GENERAL COMMITTEE
	TO:	Mayor and Members of Council
	FROM:	Stan Bertoia, P. Eng., General Manager, Construction and Utilities
	PREPARED BY:	Stan Lau, P. Eng., Senior Project Engineer
	DATE OF MEETING:	February 14, 2005
	SUBJECT:	Response to Council Deputation by Mr. Kay regarding Reesor Road Bridge Replacement between 16^th Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive

RECOMMENDATION:

That the report entitled “Response to Council Deputation by Mr. Kay regarding Reesor Road Bridge Replacement between 16^th Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive” be received;

And that the Town proceed with the Reesor Road Bridge Replacement Project in the summer of 2005 as previously approved by Council.

PURPOSE:

The purpose of this report is to address Mr. Kay’s concerns presented to Council on October 12, 2004 regarding the Reesor Road Bridge Replacement Project which was referred by council to staff for a report.

BACKGROUND:

Council on October 12, 2004 passed a resolution:

• That the deputation by John Kay expressing concern for speed on the bridge on Reesor Road between 16^th Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive and suggesting that a new bridge is not required, be received;
• And that the matter be referred to staff for a report to the Community Services and Environment Committee in consultation with Development Services Commission staff.

To fulfill the Town’s responsibility to provide municipal roads and safe traffic services to the public, the need to replace the bridge structure on Reesor Road located between 16^th Avenue and Major Mackenzie Drive over the Little Rouge Creek has been identified since 2000.

In December of 2000, the Town retained the consulting firm of McCormick Rankin Corporation (MRC) to carryout an Environmental Assessment for the replacement of this bridge structure as required under “Schedule B” of the Municipal Class Environmental Assessment (Class EA). After consultation with the public in March 29, 2001 and other government agencies throughout 2001, in April 2002, MRC completed an Environmental Study Report with detailed analysis and evaluation of the alternative solutions, as well as a recommendation on the design of the preferred solution.

It is the recommendation of the consultant to replace the existing substandard two–lane bridge with a standard two-lane bridge and with improvements to both the horizontal and vertical alignment at the approaches.

Mr. Kay’s issues in 2001 have been received through the EA Process

Schedule B of the Class EA requires the proponent to solicit comments from the adjacent property owners as well as various government agencies such as MOE, MNR, MTO, and TRCA etc. To fulfill this requirement, a Public Information Meeting (PIC) was held on March 29, 2001 at the Cedar Grove Community Centre. The only opponent of the project is Mr. John Kay, a tenant on the Federal Government property located on the east side of Reesor Road immediate north of the bridge. He raised concerns regarding the speed of the roadway once the bridge is replaced. It was his opinion that the deficiencies (substandard width for two-lane traffic) at the existing bridge act as a “traffic calming measure” therefore the bridge should not be replaced. He has concern about the difficulty of getting out of his driveway because of the roadway crest just north of the bridge near his driveway. He also has concerns about the deer crossing the roadway and requested the Town to consider traffic calming measure on Reesor Road.

Despite several meetings with Mr. Kay in attempt to resolve these issues, Mr. Kay in May 2002 wrote to MOE and requested that the Town be ordered to prepare an Individual Environmental Assessment for this project. In accordance with the MOE guidelines, more discussions between staff and Mr. Kay took place but some of the issues remain un-resolved.

To address Mr. Kay’s issues, in October 2002 at the request of the MOE, staff reiterated that the posted speed limit will remain unchanged at 60 km/h; the Town will monitor the vehicle speed after the new structure is installed; the Town will review the driveway issue when doing detail design; and that the Town will erect Deer Crossing warning signs along this section of road although there is no deer collision reports on file (Appendix A). As a result, the Ministry of Environment in March 2003, officially advised the Town that an Individual Environmental Assessment is not required and the Town may proceed with the bridge replacement. (Appendix B).

Council on August 26, 2003 approved that the project be included in the Construction and Utilities’ 2004 Capital project. Chisholm Fleming and Associates was retained by the Town to carryout detail design and contract administration in April 2004. Detail design is now completed and the project is now awaiting for TRCA final approval.

OPTIONS/DISCUSSION:

Present Issues

Staff was advised by Council on October 12, 2004 that Mr. Kay still has some concerns regarding this project (Appendix C). Basically, his concerns are the same as those raised in 2001/2002 during the public consultation period.

Another meeting was held with Mr. Kay on December 13, 2004 to further review the concerns presented to Council on October 12, 2004 . During the meeting, detail design drawings were presented and reviewed. Issues are:

1. Speed increase after the bridge is replaced.

Response: This issue was originally raised by Mr. Kay in 2001 and was reviewed and addressed through the EA process. At the December 13, 2004 meeting, staff advised Mr. Kay that the Town will monitor the vehicle speed after the new structure is completed.

2. Concern with respect to tree removal identified on the current design drawings on the south side of his house. He is suggesting the Town to review this issue and the possibility of minimizing tree removals.

Response: Current design has identified 4 existing trees will be removed and replaced with appropriate landscaping.

3. Suggesting the Town to consider changing the horizontal alignment of the proposed bridge and roadway by shifting westwards away from his house.

Response: This issue was originally raised by Mr. Kay in 2001 and was reviewed and addressed through the EA process. Shifting the bridge and roadway further to the west would involve more farm land losses which is not be acceptable to the affected property owner. During public consultation in 2001, Mr. Richard Pearse, the owner of the farm land west of Reesor Road expressed great concerns for the loss of farm land if the bridge is relocated west of the existing structure. He has indicated that the replacement bridge to the east or at the present location is acceptable.

This was one of the alternative design solutions considered during the EA phase and it was determined to be the most expensive and has the biggest impact on the adjacent farm land and therefore was not recommended.

4. Suggesting the Town to consider the option of providing some form of barrier/protection in addition to the original stone retaining wall and the proposed steel beam guard rail system along the west side of his house.

Response: The consultant has confirmed that the original stone retaining wall, plus the proposed ditches and the proposed steel beam guard rail will provide sufficient protection to Mr. Kay’s house.

In an attempt to advise Mr. Kay of our response to his concerns, on January 12, 2005 we called Mr. Kay and left a voice message in his phone and on January 18 left a message with his wife. As of January 19, we have not received any response from Mr. Kay.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS:

No financial implications are to be considered in this report.

BUSSINESS UNITS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:

Development Services Commission (Engineering Department) staff have been consulted and have no comments on this report.

ATTACHMENT:

Appendix A: Letter to MOE dated August 2, 2002

Appendix B: Letter from MOE dated March 7, 2003

Appendix C: Mr. John Kay’s concerns

____________________________________

Stan Bertoia, P. Eng.

General Manager, Construction & Utilities

Peter Loukes, P. Eng. Director of Operations and Asset Management

Jim Sales Commissioner of Community Services and Fire

Q:\Commission Share\Operations and Asset Management\Reports\2005\C & U\ROW\Other Report\Response to Council deputation by Mr. Kay Regarding Reesor Road Bridge Replacement.doc