CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

DEFERRED

Vivi Chi, Project Manager advised that while these facilities are both long-term projects, they are being submitted for confirmation at this time, because it is necessary to plan for them in light of future developments. She referred to Minto’s Chapel Hill South development which has been "frozen" for many years, awaiting the Region’s decision on the preferred route.

Ron Jack, Delcan provided a general overview. He stated that significant growth is planned for the southern portion of Orléans with as many as 40,000 units by 2011 (between 120,000 and 150,000 people). He indicated that south of Innes Road where most of the growth is occurring, there are no major facilities and the Official Plan identified the need for this transitway and the extension of the by-pass in an east-west direction.

The Technical Advisory Committees and the Public Advisory Committees were involved in the evaluation of alternatives for both projects, examining the impacts of those and suggesting mitigating measures that should be implemented. He described the preferred alignment (Alternative A), noting it locates both facilities at the base of the Navan Road escarpment. They presented the information at various stages during the public consultation process through open houses and also met with individual communities to address specific concerns.

Councillor Cantin could not comprehend why the Region plans to build additional capacity away from the middle of the city, when there is already a blockage on Innes Road. He believed there was a need for a connection to Walkley or Hunt Club Road.

V. Chi reminded the councillor that these are long-term projects and Council will decide when to implement them. She explained that the outcome of this exercise is to protect the corridor and does not imply a commitment at this time to build it. She added that when the urban area in the east was expanded, there were several transportation/planning studies undertaken which identified the need for another transitway and roadway facility to accommodate that growth. The Innes/Walkley connection is in the Region’s Official Plan and the widening of Innes Road is also contained within the Transportation Master Plan.

Councillor Cantin questioned when staff plan to address the bottleneck at Innes and Highway 417 and Ms. Chi advised that following Council’s approval of the 1999 budget, staff will take a closer look at the work plan for 1999. The councillor indicated committee was told last week that staff do not intend to look at it for another year which he found to be totally unacceptable. While he understood why the corridor should be protected, he stressed that it will only add pavement east of Orléans Boulevard and not resolve the existing traffic situation.

Councillor Meilleur questioned whether the consultant took into consideration the future bridge crossing to the east and R. Jack clarified that while a bridge may have an impact on when these facilities are built, it will not have an impact on where they will go, which was the purpose of this study.

Mary Jarvis, Regis Trudel, Minto Developments supported the staff recommendation and explained their involvement in the EA process since its inception in 1997. As eluded to earlier by staff, Ms. Jarvis explained they begin their Chapel Hill South subdivision in 1987, but since 1988 have been waiting for the remaining 60 acres of their 250 acres subdivision to be developed.

Councillor Cantin questioned whether Minto had concerns with respect to not having a decent connection at Innes and Highway 417. Mr. Trudel indicated that he recognized the need for the appropriate infrastructure for these developments and believed the sooner a link can be established between Hunt Club/Walkley/Highway 417, the sooner it will help the congestion problems in the east.

Councillor Cantin suggested that when staff plan any by-pass extension, that they review the standards for landscaping as set by Minto to ensure an attractive appearance.

Kevin Kemp informed committee that his home on Navan Road is located on the edge of the ridge, while others are situated further back. As a consequence, he is the only property owner affected by this proposal in a manner which he believes is unacceptable. He explained that his second-storey deck at the back of his home is where he spends much of his outdoor living time and as a result, he will be looking directly over the transitway and by-pass. He was very concerned about this visual intrusion, as well as the noise and pollution which will be generated when these facilities are operational. While staff and the consultant have reviewed his situation, they can only recommend the installation of a retaining wall, which he will have to look over from his property. He maintained that the position of his home on the ridge will make it very difficult for any feasible noise mitigation.

Mr. Kemp advised that while he was not looking to stop this process, he was also not willing to live on top of a transit station, the By-pass and the transitway with the existing mitigation solutions being proposed. Because of the investment in his home and property and the obvious reduction in value when those facilities are constructed, he asked that the Region give him the option of being bought out by offering, in writing, fair market value for his home and property should he wish to sell in the future.

When questioned why the preferred alternative was below the escarpment, R. Jack advised that following an exhaustive process of evaluating each alternative against specific criteria, the preferred alignment was seen as the one which would have the least impact on the environmental and social issues, and provides the best cost and transportation function of all those considered.

Councillor Meilleur questioned how far the transitway will be from Mr. Kemp’s property and was advised by the consultant it would be approximately 150m and an additional 100m away from the by-pass with the transit station in between. With respect to his proximity to these facilities and the noise impact, Mr. Jack explained that the noise he will be exposed to from the second-storey balcony is not covered by Ministry of Environment guidelines because they do not apply to second level depth. He suggested one method of reducing noise levels would be to install a taller noise fence at twice the cost, but he confirmed they are following Ministry guidelines and all other property owners are satisfied with the noise attenuation that has been identified.

In response to a further comment about these facilities, the consultant confirmed that alignment has always been in the Region’s Official Plan as a possible transportation corridor.

Councillor Cantin suggested the committee should examine the possibility of working out an agreement with this home owner as suggested. He believed the value of Mr. Kemp’s property will drop as a direct result of the visual impact and suggested staff examine the current values if the Region decides to expropriate in future.

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen inquired about the current policy when dealing with such matters and V. Chi advised that if a Regional project impacts on someone’s land that cannot be mitigated, staff would enter into negotiations, although this is usually done closer to the time of implementation. With respect to this situation, she clarified that Mr. Kemp’s property is set back substantially from Navan Road and through the EA process staff arrived at the best option taking into accounts all impacts and affects on the various environments.

Councillor Cantin proposed that staff engage in discussions with K. Kemp with regard to mitigating the effect of the Transitway alignment and report to committee on the findings.

While she supported this Motion, Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen was concerned about policy and if the Region starts buying people out when there are mitigating measures that can be taken, it will have a broad affect on the Region’s ability to pay. Therefore, when staff report back, she suggested they also include some statistical information about how much it has cost the Region elsewhere in similar situations and what the implications could be on other current transitway projects.

2. WEST HUNT CLUB ROAD REALIGNMENT AT MOODIE DRIVE - public consultation under the ontario municipal act and class environmental assessment for municipal road projects

- Director, Engineering report dated 14 Dec 98

Councillor Cantin noted there have been instances where a particularly sensitive issue has been raised by a member of the public through staff, but the ward councillor is not notified until staff respond to the individual. He believed the ward councillor should be made aware of the situation immediately, and believed there needed to be a change in the current procedure. While he agreed that not every topic raised with staff has to come to committee, he felt there must be a way to establish quick turn-around times to involve the affected councillor(s) earlier on in the process, to inquire whether there are sensitivities involved.

The Acting Commissioner stated that some staff are more aware than others of issues which are of a sensitive nature and know enough to keep councillors advised; however, it is still difficult for them to know which issues are controversial. He agreed the Department would endeavor to improve the situation.

1. TRAFFIC CHANGES IMPLEMENTED UNDER THE ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSIONER'S AUTHORITY

(2 January 1998 TO 1 december 1998)

At the request of the ward councillor, Peter Hume, the committee agreed to schedule this item on the next agenda as an item for discussion.

INQUIRIES

Congestion at Blair and Innes

As eluded to in the discussion of Item 1, Councillor Cantin asked that staff seriously examine the blockage taking place at Blair Road and Innes, noting that on some mornings traffic backs up two miles to the Blackburn Hamlet By-pass. He was very concerned about the congestion because it causes road rage and cut-through traffic on residential streets. He suggested that before the Region allows development to continue in the area, that some planning be carried out so that should provincial or federal funding become available to address that blockage, the Region will be ready to proceed.

The Acting Commissioner confirmed that from an operational perspective, there is nothing left that can be done at that intersection; it is in failure mode. He stated that the infrastructure does not seem to be there when land use starts to take form so the problem will continue. He suggested that building the transitway out to the new development will provide some relief.

Levels of Service at Intersections

Councillor McGoldrick-Larsen referred to a request made by committee during budget deliberations for a list of intersections which are operating at levels of service E and F. D. Brousseau confirmed this information would be distributed to committee members shortly.