Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutWD-40-94~V Meeting: Date: THE ~ORPfQ~P,TION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON WC QDf1C I~TIAN f'1C TYC Tl1111/AI f1C AI C1Nrl/QTI C REPORT GENERAL PURPOSE AND COMMITTEE File #-16(0 1 SI ~ • ~V Res. # GPA-41~~F'94 By-Law # ~~ l~- i/o 9~- i // JULY 4, 1994 Report #: *J*+~Td File #: Dr~...z na Subject: RECONSTRUCTION OF CHURCH STREET, BOWlIANVILLE Recommendations: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report WD-40-94 be received; 2. THAT Penny-Ann Davidson, Brent Lavictoire and the other residents on Church Street be thanked for the considerable amount of time they spent in attempting to arrive at a consensus on how to deal with the concerns of the residents and be advised that: a) The pavement width will be 9.5 m (31.2 feet) from edge to edge of pavement. On the north side of Church Street there will be a 0.7 m (2.2 feet) boulevard (location for the hydro poles and signs) between the north edge of the curb and the south edge of the new sidewalk. The new sidewalk will be 1.2 m (4 feet) wide and the north edge of the new sidewalk will be 0.9 m (3 feet), more or less, north of the north edge of the existing sidewalk. The distance from the north edge of the new sidewalk and the north limit of the road allowance will be 2.94 m (9.65 feet). o.PE °®° ~.aE REPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 2 north limit of the road allowance will be 2.94 m (9.65 feet). On the south side of Church Street, between Division and George Streets, there will be no boulevard. The sidewalk will be 1.5 m (5.O feet) wide and the south edge of the new sidewalk will be 0.3 m (1.0 feet) further south than the south edge of the existing sidewalk. On the .south side of Church Street, between George and Liberty Streets, there will be no boulevard. The sidewalk will be 1.5 m (5 feet) wide and the south edge of the new sidewalk will be at the same location, more or less, of the south edge of the existing sidewalk. The distance between the south edge of the new sidewalk and the south limit of the road allowance will be 3.26 m (10.8 feet). b) Subject to the approval. of the residents on Church Street, the homes will be inspected prior to construction to provide a baseline for future claims .from the residents in the event of damage to their homes during construction; c) Since there will be little or no boulevard on Church Street for snow storage, the snow will be removed from Church Street, as required, to ensure that the sidewalk can be used during the winter months; d) A streetscape plan will be prepared by a landscape architect for the planting of trees on both sides of Church Street on private property, subject to the approval of each property owner. The streetscape plan will be reviewed with the residents of Church Street at an Information Centre to be held in the Fall of 1994 with z REPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 3 the intent of planting the trees in the Spring and/or Fall of 1995; e) The boulevard on the north side will be paved with interlocking brick and/or sodded as agreed with the residents at a future date after further consultation; 3. TBAT the Director of Public Works be authorized to replace the existing decorative. street lights on Church and Division Streets with new decorative street lights at a cost estimated to be $24,000; 4. THAT the proposed By-laws (Attachment Nos. 4, 5 .and 6) be forwarded to Council for approval to provide for NO PARKING on both sides of Church Street from Temperance Street to Liberty Street and. for an all-way stop at the Church Street/George Street intersection; and 5. TBAT Penny-Ann Davidson, Brent Lavictoire and the other residents of Church Street be provided with a copy of Report WD-40-94 and be advised of Council's decision. REPORT 1.0 ATTACHMENTS No. 1: Correspondence dated June 20, 1994, from Brent Lavictoire No. 2: Correspondence dated June 29, 1994, from Penny-Ann Davidson No. 3: Tree Evaluation No. 4: Proposed By-law to prohibit parking on Church Street No. 5: Proposed By-law to provide for an All-Way Stop at the Church Street/George Street intersection No. 6: Typical Cross-Sections R RHPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 4 2.0 BACRGROUND 2.1 Canada - Ontario Infrastructure Works Program The reconstruction of Church Street, from Temperance Street to Liberty Street, is one of the seven (7) projects which has been included in Clarington's application to the Ministry of Municipal Affairs for funding under the Canada - Ontario. Infrastructure Works Program. An announcement was made on Monday, June 27, that the project has been approved for funding.. 3.0 REVIEW AND COMMENT 3.1 Neetinas Held with Residents An Information Centre was held at the Municipal Administrative Centre on June 2 to discuss with the residents of Church Street the design. of the project. The Information Centre was well attended and the residents advised us of many concerns. 3.2 Meetinq Held with Brent Lavictoire Brent Lavictoire, who lives at 12 Brown Street (corner of Church and Brown Streets) and was not able to attend the Information Centre, advised us that many of the residents had held a meeting on Saturday, June 4, to discuss the proposed reconstruction and that they have many concerns about. the project. A meeting was held with Mr. Lavictoire on June 9 to discuss the concerns. 3.3 Residents Hold an Additional Meeting The residents held another meeting on Saturday, June 11, at which Mr. Lavictoire relayed the information he had obtained at the June 9 meeting. On June 21 Mr. Lavictoire delivered a letter which detailed the residents' concerns (Attachment No. 1). Y b REPORT NO.: _. WD-40-94 PAGH 5 3.4 Second Information Centre Held An additional Information Centre was held at 7:30 p.m., Thursday, June 23, to discuss with the residents the several concerns listed in the letter from Mr. Lavictoire. The meeting was well attended and many of the concerns of the residents were resolved. 3.5 Residents Hold Third Meeting Those in attendance at the June 23 meeting were unable to arrive at a consensus on all of the concerns and, since all of the residents were unable to attend the meeting, the residents .held an additional meeting on Friday, June 24. The correspondence dated June 27 from Penny-Ann Davidson (Attachment No. 3) details the results of .the meeting. 3.6 Review of the Issues 3.6.1 Width of Pavement From Division Street to George Street the width of pavement, edge to edge, is about 6.7 m (21.9 feet). From George Street to Liberty Street, the pavement width varies from 6.74 m (22 feet) to 7.3 m (24 feet). The proposed width of pavement is 9.5 m (31.2 feet) from edge to edge. For comparison purposes, the width of pavement, from edge to edge, for some other streets which have been constructed recently is as follows: REPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 6 Location Width F6dth In Meters In Feet Queen Street 8.0 26.25 Ontario Street 9.5 31.17 Prince Street 9.4 30.$4 Glenabbey Drive 9.4 30.84 Local Streets in .Residential Subdivisions 7.9 25.92 3.6.2 Traffic Volumes -The residents disagreed with our traffic counts and argued that .their counts were lower than ours and therefore a three (3) lane roadway is not required. The residents were advised that the existing traffic volumes are not too relevant for two (2) reasons: i) King Street is now operating near capacity and additional roadway capacity is needed; and ii) Roads are designed for a twenty (20) year forecast. The proposed development in Bowmanville more than justifies the proposed width. In fact, a four (4) lane roadway could be justified but, since Church Street is a residential street, that option was rejected early in the design stage. Some residents seem to think that .building the roadway with a width of 9.6 m (31.5 feet) edge to edge of pavement will mean that there will be three (3) lanes of traffic on the road. This is not the case, at least in the short run. Queen Street, which was reconstructed in 1988, has a pavement width of 8.0 m (26.25 feet) and has two lanes of traffic with parking on one (1) side in some locations. r REPORT NO.e WD-40-94 PAGE 7 Prince Street, which was reconstructed in 1993, has a width of 9.4 m (31.5 feet), two (2) lanes of traffic and no parking on either side. The wider pavement increases the. safety for drivers and provides. for the possibility of providing parking on one side only if, sometime in the future, the residents want parking. It also makes. it possible to provide a left turn slot someday in the future. ' 3.6.3 Width and Location of the Sidewalk There is a sidewalk on both sides of Church Street. The sidewalk is about 1.2 m (4 feet) wide and is in poor condition. The width and location of the new. sidewalk is one of the main concerns of the residents. The reason is that, in many cases, the fronts of the homes are very close to the property line. Any movement of the sidewalk closer to the homes will impair the residents' privacy in their homes and could result in the elimination of one or more parking spaces. A detailed review of the project in the field revealed that the proposed location of the sidewalks will not result in the loss of parking space by any of the .residents. 3.6.4 Removal of Trees Unfortunately, the widening of a roadway usually results in the loss of trees. The trees on Church Street .have all been evaluated and the removal of trees has been discussed with each owner. REPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 8 Attachment No. 3 provides a listing and evaluation of all the trees on Church Street and shows which will be removed and which will be preserved. 3.6.5 No Pazkinq on Church Street The reaidents were asked if they want parking on Church Street. The consensus was that they do not want parking on Church Street. 3.6.6 Snow Removal The widening of Church Street will result in there being little or no boulevard for snow storage. It will, therefore, be necessary to remove the snow from time to time. The snow will be removed as .often as required, which. will probably be at the same time as snow is removed from downtown Bowmanville. 3.6.7 Treatment of Boulevazds At the present time, there is a grassed boulevard on both sides of Church Street from George Street to Liberty Street.- The boulevards vary from about 1.5 m (5 feet) to 1.8 m (6 feet). There is very little boulevard on Church Street from Temperance Street to George Street. It is proposed that there be a 0.65 m (2.13 feet) wide boulevard on the north side of Church Street and no boulevard on the south side. The boulevard on the north side can be paved with hot mix asphaltic concrete, sodded or interlocking brick can be used. It is recommended that the boulevard be paved with interlocking brick and/or sodded as agreed with the reaidents at a future RSPOHT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 9 date after further .consultation. 3.6.8 Inspection of Houses One resident was very concerned that the construction equipment used during construction might cause damage to her home. It was agreed that, subject to the approval of each homeowner, the homes would be inspected prior to construction to make it possible to determine whether or not any damage has occurred during construction. 3.6.9 All-way Ston at George Street The residents are concerned, that the wider and smoother pavement will result in increased traffic, higher speeds and make it more difficult to cross Church Street safely. In order to alleviate these concerns the residents requested that the intersection of Church and George Streets be made an all-way stop. The residents were advised that the widening of Church Street and the improvements to the driving surface will probably result in an increase in the. volume of traffic on Church Street. However, the proposed development in the north part of Bowmanville will probably. also result in a significant increase in the volume of traffic on Church Street in the future. The residents were also advised that studies have shown -that the placing of unwarranted stop signs does not result in a decrease in speed other than just before and just after the stop sign and that the Church Street/George Street intersection. will almost certainly not meet the warrants from the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control bevices for the RHPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGB 10 installation of an all-way stop. However, an all- way stop at George Street will make it easier and safer to cross Church Street at George Street and will provide breaks in traffic elsewhere on Church Street to make it safer and easier to cross Church Street at other locations. The residents also stated that they had made several compromises and that I should also have to make some compromises to alleviate their concerns. For the above reasons, it was agreed that the intersection of Church and George Streets will be made an all-way stop. 3.6.10 Access to Homes During Construction The residents were advised that during construction the road will be kept open to local traffic only and most of the time residents will have access to their driveways. However, there will be times when they will have to park elsewhere and walk to their homes. 3.6.11 Construction Schedule The residents were advised that the project will be completed in 1995 and that the project will be left in such a condition at the shutdown of construction in 1994 as to inconvenience the residents as little as possible. 3.6.12 Intersection of Church and Liberty Streets The residents are concerned .about the difficulty in getting onto Liberty Street from Church Street and. suggested that traffic signals should be installed at the intersection. The residents were advised REPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 11 that the Church Street/Liberty Street intersection is under the jurisdiction of the Region and that they are aware of this problem and others on Liberty Street and are examining all the problems. . 3.7 Other Matters 3.7.1 Traffic Sicmals at Church and Temperance Streets The intersection of Church and Temperance Streets is being examined to determine if the warrants are met for the installation of traffic signals.. I# warranted, traffic signals will be installed as part of the project. If traffic signals are not .warranted, the duct work will be installed to provide for traffic signals at a later date. 3.7.2 Closure of Rinq Street At a meeting held on Friday, June 24, 1994, with the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area,.. the Fire Chief, Inspector Jim Adams of Durham Region Police, and Councillors J. O'Toole and M. Novak., it was agreed that a recommendation will be forwarded to Council to approve the closure of Ring Street from Scugog Street to Division Street from 9:00 p.m., Friday, October 14, 1994, to 9:00 p.m., Saturday, October 15, 1994, during the Apple Festival and Craft Sale. The schedule for the reconstruction of Church Street will be arranged so as not to interfere with the closure of King Street. 3.7.4 Decorative Street Lichts For several years, the Bowmanville Business Improvement Area has been considering the replacement of the existing decorative street REPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 12 lights in downtown Bowmanville. The maintenance of the decorative street lights, which is done by the Municipality, is expensive. It is therefore, proposed that, as part of the Church Street project, the decorative street lights on Division Street be replaced and new (additional) decorative street lights be placed on Church Street from Temperance Street to Division Street. 3.7.5 Work to Include Part of Division Street It is proposed that. Division Street, from Church Street to the. north limit of the parking lot on the east side of the firehall, be reconstructed as part of this project. Respectfully submitted, Recommended .for presentation to the Committee, Walter A. Evans, P.Eng. Director of Public Works W. H. Stockw 1 Chief Administrative Officer WAE*ph June 27, 1994 Attachments pc: Ronald Conlin 32 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S5 Jacobus Herman Julicher 32 Church Street Bowmanville,-Ontario L1C 1S5 Ganaraska Properties 166 King Street East, Box 398 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S5 Joyce Ayre 33 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S6 REPORT NO WD-40-94 PAGE 13 William Aldred 35 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S6 Mario Mendonca 50 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S7 Colyn Bruce Crawley Lisa Blanche Crawley 36 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S5 Ross Alan Covert Fern Marlene Covert 40 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S5 Alan Elgin Watson 38 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S5 Norman Edward Luxton 44 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S5 Evelyn Anna Samis 45 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S6 Harrison William Raycraft Inez A. Raycraft 46 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S5 Neeltje Bons 47 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S6 Peter Ray Bennett 48 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S5 Wayne Trevor Harrison. 49 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S6 Kenneth Henry Austin Linda Carol Briem 54 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S7 E. James Bennett Estate 4241 Old Scugog Road R.R. #1 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K2 Marvin Paul Brooks Suzanne Roseline Brooks 56 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S7 James Fraser Doswell Jill Maureen Doswell 59 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S8 Charles Edwin Duck Ana Maria DeSouza Garcia 60 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S7 Jean Brownlee 63 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S8 Bert Gordon Skanes Yvonne Theadora Skanes 64 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S7 Jamie Collocutt Jean Collocutt 65 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S8 REPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 14 Max Lamb Lycett David John Wing c/o Irene Alice Hicks Holly Joan Wing 67 Church Street 79 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S8 L1C 1S9 Irene Alice Hicks Louis Emile Dupuis 67 Church Street Jeannine Dupuis Bowmanville, Ontario 3064 Holt Road L1C 1S8 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 3K4 Ronald Harris Northey 68 Church Street William D. Hogarth Bowmanville, Ontario 82 1/2 Church Street L1C 1S7 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T1 Albert Edward Mavin Mike James Stalker Clara Mabel Mavin 82 Church Street 70 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T1 L1C 1S7 Terry Johnston James Thomas McCaffery 84 Church Street Beather Irene McCaffery Bowmanville, Ontario 73 Church Street L1C 1T1 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S9 Shane Handy 84 1/2 Church Street Bradley Kenneth Bockin Bowmanville, Ontario Tracy Marie Hockin L1C 1T1 74 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario John Mason James L1C 1T1 Dorothy Mildred James 85 Church Street John Thomas Bagarth Bowmanville, Ontario 77 Church Street L1C 1S9 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S9 Robert John Moffatt 86 Church Street Wendy Procher Bowmanville, Ontario 77 Church Street L1C 1T1 Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 15.9 Jane Ida Norton 89 Church Street Michael Boyle Bowmanville, Ontario Virginia Boyle L1C 159 78 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario Mario Veltri L1C 1T1 1038 Pinetree Court Oshawa, Ontario L1K 1P4 REPORT NO.: WD-40-94 PAGE 15 Zetta Jean billing 93 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S9 Blaine Armstrong Adams 94 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T1 Glen Deriet 94 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T1 Herbert Henry Sargeant Anna Florence Sargeant 95 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S9 Wayburn Donald Adams Noreen Genevieve Adams 98 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T2 Irwin Alan Hamilton Janice Clara Hamilton 99 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T3 James Ronald Partner Nancy Diane Partner Careview Manor Special Rest Home Inc. 106 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T2 Tina Nguyen 109 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T3 Drew Dykes 109 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T3 Care Gerald Reginald Moynes Marion Margaret Moynes 113 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T3 Heather J. Greer 114 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T2 Nancy William Unit 1, 115 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T3 Susan Thomson Unit 2, 115 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T3 United Church of Canada Trinity United Church 116 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1T2 Penny-Ann Davidson 55 Church Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 1S8 Brent Lavictoire 12 Brown Street Bowmanville, Ontario L1C 2P9 To: Walter Evans -Director of Public Works, Municipality of Clarington Don Boume -Projects Manager, totten sims hubicki associates Walter and Don: Sorry for the delay in getting this letter to you. I was tied up in Toronto yesterday later than I had planned. The response of our neighboufiood has been very strong and unanimous to the initial and even the revised plans for the construction of Church Street. While we all want to see the infrastructure and road improvements you have planned, we definitely don't want those changes at the expense of the character and function of our neighbourhood. We don't want you to widen our roadway -this will only serve to attract even more traffic and create a greater bottleneck at the comer of Liberty and Church Streets. We also do not want any changes in the location or width of our sidewalks, especially since this will mean the destruc- tion of many of the mature trees on our street. I have enclosed our response to your revised plan in the form of a petition to council. We are hoping to hear back from you that you can change your plans even further and incorporate our suggestions. If you are not able to respond positively to these suggestions, we will present our petition to council along with an estimated 75-100% signature rate of residents directly affected by the proposed changes. Is it possible to get an initial reaction to our objections and suggestions by the middle of this week (Wednesday the 22nd) ? We feel that our petition needs to be presented to council by the end of this week or early next week in order to be included for discussion before the summer recess. Please consider our request and suggestions carefully. We especially feel that our traffic survey numbers allow you an avenue to complete the upgrades and maintain the current dimensions -that would make us all eternally grateful. The president of our citizens' action committee is Penny-Ann Davidson, 55 Church Street (623-7311 or 263-8443). Please contact myself or Penny Ann directly with your response. As I explained earlier, my purpose and intention were to provide an impetus for a citizens' committee that you could consult with directly. That task is complete and I am handing over my role as liason to the other members of the citizens' committee. Again, thank you far your courtesy, time, and concern. Best wishes: ~ '-J~~~-E~~ ~~~ ATTACHPIENT N0. 1 WD-40-94 Brent Lavictoire June 20, 1994 Notes re my meeting with Brent Mavin -Works Dept J Walter Evans -Works Dept Don Bourne - totten sims hubicki associates -engineers on Thursday June 9, 1994: My understanding of the Municipality's position is 1 -Church Street has to be reconstructed at some time in the future -- if we do it now we can access federal money through the Infrastructure Improvement program. If we do not act now we will have to pay for the reconstruction completely out of the Clarington's tax income. In effect we are asking the rest of the community to pay for the preservation of our neighbour- hood for at least a few more years. (I assume some Durham Region money wil also be in- volved since the Region is responsible for sanitary sewers and watermains.) 2 -The current traffic measurement for Church Street is 4,500 to 5,000 vehicles per day with a peak usage of 500 vehicles per hour (approx 4 - 5 pm). With this level of usage, provincial standards mandate afour-lane surface. Provincial standards also dictate the 1.5 meter sidewalk width. It is my understanding that the availability of federal money is contingent on following provincial standards in the project design. Obviously, some form of concession is available since the plans call for athree-lane roadway. The municipality has enough road allowance to construct afour-lane road plus 1.5 meter sidewalks. Clarington is acting in a reasonable manner by designing athree-lane roadway. Upon further questioning, I ascer- tained that a level of approximately 3,000 vehicles per day would constitute the upper limit of a two-lane roadway. 3 -The municipality is willing to allow on-street parking as a measure to reduce the average speed of vehicles on the road. They are quick to admit that traffic volumes and average vehicle speed are likely to increase under the proposed plan. They are also aware that park- ing space is already at a premium for some residences on the street; the proposed changes will intensify parking demand. 4 -They have offered to remedy the loss of trees on Church Street by planting mature trees on private property. They are also suggesting that a landscape artist would be employed to design a new streetscape. 5 -They have already shown their willingness to consider the wishes of residents by chang- ing the placement of sidewalks since the first draft was outlined. A number of individual resi- dents have already reached an agreement with the municipality as to the disposal of certain trees on the street. Some trees are to be sacraficed in exchange for a closer sidewalk-to- roadway relationship. Petition to Clarington Council from the Residents of Church Street in Bowmanville page 1 of 7 We, the undersigned residents of Church Street (Liberty Street to Division Street), oppose the proposed plans to reconstruct our roadway and sidewalks for the following reasons: 1 -The traffic level on the residential portion of Church Street does not warrant athree-lane roadway. The Works Department has informed us that the traffic level of Church Street is 4,500 to 5,000 vehicles per day. The need to widen the residential portion of Church Street is based on this estimate of traffic volume. Upon further questioning of Works Department staff, it was ascertained that a traffic volume of approximately 3,000 to 3,500 per day was the upper limit for atwo-lane roadway. Based on the following information, we wish to dispute the accuracy and validity of the Works Department traffic survey. The Works Department traffic survey consisted of two measurement locations - at 132 Church Street, between Temperance and Division, and at 106 Church Street, between Divi- sion and George. The width of the roadway at these points is already at three-lane capacity (the proposed road width for the entire length of Church Street) to support their commercial and mixed-use zonings respectively. The proposed plans to widen Church Street most seriously impacts the current two-lane section between George and Liberty. This section of Church Street is zoned low-density residential as has recently been confirmed in the latest 20-year plan. In conducting a traffic volume survey using the parts of Church Street that are commercial and mixed-use, the Works Department would have us believe that these numbers also apply to the residential area from George to Liberty -they do not. The residents of Church Street conducted a manual count for a single twenty-four hour pe- riod of traffic at 55 Church Street (between Ontario and Brown Streets) on June 15-16, 1994. Our traffic count totalled less than 3,000 vehicles (copies are attached) This count is seri- ously inconsistent with the 4,500 to 5,000 vehicle volume presented by the Works Depart- ment. The reason for the discrepancy is obvious -the area from George Street to Liberty Street is not commercial, does not support commercial traffic volumes, and it is not likely to become commercial in the next twenty years. Please, Ladies and Gentlemen of council, do not saddle our residential neighbourhood with a three-lane roadway. The widening would certainly attract even more traffic and increase vehicle speeds past an already dangerous level -both of these factors would endanger our personal safety, especially for our children and seniors. It would increase noise pollution, destroy the beauty of our neighbourhood, and decrease our personal real estate values. Also, as you are aware, the fire station is about to be moved from Church Street --this will decrease the heavy vehicle demand on Church Street in the immediate future. Finally, if our suggestion is accepted for a new stop sign (see page number three), we feel that traffic volume will decrease further allowing the residential portion of Church Street to remain within the traffic volume limits for atwo-lane roadway for the forseeable future. Petition to Ciarington Council from the Residents of Church Street in Bowmanville page 2 of 7 While all of us realize the need for reconstruction of Church Street and while we recognize that the Region has deemed the infrastructure (sanitary sewers and watermains) deficient, we urge you to complete the required improvements using the existing road dimensions with some minor alterations to promote standardization. Given a choice between no improve- ments at this time and athree-lane roadway, we would choose no improvements -this was the unanimous vote of residents at a meeting held on June 11, 1994. 2 -Relocation and widening of the sidewalks will create environmental damage, invade our personal privacy, and create personal financial loss in the form of lower real estate values. Hand-in-hand with our concern over roadway widening is our great wncem for the proposed moving and widening of our sidewalks. The current plan calls for the removal of fourteen trees on Church Street. Many of these trees are well over fifty years old and are a significant part of our streetscape. Surely we are all environmentally-aware enough to realize the impact of removing very mature trees - it would take a great number of new trees to replace their filtering and oxygen-producing benefits. To lose trees simply for the purpose of following provincial guidelines for the width of sidewalks is unthinkable. As well, we would like to point out that many of the trees not currently slated for removal may be irrepairably damaged if the current plan goes through. The watermain excavation on the south side of Church Street, at a depth of over 2.4 meters and sanitary sewers on the north side at a depth of over 3 meters may cause severe root damage to the remaining trees if the roadway is widened at the same time. If the excavations are carried out at their present loca- tions (ie: the roadway maintains its current dimensions), this damage will be minimized. We urge you to keep our sidewalks in their current locations and at their current widths. If we don't change them or move them, surely provincial guidlines fora 1.5 meter width do not need to be applied. Again, at our meeting on June 11, 1994, it was the unanimous opinion that we would rather leave the sidewalks in their current condition and location than have improved, wider surfaces that are three feet closer to our homes and the loss of most of our trees. It was also a unanimous opinion that the proposed sidewalk widening and relocation would seriously invade our personal privacy and negatively impact our real estate values. Petition to Clarington Council from the Residents of Church Street in Bowmanville page 3 of 7 Additional Points to our Petition: 3 - We feel that afour-way stop is required on Church Street at either the corner of George or Ontario Street. As mentioned, the current speed of traffic on Church Street by some motorists is reckless and dangerous. Last summer, atwo-vehicle accident at the corner of Church and Ontario Street saw one vehicle launched by impact onto the north sidewalk. Only seconds before the impact, neighbourhood children had been standing on the exact spot where this vehicle came to rest. As it was, the children witnessed the accident from the opposite comer. If Church Street is widened, the overall vehice speed and traffic volume will certainly increase and incidents as described above will become more commonplace, placing all of our neigh- bouts (but especially our many children) at higher risk. A stop sign will greatly help to reduce the overall speed of motorists on Church Street and i may even reduce the current traffic volume - we strongly urge you to consider this request. 4 -Removal of trees deemed to be unsafe. There are a few trees on Church Street which residents have already asked the Works Department to remove because they are deemed unsafe. While we wish to see all of ourtrees protected wherever possible, we realize the threat to personal and property damage is severe in one or two cases. Please do not use our objections to the proposed plans as an excuse to relieve the municipality of its obligation to assist those homeowners who feel the trees on municipal property are threatening them. In summary, we support the proposed improvements to Church Street and associated infra- structure to the extent that they do not appreciably alter existing dimensions and locations of the roadway and sidewalks. We especially do not believe the traffic situation warrants a widening of the residential portion of Church street and do not support this attempt to intro- duce even more traffic into our residential neighbourhood. We are also strongly opposed to a widening and relocation of our sidewalks. We would like to thank the director of the Works Department, Walter Evans, and the project manager for totten sims hubicki, Don Bourne, for their concern, information and assistance. We feel they have acted in a professional and courteous manner throughout our consulta- tions - we simply don't agree with their conclusions and plans. The preceeding four points of our neighbourhood petition are supported by the following residents of Church Street. We have listed every residential address from Division to Liberty Street to give you an indication of the percentage of support for this petition. Petition to Clarington Council from the Residents of Church Street in Bowmanville page 4 of 7 Division to George Street signatures -Church Street residents # 116 # 115 # 114 # 113 # 109 # 106 # 99 # 98 Petition to Clarington Council from the Residents of Church Street in Bowmanville page 5 of 7 George to Ontario Street signatures -Church Street residents # 95 # 94 # 93 # 90 # 89 # 86 85 # 84 # 82 # 79 # 78 # 77 # 74 # 73 ` Petition to Clarington Council from the Residents of Church Street in Bowmanville page 6 of 7 Ontario to Brown Street signatures -Church Street residents # 15 Ontario Street # 11 Ontario Street # 70 # 68 # 67 # 65 # 64 # 63 # 60 # 59 # 56 # 55 # 54 # 50 # 12 Brown Street Petition to Clarington Council from the Residents of Church Street in Bowmanville page 7 of 7 Brown to Liberty Street signatures -Church Street residents # 49 # 48 # 47 # 46 # 45 # 44 # 40 # 38 # 36 # 35 # 34 # 33 June 29, 1994 Walter Evans Director of Public Works Municipality of Clarington Dear Walter: Thank you again for you time and the opportunity to review your plans on a number of occa- sions. Although we understand that you are under a very tight deadline to get this project approved we cannot support your plan for a number of reasons: 1 -The time frame is too short -not enough time has been spent exploring alternatives, consulting with the residents, and allowing us to consult among ourselves to digest the true impact of what your plans will mean to our neighbourhood. By your own admission, you are attempting to condense athree-year schedule into ahalf-year period - we believe that the haste of this plan will lead to disaster. 2 -You have been flexible on fine tuning details but totally inflexible on the larger issue - roadwidth. From this one given, all other problems have risen. We still feel that your plans will destroy the character and function of our neighbourhood and will achieve little in return. Church Street cannot provide an alternate east-west route, it can only serve as a downtown bypass. Another (further north) access route must be found to relieve the pressure on down- town --closer to the developments that are creating the east-west bottleneck at King Street. 3 - If you save the town $600,000 (or is it 1/3 of that total?) by accessing federal and provin- cial money, what have you cost us? Our privacy, our safety, our trees, the character of our neighbourhood and perhaps even $1,000,000 in real estate values. This is not a bargain. I'm sorry Walter, but we intend to oppose your plans to council Sincerely: The Church Street Citizens' Committee G~c~'Y stn ATTACHMENT N0. 2 WD-40-94 a ' PETITION TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON FROM THE RESIDENTS OF CHURCH STREET (TEMPERANCE TO LIBERTY) Page 1 of 8 Members of Council: The response of our neighbourhood to the proposed plans for Church Street has been ex- tremely negative and vocal. We feel that the process of public consultation has been a hur- ried and fragmented affair from the start. We feel that the proposed changes will seriously detract from the appearance and function of our neighbourhood. We also feel that the pro- posed changes will pose a threat to the safety of our neigbours, especially to our many sen- iors and children. While we universally agree with the Works Department that our roadway and sidewalks are in great need of repair, we do not want the changes associated with the price of improvement that the Works Department is demanding. Many houses on our street were built long before the advent of the automobile -- a number are well over 100 years old. The neighbourhood was constructed without a view to our modern infrastructure and to force that modern view (in the form of a three-lane roadway) on our neigbourhood will change its character forever. Please consider this above all else, this change will be permanent. How many of you regret the decisions of previous councils who allowed the loss of the Bank of Montreal, the Post Office, the piano factory, and countless other historic sites in our beautiful town. If we are going to continue to promote downtown Bowmanville as "historic", isn't it time we lived up to the motto? Here are our primary reasons for opposing the proposed plans: 1 -Money and Time -The primary motive to proceed immediately with such drastic changes seems to be a money issue -- but is it really a time issue? The access to the now famous (infamous?) federal infrastructure program demands that an absurdly short time line be fol- lowed. The director of the Works Department has informed us that, normally; athree-year time frame would be required to plan, consult, design and build a project like this. We have only been aware of the plans for one month; the Works Department itself has condensed the study, consultation and design process to three months. Although the Works Department staff is to be commended for such a dilligent work ethic, one wonders if any of the larger issues such as long-term impact and, especially, alternatives, can have recieved any real consideration. Our opinion is that, if the normal schedual takes three years, this three-month time frame is seriously flawed in conception, consultation, design and execution. If we are mistaken and money, not time, is the real issue here, please consider this as well; if each of the approximately fifty homes affected by the proposed plans loses $20,000 in immediate real estate value as a result of the proposed widening and degeneration of our neighbour- hood, our collective loss will total $1,000,000. PETITION TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON FROM THE RESIDENTS OF CHURCH STREET (TEMPERANCE TO LIBERTY) Page 2 of 8 2 -Planning -While we all recognize that Clarington is growing at a very rapid pace, and that all residents must pay a price for this growth if we are to benefit from a broader tax base, we seriously question the choice of Church Street to provide an alternate east-west route through Bowmanville. We also question the traffic study that suggests Chuch Street requires three lanes. The Works Department has told us that the main reason for redesigning the roadway for three lanes is to accomodate the 4,500 to 5,000 vehicles per day that a traffic study has indicated. However, this study measured traffic at Temperance Street and west of George Street; areas that are zoned commercial and mixed use; areas that already have athree-lane width. The residents of Church Street undertook their own traffic survey for atwenty-four hour period on June 15, 16 at 55 Church Street (between Brown and Ontario). Our count was 3,017 on amid-week day. When informed of our survey, the director of Works summarily dismissed our findings by saying, "I don't care what your traffic count was". Excuse us, but if the reason for insisting that the roadway must increase from two lanes to three is based on a traffic count and the figures used are inaccurate or do not apply, then we think it is irrespon- sible to ignore contrary evidence: The intersection of Church and Liberty is already awkward and clogged. By encouraging east-bound motorists to use Church .Street as a bypass to King Street we will be shunting traffic from a signalized and controlled route to anon-signalized route with a serious existing problem at Liberty Street (which also serves as a school crossing). At the west end, traffic is again shunted back to King Street. More importantly, if the need to provide another major east-west route through Bowmanville is to relieve the demand by residential development in the northern part of town, why not build the route in the northern part of town where it will serve those residents best? Why simply increase the congestion downtown? Please, please, please, continue as soon as possible with your discussions on the proposed Lonworth Avenue, Mearns to Rd 57, and the 3rd Concession improvements to relieve us of the burden of supporting the influx of traffic from the north. With other east-west routes avail- able away from the downtown core, the entire community will benefit much greater and we will not lose another piece of our historic community. We strongly feel that no serious consideration has been given to these alternatives by the Works department, widening Church Street is a quick and dirty fix --the Works Department gets it quick and we get the dirt end of the deal. Please remember this is our neighbourhood, we live here -- how many of you would like your quiet residential neighbouhood turned into a zipway overnight with little or no thought to alternatives simply because it was expedient. There is a very human cost involved here that eclipses money issues. PETITION TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON FROM THE RESIDENTS OF CHURCH STREET (TEMPERANCE TO LIBERTY) Page 3 of 8 Summary: Our first choice, given the opportunity to vote ourselves, would be -- improve the condition of the road surface and the sidewalks; they have needed repairs for many years now. Take the opportunity to improve the services below the roadway at the same time, but leave the exist- ing dimensions roughly as they are now. We don't lose trees unecessarily, our safety and personal privacy are not compromised, and our neighbourhood still retains its "historic" ap- peal. We have also prepared this list of alternative "demands" if the crisis cannot be averted and you must destroy our neighbourhood with the planned widening. In contrastSo the position of the Works Department, we understand the importance of compromise. Especially if some significant compromise had been possible by Works on the overall width of the roadway, many of our concerns would not even have been raised. Clearly, there is no room for the coexistance of the proposed width of the roadway, sidwalks, trees, hydro, personal privacy, personal safety and the historic charm of our neighbourhood. The director of Works has likely told you that great compromises have already been reached. This is not the case, only minor fine tuning has been achieved to accomodate other aspects of the proposed plan which features a rigid road width. If that one factor is compromised, many other issues are immediately resolved 1 -Sidewalks - On the north and south side of the road, the margins of the sidewalks near- est the houses are to remain at their current locations and be widened to a maximum of 1.2 m (4 ft. ). This is for the safety, security, and the privacy of both the homeowner and the pe- destrian. In at least one case, moving the sidewalk even one foot closer to our homes would eliminate the only available parking space and would drastically impair marketability. 2 - 4-Way Stop Sign at George and Church Streets -This 4-way stop sign is demanded by all the residents (whether or not the proposed widening takes place) for the safety of pedes- trian traffic: Traffic speeds are already dangerous on Church Street. With a wider roadway, this speed will only increase. Seniors and children must now either walk all the way to Liberty or Temperance Street to find a safe crossing point. This 4-way stop is long overdue and considered mandatory by all residents. 3 -Width of Road - We have been told that the width of the roadway is non-negotiable on many occasions by the director of the Works Department. We demand that it 6e made nego- tiable. The proposed width (34 feet curb to curb) is grossly exaggerated and has lead to the many discussions (and fights) about sidewalk placement, loss of trees, foss of boulevard and all the other issues we have discussed as individuals and as a group with the Works Depart- ment. This one issue has placed us at odds with each other as neighbours and at odds with the Works Deaprtment. Please insist that the road width at least be scaled back significantly. PETITION TO THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON FROM THE RESIDENTS OF CHURCH STREET (TEMPERANCE TO LIBERTY) Page 4 of 8 The proposed width is four to six feet wider than other three-lane roads such as Queen Street. As you are also aware, the fire station is about to be moved greatly reducing the need for heavy vehicle traffic on Church Street. This extreme widening is the major cause for our alarm and will destroy the character of our historic neigbourhood. As mentioned, we strongly urge you to direct the Works Department to maintain Church Street as a two-lane road. 4 -Trees - We insist that you to preserve as many of our mature trees as possible by taking the measures that are outlined in the preceeding and following points. These trees, in many ways, best define the character ofour neighbouhood -old, gracious, and from a time when no one would sacrafice such a precious thing simply to save a few minutes of driving time. Any trees that must be removed must be related 2 for 1 (or higher) to avoid the "concrete jungle" that the west end of Church Street has become. 5 -Boulevards - We insist that you build what remains of our boulevards to be level with the sidewalks, not sloping to the curb. We reiterate that some room from the proposed roadway must be given up to allow for a greater safety margin for pedestrians, for an adequate snow piling area and for the preservation of the appearance ofour neighbourhood. 6 -Hydro - We ask that you consider relocating hydro lines underground as this is cheaper and more efficient to do when other excavation is taking place. It will allow for a more attrac- tive and uncluttered streetscape, relieve more pressure on our trees and remove the need for much of the rankling over sidewalk placement. If this is not possible, we demand that you place the hydro poles on the north side of the street between the sidewalk and the curb. Again, this may require at least a minor reduction in the road width. Thank you for all of your time and concern ladies and gentlemen of council. We pledge our support in your efforts to improve the dynamics of our community while preserving the rich hertitage we all share in Bowmanville and other communities in Clarington. Please pledge your support to our neighbourhood and the continuation of its 100-plus-year spirit, function and character. CHURCH STREET RECONSTRUCTION BO W MANVt LLE TREE EVALUATION TREES WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY FROM TEMPERANCE STREET TO LIBERTY STREET WERE EVALUATED BY A MUNICIPAL STAFF HORTICULTURIST. THE EVALUATION OF THE TREES WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE BASIS OF SUCH GHARACTERSTICS AS CAVETIES, ENCAPSULATED DECAY, GIRDLING ROOTS, BARK AND CAMBIUM DAMAGE AND DECLINE, ABILITY TO SUPPORT CANOPY AND AGE. A RATING FACTOR OF 1 TO 10 WAS ASSIGNED TO EACH TREE (1 TERMINAL - 10 VIGOROUSj. A SECOND EVALUATION WAS PERFORMED ON THE CANOPY WHICH INCLUDES ASSESSMENT OF VIGOR, LEVEL OF DECLINE, DAMAGE, DISTURBANCE,SAFETY, STRENGTH AND RECOVERY OR CONTINUED DEVELOPMENT. BASED ON THE ABOVE EVALUATION A RATING BELOW 5 INDICATES THE TREE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR REMOVAL. JLtNE 30, 1994 TREE SIZE TYPE LOCATION RATING REMARKS i 1 O.iO MAPLE St Andrews Ch. 6 REMOVE -CONFLICT DBIA 2 0.15 MAPLE St. Andrews Ch. 6 ~ REMOVE -CONFLICT (DBIA) 3 0.15 MAPLE Fire Hall Parkin 6 ~ REMOVE -CONFLICT DBIA 4 D.15 MAPLE Fire Half Parkin 6 REMOVE -CONFLICT DBIA 5 0.t0 MAPLE Parkin Lot Blvd 6 ; REMOVE -CONFLICT DBIA 6 0.10 MAPLE Parkin Lot Blvd 6 ; REMOVE -CONFLICT DBIA 7 0.10 MAPLE Parkin Lot Blvd 6 ' REMOVE -CONFLICT DS1A 8 O.iO MAPLE Parking Lot Blvd 6 PREVIOUSLY REMOVED ` 9 1.00 MAPLE _ Ho. No. 115 - NDITI N 3 REM~V~ 10 0.50 ASH ~ Ho. No, 1i6 5 REMOVE -CONFLICT 11 1.00 WALNUT Ha. No. 109 7 REMOVE -CONFLICT 12 0.20 MAPLE Ho. No. 116 5 REMOVE -OWNERS CHOICE 13 0.90 MAPLE Wo. No. 98 5 ' REMOVE -CONFLICT 14 1,00 MAPLE Ho. No. 99 5 PRESERVE _ 15 1.00 ASH Ho. No. 94 8 PRESERVE 16 1.20 MAPLE Ho. No. 93 7 PRESERVE 17 0.90 MAPLE Ho, Na. 89 3 ; REMOVE -CONDITION 18 1.20 MAPLE Ho. No. 82 6 REMOVE -CONFLICT ' 19 0.60 MAPLE Ho. No. 74 7 ! PRESERVE 20 1.00 MAPLE Ho. No. 15 7 PRESERVE 21 0.80 MAPLE Ho. No. 15 ~ 1 4 ' REMOVE -CONDITION 22 0.20 SPRUCE Ha. No. 11 8 REMOVE -CONFLICT ~ 23 0.20 SPRUCE Ho. No. 11 ~ S i REMQVE -CONFLICT 24 0.20 SPRUCE Ho. No. 11 8 REMOVE -CONFLICT 25 0.20 SPRUCE Ho. No. 11 8 REMOVE -CONFLICT 26 0.20 SPRUCE Ho. No. 11 S REMOVE -CONFLICT 27 0.20 SPRUCE Ho. No. 11 8 REMOVE -- CONFLICT 28 0.40 MAPLE Ho. No. 64 2 i REMOVE -CONDITION I 29 0.40 MAPLE Ho. No. 60 6 ~ PRESERVE 30 .. 0,50 MAPLE Ho. No. 59 7 PRESERVE ATTACHMENT N0. 3 WD-40-94 Na. TIONOF THE MUNICIPALITYOF GLAf HURCH STREET RECONSTRUCTION BOWMANVILLE TREE EVALUATION 31 0.80 MAPLE Ho. No. 56 7 ~ PRESERVE 32 0.30 MAPLE Ha. No. 54 6 PRESERVE 33 0.90 MAPLE Ho, No, 50 6 PRESERVE 34 0.90 MAPLE ~ Ho. No. 50 4 I REMOVE -CONDITION 35 36 1.10 0,30 ASH MAGNOLI Ho. No. 49 Ho. Na. 48 ~ 8 PRESERVE 7 PRESERVE 37 1.50 MAPLE Ho, No. 45 ~ 5 REMOVE - GONI=LICT 38 39 1.20 0.60 ASH MAPLE Ha. No. 40 Ho. No. 36 7 REMOVE -CONDITION PRESERVE 40 0.60 MAPLE Ho. No. 34 I 4 REMOVE -CONFLICT 41 0.10 BIRCH Ho. No. 33 8 PRESERVE SUMMARY OF TREE REMOVALS REMOVE DUE TO CONFLICT 19 REMOVE DIJE TO POOR CONDITION 6 REMOVE OWNERS CHOICE ~ TOTAL 26 OF THE 26 TREES CONTEMPLATED FOR REMOVAL, ONLY 6 ARE CONSIDERED TO BE HEALTHY AND MATURE. WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it desirable to amend By-law 91-58; BY-LAW 94- Being a By-law to amend By-law 91-58 being a By-law to Regulate Traffic on Bighways, Municipal and Private Property in the Municipality of Clarington NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1) column a cmlumv 1 Column ] column 3 Prmhihl<atl fii-ghuy 6'tle Betva 2' i D+v Church 6<rw< !o<h 61tlee Temper.nce S<rw< Anytly (ficumanville) amd Liberty 6<raat 2) TBE CORPORATION OF THH MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON Schedule II "NO PARKING" of By-law 91-58 is amended by: A) deleting the following reference: colmm~ a Column 1 Column 2 Column 1 ProhibitM Nib siae fi.cm..n rim r Dav. Chuzch Street North i Lib.rty 6tr.at and Mytfine (BO.manvillej 6outb Gorge 6tr.et Church 6traat Sou[h Division 6tzeet Anytiw (8ovnanvillaj antl Geo[ge 6traat <hoich 6traat North i Temp.ran<e 6traat Anytime (fioumanaille) fiou[A and Divi.ion 6[iast And b) adding the following reference: This By-law shall come into Force and take effect on the date of the passing thereof and when signs to the effect are erected. BY-LAW read a first and second time this 11th day of July, 1994. BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 11th day of July, 1994. MAYOR CLERK ATTACHMENT N0. 4 WD-40-94 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 94- Being a By-law to amend By-law 91-58 being a By-law to Regulate Traffic on Highways, Municipal and Private Property in the Municipality o£ Clarington WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it desirable to amend By-law 91-58; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1) Schedule XVI "STOP SIGNS" of By-law 91-58 is amended by: A) adding the following references: Column 1 Intersections Column 2 Facino Traffic Church Street and George Street (Bowmanville) Church Street and George Street (Howmanville) Eastbound on Church Street Westbound on Church Street 2) This By-law shall come into Force on the date that it is approved by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham and when signs to the effect are erected. BY-LAW read a first and second time this 11th day of July, 1994. BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 11th day of July, 1994. CLERX ATTACHMENT N0. 5 WD-40-94 THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 94- Being a By-law to amend By-law 91-58 being a By-law to Regulate Traffic on Highways, Municipal and Private Property in the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS the Council o£ The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it desirable to amend By-law 91-58; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1) Schedule XV "THROUGH HIGHWAYS" of By-law 91-58 is amended by: A) deleting the fallowing references: Column 1 Column 2 Highway From Church Street East Limit of (Howmanville) Temperance Street And B)_ adding the fo Column 1 Highwav Church Street (Bowmanville) Church Street (Bowmanville) llowing reference: Column 2 From East limit of Temperance Street East limit of George Street Column 3 To West limit of Durham Regional Road No. 14 (Liberty Street) Column 3 To West limit of George Street West limit of Liberty Street 2 ) This By-law shall come into Force on the date that it is approved by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham. BY-LAW read a first andsecond time this 11th day of July, 1994. BY-LAW read a third time and finally passed this 11th day o£ July, 1994. MAYOR CLERK ATTACHMENT N0. 6 WD-40-94 ., cool-V ~a ~ r ~,, ~ N `v ~' li ~ ~ ~Hw ~ ~ ~ W J U~3= ~ y o=~a a m ~ ~~yo ~ ~ ~l_ N a~Q°' ~ ~_~ ~ cD Z ~~~ ~ M a n~i d '~ ' ` a d io 3 ~,,, V 0 Wa m IM O M UWy~ ~ L] O a ~ a U o 'z ,~ W d OD N ~A _ _ H 2 J J am a x s z ~_ ,~ ~ t°5 ~ "' ~ d m h Z f r q p~ !~ N N~ J ~N~ ` K N 4! O a 0 S o! 0 z ATTACHMENT N0. 6 (a) WD-4 0-94 22.25 R 22.25' 0.30' 5' 5.47 1.64 9.64' 16.40' 1.64' 4 1' S/W I � I � j I � E � � NORTH I SOUTH i ^� N.t.S. _ 1 H � 9 O F z MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON z QUEEN STREET F FROM KING ST. TO ONTARIO ST. ° 'BOWMANVILLE' ASCONSTRUCTED DETAILS FIGURE ~ ~ ~ o w 4 " ~ ---- ------ z W i j N ee I.Y Y iL ~ C J ~~ ~+ ~'~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ 4a mm oc M `~- Z' Z _' ~1 4 4 2 m V7 ~R r Q n7 m b h ~C N r N ATTACLMENT N0. 6 (c) 33' 33' JAR. VAR. VAR. 1.64' 1.5.42' 15.42' 64 I 48' 4' 0.46' 1.? 1'- S/i4 T 1.15' S/W � I I � ! j I I � j � ! I I I NORTH j SOUTH N.T.S. a H H a MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON z PRINCE STREET H o FROM LIBERTY ST. TO SIMPSON AVE, 'BOWMANVILLE' a ASCONSTRUCTED DETAILS FIGURE 42.65' R S 16.21' 1.64' 1942' 15.42' 1'64• 1' 5' .38 I S/W I I I N.T.S. 5y F 9 O I 4- r z MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGT4H H NABBEY ROAD STONVALE ROAD, WESTERLY 'COURTICE' DETAILS FIGURE e + THE CORPORATION OF THE MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON HY-LAW 94- Being a By-law to amend By-law 91-56 being a By-law to Regulate Traffic on Bighways, Municipal and Private Property in the Municipality of Clarington WHERHAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality o£ Clarington deems it desirable to amend By-law 91-58; ----"-~~'---- NOW TBERSFORS the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1) Schedule II "NO PARKING" of By-law 91-58 is amended by: A) deleting the following reference: Cclumv 1 ei_ahxav <clctin 3 aiae column a Column < Bmhibltea Bet= e T' r D¢oe ~mee churU fitreeL (BCUmanville) earth i 9aoth Libert 9tiaet antl y k'Ytime George atreet cborch HtreaL (ewmanvlllel swth ~Svieion 9tiaet Mytlme ~ 4eorge Street CAu rC}~ Street (ewmanvillel partM1 f 6auth Tem~ee rance 6t le et pnytlm¢ entl Division 9LreeC And b) adding the following re ference: column l Biahvar• colump : sip Column 3 column a VtoTibited 8¢t~een Times mt Dave CM1Urcb 6tceet laowavville) Bokh 91dee TV pL y Mytime e a ibert 6treei 2) This By-law shal l come into Force and take effect on the date of the passing thereof and when signs to the effect erected. are BY-LAW read a first and second time this 11th day of July, 1994. BY-LAW read a third time and finally pasaedthis 11th day of July, 1994. MAYOR CLERK . , TH8 CORPORATION OF THH MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 94- Being a By-law to amend By-law 91-58 being a By-law to Regulate Traffic on Righways, Municipal and Private Property in the Municipality of Clarington WHEREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality of Clarington deems it desirable to amend By-law 91-58; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1) Schedule XVI "STOP SIGNS" of By-law 91-58 is amended by: A) adding the following references: Column 1 Column 2 Intersections Facing Traffic Church Street and George Eastbound on Church Street Street (BOwmanville) Church Street and George Westbound on Church Street Street (BOwmanville) 2) This By-law shall come into Force on the date that it is approved by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham and when signs to the effect are erected. BY-LAW read a first and second time this 11th day of July, 1994. BY-LAW read a third time and Finally passed this 11th day of July, 1994. MAYOR CLERK s • ~, • THE CORPORATION OF THH MUNICIPALITY OF CLARINGTON BY-LAW 94- Being a By-law to amend By-law 91-58 being a By-law to Regulate Traffic on Highways, Municipal and Private Property in the Municipality of Clarington WHHREAS the Council of The Corporation of the Municipality o£ Clarington deems it desirable to amend By-law 91-58; NOW THHREFORE the Council of the Municipality of Clarington enacts as follows: 1) Schedule XV "THROUGH HIGHWAYS" of By-law 91-56 ie amended by: A) deleting the following references: Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Hiahwav From To Church Street East Limit of West limit of Durham (BOwmanville) Temperance Street Regional Road No. 14 (Liberty Street) And B) adding the fo Column 1 Hiahwav Church Street (BOwmanville) Church Street (BOwmanville) Llowing reference: Column 2 From Eaet limit of Temperance Street East limit of George Street Column 3 To West limit of George Street West limit o£ Liberty Street 2) This By-law shall come into Force on the date that it is approved by the Council of the Regional Municipality of Durham. HY-LAW read a first and second time this 11th day of July, 1994. HY-LAW read a third time and Finally passed this 11th day of July, 1994. MAYOR CLERK