ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD
WITNESS STATEMENT
RE: BRONTE GREEN CORPORATION
OMB CASE NUMBER PL141318
LAURIELLE BROOKS, RPP
REGION OF HALTON
1151 BRONTE ROAD
OAKVILLE, ONTARIO
L6M 3L1
905-825-6000 EXT. 7182
2
1. Introduction
1.1 The following witness statement is submitted by Laurielle Brooks, BES, MCIP, RPP,Senior Planner in the Planning Services Section of the Legislative and PlanningServices Department of the Regional Municipality of Halton (the “Region” or “HaltonRegion”).
2. Qualifications
2.1 I am a qualified land use planner in the Province of Ontario since 2006. I have aBachelor of Environmental Studies degree in Planning from the University ofWaterloo. I am a registered professional planner (RPP) in the Province of Ontarioand a full member of the Canadian Institute of Planners (CIP).
2.2 I am currently a Senior Planner at Halton Region responsible for providing planningcomments on all development applications for the Town of Oakville (the “Town”). Ihave been employed by the Region as a planner in progressively more responsibleplanning positions at the Region since 2008.
2.3 In my role as Senior Planner, I process applications for Regional Official Planamendments, Plan of Subdivision and Condominium approvals, Local Official Planand Zoning By-law amendments. I am also responsible for providing advice to theLocal Municipalities (the Towns of Milton, Oakville and Halton Hills and the City ofBurlington), residents, developers and Council on Regional planning matters.
2.4 I have been qualified to provide expert opinion evidence by the Ontario MunicipalBoard in the past.
2.5 My curriculum vitae is attached hereto as Appendix A. My Acknowledgement ofExpert’s Duty is attached hereto as Appendix B.
3. Retainer
3.1 I was requested by the Region’s legal counsel to provide evidence to the OntarioMunicipal Board on the appeals filed by Bronte Green Corporation (“Bronte Green”).Specifically, I was requested to provide evidence related to Issues 1 (in part), 4, 5and 6 of the Consolidated Issues List of the Public Agencies.
3.2 My evidence will focus on four items of Regional interest that are located on thesubject lands or in the immediate vicinity:
1. the sanitary trunk sewer bisecting the subject lands (“Trunk Sewer”);2. the Mid Halton Wastewater Treatment Plant (“MHWWTP”);3. the Woodlands Operations Centre (“WOC”); and4. the Halton Regional Centre (“HRC”).
3.3 I have also reviewed Mr. Nick McDonald’s witness statement. To minimizeduplication, I will not be providing an expert opinion on the matters Mr. McDonald hasaddressed in regard to the interpretation of Provincial and Regional policy, aside fromthe specific policies reviewed in this witness statement. Some of the factual evidencethat I will be providing will be relied upon by Mr. McDonald in his opinions.
3
4. Materials Reviewed
4.1 I have reviewed and will be relying on the following materials, reports and witnessstatements as part of my evidence:
(a) Relevant Provincial Plans, policies and legislation including the Planning Act andthe 2014 Provincial Policy Statement (“PPS”);
(b) The Regional Official Plan, as amended by ROPA 38;(c) The Town’s Official Plan (“Livable Oakville Plan”);(d) Relevant staff reports and correspondence from the Town regarding the Bronte
Green applications, including Town staff reports PD-077-12, PD-044-13, PD-038-14 and PD-046-14;
(e) Relevant staff reports and correspondence from the Region regarding the BronteGreen applications and potential expansion of the HRC and WOC, includingRegional staff reports CA-43-07/CS-59-07, CS-101-07, CS-34-12, LPS14-15and MO-14-15;
(f) Documents describing the Region’s easement for the Trunk Sewer; and(g) This witness statement and the witness statements of other Regional experts.
5. Issues to be Addressed
5.1 In this witness statement and my oral evidence before the Board, I will respond to thefollowing issues on the Consolidated Issues List:
Issue 1: Are the applications consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement2014, and do they conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater GoldenHorseshoe, 2006, the Greenbelt Plan 2005 and the Parkway Belt WestPlan?
Issue 4: Do the applications conform to the Regional Official Plan?
Issue 5: Are the applications premature or in public interest?
Issue 6: Has the proposed development incorporated the appropriate separation,buffers and transition areas from the existing Halton Regional Centre,Woodlands Operations Centre, the Mid Halton Wastewater TreatmentCentre and the proposed Halton Regional Police Headquarters?
5.2 With respect to Issue 1, my opinion is limited to the specific policies of the PPSreferenced in this Witness Statement. I understand that Mr. McDonald will beproviding the Region’s case on the balance of the policies.
5.3 Recognizing that many of the above issues are interrelated, instead of responding toeach of the issues in turn, I will be providing evidence on the Region’s positionregarding the proposed development and the impact of the proposed developmenton each of the four items of Regional interest identified in Paragraph 3.2 of thiswitness statement.
6. Conclusions
6.1 Bronte Green’s applications represents a departure from the process set out in theMerton Planning Study, a joint effort made by the Town, the Region, theConservation Authority and the major landowners within the Merton Study Area.Although the Merton Planning Study had commenced and progress had been madeon the background work to inform the study, the reports required to support the draftpreferred plan proposed by the Merton Planning Study were, and still are,
4
incomplete. Significant work remained outstanding and many of the Region’sconcerns had not been investigated and addressed. Before this outstanding workwas completed, Bronte Green submitted the applications that are the subject of thishearing. While Bronte Green is not precluded from submitting a private application todevelop its lands and has the right to appeal based on no decision by Town Councilwithin the mandated timeframe under the Planning Act, the lands must becomprehensively studied as required by the Livable Oakville Plan.
6.2 In my opinion, the subject lands have not been comprehensively studied to supportthe proposed development within a proper planning framework that recognizes andcomplies with local, Regional and Provincial policies. In particular, the proposeddevelopment does not appropriately consider and protect four items of Regionalinterest that are located on and in the vicinity of the subject lands: the Region’s TrunkSewer, the MHWWTP, the HRC and the WOC. There is no attempt in the proposeddevelopment to reinforce, support or otherwise complement the adjacent Regionalfacilities.
6.3 The PPS provides the Province’s direction on the planning, protection, location anddevelopment of infrastructure and public service facilities. It states that planning forinfrastructure and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated withland use planning so that they are financially viable over their life cycle and availableto meet current and projected needs. The PPS also directs optimizing the use ofexisting infrastructure and public service facilities before considering the developmentof new infrastructure and facilities, and encourages the strategic location of publicservice facilities to support effective and efficient delivery of emergency managementservices. There are other policies in the PPS that direct public service facilities tolocate in community hubs to promote service integration, access to transit and activetransportation.
6.4 Based on the review of other Regional experts witness statements and advice givento me by Regional staff, it is my opinion that that the Trunk Sewer and MHWWTPcollectively represent some of the most significant Regional wastewater infrastructureinvestment in the Town and within the Region. Protection and sufficient evaluation ofthese Regional assets has not been addressed by the proposed developmentapplication.
6.5 It is my opinion that the HRC and the WOC are important public service facilitieswhich together form a strategically located community hub for the Region and itsresidents. The proposed development has not sufficiently dealt with the protection,preservation and permanence of these public service facilities, nor has it adequatelyconsidered potential future expansions of these facilities.
6.6 Based on the conclusions above, it is my opinion that the proposed development ispremature, is not in the public interest and does not represent good planning.
7. Evidence
Merton Planning Study
7.1 The Merton Study Area refers to the lands generally located on the north side of theQueen Elizabeth Way (“QEW”) and south of Upper Middle Road between BronteRoad and Third Line.
7.2 The Merton Study Area is approximately 234 gross hectares and is generally locatednorth of the QEW and North Service Road, east of Bronte Road (including someparcels of land located on the west side of Bronte Road), south of Upper Middle
5
Road and west of the existing residential lands west of Third Line. Fourteen MileCreek traverses through the Merton Study Area. Attached as Appendix C is a copyof a map identifying the Merton Study Area.
7.3 The subject lands are located within the northernmost portion of the Merton StudyArea and consist of approximately 55.10 hectares, according to the Draft Plan ofSubdivision submitted by Bronte Green (“Draft Plan”).
7.4 I understand that prior to 2012, Town staff met with the Region, Conservation Haltonand the major landowners in the Merton Study Area, including Bronte Green andInfrastructure Ontario, to develop a study process and Terms of Reference tofacilitate a comprehensive study of these lands. One of the key steps to this processwas to develop a Tertiary Plan to identify land use designations and policies for theMerton Study Area.
7.5 I understand that the requirement to prepare a Tertiary Plan for the Merton StudyArea came from the Town’s Official Plan. Section 26.5, “Other Areas for FurtherStudy” (now Section 26.6), states that the lands in the vicinity of the QEW and BronteRoad on the north side “have been identified for potential future development andshould be comprehensively studied to determine future land uses and policies.” TheLivable Oakville Plan was approved with modifications by the Region on November30, 2009 and approved by the Ontario Municipal Board on May 10, 2011.
7.6 The Merton Planning Study process contemplated the completion of technicalreports, a review and analysis of options for land uses, public consultation and therecommendation of preferred land uses and policies.
7.7 The background studies identified in this process included (1) an EnvironmentalImpact Study (EIS), (2) an Area Servicing Plan and a Functional Servicing Study, (3)a Transportation Study, (4) a Stage 1 Archaeological Assessment and (5) a Noiseand Odour Study.
7.8 In May 2013, Terms of Reference outlining the technical study requirements weredeveloped by the Town, agencies and landowners. The major landowners wereresponsible for retaining consultants to complete the technical studies.
7.9 Throughout 2013 and 2014, a number of technical studies were submitted by themajor landowners for the Merton Study Area as per the Terms of Reference. Town,Conservation Halton and Regional staff as well as the Town’s peer review teamreviewed the technical reports submitted and provided initial comments.
7.10 Based on the technical reports submitted and comments received at that time, Townstaff prepared a draft Local Official Plan Amendment (LOPA).
7.11 Section 26.6.5 of the draft LOPA specifically recognized that prior to anydevelopment on the Merton Lands, the technical reports identified in the MertonPlanning Study Terms of Reference shall be completed in accordance with the Termsof Reference and the study process to the satisfaction of the Town.
7.12 Accordingly, although a draft preferred plan and corresponding land use policieswere identified as part of the draft LOPA, I understand that this plan was not a finaloption. The Town was still seeking input from the public and public sector agencies,including the Region. The Region did not make formal comments on the draftpreferred plan or the draft LOPA, recognizing that additional work needed to becompleted through technical studies.
6
7.13 On March 24, 2014, the Town’s Planning Services Department issued a staff report (PD-038-14) reporting on the draft LOPA. Appendix D to this staff report provided an overview of the status of the technical studies which would be required to be completed as part of any further development application. This report identified that
1. With respect to the EIS, there were still outstanding matters which generally included the adequacy of some buffers to protect features or species; a more detailed screening for restoration and enhancement opportunities; incomplete characterization of the water balance in terms of groundwater and surface water interactions; and an incomplete characterization of stream components and resulting stream dynamics.
2. With respect to the Area Servicing Plan and Functional Servicing Study, the staff report noted that outstanding matters included include inconsistent use of background and baseline data, incomplete characterization of components of the study areas and the water balance, partial application of appropriate methods of calculation, only basic mitigation approaches proposed that are possibly inadequate and generally an unfinished discussion and justification for the strategies proposed.
3. With respect to the Transportation Study, the staff report noted that at that time, two drafts of the TIS had been received that studied the original draft options. Comments provided by staff, the peer reviewer and agency staff indicate there were still matters outstanding. A revised TIS is required that addresses the outstanding comments and that evaluates the current draft preferred plan.
4. With respect to the Noise and Odour Studies, the staff report noted that the studies were incomplete with respect to incomplete characterization of noise and odour sources in terms of impact modeling and facility classification. As well, some mitigation methods as presented are pretty basic and may not be acceptable from an implementation perspective.
7.14 It is clear that as of March 24, 2014, the Merton Planning Study process had commenced, but was not complete. There were still outstanding comments from the public sector agencies that needed to be addressed. Some of these comments required that additional information be submitted by the major landowners and revisions to the technical reports submitted.
Bronte Green’s Applications for the Subject Lands
7.15 In the spring of 2014, the Town advised the Region that Bronte Green had submitted a Zoning By-law Amendment, Plan of Subdivision and Plan of Condominium applications to the Town to develop its lands within the Merton Study Area.
7.16 The Town, as the approval authority for all of the applications identified above, advised that the applications met the requirements for complete applications in accordance with the Town’s requirements and policies. The Town issued the notice of complete application for these applications in April 2014.
7.17 On May 12, 2014, the Region sent a letter to the Town advising that Regional staff has reviewed the applications submitted by Bronte Green. The Region advised the Town that the proposed development applications are premature, do not conform to the Regional Official Plan and will not be processed by Regional staff until such time as the appropriate approvals are in place including the completion of the Merton
7
Planning Study. Attached as Appendix D is a copy of the Region’s May 12, 2014 letter.
7.18 In the early summer of 2014, the Town advised the Region that Bronte Green had submitted a LOPA for the subject lands. This application was deemed complete by the Town of Oakville and notice of a complete application regarding the LOPA was provided by the Town in July 2014.
7.19 On September 17, 2014, the Region sent a letter to the Town advising that Regional staff has reviewed the LOPA application and advise that the application does not conform to the Regional Official Plan. The letter further advised that a Regional Official Plan Amendment would be required and that the developer should consult Regional planning staff to initiate the process should they want to proceed. Attached as Appendix E is a copy of the Region’s September 17, 2014 letter.
7.20 In my opinion, at this time, there are two options Bronte Green can take to develop the subject lands. First, the applicant may continue with the Merton Planning Study process, given that the process is already underway and comments have been provided by the public and public sector agencies. Alternatively, the applicant may seek a private application, but must proceed in accordance with Section 26.6 of the Livable Oakville Plan and ensure that the lands are comprehensively studied to determine future land uses and policies.
7.21 Instead of continuing to participate in the Merton Planning Study process, Bronte Green decided to file a private application. Accordingly, the proposed application must meet the test under Section 26.6 of the Livable Oakville Plan.
7.22 For the reasons below, it is my opinion that this test has not been met. The subject lands have not been comprehensively studied to determine future land uses and policies and therefore should not be developed at this time. In my opinion, there are significant Regional interests that have not been adequately considered or protected. The applications are therefore premature, not in the public interest and do not represent good planning.
Provincial Policy Statement, 2014
7.23 Section 1.6 of the PPS provides the Province’s direction on the planning, protection, location and development of infrastructure and public service facilities.
7.24 Policy 1.6.1 states:
Infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be provided in a coordinated, efficient and cost-effective manner that considers impacts from climate change while accommodating projected needs.
Planning for infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems, and public service facilities shall be coordinated and integrated with land use planning so that they are:
a) financially viable over their life cycle, which may be demonstrated through asset management planning; and
b) available to meet current and projected needs.
8
7.25 Policy 1.6.3 states:
Before consideration is given to developing new infrastructure and public service facilities:
a) the use of existing infrastructure and public service facilities should be optimized; and
b) opportunities for adaptive re-use should be considered, wherever feasible.
7.26 Policy 1.6.4 states:
Infrastructure and public service facilities should be strategically located to support the effective and efficient delivery of emergency management services.
7.27 Finally, Policy 1.6.5 states:
Public service facilities should be co-located in community hubs, where appropriate, to promote cost-effectiveness and facilitate service integration, access to transit and active transportation.
7.28 In my opinion, the Trunk Sewer and MHWWTP are considered “infrastructure” under the PPS. The HRC and WOC are considered “public service facilities”. All of these Regional assets are located within or near the subject lands. As a result, development of the subject lands must consider these existing land uses and the above policies, as appropriate, such that planning decisions are made in a manner that is consistent with the PPS.
7.29 Mr. McDonald’s witness statement will review the policies of the PPS in greater detail; however, it is important to note these policies in my witness statement as they directly apply to the four items of Regional interest identified in this witness statement.
Regional Official Plan
7.30 The Region’s approval of the Livable Oakville Plan (subsequently appealed and then approved by the Board) supports the comprehensive study of the Merton Study Area, including the subject lands, before future land uses and policies are approved on these lands to allow for potential future development.
7.31 However, there are also policies in the Regional Official Plan that support the comprehensive development of the Merton Study Area independent of whether or not the Livable Oakville Plan was approved.
7.32 It is recognized that most of the subject lands, with the exception of Vegetation Unit 12, are within the Urban Area in the Regional Official Plan.
7.33 The objectives of the Urban Area are set out in Section 72 and states, among other things:
The objectives of the Urban Area are:
72(1) To accommodate growth in accordance with the Region's desire to improve and maintain regional unity, retain local community identity, create healthy communities, promote economic prosperity,
9
maintain a high quality, sustainable natural environment, and preserve certain landscapes permanently.
72(3) To provide a range of identifiable, inter-connected and complete communities of various sizes, types and characters, which afford maximum choices for residence, work and leisure.
72(5) To establish a rate and phasing of growth that ensures the logical and orderly progression of development, supports sustainable and cost-effective growth, encourages complete communities, and is consistent with the policies of this Plan.
72(10) To provide for an appropriate range and balance of employment uses including industrial, office and retail and institutional uses to meet long-term needs.
7.34 Section 77(5) of the Regional Official Plan directs municipalities to comprehensively consider of a number of factors before a Local Official Plan is amended to permit the development or redevelopment of communities:
It is the policy of the Region to:
77(5) Require the Local Municipalities to prepare Area-Specific Plansor policies for major growth areas, including the development or redevelopment of communities. The area may contain solelyemployment lands without residential uses or solely an Intensification Area. Such plans or policies shall be incorporated by amendment into the Local Official Plan and shall demonstrate how the goals and objectives of this Plan are being attained and shall include, among other things …
a) a general statement of the intended character of the area or community,
b) boundaries of the area or community,c) policies for the protection of the Regional Natural Heritage
System and for the protection of public health and safety within hazard lands,
d) capacity targets of population, housing units and employment, including targets for Affordable Housing,
e) land use patterns that promote mixed-use, compact, transit-supportive, walkable communities, including the locations of local facilities for social, cultural, recreational, educational and religious purposes,
f) location, types and density of residential and employment lands that contribute to creating healthy communities through:[i] urban design,[ii] diversity of land uses,[iii] appropriate mix and densities of housing,[iv] provision of local parks and open space,[v] strengthening live-work relationship through a proper balance of residential and employment land uses, and[vi] promoting active transportation and public transit use.
f.1) consideration for land use compatibility in accordance with Regional and Ministry of the Environment guidelines,
10
g) overall development density for the area or community and, if it is located within the Designated Greenfield Area, how this density will contribute towards achieving the minimum overall development density for Designated Greenfield Areasin the Local Municipality as set out in Table 2 and the Regional phasing as set out in Table 2a,
h) a transportation network that promotes public transit and active transportation, including a strategy for early introduction of transit services,
i) development phasing,j) storm water management or, if the scale of development
justifies, a Sub-watershed Study as per Section 145(9),k) Environmental Impact Assessments, if any part of the
Regional Natural Heritage System is affected in an area not covered by a Sub-watershed Study,
l) an Air Quality Impact Assessment based on guidelines under Section 143(2.1),
m) water and wastewater servicing plans,n) provision of utilities,o) a fiscal impact analysis,p) a community infrastructure plan, based on Regional
guidelines, describing where, how and when public services for health, education, recreation, socio-cultural activities, safety and security and Affordable Housing will be provided to serve the community, and
q) an Agricultural Impact Assessment on potential impact of urban development on existing agricultural operations, including the requirement for compliance with the Minimum Distance Separation formulae where an agricultural operation is outside the Urban Area.
7.35 In my opinion, the above objectives and policies in the Regional Official Plan directs that the Merton Study Area must be comprehensively studied before development is permitted in this area, including the subject lands. The subject lands proposed for development in the application before the Board have not, in my opinion, been comprehensively studied.
Sanitary Trunk Sewer
7.36 I have reviewed and rely on the witness statement of Mr. Zahir Najak and Mr. Nigel Taylor in providing my opinions below.
7.37 It is my opinion that the proposed development has not adequately considered or protected the Trunk Sewer that bisects the subject lands.
7.38 I agree with Mr. Najak that the Trunk Sewer is a key component of the Region’s wastewater infrastructure system. It serves existing and new growth areas in North Oakville as well as areas south of Dundas Street, west of the Fourteen Mile Creek. It also serves existing and new growth areas in the Towns of Milton and the Halton Hills, including the Highway 401 Corridor. Future growth planned in Georgetown will also ultimately drain into this sewer, as will any proposed development on the subject lands. Flows from the Trunk Sewer ultimately drain to the MHWWTP.
7.39 I agree with Mr. Najak that Bronte Green must first obtain consent from the Regionbefore proposing to develop its lands as suggested in the Draft Plan. The Trunk Sewer is protected by a 10m wide easement granted in favour of the Region. The
11
uses proposed by the Draft Plan within the easement are not permitted under the terms of the easement without the Region’s consent. To the best of my knowledge, this consent has not been sought or obtained.
7.40 I agree with Mr. Najak that protection of, access to and the maintenance of the Trunk Sewer must be considered before development on the subject lands can be approved.
7.41 In this regard, the Trunk Sewer should be readily accessible by the Region and any necessary works to the Trunk Sewer should be able to proceed with minimal disruption to development in its vicinity. Based on advice from Regional staff, I agree that there are a number of concerns that have not been addressed by the applicantto the satisfaction of the Region before development can be considered on or adjacent to the Region’s easement, including:
1. The protection of the structural integrity of the Trunk Sewer during and after the proposed development has not been adequately addressed. For example, the applicant proposes to situate two storm water ponds adjacent to the Trunk Sewer, but it is unclear how the Trunk Sewer is to be protected during the construction of the ponds, and following construction when the ponds are proposed to be connected underneath the Trunk Sewer.
2. The siting of private lots within, or in close proximity to, the Region’s easement without providing a rationale as to how the Region will be able to perform any required work on the Trunk Sewer is not appropriate. For example, it is unclear how the Region would access the Trunk Sewer for repairs in the area where lots are backing onto Street ‘G’.
3. It does not appear that Bronte Green has adequately considered how maintenance of the Trunk Sewer would impact potential residents of the subdivision in terms of road closures, site alteration required to assess the pipe etc. For example, if there was maintenance of the Trunk Sewer at the intersection of Street ‘B’ and Street ‘V’, road access to a significant number of lots would be affected.
4. The proposed development does not provide for adequate access to the Trunk Sewer in a number of locations. Encumbrances such as stormwater management blocks and private lots are shown on the Draft Plan. I agree with Mr. Najak that issues of access, repair/replacement and maintenance of the Trunk Sewer in these areas have not been adequately addressed.
5. The consideration of how the Trunk Sewer will function in the municipal right-of-way along Street ‘A’ with other required utilities has also not been provided. Based on my review of Mr. Najak’s witness statement, it also appears that the applicant has not submitted sufficient information to satisfy the Region as to the structural adequacy of the Trunk Sewer.
7.42 I have also reviewed Mr. Taylor’s witness statement and rely on his evidence that foul odours are required to be released through seven manholes in the Trunk Sewer in order to discharge gases that may degrade the sewer facilities. Three of these manholes are located within the Bronte Green development and are adjacent or in close proximity to proposed dwellings. The venting of the Trunk Sewer has not been adequately assessed by the applicant in terms of impacts to surrounding uses.
7.43 Given the absence of crucial information demonstrating how the Trunk Sewer will function, operate, be maintained, be accessed and its potential impact on and from
12
the proposed development, it is my opinion that the applications are premature, are not in the public interest and do not represent good planning.
Mid Halton Wastewater Treatment Plant
7.44 I have reviewed and rely on Mr. Nigel Taylor’s witness statement in providing my opinions below.
7.45 It is my opinion that the proposed development has not adequately considered or protected the MHWWTP.
7.46 Based on advice provided to me by Regional staff, I understand that the MHWWTP currently accepts wastewater for treatment from the Towns of Oakville and Milton. It has capacity to process 75 MLD. Following the completion of Phase IV and V (scheduled for 2017), the capacity of the MHWWTP will increase to 125 MLD. With the expansion of the MHWWTP, the plant will accept flows from the majority of the Region and eventually flows from Georgetown as well. Given the Regional investment in the MHWWTP and the capacity potential of the existing site, it is reasonable to expect that the MHWWTP may continue to expand in size in order to accommodate future growth throughout the Region.
7.47 I am advised by Regional staff that the maximum build out of the MHWWTP is 400 MLD. The Draft Plan has not considered potential noise, odour and air quality impacts associated with a maximum build out of the plant at a potential 400 MLD.
7.48 It is my opinion that the approval of a draft Plan of Subdivision on the subject lands based only on an “as-built” analysis of impacts from the MHWWTP is inappropriate, is premature and is not in the public interest.
Woodlands Operations Centre
7.49 I have reviewed and rely on Mr. Scott Penton’s witness statement in providing my opinions below.
A. Current Use and Potential Expansion
7.50 It is my opinion that the proposed development has not adequately considered or protected the Region’s WOC. The Bronte Green application has not considered planned and potential growth of the WOC. Existing and future noise impacts and uses have not been adequately reflected and addressed in the Draft Plan.
7.51 It is my opinion that development within the area of the WOC must provide for the protection of the existing land use and not adversely impact the existing and planned utility function, including the potential future expansion of the WOC to accommodate more intensive uses.
7.52 Despite its name, the WOC is not limited to woodland operations. Uses of the WOC include:
a) Emergency Medical Services (“EMS”) hub;b) Public Works yard for water and wastewater operations and equipment and
materials storage;c) repair and maintenance facility for police cars, EMS and Public Works
vehicles and equipment;d) refuelling station for police cars;e) testing site for ambulances (audible and visual siren use);
13
f) a SWM pond;g) Offices, meeting rooms and areas to hold community events.
7.53 Although the main hours of operation are from 7:30 AM to 4:00 PM, the WOC functions 24/7 to provide emergency and after hours support for water and wastewater infrastructure and vehicle repair across the Region.
7.54 The WOC is located immediately north of the HRC. The proximity of these buildings is important as they house the EMS, police headquarters, the Health Department, and Public Works. Many of these departments often require access to Regional vehicles and communicate frequently with each other to provide a coordinated and efficient response to emergency situations.
7.55 In my opinion, given its proximity to the HRC and access to Bronte Road (and the QEW), the WOC is strategically located to provide efficient and effective delivery of emergency management services as directed by Policy 1.6.4 of the PPS. Accordingly, in my opinion, the Region has a valid interest in protecting the ability of the WOC operate in a safe and efficient manner and to expand as necessary in the future in response to expected growth and to continue its integration of its servicesand functions with those provided by the HRC.
7.56 Report No. MO-14-15 notes the increased demand for paramedic services as identified in the Paramedic Services 10-Year Master Plan. One of the optionsidentified by the Master Plan (and recommended by the consultant) includes an expansion of the existing headquarters facility to accommodate an additional 29,245 square feet. Regional staff have recommended that the expansion of EMS be completed as a component of a longer-term accommodation strategy for the WOC. This further clarifies and solidifies the need for the facility to be protected for the long term.
B. Appropriateness of Street ‘C’
7.57 The Bronte Green application proposes the construction of a road (Street ‘C’) from the subject lands to Bronte Road in a location on lands which it does not own, which is currently not designed to municipal standards, and without any apparent consideration for the additional uses and expansions are likely to take place on the WOC.
7.58 In my opinion the use of Street ‘C’ as a proposed access for the subdivision through the WOC has not been comprehensively evaluated from both a functional perspective and in relation to the potential impacts to Regional facilities. In developing my opinion I have relied on the evidence of Ms. Alicia Jakaitis that technical and operational concerns associated with the proposed access have not been addressed and as a result, a proposal which relies on the inclusion of the Street ‘C’/WOC intersection is premature and not considered to be in the public interest nor is it in my opinion good planning.
C. Appropriateness of Proposed Sound Barriers
7.59 The Bronte Green application proposes to locate townhouses immediately adjacentto the WOC.
7.60 To address the existing noise impacts from the WOC, the applicant has proposed constructing a 4 meter high (13 feet) noise wall immediately adjacent to the WOC.
14
7.61 In my opinion, the construction of 4 meter high noise walls is not appropriate in this context. From a residential user standpoint, there are visual, aesthetic and enjoyment of use concerns with a noise wall of over 13 feet high. The height of the proposed noise wall is taller than the height of a typical first story. The length of this wall is proposed to extend over the length of 10 lots. Further to this, the applicant has not provided details with respect to the ownership, future maintenance and replacement costs associated with a proposed noise wall.
7.62 In my opinion, it is not appropriate or an example of “comprehensive planning” to site conflicting uses next to each other. I have been advised by Mr. Scott Penton that the mitigation proposed for this area is not adequate or appropriate. It would be more appropriate to design the subdivision making greater use of transitional uses such as park blocks, stormwater management blocks, institutional and possibly employment, retail or commercial uses to provide a buffer or barrier to the noise sources associated with the WOC. This is particularly the case where the uses associated with the WOC include some that are more typical of industrial operations (e.g. garages and repair yards) the siting of a sensitive use such as residential dwellings immediately adjacent to the WOC is not good planning.
7.63 It is also important to note that potential expansion to the WOC may result in the need for a higher noise wall than what is currently proposed. Given range of uses associated with the WOC, many of which are sources of noise and other impacts, siting public service facilities such as the WOC can be difficult for municipalities. In my opinion, it is advantageous for the Region to optimize the use of the existing sites rather than attempting to find additional sites or relocate uses. As noted above, Policy 1.6.3 of the PPS encourages municipalities to maximize the use of existing sites prior to establishing new sites. Protection of the WOC must be considered in this context.
7.64 Finally, I rely on Mr. Penton’s evidence that existing noise sources have not been adequately evaluated in the proposed application. Inadequate separation or buffering of sensitive uses and the potential to hinder the ability for the WOC to expand in the future does not represent good planning. It is my opinion that the proposed development is inappropriate, premature and not in the public interest.
Halton Regional Centre
7.65 The PPS (Policy 1.1.1 g) states that healthy, liveable and safe communities are sustained by ensuring that necessary infrastructure, electricity generation facilities and transmission and distribution systems and public service facilities are or will be available to meet current and project needs.
7.66 Paragraphs 7.23 to 7.27 of this witness statement provide a summary of the relevant policies in Section 1.6 of the PPS.
7.67 It is my opinion that the proposed development has not adequately considered the HRC as a vital public service facility for the Region and the community in a way that is consistent with the policies of the PPS identified above. As noted below, the HRC serves a broad spectrum of public clientele, in the areas of public health, social services, small businesses, etc. in addition to being the site of Regional government, Council meetings and public meetings.
A. Current Use and Potential Expansion
7.68 The HRC has been in its current location on Bronte Road since 1978. The HRC is home to various Regional departments, the Halton Regional Police Services
15
(“HRPS”) headquarters, Regional Council and is widely used for Regional community events such as a vaccination centre. This facility is also acts as a pick-up location for Regional programs such as residential waste receptacles, a children’s safety village, a daycare, an accident reporting center, and is located immediately next to the WOCwhich contains a variety of other functions such as a public works yard and paramedic and ambulance headquarters.
7.69 Bronte Road is identified as a Major Arterial road and a Higher Order Transit Corridor in the Regional Official Plan. I am advised by Town staff that Bronte Road has become a major transit route for Oakville Transit, offering three bus routes along Bronte Road adjacent to the HRC. Access to transit on Bronte Road therefore directly serves the community hub created by the HRC and WOC. In my opinion, the location of the HRC/WOC responds to the direction provided in Policy 1.6.5 of the PPS. There is a Regional interest in protecting this community hub.
7.70 Given Halton Region’s growth projections as identified by the Province, the demand for Regional services will also increase. The Region has taken proactive steps to address this need through the Region’s Accommodation Strategy.
7.71 In 2007, the Region produced a report (CA-43-07/CS-59-07) supporting the finding that the HRC site can accommodate a 500,000 square feet campus for the administrative facilities of Halton Region, the HRPS, the Halton District School Board and the Halton Catholic District School Board. Although the program was stalled due to budget constraints (CS-101-07) the fact remains that the site can support a significant expansion to support the growth of Regional programs and provide enhanced access to other public services and infrastructure for Halton residents.
7.72 In 2012, Regional Council authorized staff to undertake a feasibility study for the HRC (CS-34-12) to support accommodation pressures felt by both HRPS and Halton Region created by increasing population growth and service demands.
7.73 In January 2015, Report LPS14-15 noted that HRC cannot accommodate all Regional staff to date. The report identified that approximately 360 staff work in leased facilities and that the feasibility study identified a need for approximately 120,000 sq. ft. of new office space by 2030, with a projected interim requirement for an additional 19,000 sq. ft. by 2017. The report also notes that the renovation of the existing HRPS building in the HRC is not sufficient to meet Regional accommodation needs to 2030 and that either an expansion of the HRC or continued leasing of facilities off-site is required.
7.74 Based on these reports, it is clear that the Region for some time has intended to maintain, and likely expand, the existing HRC site and Regionally owned lands in its vicinity as a public service facility and community service hub. The reports highlight the Region’s intent to expand the level of service offered at the HRC and the number of Regional employees at the HRC that can be accommodated in order to respond to increased service demands as the Regional population grows.
7.75 It is my opinion that development in the vicinity of the HRC needs to consider and protect for the expansion of the HRC, given the permanent nature of the HRC, the important role it plays in providing Regional services as part of a “community hub” with the WOC, and the anticipated growth of the Region in the future.
B. Role in Providing Emergency Management Services
7.76 The HRC plays an important role in responding to emergencies and disaster situations given the range of departments, functions and operations which it contains,
16
such as police services, offices of the Regional Chair and various Commissioner offices.
7.77 As noted above, the WOC operates 24/7 to provide emergency and after-hours support to the water distribution and wastewater collection infrastructure across the Region.
7.78 During emergency events, the HRC and the WOC function together as the Regional Emergency Operations Centre where co-ordination of response activities (utilities, local representatives, hospitals, etc.) and official communications originate. The HRC also acts as an evacuation centre for residents in the case of an emergency. For example, during the 2013 ice storm, the HRC was the central location where the Regional response was managed and coordinated.
7.79 The new HRPS headquarters located just south of the HRC at 2485 North Service Road West will consolidate many police functions which are currently housed in off-site locations and will contribute to the effectiveness and importance of this area as an emergency response centre for the Region. The site plan for this building was draft approved by the Town on July 31
st, 2015.
7.80 To ensure the ability of the Region to provide the highest level of emergency response, this area and these facilities need to be able to operate unencumbered during response situations. It is unclear how the proposed development will impact the site in a Regional emergency management capacity.
7.81 It is my opinion that the subject applications are premature as they have not adequately assessed or provided consideration of the HRC as an important location and building in the event of emergency management as a public service facility.
7.82 Preservation and protection of the functions provided by the HRC and its associated uses within the community hub are critical to the efficient functioning and high levelsof service the Region provides and maintains in the future. Consideration of HRC in this regard should guide its surrounding land uses. I rely on the evidence provided by Mr. McDonald in regard to land use compatibility in concluding that the proposed development has not adequately considered these factors.
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________Laurielle Brooks, MCIP, RPPSenior PlannerRegional Municipality of Halton
17
CURRICULUM VITAE OF LAURIELLE BROOKS
ACADEMIC BACKGROUND University of Waterloo, 2006: Bachelor of Environmental Studies (Honours, Urban Planning)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
May 2015 – Present
September 2012 – November 2013
March 2008 – May 2015
September 2006 – March 2008
Senior PlannerCommunity Planning Section
Legislative and Planning Services DepartmentRegional Municipality of Halton
Process applications for Regional Official Plan Amendments, Subdivisions, Condominiums, Local Official Plan and Zoning By-
law Amendments, Site Plans, etc. Provide advice to local municipalities, residents, developers and Council on Regional
Planning matters, mentor junior staff.
Acting Senior PlannerCommunity Planning Section
Legislative and Planning Services DepartmentRegional Municipality of Halton
Duties as noted above. Responsible for the supervision, workload management and review of two junior staff.
Intermediate PlannerCurrent Planning Section
Legislative and Planning Services DepartmentRegional Municipality of Halton
Process applications for Subdivisions, Condominiums, Regional Official Plan Amendments, Local Official Plan and Zoning By-law
Amendments, Site Plans. Provide advice to the local municipalities on Regional Planning matters.
Planner II and Planning TechnicianCity of Hamilton
Process applications for development, such as Official Plan Amendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, Subdivision,
Condominium and Site Plans. Provide information, guidance and direction concerning City policies and procedures for land use, Zoning, Official Plans, Secondary Plans, Site Plans and current land development proposals to the public, developers, other agencies and City departments. Prepare comments on
Committee of Adjustment and Land Division Committee applications.
MEMBERSHIPCanadian Institute of Planners (Full Member)
Ontario Professional Planners Institute (Full Member)
Appendix A
CURRICULUM VITAE OF LAURIELLE BROOKS
ACADEMIC BACKGROUND University of Waterloo, 2006: Bachelor of EnvironmentalStudies (Honours, Urban Planning)
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCEMay 2015 – Present
September 2012 – November 2013
March 2008 – May 2015
September 2006 – March 2008
Senior PlannerCommunity Planning SectionLegislative and Planning Services DepartmentRegional Municipality of Halton
Process applications for Regional Official PlanAmendments, Subdivisions, Condominiums, Local OfficialPlan and Zoning By-law Amendments, Site Plans, etc.Provide advice to local municipalities, residents, developersand Council on Regional Planning matters, mentor juniorstaff.
Acting Senior PlannerCommunity Planning SectionLegislative and Planning Services DepartmentRegional Municipality of Halton
Duties as noted above. Responsible for the supervision,workload management and review of two junior staff.
Intermediate PlannerCurrent Planning SectionLegislative and Planning Services DepartmentRegional Municipality of Halton
Process applications for Subdivisions, Condominiums,Regional Official Plan Amendments, Local Official Plan andZoning By-law Amendments, Site Plans. Provide advice tothe local municipalities on Regional Planning matters.
Planner II and Planning TechnicianCity of Hamilton
Process applications for development, such as Official PlanAmendments, Zoning By-law Amendments, Subdivision,Condominium and Site Plans. Provide information,guidance and direction concerning City policies andprocedures for land use, Zoning, Official Plans, SecondaryPlans, Site Plans and current land development proposals tothe public, developers, other agencies and Citydepartments. Prepare comments on Committee ofAdjustment and Land Division Committee applications.
MEMBERSHIP Canadian Institute of Planners (Full Member)Ontario Professional Planners Institute (Full Member)
Appendix B
M O NT GO M ERY DRI VE
L U M B ERM A N L
ANE
F ALL IN G GR E EN DRIV E
N SER VICE RD W
HATFI ELD
INGLETON
ROCH
E STE
R C
IRCLE
P IL GRIM
S W
AY
UPPE R M IDD LE RO AD W EST (U NO PEN ED )
CRE S.
DRIVE
CT.LAGOON
B AIN TREE CR E S C E NT
PAR SON S LAN E
NO RTH SE RVI CE RO AD WEST
SOU TH
SER V ICE R O AD WEST
W O O D VIEW
CIR.
GIL E
S
G ATE
GRAN
D
OA K
T
R AIL
PILG RIM S WA Y
LANG TRY DR IVE
D EVO NS HIR E CR ES CE NT
SEQ UO IA W AY
CO PPER WO O D DR IVE
BR A YS LA NE
WHITECLIFF E W AY
D E ER WO OD TR AI L
PROG
RESS
C
OURT
R USHBR OO KE D RI VE
BRI DG E R O AD
COHO
C I RCLE
KWIN
TER
R O
AD
COOP
ERCT
.TH
IRD
L IN
E
WEST
GATE
RO
A D
GR AN D O A K TR AIL
WAY
HIG H WO O D C OU RT
GRAINER C T.
WYA N
D OTT
E
DRI
VE
JILLI
AN
LAN E
G LEN HA M PTO N R OA D
HERI
TAGE
WAY
BRI A
R GR O
VE
CIR
CLE
CIRCLE
HILLM
OUNT
DRIV
E
WAY
KWIN
TER
R O
AD
HIG HC LIFFE WA Y
RU SHBR OO K DR IV E
THIR
D
L INE
SEAB R O OK D RI VE
CO LBEC K
GLA ZE BROOK C IR CLE
THIR
D
L INE
ME RR YBR OOK LA NE
PELL
BRON
TE
R O
AD
WITH
N ELL
CR ESC ENT
WAY
YOLA ND A D RIV E
HEL MSL EY AVEN UE
BARR I ST ER P LA CE
FO XH O LE CI RC LE
M ARI PO SA RO AD
SP RIN G DALE RO AD
QUEEN ELIZABET H WAY
TINSMI TH LA NE
G OLD EN O RC HA RD TR AIL
CRE S
CEN T
W I NDR U SH D RIVE
C
CA NO NR ID GE
BO WM AN DR IV E
BLA CKF ORE ST CRES.
PARI SH LA NE
AZTEC GA TE
BURL
OAK
DR I
VE
GRAN
D O
A K
TRAI
L
GLEN
R ID GE DR IV E
BARO
NWOO
D
D RIV
E
POS T M AS
T ER
D
RIVE
RIC HVI EW B LV D.
BLUE H OLLY
TRAW
DEN
WA Y
GARN
ETHIL
L
F IEL D
STON E C
IRC LE
GL EN HAM P TON RO ADPOS TM AS TER DRIVE
CAR PEN T ER S CI R CLE
BRA CK EN DR IVE
GO LDE N O RC HA RD TR.
DRIVE
SPEER S RO A D
UPPE R M ID DLE R OA D W EST
BLUE
OAK
CIR
.
SILVER SM IT H
TR EVO R D RI VE
WYEC RO FT R OA D
CAR M DR IVE
CRES
CENT
SOU TH SERV ICE RO A D W EST
POST
MAST
ER
D R
I VE
ASHMORE DRIVECA
LLOW
A Y
DRI
VE
U RW
I N CR ESCE NT
BRID
LEW
OOD
TR
A IL
Y A
L E
CR E
S CE N
T
SPEER S RO A D
WOOD
CRES
T
D RIV
E
BARO
NWOO
D
DR I
VE
NO TTING HILL GA TE
HILTON
TI PPE
R TO N
CRE S
CENT
BRA YS LA NE
G LAZEB ROO K
QUEEN ELIZABET H WAY
T IPP E
RTON
C
RESC
ENT
SHADY G LEN ROAD
FAIR
MEAD
OW
TR
AIL
FAIR FIELDPLACE
SHORNCLIFFE B LVD .
EDG ER OSE LANE
KINGS C OLLE GE DR IV E
MILL
STON
E D
R IVE
K
GOLD
SMITH
GT.
AVE.
UPPE R M IDD LE RO AD W EST
A P PAL AC HAIN DRI VE
GLEE
NWOO
DGA
TE
LAPS
LEY
CR E
SCEN
T
H EMM FO RD D RIV E
THIR
D
L I
NE
PAC I
FIC
ROA
D
SPRI NGWOOD CR ES.
PLAY
TER
PLA
C E
BLAC KSM I TH LAN E
COLONEL WILLIAM PA RK WA Y
PI LG R IM S WAY
FO RESTB RO O K RO AD
BR ID LE WO O D TR
A IL
FA IR M EAD OW TRAI L
KINGHENRYCT.
PE AR T RE E C IRC LE
SH AD Y GLE N RO A D
CRES
CEN T
TRAF
FORD
C
R ESC
ENT
C RE S
.
CRESTMONT DRIV E
HEA THCL IFF C
T .
CRE S
TMON
T
DRIV
E
ROSE
MOUN
T C
RES C
ENT
GL EN ABBE Y GA TE
SADD LER C IRC LE
POS TMASTER DR IVE
W H I TE
LAN
E
DRI V
E
BRO
ADI RO ND AK TR AIL
WOODB RIAR
CT.
HEA THER WO O D D RI VE
BLAC KSM I TH LAN E
SADD
LER
C
IRCLE
S HAD Y GLE N R O AD
C EDA RG LEN C RT
BLAC KB UR N D R.
HEMMFO RD D RI VE
GLEN CA IR N RO AD
NIGH
TSTA
R
DR I
VE
STA TION MAS TE R L
A NE
THIR
D
L INE
WO O DC R EST D RIVE
AM B ER G L
EN
CT.
GR EE NR ID GE CI RCLE
O LD
BR O
MPTO N
WYA ND OTTE DR IVE
QUEEN ELIZABETH WAYPE
ARTR
EE
C
IRCL
E
FUN
DY DR IVE
BRAYS LA NE
QUEEN ELIZABETH WAY
SHIP WRIG HT ROAD
FALL
ING
G R
EEN
DR
IVE
STO NEC UTTER D RI VE
THIR
D
LINE
COBB
LER
LA
NE
LA NE
HERIT AGE W AY
ROS
EHILL
D
RIVE
SA XO N ROA
D
C RESC ENT
GO O SEB ERR Y WAY
WESTO AK TR AILS BO ULE VAR D
BER RY
SAXO N RO AD
CR ESCE NT
BRIARGR OV E CI RC LE
LIVER
Y
LAN
E
MAPL ER IDGE CR ESC ENT
BRON
TE
R O
AD
SHORN CLIFFE B LVD .
OL D C OLO NY R D
GR EEN RID GE CI RC LE
M ANO R RO A D
MO N TAG NE A VEN UE
WATERFORD
HURLEY DR IVE
VILL
AGE
SQU
IRE
LANE
FI ELDC RES T LAN E
SADDLER CIRCLE
ABE RNA THY
CAR PEN TERS C IRC LE
STRA
TUS
D
RIVE
FAIRME ADOW TRAIL
SCH OO LM AS TE R
CIR C
L E
WATE RFO RD STREET
M AR IPO S A RD .
M AY FAIR R O A D
OLD CO LONY ROA D
REEVES GA T E
PAR ISH LA NE
BRI DG E RO AD
CRES CEN T
W ESTM O UN T D RI VE
ARBO
URV I
EW
D R
I VE
H OLLYB RO O K DR IVE
FO X
FI ELD
R OAD
BRON
TE
ROAD
VENT URA DRIVE
WO
ODM O N T C
R ESC
E NT
SHA DY GLEN R OA D
CRE SCEN T
SAN DLEW OO D RO A D
CARB
ERRY
CA NO NR ID GE C IRC LE
R OSE THO RN E R D.
RO SETH OR NE ROA D
BLUE
RID
GE LA
NE
S OUT H S ER V ICE R OAD WEST
ARB O UR VIEW DR IVE
D UNF
ORE S
T C
RESC
EN T
WYEC RO FT R OA D
PAP ER B IR C H LA NE
BLA CKB UR N D RIV E
RUS HBR OO KE DRIVE
RO SEM O UN T CR ESC ENT
WI N D R US H DR IV E
BRON
TE
R
OAD
SPRIN GWOO D CRESC ENT
PEAC
HTRE
E LA
.
WESTM O UN T D RI VE
PIL G RI MS WAY
WAY
ADIR ONA CK T RA IL
P IN EWA Y C T.
ME RCHAN TS GA TE
PILGRIMS WA Y
SHORN CLIFFE BLVD
SILVE RWO O D C OU RT
U PTO N
CO U R T
FO XH O LE CIR .
COBB
LEST
ONE
GATE
CO BB LER LA NE
LA NE
SOUT
H S
E RVI
CE R
OAD
WES
T
W ESTOA K TR AILS BO U LE VAR D
WYANDOTTE DRIV E
BR A YS L AN E
R O C HEST ER
PLA YTER P LACE
POTTERS
WESTO AK TRA ILS B OU LEVA RD
BER KSH IRE CT.
MA YOR S MA NO R
LI ONST ON E DR IVE
UNDE
RWOO
D
D EVO NS HIRE CRESCENT
A B B EY WOOD DR IV E
N OR T H SE RV IC E
ROA
D
WE S
T
SEYM
OUR
D R
I VE
ST ONECUT T ER DR.
W OO DGRO VE P LA CE
WYEC RO FT R OA D
M EADO
W G LE N D RI VE
THRI
D
L INE
PINE G LEN R OA D
NO RTH S ERVI CE R OAD WES T
SPEER S RO AD
BROO
KHAV
E N
STAT IONM ASTE R LAN E
WAY
WILLO W TER RA CE
VYNE R CR ESC ENT
BRON
TE
ROAD
VAN G
U AR D
WH I TE D OVE CIRCLE
NORTH S ER VIC E RO A D W E ST
TILCR
OFT
G T.
TA NN ER COUR T
SOUTH SERV ICE ROA D WEST
RO SEM O UN T C RE SCEN T
W E STM O UN T DRI VE
WH EEL
STILL
MEAD
OW
ROA
D
V ALLEYR I D GE D RI VE
UPPE R M ID DLE R OA D W EST
TRAF
FORD
C
RES.
WORTHPLACE
G OLD EN O RC HA RD TR AI L
F IELD CRE ST LAN E
COTTONWOO D
BIS HOPS GATE
WAY
H ERI TAG E W AY
CALL
OWA Y
DRI
VE
BLUE
O
AK
CIR
CLE
RA VIN
E GA TE
LU M BE RM AN LAN E
N OR TH SERV I CE ROA D WEST
JAGU AR LANE
MILL
STON
E D
R IVE
SOU T
HLA N
D
CRE
SCEN
T
A SH M OR E DRI VE
BOW MAN DRI VE
CAR BER RY WA Y
SUNS
ET
DR I
VE
STREET
SPRING MEADOW
GR EEN RID GE CI RC LE
STRATUS DRIVE
SI LV
ERSM
I TH
DRI
VE
R
OSEH
I LL
DRIV
E
IN KEEPER C T .
W H EE L W RIGH T
RO A
D
THE
HYDR
O-EL
ECTR
IC P
OWER
COMM
ISSI
ON O
F ONT
ARIO
1.0
0 ha
PROV
INCE
OF O
NTAR
IO
4.42
ha
SAW-WHETGOLF COURSE LTD.
19.44 ha
REGION OFHALTON0.51 ha
REGION OFHALTON7.85 ha
1442839ONTARIO LTD.
1.17 ha
REGION OFHALTON0.07 ha
REGION OFHALTON5.39 ha
ENNS, VICTOR PETER 1.45 ha
TULLAMORE COURT LTD./MAXIM HOLDINGS LTD./
SHENDRON REALTY LTD.0.32 ha
THE TOWN OFOAKVILLE
0.71 ha
THE TOWNOF OAKVILLE
0.25 ha
PROVINCE OFONTARIO114.55 ha
REGION OFHALTON0.10 ha
PROVINCE OFONTARIO
5.77 haREGION OF
HALTON0.07 ha
ENNS,VICTOR PETER
0.82 ha
PROVINCEOF ONTARIO
2.05 ha
THE TOWNOF OAKVILLE
1.05 ha
REGION OFHALTON0.61 ha
REGION OFHALTON0.25 ha
THE TOWN OFOAKVILLE
0.16 ha
PROVINCEOF ONTARIO
5.58 ha
THE TOWN OFOAKVILLE
0.04 ha
SAW-WHETGOLF COURSE LTD.
35.69 ha
REGION OFHALTON21.97 ha
PROVINCE OFONTARIO
0.39 ha
METHODISTEPISCOPAL
CHURCH0.28 ha
PROVINCE OFONTARIO
0.08 ha
MALCOLMSON,BARBARA ETHEL
5.00 ha
ESPOSITO,CARMINE & DONATA
0.20 ha
ENNS,JOYCE3.47 ha
DYCHE,DOROTHY PATRICIA
0.41 ha
KHANNA,VEERU0.36 ha
THIRD LINELANDS
SAW WHETLANDS
QEW/BRONTE STUDY
±
STUDY AREA BOUNDARYSTUDY AREA PARCELS
SCALE 1:12,500
S:\DEPARTMENT\PLANNING\GIS DATA DEV\...QEW_BRONTE.MXD
Appendix C
Appendix D
Appendix E
