard Noehammer dated April 28, 2009 indicating that the City agrees to provide revisions to the engineering and landscape drawings to the satisfaction of TRCA staff and confirming that all works will be undertaken within City of Toronto road allowance MOSSOM PLACE Drawing No. 1 of 2, Site Plan, Section 1 and Rear Elevation, prepared by Juergen Partridge Ltd., dated April 2009, received on April 29, 2009; Drawing No. 1 of 2, Landscape Plan and Deck Plan, prepared by Juergen Partridge Ltd., dated April 2009, received on April 29, ISLINGTON GOLF CLUB Drawing No. N-3, Netting Plan, prepared by Tanner Consulting Group, dated September 8, 2006, Revision No. 1, revised on July 23, 2007, received on February 19, 2009; Drawing No. ES-1, Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan, prepared by R. J. Burnside & Associates Limited, dated February 17, 2009, received on February 19, 2009; Drawing unnumbered, Restoration Plan, prepared by Shady Lane Expert Tree Care Inc., undated, received on February 19, 2009; 157

7 Drawing unnumbered, Design Detail, prepared by Coastal Netting Systems, undated, received on February 19, BARKER AVENUE WITHDRAWN BAYVIEW AVENUE Drawing No. A0.3 Location Plan, Site Plan & Site Statistics, prepared by Scott Morris Architects Inc., dated October 2008, revised March 13, 2009, received March 31, 2009, redline revised by TRCA staff May 6, 2009; Drawing No. S1 Specifications and Plan, prepared by Sirjani Engineering Inc., dated April 1, 2009, received April 1, CRESCENT ROAD Drawing No. S2.1, Foundation Plan and Notes, prepared by Hamann Engineering, dated February 2008, received on April 20, 2009; Drawing No. S2.2, Deck Level Plan and Notes, prepared by Hamann Engineering, dated February 2008, Revision No. 1, revised on October 3, 2008, received on April 20, 2009; Drawing No. S3.1, Sections, prepared by Hamann Engineering, dated February 2008, received on April 20, 2009; Drawing No. C.1, Rear Yard Terrace Concept Plan, prepared by Holbrook + Associates, dated July 19, 2006, Revision No. 1, revised on October 1, 2008, received on April 20, 2009; Drawing No. C.1, Landscape Concept Plan, prepared by Holbrook + Associates, dated December 18, 2008, received on April 20, VALLEY VIEW Drawing No. L-1, Stewardship Plan, prepared by Kent Ford Design Group, dated September 13, 2007, Revision No. 5, revised on April 16, 2009, received on April 28, 2009; Drawing No. L-2, Landscape Layout Plan, prepared by Kent Ford Design Group, dated November 14, 2006, Revision No. 3, revised on April 16, 2009, received on April 28, 2009; Drawing No. L-3, Planting Plan, prepared by Kent Ford Design Group, dated November 14, 2006, Revision No. 3, revised on April 16, 2009, received on April 28, 2009; Drawing No. L-4, Lighting Plan, prepared by Kent Ford Design Group, dated November 14, 2006, Revision No. 3, revised on April 16, 2009, received on April 28, PINE RIDGE AVENUE Site Plan and Erosion Sediment Control Plan, Drawing No ESC, prepared by EMC Group Limited, dated December 5, 2008, received by the TRCA April 29, 2008; Landscape Preservation Plan, Drawing No. L-1, prepared by M&M Design Consultants, dated April 21, 2009, received by the TRCA April 23, 2009, redline revised to indicate for landscape purposes only; Landscape Notes and Details, Drawing No. L-4 prepared by M&M Design Consultants, dated April 21, 2009, received by the TRCA April 23, 2009; 158

8 Landscape Restoration Plan, Drawing No. L-5, prepared by M&M Design Consultants, dated April 21, 2009, received by the TRCA April 23, 2009, redline revised to indicate for landscape purposes only BLOCK 12 PROPERTIES INC. Letter of Undertaking indicating that the applicant will continue to work with the TRCA to resolve any outstanding issues to the satisfaction of the TRCA prior to the release of the permit, signed by David Mhango of Schaeffers Consulting Engineers, dated May 5, 2009, received by the TRCA on May 6, WIGSTON PLACE Site Plan Drawing, prepared by Betz Pools, dated April 20, 2009, received by the TRCA April 30, 2009; Detailed Site Plan Drawing, prepared by Betz Pools, dated April 28, 2009, received by the TRCA April 30, GRANDVISTA CRESCENT Site Plan, prepared by the applicant, received by the TRCA March 11, 2009, redline revised to indicated the removal of excess fill material and erection of sediment control fencing; Landscape Plan, Prepared by Dynascape, dated March 2009, received by the TRCA March 19, 2009, redline revised by the applicant to replace plant species to native non-invasive species ROBERSON DRIVE Rear Yard Landscape Concept Plan, prepared by ToDesign Landscape Designer, no date, received by TRCA on April 30, TOWN OF AJAX Drawing No. L100, Overall Site Plan, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. L101, Site Part Plan - Bayly Street Location, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. L101A, Site Part Plan - Bayly Street Location, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. L102, Site Part Plan - Church Street Location, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. L102A, Site Part Plan - Church Street Location, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. L103, Cross Sections, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. L104, Details, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. L105, Plant Inventory & Preservation Plan, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. L106, Landscape Plan, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 30, 2009, received by TRCA on April 30, 2009; Drawing No. S100, Church Street Bridge - Overall Site Plans, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; 159

9 Drawing No. S101, Church Street Bridge - Foundation Plans, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. S102, Church Street Bridge - Abutment and Wingwall Plans, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. S103 & 103A, Church Street Bridge - Sections and Details, prepared by Barry Bryan Associated Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. S104 & 104A, Church Street Bridge - Abutment and Wingwall Elevations, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. S105, Bayly Street Bridge - Foundation and Abutment Plans, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. S106, Bayly Street Bridge - Sections, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. S107, Bayly Street Bridge - Abutment Elevations, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates Ltd., dated April 24, 2009, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Drawing No. S108, General Notes, prepared by Barry Bryan Associates, received by TRCA on April 27, 2009; Letter from Town of Ajax regarding operational and financial liability for bridges & contact information for bridge operation, dated May 4, 2009, received by TRCA on May 4, 2009; Letter from Barry Bryan Associates Ltd. confirming the height and method for elevating the Church Street bridge, dated May 4, 2009, received by TRCA on May 5, REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Letter of Undertaking to provide minor revisions to the engineering and landscape drawings to the satisfaction of TRCA staff for works in the Regulated Area; dated April 24, 2009; received April 28, 2009; prepared by the Region of Peel REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Letter of Undertaking to provide minor revisions to the engineering and landscape drawings to the satisfaction of TRCA staff for works in the Regulated Area; dated April 24, 2009; received April 28, 2009; prepared by the Region of Peel REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF PEEL Letter of Undertaking to provide minor revisions to the engineering and landscape drawings to the satisfaction of TRCA staff for works in the Regulated Area; dated April 24, 2009; received April 28, 2009; prepared by the Region of Peel ENBRIDGE GAS DISTRIBUTION INC. Contingency Plan for Horizontal Directional Drilling (HDD) of Watercourses in Ontario; dated June, 2008; received February 6, 2009; prepared by Enbridge; Page 1 of 3, Project No ; dated January 19, 2009; revised June 4, 2008; received February 6, 2009; red-line revised May 5, 2009; prepared by Enbridge; Page 2 of 3, Project No ; dated January 19, 2009; received February 6, 2009; red-line revised May 5, 2009; prepared by Enbridge ; 160

10 Page 3 of 3, Project No ; dated June 10, 2008; received February 6, 2009; red-line revised May 5, 2009; prepared by Enbridge ENBRIDGE GAS DISTRIBUTION INC. Letter of Undertaking to provide minor revisions to landscape drawings and to provide Land Owner Authorization to TRCA staff; dated May 5, 2009; received May 5, 2009; prepared by Enbridge Gas Distributions Inc TOWN OF MARKHAM Letter of Undertaking to provide minor revisions to landscape and engineering drawings to the satisfaction of TRCA staff; dated May 5, 2009; received May 5, 2009; prepared by the Town of Markham YORK REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD Letter of Undertaking, prepared by D. Ruh, Moffat & Duncan Architects, dated May 6, 2009, to address all outstanding TRCA engineering concerns. 161

11 CITY OF TORONTO (SCARBOROUGH COMMUNITY COUNCIL AREA FALLINGBROOK DRIVE To construct, reconstruct, erect or place a building or structure and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on 42 Fallingbrook Drive, in the City of Toronto (Scarborough Community Council Area), Waterfront Watershed. The purpose is to replace an existing rear yard deck, implement minor grade changes, and construct one french drain to capture storm drainage from the site and adjacent sites. The permit will be issued for the period of May 8, 2009 to May 7, 2011 in accordance with the following documents and plans which form part of this permit: Drawing No. 1 of 1, Grading, prepared by Earth Inc., dated May 4, 2009, received May 5, 2009; Drawing No. L3 of 4, Back Pool + Deck Grades, prepared by Earth Inc., dated March, 2009, received May 5, 2009, redline revised by TRCA staff May 6, RATIONALE The application was reviewed by staff on the basis of the following information: Proposal: The applicant proposes to replace an existing rear yard deck and implement grading and drainage works on the subject property located south east of Kingston Road and Victoria Park Avenue, in the Fallingbrook Woods Ravine. The ravine slope has been historically altered and terraced to allow for the development of the homes on Fallingbrook Drive and Fallingbrook Woods. The general landscape proposal is intended to complete the garden around a new pool that was permitted under a previous TRCA minor works permit. The landscape scheme includes proposed minor regrading and drainage works meant to capture storm drainage from adjacent rear yards, reduce surface run-off and stabilize the soil with planting. 162

12 Permit After the Fact In response to a neighbour's complaint, a notice of infraction of TRCA's Regulation has been issued to the applicant. The complaint included issues of excess soil excavation for a pool too close to the adjacent property line, concerns for slope stability and storage of excavated fill on site. TRCA has met with the applicants and the adjoining neighbours to gain better understanding of the concerns. TRCA staff requested the applicant to include modifications to the landscaping along the property boundary to remediate the violation and alleged drainage problems. TRCA technical staff have reviewed a new landscape plan submission and are of the opinion that the proposed landscape works will rectify the infraction. The application permit fee has been increased in order to address this infraction. Conditional Permit Staff recommend that the permit for the new landscape works be approved conditionally. The neighbours with property abutting the rear yard of the site raised concerns regarding the potential for surface erosion on their shallow unvegetated slope behind the subject site. Although the drainage works and landscape plantings are meant to address these concerns, some further details may need to be finalized between the two neighbours. The permit will not be released until all details have been finalized to the satisfaction of TRCA staff and, if necessary, the permit drawings have been redlined. A City of Toronto Forestry approval will also have to be obtained before construction is reconstituted. Control of Flooding: The proposed works are not located within a Regional Storm Flood Plain and therefore will not impact the storage or conveyance of flood waters. Pollution: Sediment and erosion control fencing will be erected and maintained throughout construction works. Any excavated materials not used for minor grade-matching will be disposed off-site. Dynamic Beaches: Not applicable. Erosion: TRCA staff have reviewed the application in light of the neighbour's concerns regarding surface erosion from a slope located to the rear of the subject property. Staff are of the opinion that this landscape solution adequately addresses any concerns of slope stability and surface drainage at this time. Conservation of Land: The valley in this location is entirely terraced and developed and is not considered a sensitive natural area for environmental protection. However, careful construction practices are required to preserve terraced garden slopes and existing trees. There will be no impact on the conservation of land. Plantings Plantings will be installed In order to address the neighbour's concerns for potential erosion and restore the site. 163

13 Policy Guidelines: This proposal is consistent with Section E., Property Improvements and Ancillary Structures, of the TRCA's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. CFN: Application #: 0149/09/TOR Report Prepared by: Leah Weller, extension 5250 For information contact: Steve Heuchert, extension 5311 Date: May 6, 2009 CITY OF VAUGHAN SEVEN ON THE RIDGE DEVELOPMENTS INC. To site grade and temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on Lot 20, Concession 8, (Clairewood Court/Autumn Grove Court), in the City of Vaughan, Humber River Watershed as located on the property owned by Seven on the Ridge Developments Inc.. The purpose is to perform grading works associated with the development of a previously approved Plan of Subdivision within a Regulated Area of the Humber River Watershed at Clairewood Court in the City of Vaughan. The permit will be issued for the period of May 8, 2009 to May 7, 2011 in accordance with the following documents and plans which form part of this permit: Lot Grading Plan, Drawing No. LG-1, prepared by Valdor Engineering Inc., dated March 28, 2008, received by the TRCA March 6, 2009; Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, Drawing No. ESC-1, prepared by Valdor Engineering Inc., dated March 28, 2008, received by the TRCA March 6, 2009; Tree Preservation Plan, Drawing No. TP1, prepared by Cosburn Giberson Landscape Architects, dated June 11, 2008, received by the TRCA March 6, 2009; 164

14 Tree Preservation Details and Notes, Drawing No. TP2, prepared by Cosburn Giberson Landscape Architects, dated June 11, 2008, received by the TRCA March 6, 2009; Letter of Undertaking, prepared by Valdor Engineering Inc., dated May 5, 2009, stating that finalized documentation regarding the stable top of slope and detailed grading plan for Lot 5 will be submitted to the satisfaction of the TRCA, received by the TRCA May 6, RATIONALE The application was reviewed by staff on the basis of the following information: Proposal: The purpose is to perform grading works associated with a previously approved Plan of Subdivision in preparation for the construction of the 7 lot subdivision. The proposed works include the alteration of a man-made draw feature and regrading along the edge of a buffer, which was established through the Draft Plan of Subdivision process (Marchesan Subdivision - 19T-02V12). Based upon a site visit conducted by TRCA staff and a Slope Stability Report, prepared by Soil Engineers, dated April 15, 2009 as well as a stable-long-term-top-of-slope drawing prepared by Soil Engineers received by the TRCA May 1, 2009, TRCA Geotechnical staff are satisfied that the proposed works will not adversely affect the stability of the slope and are appropriately setback from the stable slope. Control of Flooding: The proposed works are not located within the Regional Storm Floodplain; there will be no impacts on the storage or conveyance of flood waters. Pollution: Sediment control fencing will be erected and maintained along the area of disturbance to prevent the migration of sediment into the adjacent valley system. Dynamic Beaches: Not applicable. Erosion: TRCA Geotechnical staff are satisfied that the proposed works will not adversely impact the stability of the valley wall. Conservation of Land: A watercourse will not be impacted by the proposal, no fisheries concerns will result. There are no other significant natural features on or adjacent to the site that may be negatively impacted by the project. Plantings All disturbed area will be restored to the existing sodded condition once construction has completed. Existing vegetation along the edge of the valley system and within the buffer will be protected and will remain. 165

15 Policy Guidelines: The proposal is consistent with Section New Urban Development - of the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Program. CFN: Application #: 0118/09/VAUG Report Prepared by: Anthony Sun, extension 5724 For information contact: Bill Kiru, extension 5306 Date: May 6, 2009 TOWN OF CALEDON CENTREVILLE CREEK ROAD To temporarily or permanently place, dump or remove any material, originating on the site or elsewhere on (15925 Centreville Creek Road), in the Town of Caledon, Humber River Watershed. The purpose is to undertake grading and site remediation works within a regulated area to facilitate the continuing use of the property as an auto recycling centre. The permit will be issued for the period of May 8, 2009 to May 7, 2011 in accordance with the following documents and plans which form part of this permit: Guyfer Auto Recycling Centre (15925 Centreville Creek Road), Site Plan, sheet 1 of 2, produced by Wyndland Consulting Limited, dated November, 2008, stamped received by TRCA Planning and Development, May 4, 2009; Guyfer Auto Recycling Centre (15925 Centreville Creek Road), Cross Sections Perpendicular to Centreville Creek Road, sheet 2 of 2, produced by Wyndland Consulting Limited, dated November, 2008, stamped received by TRCA Planning and Development, May 4,

16 RATIONALE The application was reviewed by staff on the basis of the following information: Proposal: This permit application is to facilitate the completion of grading and site preparation works on the subject property. The property is located at Centreville Creek Road in the Town of Caledon, within the Humber River watershed (Centreville Creek sub-watershed). A permit was previously approved by the Executive Committee at the September 7, 2007 Executive Committee meeting for grading and site remediation works on the subject property, and a TRCA permit was subsequently issued. As works progressed on the subject property, it became apparent to TRCA staff that the work being completed was not consistent with the TRCA and Town of Caledon permits issued. Specifically, it appeared that excess amounts of fill were being brought onto the site. TRCA Enforcement advised the landowner of the compliance issues, and TRCA staff and Town staff subsequently met with the proponents on a number of occasions to further discuss the issues, and to seek resolution. The southwest portion of the site has been used for auto recycling purposes for several decades. Due to the historical practices associated with past operations, portions of the property contained scattered automobiles and auto parts, mostly concentrated in the southwest quadrant of the site. The property was subsequently sold to the current owners. Through the permit identified above, the applicant proposed to remediate the site by removing the wreckage from the natural areas on the property, and to concentrate the auto recycling uses on a portion of the land adjacent to Centreville Creek Road, which is zoned for that purpose. In exchange, the proponent was permitted to construct a larger plateau adjacent to the Road, which would better support the proposed auto recycling operation, in addition to regrading of a lower plateau for vehicle storage - also within the area zoned for that purpose. Work was initiated on the subject property, involving the removal of automobiles and auto parts from the natural areas of the property, in addition to fill placement and site grading works. As noted above, as works progressed on the subject property, it became apparent that the volume of fill that was being brought onto the property was in excess of the amount that was approved by the TRCA and the Town of Caledon. Through meetings with the proponents, the proponents expressed that the plans and associated grades that were previously approved were too conceptual in nature, and had not considered all of the requirements for the site to be utilized for its intended purpose. The proponents also identified potential operational safety issues that would be created through implementing the original proposal. The solution proposed by the proponents was to extend the plateau further into the valley corridor rather than creating the tiered site, previously proposed. Through negotiations with TRCA and Town staff, the proponents agreed to a revised concept that could be supported by TRCA staff, which was more consistent with the approvals previously provided by the TRCA. Based upon this, the remaining work involves regrading the portions of the site on which excess fill had been placed, to bring them down to the approved levels, and to utilize this fill for grading works on other areas of the property. Additional fill will also be required to construct the berms for visual screening along the edges of the property, and for leveling of the lower vehicle storage area. TRCA staff have identified the need for the proponent to minimize additional fill placement on the lower tier of the property, and the current proposal represents the negotiated balance, which will minimize additional fill placement, while allowing for the viable use of the property. 167

17 Due to the extent of the modifications that are required to the original proposal that was approved by the TRCA, staff have identified that a new permit application should be brought forward for the remainder to the work. To ensure that the requirements of the TRCA and the complementary objectives of the Town of Caledon are implemented through this permit, staff are recommending that this permit be approved based upon the conditions identified below. Conditional Permit Staff recommend that this permit be approved conditionally. As excess fill was placed on the subject property in relation to the previous permit issued by the TRCA, and as measures were not implemented to clearly identify the grades on-site in relation to the approved grades, TRCA staff would recommend that the continuing implementation of the following be conditions of the issuance of this permit: That all fill placed on the site is to meet a minimum of Table 2 of the Ministry of the Environment - Soil, Ground Water and Sediment Standards for Use under Part XV.1 of the Environmental Protection Act, in addition to Town of Caledon standards for fill placement, and that the proponents satisfy Town of Caledon staff of this. That appropriate measures be implemented throughout the duration of the work on the property to ensure that the amount of fill placed on the property is consistent with the approved drawings, utilizing measures that will be reviewed on-site by TRCA Enforcement. That inspection and certification be provided by an independent professional that the project has met all conditions at the completion of works on the property. Control of Flooding: A small portion of the proposed grading works may be located within the Regional Storm floodplain. TRCA technical staff have reviewed these works and are satisfied that they will have no adverse impacts on the storage and/or conveyance of floodwaters. Pollution: Appropriate erosion and sediment controls have been proposed with this application, and will be implemented and maintained throughout all phases of construction. Dynamic Beaches: Not applicable Erosion: There are no geotechnical and/or slope stability concerns associated with this project. Conservation of Land: As identified in the previous permit report, the works being completed by the applicant will result in the removal of automobiles and auto parts from the sensitive natural areas of the site. Through the regrading of the site, an improved stormwater management scheme will be put in place which will better treat stormwater from the auto recycling facility before it enters adjacent natural areas. Additionally, due to the proposed best management practices of the proponents, all fluids will be removed from the vehicles prior to their storage on-site, to reduce any potential impacts on surrounding natural areas. Seeding of disturbed areas of the site will be completed for areas of the site that have been disturbed through previous operation, and for areas that have been graded, that are not being used for the current operations. There are no fisheries related concerns with this application. 168

18 Plantings All proposed restoration plantings and seed mixes will be native and non-invasive, as well as consistent with TRCA's post construction restoration guidelines. Policy Guidelines: This proposal is in conformity with Sections E) - Development and Redevelopment/Intensification Within Non-Established Communities/Highly Urbanized Ares/New Urban Development: Property Improvements and Ancillary Structures, and F) Development and Redevelopment/Intensification Within Non-Established Communities/Highly Urbanized Ares/New Urban Development: Opportunities for Regeneration, of the Authority's Valley and Stream Corridor Management Plan (VSCMP). CFN: Application #: 0284/09/CAL Report Prepared by: Quentin Hanchard, extension 5324 For information contact: Carolyn Woodland, extension 5214 Date: May 6,