HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/03/2008 Minutes I - 3
Leading the Way
MINUTES
OF THE CLARINGTON HWY. 407 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
PRESENT:
Fred Biesenthal Karina Isert
Mark Bragg Jo-Anne McFarland
Mark Canning Mary Novak
Jean-Maurice Cormier John Sturdy
Linda Gasser
Staff in Attendance:
Faye Langmaid— Planning Services
Leslie Benson— Engineering Services
Sharon Norris— Recording Secretary
DATE December 3, 2008
RE: HIGHWAY 407 EAST CAC MEETING NO.42
December 2, 2008
Agenda Item Discussion Action
Welcome Welcome by Mark Canning Co-Chair
Adoption of Moved by Jo-Anne McFarland, seconded by John Sturdy that the November 4m
Minutes minutes be accepted,
November 4th minutes stated that the CVP recommendations will be an appendix
to the EA. Staff have,been asked to check Whether the CVP is an appendix to or Janice
art of the actual EA recommendations.
Community The CVP incorporates what each individual workshop attendee brought forward,
Value Plan which'is why'attendance was encouraged. The Committee can further identify
Workshop other issues,and ask for their inclusion within the recommendations of the CVP
(CVP) Review plans.
The 5 areas in Clarington identified were Best Road lands, Hampton Village,
Sol`ina Road/Farewell Creek, Pebblestone/Black Farewell Wetland Complex and
Leskard Village.
For example Hampton Village:
Some participants said that Old Scugog Road was not often used by agricultural
vehicles, while others said it was. Decorative lighting and signage of a heritage
nature was requested. A potential theme including the past and future of
Hampton was discussed which could include the history of the village (wheat
trade) depicted in artwork on the bridge.
As all members did not attend the CVP Workshop(s), it was suggested that
Committee members read all the workshop information and then meet to
comment on it. Staff will email the Project Team to obtain the final document Janice
coming out of all the workshops and forward to the committee; hopefully this will
be in advance of the January 6th meeting. At this time the committee can
address issues and raise additional concerns to the best of their ability.
The CVP workshops left the attendees with the impression that this is a
community document outlining the priority areas/issues raised, however
attendance was poor. Notices for the final workshop only went out to those who
attended the first two workshops; however Clarington staff sent the information
out to additional interested parties.
•
I �
ar n
Leading the Way
MINUTES
OF THE CLARINGTON HWY. 407 COMMUNITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Agenda Item Discussion Action
Was The CVP and Effective Process?
➢ Workshops were well attended by MTO/Project Team staff and equipped
with good resources.
➢ The workshops had a poor public turn out, therefore a limited voice.
➢ Project Team did not get the intimate knowledge they were looking for.
➢ Few attendees from the agricultural sector.
➢ Ads for the workshops required sign-up in June—too early.
➢ Limited notices sent to public.
➢ No attendees from Kirby.
R' b
➢ Workshop No. 3 was a repeat of the first,twp workshops and was felt to be
the least productive and more of a sumt�i`atiar sess(pp; it had an emphasis
on wildlife.
The Committee should present their,opinion on=thb CW.and its effectiveness to
Council and offer a summary of the workshops.
Heritage UDdat"es:
Vic Suppan,:.Clarngton Heritage Cornrnittee(CHC) Chair, did attend a couple of
the,CVP Workshpps,and offeretl his:ppinions as a resident. A copy of Vic's
correspondence to MTO was distributed to the Committee. House at 1909 Bloor
Street is being discussed for potential move. The Hogarth House, 5425 Solina
Roael will be worked into the transitway station. Stone houses on Acres and Cole
Ro pre:stated 6:be moved.
The�CHC�has struck a sub-committee to meet with Richard Unterman, the
consultant responsible for the Heritage Inventory. This inventory includes
cultural heritage resources, and looks at the landscape, views, all structures
including barns, homes, bridges, etc. Treatment will have continuity for all
villages.
Is the EA Schedule on Track?
The Public Information timing has been adjusted from Nov/Dec to Jan/Feb, the
remainder of the schedule has not been adjusted.
How long is the EA approval good for? EA's can be grandfathered if they are not
implemented within 5 years. In 1991 the EA was never submitted for approval
as the Province pulled the funding on finishing the EA—this is always a risk.
How long can it take for approval? EA's can take significant time to be
approved, it depends on how well they have addressed all the issues as they
have proceeded. The Minister is under no obligation to have an EA approved
within a certain timeframe, rather it will be the funding and other matters that
prompt uick review.
Public The next PIC is scheduled for January 27th at the Garnet B. Rickard Complex.
Information Will include review of final preliminary design plan which Committee will review
Centres at a future meeting (most likely the February meeting).
Next Meetina I January 6th, 2009