Servicing and Stormwater

Policy Objective – Servicing and Stormwater

• Places to Grow Growth Plan

• Provincial Policy Statement

• City of Toronto Official Plan• Servicing and Stormwater Management Master Plan

•Wet Weather Flow Master

Plan

Servicing and Stormwater – Assessment:• Little existing servicing infrastructure• Majority of servicing infrastructure privately owned and opperated• Private servicing not of suitable capacity and location for future developments.

Servicing and Stormwater – Resolution:• Internal private networks replaced by public networks in municipal right-of-ways.• New public systems• External networks improved to support future development

Wet Weather Flow Master PlanGoals:

• Water Balance – erosion control, groundwater recharge, downstream habitat protection•Water Quality – for protection of water resources •Water Quantity – peak flow control, flood management, runoff control

Recommended Stormwater collection system

6

Recommended Wastewater Collection System

7

Servicing and Stormwater System Cost Analysis

Item Cost

Water System $5,110,000

Wastewater System $10,630,000

Stormwater Trunk Sewer $5,160,000

Total $20,900,000

Servicing and Stormwater - Strengths

RESIDENTS *Improved water and sewer services*Plan forward thinking -future needs

EMPLOYMENT *Existing and future business located in the north- east side will benefit.*Networks maintained by the city.

DEVELOPERS *Upgrade done before development, no disruption after project constructed. Less future cost.

9

Servicing and Stormwater - Weaknesses

RESIDENTS *Traffic jams.*Unpleasant streetscape.*Possible difficulty in mobility for people with disabilities.

EMPLOYMENT *businesses may suffer losses during construction.*Loss of control.

DEVELOPERS *construction has to be held off until new infrastructure in place.

10

Servicing and Stormwater - Opportunities

RESIDENTS *greater variety of water usage ex. swimming pools,community farming, green houses etc.

EMPLOYMENT *improved value of business.*greater business variety.

DEVELOPERS *possibility to develop new areas = profit

11

Servicing and Stormwater – ThreatsRESIDENTS *new infrastructure, may

result in higher taxes.

EMPLOYMENT * new environmental/ sustainable regulations - higher operating costs?*new taxes/charges.*new business = more competition

DEVELOPERS *higher land development charges.*complications political / bureaucratic reasons. 12

Servicing and Stormwater –Conclusion

The plan provides for the develpoment of public water, sanitary and stormwater sewer systems in order to support further growth and development within the plan.

Heritage and Archaeology

Plan Objective –Heritage and Archaeology

•Heritage Building Conservation Study- Aviation and Military History

•Plan Identifies Cultural and Natural features•Consultation and Communication with the Federal Heritage Building Review Office

Heritage and Archaeology – Strengths

RESIDENTS *Benefits from cultural and natural heritage, open space, beautification.

*Healthier lifestyle.EMPLOYMENT *Sustainable work environment .

DEVELOPERS *Design in natural setting = beautification without spending $$$.

*Marketing potential17

Heritage and Archaeology - Weaknesses RESIDENTS *Tax $$$ used somewhere else.

*William Baker neighbourhood not recognized.

*Natural heritage = small area & recreated.

*Participation?EMPLOYMENT *May constrict allowable

uses

DEVELOPERS *Heritage buildings not attractive.

*Constricts development.

*Archeological assessment $$$.18

Heritage and Archaeology –Opportunity

RESIDENTS *Reuse and readapt.

*Involved in preservation of heritage

EMPLOYMENT *Historical businesses: museums, galleries*Film industry

DEVELOPERS *Market sustainable design and heritage preservation.

*Redevelop heritage buildings.

19

Heritage and Archaeology – Threats

RESIDENTS *Large and obstructive buildings.

*Upkeep = tax $$$ spent

EMPLOYMENT *Additional taxes?

*Noise or environmental controls implemented

DEVELOPERS *Lower profits / Higher risks.

*Archeological findings.

20

Conclusion–Heritage and Archaeology

•Plan identifies Heritage sites•It may provide costly and inefficient to maintain some of the buildings•Natural Heritage protected but small area.•Communication and Cooperation with the FHBRO may prove difficult