Report to:
Development Services Committee Report
Date:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY: Lilli Duoba, Senior Project Coordinator, Environmental
Planning &
Learie Miller, Senior Environmental Planner extension 6922
RECOMMENDATION:
Whereas the
Rouge Park Implementation Task Force report dated
And Whereas Council authorized the circulation of the Task Force report, and invited comments from agencies, boards, adjacent municipalities and the Provincial and Federal Governments;
And Whereas Council also requested Town staff to provide comments on the Rouge Park Implementation Task Force Final Report;
Be it resolved that the staff report entitled “Rouge Park Implementation Task Force Report – Staff Comments” dated February 17, 2009 be received;
And That the
Town staff comments, along with comments to be received from other agencies,
boards, adjacent municipalities and the Provincial and Federal Governments, be
considered by Council at a future workshop to discuss comments received, and next
steps in dealing with the
That staff be authorized and directed to do all things necessary to give effect to this resolution.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Rouge Park Implementation Task Force (RPITF) was established by Council to further discussions regarding the Little Rouge Corridor and Bob Hunter Management Plans. The Task Force report had four major thematic areas with accompanying recommendations. The thematic areas were:
- Designating and naming
- Public Use and Activities;
- Infrastructure; and
- Governance.
The intent of
the comprehensive review by the RPITF was to address the implementation issues
related to the
PURPOSE:
Council
Resolution dated
BACKGROUND:
On
OPTIONS/ DISCUSSION:
The recommendations of the RPITF and staff
comments are provided and numbered to align with the RPITF report. The report of the Rouge Park Implementation
Task Force is attached as Appendix ‘B’ for reference.
DESIGNATING AND NAMING
ROUGE PARK LANDS
Recommendation #1.a.1
The RPITF recommends that the
Town establish a municipal park in east
Staff Comment
The lands identified by the RPITF to be formally recognized as
The current model, which has the
‘Municipal parks’ are generally those owned and managed solely by the Town.
The
A
Staff Position
A partnership approach, based
on a modified and refined park structure to ensure better coordinated decision
making, implementation, programming and ongoing funding, within a partnership
system as determined through a governance review process, would be the model preferred
by staff, rather than a traditional ‘municipal park’. The TRCA governance model, with broad based
funding and with statutory powers, regulations and enforcement, and an
Executive Committee comprised of representatives of funding government
agencies, is a model worth considering for the
Recommendation #1.a.2
The RPITF recommends that the
lands shown in Figure 3 as Rouge Park lands be included in the park: Little
Rouge Creek Corridor, Bob Hunter Memorial Park, Eastern Markham, and
Staff Comment
The publicly owned lands in eastern Markham all have draft management plans
or detailed site restoration plans prepared or underway and have been formally
identified as Rouge Park in Provincial, Municipal and Rouge Park Alliance policy
documents. Whereas the majority of the “Rouge Park” lands in eastern Markham
are owned by the TRCA, or ORC, the Town owns some valleylands in the Little
Rouge Creek Corridor Management Plan area, as well as Cedar Grove Community
Centre and Cedar Grove Community Park. The formal recognition and support for these public
lands as Rouge Park is consistent with the policy and management approaches
undertaken by the Town and Rouge Park partners, and is supported by staff.
The RPITF recommends that the “Middle Reaches” Rouge Watershed tributaries
outside of the designated ‘
The Middle Reaches lands are protected by the Provincial Greenbelt Plan and
Markham’s OPA 140. They may be brought into public ownership as a condition of
any future development approval, or through a proactive program of
environmental land acquisition, subject to available funding by the Town and
/or other public agencies. It is also possible that some of the lands will be
protected and retained in private ownership, through stewardship arrangements.
The recommendation of the RPITF is intended to separate the ownership and
management of the Rouge Park in eastern Markham from the remaining tributaries
of the Rouge watershed. Should Council
support this recommendation, staff will clarify the proposed differentiation of
“Rouge Park” lands from the Middle Reaches lands through the Environmental
Policy Review and Consolidaton Study (currently underway) and future Official
Plan policy.
Staff Position
Staff support the existing publicly owned lands in eastern
Recommendation #1.a.3
The RPITF recommends that the
lands and properties owned by the Town of Markham known as “Cedarena,” “Cedar
Grove Community Park,” and “Cedar Grove Community Centre” continue to be owned
and managed by Markham.
Staff Comment
Staff Position
Town staff supports the
recommendation and suggests that the current arrangements pertaining to
Recommendation #1.a.4
The RPITF recommends that staff
enter into negotiations with the Ministry of Transportation, the ORC, and the
TRCA to complete the transfer of remnant parcels of land in east
Staff Comment
There are a number of land parcels located in eastern Markham remnant to
Highway 407 and the Provincial Rouge Park transfers (see Map Appendix ‘C’). The Rouge Park Implementation Task Force is
recommending that these remnant parcels be reviewed and transferred to the Town
for either parkland, open space or Rouge Park purposes depending on the
location (some parcels are located outside of the Rouge Park boundary). Staff note that some of the Provincally owned
parcels adjacent to Highway 407 have been integrated into the existing Secondary
Plans.
Staff Position
Town staff supports the
recommendation, and will continue discussions with MTO, ORC and TRCA.
FEDERAL AIRPORT LANDS
Recommendation #1.b.1
The RPITF recommends that the
Town discuss with the Federal Government integration of the federal airport
lands in
Staff Comment
The Federal Pickering Airport
Site in
Staff Position
Town staff support engaging Transport
Recommendation #1.b.2
The RPITF recommends that the Town coordinate efforts with the
Federal Government, the TRCA, and Rouge Park Alliance to implement the Green
Space vision in a manner consistent with its vision and the objectives of the
TRCA, Rouge Park and the Town.
Staff Comment
The north south corridor
connecting the
Staff Position
Town staff supports a process to engage the Federal Government and seek
opportunities to implement the Green Space corridor in a manner consistent with
the
NAMING PROTOCOL FOR ROUGE PARK LANDS
Recommendation #1.c
The RPITF recommends that the Town engage the
Staff Comment
Staff has no objection to providing distinct area names for areas
within the
Staff Position
Town staff supports this
recommendation
CAMPING
Recommendation #2.a.1
The RPITF recommends
that ecologically focussed camping be permitted within Rouge Park and that a
small number of sites be located after criteria are established by staff and
the Alliance, and that one of the sites be large enough to handle group
camping.
Staff Comment
Staff have no objection to establishing camping facilities within Rouge Park provided such facilities can be
properly managed to reduce environmental impacts. The use could generate much
needed revenue for the Park. The Town
does on occasion receive requests from the public for camping facilities. None of the existing management plans (Rouge
North, Little Rouge Corridor and Bob Hunter) include provision for camping as a
recreational activity. A camping facility
is provided in the Rouge Park at the Glen Rouge Campground south of Steeles
Avenue, which is managed by the City of Toronto. The RPITF recognized the potential financial
and public benefit that such a facility would provide and encourages the TRCA
and Rouge Park to explore this public use opportunity for the Rouge Park in a
non traditional and environmentally sustainable manner.
Staff Position
Town staff supports this
recommendation in principle but suggests the development and management of a
camping facility would best be resourced by the TRCA or the private sector with
operating or lease revenues going to the Rouge Park.
Recommendation #2.a.2
The RPITF recommends that Council provide further direction on RV camping
services within Rouge Park.
Staff Comment
RV Camping is permitted in the Rouge Park in Toronto, but has not been
identified as a permitted use for the Little Rouge Corridor and Bob Hunter
Park. RV camping presents many more
challenges in terms of size and scale, potential environmental impacts, and
requires additional services and infrastructure for it to be successfully
undertaken. However, it is a use that is
generally consistent with large natural areas and could provide public
benefits, and if properly located and designed could be consistent with a large
scale Regional Park. The Provincial Greenbelt Plan, which include Rouge Park, permits
recreational facilities subject to the avoidance of sensitive landscapes.
Staff Position
Town staff is generally more
supportive of tent camping (recommendation 2.a.1 above) than RV camping because
of potential environmental impacts and land requirements. Further review would need to be undertaken by
the TRCA or a private proponent to determine locational considerations, needs,
and a cost-benefit analysis, to the satisfaction of the Town and other
authorized agencies.
DOG OFF – LEASH SITES
Recommendation #2.b
The RPITF recommends that staff be directed to consult with the Rouge Park to
identify potential dog off-leash areas and that such sites be developed after
criteria are established by staff and the Alliance.
Staff Comment
This recommendation is supported by staff as there is currently only one
dog-off leash area in the Town of Markham located at the NW corner of Miller
Avenue and Rodick Road. Community
Services staff have identified the need for more dog-off leash areas in the
Town’s east end. Potential dog off-leash sites would have to be brought to the
attention of the Leash Free Markham Committee which would then follow the
approved guidelines. The Committee does not actively seek leash free areas, but
works on the basis that a local responsible interest group may come forward to
develop, manage and maintain a leash free area. In terms of location within a
natural environment setting, staff suggest that this use be located on table
land adjacent to an arterial road with adequate parking, preferably by trail
heads and other public gathering areas to provide for easy access, and be outside
of the core interior habitat to reduce wildlife conflicts.
Staff Position
Town staff supports this
recommendation.
MILNE TWO (GROUP PICNICS)
Recommendation #2.c.1
The RPITF recommends that staff work with RP to identify potential
locations for a large group picnic area and that implementation be considered a
priority.
Recommendation #2.c.2
The RPITF recommends that Rouge Park include numerous smaller picnic sites
throughout the park and consideration be given to a celebration forest and an
arboretum / horticultural garden area.
Staff Comment
Picnic sites are a compatible low-impact public use which are contemplated
for the Rouge Park. Both the Bob Hunter
Master Plan and Little Rouge Creek Management Plan identify small scale picnic
sites (as a permitted use but not designated to a specific site in the Little
Rouge Creek Management Plan and as a designated site along 14th
Avenue in the Bob Hunter Master Plan).
The provision for a larger group picnic site similar to Milne Park would
meet a need identified by the Community Services Commission. The Town currently operates the group picnic
site at Milne and uses the revenue to help offset the administrative and operating
costs. Staff support this
recommendation, but suggest in order to balance the usage with Milne Park, that
a permitting system be implemented consistent with the Milne Dam Conservation
Area. Operations staff discourage the
development of small free picnicking facilities, as these areas would be
difficult to monitor and maintain, and would be in direct competition with the
paid picnicking opportunities at Milne and any future Rouge Park picnic
facility. The small picnic facilities also provide the potential opportunity
for groups to congregate at inappropriate times, where there would be little
monitoring of these sites and where social behaviours could be detrimental to
the park (i.e. littering, vandalism, destruction of habitat, leaving food and
garbage that could be hazardous to wildlife). The provision of washroom
facilities would also be problematic at small picnic facilities.
Staff Position
Town staff fully supports
the recommendation for larger, regulated group picnic areas, but would discourage
smaller picnic areas for reasons cited above. The recommendation with respect to a celebration
forest and an arboretum/horticultural area is also supported. TRCA or private sector development and
management of these facilities should be explored along with revenue generators
such as parking meters and seasonal passes.
TRAILS, TRAILHEADS AND
PARKING
Recommendation #2.d.1
The RPITF recommends that staff and the Alliance treat with the highest
priority the preparation of a detailed Rouge Park trails and pathways plan,
especially in Eastern Markham and the Little Rouge Corridor.
Recommendation #2.d.2
The RPITF recommends that, until such a trails and pathways plan is
approved, that staff identify appropriate locations for trails and parking, and
protect for them, on all pending site restorations in RP.
Staff Comment
The Rouge Park Alliance have funding available for the implementation of
the Rouge Park. Funding sources, include
a significant Provincial grant provided with the transfer of lands, Rouge Park
Natural and Cultural Heritage Funding, Markham Trees for Tomorrow funding and
potential funding from the Ecological Enhancements - Southeast Collector Trunk
Sewer Environmental Assessment. To date
most of the Rouge Park funding has been directed to natural heritage
restoration.
The Rouge Park plans all identify a conceptual trail network, however the
trail plan needs to be detailed to ensure that all implementation efforts in
the Rouge Park identify and protect trail locations for future implementation.
Staff in the Development Services Commission consider a detailed trails
plan for the Rouge Park as a priority item to ensure the public use component
of the Rouge Park is planned, protected and integrated with the Town’s Pathways
and Trails Master Plan and the Region’s proposed trail network.
Staff Position
Town staff support these
recommendations.
Recommendation #2.d.3
The RPITF recommends to staff and the Alliance that they ensure that some Rouge
Park attractions be located near the YRT
/ VIVA terminal and the Havelock GO stations, and that enough parking be available
at each entry node and trailhead so that traffic is not impeded and that no
parking overflow occurs in the residential areas in or near Rouge Park.
Staff Comment
This recommendation is consistent with statements made in the Little Rouge
Corridor Management Plan which identifies the opportunity for persons visiting
the Park to arrive via York Region Transit with potential routes along 14th
Ave, 16th Ave and Highway 7, future potential GO station in the
vicinity of the Park and through the expansion of York Region’s VIVA transit
system along Highway 7 through Locust Hill.
In addition, future planned initiatives such as
the Hwy 407 Transit way, rapid transit on
Staff Position
Town staff supports
this recommendation
OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AND
CULTURAL CENTRE
Recommendation #2.e.1
The RPITF recommends that staff and the Alliance identify a location for an
outdoor activity centre in Eastern Markham.
Recommendation #2.e.3
The RPITF recommends that staff and the Alliance identify a location for an
outdoor cultural centre in Eastern Markham, for plays, music, nature lectures,
and volunteer planting activity coordination.
Staff Comment
The uses proposed by the Rouge Park Implementation Task Force include active
(sports fields) and cultural (music) recreational uses that are generally associated
with open space and community parkland. The Rouge Park Alliance are on record
as not supporting active recreational uses in the Park. This position is
reflected in Rouge Alliance policies and programs to date.
The Town of Markham Council and staff have consistently supported more
active public use and recreation on Rouge Park lands. The Provincial Greenbelt
Plan also supports municipal recreational
facilities and major recreation uses in certain areas and identifies
appropriate consideration be given to geographic specific park plans. The development of the Rouge Park as a
Regional Park is supported by the Greenbelt Plan. Active recreation and
cultural facilities could provide a significant public benefit and a gateway
into the natural areas of the Rouge Park, provided they are designed in an
ecologically sensitive manner.
Staff Position
Town staff supports this
recommendation as it represents an opportunity to generate revenue and create a
wholly accessible Rouge Park for diverse public interests.
Recommendation #2.e.2
The RPITF recommends that staff and the Alliance identify a location for a
park maintenance facility in Eastern Markham.
Staff Comment
The Rouge Park will be the largest open space parkland in the Greater
Toronto Area, with the potential area in Markham being in excess of 1730
hectares. It seems prudent to identify
early in the park planning process a location for a park maintenance facility
that can be utilized by the landowner or Rouge Park partner that assumes management responsibilities for the
park. The maintenance facility would
store park maintenance equipment and provide washrooms and staff space in a
secure facility and could be integrated with other park facilities.
Staff Position
Town staff supports this
recommendation
ROUGE PARK OFFICE AND
WELCOME CENTRE
Recommendation #2.f.1
The RPITF recommends that the Alliance be advised that the Town supports
the relocation of the Rouge Park offices to the park in Markham and encourages
Rouge Park to commence review of their office / interpretive centre
requirements with a vision of locating in or near the park.
Recommendation #2.f.2
The RPITF recommends to staff that the Town make every effort to assist Rouge
Park in finding a suitable location at a
reasonable cost.
Staff Comment
The Rouge Park offices are currently located in Aurora in a provincial
government building operated by the Ministry of Natural Resources. The Rouge Park offices were at one time
located in the Pearce House in the Toronto portion of the Rouge Park, but were
relocated to Aurora to benefit in part from cost savings. Where any major public uses are contemplated
(such as the outdoor activity and cultural centre), it would make sense to determine
if the Rouge Park offices could also be combined with such a facility.
Generally, park office facilities are located within the park they serve,
however this is not always the case.
Should the
Staff Position
Town staff support these
recommendations and are available to assist in whatever way appropriate in the
relocation of the park offices, if deemed desirable.
Recommendation #2.f.3
The RPITF recommends to staff that the relationship between the Markham
Museum and RP be formalized and that staff explore all opportunites to develop
a shared experience for the visiting public
Staff Comment
Town staff generally support the recommendation to formalize the
relationship between the Museum and the Rouge Park. In the past, the Museum
delivered programs for the Rouge Park including the construction of bird boxes
as an activity at the museum. This initiative could potentially be extended to
include all Cultural Heritage facilities (e.g. the Art Gallery) in the Town.
Staff Position
Town staff supports this
recommendation.
OTHER OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES
Recommendation #2.h.1
The RPITF recommends that Council provide further direction on items one
through thirty five above.
Staff Comment
The activities listed in the report range from passive (croquet and kite
flying) to very active (BMX biking and ATVing), some requiring infrastructure
while others do not. The Rouge Park
plans (Little Rouge and Bob Hunter) currently support only very passive public
uses (trails and small picnic areas). The
RPITF is recommending that the public uses, normally associated with community parkland,
not be precluded, with the exception of ATV use which presents significant
enforcement challenges for By-law staff.
Some of the activities may require some level of controlled management by
the landowner or Town, which also has associated liability considerations. Staff have no objection to the incorporation
of leisure and recreation uses within the Rouge Park, subject to appropriate
management and location of these uses.
Where these uses are concentrated in one area, the remainder of the park
can retain a focus on passive recreation, agricultural and natural heritage
restoration.
Also of importance, is the fact that early feedback from the Community
Services “Integrated Leisure Services Master Plan”, indicates a strong interest
in informal open space with open mowed areas for recreation.
Staff Position
Town staff supports this
recommendation. (Individual uses to be the subject of further discussion with
Council and Rouge Park partners).
Recommendation #2.h.2
The RPITF recommends that staff and the Alliance increase their efforts to
enforce the ban on hunting in Rouge Park.
Staff Comment
The Town of
Staff Position
Town staff supports this
recommendation.
RAIL, ROADS, SEWERS AND MORE
Recommendation #3.a
The RPITF recommends that the Town and the Alliance support the planning of
necessary infrastructure improvements, such as road widenings, sewer projects,
transit enhancements, etc., in a manner that provides opportunities for enhanced
environmental benefits in support of the goals and objectives of Rouge Park.
Staff Comment
Infrastructure development is a necessity, but must be appropriately
planned and executed, so as not to impact negatively on the Rouge Park.
Decisions to undertake a specific project must take into consideration best practices
as well as whether alternative design or enhancements are practical, feasible
and cost effective from an implementation and maintenance perspective. Guidelines
developed for infrastructure development in the Rouge Park stresses the
protection and enhancement of the integrity and long-term sustainability of the
resources.
Capital works are governed by Environmental Assessment process requirements,
which normally ensure that the best alternatives for infrastructure projects
are considered based on technical, economic, social and environmental
considerations. Recent projects which have been proposed such as the South East
Collector Trunk Sewer now incorporate a
specific range of enhancement projects (including ecological enhancement
projects) over and above the mitigation measures that would be normally
associated with a project of this nature.
Staff Position
Town staff supports this
recommendation.
SIGNAGE
Recommendation #3.b.1
The RPITF recommends that the Town support watercourse crossing signage to
identify watersheds (Don, Duffins, Highland, Petticoat, and Rouge) for
crossings of watercourses with official names except that, inside Rouge Park,
the signs would identify the park rather than the watershed.
Recommendation #3.b.2
The RPITF recommends that the Town endorse in principle the proposal of the
Don Watershed Regeneration Council for water- course crossing signage.
Recommendation #3.b.3
The RPITF recommends that the Town, York and the TRCA / Alliance introduce
“You are Entering RP” signage along the lines discussed in this report.
Staff Comment
The RPITF is recommending that Don Watershed crossing signs be prepared and
erected in accordance to the watershed sign design outlined in the Task Force
Report and Appendices (see Appendix ‘A’).
This recommendation proposes that
some of the $75,000 grant allocated to date by Markham Council to the Don
Watershed Council ($25,000 per year in 2003, 2004, and 2005) be used to
complete the watershed sign erection program with remaining funds allocated to
the Rouge Park in Markham. The costs of
the Don Watershed signage is proposed to be shared equally between Toronto,
TRCA and Markham. In January 2006, Council passed the following resolution
with respect to the Don Watershed grant
“ That Council defer providing further grants to the Don River Watershed
until such time as the Don Watershed Regeneration Council reports back on
projects completed in Markham using the $75,000 already granted for 2003, 2004
and 2005 which are being held by the Town of Markham in a capital based
account”. The Don Watershed Regeneration
Council and the TRCA is aware of and are in support of the recommendations.
Staff Position
Town staff supports the
recommendations
\PROTECTION OF HERITAGE
BUILDINGS
Recommendation #3.c
The RPITF recommends that staff develop a heritage building preservation
strategy for Greater Rouge Park using
principles enunciated in this report and that they work with Public Works Canada,
the TRCA, and the Alliance to create a heritage subdivision and infill lots for
the protection and concentration of moved heritage buildings.
Staff Comment
Heritage staff have retained consultants to undertake a Threatened Heritage
Building Study for the purpose of looking at options and strategies to deal
with threatened heritage buildings in the future. This study is Town-wide and will look at
opportunities and constraints posed by the Rouge Park. The study has commenced
and it is anticipated that a report will be presented to Council in the spring
of 2009. The study will also review and
consider the constraints posed by the Provincial Greenbelt Plan relative to
land severances.
Staff Position
Town staff supports the
recommendations.
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN
THE PARK
Recommendation #3.d.1
The RPITF recommends that the draft Little
Rouge Corridor and Bob Hunter Management Plans be amended to permit the
privatization of residential properties under the strict conditions outlined in
this report and that this approach apply to all such properties in Greater
Rouge Park.
Recommendation #3.d.2
The RPITF recommends that staff assist all
public entities holding residential properties in Greater Rouge Park to
proceed, using Option #2 as a guide, to privatize the residential properties in
the park.
Staff Comment
It is noted that in addition to TRCA, ORC and the Federal Government, the
Town of Markham currently owns a limited number of houses within the
The recommendation
of the RPITF to convey publicly owned land and buildings to private purchasers appears
to be contrary to the position identified by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs
and Housing in the interpretation of Provincial Greenbelt polices. The Greenbelt Plan sets out specific
conditions for the severance of lands within the
An
alternative approach to outright sale of land and buildings might also be to
consider the sale of the existing houses and the establishment of long term
land leases at market rates. The option to sell the houses and lease the land
would maintain the land in public ownership, while transferring the costs and
benefits of maintenance and repair to the home purchaser. Further, it
provides the home purchasers with an affordable investment alternative that is
significantly lower than the cost of purchasing the land.
Options to deal with existing residential properties within the park require
further analysis and discussion.
Consideration needs to be given to Provincial policy, municipal policies
and regulations, property location and context relative to park policy and
programming objectives, among other matters.
Staff Position
Options to deal with
existing residential properties within the park require further analysis and
discussion, in consultation with
3.e Agriculture in the Park
Recommendation #3.e.1
The RPITF recommends that staff and the Alliance place a high priority on
the preparation of an agriculture master plan for Greater Rouge Park, and that
consultation with all stakeholders commence as soon as possible.
Staff Comment
A number of agricultural initiatives are
currently underway. The Town is
undertaking an Agricultural Study and the Rouge Park Alliance is currently
undertaking a study to prepare a management plan for the Rouge Park East
lands. On
Staff Position
Town staff supports
the recommendation. The Town should initiate discussions with the Rouge
Recommendation #3.e.2
The RPITF recommends that no further plantings be permitted after those
scheduled for next spring until the agriculture master plan has been completed
and approved by Markham Council.
Staff Comment
The Rouge Park
Alliance have approved the Natural
Heritage Action Plan which sets out the
short and long term natural heritage restoration plan for the Rouge Park along
the Little Rouge Creek and Bob Hunter Park. The Rouge Park Natural Heritage
Program is funded in part by ongoing endowment funds and direct contributions ($25,000
annual grant) from the Town to the program. This funding is used to support restoration
activities in the Rouge Park. In
addition, the Town has also recently used the Trees for Tomorrow (TFT) Project
funding to support tree planting activities in Rouge Park through contributions to purchase saplings which were
then planted by Friends of the Rouge Watershed volunteers. Further, the Town
has been promoting the TFT Fund with NGOs and community groups such as the FRW
and 10,000 Trees for the Rouge and expect to receive grant applications this
February for Town funded tree planting projects in Rouge Park. Town funded tree planting efforts in the
The
Staff
Position
Staff recommend that
the RPITF revise its recommendation to allow planting beyond spring, in areas
known not to be in conflict with existing agricultural uses. The Town should initiate discussions with the
REESOR ROAD PARCEL
Recommendation #3.f
The RPITF recommends that staff notify the Province, ORC, TRCA, York
Region, and the Alliance that Markham’s priority is for employment uses on the
Reesor Road parcel, and that Markham would be interested in exploring
ecological enhancements for the site in the context of an upscale business
campus.
Staff Comment
The Reesor Road parcel is a 15.3 hectare parcel owned by the Ontario Realty
Corporation (ORC). The Cornell Secondary Plan, adopted by Council on Janaury 22,
2008 originally identified the Reesor Road parcel for an Industrial - Business
Park designation in the Official Plan and a Business Park Area designation in
the Secondary Plan, as recommended by staff.
However, Council deferred the designation of the Reesor Road parcel to allow
for additional consideration of options regarding future use of these land
owned by the Province, including possible designation of these lands for
business park employment, open space, Rouge Park and/or other appropriate uses
(possibly including a Rouge park office). The Rouge Park and the Province are
currently studying the options for use of these lands. Town and Regional staff
are also participating in the discussions and will report back to the
respective Councils.
Staff Position
Town staff supports the
recommendation.
PARK OPERATIONS, MANAGEMENT
AND FUNDING
Recommendation #4.a.1
The RPITF recommends that Council initiate a Rouge Park Governance Review,
to be managed and funded by Durham, Markham, Pickering, Toronto, York, the
Province and the Federal Government, to review the current governance and
operational structure of RP with an objective of recommending a long-term
governance model.
Staff Comment
As noted under recommendation 1.a.1, future decisions on the governance and
funding model for the Rouge Park will be a key factor in determining the
outcome of many of the RPITF recommendations.
The recommendation of the RPITF proposed that the Rouge Park municipal
partners and senior governments work together to coordinate a governance review
of the Rouge Park Alliance to explore alternative governance models which could
better coordinate and fund the implementation of the Rouge Park. The RPITF supported a municipal lead for the
process to allow for a more comprehensive review of options. The Rouge Park Alliance has undertaken
organizational reviews in 1997 and again in 2005 with no major changes made to
the governance structure.
On December 5, 2008 the Rouge Park Alliance passed a resolution to undertake a funding and structural review to be completed under the direction of the Rouge Park Chair. The Steering Committee did not orginally include a Markham representative, but this was modified at the meeting to include Markham.
The study is expected to cost $100,000
with funding provided by the Province, Federal Government and member
municipalities. Members identified on
the Steering Committee (now including
Although the approach recommended by the Rouge Park Alliance to lead the review of their own organization, is different than the recommended ‘external review’ approach undertaken by the RPITF, the general intent to conduct a review has been recommended subject to funding support.
As discussed under RPITF
recommendation #1.a.1, the governance review should address such issues as overall decision
making/executive committee composition, accountability to municipal government
interests and jurisdiction (north and south of Steeles Avenue), need for a
detailed Memorandum of Understanding and partnership arrangements between the
park partners, land acquistion, land management, funding, policies and park
programming, project management, operations and maintenance, enforcement, and
public/stakeholder outreach and input.
The need for a Provincial “
Staff Position
Town staff support the recommendation for a
Recommendation #4.a.2
The RPITF recommends that Council include $150,000 in its 2009 budget as a Rouge Park Operating
and Small Capital Projects Grant to be held for Council release pending the
satisfactory results of the governance and operating review under #4.a.1.
Recommendation #4.a.3
The RPITF recommends that York include $150,000 in its 2009 budget as a
Rouge Park Operating and Small Capital Projects Grant to be held for Regional
Council release pending the satisfactory results of the governance and
operating review under #4.a.1.
Recommendation #4.a.4
The RPITF recommends that Markham and York Region each give positive
consideration to a target of an annual Operating and Small Capital Projects
Grant to Rouge Park of $1,000,000, through a seven year escalating process,
pending a satisfactory outcome of discussions with their partners on
governance, operations, and the many other matters raised in this report.
Staff Comment
The Town’s current draft 2009
budget does not include additional
Staff Position
At the January 19th, 2009 Budget Sub-committee meeting there was
some discussion regarding the placement of $150,000 in the Capital Budget for
2009 for Rouge Park, however, following further discussion, it was agreed to
take no action pending the submission of the staff report to Council in
February, at which time there would be an opportunity to address the matter of
funding.
MUNICIPAL/ ROUGE PARK STAFF
LIAISON
Recommendation #4.b
The RPITF recommends that staff
establish a municipal staff liaison committee, consisting of representatives
from all municipalities and the park, to address implementation issues with a
timely and consistent approach.
Staff Comments
In the early years of the Rouge
Park Alliance, a number of technical committee were formed (Planning and Land
Use, Land Acquisition) to provide staff input into
Given the abundance of
implementation activities now underway and the need to identify municipal
interests, staff supports the return to a more formalized communication
process. This will also assist the
Staff Position
Staff supports this recommendation.
TOWN ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMMES
Recommendation #5.1
The RPITF recommends to Council
that the five Town environmental programmes be expanded to include a specific
minimum percentage for community participation activities in
Staff Comment
Staff have no objection in
principle to examining current Town of
Staff Position
Staff supports this recommendation.
Recommendation #5.2
The RPITF recommends to Council
that the
Staff Comment
The Environmental Land
Acquisition Fund is a Town-wide program with priority sites identified
including lands for the
Staff Position
Recommendation #5.3
The RPITF recommends to Council
that staff develop an MOU to be used when
Staff Comment
Staff supports this recommendation as it creates greater certainty and accountability for lands where Town money is used in their acquisition.
Staff Position
Town staff supports this recommendation.
MATTERS FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
Part
6 of the RPITF Report identifies several matters that need further discussion
by Council, without making any specific recommendations, including:
Approval
of the Two Management Plans
Town
By-laws (Signage, Animal Control, Dumping, Fires, Tree Preservation)
Entrance
Fees
Memorandum
of Understanding
Target
Date (re park implementation).
Staff
Comment
The matters for further discussion are subject to the outcome of the governance review, agency comments and future discussions with Council.
FINANCIAL TEMPLATE
A number of the
recommendations proposed by the RPITF would have short and long term financial
implications for the Town. Should Council support the recommendations which
require financial support, these should be considered in the context of the
Town’s annual capital and operating budget process. The results of the governance review of the
ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PRIORITIES:
The recommendations support a number of the Town’s strategic priorities including those related to future considerations for the environment, growth management, transportation/transit, municipal services and Parks and Recreation.
DEPARTMENTS CONSULTED AND AFFECTED:
The
recommendations were circulated internally to Community Services, Operations,
Finance, Heritage, Legal, and By-Law Departments, and their comments, where
provided, have been incorporated.
RECOMMENDED BY:
_______________________________ ____________________________
Valerie
Shuttleworth M.C.I.P., R.P.P
Jim Baird M.C.I.P., R.P.P
Director
of Planning and Urban Design
Commissioner of Development
Services
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix ‘A’: Council
Resolution Dec. 16, 2008
Report
Appendix ‘B’:
Appendix ‘C’:
Map showing remnant parcels of land in eastern
Q:\Development\Planning\MISC\MI460
RPA\Reports\DSC Report February 17, 2009 Rouge Park Implementation Task Force -
Staff Comments.doc