M I N U T E S

COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

2004-11-30

Canada Room

 

Attendance

 

Mayor                          D. Cousens Regional Councillors     F. Scarpitti                                     J. Heath                                     J. Jones (5:55 p.m.)                                     B. O'Donnell Councillors                   S. Daurio                                     E. Shapero                                     J. Virgilio                                     J. Webster (6:00 p.m.)                                     D. Horchik                                     K. Usman                                     A. Chiu

J. Livey, Chief Administrative Officer J. Baird, Commissioner of Development    Services S. Birrell, Town Clerk C. Conrad, Town Solicitor B. Cribbett, Treasurer P. Miller, Manager, Secretariat Services J. Sales, Commissioner of Community & Fire    Services A. Taylor, Commissioner of Corporate Services F. Edwards, Manager of Administration J. Carnegie, Director, Corporate    Communications

 

 

The Committee of the Whole meeting convened at the hour of 5:50 p.m. with Mayor D. Cousens in the Chair.

 

 

DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST

 

None declared.

 

 

1.         MINUTES OF COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
            - NOVEMBER 16, 2004 (16.0)

 

Moved by Councillor A. Chiu

Seconded by Councillor K. Usman

 

That the minutes of the Committee of the Whole meeting held on November 16, 2004 be confirmed.

 

Carried

 

2.         HYDRO ONE TASK FORCE DRAFT COMMENTS ON
            HYDRO ONE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY
            REPORT (ESR) (13.8)  Report 

 

David Estrin, Hydro One Task Force Legal Consultant with Gowlings Lafleur Henderson, was in attendance and presented the Hydro One Task Force’s proposed response to Hydro One’s draft Environment Study Report regarding the Hydro One York Region Transmission Supply Project.  He reviewed timelines, issues, interim options, the Royal Society of Canada EMF Report, positions on EMF’s, arguments against Hydro One’s position, and conclusions.

 

Committee noted that Hydro One is a private corporation and stressed that the Town of Markham is not in a confrontation with the Provincial Government.

 

 

…………………………………………………..

 

Deputy Mayor F. Scarpitti withdrew from the meeting at this point – 6:20 p.m.

 

…………………………………………………..

 

 

Committee thanked Mr. Estrin for highlighting the health issues associated with EMF’s.

 

Moved by Councillor K. Usman

Seconded by Councillor D. Horchik

 

That Committee recess in-camera at the hour of 6:22 p.m.

 

Carried

 

Committee reconvened at the hour of 6:40 p.m.

 

 

Moved by Councillor D. Horchik

Seconded by Councillor K. Usman

 

That the presentation by Mr. David Estrin, Hydro One Task Force Legal Consultant with Gowlings Lafleur Henderson, providing an update on the Hydro One Task Force draft Environmental Study Report be received;

 

And that the report entitled “Town of Markham Response to Hydro One Draft Environmental Study Report” be received;

 

And that the draft response to Hydro One’s Draft Environmental Study Report be endorsed, and that a final version, satisfactory to the Chief Administrative Officer and the Town Solicitor, be delivered to Hydro One, with a copy to the Minister of the Environment, on or before December 20, 2004.

 

Carried

 

 

 

 

3.         CHANGES TO ONTARIO HERITAGE ACT (2.0)  Report 

 

Committee had before it the report from the Commissioner of Development Services and the Director of Planning and Urban Design dated November 30, 2004 entitled “Comments on Bill 60 – An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act”.

 

Regan Hutcheson, Manager, Heritage Planning, reviewed the amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act and suggested comments from the Town.

 

Committee suggested and agreed that the following three paragraphs be included in the comments to the Province:

 

               “And that the Province of Ontario be requested to negotiate with municipal governments to produce one designation list between the Province and the municipality;

 

               And that the Province of Ontario be requested to negotiate with the Federal Government for municipal governments to designate properties owned by the Federal Government and its agencies in the municipality;

 

               And that designated properties in provincial ownership should be required to adhere to both provincial conservation standards and municipal conservation standards;”

 

Moved by Councillor D. Horchik

Seconded by Regional Councillor B. O’Donnell

 

That the staff report entitled “Comments on Bill 60 – An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act”, dated November 30, 2004, be received;

 

And that the Council of the Town of Markham congratulate and commend the Province for its commitment to the further conservation and protection of heritage resources, especially in the area of demolition control, heritage property standards and delegation of approval authority, as illustrated in the proposed amendments to the Ontario Heritage Act;

 

And that Markham Council generally supports the proposed changes to the Ontario Heritage Act as presented in Bill 60, An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act, but specifically requests the provincial government, through the Ministry of Culture to consider the following amendments:

 

1. That section 12 of Bill 60 be revised to indicate that the Ontario Municipal Board shall (rather than ‘may’) appoint a member of the Conservation Review Board to sit on a panel of the Board conducting an appeal under this Act for the duration of the appeal [25.1 (1)].
2. That development of standard designation criteria, which is to be prescribed by regulation, be undertaken in consultation with municipal stakeholders, many of which already have criteria in place.
3. That section 19 of Bill 60 be revised to include the revision of a designated property’s legal description as a permitted amendment to a designation by-law [30.1(1)].
4. That section 29 of Bill 60 be revised to include a provision whereby a heritage conservation district study area may be created for a one year period with the council of the municipality having the ability to amend the by-law to extend the period of time during which it will be in effect provided the total period of time does not exceed two years from the date of the passing of the by-law [40.1(1)].
5. That Part IV of the Act be amended to allow a property owner to apply to the Province for heritage designation of his property where a municipality is unable or fails to designate upon request.
6. That the Act be amended to allow municipal councils to designate properties, buildings or structures owned by the Province and its agencies.

7.      That section 69 of the Act be amended to include in addition to the existing fine provisions, a new provision that would allow the Court to order the offender to restore the property, building or structure, as nearly as possible, to its previous condition.

8.      That the Act be amended to include a provision for a one year limitation period to commence a prosecution of an offence under the Act starting from the date that the municipality discovers the offence.

9. That section 30(1) and (2) of Bill 60 be amended to ensure that the date that the voiding of permits and the interim control of alteration, demolition or removal becomes applicable is the date of Council passing an intention to designate rather than the date notice is served on the owner of the property, on the proposed Trust, and published in a newspaper.
10. That the Act be amended to allow a council of a municipality to authorize an identified municipal employee, by by-law, the authority to issue a stop order with respect to property in the municipality that may be of cultural heritage value or interest for a specified period of time (60-90 days) to prevent the alteration of the property, any damage to the property or the demolition or removal of any building or structure on the property while the municipality investigates the potential designation of the property;

 

And that the Province of Ontario be requested to negotiate with municipal governments to produce one designation list between the Province and the municipality;

 

And that the Province of Ontario be requested to negotiate with the Federal Government for municipal governments to designate properties owned by the Federal Government and its agencies in the municipality;

 

And that designated properties in provincial ownership should be required to adhere to both provincial conservation standards and municipal conservation standards;

 

And that Council endorse this report and submit it to the Province as the Town of Markham’s comments on Bill 60 – An Act to amend the Ontario Heritage Act;

 

And that the Town Clerk be requested to forward a copy of this report to the Committee Clerk of the Standing Committee on Justice Policy before 12 noon on December 1, 2004, as well as to the Minister of Culture, the Ontario Heritage Foundation, Community Heritage Ontario, Ontario Historical Society and Heritage Markham.

 

Carried

 

 

Committee rose and reported at the hour of 6:55 p.m. to convene the Council meeting and reconvened at the hour of 7:15 p.m.

 

 

 

4.         ROUGE PARK APPEALS (10.3)

 

Val Shuttleworth, Director of Planning and Urban Design, advised that an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) pre-hearing conference on the matter of the rouge Park appeals will be held on December 10, 2004.  It is proposed that the OMB be requested to defer this matter until the Greenbelt Plan has been finalized.

 

Moved by Regional Councillor B. O’Donnell

Seconded by Councillor E. Shapero

 

That the verbal update provided by the Director, Planning and Urban Design regarding appeals to the Rouge Park be received.

 

Carried

 

5.         2004 COUNCIL/COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS (16.24)

 

Moved by Councillor J. Webster

Seconded by Regional Councillor J. Jones

 

Cedar Grove Community Centre Board

That the following persons be appointed to the Cedar Grove Community Centre Board for a term January 1 to December 31, 2005:

 

         Paul Reesor

         Rick Lapp

         Murray Reesor

         Robert Lapp

         Graeme Weston

         Debbie Lapp

 

Carried

 

 

 

6.         LICENSING HEARING
RENEWAL OF
TAXI DRIVER’S LICENCE M1104 (2.0)

 

Moved by Councillor A. Chiu

Seconded by Councillor J. Virgilio

 

That the following recommendation of the Markham Licensing Committee for the renewal of Taxi Driver’s License M1104 be adopted and confirmed:

 

1.      That the refusal to renew Markham Taxi Driver License, number M1104, be confirmed for 2004 and 2005; and

 

2.      That the applicant be permitted to submit a new application for a Markham Taxi Driver’s Licence in 2006 providing he meets the qualifications, standards and other provisions set out in By-law 2002-308 as amended and related Town documents, at that time.

 

Carried

 

7.         COMMENTS ON BILL 135 – PROPOSED GREENBELT ACT, 2004
            AND THE DRAFT GREENBELT PLAN (13.2)   Report    Memo

 

Committee had before it a memorandum from the Commissioner of Development Services and the Director of Planning and Urban Design dated November 30, 2004 providing supplementary information and draft recommendations regarding comments on Bill 135 – proposed Greenbelt Act, 2004 and the draft Greenbelt Plan.

 

Mr. Ira Kagan, Kagan Shastri Barristers and Solicitors, and Ms. Patricia Foran, Aird & Berlis Barristers and Solicitors were in attendance and addressed Committee regarding the Town’s comments on Bill 135 - Proposed Greenbelt Act, 2004 and the Draft Greenbelt Plan.  They urged Committee to continue the process with respect to OPA 116.

 

Jim Baird reviewed the details of the amendments to the Town’s comments and to the mapping.

 

Val Shuttleworth explained the rationale for the planning decision put forward this date with respect to the proposed Greenbelt Plan and Town of Markham OPA 116.  She noted that the environmental protection and elements of the OPA are incorporated in the Greenbelt Plan.  In the event the province does not accept the requests of the Town, the Town will proceed with the OPA.

 

Discussion took place regarding this decision as well as the possible inclusion of additional lands, the reference to a 60 meter setback, and timeframes.

 

Committee consented to divide the question.

 

Moved by Councillor E Shapero

Seconded by Regional Councillor J. Heath

 

That the letter dated November 29, 2004 from Kagan Shastri, Barristers & Solicitors, in objection to the Town’s comments regarding Bill 135 and requesting mapping indicating the cumulative effects of all environmental initiatives on the municipal land supply, be received;

 

And that the tabled memorandum dated November 30, 2004 from the Commissioner of Development Services and the Director, Planning and Urban Design, providing a revised resolution and Appendix ‘A’ regarding Bill 135 – the Proposed Greenbelt Act, 2004, be received;

 

And that the deputations by Ira Kagan, Kagan Shastri Barristers and Solicitors, and Patricia Foran, Aird and Berlis LLP, in objection to the proposed comments on Bill 135 and in support of continuing mediation with respect to OPA 116, be received.

 

Carried

 

Moved by Councillor E Shapero

Seconded by Regional Councillor J. Heath

 

That the staff report entitled “Comments on Bill 135 – Proposed Greenbelt Act, 2004 and the Draft Greenbelt Plan,” dated November 23, 2004, and the supplementary memorandum, dated November 30, 2004,  including a resolution and Figure 5, revised as outlined in the memorandum, be received.;

 

And that the Council of the Town of Markham congratulate and commend the Province for their insight and strategic approach toward the protection of agricultural and environmental lands in the Golden Horseshoe area;

 

And that the Town of Markham support the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing in the finalization and implementation of the Greenbelt Plan as outlined and commented on in this report;  

 

And that Council specifically request the provincial government, through the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, to:

 

1.      Amend Bill 135 – Draft Greenbelt Act, 2004, to include provisions to enhance the protection of agricultural and environmentally sensitive lands, similar to the Oak Ridges Moraine Conservation Act, which would require Provincial approval of municipal official plan conformity amendments and exemption from appeals of Official Plan amendments approved in conformity with the Greenbelt Plan. 

2.      Revise the Greenbelt Plan boundary to reflect the minor adjustments as identified on Figure ‘5’ to the November 23, 2004 Report to Development Services Committee.

3.      Revise the Draft Greenbelt Plan to specifically identify a 600 metre corridor along the Little Rouge Creek and that the boundary of this corridor be part of the boundary to be specifically defined by the Surveyor General.

4.      Revise the Draft Greenbelt Plan to include wording to recognize that the tributaries of the Rouge River shall be subject to the boundary delineation process established through the guidelines established in the Rouge North Plan, as adopted by Markham Council on September 30, 2003 (OPA 116) and approved by the Region of York on April 6, 2004 (under appeal) and that a supporting regulation then be passed requiring that OPA No. 116 comply with the Greenbelt Plan with respect to that boundary delineation process.

5.      Include in the Draft Greenbelt Plan a Natural Heritage System designation for all the Rouge River watercourses extending through Markham as identified on Figure ‘6’ to the November 23, 2003 Report to Development Services Committee, as subject to OPA No 116.

6.      Incorporate separate section and schedules recognizing the unique circumstances and opportunities of the Rouge Park, as a significant component of the Greenbelt Plan.

7.      Revise the designation in the Greenbelt Plan along the Rouge River tributaries from Protected Countryside to Natural Heritage System, and correct the boundary of the ORM in Markham.

8.      Finalize the mapping of Key Natural Heritage and Key Hydrological Features prior to approval of the Greenbelt Plan and provide the Town with an opportunity to review and comment on the mapping in the context of the Draft Greenbelt Plan.

9.      Provide the Town with a draft copy of the surveyed Greenbelt Plan boundary to ensure that Town’s urban boundary, settlement areas and the boundary of the ORM, as approved in Town of Markham Official Plan, are accurately reflected.

10.  Revise the Greenbelt Plan mapping to identify the location and extent of the Pickering Airport site owned by Transport Canada.

11.  Identify in the Greenbelt Plan the approach and implementation strategy in support of  agricultural viability and sustainability in the Greenbelt Plan.

12.  Revise the Greenbelt Plan to allow the opportunity for municipalities to approve severances to facilitate private ownership of existing habitable structures on publicly owned land, subject to heritage or conservation easements, to ensure the integrity of the Greenbelt Plan is protected.

13.  Confirm that the Al Hussain Foundation applications and OPA No.113 (Highway 404 North) are not subject to the requirements of the Greenbelt Act or Plan with the sunset of Bill 27 in December 2004.

14.  Grant an extension to the commenting and consultation period for the Greenbelt Act  and Plan for two months, to allow for further consultation with stakeholders and municipalities, within the context of the Draft Growth Management Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe area and planning reforms (Provincial Policy Statement, OMB reform and Planning Act reform). 

15.  Include a Markham representative on the future Greenbelt Advisory Council.

 

And that the Director of Planning and Urban Design be authorized to continue to work with Ministry staff to seek clarification and specificity on the Greenbelt Plan.

And that Council encourages the Province to consider  the use of tri-party easements (Province, Region and Local Municipality) to ensure permanent protection of the publicly owned Greenbelt lands.

And that Council endorse the report dated November 23, 2004 and the supplementary memorandum dated November 30, 2004, and submit these to the Province as the Town of Markham’s comments on the Bill 135 – Proposed Greenbelt Act, 2004 Bill of Rights Registry No. AF04E0001 and the Greenbelt Plan, 2004 Bill of Rights Registry No. PF04E0006. 

 

And that the Clerk be requested to forward a copy of the report and supplementary memorandum, identified above, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the Minister of Public Infrastructure, Renewal, the Minister of Natural Resources, the Minister of Agriculture and Food, the TRCA, the Region of York and the Rouge Park Alliance.

 

Carried

(See following motion which was Lost)

 

 

Moved by Councillor E Shapero

Seconded by Regional Councillor J. Heath

 

That the Tompion property be included in the Town’s mapping to the province and included in the Greenbelt.

 

Lost

 

 

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

The Committee of the Whole meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m.