CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Councillor Byrne indicated she had previously discussed with the Committee Co-ordinator, the addition of a sentence to the Minutes of 5 February 1999 with respect to a concern she had raised about the proposed removal of traffic control signals. The Co-ordinator confirmed the Minutes will be amended to reflect the councillor’s comments.

The Committee received a verbal presentation from the National Capital Heavy Construction Association (NCHCA) with respect to the use of recycled asphalt pavement. Richard Irving of Dibblee Paving lead the delegation and was supported by the following members of the Association: Bert Hendricks, Beaver Road Builders, Rich Chevrier, Lafarge Canada and John Landreville, C.A.C.E. Construction. The following points were presented by Mr. Irving:

Doug Brousseau, A/Environment and Transportation Commissioner, thanked Mr. Irving for his presentation and agreed the Region is well-advanced in this field. He confirmed that staff are willing to work with the Association in the development of other options to use the materials described.

Councillor Cantin made note of the massive amounts of concrete left over from road projects and which is not reused and questioned whether there was an economical way of recycling that material back into other projects. Mr. Irving advised that during the construction of asphalt and concrete, only premium aggregates are used, therefore, the raw material is of the highest quality of material available. He added that the industry generally starts with good materials as long as they have been separated, processed properly and put back into the new material in appropriate proportions so that it can still meet all engineering standards.

Councillor Cantin questioned whether the Region accepts road construction materials at Trail Road and Pat McNally, Director, Solid Waste Division confirmed this, although he stated that it was preferable the materials be reused in some fashion. The councillor queried that if companies are in jeopardy of losing their licenses because of what is happening, would the Region allow the waste at Trail Road or would it be diverted to a dry landfill site. The Director advised that as long as the landfill is licensed to receive it, that waste will be accepted. The councillor believed Trail Road should be reserved generally for "domestic" use as opposed to construction waste and suggested this is more of a policy issue that should be brought to the attention of the Planning Department. He believed staff should explore the possibility of using as much recycled product as possible.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen inquired about the cost/benefit analysis of superpave vs other pavement the Region uses which incorporates recycled products. Bill Beveridge, Director of Infrastructure Maintenance informed committee that the value of superpave is that it provides an extended life-cycle for the pavement and the cost of maintaining the surface over time will decrease. He explained that superpave is asphalt with recycled asphalt product (RAP). The councillor recognized that the Region may be saving by using superpave, but noted it will be at the cost of the landfill site. She believed there was great merit in establishing a joint committee between staff and the NCHCA and perhaps Environment Canada.

Councillor Legendre inquired about the special provisions in Regional contracts as referred to by the delegation and B. Beveridge advised that staff’s reluctance to using recycled asphalt in the Granular B or the subgrade portion of the road base, has been based on the limitation of drainage; RAP becomes impervious, thereby trapping water within the structural portion of the road granulars, which can lead to an eventual deterioration in the road structure. He maintained that the specifications will probably not be in place forever. He believed that staff, in consultation with the industry, will find a way to accomplish goals that satisfy everyone. In response to questions posed by the councillor, he confirmed that the Region uses as much as 30% of recycled material for the surface pavement.

When questioned whether the industry was prepared to invest in the research and development of this initiative, Mr. Irving confirmed they were.

From the information he has heard today, Councillor Kreling believed the Region is already doing what it can to use recycled product in its road projects and has in fact surpassed other areas in Canada in this regard and yet the industry does not feel the RMOC is doing enough. D. Brousseau confirmed the Department does take pavement management very seriously and have been extremely successful in driving the cost down over the last 20 years. He agreed that staff are willing to work with the industry and report back to committee.

Councillor Cantin proposed:

By way of explanation, he included the National Research Council because in his experience, he believed they would be an invaluable partner in finding solutions to this particular matter.

The Committee Chair inquired how much construction material goes to Trail Road vs a private landfill site and was informed by P. McNally that in 1998, for instance, there was approximately 170,000 tonnes of waste taken there and the bulk of which (150,000 tonnes) was residential waste. He confirmed the bulk of construction waste goes to the Huneault landfill site in Quebec. The Committee Chair asked whether the NCHCA was willing to participate financially with the Region in this research and Mr. Irving confirmed they will supply staff time and research facilities, but did not feel there will be a tremendous need to carry out any indepth research because that has already been done. He agreed they would address the issue of capital requirements when these have been identified. While he believed it would not involve a lot of money, he maintained it is more an issue of reaching an understanding of what can be effectively produced and at the same time, incorporating their concern about storage of non-recyclable asphalt product.

- Director, Mobility Services and Corporate Fleet Services report dated 12 Feb 99

- deferred on 16 Sep 98

At the outset, the Committee received e-mailed comments in support of the removal of Walkley Road as a truck route between Bank Street and Riverside Drive from J. Parson and E. Dreessen. Copies are held on file.

Stu Marshall, By-law Administrator advised that this issue was before the committee last fall and was referred back for further analysis of implications on adjacent communities as well as a much wider consultation, including other community associations, and merchants along Bank Street between Heron and Hunt Club. In an overhead presentation, he stated that should this portion of Walkley be deleted from the truck route system, the majority of trucks would use Hunt Club Road because it is a brand new facility and was built for that purpose. He believed there would be minimal numbers, if any, diverted to Heron Road. He explained there would still be delivery trucks using Walkley and McCarthy Roads because they would still have to use the roads to serve the community. He further outlined the truck volumes and turning movements along Walkley and adjacent streets stating that 220 trucks used Walkley Road during a typical eight-hour period. It was determined there was a decrease in the number of trucks since 1998.

In response to questions raised by Councillor Cantin, Mr. Marshall advised that the truck volumes on Walkley Road closer to Riverside Drive are approximately half of what they are at the Bank Street end. Based on traffic counts, approximately half of the trucks currently on Walkley Road will still be there whether or not it is a truck route, simply because these are service deliveries.

The Acting Environment and Transportation Commissioner, Doug Brousseau concluded that staff do not recommend the removal of this section of Walkley Road from the truck route system. He recognized there is a very modest amount of trucks on this road, and as a policy in general, advised committee to keep Regional roads as truck routes. He confirmed that trucks are allowed to deviate from the truck route system to deliver merchandise, and in order to serve the community, they would still have to use Walkley.

Councillor Legendre noted the public consultation did not include the delivery firms to the airport, although he had specifically requested they be included when the Committee dealt with this item last fall. He maintained there would be trucks leaving the airport, and if they wanted to travel east they may choose to use Walkley. Mr. Brousseau advised that staff took the committee’s direction to consult with the councillors in the affected wards and the adjacent communities and apologized for not consulting with those firms. Councillor Cantin noted that commercial access to the airport is from Uplands Drive and Lester Road, and believed that this is why the commercial traffic going to and from the airport would not be affected by the elimination of trucks on Walkley - there is no connector between Walkley and those roads. While the Acting Commissioner maintained it would seem unlikely these trucks would use Walkley, it is possible that one or two trucks will go down Walkley from some other direction because they have made a wrong turn for example.

Councillor Bellemare noted there has been a 10% decrease in truck volumes over the last decade, and while Mr. Brousseau confirmed this fact, he cautioned committee that the decrease may be as a result of the opening of the new extension of Hunt Club Road a few years ago.

With respect to the proposed Walkley ramp at the Airport Parkway, the Committee Chair questioned whether staff would see any increase in traffic as a result of the ramp being constructed, and whether staff anticipate truck traffic. Mr. Brousseau responded by stating that currently the Airport Parkway is not a truck route; however, staff will be reporting to the committee in the near future on that because since it is now a Regional road, it should by all rights, be declared a truck route.

Elizabeth Wylie, West Walkley Residents Action Committee (WWRAC) clarified that when the WWRAC began its work to remove this portion of Walkley from the truck route system, it relied on RMOC figures provided to them for Riverside/Walkley. She advised that much of the truck traffic at Bank and Walkley never makes it down into the residential area, because it is predominantly buses, accessing the transitway and people going onto the Airport Parkway. She believed that may explain why some of the figures projected by staff were higher at Bank Street, because the Department’s data for heavy vehicles includes buses. With respect to the comments about the Walkley ramp, the WWRAC concluded that the heavy vehicles on Walkley are really going east/west across the south end of the City, and the ramp would not take them in the right direction in any event. They did not see that as an issue.

With respect to the origin-destination study, the WWRAC agreed with staff on key points, but took it upon themselves to do their own study. They established check-points in the community to count light, medium and heavy vehicles. She explained that part of the problem for them originally, was that the RMOC data includes buses which are not subject to the by-law. Therefore, in order to find out which vehicles were subject to the by-law, they recounted them, and described what kind of trucks they were. This detail was documented and provided to committee members. She explained they were focusing their concerns at trucks of the ‘heavy’ variety i.e. those with a minimum of foux axles or more than six tires such as dump trucks and tanker trucks. She explained there are many of those types and believed those vehicles do not have any destination on a residential road. She went on to state that often these are vehicles not even connected to the retail trade, and they travel on Walkley Road at night, which means they are not making deliveries. She opined that some of the larger trucks are simply traveling from warehouses at the east end of Walkley and are using Walkley and Riverside, crossing the Hunt Club bridge and continuing on to Highway 416. She explained this is the reason they are confident they would never travel downtown, or onto any other adjacent streets once they have headed south and west.

She further stated that when staff measured the trucks that were turning off Walkley to deliver goods, they were not counting any of the heavy vehicles, but only the cube vans. So, when staff gave committee the figures on volumes of trucks, she took those and divided the figures in half. She anticipated that all of those heavy vehicles would probably disappear if the truck route was revoked. She maintained that the vehicles that would be removed from Walkley after revocation would probably be most of those classified as ‘heavy’, and about half of the cube vans, and that amounts to about half of the total.

In summary, Ms. Wylie explained this has been a three-year project for the WWRAC and hoped committee would give serious consideration to their proposal.

Councillor Doucet commended the delegation and the WWRAC on their perseverance on this issue. While he was sympathetic to their desires, he could not support them because he believed all communities should share the burden of truck traffic. He agreed that all communities suffer from truck traffic through residential neighbourhoods, but suggested this is reflective of the shift in the economy over the last 15 years. He acknowledged that more than ever, there are more goods shipped by truck across the Region and province. He asked the delegation to suggest a reason for him to vote for removing one road, whether it was in his ward, or another, when it means the percolation of those trucks would be concentrated elsewhere. Ms. Wylie emphasized the point raised by staff that there are not that many trucks at the present time and their studies revealed these vehicles are not traveling during peak periods. She maintained that trucks will be more apt to use Hunt Club because that is where those drivers want to be because they can then travel across the Rideau River via the Hunt Club bridge and continue west to Highway 416 or access roads to the north. Walkley does not take them where they want to go. Further, until 1975, Walkley Road was a two-lane dirt road and is now four-lanes wide with all the houses facing it. There is no way to install sound barriers. Also, Walkley Road has a number of hills which means trucks are gearing up and down, when Hunt Club is perfectly flat.

Councillor Byrne commended Ms. Wylie on her excellent presentation, and the thoroughness with which the WWRAC have examined this issue. As outlined in the WWRAC’s letter to Chair Chiarelli, she noted that they recognize that only 50% of the trucks will be removed from the road. When questioned whether the rest of the community understands this fact, Ms. Wylie confirmed they did. She added that they would be satisfied if the truck route status was revoked because they know the trucks that will remain there are going to be the cube vans, and not the big 18-wheelers.

Nina Maher, resident on McCarthy Road, supported removing this portion of Walkley Road from the truck route system because of the negative affect it has on McCarthy Road. She believed that removing the trucks from Walkley Road in this one section will help to reduce the number of trucks currently travelling along McCarthy, which is not a truck route. She maintained that truck drivers were using McCarthy as a cut-through road rather than using Riverside or Bank Street and she too agreed that not all the trucks are of a local delivery nature. She agreed there needed to be more enforcement of non-truck routes.

Councillor Bellemare stated that without the benefit of an origin-destination study, could staff tell whether or not the truck traffic originates from warehouses east of Walkley, and is flowing west and south towards Toronto and whether the probable flow of traffic would be to the Hunt Club bridge. D. Brousseau confirmed that is not an unreasonable assumption because there are a large number of warehouse operations in the east end of Ottawa. The observation that these vehicles are going to go to the Hunt Club bridge eventually is also quite true, which explains why there are so few of them going down Walkley, because it is not a logical route. He further agreed that it was probable and more than likely that those trucks would not flow towards the downtown if committee decided to remove Walkley Road from the truck route system.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen inquired about the status of upgrading Hawthorne and Conroy Roads and staff advised these were currently under construction and are expected to be complete later this year. The councillor assumed, therefore, that when Hawthorne Road is completed, some of the truck traffic that is originating in the Lancaster/Walkley area might go directly to Hunt Club, and travel west on that road. Mr. Brousseau advised that the vast majority of truck traffic currently does just that. The councillor was pondering the merits of enacting the revocation of Walkley Road as a truck route in the fall after the reconstruction of Hawthorne is complete. D. Brousseau reiterated that Walkley Road should remain a truck route, emphasizing the fact there is almost no truck traffic on this road in comparison to other Regional roads and when Hawthorne and Conroy are upgraded, perhaps some truckers would find it more convenient to use those roads.

Councillor Bellemare asked staff to give examples where a Regional road has been deleted from the truck route system and whether there had been any difficulties with respect to enforcing that designation. D. Brousseau responded by stating the Vanier Parkway and Maitland Avenue are two such examples and confirmed staff receive constant complaints about trucks using those roads. He added that the limited police resources would more likely be used to enforce those roads as opposed to one that carries considerably less truck traffic.

The Committee Chair read the following Motion proposed by Councillor Kreling:

In speaking to his Motion, the councillor noted the comments made by the WWRAC and the fact that the staff report indicates as well that removing this portion of Walkley Road from the truck route system will not jeopardize the integrity of the system. He acknowledged that committee and council have the final determination with respect to what roads will be maintained as truck routes and recognized there are circumstances that a truck route need not exist on a particular section or perhaps a complete Regional road. He maintained that committee has heard sufficiently from the residents most affected by it, from the broader community (business and residential) and they have no objection to its removal from the truck route system. He noted that from the staff perspective, there is no specific adverse affect to its removal from the network, and based on this information, he urged committee members to support the Motion.

Councillor Wendy Stewart commented that since Walkley Road was first declared a truck route, there have been a number of changes in the area that would make the continuation of such a designation questionable. She noted that changes in the road system, as documented in the Transportation Master Plan, included the widening of Hunt Club Road and staff stated that trucks now on Walkley, will in all likelihood, go to that road. She referred to the conclusion in the report noting the removal of this predominantly residential section of Walkley Road will not adversely affect the network. She advised that such revocation has strong support in her community, and she thanked Elizabeth Wylie and members of the WWRAC for coming to speak to the committee, acknowledging the fact this small group represent a lot more people. She believed the committee has an opportunity to do a good thing with virtually no negative impact on any other community and strongly urged members to support the Motion.

Councillor Legendre made note of the fact there were so few trucks on Walkley Road and therefore the committee must recognize that the arguments for and against removal can go both ways i.e. while it works in favour of the residents to revoke its status, it also works against them because there are so few trucks, especially compared to other Regional roads. He did not see this as a huge problem but felt the issue is one of precedence. With respect to the issue of enforcement, he recognized this would be difficult on this particular road because volumes are relatively low compared to others. He cautioned the community that due to the lack of enforcement, even if they agreed to revoke its status as a truck route, there will still be trucks on Walkley Road; removing the designation does not remove the trucks. To the delegation on McCarthy, the councillor emphasized that although that road is not a truck route, it still attracts that type of vehicle because it is so difficult to enforce. He believed that revoking the status would create a false expectation on the part of the community because the police will be unable to enforce that expectation.

Councillor Cantin felt that truck drivers would use roads even it they were not truck routes because they may offer a shorter distance between two points. However, if the distance is much greater, then the desire to break the law no longer exists. He stated that with the widening of Hawthorne and Conroy Roads, he did not think there would be as much truck traffic on Walkley. He referred to the type of large vehicles using Walkley at night and recognized that the road was not built to carry such loads. This is compounded by the fact that the bulk of traffic noise has subsided at this time and creates an even greater disturbance for residents.

Councillor Bellemare did not agree with the argument that the issue hinges on enforcement. He recognized that enforcement is a problem with any type of policy or by-law that is adopted, but he felt that if committee were to prohibit trucks on this particular section of Walkley Road, it would go a long way to addressing the problems of the community. He did not think residents would realistically expect 100% compliance because it is already unreasonable to expect it in areas that are legislated. He referred to the concern of setting a dangerous precedent for other requests to come forward, but believed the question hinges on how much of a burden would actually be transferred elsewhere if committee were to revoke the status. In reviewing the report and looking at the statistics, he did not think this would set a dangerous precedent, especially given the extremely small number of trucks. Any future requests that come in to remove Regional roads from the truck route system would have to clearly show the volume of truck traffic currently on that link, whether there is an alternate truck route and what the residential make-up is of that road.

Councillor Doucet maintained that all communities should share the burden of truck traffic and therefore supported the staff recommendation. He stated that removing this portion of Walkley will divert 2% of the truck traffic between Heron and Hunt Club Roads and he believed that if that percentage was not such a burden, the community would not have brought it to the committee’s attention. He saw no overwhelming reason to move that traffic to another community, stating his lack of sympathy is anchored in the fact that his ward already experiences a lot of truck traffic. He believed the staff recommendation eases the percolation of traffic, adding that if trucks were removed from Walkley, they would have to drive further through residential areas, to get to their destination. He emphasized the fact that Regional roads are supposed to serve more than just private cars and by approving the request of the community, it will open the door to others coming forward with similar requests. He urged committee members to support the staff recommendation.

Councillor Byrne noted that in light of the fact there has been no response from anyone in the Heron Road area, she believed that residents either have no interest in the matter, or they do not particularly care. Also as the report indicates, most of the traffic moves over to Hunt Club Road, which is what it was designed for. She noted that Walkley Road does not have noise barriers and residents would therefore feel more of an impact. She was hesitant about setting a precedent, but did not believe such a danger existed in this situation because there has not been an overwhelming outcry to remove other roads from the truck route system. While she sympathized with Councillor Doucet’s concerns about moving the burden from one community to another, she did not feel that concern had been proven. Given the impact this truck traffic has on residents and the fact that it will have negligible effect on the overall truck network, she indicated her support for the Motion.

In response to her comment about the apparent lack of response from his community on this issue, Councillor Doucet indicated he did not fault staff in this area because he truly believed they made every attempt to consult people in the Heron Park area. However, some issues are difficult to get people to respond to and basically, people did not bother to fill out the questionnaire that was circulated. The character of this issue is such that it makes it very difficult to get a response from his community. He did not think it was indicative of what the community may see or feel as a result of any diversion of truck traffic.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen indicated the committee must consider the merits of the issue of that stretch of road as a truck route, and stated that it has been made evident by staff and the community that things have changed since this road was initially declared a truck route. She likened this to a form of traffic calming in other areas, noting there are other appropriate routes and it is no longer appropriate to have trucks using that section of Walkley Road.

CARRIED

YEAS: M. Bellemare, W. Byrne, R. Cantin, H. Kreling, M. McGoldrick-Larsen....5

NAYS: C. Doucet, D. Holmes, J. Legendre, M. Meilleur....4

- Director, Engineering Division report dated 4 Jan 99

Councillor Peter Hume advised that some of his constituents wanted more time to review this matter and requested deferral of the item until the next meeting.

That this report be deferred until the next meeting.

CARRIED

4. PROPOSED CROSSING - REGIONALLY OWNED FORMER RAILWAY

CORRIDOR JOINT USE SITE (SCHOOL/RECREATIONAL COMPLEX)

GOULBOURN

- joint Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner and Acting Regional

Solicitor report dated 8 Feb 99

Since the two issues were related, the Committee discussed Items 4 and 5 together.

Tim Marc, Solicitor advised that both items related to proposed crossings of railway corridors in Stittsville and staff are recommending that a series of crossings be permitted at various locations. He advised that the recommendations are supported by both the school board and the Township, with the exception of the proposal to limit the easement for Moss Hill Trial to 99 years. He explained that the reason for this limitation is because it is anticipated there may be a requirement for a grade-separated transitway in the future.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen questioned whether it is the intention for the crossing of Moss Hill Trail to be for cyclists and pedestrians into that area and not vehicles. T. Marc advised that the extension into the site had been an issue with the community, but at an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing, the Board upheld the request of the Township and permitted vehicles access to the site. He confirmed there was extensive public consultation on this issue. The councillor questioned whether this access will create a cut-through for vehicles and staff advised that the OMB heard the evidence from the Township and did not uphold that concern.

Danny Page, Township of Goulbourn advised committee that it is the township’s intention to extend Abbott Street and they are currently in the process for that environmental assessment (EA). It is hoped that the work can be commenced in the fall and completed late this year or early spring 2000. Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen questioned whether there was any need to connect Moss Hill Trail other than for cyclists or pedestrians if additional access will be provided via Abbott Street. Mr. Page indicated that the Township viewed that it as an integral part of the development.

Councillor Legendre referred to a request by the Regional Cycling Advisory Group (RCAG) for multi-way stop control at Shea Road and T. Marc advised that while this issue would be best dealt with under the environmental assessment (EA) process, he stated it would be three-way stop control. He confirmed that cyclists would also have to stop at Main Street, Moss Hill Trail and Abbott Street. The councillor questioned whether there were traffic signals at Moss Hill and Abbott and was advised by Mr. Page the protection would be in the form of a four-way stop sign. T. Marc added that staff had received further comments from RCAG with respect to how those crossings are formed. The councillor proposed four-way stop also be installed at Abbott Street and Moss Hill Trail. He believed this would give an opportunity to committee to actually recognize its hierarchy with respect to modal priorities.

In response to this suggestion, the Solicitor cautioned that if motorists are required to stop at Abbott south and again at the bike path, it may cause traffic to back-up. The Acting Commissioner, D. Brousseau added that this suggestion would have to be examined in more detail to determine whether it would cause any congestion problems. The councillor Legendre agreed not to bring forward a Motion on this particular issue at this time, on the understanding staff provide the results of that investigation at Council next week.

When questioned whether the Transportation Committee and Council can overrule a decision of the OMB, T. Marc advised that while the OMB heard from all sides and concluded that cut-through traffic on Moss Hill Trail was not a concern, he confirmed that the Region can deny the access at Moss Hill Trail for vehicles if it so deemed. When questioned what future development surrounding the site will be, the Solicitor indicated it would be general rural so there would not be residential development in that immediate area.

The Committee Chair was somewhat concerned about reinstating rail to that corridor before 99 years have elapsed. Mr. Marc advised it was always Council’s intention to protect that corridor for future transit use, which, he agreed, could occur before the 99 years has passed.

Chair Holmes was concerned about the number of parking spaces to be provided to this facility, but Mr. Page explained that many of the students will be coming in from outside Stittsville and some may choose to drive instead of taking the bus. The site was designed to allow five and half parking spaces per classroom, but reminded committee this is a joint-use facility and parking must be provided to accommodate the recreational centre as well. A representative from the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board indicated the parking was designed in accordance with the zoning by-law and in accordance with the Township. While he indicated the Board does have a busing policy, students coming from any distance, including neighbouring municipalities, will have the option of driving. The school would encourage most students within the area to walk, but the majority of them would be bused.

With respect to the Township’s opposition to the 99-year limited easement for Moss Hill Trail, Mr. Page explained that both crossings should be of a permanent nature and the Township could not see any reason to limit the Moss Hill Trail easement for a specific period. He indicated that in discussions with staff, the Township was assured they would support two permanent accesses, if they were developed as public streets. The Township has endeavoured to do this and explained the Moss Hill Trail crossing is required on a permanent basis because it provides access to two major community facilities, through one consolidated entrance. To be told at this late stage of this process that one of their accesses will be limited to only 99 years, causes great concern to the Township.

Councillor Cantin questioned whether limited access to Moss Hill Trail would put the onus on the municipality to ensure Shea Road is the main road. Mr. Page advised that Moss Hill Trail provides an immediate access to the residents and provides access for all modes.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen proposed that the easement to extend from Moss Hill Trail be for pedestrian and bicycling purposes only. She was concerned that the Region would encourage pedestrian and cyclist travel, but at the same time, allow vehicles to use the access. She agreed with the concerns of residents that this will cause cut-through traffic in the community.

Councillor Cantin noted that 99 years is a long time and suggested to the school board and the Township that it is not such a bad situation. He maintained that if there is good access from Shea Road, they might even find that travel habits change over time. He supported the staff recommendation and urged committee not to support the Motion because it opens up the chance of incurring legal costs again.

Councillor Legendre did not think any thought had been given to the Official Plan’s transportation priorities and T. Marc stressed that the particular issue raided at the OMB hearing was the possibility of cut-through traffic. However, since the OMB declared this would not be an issue, they voted in favour of the Township to allow access across Moss Hill Trail. The councillor explained that cut-through traffic concerns him less than the fact that vehicles will be allowed to use this access, which is not in following with the hierarchy of priorities for the Region.

Moved by M. McGoldrick-Larsen

CARRIED

YEAS: C. Doucet, D. Holmes, J. Legendre, M. McGoldrick-Larsen....4

NAYS: M. Bellemare, R. Cantin, H. Kreling....3

(H. Kreling dissented)

5. PROPOSED CROSSING REGIONALLY OWNED former RAILWAY

CORRIDOR WESTWOOD SUBDIVISION - GOULBOURN

- joint Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner and Acting Regional

Solicitor report dated 8 Feb 99

CARRIED

INQUIRIES

Notification about Road Reconstruction

Councillor Meilleur advised that staff had originally told her there would be no public announcement about lane closures on Elgin and Laurier as a result of the reconstruction of Elgin Street, although she now understood that radio announcements will be made She explained that initially, she was quite concerned because she was lead to believe motorists would not be forewarned about the impact to major streets and would have no opportunity to plan alternate routes or travel modes. While she was now satisfied staff will be providing adequate notice, she wanted to raise this in the event something similar were to happen in another community. She hoped the Department would continue its good practice of notifying the community when a project of such magnitude will affect traffic overall.

Standardized Signs - Blackburn Hamlet By-Pass

Councillor Cantin inquired about the status of an inquiry he raised several meetings ago dealing with standardized signs for businesses in Blackburn Hamlet off the By-pass. He noted that Councillor Beamish had similar concerns with the reconstruction of Hawthorne Road and people being unable to locate businesses in that area and suggested this also be included when staff respond to his inquiry.

D. Brousseau recognized the need to develop a policy in this regard and agreed to provide an update to the councillor on the initiatives staff are currently investigating.

Achieving Livable Cities

The Committee Chair requested a staff presentation in response to the Transportation Association of Canada (TAC) brief entitled "Achieving Livable Cities". The Planning and Development Approvals Commissioner agreed this could be scheduled for 21 April.