STAFF REPORT

October 28, 1999

To: Scarborough Community Council

From: Ted Tyndorf

Director of Community Planning, East District

Subject: PRELIMINARY EVALUATION REPORT #2

Official Plan Amendment Application SC-P1999009

Zoning By-law Amendment Application SC-Z1999035

Draft Plan of Subdivision Application SC-T1999012

McAsphalt Industries Ltd. and Rouge River Business Park Limited

8800 Sheppard Avenue East

Lots 6 to 8, Concessions 2 to 3

Rouge Employment District

Scarborough Malvern

Purpose:

This report provides an update on the status of discussions between staff and the applicants with respect to the official plan, zoning and draft plan of subdivision applications for the 58 hectare (143 acres) encompassing the Rouge River Business Park and McAsphalt plant. Additional lands not owned by these companies, primarily on the south side of Sheppard Avenue, are proposed to be transferred to the Rouge Community.

The applications would delete the employment designations on the McAsphalt/Rouge River Business Park property to provide for residential and mixed residential/commercial uses.

Financial Implications and Impact Statement:

Although there are no immediate financial implications for the City, the residential uses now proposed would likely result in a much less favourable net cost/revenue financial impact on the City in the future.

Recommendations:

It is recommended:

(1) That Council refer these applications back to staff for further study and negotiations with the applicant with respect to the environmental aspects, servicing and fiscal impact of the proposal, and report back no later than January 18, 2000 with recommendations to Scarborough Community Council.

(2) That the applicant be asked to consider amending the applications to retain a significant a

area for future employment uses.

Background:

At its meeting on September 28 and 29, 1999, Scarborough Community Council deferred Planning staff's recommendations to refuse these applications.

"for consideration at its meeting scheduled to be held on November 9, 1999, to permit further discussion to take place between staff and the applicant respecting these applications."

Staff of several City departments have met with the applicants, most recently an October 20 to discuss environmental and servicing issues and on October 22 to respond to the applicant's financial analysis prepared by the consultants for the applicant. This analysis concludes that industrial development is not financially viable because of weak demand for lots for employment uses and high construction costs related to the poor load-bearing capacity of the soil.

Discussions with the applicant and his consultants continue.

At the Ontario Municipal Board pre-hearing conference on O.P.A.'s 722 and 990, the solicitor for the owner stated that his client will appeal the applications subsequent to November 9, 1999. It is his opinion that an appeal by the Regions of York and Durham would likely follow any approval by City Council of a change of land use for the McAsphalt site which does not provide for an extension of Morningside Avenue through the property. City Council re-iterated its opposition to such a road at its meeting of September 28 and 29, 1999. This appeal would make it possible for the OMB to consolidate all these matters at a single hearing in the spring of 2000.

The solicitor advises that McAsphalt wishes to have the City continue to process the applications despite the appeal. If the road issue is settled to the satisfaction of the applicant, the appeal will be withdrawn.

On October 14, 1999, McAsphalt submitted a site plan application for a research laboratory to be constructed adjacent to their existing office building at 8800 Sheppard.

Friends of the Rouge River Watershed have requested that an additional 20 metres (66 feet) above top of bank be dedicated, bringing the dedication to 30 metres (100 feet). The 20 metres is currently zoned "Open Space Zone - O". This organization has raised a number of environmental issues and suggested that the interior lands be developed as a public golf course.

Comments:

The Basis of the Scarborough Official Plan sets out principles, which include locating residential areas so as to "provide safe, convenient and healthy living environments".

The proposed clean-up programme does not include removal of the contaminants or the flyash. Instead, it is proposed to stabilize some of the contaminants by processing through the asphalt plant, to move the flyash to the road allowances and park areas, and elsewhere to cover it with more stable materials. "Records of Site Condition" would be deposited for acknowledgement by the Ministry of Environment and Energy after remediation was complete.

Works staff have expressed concern over the use of fly-ash under road beds, both in terms of the long-term stability and the consequent need for repair of the roads and the safety of City Works staff should excavations be required to repair underground services within the road allowances. Works practice is to require that the same Ministry of Environment and Energy standards apply to rights-of-way as to abutting land uses. Parks staff are concerned for the structural stability of any public buildings, such as a community centre, built on top of this material.

Economic Development staff remain concerned about the long-term effect of losing such a large percentage of the City's supply of future employment land, particularly at a time when strong interest is being shown by major industrial users for large sites in the north-east. Staff have questioned some of the assumptions on which the applicant's economic analysis is based.

The landowner has agreed to the following:

(1) Submission of Records of Site Condition, acknowledged by the Ministry of Environment and Energy prior to plan registration.

(2) Provision of examples where fly-ash has been utilised in public parks, municipal road construction and more information describing its structural properties.

Planning staff have encouraged the owner to consider other options for land use. One scenario could be to retain the west part of the site, which has experienced much less excavation and subsequent filling and therefore has much lower remediation costs, for future employment uses, and to confine the residential proposals to the east part of the site. Economic Development staff will continue to bring the property to the attention of prospective employment users.

Conclusions:

Planning staff are of the opinion that further negotiations with the owner may be productive. McAsphalt recognises that staff and Council require a high level of comfort with respect to the approval of residential uses on any former industrial property with a history of extensive excavation and filling.

Economic Development staff would also find this time useful to explore options and to continue to introduce potential employment users to the property.

Contact:

David Beasley, MCIP, RPP

Scarborough Civic Centre

Telephone: (416) 396-7026

Fax: (416) 396-4265

E-Mail: beasley@city.scarborough

Ted Tyndorf, MCIP, RPP

Director of Community Planning, East District