Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPD-152-90 TOWN OF NEWCASTLE i REPORT File # DN: WATERFRONT.GPAs� f 1`I Res. # _ f_ �• By-Law # MEETING: General Purpose and Administration Committee DATE: Monday, April 23, 1990 REPORT #: PD-152-90 FILE #: PLN 17 . 10 aRCT. ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE FUTURE OF THE TORONTO WATERFRONT DISCUSSION PAPER: A GREEN STRATEGY FOR THE GREATER TORONTO WATERFRONT: BACKGROUND AND ISSUES. RECOMMENDATIONS: It is respectfully recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee recommend to Council the following: 1. THAT Report PD-152-90 be received; 2 . THAT the General Purpose and Administration Committee endorse forthwith the submission on "A Green Strategy for the Greater Toronto Waterfront - Background and Issues" to the Royal Commission on the Future of the Waterfront as attached hereto; 3 . THAT the General Purpose and Administration Committee authorize Director of Planning and Development to present the submission to the Royal Commission at the Royal Commissions Public Hearings . 4 . THAT a copy of PD-152-90 be forwarded to the Royal Commission on the Future of the Toronto Waterfront, Region of Durham, Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority and Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority. 1 . BACKGROUND 1 . 1 In March of 1988 the Federal Government appointed the Honourable David Crombie to establish a Royal Commission to Study the Toronto Waterfront. The Commission initially focused on the development of the Toronto Harbourfront area, alone, due to concerns that private development was leaving public enjoyment of the waterfront area for the selected few. . . .2 F J ; 7 � � _. REPORT NO. : PD-152-90 PAGE 2 The Mandate of the Federal Royal Commission was "to make recommendations regarding the future of the Toronto Waterfront and to seek the concurrence of affected authorities in such recommendations, in order to ensure that in the public interest federal lands and jurisdiction serve to enhance the physical, environmental, legislative and administrative context governing the use, enjoyment and development of the Toronto Waterfront and related lands . " Within the context of this mandate specific issues were to be examined: i) role and mandate of the Toronto Harbour Commissioners; ii) the future of the Toronto Island Airport and related transportation services; iii) the issues affecting the protection and renewal of the natural environment as related to federal responsibilities and jurisdiction; iv) the issues regarding the effective management of federal lands within the Toronto Waterfront area; v) the possible use of federal lands facilities and jurisdiction to support emerging projects, such as the proposed Olympic games and World Fair 2000. 1. 3 Given this mandate, work groups were organized to examine each item and in addition public hearings were also held to encourage public particupation assisting the formulation of recommendations to the Commissioner. As a result seven major reports were published in the Commission's first year, each dealing with the items in the mandate. 1.4 The outcome of these background issues resulted in the publishing of the Commissioner's Interim Report to the Prime Minister in the summer of 1989 . The Interim Report suggested that the waterfront required a comprehensive watershed approach, protecting river valleys, headwaters, wetlands and other significant natural features. The approach would initiate linkages between the waterfront, river valleys and watershed areas . . . . .3 5 C. REPORT NO. : PD-152-90 PAGE 3 1.5 In an effort to preserve the waterfront areas as an attractive and accessible place for the public, the Premier of Ontario announced on October 17 , 1989 that the Provincial Government would collaborate with the Federal Government. In doing so the Premier announced four initiatives: i) Declared a Provincial interest of land and waterlots from Yonge Street to Ashbridges Bay area, to allow the Province to prevent any major development in the area until it can be determined what is appropriate for the people and environment. ii) Appointed the Honourable David Crombie as a provincial Commissioner with responsibilities pertaining to waterfront development issues along the waterfront from the eastern boundary of Durham Region to the western boundary of Halton Region. iii) Commenced an environmental evaluation of lands owned by the Toronto Harbour Commission and any provincial lands in the Yonge/Ashbridge Bay Area. iv) Appointed Mr. Ron Kanter, M.P.P. to make recommendations on a "Greater Toronto Area Greenlands Strategy" to link and integrate the waterfront to upstream watersheds throughout the Greater Toronto Area from the Oak Ridges Moraine to Lake Ontario. The second and fourth initiatives effect the future of the waterfront in the Town of Newcastle. Mr. Kanter will submit a recommendation to the Province by June 1990 on the G.T.A. Greenlands Strategy" , and will be considered in preparing the final report of the Royal Commission on the Waterfront in 1991. 2 . "A GREEN STRATEGY FOR THE GREATER TORONTO AREA WATERFRONT" 2 . 1 A discussion paper entitled A Green Strategy for the Greater Toronto Waterfront: Background and Issues was received from the Royal Commission March 30, 1990 . The discussion paper is a collection of information available of the Greater Toronto Area and represents the findings of work group and consultants retained by the Royal Commission. A copy of the Report is available in the Planning and Development Department for review. . . . .4 2 s REPORT NO. : PD-152-90 PAGE 4 2 .2 The Discussion Paper indicated a number of issues to be addressed including the following: i) The role of public agencies in providing open space along waterfront areas unco-ordinated and varies within each Region within the Greater Toronto Area. ii) trends in public demand, attitudes and population growth will see a developing interest in waterfront recreation activities . iii) a shared vision for the future of the waterfront in the Greater Toronto Area is required and should be supported through a Provincial policy statement. iv) the ecosystem of the waterfront in the Greater Toronto Area must be restored; public accessibility and linkages should be established. v) funding from the Province is imperative to municipalities and conservation authorities for acquisition of lands. 2 . 3 Durham Region The Discussion Paper notes that within Durham Region there are existing public greenspaces but also a number of barriers to continuous linkage along the waterfront. Significant lands along the waterfront are undeveloped. Eight of the nine critical fish and wildlife habitats threatened by private development are located in Durham Region, three of which are in Newcastle. The Report acknowledges that chronic shortages of conservation funding have stalled conservation efforts . The Report is critical of the level and consistency of planning policies related to the waterfront area through the five lakeshore municipalities . The Discussion Paper notes that the Region of Durham has "shown only a cursory interest" in the waterfront and indicates a need for strengthened policies. 2 .4 The Town Of Newcastle The Discussion Paper describes Newcastle as a "Special Case" since large stretches of the waterfront are rural and provides the only major undeveloped waterfront in the Greater Toronto Area. Due to ) REPORT NO. : PD-152-90 PAGE 5 the Town's limited urban population and assessment base, the Report notes that there is "little inclination or opportunity to seize the opportunities presented by its waterfront. " It is suggested that the Town needs this vision and outside financial help to secure its waterfront as a public resource. It is also noted that the Town faces complex environmental problems presented by the Port Granby Radioactive Waste Site and the loss of significant wetlands to the St. Marys Cement quarry operations . The Commission suggests that without a comprehensive waterfront plan and the financial means to acquire key properties "there is a serious danger that the opportunities now available on the Newcastle waterfront will be squandered. " 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3 . 1 As part of the ongoing studies, the Royal Commission has provided a forum to invite the public input. The Royal Commission is holding a Public Hearing to hear submissions on the discussion paper on April 25, 1990 at the Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority offices . Staff have indicated to the Commission that the Town wishes to make representation. It is noted that other municipalities in Durham will be making representation before the Commission. The intent of this hearing is to elicit information to allow the Commission to develop recommendations on a Green Strategy for the Greater Toronto Area Waterfront. The hearing will review the progress of various public agencies with respect to creating open space along the waterfront in the Greater Toronto Area. In addition, to examine any linkages via trails along the waterfront and to consider recommendations to overcome any barriers in providing such linkages. F- rr 1 r,, i . . . . 6 F- REPORT NO. : PD-152-90 PAGE 6 4 . COMMENTS 4 . 1 The Town is in the process of developing a Waterfront Plan for Bowmanville and has been coordinating with the Royal Commission on the Future of the Greater Toronto Waterfront. The Commission's Discussion Paper provides an overview of waterfront planning issues on a broader basis. The Town's effort should ideally fit the general context of the strategy presently being formulated. 4 .2 Staff have prepared a submission to respond to the issues raised in the report entitled A Green Strategy for the Greater Toronto Waterfront: Background and Issues. It is recommended that the General Purpose and Administration Committee endorse the attached submission and authorize the Director of Planning and Development to present it at the Royal Commission Hearings on April 25, 1990. Respectfully submitted, Recommended for presentation to the Committee a&w- Fr.iWin Wu, M.C. I.P. Lawrence E. Kotseff Dir6dtor of Planning Chief Administrative and Development Officer CV*D*F*cc *Attach 18 April 1990 ATTACHMENT # 1 Submission of the Town of Newcastle to the Royal Commission on the Greater Toronto Waterfront April 25, 1990 The Town of Newcastle recognized that the waterfront of Lake Ontario is an important asset for the people of our community and that it must be developed and preserved in such a manner that current and future generations can enjoy the amenities and opportunities presented by this feature. The Town of Newcastle contains one half of the Lake Ontario waterfront in the Region of Durham, approximately 23 miles in total . With a population of approximately 42000 persons and a limited assessment base, the Town's ability to acquire, develop and manage waterfront lands is limited. By way of comparison, the City of Oshawa has one fourth of the length of shoreline and eleven times the assessment base of the Town of Newcastle. 1. The Lake Ontario waterfront is a Provincial resource. The Commission has suggested that the Lake Ontario waterfront is a Provincial resource. To be honest, to date the people living in Durham Region have not seriously considered the waterfront even as a regional resource. For those municipalities which have urbanized, there have been efforts to acquire and develop waterfront parkland for the enjoyment of their own residents. In the Town of Newcastle with a limited urban population and little historic connection to the waterfront, there have been virtually no attempts to acquire parklands because there has been no perceived need and little threat due to urbanization. There has been no co-ordinated and concentrated effort to develop the waterfront as a Regional resource. The Royal Commission is now asking extending the vision broader to consider the Lake Ontario waterfront as a Provincial resource. The Town of Newcastle would concur with this vision but this will require all public agencies to think and act on the basis of priorities and opportunities available throughout the Greater Toronto Area. The Province must clearly provide this leadership, co-ordination and financial support if this broader vision is to be realized. This Commission is a start; a provincial policy statement as suggested in the "Background and Issues" Report is another step. A more pressing need at this time is the establishment of a mechanism to get the various public agencies working in the common interests of the Greater Toronto Area. 2 . There is no agency established or funded to provide Regional recreation opportunities. Within the Region of Durham, there has been no one agency charged with the responsibility and funded to acquire and develop regional recreation opportunities . J, i I -2- Under the Regional Municipality of Durham Act, the Region has the ability to develop regional recreation facilities . It has so far declined. The Central Lake Ontario Conservation Authority has had the interest to develop regional parks but has been unable to secure the resources from the province or the municipalities to proceed with its acquisition plan. The Ganaraska Region Conservation Authority has not actively sought to develop regional recreation opportunities, instead focusing on the flood and erosion control component of its mandate. Having the plans to acquire open space, develop regional parks and provide public access is not enough. Since 1973, there has been a plan prepared by the former Central Ontario Joint Planning Board for the acquisition of the Newcastle waterfront from Darlington Provincial Park to Newcastle Village. The missing ingredient has not been the vision or the foresight. What is clearly required is that one agency or group of agencies (such as the Conservation Authorities) be clearly given the mandate and the resources to fulfil this mandate. 3 . Public involvement is essential to create the political climate necessary to secure the waterfront for the general public for future generations. The "Background and Issues" Report has noted that public and private sector groups need to be more profitably involved in waterfront planning and management. Several approaches have been outlined. While the Town does not wish to endorse any one approach, there is a body of citizens which has been activated through the creation of the Royal Commission on the Future of the Greater Toronto Waterfront. To date, governments have not been stirred to earnest action due to the lack of an organized constituency of waterfront users. With this Commission, that constituency is beginning to form in the Region of Durham and the Town of Newcastle. With public support and renewed interest in the waterfront, all levels of government will be required to act. 4 . Funding a "green strategy" will require new and innovative sources of funds which are utilized on a regional basis. The Commission is exploring several innovative options to fund waterfront projects, secure public access and develop waterfront parkland. The Town of Newcastle supports the broad concepts of the vision being formulated through this Commission but is very cognizant of the limitation placed by public funding. Consequently, we urge the Commission to ensure that the concepts developed are viable. The Town of Newcastle also urges that public funding be utilized on a priority basis throughout the Greater Toronto Area. We have seen that the senior levels of government have invested in high profile waterfront projects in the City of Toronto but has given C) , . . . . 3 -3- little support to the waterfront projects proposed by conservation authorities in the Town of Newcastle. If the Commission and the Town wish to see that the opportunities in the Town of Newcastle are realized, there needs to be an allocation of waterfront funding to ensure that this can happen. 5 . The Town of Newcastle is prepared to develop a comprehensive waterfront plan. The Commission has noted that the Town of Newcastle does not have a comprehensive waterfront plan and has warned that without such, opportunities now available on the Newcastle waterfront will be squandered. This concern is valid. It is not that no action has been taken to date. As previously mentioned, there have been plans reflected in the Official Plan and the Zoning By-law for the preservation and acquisition of a waterfront open space corridor. More recently, the Town initiated a Waterfront Planning Study for Bowmanville. This was initiated out of the Town's concern that private development in this area should fit into a comprehensive scheme for the Bowmanville waterfront and that it was not piecemeal development. The Town concurs, however, that a broader comprehensive review is required to ensure that all waterfront lands in the Town of Newcastle are re-examined, to resolve the needs of conflicting users and provide for implementation of a reasonable plan of public acquisition and joint public/private partnerships . In this regard, our limited resources would require that senior levels of government provide the majority funding for such a study. At the present time, it would be our hope to secure at least one significant waterfront park to serve each of our urban areas - Courtice, Bowmanville and Newcastle Village. Our Recreation and Leisure Services Master Plan is being prepared and will address the recreation needs of this community. This will not address the broader regional recreation requirements. 6 . The protection of wetlands and significant wildlife habitat will be difficult. The Commission has identified nine privately owned areas that require additional protection because of their environmental significance and critical habitats . Four of those nine sites are located in the Town of Newcastle. i) Westside Beach Marsh has been identified by the Ministry of Natural Resources as a Class 2 provincially significant Marsh. The marsh is also located in lands owned by St. Marys Cement, and has been licensed for aggregate extraction since 1978 . As it now stands, there is very little which can be done to protect this marsh despite the Wetlands Policy Statement. It is the Town's view that the Ministry of Natural Resources should revoke a portion of the pit licence of St. Marys Cement to preserve the Westside Beach Marsh. . . . .4 f � 7 � -4- ii) The second area is Wilmot Creek, privately owned and abutting land owned by a large development company. These lands can be protected by municipal zoning and fill and construction regulations of the Conservation Authorities . However, more stringent regulations are required to preserve the area as a wildlife habitat from negative effects resultant from the future urbanization of adjacent lands . iii) The Bond Head Bluffs somewhat protected by a minimal 100 year erosion setback from the shore of Lake Ontario. To protect the wildlife habitat and other features of the Bluffs themselves, additional setbacks and other measures should be considered. iv) McLaughlin Bay is part of Darlington Provincial Park, but the portion of the wetland located in the City of Oshawa is privately owned. Co-operation between the appropriate ministries, Town of Newcastle and City of Oshawa and private ownership will be required to ensure that natural habitat of this site is protected. The unfortunate reality is that wetland areas and wildlife habitats do not receive the degree of protection which should be afforded to them in the land development process . It is an economic reality which has yet to be adequately addressed by the regulatory agencies . J i ; JC Extract from A GREEN STRATEGY FOR THE GREATER TORONTO AREA: BACKGROUND & ISSUES ATTACHMENT # 2 MAP 2: SIGNIFICANT HABITATS Second Marsh • breeding/migratory birds p • provincial ANSI SygWq • class II wetland • rare species 1 l � 0 - � i 'c a cq <F o " co° Vic , Toole O Q ti a S U c 401 q C) i J McLaughlin Bay • class III wetland • breeding/migratory birds West Side Beach Marsh Nehwa % • class II wetland y2 • breeding birds 4or l Bowmanville Creek Creek ' • salmonid run .Wilmot ilmot it run a • rare species e • migratory birds w • river mouth marsh c Bond Head Bluffs • landform • pro��ncial ANSI / 7 � f I J J Extract from A GREEN STRATEGY FOR THE GREATER TORONTO AREA: BACKGROUND & ISSUES ATTACHMENT #3 MAP 3: ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES Legend Existing trail ......... Proposed trail Significant stretches of private undeveloped shore Major existing industrial/special uses osygwq Habitat protectioh — Second Marsh r � gee ago Proposals for ro y a �° residential/tourism m cgST z � <F c 3c d 70o e U a r � v ` c 3 � r • Y 401 .c 1! O SETT G e�a0) Creek Habitat protection HIQhwaY2 and trail linkages — Linkages past McLaughlin Bay Darlington Nuclear / Generating Station 40T Transfer of Darlington Wilmot Creek Provincial Park to St. Mary's Cement Retirement c C.L.O.C.A. Community "R Habitat protection — Securement of West Side Beach Marsh waterfront strip prior to development development Protection of Bond control in Port Head Bluffs Radioactive waste Darlington harbour site (71 , id Royal Commission on the C01111111SSlon royalc stu- Futurc of the �' , I'avenir du Toronto Watcrfrom secicur rivcrain pie Toronto Onisno GANADA TAKE NOTICE that the i lonourable David Crombie has been constituted a Commissioner pursuant to Part I of the INQUIRIES ACT(Canada) to inquire into and to make recommendations regarding the future of the Toronto Waterfront and to seek the concurrence of affected authorities in such recommendations, in order to ensure that, in the public interest, Federal Iands and jurisdiction serve to enhance the physical, environmental, legislative and administrative context governing the usC, enjoyment and development of the Toronto Waterfront and related lands: AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to this mandate the Commission conducted research and held hearings during 1958-89 and submitted its firtit INTERIM RFPORT to the Prime Minister in August 1989; AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that following the release of [lie said INTERIM REPORT, the Province of Ontario announced its desire to collaborate with the Government of Canada on Phase 2 of the Royal Commission's work in order to achieve the objectives set out in the said INTERIM REPORT and further thereto appointed the Honourable David Crombie a Commissioner pursuant to the provisions of the PUBLIC INQUIRIES ACT(Ontario)directing him to induire into and make recommendations on a range of subjects under provincial jurisdiction for the whole of the Greater Toronto Area Watershed from Newcastle to Burlington; AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that the Com1111SS1011 now amuninccs a resumption of its hearings on the days following,on the subjects asoutlined below,which hearings,un less otherwise noted,willbeheld at the Hearing Room, Offices of the Royal Commission, 5th Floor, Queen's Quay Terminal Building, 207Queen'sQuay West, Toronto. I. A Green Strategy for the Greater Toronto Waterfront: Public Access To and Along the Waterfront and its River Valleys: These hearings are intended to elicit information to allow the Commission to develop recommendations for a Green Strategy for the entire Toronto waterfront and its river valleys. The hearings will review the progress of various public agencies in maintaining or creating open space along the waterfront from Burlington to Newcastle. hi particular, these hearings will examine the adequacy of existing public and private facilities and plans for a system of open space,continuously linked by trails and green corridors. Recommendations to overcome barriers to a linked green space system and all related issues will be considered. A background report being prepared for the Commission will examine the wildlife and ecological values of the Lakeshore, recreational opportunities and public access to waterfront lands and the lake. The Report outlining these opportunities and challenges v-vill be released by the Commission on or about March 15, 1990. The hearings will also address the issues raised in the previously released Work Group Report titled Pm-ks, Plcasm-cs aril Public Amoiiitics. Copies of both Reports can be obtained at the Commission's Offices, i TAKE NOTICE that the Commissiorn will begin Public Hearings relative to this subject matter at the follmving times and places: (i) Tuesday, April 17, 10:00 a.m. at the Commission Hearing Room; (ii) Monday, April 23,_11:00 a.m. at the Verna re Inn, 2020 Lakeshore Road, Burlington, Ontario; (iii)�Wednesday, A aril 25,11:00 a.m. at the Cerntral Lake Ontario Conservation Authority, c��iiaeivaTio 1 eiltre, 100 Whiting Avenue, Oshawa, Ontario. Any person who wishes to make a submission must so advise the Commission in writing by Friday the 6th day of A ri1.-1 990. %—Mao February 1L90 Tl ater/rorltW Soure'e Centre j n. j 7 1- i